If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Dear Burt
Thought this was an opportunity to start what might be an interesting
thread regarding soaring instruction. Using your aside as a springboard, I'll ask the group: "Is soaring instruction adequate to produce safe, knowledgable soaring pilots." I bring this up, first to echo Burt's observation of the RAS penchant for mis-information, and as an opportunity to point out to Burt that the contributors to this group are the product of soaring instruction. During my 10-year tenure as a CFIG, I was astounded by the lack of knowledge and skill demonstrated by FAA certified glider pilots. And even more astounded by the lack of knowledge demonstrated by some CFIs. For example, I found that most glider pilots are unable to slip a sailplane (if we measure competency as the ability to differentiate the uses of a slip and maintain directional control and speed). I also found that many pilots demonstrated a marked inability to maintain coordination at critically low airspeeds, were unable to clearly and quickly name the signs of an impending stall, and failed to observe many of them while practicing flight at MCA. I'm not saddling a high horse here... as an instructor I stressed over how much a student needed to know versus the need to let him go keep learning for himself. However, the lack of knowledge demonstrated by many pilots exceeds what might be forgotten over the course of a season or two of inactivity, pointing instead to a poorly laid foundation. Teaching others to fly is a privelege... but carries with it a solemn responsibility. Are instructors, in part, to blame for the mis-information we see on RAS? Is it a matter of poor instructors, or is it possible that the standards used for teaching are inadequate? |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
One challenge is just the sheer amount of material, and lack of
consistency, in even the minimal FAA documents. For example, the glider PTS requires knowledge of "turning slips to a landing." Until Judy pointed this out, I didn't even see it. Pages 7-36 and 7-37 of the Glider Flying Handbook don't seem to even acknowledge this. 61.87(i)(17) just says "slips to a landing." So the references and PTS don't even match up. I've found over a hundred specific inconsistencies between examiner handbooks, CFR, GFH, PTS, forms, etc. Given the sheer volume of material, this doesn't surprise me. Even the GFH is internally inconsistent. Slips are defined in several places DIFFERENTLY. I look at all of the stuff, and the detail, and at some point pick up "The Joy of Soaring" and just hand that to a student. Digestible, consistent, fundamental, focused. In article .com, wrote: Thought this was an opportunity to start what might be an interesting thread regarding soaring instruction. Using your aside as a springboard, I'll ask the group: "Is soaring instruction adequate to produce safe, knowledgable soaring pilots." I bring this up, first to echo Burt's observation of the RAS penchant for mis-information, and as an opportunity to point out to Burt that the contributors to this group are the product of soaring instruction. During my 10-year tenure as a CFIG, I was astounded by the lack of knowledge and skill demonstrated by FAA certified glider pilots. And even more astounded by the lack of knowledge demonstrated by some CFIs. For example, I found that most glider pilots are unable to slip a sailplane (if we measure competency as the ability to differentiate the uses of a slip and maintain directional control and speed). I also found that many pilots demonstrated a marked inability to maintain coordination at critically low airspeeds, were unable to clearly and quickly name the signs of an impending stall, and failed to observe many of them while practicing flight at MCA. I'm not saddling a high horse here... as an instructor I stressed over how much a student needed to know versus the need to let him go keep learning for himself. However, the lack of knowledge demonstrated by many pilots exceeds what might be forgotten over the course of a season or two of inactivity, pointing instead to a poorly laid foundation. Teaching others to fly is a privelege... but carries with it a solemn responsibility. Are instructors, in part, to blame for the mis-information we see on RAS? Is it a matter of poor instructors, or is it possible that the standards used for teaching are inadequate? -- ------------+ Mark J. Boyd |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Terry wrote: wrote: Thought this was an opportunity to start what might be an interesting thread regarding soaring instruction. Using your aside as a springboard, I'll ask the group: "Is soaring instruction adequate to produce safe, knowledgable soaring pilots." As a FAA Designated Pilot Examiner, I think I have some insight to this question. The short answer is yes, and no. It all depends upon the standards utilized by the individual. The regulatory standards are detailed in the US Federal Air Regulations and relevant Practical Test Standards (PTS). These are the bare minimum to be demonstrated to me on a flight test in order to gain certification. As I hand the new temporary certificate over, I remind the pilot that aviation safety is now in his hands. It is trite, but true that each of us is as good as we want to be. In order to raise the bar, we have to willingly suffer critique and to be self critical enough to improve our own knowledge. Some instructor problems will always be with us. Any bad information given and then accepted as fully true can live for generations of pilots. For example, last week-end a vacationing pilot came to our field for some training and confessed to me his unease about "the low energy landing you all use here." As this was during our introduction and pre flight briefing, I asked him to more fully explain his statement. At his home field he felt that were he to land over than by flying onto the ground, he would be chased off and never released from dual. This is a description of how the concept of maintaining energy until landing is assured can become distorted by a poor description from a flight instructor. Careful questioning of your own and your student's assumptions based upon your instruction should catch this-but due to short shifting of ground instruction frequently gets missed. No one whether club or commercial is immune. At Estrella, I have inherited students that have been told they are close to solo but have yet to crack a text. What did that instructor do to allow this? What is needed is an instructor that will not accept the minimums. Any instructor should be in the glider for the student-not for the flight time. I had a conversation with a chief CFI of a large club that thought my own glider time to number of flights was too low. How could I have been teaching soaring and not stayed up longer? My response was that the student needed to learn to soar, not me. In order to do that, mistakes had to be made and corrected. It is all too easy to fly the glider for the student. I was guilty of that at one time, but when my own confidence grew, I found that I could fly just as well orally. Any instructor in any endeavor sets the example and should not be satisfied with the minimum performance standard, but always a little bit more. You don't have to look into a mirror to see yourself, just at the pilots that you have trained. Terry Claussen DPE Estrella Terry: Interesting and enlightening perspective. But I've gotta ask you a question. If you view the PTS as "minimum", and the candidate performs to that standard, but let's assume, not above, does this candidate receive a certificate? Obviously a complicated question. When an examiner, for whatever reason, decides to apply his own standards, he creates a situation in which the instructors training the pilots he will examine, now have to train to PTS plus his standards, if they know them. I'm sure this works OK at Estrella where your instructors have a sense of what you expect, but how does an instructor who does not know you prepare his student? His opinion of what should be performed above the standard may be much different than yours. Probably the most important insight is that just cause you got the ticket, doesn't mean you know all you should about flying gliders. It is a lifetime endeavor. I see pilots all the time that need additional or retraining to be as good as they could be. That said, examiners who do their own thing can make it very hard on instructors. Thanks for sharing your perspective. UH |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
That said, examiners who do their own thing can make it very hard on instructors. Thanks for sharing your perspective. UH ================================================== ==================== I hope I did not give the impression that I am making up my own checkride for I am not. If an applicant meets the PTS during my time with him, then he passes. As it should be. Any examiner that is running his own checkride does not deserve nor should he continue to hold his status. By raising the bar, I meant as an iINSTRUCTOR/i, I should always be looking to higher standards from my students. After all getting the student there is what instruction is all about. Terry Claussen |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
This is possibly the most interesting and useful thread I've seen on RAS in some time. Thanks to Fiveniner2 and Burt for inspiring it. My view, as an instructor of 10 years at various operations, is that the PTS is as adaquate as can be expected from a large beurocrocy and that examiners are reasonably consistant in their duties. The PTS does not really require one to be able to demonstrate the ability to: plan, execute, and conclude a soaring ADVENTURE in a broad spectrum of conditions, environments, and aircraft types; to share, initiate, and promote soaring adventure; to recognize, refresh, and maintain pilot skills. Human beings are variable in their dedication, attention, coordination, commitment, resources, etc. So, we have what we have in terms of pilots, and in terms of a sport. It's pretty clear where we need to be directing our best attention to achieve growth in participation and improvement in safety statistics. And, it takes a priceless contribution to dedication beyond what most are capable of to make happen. My hat's off to those who rise to the challenge. They are the great mentors who work to honor the contributions of great mentors before them. They keep this sport alive. They deserve every bit of support the rest of us manage to direct their way. Find a mentor, become a mentor. Matt Michael CFIG Ames, Iowa USA |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Terry wrote: Any bad information given and then accepted as fully true can live for generations of pilots. Terry, You've hit the nail on the head. I think this is reinforced by the fact that there are many pilots who fly very, very well, but have built their own successful (if not wholly accurate) models of flight and airmanship. For example, I know pilots who routinely make expert crosswind landings who believe the wind exerts force on the aircraft while it is in the air and that by tilting the wing into the wind, they are counteracting that force. The physics of the model is flawed, but they are able to use it to fly with great competence. The model they use, however, may not serve another so well. I have a sense that airmanship and its teaching has yet to be fully explored. Seems like a great Doctoral Thesis for someone with interests in aerodynamics and pedagogy. Building an accurate aerodynamic model tailored to serve the needs of aviators (as opposed to engineers) would be a good first step. Next, application of the expansive work done in instructional methodology to create a more efficient and effective approach to teaching flying. There's a certain charm in realizing we are only four generations removed from the Wright Brothers. But that should also be a warning. There's much left to learn. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Terry wrote: That said, examiners who do their own thing can make it very hard on instructors. Thanks for sharing your perspective. UH ================================================== ==================== I hope I did not give the impression that I am making up my own checkride for I am not. If an applicant meets the PTS during my time with him, then he passes. As it should be. Any examiner that is running his own checkride does not deserve nor should he continue to hold his status. By raising the bar, I meant as an iINSTRUCTOR/i, I should always be looking to higher standards from my students. After all getting the student there is what instruction is all about. Terry Claussen ] Thanks Terry: Agree we should all be expecting more than barely good enough. I have seen some examples of examiners making up their own stuff and it can make you crazy. The standards are a bit mushy, which makes it more complicated, especially for someone who is new. I'm sure all of us that have been doing this for awhile has our own "hot spots", that is things I commonly see a weak points in the pilot population. I'll share a few of mine and maybe some other folks can add to the list. #1 Poor energy management in the landing pattern- an over application of "speed is your friend". I'd estimate that 2 out of 3 pilots I check for the first time would hit the fence at the far end of a small field. #2 Failure to create a plan for developing events. The simple lack of recognition of a need for this is far too common. #3 Poor general airmanship- especially is slow flight. Most pilots do not know how to fly in the stall range. I include in this flying the glider in a stalled or partially stalled condition. Anybody else want to jump in here? UH |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
#1 Poor energy management in the landing pattern- an over application of "speed is your friend". I'd estimate that 2 out of 3 pilots I check for the first time would hit the fence at the far end of a small field. #2 Failure to create a plan for developing events. The simple lack of recognition of a need for this is far too common. #3 Poor general airmanship- especially is slow flight. Most pilots do not know how to fly in the stall range. I include in this flying the glider in a stalled or partially stalled condition. Anybody else want to jump in here? UH OK, I'll jump in and agree completely with Hank. Energy management and particularly low energy landings (i.e. touchdowns) are a really big problem. Too may people (me included) have been taught to "fly it onto the ground." And, as Chris pointed out, some basic misconceptions about flight. I found the following quote in the March 2005 issue of Private Pilot: ³In reality ailerons and the rudder donıt turn airplanes; they allow the pilot to bank the airplane, allowing the engine to pull the aircraft around in a circle. Once the turn is established, controls are returned to almost neutral and the elevators and engine do the work of turning the airplane.² Hmmm, I wonder what makes a glider turn. Maybe only motor gliders can turn and then only after the engine is started. -- Bob bobgreenblattATmsnDOTcom --fix this before responding |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
³In reality ailerons and the rudder donıt turn airplanes; they allow the
pilot to bank the airplane, allowing the engine to pull the aircraft around in a circle. Once the turn is established, controls are returned to almost neutral and the elevators and engine do the work of turning the airplane.² Hmmm, I wonder what makes a glider turn. Maybe only motor gliders can turn and then only after the engine is started. Lift is what causes an airplane or glider to turn. Bank the wings and a component of lift is then in the horizontal, causing the turn. All the engine does is control the rate of climb, typically to maintain altitude. Jim Vincent N483SZ illspam |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Dear Denise | [email protected] | Soaring | 0 | February 3rd 05 03:22 PM |
From "Dear Oracle" | Larry Smith | Home Built | 0 | December 27th 03 04:25 AM |
Dear Jack - Elevator Turbulator tape question | Dave Martin | Soaring | 2 | October 14th 03 08:11 PM |
Burt Rutan "pissed off" | Tarver Engineering | Military Aviation | 22 | September 3rd 03 04:10 AM |
Burt Rutan | Dudley Henriques | Military Aviation | 0 | August 23rd 03 07:03 PM |