... but bearing in mind that schools sometimes provide students with school check lists, and instructors will expect students to follow the school version. (It'll cover the same ground, but may have different emphasis, and extra items, and do things in a different order. Simple example: POH check list might say to switch all lights off when leaving the aircraft, but school check list might say to leave the beacon on, that way they can see from the club house when you've forgotten to turn the master switch off before the battery has gone flat.)

We run nearly a dozen 172s. All different in some way or another. Like I said, just wait, I have very competent staff......

Spend your time learning your theory as suggested earlier as that will be the blocker to you finishing.

@bose-x, will do.

Books (Kit 1) ordered with Hans should be here in a day or 7.

Thanks.

What I was hinting at was the woeful lack of understanding of the aircraft systems and specifics of operating it - especially the emergencies. However, yes the school may provide different checklists that cover all eventualities and all versions.

I once learned the POH to a greater level of detail than my PPL examiner knew it - when he asked what instruments would be lost with a total electrical failure I included all the engine instruments (as well as the flight instruments) and told him which ones would and wouldn't be affected, not something he kept in his head for a C152. I've forgotten all that now, of course.

Yet even better will be the checklists for all of these things which are provided in the approved manufacturer's flight manual for the aircraft. It is wise to use the checklist approved for the specific type you are flying.

In your effort yo understand systems, consider each item in the cockpit, and ask yourself, "why was it included in this aircraft?". With the understanding of why it is there, and then how it operates, and what powers it, your knowledge of aircraft systems will grow well.

Incidentally, whilst this may seem anti intuitive - if you want to hear good RT *don't* listen to an American tower feed. That country uses some of the worst non standard aviation English in the world.

If you want to hear really excellent quality aviation English RT, you would be far better off searching out a feed from Germany or Belgium.

G

You'll hear a good mix of international RT practices down at Jerez. IIRC when I did a few pleasure flights from FIS the area controller was handling a whole bunch of US mil traffic along with the usual Northern European commercial flights full of sun seekers and a smattering of GA trainers and bimblers.

I noticed :) Looked for Brussels, Amsterdam, etc.

To my surprise the Schiphol (Amsterdam) ATC's speak DUTCH in between their English (as do some KLM pilots). Often just greetings like good morning or so but still. I thought that when at least one party spoke English on the Radio all should switch to English. At JFK I also hear them use numbers in stead of digits. Another thing I thought was not done.

However, I don't have the RT books yet and the above examples makes me understand all the warnings in replies to my OP that one must avoid learning wrong things or develop bad habits with simulators, and I will now extend that to unverified assumptions and poor or bad sources of information.

Pooley's where are you, I am waiting impatiently :)

Your location says you're in Belgium?

In which case, no need to much about with the internet - just get hold of a VHF scanner and a chart and listen to the local en-route RT.

Pleasantries in local languages are normal. I'll generally greet French controllers with "**** radar, bonjour, this is G-ABCD", or words to that effect. Most countries will do a small amount of local language conversation with local traffic.

But, my experience en-route in Belgium and Germany is that those two countries have consistently some of the most clear and correct English on RT. They're unlikely to lead you astray.

Whilst the UK has a few national differences also, this book is free online and covers all of the basic principles extremely well...

https://publicapps.caa.co.uk/modalap...detail&id=6973

The main non-standard things in the UK are the names of "services" (Basic, traffic, etc.), the rest is pretty much universal and will work anywhere.

G

Glad to be corrected, but I would add Swiss airports to the list of eligible "field" sources regarding correct (English) ICAO phraseology, and there are several available on liveatc.net.

Side note (and question to the instructors here) regarding the pros(?) and cons of PC simulator use: in my case, the idea of "I wonder how flying feels in reality" which led to my going for a PPL stems from MSFS exploits, and I suppose I am not the only person with that "background". Maybe my flight instructors were simply so polite as to never rub this in as a handicap -- or it really wasn't of noticeable importance after all. Do you think it is really the PC simming per se which causes trouble, or rather an "I already learnt about flying from MSFS/X-Plane/whatever, so no need to (re)learn"-attitude?

Having said that, I completely agree that for all aircraft handling aspects, PC sims (no matter which one, and even with joystick/yoke, pedals, and TrackIR) are largely useless and transfer badly to the real thing (the other way around works better IMHO :)). By contrast, with good scenery packs they can be pretty helpful for improving navigation (even without scenery packs for pre-GPS radio navigation) and online networks like VATSIM or IVAO offer the opportunity to practice active RT fluency for free.

Either/both depending on the individual to be honest. The second is much harder in my experience to work with. At least someone who realises that they dont know how to fly is willing to work to get rid of the bad habits (like not looking out of the window), somebody who thinks they can fly a 747, and therefore any other aeroplane, because thats what they played with on the sim can be a real pain.

Basically use of simulators to learn "solo" is bad and will cost more time and money in the long run. Simulators to practice something already well understood from proper teaching - is good sensible practice.

G

Was it just me who misread this that you started off French controlled pleasantries with a swear word? ;-)

Well I tried writing "P-o-i-t-i-e-r-s" but it got filtered out ;)

G

The radio bit will come with practice. You will that a standard procedure is use for most calls - Who you are, where you are what you want. You will them be told how to get what you want. And if they speak too fast, you are ask in plain language "Please speak slower" and they will.

With regard to instruments, learn what you need to know from the syllabus used for your licence. When you are flying hopefully you will be taught that the best "instrument" is the one out of the window (the clocks inside are rubbish and a poor representation of the real world, the one outside your aircraft). Your ears will tell you how hard the engine is working and the noise of the airstream will tell you how fast you are flying. Your hands, feet and bum will tell you if you are doing a good job.

If you have spare time, brush up on mental maths. Your tables are worth learning off pat.

And that's about it.

PM

My take would be learning by yourself in a simulator without someone directing you means firstly you will probably be very instrument focused rather than getting your main attitude references from outside the aircraft.
To the uninitiated it would seem obvious that flying using instruments to give you information on the aircraft's behaviour would make you a better pilot but in fact if a pilot relies on instruments early in their training it is a great hinderance. I think the ideal aircraft for teaching ab initio pilots would be one with minimal instrumentation and great visibilty. A J3 Cub comes to mind - seriously.

Secondly you will work out by trial and error how to get the aircraft to do what you want to do. Which will work most of the time. However it means you will not really have developed a strong grasp (and may have misconceptions) of how the controls individually act on the aircraft and behave under different conditions - understanding that gives a strong foundation for developing good hand and feet skills (and a deficiency here may come into play quite early - eg when learning to land the aircraft, particularly in more challenging conditions).

Finally any bad habits you pick up teaching yourself, (eg how you control descent profiles, landing technique, speed control, engine operation, trimming etc), having been learnt first, often are difficult to dislodge (something called "primacy" - what you learn first often has a strong hold over subsequent behaviour, particularly when you are under stress which is why instructors aim to install good basic skills from the start of training - having a good instructor during the first phases of learning to fly can make a big difference in how quickly you progress later on).

This doesn't mean I am saying you will be a bad pilot if you learn on a sim, simply it is not really the best way to learn to fly a real aeroplane and may be a hindrance (at least when learning to fly the current generation of GA aircraft)

Stick and rudder skills are best taught in an aircraft rather than worked out by yourself on a computer. Use your pre flying time to learn the theory - it will really help when you get into the aircraft.

All this is in my opinion of course - feel free to ignore it :)

Complete agreement, and just as I did not assume before my first PPL lesson that my MSFS hours would make me a better pilot, I do not believe so now either -- they just made me a pilot in the first place ;).

Hi... I am just wondering what our resident Instructors think of Model Aircraft Fliers, especially those that can perform aerobatics such as Spins, Avalanches, and Rolling Circles, with their 'Arising Star' models.


There are also Glider Pilots (and/or Model Glider Pilots.) who must have picked up some habits along the way.
.

The two words that were like magic to me when I was a student pilot: say again.

Every time ATC gave me way more information than I could process, those two words made them condense it into something far more concise and understandable. :ok: