Strange flight training practices
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Oracle, mate,
0.474, well I can make any of the run that way too......but I think you will find the Lyco is in the 0.40 range as well. Do your numbers on real data. You know what I mean 
I just did.
Confucius say; Don't tell a man something impossible when he already doing it!
I agree they are a great little power plant, no doubt, but $$per HP I am not convinced, the Lyc 540's are 3+ times the HP and not costing more than 3 times the $$, so could be a tough argument.
Major thread drift here.
Lycoming 540 .474
A turbonormalized Continental 520 or 550 (8.5:1 compression) running Gami injectors and lean of peak cruises with a BSFC of .39 to .41 according to TAT data.
Rotax Carby .45
A turbonormalized Continental 520 or 550 (8.5:1 compression) running Gami injectors and lean of peak cruises with a BSFC of .39 to .41 according to TAT data.
Rotax Carby .45
I just did.Confucius say; Don't tell a man something impossible when he already doing it!
Where the rotax engine wins is reliability longevity and ease/cost of maintenance
Major thread drift here.
Last edited by Jabawocky; 26th Jul 2013 at 14:33.
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: GPS Signal Lost
Posts: 164
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am informed by a flying instructor at my local flying school that the reason for requiring the student to call undercarriage down and locked on a fixed gear aircraft, is that one day the pilot might fly a retractable and therefore is a GOOD THING to get used to.
I see. Then in that case should not the student call "undercarriage up and Locked" in a fixed gear aircraft for the after take off checklist - just to be consistent? Funnily enough I have never heard that used
I see. Then in that case should not the student call "undercarriage up and Locked" in a fixed gear aircraft for the after take off checklist - just to be consistent? Funnily enough I have never heard that used
T&G
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 889
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A very large flying school at which I used to work, had two wheels up landing accidents in the space of three years (none before or after, so far at least). Both were during dual asymmetric circuit training, where instructors did not complete the landing checklist and ignored the gear warning from over-familiarity.
I wonder if anyone anywhere has suffered a wheels up incident simply as a result of negative training from fixed gear aircraft? I suspect not. If I'm correct, the "gear down" call in a fixed gear aircraft is statistically irrelevant. It just doesn't seem to be a common human factors error.
Much better IMO to teach students to set a standard power on base. If the attitude and power are correct but the aircraft is not descending as it should, it's a good clue that the gear and flap isn't where it normally is. This also focuses attention where it should be (power, speed and aim point) not on written checklists.
I wonder if anyone anywhere has suffered a wheels up incident simply as a result of negative training from fixed gear aircraft? I suspect not. If I'm correct, the "gear down" call in a fixed gear aircraft is statistically irrelevant. It just doesn't seem to be a common human factors error.
Much better IMO to teach students to set a standard power on base. If the attitude and power are correct but the aircraft is not descending as it should, it's a good clue that the gear and flap isn't where it normally is. This also focuses attention where it should be (power, speed and aim point) not on written checklists.
More thread drift but I cant help meself ...
I like the Rotax donk but I am not sure this is true. Let's see, I get my 180 horse Scout and I perform a normal landing with a powered approach. When I shut down at the hangar door the cylinder temp is 325.
Next I turn up over the top at 2500 and pull the power right back to idle. I fly a glide approach, don't touch the power and manage (fluke perhaps) to arrive at the hangar door without using the throttle at all. Cylinder temp 310.
Temps around the valve train stable, you tell me.
It trounces the air cooled stuff in the training environment because the temps around the valve train are always stable in circuit training. I think you will find that the rotax engine is now doing more training hours than any other piston engine in Australia and its no surprise why. The only problem is it only makes 100 ponies.
Next I turn up over the top at 2500 and pull the power right back to idle. I fly a glide approach, don't touch the power and manage (fluke perhaps) to arrive at the hangar door without using the throttle at all. Cylinder temp 310.
Temps around the valve train stable, you tell me.
Can we re-introduce "on time departures" into the training syllabus as well?
When a CPL gets into the real world, it seems to come as a horrible shock that 7am departure means just that. NOT 7am is when pilot wanders into the hangar, idly scratching himself, and begins planning the day, and may or may not be wheels off at 9.30-ish.
When a CPL gets into the real world, it seems to come as a horrible shock that 7am departure means just that. NOT 7am is when pilot wanders into the hangar, idly scratching himself, and begins planning the day, and may or may not be wheels off at 9.30-ish.
Can we re-introduce "on time departures" into the training syllabus as well?
I think on time lessons for all students at all schools might help but when someone turns up for a 10:30 lesson and the lesson starts at 12:30 the rot begins to set in.
Just sync watches and tell them they are unprofessional when they are 5 seconds early or late to brief. Don't accept either early or late.
And when they read back "report 5 miles" tell them that's the easiest way to spot an amateur and they will never do it again.
Another method to get them to do something they keep stuffing is ask them "Alright can you do [blah]". When they answer yes and don't do it they will kick themselves. Very effective.
And when they read back "report 5 miles" tell them that's the easiest way to spot an amateur and they will never do it again.
Another method to get them to do something they keep stuffing is ask them "Alright can you do [blah]". When they answer yes and don't do it they will kick themselves. Very effective.
I know an instructor at a 'remote' country airport, who used to fly his students into 'fair weather Cu' on a good day at a 'safe' alt. to show them what may / could / probably will / happen should they try this later 'in the real world'.....
A bit different from just putting a hood on.
Cheers
A bit different from just putting a hood on.
Cheers
just to be consistent? Funnily enough I have never heard that used
Sorry to burst your bubble their Centaurus, but our flying school and another that I know of actually get their students to Call '200ft', Flaps Up, Gear Up and locked, check track.!
Sorry to burst your bubble their Centaurus, but our flying school and another that I know of actually get their students to Call '200ft', Flaps Up, Gear Up and locked, check track.!
Jesus wept!! And I know you aren't kidding either. Time to get out of this game..
To be fair, the PA-38 Information Manual does not indicate you should check that the park brake is off, that there is sufficient fuel for a go-round/touch and go, or that any of the lights are on as part of its approach and landing checks, all of which I think are quite sensible items to check.
I think with the undercarriage check you can argue both ways however I have heard far, far more cases of the gear being forgotten because the check was skipped than because of a mindset that "we always check it and it's always fixed", in fact I don't recall any instances of the second, which is not to say it hasn't happened - I've been doing this for a heck of a lot less time than most of you on here! I've also never heard of someone having an accident because they forgot to raise the undercarriage in a retractable aeroplane after takeoff because they were used to a fixed gear aeroplane where this check was not taught. Again not to say it's never happened of course.
I think with the undercarriage check you can argue both ways however I have heard far, far more cases of the gear being forgotten because the check was skipped than because of a mindset that "we always check it and it's always fixed", in fact I don't recall any instances of the second, which is not to say it hasn't happened - I've been doing this for a heck of a lot less time than most of you on here! I've also never heard of someone having an accident because they forgot to raise the undercarriage in a retractable aeroplane after takeoff because they were used to a fixed gear aeroplane where this check was not taught. Again not to say it's never happened of course.
Last edited by NZFlyingKiwi; 27th Jul 2013 at 06:39.
1/. Students were not taught to lean the mixture until after they passed their PPL;
2/. No diversions were ever "sprung" on the student but notified and planned in advance (including diversions on flight tests)
3/. no allowance made for climb fuel in the fuel plan
4/. no flight plans or SARTIMES were ever lodged "because there was always someone at the school to hold company SAR".
2/. No diversions were ever "sprung" on the student but notified and planned in advance (including diversions on flight tests)
3/. no allowance made for climb fuel in the fuel plan
4/. no flight plans or SARTIMES were ever lodged "because there was always someone at the school to hold company SAR".
I now despair that it’s just getting more and more mediocre.
I know an instructor at a 'remote' country airport, who used to fly his students into 'fair weather Cu' on a good day at a 'safe' alt. to show them what may / could / probably will / happen should they try this later 'in the real world'.....
That wouldn't be that remote country town with a local airport identified as YSBK, would it?
what may / could / probably will
I am pleased ( having been accused of all sorts of illegality -- which was true, but now the statute of limitations is my friend) to make the claim that none of my students have even had an accident IFR when unqualified to fly IFR.
One of the results of the PIFR has been a reduction such accidents, I think it is, in part, more pilots are qualified, and equally importantly, more pilots have discovered, in controlled conditions, that all the warnings about inadvertent IFR, when not trained AND CURRENT, are true.
Tootle pip!!
PS: I would point out that I was one of of the few instructors on the field, who actually had an instrument rating, so it wasn't quite the blind leading the blind.
Last edited by LeadSled; 27th Jul 2013 at 08:08.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Sydney
Age: 60
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lets not even mention the BS way of teaching forced landings only down to 500' AGL!
This has been going on over 30 years at some ( most?) schools, it is the last 500' that is the killer. The upper stuff really just teaches checks and an "idea" about where to crash.
This has been going on over 30 years at some ( most?) schools, it is the last 500' that is the killer.
The upper stuff really just teaches checks and an "idea" about where to crash.
Lets not even mention the BS way of teaching forced landings only down to 500' AGL!
Perhaps we should. Fundamentally I agree with you, but there is a little matter of CASA, and the way "the rules" are now enforced.
For example, it was recently put to me, by an FOI, that an instructor (or any pilot) could not fly below 500', except for takeoff and landing, unless they had a low level rating, therefor they could not take forced landing instruction below 500' --- if you had an approved low level area. Or, of course, stress of weather.
Sadly, given our complex, convoluted and Oh! So inflexible rule book, the FOI is right, mostly the instructor is limited to a minimum of 500'.
Sadly,"compliance" takes precedence over the adequate teaching needed to produce a competent pilot.
Tootle pip!!
PS: If you have the unfortunate experience of instructors/CFIs with ideas/requirements/mandatory procedures that are outside the requirements of/contrary to the POH/AFM (in many aircraft the doc. called the POH is the AFM), just chant the magic incantation: "CAR 138, 50 penalty points, strict liability, for strict liability see section 6.1 of the Criminal Code"
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Sarnia, ON
Posts: 89
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lets not even mention the BS way of teaching forced landings only down to 500' AGL!
It scared the bejebus out of me. It would be been a successful forced landing, but like as said above - the last 500' are where it gets interesting. I'd highly recommend that everyone does it.
I was speaking to the instructor later, and it was his standard forced landing area. He knows the farmer that owns the paddock (the farmer used it as his own strip but rarely used it so it didn't look like a runway.) The instructor sets the plane up adjacent to the strip at a reasonable altitude so that it is the obvious choice. Then he sits quietly in the back and watches the bunny up the front sweat.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 889
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Now about fixing the problems...
I gather, from reading this thread, that many of you have or had instructor ratings. For those not currently instructing, why don't you do something about it, and start instructing again?
If you're a current instructor on here letting off steam, fine. But everyone else, it is easy to criticize the system when you're outside it, blind to its difficulties and restrictions. Much better to re-enter the system, bringing in necessary experience.
Cheers,
Oktas "complaining is easy" 8.
PS - I had eleven years in instructing (by choice) and won't be going back just yet. But you'll note I haven't criticized the system or specific participants. Too easy, but too unhelpful.
I gather, from reading this thread, that many of you have or had instructor ratings. For those not currently instructing, why don't you do something about it, and start instructing again?
If you're a current instructor on here letting off steam, fine. But everyone else, it is easy to criticize the system when you're outside it, blind to its difficulties and restrictions. Much better to re-enter the system, bringing in necessary experience.
Cheers,
Oktas "complaining is easy" 8.
PS - I had eleven years in instructing (by choice) and won't be going back just yet. But you'll note I haven't criticized the system or specific participants. Too easy, but too unhelpful.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Sydney
Age: 60
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Volumex, you have a good instructor!
Leadsled, I well understand the CASA problems, it is a shame.
At least the odd instructor finds ways around it.
Ask your FOI how they train precautionary search and landings?
I would suggest all students do a bit of gliding. If they do not want to do it as a sport at least fly in a two seat motor glider and get some decent forced landing training, right down to landing in suitable fields!
Perhaps a few full spins too!
Leadsled, I well understand the CASA problems, it is a shame.
At least the odd instructor finds ways around it.
Ask your FOI how they train precautionary search and landings?
I would suggest all students do a bit of gliding. If they do not want to do it as a sport at least fly in a two seat motor glider and get some decent forced landing training, right down to landing in suitable fields!
Perhaps a few full spins too!
That is as sad as making people do ten hours plus to solo.