The Check-Out Scandal: Discussion. [Archive]

Miserlou

9th Dec 2006, 23:39

Come on chaps, I thought that was the idea of the Private Flying forum. To discuss private flying and that which affects private flying. I apologize for not making it clearer but I thought it was obvious that we are talking about the aeroplanes that you or I are likely to get our hands on.

Shortstripper mentions finding out how it should fly. Reminds me of a piece by Eric Mueller. He said he could look at an aeroplane and tell, or at least have a very good idea about, how it would spin. How many times have you heard the old pearl, "looks right, probably fly right."?

Not so sure there is so much difference between the Yak and the Arrow. Friend of mine rates the Yak about the same as a Cessna Aerobat. That is to say he is rather underwhelmed.

So once you have established that an aircraft has a big engine and are lining up on the runway and checking which side the wind is coming from, do you just let it rip or do you open the carefully judging how much rudder authority you have? When you reach full rudder do you keep adding power? Surely there is too much awe built up around this.

Furthermore, most aeroplanes with powerful engines have powerful engines because they need them. Those which are 'overpowered' if there is such a thing, are overpowered because the designer wanted them that way and they have the controls to handle that power, usually aerobatic or racers.

lostpianoplayer

10th Dec 2006, 03:38

I don't think there are any easy answers here. Sure, a relatively experienced pilot should be able to fly any aircraft that's basically similar to his/her previous experience, but how does one define "relatively experienced"? I thought I was relatively experienced back when I had 300 hours or so, and bought a single seat taildragger biplane. Got a 7 hour taildragger rating in a Citabria, had one flight in a Pitts, and picked up the biplane (in the US, where no type rating is required) and, after long chats with several more experienced people, took off...to great dramas. Huge lurch to the left, followed by a huge rudder-induced swerve to the right, then airborne...5000 feet over Los Angeles and no idea how to land the thing. Had a go, and ran it off the concrete into the grass...swore I'd get back on the horse, flew it again and nearly crashed it on landing. Scared me stupid. That was the end of any confidence re self check-outs, for a long time. Now, with 1600 TT, mainly on very high powered taildraggers, (Harmon Rocket and so on) with some 300 hours of heli time, I think it'd be a pussy-cat.

But getting a full checkout in, for instance, a 182 is now a total yawn, now I actually know how to fly. Problem is, how is the regulator expected to know when people are capable of self-rating, and when not? Hence the requirement for type ratings, extensive check-outs, and so on.

Regulator, of course, errs on the side of caution. No easy way around that, that I can see. I was reasonably stupid back then, along the lines of Mr Heli-Moron but not as bad, and am now hopefully a little less stupid. Coulda died in that biplane, though...

The easy answer would be, for instance, no type rating required if you have over, say, 1000 hours. But not all 1000 hours are the same - some are the same 100 hours, repeated ten times, some are earned the hard way, in lots of different aircraft, and different environments.

Personally, I can understand the need for a type-rating, even though it's an annoying requirement. Perhaps it should be left to a competent instructor to exercise some discretion, and after the first take off and landing, sign off people who obviously know that they're doing...and to require the full 1, 2, 3 or more flights for transitioning pilots who may not have learned to fly properly in the first place (very common). Can't see any easy way around it, otherwise.

eharding

10th Dec 2006, 08:46

Not so sure there is so much difference between the Yak and the Arrow.

...which has led to more than one nasty accident in the past. The Yak will accept a lot of mis-handling up to a point - after that point it can and will be brutal. Also, there are niceties about radial engine operation which if ignored would mean your unbriefed Arrow driver would most likely destroy the engine before he had actually moved anywhere - probably the safest outcome all round.

Friend of mine rates the Yak about the same as a Cessna Aerobat. That is to say he is rather underwhelmed.

Compared to the Extra or the Pitts, the Yak does feel like a bit of a bus - but there are quite a few 52s knocking around on the competition circuit, and will compete quite happily at Standard level - I've yet to see an Aerobat get round a Standard sequence in one go - invariably they have to take numerous breaks between figures - and in any case it's very rare to see one at a competition at all.

Miserlou

10th Dec 2006, 11:45

Final 3 Greens

10th Dec 2006, 12:53

"Any one who dares call themself a pilot should be able to get into ANY aeroplane and fly it."

Agreed................................................ after the appropriate amount of training

Chilli Monster

10th Dec 2006, 13:04

Like everything it's all down to individual ability - some people can, some people can't. The only real arbiters of this are ourselves provided we have the ability to be totally honest with ourselves (which will rule out some of the ego's out there ;)

Scenario - just renewed twin rating after a four year lapse (Seneca). Thrown keys to an Aztec Turbo with the comment "Grab an hour by yourself so that you're happy, you can take the boss to EGCC Thursday".

Two hours with the POH, another hour familiarising myself with the aircraft inside and out, time to start engines. One hour later, back on the ground - job done. Providing you approach each phase of the flight from start to shut down analytically, and learn the relevant speeds and configurations beforehand there is no "mystique" to moving onto other aircraft by yourself.

But you have to be honest about your own abilities and approach to the situation first (I find being an easily scared pessimist helps big time! :) )

Miserlou

10th Dec 2006, 13:34

Yes. Just as discretion is the better part of valour, so is cowardice the better part of discretion.

maxdrypower

10th Dec 2006, 15:46

I agree with some here you cannot realistically get into an aircraft youve never flown and be competent without being shown a few of the pitfalls. I learnt on PA38's at an international airport . I then got a share in cessna 172 based at a grass strip , it might as well have been an sr71 i couldnt get that thing down for love nor money until Id had a few checkrides , thought id forgotten everything I was ever taught .
You need training end of story

eharding

10th Dec 2006, 16:35

I found the Yak is very conventional in its handling characteristics so you'll forgive me if I don't find this argument convincing. It builds an aura around the aircraft which is simply unjustified. You'll need to be more specific with this mishandling situation before it can have any relevance.
Destroying the engine is easy if you neglect the proper pre-flight checks. But negligence and mishandling aren't traits which a one who calls himself a 'pilot' exhibit, are they?

The specific example I was thinking of is the behaviour in an accelerated stall when the Yak is slightly out of balance - manifested as a violent and un-announced flick, more often that not experienced in a tight steep turn, and equally often in the opposite direction to the turn - a proven killer at circuit height. The other is the unconventional flat spin recovery technique, but that's a slightly different scenario to the like-for-like Arrow to Yak experience.

Normal handling of the Yak is fairly benign, if a little heavy - it's the abnormal cases which need to be trained for. I'm just using the Yak as an example - there are plenty of other SEPs which have their own little oddities of handling and operation which will bite the uninitiated, and that's why checkouts or cross-training are required. The fantastic rudder & stick skills you seem fixated with are a bonus to safe flying, but they don't make you immortal - beyond that, I'm bemused as to what you're trying to get at here - do you have a point, or are you just trolling?

Miserlou

10th Dec 2006, 20:37

It's just a friendly discussion, eharding, perhaps with a gentle hope that people may think a little more about this subject and about flying. I did state in the first post and the post to which I refered that I was disturbed by the way check-outs often seem to be unjustifyably prolonged. Made me think people were being fleeced and I know I have spent too much money wondering if the 'check-pilot' was getting anything out of this because I sure as hell wasn't.

Back to your example. Again the Yak's behaviour in this situation is exactly as one would expect. Even the humble and docile Cessna 150 behaves in exactly the same way so it is most unfair to single out any particular type.

Please understand, I'm not talking about fantastic stick & rudder skills. I'm talking about BASIC stick & rudder skills though at no point have I raised the issue or been fixated on that subject.

In fact, it is the work one has done before getting into the aircraft which may well prove to have the most value as Chilli Monster related.

eharding

10th Dec 2006, 20:51

Back to your example. Again the Yak's behaviour in this situation is exactly as one would expect. Even the humble and docile Cessna 150 behaves in exactly the same way so it is most unfair to single out any particular type.

We'll just have to disagree on that one....suggest you get in touch with www.skytrace.co.uk, and if you can reliably predict when and where, and in which direction, the Yak will flick during your tuition...then I want to be in your lottery syndicate.

Miserlou

10th Dec 2006, 21:01

eharding

10th Dec 2006, 21:18

You've missed the point entirely.
Yes, you must know what to do if it happens but you must have heard the old adage, "the superior pilot uses his superior judgement to avoid having to use his superior skills."
Maintaining the proper speed is THE first rule of flying.

Nope....never heard that one - that must be part of the CPL course you took... :)

If you have any tips on the 'proper speed' to avoid a stall, accelerated or otherwise, I'm all agog.

Miserlou

10th Dec 2006, 21:34

It's a good job these computer things don't have joined up writing or you might have a problem reading this.
How aeroplanes fly.
Air passes over and beneath the wing which causes a difference in pressure due...
ALL aircraft performance and handling is derived from the angle of attack of the wing relative to the air flowing over it. Due to 'an accident of history' the most common way to express that angle is in terms of speed. So to all extents and purposes, aircraft performance, handling and the safety margins which are prudent to observe are based on SPEED.

If this isn't so, please enlighten us.

eharding

10th Dec 2006, 21:44

If this isn't so, please enlighten us.

CPL standards seem to be slipping - or was this a distance course? - did the section on load factor get lost in the post?

Miserlou

10th Dec 2006, 22:22

eharding, are you deliberately trying to misunderstand or are you genuinely hard of understanding?

You will notice my reference to AoA in the previous post.
I think you'll find this is covered in the PPL syllabus. Perhaps you should go have a look at that before you go harking on about CPLs, the relevance of which is utterly beyond me. Who said anything about that?

You will find that the speeds which are stated in an aircraft's POH are valid under the stated conditions or if only one set of figures is presented then they will be valid up to MTOW unless otherwise stated hence my reference to 'proper speed'.

Rather than state all the circumstances, conditions and exceptions for various speeds I thought it easier to use the term 'proper' speed to cover all and any situation where control of speed is critical to the safe conduct of flight.

eharding

10th Dec 2006, 22:40

eharding, are you deliberately trying to misunderstand or are you genuinely hard of understanding?
You will notice my reference to AoA in the previous post.
I think you'll find this is covered in the PPL syllabus. Perhaps you should go have a look at that before you go harking on about CPLs, the relevance of which is utterly beyond me. Who said anything about that?
You will find that the speeds which are stated in an aircraft's POH are valid under the stated conditions or if only one set of figures is presented then they will be valid up to MTOW unless otherwise stated hence my reference to 'proper speed'.
Rather than state all the circumstances, conditions and exceptions for various speeds I thought it easier to use the term 'proper' speed to cover all and any situation where control of speed is critical to the safe conduct of flight.

No mate, I'm just referring to the CPL which you claim to have in your profile.

Where exactly did you train for your CPL?

Miserlou

10th Dec 2006, 22:51

No is a strange answer to an either or question.

You can't beat me down by trying to belittle my qualification. Where I studied has no relevance to this thread.

Please, if you can't stick to the thread, follow a coherent discussion and maintain a proper tone, don't reply.

Tim_CPL

11th Dec 2006, 01:59

Well, I've held of for a while here, but this is a crazy discussion; anyone who thinks that a plane is a plane is a plane needs to get a grip. There are so many differences, apart from fuel management, avionics, engine/turbocharger management, v-speeds, handling, emergency procedures, performance charts etc. etc.

I lost a good friend who made a stupid mistake with regards to flap settings in an aircraft he didn’t usually fly:-

“The aircraft was found with 10° flap selected and it is probable that this was used for the take off. The manufacturer does not supply any performance data or publish a recommended technique for this flap setting. For the Cessna 303 aircraft, with which the pilot was familiar, take off techniques differed from the Seneca in some respects. The Cessna 303 Pilot's Operating Handbook included the following information; flap 0° or flap 10° are recommended for normal take off. Under a paragraph entitled 'Crosswind take off' the following technique is recommended: "With the ailerons partially deflected into wind, the airplane is accelerated to a speed higher than normal, and then pulled off abruptly." The witness descriptions of the aircraft becoming airborne and landing again in a nose down attitude suggest that the pilot was not trying, or not able, to lift the aircraft off the ground.”

http://www.aaib.dft.gov.uk/cms_resources/dft_avsafety_pdf_500773.pdf

The checkout and time in type are but 2 of many requirements you need to meet before you are competent in ANY aircraft. It is a very different thing to get into an into an aircraft on a severe-clear VFR day to getting into the same plane with the WX is 300 and 1 and you didn't read the manual for the Garmin 530....

- Tim

BigEndBob

11th Dec 2006, 10:37

It is possible to self checkout. But not always recommended.

Provided the aircraft is similiar to what you are used to flying.
PA28's, Small Cessna, Grummans they are all much the same.
Remember in my younger days renting from a certain gentleman at Coventry Airport. Went their after gaining PPL because the hourly rate was cheaper.
The first checkout i did there was a joke. The guy with me (who i later discovered was a PPL), wasn't too keen when i stalled and steeped turned the aircraft, he hadn't got a clue what speeds i should be using. After that, i thought whats the point in the check rides, all i was doing was giving someone else a free ride!
Later i used to turn up and just asked whats got fuel in it, and take it, be it a PA28(which i trained on), C172 (whats that then !), C152,150, BeechA23, AA-5's. If this were a flying club, it wouldn't have happened.
I just remember my old CFI saying that during the war you were trained to fly single and multi engine and were expected to be able to jump into whatever aircraft was presented to you. How true that was i don't know.
But using the correct takeoff technique you 'discovered the take off speed', adjusted angle for best rate of climb, set type power for cruise. Which can be done for most light aircraft.
Approach, whop the flap down fly at 10kts above stall short final.

The problem is having been a flying instructor for the last 20 years i now see why formal checkouts are required. Because there are those pilots that you can let loose with an aircraft (they are familiar with) after a couple of circuits, and there are those you question if they actually have a licence!

englishal

11th Dec 2006, 10:57

Roald Dhal describes in "Going Solo" how he learned to fly in a Tiger Moth during the war. Some time later he turns up at his base to find a brand new Hurrican waiting for him. They give him "a couple of hours" of solo flight to learn how to fly the thing, then send him off on a 4 hour flight across the med to join the rest of his gang in Greece where he goes to war in it ;) I think he has around 130 hours in Tiger Moths before he gets into the hurricane......

I wouldn't have too much problem with self teaching myself to fly most varieties of SEP's, baring the more high performance or aerobatic types. For other aeroplanes I'll take an instructor please, for at least a few circuits.

Miserlou

11th Dec 2006, 11:31

I never suggested that a 'pilot' should be able to jump into anything without reference to POH or they should figure things out for themselves, though an 'artist' may appear to do so.

Tim. The example you gave doesn't really prove anything. Your friend made a decision based on incorrect presumption; that the first flap setting would be sufficient for a short field take-off. Quite a reasonable presumption given bearing in mind how lift and drag change with flap position but never-the-less, wrong. Sad accident, especially when the correct answer was easily available to him.

I believe that the RAF even 'way back then' had POHs but Dahl shows that it isn't impossible.

I know a chap who, when asked what the Spitfire is like to fly replied, "It's just another aeroplane!" The askee was expecting a rather more exciting answer.

Perhaps the difference in attitudes lies in initial training.

Fuji Abound

11th Dec 2006, 12:04

Perhaps the difference in attitudes lies in initial training.

Attitudes change and times change.

I was amazed for quite a while when I dear friend of mine who flew just about everything during the last war told me if you hadn’t gone solo after 8 hours questions were asked, by ten you had been transferred to the army.

However a lot of young men lost their lives, some because they were not sufficiently familiar with their aircraft.

Today we live in a society adverse to any risk.

When I started flying, a SEP rating was just that - you could fly just about any SEP, and most clubs would let you do so. Today many clubs look on each SEP as if it was a type rating.

Common sense would suggest there are many singles which are sufficiently similar as to not cause a problem. The same is more or less true of MEPs. However, the differences start to mount up on some types as do the performance. Differences (enough of them) and performance are the two things that will catch you out. The laws of aerodynamics don’t change but the extra speed and inertia of some twins (or even a few singles) do change and may come as quite a surprise.

rustle

11th Dec 2006, 12:15

IMHO the differences only matter when something goes wrong - which is where eharding was coming from I believe.

Any competent pilot should be able to takeoff, maintain S&L, and probably even "land" (in a fashion) if everything is working correctly.

But throw in a couple of system failures and/or an unusual attitudes and/or an engine out (MEP) and/or an incipient stall/spin and all bets are off unless there has been some type familiarity/training.

Learning to fly MEP you spend roughly 5/7 hours with one engine simulated failed: It is not the "usual" you are training for but the "unusual".

BTW, comparing peacetime attitudes to risk with war-time ones is bizarre. :ugh:

Fuji Abound

11th Dec 2006, 12:45

Rustle

Well put, I nearly added that the problems with lack of familiarity really start when something goes wrong or when you are flying the aircraft near the limits of its normal envelope.

However it is interesting where the line is drawn. Consideration is currently being given to whether or not an aircraft with a glass display should require a type rating - there are many instructors who consider it should. So for example a pilot accustom to flying a conventionally equipped DA40 would not be able to fly a DA40 with G1000 - same aircraft of course, vastly different systems though. In the same way train on a DA42, and you cant legally fly any other twin.

Choxolate

11th Dec 2006, 13:12

Getting back to the original quote at the start of this thread "Any one who dares call themself a pilot should be able to get into ANY aeroplane and fly it."

No conditionals in that bald tatement about the range of aircraft beinbg limited to "similar" to that which I already know o I would have to disagree :-

1. I would call myself a pilot - albeit JAR-PPL with about 200 hours
2. I do not think I could even start, let alone fly half the aircraft hangared at my home airfield.

OK after reading the POH etc I may be able to get most single engined, simple, land aircraft off the ground and back on again without killing myself but that is hardly a good defintion of "fly", as far as complex types and multi-engined then a DEFINITE no.

robin

11th Dec 2006, 13:48

Just to wind up a few of the 'you must have a check ride first' posts

Over my long and not very distinguished flying career I have 'self converted' approximately a dozen times without incident

The reason - most were single-seat gliders and three were single-seat PFA types with no 2-seat equivalent.

The secret was laid down by Derek Piggott in assessing the likely handling of the aircraft and in being prepared before committing flight. This will include talking to pilots who have experience of the type and a decent period reading the handbook and learning the numbers.

As with all aircraft you start slowly and methodically and build up gradually the flight envelope you are happy to live with. It is, after all, what test pilots do

I try (not always successfully) to do something new on each flight and avoid taking the aircraft for granted until I am happy I know how she will react.

I am more worried by those PPLs who learn on a C172/PA28 which, lets face it, flatter your skills, and think they are pilots. Most never move out of their 'comfort zone' or take any further instruction/coaching.

Genghis the Engineer

11th Dec 2006, 15:08

I call myself a pilot, more importantly, so do various licencing authorities. I have flown 49 types as pilot in command, which is somewhat above average (96 types in total, I've often not been PiC, particularly in a flight test environment - but that most certainly DOES NOT give me an excuse not to know the aeroplane).

Fairly regularly I have to go and fly something I've not flown before. Depending upon how novel it is to me, I might *only* spend half a day looking through the manuals, preparing kneeboard cards, and if I possibly can fly with an experienced pilot on type for an hour or more.

If I'm flying something as PiC that I've not flown before (it happens occasionally) I'll normally allow myself a couple of days preparation with manuals, speaking to anybody who knows something worthwhile about the aircraft, preparing abbreviated notes to take into the aircraft with me. Then when I fly it, I effectively check myself out in the air - with a few gentle hops, careful handling investigation in the middle of the envelope, and as I build up my knowledge of the aircraft, get towards steep turns, Vne, stalls, and so-on. I'll normally try out a few missed approaches and flap selection/retraction practices at a safe height too.

Interestingly, the older (and presumably more experienced) I get the more I feel the need to do all this preparation. At the same time, I seem to find aeroplanes frightening me a lot less when I'm in them. I wonder if these two are related?

That said, I think that most pilots (frankly I don't think that it matters whether they're a PPL, ATPL or military) could self convert to an aircraft in a familiar class. BUT, have they been taught how to do so? - in most cases I suspect not. It is, incidentally one of the more important things they teach trainee Test Pilots.

G

Alvin Steele

11th Dec 2006, 17:13

"Any one who dares call themself a pilot should be able to get into ANY aeroplane and fly it."

That was maybe valid back in the days of the ATA and virtually an all tailwheel fleet.
I did some tailwheel to solo standard only back in 98, but would question my suitability, after the subsequent time back on nosewheel aircraft, in a Cub now.
Ok, maybe I'm being hard on myself, I could solo a tailwheel tomorrow but throw in a crosswind which I'd deal with in a nose wheel type and it could be different in the tailwheeler.
To sum up, I reckon if you learnt tailwheel then maybe the above quote has a ring of truth about it.
I whizzed through the thread, apologies if anyone has made a similar point.
Tim

unfazed

11th Dec 2006, 17:31

No problem with checking out on an unfamiliar aircraft (in fact good idea)

Would like to see something similar to France where once a club has checked you out on an aircraft and you maintain currency then you do not require a checkride for other clubs that you might visit

How about checking out on a Cessna 172 whenever you visit a new club ? Bit OTT I would say, I know some bright spark will mention "local area familiarisation" but you could fly there from your home base without any need for local area "familiarisation"

Downside is it wouldn't cost as much and clubs would not screw that last couple of quid from you:ooh:

englishal

11th Dec 2006, 17:49

Indeed, I was talking to an FAA Examiner a week or two back and he stated that the FAA are contemplating requiring a type rating for G1000 equipped aircraft.
The local FBO require a G1000 Ground class and a minimum of 5 hours training before letting anybody loose.
I don't know why a G1000 would need a type rating. If you learned on old instruments, then the G1000 is a piece of cake, once you know which buttons to press. If you learned on a G1000, then you have enough money to never bother flying anything else ;)

For the record, the FAA have just classed the DA42 as a "complex ME" as per any other MEP's, i.e. no TR required, it is "the same as all the rest". So in FAA land you can indeed do a ME rating in a G1000 Twin Star and then go on to fly a Seneca for example (or try).

BTW, comparing peacetime attitudes to risk with war-time ones is bizarre
Was not comparing at all. It was just an interesting story of how it used to be in times past. And if you read the book, you would quite likely not want to be put in that position.

rustle

11th Dec 2006, 18:43

Was not comparing at all. It was just an interesting story of how it used to be in times past. And if you read the book, you would quite likely not want to be put in that position.

I was referring to Miserlou, rather than your good self, EA...

Miserlou

11th Dec 2006, 19:35

Rustle,
I was pointing out that it wasn't quite as simple as Roald Dahl wrote, as posted by englishal. They still spent some time going through the notes before being sent off on their own. I understand, the normal progression was Tiger Moth to Master or Harvard and THEN to squadron and the self check.

To put the whole thing in perspective it may be relevant to consider how often a check pilot may have intervened to avoid actual damage/ loss of control. My hypothesis is that this is very rare indeed. If it isn't, then perhaps there is something wrong with the initial training stage.
Let's exclude actual training, learning 'new' skills, stick to flying new types.

It might be well to remember that the requirement for check flights and currency is often, perhaps mostly an insurance requirement. And we know they love our curremcy; preferablt sterling.

BigEndBob

11th Dec 2006, 20:29

I was once given the task of accompanying a flying instructor who had to get 5 hours on type to teach. Nearly got caught out when he tried to stall the aircraft several feet above the ground on landing!

One thing i have learnt over the years, no matter what the experience level, i will always insist on a new member checkout, even if its only one circuit.

At least i would have a reasonably clear conscience at the coroners inquest.

(Had an old boy on a trial lesson, he had not flown since the war.
He had done 100 hours just as the war ended.
Said that he had done 20 odd hours on Tigers, then went to Texas to finish off on Stearmans and Harvards.
So goes to prove they weren't sent off after the Hun with 10 hours under their belt).

Pitts2112

11th Dec 2006, 21:16

This reminds me of a story I heard many years ago from a WW2 fighter pilot, a guy named Ed. It seems after the war he and a sqadronmate were on their way someplace and were stranded at a USAF maintenance depot somewhere (don't remember where or how they got stranded - might have been delivering two fighters for maintanence). They needed to get back to base but there was nothing going their direction for a couple of days.

So they're sitting in Base Ops and trying to figure out what they were going to do when a guy comes in and announces to the assembled transient pilots that he had an A-26 that needed to be ferried and was anyone here qualified. Turns out it looked like their ticket home, but they were both single-engine fighter types.

Ed's mate looks at him with a shrug and says something to the effect of "Look, it's either the A-26 or we're stuck here for three days. We're both single-engine qualified, so between the two of us we're twin qualified. How hard can it be? If you sign me off, I'll sign you off. Whaddya say?"

Ed thought for a minute and decided it was better than being stranded where they were. So they snuck around the corner, signed each other's log books, and duly presented themselves to the controller at Base Ops as a fully qualified A-26 ferry crew.

The story then jumps to these guys sitting in the cockpit of an A-26 for the first time, no idea how the damn thing works, with the mission of actually flying it home. Ed was nominated as captain, and these guys start trying to figure out the systems and procedures from looking at the manuals onboard. I'll never forget the briefing they agreed on as Ed figured out how to take advantage of the residual experience left behind from genuine crews:

"Aw, screw it. Jes' move the shiney knobs and leave ev-rythin' else alone!"

He was there 50 years later to tell me the story so the tactic must have worked! So maybe there is something to the old "it's just another airplane" adage?!?!

Pitts2112

RatherBeFlying

12th Dec 2006, 01:43

My third flight in my third single-seat glider was a nasty surprise.

A more powerful tug coupled with stronger wind gradient and unsuitable trim setting (but according to manual) led to a balloon on takeoff followed by a bounce off the ground followed by the spoilers coming out:uhoh: well maybe they helped bring the pitch oscillation under control:\

I'll take all the checkout I can get. Even after checkout, there's still a getting better acquainted period.

Pilot DAR

12th Dec 2006, 01:56

My two cents worth....

I agree that a competant pilot should be able to fly many different aircraft within a "type", but there are exceptions, and will that pilot recognize their limitations in time?

Rental checkouts are perhaps more a matter of recency for infrequent pilots, than a measure of total skill. Personally, I have not had many problems getting checked out (save for once in a "T" tail Arrow, with an instructor, whom I'm convinced, from his lack of type knowledge, had never been in the plane before!). Often, where I anticipate of an hour of being run through the ringer on a type I've never flown, after one circuit I'm cleared to go. I sometimes ask for a bit more.

I actively seek checkouts when I fly other's aircraft. I see it as a guard against creeping complacency, and a reassurance for the insurer of my own aircraft, that I make an effort to maintain an acceptable skill set.

I often find that checkouts are simply not available on some types I fly for design change approval test flying. As said so well by Genghis, you study up the best you can, from whatever reading and asking you can do, and slowly figure it out for yourself once in the sky. The mod may introduce changes in handling or performance, which you'll have to figure out once airborne - makes a thorough test plan seem like a good idea!

There are many aircraft which by type, or configuration, are very hard to get checked out in - just not common in the training mainstream. Examples would be ski planes and amphibious floatplanes. Your common flying club probably does employ instructors with skills in these types. Both of these types require many special skills and cautions, which a pilot just could not safely figure out without some instruction. Once instructed effectively, however, the pilot can probably manage a variety of similarly configured aircraft with no problem.

The test pilot and ferry pilot share these challenges, as they are both expected to get into an aircraft with less than a complete checkout, and safely conduct the flight. The test pilot may have it easier though, as he can wait for a good weather day, and probably does not have to navigate too far! Oh, and the aircraft is probably leaving a well equipped maintenance facility, with everything as it should be in that respect. Not always so for the ferry pilot!

The design requirements for all civil aircraft would tend to group them into types, which a competant pilot should be able to figure out for themselves with a thorough review of the flight manual. There are exceptions though... The muched talked about Tomahawk (which I like) is certainly an aircraft which takes more than a read of the flight manual for the average pilot to takeoff safely (I learned this the embarrasing way, though injured only my pride) similarly, the Lake amphibian is not a plane for the average floatplane pilot to just jump into - it is very different to fly from a floatplane of equal size and weight, though a delight! Competant training required....

STOL kittied aircraft are another good example. Yes, the average pilot can still fly them fine, but the increased perfomance will only be safely understood and experienced by a pilot already familiar with such aircaft. I once returned an instructor safely to earth in my STOL kitted aircraft, only to have him report to others, that I was "flying my aircraft around below stall speed". He would not have been competant to instruct or checkout the changed performance of that aircraft, without a proper checkout himself.

As for avionics, yep, things are changing... I've played with a G1000 on the gound, and could probably manage it in flight, but certainly not use it to its potential. Certainly, back when I ferried all sorts of different types, I was more often trying to figure out the avionics, than the aircraft itself. This is an obvious reduction in safety, as inadequate attention to flying the aircraft itself, and traffic awareness is likely when you're playing with the radios. For this reason, I always take my own GPS when ferrying, so if the aircraft equipment is not familiar to me, I can still safely navigate without a steep learning curve.

So to all of the early stage pilots out there (I can still remember when I was one, but I guess that's passed now) I owe back all of the wisdom taught to me over the decades. It's fine to be comfortable on a new type, but when things you'd never even though could happen, do, are you ready? My second flight solo in a C185 amphib, and the gear failed in such a way that the left float wheel gear was completly retracted, and the right completely extended, and all of the hydraulic fluid was now atomized behind me... Waddaudonow? With some ground to air advice, I got it down without hurting it!

Cheers, Pilot DAR

IO540

12th Dec 2006, 06:51

I think PPL training is largely crap unless one is flying a basic spamcan with a speedo, revcounter, altimeter and little else.

Nowadays this is the case in the majority of cases which no doubt is why nothing is done to change the syllabus (at the JAA/ICAO level) but as time moves on and better equipped planes appear in bigger numbers in the fleet, there will be an increasing need for ground school.

The syllabus is also skewed. You need official training and signoffs for retractable gear and CS prop (which don't need much training) but not for the mixture (which, along with the whole subject of engine management) does need a fair bit of understanding. And not for a GPS or autopilot, which potentially need a lot more.

If you are involved in renting out a decent well equipped plane (as I was for a few years) then you will know the issues; let's just say that when somebody turns up and wants to fly the well equipped machine without wanting to have any understanding of the avionics, you will start to wonder if you are going to get the machine back.

It takes a good number of hours for a newcomer to learn this stuff. Currently, it's not a great problem (in terms of pilots affected) because most of those getting into well equipped planes have a fair history of working their way up the ownership chain, but this will change.

I think anything at the GNS430 level and above should have mandatory ground school. There would be a grave shortage of instructors in the UK but one has to start somewhere.

I also think the CAA would do a great deal for future safety if they changed their checkride procedure to the way the FAA does it: require the pilot to show he can work everything installed (GPS, autopilot, the lot).

In this easy little move, the FAA has managed to introduce mandatory ground school for modern avionics without getting the blame for landing the flight training industry with higher costs ;) It also avoids having to push any changes through ICAO or, in the European case, the JAA.

Genghis the Engineer

12th Dec 2006, 11:11

I think PPL training is largely crap unless one is flying a basic spamcan with a speedo, revcounter, altimeter and little else.

Surely the point is that PPL training is enough to fly a basic aeroplane, and be able to learn how to fly something else.

Let's face it, PPL training is quite expensive enough as it is, you'd price the whole industry out of existence by insisting that a PPL covered everything from an Arrow with a Garmin 1000 to an Evans VP1. So it teaches people how to fly a basic middling performance spamcan, and equips them to learn.

G

maxdrypower

12th Dec 2006, 11:45

I have just finished converting to a Garmin 1000 equipped 172 and can say that yes it is pxss easy when youve been shown how it works and it makes flying easier than it was prior . Someone made the argument regarding what when both screens go blank ? simple any VFR pilot worth his salt will be able to carry on maybe divert and get it fixed but why would you , you trained visually , there is a standby analogue AI ASI and altimeter , which is more instrumentation than you may find in some homebuilts or even older A/C . Garmin produce a nice little sim to stick on your pc and you can even use the majoirty if its bits and bobs on microsofts flight sim . I would agree that you do need ot be shown how to use it as with everything else but its not the be all and end all of opearting the A/C , If i can use it anyone can

englishal

12th Dec 2006, 11:53

I was referring to Miserlou, rather than your good self, EA...
OOps, sorry old chap ;)
Don't shoot the messenger..
Sorry, didn't mean it sound like that, I was sort of thinking aloud ;) I asked the question a couple of weeks ago regarding "partial panel" in a G1000 aeroplane. The response was basically that when the screen goes black, you're now not much worse off than someone in a conventional aeroplane with standard instrumentation. Partial panel with an AI....whatever next :}

Many of the "Glass" aeroplanes include FITS (FAA Industry Training Standards) training packages for their new owners in the aeroplane price. This is required for them to get insurance on the aeroplanes in most cases. Typically for a DA40 it is a 3 day training course.....

IO540

12th Dec 2006, 14:18

GTE

I don't disagree with you :)

The present training situation is however pretty poor for advanced types. I suggested a mechanism through which the more advanced types could be covered.

Pitts2112

12th Dec 2006, 14:42

GTE

I don't disagree with you :)

The present training situation is however pretty poor for advanced types. I suggested a mechanism through which the more advanced types could be covered.

Possibly, but Christ, don't add another license or rating the CAA can use as an excuse to over-regulate and take more money off us. For example, there's no real need for a "night rating" which has to be paid for and approved by the CAA directly. A simple checkout by ANY flight instructor, and associated sign-off in your logbook, ought to suffice. It does in the US, with no additional involvement by the FAA at all, and I don't think their nighttime PPL accident rate is any higher than here in the UK.

I'm all for regulation where it adds value. Unfortunately, much of it here doesn't, except into the CAA's coffers.

Pitts2112

shortstripper

12th Dec 2006, 15:22

The present training situation is however pretty poor for advanced types. I suggested a mechanism through which the more advanced types could be covered.

You always do, but it's always aimed at the PPL itself! If you managed without starting off with a more complex PPL course why shouldn't others?

I don't think this type of thing should be tagged onto the PPL as it would just add to the costs and put people off. What's wrong with schools offering more post PPL courses? Surely that's a better way to go as it would let the individual follow his/her chosen type of flying. It would also give the fresh PPL goals to achieve, in a similar way to glider pilots and keep their interest fresh. In other words, keep the PPL as simple as possible and have a kind of badge (maybe a less naff name than "badge") system of advanced training. It shouldn't become a stick either as that would de-value the PPL itself and be no different than adding more costly ratings to fill the CAA's pockets. The carrot could be reduced insurance or the acceptance of said pilot to fly the clubs more advanced types. The "badge" system could also follow different genres such as aerobatics, touring, strip flying ect with bronze, silver, gold + levels, again like gliding.

Getting back to the original subject, I would hope that most PPL's could actually fly any aeroplane within their type rating without too much difficulty, although perhaps without much finesse. I'm pretty sure that if my life depended on it (ridiculous scenario one ... tidal wave approaching as I'm drinking a cuppa at low lying airfield :E ) that I could jump into any non complex SEP, take off fly and land without killing myself. The fact that something has a glass panel doesn't make it fly any different! In good VFR weather, you should be able to fly by attitude, feel and judgement even with dare I say it .... no instruments what-so-ever! The any aeroplane bit, is perhaps stretching things a tad ... but (ridiculous scenario two ... airliner with incapacitated crew) even that with some outside help on the radio isn't beyond the realms of possibility.

SS

IO540

12th Dec 2006, 15:26

Pitts

What I suggested is what the FAA does, no more.

One can bypass the system in the USA in the same way one bypasses it in the UK. You do it by getting your PPL in a basic C172 or whatever, getting your complex checkout in a similarly basic Arrow or similar, and then buying a new SR22 :) The system will catch up with you 2 years later when you go and do your BFR, in your SR22. Unless of course you rent another old C172 for the BFR, so you don't have to demonstrate any of your kit to the examiner. Somehow, I don't think many pilots will bother to do that sort of subterfuge. It's a good simple system.

rustle

12th Dec 2006, 15:32

The system will catch up with you 2 years later when you go and do your BFR, in your SR22. Unless of course you rent another old C172 for the BFR, so you don't have to demonstrate any of your kit to the examiner. Somehow, I don't think many pilots will bother to do that sort of subterfuge. It's a good simple system.

If you fly a twin and spend $150/hr to fly it but you can do your BFR in a hired single for $65/hr doesn't that make economic sense?

Or does the simple system prevent that somehow? (Genuine question)

englishal

12th Dec 2006, 16:52

A BFR is really to check out airmanship / general standard.

The reality is in the USA that no one in their right mind will lend or rent you a twin unless a) your total twin time is high, b) you total twin time in the last 90 days is sufficient c) your total time is high. You could of course buy a twin, but you won't get insurance unless a) your total twin time is high, b) your total time is high....or you hold some extra ratings such as ME Instructor or Commercial and / or have completed compulsory training, for example the Diamond factory training course.

Typically to rent a twin in the USA by just turning up at an FBO you need 1000 hours TT, 500 hrs ME, and 100 on type and have a check ride. The only way you can bypass this is if you have a known history with some FBO who can list you on their insurance as named pilots - and trusts you.

Different systems.....

scooter boy

12th Dec 2006, 17:15

Sorry chaps - just got time to surf the interweb for the first time in days and picked this thread up.

Anyone have any details on the guy in the video?
Did he have much total helicopter time?
Did he have any time in similar helos?
Had he had any checkout time?

Similar thing happened with an R44 with a new (student pilot) owner in the UK last year. The official report was that a freak gust of wing picked the aircraft up as the solo owner/pilot was running the engine at low rpm and flipped it onto its side. There may have been raised eyebrows from the insurance guys/AAIB but they will probably have paid.

Having the keys to that big gleaming bird sitting in your back yard and being unable to fly it is just too tempting for some people.

Sadly when the chopper gets rolled into a ball it hits us all in the insurance department.
The gene pool may get smaller but our premiums go up.

Just climbing in to any modern aircraft and expecting it to all come naturally is (occasionally survivable) lunacy.

James Bond can do it but I'm buggered if I would.

SB

IO540

12th Dec 2006, 19:38

If you fly a twin and spend $150/hr to fly it but you can do your BFR in a hired single for $65/hr doesn't that make economic sense?
Or does the simple system prevent that somehow? (Genuine question)

I don't fly twins and never have, so I don't know if whether one can do a BFR in a C172 which would be valid for FAA ME. I am sure a lot of people know the answer however.

Other than that, plenty of people do BFRs in another plane from the one they own. Let's say you are UK based and you rent an N-reg; you will never get DfT permission for training. You have to either get a CFI who will not charge, or do it in some G-reg with a dual rated (FAA+JAA) instructor. Well, those are the overt legal options.

Personally, my attitude is that currency on type is just about everything, so I would always try to do all possible training in the plane I fly (and have 500+ hrs in). For the FAA IR this was virtually impossible, so I did it in a PA28 in the USA. For the FAA CPL this now appears feasible, and also I don't really have to do the CPL for any reason.

I reckon that in the USA (where these stupid legal issues don't exist) almost every pilot will do a BFR/IPC in his plane.

Finally, you can't rent a single for $65/hour anymore. Not on an ad hoc one-off basis, not unless it is some kind of wreckage. 5 years ago maybe. Now the going rate is around $90 for an old PA28-161. This is probably higher than the marginal cost of flying your own plane, especially if it is a nice new one with negligible maintenance costs. The marginal cost of a nearly new TB20 is less than what I can rent a C150 for, and it would be the same everywhere.

sierracharlie

13th Dec 2006, 10:57

Noted these comments in a recent accident report (http://www.aaib.gov.uk/publications/bulletins/november_bulletin/piper_pa_38_112_tomahawk__g_byle.cfm):
Operational aspects
The commander .... was an experienced instructor and examiner ..... there was no evidence that the commander had previously flown in a Piper PA-38. Although he was licensed to fly the aircraft, it would have been prudent for him to have had a familiarisation flight with another club instructor prior to undertaking a flight with a student.

gregpend

14th Dec 2006, 17:01

Scott crossfield once punched an aircraft through the back of a hanger because although he had read the aircraft's manual, he hadn't been checked out by a pilot who was experienced in the aircraft. If it can happen to him it can happen to you.

The attitude "I'm good enough and experienced enough that I can fly anything" is arrogant and is likely to get one killed. I think it's important to get training on any new type because humans aren't omnipitent, and even small things can cause accidents.

That being said, I do think it can be taken to extreme. At one flying club in the london area the policy is that if you haven't flown one of the club's aircraft of a specific type in the last 60 days (45 days for pilots below 150 hours) then you have to have a checkride in it. It doesn't matter if you've been flying another club's PA-28 50 hours in the last month, you still have to get a checkride. Now that's extreme!

Miserlou

14th Dec 2006, 19:33

"I'm good enough and experienced enough that I can fly anything"
You are absolutely right, Gregpend, it is arrogant. Aren't we all?

But seriously, your attitude when climbing in should be "I can fly 'this' aeroplane." If it isn't, you really don't have any business being there.
Before condemning this, check it in the negative sense. You bowl up to fly a new type and kick off with, "Hi. I don't think I'm good enough to fly your aeroplane!" (Excuse the mixed metaphors.)
If that is the level of your confidence, how will you deal with a problem?

The Scott Crossfield is example is v. poor. Are you suggesting that he wasn't clever enough to understand what it said in the book and should have had some one read it to him?

eharding

14th Dec 2006, 20:10

But seriously, your attitude when climbing in should be "I can fly 'this' aeroplane." If it isn't, you really don't have any business being there.

Miserlou...me again. Apologies for any out-of-context or inaccurate assertions I made earlier in the thread....but I'm still confused about your viewpoint... .

Any chance you could expand on the level of experience / qualifications / types or classes for which the quote above holds true?

..and, closer to home...do you have any Pitts time? :) All the Pitts drivers I know, future national aeros champions included, cite the first trip in an S2 as a 'Oh God, I'll never fly this thing' moment - me included.

gregpend

14th Dec 2006, 23:09

"I'm good enough and experienced enough that I can fly anything"
You are absolutely right, Gregpend, it is arrogant. Aren't we all?
But seriously, your attitude when climbing in should be "I can fly 'this' aeroplane." If it isn't, you really don't have any business being there.
Before condemning this, check it in the negative sense. You bowl up to fly a new type and kick off with, "Hi. I don't think I'm good enough to fly your aeroplane!" (Excuse the mixed metaphors.)
If that is the level of your confidence, how will you deal with a problem?
The Scott Crossfield is example is v. poor. Are you suggesting that he wasn't clever enough to understand what it said in the book and should have had some one read it to him?

Wow Miserlou, it seems everybody who disagrees with your point of view always quotes bad examples....

Miserlou

14th Dec 2006, 23:30

Gregpend.
So you are suggesting that Scott needed some one to explain things to him? Please expand on the incident, what happened exactly?
And wasn't he a test pilot himself?

eharding,
Apologies accepted.
Re. Experience levels.
Very good question. Variety is the spice of life. I think experience is to be found in the number of types flown rather than the number of hours. Furthermore, I'd go for quality rather than quantity any day. I'd go so far as to wager that 20 minutes of aeros per month will produce a better pilot than 10 hours of straight and level.
A point which has been raised is the standard of training. That battle was lost long ago and now even spinning is off the curriculum even though it remains a major factor in accidents. Yes, perhaps we are training pilots better but we are not training them to be better pilots.
Within the confines of the modern training and private flying environment, it is very difficult to specify where and when 'experience' is. It is for the individual to seek out the experience and skills which others take for granted.

I do not find arrogance in the 'I can fly this' statement. It is important to maintain a realistic judgement of one's own ability and excercise and expand this. You are bound to scare yourself once in a while but if you're lucky, no one will see it; as long as you saw it yourself!
To quote Neil Williams in the final pages of 'Aerobatics', "It is not a sport for the timid, nor is there room here for the conceited."

Re. Pitts.
Only have a few hours in the S-2b, mainly from hard runways. Like those I know who have lots of time on them, I didn't find it difficult as it we were all coming from similar types, Stampes, Chipmunks, Bellancas etc. Of course we 'lurved' the extra ooomph.
All were agreed on one thing. Once you've put it down you keep the stick back and keep it straight; you just there for the ride while the hopping and skipping sorts itself out (especially the single seaters). Refers mainly to landing on grass.

Genghis the Engineer

15th Dec 2006, 07:55

Scott Crossfield, who died earlier this year (flying), was widely regarded as one of the finest test pilots ever. I had the privilege to meet him once at a test flying conference, and whilst I've not flown with him, he certainly came across to me as a man so far beyond my own understanding of aviation that I may as well not bother getting out of bed.

Another rather well known and regarded Test Pilot was Neil Armstrong (I only mention him because I'm reading his biography at the moment).

Both had bent aeroplanes very badly at points in their careers.

What does this tell us? Basically that test flying is dangerous, and that even the best in the world can have (for whatever reason) a bad day.

Which I'm pretty certain we all knew already! It's a non-argument.

We also all know that at some point, any pilot has to stop gathering information, trying to be as safe as possible, and actually fly the aeroplane, so nobody ever gets airborne quite as prepared as they could be.

G