The Check-Out Scandal: Discussion.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: The Heart
Posts: 811
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Check-Out Scandal: Discussion.
Having posted few thoughts on the 'PA28-Bonanza' thread caused me to think about this whole check-out business. I was often disturbed hearing about how many hours you should do for this type, that you shouldn't side slip below x thousand feet, this aeroplane bites, aerobatics is dangerous.
So, I came to discuss the topic with another pilot who made what at first seemed a rather bold statement. But he has a very valid point.
"Any one who dares call themself a pilot should be able to get into ANY aeroplane and fly it."
Please discuss.
So, I came to discuss the topic with another pilot who made what at first seemed a rather bold statement. But he has a very valid point.
"Any one who dares call themself a pilot should be able to get into ANY aeroplane and fly it."
Please discuss.
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
Title says it all doesn't it? 'Moron flies a helicopter.'
Fools rush in?
To avoid the ridiculous examples, bearing in mind that this is posted in the private flying forum not the test pilot, instructor or military forum, let's keep examples to certificate type.
Perhaps the old single/multi engine MTOW 5700lbs group.
Fools rush in?
To avoid the ridiculous examples, bearing in mind that this is posted in the private flying forum not the test pilot, instructor or military forum, let's keep examples to certificate type.
Perhaps the old single/multi engine MTOW 5700lbs group.
Last edited by Miserlou; 9th Dec 2006 at 12:10.
Come on, Ed. You tell 'em !
An aeroplane's an aeroplane's an aeroplane, innit ?
Read the Manual, have a chat to someone who knows about it, get 'im to tell you how to get the donk' (donks') goin' and have a go ! Some of 'em only have one seat, you know !
Mind you, it does help to have a few hundred hours in !!
An aeroplane's an aeroplane's an aeroplane, innit ?
Read the Manual, have a chat to someone who knows about it, get 'im to tell you how to get the donk' (donks') goin' and have a go ! Some of 'em only have one seat, you know !
Mind you, it does help to have a few hundred hours in !!
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: South Norfolk, England
Age: 58
Posts: 1,195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Any one who dares call themself a pilot should be able to get into ANY aeroplane and fly it."
I've flown a few single seaters now and the above does apply to a certain extent. You have to find out as much as much as you can about how the aircraft should handle, being prepared for how it might handle and rely on the your ability to cope with how it actually does handle. However, any aircraft that is way outside of your experience of type might be ok to pole around the sky ... but taking off, landing or even a small problem ... may just prove that you're not as good as you thought!
SS
Me in serious mode now, Shortstripper.
Totally agree with your sentiments. If it's got a big engine or a nasty bite and you aren't "au fait" with big engines ( and nasty bites), leave it alone until you've worked up to it.
Totally agree with your sentiments. If it's got a big engine or a nasty bite and you aren't "au fait" with big engines ( and nasty bites), leave it alone until you've worked up to it.
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
Miserlou's initial terms of engagement on the thread were a bit vague...slightly clearer now.
Big engines & big bites - concur.
Miserlou really needs to qualify what he means by checkout vs conversion - the example of a 1000 hour Arrow driver deciding to punt a Yak about on the basis he has complex experience comes to mind.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: The Heart
Posts: 811
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Come on chaps, I thought that was the idea of the Private Flying forum. To discuss private flying and that which affects private flying. I apologize for not making it clearer but I thought it was obvious that we are talking about the aeroplanes that you or I are likely to get our hands on.
Shortstripper mentions finding out how it should fly. Reminds me of a piece by Eric Mueller. He said he could look at an aeroplane and tell, or at least have a very good idea about, how it would spin. How many times have you heard the old pearl, "looks right, probably fly right."?
Not so sure there is so much difference between the Yak and the Arrow. Friend of mine rates the Yak about the same as a Cessna Aerobat. That is to say he is rather underwhelmed.
So once you have established that an aircraft has a big engine and are lining up on the runway and checking which side the wind is coming from, do you just let it rip or do you open the carefully judging how much rudder authority you have? When you reach full rudder do you keep adding power? Surely there is too much awe built up around this.
Furthermore, most aeroplanes with powerful engines have powerful engines because they need them. Those which are 'overpowered' if there is such a thing, are overpowered because the designer wanted them that way and they have the controls to handle that power, usually aerobatic or racers.
Shortstripper mentions finding out how it should fly. Reminds me of a piece by Eric Mueller. He said he could look at an aeroplane and tell, or at least have a very good idea about, how it would spin. How many times have you heard the old pearl, "looks right, probably fly right."?
Not so sure there is so much difference between the Yak and the Arrow. Friend of mine rates the Yak about the same as a Cessna Aerobat. That is to say he is rather underwhelmed.
So once you have established that an aircraft has a big engine and are lining up on the runway and checking which side the wind is coming from, do you just let it rip or do you open the carefully judging how much rudder authority you have? When you reach full rudder do you keep adding power? Surely there is too much awe built up around this.
Furthermore, most aeroplanes with powerful engines have powerful engines because they need them. Those which are 'overpowered' if there is such a thing, are overpowered because the designer wanted them that way and they have the controls to handle that power, usually aerobatic or racers.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: US
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Self-checkouts
I don't think there are any easy answers here. Sure, a relatively experienced pilot should be able to fly any aircraft that's basically similar to his/her previous experience, but how does one define "relatively experienced"? I thought I was relatively experienced back when I had 300 hours or so, and bought a single seat taildragger biplane. Got a 7 hour taildragger rating in a Citabria, had one flight in a Pitts, and picked up the biplane (in the US, where no type rating is required) and, after long chats with several more experienced people, took off...to great dramas. Huge lurch to the left, followed by a huge rudder-induced swerve to the right, then airborne...5000 feet over Los Angeles and no idea how to land the thing. Had a go, and ran it off the concrete into the grass...swore I'd get back on the horse, flew it again and nearly crashed it on landing. Scared me stupid. That was the end of any confidence re self check-outs, for a long time. Now, with 1600 TT, mainly on very high powered taildraggers, (Harmon Rocket and so on) with some 300 hours of heli time, I think it'd be a pussy-cat.
But getting a full checkout in, for instance, a 182 is now a total yawn, now I actually know how to fly. Problem is, how is the regulator expected to know when people are capable of self-rating, and when not? Hence the requirement for type ratings, extensive check-outs, and so on.
Regulator, of course, errs on the side of caution. No easy way around that, that I can see. I was reasonably stupid back then, along the lines of Mr Heli-Moron but not as bad, and am now hopefully a little less stupid. Coulda died in that biplane, though...
The easy answer would be, for instance, no type rating required if you have over, say, 1000 hours. But not all 1000 hours are the same - some are the same 100 hours, repeated ten times, some are earned the hard way, in lots of different aircraft, and different environments.
Personally, I can understand the need for a type-rating, even though it's an annoying requirement. Perhaps it should be left to a competent instructor to exercise some discretion, and after the first take off and landing, sign off people who obviously know that they're doing...and to require the full 1, 2, 3 or more flights for transitioning pilots who may not have learned to fly properly in the first place (very common). Can't see any easy way around it, otherwise.
But getting a full checkout in, for instance, a 182 is now a total yawn, now I actually know how to fly. Problem is, how is the regulator expected to know when people are capable of self-rating, and when not? Hence the requirement for type ratings, extensive check-outs, and so on.
Regulator, of course, errs on the side of caution. No easy way around that, that I can see. I was reasonably stupid back then, along the lines of Mr Heli-Moron but not as bad, and am now hopefully a little less stupid. Coulda died in that biplane, though...
The easy answer would be, for instance, no type rating required if you have over, say, 1000 hours. But not all 1000 hours are the same - some are the same 100 hours, repeated ten times, some are earned the hard way, in lots of different aircraft, and different environments.
Personally, I can understand the need for a type-rating, even though it's an annoying requirement. Perhaps it should be left to a competent instructor to exercise some discretion, and after the first take off and landing, sign off people who obviously know that they're doing...and to require the full 1, 2, 3 or more flights for transitioning pilots who may not have learned to fly properly in the first place (very common). Can't see any easy way around it, otherwise.
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
Compared to the Extra or the Pitts, the Yak does feel like a bit of a bus - but there are quite a few 52s knocking around on the competition circuit, and will compete quite happily at Standard level - I've yet to see an Aerobat get round a Standard sequence in one go - invariably they have to take numerous breaks between figures - and in any case it's very rare to see one at a competition at all.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: The Heart
Posts: 811
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?
The comparison Yak/Cessna was handling based, not performance.
Lostpianoplayer's 'confessions of a virgin Pitts pilot' were great. Thanks for sharing them.
We've all been young and rash. But it demonstrates well my previously stated example of finding how well power and rudder are matched. Of course, you don't have to take-off after the first application of full power. When faced with a very unfamiliar type a few shots down the runway will enable one to experience the take-off run and the landing run without the risk involved with hitting the ground, perhaps slightly sideways.
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?
The comparison Yak/Cessna was handling based, not performance.
Lostpianoplayer's 'confessions of a virgin Pitts pilot' were great. Thanks for sharing them.
We've all been young and rash. But it demonstrates well my previously stated example of finding how well power and rudder are matched. Of course, you don't have to take-off after the first application of full power. When faced with a very unfamiliar type a few shots down the runway will enable one to experience the take-off run and the landing run without the risk involved with hitting the ground, perhaps slightly sideways.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Anywhere
Posts: 2,212
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Like everything it's all down to individual ability - some people can, some people can't. The only real arbiters of this are ourselves provided we have the ability to be totally honest with ourselves (which will rule out some of the ego's out there 
Scenario - just renewed twin rating after a four year lapse (Seneca). Thrown keys to an Aztec Turbo with the comment "Grab an hour by yourself so that you're happy, you can take the boss to EGCC Thursday".
Two hours with the POH, another hour familiarising myself with the aircraft inside and out, time to start engines. One hour later, back on the ground - job done. Providing you approach each phase of the flight from start to shut down analytically, and learn the relevant speeds and configurations beforehand there is no "mystique" to moving onto other aircraft by yourself.
But you have to be honest about your own abilities and approach to the situation first (I find being an easily scared pessimist helps big time!
)
Scenario - just renewed twin rating after a four year lapse (Seneca). Thrown keys to an Aztec Turbo with the comment "Grab an hour by yourself so that you're happy, you can take the boss to EGCC Thursday".
Two hours with the POH, another hour familiarising myself with the aircraft inside and out, time to start engines. One hour later, back on the ground - job done. Providing you approach each phase of the flight from start to shut down analytically, and learn the relevant speeds and configurations beforehand there is no "mystique" to moving onto other aircraft by yourself.
But you have to be honest about your own abilities and approach to the situation first (I find being an easily scared pessimist helps big time!
)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: North of South
Posts: 831
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree with some here you cannot realistically get into an aircraft youve never flown and be competent without being shown a few of the pitfalls. I learnt on PA38's at an international airport . I then got a share in cessna 172 based at a grass strip , it might as well have been an sr71 i couldnt get that thing down for love nor money until Id had a few checkrides , thought id forgotten everything I was ever taught .
You need training end of story
You need training end of story