Thanks,
Dara
Greetings Dara,
I've always been a big fan of making the flight review a practical experience rather than a ceremonial one. In other words, it's probably not practical to do turns around a point or chandelles. I think it's more meaningful to review flight skills and ground knowledge relevant to the type of flying this person does.
For instance, ask the pilot about the type of airports he often visits. If he frequents busy airports, then review his skill at arriving and departing from airports within Class C or B airspace. Ask him how often he flies. If he's in the air only once or twice a month, you'll probably need to spend more time on the basics than you would for a more active pilot. You get the idea.
You might also ask him what areas he'd like to explore during the review. Have him tell you about his strengths and weaknesses. If he says he has only strengths and no weakness, then at least you've found his major weakness.
Regardless of the maneuvers you choose to do, it's always wise to cover slow flight, stalls, and emergency procedures. You might, for instance, review his skill at getting an airplane out of the air and onto the ground fast (a useful procedure for coping with an in-flight petroleum-based fire). Forced landing simulations are always worthy of practice. Reviewing how to handle runaway propellers, landing gear failure, engine failure after takeoff, and so on are always good topics.
I also suggest you obtain a copy of AC 61-98A. It's an advisory circular that will give you some good ideas on conducting this and other flight proficiency reviews. Finally, don't be intimidated by thick logbooks. I find that most pilots, regardless of their experience, enjoy learning new things. Besides, this person may have a lot of time, but none of it may be recent. This can make a big difference in his flying skills. He may have 15,000 hours but have only flown 10 hours in the last two years.
Preventing Midair Collisions
Dear Mr. Machado,
Help! We just had a midair collision between two single-engine Cessnas over the Long Beach Harbor in California, with the loss of an instructor and student in each airplane....I knew one of the pilots. He was a good pilot with a lot of experience. How can such a thing happen to good pilots? What can I tell pilots and flight instructors to do to prevent falling prey to one of these terrible accidents?
Thank you,
A Fellow CFI
Greetings Fellow CFI,
I can't tell you how sad I feel over the loss of those four souls in the Long Beach collision. Sad as this is, however, tragedies happen. As I see it, it's our responsibility to learn from them. If we don't, then we magnify these tragedies by not mining them to make aviation a safer place for all of us.
Anyone who feels helpless in the face of such a loss might benefit by studying the cause of this and similar accidents. In this small and seemingly insignificant way we might begin to honor those who were lost as we learn the lessons offered by these unfortunate events. Here are a few things to consider.
First, I have no doubt that the pilots in that collision were good, conscientious, and careful pilots. I've heard the same from others who've proudly testified to their skill. Good pilots still have accidents, but these often (although not always) occur because good pilots were doing something other than what good pilots should be doing. Good pilots are alert to the dangers of inattention, distraction, and complacency. Yet it's hard, if not impossible, to demonstrate good pilot behavior 100 percent of the time. We are often overwhelmed by the demands of airplane control, traffic avoidance, and student needs. To an instructor, these things together are like Kryptonite to Superman. The secret to being a good pilot all the time is knowing when you must raise your guard and when you can lower it.
For instance, I've spent many hours flying in and over the area where the collision occurred. This is an area of dense traffic that can raise a flight instructor's blood pressure to record levels. At any altitude less than 3,000 feet over the harbor, you have to be vigilant for traffic 100 percent of the time, even if this means forgoing precise altitude and heading control as well as attending to a student's needs. In other words, you don't worry about precision heading and altitude control when flying VFR in dense traffic areas like the Long Beach Harbor. Instead, you worry about precision collision avoidance (assuming that you can't do both at the same time). On a 17-second VFR scan cycle, you should be looking outside for 14 seconds and inside for only three seconds. Anything less deprives you of the protection your eyeballs offer.
On the other hand, when you're far enough away from the flow of traffic, you can let down your guard a little - but just a little and no more. When I want to spend more time focusing inside the cockpit, I go to a responsible altitude farther offshore to give instruction. To summarize this idea, never sacrifice traffic scanning for precision altitude and heading control.
Aside from the well-known basic principles of collision avoidance, here's another thing you can do. It's not, however, an idea that will float everyone's boat. If you have a GPS with a moving map, consider using it less in a busy terminal environment. On nearly every flight review I give, I see pilots staring at the map display for long periods of time. This is dangerous behavior when you're near an airport.
In a busy environment under VFR conditions, GPS should stand for: Give it to the Person Sitting next to you. Let him navigate. You look outside. If you need defibrillating after reading this, then think about operating your GPS in the CDI mode. We are less inclined to stare at a needle or a facsimile of one than at a moving map. If this won't allow you to amortize your GPS investment, at least put the GPS to the side when you're within five to 10 miles of the destination airport. Finally, please remember that aviators were using pilotage to find airports long before there were satellites. When you're looking for airports through the windscreen, you're more likely to notice traffic, too.
Teaching Without A Headset
Dear Mr. Machado,
A fellow flight instructor says that the first 10 hours of dual he spends with a primary student are given without wearing a headset. He suggests that this helps the students to better recognize the sounds associated with flight. Several CFIs were having a discussion about this, and I'm wondering what your opinion is.
Sincerely,
Russ
Greetings Russ,
This is a great question. As I see it, it's also a calculus problem - a question of gains versus losses. For instance, a headset gives the instructor and student an opportunity to communicate more efficiently. It also reduces the ambient noise to less stressful levels. On the other hand, it's possible that a headset might mask some sound clues associated with changes in airspeed and angle of attack. Certainly you're better off when your ears (and your other senses) are giving you lots of good information about the airplane's performance.
An old-timer once told me that he dislikes wearing a headset because of his partial hearing loss. Years of flying without a headset caused permanent hearing damage. He was very honest in saying that a headset makes it more difficult for him to hear normal airplane sounds. This is the reason he preferred not to use headsets at all during training. His students, however, don't have hearing problems (at least they didn't when they began flight training with him. And you can be sure that continued flight without a headset or some form of noise protection will cause hearing damage over the long run).
I use noise reduction and noise canceling headsets as a flight instructor. In my opinion, their advantages far, far, far outweigh their drawbacks. Assuming that someone's hearing isn't already badly damaged, he or she shouldn't have any problem identifying and interpreting the subtle sounds associated with flight while wearing a typical headset.
Related Articles
