Law of Primacy

[Ed Cesnalis]

I am a great believer in the law of primacy and I suggest it is the root cause of the differences to our approaches on approaches.

 

Below is Paul Hamilton demonstrating LSA flying and "This video is EXACTLY what he teaches on every flight" One of his students is currently advocating that we touch down at 62kts. Final begins at 18:30 in the video he trims for 70kts and flies to short final @70, slowing to 60 when high over the numbers. I don't see much of a flare at all, the only pitch change is at round out.

 

Do others see what I see? I think if this is what your primary training looks like that you are learning to fly it on not land it.

 

[FastEddieB]

You guys have seen my Sky Arrow landings.

 

Now, without comment, another way to do it (NOT my plane and not one of mine):

 

 

BTW, I sure don't see the alleged 14k crosswind!

[Ed Cesnalis]

...

 

BTW, I sure don't see the alleged 14k crosswind!

 

Or the perfect landing

[S3flyer]

But an old dog can be taught new tricks :-)

 

I honestly can't remember how I was originally taught how to land some 20+ years ago. When I resumed flying in my Sting 6 years ago after a long break, I re-learned from a former AF pilot to cut the power abeam my touch down point. We also went through several different configurations/techniques to gain perspective and learn how the plane performed. Been landing without power and full flaps ever since unless strong gusty winds dictate otherwise.

[Runtoeat]

Dave, my landing technique is similar to yours. Interesting that I also have been coached by a retired military pilot - single and multi-engine piston/turbine and helicopter CFI.

[FlyingMonkey]

I certainly agree that when stress kicks in and the chips are down we all tend to "go with what we know". However, I'm not sure that I buy the idea that whenever there is an emergency we all just become mindless robots reverting to whatever the first thing we learned is and instantly forgetting any and all training to the contrary. That seems to run counter to some pretty miraculous saves I have read about and seen on video which required quite a bit of "outside the box" thinking to execute.

 

It might take some discipline and a cool head, but I think people are fully capable of reasoning their way through a crisis when needed. I have seen it happen many times personally.

[Jim Meade]

The idea is not that we become mindless robots but that we have a learned, trained, call it pre-programmed set of responses we can invoke. We practice stalls that way, so that you will have an ingrained set of responses that work in virtually every applicable situation.

 

Here's how the Navy approaches the subject in aviation education:

 

"LAW OF PRIMACY

Based on the law of primacy, students retain information they learn for the first time longer

than they retain information they must relearn. Unlearning incorrect procedures (or bad habits)

is always more difficult than learning the correct procedures in the beginning. Therefore, the

law of primacy plays an important role in Navy training. Navy training courses allow a limited

amount of time for learning do not include time for students to relearn improperly taught

information. Make sure you teach the correct information and procedures the first time;

proceed from the simple to the complex, from the known to the unknown. Clarify

misunderstandings and errors before moving on. Remember, your students must be ready to

learn new material."

 

None of the above says one can not reason in an emergency.

[FlyingMonkey]

Thanks Jim, I guess I misunderstood the idea. The way it's used in aviation discussions sometimes it seems like folks are suggesting that once the adrenaline hits we will do the first thing we learned and nothing else.

[Ed Cesnalis]

I think it is used in aviation primarily in the way we land, full stall with flaps vs fly it on. In this case we have the very instructor and aircraft that introduced our most vocal student to aviation and the connection is there.

 

Another case is adjusting speed and climb, do you think throttle or pitch?

 

Another case is how we approach non-towered fields and how we feel about strait ins.

[FlyingMonkey]

I am a great believer in the law of primacy and I suggest it is the root cause of the differences to our approaches on approaches.

 

Below is Paul Hamilton demonstrating LSA flying and "This video is EXACTLY what he teaches on every flight" One of his students is currently advocating that we touch down at 62kts. Final begins at 18:30 in the video he trims for 70kts and flies to short final @70, slowing to 60 when high over the numbers. I don't see much of a flare at all, the only pitch change is at round out.

 

Do others see what I see? I think if this is what your primary training looks like that you are learning to fly it on not land it.

 

 

Well, if he's training CT pilots like that the problem is obvious, he's using a Zodiac technique. I got my first 20 hours in a Zodiac, and it flies completely differently from a CT. Shorter wing with higher wing loading and more induced drag, it does not like power off approaches or speeds below 60kt at all. If you pull power or get slower it starts coming down like a meteor. It flies a lot like a Grumman Yankee, you have to keep power in until you have the runway made, then slowly reduce power to let the airplane sink in.

[Ed Cesnalis]

Very interesting, I have a friend nearby with a Zodiac but I have not flown with him. Of course he said you could only do wheel landings in his newly restored staggerwing only to have his wife total it in a landing incident. I don't think we would be on the same page on landings.

 

From what you say I guess Zodiac technique came 1st, then the CT 'that lands almost like a powered glider' but with no adjustment in technique?

 

From the video I could sense that the Zodiac wanted to sink but the pilot never tried to counter it he just allowed it to settle. Why not just keep the nose low and retain more KE until after a low round out and then bleed off the energy with a flare close to the ground?

 

One thing I don't like about power on approaches is that you are at a higher AOA and when you do retard the throttle you don't have as much aft stick left to round out, flare, bleed off speed and arrest sink. Maybe the power on mentality sets up the rapid sink?

[FlyingMonkey]

Is Mr. Hamilton currently teaching in CTs and advocating this technique? if so, I'd say that he's just assuming one LSA is pretty much like another and not adjusting his technique, as you said.

 

The approach in the video masks the Zodiac's characteristics a bit, because he was pretty high on final and was able to just pull power and glide in (at 70 knots!). In most of the approaches I made closer to a standard glide slope (in other words, lower), the difference with the CT is more pronounced. It is hold partial power all the way until crossing the fence and the runway is made, then smoothly pull power and let the sink kick in. I still don't think I ran the Zodiac as fast as he did on final, but I might be remembering wrong, this was back in 2008-2009.

[Ed Cesnalis]

Is Mr. Hamilton currently teaching in CTs and advocating this technique? ...

 

no

[Jim Meade]

I don't agree that the Law of Primacy is primarily about landings. It's about anything in life, according to the educators. It's in how we teach our children and how we teach our students. It's in looking at how your mother-in-law reacts and how your wife reacts!

 

It seems to me that the Law of Primacy has two main features we should care about. The Navy touched on both. First, it is most efficient, because if we teach something right the first time, we spend less total time on instruction, as we don't have to "unteach" bad habits first or counter them as they insidiously slide in to flight education. By the way, this is one reason I am not a great fan of computer simulators as an initial way for pilots to learn to fly. I've not flown any that correctly imbue the feel of the rudder. I'd like to see students first learn to use a rudder correctly on climb out, then play on their computer. Otherwise, you have to reteach them that a climb in a single engine airplane requires counter yaw inputs.

 

The second reason for considering the Law of Primacy is that it does provide a base of basic or first responses to a situation that should be best practices and allow one to better multi-task if the situation demands. The right way to recover from a stall. The right radio procedure. The right way to input a course change into the GPS.

 

Look at how many discussions we have about how to fly a pattern, how to land, how to maintain tires. It's obvious that the Law of Primacy is at work both for good and for evil.

 

It's simple. Teach and learn it right the first time. Ah. What is "right"? That, friends, is another conversation. I watched the EAA webinar on maintenance by Mike Busch and according to him the statistics show it is not slavish adherence to recommendations that do not apply to your airplane (even if the outdated IA thinks they do.)

[Ed Cesnalis]

... It is hold partial power all the way until crossing the fence and the runway is made, then smoothly pull power and let the sink kick in...

 

It has a 12:1 glide ratio and a 38kt stall speed, I'm confused about why it is being flown like a flying tool-box.

 

If i pulled power a beam and trimmed for 1.3 x 38 = 49.4kts and only used back pressure for round-out and flare, what would go wrong? I bet I don't need those extra 20kts.

[FlyingMonkey]

It might be that the airfoil builds high induced drag below 70 knots, which is the same issue the Yankee has. But you might be right, it would be a good experiment if we had a Zodiac to play with and were not afraid to fly in it...

[sandpiper]

I don't agree that the Law of Primacy is primarily about landings. It's about anything in life, according to the educators. It's in how we teach our children and how we teach our students. It's in looking at how your mother-in-law reacts and how your wife reacts!

 

It seems to me that the Law of Primacy has two main features we should care about. The Navy touched on both. First, it is most efficient, because if we teach something right the first time, we spend less total time on instruction, as we don't have to "unteach" bad habits first or counter them as they insidiously slide in to flight education. By the way, this is one reason I am not a great fan of computer simulators as an initial way for pilots to learn to fly. I've not flown any that correctly imbue the feel of the rudder. I'd like to see students first learn to use a rudder correctly on climb out, then play on their computer. Otherwise, you have to reteach them that a climb in a single engine airplane requires counter yaw inputs.

 

The second reason for considering the Law of Primacy is that it does provide a base of basic or first responses to a situation that should be best practices and allow one to better multi-task if the situation demands. The right way to recover from a stall. The right radio procedure. The right way to input a course change into the GPS.

 

Look at how many discussions we have about how to fly a pattern, how to land, how to maintain tires. It's obvious that the Law of Primacy is at work both for good and for evil.

 

It's simple. Teach and learn it right the first time. Ah. What is "right"? That, friends, is another conversation. I watched the EAA webinar on maintenance by Mike Busch and according to him the statistics show it is not slavish adherence to recommendations that do not apply to your airplane (even if the outdated IA thinks they do.)

 

Jim,

 

You are correct. It applies to all learning. To become a CFI, we had to understand this concept. To simplify, when things turn brown, really brown, a person will usually turn to first learned patterns - without a thought process. So, teach it correctly the first time and every time. Sure, if things are not all that threatening we can easily reason and and apply a different technique.

 

For example, we teach a stall recovery a certain way as it applies to most of the planes we fly - pitch, power, stop any turn, level the wings, and establish a climb. Power, in most of what we fly, is full power. If you teach partial power from day one, say to "save" the engine in something like a C-206, (not that this is a trainer but it could be) then the pilot may just go with the partial power recovery when it's close to the ground and for real. That is the law of primacy kicking in. As I understand it.

[Jim Meade]

It has a 12:1 glide ratio and a 38kt stall speed, I'm confused about why it is being flown like a flying tool-box.

 

If i pulled power a beam and trimmed for 1.3 x 38 = 49.4kts and only used back pressure for round-out and flare, what would go wrong? I bet I don't need those extra 20kts.

 

In an actual test of power off glide from 10,000 to 4,500 feet at 0 flaps and 69 kias, my glide ratio was 9:1. At idle in the pattern is, of course, different and may be 12:1 for all I know, but 12:1 is not an "all cases" glide ratio, just for the lurkers to observe and note.