flying with different instructors

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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
news
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

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).

"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