The Check-Out Scandal: Discussion.
A little less conversation,
a little more aviation...
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Bracknell, UK
Posts: 696
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I found the Yak is very conventional in its handling characteristics so you'll forgive me if I don't find this argument convincing. It builds an aura around the aircraft which is simply unjustified. You'll need to be more specific with this mishandling situation before it can have any relevance.
Destroying the engine is easy if you neglect the proper pre-flight checks. But negligence and mishandling aren't traits which a one who calls himself a 'pilot' exhibit, are they?
Destroying the engine is easy if you neglect the proper pre-flight checks. But negligence and mishandling aren't traits which a one who calls himself a 'pilot' exhibit, are they?
Normal handling of the Yak is fairly benign, if a little heavy - it's the abnormal cases which need to be trained for. I'm just using the Yak as an example - there are plenty of other SEPs which have their own little oddities of handling and operation which will bite the uninitiated, and that's why checkouts or cross-training are required. The fantastic rudder & stick skills you seem fixated with are a bonus to safe flying, but they don't make you immortal - beyond that, I'm bemused as to what you're trying to get at here - do you have a point, or are you just trolling?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: The Heart
Posts: 811
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's just a friendly discussion, eharding, perhaps with a gentle hope that people may think a little more about this subject and about flying. I did state in the first post and the post to which I refered that I was disturbed by the way check-outs often seem to be unjustifyably prolonged. Made me think people were being fleeced and I know I have spent too much money wondering if the 'check-pilot' was getting anything out of this because I sure as hell wasn't.
Back to your example. Again the Yak's behaviour in this situation is exactly as one would expect. Even the humble and docile Cessna 150 behaves in exactly the same way so it is most unfair to single out any particular type.
Please understand, I'm not talking about fantastic stick & rudder skills. I'm talking about BASIC stick & rudder skills though at no point have I raised the issue or been fixated on that subject.
In fact, it is the work one has done before getting into the aircraft which may well prove to have the most value as Chilli Monster related.
Back to your example. Again the Yak's behaviour in this situation is exactly as one would expect. Even the humble and docile Cessna 150 behaves in exactly the same way so it is most unfair to single out any particular type.
Please understand, I'm not talking about fantastic stick & rudder skills. I'm talking about BASIC stick & rudder skills though at no point have I raised the issue or been fixated on that subject.
In fact, it is the work one has done before getting into the aircraft which may well prove to have the most value as Chilli Monster related.
A little less conversation,
a little more aviation...
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Bracknell, UK
Posts: 696
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: The Heart
Posts: 811
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You've missed the point entirely.
Yes, you must know what to do if it happens but you must have heard the old adage, "the superior pilot uses his superior judgement to avoid having to use his superior skills."
Maintaining the proper speed is THE first rule of flying.
Yes, you must know what to do if it happens but you must have heard the old adage, "the superior pilot uses his superior judgement to avoid having to use his superior skills."
Maintaining the proper speed is THE first rule of flying.
A little less conversation,
a little more aviation...
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Bracknell, UK
Posts: 696
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you have any tips on the 'proper speed' to avoid a stall, accelerated or otherwise, I'm all agog.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: The Heart
Posts: 811
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's a good job these computer things don't have joined up writing or you might have a problem reading this.
How aeroplanes fly.
Air passes over and beneath the wing which causes a difference in pressure due...
ALL aircraft performance and handling is derived from the angle of attack of the wing relative to the air flowing over it. Due to 'an accident of history' the most common way to express that angle is in terms of speed. So to all extents and purposes, aircraft performance, handling and the safety margins which are prudent to observe are based on SPEED.
If this isn't so, please enlighten us.
How aeroplanes fly.
Air passes over and beneath the wing which causes a difference in pressure due...
ALL aircraft performance and handling is derived from the angle of attack of the wing relative to the air flowing over it. Due to 'an accident of history' the most common way to express that angle is in terms of speed. So to all extents and purposes, aircraft performance, handling and the safety margins which are prudent to observe are based on SPEED.
If this isn't so, please enlighten us.
A little less conversation,
a little more aviation...
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Bracknell, UK
Posts: 696
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: The Heart
Posts: 811
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
eharding, are you deliberately trying to misunderstand or are you genuinely hard of understanding?
You will notice my reference to AoA in the previous post.
I think you'll find this is covered in the PPL syllabus. Perhaps you should go have a look at that before you go harking on about CPLs, the relevance of which is utterly beyond me. Who said anything about that?
You will find that the speeds which are stated in an aircraft's POH are valid under the stated conditions or if only one set of figures is presented then they will be valid up to MTOW unless otherwise stated hence my reference to 'proper speed'.
Rather than state all the circumstances, conditions and exceptions for various speeds I thought it easier to use the term 'proper' speed to cover all and any situation where control of speed is critical to the safe conduct of flight.
You will notice my reference to AoA in the previous post.
I think you'll find this is covered in the PPL syllabus. Perhaps you should go have a look at that before you go harking on about CPLs, the relevance of which is utterly beyond me. Who said anything about that?
You will find that the speeds which are stated in an aircraft's POH are valid under the stated conditions or if only one set of figures is presented then they will be valid up to MTOW unless otherwise stated hence my reference to 'proper speed'.
Rather than state all the circumstances, conditions and exceptions for various speeds I thought it easier to use the term 'proper' speed to cover all and any situation where control of speed is critical to the safe conduct of flight.
A little less conversation,
a little more aviation...
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Bracknell, UK
Posts: 696
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
eharding, are you deliberately trying to misunderstand or are you genuinely hard of understanding?
You will notice my reference to AoA in the previous post.
I think you'll find this is covered in the PPL syllabus. Perhaps you should go have a look at that before you go harking on about CPLs, the relevance of which is utterly beyond me. Who said anything about that?
You will find that the speeds which are stated in an aircraft's POH are valid under the stated conditions or if only one set of figures is presented then they will be valid up to MTOW unless otherwise stated hence my reference to 'proper speed'.
Rather than state all the circumstances, conditions and exceptions for various speeds I thought it easier to use the term 'proper' speed to cover all and any situation where control of speed is critical to the safe conduct of flight.
You will notice my reference to AoA in the previous post.
I think you'll find this is covered in the PPL syllabus. Perhaps you should go have a look at that before you go harking on about CPLs, the relevance of which is utterly beyond me. Who said anything about that?
You will find that the speeds which are stated in an aircraft's POH are valid under the stated conditions or if only one set of figures is presented then they will be valid up to MTOW unless otherwise stated hence my reference to 'proper speed'.
Rather than state all the circumstances, conditions and exceptions for various speeds I thought it easier to use the term 'proper' speed to cover all and any situation where control of speed is critical to the safe conduct of flight.
Where exactly did you train for your CPL?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: The Heart
Posts: 811
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No is a strange answer to an either or question.
You can't beat me down by trying to belittle my qualification. Where I studied has no relevance to this thread.
Please, if you can't stick to the thread, follow a coherent discussion and maintain a proper tone, don't reply.
You can't beat me down by trying to belittle my qualification. Where I studied has no relevance to this thread.
Please, if you can't stick to the thread, follow a coherent discussion and maintain a proper tone, don't reply.
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: KHIO - Portland, Oregon. USA
Posts: 57
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Crazy Discussion
Well, I've held of for a while here, but this is a crazy discussion; anyone who thinks that a plane is a plane is a plane needs to get a grip. There are so many differences, apart from fuel management, avionics, engine/turbocharger management, v-speeds, handling, emergency procedures, performance charts etc. etc.
I lost a good friend who made a stupid mistake with regards to flap settings in an aircraft he didn’t usually fly:-
“The aircraft was found with 10° flap selected and it is probable that this was used for the take off. The manufacturer does not supply any performance data or publish a recommended technique for this flap setting. For the Cessna 303 aircraft, with which the pilot was familiar, take off techniques differed from the Seneca in some respects. The Cessna 303 Pilot's Operating Handbook included the following information; flap 0° or flap 10° are recommended for normal take off. Under a paragraph entitled 'Crosswind take off' the following technique is recommended: "With the ailerons partially deflected into wind, the airplane is accelerated to a speed higher than normal, and then pulled off abruptly." The witness descriptions of the aircraft becoming airborne and landing again in a nose down attitude suggest that the pilot was not trying, or not able, to lift the aircraft off the ground.”
http://www.aaib.dft.gov.uk/cms_resou...pdf_500773.pdf
The checkout and time in type are but 2 of many requirements you need to meet before you are competent in ANY aircraft. It is a very different thing to get into an into an aircraft on a severe-clear VFR day to getting into the same plane with the WX is 300 and 1 and you didn't read the manual for the Garmin 530....
- Tim
I lost a good friend who made a stupid mistake with regards to flap settings in an aircraft he didn’t usually fly:-
“The aircraft was found with 10° flap selected and it is probable that this was used for the take off. The manufacturer does not supply any performance data or publish a recommended technique for this flap setting. For the Cessna 303 aircraft, with which the pilot was familiar, take off techniques differed from the Seneca in some respects. The Cessna 303 Pilot's Operating Handbook included the following information; flap 0° or flap 10° are recommended for normal take off. Under a paragraph entitled 'Crosswind take off' the following technique is recommended: "With the ailerons partially deflected into wind, the airplane is accelerated to a speed higher than normal, and then pulled off abruptly." The witness descriptions of the aircraft becoming airborne and landing again in a nose down attitude suggest that the pilot was not trying, or not able, to lift the aircraft off the ground.”
http://www.aaib.dft.gov.uk/cms_resou...pdf_500773.pdf
The checkout and time in type are but 2 of many requirements you need to meet before you are competent in ANY aircraft. It is a very different thing to get into an into an aircraft on a severe-clear VFR day to getting into the same plane with the WX is 300 and 1 and you didn't read the manual for the Garmin 530....
- Tim
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 1,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is possible to self checkout. But not always recommended.
Provided the aircraft is similiar to what you are used to flying.
PA28's, Small Cessna, Grummans they are all much the same.
Remember in my younger days renting from a certain gentleman at Coventry Airport. Went their after gaining PPL because the hourly rate was cheaper.
The first checkout i did there was a joke. The guy with me (who i later discovered was a PPL), wasn't too keen when i stalled and steeped turned the aircraft, he hadn't got a clue what speeds i should be using. After that, i thought whats the point in the check rides, all i was doing was giving someone else a free ride!
Later i used to turn up and just asked whats got fuel in it, and take it, be it a PA28(which i trained on), C172 (whats that then !), C152,150, BeechA23, AA-5's. If this were a flying club, it wouldn't have happened.
I just remember my old CFI saying that during the war you were trained to fly single and multi engine and were expected to be able to jump into whatever aircraft was presented to you. How true that was i don't know.
But using the correct takeoff technique you 'discovered the take off speed', adjusted angle for best rate of climb, set type power for cruise. Which can be done for most light aircraft.
Approach, whop the flap down fly at 10kts above stall short final.
The problem is having been a flying instructor for the last 20 years i now see why formal checkouts are required. Because there are those pilots that you can let loose with an aircraft (they are familiar with) after a couple of circuits, and there are those you question if they actually have a licence!
Provided the aircraft is similiar to what you are used to flying.
PA28's, Small Cessna, Grummans they are all much the same.
Remember in my younger days renting from a certain gentleman at Coventry Airport. Went their after gaining PPL because the hourly rate was cheaper.
The first checkout i did there was a joke. The guy with me (who i later discovered was a PPL), wasn't too keen when i stalled and steeped turned the aircraft, he hadn't got a clue what speeds i should be using. After that, i thought whats the point in the check rides, all i was doing was giving someone else a free ride!
Later i used to turn up and just asked whats got fuel in it, and take it, be it a PA28(which i trained on), C172 (whats that then !), C152,150, BeechA23, AA-5's. If this were a flying club, it wouldn't have happened.
I just remember my old CFI saying that during the war you were trained to fly single and multi engine and were expected to be able to jump into whatever aircraft was presented to you. How true that was i don't know.
But using the correct takeoff technique you 'discovered the take off speed', adjusted angle for best rate of climb, set type power for cruise. Which can be done for most light aircraft.
Approach, whop the flap down fly at 10kts above stall short final.
The problem is having been a flying instructor for the last 20 years i now see why formal checkouts are required. Because there are those pilots that you can let loose with an aircraft (they are familiar with) after a couple of circuits, and there are those you question if they actually have a licence!
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Roald Dhal describes in "Going Solo" how he learned to fly in a Tiger Moth during the war. Some time later he turns up at his base to find a brand new Hurrican waiting for him. They give him "a couple of hours" of solo flight to learn how to fly the thing, then send him off on a 4 hour flight across the med to join the rest of his gang in Greece where he goes to war in it 
I think he has around 130 hours in Tiger Moths before he gets into the hurricane......
I wouldn't have too much problem with self teaching myself to fly most varieties of SEP's, baring the more high performance or aerobatic types. For other aeroplanes I'll take an instructor please, for at least a few circuits.
I think he has around 130 hours in Tiger Moths before he gets into the hurricane......I wouldn't have too much problem with self teaching myself to fly most varieties of SEP's, baring the more high performance or aerobatic types. For other aeroplanes I'll take an instructor please, for at least a few circuits.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: The Heart
Posts: 811
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I never suggested that a 'pilot' should be able to jump into anything without reference to POH or they should figure things out for themselves, though an 'artist' may appear to do so.
Tim. The example you gave doesn't really prove anything. Your friend made a decision based on incorrect presumption; that the first flap setting would be sufficient for a short field take-off. Quite a reasonable presumption given bearing in mind how lift and drag change with flap position but never-the-less, wrong. Sad accident, especially when the correct answer was easily available to him.
I believe that the RAF even 'way back then' had POHs but Dahl shows that it isn't impossible.
I know a chap who, when asked what the Spitfire is like to fly replied, "It's just another aeroplane!" The askee was expecting a rather more exciting answer.
Perhaps the difference in attitudes lies in initial training.
Tim. The example you gave doesn't really prove anything. Your friend made a decision based on incorrect presumption; that the first flap setting would be sufficient for a short field take-off. Quite a reasonable presumption given bearing in mind how lift and drag change with flap position but never-the-less, wrong. Sad accident, especially when the correct answer was easily available to him.
I believe that the RAF even 'way back then' had POHs but Dahl shows that it isn't impossible.
I know a chap who, when asked what the Spitfire is like to fly replied, "It's just another aeroplane!" The askee was expecting a rather more exciting answer.
Perhaps the difference in attitudes lies in initial training.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Perhaps the difference in attitudes lies in initial training.
Attitudes change and times change.
I was amazed for quite a while when I dear friend of mine who flew just about everything during the last war told me if you hadn’t gone solo after 8 hours questions were asked, by ten you had been transferred to the army.
However a lot of young men lost their lives, some because they were not sufficiently familiar with their aircraft.
Today we live in a society adverse to any risk.
When I started flying, a SEP rating was just that - you could fly just about any SEP, and most clubs would let you do so. Today many clubs look on each SEP as if it was a type rating.
Common sense would suggest there are many singles which are sufficiently similar as to not cause a problem. The same is more or less true of MEPs. However, the differences start to mount up on some types as do the performance. Differences (enough of them) and performance are the two things that will catch you out. The laws of aerodynamics don’t change but the extra speed and inertia of some twins (or even a few singles) do change and may come as quite a surprise.
Attitudes change and times change.
I was amazed for quite a while when I dear friend of mine who flew just about everything during the last war told me if you hadn’t gone solo after 8 hours questions were asked, by ten you had been transferred to the army.
However a lot of young men lost their lives, some because they were not sufficiently familiar with their aircraft.
Today we live in a society adverse to any risk.
When I started flying, a SEP rating was just that - you could fly just about any SEP, and most clubs would let you do so. Today many clubs look on each SEP as if it was a type rating.
Common sense would suggest there are many singles which are sufficiently similar as to not cause a problem. The same is more or less true of MEPs. However, the differences start to mount up on some types as do the performance. Differences (enough of them) and performance are the two things that will catch you out. The laws of aerodynamics don’t change but the extra speed and inertia of some twins (or even a few singles) do change and may come as quite a surprise.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Surrey, UK.
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IMHO the differences only matter when something goes wrong - which is where eharding was coming from I believe.
Any competent pilot should be able to takeoff, maintain S&L, and probably even "land" (in a fashion) if everything is working correctly.
But throw in a couple of system failures and/or an unusual attitudes and/or an engine out (MEP) and/or an incipient stall/spin and all bets are off unless there has been some type familiarity/training.
Learning to fly MEP you spend roughly 5/7 hours with one engine simulated failed: It is not the "usual" you are training for but the "unusual".
BTW, comparing peacetime attitudes to risk with war-time ones is bizarre.
Any competent pilot should be able to takeoff, maintain S&L, and probably even "land" (in a fashion) if everything is working correctly.
But throw in a couple of system failures and/or an unusual attitudes and/or an engine out (MEP) and/or an incipient stall/spin and all bets are off unless there has been some type familiarity/training.
Learning to fly MEP you spend roughly 5/7 hours with one engine simulated failed: It is not the "usual" you are training for but the "unusual".
BTW, comparing peacetime attitudes to risk with war-time ones is bizarre.
Last edited by rustle; 11th Dec 2006 at 12:26.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rustle
Well put, I nearly added that the problems with lack of familiarity really start when something goes wrong or when you are flying the aircraft near the limits of its normal envelope.
However it is interesting where the line is drawn. Consideration is currently being given to whether or not an aircraft with a glass display should require a type rating - there are many instructors who consider it should. So for example a pilot accustom to flying a conventionally equipped DA40 would not be able to fly a DA40 with G1000 - same aircraft of course, vastly different systems though. In the same way train on a DA42, and you cant legally fly any other twin.
Well put, I nearly added that the problems with lack of familiarity really start when something goes wrong or when you are flying the aircraft near the limits of its normal envelope.
However it is interesting where the line is drawn. Consideration is currently being given to whether or not an aircraft with a glass display should require a type rating - there are many instructors who consider it should. So for example a pilot accustom to flying a conventionally equipped DA40 would not be able to fly a DA40 with G1000 - same aircraft of course, vastly different systems though. In the same way train on a DA42, and you cant legally fly any other twin.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Somerset, UK
Age: 75
Posts: 82
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Getting back to the original quote at the start of this thread "Any one who dares call themself a pilot should be able to get into ANY aeroplane and fly it."
No conditionals in that bald tatement about the range of aircraft beinbg limited to "similar" to that which I already know o I would have to disagree :-
1. I would call myself a pilot - albeit JAR-PPL with about 200 hours
2. I do not think I could even start, let alone fly half the aircraft hangared at my home airfield.
OK after reading the POH etc I may be able to get most single engined, simple, land aircraft off the ground and back on again without killing myself but that is hardly a good defintion of "fly", as far as complex types and multi-engined then a DEFINITE no.
No conditionals in that bald tatement about the range of aircraft beinbg limited to "similar" to that which I already know o I would have to disagree :-
1. I would call myself a pilot - albeit JAR-PPL with about 200 hours
2. I do not think I could even start, let alone fly half the aircraft hangared at my home airfield.
OK after reading the POH etc I may be able to get most single engined, simple, land aircraft off the ground and back on again without killing myself but that is hardly a good defintion of "fly", as far as complex types and multi-engined then a DEFINITE no.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Not a million miles from EGTF
Age: 68
Posts: 1,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just to wind up a few of the 'you must have a check ride first' posts
Over my long and not very distinguished flying career I have 'self converted' approximately a dozen times without incident
The reason - most were single-seat gliders and three were single-seat PFA types with no 2-seat equivalent.
The secret was laid down by Derek Piggott in assessing the likely handling of the aircraft and in being prepared before committing flight. This will include talking to pilots who have experience of the type and a decent period reading the handbook and learning the numbers.
As with all aircraft you start slowly and methodically and build up gradually the flight envelope you are happy to live with. It is, after all, what test pilots do
I try (not always successfully) to do something new on each flight and avoid taking the aircraft for granted until I am happy I know how she will react.
I am more worried by those PPLs who learn on a C172/PA28 which, lets face it, flatter your skills, and think they are pilots. Most never move out of their 'comfort zone' or take any further instruction/coaching.
Over my long and not very distinguished flying career I have 'self converted' approximately a dozen times without incident
The reason - most were single-seat gliders and three were single-seat PFA types with no 2-seat equivalent.
The secret was laid down by Derek Piggott in assessing the likely handling of the aircraft and in being prepared before committing flight. This will include talking to pilots who have experience of the type and a decent period reading the handbook and learning the numbers.
As with all aircraft you start slowly and methodically and build up gradually the flight envelope you are happy to live with. It is, after all, what test pilots do
I try (not always successfully) to do something new on each flight and avoid taking the aircraft for granted until I am happy I know how she will react.
I am more worried by those PPLs who learn on a C172/PA28 which, lets face it, flatter your skills, and think they are pilots. Most never move out of their 'comfort zone' or take any further instruction/coaching.
I call myself a pilot, more importantly, so do various licencing authorities. I have flown 49 types as pilot in command, which is somewhat above average (96 types in total, I've often not been PiC, particularly in a flight test environment - but that most certainly DOES NOT give me an excuse not to know the aeroplane).
Fairly regularly I have to go and fly something I've not flown before. Depending upon how novel it is to me, I might *only* spend half a day looking through the manuals, preparing kneeboard cards, and if I possibly can fly with an experienced pilot on type for an hour or more.
If I'm flying something as PiC that I've not flown before (it happens occasionally) I'll normally allow myself a couple of days preparation with manuals, speaking to anybody who knows something worthwhile about the aircraft, preparing abbreviated notes to take into the aircraft with me. Then when I fly it, I effectively check myself out in the air - with a few gentle hops, careful handling investigation in the middle of the envelope, and as I build up my knowledge of the aircraft, get towards steep turns, Vne, stalls, and so-on. I'll normally try out a few missed approaches and flap selection/retraction practices at a safe height too.
Interestingly, the older (and presumably more experienced) I get the more I feel the need to do all this preparation. At the same time, I seem to find aeroplanes frightening me a lot less when I'm in them. I wonder if these two are related?
That said, I think that most pilots (frankly I don't think that it matters whether they're a PPL, ATPL or military) could self convert to an aircraft in a familiar class. BUT, have they been taught how to do so? - in most cases I suspect not. It is, incidentally one of the more important things they teach trainee Test Pilots.
G
Fairly regularly I have to go and fly something I've not flown before. Depending upon how novel it is to me, I might *only* spend half a day looking through the manuals, preparing kneeboard cards, and if I possibly can fly with an experienced pilot on type for an hour or more.
If I'm flying something as PiC that I've not flown before (it happens occasionally) I'll normally allow myself a couple of days preparation with manuals, speaking to anybody who knows something worthwhile about the aircraft, preparing abbreviated notes to take into the aircraft with me. Then when I fly it, I effectively check myself out in the air - with a few gentle hops, careful handling investigation in the middle of the envelope, and as I build up my knowledge of the aircraft, get towards steep turns, Vne, stalls, and so-on. I'll normally try out a few missed approaches and flap selection/retraction practices at a safe height too.
Interestingly, the older (and presumably more experienced) I get the more I feel the need to do all this preparation. At the same time, I seem to find aeroplanes frightening me a lot less when I'm in them. I wonder if these two are related?
That said, I think that most pilots (frankly I don't think that it matters whether they're a PPL, ATPL or military) could self convert to an aircraft in a familiar class. BUT, have they been taught how to do so? - in most cases I suspect not. It is, incidentally one of the more important things they teach trainee Test Pilots.
G