Airsickness

[PHXAvi8tor]

The weight-and-balance topic is a good one. I suggest we start a different thread on it, so that continued discussion can focus on it.

For now, if folks don't mind, I had another thought on the airsickness issue.

Maybe I'm the one making my student sick! Now, there's a thought.

As much as any of us hate criticism (and I have been overly sensitive to it in the past), I need to open up the doors to the possibility that I have become an ineffective instructor.

Maybe I'm failing to teach properly. Maybe that's why he can't learn. And, then he gets up in the air, fails, feels self-imposed pressure (I am sure I am keeping the flight environment positive, at least!), and then he shuts down.

Reason: Have been working on my Double II for what seems like an eternity. I am discovering that topics I thought I was really good at teaching, really need some brush-up, or even some downright rework. Of course, that's what happens when you go for a new rating, you find areas for improvement. But, I am feeling like a pretty lousy instructor about now -- what with one student who seems to be failing miserably, and my own instructor telling me that some of my teaching techniques suck.

 

[PHXAvi8tor]

Go dig around in the AIH under Law of Readiness, Defense Mechanisms (esp. Flight), and Anxiety and Stress (Ch 2).

Very good. Yes, in my own deep concern over this student, I completely forgot to go back to the basics of educational psychology as it applies to flight training. It's a reminder that, as an instructor, we can forget to see the forest for the trees.

You raise a very good point, and the Aviation Instructors Handbook contains some great material on this very topic. I think I have been overcomplicating this and trying too hard.

 

[PHXAvi8tor]

This ain't the military. When you have that chat, do so in a way which does not apply additional stress unless it is your intent to wash him out.

As much as I love Henning, I have to agree with Ron on this one. The kid has a bright future, and we have to give him every chance to succeed.

But, I will say, as I've said before, after we have given him every chance possible -- and also ruled out that it isn't the result of me being ineffective! -- then we can proceed to wash him out, as we are required to do for safety reasons. That's the ultimate last step, though, and one we'd rather not have to take unless safety is truly at stake.

 

[PHXAvi8tor]

Are you kidding? With what you just added to the pot? This kid is most likely never going to be suitable for command, and he will probably need a pshrink to stand even a chance. You need to tell him that before you take another dime from him. Professional Ethics, remember, you're a pilot, you gotta keep your kharma squared up. You are doing him no favors by continuing without laying everything on the table. If it was me in your position, the next dime I took before I told him what I thought would be theft. ....

Already have formalized it with two letters to the student and parents. Both in training records. Took care of those issues right off the bat. But, thanks.

 

[jmaynard]

As much as I love Henning, I have to agree with Ron on this one. The kid has a bright future, and we have to give him every chance to succeed.

But, I will say, as I've said before, after we have given him every chance possible -- and also ruled out that it isn't the result of me being ineffective! -- then we can proceed to wash him out, as we are required to do for safety reasons. That's the ultimate last step, though, and one we'd rather not have to take unless safety is truly at stake.

This is where I sit, as well. We owe it to him and ourselves to give him every chance possible to succeed. Heck, you might even send him up with another instructor, just to see if you're missing something that the other guy could catch.

Henning seems to me to be far too quick to run the guy off the airport. If that's not what you had in mind, then I apologize for my earlier comments.

 

[bbchien]

The sargeant described by John Baker knew instinctively that 90% of airsickness can be trained out. In those 90% it's a learned response. What the Sarge did was put John into a completely new situation- no learned responses.

I don't suggest doing this, but I can tell you early on I wasn't much of a sea officer until "up it came" and then I was fine. Lots of others have similar stories as well.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

The kids I'm training have military and commercial pilot aspirations, and you can bet your butt they are required to ensure nothing has changed with respect to weight-and-balance before each and every single flight.

What about this particular one? Where does he want to go with it? If he really wants to be a commercial or especially a military pilot, he's going to have to shape up and start preparing better all around!

 

[PHXAvi8tor]

What about this particular one? Where does he want to go with it? If he really wants to be a commercial or especially a military pilot, he's going to have to shape up and start preparing better all around!

Air Force! (Dang, I was a Navy guy, myself.)

 

[PHXAvi8tor]

The sargeant described by John Baker knew instinctively that 90% of airsickness can be trained out. In those 90% it's a learned response. What the Sarge did was put John into a completely new situation- no learned responses.

I don't suggest doing this, but I can tell you early on I wasn't much of a sea officer until "up it came" and then I was fine. Lots of others have similar stories as well.

I liked Mr. Baker's story. There are some civilian parallels and truths in there, for certain.

 

[Henning]

This ain't the military. When you have that chat, do so in a way which does not apply additional stress unless it is your intent to wash him out.

I disagree, he needs to want it bad enough to prove you wrong. Any less level of commitment will be less likely to succeed. Aviation is an expensive thing, not really cheaper than therapy, and therapy won't typically kill you. He needs to be supremely motivated to make it (not the physical flying part, the mental part), normal motivation levels won't suffice.

 

[Henning]

The sargeant described by John Baker knew instinctively that 90% of airsickness can be trained out. In those 90% it's a learned response. What the Sarge did was put John into a completely new situation- no learned responses.

I don't suggest doing this, but I can tell you early on I wasn't much of a sea officer until "up it came" and then I was fine. Lots of others have similar stories as well.

Lord Admiral Nelson was sea sick for the first three days of every voyage.

 

[Henning]

Already have formalized it with two letters to the student and parents. Both in training records. Took care of those issues right off the bat. But, thanks.

Good, your covered. Is he really thinking Air Force? Why?

 

[jesse]

Not necessarily. In a large fleet, like where I train, where we have several dozen aircraft, the W&B of a plane can change overnight due to a maintenance issue.

Provided you're not huge..and the student isn't huge..and it's something like a 172 I simply don't see how maintenance could do something "overnight" that would push you outside the W&B.

Now..there is no way you'd know what maintenance did unless you did this weight and balance everytime *BASED* on the W&B sheet from the airplane. Do you seriously have your students grab the W&B sheet from the airplane and do a full W&B before every flight based on that sheet?

 

[RogerT]

Have him fly with another CFI just for a different perspective on his
performance and the airsickness.

The unwillingness to study and be prepared is a big issue and seems
to indicate a lack of focus and desire to do this. If he can't do that
at this level .. I'd doubt his ability to see it thru.

RT

 

[dmccormack]

That is incorrect, it is what we must do to those incapable of operating safely as PIC. What we don't need is another statistic. Every time someone manages to kill themselves and family, someone is pushing a new rule or restriction or other agenda further limiting GA. We have to police ourselves. My approach will put in no uncertain terms what will happen if they don't correct this issue, and it is an issue that is not always correctable....

We Army Officer Candidate School TAC officers would try to predict by day 2 who would be with us and who would not by graduation (washout rate was 60-70%). There were certain key indicators, but these were not necessarily "take charge leader type."

But our predictions weren't 100% -- and after a couple of classes passed through I realized that many of the best candidates had qualities that weren't readily observed.

New TACS would pick the bodybuilder/beastly types as "That guy will pass no problem."

While in fact the super-stud type often washed out early -- they were not used to being told they were failing this, that, and the other thing, had too much body mass to carry around on road marches and runs, and were offended that some skinny kid was actually a better performer.

Some of the intelligent types were smart enough in the small circle they had been exposed to prior to OCS, but stumbled when confronted by many people as smart or smarter (and we TACS were pretty smart).

So be careful with first impressions or even second or third impressions. Certainly a student pilot must eventually learn to become PIC and manage stress and all the rest, but they don't have to be Chuck Yeager to fly a 152.

In fact, on discovery flights I assure prospective students that if he/she can drive on a busy road and talk on a cell phone they have the mental and physical coordination required to fly an airplane.

This removes the stupid "right stuff" question brooding in the mind of too many prospective pilots.

Back to the OP subject in the thread -- this kid needs to grow up. If he wants to pay for you to teach him how to be mature, then as long as he knows there's a cost involved, so be it.

 

[PHXAvi8tor]

Provided you're not huge..and the student isn't huge..and it's something like a 172 I simply don't see how maintenance could do something "overnight" that would push you outside the W&B.

Now..there is no way you'd know what maintenance did unless you did this weight and balance everytime *BASED* on the W&B sheet from the airplane. Do you seriously have your students grab the W&B sheet from the airplane and do a full W&B before every flight based on that sheet?

Absolutely, yes.

Especially so if they are planning a flight fully-loaded, where even a mere few pounds can make the critical difference between a safe takeoff and a crash.

Have you ever seen an overloaded, or improperly loaded plane, crash? Hopefully not.

The carnage is sickening.

This is a very tragic scenario - and simply inexcusable -- since it is a very preventable tragedy if the pilot would only take the 30 extra seconds to check everything before walking out to the ramp.

I will not discuss this any further. Safety comes first, and you cannot rationalize it away. Rationalization at the expense of safety, to create a convenient situation, should be listed among the hazardous attitudes listed in the FAA flight-training handbooks (PHAK and IFH, for starters). I am sure it falls under the category of "impulsivity" in the list of the 5 attitudes. Any PIC who gets into a crash, and actually manages to survive, and later is found to have not done a proper weight and balance, should have the book thrown at them and criminal charges, including negligence, filed.

Did I state it strongly enough?

LIVES are at stake here. You go kill yourself. But, if you kill your passengers or people on the ground, shame on you. IF you survive -- even if it means you are talking via a respirator in a hospital bed -- you better be able to prove you did a proper weight-and-balance. Let's not quibble over the finer details of when to do a weight and balance. The only thing that matters is that one -- and a proper one -- was done in a reasonable time frame immediately preceding the flight in question, such that an old dusty 1-week-old weight-and-balance from a completely different flight to a different airport under different conditions was not being used for the particular flight that resulted in a crash. Got it? You can start with 14 CFR 91.103, just for starters.

(A parallelism is weather: HOW are you going to prove you got a valid weather briefing after you flew into a snowstorm VFR and later were busted for not being on an IFR flight plan?! You better have some paper trail defined. Do you know how to do that? An FSS briefing or a DUAT(S) briefing? It doesn't take any longer than scanning weather.com, but it makes all the difference in the world!!)

Now, can we get back to the original question: It was how to deal with airsickness in students. I have found a great deal out since the first posting.

 

[gprellwitz]

Ben, I've got to disagree a little here. If it's just going to be me flying in a 182, I know that there's really no way that I'm going to be out of W&B. There's really no way that any maintenance, etc. is goig to change the parameters enough that I'm going to have an issue. OTOH, if it's me and Leslie and enough luggage for a week and full tanks, then I'll be doing a W&B calc specifically for that flight; especially if density altitude's likely to be an issue.

I hope this doesn't mean you're going to take back my FR!

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Absolutely, yes.

Especially so if they are planning a flight fully-loaded, where even a mere few pounds can make the critical difference between a safe takeoff and a crash.

Okay, I've gotta disagree just a bit here.

If a few pounds makes the difference, the "safe" takeoff was on the bleeding edge and I will say that it doesn't fit my definition of safe.

*Maintenance* is not going to make a difference in W&B unless something was replaced with an unlike part. This usually involves equipment upgrades, STC's, etc. "Maintenance" means, take out broken part and replace with identical variety of part in non-broken form.

I can see how a school with 30 172's might make this a little bit of an issue, but do the students actually fly all of them? It seems to me that most students settle on a "favorite" plane and fly that one as much as they can. If they're flying that plane, and they just flew it a couple days ago, and they're on an instructional flight with well-known parameters, and they're nowhere near the limits - I think it's a little bit much to say "you have to do the EXACT weight and balance, again."

I will not discuss this any further. Safety comes first, and you cannot rationalize it away. Rationalization at the expense of safety, to create a convenient situation, should be listed among the hazardous attitudes listed in the FAA flight-training handbooks (PHAK and IFH, for starters). I am sure it falls under the category of "impulsivity" in the list of the 5 attitudes. Any PIC who gets into a crash, and actually manages to survive, and later is found to have not done a proper weight and balance, should have the book thrown at them and criminal charges, including negligence, filed.

Actually, I will state that being as anal as you are (sorry, that's how I see it) about weight and balance may cause the student to be LESS safe.

Hear me out here: Two scenarios.

Scenario 1: CFI teaches pilot about weight and balance, and has pilot calculate weight and balance in a particular airplane for several different scenarios, and plot the result on the W&B envelope graph to see how various loads affect W&B. CFI also teaches student to *think* about weight and balance on every flight, and to calculate it precisely if there is any shadow of a doubt that it may be anywhere near the limits. Student thinks about W&B on the way to the airport, and if he's got any concerns, calculates it out.

Scenario 2: CFI teaches pilot that you MUST calculate W&B, no matter what, on every flight, to the exact pound and inch-pound. And calculate EXACT takeoff performance, EXACT climb performance, EXACT this, EXACT that. Student plays along until after the checkride, takes a few flights where he does all that stuff and the plane flies the same way it flew before. Then he goes to take a few of his buddies flying. By this point, he's tired of all of the "homework" involved in flying. The plane flew just fine every time, even when he skimped on a few calculations the last couple of flights. So, he thinks, "forget what my CFI said, he was just making me do busywork - The plane always flies just fine no matter what I do." So, he loads all his buddies into the plane, takes off overweight in a high-DA situation, stalls on departure and we have another "4 fatal" NTSB report.

You cannot teach away human nature, and humans are lazy. So, IMHO, your students will be safer if you teach them when those calculations are most important, and WHY, and make sure they at least *think* about it every flight, than they will if you just pound it into their heads with the "do this" mentality.

Not a CFI, but I did train a lot of truck drivers, and have seen the results of the "do this" variety of teaching...

Edit: Just an addition. The student *should* be able to answer correctly when you get into the plane after he preflights and ask "so, what about our weight and balance? Is it OK?" Or, replace performance for W&B, etc. If he says "Yes, I already calculated it for this plane, our weights, and the same amount of fuel last week, and the W&B numbers in the POH are the same as they were then, so we're well within the envelope" then you don't need to make him work it out again. Likewise, if you ask "So, what about density altitude?" and he answers "Well, we're using a 6,000 foot runway which is longer than anything listed in the performance charts, and I will abort the takeoff if we're not off the ground in 3,000 feet because even that will indicate that something is seriously wrong" then he has satisfied the burden of 91.103, AND showed that he understands what's going on behind the numbers and isn't just plugging things into a chart.

 

[AuntPeggy]

And this question may point out an area of contention between instructor and student. Possibly a culture/personality clash.

 

[Everskyward]

And this question may point out an area of contention between instructor and student. Possibly a culture/personality clash.

Exactly. It isn't the weight and balance issue in itself that is the problem, it's the instructor's reaction. "OMG we're going to die because we're a few pounds off on the calculation!" would probably cause any new student to be nervous and sick. There's a way to state things without going over the top.

 

[gprellwitz]

Exactly. It isn't the weight and balance issue in itself that is the problem, it's the instructor's reaction. "OMG we're going to die because we're a few pounds off on the calculation!" would probably cause any new student to be nervous and sick. There's a way to state things without going over the top.

Well, I can say that when I flew with Ben he certainly didn't seem to go over the top.

 

[Henning]

Well, I can say that when I flew with Ben he certainly didn't seem to go over the top.

Me neither...

 

[Everskyward]

Well, I can say that when I flew with Ben he certainly didn't seem to go over the top.

The only thing I have to go by is post #56.

 

[Henning]

The only thing I have to go by is post #56.

An interesting post, though I doubt he approached the student in that manner. If he did, that would indeed be inappropriate and over the top for a first offense. However, for repeat offenses and patterns of behavior, there comes a point where one may need to be dramatically assertive. W&B is a serious issue. It's simple to do, yet, if you look through the NTSB records, it becomes obvious that it is still a major factor in the chain of events in not an insignificant number of accidents.

Initially issues should be pointed out and handled in a low key informative manner, and having spent some time with Ben flying across the desert in a Cherokee 140, my guess is he had done so on several occasions over this and/or other similar matters. He's a pretty rooted and mellow guy.

 

[jesse]

Sigh..To each their own..But I can tell you that there is no way I'm going to do a weight and balance every single day for the exact same airplane when I'm operating in a very safe area of the envelope and way under gross.

Maintenance isn't going to do anything on a 172 that is going to push a normal sized student and a normal sized instructor out of the envelope or over weight. If this happens they seriously busted the airplane, like, forgot to put the engine back on it.

One must be realistic.....If you're operating with an unfamiliar loading, by all means, do a W&B else you might kill your fool self. If you're operating in a very known loading...I can tell you if I'm flying a 172 and I'm in a known safe W&B and just flew the airplane like that the day before and the instructor tried to make me do another full W&B (using numbers FROM airplane..not some generic sheet) for an obviously known safe condition that the instructor knows is safe would be the last day I ever flew with said instructor.

 

[Henning]

Sigh..To each their own..But I can tell you that there is no way I'm going to do a weight and balance every single day for the exact same airplane when I'm operating in a very safe area of the envelope and way under gross.

And you shouldn't have to either. However, if the training assignment directed you to do the W&B and then you just copy an old one because it's the same info, that's a different issue. If I tell you to do a W&B and you say "look, I've worked this all through for this plane and as long as I have <give a rundown of set of known good loading parameters> we're well within the envelope. Ok, I'm hip, now I throw him something that falls outside the parameters, watch him work through it confidently and correctly, probably wouldn't mention W&B again till check ride prep. You try to sneakily cheat me out of what I instructed I wanted, we're going to have problems. On boats when someone thinks they're smarter than me and can shortcut my instructions without checking with me, they spend 8hrs in the bilge with a needle gun.... that's for a first offense. Third offense they go home.

 

[Trapper John]

Absolutely, yes.

Especially so if they are planning a flight fully-loaded, where even a mere few pounds can make the critical difference between a safe takeoff and a crash.

Have you ever seen an overloaded, or improperly loaded plane, crash? Hopefully not.

The carnage is sickening.

Over-the-top stuff like this is a disservice to students, if that's how you're approaching the subject.

You can go to any FSDO and get a special ferry permit to operate a C-172 at 130% of normal category gross weight within the normal CG range. It's not going to fall out of the sky.


Trapper John

 

[Everskyward]

If I tell you to do a W&B and you say "look, I've worked this all through for this plane and as long as I have <give a rundown of set of known good loading parameters> we're well within the envelope. Ok, I'm hip, now I throw him something that falls outside the parameters, watch him work through it confidently and correctly, probably wouldn't mention W&B again till check ride prep. You try to sneakily cheat me out of what I instructed I wanted, we're going to have problems.

I agree with all of that, however when Jesse asked this...

Do you seriously have your students grab the W&B sheet from the airplane and do a full W&B before every flight based on that sheet?

The answer was this...

Absolutely, yes.

Especially so if they are planning a flight fully-loaded, where even a mere few pounds can make the critical difference between a safe takeoff and a crash.

Have you ever seen an overloaded, or improperly loaded plane, crash? Hopefully not.

The carnage is sickening.

If the school requires a new W&B for every flight then that's what the student should do if they want a passing grade. However, it's a different thing to say that the airplane is going to fall out of the sky if you have it loaded similarly to other flights and you don't do one.

 

[dmccormack]

If the school requires a new W&B for every flight then that's what the student should do if they want a passing grade. However, it's a different thing to say that the airplane is going to fall out of the sky if you have it loaded similarly to other flights and you don't do one.

God summary of this thread, but I think there's an apples/oranges dynamic here...

Do experienced pilots flying familiar airplanes with familiar loading in ordinary conditions need to calculate W&B each time they fly?

Right -- stupid question. No one is pushing that agenda.

But -- if the student is taking shortcuts, intentionally avoiding the work, waving off critical pre-flight considerations -- then he needs to be counselled and corrected (in a way appropriate to the relationship) and required to completed the requisite work before each flight until the thought process that includes the W&B is internalized.

That's why I have some early-stage primary students tell me what they are thinking about doing next, or explain what they are about to do -- it makes them articulate which forces clarity.

Later on that process becomes intenalized and is apparent in the performance.

Anyway, if the 5th grade homework loser behavior continues it's time for him to find another instructor.

 

[KennyFlys]

I understand the need to clearly understand a weight and balance, how to calculate one, adjust for weight shifts, issues with extreme CGs, etc. But, to push it every flight? That may be a bit much. There are other things I want that student better prepared for during each lesson.

Now, how about teaching the student to go to the source of all aircraft weight sheets and look for changes? Some schools keep all W&B sheets in a single binder at the dispatch desk. We keep them in the POH as well as a separate binder that includes the flight log, VOR log, discrepancy log, etc.

I'd think time would be better spent on other items and just make W&B a periodical visit after the initial ground lesson on the subject along with cross country flights.

 

[rottydaddy]

The student *should* be able to answer correctly when you get into the plane after he preflights and ask "so, what about our weight and balance? Is it OK?" Or, replace performance for W&B, etc. If he says "Yes, I already calculated it for this plane, our weights, and the same amount of fuel last week, and the W&B numbers in the POH are the same as they were then, so we're well within the envelope" then you don't need to make him work it out again. Likewise, if you ask "So, what about density altitude?" and he answers "Well, we're using a 6,000 foot runway which is longer than anything listed in the performance charts, and I will abort the takeoff if we're not off the ground in 3,000 feet because even that will indicate that something is seriously wrong" then he has satisfied the burden of 91.103, AND showed that he understands what's going on behind the numbers and isn't just plugging things into a chart.

This conversation is eerily familiar... all of my primary instructors were inclined to test me in just that way. I could always provide similar answers. I would always be reminded, though, to check the performance tables and do a W&B calculation now and then just for the hell of it. I suppose doing it every time really keeps your brain limbered up for the process, but if it's not necessary and you could prove it, it's not a big deal.
The most important thing, I think, is pausing to consider those two factors. You shouldn't skip that, ever. Next in line is deciding to actually check it if there is any doubt whatsoever. Common sense.