Primary training in a Hi Perf complex acft

"John Mazor" wrote

In other words, even you might make hundreds of runs through
a procedure simulator and finally get it right, but that
doesn't make you a qualified surgeon nor does it qualify you
to say that "surgery is easy". There's a lot more to being
a surgeon than just being able to complete some sim runs.

That, in my opinion, is one of the major points that he fails to
appreciate - that you have to be able to get it right when it matters. It
is not possible to have a proper appreciation for any of this with no real
world experience - doing it right when it matters in real life is nothing
like being able to do it in a sim while sitting safely and comfortably in
front of your PC. We are, after all, human beings, not machines.

Athletes face this type of human performance factor all the time - it is
much easier to perform flawlessly in practice when nothing is on the line
than it is to do so when in an actual competition.

BDS

On Mar 23, 3:54 pm, "Robert M. Gary" wrote:
The biggest question in that scenario is how was the student able to
aquire the required solo time since most insurance co's will not
ensure student pilots in a twin.

I believe the student's view was that he did not need insurance - if
something happened he would reach into petty cash and cover it.

Michael

Kingfish wrote:
Total stream-of-consciousness post here...

Anbody learn to fly in a high performance complex aircraft? Bonanza,
Saratoga, 182RG and the like? I know it's possible, just wonder how
much longer it'd take for a student to master something with
significant power and prop & gear controls. (I did all my instructing
in 172s and PA28s)

Anythings possible, as you said. I would venture to say the problem
isn't with the complexity (gear, props), but rather the speeds at which
something happens.

Cruising at 90 - 100 kts in a 150 is a lot different than in a Bo at 160
kts (or higher). Things happen quicker, more ground is covered. Landing
is faster... A slower plane allows you to develop and hone your skills
as things happen. You dont have to think as far ahead than in a fast mover.

Just my 2 cents.
Dave

John Mazor writes:

Wrong again. That's been around for years.

http://www.golimbs.com/offer_index.p...FSBhgQodyC2pRA

http://www.haptica.com/

They're sophisticated enough to provide force feedback:

http://www.ercim.org/publication/Erc...elingette.html

They even have their own expositions:

http://www.surgery.arizona.edu/expo/...ulatorExpo.htm

which specifically compares them to flight simulators.

I'm aware of these. They make Flight Simulator look like a holodeck.

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

On Mar 25, 7:19 pm, "Peter Dohm" wrote:
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- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

To the list of pluses for the Tomahawk add Fuel Capacity. It has
nearly 2 hours more range than most 150/152's.

As an interesting note if you research the NTSB reports for Spin
Accidents in Pa38's you will find that for the most part only Flight
Instructors and Examiners seem to have issues with the Stall spin
Charateristics.

I have taught a lot of pilots to fly in Tomahawks and I think they are
great. My biggest pluses are, in no particular order,the Switchable
fuel tanks, Large Cockpit, and Fuel Capacity.

Brian
CFIIG/ASEL

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.


I did my primary training in a PA38 also, back in '94-'95. Odd
coincidence was 6 months or so after I finished, I started reading
about all the stall/spin accidents in the Tomahawk and the empennage
folding up in a few. Yikes. The 3 T-hawks at my flight school had the
inboard & outboard stall strips so the stall performance was fairly
benign.

The two at the school where I flew also had the inner and outer strips.

Those two were nearly new at the time, which was about 1981 or 1982. I
have heard since that the rivets in the tail area require inspection--and
replacement of those that work loose. That would not necessarily prevent me
from owning one, but it would certainly jprevent me from even considering a
lease back arrangement.

I can personally attest to the strength of the landing gear on that
plane though G I had my share of "3-wire" landings...


I had the same problem--initially. Interestingly, the solution (which might
be shared by a lot of low wing aircraft) was to arrive fast and enter the
flare at 80 Kts, instead of 70 Kts, a couple of times. That used about 500
to 600 additional feet of runway, but also allowed the landing process to
occur in "slow motion" for more detailed observation. The 3000 foot runway
allowed ample room for that, especially to a full stop; and only a couple of
the higher speed approaches were needed. After that, normal (and even short
feild) approaches resulted in good landings nearly every time.

Peter

I have taught a lot of pilots to fly in Tomahawks and I think they are
great. My biggest pluses are, in no particular order,the Switchable
fuel tanks, Large Cockpit, and Fuel Capacity.

I particularly liked the nimble handling. Of course I didn't know it
was nimble until I went to a 152.

Jose
--
Get high on gasoline: fly an airplane.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

On Mar 26, 1:53 pm, Eeyore
wrote:
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 ?

Hey.
Remember all those 'flying car' concepts that would have had all of us
commuting in our own little 'semiautomatic' flying vehicles?

No doubt there are still some being touted but none have reached
further than a test flying tethered status AFAIR..
Automated systems like the Docklands Light Railway in London went back
to human drivers..

How can some-one using a PC loaded with Windows be advocating computor
control of anything :-)

On 26 Mar, 02:11, Mxsmanic wrote:
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").


wow, wannbees slurping always make my heart go pit-a-pat..




Sigh


Bertie

On 26 Mar, 13:06, Eeyore
wrote:
Thomas Borchert wrote:
Eeyore,

I did.

No you didn't.

No offense, but please do us all a favor and stop arguing with the
village idiot. This is so reminiscent of Monty Python's argument clinic
;-)

You noticed ? ;~)

It was vaguely interesting to see you go through exactly all the phases
many here went through months ago when the idiot first appeared here -
but it is kind of tiring to see new people engage him again and again
only to end up at this point. Any "discussion" with the idiot is
fruitless, a waste of bandwidth and an increase of noise in a
newsgroups where the SNR isn't very good to begin with. And all it will
do in the end is keep him here. Let him leave just like he left the
groups he came from: travel groups, breast-feeding groups, photography
groups, gamer groups. Yes, he has really messed in all those in exactly
the same way he is doing his stupid act here. Ignore him. Please.

I've got the picture.

He's in the same league as habshi and Archimedes Plutonium (see the sci. groups)
. All are irredeemably stupid.


Bwawhwhahwhahwhahhwhahwhahwhahhw!

Says the wannabve pilot planespotter..



bertie