Punter's point of view
Guest
Posts: n/a
Punter's point of view
First of all let me say that I don’t want to start a flame war. Some of what I am about to say, some of you will disagree with, some will agree.
When a pilot comes to you for additional training, for perhaps an IMC, Night rating, even just a check ride to join your club. Could some respect be shown for his/her previous instructors and the habits they have formed since learning.
Some examples. If a 400 plus hour pilot pitches up and wants to rent one of your planes, you would take him for a check ride. He may have been taught many many years ago to clean up on the runway while still rolling. (carb heat away, flaps up) This may not fit in with the way you teach and may request that when he uses your Aircraft, not to do it. If on his next landing 400 hours of muscle memory take over, would you see fit to shout at him like the twit he is, or perhaps think that this pilot has been doing it this way for so long and some-one must have shown him in the first place. There are numerous examples, carb hear on the last 50’, some say put it away, some say leave it in. Flaps deployed during the turn onto base ( I was taught to do that at Biggin 20 years ago).
I think the point I am trying to make is that by the time pilots come back for further ratings, they are pretty set in their ways and don’t need …shall we say “basic” training in “basic” handling manoeuvres. What they do need is the training to start once they are under the hood.
Sorry for butting into your forum, but I always look here for some good advice (that doesn’t conflict with what I said above…well a bit)
When a pilot comes to you for additional training, for perhaps an IMC, Night rating, even just a check ride to join your club. Could some respect be shown for his/her previous instructors and the habits they have formed since learning.
Some examples. If a 400 plus hour pilot pitches up and wants to rent one of your planes, you would take him for a check ride. He may have been taught many many years ago to clean up on the runway while still rolling. (carb heat away, flaps up) This may not fit in with the way you teach and may request that when he uses your Aircraft, not to do it. If on his next landing 400 hours of muscle memory take over, would you see fit to shout at him like the twit he is, or perhaps think that this pilot has been doing it this way for so long and some-one must have shown him in the first place. There are numerous examples, carb hear on the last 50’, some say put it away, some say leave it in. Flaps deployed during the turn onto base ( I was taught to do that at Biggin 20 years ago).
I think the point I am trying to make is that by the time pilots come back for further ratings, they are pretty set in their ways and don’t need …shall we say “basic” training in “basic” handling manoeuvres. What they do need is the training to start once they are under the hood.
Sorry for butting into your forum, but I always look here for some good advice (that doesn’t conflict with what I said above…well a bit)
Guest
Posts: n/a
It's a question of standardisation, and in the specific example given, I wait until clear before any config change...
If the pilot can give a reason why he does any particular thing, and it's a good one, and you can't find some argument against it - then so be it. If the "basic technique" being used is flawed or dangerous then jumping up and down should ensue.
One example I heard of was of a student poking a grass stem into the static vent to check it was clear. As it transpires, the student's instructor's INSTRUCTOR had done it ONCE, some years before, whilst casually chatting (for what reason I don't know) and the "habit" or "basic procedure" had carried through.
In the case that it is a safety issue then logically explaining why something should be done in a particular way without going apesh!t should be enough to change their ways, and if it doesn't - maybe the pilot should reconsider their involvement with flying.
If the pilot can give a reason why he does any particular thing, and it's a good one, and you can't find some argument against it - then so be it. If the "basic technique" being used is flawed or dangerous then jumping up and down should ensue.
One example I heard of was of a student poking a grass stem into the static vent to check it was clear. As it transpires, the student's instructor's INSTRUCTOR had done it ONCE, some years before, whilst casually chatting (for what reason I don't know) and the "habit" or "basic procedure" had carried through.
In the case that it is a safety issue then logically explaining why something should be done in a particular way without going apesh!t should be enough to change their ways, and if it doesn't - maybe the pilot should reconsider their involvement with flying.
Guest
Posts: n/a
I take your point about a safety issue, yes of course you shouldn't stand by and watch someone poke grass down the static vent. We all know that it should be blown down firmly 
Sorry, this was a joke (some very strange poeple read this)
My first example occured to me, I had landed a greaser and was cleaning up when the instructor grabbed my hand and gave me a 5 minute lecture on why it was DANGEROUS to take up flaps, put carb heat away etc. before we had come to a complete stop on the taxiway.
I started flying one month before this instructor was born, he told me that as he looked at my log book, just seems to me that as he wasn't teaching me basic flying skills, he should have let some things go.
Sorry, this was a joke (some very strange poeple read this)My first example occured to me, I had landed a greaser and was cleaning up when the instructor grabbed my hand and gave me a 5 minute lecture on why it was DANGEROUS to take up flaps, put carb heat away etc. before we had come to a complete stop on the taxiway.
I started flying one month before this instructor was born, he told me that as he looked at my log book, just seems to me that as he wasn't teaching me basic flying skills, he should have let some things go.
Guest
Posts: n/a
New Bloke, I almost agree with what you say. If I was doing a check ride with somebody I would make every attempt to sit down and shut up…and merely draw peoples attention to points of a operational nature but guess what? If that’s what you do then you’re probably doing the wrong thing.
I sit down some of the time and cringe at the sight at what some pilots get up to and in the past (long ago) I always thought that it wasn’t my position to re-teach or critique the way in how they flew. I thought that I was there to assess whether they flew to an above minimum standard. “If I would sent my Granny up for a circuit with these Kamikaze pilots then they are fit to fly”. I no longer think that’s the case…
Apart from the legal liability or “Duty of Care” that an instructor accepts when he does any type of training or check flight, I think he/she has a moral responsibility to teach and instruct when and where required.
First, a pilot should always be familiar with the Pilot’s Operating Handbook and the Company’s Part B (or equivalent) applicable to the aircraft flown – familiarity with these documents eliminates any confusion most of the time. It says where and when carby heat should be used, where and when flap is to be retracted and where and when anything else is to be done. If the manual is properly prepared then it is very easy to rationalise the way your pilots fly. Standardisation is the easiest way of maintaining an assurance of quality. It doesn’t matter if your student has 70 hours or 3000 hours – everybody should be expected to fly exactly the same way. What you are saying is that you shouldn’t bring points of concern to the pilot under check because since they’ve lasted this long they’ll be okay in the future!
One thing I am really fussy with is “grey areas” or “periods of indecision”. I like providing pilots with either a black or white answer to almost everything. Most private pilots aren’t capable of making a sensible operational decision so your company’s policy should make the decision for them. An example of this is the TKOF in a twin engine aircraft. Every man and his dog have a different method and application of Vr, TOSS, V2, Vyse, Vxse. I have only ever flown with a few pilots who understand the application of the airspeeds and then flown accordingly. If I am doing an endorsement I make it my duty to re-teach them the TKOF procedure…I make them fully aware of it and if they aren’t happy with it they can find somebody else to fly with. I think this is amusing – Instructors will teach airspeed and performance configurations for Traumahawks but as the aircraft gets bigger it seems the amount of care and precision gets less.
Of topic….back to the point (sorry).
Maybe I have an “airline” type attitude in reference to the type of quality assurance and standard of training but I think that safety depends on it. The most “affordable safety” is a good attitude and healthy understanding of how things MUST be done. This is Free but it worth a fortune.
What you’re saying is that “she’ll be right mate”. Very slack indeed. If you are not going to pick a student up on his or her errors you are placing a lot of faith in the “other” instructor. Who is to say he knew what he was doing? Who’s to say he was even any good? Isn’t the student being ripped off if you don’t mention what you think can be improved on. Maybe we should change our name from “Instructor” to “Sitthereandshutuptor”.
Until guys like you start to evaluate the industries standards GA will continue to go downhill…
I sit down some of the time and cringe at the sight at what some pilots get up to and in the past (long ago) I always thought that it wasn’t my position to re-teach or critique the way in how they flew. I thought that I was there to assess whether they flew to an above minimum standard. “If I would sent my Granny up for a circuit with these Kamikaze pilots then they are fit to fly”. I no longer think that’s the case…
Apart from the legal liability or “Duty of Care” that an instructor accepts when he does any type of training or check flight, I think he/she has a moral responsibility to teach and instruct when and where required.
First, a pilot should always be familiar with the Pilot’s Operating Handbook and the Company’s Part B (or equivalent) applicable to the aircraft flown – familiarity with these documents eliminates any confusion most of the time. It says where and when carby heat should be used, where and when flap is to be retracted and where and when anything else is to be done. If the manual is properly prepared then it is very easy to rationalise the way your pilots fly. Standardisation is the easiest way of maintaining an assurance of quality. It doesn’t matter if your student has 70 hours or 3000 hours – everybody should be expected to fly exactly the same way. What you are saying is that you shouldn’t bring points of concern to the pilot under check because since they’ve lasted this long they’ll be okay in the future!
One thing I am really fussy with is “grey areas” or “periods of indecision”. I like providing pilots with either a black or white answer to almost everything. Most private pilots aren’t capable of making a sensible operational decision so your company’s policy should make the decision for them. An example of this is the TKOF in a twin engine aircraft. Every man and his dog have a different method and application of Vr, TOSS, V2, Vyse, Vxse. I have only ever flown with a few pilots who understand the application of the airspeeds and then flown accordingly. If I am doing an endorsement I make it my duty to re-teach them the TKOF procedure…I make them fully aware of it and if they aren’t happy with it they can find somebody else to fly with. I think this is amusing – Instructors will teach airspeed and performance configurations for Traumahawks but as the aircraft gets bigger it seems the amount of care and precision gets less.
Of topic….back to the point (sorry).
Maybe I have an “airline” type attitude in reference to the type of quality assurance and standard of training but I think that safety depends on it. The most “affordable safety” is a good attitude and healthy understanding of how things MUST be done. This is Free but it worth a fortune.
What you’re saying is that “she’ll be right mate”. Very slack indeed. If you are not going to pick a student up on his or her errors you are placing a lot of faith in the “other” instructor. Who is to say he knew what he was doing? Who’s to say he was even any good? Isn’t the student being ripped off if you don’t mention what you think can be improved on. Maybe we should change our name from “Instructor” to “Sitthereandshutuptor”.
Until guys like you start to evaluate the industries standards GA will continue to go downhill…
Guest
Posts: n/a
Turbine.
Good points - well put. I don't have a problem with anything you said, but where saftey is NOT an issue and there are several equally safe ways of skinning this particular cat, all I ask is that my way be respected.
Have a vote here and now. How many instructors advocate clearing onto a taxiway and parking before cleaning up and how many do it on-the-run?
My experience shows 50-50, so therefore either MUST be safe.
Good points - well put. I don't have a problem with anything you said, but where saftey is NOT an issue and there are several equally safe ways of skinning this particular cat, all I ask is that my way be respected.
Have a vote here and now. How many instructors advocate clearing onto a taxiway and parking before cleaning up and how many do it on-the-run?
My experience shows 50-50, so therefore either MUST be safe.
Guest
Posts: n/a
New Bloke, I see your point...but even if there are equally effective and safe ways of doing something, I think it's up to the company to dictate what should be done and then to document why. This just doesn't happen and probably won't ever happen at your corner Flying Club. In time quality assurance will become important (and operators may have to burden themselves with the responsibility that the regulating authorities have now) but due to the nature of private flying I don't think that it will really affect the grass roots of general aviation - in fact if it did it would probably tend to turn people away from it...but then again that's the price you pay.
I know what you are saying though...
Should you clean up on the run? When should you turn carby heat off? When should you retract flap? What speed should be maintained in a piston twin after TKOF to what height? Is Blue Line a decision speed? When should final flap be selected? What speeds should be maintained in the circuit and where? Can aileron be used approaching the stall in a training aeroplane? Is the Earth Round or Flat? How should I maintain a DME arc? What climb profile should I use in IMC? Is Elle better looking than Mimi? The thing is I KNOW the answer to all these questions (other than the Mimi and Elle thing - still undecided) and I am sure you KNOW the answers to them as well…and they are probably very different. It sucks doesn't it?
Wouldn't it be nice to have an industry standard? Qantas use a different method of Reverse Thrust application to British Airways. They are both very different and they both think that they're right. Is anybody wrong? No. As long as they both have cause and explanation then they're both correct. They have debated, tried and tested various methods and come to a very educated conclusion that fits best with their own operation.
As for cleaning up aircraft to answer your question... What does the flight manual say? I would hate to taxy by the tower with my flaps down and I don't think that Ground would be overly impressed if I taxied around with my transponder on. If at night, other pilots would probably want me dead if I didn't turn off my landing lights and anti-collision lights. I would have a hard time even shutting down some aircraft if I didn't turn off the fuel pump. On the other hand, I would hate to inadvertently select gear up on the runway whilst trying to raise flap....but I probably wouldn't want to leave them down if on a gravel or unsealed runway. Are cowl flaps "cleaning up" because at times I may want to open or close them. Do I set the trim whilst taxying back to the Park or do I leave it until after shutdown when I may forget? Do I double check that Radar is off I do I not bother until shutdown? Should I leave my Autofeather ON? Do you get me point?
The operator SHOULD have prepared a checklist in conjunction with the manufacturer’s checklist that dictates what should be done. Explanation SHOULD be in some other company documentation.
Do you see my point? I apologise if I sound abrupt or rude.
Just remember that you're accountable for everything a pilot does once you have flown with him. Make sure you do it right :-)
I know what you are saying though...
Should you clean up on the run? When should you turn carby heat off? When should you retract flap? What speed should be maintained in a piston twin after TKOF to what height? Is Blue Line a decision speed? When should final flap be selected? What speeds should be maintained in the circuit and where? Can aileron be used approaching the stall in a training aeroplane? Is the Earth Round or Flat? How should I maintain a DME arc? What climb profile should I use in IMC? Is Elle better looking than Mimi? The thing is I KNOW the answer to all these questions (other than the Mimi and Elle thing - still undecided) and I am sure you KNOW the answers to them as well…and they are probably very different. It sucks doesn't it?
Wouldn't it be nice to have an industry standard? Qantas use a different method of Reverse Thrust application to British Airways. They are both very different and they both think that they're right. Is anybody wrong? No. As long as they both have cause and explanation then they're both correct. They have debated, tried and tested various methods and come to a very educated conclusion that fits best with their own operation.
As for cleaning up aircraft to answer your question... What does the flight manual say? I would hate to taxy by the tower with my flaps down and I don't think that Ground would be overly impressed if I taxied around with my transponder on. If at night, other pilots would probably want me dead if I didn't turn off my landing lights and anti-collision lights. I would have a hard time even shutting down some aircraft if I didn't turn off the fuel pump. On the other hand, I would hate to inadvertently select gear up on the runway whilst trying to raise flap....but I probably wouldn't want to leave them down if on a gravel or unsealed runway. Are cowl flaps "cleaning up" because at times I may want to open or close them. Do I set the trim whilst taxying back to the Park or do I leave it until after shutdown when I may forget? Do I double check that Radar is off I do I not bother until shutdown? Should I leave my Autofeather ON? Do you get me point?
The operator SHOULD have prepared a checklist in conjunction with the manufacturer’s checklist that dictates what should be done. Explanation SHOULD be in some other company documentation.
Do you see my point? I apologise if I sound abrupt or rude.
Just remember that you're accountable for everything a pilot does once you have flown with him. Make sure you do it right :-)
Guest
Posts: n/a
New Bloke O.K. I think most of us hear what you are saying and for the most part agree.I will say however that even with 10.000 hrs on ------ types if I turned up at a club unknown and wishing to fly I WOULD EXPECT AT LEAST A QUICK TRIP ROUND THE BLOCK.I WOULD VIEW ANY CLUB RATHER STRANGLEY OTHERWISE. As for lowering flap in the turn I beg you to read my post in Tales from the Old and BOLD in private flying and to try to get out of the habit. Please remember there are rouge instructors as well as rouge pilots all the best M
Guest
Posts: n/a
New Bloke, I agree that your instructor maybe dealt with you a little brusquely, but you need to look at your own attitude too.
Even as a PPL you need to be disciplined and professional but also be flexible and always willing to learn.
Many things change and evolve through the years and in the main this is an improvement.
Accidents happen and procedures and "best practice" is changed to avoid a repeat.
Just because you have been flying for a number of years and have 400 hours (not that many for someone who has been flying a number of years) does not mean what you are doing is the best or safest way to do it.
I believe the reason for not cleaning up on the runway is to avoid accidentally moving the wrong lever (for example moving the gear lever up rather than the flaps lever in a retractable), that sort of thing. To me, good practice says turn off the runway and stop, clean up, contact ground frequency if appropriate or ask the tower for taxi instructions. This is good practice and safe.
I am always open to ideas, I think I can always learn something from an instructor I haven't flown with before. If it is different from what I have done before I need to consider it and understand the reason it is a better way to do it. I would happily discuss it with the instructor. I do not believe in something for the sake of it, other than standardisation amongst instructors, that sort of thing.
So be open minded yourself, be flexible and keep up to date with the latest thinking.
Even as a PPL you need to be disciplined and professional but also be flexible and always willing to learn.
Many things change and evolve through the years and in the main this is an improvement.
Accidents happen and procedures and "best practice" is changed to avoid a repeat.
Just because you have been flying for a number of years and have 400 hours (not that many for someone who has been flying a number of years) does not mean what you are doing is the best or safest way to do it.
I believe the reason for not cleaning up on the runway is to avoid accidentally moving the wrong lever (for example moving the gear lever up rather than the flaps lever in a retractable), that sort of thing. To me, good practice says turn off the runway and stop, clean up, contact ground frequency if appropriate or ask the tower for taxi instructions. This is good practice and safe.
I am always open to ideas, I think I can always learn something from an instructor I haven't flown with before. If it is different from what I have done before I need to consider it and understand the reason it is a better way to do it. I would happily discuss it with the instructor. I do not believe in something for the sake of it, other than standardisation amongst instructors, that sort of thing.
So be open minded yourself, be flexible and keep up to date with the latest thinking.
Moderator
Interesting thread.
SOPs (checklists, operations manuals)are set by the operator (who takes the rap if anything goes wrong) and the owner (who pays for the maintenance) These people's methods should be respected, however silly they may seem, if you want to borrow their precious aeroplane. And they probably have a teensy bit more experience than the average PPL. SOPs are usually developed from the Pilot's operating handbook as the minimum, with owners/operators preferences added on.
If you think you know better than these people then imagine a scenario where you are being interviewed by an insurance assessor. Do you think you can persuade them to pay out for the damage you caused if you did things against the SOPs? Can you justify your actions with "Your Honour" tacked on the end ? Would you expect an instructor to sign you out if they thought it might end up like this?
Usually it's just annoying eg those arrogant "I don't need a checklist" types who usually leave the master switch on. Even something as stupid as that can cost the operators hundreds in terms of loss of income and goodwill from the next bod who wants to use the aircraft.
SOPs (checklists, operations manuals)are set by the operator (who takes the rap if anything goes wrong) and the owner (who pays for the maintenance) These people's methods should be respected, however silly they may seem, if you want to borrow their precious aeroplane. And they probably have a teensy bit more experience than the average PPL. SOPs are usually developed from the Pilot's operating handbook as the minimum, with owners/operators preferences added on.
If you think you know better than these people then imagine a scenario where you are being interviewed by an insurance assessor. Do you think you can persuade them to pay out for the damage you caused if you did things against the SOPs? Can you justify your actions with "Your Honour" tacked on the end ? Would you expect an instructor to sign you out if they thought it might end up like this?
Usually it's just annoying eg those arrogant "I don't need a checklist" types who usually leave the master switch on. Even something as stupid as that can cost the operators hundreds in terms of loss of income and goodwill from the next bod who wants to use the aircraft.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,208
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I find that as long as a guy im checking out is safe then im not to botherd about the company SOP,s as there is more than one way to skin a cat.
However SPO,s on a multi crew aircraft are the base of good CRM and must be used.
I have seen new instructors who aspire to the airlines trying to fly a PA28 as if it was a 747 and i think that this is the root of the problem.
However SPO,s on a multi crew aircraft are the base of good CRM and must be used.
I have seen new instructors who aspire to the airlines trying to fly a PA28 as if it was a 747 and i think that this is the root of the problem.
Guest
Posts: n/a
I think having re-read my original post it does seem a trifle arrogant. “You can’t teach ME anything” is how it comes across and that is my fault. I didn’t mean that and in fact as I am paying you to teach me that would be a stupid attitude and one I don’t have. I took my IMC rating hoping for a bit of paper that lets me fly in marginal weather but ended up as a far better pilot and that was unexpected.
I think I was only referring to non-Safety related issues, but see that even something I consider non-safety relating (lowering flaps in the turn), some people take issue with. I suppose ultimately what I am asking for is standards across the board. If everyone taught to a standard, this problem wouldn’t arise. After all someone (all-be-it 20 years ago) taught me to lower the flaps as I turned onto Base leg. I have been impressed with some of the answers and have certainly re-evaluated MY attitude, just wish all debates on these forum could be so Flame free and well thought out.
Cue for someone to tell me to P*ss off back to the Private Forum
I think I was only referring to non-Safety related issues, but see that even something I consider non-safety relating (lowering flaps in the turn), some people take issue with. I suppose ultimately what I am asking for is standards across the board. If everyone taught to a standard, this problem wouldn’t arise. After all someone (all-be-it 20 years ago) taught me to lower the flaps as I turned onto Base leg. I have been impressed with some of the answers and have certainly re-evaluated MY attitude, just wish all debates on these forum could be so Flame free and well thought out.
Cue for someone to tell me to P*ss off back to the Private Forum
Guest
Posts: n/a
Different instructors learned from different schools and have different standard operating procedures. An experienced instructor will probably tolerate more differences than a new one who only knows one way, but we all have an obligation to point out practices that may be unsafe.
For example, why not raise the flaps on the runway? If after 400 hours you cannot physically prevent your right hand from flicking up the little gray lever on the dashboard as soon as your wheels are down, please don't fly a Beechcraft Duchess. That lever is the gear retract.
If an operator gives me an SOP that I consider safe, legal, and moral, I will do my utmost to follow it. After all, when I'm in a plane I should be thinking about what I'm doing, not just mindlessly doing it.
For example, why not raise the flaps on the runway? If after 400 hours you cannot physically prevent your right hand from flicking up the little gray lever on the dashboard as soon as your wheels are down, please don't fly a Beechcraft Duchess. That lever is the gear retract.
If an operator gives me an SOP that I consider safe, legal, and moral, I will do my utmost to follow it. After all, when I'm in a plane I should be thinking about what I'm doing, not just mindlessly doing it.
Guest
Posts: n/a
A and C, how willing do you think an insurance company will be if a pilot runs out of fuel because he failed to operate to published SOP's? How about if he pranged on landing because he failed to use a profile for landing as detailed in the Ops Manual? The list goes on...
If two private pilots go flying together in a Cherokee then I consider this multi crew. You have the same synergy and dynamic kind of environment. Wouldn't you want both pilots operating to common procedure? Surely so! It really doesn't matter if you have two 15000 hour pilots in a 747 or two 150 hour pilots in a 172, if they do things differently and operate to their own schedule then they compromise safety.
[This message has been edited by Turbine (edited 04 October 2000).]
However SPO,s on a multi crew aircraft are the base of good CRM and must be used.
[This message has been edited by Turbine (edited 04 October 2000).]
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,208
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TURBINE lets start with the top line...."as long as the guy is safe".......and that is what matters i dont give a damm about the so called SOP,s as most i have seen have been folklore that have bee cobbeld together over the years.......how meny times have i seen a PPL holder scrub the tyres in a very tight turn to get the A/C exactly into wind for the run up and yet on the CofA airtest it is recomended that this is done crosswind if conditions are OK (ie not a taildrager in a strong wind)
Or to take your example of running out of fuel if you ask the average club member about leaning the engine most say "not below 3000 ft" and it seems to be some sort of SOP in the local flying clubs,they can only get it from the instructors but its not in the Piper flight manual.
It is infact something that has been passed down from the days of the tiger moth or some such vintage trainer and will leave you 20% short of fuel if you dont lean IAW the flight manual.
As for two PPL,s flying together the aircraft is single pilot so the person in the right seat is a passenger and should not interfear with the flying of the aircraft.
You comments remined me of a conversation i overherd between two young instructors.....a strong wind had changed direction across the two runways and a pilot landed his aircraft into wind on a part of the airfield that was used normaly by gliders as the landing was directly into wind the laning run was short and uneventfull.....one of the instructors remarks to the other that the landing was ilegal because it had not been made on a licenced surface,........i can only think that it would be ok to rip the landing gear off on a licenced surface.
Or to take your example of running out of fuel if you ask the average club member about leaning the engine most say "not below 3000 ft" and it seems to be some sort of SOP in the local flying clubs,they can only get it from the instructors but its not in the Piper flight manual.
It is infact something that has been passed down from the days of the tiger moth or some such vintage trainer and will leave you 20% short of fuel if you dont lean IAW the flight manual.
As for two PPL,s flying together the aircraft is single pilot so the person in the right seat is a passenger and should not interfear with the flying of the aircraft.
You comments remined me of a conversation i overherd between two young instructors.....a strong wind had changed direction across the two runways and a pilot landed his aircraft into wind on a part of the airfield that was used normaly by gliders as the landing was directly into wind the laning run was short and uneventfull.....one of the instructors remarks to the other that the landing was ilegal because it had not been made on a licenced surface,........i can only think that it would be ok to rip the landing gear off on a licenced surface.
Guest
Posts: n/a
This is an interesting thread. I wish all instructors were as calm and rational as the ones contributing here.
Unfortunately, in my experience, some instructors apparently want things done their way simply because it's their way. I have no problem with there not being a cut and dried answer, so long as I'm given an explanation. For instance, to take an earlier example in New Bloke's post, do you put the carb heat back on short final in case you need the extra power for a go-around? I prefer to, but was once told quite categorically that I shouldn't as "you've got enough to do at that point anyway". No you don't, not if you've got everything set up right anyway. But I can see the argument for the other side. It's the attitude of "I know, you don't, so shut up and do it my way" that I'm objecting to. OK, I'm exaggerating, but only very slightly.
Do you think we could make this thread compulsory reading for all flying instructors?
Unfortunately, in my experience, some instructors apparently want things done their way simply because it's their way. I have no problem with there not being a cut and dried answer, so long as I'm given an explanation. For instance, to take an earlier example in New Bloke's post, do you put the carb heat back on short final in case you need the extra power for a go-around? I prefer to, but was once told quite categorically that I shouldn't as "you've got enough to do at that point anyway". No you don't, not if you've got everything set up right anyway. But I can see the argument for the other side. It's the attitude of "I know, you don't, so shut up and do it my way" that I'm objecting to. OK, I'm exaggerating, but only very slightly.
Do you think we could make this thread compulsory reading for all flying instructors?
Guest
Posts: n/a
When two PPLs fly together in a Cherokee, or an instructor flies with a student in a C152, it is a multi crew environment. You have two people who can potentially grab for the throttle, have their feet on the brakes, look up frequencies or hear whether the controller said "left" or "right". There must be a designated PIC, and he should dictate any procedures on which there may be disagreement. That procedure may be, "sit there and don't do anything unless I ask you." He shouldn't have a yelling fit if the other pilot forgets, but the other pilot shouldn't forget. (Flight instructors are allowed to have yelling fits, if they are doing it on purpose, believing that what that student needs at that moment is an intense experience to promote learning. Sometimes one "are you trying to kill us??!!" is more effective than twenty repetitions of "airspeed" or "gear down").
A&C you are so right about "folklore" procedures. "Why is that?" and "Where can I learn more about that?" are good questions to separate the legends from the good ideas.
A&C you are so right about "folklore" procedures. "Why is that?" and "Where can I learn more about that?" are good questions to separate the legends from the good ideas.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Hello again A and C,
There are two types of multi crew. A multi crew aeroplane and a multi crew environment. A multi crew aeroplane is an aircraft that requires two (or more) pilots as per the aircraft’s flight manual and the multi crew environment is a cockpit (or even cabin) with 2 or more pilots on board.
The Cherokee with two private pilots on board is certainly a multi-crew environment. When Luftwaffle wrote "sit there and don't do anything unless I ask you." it wasn’t terribly good CRM but it was CRM non-the less. At least each pilot’s role was defined right from the very beginning.
Although our company operates larger types almost exclusively we also operate a couple of piston twins that obviously only require a single crewmember. If a second crewmember is required to be carried (due to an autopilot requirement etc) then it becomes a multi crew aircraft. Our company has defined and published procedures for each pilot. Not having these procedures and identifying the situation as multi crew environment, and then operating as such, can present dangers that wouldn’t exist if the aircraft was only flown with one crew-member on board. CRM only works when the pilots work at working it. Is the situation any different with two PPL guys in your 172 bashing around on a cross-country? Is it a multi-crew environment when a second pilot is carried on board a Chieftain so the second pilot can fly ICUS? Is it multi-crew when you take a student out to do a session of circuits? Is it multi-crew when you have a pilot dead-heading on a control seat? Is it multi-crew is you carry a second pilot to comply with CAO 20.16 (when carrying in excess of 15pax)? Is it multi-crew when two pilots go out to conduct currency night circuits? Absolutely it is! Do you see my point? Now, if two pilots are going to operate an aeroplane safely and effectively, shouldn’t both those pilots fly the aircraft exactly the same way? Standardisation eliminates the confusion that could otherwise prevail.
Why the hell not?
I was disappointed that you referred to the SOP's as the “so called SOPs”. It's this kind of obvious disregard for company protocol that flows down into your pilots and students.
If my students ask me about something I will make every attempt to discuss it with them and then explain why the company has decided to operate a particular way. I don't necessarily agree with the way something is done but I will teach it non-the less. It is not up to me to change the way in which something is done or taught (in our company) unless I go through the appropriate channels and have the relevant documentation amended. Be very careful what you tell you students because if it is not something that the company endorses then it leaves you totally liable.
A and C, to use your leaning example…You mentioned that leaning should be done above 3000 feet. Why is that? The Piper Flight Manual and POH both recommend that leaning should not be done below 5000 feet. This was (probably) written for American pilots flying in American conditions but if your company decides to do things differently they have to justify and quantify it. Will you not lean a Cessna 310 in the climb immediately after TKOF? A Duke I used to fly would almost run out of fuel even before reaching cruise if it wasn't leaned almost immediately after departure. In Australia you can fly for several thousand kilometres of coastline and not come across any significant terrain - because of this pilots aren't changing altitude nearly as often as pilots flying an equivalent distance in the USA. Our Company manual therefore suggests pilots lean the aircraft whenever possible - regardless of altitude. This is a company decision and not a manufacturer’s recommendation. We decided, after much consideration, that it was the best decision for us to make. All our Instructors operate the same way but they also educate students why things are done in a particular way and the alternative methods available and those methods that are used by both International pilots and local pilots operating differently for different reasons.
This is an interesting thread. We could essentially debate it forever becasue as long as we all follow SOPs, even if we do things differently, we are all correct.
Sorry about the long post.
[This message has been edited by Turbine (edited 06 October 2000).]
As for two PPLs flying together the aircraft is single pilot so the person in the right seat is a passenger and should not interfere with the flying of the aircraft.
The Cherokee with two private pilots on board is certainly a multi-crew environment. When Luftwaffle wrote "sit there and don't do anything unless I ask you." it wasn’t terribly good CRM but it was CRM non-the less. At least each pilot’s role was defined right from the very beginning.
Although our company operates larger types almost exclusively we also operate a couple of piston twins that obviously only require a single crewmember. If a second crewmember is required to be carried (due to an autopilot requirement etc) then it becomes a multi crew aircraft. Our company has defined and published procedures for each pilot. Not having these procedures and identifying the situation as multi crew environment, and then operating as such, can present dangers that wouldn’t exist if the aircraft was only flown with one crew-member on board. CRM only works when the pilots work at working it. Is the situation any different with two PPL guys in your 172 bashing around on a cross-country? Is it a multi-crew environment when a second pilot is carried on board a Chieftain so the second pilot can fly ICUS? Is it multi-crew when you take a student out to do a session of circuits? Is it multi-crew when you have a pilot dead-heading on a control seat? Is it multi-crew is you carry a second pilot to comply with CAO 20.16 (when carrying in excess of 15pax)? Is it multi-crew when two pilots go out to conduct currency night circuits? Absolutely it is! Do you see my point? Now, if two pilots are going to operate an aeroplane safely and effectively, shouldn’t both those pilots fly the aircraft exactly the same way? Standardisation eliminates the confusion that could otherwise prevail.
I don’t give a damn about the so called SOPs
I was disappointed that you referred to the SOP's as the “so called SOPs”. It's this kind of obvious disregard for company protocol that flows down into your pilots and students.
If my students ask me about something I will make every attempt to discuss it with them and then explain why the company has decided to operate a particular way. I don't necessarily agree with the way something is done but I will teach it non-the less. It is not up to me to change the way in which something is done or taught (in our company) unless I go through the appropriate channels and have the relevant documentation amended. Be very careful what you tell you students because if it is not something that the company endorses then it leaves you totally liable.
A and C, to use your leaning example…You mentioned that leaning should be done above 3000 feet. Why is that? The Piper Flight Manual and POH both recommend that leaning should not be done below 5000 feet. This was (probably) written for American pilots flying in American conditions but if your company decides to do things differently they have to justify and quantify it. Will you not lean a Cessna 310 in the climb immediately after TKOF? A Duke I used to fly would almost run out of fuel even before reaching cruise if it wasn't leaned almost immediately after departure. In Australia you can fly for several thousand kilometres of coastline and not come across any significant terrain - because of this pilots aren't changing altitude nearly as often as pilots flying an equivalent distance in the USA. Our Company manual therefore suggests pilots lean the aircraft whenever possible - regardless of altitude. This is a company decision and not a manufacturer’s recommendation. We decided, after much consideration, that it was the best decision for us to make. All our Instructors operate the same way but they also educate students why things are done in a particular way and the alternative methods available and those methods that are used by both International pilots and local pilots operating differently for different reasons.
This is an interesting thread. We could essentially debate it forever becasue as long as we all follow SOPs, even if we do things differently, we are all correct.
Sorry about the long post.
[This message has been edited by Turbine (edited 06 October 2000).]
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,208
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Turbine go back and read the post on leaning one more time.
As for SOP,s i was talking about checking out a PPL holder new to a flying club for single pilot flying not a commercial pilot flying for hire and reward.
but in all flying SOP,s are a place to start not an end in them selves.
As for SOP,s i was talking about checking out a PPL holder new to a flying club for single pilot flying not a commercial pilot flying for hire and reward.
but in all flying SOP,s are a place to start not an end in them selves.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Whirlybird. You miss a very important point in instructional technique - namely - whats right for one student is not right for another. To use your example, a weaker student may be getting a little maxed out on final approach and so the instructor says to ignore carb heat and concentrate on the approach. Another student with more capacity may be told to select cold at 500'. If the RIGHT WAY was ever invented then it would be in a book and being an instructor would simply involve reading and regurgitating the book...
WWW
WWW