The Check-Out Scandal: Discussion.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you fly a twin and spend $150/hr to fly it but you can do your BFR in a hired single for $65/hr doesn't that make economic sense?
Or does the simple system prevent that somehow? (Genuine question)
I don't fly twins and never have, so I don't know if whether one can do a BFR in a C172 which would be valid for FAA ME. I am sure a lot of people know the answer however.
Other than that, plenty of people do BFRs in another plane from the one they own. Let's say you are UK based and you rent an N-reg; you will never get DfT permission for training. You have to either get a CFI who will not charge, or do it in some G-reg with a dual rated (FAA+JAA) instructor. Well, those are the overt legal options.
Personally, my attitude is that currency on type is just about everything, so I would always try to do all possible training in the plane I fly (and have 500+ hrs in). For the FAA IR this was virtually impossible, so I did it in a PA28 in the USA. For the FAA CPL this now appears feasible, and also I don't really have to do the CPL for any reason.
I reckon that in the USA (where these stupid legal issues don't exist) almost every pilot will do a BFR/IPC in his plane.
Finally, you can't rent a single for $65/hour anymore. Not on an ad hoc one-off basis, not unless it is some kind of wreckage. 5 years ago maybe. Now the going rate is around $90 for an old PA28-161. This is probably higher than the marginal cost of flying your own plane, especially if it is a nice new one with negligible maintenance costs. The marginal cost of a nearly new TB20 is less than what I can rent a C150 for, and it would be the same everywhere.
Or does the simple system prevent that somehow? (Genuine question)
I don't fly twins and never have, so I don't know if whether one can do a BFR in a C172 which would be valid for FAA ME. I am sure a lot of people know the answer however.
Other than that, plenty of people do BFRs in another plane from the one they own. Let's say you are UK based and you rent an N-reg; you will never get DfT permission for training. You have to either get a CFI who will not charge, or do it in some G-reg with a dual rated (FAA+JAA) instructor. Well, those are the overt legal options.
Personally, my attitude is that currency on type is just about everything, so I would always try to do all possible training in the plane I fly (and have 500+ hrs in). For the FAA IR this was virtually impossible, so I did it in a PA28 in the USA. For the FAA CPL this now appears feasible, and also I don't really have to do the CPL for any reason.
I reckon that in the USA (where these stupid legal issues don't exist) almost every pilot will do a BFR/IPC in his plane.
Finally, you can't rent a single for $65/hour anymore. Not on an ad hoc one-off basis, not unless it is some kind of wreckage. 5 years ago maybe. Now the going rate is around $90 for an old PA28-161. This is probably higher than the marginal cost of flying your own plane, especially if it is a nice new one with negligible maintenance costs. The marginal cost of a nearly new TB20 is less than what I can rent a C150 for, and it would be the same everywhere.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Noted these comments in a recent accident report:
Operational aspects
The commander .... was an experienced instructor and examiner ..... there was no evidence that the commander had previously flown in a Piper PA-38. Although he was licensed to fly the aircraft, it would have been prudent for him to have had a familiarisation flight with another club instructor prior to undertaking a flight with a student.
The commander .... was an experienced instructor and examiner ..... there was no evidence that the commander had previously flown in a Piper PA-38. Although he was licensed to fly the aircraft, it would have been prudent for him to have had a familiarisation flight with another club instructor prior to undertaking a flight with a student.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: London, UK
Age: 50
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No matter how experienced....
Scott crossfield once punched an aircraft through the back of a hangar because although he had read the aircraft's manual, he hadn't been checked out by a pilot who was experienced in the aircraft. If it can happen to him it can happen to you.
The attitude "I'm good enough and experienced enough that I can fly anything" is arrogant and is likely to get one killed. I think it's important to get training on any new type because humans aren't omnipitent, and even small things can cause accidents.
That being said, I do think it can be taken to extreme. At one flying club in the london area the policy is that if you haven't flown one of the club's aircraft of a specific type in the last 60 days (45 days for pilots below 150 hours) then you have to have a checkride in it. It doesn't matter if you've been flying another club's PA-28 50 hours in the last month, you still have to get a checkride. Now that's extreme!
The attitude "I'm good enough and experienced enough that I can fly anything" is arrogant and is likely to get one killed. I think it's important to get training on any new type because humans aren't omnipitent, and even small things can cause accidents.
That being said, I do think it can be taken to extreme. At one flying club in the london area the policy is that if you haven't flown one of the club's aircraft of a specific type in the last 60 days (45 days for pilots below 150 hours) then you have to have a checkride in it. It doesn't matter if you've been flying another club's PA-28 50 hours in the last month, you still have to get a checkride. Now that's extreme!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: The Heart
Posts: 811
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"I'm good enough and experienced enough that I can fly anything"
You are absolutely right, Gregpend, it is arrogant. Aren't we all?
But seriously, your attitude when climbing in should be "I can fly 'this' aeroplane." If it isn't, you really don't have any business being there.
Before condemning this, check it in the negative sense. You bowl up to fly a new type and kick off with, "Hi. I don't think I'm good enough to fly your aeroplane!" (Excuse the mixed metaphors.)
If that is the level of your confidence, how will you deal with a problem?
The Scott Crossfield is example is v. poor. Are you suggesting that he wasn't clever enough to understand what it said in the book and should have had some one read it to him?
You are absolutely right, Gregpend, it is arrogant. Aren't we all?
But seriously, your attitude when climbing in should be "I can fly 'this' aeroplane." If it isn't, you really don't have any business being there.
Before condemning this, check it in the negative sense. You bowl up to fly a new type and kick off with, "Hi. I don't think I'm good enough to fly your aeroplane!" (Excuse the mixed metaphors.)
If that is the level of your confidence, how will you deal with a problem?
The Scott Crossfield is example is v. poor. Are you suggesting that he wasn't clever enough to understand what it said in the book and should have had some one read it to him?
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
Any chance you could expand on the level of experience / qualifications / types or classes for which the quote above holds true?
..and, closer to home...do you have any Pitts time?
All the Pitts drivers I know, future national aeros champions included, cite the first trip in an S2 as a 'Oh God, I'll never fly this thing' moment - me included.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: London, UK
Age: 50
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"I'm good enough and experienced enough that I can fly anything"
You are absolutely right, Gregpend, it is arrogant. Aren't we all?
But seriously, your attitude when climbing in should be "I can fly 'this' aeroplane." If it isn't, you really don't have any business being there.
Before condemning this, check it in the negative sense. You bowl up to fly a new type and kick off with, "Hi. I don't think I'm good enough to fly your aeroplane!" (Excuse the mixed metaphors.)
If that is the level of your confidence, how will you deal with a problem?
The Scott Crossfield is example is v. poor. Are you suggesting that he wasn't clever enough to understand what it said in the book and should have had some one read it to him?
You are absolutely right, Gregpend, it is arrogant. Aren't we all?
But seriously, your attitude when climbing in should be "I can fly 'this' aeroplane." If it isn't, you really don't have any business being there.
Before condemning this, check it in the negative sense. You bowl up to fly a new type and kick off with, "Hi. I don't think I'm good enough to fly your aeroplane!" (Excuse the mixed metaphors.)
If that is the level of your confidence, how will you deal with a problem?
The Scott Crossfield is example is v. poor. Are you suggesting that he wasn't clever enough to understand what it said in the book and should have had some one read it to him?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: The Heart
Posts: 811
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gregpend.
So you are suggesting that Scott needed some one to explain things to him? Please expand on the incident, what happened exactly?
And wasn't he a test pilot himself?
eharding,
Apologies accepted.
Re. Experience levels.
Very good question. Variety is the spice of life. I think experience is to be found in the number of types flown rather than the number of hours. Furthermore, I'd go for quality rather than quantity any day. I'd go so far as to wager that 20 minutes of aeros per month will produce a better pilot than 10 hours of straight and level.
A point which has been raised is the standard of training. That battle was lost long ago and now even spinning is off the curriculum even though it remains a major factor in accidents. Yes, perhaps we are training pilots better but we are not training them to be better pilots.
Within the confines of the modern training and private flying environment, it is very difficult to specify where and when 'experience' is. It is for the individual to seek out the experience and skills which others take for granted.
I do not find arrogance in the 'I can fly this' statement. It is important to maintain a realistic judgement of one's own ability and excercise and expand this. You are bound to scare yourself once in a while but if you're lucky, no one will see it; as long as you saw it yourself!
To quote Neil Williams in the final pages of 'Aerobatics', "It is not a sport for the timid, nor is there room here for the conceited."
Re. Pitts.
Only have a few hours in the S-2b, mainly from hard runways. Like those I know who have lots of time on them, I didn't find it difficult as it we were all coming from similar types, Stampes, Chipmunks, Bellancas etc. Of course we 'lurved' the extra ooomph.
All were agreed on one thing. Once you've put it down you keep the stick back and keep it straight; you just there for the ride while the hopping and skipping sorts itself out (especially the single seaters). Refers mainly to landing on grass.
So you are suggesting that Scott needed some one to explain things to him? Please expand on the incident, what happened exactly?
And wasn't he a test pilot himself?
eharding,
Apologies accepted.
Re. Experience levels.
Very good question. Variety is the spice of life. I think experience is to be found in the number of types flown rather than the number of hours. Furthermore, I'd go for quality rather than quantity any day. I'd go so far as to wager that 20 minutes of aeros per month will produce a better pilot than 10 hours of straight and level.
A point which has been raised is the standard of training. That battle was lost long ago and now even spinning is off the curriculum even though it remains a major factor in accidents. Yes, perhaps we are training pilots better but we are not training them to be better pilots.
Within the confines of the modern training and private flying environment, it is very difficult to specify where and when 'experience' is. It is for the individual to seek out the experience and skills which others take for granted.
I do not find arrogance in the 'I can fly this' statement. It is important to maintain a realistic judgement of one's own ability and excercise and expand this. You are bound to scare yourself once in a while but if you're lucky, no one will see it; as long as you saw it yourself!
To quote Neil Williams in the final pages of 'Aerobatics', "It is not a sport for the timid, nor is there room here for the conceited."
Re. Pitts.
Only have a few hours in the S-2b, mainly from hard runways. Like those I know who have lots of time on them, I didn't find it difficult as it we were all coming from similar types, Stampes, Chipmunks, Bellancas etc. Of course we 'lurved' the extra ooomph.
All were agreed on one thing. Once you've put it down you keep the stick back and keep it straight; you just there for the ride while the hopping and skipping sorts itself out (especially the single seaters). Refers mainly to landing on grass.
Scott Crossfield, who died earlier this year (flying), was widely regarded as one of the finest test pilots ever. I had the privilege to meet him once at a test flying conference, and whilst I've not flown with him, he certainly came across to me as a man so far beyond my own understanding of aviation that I may as well not bother getting out of bed.
Another rather well known and regarded Test Pilot was Neil Armstrong (I only mention him because I'm reading his biography at the moment).
Both had bent aeroplanes very badly at points in their careers.
What does this tell us? Basically that test flying is dangerous, and that even the best in the world can have (for whatever reason) a bad day.
Which I'm pretty certain we all knew already! It's a non-argument.
We also all know that at some point, any pilot has to stop gathering information, trying to be as safe as possible, and actually fly the aeroplane, so nobody ever gets airborne quite as prepared as they could be.
G
Another rather well known and regarded Test Pilot was Neil Armstrong (I only mention him because I'm reading his biography at the moment).
Both had bent aeroplanes very badly at points in their careers.
What does this tell us? Basically that test flying is dangerous, and that even the best in the world can have (for whatever reason) a bad day.
Which I'm pretty certain we all knew already! It's a non-argument.
We also all know that at some point, any pilot has to stop gathering information, trying to be as safe as possible, and actually fly the aeroplane, so nobody ever gets airborne quite as prepared as they could be.
G
