Tailwind landings
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Ireland
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tailwind landings
Just a quick question for all the test pilots out there. I have been trying to figure this out for the past few days. I am currently flying a c172 and I want to know what’s the best way to land in a tailwind ? 0 flap or 30 flap ? if your approach speed was a bit to high and you got in over the threshold then got the speed down to Vfe would you extend 30 flap to get rid of the lift and increase your drag bleeding off the speed to get the plane stopped in a shorter distance ? this would obviously be a non standard approach let’s say it was an emergency landing and it was the nearest runway available … would appreciate all input,,,
Cheers @v8ter
Cheers @v8ter
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Europe
Posts: 136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The objective is a safe landing
I am not a test pilot but I would set up my landing well before my wheels touch. If you have a tailwind, your groundspeed will be relatively higher than your airspeed. As planes need air, touch at your required airspeed. d
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Middlesbrough U.K.
Age: 86
Posts: 360
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Something that has alway stuck in my mind since I flew with Diana Barnato Walker, of the Air Transport Auxiliary (ATA) in the 1960s was what she said "If you've got a tail wind, power it in".
Moderator
If you have chosen to land with a tailwind, assess the wind: Is it steady or gusty? If you're considering landing in a gusty tailwind, I would really suggest that you rethink it. Generally you don't find gusts of less than 10kts, and landing with a 10+kt or gusty tailwind in a 172 is a bad idea. if you must land downwind with gusts, add the gust speed to your approach, so when the gust recedes momentarily on approach, it won't drop you into a stall with no warning.
If you are landing with a steady, low speed tailwind, land completly normally, knowing that you are going to touch down with noticably greater ground speed. Hold the nose wheel off as much as is safe.
Despite what is sometimes taught, I use full flaps for landing as often as I can (with one exception), unless I'm practicing flaps failed no flap landings. The more flap, the slower you're going, which is always better if you depart controlled flight. The exception is the deHavilland Twin Otter, whose full flap landing technique requires extra skill, and should not be casually undertaken.
Still, avoid downwind landings. You should always be flying high enough to be able to turn downwind for an emergency landing. And, of course, engine failure after takeoff, would not be downwind, as you just took off into the wind right?
Pilot DAR
If you are landing with a steady, low speed tailwind, land completly normally, knowing that you are going to touch down with noticably greater ground speed. Hold the nose wheel off as much as is safe.
Despite what is sometimes taught, I use full flaps for landing as often as I can (with one exception), unless I'm practicing flaps failed no flap landings. The more flap, the slower you're going, which is always better if you depart controlled flight. The exception is the deHavilland Twin Otter, whose full flap landing technique requires extra skill, and should not be casually undertaken.
Still, avoid downwind landings. You should always be flying high enough to be able to turn downwind for an emergency landing. And, of course, engine failure after takeoff, would not be downwind, as you just took off into the wind right?
Pilot DAR
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Cilboldentune, Britannia
Posts: 555
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whether headwind or tailwind surely you should just fly the correct airspeed.
Your perceptions may seem odd as the speed over the ground will be slower (headwind) or faster (tailwind) than normal depending on the strength of the wind.
Your perceptions may seem odd as the speed over the ground will be slower (headwind) or faster (tailwind) than normal depending on the strength of the wind.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Dr. Evil's secret volcano lair
Posts: 147
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I go with full flap and have a slightly lower aproach and lowish speed. Want to be coming in on a fair bit of power so that whe you get to your touchdown point or into a situation where you must land, you can pull the power and touch down quickly. This will avoid a normal float with the added effects of tailwind which would make it very dificult to touch down in a desired spot and save you from going off the end or not getting it down at all....
Just my 2 cents.....
Just my 2 cents.....
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: West Sussex
Posts: 1,771
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I heard - at second hand by a newly qualified PPL with a tail dragger - that a very well known Chief Test Pilot had advised her " keep controlling it if as if flying, even when you're on the ground"...
Knowing the C.T.P. concerned, I'd take his advice !
Knowing the C.T.P. concerned, I'd take his advice !
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: At home
Posts: 100
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tail wind landings save time, which is why most of us used to do it. Tail wind landing, head wind takeoff, no back tracking.
Bring it in fast (Vs+20 or so - also saves time), on power, half configured. Once you've committed to land, power off, full flap, and get it in ground effect as soon as you can. Gusts make you loose lift, so don't let it get anywhere near the stall until you're in ground effect.
It'll float a bit, and the skill is in judging how far it'll float, so you can hit your touchdown point.
when you get good at it, just get it onto the back of the drag curve in the round out (with some power on) and just lower it to the ground by reducing the throttle. you'll hit your spot every time.
Bring it in fast (Vs+20 or so - also saves time), on power, half configured. Once you've committed to land, power off, full flap, and get it in ground effect as soon as you can. Gusts make you loose lift, so don't let it get anywhere near the stall until you're in ground effect.
It'll float a bit, and the skill is in judging how far it'll float, so you can hit your touchdown point.
when you get good at it, just get it onto the back of the drag curve in the round out (with some power on) and just lower it to the ground by reducing the throttle. you'll hit your spot every time.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Cilboldentune, Britannia
Posts: 555
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Horses for courses....
If you're flying a tailwheel aircraft remember the old adage when taxying: headwinds climb into - tailwinds dive away from. So, if there's a strong tailwind be careful that you don't get blown over because you've got the 'stick' hard back.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Aus, or USA, or UK or EU, or possibly somehwere in Asia.
Posts: 320
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As an Ag pilot in a former life I have done tens of thousands of downwind landings and one thing that I do know is that additional IAS is not your friend. The correct speed is the correct speed and one must anticipate the 'reverse' wind shear that will add IAS to a steady (if higher than 'normal') GS as one descents through the earth's boundary layer on short final. This additional found IAS is difficult to diminish at that late stage as the kinetic energy of the vehicle is significantly higher than for a headwind approach making airbourne deceleration difficult, extending float in GE and then requiring much higher brake reverve energy margins, possibly exceeding the braking capacity of the vehicle, just when you need it the most. With tail wheel aircraft the loss of rudder effectiveness at higher speeds can become an issue that means that the brakes are very important.
This same reversal of normal wind shear is also a major consideration in the event of a missed approach or go-around where the higher groundspeed, greater rolling friction delay the establishment of initial climb when added to increasing tilwind component result in a very flat departiure climb gradient, very scary if the go round descision is not made very early, sometimes well before touch down. often the reason for the tailwind landing is due to gradient of the strip so add rising terrain to the missed approch and you can be in a world of hurt, remember that the imoact will be much more severe at the higher kinetic energy.
There is no real substitute for the relatively inexperienced pilot than to seek an experienced instructor who can teach the the principles of this approach landing type, and the controlled practic that can improve approach judgment and enchance the situational awareness that leads to the capacity to accurately anticipate and correct for small variations in wind strength.
There was not much more rewarding in the good old days than landing off a turn in a strong quartering tailwind in a c180 on some short, narrow, goat track of an Ag strip and judging the landing roll to allow for a 180 degree turn right beside the loading unit without thrashing the brakes or applying any additional power form touch down, then in with the next load and you now have a lovely fresh headwind to help get your now ag overloaded 'wunny' back in the air. and you do that maybe a hundred times a day.....it really was a lot of fun...but we still didn't get paid enough
HD
This same reversal of normal wind shear is also a major consideration in the event of a missed approach or go-around where the higher groundspeed, greater rolling friction delay the establishment of initial climb when added to increasing tilwind component result in a very flat departiure climb gradient, very scary if the go round descision is not made very early, sometimes well before touch down. often the reason for the tailwind landing is due to gradient of the strip so add rising terrain to the missed approch and you can be in a world of hurt, remember that the imoact will be much more severe at the higher kinetic energy.
There is no real substitute for the relatively inexperienced pilot than to seek an experienced instructor who can teach the the principles of this approach landing type, and the controlled practic that can improve approach judgment and enchance the situational awareness that leads to the capacity to accurately anticipate and correct for small variations in wind strength.
There was not much more rewarding in the good old days than landing off a turn in a strong quartering tailwind in a c180 on some short, narrow, goat track of an Ag strip and judging the landing roll to allow for a 180 degree turn right beside the loading unit without thrashing the brakes or applying any additional power form touch down, then in with the next load and you now have a lovely fresh headwind to help get your now ag overloaded 'wunny' back in the air. and you do that maybe a hundred times a day.....it really was a lot of fun...but we still didn't get paid enough
HD
Moderator
Gee Wyle & Harley,
I am reminded why insurance costs what it does! (Insurance companies are paying out claims from junior pilots who follow your advice!) I'm not suggesting that the techiniques you suggest are not possible, but it sure seems like a bad idea to me to promote them, particularly to an audience who might go and try it!
Oh, and that experienced instructor? Will teach the student to use good judgement to AVOID situations requiring the super skills he/she teaches!
@v8ter, concentrate on what the Cessna 172 flight manual, and your ground school teachings tell you about tailwind landings. For those very few runways on earth, with approaches so restrictive that a down wind landing is required for a 172 - avoid them! As for those pilots who are TOO LAZY to fly to the other end of the runway and land into the wind: A) ignore them, and B) watch out for them when you're landing into the wind! (they may be using the same runway at the same time! It DID happen to me! - Spinner to spinner with the downwind landing guy, who was not listening to my radio calls in the circuit)
Pilot DAR
I am reminded why insurance costs what it does! (Insurance companies are paying out claims from junior pilots who follow your advice!) I'm not suggesting that the techiniques you suggest are not possible, but it sure seems like a bad idea to me to promote them, particularly to an audience who might go and try it!
Oh, and that experienced instructor? Will teach the student to use good judgement to AVOID situations requiring the super skills he/she teaches!
@v8ter, concentrate on what the Cessna 172 flight manual, and your ground school teachings tell you about tailwind landings. For those very few runways on earth, with approaches so restrictive that a down wind landing is required for a 172 - avoid them! As for those pilots who are TOO LAZY to fly to the other end of the runway and land into the wind: A) ignore them, and B) watch out for them when you're landing into the wind! (they may be using the same runway at the same time! It DID happen to me! - Spinner to spinner with the downwind landing guy, who was not listening to my radio calls in the circuit)
Pilot DAR
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Aus, or USA, or UK or EU, or possibly somehwere in Asia.
Posts: 320
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pilot DAR
For your information I am also an experienced Flight instructor, and along with another ag qualified and experienced flight instructor at my home airport we put anybody who does a tailwheel endorsement at the flying school through a series of increasingly harder L/H and R/H, normal and low level, up, down and cross wind patterns until they can handle these situation showing correct and timely judgment, We start them in a decathlon and graduate them into the 180 before a final exposure to the pitts (no downwind work in that baby however, re your insurance remark).
I resent your facile argument that it is laziness that encourages me to land with a tailwind, some ag strips around here have steep gradients that prohibit into wind landings in the downhill direction, just as they cannot be used for downwind takeoffs. Usually the limiting factor for these strips is the amount of tailwind component when even for the steep uphill landing is too much. heaps of headwind for the downhill into wind take off, but no use if you cant stop on landing. we can pull in excess of 1 and a quarter tons off strips as short as 300 meters. if you have seen air america, they are that sort of strip.. In any case landing into wind and back taxiing for reloading would get you fired the first day in the ag industry, try fitting a hundred take off and landings into one day when you spend half your time taxiing, the object of the reversal system is to eliminate non productive taxiing and flight time. the only time that the aircraft is generating revenue is when the 'money lever' is open, the rest of the flight time (and daylight hours) are wasted.
I have also flown into several highland airstrips in Papua New Guinea where there is absolutely no option bet to land uphill and take off down hill (air america style again) and there are guys up there flying loaded twotters in and out of 400 meter jungle strips day in day out. those guys have my total respect.
My point in the last post was that there are many factors that need consideration for downwind operations, and that these are best learned from a professional under controlled circumstances, i expressly did not encourage experimentation by junior pilots, or inexperienced pilots in this field (such as your self)
Do not let your limited experience encourage you to jump on a soap box so quickly and criticize those who have lived life in the GA industry all their working days.
If you ever consider getting a tailwheel type rating come and see us, you will be the better pilot for it, regardless of what you usually fly. Our students acually find it easier to get insurance when they tell the company where they did their training.
- righteous indignation satisfied -
Cheers,
HD
For your information I am also an experienced Flight instructor, and along with another ag qualified and experienced flight instructor at my home airport we put anybody who does a tailwheel endorsement at the flying school through a series of increasingly harder L/H and R/H, normal and low level, up, down and cross wind patterns until they can handle these situation showing correct and timely judgment, We start them in a decathlon and graduate them into the 180 before a final exposure to the pitts (no downwind work in that baby however, re your insurance remark).
I resent your facile argument that it is laziness that encourages me to land with a tailwind, some ag strips around here have steep gradients that prohibit into wind landings in the downhill direction, just as they cannot be used for downwind takeoffs. Usually the limiting factor for these strips is the amount of tailwind component when even for the steep uphill landing is too much. heaps of headwind for the downhill into wind take off, but no use if you cant stop on landing. we can pull in excess of 1 and a quarter tons off strips as short as 300 meters. if you have seen air america, they are that sort of strip.. In any case landing into wind and back taxiing for reloading would get you fired the first day in the ag industry, try fitting a hundred take off and landings into one day when you spend half your time taxiing, the object of the reversal system is to eliminate non productive taxiing and flight time. the only time that the aircraft is generating revenue is when the 'money lever' is open, the rest of the flight time (and daylight hours) are wasted.
I have also flown into several highland airstrips in Papua New Guinea where there is absolutely no option bet to land uphill and take off down hill (air america style again) and there are guys up there flying loaded twotters in and out of 400 meter jungle strips day in day out. those guys have my total respect.
My point in the last post was that there are many factors that need consideration for downwind operations, and that these are best learned from a professional under controlled circumstances, i expressly did not encourage experimentation by junior pilots, or inexperienced pilots in this field (such as your self)
Do not let your limited experience encourage you to jump on a soap box so quickly and criticize those who have lived life in the GA industry all their working days.
If you ever consider getting a tailwheel type rating come and see us, you will be the better pilot for it, regardless of what you usually fly. Our students acually find it easier to get insurance when they tell the company where they did their training.
- righteous indignation satisfied -
Cheers,
HD
Moderator
Harley,
I do not doubt that there are many very well planned and purposeful operations downwind, though as even you point out, they are "special" operations, for which some justification may exist. They are probably done in a runway environment, where "other" pilots are not a concern. I do not believe that a Cessna 172 pilot asking a question on how to do something which the flight manual would not recommed, is necessarily best served by a detailed description of advanced AG operations. If the question were being asked by a self described AG pilot, who needed advice as to how to get 3 more loads out in his work day, then perhaps your advice would fit.
You yourself describe the fact that you offer training for taildraggers in challenging conditions. That's great! I'm sure that you actually have the student in the aircraft with you, so you can assess their progress, and limit what they attempt until they are ready. Advice offered into cyberspace, to a person of uncertain intent may have a different outcome.
I am intriuged by the type of operations associated with "Air America" type runways, but as I said, they are not common. If @v8ter is operating a 172 out of such a place, I'm thinking that he/she already has some approriate training for that environment, which certainly would have included tailwind operations. The fact that the question was asked in the first place makes me think not.
I concede that I have zero hours flying AG, it's just one of those aspects of aviation which never crossed my path. I also concede that I have landed downwind out of pure lazyness, and sometimes thought better of it afterward. I would eagerly enjoy more taildragger training, as I like to learn whatever I can. Fortunately a taildragger endorsement in not a requirement on my license. Were it to be so, my extensive trouble free flying on a dozen or so taildragger types over the last 30 years would probably have me close to qualifying for the endorsement. The insurance companies seem happy with me on those aircraft.
There are lots of things I have done, and some things I regularly do in both my tricycle and my taildragger, which I would never describe here, for fear that a reader might attempt it. I do in some cases, demonstrate these to another skilled pilot who wants some advanced training, and I have left a few instructors with surprised smile on their face after taking them for a ride, with some new handling twists, in their 172.
We all have valuable skills in aviation. I suggest that sometimes, NOT sharing with pilots of unknown experience may be one of those skills.
Keep up the safe, and apparently highly productive, flying. I will enjoy adding your flying tidbits into my skill set as is appropriate.
Cheers, Pilot DAR
I do not doubt that there are many very well planned and purposeful operations downwind, though as even you point out, they are "special" operations, for which some justification may exist. They are probably done in a runway environment, where "other" pilots are not a concern. I do not believe that a Cessna 172 pilot asking a question on how to do something which the flight manual would not recommed, is necessarily best served by a detailed description of advanced AG operations. If the question were being asked by a self described AG pilot, who needed advice as to how to get 3 more loads out in his work day, then perhaps your advice would fit.
You yourself describe the fact that you offer training for taildraggers in challenging conditions. That's great! I'm sure that you actually have the student in the aircraft with you, so you can assess their progress, and limit what they attempt until they are ready. Advice offered into cyberspace, to a person of uncertain intent may have a different outcome.
I am intriuged by the type of operations associated with "Air America" type runways, but as I said, they are not common. If @v8ter is operating a 172 out of such a place, I'm thinking that he/she already has some approriate training for that environment, which certainly would have included tailwind operations. The fact that the question was asked in the first place makes me think not.
I concede that I have zero hours flying AG, it's just one of those aspects of aviation which never crossed my path. I also concede that I have landed downwind out of pure lazyness, and sometimes thought better of it afterward. I would eagerly enjoy more taildragger training, as I like to learn whatever I can. Fortunately a taildragger endorsement in not a requirement on my license. Were it to be so, my extensive trouble free flying on a dozen or so taildragger types over the last 30 years would probably have me close to qualifying for the endorsement. The insurance companies seem happy with me on those aircraft.
There are lots of things I have done, and some things I regularly do in both my tricycle and my taildragger, which I would never describe here, for fear that a reader might attempt it. I do in some cases, demonstrate these to another skilled pilot who wants some advanced training, and I have left a few instructors with surprised smile on their face after taking them for a ride, with some new handling twists, in their 172.
We all have valuable skills in aviation. I suggest that sometimes, NOT sharing with pilots of unknown experience may be one of those skills.
Keep up the safe, and apparently highly productive, flying. I will enjoy adding your flying tidbits into my skill set as is appropriate.
Cheers, Pilot DAR
Join Date: May 2006
Location: India
Age: 75
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm with HarleyD on this all the way.
I believe I have the runs on the board to comment, after a long career in GA, and also the airline scene, where downwind landings are more common than pilotDAR seems to think. Even ILS approaches at major airports can guide you to a downwind landing for a variety of reasons.
The first defence in a downwind landing is to know that you are landing downwind. It does require a different "approach" pardon the pun, due to the "reverse effect" of windsheer, as HarleyD mentions, which relatvely few pilots seem to understand. Adding speed for gust factor works into wind, as your groundspeed is reduced anyway, therefore reducing stopping distance, which is what we strive for. In a downwind situation, if windsheer is not present, you can safely fly at your minimum approach speed. If windsheer is present, it will result in an INCREASE in airspeed, which will only add to your "float" distance, the last thing you need, as your groundspeed is already higher. Therefore, an approach at minimum speed is the answer, do not add gust factor.
And if you have GPS, keep one eye on that, on short final, to assess your groundspeed. A go-round option should always be kept open.
Happy landings
I believe I have the runs on the board to comment, after a long career in GA, and also the airline scene, where downwind landings are more common than pilotDAR seems to think. Even ILS approaches at major airports can guide you to a downwind landing for a variety of reasons.
The first defence in a downwind landing is to know that you are landing downwind. It does require a different "approach" pardon the pun, due to the "reverse effect" of windsheer, as HarleyD mentions, which relatvely few pilots seem to understand. Adding speed for gust factor works into wind, as your groundspeed is reduced anyway, therefore reducing stopping distance, which is what we strive for. In a downwind situation, if windsheer is not present, you can safely fly at your minimum approach speed. If windsheer is present, it will result in an INCREASE in airspeed, which will only add to your "float" distance, the last thing you need, as your groundspeed is already higher. Therefore, an approach at minimum speed is the answer, do not add gust factor.
And if you have GPS, keep one eye on that, on short final, to assess your groundspeed. A go-round option should always be kept open.
Happy landings
Moderator
Hey @v8ter,
It would apper that if you're flying AG, or ILS approaches in the airline industry, and the Chief Pilot has told you that it is the desired company procedure, the downwind landing, cautiously undertaken, is probably just what the situation calls for.
If you've been entrusted with a 172, and you're just out enjoying yourself, and practising your piloting skills, downwind landings are best avoided, in all but the most extreme circumstances. Save the aircraft owner the added wear on the tires and brakes, the cost of early rebuild of the oleo and firewall fittings following the shimmy resulting from the higher than normal nosewheel touchdown speed. Save yourself from having to explain to the insurance adjuster why you just shot off the side or end of an otherwise suitable runway while not making the best use of the prevailing conditions. It's just not worth it!
I recently watched a very experienced C172 pilot take off from my 2000' runway, downwind, uphill, and toward 50' trees, with no suitable forced landing area beyond. His alternative would have been to takeoff into the wind, downhill, toward a half mile overrun, with no obsticles, and several good fields to land onto if need be. He did save the time to back track the runway though... He made it okay, but even a hiccup, and he'd have been into the trees, and wrecked a new 172. How do you explain that to the boss? He's a big boy, he can make his own decisions, I'm a big boy, and I make mine. Into the wind all the time if at all possible....
Pilot DAR
It would apper that if you're flying AG, or ILS approaches in the airline industry, and the Chief Pilot has told you that it is the desired company procedure, the downwind landing, cautiously undertaken, is probably just what the situation calls for.
If you've been entrusted with a 172, and you're just out enjoying yourself, and practising your piloting skills, downwind landings are best avoided, in all but the most extreme circumstances. Save the aircraft owner the added wear on the tires and brakes, the cost of early rebuild of the oleo and firewall fittings following the shimmy resulting from the higher than normal nosewheel touchdown speed. Save yourself from having to explain to the insurance adjuster why you just shot off the side or end of an otherwise suitable runway while not making the best use of the prevailing conditions. It's just not worth it!
I recently watched a very experienced C172 pilot take off from my 2000' runway, downwind, uphill, and toward 50' trees, with no suitable forced landing area beyond. His alternative would have been to takeoff into the wind, downhill, toward a half mile overrun, with no obsticles, and several good fields to land onto if need be. He did save the time to back track the runway though... He made it okay, but even a hiccup, and he'd have been into the trees, and wrecked a new 172. How do you explain that to the boss? He's a big boy, he can make his own decisions, I'm a big boy, and I make mine. Into the wind all the time if at all possible....
Pilot DAR
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Aus, or USA, or UK or EU, or possibly somehwere in Asia.
Posts: 320
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pilot DAR
I am not interseted in a 'willie waving' competition, if you think that you know all about this stuff and that I would benefit from a trip in a tail wheeler with you, OK, you win, you must know more about all this stuff than I do,
BUT The one thing that I have NOT done is to offer advice and encouragement for ANY -BLOODY- ONE to go out and give it a go by themselves. The points for consideration that I raised were to illustrate the exact opposite, that if there is a mandate for such operations that it should be learned in a proper environment, with proper qualified, certified, experienced senior flight instructor, perhaps yourself, who is well aware that the performance charts in the AFM (depending upon the certification basis of the aircraft) will usually include factors for downwind component, as well as for uphill gradient. simple reference to these items will surely illustrate the the TODR/LDR as you so rightly indicate to @viater, however I take issue that this is all you need to know, as there is no reference in any way to the effects of reverse wind shear, which you will most definately encounter, in a possibly very uncomfortable way, if you launch in these conditions. The AFM/POH does not cover this aspect of of the descent/climb wind gradient effects, so the encouragement by you for said neophyte to consult the book of numbers and thou shalt endure to an old age is actually more likely to shorten his days of recoicing than a serious sit down briefing and real world demonstration by an expert in these matters.
As a DAR you must be well aware that the AFM/POH these days is an imortant engineering certification compliance document and not really a how to manual for pilots. I have parrticipated heavily in the composition of one for a fully certified part 23 (amdmt 54/55) aircraft and I was constantly frustrated by engineering who insisted upon deleting what I considered, in some cases, to be highly useful information, on the basis that such info was 'superfluous to the intended nature of the document' or 'not specified as being mandated for inclusion' ( for example; specifying Vx).
I had to fight to include guidance and advice that I would consider vital for a pilot faced with critical and/or emergency situations, but which the boffins just insisted should be covered by the sum total advice of 'land immediately' but who then write a multi page supplement on how to turn the radio on, despite all relevant info being available in the vendors operator's manual. The more information that a pilot can absorb specific to a certain aircraft typre's systems and procedures prior to flight the better as far as I am concerned, reference to check list when the waste products impact the ventilation device is well and good (and vital) but an understanding of systems, procedures and principles is invaluable. Much of this stuff is not included in manuals but is learned as 'tribal knowledge' provided the punter lasts that long. Having said that I don't believe that downwind operations procedures should be included in the POH, they are largely generic and are best coverd in a flight school ops manual, however any type specific stuff should be.
As AFM/POH's become ever thicker they are in fact less relevant to the pilot of a part 23 aircraft than they ever have been.
This thread is also on the wrong forum I would suspect as well, despite my best effort of including some FT content cunningly disguised as thread drift.
Back to the real world of the GA driver,,
HD
I am not interseted in a 'willie waving' competition, if you think that you know all about this stuff and that I would benefit from a trip in a tail wheeler with you, OK, you win, you must know more about all this stuff than I do,
BUT The one thing that I have NOT done is to offer advice and encouragement for ANY -BLOODY- ONE to go out and give it a go by themselves. The points for consideration that I raised were to illustrate the exact opposite, that if there is a mandate for such operations that it should be learned in a proper environment, with proper qualified, certified, experienced senior flight instructor, perhaps yourself, who is well aware that the performance charts in the AFM (depending upon the certification basis of the aircraft) will usually include factors for downwind component, as well as for uphill gradient. simple reference to these items will surely illustrate the the TODR/LDR as you so rightly indicate to @viater, however I take issue that this is all you need to know, as there is no reference in any way to the effects of reverse wind shear, which you will most definately encounter, in a possibly very uncomfortable way, if you launch in these conditions. The AFM/POH does not cover this aspect of of the descent/climb wind gradient effects, so the encouragement by you for said neophyte to consult the book of numbers and thou shalt endure to an old age is actually more likely to shorten his days of recoicing than a serious sit down briefing and real world demonstration by an expert in these matters.
As a DAR you must be well aware that the AFM/POH these days is an imortant engineering certification compliance document and not really a how to manual for pilots. I have parrticipated heavily in the composition of one for a fully certified part 23 (amdmt 54/55) aircraft and I was constantly frustrated by engineering who insisted upon deleting what I considered, in some cases, to be highly useful information, on the basis that such info was 'superfluous to the intended nature of the document' or 'not specified as being mandated for inclusion' ( for example; specifying Vx).
I had to fight to include guidance and advice that I would consider vital for a pilot faced with critical and/or emergency situations, but which the boffins just insisted should be covered by the sum total advice of 'land immediately' but who then write a multi page supplement on how to turn the radio on, despite all relevant info being available in the vendors operator's manual. The more information that a pilot can absorb specific to a certain aircraft typre's systems and procedures prior to flight the better as far as I am concerned, reference to check list when the waste products impact the ventilation device is well and good (and vital) but an understanding of systems, procedures and principles is invaluable. Much of this stuff is not included in manuals but is learned as 'tribal knowledge' provided the punter lasts that long. Having said that I don't believe that downwind operations procedures should be included in the POH, they are largely generic and are best coverd in a flight school ops manual, however any type specific stuff should be.
As AFM/POH's become ever thicker they are in fact less relevant to the pilot of a part 23 aircraft than they ever have been.
This thread is also on the wrong forum I would suspect as well, despite my best effort of including some FT content cunningly disguised as thread drift.
Back to the real world of the GA driver,,
HD
Moderator
Harley,
I entirely agree with your observations and comments, in particular, those on flight manuals. I have had numerous discussions with certifying authorities of the inclusion (or not) of information in a flight manual, or supplement. Yes, some seem to take exception to the comments of a test pilot, who just wants to see the important information presented in a way that the next pilot will find most useful, and most easily accessed. I have always had success getting whatever useful information I suggested the pilot should have available, into the unapproved section of the flight manual, thus my sense of purpose was maintained.
There are many types of operations, of which many aircraft are quite safely capable (in trained pilot's hands, of course), which are either not at all mentioned in the flight manual, mentioned as "non approved" or indeed prohibited. Aerobatics and spins come to mind (but they do have associated design standards). Others like downwind landings (as you have so correctly pointed out) are mentioned only enough to let the unwary get themselves into a scary situation. There is no requirement in the design standards to show complaince to downwind landings.
I entirely agree on the value of "tribal knowledge" and that very subject has come up in discussion between myself, and Transport Canada aircraft certification staff on a number of occasions. The challenge is that "part 23" & "CAR 3" aircraft are often not operated in an "operating certificate" environment, where type or operations training is actually required. The aircraft is required by design standards to be able to be safely operated through all of the phases of flight decribed in the standards with only three things: A pilot trained to the minimum for that class of aicraft, average piloting skills and attention, and the flight manual as the only reference. Thus the flight manual not only has be be adequately informative, but complete, in that the pilot is not expected (by the standard) to seek "type training". This is not the case for helicopters, where (in Canada anyway) each type requires endorsement on the pilot's license. Thus, there is a bit more "give" for helicopters requiring more type trained/experienced pilots.
There would be an uproar of monumental proportions of type endorsements were required for the licenses of light aircraft. The flight manual cannot do it alone though, it's only a book. Hands on training is required to assure safety. But how do you require the training. The regulators generally don't, so the only other authority who can mandate anything is the insurance companies. They wisely insist on type training, before they will insure many pilots on many types. In some cases, they just will not insure, until there is evidence of satisfactory demonstration of skills during training. As an example, I offer the Lake Amphibian. Try to get insured on that without training. No amount of float flying time will be accepted in place of training on type, and that's not easy to get.
In Canada, a flying boat (Lake Amphib) and a floatplane (as distinct from flying boat in that it has two floats) are both covered under the one endorsement "sea" on the pilot's license. The wise people who, in the past, trained Lake Amphib pilots, proposed to Transport Canada that the two types have distinct endorsements. The idea had no traction. Lots of floatplane pilots got into Lake Amphibs, and had expensive problems. Insurers laid down the law, and today it stands.
Insurers, however, do not insist on specific training for downwind runway operations. They just refer you back to the flight manual and your training, both of which are documented with words like "land as much into the wind as possible", and then they ask you what the heck you were doing, if you had an accident while doing otherwise. I fear not being covered if I don't have a really good answer to that question, so I'm really cautious about landing into the wind. (also because I pay for my own maintenance). For the few times I have had to land downwind (Maseru, Lesotho comes to mind) because it really was a one way runway, I applied the most of my skill, and did okay. If I had not, I would be having that unhappy talk with the insurance adjuster, but with a good reason in my decision making.
I propose that downwind runway operations are best considered operations at the periphery of normal, which require special training, and a good reason for being undertaken. Is shortening turnarounds a good enough reason? I shall not judge! Lots of pilots are trained for, and undertake operations at teh periphery of normal, and do very well. Should it be discussed and advised to be done on a forum like this? In my opinion, probably not.
Come flying with me any time, I'll teach a little, and learn a lot! (I'd love to try some of those PNG runways!)
Cheers, Pilot DAR
I entirely agree with your observations and comments, in particular, those on flight manuals. I have had numerous discussions with certifying authorities of the inclusion (or not) of information in a flight manual, or supplement. Yes, some seem to take exception to the comments of a test pilot, who just wants to see the important information presented in a way that the next pilot will find most useful, and most easily accessed. I have always had success getting whatever useful information I suggested the pilot should have available, into the unapproved section of the flight manual, thus my sense of purpose was maintained.
There are many types of operations, of which many aircraft are quite safely capable (in trained pilot's hands, of course), which are either not at all mentioned in the flight manual, mentioned as "non approved" or indeed prohibited. Aerobatics and spins come to mind (but they do have associated design standards). Others like downwind landings (as you have so correctly pointed out) are mentioned only enough to let the unwary get themselves into a scary situation. There is no requirement in the design standards to show complaince to downwind landings.
I entirely agree on the value of "tribal knowledge" and that very subject has come up in discussion between myself, and Transport Canada aircraft certification staff on a number of occasions. The challenge is that "part 23" & "CAR 3" aircraft are often not operated in an "operating certificate" environment, where type or operations training is actually required. The aircraft is required by design standards to be able to be safely operated through all of the phases of flight decribed in the standards with only three things: A pilot trained to the minimum for that class of aicraft, average piloting skills and attention, and the flight manual as the only reference. Thus the flight manual not only has be be adequately informative, but complete, in that the pilot is not expected (by the standard) to seek "type training". This is not the case for helicopters, where (in Canada anyway) each type requires endorsement on the pilot's license. Thus, there is a bit more "give" for helicopters requiring more type trained/experienced pilots.
There would be an uproar of monumental proportions of type endorsements were required for the licenses of light aircraft. The flight manual cannot do it alone though, it's only a book. Hands on training is required to assure safety. But how do you require the training. The regulators generally don't, so the only other authority who can mandate anything is the insurance companies. They wisely insist on type training, before they will insure many pilots on many types. In some cases, they just will not insure, until there is evidence of satisfactory demonstration of skills during training. As an example, I offer the Lake Amphibian. Try to get insured on that without training. No amount of float flying time will be accepted in place of training on type, and that's not easy to get.
In Canada, a flying boat (Lake Amphib) and a floatplane (as distinct from flying boat in that it has two floats) are both covered under the one endorsement "sea" on the pilot's license. The wise people who, in the past, trained Lake Amphib pilots, proposed to Transport Canada that the two types have distinct endorsements. The idea had no traction. Lots of floatplane pilots got into Lake Amphibs, and had expensive problems. Insurers laid down the law, and today it stands.
Insurers, however, do not insist on specific training for downwind runway operations. They just refer you back to the flight manual and your training, both of which are documented with words like "land as much into the wind as possible", and then they ask you what the heck you were doing, if you had an accident while doing otherwise. I fear not being covered if I don't have a really good answer to that question, so I'm really cautious about landing into the wind. (also because I pay for my own maintenance). For the few times I have had to land downwind (Maseru, Lesotho comes to mind) because it really was a one way runway, I applied the most of my skill, and did okay. If I had not, I would be having that unhappy talk with the insurance adjuster, but with a good reason in my decision making.
I propose that downwind runway operations are best considered operations at the periphery of normal, which require special training, and a good reason for being undertaken. Is shortening turnarounds a good enough reason? I shall not judge! Lots of pilots are trained for, and undertake operations at teh periphery of normal, and do very well. Should it be discussed and advised to be done on a forum like this? In my opinion, probably not.
Come flying with me any time, I'll teach a little, and learn a lot! (I'd love to try some of those PNG runways!)
Cheers, Pilot DAR
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Aus, or USA, or UK or EU, or possibly somehwere in Asia.
Posts: 320
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pilot DAR,
I knew that we must find common ground eventually, and it seems that the AFM/POH is just such an issue. I agree with your concept of an unapproved section or attachment. I have written a guidance/reference document (not 'manual') for a particular aircraft that I did 90% of the developmental FT on, with ongoing Production FT, ferry and delivery of series aircraft, now exceeding 130 units. This has been in response to what I have learned about the early 'fire and forget' attitude which can be very detrimental for the continuing satisfaction of customers. Any void in the introduction to service briefings and famil flights will be quickly filled with improvised procedures based on knowledge of existing types which is not always, in fact rarely, completely appropriate, thereby establishing bad habits and incorrect tribal knowledge in the short term at least, untill the type experience can be accumulated to refine this knowledge. With this new type and my 70 page 'guidance document' complete with page 2 disclaimers, I now make sure that the company Chief Pilot, or training pilot gets a complete run through the entire 4 sitdown briefings and at least 2 serious sorties before a MTOW aft CofG check ride, so that at least one person in the company has possession of the underlying knowledge and skills that can prevent unneccessary issues arising later. There is a marked difference as to how this training package is received form one operator to another, however the larger fleet operators are very receptive and develop a factory link that they can then carry into the future.
Here in Oz we have a Group Endorsement system where a pilot receives type ratings for a series of similar aircraft types after approved training in one of these types. aircraft design features are separate endorsements, such as constant speed propeller, tailwheel undercarriage, pressurization, retractable gear, and we have separate float plane and floating hull endorsements. At least with this system a pilot can be reveiwed as they progress through the system and they shold not find themselves too far out of their depth with a new type.
At the flying shool where I instruct we are serious about ensuring that pilots ar thoroughly familiar with any new type, quality is far more important than saving a few bucks, and we find that there are students/pilots willing to travel from the metro areas out here to our regional airport in order to get training of this standard. As I stated previously, we also have a very good relationship with the insurance people, who on occasion advise pilots to see us first and talk premiums later, or even make it a condition that they do a check ride or course of familiarization/training. We also do a fair bit of FT for home buliders and then train them onto their new aircraft.
We also have specific endorsements for spinning, aerobatics and formation and additional instructor endorsements to permit the conduct of training for issue of these endorsements. (as well as multi engine, night VFR, and IFR ratings and instructor training). The main problem with any system is that the Federal Regulator sets minimum standards and most flight schools promote minimum cost packages and employ minimum experience flight instructors who are just building hours after obtaining a fresh CPL. The Insurance industry in recent years (more recent than in North America) has become the de-facto regulator and seeks to elevate standards by raising premiums for those with the poorer records, good in theory and actually benefits schools like ours where the product is more important than the price.
Must get back to a compliance document for those extremely tedious robots at EASA who insist that every aspect of part 23 aircraft parachute operations can be exactly defined in a supplement , for example we are required define the specific power settings to be used for descent, approach and landing - even though we have an approved AFM/POH accepted in 40 countries that includes this guidance/advice/checks/supplements and tables galore from which the pilot can actually define the profile the he/she considers most appropriate for a particular procedure or operation. It even has a FM supplement for parachuting operations already and it has been used for parachute operations in several countries for more than 7 years, but this seems to not be sufficient to meet with their crazy one size fits all manufacturers (not operator's) compliance requirements.....Grrrr.... another dozen pages of pointless drivel whilst not being allowed to include the really important stuff. Ho Hum.. life was not meant to be easy a former Prime Minister once said.
HD
I knew that we must find common ground eventually, and it seems that the AFM/POH is just such an issue. I agree with your concept of an unapproved section or attachment. I have written a guidance/reference document (not 'manual') for a particular aircraft that I did 90% of the developmental FT on, with ongoing Production FT, ferry and delivery of series aircraft, now exceeding 130 units. This has been in response to what I have learned about the early 'fire and forget' attitude which can be very detrimental for the continuing satisfaction of customers. Any void in the introduction to service briefings and famil flights will be quickly filled with improvised procedures based on knowledge of existing types which is not always, in fact rarely, completely appropriate, thereby establishing bad habits and incorrect tribal knowledge in the short term at least, untill the type experience can be accumulated to refine this knowledge. With this new type and my 70 page 'guidance document' complete with page 2 disclaimers, I now make sure that the company Chief Pilot, or training pilot gets a complete run through the entire 4 sitdown briefings and at least 2 serious sorties before a MTOW aft CofG check ride, so that at least one person in the company has possession of the underlying knowledge and skills that can prevent unneccessary issues arising later. There is a marked difference as to how this training package is received form one operator to another, however the larger fleet operators are very receptive and develop a factory link that they can then carry into the future.
Here in Oz we have a Group Endorsement system where a pilot receives type ratings for a series of similar aircraft types after approved training in one of these types. aircraft design features are separate endorsements, such as constant speed propeller, tailwheel undercarriage, pressurization, retractable gear, and we have separate float plane and floating hull endorsements. At least with this system a pilot can be reveiwed as they progress through the system and they shold not find themselves too far out of their depth with a new type.
At the flying shool where I instruct we are serious about ensuring that pilots ar thoroughly familiar with any new type, quality is far more important than saving a few bucks, and we find that there are students/pilots willing to travel from the metro areas out here to our regional airport in order to get training of this standard. As I stated previously, we also have a very good relationship with the insurance people, who on occasion advise pilots to see us first and talk premiums later, or even make it a condition that they do a check ride or course of familiarization/training. We also do a fair bit of FT for home buliders and then train them onto their new aircraft.
We also have specific endorsements for spinning, aerobatics and formation and additional instructor endorsements to permit the conduct of training for issue of these endorsements. (as well as multi engine, night VFR, and IFR ratings and instructor training). The main problem with any system is that the Federal Regulator sets minimum standards and most flight schools promote minimum cost packages and employ minimum experience flight instructors who are just building hours after obtaining a fresh CPL. The Insurance industry in recent years (more recent than in North America) has become the de-facto regulator and seeks to elevate standards by raising premiums for those with the poorer records, good in theory and actually benefits schools like ours where the product is more important than the price.
Must get back to a compliance document for those extremely tedious robots at EASA who insist that every aspect of part 23 aircraft parachute operations can be exactly defined in a supplement , for example we are required define the specific power settings to be used for descent, approach and landing - even though we have an approved AFM/POH accepted in 40 countries that includes this guidance/advice/checks/supplements and tables galore from which the pilot can actually define the profile the he/she considers most appropriate for a particular procedure or operation. It even has a FM supplement for parachuting operations already and it has been used for parachute operations in several countries for more than 7 years, but this seems to not be sufficient to meet with their crazy one size fits all manufacturers (not operator's) compliance requirements.....Grrrr.... another dozen pages of pointless drivel whilst not being allowed to include the really important stuff. Ho Hum.. life was not meant to be easy a former Prime Minister once said.
HD
Moderator
Very interesting Harley, I trust that those pilots who are really interested in being proficient, rather than just trained for training's own sake, attend training in your establishment. Good on you.
I am not an instructor. I find, regularly though, that I am sought out to "check out" a pilot on a type new to him. One of the challenges is that many instructors around here are just time building on their way to the airlines, and not really interested in honing their skills in any direction other than big jet. That leaves lots of types of flying very hard to get training in. Examples of this include real world floatplane operations, amphibian, skis, STOL operations, and odd types. One of my mentors is the king of tribal knowledge for our area, and I am very lucky to benefit from his training. He trains out of a sense of duty, not because he wants to (he's not an instructor either). He has been flying for more than 55 years, and when he rides with you the advice is amazing, but you look at his eyes, and you can see that he does not want to be there, he’s just had enough…
A client recently purchased, and had delivered to our base, a Bellanca Viking, which made that aircraft about the 15th in Canada - not a common plane. I had flown one for an hour about 25 years ago, and loved it. There are no instructors around, who had ever been near one. So, I was handed the keys, and the flight manual, and told to check myself out in it, so I could then train the new owner, who had never flown anything like it. (he had no retractable, or constant speed prop flying experience, and very little time in a fast plane)
Though I regularly fly lots of types, this was new and different. I did 14 hours solo, before I agreed to train in it. To assure that the new owner got the most from the training I was to give him. During my flying, I took notes, and compared them to the rather modest flight manual. My notes were more detailed, because I'm used to flying with more modern flight manuals, and know what I expect the unapproved sections to say. It is amazing the practical operational aspects of this still simple aircraft which are just not discussed in the flight manual at all.
My hour long preflight briefing included a discussion of all of these observations, and what had lead me to record them (nothing scary, don't worry). The new owner was delighted. We flew 15 hours over five consecutive days. His learning curve was amazing. It was very reassuring to see him putting into effect what I had written and trained, because he was attuned to the need to do it that way (or not do it the wrong way). More than the flight manual, the operations described in my notes stuck in his mind as tribal knowledge, because he saw first hand how they were originated, and why (just for his benefit). I wonder how much better yet he would have done if he could have flown with a high time Viking pilot, who really did have the tribal knowledge on type! Fortunately my own tribal knowledge of all of the other similar types I've flown, carried over to this type, was adequate.
He took the aircraft home solo 1200 miles, practiced at his local airport, then took it into his own grass runway a few days later, completely happy, and pretty safe, I'm sure. The insurance company was well satisfied.
There are so many well written books on flying, which really do constitute flight manual supplements, written by the pilots who flew them, but they can be hard to find, and are not required reading as they should be. That is where our tribal knowledge is going, into text. The old pilots just don't fly with the new ones as much as they should, and the knowledge does not get passed on. The new pilots think that they're hot, and cannot learn from the old guy down the line, who flies a Piper Cub on Sunday mornings. No so fast... (by the way, one such book is "Cessna, wings for the world", by Thompson, a former Cessna test pilot. It is my bible of Cessna test flying)
Tell the boffins that the FMS is the only REQUIRED reading for an aircraft type, so pack all of the wisdom in there. Paper is cheap, and it gives a bored pilot more to read while waiting for the weather to improve! If the boffins give you a hard time, tell them to bring their loved ones to the airport, you're sending them flying with the new pilot, in their airplane, and the pilot will have only the flight manual for reference before the first flight, is there anything else they would like to add to the flight manual before that flight?
I'm glad to hear that your licensing system has so many sub-divisions, it will improve safety. For those "ace" pilots reading this, who think that they should not have to submit to the additional training, you're wrong. I used to think like you. Now I seek out every opportunity to learn from other pilots, in unusual types and operations. When I first flew a LakeAmphib, I thought I had it all figured out with my many hundreds of hours of float flying in the real world of the "bush". I was so wrong, and by my third dual circuit, I realized it. I then took all of the training I could get, and with more than 100 water landings on type, was set free. I fly it like it's going to bite me, and so far so good. (by the way, this is not a knock of the plane, it flies wonderfully. During one Transport Canada flight test I conducted, I was required to spin it many times, and it was a delight!)
But I ramble on, and am guilty of thread drift...
Forums like this provide a wonderful opportunity to circulate wisdom and experience. I suppose that in an age where tribal knowledge is waning by attrition of "oldtimers" the forum offers a means by which experience, at least in it's written form, can be widely circulated. Hey new guys, it's free! Take it!
By the way, Transport Canada does not permit me to approve modifications for parachuting operations. Aircraft design changes can be approved, but operations are not. So I test and approve it, but as a “utility” mod, parachuting is not mentioned anywhere! (funny, what other reason is there to exit a fixed wing aircraft in flight? And, that is the only reason one is allowed to exit a fixed wing aircraft in flight in Canada!) That is a stickler with me, because while I can approve a jump door on a C185, I cannot describe any of the safety aspects of throwing out jumpers, which I learned the hard and often scary way over a few hundred jump flights in the 185. (Ask them to tell you before they decide to trail four people off the right strut, then let go simultaneously!) TC thinks that by allowing a reference to jump operations in a flight manual, there is now an approval of that type of operation, which they know is well beyond the scope of aircraft modification approval itself. Fortunately, there is now a local school who gives a three hour (flight time) + ground school jump pilot course. It's not a requirement, but it's a start! Nothing is perfect!
By the way, PM coming to you….
Cheers, Pilot DAR
I am not an instructor. I find, regularly though, that I am sought out to "check out" a pilot on a type new to him. One of the challenges is that many instructors around here are just time building on their way to the airlines, and not really interested in honing their skills in any direction other than big jet. That leaves lots of types of flying very hard to get training in. Examples of this include real world floatplane operations, amphibian, skis, STOL operations, and odd types. One of my mentors is the king of tribal knowledge for our area, and I am very lucky to benefit from his training. He trains out of a sense of duty, not because he wants to (he's not an instructor either). He has been flying for more than 55 years, and when he rides with you the advice is amazing, but you look at his eyes, and you can see that he does not want to be there, he’s just had enough…
A client recently purchased, and had delivered to our base, a Bellanca Viking, which made that aircraft about the 15th in Canada - not a common plane. I had flown one for an hour about 25 years ago, and loved it. There are no instructors around, who had ever been near one. So, I was handed the keys, and the flight manual, and told to check myself out in it, so I could then train the new owner, who had never flown anything like it. (he had no retractable, or constant speed prop flying experience, and very little time in a fast plane)
Though I regularly fly lots of types, this was new and different. I did 14 hours solo, before I agreed to train in it. To assure that the new owner got the most from the training I was to give him. During my flying, I took notes, and compared them to the rather modest flight manual. My notes were more detailed, because I'm used to flying with more modern flight manuals, and know what I expect the unapproved sections to say. It is amazing the practical operational aspects of this still simple aircraft which are just not discussed in the flight manual at all.
My hour long preflight briefing included a discussion of all of these observations, and what had lead me to record them (nothing scary, don't worry). The new owner was delighted. We flew 15 hours over five consecutive days. His learning curve was amazing. It was very reassuring to see him putting into effect what I had written and trained, because he was attuned to the need to do it that way (or not do it the wrong way). More than the flight manual, the operations described in my notes stuck in his mind as tribal knowledge, because he saw first hand how they were originated, and why (just for his benefit). I wonder how much better yet he would have done if he could have flown with a high time Viking pilot, who really did have the tribal knowledge on type! Fortunately my own tribal knowledge of all of the other similar types I've flown, carried over to this type, was adequate.
He took the aircraft home solo 1200 miles, practiced at his local airport, then took it into his own grass runway a few days later, completely happy, and pretty safe, I'm sure. The insurance company was well satisfied.
There are so many well written books on flying, which really do constitute flight manual supplements, written by the pilots who flew them, but they can be hard to find, and are not required reading as they should be. That is where our tribal knowledge is going, into text. The old pilots just don't fly with the new ones as much as they should, and the knowledge does not get passed on. The new pilots think that they're hot, and cannot learn from the old guy down the line, who flies a Piper Cub on Sunday mornings. No so fast... (by the way, one such book is "Cessna, wings for the world", by Thompson, a former Cessna test pilot. It is my bible of Cessna test flying)
Tell the boffins that the FMS is the only REQUIRED reading for an aircraft type, so pack all of the wisdom in there. Paper is cheap, and it gives a bored pilot more to read while waiting for the weather to improve! If the boffins give you a hard time, tell them to bring their loved ones to the airport, you're sending them flying with the new pilot, in their airplane, and the pilot will have only the flight manual for reference before the first flight, is there anything else they would like to add to the flight manual before that flight?
I'm glad to hear that your licensing system has so many sub-divisions, it will improve safety. For those "ace" pilots reading this, who think that they should not have to submit to the additional training, you're wrong. I used to think like you. Now I seek out every opportunity to learn from other pilots, in unusual types and operations. When I first flew a LakeAmphib, I thought I had it all figured out with my many hundreds of hours of float flying in the real world of the "bush". I was so wrong, and by my third dual circuit, I realized it. I then took all of the training I could get, and with more than 100 water landings on type, was set free. I fly it like it's going to bite me, and so far so good. (by the way, this is not a knock of the plane, it flies wonderfully. During one Transport Canada flight test I conducted, I was required to spin it many times, and it was a delight!)
But I ramble on, and am guilty of thread drift...
Forums like this provide a wonderful opportunity to circulate wisdom and experience. I suppose that in an age where tribal knowledge is waning by attrition of "oldtimers" the forum offers a means by which experience, at least in it's written form, can be widely circulated. Hey new guys, it's free! Take it!
By the way, Transport Canada does not permit me to approve modifications for parachuting operations. Aircraft design changes can be approved, but operations are not. So I test and approve it, but as a “utility” mod, parachuting is not mentioned anywhere! (funny, what other reason is there to exit a fixed wing aircraft in flight? And, that is the only reason one is allowed to exit a fixed wing aircraft in flight in Canada!) That is a stickler with me, because while I can approve a jump door on a C185, I cannot describe any of the safety aspects of throwing out jumpers, which I learned the hard and often scary way over a few hundred jump flights in the 185. (Ask them to tell you before they decide to trail four people off the right strut, then let go simultaneously!) TC thinks that by allowing a reference to jump operations in a flight manual, there is now an approval of that type of operation, which they know is well beyond the scope of aircraft modification approval itself. Fortunately, there is now a local school who gives a three hour (flight time) + ground school jump pilot course. It's not a requirement, but it's a start! Nothing is perfect!
By the way, PM coming to you….
Cheers, Pilot DAR