Autothrust Blue
“If you jump on my shift, that’s just rude, man.”
Yipe.
Exciting first week as an instructor...
- Thread starter PropSettin'
- Start date
SteveCostello
My member is well-known.
Yeesh. Not a bad landing, though, considering he had to have known that as soon as the strut grazed the ground that things would come to an immediate and potentially very exciting stop. Seems as if he got it slow enough to minimize damage (hope that right wing is okay...). Looks like the prop was still barely spinning when it hit. I suppose that still calls for a total engine rebuild, right?
All things considered, he walked away from it, insurance should cover everything else. Nice.
rframe
pǝʇɹǝʌuı
Yeah, and best to keep the engine running in a situation like that... you already know it's going in for repair, might as well let the insurance company rebuild the engine too, and then if you need to go around you have it available.
One of my biggest aggravations is when people try to "save" the airplane. It'd be interesting to see the statistics of fatal vs. non fatal accidents and what percentage were in rentals as opposed to owned/homebuilt. I've seen a least a couple fatal accidents around here where the pilot tried to save "their baby" and were killed trying to make the impossible turn or something similar, and a few where people seemed to say "screw it, this is what insurance is for", balled it up, and walked away relatively unscathed.
SteveCostello
My member is well-known.
It's a pretty interesting phenomenon. I'll take saving my life over saving the plane/car/house/whatever every single damned time. Not sure why it's even a choice.
sounddoc
Well-Known Member
What's wrong with that? Your students aren't always going to be flying trainers, and you're not always going to be there to make sure they don't land gear up in their brand new Mooney. I believe in giving a solid foundation, so I teach it in any plane to every student.
A150K
Well-Known Member
Just the other day I mentioned to my student that we were getting a bit low on approach and asked him what he was going to do about it. He proceeded to yank the power out and pull the yoke to his chest
. After I was done lecturing him on why that was bad , it took all I had to not burst out laughing.
jrh
Well-Known Member
Well....ok.
I think the instructors who disagree with you (myself included) are approaching it with a philosophy of "fly the plane you're flying, not the one you used to fly or the one you're going to fly."
An instructor can make a 172 out to have the complexity of a space shuttle by adding a bunch of unnecessary procedures which might pay off at some future date....or might just be a waste of time...or worse, fill the pilot's head with so much information that they begin to forget details which actually *do* matter.
I think it's more important to emphasize a pilot's need for future training, so if they upgrade to a brand new Mooney, they won't be ashamed to take 5, 10, 15, or however many hours of additional training it takes to be proficient in THAT airframe, rather than hopping in and thinking it'll be a super quick transition because their first instructor taught them things like a GUMPS check.
TwoTwoLeft
o- - - - - - -l
Do you turn on the make believe "boost pump" when you switch tanks in a C172 just to prepare a student who might fly a Cherokee?
sounddoc
Well-Known Member
rframe
pǝʇɹǝʌuı
I teach to the airplane. In a simple Cessna single 150/172 its CGMS. In a carbeurated Cutlass its CCGUMPS, in a fuel injected Arrow it's BCGUMPS, etc etc etc. I dont think the items are as important as it is to teach the student to have something to check at transitional phases of flight and on final. Knowing which to use is simply a matter of thinking about the airplane at hand, I dont find it difficult and if needed you just make an abbreviated checklist for reference.
jrh
Well-Known Member
Except that it's not. There are TONS of airplanes where GUMPs doesn't apply. Look at every plane with fixed gear or fixed pitch prop or no auxiliary fuel pump for starters. The number of planes where GUMPs *doesn't* apply far outnumber the number of planes where GUMPs *does* apply.
In a 172, what are you checking for? The fuel selector hasn't moved since you checked it three times prior to takeoff? The wheels didn't fall off? Your non-existent prop control lever is pushed in? The non-existent fuel pump is turned on?
I'm not opposed to GUMPs for the sake of GUMPs...I'm opposed to wasting time/mental resources. I don't think a person should use an acronym unless all of it applies all the time. In an Arrow, fine....it's basically the manufacturer's before landing checklist. In a 172, forget it. You're in a 172, not an Arrow.
From the various planes I flown, the only surefire way I've seen to get it right is to use the "before landing" checklist from the POH or printed on the panel.
When I flew 402s for the airline that flies 402s, GUMPs wasn't even spoken of in the training environment. It was strictly an "in-range flow" followed by a "before landing flow" followed by a printed checklist. GUMPs would have been a redundant waste of time.
Oh well, whatever. Nobody will die from instructors teaching GUMPs unnecessarily. It's just a pet peeve of mine.
jrh
Well-Known Member
Good idea. That is a universal check. If I ever get to do a person's transition training into an Ercoupe or Cessna 120, I'm definitely using FGS.
Ten points for whoever recognizes why I used the examples I did!
jrh
Well-Known Member
Ooohh, I'm giving you 20 points. Ten for recognizing what I did and ten for continuing the examples.
