Primary training in a Hi Perf complex acft

Eeyore writes:

Eh ?

Exactly.

Doctors can't perform surgery on simulated human beings, at least not yet.
Therefore the first surgery is a "revenue flight": a real surgical procedure
on a real person, not a practice run. This is quite unlike many forms of
aviation, which can be practiced in simulation, or even in real aircraft on
practice flights (with no passengers, and thus "non-revenue").

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Traumahawk-worst of both worlds. Scary thing is that it was a
"clean-sheet" trainer...

I trained in a Traumahawk. I liked it. When I checked out in the 152,
I
found it to be a dog in comparison.

Jose


I trained in a 152, then bought a Tomahawk. It was a much more
enjoyable
aircraft to fly due to the wider cockpit, better crosswind ability, and
better visibility. The only downside was that the Tomahawk needed 10
more
knots in the pattern, which is fairly standard when you compare the slow
speed regimes of Pipers and Cessnas aiming at the same market segment.

I never found the stall characteristics in the Tomahawk to be bad. Keep
the
ball centered during a stall, if a wing drops, use opposite rudder, then
use
pitch and power to recover from the stall...

KB

The main nuisance in Tomahawk is the spring -operated pitch trim.

I flew my basic training in a Tomahawk. It's still light-years
more an airplane than a C150.

--

Tauno Voipio
tauno voipio (at) iki fi

My only criticism on the spring-operated pitch trim was that didn't add any
redundancy to the control system. OTOH, I have never heard of a Tomahawk
losing its elevator control linkage; so the added redundancy may have never
been needed.

The wider cockpit, improved visibility, and crosswind ability were certainly
a great improvement over the C152--and the more direct and precise ground
handling was very nice as well.

Peter

Mxsmanic wrote:

Eeyore writes:

So you haven't actually flown *for real*.

I haven't flown outside simulation, yes.

And yes I have. Today's PC sims may seem convincing but even the big commercial
multi-axis jobs still aren't the same as the real thing.

The big commercial jobs are good enough to teach you to fly the real aircraft
from start to finish.

Absolutely not.

Graham

Mxsmanic wrote:

Eeyore writes:

PPLs don't apply to such aircraft.

Oh ... so you don't need a PPL to fly a 747?

How do you think you get the hours to progress to CPL ? You have to have a CPL before
ATPL etc.... How about the night, multi-engine and instrument ratings ?


Is that what you think ?

When it comes to airliners, I am _certain_ of it.

But you're an idiot !


In actual fact you may be right that's it's enirely possible but basic piloting
skills are deemed an essential ingedient of the package.

They are deemed essential by regulatory fiat, but in reality, they aren't
essential at all. At least not the "skills" one learns in tin cans and other
aircraft besides the target type of aircraft.

Those basic skills are what saves aircraft when things go wrong.


It's not how it's done.

Not in the USA. But it can be done. Apparently some places are doing it. It
makes economic sense.

Anyway, I think it has been fairly well established here

Where ?


that you can do all your training in a high-performance aircraft, if you wish.

What do you mean by high-performance ?


I don't see why that aircraft could not be a jet airliner, if the price is right.
Or is there some regulatory barrier to starting and finishing exclusively in, say,
a 737?

Yes.

For one thing you can't start by flying multi-engined aircraft. I suggest you kill
the engine(s) on one side whilst simulating a landing for example.

Graham

Mxsmanic wrote:

Eeyore writes:

It's not going to happen. For so many obvious reasons. That you can't see those
reasons speaks volumes.

Famous last words.

I don't think it will happen soon, but I've seen too much to make any absolute
statements about it never happening.

They also used to talk of the 'paperless office' in the heady early days of cheap
modern IT. Perfectly do-able but do please show me one.

When the driverless car is perfected maybe they can move on to aircraft ?

Graham

Mxsmanic wrote:

Eeyore writes:

Eh ?

Exactly.

Doctors can't perform surgery on simulated human beings

How about addressing the point I was 'Eh'ing about....

" There is no equivalent to flying a non-revenue flight for
practice, which is a major flaw in your analogy. "

Graham

Eeyore writes:

Absolutely not.

I know that change is sometimes unpleasant.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Eeyore writes:

How do you think you get the hours to progress to CPL ? You have to have a CPL before
ATPL etc.... How about the night, multi-engine and instrument ratings ?

So there's a regulatory barrier? Perhaps. But in practical terms you can
still start and finish on a 747, if money is not a concern. Or better still,
you can learn on a simulator.

Those basic skills are what saves aircraft when things go wrong.

Not when they don't match the aircraft being flown. Having flown a Piper Cub
won't help you much when you're flying an Airbus. You need Airbus experience
to fly an Airbus, not Piper Cub experience.

What do you mean by high-performance ?

The FAA definition, which is apparently anything not powered by rubber bands.

For one thing you can't start by flying multi-engined aircraft.

I know you can start with multiengine aircraft, so that's not it.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Eeyore writes:

They also used to talk of the 'paperless office' in the heady early days of cheap
modern IT. Perfectly do-able but do please show me one.

I used to work in one.

When the driverless car is perfected maybe they can move on to aircraft ?

Actually, it's easier to do with aircraft.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Eeyore writes:

How about addressing the point I was 'Eh'ing about....

I did.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.