Ewfflyer

Couldn't have said it better!!! It's great to be prepared as much as possible on the ground, but the real learning does occur in the airplane, putting that ground knowledge to the test.

Another difficult student behavior is the over-evaluating student. One that achieves are high level of skill, then hits a wall, and then comes down on themselves harder than any other person would(including their instructor). It takes some time and patience, but things will come back together again. Just keep from over-evaluating yourself, because I get the assumption you have high-expectations, and sometimes they are harder to come by than some folks realize.(I do mean this in a good way)

My style of teaching is exposure. I'll show you all the stuff you need to know, but I also show you the things I think you have to know! I'm not a 100% by the book type of teaching. I obviously follow the rules, but there are a lot of flexibilities that are allowed in teaching, and I take advantage of that.

My favorite being the cross-controlled stall. I usually wait to introduce this until after the student does the inevitable over-shoot on final, so they crank in the rudder and opposite aileron. I'll let them do it to an extent, but it's immediately out to the practice area after that and we do a few "turns" to demonstrate what could happen, and what they should be doing instead of the cross-controlling.


Good luck

RVSM Certified

Not at all, I don't mind. And yes, you nailed it.

I've always expected more from myself than anyone ever would. That way, I typically deliver well beyond expectations. It is the only way I know to do things. When I was younger and played football and the coach told me to take a lap for blowing it, I'd take two laps for two reasons:

1) To get mentally tougher.

2) To demonstrate to my coach that I had no problem going beyond expectations and that I had no problem in being the "go to guy" when the chips were down and he needed to get something done.

Mental toughness is highly [massively] underrated in our society today. This is the way I was reared [grew up] for years when I was younger - no wonder I'm just like that today. I took the same attitude into corporate and it served me outstandingly well. So well, in fact, that I quickly [at a young age] got into the six figure annual salary and stayed there until my departure from corporate at 35 years of age.

Mental toughness and being willing to go above and beyond by setting very high expectations [standards] for myself, is what I thrive on. A natural habitat. So, what might seem a bit too intense [initially], or a bit too over-broad [at the start] to others, might be just about right on par for my taste. I like the heat, I enjoy it. Some of the top performers in the world [at what they do] love the heat.

In reading 8083, I came across something that I think is appropriate here:

Chapter 2: The Learning Process [excerpt from 2-18]

"Based on information processing theory, left brain learners or serialist learners have an analytic approach to learning. Because they gain understanding in linear steps, with each step logically following the previous one, these learners need well-defined, sequential steps where the overall picture is developed slowly, thoroughly, and logically. This is a bottom-up strategy."

"Right brain or holistic learners favor the holist strategy and prefer a big picture or global perspective. This is a top-down strategy and learners tend to learn in large jumps, absorbing material almost randomly without seeing connections, until suddenly “it” clicks and they get it. Global learners solve complex problems rapidly once they have grasped the big picture, but they often have difficulty explaining how they did it. This type of learner seeks overall comprehension; analogies help this learner."

When I read this section in 8083, I thought about your experience with students who over-evaluate or who have really high expectations.

I must be a "cross-hemisphere learner" [the one the book does not mention] as my approach to learning anything new is very logical, analytical and sequential - yet at the very same time - I need the big picture first and am able to handle large scale complex problems but ONLY after I have some kind of overall, global comphrehension of the issues.

So, what you see in my questions here on this forum regarding flight training, is what 8083 calls the Right side of my brain seeking large scale global perspective, before jumping into the details, or switching into the Left side of my brain to fill in the missing pieces with hands-on specific training.

Thanks for the input, much appreciated.

Cubdriver

Hey RVSM, I just got around to reading this one. Very nice writing and thinking. You are very good at verbalizing about the thinking process. You remind me of my father, he is like that and he can't approach anything without thought-mapping it well before getting into it. As a matter of fact, conceptualizing ahead of time is a very efficient way to approach new subjects for reasons mentioned in your post. There is a system that began in Japanese industry called Six Sigma of which you may be aware. One of their techniques is called the thought-map tool, and they do exactly what you describe. Maybe you even got the idea from them?

Anyway, as others have said there are different approaches to learning new subjects and yours may involve this thought-map approach. It sounds very through and efficient, it is a front-loaded method for doing something new. It probably takes a lot of energy to do it that way but as with anything useful there is a payoff in thoroughness and completeness.

I have a mind that requires substantial background data and supporting info before it can pick up something and run. For this reason I tend to be a very poor performer in the short run while a very good one in the long run. I like to mull over the intricacies of a subject until I am deep into it, have explored all the implications, and have reached a truly higher level. Superficial levels will not work for me. This sounds like a good thing, but it has its positives and its negatives. For example, I tend to be too slow to do well on rapid memorization tasks. I am actually afraid to act on superficial information without doing my own investigations. So, it takes me a while to get through all the mental aspects I feel need attending to. But when I do I am much more original and thorough in my understanding than others typically are.

For example, it took me a while to master crosswind landings because I had to do a ton of mental research on everything from aerodynamic implications to flight dynamics to be able to accept that sideslipping is the way to go in small airplanes. Many others would have mastered that lesson from 15 or 20 hours of flight, but they would have no idea how to teach it or how the forces balance or what the tradeoffs are.

Thanks for your stimulating input and I hope the subject of flying turns the fresh leaf for you that it did for me. Let us know how it goes.

FlyArmy

I'm no CFI but the questions on takeoff for me are not Who, What, Where, When, Why it will be conducted, but rather what the hell am I going to do if I blow an engine on climbout? What can I do right now to stay ahead of the aircraft (controls, radio calls, obstacle/acft avoidance, cockpit management, etc...). If I had to try to recall a flowchart or crazy algorithm in my head, I'm not going to be flying the aircraft (the pilot's biggest responsibility) or remember whatever else my instructor is saying because I will be thinking too hard about some crazy GeeWhiz stuff. You should know the who, what, where, when, why of every flight maneuver, but that is pretty basic and shouldn't take up too much space in the brain. I personally think flying is too dynamic to put a flowchart or algorithm in for each phase of flight. Read the Practical Test Standards for each maneuver, understand its purpose and how to do it, see how the instructor does it, and don't think too hard. Do more flying and less thinking. If you think, you are dead. At least that's what Maverick said in Top Gun. If you were building a UAV and programming it for autonomous flight it'd be different.

j1b3h0

RVSM-
Best of luck with your endevour to learn to fly. Might I suggest a tailwheel aircraft for your initial training? Reading everything you can get your hand on is great, but the one thing all those books leave out is that flying an airplane is an art. And the artform starts with learning how to see. Every airplane I know of has six essential controls: Pitch, roll, yaw, power, trim, and the thing most often left out of any text - a big windshield with which to observe how manipulating the aforementioned controls effects AND relates to ultimately controlling the aircraft.
Almost every control input has a side effect (for lack of a better term) and that is something that is not easily book learned. The art of flying (at first) is about control touch, trim, coordinated use of rudder and ailerons and looking out at the horizon while codling your inner ear to recognize coordinated flight - something no book can teach.
Tailwheel airplanes, particularly something like a citabria is the perfect machine for initial training because its design hasn't been optimized to minimize the role of the pilot. The pilot is required to use the controls to a greater extent - for reasons such as adverse yaw, etc,. Also, a Citabria isn't graced with a large panel adorned with colored constantly moving dials to distract you - the student, from what's really going on OUTSIDE the windshield.

Cubdriver

The AOPA Flight Training newsletter that is sent to instructors every three months has a cover article saying that recent accident data may be showing that glass cockpit airplanes are not that great for primary students. The gist of it seems to be there are too many things keeping their heads down and students are getting distracted from the proper heads up attitude. I know from my own experience with these systems they take a lot of brain power to operate properly, and although they provide a lot more data and help produce a safer environment they are also highly distracting at times. In particular the added chimes and aural cautions are nuts in these airplanes, with no way to switch most of them off. The complex switchology and multi-paged menus are distracting as well. Perhaps there should be a bare bones "trainer" package like in the light sport airplanes.

RVSM Certified

Yes, indeed. I've worked with many Six Sigma companies on a range of business intelligence related issues when I was in the enterprise software industry. These organizations are actually "we care" type entities who are out to improve process efficiency and production methodology. They take their business model very seriously. I admire a six sigma certified organization, or any organization that actually cares about what it is doing and "why" it is doing it.

Now, applying certain elements of '6' into the matrix that I outlined in this thread certainly sounds interesting enough for me to take a closer look. I had initially not gone that far, but it does seem like an interesting question at the very least.

Keep in mind, what you and I are now talking about here, most people are not fully aware of at any level of detail, so I won't hash out Six Sigma methodologies here, other than to say that with the "six fundamental questions" that I outlined in this thread, there is the opportunity to begin to establish a "fault seeking" sub-system that hunts down and roots out problems - before they become problems for the student pilot. In other words, training a student in such a way that they virtually make no error during the course of their training.

Of course, the effects of Six Sigma were thought to be impossible before Six Sigma was invented, so I certainly do expect aviation traditionalists to rail against the notion that you can actually teach a student pilot, absent student pilot error. Or, that you can train anyone to later become a licensed pilot who has virtually eliminated error from their PIC flying.

Yes, I think you are right. The relational matrix that connects all the processes together into a coherent whole, would be a very time consuming task to write [design] and tweak [test/analyze]. But, once done, it could be a prime model for flight instruction. In fact, now that I think about it, the logical flows that would go into such a model are so delicious to think about, I almost want to drool on my keyboard.

I would not be surprised if the Air Force or Navy were utilizing a tailored variant of the same, without the student or the IP even knowing it. When you think about it, their entire training system is geared to do a lot of things and weeding out pilots from students based on the "performance error" concept is at the core of what they do, with the ultimate product being a mission ready pilot who is challenged with a zero failure rate performance requirement. If you compare that to a 3.4 DPMO Six Sigma process (99.9997% error free), then the relative similarities are easily seen in what the military does for flight training.

But, can't you just hear some people screaming at the top of their lungs saying:

"What! You mean that you are going to try to remove student pilot errors from the flight training environment BEFORE they make them! No way! Don't do that! Students need to make errors so they can learn from their mistakes - that's how they become better pilots, dummy. Heck - what are you thinking... Six Sigma? Puey on that!"

See what I mean? Six Sigma may open up a can of general aviation worms that you'll never be able to put the lid back on.

Can you imagine seeing this sign at your local club or FBO:

Six Sigma Flight Training! Reduce your student pilot errors to 3.4 per million opportunities. Sign up today at Six Sigma FBO in hanger #6. We train student pilots in a 99.9997% error free environment. Efficiency is our middle name. Sign-up today for your free introductory flight and discover the Six Sigma flight training difference!

All of the; you must make mistakes before you can learn types, will start picketing outside the FBO chanting, "Good students make errors! Good students make errors! Good students make errors!" The whole thing would be a nightmare. And, of course, the whole thing would be highly misunderstood by most who railed against it.

Again, a very interesting idea that deserves a closer look. Thanks, for the tip/lead.


That really hit home. That's exactly the way I am verbatim.

I don't mind surprises - just as long as I am not surprised by them. I don't mind when things go wrong - just as long as I know when and how to make them right. This is a strong indication of someone who needs to understand not just "what" or "how" to do something, but "why" they are doing it in the first place. It is the "why" that matters so much to people like us.


While at first the others are thinking you are the dumbest guy in the room. They laugh at us behind our back (lol!) We give them comic relief at the start of things, don't we. All the while, we are developing a level of understanding and depth that most of them won't be able to fully grasp down range. All of a sudden, you become the "go to guy." Very poetic.

My corporate experience was exactly like that. When I started out, people literally laughed at my apparent inability to understand what I was going on. Well, they are not laughing today. Today, they are seeking my advice and counsel.

Good for you, outstanding! Exactly where I want to be as a proficient and efficient pilot. I'd like to be able to explain why things are the way they are and not merely one who can manipulate the controls for a desired outcome. Being able to see potential relationships in apparent abstract or dissimilar concepts, can only come from a thorough understanding of the constituents components of each.

No problem and it already has. I'll be sure to keep in touch here. I look forward to learning a lot and doing my absolute best to stay safe and current. Thank you again for the 6sigma idea!

RVSM Certified

Which is precisely what those questions already answer. Think about it for a minute and it will sink in. In fact, embedded in your rebuttal is the answer already.

You said: "...but rather, what the heck am I going to do if......"

That "what" question would have its own matrix with all other questions underneath it. The trigger question is always "What" as it is the subject or topic. In this case, What = "Take-Off Emergencies" followed later in the matrix with "When" which will equal: "After Take-Off." You would then do the research/homework to fill in the rest of the matrix, answering all of the remaining questions.

Often times, in aviation, there will be plenty of lead-in material. In the case of your example, use the Engine Out After Take-Off check list and procedures to fill out part of the "When" and "Where" inputs into the matrix.


All made part of the "How" input into the matrix.


Interesting. If I said: A2+B2=C2, solve for "B." Would you need to remember a flow chart? Or, a crazy algorithm? Or, some geewhiz stuff? Nope. But, your subconscious mind would automatically tell you to dump the A2 and leave B2 by itself. It would then remind you that whatever you did on the left side of the equation with A2, you will have to do to the right side of the equation. So, subconsciously you are already setting up A2 as the denominator for both sides of the equation, so you can isolate B2.

Nothing fancy about that, your subconscious mind directed you because you've had this homework assignment at least a thousand times before when you were a "student." Same with flying, I hope. You would study the matrix the same way you did your favorite subject in school - the one you got an A+ in.... yeah, that one. You would study just like that and at some point, what you studied would create a neural net path in your brain such that even if you wanted to, you could not forget it.

I can easily tell you that: the gravitational constant between any two objects is directly proportional to the product of both their masses and inversely proportional to the distance of the square between them. Or, I could simply write: G~M1*M2/d2. Either way, my conscious mind had precious little to do with it at this stage in my life and I can't get that out of my head even if I wanted to.

So, not only was I able to effortlessly write the equation, but I am also able to effortlessly talk about and discuss the derivation in plain English on the fly. Which means, I can apply it to real world problems on the fly. That neural net is strong and cannot easily be erased.

So, I simply want to be able to do the same with your Engine Out After Take-Off ["what"] question, so that I can apply the "how" remedy effortlessly using my subconscious mind while my conscious mind deals with the other variables that will be at play, as I get the aircraft back on the ground safely, I hope. But, if the "how" is still being dealt with at the conscious mind level, I've got precious little bandwidth to deal with the "other variables" at play which reduces my chances of getting the aircraft back to earth safely. If I start early enough in flight training with a clear model for learning and if I begin to make deposits into my neural net bank account, I can have an easier time making withdrawals, if and when the need arises in the future. And, chances are, the need will arise.


Yes, I would think so. This should be easily covered in basic flight training.


Interesting. Does NASA think so. They have every nanosecond and every millimeter of an STS mission flowed to the hilt. What makes our general aviation missions any less "mission critical?"

Talk to CAPCOM and ask that person what happens if the Shuttle xyz, abc, 123, this/that/or the other. And, see what they tell you. Those guys have game plans for just about every contingency you can think of and it is ALL flow-charted - all of it - every letter, ever number and ever thought is calculated for returning the Shuttle safely back to earth. That's what mission critical means to them. Are we really that different, simply because we don't operate at 17,000 mph in LEO, MEO or HEO and then land with an approach speed of over 300 mph and wheel on the ground at 220 mph. Lives are still at stake, even with an approach speed of 75 kts, or a rate of climb speed of 85 to 90 kts. People can still get hurt.


Actually, the PTS is one of the things that I'm reading right now and I do see plenty of opportunity to integrate such a system with the PTS. What I'm hoping to do with this is remove the need to have to think so hard. That's the part of this that I think some are missing. If done correctly, it removes the need to think too hard during times of high stress. If the information is read merely to pass an exam, then that kind of memorization can easily be lost or miss filed in the brain.

What I'm talking about is really a science of the mind. The human brain works a certain way in general and what I'm trying to do is capitalize on those general features of the brain such that I lay down tracks that are easily recallable without much effort at all. Not merely rote memory items. This has more substance behind it than that.

Ironically, we are talking about the exact same thing with the difference being that there are those who get jammed with primary thoughts and have difficulty bridging the gap to the advanced thought under stress. Whereas, I'm trying to become a pilot who engages the advanced thoughts while the primary thoughts are automatically instantiated and automatically acted upon under stress.

One pilot is not thinking so much about what they should be thinking about and the other pilot is not thinking so much about what they should not be thinking about. However, under stress, both pilots are not thinking so much - just not for the same reasons and not at the same level.

Actually, what I'm talking about in all this is creating a training device for the brain to be used during the primary flight training phases, that will [later] become your intelligent co-pilot capable of producing dynamic oriented output far beyond anything you could ever program into a computer, once you've obtained your license.

After that, you don't need the written matrix, as it will have already become part of your brain in the form of neural networks. You would not be able to get rid of it, even if you wanted to.

This is why avoiding the pitfalls of Primacy during initial flight training will be very important to me. Set up the wrong neural nets and bad things follow.

Thanks for the input, you caused me to think about my premise - I appreciate that.

RVSM Certified

Thanks for this post. You know, I get the feeling that a lot of people out there [especially the old-timers, no offense] have some really strong feelings about doing primary training in a tail-wheel aircraft. I keep hearing this and reading about this in magazines more and more lately - maybe it is just me.

People keep talking about the "feel" of the aircraft and emphasizing the tactile sensation that a tail-wheel gives a pilot and how that is important early on in the training cycle.

Thanks for the tip. I think I'm going to head over to one of the local clubs and get a Citab or Decath intro flight. I flew in a Citab many, many, many years ago and I remember it as being a blast. I also remember the aircraft feeling very light and very underpowered, but still it was a total blast, the aerobatics, I mean.

Never flew a Decath - what do you think about that particular competitor to the Citab?

Are all tail-wheel aircraft the same in terms of the initial learning experience a new student pilot would get? If so, why not learn in a Pitts S2S, or an Extra 300L? Won't that give you a tail-wheel experience too, but with more power and the ability to do more things? And, won't the visibility increase in those aircraft more than it would in the Citab or Decath?

Thanks for the input here.

Cubdriver

It is probably a good idea although in my own training we started in a C152 and I have never taught in a tailwheel airplane either. The thing here is people really vary in what they bring to the table in their training. Some are going to be ready for a maximum challenge while others are going to need a simplified program if they can even handle that. I have seen a few that can't even handle the simplified program. You really don't want these people struggling with the extra workload attending a tailwheel airplane. The CG is inherently unstable in these planes and tricycles are factually safer airplanes. Perhaps 30% of primary flight students fit the category of not being suited to tailwheel fliying. The rest will benefit from beginning in a tailwheel trainer and in fact there were only tailwheel trainers up to about the mid 1940's.

It is a top notch training airplane. Some students will not be able to handle the complexity but I think most of them would. The real problem is the cost. If you compare the hourly operating cost of a Decathlon to a C152 or a new Skyhawk, it's too high for most people.
My experience does not include flying or teaching in any of these aircraft, although I have flown Citabria's and Decathlons a little bit. Perhaps one of the acro folks will chime in here. I would venture a guess that hourly cost is the main reason these acrobatic airplanes are not used. Getting tickets has to be cost efficient these days for most people. Acrobatic airplanes are more fun to fly, a lot more. They are responsive, have power, and are aerodynamically optimized for maneuvering. They are not optimized for cruise, and cannot carry more than 2 people. Decathlons are basically Citabrias with symmetrical airfoils to better permit upside-down flight.