Training tips and tricks?

Does an event that isn't listed in the normal section automatically revert to an accident?

Henning said:
There is a Normal procedure in which turbine that calls for Hot Starting the engine?
Click to expand...
 
wabower said:
Does an event that isn't listed in the normal section automatically revert to an accident?
Click to expand...

Does anyone hot start a turbine on purpose? If not, it's an accident by definition. Is there a POH for a turbine aircraft that designates a procedure for Hot Start?
 
Does your POH contain an accident section?

Henning said:
Does anyone hot start a turbine on purpose? If not, it's an accident by definition. Is there a POH for a turbine aircraft that designates a procedure for Hot Start?
Click to expand...
 
wabower said:
Does your POH contain an accident section?
Click to expand...

None does, I don't see a CFIT procedure listed either. Accidents by definition are not things you plan to do. Do things that do not exist in the aircraft POH not exist?
 
flyingmoose said:
SO question for CFI's and students (We have all been students).

What do you like to show/teach your students outside of the normal requirements?

What do you wish someone would have shown you when you were a student?
Click to expand...

Seems that this thread has really departed from Matt's original questions.
 
RotorAndWing said:
You've never operated a turbine engine have you?
Click to expand...


Yes, what does that have to do with understanding English?

As I asked before, what turbine plane lists a "Hot Start Procedure" as something to do in the normal course of a flight?

Since you're a long time jet pilot maybe you can tell me how many times you've hot started a turbine intentionally?
 
Be sure to include your comments on this thread when you interview of the frac FO job.

Henning said:
Yes, what does that have to do with understanding English?

As I asked before, what turbine plane lists a "Hot Start Procedure" as something to do in the normal course of a flight?

Since you're a long time jet pilot maybe you can tell me how many times you've hot started a turbine intentionally?
Click to expand...
 
Henning said:
Yes, what does that have to do with understanding English?

As I asked before, what turbine plane lists a "Hot Start Procedure" as something to do in the normal course of a flight?

Since you're a long time jet pilot maybe you can tell me how many times you've hot started a turbine intentionally?
Click to expand...

Oh I understand english very well, thank you. I also, unlike you, have an in-depth understanding of terminology and procedures when it pertains to aviation.

Henning said:
Since you're a long time jet pilot maybe you can tell me how many times you've hot started a turbine intentionally?
Click to expand...

The only hot starts I've ever seen in 30 years of turbo props and jets have been in the simulator. Maintaining diligence and knowing limitations and procedures have made sure I've never seen it in actual operations.
 
RotorAndWing said:
The only hot starts I've ever seen in 30 years of turbo props and jets have been in the simulator. Maintaining diligence and knowing limitations and procedures have made sure I've never seen it in actual operations.
Click to expand...


So, then you state that a 'Hot Start' in a turbine is not a used procedure like a 'Hot Start' in a recip that we do every time as a Normal Procedure as per POH, thanks for agreeing with me.
 
Henning said:
So, then you state that a 'Hot Start' in a turbine is not a used procedure like a 'Hot Start' in a recip that we do every time as a Normal Procedure as per POH, thanks for agreeing with me.
Click to expand...

Not an "agreement" with you, just pointing out that, once again, you are pontificating on a subject you know nothing about.

Thanks.
 
Why didn't you ask that question when I brought it up>

Henning said:
So, then you state that a 'Hot Start' in a turbine is not a used procedure like a 'Hot Start' in a recip that we do every time as a Normal Procedure as per POH, thanks for agreeing with me.
Click to expand...
 
In that case some reading on current terminology for the name of the event might be a good start.:D
tmyers said:
Well I look forward to being stretched a bit on my next BFR. That comes up in March.
Click to expand...
 
Why do some of you here feel the need to be so mean. I wasn't even talking to you, I was communicating with the OP of this thread.

I joined this site because I figured I would be talking with men and women that had similar interests as I do, and that it would be a great place further my knowledge.

Some I have met here have been wonderfully helpful and some quite frankly are simply jerks with pilot licenses.
 
Last edited:
CFI training materials encourage the use of questions. You might want to reacquaint yourself with the process before March. The PM function works nicely for private conversations.

books encourage
tmyers said:
Why do some of you here feel the need to be so mean. I wasn't even talking to you, I was communicating with the OP of this thread.

I joined this site because I figured I would be talking with men and women that had similar interests as I do, and that it would be a great place further my knowledge.

Some I have met here have been wonderfully helpful and some quite frankly are simply jerks with pilot licenses.
Click to expand...
 
Correct me if I am wrong, I did ask a question, but I don't feel very encouraged to do so.

Rest assured I have access to some great CFI's and will figure it out with out your assistance.

Be safe out there.
 
LDJones said:
In the 150 the 40 deg position is more drag than lift and, in my opinion, is more a detriment than help in a soft field scenario. I recommend the 30 deg setting for that, and usually only us 40 deg for seriously short short-fields.

As in all cases, much depends on the particular aircraft. There is seldom a "one size fits all" recommendation on this issues.

This whole discussion reminds me of this article:
http://www.avweb.com/news/pilotlounge/182656-1.html
Click to expand...

Which gives more lift, 30 deg or 40 deg, regardless of drag?
 
Dave Krall CFII said:
Which gives more lift, 30 deg or 40 deg, regardless of drag?
Click to expand...


There is no 'regardless' though because they are inextricably linked together. The issue is 40* of flaps requires more energy to fly with which is why all landings sans ice should be full flap so you can have more chemical energy than kinetic energy because the chemical energy you can shut off immediately while the kinetic requires time and friction to lose. Since you quit flying faster with full flaps, that is the default flap position for safety since the most dangerous time in a flight is the transition between flying and not flying.

As for a soft field landing, just add a hundred or so RPM to your normal landing through the flare and it will be plenty soft.
 
tmyers said:
Some I have met here have been wonderfully helpful and some quite frankly are simply jerks with pilot licenses.
Click to expand...

Yep....definitely a few that have to wave their wankers around to prove how manly they are. :rolleyes2:

Just smile, shake your head and ignore 'em.
 
Henning said:
There is no 'regardless' though because they are inextricably linked together. The issue is 40* of flaps requires more energy to fly with which is why all landings sans ice should be full flap so you can have more chemical energy than kinetic energy because the chemical energy you can shut off immediately while the kinetic requires time and friction to lose. Since you quit flying faster with full flaps, that is the default flap position for safety since the most dangerous time in a flight is the transition between flying and not flying.

As for a soft field landing, just add a hundred or so RPM to your normal landing through the flare and it will be plenty soft.
Click to expand...

So 40 deg will lift the plane at a slightly lower speed than 30 deg, while having more drag, landing or taking off.
 
Dave Krall CFII said:
So 40 deg will lift the plane at a slightly lower speed than 30 deg, while having more drag, landing or taking off.
Click to expand...

Yep, so will 60 degrees like most all the planes flying off carriers from the Pre catapult era, you just require geometrically more horsepower to do it after around 20* of flaps where you hit the 'backside' of the lift/drag curve.
 
Dave Krall CFII said:
Which gives more lift, 30 deg or 40 deg, regardless of drag?
Click to expand...

I've never seen the engineering data so have to go by 35 years experience in them. 40 deg takes a LOT of power to overcome the drag. It also allows a student to get into some pretty deep sink rate situations that have pranged a lot of 150s over the years. Training to use full flaps at 30 deg keeps things simple for students... 10 deg downwind, 20 deg on base 30 deg on final. They can also easily move between 150s and 152s without altering technique.

Much later in training, after they've mastered landings, you can explore the 40 deg setting for extreme short field ops.

A good discussion on the flap decision can be found here: http://www.cessna172club.com/forum/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=9290

The fifth post is a good exploration in and of itself. I'm definitely a full-flap landing guy for most landings in most airplanes, but adapt to the nuances of specific makes and models when appropriate. And I teach no-flap landings as an exercise in knowing your aircraft.
 
Last edited:
LDJones said:
I've never seen the engineering data so have to go by 35 years experience in them. 40 deg takes a LOT of power to overcome the drag. It also allows a student to get into some pretty deep sink rate situations that have pranged a lot of 150s over the years. Training to use full flaps at 30 deg keeps things simple for students... 10 deg downwind, 20 deg on base 30 deg on final. They can also easily move between 150s and 152s without altering technique.

Much later in training, after they've mastered landings, you can explore the 40 deg setting for extreme short field ops.

A good discussion on the flap decision can be found here: http://www.cessna172club.com/forum/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=9290

The fifth post is a good exploration in and of itself. I'm definitely a full-flap landing guy for most landings in most airplanes, but adapt to the nuances of specific makes and models when appropriate. And I teach no-flap landings as an exercise in knowing your aircraft.
Click to expand...


Why not teach them to carry a touch more power or steeper approaches with 40* and teach them to land with minimum possible energy rather than how to just make it easy by eliminating ability and decreasing safety?
 
Alexb2000 said:
In talking to a couple of flight schools lately I was amazed to discover that their insurance carriers are the ones being prescriptive in what and how they teach. Of course they have to teach enough for people to get their ratings, but here are some examples of the restrictions:

No off-field landings of any kind
No operations off grass
No operations into any field less than 3000'
No operations at 10K or above
10 knot maximum crosswind component with instructor, 5 solo
No training with the gust factor over 10 knots
No training in anything other than school owned aircraft
No training with ceilings less than 1000
No maneuvering <2000 agl.
etc.

This is second/third hand info and I don't know all the details, specifics, etc.
Click to expand...

I'm guessing it's also horse ****. FBO's use insurance as an excuse all the time. Ask to see the policy, I bet you won't find any of the above restrictions in it...
 
flyingcheesehead said:
I'm guessing it's also horse ****. FBO's use insurance as an excuse all the time. Ask to see the policy, I bet you won't find any of the above restrictions in it...
Click to expand...

I'm not doing any training there so I have no need to push it. I do know the chief pilot at one who confirmed it and said it was all done to get the insurance rate low enough to potentially turn a profit.

Almost every pilot I talk to, you included, say they have heard of similar insurance restrictions.

Just a sad dis-service IMO. I would think our stats would be better if new pilots trained in almost every scenario they are likely to encounter. Crosswinds, tailwinds, grass, flying at gross, soft field (real), etc, etc.
 
I know that the restrictions we had in the Aero Club I used to belong to were in place because of a couple accidents they had in club aircraft. They went so far as to restrict certain aircraft from specific fields. When I inquired I found that there had been a fatal that had preceded the restriction.
 
Alexb2000 said:
I'm not doing any training there so I have no need to push it. I do know the chief pilot at one who confirmed it and said it was all done to get the insurance rate low enough to potentially turn a profit.

Almost every pilot I talk to, you included, say they have heard of similar insurance restrictions.

Just a sad dis-service IMO. I would think our stats would be better if new pilots trained in almost every scenario they are likely to encounter. Crosswinds, tailwinds, grass, flying at gross, soft field (real), etc, etc.
Click to expand...

The higher training level you mention will produce better pilots that can safely fly in more conditions but, gradually the proficiency deficient type accidents will still happen because some pilots don't/can't/won't fly as often and to a high enough standard to maintain the level needed to be accident free in more rigorous environmental conditions.

Insurance demands or not, Alternate Air Inc. has both the lowest rates locally AND has been using only published FAA Regs for training, currency, and VFR/MVFR/IFR weather minimums as our requirements to fly, for over 15 years or so.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top