Primary training in a Hi Perf complex acft

[Kingfish]

Total stream-of-consciousness post here...

Anbody learn to fly in a high performance complex aircraft? Bonanza,
Saratoga, 182RG and the like? I know it's possible, just wonder how
much longer it'd take for a student to master something with
significant power and prop & gear controls. (I did all my instructing
in 172s and PA28s)
I watched that goofy Segal movie Executive Decision the other day
where Kurt Russell was a student pilot flying a Bo, and later used his
stellar(?) flying skills to plant a 747 at a GA airport. It got me
thinking about ab initio folks learning in Cirruses (Cirri?)
Obviously with no prop or gear control it's a simpler aircraft to fly
but the performance is equal to or better than a A36.

[EridanMan]

My guess is that speed more than complexity would be the main
hindrance in learning in a high performance/complex aircraft.

I just remember how frustrating/hard it was the first few flights to
try to keep up on all my checklists/Comm/Flying puttering along at 100
knots in a C172... In a HP aircraft, everything happens faster...
Approaches, Altitude Deviations, etc... I think a huge part of the
advantage of learning in a slower plane is simply it allows you to get
all of your habits in place under a more time/lower stress
situation... then once they've become second nature, its a lot less of
a pain to adapt them to a faster paced environment.


On Mar 23, 9:36 am, "Kingfish" > wrote:
> Total stream-of-consciousness post here...
>
> Anbody learn to fly in a high performance complex aircraft? Bonanza,
> Saratoga, 182RG and the like? I know it's possible, just wonder how
> much longer it'd take for a student to master something with
> significant power and prop & gear controls. (I did all my instructing
> in 172s and PA28s)
> I watched that goofy Segal movie Executive Decision the other day
> where Kurt Russell was a student pilot flying a Bo, and later used his
> stellar(?) flying skills to plant a 747 at a GA airport. It got me
> thinking about ab initio folks learning in Cirruses (Cirri?)
> Obviously with no prop or gear control it's a simpler aircraft to fly
> but the performance is equal to or better than a A36.

[Jose]

> Anbody learn to fly in a high performance complex aircraft?

Think of it like learning to play the violin by sitting in performance
with the NY Philharmonic and following along.

When you learn to play an instrument, or learn a new song on an
instrument you already know how to play, you start slow to make sure
your fingers are going in the right places before you speed up. You
simplify the tune and add the frills later. You practice the hard parts
by themselves, and then integrate them into the piece.

You can't do that in the air in a high performance aircraft.

Jose
--
Humans are pack animals. Above all things, they have a deep need to
follow something, be it a leader, a creed, or a mob. Whosoever fully
understands this holds the world in his hands.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Robert M. Gary]

On Mar 23, 9:36 am, "Kingfish" > wrote:
> Total stream-of-consciousness post here...
>
> Anbody learn to fly in a high performance complex aircraft? Bonanza,
> Saratoga, 182RG and the like? I know it's possible, just wonder how
> much longer it'd take for a student to master something with
> significant power and prop & gear controls. (I did all my instructing
> in 172s and PA28s)
> I watched that goofy Segal movie Executive Decision the other day
> where Kurt Russell was a student pilot flying a Bo, and later used his
> stellar(?) flying skills to plant a 747 at a GA airport. It got me
> thinking about ab initio folks learning in Cirruses (Cirri?)
> Obviously with no prop or gear control it's a simpler aircraft to fly
> but the performance is equal to or better than a A36.

I've taught a few primary students in the Mooney. It can certainly be
a handful but everyone is able to do it, and take their checkride in
the Mooney. The Mooney might be a more extreme example because its
more slippery than the planes you mentioned and requires much more
planning. Interestingly, time to initial solo is not a whole lot more
in the Mooney because pattern work is very procedural (checklist here,
gumps here, gear check here, etc). However, cross country solo takes a
fair amount more time in the Mooney because of the need to plan more
carefully. Every student I've done primary training with has arrived
at their destination during cross country training at least 5,000 feet
too high.
The challenge is to go through the checklist items and keep ahead of
the plane without having your head in the cockpit. You really have to
learn the skill of going through checklists and looking around at the
same time (something most students don't get until instrument training
because checklists are usually so short in primary training).

-Robert, CFII

[Mxsmanic]

Kingfish writes:

> I watched that goofy Segal movie Executive Decision the other day
> where Kurt Russell was a student pilot flying a Bo, and later used his
> stellar(?) flying skills to plant a 747 at a GA airport. It got me
> thinking about ab initio folks learning in Cirruses (Cirri?)
> Obviously with no prop or gear control it's a simpler aircraft to fly
> but the performance is equal to or better than a A36.

The most unrealistic part about movies in which inexperienced pilots (or
non-pilots) fly 747s is that a 747 would most likely be flown by computer in
real life. The "pilot" would never have to worry about handling the controls
because he wouldn't have to touch them. The automation on a large airliner is
quite capable of flying to any destination and (usually) autolanding on any
decent runway with an ILS localizer and glide path.

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

[Allen[_1_]]

"Kingfish" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> Total stream-of-consciousness post here...
>
> Anbody learn to fly in a high performance complex aircraft? Bonanza,
> Saratoga, 182RG and the like? I know it's possible, just wonder how
> much longer it'd take for a student to master something with
> significant power and prop & gear controls. (I did all my instructing
> in 172s and PA28s)
> I watched that goofy Segal movie Executive Decision the other day
> where Kurt Russell was a student pilot flying a Bo, and later used his
> stellar(?) flying skills to plant a 747 at a GA airport. It got me
> thinking about ab initio folks learning in Cirruses (Cirri?)
> Obviously with no prop or gear control it's a simpler aircraft to fly
> but the performance is equal to or better than a A36.

Lufthansa has (had?) an ab-initio training facility in Goodyear, AZ using
A-36 Bonanzas. I knew a fellow that went out and bought an old Johnson bar
Mooney. He got with an instructor and soloed in a Cessna 152 then finished
his training in his Mooney.

Allen

[Michael[_1_]]

On Mar 23, 11:36 am, "Kingfish" > wrote:
> Anbody learn to fly in a high performance complex aircraft? Bonanza,
> Saratoga, 182RG and the like?

A friend of mine once taught a primary student in an Apache (twin
engine complex). Took the guy 50 hours to solo.

Michael

[Dan Luke]

"Jose" wrote:

> Think of it like learning to play the violin by sitting in performance with
> the NY Philharmonic and following along.

That is an exaggerated analogy. Flying a Bonanza is nowhere near that much
harder than flying a Warrior. If you were comparing a Pitts to a Warrior, it
might be closer to accurate.

> When you learn to play an instrument, or learn a new song on an instrument
> you already know how to play, you start slow to make sure your fingers are
> going in the right places before you speed up. You simplify the tune and
> add the frills later. You practice the hard parts by themselves, and then
> integrate them into the piece.
>
> You can't do that in the air in a high performance aircraft.

Sure you can. All it takes is the right instructor and more money.

--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[[email protected]]

Kingfish > wrote:
> Total stream-of-consciousness post here...

> Anbody learn to fly in a high performance complex aircraft? Bonanza,
> Saratoga, 182RG and the like? I know it's possible, just wonder how
> much longer it'd take for a student to master something with
> significant power and prop & gear controls. (I did all my instructing
> in 172s and PA28s)
> I watched that goofy Segal movie Executive Decision the other day
> where Kurt Russell was a student pilot flying a Bo, and later used his
> stellar(?) flying skills to plant a 747 at a GA airport. It got me
> thinking about ab initio folks learning in Cirruses (Cirri?)
> Obviously with no prop or gear control it's a simpler aircraft to fly
> but the performance is equal to or better than a A36.

Well, the USAF does primary training in the T-6; hardly a simple A/C.

For the average John Doe I can think of lots of reasons this might
not be a good idea, though certainly there are some people who are
at the high end of that bell shaped curve.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Bob Moore]

> Well, the USAF does primary training in the T-6; hardly a simple A/C.
> For the average John Doe I can think of lots of reasons this might
> not be a good idea, though certainly there are some people who are
> at the high end of that bell shaped curve.


Well.....:-) everyone of my classmates soloed in a T-34 somewhere
between 13-15 hours, and then soloed a T-28 at about 40 hours total.

Bob Moore

[Robert M. Gary]

On Mar 23, 11:14 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Kingfish writes:
> > I watched that goofy Segal movie Executive Decision the other day
> > where Kurt Russell was a student pilot flying a Bo, and later used his
> > stellar(?) flying skills to plant a 747 at a GA airport. It got me
> > thinking about ab initio folks learning in Cirruses (Cirri?)
> > Obviously with no prop or gear control it's a simpler aircraft to fly
> > but the performance is equal to or better than a A36.
>
> The most unrealistic part about movies in which inexperienced pilots (or
> non-pilots) fly 747s is that a 747 would most likely be flown by computer in
> real life. The "pilot" would never have to worry about handling the controls
> because he wouldn't have to touch them. The automation on a large airliner is
> quite capable of flying to any destination and (usually) autolanding on any
> decent runway with an ILS localizer and glide path.

What?? I've never flown a 747 but I teach TAA (technically advanced
aircraft). It is **WAY** more difficult to fly the plane on automation
than to just hand fly it. The biggest problem we have is pilots
shutting off the system and just hand flying all the time. If I found
myself in the cockpit of a 747 I certainly wouldn't try to learn all
the automation in 5 minutes, I'd probably shut most of it off (maybe
just use heading and altitude hold).

-Robert, CFII

[Robert M. Gary]

On Mar 23, 11:58 am, "Michael" >
wrote:
> On Mar 23, 11:36 am, "Kingfish" > wrote:
>
> > Anbody learn to fly in a high performance complex aircraft? Bonanza,
> > Saratoga, 182RG and the like?
>
> A friend of mine once taught a primary student in an Apache (twin
> engine complex). Took the guy 50 hours to solo.

In a helicopter that would be normal ;)

-Robert

[john smith]

In article om>,
"EridanMan" > wrote:

> In a HP aircraft, everything happens faster...

Huh?
182 speeds are only 10-15 knots higher than a 152.
Too many pilots have been taught by their instructors to fly 25-30 knots
faster than they ought to.

[john smith]

In article >,
Jose > wrote:

> You can't do that in the air in a high performance aircraft.

Sure you can.
A 182 has throttle and mixture just like a 152; don't use the prop
control for the first ten hours.

[[email protected]]

Bob Moore > wrote:
>
> > Well, the USAF does primary training in the T-6; hardly a simple A/C.
> > For the average John Doe I can think of lots of reasons this might
> > not be a good idea, though certainly there are some people who are
> > at the high end of that bell shaped curve.


> Well.....:-) everyone of my classmates soloed in a T-34 somewhere
> between 13-15 hours, and then soloed a T-28 at about 40 hours total.

Yeah, but wasn't there a weeding process that tended to remove the
bottom of the bell curve before they even touched a T-34?

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[george]

On Mar 24, 6:58 am, "Michael" >
wrote:
> On Mar 23, 11:36 am, "Kingfish" > wrote:
>
> > Anbody learn to fly in a high performance complex aircraft? Bonanza,
> > Saratoga, 182RG and the like?
>
> A friend of mine once taught a primary student in an Apache (twin
> engine complex). Took the guy 50 hours to solo.
>

If some-one is learning to fly a complex aircraft that is the basis of
his knowledge.
He doesn't 'know' how difficult it is as he has no other experience.

[Robert M. Gary]

On Mar 23, 1:48 pm, "george" > wrote:
> On Mar 24, 6:58 am, "Michael" >
> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 23, 11:36 am, "Kingfish" > wrote:
>
> > > Anbody learn to fly in a high performance complex aircraft? Bonanza,
> > > Saratoga, 182RG and the like?
>
> > A friend of mine once taught a primary student in an Apache (twin
> > engine complex). Took the guy 50 hours to solo.
>
> If some-one is learning to fly a complex aircraft that is the basis of
> his knowledge.
> He doesn't 'know' how difficult it is as he has no other experience.

The biggest question in that scenario is how was the student able to
aquire the required solo time since most insurance co's will not
ensure student pilots in a twin.

-robert

[Deadstick]

Primary training in a high-performance & complex aircraft can
certainly be done and done safely. In my opinion the only reason NOT
to do it is the increased risk of incidents due to pilot error.

More speed, plus more items on the checklist means less time in which
to accomplish more tasks thus an increased probability of making an
error, failing to complete a checklist item or possibly less attention
spent outside the cockpit.

As a general rule it's easier for someone to learn a smaller number of
tasks and add more tasks onto that as they master them. Starting in a
high performance & complex aircraft just dumps more things into the
students lap at an early stage in their training. A student pilot is
no less capable of learning these things things than a private pilot,
but generally speaking a student is more likely to make certain types
of errors. Giving the student more potential errors to commit just
increases the odds of one happening.

Personally, I think the most important factor would be the
instructor. If properly trained, I think a student can fly a HP/
Complex aircraft safely.

On Mar 23, 11:36 am, "Kingfish" > wrote:
> Total stream-of-consciousness post here...
>
> Anbody learn to fly in a high performance complex aircraft? Bonanza,
> Saratoga, 182RG and the like? I know it's possible, just wonder how
> much longer it'd take for a student to master something with
> significant power and prop & gear controls. (I did all my instructing
> in 172s and PA28s)
> I watched that goofy Segal movie Executive Decision the other day
> where Kurt Russell was a student pilot flying a Bo, and later used his
> stellar(?) flying skills to plant a 747 at a GA airport. It got me
> thinking about ab initio folks learning in Cirruses (Cirri?)
> Obviously with no prop or gear control it's a simpler aircraft to fly
> but the performance is equal to or better than a A36.

[Jose]

> Huh?
> 182 speeds are only 10-15 knots higher than a 152.

I'd like to see the 152 you fly.

Jose
--
Humans are pack animals. Above all things, they have a deep need to
follow something, be it a leader, a creed, or a mob. Whosoever fully
understands this holds the world in his hands.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Jim Macklin]

I have had several students who owned there own A36 Bonanza.
The had lots of money and very little free time. It was my
opinion that their lack of steady lesson time was more
important than the differences in the airplanes. It might
add several hours to solo, but the practical test for the
private would still come at about the same average as
anybody else who only was able to fly an hour a week.



"Kingfish" > wrote in message
ups.com...
| Total stream-of-consciousness post here...
|
| Anbody learn to fly in a high performance complex
aircraft? Bonanza,
| Saratoga, 182RG and the like? I know it's possible, just
wonder how
| much longer it'd take for a student to master something
with
| significant power and prop & gear controls. (I did all my
instructing
| in 172s and PA28s)
| I watched that goofy Segal movie Executive Decision the
other day
| where Kurt Russell was a student pilot flying a Bo, and
later used his
| stellar(?) flying skills to plant a 747 at a GA airport.
It got me
| thinking about ab initio folks learning in Cirruses
(Cirri?)
| Obviously with no prop or gear control it's a simpler
aircraft to fly
| but the performance is equal to or better than a A36.
|

[Danny Deger]

"Kingfish" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> Total stream-of-consciousness post here...
>
> Anbody learn to fly in a high performance complex aircraft? Bonanza,
> Saratoga, 182RG and the like? I know it's possible, just wonder how
> much longer it'd take for a student to master something with
> significant power and prop & gear controls. (I did all my instructing
> in 172s and PA28s)
> I watched that goofy Segal movie Executive Decision the other day
> where Kurt Russell was a student pilot flying a Bo, and later used his
> stellar(?) flying skills to plant a 747 at a GA airport. It got me
> thinking about ab initio folks learning in Cirruses (Cirri?)
> Obviously with no prop or gear control it's a simpler aircraft to fly
> but the performance is equal to or better than a A36.
>

In Air Force Pilot Training the students take a few rides in a Cessna, then
jump right into a T-37 jet. The jet is easier in one respect -- only
throttles to control the engine, but the higher speed makes you have to
think fast.

Danny Deger

[Mxsmanic]

Robert M. Gary writes:

> What?? I've never flown a 747 but I teach TAA (technically advanced
> aircraft). It is **WAY** more difficult to fly the plane on automation
> than to just hand fly it.

No, it is not. It's pushing buttons and turning dials; that's it.

Flying the aircraft (or any aircraft) by hand is an acquired skill, like
riding a motorcycle, skiing, or painting. But running the automated systems
is just a series of procedures. Once you have the procedures memorized,
there's not much to it.

This is why the actual skill requiremens for airline pilots are diminishing.
FBW systems that try to second-guess the pilot and restrict his actions even
when he is flying by hand reduce the required skill even further. The
unstated objective is to make it possible for relatively unskilled technicians
to fly planes safely. One day that goal will probably be achieved; we are far
from it today, but far closer to it than we were even a few decades ago.

> The biggest problem we have is pilots
> shutting off the system and just hand flying all the time. If I found
> myself in the cockpit of a 747 I certainly wouldn't try to learn all
> the automation in 5 minutes, I'd probably shut most of it off (maybe
> just use heading and altitude hold).

That might be your fatal mistake. It's a lot easier to follow simple
instructions over the radio and set the automation to fly to your destination
and land than it is to try to learn to hand-fly the aircraft in the heat of
the moment. It's not a Cessna, and it's not close enough to one to permit a
smooth transition in ten minutes under extreme duress.

This is one reason why I think a small-aircraft pilot might not be the best
choice as an emergency pilot for a large airliner. He would be too tempted to
try to fly the plane by hand, and he'd end up impacting a mountainside at high
speed, simply because flying by hand is the _last_ thing he should be doing in
that aircraft.

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

[Robert M. Gary]

On Mar 23, 4:11 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Robert M. Gary writes:
> > What?? I've never flown a 747 but I teach TAA (technically advanced
> > aircraft). It is **WAY** more difficult to fly the plane on automation
> > than to just hand fly it.
>
> No, it is not. It's pushing buttons and turning dials; that's it.

No, its much more complicated than pushing buttons.

[john smith]

In article >,
Jose > wrote:

> > Huh?
> > 182 speeds are only 10-15 knots higher than a 152.
>
> I'd like to see the 152 you fly.

Two people in a 182, the approach airspeed is between 55-60 kts.

[Mxsmanic]

Robert M. Gary writes:

> On Mar 23, 4:11 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> > Robert M. Gary writes:
> > > What?? I've never flown a 747 but I teach TAA (technically advanced
> > > aircraft). It is **WAY** more difficult to fly the plane on automation
> > > than to just hand fly it.
> >
> > No, it is not. It's pushing buttons and turning dials; that's it.
>
> No, its much more complicated than pushing buttons.


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

[Mxsmanic]

Robert M. Gary writes:

> No, its much more complicated than pushing buttons.

What are the complicated parts?

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

[Jose]

> Two people in a 182, the approach airspeed is between 55-60 kts.

Ok, but flying is more than just approaching.

Jose
--
Humans are pack animals. Above all things, they have a deep need to
follow something, be it a leader, a creed, or a mob. Whosoever fully
understands this holds the world in his hands.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Bertie the Bunyip]

On Mar 23, 4:36 pm, "Kingfish" > wrote:
> Total stream-of-consciousness post here...
>
> Anbody learn to fly in a high performance complex aircraft?

Yeah, a friend of mine learned to fly in a 1450 HP T-28, and it didn't
cost him a cent.


Bertie

[john smith]

In article >,
Jose > wrote:

> > Two people in a 182, the approach airspeed is between 55-60 kts.
>
> Ok, but flying is more than just approaching.

The original comment was that things happen faster due to higher
airspeeds in all phases of flight. My point was that all one has to do
is pull the throttle back and fly slower.

[Jose]

> The original comment was that things happen faster due to higher
> airspeeds in all phases of flight. My point was that all one has to do
> is pull the throttle back and fly slower.

Well, yes and no. By doing so one flies slower, but now in the 182 one
is flying significantly closer to stall, and in the 152 one is flying
right in the sweet zone. Learning to fly, one should learn all the
flight regimes, and become used to cruise in cruise, and approach in
approach.

Jose
--
Humans are pack animals. Above all things, they have a deep need to
follow something, be it a leader, a creed, or a mob. Whosoever fully
understands this holds the world in his hands.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[john smith[_2_]]

In article >,
Jose > wrote:

> > The original comment was that things happen faster due to higher
> > airspeeds in all phases of flight. My point was that all one has to do
> > is pull the throttle back and fly slower.
>
> Well, yes and no. By doing so one flies slower, but now in the 182 one
> is flying significantly closer to stall, and in the 152 one is flying
> right in the sweet zone. Learning to fly, one should learn all the
> flight regimes, and become used to cruise in cruise, and approach in
> approach.

Jose, I don't think you understand that a newer 182 at aft cg max gross
weight has a stall speed of 48 knots. At reduced weight it can drop to
38-42 knots. The 152 stall is down around 35-42 knots.

[Peter Dohm]

> >
> > > > Anbody learn to fly in a high performance complex aircraft? Bonanza,
> > > > Saratoga, 182RG and the like?
> >
> > > A friend of mine once taught a primary student in an Apache (twin
> > > engine complex). Took the guy 50 hours to solo.
> >
> > If some-one is learning to fly a complex aircraft that is the basis of
> > his knowledge.
> > He doesn't 'know' how difficult it is as he has no other experience.
>
> The biggest question in that scenario is how was the student able to
> aquire the required solo time since most insurance co's will not
> ensure student pilots in a twin.
>
> -robert
>
Everything that I know, or even think I might know, or this subject is third
hand--and anecdotal as well.

With that caveat in mind, some people do start in twins and insurance may
not be a serious issue for a prospective pilot owns the aircraft and also
regards hull coverage as trivial. That probably means someone with a lot
more financial clout that the typical person who learns in a Cirus; but that
would also put him at a level where he might self-insure against small (to
him) losses, and have umbrella coverage as just one of his means of covering
larger losses.

Those who have been contributing to this thread, including me, are at a
level where we must qualify and insure each of our activities; but, in the
overall population, that is NOT universal.

As to the matter of financial risk to the instructor and his supervisory
employer, if any; I know too little to even speculate.

Peter

[Jose]

> Jose, I don't think you understand that a newer 182 at aft cg max gross
> weight has a stall speed of 48 knots. At reduced weight it can drop to
> 38-42 knots. The 152 stall is down around 35-42 knots.

Perhaps I don't, since I've never flown a "newer" 182. How do the
controls feel (compared to regular cruise) when slowed down like that?
How quickly does it slow down if you get in trouble?

Jose
--
Humans are pack animals. Above all things, they have a deep need to
follow something, be it a leader, a creed, or a mob. Whosoever fully
understands this holds the world in his hands.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Peter Dohm]

> I have had several students who owned there own A36 Bonanza.
> The had lots of money and very little free time. It was my
> opinion that their lack of steady lesson time was more
> important than the differences in the airplanes. It might
> add several hours to solo, but the practical test for the
> private would still come at about the same average as
> anybody else who only was able to fly an hour a week.
>
>
This is outside my personal experience, but anecdotal evidence suggests that
most students who are not sent by an employer are learning because they
simply want to fly. Thus, for most students, the initial ownership will not
be high performance or complex, and neither will their first move-up
aircraft. Therefore, it would make little sense to learn and then move
down.

In other words, by way of agreement, if a candidate already owns an
aircraft, then that aircraft probably makes sense as his trainer.

[Andrew Sarangan]

I believe cost is one of the main reasons people choose to learn in
low-end aircraft. If a Mooney rented for the same price as a 150, I am
sure most students will pick the Mooney over the 150. Compared to
amount of workload needed for learning the basic stick and rudder
skills, the gear and prop are only minor distractions. FWIW, I first
learned to fly in a Katana, which had a constant speed prop. It is not
complex by any means, but operating the blue knob was far simpler than
learning takeoffs and landings.


On Mar 23, 12:36 pm, "Kingfish" > wrote:
> Total stream-of-consciousness post here...
>
> Anbody learn to fly in a high performance complex aircraft? Bonanza,
> Saratoga, 182RG and the like? I know it's possible, just wonder how
> much longer it'd take for a student to master something with
> significant power and prop & gear controls. (I did all my instructing
> in 172s and PA28s)
> I watched that goofy Segal movie Executive Decision the other day
> where Kurt Russell was a student pilot flying a Bo, and later used his
> stellar(?) flying skills to plant a 747 at a GA airport. It got me
> thinking about ab initio folks learning in Cirruses (Cirri?)
> Obviously with no prop or gear control it's a simpler aircraft to fly
> but the performance is equal to or better than a A36.

[Jim Macklin]

It is all relative, the mind will adjust in a few minutes to
a faster airplane.


"Jose" > wrote in message
t...
|> The original comment was that things happen faster due to
higher
| > airspeeds in all phases of flight. My point was that all
one has to do
| > is pull the throttle back and fly slower.
|
| Well, yes and no. By doing so one flies slower, but now
in the 182 one
| is flying significantly closer to stall, and in the 152
one is flying
| right in the sweet zone. Learning to fly, one should
learn all the
| flight regimes, and become used to cruise in cruise, and
approach in
| approach.
|
| Jose
| --
| Humans are pack animals. Above all things, they have a
deep need to
| follow something, be it a leader, a creed, or a mob.
Whosoever fully
| understands this holds the world in his hands.
| for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[C J Campbell[_1_]]

On 2007-03-23 09:36:05 -0700, "Kingfish" > said:

> Total stream-of-consciousness post here...
>
> Anbody learn to fly in a high performance complex aircraft? Bonanza,
> Saratoga, 182RG and the like? I know it's possible, just wonder how
> much longer it'd take for a student to master something with
> significant power and prop & gear controls. (I did all my instructing
> in 172s and PA28s)
> I watched that goofy Segal movie Executive Decision the other day
> where Kurt Russell was a student pilot flying a Bo, and later used his
> stellar(?) flying skills to plant a 747 at a GA airport. It got me
> thinking about ab initio folks learning in Cirruses (Cirri?)
> Obviously with no prop or gear control it's a simpler aircraft to fly
> but the performance is equal to or better than a A36.

Most students seem to take longer, but they get there. I think a lot of
it is instructor familiarity. If you are going to instruct in a Bonanza
you need to be thoroughly familiar with that plane yourself, or you are
going to be wasting some of your student's time while you learn the
systems and the ways that a plane like this can bite you. Mesa Pilot
Development regularly teaches private pilots in the A36. Personally, I
find this airplane to be physically uncomfortable, but I can't put my
finger exactly on why.

As for any other airplane, such as the Cirrus, it is simply a matter of
getting the student to stay ahead of the airplane. This is a big
drawback, actually, of teaching in slow taildraggers. If a tricycle
gear airplane is too forgiving of sloppy landings, the slow planes are
too forgiving of sloppy inflight procedures.
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

[C J Campbell[_1_]]

On 2007-03-23 16:01:24 -0700, "Danny Deger" > said:

>
> "Kingfish" > wrote in message
> ups.com...
>> Total stream-of-consciousness post here...
>>
>> Anbody learn to fly in a high performance complex aircraft? Bonanza,
>> Saratoga, 182RG and the like? I know it's possible, just wonder how
>> much longer it'd take for a student to master something with
>> significant power and prop & gear controls. (I did all my instructing
>> in 172s and PA28s)
>> I watched that goofy Segal movie Executive Decision the other day
>> where Kurt Russell was a student pilot flying a Bo, and later used his
>> stellar(?) flying skills to plant a 747 at a GA airport. It got me
>> thinking about ab initio folks learning in Cirruses (Cirri?)
>> Obviously with no prop or gear control it's a simpler aircraft to fly
>> but the performance is equal to or better than a A36.
>>
>
> In Air Force Pilot Training the students take a few rides in a Cessna, then
> jump right into a T-37 jet. The jet is easier in one respect -- only
> throttles to control the engine, but the higher speed makes you have to
> think fast.
>
> Danny Deger

The T-37 IS a Cessna. :-) I took my very first flying lesson in one.
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

[john smith[_2_]]

In article >,
Jose > wrote:

> > Jose, I don't think you understand that a newer 182 at aft cg max gross
> > weight has a stall speed of 48 knots. At reduced weight it can drop to
> > 38-42 knots. The 152 stall is down around 35-42 knots.
>
> Perhaps I don't, since I've never flown a "newer" 182. How do the
> controls feel (compared to regular cruise) when slowed down like that?
> How quickly does it slow down if you get in trouble?

Probabaly the biggest difference is that the 182, with rudder trim can
be flown almost entirely by trim. It's very stable. The downspring in
the elevator makes fore and aft pushes and pulls noticeable, but this is
by design. Prop in flat pitch slows down quickly.

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
...
> It is all relative, the mind will adjust in a few minutes to
> a faster airplane.
>
>

To a point, yes , most will. Whether it takes "minutes" is questionable.

Some can never make the adjustment to even 152/172 speeds.

Matt B.

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Hi Matt;
One example of what you folks are discussing on this thread would be the
Paris Texas operation back in the sixties run by Junior Burchinal.
(Issac Newton to his friends :-)
Junior would take you from not knowing anything at all, right though a
complete checkout in his Mustang or his Bearcat, or several other
military airplanes.
We always considered Junior to be a die hard gambler, but in reality, he
was actually a VERY good pilot and instructor. He did keep a real close
rein on those he checked out though and all the flying was done in and
around his dirt strip near Paris. The bottom line on Junior was that
anyone with the bucks could walk through the door and solo in a P51 or
any of the other airplanes in Juniors stable of "patched up old war
birds still flying"
You would think the name of this game would simply be the money, and
admittedly, many of those who went through Junior's "program" had deep
pockets, but I can tell you that his operation, although a bit rusty and
dusty, was a first rate teaching and flying setup.
Junior's program for the 51 for example was (if I remember right anyway
:-) 10 hours in the Stearman, then 10 hours in the T6; 5 in front, then
5 in the back to get used to having that nose out there in front of you.
So you basically have a 20 hour program ending in a P51 checkout.
My personal opinion on this from my own experience doing checkouts and
giving dual in this type of situation, is that its not all that out of
line.
You can start someone out in a complex high performance airplane and
take them right through the program. Its harder for sure, and there's a
bit more to learn going through, but the bottom line is that it can, and
most certainly has been done many times, and successfully too.
I'm jogging my memory a bit now, but to my knowledge, Burchinal's
operation had a great safety record. I don't recall a major incident
involving someone who went through his program.
On the GA side of things;
I've had several people who bought their own high performance airplanes
before starting instruction and then went on with me from the beginning
on through the program. Solo took a few hours more, but after that, all
was basically normal from there. I wouldn't say it was all that much
more difficult teaching them in these airplanes than it would have been
in a 150 Cessna or a 140 Cherokee.
In the end, it all depends on the same things in this scenario that it
does in a non- high performance airplane;
1.The motivation of both the student and the instructor
2.The competence of the instructor
One side note to all this, and its strictly a personal observation based
on my own experience flying many types of airplanes; I have actually
found high performance airplanes easier to fly all things considered,
than planes with limited performance. (In teaching turn dynamics in the
T38 for example, you simply tell them to point the airplane where you
want it to go :-))
Dudley Henriques

Matt Barrow wrote:
> "Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
> ...
>> It is all relative, the mind will adjust in a few minutes to
>> a faster airplane.
>>
>>
>
> To a point, yes , most will. Whether it takes "minutes" is questionable.
>
> Some can never make the adjustment to even 152/172 speeds.
>
> Matt B.
>
>

[Bertie the Bunyip]

On Mar 23, 6:14 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Kingfish writes:
> > I watched that goofy Segal movie Executive Decision the other day
> > where Kurt Russell was a student pilot flying a Bo, and later used his
> > stellar(?) flying skills to plant a 747 at a GA airport. It got me
> > thinking about ab initio folks learning in Cirruses (Cirri?)
> > Obviously with no prop or gear control it's a simpler aircraft to fly
> > but the performance is equal to or better than a A36.
>
> The most unrealistic part about movies in which inexperienced pilots (or
> non-pilots) fly 747s is that a 747 would most likely be flown by computer in
> real life. The "pilot" would never have to worry about handling the controls
> because he wouldn't have to touch them. The automation on a large airliner is
> quite capable of flying to any destination and (usually) autolanding on any
> decent runway with an ILS localizer and glide path.
>
> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Bertie the Bunyip]

On Mar 23, 11:11 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Robert M. Gary writes:
> > What?? I've never flown a 747 but I teach TAA (technically advanced
> > aircraft). It is **WAY** more difficult to fly the plane on automation
> > than to just hand fly it.
>
> No, it is not. It's pushing buttons and turning dials; that's it.
>
> Flying the aircraft (or any aircraft) by hand is an acquired skill, like
> riding a motorcycle, skiing, or painting. But running the automated systems
> is just a series of procedures. Once you have the procedures memorized,
> there's not much to it.
>
> This is why the actual skill requiremens for airline pilots are diminishing.
> FBW systems that try to second-guess the pilot and restrict his actions even
> when he is flying by hand reduce the required skill even further. The
> unstated objective is to make it possible for relatively unskilled technicians
> to fly planes safely. One day that goal will probably be achieved; we are far
> from it today, but far closer to it than we were even a few decades ago.
>
> > The biggest problem we have is pilots
> > shutting off the system and just hand flying all the time. If I found
> > myself in the cockpit of a 747 I certainly wouldn't try to learn all
> > the automation in 5 minutes, I'd probably shut most of it off (maybe
> > just use heading and altitude hold).
>
> That might be your fatal mistake. It's a lot easier to follow simple
> instructions over the radio and set the automation to fly to your destination
> and land than it is to try to learn to hand-fly the aircraft in the heat of
> the moment. It's not a Cessna, and it's not close enough to one to permit a
> smooth transition in ten minutes under extreme duress.
>
> This is one reason why I think a small-aircraft pilot might not be the best
> choice as an emergency pilot for a large airliner. He would be too tempted to
> try to fly the plane by hand, and he'd end up impacting a mountainside at high
> speed, simply because flying by hand is the _last_ thing he should be doing in
> that aircraft.

He'd more than likely do a better job of it that you would you
fjukkwit.

I've had private pilots in airoline sims and they were able to get the
airplane down with a minimum of instruction. In fact i once got a
model airplane pilot to do it in a 737 sim and he'd never even been a
passenger in an airliner, and he was only 16.

you otoh, wouldn' have a chance because you wouldn't even be able to
see the MCP with your head up your ass.



Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip]

On Mar 23, 11:11 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Robert M. Gary writes:
> > What?? I've never flown a 747 but I teach TAA (technically advanced
> > aircraft). It is **WAY** more difficult to fly the plane on automation
> > than to just hand fly it.
>
> No, it is not. It's pushing buttons and turning dials; that's it.
>
> Flying the aircraft (or any aircraft) by hand is an acquired skill, like
> riding a motorcycle, skiing, or painting. But running the automated systems
> is just a series of procedures. Once you have the procedures memorized,
> there's not much to it.
>
> This is why the actual skill requiremens for airline pilots are diminishing.

No, they aren't. that problem was recognised over twenty years ago and
we hand fly whenevr possible, fjukktard.



Bertie

[[email protected][_1_]]

On Sat, 24 Mar 2007 10:19:38 -0700, C J Campbell
> wrote:

>Most students seem to take longer, but they get there. I think a lot of
>it is instructor familiarity. If you are going to instruct in a Bonanza
>you need to be thoroughly familiar with that plane yourself, or you are
>going to be wasting some of your student's time while you learn the
>systems and the ways that a plane like this can bite you. Mesa Pilot
>Development regularly teaches private pilots in the A36. Personally, I
>find this airplane to be physically uncomfortable, but I can't put my
>finger exactly on why.
>
>As for any other airplane, such as the Cirrus, it is simply a matter of
>getting the student to stay ahead of the airplane. This is a big
>drawback, actually, of teaching in slow taildraggers. If a tricycle
>gear airplane is too forgiving of sloppy landings, the slow planes are
>too forgiving of sloppy inflight procedures.

Traumahawk-worst of both worlds. Scary thing is that it was a
"clean-sheet" trainer...

TC

[Bertie the Bunyip]

On Mar 24, 1:16 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Robert M. Gary writes:
> > No, its much more complicated than pushing buttons.
>
> What are the complicated parts?
>

You couldn't do it, but that, of course, doesn't mean it's
complicated. Bottom line, a crewless airplane with you as their only
hope is going to end up a smoking hole in the ground...


Bertie

[george]

> On Mar 24, 1:16 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:

> > What are the complicated parts?

If you have to ask you're not qualified

[Mxsmanic]

Bertie the Bunyip writes:

> You couldn't do it, but that, of course, doesn't mean it's
> complicated. Bottom line, a crewless airplane with you as their only
> hope is going to end up a smoking hole in the ground...

I notice that you still haven't explained the complicated parts. Very well.
If you're unwilling to do that, then perhaps you can at least explain the
"parts I couldn't do." What parts are those?

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

[Mxsmanic]

george writes:

> If you have to ask you're not qualified

If you can't answer you're bluffing.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Bertie the Bunyip writes:

> I've had private pilots in airoline sims and they were able to get the
> airplane down with a minimum of instruction. In fact i once got a
> model airplane pilot to do it in a 737 sim and he'd never even been a
> passenger in an airliner, and he was only 16.

Then why do you maintain that it's difficult?

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

[Mxsmanic]

Bertie the Bunyip writes:

> No, they aren't. that problem was recognised over twenty years ago and
> we hand fly whenevr possible, fjukktard.

You may hand fly, but many do not. Some countries are producing airline
pilots with extremely limited skills, and yet they still manage to fly the
aircraft, most of the time.

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

[GeorgeC[_2_]]

On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 20:45:03 GMT, wrote:

>Bob Moore > wrote:
>>
>> > Well, the USAF does primary training in the T-6; hardly a simple A/C.
>> > For the average John Doe I can think of lots of reasons this might
>> > not be a good idea, though certainly there are some people who are
>> > at the high end of that bell shaped curve.
>
>
>> Well.....:-) everyone of my classmates soloed in a T-34 somewhere
>> between 13-15 hours, and then soloed a T-28 at about 40 hours total.
>
>Yeah, but wasn't there a weeding process that tended to remove the
>bottom of the bell curve before they even touched a T-34?

My first flying lesson was in a T-34. I had not flown anything before except
when a neighbor would ask "Want to fly the airplane?"

I think flying the T-34/T-28 was the weeding process.

GeorgeC

[John Mazor[_2_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Bertie the Bunyip writes:
>
>> You couldn't do it, but that, of course, doesn't mean
>> it's
>> complicated. Bottom line, a crewless airplane with you as
>> their only
>> hope is going to end up a smoking hole in the ground...
>
> I notice that you still haven't explained the complicated
> parts. Very well.
> If you're unwilling to do that, then perhaps you can at
> least explain the
> "parts I couldn't do." What parts are those?

By your benighted standards, brain surgery is just a matter
of drilling and cutting. A butcher, or for that matter, a
carpenter, armed with a few anatomy diagrams ought to be
able to do it, right?

[John Mazor[_2_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> george writes:
>
>> If you have to ask you're not qualified
>
> If you can't answer you're bluffing.

In your case, even if you can answer, you're bluffing.

[John Mazor[_2_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Bertie the Bunyip writes:
>
>> No, they aren't. that problem was recognised over twenty
>> years ago and
>> we hand fly whenevr possible, fjukktard.
>
> You may hand fly, but many do not. Some countries are
> producing airline
> pilots with extremely limited skills,

You didn't have that geographic qualifier when you made your
sweeping statement. It's true that a few countries are
using ab initio training to breed their own pilots, but
that's a tiny minority.

> and yet they still manage to fly the aircraft, most of the
> time.

Another weasel-worded qualifier. "Most of the time" is not
good enough. "Our wings do not fall off most of the time"
would not be good enough, either. One sufficiently bad
pilot screw up = one smoking hole.

Every airline pilot with whom I've discussed automation
makes it a point to occasionally do a little hand-flying
just to maintain those skills. And some airport approaches
are best done hand-flying.

-- John Mazor
"The search for wisdom is asymptotic."

"Except for Internet newsgroups, where it is divergent..."
-- R J Carpenter

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"John Mazor" > wrote in message
news:A4hNh.2386$xE.1804@trnddc08...
>
> "Mxsmanic" > wrote in message By your benighted
> standards, brain surgery is just a matter of drilling and cutting. A
> butcher, or for that matter, a carpenter, armed with a few anatomy
> diagrams ought to be able to do it, right?
>

He equates it like this: http://www.dmartstores.com/opboargambym.html

[Jim Logajan]

Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> One example of what you folks are discussing on this thread would be
> the Paris Texas operation back in the sixties run by Junior Burchinal.
> (Issac Newton to his friends :-)
> Junior would take you from not knowing anything at all, right though a
> complete checkout in his Mustang or his Bearcat, or several other
> military airplanes.

Funny you should mention Burchinal - I recently finished reading "Zero 3
Bravo" by Mariana Gosnell (about a cross-country flight in her Luscombe
Silvaire) and she has a chapter on meeting him and getting a chance to
fly with him in a T-33. Quite a character! Claimed to be a reformed
boozer (claimed to drink to get his courage up to fly - which he wanted
to do more than anything in the world). A few quotes from the book:

Burchinal:
'"One day I was flying home from Dallas in in a ragwing Luscombe[!] I'd
cracked up the day before landing in a fog when I was half drunk and
stepped on the brakes too hard. I put a cloth over the torn part of the
windshield, had a couple swigs of tequila, and took off."'

(And the reason one person came to view his B-17:)

'One Israeli made a beeline for the B-17 and started crying as soon as
he sat in the pilot's seat. He told Burchinal why. During World War II
his parents, who were Jewish, hid him and his little sister under the
floor of their house in Holland and told them if they heard a noise in
the night they should run away to a cave that had been prepared for
them. One night they did hear a noise. "The Gestapo came to the house
and slit his parents' throats," said Burchinal. "He and his sister ran
away and hid in the cave. The cave was on a hillside and during the day
they usually stayed there but at night they'd sneak down to the valley
and take food from people's gardens. One day they were standing outside
and saw Germans with bloodhounds climbing up the hill toward them. They
stood hugging each other. They were sure this was the end of their
lives. But instead of a few shots they heard thousands of rounds of
ammunition. Then they saw a B-17 flying up the hillside, shooting at
every German in sight. When it passed them the pilot waved. The Israeli
said he'd never forget that as long as he lived."'

One story, out of several close calls, related in the book:
'Once during a takeoff in the P-38 the canopy's emergency latch came off
and then the canopy itself, tearing loose the top of Burchinal's and a
student's scalps. "By the time they landed, the student's scalp was
flapping in the slipstream," said Bo. (Bo is his son.)

A bunch of other tales, some tall, squeezed into that 14 page chapter.
(E.g. Mariana met the woman from Paris, France who Burchinal claimed was
the first female civilian to solo a T-33. How he came to have his own
chapel, and so on.)

[Mxsmanic]

John Mazor writes:

> You didn't have that geographic qualifier when you made your
> sweeping statement. It's true that a few countries are
> using ab initio training to breed their own pilots, but
> that's a tiny minority.

Minority or not, it proves that it can be done.

Starting and finishing in a jet airliner is a pretty good proof of concept for
primary training in a high-performance aircraft.

> Another weasel-worded qualifier. "Most of the time" is not
> good enough.

It's good enough for an entire career, and it's a lot cheaper to cover only
the normal case than it is to train for the exceptions as well.

> "Our wings do not fall off most of the time" would not be good
> enough, either.

Then no aircraft is good enough, because there is no aircraft for which it can
be said that the wings _never_ fall off.

> Every airline pilot with whom I've discussed automation
> makes it a point to occasionally do a little hand-flying
> just to maintain those skills.

Good for them. But not every airline pilot does this. More significantly,
there are many emergency situations that are not routinely practiced by many
airline pilots. And since airliners are so reliable and normal air travel is
so routine, pilots can get away with this and have productive and rewarding
careers, anyway.

You have to draw a line somewhere. It's possible for a 747 to enter a spin, I
suppose, but spins are not normally practiced by airline pilots, and there
isn't any good way to simulate them. So most airline pilots have no
experience with spins in the aircraft they fly. But is that really a problem?
How often do 737s or 747s enter spins, anyway?

With increasing automation comes a decreasing need for qualification. That's
just a fact of life. And it seems to be an irreversible evolution of
commercial aviation.

Eventually, I expect that airline flights will be fully automated. The lead
flight attendant or purser will press a "start flight" button where the
cockpit used to be when it's time to push back from the gate, and the rest
will be controlled automatically. No need for pilots at all. There is
probably nothing that airlines wish for more, except perhaps free fuel.

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

[Eeyore[_2_]]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

> Mxsmanic > wrote:
> >
> > This is one reason why I think a small-aircraft pilot might not be the best
> > choice as an emergency pilot for a large airliner. He would be too tempted to
> > try to fly the plane by hand, and he'd end up impacting a mountainside at high
> > speed, simply because flying by hand is the _last_ thing he should be doing in
> > that aircraft.
>
> He'd more than likely do a better job of it that you would you
> fjukkwit.

I suspect he means they might be tempted into 'overcontrolling' but lacks the
vocabulary or brains to say so. I doubt it myself. PPLs probably understand that
issue quite well.

Graham

[Eeyore[_2_]]

Mxsmanic wrote:

> Bertie the Bunyip writes:
>
> > No, they aren't. that problem was recognised over twenty years ago and
> > we hand fly whenevr possible, fjukktard.
>
> You may hand fly, but many do not. Some countries are producing airline
> pilots with extremely limited skills, and yet they still manage to fly the
> aircraft, most of the time.

I thought the FAA still held autoland in contempt.

Graham

[Eeyore[_2_]]

John Mazor wrote:

> One sufficiently bad pilot screw up = one smoking hole.

Talking of which, what's your current observation of the fallout from AA587 ?

Graham

[Mxsmanic]

Eeyore writes:

> I suspect he means they might be tempted into 'overcontrolling' but lacks the
> vocabulary or brains to say so.

What I mean is that they simply have no experience flying such an aircraft,
and experience with a tin can will not help to any significant extent.
Indeed, it may only hurt, by giving them the dangerous and incorrect belief
that they can fly anything because they can fly a tin can. They will tend to
try what is familiar (flying by hand), instead of what is necessary (flying
with automation), potentially with tragic results.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Eeyore writes:

> I thought the FAA still held autoland in contempt.

I don't know what the FAA thinks of autoland, but the FAA governs only
aviation in the United States. The world is a big place, and some countries
have extremely casual standards for airline pilots.

The FAA requires that crews and aircraft with autoland capability periodically
engage in it, for currency.

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

[[email protected][_1_]]

On Sat, 24 Mar 2007 19:25:57 -0500, "Peter Dohm"
> wrote:


>Sheesh!
>
>I though it had some endearing qualities, and still do. The nay sayers
>really overstate.
>
>Peter
>

I allegedly trained in one, and allegedly maintained 5 that
accumulated around 15000 hours.

It is a FAA type certificated airplane, other than that, they are
semi-ugly to fly and fully-ugly to maintain.

Again, since it was designed from a clean sheet, supposedly from input
from flight instructors, there is really no excuse for how it turned
out.

Somebody (not me, not going there again) ought to stall/spin one and
video the tail shaking and post it on utoob.

Regards;

TC

[Peter Dohm]

>
> >Most students seem to take longer, but they get there. I think a lot of
> >it is instructor familiarity. If you are going to instruct in a Bonanza
> >you need to be thoroughly familiar with that plane yourself, or you are
> >going to be wasting some of your student's time while you learn the
> >systems and the ways that a plane like this can bite you. Mesa Pilot
> >Development regularly teaches private pilots in the A36. Personally, I
> >find this airplane to be physically uncomfortable, but I can't put my
> >finger exactly on why.
> >
> >As for any other airplane, such as the Cirrus, it is simply a matter of
> >getting the student to stay ahead of the airplane. This is a big
> >drawback, actually, of teaching in slow taildraggers. If a tricycle
> >gear airplane is too forgiving of sloppy landings, the slow planes are
> >too forgiving of sloppy inflight procedures.
>
> Traumahawk-worst of both worlds. Scary thing is that it was a
> "clean-sheet" trainer...
>
> TC

Sheesh!

I though it had some endearing qualities, and still do. The nay sayers
really overstate.

Peter

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Junior's operation gave the FAA fits. Nobody could figure out how he did
what he did without accidents, but he did :-) The airplanes didn't look
all that hot either, but he kept them in flying condition and
mechanically they were fine.
Junior was just a character who drove the main stream folks and the big
money boys crazy. He loved every minute of it too :-))
In the end analysis, what Junior did for aviation was actually
substantial. Along with his "you got the bucks, I got the Mustang"
operation, he also served as an extremely competent checkout "service"
for the guys with deep pockets who owned WW2 aircraft simply because
they had the bucks to do so. I, along with a ton of the guys who along
with me knew a little bit about this end of the business all agree that
what Junior did that was valuable was to keep these people with money
and little else in the way of experience from killing themselves in
their own airplanes. Many of these big money folks literally owe their
lives to Burchinal. By the time he got through with them, they had a
fighting chance to stay alive in their P51's and F8F's. :-))
Dudley Henriques

Jim Logajan wrote:
> Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>> One example of what you folks are discussing on this thread would be
>> the Paris Texas operation back in the sixties run by Junior Burchinal.
>> (Issac Newton to his friends :-)
>> Junior would take you from not knowing anything at all, right though a
>> complete checkout in his Mustang or his Bearcat, or several other
>> military airplanes.
>
> Funny you should mention Burchinal - I recently finished reading "Zero 3
> Bravo" by Mariana Gosnell (about a cross-country flight in her Luscombe
> Silvaire) and she has a chapter on meeting him and getting a chance to
> fly with him in a T-33. Quite a character! Claimed to be a reformed
> boozer (claimed to drink to get his courage up to fly - which he wanted
> to do more than anything in the world). A few quotes from the book:
>
> Burchinal:
> '"One day I was flying home from Dallas in in a ragwing Luscombe[!] I'd
> cracked up the day before landing in a fog when I was half drunk and
> stepped on the brakes too hard. I put a cloth over the torn part of the
> windshield, had a couple swigs of tequila, and took off."'
>
> (And the reason one person came to view his B-17:)
>
> 'One Israeli made a beeline for the B-17 and started crying as soon as
> he sat in the pilot's seat. He told Burchinal why. During World War II
> his parents, who were Jewish, hid him and his little sister under the
> floor of their house in Holland and told them if they heard a noise in
> the night they should run away to a cave that had been prepared for
> them. One night they did hear a noise. "The Gestapo came to the house
> and slit his parents' throats," said Burchinal. "He and his sister ran
> away and hid in the cave. The cave was on a hillside and during the day
> they usually stayed there but at night they'd sneak down to the valley
> and take food from people's gardens. One day they were standing outside
> and saw Germans with bloodhounds climbing up the hill toward them. They
> stood hugging each other. They were sure this was the end of their
> lives. But instead of a few shots they heard thousands of rounds of
> ammunition. Then they saw a B-17 flying up the hillside, shooting at
> every German in sight. When it passed them the pilot waved. The Israeli
> said he'd never forget that as long as he lived."'
>
> One story, out of several close calls, related in the book:
> 'Once during a takeoff in the P-38 the canopy's emergency latch came off
> and then the canopy itself, tearing loose the top of Burchinal's and a
> student's scalps. "By the time they landed, the student's scalp was
> flapping in the slipstream," said Bo. (Bo is his son.)
>
> A bunch of other tales, some tall, squeezed into that 14 page chapter.
> (E.g. Mariana met the woman from Paris, France who Burchinal claimed was
> the first female civilian to solo a T-33. How he came to have his own
> chapel, and so on.)

[Peter Dohm]

>
>
> >Sheesh!
> >
> >I though it had some endearing qualities, and still do. The nay sayers
> >really overstate.
> >
> >Peter
> >
>
> I allegedly trained in one, and allegedly maintained 5 that
> accumulated around 15000 hours.
>
> It is a FAA type certificated airplane, other than that, they are
> semi-ugly to fly and fully-ugly to maintain.
>
> Again, since it was designed from a clean sheet, supposedly from input
> from flight instructors, there is really no excuse for how it turned
> out.
>
> Somebody (not me, not going there again) ought to stall/spin one and
> video the tail shaking and post it on utoob.
>
> Regards;
>
> TC

I temporarily forgot about that last part...

I never got to spin one, but a look back during a stall could give a guy
religeon. That tee tail wiggled more than a Hawaiian girl at a Luau!

I have heard that the Tomahawk was originally designed to have a
conventional tail--which would have made it a much better airplane in
several ways.

Peter

[Jose]

> Traumahawk-worst of both worlds. Scary thing is that it was a
> "clean-sheet" trainer...

I trained in a Traumahawk. I liked it. When I checked out in the 152,
I found it to be a dog in comparison.

Jose
--
Get high on gasoline: fly an airplane.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Eeyore[_2_]]

Mxsmanic wrote:

> Eeyore writes:
>
> > I suspect he means they might be tempted into 'overcontrolling' but lacks the
> > vocabulary or brains to say so.
>
> What I mean is that they simply have no experience flying such an aircraft,
> and experience with a tin can will not help to any significant extent.

LMAO !

Have you ever flown ? As in PIC that is ?

Graham

[Eeyore[_2_]]

Mxsmanic wrote:

> John Mazor writes:
>
> > You didn't have that geographic qualifier when you made your
> > sweeping statement. It's true that a few countries are
> > using ab initio training to breed their own pilots, but
> > that's a tiny minority.
>
> Minority or not, it proves that it can be done.
>
> Starting and finishing in a jet airliner is a pretty good proof of concept for
> primary training in a high-performance aircraft.

Uh ? Ab-initio training involves getting a PPL first anyway.

Do you think they put beginners in heavy twins to begin with ?

Graham

[Eeyore[_2_]]

Mxsmanic wrote:

> Eventually, I expect that airline flights will be fully automated. The lead
> flight attendant or purser will press a "start flight" button where the
> cockpit used to be when it's time to push back from the gate, and the rest
> will be controlled automatically. No need for pilots at all.

Good Lord you're amazingly stupid !

Graham

[John Mazor[_2_]]

"Matt Barrow" > wrote in
message ...
>
> "John Mazor" > wrote in message
> news:A4hNh.2386$xE.1804@trnddc08...
>>
>> "Mxsmanic" > wrote in message By your
>> benighted standards, brain surgery is just a matter of
>> drilling and cutting. A butcher, or for that matter, a
>> carpenter, armed with a few anatomy diagrams ought to be
>> able to do it, right?
>
> He equates it like this:
> http://www.dmartstores.com/opboargambym.html

Bwhawhawhawha! Anyone want to take bets on whether it's on
his bookshelf?

[John Mazor[_2_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> John Mazor writes:
>
>> You didn't have that geographic qualifier when you made
>> your
>> sweeping statement. It's true that a few countries are
>> using ab initio training to breed their own pilots, but
>> that's a tiny minority.
>
> Minority or not, it proves that it can be done.

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.

> Starting and finishing in a jet airliner is a pretty good
> proof of concept for
> primary training in a high-performance aircraft.

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?

>> Another weasel-worded qualifier. "Most of the time" is
>> not good enough.
>
> It's good enough for an entire career,

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

> and it's a lot cheaper to cover only
> the normal case than it is to train for the exceptions as
> well.

Not when you factor in the costs of accidents caused by
inadequate training. Note that "costs" include a lot more
than just the liability suits.

>> "Our wings do not fall off most of the time" would not be
>> good enough, either.
>
> Then no aircraft is good enough, because there is no
> aircraft for which it can
> be said that the wings _never_ fall off.

Hey, asswipe, where did I say that wings could never fall
off? Not only did I not say that, there's nothing in my
statement that even implies that, so don't put words in my
mouth. If you're going to argue rationally, please do
follow the rules of logic.

>> Every airline pilot with whom I've discussed automation
>> makes it a point to occasionally do a little hand-flying
>> just to maintain those skills.
>
> Good for them. But not every airline pilot does this.

Such as who? What's the basis for you making such an
assertion (outside of the minority of pilots who are trained
to think that the airplane is always smarter than they are)?

> More significantly,
> there are many emergency situations that are not routinely
> practiced by many
> airline pilots.

Well, duh, you can't do them all in a sim or training
flight. Training typically involves a mix of the most
common emergencies - engine cuts, etc. - and a few "special"
scenarios, such as new procedures or techniques. But
every year we get any number of emergency scenarios that
transcend normal training routines. 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.

> And since airliners are so reliable and normal air travel
> is
> so routine, pilots can get away with this and have
> productive and rewarding
> careers, anyway.

You obviously have not the slightest concept of what goes on
in the cockpits of airliners every day. 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. And that's what makes
flying on on an airline the safest possible way to get from
A to B in the U.S.

> You have to draw a line somewhere. It's possible for a
> 747 to enter a spin, I
> suppose, but spins are not normally practiced by airline
> pilots, and there
> isn't any good way to simulate them. So most airline
> pilots have no
> experience with spins in the aircraft they fly. But is
> that really a problem?
> How often do 737s or 747s enter spins, anyway?

Not nearly as often as the real-life situations that are
what I was referring to in my previous paragraph. 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. And your vast pool of
ignorance probably is enhanced by no knowledge of events
that don't make big news splashes. For example:

http://www.alpa.org/alpa/DesktopModules/ViewDocument.aspx?DocumentID=154

http://www.alpa.org/DesktopModules/ALPA_Documents/ALPA_DocumentsView.aspx?itemid=1960&ModuleId=1458&Tabid=73

http://cf.alpa.org/internet/news/2000news/nr00066e.htm

http://www.alpa.org/DesktopModules/ALPA_Documents/ALPA_DocumentsView.aspx?itemid=4308&ModuleId=2618&Tabid=73

**** 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.

> With increasing automation comes a decreasing need for
> qualification. That's
> just a fact of life. And it seems to be an irreversible
> evolution of commercial aviation.

Only when nothing really bad happens, see previous cites.

> Eventually, I expect that airline flights will be fully
> automated. The lead
> flight attendant or purser will press a "start flight"
> button where the
> cockpit used to be when it's time to push back from the
> gate, and the rest
> will be controlled automatically. No need for pilots at
> all. There is
> probably nothing that airlines wish for more, except
> perhaps free fuel.

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. So air
transport already will be on the wane, except possibly for
cargo. I'll leave it to the futurists to predict when we
reach that tipping point, but it won't happen in our
lifetimes. Which makes it irrelevant for discussions of
current conditions and realities, such as your moronic
opinion that minimally trained and experienced
button-pushers can replace real pilots.

[John Mazor[_2_]]

"Eeyore" > wrote in
message ...
>
> John Mazor wrote:
>
>> One sufficiently bad pilot screw up = one smoking hole.
>
> Talking of which, what's your current observation of the
> fallout from AA587 ?

The flying pilot overcontrolled the rudder, leading to
aerodynamic forces that caused the structural failure.

This was a revelation to most airline pilots, who thought -
with good reason - that as long as you were at or below
maneuvering speed, you could make any control inputs you
want without breaking your airplane. It turns out that the
FAA certification standards only addressed one rudder input,
not multiple inputs as occured in AA587. The engineering
crowd was aware of this limitation, but nobody bothered to
communicate it to the people who actually fly the damn
things. Plus, there was the problem that at that speed, a
rudder pedal depression of only an inch or two would cause
maximum deflection. Not much margin for error there.

The issue of laminates wasn't resolved one way or the other,
except to say that there was no compelling reason to forbid
their use. Of course, that doesn't stop ambulance-chasing
lawyers from looking for some deep pockets into which to
thrust their bony fingers with their claims, but what else
is new?

The conspirowacko crowd's goofy theories will continue to
exist as long as there is a paying market for their
products.

[John Mazor[_2_]]

"Eeyore" > wrote in
message ...
>
> Mxsmanic wrote:
>
>> Eeyore writes:
>>
>> > I suspect he means they might be tempted into
>> > 'overcontrolling' but lacks the
>> > vocabulary or brains to say so.
>>
>> What I mean is that they simply have no experience flying
>> such an aircraft,
>> and experience with a tin can will not help to any
>> significant extent.
>
> LMAO !
>
> Have you ever flown ? As in PIC that is ?

The general opinion seems to be that he has an ATP in Flight
Simulator.

[John Mazor[_2_]]

"Eeyore" > wrote in
message ...
>
> Mxsmanic wrote:
>
>> Eventually, I expect that airline flights will be fully
>> automated. The lead
>> flight attendant or purser will press a "start flight"
>> button where the
>> cockpit used to be when it's time to push back from the
>> gate, and the rest
>> will be controlled automatically. No need for pilots at
>> all.
>
> Good Lord you're amazingly stupid !

Give the boy credit, he works so hard at it.

[Mxsmanic]

Nomen Nescio writes:

> The more important question is......
> Why do YOU maintain that it's not difficult?

Because I know the procedures, and they are not difficult to follow. You
press buttons and turn knobs.

> Guess what?
> Any pilot, from student to ATP, knows that if you're "at 100 feet over
> a mile from the threshold", you got a problem. We don't need to "crash into
> a tree" to "see if there really was a problem".

You do in a simulator, because the problem may not be with the aircraft. I
wanted to isolate the problem.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Eeyore writes:

> Have you ever flown ? As in PIC that is ?

In simulation, yes, both large and small aircraft. And you?

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

[Mxsmanic]

Eeyore writes:

> Uh ? Ab-initio training involves getting a PPL first anyway.

Why can't you get that flying only large airliners from the beginning?

Also, requirements vary from one jurisdiction to another. And technically,
you can easily learn to pilot airliners from simulator experience exclusively,
without ever stepping into a real aircraft.

> Do you think they put beginners in heavy twins to begin with ?

I think that in some places they put complete novices in simulators and train
them to be airline pilots in a year or less. It's entirely possible.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Eeyore writes:

> Good Lord you're amazingly stupid !

Remember that USENET is archived. Someday, when airliners really are piloted
automatically, you can look back on what you've said above and try to laugh.

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

[Mxsmanic]

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.

[Blueskies]

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message ...

: Junior's program for the 51 for example was (if I remember right anyway
::-) 10 hours in the Stearman, then 10 hours in the T6; 5 in front, then
: 5 in the back to get used to having that nose out there in front of you.
: So you basically have a 20 hour program ending in a P51 checkout.
: My personal opinion on this from my own experience doing checkouts and
: giving dual in this type of situation, is that its not all that out of
: line.
:

How many hours did pilots usually have back during WWII?

[Jim Macklin]

Brits had very few hours, they started in a basic trainer
like the Moth and flew combat after just a few hours in the
Hurricanes and Spitfires. I have a cousin who entered
combat in a Spitfire with less than 10 hours training in the
Spitfire. Don't know his total time at that point.

American pilots had time in Cubs, Waco and Stearmans, then
T6 and finally the combat planes, they would have 200-250
hours when assigned to combat, we had the time and resources
to do it right.


"Blueskies" > wrote in message
...
|
| "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
...
|
| : Junior's program for the 51 for example was (if I
remember right anyway
| ::-) 10 hours in the Stearman, then 10 hours in the T6; 5
in front, then
| : 5 in the back to get used to having that nose out there
in front of you.
| : So you basically have a 20 hour program ending in a P51
checkout.
| : My personal opinion on this from my own experience doing
checkouts and
| : giving dual in this type of situation, is that its not
all that out of
| : line.
| :
|
| How many hours did pilots usually have back during WWII?
|
|

[gyoung]

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

[Kyle Boatright]

"Jose" > wrote in message
...
>> Traumahawk-worst of both worlds. Scary thing is that it was a
>> "clean-sheet" trainer...
>
> I trained in a Traumahawk. I liked it. When I checked out in the 152, I
> found it to be a dog in comparison.
>
> Jose

I trained in a 152, then bought a Tomahawk. It was a much more enjoyable
aircraft to fly due to the wider cockpit, better crosswind ability, and
better visibility. The only downside was that the Tomahawk needed 10 more
knots in the pattern, which is fairly standard when you compare the slow
speed regimes of Pipers and Cessnas aiming at the same market segment.

I never found the stall characteristics in the Tomahawk to be bad. Keep the
ball centered during a stall, if a wing drops, use opposite rudder, then use
pitch and power to recover from the stall...

KB

[Tauno Voipio]

Kyle Boatright wrote:
> "Jose" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>>Traumahawk-worst of both worlds. Scary thing is that it was a
>>>"clean-sheet" trainer...
>>
>>I trained in a Traumahawk. I liked it. When I checked out in the 152, I
>>found it to be a dog in comparison.
>>
>>Jose
>
>
> I trained in a 152, then bought a Tomahawk. It was a much more enjoyable
> aircraft to fly due to the wider cockpit, better crosswind ability, and
> better visibility. The only downside was that the Tomahawk needed 10 more
> knots in the pattern, which is fairly standard when you compare the slow
> speed regimes of Pipers and Cessnas aiming at the same market segment.
>
> I never found the stall characteristics in the Tomahawk to be bad. Keep the
> ball centered during a stall, if a wing drops, use opposite rudder, then use
> pitch and power to recover from the stall...
>
> KB

The main nuisance in Tomahawk is the spring -operated pitch trim.

I flew my basic training in a Tomahawk. It's still light-years
more an airplane than a C150.

--

Tauno Voipio
tauno voipio (at) iki fi

[george]

On Mar 25, 6:07 pm, "John Mazor" > wrote:
snip
>
> You obviously have not the slightest concept of what goes on
> in the cockpits of airliners every day.

It never stops him from venturing his lack of such knowledge

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

Flying is the safest way to get anywhere in the world..

[Eeyore[_2_]]

Mxsmanic wrote:

> Eeyore writes:
>
> > Have you ever flown ? As in PIC that is ?
>
> In simulation, yes, both large and small aircraft. And you?

So you haven't actually flown *for real*.

And yes I have. Today's PC sims may seem convincing but even the big commercial
multi-axis jobs still aren't the same as the real thing.

Graham

[Dave Doe]

In article >,
says...
> Eeyore writes:
>
> > Uh ? Ab-initio training involves getting a PPL first anyway.
>
> Why can't you get that flying only large airliners from the beginning?

Can you name any airlines anywhere on the planet that train their pilots
that way?

eg. does the USA train their fighter pilots starting off in the FA-18's
they'll fly?

--
Duncan

[Eeyore[_2_]]

Mxsmanic wrote:

> Eeyore writes:
>
> > Uh ? Ab-initio training involves getting a PPL first anyway.
>
> Why can't you get that flying only large airliners from the beginning?

PPLs don't apply to such aircraft.


> Also, requirements vary from one jurisdiction to another. And technically,
> you can easily learn to pilot airliners from simulator experience exclusively,
> without ever stepping into a real aircraft.

Is that what you think ?

In actual fact you may be right that's it's enirely possible but basic piloting
skills are deemed an essential ingedient of the package.


> > Do you think they put beginners in heavy twins to begin with ?
>
> I think that in some places they put complete novices in simulators and train
> them to be airline pilots in a year or less. It's entirely possible.

It's not how it's done.

Graham

[Eeyore[_2_]]

Mxsmanic wrote:

> Eeyore writes:
>
> > Good Lord you're amazingly stupid !
>
> Remember that USENET is archived. Someday, when airliners really are piloted
> automatically,

It's not going to happen. For so many obvious reasons. That you can't see those
reasons speaks volumes.


> you can look back on what you've said above and try to laugh.

LMAO !

Graham

[Eeyore[_2_]]

Mxsmanic wrote:

> 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

And where is that ?

Graham

[Eeyore[_2_]]

George wrote:

> "John Mazor" > wrote:
> >
> > You obviously have not the slightest concept of what goes on
> > in the cockpits of airliners every day.
>
> It never stops him from venturing his lack of such knowledge
>
> >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. And that's what makes
> > flying on on an airline the safest possible way to get from
> > A to B in the U.S.
>
> Flying is the safest way to get anywhere in the world..

Just take care in Africa.

Graham

[Eeyore[_2_]]

Mxsmanic wrote:

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

Eh ?

Graham

[[email protected][_1_]]

On Sat, 24 Mar 2007 14:40:11 -0400, Dudley Henriques
> wrote:
snip

>I've had several people who bought their own high performance airplanes
>before starting instruction and then went on with me from the beginning
>on through the program. Solo took a few hours more, but after that, all
>was basically normal from there. I wouldn't say it was all that much
>more difficult teaching them in these airplanes than it would have been
>in a 150 Cessna or a 140 Cherokee.
>In the end, it all depends on the same things in this scenario that it
>does in a non- high performance airplane;
>1.The motivation of both the student and the instructor
>2.The competence of the instructor

snip

Pretty much says it all.

As an alleged technician, my initial "training" was flying right seat
in whatever freighthog was flying with whichever freightdog that had
been flying all day and wanted someone to ride along half the night.

Again, as an alleged technician, the systems side of " learning" in a
complex, high performance aircraft was pretty much a non-event.

I'm sure that you understand that a little higher level of knowledge
is needed to efficiently troubleshoot and maintain a system than to
fly behind it (inside it?).

Finally did my official primary training in a 7AC, then a PA38-112,
but had more real-life "lessons" in complex, high performance singles
(& twins) than the traditional trainer.

Most of these "lessons" were from professional pilots with 5K-10K
hours.

Would also agree that if one can keep up with the airplane, most c h-p
singles are easier to fly with regard to the overall "harmony" of the
flight controls, and from having plenty of power-opposed to having
barely enuff.

Always enjoy reading your stuff, sorta wish I coulda gotten into
warbirds instead of GA 25 years ago...

Regards;

TC

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

wrote:

> Always enjoy reading your stuff, sorta wish I coulda gotten into
> warbirds instead of GA 25 years ago...
>
> Regards;
>
> TC

Thank you.
If its any consolation on the Warbirds, go to bed tonight knowing you
are MUCH, MUCH richer than you would have been flying these things.
:-))
Dudley Henriques

[Mxsmanic]

Eeyore writes:

> So you haven't actually flown *for real*.

I haven't flown outside simulation, yes.

> And yes I have. Today's PC sims may seem convincing but even the big commercial
> multi-axis jobs still aren't the same as the real thing.

The big commercial jobs are good enough to teach you to fly the real aircraft
from start to finish. They can't do aerobatics, but you don't do aerobatics
in a real jet airliner, either.

What type of aircraft have you flown, in simulation or for real?

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

[Mxsmanic]

Dave Doe writes:

> Can you name any airlines anywhere on the planet that train their pilots
> that way?

Name them? No. But I know that this is the current trend. And some airlines
don't really train much at all, in the way it is understood in the USA, which
is why safety records are so dismal outside the developed world.

> eg. does the USA train their fighter pilots starting off in the FA-18's
> they'll fly?

I don't know. I'm not interested in military aircraft. They obviously could,
although flying the real aircraft is expensive (and dangerous, for a low-time
pilot). Simulation is an option, but it's hard to simulate all the possible
movements of a fighter aircraft. I presume that early training is done on
cheaper aircraft, or in simulators.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Eeyore writes:

> PPLs don't apply to such aircraft.

Oh ... so you don't need a PPL to fly a 747?

> Is that what you think ?

When it comes to airliners, I am _certain_ of it.

> In actual fact you may be right that's it's enirely possible but basic piloting
> skills are deemed an essential ingedient of the package.

They are deemed essential by regulatory fiat, but in reality, they aren't
essential at all. At least not the "skills" one learns in tin cans and other
aircraft besides the target type of aircraft.

> It's not how it's done.

Not in the USA. But it can be done. Apparently some places are doing it. It
makes economic sense.

Anyway, I think it has been fairly well established here that you can do all
your training in a high-performance aircraft, if you wish. I don't see why
that aircraft could not be a jet airliner, if the price is right. Or is there
some regulatory barrier to starting and finishing exclusively in, say, a 737?

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

[Mxsmanic]

Eeyore writes:

> It's not going to happen. For so many obvious reasons. That you can't see those
> reasons speaks volumes.

Famous last words.

I don't think it will happen soon, but I've seen too much to make any absolute
statements about it never happening.

Hopefully your livelihood will not depend on piloting a plane when it does
happen.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Eeyore writes:

> Eh ?

Exactly.

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

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

[Peter Dohm]

> >>>Traumahawk-worst of both worlds. Scary thing is that it was a
> >>>"clean-sheet" trainer...
> >>
> >>I trained in a Traumahawk. I liked it. When I checked out in the 152,
I
> >>found it to be a dog in comparison.
> >>
> >>Jose
> >
> >
> > I trained in a 152, then bought a Tomahawk. It was a much more
enjoyable
> > aircraft to fly due to the wider cockpit, better crosswind ability, and
> > better visibility. The only downside was that the Tomahawk needed 10
more
> > knots in the pattern, which is fairly standard when you compare the slow
> > speed regimes of Pipers and Cessnas aiming at the same market segment.
> >
> > I never found the stall characteristics in the Tomahawk to be bad. Keep
the
> > ball centered during a stall, if a wing drops, use opposite rudder, then
use
> > pitch and power to recover from the stall...
> >
> > KB
>
> The main nuisance in Tomahawk is the spring -operated pitch trim.
>
> I flew my basic training in a Tomahawk. It's still light-years
> more an airplane than a C150.
>
> --
>
> Tauno Voipio
> tauno voipio (at) iki fi
>
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.

Peter

[Eeyore[_2_]]

Mxsmanic wrote:

> Eeyore writes:
>
> > So you haven't actually flown *for real*.
>
> I haven't flown outside simulation, yes.
>
> > And yes I have. Today's PC sims may seem convincing but even the big > commercial
> multi-axis jobs still aren't the same as the real thing.
>
> The big commercial jobs are good enough to teach you to fly the real aircraft
> from start to finish.

Absolutely not.

Graham

[Eeyore[_2_]]

Mxsmanic wrote:

> Eeyore writes:
>
> > PPLs don't apply to such aircraft.
>
> Oh ... so you don't need a PPL to fly a 747?

How do you think you get the hours to progress to CPL ? You have to have a CPL before
ATPL etc.... How about the night, multi-engine and instrument ratings ?


> > Is that what you think ?
>
> When it comes to airliners, I am _certain_ of it.

But you're an idiot !


> > In actual fact you may be right that's it's enirely possible but basic piloting
> > skills are deemed an essential ingedient of the package.
>
> They are deemed essential by regulatory fiat, but in reality, they aren't
> essential at all. At least not the "skills" one learns in tin cans and other
> aircraft besides the target type of aircraft.

Those basic skills are what saves aircraft when things go wrong.


> > It's not how it's done.
>
> Not in the USA. But it can be done. Apparently some places are doing it. It
> makes economic sense.
>
> Anyway, I think it has been fairly well established here

Where ?


> that you can do all your training in a high-performance aircraft, if you wish.

What do you mean by high-performance ?


> I don't see why that aircraft could not be a jet airliner, if the price is right.
> Or is there some regulatory barrier to starting and finishing exclusively in, say,
> a 737?

Yes.

For one thing you can't start by flying multi-engined aircraft. I suggest you kill
the engine(s) on one side whilst simulating a landing for example.

Graham

[Eeyore[_2_]]

Mxsmanic wrote:

> Eeyore writes:
>
> > It's not going to happen. For so many obvious reasons. That you can't see those
> > reasons speaks volumes.
>
> Famous last words.
>
> I don't think it will happen soon, but I've seen too much to make any absolute
> statements about it never happening.

They also used to talk of the 'paperless office' in the heady early days of cheap
modern IT. Perfectly do-able but do please show me one.

When the driverless car is perfected maybe they can move on to aircraft ?

Graham

[Eeyore[_2_]]

Mxsmanic wrote:

> Eeyore writes:
>
> > Eh ?
>
> Exactly.
>
> Doctors can't perform surgery on simulated human beings

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

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

Graham

[Mxsmanic]

Eeyore writes:

> Absolutely not.

I know that change is sometimes unpleasant.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Eeyore writes:

> How do you think you get the hours to progress to CPL ? You have to have a CPL before
> ATPL etc.... How about the night, multi-engine and instrument ratings ?

So there's a regulatory barrier? Perhaps. But in practical terms you can
still start and finish on a 747, if money is not a concern. Or better still,
you can learn on a simulator.

> Those basic skills are what saves aircraft when things go wrong.

Not when they don't match the aircraft being flown. Having flown a Piper Cub
won't help you much when you're flying an Airbus. You need Airbus experience
to fly an Airbus, not Piper Cub experience.

> What do you mean by high-performance ?

The FAA definition, which is apparently anything not powered by rubber bands.

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

I know you can start with multiengine aircraft, so that's not it.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Eeyore writes:

> They also used to talk of the 'paperless office' in the heady early days of cheap
> modern IT. Perfectly do-able but do please show me one.

I used to work in one.

> When the driverless car is perfected maybe they can move on to aircraft ?

Actually, it's easier to do with aircraft.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Eeyore writes:

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

I did.

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

[Newps]

Eeyore wrote:

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


Why not?

[Dave Doe]

In article >,
says...
> > Traumahawk-worst of both worlds. Scary thing is that it was a
> > "clean-sheet" trainer...
>
> I trained in a Traumahawk. I liked it. When I checked out in the 152,
> I found it to be a dog in comparison.

I trained in a Traumahawk too - I think their best feature is the
visibility - it's just wonderful.

--
Duncan

[Brian[_1_]]

On Mar 24, 3:02 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Bertie the Bunyip writes:
> > You couldn't do it, but that, of course, doesn't mean it's
> > complicated. Bottom line, a crewless airplane with you as their only
> > hope is going to end up a smoking hole in the ground...
>
> I notice that you still haven't explained the complicated parts. Very well.
> If you're unwilling to do that, then perhaps you can at least explain the
> "parts I couldn't do." What parts are those?
>
> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

For the 1st part it is complicated which is why you won't get a good
answer here.

Since you know it is so easy here are a couple things you should be
able to answer

1. What is the difference between a CAT II approach and a CAT III?

2. How many airports have CAT III approaches?

Brian

[Mxsmanic]

Brian writes:

> Since you know it is so easy here are a couple things you should be
> able to answer
>
> 1. What is the difference between a CAT II approach and a CAT III?

Just minimums and stuff; the differences are regulatory. You can use just
about any ILS for either category, but technically your supposed to have the
approach certified for a maximum category.

In the context I was discussing, though, a non-pilot takes control in an
emergency. In an emergency, you can configure autoland for any ILS approach,
whether it is certified as IIIc or not (I'm not aware of any differences in
the actual ILS hardware from one category to another). So you could do an
autoland anywhere with an ILS runway, even though it would be preferable to
find a IIIc runway.

> 2. How many airports have CAT III approaches?

I haven't counted them. Airports in areas with frequently poor visibility
seem to have them often enough, as do many large airports. Thus, you see
several CAT III approaches at KSEA or EGLL, with their miserable weather, but
not at KPHX, where mist and fog are almost unknown.

Anyway, the formal distinctions aren't important in an emergency. Even if you
have an approach that isn't certified for autoland, you're still better off
autolanding if you don't have a type-certified pilot in the aircraft.

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

[TheSmokingGnu]

Newps wrote:
> Eeyore wrote:
>> For one thing you can't start by flying multi-engined aircraft.
> Why not?

You could, technically speaking. But it would be a lot of gravy on your
mashed potatoes, y'know?

A bit like learning to drive a stick in a Ferrari; sure, it can be done,
but you'll probably miss out on a lot of the finer technique, and man oh
man are you going to be sorry if you screw up (and you will :D ).

TheSmokingGnu

[Mxsmanic]

TheSmokingGnu writes:

> A bit like learning to drive a stick in a Ferrari; sure, it can be done,
> but you'll probably miss out on a lot of the finer technique, and man oh
> man are you going to be sorry if you screw up (and you will :D ).

But it's a lot easier to go from a Ferrari to an Escort than the other way
around.

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

[Eeyore[_2_]]

Mxsmanic wrote:

> Eeyore writes:
>
> > Absolutely not.
>
> I know that change is sometimes unpleasant.

You're an idiot.

[Eeyore[_2_]]

Mxsmanic wrote:

> Eeyore writes:
>
> > How do you think you get the hours to progress to CPL ? You have to have a > CPL before
> ATPL etc.... How about the night, multi-engine and instrument ratings ?
>
> So there's a regulatory barrier? Perhaps. But in practical terms you can
> still start and finish on a 747, if money is not a concern. Or better still,
> you can learn on a simulator.

You're an idiot.

[Eeyore[_2_]]

Mxsmanic wrote:

> I know you can start with multiengine aircraft, so that's not it.

Do please link to an example of ab-initio training on twins.

Graham

[Eeyore[_2_]]

Mxsmanic wrote:

> Eeyore writes:
>
> > They also used to talk of the 'paperless office' in the heady early days of cheap
> > modern IT. Perfectly do-able but do please show me one.
>
> I used to work in one.
>
> > When the driverless car is perfected maybe they can move on to aircraft ?
>
> Actually, it's easier to do with aircraft.

Bwahahahahahahahahaha !

Graham

[Eeyore[_2_]]

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.

[Eeyore[_2_]]

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

[Mxsmanic]

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.

[Mxsmanic]

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.

[Thomas Borchert]

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)

[Eeyore[_2_]]

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

[Denny]

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

[John Mazor[_2_]]

"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.php?gclid=COmj55nMkYsCFSBhgQodyC2pRA

http://www.haptica.com/

They're sophisticated enough to provide force feedback:

http://www.ercim.org/publication/Ercim_News/enw29/delingette.html

They even have their own expositions:

http://www.surgery.arizona.edu/expo/SurgerySimulatorExpo.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.

[John Mazor[_2_]]

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.

[Kingfish]

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...

[BDS[_2_]]

"John Mazor" > wrote

> 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.

That, in my opinion, is one of the major points that he fails to
appreciate - that you have to be able to get it right when it matters. It
is not possible to have a proper appreciation for any of this with no real
world experience - doing it right when it matters in real life is nothing
like being able to do it in a sim while sitting safely and comfortably in
front of your PC. We are, after all, human beings, not machines.

Athletes face this type of human performance factor all the time - it is
much easier to perform flawlessly in practice when nothing is on the line
than it is to do so when in an actual competition.

BDS

[Michael[_1_]]

On Mar 23, 3:54 pm, "Robert M. Gary" > wrote:
> The biggest question in that scenario is how was the student able to
> aquire the required solo time since most insurance co's will not
> ensure student pilots in a twin.

I believe the student's view was that he did not need insurance - if
something happened he would reach into petty cash and cover it.

Michael

[Dave S]

Kingfish wrote:
> Total stream-of-consciousness post here...
>
> Anbody learn to fly in a high performance complex aircraft? Bonanza,
> Saratoga, 182RG and the like? I know it's possible, just wonder how
> much longer it'd take for a student to master something with
> significant power and prop & gear controls. (I did all my instructing
> in 172s and PA28s)

Anythings possible, as you said. I would venture to say the problem
isn't with the complexity (gear, props), but rather the speeds at which
something happens.

Cruising at 90 - 100 kts in a 150 is a lot different than in a Bo at 160
kts (or higher). Things happen quicker, more ground is covered. Landing
is faster... A slower plane allows you to develop and hone your skills
as things happen. You dont have to think as far ahead than in a fast mover.

Just my 2 cents.
Dave

[Mxsmanic]

John Mazor writes:

> Wrong again. That's been around for years.
>
> http://www.golimbs.com/offer_index.php?gclid=COmj55nMkYsCFSBhgQodyC2pRA
>
> http://www.haptica.com/
>
> They're sophisticated enough to provide force feedback:
>
> http://www.ercim.org/publication/Ercim_News/enw29/delingette.html
>
> They even have their own expositions:
>
> http://www.surgery.arizona.edu/expo/SurgerySimulatorExpo.htm
>
> which specifically compares them to flight simulators.

I'm aware of these. They make Flight Simulator look like a holodeck.

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

[Brian[_1_]]

On Mar 25, 7:19 pm, "Peter Dohm" > wrote:
> > >>>Traumahawk-worst of both worlds. Scary thing is that it was a
> > >>>"clean-sheet" trainer...
>
> > >>I trained in a Traumahawk. I liked it. When I checked out in the 152,
> I
> > >>found it to be a dog in comparison.
>
> > >>Jose
>
> > > I trained in a 152, then bought a Tomahawk. It was a much more
> enjoyable
> > > aircraft to fly due to the wider cockpit, better crosswind ability, and
> > > better visibility. The only downside was that the Tomahawk needed 10
> more
> > > knots in the pattern, which is fairly standard when you compare the slow
> > > speed regimes of Pipers and Cessnas aiming at the same market segment.
>
> > > I never found the stall characteristics in the Tomahawk to be bad. Keep
> the
> > > ball centered during a stall, if a wing drops, use opposite rudder, then
> use
> > > pitch and power to recover from the stall...
>
> > > KB
>
> > The main nuisance in Tomahawk is the spring -operated pitch trim.
>
> > I flew my basic training in a Tomahawk. It's still light-years
> > more an airplane than a C150.
>
> > --
>
> > Tauno Voipio
> > tauno voipio (at) iki fi
>
> 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.
>
> Peter- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

To the list of pluses for the Tomahawk add Fuel Capacity. It has
nearly 2 hours more range than most 150/152's.

As an interesting note if you research the NTSB reports for Spin
Accidents in Pa38's you will find that for the most part only Flight
Instructors and Examiners seem to have issues with the Stall spin
Charateristics.

I have taught a lot of pilots to fly in Tomahawks and I think they are
great. My biggest pluses are, in no particular order,the Switchable
fuel tanks, Large Cockpit, and Fuel Capacity.

Brian
CFIIG/ASEL

[Peter Dohm]

> >
> > 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.
>
The two at the school where I flew also had the inner and outer strips.

Those two were nearly new at the time, which was about 1981 or 1982. I
have heard since that the rivets in the tail area require inspection--and
replacement of those that work loose. That would not necessarily prevent me
from owning one, but it would certainly jprevent me from even considering a
lease back arrangement.

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

I had the same problem--initially. Interestingly, the solution (which might
be shared by a lot of low wing aircraft) was to arrive fast and enter the
flare at 80 Kts, instead of 70 Kts, a couple of times. That used about 500
to 600 additional feet of runway, but also allowed the landing process to
occur in "slow motion" for more detailed observation. The 3000 foot runway
allowed ample room for that, especially to a full stop; and only a couple of
the higher speed approaches were needed. After that, normal (and even short
feild) approaches resulted in good landings nearly every time.

Peter

[Jose]

> I have taught a lot of pilots to fly in Tomahawks and I think they are
> great. My biggest pluses are, in no particular order,the Switchable
> fuel tanks, Large Cockpit, and Fuel Capacity.

I particularly liked the nimble handling. Of course I didn't know it
was nimble until I went to a 152.

Jose
--
Get high on gasoline: fly an airplane.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[george]

On Mar 26, 1:53 pm, Eeyore >
wrote:
> Mxsmanic wrote:
> > Eeyore writes:
>
> > > It's not going to happen. For so many obvious reasons. That you can't see those
> > > reasons speaks volumes.
>
> > Famous last words.
>
> > I don't think it will happen soon, but I've seen too much to make any absolute
> > statements about it never happening.
>
> They also used to talk of the 'paperless office' in the heady early days of cheap
> modern IT. Perfectly do-able but do please show me one.
>
> When the driverless car is perfected maybe they can move on to aircraft ?
>
Hey.
Remember all those 'flying car' concepts that would have had all of us
commuting in our own little 'semiautomatic' flying vehicles?

No doubt there are still some being touted but none have reached
further than a test flying tethered status AFAIR..
Automated systems like the Docklands Light Railway in London went back
to human drivers..

How can some-one using a PC loaded with Windows be advocating computor
control of anything :-)

[Bertie the Bunyip]

On 26 Mar, 02:11, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Eeyore writes:
> > Eh ?
>
> Exactly.
>
> Doctors can't perform surgery on simulated human beings, at least not yet.
> 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").
>

wow, wannbees slurping always make my heart go pit-a-pat..




Sigh


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip]

On 26 Mar, 13:06, Eeyore >
wrote:
> 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.
>

Bwawhwhahwhahwhahhwhahwhahwhahhw!

Says the wannabve pilot planespotter..



bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip]

On 26 Mar, 15:39, "BDS" > wrote:
> "John Mazor" > wrote
>
> > 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.
>
> That, in my opinion, is one of the major points that he fails to
> appreciate - that you have to be able to get it right when it matters. It
> is not possible to have a proper appreciation for any of this with no real
> world experience - doing it right when it matters in real life is nothing
> like being able to do it in a sim while sitting safely and comfortably in
> front of your PC. We are, after all, human beings, not machines.
>
> Athletes face this type of human performance factor all the time - it is
> much easier to perform flawlessly in practice when nothing is on the line
> than it is to do so when in an actual competition.

what's the old saying? "a good sim performance is like a succesful
operation on a corpse."


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip]

On 24 Mar, 22:03, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Bertie the Bunyip writes:
> > I've had private pilots in airoline sims and they were able to get the
> > airplane down with a minimum of instruction. In fact i once got a
> > model airplane pilot to do it in a 737 sim and he'd never even been a
> > passenger in an airliner, and he was only 16.
>
> Then why do you maintain that it's difficult?
>

I didn't say it's difficult, fjukkwit. That's the point. It's not.
It's just beyond you.



Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip]

On 25 Mar, 00:37, Eeyore >
wrote:
> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> > Mxsmanic > wrote:
>
> > > This is one reason why I think a small-aircraft pilot might not be the best
> > > choice as an emergency pilot for a large airliner. He would be too tempted to
> > > try to fly the plane by hand, and he'd end up impacting a mountainside at high
> > > speed, simply because flying by hand is the _last_ thing he should be doing in
> > > that aircraft.
>
> > He'd more than likely do a better job of it that you would you
> > fjukkwit.
>
> I suspect he means they might be tempted into 'overcontrolling' but lacks the
> vocabulary or brains to say so. I doubt it myself. PPLs probably understand that
> issue quite well.
>

Ooow Pooh pooh is trying to slurp the Bunyip again!

and I thought it was going to be a crap night.



berti e

[Bertie the Bunyip]

On 25 Mar, 06:43, Eeyore >
wrote:
> Mxsmanic wrote:
> > Eeyore writes:
>
> > > I suspect he means they might be tempted into 'overcontrolling' but lacks the
> > > vocabulary or brains to say so.
>
> > What I mean is that they simply have no experience flying such an aircraft,
> > and experience with a tin can will not help to any significant extent.
>
> LMAO !
>
> Have you ever flown ? As in PIC that is ?
>

God I love usent.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip]

On 25 Mar, 22:05, Eeyore >
wrote:
> Mxsmanic wrote:
> > Eeyore writes:
>
> > > Have you ever flown ? As in PIC that is ?
>
> > In simulation, yes, both large and small aircraft. And you?
>
> So you haven't actually flown *for real*.
>
> And yes I have. Today's PC sims may seem convincing but even the big commercial
> multi-axis jobs still aren't the same as the real thing.
>

God what a fjukktard you are, pooh pooh. Like you'd know the
difference.



Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip]

On 26 Mar, 02:29, Eeyore >
wrote:
> Mxsmanic wrote:
> > Eeyore writes:
>
> > > So you haven't actually flown *for real*.
>
> > I haven't flown outside simulation, yes.
>
> > > And yes I have. Today's PC sims may seem convincing but even the big > commercial
> > multi-axis jobs still aren't the same as the real thing.
>
> > The big commercial jobs are good enough to teach you to fly the real aircraft
> > from start to finish.
>
> Absolutely not.

Well, certainly not you or your bum buddie there wannabe boi.


bertie

[John Mazor[_2_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> John Mazor writes:
>
>> Wrong again. That's been around for years.
>>
>> http://www.golimbs.com/offer_index.php?gclid=COmj55nMkYsCFSBhgQodyC2pRA
>>
>> http://www.haptica.com/
>>
>> They're sophisticated enough to provide force feedback:
>>
>> http://www.ercim.org/publication/Ercim_News/enw29/delingette.html
>>
>> They even have their own expositions:
>>
>> http://www.surgery.arizona.edu/expo/SurgerySimulatorExpo.htm
>>
>> which specifically compares them to flight simulators.
>
> I'm aware of these. They make Flight Simulator look like
> a holodeck.

Now you're aware of them, but before I outed your ignorance
and showed you the links, you said (but deleted from this
post):

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

You recently claimed here that you admit all your mistakes.
We're waiting.

Not for your apology. For whatever contrived BS you conjure
up to avoid having to admit your error. Tomorrow is
Tuesday, most of us will be in the mood for a good laugh.

[Mxsmanic]

george writes:

> Automated systems like the Docklands Light Railway in London went back
> to human drivers..

Automated systems elsewhere, such as San Francisco's BART, have been running
for decades.

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

[george]

On Mar 27, 4:27 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> george writes:
> > Automated systems like the Docklands Light Railway in London went back
> > to human drivers..
>
> Automated systems elsewhere, such as San Francisco's BART, have been running
> for decades.

on rails. With very large buffers.

[george]

On Mar 27, 4:27 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> george writes:
> > Automated systems like the Docklands Light Railway in London went back
> > to human drivers..
>
> Automated systems elsewhere, such as San Francisco's BART, have been running
> for decades.
>

After checking on the BART system I noticed the following
Quoted:
BART was one of the first US systems of any size to have substantial
automated operations. The trains are computer-controlled via BART's
Operations Control Center (OCC) and headquarters at Lake Merritt and
generally arrive with regular punctuality. Train operators are present
to make announcements, close doors, and operate the train in case of
unforeseen difficulties.

Why, if you're correct, do they have train operators present to make
announcements, close doors, and operate the train in case of
unforeseen difficulties
???

[Mxsmanic]

George writes:

> on rails. With very large buffers.

Docklands Light Railway sounds like it has rails and buffers, too.

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

[Mxsmanic]

George writes:

> Why, if you're correct, do they have train operators present to make
> announcements, close doors, and operate the train in case of
> unforeseen difficulties
> ???

A human being is always handy for unexpected situations, and since BART was
one of the first fully automated systems, it had a lot of problems initially.
There may be union requirements for people, too.

The fact that a human operator is aboard a train doesn't mean that the train
can't operate itself in normal service, just as the presence of pilots aboard
an airliner doesn't mean that the airliner cannot fly itself most of the time.

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

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> George writes:
>
>> Why, if you're correct, do they have train operators present to make
>> announcements, close doors, and operate the train in case of
>> unforeseen difficulties
>> ???
>
> A human being is always handy for unexpected situations, and since
> BART was one of the first fully automated systems, it had a lot of
> problems initially. There may be union requirements for people, too.
>
> The fact that a human operator is aboard a train doesn't mean that the
> train can't operate itself in normal service, just as the presence of
> pilots aboard an airliner doesn't mean that the airliner cannot fly
> itself most of the time.
>

It can't, fjuccckkkwit.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Eeyore writes:
>
>> Good Lord you're amazingly stupid !
>
> Remember that USENET is archived. Someday, when airliners really are
> piloted automatically, you can look back on what you've said above and
> try to laugh.

I'm laughing at the pair of you right now.



Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> John Mazor writes:
>
>> You didn't have that geographic qualifier when you made your
>> sweeping statement. It's true that a few countries are
>> using ab initio training to breed their own pilots, but
>> that's a tiny minority.
>
> Minority or not, it proves that it can be done.
>

No, it doesn't



Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> John Mazor writes:
>
>> You didn't have that geographic qualifier when you made your
>> sweeping statement. It's true that a few countries are
>> using ab initio training to breed their own pilots, but
>> that's a tiny minority.
>
> Minority or not, it proves that it can be done.
>
> Starting and finishing in a jet airliner is a pretty good proof of
> concept for primary training in a high-performance aircraft.
>

They don't do primary training in a jet airliner, you moron.

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Eeyore > wrote in
:

>
>
> Mxsmanic wrote:
>
>> John Mazor writes:
>>
>> > You didn't have that geographic qualifier when you made your
>> > sweeping statement. It's true that a few countries are
>> > using ab initio training to breed their own pilots, but
>> > that's a tiny minority.
>>
>> Minority or not, it proves that it can be done.
>>
>> Starting and finishing in a jet airliner is a pretty good proof of
>> concept for primary training in a high-performance aircraft.
>
> Uh ? Ab-initio training involves getting a PPL first anyway.
>
> Do you think they put beginners in heavy twins to begin with ?

Fukk you planespotter.



Berti e

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Eeyore writes:
>
>> Uh ? Ab-initio training involves getting a PPL first anyway.
>
> Why can't you get that flying only large airliners from the beginning?
>

Wow, dum and dummer get dummer and dummer.




Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Dave Doe writes:
>
>> Can you name any airlines anywhere on the planet that train their
>> pilots that way?
>
> Name them? No. But I know that this is the current trend.

No, it isn't fjukkwit.



Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Eeyore writes:
>
>> PPLs don't apply to such aircraft.
>
> Oh ... so you don't need a PPL to fly a 747?
>
>> Is that what you think ?
>
> When it comes to airliners, I am _certain_ of it.

I'm sure you are, it's what makes you "special"



Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Eeyore writes:
>
>> How do you think you get the hours to progress to CPL ? You have to
>> have a CPL before ATPL etc.... How about the night, multi-engine and
>> instrument ratings ?
>
> So there's a regulatory barrier? Perhaps. But in practical terms you
> can still start and finish on a 747, if money is not a concern. Or
> better still, you can learn on a simulator.
>
>> Those basic skills are what saves aircraft when things go wrong.
>
> Not when they don't match the aircraft being flown. Having flown a
> Piper Cub won't help you much when you're flying an Airbus.

Yes, it will, fjukktard.


I know, I've flown both.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> TheSmokingGnu writes:
>
>> A bit like learning to drive a stick in a Ferrari; sure, it can be
>> done, but you'll probably miss out on a lot of the finer technique,
>> and man oh man are you going to be sorry if you screw up (and you
>> will :D ).
>
> But it's a lot easier to go from a Ferrari to an Escort than the other
> way around.


You're a complete idiotoooooo


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> 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 you can't, fjukkwit. You can't learn anything...


Berti e

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Nomen Nescio writes:
>
>> The more important question is......
>> Why do YOU maintain that it's not difficult?
>
> Because I know the procedures, and they are not difficult to follow.
> You press buttons and turn knobs.

Bwawhahwhhahwhahwhahhwhahw!

Know how to drag a bug or calcualte gates using predicted winds, the
weight of the airplane and a projected LD based on both?



Didn't think so.

Poof, you just ran out of diesel, fjukkwit.



bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Eeyore > wrote in
:

>
>
> Mxsmanic wrote:
>
>> Eeyore writes:
>>
>> > Absolutely not.
>>
>> I know that change is sometimes unpleasant.
>
> You're an idiot.

So are you


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Brian writes:
>
>> Since you know it is so easy here are a couple things you should be
>> able to answer
>>
>> 1. What is the difference between a CAT II approach and a CAT III?
>
> Just minimums and stuff; the differences are regulatory.


no they aren', fjukkkwit.

You get yet another thing wrong!

It must be inordinately taxing to be such a boob.





>You can use
> just about any ILS for either category,


No, you can't. They aren't ILS based systems, fjukktard.





but technically your supposed
> to have the approach certified for a maximum category.
>
> In the context I was discussing, though, a non-pilot takes control in
> an emergency. In an emergency, you can configure autoland for any ILS
> approach, whether it is certified as IIIc or not (I'm not aware of any
> differences in the actual ILS hardware from one category to another)

I know you're not. And you don't care that you're wrong.

It's waht makes you so special.



Fjukkwit.


bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip writes:
>
>> You couldn't do it, but that, of course, doesn't mean it's
>> complicated. Bottom line, a crewless airplane with you as their only
>> hope is going to end up a smoking hole in the ground...
>
> I notice that you still haven't explained the complicated parts.

You gonna pay me to do so? I get about 400 bucks an hour for that.



Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

"Matt Barrow" > wrote in news:K_hNh.42161
:

>
> "John Mazor" > wrote in message
> news:A4hNh.2386$xE.1804@trnddc08...
>>
>> "Mxsmanic" > wrote in message By your benighted
>> standards, brain surgery is just a matter of drilling and cutting. A
>> butcher, or for that matter, a carpenter, armed with a few anatomy
>> diagrams ought to be able to do it, right?
>>
>
> He equates it like this: http://www.dmartstores.com/opboargambym.html

Oh ****. i think I just collapsed a lung!



Bertie

[Mxsmanic]

Bertie the Bunyip writes:

> It can't, fjuccckkkwit.

Airliners do this every day, for many hours at a time.

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

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip writes:
>
>> It can't, fjuccckkkwit.
>
> Airliners do this every day, for many hours at a time.

No, they don't, fjukkwit. How do I know this? I just flew one, and a very
automated, ver modern one, for 6 hours.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Eeyore writes:
>
>> I thought the FAA still held autoland in contempt.
>
> I don't know what the FAA thinks of autoland, but the FAA governs only
> aviation in the United States. The world is a big place, and some
> countries have extremely casual standards for airline pilots.

none casual enough to even use you as a chock, fjukkwit.



Bertie

[Mxsmanic]

Bertie the Bunyip writes:

> Know how to drag a bug or calcualte gates using predicted winds, the
> weight of the airplane and a projected LD based on both?

No (except, perhaps, drag a bug, if it's slang for what I think it means), but
I can learn stuff like that in a few seconds if necessary.

These things would not be necessary to successfully land the aircraft in an
emergency.

Your question is a bit like asking "yes, but do you know how to fill out form
XYZ?"

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

[Mxsmanic]

Bertie the Bunyip writes:

> I know, I've flown both.

I've flown the Piper Cub, but not any Airbus. I don't like Airbus.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Bertie the Bunyip writes:

> They don't do primary training in a jet airliner, you moron.

Only because it is not conventional to do so; but there is no technical
obstacle that prevents it.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Bertie the Bunyip writes:

> No, they don't, fjukkwit. How do I know this? I just flew one, and a very
> automated, ver modern one, for 6 hours.

And it had no FMC or autopilot, or you just didn't want to use them?

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

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip writes:
>
>> No, they don't, fjukkwit. How do I know this? I just flew one, and a
>> very automated, ver modern one, for 6 hours.
>
> And it had no FMC or autopilot, or you just didn't want to use them?

You don't even know what either one of them are, fjukkwit. Or you wouldn't
ask suchj a question.


bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip writes:
>
>> They don't do primary training in a jet airliner, you moron.
>
> Only because it is not conventional to do so; but there is no technical
> obstacle that prevents it.
>

Yes, there is.


bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip writes:
>
>> I know, I've flown both.
>
> I've flown the Piper Cub, but not any Airbus. I don't like Airbus.


You haven't flwon a piper cub. You might ahave been allowed to handle one
for a minute or tow. You fly one when you can master it, not when you paly
with one on you playstation, fjukktard.



Berti e

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip writes:
>
>> Know how to drag a bug or calcualte gates using predicted winds, the
>> weight of the airplane and a projected LD based on both?
>
> No (except, perhaps, drag a bug, if it's slang for what I think it
> means), but I can learn stuff like that in a few seconds if necessary.


Bwwawhahwhahwhahhwhahwhahwhahwhahhwhahwhahwhahwhah whahwhahhwhahwhahwhahw
hahwhhahwhahwhahwhahwhahwhahwh1

>
> These things would not be necessary to successfully land the aircraft
> in an emergency.
>
> Your question is a bit like asking "yes, but do you know how to fill
> out form XYZ?"

No, it isn't fjukktard.



Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Eeyore > wrote in
:

>
>
> Mxsmanic wrote:
>
>> Eeyore writes:
>>
>> > How about addressing the point I was 'Eh'ing about....
>>
>> I did.
>
> No you didn't.

It's like watching two doped up lemmings fight over the latest theories
in quantum physiscs by throwong great big piles of urine soaked potato
chips at each other.


(let the imagery settle, I worked hard on this one)


Bertie

[Mxsmanic]

Bertie the Bunyip writes:

> You don't even know what either one of them are, fjukkwit. Or you wouldn't
> ask suchj a question.

If you used the FMC, autopilot, or other automation systems, you were using
automation. If you flew it by hand, it was a very old aircraft without
automation, or for some reason you eschew automation and your company doesn't
mind that you fly by hand. That would make you an exception to the rule,
however.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Bertie the Bunyip writes:

> Yes, there is.

What obstacle is that?

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

[Thomas Borchert]

Bertie,

> No, it isn't fjukkwit.
>

Can you please just go away? Your retarded behaviour is rather
pathetic.

Amazing how many people can be way more annoying than MX as a reaction
to him.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Maxwell]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Bertie the Bunyip writes:
>
>> Yes, there is.
>
> What obstacle is that?
>

The obstacle is called experience, real experience in a broad range of
aircraft. And until you get it, you will never understand any of this,
unless you someday learn to enrich your knowledge with the advice shared
with you by most of the members of this group, instead of practicing your
denial skills simply because reality doesn't support your desires.

I have flown several sims, and found them very realistic, useful and
enjoyable. But again, until you have actually experienced flying a broad
range of real aircraft, you will never have the ability to understand just
how unrealistic your questions and assumptions are.

Actually I'm very surprised. You sound like a very intelligent person, and
have obviously spent a great deal of time reading and flying your sim. But
why you are having such a terrible time understanding the concept of actual
hands on experience strongly suggests - you are somewhere in the
neighborhood of 10 to 12 years old, have a serious problem understanding
concepts beyond the written word, are simply a troll that enjoys the damage
he does to an otherwise very useful forum, or some combination of the three.

But whatever the reason, you have no grasp in how ignorant you prove
yourself to at least 98% of this group, who have the experience and
understanding you so desperately lack.

[Mxsmanic]

Maxwell writes:

> The obstacle is called experience, real experience in a broad range of
> aircraft.

No, that's not it. The reality is that there isn't any particular obstacle
.... that's why nobody has described what the imaginary "obstacles" are.

The rest of your post follows the standard pattern of one personal attack
after another.

You cannot make something true by repeating it over and over in a loud voice.
You cannot invalidate criticisms of your unsupported assertions by launching
continual personal attacks against the parties who make them.

If your opinions reflect reality, and they are not merely the result of
emotional desires or wholesale adoption from people you regard as unquestioned
authority figures, then you'll be able to support your opinions with
explanation and reasoning based on premises that all parties accept. If your
opinions do not reflect reality, you will have no way of supporting them, and
if you hold those opinions very dear, you will become upset and attack anyone
who questions them.

This is fairly fundamental to human behavior and forms a very reliable
pattern. The only way to escape it is to think for yourself, instead of
believing what others say without question, and to base all your opinions and
facts and reasoning, and not on feelings and emotions.

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

[Maxwell]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Maxwell writes:
>
>> The obstacle is called experience, real experience in a broad range of
>> aircraft.
>
> No, that's not it. The reality is that there isn't any particular
> obstacle
> ... that's why nobody has described what the imaginary "obstacles" are.

There is no possible way to explain the value of actual experience. If a
person can't understand the difference in fantasy and reality, or simply
refuses to do so, there is nothing you can do to enlighten them.

>
> The rest of your post follows the standard pattern of one personal attack
> after another.
>
> You cannot make something true by repeating it over and over in a loud
> voice.
> You cannot invalidate criticisms of your unsupported assertions by
> launching
> continual personal attacks against the parties who make them.

Then find a way to certify your age for us. My guess is you are a 10 or 12
year old intellectual. Because the value you seem to place on actual
experience, strongly suggests you are not old enough to have any experience
with anything, much less something as complex as piloting an aircraft.

>
> If your opinions reflect reality, and they are not merely the result of
> emotional desires or wholesale adoption from people you regard as
> unquestioned
> authority figures, then you'll be able to support your opinions with
> explanation and reasoning based on premises that all parties accept. If
> your
> opinions do not reflect reality, you will have no way of supporting them,
> and
> if you hold those opinions very dear, you will become upset and attack
> anyone
> who questions them.

Same answer as above.

>
> This is fairly fundamental to human behavior and forms a very reliable
> pattern. The only way to escape it is to think for yourself, instead of
> believing what others say without question, and to base all your opinions
> and
> facts and reasoning, and not on feelings and emotions.
>

The only pattern I see in anyone's participation in your posts, is your
complete denial of reality as opposed to your perception of it.

[Mxsmanic]

Maxwell writes:

> There is no possible way to explain the value of actual experience.

Yeah, right.

> If a person can't understand the difference in fantasy and reality,
> or simply refuses to do so, there is nothing you can do to enlighten
> them.

Yes. Even when you point out to them that they can't seem to substantiate
their imaginings, they persist in believing in them, as I've already
explained.

> Then find a way to certify your age for us.

Hard as it may be to believe, age is not a factor here.

> My guess is you are a 10 or 12 year old intellectual.

Over the years I've found that people who agree with me usually assume that
I'm close to their age. People who don't agree with me always think I'm much
younger or older. Whether they are correct or not is purely a roll of the
dice.

> Because the value you seem to place on actual
> experience, strongly suggests you are not old enough to have any experience
> with anything, much less something as complex as piloting an aircraft.

I place a considerable value on experience, but I don't accept "experience is
the difference" as an isolated assertion in itself. Any assertion that cannot
be substantiated is suspect.

> The only pattern I see in anyone's participation in your posts, is your
> complete denial of reality as opposed to your perception of it.

Whereas nobody else here could possibly have that problem, eh?

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

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Thomas Borchert > wrote in
:

> Bertie,
>
>> No, it isn't fjukkwit.
>>
>
> Can you please just go away? Your retarded behaviour is rather
> pathetic.
>
> Amazing how many people can be way more annoying than MX as a reaction
> to him.
>

Don't know how to use a killfile?


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip writes:
>
>> You don't even know what either one of them are, fjukkwit. Or you
>> wouldn't ask suchj a question.
>
> If you used the FMC, autopilot, or other automation systems, you were
> using automation.

Yeah, so?

If you flew it by hand, it was a very old aircraft
> without automation, or for some reason you eschew automation and your
> company doesn't mind that you fly by hand. That would make you an
> exception to the rule, however.

Nope., and there is no rule, fjukktard


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip writes:
>
>> Yes, there is.
>
> What obstacle is that?
>

What article is what, oh fjukkktard who claims to have been a sysadmin and
yet doesn't know how to use usenet?


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Maxwell writes:
>
>> The obstacle is called experience, real experience in a broad range
>> of aircraft.
>
> No, that's not it.

Uh, yes it is.

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

"Maxwell" > wrote in
:

>
> "Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Maxwell writes:
>>
>>> The obstacle is called experience, real experience in a broad range
>>> of aircraft.
>>
>> No, that's not it. The reality is that there isn't any particular
>> obstacle
>> ... that's why nobody has described what the imaginary "obstacles"
>> are.
>
> There is no possible way to explain the value of actual experience.

Not to you, anyway..


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Bertie the Bunyip > wrote in
.130:

> "Maxwell" > wrote in
> :
>
>>
>> "Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Maxwell writes:
>>>
>>>> The obstacle is called experience, real experience in a broad
range
>>>> of aircraft.
>>>
>>> No, that's not it. The reality is that there isn't any particular
>>> obstacle
>>> ... that's why nobody has described what the imaginary "obstacles"
>>> are.
>>
>> There is no possible way to explain the value of actual experience.
>
> Not to you, anyway..

Sorry, disregard, friendly fire. Thought it was a funny thing for maniac
to say..

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Maxwell writes:
>
>> There is no possible way to explain the value of actual experience.
>
> Yeah, right.
>
>> If a person can't understand the difference in fantasy and reality,
>> or simply refuses to do so, there is nothing you can do to enlighten
>> them.
>
> Yes. Even when you point out to them that they can't seem to
> substantiate their imaginings, they persist in believing in them, as
> I've already explained.
>
>> Then find a way to certify your age for us.
>
> Hard as it may be to believe, age is not a factor here.
>
>> My guess is you are a 10 or 12 year old intellectual.
>
> Over the years I've found that people who agree with me usually assume
> that I'm close to their age. People who don't agree with me always
> think I'm much younger or older. Whether they are correct or not is
> purely a roll of the dice.
>
>> Because the value you seem to place on actual
>> experience, strongly suggests you are not old enough to have any
>> experience with anything, much less something as complex as piloting
>> an aircraft.
>
> I place a considerable value on experience,

No, you don't



bertie

[Maxwell]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Maxwell writes:
>
>> There is no possible way to explain the value of actual experience.
>
> Yeah, right.

Yeah right what? If you have a problem with that statement, then let's here
it.

>
>> If a person can't understand the difference in fantasy and reality,
>> or simply refuses to do so, there is nothing you can do to enlighten
>> them.
>
> Yes. Even when you point out to them that they can't seem to substantiate
> their imaginings, they persist in believing in them, as I've already
> explained.
>

We believe in what we have actually experienced. We have actually been
there, done it, and learned from the actual experience. We didn't simulate
it and imagine it. Most of us have actually flown light and heavy aircraft,
as well as the machines that simulate them. We are not the ones imagining
here, you are.

>> Then find a way to certify your age for us.
>
> Hard as it may be to believe, age is not a factor here.
>

Any hard evidence, because I'm still a long way from convinced.

>> My guess is you are a 10 or 12 year old intellectual.
>
> Over the years I've found that people who agree with me usually assume
> that
> I'm close to their age. People who don't agree with me always think I'm
> much
> younger or older. Whether they are correct or not is purely a roll of the
> dice.
>

Got any personal references? Where are they?

>> Because the value you seem to place on actual
>> experience, strongly suggests you are not old enough to have any
>> experience
>> with anything, much less something as complex as piloting an aircraft.
>
> I place a considerable value on experience, but I don't accept "experience
> is
> the difference" as an isolated assertion in itself. Any assertion that
> cannot
> be substantiated is suspect.

None of us get paid to substantiate anything to you or anyone else. If you
ask for advice and then insist on challenging it, the burden is on your
shoulders to find data that proves it wrong. Not on ours to prove it
correct. That is the value I personally find in the Usenet. It's a public
forum. If someone gives me poor advice, someone is usually handy to provide
data to the contrary. The advice you have been given by so many, is being
scrutinized by hundreds, if not thousands of people. If your position on the
value of simulation was so well founded, you would have a lot more
supporters I can assure you. There are far too many people here that use
simulation for all it can possibly offer them, to insist they all simply
have a negative attitude towards them. The actual flying experience just
gives them the added perspective to realize, that no matter how
sophisticated simulators become someday, it will never be a complete
substitute for all actual experience. An excellent training tool, yes. But a
complete replacement for actual experience, no way.

>
>> The only pattern I see in anyone's participation in your posts, is your
>> complete denial of reality as opposed to your perception of it.
>
> Whereas nobody else here could possibly have that problem, eh?
>

Well if your assumptions are correct, where are all your supporters?

I'm not trying to flame you, or argue with you. I just see you ask questions
that very clearly indicate lack of experience, and would be happy to help
you understand. But like the rest of us, I have no intention of writing an
800 page novel to convince you of the simplest concepts. Acceleration
forces, vertigo and knowing that making a wrong decision could cost you your
life - have never been effectively dealt with in simulators. And they not
only contribute to, but can actually multiply pilot workload to the point
you overlook some of the simplest and most routine tasks. Tasks that can
cost you your life. That's why full motion cockpits, parabolic displays,
sounds and vibrations are so valuable to simulators. They do everything
possible to detach a pilots thoughts from the fact he is not flying the real
thing, and help induce stress and pilot workload. Even an opportunity to
practice procedures that just can't be safely done on a training flight. But
no mater how good they become, they will never be able to stress you out
like the real thing. Because deep down inside the pilot will always know
it's a simulation. And that will always make one of the many differences in
actual and simulated experience. And that's a very big difference you simply
refuse to accept.

But that's only one difference. When indeed addressing all the critical
differences between actual flight experience and today's simulators would be
a worthy topic of an entire book. But what's the use. If you really want to
argue your position from a strong stand point, part with half the cost of a
new computer, and take a few of flying lessons. Even learning to solo in a
simple aircraft is hardly beyond anyone's budget. It the US it's very
comparable to the cost of a new PC. Much less all the gear required to
outfit a decent home simulator as well. And a fraction of the investment a
lot of very patient people here have made, in fruitlessly helping you
understand the difference. If you ever do, I seriously doubt we would ever
hear from you again. At least under your current moniker. You would quickly
realize the difference, and the weakness of your current perceptions.

But you just what to debate. When what you should be offering not me, but
all those that have come before me, is a sincere amount of gratitude. For
taking so many hours of their time to help you understand something you
could easily realize with a minimal investment on your part. They care
enough about people and aviation, to welcome those without the benefit of
their experience. And like it or not you owe it to them, to accept their
advice for the questions you ask, or leave their forum in peace.


Good day.

[Mxsmanic]

Bertie the Bunyip writes:

> Yeah, so?

So those systems only require pushing buttons and turning dials. Anyone can
do that.

> Nope., and there is no rule, fjukktard

That depends on the company. I take it you never worked for Frank Lorenzo.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Maxwell writes:

> Acceleration forces, vertigo and knowing that making a wrong decision could cost you your
> life - have never been effectively dealt with in simulators.

Give me an example.

> And they not
> only contribute to, but can actually multiply pilot workload to the point
> you overlook some of the simplest and most routine tasks. Tasks that can
> cost you your life.

See above.

> That's why full motion cockpits, parabolic displays,
> sounds and vibrations are so valuable to simulators. They do everything
> possible to detach a pilots thoughts from the fact he is not flying the real
> thing, and help induce stress and pilot workload.

They are there mainly for the sake of realism, and not specifically to induce
stress.

> But no mater how good they become, they will never be able to stress you out
> like the real thing.

If you reach the point in real life that you feel stressed, you're already in
trouble.

> Even learning to solo in a
> simple aircraft is hardly beyond anyone's budget. It the US it's very
> comparable to the cost of a new PC.

It's more than ten times more expensive, actually. Where I live, getting a
PPL costs about $15,000-$20,000.

> If you ever do, I seriously doubt we would ever
> hear from you again. At least under your current moniker. You would quickly
> realize the difference, and the weakness of your current perceptions.

I've surprised people before. They think I'm like them, and they're wrong.

> But you just what to debate. When what you should be offering not me, but
> all those that have come before me, is a sincere amount of gratitude.

Ah, the real truth comes out. You want the ego trip; there's no altruism in
your motivations.

I'm just the opposite. I don't have an ego to stroke, so I don't care about
that. I just like to exchange information. I like to learn new things, and I
like to teach others anything that I know.

Most of your post has been off-topic, and I've skipped those parts mainly.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Bertie the Bunyip writes:

> Sorry, disregard, friendly fire. Thought it was a funny thing for maniac
> to say..

And yet you rejected it because you thought I said it. Had someone else said
it, you would have accepted it. You reveal much with your haste to reply.

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

[Maxwell]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
.130...
> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote in
> .130:
>
>> "Maxwell" > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>>
>>> "Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> Maxwell writes:
>>>>
>>>>> The obstacle is called experience, real experience in a broad
> range
>>>>> of aircraft.
>>>>
>>>> No, that's not it. The reality is that there isn't any particular
>>>> obstacle
>>>> ... that's why nobody has described what the imaginary "obstacles"
>>>> are.
>>>
>>> There is no possible way to explain the value of actual experience.
>>
>> Not to you, anyway..
>
> Sorry, disregard, friendly fire. Thought it was a funny thing for maniac
> to say..
>
> Bertie

Thanks Bertie, understood.

[C J Campbell[_1_]]

On 2007-03-24 12:43:52 -0700, said:

>
> Traumahawk-worst of both worlds. Scary thing is that it was a
> "clean-sheet" trainer...
>
> TC

I did not mention the Tomahawk. However, it is not a high performance
or complex aircraft. I have never flown in one, either.

This airplane has in the past generated some controversy on these
groups, including calls from some experienced flight instructors for
revocation of its airworthiness certificate. I suppose that a search of
the NTSB database might be more illuminating as to the causes of
accidents in this plane.
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

[C J Campbell[_1_]]

On 2007-03-26 12:56:03 -0700, "Brian" > said:

>
> To the list of pluses for the Tomahawk add Fuel Capacity. It has
> nearly 2 hours more range than most 150/152's.
>
> As an interesting note if you research the NTSB reports for Spin
> Accidents in Pa38's you will find that for the most part only Flight
> Instructors and Examiners seem to have issues with the Stall spin
> Charateristics.
>
> I have taught a lot of pilots to fly in Tomahawks and I think they are
> great. My biggest pluses are, in no particular order,the Switchable
> fuel tanks, Large Cockpit, and Fuel Capacity.
>
> Brian
> CFIIG/ASEL

I couldn't find those reports. In fact, I found only a dozen reports
overall for the PA38. And only one of those was a stall/spin -- a
student pilot who ran out of gas on takeoff and tried to turn back to
the airport at too low an altitude.

Apparently I am doing something that limits the search too much. The
only parameter I have is PA38 and any time from 1950 to the present.
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

[george]

On Mar 27, 5:38 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> George writes:
> > Why, if you're correct, do they have train operators present to make
> > announcements, close doors, and operate the train in case of
> > unforeseen difficulties
> > ???
>
> A human being is always handy for unexpected situations, and since BART was
> one of the first fully automated systems, it had a lot of problems initially.
> There may be union requirements for people, too.
>
> The fact that a human operator is aboard a train doesn't mean that the train
> can't operate itself in normal service, just as the presence of pilots aboard
> an airliner doesn't mean that the airliner cannot fly itself most of the time.
>
But you claimed that these rapid transit trains were fully automated.
Which is demonstrated by BARTs web page to be wrong

Another error you can chalk up ...

[Mxsmanic]

george writes:

> But you claimed that these rapid transit trains were fully automated.

As I recall, that was the original design intention. BART is not alone, of
course. Here in Paris, line 14 of the subway system is fully automated, so
much so that it continues to run during strikes because it doesn't require any
human beings in the first place.

In general, if a system can operate normally without human intervention, it is
fully automated, even if exceptional situations require human intervention
(beyond certain design points, all exceptions require human intervention in
any system).

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

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> george writes:
>
>> But you claimed that these rapid transit trains were fully automated.
>
> As I recall, that was the original design intention.

Backpedallign fjukkwit



Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip writes:
>
>> Yeah, so?
>
> So those systems only require pushing buttons and turning dials.

No, they don't.

> Anyone can do that.

No they can't.


>
>> Nope., and there is no rule, fjukktard
>
> That depends on the company.

No it doesn't.


bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip writes:
>
>> Sorry, disregard, friendly fire. Thought it was a funny thing for
>> maniac to say..
>
> And yet you rejected it because you thought I said it. Had someone
> else said it, you would have accepted it. You reveal much with your
> haste to reply.


Bwawhahwhahwhahwhahhwhahwh!


God I love usenet.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Nomen Nescio > wrote in
:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> From: Mxsmanic >
>
>>Bertie the Bunyip writes:
>>
>>> Sorry, disregard, friendly fire. Thought it was a funny thing for
>>> maniac to say..
>
>>And yet you rejected it because you thought I said it.
>
> Read again, moron.
> It was your sincerity that was rejected.

Not exactly, If you transpose that statement further up the
conversation, it fits into mxs's line. since I neccesarily fly through
these pretty quickly (lotta kooks out ther) It seemed to fit into his ,
for the lack of a better expression "line of argument". It wasn't til I
saw where my reply had landed in the thread that I realised my error.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Maxwell writes:
>
>> Acceleration forces, vertigo and knowing that making a wrong decision
>> could cost you your life - have never been effectively dealt with in
>> simulators.
>
> Give me an example.
>
>> And they not
>> only contribute to, but can actually multiply pilot workload to the
>> point you overlook some of the simplest and most routine tasks. Tasks
>> that can cost you your life.
>
> See above.
>
>> That's why full motion cockpits, parabolic displays,
>> sounds and vibrations are so valuable to simulators. They do
>> everything possible to detach a pilots thoughts from the fact he is
>> not flying the real thing, and help induce stress and pilot workload.
>
> They are there mainly for the sake of realism, and not specifically to
> induce stress.
>
>> But no mater how good they become, they will never be able to stress
>> you out like the real thing.
>
> If you reach the point in real life that you feel stressed, you're
> already in trouble.
>
>> Even learning to solo in a
>> simple aircraft is hardly beyond anyone's budget. It the US it's very
>> comparable to the cost of a new PC.
>
> It's more than ten times more expensive, actually. Where I live,
> getting a PPL costs about $15,000-$20,000.
>
>> If you ever do, I seriously doubt we would ever
>> hear from you again. At least under your current moniker. You would
>> quickly realize the difference, and the weakness of your current
>> perceptions.
>
> I've surprised people before. They think I'm like them, and they're
> wrong.
>
>> But you just what to debate. When what you should be offering not me,
>> but all those that have come before me, is a sincere amount of
>> gratitude.
>
> Ah, the real truth comes out. You want the ego trip; there's no
> altruism in your motivations.
>
> I'm just the opposite. I don't have an ego to stroke, so I don't care
> about that. I just like to exchange information. I like to learn new
> things, and I like to teach others anything that I know.

But you know almost nothing...



Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Eeyore > wrote in
:

>
>
> Mxsmanic wrote:
>
>> Bertie the Bunyip writes:
>>
>> > No, they aren't. that problem was recognised over twenty years ago
>> > and we hand fly whenevr possible, fjukktard.
>>
>> You may hand fly, but many do not. Some countries are producing
>> airline pilots with extremely limited skills, and yet they still
>> manage to fly the aircraft, most of the time.
>
> I thought the FAA still held autoland in contempt.
>

Fjukkwit.


bertie
>
>

[Mxsmanic]

Bertie the Bunyip writes:

> No, they don't.

What else do they require besides pushing buttons and turning knobs?

> No they can't.

Anyone can push buttons and turn knobs.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Bertie the Bunyip writes:

> Fjukkwit.

You disagree with him, then. So what _is_ the FAA attitude towards autoland?

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

[John Mazor[_2_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Bertie the Bunyip writes:
>
>> No, they don't.
>
> What else do they require besides pushing buttons and
> turning knobs?
>
>> No they can't.
>
> Anyone can push buttons and turn knobs.

Which is pretty much all you do here - push people's buttons
and twist their knobs, trying to elicit yowls.

Your only redeeming value is that you're a fat, slow-moving
target who continually leads with your chin, making it easy
to kick you around. How does it feel to be the ideal
Internet chew toy?

[John Mazor[_2_]]

MaxManiac obviously was lying when he said he admits his
mistakes.

I'm sure that comes as a great revelation to readers here.

"John Mazor" > wrote in message
news:WS0Oh.2911$yo3.372@trnddc04...
>
> "Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
> ...
>> John Mazor writes:
>>
>>> Wrong again. That's been around for years.
>>>
>>> http://www.golimbs.com/offer_index.php?gclid=COmj55nMkYsCFSBhgQodyC2pRA
>>>
>>> http://www.haptica.com/
>>>
>>> They're sophisticated enough to provide force feedback:
>>>
>>> http://www.ercim.org/publication/Ercim_News/enw29/delingette.html
>>>
>>> They even have their own expositions:
>>>
>>> http://www.surgery.arizona.edu/expo/SurgerySimulatorExpo.htm
>>>
>>> which specifically compares them to flight simulators.
>>
>> I'm aware of these. They make Flight Simulator look like
>> a holodeck.
>
> Now you're aware of them, but before I outed your
> ignorance and showed you the links, you said (but deleted
> from this post):
>
> "> Doctors can't perform surgery on simulated human
> beings, at least not yet."
>
> You recently claimed here that you admit all your
> mistakes. We're waiting.
>
> Not for your apology. For whatever contrived BS you
> conjure up to avoid having to admit your error. Tomorrow
> is Tuesday, most of us will be in the mood for a good
> laugh.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip writes:
>
>> Fjukkwit.
>
> You disagree with him, then. So what _is_ the FAA attitude towards
> autoland?
>

I didn't say I disagreed with him you idiot. Don't you know how to read? I
said he was a fjukkwit, fjukkwit.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip writes:
>
>> No, they don't.
>
> What else do they require besides pushing buttons and turning knobs?

Well, knowing why they are pushing them and turning them for starters..


>
>> No they can't.
>
> Anyone can push buttons and turn knobs.
>

Well we al know which knob you like to turn.


Bertie

[Peter Dohm]

> >
> > To the list of pluses for the Tomahawk add Fuel Capacity. It has
> > nearly 2 hours more range than most 150/152's.
> >
> > As an interesting note if you research the NTSB reports for Spin
> > Accidents in Pa38's you will find that for the most part only Flight
> > Instructors and Examiners seem to have issues with the Stall spin
> > Charateristics.
> >
> > I have taught a lot of pilots to fly in Tomahawks and I think they are
> > great. My biggest pluses are, in no particular order,the Switchable
> > fuel tanks, Large Cockpit, and Fuel Capacity.
> >
> > Brian
> > CFIIG/ASEL
>
> I couldn't find those reports. In fact, I found only a dozen reports
> overall for the PA38. And only one of those was a stall/spin -- a
> student pilot who ran out of gas on takeoff and tried to turn back to
> the airport at too low an altitude.
>
> Apparently I am doing something that limits the search too much. The
> only parameter I have is PA38 and any time from 1950 to the present.
> --
> Waddling Eagle
> World Famous Flight Instructor
>
There are a lot more reports when requested as PA-38.

However, there is certainly a better way to access and sort on the probable
cause that actually opening and reading all of the reports from the Accident
Database on the web site. Regretably, I don't know the efficient way to
accomplish it; but I really doubt that stall/spin will be a significantly
more frequent cause than other aircraft. More likely, it just scared a lot
of people away from practicing spin training.

Perhaps Ron W. will contribute--and possibly even hint at his research
technique.

Peter

[Shill #312]

On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 00:27:27 GMT, "John Mazor" > wrote:


>Your only redeeming value is that you're a fat, slow-moving
>target who continually leads with your chin, making it easy
>to kick you around. How does it feel to be the ideal
>Internet chew toy?

Is Ralphie back?

Shill #312
--
Ears on the loon go round and round, round and round, round and round...
theobviousgcashman

[John Mazor[_2_]]

"Shill #312" > wrote in
message ...
> On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 00:27:27 GMT, "John Mazor"
> > wrote:
>
>>Your only redeeming value is that you're a fat,
>>slow-moving
>>target who continually leads with your chin, making it
>>easy
>>to kick you around. How does it feel to be the ideal
>>Internet chew toy?
>
> Is Ralphie back?

We wish. MaxManiac is a poor imitation. You can't always
bash the loon you want, so you have to bash the loon you
have.

[george]

On Mar 28, 11:11 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> Mxsmanic > wrote :
>
> > george writes:
>
> >> But you claimed that these rapid transit trains were fully automated.
>
> > As I recall, that was the original design intention.
>
> Backpedallign fjukkwit

Like most of his claims it is all so easily refuted :-)
He should stick to games and childrens groups

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

"george" > wrote in
ups.com:

> On Mar 28, 11:11 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> Mxsmanic > wrote
>> :
>>
>> > george writes:
>>
>> >> But you claimed that these rapid transit trains were fully
>> >> automated.
>>
>> > As I recall, that was the original design intention.
>>
>> Backpedallign fjukkwit
>
> Like most of his claims it is all so easily refuted :-)
> He should stick to games and childrens groups
>
>

I don't think the children would be so easy on him


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

"John Mazor" > wrote in news:uuQOh.61314$vI1.32499
@trnddc02:

> "Shill #312" > wrote in
> message ...
>> On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 00:27:27 GMT, "John Mazor"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>Your only redeeming value is that you're a fat,
>>>slow-moving
>>>target who continually leads with your chin, making it
>>>easy
>>>to kick you around. How does it feel to be the ideal
>>>Internet chew toy?
>>
>> Is Ralphie back?
>
> We wish. MaxManiac is a poor imitation. You can't always
> bash the loon you want, so you have to bash the loon you
> have.
>

And there's a rose, in the fisted gloooove..

Berti e