:rotfl: This is brilliant I am printing it out and hanging it in our FBO.
Breaking the "elevator for altitude" habit
- Thread starter shdw
- Start date
:rotfl: This is brilliant I am printing it out and hanging it in our FBO.
OK. If I read your intent wrong or what you were trying to say on that one, then I'll stand corrected.
Unfortunately, like any other thread in the CFI forum, this one went to hell and got so convoluted that it went off the same track as all the others do.
I'll see your later on this, but just want to throw in that it's not that additional or extra experience is bad, it's not. It's how that experience is applied (or not) to a basic VFR student. It's not the info, its the teacher.
Yes, procedures are pretty absolute, but can vary depending on many different factors involved. Just as no two flights are ever the same. That's where my "it depends" concept comes from, in a very general sense.
See, here's where you're not seeing the forest through the trees. Just because some techniques don't happen to work for you, doesn't mean they don't work at all. By proclaiming that the "wheel needs to be reinvented", what you're saying is that how business is done now is completely wrong, and you with your 500TT is here to make it right. See how that comes across? What I think a better way would be to think about it is not reinventing the wheel, but adding on to it....improving it. No technique works for everyone, that's why there are many ways of doing business to get to the same goal. If you can come up with new techniques that work, that's great.....add them to the menagerie of existing techniques. But don't say all of aviation instruction is screwed up because you simply don't happen to like it or it doesn't work out for you. Add your ideas instead of trying to replace all.
Disagree with the bold, for reasons stated above. Again, add ideas to existing ways of doing business. The pilots you mention crashing because of stalling the plane...none of us TRULY have any idea why that happened. It couldve been bad training, couldve been just a bad reaction due to stress, it couldve been they didn't have room to recover, didn't recognize in time, etc, etc, etc. You're taking one small slice of "could be" and calling that the problem in those accidents you cite. Then go correcting a problem which may not be as dire as you think. Now, does this mean one shouldn't re-emphasize or highlight stall recovery as a result of accidents? Of course not.....it should be very emphasized. But to go so far as to say it was bad instruction is jumping to a conclusion a little early IMO.
You're on the right track, but on the wrong train. The problem isn't this guy's hours or experience, or instrument knowledge, or 121 time. From what you describe, it seems he simply can't teach, it seems. No different than the college professor who is a pro in his field as an operator, but not in the classroom as a teacher. You're damning someone's experience, when you should be critiquing the teaching method or ability. See where I'm coming from?
That's a good teaching technique, and no one is saying otherwise. However that may not work for all students, and it also doesn't mean another CFIs method is right or wrong either....if their students are understanding the concept. Again, see where I'm coming from? There are many different ways to teach the takeoff you describe....and are likely very similar, but with subtle differences......still they're all good techniques. It doesn't mean the system as a whole is broken or the wheel needs reinventing.......but adding your design input to the wheel to improve it along with everyone else is perfectly fine and should be encouraged by all to do.
Wrong. Again, don't damn experience. It's not the exprience, it's what the individual CFI does with that experience in regards to his student. It's failing to teach or teach correctly, if there is a problem; NOT the fault of flying experience.
All these experiences make one an overall better pilot. IFR teaches precision...which can be applied and emphasized in a contact-flying sense (visual flying) to the student. Did you REALLY mention CRM just now and question how it applies? You probably are referring to airline-style CRM, but CRM in a big picture applies too......using one's cockpit resources and how to manage them. That can go from taxi, to takeoff, to flying air maneuvers, to being in the pattern, to landings. CRM can really be applied anywhere and everywhere......its simply managing one's resources around them.
Not necessary, but it helps. MY issue on your experience or lack thereof, is that it seems to say that you think that as a 500TT CFI teaching a VFR student, you're just as experienced and qualified as a 3000 hour CFI teaching VFR students (who he has been teaching for a while). And that isn't true. Experience does matter and ANY experience is a plus. What matters is how it's applied.
I just want to add, just so there's no mistake, that your enthusiasm and desire to constantly improve is great! There's nothing wrong with thinking outside the box, or trying to establish new and revolutionary concepts.....that's simply being creative, and should be encouraged. Just be cautious of knowing that you're adding on to established ideas, and shouldn't be trying to solely stomp them into the ground (unless of course, they're blatently proven to be wrong). But what doesn't work for you doesn't necessarily make it a lousy concept just on that litmus test, as previously noted. I only restate that because its important to understand.
dasleben
That's just, like, your opinion, man
That's tough to quantify, really. But I'll try. I would say the biggest change that I've seen is that you're simply more comfortable in airplanes after flying more, and have a finer sense of small changes in pitch, airspeed, sink rate, etc.
More flying experience (not just in larger, faster aircraft, but just in general) means that you're also able to stay further ahead of the airplane and your student while doing your lesson. This has the tendency to allow you to concentrate more on teaching, and frees up brain cells that were previously spent making sure your student wasn't trying to kill you.
If you've been flying airplanes for longer, you've also seen what can go wrong outside of controlled scenarios. You've actually had emergencies, abnormalities, etc., and can tailor ADM scenarios based upon your own experiences.
You've also seen a lot more weather, and typically know your limits and the limits of the airplane better. Instead of going up in conditions both you and your student are unfamiliar or inexperienced with, you can more safely give your student weather experience that he/she may not have gotten from less experienced instructors.
I could probably come up with some more examples, but those are the ones that popped to mind while I was writing this.
I will readily admit that my FOI knowledge was lacking in spots, and really had to hit the books again to get myself up to speed on the basics. But, it can be done. The nice part about doing it part-time and not really needing the money is that you're more apt to give it 100%. You're just doing it for fun and beer money.
Yes, you are technically correct. The best kind of correct.
I was picturing something like a typical aft-engined jet transport aircraft when I typed that. Like tgrayson said, the engines are typically mounted above the CG and/or have a slight cant.
See, FOI in inaction.
I may have failed to explain what I meant. It is the failure to analyze ones experiences and understand how to use them to the benefit of the student that is often at fault IMO. This isn't the pilots fault at all either, it is the fact that they were never properly taught how to teach and I am not implying I have all the answers to that. The experience alone means nothing if all that is done is a regurgitation of it without many many hours of thorough analyzing and figuring out what it will teach. Maybe this sounds better for supporting what I mean by clouding the picture?
I see what you mean and unfortunately I can't explain at this time what I am referring to. I have pages and pages of information highlighted and connected through various books and various experiences as to the problems and what I think can fix them. The solution from what I can see, is unfortunately a reinvention and starting from scratch. Just to be clear, the outcome I have no intention of changing, just many/most of the things we do to get a student there.
For now I will just have to sound arrogant because I can't give the examples without compromising my work, hopefully when I can they won't be perceived as such crazy ideas. Even if they are at least I will have learned an invaluable lesson when the time comes.
It isn't based purely on what I was able to make work, primarily it is based on what I have seen from post solo and pilots who have come to me for BFRs. I simply think we can do much better and hopefully my ideas will prove useful but only time will tell.
Sorry my fault here, point was VFR versus IFR takeoff. The procedure I use may not be perfect, but the goal should be a VFR takeoff procedure. Teaching a rotate speed keeps the head inside more than necessary for a VFR procedure.
Mike, agree with the IFR but only for the precision which unfortunately is typically associated with the need to use your instruments to be so precise. Not always true, but generally so. As for CRM yes I was referring to airline crew management as I see no application for that to regular flying. CRM as it applies to cockpit management I completely agree is huge.
Now that one I completely agree with and see your point on, this is one thing I would like someday to get some experience with for that purpose. I don't see the ADM being overly helpful for an initial private pilot as I feel it can be too easily overdone. However, for commercial pilot teaching I wish I had these experiences to help me give them some practical applications.
The other things you mentioned I believe can either be attained through flying any airplane, the feelings and all that are even worse in a small plane then a large one. The weather example for a VFR pilot I don't see the correlation though for a II would certainly be beneficial.
Oh and thank you.
Now that one I completely agree with and see your point on, this is one thing I would like someday to get some experience with for that purpose. I don't see the ADM being overly helpful for an initial private pilot as I feel it can be too easily overdone. However, for commercial pilot teaching I wish I had these experiences to help me give them some practical applications.
The other things you mentioned I believe can either be attained through flying any airplane, the feelings and all that are even worse in a small plane then a large one. The weather example for a VFR pilot I don't see the correlation though for a II would certainly be beneficial.
Oh and thank you.
wjmiller3
Well-Known Member
The big problem I see with you shdw in regards to experience, is that you don't know yet what you don't know, since the experience isn't there to have seen much. What you're taking personally is simply a fact that book knowledge can't replace experience...at best its a complement. Don't take that as an attack, but as simply a fact. Regardless of what equations you can spew out, etc, the fact that you'll (for example) come out and tell Hacker how he should fly his F-15 and that he's doing it wrong is complete and utter arrogance of the worst kind. If you can't see that as a negative attribute, I don't know what to tell you. Time is relevant, my friend, ESPECIALLY quality of flight time......that is, droning around vs actually doing/practicing something when airborne, though something should always be learned on any flight. I have over 7000 hours of many different kind of experience in many different arenas, are you going to tell me that with your 500 hrs you're somehow on par experience-wise? Of course not. That doesn't make you a bad person or a dummy or anything nor does it make me some great person; it's simply a factual statement of my experience vs yours in aviation. Could I learn something from you? I'm sure I could. Yes, I know a little about this and that, which I apply to my accident analyses I research in the Tech Topics section, but there's still stuff for me to learn. And vice versa is true too. Point is, DO NOT dismiss hours or experience offhand and think they can be easily replaced with book knowledge. BOTH are needed as a balance, as I said before. Your previous teaching background is all well and good, but you do have to admit where you stand experience-wise, and it's not too high right now, though it's building-up there and progressing with the more and more you accomplish. And that's good.
There is NO only, my friend. It depends. It always depends. There's no one right answer. I know thats not what you want to hear, because (and not a slam here) your mind comes from "the land of absolutes". You need to learn that sometimes, things do depend....especially in aviation. There are some absolutes, but they are few. Right seat time is fine, left seat time is better. They both are good at gaining experience in their own ways. What you're lacking shdw is the experience in aviation....that comes from hours....to have a large bag of situational awareness. That bag-o-SA comes from time in the seat, teaching or flying, and experiencing the good and the bad......being successful and having a great flight, or having the flight that nearly kills you. Where you're at is a good staring and continuation point (we all have to start somewhere), but recognize what your limitations are.......thats something I don't think you do, since you want to spend the majority of time arguing with people in the quest for absolutes. I will give you that you do admit that there times you're right and times you're wrong, so its good that you recognize that. That kind of humbleness will go a long way. Even me, with my hours and experience and amount of overall SA.....I haven't seen or done it all, and I can get bitten in the ass easily and not even see it coming, if all the factors are right to make that happen. I'm not immune to anything.
You don't want to be a puppet.....that's all well and good. But why do you insist on going to the opposite extreme and trying to reinvent the wheel? That's just as bad. 100 year old ideas? Who are you with your little experience to know yet what works and what doesn't ....why are you knocking concepts before you've even tried them? (try them first!
What I'm telling you is coming from a good amount of having been there and done that in aviation, and being both successful and nearly killing myself at many junctures along the way...whether by my own hand or outside factors, and whether by errors of commission or ommission. You can take my advice to the bank, or you can chuck it in the trash, your choice. Just remember, experience does count, and book knowledge only complements it, since knowledge is always good. You're just starting out, speaking big picture. My advice to you is to listen more and learn, rather than try to rip apart everything and anything that doesn't fall within what you perceive to be correct. Because you might find out you were wrong, at the worst possible time....
Fly safe.
Very well put Mike, couldn't have been said any better, nice and civil, and he still didn't get it...... Just lock the thread
dasleben
That's just, like, your opinion, man
At the commercial level it's great, I agree. But, it's still very applicable at the private pilot level. Examples of scenarios I used with those part-time students included abnormal engine indications, running into a line of weather enroute, VFR into IMC situations, and any number of applicable electrical failures. I personally think scenarios such as those build a stronger pilot than one who's only being taught the basic fundamentals.
Of course those scenarios can't take the place of real experience the student will have to build on his/her own, but at least it gives them a starting point on how not to kill themselves in the process.
I wouldn't quite go that far. Larger and faster aircraft require a much finer hand than something like a 172. Here's an example of this in equation form (probably not scientific, but a good rule of thumb!), since that seems to be the trend in this forum
D):TAS / 60 x 100 = FPM change per 1º of pitch change
As you can see, an aircraft doing 400 KTAS would have a very large change in vertical speed for even a small pitch change. Flying such an aircraft often requires you to make changes that are less than 1º of correction. When going back to a piston single, those fine handling skills carry over.
I still think it's beneficial for both. I'm not necessarily talking about approaches to minimums or the like, but things like basic thunderstorm avoidance is great to teach a VFR pilot. I used to also teach at a school where many instructors would downright cancel their lessons if the winds were above 25 knots. This could be a great learning experience for the student, assuming the instructor is comfortable going up in it as well.
I just question how much it is worth using up precious brain space so early on for things that account, statistically, for only a small quantity of accidents is all.
Was referring to kinesthetic feel which I thought is what you meant, guess not.
If you hit turbulence in a 172 it will be effected far greater than that of a larger aircraft obviously, that is where I was going with that.
Douglas
Old School KSUX
subpilot
Squawking 7600
I'm just going to stick with the Pitch, Power, Trim method of controlling an airplane. It has worked for me and my students the past 5 years and with good results. Flying an airplane is not rocket science and does not require an engineering degree to figure out. Maybe this makes me an inferior instructor in some peoples eyes but I think turning the joy of learning to fly into a physics class would turn off a lot of students. Good luck with the rest of this thread.
Out
Out
Dazzler
Well-Known Member
Power for airspeed, pitch for altitude during level flight, on the "front side" of the power curve.
All other times (climbing, descending, and level flight in region of reverse command e.g. during slow flight)....Pitch for airspeed, power for altitude.
Works well enough for me.
All other times (climbing, descending, and level flight in region of reverse command e.g. during slow flight)....Pitch for airspeed, power for altitude.
Works well enough for me.
YOURRRRR WRONGGGGG!
I probably shouldn't address you as all we do is fight like an old married couple but eh at least it keeps things interesting.No point in pressing the reset button, if it isn't understood from the first 8 pages another 25 isn't going to help.
ppragman
FLIPY FLAPS!
Off course a little here but:
On the issue of takeoffs in IFR vs. VFR conditions, I see no difference.
Power's Set
Gauges Are Green
Airspeeds Alive
Vr (or v1, rotate, v2 if you're in that sort of machine)
Accelerate in ground affect as required
Climb out
What's being missed here is the question of judgment. On a zero zero takeoff, you're going to be going strictly to instruments as soon as you're an inch off the deck, but really, there is no takeoff or landing that isn't in someway visual (provided you're not just flying the ils all the way to the ground). You have to see something, how much time is spent looking at it, that's another question entirely.
Really, the concept of VFR vs. IFR and time spent inside versus time spent outside is a rather an irrelevant one in many respects. In fact, I'd posit that all flying involves division of attention and instrument scan. The only factor that changes is the time spent inside on the gauges versus time outside watching the world go by.
Here's my little table of about how I think about it:
Good VFR (e.g. wx ~2500OVC, vis > 10 or better)
About 90% of my time is spent looking outside, with only about 10% of my time referencing my altitude, airspeed, heading, engine instruments etc.
VFR (vis between 5miles and 10, cx > 1000')
Here I spend about 70% of my time outside, and about 30% inside. I'm still mostly navigating on direct pilotage or a combination of pilotage and GPS/VOR input etc.
So-So VFR (vis 3 to 5 miles and cx 1000' or less)
Here I'm about 50%-50%. I include the outside world as one of my instruments and keep it going in my scan to make sure I avoid hitting anything/one. Luckily we have ADS-B up here, so traffic avoidance is about the least of the concerns here, that being said, this is still instrument flying more or less. You can see the ground, and you're using it to back up your navigational equipment, but pilotage isn't really that effective in low vis provided you're unfamiliar with the terrain, or if you're familiar with the terrain you still want to be mostly focused on not hitting anything.
Special VFR (vis between 1 mile and 3 miles, cx 1000' or less)
Here I'm doing about 80% inside the airplane, and about 20% outside. This is instrument flying with reference to the outside to verify that the instruments are working. In these conditions everyone's flying the same route, with seperation given by ATC when youre inside the surface area. Pretty low pressure provided that you consider it to be instrument flying and concentrate on it as such.
Calling VFR as strictly visual flying and IFR as strictly instrument flying isn't really how I fly (I can't speak for anyone else). You need to see something eventually, even on the ILS (provided you aren't a pirate).
On the issue of takeoffs in IFR vs. VFR conditions, I see no difference.
Power's Set
Gauges Are Green
Airspeeds Alive
Vr (or v1, rotate, v2 if you're in that sort of machine)
Accelerate in ground affect as required
Climb out
What's being missed here is the question of judgment. On a zero zero takeoff, you're going to be going strictly to instruments as soon as you're an inch off the deck, but really, there is no takeoff or landing that isn't in someway visual (provided you're not just flying the ils all the way to the ground). You have to see something, how much time is spent looking at it, that's another question entirely.
Really, the concept of VFR vs. IFR and time spent inside versus time spent outside is a rather an irrelevant one in many respects. In fact, I'd posit that all flying involves division of attention and instrument scan. The only factor that changes is the time spent inside on the gauges versus time outside watching the world go by.
Here's my little table of about how I think about it:
Good VFR (e.g. wx ~2500OVC, vis > 10 or better)
About 90% of my time is spent looking outside, with only about 10% of my time referencing my altitude, airspeed, heading, engine instruments etc.
VFR (vis between 5miles and 10, cx > 1000')
Here I spend about 70% of my time outside, and about 30% inside. I'm still mostly navigating on direct pilotage or a combination of pilotage and GPS/VOR input etc.
So-So VFR (vis 3 to 5 miles and cx 1000' or less)
Here I'm about 50%-50%. I include the outside world as one of my instruments and keep it going in my scan to make sure I avoid hitting anything/one. Luckily we have ADS-B up here, so traffic avoidance is about the least of the concerns here, that being said, this is still instrument flying more or less. You can see the ground, and you're using it to back up your navigational equipment, but pilotage isn't really that effective in low vis provided you're unfamiliar with the terrain, or if you're familiar with the terrain you still want to be mostly focused on not hitting anything.
Special VFR (vis between 1 mile and 3 miles, cx 1000' or less)
Here I'm doing about 80% inside the airplane, and about 20% outside. This is instrument flying with reference to the outside to verify that the instruments are working. In these conditions everyone's flying the same route, with seperation given by ATC when youre inside the surface area. Pretty low pressure provided that you consider it to be instrument flying and concentrate on it as such.
Calling VFR as strictly visual flying and IFR as strictly instrument flying isn't really how I fly (I can't speak for anyone else). You need to see something eventually, even on the ILS (provided you aren't a pirate).
I just have to share this........
So, I'm flying back yesterday on AA from ICT to DFW to TUS. On the ICT to DFW portion, I'm sitting in 21E (middle seat, right row on an MD-80), and in 20E in front of me, there's a guy talking aviation with two obviously non-pilots in his row......from what I could gather, he was either a PPL with some time, or was working on his Comm. As I picked up the conversation, I overheard the guy answering a question of one of the non-pilots as we were descending. Didn't hear the question, but the pilot guy answered with "yes....the pilot just has to push forward on the yoke and the down elevator makes the plane go down. Conversly, pulling back on the yoke makes the plane go up."
I smiled as I had a fleeting thought go through my head. I pictured, for a moment (though I don't know what they look like), Tgrayson sitting in 21D next to me, and shdw sitting in 21F next to me; and both reaching forward and choking the pilot guy in front of me to death!
That made me chuckle.........
So, I'm flying back yesterday on AA from ICT to DFW to TUS. On the ICT to DFW portion, I'm sitting in 21E (middle seat, right row on an MD-80), and in 20E in front of me, there's a guy talking aviation with two obviously non-pilots in his row......from what I could gather, he was either a PPL with some time, or was working on his Comm. As I picked up the conversation, I overheard the guy answering a question of one of the non-pilots as we were descending. Didn't hear the question, but the pilot guy answered with "yes....the pilot just has to push forward on the yoke and the down elevator makes the plane go down. Conversly, pulling back on the yoke makes the plane go up."
I smiled as I had a fleeting thought go through my head. I pictured, for a moment (though I don't know what they look like), Tgrayson sitting in 21D next to me, and shdw sitting in 21F next to me; and both reaching forward and choking the pilot guy in front of me to death!
That made me chuckle.........
Douglas
Old School KSUX
:laff:
I just have to share this........
I smiled as I had a fleeting thought go through my head. I pictured, for a moment (though I don't know what they look like), Tgrayson sitting in 21D next to me, and shdw sitting in 21F next to me; and both reaching forward and choking the pilot guy in front of me to death!
That made me chuckle.........
Some people just have what it takes to start a riot, and some don't.