If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Michael wrote:
Matt Whiting wrote I now have an airplane with an autopilot, but I almost never use it. I flew 6 years of IFR (often in IMC here in the sunny northeast) and I just feel more comfortable hand flying at all times. I also don't need to worry about AP failure. I do use it when I need to do an extensive GPS reprogram, but I can do that without the AP, it just takes longer. I too have an airplane with an autopilot now. I fly IFR a lot, and have for the past 4 years I've owned the airplane. I installed the autopilot two years ago. I first used it in IMC on my ATP checkride, and I'm still on my white temporary. I, too, can reprogram my GPS without the autopilot. I can perform ALL normal tasks without the autopilot, though it does take slightly longer. I certainly believe that you should be able to complete the flight uneventfully if the autopilot fails, and I train to that standard. I believe more strongly in the flip side. I believe the greatest likelihood of pilot error is when in a high workload situation, often caused by an emergency or at least an anomoly in flight. At such times having a higher level of competency is essential. No argument - but that is what recurrent training is for. No, recurrent training is no substitute for ongoing practice. Training is to teach you new skills and correct bad habits that have crept into your. Recurrent training doesn't hone skills the way frequent practice does. Training and practice aren't the same thing. Ask me if I want to go into battle with a freshly trained GI or a 20 year combat veteran, and I can tell you who I'll pick. Matt |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
"Mike Rapoport" wrote
I am a strong believer in "train the way you fly and fly the way you train" and so are FlightSafety and Simcom. Actually this applies to all endeavors. If you want to be a better runner, then you are better off running than swimming. Maybe. Cross-training is a valid and recognized approach in professional athletics; I think it's just as valid for aviation. I found that my skydiving improved when I started flying airplanes, my airplane flying improved when I started flying gliders, my tri-gear flying improved when I started flying tailwheel - and so on. Even if you normally fly single pilot, I think there are gains to be made by learning to fly as part of a crew, and practicing the skill on occasion. I can't and won't disagree with any of your points except to point out that unless your copilot is trained in the aircraft, it takes longer to teach them how to do things than to do them yourself. Not necessarily. How much aircraft-specific training does one need to find an approach in a book of plates? IME most instrument students can do it. If it makes the examiner happy, I will asign him the duty of reading checklists. That was one of the duties I assigned. Finding me the approach plate, or reading some aspect of it to me, was another. It's not much - but it's better than nothing. I did in fact point out to him that since we did not fly or train as a crew, the tasks I could assign to him were limited - but not nil. That seemed to satisfy him. The interesting part of this was the way the single engine ILS played out on the checkride. I was vectored all over creation, in and out of cloud. I was given an intercept that was too tight and WAY too high (the GS needle was pegged down as I was cleared). However, because I had offloaded the duty of finding the approach and briefing me on it to the DE, and because I had the A/P on, I really had minimal workload. I could see the bad vector/altitude situation developing, and I adjusted the power/speed accordingly. When the clearance came, I disengaged the autopilot, dumped the nose, and dove for the intercept altitude at 1000 fpm. It was the only way to be stabilized on altitude and on airspeed as I crossed the marker - where I 'lost' an engine. Had I needed time to decide what to do as I got the clearance, I would not have made it. The approach was easy, and keeping it within a dot was a non-event. Would I have pulled it off without the DE and autopilot? Certainly. Would I have kept it within a dot at all times? Probably, but possibly not. Would I have done it smoothly, such that successfully keeping it within a dot at all times (in spite of an engine failure at the marker) was never in doubt? Probably not. The ATP ride was half over before I really understood the point. Even seemingly minimal resources can be useful and should be used. Michael |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
I guess the you do not have your approach plates in an Northstar EFB mounted
on the left yoke :-). Mike MU-2 "Michael" wrote in message om... "Mike Rapoport" wrote I am a strong believer in "train the way you fly and fly the way you train" and so are FlightSafety and Simcom. Actually this applies to all endeavors. If you want to be a better runner, then you are better off running than swimming. Maybe. Cross-training is a valid and recognized approach in professional athletics; I think it's just as valid for aviation. I found that my skydiving improved when I started flying airplanes, my airplane flying improved when I started flying gliders, my tri-gear flying improved when I started flying tailwheel - and so on. Even if you normally fly single pilot, I think there are gains to be made by learning to fly as part of a crew, and practicing the skill on occasion. I can't and won't disagree with any of your points except to point out that unless your copilot is trained in the aircraft, it takes longer to teach them how to do things than to do them yourself. Not necessarily. How much aircraft-specific training does one need to find an approach in a book of plates? IME most instrument students can do it. If it makes the examiner happy, I will asign him the duty of reading checklists. That was one of the duties I assigned. Finding me the approach plate, or reading some aspect of it to me, was another. It's not much - but it's better than nothing. I did in fact point out to him that since we did not fly or train as a crew, the tasks I could assign to him were limited - but not nil. That seemed to satisfy him. The interesting part of this was the way the single engine ILS played out on the checkride. I was vectored all over creation, in and out of cloud. I was given an intercept that was too tight and WAY too high (the GS needle was pegged down as I was cleared). However, because I had offloaded the duty of finding the approach and briefing me on it to the DE, and because I had the A/P on, I really had minimal workload. I could see the bad vector/altitude situation developing, and I adjusted the power/speed accordingly. When the clearance came, I disengaged the autopilot, dumped the nose, and dove for the intercept altitude at 1000 fpm. It was the only way to be stabilized on altitude and on airspeed as I crossed the marker - where I 'lost' an engine. Had I needed time to decide what to do as I got the clearance, I would not have made it. The approach was easy, and keeping it within a dot was a non-event. Would I have pulled it off without the DE and autopilot? Certainly. Would I have kept it within a dot at all times? Probably, but possibly not. Would I have done it smoothly, such that successfully keeping it within a dot at all times (in spite of an engine failure at the marker) was never in doubt? Probably not. The ATP ride was half over before I really understood the point. Even seemingly minimal resources can be useful and should be used. Michael |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Michael wrote:
"Mike Rapoport" wrote I am a strong believer in "train the way you fly and fly the way you train" and so are FlightSafety and Simcom. Actually this applies to all endeavors. If you want to be a better runner, then you are better off running than swimming. Maybe. Cross-training is a valid and recognized approach in professional athletics; I think it's just as valid for aviation. I found that my skydiving improved when I started flying airplanes, my airplane flying improved when I started flying gliders, my tri-gear flying improved when I started flying tailwheel - and so on. Even if you normally fly single pilot, I think there are gains to be made by learning to fly as part of a crew, and practicing the skill on occasion. Can you give an example of a skill or two that you would learn from flying a two-pilot crew that increases skill in single-pilot operation? I can't think of one. I can't and won't disagree with any of your points except to point out that unless your copilot is trained in the aircraft, it takes longer to teach them how to do things than to do them yourself. Not necessarily. How much aircraft-specific training does one need to find an approach in a book of plates? IME most instrument students can do it. I certainly have no problem asking a passenger to do something trivial like that. I always have them hold and hand me charts, etc. However, this is only because they are sitting on the "desk" that I normally use to hold my charts and plates when flying alone! :-) If it makes the examiner happy, I will asign him the duty of reading checklists. That was one of the duties I assigned. Finding me the approach plate, or reading some aspect of it to me, was another. It's not much - but it's better than nothing. I did in fact point out to him that since we did not fly or train as a crew, the tasks I could assign to him were limited - but not nil. That seemed to satisfy him. The interesting part of this was the way the single engine ILS played out on the checkride. I was vectored all over creation, in and out of cloud. I was given an intercept that was too tight and WAY too high (the GS needle was pegged down as I was cleared). However, because I had offloaded the duty of finding the approach and briefing me on it to the DE, and because I had the A/P on, I really had minimal workload. I could see the bad vector/altitude situation developing, and I adjusted the power/speed accordingly. When the clearance came, I disengaged the autopilot, dumped the nose, and dove for the intercept altitude at 1000 fpm. It was the only way to be stabilized on altitude and on airspeed as I crossed the marker - where I 'lost' an engine. Had I needed time to decide what to do as I got the clearance, I would not have made it. Personally, I wouldn't fly an approach like that. I'd tell the controller to vector me back another time and to do it properly this time around. I'm surprised a DE would consider this good judgement on an ATP ride. Matt |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Matt Whiting wrote
Can you give an example of a skill or two that you would learn from flying a two-pilot crew that increases skill in single-pilot operation? Being required to develop a plan and brief that plan to other crewmembers will increase the likelyhood that a single pilot will also develop a plan and review that plan for himself. I taught CRM in the airline enviroment for several years and now apply those principles to my single pilot personal flying. When I administer a flight review, I often ask the pilot to tell me his plan for accomplishing a particular maneuver and when I get a quizzical look, I then know that he has no plan. Bob Moore ATP CFI |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Matt Whiting wrote
Can you give an example of a skill or two that you would learn from flying a two-pilot crew that increases skill in single-pilot operation? I can't think of one. Delegation, for one. You can delegate to ATC, you know. I certainly have no problem asking a passenger to do something trivial like that. I always have them hold and hand me charts, etc. However, this is only because they are sitting on the "desk" that I normally use to hold my charts and plates when flying alone! :-) And if you have a passenger who is blind? Illiterate? Scared to death? Personally, I wouldn't fly an approach like that. I'd tell the controller to vector me back another time and to do it properly this time around. I'm surprised a DE would consider this good judgement on an ATP ride. Perhaps it's because the axaminer was also a corporate pilot, and knew that refusing a tight but flyable vector was a great way to be sent to the back of the line, delaying the flight. Why have the skill to do it if you're not going to use it? An ATP should exercise good judgment, sure, but he should also be able to demonstrate a high level of skill. Michael |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Bob Moore wrote:
Matt Whiting wrote Can you give an example of a skill or two that you would learn from flying a two-pilot crew that increases skill in single-pilot operation? Being required to develop a plan and brief that plan to other crewmembers will increase the likelyhood that a single pilot will also develop a plan and review that plan for himself. I taught CRM in the airline enviroment for several years and now apply those principles to my single pilot personal flying. When I administer a flight review, I often ask the pilot to tell me his plan for accomplishing a particular maneuver and when I get a quizzical look, I then know that he has no plan. Bob Moore ATP CFI I brief myself by talking out loud, but I didn't need to fly with another pilot to learn that. I'll give you partial credit though! :-) Matt |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Michael wrote:
Matt Whiting wrote Can you give an example of a skill or two that you would learn from flying a two-pilot crew that increases skill in single-pilot operation? I can't think of one. Delegation, for one. You can delegate to ATC, you know. Didn't need to fly with a copilot to learn that. I certainly have no problem asking a passenger to do something trivial like that. I always have them hold and hand me charts, etc. However, this is only because they are sitting on the "desk" that I normally use to hold my charts and plates when flying alone! :-) And if you have a passenger who is blind? Illiterate? Scared to death? I put them in the back seat! :-) Personally, I wouldn't fly an approach like that. I'd tell the controller to vector me back another time and to do it properly this time around. I'm surprised a DE would consider this good judgement on an ATP ride. Perhaps it's because the axaminer was also a corporate pilot, and knew that refusing a tight but flyable vector was a great way to be sent to the back of the line, delaying the flight. Why have the skill to do it if you're not going to use it? An ATP should exercise good judgment, sure, but he should also be able to demonstrate a high level of skill. Well, they say that superior judgement obviates the need to use superior skill. That is my policy. Matt |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Matt Whiting wrote
Delegation, for one. You can delegate to ATC, you know. Didn't need to fly with a copilot to learn that. I suspect that someone who does fly with a copilot will be better at it. I used to think as you do - but my preparation flights for the ATP ride (with an actual practicing ATP, an airline training captain and former jet DE and fleet captain) showed me where my delegation skills were weak. And if you have a passenger who is blind? Illiterate? Scared to death? I put them in the back seat! :-) Probably not a bad move, but my point is that you can't always count on having a desk OR having a useful copilot. Well, they say that superior judgement obviates the need to use superior skill. Who says that? Certainly nobody I know. Superior judgment DOES NOT obviate the need to use superior skill; it merely makes superior skill necessary less often. That's why the airlines have not abandoned maneuvers training (the superior skill portion) - they have ADDED the LOFT to asess judgment. Sometimes, BOTH superior judgment AND superior skill are necessary for the safe and expeditious conclusion of a flight. That's why the ATP ride should test both. At the instrument level, safe is enough. Michael |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Michael wrote:
Matt Whiting wrote Delegation, for one. You can delegate to ATC, you know. Didn't need to fly with a copilot to learn that. I suspect that someone who does fly with a copilot will be better at it. I used to think as you do - but my preparation flights for the ATP ride (with an actual practicing ATP, an airline training captain and former jet DE and fleet captain) showed me where my delegation skills were weak. Well, I probably have a little advantage in this area as I've managed fairly large engineering groups (60+ people) and have a fair bit of experience at delegation of tasks and managing multiple competing priorities. And if you have a passenger who is blind? Illiterate? Scared to death? I put them in the back seat! :-) Probably not a bad move, but my point is that you can't always count on having a desk OR having a useful copilot. Well, I can try! Well, they say that superior judgement obviates the need to use superior skill. Who says that? Certainly nobody I know. Superior judgment DOES NOT obviate the need to use superior skill; it merely makes superior skill necessary less often. That's why the airlines have not abandoned maneuvers training (the superior skill portion) - they have ADDED the LOFT to asess judgment. It is a fairly famous quote, but I can't remember now who said it. I'll try to search it out for you. Matt |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Homebuilt Aircraft Frequently Asked Questions List (FAQ) | Ron Wanttaja | Home Built | 40 | October 3rd 08 03:13 PM |
Homebuilt Aircraft Frequently Asked Questions List (FAQ) | Ron Wanttaja | Home Built | 0 | December 2nd 04 07:00 AM |
Homebuilt Aircraft Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) | Ron Wanttaja | Home Built | 0 | October 1st 04 02:31 PM |
Homebuilt Aircraft Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) | Ron Wanttaja | Home Built | 0 | June 2nd 04 07:17 AM |
Homebuilt Aircraft Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) | Ron Wanttaja | Home Built | 0 | May 1st 04 07:29 PM |