Dear Rod:
One of our post-solo students recently crumpled the nosegear of a training airplane while porpoising on the runway. She was just fine, but her nerves were shaken. Her flight instructor wasn’t around to offer any guidance, so the chief pilot explained why she porpoised and how to correct for it. At that point I suggested that she get right back in another training airplane with me and that we fly around the pattern for a couple of landings. She was absolutely willing to go flying again, despite her anxiety. The chief pilot, however, didn’t think this was a good idea. He wanted to let her go home and take a few days off before flying again. After a bit more discussion with the reluctant chief pilot, I took the young lady flying and she was grateful that I did. What would you have done in this instance?
Sincerely,
Robby
Greetings Robby:
I would have done exactly what you did. Your instincts were correct here. Given that this student was willing to fly again on the same day (and did) indicates that your chief pilot was being a little too cautious, in my opinion. In situations where students end up like James Bond’s martinis—shaken, but not stirred—it’s often best to get him or her back into the air as soon as it’s reasonable and possible. It’s certainly possible for some students to spook themselves out of continuing their lessons by covertly revisiting the negative landing experience. Getting them back into the cockpit at the earliest opportunity makes this less likely to happen.
And it does happen, too. I’ve known several students who’ve had similar experiences while landing and simply stopped flying because of it. So, from what you’ve written, it appears that your judgment was sound.
Dear Rod:
I have a flight instructor who is a real chatterbox. I gently try and urge him to let me fly, but it’s as if he’s unable to keep from adding his input. It’s really distracting for me, mainly because I like to think about what I’m doing as I’m doing it and his words interfere with this process. Do you have any suggestions here?
Thank you,
Lois
Greetings Lois:
One of my instructor friends recently conducted a flight training experiment that suggested the use of headsets for presolo flight training actually lengthens the time a student takes to solo by 20 to 30 percent. Why? Because chatting is distracting. Now, I’m not advocating that you toss your headset, but I am advocating that you be a little more aggressive in insisting that Talkman talk less. Ultimately, we teach people how to behave toward us. So teach your teacher how to teach you. Start teaching him by placing a sticky note on the panel directly in front of him that reads, “Lois Likes Less Lingo.” When he starts chatting too much, point to the sticky note and smile a little, but don’t talk. That way, you teach by example.
Dear Rod:
I have always thought that to recover from a stall, one should decrease the angle of attack by gently pushing the nose forward and then add power. My newest flight instructor wanted me to add power, keep the nose up, and lose the very least possible altitude. Is what he wanted a safe maneuver and something I should practice?
Thank you,
Wally
Greetings Wally:
If your instructor was in any way suggesting that the standard way to recover from a stall is to add power and keep the nose up, then this is a very strange idea. It’s absolutely not a good way to attempt stall recovery. When the wings stall, the correct procedure is to reduce the angle of attack by decreasing the pitch attitude, by lowering the nose or releasing elevator back-pressure—followed by adding power to accelerate the airplane (which increases speed and helps decrease angle of attack). Performed correctly, very little altitude loss will occur during the recovery.
Therefore, you are absolutely correct in saying that you reduce the angle of attack by releasing elevator back-pressure, then apply full power to accelerate the airplane. That’s the best way to practice stall recovery.
Related Articles
