passed Commercial checkride yesterday!

Only flew for 1.9 (eventful) hours. After we landed, the examiner said
"Well, the problem with this airplane is that you can't do a landing gear
failure. In most planes, you can disable the landing gear and make the pilot
manage that extra stress and workload while setting up to land."

So I showed him the little tab to pull the circuit breaker on the landing
gear and he just looked at me. "Guess I need to get to know the airplanes
better."
Now I suppose everybody he tests in the future has a reason to hate me, but
I told him that it didn't matter, because the FBO owner doesn't let anybody
fly the airplane until he's pulled the circuit on them and the first time he
did it to me, I thought it was a genuine failure. In fact, every instructor
I'd ever been with up in the Arrow did it, so any of the applicants there
will have gone through that whole drill.

I spent WAY too much time memorizing chapter and verse of Part 135, 121,
etc. He said he doesn't dwell on that stuff because if you go to work for
a Part 135 operator, it's all in their own manual and you have to learn it
then anyway. Meanwhile, my brain broke on the most basic stuff, like
needing Mode C over the top of Charlie airspace up to 10,000 ft.

He apologized for not knowing about the landing gear circuit breaker tab,
but I don't feel short changed; his oral exam was more like a discussion,
and the checkride was more like a lesson such that by the end of it I was
able to demonstrate that I could do everything he asked.

By the time we got back, I knew I was a much better pilot for the
experience. I definately felt like I put way too much stress and paranoia
into preparation for the exam which translated into "checkride-itis." Way,
way easier than the Instrument checkride.

Woohoo! On Monday I start working on CFI.

-c
CP-ASEL-IA

Congratulations on passing the Commercial checkride.
The CFI checkride will be a bit harder, especially the oral.

gatt wrote:
By the time we got back, I knew I was a much better pilot for the
experience. I definately felt like I put way too much stress and paranoia
into preparation for the exam which translated into "checkride-itis." Way,
way easier than the Instrument checkride.

Woohoo! On Monday I start working on CFI.



Good for you. Now you might get people to actually ride with you. G

Seriously, I had many people who were originally leery at the thought of riding
in a GA aircraft calmed right down when I mentioned I had a commercial license.
It made all the difference to them.

As for me, it meant I could start the search for hours in earnest. While your
instrument rating is way more valuable to *you* as a pilot, this opens the world
of flying for pay to you. And I have to tell you, racking up hours is a bunch
cheaper when somebody else pays the tab.

Like I said, good for you.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com

"Mortimer Schnerd, RN" mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com wrote in message
...

Good for you. Now you might get people to actually ride with you. G

I'm lucky I ride with me. I told the examiner I felt like I was flying like
an 18-year-old in a Honda Civic yesterday. What impressed me the most was
tips on providing a gentle experience for passengers.

On the way back he also discussed how he thought the Private Pilot
curriculum ought to put more emphasis on stall avoidance rather than
recovery; teach 'em how to recover, but more importantly, teach them how to
recognize that they're headed for a stall situation before they get there.
He said when you're learning stall recovery, you're watching the airspeed
and slowly anticipating the deliberate stall; in reality, he says, people's
reaction time often makes it impossible to recover from a stall because
unlike in training they weren't prepared for it to happen. In those cases
it would have been better had they been trained to identify and correct an
impending stall situation and avoid it before it became necessary to try a
sudden stall recovery.

Seriously, I had many people who were originally leery at the thought of
riding
in a GA aircraft calmed right down when I mentioned I had a commercial
license. It made all the difference to them.

He emphasized that a single bad landing can turn off a prospective GA
enthusiast forever which is why when possible it's better to use a little
more runway taking off and landing to ensure that the pax feel like they're
in a Cadillac than to try to impress them by dropping out of the sky and
planting the wheels on the numbers. He says with pax and sufficient runway
he doesn't apply full power on takeoff until he reaches 40mph; that way,
they don't feel like they're being launched off a carrier deck or something.
I think I learned more from the checkride than the actual training.

As for me, it meant I could start the search for hours in earnest.

How did you go about it?

-c

On Jun 14, 12:34 pm, "gatt" wrote:

He says with pax and sufficient runway
he doesn't apply full power on takeoff until he reaches 40mph; that way,
they don't feel like they're being launched off a carrier deck or something.

Ummm. what does he fly? I've NEVER flown an airplane that would give
anybody that impression.

gatt wrote:
As for me, it meant I could start the search for hours in earnest.

How did you go about it?


In a way I had it made because my day job was running a dive shop. Every classs
had to go to Florida to do its open water training and testing at the end of the
course. It usually wasn't too difficult to find some warm bodies willing to
split the costs with me. The van was going whether I was in it or not but that
made weight pretty much a non-issue. The heavier stuff went in the van; just
people, fuel, and the bare minimum overnight stuff went in the plane.

Initially, I used to fly down early on Saturday morning but the nasty morning
fogs of northern Florida soon convinced me it was better to fly down Friday
night. We'd be back mid to late afternoon Sunday, unlike the van folks who got
back around midnight. It was most excellent.

I also made it a habit of becoming an airport urchin and hung around whenever I
could. Pretty soon I was being invited along on part 135 cargo runs to keep the
pilot company during his flight. That led ultimately to a part 135 job for
myself when I had enough time to qualify and also ended up closing up the shop
after 10 years in the dive business. After that, time came really easy.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com

gatt wrote:

On the way back he also discussed how he thought the Private Pilot
curriculum ought to put more emphasis on stall avoidance rather than
recovery; teach 'em how to recover, but more importantly, teach them how to
recognize that they're headed for a stall situation before they get there.
He said when you're learning stall recovery, you're watching the airspeed
and slowly anticipating the deliberate stall; in reality, he says, people's
reaction time often makes it impossible to recover from a stall because
unlike in training they weren't prepared for it to happen. In those cases
it would have been better had they been trained to identify and correct an
impending stall situation and avoid it before it became necessary to try a
sudden stall recovery.

This is something of a mystery to me as
well. I've spent most of my stall training
dancing on the rudder keeping the nose
pointed straight. It's occurred to me
that rather than playing with an impending
stall, I should develop the habit of breaking
it right away.

"xyzzy" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Jun 14, 12:34 pm, "gatt" wrote:

He says with pax and sufficient runway
he doesn't apply full power on takeoff until he reaches 40mph; that way,
they don't feel like they're being launched off a carrier deck or
something.

Ummm. what does he fly? I've NEVER flown an airplane that would give
anybody that impression.

182. His point is that the pax should only barely perceive the transition
from a stop to forward motion. Also, landings--pax shouldn't experience a
bump, bounce or balloon on landing; especially if they're skittish about
flying in the first place. Otherwise, it may be the last time they choose
to fly in a small airplane. If there's plenty of runway available, give
them a gentle start and roll out a little long rather than piling on the
brakes to exit early.

No jackrabbit starts or hard braking to exit the runway unless, of course,
it's necessary.

In a PA-28R, you feel the acceleration and torque as you start your takeoff
run. In a 182--he says--rear pax can feel like their asses are dragging the
ashpalt if you hold the nose too high in the flare whereas in the Arrow it's
not so bad, but it's much more difficult to keep the nose wheel off without
bouncing.

-c
(Also, he made the point much better than I am.)

On Jun 14, 1:42 pm, "gatt" wrote:
"xyzzy" wrote in message

ups.com...

On Jun 14, 12:34 pm, "gatt" wrote:

He says with pax and sufficient runway
he doesn't apply full power on takeoff until he reaches 40mph; that way,
they don't feel like they're being launched off a carrier deck or
something.

Ummm. what does he fly? I've NEVER flown an airplane that would give
anybody that impression.

182. His point is that the pax should only barely perceive the transition
from a stop to forward motion.

That's an interesting perspective but I'm not sure I agree. In my
experience nervous pax are more comforted the more airliner-like the
experience is, and airliners certainly take off with brisk
acceleration.

As a matter of fact I've taken two nervous pax. One was happy as soon
as he saw me using checklists because that made it professional-
looking and he didn't worry I was forgetting something important. The
other one had an interesting debrief, what he told me was that it
seemed too "floaty" taking off in a small plane, which after trying to
get what he means out of him, I think was related to the relatively
low airspeed, especially as compared with the winds, of the small
plane at liftoff time -- which would argue for trying to get speed up
ASAP, and rotating a ahigher speed than usual so the rotation is more
firm and airliner-like. Airliners feel like they are on rails when
they take off, small planes get bounced around more.

In a 182--he says--rear pax can feel like their asses are dragging the
ashpalt if you hold the nose too high in the flare whereas in the Arrow it's
not so bad, but it's much more difficult to keep the nose wheel off without
bouncing.

Well, Cessnas do all seem to flare at a higher deck angle than
pipers. I've been in the backseat of a 172 that was being landed in a
crosswind by a commercial pilot, and I can understand exactly what he
means. Pipers do land more airliner-like IMO.

Probably different pax experience it differently.

"xyzzy" wrote in message
ups.com...

Well, Cessnas do all seem to flare at a higher deck angle than pipers.
I've been in the backseat of a 172 that was being landed in a
crosswind by a commercial pilot, and I can understand exactly what he
means. Pipers do land more airliner-like IMO.

I haven't been in the back of a 172 since I was five, and the only times
I've been in a 182, I jumped out the door at 5,000 feet and watched it land
beneath me next to the drop zone. Definately something I want to do soon,
to better experience what passengers feel back there.

-Chris
Troutdale, OR