Pan Am International Flight Academy

[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.

 

[User546]

Well, Pan Am still isn't a good place to go - Still run away from it like someone threw a hand grenade at you!

 

[philo beddoe]

Bobbysamd-

I said 'sounds like'

And that's what it sounded like to me.

Since we are not training to fly british fighters, I am more content with the term 'landing gear' due to it's greater applicability to future employment positions for most of us.

Why train a term you will never use at an airline or in any crew environment?

 

[bobbysamd]

GUMP and dufus organizations

I said 'sounds like'

And that's what it sounded like to me.

Lame response in the face of facts. Whatever . . . .

Since we are not training to fly british fighters, I am more content with the term 'landing gear' due to it's greater applicability to future employment positions for most of us.

Why train a term you will never use at an airline or in any crew environment?

Reread what I wrote, above. I made no reference to training people to fly "British Fighters;" I referred only to T-6s. And, T-6s were advanced trainers that led to a variety of AAC equipment. It was the U.S. Army Air Corps which used the term.

And, once more, GUMP is a flow. Should we not teach flows? Obviously, in the example cited above, GUMP worked. Finally, MAPD, which uses the line-oriented flight training philosophy to train its students (read "airline") used a variation of GUMP to train its ab initio A36 Bonanza students. C-GUMP, with the "C" directing the pilot to check cowl flap position, open or closed. C-GUMP was used before all maneuvers, stalls and MCAS, and before landing. While some would argue that Mesa Airlines is a dufus organization, its flight school certainly is not. Undoubtedly there are other schools and instructors of whom you and I have never heard who teach GUMP and other acronyms/flows. I stand by my opinion.

 

[Sctt@NJA]

Well heck, if you are teaching primary students in a Bonanza then GUMP, GUMPS, or C-GUMP makes a lot more sense than it does for a basic primary trainer like a C152. My initial diatribe only used GUMP as an example of what it is I really take issue with... That is teaching procedures that don't make sense for the airplane being flown.

The other side of the coin are the instructors who DON"T teach appropriate procedures because even though it works well in a small airplane its not something you would do in an airliner.. like forward slips. I think most instructors teach these but I know there are some who don't.

 

[Lucky]

Pan Am Thread

Take a look at this site. Alot of Pan Am Info


http://jetcareers.com/forums/postlist.php?Cat=&Board=UBB22

 

[bobbysamd]

Procedures and line mentality v. airmanship

The other side of the coin are the instructors who DON"T teach appropriate procedures because even though it works well in a small airplane its not something you would do in an airliner.. like forward slips. I think most instructors teach these but I know there are some who don't.

. . . . which makes no sense whatsoever. Forward slips are basic airmanship and should be part of every pilot's knowledge - from glider pilot, where forward slips are part of his/her bread-and-butter, through ATP.

For that matter, same for power-off gliding approaches. A heavy jet will glide like a rock - but the same principles of holding best glide, trimming and flying the airplane - still apply.

The issue is teaching procedures v. teaching airmanship. Every pilot needs to be a good airman.

 

[wheelsup]

Actually Bobby, MAPD no longer uses C-GUMP before landing. It is used for the manuvers though.

Procedures for landing are all memorized for students though, and I totally agree with what they're doing. As someone else mentioned, airlines don't do GUMPS! I hated doing GUMPS 3 times before landing, and found it hilarious when other instructors tried to teach students in a 152/172 the gumps deal at my old part 61 school!

MAPD puts gear down entering downwind, then rechecks it down with a flow pattern while turning final - that's it!

[rant mode on]

I don't belive they've had a human error gear up EVER! AND GUESS WHAT fellas! NO GUMPS!

[rant mode off]

ASU started something called MTCASE, not really sure what it's all about.


cya
~wheelsup

 

[bobbysamd]

Mapd C-gumps

MAPD no longer uses C-GUMP before landing. It is used for the manuvers though . . . . MAPD puts gear down entering downwind, then rechecks it down with a flow pattern while turning final - that's it!

(emphasis added)

Good and helpful comment. Obviously, it correlates with a real Mesa line procedure somewhere, which is what MAPD flight training is all about.

Having said that, I appreciate that airlines do not "GUMP." However, what is not being understood is with few exceptions most pilots work in a lot of intermediate jobs before airlines hire them. Some of these jobs include single-pilot operations in hard IFR and/or flying different equipment. In some of these jobs, the initial training is subpar. These pilots are not that experienced. If you equip them with a good, standardized flow, chances are, when push comes to shove and they're in a high-workload situation, they will react exactly as they were trained the first time and will be less likely to make mistakes. I feel that teaching "GUMP" early accomplishes that goal.

 

[philo beddoe]

You're lame calling me lame. So there!

We certainly don't GUMP at the airlines.
And I said "GUMP sounds stupid" and contrived. You just don't like disagreement. GUMP all you like. I don't use it at the flight school or the airline.

 

[bobbysamd]

"To GUMP or not to GUMP . . . ."

You're lame calling me lame. So there!

Did I not write, above,

Lame response in the face of facts . . . .

No mention of "you" in that comment.

You just don't like disagreement. GUMP all you like . . . .

Did I not write, above,

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

And, GUMP, I shall. GUMP, you shall not. Once more, I stand by my opinion. Finally, I would respectfully suggest that you read up a little with an open mind on line-oriented flight training (LOFT).