Like having the student dynamically alternate pushing the rudder pedal to the stop, left, right, left, right, etc, when taxiing, I often use exaggeration in teaching. In our industry, teaching is supposed to be codified and teachers certified. While certified, I am also certifiable. Good war story tellers and good fish story tellers are not always certified, but they are good teachers. And they are certifiable.

Exaggeration emphasizes a point and generates feedback. Criticism is good feedback. It lets us know we got someone's attention. It also makes us refine our point in further discussion. Praise is also good feedback, but more suspect. We have to wonder if it is just jumping on the bandwagon.

I am a member of the International Association of Flight Training Professionals. They encourage submission of training practices or techniques. The problem is that they are reluctant to submit non-sanctioned techniques and they are reluctant to criticize in areas where they do not feel that they are experts. Thus it is mostly an airline pilot forum. There are some good guys there, but the discussions are not as lively as here. Keep up the good work.

So, in other words, I should keep up the tall tales and remembering how good I think I used to be if I could just remember!

According to my ex-wives I'm fluent in batshit, and certifiable. Must be why I'm good at teaching how to be a bad example.

Gump

Si'.

Of course, too much exaggeration has a reverse effect, like describing a take-off as "a near disaster" or a bit of poor judgment as "a nearly fatal mistake". Like the boy who cried wolf, there is a limit. From the teacher's standpoint, the issue is always how far to push toward that limit before the lesson fails to impress.

Which is not to denigrate the time honored pilot's mantra: If you can't dazzle them with your brilliance, then baffle them with your bullshit.

Cary

The sanctioned flight school curriculum leaves a lot of stuff out, for political reasons. We can't ask young people to fly difficult missions without complete training. Personal minimums are fine, if they will live within those minimums. Some aviation jobs ask more than that. Teaching that it is all under control and that crap does not happen to those who are perfect is also bullshit. It happens. The principals guide us, but the tactical situation is always fluid. Exaggeration is not just to impress in a self seeking way. Exaggeration is to impress in a this might help way, if they want to or are forced to go there. We do not, nor will ever be able to, control nature. If we only teach engines and systems and don't teach all possibilities, we prepare them poorly and stifle confidence. Life is going to impress them regardless of our preparation of them. Zero defects teachers are impressive and have a following. Less perfect teachers with varied experiences, and varied stories, attract some as well. It works if we put the needs of our students first. The approved school will dictate what the student needs. We need to let them know what they are getting before they commit. No bullshit.

A lot of my friends are sane, safe pilots. I can get along with anybody.

There is an important principal in education that we take students from where they are to where they need to be. If we demonstrate a maneuver perfectly and then take the controls from the student just as soon as he fails to do the same, we are defeating him and ourselves. We will end up with a student with poor self confidence and a lot of hours by the time he solos.

Why not demonstrate gross control movement because that is where he is? How is seeing that you have the right stuff going to make him learn to do it perfectly from the start?

I appreciate pilots, obviously tailwheel or helicopter pilots, who still walk the rudders or antitorque pedals a bit when directing their course to a target, even in a tricycle airplane. Some see this dynamic proactive control movement as lack of professionalism. I see the obvious result of a student who soloed early with a good self concept.

I challenge anyone to balance a broom on their hand without moving their hand. I challenge anyone to takeoff or land a tailwheel airplane without moving their feet. Is just applying the exact right amount of rudder only after determining the exact right amount rudder needed the way it should be done or should some of us regress to baby steps and move our feet just a little too much dynamically? I am in the latter group. I never wanted to be an astronaut anyway.