Running T/Os discussion

[Pohi]

It has nothing to do with being "neat". It has to do with providing your students as many usefull tools as you can. By teaching strictly to the PTS you are basically saying you teach the minimum amount required to get a license. Does that make for a safe pilot?

 

Yes, that is exactly why there is a PTS.

[clay]

Have to disagree here POHI. I feel the PTS is a minimum guidline to show what an examiner may ask.

[r22butters]

I can't understand what your saying butters.... are you saying that if you're too heavy to hover then you're putting unnecessary stress on the helicopter if you try a running t/o?...I hope not cause that would be total crap...

 

I'm saying that, if you can't hover, you're too heavy. I was taught that flying when you're too heavy is bad, and it WILL put unnecessary stress on the helicopter.

 

This is just like when you are doing off-airport practice, where your landings are OGE, and your takeoffs are Max, and you notice that you're pulling a MAP above the day's allotment. You can get away with it today, but the damage is cumulative, and will "bite someone in the ass" someday!

 

Maybe I'm being overly cautious, but if I can't hover, I'm not taking off!

[Pohi]

Have to disagree here POHI. I feel the PTS is a minimum guidline to show what an examiner may ask.

 

To quote a bumper sticker,

 

they wouldn't call it the bare minimum if it wasn't good enough

 

 

Joking aside, I guess we will have to agree to disagree about the usefullness, purpose, and validity of the PTS.

[RkyMtnHI]

Hey folks, this is a good thread and i'm glad it's up and running. I am on vacation and have a terrible internet connection so i'll have to get back to it later. I expect tho, that folks that have actually flown at altitude will have much different opinions than those that have not… and i'm not talking about the occasional flight to altitude, but someone like Clay that flew all summer long at 5000+ with DAs above 9000, it's quite different up here.

 

be back in a few days..

 

dp

[Trans Lift]

Pohi, I think you are way off the mark. If you only teach to a minimum, how are you teaching your students to be the best pilots that they can be? As others have said above, it is a guideline for what you may be asked by an examiner, not a standard to teach your students to. That's the problem with CFI's today, too many of them only teach by the book and not outside the box!

[Pohi]

Yeah, those damn kids. No idea what in the hell they are doing.

 

You don't seem to want to accept the fact you're dealing with an expert in flight training, with a man who's the best, with autos, with flight planning, with his emergency procedures. A man who's been trained to ignore pain, ignore weather, to live off the land, to eat things that would make a billy goat puke.

 

The standard by which I teach my students is a syllabus. Which was passed on from generation to generation of CFI. Of course these ancient CFI's were around just after the box was invented, so they were in such awe of the box that they could not imagine why anybody would go outside it.

Edited August 17, 2010 by Pohi

[Tarantula]

Pohi, Would you consider teaching running takeoffs to someone going for their private? Commercial? CFI? ATP? Wheeled helicopters only? When would you consider it to be something to be taught?

[rick1128]

The way I see it, they should be taught. Primarily because when they do NEED it, it's way too late to teach them. All these little tricks and techniques that a student pilot is taught, are put into a bag of tricks that each pilot has. And they are available for him/her to pull out of that bag as needed. The more of these little tricks and techniques they are taught, the bigger the bag.

 

A prime example is the Sioux City accident that United had many years ago. They had an engine failure that caused a complete hydraulic failure. Several years earlier, a JAL 747 had a complete hydraulic failure. The difference in the end results said it all. The JAL pilots were taught the company bare minimum. When they got to the end of the checklist, they said their prayers and the aircraft crashed with no survivors. The United aircraft, the crew got to the end of the checklist, and then developed their own procedures as they went along and got it just over the runway, before they lost control. And there were many survivors. The United Captain had a background where during his training, he had gotten things like 'see what happens when I open the door'.

[Spike]

If you can’t momentarily hover, then it should be a no go. If you choose to attempt to T/O, then it’s on you.

 

Weight is only one factor in many in these situations. One often overlooked issue is the assumption the engine is producing the proper amount of power. That is, an engine problem may be contributing to your poor performance not just weight and atmospheric conditions.

 

As far as teaching the maneuver to students, IMHO, yes they should be taught. This is based on positive transfer of learning. The surface taxi begets the running T/O which begets the running landing. Plus, there are plenty of other elements being learned during this maneuver which benefits the student. I can attest, on a hot day, even at sea-level, with a full bucket on the hook, at or near maximum power settings, the T/O technique required does resemble that of a running T/O….

 

As far as teaching to the PTS or a syllabus, again IMO, teaching to pass a test or a lesson is a disservice to the student. For a career oriented student, the student needs far beyond what is considered the “minimum standard” to be prepared for the commercial marketplace. Especially, in todays market.

 

Good discussion.

[Pohi]

The way I see it, they should be taught. Primarily because when they do NEED it, it's way too late to teach them.

 

The helicopter is on the ground. Pretty much the most stable situation ever. As stated before, short of the zombie apocalypse, there is nothing that NEEDs to be done. A pilot or passengers could really want to get home before conditions are more favorable, but nobody needs to go anywhere.

 

Tarantula:

 

Like I stated before, I teach the PTS and the Syllabus. If somebody was to specifically ask me to teach them something, then I might, depending on the situation. A private pilot who is continuing training through commercial or CFI, no. If people at that stage find themselves in such a situation where a running takeoff is the most logical answer, then they should suck up their ego and seek the help of a more experienced pilot.

 

There can become a problem when when a person is given a tool for their toolbag that they do not have enough skill to use. Of course it depends on the person, but sometimes giving people that false sense of confidence may do more bad than good.

 

The likeliness of teaching a more experienced pilot is much greater.

 

My students never fly over 6000 feet MSL, and never land over 3000 MSL(or should not be doing such flights). Yes, there are huge friggin mountains everywhere around me, but there is no need for somebody to be doing solo flights to those high altitudes.

 

... and yes, before anybody else says it, there are schools that teach at high altitudes. That's wonderful, but I do not work there and my students do not go there, so I do not teach the same ways that they would.

 

Sooo... to sum it up, if my student finds themselves on the peak of a mountain needing to do a running takeoff, then that student is a jackass who refuses to follow company guidelines and procedures. The longer that student is stuck on the mountain, the better. Perhaps the student will learn a valuable lesson.

[ADRidge]

Hey folks, this is a good thread and i'm glad it's up and running. I am on vacation and have a terrible internet connection so i'll have to get back to it later. I expect tho, that folks that have actually flown at altitude will have much different opinions than those that have not… and i'm not talking about the occasional flight to altitude, but someone like Clay that flew all summer long at 5000+ with DAs above 9000, it's quite different up here.

 

be back in a few days..

 

dp

 

I've been thinking about my reply to this conversation for a while, and I think DP sums it up fairly well. Being a flat-land pilot, the only rolling takeoffs I do are in a Cessna. I think DP is on the mark here.

[Pohi]

 

As far as teaching to the PTS or a syllabus, again IMO, teaching to pass a test or a lesson is a disservice to the student.

 

Good discussion.

 

If I decided to scrap the syllabus and teach what I felt was necessary, there is a chance that I might be the best CFI in the world. Odds are, however, that I would be the best unemployed CFI in the world.

 

I am having a hard time grasping the concept of telling the company that I work for and my boss to go screw themselves because I want to teach things differently than what they want.

 

Different companies teach different ways, I choose to have a job and that choice means that I teach what I am told to teach.

 

Correct me if I am wrong Spike, but your company did give you some training on how to fly with a loaded bucket. I am pretty sure that if you did not master the takeoff on the first try that they would not have fired you on the spot, I can imagine that whatever unique skills a pilot will need for a specific job, the company will give adequate instruction.

 

Just a thought :-)

[clay]

 

... and yes, before anybody else says it, there are schools that teach at high altitudes. That's wonderful, but I do not work there and my students do not go there, so I do not teach the same ways that they would.

 

Sooo... to sum it up, if my student finds themselves on the peak of a mountain needing to do a running takeoff, then that student is a jackass who refuses to follow company guidelines and procedures. The longer that student is stuck on the mountain, the better. Perhaps the student will learn a valuable lesson.

 

This has got to be the 2 most ignorant paragraphs of this discussion. you dont teach it because they dont face it NOW?!?! what about in 5 years when your not around and they went and had to do a x-country somewhere. God forbid they have to land at high airport for fuel... good thing you taught them good flight planning, they can just go around the rocky mountains.

 

 

p.s. can I ask what company you work for POHI?

Edited August 17, 2010 by clay

[Pohi]

This has got to be the 2 most ignorant paragraphs of this discussion. you dont teach it because they dont face it NOW?!?! what about in 5 years when your not around and they went and had to do a x-country somewhere or anything. that would be as bad as me saying "i wont teach someone how to do weight and balance, they are only going to be flying by themselves all the time. if they get that close to an aircrafts limits, thats there own fault"

 

granted w&b is in the PTS, but its still a tool and knowledge and skill that is used. just like a running take-off is a skill that may be used.

 

Easy killer.

 

In five years, I will come back and teach them for free.

[Pohi]

I suppose I should also teach somebody to land on the back of a tuna boat, just in case they do that in fifteen years also?

 

I guess that could be easy enough, just get a houseboat on the lake, do orbits around the houseboat with a few other boats so it bounces around a lot, and then practice approaches so the person can time the swell of the waves.

 

I am gonna put that in my new secret prepare pilots for the real world syllabus.

[Pohi]

 

p.s. can I ask what company you work for POHI?

 

I do not currently have a job, just got my CFI last summer and have been looking.

 

Know of anybody who is hiring?

[Wally]

In 42 years, I've never had to do a running takeoff outside of training. Some of the skills developed doing the maneuver are frequently used, however. Can those skills be taught with other scenarios? Sure, but versatility and variety in experience is useful reinforcement. I'd say the maneuver should be taught and practiced to proficiency.

 

I'll respectfully disagree with Pohi's very well founded opinion as I understand it. If I'm teaching- and I haven't in 30 years- I want to teach to the student's limit, not the minimum legal requirement. If I don't fill the period with continual challenges, progressive skill and judgement improvements, I've failed in my responsibility to the profession.

 

When you're all alone in the cockpit trying to survive an issue, you'd better have the required knowledge and skills at hand. You can't know too much at that point and you'll only have what you practiced and learned, the best of those skills will have been taught you earliest.

That opinion has to be taken with the knowledge that I didn't have a 100% pass rate when I was teaching.

Edited August 17, 2010 by Wally

[clay]

yes.. but they teach running takeoffs

[Trans Lift]

If I decided to scrap the syllabus and teach what I felt was necessary, there is a chance that I might be the best CFI in the world. Odds are, however, that I would be the best unemployed CFI in the world.

 

No-one is saying to scrap the syllabus. I taught to a 141 syllabus for a while and it was fine. Doesn't mean that you can't show or teach students maneuvers outside of the syllabus. You follow a TCO, correct? A training course OUTLINE. This is an outline of what you should be teaching and at what stage of the course. Somehow, I don't think you would get fired if you teach your students above and beyond the TCO. If so, then the place you work at has some serious issues!

[Pohi]

yes.. but they teach running takeoffs

 

Damnit.

 

I guess I will have to take a few lessons there before I drop my application.

[Trans Lift]

I suppose I should also teach somebody to land on the back of a tuna boat, just in case they do that in fifteen years also?

 

I guess that could be easy enough, just get a houseboat on the lake, do orbits around the houseboat with a few other boats so it bounces around a lot, and then practice approaches so the person can time the swell of the waves.

 

I am gonna put that in my new secret prepare pilots for the real world syllabus.

 

No, but practicing pinnacle approaches would suffice.

 

I do not currently have a job, just got my CFI last summer and have been looking.

 

Please tell me that this was sarcasm. If not, you are coming on here preaching about how you teach but yet you have never even taught as an instructor!!!!

[Pohi]

No, but practicing pinnacle approaches would suffice.

 

 

 

Please tell me that this was sarcasm. If not, you are coming on here preaching about how you teach but yet you have never even taught as an instructor!!!!

 

Yeah, but a pinnacle approach is not hard enough. Needs more real world aspects, otherwise I am not helping out my students enough.

 

I guess as long as I am at it, I should also teach landing and taking off in situations where there can be white outs and brown outs due to particulates in the air. That would be easy enough to do, just practice a bunch of takeoffs and landings into areas where there is that really nasty fine dust that takes about a week and a half to clean out of the helicopter.

 

But, those are good skills to know in case the pilot needs to land in somebody's freshly plowed back yard, or if they become an EMS pilot in five years where they might have to land in the snow or on the side of the road.

 

 

As far as the job situation, the examiner told me that I had what it took to be an excellent instructor. What does experience teaching have to do with anything?

[clay]

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

[Trans Lift]

I guess as long as I am at it, I should also teach landing and taking off in situations where there can be white outs and brown outs due to particulates in the air. That would be easy enough to do, just practice a bunch of takeoffs and landings into areas where there is that really nasty fine dust that takes about a week and a half to clean out of the helicopter.

 

No you wouldn't have to actually do it. But teaching the students to do zero/zero landings would be fine. This gets them using the correct technique. Arriving at the ground with no forward airspeed and reducing collective straight away. Again, what you teach doesn't always have to be done as it would in the real world but showing them the techniques and how to do it if/when the situation arises is what matters.

 

But, those are good skills to know in case the pilot needs to land in somebody's freshly plowed back yard, or if they become an EMS pilot in five years where they might have to land in the snow or on the side of the road.

 

Exactly, now you are getting what we re trying to say to you.

 

As far as the job situation, the examiner told me that I had what it took to be an excellent instructor. What does experience teaching have to do with anything?

 

Everything. As you become more comfortable teaching you will be willing and able to teach more with your student. You will be more confident to push the student closer to their limits. You will be able to see when the student's limits advance and be able to push them more. You will see that the TCO or PTS is a minimum and that what you can teach will ensure that they will ace checkrides and be more ready for the real world than what the PTS minmums can provide!