Big aeroplane to little aeroplane
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Away from home
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi guys, interesting thread. I have not touched the controls for 11 years but want to get back flying single pistons. How long does it take to get a 737 pilot competent again at the controls of a light aircraft?
Moderator
Thread Starter
How long's a piece of string!
But 11 year break from big jets, and some years before that in little aircraft, wanting to pass a skill test on little aeroplanes - my money would be on 6-12 hours and a few days with your nose in the books.
G
But 11 year break from big jets, and some years before that in little aircraft, wanting to pass a skill test on little aeroplanes - my money would be on 6-12 hours and a few days with your nose in the books.
G
2LOW and GTE ,
See prev........
'' Returning SEP mate 4 years after retirement and 40+ years from PA28s . 2 trips then LPC : vg lookout , rudder came back quickly . PIOs/ over controlling afto self sorted . Final approachs, were quickly sorted wth exhortations to release '' death grip '' , and guide 'er , not heave ! ''
That was a 1.3hr , and a 1.4hr trip ; plus the 1.0 LPC . Tot..3.7 hrs and a couple of hrs G/S , mostly nav/wx/notam/unplanned divs , planning using a '72 whizz wheel .
He is ex 744s so , thus only 4 sectors a month .... 4 yrs probably equates to 11yrs from 73s with 30+ sectors pm . And more manual handling !
Hope that helps ,
rgds condor .
See prev........
'' Returning SEP mate 4 years after retirement and 40+ years from PA28s . 2 trips then LPC : vg lookout , rudder came back quickly . PIOs/ over controlling afto self sorted . Final approachs, were quickly sorted wth exhortations to release '' death grip '' , and guide 'er , not heave ! ''
That was a 1.3hr , and a 1.4hr trip ; plus the 1.0 LPC . Tot..3.7 hrs and a couple of hrs G/S , mostly nav/wx/notam/unplanned divs , planning using a '72 whizz wheel .
He is ex 744s so , thus only 4 sectors a month .... 4 yrs probably equates to 11yrs from 73s with 30+ sectors pm . And more manual handling !
Hope that helps ,
rgds condor .
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Safford Az
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A few years ago I was flying P2V Neptunes in wildland fire. I was chief pilot of the company and as such had the final say on who would be upgraded. We had a candidate who had flown air tankers in C 119's and S2's, then we got on with the majors. He flew Airbus from JFK to LHR for a few years, and retired. He wanted back in tankers. I flew with him about 15 hours in the P2, he could take off rotate and flair with the best of us. He could not navigate with needle thingies, he could not fly the airplane. Twice in the same traffic pattern he slowed the airplane to 100 kts and DIDN'T KNOW IT. His hand flying skills were dead and burried. On the other hand, we got a guy who had flown 74's, and he owned a glider and a Cessna 170. He upgraded as soon as he could figure out the systems.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Wherever I go, there I am
Age: 43
Posts: 806
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
twotenaero,
I've seen similar stories to yours at a previous company of mine, and it almost always came down to an attitude from the pilot and the company.
From the pilots perspective, they are looking back on another life, knowing they've done it before and can do it again. As a result, some of these pilots come unprepared for training, with an attitude of "I'll figure it out in due course." Some times they are blinded by their own ego to realize they are not progressing at the speed needed for initial training.
From the company perspective, they have an extremely experienced pilot on paper - say 20,000 hours plus. Perhaps management knew the pilot personally way back before they joined the airlines, and knew how they flew. Or, maybe they have a friend-of-a-friend relationship. In either case, the company often puts a little less effort into the actual training phase, intending instead to simply fly around in circles until the pilot demonstrates competence because that's what we need to do - tick boxes.
My initial response, therefore, is of course the pilot who had flown 74's, owned a glider and a Cessna 170 was a quicker upgrade because he was closer in "practical experience" to the type of flying. He just needed to learn the systems. The ex-airline guy had to re-learn the systems plus the type of flying. Re-learning is much more difficult than initial learning, and if the company or pilot (through no fault of their own, I might add) demonstrates the attitudes I described before, then yeah, you are going to see those problems you described.
I've seen similar stories to yours at a previous company of mine, and it almost always came down to an attitude from the pilot and the company.
From the pilots perspective, they are looking back on another life, knowing they've done it before and can do it again. As a result, some of these pilots come unprepared for training, with an attitude of "I'll figure it out in due course." Some times they are blinded by their own ego to realize they are not progressing at the speed needed for initial training.
From the company perspective, they have an extremely experienced pilot on paper - say 20,000 hours plus. Perhaps management knew the pilot personally way back before they joined the airlines, and knew how they flew. Or, maybe they have a friend-of-a-friend relationship. In either case, the company often puts a little less effort into the actual training phase, intending instead to simply fly around in circles until the pilot demonstrates competence because that's what we need to do - tick boxes.
My initial response, therefore, is of course the pilot who had flown 74's, owned a glider and a Cessna 170 was a quicker upgrade because he was closer in "practical experience" to the type of flying. He just needed to learn the systems. The ex-airline guy had to re-learn the systems plus the type of flying. Re-learning is much more difficult than initial learning, and if the company or pilot (through no fault of their own, I might add) demonstrates the attitudes I described before, then yeah, you are going to see those problems you described.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Wherever I go, there I am
Age: 43
Posts: 806
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
they like to drive down the approach path using the vasis, i always thought that a light aircraft should have a steeper approach angle than the vasis
This again comes down to proper pre-flight preparation with the pilot you are checking out, regardless of whether they are an airline pilot or not.
If you, as the instructor, have forgotten to remind the pilot about the difference in appearance and flying technique between VASIS and PAPI and from a light aircraft to a large aircraft, then you've no one to blame but yourself when you consistently see the same thing from pilots. Indeed, you've no on to blame but yourself if all you do is say "this guy has 10,000 hrs plus, I'm just going to jump in" and suddenly you find the same things happening all the time.
I continually see new airline pilots try and "drag it in" because that's how they like to do it from smaller aircraft. If I don't mention that's not how it's done in the airline environment, then I can't very well blame the other pilot when they continually do it.
Now, I'm not suggesting that you re-brief a PPL ground school for every check-out. But, if during the course of your tenure as a flight instructor you continually see the same behavior from a group of pilots, then perhaps these observations should form the basis of your pre-flight briefing. If you don't, then one must be reminded of the definition of insanity: doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.
Harsh, I know. But again, it forms the key difference between a pilot building time and a professional flight instructor.
Moderator
Thread Starter
Fascinating thread drift....
This is interesting, as certainly it would be my opinion that this is absolutely not the way you should be flying light or microlight single engined aeroplanes. The only reason - in my opinion - to "drag it in" at 3 degrees or thereabouts is because you are in night or IMC conditions when following an approach aid is the only sensible way to fly the approach.
Which suggests that somewhat out there there are people teaching 3 degree approaches, in day VFR, in singles. Hell, I know more than "suggests" as I've shared airfields with these characters - when I used to instruct on a couple of syndicates at Booker for example, I'd routinely see single engined Cessnas and Pipers being dragged in on power low over High Wycombe where if they lost power they'd most likely be coming down in the shopping centre with the loss of multiple lives.
I wonder if this is yet another misinterpretation of what's "right" on airline ops that's been ported into the light aeroplane world. (Remember all the fuss a few years ago when some light aircraft schools were teaching pilots to power out of stalls, incorrectly believing that that was good big jet practice.).
G
I continually see new airline pilots try and "drag it in" because that's how they like to do it from smaller aircraft. If I don't mention that's not how it's done in the airline environment, then I can't very well blame the other pilot when they continually do it.
Which suggests that somewhat out there there are people teaching 3 degree approaches, in day VFR, in singles. Hell, I know more than "suggests" as I've shared airfields with these characters - when I used to instruct on a couple of syndicates at Booker for example, I'd routinely see single engined Cessnas and Pipers being dragged in on power low over High Wycombe where if they lost power they'd most likely be coming down in the shopping centre with the loss of multiple lives.
I wonder if this is yet another misinterpretation of what's "right" on airline ops that's been ported into the light aeroplane world. (Remember all the fuss a few years ago when some light aircraft schools were teaching pilots to power out of stalls, incorrectly believing that that was good big jet practice.).
G
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Wherever I go, there I am
Age: 43
Posts: 806
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wonder if this is yet another misinterpretation of what's "right" on airline ops that's been ported into the light aeroplane world.
There was not a realization that a Cessna, Piper, or Tecnam is not an Airbus, Boeing, or Embraer. As both Genghis and Memories of Pax have pointed out, they have different approach profiles to transport category aircraft and, as such, are flown differently.
Heck, even within the transport category world a Dash-8 or ATR-72 has a different approach profile to a 737 or A-320 on account of the difference between turboprop and jet, so even my previous statement is slightly misleading.
