Confused-Approaches

[pilotman2105]

Re: Teaching

Yeah, it's stuff like that - low, slow flight in the landing attitude/configuration, down the runway centerline - that you won't find in any FAA Handbook. The FAA Training material is the same today as it was when I started in 1959.

My DE during my CFI checkride mentioned that the FAA would be coming out with a new Airplane Flying Handbook (or maybe it was another similar book) in July.

 

[avbug]

Actually, the FAA changed the major publications considerably just a few years ago.

 

[nosehair]

FAA Training material

Yeah, they changed the name of the "Flight Training Handbook" to "Airplane Flying Handbook". There was absolutely no change in the contents concerning flight training maneuvers. All that I can tell that was changed was that they took out the theory part about aerodynamics. They added some stuff about GPS navigation and radar - a little update on technological improvements, but absolutely no change in the discription of fundamental maneuvers. No FAA publication that I know of actually gets down to the nitty-gritty of teaching basic fundamental control of pitch, roll, and yaw. The "training maneuvers" described in the AFM and in the PTS are maneuvers which, if done correctly, will demonstrate that the pilot applicant does have control of the airplane around it's various axies, but maneuvers designed specifically to develop proper control input to these various forces in a coordinated or uncoordinated manner is not available in an FAA publication that I know of. Probably because of some implication of liability if they said "Fly low and slow".

 

[100LL... Again!]

From a common sense standpoint, if a 121 pilot can log an approach flown on autopilot, a CFII should be able to log one flown by a student. Both situations require awareness and knowledge. "Sole manip" has nothing to do with it, IMHO.

 

[avbug]

Take it up with the FAA Chief Legal Counsel. You should not log your student's approaches for currency.

I've noted that FAA publications have changed and grown considerably in recent years. This includes maintenance and flight training publications. The content has indeed changed. Picked up a copy recently?

 

[nosehair]

FAA Pubs

Yeah, Avbug, FAA pubs in general have changed considerably. I'm talking about the very basic stuff. The stuff every new student reads about in the basic fundamentals in the "Airplane Flying Handbook." That is the book all pilot and flight instructor applicants must know about in the execution of flight maneuvers tested on practical tests. That has not changed. Everthing else has. Everyone thinks that the basics don't change, so no one is looking to change the fundamentals, but the fact is, we are a lot smarter today than we were 50 years ago about safe execution of training maneuvers designed for the individual, not for the masses. The old training mindset is to train to the lowest common denominator - that was the way it had to be in WWII, but now we can approach the individual and train that individual in a lot of better ways than is shown in the old - used to be - Flight Training Handbook.

 

[avbug]

I'm talking about the very basic stuff.

So am I.

The basic FAA flight training publications have changed considerably, from the explaination of ground effect on up. They've become thicker, changed names and have seen considerable content change. Read them.