Breaking the "elevator for altitude" habit

[dasleben]

Exactly!


Dasleben, the topic is in regard to a humans, as a land animal, natural tendency to associate pulling back as increasing altitude. This scenario, which has killed many pilots because they get slow and try to stretch their glide path or hold themselves up by pulling back harder till they stall/spin/crash is what I was aiming to discuss here.

I realize we have gotten way off topic various times throughout this post but the original topic still remains. That is, how do we teach a primary student so that this habit does not exist. Meaning when you see the student on short final with a lower power setting and they keep pulling back to try and make it.

You could also use one of my original examples with a student flying the flare, a time when ground impact is imminent and nerves are high much like an emergency situation. The student I had flying the flare insisted he did not have this habit yet repeatedly he kept pulling back to try and keep from sinking while flying the flare. It wasn't till I demonstrated by shoving in the power and pushing the nose to a level attitude, only a few feet off the ground, that he realized what I was talking about.

My posts have been in response to the later posts in this thread, which had strayed from the original topic. My posts have also been discussing flying on the front side of the power curve on approach, vs. in the flare in an aircraft that lands at or very close to stall speed (i.e. back side of the power curve). Naturally you are correct in how to handle slow speeds in the flare: if you pull and don't add power, you'll stall and slam the airplane onto the runway. Can't be having that.

Perhaps I derailed the thread further with my posts.

The point is if you teach a student the way you are saying with a constant power you are sure to do the exact opposite of what we are trying to do. You will teach that student that back = up and they will likely one day scare themselves s**tless with a near stall or end up killing themselves. A primary student needs to learn basic physical interactions first and understand that back is up only because of momentum. You can say it till your blue in the face but you have to show it and prove it to each student if you have any expectation of it sinking in. Your method will never prove that to a student and IMO that is very dangerous.

If you still disagree with this I encourage you to consult just about any primary basic training aviation book ever written to see they also disagree with you. Some of these books include, "Stick and Rudder," "Emergency Maneuver Training," and "Takeoffs and Landings." I am sure there are many more but these are just a few that I have read that all strongly disagree with the method you propose for the one reason I have said over and over, the natural human habit that back = up kills people.

You're right: I still disagree that my method is dangerous in any way, shape, or form. Remember that I was discussing minor corrections on the front side of the power curve. For large corrections and/or flying on the back side of the power curve, judicious use of power (with an associated adjustment in pitch) is crucial. I've made it to ATP and 135 PIC without killing anyone yet, I swear.

Anyway, good discussion, even though some of the nitty-gritty details you guys are discussing may have me scratching my head. I haven't really thought this stuff through since I instructed full time. :beer:

 

[ppragman]

Required Reading for this:
http://www.avweb.com/news/pelican/182148-1.html

 

[tgrayson]

Required Reading for this:

Just another pilot making a virtue of his ignorance of the underlying physics of airplane flight, except that this one has an internet column.

The faux-sage advice offered by many experienced pilots that you typically need to make both pitch and power changes during airspeed and altitude changes is a complete abandonment of the instructional mindset; it's akin to "make it happen" without telling someone *how* to make it happen, and is often used to obscure the fact that the pilot in question doesn't understand how it happens either.

 

[jrh]

Required Reading for this:
http://www.avweb.com/news/pelican/182148-1.html

:yeahthat:

I read that article a long time ago but had forgotten about it. Deakin expresses my sentiments more clearly than I ever could.

 

[jrh]

The faux-sage advice offered by many experienced pilots that you typically need to make both pitch and power changes during airspeed and altitude changes is a complete abandonment of the instructional mindset; it's akin to "make it happen" without telling someone *how* to make it happen, and is often used to obscure the fact that the pilot in question doesn't understand how it happens either.

I don't know that I would go that far.

Deakin might not be offering scientific reasons for why things are the way they are, but he's breaking it down in to what actually matters in the real world. There are times when that is what's most useful in an instructional environment.

Also, what specifically do you find contradictory about his article? Aside from a lack of science, I didn't notice him saying anything that was flat out wrong.

 

[shdw]

Required Reading for this:
http://www.avweb.com/news/pelican/182148-1.html

What an interesting article this is, unfortunately most of the teaching world completely disagrees with him and the accident reports agree with the teachers. But hey what would teachers that study human psychology, habit patterns, and the effects of an emergency on our psychi know about this right?

I am sorry, not to bash the author but he has spent his career as a pilot, not as a teacher. This leaves him ill equip IMO to even discuss such a topic and I am kind of shocked avweb would even post it. Both Riddle and Daniel Webster philosophies disagree with him along with the books I listed above. I would bet UND, Purdue, and many others fall on board with Riddle and Daniel Webster as well.

Think about why we teach procedures and why procedural based training is being looked at as possibly a better method of teaching. We teach procedures because when stuff hits the fan we will fall back on our learned and practiced procedures, or habits to save our butts.

There is no argument that pitch can't control altitude because we know it can control both and same with power. The argument is that if we don't teach a procedure or a habit that is safe when stuff hits the fan it is in a persons natural wiring as a land animal to pull back for altitude and this can kill.

Through Mr. Deakin's entire article he never once spent time analizying accidents related to this. He avoided any discussion on human psychology related to pitch for altitude, probably because he's a pilot not a teacher. Finally and most importantly I saw nothing discussing habit patterns, procedures, and their importance in an emergency situation.

Instead of focusing on those topics, which are the ones in question on this argument, he spent the majority of his time bashing the argument in general. Then when he finished bashing the argument he discussed how a computer does everything and trying to prove to the reader that pitch and power control both. Sorry John, but I am pretty certain we already knew this and it has nothing to do with what we are arguing.


To sum up: We are discussing habit patterns and natural born human tendencies related to human psychology specifically in emergency situations. We are not arguing that pitch can't control altitude and power can't control airspeed as this would simply be ludicrous.

 

[shdw]

Also, what specifically do you find contradictory about his article? Aside from a lack of science, I didn't notice him saying anything that was flat out wrong.

I didn't see anything wrong with what he said. He basically told me the sky is blue which I already knew and the rest of the time he spent babbling about pink elephants. Refer to my post above for why his argument is unfortunately worthless to the teaching world as it mitigates the reason behind this argument.

 

[tgrayson]

Also, what specifically do you find contradictory about his article? Aside from a lack of science, I didn't notice him saying anything that was flat out wrong.

Because he 1) says the science doesn't matter, 2) ridicules the science, and 3) implies there isn't a science. Take this for instance:

Take the fellow in the trainer, at the end of the runway. Runup done, cleared for takeoff, he's sitting there pumping the yoke in and out, working up a sweat. The tower calls, and says, "Say, we notice your elevator is flapping, is there a problem?"

"No problem," (breathing heavily), "my instructor says that the elevator controls speed, and I'm trying to get some, so I can add throttle and get some altitude

​

He doen't have any analytical understanding of what he knows how to do, and so really ought not to be teaching anyone.

​

 

[dasleben]

What an interesting article this is, unfortunately most of the teaching world completely disagrees with him and the accident reports agree with the teachers.

Which accident reports are those?

I am sorry, not to bash the author but he has spent his career as a pilot, not as a teacher. This leaves him ill equip IMO to even discuss such a topic and I am kind of shocked avweb would even post it. Both Riddle and Daniel Webster philosophies disagree with him along with the books I listed above. I would bet UND, Purdue, and many others fall on board with Riddle and Daniel Webster as well.

There may be a distinct lack of real honest-to-god science, but there's nothing wrong with that. He's writing from the perspective of a line pilot, which has its own merits. I think most line pilots would look at you funny if you pulled out a drag curve and tried to discuss L/D, but that doesn't mean that they don't know what they're doing in the everyday business of flying airplanes.

Let me say this: I was a Riddle CFI in a past life (*shudder*), and sometimes think about just how caught up I was in academia at that time. Riddle was so wrapped around the axle about scientific minutia that I think most people forgot that we were there to fly airplanes. Sure, I could riff off the lift equation from memory, or give a mathematical description of Va, but it didn't actually prepare any of us for flying the line. We were all so busy counting the pieces of bark on the tree in front of us that we didn't notice the forest!

Now sure, there's a good reason the foundations of the math and science are set during our initial training. We need to know the answers to "why" before we figure out the "how-to." I'll readily admit shdw, that you and tgrayson confuse the heck out of me on a daily basis with all the science. But, that doesn't mean that the rest of us flying the line everyday don't know what we're talking about. This Pelican's Perch article, from my personal perspective, hits the mark just fine. It's unscientific, but it's sound. I think both Riddle and Daniel Webster could learn a thing or three from this guy.

And no, the methods described in the article are not dangerous.

 

[jrh]

Because he 1) says the science doesn't matter, 2) ridicules the science, and 3) implies there isn't a science. Take this for instance:

Take the fellow in the trainer, at the end of the runway. Runup done, cleared for takeoff, he's sitting there pumping the yoke in and out, working up a sweat. The tower calls, and says, "Say, we notice your elevator is flapping, is there a problem?"

"No problem," (breathing heavily), "my instructor says that the elevator controls speed, and I'm trying to get some, so I can add throttle and get some altitude

​

I took this, and most of the rest of his article, to be nothing more than poking fun at the zealots who claim controlling an airplane should always be done one way, or always be done another way. I don't see these statements as dismissing the science behind it at all.

He doen't have any analytical understanding of what he knows how to do, and so really ought not to be teaching anyone.

Wow, that's kind of painting with a broad stroke, don't you think? Even if I took issue with this one article (which I don't), I wouldn't go so far as to say he lacks an analytical understanding and shouldn't be teaching anyone.




The question at the start of the article was basically, "Which is right: Power for altitude/pitch for airspeed, or pitch for altitude/power for airspeed?" Deakin basically replied, "It depends, and here are examples why..." I don't see anything wrong with that approach from a safety, real world operational, or instructional perspective.

 

[tgrayson]

The question at the start of the article was basically, "Which is right: Power for altitude/pitch for airspeed, or pitch for altitude/power for airspeed?" Deakin basically replied, "It depends, and here are examples why..."

I think you may be reading into his article your own view. Deakin gave no insight into how to determine the proper control movements, and that's the job of an instructor: break down the task into its constituent parts and then help the student reassemble them. Deakin doesn't do that and ridicules those who do.

(He doesn't even get the argument right....pitch doesn't control airspeed, AoA does. It's easy to make fun of an argument when you don't present it correctly.)

 

[shdw]

The question at the start of the article was basically, "Which is right: Power for altitude/pitch for airspeed, or pitch for altitude/power for airspeed?" Deakin basically replied, "It depends, and here are examples why..." I don't see anything wrong with that approach from a safety, real world operational, or instructional perspective.

This isn't the argument, again we know there are circumstances for each. The argument is how do we ensure that when things go wrong the students habit will be pitch for airspeed and power for altitude. It relates to psychological human habits. It isn't even our lack of understanding of the physics but instead to human habits or natural tendencies as land animals.

Anyone who has been through high-school would know and understand these basic physics. The problem is when your scared your going to die we ignore this knowledge and fall back on the age old human wiring that pulling back will keep us from hitting the ground, this is what the post is about. Hence the title including the words breaking and habit.

Sorry Tgray, but I do disagree with you in saying he doesn't have an analytical understanding as that is IMO a bit of an unwarranted assumption. I would reword that to he did not analyze the underlying problem at all but instead, like most high time jet pilots, focused on the plain words of "pitch for airspeed and power for altitude." This as I am sure you realize and others need to begin to realize is not the problem.

 

[shdw]

(He doesn't even get the argument right....pitch doesn't control airspeed, AoA does. It's easy to make fun of an argument when you don't present it correctly.)

Touche, now that I completely agree with.

 

[Hacker15e]

The argument is how do we ensure that when things go wrong the students habit will be pitch for airspeed and power for altitude.

This is the part that so many people forget when discussing this topic.

We're talking about student pilots in straight/cambered wing, light, piston powered aircraft.

As soon as the discussion leaves that realm, then this "truism" -- that a lot of CFIs think applies to every aircraft everywhere -- is suddenly *not* true.

If you still think it is, then let me take you up in a swept-wing, symmetrical airfoil, low aspect ratio jet and you can see how well it works...and my bet is that you end up either landing ridiculously long or impacting well short of the threshold.

 

[jrh]

Deakin gave no insight into how to determine the proper control movements, and that's the job of an instructor: break down the task into its constituent parts and then help the student reassemble them. Deakin doesn't do that and ridicules those who do.

I don't know how Deakin could break it down any more than he did without writing a tediously long, boring article. I don't think he was even trying to write a dissertation on the hows and whys of this discussion, he was simply giving some real world examples of how flying isn't as hard as some pilots make it out to be.

As for his ridiculing of anyone, the only ridicule I saw was his comments about CFIs who make things overly complicated...and I agree with him on that point. I know it's a fine line to walk between not explaining something adequately and explaining so in depth as to be confusing, but I think Deakin was just saying some instructors err to the confusing side with primary students.

(He doesn't even get the argument right....pitch doesn't control airspeed, AoA does. It's easy to make fun of an argument when you don't present it correctly.)

You and I both understand how AoA relates to airspeed, but the general pilot population refers to the argument using pitch/power terminology. I've never heard the argument presented otherwise. That's what Deakin was addressing.

 

[jrh]

This isn't the argument, again we know there are circumstances for each. The argument is how do we ensure that when things go wrong the students habit will be pitch for airspeed and power for altitude. It relates to psychological human habits. It isn't even our lack of understanding of the physics but instead to human habits or natural tendencies as land animals.

That's *your* argument, not Deakin's. Deakin wasn't writing about how to teach the subject, he was writing about how flying works in general.

Anyone who has been through high-school would know and understand these basic physics.

I wish that were the case!

 

[shdw]

If you still think it is, then let me take you up in a swept-wing, symmetrical airfoil, low aspect ratio jet and you can see how well it works...and my bet is that you end up either landing ridiculously long or impacting well short of the threshold.

Correct me if I am wrong, but you do give some instruction in the procedures of a Jet aircraft when you get a new pilot that comes to your door. I would assume you don't just throw them the keys and say good luck.

Remember pitching for altitude is nothing more than utilizing momentum which is a product of mass and velocity. A 747 weighing in at what 500,000 lbs? I think would have slightly more momentum then that the typical GA aircraft. The procedures for Jets are different because their momentum is vastly different than that of light singles and light twin aircraft as their airspeed is faster and weight many times greater than that of a smaller aircraft.

One question for you though, how hard do you think it would be to take someone who has learned the proper physics of an aircraft in their primary training to transition into a jet?


General thoughts:

Isn't primary training, except by a select small percent of military trained pilots, almost always done in small piston twins? Isn't it also true that the most dangerous time for a pilot is sub 1,000 hours where they will likely be in small GA aircraft? These two questions being true wouldn't one logically assume that it is best to teach safe operation of small GA aircraft and let them learn how to fly jet aircraft when they get their type rating for the jet they are flying?

Plain and simple you cannot compare the procedures of large jets to the procedures of small aircraft.



PS Does anyone remember that accident with the 30,000 hour commercial pilot who got behind the power curve after an engine failure on takeoff and crashed and died because he didn't remember these basics? There have been a few, but one in particular that I read about in college but can't remember the details. It was used in my CFI class specifically for this argument.

 

[dasleben]

Plain and simple you cannot compare the procedures of large jets to the procedures of small aircraft.

Sure you can. While there are some significant differences (swept wing aerodynamics, turbine spool, etc.), an airplane is still an airplane. The lifties and the draggies still work the same way, and incorporate the same physics.

That's the point that I was trying to make with my original post about powering for speed and pitching for the glidepath while on an instrument or visual approach: it works in GA aircraft, and it works in transport jets. Each and every example from Deakin's article can be applied to GA aircraft.

 

[shdw]

Which accident reports are those?

Read this: http://www.aopa.org/asf/asfarticles/2003/sp0302.html It is aimed around spins and not what causes the stall but it gives some shocking statistics on the number of stall/spin accidents that occur. Something is causing these stalls to be happening. There is actually an example in the book "Stick and Rudder" about an accident where the pilot pulled back so hard to "try and stay up" that he bent the control arm.

Now the reasons will always be assumptions and there is no way to know for sure without performing some weird resurrection ceremony and actually asking those pilots.

But 1,700 stall spin accidents since 1973 and 465 fatal in the last 10 years or about 1 stall/spin per week screams something is wrong. There are only a few reasons this could be happening, one is of course general distractions which we teach for. Another factor is likely stupidity and flying outside of their capabilities. The final factor and what the teaching world is basing their opinions on is that we were born land animals and everything in our natural wiring associates pulling back with gaining altitude.

Your flying jets and made the transition with little trouble, except for your pitch power issue you discussed earlier, but you also know basic aircraft physics too which makes you that much safer of a pilot. You have to teach for what the student is flying and you can't teach jet procedures to a piston pilot and expect the outcome to be a safe piston pilot.

 

[shdw]

Sure you can. While there are some significant differences (swept wing aerodynamics, turbine spool, etc.), an airplane is still an airplane. The lifties and the draggies still work the same way, and incorporate the same physics.

That's the point that I was trying to make with my original post about powering for speed and pitching for the glidepath while on an instrument or visual approach: it works in GA aircraft, and it works in transport jets. Each and every example from Deakin's article can be applied to GA aircraft.

Like Deaken your ignoring the Human Factors aspect behind it completely, just like everyone else once they hop into the seat of a big jet. You proposal is equivalent to teaching a baby to run before letting them crawl.

Learning is a building process and the method of forming a habit that pitch is airspeed and power is altitude will never kill a pilot. Sure when they transition to jets they may need some procedural tweaks as you did but it will not leave them ill equip to handle the aircraft.

Should we teach differential equations before addition and subtraction? You got there step by step and because of it you actually understand airplane dynamics, why would you think that everyone else should just jump right to the last step?