Primary training in a Hi Perf complex acft

Mxsmanic wrote:

Eeyore writes:

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

I did.

No you didn't.

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

Newps wrote:

Eeyore wrote:

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

Why not?

Because they're more demanding. And I don't just mean they have 2 power levers.

Have you ever heard of the phrase 'trying to learn to run before you can walk' ?

Same goes for night flying and instrument flying.

Graham

Eeyore writes:

Because they're more demanding. And I don't just mean they
have 2 power levers.

I'm sure you don't just mean two power levers, because that's not very
demanding at all.

Have you ever heard of the phrase 'trying to learn to run
before you can walk' ?

Yes, but it doesn't apply here. Multiengine aircraft just aren't that
complicated. I don't know how this folk mythology developed, but it seems to
be part of a lot of unconditionally accepted "wisdom" that afflicts aviation.
I see it constantly asserted with religious fervor, but I don't see it proved,
and that's a bad sign.

Does it occur to anyone that the way pilots usually learn to fly today may not
be the _only_ way?

Same goes for night flying and instrument flying.

See above.

I don't see why you can't learn instrument flight, multiengine, complex, or
whatever, all at the same time. Of course it takes longer, but the overall
path to the final objective (PPL with the corresponding ratings) would be the
same. And I'm not convinced that HP or complex aircraft are more difficult to
fly, they are just different.

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

Eeyore writes:

Bwahahahahahahahahaha !

NASA proved the concept decades ago, as I recall, and it's hard at work on it
again, thanks to the renewed interest in unmanned aircraft.

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

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
;-)

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.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

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.

Graham

On Mar 25, 1:06 pm, gyoung wrote:
Kingfish wrote:
Anbody learn to fly in a high performance complex aircraft?

Tho' I was a lot younger, and it was a long time ago, ... I earned my
PPL in a T-34 (paid for it myself: $5.00 wet in the Aero Club at USAFA).
I believe that my flying skills have been better because of it. I had
a few more hours before flying solo (14 hours, as I recall) than if I'd
started out in the Cub. But I learned from the start how to 'get out in
front of the airplane', and to be -further- 'out in front', because
things do happen more quickly.

As a side anecdote, because USAF revoked the waiver for student pilots
to fly T-34s just days before I was scheduled to take the Practical, to
get the 20 minutes of cross country time that I needed, I was checked
out in a C-172 - the checkout took 20 minute: take off, the usual
stalls, steep turns, etc., then landings (we hardly left the pattern) -
the C-172 was -so- easy to fly. The instructor must have been
satisfied; he sent me back up solo for 3 landings and signed me off. I
took the cross country the next day - from AFA to LIC at back for 1:10,
and I passed my check ride a week later with 50 hours in the log book.
(I might have done it with fewer hours but I took a 2 year break after
the initial 18 hours.)

Oh, as a side note: AFA is now AFF; it wasn't called Falcon Field back
then; and the runway was unpaved. To those of you who haven't been
'west of the tree line' (or as Marianna Gosnell would say in her book
"Zero Three Bravo" - west of the 'chain line'), -unpaved- means dirt and
gravel; none of the 'green stuff' we see 'back east'.

Wish I had a T-34 at hand to fly again.

george

I taught my youngest son to fly in an Apache... He mastered the check
lists, gear, constant speed prop, synchronizing engines, pattern
altitudes and entry, cross country with 3 and 4 hour legs, etc... When
I turned him over to a CFI for formal training and they started flying
in a Warrior, he came back and said it was scary... There was
absolutely nothing to do and he constantly felt like he must have
forgotten something....

denny

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
Eeyore writes:

Eh ?

Exactly.

Doctors can't perform surgery on simulated human beings,
at least not yet.

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.

And to anticipate one of your dodges, medical sims don't
replace the basic training and experience. They just allow
a mid-level practitioner who has reached sufficient state of
competence to progress toward the higher level of expertise
that is required for a given procedure.

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.

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").

Wrong again. Demonstrably so. QED.

I was going to do a line by line parsing of his errors here,
but after reading his idiotic statement on medical
simulators, I don't see any point in it. MaxManiac gets my
nomination for Aviation KOTY.

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
John Mazor writes:

And it's possible for crew to fly for 16 hours straight
with
no relief crew or stops, without an accident. Just
because
it can be done doesn't mean that it's desirable, let
alone
optimal.

Where sim-only training is being done, it's being done
because it's economical
and desirable. Why bother with irrelevant experience and
expensive training
if you don't need it?

So the abiity to make an incision and sew it up is pretty
good "proof of concept" that a freshly minted medical
intern
can do brain surgery?

This analogy, if that's what it is, is flawed.

Doctors can and do learn to do certain things in
simulation, or by the book,
or by observation, and the first time they actually do it
themselves, it's on
a live patient. There is no equivalent to flying a
non-revenue flight for
practice, which is a major flaw in your analogy.

Not all surgery is brain surgery, but minor surgery can be
learned as you
describe. Brain surgery is only slightly different from a
surgical
standpoint; most of the require skill relates to knowing
specific
characteristics of the brain, not differences in making
and closing incisions
or other basic surgical procedures.

Bull****. You deleted the following sentence in my
statement: "One sufficiently bad pilot screw up = one
smoking hole." That's the whole point.

Zero tolerance might be a romantic ideal, but that's not
the way aviation
works in real life. In the real world, a certain
threshold of accidents is
tolerated in order to make practical aviation achievable.

In airline accidents, the cause is often not so much a bad
pilot as a pilot
who made the wrong mistakes at the wrong time. Many
pilots who crash have
good records, but for any of several possible reasons,
they messed up once and
died. That happened despite all their experience in tin
cans, their ratings,
their logged hours, and so on.

You're never so experienced that you can afford to be
complacent. Conversely,
if you are very careful, you don't have to have 30 years
of experience.
Personality plays a major role here, as numerous studies
have proved, and the
old saying that there are no old, bold pilots continues to
ring true.

Not when you factor in the costs of accidents caused by
inadequate training.

Less training doesn't mean inadequate training. Much of
current training is
difficult to justify in a practical sense, and doing
without it would have
only a slight impact on accident statistics.

Most accidents involve crews placed in situations that
involve multiple
departures from the norm. The confusion this causes
destroys situational
awareness and crew coordination and leads to accidents.
Part of this can be
improved through training, part of this cannot. Some of
it is human nature,
some of it is personality. It's a complex domain of
study, but it's clear
that many aspects of current training are irrelevant,
whereas other aspects
are needed but missing.

Such as who?

Those who fly as a job, and not as an adventure. They do
what they are
required to do, and that's it. There are pilots who do it
only for the money,
although they are perhaps more common in developing
countries than in
developed countries (developed countries offer more
choices for high-paying
jobs, many with fewer requirements and prerequisites than
piloting).

Well, duh, you can't do them all in a sim or training
flight.

Fortunately, they aren't all necessary, as they
effectively never occur in
real life.

But every year we get any number of emergency scenarios
that
transcend normal training routines.

Yes, but the first one to do it tells everyone else in
line what it will be,
so it hardly comes as a surprise.

That's what separates
the pros from the amateurs - the ability to draw on other
experience and extrapolate to whatever doo-doo has just
hit
your fan.

That is completely uncorrelated with pro vs. amateur. A
professional is
someone who is paid to do something; an amateur is someone
who does it for
fun.

You obviously have not the slightest concept of what goes
on
in the cockpits of airliners every day.

In other words, you disagree. But I might have a much
better idea than you
think.

Yes, the vast
majority of flights are routine or encounter only minor,
easily fixed problems. Be it 99% or 99.9%, it's that
last
"9" that "proves the concept" that on any given day,
somewhere in the entire air transport system, some crew
saves their behinds and those of their passengers by
exercising experience and skills that rise above the
lower
level of what is normally required.

Except that, below a certain probability, it's easy for
pilots to go through
their entire careers without being called upon to handle a
given situation, in
which case training for it is wasted, and those who cannot
handle it are just
as good in their positions as those who can.

And that's what makes
flying on on an airline the safest possible way to get
from
A to B in the U.S.

That's a separate debate that I won't get into here.

Not nearly as often as the real-life situations that are
what I was referring to in my previous paragraph.

But if I'm to believe what you appear to assert, spins
should be practiced
"just in case," and any pilot not familiar with them is
somehow going to
perform worse in his job than one who is.

The Sioux
City accident, where Capt. Al Haynes dealt with a system
failure for which there was no training and marshalled
his
resources, is a classic example of the difference between
a
button-pusher and a real pilot.

It's actually a classic example of multiple heads being
better than one, and
of good crew cooperation.

**** happens like this all the time. Trained-monkey
button
pushers, let alone automated systems, cannot be expected
to
routinely rise to such levels of airmanship.

It doesn't happen all the time. It happens on rare
occasions. Whether
old-school pilots like it or not, flying airliners is
increasingly a matter of
pushing buttons, and this trend will only continue.

Most modern airliners don't require a flight engineer; he
has been replaced by
automation. If something failed in that automation, would
the average airline
pilot today know what to do, even if he had the means to
do it? The answer is
no. And it doesn't matter because the automation is the
only option; there is
no manual override for anything.

Only when nothing really bad happens, see previous cites.

In an increasing and overwhelming majority of cases,
nothing bad happens.

I learned a long time ago never to say never, but by the
time that the technology matures enough to provide
sufficiently reliable automation to do that at a level
that
the public will accept, it also will have given us the
means
to conduct most interpersonal transactions virtually,
thus
eliminating most of the situations that require us to
physically transport ourselves from A to B.

We already have that capability, but many people don't
want to use it. A vast
number of flights every day carry businesspeople to
meetings in person that
could just as easily be carried out electronically.

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

On Mar 25, 8:19 pm, "Peter Dohm" wrote:

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.

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