The rubbish taught by flying instructors.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: oz
Posts: 127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Horses for courses, as someone pointed out. Our company use checklists, tailored for the aircraft and conditions we fly in. Never had any problem in making it a little different to the manufacturers one, in fact we were encouraged to do so, simplifying and making it more relevant. True story. Check flight with CASA for C.P approval. "You going to use a checklist?"was the question. "Well yeah, this one was the reply" What?"That *uckin great big book?"
Well yeah......
"Here, I'll give you one we used to use, based on your manufacturers one. You modify it according to your needs., and give me a look at what you come up with."
Äh ok then."
3 years later, 3 audits, not one NCN.
Sometimes the government is there to help you know, and checklists used the right way are a lifesaver.
Well yeah......
"Here, I'll give you one we used to use, based on your manufacturers one. You modify it according to your needs., and give me a look at what you come up with."
Äh ok then."
3 years later, 3 audits, not one NCN.
Sometimes the government is there to help you know, and checklists used the right way are a lifesaver.
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Usually Australia
Posts: 117
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Firstly in an engine failure situation attitude is all that is available to recover speed. And that may be to achieve best glide speed in a single or safety speed in a twin.
Secondly short-field landing technique can be fraught with difficulty at the bottom of the approach particularly with turbulence and the like. This may be exacerbated if one chooses to approach at 1.1 Vs rather than the published 1.3 Vs (as a lot of bush C180/185 el.al. pilots will). With speed trimmed, dropping below the flight path (high ROD) may be safely recovered with power – and sometimes lots of it. Raising the nose is instant disaster for a stall at low level!
The reverse technique is applied to aircraft with low drag characteristics and for good reason. In a fan jet any increase in attitude to reduce speed will take a long time to ‘kick-in’. On an ILS that means an overshoot. Better to reduce power and fly the ILS with attitude and adjust speed with thrust.
Over the years I processed that information and came to the conclusion that if you are approaching above VminD speed (read powered approach down a three degree glide-path) then use power to control airspeed. If on the other hand you approach below VminD speed then use elevators (attitude) to control airspeed.
To qualify my comments on the C180/185 as I recall Vs was about 36knots. Therefore approach speed would be in the range of 40 – 52 knots. Glide speed is about 65 - 70 knots as I recall therefore you are certainly on the backside of the drag curve and your technique just won’t cut it.
Many of the other issues you raise are the result of poor airmanship. Now I don’t know if that is a flying school issue or a general decline in piloting skills when folk move from the supervised environment. I would suggest the latter. It is apparent where groups of pilots operate from remote bases and not unusual to see a total disregard of airmanship issues. In the old days a good chief pilot would set the example and kick butt if it wasn’t up to SOP’s. Chief pilots these days seem to be younger than their pilots and 'wimp-out' on the discipline.
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Usually Australia
Posts: 117
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Getting back to the chieftains. One organisation's ops amnual had only one power setting listed, and required pilots to run the engines 100 rich of peak when cruising. They burned lots more fuel than necessary. One senior pilot went to USA and did the flight safety course for chieftains, and they queried him as to why those setting were used. They were different from the settings recomended. So he set up a meeting with Lycoming engineers, and they told him the same.
The fuel mixture leaning practice adopted by the operators during cruise flight was based on EGT settings ranging between 50 degrees (F) rich of peak and 50 degrees lean of peak EGT. While this practice is in accordance with the PA31-350 pilot operating handbook, early results suggest that operations in that EGT range, in combination with other possible factors, may have contributed to induced engine damage due to detonation.
This is in contrast to other operators who have not experienced similar problems, and use a more conservative leaning procedure by setting EGT at around 100 degrees rich of peak.
This is in contrast to other operators who have not experienced similar problems, and use a more conservative leaning procedure by setting EGT at around 100 degrees rich of peak.
More recently where US operators are extending their engines to ‘on-condition’ the preference seems to be to run at Long Range Cruise. Fuel costs may also have impact on that decision as well.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: with the porangi,s in Pohara
Age: 66
Posts: 983
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
remoak...thanks mate...glad you pointed that out..it comes in handy once in a while
mile high.....get used to it mate and dont blow a gasket.....thats why we get sim time every 6 mnths,groundschool and a ****e load of reading material......we pilots are idiots,but look at it this way....we privide job security for many.....
ie lames,sim builders,instuctors,feds CAA,FAA...etc etc the list is long....
It works like this...you spend your life thinking your an ace,most know your not...you practice..cock up..practice cock up...then when youve finally mastered all this stuff....your 65 and you have to retire...BUGGER.
.....roll with rhe punches mate,mess with the bull...you have to take the horns as well... PB
mile high.....get used to it mate and dont blow a gasket.....thats why we get sim time every 6 mnths,groundschool and a ****e load of reading material......we pilots are idiots,but look at it this way....we privide job security for many.....
ie lames,sim builders,instuctors,feds CAA,FAA...etc etc the list is long....
It works like this...you spend your life thinking your an ace,most know your not...you practice..cock up..practice cock up...then when youve finally mastered all this stuff....your 65 and you have to retire...BUGGER.
.....roll with rhe punches mate,mess with the bull...you have to take the horns as well... PB
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: back of the crew bus
Posts: 1,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NO worries PB. Doesn't it scare you though, when someone who is apparently a Chief Pilot of some sort doesn't understand how to fly an approach? Makes you feel a little sorry for his pilots. Mind you, they can probably spell!
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Usually Australia
Posts: 117
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Need to know
Bushy,
Don’t know about Piper, Lycoming, FAA and CASA but ATSB must have some evidence – probably determined from an engine that was beyond the pro-rata warranty period offered by Lycoming. You are talking about four entities each having different outputs to measure. You left out the operator and it is his/her output that is important to you and me. Any measure of an operator’s outputs should include evidence or information provided by those other entities, but that’s a whole new thread.
My own instructor was flying RAAF Lancasters over Europe at nineteen and gravitated into the industry in Australia after the war … as a lot did. Those guys were still around in the sixties and seventies and had some pretty shrewd ideas on leaning the mixture. The detonation qualities of fuel in the sixties may have been an issue but as I recall we were taught to lean the mixture conservatively and call the US gallon fuel flow (POH) Imperial gallons for flight planning. Rich side of peak is conservative.
Lycoming probably lean out using some pretty sophisticated equipment, something like Chimbu Chuckles alludes to in his discourse above. Lycoming probably don’t offer much in the way of a ‘return policy’ after twelve months or a few hundred hours of operation – they would be more interested in the number of units exiting their plant. The Avco Lycoming Operator’s Manual contains much graphical information but the aeroplane manufacturer provides a very basic means of achieving the results.
An operator considering inputs against outputs would evaluate the cost of fuel against engine wear and TBO’s. If the fuel saving is valid then installation of temperature monitoring equipment may be costed against that saving. Fuel consumption at Economy Cruise (65% rated) is about 88% of the consumption at Performance Cruise (75% Rated). The latter may give you more miles in a given time but more engine wear due to the higher RPM. The former would result in higher internal temperatures as the engine would be running on the lean side of peak with less unburned fuel to cool exhaust valves and pistons. This could reduce engine life, require premature top overhauls or cause failure unless properly managed. Then there is the risk management issues that could bring down the company if disaster strikes.
Since the ‘old’ expertise has left the instructor industry much of the philosophy associated with piston operation has floundered. With turbines so close to the career path of the young folk I doubt if too many instructors or pilots these days would bother to fully explore the intricacies of pistons and their operation. Just another impediment (and useless information) in the career path to a burner.
Don’t know about Piper, Lycoming, FAA and CASA but ATSB must have some evidence – probably determined from an engine that was beyond the pro-rata warranty period offered by Lycoming. You are talking about four entities each having different outputs to measure. You left out the operator and it is his/her output that is important to you and me. Any measure of an operator’s outputs should include evidence or information provided by those other entities, but that’s a whole new thread.
My own instructor was flying RAAF Lancasters over Europe at nineteen and gravitated into the industry in Australia after the war … as a lot did. Those guys were still around in the sixties and seventies and had some pretty shrewd ideas on leaning the mixture. The detonation qualities of fuel in the sixties may have been an issue but as I recall we were taught to lean the mixture conservatively and call the US gallon fuel flow (POH) Imperial gallons for flight planning. Rich side of peak is conservative.
Lycoming probably lean out using some pretty sophisticated equipment, something like Chimbu Chuckles alludes to in his discourse above. Lycoming probably don’t offer much in the way of a ‘return policy’ after twelve months or a few hundred hours of operation – they would be more interested in the number of units exiting their plant. The Avco Lycoming Operator’s Manual contains much graphical information but the aeroplane manufacturer provides a very basic means of achieving the results.
An operator considering inputs against outputs would evaluate the cost of fuel against engine wear and TBO’s. If the fuel saving is valid then installation of temperature monitoring equipment may be costed against that saving. Fuel consumption at Economy Cruise (65% rated) is about 88% of the consumption at Performance Cruise (75% Rated). The latter may give you more miles in a given time but more engine wear due to the higher RPM. The former would result in higher internal temperatures as the engine would be running on the lean side of peak with less unburned fuel to cool exhaust valves and pistons. This could reduce engine life, require premature top overhauls or cause failure unless properly managed. Then there is the risk management issues that could bring down the company if disaster strikes.
Since the ‘old’ expertise has left the instructor industry much of the philosophy associated with piston operation has floundered. With turbines so close to the career path of the young folk I doubt if too many instructors or pilots these days would bother to fully explore the intricacies of pistons and their operation. Just another impediment (and useless information) in the career path to a burner.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: australia
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hey guys,
some interesting points there regarding attitude for airspeed etc.. Some of it is quite valid and certainly noone has delivered any such explaination to me. I see some worth reasons there.
On that note, I was a QF cadet, before they started churning em out. I decided the airlines wasnt for me but I still speak regularly to many QF pilots. I discussed this matter with a few of them.
QF syllabus when I was learning was attitude for aimpoint and throttle for airspeed. QF pilots currently flying 737's say they are still taught that method for current day operations.
Dont get me wrong.. All the flying training has to get done and money and circumstance will always drive people. Therefore its inevitabel that we will get this trend for many years to come. Im certainly not blowing a gasket but there is one very inherent problem:
Flying schools teacha student to a CPL, then an instructor rating. Instantly they offer jobs as instructors to the students, whom take the job as its an easy way to get hours. We are now in a situation where someone with literally NO commercial experience, is trying to teach someone how to fly commercially. As a result, the quality of pilots has degraded significantly.
Personally, I love to spend the time to train my pilots. I fly many hours with them and offer a 24 hour support deal, they can ask anything they like and I never get mad. I was a greenback once too. I didnt get help, and it caused me greif for a long time, I wont make that mistake.
I am not here to offend instructors or greenbacks. I am merely raising a point which I thyink needs attention. Put simply, I think our instructors should require some degree of commercial experience, how on earth can they teach commercial pilots how to fly if they themselves have not yet been one.
some interesting points there regarding attitude for airspeed etc.. Some of it is quite valid and certainly noone has delivered any such explaination to me. I see some worth reasons there.
On that note, I was a QF cadet, before they started churning em out. I decided the airlines wasnt for me but I still speak regularly to many QF pilots. I discussed this matter with a few of them.
QF syllabus when I was learning was attitude for aimpoint and throttle for airspeed. QF pilots currently flying 737's say they are still taught that method for current day operations.
Dont get me wrong.. All the flying training has to get done and money and circumstance will always drive people. Therefore its inevitabel that we will get this trend for many years to come. Im certainly not blowing a gasket but there is one very inherent problem:
Flying schools teacha student to a CPL, then an instructor rating. Instantly they offer jobs as instructors to the students, whom take the job as its an easy way to get hours. We are now in a situation where someone with literally NO commercial experience, is trying to teach someone how to fly commercially. As a result, the quality of pilots has degraded significantly.
Personally, I love to spend the time to train my pilots. I fly many hours with them and offer a 24 hour support deal, they can ask anything they like and I never get mad. I was a greenback once too. I didnt get help, and it caused me greif for a long time, I wont make that mistake.
I am not here to offend instructors or greenbacks. I am merely raising a point which I thyink needs attention. Put simply, I think our instructors should require some degree of commercial experience, how on earth can they teach commercial pilots how to fly if they themselves have not yet been one.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: On the equator
Posts: 1,291
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flying schools teacha student to a CPL, then an instructor rating. Instantly they offer jobs as instructors to the students, whom take the job as its an easy way to get hours. We are now in a situation where someone with literally NO commercial experience, is trying to teach someone how to fly commercially. As a result, the quality of pilots has degraded significantly.
The wrong people are becoming instructors. People like Centaurus are excellent instructors and should be encouraged to continue along the lines of the US CFI system. If this system was here we would not lose the few really qualified instructors. These people do not need an AOC to continue teaching a student to a very sound standard. The system is getting skewed to favour the big schools.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: with the porangi,s in Pohara
Age: 66
Posts: 983
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
training wheels...
ditto on the post,.....there are not many variations at all,and for those that have seen other shores....it,s all the same...and the underlying factor...........$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$....JAL,(who Ive worked for)Lufthansa,and others run their own programmes that are very structured,nothing close to the FBO programmes,as $$$$$$ are not the issue,washout rates are minimal but these programmes are "ROTE" in nature...
The thing that amuses me about Milehighs comments(no malice,not personal so dont come unglued) are that these problems are prevalent in the regionals and the Major Airlines......I believe I have been guilty of everything he has said and a couple of others......unless you maintain constant currency,most will agree things get a little hazy after 2-3 weeks off on holiday,family issues,wife swapping,my mates the ABS, BEATING EVERYONE IN RUGBY
,...my point....this is a constant learning curve for all concernred....
Those that teach,those that fly,those that administer...you get the picture...
The basics are pretty much in concrete,but our ability to cock those up is done on a regular basis.....and that me mates goes from PPL to ATPL ....PB
ditto on the post,.....there are not many variations at all,and for those that have seen other shores....it,s all the same...and the underlying factor...........$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$....JAL,(who Ive worked for)Lufthansa,and others run their own programmes that are very structured,nothing close to the FBO programmes,as $$$$$$ are not the issue,washout rates are minimal but these programmes are "ROTE" in nature...
The thing that amuses me about Milehighs comments(no malice,not personal so dont come unglued) are that these problems are prevalent in the regionals and the Major Airlines......I believe I have been guilty of everything he has said and a couple of others......unless you maintain constant currency,most will agree things get a little hazy after 2-3 weeks off on holiday,family issues,wife swapping,my mates the ABS, BEATING EVERYONE IN RUGBY
,...my point....this is a constant learning curve for all concernred....Those that teach,those that fly,those that administer...you get the picture...
The basics are pretty much in concrete,but our ability to cock those up is done on a regular basis.....and that me mates goes from PPL to ATPL ....PB
Thread Starter
Bushy.
There was a privately owned Winjeel at Point Cook that was purchased from RAAF Disposals some years back. The RAAF used them for elementary flying training with the average time to first solo of nine hours - about the same as needed on RAAF Tiger Moth training. The time to first solo at flying schools in Melbourne varies from 15 hours to fifty hours in Cessnas. Quite a difference?
Back to the Winjeel at Point Cook. The RAAF never used checklists on Winjeels, Tigers, Wirraways or Mustangs and students were taught to learn the pretake off checks by heart as with other checks. This Winjeel owner however decided the Winjeel was a really advanced aircraft that needed a checklist to tell him what to do next. So he bought a roller blind checklist and thoughtfully filled it up with 137 items. That was the most he could get on to the roller blind.
I must admit it was an awfully pretty checklist with lots of different colours. But the owner found that with so many checks on a 10 foot length of paper ribbon that fitted into the roller blind assembly, the handle would jam up and rather than tear the lot up and start again, the owner left it in its cradle on the cockpit coaming stuck forever somewhere between the aerobatic drills and the forced landing trouble check drills.
Makes you really wonder about the inmates running the lunatic asylum when you compare this Winjeel checklist of 137 items and the current Boeing 737/767 before take off checklist of just one item....FLAPS..
spent a long time flyng Chieftains and we had a 104 item list to get through before takeoff
Back to the Winjeel at Point Cook. The RAAF never used checklists on Winjeels, Tigers, Wirraways or Mustangs and students were taught to learn the pretake off checks by heart as with other checks. This Winjeel owner however decided the Winjeel was a really advanced aircraft that needed a checklist to tell him what to do next. So he bought a roller blind checklist and thoughtfully filled it up with 137 items. That was the most he could get on to the roller blind.
I must admit it was an awfully pretty checklist with lots of different colours. But the owner found that with so many checks on a 10 foot length of paper ribbon that fitted into the roller blind assembly, the handle would jam up and rather than tear the lot up and start again, the owner left it in its cradle on the cockpit coaming stuck forever somewhere between the aerobatic drills and the forced landing trouble check drills.
Makes you really wonder about the inmates running the lunatic asylum when you compare this Winjeel checklist of 137 items and the current Boeing 737/767 before take off checklist of just one item....FLAPS..
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Usually Australia
Posts: 117
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Vital Actions
Lights, strobes, transponder, etc should not need to be in a checklist. Should happen automatically approaching the hold.
Miss the flaps and that could be interesting - a vital action perhaps?
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: YMEN
Age: 66
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
John,
It depends which school you send them to. You and I know that its should be within 15 and more often than not, about 10. Please do not generalise about "flying schools in Melbourne"
Paul
The time to first solo at flying schools in Melbourne varies from 15 hours to fifty hours in Cessnas. Quite a difference?
Paul
Bugsmasherdriverandjediknite
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Bai, mi go long hap na kisim sampla samting.
Posts: 2,849
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
unless you maintain constant currency,most will agree things get a little hazy after 2-3 weeks off on holiday,family issues,wife swapping,my mates the ABS, BEATING EVERYONE IN RUGBY,...my point....this is a constant learning curve for all concernred....
I have a NO RETURN policy too.
Thread Starter
Since the ‘old’ expertise has left the instructor industry much of the philosophy associated with piston operation has floundered
The "expertese" in terms of engine handling was just a myth and believe me a lot of pilots were not that clued up. However, those pilots did have one big advantage over present day new flying instructors. And that was most RAAF pilots who were selected for flying instructor courses at Central Flying School at East Sale were already experienced. Their hours were on a wide variety of fighters, bombers and transports with most having at least 1500 hours and some even with 3000 hours before going on to the instructors course. In contrast as we know current grade 3 instructors start off with around 220 hours total time - which is not a criticism of the individual, but just a sign of the times.
There is a wealth of information from reliable sources on the internet and there is no excuse for the "modern" young inexperienced flying instructor not to have all this info at his fingertips. From my observations this simply does not happen. Pursuit of excellence is rare.
For those flying school instructors seriously interested in increasing their aeronautical knowledge for the sake of their students (and this includes the art of mixture use) then you won't get much better info than found in the John Deakin columns called "The Pelican's Perch," available on the AVWEB website. He certainly took ATSB to task with regard to the causes of the Whyalla Chieftain accident. This invaluable piloting information is available at a click of a mouse and it is all free.
Thread Starter
Ozaztec. You said:
You are quite right of course. Your operation excepted naturally. But make no mistake about it the excess hours to first solo at certain establishments and taking into account the variables, is worrying to some of us in the industry who see it as destroying the morale of the very students whose hard earned money pays the instructors wages...
It depends which school you send them to
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: with the porangi,s in Pohara
Age: 66
Posts: 983
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
QUOTE.... Pursuit of excellence is rare.
Cent mate! youve hit the nail on the head......guilty as charged!!!!..
I could give you more reasons than a bull could ****e...but in a nutshell,its because I have about 10,000 other things in my life than I,m trying to perfect as well ......reckon we are a product of the way we live now
Dont get me wrong,I totally agree with your perspective and comments and personally always try to exceed my personal and companys expectations in my chosen field....that is something every pilot should do.....my problem.....
...its hard to borrow an A320 on the weekends to brush up on my skills!!!PB
Cent mate! youve hit the nail on the head......guilty as charged!!!!..
I could give you more reasons than a bull could ****e...but in a nutshell,its because I have about 10,000 other things in my life than I,m trying to perfect as well ......reckon we are a product of the way we live now
Dont get me wrong,I totally agree with your perspective and comments and personally always try to exceed my personal and companys expectations in my chosen field....that is something every pilot should do.....my problem.....
...its hard to borrow an A320 on the weekends to brush up on my skills!!!PB
Grandpa Aerotart
Dragchute, this;
(My underlining)...is absolute crap.
With typical EGT values around 1400-1650 C I can assure you that 'unburnt fuel' cooling the exaust valves is just one more BS myth that has been propagated by ignorance.
What a very rich mixture does is slow the rate of combustion down so the peak power pulse (the highest pressure during the combustion event) occurrs later, when the piston is further beyond Top Dead Center.
A very rich mixture also burns cooler...I am sure you have seen oxy acetylene in use...or the air vents around a oil lamp or gas cooker...the same theory applies. If you have seen these at work you have seen a lazy dirty red/yellow flame become a blue jet of pure heat energy when oxygen is added....when the mixture is leaned.
With that generally cooler super rich mixture exploding into a larger combustion chamber area..which is rapidly getting bigger as the piston moves down (cooling the mixture further by lowering the pressure) you get cooler engine temps with wider detonation margins at high power.
In a super lean mixture lots of unburnt oxygen is left over after all the fuel is burned up and that helps keep things cooler.
I can assure you the LOP operation does NOT cause
...in fact quite the opposite.
Read Deakins articles on Whyalla and see how badly ATSB did on that investigation. Had that young man had the benefit of the aircraft being fitted with all cylinder monitors, balanced injectors and the knowledge to use them he would probably be alive today...as would his passengers.
The former would result in higher internal temperatures as the engine would be running on the lean side of peak with less unburned fuel to cool exhaust valves and pistons. This could reduce engine life, require premature top overhauls or cause failure unless properly managed. Then there is the risk management issues that could bring down the company if disaster strikes.
With typical EGT values around 1400-1650 C I can assure you that 'unburnt fuel' cooling the exaust valves is just one more BS myth that has been propagated by ignorance.
What a very rich mixture does is slow the rate of combustion down so the peak power pulse (the highest pressure during the combustion event) occurrs later, when the piston is further beyond Top Dead Center.
A very rich mixture also burns cooler...I am sure you have seen oxy acetylene in use...or the air vents around a oil lamp or gas cooker...the same theory applies. If you have seen these at work you have seen a lazy dirty red/yellow flame become a blue jet of pure heat energy when oxygen is added....when the mixture is leaned.
With that generally cooler super rich mixture exploding into a larger combustion chamber area..which is rapidly getting bigger as the piston moves down (cooling the mixture further by lowering the pressure) you get cooler engine temps with wider detonation margins at high power.
In a super lean mixture lots of unburnt oxygen is left over after all the fuel is burned up and that helps keep things cooler.
I can assure you the LOP operation does NOT cause
reduce engine life, require premature top overhauls or cause failure
Read Deakins articles on Whyalla and see how badly ATSB did on that investigation. Had that young man had the benefit of the aircraft being fitted with all cylinder monitors, balanced injectors and the knowledge to use them he would probably be alive today...as would his passengers.