First let me say this, when I started this post I had absolutely no intention of it turning into an argument pertaining to basic physical law. The intention was to hear from some of you guys different practical ways to try and teach away this habit. I knew the academics behind it coming into this thread and wasn't looking to discuss that.
This is why early on I mentioned trying a constant pitch approach to solidify that power really can get you altitude even on short final. I also spoke of flying the flare so they could get behind the power curve low to the ground and still have the knowledge and instincts to shove the nose forward and increase power to avoid touchdown. My hope was that people would expand upon this and give some other ideas relating to this, more experiments since that is really all they are to a student.
IMO you need an academic understanding of this only for the purpose of making yourself do it the first few times. I personally don't teach my students to understand all the academics behind it, that would be ridiculous, I explain them once or twice before the flight(s) where we focus on demonstrate them. Once you actually see it work in the real world I believe it helps to solidify the knowledge discussed on the ground. Much like a science experiment, discuss how and why it works, and then do some practical experiments to prove it. It is these experiments that I was hoping to get more insight on.
I am in 100% agreement with you about the physics involved. I also agree teachers need to understand these things.
The point I was trying to make is that an instructor can teach these concepts correctly and still have a pilot react incorrectly. My guy who busted his checkride absolutely understands these principles, but he still went out and did everything wrong. For one reason or another, I need to teach him using a different method than what works for 95% of my other customers. Now the challenge is finding what will work for him.
On another note, you speak of teaching experience as if the only kind of teaching is related to airplanes. I spent many years teaching juggling, skiing, and various other basic sports to special education kids. I was a swim instructor giving private and group lessons for almost 10 years. In college I had a class designed for me and worked one on one with a teacher of 40+ years on teaching habits, psychology behind teaching, and practical application by assisting her in her college algebra class. Now I am a flight instructor.
Does this make me the best teacher ever, of course not, but I understood long ago that while there is no one way to teach everyone (which I discussed earlier with multiple intelligence's and such), there are right ways to teach things and wrong ways. I also know that you have to break everything down piece by piece and try to put it together in a correct and organized fashion if you have any expectation of getting it across to your student. To do this requires a teacher to have an impeccable knowledge of what they are teaching in this case physical law for the academic side.
If any procedure we teach can be wrong at any time in any phase of flight than you are doing exactly what the FOI discusses heavily, a negative transfer of learning. In the case in question teaching anything other than pitch for airspeed power for altitude is nothing more than a negative transfer of learning. Source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transfer_of_learning
I'm sure you're a good teacher, but flying is very different from juggling, skiing, or swimming. Flight training deals with how people react when under pressures much greater than those other activities. That's why it's less predictable. That's why I said you need more experience teaching in this area, because the longer you do it the more you'll see that academic understanding is a very important, but also relatively small part of making a good pilot.
I understand what you're saying about negative transfer of learning, which is why I don't teach *either* pitch for airspeed or pitch for altitude.
"Pitch for airspeed" is the technically correct, academic answer. I know and understand that. However, as Deakin's column clearly expressed, that's not the intuitive answer. It's not the answer that fits the practical application at all times. In most scenarios, the pilot needs to adjust both simultaneously.
PS Jrh would you mind giving the constant pitch approach and flying the flare a shot and report back and let me know how it works? Also whatever else you do, as I stated before this is the purpose of this threat or at least was supposed to be, to get him to understand this concept? Thanks in advance.
Here's how I teach private pilots to stay out of trouble and it's worked quite well for the most part:
During normal approaches, I give one simple guideline--don't raise the nose until you're ready to flare. If the pilot starts getting low and begins to raise the nose, trying to "stretch" for the runway, I quickly say, "No, no, keep the nose aimed down at the runway, just give it a bit of power to slow the descent and reach the runway."
Is this the technically correct academic answer? I don't know if it meets your standards, but it's the real world, practical way of building good habits and keeping them out of trouble.
When it comes to engine failure scenarios, I give one rule--you should never hear the stall horn until you're flaring. If you hear the stall horn, no matter what else is happening, release some backpressure from the yoke. I make them associate the stall horn with releasing backpressure.
Again, I'm not sure if this is academic enough for you, but it's what is safe and works, all the time. There is never a conflict in another segment of flight that contradicts these reactions. No negative transfer of learning.
