CFI-to-CFI Newsletter - Volume 2, Issue 3 - 2

Breaking the cycle
MOST INSTRUCTORS

CFI to CFI

have inherited one or more “hand-medown” students, often as a result of colleagues getting hired outside the flight school, but sometimes because efforts by the previous instructor (or instructors) were fruitless. I have vivid memories of one such student. He was passed from instructor to instructor with (mostly unspoken) hopes that he would someday either rise to the occasion or call it quits—alleviating the burden for all of us. He had spent thousands of dollars and well over 100 flight hours before reaching the solo cross-country phase, and his airmanship was characterized by poor decision making, temperamental behavior, and stick skills that were dicey at best. Perhaps his relentless determination to achieve his

dream overshadowed the reality of the risks involved if he actually succeeded. That such situations are common probably says more about human nature than it does any specific failure of the training system. We’re talking about an issue that weaves together threads of ego, personal goals, self-doubt, conflict avoidance, and economics (among others). Clearly, simple answers are not in the cards. All the same, there may be value in stopping to think about the questions. For example: How far should things go before you have “the discussion” with a failing student? If the student wants to continue despite being told that he’s not “getting it,” is that okay? How do you balance the desire to help him with the more important responsibility of training a safe pilot? And where does that responsibility end? If it takes a student pilot 175 hours to pass the private pilot checkride, does

that in itself tell you something about his likely post-checkride safety? Should expectations of performance (and consequences of failure) be discussed at the outset of training, or will that just serve to discourage new students? How many instructors should a student cycle through before we decide the problem is not teaching/learning style? And what professional obligations do CFIs have to communicate with each other on these issues? As I said, the answers are anything but clear-cut: Perhaps it’s an issue that deserves more discussion in the industry. Share your thoughts at cfinewsletter@ aopa.org so we can begin the dialogue.

Paul Deres Director of Education, Air Safety Institute

the art before going on to the meticulous details....The master does not speak of gravity until the student stands in wonder at the flower petal falling to the ground.” Once you’ve displayed the big picture, it’s time to talk directly to the “doing” portion of your student’s brain. That means (Step Two) defining in behavioral

…80 percent of Us pick Up new

sUbjects qUicker when someone lays oUt jUst what it is that we’re aboUt to learn

terms the motor, perceptual, or cognitive skills you wish to teach. Telling your student that he needs to use “more” right rudder when entering a right turn is asking him to measure without a ruler: More than what? How much more? You’re better off defining your objectives in behavioral terms such as, “To enter a right turn, press the ball of your right foot on the bottom of the right rudder pedal sufficiently to keep the nose from yawing to the left during the turn entry.” Now you’ve given him a ruler. He understands the behavior you want, because you’ve spoken directly to his noodle action center. 2 | www.airsafetyinstitute.org

Defining objectives behaviorally is useful, but only if you have behaviors to describe. Your job is to provide the experience leading to the development of new behaviors. Unfortunately, some experiences are hard to come by and must be artificially created. That’s why instructors reduce power to idle and say, “Your engine has failed.” Of course, some students counter with, “No … it didn’t…look… someone just pulled back the throttle.” They don’t get that you’re trying to simulate experience when the real thing isn’t available. Good instructors devise unique ways to (Step Three) simulate experiences that can’t be had directly. For example, if you want your student to see what an aerodynamic slug an airplane becomes when loaded with ice, you might say, “Starting now, I’ll reduce the rpm by 100 for every passing minute to simulate a high rate of ice accretion on the wings while you find a place to land.” That’s simulating an experience that can’t be had directly. If, after five minutes of your shenanigans the student shoves the throttle in, you’ll know

that he just discovered how to simulate deicing boots. Unfortunately, there’s often a big difference between how we teach a maneuver and what we really do ourselves. For instance, you might teach your student to look at the runway directly over the nose during the landing flare. That’s fine until the nose comes up and the runway disappears. If you were to share the strategy you really use when flaring an airplane, you’d probably say, “Look at the runway and the horizon over the nose until the nose obstructs your view of the runway, then shift your vision to the left slightly to keep the runway in sight.” This is why you always want to (Step Four) identify the clues you actually use to perform a behavior and share these with your student. Don’t keep the good stuff a secret. Finally, it’s important to remember that even if your students dress up like stoic Vulcans and make regular appearances at Star Trek conventions, they’re still human (unless those pointy ears are real). That means they have feelings that you must respect. Doing that means you’ll always try to (Step Five) critique your students’ performances but not the students themselves. The best way to do this is to avoid

http://www.airsafetyinstitute.org

CFI-to-CFI Newsletter - Volume 2, Issue 3

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of CFI-to-CFI Newsletter - Volume 2, Issue 3