AOPA Pilot Turbine

DavidWhite

DavidWhite

Final Approach
Joined
Apr 19, 2011
Messages
7,151
Location
Olympic Peninsula
Display Name
Display name:
DW
I didn't sign up for this magazine. I got it last month too, where is my regular AOPA pilot magazine? I want the old one back.
 
It's to convince you to buy a King Air and join the PoA turbine club. ;)
 
DavidWhite said:
I didn't sign up for this magazine. I got it last month too, where is my regular AOPA pilot magazine? I want the old one back.
Click to expand...
It is the same magazine....they just are trying to pander to the turbine crowd, so they added a turbine section to the rag and changed the name.

Your membership fees hard at work.....
 
Very easy to opt out of the turbine version. As a matter of fact AOPA only wants this version to go to those that specifically want it.
And for what it's worth, I think the articles in this section are pretty good. For those of us that dabble in the Jet A world, it is a very worthwhile use of membership money. (But I'll bet the advertising they sell for this section is very profitable and more than pays for the cost for the supplement.)
 
DavidWhite said:
I didn't sign up for this magazine. I got it last month too, where is my regular AOPA pilot magazine? I want the old one back.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure it's the entire old one with a Turbine supplement. I'm not sure, but I remember comparing them once and that was the difference, maybe a few advertisements, but all the other articles and stories were there as well. I didn't renew AOPA this year, I think they are fighting the wrong battles.
 
Someone said that they send the version with the turbine supplement to all pilots with an instrument rating in order to increase circulation numbers for turbine advertisers. :dunno:

I was thinking of asking for the non-turbine version, becaude the pictures of turbine airplanes on the front make me feel less like reading it. However I noticed on their Web site that you can choose whether to get AOPA pilot or Flight Training magazine, so I decided to try the latter for a while.
 
The turbine section is an add-on so you are not missing any of the regular articles. You can request to be taken off the list of people who receive it.
 
I had the opposite problem last month. I asked them to include the turbine section in my subscription and they sent me the regular AOPA Pilot with no turbine articles. Sigh.
 
I changed address so much that I never did get the magazine. I remember when I renewed from Aus it was $149.:eek: "Yeah look, I don't need you to mail me the magazine..."
 
Henning said:
I changed address so much that I never did get the magazine. I remember when I renewed from Aus it was $149.:eek: "Yeah look, I don't need you to mail me the magazine..."
Click to expand...

If you go the the Web site, it looks like you can switch to the digital edition for free. Then you don't have to worry about the paper copies tracking you down.
 
Palmpilot said:
If you go the the Web site, it looks like you can switch to the digital edition for free. Then you don't have to worry about the paper copies tracking you down.
Click to expand...
They always sent me emails with links to the online stuff, it was never an issue for me, save the paper and printing costs as well as the postage. That's all one of the reasons I didn't renew. Like Greenpeace, it's a grassroots gone gone wrong. I'm not insinuating anything nefarious either, just general human nature taking course; there just isn't much spirited leadership looking out for others, and when they come along they get shouted down by those who will lose profit.
 
Henning said:
They always sent me emails with links to the online stuff, it was never an issue for me, save the paper and printing costs as well as the postage. That's all one of the reasons I didn't renew. Like Greenpeace, it's a grassroots gone gone wrong. I'm not insinuating anything nefarious either, just general human nature taking course; there just isn't much spirited leadership looking out for others, and when they come along they get shouted down by those who will lose profit.
Click to expand...

Makes up for me, I'm not a member but get the magazine every month. It even follows me when I moved
 
I'm not usually in the category of really wanting the sweepstakes aircraft, but this time around... yeah, I've been flying a Husky some this past week and it's a beautiful airplane.

Ryan
 
I go with the Flight Training magazine instead.
 
Heck, I pay extra and get both magazines. And I opted in to the turbine edition for the hell of it, and I've found some really interesting stuff in there.

Now if only I had the time to actually read it. :rofl:
 
jesse said:
I go with the Flight Training magazine instead.
Click to expand...

Me too and I still find it very interesting. I don't think the other one will ever be for me, since I think it is good for me to keep learning. As they say, I should be able to - as a private pilot now - pass the written, oral, and practical at any time. Not everyone can between BFR's (me included). So, I'll keep my "flight training" coming.
 
They used to switch you to the turbine edition if you were listed as having an instrument rating. You can have which ever version you want by calling member services and telling them.
 
kimberlyanne546 said:
Me too and I still find it very interesting. I don't think the other one will ever be for me, since I think it is good for me to keep learning. As they say, I should be able to - as a private pilot now - pass the written, oral, and practical at any time. Not everyone can between BFR's (me included). So, I'll keep my "flight training" coming.
Click to expand...

The other magazine is about learning as well, but it covers more advanced issues beyond the basic flight training regime; post graduate stuff. If you feel you need Flight Training magazine, by all means, read both; it and the Turbine edition. If you feel you need remedial work you need to step up your level of effort.
 
If you feel you need remedial work you need to step up your level of effort.
Click to expand...

If you don't feel you need remedial training, you may be overestimating yourself.

I'd like to think that at this stage in my career I wouldn't need it, but that's not the case. I need regular retraining, recurrent training, review and training on basics, advanced material, and new material.

There's no such thing as holding the status quo when it comes to training and proficiency in aviation. You're either falling backward, or making progress. Usually a lot of give and take.

If you think you've got it down cold, you don't.
 
DouglasBader said:
If you don't feel you need remedial training, you may be overestimating yourself.

I'd like to think that at this stage in my career I wouldn't need it, but that's not the case. I need regular retraining, recurrent training, review and training on basics, advanced material, and new material.

There's no such thing as holding the status quo when it comes to training and proficiency in aviation. You're either falling backward, or making progress. Usually a lot of give and take.

If you think you've got it down cold, you don't.
Click to expand...
Very well put. Those at the top of the aviation food chain (often with tens of thousands of hours) have to train every six months. And those with just a few hours, every two years Think about that.
 
Last edited:
We need to take checkrides in the sim every six months. On top of that, we have ground school, computer-based training, line checks, and other kinds of training that comes up. We don't just get the checkrides at the simulator. A check airman may get on board any time, anywhere, and give us a checkride. Last month, a check airman gave me three legs of observation and a checkride in Afghanistan. One just can't go far enough to get away from that; training, examination, and ongoing checking and instruction is constant.

This year and last, we've had other additional training that's come up several times, so I've been back training in the sim almost every three months, as well as the line checks. We've also had home study with various tests to take, courses to do, and other ongoing continuing education. Many of us fly in our spare time as well, some go out and seek additional training or type ratings or category/class ratings, such as seaplane training, glider ratings, etc. Others do aerobatics in their spare time, build or restore airplanes, give instruction, and so forth.

I never take a Biennial flight Review, because my training is far more frequent and regular; I have no need to do a BFR because much of the training exceeds it. In addition, I typically fly about 80 hours a month with numerous actual instrument approaches in rain, fog, snow, sand, ice, strong crosswinds, in the daylight and at night. I operate an older airplane and handle the regular abnormal occurrences and even emergencies that come with it.

There's no way to do this and study once every couple of years. There's no way to do this and not fall back to basics, studying regulations, manuals, procedures, limitations, and even the most inherently remedial elementary things. One can't take anything for granted.

Periodically throughout one's career, one swaps aircraft, upgrading to a new type, or changing to a new job. This always involves starting over with systems, limits, and practices and techniques. It's like re-learning to fly all over again. I've flown some airplanes that I wore like a glove: I thought about it and the airplane did it. I then got in another airplane and I thought one thing and the airplane did another. Take nothing for granted. If you're above the remedial, you're not long for this world. Arrogance kills.

Whether one is well into one's professional career as an aviator, in the early stages, or flies for pleasure, the need to keep studying, keep training, and to keep revisiting the basics does not go away.

When we do our checkrides, we still do the basics, including steep turns. We do stalls, accelerate into and out of slow flight, all kinds of landings, and train for a lot of different kinds of emergencies. Procedures change; we constantly review these changes.

I've met very few professionals who consider training to be beneath them. Those that do, don't last long.
 
I just need to remember to go up and have some fun once in a while. Sometime 30-40 hours pass without a stall
 
Lance F said:
Very well put. Those at the top of the aviation food train (often with tens of thousands of hours) have to train every six months. And those with just a few hours, every two years Think about that.
Click to expand...

My insurance broker (who's also a DPE and very experienced pilot) and I were talking about that. We both agree with Lance's view here. I have to do 6-month checks for 135. Tony's view of getting an IPC every 6 months even if he doesn't need one I think is a good protocol for pilots who don't fly often. Maybe they should do it even more frequently.
 
There's no law which states that one can't train to a higher standard than prescribed by the regulation.

One can set one's "PFRs" (personal flight regulations) much more conservatively than the "FARs" without any fear of running afoul of the law.

More frequent training is a good thing.
 
DouglasBader said:
If you don't feel you need remedial training, you may be overestimating yourself.

I'd like to think that at this stage in my career I wouldn't need it, but that's not the case. I need regular retraining, recurrent training, review and training on basics, advanced material, and new material.

There's no such thing as holding the status quo when it comes to training and proficiency in aviation. You're either falling backward, or making progress. Usually a lot of give and take.

If you think you've got it down cold, you don't.
Click to expand...

No argument with that really, I just draw a distinction between recurrent and remedial training. Recurrent is like what you need to keep your line qualifications, remedial is like what you are required prior to your 709 ride to keep your certificate.
 
I guess you could draw such a distinction, but if the training and maneuvers are the same, does it really matter?
 
DouglasBader said:
We need to take checkrides in the sim every six months. On top of that, we have ground school, computer-based training, line checks, and other kinds of training that comes up. We don't just get the checkrides at the simulator. A check airman may get on board any time, anywhere, and give us a checkride. Last month, a check airman gave me three legs of observation and a checkride in Afghanistan. One just can't go far enough to get away from that; training, examination, and ongoing checking and instruction is constant.

This year and last, we've had other additional training that's come up several times, so I've been back training in the sim almost every three months, as well as the line checks. We've also had home study with various tests to take, courses to do, and other ongoing continuing education. Many of us fly in our spare time as well, some go out and seek additional training or type ratings or category/class ratings, such as seaplane training, glider ratings, etc. Others do aerobatics in their spare time, build or restore airplanes, give instruction, and so forth.

I never take a Biennial flight Review, because my training is far more frequent and regular; I have no need to do a BFR because much of the training exceeds it. In addition, I typically fly about 80 hours a month with numerous actual instrument approaches in rain, fog, snow, sand, ice, strong crosswinds, in the daylight and at night. I operate an older airplane and handle the regular abnormal occurrences and even emergencies that come with it.

There's no way to do this and study once every couple of years. There's no way to do this and not fall back to basics, studying regulations, manuals, procedures, limitations, and even the most inherently remedial elementary things. One can't take anything for granted.

Periodically throughout one's career, one swaps aircraft, upgrading to a new type, or changing to a new job. This always involves starting over with systems, limits, and practices and techniques. It's like re-learning to fly all over again. I've flown some airplanes that I wore like a glove: I thought about it and the airplane did it. I then got in another airplane and I thought one thing and the airplane did another. Take nothing for granted. If you're above the remedial, you're not long for this world. Arrogance kills.

Whether one is well into one's professional career as an aviator, in the early stages, or flies for pleasure, the need to keep studying, keep training, and to keep revisiting the basics does not go away.

When we do our checkrides, we still do the basics, including steep turns. We do stalls, accelerate into and out of slow flight, all kinds of landings, and train for a lot of different kinds of emergencies. Procedures change; we constantly review these changes.

I've met very few professionals who consider training to be beneath them. Those that do, don't last long.
Click to expand...

I have hired two CFI's in two planes in the past week. Though short flights, and just landings, I learned a lot. I remember thinking I didn't want to wait two years to have a person sit next to me and evaluate my flying.
 
Good call, Kimberly. While not necessary, it's a responsible decision on your part.

I've done that before when I haven't been jumping regularly, on a visit tothe drop zone. I'll go through the harness training, then get with someone for a skydive, run through the emergency procedures, get some 1 on 1 instruction, before going back out. It's always a good idea.

I think it's beneficial for people to seek continuing training and education, too. It's all too common for people to be really gung-ho during their training toward a pilot certificate, but to hardly fly again after that and eventually drop out. The numbers of people who go on for advanced certificates or training are relatively low. A big part of that is cost, of course. A big part of it, however, is that people aren't feeling challenged like they were when everything they did was working toward the higher goal of achieving certification.

It's harder to justify the 100 dollar hamburger when the hours aren't counting toward a certificate or the prize and the end of the logbook.

Going after a commercial, or instrument, or seaplane rating, or glider rating (or balloon, or helicopter, etc) are ways to revitalize the desire to fly, justify spending the money, and to put some fun and challenge back into flying. One may have no desire doing it for a living, but since when has that been a prerequisite to go train? Just seeking the certificate or training for its own sake is good enough.

I used to fly with a few pilots who didn't need me to be legal, but who always sought me to come fly second seat with them for some local pleasure flying. They knew they didn't fly enough to stay proficient, and they felt it was a safety decision. They were right, and that was the correct thing to do. It was also a very responsible call on their part.

I was just talking to an individual who does ferry work in his spare time. Two individuals just put a new King Air in the water because they were out of their element, had no experience, and made some bad decisions, all because the owner decided to use inexperience rather than a qualified pilot. If one of those two had been replaced by someone with some experience in the operation, it might have turned out very differently, but no body went for the instruction, the training, the experience, and it's been a very costly mistake. Six and a half million for the airplane, a million and a half for the recovery get get it off the bottom of the sea, plus the expensive avionics and the engines that were on board, and now none of it will be usable...all throw away. Far better to spend a few dollars for safety and peace of mind. Same for seeking some ongoing training.

Good call.
 
DouglasBader said:
Good call, Kimberly. While not necessary, it's a responsible decision on your part.

I've done that before when I haven't been jumping regularly, on a visit tothe drop zone. I'll go through the harness training, then get with someone for a skydive, run through the emergency procedures, get some 1 on 1 instruction, before going back out. It's always a good idea.

I think it's beneficial for people to seek continuing training and education, too. It's all too common for people to be really gung-ho during their training toward a pilot certificate, but to hardly fly again after that and eventually drop out. The numbers of people who go on for advanced certificates or training are relatively low. A big part of that is cost, of course. A big part of it, however, is that people aren't feeling challenged like they were when everything they did was working toward the higher goal of achieving certification.

It's harder to justify the 100 dollar hamburger when the hours aren't counting toward a certificate or the prize and the end of the logbook.

Going after a commercial, or instrument, or seaplane rating, or glider rating (or balloon, or helicopter, etc) are ways to revitalize the desire to fly, justify spending the money, and to put some fun and challenge back into flying. One may have no desire doing it for a living, but since when has that been a prerequisite to go train? Just seeking the certificate or training for its own sake is good enough.

I used to fly with a few pilots who didn't need me to be legal, but who always sought me to come fly second seat with them for some local pleasure flying. They knew they didn't fly enough to stay proficient, and they felt it was a safety decision. They were right, and that was the correct thing to do. It was also a very responsible call on their part.

I was just talking to an individual who does ferry work in his spare time. Two individuals just put a new King Air in the water because they were out of their element, had no experience, and made some bad decisions, all because the owner decided to use inexperience rather than a qualified pilot. If one of those two had been replaced by someone with some experience in the operation, it might have turned out very differently, but no body went for the instruction, the training, the experience, and it's been a very costly mistake. Six and a half million for the airplane, a million and a half for the recovery get get it off the bottom of the sea, plus the expensive avionics and the engines that were on board, and now none of it will be usable...all throw away. Far better to spend a few dollars for safety and peace of mind. Same for seeking some ongoing training.

Good call.
Click to expand...

Most of the time, with less than 7 exceptions, I fly with a pilot right seat. I do consider it a safety thing, but also a learning thing.

The exceptions:

3 flights just me and the BF
1 flight a student pilot with only 1 flight right seat
1 flight a non-pilot friend right seat
1 flight solo (shocking) for night currency. My only solo to date.
 
DouglasBader said:
I guess you could draw such a distinction, but if the training and maneuvers are the same, does it really matter?
Click to expand...

Not really as they aren't the same, let me see if I can find a better way to put it....

Recurrent is where you practice what you learned but never get to use in practice. Remedial is where you learn the stuff you need everyday because somehow it wasn't learned when it was supposed to be. See the distinction better?
 
Recurrent is often the training that you do use every day, and often much of it is remedial.

We just received a new Advanced Qualification Program (AQP) online training CBT (computerized based training) system, and were given a first crack at it this morning. One of the columns on the web home page is entitled "remedial testing."

Our recurrent training and testing is very often the very same things we do in practice every day. Much of it is remedial in nature. Remedial is also training in the things we do every day, and it was very much learned properly the first time. It may be very basic, and it may have been learned very well, and it may be in regular use, but doesn't mean that it doesn't need to be regulary reviewed, checked, tested, and evaluated.

By definition "remedial" is to remedy, or to fix. On the first day of AQP training, the crew is introduced to a normal flight in the simulator, with certain wrinkles built into the day. The crew will arrive in the sim to find "easter eggs" or various things out of place or set incorrectly as a way of evaluating their cockpit flows and preparation. As the flight develops, something may go wrong. If the crew handles it well, that will be noted. If the crew does not, or makes a mistake, however, the mistake(s) will be allowed to compound until the scenario is completed. The instructor pilot will note what has happened, any deficiencies or areas that need improvement, and the next day will focus on those areas with remedial training. It could be anything from standardized procedures to use of checklists to emergency procedures to normal instrument approaches.

Remedial training is (or should) always a part of recurrent training, and even initial training. It's returning to one's roots and making sure they're still where they ought to be.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top