Strange flight training practices
Thread Starter
if your diligent enough in planning, especially when NFVR and IFR then almost every diversion is pre planned in a way.
Is it available on android yet or only iOS?
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 465
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Horatio,
Ultralights is correct to an extent. It's called situation awareness you smart arse.
You don't just fly up to the edge of a thunderstorm of low cloud bank and go "oh bugger, I need to divert now".
I'm not advocating telling students where a diversion will be during an upcoming flight, however, diversion training doesn't really teach much decision making anyway. How often does an instructor just say "ok, now take me to X"? A better technique could be explaining a simulated weather event ahead and get them to make a decision. If the decision is not really suitable some further prompting could be given.
Ultralights is correct to an extent. It's called situation awareness you smart arse.
You don't just fly up to the edge of a thunderstorm of low cloud bank and go "oh bugger, I need to divert now".
I'm not advocating telling students where a diversion will be during an upcoming flight, however, diversion training doesn't really teach much decision making anyway. How often does an instructor just say "ok, now take me to X"? A better technique could be explaining a simulated weather event ahead and get them to make a decision. If the decision is not really suitable some further prompting could be given.
-----the circumstances leading up to the loss of that 707 are complex
The actual cause of the accident, a violent loss control, was anything but complex, and believe me, the Vmca3 and Vmca2 figures for the B707-320C, and the asymmetric performance of said aeroplane type are engraved on my brain.
Given the crew actions in flight, the outcome was entirely predictable.
I have no idea what preceded the action taken, or why it was done, but I do recall some other similar incidents involving Hers., but where recovery was possible.
Sadly, in GA, we continue to add to a long history of usually fatal accidents in light twin, because instructors do not understand the certified and limit performance of the aircraft they are flying --- then add hubris and overconfidence and we read the results in the newspapers and later, a pc version from ATSB.
"Whip Stalls", aka Stall Turns or Hammerheads.
Look into the definitions, a "whip stall" is not a "stall turn" or "hammerhead turn" (name of choice) , the latter are very gentle maneuvers.
Tootle pip!!
Last edited by LeadSled; 9th Aug 2013 at 04:14.
Thanks for the reminder Leadsled.
Earlier posters had pointed that out to me and some research has reinforced their correction.
I didn't feel the need to tell everyone but, since you mention it, I will say that I was mistaken but now I know better.
Earlier posters had pointed that out to me and some research has reinforced their correction.
I didn't feel the need to tell everyone but, since you mention it, I will say that I was mistaken but now I know better.
Djpil,
When I said I didn't agree, it was with reference to the time taken to sign off on basic aeros.
Incase I wasn't clear. This is when done with the tail wheel endorsement.
6 hrs total. Effectively 3 hrs on aeros, 3 for the tail wheel side.
Aeros only full lessons become counter productive and just add $ at basic level.
And I certainly did ensure the full syllabus was covered and then some thanks.
I never signed off on anyone I wouldn't put my own family with.
When I said I didn't agree, it was with reference to the time taken to sign off on basic aeros.
Incase I wasn't clear. This is when done with the tail wheel endorsement.
6 hrs total. Effectively 3 hrs on aeros, 3 for the tail wheel side.
Aeros only full lessons become counter productive and just add $ at basic level.
And I certainly did ensure the full syllabus was covered and then some thanks.
I never signed off on anyone I wouldn't put my own family with.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,414
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re unusual attitudes (aerobatics). Unusual attitude recovery training in Level D flight simulators is rarely practiced in simulator cyclic training for airline pilots. Occasionally it may take place on endorsement training. If so, it may be only once every three years and lasts five minutes at the most.
The usual excuse for not practicing unusual attitude training in jet transport/turbo-prop simulators (other than within the benign officially defined figures of 45 degrees angle of bank, pitch attitude 10 degrees nose down, 25 degrees nose up and within above parameters but flying at airspeeds inappropriate for the conditions), is simulator fidelity restrictions.
Keeping in mind that nearly all jet transport/turbo-prop accidents involving unusual attitudes have been in IMC or night where the crew proved incompetent at recovery on instruments.
There is good value however, in aerobatic training in a suitable light aircraft which after all is nothing more than recovery from unusual attitudes. The RAAF taught this in their elementary, basic and advanced flying schools in years past.
A one hour exposure to aerobatic training goes a long way to gaining confidence in unusual attitude recovery techniques and applies just as much to a jet/turbo-prop type as a Citabria.
That said, you don't have to go to the unnecessary expense of five hours dual in a Citabria. You are not qualifying for a tail wheel endorsement or an aerobatic endorsement. You merely want basic dual instruction aerobatic flying to include barrel rolls ie recovery from fully inverted - stall turns ie recovery from very nose high attitude and maybe a roll off the top (recovery from inverted slow flight).
So, if your airline simulator instructor doesn't have the time of five minutes (expense) or the inclination, to demonstrate to you the correct way of recovering from an unusual attitude (possibly because he is not confident of success himself
), then hire an aerobatic qualified instructor to teach you the basics in a suitable trainer. That is much better than just reading the theory in manuals.
Better still, try to practice the aeros under the hood and really improve your instrument scan. It will be money worth spent. But don't get talked into a tail-wheel endorsement or an aerobatic endorsement; unless of course you have the spare cash.
The usual excuse for not practicing unusual attitude training in jet transport/turbo-prop simulators (other than within the benign officially defined figures of 45 degrees angle of bank, pitch attitude 10 degrees nose down, 25 degrees nose up and within above parameters but flying at airspeeds inappropriate for the conditions), is simulator fidelity restrictions.
Keeping in mind that nearly all jet transport/turbo-prop accidents involving unusual attitudes have been in IMC or night where the crew proved incompetent at recovery on instruments.
There is good value however, in aerobatic training in a suitable light aircraft which after all is nothing more than recovery from unusual attitudes. The RAAF taught this in their elementary, basic and advanced flying schools in years past.
A one hour exposure to aerobatic training goes a long way to gaining confidence in unusual attitude recovery techniques and applies just as much to a jet/turbo-prop type as a Citabria.
That said, you don't have to go to the unnecessary expense of five hours dual in a Citabria. You are not qualifying for a tail wheel endorsement or an aerobatic endorsement. You merely want basic dual instruction aerobatic flying to include barrel rolls ie recovery from fully inverted - stall turns ie recovery from very nose high attitude and maybe a roll off the top (recovery from inverted slow flight).
So, if your airline simulator instructor doesn't have the time of five minutes (expense) or the inclination, to demonstrate to you the correct way of recovering from an unusual attitude (possibly because he is not confident of success himself
), then hire an aerobatic qualified instructor to teach you the basics in a suitable trainer. That is much better than just reading the theory in manuals. Better still, try to practice the aeros under the hood and really improve your instrument scan. It will be money worth spent. But don't get talked into a tail-wheel endorsement or an aerobatic endorsement; unless of course you have the spare cash.
Last edited by A37575; 10th Aug 2013 at 01:45.
.
A37575,
In my experience, that largely depends on the airline, regulators are not much help, particularly CASA. Certainly, several airlines I worked for over the years had recovery from unusual attitudes every second cyclic training session.
Having said that, no simulator Level D is particularly realistic, stemming, as an oversimplification, from two areas.
(1) The manufacturer's data packages simply do not adequately cover the possible dynamic, what is there for attitudes beyond the certified flight envelope are very rough approximations, if anything is offered at all. One particular manufacturer is now considering withdrawing all but certified data, due potential legal liability.
(2) The physical limits of the simulator, which is unable to simulate the extreme loads involved. A modern simulator is a great device, but? I have seen many simulator "recoveries" that would have torn the wings off a real aeroplane.
As some of you will know, there is a lot of discussion on the subject right now, but no airline wants to contract people who do have suitable aircraft, for realistic upset recovery recurrent training, it's all about money.
Kosher airline cadet pilot training courses all include aerobatics, as well as in-air "upset recovery" in actual aeroplanes, but the cheapskate airlines cadet courses do not.
Sadly, despite how many "command hours" of "experience" they might have from GA, it is possible for an ex-GA recruit to an airline to never have done a full regime of stalls and recovery, or spin and recovery in training, let alone in recurrent training, much less aerobatics, never having gone beyond "approaches to the stall". This is not a good preparation for a for a "dark and stormy night".
Couldn't agree more, although unaware at the time of the importance, I actually did my PPL at a school where that was part of the "extended" PPL course. Extended meant that you signed up for 10 hours instruments, on top of the basic PPL course, which included full spins and recovery (pre-solo) and basic aerobatics. Helpfully, the school allowed as much time as you wanted to spend in a D4 Link, and only charged for the instructor, one UK pound per hour (it was quite a while ago).
Tootle pip!!
Unusual attitude recovery training in Level D flight simulators is rarely practiced in simulator cyclic training for airline pilots. Occasionally it may take place on endorsement training. If so, it may be only once every three years and lasts five minutes at the most.
In my experience, that largely depends on the airline, regulators are not much help, particularly CASA. Certainly, several airlines I worked for over the years had recovery from unusual attitudes every second cyclic training session.
Having said that, no simulator Level D is particularly realistic, stemming, as an oversimplification, from two areas.
(1) The manufacturer's data packages simply do not adequately cover the possible dynamic, what is there for attitudes beyond the certified flight envelope are very rough approximations, if anything is offered at all. One particular manufacturer is now considering withdrawing all but certified data, due potential legal liability.
(2) The physical limits of the simulator, which is unable to simulate the extreme loads involved. A modern simulator is a great device, but? I have seen many simulator "recoveries" that would have torn the wings off a real aeroplane.
As some of you will know, there is a lot of discussion on the subject right now, but no airline wants to contract people who do have suitable aircraft, for realistic upset recovery recurrent training, it's all about money.
Kosher airline cadet pilot training courses all include aerobatics, as well as in-air "upset recovery" in actual aeroplanes, but the cheapskate airlines cadet courses do not.
Sadly, despite how many "command hours" of "experience" they might have from GA, it is possible for an ex-GA recruit to an airline to never have done a full regime of stalls and recovery, or spin and recovery in training, let alone in recurrent training, much less aerobatics, never having gone beyond "approaches to the stall". This is not a good preparation for a for a "dark and stormy night".
Better still, try to practice the aeros under the hood and really improve your instrument scan
Tootle pip!!
Last edited by LeadSled; 10th Aug 2013 at 02:21.
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Australia
Posts: 423
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having said that, no simulator Level D is particularly realistic, stemming, as an oversimplification, from two areas.
(1) The manufacturer's data packages simply do not adequately cover the possible dynamic, what is there for attitudes beyond the certified flight envelope are very rough approximations, if anything is offered at all. One particular manufacturer is now considering withdrawing all but certified data, due potential legal liability.
(1) The manufacturer's data packages simply do not adequately cover the possible dynamic, what is there for attitudes beyond the certified flight envelope are very rough approximations, if anything is offered at all. One particular manufacturer is now considering withdrawing all but certified data, due potential legal liability.
While it is agreed that G forces cannot be simulated in current Level D simulators, flight instrument indications of an unusual attitude are still valid.
Therefore the basics of unusual attitude recovery on instruments should be taught. For example un-load and using full control wheel roll in the shortest direction to the sky-pointer if inverted. Or roll to the nearest horizon if extremely nose high, to drop the nose.
Perceived legal issues aside, even if a future simulator did have full fidelity with G forces, the basics of recovery on instruments are still the same and that is why unusual attitude recovery practice in a simulator on instruments is needed for a pilot to be deemed proficient. The alternative is to learn from a book at leisure. That's as useless as learning to swim from a book.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: ON TOP OF OLD SMOKEY
Posts: 132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Many an interesting post here from a while back. Got to thinking about all the ALAs across the wide brown land. Got to thinking of the arrogant FOI who took a CPL applicant out into the boondooks and had him forceland into a remote ALA. The nice gentleman informed the younger bloke of a fail for not mentioning the fact you must contact the owner of the ALA before you use it. (I know - it defies all logic and sense.) Anyway FOI gets out wanders over to a tree for a slash and a smoke. Meanwhile, very pissed off other party starts up, takes off, leaving a cross man to find his own way home.
Had a student change flying schools recently and while reviewing their understanding of the stuff they needed to understand, they revealed a few odd practices from their old school.
A selection:
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".
These gems have all been verified to me by a Grade 1 instructor from that school.
The schools instructor body is strongly populated by the schools graduates and each of these items, in my view, represent a major failing on the CFI's part to adequately train their charges for the big bad world beyond.
Are these practices justifiable? Is it really so hard to teach someone to fly a C172 that leaning at PPL level is just a bit too much of a stretch?
If I had a PPL candidate who failed to lean the mixture (at all, let alone correctly) on their flight test it would be a pretty short test.
A selection:
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".
These gems have all been verified to me by a Grade 1 instructor from that school.
The schools instructor body is strongly populated by the schools graduates and each of these items, in my view, represent a major failing on the CFI's part to adequately train their charges for the big bad world beyond.
Are these practices justifiable? Is it really so hard to teach someone to fly a C172 that leaning at PPL level is just a bit too much of a stretch?
If I had a PPL candidate who failed to lean the mixture (at all, let alone correctly) on their flight test it would be a pretty short test.
4. Lodge a flight plan with whom? Certainly Airservices does nothing with it unless it is SAR or similar. And SARTIMES are just an embuggerance. Bring on the NZ system where you have to provide your credit card number with the SARTIME to pay for it. Flight training organisations should be holding their own flight notes.
Really, this all reeks of crusty old fashioned thinking that unfortunately remains common in the GA part of the industry.
OK
Some interesting answers and many of them very accurate and true within limits.
Just to add some more context to the discussion:
- the student holds a CPL
- The student is starting a NVFR
- The student has already done 15-20 hours night training at this other school
- in my opinion, 15 minutes of circling to get up to LSALT (at 3 points) is enough fuel to add it into the flight plan.
How about this one:
- Studes on a solo Nav (PPL and CPL) weren't allowed to actually land at any intermediate waypoint but were instructed to only overfly.
I have heard of Ultralight schools only allowing "accompanied solo" but I had never heard of a GA school doing this.
- Leaning the mixture on a cross-country flight is normal and is a normal part of engine management. It can make 20-30% difference to the fuel flow or more, not the 1-2 litres some people (above) have suggested.
- The climb fuel thing: Yeah block fuel for Day VFR, fair enough. But not for Night VFR.
- Sartimes and flight plans: What does the ATOM say about PPL flight test conduct? CPL flight test conduct?
...If you are turning a student out as a PPL (let alone a CPL) and they haven't got the skills to lodge a VFR flight notification...
The Green Goblin:
All of that is true to some extent but if you are Night VFR and you don't count the 16 minutes of climb fuel AND you don't lean the mixture enroute, you will probably find yourself walking home (or more likely, never walking again).
KISS principle is wonderful but it shouldn't come at the expense of competent operation of the aircraft.
Some interesting answers and many of them very accurate and true within limits.
Just to add some more context to the discussion:
- the student holds a CPL
- The student is starting a NVFR
- The student has already done 15-20 hours night training at this other school
- in my opinion, 15 minutes of circling to get up to LSALT (at 3 points) is enough fuel to add it into the flight plan.
How about this one:
- Studes on a solo Nav (PPL and CPL) weren't allowed to actually land at any intermediate waypoint but were instructed to only overfly.
I have heard of Ultralight schools only allowing "accompanied solo" but I had never heard of a GA school doing this.
- Leaning the mixture on a cross-country flight is normal and is a normal part of engine management. It can make 20-30% difference to the fuel flow or more, not the 1-2 litres some people (above) have suggested.
- The climb fuel thing: Yeah block fuel for Day VFR, fair enough. But not for Night VFR.
- Sartimes and flight plans: What does the ATOM say about PPL flight test conduct? CPL flight test conduct?
...If you are turning a student out as a PPL (let alone a CPL) and they haven't got the skills to lodge a VFR flight notification...
The Green Goblin:
All of that is true to some extent but if you are Night VFR and you don't count the 16 minutes of climb fuel AND you don't lean the mixture enroute, you will probably find yourself walking home (or more likely, never walking again).
KISS principle is wonderful but it shouldn't come at the expense of competent operation of the aircraft.
Again, strange practices in some quarters of the GA world.
Off topic, I know but the comment was made
B2N2 I would have thought that a recent solo global circumnavigation in a SeaRey ( build in Florida) all the way behind..sorry in front of, an 80 hp Rotax would have been a pretty damn good advertisement for the reliability of said internal combustion engine. !!
B2N2 I would have thought that a recent solo global circumnavigation in a SeaRey ( build in Florida) all the way behind..sorry in front of, an 80 hp Rotax would have been a pretty damn good advertisement for the reliability of said internal combustion engine. !!
Do planes use more fuel at night? Well, you learn something every day.
Night VFR - flight below the LSALT en route isn't that smart, the safest option is to climb to the LSALT while in the airport area, before launching en-route. That's why the climb fuel mentioned in that post matters.
Day VFR nav - climb en-route is fine, and not a lot more fuel for a piston than cruise.
Night VFR - flight below the LSALT en route isn't that smart, the safest option is to climb to the LSALT while in the airport area, before launching en-route. That's why the climb fuel mentioned in that post matters.
Night VFR - flight below the LSALT en route isn't that smart, the safest option is to climb to the LSALT while in the airport area, before launching en-route. That's why the climb fuel mentioned in that post matters.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Darwin, Australia
Age: 53
Posts: 424
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
3 Posts
during takeoff and climb in the vicinity of the departure aerodrome;
except when necessary during climb after departure from an aerodrome.
