Downwind Checks ?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Belgium
Posts: 265
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Stillin1
thanks for that - it was essentially the purpose of my post. I don't have the vast experience of others on this forum, but finding myself flying one or two different types (essentially the same, but with slightly different "toys", mostly in the fuel area), I did review what the checks were trying to achieve - i.e. *think* about it, what was different and why!
On the basis of that, I tried to develop my own check system that would encompass the essential elements in an ordered way (i.e. Fuel, Engine, Airframe, Instruments), rather than (what I consider to be disorganised) BUMp... If its organised, then it can logically be adapted to (any?) type.
As I will soon be doing some training on a slightly more advanced type, I was a little surprised to find the old BUMpfff.... rearing its head again, and which I obviously will have to re-learn.
GB
thanks for that - it was essentially the purpose of my post. I don't have the vast experience of others on this forum, but finding myself flying one or two different types (essentially the same, but with slightly different "toys", mostly in the fuel area), I did review what the checks were trying to achieve - i.e. *think* about it, what was different and why!
On the basis of that, I tried to develop my own check system that would encompass the essential elements in an ordered way (i.e. Fuel, Engine, Airframe, Instruments), rather than (what I consider to be disorganised) BUMp... If its organised, then it can logically be adapted to (any?) type.
As I will soon be doing some training on a slightly more advanced type, I was a little surprised to find the old BUMpfff.... rearing its head again, and which I obviously will have to re-learn.
GB
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Vancouver Island
Posts: 2,517
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I read this thread with interest. Chuck...your last comment..you owned a flight school and then sacked the people you hired??? Hmmm coz they didn't do it your way. Did you not interview them in the first place and establish their practises??
Conflict Alert, I see you have problems with comprehension.
So let me spell it out so you can understand.
They were my employees and I owned the airplane, I felt that I had the right to protect my investment from instructors who seemed to be more like religious fundamentalists than flight instructors, unable to accept anything other than what they were taught and believed in.
They were not terminated, I gave then a notice of dismissal if they were not prepared to operate my airplane as I wished.
It is my opinion that putting the props in high RPM doing holds at a beacon is just plain stupid and I do not keep stupid pilots on my pay roll.
Conflict Alert, I see you have problems with comprehension.
So let me spell it out so you can understand.
They were my employees and I owned the airplane, I felt that I had the right to protect my investment from instructors who seemed to be more like religious fundamentalists than flight instructors, unable to accept anything other than what they were taught and believed in.
They were not terminated, I gave then a notice of dismissal if they were not prepared to operate my airplane as I wished.
It is my opinion that putting the props in high RPM doing holds at a beacon is just plain stupid and I do not keep stupid pilots on my pay roll.
Guest
Posts: n/a
CHUCK
My reference to high RPM (pitch fine) is on final. I couldn't agree with you more regarding holding patterns, in fact I fly reduced power when holding. I can assure you that I have no problem with comprehension at all, I was merely making the point that I was suprised you would employ a bunch of people without first checking their practises. The aircraft is your biggest and most important asset in a flying business and I wouldn't just let any Joe fly it without first going for a strop with them.
DAVE
Type Ratings - in NZ you must be type rated on an aircraft before flying solo or pax. We used to have a Group Rating system which was disestablished some years ago e.g. fixed gear /CSU. You could then technically fly any aircraft that was fixed gear with CSU provided you did 3 takeoffs and landings. This was changed and you are now required to get a Type Rating on each type of aircraft.
My Gliding Logbook has a section in the front where you are required to show which Gliders you are rated to fly and these entries must be signed by an Instructor.
My Helicopter / Fixed Wing Logbook have pages at the back dedicated to 'TYPE RATING' which again is signed off by an Instructor for each aircraft type you have rated in.
Quote
My reference to high RPM (pitch fine) is on final. I couldn't agree with you more regarding holding patterns, in fact I fly reduced power when holding. I can assure you that I have no problem with comprehension at all, I was merely making the point that I was suprised you would employ a bunch of people without first checking their practises. The aircraft is your biggest and most important asset in a flying business and I wouldn't just let any Joe fly it without first going for a strop with them.
DAVE
Type Ratings - in NZ you must be type rated on an aircraft before flying solo or pax. We used to have a Group Rating system which was disestablished some years ago e.g. fixed gear /CSU. You could then technically fly any aircraft that was fixed gear with CSU provided you did 3 takeoffs and landings. This was changed and you are now required to get a Type Rating on each type of aircraft.
My Gliding Logbook has a section in the front where you are required to show which Gliders you are rated to fly and these entries must be signed by an Instructor.
My Helicopter / Fixed Wing Logbook have pages at the back dedicated to 'TYPE RATING' which again is signed off by an Instructor for each aircraft type you have rated in.
Quote
TYPE RATING CERTIFICATE
"This is to certify that (name) has successfullly demonstrated to the instructor whose signature appears below, technical knowledge of the aircraft and ability to perform competently all normal, ab normal and emergency manoeuvres appropriate to the aircraft type in accordance with the requirements of Civil Aviation Rule Part 61 Sub-Part B.
Unquote
FUJI your unfounded sarcasm is noted. Different countries - different rules
Unquote
FUJI your unfounded sarcasm is noted. Different countries - different rules
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FUJI your unfounded sarcasm is noted. Different countries - different rules
Tongue in cheek IMHO an argument should stack up on its own merits and not because the proponent is coming from having a million hours to his credit or 500 types because on a forum like this you are likely to find the person before has two million hours .. .. ..
Still an interesting debate .. .. ..
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Lincolnshire
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fair enough Conflict. I think my problem is that I've flown a few different types here and there, and just can't get my head round why any small, simple flying machine needs a 'Type Rating'. To me, if its got a 'Type Rating' its big (heavier than 5,700kg) and complicated. What on Earth does the procedure for being granted a 'Type Rating' for something as simple as a K-8 glider actually entail? Many many years ago, the K-8 was the first single-seat sailplane I ever flew. If I'm reading the NZ rules right, I'd have needed to be 'Type Rated' in the -8 before going solo - but its a single-seater. In NZ, are you really granted a 'Type Rating' to fly something, before you've ever flown it?
I'm not trying to be funny - am genuinely curious.
I'm not trying to be funny - am genuinely curious.
Last edited by Dave Unwin; 30th Mar 2007 at 07:55.
Guest
Posts: n/a
DAVE - I know, quite bizzare isn't it, but the anwser is yes. Its a bit of an anomoly with the single seaters.....but it still has to be signed off BUT after you have conducted a flight (sorry, might have put you crook with my previous comment. I wasn't thinking about singles when I wrote that). For example the PW5 and LS4 involved a briefing and sitting in the machine - followed by an observed flight from the ground, and having satisfied the instructor, I was signed off as type rated. Same for the Pawnee - involved the instructor sitting on the wing and going thru things - watching me conduct 3 takeoff and landings and then signed me off as type rated.
FUJI - I get your point, while I agree that a discussion ( or as you say - argument) should stack up on its own merits, I also believe that when stating something, at times, its prudent to back it up. I could easily have said don't worry about checklists-waste of time, having only flown 1 aircraft. However on this debate, I thought it prudent to state that I had flown a wide range of aircraft (Quote "I'm type rated in over 40 different aircraft, including helicopters and gliders") to provide substance or credence to my comments regarding the checklists. And no...I don't have a million hours.
Cheers
FUJI - I get your point, while I agree that a discussion ( or as you say - argument) should stack up on its own merits, I also believe that when stating something, at times, its prudent to back it up. I could easily have said don't worry about checklists-waste of time, having only flown 1 aircraft. However on this debate, I thought it prudent to state that I had flown a wide range of aircraft (Quote "I'm type rated in over 40 different aircraft, including helicopters and gliders") to provide substance or credence to my comments regarding the checklists. And no...I don't have a million hours.
Cheers
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Lincolnshire
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I understand now Conflict, although I still find the whole idea of being 'Type Rated' in a PW-5, or even a Pawnee, as very odd. I have around 2,500hrs in Pawnees, but do not hold a 'Type Rating' for the PA-25.
It sounds like you have even more rules in NZ than we do!
It sounds like you have even more rules in NZ than we do!
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
your comment about the arrow..I own a T tail arrow. I'm type rated in over 40 different aircraft, including helicopters and gliders. Putting the prop to full fine will only put 2 dents (as you put it) in the wings due to a heavy landing. I suggest to you that this would only happen when the aircraft is at a speed not sufficient to reduce the rate of descent (or flare) thereby indicating that the pilot was either trying to stretch out the glide profile to the point that the aircraft fell out of the sky or they just failed to flare althogether from a nose down dive! There is bugger all difference between fixed prop and CSU when it comes to engine failure....they all act like a break..and unless you have a feather function or want to pull the aircraft up into a vertical climb to stall the prop and stop rotation fully then it all comes down to the pilot. (I'm talking smaller aircraft).
But have flown most PA28's, including Arrow II and Arrow IV. The incident I refer to was in an Arrow II.......Anyway, my comment was to illustrate the dangers of being a robot and not thinking what you are doing but just doing them because the checklist says so.In an Arrow there is a vast difference between RoD with the prop pulled back or pushed forward.......Granted if the engine has indeed failed the prop will probably be fully fine anyway, but in my example said chap just went through the checks, and was probablly going to *just* make it ok, but introducing the fully fine prop pushed them over the edge and they did indeed landed heavy and badly damaged the plane.
