Teaching those more experienced [Long]

LDJones

Touchdown! Greaser!
Gone West
Joined
Sep 6, 2011
Messages
10,998
Location
Twin Cities, MN
Display Name

Display name:
Jonesy
I had an interesting experience today. I flew with an airline captain to get him ready for a 709 ride with the FAA. I suspect he's in the tens of thousands of hours range based on a forty year career.

By way of background, he came to me back in Feb. to get reacquainted with general aviation flying since he was getting close to finishing his experimental. He hadn't flown anything smaller than an airliner in 20 years and knew he needed some brushing up. I admit to having feelings of "what can I teach this guy!" with his 3x or 4x times my few thousand hours, but we had a good flight and he definitely did need to be reacquainted with GA. By the time we finished he wasn't making greasers, but they were consistently safe. I thought we might be flying again, but I didn't hear from him again, so figured he got what he needed.

Fast forward to late August....on his second flight in his experimental he got it into a PIO and collapsed the nose wheel, turned the prop into kindling and dinged a wingtip. He felt horrible, as you can imagine...."40 years of flying and I've never scratched an airplane...until today" was his comment that day. I really felt bad for him.

So today was his 709 ride with the feds. We went out early to brush up on landings beforehand. On his first landing, I figured I'd just observe. We came in hot, he forced it onto the runway at least 8 knots faster than normal, with the expected onset of a porpoise. I assisted in the recovery, demonstrating that we had enough airspeed to get airborne again (which we did), and make a second gentle touchdown at a more reasonable landing speed (which we did!)

I know he was really nervous about his upcoming ride, but throughout the ride I just couldn't get him to relax on the controls. On final the yoke was pumping back and for so much I was thankful we didn't have anyone in back or they'd be puking! I tried to really emphasis the inherent stability built into the aircraft and tried to get him to use a lighter touch. I even flew one pattern as a demo using only three fingers to control it all the way around and to touchdown with no jockeying of the controls on final, just tiny power adjustments as needed.

But on the next circuit he was back to pumping it back and forth. I think I at least made progress on getting him to NOT go forward on the yoke once over the pavement. I even induced a balloon on one landing to demonstrate proper recovery using power WITHOUT forward movement on the yoke. That seemed to click. I also got him to bleed off much more of his speed before touchdown. Again, no greasers, but at least they were safer and mostly mains-first. I would have liked two or three more landings with him, but we were out of time. D-Day had arrived.

As we taxied back we saw the FAA inspector was standing at the counter waiting (we were one time!) Turns out he was apparently impressed that the guy was getting some dual in preparation for the ride, based on comments to the FBO staff. I have to say, the inspector was one of the more laid-back FAA people I've met, and was genuinely nice to deal with...not that most aren't but he was especially so.

After a bunch of paperwork and scrutiny of the marginal weather this morning, they headed out to fly.

We watched as they did two touch and goes and a full stop, during which we could see the pitch oscillations on final, but the touchdowns seemed okay, which obviously was good enough for the inspector. They both came back smiling.

The inspector joked that he had to hit the guy in the ribs while flying to get him to breathe! Like I said, he was VERY nervous about this ride. He was visibly relieved when all was over, understandably.

This guy is obviously a very good pilot....I doubt anyone gets to spend decades in the left seat of a major without demonstrating consistently good piloting skills on a regular basis. But it's a lesson to me that expertise and currency in one type of flying may not necessarily translate to current skills in another.

It also reminded me of something my instructor told me 35 years ago....."Log every hour of dual you can whenever you get the chance. Never stop learning." We need to recognize we are never beyond learning something new....or improving on what we already know.
 
Last edited:
I had a similar experience at my flying club the other week... a recently retired 10k+ hr airline pilot was about to go up for some laps and so was I so we split a plane. He was in the process of getting his ASEL-Prop since he hadn't flown prop planes until recently. I was quite surprised to find that my pattern skills were far better than his with my measly 70hrs! The final landing he did was a double bouncer and the other 2 were quite firm but safe. He claimed the use of a rudder and the lack of automation were huge changes for him. A major problem for him was too high of an airspeed and altitude on final.
 
This guy is obviously a very good pilot....I doubt anyone gets to spend decades in the left seat of a major without demonstrating consistently good piloting skills on a regular basis.
Is it possible that the last 10 years was spent programming the FMS instead of flying the airplane?
 
I had an interesting experience today. I flew with an airline captain to get him ready for a 709 ride with the FAA. I suspect he's in the tens of thousands of hours range based on a forty year career.

By way of background, he came to me back in Feb. to get reacquainted with general aviation flying since he was getting close to finishing his experimental. He hadn't flown anything smaller than an airliner in 20 years and knew he needed some brushing up. I admit to having feelings of "what can I teach this guy!" with his 3x or 4x times my few thousand hours, but we had a good flight and he definitely did need to be reacquainted with GA. By the time we finished he wasn't making greasers, but they were consistently safe. I thought we might be flying again, but I didn't hear from him again, so figured he got what he needed.

Fast forward to late August....on his second flight in his experimental he got it into a PIO and collapsed the nose wheel, turned the prop into kindling and dinged a wingtip. He felt horrible, as you can imagine...."40 years of flying and I've never scratched an airplane...until today" was his comment that day. I really felt bad for him.

So today was his 709 ride with the feds. We went out early to brush up on landings beforehand. On his first landing, I figured I'd just observe. We came in hot, he forced it onto the runway at least 8 knots faster than normal, with the expected onset of a porpoise. I assisted in the recovery, demonstrating that we had enough airspeed to get airborne again (which we did), and make a second gentle touchdown at a more reasonable landing speed (which we did!)

I know he was really nervous about his upcoming ride, but throughout the ride I just couldn't get him to relax on the controls. On final the yoke was pumping back and for so much I was thankful we didn't have anyone in back or they'd be puking! I tried to really emphasis the inherent stability built into the aircraft and tried to get him to use a lighter touch. I even flew one pattern as a demo using only three fingers to control it all the way around and to touchdown with no jockeying of the controls on final, just tiny power adjustments as needed.

But on the next circuit he was back to pumping it back and forth. I think I at least made progress on getting him to NOT go forward on the yoke once over the pavement. I even induced a balloon on one landing to demonstrate proper recovery using power WITHOUT forward movement on the yoke. That seemed to click. I also got him to bleed off much more of his speed before touchdown. Again, no greasers, but at least they were safer and mostly mains-first. I would have liked two or three more landings with him, but we were out of time. D-Day had arrived.

As we taxied back we saw the FAA inspector was standing at the counter waiting (we were one time!) Turns out he was apparently impressed that the guy was getting some dual in preparation for the ride, based on comments to the FBO staff. I have to say, the inspector was one of the more laid-back FAA people I've met, and was genuinely nice to deal with...not that most aren't but he was especially so.

After a bunch of paperwork and scrutiny of the marginal weather this morning, they headed out to fly.

We watched as they did two touch and goes and a full stop, during which we could see the pitch oscillations on final, but the touchdowns seemed okay, which obviously was good enough for the inspector. They both came back smiling.

The inspector joked that he had to hit the guy in the ribs while flying to get him to breathe! Like I said, he was VERY nervous about this ride. He was visibly relieved when all was over, understandably.

This guy is obviously a very good pilot....I doubt anyone gets to spend decades in the left seat of a major without demonstrating consistently good piloting skills on a regular basis. But it's a lesson to me that expertise and currency in one type of flying may not necessarily translate to current skills in another.

It also reminded me of something my instructor told me 35 years ago....."Log every hour of dual you can whenever you get the chance. Never stop learning." We need to recognize we are never beyond learning something new....or improving on what we already know.

Loren

Story reminds me of an article in Flying mag (or plane and pilot) in the 1970s about a young CFI giving a check out to an airline captain. I never forgot it and it reminds me that. We can always continue learning (with my inexperience I have more to learn than most). Thanks for sharing.
 
Is it possible that the last 10 years was spent programming the FMS instead of flying the airplane?

Possible, but I think the recurrent sim training probably puts them through a pretty good wringer.
 
Every pilot needs transition training into different aircraft. I have seen "fat logbook" single engine piston pilots pile up ultra lights because they thought they were simple to fly. Every plane model needs a different touch.

Good write up. :yes:
 
Since when did "prop" become a category rating?

You can always learn something. I've got hundreds of hours in a 172, and while getting ready for a trip flying 172's around Australia, I decided I hadn't landed one on grass much so I grabbed a local flight instructor at the local FBO to go try some. I learned things I didn't know before we got done with the preflight.
 
I'm guessing the pumping was "feeling for the runway" which experienced pilots can do 'just a little' and he's still thinking that 40' in the air is about the time the wheels should touch. Do you know if somebody taught (or scared) him into the higher approach speeds, or did he just decide on a number?

We frequently saw some of this same behavior when senior captains came to SFI to train for post-retirement gigs in King Airs and Citations. IMO, it's harder to adjust sight picture and flare height when transitioning from big to little rather than the other way.
 
Last edited:
I would have guessed the pumping is from being used to flying AC with much greater inertia.

I'm not a high-experience flyer by any means, but it was a real eye opener when earning my TW in a J3 how just pulling that stick back and holding it there after any signs of a slight bounce (when 3-pointing) and then concentrating on the rudders was so much easier than trying to keep fighting it.

So many times previously the instructor would say (and do) "stick back, stick back, stick back" after the little hop when 3 pointing - whereas I would keep trying to "save it".... When I finally started listening and it worked.... Well, If I had a free hand, I would have dope-slapped myself.
 
Is it possible that the last 10 years was spent programming the FMS instead of flying the airplane?

In my not very experienced opinion, it's more likely Vref and flare height are half of what he is used to, adding power at the last second works, he is not limited by runway length, the sight picture is totally wrong, and the right seat isn't making callouts.
 
I'll guess the pumping is because he didn't learn in a light airplane on a short runway. Those techniques remain foundational. I never thought a C-172 made a good trainer because it's too heavy to really feel the air. Couple that with unlimited concrete and a quick transition to jets and you get an airplane driver not a flyer.

dtuuri
 
"Pumping." I know a excellent pilot, former airline, now mostly light and a DPE who "pumps" the yoke with very small back and forth motions. When I asked he said it was nothing more than akin to an athlete bouncing on his toes ready to move in any necessary direction. The slight back-n-forth of the stick did not translate to an up-and-down of the longitudinal axis. I've seen the same with pilots who move their feet slightly and continuously on the rudder pedals on final.
 
I think that pilots should do at least 25% of their flying without autopilot on. It tends to get your skills rusty. Besides murphy says that the autopilot is going to malfunction in IMC so your introduction to abuse is going to be a magnitude more difficult.


I had an interesting experience today. I flew with an airline captain to get him ready for a 709 ride with the FAA. I suspect he's in the tens of thousands of hours range based on a forty year career.

By way of background, he came to me back in Feb. to get reacquainted with general aviation flying since he was getting close to finishing his experimental. He hadn't flown anything smaller than an airliner in 20 years and knew he needed some brushing up. I admit to having feelings of "what can I teach this guy!" with his 3x or 4x times my few thousand hours, but we had a good flight and he definitely did need to be reacquainted with GA. By the time we finished he wasn't making greasers, but they were consistently safe. I thought we might be flying again, but I didn't hear from him again, so figured he got what he needed.

Fast forward to late August....on his second flight in his experimental he got it into a PIO and collapsed the nose wheel, turned the prop into kindling and dinged a wingtip. He felt horrible, as you can imagine...."40 years of flying and I've never scratched an airplane...until today" was his comment that day. I really felt bad for him.

So today was his 709 ride with the feds. We went out early to brush up on landings beforehand. On his first landing, I figured I'd just observe. We came in hot, he forced it onto the runway at least 8 knots faster than normal, with the expected onset of a porpoise. I assisted in the recovery, demonstrating that we had enough airspeed to get airborne again (which we did), and make a second gentle touchdown at a more reasonable landing speed (which we did!)

I know he was really nervous about his upcoming ride, but throughout the ride I just couldn't get him to relax on the controls. On final the yoke was pumping back and for so much I was thankful we didn't have anyone in back or they'd be puking! I tried to really emphasis the inherent stability built into the aircraft and tried to get him to use a lighter touch. I even flew one pattern as a demo using only three fingers to control it all the way around and to touchdown with no jockeying of the controls on final, just tiny power adjustments as needed.

But on the next circuit he was back to pumping it back and forth. I think I at least made progress on getting him to NOT go forward on the yoke once over the pavement. I even induced a balloon on one landing to demonstrate proper recovery using power WITHOUT forward movement on the yoke. That seemed to click. I also got him to bleed off much more of his speed before touchdown. Again, no greasers, but at least they were safer and mostly mains-first. I would have liked two or three more landings with him, but we were out of time. D-Day had arrived.

As we taxied back we saw the FAA inspector was standing at the counter waiting (we were one time!) Turns out he was apparently impressed that the guy was getting some dual in preparation for the ride, based on comments to the FBO staff. I have to say, the inspector was one of the more laid-back FAA people I've met, and was genuinely nice to deal with...not that most aren't but he was especially so.

After a bunch of paperwork and scrutiny of the marginal weather this morning, they headed out to fly.

We watched as they did two touch and goes and a full stop, during which we could see the pitch oscillations on final, but the touchdowns seemed okay, which obviously was good enough for the inspector. They both came back smiling.

The inspector joked that he had to hit the guy in the ribs while flying to get him to breathe! Like I said, he was VERY nervous about this ride. He was visibly relieved when all was over, understandably.

This guy is obviously a very good pilot....I doubt anyone gets to spend decades in the left seat of a major without demonstrating consistently good piloting skills on a regular basis. But it's a lesson to me that expertise and currency in one type of flying may not necessarily translate to current skills in another.

It also reminded me of something my instructor told me 35 years ago....."Log every hour of dual you can whenever you get the chance. Never stop learning." We need to recognize we are never beyond learning something new....or improving on what we already know.
 
Like many other dragger pilots I "dance" the rudders a bit just to be sure they respond and that the brain-to-foot link is working. Then I learned (actually re-learned) that Stearmans don't appreciate such meddling.

"Pumping." I know a excellent pilot, former airline, now mostly light and a DPE who "pumps" the yoke with very small back and forth motions. When I asked he said it was nothing more than akin to an athlete bouncing on his toes ready to move in any necessary direction. The slight back-n-forth of the stick did not translate to an up-and-down of the longitudinal axis. I've seen the same with pilots who move their feet slightly and continuously on the rudder pedals on final.
 
I think that pilots should do at least 25% of their flying without autopilot on. It tends to get your skills rusty. Besides murphy says that the autopilot is going to malfunction in IMC so your introduction to abuse is going to be a magnitude more difficult.

So there are pilots who use the autopilot from rotation to touchdown??

Really? :dunno:
 
Is it possible that the last 10 years was spent programming the FMS instead of flying the airplane?

Possible, but I think the recurrent sim training probably puts them through a pretty good wringer.

Not possible. Sorry, I don't know any airline that has a pilot position where the only job is for the guy to "program the FMS". Again this silly inane assumption that airline pilots only "program the FMS" and push a few buttons and the airplane magically does everything for them is ludicrous at best.

As for the recurrent, "pretty good wringer" is putting it mildly. If you exposed the majority of private aviators and aircraft owners to the same training regime and the same standards for recurrent training you would see 70+ % disappear from the flying ranks.
 
You could get more than 50% by retesting to PPL mins.

Not possible. Sorry, I don't know any airline that has a pilot position where the only job is for the guy to "program the FMS". Again this silly inane assumption that airline pilots only "program the FMS" and push a few buttons and the airplane magically does everything for them is ludicrous at best.

As for the recurrent, "pretty good wringer" is putting it mildly. If you exposed the majority of private aviators and aircraft owners to the same training regime and the same standards for recurrent training you would see 70+ % disappear from the flying ranks.
 
You could get more than 50% retesting for any cert. or rating, including cfi.
 
... a recently retired 10k+ hr airline pilot was about to go up for some laps and so was I so we split a plane. ...He claimed the use of a rudder and the lack of automation were huge changes for him.

Rotor&Wing must have missed this one.
 
He claimed the use of a rudder and the lack of automation were huge changes for him.

Rotor&Wing must have missed this one.

Really? Please explain to us which transport category airplane doesn't require the use of a rudder to take off and land? Are you implying that in a crosswind a large transport doesn't require rudder inputs?

If we are talking use of rudder in flight for coordinated turns then yes the yaw dampers do a nice job of keeping the airplane coordinated. There is a reason on large very complex aircraft with swept wings why yaw dampers are installed.

As far as automation, what level? Are we talking cockpit displays?, Navigation? Autopilot? Flight Director? HSI? PFD? ND? ECAM? ECAIS? EFIS? FGMS? FADEC?

Automation can be on varying levels.
 
Last edited:
How unfortunate that airplanes aren't like horses: they neither know nor care how much experience one has. Begs the question: More experienced at what? Experience flying airliners is quite different than flying light aircraft. Does your airline "student" have a modicum of experience in light airplanes, or has he pretty much flown just the gamut of military jets and transports? That would certainly explain his discomfort with light planes. I dare say those of us who were weaned in small airplanes would be similarly intimidated with military hardware. I've flown with airline Captains in an unfamiliar (to them) light airplane and their ability to smoothly command the controls was astounding...I used to teach in a Great Lake biplane, and most general aviation pilots were completely overwhelmed with its responsive controls, brick-like sink rate and poor visibility over the nose and real man's taildragger ground handling. Flew with one (airline) pilot who could fly it as well or better than I - when he first got in it. I've also seen people with a pedigree like Yeager's who couldn't grab their butt with both hands. But it sounds like a person without much light plane experience.
 
Really? Please explain to us which transport category airplane doesn't require the use of a rudder to take off and land? Are you implying that in a crosswind a large transport doesn't require rudder inputs?

If we are talking use of rudder in flight for coordinated turns then yes the yaw dampers do a nice job of keeping the airplane coordinated. There is a reason on large very complex aircraft with swept wings why yaw dampers are installed.

As far as automation, what level? Are we talking cockpit displays?, Navigation? Autopilot? Flight Director? HSI? PFD? ND? ECAM? ECAIS? EFIS? FGMS? FADEC?

Automation can be on varying levels.
I agree it's hard to believe an airline pilot could get by without at least adequate stick and rudder skills but I suspect that at least a few manage by focusing on "flying the sim" rather than honing basic skills that either were never very strong or have atrophied. My good friend and next door neighbor is very senior at Delta and he's conveyed some stories about (a few) coworkers who clearly were lacking in the basics. One of them managed to ruin my day in addition to scaring the crap out of my friend when the senior airline captain he let perform a takeoff in a floatplane stalled it 30 ft above the water while applying more aft stick force than my neighbor could overcome. This occurred shortly before I flew into a nearby northern Minnesota airport for the express purpose of getting to fly the now bent Citabria so I got to witness the damage to the airframe and both pilot's egos.

I personally experienced what might have been more of a large to small airplane transition issue when I coached an American Airline pilot through an attempted landing in a Bonanza. He simply could not control the airspeed and tried very hard to put the nosewheel on the runway first about 40 kt above the speed normally used even though I had been giving him clear direction WRT his speed and power setting. I finally had to make him relinquish control so I could slow the plane enough to land safely (the runway was about 7000 ft long). This pilot had several hundred hours as a GA CFI prior to joining the airline but hadn't flown a "small plane" in several years. Apparently it's not like riding a bicycle.
 
I used to teach in a Great Lake biplane, and most general aviation pilots were completely overwhelmed with its responsive controls, brick-like sink rate and poor visibility over the nose and real man's taildragger ground handling.

Shoot, the Great Lakes is the most amazingly forgiving and easy tailwheel airplane on the ground I've ever flown. Very wide gear and super soft oleos that soak up just about everything. IMO, a plain old J-3 is a lot more challenging and unforgiving.
 
I agree it's hard to believe an airline pilot could get by without at least adequate stick and rudder skills but I suspect that at least a few manage by focusing on "flying the sim" rather than honing basic skills that either were never very strong or have atrophied. My good friend and next door neighbor is very senior at Delta and he's conveyed some stories about (a few) coworkers who clearly were lacking in the basics. One of them managed to ruin my day in addition to scaring the crap out of my friend when the senior airline captain he let perform a takeoff in a floatplane stalled it 30 ft above the water while applying more aft stick force than my neighbor could overcome. This occurred shortly before I flew into a nearby northern Minnesota airport for the express purpose of getting to fly the now bent Citabria so I got to witness the damage to the airframe and both pilot's egos.
He was probably applying the stick force he was accustomed to in his work airplane and also rotated to the attitude that looked normal for him.

I personally experienced what might have been more of a large to small airplane transition issue when I coached an American Airline pilot through an attempted landing in a Bonanza. He simply could not control the airspeed and tried very hard to put the nosewheel on the runway first about 40 kt above the speed normally used even though I had been giving him clear direction WRT his speed and power setting. I finally had to make him relinquish control so I could slow the plane enough to land safely (the runway was about 7000 ft long). This pilot had several hundred hours as a GA CFI prior to joining the airline but hadn't flown a "small plane" in several years. Apparently it's not like riding a bicycle.
I have definitely had large to small difficulties and what I'm used to flying isn't all that large, not nearly airliner scale. However the sight picture is different and the control forces are different. I think most people who fly the same type airplane all the time fly by muscle memory. When you go to something different you really need to concentrate. Even then, it doesn't seem natural.
 
I agree it's hard to believe an airline pilot could get by without at least adequate stick and rudder skills but I suspect that at least a few manage by focusing on "flying the sim" rather than honing basic skills that either were never very strong or have atrophied. My good friend and next door neighbor is very senior at Delta and he's conveyed some stories about (a few) coworkers who clearly were lacking in the basics. One of them managed to ruin my day in addition to scaring the crap out of my friend when the senior airline captain he let perform a takeoff in a floatplane stalled it 30 ft above the water while applying more aft stick force than my neighbor could overcome. This occurred shortly before I flew into a nearby northern Minnesota airport for the express purpose of getting to fly the now bent Citabria so I got to witness the damage to the airframe and both pilot's egos.

I personally experienced what might have been more of a large to small airplane transition issue when I coached an American Airline pilot through an attempted landing in a Bonanza. He simply could not control the airspeed and tried very hard to put the nosewheel on the runway first about 40 kt above the speed normally used even though I had been giving him clear direction WRT his speed and power setting. I finally had to make him relinquish control so I could slow the plane enough to land safely (the runway was about 7000 ft long). This pilot had several hundred hours as a GA CFI prior to joining the airline but hadn't flown a "small plane" in several years. Apparently it's not like riding a bicycle.

So if someone flies larger (transport) type of aircraft their skills should immediately translate into lighter much simpler GA aircraft? :dunno: :rolleyes2:


Think if I put you in a large jet under the same scenario in the second paragraph you would "grease it on" and get it stopped in 7000'? If you didn't get it on the first or second attempt would it be fair to comment about your "lack of stick and rudder skills" as the contributing factor?
 
Last edited:
When I got back from a long vacation in SEA I became a Huey flight instructor at the USAF school that no longer exists. All of my students were big airplane pilots. I thought it was a helicopter vs. airplane thing. When I transitioned to a T-38 I wasn't so sure. The 38 was sort of boring after the Huey. Then I transitioned to a C-141. Wow! Different world. Size matters. Both ways.
 
The more experience you have, the more important it becomes to approach training with a Beginner's Mind

%E7%A6%AA-ouyang.png
 
So if someone flies larger (transport) type of aircraft their skills should immediately translate into lighter much simpler GA aircraft? :dunno: :rolleyes2:
Not at all. I wasn't expecting he would pull off a greaser or even a decent landing without a little coaching. But I did (obviously mistakenly) assume that an ATP could manage to achieve the airspeed I asked for. All he had to do was read the ASI and pull the throttle back. But he just couldn't let the plane get that slow and kept feeding in more power.

Think if I put you in a large jet under the same scenario in the second paragraph you would "grease it on" and get it stopped in 7000'? If you didn't get it on the first or second attempt would it be fair to comment about your "lack of stick and rudder skills" as the contributing factor?
I wouldn't expect to make a great landing in that scenario either but I'll bet I could make an adequate one if you were sitting next to me and telling me what speed to fly, how much power to add or remove, along with when and how fast to pull the nose up. And I'm pretty certain that if you told me to maintain 150 KIAS and not let the speed get below 145 I could manage that reasonably well.

But perhaps you're missing my point which was that several years of flying nothing but "big iron" a pilot's ability to fly a smaller, simpler airplane can become seriously eroded at a very basic level.
 
Shoot, the Great Lakes is the most amazingly forgiving and easy tailwheel airplane on the ground I've ever flown. Very wide gear and super soft oleos that soak up just about everything. IMO, a plain old J-3 is a lot more challenging and unforgiving.

Yes, a Great Lakes has squishy oleo struts like a Fairchild 24 and with very little practice, one can perform the sweetest wheel landings ever...but, it has a couple of quirks that have bitten many a unsuspecting newbie:1 Like a Stearman or Waco, its center of gravity is very tall, what with fuel in the top wing and a heavy eng/ prop well forward of the mains, and with just a little poorly timed or too much brake and on your face you go. 2 Unlike, say a Pitts, (which always seems to have more than enough flight control authority, the 'Lakes, after having boosted the pilots ego with a sweet touchdown, once the tail wheel is on the ground and slowing below 35 mph or so, there is almost zero rudder authority. It's the only airplane I've ever ground-looped in over 2000hrs of tail wheel flying...my student got a little squirrely, and just couldn't save it - went completely around, 180 degrees, dust everywhere. Didn't hurt anything but scared the dickens out of me. Prompted the usual "Are you experiencing any difficulty?" call from ATC. I just bit my tongue, rather than suggest the controller find a headset with some brains in it...
 
So after all the comments.

I find it interesting that the Capt waited until the morning of the 709 ride to get some additional training.

Lots of fun teaching jet pilots to fly and land gliders. They forgot what their feet are for.
 
Not at all. I wasn't expecting he would pull off a greaser or even a decent landing without a little coaching. But I did (obviously mistakenly) assume that an ATP could manage to achieve the airspeed I asked for. All he had to do was read the ASI and pull the throttle back. But he just couldn't let the plane get that slow and kept feeding in more power.

Given that you are not an instructor I can see why the events were taking place. This wasn't a student problem.

I wouldn't expect to make a great landing in that scenario either but I'll bet I could make an adequate one if you were sitting next to me and telling me what speed to fly, how much power to add or remove, along with when and how fast to pull the nose up. And I'm pretty certain that if you told me to maintain 150 KIAS and not let the speed get below 145 I could manage that reasonably well.

I bet you wouldn't even be close.


But perhaps you're missing my point which was that several years of flying nothing but "big iron" a pilot's ability to fly a smaller, simpler airplane can become seriously eroded at a very basic level.

Oh I get the point you're trying to make, I'm just not buying it.
 
I think to do the title of the string appropriately, it helps to have experience in big ships as well as small. Not necessarily, but it helps.

There is little momentum in our under 6,000 lb ships. In the big ones, pitch can cover all sorts of sins for a short period.

On large a/c, since the flight deck is so far ahead of the mains, the flight deck can actually rise during roundout but the a/c is not climbing.

On our flivvers, a response to power is fairly quick. On a heavily loaded transport ship, less so.

I have seen a lot of FOs relate to the ship with the left hand on the FMS keyboard. But most of the greybeards still relate to the ship via the big black levers.

A good teacher has to figure out "what's going on in the guys' head". I've seen some really really good career pilots transition to J35 easily. And some, "not so much". But above all don't waste the guy's time because you can't figure out what's happening in the guy's head. Use him efficiently. The Big iron guys have a lot of tools if you can just get into their brains.
 
I'm guessing the pumping was "feeling for the runway" which experienced pilots can do 'just a little' and he's still thinking that 40' in the air is about the time the wheels should touch. Do you know if somebody taught (or scared) him into the higher approach speeds, or did he just decide on a number?

We frequently saw some of this same behavior when senior captains came to SFI to train for post-retirement gigs in King Airs and Citations. IMO, it's harder to adjust sight picture and flare height when transitioning from big to little rather than the other way.

I get the "feeling for the runway" as a possible explanation, but the pumping started way out on final. And it was enough that you could notice the pitch oscillations from the ground during his ride.
 
I think to do the title of the string appropriately, it helps to have experience in big ships as well as small. Not necessarily, but it helps.

There is little momentum in our under 6,000 lb ships. In the big ones, pitch can cover all sorts of sins for a short period.

On large a/c, since the flight deck is so far ahead of the mains, the flight deck can actually rise during roundout but the a/c is not climbing.

On our flivvers, a response to power is fairly quick. On a heavily loaded transport ship, less so.

I have seen a lot of FOs relate to the ship with the left hand on the FMS keyboard. But most of the greybeards still relate to the ship via the big black levers.

A good teacher has to figure out "what's going on in the guys' head". I've seen some really really good career pilots transition to J35 easily. And some, "not so much". But above all don't waste the guy's time because you can't figure out what's happening in the guy's head. Use him efficiently. The Big iron guys have a lot of tools if you can just get into their brains.

:yeahthat:
 
you don't land a 737 - you fly it onto the ground. So yeah, its pretty ez to lose the muscle memory of what a Skyhawk 'feels' like landing . . . .
 
As for the recurrent, "pretty good wringer" is putting it mildly. If you exposed the majority of private aviators and aircraft owners to the same training regime and the same standards for recurrent training you would see 70+ % disappear from the flying ranks.

Supposing someone wanted to get recurring training to these standards, but they don't fly an aircraft that "requires" recurrent and therefore there are no type-specific classes offered. (Comanche in my case). What's the best way to get "put through the wringer"?
 
Supposing someone wanted to get recurring training to these standards, but they don't fly an aircraft that "requires" recurrent and therefore there are no type-specific classes offered. (Comanche in my case). What's the best way to get "put through the wringer"?

Find a good instructor that understands training and one that will have you fly to within PTS standards. Find one that knows your aircraft type and can ask you questions about how and why it operates the way it does.

Too much GA "recurrent training" is a slap on the back and "ah you ain't doing bad" with no real challenges. Pilots fly for years with already weak skills that just get worse over time and because they had a quickie FR or IPC they feel they are "current".

If Part 91 GA was actually held to a pass or fail FR check ride you would see the number of active pilots drop considerably.
 
Find a good instructor that understands training and one that will have you fly to within PTS standards. Find one that knows your aircraft type and can ask you questions about how and why it operates the way it does.

Too much GA "recurrent training" is a slap on the back and "ah you ain't doing bad" with no real challenges. Pilots fly for years with already weak skills that just get worse over time and because they had a quickie FR or IPC they feel they are "current".

If Part 91 GA was actually held to a pass or fail FR check ride you would see the number of active pilots drop considerably.

This is the winner. That first sentence is hard to do, and the last is sadly true!
 
Back
Top