Learning to fly, or thinking of learning? Post your questions, comments and experiences here

Moderator: AndyR

  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 37
By TopCat
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1882331
Milty wrote:When I asked if they were serious, the reply was ‘I don’t understand km, only miles’.

Mm. I trust you pointed out Rule 24. And Rule 5, obviously. Not knowing about The Rules is a serious offence.
By TopCat
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1882350
Milty wrote:Right. All clear now.

FTAOD, I should point out that there's a difference between knowing about them, and insisting on obedience to them... :wink:
By Cessna571
#1882380
Hi Milty,
I’m a bit unsure about your winds.
I’ve just reread your last lesson.

Crosswind is the important number, and even more so if there’s descent gusts.

Just out of interest, runway was 27, and wind was 220 16kts?

i.e. 16 kts across?

That’s pretty sporting for a student!
I presume you are in a PA28 not a C152, most I was allowed as a solo student was 12 kts across!
Milty liked this
User avatar
By Milty
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1882408
Cessna571 wrote:Hi Milty,
I’m a bit unsure about your winds.
I’ve just reread your last lesson.

Crosswind is the important number, and even more so if there’s descent gusts.

Just out of interest, runway was 27, and wind was 220 16kts?

i.e. 16 kts across?

That’s pretty sporting for a student!
I presume you are in a PA28 not a C152, most I was allowed as a solo student was 12 kts across!


My post is correct. Wind was varying 210 to 220 on runway 27. ATIS Foxtrot was 220/10. I asked if we would be on 18 but circuits are not allowed on 18 at the moment due to runway resurfacing I think. Through the lesson, it increased with the last 4 landings increasing by 1kt at a time up to the last ‘to land’ at 16kts’. For clarity, I was not solo. He said I’m close to being able to solo and in lighter winds (plus my airlaw exam), he would have been happy for me to solo.

I am in a C152.

I can only assume the instructor was happy to continue based on my progress through the lesson. He did seem quite excited when the tower called 16kts on the last final but he did just manage to keep his hands off the yoke.

I can only agree that it was pretty sporting. My instructor does seem to push quite hard but I like that. He seems keen to make experienced pilots, not just get us through a skills test in the best conditions. I think it was also important for me that I did OK after my previous lesson. I feel safe in his judgement. He is an older, experienced pilot and I think the term is career instructor. If he’s happy for me to try something, I’m happy to try it. I did initially think that the winds were a bit strong and the lesson would be cancelled. I guess other lessons were because we pretty much had the airport to ourselves. During the lesson, a training Robin from Cotswold Aero and another C152 on a trial lesson departed. A Citation and one other that I don’t recall landed. Much quieter than my previous circuits.
AndyR, T6Harvard, Cessna571 liked this
User avatar
By Milty
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1882414
lobstaboy wrote:Pedantic instructor mode (as always)
Think of the saying as being, "A good circuit and approach are necessary, although not always sufficient, for a good landing."


Pedant to your hearts content. All feedback welcomed and a fair point made. :thumleft:

I don’t know how you would define a ‘perfect circuit’ and what sort of tolerance there is before it would be seen as a problem. I suspect it is a bit subjective. For example, as a pedantic instructor, would you consider my circuit track posted as bad enough to cause concern given the wind conditions? On my first two circuits, I lost focus on height in downwind and instructor picked me up to correct at about 1150ft AGL but after that, I controlled within 100ft or less.

For clarity, my instructor seemed happy with it and did point out when I was a bit close or wide on downwind. I’m interested in other thoughts for balance.
T6Harvard liked this
By TopCat
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1882419
lobstaboy wrote:Pedantic instructor mode (as always)
Think of the saying as being, "A good circuit and approach are necessary, although not always sufficient, for a good landing."

A good approach can make the landing easier, because there's less work to do for the very last bit. Which is why it's quite rightly taught when students need it to be as easy as possible.

The maxim is a pedagogical technique of simplifying things for students at the very point in their learning where things need to be simplified.

That is often important, but it is not the truth.

The truth is that if you get to the threshold at the right speed (or even faster than the right speed, if you've got enough runway ahead), it doesn't matter how you got there in the context of the landing to come.

Providing you can then completely forgot how you got there, and concentrate on the last bit. Which is hard if you're a new student and the preceding few minutes have been chaos.

So I'm not saying, don't teach good circuits and approaches - of course they should be taught.

But the saying itself is cobblers. I think we should be prepared to explain to students - especially the ones that are interested enough to be here in the first place - why things are taught the way they are, not lie to them.
Milty liked this
User avatar
By lobstaboy
#1882420
Milty wrote:I don’t know how you would define a ‘perfect circuit’ and what sort of tolerance there is before it would be seen as a problem. I suspect it is a bit subjective. For example, as a pedantic instructor, would you consider my circuit track posted as bad enough to cause concern given the wind conditions? On my first two circuits, I lost focus on height in downwind and instructor picked me up to correct at about 1150ft AGL but after that, I controlled within 100ft or less.

For clarity, my instructor seemed happy with it and did point out when I was a bit close or wide on downwind. I’m interested in other thoughts for balance.


I'm not familiar with Gloucester (an omission I ought to correct), but they look good to me. If the instructor with you was happy that should be enough!

In reality it is subjective of course. It depends on the weather, the location, other traffic, the aeroplane type etc etc.. And on an instructional flight it depends on what your instructor thinks is within your capacity but still needs effort - standards will change a you improve and can have more piled on to cope with.

Anyway, it all sounds good. Keep it up!
T6Harvard, Milty liked this
User avatar
By T6Harvard
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1882421
Milty wrote:
lobstaboy wrote:Pedantic instructor mode (as always)
Think of the saying as being, "A good circuit and approach are necessary, although not always sufficient, for a good landing."

Pedant to your hearts content. All feedback welcomed and a fair point made. :thumleft:

I don’t know how you would define a ‘perfect circuit’ and what sort of tolerance there is before it would be seen as a problem. I suspect it is a bit subjective. For example, as a pedantic instructor, would you consider my circuit track posted as bad enough to cause concern given the wind conditions? On my first two circuits, I lost focus on height in downwind and instructor picked me up to correct at about 1150ft AGL but after that, I controlled within 100ft or less.

For clarity, my instructor seemed happy with it and did point out when I was a bit close or wide on downwind. I’m interested in other thoughts for balance.


Good questions, @Milty so I'm following!
Milty liked this
By TopCat
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1882437
lobstaboy wrote:
TopCat wrote:So I'm not saying, don't teach good circuits and approaches - of course they should be taught.

Why should they be taught then?

I've already given reasons why it's desirable for students to fly circuits in a repeatable way when it's all so new that it's difficult to see the wood for the trees.

Flying accurately is an important thing to be able to do in general. If you can't fly accurately then there's a sense in which you're not actually in control of the aircraft - maybe you can't do the things that require fine control, when it's really important.

Accurate circuits are sometimes important to keep separation from other aircraft, avoid infringing and to prevent noise complaints.

But this "good landings have to come from good circuits and good approaches" mantra - when taken to extremes - can do a lot of damage, as we've discussed in the recent past. The case in point concerned a maniacal insistence on a perfect circuit before landings were permitted to be even attempted. Which completely trashed the student's progress and dented confidence massively. It was a tribute to that student's resilience that they didn't give up completely.

And the mantra is not even true. It may be true for new students, who have only learned to do it one way so far, but it is not true in general. I don't believe good learning comes from lying to students, if the student in question is smart enough to be asking the relevant questions.

Anyway, you're the instructor, you tell me :)
By johnm
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1882440
As long as there's a stable final approach, how you got there is of no consequence whatsoever....circuit bashing has some merit in getting the procedural aspects and accurate flying sorted out though it also has merit in providing a framework for practicing take off and landing without wasting too much time in the air :-)
Milty, T6Harvard liked this
  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 37