Flight Review -4rd time's a charm, I hope!

gkainz

gkainz

Final Approach
Joined
Feb 23, 2005
Messages
8,401
Location
Arvada, CO
Display Name
Display name:
Greg Kainz
Crap - if it weren't for bad luck ... remember we posted our new year's resolutions way back when? One of mine was to get my Flight Review done ASAP? Late November, got 1 hr of ground and 1 hr flight - 2 years of rust shed surprisingly quickly in a lot of areas, not so much in others, but nothing life-threatening. CFI wanted 1 more flight to cover a few more things and then said she was ok to sign me off. A couple of weeks intervened due to weather, work and all kinds of other excuses, so when I called back to schedule that remaining hour, she was not available for weeks ... on walk-about to Antarctica! :hairraise: :cryin:

So, scheduled with another instructor, did 1 hr of ground and he was ok to sign me off once we schedule a flying session, "provided I did nothing stupid and tried to kill us." Once again, a couple of weeks of interruptions and this instructor has no openings.

Round 3 - another instructor, another hour of ground, another hour of flight and he's also ok with signing me off after 1 more flight - "just need to cover a few more things" ... and, yep - you guessed it - he's booked for weeks on the days/hours I have available. Working downtown sucks eggs - Easter eggs!

So, yesterday, Round 4... same song, 4th verse. Getting good at blowing through the typical review stuff... 1 flight that got a late start, so once again "just a few more things we need to cover" ... scheduled for tomorrow.

Grrr ... still lots of rust on processes, flows, memory items, etc in the airplane... but it's coming back again.
 
yep - Western Air, flying now with Lou, tells me he's a new guy getting up to speed with W/A after retiring from the airlines.
 
Sounds like this FBO is certainly giving you a unique definition of value for your money.
 
Western Air has some interesting characters. They recently changed chief instructors and had their 141 cert pulled for awhile. They also had a change in ownership. I suspect a lot of this relates to Greg's problems with instructors since they are having a lot of turn over (to phrase it nicely).

The problem is Journey's has "interesting" equipment and Macair is a high price leader who apparently only wants to instruct. The end result is three not so wonderful choices.

My solution was to buy the Dakota...there are some fractional ownership options around town that may be a better solution. There's at least one other former Western Air renter who is looking to buy right now and is open to partnership. My hangar mate is also open to a partnership for purchasing a Bonanza if anyone is looking to go in that direction.
 
Clark1961 said:
The problem is Journey's has "interesting" equipment
Click to expand...

What's "interesting" about it? I rented a DA40 there one day and didn't notice anything disturbing...

web.jpg
 
flyingcheesehead said:
What's "interesting" about it? I rented a DA40 there one day and didn't notice anything disturbing...
Click to expand...

Nice shot of downtown. I'd hope there'd be nothing disturbing on the Diamonds! They do try to sell'em.

Now if you poke around under the cowl of one of their Cessnas or Pipers, well, the story might be a bit different. When Western Air was running short of airplanes last summer they picked up a couple from Journeys, an Arrow and a 172. The Arrow had a fuel flow divider problem and a starter problem. The 172's fuel gauges were unrelieable (I considered them inop and refused the aircraft) among other things. The problems were quickly fixed at Western so I have to question Journey's ability to manage the problems. Another bit of anecdotal evidence is that a CFI who trained at Western but worked at Journey's chose to rent aircraft from Western for his personal flights.

Long story made short, as I understand it there are planes that are ok to rent and planes that aren't so ok to rent at Journeys. Compare that to Western where all the planes were ok to rent. Everyone has gripes on these 30 year old trainers, it's how the problems are handled that counts.

Of course Western seems to have a problem with pilots bending airplanes so I guess ya pays yer money and takes yer chances...
 
Last edited:
Greg. Is this FBO at Erie? Sounds like they have a CFI scheduling issue.
 
Anthony said:
Greg. Is this FBO at Erie? Sounds like they have a CFI scheduling issue.
Click to expand...
No, it's Western Air at BJC (right next to the shop where you dropped your Tiger off). The changes in staff as noted above have had a bit of impact, but honestly, most of the problems are self-inflicted, in that my schedule was the worst factor in these delays. Had I been proactive, and booked multiple sessions back to back in anticipation of a slightly longer than normal flight review, I could have finished it back in November.

I'm still investigating membership in the club I talked about last fall; they have the Archer, Saratoga and Bonanza... just want to get my FR done first.

Erie's had some changes as well. Lonnie moved Specialty to Boulder - I'm not sure who's running what now at Erie - I haven't been there since Specialty moved.
 
Thanks for the update Greg. So its a Rocky Mountain Metro. :D

I still can't get used to that name.

I'm hoping to fly the Tiger out there for a visit this summer.
 
yep ... altho common usage is "jeffco, uh metro" ... :)

Keep me posted - would love to meet up again if you get back here!
 
Will do Greg. I really miss it.
 
I think that "too good to be true" deal I had for a while has long since gone away. However, my Viking pipe dream has started to morph a bit toward Bethpage products once in a while ... you've got me thinking Grumman every so often!
 
gkainz said:
I think that "too good to be true" deal I had for a while has long since gone away. However, my Viking pipe dream has started to morph a bit toward Bethpage products once in a while ... you've got me thinking Grumman every so often!
Click to expand...



Its hard to find Tiger rentals outside of Herb Hortman's operation at Northeast Philly aiport, KPNE. While they are easy to fly, the nosewheel will not tolerate getting pranged and if you're not familiar with their flying charactistics this can happen. However, an hour or two checkout and some currency/proficiency easily cures this. Since you flew a Mooney, you'd be fine Greg, it flies like a fixed gear Mooney somewhat. :D


Are you looking to purchase something individually or shared situation?
 
Last edited:
Clark1961 said:
The 172's fuel gauges were unrelieable (I considered them inop and refused the aircraft) among other things.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure I've ever flown a 172 that had reliable fuel gauges.
 
Bob Bement said:
What did he do that's so bad that he has to fly a Mooney?:D
Click to expand...

Greg used to rent a Mooney outside of Denver for a reasonable rate. I'd much rather rent a Mooney than any Cessna or Piper.
 
jesse said:
I'm not sure I've ever flown a 172 that had reliable fuel gauges.
Click to expand...
I'm certain I've never flown a Skyhawk with reliable fuel gages. It's even more disconcerting for a new student seeing the gage covered with a Red X during preflight and start. There are only two times those gages are accurate... when the tanks are full and when they're empty.
 
KennyFlys said:
I'm certain I've never flown a Skyhawk with reliable fuel gages. It's even more disconcerting for a new student seeing the gage covered with a Red X during preflight and start. There are only two times those gages are accurate... when the tanks are full and when they're empty.
Click to expand...

Other than the aircraft isn't airworthy by rule if the gauges are considered inop, I have no idea at all why a new student would be disconcerted. Of course I'm assuming that "covered with a Red X" means the gauges were inop.

In the particular aircraft that I refused, the gauges would read full for about the first five minutes of flight and then they would read empty. That gauge behavior is most definitely not typical for a 172. The gauges were eventually repaired.
 
Clark1961 said:
Other than the aircraft isn't airworthy by rule if the gauges are considered inop, I have no idea at all why a new student would be disconcerted. Of course I'm assuming that "covered with a Red X" means the gauges were inop.

In the particular aircraft that I refused, the gauges would read full for about the first five minutes of flight and then they would read empty. That gauge behavior is most definitely not typical for a 172. The gauges were eventually repaired.
Click to expand...
The gages come and go. The "inop" status isn't constant. It's something about the fuel sending units that are the problem. I've seen this on all Skyhawks built for the last ten years with no success in fixing the problem.
 
KennyFlys said:
The gages come and go. The "inop" status isn't constant. It's something about the fuel sending units that are the problem. I've seen this on all Skyhawks built for the last ten years with no success in fixing the problem.
Click to expand...

Maybe you should be flying older 172s?:smile: The gauges in the N's and P's weren't accurate but they did work except for the particular aircraft I mentioned.

Do you really chose to fly aircraft with inoperative fuel gauges???
 
Clark1961 said:
Do you really chose to fly aircraft with inoperative fuel gauges???
Click to expand...

Sure - I don't pay attention to them even when they are operative, so who cares? I stick the tanks before I start, and I know how much the bird burns. I've never had a surprise upon refueling.
 
Clark1961 said:
Do you really chose to fly aircraft with inoperative fuel gauges???
Click to expand...

Is there an airplane made with "operative" fuel gauges?

Seriously -- I glance at them only to see how off from the stick the indication is.

Time x Fuel burn rate - starting quantity = how much time I have left before it gets quiet.
 
dmccormack said:
Is there an airplane made with "operative" fuel gauges?

Seriously -- I glance at them only to see how off from the stick the indication is.

Time x Fuel burn rate - starting quantity = how much time I have left before it gets quiet.
Click to expand...


My Tiger's fuel gauges work OK. Do I trust them or use them? NO.
 
Clark1961 said:
Maybe you should be flying older 172s?:smile: The gauges in the N's and P's weren't accurate but they did work except for the particular aircraft I mentioned.

Do you really chose to fly aircraft with inoperative fuel gauges???
Click to expand...
As I said, they aren't constant. Add to that, I teach to never trust those gages except for two different times... when the tanks are full and indicate such or when the tanks are empty and indicate such. And, tanks must always be visually verified.
 
I would think checking them (gauges) occasionally would have minimized one little adventure that a previous poster (HWMNBN) experienced ... had he recognized one needle seemed to be falling quite rapidly ... ;)
 
gkainz said:
I would think checking them (gauges) occasionally would have minimized one little adventure that a previous poster (HWMNBN) experienced ... had he recognized one needle seemed to be falling quite rapidly ... ;)
Click to expand...
From the tone of the information, there wasn't anything there for the needle to fall from!
 
dmccormack said:
Is there an airplane made with "operative" fuel gauges?
Click to expand...

Yes - But probably not one of our little flivvers. Larger airplanes where it is very difficult to visually check fuel levels may have certified-accurate fuel gauges.

Or so I've been told.
 
Clark1961 said:
Do you really chose to fly aircraft with inoperative fuel gauges???
Click to expand...
If flight without them were legal--then I could give a **** less if they worked or not. I'm not sure I've ever gained anything by looking at the.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
Larger airplanes where it is very difficult to visually check fuel levels may have certified-accurate fuel gauges.

Or so I've been told.
Click to expand...
Larger airplanes have capacitance fuel gauges which are much more accurate.

Large airplanes use a different fuel gauge design principle. An airplane has a few (around 30 on an A320) low voltage capacitors where the fuel can go between them. At different fuel levels, there are different capacitances (i.e. capacitance proportional to the height of fuel) and therefore the level of fuel can be determined. For the aircraft pitch and roll attitudes the fuel computer works out how much fuel there is (slightly different on different manufacturers). In total this is more than 99% accurate.
Click to expand...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_gauge
 
dmccormack said:
Is there an airplane made with "operative" fuel gauges?

Seriously -- I glance at them only to see how off from the stick the indication is.

Time x Fuel burn rate - starting quantity = how much time I have left before it gets quiet.
Click to expand...

Seriously, yes, the gauges on the Dakota are pretty darn good. Even better are the visual float type gauges such as a Stearman has.

Time*Fuel burn works fine right up until the moment that a leak has developed...

It's each individual pilot's call on what they require. I think about the consequences for me and passengers along with what I'm gonna tell the accident investigators. It makes the call very easy for me. YMWV.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top