What's the bi-annual flight review all about?

[Dallas]

What's the bi-annual flight review all about?

I haven't been through one yet.. how tough are they? Is this like a
mini-practical test with stalls, engine outs and a tough verbal exam etc..
or is it more like an informal "Can he still fly an airplane and still
understands the basics?"

--
Dallas

[Tim[_7_]]

"Dallas" > wrote in message
...
>
> What's the bi-annual flight review all about?
>
> I haven't been through one yet.. how tough are they? Is this like a
> mini-practical test with stalls, engine outs and a tough verbal exam etc..
> or is it more like an informal "Can he still fly an airplane and still
> understands the basics?"
>
> --
> Dallas

Everything depends on the individual instructor.

[[email protected]]

Dallas > wrote:
>
> What's the bi-annual flight review all about?
>
> I haven't been through one yet.. how tough are they? Is this like a
> mini-practical test with stalls, engine outs and a tough verbal exam etc..
> or is it more like an informal "Can he still fly an airplane and still
> understands the basics?"

It is mostly up to whoever does it, though in general it is usually
"Can he still fly the airplane safely and legally".

The guy I go to does mostly airspace and airport operations during
the ground part and ATC communications/operations during the flight
portion. If he can find a nearby airport with a crosswind, count on
going there, otherwise he will usually pick a couple of basics such
as S turns, stalls, etc. to see how you handle the airplane.

It is a good time for a refresher on anything you feel weak on
since you have to be there anyway.

It isn't a "test" as there is no failing unless you are a complete
dunce and do something incredibility stupid, dangerous or illegal
that causes the instructor to not sign you off.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

On Apr 14, 2:55*pm, Dallas > wrote:
> What's the bi-annual flight review all about?
>
> I haven't been through one yet.. *how tough are they? *Is this like a
> mini-practical test with stalls, engine outs and a tough verbal exam etc...
> or is it more like an informal "Can he still fly an airplane and still
> understands the basics?"
>
> --
> Dallas

The basic purpose of the review is simply to have an instructor take a
look at your flying, general attitude, and habit patterns to insure a
continuing competence.
For any pilot with no standout issues, the review should be no problem
at all.
My procedure for giving these reviews was to simply tell the pilot I
wanted to see how he/she approached and conducted a normal flight from
beginning to end. I told them to act normally and just to consider me
an "interested observer".
The instructor of course has a criteria that is followed but there is
no reason that this criteria should take the form of intrusion on the
flight unless it becomes necessary.
Just treat the flight as a normal check flight and you'll do just
fine.
Dudley Henriques

[Sylvain]

Dallas wrote:

> What's the bi-annual flight review all about?

I haven't been through one in over twelve years; you can avoid the thing
altogether by a combination of getting new ratings and participating in the
FAA Wings program (http://www.faasafety.gov/WINGS/)

--Sylvain

[Tim[_7_]]

"Sylvain" > wrote in message
t...
> Dallas wrote:
>
>> What's the bi-annual flight review all about?
>
> I haven't been through one in over twelve years; you can avoid the thing
> altogether by a combination of getting new ratings and participating in
> the
> FAA Wings program (http://www.faasafety.gov/WINGS/)
>
> --Sylvain

I considered the Wings program, but seemed so much quicker and easier to
just take the BFR.

[Peter Dohm]

"Tim" <#__#@__.-> wrote in message
m...
>
> "Sylvain" > wrote in message
> t...
>> Dallas wrote:
>>
>>> What's the bi-annual flight review all about?
>>
>> I haven't been through one in over twelve years; you can avoid the thing
>> altogether by a combination of getting new ratings and participating in
>> the
>> FAA Wings program (http://www.faasafety.gov/WINGS/)
>>
>> --Sylvain
>
> I considered the Wings program, but seemed so much quicker and easier to
> just take the BFR.
>
>
It probably is quicker to just do the BFR. But the idea was to recognize
participation in a greater amount of "continuing ed" and a lot of the wings
seminars are interesting--even for some of us who are not currently
aviating.

[Peter Dohm]

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
...
On Apr 14, 2:55 pm, Dallas > wrote:
> What's the bi-annual flight review all about?
>
> I haven't been through one yet.. how tough are they? Is this like a
> mini-practical test with stalls, engine outs and a tough verbal exam etc..
> or is it more like an informal "Can he still fly an airplane and still
> understands the basics?"
>
> --
> Dallas

The basic purpose of the review is simply to have an instructor take a
look at your flying, general attitude, and habit patterns to insure a
continuing competence.
For any pilot with no standout issues, the review should be no problem
at all.
My procedure for giving these reviews was to simply tell the pilot I
wanted to see how he/she approached and conducted a normal flight from
beginning to end. I told them to act normally and just to consider me
an "interested observer".
The instructor of course has a criteria that is followed but there is
no reason that this criteria should take the form of intrusion on the
flight unless it becomes necessary.
Just treat the flight as a normal check flight and you'll do just
fine.
Dudley Henriques

-----------new post begins----------

You might even be allowed to go somewhere are consume a burger...

Peter :-)

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

"Dallas" > wrote in message
...
>
> What's the bi-annual flight review all about?
>
> I haven't been through one yet.. how tough are they? Is this like a
> mini-practical test with stalls, engine outs and a tough verbal exam
> etc..
> or is it more like an informal "Can he still fly an airplane and still
> understands the basics?"
>

Biannual is twice a year.

It's just a "flight review".

No biggie usually but as others have pointed out ymmv.

Ask around about the local instuctors and find one that fits what you want
to do (learn something, just get by, par-tay, etc.) :-)

--
Geoff
The Sea Hawk at Wow Way d0t Com
remove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mail
When immigration is outlawed, only outlaws will immigrate.

[Peter Dohm]

"Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe" <The Sea Hawk @See My Sig.com> wrote in message
...
> "Dallas" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> What's the bi-annual flight review all about?
>>
>> I haven't been through one yet.. how tough are they? Is this like a
>> mini-practical test with stalls, engine outs and a tough verbal exam
>> etc..
>> or is it more like an informal "Can he still fly an airplane and still
>> understands the basics?"
>>
>
> Biannual is twice a year.
>
> It's just a "flight review".
>
> No biggie usually but as others have pointed out ymmv.
>
> Ask around about the local instuctors and find one that fits what you want
> to do (learn something, just get by, par-tay, etc.) :-)
>
> --
> Geoff
> The Sea Hawk at Wow Way d0t Com
> remove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mail
> When immigration is outlawed, only outlaws will immigrate.
Ti's bienial, and it's every two years.

Peter

[Dave Doe]

In article <6dddd429-0f97-4bd4-b2e4-
>, says...
> On Apr 14, 2:55*pm, Dallas > wrote:
> > What's the bi-annual flight review all about?
> >
> > I haven't been through one yet.. *how tough are they? *Is this like a
> > mini-practical test with stalls, engine outs and a tough verbal exam etc..
> > or is it more like an informal "Can he still fly an airplane and still
> > understands the basics?"
> >
> > --
> > Dallas
>
> The basic purpose of the review is simply to have an instructor take a
> look at your flying, general attitude, and habit patterns to insure a
> continuing competence.
> For any pilot with no standout issues, the review should be no problem
> at all.
> My procedure for giving these reviews was to simply tell the pilot I
> wanted to see how he/she approached and conducted a normal flight from
> beginning to end. I told them to act normally and just to consider me
> an "interested observer".
> The instructor of course has a criteria that is followed but there is
> no reason that this criteria should take the form of intrusion on the
> flight unless it becomes necessary.
> Just treat the flight as a normal check flight and you'll do just
> fine.
> Dudley Henriques

Do you think that's sufficient?

Reason I ask, is that *every* BFR I've done I've been asked to enter the
low-flying-area and conduct some low flying guff ("exit from a blind
valley"/cloud bank ahead - type stuff), and of course, other things I'd
never be able to do in normal/real flight such as a FLWOP.

Indeed, as well as the fun of it, I consider such things to be, not only
a challenge, but essential to my best flying practices. (I *wanna* know
I can still get myself into a field if I ever become a glider).

--
Duncan

[[email protected]]

Dave Doe > wrote:
> In article <6dddd429-0f97-4bd4-b2e4-
> >, says...
>> On Apr 14, 2:55Â*pm, Dallas > wrote:
>> > What's the bi-annual flight review all about?
>> >
>> > I haven't been through one yet.. Â*how tough are they? Â*Is this like a
>> > mini-practical test with stalls, engine outs and a tough verbal exam etc..
>> > or is it more like an informal "Can he still fly an airplane and still
>> > understands the basics?"
>> >
>> > --
>> > Dallas
>>
>> The basic purpose of the review is simply to have an instructor take a
>> look at your flying, general attitude, and habit patterns to insure a
>> continuing competence.
>> For any pilot with no standout issues, the review should be no problem
>> at all.
>> My procedure for giving these reviews was to simply tell the pilot I
>> wanted to see how he/she approached and conducted a normal flight from
>> beginning to end. I told them to act normally and just to consider me
>> an "interested observer".
>> The instructor of course has a criteria that is followed but there is
>> no reason that this criteria should take the form of intrusion on the
>> flight unless it becomes necessary.
>> Just treat the flight as a normal check flight and you'll do just
>> fine.
>> Dudley Henriques
>
> Do you think that's sufficient?
>
> Reason I ask, is that *every* BFR I've done I've been asked to enter the
> low-flying-area and conduct some low flying guff ("exit from a blind
> valley"/cloud bank ahead - type stuff), and of course, other things I'd
> never be able to do in normal/real flight such as a FLWOP.
>
> Indeed, as well as the fun of it, I consider such things to be, not only
> a challenge, but essential to my best flying practices. (I *wanna* know
> I can still get myself into a field if I ever become a glider).

Since the review is basically up to the instructor, just about anything
is fair game and will probably get colored by the local environment.

Since there is a LOT of controlled airspace, including Class B, around
here, ATC gets emphasis from most of the instructors around here.

I would expect a review conducted in the mountains of Montana to be
a bit different than one conducted near LAX.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

On Apr 14, 9:17*pm, Dave Doe > wrote:
> In article <6dddd429-0f97-4bd4-b2e4-
> >, says...
>
>
>
> > On Apr 14, 2:55*pm, Dallas > wrote:
> > > What's the bi-annual flight review all about?
>
> > > I haven't been through one yet.. *how tough are they? *Is this like a
> > > mini-practical test with stalls, engine outs and a tough verbal exam etc..
> > > or is it more like an informal "Can he still fly an airplane and still
> > > understands the basics?"
>
> > > --
> > > Dallas
>
> > The basic purpose of the review is simply to have an instructor take a
> > look at your flying, general attitude, and habit patterns to insure a
> > continuing competence.
> > For any pilot with no standout issues, the review should be no problem
> > at all.
> > My procedure for giving these reviews was to simply tell the pilot I
> > wanted to see how he/she approached and conducted a normal flight from
> > beginning to end. I told them to act normally and just to consider me
> > an "interested observer".
> > The instructor of course has a criteria that is followed but there is
> > no reason that this criteria should take the form of intrusion on the
> > flight unless it becomes necessary.
> > Just treat the flight as a normal check flight and you'll *do just
> > fine.
> > Dudley Henriques
>
> Do you think that's sufficient?
>
> Reason I ask, is that *every* BFR I've done I've been asked to enter the
> low-flying-area and conduct some low flying guff ("exit from a blind
> valley"/cloud bank ahead - type stuff), and of course, other things I'd
> never be able to do in normal/real flight such as a FLWOP.
>
> Indeed, as well as the fun of it, I consider such things to be, not only
> a challenge, but essential to my best flying practices. *(I *wanna* know
> I can still get myself into a field if I ever become a glider).
>
> --
> Duncan

By the time I watch an applicant pre-flight an airplane and taxi out
to the active, I usually have a pretty good handle on how the rest of
the flight will be performed.
I have the applicant proceed while assigning a few carefully chosen
"tasks". How far I take the applicant past those tasks is the direct
result of my observation of how those tasks are completed.
The items you mention can be introduced in an informal way and need
not be made to look like a "you do this right or you fail" scenario.
Each instructor handles a bi-annual review differently. I preferred
the "informal" approach. It relaxes the applicant. I want pilots to
look forward to doing a bi-annual instead of seeing it as an ever
present "hurdle" to be completed in order to keep their certificate.
It's toward that goal I dislike the "rigid" "formal" approach.
There is no reason whatsoever for an instructor to treat a bi-annual
check as a challenge. The very essence of the context involved with
pilot to pilot flight checks is to develop in a pilot a true and real
desire to remain proficient. I feel it is an instructor's
responsibility to create this attitude in each pilot they encounter.
In the world of display aerobatics, it was common for me as well as
other pilots to seek each other out on a regular basis and ask to be
watched and critiqued. I was always surprised at the little things my
fellow pilots picked up on and made known to me; not only surprised,
but grateful.
Dudley Henriques

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

On Apr 14, 8:46*pm, "Peter Dohm" > wrote:
> "Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe" <The Sea Hawk @See My Sig.com> wrote in ...
>
> > "Dallas" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> >> What's the bi-annual flight review all about?
>
> >> I haven't been through one yet.. *how tough are they? *Is this like a
> >> mini-practical test with stalls, engine outs and a tough verbal exam
> >> etc..
> >> or is it more like an informal "Can he still fly an airplane and still
> >> understands the basics?"
>
> > Biannual is twice a year.
>
> > It's just a "flight review".
>
> > No biggie usually but as others have pointed out ymmv.
>
> > Ask around about the local instuctors and find one that fits what you want
> > to do (learn something, just get by, par-tay, etc.) *:-)
>
> > --
> > Geoff
> > The Sea Hawk at Wow Way d0t Com
> > remove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mail
> > When immigration is outlawed, only outlaws will immigrate.
>
> Ti's bienial, and it's every two years.
>
> Peter

Right as rain! I missed picking up on that in the initial posting and
quoted it as bi-annual myself
:-))
-DH

[Mike Ash]

In article >,
"Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe" <The Sea Hawk @See My Sig.com> wrote:

> Biannual is twice a year.

Just a stupid nit: according to my dictionary, "biannual" can mean
either twice a year or once every two years. "Biennial" removes the
ambiguity and means every two years, and "semiannual" always means twice
a year. (I just found this interesting and wanted to share, no criticism
meant.)

We now return you to our regularly scheduled aviation discussion.

--
Mike Ash
Radio Free Earth
Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon

[Tim[_7_]]

"Peter Dohm" > wrote in message
.. .
>
> "Tim" <#__#@__.-> wrote in message
> m...
>>
>> "Sylvain" > wrote in message
>> t...
>>> Dallas wrote:
>>>
>>>> What's the bi-annual flight review all about?
>>>
>>> I haven't been through one in over twelve years; you can avoid the
>>> thing
>>> altogether by a combination of getting new ratings and participating in
>>> the
>>> FAA Wings program (http://www.faasafety.gov/WINGS/)
>>>
>>> --Sylvain
>>
>> I considered the Wings program, but seemed so much quicker and easier to
>> just take the BFR.
>>
>>
> It probably is quicker to just do the BFR. But the idea was to recognize
> participation in a greater amount of "continuing ed" and a lot of the
> wings seminars are interesting--even for some of us who are not currently
> aviating.
>

Agreed, but they should give more credit for participation, and focus more
on teaching than testing.

[Dallas]

On Tue, 14 Apr 2009 14:06:51 -0700, Sylvain wrote:

> participating in the FAA Wings

Hey.. not a bad idea.


--
Dallas

[Dallas]

On Tue, 14 Apr 2009 19:30:00 GMT, wrote:

> It isn't a "test" as there is no failing

Not getting the sign off means you failed.

But, I like the idea that it's a test. My ex-fighter pilot brother in law
was under the impression that he was legal to fly if he got his medical. I
added that he needed the flight review, then he was legal.

The last time he flew they hadn't adopted Class B airspace yet. I would
hope that the instructor would really test this guy before he turned him
loose to fly again.

--
Dallas

[[email protected]]

Dallas > wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Apr 2009 19:30:00 GMT, wrote:
>
>> It isn't a "test" as there is no failing
>
> Not getting the sign off means you failed.

If you don't get a sign off it means you are totally incompetant as a
pilot.

A test has objective criteria, a flight review doesn't.

> But, I like the idea that it's a test.

In my opinion, you are looking at it in the wrong way.

It should be an opportunity to refresh and hone your skills and maybe
learn something new.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Tim[_7_]]

"Dallas" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 14 Apr 2009 19:30:00 GMT, wrote:
>
>> It isn't a "test" as there is no failing
>
> Not getting the sign off means you failed.
>

And it does indeed happen. I had a bad experience with a low time instructor
over nothing more than a short field landing procedure. I actually had to
threaten him with contacting the FAA to get his signature.

But choose your CFI with care, as you always should. A BFR should be a fun,
and a great time to ask questions and learn something new. I have been
taking BFRs as long as the program has been required, and only had one bad
one.

[RST Engineering]

>> When immigration is outlawed, only outlaws will immigrate.

When marriage is outlawed, only outlaws will have inlaws.

> Ti's bienial, and it's every two years.

It is spelled "biennial" and has been replaced with the phrase "flight
review".

Jim

[RST Engineering]

I have a particular way I like to do it. Then again, I lay awake at night
wondering whether anal-retentive is hyphenated or not.

I tell the pilot to pretend he and his significant other and me and my wife
want to go with him to a restaurant on a field about 50 miles away and to
plan the flight accordingly.

If, by the time we get to the airplane, (s)he hasn't asked me how much my
wife weighs, then I know (s)he hasn't done a weight and balance. If I ask
him/her what the weather is like at the target airport and (s)he mutters
vague generalities, then I know (s)he hasn't checked FSS or DUATs weather.
If (s)he doesn't use a checklist during the preflight or during pre-engine
start, then I stop right then and there and tell the pilot that perhaps they
might like to reschedule the flight for another day as I'm not comfortable
flying with them. "No charge, and here is what I observed that makes me
uncomfy...no w/b, no wtx, no checklist and maybe next week we can do it
again."

Jim

--
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought
without accepting it."
--Aristotle


> What's the bi-annual flight review all about?

[RST Engineering]

>>
>> If, by the time we get to the airplane, (s)he hasn't asked me how much
>> my wife weighs, then I know (s)he hasn't done a weight and balance.
>
> Woah right there big feller. That's not a valid conclusion on your part.
> Having done flight manifests for crew changes in the past I can estimate
> your
> weight visually. I also know my aircraft well enough to know how much
> weight
> can go where and what the margins are.

How in the hell can you estimate the weight for somebody you've never seen
or are ever likely to see? For all you know she is Grizelda the wrestler
and carries around a concrete purse. Remember I said that they were to
PRETEND that four people were going on the trip.

>
>> If
>> I ask him/her what the weather is like at the target airport and (s)he
>> mutters vague generalities, then I know (s)he hasn't checked FSS or
>> DUATs weather.
>
> Maybe this is a valid conclusion. You'd like to hear a precise weather
> description but many folks don't think that way. They may think
> acceptable/marginal/bad for weather descriptions.

I can accept those three versions IF they can tell me on what they based
their classification. A mumbled "It's OK" doesn't cut it.


>
>> If (s)he doesn't use a checklist during the preflight or
>> during pre-engine start, then I stop right then and there and tell the
>> pilot that perhaps they might like to reschedule the flight for another
>> day as I'm not comfortable flying with them.
>
> A checklist is not a dolist. Review the checklist as the final part of the
> activity on familiar aircraft. I generally don't look at the checklist on
> pre-glight or engine start. I will review each item from the top after
> run-up
> is complete.

YOu and I were taught by different people. A checklist is just that ... a
step by step list of todos so that you don't forget something. It is very
easy for the mind to go through a "familiar list" and be so rote that you
really DID think you were on both mags when you were only on one.

Jim

[BT]

"Dallas" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 14 Apr 2009 19:30:00 GMT, wrote:
>
>> It isn't a "test" as there is no failing
>
> Not getting the sign off means you failed.
>
> But, I like the idea that it's a test. My ex-fighter pilot brother in law
> was under the impression that he was legal to fly if he got his medical.
> I
> added that he needed the flight review, then he was legal.
>
> The last time he flew they hadn't adopted Class B airspace yet. I would
> hope that the instructor would really test this guy before he turned him
> loose to fly again.
>
> --
> Dallas

Well.. that means he has not flown in over 20 years?
His "FR" will be more than just the standard 1hr of ground and 1hr of air
time. It should be a very through review of the CFRs, the airspace changes,
the new requirements since 9/11, new certificate with proper address issued
from FAA (paper ones are not longer worthy after March 2010). Plus all the
flight maneuvers expected to fly at his certificate level, private or
commercial. A CFI-A can do all that, he does not need to see the Examiner
again.

Some people pick it back up quick, some don't, and based on age (mental
faculties), some maybe shouldn't. We run into that with older pilots wanting
to fly gliders because they no longer maintain a medical. I'd expect at
least 5-10 hours or more, depending on his capabilities and knowledge
absorption rate.

Same with Sport Pilot, and he does not need a medical, but he does need a
Flight Review.

BT

[Peter Dohm]

"Private" > wrote in message
...
>
> "RST Engineering" > wrote in message
> m...
> snip
>> YOu and I were taught by different people. A checklist is just that ...
>> a step by step list of todos so that you don't forget something. It is
>> very easy for the mind to go through a "familiar list" and be so rote
>> that you really DID think you were on both mags when you were only on
>> one.
>>
>> Jim
>
> I agree with Jim on this point, IMHO consistent use of WRITTEN check (or
> to-do) lists is evidence of personal discipline and application of
> good/accepted/required procedure, which can be a good indicator of
> training and safety attitude. Here in Canada, failure to use a written
> checklist for run-up and pre-takeoff items will result in failure of most
> flight tests.
>
> The use of written checklists is beginning to be required in many other
> non-aviation mission critical activities.
> http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/12/10/071210fa_fact_gawande
> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090113.wchecklist0114/BNStory/specialScienceandHealth/home
> http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/NEJMsa0810119
>
> Happy landings,
>
>
>
please imagie a rude noise!

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

On Apr 15, 6:15*pm, "RST Engineering" > wrote:

>
> YOu and I were taught by different people. *A checklist is just that .... a
> step by step list of todos so that you don't forget something. *It is very
> easy for the mind to go through a "familiar list" and be so rote that you
> really DID think you were on both mags when you were only on one.
>
> Jim

The quickest thing that disqualified an applicant on any check flight
I ever gave was the non-use or improper use of a checklist.
Dudley Henriques

[Private]

"RST Engineering" > wrote in message
m...
snip
> YOu and I were taught by different people. A checklist is just that ... a
> step by step list of todos so that you don't forget something. It is very
> easy for the mind to go through a "familiar list" and be so rote that you
> really DID think you were on both mags when you were only on one.
>
> Jim

I agree with Jim on this point, IMHO consistent use of WRITTEN check (or
to-do) lists is evidence of personal discipline and application of
good/accepted/required procedure, which can be a good indicator of training
and safety attitude. Here in Canada, failure to use a written checklist for
run-up and pre-takeoff items will result in failure of most flight tests.

The use of written checklists is beginning to be required in many other
non-aviation mission critical activities.
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/12/10/071210fa_fact_gawande
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090113.wchecklist0114/BNStory/specialScienceandHealth/home
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/NEJMsa0810119

Happy landings,

[Tman[_2_]]

Dudley Henriques wrote:
> On Apr 15, 6:15 pm, "RST Engineering" > wrote:
>
>> YOu and I were taught by different people. A checklist is just that ... a
>> step by step list of todos so that you don't forget something. It is very
>> easy for the mind to go through a "familiar list" and be so rote that you
>> really DID think you were on both mags when you were only on one.
>>
>> Jim
>
> The quickest thing that disqualified an applicant on any check flight
> I ever gave was the non-use or improper use of a checklist.
> Dudley Henriques
>
An admittedly small sample, but I've actually never seen a professional
pilot do a walkaround on an airplane with a checklist in hand. Not even
when I'm watching the A320 FO do a walkaround. I'm sure it happens
though. I've only seen students and pilots on a checkride do that. My
instructor told me to "have the checklist in your hand but you don't
really need to look at it" -- for the preflight.

So -- Dudley and others. Let's be clear here as I am curious. Which
phases of flight do you use the checklist for?

_ preflight planning
_ drive out to the airport
_ preflight examination
_ getting in and getting fastened
_ engine start and post-start
_ pre-taxi
_ runup
_ pre-takeoff
_ climbout
_ approaching a fix on an IFR flight plan
_ cruise (log fuel, check nav, switch tanks)
_ pre-approach ("WIRE")
_ approach
_ pre-landing / landing "GUMPS"
_ clear of runway
_ pre-taxi
_ shutdown ("fuel not on both, master off")
_ post-shutdown ("tie down, pick up your x, y, and z)
_ walk-away ("hobbs, lock gate")

I have a friend that would honestly "x" everything in each column.

I consider myself a pretty safe pilot. Answers for me below. I do a
lot of GUMPS, WIRE, and I use the instrument panel placards (pre-landing
check, etc), in particular, but I am not thinking it is "checklist
usage" unless you have the thing in your hand...

Would I pass your flight test?

_ preflight planning
_ drive out to the airport
_ preflight examination
_x getting in and getting fastened
x_ engine start and post-start
_ pre-taxi
_x runup
_ pre-takeoff
_ climbout
_ approaching a fix on an IFR flight plan
_ pre-approach ("WIRE")
_ approach
_ pre-landing / landing "GUMPS"
_ clear of runway
_ pre-taxi
_ shutdown ("fuel not on both, master off")
_ post-shutdown ("tie down, pick up your x, y, and z)
_ walk-away ("hobbs, lock gate")

I use a lot of flow and mnemonics for the other stuff tho.

Tman.

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

On Apr 16, 8:39*pm, Tman > wrote:
> Dudley Henriques wrote:
> > On Apr 15, 6:15 pm, "RST Engineering" > wrote:
>
> >> YOu and I were taught by different people. *A checklist is just that ... a
> >> step by step list of todos so that you don't forget something. *It is very
> >> easy for the mind to go through a "familiar list" and be so rote that you
> >> really DID think you were on both mags when you were only on one.
>
> >> Jim
>
> > The quickest thing that disqualified an applicant on any check flight
> > I ever gave was the non-use or improper use of a checklist.
> > Dudley Henriques
>
> An admittedly small sample, but I've actually never seen a professional
> pilot do a walkaround on an airplane with a checklist in hand. *Not even
> when I'm watching the A320 FO do a walkaround. *I'm sure it happens
> though. *I've only seen students and pilots on a checkride do that. *My
> instructor told me to "have the checklist in your hand but you don't
> really need to look at it" -- for the preflight.
>
> So -- Dudley and others. *Let's be clear here as I am curious. *Which
> phases of flight do you use the checklist for?
>
> _ preflight planning
> _ drive out to the airport
> _ preflight examination
> _ getting in and getting fastened
> _ engine start and post-start
> _ pre-taxi
> _ runup
> _ pre-takeoff
> _ climbout
> _ approaching a fix on an IFR flight plan
> _ cruise (log fuel, check nav, switch tanks)
> _ pre-approach ("WIRE")
> _ approach
> _ pre-landing / landing "GUMPS"
> _ clear of runway
> _ pre-taxi
> _ shutdown ("fuel not on both, master off")
> _ post-shutdown ("tie down, pick up your x, y, and z)
> _ walk-away ("hobbs, lock gate")
>
> I have a friend that would honestly "x" everything in each column.
>
> I consider myself a pretty safe pilot. *Answers for me below. *I do a
> lot of GUMPS, WIRE, and I use the instrument panel placards (pre-landing
> check, etc), in particular, but I am not thinking it is "checklist
> usage" unless you have the thing in your hand...
>
> Would I pass your flight test?
>
> _ preflight planning
> _ drive out to the airport
> _ preflight examination
> _x getting in and getting fastened
> x_ engine start and post-start
> _ pre-taxi
> _x runup
> _ pre-takeoff
> _ climbout
> _ approaching a fix on an IFR flight plan
> _ pre-approach ("WIRE")
> _ approach
> _ pre-landing / landing "GUMPS"
> _ clear of runway
> _ pre-taxi
> _ shutdown ("fuel not on both, master off")
> _ post-shutdown ("tie down, pick up your x, y, and z)
> _ walk-away ("hobbs, lock gate")
>
> I use a lot of flow and mnemonics for the other stuff tho.
>
> Tman.

I both use and teach the use of checklists for any and all procedures
so recommended by the manufacturer.
I also use and teach mnemonics as a supplement to checklists.

The trick with checklists is not to get bogged down in minutia to the
point where you are checking every nut and bolt. A lot depends on the
equipment being flown.

Each pilot is a product of that pilot's exposure to the learning curve
at any instant in that pilot's career.
How a pilot views the use of checklists varies within this context.
Some overdue checklist use. Some are lax on the subject of checklists.
The good pilot develops an attitude toward flight safety that makes
use of any and all appropriate tools devoted toward that end.
How each pilot uses these tools will in large part be determined by
the habit patterns that pilot has developed through the learning
process (which never ends)
Dudley Henriques

Dudley Henriques

[Tman[_2_]]

Dudley Henriques wrote:

> I both use and teach the use of checklists for any and all procedures
> so recommended by the manufacturer.
> I also use and teach mnemonics as a supplement to checklists.
>
> The trick with checklists is not to get bogged down in minutia to the
> point where you are checking every nut and bolt. A lot depends on the
> equipment being flown.

OK, I want to get specific.
I pulled my C172 POH. It has "checklist procedures" , but nowhere does
it say to use it as a checklist. Anyways, the checklist procedures
cover Preflight, Pre-Start, Start, Pre-Takeoff, Takeoff, Climb, Cruise,
Pre-Landing, Landing, After-Landing, Securing Airplane.

From my sample of experience I have never seen a pilot use a checklist
on all or even half of these procedures. Is that what you (or anyone
else that opines an honest answer) looks for on a checkride?

And when you use a checklist -- are you looking for it to be used as a
"do-list" or a post-do "check" list.

I can tell you if i had to pull the damn book of cards out every time i
changed phase in flight, and used it as a do-list, it would be
incredibly unnatural, and probably detract from safety.

Anyways, just trying to get more specifics and separate checklist
reality from checklist religion.

TRUE story. A local flight instructor had a letter to editor published
in a major av magazine admonishing everyone from students to ATP's on
the need for "thorough checklist usage" just about everywhere. I think
he had the required anecdote on the guy who took off with the control
lock, pitot cover, or one such thing. Many words were dispensed in the
letter.

I've flown with him and he never pulled the g'darn checklist out or even
hinted I might want to. Sigh...
T

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

On Apr 16, 9:51*pm, Tman > wrote:
> Dudley Henriques wrote:
> > I both use and teach the use of checklists for any and all procedures
> > so recommended by the manufacturer.
> > I also use and teach mnemonics as a supplement to checklists.
>
> > The trick with checklists is not to get bogged down in minutia to the
> > point where you are checking every nut and bolt. A lot depends on the
> > equipment being flown.
>
> OK, I want to get specific.
> I pulled my C172 POH. *It has "checklist procedures" , but nowhere does
> it say to use it as a checklist. *Anyways, the checklist procedures
> cover Preflight, Pre-Start, Start, Pre-Takeoff, Takeoff, Climb, Cruise,
> Pre-Landing, Landing, After-Landing, Securing Airplane.
>
> *From my sample of experience I have never seen a pilot use a checklist
> on all or even half of these procedures. *Is that what you (or anyone
> else that opines an honest answer) looks for on a checkride?
>
> And when you use a checklist -- are you looking for it to be used as a
> "do-list" or a post-do "check" list.
>
> I can tell you if i had to pull the damn book of cards out every time i
> changed phase in flight, and used it as a do-list, it would be
> incredibly unnatural, and probably detract from safety.
>
> Anyways, just trying to get more specifics and separate checklist
> reality from checklist religion.
>
> TRUE story. *A local flight instructor had a letter to editor published
> in a major av magazine admonishing everyone from students to ATP's on
> the need for "thorough checklist usage" just about everywhere. *I think
> he had the required anecdote on the guy who took off with the control
> lock, pitot cover, or one such thing. *Many words were dispensed in the
> letter.
>
> I've flown with him and he never pulled the g'darn checklist out or even
> hinted I might want to. *Sigh...
> T

I believe my answer was specific enough. It is not my desire to change
your opinion about how you use checklists, nor do I wish to argue the
use of checklists on a micro level.
If your aircraft HAS a checklist in my opinion you should USE IT!
For operations with your aircraft where a checklist isn't "officially"
suggested in the POH such as a pre-flight, use common sense.
I'm sitting here looking at the POH for a 1966 Cessna 172. Section 1
includes checklists for all phases of operation in this aircraft.

Do I insist that you go through each item on these checklists and
check it off as you're flying the airplane; NO! As a check pilot, I'm
expecting you to demonstrate a complete knowledge of these items and
to be using the information on these pages in a way that shows proper
planning and execution.
The exact method you use to demonstrate this is entirely up to you as
an applicant.

There will be portions of the flight where I'll expect to see you use
a checklist such as runup and portions of the flight such as the
establishment of a Vy climb attitude for example where I'll expect you
to perform that task with a smooth and thorough flow pattern rather
than staring at a checklist. If this means you are using an
abbreviated checklist or a mnemonic that's up to you. Just don't miss
anything!
Personally, I prefer seeing a flow pattern in a pilot that includes a
verbal touch and affirmation BASED on the operation checklists when
checklists are used.
On most light airplanes, the in-flight checklists can be done using a
Mnemonic which is perfectly acceptable. Demonstrate a flow pattern,
touch it, identify it, use it. The item will be on the checklist but
performed as part of your mnemonic checklist.
Perfectly acceptable!
-DH

[Tim[_7_]]

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
...
On Apr 16, 9:51 pm, Tman > wrote:
> Dudley Henriques wrote:
> > I both use and teach the use of checklists for any and all procedures
> > so recommended by the manufacturer.
> > I also use and teach mnemonics as a supplement to checklists.
>
> > The trick with checklists is not to get bogged down in minutia to the
> > point where you are checking every nut and bolt. A lot depends on the
> > equipment being flown.
>
> OK, I want to get specific.
> I pulled my C172 POH. It has "checklist procedures" , but nowhere does
> it say to use it as a checklist. Anyways, the checklist procedures
> cover Preflight, Pre-Start, Start, Pre-Takeoff, Takeoff, Climb, Cruise,
> Pre-Landing, Landing, After-Landing, Securing Airplane.
>
> From my sample of experience I have never seen a pilot use a checklist
> on all or even half of these procedures. Is that what you (or anyone
> else that opines an honest answer) looks for on a checkride?
>
> And when you use a checklist -- are you looking for it to be used as a
> "do-list" or a post-do "check" list.
>
> I can tell you if i had to pull the damn book of cards out every time i
> changed phase in flight, and used it as a do-list, it would be
> incredibly unnatural, and probably detract from safety.
>
> Anyways, just trying to get more specifics and separate checklist
> reality from checklist religion.
>
> TRUE story. A local flight instructor had a letter to editor published
> in a major av magazine admonishing everyone from students to ATP's on
> the need for "thorough checklist usage" just about everywhere. I think
> he had the required anecdote on the guy who took off with the control
> lock, pitot cover, or one such thing. Many words were dispensed in the
> letter.
>
> I've flown with him and he never pulled the g'darn checklist out or even
> hinted I might want to. Sigh...
> T

I believe my answer was specific enough. It is not my desire to change
your opinion about how you use checklists, nor do I wish to argue the
use of checklists on a micro level.
If your aircraft HAS a checklist in my opinion you should USE IT!
For operations with your aircraft where a checklist isn't "officially"
suggested in the POH such as a pre-flight, use common sense.
I'm sitting here looking at the POH for a 1966 Cessna 172. Section 1
includes checklists for all phases of operation in this aircraft.

Do I insist that you go through each item on these checklists and
check it off as you're flying the airplane; NO! As a check pilot, I'm
expecting you to demonstrate a complete knowledge of these items and
to be using the information on these pages in a way that shows proper
planning and execution.
The exact method you use to demonstrate this is entirely up to you as
an applicant.

There will be portions of the flight where I'll expect to see you use
a checklist such as runup and portions of the flight such as the
establishment of a Vy climb attitude for example where I'll expect you
to perform that task with a smooth and thorough flow pattern rather
than staring at a checklist. If this means you are using an
abbreviated checklist or a mnemonic that's up to you. Just don't miss
anything!
Personally, I prefer seeing a flow pattern in a pilot that includes a
verbal touch and affirmation BASED on the operation checklists when
checklists are used.
On most light airplanes, the in-flight checklists can be done using a
Mnemonic which is perfectly acceptable. Demonstrate a flow pattern,
touch it, identify it, use it. The item will be on the checklist but
performed as part of your mnemonic checklist.
Perfectly acceptable!
-DH

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

And other instructors will vary.

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

On Apr 16, 11:09*pm, "Tim" <#__#@__.-> wrote:
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
>
> ...
> On Apr 16, 9:51 pm, Tman > wrote:
>
>
>
> > Dudley Henriques wrote:
> > > I both use and teach the use of checklists for any and all procedures
> > > so recommended by the manufacturer.
> > > I also use and teach mnemonics as a supplement to checklists.
>
> > > The trick with checklists is not to get bogged down in minutia to the
> > > point where you are checking every nut and bolt. A lot depends on the
> > > equipment being flown.
>
> > OK, I want to get specific.
> > I pulled my C172 POH. It has "checklist procedures" , but nowhere does
> > it say to use it as a checklist. Anyways, the checklist procedures
> > cover Preflight, Pre-Start, Start, Pre-Takeoff, Takeoff, Climb, Cruise,
> > Pre-Landing, Landing, After-Landing, Securing Airplane.
>
> > From my sample of experience I have never seen a pilot use a checklist
> > on all or even half of these procedures. Is that what you (or anyone
> > else that opines an honest answer) looks for on a checkride?
>
> > And when you use a checklist -- are you looking for it to be used as a
> > "do-list" or a post-do "check" list.
>
> > I can tell you if i had to pull the damn book of cards out every time i
> > changed phase in flight, and used it as a do-list, it would be
> > incredibly unnatural, and probably detract from safety.
>
> > Anyways, just trying to get more specifics and separate checklist
> > reality from checklist religion.
>
> > TRUE story. A local flight instructor had a letter to editor published
> > in a major av magazine admonishing everyone from students to ATP's on
> > the need for "thorough checklist usage" just about everywhere. I think
> > he had the required anecdote on the guy who took off with the control
> > lock, pitot cover, or one such thing. Many words were dispensed in the
> > letter.
>
> > I've flown with him and he never pulled the g'darn checklist out or even
> > hinted I might want to. Sigh...
> > T
>
> I believe my answer was specific enough. It is not my desire to change
> your opinion about how you use checklists, nor do I wish to argue the
> use of checklists on a micro level.
> If your aircraft HAS a checklist in my opinion you should USE IT!
> For operations with your aircraft where a checklist isn't "officially"
> suggested in the POH such as a pre-flight, use common sense.
> I'm sitting here looking at the POH for a 1966 Cessna 172. Section 1
> includes checklists for all phases of operation in this aircraft.
>
> Do I insist that you go through each item on these checklists and
> check it off as you're flying the airplane; NO! As a check pilot, I'm
> expecting you to demonstrate a complete knowledge of these items and
> to be using the information on these pages in a way that shows proper
> planning and execution.
> The exact method you use to demonstrate this is entirely up to you as
> an applicant.
>
> There will be portions of the flight where I'll expect to see you use
> a checklist such as runup and portions of the flight such as the
> establishment of a Vy climb attitude for example where I'll expect you
> to perform that task with a smooth and thorough flow pattern rather
> than staring at a checklist. If this means you are using an
> abbreviated checklist or a mnemonic that's up to you. Just don't miss
> anything!
> Personally, I prefer seeing a flow pattern in a pilot that includes a
> verbal touch and affirmation BASED on the operation checklists when
> checklists are used.
> On most light airplanes, the in-flight checklists can be done using a
> Mnemonic which is perfectly acceptable. Demonstrate a flow pattern,
> touch it, identify it, use it. The item will be on the checklist but
> performed as part of your mnemonic checklist.
> Perfectly acceptable!
> -DH
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> And other instructors will vary.

That is correct.
-DH

[Robert M. Gary]

On Apr 15, 7:45*am, wrote:
> Dallas > wrote:
> > On Tue, 14 Apr 2009 19:30:00 GMT, wrote:
>
> >> It isn't a "test" as there is no failing
>
> > Not getting the sign off means you failed.
>
> If you don't get a sign off it means you are totally incompetant as a
> pilot.

That's not true. I've failed to sign off applicants before who just
needed another hour or so of dual. Even current pilots may have
problems with crosswind landings, etc. The FAA has, so far, provided
very little guidence on what must be included in a BFR. Compare that
to the IPC which is laid out in very specific detail in the IR PTS.
Its up to the instructor when it comes to the BFR. Sadly, the last BFR
I did was for a guy with thousands of hours, very current, but nearing
80. I don't think he understood how much of his piloting skills he'd
lost with age, even though he was flying regularly. I was not able to
sign him off after another 2 hours of dual so I had him fly with
another instructor. That instructor came to the same conclusion. Its
sad, I hope he eventually gets his BFR but right now he can't even
remember to tune the radio before calling tower and would have busted
airspace several times during our ride had I not tuned the radio for
him.

-Robert, CFII

[Dylan Smith]

On 2009-04-14, Dallas > wrote:
>
> What's the bi-annual flight review all about?
>
> I haven't been through one yet.. how tough are they? Is this like a
> mini-practical test with stalls, engine outs and a tough verbal exam etc..

It can be whatever you and the instructor want to make of it.

If I have to do a BFR (I did one in March) if possible I want to do
something new, and things I've not done in a while. For example, in my
last one, I did it in a rather nice late model A36 Bonanza with a flight
director and a rather good autopilot, complete with things like altitude
preselect (about the only thing it seemed to lack was autothrottle!) My
own aircraft is an ancient VFR day only type, so I have little
opportunity to learn about this stuff for real. Also, the Bonanza is
just a touch faster than what I usually fly, so I could use the BFR to
see if I could still think at "170 knots" rather than the 90 knots I was
more used to.

Aside from finding out how the flight director works in the real world,
we also did some typical airwork type exercises.

--
From the sunny Isle of Man.
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.

[Ross]

Dylan Smith wrote:
> On 2009-04-14, Dallas > wrote:
>> What's the bi-annual flight review all about?
>>
>> I haven't been through one yet.. how tough are they? Is this like a
>> mini-practical test with stalls, engine outs and a tough verbal exam etc..
>
> It can be whatever you and the instructor want to make of it.
>
> If I have to do a BFR (I did one in March) if possible I want to do
> something new, and things I've not done in a while. For example, in my
> last one, I did it in a rather nice late model A36 Bonanza with a flight
> director and a rather good autopilot, complete with things like altitude
> preselect (about the only thing it seemed to lack was autothrottle!) My
> own aircraft is an ancient VFR day only type, so I have little
> opportunity to learn about this stuff for real. Also, the Bonanza is
> just a touch faster than what I usually fly, so I could use the BFR to
> see if I could still think at "170 knots" rather than the 90 knots I was
> more used to.
>
> Aside from finding out how the flight director works in the real world,
> we also did some typical airwork type exercises.
>

What was the cost of the A36 if I may ask and what did you usually fly
at 90kts?

--

Regards, Ross
C-172F 180HP
Sold :(
KSWI

[vaughn]

"Dylan Smith" > wrote in message
...
> On 2009-04-14, Dallas > wrote:
>>
>> What's the bi-annual flight review all about?

> It can be whatever you and the instructor want to make of it.

That is the best answer so far!

As the customer, I usually come to a flight review with a few ideas of my
own. If they take some extra time to accomplish, so be it. I have never
had a CFI refuse me. As a strictly VFR pilot, one thing I always insist on
is some hood time. Typically, it has been 2 years since the last time I got
the chance.

Vaughn

[Stealth Pilot[_2_]]

On Tue, 14 Apr 2009 13:55:04 -0500, Dallas
> wrote:

>
>What's the bi-annual flight review all about?
>
>I haven't been through one yet.. how tough are they? Is this like a
>mini-practical test with stalls, engine outs and a tough verbal exam etc..
>or is it more like an informal "Can he still fly an airplane and still
>understands the basics?"

fly a single seat aircraft for your last 10 hours :-)

[Dylan Smith]

On 2009-04-30, Ross > wrote:
> What was the cost of the A36 if I may ask and what did you usually fly
> at 90kts?

Since it belonged to the instructor's brother-in-law, fortunately only
the cost of the fuel! (It burns 13.8 gph in cruise, at 170 knots. It has
GAMIjectors too which allows LOP operation. A fantastic plane...if only
I could afford one :-))

My usual mount is an Auster Autocrat built in late 1945. (It looks very
similar to the Taylorcraft BC-12, except it has flaps and the windows
are different - that's because the Austers from that period are British
built Taylorcrafts! However, instead of the Continental A-65 that you'd
expect to find in a BC-12, it has a 160 hp Lycoming O-320 which makes it
climb *rather better* and turns it into a really good aircraft for short
airfields and towing gliders. But not cruise an awful lot faster without
turning a lot of avgas into noise).

--
From the sunny Isle of Man.
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.

[Allen[_1_]]

"Dylan Smith" > wrote in message
...
> On 2009-04-30, Ross > wrote:
>> What was the cost of the A36 if I may ask and what did you usually fly
>> at 90kts?
>
> Since it belonged to the instructor's brother-in-law, fortunately only
> the cost of the fuel! (It burns 13.8 gph in cruise, at 170 knots. It has
> GAMIjectors too which allows LOP operation. A fantastic plane...if only
> I could afford one :-))
>

GAMI injectors do not "allow" you to run LOP, they facilitate it. If the
airplane did not have a TCM IO-550-B engine then you are operating it
against the manufacturers specifications.

Allen

[Ross]

Dylan Smith wrote:
> On 2009-04-30, Ross > wrote:
>> What was the cost of the A36 if I may ask and what did you usually fly
>> at 90kts?
>
> Since it belonged to the instructor's brother-in-law, fortunately only
> the cost of the fuel! (It burns 13.8 gph in cruise, at 170 knots. It has
> GAMIjectors too which allows LOP operation. A fantastic plane...if only
> I could afford one :-))
>
> My usual mount is an Auster Autocrat built in late 1945. (It looks very
> similar to the Taylorcraft BC-12, except it has flaps and the windows
> are different - that's because the Austers from that period are British
> built Taylorcrafts! However, instead of the Continental A-65 that you'd
> expect to find in a BC-12, it has a 160 hp Lycoming O-320 which makes it
> climb *rather better* and turns it into a really good aircraft for short
> airfields and towing gliders. But not cruise an awful lot faster without
> turning a lot of avgas into noise).
>

Thanks for responding to a personal question. I have two friends that
have A36s and with GAMIjectors. Really nice aircraft. I had a 65 Skyhawk
with a 180 hp engine upgrade and C/S prop. It really was a nice aircraft
and would it climb. But more horse power does not translate into more
speed, completely.

--

Regards, Ross
C-172F 180HP
Sold :(
KSWI

[Mike Ash]

In article >,
Dallas > wrote:

> What's the bi-annual flight review all about?
>
> I haven't been through one yet.. how tough are they? Is this like a
> mini-practical test with stalls, engine outs and a tough verbal exam etc..
> or is it more like an informal "Can he still fly an airplane and still
> understands the basics?"

I just had my first one about two weeks ago and figured I'd chime in.
Mine was a glider BFR, of course, so not quite the same. But perhaps
it'll still be useful to some.

We did the flight portion first. First flight was 15 minutes long. I
expected a forced takeoff abort which never came. We then boxed the wake
(a maneuver done on tow to demonstrate control and precision in that
phase of flight) and various other easy maneuvers. I tried to thermal
but it was too early in the day, so we were back down pretty soon.

Next flight was a bit later, and we decided to try to stretch it to
cover the full hour. (Glider BFR is one hour of flight time *or* 3
flights, to make it reasonable on days where you can't stay up.) This
time the thermals were working, and we stayed up for an hour before
deciding to bring it back home for others to use. The instructor had me
do lots of good thermalling exercises, like flying at various levels of
bank, approaching a stall in the thermal, adjusting my circle, etc. For
other flight maneuvers, we did stalls, spin entries (silly trainer won't
actually spin, but what can you do), lazy eights, and finished up with a
covered altimeter landing.

(That last part was fun. I've carefully cultivated my no-altimeter
landing skills over the past couple of years. He offered to tell me what
our altitude was verbally at any time. I never did ask outright, but I
did confirm a couple of times. "We're at about 1900ft, right?"
"1950...." Always within 50 feet. I was pleased.)

The ground portion was interesting. We went over various airspace rules,
like cloud clearances in the various classes of airspace, what you need
to go there, etc. Not particularly useful in a glider but that also
means it's easily forgotten, and that is one of the mandatory subjects.
We also went over things like currency requirements, equipment
requirements, and various other things along those lines. The
environment was friendly and educational. The instructor asked
questions, but it was not like an exam. If I stumbled or didn't know, he
simply explained it.

He also had me pick up a book called "Safer Soaring", and gave me some
other documents to read as well, which was all very interesting and
useful.

All in all, it was a good experience. Nothing to be afraid of, unless
your skills or knowledge are poor and you have no desire to improve
them. I would rather have been flying my own plane and having fun, given
the choice, but that's true of virtually every other activity I do as
well. :)

--
Mike Ash
Radio Free Earth
Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon