I have been doing some reading for my CFII checkride about the two teaching methods preformance/control and the primary/supporting. My question is how do you teach partial panel (i.e. attitude indicator inop) with the control performance method? It seems to be impossible because the AI is a control instrument. Also when you took your CFII ride did anyone actually teach using this method or did you use the primary/supporting way? Thanks
CFII Teaching Question
- Thread starter FlynRyan
- Start date
tgrayson
New Member
I teach the control and performance...method....if you can call it that. As a method of teaching, I find it far more comprehensible than the needlessly complicated primary/supporting. In practice, I don't feel that you will find too much difference between these two methods.
With partial panel, both methods reduce down to the same thing, I suppose.
Sidious
Well-Known Member
I learned control performance and plan on teaching it as well. When teaching partial panal you will only be dealing with the instruments you have left and then can go to more of a primary supporting. I agree that primary supporting is needlessly complicated and is more of a hassle then good. In actual practice you use both even if you do not realize it.
My question is on CFII rides do you need to memorize each phase of flight and what is Primary and what is Supporting? On my checkride I will focus on Control Performance and I know I need to explain the Primary/Supporting but do I need to know all the phases?
My question is on CFII rides do you need to memorize each phase of flight and what is Primary and what is Supporting? On my checkride I will focus on Control Performance and I know I need to explain the Primary/Supporting but do I need to know all the phases?
tgrayson
New Member
No, you don't. The PTS asks you to demonstrate knowledge of one or the other:
Examiners should determine that the applicant demonstrates and fully understands the PRIMARY AND SUPPORTING or the CONTROL and PERFORMANCE CONCEPT method of attitude instrument flying.
Sidious
Well-Known Member
Well that simplifies it, however do you think the examiner would get irritated if I point that out after asking me to explain it?
tgrayson
New Member
Possibly.
If you want to be preemptive, you might give the examiner a phone call ahead of time and say
"I see the PTS says I have to demonstrate knowledge of Control and Performance OR the Primary/Supporting. Do you agree with that?"
How could he/she say no?
Chewie von Nubbins
New Member
A word to the wise here...If you are taking the CFII as the initial with the FAA, DO NOT include a "hybrid" method for teaching the 6-pack. We had a guy in our academy class that was teaching the Control/Performance method and broached the topic of the various scan techniques. Since the scan is basically covered in the Primary/Supporting method, he thought he would be clever and teach the Control/Performance method but pepper in the Primary/Supporting scan techniques.
The FAA inspector had a field day with him and busted him on that. Call it BS...which we all did, but since he introduced the scan techniques (which is considered in the Primary/Supporting method of teaching/learning) the Inspector ate his lunch.
However, after the checkride is out of the way, I still agree with teaching a student one of the scan techniques for IFR flying. Just be sure not to mention scan techniques when teaching the 6-pack and Control/Performance method.
BTW - Has anyone ever met another pilot that was taught the Primary/Support technique instead of the Control/Performance method? I have yet to met someone that was taught the pure Primary/Supporting method and not taught the Control/Performance method for IFR flying.
The FAA inspector had a field day with him and busted him on that. Call it BS...which we all did, but since he introduced the scan techniques (which is considered in the Primary/Supporting method of teaching/learning) the Inspector ate his lunch.
However, after the checkride is out of the way, I still agree with teaching a student one of the scan techniques for IFR flying. Just be sure not to mention scan techniques when teaching the 6-pack and Control/Performance method.
BTW - Has anyone ever met another pilot that was taught the Primary/Support technique instead of the Control/Performance method? I have yet to met someone that was taught the pure Primary/Supporting method and not taught the Control/Performance method for IFR flying.
I'm not clear from the OP what the examiner was upset about. To teach a hybrid, you will end up needing to teach (and to understand) both C/P and P/S methods. The hybrid is the only way to understand real-world instrument scans, and to show why different scan patterns are efficient in different flight regimes. What was the examiner's problem?
tgrayson
New Member
Just because that particular examiner had a problem with it doesn't mean that all examiners will. Scanning is intrinsic to any aircraft control methodology. I refuse to believe that this is what the candidate failed on. However, I can sorta see that mixing in the two terminologies might be considered confusing and might be argued that he invented a new system all his own.
MidlifeFlyer
Well-Known Member
I tend to agree with this assessment.
C/P and P/S are two methods of teaching instrument interpretation. Neither is a scanning technique. Inverted V, hub and spoke, radial, and the 100 or so different scan techniques pilots find work for them are independent of the two.
Mixing C/P and P/S might well have indicated to the Examiner that the applicant didn't really understand either.
Chewie von Nubbins
New Member
Good point tgray. The Inspector that busted the guy explained to the CFI that signed the candidate off that the candidate really knew his stuff and he was happy with his knowledge and ability to teach the material. However, the last lesson that he wanted him to teach was the 6-pack and one of the two methods (just like you mentioned above). After the candidate explained all of the 6 pack, gyros, and all of the nice stuff the FAA likes to hear, the candidate obviously went into a method or technique for BAI.
The candidate was teaching the techniques for solely the Control/Performance method. However, he also added in a page or two of scan techniques that he wanted to teach the student for that lesson. The Inspector stopped the guy and then told him that he was mixing and matching the two methods by bringing up a scan technique, because all of the scan technique material is only covered and provided in FAA publications for the Primary/Secondary method. This is where the guy messed up. The Inspector told the guy to either teach the Control/Performance method or the Primary/Secondary method. The guy told the Inspector that teaching a scan technique is a MUST for any student, independent of which method the FAA had the scan techniques listed under. His point is indeed valid, and is definitely a must in the real world. However, after the candidate pressed on in his lesson and wrapped up the scan technique and tried to move on to teaching the basic maneuvers, that is when the Inspector stopped him and told him that since he gave him the chance to omit the scan technique from the lesson or either teach the Primary/Secondary method, the candidate left the scan stuff in there. The Inspector stopped the guy and wanted him to teach the Primary/Secondary method since he was trying to invent a "hybrid" method. That is where the candidate got huffy with the Inspector and the guy got his lunch ate. Why? Because he didn't have the knowledge to teach the Primary/Secondary method.
Honestly, we all believed that this was more of a message the FAA Inspector was sending back to the school than just simply picking on the candidate. The Inspector was known for not losing sleep over busting a candidate, and that probably factored in as well. But, if you open pandora's box during the oral, you and I both know that is one things the Inspectors are looking to hone in on.
I found this out by trying to impress the Inspector with my knowledge of the rpm's that the Vacuum powered gyro's spin at in a 172. He then wanted to know about how fast they spun in a piper, or a diamond. He then told me not to be cute and let that be a lesson in not opening pandora's box. I got the message really quickly.
tgrayson
New Member
That is true. The FAA doesn't really give any info about how to use Control and Performance. I suppose an examiner might glean from this that the lack of scan techniques means that there are none.
Saddens me, though, to think there are examiners so uninformed. I would probably be going to FSDO over that and complaining.
Could anyone out there please supply a flow-chart description of an autopilot "scan" (crosscheck/interpretation/control) loop?
The IFH's descriptions of "Crosscheck" and "Interpretation" are theoretically as well as practically inadequate. They leave anyone trying to understand the time-and-motion basics of instrument flying completely at the mercy of the secondary works. Fortunately, Rod Machado and others have excellent step-by-step descriptions that fill the void.
It's just another example of how they're not up to the job they have set for themselves. Here's yet another: has anyone looked closely at the Canadian equivalent of the NTSB? Their CAA is doing incredible work in accident post-mortem methodology: wiping out the whole concept of "blaming the pilot" and trying to find out what actually happens to cause accidents. Everyone who flies knows that NTSB reports have degenerated into finger-pointing time-serving tax-dollar-spending paper-pushing tautologies-in-motion. What is little known is how other nations are overcoming these deficiencies, while our agencies are languishing. Don't even get me started on the FDA!
The IFH's descriptions of "Crosscheck" and "Interpretation" are theoretically as well as practically inadequate. They leave anyone trying to understand the time-and-motion basics of instrument flying completely at the mercy of the secondary works. Fortunately, Rod Machado and others have excellent step-by-step descriptions that fill the void.
It's just another example of how they're not up to the job they have set for themselves. Here's yet another: has anyone looked closely at the Canadian equivalent of the NTSB? Their CAA is doing incredible work in accident post-mortem methodology: wiping out the whole concept of "blaming the pilot" and trying to find out what actually happens to cause accidents. Everyone who flies knows that NTSB reports have degenerated into finger-pointing time-serving tax-dollar-spending paper-pushing tautologies-in-motion. What is little known is how other nations are overcoming these deficiencies, while our agencies are languishing. Don't even get me started on the FDA!
Stomp16
You mean Shennanigans?!?!
I was taught the primary/support method and I didn't even know that there was another technique (control/performance) until I started studying hard for my II check-ride. At Spartan, the technique taught is primary/supporting. That is what the ground classes are focused around and that is what is taught in the air. Also, when you go for a CFII check-ride, the examiner doesn't care which technique you use as long as you can teach and explain it. Your not gonna have a situation where you start teaching either method and the examiner asks for the other. (Unless you really pissed him off before hand.) My 2 cents.........
Sidious
Well-Known Member
Maybe I'm missing something here but isn't Cross-checking one of the fundamental skills of instrument flight. What I mean is that a scan technique IS needed for Control Performance and Primary/Supporting... Chapter 4 of the IFH lists the Scan Techniques not under specifically Primary/Supporting but just in general information.
Thoughts?
Chewie von Nubbins
New Member
Man, I agree with you...a scanning technique is essential no matter which of the two methods that you use. However, from the way that I understand it, the different techniques of a scanning technique are all supporting evidence for the Primary/Supporting method. So, even if you are not using the Primary/Supporting method and ARE using the Control/Performance method, you still have to have a technique for a scan.
Don't shoot the messenger!
That is what this board is all about....sharing experiences and shooting the bull about flying. Who knows, maybe it helps someone out one day.
flyinguitar
Well-Known Member
Howdy folks,
Couple of thoughts - practically, I agree that every student needs to be taught specific scan patterns for different regimes of flight (inverted V for turns, etc.). I consider the concepts of primary/supporting and control/performance to be rather abstract, and the choice between the two to be a largely theoretical one. Both will work when combined with the correct scan patterns. In many ways, since the primary/supporting concept assigns the attitude indicator as primary for most transitions, and since whenever you make any control input you are in essence transitioning from one attitude to another (even if you're only correcting, say, a 3 deg bank back to wings level), in actuality you end up relying as heavily on the attitude indicator as you would in the control/performance concept! I don't really see much of a difference between the two (just my humble opinion). I certainly would not involve most students in an overly detailed discussion of the theory behind the two patterns, as I feel it would be confusing. I do, however, think that a CFII should understand and be able to explain the two concepts as discussed in the appropriate FAA handbooks, of course. And certainly, CERTAINLY always respect an examiner's "guidance" when you start getting the impression they don't like what you're telling them - to do otherwise is checkride suicide!
FlynRyan: back to your original question. I would say that, in a partial panel situation, one of the most important details no longer provided by the attitude indicator is when the aircraft is at level pitch. If you use the fact that pitch is very close to level when the VSI and ASI needles reverse direction (e.g. say you're in a nose-low attitude with airspeed increasing - if you pitch up, the moment the needle reverses direction and airspeed starts decreasing again will be almost exactly level pitch), then you could say that those instruments are control intsruments since they are what you directly look at when you are pitching. Likewise, since you will look at the turn coordinator when establishing a bank for a turn (even though you don't know exactly what bank angle you're using) or when keeping the wings level, you could say the turn coordinator is also a control instrument in this case. Pretty fuzzy, I know, and not out of the IFH, but if it's where you look when you deflect the controls to see how much/long you should deflect them, seems to me like it's a control instrument.
Anyway, those are my thoughts. I've had some success getting students with poor instrument skills to improve, but still have a long way to go before I really master how to effectively teach this stuff.
And wow, that post got long....
Couple of thoughts - practically, I agree that every student needs to be taught specific scan patterns for different regimes of flight (inverted V for turns, etc.). I consider the concepts of primary/supporting and control/performance to be rather abstract, and the choice between the two to be a largely theoretical one. Both will work when combined with the correct scan patterns. In many ways, since the primary/supporting concept assigns the attitude indicator as primary for most transitions, and since whenever you make any control input you are in essence transitioning from one attitude to another (even if you're only correcting, say, a 3 deg bank back to wings level), in actuality you end up relying as heavily on the attitude indicator as you would in the control/performance concept! I don't really see much of a difference between the two (just my humble opinion). I certainly would not involve most students in an overly detailed discussion of the theory behind the two patterns, as I feel it would be confusing. I do, however, think that a CFII should understand and be able to explain the two concepts as discussed in the appropriate FAA handbooks, of course. And certainly, CERTAINLY always respect an examiner's "guidance" when you start getting the impression they don't like what you're telling them - to do otherwise is checkride suicide!
FlynRyan: back to your original question. I would say that, in a partial panel situation, one of the most important details no longer provided by the attitude indicator is when the aircraft is at level pitch. If you use the fact that pitch is very close to level when the VSI and ASI needles reverse direction (e.g. say you're in a nose-low attitude with airspeed increasing - if you pitch up, the moment the needle reverses direction and airspeed starts decreasing again will be almost exactly level pitch), then you could say that those instruments are control intsruments since they are what you directly look at when you are pitching. Likewise, since you will look at the turn coordinator when establishing a bank for a turn (even though you don't know exactly what bank angle you're using) or when keeping the wings level, you could say the turn coordinator is also a control instrument in this case. Pretty fuzzy, I know, and not out of the IFH, but if it's where you look when you deflect the controls to see how much/long you should deflect them, seems to me like it's a control instrument.
Anyway, those are my thoughts. I've had some success getting students with poor instrument skills to improve, but still have a long way to go before I really master how to effectively teach this stuff.
And wow, that post got long....