Pan Am International Flight Academy

[de727ups]

Yo Bobby...

"I do not appreciate that comment whatsoever and take great exception to it."

The last thing I would ever do is piss you off, as you are one of the few I respect around here. And that's based on your years of posting and sound advice. We agree on way more than we disagree on.

I think the burden is on the student to know his stuff....not his CFI. I make every student aware of the PTS and tell him he has to meet that standard. I tell him he must know everything in the ASA oral exam guide. Then, it's up to him to get the job done. That makes it easy for me, as he'll know most of the stuff ahead of time. I really think a guy can learn a great deal without a lot of input from the CFI...but he has to be motivated to do so.

I would never compare a Flight Safety ground school to what your average part 61 guy will learn. Flight Safety wins hands down. At the same time, I think a 61 guy who gets a chance to land on a beach, fly taildraggers off a grass strip, shoots ILS's in fog where you won't see the runway, and fly's with CFI's who have been flying for 30 years, will produce a better hands on pilot than part 141 and Flight Safety.

 

[100LL... Again!]

All OTHER things being equal, 141 has some slight advantages.


Ultimately, a skilled instructor, a dedicated student and a decent syllabus will accomplish the same no matter part 61 or part 141.

 

[bobbysamd]

Knowledge is power

"I do not appreciate that comment whatsoever and take great exception to it."

The last thing I would ever do is piss you off, as you are one of the few I respect around here. And that's based on your years of posting and sound advice. We agree on way more than we disagree on.

I appreciate that.

I think the burden is on the student to know his stuff....not his CFI. I make every student aware of the PTS and tell him he has to meet that standard. I tell him he must know everything in the ASA oral exam guide. Then, it's up to him to get the job done.

And, we agree again. I never liked students whom I had to spoon-feed. Once again, Law of Readiness. But, they're students and they don't know unless they're told. It is up to instructors to get them started, point them along the way, mentor them and guide them.

I would never compare a Flight Safety ground school to what your average part 61 guy will learn. Flight Safety wins hands down.

Good quality ground school is one reason why I like 141. I base it again on my own learning experience. I did a great job on my writtens, but how much did I really learn just from reading books and memorizing the ASA books. I thought I learned a lot and knew a lot. I passed my orals. It became apparent to me later when I encountered 141-trained students how little I really did know. I did attend class for a couple of my ratings. I learned a lot and loved the experience. That's why I am so for formal class for ground school.

As was said on "The Apprentice" the other night, knowledge is power and that power is something that cannot be taken away. It is especially true in aviation that knowledge is power.

FlightSafety ground school was adequate, but was not enough, in my $0.02 opinion. But it was still better than sitting at home, using only a few of your senses, to try to pull out the learning from books.

I think a 61 guy who gets a chance to land on a beach, fly taildraggers off a grass strip, shoots ILS's in fog where you won't see the runway, and fly's with CFI's who have been flying for 30 years, will produce a better hands on pilot than part 141 and Flight Safety.

The lack of IMC in Arizona was recognized at 141 ERAU. So, we took our students to the LA Basin to shoot approaches in the fog. We had to pick up multiple clearances, which was a big challenge to all.

We had many days in Florida when the wx was down. When we could, we took instrument flights in the clouds. My students and I got actual - but not as much as I thought I would when I started at FSI.

Finally, I favor 141 over 61 because good 141 schools strongly emphasize procedures and professional flying techniques. ERAU, FSI and especially MAPD stressed checklists, flows and flying to standards. Once more, I will not state categorically that all Part 61 training is inadequate, because it is not. But a great many Part 61 instructors train students to be Cessna pilots only, while good 141 schools, which may use Cessnas, impart a more professional technique and procedures mentality to their students - which lays a proper foundation for their future flying.

I will give an example. I learned to fly with an instructor who owned a 172. We used the airplane's checklist, so, I learned that you use a checklist. The first time I rented an airplane was from an FBO which had a 141 program. I rented a 172, but the checklist was nothing at all like the Cessna checklist. It was longer, more thorough - and better. Far more professional - which made it clear to me later that the school was training pilots to be professional and not just as private pilots.

 

[Sctt@NJA]

I learned at a 141 school and taught mostly at 61 schools.

I don't really agree with the idea of teaching techniques in small airplanes that don't apply to that airplane. Like my instructor who taught me to do a GUMP check before every landing in a C-152. He did this as a way of peparing me for more complex airplanes. But just think for a second:

G - gas- not an issue in a C152- only one fuel shutoff- if the engine is running its on.

U - undercarriage- down and bolted all the time.

M - mixture- the only item that actually applies.

P - prop- no prop control- why am I doing this?

I did as I was taught and passed it along to my first students until an excellent 61 instructor asked me why I was doing it. We talked about it and I came away with the belief that I have today of teaching methods that are appropriate to the airplane being flown.

I have flown a few different types of jets and turbo props. They all have different methods and flows and systems and checklists. None use "GUMPS"

I think some of the worst checklists I have seen are the longer ones. The ones that try to act as an "instruction" list or a "to do" list rather than a more fitting "check" list.

And I will go way out here on an un-pc limb and say that not all airplanes need to have a written checklist of any kind. I fly a 1946 aeronca champ that doesn't have one. I have thought about making one and realized there is no point. The airplane is just too simple and a simple flow works fine. Well, exept for the starting procedure, but that varies too much depending on circumstances and doesn't lend itself to following along on a checklist:

- tie down tail with rope
- (go to cockpit) mags off, throttle cracked
- prime 3 times if cold
- (go to front of airplane) pull prop through ten times
- (go to cockpit) turn on mags
- (got to front) pull the prop to start
- (go to cockpit) verfiy oil pressure, set at comfortable idle for a bit then reduce to minimum idle
- (go to tail) untie tail making sure airplane doesnt roll away from you.
- hop in

You get the idea. Sometimes knowing what to do and doing it simply makes more sense than reading a checkilist. Oh and the champ eliminates the last remaining useful part of GUMP: No mixture control!

End checklist rant.

 

[bobbysamd]

Big plane procedures in small planes

I learned at a 141 school and taught mostly at 61 schools.

I don't really agree with the idea of teaching techniques in small airplanes that don't apply to that airplane. Like my instructor who taught me to do a GUMP check before every landing in a C-152. He did this as a way of peparing me for more complex airplanes. But just think for a second:

G - gas- not an issue in a C152- only one fuel shutoff- if the engine is running its on.

U - undercarriage- down and bolted all the time.

M - mixture- the only item that actually applies.

P - prop- no prop control- why am I doing this?

I did as I was taught and passed it along to my first students until an excellent 61 instructor asked me why I was doing it. We talked about it and I came away with the belief that I have today of teaching methods that are appropriate to the airplane being flown . . . .

Law of Primacy. The first impression is the lasting impression. Teach it right and learn it right the first time because it is easier and better than unlearning wrong or bad training.

Think about a person's first encounter in a retractable during a high-workload situation. The person might have done fine during his/her high-performance/complex checkout and may continue to do fine. But, in a high-stress-high-workload situation, even with good time in the airplane, he/she may very well revert to how he/she learned the first time (with no GUMPS check) and, guess what?

Teaching GUMPS in a fixed-gear establishes a thought process, and good 141 schools excel at teaching professional piloting thought processes and mindsets. Of course, a Part 61 instructor can and should teach similar thought processes.

 

[Sctt@NJA]

Well you see, we disagree.

I don't believe in teaching rote procedures that have no relevence to a given airplane. I would say this applies the law of primacy in a better way. Students will learn from the begining to fly each airplane in a way that makes sense for that airplane.

I am assuming you don't teach primary students in a C172 to make v1 (take hands off throttle), rotate, v2, positive rate, gear up, call outs like you do in a jet. Why? Because you aren't in a jet and thats not the way you fly a C172.

Most jets use a take-off flap setting... You going to have students use 15 degrees of flaps during normal takeoffs in a C150? So they will be in the habit of doing it when they are in bigger airplanes? I don't think so.

You seem to agree with my old instructor about teaching GUMPS. I don't get it. It doesn't apply very well to most primary trainers, it doesn't apply to most bigger equipment either. So you are teaching to a specific type of airplane (constant speed prop, carburated, retractable gear, piston), not a universal procedure for all airplanes, and its not even an airplane they are currently flying.

 

[bobbysamd]

"Rote" procedures

I am assuming you don't teach primary students in a C172 to make v1 (take hands off throttle), rotate, v2, positive rate, gear up, call outs like you do in a jet. Why? Because you aren't in a jet and thats not the way you fly a C172 . . . .

You seem to agree with my old instructor about teaching GUMPS . . . .

Apparently, I do. No, you do not teach students specifically about V1, Vr and V2 in small airplanes, although we at FSI taught Alitalia students their company callouts (including "full power," "airspeed alive," "rotate," "positive climb," "gear up," etc.) and made them use them, and did the same with MAPD students. But GUMPS is a form of flow, which you do teach and which will serve them down the road to instill a "flow" mentality. Instilling that mentality early will help them during the first "advanced" airplane class.

We taught flows at ERAU. I never heard of the term until I worked there. That's Part 61 for you. As it turned out, we "flowed" 172s and Seminoles; the latter's cockpit layout being especially suited to flows. I heard much later that our Riddle flows were similar to Horizon's.

Finally, I recall the first time I went with a pilot who flew a corporate King Air. I was firmly imbued with the checklist menality - and here's this man firing up a King Air without pulling out and using a checklist! I was horrified. He told me that the checklist was "in his head." This pilot was also a very experienced flight instructor with a good reputation - and, he wasn't using a checklist! I realized much later, after learning about flows at Riddle, that he used a flow to fly his airplane.

 

[philo beddoe]

The gump check is retarded.

It is not 'undercarriage' - it is landing gear.

That's what the airlines call - no positive rate, undercarriage up to be found.

Gas, gear, mixture, prop - that's what I teach.

"Gump" just sounds like something some dufus cooked up to force an acronym where none existed.

I hate acronym nazis- I've watched more students bomb orals using 'tomato flames' than have used it correctly.

Way too rote.


Whew! I feel better now. At my school, gump is verboten!

 

[acaTerry]

I could not agree more with ScottNJA and philo more. A good instructor should set the frame of mind to fly the plane you are in now. Too many accidents occur b/c of " well in the other plane...".

Law of primacy has other considerations here; the student is learning that checklist and procedure can be "modified" as wanted, all in the name of acronyms or some other silly method of making it easier.

Bobby, I have read countless posts of yours and I must say that you are one of the not-too-many guys here that I consider a true aviator. But in this matter I must disagree.

Fly safe

Terry

 

[bobbysamd]

GUMP check

The gump check is retarded . . . . "Gump" just sounds like something some dufus cooked up to force an acronym where none existed . . .

"GUMP" originated during World War II in the Army Air Corps as the pre-landing check in T-6s. So, this predecessor to the USAF was a dufus organization??

Whether you like it or not, "undercarriage" is the British term for landing gear.

I recall reading in Richard Taylor's Fair Weather Flying that the AAC trained a lot of foreign pilots who had poor command of the English language. In particular, Taylor wrote that on a training flight some IP could not convince his foreign student to lower the landing gear. But the student complied promptly when the IP yelled out, "GUMP," GUMP," "GUMP!" and dropped the gear. I guess the acronym did the job in that instance.

It's fine to disagree. But check facts before you sling mud.