Increasing Standards

wabower said:
Is a 30-year guy supposed to be worried about something I don't know about?
Click to expand...

Nope..... I am just saying when I first got my ticket ,I was up to speed on EVERY little detail of the AIM / FAR's.. I also gave the plane ALOT of respect and didn't even come close to stepping over the line in terms of the flight envelope.... Now, 32 years later I am still VERY respectful of aircraft and their ability to kill me in 10 seconds.. But.. I would have to look up answers to AIM/FAR questions as they have slipped off my current radar screen.... YMMV....
 
JHW said:
that issue is not about freedom, it's about training and the law of primacy. If someone learns to fly assuming that tanks are always full, that person is a fuel exhaustion statistic waiting to happen.
Click to expand...

No, he's a student who received poor training. Visual verification of fuel is on every checklist I've ever seen (short list but growing).

...and trusting fuel gauges...that's in a different thread recently covered.
 
You obviously haven't seen many check-lists, and you've got to get over that visual verification syndrome. It's simply not possible on many airplanes, and when you fly one for the first time you're going to understand. If it's possible to do so it's obviously a good idea, but you can't do what can't be done.

You're also going to find that many "real-life" airplanes are never filled after a trip due to possible weight issues that might arise on the next trip. I've flown ~30 legs in my Cessna single during the past 3 weeks. Only three started with full tanks.

Jaybird180 said:
No, he's a student who received poor training. Visual verification of fuel is on every checklist I've ever seen (short list but growing).

...and trusting fuel gauges...that's in a different thread recently covered.
Click to expand...
 
wabower said:
You obviously haven't seen many check-lists, and you've got to get over that visual verification syndrome. It's simply not possible on many airplanes, and when you fly one for the first time you're going to understand. If it's possible to do so it's obviously a good idea, but you can't do what can't be done.

You're also going to find that many "real-life" airplanes are never filled after a trip due to possible weight issues that might arise on the next trip. I've flown ~30 legs in my Cessna single during the past 3 weeks. Only three started with full tanks.
Click to expand...

Who said I needed full tanks? Not me. 2hrs + taxi, runup and takeoff is my bare minimum, IF I have accurate measurement
 
Kortokrax states in comment #1:

By teaching and testing things like scanning, cross-check, interpretation and standard rate turns, we are giving students the false impression that they can handle instrument conditions.

Help me out here. Is he saying that it's wrong to teach a PPL applicant cross-check, interpretation and control just because it might lead them to believe that they can fly in IMC? That's pure horse manure if I ever did see it in print. Give me a freakin break.
 
over50 said:
Kortokrax states in comment #1:

By teaching and testing things like scanning, cross-check, interpretation and standard rate turns, we are giving students the false impression that they can handle instrument conditions.

Help me out here. Is he saying that it's wrong to teach a PPL applicant cross-check, interpretation and control just because it might lead them to believe that they can fly in IMC? That's pure horse manure if I ever did see it in print. Give me a freakin break.
Click to expand...

Agreed..... Basic scanning by a VFR pilot will SAVE his life one day...Hopefully.:dunno:
 
Last edited:
over50 said:
Kortokrax states in comment #1:

By teaching and testing things like scanning, cross-check, interpretation and standard rate turns, we are giving students the false impression that they can handle instrument conditions.

Help me out here. Is he saying that it's wrong to teach a PPL applicant cross-check, interpretation and control just because it might lead them to believe that they can fly in IMC? That's pure horse manure if I ever did see it in print. Give me a freakin break.
Click to expand...

Yup. That's what he said. I hope the adults show up and kill this one....
 
That's the point. You can't measure it. You can't see it. You can't hear it. You can't verify it with a stick. Whether you like it or not, that's the way they're built.

Jaybird180 said:
Who said I needed full tanks? Not me. 2hrs + taxi, runup and takeoff is my bare minimum, IF I have accurate measurement
Click to expand...
 
over50 said:
Kortokrax states in comment #1:

By teaching and testing things like scanning, cross-check, interpretation and standard rate turns, we are giving students the false impression that they can handle instrument conditions.

Help me out here. Is he saying that it's wrong to teach a PPL applicant cross-check, interpretation and control just because it might lead them to believe that they can fly in IMC? That's pure horse manure if I ever did see it in print. Give me a freakin break.
Click to expand...

I agree with the comment. It's strange that some of you in one thread will tell a primary student to look out the window, then you disagree with this.

Fact is: the personality types that tend to be attracted to aviation will prefer to fly by instruments if they were trained to. If instruments is part of your law of primacy, guess what you will have a bias toward? This is why I think combined PPL/IR 141 only makes sense for the pilot who intends to go pro. He can keep his skills sharp. The recreational pilot needs stick & rudder skills primarily to combat the #1 killer (maneuvering LOC accidents).
 
Is there something I have to be worried about mid training that some requirements will change in the next month or so?
 
N801BH said:
Nope..... I am just saying when I first got my ticket ,I was up to speed on EVERY little detail of the AIM / FAR's.. I also gave the plane ALOT of respect and didn't even come close to stepping over the line in terms of the flight envelope.... Now, 32 years later I am still VERY respectful of aircraft and their ability to kill me in 10 seconds.. But.. I would have to look up answers to AIM/FAR questions as they have slipped off my current radar screen.... YMMV....
Click to expand...

I certainly can't recite the FAR/AIM. But I do know what matters and what will keep me safe.

The big issue seems to be poor planning (either willingly or out of ignorance, I think mostly the latter) and insufficient proficiency in actual flight.
 
JHW said:
yep. I can think of maybe 5 times in the last 5 years I've topped off the travel air. Tankering around fuel is one of the dumbest things we do in GA, yet it's celebrated as being "safe"
Click to expand...


It definitely does not make sense in a twin, where OEI performance is a concern.
 
wabower said:
Or singles for many of the same performance and envelope reasons.
Click to expand...

Oh for sure, but as long as you keep it under max gross, within CG and light enough to get in/out of the airports you are operating at with a safe margin - you don't really hurt anything by carrying extra fuel. I know there are some exceptions to this, and I don't speak for those flying out west.

I don't personally tanker extra fuel around past a 1hr reserve unless there is a reason.
 
I'm happy that I fly a plane with accurate fuel gauges now.

I'll give a good example of not tankering. Coming back from Alabama on my Belize trip (about 2 hours) I had a 4-5k ft thick icing layer to climb through. I left 40 gallons of fuel in the truck and took 100 gallons (which would give me my destination, alternate, and reserve plus comfort), and saw 2,000 FPM climb rates through the ice layer. Nice.
 
dell30rb said:
It definitely does not make sense in a twin, where OEI performance is a concern.
Click to expand...
Ok, you want to make your 2 hour trip. Say you have a single-engine early model comanche 250. Yours has the 90 gal tanks. Your neighbor going with you has the same year comanche 250 but his has the 60 gal tanks. How much fuel do each of you tanker? Does your 90-gal plane have less utility than his 60-gal model because his full-fuel useful load is so much "better" than yours?

defaulting to full tanks all the time makes no more sense in a cherokee 140 than in an airbus 380.
 
JHW said:
Does your 90-gal plane have less utility than his 60-gal model because his full-fuel useful load is so much "better" than yours?
Click to expand...

Perhaps, maybe fuel at the destination is 7 bucks a gallon and he has to buy, while I don't.

I was not advocating defaulting to full tanks for singles. Just pointing out that an extra 30 gallons in a light twin can change the OEI performance significantly.

Our club leaves all of the aircraft to tabs so that pilots have extra useful load. Its easy to add fuel if needed.

If all goes to plan i'll be flying a super swift in a few weeks. Useful load is 590 and it has 60 gal cap. We'll be leaving the two 12 gallon wing aux tanks empty. May or may not leave the 9gal aux center tank empty.
 
Last edited:
The one exception with tanks can be a longevity issue for parts. In the Aztec I typically filled the tanks when I came back because the rubber had a history of cracking and leaking otherwise.

In the 310 I leave the tanks alone when I land and then fill up as necessary for the next trip.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
The one exception with tanks can be a longevity issue for parts. In the Aztec I typically filled the tanks when I came back because the rubber had a history of cracking and leaking otherwise.

In the 310 I leave the tanks alone when I land and then fill up as necessary for the next trip.
Click to expand...

That's a good point. Our club has maintained M20J's for years. We leave them at 50gal for useful load reasons. None of them leak when sitting at 50 gallons. If you fill any of them up to 64, the tanks leak. The seals are dried out above the 50 gallon level.
 
With a full-tanks (90 gal) cabin payload of 1,000# in my T-210, I couldn't envision a situation that would cause a weight or balance problem.

Now that I know how easily it can happen, and how difficult the solution can become (in real life, where you can't just stand there in full dress uniform and tell who-all they can't go) I have a much healthier respect for such issues, and for those who wait to add fuel until everything and everybody who wants to go is present, accounted-for and standing on the ramp ready to load.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
The one exception with tanks can be a longevity issue for parts. In the Aztec I typically filled the tanks when I came back because the rubber had a history of cracking and leaking otherwise.

In the 310 I leave the tanks alone when I land and then fill up as necessary for the next trip.
Click to expand...
That's pretty much an OWT. The top of a bladder is not covered with fuel no matter how full, and it has the same concentration of fuel vapor against it whether the tank holds 50gal or 1qt. Bladders tend to fail most often where the quick drain is inserted, which is the only area that is covered by fuel even when the tank is "empty"
 
JHW said:
That's pretty much an OWT. The top of a bladder is not covered with fuel no matter how full, and it has the same concentration of fuel vapor against it whether the tank holds 50gal or 1qt. Bladders tend to fail most often where the quick drain is inserted, which is the only area that is covered by fuel even when the tank is "empty"
Click to expand...

:popcorn:
 
Doubt it. I think wings is a bit of a joke myself. I haven't came across a single person interested in it.
 
jesse said:
Doubt it. I think wings is a bit of a joke myself. I haven't came across a single person interested in it.
Click to expand...

Wings is a joke. It's easier/simpler and more enjoyable to just get a BFR/new rating.
 
Wings is OK, especially if you're out of ratings to add on. What's wrong with doing more than a BFR requires, and twice as often?
 
Dave Krall CFII said:
Wings is OK, especially if you're out of ratings to add on. What's wrong with doing more than a BFR requires, and twice as often?
Click to expand...

You can do all that without having to log into some poorly made awkward government website.
 
Like maybe 1.5 hours every 18 months rather than the currently grueling requirement of 1.0 hours every two years? Other than Chuck Norris, who else could meet that standard?

Dave Krall CFII said:
Wings is OK, especially if you're out of ratings to add on. What's wrong with doing more than a BFR requires, and twice as often?
Click to expand...
 
jesse said:
You can do all that without having to log into some poorly made awkward government website.
Click to expand...

That's the biggest issue: the web site & poor clarity of info. That said, I do usually maintain currency via Wings - I usually do an IPC each year & take a few extra minutes to add-on the extra in-the-air segment(s) for Wings credit. It takes longer to do the online course work, but that's not really a burden once you figure out what counts for what.

For the training I do, it's as easy to maintain BFR credit via Wings. For someone doing the basics, the BFR is probably easier.

I sure wouldn't want Wings to be mandated.
 
jesse said:
You can do all that without having to log into some poorly made awkward government website.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that thing is a piece of work, compared to the Flight School Security Awareness certification site which is at least very streamlined.

The last I knew, some insurance companies gave enough of a discount to pilots that completed a Wings Phase to completely offset the cost of aircraft and dual for the requirement.
 
Dave Krall CFII said:
The last I knew, some insurance companies gave enough of a discount to pilots that completed a Wings Phase to completely offset the cost of aircraft and dual for the requirement.
Click to expand...

I do get a discount, but I don't think it would offset that full cost. Then again, you're going to have that cost for a BFR anyway, so....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top