Below the GS at SFO again
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Atlanta, GA USA
Age: 60
Posts: 183
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AirRabbit, I think you have something there with the use of the simulator. When I thought of the Cherokees or 172's, I was thinking, in many cases, simulator time is at a premium, and simulators and their use, may be actually, more expensive to the bean counters, than small piston aircraft. I could be wrong. The simulator, would be a more accurate representation of the dynamics of the aircraft the big jet pilot flies, than a Cherokee, etc.. Maybe designing simulator testing, using your common sense approach, as a triage, to separate out, only the pilots that have lost their edge (and maybe some newbies, that never had it), could actually cut down on total simulator time, as only the pilots, who need it, would have remedial simulator training. AirRabbit, your approach may be the best way. That is, working within the framework, that's already there, and making meaningful changes. The KISS method rides again! Bravo!
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 3,093
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@Coagie
There's a practicality consideration though - namely that there are only so many simulators in the world, but there are a hell of a lot more single-engined trainers.
Also, I think focusing on hand-flying finesse is only one facet of the issue. Another biggie for me is the situation whereby recurrent training at ATPL level can assume familiarity with the basics, when those basics can atrophy without revision. As an example, I'm thinking in terms of the airline industry focusing so hard on stall prevention training that those techniques supplant stall recovery training, which many pilots hadn't practiced since their PPL days.
There's a practicality consideration though - namely that there are only so many simulators in the world, but there are a hell of a lot more single-engined trainers.
Also, I think focusing on hand-flying finesse is only one facet of the issue. Another biggie for me is the situation whereby recurrent training at ATPL level can assume familiarity with the basics, when those basics can atrophy without revision. As an example, I'm thinking in terms of the airline industry focusing so hard on stall prevention training that those techniques supplant stall recovery training, which many pilots hadn't practiced since their PPL days.
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Atlanta, GA USA
Age: 60
Posts: 183
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There's a practicality consideration though - namely that there are only so many simulators in the world, but there are a hell of a lot more single-engined trainers.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: KSJC
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, it looks like no one could really answer why the charted visual procedures crossed the bridge at or above 1900, so they've been changed to cross at or above 1800.
But there's still a discrepancy between the charted visual and instrument procedures. The charted visuals cross MENLO at or above 5000, while the instrument procedures cross MENLO at or above 4000.
http://155.178.201.160/d-tpp/1309/00...GE_VIS28LR.PDF
http://155.178.201.160/d-tpp/1309/00...OE_VIS28LR.PDF
But there's still a discrepancy between the charted visual and instrument procedures. The charted visuals cross MENLO at or above 5000, while the instrument procedures cross MENLO at or above 4000.
http://155.178.201.160/d-tpp/1309/00...GE_VIS28LR.PDF
http://155.178.201.160/d-tpp/1309/00...OE_VIS28LR.PDF
Last edited by Auberon; 31st Aug 2013 at 05:05.
