Who was taught this (crosswind technique)

[B767Driver]

Originally Posted by seagull

You are correct about military training (and, for the record, I am NOT military trained!), however, my point is not that people are kept on as students when they have less ability (which is another valid reason airlines prefer military), but rather, that misconceptions are passed down from generation to generation in the civilian ranks. Even FAA seems to pass some of these down, and the problem is actually fairly significant at the local level (which is why you should NEVER take the word of the local FSDO on an FAA legal interp, as even FAA gives no credence to them!).

Maybe we could ask the military to teach their folks how to hold. I lost count how many times I've been thru training and have to correct the former military instructor how to enter the hold or what a radial is. And while their at it...maybe go out and actually fly in some weather during some of their sorties.

[B767Driver]

Originally Posted by Aeronautik

Just wondering, as I and a lot of people I've known have been taught this contrary to what the AFH says.

X/Wind takeoff: Aileron into the wind. As you accelerate, slowly remove the aileron and lift-off with ailerons neutral.

I was always taught this throughout my training and actually have always been doing it this way. It was continuously reinforced: "ailerons NEUTRAL on liftoff"...

However after another look at the AFH and some talk with others, it's preferred technique to lift off with the aileron still in place (I was always afraid of a windstrike when taking off with aileron correction).

Some even lift off with full aileron into the wind.

Anyone else taught what I was taught?

It's unfortunate you had to endure the crap that ensued after you asked your question. I've been involved in a lot of civilian training and around a lot of civilian cfi's...and I've never really seen this issue brought up.

Here's, what I think, is good advice for teaching the crosswind takeoff.

1. Begin the takeoff roll with ailerons fully deflected into the wind. Regardless of wind velocity.

2. As you begin to accelerate down the runway...begin to dial out some of the aileron. "How much?" you ask. Enough to keep the wings level with the ground. If the wings bank into the wind...roll out more aileron. If they bank downwind...add more aileron. The wings should always be level with the runway during the takeoff...and this dictates how much aileron should be used.

3. As you begin to lift off...use enough aileron to once again keep the wings level. This will most probably require the use of some amount of aileron into the wind during liftoff. Not neutral ailerons.

NOW, some more important stuff.

4. As you lift off...allow the nose to weathervane into the wind. After the nose settles down and points into the wind (this happens naturally) bank the airplane as necessary to establish a wind correction angle the maintains the extended runway centerline.

5. Common Error! As you lift off...and the airplane weather vanes into the wind...some pilots will bank opposite of the weathervane. This is not correct...as it establishes a wind correction angle in the wrong direction.

Summary.

How much aileron do you use during a crosswind takeoff? Begin with full deflection and roll out the aileron as you accelerate just enough to keep the wings level during the takeoff roll.

During lift-off, maintain wings level with aileron control. THIS DOES NOT MEAN neutral ailerons.

After lift-off, neutralize the ailerons, allow the nose to weathervane into the wind, then set up a wind correction angle to track the extended runway centerline.

Hope this helps.

[B767Driver]

Originally Posted by FOD

If done correctly you should still have a little aileron in during rotation to help keep that upwind wing down.

I don't think during takeoff the upwind wing should ever be down. It should be level with the runway. Once the mains are off...bank into the wind and set up the crab.

[Bandit_Driver]

Originally Posted by ColMustard

On the civilian side you have to run a business, and that includes keeping your clients flying. Thats not to say I lower my standards when training my students, but there are a few I would like to "washout" because of the lack of effort on their part.

You should have no problem washing someone out is isn't capable of making the grade. When I was a CFI, my flight school (part 61) washed out two people seeking training. One was a civilian and one was a Military trained pilot that lost his medical just before completing his primary training. If they are not safe or competent don't pass them, you are doing a disservice to the entire industry.

The civilian pilot went through 3 instructors and nearly 40 hours when we sat down and agreed to wash the guy out since he was never going to solo.

The guy that was from the military didn't last too long either. He was washed out after a few lessons. The last being with the Chief Instructor. He was one of those that thought he knew everything and you couldn't tell him anything. Darn near killed me on my last flight with him and scared the Chief Instructor on the other.

Makes me wonder if he was medically DQ'd by the Air Force for being insane.

[seagull]

Military pilots have no trouble with the concept. You have to keep in mind that military approach procedures are different, so the hold for military airports have different entry techniques and requirements. Do you know those? Similarly, how well do you understand ICAO holding procedures?

Bottom line is that as long as they stayed within the airspace, it doesn't matter whether they follow AIM guidelines.

[tonyw]

Originally Posted by Champcar

WEll i wouldnt try that landing cause I know I wouldnt be able make it. Its that simple....ofcourse you 135 drivers wouldnt know how to not fly into a unsafe situation

Check out this little airport.

http://www.airnav.com/airport/KVKX

I used to fly in and out of there all the time, with and without crosswinds. I did a lot of flying in and out of there as a student pilot. Note the displaced thresholds and the glide path.

So, before you call a 2900x40 runway unsafe...

I'm not sure what the wings look like when I rotate with a crosswind, but I do know that I maintain the runway heading during climbout.

Timbuff, the climbout at GAI doesn't count. We have to turn 20 degrees right from the runway heading for noise abatement.

[Champcar]

Originally Posted by tonyw

Check out this little airport.

http://www.airnav.com/airport/KVKX

I used to fly in and out of there all the time, with and without crosswinds. I did a lot of flying in and out of there as a student pilot. Note the displaced thresholds and the glide path.

So, before you call a 2900x40 runway unsafe...

I'm not sure what the wings look like when I rotate with a crosswind, but I do know that I maintain the runway heading during climbout.

Timbuff, the climbout at GAI doesn't count. We have to turn 20 degrees right from the runway heading for noise abatement.

I never said it was unsafe.

[SteveC]

Originally Posted by tonyw

Check out this little airport.

http://www.airnav.com/airport/KVKX

I used to fly in and out of there all the time, with and without crosswinds. I did a lot of flying in and out of there as a student pilot. Note the displaced thresholds and the glide path.

So, before you call a 2900x40 runway unsafe...

Oh pooh.

Try this one, only check out the width.
http://www.airnav.com/airport/45G






Now, am I cool or what?

[Timbuff10]

A 2000' runway can be a scary thing... Maybe not to you sea-level folks but you put that same runway up at 6,000' where the density altitudes can get up to 10,000' that can make the difference.

Tony, as for noise abatement... They knew about the airport before they moved there... AIM 4-3-2 C,6 is more important to me than making grandma pissy because she couldn't hear the question to the jeopardy answer.

[tonyw]

Originally Posted by SteveC

Now, am I cool or what?

You win.

This is all I've got.

http://www.airnav.com/airport/2w2

[Timbuff10]

http://www.airnav.com/airport/KLXV

note the elevation...

I would bet there are some planes out there that may not even make up there on a warm day.

[tonyw]

Originally Posted by Timbuff10

http://www.airnav.com/airport/KLXV

note the elevation

Wow. I just checked out the FBO there. How do they get the 172s they've got to fly on a hot day?

I bow to the aviation skills of Tim and SteveC. You guys are making me look like a big synonym for cat!

[B767Driver]

Originally Posted by seagull

Military pilots have no trouble with the concept. You have to keep in mind that military approach procedures are different, so the hold for military airports have different entry techniques and requirements. Do you know those? Similarly, how well do you understand ICAO holding procedures?

Bottom line is that as long as they stayed within the airspace, it doesn't matter whether they follow AIM guidelines.

First, I'm pretty sure that ICAO and FAA holds on the same cardinal direction from the fix require the circuit to be performed in the same location in space. I'll leave it at that.

The military vs civilian argument doesn't hold with me. Maybe at one time it did. But my airline is 90% military...and the 10% civilian pilots I fly with seem to outperform the average of the other. Now the 10% that make it to the seniority list are pretty sharp...so it's probably a skewed sample from the civilian population. For the military guys...they get the recommendation and the gouge...and their squandron buddies get them in the ball game. Basically, it comes down to the individual and much less the background after the learning curves have plateued.

My comments are not to be construed that civilian pilots are better than military. My observations are that the backgrounds of professional pilots with 4000 hours of flying experience would be undectable in a simulator event.

Seagull, you list yourself as serving in leadership roles. Captain, check airman, instructor, various committees, etc. I've witnesses your posts on this board as 'coming down from on high' and belittling those looking for clarification. You seem confrontational first and cooperative second...ensuring that those who have incorrect information pay with punitive jabs. Whenever I fly with a captain that operates with that MO, I can guarantee 2 things will happen. It must be a physical law. 1) He will screw up soon and substantially because he's more into pointing out others deficiencies than monitoring his own performance and 2) after his screw up he typically realizes he's one of us sinners again and becomes a joy to fly with.

I hope your instructional techniques in the airplane are less punitive, and more constructive, than they seem here.

[Timbuff10]

Originally Posted by tonyw

Wow. I just checked out the FBO there. How do they get the 172s they've got to fly on a hot day?

I bow to the aviation skills of Tim and SteveC. You guys are making me look like a big synonym for cat!

I think they just don't go when it gets so hot. Perhaps fly in the mornings and late afternoons when it is cooler.

As for bowing to my aviation skills... I am yet to grow the balls to go to that airport, in fact I don't think my school allows us to take a 172 there, I think we can only use 182s which I have never flown.

Oh yeah, Tony before you do that bow, remember that first approach we flew together? I was lost for about 5 minutes there before you started the approach. I don't think I even saw the airport till we did the approach the 2nd time.

[MidlifeFlyer]

Originally Posted by tonyw

Wow. I just checked out the FBO there. How do they get the 172s they've got to fly on a hot day?

They don't. On a hot day, the density altitude on the ground is higher than the service ceiling of the airplane.

Even on a pleasantly warm day, they will tend not to fly with full tanks. It fun to go up there for a training flight with someone who has flows a 182 a lot and what as they realize that it performs a lot like a 152 at lower elevations.

[MidlifeFlyer]

Originally Posted by B767Driver

I"How much?" you ask. Enough to keep the wings level with the ground.

I would state that as "Enough to keep the airplane from skipping sideways while minimizing any tendency to bank."

[B767Driver]

Originally Posted by MidlifeFlyer

I would state that as "Enough to keep the airplane from skipping sideways while minimizing any tendency to bank."

Keep it simple. Ailerons to keep the wings level. If you do this...there will be no skipping down the runway. In a light crosswind, without proper correction, I can keep the airplane from skipping sideways...however, the upwind wing is raised somewhat.

From my perspective...aileron to keep the airplane from skipping sideways, while it is the objective, can lead to improper use of the ailerons. (Not enough aileron.) If we teach the pilot to use ailerons to keep the wings level...the correct amount will be applied and proper directional control will be acheived.

[adreamer]

Hijack

Hey, Steve, 45G is where I take my students for a little practice for emergency landings and so on...etc

End of Hijack

[Chris_Ford]

Okay, I want to try for longest+skinniest+worst condition runway

http://www.airnav.com/airport/6I4

I always make it a point to take my student pilots there on the last flight before the checkride. I "fail" the engine over it and they usually start going for some field, until I point out that the road-like thing has hangars next to it.

[seagull]

B767,

Well, first off, I apologize if I come across that way, and thanks for that feedback. It's not my intent. I think that there are a couple of topics that tend to get my goat, I think because I've seen some real problems over the years in those areas, so I may be replying a bit shorter than I should (perhaps coupled with lack of time to think out the replies sometimes).

My carrier has a similar mix of civilian vs. military, and all I can say is that I have seen more problems with procedural, technical and attitude issues with the small % of civilian background. I'm not sure why that is, it shouldn't be that way. I should add that the vast majority are great, but of that "10%" in the whole group, about half are civilian, which is just way out of proportion. I come from that background, so I am not happy to admit it, but I call it as I see it.

The bottom line on all this has nothing to do with any sort of "competition" between military vs. civilian. I think that I am just pointing out a deficiency that needs to be corrected. There are actually two, you pointed one out, i.e., that weak pilots tend to be "kept on" in civi training schools, on average. It is unfortunate, but I don't see how to fix that as long as schools are in the business of making a profit.

The issue I am trying to address CAN be fixed, but it would take FAA to actually do several things:

1. Actually do some research and work to keep up with the the state of the industry in terms of technical knowledge and;

2. Create some method of having that filter down with some real quality control, right down to the local CFI, etc.;

3. Along with the first point, work to get all the different directorates on the same page, i.e., don't have ATC coming up with things that violate TERPs, etc.

My experience is that most people in FAA are good, sharp people that want to do a good job. However, the organization is disfunctional (as they, themselves are usually quick to point out). As a result, I have been amazed at some of the things that have been said by actual FAA inspectors (let alone DPEs). IOW, those that are supposed to have leadership roles in aviation are spreading things that are just plain wrong too often. Not only does it put bad info out there, but it exposes the poor pilots that listen to them to certificate action or worse! Now, THAT really irritates the heck out of me, and that might be what makes me sound short!

I don't know how to fix it, but I would note that the FAA AEG group seems to have their act together pretty well, and their flight test folks are sharp also. So, I know they can do it, although that whole world is controlled a lot more due to fewer manufacturers or those applying for STCs, etc.

Again, apologies if the tone came across condescending, as that was not my intent.

[jrh]

Originally Posted by Chris_Ford

Okay, I want to try for longest+skinniest+worst condition runway

http://www.airnav.com/airport/6I4

I've got you beat on the long and skinny part, sort of:

http://www.airnav.com/airport/C17

It's listed as 3775 x 100, but it looks a lot narrower because only the center 26' is paved. My instructor took me in there a few times before I solo'd to prove that landing on centerline is more mental than anything else.

[desertdog71]

We have one here that I have went to a couple times, Well a strip of blacktop through a farmers field with a windsock anyways.

http://www.airnav.com/airport/57K

Here is another one I went to in Wisconsin, not that these are bad, just kind of small.

http://www.airnav.com/airport/5K6

[ColMustard]

Originally Posted by Bandit_Driver

If they are not safe or competent don't pass them, you are doing a disservice to the entire industry.

Who said I passed them?

More of the point I was making is that if the student is not cutting it, you inform them why, and try to correct it. If it still occurs then I have a few options:

1. I let them fly with another CFI to see if another point of view might help things.
2. Try fixing the problem myself.
3. Send them to TRAIN with another CFI.

In the end, its their money, so they can do with it whatever they want. I won't EVER send anyone on a checkride until I think they are qualified.

-ColM

[B767Driver]

Originally Posted by seagull

B767,

Well, first off, I apologize if I come across that way, and thanks for that feedback. It's not my intent. I think that there are a couple of topics that tend to get my goat, I think because I've seen some real problems over the years in those areas, so I may be replying a bit shorter than I should (perhaps coupled with lack of time to think out the replies sometimes).

My carrier has a similar mix of civilian vs. military, and all I can say is that I have seen more problems with procedural, technical and attitude issues with the small % of civilian background. I'm not sure why that is, it shouldn't be that way. I should add that the vast majority are great, but of that "10%" in the whole group, about half are civilian, which is just way out of proportion. I come from that background, so I am not happy to admit it, but I call it as I see it.

The bottom line on all this has nothing to do with any sort of "competition" between military vs. civilian. I think that I am just pointing out a deficiency that needs to be corrected. There are actually two, you pointed one out, i.e., that weak pilots tend to be "kept on" in civi training schools, on average. It is unfortunate, but I don't see how to fix that as long as schools are in the business of making a profit.

The issue I am trying to address CAN be fixed, but it would take FAA to actually do several things:

1. Actually do some research and work to keep up with the the state of the industry in terms of technical knowledge and;

2. Create some method of having that filter down with some real quality control, right down to the local CFI, etc.;

3. Along with the first point, work to get all the different directorates on the same page, i.e., don't have ATC coming up with things that violate TERPs, etc.

My experience is that most people in FAA are good, sharp people that want to do a good job. However, the organization is disfunctional (as they, themselves are usually quick to point out). As a result, I have been amazed at some of the things that have been said by actual FAA inspectors (let alone DPEs). IOW, those that are supposed to have leadership roles in aviation are spreading things that are just plain wrong too often. Not only does it put bad info out there, but it exposes the poor pilots that listen to them to certificate action or worse! Now, THAT really irritates the heck out of me, and that might be what makes me sound short!

I don't know how to fix it, but I would note that the FAA AEG group seems to have their act together pretty well, and their flight test folks are sharp also. So, I know they can do it, although that whole world is controlled a lot more due to fewer manufacturers or those applying for STCs, etc.

Again, apologies if the tone came across condescending, as that was not my intent.

That was a classy, intelligent post. One that I would expect from someone of your experience, education and leadership positions. I too, used to lose my cool, on a lot of stuff...but have come to realize that is not the best way to influence and teach.

Thanks.

[B767Driver]

Originally Posted by seagull

My carrier has a similar mix of civilian vs. military, and all I can say is that I have seen more problems with procedural, technical and attitude issues with the small % of civilian background. I'm not sure why that is, it shouldn't be that way. I should add that the vast majority are great, but of that "10%" in the whole group, about half are civilian, which is just way out of proportion. I come from that background, so I am not happy to admit it, but I call it as I see it.

.

Interesting. My observations are somewhat opposite.

My observations, and I'm going to generalize, is that when the military pilot separates from the service he feels that the airline is his 'retirement' job and does not give it the effort he did while in the military. The civilian pilot has worked extremely hard to get to the top and realizes the magnitude of the position attained and gives it respect.

Obviously, there are individuals from each sample that fall +/- one standard deviation either side.

I particularly find from former military pilots that they feel their job is confined to the cockpit...and anything that happens aft of the cockpit door is not their problem. This irritates me. The captain should be the cornerstone of customer service...

As I posted before...the good and bad are found from all backgrounds.

It is disheartening to hear your observations of civilian trained pilots not performing well at your airline. I would similarly be inclined to raise the bar as well if my 'peeps' were bringing the quality down.