Big aeroplane to little aeroplane
Moderator
Thread Starter
Big aeroplane to little aeroplane
Just something I've had reason to think about just lately, and I'd be interested in anybody else's opinions?
Take a pilot who has been flying big jets for some years (which I suppose could in reality mean anything from a Citationjet to a B747 in this context). Let's assume that they're perfectly competent in that role.
Now they decide that they want to revisit their flying youth, regain an SEP (or local equivalent) rating and fly small aircraft for fun again. Why the heck not. So they have to go and spend some quality time in a little aeroplane with an instructor and then pass an appropriate skill test.
What have people found are the instructing issues? Here are a couple of mine, but I'm guessing that there are people here with a lot more experience than me in this, and I'd appreciate their thoughts...
- Difficulty identifying the roundout and flare heights
- Tendency to use checklists rather than memory items airborne, particularly in the circuit where they should have their head out of the window.
- Rustiness in the basic principles of VFR/VMC DR-nav.
- Just haven't flow a PFL in decades !
- Cockpit management can be a bit scrappy with the return to paper charts, PLOG on kneeboard, and so-on, plus typically a lot less elbow room.
On the other hand, I've mostly found that ability to understand the aeroplane, lookout, and basic handling skill haven't really required much effort on either the instructor's or student's part to get right. Also your modern airline pilot tends to have really excellent communications, decision making and general CRM skills - as you'd hope of course.
Thoughts anybody?
G
Take a pilot who has been flying big jets for some years (which I suppose could in reality mean anything from a Citationjet to a B747 in this context). Let's assume that they're perfectly competent in that role.
Now they decide that they want to revisit their flying youth, regain an SEP (or local equivalent) rating and fly small aircraft for fun again. Why the heck not. So they have to go and spend some quality time in a little aeroplane with an instructor and then pass an appropriate skill test.
What have people found are the instructing issues? Here are a couple of mine, but I'm guessing that there are people here with a lot more experience than me in this, and I'd appreciate their thoughts...
- Difficulty identifying the roundout and flare heights
- Tendency to use checklists rather than memory items airborne, particularly in the circuit where they should have their head out of the window.
- Rustiness in the basic principles of VFR/VMC DR-nav.
- Just haven't flow a PFL in decades !
- Cockpit management can be a bit scrappy with the return to paper charts, PLOG on kneeboard, and so-on, plus typically a lot less elbow room.
On the other hand, I've mostly found that ability to understand the aeroplane, lookout, and basic handling skill haven't really required much effort on either the instructor's or student's part to get right. Also your modern airline pilot tends to have really excellent communications, decision making and general CRM skills - as you'd hope of course.
Thoughts anybody?
G
>Thoughts anybody?<
The only issue I consistently find is lack of lookout, or more specifically the lack of an LAI workcycle. A high proportion are also surprisingly poor at raw instrument flying initially but that soon comes back. Judging roundout and holdoff heights can be a problem -- converting a B747 captain on to a Grob 109B recently was entertaining for both of us -- and many seem to have forgotten the first principles of visual navigation. But airmanship and CRM are almost always exemplary in my experience.
The only issue I consistently find is lack of lookout, or more specifically the lack of an LAI workcycle. A high proportion are also surprisingly poor at raw instrument flying initially but that soon comes back. Judging roundout and holdoff heights can be a problem -- converting a B747 captain on to a Grob 109B recently was entertaining for both of us -- and many seem to have forgotten the first principles of visual navigation. But airmanship and CRM are almost always exemplary in my experience.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Wherever I go, there I am
Age: 43
Posts: 804
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is a very interesting thread, as teaching at the airline level I've noticed that new hires from an instructing background often have the inverse issues when upgrading - flare too low, tendency to use memory items over checklists, rustiness in IFR, have yet to fly two-crew (teaching is not two-crew), and not sure on how to manage the cockpit - tendency to overbalance the aircraft with rudder to the detriment of passenger comfort 150 feet further back would be another one.
The reason I bring this up is because anyone, adults specifically, will default to what they know when put in an unfamiliar situation. Regardless of their past experience, transitioning from a Boeing or Airbus to a small Cessna or Piper is unfamiliar, just as it is to move up in size.
What I was taught as a junior instructor, and what I passed on to assit an experienced airline "student" was to sit at the end of the runway before take-off and remind the airline pilot of where the runway sits in relation to the cockpit. This needs to be a minute or so, not twenty seconds. Don't make the first approach to a landing either. Have them take it into ground effect to see the proper flare height, then go around for a landing. You'll find the airline pilot is typically very adaptive and will appreciate being reminded of these "generalizations" before flight, rather than during. The instructor suddenly becomes a professional rather than just "some 250 hour pilot." I've been both of these.
I would suggest that it is passenger comfort in a 200 foot cabin where a small rudder input upfront bashes heads at the back that makes for lazy feet. A Yaw Damper does not permit "feet off" flying, it just dampens the inputs. It's just that a small amount of uncoordinated flight may generate a better ride for the passengers than attempting to bring it into coordinated flight with a rudder near the length of a bus.
The reason I bring this up is because anyone, adults specifically, will default to what they know when put in an unfamiliar situation. Regardless of their past experience, transitioning from a Boeing or Airbus to a small Cessna or Piper is unfamiliar, just as it is to move up in size.
What I was taught as a junior instructor, and what I passed on to assit an experienced airline "student" was to sit at the end of the runway before take-off and remind the airline pilot of where the runway sits in relation to the cockpit. This needs to be a minute or so, not twenty seconds. Don't make the first approach to a landing either. Have them take it into ground effect to see the proper flare height, then go around for a landing. You'll find the airline pilot is typically very adaptive and will appreciate being reminded of these "generalizations" before flight, rather than during. The instructor suddenly becomes a professional rather than just "some 250 hour pilot." I've been both of these.
The only addition was usually the lack of being able to fly the aircraft in balance with co-ordinated controls. Yaw damper makes for very lazy feet!
What I was taught as a junior instructor, and what I passed on to assit an experienced airline "student" was to sit at the end of the runway before take-off and remind the airline pilot of where the runway sits in relation to the cockpit. This needs to be a minute or so, not twenty seconds. Don't make the first approach to a landing either. Have them take it into ground effect to see the proper flare height, then go around for a landing. You'll find the airline pilot is typically very adaptive and will appreciate being reminded of these "generalizations" before flight, rather than during.
I used to find that flare height was the biggest issue, sorted as was suggested above by a long look at the relationship of the aircraft and the view from the ground with the aircraft in the landing attitude if possible; the other was a fixation on the instruments, but a chart draped over those took that out of the equation. A great number of the crew I fly and have flown with over the last 28 years in the airlines have no interest in GA flying, which saddens me, as the potential to accumulate hands on stick and rudder time or even the wish to do so diminishes with every year.
I regularly fly a Cub as well as the airliner and will continue to do so because it is fun.
I regularly fly a Cub as well as the airliner and will continue to do so because it is fun.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Wor Yerm
Age: 68
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You wouldn't believe how many hours it can take getting people from little aircraft into big ones. The biggest problems are attitude, lazy feet, under-controlling, dreadful overconfidence and a complete reluctance to participate in a multi-crew environment. So it goes both ways. Therefore, could it be the method and techniques employed by instructors, on both sides, that are at fault?
PM
PM
Moderator
Thread Starter
Or just that the two need flying differently, and the biggest fault any instructor may be displaying is simply not taking the trouble to adequately understand the "student's" starting point?
G
G
I'm not sure the OP was couching the issue in terms of who's "at fault" and my own response certainly didn't start with such a belief; it was intended as a constructive input to the discussion. It's been very useful hearing observations from both sides and I've learned something about how to improve my own instructional technique from reading this thread. Isn't that part of why we're all here?
I had a retired 747 captain who wanted to upgrade his PPLH (with 700 hrs helo) to a CPLH. All went reasonably well until we got to the nav phase.
He could not hand-fly the chopper, visually navigate, and talk to ATC at the same time, or even within the same minute. When he saw the problems, he sold his helicopter and went back to big jets on a contract basis - and subsequently did the first-ever inadvertent 747 nose-wheel-up landing in Sydney.
He could not hand-fly the chopper, visually navigate, and talk to ATC at the same time, or even within the same minute. When he saw the problems, he sold his helicopter and went back to big jets on a contract basis - and subsequently did the first-ever inadvertent 747 nose-wheel-up landing in Sydney.
Genghis
I think you covered pretty much all the points I'd have come up with. Just one more springs to my mind and that's commercial guys and gals may be reluctant to land "on the numbers" since to do that in their day job might lead to a tea and biccies interview! Safe flying.
ACW599
Sadly no more LAI not least in the Vig.
regards
BBK
I think you covered pretty much all the points I'd have come up with. Just one more springs to my mind and that's commercial guys and gals may be reluctant to land "on the numbers" since to do that in their day job might lead to a tea and biccies interview! Safe flying.
ACW599
Sadly no more LAI not least in the Vig.
regards
BBK
Hmm. No more Vigilant, let alone LAI. I sometimes wonder what on earth they were smoking at Cranwell and Syerston. 
But the same techniques seem to work quite well in SEP-land. My students nowadays get LAI dinned into them just as air cadets did...
But the same techniques seem to work quite well in SEP-land. My students nowadays get LAI dinned into them just as air cadets did...
LAI , still there even for returning SEP peeps .
Returning SEP mate 4 years after retirement and 40+ years from PA28s . 2 trips then LPC : vg lookout , rudder came back quickly . PIOs/ over controlling afto self sorted . Final approachs, were quickly sorted wth exhortations to release '' death grip '' , and guide 'er , not heave !
rgds condor .
Returning SEP mate 4 years after retirement and 40+ years from PA28s . 2 trips then LPC : vg lookout , rudder came back quickly . PIOs/ over controlling afto self sorted . Final approachs, were quickly sorted wth exhortations to release '' death grip '' , and guide 'er , not heave !
rgds condor .
Have checked out a lot of retiring airline pilots on little aeroplanes over the years. I found it a little easier as I had “retired' from the airlines as well.
All the above comments are valid particularly those from +TSRA.
However, I found that the main factor to work on was visual Nav.
Having spent many years using Jepperson/ Aerad Airways charts and indeed magenta-lined screens at high FLs, it’s a bit of a culture shock to have to start searching the earth’s surface for pinpoints from 1500 to 5000 feet.
A subtle rebrief on the relative importance of various ground features, especially in poor vis., seems to pay off. This can be assisted by allowing a little bit of beacon crawling at the lower altitudes to draw attention to the fact that there are many hidden gotchas when flying straight lines at low level. This applies to high masts, high ground, Rule 5 over built-up areas and, certainly in the southern counties, masses of Controlled Airspace with diverse privileges.
It doesn’t take long to get the message across though but it can obviously be a valuable lesson and takes the uncertainty out of the equation later on when they are getting more adventurous with their shiny new rating.
The fact that such characters WANT to fly little aeroplanes again, following a good career, takes much of the difficulty out of getting the problems of the private pilot across. Many comment that it can indeed be a jungle down here !
All the above comments are valid particularly those from +TSRA.
However, I found that the main factor to work on was visual Nav.
Having spent many years using Jepperson/ Aerad Airways charts and indeed magenta-lined screens at high FLs, it’s a bit of a culture shock to have to start searching the earth’s surface for pinpoints from 1500 to 5000 feet.
A subtle rebrief on the relative importance of various ground features, especially in poor vis., seems to pay off. This can be assisted by allowing a little bit of beacon crawling at the lower altitudes to draw attention to the fact that there are many hidden gotchas when flying straight lines at low level. This applies to high masts, high ground, Rule 5 over built-up areas and, certainly in the southern counties, masses of Controlled Airspace with diverse privileges.
It doesn’t take long to get the message across though but it can obviously be a valuable lesson and takes the uncertainty out of the equation later on when they are getting more adventurous with their shiny new rating.
The fact that such characters WANT to fly little aeroplanes again, following a good career, takes much of the difficulty out of getting the problems of the private pilot across. Many comment that it can indeed be a jungle down here !
Last edited by Sleeve Wing; 17th Jul 2017 at 20:52. Reason: Clarity
and subsequently did the first-ever inadvertent 747 nose-wheel-up landing in Sydney.
or on any large airplane for that matter.
I went on from flying business jets to light aircraft for a living (which is best thing I ever did!) and it took me a while to get used to the Vapp/Vref some 40-50 knots slower. When I re-validate my MEP/IR SP, the examiner insisted I fly the entire instrument approach at just a few knots over Vref! I have gone back to flying the approach at about 130knots and just slowing down to Vref about a mile out.
Couple of years ago, I interspersed some light aircraft flying with my day job in the 747. Basic flying skills were ok but landing a light aircraft was terrifying after years of flaring the 747 at between 30 and 50 ft. It felt like we were going to bury the aircraft. I didn't do any visual nav but I expect it would be pretty ropey too.