And the motor goes BANG

[motzartmerv]

Had a curely one thisarvo.. I was helping a potential instructor get up to scratch in the cct on a gazelle at the club ive been flying with.. He is a RAAF guy with a thousand odd hours.. We did a couple of touch and goes and i was about to take over and behave like a difficult student.. We had lifted off and were just clearing the fence and the motor went BANG!!!... a loud thud and she addopted a new note, much like an old chaff cutter run by a an old victor lawn mower engine.. He asked me what it was, but i didnt have an answer for him.. I told him to keep flying the thing and i would check some stuff, the rpm were still good, no T or P problems evident.. I thought it may have been the prop thrown a tip or something..As soon as we were at 500 ft i got him to do a 180 and track a close low downwind.. The strip had a cross strip and i didnt want to get to high or far away to use that should she stop altogether..Gave a pan pan call on downwind and turned a close base, when we were sure we would make it we cut the power and shut the show down..

 

The instructor in me thought it a good opportunity to test the new guy on his skills unbder pressure, and i have to say he did an exellent job.. we were a bit high so i urged him to loose that extra height because a go around was out of the question..he slipped it in nicely and greased her on ...

 

An inspection revealed that the exauset had cracked away a few inches past the elbow... The whole time the engine didnt loose power but the smell of something burning was getting strong on base..thats why we shut the show down.. The hot air was blowing back and warming up some of the rubber parts near the throttle body..

 

So, it was an interesting few minneys..;)

 

 

[ahlocks]

See, told yuh you'd make a good instructor.

 

 

[alf jessup]

Great job Motzartmerv,

 

You's followed the basic fundamentals of flight training, fly, fly and fly the aircraft first and foremost, i'd say it would have been easy to get distracted from the task of flying the aircraft with all that noise and not really knowing what the problem was, sounds like it was a good decision once enough height was gained to turn back and shut the engine down as things would have been getting warmer in the engine bay let alone the chance of some nasty fumes seeping into the cockpit.

 

Guess it is all in a days work for a 1000 hr raffy, you both probably didn't even break out into a sweat, maybe just raise the odd eyebrow.

 

Flying is full of surprises and each flight is different and a new experience.

 

I was 2 hrs into my microlight training and we had a engine failure at 300 feet a 1/2 mile past the threshold, my instrustor took over and landed safely in a paddock, it was probably one of the best experiences I could have had so early on into my training as it showed me that engines can and do fail without notice or warning and landings are not to be feared after such an event just good airmanship and decision making is required.

 

Cheers

 

Alf

 

 

[planedriver]

Well done mate. I always prefer to read story's that have happy endings:thumb_up::thumb_up::thumb_up:

 

 

[storchy neil]

oh what a feeling neil

 

 

[Guest TOSGcentral]

Hi Motz,

 

 

Your account is good and as usual up front – I am sure many people benefited from a recounting of procedures with what is SOP with an engine difficulty.

 

 

However you did say “I was helping a potential instructor get up to scratch in the cct on a gazelle at the club ive been flying with.. He is a RAAF guy with a thousand odd hours.. We did a couple of touch and goes and i was about to take over and behave like a difficult student.â€

 

 

Motz – I am not putting you down but you have not been instructing for long yet so where did you get your Instructor Training rating from?

 

 

At some times people may look at ‘informal’ instructor training/exposure much the same as any pilot giving a passenger a twiddle with the controls. But it is a different ball game with having a twiddle with potential instructors just as it is with a pilot adopting the mantle of instructor! First habits learnt are the hardest to break and the first thing any instructor (and particularly Tutor Instructor) should learn. So you need to know exactly what you are about first – that is why we have staged ratings.

 

 

Exactly what did you propose with the ‘behave like a difficult student’? Motz, in now about 30 plus years of instructor training I NEVER act like a ‘difficult student’! I may act the way students normally perform when they are picking up new skills but I will only do so under a prepared pre-flight briefing that the trainee instructor has given me. And even then I will only do EXACTLY what I am told (although I may not be very good at it yet in the replication). What was your pre-flight instructional training briefing scenario?

 

 

Was the guy himself (despite 1000 hrs RAAF) fully conversant with our style of flying – if he was then why was your presence required? How could he ‘act as an instructor’ unless he was already fully master of the machine?

 

 

If you were on just a flying skills fault finding exercise then again I ask – did you have a pre-set briefing for objectives by which outcomes could be measured?

 

 

I repeat – I am not putting you down. I applaud the openness on your posts and your evident enthusiasm. But I really do suggest you do not break into a gallop until you are comfortable with a trot!

 

 

Instructing, in any form, is a very serious business and you really need to know what you are about before you venture forth.

 

 

Aye

 

 

Tony

 

 

[pylon500]

I don't think exhaust breakages on 912's are common, but it is known, we had a solo pilot doing circuits in our 912 LightWing, when it began to make an odd staem train like sound.

 

The pilot (only newly solo) called and did an abbreviated circuit and landed, shutting down off the side of the strip.

 

 

 

As for instructor training, I think this goes back to some of my previous comments regarding the perception of the abilities of pilots becoming instructors.

 

 

 

Now, not to disagree with you Tony, but I think all situations need to be judged on their merits.

 

In this case we had two active pilots at the controls, both capable of conducting the flight should outside forces send things pear shaped.

 

The concept of the "difficult student" should (hopefully) never stray into a non-recoverable situation.

 

 

 

While I don't know Motz, I feel that if he has been signed as an instructor even a junior instructor, his solo piloting skills should be such that he should be in control of the situation at all times, whether on the stick or not.

 

 

 

I had a very senior CFI check me out for my instructor rating and I'd forgotten his brief about "At some point I could be doing some bad flying".

 

During his landing roll, he began to wander off the side of the strip, but, even sitting next to 'A God', self preservation took over and I corrected the aircraft back onto the centre line.

 

 

 

Anyone who has become an instructor usually notices on their first instructing flight all the mistakes they used to make when learning and quickly become aware of their responsibilities to the student.

 

The ones that weren't really ready for the job tend to be the ones you hear about that spend a lot of time on the stick instead of the student.

 

 

 

I wish there was some better way of determining the requirements to become instructors, other than just numbers.

 

I'm always wary of people that want to be made into something, in the words of Douglas Adams;

 

"Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job."

 

This holds a certain amount of truth, but how do we avoid it?

 

Arthur.

 

Puts on firesuit...........

 

 

[motzartmerv]

Sorry it took a while for me to reply, i just got back from a trip...

 

Now, to answer your questions tony..

 

The difficult student scenario was to be just rough flying, things like tracking off the centreline on takeoff, climbing out to far away from the turn onto xwind, leveling out too high or to low...that sort of thing...Not BAD flying like pulling the power and raising the nose at 50 feet sort of bad..It was discussed pre flight that i would be PIC and the other guy would sit in the right seat and do most of the flying..

 

He wasn't to be logging it as INSTRUCTOR TRAINING. Because it wasn't..And i never said it was.. It was me helping him out on the lighter acft..The only diff was he was sitting in the right hand seat.

 

Basically it was exposeure to the right seat for him, and more time on type for me before i start instructing people on it that are likely to do silly things..

 

I fully understabnd your sentiments regarding the learning to trot thing before we gallop, and i would argue that flights like this are exactly that, and a a valuable part of the process of learning new skills.. Flying with guys of more experiance then you is just another part of instructing.. I don't care how much Mache jet or saesprite helicopter time a guy has, its all performance based. I have had 747 captains in my left seat and i approach the flight with the same seriousness and preparidness for mistakes that i would with any ab initio pilot. There's never a question as to who is PIC.

 

Thanx for your post Tony and others...its always well appreciated..

 

cheers

 

Ps.. Ta ahlocks..

 

 

[motzartmerv]

Sorry to go on about things but somethings errking me..

 

I believe that one of the cornerstones of safe flying is knowing your limitations.. Knowing your personal limitations, knowing the limitations of the acft your flying, knowing the limitations imposed on you by outside forces such as WX and SOP's.

 

This also carries over to instructing.. Knowing my personal limitations and making sure students clearly recognise and define thier own limitations.

 

I wouldn't consider conducting instructor training. I am not endorsed to do it but more so i wouldn't know where to start. I wouldnt nkow what to be looking for in an instructor.. I have been trained to recognise certain things in students, but not instructors. So there is a very clearly defined limitation imposed on me not only by RAA SOP's but more importantly imposed on me, BY ME..

 

The flight in question was to help the guy get used to the right seat, reading the instruments from that side and things like that.. I was also asked to help him with the flair as he was tending to "flop" on..He is a licensedi RAA pilot, so i am allowed to instruct him.. Perhaps we were being a bit free with one rule, instructing from the left seat..But i hope i have been clear on the fact i wasn't giving him instructor training..

 

Cheers

 

 

[Guest TOSGcentral]

Hi Motz,

 

Do not worry too much about me! I do get far too intense about any of the I/T scenario (or borderlines to it) for my own good. I fully realise that you are a sane, level headed guy who is keen on analysing circumstances by which to improve - I wish more did.

 

What you describe sounds innocent enough and could well have done you both good. But remember that this is a public forum that others read and those people may be encouraged to have a twiddle themselves.

 

There is a very fine line between 'nearly doing instructor training' and actually do it. You can easily slip over that boundary and it is growing confidence that encourages you because things are going so well.

 

Currently a guy I am helping out is buying one bargain of a Thruster (but it requires extensive repair). It requires fixing because the small club it was with had no instructor but wanted members. They began with effectively TIFs, that slipped into other upper air work and eventually progressed to the ground and increasingly difficult conditions because things were going so well.

 

They were using the standard techniques from the good old bad old days of flying instruction - namely "I can fly, so watch what I do so you can see how to get it right and then you have a go and just do what I did". There is no structure to this form of training and no exercise interlocking - therefore there is no foundation of a growing skill progressing from a firm base in a controlled manner.

 

The 'instructor' eventually was left with an out of control situation near the ground in a strong cross wind and was unable to retrieve the situation. The aircraft was extensively damaged although injuries were light and the club no longer exists!

 

In another instance a guy who was actually already doing an I/T course (but was only half way through) decided to do some covert illegal instructing because it was 'so easy'. What he did was wind up a paying student without realising what he was doing until the student over-loaded and froze on the controls due to over-concentration on trying too hard. Unfortunately the freezing occurred during a bounced landing and the student was built like a gorilla so could not be overpowered! Another badly wrecked aircraft!

 

Neither of the two 'culprits' were bad guys or taking what they considered to be risks - they just did not know enough to recognise what the risks actually were, irrespective of the quality of what the innocents beside them were learning.

 

That is why we have boundaries dictated by ratings and laid down methods of crossing those boundaries.

 

On the other hand, and more akin to what you were doing Motz, I actively encourage mutual flying and will set a pre-course flying programme to have student instructors at a much more adept and comfortable level prior to the course.

 

This gets the vital right hand seat comfort bit well under way and at the same time you can lift your game on demonstrating exercises and timing clear patter with them (eg aileron drag, secondary effect of rudder etc) while the other guy just watches. But I spell out very clearly what to do and how to do it.

 

Getting involved with fault finding is not, I believe, very valid as error in flying has a cause and 95% of the time the main instructional task is clearly isolating the cause rather than the symptom. That does take a fair bit of formal I/T to become an effective tool.

 

Anyway - as usual I have rambled on for too long.

 

Aye

 

Tony

 

 

[motzartmerv]

Thanx Tony, as usual your post's are insitive and informative, a valuable resource to any student or instructor.

 

I agree with you about the public forum bit. I find it hard to understand how any pilot could consider training someone else without the propper rating's. I mean even just from a legal standpoint any instruction given wouldn't count for squat, they would only be able to log the time as a passenger (which isn't logging it at all) and would never be flying legally after getting this so called training. The mind boggles at how a "club" could think it a wise idea. If anyone out there reading this is in a similar situation, then stop it. Your knowlage and skills will be severly defficent and you are flying illegally. If there's no club around that has qualified instructors then take a few weeks off work and book in with a club that does and attack your license, aviation is very unforging of any incapacity or neglect.

 

cheers

 

 

[Guest J430]

WHAT!!!!!

 

Something broke on a ROTAX............I never........

 

 

[Ewen McPhee]

Basically it was exposeure to the right seat for him, and more time on type for me before i start instructing people on it that are likely to do silly things..

I would disagree with this and suggest that Student Pilots don't do silly things. They lack awareness, that is why there are instructors and lessons. Perhaps one could catalogue the "Silly" things people do and that would be enough to qualify as an instructor otherwise.

 

 

[BigPete]

A friend of mine asked me the other day to help with his landings. He was having trouble with the flare. (and so say all of us!).

 

We discussed approach speeds and looking to the end of the runway etc etc. Then he asked if I would fly with him and tell him what he was doing wrong.

 

I said no. I'm not an instructor. Cliff will be here this weekend, ask him. We parted as friends, of course. He will get top notch advice/training, and his landings will improve.

 

(That's what instructors are for) ;)

 

regards

 

 

[motzartmerv]

I would disagree with this and suggest that Student Pilots don't do silly things. They lack awareness, that is why there are instructors and lessons. Perhaps one could catalogue the "Silly" things people do and that would be enough to qualify as an instructor otherwise.

Mate, i don't know what your students are like but ive seen very very silly things done.. And not only by students, but also pilots.. You are correct, they do do lack awareness, and unfortunatly in the real world that sometimes means they do silly things. So while its your right to dissagree, i think i will stay on my toes and be "aware" of the silly things..

 

Bigpete.. good onya mate. I have heard of two pilots flying together in a situation not unlike the one you described, they pranged on landing because both thought the other one was flying.. Just one possible outcome of that sort of thing going bad..

 

cheers

 

 

[Ewen McPhee]

Mate, i don't know what your students are like but ive seen very very silly things done.. And not only by students, but also pilots.. You are correct, they do do lack awareness, and unfortunatly in the real world that sometimes means they do silly things. So while its your right to dissagree, i think i will stay on my toes and be "aware" of the silly things..

I am just tryng to make a point really, not having a go. :black_eye:

 

I am just a noob to this with 16 hours under the belt.

 

I have been involved in training highly qualified professionals for many years though and I agree that people to the darndest things sometimes for no apparent reason.

 

In their case we quite often debrief and look at the precipitants to their decisions, as Instructors do. From a legal perspective I avoid calling it silly though, in case other parties pick up on the comment, and run with it. The last thing I want is to be an expert witness (based on my comments)

 

 

[motzartmerv]

Yea, fair point.. I am probably being a bit harsh calling it "silly things"..Mistakes is a better word perhaps.. While learning any new skill mistakes are innevitable, and its a nessacary skill to be able to recognise your own mistakes and do it better next time..(that goes for instructors too);)

 

cheers

 

 

[Guest pelorus32]

I've always found that people do things for a reason. It's not a "mistake" to them, unless of course they say it's a mistake. Rather it is what they intended to do. Because it may not be the right thing, doesn't make it a mistake, nor silly.

 

If you work from the basis that people do things for a reason then you can learn a great deal about how their mind works. Stepping off from that place you have the capacity to help them understand that there are better, safer, more effective ways of doing what they are doing with good intention but poor outcome.

 

Just another way of thinking about the learning process.

 

Google "David Kolb" for some other interesting thoughts on learning. Here's one place to start:

 

http://www.businessballs.com/kolblearningstyles.htm

 

Kind regards

 

Mike