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?

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

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 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

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

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

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.

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

#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 don¹t 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

³In reality ailerons and the rudder don¹t 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