The Prediction Principle for CFI's

Dudley Henriques

Pre-takeoff checklist
Joined
Jun 6, 2008
Messages
182
Display Name

Display name:
Dudley Henriques
“The Prediction Principle for New Flight Instructors”
By Dudley Henriques CFI (Retired)

From time to time I’ll do a post on some issue that seems to be a constant in my back channel weekly email.
Lately, I’ve gotten a lot of mail asking about what I consider the optimum method for giving dual.
What follows are my general comments on this issue as I’ve passed them on during my years involved with flight instruction and flight instructors.
Please accept my comments simply as one instructor’s opinion. It’s my sincere hope that some of you thinking about becoming CFI’s might find the information useful.
Thank you

Good teaching in the general sense can arguably be defined as a skill exercised somewhere between science and a finely honed art form.
Rather that state all the qualities that define good teaching, because we’re going to be discussing teaching as that relates to the subject of flight instructors, let’s just assume for the purpose of discussion that for the flight
instructor, all the qualities required of any good teacher also apply to the flight instructor.
There are very distinct differences however, between a classroom environment and the environment we find in the confines of a cramped aircraft cockpit in flight.
Notice I have specifically stated “in flight”. There is a reason for this, and it’s this reason I want to stress to you in this discussion on what I call the “Prediction Principle”.
I think we can all agree that as CFI’s, when we’re teaching a student on the ground such as ground school or a pre-flight or post-flight briefing, the general principles of good teaching shall apply.
But what about the teaching that takes place in the aircraft? Are there any changes in our manner of teaching presentation that will have to take place as we transition into the actual dual session with a student? Are there
any adjustments that we will have to make?

The answer to these questions in my opinion is an unqualified YES! There ARE differences in the way we should approach the manner of presentation in the air as opposed to our presentation on the ground, and it’s this
transition of methodology that I call the Prediction Principle”.
All right, just what is the Prediction Principle and how should it be understood and implemented by a CFI?
In its most oversimplified form, the Prediction Principle in flight instruction is a method of teaching a student pilot to fly by maximizing the confidence of the student through maximum physical interaction by the student
with the airplane and minimum physical intervention by the instructor with the airplane while a dual session is in progress.

The Prediction Principle is NOT the easiest method to master as a flight instructor. It takes great skill to perform properly and requires the development of sound judgment on the part of the instructor using this method to
teach a student.
What the Prediction Principle does do is optimize the instruction equation so that it maximizes the learning curve for the student. It also in my opinion turns out a more confident student.

O.K.; so we’re new CFI’s and we want to try using the Prediction Principle when giving dual. How is this method of teaching any different from what we might do ordinarily?
First of all, we have to thoroughly understand the basic premise for the Prediction Principle, and that premise states that from the moment we get in the airplane with a student, the student will be performing everything necessary to operate the airplane. We as instructors will be monitoring what is happening and correcting as needed with minimal intervention with the controls.
Naturally, we as CFI’s are responsible for the safety of the airplane and the safety of the flight in general. This always is understood and in no way interferes with our teaching method!
The mechanics of the Prediction Principle require minimum physical action with the aircraft by the instructor. This is easy to say, but as you will see, it takes a bit of skill to implement.
I will go so far as to say that in my opinion, the best of the best CFI’s use the Prediction Principle when teaching in the air. Some do it naturally. Others have to be made aware of it’s existence; thus the purpose of this tutorial. It’s a manner of looking at how you teach as a CFI and a roadmap for what’s involved for those willing to learn more about it.

The mechanics of the Prediction Principle;

It’s easy to lump the Prediction Principle into one nice neat little ball and say that what it amounts to is for the instructor to stay ahead of the airplane. That’s a gross understatement of what’s involved. I think we all can safely assume that when giving dual to a student, the instructor has to be ahead of the airplane. The Prediction Principle demands a lot more from the instructor.
Using this method of teaching while in the air with a student, the instructor not only has to be ahead of the airplane, but also now has the added factor of wishing to minimize physical intervention with the student’s flying of the airplane. This can be directly equated into a formula that is based on one side with a verbal command or request by the CFI for an action or corrective action by the student vs. the other side of the equation, which includes an error parameter for the aircraft defining corrective action required within an area based on the present flight dynamics of the aircraft and the projected flight dynamics of the aircraft to a point in space and time where corrective action will be too late.

Basically what this means is that an instructor flying with a student and using a Prediction Principle method of teaching that student will be doing is a job of super monitoring the aircraft’s flight dynamics to the point where verbal interaction with the student will allow time for action or correction of an error before the aircraft reaches a point in time or space where that action won’t solve the issue.
The farther ahead of the airplane’s present flight dynamics the instructor is mentally flying the aircraft, the more effective the instructor’s verbal input to the student will be.
This brings up a VERY important point about the Prediction Principle. That point is that any instructional method stressing a verbal interface over a physical intervention with a student must be completely understood to exist in a cone with the apex of that cone at ground level. The cone represents the real time available for corrective action in an error situation while in flight, and all instructors should be aware that what this means basically is that the higher you are, the more time you have for verbal intervention. This will be made perfectly clear to any new CFI as they attempt their first instruction in landings with a student. 
Just remember, you have to be ahead of the airplane at 1000 feet. At 10 feet in the flare you have to be WAY in front of the airplane  Don’t sweat it however, every GOOD instructor using the Prediction Principle method for giving flight instruction soon learns to handle the situation approaching the ground when teaching landings.
The same theory applies, only the margin for error narrows. The verbal request for action comes sooner, and monitoring of the exact flight dynamics and prediction of the aircraft’s future position in space by the instructor intensifies accordingly.
 
Last edited:
If you're saying that students learn more by doing than by listening, so instructors should do their best to keep students' hands on the controls and their own hands off, I would agree.
 
If you're saying that students learn more by doing than by listening, so instructors should do their best to keep students' hands on the controls and their own hands off, I would agree.

If that's what Dudley said, you sure said it with a few less words!
 
I went to a lecture two weeks ago from Manny Block. He is an old fellow who has been flying since 1964 (1943 depending on what you count).

He wrote a PhD thesis on teaching pilots to land (or more properly
"An analysis of factors involved in teaching pilots to land"). He was an amazing fellow and I wish I had met him 1000 hours ago.

Interestingly he was very focused on primacy of learning, both for the instructor demonstrating and the student performing. His formula had the leaner performing their first landing only many flights into the training. He might have said 10th flight or 10th hour, but my notes weren't crisp. 10 flight may have been his solo mark so don't fault him for my poor recollection.

His reasoning was that he wanted the first imprinted experience to be a strong one. He had a carefully choreographed sequence of what he wanted the learner to understand but that exquisite touchdown was deferred to the point in the training when he "could just about guarantee a good one." He had two points that he wanted from the first flight: can the learner discern that the aimpoint is moving towards and that he is too high and can they see that perspective/peripheral cue that the airplane is just about to touch down on the runway.

I asked him about letting the learner follow on the controls and he said "why in the heck would you want to do that, -- either I am driving or you are"

I thought it was a very interesting philosophy. He was pretty passionate that he could solo CAP cadets on a very routine formula and he turned them out by the flock. Like many of you I was invited to "land" the airplae on my first try and pretty overwhelmed. It may have been that being able to really concentrate while the teacher focused my attention on some targeted observations -- might have saved a few tire changes.

Discussion ...
 
If you're saying that students learn more by doing than by listening, so instructors should do their best to keep students' hands on the controls and their own hands off, I would agree.

The pasted in text on the Prediction Principle is from a formal seminar for CFI's where the why's and how's and most importantly the REASONS behind the concept were being discussed in an open forum after presentation.Brevity most certainly has it's place, and most certainly in the cockpit while giving dual, but when a seminar objective is the changing of basic instruction attitude and method, the more complete the explanation the better the potential to produce a more positive result than a simple reduction to a "do this" format.

Dudley Henriques
 
Last edited:
His reasoning was that he wanted the first imprinted experience to be a strong one. He had a carefully choreographed sequence of what he wanted the learner to understand but that exquisite touchdown was deferred to the point in the training when he "could just about guarantee a good one." He had two points that he wanted from the first flight: can the learner discern that the aimpoint is moving towards and that he is too high and can they see that perspective/peripheral cue that the airplane is just about to touch down on the runway.
I don't necessarily agree with that, but I agree with this...

I asked him about letting the learner follow on the controls and he said "why in the heck would you want to do that, -- either I am driving or you are"
I always thought following through on the the controls was basically useless, at least for me, because you can't feel how much force the other person is using on the controls. If anything, you should be looking outside at the sight picture and trying to duplicate it.
 
Hey Dudley,

Just an aside that has nothing to do with the content of your post, but may I presume that you "cut & pasted" that article of yours into PofA?

Do us all a favor, please, and go back and insert spacing between the paragraphs? It's just plain hard to read long posts that are all run together like that.

We'll all appreciate it, and I'll bet that you get a lot more responses. :yesnod:

I trust you and Bea are well? Mary and I are, of course, going nuts. We're officially "homeless" now, living in the hotel in Iowa City (now that our home is sold) until next Thursday, when we fly Atlas to Texas... :smilewinkgrin:

Best regards,
--
Jay
 
Hey Dudley,

Just an aside that has nothing to do with the content of your post, but may I presume that you "cut & pasted" that article of yours into PofA?

Do us all a favor, please, and go back and insert spacing between the paragraphs? It's just plain hard to read long posts that are all run together like that.

We'll all appreciate it, and I'll bet that you get a lot more responses. :yesnod:

I trust you and Bea are well? Mary and I are, of course, going nuts. We're officially "homeless" now, living in the hotel in Iowa City (now that our home is sold) until next Thursday, when we fly Atlas to Texas... :smilewinkgrin:

Best regards,
--
Jay

Hi Jay;

We're fine. I've been busy with safety issues as usual when Bea doesn't have me doing yard work :)

You're right as rain. I pasted this in from the old lecture sheet which was single spaced. I've gone back and edited it for paragraph spacing.
This issue is something I get asked about quite a lot by new instructors and I just paste it in every two years or so.

I read about the changes going on for you and Mary. I hope it all plays out well in the end. I can only imagine how busy you have to be getting everything sorted out at two ends.
Bea and I send you guys our best. Knowing your propensity for attacking problems I'm seeing it all working out.
As always,
Dudley
 
Thanks for posting this. It's nice to have a thorough description of the primary teaching strategy I've used for years and for it to sound so cool. I've always thought it was a personal crutch I used because I was too lazy to be more systematic and structured during inflight teaching. I wouldn't say that it's the best method but it is good for many students and phases of instruction. I particularly like this passage:

"Basically what this means is that an instructor flying with a student and using a Prediction Principle method of teaching that student will be doing is a job of super monitoring the aircraft’s flight dynamics to the point where verbal interaction with the student will allow time for action or correction of an error before the aircraft reaches a point in time or space where that action won’t solve the issue."

This explains how I can fly with students for a week without hardly ever touching the controls and still improve my own skills markedly by the end of the week. Predicting and super-monitoring enhances ones ability to focus, divide attention, and perceptually "slow down" time in regards to task management.

If you have more information about this "technique" I'd enjoy seeing it. I'd really enjoy participating in research about it too.
 
Thanks for posting this. It's nice to have a thorough description of the primary teaching strategy I've used for years and for it to sound so cool. I've always thought it was a personal crutch I used because I was too lazy to be more systematic and structured during inflight teaching. I wouldn't say that it's the best method but it is good for many students and phases of instruction. I particularly like this passage:

"Basically what this means is that an instructor flying with a student and using a Prediction Principle method of teaching that student will be doing is a job of super monitoring the aircraft’s flight dynamics to the point where verbal interaction with the student will allow time for action or correction of an error before the aircraft reaches a point in time or space where that action won’t solve the issue."

This explains how I can fly with students for a week without hardly ever touching the controls and still improve my own skills markedly by the end of the week. Predicting and super-monitoring enhances ones ability to focus, divide attention, and perceptually "slow down" time in regards to task management.

If you have more information about this "technique" I'd enjoy seeing it. I'd really enjoy participating in research about it too.

Thank you. I'm glad you found it useful.

The way I used to sum all of it up was to point out that every session of dual by a good instructor should be a learning experience for BOTH the instructor and the student; the student having advanced properly through the lesson plan through the innovative and creative teaching of the lesson by the instructor and the instructor having learned from that specific student how to better teach that specific student through interaction with that student.

By approaching instruction in this manner, the instructor is on a constant learning curve resulting in "adjustments" that better reach each individual student based on what the instructor is learning in real time as the learning curve progresses.

In the "simple version" :))))) You learn from the student as the student learns from you.
Dudley Henriques
 
Last edited:
In the "simple version" :))))) You learn from the student as the student learns from you.
Dudley Henriques

I hate that cliche! Reminds me of, "you best teach what you most need to learn" which I hate only slightly less.

Maybe I've been in a cave but I've never run across any other references to the type of teaching you are describing. Yet I immediately understood what you were getting at. I really think more people need to be exposed to it. IF it's being taught to any degree it's probably by osmosis. Having a thorough analysis and understanding of it would be useful in conveying the technique to new instructors in a more effective manner. Please let me know if there is more information, research, or discussion about it anywhere.
 
I hate that cliche! Reminds me of, "you best teach what you most need to learn" which I hate only slightly less.

Not quite the same analogy. "You best teach what you need to learn" directs attention to the subject being taught. As it happens in this case we're focusing more attention on the student's ability to absorb what's being taught.
"Learning from the student while teaching the student is ambiguous as are many of the "short versions" .

The phrase actually directs attention to the instructor performing at 2 levels at one time while giving dual. It's critical to good instruction that instructors fully understand this. While the instructor is teaching, they should as well be observing the student to absorb in real time specific factors pertaining to that exact student's reaction to what's being taught that the instructor can "adjust" to better project what's being taught to that specific student.
One of the prime facets of good flight instruction is knowing up front that although you can teach an individual student using the same method you used on the last student, you can teach them more efficiently treating each student as an individual and gearing your projection to that individual student's ability to absorb. By approaching flight instruction this way you are "learning" from each student as the student is learning from you.
Dudley Henriques
 
Last edited:
Teaching forces the teacher (well, the good ones) to focus on analysis, correction, and appropriate, palatable feedback.

I've coached varsity baseball and basketball, was a HS class room teacher, and a US Army small group instructor for various weapons and tactics.

It's all the same -- you have to research and know to be able to transmit. This improves your own performance.

I coached players who were far better than I will ever be in basketball. But I was able to analyze and correct or approve.

Same goes for flying -- we spend most of the flight time observing. When I correct I also am correcting myself at leats half the time. When I fly solo I hear me chiding me for exceeding the standards I expect for students.

Teach and coach to be better at what you do.

It doesn't mean you will be best -- it just means you will be better than you would have been without the teaching experience.
 
I went to a lecture two weeks ago from Manny Block. He is an old fellow who has been flying since 1964 (1943 depending on what you count).

He wrote a PhD thesis on teaching pilots to land (or more properly
"An analysis of factors involved in teaching pilots to land"). He was an amazing fellow and I wish I had met him 1000 hours ago.

Interestingly he was very focused on primacy of learning, both for the instructor demonstrating and the student performing. His formula had the leaner performing their first landing only many flights into the training. He might have said 10th flight or 10th hour, but my notes weren't crisp. 10 flight may have been his solo mark so don't fault him for my poor recollection.

His reasoning was that he wanted the first imprinted experience to be a strong one. He had a carefully choreographed sequence of what he wanted the learner to understand but that exquisite touchdown was deferred to the point in the training when he "could just about guarantee a good one." He had two points that he wanted from the first flight: can the learner discern that the aimpoint is moving towards and that he is too high and can they see that perspective/peripheral cue that the airplane is just about to touch down on the runway.

I asked him about letting the learner follow on the controls and he said "why in the heck would you want to do that, -- either I am driving or you are"

I thought it was a very interesting philosophy. He was pretty passionate that he could solo CAP cadets on a very routine formula and he turned them out by the flock. Like many of you I was invited to "land" the airplae on my first try and pretty overwhelmed. It may have been that being able to really concentrate while the teacher focused my attention on some targeted observations -- might have saved a few tire changes.

Discussion ...
It's funny because many Instructors go back and forth on how to do take offs and landings with students. We currently have 3 CFIs on staff and quickly noted that each one of us taught differently. One day we sat down with each other and talked one another through how we would conduct landing practice. It was a good learning tool because if another instructor went up with one of my students on a stage check, he would know what to expect.

I've also encountered different perspectives as far as programs. One program says that the main focus of the beggining stage is not to learn takeoffs landings at all, therefore the instructor should do them and the student should only follow along. Now you have to be careful how you interpret that. The way I took it was that the student "wont be learning take offs landings in the beginning because thats too hard" I took it offensively because I know how quickly some of my students have picked up the concepts. Not only that, take offs and landings are the most fun. I would hate it if my CFI said I couldn't do the take off and landings. I modified the thought process and talk them through it before we practice as well as assist/talk during practice. It's worked out well for me as has it for many others. My understanding is that the program is trying to emphasis the basics of a beginner such as straight and level, climbs, descents, turns etc. but the learning should not have a "start" and "stop" time, nor can you enforce something silly like that in the learning process. Students are always learning no matter how overwhelming it may be in the beginning...as it should be.

Also, as far as the "keeping the hands off until necessary," I think that was my biggest challenge as an instructor. You know how to do a perfect landing and its a little frustrating when they aren't getting it....especially when you find the ground and the gear is still shaking on takeoff. Thank god for strong gear! I've had both experiences when I shouldn't have touched the controls and others when I probably should have. Just like students, Instructors have learning curves too! I must be doing something right though, I just had another solo about a week ago.
 
"While the instructor is teaching, they should as well be observing the student to absorb in real time specific factors pertaining to that exact student's reaction to what's being taught that the instructor can "adjust" to better project what's being taught to that specific student."

Nice


"By approaching flight instruction this way you are "learning" from each student as the student is learning from you."

I see now why that cliche seems incomplete to me. It sort of implies that they are learning the same basic lessons. Some elements are the same but what the instructor is learning is actually more involved, by an order of magnitude perhaps.

I'm realizing through this analysis that THIS is what I enjoy about flight instructing. My most rewarding moments have been coaching a first off-airport landing without touching the controls and formation thermalling with 2 students, one in the front seat and one in another glider over the radio. That is what I call a good time!
 
"While the instructor is teaching, they should as well be observing the student to absorb in real time specific factors pertaining to that exact student's reaction to what's being taught that the instructor can "adjust" to better project what's being taught to that specific student."

Nice


"By approaching flight instruction this way you are "learning" from each student as the student is learning from you."

I see now why that cliche seems incomplete to me. It sort of implies that they are learning the same basic lessons. Some elements are the same but what the instructor is learning is actually more involved, by an order of magnitude perhaps.

I'm realizing through this analysis that THIS is what I enjoy about flight instructing. My most rewarding moments have been coaching a first off-airport landing without touching the controls and formation thermalling with 2 students, one in the front seat and one in another glider over the radio. That is what I call a good time!

You might be interested in reading a white paper I did last month on request of the European Air Show Council for their annual convention in Hasselt Belgium.
The subject matter addresses human factors and flight safety for air show display pilots, and deals directly with basic instruction as a contributor to flight safety.
I'll be happy to send you a copy if you would like to read it. This same white paper will be read by proxy to the annual safety workshop for test pilots and display pilots in South Africa next month, and is to be released by the International Air Show Council later this month.
dhenriques@rcn.com
 
You might be interested in reading a white paper I did last month on request of the European Air Show Council for their annual convention in Hasselt Belgium.


Indeed I would be. That is, assuming it's not written in Belgian!

My email is wby0nder at AOL dot Com. Note the 0 in wby0nder is a zero.

Anything you might have on the prediction principal in addition to what you've posted here would also be appreciated.

Thanks!
Matt
 
You might be interested in reading a white paper I did last month on request of the European Air Show Council for their annual convention in Hasselt Belgium.


Indeed I would be. That is, assuming it's not written in Belgian!

My email is wby0nder at AOL dot Com. Note the 0 in wby0nder is a zero.

Anything you might have on the prediction principal in addition to what you've posted here would also be appreciated.

Thanks!
Matt

Back channel email on the way.
DH
 
Back
Top