Jump to content

Ban student pilots from our CTLS flying club?


Joel Severinghaus

Recommended Posts

Our flying club has been operating a 2008 CTLS for about three years. We've put about 1,000 hours on it in that time. Love this airplane, but we've had three hard landing accidents/incidents that have cost our insurance company and frustrated us with lengthy downtime for repairs.

 

The first hard landing accident was two years ago. We were grounded more than three months for firewall repair, and gear leg and engine mount replacement. (Although that was a Private pilot--see NTSB report CEN11CA567 for details.)

 

This August, a post-solo student pilot cracked a gear leg and fairings in a hard landing. Relatively small insurance claim, but we were grounded for a month. We had to wait for a replacement gear leg to be airfreighted from Germany.

 

Only two weeks after the plane was flying again, a student pilot ballooned and porpoised on first solo, cracking both gear legs and fairings, bending the engine mount, even cracking the seat frames. No prop strike and no injuries, but a much bigger insurance claim this time. We'll be grounded more than two months, waiting for a replacement engine mount to be airfreighted from Germany.

 

This has all been extremely frustrating for the pilots in our club, and we're dreading a big insurance premium increase next year. Our flying club board of directors is debating whether to exclude student pilots, even though five of thirteen current club members are student pilots. Some flying clubs, such as the Cessna 172 club in the hangar next door to us, don't allow student pilot members (and presumably save a lot on their insurance.)

 

A question for you CFIs or FBOs who have had students or renters bend or break your airplane: What policy or procedure changes did you make to prevent future incidents? Did you stop instructing in/renting out your CTSW/CTLS?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 71
  • Created
  • Last Reply

We deal with a LOT of students coming through our facility and had multiple incidents with my plane, N566FD (2026.3 hours as of this post). We shifted to strict restrictions on weather and winds. We don't allow more than an 8 kt crosswind in any of our planes for student pilot solo (instructor can put that restriction on their temp certificate).

 

Also, take extra time to make sure they are greasing their landings. And check your instructors too! This is where problems usually start. I had an instructor who was teaching the "stall to the ground" method, which was resulting in a lot of hard landings. I have forbidden this method of training, and the landing incidents have stopped. If the stall horn is going off and then wheels haven't touched down, they need to GO AROUND. (EDIT: i want to clarify something. We teach our students to land by getting reasonably close to stalling and letting it settle. They should be settled right around the time the stall horn goes off)

 

Even if you ban students, when they get their certificate, they could still slam it down. You need to get on your instructors and REALLY tighten up the rules, and go through a review with everyone, even your experienced members, if you want this stuff to stop.

 

Also, 3 incidents in a year on one plane will make insurance skiddish. I wouldn't be worried about insurance premiums. You might lose insurance. This happened to a predecessor of mine with a club he ran.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LSA training requirements are set up to almost guarantee that a new pilot will run into trouble when he/she sets off on their own to fly, be it either those first solo flights or even after a certificate is received. To me, it is just not logical that the LSA requirements would be so minimal when you consider the fact that flying most LSA's actually require greater stick and rudder capability and attention to airspeed than what is needed to fly most GA aircraft. Here's what the requirements were when I trained in 2008 and I don't think this has changed:

 

20 hours of flight, including:

-15 hours dual with instructor

-5 hours solo flight

-2 hours cross country

-10 take offs and landings to a full stop

 

Those who want to get their LSA ticket because it will be a cheap and easy way to become a pilot see these requirements and probably figure if they're still not turned loose after 25 hours of flight and 15 landings, they're getting screwed by their instructors. 10 landings. Geeze, it seems so minimal and it is when most of these are done in low or no wind conditions or in high heat or, etc., etc. This has got to be tough on CFI's who know their students just aren't ready to solo but are getting pressure from the student who sees the minimums and can't understand why he/she needs more training. LSA flying is fun but it's not a game, as many new student pilots would believe after reading the minimum req's. I think this probably applies also to some of the new LSA CFI's who may have dropped into Light Sport from teaching GA flying and really don't know how demanding it gets trying to take off or land a LSA in gusty conditions with minimum stick time. Those who call for re-evaluation of training techniques to insure these are tailored to train pilots to fly the light and quick responding LSA's are correct in my book. Treat the 20 hours and the 10 landings minimums as if they don't exist and turn students loose only when they've demonstrated they're ready to "go out and learn to fly".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Runtoeat:

 

Let me paint a picture of why the FAA minimums are listed this way, and any CFIs here, feel free to use this when talking to your students.

 

Let's say a friend flew with me all the time on trips just so he can tag along, and we've played around a bit too. I go ahead and mark in his flight log all the time he has accumulated. 300 hours later, he wants to get a pilot's license. He has a LOT of xc time, night time, and a bunch of the solo requirements in his logbook. He even has dozens of landings. But how much of this is a demonstration of his skill, and how much of it is really mine by proxy?

 

The minimums are literally that: ABSOLUTE BARE MINIMUMS. They don't exist to be measured against. They should not be used as a target. They exist because the FAA wants the student to be exposed and demonstrate certain maneuvers, instead of someone like above who just happened to be tagging along and accumulating a bunch of stuff just because he rode along.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anticept, I understand your example and agree with your statement about minimums. I know that there has to be a bottom line for the FAA's minimum hours but I think the published LSA minimum of 20 hours and 10 landings may factor in to "incidents" with low hour pilots in that they can mislead people into thinking flying isn't that big of a deal and they're going to be flying after a couple of weeks training. Personaly I feel these are set too low for pilots with zero hours in any other aircraft, especially the 10 landing minimum requirement. Then too, I'm not a CFI and it would be interesting to hear form someone who has done a lot of LSA training,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been training in a CTLS for about 18 months giving a bit over 100 hours of dual (I would not call that a lot of LSA training). As a comparison I also have a Piper Archer on leaseback to the flight school and train primary students in that aircraft as well (interesting comparison, about 120 hours over the same time period). As you might imagine the difference in handling of these two aircraft, especially in the last few moments of landing is about as extreme as you get (unless you are teaching in a tail wheel aircraft). However in either aircraft I must train a student to proficiency standards regardless of the "hour" requirements in order for me to be comfortable that the student is ready and able to solo. While there is no "PTS" for solo flight, my guidance is that they should be able to consistently meet the Sport or Private proficiency standards for normal takeoffs and landings in the wind conditions for which they are authorized to solo, in addition to demonstrating other skills (ability to apply knowledge regarding traffic patterns, ATC communication, emergency procedures, recovery from botched landings, etc).

Landing an LSA is different than landing the Archer, and an instructor that teaches the same landing techniques for the CTLS as the Piper is not preparing a student properly. I’ve recently started giving students an opportunity to fly both aircraft early on, explaining the differences, and (when they have a valid medical certificate) working with them to decide which aircraft they’d like to solo in. Some pick the CTLS, others the Archer based on their ability to feel comfortable controlling the airplane.

Just as with learning in a tail wheel airplane, it is different and requires, not so much a different skill set as an ability to apply the skills correctly for the situation. THE INSTRUCTOR IS KEY TO THIS LEARNING and must be actively engaged in teaching the student to properly apply the skills needed.

I will add the caveat that even when we teach well, and feel the student has learned, sometimes they forget something (we all do), so nothing is 100% guaranteed…

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I say no. That's my old plane and I hate to see it get hurt! Actually, I never felt 100% comfortable landing the CT with over 250 landings and 150hrs in it (1000hrs TT) Where I live, we almost always have really strong adverse wind conditions. I wasn't afraid to fly it, but I really kept my guard up while in the pattern. Maybe I should have gone up and worked with Eric some to work out any habits I may have developed

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I originally trained in a 601 Zodiac and later a Tecnam P-92 Echo Super. It took me 20hrs to solo and 38 to get the ticket. I think that is reasonable, since I had to switch schools in the middle. The CT is more challenging to fly that either of those aircraft, if I had been flying a CT from the start it probably would have taken 25-50% more time. It took me about ten hours of dual in the CT before I soloed in it (after 3.5 years of not flying while I was building my Sonex), and even then my first solo landings were pretty marginal. I now have about 30 hours in CTs, and I just now am getting to the point where my landings are consistently good with an occasional marginal one. For now my personal wind limit is ten knots.

 

I think in the CT, because it is challenging to fly and land well, the most important part of training is to impress on students that any landing not going according to plan should be aborted. Too high? Go around. Too low? Go around. Trouble with gusts making things a bit unstable? Go around. Touch down hard and bounce a little? Go around. It seems most CT damage comes from bad landings, so we have to get as many variables out of the landing process as possible. Once a pilot has a bunch of hours in a CT they can slip when too high, jockey the throttle a little if they round out too high, and do all the other tricks too salvage things, but until then "go around" should be the natural course of action whenever things are not working out just right.

 

 

I think the minimum times specified by the FAA are for the guys that have really been flying all their lives with friends and family, and just need to get up and demonstrate their skills to get the certificate. Most people are going to take a lot longer, and I think if the instructors set the expectation up front their students will not be so antsy at 20 hours.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think a CT can be an excellent trainer and I don't think you have to teach students to fly it on. To me that is a law of primacy negative.

 

I do believe that it takes an instructor for primary training and checkouts that is a cut above when it comes to landing and teaching to land very light aircraft.

 

In this case I would not use the CT for students plus I would make my check out requirements high. The reason here is the high number of pilots already involved. If you want to train in a CT maybe you need a 2nd plane.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Joel, I know you are a flight instructor, but I don't know if you are the one doing the training. I do have to agree with the others that this is a training issue rather than a student issue. I know that is not what a flight instructor wants to hear. I do know that sometimes students will act differently after the solo, but for the most part they will do like they were trained. As for private pilots moving to light sport getting them retrained and not going back to their bad habbits will be tougher sometimes than training a new student.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Andy, don't get too caught up in the minimums for sport pilot. If you compare the minimums to the private which is 40tt, 20 dual, 10 solo. With the added cross country training, the night training, and the instrument training the sport pilot actually has more room in the minimum hours for training a sport pilot for basic pilot skills. The thing to remember is these are just minimums, and we train to a standard. Very few pilot will get by with the minimum hours for either sport or private.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Andy, don't get too caught up in the minimums for sport pilot. If you compare the minimums to the private which is 40tt, 20 dual, 10 solo. With the added cross country training, the night training, and the instrument training the sport pilot actually has more room in the minimum hours for training of basic pilot skills. The thing to remember is these are just minimums, and we train to a standard. Very few pilot will get by with the minimum hours for either sport or private.

 

That was exactly my point! :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That was exactly my point! :D

 

Andy, I took your point as the sport pilot minimums not being enough. The point I was trying to make is the the sport pilot minimums when compared to the private actually have more hours to be devoted to basic pilot skills.

 

I edited the earlier post and this one to make my point clearer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My feelings are known to most here, but for the newbies...

 

...I still side with Charlie Tango.

 

A student must learn to judge height above the runway. "Flying it on" can be a bandaid covering up lack of skill in that area.

 

Think of how you do a night landing with no landing light - just ease it down, ease it down, ease it down - the only safe way to do it since determining height is so difficult and misjudging with a full stall landing is not a good thing.

 

But if a student has properly learned landing cues, he should KNOW how high he or she is. Until they do, they should not be soloed regardless.

 

Students taught to "fly it on" are very likely to continue to do so throughout their careers - often to no ill effect, but not always.

 

Just my .02.

 

And never the twain shall meet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you all for your comments and suggestions.

 

Training: I have been the CFI involved in the three accidents/incidents. I tell my clients up front to expect to invest more than the FAA Sport Pilot minimum hours, and most end up soloing at around 20 hours. In the Jeppesen Sport Pilot syllabus I use, lesson 7 is review for solo, with lesson 8 first solo. We often repeat lesson 7 for additional takeoff and landing practice. With the last pilot to break the plane, I repeated lesson 7 six times, and he logged 46 landings in those six lessons. He did three acceptable dual landings right before I signed him off for solo. My last words to him before he taxied out were: "If you have any doubt about the landing, go around." His first solo landing was fine, and then he broke the plane on the second landing. The previous pilot to break the plane repeated lesson 7 review five times, logging 48 landings, before soloing at 24 hours. But then another student needed to repeat lesson 7 only once before soloing at 12 hours. Every pilot's abilities are different.

 

SLSA/CTLS idiosyncracies: I use many of the training techniques discussed on other threads here: tape on the glareshield to help with centerline alignment; repeated low approaches to practice centerline alignment and crosswind correction; detailed discussion of how the kinetic energy and momentum of a landing CTLS is much lower than a Cessna or Piper; zero-flap landing practice in winds; flaring for minimal vertical velocity before touchdown; learning to judge height above the runway for those last few feet.

 

Solo restrictions: I list pretty tight solo restrictions in my clients' logbooks:

1. Student must notify CFI at least 24 hours before any solo flight.

2. Solo flight to be conducted only in our CTLS.

3. No solo flight if crosswind component exceeds 5 knots, headwind component exceeds 10 knots, or gusts exceed 5 knots.

4. No solo flight if visibility less than 5 miles.

5. No solo flight between sunset and sunrise.

6. No solo flight without at least 14 gallons fuel on board, and student must land with at least a one-hour fuel reserve.

7. Student must obtain a standard weather briefing from FSS/DUATS/DUAT before every solo flight, even if staying in the traffic pattern.

 

Insurance: Our pilots are covered by the club's insurance, and our by-laws say that a pilot will at most be responsible for the $1000 deductible. We've talked about requiring everyone to have renter's insurance, but that would still only cover their deductible. I just confirmed this with a phone call to AOPA: their renter's insurance is secondary only (Avemco uses the term "excess insurance"), and they consider the owner's (flying club's) insurance primary. And our bank wants one insurance policy naming them as also-insured. We could raise our club policy deductible to $5000, which won't save any on the club's premium, but then a $1500 gear leg replacement could go on the pilot's own renter's insurance rather than the club's insurance.

 

Solutions: Here are some things I've been thinking about:

Involve a second CFI for a pre-solo (and pre-checkride) "stage check" for a second opinion on a pilot's readiness to solo.

More go-around practice, especially during the landing flare, which would have prevented our three accidents/incidents.

 

Any other ideas, short of banning student pilots from our CTLS club?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not a CFI but I have a few landings in a CT. 3 concepts that would concern me are:

  • Energy management,
  • judgement of height, alignment and drift
  • Getting behind the power curve without realizing rapid sink

Energy mis-management likely contributes to each incident. The throttle is the great savior not only in that it initiates the go-around but also in that if arrests rapid sink. In a CT the student is well served doing go-arounds with the occasional landing when everything is perfect. Advancing the throttle to soften the contact is an important skill that I would want to see demonstrated frequently as well.

 

Approach speed means a lot when it comes to rounding out without ballooning and without using up all of your kinetic energy. If you have the student do 3 landings and then just get out the speeds are going to be too high and he will have tendency to balloon. You could fly light enough on fuel prior to the solo and when you get out replace your weight with fuel or other ballast so no speed adjustment is needed. Flaperon trim could be an issue if you get out and he continues to do circuits, a little cruise to trim for solo might help.

 

I like the 2nd opinion idea too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I like the 2nd opinion idea too.

 

I learned to fly at a Cessna Pilot Center.

 

I'm pretty sure there were mandated "stage checks" you had to do with another, often more senior, instructor.

 

Don't know if that was because it was a Part 141 school or not, but it always seemed like a good idea.

 

IIRC, I kinda flunked my "Pre-Checkride" stage check, and needed another 5 or 7 hours to polish up some skills. I still think it was a good way to go about it - certainly better than flunking a check ride, which, mercifully, I've never done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Someone tell me, what is "flying it on"?

 

And joel: consider getting some review yourself with another CTLS instructor. Treat it like a CFI checkride. Have that instructor do exactly what you say, and no more. Act like you are flying the plane with voice commands. The idea is to see if what you are trying to teach is what is actually coming out of your mouth. Once you see the results and adjust your methods, have the instructor start introducing anomalies, such as if you ask him or her to make a left turn, he or she puts in the wrong rudder input. If you ask them to fly level, the should overtrim and see how long it takes you to notice. They need to introduce subtle nuances so you sharpen your senses and figure out how to accurately articulate.

 

After that, switch roles. See how they teach. Do the same thing as above. Challenge each other. The idea is to see if your training regime needs tweaks. You could have the perfect training plan, but if the execution is poor, then it is pointless. Training is only as good as the weakest link. As you pointed out, you are the common denominator. You should start with yourself first.

 

The accidents with my plane stemmed from one instructor. He has 29k hours. After long discussions and reviews, we found out that his landing training needed work, whereas previously it was fine for the more built up planes like 172s and cherokee warriors.

 

EDIT: one more thing. Drill go arounds hard. We don't allow any student to ever try to touch down on their first landing attempts, even if it is a PERFECT approach. From day one, we try to get them to understand that a go around should always be an option.

 

As for the second instructor stage checks: it's a good idea for a while. But it does have a drawback: every instructor's style is different. Sometimes blending multiple instructors can actually make things more difficult for the student.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Our flying club has been operating a 2008 CTLS for about three years. We've put about 1,000 hours on it in that time. Love this airplane, but we've had three hard landing accidents/incidents that have cost our insurance company and frustrated us with lengthy downtime for repairs.

 

The first hard landing accident was two years ago. We were grounded more than three months for firewall repair, and gear leg and engine mount replacement. (Although that was a Private pilot--see NTSB report CEN11CA567 for details.)

 

This August, a post-solo student pilot cracked a gear leg and fairings in a hard landing. Relatively small insurance claim, but we were grounded for a month. We had to wait for a replacement gear leg to be airfreighted from Germany.

 

Only two weeks after the plane was flying again, a student pilot ballooned and porpoised on first solo, cracking both gear legs and fairings, bending the engine mount, even cracking the seat frames. No prop strike and no injuries, but a much bigger insurance claim this time. We'll be grounded more than two months, waiting for a replacement engine mount to be airfreighted from Germany.

 

This has all been extremely frustrating for the pilots in our club, and we're dreading a big insurance premium increase next year. Our flying club board of directors is debating whether to exclude student pilots, even though five of thirteen current club members are student pilots. Some flying clubs, such as the Cessna 172 club in the hangar next door to us, don't allow student pilot members (and presumably save a lot on their insurance.)

 

A question for you CFIs or FBOs who have had students or renters bend or break your airplane: What policy or procedure changes did you make to prevent future incidents? Did you stop instructing in/renting out your CTSW/CTLS?

 

 

As a post solo student pilot and owner, I can say that the CTLS is a wonderful aircraft that has narrow main landing gear and very fragile nose gear and firewall. It took me more than 40 hrs. to learn to land my aircraft safely without damaging the landing gear. Once you learn to land it, it becomes second nature and easy, but you can't rush it. Some people take longer some shorter. LSA's, by all, reports are harder to land because of the lower wing loading than regular AC. The CTLS is particularly harder. For people that are learning and people unfamiliar with this aircraft it can be particularly unforgiving, monetarily, (have you checked the price of an engine mount lately ?). I would not allow training in my aircraft, and I cannot see how a club can stay solvent unless you have a very conservative well trained CFI checking out prospective pilots every time any body without full training wants to fly it. And yes I would bar students. My 2 cents, your mileage may vary.

 

Cheers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Someone tell me, what is "flying it on"?

 

Flying it on is a landing technique where there is no attempt to land at the slowest possible speed for the current configuration. Flying it on is generally done with less flaps and more speed and without the stick at the aft stop.

 

Your phrase '"stall to the ground" method' might indicate that your are in this camp.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...