Take-off technique -taking weight off nosewheel?

[Hudson]

During a dual check recently, the instructor said I must pull back on the stick during the take off run in order to "take the weight off the nosewheel." I said why, whats wrong with the nosewheel?

He said it was the weakest part of the aircraft and could cause nosewheel shimmy if I did not do it. I then perused manufacture's POH for Cessnas and Pipers and could not find any reference to this technique, apart from soft or rough field take off where it is recommended you take the aircraft off the ground as soon as practical in a slightly tail low attitude.

Anyone else heard of this problem with weak nosewheel structures, and if nosewheel shimmy is prevalent, isn't this a shimmy damper unserviceability problem which should be reported in the maintenance release?

I asked a friend of mine who flew Barons and now flies F28's, and they don't take the weight off the nosewheel - so is my instructor teaching horse-s**t?

[Cessnaboy]

I personaly teach the student to raise the nose wheel off the ground into the t/o position and then let the aircraft fly when ready. This helps the 'snatch and fly' technique I've come across where the student watches the ASI intently for the rotate speed and upon reaching, procedes to heave the aircraft into the air with the real possibility of airspeed decay close to the ground with resulting altitude loss whilst regaining airspeed. Also the the climb attitude is set before take off which I find is a easier transition from ground roll to airborne and also less friction with a wheel removed from the equation.
Just my thoughts.

PS I find nose wheel shimmy's quite common but mainly on landing roll. same could happen on take off roll if student tries to 'fish' the aircraft off the ground (ie constantly moving cc back and forth, trial & error type flying)

[Charlie Foxtrot India]

My instructor course instructor taught me never to say "Pull back on the stick", rather to say "Apply back pressure". Over pedantic? Not really, students will take what you say quite literally.

A little bit is needed on the take off roll, but not much. I've seen a few tail scrapes on take off and landing on 152s and Tomamhawks, caused by people "pulling back on the control column" when they should have "applied back pressure"

Shimmy is mostly a landing problem, and easily stopped by applying slight back pressure and gently applying the brakes to get away from the resonance that is causing the problem. Shimmy dampers only damp it, they don't eradicate it. Nosewheels are pretty tough old things. I'd be worried if the LAME told me there was any weak part on any aircraft I was flying!! They don't like being slammed into the ground, but then who does?

[Wee Weasley Welshman]

Well some aircraft in my 'fleet' shimmy like Shakin Stevens on speed-acid during takeoff and the required technique is to ease the nose up through the run. I consider myself fully prepared for the world where you have to 'work round' the FMC etc rather than just fix the damn silly thing!

WWW

[Sensible]

Thanks for the explanation for the shake, I thought it was a built in slimming aid for fat pilots !

I was tought to keep the pressure off of the front wheel by applying slight back pressure at all times, even when taxying, I understand that the front strut should always be treated gently otherwise 'shimmying' soon sets in due to wear. Mind you, I did fly a 152 on to a short field landing, had to apply the brakes like mad and thought the vibration was going to cause the engine to fall out, the shake was so bad, I had blurred vision !!

[Hudson]

Thanks for the first replies chaps. So what we have got so far is that no one uses the manufacturer's POH recommendation, but everyone has their own pet technique. I find no trouble accepting the POH technique. But I pity the poor students who take the time to read the POH only to be told by their instructor to do it his way and not the POH way. That is why I started this thread to get a discussion going on non-POH-standard techniques used by flying instructors.

Also, if the nose-wheel shimmies on take-off and landing, then apparently the fix is to fly an unpublished technique to minimize the shimmy. Why not u/s the shimmy in the tech log and eradicate the defect altogether?

I know of one flying school operating C150's that deliberately keeps the aircraft tyres deflated to half the recommended pressure in order to minimize chronic nose-wheel shimmy on taxying, take-off and landing. The operator refuses to consider remedial servicing.

As far as scarping along the runway with the nosewheel off the deck in the climb attitude, surely the take off performance charts would become invalid due to extra drag. And if litigation followed an accident, I would have thought that the instructor would be on very thin ice if it was proved he was teaching a student a technique contrary to the manufacturer's POH.

Many accident reports that I have read indicate that the aircraft left the ground prematurely in a nose high attitude due to the student/pilot taking the weight off the nose-wheel, and with extra induced drag, failed to accelerate and simply ran out of strip. Best stick to the manufacturer's POH, chaps - it's safer and your backside is covered if something goes wrong.
The real danger of the myth of the taking the weight off the nose-wheel technique is that there is no way of knowing for certain how much stick force is required, and exactly how far off the runway the nose-wheel is floating. A little gust of wind on the nose and you have a Cessna skipping airborne in ground effect. Then the fun occurs with the speed hovering on the stall. I can hear the stall warning sounding intermittently from here!

Perhaps those instructors that are convinced that their pet theories are technically sound, should write to the aircraft manufacturer and suggest the test pilots have got it all wrong. I am sure that the manufacturer will be grateful for the advice.
Don't forget to attach documentary evidence of your flight tests done over controlled conditions to back your "facts."

[Diesel8]

Hudson:

I certainly agree as far as your last post is concerned and must also say that I am curious about the statement of "holding the ac in the takeoff attitude untill lift of occurs". Most of my time teaching have been in Cessna's, but have flown a slew of other types. If trimmed correctly for takeoff, most all will fly of the ground when a little bit of backpressure is applied at the proper speed. As far as the shimmy damping is concerned, it is a real problem, specially in trainer's, the problem sometimes is easy to fix, change the actual unit, but many times it is neccessary to overhaul the whole strut assembly due to excessive clearances in the hardware. Easing the load on the nose will many times stop the problem, but you are correct that it is merely a short term solution and proper corrective action should be taken.

[Wee Weasley Welshman]

Hudson old boy, you are being taught to fly by your instructor, not by the pilots operating handbook. Are you going to abandon every takeoff when nosewheel shimmy is encountered and then snag the aeroplane? You’ll find your club membership revoked after about three weeks and half the light aircraft in the UK grounded if you do.

There is nothing at all wrong with applying backpressure throughout the T/O roll to relieve nose shimmy if you are taught how to do it.

Thundering along the runway with the front leg shaking itself to bits until Vr will lead to total failure quite soon. Personally I agree with Cessnaboy that the sprint and snatch technique is overly common in PPLs and is more dangerous. Fly by attitudes rather than instruments during T/O and you can’t go wrong. Similarly students are more likely to ‘apply back pressure’ if they are easing on the elevator from the first 50ft of the run rather than waiting until Vr before daring to move the controls.

I urge you to be wary of the POH when learning to fly. It is written by test pilots and concerns itself with the best way for other pilots to operate the aircraft. It does not concern itself with the best way to be taught how to fly. We instructors often tell half truths to get you around a problem. If your instructor is stuck with aircraft that shimmy and his boss won’t fix them then what can he do other than teach you to ‘fly around’ the problem.

I very much doubt he is teaching you something hazardous as he has got to send you off solo sometime and the last thing he wants to see is you staggering into the sky only to stall on takeoff and crash back to the ground.

Get used to the fact that all pilots have pet methods and particularly when it comes to instruction. Even in well standardised units such as RAF UAS squadrons there are differences. Certainly between airlines there are different ways of doing the same thing. There is a lot of science in aviation but some art does remain.

Your illustration of an aircraft struggling down the runway nose high and staggering into the air with the stall warner blaring is not really valid as I very very much doubt this is what your instructor is doing or telling you to do. It is perhaps what a PPL might do if he had heard about nose wheel shimmy techniques but had never been taught them… I remember a bold young PPL aged 17 who was told how to use the ADF by a mate of his. He got terribly lost and very scared a few weeks later when he tried to use it and got in a terrible muddle. I learned that lesson well and now never use a piece of kit or technique unless I have been explicitly taught it…

As for half inflated tyres that is dangerous.

Best of luck with your course. If I was your instructor I would be very impressed that you had read the POH – most thumb through it on day one and then use it as a convenient table leg leveller for the rest of their training!


WWW

[straight&level]

BIRCH & BRAMSON
FLIGHT BRIEFING FOR PILOTS-VOLUME 1.
Take off and climb-Undercarriage considerations.

Immediately directional control is ensured a GENTLE BACKPRESSURE must be applied on the control column to remove weight from the nosewheel.This important technique is sometimes overlooked so that the nosewheel is subject to unnecessary stress during the take off run.Furthermore under certain conditions there may occur a development called WHEEL-BARROWING.
If the situation is allowed to continue unchecked the aircraft can develop an uncontrollable swing leading to total loss of direction which is beyond correction.In the process the undercarriage has been known to collapse-can be corrected by moving back the wheel/stick SLIGHTLY to restore weight onto the mainwheels.

"Try as I might I can't find any mention of wheel-barrowing in my POH-therefore I can only conclude it does not exist and I have been teaching an incorrect technique for ten years"

[Sensible]

Two points here, firstly, all this scary stuff about nose high attitudes and wheelbarrowing and all that. Easy to control with a bit of practice really, only enough backpressure to bring the shimmy to a shiver. Braking, again balance braking and backpressure to reduce the shimmy. Dead easy really, just takes half a dozen t/o and landings in a flying school wreck to perfect.

Second point, is Hudson actually sugesting that maintenance is carried out on a flying school aircraft, nice idea, but I don't think it will catch on anywhere, its cheaper to teach students to counter the problems. Nothing like instrument and radio failures in real life situations you know !much more realistic than practice under controlled conditions !

Sorry,

[foxmoth]

Yes, what is being talked about here is taking the weight off the nosewheel with a little back pressure, not raising it right up in the air. Also remember that the POH is often written for an American audience who generaly tend to fly of nice smooth tarmac. In the UK we are quite often operating from bumpy grass where this technique is definitely an advantage.

[This message has been edited by foxmoth (edited 06 January 2000).]

[Hudson]

From memory, I believe the weight off the nosewheel technique was first introduced by the RAF in early jet fighters. My Vampire Pilots'Notes AP 4099A, page 20 - Handling states : As soon as the aircraft reaches a speed of 60-70 knots IAS, lift the nosewheel just clear of the ground, then at 82-87 knots ease the aircraft off the ground.

I flew Vampires, and it was easy to get the nosewheel too high (especially at night)causing drag and a longer take off run. A recent accident to a warbird Venom in New Zealand which ran of the end of the runway, was put down to excessive nose high attitude in the early part of the take off. When it was obvious that the drag had affected the take off acceleration, the pilot aborted and got wet in the river.

It might be a coincidence, but the early De Havilland Comet airliners used the same technique, ie lift the nosewheel just clear of the runway as soon as the elevators were effective. De Havillands also designed the Vampire. Unfortunately there were two major accidents caused by this technique, resulting in loss of life. It was found that the pilots had over-rotated early in the run in order to get the nosewheel skimming the runway, and the aircraft simply failed to accelerate. Both Comets crashed off the end of the runway. Interesting that in modern times, the big jets leave the nosewheel on the runway until reaching the calculated VR speed for rotation.

I take the point that pilots would be banned from flying by some schools if they wrote a shimmy defect in the tech log. So you teach a techique that gets around nosewheel shimmy. What a dreadful reflection on General Aviation as a whole.

I maintain, however, that unless it is a rough field take off (the technique for which is covered in the manufacturer's POH), there is no reason to deliberately take the weight off the nosewheel during take off, until reaching the correct lift off speed. I certainly don't on Cessnas and Warriors et al, and have not experienced handling difficulties. On the other hand I have seen numerous examples of light aircraft getting airborne prematurely due to early back elevator.

If this the weight off the nosewheel technique was vital to the success of the take off, then it would be in the POH. This is notwithstanding the advice published in the book by Alan Bramston. He is entitled to his opinion. Certainly in the major airlines that I flew with, the manufacturer's recommended take off technique was accepted, and no personal techniques were allowed.

[Airprox]

Hudson

I take it your just trying to stir up all of us instructors!

WWW is completely right 'Your instructor is teaching to to fly the plane not the POH'.

Yeah the POH has tips and advise of how to fly the aircraft but your instructor has invaluable experience which you can learn from - LISTEN TO IT.

When I taught on Cessnas shimmy was and still is a fact of life. Of course you tell the engineer (But you don't not fly -unless its realy bad or your personaly not happy with it) but quite often he'll spend a lot of time trying to fix the problem to no avail costing the flying school a fortune. In turn pushing up the cost of hiring the aircraft.

[apache]

Having read this thread with some interest, I recall my instructing days in a PA-38.... where nose wheel shimmy was THE indication to relieve the pressure on the nosewheel.This had a two pronged effect...
1/ student then knew when to "apply back pressure" without having to "fix" on the instruments.
2/aircraft became more controllable on the take-off roll.(PA-38 screaming down runway with nose wheel shaking and bouncing is not the most controllable aircraft!!!)

With regards to the point about the P-Charts then becoming useless....don't they become less useful with every hour added to the aircraft?I mean...P-Charts are based on brand-new aircraft...not something 20 yrs old with dents in the wing etc!
If the strip you are flying into/out of is marginal, then surely the "short field take-off " technique should be applied!
P-Charts are not factored for STOL performance...ie. holding brakes on until full power is applied, which should give you an extra 3-4 % in take off distance available.
Surely also, the climb-out speed is supposed to be 1.3 x Vs.....which should give you a 30% higher airspeed than the stall!I am not aware of any aircraft that does not accelerate after becoming airborne(provided the nose is not raised excessively!)

CONCLUSION: take pressure off nosewheel...yes! raise nose....no!

May the number of landings you all do, equal the number of take-offs you do!

[Diesel8]

I must agree with Hudson. Spent many, perhaps too many, hours teaching in Cessna and Piper aircraft. Unless you are using roughfield techniques, where it is required, there is no need to raise the nosewheel of the ground. If shimmying is detected, certainly relieve the pressure on the nosewheel and unless its really bad, it will disappear, the shimmy not the wheel :). raising the wheel of the ground on all takeoffs, not in my humble opinion.

[No Cigar]

Nosewheel shimmy is common has been common in light aircraft for decades. I fly brand new Cessnas everyday and nosewheel shimmy is a fact of life.

Shimmy dampers often become unserviceable because the weight is held on the nosewheel with forward pressure in the "Sprint & Snatch" technique.

The "weight off the nosewheel" technique actually prolongs the life of the shimmy dampers. It also makes for a very smooth take-off. You should listen to your instructor methinks.

[Hudson]

Thanks for the varied advice. I did listen to my instructor. Turned out he was a brand new grade 3 with total, I repeat, total of 325 flying hours. That is why I had my doubts about his advice (or criticism, as it turned out) He is God to his students. He wears 3 gold bars, gold wings and a huge timepiece.

But do you know what? He had never read the Cessna 152 Manufacturer's Pilot Operating Handbook. All his info came from instructors on his PPL course. They were all junior instructors too.

It is not true to say that all training aircraft have built in nosewheel shimmy. The secret is regular maintenance. And the mechanics cannot fix a nosewheel shimmy unless the instructors and others tell the mechanic about the defect. And if the aforesaid gentlemen instructors lack the moral courage and the professionalism to write up the defect when it occurs, then the defect never gets fixed, does it?

So there you are. It is simple. IF the shimmy occurs, snag it. Then when it gets rectified, you won't have to take the weight off the nosewheel. Then you can learn to fly like the airline pilots who fly by their POH, and not by pet theories.

A wind up? Maybe -but it got you thinking, didn't it. Thats the beauty of Pprune...

[Wee Weasley Welshman]

Interesting thread.

WWW

[Irish Steve]

Weight off the nosewheel, OK.

Vaild points re squawking shimmy too, if that's the only snag, be thankful.

Also be even more thankful you've not been in the States recently learning their short or worse soft field technique. Soft field technique in an Arrow is apply full flap, keep it rolling, don't stop at all, and apply FULL back pressure until it's only rolling on the mains, at which point, relax the back pressure and balance it with no weight (or contact) at all on the nose, then try to keep it in ground effect as it staggers off the ground at half a knot above the stall speed and as soggy as a piece of bog roll because of all that flap, and with the climb performance of a wet sponge.

Keeping it in ground effect is quite easy, it's not that keen on flying in the first place. Then it's just a case of retracting some of that flap while avoiding making contact with the ground again too soon!

Wheelbarrowing. The back pressure idea is relevant to some types, especially Piper twins, where it is all too easy to end up wheelbarrowing, as it's going to fly, almost regardless of elevator position, because of the angle it's at on the ground. So, if it's trimmed nose down for some stupid reason, it's *very* easy to end up with only the nose wheel in contact with the ground, and that's not at all desirable :)



------------------
"Irish" Steve

[Hudson]

Irish Steve. I am gobsmacked at your revelation of full flap take off in Pipers in the US. Looks like their FAA are pretty slack at not picking that gem up.
Re wheel-barrowing. I think the reason for that is that some instructors teach stick forward of neutral during cross-wind take off. This lifts the tail off the ground and in the worse case (which I have never struck, fortunately)the main wheels lose traction, and you then have a real directional problem. From observation, wheel barrowing occurs if the aircraft is not lifted off the deck at the correct speed.

With forward CofG (eg PA44/PA34 with 2 up front and no ballast) it is common to see lift off 10 knots faster than recommended by POH because of surprise at stick force needed to get it airborne.
Like it or not, sticking to POH speeds will prevent wheel barrowing.

[4dogs]

Hudson,

I find this thread a little perplexing - was it motivated by a need to show that you were older and smarter than your instructor or were you seeking to inject some sage advice into the training arena?

Given your obvious experience, do you consider the POH for the Cessna etc to be an adequate training guide for elementary flying techniques? Does it mention anything about control position during the take-off roll? You frequently mention POH in regard to regard to airline operations - do you believe that the documents are of comparable standard?

My two bob's worth:

"Unloading the nose wheel" means a different thing from "Raise the nosewheel off the ground". To me it means "do not place excessive loads on the nosewheel" and I have used that terminology for some people flying large aeroplanes who have a habit of applying lots of forward stick as a consequence of the technique they used in a previous aircraft. Some larger aircraft, because of their rigging or gust locks or whatever, engender positive nose wheel loading.

There were, and still are, aeroplanes around that have rigging that generates virtually negative lift and consequently requires a significant control deflection to unstick them and a considerable correction to prevent over-rotation. The POH is silent but everyone benefits from "unloading the nose wheel" in those aircraft. I didn't fly the Vampire or the Comet, but I can only envisage that the technique of raising the nose wheel just clear of the runway was developed as a result of such flight testing as was conducted. I am certainly not about to debate the wisdom of the techniques but in this regard I would agree with Hudson's philosophy: there was a specified technique, ie a positive affirmation of what was required, and as such it should have been followed.

I do not believe that many GAMA style POHs specifically address the required technique in normal circumstances. In other words, there is no positive affirmation of the required technique. While I agree that lifting the nosewheel off the runway is not a sound normal technique and I certainly would not teach it, I would be hard pressed to assert that doing so was contrary to the POH unless it was specifically banned.

I agree with following the manufacturer's advice, ... unless it has been shown to be deficient.

And that is not an unknown situation. The manufacturer, particularly of GA aircraft, employs a test pilot to demonstrate the slowest speed, the greatest weight, the best gradient, the lowest fuel consumption and the shortest take-off and landing distance. That alone creates in me a certain well-oiled cynicism. And the certification requirement that it should not require an abnormal degree of skill is very much in the manufacturer's assessment.

As for multi-engine aircraft, maintaining a suitable amount of load on the nose wheel is important to maintain friction to assist in minimising Vmcg. That is achieved by minimising the lateral sidestep at the point of engine failure and maximising the ability to control it. The nosewheel only comes off when you are committed to going. But reflect on the fact that there are quite a few instances of nose wheel and tyre failures in large aircraft where excessive loading is contributory, if not causal. I have seen far more nose gear collapses in GA aircraft than main wheel problems.

Now what did your poor young instructor mean: lift it off or don't overload it?

------------------
Stay Alive,

[email protected]

[Hudson]

That was nicely put, Four Dogs. In GA there is a high degree of personal opinion between instructors. This is exacurbated by new inexperienced instructors, who have yet to learn healthy cynicism of other opinions unless backed by facts. Their own instructors on Instructor Course are Grade One, which by definition is GOD. You believe what he tells you as fact, rightly or wrongly.

Myths are readily propagated, reinforced by amateur journalistic pilots writing in popular flying magazines. Unloading of the nosewheel in light trainers is a prime example. Another is the teaching of lengthy and often illogical cockpit or checklist drills - the majority of which are not listed in the manufacturer's POH.

Take the much loved BUMPF. Before Landing Check of master switch on, magnetos on, primer locked, hatches locked, and gear down and locked on a fixed gear aircraft. All this and more on the downwind leg. Why teach extraneous items to unsuspecting students that only reinforces their impression that providing the drills are mouthed, the fact that they are superfluous to the safe operation of the aircraft, is immaterial.


I asked one instructor, for example, why did he teach Primer Locked as part of the downwind checks? Because it starts with P as part of BUMPF, he replied. He added that he personally could not see the sense of checking Primer Locked downwind, but that is what he had been taught since he first learned to fly! Another popular fallacy was the mouthing of Gear Down and Locked in a Tiger Moth, because one day in the future, it is possible that the student may transition to a retractable gear aircraft.

What insidious rubbish to teach a false drill. Logically, one should therefore teach Gear Up and Locked in the Tiger, to be consistent.

There is a huge gap between the opinions passed on by GA instructors to their students, and the facts taught to airline crews via the manufacturer's flight crew training manual. I can never understand the reluctance of GA instructors to teach techniques from the POH. Is it because they cannot afford the dollars to buy the POH for each aircraft they instruct on?

Unloading the nosewheel, or taking the weight off the nosewheel, or whatever handle suits you. If its application is not called for by the designer of the aircraft, then it is simply an unnecessary technique not supported by facts. It can, and has, undoubtedly led to take off accidents. That is a good reason to avoid it.

[Angle of Attack]

Hudson, I've been reading all your comments but I think it is fairly well universal to teach a little back pressure during the T/O roll, particularly with Cessna's. This action does reduce stress on the nose wheel and saves maintenance due to Nose wheel shimmy. I'd love to be able to take our aircraft to maintenance due to shimmy but unfortunately the reality is every time the aircraft goes in for even a small thing like that, it's got to fly a few more hours just to make up the cost, and operators won't tolerate it. As for flying from the POH, I'm afraid you'll have to take some of your instructors advice even if he/she is a junior. The POH cannot list every detail of flying the aircraft. Take for
example a forced landing. I love this extract from a particular light aircraft POH
1. Mixture - Lean
2. Fuel - Off
3. Magneto's - Off
4. Master - Off
5. Forced Landing - EXECUTE

Would'nt that be an easy briefing for the instructor? "Righto just turn everything off and EXECUTE the forced landing" The POH gives the basic skeleton and the instructor fills in the meat.

[Luftwaffle]

Apache, POH charts do apply to brand new aircraft, making them more and more optimistic as your aircraft ages. But don't assume you can imprve the performance with short field technique. The POH for the C152 specifies that its takeoff distance chart is for a flap setting of 10 degrees and "Full Thrttle Prior to Brake Release." After all, the performance specs are part of the manufacturer's advertising for the aircraft, so they will usually base them on the best technique they can devise.

[No Cigar]

Hudson, you wouldn't happen to be flying out of Moorabbin Airport would you???

[No Cigar]

Hudson, I will have you know that the instructor grade is by no means an indication of their flying abilities or knowledge.

I have met quite a few Grade 3s who have more knowledge than a Grade 1. The instructor gradings simply reflect their judgement and assesment capabilities of the student's ability (ie; are they ready for solo, test, etc). The judgement and assesment capabilities comes with more instructional time, not more technical knowledge.

You wouldn't happen to be flying out of Moorabbin Airport would you? If so, drop me a line, I will show you a few or our Instructor "Trainees" who are more than capable of giving you a very technically sound briefing. I have learnt quite a bit from them myself.

Being excellent pilots in their own right, we can't hold the lack of a few hours instruction against them can we???

Just a piece of advice, there is something to be learnt from everyone. The moment we get to cocky to listen to someone "less senior", we start to lose out on some very valuable lessons.

To all you Grade 3s (junior instructors for the non-Aust people) and Instructor Trainees out there, press on. We learn from you as you learn from us. Best of luck ;)

[Dan Winterland]

A lot of people like to run the nosewheel down the runway and hoik the aircraft of the ground at the book rotate speed for the same reason they fly massive circuits and read check lists instead of taking the trouble to learn them. It's because they like to pretend they are flying airliners.

The nose leg on the average small GA aircraft has the primary funtions of stopping the prop from hitting the ground. It doesn't like being driven down the runway at high speed just like it doesn't like being landed on.

The technique mentioned in all the manuals and the one your instructor should have taught you (assuming he isn't one of the aforementioned frustrated wannabe airline pilot) is the one you should use.

[Irish Steve]

Dan,

Oh so true :)

Then again, same stateside school, if you try to fly even a Warrior without religiously looking up almost everything in the check list, you're in deep smelly stuff with the instructor. Same is true on the Seneca, with the added disadvatage that the school check list is littered with "extra" comments and information that's no real help at all. So, you end up with a check list that has you setting the transponder 3 times between the ramp and the take off point. Not a lot of help, there's little enough time and space in those things as it is, without duplicating the work load. A friend came over for a few days so we could do some serious XC flying, and when the instructor discovered that we both operated on the basis of knowing things like the downwind checks without using the paperwork, he backed off some, and let us do it our way, which released the tension some.

And yes, they call them Bomber circuits over there, and they usually need about 3 States worth of Airspace, sometimes a frequcncy change, and often qualify as a cross country :rolleyes:

Can be fun though, as long as you don't let the system get to you. Have to admit I was glad I had the twin rating before I started the training over there though, it made life a lot simpler.



------------------
"Irish" Steve

[Hudson]

No Cigar. Who me? (Thinks! This guy might be a CASA plant...)