I have been privileged to work, so far with five really talented pilots. They all have amazing flying skills. The "teaching" and "people" skills of a CFI however are not correlated to hours of flying planes--often a very solitary activity. Being an effective teacher requires knowledge of the subject, but also requires the ability to transfer that knowledge to someone who has much less experience and knowledge. Being a "Sage on Stage" spouting all kinds of "Here is how you do it commentary" and "Watch this and just do the same thing" is not always effective. And, often these "high time" pilots are really offended if you challenge them in any way. I had one CFI flat out tell me that he expected me to "submit to his instruction".
A real problem stems from the fact that there are widely varied opinions on important issues. Not only varied, but downright conflicting opinions---often presented as facts.
Which is the best or preferred landing method? Wheel Landing or Three Point?
Where is correct touchdown point for a "proficient" pilot--the numbers or past the numbers?
Where is correct touchdown point for a "proficient" pilot--the numbers or past the numbers?
Is exact pattern height required at all times?
How "rectangular" must the pattern be?
Should you climb at Vx or Vy to prepare for possible engine failure after takeoff?
Should tail wheel springs be tight or loose?
Should you wiggle the rudders so you are "ready" or should you respond only as needed?
How precise do you need to be with speed, altitude and heading, other than when landing or when under direction of a traffic controller?
What are the exact proficiency standards for a Tail Wheel Endorsement?
What are the exact proficiency standards for a Flight Review (with or without Wings program)?
My oh my! Ask different CFI's and you will probably get different answers from each one.
Seems that many high time pilots assume that as a low time pilot, you must assume a submissive attitude--sort of like Parent and Child relationship. Question some of them that are CFI's and they will call you out as like some sort of rebellious teenager or an ego maniac. And avoid arguing, especially in forums. Be warned. (I am a confident person who asks lots of questions and never assumes "conventional wisdom" is 100% valid. I often get misjudged as having a big ego and friction ensues. I find this is OK as I end up with better results and often a level of grudging respect in the end--but it does make life difficult. So sometimes, if you want the easier path, listen a lot and talk very little during the flight instruction.)
Then, there is the emotionality. To me, cool and calm is the order of the day when piloting an airplane. But, keep in mind that flying with a "student" must be a bit scary for the CFI. Some will get quite agitated when the student makes a mistake---then the student is categorized as "needing close supervision" and the scene reverts to one like the Master Sargent and Recruit in military boot camp.
Personally, whenever the emotionality gets high, the learning experience is over, and since I am the one paying money, the lesson is over also. Depending on the circumstance, I would also end the relationship with the CFI. Flying is supposed to be fun--and you would have to be a masochist to enjoy being yelled at--while you are paying the guy (lots of money) doing the yelling!
I feel the same way, to a lesser degree about the "overly chatty" CFI. Some, when you fail to meet their particular standard for "precision" will really "nag" to the point of being very distracting. Flying requires my maximum concentration, and like yelling, nagging is counterproductive and unacceptable to me. The most important and difficult part of "pattern work" is getting the landing right---the student should not be distracted and rattled by needless chatter. One reminder--"keep it in the center" on takeoff and "maintain precise control" during the pattern is enough. The CFI should provide organized feedback once you are on the ground--"this is what you did wrong and here is a suggestion on how to fix it--now let's go try again". A written "Here are the things you need to work on where you failed to meet the required standards for proficiency" list at the end of the day would be invaluable.
The FAA has placed the CFI in a "gatekeeper" role. Their job is to some extent to "keep the dangerous incompetent flyers out of the sky and on the ground". Their other role is to help you as the student and their customer to become a flyer. (Not a "perfect" pilot, but a reasonably safe one.) These two roles can be in conflict and each CFI will have to manage this conflict.
There is an excellent book: Teaching Tailwheel Flying An Instructor’s Toolkit by K. E. Bevier, CFII. It would be great if all CFI's read this book. One interestesting quote from his book:
" You must be able to change teaching technique ad hoc, to create a new exercise out of thin air, while flying in same, to solve your student’s current hang-up. Instruction must never be simply keeping them safe until, with enough repetition, they accidentally discover how to perform the maneuver. You must be pro-active with a student’s training at all times, constantly seeking ways to improve their skill levels in all maneuvers. To do less is a disservice to the student."
Mr. Bevier mentions the "Hazardous Attitudes" of pilots while flying while under instruction and other times. Here is a link to an excellent AOPA article: Hazardous Attitudes-FAA-AOPA
There is also a self administered test that can help the pilot understand his "Hazardous Attitude Profile" and take remedial action to improve himself. Here is a link: Hazardous Attitudes Inventory Test
Based on my experience--pick the CFI that is a "thinking" person (who explains "why" and presents the different "schools of thought) that has lots of "teaching" time and who has empathy for the plight of a "student". (Some high time pilots have forgotten what is like to be a student with less and 300 hours of flying time.) And, one who keeps the emotionality and nagging to a minimum. Keep in mind--the student is the customer. Finally, the CFI's flying skills can save your life if you make a serious mistake--so they need to be a very good pilot with both good judgement and cat like, fighter pilot level reflexes.
There is an excellent book: Teaching Tailwheel Flying An Instructor’s Toolkit by K. E. Bevier, CFII. It would be great if all CFI's read this book. One interestesting quote from his book:
" You must be able to change teaching technique ad hoc, to create a new exercise out of thin air, while flying in same, to solve your student’s current hang-up. Instruction must never be simply keeping them safe until, with enough repetition, they accidentally discover how to perform the maneuver. You must be pro-active with a student’s training at all times, constantly seeking ways to improve their skill levels in all maneuvers. To do less is a disservice to the student."
Mr. Bevier mentions the "Hazardous Attitudes" of pilots while flying while under instruction and other times. Here is a link to an excellent AOPA article: Hazardous Attitudes-FAA-AOPA
There is also a self administered test that can help the pilot understand his "Hazardous Attitude Profile" and take remedial action to improve himself. Here is a link: Hazardous Attitudes Inventory Test
Based on my experience--pick the CFI that is a "thinking" person (who explains "why" and presents the different "schools of thought) that has lots of "teaching" time and who has empathy for the plight of a "student". (Some high time pilots have forgotten what is like to be a student with less and 300 hours of flying time.) And, one who keeps the emotionality and nagging to a minimum. Keep in mind--the student is the customer. Finally, the CFI's flying skills can save your life if you make a serious mistake--so they need to be a very good pilot with both good judgement and cat like, fighter pilot level reflexes.
Good CFI's are worth every cent you pay them--in fact they probably should charge more!
I must say that I am pretty sure that at least two of the four CFI's i have flown with judged me to be suffering a bit from the Anti-authority Attitude Hazard. I am very introspective and quite comfortable "in my skin" and would have to conclude they were mistaken. (I am the Chief Compliance Officer at my firm in a highly regulated industry.) Knowing and following the rules while a pilot is extremely important. I am also not anti authority--I respect authority and freely submit to it--the Holy Bible tells us to do that as well as a prohibition against pride. But I do bristle against what I perceive as an abuse of authority. So, if a CFI tells me to do something that is contrary to my current understanding and refuses to accept my questioning, or shows unnecessary impatience---then communication and trust can be damaged to a point that diminishes the learning process.
Here a three examples: 1) I had always assumed that Vy or the "best climb rate" speed--the speed that gains the most altitude in the least time, was the desired attitude on climb immediately after take off. (Assuming there are no obstacles in your path.) One CFI repeatedly barked, "pull the nose up" and demanded that I fly at Vx or the "best climb angle"--the speed that gains the most altitude in the least horizontal distance. His explanation was that with an engine failure, gaining enough altitude while close to the runway/airport might improve your chance of making that "impossible" 180 degree turn back for an emergency landing at the airport. (I have been told by several pilots that Vy is better and I prefer to keep speeds above 1.3 x Stall Speed. In fact, the FAA Practical Test Standards for Takeoffs states clearly that the pilot is to "accelerate to Vy" after liftoff for a "normal" takeoff unless avoiding an obstacle.) Would have been no issue if he had explained that before the "pull the nose up" orders; 2) The CubCrafter POH clearly warns against steep turns in the base and final legs for landing. (see figure below from the POH) For this reason and to avoid the dangerous "Skid/Spin on Final" I used a strategy of turning in gradually and early on the base to final turn. More than one CFI scolded me for this and told me to make my pattern "less egg shaped" and "more rectangular". Such instructions made me very uncomfortable. And, in one instance, the desire for a sharp turn caused me to use the rudder too abruptly--creating the only instance i know of where I initiated a skid; and 3) One CFI told me "something must be wrong with you" because I tended to drop the right wing during climb. Well, after reflection on that one, I must say that the problem was I neglected to trim properly and was pulling with excessive force, causing me to pull the stick to the back and to the right.
I must say that I am pretty sure that at least two of the four CFI's i have flown with judged me to be suffering a bit from the Anti-authority Attitude Hazard. I am very introspective and quite comfortable "in my skin" and would have to conclude they were mistaken. (I am the Chief Compliance Officer at my firm in a highly regulated industry.) Knowing and following the rules while a pilot is extremely important. I am also not anti authority--I respect authority and freely submit to it--the Holy Bible tells us to do that as well as a prohibition against pride. But I do bristle against what I perceive as an abuse of authority. So, if a CFI tells me to do something that is contrary to my current understanding and refuses to accept my questioning, or shows unnecessary impatience---then communication and trust can be damaged to a point that diminishes the learning process.
Here a three examples: 1) I had always assumed that Vy or the "best climb rate" speed--the speed that gains the most altitude in the least time, was the desired attitude on climb immediately after take off. (Assuming there are no obstacles in your path.) One CFI repeatedly barked, "pull the nose up" and demanded that I fly at Vx or the "best climb angle"--the speed that gains the most altitude in the least horizontal distance. His explanation was that with an engine failure, gaining enough altitude while close to the runway/airport might improve your chance of making that "impossible" 180 degree turn back for an emergency landing at the airport. (I have been told by several pilots that Vy is better and I prefer to keep speeds above 1.3 x Stall Speed. In fact, the FAA Practical Test Standards for Takeoffs states clearly that the pilot is to "accelerate to Vy" after liftoff for a "normal" takeoff unless avoiding an obstacle.) Would have been no issue if he had explained that before the "pull the nose up" orders; 2) The CubCrafter POH clearly warns against steep turns in the base and final legs for landing. (see figure below from the POH) For this reason and to avoid the dangerous "Skid/Spin on Final" I used a strategy of turning in gradually and early on the base to final turn. More than one CFI scolded me for this and told me to make my pattern "less egg shaped" and "more rectangular". Such instructions made me very uncomfortable. And, in one instance, the desire for a sharp turn caused me to use the rudder too abruptly--creating the only instance i know of where I initiated a skid; and 3) One CFI told me "something must be wrong with you" because I tended to drop the right wing during climb. Well, after reflection on that one, I must say that the problem was I neglected to trim properly and was pulling with excessive force, causing me to pull the stick to the back and to the right.
Most probably, 98% of pilots would probably not be bothered by such things. But it was not an anti-authority attitude on my part--more like an excessive desire to please the instructor and frustration when despite my best efforts, the instructor whom I respected was not pleased--despite me doing my very best. Some students really need encouragement--if the CFI begins to focus solely on shortcomings, these students will become very frustrated.
More than one CFI has told me that learning from more than one CFI can be counterproductive. One of my favorite instructors, Dave Myers admitted that the reason is that "there are so many opinions" that multiple instructors can lead to a bit of confusion. I agree with Dave--the journey IS more difficult, BUT I am a better pilot with more knowledge by having to have processed the information to a level of understanding of WHY there are different opinions. And, hopefully all pilots are studying many sources of information in addition to what their CFI's are teaching during their few hours together. Actually, I was not as frustrated by multiple instructors as I was flying in 6 different aircraft, (J3 Cub, 2-CubCrafters S2, C172, GCBC Decathlon, and 7ECA-150 Citabria) as well as landing at 11 different runways, often in very hot weather. Acclimating myself to these new environments took a bit of time and created a bit of stress. I would agree that working with one CFI, at one airport, in one plane would allow the Tailwheel Endorsement and Flight Review to be completed in the least amount of time and expense. But, landing at different airports and flying different planes will probably make you a more knowledgeable and certainly a more experienced and confident pilot.
In addition to working with one CFI, at one airport, in the same plane, the training can probably be completed in less time if the airport is not a busy one. Dealing with traffic is important, but busy airports create lots of distractions. While your CFI is hammering the need for a "precise" pattern into your brain, there will be other pilots flying all over the place: downwind legs very far away from the runway; downwind and base legs with very high and very low altitudes, and finally, base legs that are way low and long. In an airport with a control tower, it gets even more complicated. You really have to pay attention and look for traffic which can be distracting.
Now, let me say that I highly recommend all five of the CFI's I have worked with, as well as Damien DelGaizo at Andover Flight Academy who taught me much with his two videos, and who I will soon work with in person.
In addition to the Tailwheel 101 and 201 videos I purchased from Damien DelGaizo (Vimeo), I must also add that Jim Alsip's Hangar Talk (Dylan Aviation) YouTube videos were also fantastic. But for Jim being in southern FL and my training occurring during summer, I would have trained with him. In addition to Jim's Flying the Tailwheel Airplane book, I probably learned more from his videos than from any one other source of information. Link to Hangar Talk.
My primary tail wheel instructor: Joe Gauvreau, flying in his 2004 American Champion GCBC Decathlon out of Freeway Airport in Bowie, MD. But for the 4 hour drive (round trip--a trip through heavy Baltimore-DC traffic that I find very irritating and dangerous) and Joe's other full time job that limits his availability, there is no doubt I could have and would have completed all my training with Joe rather than using multiple instructors. (I was very happy that Joe was the CFI that provided the Tail Wheel Endorsement--I did fly with Joe 9 of the 17.5 hours of dual I required.) If you can get to Bowie, MD and find time in his schedule, Joe is a GREAT instructor. He teaches sort of using the Socratic method which stimulates critical thinking and he has an uncanny talent of knowing that you are going to make a mistake before you actually do. (He can be a bit "chatty" which can be distracting to some, and to reach his personal "standard" of proficiency, it might take longer than expected--but no doubt when he says you are "ready" you will be very proficient pilot.)
My primary "local" instructor: Dave Myers, flying out of York, PA. (5 minutes from my home.) Dave has enormous experience TEACHING. He is self confident and emotionally very calm. He will let you make mistakes to learn, but has fighter pilot reflexes to rescue you from your mistake/s. (My time so far with Dave was in a C172) If the hangar I wanted to rent had been available, Dave would have been my primary instructor flying in my own plane. I intend to continue working with Dave after I gain my Tail Wheel Endorsement and Flight Review to continue a path of learning and improvement. I finally secured a hangar at York, so having Dave provide instruction in my plane or a C172 (for flying into B and C space and SFRA practice and orientation.) will now be possible and convenient. ( I like the C172 too, but switching back and forth from left seat in the tri-gear C172 to the front seat in a tail wheel plane was not ideal, so I decided to stay with the Cub or a Champ until I gained my Tail Wheel Endorsement.)
I sought out Dana Holladay in Jacksonville, FL because he owns the same make and model plane as mine--so flying with him helped me fulfill my Avemco Insurance requirements. He was highly recommended by several pilots and the SE Cubcrafters Regional Sales Office. But for a mechanical problem with his plane (mostly caused by my mistake) my work with him most probably would have allowed me to complete my endorsement and flight review. As mentioned, Dana is a very skilled pilot and an fun guy to fly with.
I sought out Ron Dillard with Advanced Tailwheel Training in Lebanon, Tennessee in an effort to accelerate and complete my tail wheel endorsement and flight review. I drove an 11 hour one way trip to meet Ron. Flying in his 1974 Bellanca Citabria 7ECA-150, we practiced lots of high G recovery from unusual attitudes and recovery from intentional spins maneuvers---some of which are prohibited in my Cub, but are good training exercises. Ron is an excellent instructor in these maneuvers as well as a demanding task master regarding "precision" flying. Ron has many thousands of hours flying corporate jets and has created a very organized training program with a Syllabus and many supporting teaching aids. He follows the FAA Wings Program Flight Review Standards to the letter. I completed a third of my flight review with Ron. A070405-08. We probably could have completed the tail wheel training and flight review, but Ron seemed to think that the intentional spin and recovery training (not required by FAA for a ASEL VFR) was important, so doing that cut in to the time we could have devoted to the tail wheel endorsement and flight review. (Ron told me I did "very well" in the recoveries but I seemed a bit "in a hurry" to pull out of the spins and he wanted to go back and do some more to improve my situational awareness. Ron believed that my cautious flying preferences were due to fear and a lack of familiarity with the airplane's "limits". My view is that engineers apply safety factors in their designs, not due to lack of knowledge, but rather a respect for the unexpected.) I must admit that all of the unusual attitude/s made me a bit sick as I feared they would---I would never intentionally do aerobatic maneuvers and would never intentionally enter a spin-- let alone hold it for a "extended" turn, so I was not enthusiastic about more intentional spins. I recall spin recovery training in a C152 but we focused on "immediate" recovery without delay.
I felt the need to return home in part because of extreme weather in Pennsylvania and flooding at my home, figuring that I would finish up with Joe or Dave. (Like after my day with Dana Holliday, I had a strong feeling that God had a purpose for me going home early--His timetable was a bit different than mine.) I would highly recommend Ron's training, but be sure to allow enough time, allowing a day or so to fully recover from the spin and unusual attitude practice if it is new to you.
CLICK ON "OLDER POSTS" (BELOW RIGHT) FOR THE REST OF THE STORY--Weblogs are set up for most recent first---I am using it more like a book---so the newest info is the "oldest" post in the weblog. 😁
No comments:
Post a Comment