Primary training in a Hi Perf complex acft

Eeyore wrote:


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


Why not?

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

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

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.

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 ).

TheSmokingGnu

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 ).

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.

Mxsmanic wrote:

Eeyore writes:

Absolutely not.

I know that change is sometimes unpleasant.

You're an idiot.

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.

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

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