Gary IN to CVG?

Question:

Lunken airport is only 12 miles from CVG, more GA friendly and is closer to downtown. CVG is actually in Kentucky. Unless you have a specific reason to go to CVG, I would choose LUK. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I don’t recall anything that says some big shot in a jet has a higher priority reason to land there than you do.  That’s why it’s called a public airport. Of course they have a higher priority. They have 100+ passengers, they are trying to make a schedule, their fuel costs more than your plane, they fly at speeds that match the local traffic, they are almost always perfect at low IFR approaches – they fit in the system that was designed for them. You don’t. If you want to use a Class B, go for it. But don’t get pissed off when you get vectored for half an hour to fit you into the pattern – that’s like getting angry that New York has more traffic than Peoria. It’s just part of the environment. And, by the way, if you get upset at the approach end, wait until you have to wait on line to depart behind 18 stinking jets at 105 degrees because you couldn’t get the taxi clearance you wanted. Sure, we have every right to fly in and out of Class Bs. Sometimes, like in the case of the OP, it probably makes sense. But 99% of the time life is much easier landing at one of the local GA airports. Michael

Response:

So RDU remains a Class C and can’t seem to make the big time from an ATC perspective.  But there are new facilities all over the place.  New parking, new ramps, new hangars,

Take a look at the Airport Authority membership at http://www.rdu.com/aboutrdu/meet.htm Notice some of the same names that you see on the construction vehicles for the companies that are pouring all that new concrete? Cynicism aside, I’m based there and I like the facilities. Y’all come on down. Dave

Response:

Well George, you would barely recognize the place now.  All new buildings and ramps and taxiways in the FBO area. I know people considered Southern Jet the spam can FBO and Piedmont for big iron.  Before the last set of renovations, I always went to Piedmont when I couldn’t get home due to weather.  I’m ashamed to say I never spent a dime there but they never charged one either.  Parked on their ramp overnight many times, several days on occassion.  Charging me never seemed worth the effort.  I just made myself at home and did whatever I needed to do. I’ve since used SJ and like them too.  Always willing to drive a passenger to the terminals or whatever. Little known secret of RDU – the new GA ‘terminal building’ situated between Piedmont and SC is empty but has a little grill upstairs with a glassed in balcony to watch the traffic from.  During normal daylight hours you can eat in peace and splendor while watching your plane and traffic.  You’ll usually be alone with the grill man. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Yeah. I landed there just before the spamcan FBO closed one night. Both landing lights were out, and I bought bulbs there just as they were shutting the register up. When I landed, the dew point and temperature were about 4 degrees apart, so I was interested in staying over. My sister lives in the area, but she was on the road and nobody answered the phone. A big hurricane (Hugo?) had blown through a few weeks before. The guy at Piedmont called every hotel in Raleigh. They were all full, including the $150/night places. He got off the phone just as I finished up with the landing lights and just tossed me the keys to one of their pilot "emergency" rooms. No charge. OK, the gas is a bit pricey, but the people are great! George Patterson      Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to      use the Internet and he won’t bother you for weeks.

Response:

They serve the flying public well. And they don’t ‘deny’ services to anyone. Want to practice an ILS while a bunch of 767s are inbound? Great. Proceed direct HOLGR and hold…expect further clearance in 4 hours. You want to do some touch and goes in your 152 during the Delta push? No problem at all…right turn 360, expect a turn inbound in 40 miles. Want to take back off? Sure. Excellent. You will be number 23 for takeoff behind that 15th RJ. Why should one expect anything else? Class B airports, by definition, are air carrier airports. That is their primary reason to exist. The controllers understand that, and act accordingly. You ‘can’ go into a Class B airport if you’d like in your 152. But is it wise? generally not. You know it, I know it, and the controllers know it. This is how they let you know that they don’t like it. And I completely understand.

I got my commercial and instrument licenses flying in the Denver area (class A).  Denver had the only ILS at the time. There was no "push" time since United training flights filled the lulls in the normal traffic.  The controllers didn’t park me in western Kansas until the continuous stream of big iron was handled before I got to make an approach.  It may have been a nuisance but the controllers made a hole in the line and vectored me alongside the line until the hole caught up with me.  I was then vectored over to the localizer (and told to keep my speed up, of course). No fuss and all in a day’s work for the controllers. I’ve also been given the "treatment" by controllers in Rhode Island.  I once asked for an ILS approach to PVD and was told to expect a two-hour delay.  There was no other traffic in the area of any kind but there were controllers in the area who thought all small planes should be banned from the air.

Response:

They serve the flying public well. And they don’t ‘deny’ services to anyone. Want to practice an ILS while a bunch of 767s are inbound? Great. Proceed direct HOLGR and hold…expect further clearance in 4 hours. You want to do some touch and goes in your 152 during the Delta push? No problem at all…right turn 360, expect a turn inbound in 40 miles. Want to take back off? Sure. Excellent. You will be number 23 for takeoff behind that 15th RJ. Why should one expect anything else? Class B airports, by definition, are air carrier airports. That is their primary reason to exist. The controllers understand that, and act accordingly. You ‘can’ go into a Class B airport if you’d like in your 152. But is it wise? generally not. You know it, I know it, and the controllers know it. This is how they let you know that they don’t like it. And I completely understand. Cheers, Cap

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text –   I thought the FAA’s job is to properly handle /all/ aircraft. Well, presumably they will.  Just with a bad attitude. I think it’s pretty funny how certain ATC locations have noticeably negative personalities.  But on second thought, it’s not surprising. It’s a job, offices have ‘cultures’, and management quality varies. Fortunately they have a pretty well defined set of operating procedures to follow and plenty of controls so as long as they get it done, what’s the problem? Charlotte used to be kind of funky in this pilot’s book but that’s long gone.  Maybe a little hub downsizing gets everyone’s attention.  Great place now.

When RDU was an AA hub, they didn’t want local pilots coming in to do practice stuff.  After AA pulled out, RDU controllers came to local flying club meetings and invited them come on over and practice as much as they want. The above happened before I started flying.  My only experience with RDU is in the post-AA era and they have been nothing but friendly and helpful IMO.

Response:

RDU is close to my home airport and I go in there a lot.  They are very friendly.  Of course one of my airpark neighbors is a controller there too. I’ve attended various meetings where RDU issues have been covered and here’s how I understand it: When an AA hub, RDU was on track for a Class B.  More ATC pay, perhaps prestige, and no need to solicit more traffic (or friends?).  When the hub collapsed, they slipped below the traffic threshold required for Class B. Apparently they’ve been very close over the  years because Class B hearings and planning sessions and such have been held repeatedly, but they seem to keep coming up short of whatever the criteria is. I remember an ATC rep in one of the meetings half joking about how they welcome every operation in order to help them make the numbers. So RDU remains a Class C and can’t seem to make the big time from an ATC perspective.  But there are new facilities all over the place.  New parking, new ramps, new hangars,the FBOs seem successful and flush, big iron GA floods the ramp, and *visiting* spam can flyers benefit from it all.  A GREAT place to fly into for whatever.  Yaaay! – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – When RDU was an AA hub, they didn’t want local pilots coming in to do practice stuff.  After AA pulled out, RDU controllers came to local flying club meetings and invited them come on over and practice as much as they want. The above happened before I started flying.  My only experience with RDU is in the post-AA era and they have been nothing but friendly and helpful IMO.

Response:

I have heard the same thing about the Cincy Approach.  If you go to Lunken, park at Million Air and if you refuel there, they will give you a new loaner Jaguar.  You can drive your passenger to CVG and enjoy the Jag (did I mention it was new when I got it two weeks ago !). …Robbie.

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Thanks; I have a passenger that needs to take a flight out of CVG, otherwise Lunken would be better.

Response:

Don’t know *who* they think they are. And I’ve flown into other Class B airports without the headaches too. But CVG really seems to go out of its way to make things difficult sometimes for GA folks. I’m a CFI out of LUK, and generally have no problem at all doing stuff in their airspace…but ask to land? They *definitely* don’t like it. Even at slow times, they don’t like small planes, especially doing practice approaches. In fairness to them, tho, when it matters they are solid. I had to miss off of the LUK ILS a couple of times earlier this year, and the CVG guys did a fine job, basically offering me anything I wanted either at LUK or CVG (I got into LUK on the next try); fine vectors no problems at all. But I’ve tried to go in there VFR a couple times, and do some practice approaches with students, and I felt distinctly unwelcome. Can’t blame them…their job is first and foremost to get the big iron in and out…unnecessary GA planes just make the mix more complex for them. Cheers, Cap

Response:

File VFR and talk to them before the Class B.  Follow their vectors to the T and be professional and courteous to them on the radio.  Keep your speed up as long as you can. If you have an issue with a controller, get his initials and call his supervisor when you land. I don’t recall anything that says some big shot in a jet has a higher priority reason to land there than you do.  That’s why it’s called a public airport.

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Considering a flight into CVG, which is Class B and would appreciate some insight from the group. 1.  The IFR routing with STAR is very circuitous – better to file VFR? 2.  Reservation required?  Flight will be on Saturday. Any other tips – FBO, etc?  Piper Arrow.

Response:

I don’t recall anything that says some big shot in a jet has a higher priority reason to land there than you do.  That’s why it’s called a public airport.

Of course they have a higher priority. They have 100+ passengers, they are trying to make a schedule, their fuel costs more than your plane, they fly at speeds that match the local traffic, they are almost always perfect at low IFR approaches – they fit in the system that was designed for them. You don’t. If you want to use a Class B, go for it. But don’t get pissed off when you get vectored for half an hour to fit you into the pattern – that’s like getting angry that New York has more traffic than Peoria. It’s just part of the environment. And, by the way, if you get upset at the approach end, wait until you have to wait on line to depart behind 18 stinking jets at 105 degrees because you couldn’t get the taxi clearance you wanted. Sure, we have every right to fly in and out of Class Bs. Sometimes, like in the case of the OP, it probably makes sense. But 99% of the time life is much easier landing at one of the local GA airports. Michael

Response:

Apparently they’ve been very close over the years because Class B hearings and planning sessions and such have been held repeatedly, but they seem to keep coming up short of whatever the criteria is. I remember an ATC rep in one of the meetings half joking about how they welcome every operation in order to help them make the numbers. So RDU remains a Class C and can’t seem to make the big time from an ATC perspective.  

So, maybe us spam cans ought to avoid the airport, lest we get more Bravo airspace. Jose — Nothing takes longer than a shortcut. for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Response:

So RDU remains a Class C and can’t seem to make the big time from an ATC perspective.  But there are new facilities all over the place.  New parking, new ramps, new hangars,the FBOs seem successful and flush, big iron GA floods the ramp, and *visiting* spam can flyers benefit from it all.  A GREAT place to fly into for whatever.  Yaaay!

Yeah. I landed there just before the spamcan FBO closed one night. Both landing lights were out, and I bought bulbs there just as they were shutting the register up. When I landed, the dew point and temperature were about 4 degrees apart, so I was interested in staying over. My sister lives in the area, but she was on the road and nobody answered the phone. A big hurricane (Hugo?) had blown through a few weeks before. The guy at Piedmont called every hotel in Raleigh. They were all full, including the $150/night places. He got off the phone just as I finished up with the landing lights and just tossed me the keys to one of their pilot "emergency" rooms. No charge. OK, the gas is a bit pricey, but the people are great! George Patterson       Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to       use the Internet and he won’t bother you for weeks.

Response:

[snip] I’m not saying the OP *can’t* go into CVG. Obviously he can, and he seems to have a very good reason for choosing CVG over Lunken. But I am saying is that these guys have a job to do, and random GA planes flying PLAs into their airport can make their jobs harder. They don’t like it, and they make that known.

If they don’t like their job, they can find another line of work.  Controllers are Government employees whose job it is to serve the (flying) public.  If they can’t do that in a reasonable and responsible manner, they should be shown the door.

Response:

Not knowing all this I arranged to be dropped off there to catch af flight by my client in a BE-35. No problem at all.  Saturday afternoon as I recall. Bill Hale

Response:

  I thought the FAA’s job is to properly handle /all/ aircraft. Well, presumably they will.  Just with a bad attitude. I think it’s pretty funny how certain ATC locations have noticeably negative personalities.  But on second thought, it’s not surprising. It’s a job, offices have ‘cultures’, and management quality varies. Fortunately they have a pretty well defined set of operating procedures to follow and plenty of controls so as long as they get it done, what’s the problem? Charlotte used to be kind of funky in this pilot’s book but that’s long gone.  Maybe a little hub downsizing gets everyone’s attention.  Great place now.  Savannah usually  managed to seem nasty for no apparent reason.  Probably an a–h— manager or 2, who knows.

Response:

Yes it is. And as I said, when something *really* matters, they do it well, regardless of whether you are an A340 or a Cherokee. But there is a reason a Class B airport is a Class B airport. And while, theoretically, a 152 on an IFR training flight is no ‘different’ from a 767 with a full load of passengers, the realities *are* different. The guys at CVG don’t want a 172 mixing with their big iron. And I can’t blame them. Their job is to help ensure the safe and efficient operations in and out of their airport, and 75 knots just doesn’t mix well with 180 knots. They know there are 3 perfectly good GA airports within 25 miles. If you are GA, it seems that they want you to use them. They also know that that 777 costs $15,000 an hour to operate, and making him miss because he can’t slow down enough and the 172 ahead of him can’t speed up enough is going to cause all kinds of headaches. It’s like most other things in aviation operations. If an approach controller is pretty certain you know your stuff (i.e. you’re a freight dog, and he recognizes your tail number or call sign) he may well give you a different approach (i.e. slam you in right at the marker, between traffic) than if he thinks you are a ‘random’ or inexperienced GA IFR pilot (i.e. stick you in a hold until everything is clear, then give easy vectors out to the boonies to get you established). And can you blame him? I’m not saying the OP *can’t* go into CVG. Obviously he can, and he seems to have a very good reason for choosing CVG over Lunken. But I am saying is that these guys have a job to do, and random GA planes flying PLAs into their airport can make their jobs harder. They don’t like it, and they make that known. Cheers, Cap

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Don’t know *who* they think they are. And I’ve flown into other Class B airports without the headaches too. But CVG really seems to go out of its way to make things difficult sometimes for GA folks. I’m a CFI out of LUK, and generally have no problem at all doing stuff in their airspace…but ask to land? They *definitely* don’t like it. Even at slow times, they don’t like small planes, especially doing practice approaches. In fairness to them, tho, when it matters they are solid. I had to miss off of the LUK ILS a couple of times earlier this year, and the CVG guys did a fine job, basically offering me anything I wanted either at LUK or CVG (I got into LUK on the next try); fine vectors no problems at all. But I’ve tried to go in there VFR a couple times, and do some practice approaches with students, and I felt distinctly unwelcome. Can’t blame them…their job is first and foremost to get the big iron in and out…unnecessary GA planes just make the mix more complex for them.

I thought the FAA’s job is to properly handle /all/ aircraft.

Response:

I second what the captain says, except I’ll say it stronger: Don’t fly into CVG in a light aircraft under any circumstances.  Lunken is much better in all respects. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Considering a flight into CVG, which is Class B and would appreciate some insight from the group. 1.  The IFR routing with STAR is very circuitous – better to file VFR? 2.  Reservation required?  Flight will be on Saturday. Any other tips – FBO, etc?  Piper Arrow.

Response:

Thanks; I have a passenger that needs to take a flight out of CVG, otherwise Lunken would be better.

Response:

Why not?  Who do they think they are? I’ve flown light aircraft at peak hours (both VFR and IFR) into DFW, LAX, IAH, etc, all of which are significantly busier than CVG and it was a breeze. Chip P.S. everyone on airnav commenting about CVG seems to be flying a 172 or equiv and seems to think it was a great experience.

Response:

Why not?  Who do they think they are? I’ve flown light aircraft at peak hours (both VFR and IFR) into DFW, LAX, IAH, etc, all of which are significantly busier than CVG and it was a breeze.

I’ve flown a Warrior VFR to IAD also and it was a great experience. Yeah I got vectored all over the place to keep me out of the way of bigger and faster and IFR traffic and they worked me onto the runway during a lull so I ended up flying a 13 mile downwind and final but I enjoyed the tour of the area and the controllers never made me feel unwelcome.

Response:

I was based at LAX with a major airline for many years.  In the early days knowing the peaks and valleys I used to fly a light aircraft in there when our company would let us park at the hangar.  Then, traffic increased and one day I was almost blown over in an Arrow by a Continental 727 who blasted the power around the corner taking 25L for takeoff even though the tower told him to be careful. It’s too easy to end up in a nasty situation like that at one of these major airports. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Why not?  Who do they think they are? I’ve flown light aircraft at peak hours (both VFR and IFR) into DFW, LAX, IAH, etc, all of which are significantly busier than CVG and it was a breeze. Chip P.S. everyone on airnav commenting about CVG seems to be flying a 172 or equiv and seems to think it was a great experience.

Response:

Hi Paul, I’m based out of Cincinnati Lunken. My experience is that the CVG folks are *extremely* unfriendly towards GA aircraft. If you are terminating here in Cincy, any chance that you might fly into Lunken (LUK)? It’s much more GA friendly, and closer to the city anyway. If you are flying into CVG, I’d do it VFR…CVG seems to get a little pissy about IFR arrivals who won’t take a STAR. Also, I’d aim for a time other than 8-10 AM and 4-7 PM, as these are arrival pushes for Delta…lots of big iron flying around at that time, and CVG approach is even more testy than usual. Either way, good luck, and enjoy Cincinnati! Cheers, Cap – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Considering a flight into CVG, which is Class B and would appreciate some insight from the group. 1.  The IFR routing with STAR is very circuitous – better to file VFR? 2.  Reservation required?  Flight will be on Saturday. Any other tips – FBO, etc?  Piper Arrow.

Response:

Considering a flight into CVG, which is Class B and would appreciate some insight from the group. 1.  The IFR routing with STAR is very circuitous – better to file VFR? 2.  Reservation required?  Flight will be on Saturday. Any other tips – FBO, etc?  Piper Arrow.

Response:

Room available for EAA

Question:

We are offering this room for free, just as a favor to someone who we hope will pay the favor forward to someone else someday. Scott Wilson and Janet Mohr

Good job, Scott! Your action represents everything that is good and wonderful about EAA and my home-state of Wisconsin! — Jay Honeck Iowa City, IA Pathfinder N56993 www.AlexisParkInn.com "Your Aviation Destination"

Response:

As for his pay, I don’t know — what’s he make annually? $125,000 from EAA and $125,000 from the foundation.  $250,000, plus benefits, plus travel allowance, plus (many other perks).  This is all well laid out and published in the various documents.  It is not a secret.  I would serve for 1/2 as much.  :-)

It sounds like a lot but it really isn’t. I didn’t spend a lot of time looking but I found this little bit of info from a 1999 article "The Chronicle’s survey of 246 non-profit organizations found that the median salary for chief executive officers was $207,990." And again that was 1999. http://philanthropy.com/free/articles/v11/i23/23000101.htm

Response:

As for his pay, I don’t know — what’s he make annually?  $125,000 from EAA and $125,000 from the foundation.  $250,000, plus  benefits, plus travel allowance, plus (many other perks).  This is  all well laid out and published in the various documents.  It is not  a secret.  I would serve for 1/2 as much.  :-)

Sounds very reasonable to me.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Your action represents everything that is good and wonderful about EAA and my home-state of Wisconsin! — Jay Honeck Jay, this response left me feeling kind of funny.  As much as I like the show and museum I have rather ambivalent feelings about EAA the organization, for this reason:  A fellow I work with’s grandmother lived near Wittman Field, and when EAA wanted to expand and she wouldn’t sell they had Oshkosh condemn her property and evict her from a house and land that had been in their family for generations, which was then "donated" to EAA. This happened some years ago, recent Supreme Court decisions not-withstanding, and my friend is still plenty bitter about it.  I hate bullies, and EAA came across as such to me.  I also have some question about nepotism and Tom Poberezny getting quite wealthy from our dues, from a position given to him by his father who also was made quite wealthy from the organization he founded.  I can accept Paul Poberezny getting rich from EAA; he put a lot into founding the group.  But passing the torch to his son so he can get paid a pretty incredible (in my opinion) salary from EAA just galls me more than a little.

You make some good points.  I had heard that story about the land seizure in the past, and always assumed it was overblown in the re-telling — but apparently not? As for Tom P., I don’t know.   The guy grew up in EAA, flew airshows for 25 years, and has the ear of his father at all times.   If you are going to provide stability and continuity in an organization like EAA, that first "change of command" is all-so-important.   Going from Paul to Tom probably did more psychologically for the organization than anything else, giving the membership faith that nothing major would change. Which, of course, proved to be untrue.  Oshkosh has expanded exponentially since Paul stepped down. As for his pay, I don’t know — what’s he make annually? — Jay Honeck Iowa City, IA Pathfinder N56993 www.AlexisParkInn.com "Your Aviation Destination"

Response:

As for his pay, I don’t know — what’s he make annually?

 $125,000 from EAA and $125,000 from the foundation.  $250,000, plus  benefits, plus travel allowance, plus (many other perks).  This is  all well laid out and published in the various documents.  It is not  a secret.  I would serve for 1/2 as much.  :-) Best regards, Jer/ "Flight instruction and mountain flying are my vocation!" Eberhard — Jer/ (Slash) Eberhard, Mountain Flying Aviation, LTD, Ft Collins, CO CELL 970 231-6325 EMAIL jer’at’frii.com WEB http://users.frii.com/jer/ C-206 N9513G, CFII Airplane&Glider, FAA-DEN Aviation Safety Counselor CAP-CO Mission&Aircraft CheckPilot, BM218 HAM N0FZD, 228 Young Eagles!

Response:

Awww, shucks, ain’t nothin’….   For anyone interested in our offer, I should mention that my wife and I are adamant non-smokers, so if you smoke I doubt we’d be comfortable with each other.  It might be better if I restrict our offer to non-smokers. Scott Wilson

WOW Scott (and wife)! Just for making that offer, I will offer you (and yours) 2 hours of high densty altitude operations, takeoffs and landing training, in my C172, at the Fort Collins Downtown Airport (3V5).  I will pay for the airplane rental and provide the instruction.  We mow grass at 5000 MSL, so density altitude takeoffs and landings, and simulated engine-out-emergencies take on a whole new dimension in the real of safe flight. So, when you are out west, come on by! It is the least I can do for someone so kind and generous. Best regards, Jer/ "Flight instruction and mountain flying are my vocation!" Eberhard — Jer/ (Slash) Eberhard, Mountain Flying Aviation, LTD, Ft Collins, CO CELL 970 231-6325 EMAIL jer’at’frii.com WEB http://users.frii.com/jer/ C-206 N9513G, CFII Airplane&Glider, FAA-DEN Aviation Safety Counselor CAP-CO Mission&Aircraft CheckPilot, BM218 HAM N0FZD, 228 Young Eagles!

Response:

("Jay Honeck" wrote) Your action represents everything that is good and wonderful about EAA and my home-state of Wisconsin!

Did your roomless friends find a dorm room? Montblack

Response:

Your action represents everything that is good and wonderful about EAA and my home-state of Wisconsin! Did your roomless friends find a dorm room?

Better than that.  When they told EAA of their dilemma, and their inability to camp on the field (no plane, plus Christine is pregnant), the person at EAA found them a room in a house ON THE FIELD! It’s not free, but, dang — a room in a house ON Wittman Field?  That’s incredible. I know where we’ll be heading if the temperatures exceed 90 degrees… — Jay Honeck Iowa City, IA Pathfinder N56993 www.AlexisParkInn.com "Your Aviation Destination"

Response:

Okay, we have a winner…  We’ll be hosting a couple from New York City.   Thanks everyone for the nice comments.  We’ll see ya’ll at the show! Scott W.

Response:

Is there anything you need at the show?  I think I can get YOU and yer lovely SO passes if you need them.  Parking passes?  A beer at Jay’s RAP party in the North 40 (spamcan row) on Wednesday night? Jim – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Okay, we have a winner…  We’ll be hosting a couple from New York City. Thanks everyone for the nice comments.  We’ll see ya’ll at the show! Scott W.

Response:

Is there anything you need at the show?  I think I can get YOU and yer lovely SO passes if you need them.

SO passes? — Jim in NC

Response:

Is there anything you need at the show?  I think I can get YOU and yer lovely SO passes if you need them. SO passes? — Jim in NC

SO = Significant Other or = She (who must be) Obeyed Jay B

Response:

How much?

Response:

We were offering the room for free, but we already have someone who wants it os it is no longer available.  Thanks for asking. Scott Wilson

Response:

Is there anything you need at the show?  I think I can get YOU and yer lovely SO passes if you need them.  Parking passes?  A beer at Jay’s RAP party in the North 40 (spamcan row) on Wednesday night? Jim

That is EXTEMELY kind of you. We really weren’t expecting payment of any sort from anyone.  Still, I’m tempted to take you up on this offer.  My wife graduated with her Master’s in English last year, and got a job teaching as an adjunct professor at University of Wisconsin-Fox Valley.  She taught one semester, then her position evaporated due to tax cuts which meant budget cuts for UW.  She’s been unable to find employment since. I make enough to support us comfortably, but without a lot of money left over, so I was planning not to attend EAA except for days when I was volunteering with our local EAA chapter.  Unfortunately they only had two days open which I could take.  I was thinking of signing on as a volunteer in other areas so I could get in on more days, but your pass offer is tempting.  I’ll contact you off-group to discuss this further.  Thanks ever so much. Scott Wilson

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – WOW Scott (and wife)! Just for making that offer, I will offer you (and yours) 2 hours of high densty altitude operations, takeoffs and landing training, in my C172, at the Fort Collins Downtown Airport (3V5).  I will pay for the airplane rental and provide the instruction.  We mow grass at 5000 MSL, so density altitude takeoffs and landings, and simulated engine-out-emergencies take on a whole new dimension in the real of safe flight. So, when you are out west, come on by! It is the least I can do for someone so kind and generous. Best regards, Jer/ "Flight instruction and mountain flying are my vocation!" Eberhard

I’m not sure when we might be able to afford a trip to Colorado, but thank you very much for your generous offer. Scott W.

Response:

Your action represents everything that is good and wonderful about EAA and my home-state of Wisconsin! — Jay Honeck

Jay, this response left me feeling kind of funny.  As much as I like the show and museum I have rather ambivalent feelings about EAA the organization, for this reason:  A fellow I work with’s grandmother lived near Wittman Field, and when EAA wanted to expand and she wouldn’t sell they had Oshkosh condemn her property and evict her from a house and land that had been in their family for generations, which was then "donated" to EAA. This happened some years ago, recent Supreme Court decisions not-withstanding, and my friend is still plenty bitter about it.  I hate bullies, and EAA came across as such to me.  I also have some question about nepotism and Tom Poberezny getting quite wealthy from our dues, from a position given to him by his father who also was made quite wealthy from the organization he founded.  I can accept Paul Poberezny getting rich from EAA; he put a lot into founding the group.  But passing the torch to his son so he can get paid a pretty incredible (in my opinion) salary from EAA just galls me more than a little. Scott Wilson

Response:

Awww, shucks, ain’t nothin’….   For anyone interested in our offer, I should mention that my wife and I are adamant non-smokers, so if you smoke I doubt we’d be comfortable with each other.  It might be better if I restrict our offer to non-smokers. Scott Wilson

Response:

Concur with RST.  That’s a nice thing you’re doing. Shawn – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – We had someone from Kansas City who was going to stay with us during the EAA Airventure, but changed his mind about coming.   So now my wife and I are happy to offer our spare bedroom in our house in northern Appleton, Wisconsin, about 35 minutes from EAA in Oshkosh.  It isn’t much, just a futon mattress on the floor with sheets and blankets, some built-in chest drawers and a closet.   If you are traveling with a spouse or significant other, the mattress is "Double" sized.  A couple would fit on it okay, but without all the room of a Queen or King sized mattress.  You can use our bathroom, kitchen and laundry of course.  I’ll be volunteering at EAA on Friday the 29th and Sunday the 31st for sure, and will probably attend other days too.  On the days I’m going you can ride there and back with me. Other days you’ll have to find another way there. We have a cat and a medium sized dog both of whose main hobby appears to be shedding.  We vacuum every day, but if you have pet allergies, you don’t want too stay here!   We also have a 17-year-old boy living here (my son) but he doesn’t bite strangers.  Neither does the dog.  We are offering this room for free, just as a favor to someone who we hope will pay the favor forward to someone else someday. Scott Wilson and Janet Mohr

Response:

You, sir, are a credit to the whole thing that EAA is all about.  Bless you. I hope you are rewarded a thousandfold. Jim  We are offering this – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – room for free, just as a favor to someone who we hope will pay the favor forward to someone else someday. Scott Wilson and Janet Mohr

Response:

We had someone from Kansas City who was going to stay with us during the EAA Airventure, but changed his mind about coming.   So now my wife and I are happy to offer our spare bedroom in our house in northern Appleton, Wisconsin, about 35 minutes from EAA in Oshkosh.  It isn’t much, just a futon mattress on the floor with sheets and blankets, some built-in chest drawers and a closet.   If you are traveling with a spouse or significant other, the mattress is "Double" sized.  A couple would fit on it okay, but without all the room of a Queen or King sized mattress.  You can use our bathroom, kitchen and laundry of course.  I’ll be volunteering at EAA on Friday the 29th and Sunday the 31st for sure, and will probably attend other days too.  On the days I’m going you can ride there and back with me.  Other days you’ll have to find another way there. We have a cat and a medium sized dog both of whose main hobby appears to be shedding.  We vacuum every day, but if you have pet allergies, you don’t want too stay here!   We also have a 17-year-old boy living here (my son) but he doesn’t bite strangers.  Neither does the dog.  We are offering this room for free, just as a favor to someone who we hope will pay the favor forward to someone else someday. Scott Wilson and Janet Mohr

Response:

ELITE or ON TOP for IFR training?

Question:

The other thing to keep in mind is when you fly IFR, you fly IFR. You don’t ‘practice IFR.’  Ok, you can do VFR practice approaches but you still have to do them as ATC expects you to do them the published way.  The first time I went up with my CFII out of SQL, our clearance was ‘maintain VFR at 1100 or below.’  I didn’t have the skills to do that, checklists, call departure, etc. and I busted altitude by no less than 50 feet.  ATC was on my ass immediately. You ‘do’ and not ‘practice’ in the system.  The simulator helps that.

While this may have happened to you, I’d say that kind of experience is exceptional. Sorry it happened to you. Where I live, I can fly VFR with few altitude restrictions, but then I don’t fly out of SQL. When flying VFR practice approaches I’ve never had ATC care whether or not they were done "in the published way". VFR is VFR. In 16 years and 1500+ hours of flying, I’ve never heard of anyone busted by ATC for a 50 foot altitude deviation (well, I guess now I have). Regardless, I agree a PC-based flight simulator can save you time and money on IFR training. Dave

Response:

   One of my most memorable early lessons during my instrument training was with a simulator. The instructor set it up, and said that the game plan was that I was to fly to an intersection, intercept a radial to a VOR, and hold at the VOR. I was "flying" along holding the CDI pretty good.  Whoops a little bank, level out. Still a bank, level out. OK "seems" to be coming back now. PAUSE (nice that these simulators have that). "OK, What’s wrong with this picture?". Ummm, spiral dive? Sneaky instructor had failed the vacuum system. It’s a lesson I won’t forget.   Now, if I use a simulator, and I know that whatever I plan on doing is going to take say "twenty" minutes, I set a "random failure" to happen between five and "sixty" minutes. That way I don’t know if it’s going to happen or not.

Response:

The idea is that a simulator controls the number of decisions per minute that you, the pilot, have to make.   This allows effective learning.  In a real airplane just about anything can start happening at anytime, complicating the learning.

exactly. Especially with ATC calling out traffic or an approach is down for MX or the winds don’t agree with the VOR approach you want to do. The other thing to keep in mind is when you fly IFR, you fly IFR. You don’t ‘practice IFR.’  Ok, you can do VFR practice approaches but you still have to do them as ATC expects you to do them the published way.  The first time I went up with my CFII out of SQL, our clearance was ‘maintain VFR at 1100 or below.’  I didn’t have the skills to do that, checklists, call departure, etc. and I busted altitude by no less than 50 feet.  ATC was on my ass immediately. You ‘do’ and not ‘practice’ in the system.  The simulator helps that. Gerald

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Speaking as a new IFR student just starting out, I don’t really want to use a computer to learn to fly by reference to instruments.  I’d rather do that in an airplane.   What I want help with is learning all the procedural stuff and developing my situational awareness, so I’m not trying to learn how to interpret a pair of VORs and NDB at $130 an hour.  I don’t think the lower flight model quality is an issue there. You have it backwards actually.  Doing it in the real airplane is a LOT more expensive and you have a LOT more to deal with.  Doing it on the simulator, you can focus on only the basic attitude isntrument flying and nothing else.  Doing the situational awareness in the plane is a waste.  Just about anyone (well almost) can navigate from a point to a point.  Do you really want to be flying along an airway picking out the cross-radials every 20 miles and spending $35 for each intersection?  Do that on a computer where you can jump from point to point in a matter of seconds.  In fact, online there are many models that do this.  When you get into the plane you want to be proficient at all the very basic stuff and semi-proficient at the more than basic stuff.  The simulator is more difficult in some ways but early on when you screw up more than other times, the simulator makes it very convenient and far cheaper to restart.  In the airplane getting back into position to re-start a maneuver can cost a lot of money quickly.

The idea is that a simulator controls the number of decisions per minute that you, the pilot, have to make.   This allows effective learning.  In a real airplane just about anything can start happening at anytime, complicating the learning. IPT allows the student to crank up the weather effects when he/she is ready.   I like that but I believe IPT is still too demanind on things like when you begin the roll-out from a turn.

Response:

Speaking as a new IFR student just starting out, I don’t really want to use a computer to learn to fly by reference to instruments.  I’d rather do that in an airplane.   What I want help with is learning all the procedural stuff and developing my situational awareness, so I’m not trying to learn how to interpret a pair of VORs and NDB at $130 an hour.  I don’t think the lower flight model quality is an issue there.

You have it backwards actually.  Doing it in the real airplane is a LOT more expensive and you have a LOT more to deal with.  Doing it on the simulator, you can focus on only the basic attitude isntrument flying and nothing else.  Doing the situational awareness in the plane is a waste.  Just about anyone (well almost) can navigate from a point to a point.  Do you really want to be flying along an airway picking out the cross-radials every 20 miles and spending $35 for each intersection?  Do that on a computer where you can jump from point to point in a matter of seconds.  In fact, online there are many models that do this.  When you get into the plane you want to be proficient at all the very basic stuff and semi-proficient at the more than basic stuff.  The simulator is more difficult in some ways but early on when you screw up more than other times, the simulator makes it very convenient and far cheaper to restart.  In the airplane getting back into position to re-start a maneuver can cost a lot of money quickly. Gerald

Response:

Amore complete package of pre-configured flights would be a useful IFR training accessory.  Such a package would be like the Machado lessons in MSFS, only much more extensive, say 40 hours worth.  It would follow a logical sequence to step you through all the various types and configurations of procedures, with instructor voice over and some sort of graphics in the flight analysis view.  The package would come with all required graphics, charts, and plates in printable form.  The entire thing could be sold or distributed as an internet download, and could probably be done quite cheaply, say $30.

This is exactly what IP Trainer does, except for the $30 part.  At least they don’t charge extra for all the bugs that are included! Speaking as a new IFR student just starting out, I don’t really want to use a computer to learn to fly by reference to instruments.

Don’t underestimate the value of learning to fly patterns ("Alpha pattern", etc.) on a sim. It is cheaper and more difficult than in an airplane. If you can do it well on the sim with no physical or audio feedback you will find it fairly easy in an airplane.  My instructor just skipped me over the pattern flying after he saw that I could already do it easily. YMMV

Response:

I wonder why there is no third-party lesson package for MSFS?  The Rod Machado lessons are helpful, but limited in scope. Amore complete package of pre-configured flights would be a useful IFR training accessory.  Such a package would be like the Machado lessons in MSFS, only much more extensive, say 40 hours worth.  It would follow a logical sequence to step you through all the various types and configurations of procedures, with instructor voice over and some sort of graphics in the flight analysis view.  The package would come with all required graphics, charts, and plates in printable form.  The entire thing could be sold or distributed as an internet download, and could probably be done quite cheaply, say $30. I know MSFS isn’t the best flight model, but there are some big economic advantages to using it.  Everyone and their brother owns MSFS already, so most folks would only have to buy the preconfigured flight package.  The developer would be free to concentrate on the lessons and documentation. MSFS is relatively bug free, has extensive documentation and support, is updated and upgraded every year, and interoperability with new versions of Windows will never be an issue.  There’s a huge community of add-on planes and panels out there, so it would be easy to match your mount.  The integrated ATC is well done. Speaking as a new IFR student just starting out, I don’t really want to use a computer to learn to fly by reference to instruments.  I’d rather do that in an airplane.  What I want help with is learning all the procedural stuff and developing my situational awareness, so I’m not trying to learn how to interpret a pair of VORs and NDB at $130 an hour.  I don’t think the lower flight model quality is an issue there.  The integrated Garmin GPS is another plus. Anyone familiar with the MSFS SDK?  How hard would this be? – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Flying the lessons with IPT is challenging because it doesn’t allow even momentary errors.  If you slip up on a minor detail right at the end of the lesson, you must redo the entire lesson from the beginning.   That leads to boredom and little training.  I have never made it through flying "Plan A".   Has anyone gotten all the way through? I wouldn’t know.  It has never operated long enough for me to get through more than the first few lessons.  It’s a piece of crap and a waste of over $300 for the pair.   I’ve got On Top and IP Trainier (old old verisons, got them when winME was new forget verison).  I basically can’t run them on my new system. However, I have an old win98 system that I use for genlocking and they both work fine on it.   Both programs really need to be updated to work with win32s, but they can run under winXP/win2k.  It just takes a lot of playing with the settings.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Thank you very much for your answers. I think I’ll try on FS2004 for the moment. Bruno But what about the quality of the lessons?   I like IFT because the "CFI" speaks so that I don’t have to read instructions while I’m concentrating on the instruments. The quality of the lesson will be provided in an FNPT2 simulator, for about 45h, with an instructor. I’ll use flight simulator only to train before having my lesson in the fnpt2 simulator, or to practice in case of problem during the fnpt2 training. What is "fnpt2"?

It means "Flight And Navigation Procedures Trainer". You can check http://www.alsim.com/Site/Product_Range/AL200MCC/AL200MCC.html That’s the description of the simulator I’m going to use at school with an IR instructor. I’ll have about 40 hours IR training on that simulator, then about 30 hours multi engine (diamond da-42 EFIS) IFR training, with CPL and ME. Bruno

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Thank you very much for your answers. I think I’ll try on FS2004 for the moment. Bruno But what about the quality of the lessons?   I like IFT because the "CFI" speaks so that I don’t have to read instructions while I’m concentrating on the instruments. The quality of the lesson will be provided in an FNPT2 simulator, for about 45h, with an instructor. I’ll use flight simulator only to train before having my lesson in the fnpt2 simulator, or to practice in case of problem during the fnpt2 training.

What is "fnpt2"?

Response:

Flying the lessons with IPT is challenging because it doesn’t allow even momentary errors.  If you slip up on a minor detail right at the end of the lesson, you must redo the entire lesson from the beginning.   That leads to boredom and little training.  I have never made it through flying "Plan A".   Has anyone gotten all the way through? I wouldn’t know.  It has never operated long enough for me to get through more than the first few lessons.  It’s a piece of crap and a waste of over $300 for the pair.

   I’ve got On Top and IP Trainier (old old verisons, got them when winME was new forget verison).  I basically can’t run them on my new system.   However, I have an old win98 system that I use for genlocking and they both work fine on it.    Both programs really need to be updated to work with win32s, but they can run under winXP/win2k.  It just takes a lot of playing with the settings.  

Response:

Bob’s irony aside, Jackie (the product manager at ASA) is well aware that the application needs a rip-up and re-do.  I have been a computer designer and programmer since each computer occupied a big room of its own and IPT is probably the buggiest piece of production software I have ever seen.   … and I have seen a lot of software. I participated in the IPT Version 7.0 beta and exchanged several emails with Jackie on the subject of the bugs.  Instead of fixing bugs, the version upgrade was more to add a few features.  I don’t know their economics but it may be that they can’t justify the cost of the rip-up and re-do or possibly they are working on it but can’t say so for fear of killing the sales of the current version. That being said, the training concept of the IPT software is absolutely outstanding and I finally decided that it was worth it to me to get the benefits — so I would put up with the considerable number warts. YMMV. Now in the case of On Top, which I have not used, I wouldn’t see any reason to tolerate bugginess because there are many alternatives.  Including Elite. I have Elite and run both IPT and Elite on a PCATD setup.  I have never bothered to try On Top as the Elite is a a legal PCATD and it runs properly with the PFC console, radio stack, etc.  I am not a real demanding user, just flying approaches, etc. and am very pleased with it.  The documentation is weak, but when have you ever seen good documentation?  If you want to learn to use the latest GPSs etc. IMHO there are plenty of stand-alone trainers for those.  If you want to practice basic instrument skills, ELITE does a good job. Regarding MSFS, I am one who does not willingly do business with a vendor whose objective is to screw its customers.  Some products, because of the de jure monopoly, you can’t avoid.  But this one you can. HTH – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Gotta wonder how the many thousands of purchasers of On Top have swallowed their dismay and neglected  to write letters to the editor,   to ASA, to the Better Business Bureau, to Aviation Consumer, et al, complaining about being ripped off? Seems to me that a product so deeply flawed would have been bad-mouthed so widely that ASA would have pulled it off the market. You seem to be the only person unhappy with the product. Nope, others have complained as well.  Many just take their lumps and deal with the fact that the thing was designed for Windows 95 with a specific card in mind and doesn’t work well with modern machines. I will continue to complain until ASA either delivers me an updated product that works or returns the money they stole from me for this disaster product.   While ASA occasionally sends mem an email in response to my repeated complaints, they have yet to do either one of the above mentioned remedies. So far I’ve managed to pay in excess of $300 for Trevor Thom’s book (the only useful part of the whole package, but not really worth more than about $50).

Response:

Thank you very much for your answers. I think I’ll try on FS2004 for the moment. Bruno

But what about the quality of the lessons?   I like IFT because the "CFI" speaks so that I don’t have to read instructions while I’m concentrating on the instruments.

Response:

Thank you very much for your answers. I think I’ll try on FS2004 for the moment. Bruno But what about the quality of the lessons?   I like IFT because the "CFI" speaks so that I don’t have to read instructions while I’m concentrating on the instruments.

The quality of the lesson will be provided in an FNPT2 simulator, for about 45h, with an instructor. I’ll use flight simulator only to train before having my lesson in the fnpt2 simulator, or to practice in case of problem during the fnpt2 training. Bruno

Response:

Flying the lessons with IPT is challenging because it doesn’t allow even momentary errors.  If you slip up on a minor detail right at the end of the lesson, you must redo the entire lesson from the beginning.   That leads to boredom and little training.  I have never made it through flying "Plan A".   Has anyone gotten all the way through?

I wouldn’t know.  It has never operated long enough for me to get through more than the first few lessons.  It’s a piece of crap and a waste of over $300 for the pair.

Response:

Thank you very much for your answers. I think I’ll try on FS2004 for the moment. Bruno

Response:

Gotta wonder how the many thousands of purchasers of On Top have swallowed their dismay and neglected  to write letters to the editor,  to ASA, to the Better Business Bureau, to Aviation Consumer, et al, complaining about being ripped off? Seems to me that a product so deeply flawed would have been bad-mouthed so widely that ASA would have pulled it off the market. You seem to be the only person unhappy with the product. Bob Gardner

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Dear All, I’m following an airline pilot course in Belgium, and I’m to begin with the IFR training next week in a FNPT2 simulator. Don’t waste your money on On Top or IP Trainer like I did.   The products don’t work on any of the PC’s I’ve tried them on and ASA tech support is non-existant.

Response:

Gotta wonder how the many thousands of purchasers of On Top have swallowed their dismay and neglected  to write letters to the editor,  to ASA, to the Better Business Bureau, to Aviation Consumer, et al, complaining about being ripped off? Seems to me that a product so deeply flawed would have been bad-mouthed so widely that ASA would have pulled it off the market. You seem to be the only person unhappy with the product.

Nope, others have complained as well.  Many just take their lumps and deal with the fact that the thing was designed for Windows 95 with a specific card in mind and doesn’t work well with modern machines. I will continue to complain until ASA either delivers me an updated product that works or returns the money they stole from me for this disaster product.   While ASA occasionally sends mem an email in response to my repeated complaints, they have yet to do either one of the above mentioned remedies. So far I’ve managed to pay in excess of $300 for Trevor Thom’s book (the only useful part of the whole package, but not really worth more than about $50).

Response:

I use On Top to do refresher work and find it helpful, but there are some things I definitely don’t like about it. 1.  The Arrow power model has no relation to actual power settings in a real Arrow. 2.  The GPS is nearly useless.  You have to put your own approach fixes into the database, though it does remember them when you shut down. 3.  The avionics panel has to be switched on and off.  When it’s on, it covers the CDI.  I rationalize this extra workload to compensate for the fact that I’m not talking to ATC. I do like the ability to "re-fly" the flight to review how well I did holds and approaches.

Response:

Dear All, I’m following an airline pilot course in Belgium, and I’m to begin with the IFR training next week in a FNPT2 simulator. Don’t waste your money on On Top or IP Trainer like I did.   The products don’t work on any of the PC’s I’ve tried them on and ASA tech support is non-existant.

I continue to use IPTrainer and have bought several upgrades.  Version 6.0c is more stable than earlier versions, especially the older ones that actually used a DOS memory manager. Flying the lessons with IPT is challenging because it doesn’t allow even momentary errors.  If you slip up on a minor detail right at the end of the lesson, you must redo the entire lesson from the beginning.   That leads to boredom and little training.  I have never made it through flying "Plan A".   Has anyone gotten all the way through?

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Dear All, I’m following an airline pilot course in Belgium, and I’m to begin with the IFR training next week in a FNPT2 simulator. Therefore, I would like to use a computer based simulator to train the procedures at home, but I don’t really know what’s the best of Flight Simulator 2004 that I own, On Top 8.0 that costs about 100 US dollars or Elite 8.0 that cost much more (about 250 dollars). Could those of you who know those pc based simulators tell me if it’s worst paying for it, or if the Flight Simulator 2004 will be enough? Thank you for your help, Bruno, Brussels

I bought Elite many years ago.  It works very well, I’ve never had any complaints with it.  It flies exactly like the airplanes I’ve flown.  The one complaint I remember someone else making is that it didn’t model the effect of fuel load on aircraft performance.  Whether that is still true in version 8, I don’t know.  I never noticed the lack of fuel load modeling in my sim flying. When I bought ELITE, it was far more expensive.  I have always thought it was worth every penny.  I have no prospect of flying jets, but I’m tempted to buy the Jet version to get closer to that sort of challenge. I can’t speak to the question if you need it or if you can get sufficient training benefit from Flight Sim or the other programs.  I was able to use Flight Sim to visualize certain radio navigation elements.  At the time I was able to get some benefit without being able to competently hand fly the flight sim by yoke.  I thought watching the flight sim panel was invaluable in learning my scan.  Perhaps that’s the primary benefit and nothing more than flight sim is necessary for that. One thing that I liked about ELITE was that while flying it I never found myself blaming my clumsy technique as a student on the sim and thinking "if only I had that better program."  At the time, ELITE was the most accurate flight model, perhaps with the fuel load exception, and there didn’t seem to be a clear better choice.  I probably would have bought the Jepp product but remember it seemed to be a bit more generic and less specific to the 172 in some ways I can’t now remember.  I think it’s since been bought or sold and maybe vanished in the market. — Scott

Response:

My $.02– FS2004 is good enough for procedures and scan.  Don’t bother buying a yoke or pedals.  Use a cheap "gamepad" type controller with thumb-joystick (instead of a grip/wrist joystick).  Go to "user controlled weather, advanced" and turn turbulence to max, both on the clouds panel and the winds panel.  Give yourself a 30 knot crosswind while you’re at it.

agreed.  If you already have MSFS, just stick with it.  No need to spend any more.  I got a cheap joystick that I could use with my left hand.  Most are made fighter-pilot style using your righthand.  As for the turbulence and winds, save those for later on.  First get you scan going.  My CFII had me doing a clover leaf pattern (name?) at set airspeeds and vertical speeds.  This is what simulators are good for.  The one thing that MSFS is bad for is true power settings for a performance. Generally, learn what power settings give you a performance and then use it on the flight sim but not in the actual airplane.  Doesn’t really matter in reality though on the simulator. Gerald

Response:

Dear All, I’m following an airline pilot course in Belgium, and I’m to begin with the IFR training next week in a FNPT2 simulator.

Don’t waste your money on On Top or IP Trainer like I did.   The products don’t work on any of the PC’s I’ve tried them on and ASA tech support is non-existant.

Response:

What about the fact that Elite uses an old GPS box that is clunky, difficult to use, and not even on the market any longer? Also, as I recall, all user waypoints are lost when exiting the program. Sure, I realize they have a Garmin interface if you have all their expensive hardware, but no one at home would have that stuff. I find Elite, at least for home use, stuck in the VOR/ILS/DME daze. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Bruno,   We started with MS FS 2002/2004 then gave Xplane a try.  After trying out the Elite program when checking out a Flight school, we bought the program along with the IFR training manual It was worth every penny and more.  We got our instrument ratings two weeks ago but still plan to continue using it for practices before every instrument flight.   You can download the demo program (fully functional but with 5 minute time limit) to give it a try.  Aside from the IFR training syllabus, Elite also offer Instrument approach scenarios which are also quite helpful.   Regarding hardware, we started with a joystick and rudder pedals then replaced the joystick with the CH flight yoke.  The joystick worked OK but the yoke seemed to be closer to flying our plane.   Hai Longworth

Response:

Dear All, I’m following an airline pilot course in Belgium, and I’m to begin with the IFR training next week in a FNPT2 simulator. Therefore, I would like to use a computer based simulator to train the procedures at home, but I don’t really know what’s the best of Flight Simulator 2004 that I own, On Top 8.0 that costs about 100 US dollars or Elite 8.0 that cost much more (about 250 dollars). Could those of you who know those pc based simulators tell me if it’s worst paying for it, or if the Flight Simulator 2004 will be enough? Thank you for your help, Bruno, Brussels

Response:

My $.02– FS2004 is good enough for procedures and scan.  Don’t bother buying a yoke or pedals.  Use a cheap "gamepad" type controller with thumb-joystick (instead of a grip/wrist joystick).  Go to "user controlled weather, advanced" and turn turbulence to max, both on the clouds panel and the winds panel.  Give yourself a 30 knot crosswind while you’re at it. I also used X-plane and On Top, but settled on FS2004…  no experience with Elite though. — Cheers, John Clonts Temple, Texas N7NZ

Response:

DG drift question

Question:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – fellow pilots, I have asked this question  ( slightly differently ) on rec.aviation.student  ( mostly US posters) but I’d like some aussie input, to see if perhaps there may be a training difference.  It has to do with navigating and what you should do when you notice the DG ( directional gyro for the non pilots reading this) has drifted ( or possibly been adjusted incorrectly)  I am really struggling with the logic of what I have been told I must do. ( I’ll hold back on what this is just for now. I am just interested in what others would do in the same situation) You notice your DG is reading 20 degrees different to the compass.  What do you do? a.  Correct the DG  but stay on the same ( ie incorrect)   compass heading? b   Correct the DG and adjust your heading to the correct ie planned heading.? c.  Dont correct the DG and stay on the same ( ie incorrect heading) You then get a positive fix of your location .  

half the problem is in the impractical nature of the question. if you are flying VFR you will be map following and will pick up the error quicker than indicated. fly a straight course until you have a position fix. worst case is that you will do a 180 and track back the reciprocal for an equal amount of time to get somewhere near your destination then set off again.( cant do that if you havent flown straight) if you get a fix you get a number of options. plot the new course to the destination, do a fuel calc and check whether getting there is an option any longer. set the dg to the compass and set off again. check the dg to the compas more often. or do whatever you think is most expedient. (actual flying has no pass/fail exams even getting there by mistake can be ok  ) the impractical nature of the question lies in the fact that over 95% of australian pilots are using GPS but dont worry son you’ll either figure it out or crash trying …in my aircraft you’ll never have that problem. no DG. Stealth Pilot

Response:

Hint: Think northern hemisphere compasses flying in southern hemisphere…

Like every single Cessna, Piper etc in Oz, you mean? Ok, ok – and every single <barf Auster including Dorothy <does beg the question though – how do the big jets deal with this? I.e. Aircraft that make it a habit flying from one hemisphere to the other?

Deal with what?   The only change from one hemisphere to the other is a change in declination (dip), nothing else.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – fellow pilots, I have asked this question  ( slightly differently ) on rec.aviation.student  ( mostly US posters) but I’d like some aussie input, to see if perhaps there may be a training difference.  It has to do with navigating and what you should do when you notice the DG ( directional gyro for the non pilots reading this) has drifted ( or possibly been adjusted incorrectly)  I am really struggling with the logic of what I have been told I must do. ( I’ll hold back on what this is just for now. I am just interested in what others would do in the same situation) I assume for the purpose of this post we’re assuming VFR in VMC?  If so, unless you’re flying over the Tanami desert, you’d have plenty of visual clues that your DG is leading you astray (yes – I’ve flown VFR over the Tanami WITHOUT a GPS).

yes,  western district victoria in vfr outside controlled airspace. If I was tracking correctly, then did a compass-DG check and found in the last 5-10 minutes the two had drifted 20deg apart I’d be suspicious that: 1. I’ve put something ferrite or magnetic near the compass. 2. The vac pump is cactus (check vac pressure) so the DG is precessing faster than it should.

no evidence of either If these both check out OK – I’d continue navigating visually and use the compass (less to go wrong with a compass – they don’t suddenly stop working for no apparent reason).

I would struggle to do this, it moves around too much, thats why we have a DG You notice your DG is reading 20 degrees different to the compass.  What do you do? a.  Correct the DG  but stay on the same ( ie incorrect)   compass heading? b   Correct the DG and adjust your heading to the correct ie planned heading.? c.  Dont correct the DG and stay on the same ( ie incorrect heading) Screw the heading – were you on track to start with?  How often do you do the ‘time-map-ground’ visual navigation check?  How often to you check the compass-DG; I do it as part of my continual cockpit scan; cruise: eyes outside – 75%         eyes inside  - 25% approach or busy traffic area: eyes outside 90%.

I was taught to not do it more frequently than every 15 minutes or you end up "track crawling" You then get a positive fix of your location .  How then do you calculate your new heading in the following example.  Your magnetic course planned with no wind was 080.  For arguments sake  you got half way and noticed you are 6 degrees left of your planned track but your compass says 060. Two options – your compass is wrong or the wind has REALLY picked up. We’re still navigating visually right?

correct if the DG hadnt drifted  , the answer is simple you flew 080 and got 6 degrees left of track so you need to correct by 12 degrees to the right and fly 092 to get to target.  But if the DG says 060 when you checked it at half way, what  heading would you choose next next? I’d plot the new track (free-hand line on my WAC/VTC) and fly it visually using bloody obvious tracking points well within the ambient visibility (if I can see 10nm, pick tracking points about 6-7nm apart) and fly point to point along your new track.  It’s ugly, but it works.

I would be inclined to do this also but  it wouldnt pass a PPL test – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Is your answer always going to be the same? would you take into account other information such as you have already flown 3 legs with no wind adjustment and was on target on time.? First part – not always the same.  Second part – always; rarely does a piece of equipment (like a compass) suddenly become 20deg out with some external influence.  The trick is keep your scan going and KNOW when the change started or occurred. There was a great article in the crash comic a few months back about a guy whose passenger had a powerful magnet in his bag.  Everything was fine until he moved the bag from the back seat to the front, then the compass went way off.  Pilot adjusted the DG to match the compass and promptly got lost in a designated remote area running low on fuel.  The steel clips on clipboards and headsets have a similar effect when you put your flight board/headset on the dash – don’t get caught with THAT one on your PPL/CPL/CIR test (examiners are arse-holes !

yes I read that one and some other similar stories. I dont put anything metal or not on the dash. obviously it all gets down to making assumptions about why you are 6 degrees off course, how much of it was due to wind and how much to flying the wrong heading. You have no way of knowing when the DG drifted except sometime between when you last checked it and when you discovered it had drifted. Precisely the reason you check it and your position often.  When flying IFR it’s even MORE important to keep a weary eye on the directional gyro (and it’s power source; vac/electric) and the compass.  Know WHEN it changed, know how much it changed and don’t get suckered into thinking a compass can suddenly get 20deg out for no reason.

I do checks at around 15 minute intervals , including all engine gauges, suction , amps etc. If I was flying on my own I wouldnt have a problem with checking the DG more often , and adjusting both the DG and my heading ..but it is not what I am being taughtterry

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – fellow pilots, I have asked this question  ( slightly differently ) on rec.aviation.student  ( mostly US posters) but I’d like some aussie input, to see if perhaps there may be a training difference.  It has to do with navigating and what you should do when you notice the DG ( directional gyro for the non pilots reading this) has drifted ( or possibly been adjusted incorrectly)  I am really struggling with the logic of what I have been told I must do. ( I’ll hold back on what this is just for now. I am just interested in what others would do in the same situation) You notice your DG is reading 20 degrees different to the compass.  What do you do? a.  Correct the DG  but stay on the same ( ie incorrect)   compass heading? b   Correct the DG and adjust your heading to the correct ie planned heading.? c.  Dont correct the DG and stay on the same ( ie incorrect heading) You then get a positive fix of your location . half the problem is in the impractical nature of the question. if you are flying VFR you will be map following and will pick up the error quicker than indicated.

why is it impractical , it happened to me. fly a straight course until you have a position fix. worst case is that you will do a 180 and track back the reciprocal for an equal amount of time to get somewhere near your destination then set off again.( cant do that if you havent flown straight) if you get a fix you get a number of options. plot the new course to the destination, do a fuel calc and check whether getting there is an option any longer. set the dg to the compass and set off again. check the dg to the compas more often. or do whatever you think is most expedient. (actual flying has no pass/fail exams even getting there by mistake can be ok  )

is doing a ppl test not actual flying?  I can tell you now getting there by mistake wont cut the mustard with the bloke who is testing me for the PPL, or lending me his aeroplane. the impractical nature of the question lies in the fact that over 95% of australian pilots are using GPS but dont worry son you’ll either figure it out or crash trying

I  have no doubt 95% of private pilots are using GPS and I will be one of them soon.  About zero % of pilots are using them on PPL tests.   But thanks for the advice Gramps. terry

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – [) You notice your DG is reading 20 degrees different to the compass. What do you do? a.  Correct the DG  but stay on the same ( ie incorrect)   compass heading? b   Correct the DG and adjust your heading to the correct ie planned heading.? c.  Dont correct the DG and stay on the same ( ie incorrect heading) You then get a positive fix of your location .  How then do you calculate your new heading D&TM I hope I get this message right, still learning how to newsgroup. My answer depends on some variables – eg a few – speed, distance between waypoints, fuel available, terrain, and navaid availability. First, do NOT yet adjust the DG. Second, draw the 20 deg variation on your map from the last positive fix (draw a pic on the back of your nav log if you are unsure whether L or R of planned track. Third, using time and GS approximations see if you can get a new (absolutely) positive fix on a feature, re-plan to your next waypoint from there, Reset DG against compass at that point, and take up the new track.  See also later comment.

I actually knew where I was quite confidently.  I could also easily calculate the new magnetic track to the destination.  but the question is what drift allowance.  Given the problem I had with the DG and the fact that the other 3 legs of my flight required no drift allowance , I would have been happy to just correct the DG and fly the calculated no wind track, and then check it again at some suitable way pt.    Instructor had different ideas. I am presuming you are keeping a nav log of your original flight plan which has the desired tracks magnetic to fly each leg, and doing your clearof or similar checks at minimum half hourly intervals, and that you have been establishing groundspeed and wind drift figures

yes , I  do checks about every 15 minutes.  as I said it was  a calm day, area forcast winds were vrb/10 and I had done 3 legs with no wind adjustment and was pretty much on target.  This is partly why I found it hard to accept that I had really flown a 060 heading ( as the instructor insisted I should assume) when I had actually only drifted 6 dgrees off course and not 20) If you are really "misplaced" and stressed, and fuel or fuel to alternate allows, leave the DG as is, do a U turn and fly the reciprocal track back to your last positive fix.  You should still have the recent features in short term memory and by now you should be able to do a mental allowance for the wind drift if any.

Not misplaced at all, and only stress was coming conflict between instructors and my logic.  He wanted me to assume I had really flown 060 because the compass is never wrong. and calculate new heading based on that. By definition this implies that i had to acccept a strong northerly wind had suddenly come up.  i dont for one minute categorically rule out this possibility ( although it later confirmed to be not the case)  but is just seems more sensible to me to keep things simple.  correct the DG and fly the calcluated course with no wind and do another correction later on , hopefully without the complication of DG error.   Another option is to leave the DG as is, continue flying until your ETA for your next waypoint, then turn 90 deg to track to the waypoint, the distance being calculated roughly from your extra line on the map.

I thought of also flying directly to teh way pt I recognised, correcting the DG and just continuing on the original planned track.  Again my instructor wont have a bar of that.  Reasoning being , what if i mis identified that way point , I would be stuffed. If your brain is really switched on, you could alternatively at the point you originally discover the inconsistency, do some quick map and 1 in 60 rule work to decide where you think you should be, then set a new track to your next waypoint.  This has its worries as you are "re-starting" from a possible error.

I am reasonably comfortable with the 1 in 60s and could easily calculate the track to my destination,  but what wind allowance? If the aircraft has a working ADF or VOR they can also be used.

had a working vor but , had to fly by clock and compass and DG. Whatever, when you do decide to realign the compass and DG, keep an audit note of what each showed and the time you changed. Now, the new heading from the positive fix which is the second part of the question.  Protractor on map, mag variation, apply the forecast wind drift, take up the new heading, and monitor progress via the 1 in 60 rule.

yep that would be zero wind. and this is what i wanted to do. If all else fails, call FS and ask for radar advisory.  If too low, climb (with permission if CTR).  Climbing also has the benefit of giving you a macro overview of features.  Even if no radar advisory, contact Flight Service if you are worried, give them the last positive fix and what has happened since, and keep flying the aircraft while they sit in unstressed conditions and work out where you are.

would do that if I had to , but cant imagine getting so lost in western victoria that I would ever need to do that.  ( unless i was close to controlled airspace of course but in this case I wasnt).  The easiest solution would have been  an ejector seat on the right hand side. ( only kidding , now I hope he isnt reading this) terry

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Compass story……. Many years ago, when I was on Pilots’ Course, I had an interesting day in a Macchi. The trip was the first of the low level navs. From memory, it was all a 200 feet agl, and at 300 kias. Basically, the way these were done (on LN1 only) was that the instructor would fly/nav the first leg, you would nav the second, and then fly/nav the third. Compass comparisons were done roughly every 20 minutes, or after each turning point. Weather was a very solid overcast (about 20,000 feet thick), and the cloud base was around a 1000 feet agl. Low navs were basically track crawling exercises. You would fly headings, but you had checkpoints every few minutes along the way, with timing marks to the second at each check point. Headings were modified from a couple of rules of thumb, but these were generally quite minor. Timing adjustments were made by either increasing speed, small reductions in speed or by various set deviations off track. The nav progressed over the first leg quite normally. After the first turning point, the normal post turn checks were done. During this leg, I was supposed to be navigating (with the instructor quacking as needed). Checkpoints came and went at about the right time, but I was increasingly unhappy with what was going on, and said so. Instructor pointed out that we were on track, and the timings were making sense….so what was the problem. Second checkpoint came, and instructor handed over to me. By this time I was very uneasy, but couldn’t really say why. Everything actually looked ok. Timing was a little out, and a correction needed to be made (as had already been done a couple of times). A couple of minutes later, I’d settled down and did the post turn checks. The HSI and standby compass disagreed by 110 degrees…… We immediately popped up to just below the cloud. From down low, the view had looked like what we were supposed to see, but from higher up it didn’t. At this point an interesting change occured in the aircraft. The instructor took over, and became a pilot, and I ceased being a student pilot and reverted to my previous qualification….a navigator. Taking the standby as correct, and knowing where it was last definately in agreement with the HSI (roughly 120 miles away), and I called for a 180

GA Flying in USA

Question:

Have just finished reading a story in International Auster Club magazine about a bunch of aviators in the USA who flew an Auster Mk9 and a Super Cub from New York State to Montana (almost right across the country). Their destination was Sealey Lake where there was a gathering of Beech 17’s. In the course of their story is this sentence: "Landing at Rockford [Illinois] required use of the radio as it was a controlled field. I believe this was the only time we used the radio on the whole of our journey." Comments? Coop

Response:

Have just finished reading a story in International Auster Club magazine about a bunch of aviators in the USA who flew an Auster Mk9 and a Super Cub from New York State to Montana (almost right across the country). Their destination was Sealey Lake where there was a gathering of Beech 17’s. In the course of their story is this sentence: "Landing at Rockford [Illinois] required use of the radio as it was a controlled field. I believe this was the only time we used the radio on the whole of our journey." Comments?

Ok – so that was radio control.   The rest of  the time it was control line. What’s the problem? (I didn’t realise Austers had infested the Land of the Brave and Free! Coop, you should know – many of them over there?)

Response:

<snip (I didn’t realise Austers had infested the Land of the Brave and Free! Coop, you should know – many of them over there?)

Lots, they call them Taylorcraft. Some were built under license in the UK as Austers. — regards jc LEGAL – I don’t believe what I wrote and neither should you. Sobriety and/or sanity of the author is not guaranteed addresses. news2x at perentie is valid for a while.

Response:

<snip (I didn’t realise Austers had infested the Land of the Brave and Free! Coop, you should know – many of them over there?) Lots, they call them Taylorcraft. Some were built under license in the UK as Austers.

I remain unconvinced about that……. Have flown a real Taylorcraft in North America though – along with Aeronca Champ, J2, J3 C120, C140, Canadian Chipmunk Aercoupe and the like but there were only a few Austers about when I was there – never did get to actually see any though. Cheers

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – <snip (I didn’t realise Austers had infested the Land of the Brave and Free! Coop, you should know – many of them over there?) Lots, they call them Taylorcraft. Some were built under license in the UK as Austers. I remain unconvinced about that……. Have flown a real Taylorcraft in North America though – along with Aeronca Champ, J2, J3 C120, C140, Canadian Chipmunk Aercoupe and the like but there were only a few Austers about when I was there – never did get to actually see any though. Cheers

Austers started life as a licence built Taylorcraft, built in the UK. During WW2 the military version was named "Auster" by the RAF, and after the war the UK company changed the company name to Auster. The post war aircraft diverged markedly from the parent Taylorcraft, partly because of the need to fit available, British, engines. JD

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – <snip (I didn’t realise Austers had infested the Land of the Brave and Free! Coop, you should know – many of them over there?) Lots, they call them Taylorcraft. Some were built under license in the UK as Austers. I remain unconvinced about that……. Have flown a real Taylorcraft in North America though – along with Aeronca Champ, J2, J3 C120, C140, Canadian Chipmunk Aercoupe and the like but there were only a few Austers about when I was there – never did get to actually see any though.

The point is the Auster is a Taylorcraft built in the UK under license — regards jc LEGAL – I don’t believe what I wrote and neither should you. Sobriety and/or sanity of the author is not guaranteed addresses. news2x at perentie is valid for a while.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Have just finished reading a story in International Auster Club magazine about a bunch of aviators in the USA who flew an Auster Mk9 and a Super Cub from New York State to Montana (almost right across the country). Their destination was Sealey Lake where there was a gathering of Beech 17’s. In the course of their story is this sentence: "Landing at Rockford [Illinois] required use of the radio as it was a controlled field. I believe this was the only time we used the radio on the whole of our journey." Comments? Ok – so that was radio control.   The rest of  the time it was control line. What’s the problem? (I didn’t realise Austers had infested the Land of the Brave and Free! Coop, you should know – many of them over there?)

Only a handful, I think. I personally know of two. Of course, you do realise that the USA is the land of their heritage? (Taylorcraft Plus D and all that?) Or did you think they were entirely a Pommie product? Coop

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Lots, they call them Taylorcraft. Some were built under license in the UK as Austers. I remain unconvinced about that……. Have flown a real Taylorcraft in North America though – along with Aeronca Champ, J2, J3 C120, C140, Canadian Chipmunk, Aercoupe and the like but there were only a few Austers about when I was there – never did get to actually see any though. The point is the Auster is a Taylorcraft built in the UK under license

Ok, Ok  –  Thanks for the reminder — You have convinced me  :) The only T’craft that I saw (and flew) in the US and Canada were two-place, Lycoming powered and they were pre WW2 vintage. Quite popular in their day (and  for quite some time afterwards).  Nothing like the Auster J5’s I flew in AU (VH-KBU (converted for ag) and VH-KBM with long range belly tank).  Seems that T’craft made an inline engined model (before the Gypsy) similar to the J5.  If I recall correctly the J5 was about 145 HP and numbed my feet with the engine vibration thru the rudder pedals. To be fair, I *think* for an aircraft to be called a common Auster, it had to be built in the UK at the Auster factory and after 1946? As I quoted before, I had never seen an Auster (as such) in the USA or Canada although common-sense tells me that there must have been a few around.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – <snip (I didn’t realise Austers had infested the Land of the Brave and Free! Coop, you should know – many of them over there?) Lots, they call them Taylorcraft. Some were built under license in the UK as Austers. I remain unconvinced about that……. Have flown a real Taylorcraft in North America though – along with Aeronca Champ, J2, J3 C120, C140, Canadian Chipmunk Aercoupe and the like but there were only a few Austers about when I was there – never did get to actually see any though. Cheers Austers started life as a licence built Taylorcraft, built in the UK. During WW2 the military version was named "Auster" by the RAF, and after the war the UK company changed the company name to Auster. The post war aircraft diverged markedly from the parent Taylorcraft, partly because of the need to fit available, British, engines. JD

Thanks for that JD….

Response:

<snip   I believe this was the only time we used the radio on the whole of our journey." Comments? Coop

Flying without radio is like driving at night without headlights. It makes you feel rooly brave, but it’s fucking stupid. We’ve evolved, people. We’ve moved on from the "no aids" days. Riding no hands is not smart, it’s just bravado. Flying no radio is the same mindless "my dick’s bigger than yours" bravado. I’m reminded of a flight into Jindabyne many years ago, for the big opening day of the new grass strip. In our C-172 we made an inbound courtesy call, announcing our position at x feet over centre of the lake, inbound from the north-east. A minute or so later, one of the local Canberra cowboys in his Nanchang (who don’t use radio because it "clutters the airwaves") bloody nearly descended on top of us. Dropped down through our level less than 100 metres in front of us – close enough that we jumped around like crazy in his slipstream. Yes, we had announced our position and intention. No, he wasn’t listening on area frequency (why would you. It’s only a lot of cackle from people who like to clog up airwaves!) Bloody stupid cowboy. He was barely even embarrassed when we fronted him about it on the ground. The dumb reaction of ho hum. So, flying without use of radio. Yeah, great idea. On a par with riding my motor cycle no hands at night down a dark road with the lights off. Makes you feel real hairy-chested and macho. Dumb as dogshit! Gregg

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Flying without radio is like driving at night without headlights. It makes you feel rooly brave, but it’s fucking stupid. We’ve evolved, people. We’ve moved on from the "no aids" days. Riding no hands is not smart, it’s just bravado. Flying no radio is the same mindless "my dick’s bigger than yours" bravado. I’m reminded of a flight into Jindabyne many years ago, for the big opening day of the new grass strip. In our C-172 we made an inbound courtesy call, announcing our position at x feet over centre of the lake, inbound from the north-east. A minute or so later, one of the local Canberra cowboys in his Nanchang (who don’t use radio because it "clutters the airwaves") bloody nearly descended on top of us. Dropped down through our level less than 100 metres in front of us – close enough that we jumped around like crazy in his slipstream. Yes, we had announced our position and intention. No, he wasn’t listening on area frequency (why would you. It’s only a lot of cackle from people who like to clog up airwaves!) Bloody stupid cowboy. He was barely even embarrassed when we fronted him about it on the ground. The dumb reaction of ho hum. So, flying without use of radio. Yeah, great idea. On a par with riding my motor cycle no hands at night down a dark road with the lights off. Makes you feel real hairy-chested and macho. Dumb as dogshit!

Am I to understand from the above you are in favour of radio being used where practicable? And if radio fails the correct action is a precautionary vertical dive into a bare paddock or dam as a contribution to the air safety of the populace at large? Dear me! On a par with riding  my motor cycle no hands at night down a dark road with the lights off. Makes you feel real hairy-chested and macho.

Well – ok – I’ll take your word for it….   But you’d be more convincing if you took the trainer wheels off – and tried it on something with more than 30 cc.   <sigh  :-) And if you get a wasp nest in the pitot, are you going to join the "same mindless ‘my dick’s bigger than yours’ bravado" crew and fly a circuit or will you canter through the end fence trying to stop and turn upside down in the ditch in the interests of "safety"? You can’t have it both ways

Response:

The point is the Auster is a Taylorcraft built in the UK under license Ok, Ok  –  Thanks for the reminder — You have convinced me  :) The only T’craft that I saw (and flew) in the US and Canada were two-place, Lycoming powered and they were pre WW2 vintage. Quite popular in their day (and  for quite some time afterwards).  Nothing like the Auster J5’s I flew in AU (VH-KBU (converted for ag) and VH-KBM with long range belly tank).  Seems that T’craft made an inline engined model

you should have made better entries in that old log book of yours mate. VH-KBU is most assuredly not an Auster J5. it is even more certainly an Auster J1B, serial number 2694. had all the spray gear taken out in 1966. in fact it sits out in my back workshop suffering the indignity of my very slow restoration efforts. so you’re the bugger who bent the… put the saw cut behind the… chipped all the paint off the…. bent the fuel overflow return… but dont worry mate I’ve just about fixed all that you’re forgiven Stealth Pilot

Response:

<snip  I believe this was the only time we used the radio on the whole of our journey." Comments? Coop Flying without radio is like driving at night without headlights. It makes you feel rooly brave, but it’s fucking stupid. We’ve evolved, people. We’ve moved on from the "no aids" days.

<etc. -snipped for brevity Dear me, Gregg, The reason I posted this was to draw attention to the fact that these people apparently didn’t see any reason to use their radio beyond the controlled airfield they mentioned during a flight across the states which involved 23 stops. I suspect their radio was turned on, there is no suggestion that they were not listening. Furthermore, they seem to be pretty ordinary people- the Auster fraternity are not known for being "Hairy chested" or "Macho" (we leave that sort of thing to the radial-engine boys, as you so eloquently noted). Their track- which I have in front of me- included many relatively remote areas, it is true, but they also flew relatively close to (among other places ) Chicago, Detroit and Minneapolis. While their route didn’t directly cross these major cities, they weren’t always flying in the "boondocks", either. Given that this is America, it is likely that they were transponder equipped- few aircraft over there lack this. However, there is no mention of formal flight plans being submitted (although I have no doubt they still planned their flights) and on several occasions they had to divert to take account of nasty weather. We tend to think of USA airspace as very crowded and electronically regulated with lots of radar, etc, but for me the point is that much of the flying in the USA is probably like it is in Oz. That is, vast areas of relatively thin traffic where encountering other aircraft is unusual. I once flew from Sedan (Northeast of Adelaide) via Broken Hill, Cobar, Lightning Ridge, Chinchilla to Bundaberg, and yes, I used the radio at each of those locations, but never encountered anyone in the air- even in the circuits- not even at Bundaberg. Same thing for the return trip, except there was someone else in the ciruit at Bundaberg when we departed.  I have had similar experiences flying up the red centre (Port Pirie, Andamooka, Olympic Dam, Coober Pedy, Mintabie, Ayers Rock, Kings Canyon, Alice Springs) and across the Bight (Jamestown, Elliston, Ceduna, Nullarbor, Caiguna, Esperance, Albany, Serpentine) where for the most part the only other people we encountered in the air were those we were flying in company with. <Hobby horse on I’m not suggesting we drive around with our headlights off, Gregg, although I do believe that the current generation of GA pilots, many of whom have never flown "non-radio", don’t use their eyes as well as they would if they had had the experience of flying without radio. <Hobby horse off I just found it interesting that such a long journey would be undertaken in the USA with such little need for radio traffic. Puts a new perspective on what flying must be like over there, don’t you think? Clearly, you’ve had a nasty fright where radio use might have prevented it. But there have been mid-airs where radio was being used. Like headlights, radio use does not guarantee safety. Coop

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – The point is the Auster is a Taylorcraft built in the UK under license Ok, Ok  –  Thanks for the reminder — You have convinced me  :) The only T’craft that I saw (and flew) in the US and Canada were two-place, Lycoming powered and they were pre WW2 vintage. Quite popular in their day (and  for quite some time afterwards).  Nothing like the Auster J5’s I flew in AU (VH-KBU (converted for ag) and VH-KBM with long range belly tank).  Seems that T’craft made an inline engined model you should have made better entries in that old log book of yours mate. VH-KBU is most assuredly not an Auster J5. it is even more certainly an Auster J1B, serial number 2694. had all the spray gear taken out in 1966.

Thanks for to update – log-book keeping was not my forte and I have to say that when I rely 100% on my memory… well ’nuff said!.  :)  I actually couldn’t be bothered maintaining my logbook in more recent years. in fact it sits out in my back workshop suffering the indignity of my very slow restoration efforts. so you’re the bugger who bent the… put the saw cut behind the… chipped all the paint off the…. bent the fuel overflow return… but dont worry mate I’ve just about fixed all that you’re forgiven Stealth Pilot

hehehe – It is lucky to be still intact.  Although I did my initial training (accurate swaths, procedure terns etc)in the Auster (Wastair Aviation – Connabrabran)I had been flying a Pawnee (VH-POO I think) for some time when I did some seeding in the Auster.  The gutless machine couldn’t out climb the terrain [not my fault ].  Luckily I managed to (just) get it turned around in the valley – sweaty palms ‘n all. That was in ‘65.  The last time I saw it was when I parachuted at the Connabrabran Air Show (27-11-65) – when did you get it?

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – <snip  I believe this was the only time we used the radio on the whole of our journey." Comments? Coop Flying without radio is like driving at night without headlights. It makes you feel rooly brave, but it’s fucking stupid. We’ve evolved, people. We’ve moved on from the "no aids" days. <etc. -snipped for brevity Dear me, Gregg, The reason I posted this was to draw attention to the fact that these people apparently didn’t see any reason to use their radio beyond the controlled airfield they mentioned during a flight across the states which involved 23 stops. I suspect their radio was turned on, there is no suggestion that they were not listening. Furthermore, they seem to be pretty ordinary people- the Auster fraternity are not known for being "Hairy chested" or "Macho" (we leave that sort of thing to the radial-engine boys, as you so eloquently noted). Their track- which I have in front of me- included many relatively remote areas, it is true, but they also flew relatively close to (among other places ) Chicago, Detroit and Minneapolis. While their route didn’t directly cross these major cities, they weren’t always flying in the "boondocks", either. Given that this is America, it is likely that they were transponder equipped- few aircraft over there lack this. However, there is no mention of formal flight plans being submitted (although I have no doubt they still planned their flights) and on several occasions they had to divert to take account of nasty weather. We tend to think of USA airspace as very crowded and electronically regulated with lots of radar, etc, but for me the point is that much of the flying in the USA is probably like it is in Oz. That is, vast areas of relatively thin traffic where encountering other aircraft is unusual. I once flew from Sedan (Northeast of Adelaide) via Broken Hill, Cobar, Lightning Ridge, Chinchilla to Bundaberg, and yes, I used the radio at each of those locations, but never encountered anyone in the air- even in the circuits- not even at Bundaberg. Same thing for the return trip, except there was someone else in the ciruit at Bundaberg when we departed.  I have had similar experiences flying up the red centre (Port Pirie, Andamooka, Olympic Dam, Coober Pedy, Mintabie, Ayers Rock, Kings Canyon, Alice Springs) and across the Bight (Jamestown, Elliston, Ceduna, Nullarbor, Caiguna, Esperance, Albany, Serpentine) where for the most part the only other people we encountered in the air were those we were flying in company with. <Hobby horse on I’m not suggesting we drive around with our headlights off, Gregg, although I do believe that the current generation of GA pilots, many of whom have never flown "non-radio", don’t use their eyes as well as they would if they had had the experience of flying without radio. <Hobby horse off I just found it interesting that such a long journey would be undertaken in the USA with such little need for radio traffic. Puts a new perspective on what flying must be like over there, don’t you think? Clearly, you’ve had a nasty fright where radio use might have prevented it. But there have been mid-airs where radio was being used. Like headlights, radio use does not guarantee safety. Coop

YEP – too tru! I have flown in that area of the USA and one doesn’t venture too far from the highway either (mainly for easy navigation) but "what if" is also a factor  :)  No matter where one goes – there are dozens of small airports/airstrips mostly on unicom.  They seem to handle these things with a lot less fuss than we do here in Australia. I seem to recall nearly having a ‘head-on’ in heavy snow once – Oh well I do rant on at times…  If I had any literary skill, I’d write a book…… The USA IS a crowded place — with lots o’ empty spaces……. hehe – I flew into Teterborough Intl, no radio, once.  The tower told me I had joined the busy circuit properly but was naughty.  Oh and Buffalo Intl too!  That was Ok they knew I was coming and were happy to give me a light.

Response:

<Lots snipped Like headlights, radio use does not guarantee safety. Coop

Coop, thanks for a very considered response to my less than temperate outburst. Needless to say, my pet hobby-horse reared. I totally agree with you that radio does not guarantee safety in fact, with the ongoing confusion of "appropriate" frequencies, it may at times even detract by providing a false sense of security (no call = no traffic). I have, however, experienced serious embarrassment on behalf of my fellow ultralighters and GA drivers when I’ve witnessed RPT and light commercial traffic (who have a valid concern for an approach allowing cooling control and engine management) stuffed around by lighties who will not use radio correctly or, indeed, at all. The RPT (or unscheduled commercial) is either confused about traffic or unaware of traffic, despite having made appropriate inbound calls, because the lightie simply won’t communicate. On a couple of such occasions I’ve known that the light had operational radio onboard. To me it equates exactly with drivers who refuse to indicate their intention to turn (endemic in Canberra!). It’s just dumb. The ability to communicate with a nearby aircraft, to remove any doubt about intentions, is a huge safety plus. I totally agree that aircraft can, and have for a long time, flown safely without radio, but I persist with my argument that radio can provide an additional level of safety. I wasn’t around to know first hand, but I dare say there would have been early motorists just as vehemently denying the safety value of turn indicators, brake lights and all those other nonsensical add-ons that were totally unnecessary in horse and buggy days. And yes, I do understand your distinction between not having/using radio and not needing to use (transmit on) radio. cheers Gregg

Response:

<Lots snipped Like headlights, radio use does not guarantee safety. Coop Coop, thanks for a very considered response to my less than temperate outburst. Needless to say, my pet hobby-horse reared.

In response to a little provocation.. you have to watch the little buggers, eh? I totally agree with you that radio does not guarantee safety in fact, with the ongoing confusion of "appropriate" frequencies, it may at times even detract by providing a false sense of security (no call = no traffic). I have, however, experienced serious embarrassment on behalf of my fellow ultralighters and GA drivers when I’ve witnessed RPT and light commercial traffic (who have a valid concern for an approach allowing cooling control and engine management) stuffed around by lighties who will not use radio correctly or, indeed, at all.

Agreed, but lighties are not the only culprits. I’ve personally observed a near-miss between two commercial aircraft (one took evasive action) who ought to have been communicating with each other. I dunno how they managed to get so close, but I suspect it was a case of automatic behaviour- talking but not actually listening…. The RPT (or unscheduled commercial) is either confused about traffic or unaware of traffic, despite having made appropriate inbound calls, because the lightie simply won’t communicate. On a couple of such occasions I’ve known that the light had operational radio onboard. To me it equates exactly with drivers who refuse to indicate their intention to turn (endemic in Canberra!). It’s just dumb. The ability to communicate with a nearby aircraft, to remove any doubt about intentions, is a huge safety plus. I totally agree that aircraft can, and have for a long time, flown safely without radio, but I persist with my argument that radio can provide an additional level of safety.

Yes, provided that people don’t drop their visual scanning as a consequence of using radio. Or, more likely these days, never learn proper visual scanning at all because of over-reliance on radio. I agree that there is an advantage. I disagree that it is huge because I think people are not taught to look properly, so the extra safety gained by use of radio is partially lost through keeping eyes inside the cockpit all the time. I wasn’t around to know first hand, but I dare say there would have been early motorists just as vehemently denying the safety value of turn indicators, brake lights and all those other nonsensical add-ons that were totally unnecessary in horse and buggy days.

True, something was gained. However, how many times have you had to take evasive action because someone put their indicator on but never looked? And yes, I do understand your distinction between not having/using radio and not needing to use (transmit on) radio. cheers Gregg

Like you, I use radio all the time (judiciously), but I don’t rely on it. By the way, I think the "beepback" units are one of the best ideas to have arrived in Oz for years. You know you are on the right frequency, and you know you have your volume turned up enough, and you know when you make your first call if somone else has been around within the last five minutes even before they call you. (Most people on this ng don’t like to recall that this was an idea promoted by Tricky Dicky Smith, because they would prefer to think of everything he did as bad, but this was a winner.) Regards Coop

Response:

hehehe – It is lucky to be still intact.  Although I did my initial training (accurate swaths, procedure terns etc)in the Auster (Wastair Aviation – Connabrabran)I had been flying a Pawnee (VH-POO I think) for some time when I did some seeding in the Auster.  The gutless machine couldn’t out climb the terrain [not my fault ].  Luckily I managed to (just) get it turned around in the valley – sweaty palms ‘n all. That was in ‘65.  The last time I saw it was when I parachuted at the Connabrabran Air Show (27-11-65) – when did you get it?

1998  heavens 7 years ago now.

lets hope it doesnt take the rest of my life Stealth Pilot.

Response:

Flying without radio is like driving at night without headlights.

Huh? I’ve done hundreds of hours at night driving with no lights. You can see much better without all that glare.. — Paul Repacholi                               1 Crescent Rd., +61 (08) 9257-1001                           Kalamunda.                                              West Australia 6076 comp.os.vms,- The Older, Grumpier Slashdot Raw, Cooked or Well-done, it’s all half baked. EPIC, The Architecture of the future, always has been, always will be.

Response:

Flying without radio is like driving at night without headlights. Huh? I’ve done hundreds of hours at night driving with no lights. You can see much better without all that glare..

I was involved with working in Burma about fifteen years ago. The practice there is (and probably still is) to drive with headlights off and switch them on momentarily if you think there is something to see (probably something to do with being less likely to be shot at). Early one dark morning after the curfew ended, one of our vehicles discovered a broken down timber jinker on a main highway – when the projecting log came through the windscreen between the driver and passenger of the Landcruiser. JD

Response:

First Flight and I'm Hooked!

Question:

 aeroplanes like ultralights and Austers…. You do realise there is a law against using the words "aeroplane" and "Auster" in the same sentence?

Response:

 aeroplanes like ultralights and Austers…. You do realise there is a law against using the words "aeroplane" and "Auster" in the same sentence?

OK, sorry, your Honour. I throw myself on the mercy of the court. I am very repentant and contrite, and wish I had said: "And cheap(er) aeroplanes like ultralights. And then there are Austers…." With all due respect, your Honour <tugs forelock…. Coop

Response:

Frank said…. Syvia isn’t all that unique… from what I gather, about 1/3 of trainees quit after first solo, and another quit shortly after gaining a PPL.

I can speak from almost personal experience. Where I worked a few years back, a number of the lads decided to splurge on PPLs. All of them got their PPLs, some advancing to instrument ratings, etc. Today, not one of them have been anywhere near an aircraft in ten or more years. Reasons are many and varied, from losing interest, to cash flow issues (kids and school, etc. do that do the budget).

Response:

FREE Spam Protection For Your E-Mail! Click Here. SpamExtract Blocks Spam.

Good on ya, MC! A first flight with your mitts on the stick is a memory that will never leave you. And just think, it gets even better! You still have the thrills of your first solo, GFPT, first cross-country solo and PPL ahead of you. Welcome to aviation; you’ll never regret it.

   Agree with all of the above. But he will find it bloody expensive just to get his PPL    If he gets that far he may want to go for and IR and possibly ratings on more superior a/c – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Walrus — walrus7 Posted via OziPilots Online [ http://www.OziPilotsOnline.com.au ] – A website for Australian Pilots regardless of when, why, or what they fly –

Response:

FREE Spam Protection For Your E-Mail! Click Here. SpamExtract Blocks Spam.

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – It is not my intention to get dark about it, I hope that you will enjoy your flying as I know that you will.  As you have intimated that it may be a financial stretch – I just want to remind you to consider what you intend to do after gaining a PPL regarding affordability. I felt it was worth training for a PPL for its own sake, without regard to how, or even whether, I would continue afterwards. But then, learning stuff was always part of the fun for me. Teaching stuff to other people is what floats my boat. As soon as I realised that that wasn’t going to be an option for me in aviation (I can’t have a CPL), I walked. Didn’t even make it to circuits I’m teaching undergrad business students now, and the motorcycle instructor’s ticket is only a few years away. Life goes on.

   I had to give up flying after only 60 hrs on various singles.   Just ran out of time and Money Ever thought about gliding??? Its a very good alternative. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – GB

Response:

AAAhhhh. Memories. Had a similar experience in 1965 (geeez! that’s 40 years ago!) in the same type of aircraft with the Darwin Aero Club. "Johnno" Johnson was the instructor. Didnt re-assure me when he said the club had just recently taken delivery of this 152 after a prolonged delivery flight from Adelaide. Appears somewhere around Alice Springs it had to make a forced landing on a salt pan and flipped over in the process. Also a little disconcerting for a new chum was the revelation the training area was on the other side of Darwin Harbour, and we had to attain a certain altitute by the middle so that we could glide to either side if the engine cut out. Does this still apply? Have they moved the lighties off Darwin airport? It was quite interesting having to share the circuit with Canberras, Sabres and Mirages. A medical revealed I had eye problems which would prevent me holding a commercial licence and after a few more hours I decided I couldnt justify the on-going costs of a recreational ppl and gave it up. Interesting to note that in the few hours I did, I was instructed in three different aircraft- the 152, then a 172 and finally a Victa. — "I have not said this. I am not here". -The Navigator

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – G’day Still buzzing from my trial introductory flight on the weekend and thought I’d share my experience. Went down to Jandakot on Saturday – slightly concerned the weather may prevent flying.  But all was okay and took me out to the tarmac to the Cessna 152. We first checked the outside of the aircraft – flaps, ailerons, fuel level etc.  Then hopped in and my instructor ran through the pre-flight checklist and gave me a rundown of the general safety procedures.  Then we started up and he handed control over to me!  He let me taxi most of the way to the runway and from take-off through to just before landing I did most all of the flying.  He briefly took over in the air to demonstrate a stall but other than that he let me loose. What an amazing experience!  I still get a massive smile when I think about it!  It was different than I expected in a lot of ways.  I was expecting noise and vibration from the engine and being in a small plane I thought we’d be blown around a fair bit.  But with the headset on it was very quiet and their was little vibration. Also I’m someone who gets vertigo from looking out the window in a tall building, but flying I wasn’t nearly as nervous as I thought I would be.  I think having to concentrate on what’s going on in and outside the aircraft I didn’t have time to think about being nervous. The instructor was fantastic – he straightaway had me looking outside the cockpit at the horizon (adopting the "four finger" attitude) rather than focussing too much on the instruments.  He was very calm and made me feel comfortable and secure that he knew what he was doing and what the plane was capable of. Anyway, I won’t ramble on about it too much but I will say to anyone considering taking a trial flight – Just do it!  I personally am now preparing to live the next few years in poverty as every spare cent gets pumped into flying lessons Cheers MC

Response:

Sylvia’s reasons were certainly her very own – and certainly nothing different with that.  :)

I should hope so, er, I mean not, er..yes. I’ve certainly no desire to be typical! Sylvia

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I felt it was worth training for a PPL for its own sake, without regard to how, or even whether, I would continue afterwards. Everyone’s situation is unique – I went on to CPL/ATPL and made a career in aviation so it was rather moot in my case but I had a number of friends who had to let their PPL lapse for the need of cash to remain current. Syvia isn’t all that unique… from what I gather, about 1/3 of trainees quit after first solo, and another quit shortly after gaining a PPL. Frank

And there are other ways. Some of us invest money in learning to fly gliders, join the club, get endorsed for aero-towing, and then let others pay for the flying. More take-offs and landings than you can point a stick at!! Others do this for parachutists, and here in SA there are some who fly shark patrol- the govt pays for the fuel, I think, but the pilots do it for free. And then there are syndicates. And cheap(er) aeroplanes like ultralights and Austers…. Coop

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I felt it was worth training for a PPL for its own sake, without regard to how, or even whether, I would continue afterwards. Everyone’s situation is unique – I went on to CPL/ATPL and made a career in aviation so it was rather moot in my case but I had a number of friends who had to let their PPL lapse for the need of cash to remain current. Syvia isn’t all that unique… from what I gather, about 1/3 of trainees quit after first solo, and another quit shortly after gaining a PPL. Frank

That is interesting – I never stopped to think about the actual statistics but I can well see where that might be so. When I said that "*everyone’s* situation is unique" – I meant to demonstrate that, in the first instance, we all do different things for our very own unique personal reasons.  What we end up doing may well be typical, predictable or be capable of being categorised. Sylvia’s reasons were certainly her very own – and certainly nothing different with that.  :) Cheers…..

Response:

Being an accountant I did a few sums before heading off down the runway.  I should be able to manage…

Great – I’m pleased to learn that.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – It is not my intention to get dark about it, I hope that you will enjoy your flying as I know that you will.  As you have intimated that it may be a financial stretch – I just want to remind you to consider what you intend to do after gaining a PPL regarding affordability. I felt it was worth training for a PPL for its own sake, without regard to how, or even whether, I would continue afterwards. But then, learning stuff was always part of the fun for me. Sylvia.

Everyone’s situation is unique – I went on to CPL/ATPL and made a career in aviation so it was rather moot in my case but I had a number of friends who had to let their PPL lapse for the need of cash to remain current. Cheers

Response:

I felt it was worth training for a PPL for its own sake, without regard to how, or even whether, I would continue afterwards. Everyone’s situation is unique – I went on to CPL/ATPL and made a career in aviation so it was rather moot in my case but I had a number of friends who had to let their PPL lapse for the need of cash to remain current.

Syvia isn’t all that unique… from what I gather, about 1/3 of trainees quit after first solo, and another quit shortly after gaining a PPL. Frank

Response:

Being an accountant I did a few sums before heading off down the runway.  I should be able to manage…

Response:

It is not my intention to get dark about it, I hope that you will enjoy your flying as I know that you will.  As you have intimated that it may be a financial stretch – I just want to remind you to consider what you intend to do after gaining a PPL regarding affordability.

I felt it was worth training for a PPL for its own sake, without regard to how, or even whether, I would continue afterwards. But then, learning stuff was always part of the fun for me. Sylvia.

Response:

G’day Anyway, I won’t ramble on about it too much but I will say to anyone I personally am now preparing to live the next few years in poverty as every spare cent gets pumped into flying lessons

It is not my intention to get dark about it, I hope that you will enjoy your flying as I know that you will.  As you have intimated that it may be a financial stretch – I just want to remind you to consider what you intend to do after gaining a PPL regarding affordability. If you want to go on to CPL, then it is N/A. If you want to fly for recreation – then the cost certainly doesn’t stop when gaining a PPL.  You will need to throw large sums of money into maintaining competence.  Mind you, it will be enjoyable  :) however; have a talk with people who are there in order to get an appreciation of the ongoing cost and assess your recourses before spending $$$$’s only to find it might not have been such a good idea. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Cheers MC

Response:

Good on you MC. Hope to hear about your first solo not too far down the track. — Darryl Gibbs HTTP://www.cnapg.org Information on all aspects of aviation, particularly vintage and warbirds. Home of the CNAPG aircraft recognition quiz’s, and the Vintage and Warbird mailing list. For a family rated chat room based on aviation, visit "Just Plane Chat" at: http://groups.msn.com/JustPlaneChat

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – G’day Still buzzing from my trial introductory flight on the weekend and thought I’d share my experience. Went down to Jandakot on Saturday – slightly concerned the weather may prevent flying.  But all was okay and took me out to the tarmac to the Cessna 152. We first checked the outside of the aircraft – flaps, ailerons, fuel level etc.  Then hopped in and my instructor ran through the pre-flight checklist and gave me a rundown of the general safety procedures.  Then we started up and he handed control over to me!  He let me taxi most of the way to the runway and from take-off through to just before landing I did most all of the flying.  He briefly took over in the air to demonstrate a stall but other than that he let me loose. What an amazing experience!  I still get a massive smile when I think about it!  It was different than I expected in a lot of ways.  I was expecting noise and vibration from the engine and being in a small plane I thought we’d be blown around a fair bit.  But with the headset on it was very quiet and their was little vibration. Also I’m someone who gets vertigo from looking out the window in a tall building, but flying I wasn’t nearly as nervous as I thought I would be.  I think having to concentrate on what’s going on in and outside the aircraft I didn’t have time to think about being nervous. The instructor was fantastic – he straightaway had me looking outside the cockpit at the horizon (adopting the "four finger" attitude) rather than focussing too much on the instruments.  He was very calm and made me feel comfortable and secure that he knew what he was doing and what the plane was capable of. Anyway, I won’t ramble on about it too much but I will say to anyone considering taking a trial flight – Just do it!  I personally am now preparing to live the next few years in poverty as every spare cent gets pumped into flying lessons Cheers MC

Response:

Good on ya, MC! A first flight with your mitts on the stick is a memory that will never leave you.   And just think, it gets even better! You still have the thrills of your first solo, GFPT, first cross-country solo and PPL ahead of you. Welcome to aviation; you’ll never regret it. Walrus — walrus7 Posted via OziPilots Online [ http://www.OziPilotsOnline.com.au ] – A website for Australian Pilots regardless of when, why, or what they fly –

Response:

He briefly took over in the air to demonstrate a stall but other than that he let me loose.

Interesting marketing strategy! I think I’d have freaked if my instructor had done that on my demonstration flight. Also I’m someone who gets vertigo from looking out the window in a tall building, but flying I wasn’t nearly as nervous as I thought I would be.

I’m the same with buildings, but have never felt the same way in aircraft. Must be some strange psychological effect.   I personally am now preparing to live the next few years in poverty as every spare cent gets pumped into flying lessons

Yes, I think many of us will recognise that aspect of things. Sylvia.

Response:

G’day Still buzzing from my trial introductory flight on the weekend and thought I’d share my experience. Went down to Jandakot on Saturday – slightly concerned the weather may prevent flying.  But all was okay and took me out to the tarmac to the Cessna 152. We first checked the outside of the aircraft – flaps, ailerons, fuel level etc.  Then hopped in and my instructor ran through the pre-flight checklist and gave me a rundown of the general safety procedures.  Then we started up and he handed control over to me!  He let me taxi most of the way to the runway and from take-off through to just before landing I did most all of the flying.  He briefly took over in the air to demonstrate a stall but other than that he let me loose. What an amazing experience!  I still get a massive smile when I think about it!  It was different than I expected in a lot of ways.  I was expecting noise and vibration from the engine and being in a small plane I thought we’d be blown around a fair bit.  But with the headset on it was very quiet and their was little vibration. Also I’m someone who gets vertigo from looking out the window in a tall building, but flying I wasn’t nearly as nervous as I thought I would be.  I think having to concentrate on what’s going on in and outside the aircraft I didn’t have time to think about being nervous. The instructor was fantastic – he straightaway had me looking outside the cockpit at the horizon (adopting the "four finger" attitude) rather than focussing too much on the instruments.  He was very calm and made me feel comfortable and secure that he knew what he was doing and what the plane was capable of. Anyway, I won’t ramble on about it too much but I will say to anyone considering taking a trial flight – Just do it!  I personally am now preparing to live the next few years in poverty as every spare cent gets pumped into flying lessons Cheers MC

Response:

Bankstown airport to close for good? rumours or facts?

Question:

Recently i was informed by sources that YSBK or otherwise known as Bankstown airport to the locals… is to close in the not so distance future as the owners – BACL?? –  are slowly turning it into a coporate business park with a future of no aviation involved.

<http://www.camdenairport.com.au/GetFile.asp?File=newsletternewsletter200504051033.pdf or <http://tinyurl.com/59a25 4th of April newsletter Petzl — SECURE YOUR WINDOWS COMPUTER NOW!! <http://v4.windowsupdate.microsoft.com/en/default.asp Keep Windows UPDATED <http://free.grisoft.com/freeweb.php/doc/2/lng/us/tpl/v5 AVG 7.0 Free Edition" Anti-Virus <http://www.microsoft.com/athome/security/spyware/software/default.mspx Check your computer for "SpyWare" (free MS Product) <http://www.zonelabs.com/ a good firewall for windows(free version available) <http://www.password-depot.com/news/v2.htm Use a Password Saver on USB removable drive to store passwords

Response:

 Coop Wrote Big shitfight going on in Adelaide because the owners of the Adelaide airport are permitting development on the airport land without much consultation of the surrounding councils. Traffic problems, water runoff, sewerage requirements,in short, the infrastructure needs are being overlooked. Hmph.   In Adelaide they can solve those problems by connecting everything together.   The water already tastes like shit.

And highly chlorinated shit it is, too. Those of us with a few extra neurones get around that by running our houses on rainwater. How do you avoid staggering into the cane toads while fighting off the Denge/Malarial mozzies, RT….? Coop

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text –  Coop Wrote Big shitfight going on in Adelaide because the owners of the Adelaide airport are permitting development on the airport land without much consultation of the surrounding councils. Traffic problems, water runoff, sewerage requirements,in short, the infrastructure needs are being overlooked. Hmph.   In Adelaide they can solve those problems by connecting everything together.   The water already tastes like shit.   And highly chlorinated shit it is, too. Those of us with a few extra neurones get around that by running our houses on rainwater. How do you avoid staggering into the cane toads while fighting off the Denge/Malarial mozzies, RT….? Coop

Response:

Recently i was informed by sources that YSBK or otherwise known as Bankstown airport to the locals… is to close in the not so distance future as the owners – BACL?? –  are slowly turning it into a coporate business park with a future of no aviation involved. This pending closure is not something that would be of benefit to anyone…. Also just recently i was made aware of Perth’s local Jankadot airport having MORE movements then Bankstown in total… this is very bad news for sydney pilots and aviation users.

Where have you been?  Bankstown & Jandakot have been neck and neck for close on 20 years now – it’s the old story about stats and lies – a student and instructor take off and do 6 touch & goes then land and finish the training – is that 1 departure and 1 arrival or 7 of each? And why would this be "very bad news" for Sydney pilots and aviation users anyway? Oh I see, Sydennee may not be the centre of the aviation universe in Oz – tough, build a bridge and get over it. You don’t advance your core issue about the possible future closure of Bankstown by dropping in red herrings such as this – if you have a cause to fight for, focus and stay on track. Aubrey

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Camden is a flood zone for most of the Aerodrome so the cant build houses. I have seen the Nepean river 1 km wide in a flood in the 1980s Flew Hoxton park for old times sake it has a new motorway going past it to be opened soon. Camden is busy on the weekends the ATC controller had his hands full on Sunday. Big shitfight going on in Adelaide because the owners of the Adelaide airport are permitting development on the airport land without much consultation of the surrounding councils. Traffic problems, water runoff, sewerage requirements,in short, the infrastructure needs are being overlooked.

Hmph.   In Adelaide they can solve those problems by connecting everything together.   The water already tastes like shit.

Response:

The residents of Bankstown would be ‘pleased’ if it went, but where do you move 250,000 movements per year too?!?

Tamworth? Coop

Response:

Camden is a flood zone for most of the Aerodrome so the cant build houses. I have seen the Nepean river 1 km wide in a flood in the 1980s Flew Hoxton park for old times sake it has a new motorway going past it to be opened soon. Camden is busy on the weekends the ATC controller had his hands full on Sunday.

Big shitfight going on in Adelaide because the owners of the Adelaide airport are permitting development on the airport land without much consultation of the surrounding councils. Traffic problems, water runoff, sewerage requirements,in short, the infrastructure needs are being overlooked. Coop

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – People, I have been vocal here and in other forums that – although nothing has been said – the future of BK must be in doubt. The people who run BK also run Hoxton Park and Camden. We know that HOX has a limited life, which shows that the owners have little interest in running airports. BK is on valuable land and is owned by a property development company. What are its chances of survival? Nix, I would think. The most likely scenario is that BK will be closed, which will force people to go to Camden. It all fits in nicely for the company that owns the three airports. And who is going to stop them? Walrus I may be way of the mark here but I thought the Bankstown was still owned by the Commonwealth and that BACL leased the aerodrome from the Commonwealth. I understand as part of the lease arrangement BACL was required to continue operating Bankstown as an aerodrome. This does not preclude BACL from developing commercial  sites on non operational areas of the aerodrome. I believe there were different arrangements for Hoxton Park and Camden. As I said, I may be mistaken about this. Would someone who has accurate knowledge of the arrangements care to comment. Regards Stephen JOHN ANDERSON 20 June 2003 The sale will go ahead without development obligations on any of the three airports. Key components of the sale strategy include:-

Recommendations for accelerated instrument training NYC area

Question:

You may want to check out the East Coast IFR experience, 6-days of intensive training for $6000 http://www.dsflight.com/eastcoast-ifr.html   We are both IFR students and are thinking of taking the course soon.

How will that 6000-$/15-hour-experience help him get his IR for 7000 $? — Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Response:

We are not looking for a quick and cheap way to get our instrument rating.  

Which is all well – but the OP did Morey’s West Coast trip

That, IIRC, DOES end with getting the rating – very much different from the East Coast thing. — Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Response:

Our local FBO charges $25/hr for the simulator, which is typical.  So let’s knock off $500 from the $4000 charge.  At $33/hr, we’re looking at paying for 100+ hours of dual before we hit $3500, and we haven’t even started on the accomodations or travel costs.

Well, this analysis (?) overlooks a key point.  The total aircraft costs, a major cost of the rating,  is not going to be the same. The total cost of the aircraft is key when you are comparing the two modes, since an accelerated course will undoubtedly use fewer aircraft hours than the less efficient spread-out version, at least in my experience, and I’ve done a number of  ratings both  ways. Add 20 hours of aircraft time (minimum, in my estimation, because of all the rehash, and startup overhead) and you’ve added $2000 right out of the shoot.  Even if the student owns his aircraft, the fuel costs are considerable. And yes, I have seen 100  under-the-hood-hour pilots without a rating. On a personal note, for what it is worth, I stopped doing  ratings on a non-accelerated basis, partly because it was so frustrating revisiting stuff that gets forgotten between sessions, and the built-in inefficiencies , even thought the dragged-out version in the long run means more revenue to me. I’ll add another point.  Anyone who does not spend 20 hours in a simulator before getting into an aircraft is also spending a lot more than he needs to.

Response:

I wasn’t knocking the experience.  It looks like it would be a fine experience for a fledgling instrument pilot, and probably lots of fun. I was merely pointing out that it appears to be  not (a) "intensive", nor (b) inexpensive, and (c) only seems to provide about 1/3 of the total hours required for a rating (although it may satisfy the total dual instruction requirements). In other words, it seems to be something which augments other forms of instrument training we have been discussing, rather than replaces it. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Well, it may be a great experience.  And it may be worth the money.  We are not looking for a quick and cheap way to get our instrument rating.  Our goal is to find an effective way to get the rating and the real experience. I have known few instrument-rated pilots who were never trained in real IMC.   My husband started his training about a year ago with a local intructor the slow way – about one lesson a week with breaks in between due to vacations, weather etc.  His progress was very slow, one step forward then half a step back!  We will most likely spend more money on a cross-country training trip like the DSFI’s East Coast trip or Morey’s West Coast trip than with local training.  I believe that either one will prepare us well for our plan of extending our trips further out West.  Hai Longworth

Response:

In my mind, a big part of the question has to be whether you can link up with a true CFII in your area. By this I don’t mean a 500-hour graduate of some ab-initio program, but someone with some serious time. A key question to ask is whether they will take you up for training in actual conditions, and what their comfort margins are. With 25 hours in, I was going up with my CFII on days with 300-400′ ceilings and 1mi vis. That’s a good workout.

I know several good instructors in the CDW/TEB area.  Choosing amongst them is, in my opinion, down to a matter of style.  But all have plenty of experience teaching in actual and thousands of hours "in the system". While this is not an accelerated program, you might be able to do something of this sort anyway.  You’d have to discuss it with the CFII of your choice, of course, but with enough lead time they could probably block out many hours for you each week for the time you’ll need. If you’re interested in getting in contact these these instructors, contact me privately.  - Andrew

Response:

In my limited experience, I have found that many CFIs are timebuilders in one form or other.  Some are CFI’ing as an interim ‘career’ until the airline job…some are working another job and CFIing to build time to get an aviation job.

And what they have in common is this – they’re not experienced enough to get an airline job.  That means they’re not experienced enough to teach instruments either.  What you want is the guy who IS experienced enough to get an airline job.  Of course that costs more. I must admit I did go to American Flyers with some skepticism; that was dealt with the first day when it was obvious these guys were serious and knowledgeable.

Unfortunately, you’re not going to know if these guys were really knowledgeable until a couple of years after you get done.  That’s when you’ll be the guy who launches into the clag solo, in a single or light twin, and actually goes places – while the rest of the airport wonders how you can fly in that weather.  That’s what having good training buys you. Of course if you’re the one on the ground, and other people are launching into the clag – well, then you’ll know something too. Michael

Response:

The most useful piece of advice you’ve gotten is this – quick, cheap, good – pick two.  I will modify that and say that you can pick AT MOST two – you may get less.  You won’t get all three.

Glad someone agreed with me.   All 3 are not mutually exclusive, but you don’t usually get something for nothing. There is nothing inherently wrong with an accelerated course, except of   course it will not expose you to a wide range of weather.  

I guess that depends on where/when you do it.  So far I have 9 hours of actual….out of ~23 flight hours.   We’ve had 20 degrees F with icing, snow, wet snow, rain, and a 50 degree foggy day; as well as clear and partly cloudy days. My understanding is that PIC actually uses experienced instrument pilots as instructors (but I could be wrong here).  I know for a fact that American Flyers is using timebuilders.  I know some of their instructors and I’ve flown in IMC with some of their graduates, and I am NOT impressed and would not recommend the operation.

In my limited experience, I have found that many CFIs are timebuilders in one form or other.  Some are CFI’ing as an interim ‘career’ until the airline job…some are working another job and CFIing to build time to get an aviation job.  I’ve met a newly minted CFII that seems to know his stuff…and I’ve met an experienced CFII that I don’t have full confidence in.   I must admit I did go to American Flyers with some skepticism; that was dealt with the first day when it was obvious these guys were serious and knowledgeable.   I fully planned to give it a day or two and quit if it didnt pan out. –Don

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I note that PIC makes very extensive use of them. If all you want to do is pass the test, it is an efficient approach. I’m not saying accelerated courses can’t go beyond teaching to the test, but when you make achieving a deadline your primary goal, I think we can all agree there is at least a little moral hazard there. I teach on an accelerated basis only.  I use a simulator extensively in this training. <snip If not, I will simply consider your comments as another of  the commonplace criticisms that I find so often expressed by the uninformed and inexperienced and intellectually incurious wet-behind-the-ears instructors who seem to dominate the aviation industry, and just let you know that furthermore I resent your implication of moral superiority.

cfeyeeye, I’m not accusing *you* of anything. We’re talking about "accelerated training" versus "traditional training" in general, so put the knife down, K? When I asked the guy I chose for my CFII, "how long will this take," he basically said, "as long as it takes and not a day more." I took 55 hours to get there over 18 months and would say I lost maybe 5-10 hours in the process due to delays. He said he actually preferred to take at least 6-9 months working on it so we could go up in different weather conditions, and it is a point of pride for him that most of his students take the test with 15-20 hours of actual, most of it doing approaches. It’s good experience and in my mind worth every nickel. With an accelerated course, the instructor has an innate incentive to do one thing only, and that is to get this guy through the test. With a traditional course, there is an incentive to train ad infinitum and never quite finish. Each course has its unique moral hazards. It’s simply a term of art. I’m not imputing that accelerated training is like abortion or gay marriage or the death penalty or whatever. Best, -cwk.

Response:

Do you mean "are not willing to fly weather alone" or "are not capable of flying weather alone?"

I think the distinction you are making is an imaginary one.  Those who are unwilling, are unwilling because deep down they know they are incapable.  That’s a fairly harsh statement, but the more I fly with other pilots, the more I realize it’s true.  It’s very comforting to say "I’m just as capable as that guy launching into the clag solo, I’m just more concerned with safety" but based on my experience it’s simply not true. Michael

Response:

I am interested in taking an accelerated instrument course and have been attracted to the PIC 10 day course and other similar 10 day courses.

Before youspring for one of the expensive package deals, just mosey down to your local FBO and talk to one of the instructors. Tell them what you’re interested in and ask whether they can put together a syllabus that will do what you want. You might save a few bucks(?). You get to meet the instructor beforehand and decide whether you like him or her, before he arrives in your living room on expense account. Dave

Response:

I note that PIC makes very extensive use of them. If all you want to do is pass the test, it is an efficient approach. I’m not saying accelerated courses can’t go beyond teaching to the test, but when you make achieving a deadline your primary goal, I think we can all agree there is at least a little moral hazard there.

I teach on an accelerated basis only.  I use a simulator extensively in this training. I do this because, in my experience over 17 or so years with both methods, I have concluded that the simulator/accelerated method turns out better qualified, more knowledgeable, and better trained pilots, more quickly,  and at a reduced cost.   If you also have extensive experience  using  both methods, I might be willling to  accept your moral prejudgments. If not, I will simply consider your comments as another of  the commonplace criticisms that I find so often expressed by the uninformed and inexperienced and intellectually incurious wet-behind-the-ears instructors who seem to dominate the aviation industry, and just let you know that furthermore I resent your implication of moral superiority.

Response:

I’m combining stuff from both replies, bear with me.

Ditto. You are not considering difference in effectiveness of the training device. The Frasca blows any aircraft away, in my opinion, (and I’ve done it both ways) as an efffective and efficient learning tool. That’s true if the training we’re focusing on is scan and procedures. Of course everyone is different, but I found that even in the airplane, I was proficient at scan and procedures prior to the 20-hour mark.  Of course scan and procedures are essential for safe and capable IFR flying, but they are far from sufficient.  The real issues are ATC and weather, and those can’t be learned on the simulator at all.

I don’t think the Frasca is worth a damn for learning anything but scan & procedures, at least it wasn’t for me. There’s simply none of the "sweat factor" you get in the airplane, particularly in actual and when you can’t quite recall the last thing ATC told you. You just can’t get that in a sim. Scan and procedures are important, no question, and learning them on the sim makes sense. I note that PIC makes very extensive use of them. If all you want to do is pass the test, it is an efficient approach. I’m not saying accelerated courses can’t go beyond teaching to the test, but when you make achieving a deadline your primary goal, I think we can all agree there is at least a little moral hazard there. To be fair, all of my objections are predicated on your ability to locate a *good* local CFII. This is in some cases not possible and you are then faced with choosing between an accelerated course taught by a good out-of-towner or a haphazard program by the local timebuilder. The choice is pretty obvious there.  I’m seeing an awful lot of students who seem to need an instructor when the weather goes bad.  To me that indicates a problem.  Because weather is what it is in Houston, I am generally only able to get my student about 5 hours of actual in the course of training (and believe me we make it a point ot get it if it is available, even if it’s not the most efficient way to get to the checkride) but they’re all able to go out and fly weather on their own.

Do you mean "are not willing to fly weather alone" or "are not capable of flying weather alone?" As a new instrument pilot, I think part of this is the "fear of clouds" that is now being fairly successfully inculcated during primary instruction. Fear is good when it keeps you from doing something stupid, but what constitutes stupid is much harder to judge with an IR than without. I have about 25 hours of actual, a good bit of it in nice thick New England muck, but I still hesitate to go up on my own, knowing that the price of small mistakes is much higher than in VFR. best, -cwk.

Response:

My 172’s direct operating costs are about $50/hour. The Frasca at my local flight school rents for $35. If I had to rent a plane at $90/hr wet we’d be talking something.

You are not considering difference in effectiveness of the training device. The Frasca blows any aircraft away, in my opinion, (and I’ve done it both ways) as an efffective and efficient learning tool. In any case, I think it is foolish to focus excessively on cost in getting an instrument rating. If it costs $2000 more and you get better training, sounds like a good deal to me. -cwk.

No argument there.  And if an accelerated course also is less expensive, and I am convinced it usually is, there is no contest.   And let me add one more plug for the accelerated method. Non-accelerated, you have a rating in 8-12 months. Accelerated, you have the rating in 10 days, and spend those same 8-12 months flying in the system and gaining experience. Who’s thebetter instrument pilot at the end of those 8-12 months, would you suppose?

Response:

I’m combining stuff from both replies, bear with me. Add 20 hours of aircraft time (minimum, in my estimation, because of all the rehash, and startup overhead) and you’ve added $2000 right out of the shoot.

First, I don’t agree with your cost asessment.  Around here, an instrument trainer rents for $60-$80/hr.  Between airline tickets and 10 days of hotels and meals, you’re looking at $1500, easy.  So even at 20 hours, the costs there are a wash and my original asessment holds. In areas where the rentals cost more, hotels and meals do too. Second, I don’t agree that 20 hours is a minimum – more like a maximum.  I completed my rating (in the non-accelerated mode, stretched out over half a year) in 43 hours, and my FIRST student (I would like to think I’ve gotten better since then) that I took from zero was done in under 55 – despite major equipment problems, the inefficiencies of structuring the training to get what actual we could, and having the process stretch out over more than a year.  Had I been willing to ignore opportunities to get actual, and had we not had several sessions where the glideslope had problems (how would THAT have affected an accelerated course?) we would have been done in well under 50 hours. Also, his direct operating costs were about $25/hr (Pacers are cheap to fly). Third, I would go so far as to suggest that most pilots who need 20+ hours more to complete the rating flying once or twice a week rather than on an accelerated basis probably won’t be safe once they get the rating.  If they forget so much week to week, how much will they forget when they go weeks between approaches? You are not considering difference in effectiveness of the training device. The Frasca blows any aircraft away, in my opinion, (and I’ve done it both ways) as an efffective and efficient learning tool.

That’s true if the training we’re focusing on is scan and procedures. Of course everyone is different, but I found that even in the airplane, I was proficient at scan and procedures prior to the 20-hour mark.  Of course scan and procedures are essential for safe and capable IFR flying, but they are far from sufficient.  The real issues are ATC and weather, and those can’t be learned on the simulator at all. Non-accelerated, you have a rating in 8-12 months. Accelerated, you have the rating in 10 days, and spend those same 8-12 months flying in the system and gaining experience. Who’s thebetter instrument pilot at the end of those 8-12 months, would you suppose?

That depends – did the student who did the accelerated course learn enough to be capable of flying weather and learning further on his own?  I’m seeing an awful lot of students who seem to need an instructor when the weather goes bad.  To me that indicates a problem.  Because weather is what it is in Houston, I am generally only able to get my student about 5 hours of actual in the course of training (and believe me we make it a point ot get it if it is available, even if it’s not the most efficient way to get to the checkride) but they’re all able to go out and fly weather on their own. If the accelerate training employs good instructors, I don’t see why those students should be any different – and thus you are right, of course they  will be the better instrument pilots.  But if choosing the accelerated program means settling for inferior instructors (and unless you pay the premium for an outfit like PIC, it certainly will) then I don’t agree.  The student who got inferiour training will not have been progressing in those 8-12 months unless he was carrying an instructor around in weather – in which case, what was the point of having the rating? Like I said – I’m not saying a program like PIC isn’t worthwhile, merely that you will pay a premium for it.  And if you replace their multi-thousand-hour instructors with standard FBO timebuilders, then I would say it’s not worthwhile at any price. Michael

Response:

Our local FBO charges $25/hr for the simulator, which is typical.  So let’s knock off $500 from the $4000 charge.  At $33/hr, we’re looking at paying for 100+ hours of dual before we hit $3500, and we haven’t even started on the accomodations or travel costs. Well, this analysis (?) overlooks a key point.  The total aircraft costs, a major cost of the rating,  is not going to be the same.

I did not need to pay to put my CFII up in a hotel in Boston and buy him meals for 10 days either. That’s an easy $2000. I’ll add another point.  Anyone who does not spend 20 hours in a simulator before getting into an aircraft is also spending a lot more than he needs to.

My 172’s direct operating costs are about $50/hour. The Frasca at my local flight school rents for $35. If I had to rent a plane at $90/hr wet we’d be talking something. In any case, I think it is foolish to focus excessively on cost in getting an instrument rating. If it costs $2000 more and you get better training, sounds like a good deal to me. -cwk.

Response:

As long as you don’t mind using old versions. The instrument practical test standards changed a few months back.

Small changes and only to the PTS AFAIK.  I’ll bet there haven’t been significant changes to the Sporty’s and King courses in several years, maybe longer.  Producing that stuff is just too expensive to be re-doing it everytime there is a NOTAM. For the drilling the actual test, faatest.com stays very current and I have found it to be a good cheap tool.  Got 100% on my written. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – BTW, Did you count the usual $300-500 in test prep material in your $7000???  AF has their own…see if you can preview it first tho…I think Sportys would be better… No reason to spend anywhere near that kind of money.  The Sporty’s and King DvD courses are routinely available on eBay for 60-90% of their new price…

Response:

Will you get proper training in an accelerated course?  You may, but you will have to pay through the nose for it. I would like to know what your basis is for this assertion.

Simple economics.  Teaching an accelerated course isn’t something that you can do in your spare time (as opposed to teaching a non-accelerated course, which is something many pilots do in their spare time) and hiring someone who is actually qualified to teach IFR flying (as opposed to passing an instrument checkride) to do so full time in piston singles is going to be expensive, since those hours don’t contribute to career advancement. Could you provide some data which show the comparative costs of accelerated courses, versus non-accelerated?

Yes.  PIC (which is basically the gold standard of these courses, and employs instructors with thousands, not hundreds, of hours) costs $4000, plus travel and accomodation expenses for the instructor.  This does not include aircraft costs.  By comparison, the local FBO charges $33/hr. Presumably you  have data that show some kind of average of the total hours of instruction which one requires  under the respective  modes, in order to make a fair comparison.

Our local FBO charges $25/hr for the simulator, which is typical.  So let’s knock off $500 from the $4000 charge.  At $33/hr, we’re looking at paying for 100+ hours of dual before we hit $3500, and we haven’t even started on the accomodations or travel costs. You think 100+ hours of dual is average?  I sure don’t.  In fact, I’ve NEVER seen it take that long. Not saying it’s not worth it – just that it’s expensive. Michael

Response:

As long as you don’t mind using old versions. The instrument practical test standards changed a few months back.

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – BTW, Did you count the usual $300-500 in test prep material in your $7000???  AF has their own…see if you can preview it first tho…I think Sportys would be better… No reason to spend anywhere near that kind of money.  The Sporty’s and King DvD courses are routinely available on eBay for 60-90% of their new price…

Response:

BTW, Did you count the usual $300-500 in test prep material in your $7000???  AF has their own…see if you can preview it first tho…I think Sportys would be better…

No reason to spend anywhere near that kind of money.  The Sporty’s and King DvD courses are routinely available on eBay for 60-90% of their new price.  Buy one, use it and resell it.  I actually made money on my Sporty’s discs!  Same story on books, supplemental video tapes, ets.  Everything is available and what you don’t like can be resold.  Best value is to find a large package, keep what you like and resell the rest.

Response:

I am a 300+ hour private pilot living and flying in the NYC area (specifically  Caldwell NJ / Teterboro).  I am interested in taking an accelerated instrument course and have been attracted to the PIC 10 day course and other similar 10 day courses.

You have already gotten a bunch of advice. The most useful piece of advice you’ve gotten is this – quick, cheap, good – pick two.  I will modify that and say that you can pick AT MOST two – you may get less.  You won’t get all three. There is nothing inherently wrong with an accelerated course, except of course it will not expose you to a wide range of weather.  That’s not the end of the world – proper training will allow you to work your way into flying weather withoug scaring yourself TOO badly – but it’s not optimal either. Will you get proper training in an accelerated course?  You may, but you will have to pay through the nose for it. If you want good instrument training, you won’t get it from someone who went through a zero-to-CFI/CFII/MEI course in 300 hours and then got into the right seat of a trainer, where he has been ever since.  There is a lot to instrument flying that this sort of instructor isn’t going to know.  The kind of pilot who WILL know it is someone who has done it – a long time owner who has used his plane for transportation, a freight dog, someone like that.  Someone with that kind of experience is not going to drop everything to train you for 10 days unless he is well paid (think $500+ per day gross, or on salary).  He might be available to you on HIS schedule at the going rate if he’s just doing it part time because he enjoys it. My understanding is that PIC actually uses experienced instrument pilots as instructors (but I could be wrong here).  I know for a fact that American Flyers is using timebuilders.  I know some of their instructors and I’ve flown in IMC with some of their graduates, and I am NOT impressed and would not recommend the operation. Of course all this assumes that you’re actually going to use the rating to make IFR flights that can’t be made under VFR.  If you just plan to use the rating procedurally or are getting it for professional reasons, forget everything I’ve said and find the cheapest, fastest thing you can. Michael

Response:

Baliman,  You may want to check out the East Coast IFR experience, 6-days of intensive training for $6000 http://www.dsflight.com/eastcoast-ifr.html  We are both IFR students and are thinking of taking the course soon. Hai Longworth

Well, it may be a great experience.  And it may be worth the money. But the way I read it, you are going to get about 15 hours of intrument time over 6 days. That’s not what I would call "intensive".   And with another 25 hours of instrument time required on top of this $6000, I wouldn’t call it real cheap, either, compared to, say,  a 10-day course with 20 hours of sim time at $40/hour and20 of an and you got yourself a rating from scratch for less than $7000. But they are totally different experiences, to be sure.

Response:

Short, intense training can do the job. It’s not what I did, but if I had to do it over again, it is what I would do. It all really depends on the person. It is more about what you do with the rating after you get it, than the rating itself. In my case, I am a mature self learner, who owns his own airplane. But either way will work. When you appear at the intense course, they schedule your checkride. That has to tell you something.  For me, flying IFR is mostly about worrying about something in the airplane failing and dealing with ATC. Flying the approaches and cruising in the clouds seems to go smoothly. Though the skills do deteriorate. I am probably marginal right now for IMC. But I know my limitations and can get back up to speed. I wouldn’t fly a low approach right now. But I would fly cruise in the clouds, and after about a 1/2 hour of that, I would up to speed for an approach. The autopilot in my plane is broken right now, which doesn’t mean I can’t do it, but it takes away some safety margin. Other than that, my equipment is all working. I am still legal to go, currencywise. The decision to go depends on the weather, the condition of the plane, my mental state, my recent experience and how familiar I am with the route and will I know what to expect from ATC. Add all those factors up and I get a go/nogo indicator. I know enough to say no, which is important.

Response:

I am a 300+ hour private pilot living and flying in the NYC area (specifically  Caldwell NJ / Teterboro).  I am interested in taking an accelerated instrument course and have been attracted to the PIC 10 day course and other similar 10 day courses.  I already have about 10 hours of simulator time and am familiar basics of partial panel instrument and approach training.  However I now want to complete my training in a focused and intense training environment.

I suspect there is no such thing as an unbiased opinion on this subject. We all learned a certain way, and those who are happy with the way we learned will argue that it is the best. Like you (I’m guessing) I was a busy professional motivated to get my IR done and finished. The PIC concept appealed to me, but I ultimately chose to work with a local instructor and took about 18 months and 55 hours to do it, with probably half of that time being the usual friction of life. In my mind, a big part of the question has to be whether you can link up with a true CFII in your area. By this I don’t mean a 500-hour graduate of some ab-initio program, but someone with some serious time. A key question to ask is whether they will take you up for training in actual conditions, and what their comfort margins are. With 25 hours in, I was going up with my CFII on days with 300-400′ ceilings and 1mi vis. That’s a good workout. You may well not find anyone who fits this bill. It’s not unlikely that the guy you do find does not work for the local flight school as he has a list of steady clients who keep him busy and pay $40/hr right into his pocket. If you can’t find such a fellow, then go ahead, go with PIC. I do not doubt that they will teach you the procedures well, and that’s what you need to pass the test. There’s no shame in that and if you’re a 22yo kid who wants an airline job it’s probably the sensible approach. But perhaps more so than any other rating, the difference between what you need to pass the test and what you need to really use the rating well as a private pilot is gigantic. My CFII believed that it was important to work on the skills over 6-12 months so the procuedures got really imprinted into your brain and allowed you to see a variety of conditions. This is doubly true up here in the Northeast where you’ve really got three entirely different climates to fly in. Again, if you have a CFII who won’t fly when the ceilings are below 1500′, this doesn’t make much difference. Also, if you really want to use the rating, at least for the first year or two you will want to do a lot of recurrent training. I try to fly approaches, holds, etc. in actual with my CFII at least once every three months. In this case it is good to have someone local who knows you (and vice-versa) you can call on when you have some free time and the clouds roll in. If you don’t have the time to get the rating the old-fashioned way, do you have the time to keep yourself proficient enough to use it? Can anyone recommend an excellent course in this area or others areas around the country?  I am particularly cost sensitive and would be most interested in a complete course (aircraft time included) for less than $7000.

We all have a budget, but $7000 is pushing it a little, at least in the Northeast where a plane + instructor will be at least $130/hour. I’m just going to throw a few more cents in here… The IR is simply *different* than all the others, because it’s a license to take yourself in harm’s way. You can be a VFR private pilot, and as long as you follow some pretty basic rules, probably never come anywhere close to grief, especially if you stay proficient. IFR flying is different. People on the ground looking up at a sky of fluffy white clouds cannot appreciate just how harsh and unforgiving environment it really is up there. With the right equipment and skills it can be challenged safely most of the time. But if you really want to use the rating, you owe it to yourself to train like your life depends on it, and there is simply no cheap way to do so. -cwk.

Response:

Hi xxx (you didn’t give a name) Slight sarcasm intended, but this brings to mind a sign which I’ve often seen in Automotive and TV/Radio repair shops… Quick Cheap Good Pick two A good job quick won’t be cheap A good job cheap won’t be quick A quick job cheap won’t be good And you are in one of the highest cost areas in the nation… Having said that… I am a ~100 hr pilot currently working on my IA at American Flyers in Cleveland.   I will be looking at ~$9500 when finished, but it IS QUICK and it IS GOOD. I am using Part 141 ‘cuz GI Bill reimburses me 60%…and 141 tng tends to be expensive.  However, AF also do accelerated part 61 tng…and if you already have your 50 hrs X-C…so much the better…and it will cost you a lot less!  Don’t balk at the rates until you do the math! These guys will work with you all day 7 days a week if you want. To start, I took a week off work and did M-F, about 7 hours a day to kick it off.   That got me well over 1/3 of the way there.   Should have my IA rating by mid-March and going right into the Commercial.   Why?  Why not? BTW, Did you count the usual $300-500 in test prep material in your $7000???  AF has their own…see if you can preview it first tho…I think Sportys would be better… Not sure how far this is, but might be worth checking out… American Flyers 50 Airport Road, Suite 120 Morristown, NJ 07960 800-449-7650 Can’t hurt to take a lesson or two,  it’s all log-able! FYI, no affiliation, just a satisfied customer… –Don Don Byrer Electronics Technician Amateur Radio KJ5KB Private Pilot  Instrument Student PP-ASEL 30 Jan 2005

Response:

I am a 300+ hour private pilot living and flying in the NYC area (specifically  Caldwell NJ / Teterboro).  I am interested in taking an accelerated instrument course and have been attracted to the PIC 10 day course and other similar 10 day courses.  I already have about 10 hours of simulator time and am familiar basics of partial panel instrument and approach training.  However I now want to complete my training in a focused and intense training environment. Can anyone recommend an excellent course in this area or others areas around the country?  I am particularly cost sensitive and would be most interested in a complete course (aircraft time included) for less than $7000. Thanks!

Response:

OT – Queen Mary 2

Question:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – You dive too Coop? Deco was about 40 min all up – (from memory) 5 @ 9 10 @ 6 20 @ 3 All stops had entertainment – whether practising blowing "smoke" rings or photographing the fishies… /viz Yep. Only deco dive so far was accidental- and only needed three minutes (we gave it five just to be sure). Have dived Osprey reef, surveyed the Star of Greece locally with a marine archeologist (30 dives or thereabouts- I’m not as good at keeping my dive log as I am with the flying log <—[Note aviation reference]) and laid on the bottom for 15 minutes gazing in disbelief at a leafy seadragon at Rapid Bay. Also had a close encounter with dolphins. Its another of those hobbies that I could not have taken up if it wasn’t for the transplant from my brother…. Coop Hmmm must connect one day mate. If anything I am more passionate about diving than flying – and been doing if for slightly longer… Log??? What log? I think that I have about 7-900 dives logged, and at *least* that again unlogged… Mrs on me tail to get them writ up for the Coolidge – I asked her how far do I go back??? She said THE LAST 4 YEARS (in capitals too). Wanna go down to Bicheno sometime – might be worth a flight in the Sneaker. Care for a rendezvous with the Nav? She dive? /viz Nope. Hates beaches. Has snorkelled and enjoyed it, but not her scene….. Coop

Ah well. Leave her behind… /viz

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – You dive too Coop? Deco was about 40 min all up – (from memory) 5 @ 9 10 @ 6 20 @ 3 All stops had entertainment – whether practising blowing "smoke" rings or photographing the fishies… /viz Yep. Only deco dive so far was accidental- and only needed three minutes (we gave it five just to be sure). Have dived Osprey reef, surveyed the Star of Greece locally with a marine archeologist (30 dives or thereabouts- I’m not as good at keeping my dive log as I am with the flying log <—[Note aviation reference]) and laid on the bottom for 15 minutes gazing in disbelief at a leafy seadragon at Rapid Bay. Also had a close encounter with dolphins. Its another of those hobbies that I could not have taken up if it wasn’t for the transplant from my brother…. Coop Hmmm must connect one day mate. If anything I am more passionate about diving than flying – and been doing if for slightly longer… Log??? What log? I think that I have about 7-900 dives logged, and at *least* that again unlogged… Mrs on me tail to get them writ up for the Coolidge – I asked her how far do I go back??? She said THE LAST 4 YEARS (in capitals too). Wanna go down to Bicheno sometime – might be worth a flight in the Sneaker. Care for a rendezvous with the Nav? She dive? /viz

Nope. Hates beaches. Has snorkelled and enjoyed it, but not her scene….. Coop

Response:

Was scuba diving on the President Coolidge in Santo (Vanuatu) coupla weeks ago, and went through the engine room. FYI 33,350 ton American cruise liner launched 1931 converted as a troop carrier for the war. Hit *American* mines (Captain went for the wrong channel) Did he?  I always thought it was the pilot that did that, and that the Captain had thought it was the wrong channel.

Bugger. Will have to read the book again (got a very nice book on the Coolidge and the accident), including summaries of the court of enquiry transcripts. Letcha know /viz

Response:

Was scuba diving on the President Coolidge in Santo (Vanuatu) coupla weeks ago, and went through the engine room. FYI 33,350 ton American cruise liner launched 1931 converted as a troop carrier for the war. Hit *American* mines (Captain went for the wrong channel) Did he?  I always thought it was the pilot that did that, and that the Captain had thought it was the wrong channel.

There are 2 entrances – the Captain missed seeing the first entrance and entered the second one (the one that was mined so they only had to protect one entrance!). As far as I recall there was no pilot, but the harbourmaster(or whatever he was called) signalled the ship just prior to their demise indicating they were headed for disaster.  The warning came too late. Cheers, John

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Next time twin tanks though – kept on having to use the hang bottles Yikes! That’s not good!  Was always taught that they were there for emergency only. Some people who call themselves instructor should be shot and then used for shark burley! No no, I meant the hang bottles for out of air emergencies, not twin tanks. Don’t see anything wrong with using twin tanks for boat dives.  Think I’d sprain something using them if it was a shore dive though Not so – twin tanks for an air hog like myself whilst on a deep dive is *way* more safe than hanging off someone’s occy, or sprinting to the hang bottle in time, or running out of air before deco is finished. Twin tanks is *safer* diving, in the circumstances where they are appropriately used. I currently use a 120 cf single for most dives. My wife uses a 73 cf and still comes up with more air than me. In fact on the deco dives to 40 metres she was coming up with 120 bar left after 60 minutes… But (for the very first time) the DM was coming up with 180-190 bar (from 250 bar) and beating her. But he has been deco diving for 9 years and skip breaths, which is not for the unwary… (There is one DM at Luganville (Santo) who has 20,000 dives – all on the Coolidge) I’m Jealous!!

Just got an email from the guys in Santo – 31

FAA Thumped again

Question:

You want evidence??

Yes, please. (Hint: unsubstantiated anecdotal allegations by anonymous Usenet posters do not constitute evidence.) Check the latest staffing figures for the FAA Controllers are leaving in droves Radar and ILS Technicians are seriously short staffed Most major airports have open watches in critical radar and ILS areas.

Even if the FAA is understaffed, that would not consitute evidence of your claim that unqualified minority personnel are being hired. I no longer fly IFR around major airport airspace. That’s how bad it is. … Technicians in Atlanta (One of the world’s busiest) routinely operate with open Radar watches BUT the Managers buy Gay Pride Banners

Uh, and these banners detract from air safety how? Do they cover the radar screens? Or do they just induce seizures in people like you? If you knew what I knew you would stay clear of any TCA during IFR weather. I do.

I frequently fly in Boston and NYC in IMC. I always find the controllers to be skilled and helpful. –Gary

Response:

Evidence?? Good luck because FAA Management is suppressing the real facts

Ah, yes. The "real facts". Available to only the privileged few. The rest of us are left to deal with the "unreal" facts.

Response:

If you guys are so narrow and blind to not see the destruction of our Government safety oversight departments you do not belong in the cockpit. The FAA is out of control with PC hiring practices. It’s not just gays.

You’re right.  Now we have to take all these AFSS guys that are getting the ax this year.  What is the world coming to?

Response:

You want evidence?? Check the latest staffing figures for the FAA Controllers are leaving in droves

Controllers are not leaving in droves, the pay is too good. The morale around the FAA is in the the toilet especially at large airports Evidence?? Good luck because FAA Management is suppressing the real facts

Of course, the conspiricy theory.  No really it’s true.  Trust me. I no longer fly IFR around major airport airspace. That’s how bad it is.

And yet, no crashes. If you knew what I knew you would stay clear of any TCA during IFR weather. I do.

You quit when?

Response:

"No crashes" ????? You sound like an FAA Manager fella. Hey look flying public no crashes we is doing A-OK!!! (Until the big one that kills 4 or 5 Hundred souls on board) Kinda like that dumb woman Jane Garvey who was running the FAA during 9/11 "Nothing like 9/11 has happened before your honor" No crashes (LOL) what a stupid response. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I no longer fly IFR around major airport airspace. That’s how bad it is. And yet, no crashes. If you knew what I knew you would stay clear of any TCA during IFR weather. I do. You quit when?

Response:

You want evidence?? Check the latest staffing figures for the FAA Controllers are leaving in droves Radar and ILS Technicians are seriously short staffed Most major airports have open watches in critical radar and ILS areas. Evidence? I worked for the FAA for 18 years. I have personally seen it go down hill for the last few years until I bailed out. Atlanta for example had up till recently a Black FAA Manager who could not spell or write correctly. The morale around the FAA is in the the toilet especially at large airports Evidence?? Good luck because FAA Management is suppressing the real facts I no longer fly IFR around major airport airspace. That’s how bad it is. If you want to keep living in your sugar coated PC world that’s OK. The real deal is Air Safety in America is in extreme trouble. And the FAA is at the heart of it. Technicians in Atlanta (One of the world’s busiest) routinely operate with open Radar watches BUT the Managers buy Gay Pride Banners and scramble to hire black females with NO BACKGROUND to fill quotas. The deal is real my flying friends. The FAA is in trouble. America should privatize Air Traffic control and get Air Safety out of the social engineering business. The FAA was once a great place to work. Now it SUCKS. I know, I spent 18 years of my life working for them until they decided a few years ago to forget about Air Safety and worry about feel good politics. The "Big One" is coming. Just watch and see. If you knew what I knew you would stay clear of any TCA during IFR weather. I do. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -Does it ever cross your mind that responsible opinions should be supported by actual evidence? (Just curious.) –Gary Actually, I think he also has a problem with blacks leaving their radar screens unattended to celebrate Black History Month.

Response:

If you guys are so narrow and blind to not see the destruction of our Government safety oversight departments you do not belong in the cockpit. The FAA is out of control with PC hiring practices. It’s not just gays. What should the FAA be doing celebrating gay pride or worrying about air safety?? Get a clue and wake up – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – No big surprise here. The politically Correct [ screed deleted ] I have no idea what you’re talking about in the part of your post that you apparently wrote.  The shuttles were lost because of gays in the FAA?  Okay.  We’ll get right on that.       Mike Beede I think he said that it was actually the gays in NASA that were responsible for the shuttle disasters. The gays in the FAA are only responsible for airplane crashes..

Response:

What should the FAA be doing celebrating gay pride or worrying about air safety?? Get a clue and wake up

Uh, right. Planes have been crashing left and right because FAA controllers are abandoning their posts to go attend gay pride marches. And those of us who haven’t noticed this widespread problem are asleep and clueless. Does it ever cross your mind that responsible opinions should be supported by actual evidence? (Just curious.) –Gary

Response:

Hi Gene.  You’re right on, of course.  This was a mathematician of the very highest order; his name was Alan Turing.

Response:

Had the FAA acted on the less than clear intelligence and raised pre-board inspections to current levels, the American public would have been outraged by the invasion to their privacy.  It took 9/11 to persuade EVERBODY that the terrorists were serious.

Response:

RAMButt, You should read a book titled, "The Secret of Building 26".  It has to do with the reasons we, the Americans, were able to break the German’s codes during WWII.  The breaking of this code was the largest single reason for our winning WWII. Had the codes not been broken it is very likely that RAMButt and the rest of us would now be speaking a mixture of German and Japanese.  The primary architect of this effort was a single British Mathematician who after WWII was awarded the highest possible Civilian Metal of Honor. He was treated very shabbly in England and in the U.S. but without him we most likely would have lost the war.  Even today his mathematical theories are making possible our scientific progress.  He was a homosexual. Shame on you, RAMButt, have you no honor left? Gene Whitt

Response:

I think he said that it was actually the gays in NASA that were responsible for the shuttle disasters. The gays in the FAA are only responsible for airplane crashes..

…and 9/11.

Response:

I think he said that it was actually the gays in NASA that were responsible for the shuttle disasters. The gays in the FAA are only responsible for airplane crashes.. …and 9/11.

Well, I’m not  sure. Was the Big Guy pissed at the gays, or was he pissed at the U.S. for its increasing tolerance of this abomination?  Let me go check Falwell’s website…

Response:

No big surprise here. The politically Correct [ screed deleted ]

I have no idea what you’re talking about in the part of your post that you apparently wrote.  The shuttles were lost because of gays in the FAA?  Okay.  We’ll get right on that.         Mike Beede

Response:

No big surprise here. The politically Correct [ screed deleted ] I have no idea what you’re talking about in the part of your post that you apparently wrote.  The shuttles were lost because of gays in the FAA?  Okay.  We’ll get right on that.        Mike Beede

And here’s why Iraq is so screwed up: Fewer Gays Being Discharged Since 9/11 ‘Don’t Ask’ Ousters At Lowest Level Yet By Evelyn Nieves and Ann Scott Tyson Washington Post Staff Writers Saturday, February 12, 2005; Page A01 The number of gay and lesbian service members discharged under the military’s "don’t ask, don’t tell" policy has dropped by almost half since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks and is at its lowest level since the Defense Department began keeping such figures in 1997. Significant declines have occurred in every branch of the armed forces, according to statistics released yesterday by the Pentagon. The Marine Corps, Air Force and Navy discharged fewer gay men and lesbians in 2004 than in any year since the Pentagon began tallying the number of its "homosexual separations" eight years ago. The Army’s discharges represented the lowest number of discharges in five years. etc, etc., etc…

Response:

No big surprise here. The politically Correct destruction of once was a proud professional organization is evident. Rather than Air Safety, Gay Pride celebrations and promoting unqualified minorities into management is the new priority of the "Politically Correct misaligned unsafe FAA" I trust my IFR skills but I am not so sure any longer of the organization that "supposedly" protects our nations air safety. I believe the FAA is a disaster waiting to happen. We have lost 2 out of 5 Space Shuttles I believe due to PC nonsense in NASA. You know, the demeaning and ambivalent treatment of the technical skills in favor of PC doctrine and feel good politics. The FAA is the same ticking time bomb Maybe a Mid-Air over Kansas between two "Heavys" with around 700 on board that drops body parts and flaming wreckage for 50 square miles will get someones attention and push the FAA back toward it’s mission of Air Safety rather than Gay Pride Celebrations. NEW YORK