Dear Burt

Streve, you said,
"I'd further assert that there are plenty of pilots who simply
shouldn't be flying in on
the brink of a stall, because they are not keenly enough attuned to the

voice of the sailplane and it's subtle ways of letting us know what it
needs
to keep us flying."

No well-trained pilot "flies in on the brink of a stall." In a
sailplane, the flair isn't initiated until the pilot is less than 10
feet above the ground. One does not approach stall speed until within
several feet of the ground, at which point ham handedness won't lead to
much more than landing with a "thud" rather than a "swish." The point
at which one chooses to flair or not to flair comes with skill and
knowledge. But forcing a glider onto the ground can lead to equally
unhappy results, usually ending in a stall and something louder than a
thud. By far, the most common landing mistake I see is forcing the
glider onto the ground, only to become airborne with the first
substantial bump, at which point things become genuinely interesting,
and usually end in a fully stalled landing. Why not just cut out the
middle man?

If a pilot is unable to manage a flair and continue it into a fully
stalled landing, the pilot is not yet competent. When he can
demonstrate the ability to do this, then he can start experimenting
with more energetic arrivals.

Crosswinds are another matter. If you'd like, start a thread on them.
There are lots of theories about this too. And plenty to question in
each of them.

I think, though, I'm being too negative . You do make a good point.
Flexibility is a desirable quality. I once had a student who simply
couldn't get his landings right, even though he was doing everything by
the book. He was a sailor. Finally, in exasperation, I said, "Bill, do
you dock your boat the same way every time? Don't you have to change
how you do things based on wind and current?" From that point on I
could never find anything criticize in his landings. He soloed several
flights later.

But flexibility depends a sound foundation of knowledge. If your
conceptual model is flawed, flexibility might hurt you. Interesting
line of thought...

Not to be argumentative without cause...but in my humble opinion you are
very caught up in the minutae or degree of specificity as though you have
the only way...I guess that my point. There are many ways to discuss these
and a myriad of issues and the real key is to convey the information to a
student so that HE/SHE understands the principles...Just when I start
thinking I really know my stuff about aerodynamics, I listen to someone like
Mark Maughmer...or some other guy who REALLY knows his stuff...and all the
blacks and whites start turning grey...


I guess my analogy would be...that I really don't completely understand the
funky new "low volume flushing toilet" to an exacting tolerance, but I've
never had difficulty understanding it's theory of operation, or using it, in
its intended roll.

My opinion would be that we should speak simple english, that new guys can
understand and make certain that we've conveyed the correct principles and
answered questions in logical fashions...And demonstrated behaviors that are
consistent across the board. I've had lots of check rides and bi-ennial's
and NEVER...NOT ONCE....do you answer every question to the satisfaction of
the examiner/instructor. Not to worry though...the trick is in making sure
that the student or examinee understands well, and has the tools required to
accomplish the task at hand.


That's it from me...


Steve.

I think perhaps I've crossed wires somewhere along the line...the stall
comment I meant in earnest. I have flown with plenty of pilots who are
afraid of stalls...or let's say..."uncomfortable" performing them. To me, I
think they're pretty neat.

My comment was aimed at pointing out, that if you teach an undynamic
approach...regardless of what it is...we are asking for trouble at some
point.

Every landing is different.

When I refer to flying in on the brink of a stall, I was responding to
unclehanks previous posting regarding someone not being able to fit into a
tight field.

An off field landing into a tight field, is a completely different mindset
and setup and I do slow my ship WAY down, when I have to land very short.
You give up layers of options in doing so and fully commit yourself to a
different level of risk. But skill and awareness generally keeps us safe.


Just to clarify my point further.


Steve.

Steve, don't run away...

You're going in an interesting direction and raising interesting
questions. I think I'd like to see wrangle through just what
information needs to be conveyed? I can speak simple English and
present you with a model that is patently wrong, but applicable. And
that's my point: what's the right model?

What's fascinating about where we're going with this discussion is that
we don't have much latitude for experimentation. If we go down the
wrong path, it could cost dearly. But at the same time, the methods we
currently use demand some healthy suspicion.

As for my commitment to a "way," that is, my way... of course I'm
committed to it. This is a potentially dangerous business we pursue,
and we need to have confidence in our abilities to see every flight
through to a successful outcome. As an instructor, I had some axioms,
among them that a student who could not demonstrate control of the
glider had absolutely no business flying alone in it: the basis for my
criticism of your "flexibility." However, that doesn't mean I'm not
open to differing view points. Just be ready for a bit of sparring. I
am, if nothing else, open to having my mind changed. If we were talking
Marxist criticism of Shakespeare, I might be more disposed to wear your
opinion... but when it comes to flying, you'll have to make a sound
argument and skillfully field my objections.

I mean this to be entertaining. A little sparring. A little learning,
for both of us.

wrote:
What's fascinating about where we're going with this discussion is
that
we don't have much latitude for experimentation. If we go down the
wrong path, it could cost dearly. But at the same time, the methods
we
currently use demand some healthy suspicion.

================================================= ====================

Earlier I made two examples that I thought detailed some of the more
pressing problems in instruction today: lack of detailed ground
instruction on a conceptual basis, and a specific example of how that
translated a short-handed description into a bad understanding for a
student (in that particular case a new PPG).

Pilots like to fly, otherwise they would do something else. Some
instructors are very good pilots, yet they are not particularly good at
communicating on a conceptual level the art of flying. Result, a
flying instuctor that hangs onto the stick and is always willing to
show instead of teach.

New instructors are particulary susceptable to this as they are not
quite sure of their ability to let out enough rope to the student but
not so much as to hang themselves as well. So they hang on. Some very
experienced pilots do just that. When I had one flying me around while
I was being checked out in the club's grob, I suddenly realized that I
was probably doing the same and wasn't even aware of it. Speak more,
show less.

Which brings out another frequently overlooked item. An aircraft is a
lousy classroom. In a tandem configuration, I am talking to the back
of someone's head. If we accept that a great portion of communication
is non verbal, then students are only receiving a small portion of what
is trying to be conveyed verbally.

It is more fun to fly. I would rather strap into the glider and fly
flight after flight, but were I to do that with students, how would I
plan, brief, clarify questions, query, and evaluate progress for that
day while examining my student's hat or hair style? Impossible.

The instructor sets the plan and executes the instruction. By taking
the time, and it does take AT LEAST the same amount of ground time as
flight time to settle any misconceptions and solidify instruction, your
student will have fewer bad habits and hopefully fewer withdrawls from
the bank of luck.

Terry

Don't sweat it...no running here.

I am simply convinced that many times, one persons perfect plan, is another
persons last alternative.

I think what we are really referring to, is the single most difficult thing
to teach. we can teach the skills, we can teach the theory, but what we
cannotn teach, is judgment. The first time you cut a student loose, after
knowing they have all the required skills and then you watch them do
something truly dumb or completely adverse to what you've taught, you
realize that the single best thing we can try to share, is how to think and
analyze and act. There was an old military adage called the ODA loop. I'm
sure someone will be able to tell you the guys name. It was
Observe,Decide,Act. It really became and analytical basis for modern
warfare. As Mark James Boyd points out, the PTS does a good job of laying
out what is to be demonstrated to the minimum acceptable standards. I have
just always sorta felt that the PTS and ensuing exam is based on passing the
test in a 2-33 and going for 20 minute sled rides.

Real world in a 45:1 sailplane...that test doesn't even scratch the surface
of what's required.

We can argue for weeks I'm sure and in the end, a free exchange of soaring
philosophy from a variety of sources is of more benefit to a soaring pilot
advancing into the ranks, then just passing the FAA Knowledge Test and PTS.
Just my opinion...flame me all you want. Not a safe soaring pilot, does a
freshly printed Glider certificate in hand...necessarily make.


I'm still not running....but it is Friday and I'd rather go have a beer than
argue anymore.



Steve.

wrote:
This is exactly my point! Why don't we all already know what makes an
aircraft turn? Many pilots feel they do, but if we sit several
professional pilots down, separately, and ask them how an aircraft
flies from a pilot's perspective, you'll get three substantively
related, though specifically different answers.

Let me play "devil's advocate" for a minute. A friend of mine was taking
power lessons and the CFI asked how a VOR works. My friend started to
explain the reference and rotating signals. The CFI stopped him and said
"I see you're an engineer, now tell me how a VOR works". "You tune and
identify the frequency and set the radial on the OBS". "Right".

Tony V.

"Steve Hill" wrote in message
...
An off field landing into a tight field, is a completely different mindset
and setup and I do slow my ship WAY down, when I have to land very short.
You give up layers of options in doing so and fully commit yourself to a
different level of risk. But skill and awareness generally keeps us safe.

You are simply trading one kind of risk for another, and hopefully making a
good deal for yourself and your aircraft in the process. Too many pilots forget
the simple formula "E= M * V^2", which tells you how much energy you must
dissipate after touching down at a given speed. Note that velocity is a square
relationship, so therefore you do not have to increase velocity much before you
have doubled the energy that must somehow be dissipated on landing. (Simple
example he
http://id.mind.net/~zona/mstm/physic...ticEnergy.html )

It is good to sit down and plug in numbers for your own bird at various
landing speeds and then you will be far better equipped to rationally make that
particular risk tradeoff when you are looking at a landout.

Vaughn

Glad I misunderstood. I'd have joined you, but Laura had beer and pizza
waiting this evening.

Cheers,

OC (hic)

I am a Private SEL and Glider Pilot, not an instructor or an examiner,
so go easy if I have no biz contributing!

I currently work at an airplane flight school (not as a pilot). I have
observed how individual students/customers learn and progress, each in
their own timeframe and each with his/her own strengths and weaknesses.
I've also witnessed how, with varying levels of success, the CFIs
perceive and handle customers' differences.

Based on those observations and my own personal experiences, I have two
comments:

(1) "One picture is worth a thousand words." Terry, I appreciate the
value of your thoughts about how "the student needs to learn, not me"
and about being able to "fly orally, and certainly there are some things
that can only be explained or shown to a point, after which the rest is
up to the student/customer. On the other hand, while some CFIs are
hesitant or even reluctant to "fly for the student", there are other
times when being SHOWN *instantly* teaches an understanding that
multiple verbal or written descriptions cannot convey. The preached
phrase -- "don't fly on the customer's dime" -- has been taken so
literally and absolutely by some instructors that repeatedly and
unsuccessfully verbally explaining something vs. demonstrating it
sometimes wastes more of the customer's dime than it saves.

(2) Please welcome questions, and never EVER make anyone regret asking
you. I know how BASIC that is, but it addresses the original ideas about
erroneous info on RAS or anywhere, how and why it is born, how long it
lives, and whether or not instruction is lacking. Whether we hear it in
a hangar caf or read it on RAS, if it gets people thinking about
specific areas, and more importantly, if we bring the thought/question
to you, a CFI or Examiner, *THAT DISCUSSION*, regardless of the source
that prompted it, should be one of the most welcome opportunities you
get to further educate us.

I have tremendous respect and gratitude for everyone I've taken
instruction from, but I have varying levels of comfort approaching each
of them with questions. I have been both chastized and applauded for
asking questions that originated from discussions on the internet. In
one instance, Instructor-A blasted me for even considering that anything
I'd read on an internet newsgroup may have validity; Instructor-B heard
my question, suggested some topic-specific reading material, and took a
flight with me to address the subject hands-on. Which instructor made me
feel apprehensive about asking other questions? And which reaction to my
question was advantageous to me as a pilot constantly striving to be as
safe, knowledgeable and competent as possible?

Lastly, I recently was invited to sit-in at a CFI meeting. During an
exchange of ideas/suggestions for various areas of instruction, one CFI
expressed a preference for teaching instrument or commercial students
because "they already know how to fly." Another instantly spoke up,
saying that she welcomes and appreciates the opportunity to teach
private students because she's had so many instrument and commercial
students that have clearly been adequately taught the mechanics of
flying, but NOT how to think, reason and make sound judgments in
situations that aren't routinely rehearsed for a checkride. She said she
felt that skill of how to think, due to the vagueness of how to
measure/grade it, was the one most commonly skimmed over and
consequently lacking, and sometimes not received as well when addressed
in a person already licensed vs during training for Private.

Interesting thread. Thanks!