flying with different instructors

[gatt]

Chief flight instructor and my primary instructor are both gone for the
week, so I've been flying with whatever low-time, newly-minted Cessna-jockey
greenhorn flight instructor that answers the phone when I call to schedule.
I've flown with four different instructors in the last two weeks.

I wholeheartedly recommend this. Each instructor has his own way of
explaining and demonstrating things, (working on complex rating and
commercial, part 141) as well as slight variations of technique and
procedure. The result is that I've been able to choose the methods which
work best and with which I'm most comfortable, AND check these things
against other instructors to make sure it's right.

The newer guys have a great sense of enthusiasm, and since the boss is out
of the shop, they've got great information about what it's REALLY like
flying as a CFI out of that FBO and things like, how many hours one might
expect to accumulate over the summer flying season.

I've had one instructor who's a Major in the Air Force and learned at the
academy, one who is a retired Marine and learned in the '60s, one who is an
Embry Riddle graduate and one who earned his CFI wings from two of the
others and has only been instructing for a year. The four different
perspectives have made every flight not just practice, but a new learning
experience. My primary instructor is excellent, but I wish I'd have been
doing this to some degree all along!

-c

[[email protected]]

As a CFI, I think that this can work for advanced instruction
(Instrument, Commercial, and above), but I think it is generally quite
a bad idea for primary students.

The very thing you seem to like about it ("The result is that I've been
able to choose the methods which work best...") can be a major problem
with primary students. By the time you get to the Commercial-student
level, you are a fairly accomplished aviator. You likely feel quite at
home in an airplane, and definionally have hundreds of hours in an
airplane.

Try to think back to when you were a 15-hour primary student. The stuff
that we take for granted is often a major difficulty. It was for me. I
remember being a 15-hour students and trying to remember all the stuff
you had to do before landing, and sometimes looking up and feeling
completely baffled. I know I'm not alone in this.

When I work with primary students, I generally try to teach them one
coherent way of doing things. "Downwind- power to 2000 RPM, abeam the
touchdown point, power to 1500 RPM, pitch for 80 knots. When TD point
is 45 degrees behind, turn base, one notch flaps...pitch for 80....". I
have had students who have flown with different CFIs while I was
working with them. These other CFIs (one was a CFI in training) are
certainly very competent pilots and likely skilled instructors.
However,they do things differently...they teach things differently. And
what seems to often happen is that instead of focusing on the task at
hand and using a technique they know and have learned to trust, noow
the student is thinking "Was it 1500 RPM? No....that was Dave. Jeff
likes power all the way out...wait...."

When I start work with a primary student, I structure my syllabus and
training program to lead from one concept and maneuver naturally to
another...I envision the entire training process that I expect to
perform with that student. I know what each student I have knows...and
what he doesn. I know what he is good at, and what he isn't. And I can
use these things to help him become a better pilot. I think that
continuity is very important...and having multiple CFIs gets in the way
of that.

By the time you are working on your CFI or your commercial, you pretty
much already know how to fly...you are perfecting and advancing your
technique...but you already know how to do all the basics. I think that
it is probably reasonable to work with different CFIs at that level.
but not when you're starting out.

Cheers,


Cap




gatt wrote:
> Chief flight instructor and my primary instructor are both gone for
the
> week, so I've been flying with whatever low-time, newly-minted
Cessna-jockey
> greenhorn flight instructor that answers the phone when I call to
schedule.
> I've flown with four different instructors in the last two weeks.
>
> I wholeheartedly recommend this. Each instructor has his own way of
> explaining and demonstrating things, (working on complex rating and
> commercial, part 141) as well as slight variations of technique and
> procedure. The result is that I've been able to choose the methods
which
> work best and with which I'm most comfortable, AND check these things
> against other instructors to make sure it's right.
>
> The newer guys have a great sense of enthusiasm, and since the boss
is out
> of the shop, they've got great information about what it's REALLY
like
> flying as a CFI out of that FBO and things like, how many hours one
might
> expect to accumulate over the summer flying season.
>
> I've had one instructor who's a Major in the Air Force and learned at
the
> academy, one who is a retired Marine and learned in the '60s, one who
is an
> Embry Riddle graduate and one who earned his CFI wings from two of
the
> others and has only been instructing for a year. The four different
> perspectives have made every flight not just practice, but a new
learning
> experience. My primary instructor is excellent, but I wish I'd have
been
> doing this to some degree all along!
>
> -c

[Stefan]

wrote:

> As a CFI, I think that this can work for advanced instruction
> (Instrument, Commercial, and above), but I think it is generally quite
> a bad idea for primary students.
....
> When I work with primary students, I generally try to teach them one
> coherent way of doing things. "Downwind- power to 2000 RPM, abeam the
> touchdown point, power to 1500 RPM, pitch for 80 knots. When TD point
....

When I've learnt to fly, I had several instructors from day one.
Speaking strictly for myself, I loved that. Every instructor told some
different rules. Comparing them, I found out very quickly what the
reason was behind those rules, and not surprisingly, all those different
rules boilt down essentially to the same. I preferred this a lot over
learning a rule by heart without really understanding it.

Stefan

[Bob Gardner]

If your student mistakenly sets the power at 1700 instead of 1800, I hope
you don't get on his case and develop in him a case of
head-in-the-cockpit-itis. I'd rather have the student remember the position
of the tach needle relative to straight up (one o'clock, two o'clock, etc)
and let it go at that. Precise power setting ain't all that important, yet
some students will devote ten long seconds to massaging the tach to get an
exact number because that's what their instructor told them (if you think
ten seconds is a short time, I will gladly stick my finger in your eye and
hold it there for....heck, two seconds be enough to make my point?).

Bob Gardner

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> As a CFI, I think that this can work for advanced instruction
> (Instrument, Commercial, and above), but I think it is generally quite
> a bad idea for primary students.
>
> The very thing you seem to like about it ("The result is that I've been
> able to choose the methods which work best...") can be a major problem
> with primary students. By the time you get to the Commercial-student
> level, you are a fairly accomplished aviator. You likely feel quite at
> home in an airplane, and definionally have hundreds of hours in an
> airplane.
>
> Try to think back to when you were a 15-hour primary student. The stuff
> that we take for granted is often a major difficulty. It was for me. I
> remember being a 15-hour students and trying to remember all the stuff
> you had to do before landing, and sometimes looking up and feeling
> completely baffled. I know I'm not alone in this.
>
> When I work with primary students, I generally try to teach them one
> coherent way of doing things. "Downwind- power to 2000 RPM, abeam the
> touchdown point, power to 1500 RPM, pitch for 80 knots. When TD point
> is 45 degrees behind, turn base, one notch flaps...pitch for 80....". I
> have had students who have flown with different CFIs while I was
> working with them. These other CFIs (one was a CFI in training) are
> certainly very competent pilots and likely skilled instructors.
> However,they do things differently...they teach things differently. And
> what seems to often happen is that instead of focusing on the task at
> hand and using a technique they know and have learned to trust, noow
> the student is thinking "Was it 1500 RPM? No....that was Dave. Jeff
> likes power all the way out...wait...."
>
> When I start work with a primary student, I structure my syllabus and
> training program to lead from one concept and maneuver naturally to
> another...I envision the entire training process that I expect to
> perform with that student. I know what each student I have knows...and
> what he doesn. I know what he is good at, and what he isn't. And I can
> use these things to help him become a better pilot. I think that
> continuity is very important...and having multiple CFIs gets in the way
> of that.
>
> By the time you are working on your CFI or your commercial, you pretty
> much already know how to fly...you are perfecting and advancing your
> technique...but you already know how to do all the basics. I think that
> it is probably reasonable to work with different CFIs at that level.
> but not when you're starting out.
>
> Cheers,
>
>
> Cap
>
>
>
>
> gatt wrote:
>> Chief flight instructor and my primary instructor are both gone for
> the
>> week, so I've been flying with whatever low-time, newly-minted
> Cessna-jockey
>> greenhorn flight instructor that answers the phone when I call to
> schedule.
>> I've flown with four different instructors in the last two weeks.
>>
>> I wholeheartedly recommend this. Each instructor has his own way of
>> explaining and demonstrating things, (working on complex rating and
>> commercial, part 141) as well as slight variations of technique and
>> procedure. The result is that I've been able to choose the methods
> which
>> work best and with which I'm most comfortable, AND check these things
>> against other instructors to make sure it's right.
>>
>> The newer guys have a great sense of enthusiasm, and since the boss
> is out
>> of the shop, they've got great information about what it's REALLY
> like
>> flying as a CFI out of that FBO and things like, how many hours one
> might
>> expect to accumulate over the summer flying season.
>>
>> I've had one instructor who's a Major in the Air Force and learned at
> the
>> academy, one who is a retired Marine and learned in the '60s, one who
> is an
>> Embry Riddle graduate and one who earned his CFI wings from two of
> the
>> others and has only been instructing for a year. The four different
>> perspectives have made every flight not just practice, but a new
> learning
>> experience. My primary instructor is excellent, but I wish I'd have
> been
>> doing this to some degree all along!
>>
>> -c
>

[Roger]

On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 21:53:26 +0100, Stefan >
wrote:

wrote:
>
>> As a CFI, I think that this can work for advanced instruction
>> (Instrument, Commercial, and above), but I think it is generally quite
>> a bad idea for primary students.
>...
>> When I work with primary students, I generally try to teach them one
>> coherent way of doing things. "Downwind- power to 2000 RPM, abeam the
>> touchdown point, power to 1500 RPM, pitch for 80 knots. When TD point
>...
>
>When I've learnt to fly, I had several instructors from day one.
>Speaking strictly for myself, I loved that. Every instructor told some
>different rules. Comparing them, I found out very quickly what the
>reason was behind those rules, and not surprisingly, all those different
>rules boilt down essentially to the same. I preferred this a lot over
>learning a rule by heart without really understanding it.
>

Likewise I had several instructors throughout my primary training.
They did communicate and coordinate, still I had to prove to each what
the other said.

It's been a while, but I do remember being taught the stabilized
pattern and then moving on to more flexible/varied patterns.

In my situation, I was glad for the multiple instructors.
OTOH I don't think it's something that would work well for all
students.

>Stefan
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[houstondan]

you can leave your finger where it is, thank you. as a recent graduate
from airplane kindergarten to first grade, i've got really fresh
experience. overall, i think having one MAIN instructor thru to the
checkride is probably best but going up with someone else once in a
while is really beneficial too. i know a lot of schools have the chief
pilot or whatever do a ride every once in a while and usually before
solo or checkride. just try to stay away from the guy who thinks you're
not a student but a voice operated autopilot.

dan

[Dudley Henriques]

I'm sure you have your own opinions on this, but FWIW to anyone else
reading my answer, I have never been an advocate of multiple instructors
during primary training, ESPECIALLY before solo. I'm sure there are
those who have had multiple CFI's during the period I don't advocate
them, but I simply don't recommend it, and never have.
I do however see distinct advantages to multiple instructors during
training for advanced ratings.
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/CFI Retired
for email; take out the trash

"gatt" > wrote in message
...
>
> Chief flight instructor and my primary instructor are both gone for
> the
> week, so I've been flying with whatever low-time, newly-minted
> Cessna-jockey
> greenhorn flight instructor that answers the phone when I call to
> schedule.
> I've flown with four different instructors in the last two weeks.
>
> I wholeheartedly recommend this. Each instructor has his own way of
> explaining and demonstrating things, (working on complex rating and
> commercial, part 141) as well as slight variations of technique and
> procedure. The result is that I've been able to choose the methods
> which
> work best and with which I'm most comfortable, AND check these things
> against other instructors to make sure it's right.
>
> The newer guys have a great sense of enthusiasm, and since the boss is
> out
> of the shop, they've got great information about what it's REALLY like
> flying as a CFI out of that FBO and things like, how many hours one
> might
> expect to accumulate over the summer flying season.
>
> I've had one instructor who's a Major in the Air Force and learned at
> the
> academy, one who is a retired Marine and learned in the '60s, one who
> is an
> Embry Riddle graduate and one who earned his CFI wings from two of the
> others and has only been instructing for a year. The four different
> perspectives have made every flight not just practice, but a new
> learning
> experience. My primary instructor is excellent, but I wish I'd have
> been
> doing this to some degree all along!
>
> -c
>
>

[[email protected]]

I went through a string of instructors on my way to my
license - mostly through no fault of my own. People came
and went, plus I moved about mid-way. My first (and the
best, in my opinion) was an old bomber pilot, and owned
the FBO. Then he started an airline, and had no time (was
chief pilot, too). One was a petty tyrant. Needless to say,
I didn't schedule with him again. I've found instructors
to be good, bad, indifferent - and rarely, really good.
This is true in all disciplines - not just aviation.

I'd say go ahead and fly with several - and see what the
differences are. Ask around to find out what others think
about the available instructors. Then when you find one
who is really good (and this will be quite obvious), hang
onto him or her. This likely will be hard to do - such
people are usually on their way to bigger and better things.

IMHO the ideal instructor is an old timer who has seen and
done it all, isn't going anywhere, and does it because he
or she loves it.

David Johnson

[[email protected]]

Dudley
We agree again <g>. I recently finished a student who is a rarity in
that I have been his only instructor. He committed to hit it hard and
steady and he passed his PP check ride with a total of 41.3 hours when
he walked in to take it. He flew 3 times a week, got a 98 on his
written and the DE said he was a delight to fly with and no weak areas
except in maintenance paperwork. Was fuzzy on AD vs service bulletin vs
regular entries in the logbooks. He took roughly 3 months with a few
weather interruptions like Hurricane Ivan, and spent just under $5000
all inclusive with headset and other pilot tools.
He is the first student I have had "captive" in many years. As a Chief
Instructor at a number of schools, nearly all the students had been
exposed to a variety of instructors and I did phase checks as well as
standardization rides for my CFI's.
I have often recommended a student fly with another CFI to see if there
was an area or presentation that was better for that student. Sometimes
it was just personality that made a difference. My own style is pretty
relaxed, low key, and demanding as hell. I have high standards of
performance for those I choose to fly with or give instruction to and
am relentless in demanding they meet those standards.
But, as you know, I am one of those pilots who has been everywhere and
done nearly everything of interest to guys like us.
Best personal regards and best wishes for a successful and healthy New
Year to all.
Ol Shy & Bashful

[[email protected]]

Bob Gardner wrote:
> If your student mistakenly sets the power at 1700 instead of 1800, I
hope
> you don't get on his case and develop in him a case of
> head-in-the-cockpit-itis. I'd rather have the student remember the
position
> of the tach needle relative to straight up (one o'clock, two o'clock,
etc)
> and let it go at that. Precise power setting ain't all that
important, yet
> some students will devote ten long seconds to massaging the tach to
get an
> exact number because that's what their instructor told them (if you
think
> ten seconds is a short time, I will gladly stick my finger in your
eye and
> hold it there for....heck, two seconds be enough to make my point?).
>
> Bob Gardner
>

Nah. I generally avoid 'getting on his case' about anything if I can
avoid it; generally there are better ways of fixing problems. And I am
generally less of a fan of the FAAs emphasis on 'integrated
instruction' for primary students than many other CFIs seem to be. If a
VFR student is looking inside the cockpit for *anything* for 10 seconds
at a time (power control or anything else) then we've got something we
need to work on (generally).

What I try to teach are 'rules of thumb' that the student can use so
that he *can* focus outside on the task at hand. 2000 RPM on the
downwind isn't really going to be much different from 1900 or 2100. But
2000 RPM generally produces the speed that works well on downwind (with
the correct pitch), and is easy to remember. I like things that are
easy to remember; things that 'come back to you' when you need it. Just
as much as I think teaching precise v-speeds is really
counterproductive (of course most DEs ask for the 'precise' speeds')
because in a situation where the v-speed is important (Vg in an engine
out, Vy after takeoff, Vref down the pipe) there are usually much more
important things to be focused on. If my student's engine croaks, I
really don't want him worrying about whether Vg was 87 knots, or 84.

Which goes back to my teaching philosophy and why I prefer students to
fly with only me as a CFI during their primary training. I have decided
upon upon Einstein's Dictum ("Everything should be as simple as
possible, but no simpler") as a major component of primary training.
For instance, while I teach students the various necessary speeds, I
teach an additional 'critical speed' that seems to exist for most light
training planes. This speed (while different for each kind of plane) is
an easily memorable speed that can be used as a 'multipurpose' speed if
a student can't remember a speed or has a situation arise where he
needs to focus elsewhere for a while. In the Cessna 172N, I teach
students that the 'critical speed' is 65 knots. You can use this speed
for climb (it's halfway between Vx and Vy), you can use it for
approach, both flaps up and down, you can use it for best glide...and
remembering this one speed *might* help in an emergency...just pitch it
for 65 knots, regardless of what you are doing. Simple...easy to
remember, and it works.

But I know other CFIs who are *very* focused on speed control. If you
aren't at Vy on climbout, you're wrong. That's a reasonable
approach...teaching that as a method of flight discipline from the very
beginning, but it isn't very compatible with my training philosophy.

As I have said, at the higher levels, it is probably fine to use more
than one CFI. But primary training (IMO) is qualitatively different,
and I strongly advise my students to do as *I* teach them. It's fine
to fly with other pilots if they want, but when they are taking
instruction, I'd really prefer it if they only take it from me. or from
somebody else. But not both.

Cheers,

Cap

[Dudley Henriques]

Hi Rock;
Good to hear from you.
You'd be surprised how often we agree :-))

I think a lot has changed since the old days when I was doing primary
instructing. I watched it change through the years I was doing nothing
but aerobatic instruction, then through my "consultation" years :-).
Getting a full time student from start to finish seems to be the
exception today rather than the norm. The old FBO's where you drove out
to the local airport on Sunday; found a CFI who had been at that airport
for a hundred years and signed up to take a lesson each weekend are
hanging in there, but becoming more and more rare as time goes on.
It's been interesting for me, watching this transition as I wandered
through the path of my career in aviation.
It's a much more complicated world out there now as you know all too
well, and the whole scenario involving learning to fly has changed a
great deal. People move a round a lot more; jobs change like the
weather; the costs have skyrocketed; lawyers and insurance have entered
the equation now,and CFI's have a tendency to be part time and
transient. It's a whole new world out there.
Frankly, I really miss the old days. There are still a few of the old
airports around where you can go and sit around the picnic table on a
warm clear Sunday afternoon with the same bunch that show up like
clockwork every week, and talk flying while everybody "grades" the
landing just made out on the runway a few yards away. At our little
grass field where I learned to fly, we actually had large white
cardboard signs with a 0 on one side and a 10 on the other side like the
figure skater cards. After some poor character would land, we'd all be
sitting there holding up the cards showing our "choice" for the score as
the pilot taxied in.
There's a serious training point that I could make here about all this
fun. That scenario I just described was also a learning environment. New
pilots learned quite a lot about flying during those fun filled Sunday
sessions around the old picnic table. I can remember many times sitting
there with a student watching a landing and getting a question that
changed the atmosphere immediately into a serious training mode. The
whole table would listen as the more experienced straightened out things
for the new pilots on something. You could see the learning in their
faces.
Yup...that ole table out there was the best classroom I ever had to
teach in! :-)
The 141 operations were different of course. We pushed them through
faster. We still did a good job, but for me, it was never the same as
that old airport on a Sunday morning with everybody gathered around
having fun and learning something every second they were there.

Sounds like you did a hell of a job with that "captive" student, and in
minimum time as well.
Have a great and safe new year Rock; I'm sure we'll be "talkin" again
:-)
Dudley




> wrote in message
ups.com...
> Dudley
> We agree again <g>. I recently finished a student who is a rarity in
> that I have been his only instructor. He committed to hit it hard and
> steady and he passed his PP check ride with a total of 41.3 hours when
> he walked in to take it. He flew 3 times a week, got a 98 on his
> written and the DE said he was a delight to fly with and no weak areas
> except in maintenance paperwork. Was fuzzy on AD vs service bulletin
> vs
> regular entries in the logbooks. He took roughly 3 months with a few
> weather interruptions like Hurricane Ivan, and spent just under $5000
> all inclusive with headset and other pilot tools.
> He is the first student I have had "captive" in many years. As a Chief
> Instructor at a number of schools, nearly all the students had been
> exposed to a variety of instructors and I did phase checks as well as
> standardization rides for my CFI's.
> I have often recommended a student fly with another CFI to see if
> there
> was an area or presentation that was better for that student.
> Sometimes
> it was just personality that made a difference. My own style is pretty
> relaxed, low key, and demanding as hell. I have high standards of
> performance for those I choose to fly with or give instruction to and
> am relentless in demanding they meet those standards.
> But, as you know, I am one of those pilots who has been everywhere and
> done nearly everything of interest to guys like us.
> Best personal regards and best wishes for a successful and healthy New
> Year to all.
> Ol Shy & Bashful
>

[Andrew Sarangan]

While 100 rpm is not a big deal, developing a routine in the early stage
of training is very important. An experienced pilot can handle a large
number of variables. He can fly the approach at any RPM, airspeed and
flap setting. But a new student needs a more limited set of variables.
So we need to fix a few parameters such as RPM, airspeed and flaps etc
and only leave a few others as variables such as altitudes to float.
With practice they will be able to develop the experience to handle all
variables at once. From personal experience, all my students soloed in
less than 20 hours. The ones who exceeded 30 hours flew with multiple
instructors.





"Bob Gardner" > wrote in
:

> If your student mistakenly sets the power at 1700 instead of 1800, I
> hope you don't get on his case and develop in him a case of
> head-in-the-cockpit-itis. I'd rather have the student remember the
> position of the tach needle relative to straight up (one o'clock, two
> o'clock, etc) and let it go at that. Precise power setting ain't all
> that important, yet some students will devote ten long seconds to
> massaging the tach to get an exact number because that's what their
> instructor told them (if you think ten seconds is a short time, I will
> gladly stick my finger in your eye and hold it there for....heck, two
> seconds be enough to make my point?).
>
> Bob Gardner
>
> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>> As a CFI, I think that this can work for advanced instruction
>> (Instrument, Commercial, and above), but I think it is generally
>> quite a bad idea for primary students.
>>
>> The very thing you seem to like about it ("The result is that I've
>> been able to choose the methods which work best...") can be a major
>> problem with primary students. By the time you get to the
>> Commercial-student level, you are a fairly accomplished aviator. You
>> likely feel quite at home in an airplane, and definionally have
>> hundreds of hours in an airplane.
>>
>> Try to think back to when you were a 15-hour primary student. The
>> stuff that we take for granted is often a major difficulty. It was
>> for me. I remember being a 15-hour students and trying to remember
>> all the stuff you had to do before landing, and sometimes looking up
>> and feeling completely baffled. I know I'm not alone in this.
>>
>> When I work with primary students, I generally try to teach them one
>> coherent way of doing things. "Downwind- power to 2000 RPM, abeam the
>> touchdown point, power to 1500 RPM, pitch for 80 knots. When TD point
>> is 45 degrees behind, turn base, one notch flaps...pitch for 80....".
>> I have had students who have flown with different CFIs while I was
>> working with them. These other CFIs (one was a CFI in training) are
>> certainly very competent pilots and likely skilled instructors.
>> However,they do things differently...they teach things differently.
>> And what seems to often happen is that instead of focusing on the
>> task at hand and using a technique they know and have learned to
>> trust, noow the student is thinking "Was it 1500 RPM? No....that was
>> Dave. Jeff likes power all the way out...wait...."
>>
>> When I start work with a primary student, I structure my syllabus and
>> training program to lead from one concept and maneuver naturally to
>> another...I envision the entire training process that I expect to
>> perform with that student. I know what each student I have
>> knows...and what he doesn. I know what he is good at, and what he
>> isn't. And I can use these things to help him become a better pilot.
>> I think that continuity is very important...and having multiple CFIs
>> gets in the way of that.
>>
>> By the time you are working on your CFI or your commercial, you
>> pretty much already know how to fly...you are perfecting and
>> advancing your technique...but you already know how to do all the
>> basics. I think that it is probably reasonable to work with different
>> CFIs at that level. but not when you're starting out.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>>
>> Cap
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> gatt wrote:
>>> Chief flight instructor and my primary instructor are both gone for
>> the
>>> week, so I've been flying with whatever low-time, newly-minted
>> Cessna-jockey
>>> greenhorn flight instructor that answers the phone when I call to
>> schedule.
>>> I've flown with four different instructors in the last two weeks.
>>>
>>> I wholeheartedly recommend this. Each instructor has his own way
>>> of explaining and demonstrating things, (working on complex rating
>>> and commercial, part 141) as well as slight variations of technique
>>> and procedure. The result is that I've been able to choose the
>>> methods
>> which
>>> work best and with which I'm most comfortable, AND check these
>>> things against other instructors to make sure it's right.
>>>
>>> The newer guys have a great sense of enthusiasm, and since the boss
>> is out
>>> of the shop, they've got great information about what it's REALLY
>> like
>>> flying as a CFI out of that FBO and things like, how many hours one
>> might
>>> expect to accumulate over the summer flying season.
>>>
>>> I've had one instructor who's a Major in the Air Force and learned
>>> at
>> the
>>> academy, one who is a retired Marine and learned in the '60s, one
>>> who
>> is an
>>> Embry Riddle graduate and one who earned his CFI wings from two of
>> the
>>> others and has only been instructing for a year. The four
>>> different perspectives have made every flight not just practice, but
>>> a new
>> learning
>>> experience. My primary instructor is excellent, but I wish I'd have
>> been
>>> doing this to some degree all along!
>>>
>>> -c
>>
>
>

[Stefan]

wrote:

> But primary training (IMO) is qualitatively different,
> and I strongly advise my students to do as *I* teach them.

As I said, I had more than one instructor right from day one. (I guess
about seven or eight.) Every one of them strongly advised me to do as
*he* tought me. And I very quickly learnt to do so - with every
instructor! This made me flexible on a very early stage, understanding
that there are many ways to do the right thing. Maybe I needed a couple
of hours more to the check ride than others, but I'm convinced that this
gave me a much wider view, making me a better pilot at the end. Again,
I'm speaking strictly for myself.

Stefan

[gatt]

> wrote in message

>I think that it is probably reasonable to work with different CFIs at that
level.
> but not when you're starting out.

Read your arguments for your statement, and they make sense!

Thanks and have a great New Year.
-c

[Rob Montgomery]

From the instructor point of view, I wholheartedly agree with you. With the
way the flight instruction system works, most CFI's only work for a couple
of years before moving on. Further, most have little or no instuctional
experience before becomming CFI's. When you consider the learning curves
associated with flying (remember that most CFI's are reasonably low time
pilots) and teaching (perhaps more complicated than flying), the chances of
you getting flawless instruction is rather small.

Flying with multiple instructors has advantages for both you and your
instructors. First, different instructors have different stregths and
weaknesses, so where one is weak, the other may be strong. (I used to teach
with another instructor who was the diametric opposite of me. It was a great
learning experience for both of us as we would get frequent feedback on how
we were teaching.. we used to go out for a beer every week, and call it our
"staff meeting". It's too bad he moved on.) Even if there are no quality
issues, you'll still learn a lot.

Remember that there is no single "right" way to fly. Your job, as a student,
is to learn a way that is both "not wrong" and that works for you. (Unless
you're planning to go professional, at which point you'll need to learn to
fly the "company" way.) By flying with several instructors, you'll get ideas
which you can use when developing "your way". (Hopefully your instructors
will teach at higher than the rote level, and will give you the latitude to
find a way that blends safety and your own personal style.)

Of course, all of this is based on the premise that the instructors actually
talk to each other.

Sorry for rambling.

-Rob

"gatt" > wrote in message
...
>
> Chief flight instructor and my primary instructor are both gone for the
> week, so I've been flying with whatever low-time, newly-minted
> Cessna-jockey
> greenhorn flight instructor that answers the phone when I call to
> schedule.
> I've flown with four different instructors in the last two weeks.
>
> I wholeheartedly recommend this. Each instructor has his own way of
> explaining and demonstrating things, (working on complex rating and
> commercial, part 141) as well as slight variations of technique and
> procedure. The result is that I've been able to choose the methods which
> work best and with which I'm most comfortable, AND check these things
> against other instructors to make sure it's right.
>
> The newer guys have a great sense of enthusiasm, and since the boss is out
> of the shop, they've got great information about what it's REALLY like
> flying as a CFI out of that FBO and things like, how many hours one might
> expect to accumulate over the summer flying season.
>
> I've had one instructor who's a Major in the Air Force and learned at the
> academy, one who is a retired Marine and learned in the '60s, one who is
> an
> Embry Riddle graduate and one who earned his CFI wings from two of the
> others and has only been instructing for a year. The four different
> perspectives have made every flight not just practice, but a new learning
> experience. My primary instructor is excellent, but I wish I'd have been
> doing this to some degree all along!
>
> -c
>
>

[Rob Montgomery]

Bob,

You're absoloutly correct, except that I disagree with your specific
example. :-) Setting your power precisely one downwind (or, at the level-off
just prior to the FAF if you're flying an instrument approach) allows you to
trim the airplane properly for approach, and is the one time I want to see
precision from my students. This makes the correct airspeed much easier to
control, and gives you much more time "heads up" during the rest of the
approach to land. You'd be amazed at what a difference a hundred RPM can
make.

Here's an experiment that seems to work on most light singles (and some
light twins). From a reasonable altitude, put in "approach flaps", and trim
the airplane for "approach speed". Then, retract the flaps, and notice the
indicated airspeed. (Usually this is right around the top of the white arc,
but not always. If it's above the top of the white arc, disregard everything
I've said... you'll need to fly the plane :-).) Now, at pattern altitude,
trim the airplane to fly this airspeed while level, and note the required
power setting. Now, bring the power back a bit to start your descent to
land, and put in your approach flaps. Shazam, you'll slow to approach speed
within a couple of knots without much effort, giving you more "look out the
window" time in that part of the pattern where a lot of accidents happen.

In a Warrior-II, 152 or 172P with just an instructor and a student, setting
2100 RPM on downwind, and trimming for hands off flight seems to set the
airplane up for a normal approach speed when using 20-deg of flaps, and the
short-field approach speed with 30-deg of flaps. If you have more people,
add 100 RPM per person. If it's gusty, add about 100 or 200 RPM for the
appropriate speed boost. In an Arrow-II, about 21-inches of manifold
pressure (regardless of RPM) does the same thing. (What is it with "21"?).

Just my opinion. :-)

-Rob

"Bob Gardner" > wrote in message
...
> If your student mistakenly sets the power at 1700 instead of 1800, I hope
> you don't get on his case and develop in him a case of
> head-in-the-cockpit-itis. I'd rather have the student remember the
> position of the tach needle relative to straight up (one o'clock, two
> o'clock, etc) and let it go at that. Precise power setting ain't all that
> important, yet some students will devote ten long seconds to massaging the
> tach to get an exact number because that's what their instructor told them
> (if you think ten seconds is a short time, I will gladly stick my finger
> in your eye and hold it there for....heck, two seconds be enough to make
> my point?).
>
> Bob Gardner
>
> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>> As a CFI, I think that this can work for advanced instruction
>> (Instrument, Commercial, and above), but I think it is generally quite
>> a bad idea for primary students.
>>
>> The very thing you seem to like about it ("The result is that I've been
>> able to choose the methods which work best...") can be a major problem
>> with primary students. By the time you get to the Commercial-student
>> level, you are a fairly accomplished aviator. You likely feel quite at
>> home in an airplane, and definionally have hundreds of hours in an
>> airplane.
>>
>> Try to think back to when you were a 15-hour primary student. The stuff
>> that we take for granted is often a major difficulty. It was for me. I
>> remember being a 15-hour students and trying to remember all the stuff
>> you had to do before landing, and sometimes looking up and feeling
>> completely baffled. I know I'm not alone in this.
>>
>> When I work with primary students, I generally try to teach them one
>> coherent way of doing things. "Downwind- power to 2000 RPM, abeam the
>> touchdown point, power to 1500 RPM, pitch for 80 knots. When TD point
>> is 45 degrees behind, turn base, one notch flaps...pitch for 80....". I
>> have had students who have flown with different CFIs while I was
>> working with them. These other CFIs (one was a CFI in training) are
>> certainly very competent pilots and likely skilled instructors.
>> However,they do things differently...they teach things differently. And
>> what seems to often happen is that instead of focusing on the task at
>> hand and using a technique they know and have learned to trust, noow
>> the student is thinking "Was it 1500 RPM? No....that was Dave. Jeff
>> likes power all the way out...wait...."
>>
>> When I start work with a primary student, I structure my syllabus and
>> training program to lead from one concept and maneuver naturally to
>> another...I envision the entire training process that I expect to
>> perform with that student. I know what each student I have knows...and
>> what he doesn. I know what he is good at, and what he isn't. And I can
>> use these things to help him become a better pilot. I think that
>> continuity is very important...and having multiple CFIs gets in the way
>> of that.
>>
>> By the time you are working on your CFI or your commercial, you pretty
>> much already know how to fly...you are perfecting and advancing your
>> technique...but you already know how to do all the basics. I think that
>> it is probably reasonable to work with different CFIs at that level.
>> but not when you're starting out.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>>
>> Cap
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> gatt wrote:
>>> Chief flight instructor and my primary instructor are both gone for
>> the
>>> week, so I've been flying with whatever low-time, newly-minted
>> Cessna-jockey
>>> greenhorn flight instructor that answers the phone when I call to
>> schedule.
>>> I've flown with four different instructors in the last two weeks.
>>>
>>> I wholeheartedly recommend this. Each instructor has his own way of
>>> explaining and demonstrating things, (working on complex rating and
>>> commercial, part 141) as well as slight variations of technique and
>>> procedure. The result is that I've been able to choose the methods
>> which
>>> work best and with which I'm most comfortable, AND check these things
>>> against other instructors to make sure it's right.
>>>
>>> The newer guys have a great sense of enthusiasm, and since the boss
>> is out
>>> of the shop, they've got great information about what it's REALLY
>> like
>>> flying as a CFI out of that FBO and things like, how many hours one
>> might
>>> expect to accumulate over the summer flying season.
>>>
>>> I've had one instructor who's a Major in the Air Force and learned at
>> the
>>> academy, one who is a retired Marine and learned in the '60s, one who
>> is an
>>> Embry Riddle graduate and one who earned his CFI wings from two of
>> the
>>> others and has only been instructing for a year. The four different
>>> perspectives have made every flight not just practice, but a new
>> learning
>>> experience. My primary instructor is excellent, but I wish I'd have
>> been
>>> doing this to some degree all along!
>>>
>>> -c
>>
>
>

[G. Sylvester]

I have to try your method. Maybe I can get my pattern flying without
'thinking' at all. Right now it is semi-smooth but completely not
mindless.

> In a Warrior-II, 152 or 172P with just an instructor and a student, setting
> 2100 RPM on downwind, and trimming for hands off flight seems to set the
> airplane up for a normal approach speed when using 20-deg of flaps, and the
> short-field approach speed with 30-deg of flaps.

Are you sure about the RPM? The method I've been taught is
drop the RPM to 1600-1700 (weight depending) when abeam the
numbers and throw in one notch flaps and pitch for 90 KIAS.
On base, 2 notches of flaps and pitch for 80 KIAS
and on final 3 notches and pitch for 70 KIAS. At 2100 RPM,
I'd still a few hundred feet off the ground.

Gerald

[Rob Montgomery]

2100 is for when you're level (i.e. before you're abeam the numbers) and
trimming the airplane. Once you're abeam the numbers, you bring the power
back to something that gives you the rate of descent you'd like (and where
the previous posters point holds true... do get too fussy, look out thte
window at the airplane entering the pattern on an extended base or a long
final), put in your flaps, and slow to approach speed. Also keep in mind
that the actual power setting may vary from airplane to airplane.

Good luck,

-Rob

"G. Sylvester" > wrote in message
m...
>I have to try your method. Maybe I can get my pattern flying without
> 'thinking' at all. Right now it is semi-smooth but completely not
> mindless.
>
>> In a Warrior-II, 152 or 172P with just an instructor and a student,
>> setting 2100 RPM on downwind, and trimming for hands off flight seems to
>> set the airplane up for a normal approach speed when using 20-deg of
>> flaps, and the short-field approach speed with 30-deg of flaps.
>
> Are you sure about the RPM? The method I've been taught is
> drop the RPM to 1600-1700 (weight depending) when abeam the
> numbers and throw in one notch flaps and pitch for 90 KIAS.
> On base, 2 notches of flaps and pitch for 80 KIAS
> and on final 3 notches and pitch for 70 KIAS. At 2100 RPM,
> I'd still a few hundred feet off the ground.
>
> Gerald
>
>
>
>
>

[Roy Smith]

In article >,
"Rob Montgomery" > wrote:

> 2100 is for when you're level (i.e. before you're abeam the numbers) and
> trimming the airplane. Once you're abeam the numbers, you bring the power
> back to something that gives you the rate of descent you'd like (and where
> the previous posters point holds true... do get too fussy, look out thte
> window at the airplane entering the pattern on an extended base or a long
> final), put in your flaps, and slow to approach speed. Also keep in mind
> that the actual power setting may vary from airplane to airplane.

The way I look at the pattern, what's really important is airspeeds, not
power settings. Power settings are just a way to get the airspeed you
want.

The most critical airspeed in the pattern is your final approach speed.
Everything else is just executing a controlled transition from cruise
speed to final approach speed. For most light planes, if you fly base
10 kts faster than final, and downwind 10 kts faster than base, you
should be doing OK. This should give you a good target speed for
downwind.

The problem is, you can't set airspeed directly, you can only set power.
So, it's a good idea to have a target power setting for downwind. For
most typical trainers, somewhere in the 1900-2100 RPM range is about
right, but ask your instructor for a good number to use for whatever
you're flying. You set that when entering the pattern (along with
whatever other configuration changes you're going to make, like gear and
flaps), and give the plane a little time to settle into a stable
airspeed. Then you can adjust the power if needed if you didn't get the
airspeed you wanted.

Keep in mind that you need to fit in with the existing traffic flow.
You may normally fly downwind at 90 kts, but if you're following
somebody going slower, you need to do something to avoid crawling up his
exhaust pipe. This can get really interesting as the mix of types gets
extreme (Bonanza following a Cub, for example).

[Peter Duniho]

"Roy Smith" > wrote in message
...
> The most critical airspeed in the pattern is your final approach speed.
> Everything else is just executing a controlled transition from cruise
> speed to final approach speed. For most light planes, if you fly base
> 10 kts faster than final, and downwind 10 kts faster than base, you
> should be doing OK. This should give you a good target speed for
> downwind.

Means and ends are in the eye of the beholder. The way I look at the
pattern, what's really important are airspeed and altitude. Power settings
allow me to adjust either, but once I've begun my descent (usually from
abeam the numbers, but not always depending on traffic concerns) power
settings are just a way to get the *altitude* I want, and the descent angle
I want. I use my pitch controls (elevator and elevator trim) to adjust
airspeed at that point.

Of course, they all interact. It's like asking "Bernoulli or Newton". But
don't discount someone else's mental paradigm just because it's different
from yours. :)

The point that started this whole subthread was simply that students (and
even full-fledged pilots for that matter) can fixate on setting a particular
RPM, when that's not really all that important. A particular RPM setting is
only going to work on a "standard pattern day" (i.e. no wind, no traffic,
exactly 800' or 1000' or whatever feet AGL you pick as standard, turns at
precisely 45 degrees and final, etc.).

Any variation from this standard is going to require adjustments to throttle
to maintain the desired performance for the conditions. So why waste time
and concentration getting the throttle at exactly some particular setting,
when getting it in the ballpark using muscle memory (i.e. general knowledge
of the "correct" position) and audible feedback (sound of the engine)?

I believe that Bob was saying just that, and I think his comment was right
on the mark. It's funny the turns this thread has taken, but I disagree
with Rob's attachment to precision in this case (even though I do generally
believe that precise control of the aircraft is very important), and I don't
understand what debating the *actual* specific RPM settings does to address
the original point.

> The problem is, you can't set airspeed directly, you can only set power.

I beg to differ. I set the airspeed all the time. I can manipulate the
elevator directly to obtain the desired airspeed, and I can then set the
trim to allow the airspeed to remain at that desired.

> So, it's a good idea to have a target power setting for downwind. For
> most typical trainers, somewhere in the 1900-2100 RPM range is about
> right, but ask your instructor for a good number to use for whatever
> you're flying. You set that when entering the pattern (along with
> whatever other configuration changes you're going to make, like gear and
> flaps), and give the plane a little time to settle into a stable
> airspeed. Then you can adjust the power if needed if you didn't get the
> airspeed you wanted.

If you simply adjust power, you won't get the airspeed you want, ever (well,
not counting a sudden decelleration at the end of a descent induced by a
power reduction). You have to change your pitch in order to get a new
airspeed that will produce the performance you want at the new power
setting.

More relevant to where this subthread started, yes it's good to have a
target power setting for downwind, and for the descent as well. But there's
no need to spend 30 seconds (or whatever) fiddling with the throttle to get
the power setting "just so". You smoothly, calmly, and quickly set the
throttle to the general vicinity of the correct spot, and then make
adjustments as necessary during the approach. Adjustments you would have to
even if you managed to hit the exact throttle setting you had targeted.

Pete