Bad Pilot Habits

[HPNPilot1200]

Yeh, it doesn't bother me as much during the day as it does as night. A beacon is not a necessity. My RV has no beacon, only nav and strobe lights. I don't run the strobes in the day time, on the ground, as I don't see the point.

I agree. Personally I don't turn the strobes on during the day in the Mooney until taking the runway. My employer happens to have a different view on that issue in the Cirrus.

 

[BellyUpFish]

I agree. Personally I don't turn the strobes on during the day in the Mooney until taking the runway. My employer happens to have a different view on that issue in the Cirrus.

Yeh, if it's the bosses plane, that's another story.

 

[bob_albertson]

I recently heard about a post-flight inspection. No idea what it is and why I would do one (as a renter).
I have the tendency to land left of center
I have the habit of reducing power before allowing the aircraft speed to stabilize in cruise
In a level>climb I add power before changing pitch
I do not like to climb with the pitch attitude above where the horizon meets the top of the nosebowl

That's all I have for now.

We do those at my airline. We preflight the plane when taking over from another crew, then a post flight walk-around (inspection) after each flight. Purpose is to find any possible changes to the aircraft --- boot patches peeling, excessive PGB oil use, change in tire status, ect...

I have seen a lot of bad ideas for GA pilots that have come from the airline world.

.... Pulling hand off of throttle when you rotate (Taken from removing hand from throttle levers at V1)

..... trying to use a flow for everything and never using a check list (just poor technique from using flows which usually have important items in the flow backed up by items on a checklist in the airlines)

There are others, but I'm tired LOL.... any rate, there are some things that someone saw a long the lines and thought, hey that'd be a good idea to do on our Cessna too..... Not really because it is a different kind of plane that doesn't need to be flown as a two person crew when one person is on board.

Bad techniques that I have seen?

On GA planes with Automation..... Over reliance on the A/P, Disengaging the autopilot too late during approaches, using the autopilot as a scapegoat for poor proficiency --- all bad techniques with those

One of the one's I hear a lot in the pattern is a general poor radio useage. Not enough coordination, and I think that is poor technique when dealing with busy uncontrolled airports. You'll never hear me complain about someone not using 100% correct terms and verbiage on the radio -- as long as the message is clear, I could care less whether someone was curious if there was any traffic in some area or whatnot

 

[bob_albertson]

Yeh, if it's the bosses plane, that's another story.

I hate when someone gets TIPH and then turns on the strobes while they are holding there.... The guys holding short REALLY appreciate that one

 

[BellyUpFish]

I hate when someone gets TIPH and then turns on the strobes while they are holding there.... The guys holding short REALLY appreciate that one

Yeh, especially when it's a EMB-170 or 190.. Those jokers are briiiiiiight..

 

[Everskyward]

I have seen a lot of bad ideas for GA pilots that have come from the airline world.

.... Pulling hand off of throttle when you rotate (Taken from removing hand from throttle levers at V1)

I don't think this comes from mimicking the airline world. I'd be surprised if that many piston airplane pilots know that you're supposed to take your hand away at V1. I certainly didn't.

 

[Ted]

The idea during the takeoff roll is that you are spring loaded for an abort if needed..your accelerate-stop distance will be fouled by the time it takes you to grab the throttle. I get what your saying though but I usually wait till at least 1000 AGL before I relax a little

If Clark's engine is like other TSIO-360s I've seen, it's got the "fixed wastegate" where full throttle will actually mean an overboost. As such, you have to set your takeoff manifold pressure on the takeoff roll, and keeping your hands on the throttles will probably leave your more likely to overboost.

It's kinda like an Aztec or Navajo vs. pretty much any other aircraft with retractable gear. Most retracts you want to keep your hand on the gear lever as a reminder to make sure the gear went up or down. On the Aztec and Navajo, if you do that, the handle will try to snap back on your hand.

 

[Clark1961]

If Clark's engine is like other TSIO-360s I've seen, it's got the "fixed wastegate" where full throttle will actually mean an overboost. As such, you have to set your takeoff manifold pressure on the takeoff roll, and keeping your hands on the throttles will probably leave your more likely to overboost.

Yup, you got it. Even though the Frankenkota has a Merlyn I'm always concerned with overboost. In reality the Merlyn isn't much better than a fixed 'gate when setting takeoff power. It seems to help only when reducing power below atmospheric pressure.

Long story made short, if yer looking at a short runway there may be a tendency to keep pushing the throttle and that would be a bad thing with a TSIO-360-KB. The pop-off is supposed to open at 42" but I've seen 43" on the gauge...

 

[brcase]

I recently heard about a post-flight inspection. No idea what it is and why I would do one (as a renter).
<snip>QUOTE]

They really aren't done nearlly enough.

The best reason to do one as a renter is so that then next morning when the FBO calls you and asks How the nick got in the prop you have an answer for them other than "I don't know, it wasn't there when I preflighted it" Instead you can say "I don't know but it wasn't there when I post flighted the aircraft" or if is there when you post flight you can tell them about instead of them asking you about it.

Brian
CFIIG/ASEL

 

[ChrisS]

I hate it when Cirrus pilots try and land on runway 13 (that is notamed closed and has 'X's, workmen and vehicles all over it!) without making a single call on the CTAF, going around on final at less than 100ft due to the workmen screaming at him on said CTAF, while I am taking off on runway 01 (which crosses 13) and narrowly passing behind me by 100ft as I rotate.

I just hate it when that happens.

 

[HPNPilot1200]

The pop-off is supposed to open at 42" but I've seen 43" on the gauge...

Ouch. I am very cognizant of the over boost potential on takeoff in the Mooney (TSIO-360-LB). I have seen it on the gauge as high as 41" but was not a happy camper.

I find my hand on the throttle allows me to fine tune takeoff power on the roll. I normally set it, adjust, and then tighten the throttle friction screw.

 

[silver-eagle]

Preflight complete, pax loaded, seat belt latched and adjusted, ready for engine start - D'OH! Keys still in the pocket!

Something I do at Young Eagles flyins ALL the damned time. And usually the back pocket.

 

[Everskyward]

I find my hand on the throttle allows me to fine tune takeoff power on the roll. I normally set it, adjust, and then tighten the throttle friction screw.

That's how I did it in the 206 and 210 which you could also overboost, but Clark has a Dakota where the throttle is not a knob like in a Cessna. I'm not sure where the friction control is.

 

[bob_albertson]

I don't think this comes from mimicking the airline world. I'd be surprised if that many piston airplane pilots know that you're supposed to take your hand away at V1. I certainly didn't.

One thing that I noticed at the flight school that I taught at was that things were handed down and taught a certain way because of that. Not many may know that it started in the airline world, but I think the explanation was never passed on because in the GA world it isn't a good reason to remove your hand from the throttle.... IOW, it was passed on from someone who was either an airline pilot or heard about it from one and they passed it on to their students who became instructors and then that started the cycle that began a long time ago .... Just my idea on how that came about, but I haven't been around long enough to know if that is 100% accurate or not.

I don't know about all airlines, but at mine when we reach V1 I remove my hand from the throttle because anything except for two things when we are at our main domicile we are going to take airborne and treat it as an inflight emergency -- we brief it that way too. Those two things that we do high speed aborts for are engine fire/or certain engine failures (though about the only engine failure we'd abort for would be one where structural damage occurs). At our outstations we would most likely have to take even those two conditions airborne because of the significantly shorter runways....

Bob

 

[Everskyward]

One thing that I noticed at the flight school that I taught at was that things were handed down and taught a certain way because of that. Not many may know that it started in the airline world, but I think the explanation was never passed on because in the GA world it isn't a good reason to remove your hand from the throttle.... IOW, it was passed on from someone who was either an airline pilot or heard about it from one and they passed it on to their students who became instructors and then that started the cycle that began a long time ago .... Just my idea on how that came about, but I haven't been around long enough to know if that is 100% accurate or not.

I don't know about all airlines, but at mine when we reach V1 I remove my hand from the throttle because anything except for two things when we are at our main domicile we are going to take airborne and treat it as an inflight emergency -- we brief it that way too. Those two things that we do high speed aborts for are engine fire/or certain engine failures (though about the only engine failure we'd abort for would be one where structural damage occurs). At our outstations we would most likely have to take even those two conditions airborne because of the significantly shorter runways....

I had no exposure to airline pilot opinions or techniques when I was learning to fly but as you can see from your explanation, that logic doesn't work well with a single or a light twin. It seems like anyone could figure that out. In any case, it's not just an airline thing. I'm pretty sure it's standard technique to take your hand off the throttle at V1 in any airplane that has a V1. I know we do.

 

[bob_albertson]

I had no exposure to airline pilot opinions or techniques when I was learning to fly but as you can see from your explanation, that logic doesn't work well with a single or a light twin. It seems like anyone could figure that out. In any case, it's not just an airline thing. I'm pretty sure it's standard technique to take your hand off the throttle at V1 in any airplane that has a V1. I know we do.

I haven't flown a wide enough variety of airlines to be able to say it's standard procedure with a lot of confidence. It seems like there is always an exception to the rule, so I tend to venture away from words like always, all, and most just because of that.

It doesn't make much logical sense in a GA plane, but as a former instructor I can say I saw a lot of things that pilots did that didn't make much logical sense . Still, I think the technique was passed down from a long time ago (airline or otherwise).... and like a lot of things done a certain way for a long time the origin is long lost.... Like rail road tracks being the width they are because that is how wide Roman paths were since that was also the standard width for the Roman carts. That to say.... why it started in GA I don't think anyone really knows for sure, but I don't know of anyone else who has a reason to pull their hand off the throttle at V1 other then the airlines from back in the day -- thinking tri-motor kind of days. Unless some of the older GA planes were so heavy on the controls that pilots had to remove their hand to assist in rotating? Not really sure, and I don't think anyone really is, anymore

 

[Everskyward]

I don't know of anyone else who has a reason to pull their hand off the throttle at V1 other then the airlines from back in the day -- thinking tri-motor kind of days. Unless some of the older GA planes were so heavy on the controls that pilots had to remove their hand to assist in rotating? Not really sure, and I don't think anyone really is, anymore

Your definition of GA must be different than mine. There are plenty of non-airline GA airplanes which are transport category jets with a V1.

 

[LDJones]

That's how I did it in the 206 and 210 which you could also overboost, but Clark has a Dakota where the throttle is not a knob like in a Cessna. I'm not sure where the friction control is.

It's a lever on the right side of the throttle quadrant.

 

[Sac Arrow]

If Clark's engine is like other TSIO-360s I've seen, it's got the "fixed wastegate" where full throttle will actually mean an overboost. As such, you have to set your takeoff manifold pressure on the takeoff roll, and keeping your hands on the throttles will probably leave your more likely to overboost.

It's kinda like an Aztec or Navajo vs. pretty much any other aircraft with retractable gear. Most retracts you want to keep your hand on the gear lever as a reminder to make sure the gear went up or down. On the Aztec and Navajo, if you do that, the handle will try to snap back on your hand.

Yes - the takeoff roll is one eye on the MP gauge keeping it under 38 inches, and the other eye on everything else. The lever itself moves maybe a quarter of it's travel, and doesn't reach full travel until somewhere past 12,000 feet.

 

[bob_albertson]

Your definition of GA must be different than mine. There are plenty of non-airline GA airplanes which are transport category jets with a V1.

Your still thinking in terms of today. What you quoted was what I was saying about the origin of the technique. There were no transport category jets back in the 1920s, and there sure wasn't any such thing as corporate aviation back then. It was either an airline or a privately owned plane.

 

[Everskyward]

Your still thinking in terms of today. What you quoted was what I was saying about the origin of the technique. There were no transport category jets back in the 1920s, and there sure wasn't any such thing as corporate aviation back then. It was either an airline or a privately owned plane.

Do you think they knew what V1 was in the 1920s?

 

[BellyUpFish]

Do you think they knew what V1 was in the 1920s?

Don't think the V1's came about until the mid-40's..

 

[bob_albertson]

Do you think they knew what V1 was in the 1920s?

From what I've read about the bigger planes like the tri motor, they didn't call it V1, but they knew there was an airspeed beyond which they were going into the trees if anything happened. I mean, the AI we use today was invented in the late 20s . The book I read about the "ole" days said they would pull their hands off the throttles above that speed because they were going to fly the plane into the trees if they had to. It was something like 30-40kts for the first Boeing . The air mail days taught us a lot, and V1 sure seemed to come from what those guys learned.

Bob

 

[Everskyward]

From what I've read about the bigger planes like the tri motor, they didn't call it V1, but they knew there was an airspeed beyond which they were going into the trees if anything happened. I mean, the AI we use today was invented in the late 20s . The book I read about the "ole" days said they would pull their hands off the throttles above that speed because they were going to fly the plane into the trees if they had to. It was something like 30-40kts for the first Boeing . The air mail days taught us a lot, and V1 sure seemed to come from what those guys learned.

They certainly had a different definition of V1.

If you are going to go into the trees anyway it would seem to be a better idea to do it while decelerating not accelerating.

 

[bob_albertson]

They certainly had a different definition of V1.

If you are going to go into the trees anyway it would seem to be a better idea to do it while decelerating not accelerating.

They were decelerating back then . Full power on the other engine (or two in the case of the Ford) was lacking so much - the old engines were so underpowered that the book described it as flying it into the trees to cushion the impact using what minimal pitch control they had left to soften up the impact.

Lots of survivors from back in those days. The speeds were even lower than Cessna speeds

 

[Everskyward]

They were decelerating back then . Full power on the other engine (or two in the case of the Ford) was lacking so much - the old engines were so underpowered that the book described it as flying it into the trees to cushion the impact using what minimal pitch control they had left to soften up the impact.

I would have thought that running off the end of the runway would have been better than becoming airborne and crashing into trees but I have never flown a Ford Trimotor, only gone for a ride.

 

[dell30rb]

From what I've read about the bigger planes like the tri motor, they didn't call it V1, but they knew there was an airspeed beyond which they were going into the trees if anything happened. I mean, the AI we use today was invented in the late 20s . The book I read about the "ole" days said they would pull their hands off the throttles above that speed because they were going to fly the plane into the trees if they had to. It was something like 30-40kts for the first Boeing . The air mail days taught us a lot, and V1 sure seemed to come from what those guys learned.

Bob

I was in a WWII museum today and they had the panel from a german fighter.. It had a 6pack!

 

[ajstoner21]

Has anyone ever flat out refused to work with someone (as an instructor) or wouldn't fly with someone because of habits they admitted to?

This guy i'm talking about would say things like "Cessna bla bla, departing the active, any traffic please advise" and thats a direct quote.

I provided references on why that phrase is horribly wrong and he wont acknowledge it.

An example I told him as to why that could be dangerous is that, if he's at a non-towered airport with completely calm winds, with no single direction pointed out for use, that "departing the active" doesnt say sh**. I told him, what if a pilot was on final for runway 9, and he is taking off on runway 27 and says that, and the pilot on (long?) final hears that and says "oh ok good to know (to himself lol)", and then they collide head on.

Regardless of whether or not radio use is legally required at a non-towered stuff, i told him if he didn't stop saying those two phrases, I would refuse to work with him as an instructor (he ain't gettin my signature in his log!), and that I would never fly with him.

Is that a bit extreme?

 

[BellyUpFish]

Is that a bit extreme?

Yep.

I've only refused to fly with a handful of people. One of them asked me to pencil whip his logbook to more time than we had flown. Others, I just flat out didn't care to be anywhere near.

In your example, sometimes the gene pool thins itself out. If I'm on final to 9 and some guy calls out "departing the active" I'll ask him what runway he's leaving, I won't continue to plod along hoping for the best.

I sat and watched 2 different airplanes line up at each end of 11/29. One said he was taking 29. The other just took 11 and never said a word.

I sat there in complete "Is this really happening?" When I heard "N12345, rolling 29.." when I saw the plane at 11 add power and start rolling..

I keyed up and something, I don't have any idea what. The guy on 29 called stopping and clearing, the guy using 11 never flinched and kept rolling.. Musta been NORDO.

 

[Tom-D]

Regardless of whether or not radio use is legally required at a non-towered stuff, i told him if he didn't stop saying those two phrases, I would refuse to work with him as an instructor (he ain't gettin my signature in his log!), and that I would never fly with him.

Is that a bit extreme?

One must remember that if he is taking off and there are no other aircraft taking off, the runway he is using is the active, no matter where the wind or any one else is.

that doesn't say you need to use that runway either.

I fly a conventional gear aircraft that was never designed to fly a cross wind approach to landings, it does not like to do it, and I don't either, so, when I have a choice I'll take the runway closest to the wind, It does not matter to me what run way you are calling the active.

I have on occasion told a tower that winds favor XX rather than YY, and asked the tower to clear me to land XX. and have never been refused.

 

[ajstoner21]

One must remember that if he is taking off and there are no other aircraft taking off, the runway he is using is the active, no matter where the wind or any one else is.

that doesn't say you need to use that runway either.

I fly a conventional gear aircraft that was never designed to fly a cross wind approach to landings, it does not like to do it, and I don't either, so, when I have a choice I'll take the runway closest to the wind, It does not matter to me what run way you are calling the active.

I have on occasion told a tower that winds favor XX rather than YY, and asked the tower to clear me to land XX. and have never been refused.

The problem is, any runway used for take off or landing is an active runway. ALL runways at an airport could be considered active at the same time, so "departing the active" REALLY doesnt say a thing and could really lead to ALOT of confusion if no one is paying attention to what they are doing.

Pilot Controller Glossary:
Active Runway: Any runway or runways currently being used for takeoff or landing. When multiple runways are used, they are all considered active runways.


Also, if there is only one slab of pavement, every airport as a minimum of two runways. One direction and the 180 degree around direction.

 

[Ted]

Ouch. I am very cognizant of the over boost potential on takeoff in the Mooney (TSIO-360-LB). I have seen it on the gauge as high as 41" but was not a happy camper.

Unlike the turbo planes I fly, where if I don't see at least 42", I'm not a happy camper.

It doesn't make much logical sense in a GA plane, but as a former instructor I can say I saw a lot of things that pilots did that didn't make much logical sense . Still, I think the technique was passed down from a long time ago (airline or otherwise).... and like a lot of things done a certain way for a long time the origin is long lost.... Like rail road tracks being the width they are because that is how wide Roman paths were since that was also the standard width for the Roman carts. That to say.... why it started in GA I don't think anyone really knows for sure, but I don't know of anyone else who has a reason to pull their hand off the throttle at V1 other then the airlines from back in the day -- thinking tri-motor kind of days. Unless some of the older GA planes were so heavy on the controls that pilots had to remove their hand to assist in rotating? Not really sure, and I don't think anyone really is, anymore

I fly twins in a similar manner. When the gear comes up, that's the decision point to go vs. stop. Until the gear comes up, hand's on the throttles. Gear comes up, hand moves over to props. Feather the dead one in the event of a failure (identified through engine monitor, fuel flow, and ball).