Simulated Problems While Instructing

[flywithastick]

I'm looking for some creative ideas to safely simulate problems while training. I only instruct recip powered GA, so suggestions related to this would be most helpful. stories about others would be interesting to hear though.

I'm up with the basics of pulling the mixture, breakers, fuses, opening doors, etc. How about some more agressive and unusual ones.

Keeping these folks on their toes with problems other than the standard simulated failures may help them one day if a real one occurs, not to mention improving their chances on a c-ride.

No safety lectures please. Thanks in advance.

 

[172driver]

Turn a set of mags off.

Make them try to land with failed ailerons, rudder, elevator, flaps, trim. Not all at the same time please.

Unplug their headset and make them enter the pattern at a towered field for light gun signals. Do the same at an uncontrolled field. You'll be surprised how panicked they get when they can't talk to you or anyone else.

Broken throttle cable. They are stuck at x amount of MP/RPM.

 

[tdvalve]

Just my humble opinion, but take it for whatever it's worth:

There should be no "tricks" at all during flight instruction. You're not there to see if you can pull one over on the student, you're there to teach. Hopefully, both you and the student will have studied a curriculum that lists the maneuvers and procedures for each segment of training. Certainly emergency procedures are part of training. However, they're not there so you can play "gotcha". The emergency and the expected corrective action should be discussed on the ground and demonstrated in flight before expecting the student to handle it.

Circuit breakers, fuses, etc are not switches. Be extremely prudent about routinely using them during training scenarios.

If you don't want to hear anything about safety, you're definitely in the wrong occupation. Your students will naturally think your methods are normal and will follow your lead long after they've left your supervision.

 

[A1FlyBoy]

"You'll be suprised how panicked they get when they can't talk to you or anyone else."

Are you speaking of ATC, the pilot, or both? <smirk>



when I've been in the tower ATC expressed they really like to get a lil practice in with the light gun during low volume traffic. Keeps em sharp too.

 

[flywithastick]

There should be no "tricks" at all during flight instruction.

Please don't get hung up on semantics. I believe I clearly conveyed my intent. I'm looking for ideas where I can realistically simulate problems with little student anticipation.

You're not there to see if you can pull one over on the student, you're there to teach.

An instructor's ability to safely demonstrate a problem, with as much realism as possible, is one of the most important facets of flight training.

However, they're not there so you can play "gotcha". The emergency and the expected corrective action should be discussed on the ground and demonstrated in flight before expecting the student to handle it.

I didn't say this ground training would not occur.

Circuit breakers, fuses, etc are not switches. Be extremely prudent about routinely using them during training scenarios.

I'm prudent with all actions taken while flying pesonally or while instructing. This is one of the reasons I chose to ask for suggestions and thoughts on this topic here.

If you don't want to hear anything about safety, you're definitely in the wrong occupation.

Please read what I wrote. I asked to not receive any lectures. I welcome helpful suggestions and tips, just save me the diatribes. Regarding safety, I make it quite clear to my students that simulated problems and distractions will occur while training with me. I also make it clear that I will in no way place them, me or the plane in danger at any time. I hope they do take my methods and attitude with them after leaving my supervision.

Thanks.

 

[tdvalve]

Your student is paying a pile of money to learn how to safely fly an aircraft. People a lot smarter and more experienced than me (and you) have determined the maneuvers and procedures that best prepare a student for accomplishing this. If you're deviating from an established lesson plan you're either taking away time from another subject or you're costing the student extra money. An emergency procedure that's not in the curriculum should occur only when an incorrect action by the student naturally leads to the new emergency.

PS: A C-152 will kill you just as dead as will a B-747.

 

[FlyinBrian]

Safely but realistically simulating abnormalities is definitely part of being an instructor. I agree with the poster who said that you shouldn't play "gotcha!" I have know instructors who will pull stupid things the very first time that they simulate an emergency. They do this to try to show the student how cool they are. It's conter-productive, and and probably means that the instructor is not comfortable in his own abilities as an instructor.

The first time you simulate an engine failure, you get to a really high altitude and just tell the student: "I am going to simulate an engine failure by retarding the throttle to idle." Then you do it, and ask them to walk through the procedure step by step.

Once they have built up more proficiency, then you can start to get a little creative and challenge the student. It really isn't a real good simulation to just retard the throttle, because the student knows what's goin on as soon as you reach for the throttle. Using the mixture isn't any different because they still see your hand pull something back on the throttle quadrant.

Once during each student's training, It may be beneficial to shut the fuel off to simulate an engine failure. I would only do this at high altitude and near a suitable landing spot such as an agricultural strip. You can distract the student by asking if they see some traffic off left, and when they look over, shut off the fuel and return your hands to wherever they would normally be. The engine will continue to run for a bit and then die. The student will not have seen you do anything, Have them complete the procedure, which will involve an engine restart. You will also learn which students actually do an engine restart, and which ones just tap the fuel selector without even looking at it. As soon as they turn the fuel back on, wait for the engine to start and then retard the throttle so the student can finish the procedure.

I realize that there is a chance that you could get a vapor lock that would prevent an engine restart. It isn't likely, but it's possible. If this happens, the instructor would take control of the aircraft and make a landing in the pre-determined landing spot.

This is a procedure would be done only once with each student because it allows them to experience the heart-sink and temporary panic that happens when your engine quits. I think it is a good experience for the student.

 

[ECEx]

TRICKS of the trade

dear flywithastick, when i first began instructing, i would sometimes receive what i will call cast-off students from other instructors. you know the ones, the retards. i was always so disgusted that, A. nobody had weeded these people out of the flight school yet, and B., for those who had some hope of passing a check-ride, how they had been failed and neglected by their previous instructors. for either group, i would give serious simulated failures as those mentioned above, beyond the standard, "oops, your instructor just retarded the throttle and will give it back no matter what 500' agl." i found a borderline abandoned airport, turf, with tall grass that i would set them up to land on. this place was such a hole in the wall that if you didn't know it was an airport, you would never guess it was. the students were always so suprised when i didn't give the the trottle back and the emergency approach ended up in an honest to god soft-field landing. on of my more retarded students said the following after landing, and seeing the only aircraft "based" at this airport (a 1946 j-3 with a$$ high weeds all around it), "look, somebody else had engine trouble here too!" eventually i began to do this at least once with all students, the good, the bad, and the ugly. i would always tell them that they had just killed us or that they were a hero and had saved the day. additionally, i also will stop the prop on short final as a distraction once in a while. i am not the best instructor in the world, but i darn sure want to know that my students know the drill on emergencies. while it may not constitute the majority of the dual my students receive, emergency procedures of ALL types are a large % of our time spent in the air and on the ground.

 

[Mickey]

I'm not a big fan of actually shutting down a single engine airplane for shock value to the student. I've heard of too many incidents where the engine wouldn't restart and the outcome bent metal. In twins you only simulate a failure at lower altitudes by regulation and for safety. A few thoughts. There are safer ways to prepare your student. Remember, it's all about risk management. Try not to add too much to the equation. Take care.

 

[TXCAP4228]

Several months ago I was doing a BFR and the CFI I was with briefed me on the upwind that the next landing would be no flaps. He elaborated on the downwind that I was not to descend below 1500 feet until he said so because he wanted to see a good forward slip.

While I was preparing myself mentally for what I was going to do he pulled the power back to idle, looked over at me and said "Forget everything I just told you, it was a distraction. You have just lost your engine. Please land the airplane."

It was totally unexpected. It worked. I think its a great "trick."

The point is, give the student something to think about as a distraction (like an emergency), and then give them another emergency. You will surprise them every time - and that's the idea.

 

[Brother Francis]

1) 141 school I used to work for had spins in the curriculum. 2 or 3 lessons after the student was proficient at recovery, and after reviewing spin entry and recovery in the pre-brief and advising we would review it in flight as well, I would kick a rudder at the break during a departure stall, inducing a spin entry.

Aside fron the advantage to them of having to deal with an unexpected sudden and critical situation, the real value was the "real world" implications if this situation were to occur inadvertantly after they were out from under my wing. I would point out the altitude loss in the recovery and call their attention to the agl altitude where this situation was likely to occur in the real world and the bgl altitude where they would end up if it did. It was very effective at teaching stall awareness and avoidance.

I would then promise never to do that again to them and extracted a promise they would not narc to the other students.

2) Real world unusual attitude recovery. I used this when the students were nearing the end of their training. This only works at night when the a/c can be placed on a heading where there are no ground lights in view. May work over water day or night.

With emphasis during the pre-brief on use of instruments for UA recovery, without the hood I would induce several attitudes with the city lights of PHX clearly visible. Of course, the student recovered accurately and easily using the lights as a visual reference. When I was satisfied they were comfortable with how easy this was, I would turn the a/c away from the city and induce an attitude (nose up with an overcast, nose down without).

When told to recover, they would confidently look out the window for their horizon reference and find a blank screen. After a moment's hesitation, and maybe a friendly reminder if it was longer than a moment, they would return to the instruments for recovery.

 

[ECEx]

stop prop

hey mick, didn't mean to imply that i'm out stopping props in an uncontrolled/ less than clinical method, and not with just any student.

 

[Brother Francis]

One more

3) On pre-solo students, pop a door at rotation. Be ready to take the controls, though. In my experience most students will let go of the controls and start fussing with the door.

A surprising number of people (one of which a friend of mine) spend the rest of their lives trying to close a door that pops open at rotation. A lot of those lives would not have been lost if they had seen this simple but hugely distracting non-emergency in primary training.

 

[TwinTails]

Instructors aren't there to "weed out retards"or cause a simple minded student enough confusion to have nightmares of killing himself and his beloved mentor.

I've had some pretty horrible students in the past and I've been almost certain that some were more than just a little mentally challenged. I still worked with them patiently every time they came through the door. At points, all instructors feel they have tried everything and the person they are teaching has no right living unassisted in society let alone flying an airplane.

Relax take a deep breath and try to take another angle at the problem not being comprehended. With time everyone will get it. You can teach a monkey to fly an airplane, especially a Charokee or one of the like.

I know it's hard for superior pilots like a fresh 300 hr CFI,II,MEI to step down off the high horse and look at things from anothers point of view but go ahead and try. You might find things less stressfull for you and your student. You'r monthly beer expense will go down too.

You'r not there to trick, scare, or confuse a student. If a prospective pilot is so bad they aren't safe just keep on keepin on. After enough dual they may or may not walk away.

Yeah I'm ranting but I see so many cocky young instructors who think and act very much the wrong way with these students. Teach what's been tought, works, and is in the lesson plan.

 

[flywithastick]

Yeah I'm ranting but I see so many cocky young instructors who think and act very much the wrong way with these students. Teach what's been tought, works, and is in the lesson plan.

don't know who you're ranting at/about, but no syllabus I've seen discusses opening the doors, landing without the airspeed indicator, simulating flight with jammed controls. Done in the right situation, they all seem like reasonable & useful demonstrations.

What's all this status quo BS? don't believe there's any room to teach and learn outside the confines of the typical training syllabus? Now that's not getting your moneys worth.

Where in any flight training syllabus does it say to disassemble a gyro, look at failed engine components, mixing some fuel and water to see what it looks like, discussing previous accident reports, providing links to informative web sites, opening the AC cowling, etc? Am I cheating my students in providing these items also?

 

[Dash Jockey]

For what it is worth, i feel that the more realistic the training is, the better the pilot will become. That does include shutting down the engine at least once during training (usually towards the end) just so the student will have seen it once. I believe that by already having the initial shock once, thier reaction time might be quicker the next time. i don't believe in scaring a student. I only do this maneuver with students that are nearing a checkride or have demonstrated to me the ability to handle the situation, and it is used as a teaching aid and nothing more.
Another one of may favorites is to simulate a high dencity altitude situation. This is (in my opinion) very important, especially in a place like PHX where you have high altitude airports nearby and high temps. I didn't ever want one of my students to become a story that began with, "It was a hot day in Flagstaff" and ends with, "the 172 didn't clear the trees"

That being said, it is always the instructors responsibility to ensure that everything is done in as safe a manor as possible. That includes pre and post flight briefings. Ground training is as important as flight training.

 

[bobbysamd]

Emergencies

I know this isn't all that original, but I'll still mention it. On a night flight, turn off all the lights and put your students under the hood, with only their flashlights for illumination. Make them fly the airplane on the gauges (I'll assume you've already given them a little BAI). You can try some partial panel in various forms to give your better students a challenge.

Night (simulated) high and low-altitude emergency approaches and landings are good training. Also, night is a great time for unusual attitudes training. At MAPD, we did stalls at night in A36 Bonanzas with primary students. I was never a real fan of that; I feel that you need an horizon of some sort before you practice stalls in any airplane.

I agree 100% with teaching primary students landings with an inop ASI (to simulate an insect clogging the pitot). In fact, I recall reading either in Kershner or elsewhere to have students who are nearing solo fly the pattern with all instruments inop. I've done it, and it is amazing how close one comes to hitting the correct TPA, target airspeeds, rates of climb and decent, with a good landing at the end.

I like the idea of taking your fuel sumper and mixing fuel with water to show students what it looks like, before they see it for real on a preflight and freak out.

Probably the most important thing you can do is brief these items thoroughly before the flight. After your students have tried them a time or two, it is appropriate to spring them on your students from time to time. Some or all of these things are appropriate for your BFR people, too.

Good luck with your instructing.

 

[Rush Limbaugh]

It's been a while since I did any instructing but there wasa CFI at the FBO I worked at that got fired for pulling the mixture on a student. When you have one engine, it is a serious lack of judgement and airmanship to shut it down in flight for any reason other than for an emergency procedure in the -1, POH or whatever the book is called.

Using the argument of "well pick a point and if the engine doesn't start just land there" is a bunch of crap. It may look like a great spot from the air but when you land on it you may find that you trashed a farmers crop or even worse, a person appears out of nowhere in front of you. If the locals see an airplane land in a field they are going to think something serious has just happenned and there was a case where a CFI was showing a student how manly he was by doing some radical emergency procedure and a police officer did something stupid thinking he was responding to a real emergency and got into a traffic accident. The moral of the story is that after the officer was suspended himself, he pressed the case and won both a civil judgement and an admistrative enforcement case with the NTSB. I doubt that same CFI still does stupid stunts like he did that day trying to be creative. Of course that's assuming he ever got his ticket back.

Just reaching up and pulling the throttle to idle is about as much as you need to "surprise" a student. A CFI's job is to teach students how to fly. That includes how to HANDLE emergencies, not create them. If you are a reckless CFI, your students will be reckless pilots and become reckless CFI's.

 

[TwinTails]

"don't know who you're ranting at/about, but no syllabus I've seen discusses opening the doors, landing without the airspeed indicator, simulating flight with jammed controls. Done in the right situation, they all seem like reasonable & useful demonstrations."

"Where in any flight training syllabus does it say to disassemble a gyro, look at failed engine components, mixing some fuel and water to see what it looks like, discussing previous accident reports, providing links to informative web sites, opening the AC cowling, etc? Am I cheating my students in providing these items also?"

Flywithastick,

All those things have been tought, and do work. Why are you putting up a defensive post again? My first post was off the subject, and a little vague I know. I appologize for that. The point I was trying to make was about instructors and the way they treat thier clients.



I had a discussion with some other pilots the other day about instructors and experience. I was saying it wouldn't be all bad if a guy had to have like 700 hours before getting the CFI, and a few hundered of multi engine time before the MEI. I think a 300 hr MEI is a scary thing, most of the time anyway.

 

[Wiggums]

I know the original poster didn’t ask for a safety lecture, but I don’t agree with some of the ideas posted so far. Shutting down the engine on short final to shock the student isn’t the best thing to do. What if you need to go-around. No landing is assured until you turn off the runway. A number of different situation could precipitate a go-around, and if you bend an airplane because you had the engine shutdown you’ll definitely violated for careless and reckless.

With any engine out you want to exercise extreme caution. An engine out is the most dangerous maneuver that a single engine instructor executes on a regular basis. In what other type of operation do you descend with the power at idle for a few minutes, and then advance the power at low altitude and depend on the engine to get you safely away? I don’t believe that utilizing different methods of simulating power loss other then pulling the throttle provide any benefit to the student. No matter if you pull the throttle or shut off the fuel, it will be readily apparent to the student that the engine has quit and they should execute an emergency approach and landing. I would also argue that pulling anything other then the throttle increases risk. What happens if you pull the mixture and the mixture cable breaks? What if you turn off the fuel selector and it sticks in the off position? If any of these situations occur you’ll be doing some explaining to your employer and the FAA. Giving the student realistic training is an important goal, but keeping your career and certificates should come first.

Use good judgment when creating trying to create a realistic situation in the cockpit. For example, just after clearing 1000’ AGL on takeoff I might pull the alternator field breaker the simulate a failed alternator. If for some reason the alternator won’t come back on then I am only a few minutes away from the airport. On the other hand, I wouldn’t pull the same breaker on a night cross-country because in that situation, losing the alternator would be a much larger problem. Same thing with the gear circuit breaker, I might pull it in the pattern when flying an Seminole, since if I can’t get the thing back in I can always easily drop the gear with gravity. However, I wouldn’t do the same thing in an Arrow during a simulated engine out in the practice area. If a real engine problem developed during the simulated one then I wouldn’t want to deal with that and reset the gear at the same time.

As someone who has wrecked an airplane because something fluky happened at an inopportune moment I am a firm believer that every maneuver should be performed with a bias towards safety instead of realism.