Primary training in a Hi Perf complex acft

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.

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.

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

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

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

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

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

What are the complicated parts?

If you have to ask you're not qualified

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.

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.

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.