If you want a progression of planes to learn in, use a G-36 Bonanza, King Air and then go to the jet. You can learn in whatever you want, that's what instructors are for. With the faster more complex aircraft you will spend more time with the instructor before you are on your own, but that's not a big deal in the long run. The other side of the coin is that you have full mission capability from day one.
That's very interesting. My initial string of aircraft was very much in-line with what you are suggesting. A while back ago, I had the line-up as:
A36 (private through commercial)
C441 (multi and turbine-prop time building)
CJ1 (turbine time building and slight step up to final VLJ)
Not that far off your list.
No, fundamentals are the same and they are learned on the ground. All you learn in the plane is how to fly the plane.
Ok, what do you think about using a desktop flight simulator for the purpose of starting the initial process of developing en route navigation, approach and departure, ground maneuvers, in-flight emergency and live ATC radio communications procedures in class B airspace?
What are the differences in the fundamental procedures for entering an IFR flight plan into a GNS unit (for example), as compared to entering that same IFR flight plan on a sheet of paper, and then flying them both using the autopilot from leg to leg:
- Is there more or less pilot workload involved in either?
- Is there more or less skill required for either?
- Is there more or less training time required for either?
- Is there more or less room for the pilot's 'margin of error' in either?
- Is one more precise than the other?
- Does one contribute to a higher level of safety of flight than the other?
- Would the use of flight simulation for either increase pilot effectiveness?
You do get some great advantage learning in the CJ or King Air though because you can take advantage of serious simulator training where you can learn and try things that you wouldn't in a real plane.
The power/off/full flaps stall speed of the C90B is 78 kts. with a four (4) blade prop. The Vmca is 90 kts (same four blade reference). The approach is said to be flown at 184 kts., while the downwind comes in at 148 kts.
Question:
How do you feel about exposing a new student pilot to these higher critical air speeds, at critical low altitudes, as their baseline starting point introduction to general aviation aircraft handling and performance?
Would the new civilian student pilot be placing himself at a disadvantage by not engaging these same phases of flight, at lower initial airspeeds and in aircraft with more docile stalling characteristics at lower altitudes?
Sims won't save money, but they will let you learn at the edges of the envelope without mortal risk. You fall off the edge, you crash and reset and try again.
Can the simulator help make more more efficient and proficient at working important procedures and developing good problem solving skills?
Also, do you see a desktop flight simulator being a decent tool for integrating lesson plans during a real flight training program? By that, I mean working with a flight instructor who uses a training syllabus and then issues homework assignments to be completed in the simulator? In other words, finding out what the simulator 'is good at doing' and using it
between lessons to fill the void in the students mind and reduce some stress about not getting the next lesson right because the first lesson had no level of follow-up, clean-up or make-up capacity.
Most of the learning of fundamentals you will do will be through reading and ground study regardless of what you are flying. There is no limit on what you can learn, and nothing prohibits you from also renting an aerobatic plane and doing a 10 hour course in it. That will teach you more about fundamentals than doing a PP in a 172.
A couple things on these excellent points.
The training and time building plan does include Acro Flight Training, after the Commercial Rating and before the Multi-Engine Rating (I just did not mention that fact earlier). I want the Acro, so that I get beyond any remaining fear of non-standard flight attitudes for normal GA aircraft. I want to feel comfortable upside down, sideways, forwards and backwards while the air and know that I have the skills to "right the ship" if/when necessary. I also love aerobatics to boot. This should make the Upset Recovery Training in the VLJ a breeze once I get to that point - I hope.
Second, I love reading books about flying and aviation. I love reading books about the fundamentals flying. But, here's what I've done just recently. It took a book that I have called
The Complete Guide to Flight Instruction, by Gregory M. Penglis, turned to page 63 and wrote down the Pitch|Power|Trim numbers that he stipulates for flying the Cessna 172 in the normal phases of flight (take-off, climb, cruise, descent, approach and landing).
To my surprise, after hearing all the talk from simmers about how "accurate" the flight simulator was relative to its flight dynamics, the Cessna 172N flew pretty much spot on the numbers that Gregory, gives in his book:
Take Off: Full Power
Climb: Full Power (w/mixture reductions according to altitude)
Cruise: 2300 rpm
Descend: 2100 rpm (including downwind)
Approach: 1500 rpm
Landing: Idle (at touchdown)
I took this "Micro Lesson" to the simulator and the C172N flew almost spot on those same numbers. But, here's what I found much more interesting. Before, I had the idea of using the Book and the Simulator together, I knew nothing about what the power settings for the C172N and I flew the aircraft in the simulator very erratically.
After using Gregory's Pitch, Power and Trim settings, all of a sudden the little Cessna began flying rock solid stable and well under control. Before, it was erratic and I could barely control it.
This is what got me excited about the prospects. I took information from a book and applied it to the sim and it worked. How many other micro lessons like that can I learn, just by using the simulator?
Furthermore, guess what. I no longer take Pitch, Power and Trim settings for granted. Without official flight instruction, I became aware of the importance of all three for generating a stable aircraft in any phase of flight. This is the kind of stuff I am talking about. I'm not trying to "learn how to fly" a real airplane in the sim. But, I do see the sim as a good mental starting point for developing a procedural mindset when it comes to flying. That's all I'm trying to do.
I want to have certain fundamentals nailed down through an active learning process, before the real stuff begins - because that will free up my brain to better focus on what the instructor is trying to deliver, instead of being worried and confused about missing underlying Mental Awareness of what I should be doing with the aircraft at a very basic and fundamental level.
So, what do you think about using the simulator this way? Not just for pitch/power/trim, but for every aspect of flying that requires some kind of:
- Memory items
- Primary routine process
- Regular pilot action
- Reflex action
- Sub routine process
- Emergency/Troubleshooting process
- Radio communications process (when to talk, what to say, how to say it, etc.)
- Aircraft systems knowledge (where is everything located and how do you use it)
- What does a VASI look like as opposed to a PAPI
- What does the ILS look like on approach
- What should an approach to minimums look like with zero visibility to 500ft
- What does it mean to fly an instrument approach procedure
- What should you expect from the avionics and instruments during an instrument approach procedure
- What should a missed approach look like and what processes are necessary to actually fly one
- etc.
- etc.
- etc.
Can all of these things can be simulated long before the first lesson is given -and- during the actual flight training process, as a way to solidify in the students mind what they 'thought' they just learned. And, to help them ask much better questions of their instructor?
Yep, at the beginning it'll be busy and the learning curve will be steep, but a good CFI will keep the load manageable and in a little while all that stuff will be 'old hat' and you'll be thinking at speed.
I look forward to that day. Could I accelerate that day using the simulator eight (8) months ahead of the actual flight training, if I got some guidance (not necessarily instruction at this level) on what I should be studying inside the simulator environment?
It just seems to me that if you have the option of reading a manual or book and then going out and simulating the environment that you will eventually be learning in, or just reading the books and then day dreaming about what it might be like, you would be far better off doing the study and then simulating what you just read in fairly high fidelity. Am I wrong about that?
No, it's not, that's what CFIs are for, to teach you how and keep you safe until you can.
No, doubt. I want them to do that. But, can I make their job easier by coming to the actual lesson, having at least some mental exposure to the lesson plan for that day, because I've already flown it in the simulator? Won't I have better dialogue with my instructor, if I have seen and experienced the mental side of what they are trying to teach me on the physical side?
There is nothing from the progression that gets skipped, what you end up doing is eliminating a lot of redundancy of learning details that you will not need in the next aircraft. In my scenario there is NO 'time building' required because you are at full mission capability on day one.
That sounds very tempting. No time building required, sounds like music to my ears. It is very alluring, no doubt. It sounds like what you are saying is that because the actual learning process is immersed inside a platform that is closer to the one I'd be using in the final analysis, that the memories that get set-up inside my brain will be tagged with a higher level of residual recall given the deeper meaning behind such a training path. Correct me if I am wrong on that assessment.
This allows you to use the plane as you need a plane at the same moment you are learning to fly. There is no prohibition on going from one place to another during an instruction flight. If you need to be in LA from NYC, that's a cross country in your training log. Not only are you learning to fly from day one, you are learning to fly the plane you need on the mission you need it on. Plus having the instructor pilot on salary means you never have to miss a lesson or flight because your instructor is unavailable.
This sounds very sexy. I mean, it is so enticing to hear that I could make that kind of jump and make it meaningful. However, I'm still stuck with what I know about the other areas of my life and how the complex studies in those areas took
time to develop skills, knowledge and expertise.
How do I develop the broad level of knowledge that I'm going after, by locking myself into such a narrow training track?
Let me give one final example.
I read a story some years ago, about a former Tactical Combat Pilot who flew F-18's for a living and then retired from the Navy. Clearly, the pilot was top shelf and of course, he was even Carrier Qualified. So, there was no doubting his skills.
This pilot (sometime after retirement) went out and then flew an L-39 Albatross into the ground and killed himself. The L-39, is a far less capable jet than the Hornet. No one would doubt that fact. You can do a lot more in the F-18, no questions asked. So, what happened.
I talked on the phone years ago, with a former Navy Combat Pilot from a different era. He flew the old Panther F9F off the deck of a Carrier himself for years and had many combat sorties under his belt. He was then doing some work as an L-39 check pilot, back when the FAA required an LOA. He told me about the story and offered his opinion as to what really might have happened.
He said that this former Navy Aviator and Combat Pilot who flew F-18's, did his first high performance training in the T-45 Goshawk and prior to the F-18, spend precious little time flying anything else, certainly not a lot of time in anything with significantly less performance than the Hornet.
He felt that the real problem with the accident CFIT was the pilots familiarity with the Hornets flight envelop vs the relatively much lower flight envelope of the Albatross. He thought that given the details of the NTSB report, knowing what high performance military jets are like, knowing what the L-39 is capable of doing and knowing the low time this particular pilot had in the L-39; that the pilot simply fell too far behind the power curve of the L-39 at too low an altitude and did not have the power he's use to having in the F-18 to recover.
I say this not because I plan on flying an F-18 someday, but because of the point I was trying to make earlier about building up my skills and knowledge from the lower performance ranks, to the higher performance machines in a reasonable and programmatic fashion, such that I develop skill set on top of skill set in a progressive manner.
It is quite possible that the former Hornet driver simply forgot that he did not have tens of thousands of pound of trust to work with, got too low, too slow and too far behind the high alpha curve (high angle of attack + low power setting). In the F-18, no problem - it climbs like a literal rocket from a high alpha condition. Put an L-39 in a high alpha conditions, low to the ground and you've got the makings for some real trouble.
I'd like to be well rounded and well grounded, but well grounded for all the right reasons and not planted in the ground for all the wrong reasons, because I don't really understand or have a grasp of full spectrum aircraft performance at both the low and high performance levels. I hope that makes sense - I took a long time to explain it.
Thanks for the nice input.
) to get to that situation. And Cessna says not to do it by c/b, so you have to come up with an overlay to hang from the comm/nav freq knobs to cover the instruments of interest.
