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 |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Probably bad instruction.
3-4 hours of attitude flying instruction at most should be plenty to provide the skills to enable anyone to move on to navigational work and procedures. After all, all navigation/procedural work requires attitude flying, so you will get plenty of practice and plenty of time over the next 35 hours or so of instruction to fine-tune any minor attitude flying problems. Any instructor who requires his instrument student to be perfect in his attitude flying before moving on is just wasting his student's money. 13-14 hours of attitude flying before moving on is a waste, if you ask me (but maybe you're not asking). On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 15:38:15 GMT, "C Kingsbury" wrote: I guess I was a slow student. wrote in message .. . On Sun, 12 Dec 2004 19:02:14 GMT, "C Kingsbury" wrote: One-third of the instrument rating is learning attitude flying- how to fly S&L, make turns, climbs, and descents accurate by reference to instruments only 13-14 hours to learn how to atttitude fly? Either you got a slow student or a bad instructor, in my opinion. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
|
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Now you've made me go and dig out my logbook. My original numbers were based on guesswork going back two years to when I started working on my rating. It looks like I spent maybe 5-6 hours primarily doing attitude flying before moving on to approaches. It took me 60 hours to get ready for my test, which included several significant breaks of 2-3 months in between lessons in which much rust built up. My original estimate of "25%" is attitude flying would really be more correctly seen as the amount of time that passed before airplane control started becoming more instinctive. At first I was spending most of my time chasing the airplane through the maneuvers. I knew what I was supposed to do, but didn't know how to do it. Later it got to the point that I understood how things worked, but still had to really think about it. Somewhere around 40 hours, "how to attitude fly" made it into the lizard part of my brain and I didn't really have to think about it. To me, this is the critical point at which moving into a more complex plane will not hurt the student's progress. Before reaching that point, it seems to me that the more complex plane would not just cost more money, it would actually retard progress by overloading the student unnecessarily. I guess it's sort of like the question of whether it's better for someone to learn to drive first in an automatic, and learn a stick shift later if necessary. -cwk. wrote in message ... Probably bad instruction. 3-4 hours of attitude flying instruction at most should be plenty to provide the skills to enable anyone to move on to navigational work and procedures. After all, all navigation/procedural work requires attitude flying, so you will get plenty of practice and plenty of time over the next 35 hours or so of instruction to fine-tune any minor attitude flying problems. Any instructor who requires his instrument student to be perfect in his attitude flying before moving on is just wasting his student's money. 13-14 hours of attitude flying before moving on is a waste, if you ask me (but maybe you're not asking). |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
|
#15
|
|||
|
|||
I used to work with a guy who flew B-29's over Japan in the 1940s,
and he told of watching his fighter escorts pop up out of the undercast in all manner of crazy attitudes, shaking themselves level once in VMC. He didn't seem to think well of the attitude-flying skills of fighter = pilots. wrote in message = ... Your flight school could afford to overtrain its students. =20 =20 On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 21:56:55 GMT, Bob Moore wrote: My flight school provided 8 hours of simulator basic attitude flying and 6 hours of aircraft basic attitude flying before moving on to radio navigation. Bob Moore Naval Aviator V-15753 ATP B-727 B-707 L-188 Flight Instructor Airplane, Instrument Airplane PanAm (retired) |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
wrote in message ... Your flight school could afford to overtrain its students. Red herring. The military has historically moved people from 0TT to jet PIC in less time than civilian or airline ab-initio programs. The example is all the more salient considering how picky they are about the students. -cwk. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
"Bob Gardner" writes:
Solo time is required for the commercial certificate, and there is no way in the world that an insurance company will cover you in a twin without hundreds of hours of twin time. Fortunately there are insurance companies outside Mr. Gardner's world. I got insured with ~60 hours of MEL and have just over 500 now. The place where I did my MEL training would rent a multi to anyone who got their certificate there. Ask someone who knows about insurance. It's gotten tougher but the last time I looked (for my wife) it was still possible. --kyler |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Solo time is required for the commercial certificate
This is obviously and grossly incorrect. 14CFR61.129(b) For an airplane multiengine rating. (4) 10 hours of solo flight time in a multiengine airplane or 10 hours of flight time performing the duties of pilot in command in a multiengine airplane with an authorized instructor there is no way in the world that an insurance company will cover you in a twin without hundreds of hours of twin time This is also incorrect. Just recently (about a year ago) someone I know bought a Twin Comanche to train in. He had NO multi time and NO instrument rating. The insurance company required that he get the private or commercial multi prior to solo, 20 hours of dual prior to solo (all training towards private/commercial counted), and 10 hours solo prior to carrying passengers. Just about any other twin would have been easier to insure. Michael |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Bob Moore wrote:
wrote Probably bad instruction. Probably not! 3-4 hours of attitude flying instruction at most should be plenty to provide the skills to enable anyone to move on to navigational work and procedures. My flight school provided 8 hours of simulator basic attitude flying and 6 hours of aircraft basic attitude flying before moving on to radio navigation. But must you were weren't a Chuck Yeager clone like mr. nowhwere. :-) Matt |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
John R. Copeland wrote:
I used to work with a guy who flew B-29's over Japan in the 1940s, and he told of watching his fighter escorts pop up out of the undercast in all manner of crazy attitudes, shaking themselves level once in VMC. He didn't seem to think well of the attitude-flying skills of fighter pilots. I dunno, I think being able to fly aeobatics in IMC shows a high level of skill at attitude flying. Matt |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
AOPA Stall/Spin Study -- Stowell's Review (8,000 words) | Rich Stowell | Aerobatics | 28 | January 2nd 09 02:26 PM |
Diamond DA-40 with G-1000 pirep | C J Campbell | Instrument Flight Rules | 117 | July 22nd 04 05:40 PM |
Pilot Error? Is it Mr. Damron? | Badwater Bill | Home Built | 3 | June 23rd 04 04:05 PM |
Musings of a Commercial Helicopter Pilot | Badwater Bill | Home Built | 6 | February 27th 04 09:11 AM |
Single-Seat Accident Records (Was BD-5B) | Ron Wanttaja | Home Built | 41 | November 20th 03 05:39 AM |