Flight training

[Richard]

The Learning to Trim thread got me started...

I know this has been hashed about many times. How much is enough? Put another way, is what you get enough? Of course, I have in mind flight training, specifically how much the CFI and/or syllabus provides to the student.

Take my IR, as example. Having heard how difficult this rating can be and cognizant of the fact that the training period was the best time to learn all there is to learn I decided I wanted to proceed slowly through the rating. I did not want to rush it.

So what did I get? Measured by if I felt confident flying to mins with my family aboard, I would say yes. But would they want to fly with me again because of the wayward app likely to occur because we hadn't spent much time on energy management during the IR training? Is it even fair to expect that kind of advanced knowledge? Remember, I wanted to slow down for the IR so as to get a firm grip on what was required.

Shouldn't training be more? In the IR example, shouldn't it be more than learning the ways of THE SYSTEM? I suppose that is where IFR magazine comes in, but....

Will this devolve into a 'blame the CFI' thang? Could it be said, by even bringing this up, that I am blaming others?

 

[Michael]

Good question Richard. i would like to see more hours being mandatory, some of these schools passing students trhough at 40 hours just scares me. I think it was just starting to make sence to me at 40 hours.

 

[Dave Krall CFII]

If the CFI needs the money, then the student/pilot needs the training.

....What ?!!

 

[Richard]

If the CFI needs the money, then the student/pilot needs the training.

Sure beats the heck out of the starry-eyed CFI who just learned he was accepted by the airlines.

....What ?!!

At least you had the guts to say it.

 

[Dave Krall CFII]

Good question Richard. i would like to see more hours being mandatory, some of these schools passing students trhough at 40 hours just scares me. I think it was just starting to make sence to me at 40 hours.

OTH:
I've had a number of flight students get through with 43 hours and they were quite good pilots for beginners. Then others with twice as much hours still weren't as good. The number of hours is just a gross way to measure time in the air, not really quality.

As had been said by others before,
"It's not the hours, it's what you did & flew in those hours."

 

[Dave Krall CFII]

Sure beats the heck out of the starry-eyed CFI who just learned he was accepted by the airlines.

At least you had the guts to say it.

If I want to get some practice in, a workout such as you outlined is great.

If I want to get past a CFI checkout, I just learn as quickly as possible what THAT particular CFI wants to see then do it exactly as they like so that I'm done with 'em ASAP and they're off my checking account ASAP.

 

[Richard]

If I want to get some practice in, a workout such as you outlined is great.

If I want to get past a CFI checkout, I just learn as quickly as possible what THAT particular CFI wants to see then do it exactly as they like so that I'm done with 'em ASAP and they're off my checking account ASAP.

What about the student's desire to prolong the instruction in order to acquire the most amount of information possible? The logical extension of that is that we are forever learning but is that realm of instruction best left to specialty courses such as Morey's or Rich Stowell?

 

[Dave Krall CFII]

What about the student's desire to prolong the instruction in order to acquire the most amount of information possible??

That's fine, there's a few of those flyers around and they usually make great pilots.

The logical extension of that is that we are forever learning but is that realm of instruction best left to specialty courses such as Morey's or Rich Stowell?

If they've used up what that particular CFI's got, then move on. I don't recall those two you mention specifically but they must have something to offer.

For slightly more experienced pilots, consider the benefits of checking out a new model aircraft, with a new CFI, at a new club, by doing ones IFR currency or such, under the hood or actual except for short final to LDGs.
The concomitant pressures involved although artificially induced, can be mind expanding.

 

[Richard]

The concomitant pressures involved although artificially induced, can be mind expanding.

Daymn, it sounds like you're well on your way into the wknd. True, there is a special zen-like quality to IFR flying.

 

[Dave Krall CFII]

Daymn, it sounds like you're well on your way into the wknd. True, there is a special zen-like quality to IFR flying.

Actually it's more like I do those occasional high pressure training flights to save money FOR the weekend but the sense of accomplishment when completed to the PTS is nice too. CFIs usually don't really like it too much 'cause the dual is all over with so soon.

still,

...to become one with the aircraft...

 

[RotaryWingBob]

I'm sorry, but I must be missing something here. I do recurrent training when I think I need it. I have no problems with the CFI's I use for that. Once more, am I missing something?

 

[spiderweb]

It is never enough!

The whole attitude is wrong. Students want to get their CFIs out of the plane as quickly as possible, and CFIs want them out as soon as they feel they are reasonably safe. (Would YOU want to be the CFI that takes 100 hours to train someone to PTS?)

Students who learn in 40 hours, in two months, may be a good stick and have knowledge but the do not have experience. Let me repeat that: they do NOT have experience. In the music world, student X may get to a very high level twice as quickly as student Y, but if Y gives 20 performances on the way to X's level who only gave 10 performance, then X has more experience. Therefore, X, although slower than Y, is better experienced. (And also E=MCsquared.)

I will now expound upon the wondrous greatness of my slowness. I was a 100+ hour, 22-month student; yes, I was. But I learned in a class B, through two sets of seasons, and had a variety of experiences along the way. There wasn't much I hadn't encountered (except for emergencies) when I shook the DPE's hand the day I received my certificate. Mostly, I had requested the extra practice, and I enjoyed it, too.

Mind you, in comparison, the IR trainng was positively terse--I did it in a little bit over a year, and about 60 training hours. (That part is harder to say, though, because I logged about 100 hours during the duration of the training, and my solo "fun" flights, though not actually IR training hours were, no doubt, in some way helpful to the training.) Train out of Class B! Do it! Get your PPL there and you won't fear the mic. You shouldn't fear the procedure, either.

I haven't had a lesson in a few months, and I feel postively antsy. I must start the twin training in a couple of months. Ooh, or maybe I'll do that Garmin 1000 checkout. Or maybe I'll just do the commercial. . . . After that, there is only one written and one practical for my CFI! (Yep--no FOI test required for me!)

 

[Richard]

I'm sorry, but I must be missing something here. I do recurrent training when I think I need it. I have no problems with the CFI's I use for that. Once more, am I missing something?

Recurrent training, properly done, is worth it's weight in gold. But it has to build on something. And that something is often insubstantial in the primary training environment. Primary in this case refers to initial training and not specifically to the PPL.

I don't think an increase in number of hours is the complete answer, more to the point is the quality of instruction in those hours.

For my complex/HP my CFI wanted to make a couple long XC flights. I rejected that by reasoning there would be much more learning by making a high number of takeoffs and landings, climbs and descents. He didn't like that but finally acquiesced. Why was this a problem? Seems to me he was looking for the easiest way to get through those hours even though it would be shortchanging the student.

 

[Dave Krall CFII]

Recurrent training, properly done, is worth it's weight in gold. But it has to build on something. And that something is often insubstantial in the primary training environment. Primary in this case refers to initial training and not specifically to the PPL.

I don't think an increase in number of hours is the complete answer, more to the point is the quality of instruction in those hours.

For my complex/HP my CFI wanted to make a couple long XC flights. I rejected that by reasoning there would be much more learning by making a high number of takeoffs and landings, climbs and descents. He didn't like that but finally acquiesced. Why was this a problem? Seems to me he was looking for the easiest way to get through those hours even though it would be shortchanging the student.

You're probably right about the CFI wanting to make it quick & easy with the HP XCs.

I often do those HP checkout and PPL XCs a little different though, flying from airport to airport (they're sometimes quite close together) up & down ALT, zig zaging NAV, etc. PLUS, all kinds of airwork on any and all legs that might offer any breathing room at all for the pilot with of course simulated emergencies here and there.

These type of XC flights to new airports are very demanding with no deadhead time whatsoever and I think quite educational.

 

[Richard]

You're probably right about the CFI wanting to make it quick & easy with the HP XCs.

I often do those HP checkout and PPL XCs a little different though, flying from airport to airport (they're sometimes quite close together) up & down ALT, zig zaging NAV, etc. PLUS, all kinds of airwork on any and all legs that might offer any breathing room at all for the pilot with of course simulated emergencies here and there.

These type of XC flights to new airports are very demanding with no deadhead time whatsoever and I think quite educational.

And your students probably dread flying with you. But your very best student would be the one who knows the difference because he has suffered through inferior instruction prior to coming to you.

 

[Dave Krall CFII]

And your students probably dread flying with you. But your very best student would be the one who knows the difference because he has suffered through inferior instruction prior to coming to you.

Some are totally new to flight training and assume all CFIs are like me ! In any case, if they get over worked we can kick back and cruise a while or something less demanding. They're all there because they wannabe and I tailor the lessons to them as individuals. They can also ride back seat and observe what another student is going through at a similar or different phase of training.

Even though usually very demanding, it's almost always fun and always a bit of an adventure.

 

[Richard]

Some are totally new to flight training and assume all CFIs are like me ! In any case, if they get over worked we can kick back and cruise a while or something less demanding. They're all there because they wannabe and I tailor the lessons to them as individuals. They can also ride back seat and observe what another student is going through at a similar or different phase of training.

Even though usually very demanding, it's almost always fun and always a bit of an adventure.

Dave, it sounds like you're ready to put together your own version of Morey's west coast adventure.

 

[Dave Krall CFII]

Dave, it sounds like you're ready to put together your own version of Morey's west coast adventure.

I'll have to check that Morey's website out but I already get the feeling it's the type of things I've been flying with students since the early 90s.
We did a pacific coast trip to Copalis Beach WA and filming a student doing soft field LDGs on the beach sand yesterday at low tide for my website, mountainflyingvideos.com.

Used an old wheel pantsed C150 "Commuter" with GPS in absolutely great condition that cruised 104 knots the whole time !

 

[wesleyj]

I returned to instructing after an abscence of 10 years, boy what a shock, i have found the in order to properly instruct most IR candidates, i have had to go back to basics and retrain,

they have no concept of attitude flying, no concept of proper cockpit management and no idea what a stabilized approach is,

the lack of basic skills in todays pilots is a travesty, without their full panels and GPS they are lost.

i dont know for sure who is to blame, but i really have to wonder how some of these managed to get past the examiner and obtain their PPL.

 

[Dave Krall CFII]

I returned to instructing after an abscence of 10 years, boy what a shock, i have found the in order to properly instruct most IR candidates, i have had to go back to basics and retrain,

they have no concept of attitude flying, no concept of proper cockpit management and no idea what a stabilized approach is,

the lack of basic skills in todays pilots is a travesty, without their full panels and GPS they are lost.

i dont know for sure who is to blame, but i really have to wonder how some of these managed to get past the examiner and obtain their PPL.

IFR flight candidates still have to do as much and more than they ever did to demonstrate competency. If they choose to let their skills perish after the rating then that's their decision.

 

[Henning]

The Learning to Trim thread got me started...

I know this has been hashed about many times. How much is enough? Put another way, is what you get enough? Of course, I have in mind flight training, specifically how much the CFI and/or syllabus provides to the student.

Take my IR, as example. Having heard how difficult this rating can be and cognizant of the fact that the training period was the best time to learn all there is to learn I decided I wanted to proceed slowly through the rating. I did not want to rush it.

So what did I get? Measured by if I felt confident flying to mins with my family aboard, I would say yes. But would they want to fly with me again because of the wayward app likely to occur because we hadn't spent much time on energy management during the IR training? Is it even fair to expect that kind of advanced knowledge? Remember, I wanted to slow down for the IR so as to get a firm grip on what was required.

Shouldn't training be more? In the IR example, shouldn't it be more than learning the ways of THE SYSTEM? I suppose that is where IFR magazine comes in, but....

Will this devolve into a 'blame the CFI' thang? Could it be said, by even bringing this up, that I am blaming others?

Energy management is the primary key to any flying. This is something you should have worked out yourself in those hours between PP before IR. If you were lacking there, the CFII should have hashed it out with you during those initial Attitude Flying drills during your IR training.

I've seen this often times with "extended training" regimes, you don't get the "feel" for things as quickly as with intensive training because you have to spend too much time relearning what you forgot (especially muscle memory) since last time.

 

[Dave Krall CFII]

Energy management is the primary key to any flying. This is something you should have worked out yourself in those hours between PP before IR. If you were lacking there, the CFII should have hashed it out with you during those initial Attitude Flying drills during your IR training.

I've seen this often times with "extended training" regimes, you don't get the "feel" for things as quickly as with intensive training because you have to spend too much time relearning what you forgot (especially muscle memory) since last time.

And then there's those vehment and vocal opponents of intensive flight training that feel pilots can't retain the skills unless spaced out over more time. I've learned with and taught with both shedules, whether separately or in combination, and have seen it boil down mainly student motivation and apptitude combined with available time windows for the full training curriculum.

 

[MauleSkinner]

For my complex/HP my CFI wanted to make a couple long XC flights. I rejected that by reasoning there would be much more learning by making a high number of takeoffs and landings, climbs and descents. He didn't like that but finally acquiesced. Why was this a problem? Seems to me he was looking for the easiest way to get through those hours even though it would be shortchanging the student.

I don't know about "long" XC flights, but one of the biggest problems I see in pilots flying high performance airplanes is a lack of engine management skills...I think you DO need to get up into a normal enroute altitude, set up for cruise, stay there long enough to lean the engine(s) properly and stabilize, then properly plan and execute your descent, approach, and landing.

I used to fly with a fairly experienced pilot in a turbocharged twin who would take care of the engines right up until the final approach segment...then full flaps on about 3 mile final would require 29-30" of manifold pressure, which was, of course, reduced rapidly to idle on short final. They had all kinds of engine maintenance that suddenly stopped when I started flying the airplane. I guess they got a bad batch of parts or something

Fly safe!

David

 

[Henning]

And then there's those vehment and vocal opponents of intensive flight training that feel pilots can't retain the skills unless spaced out over more time. I've learned with and taught with both shedules, whether separately or in combination, and have seen it boil down mainly student motivation and apptitude combined with available time windows for the full training curriculum.

Yeah, I've heard and considered the arguement against, and I'm not convinced. Retention, I find as well as you state, is highly dependant personal motiviation, although it is also heavily determinant on continuation of use after training. A person who took 40 hrs across a year to do their instrument rating is no more likely a year after their rating to remember things than the person who did their 40 hrs across 10 days a year after getting rated if they have not used it. As to muscle memory, kinetic and visual perspective judgement, I think intense training is better for.

 

[Dave Krall CFII]

Yeah, I've heard and considered the arguement against, and I'm not convinced. Retention, I find as well as you state, is highly dependant personal motiviation, although it is also heavily determinant on continuation of use after training. A person who took 40 hrs across a year to do their instrument rating is no more likely a year after their rating to remember things than the person who did their 40 hrs across 10 days a year after getting rated if they have not used it. As to muscle memory, kinetic and visual perspective judgement, I think intense training is better for.

No matter how one aquires them they are perishable skills all of them, no doubt.

The higher the quality and frequency of the between flight lessons reflective periods or "cerebral hangar flying" if you will is a big factor too.