Instructor Responsibility?

[Dean_Dolph]

I copied the following from the Smuz RAF 2000 GTX SE - No Injuries thread in the Piloting Technique/Accident Discussions forum.

First of all I want Terry to understand that in no way am I taking shots at him or any other instructor. We are fortunate to have the few we have and need to be thankful for those that have spent their time and money to secure the certificate that allows them to teach.

But there are a couple items in Terry's post that puzzle me. First I always assumed that the CFI had the responsibility to not let a student solo until the proficiency level was such that the chances of an accident were very low and the chances of an incident were next to nil. To clarify, I consider accidents as those events that were entirely preventable where incidents are those events that happen despite all precautions being taken.…………I fear that the low hours required for this new rating has the potential to lead to an increase in roll-over incidents. Terry, I asked this question many moons ago and never received a definitive response from any one. How do instructors measure proficiency?

I ask as a non-pilot with few gyro training hours and because I can! This means I admit to playing Monday morning quarterback in a lot of cases. But it seems to me that after reading the numerous roll over accidents reports by those involved, and I appreciate the value of their candor, that something was missing in their training or they were turned loose before acquiring sufficient proficiency.

I've had reason to poll several instructors over the past few years and no small number of them have stated that the students are not getting enough training hours. It appears to boil down to a case of economics.

Because of this, in most, if not all cases, it also appears that this makes the instructor fearful that if the student isn't given as much training as possible in as short a period of time as possible that the student will disappear to try and fly on their own. And then the inevitable accident happens. We all know that in the past that was a common occurrence. I'm not sure that happens as often anymore and if it doesn't I would say that the educational efforts provided by Norm's Conference and Todd's Forum have been the major contributing factor.

If, in fact, students will now hang in there as long as it takes to acquire the proper level of proficiency then I would suggest that it is time for instructors to revisit their training system to make sure that absolutely everything is covered.

And If, in fact, the students are not getting enough training hours then whose responsibility is that? I do not see the Sport Pilot low hour requirement as a problem. That is, if the instructors accept their responsibility to not sign off for solo until sufficient proficiency is acquired. Again, how is proficiency measured?

It seems that more AAI instructors visit here than anyone else so I would appreciate Jim Mayfield's comments and observations.………… It just doesn’t take much of an error or wind gust to make us vulnerable to a roll-over. I'm not in a position to take issue with this statement but I'm having a difficult time remembering a roll over accident happening to an experienced gyro pilot. Experience in this case is kinda ambiguous and wishy-washy since no one, to my knowledge, has defined what an 'experienced pilot' is. But I think everyone understands what I'm saying.

[Dean_Dolph]

After I made my initial post I thought of a story (this is a Texas story so it is questionable but I'm not making this up!) about a local gyro pilot.

The story goes that when his fixed wing instructor informed him that he was ready to solo and stepped out of the plane that the student told him to get back in. He would tell the instructor when he was ready to solo!

True or not it makes one wonder if all the responsibility for determining when a student is ready to solo lies with the instructor. I understand that there may be times that the instructor may have to encourage the student to solo because of some apprehension but…….

[Heather Poe]

Would "dampened" Carter-style landing gear reduce or eliminate either pilot induced lateral oscillation and/or roll-over incidents? Will Crisp reports for the Monarch: "the G-Force Landing Gear was able to absorb 1,200 feet-per-minute landing impacts with a 3000 lb gross weight with no damage".

http://www.rotaryforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=3144&highlight=carter

How well does this type of landing gear work when the landing touches down on only one wheel? Curious minds want to know.

[Mayfield]

Dear Dean,

First of course we, as instructors, must fulfill our legal and moral obligation of teaching everything required by part 61 prior to a solo sign-off.

Thats the easy part. Then we have to observe not only the pilots skill level in the different maneuvers, but his demeanor, his physical signs, how he handles the inevitable stresses of flying, and even his ability to think ahead of the aircraft.

As was rightly inferred in another thread, by David Bird I think, learning to fly is an incremental process. Today you or I might be able to handle 5 knots of crosswind or a 10 knot gust spread. Yesterday, or tomorrow for that matter, you and I may be able to handle more or less.

So how does an instructor make the determination that a student is ready to go alone? First, we need to define "go alone." The solo endorsement can, and in many cases should, have limitations attached to it. It is well within the instructors right, duty, and obligation to assign appropriate limits based on a particular students progress or skill level.

Common limitations would be:

1. Wind limitations

2. Weather minimums

3. Ballast requirements

4. Mission limitations (traffic pattern only, within 5 miles, etc.)

In short, any limitation that the instructor feels is necessary for safety.

The FAA believes, and I concur, that an instructor is responsible for supervising the solo activities of his/her students. This a a real hard thing to do in the gyro community. It is easier if an instructor can convince the student that it is in the students best interest to adhere to the guidelines and limitations set by the instructor. This requires mutual trust and respect for the respective roles of the participants.

When training starts the instructor is talking a mile a minute. After some number of hours the instructor begins to be quiet and evaluate performance. At some point, with most students, you brief the student that during this mission you want to be able to give only general direction. If the instructor can be quiet for several consecutive missions while the student executes the desired maneuvers, the student is probably getting close to solo.

Then, in my opinion, you start looking for the "signs." Is the student sweating inappropriately? Are his/her movements calm and unhurried? Does he/she appear relaxed and confident without being swaggering or being overconfident?

If it is time for the solo flight confidence builder, I believe the instructor should ensure optimal conditions for that flight. Student well rested, aircraft in great shape, winds in limits, traffic not too heavy, etc.

I believe the instructor should brief 1 to 3 normal, full stop, taxi back, takeoffs and landings. The first solo is only to assure the student that he/she is indeed master of the machine. It does not need to test or evaluate skills other than very basic ones. Remember of course, that the student has to be trained and proficient in abnormal situations for that 1 in a 100 chance that he will have his first engine failure or other emergency on his first solo.

I know these are not specific answers Dean. Students come in all shapes, sizes, colors, physical attributes, intellectual capabilities, and yes, even feel for flying.

If I can answer more I will be glad to.

R/S

Jim Mayfield

[teiland]

Dean, I totally agree with everything you said. Also, as you know, I am just a beginner at this instructing business, and will defer to the much more qualified instructors who may chime in here. Having said that, I will give you my two cents worth………….

My point that was that while experienced pilots surely are not nearly as vulnerable to roll-overs, it still can happen to them if not ever vigilant, especially in gusty conditions. I still find myself closer to that edge at times than I would like, while teaching. I have had students who had flown for hours with me, and who had made pretty good strides in learning to land, all of a sudden, do something totally unexpected like abruptly forcing the nose-wheel to the ground, with very unpleasant results. I have been up on the nose-wheel and one main several times, struggling to regain control. A roll-over was just a short distance away.

Last year at Plant City, I shared a very enjoyable cook-out with Hunn, Logan, Fritts, McGowan, and Patten where these guys recounted their horror stories. Very educational for me.

I agree that the instructor has to be firm, perhaps in the face of pressure and not allow solo if there is any reasonable doubt as to outcome. Still the result cannot be assured. The psychological burden a new pilot faces when he lifts off alone for the first time, realizing it is all up to him, can cause him to perform much differently than he has consistently done previously with the instructor by his side. When I soloed in my gyro I already had 30 years of flying FW, but I still was nervous. Nervousness alone can degrade performance mightily, as we all know.

My comments about Sport Pilot might be wrong. I just tend to think that if the fed’s feel that 15 hrs. dual is an adequate minimum, then there is going to be a natural tendency on the part of us ego-influenced aviators to consider that somewhat the standard. I fully understand that it is a minimum, but still …………..I would have left it at 20 hrs. I certainly don’t want the solo flight to be the last dual the student gets, so if we do manage to meet this admittedly non-binding 15 hr. timeline, where back down the line did he reach solo capability

Also, after the student has received that certificate and starts to expand his flying world to include significantly different take-off weights, heavy winds, cross winds, spot landings, flying in public, different machines, in-flight mechanical problems, etc., he had better be mighty careful the first couple hundred hours.

[ScottTinnesand]

Dean,

I couldn't have written a better response than Jim. But I do have an additional thought to add-

Not all students achieve the solo sign-off. One of the hardest things for an instructor to do is to have to tell a student that they're just not "getting it".

While one could argue that anyone can be taught a set of tasks, the truth is that between the limitations of time and money (to name a few), some folks don't possess the coordination or skill sets to learn to fly in a timely or financially sound manner.

Before this point is reached, a good instructor will try to adapt his or her instructional methods, lesson plans, and so on. Also, if they're lucky, there is another CFI nearby that can jump in and try his or her style of instruction on the student. This is very evident in the military flight schools. I have witnessed students at Fort Rucker get 'recycled' through many flight classes. The nice thing in our situation is that an instructor won't scream at you and boot you out of training if the learning is difficult for you!

I guess my point is that the CFI's that I know in this community take a very serious approach to the the 'solo sign-off'.

[Aussie_Paul]

I seem to find that both the student and myself just "seem to know" when it is time for that first solo.

Instructing is as much about people skills as it is about flying.

Aussie Paul. :)

[GyroRon]

I bet an instructors worse - or one of the close seconds - students.... are the ones who only take a few lessons and knowing they are not ready go off and teach themselves the rest and never seek further instruction.

[Heron]

1 - correction - The G-Force Landing Gear is a Larry Neal invention, the Carter Strut was part of the first one, other shock absorbers are been tested so it is a "Neal Type Landing Gear". Yes it will allow for less roll overs, but not eliminate them totally.
2 - back to rollovers - Every pilot will be suceptible of rollover, causes galore, it can happen for many reasons . . .
3 - students can make mistakes after almost perfecting maneuvers, not the instructors fault once the student became a pilot, bad instructing habits will make evrything worse.
I believe I will have extra problems when training, been around gyros for so long and so much I feel I can take off by myself, don't think I can land. Will have to "unlearn" what I think I know or will give my instructors more gray hair . . .
Devoncir is an instructor that I've just met in Brazil, he teaches his students to taxi in one wheel and he is taking off and landing that way. Maybe just a show off, maybe not.
Anyway this is good input from you guys
Thank you
Heron

[Harry_S.]

Last year at Plant City, I shared a very enjoyable cook-out with Hunn, Logan, Fritts, McGowan, and Patten where these guys recounted their horror stories. Very educational for me.



Terry: I truly wish you could have secured permission from all involved in that *roundtable* for a taping...then a transcription for publication. I would guarantee it would be *wide eyed* reading for everyone except the seasoned Gyro CFI...and maybe even some of them.

I've flown with all those fellas except Steve and have listened to some of their stories. I'm sure what they relate is true but...some are really
:eek: ?!

IMO, all are excellent pilots. ;)


Cheers :)

[Udi]

Would "dampened" Carter-style landing gear reduce or eliminate either pilot induced lateral oscillation and/or roll-over incidents? Will Crisp reports for the Monarch: "the G-Force Landing Gear was able to absorb 1,200 feet-per-minute landing impacts with a 3000 lb gross weight with no damage".

http://www.rotaryforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=3144&highlight=carter

How well does this type of landing gear work when the landing touches down on only one wheel? Curious minds want to know.
Very good question - but this is not the right place to discuss it.

Udi

[teiland]

Dean, I usually find that when I post here, I look back later and realize I did a poor job of conveying my thoughts accurately.....................but back to your earlier discussion: I am not so sure that roll-overs have been solely the plight of the "inexperienced", although I agree that would be generally true. I can think of 4 or 5 such incidents either mentioned on the forum or personally know about, where instructors were involved. While I hate to admit it, I don't think we can ever totally rule out it happening to any of us. That is where I was going with my statements. Others may disagree, but then others are better pilots than me.

Also, I want to make it abundantly clear that I will not authorize solo for anyone until I am comfortable as to the likely outcome, and I don't think any other instructor will either. There are no guarantees, though.

Lastly, I have not yet talked to a flight instructor, FW or gyro, who was enthused about Sport Pilot, although admittedly, I have only talked to a few. What I intended to say was that while we instructors will definitely stand up and meet our responsibilities, I do think that it might tend to put assumptions into the student's head that may be unrealistic. I regularly have calls from potential students asking whether they can come and get in the specific number of hours "required to solo" in their particular situation. They speak of it as if it were set in stone. The instructors I have talked to seem to agree that taking a beginner through to "meet the standard" often requires more than the minimum times, even under the "other rules". Many gyro pilots took a bit longer to train, but went on to be very excellent. I don't think that reflects negatively on them. I am just not sure SP minimums are generally reasonable, and if not they might complicate my world a bit. That is the kind of thinking that I was trying to share, right or wrong though it may be.

Dean, on a personal note, I want to thank you for your ever consistent, level headed, and positive contributions to these kinds of discussions. Your demeanor is always gentlemanly, your words articulate, and your insights useful to us all.

[Dean_Dolph]

First of all, I want to thank all of you that responded.

Since I've asked this question several times, it is now obvious that determining the degree of pilot proficiency is something that is hard to put a number on but instead it is probably a personal measurement against an instructors own proficiency. In other words once a student approaches the instructors own proficiency in the basics then the instructor feels comfortable letting the student solo knowing that there will be improvements with experience. How close am I in understanding the evaluation process?

If I'm correct then I suspect an instructor's first students are held to a higher standard than later ones. I say that because it is likely an instructor also learns how soon he can release a student and it likely to be earlier rather than later.

I think the responses, the instructors have given us, provide some insight into the training process and I, for one, appreciate the sharing.

[Heron]

It is like having kids, after the second you sleep soundly all night! :D
Heron

[KenSandyEggo]

I'm going to get simplistic. I believe that the propensity for a rollover on landing is greatly determined by the pilot's innate reflex speed or reponse capability. Therefore this topic can never be discussed completely objectively. There are too many variations between us. I happen to be blessed with very quick reflexes and received some excellent training in reflex development while a member of some law enforcement agencies. Probably the best was a driving course I took that was put on by the FBI on pursuit driving.

I have been in "almost" rollover situations on landing caused by either a side gust or a yawed landing. Each time, as soon as I felt the gyro tipping, I instantaneously flung the stick in the opposite direction and prevented a rollover. I am also conditioned to never jam on my brakes in a car. That has saved me numerous times from rear-ending someone when they suddenly stopped. I have wound up parked next to them on the shoulder of the road, because I was able to quickly assess the situation, remember not to lock the brakes and steer to a safe spot, all within a split second. More people than not do not have extremely quick reflexes nor were they ever trained on how to develop them and use them. Almost everyone locks the brakes in a panic stop.

I believe that many pilots that begin a tipover situation just lock the stick in their grips, stare straight ahead and plonk over with the ship without ever having moved the stick. Some people's reflexes just don't work quickly enough. Their brain has to analyze the situation, come up with a solution and then execute it. By that time, they've been laying on their sides for 15 seconds. Not good or bad per se, just that we're all different in the way we develop our reflexes over our lives.

If one is prone to locking the brakes on a car when something not moving suddenly appears to their front and crashing into it, that person would also be most likely to tip a gyro if the landing went a little awry. I'm talking flat, hard landing areas, not sand, mud or soft dirt. Those are factors that no one can control except by not getting into them in the first place.

[dmckee]

Not sure if this is the right place to bring this up, but I will anyway. How do the instructors feel about students that already have a private pilots license? Are they easier to instruct in a gyro or do they "bad" habits that are hard to get them to get rid of? Also, does a licensed pilot seem to take to the gyros easier than a non-pilot?

Thanks

[Chris Burgess]

The FAA says, 40 hours required for a Private FW license. AOPA says the national average is about 75 hours. How about that!!! The minimum hour requirement does not equal a solo sign off or certificate. If my students can't get the gyro to the ground safely when I cut the throttle (no matter when) then they are not ready. This is just one example of something I use. If the student says they are not ready, I just love that statement. I have a student that recognizes something that perhaps I didn't. They also have good self evaulation of their own skill and confidence level.

The nightmare is the guy that takes one lesson, buys a machine, and never comes back.

Just a poster, not a preacher

[Chris Burgess]

Not sure if this is the right place to bring this up, but I will anyway. How do the instructors feel about students that already have a private pilots license? Are they easier to instruct in a gyro or do they "bad" habits that are hard to get them to get rid of? Also, does a licensed pilot seem to take to the gyros easier than a non-pilot?

Thanks

I like certified pilots because they have a base on which to build their gyro skills. Not "everything" is new to them. Yes, they want to drop the nose quickly in slow flight, and sometimes plant it after touchdown, things like that, but I don't think these traits overwhelm them. Ultimately, they have more flight experience, and the regulations recognize that in the hour requirement area. Credit is given for some FW hours towards a gyro rating.

[mceagle]

If my students can't get the gyro to the ground safely when I cut the throttle (no matter when) then they are not ready.

Its a pity more instructors do not follow this example. It should in fact be compulsory in my opinion.

[mceagle]

In my time instructing I struck two distinct types of FW pilots, They were "pilots" and "plane drivers". The real pilots were easy to teach and needed very little training to convert. Those that I call "plane drivers" often had an inflated idea of their ability and more often than not, had considerable hours in forgiving tricycles and were absolutely hopeless in cross winds, (both take offs and landings). They also had a bad fault of flying the aircraft onto the ground and also of considering that the landing was over as soon as the mains touched the ground.