Changes Since Your Initial Training (Get Off My Lawn edition)

schmookeeg said:
You true crudgeons need to give us a point of reference with these absurdly cheap wet rate quotes. :D How much was a conestoga wagon, shirt of chain mail, or ampule of Doc Harlan's Chilblain Serum then?

$400 in 1965 is almost 4 grand. I'd like to think a determined person could find a way to get PPL on 4 grand. A flying club maybe?
Click to expand...
I dunno. I feel like I got mine pretty reasonably for $6K all-in back in 2008 with 41 hours total time. Basically $4.5K for aircraft, $1K for instructor, and $0.5K worth of pilot gear. The C172R was around $110/hr wet, CFI was $30-$35.
 
Last edited:
I got my Private certificate for a little over $900 in 1974, getting the last of the 35 hours required (Part 141) on my solo flight to the airport where I took my check ride. A few years later got "checked out" in a Cub in about an hour and a half and was able to rent it solo immediately (fully insured) for $13/hour wet and with no restrictions on taking passengers. It was money well spent, because I've been flying regularly ever since then.
 
schmookeeg said:
You true crudgeons need to give us a point of reference with these absurdly cheap wet rate quotes. :D How much was a conestoga wagon, shirt of chain mail, or ampule of Doc Harlan's Chilblain Serum then?

$400 in 1965 is almost 4 grand. I'd like to think a determined person could find a way to get PPL on 4 grand. A flying club maybe?
Click to expand...
In 1979 I was paying $30 per hour wet for a Grumman Tiger AA-5B. Instructor was $9 per hour.

For reference, a 2LT in the USAF with flight pay made about $12,000 per year.

$30 is equal to $123 today.

Gas was 86 cents per gallon. A gallon of milk was $1.62. A dozen eggs was 85 cents. A first class letter was 15 cents to mail.
 
I learned to fly in the 21st century, but in distinctly 20th century aircraft, a Cub being first. Carb heat downwind, and power to idle when at the numbers? Yes, because that's the correct technique for that aircraft, no matter what century you fly it in. If you're high, you slip. Switch to a PA-28, 1600 at the numbers, flaps 10, turn at 45 degrees, adjusting power and flaps to maintain descent and airspeed.

I don't understand the B-52 pattern thing, either, but we've kinda beaten that horse to death. My take is that if you can't adjust your technique to fit your aircraft and airport, then maybe you shouldn't be up front. I've actually seen some instructors taking it to the extreme on crosswind, too, where someone was miles out and at pattern altitude before turning at all. The guy I was flying with didn't see them and thought they'd left the airspace, I suggested maybe not, this guy flies wide, and sure enough, he's in the next state over and coming around.

So...if you have to compensate for Coriolis effect or adjust for magnetic declination on your final, you may be flying too big a pattern.
 
Albany Tom said:
So...if you have to compensate for Coriolis effect or adjust for magnetic declination on your final, you may be flying too big a pattern.
Click to expand...
Is that what they’re talking about when they point at a big pilot watch and say, “he’s compensating for something”?
 
There is no way I could have afforded to get my Private Pilot Certificate if it had cost more than the $5.00 wet for a C-150 and $5.00 for the CFI.

The Cardinal RG I flew for my Commercial was $15 dry. That hurt...

when I became a CFI, I felt terrible charging people $10 per hour for checkouts and BFRs. $12 for strangers.

In-person weather briefings were nice, too.
 
The obvious for guys from the early 70's? No headsets, no GPS'; some LORANS were around in GA, VOR was primary for navigation, some GA aircraft had RNAV based on "moving" VORs around. E6B during training. . .we did spin training, but that might have been a local thing with the USAF Aero CLub I was in. I remember being constantly advised to not descend on downwind. I do remember low speed/high AOA loss of control instruction back then as "push, power, rudder, roll". I don't hear that now. . .
 
This might not fall into the "get off my lawn" edition, because I think it's a real issue and not just me being crotchety, but the XC length for Private Pilots is so short now.

Back in my day (hah), it was 10 hours of solo XC time, with one of them being 3 legs and 300+ nm round trip. Now it's 5 hours, and the "long" XC is 150 nm total.

Since the whole purpose of an airplane is to get somewhere, I find the current requirements sorely lacking. Yes, they simultaneously beefed up the Commercial XC requirements, but IMO they should have left the Private requirements the same. That extra 5 hours and the longer requirements were, I think, a great skill and confidence builder. Now you can meet the requirement by just barely going outside of 50 nm from your home airport.
 
Other changes ...

-- Until 1976 or 1977, performance charts and airspeed indicators of nearly all new light airplanes were calibrated in miles per hour, with knots as a secondary scale, if displayed at all.

-- Fixes on IFR charts were not limited to names of five letters, were not necessarily unique, and weren't even limited to a single word. What is now TWINE (northwest of KVNY) was "TWIN LAKES" on my old charts.

-- ADFs were sometimes put to use even if no ballgame was on.

-- Marker beacons, especially airway marker beacons.

-- The old teletype weather symbols (I still use them in my shorthand):
teletype.jpg
-- Visual Emergency Signals (they were printed on the back of every sectional chart).
 
Brad Smith said:
Throwing your fuel from sumps on the ground. Big fine if you’re caught doing that now.
Click to expand...
Throw it up into the air instead.

It should never reach the ground. Problem solved.

Pilawt said:
-- Fixes on IFR charts were not limited to names of five letters, were not necessarily unique, and weren't even limited to a single word.
Click to expand...

My favorite was the holding fix off the Monterey, CA missed approach. It put you many miles offshore over the ocean. SHARK. It's SHOEY now. :confused:
 
I've often been surprised by how much things have changed just in the 20 years I've been flying..

wanttaja said:
Any other old f***s want to chime in?
Click to expand...
..while not an old f*** yet.. or necessarily, sure why not, here's what I've seen :)

wanttaja said:
1. Was taught to fly all patterns so I could make the runway if the engine quits. No longer a factor, apparently.
Click to expand...
-I was taught the same, as a CFI I teach the same as well. However our airport has a couple of the huge schools and I see them flying monster patterns. This makes it tough when I'm #2 following and the dude is on a 4 mile base.
-Why they do this?! I have no idea, it goes against what the PHAK and even the AIM suggest.. I think it's just sloppy flying by a lot of 250 hour CFIs who couldn't give a s*** and are desperate to hit their magical 1,500 hours

wanttaja said:
2. Power back to 2,000 when on downwind abeam the numbers, 1500 on base, idle on final. Nowadays they apparently have you play with the power through final.
Click to expand...
-I teach 2200 and either 1500 or 1700 depending on the plane for downwind and base
-for final I got debriefed by both my most recent DPE practical (commercial and CFI, passed both first try) as this was not considered "stable" to be at idle.. fine. I sort of agree, but also don't. But to that point, I teach a "stable" approach but one that is virtually at idle..

wanttaja said:
3. I was taught to turn crosswind at 500'. CFIs on my BFRs seem to want me to climb to 800' or even TPA before turning.
Click to expand...
-as was I.. however, I was recently corrected of this by our club's senior CFI group that the AIM 4-3-3 instructs turning crosswind 300' below TPA.. it's a nit pick, but that means at MYF I'm now turning crosswind at 1,100 instead of 900.. oddly enough I am often getting the "turn crosswind" from tower.. can't please everyone!

wanttaja said:
4. At uncontrolled fields, was taught to make radio calls on downwind and final. Now, they apparently want you to announce position on crosswind and base as well.
Click to expand...
-I was taught to announce 10 miles out, and then in all 'key phases', IE, upwind, crosswind, downwind, final. It's kind of a lot of talking but we have a few 'very' busy untowered fields here with a lot of student traffic, so the extra call outs are likely not a bad idea


**Something you didn't mention, that I am finding now, there's a much higher level of CYA and fear of litigation. While 'yes' a CFI is responsible for his student, err, learner, we can't control every possible reaction from a human. But this means, personally, that I think at least a few pilots are spending more time before solo, and before licensure, unnecessarily. There's a difference to "can this person safely and legally fly to the practice area and land in the pattern" vs "can this person execute every maneuver to at least PPL ACS standards" - but I digress on that front!
 
Tantalum said:
-for final I got debriefed by both my most recent DPE practical (commercial and CFI, passed both first try) as this was not considered "stable" to be at idle.. fine. I sort of agree, but also don't. But to that point, I teach a "stable" approach but one that is virtually at idle..
Click to expand...
Did he give you a definition for “stable”, and/or why idle isn’t ”stable?”
 
RussR said:
Back in my day (hah), it was 10 hours of solo XC time, with one of them being 3 legs and 300+ nm round trip.
Click to expand...

My memory since initial training has durn sure changed.

I looked in my logbook, sure enough that 10 hours of solo X/C time is there. I have no recollection of it.
 
Pilots didn’t announce their intention to violate regulations or brag about it afterwards. One pass and done.
 
MauleSkinner said:
Did he give you a definition for “stable”, and/or why idle isn’t ”stable?”
Click to expand...
he didn't like that I had a gentle slip. It was a more of a nit than a full item, as I passed, but, it stood out to me. Same DPE comm and CFI "don't be teaching your student's like that" was the exact words.. "stable" is generally up to the pilot's judgement to maintain a constant glidepath, etc. But I digress. Not about to argue with an examiner
 
Tantalum said:
he didn't like that I had a gentle slip. It was a more of a nit than a full item, as I passed, but, it stood out to me. Same DPE comm and CFI "don't be teaching your student's like that" was the exact words.. "stable" is generally up to the pilot's judgement to maintain a constant glidepath, etc. But I digress. Not about to argue with an examiner
Click to expand...
It’s not about arguing with the examiner…it’s about understanding What he’s trying to tell you. If what you’re teaching your students doesn’t match his definition and/or the definition in the AFH, you’re not arguing with the examiner, you’re telling him he’s wrong, you’re right, and you don’t give a rat’s ass what he thinks.

i suspect he’d rather have the argument.
 
Dana said:
In 1976, we had TCAs and Control Zones, not class B and class D. Runway at the middle of a C-150 wing strut on downwind, engine to idle abeam the numbers. Getting your logbook signed on cross countries. Getting an in person weather brief at a FSS. Our ground instructor taught us about A-N radio ranges as a curiosity, but there were still a few active in remote areas.
Click to expand...
I flew not even halfway across the country with my dad in 1976 and we somehow managed to land at every airport with FSS in person. As an impatient teen I was mystified how he always picked the place where we’d stand around for hours waiting for some new tidbit of info to argue with fss about, eventually allowing us to go to the next airport. I think Maryland to Minnesota took three days.
 
Back then a LOT of airports had an FSS.
 
wanttaja said:
Discussions on another thread highlighted to me some of the changes in flight training since I learned to fly in the early '70s.

1. Was taught to fly all patterns so I could make the runway if the engine quits. No longer a factor, apparently.

Ron Wanttaja
Click to expand...
I was taught this by some old guy. Made sense, until I did a deep dive into the accident statistics. What I found was that engine-out accidents were kinda rare, but stall/spin accidents seemed to happen on a regular basis. The best place to get a stall/spin accident in the Book of Steingar is base to final when you overshoot and use rudder to correct. I decided to fly larger patterns, especially when I had a faster airplane. CFIs hated it, but I liked it just fine. When I was flying that is, which is no more.
 
steingar said:
I was taught this by some old guy. Made sense, until I did a deep dive into the accident statistics. What I found was that engine-out accidents were kinda rare, but stall/spin accidents seemed to happen on a regular basis. The best place to get a stall/spin accident in the Book of Steingar is base to final when you overshoot and use rudder to correct. I decided to fly larger patterns, especially when I had a faster airplane. CFIs hated it, but I liked it just fine. When I was flying that is, which is no more.
Click to expand...
I looked at the "Where" for stall-spin accidents in the homebuilt world. The most common location was on the initial climb or the crosswind turn....
1695327422743.png
I suspect the same is true for production-type aircraft.

Ron Wanttaja
 
wanttaja said:
I looked at the "Where" for stall-spin accidents in the homebuilt world. The most common location was on the initial climb or the crosswind turn....
View attachment 120790
I suspect the same is true for production-type aircraft.

Ron Wanttaja
Click to expand...
Ron, I always like it when you show the Actual Facts that counter what "they say" or "common knowledge is"
 
wanttaja said:
I looked at the "Where" for stall-spin accidents in the homebuilt world. The most common location was on the initial climb or the crosswind turn....
View attachment 120790
I suspect the same is true for production-type aircraft.

Ron Wanttaja
Click to expand...
It would be interesting to find out what percentage of landing attempts result in go-around. It would probably make that 5% number really scary.
 
MauleSkinner said:
It would be interesting to find out what percentage of landing attempts result in go-around. It would probably make that 5% number really scary.
Click to expand...
Trouble is, the data just isn't there...if there's no accident, there's no record. "If they don't splat, Ron can't add"...:)

Ron "Not a poet and don't even know why" Wanttaja
 
wanttaja said:
Trouble is, the data just isn't there...if there's no accident, there's no record. "If they don't splat, Ron can't add"...:)

Ron "Not a poet and don't even know why" Wanttaja
Click to expand...
I know the info isn’t available, but I’d be willing to bet that less than 5% of GA landing attempts result in a go around. Which would mean that 5% of accidents happen on less than 5% of flights.
 
steingar said:
I was taught this by some old guy. Made sense, until I did a deep dive into the accident statistics. What I found was that engine-out accidents were kinda rare, but stall/spin accidents seemed to happen on a regular basis. The best place to get a stall/spin accident in the Book of Steingar is base to final when you overshoot and use rudder to correct. I decided to fly larger patterns, especially when I had a faster airplane. CFIs hated it, but I liked it just fine. When I was flying that is, which is no more.
Click to expand...

Not for any particular reason, but this reminds me of the story of the guy that heard that most traffic accidents occur within 10 miles from home. So he moved.
MauleSkinner said:
I know the info isn’t available, but I’d be willing to bet that less than 5% of GA landing attempts result in a go around. Which would mean that 5% of accidents happen on less than 5% of flights.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure of the numbers, but I also wouldn't be surprised if the percentage per go around is way higher than in some other areas. I almost killed myself that way when I was relatively newly licensed. Set the airplane to a pitch that would have been just fine if I had enough airspeed...but I didn't have it. Survived being stupid by luck and having good training on stall recovery.
 
MauleSkinner said:
I know the info isn’t available, but I’d be willing to bet that less than 5% of GA landing attempts result in a go around. Which would mean that 5% of accidents happen on less than 5% of flights.
Click to expand...
Not sure how much we can infer from this. Some of those go-arounds are attempted recoveries from botched landings or other issues, not just pushing the throttle forward and retracting the flaps....

"...The commercial pilot was landing on a turf runway when a gust of wind rotated the airplane to the right; the pilot added power to perform a go-around. Multiple witnesses reported that the airplane pitched up to a relatively high angle of attack and then entered a steep right turn before it descended to the ground and cart-wheeled." (CEN12FA320)

"A passenger onboard the accident airplane reported that it was approaching the runway to the east when the pilot noticed another airplane landing in the opposite direction on the same runway. The passenger stated that the pilot was using the radio and called in. The pilot made a hard left turn and advanced the throttle to full forward to avoid the other airplane. He added right aileron, but the airplane did not respond and continued turning left until it impacted terrain...." (CEN13LA244)

But, then....

"According to several pilot-rated eyewitnesses, the airplane was about 30 feet above ground level in about a 30-degree nose-up attitude, while performing a go-around. The pitch attitude of the airplane decreased about treetop level, and one eyewitness stated that the airplane was in a near-vertical nose-down attitude just before entering a spin, followed by the sound of the impact..." (ERA12FA256)

Ron Wanttaja
 
wanttaja said:
Not sure how much we can infer from this. Some of those go-arounds are attempted recoveries from botched landings or other issues, not just pushing the throttle forward and retracting the flaps....

"...The commercial pilot was landing on a turf runway when a gust of wind rotated the airplane to the right; the pilot added power to perform a go-around. Multiple witnesses reported that the airplane pitched up to a relatively high angle of attack and then entered a steep right turn before it descended to the ground and cart-wheeled." (CEN12FA320)

"A passenger onboard the accident airplane reported that it was approaching the runway to the east when the pilot noticed another airplane landing in the opposite direction on the same runway. The passenger stated that the pilot was using the radio and called in. The pilot made a hard left turn and advanced the throttle to full forward to avoid the other airplane. He added right aileron, but the airplane did not respond and continued turning left until it impacted terrain...." (CEN13LA244)

But, then....

"According to several pilot-rated eyewitnesses, the airplane was about 30 feet above ground level in about a 30-degree nose-up attitude, while performing a go-around. The pitch attitude of the airplane decreased about treetop level, and one eyewitness stated that the airplane was in a near-vertical nose-down attitude just before entering a spin, followed by the sound of the impact..." (ERA12FA256)

Ron Wanttaja
Click to expand...
Bottom line is, for whatever reason, we’re really bad at go around in general.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top