Which is the way to go for a CFI?
Dear Rod:
After months of frustration, I'm considering an accelerated training course for the flight instructor certificate. I've started flight instructor training twice, and have been extremely disappointed with the caliber of instruction I've received so far. I've read your opinion on accelerated courses for the instrument rating, but read nothing about other ratings. Is the accelerated course the way to go, or should I try my luck again at finding a traditional training course?
Please don't use my name
I think accelerated training works equally well for all ratings when provided by reputable, experienced schools. Over the years, I've become a big fan of accelerated courses for two very important reasons: You'll often find consistent, high-quality instruction at these schools and you'll most likely be able to maintain a consistent flight schedule. So check the school's reputation and talk with its recent graduates. I suspect you'll be happy with the results. The only additional caveat you should be concerned with is picking a location where the weather is reasonable for long periods of time. Avoid FBOs with names such as "Bob's Overcast Flight Training Academy."
Is it smart to pay up front?
Dear Rod:
I started flying lessons two months ago and recently had to switch instructors. My new instructor, who seems like a nice fellow, wants me to pay him up front for his instructional services, sort of a "complete package" deal that's supposed to cost me less money in the long run. Is this wise to do?
Sam
Greetings Sam:
I wish I could say that what looks like a good deal is always a good deal, but I can't. Personally, I avoid giving anyone more money at one time than I can afford to lose at one time. You have no idea whether or not your instructor will be the next UFO abductee on the cover of The National Enquirer or be named chief pilot of American Airlines (the latter is a bit less likely). The point is, he could depart at any instant, and there's little you could do about it (unless you're abducted with him). Besides that, common sense says that some people won't work as hard for you when you give them all their carrots up front. Think about it this way: Do you know many companies that pay their employees in advance for coming to work? I suspect not.
Elevator-airspeed, elevator-altitude
Dear Rod:
My fellow instructors were arguing about whether pitch controls airspeed or power. There seem to be two schools of thought here, and I'm not sure I understand the main arguments for teaching one way over the other. Any help you can offer would be appreciated.
Sincerely,
Bill
Greetings Bill:
Ah, step right inside one of aviation's oldest running arguments, where both sides are right, neither side will admit it, and nobody can prove anything.
There are those who prefer using their elevator to control airspeed, thus by default controlling altitude (glidepath) with power. We'll call these folks "elevator-airspeed" pilots. Others prefer using their elevator to control their altitude (or glidepath), thus by default, controlling airspeed with throttle. Let's call these "elevator-altitude" pilots. Those who make no distinction between what the elevator and throttle actually control, and simultaneously use both controls to control airspeed and altitude are in their own category, and by definition can play absolutely no part in this argument.
Elevator-airspeed pilots derive a very specific benefit from associating the control of airspeed with their elevator. Specifically, they acquire more behavioral reinforcement against trying to stretch a glide (for example, control their altitude) by pulling back on the elevator at the expense of diminishing airspeed and possibly stalling the airplane as a result.
Elevator-altitude pilots acquire more behavioral reinforcement at thinking of their glidepath as a trajectory controlled by constantly adjusting the aim of the airplane. As the pilot approaches the selected touchdown spot he continually readjusts his aim with the elevator. The argument posits that this technique minimizes glidepath deviations, and thus the potential problems associated with runway overruns or undershoots.
The question is, which technique is better for pilots to use? The answer is: It depends.
Wolfgang Langewiesche argued in his book Stick and Rudder that the elevator-airspeed pilot method (my term) makes it less likely a pilot will accidentally stall and spin an airplane. From a behavioral point of view, his argument is well founded and logical. That's why many CFIs introduce the elevator-airspeed method to beginning pilots.
On the other hand, there are also many instructors who train using the elevator-altitude pilot method. They argue that aiming the airplane (via a windscreen reference point) toward a specific spot on the runway provides more accurate glidepath control. The logic here is that this lessens the chance of a student being too high or low, and thus minimizes the chances of overshooting or stalling on final approach.
So, to settle the dispute all we have to do is determine which method makes for an overall safer private pilot. What does the FAA say on the issue? Until several years ago, the FAA argued for the elevator-altitude pilot method.
A passage from the FAA's older and now-discontinued Flight Training Handbook read as follows: "Since on a normal approach the power setting is not fixed as in a power-off approach, the power should be adjusted as necessary to control the airspeed and the pitch attitude adjusted simultaneously to control the descent angle or the attain the desired altitudes along the approach path."
Despite using the word "simultaneously" in the sentence, it's clear that the FAA favored using elevator to control altitude and power to control airspeed here. The Flight Training Handbook was recently superseded by the newer Airplane Flying Handbook. Now the FAA no longer takes a position on the issue of airspeed-altitude control.
The same statement shown above in its revised form reads as follows in the Airplane Flying Handbook: "Since on a normal approach the power setting is not fixed as in a power-off approach, the power and pitch attitude should be adjusted simultaneously as necessary to control the airspeed and the descent angle, or to attain the desired altitudes along the approach path."
Which is the safer technique to use? May I have the envelope, please?
There is no practical evidence suggesting that one technique is superior to the other in making pilots safer. To date, I've seen neither NTSB nor any experimental data in support of one technique over the other. As is so often the case, there is more than one way to fly an airplane safely. Please understand that any argument, point, topic, or idea not mentioned here was specifically left out because it wasn't germane to the question.
Rod Machado is a flight instructor, author, educator, and speaker. A pilot since 1970 and a CFI since 1973, he has flown more than 8,000 hours and is part owner of a Cessna P210. Visit his Web site.
Related Articles
