Plateau on the Localizer: Training a Student Who Overcorrects
Your instrument student has 52.3 hours of simulated and actual instrument time, including nine ILS approaches. On the last four sessions he has consistently crossed the final approach fix about 1.5 dots left of the localizer and 1 dot low on the glideslope. His oral knowledge is strong: he can brief the plate and explain the scan, but when you add a clearance revision or a traffic call, he stops correcting and drifts farther left. He practices at home on a desktop simulator with no wind, no ATC, and the aircraft always perfectly trimmed. Today he flew the same approach three times; each time you prompted him to 'watch the localizer,' and he corrected only after the deviation grew. He has not practiced a partial-panel approach and has never flown an approach with ATC vectors in actual IMC. He is scheduled for an instrument rating practical test in 6 weeks and asks whether he is ready. You have four dual sessions left before the checkride.
1. Using principles of learning and transfer, explain why the home-simulator practice is not transferring to the airplane, and propose a specific sequence for the next four sessions.
Read the worked answer
The home practice is not producing positive transfer because the stimulus conditions are different. The student is learning a smooth, windless, hands-off scan that depends on a perfectly trimmed aircraft and no radio workload. In the airplane, the localizer deviation is caused by wind, trim changes, and divided attention, so the response he practiced is not the response the environment demands. This is negative transfer: the simulator habit of waiting for a large deviation before correcting is being carried into flight.
A workable sequence:
- Session 1: part-task practice on localizer tracking only. Introduce a crosswind and have him call out 'left of course, correcting right' before the needle reaches one-half dot. Use immediate feedback and stop the approach if he exceeds one-half scale so he feels the standard.
- Session 2: whole-task practice with ATC-style clearances and distractions. Have him brief the approach aloud, set the altitude bug, and verbalize 'localizer alive, established, descending.' Add a traffic call or frequency change at the final approach fix.
- Session 3: partial-panel and unusual-attitude work to build scan division, then repeat the ILS with no instructor prompting.
- Session 4: mock checkride sequence with a different approach and a missed approach.
Do not simply repeat the same approach. Change the conditions, require verbal callouts, and reinforce corrections at one-quarter to one-half dot rather than after the deviation is obvious.
2. The student asks, 'Am I ready?' What evidence would you require before signing him off, and what would you tell him?
Read the worked answer
On the current evidence, he is not ready. He requires prompting to correct a 1.5-dot localizer deviation, and he has not demonstrated the divided attention an instrument checkride demands. Hours alone do not establish readiness.
I would require three consecutive ILS approaches, without instructor prompting, in which he keeps the localizer and glideslope within one-half scale deflection, makes timely corrections, and completes the approach briefing, checklists, and radio calls while doing so. I would also require at least one approach with a realistic distraction and one partial-panel approach at the appropriate standard. His knowledge test, cross-country time, and 14 CFR 61.65 instrument-time requirements must be documented, but the decision to endorse is a performance decision, not a paperwork decision.
I would tell him plainly: 'You are not ready yet, but you have four sessions to close a specific gap. The gap is not knowledge; it is correcting early while dividing attention. We will measure it by whether you stay within one-half scale without me telling you.' I would also explain that signing him off now would risk a disapproval and would not serve him well.