NDB approaches

[uscpilot]

siucavflight,
Why do instructors feel the need not to try to load a student up, and test their limits? Should you teach that emergencies happen only one at a time? And as far as the gear goes, who really cares if it goes down or not? For that very reason it is a good idea to include it. If the student gets distracted by the gear the instructor can inform him or her that it is not necessary in this situation, and can only distract from flying single engine at or above the aircrafts published single engine service celing.

If I were the instructor I would applaud the student for trying to reduce the workload by using the GPS, or requesting a PAR, good aeronautical decision making. I would then inform him that his GPS just died and the radar sight is down for maintence. Sadistic? Unrealistic? Improbable? All the above. But it will make a better pilot. Not somebody that expects emergencies to happen one at a time. I would not want somebody to be complacent and not expect the sh!t to hit the fan again after they have already delt with one emergency.

Is the origional situation "real life"? No, of course not. That does not mean that on occasion that you should not test a students limits. Granted these things work best in a simulator, but not all schools have them, so you have to do the best with what you have. It should also not be done on a daily basis, just thrown in once or twice towards the end of training.

Our company will occasionaly give sim rides during recurrency training. The purpose of these rides is to test the pilots limits. They will fail all sorts of things until you either crash or land the plane. Few land it. Its not a pass fail sort of thing. It just keeps you on your toes, and tests your limits. (I realize this was not really relivant to our discussion, I just saw somebody early in the thread challanging the notion of companies killing people in the sim.)

 

[ktulu34535]

a reading from the bible...

"Normal individuals begin to respond rapidly and exactly, within the limits of their experience and training. Many responses are automatic, which points out the need for proper training in emergency operations prior to an actual emergency. "

~~Aviation Instructors Handbook

 

[Toy Soldier]

ktulu34535


Very eloquently put!

As I say, there is nothing like knowing "the rules". After all, smarter people than us wrote them...

 

[80/20]

I like the simple-to-complex building block system and try to avoid unanticipated events training until normal and non-normal exercises can be handled individually. The first block is to teach anticipated events where you will notify the student about a task that will be introduced. The student will then practice with instructor guidance and intervention. The second block is to give the same anticipated task but without instructor intervention. The third block is to give unanticipated tasks or problems. This should only be given after the first two building blocks are mastered. A lesson's workload should be adjusted to the student's level but still include as many real-world, operational elements as possible. As students become more skilled the workload may be increase. If time permits I guess you could eventually introduce multiple unrealistic problems.

How far should we "raise the bar?
Should we go above and beyond the minimum requirement?
Should we give the test before the lesson?
I would say that we should only go above when we have covered the basics properly first. There is little training value for a student to be totally task saturated with multiple new emergencies. The student's wishes and budget should be considered. A student who is planning to take the multi in minimum time will most likely need most of the time to learn the basics properly first.

 

[siucavflight]

I teach for a flight school in central iowa. I am going to give one of my students this exact ssituation and see what the student does. I will do it in our schools seminole, and report the results to you guys tomorrow. My bet is that i am going to get an earful from my student.

 

[bobbysamd]

Amen

Besides if you can do an ADF approach engine out, all the other approaches are a snap.

At least someone "gets it."

As noted above, an engine-out, single-engine NDB, partial panel approach would still be realistic in many parts of the world. The students who whine about them are missing the point. The idea is to mold their mindset into not freaking out if confronted by a multiple emergency.

A pilot's career begins at his/her training provider. I'd rather learn how to multitask now during a school training flight in a Seminole, Baron, etc., with my friendly instructor who wants to see me succeed instead of having them sprung on me during regional airline sim. Regional airline sim is stressful enough without that additional stress.

I have a vague recollection that when I was at Riddle we were finally told not to give students multiple emergencies. Someone there whined, I'm sure.

 

[Thedude]

Can someone tell me what a master CFI is??? Thats a new one one me

 

[Gulfstream 200]

Its someone who has spent WAAAY too much time Flight Instructing..

 

[Airpiraterob]

sorry for this one...

but to backtrack.....but i gotta help wherever i might be able to. i had to experience the more common sense approach with the equipment i was working with. it worked very well.

someone mentioned the possible scenario and chain of events leading up to the situation of being inside the marker partial panel engine out and gear failure in bad weather high altitude and icing with the boots on? (must be accumulation if theyre on right?) well.....who said go around? the reality is this...

yes that chain of events can definitly happen in that order percieved...engine out (it was near TBO anyway)...overload and loose the good generator (its not a new one anyway), electric becomes drained quickly (that battery isnt exactly new). and heres why..

your P.O.H. is LYING to you. believe it or not its your choice but...
--do you actually believe that your several thousand hour of piston twin will perform just like it did when new?....nope. its used and has many many many landings on it. its not exactly "straight" anymore. not many are.
--do you believe that your battery power will last as long as the book says with no alts/gens?....nope, try half that time for real.
--do you believe that your plane will perform on one engine like it does in training?..nope, outta try it at max weight full of fuel sometime and then watch yourself sink to the crash site. not all planes are old junk. theres nice ones out there...but none of them are new enough, and none-of us come close to flying like test pilots.

just as an example of the real world finally catching up to me:

i turned one off at high altitude (17k). i could not maintain altitude on the remaining angine and went all the way down to a "quickly picked" diversionary airport. i was at 95% max weight. anything at near full load will not hold altitude until you get close to the ground...i wasnt even holding it when i got down to 6k msl.

the lucky part is that the one good hydraulic pump left (powered the gear) was aparently the lesser performing of the two on the plane (one on each engine). so the gear came down slow and i could hardly steer off the runway. some kind of valve was sticking. it wasnt all bad at once...it was one after the other tho but i saw right then the good reason for practicing compounded failures within reason. what would have happened if the gear didnt come down? well if i was in good ole icing i would have bellied it in...no way i could have carried that much weight AND ICE and have hoped to climb out on the missed....one hinting buffet of a stall like that and youre planting it in the gradeschool next door.

im not into bragging at all. in fact i hate to do it. but if anything that I went through can help you figure out any kind of training technique or step here and there...then im glad i could have helped.

so beware even though you most likely wont get the multiple compound fracture scenario in an airplane, eventually something close to it will bite you sometime. you will have to make that decision now how to prepare for it. engine out and partial panel cause the good vaccuum pump was on the bad engine and the older pump on the good engine just sucks? oh yeah it can happen. and now the gear wont come down? well having practiced that sort of thing before you're now AHEAD of the plane rather than just WITH at the time of happening and can notice a few more things to take care of ....again having practiced it before. dont roll your eyes at the instructor...this is what youre training for. fly long enough and the unexpected bad will happen. so its best to be able to conquor anything the plane can give you instead of just damage management.

practice the multiple failures hardcore so that any other individual failure is a cakewalk. absolutely right Bobbysamd....someone did finally get it. ( you go rick..)

 

[80/20]

Cueboat, you started a very good and interesting discussion!
Could you expand a bit on how you organize the training?
(Just briefly)
How many hours do you have available?
Which order do you teach the PTS and additional items (basics/emergencies/multiple emergencies)?
Do you bring your students to PTS level first and then go above and beyond?