Plane Reserved - Where Should We Fly?

[BellyUpFish]

I got my endorsement in about an hour, but I had already practically taught myself to fly a J5 a local guy let me fly.

 

[SkyHog]

There are very few left in California. If Gravelly Valley is still open that would be fun.... never landed on gravel before!


Dimensions: 4050 x 200 ft. / 1234 x 61 m
BTWN PARALLEL DIRT ROADS.Surface: gravel, in good conditionWeight bearing capacity: Single wheel: 12.5Runway edge markings: MKD WITH WHITE TIRES.

2Q5 is located 152nm from KSFO
N86 is 175nm

Thats about 2 hours in a 172...

Gravel runways aren't too bad. I have a few in NM under my belt.

Also - wherever you go, we could use some visits out there - most of the claims are years old, and I'm sure the information is dated by now.

 

[Henning]

Oh puh-leeze.

How many hours did you have before the TW? How varied were the conditions when you did the endorsement?

It took me 5 and we did turf, dirt, pavement, wheelies, 3 point, at least an hour air work, direct x-wind (10 knots), quartering, and no wind. We intentionally bounced and recovered (no un-intentional bounces, fortunately), and did slow flight and stalls the old fashioned way --no buzzer, no light, just feel.

It's one thing to get the signature, something else altogether to be competent enough to handle various conditions.

<100 hrs all in the last 120 days including a PPSEL check ride and a PPMEL checkride and a flight from Long Beach to Ft Wayne IN and back in an Arrow and the purchase of my Travelair. We did my TW signoff the first day on my Aerobatics Intro course. I never had any trouble flying the Citabria.

Winds off 25L would have been a typical Left crosswind component of 7-10 kts most likely

 

[gismo]

I wonder if I am a sucky pilot. I wonder if the number of hours it takes me to get my TW is a good measurement. My instructor always taught me being a great pilot goes WAY beyond hours and numbers and stick and rudder skills. It is judgement, planning, etc.

Some folks are what I would call "natural" pilots. They seem to have an instinctive ability to control an airplane and easily grasp concepts like the difference between AoA and pitch attitude, how control forces vary with airspeed, and how pitch and power affect glidepath. But by itself that seemingly inherent ability to understand and control an airplane doesn't necessarily make a "good" pilot nor does the lack of same make a bad one because as your instructor has taught you, all the stick and rudder skill in the world may not get you out of a bad situation created by bad judgement. IME pilots who need time to develop control skills can become as good or better than any who breeze through that training, it just takes them a bit longer. And in the right training environment, such pilots are likely to actually become better pilots than the "naturals" because their longer exposure to said training provides more opportunities to learn or at least experience good judgement.

At the very least, you appear to be very interested in learning all you can about flying and that more than anything is likely to produce a fine pilot whether it takes you more or less time than average to develop.

 

[kimberlyanne546]

Some folks are what I would call "natural" pilots. They seem to have an instinctive ability to control an airplane and easily grasp concepts like the difference between AoA and pitch attitude, how control forces vary with airspeed, and how pitch and power affect glidepath. But by itself that seemingly inherent ability to understand and control an airplane doesn't necessarily make a "good" pilot nor does the lack of same make a bad one because as your instructor has taught you, all the stick and rudder skill in the world may not get you out of a bad situation created by bad judgement. IME pilots who need time to develop control skills can become as good or better than any who breeze through that training, it just takes them a bit longer. And in the right training environment, such pilots are likely to actually become better pilots than the "naturals" because their longer exposure to said training provides more opportunities to learn or at least experience good judgement.

At the very least, you appear to be very interested in learning all you can about flying and that more than anything is likely to produce a fine pilot whether it takes you more or less time than average to develop.

Wow, thanks. Time will tell. For now, I still consider myself very much a beginner.

 

[catmandu]

I was going to contribute my conventional gear endorsement story to this wonderful little firestorm, but then the whole "MY tailwheel signoff was shorter than YOURS!" thing started reminding me of another argument, so I think I'll pass.

 

[dmccormack]

Several times I have been told by high time TW pilots that less than 500 TW you're still a beginner.

No truer statement has been uttered in a hangar.

 

[BellyUpFish]

I was going to contribute my conventional gear endorsement story to this wonderful little firestorm, but then the whole "MY tailwheel signoff was shorter than YOURS!" thing started reminding me of another argument, so I think I'll pass.

Isn't that the way most threads go here?

My endorsement was low, but I had a decent amount of tailwheel time.

 

[jesse]

Some folks are what I would call "natural" pilots. They seem to have an instinctive ability to control an airplane and easily grasp concepts like the difference between AoA and pitch attitude, how control forces vary with airspeed, and how pitch and power affect glidepath. But by itself that seemingly inherent ability to understand and control an airplane doesn't necessarily make a "good" pilot nor does the lack of same make a bad one because as your instructor has taught you, all the stick and rudder skill in the world may not get you out of a bad situation created by bad judgement. IME pilots who need time to develop control skills can become as good or better than any who breeze through that training, it just takes them a bit longer. And in the right training environment, such pilots are likely to actually become better pilots than the "naturals" because their longer exposure to said training provides more opportunities to learn or at least experience good judgement.

At the very least, you appear to be very interested in learning all you can about flying and that more than anything is likely to produce a fine pilot whether it takes you more or less time than average to develop.

Well said Lance. I agree with all of the above.

I have students that learn *very quickly*, and I have some that go at a slower rate. The interesting thing is that often the ones at the slower rate are the most determined and I am more confident in their ability to actually finish the training. They'll be just as capable and as safe in the end.

I have a guy that spent 4 months jumping through FAA hoops to get his third-class medical because of a few alcohol charges 20 some years ago. He doesn't learn the fastest, but he is determined. He will get through.

There are a lot of elements to being a "good" pilot and being a "natural stick" can help with that but if they don't have the other elements (judgement, determination, confidence, etc) they are no better off.

 

[kimberlyanne546]

Well shoot. Due to a scheduling snafu, I ended up not meeting the pilot after all.

Having the day off, however, I decided to fly where we might have gone . . . but didn't land (just stop and go's).

Scary as it was, I went to a class Charlie (yay) - Sacramento International (KSMF) and then into a "sort of" mountain airport for a very small intro into flying at higher elevation - Calaveras (KCPU) only 1,300 or so feet high.

Hard to tell from the photo, but the airport is sort of elevated so if you landed short of the numbers you would land into the side of a hill.

So - 2.5 hours - possibly my longest flight yet! Even on my solo cross countries in training, I got out of the plane . . . not today.

O69 - KSMF - KCPU - O69

Saw three Yak's in formation upon landing back at O69, saw / heard jets at KSMF, got to do a little radio work, all in all a perfect flying day. Weather was hazy and there were some clouds around O69, but other than that all was great.

 

[kimberlyanne546]

PS - all the legs were 50+ nm so that means I get to log 2.5 hours XC - this will help if I go for my instrument training. I understand I should go into the training (according to my CFI) with at least 20 hours of cross country post-PPL (all PIC).

 

[azure]

PS - all the legs were 50+ nm so that means I get to log 2.5 hours XC - this will help if I go for my instrument training. I understand I should go into the training (according to my CFI) with at least 20 hours of cross country post-PPL (all PIC).

How are they interpreting the XC rule nowadays? I always count any trip that includes a landing at least 50 nm from my point of departure -- which I interpret to be my original POD for the day -- as something loggable to count towards the IR minimum. I know they've loosened up the rule to allow "repositioning" of the POD but I didn't think that meant that you HAD to consider every previous flight that way. In other words I didn't think the requirement was that each leg had to be >= 50 nm to count.

Oh BTW Kim, you fly in some really beautiful and exciting country. Northern MI is beautiful and I love it here (well, in the summer anyway), but sometimes I wish I could fly for an hour or two and get to somewhere more interesting and challenging. I think the most interesting new destination I found this summer was FKS, which is surrounded by hills, or what passes for hills around here. But you still couldn't get in trouble even taking off to the NW where the hills are closest, unless you were over gross and it was 40 C out.

 

[BellyUpFish]

I think anything 50.0nm is XC in the FAA's eyes.

The only one that gets screwy is 61.1 (3)(B), which for your private requirements must be "greater than 50nm."

61.109(a)(5)(ii) is the general definition of an XC and says "at least."

Two different regs for two different things.

To meet the private req's you need 50.1.

To meet everything else, you only need 50.0.

Airnav it, it'll tell you if it's an XC.

 

[jesse]

I think anything 50.0nm is XC in the FAA's eyes.

The only one that gets screwy is 61.1 (3)(B), which for your private requirements must be "greater than 50nm."

61.109(a)(5)(ii) is the general definition of an XC and says "at least."

Two different regs for two different things.

To meet the private req's you need 50.1.

To meet everything else, you only need 50.0.

Airnav it, it'll tell you if it's an XC.

For the purpose of applying for certain certificates, like the ATP, the definition changes a bit.

 

[BellyUpFish]

For the purpose of applying for certain certificates, like the ATP, the definition changes a bit.

Yeh, for the ATP you don't have to land. Just flying over counts.

 

[skidoo]

I think anything 50.0nm is XC in the FAA's eyes.

The only one that gets screwy is 61.1 (3)(B), which for your private requirements must be "greater than 50nm."

61.109(a)(5)(ii) is the general definition of an XC and says "at least."

Two different regs for two different things.

To meet the private req's you need 50.1.

To meet everything else, you only need 50.0.

Airnav it, it'll tell you if it's an XC.

50.1 is still 50 when rounded to significant figures.

 

[BellyUpFish]

50.1 is still 50 when rounded to significant figures.

Of course, I should have known better.. 50.6..

I dunno how half you guys get off the ground to do any flying as much axle wrapping goes on around here..

 

[gismo]

Of course, I should have known better.. 50.6..

I dunno how half you guys get off the ground to do any flying as much axle wrapping goes on around here..

Perhaps one should account for the curvature of the Earth (flying higher results in a longer path) or changes in elevation between departure and destination (slant distance is greater than the published lateral distance). After all you wouldn't want to be off by .00001 nm would you?

 

[BellyUpFish]

Perhaps one should account for the curvature of the Earth (flying higher results in a longer path) or changes in elevation between departure and destination (slant distance is greater than the published lateral distance). After all you wouldn't want to be off by .00001 nm would you?

You're totally right. I neglected all these very important factors.

How many pilots does it take to get wrapped around the axle?

Reminds me of a initial class I had years ago. There were these two guys who got wrapped around the axle ALL THE TIME. One sat at the front of the class, the other at the back of the class. They were eventually nicknamed front and rear axle.

 

[Dr. O]

Well, at least you got to fly... That's more than I did... Nasty weather here in Michigan for several days...
And I have way more hours in a tractor seat than a cockpit these past few months... Yesterday I spent 5 hours on the road driving a combine across the county... Being 14 feet wide I use up nearly two lanes... 11 miles an hour and half terrified of the passing traffic... People get nuts when they have to slow down even for 30 seconds - jeez... Had to go right through the heart of a rust belt city with gang bangers standing on the street corners looking up at me like I was from outer space - and I was looking down thinking that is where they need to be... Good thing the diesel kept on chugging away...

Today I took down a dead tree from the woods next to the house and bucked it up into 12 inch pieces to get it into the burner - 12 inches long and 20 inches across... Then I hauled the wood to the other farm... While there I fired up the wood stove in the pole barn for the first time to see if the chimney leaked (didn't)... Forgot how pleasant a wood fire is as it knocks the 40 degree chill out of the shop...

Tomorrow going to the airport in the morning and drag the Apache out and see if the engines will turn over, or if they have seized up with rust... I have been idly thinking I need to trade off Fat Albert for a Citabria and keep it here on the farm... The thing is, given the money I have put into Fat Albert the roll over will lose me the price of another airplane... <sigh>

Good on ya for getting some conventional gear training... Worth every penny you spend...

denny-o

 

[kimberlyanne546]

It was a lot of pennies but Henning (and others) on here have been encouraging me from the beginning to "go to new and unfamiliar airports."

The fact that I am lucky enough to live near some "less busy" class Charlies such as Sacramento is just icing on the cake.

The approach controller made me "start a descent" (like NOW) and that was fun, I lost 1500 feet and she thanked me later for the help. This was when I was more than 10 miles out and cruising at my XC altitude of 3500 - dropped to 2000 because she did not say "how much". I never saw the traffic but I'm sure it was very important that I comply.

The control tower guy did LOTS of weird things too like made me do a 270 and stuff to wait for a jet. I was worried about wake turbulence after he took off but by the time I landed the guy was on the radio saying to some other pilot "I'm indicating 70 knots" (as in, they were complaining how slow I was going on short final). I was thinking this is a Cessna, of COURSE I'm going 70 knots geez - he was talking to the plane that was sequenced behind me whom I'm sure had a much higher approach speed. Not sure why this is a surprise to them? They didn't tell me to expedite.

 

[denverpilot]

They were just giving a huge hint to the faster traffic to toss out the flaps and slow up or they'd get to go around.

 

[Henning]

It was a lot of pennies but Henning (and others) on here have been encouraging me from the beginning to "go to new and unfamiliar airports."

The fact that I am lucky enough to live near some "less busy" class Charlies such as Sacramento is just icing on the cake.

The approach controller made me "start a descent" (like NOW) and that was fun, I lost 1500 feet and she thanked me later for the help. This was when I was more than 10 miles out and cruising at my XC altitude of 3500 - dropped to 2000 because she did not say "how much". I never saw the traffic but I'm sure it was very important that I comply.

The control tower guy did LOTS of weird things too like made me do a 270 and stuff to wait for a jet. I was worried about wake turbulence after he took off but by the time I landed the guy was on the radio saying to some other pilot "I'm indicating 70 knots" (as in, they were complaining how slow I was going on short final). I was thinking this is a Cessna, of COURSE I'm going 70 knots geez - he was talking to the plane that was sequenced behind me whom I'm sure had a much higher approach speed. Not sure why this is a surprise to them? They didn't tell me to expedite.

Don't you worry about it one bit. You fly your airplane as you are willing to do. You will discover that your window of capability expands more and further as you fly frequently and often. Tell your boyfriend if he wants to marry you, skip the fancy ring, you want an Engagement Airplane. Have him buy you an RV-4.

or a bit more rare but every bit as good and possibly less expensive"
http://www.mustangaero.com/Mustang II/MustangII.html

 

[kimberlyanne546]

Don't you worry about it one bit. You fly your airplane as you are willing to do. You will discover that your window of capability expands more and further as you fly frequently and often. Tell your boyfriend if he wants to marry you, skip the fancy ring, you want an Engagement Airplane. Have him buy you an RV-4.

or a bit more rare but every bit as good and possibly less expensive"
http://www.mustangaero.com/Mustang II/MustangII.html

What fancy ring? I don't think that I was going to make him buy anything fancy. I mean I don't even own or wear ANY jewelry (not my thing) so whatever he ends up getting will be fine with me. I have no idea how much they cost or what a guy is supposed to spend. To me, that is not what it is all about.

 

[kimberlyanne546]

Oh and about the cross country - only a sectional was used - ! Not even VOR and certainly not GPS (don't have one).

Old school is in da house.

 

[Henning]

What fancy ring? I don't think that I was going to make him buy anything fancy. I mean I don't even own or wear ANY jewelry (not my thing) so whatever he ends up getting will be fine with me. I have no idea how much they cost or what a guy is supposed to spend. To me, that is not what it is all about.

Remember what I told you... go for the airplane....