|
OK children back to class!:rolleyes:
Talk about abuse of bandwidth!:rolleyes: I should be a moderator:D :D :p :D :D |
EnglishAl
I find it interesting that when something really really nasty happens (not an engine failure, though bad management of that has caused fatalities) on a two pilot plane, and the plane is lost. You get all these really experienced and old guys coming out and saying 'if only we had the FE still, we need three guys on the flight deck to handle real emergencies'. Now we can have one experienced guy and one person just out of nappies. Undoubtably the green JAA FO is a precision pilot, but sometimes it takes a lot more than that. Hey Rowley. Before you can be moderator you have to have something interesting and useful to say. So as you haven;t done so yet how about starting now :D At least www posts valuable stuff and doesn't appear to want to censor posts, which I assume would be your method. www just knows jack about the US and wants to tell us how to spend our money :D WWW, if you want to do a great fly drive in the US then fly to LAX, rent a convertable mustang (red if possible) and on the first night drive like mad all the way to north California and Shasta. Spend the next week or two driving back down the Pacific Coast Highway to LA. Beats anything that Florida can offer, in my opinion. |
My dear weasly friend:
Please, please, stop being condesending, professional pilots with even a glimmer of experience do not mention they have done half a dozen ADF approaches in any given time frame no more than they would describe the intricaties of how they tie their shoe laces in the morning. Can't you understand that there was a time when ADF's were the only approaches pilots had as approach aids for most of their flying? Given we flew many more trips and hours per month due to the maximum hours per month not being inforced as much in that time period is it not reasonable to believe we understood the limitations of the ADF? You should think before you post such infantile remarks as the one about failing a test ride due to not being able to fly within + or - 5 degrees. Surely someone must have told you that in the real world ADF signals can be very unreliable due to many factors and 5 degree averaging is not possible. Now here are two questions. First: Your D.I. has failed and you are in the area of magnetic compass unreliability, to add to your problems you cannot get a star , moon or sun shot. The ADF needle is slowly revolving all over the place. Would you use the beat frequency occilator position to home in on a beacon that you know to be your destination? And what would be your method of proving 180 degree ambiguity? Second: While flying in very low temperatures and ice crystals the ADF needle starts to go slowly all over the place. Just using your finger on the windshield what would that it tell you may be causing the needle unreliability? OH, by the way weasly do you let your Captain fly the odd ADF approach so he / she get a chance to practice for their check rides??:):):) I guess I had better quit picking on poor WWW. ........................ :D The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no.:D |
From his 4th April posting, WWW seemed to be signing-off this but no such luck.
After only a few years of flying, WWW seems to have forgotten that, no matter how much you rate yourself, there are always people with more......... brains, experience, mates, money, muscles etc. This is a common problem amongst professional pilots which is usually caused by wearing uniforms, substance abuse, weak management, too much sex (or even having thick friends and relatives!) Anyway, back to the answer to the topic, which no-one has contradicted. CAA approve 3 schools for JAA PPL training in USA: Ormond Beach Avaition Orlando Flight Training European Flight Training |
Quite correct - Ormond Beach Aviation has been added to the list of such organisations approved by the CAA.
I'm intrigued to know the answers to our esteemed PBY driver's questions; many of the techniques used way back when are still valid, but are rarely needed in modern aircraft - fortunately! It's the weekend, it's sunny even in the UK. Some of us would to well to mellow out and listen to the words of the wise ones! |
Yeh Beagle:
The world evolves, but if we had not understood all those early methods of navigation very few of us would be here to talk about them. Somehow even though I am from the dinosaur age I managed to evolve with technology and believe it or not I even understand the Airbus laws of computer flight, ie. law normal, law alternate and even law direct.. I bet you wouldnt believe me but I can make it go where I want even in law direct. :):) Sooooo you see even dinosaurs can learn. :) P.S.: Do you think I could .... with luck pass an ADF flight test???? ...................... :D The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no.:D |
And I'll bet that you took the time and trouble to make sure that you had a thorough understanding of the Airbooooos FBW laws - whereas present day Nintendo kids with 250 hrs and bum fluff chins probably think that the gold stripes on their shirts are more important than a proper understanding of basic theory!
Exams = spot questions, then forget everything as soon as you've left the examination room. Because you'll never be examined again and you think that there'll never be a need to apply theoretical knowledge so long as you sit there in your nice white shirt, watch the autopilot fly the ac and wait for the monthly cheque to arrive. |
BEagle:
Wouldnt it be refreshing for WWW to take me up on my offer to show me his expertize and settle the experience versus ego thing in an airplane that you actually have to fly? The Airbus thing was given to me by Airbus as a thank you for the flying I did for them in the Sur Les Traces De L'Aeropostale commerative flight we did in 1998. Toulouse to Santiago. I found their technology to be facinating and am privilaged to have been given the opportunity to have sampled their product. And yes it requires very in depth study to truly appreciate how the thing flys. It is not an airplane as you and I have flown, rather it is a beautilful many colored video game that allows you to fly an airplane. ..................... :D The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no.:D |
:D :D :D
Keen to hear the answers Chuck. |
It's gone quiet here, we haven't lost a plane over the Bay of Biscay have we?:D :D :D
I'm guessing that St Elmo's fire is the cause of number two. You'd see weird glowing moving spiders web type phenomena on the window as your finger changed the local electrical field. Sort of like you get with those excutive toys with the transparent balls with discharges in them, when you touch the surface of the ball you change the pattern of discharge within the ball. So this would give you precipitation static, which disproportionately affects radio frequencies in the ADF range. The ice would cause the build up of static by friction and also would take away some charge, leving behind a net charged airframe. No friggen idea about number one. Do I win £5? |
Chuck,
Next time why not come over and renew your IR in the UK. It is an annual test where you will be required to track an NDB within +/- 5 deg. If you can't you fail. If you don't believe me then here is the CAA document: http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/175/srg_fcl_01.PDF To me this is a great example of why training for JAA licences should remain within JAA States. It is too hard to prevent instructors 3000+ miles away from using Chuck's tracking when the CAA's tracking is required. The old ADF position fix using bearing, speed and time can be used in many situations. What we must not lose sight of is that much of the training we complete is just for those few minutes when things go wrong or don't work. When your GPS stops working then somewhere over the pacific, you might be glad of the ole ADF. Some delivery pilot years ago was glad of a Air New Zealand captain who remembered the basics of celestial nav and used it to find and guide hime to safety. I am not against people from JAA States going to the US or elsewhere to do training. I am against those people receiving JAA approved training outside the JAA States. If every JAA State stops this approval system of US and other schools then it will not stop people going to the US to train. However those people will return with business cards saying that they are US pilots and will have to undergo a conversion course to obtain a JAA licence. The CAA is on the fence. It says that approved US schools can teach for the JAA IR. However if you train at the same school and obtain a US IR before returning to the UK then you will have to complete a full JAA IR course before they will give you a JAA IR. Same instructor, same school, different answer. Let those who want to train in the USA for US licences. Let those who want to train in the JAA for JAA licences. There are clear systems for validation and conversion. DFC |
It is an annual test where you will be required to track an NDB within +/- 5 deg. If you can't you fail.
Not so black and white as you might suggest. 4.1.3 Throughout the flight the aeroplane should be flown as accurately as possible. The limits for operation are given as guidance to applicants but do not necessarily indicate that a 'failure' will result if any boundary is exceeded. "Rules are for the obedience of fools and the guidance of wise men" Well I never, I do believe that is attributed to none other than Douglas Bader. Cheers |
Hi DFC:
You by any chance related to WWW? It is obvious by your post you lack a clear understanding of the subject. You cannot be failed on an instrument flight test for the malfunctioning of any aid to navigation. There are many reasons that an ADF needle will give eroneous indications and a pilot must understand the limitations of the system he/she are using. The ADF is an aid for non precision approaches and a rough guide to desired track when navigating. Only the ignorant will believe that + or - 5 degrees is a guaranteed error limitation when using the ADF. Next time I am flying in your exclusive airspace would I have to advise airtraffic control to allow for Chuck's tracking so I don't get lost? As to celestial navigation go to www.ebushpilot.com and under your stories you will find one called Arcturus missing hours and fate. Read that story then come on back and tell me about celestial nav. Oh can you answer question no. one that I asked WWW? You have a good day now....... ......................... :D The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no.:D |
Slim_Slag:
Yeh, it is St Elmos fire and is a constant problem in the Arctic when flying in ice crystals or dry snow. You can draw dirty pictures in blue fire on the windshield with your finger. :):) It never ceases to amaze me at the myopic understanding of aviation by some of our JAA challenged brethern. Do these guys really believe that JAA has reinvented Aviation for the benefit of their victims? I fly all over the world and nothing...nothing even comes close to N. America for the freedom of flight and first class service. ( Well maybe Angola could compete with N. America ) :):):) ....................... :D The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no.:D : |
The CAA is on the fence. It says that approved US schools can teach for the JAA IR. However if you train at the same school and obtain a US IR before returning to the UK then you will have to complete a full JAA IR course before they will give you a JAA IR. Same instructor, same school, different answer. And another thing.....When will people start trusting GPS? I've used it for the past 7 years in my job and never once seen a problem lasting more than a minute or so...! (Better stop now before I get started again) :p Cheers EA |
Why I don't trust GPS
I have never had a complete engine failure yet am always in practice and on the look out for one. Luckily however, Dubalya does not have his hand on my aircraft ignition switch unlike the GPS system. However not trusting a system is not the same as not using it. I use GPS on a daily basis. However I will not use it without suitable back-up and cross check available from visual navigation or radio aids and I will never use it to make approaches. DFC |
The Airbus thing was given to me by Airbus as a thank you for the flying I did for them in the Sur Les Traces De L'Aeropostale commerative flight we did in 1998. Toulouse to Santiago. |
I use GPS on a daily basis. However I will not use it without suitable back-up and cross check available from visual navigation or radio aids
FAA certified GPS receivers cross check themselves. It's called RAIM. If the GPS is deemed unreliable, which happens, it will not go into Approach Mode. This technology has been used for years and it really is a total non issue. If you get a very rare RAIM outage just hang around until you need to go to your alternate. and I will never use it to make approaches. As PIC that's your call of course. I'd take a GPS approach over an NDB any day, but that's my call too. I'd even take a GPS over a VOR approach. I would get into my destination while you would be off to an alternate. As for the fact that the US military has control over GPS, that is also a non issue except we Europeans make it so. Do you really think that the US would turn off GPS? How much money would that cost US industry? It's simply not going to happen. Having said that I totally agree that the EU should put it's own system up there in space. I like competition you see. |
Evo7:
Yes there is a hard cover book by Patrick Baudry and Cyril LeTourneur. It has many very good pictures as well as the story. The book is named Un vol de L'egende Sur Les Traces de L'Aeropostale.. It of course in printed in French only but is worth buying for the pictures. The ISBN number is 2-235-02238-3. It was a very difficult trip due to the time restrictions we were placed under in order to meet the schedule for all the places we stopped ,,, media and VIP's and all that sort of stuff. We departed Toulouse on Oct. 14, 1998 and landed Santiago on Oct. 29, 1998. Cat Driver: |
The use of ADF in the UK has, regrettably, turned into a ridiculous art form at certain schools. Particularly old wives' tales about how to fly an NDB hold.
Chaps - it's a system prone to errors and is a NON-PRECISION device! Precisely as Chuck states. When I examine pilots on IRs flying an NDB approach, I expect them to descend on the procedure only when they're in the 10 degree sector and to manoeuvre the aircraft safely to remain within that sector. If the needle starts twitching and oscillating, I do not expect them to chase it all over the sky, but to mean out the needle's wanders and to fly a steady approach. I've been told of other countries where a 'twin NDB' approach is flown - there are 2 beacons - one very close to the aerodrome and one about 8 miles out - both of which are on the approach course. You line them up so that your ADF needles are on top of eachother and hold them that way until you fly over the first beacon, then if you wander off course the needles will form a shallow arrowhead - you ease away from the pointy bit to bring them back into line. Apparently it's dead easy and you never have to remember what the QDM is - you just keep the needles in line. When the second needle topples, if you have landing criteria you land, if you don't, you go around! Regarding GPS - if it's RAIM enabled and IFR certified, no problem with a GPS non-precision approach. Even the p-code GPS aided FMS in the ac I fly isn't approach certificated, but it's dead handy to have the inbound course from the FMS set on the HSI whilst flying a TACAN or NDB approach on the RMIs ( we can't display TACAN radials on the HSI) or to have the runway centreline set if on an SRA. However, VFR only GPS can only ever be a useful back up to other navaids or a map! |
BEagle,
How do you match your requirements (+/- 10deg) for ADF tracking with the CAA requirements for +/- 5deg. I see your point about the wandering needle and the need to average but can not see how you can totally disregard a CAA/JAA requirement when conducting a flight test. I think that the +/- 5 deg is also a requirement for adequate obstacle clearance on final approach under ICAO PANS OPS. DFC |
DFC - I think you’ll find that ±5˚ is equal to 10˚. Or at least it did when I went to school!!
|
It is becoming quite obvious this discussion will go nowhere because their are two entirely different thought processes at work here.
On one side we have the by the book and rules pureists who do not take into account the real world of operational flying. Their only goal in life seems to be to forge ahead in the misguided belief that the CAA / FAA or what ever who make up all these rules and policies actually work in the real world. What you must understand is when an examiner is giving any flight test, the criteria by which the skills and knowledge of the person being tested is measured by their ability to not only fly accurate headings and profiles, but, at the same time recognize when things are going all to hell. It is what the person being tested does when they recognize an anomoly in any procedure that truly counts. By the book is great when you are " testing " someone, however I personally do not want that mindset in any airplane I fly. Did you read that story?, and any comment on celestial nav. you would like to share with me DFC? ...................... :D The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no.:D |
I really like this quote, and it's so appropriate too, let's put it out again.
"Rules are for the obedience of fools and the guidance of wise men" Douglas Bader Examiners are in general wise men. They know their stuff and have seen so many people fly they can probably tell if you are going to bust your NDB approach before you commence it! Come on DFC, you repeatedly quote from that document you cited, but conveniently miss my post where I pointed out where the document says the Examiner can ignore them. Are you really so blinkered? Chuck is yet again correct on how the system really works. I myself busted the altitude standards in a major way on my FAA private checkride. I got myself into a spiral dive while intercepting a VOR radial under the hood. What a pillock, but I recognised it and correctly recovered. During my debrief the Examiner, a very experienced fellow, told me that although I had completely cocked up he would still pass me. Everything else was above average and I had demonstrated I could get myself out of trouble. It's a licence to learn, if you look at the private standards they are nigh on impossible to attain with 50 hours. He dragged my instructor in and told him to take me out and do further hoodwork. He was confident I was actually safe, and now I should go out and learn how to fly. Guys like Chuck are getting harder and harder to find. They are all getting grey hair and failing their medicals. You can learn more from just listening to these crusty old guys than you can flying with a new boy. I used to hang out with these part 135 charter and ferry pilots in high altitude airports in the Rockies. When you got the priviledge to fly with them they would teach you more in one hour than these young fellows could in twenty. They would laugh at me with my new fangled ideas. Every now and again a Flying Fortress turns up at my airfield and gives rides to the few remaining creaky old WW2 pilots who suddenly come out of the woodwork. These are the folk you should talk to, though they tend not to say much in return. These fellows would bring a plane back from a mission in continental Europe with half the control surfaces missing and a bullet in their leg. These new CPLs don't even know what the rudder pedals are for! But I am also a relatively new boy at this game, and have nowhere near the experience of the Chucks and Beagles of this world, and never will. I try not to be too arrogant though, and these people here who tend to obey the rules without question should consider this too. I guess these people are just the product of a regulatory regime which doesn't give the freedom to explore that the FAA system still provides. But then, with the lack of experience some of these new flyboys have, maybe they shouldn't be encouraged to think out of the box. Yeh, maybe it's better for them to obey the rules without question, and we should be grateful that modern transport planes are so reliable that significant human intervention is rarely needed anymore. :D :D |
I thought I would put in the views of someone that teaches FAA, CAA, and JAA Courses.
There are many ways to teach how to fly. Which way is the best? None. Each way has its strong points and its weak points. You need to study each program to see the big picture. Over the years, we have incorporated the strong points from all three programs. The attitude that there is only one way to do everything will get you killed. You need to keep learning and be ready to change as technology changes. The only instructing I have personally taught in the last 10 years has been CRM and real world flying. When you are learning to fly or adding a rating, the instruction is geared to meeting and exceeding the requirements to ultimately pass an exam with an examiner. This has nothing to do with the real world. (This would be an topic for a new thread, so I will not go into detail here.) Flying by its very nature crosses all borders. Your thinking cannot be limited to one country or one organization or one governing authority. Are people that Train in the UK better than people that train in the US? No. Are people that train in the UK and the US better than people that just train in either the UK or the US? Yes. Are people that train in three countries better than people that trained in just one or two countries? Absolutely. Aviation is global and people need to think globally. Happy Flying, Capt. Richard J. Gentil, Pres. Naples Air Center, Inc. |
Slim-slag and Richard:
Excellent responses. :):) Soon it will be time for me to quit, not because I want to but because the clock is running out. Fortunately my health is still excellent , but I am getting tired. There is only one thing that I wish to do before I finally have to quit though and that is pass on what over thirty thousand accident free hours has taught me, but that is impossible as there is no way I can do that. So what I am doing is trying to reason with those who think they know how it should be done without the experience to prove they are right. The best advice I can give is have an open mind because some day you to will realize we never really even scratch the surface of perfection. What we can do is listen, evaluate, then choose how we plan and fly each flight, maybe with the right attitude and a lot of luck you to will reach the end of your career still able to teach based on all the lessons you have learned. Nothing, I repeat nothing will replace experience and the ability to recognize when we are wrong, then learn from it and have the strength of character to admit to being wrong, after that it gets easier. Have you ever really thought about how I sign off?? :D The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no.:D :D :D You will also note I do not post anonymously.:D :D |
|
i agree unreservedly with the last few posts -when the FAA examiner signed my logbook for my ppl skills test his words were -congratulations a license to learn! -words every pilot should live by no matter what authority stamped the book or what system you fly under -you should continue to update your knowlegde every time you walk towards an aircraft or even better -before you even think about going flying!
|
Beagle, sorry, having read the post again I now see that you did say 10deg "sector". 5 each side!! Should have known that you would not say otherwise.
Chuck et al, I agree totally that any licence pass is only the start of the real learning process. The test standards are the minimum safe standards that must be acheived. With experience and practice, I expect that those standards will be far exceeded. For example, PPL flight test height keeping is +/- 150ft. Any PPL I know usually keeps it within +/- 50ft when trimed straight and level. I also agree that at the end of the day it is the examminers feeling that this student is a safe operator which will result in a pass. Not Chuck Yeagar flying. However entering a spiral dive from simulated instrument flight is an unsafe departure and as the examminer quite rightly pointed out required further training. The idea being that this PPL having flown VMC into IMC will most likely be at or worse below the min safe altitude and any significant loss of height would kill. On the other hand, not keeping the wings perfectly level and allowing the heading to wander back and forth would not be as bad provided nothing dangerous happened. In the case quoted, if all the other flying was fine then I would have given a "partial pass" and told the guy to come back for a second check of the IF part before I would sign the paperwork. That is me taking out an insurance policy on that guy which prevents him from ignoring the further training "advice" (which is all it can be after the licence is signed) and operating on the licence. Or more importantly it protects the unsuspecting passengers that he might take up. I know full well that without practice this guy's ability to operate by sole reference to instruments will disappear. However when I read about their VFR to IFR loss of control accident, I can sleep tight knowing that I did all that I could do to prevent it. I have checked again and did not see any reference to the CAA document where is says examiners can disregards the laid down minima. Perhaps someone could give me the reference again. ICAO sets worldwide standards agreed by the member countries. What makes things difficult between the Americas and Europe is that in many respects the FAA ignore ICAO and have to go their own way...visibility in Statute Miles, TERPS, etc. Yes, the UK does have some differences but overall the number are small. Big note for everyone I am not saying which system is better, I am saying that there are differences and it is the differences that count. Once again, I say that I am in favour of any European going to the US to train if it suits them and being trained for any FAA rating they choose. They can then return to Europe and convert that licence if they so like. There are clear well laid down conversion procedures. I am not in favour of them being trained for a European licence in the US unless the instructors and Examminers have the same experience of European operations as any instructor based in Europe and meet the same standards with regard to instructor renewal i.e. seminar etc. Again, I highlight the question asked earlier by one US instructor which clearly demonstrated his total lack of knowledge of JAR. In fact I would have a fair chance of being correct if I stated that most of the US based instructors teaching for the JAA licences/ratings have never studied JAR-FCL or JAR-OPS. Because of the differences in rules and procedures, a flight conducted in the US totally as per European requirements may be illegal under the FARs. Thus, it is not possible to fully teach European operations in the US. Many returnees from the US with JAA qualifications know all of the FARs but none if any of the JARs. This is only natural since they were operating under the FARs but it is not good enough. To turn the tables. How would like it if I was training US pilots for US licences in Europe. Do you think that they would be safe operators on returning to the USA never having has VFR flight following or never operated in the Class E airway system of the US or never came across any of the terminal area procedures. Do you think that a newby pilot who is used to Class G operations and automatically selects 7000 on the transponder will go down well in the US when they call up and ask for a "Radar Information Service"??????? By issuing the licence, the FAA have stated that the student requires absolutely no further training in the US to operate and carry passengers. Is this true do you think? The celestial nav comment was just an example of how "useless old procedures" can become very usefull in certain situations. The difference is the differences. DFC |
DFC:
As Richard stated we live in a global world now and are allowed with some exceptions to fly in most of the worlds airspace. Before "any" flight a pilot "must " have avaliable to him / her all charts, notams, weather, airplane operating procedures, documents etc. for the flight to be conducted. So what is the big deal where you received your license? You seem to be inconsistent in your arguments, on one hand you relate to "old" procedures and navigation methods as only useful in the odd occasion you get completly screwed up. Yet you state you will never fly approaches with GPS. Do you carry a Ouigi board with you to get the answers? ...................... :D The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no.:D |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 21:55. |
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.