Simulated Problems While Instructing

[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.

 

[enigma]

I've flown more hours in level D simulators than I have total hours dual given, that's not braggin, I say that to say that my instructing tips are pretty much worthless.

BUT, I can add this tidbit.

Emergencies constitute about 90% of the training I get ever six months. If you are adding realistic emergencies to your students experience, you are preparing them well for the future. (assuming that they are striving to become professional pilots)

regards,
8N

 

[Geigo]

Flywithastick,

I'm not the world's most experienced instructor, I just try to be the best one I can. I try not to do anything that could put us in a bad position, but still give the student something to think about. This is what works for me.

For the lost comm I will unplug their headset. The controllers at my airport are great and I tell them I am simulating a lost com and keep them informed as to what the student is doing. One controller gave the green light on downwind and told me he'd give another on final. I said okay or send us around whatever, doesn't matter to me. "Okay...I think I see a herd of simulated buffalo on the runway!" It was interesting to see what the student did.

Later in training after talking about systems I tell them we just had an alternator failure and ask what they will do. They typically say shut down the radio. So I just go from there and say the battery is now dead...what quits working? They almost never get the fuel gauges. So I just end up turning off everything including the master. After we find everything I'll turn it back on and simulate going in with no flaps.

Also after a slow flight lesson depending on the aircraft I will give them a go-around and simulate a stuck flaps condition. At about 300 AGL calmly say something like a cow just walked onto the runway and go around in a way so they know it is a simulated emergency. After they start going I also tell them the flaps are stuck. The 152 & 172 will do pretty good but a 150 with 40 degrees of flaps it doesn't climb too well so I usually don't do it or only use part flaps. This happened to one student and he was glad the first time it happened was in a controlled environment.

Other things can include putting an old piston under the aircraft for preflight, or setting the transponder to something other than 1200. I have also done a preflight competition buy doctoring an airplane (make a list of what you do so you don't forget!) and see who finds the most "problems."

But probably my favorite is on a simulated engine failure manuver the aircraft so that a little known grass strip is on my side of the airplane when the failure occurs. They look around and say how 'bout that field?, and turn the plane and say how 'bout that airport? Makes them think about looking somewhere other than out their window.

Hope it helps,

Geigo

 

[need2AV8]

I haven't seen this one mentioned, so I'll add . . .

My instructor had me land at an uncontrolled field a couple times at night with no aircraft lighting. We did, however, use the runway lights (of course). It was good to see how to land in the event of total electrical failure. It forced me to pay close attention to the feel of the controls and the sound of the air around the plane. On the flare, you must focus rather intently on the perspective of the runway lights. Relatively challenging and safe (I think).

 

[tdvalve]

I've seen several references concerning the need to "surprise" the student. I couldn't disagree more. The only surprise the student shoud receive during instruction is when the instructor is also surprised.

Scenarios which could be valuable include a lights-out landing at night and the effects of a door opening during takeoff. These should be preceded by a discussion on the techniques and procedures to be used. In the case of a door opening, the discussion should include the method to get the door re-closed inflight (not easy in a Warrior) and any adverse effects on the particular airplane. (For example, tail burble on an Aztec.) Any scenario used should be included in a standard curriculum so that all students of the training facility benefit from them.

 

[flywithastick]

Thanks for the all the suggestions.

TwinTails - Sorry for the defensive tone. My wife says I take things too seriously also.

Interesting thing I hear with this and other discussions I've been in on. Military trained pilots seem to be uncomfortable with failure simulations being carried out at the discretion of the instructor. I recall my uncle telling me about his USAF training. It sounded very rigid and methodical. May be a reason for this difference of thought between civ and mil. Not having been blessed with good vision, I wasn't able to experience this myself. Plus, quite a few of the military folks have ejection seats to use in dealing with failures. Don't have to necessarily keep your head and find a place to land, just find the yellow handles!!

tdvalve -

I see you've just posted a comment about including typical scenarios in a training syllabus. I agree. It would be a bad deal to have dangerous situations being introduced unknowingly by one or two instructors thinking they were being helpful.

Something that makes my situation a little different is that I'm a freelance cfi. Maybe I should have mentioned this.

 

[Rush Limbaugh]

Plus, quite a few of the military folks have ejection seats to use in dealing with failures. Don't have to necessarily keep your head and find a place to land, just find the yellow handles!!

So you're saying that in an emergency, a military pilot will just punch out rather than try to recover the airplane? Gee, I've had too many IFE's to remember but I don't ever remember punching out of any airplane. I only know of one time where a guy punched out prematurely and for apparently no good reason. The ejection seat is there to keep the pilot alive when the airplane is going to crash anyway. It is not a crutch to use when you have an emergency. I have had my one and only engine cough and sputter over the ocean and I didn't lose my cranium and punch out. I used my training and got the engine running correctly and diverted to a beautiful island paradise.

Unlike a lot of military pilots, I have had the luxury to go through the civilian training pipeline to CFI. So I can compare the way both are trained. The reason military pilots don't like simulated emergencies in the airplane are because they are used to nice multi million dollar simulators to do that stuff in. The only emergency stuff they really do is engine failure stuff with an or the engine in idle.

I think it is scary when a CFI "alters" an airplane to have a contest between all of his students. And putting an old piston under an airplane? YGTBSM!! I never once told a student "make sure a piston hasn't fallen out of the airplane." Maybe CFI's like this guy are the reason the average student doesn't take a checkride until nearly twice the required hours. If you keep adding a bunch of crap that the FAA hasn't required, then all you are doing is squeezing more money out of the student. I think the FAA is pretty good at knowing what pilots need to know to be certified and a CFI shouldn't be adding a lot to that because he wants to see what a student will do when he gets "surprised." Why don't they just put a camera in the airplane and sell the footage to Candid Camera. I never had a single student hook a checkride and I never added anything to the syllabus. And more importantly, I have never had a student so much as get scrape while flying an airplane let alone die because I didn't teach them how to handle an emergency.

 

[flywithastick]

= Smiley face = joking, teasing, not serious.

I have a lot of respect for military pilots. It's a dangerous, challenging job. Enjoy your opportunity.

 

[Rick1128]

After many hours and years of instructing, both flight school and air carrier, I have a few opinions in this area.

First of all, ALL emergencies need to be discussed BEFORE the lesson. It is the only way the student will get the full benifit of the lesson. The instructor does not have to tell the student exactly when it will occur. As an instructor you're not there to trick or surprise the student, but to expand his knowledge.

At least once during primary training the student needs to see the propeller stopped inflight. The dynamics of gliding with the prop stopped is different than when it is windmilling. Right over the airport, uncontrolled prefered. It can be a great confidence builder.

In multi engine aircraft, I always had my students completely shut down an engine at least once. Then when it happens for real, it is not so much of a shock. It's fun to see the look in ths student's face when he/she looks at the visible prop blade. It's not so fun when your co-pilot after seeing the stopped prop for the first time, drops the checklist on a dark and stormy night. And that has happened to me at least once.

When I was instructing at a flight school, pilot controlled lighting was common. I would have my students land without landing lights. And at least once land without runway lights. After a couple of landings with the runway lights. Did this because the flight school had, had a couple of incidents where the student panicked when the runway lights went out during the flare. I was not teaching dopers. After we started doing this, the incident rate for this type of event dropped to zero.

Before I would sign a student off for his/her checkride, I would instruct them in downwind takeoffs and landing. I would discuss the dynamics and the effects. Reason for this there are many one way airports, terrain, noise or local convention being the the reasons. It would get their attention. The amount of runway used changes dramicly. With my instrument students, I would have them shoot approaches and land downwind. Always keep in mind tailwind limitations and/or performance.

Besides the normal covering of gyros. I would cover airspeed indicator or tach. In complex aircraft would cover tach or MP gauges. It is surprising how close the student would come to getting the right setting.

On the second dual cross country, I would tell the student to just consider me a passenger. He/she would do everything on their own. Liked to do this on a hazy day, not much more than 3 miles vis. While enroute I would distract them and get them turned around. Then I would start acting like a panicked passenger. Then I would let them try to figure where they were and how to get to where they were going. Usually they would dig themselves out of the hole. But if they needed help, I would ask them about the VOR, 'What does this do?' or point to the radio and ask 'Can't you call someone?' At this point I would introduce radar vectors or DF steers. This exercise allowed them st see in a controlled setting that they can work their way out of a situation. So if it did happen on their solo cross countries, they were less likely to panick.

I don't like to see pre-flight problems as a contest between instructors. But a problem or two for the student, especially after solo, will keep them sharp. Tape on the pitot tupe or static port. A flat tire or miss tire. Don't be surprised how many miss them. Dual flights only and keep track of them.

I would also mix avgas with jet fuel. A potenial problem. It is not easy to see.

Last piece of advise. Like my old Sargent used to say "Stay alert, Stay alive". It holds true almost everywhere. Be Careful.

 

[larry]

I like to fake that I've died. Sometimes I bring small ketchup packets so it looks like I'm bleeding out of my mouth as I slump over in my seat. Then I rool my eyes back in my head and try not to blink. Sometimes I switch the fuel off before I do this so I can see how they REALLY react to an engine failure.

 

[tdvalve]

Rick1128:

Sounds like you take a lot of pride in in giving your students a little extra. Many of your concepts sound great and I hope they were included in the school's curriculum. However, the part about stopping the prop during primary instruction gives one pause. It may be a very valuable demonstration. I wouldn't know because I've never seen a stopped prop on a single engine airplane inflight. But, is it valuable enough to warrant the risks involved? A misjudgement by you or your student or an unexpected intervention by another airplane, auto, or animal could spell disaster. You're betting your pilot and flight instructor certificate, not to mention the life and health of you and your student, that everything will go according to plan and no act by a third party will adversely affect the outcome. I don't like the odds!