When has it Been too Long before you solo

I received my training at a Major University flight program that was in the
process of taking it one step further and combining 2 year (VFR / IFR)
course into a combined accelerated schedule (1 year- maybe 3 semesters, I
got out before it became official). I was learning instruments & approaches
VERY early. The only complaint I received on my PPL exam was to look out the
window more often! Since I did not go pro, or even finish the IFR - I kind
of wish I did not learn that way, so flying a minimum equip. craft wouldn't
scare the snot out of me. ;-) But I could shoot an ILS to minimums without
breaking a sweat!




"Allen" wrote in message
. com...

"Bob Moore" wrote in message
. 122...
Jose wrote
In early training, seat-of-the-pants and look-out-the-window flying
should be emphasized, and in later training, one should be constantly
reminded not to get into the habit of fixating on the geegaws.

Jose, unfortunately, way back in the '60s or '70s, the FAA introduced
"Integrated Flight Training". A program where use of the "instruments"
(not hood time) was to be introduced from the begining. Most of the
older, more experienced flight instructors know this to be unwise, but
Part 141 schools are coerced by the FAA into using a syllabus based on
this FAA program.


This integrated instrument time was in the syllabus at the schools I
taught
at. When the student got the basic scan down his altitude and heading
control improved considerably. What it did that I didn't like was
reliance
on the gauges while he was VMC (head down and locked). I would have to
cover the attitude indicator to get them to look outside again. I have
had
several students take and pass the Private Pilot checkride with just 35
hours in their logbooks (following the syllabus).

Allen

"Snoopy" Snoopy is wrote in message
. com...
I received my training at a Major University flight program that was in
the
process of taking it one step further and combining 2 year (VFR / IFR)
course into a combined accelerated schedule (1 year- maybe 3 semesters, I
got out before it became official). I was learning instruments &
approaches
VERY early. The only complaint I received on my PPL exam was to look out
the
window more often! Since I did not go pro, or even finish the IFR - I kind
of wish I did not learn that way, so flying a minimum equip. craft
wouldn't
scare the snot out of me. ;-) But I could shoot an ILS to minimums without
breaking a sweat!



By the time my students soloed they could maintain altitude and heading, do
constant airspeed climbs and descents and standard rate turns to headings
under the hood. They normally soloed with about 10-15 hours logged.

Allen

(JustMe) wrote in message . com...

snip

Given that this material is confidential, I don't want to send it to
everyone and seeing that some if not most of the people that posted a
reply seem to know one another, it might be good to decide amongst
yourself who is interested in reviewing the material. The reviews can
then post their impressions to the newsgroup.

The material is 7.35 MB is size, so I'll need to email them in chunks
to those selected. You can email me at

I recommend Cub driver. He's pretty much up on it as are most of the
others who replied to you.... :-)

JustMe wrote:

engine of W liter
(cubic inches for the metrically challenged).



Cubic inches is just as good of a volumetric metric as liters, it's just
not a metric metric

Chris W

Gift Giving Made Easy
Get the gifts you want & give the
gifts they want this holiday season
http://thewishzone.com

"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...
Honestly? I would solo you right now. You are being ripped off.

Otherwise, the conclusion is that flying is not your "thing".

--
Matt (soloed at 10.5 hours)
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

Bob Moore wrote
Jose, unfortunately, way back in the '60s or '70s, the FAA introduced
"Integrated Flight Training". A program where use of the "instruments"
(not hood time) was to be introduced from the begining. Most of the
older, more experienced flight instructors know this to be unwise

Translation - those who learned in Stearmans and T-craft and were not
allowed to look at the gauges until long after they had soloed,
learning instead to fly by the seat of the pants, the feel of the
stick, and the sound of the wind felt this was unwise. And in one
sense it was.

The old "fly by the seat of the pants" paradigm produced great sticks
- people who really felt the airplane. Those who couldn't do it (many
can't) washed out. That's very important for day-VFR close-in combat
flying and competition or airshow aerobatics - and not much else in
the world of powered flying. The old system produced pilots who were
great in good day-VFR conditions, but inherently distrusted
instruments and thus never got comfortable with night and weather
flying. They were the same people whose idea of emergency instrument
training consisted of "See that cloud? Fly into it and you will DIE."

I suppose in an era when a well equipped civil airplane might have a
T&S - certainly no other gyros - and civil IFR was considered
unrealistic, that may have made sense. In the modern world, where
even primary trainers come with IFR panels, it's the integrated method
of instruction that makes sense. It makes for more precise pilots.
Yes, there is a tendency to focus inside - but any worthwhile
instructor will see it and correct the problem. Remember - those
sticky notes are not just for instrument training - they can and
should be used to curb reliance on any (or all) instruments as
necessary.

The advantage of the integrated method is that the instruments are
familiar from day one, and the use of instrument references to refine
and supplement visual references when those are inadequate to the task
is an excellent habit that is not really sufficient for IFR flying
(though it does make an inadvertent encounter far less likely to
kill), but builds a strong foundation for it. It makes it that much
easier to transition to instruments when required, rather than trying
to use the "eagle eyes" and "seat of the pants" approaches (which
plain don't work) when visual references are inadequate.

So the tradeoff is you get a pilot less able to feel the airplane and
fly it to the very edge of the performance envelope, but more
comfortable with night and marginal weather and thus more able to use
the airplane for transportation is weather that is less than ideal.
IMO that is a very sensible tradeoff.

I snipped the part from the FAA book, but I agree with it completely.
For the modern environment, where it's the airplane without gyros that
is unusual, not the one with them, it makes all kinds of sense.

Michael

"JustMe" wrote in message
om...

Under the Hood, I can do the individual maneuvers (climbs, descents,
turns both shallow And steep), but when they are combined together,
then the execution is not to standards. I think the big issue it
getting the airplane trimmed while under the hood. When flying VFR,
I can trim the airplane, since I can see the nose rise or dip in
relation to the horizon. But under the hood that reference point is
not available and I must use the AI and I find it difficult to fine
tune the trim using the AI.

To address this point specifically, I think you may be receiving some faulty
instruction. Perhaps some of the CFIIs here would care to comment.

Don't focus too much on the AI. Remember that you are trying to maintain (1)
altitude and (2) heading. Now, which of these does the AI tell you? Neither!
My instructor had me fly complete IFR flights in actual IFR weather from
takeoff to landing with the AI covered to prove the point.

In formal "attitude instrument flying" you group instruments into "primary"
and "secondary" groups based on the information they give you. Without going
into painful and unnecessary detail on this, suffice it to say that there
are very few things the AI is the "primary" instrument for. In most cases
you use it to verify what another instrument is telling you. Otherwise, you
use it to establish an initial attitude (such as a climb) and then quickly
switch to other instruments.

Let's say I wanted to level off after climbing to 3000'. Approaching 2900'
or so I would push the nose down. Without the AI this was a matter of feel;
otherwise put the bar right in the middle. Now, don't look at it again, just
hold the pressure right there. Then I'd throttle back to cruise power,
2300rpm in my 172. Then, I would trim the pressure off as I watched the
*altimeter* and not the AI. Be careful not to hunt with the trim though-
trim the pressure off, then wait. If the needle starts to move then push the
yoke to stop the motion, then wait a few seconds and see what it does. Only
when you've got things steady for a few seconds do you roll the trim.

Here's a dirty little secret: If you set the power to 2300, and find the
trim setting that holds the altitude level, the AI will *always* indicate
the same attitude. It has to. If you don't understand why, you need to read
"Stick and Rudder" by Langewiesche, which you can buy on Amazon. It explains
aerodynamics in a practical way for student pilots.

Now, once you've got everything steady, what do you watch? The altimeter.
Remember, you are trying to hold altitude, not attitude. If it starts to go
up, you push the nose down, and vice versa. Also, if you're flying a plane
with a fixed-pitch prop, the sound it makes will alert you to climbs and
descents, since they will make the engine slow down or speed up. Of course
you can use the AI to confirm what you're seeing, but when it comes to
maintaining straight-and-level flight it's the altimeter I want to see
first.

It also doesn't help that the AI and the
Turn Coordinator can't agree on what is a level attitude. The turn
Coordinator is correct, since the DG is steady when it (turn
coordinator) indicates a level attitude. The AI indicates a slight
turn to the right. Which is enough to initiate a heading change.


The DG is what you want to pay attention to first. If it's a few degrees off
and not changing, then you can correct very easily by just bumping it with a
little rudder. No, it's not coordinated, but if we're talking five degrees
or less it's much easier. In most cases you can do this without any aileron
at all. Now, if the DG is turning, then your wings are probably not level.
Use the AI to put the bank angle where you want it--level to stop the turn,
or banked in the other direction to turn back to the proper heading. Don't
look at the horizon bar to do this- look at the index indicator at the 12
o'clock position. This is much more accurate and easier to read. To hold
altitude, watch the altimeter. Most people apply too much back pressure. As
you get the bank established the DG should start to indicate the turn, and
you can glance at the TC to back this up and to fine-tune it. Remember, the
turn coordinator *is not* an AI in any way. It indicates the rate of heading
change, not bank angle.

Anyhow, all of this is a sideshow. A good instructor will teach these things
in the plane a lot more usefully than I will, and that's what you need to
get yourself. Best of luck.

-cwk.