Primary training in a Hi Perf complex acft

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

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

In article . com,
"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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.
|