[Rob L]

...The blind training the blind, potentially laying the groundwork for something untoward in the future simply because they won't know any better...

(again my snip)

Thanks for your response, Mike...I (as a basic civilian PPL) also come across this when military Controllers use such expressions as "High Key" and "Low Key" when controlling those with civvy PPLs. (The same with military pilots using those terms at civilian-only airfields).

Unfamiliar terminology can be misconstrued occasionally.

Rob

[ChrisRowland]

There's a famous series of experiments from the 1960s that study obedience - the Milgram Experiments. In those experiments people were persuaded into doing appalling things to 'victims' because someone in authority said it was OK.
In this context it means that it may be very difficult to refuse to comply with what you see as instructions; 'unable' may be too difficult a response.

PS
As a glider pilot High Key and Low Key make perfect sense.

[Dave W]

Hmm. Everything one understands makes perfect sense.

[Gertie]

The phrase / instruction TIGHTEN UP or Keep it Tight, in fact any use of the word tight, should not be used by ATC. There must be other alternative words that can convey the need for expeditious action that don't trigger a muscle response from a suggestible inexperienced pilot.

Perhaps we can come up with some safer and less emotive alternatives?

We have some, including "are you ready for immediate" and "expedite", and I think I've been on the receiving end of "are you able to". As a PPL with limited experience I am very well aware that "negative" or "going around" or "unable to comply" is an acceptable answer if necessary for safety reasons, and I've used all of these.

[JoeC]

High key, low key is standard PFL/ engine failed at height, non?

[Dave W]

Non.

Ask a random sample of PPLs what the terms mean. Few will know.

Hell, ask a random sample of CPLs.

I say again: Everything one understands makes perfect sense.

[Rob L]

High key, low key is standard PFL/ engine failed at height, non?

For civilian training: Non. They are military terms not used in civilian training establishments, to my knowledge.

Even if they are military terms, the military seem to use them for "normal" circuit positions; nothing to do with "engine failed".
(Substitute "RAF" for "military" as required)

[G-BLEW]

High key, low key is standard PFL/ engine failed at height, non?

Non

Ian

[Gertie]

High key, low key is standard PFL/ engine failed at height, non?

For civilian training: Non. They are military terms not used in civilian training establishments, to my knowledge.

I was taught them in a civilian training establishment.

[Rob L]

High key, low key is standard PFL/ engine failed at height, non?

For civilian training: Non. They are military terms not used in civilian training establishments, to my knowledge.

I was taught them in a civilian training establishment.

Fair enough: which one?

[Gertie]

For civilian training: Non. They are military terms not used in civilian training establishments, to my knowledge.

I was taught them in a civilian training establishment.

Fair enough: which one?

Cambridge. The instructors admittedly being ETPS graduates, which is a little out of the ordinary, but it was civilian ATC using the terms as well.

[mick w]

High/low key , taught to me when learning to Glide & also in PPL training , for PFL's .

[Longfinal]

The other danger with a 'keep it tight' instruction is that for those not used to constant aspect approaches and therefore flying the standard rectangular circuit, it requires greater bank angles with the huge increase in risk that results.

I'd take issue with that. In my experience the constant aspect approach can, and usually does, involve a much smaller bank angle.

Erm ... that’s my point.

[Crash one]

The other danger with a 'keep it tight' instruction is that for those not used to constant aspect approaches and therefore flying the standard rectangular circuit, it requires greater bank angles with the huge increase in risk that results.

I'd take issue with that. In my experience the constant aspect approach can, and usually does, involve a much smaller bank angle.

Erm ... that’s my point.

Just to clarify this which could be a bit ambiguous.
To tighten a square circuit requires steepening the bank at two corners, possibly dangerously. Which is what Longfinal said/meant.
Tightening an oval circuit wouldn't be so difficult.

[AndyR]

High/low key , taught to me when learning to Glide & also in PPL training , for PFL's .

Taught to me too on my PPL and my FI course some years later.