This is topic Flying Lessons (questions) in forum Film-Yak at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=005225
Posted by Jason Black (Member # 684) on 09-17-2007, 10:55 PM:
 
A call to any pilots we have onboard..

I'm consindering taking flying lessons sometime next year. ar ethere any special things I should look for in looking for a school? There are a few places locally (MYR) that offer lessons.. Just not sure what the certifications I shoudl look for would be.

Also, what are the typical requirements, ground time, air time, etc, for one to obtain a recreational (non commercial) license? There are a few of us at work who are interested in lessons. Knowing them as well as I do, if a few of us actually got into this and enjoyed it, they'd look at Pipers or Cessna's to buy as a group. It would be a tax write off for them anyway... [Smile]

Just curious as to what I should begin to look for, and any questions I should ask. I've also always "heard" that lessons are EXPENSIVE... Any truth to this?

Thanks for any input..
 
Posted by Daryl C. W. O'Shea (Member # 1303) on 09-17-2007, 11:39 PM:
 
1. Look for a school not on the brink of bankruptcy.

2. Check to see how many of the plane wrecks behind the local AME's hanger are registered to the school/instructors.

Seriously.

The cost of training will depend primarily on two factors, (i) your ability and (ii) how hard up for cash the school and/or instructors are.
 
Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 09-18-2007, 12:06 AM:
 
..and learn in a LINK's trainer, not by computer method. Learn how to do flight plans the old fashioned way by filling the forms out, not by computer method.

Also, when getting behind the stick, learn on the "tail draggers" first in as well as using instruments.

Yea, plan on hitting the books, for you have to really know weather-inside and out, yearly physicals, different classes of licenses - from experimental to passenger...and the expenditures required for flying.

My father has his own plane (an 1946 Ercoupe) and has had it for years besides building planes for others. He's 81 and can still pass physicals but just maintains an experimental licence due his occasional cloudhopping. He wanted to fly in the war, but couldn't since they didn't need pilots just infantrymen. When he got out, he immediately got his license to fly..where later on, he got on with the FAA to be in Flight Station (a degree below the tower operators-mainly handling light and twin engine aircraft.not the commercial aircraft department) and retired from the FAA as well.

We both shake our heads when we see aircraft accidents and near misses due to these new 'crackerjack' pilots who's received their licence in such items and think they know everything.

BUT, when you leave mother earth, you're at the mercy of the weather and her elements. For she's not too friendly with man powered flight at times.

Learn as much of her as you can and do your best at it. She's a bit tempermental at times, but if you know all of the ropes, you can control yourself around her ire.

If you would like more help, please PM, or email me and I can ask my father on any hints he can send your way ..

good luck-Monte
 
Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 09-18-2007, 12:44 AM:
 
quote: Monte L Fullmer
..and learn in a LINK's trainer ... learn on the "tail draggers" first...
Holy Smokes Monte, get with modern times! That stuff went out with the carbon arc lamphouse.

I got my license in the 60's in a Cessna 150 with a tricycle landing gear.

Jason, don't forget to pick out a ground school that teaches mechanical dead reckoning as a backup to GPS...we all know how unreliable electronics are... [Roll Eyes]
 
Posted by Paul Mayer (Member # 355) on 09-18-2007, 01:44 AM:
 
Tricycles are for children Phil... [evil]

Real pilots (as opposed to reel pilots) fly conventional gear - none of that newfangled sissy tricycle junk. Me? Soloed in 1974 in a Bellanca 7ECA Citabria then stopped due to lack of $$$. Soloed again in 1977 in a 1947 Cessna 140. Finally got my PPL in 1978.

I remember Jason asking about this a couple of years ago. Private pilots? You're finally ready to give it a try Jason? Great!

As for me, I just can't get over what it costs just to stay day VFR current in a single these days, based on what my students at the college have told me.

There are basically two kinds of flight schools - those that operate under FAR Part 141, and those that don't. The Part 141 schools are more rigid in their curriculums and tend to cost more. But the flight experience requirements (the number of hours needed before taking the exam ride) are lower and the training quality is seen by some as being more uniform.

I didn't use a Part 141 school when I trained. In the end I feel that it's the quality of the individual instructor(s), and the learning ability of the student, that will have a far greater impact in leading to a successful flight training experience.

As to what to look for, hang out at the airport and talk to as many local pilots, students, and instructors as you can. You'll quickly learn what the local reputations are. Look at the planes too. Do they look good or do they look like they've been ridden hard and put away sweaty? Ratty airplanes are a sign the school is struggling too much financially. All flight schools struggle financially, but there is a line.

Same with the instructors. Is your potential CFI really interested in teaching or is s/he just building time towards a flying job? The time builder will drop you and his/her other students like hot rocks as soon as a flying job comes up. Generally it's the older guys that make the better instructors - they've been around a while.
 
Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 09-18-2007, 01:48 AM:
 
Paul... [fu] [Wink] [Razz]

I bet you like the DC3 over the DC6? (I've flown in both!) [Razz]
 
Posted by Paul Mayer (Member # 355) on 09-18-2007, 02:19 AM:
 
Never flown either unfortunately. [Embarrassed] Did have a chance once to add a DC-3 type rating to my ticket, back when I was made of $$$.

These days my favorite sky chariot is the MD-82/83/87/88. Once in a while I help with taxiing ours between our gates and the maintenance pads. Lately I've been thinking about getting my ATP off ice and applying to fly for my present employer. After 12 years on the ground it would be an extremely long shot and I still can't quite figure out how I would pay for that process. Money matters have never been my strong point.

For Jason, figure a budget around $6500 or so for a PPL, somewhat less than that for a recreational certificate. Many places offer block time reduced hourly rates if you can pay up front. Otherwise it's just pay-as-you-go.

Used to be around 200 hours per year was the justification level for owning an airplane. Don't know what the number is these days. Partnerships certainly help, so do leasebacks. There can be many issues with both, as is the case anytime you tie yourself financially to other people. Do your homework carefully.
 
Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 09-18-2007, 05:10 AM:
 
quote: Paul Mayer
These days my favorite sky chariot is the MD-82/83/87/88. Once in a while I help with taxiing ours between our gates and the maintenance pads. Lately I've been thinking about getting my ATP off ice and applying to fly for my present employer.
<bad taste joke>
Looks like a couple of vacancies have just been created for MD-88 pilots in Thailand...
</bad taste joke>

An 'expert' on the radio this morning speculated that the big increase in relatively inexperienced pilots flying for low-cost airlines could be part of the reason behind that incident, coupled with the fact that (so he said) the MD-88 is a particularly difficult aircraft to handle in high winds. I suppose that makes sense: low-cost airlines in my part of the world have grown like mad over the last few years, far more quickly than it's possible to get new pilots qualified and racking up significant numbers of flying hours would be my guess. That having been said, they must be doing something right because the low-cost airlines don't seem to have a higher accident rate than the traditional ones. In fact, I can't recall a single report of a major accident involving Ryanair or Easyjet (the two biggest ones in Britain).
 
Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 09-18-2007, 08:15 AM:
 
You have about 3 possibilities:

1. If you are going to fly professionally, go to an approved school like ATP academies and get that commuter job this year.

2. If the getting-of-the-license is your hobby, fly with any reasonable local instructor.

3. If you want to buy a plane and travel reasonably soon, then do the same as #2 but become more picky on instructors. Most only fly one hour at a time. I find this unduly limiting, making the progress slow. On th other hand, it consumes money to fly 2-4 hours at a time.

I would not avoid the time-building instructors. Usually they are the well motivated who will get a student finished well and in a faster time. Later they will invite you to work at their airline.

Email me off line if you have any questions. My daughter is flying for Republic/Chatatqua/U.S. Air with Embrarer 175's. She is 24 with 1800 hours.(1100 jet in airline service) Louis
 
Posted by Paul Mayer (Member # 355) on 09-18-2007, 02:03 PM:
 
In my experience T-tailed aircraft don't handle as well as those that have the tail where it belongs. I don't have any time in MD-80s other than in a simulator but have talked with a lot of pilots that do, and the general consensus is that the MD-80 is a bit 'squirrelly' when in the approach configuration. It's certainly not alone in that characteristic - heck, the Twin Otter can be a handful in a gusting crosswind. But any certified design has to have control response that any reasonably qualified pilot can handle, and the MD-80 most certainly does.

Windshear is a problem in any aircraft, but especially with large aircraft due the weight and momentum involved. Big airplanes just can't react a quickly as smaller ones can, and so things like early windshear detection and proper response to it become critical. It'll be interesting to see what happened with One Two Go at Phuket.

Despite some airlines crying "pilot shortage" there is no such thing, at least at the larger air carriers. My company for example requires a minimum of 3000 hours flight time from its pilot applicants and we get many more applications than we can handle even though we're an LCC with LCC wages. The average guy or gal we hire has anywhere from 4500 to 6000 hours, many of them PIC qualified on regional jets.

But at the regional level, things are beginning to get a little tight. Anyone with enough time is bailing out of the regionals to go to the bigger carriers, and it's beginning to look like there's not enough replacement people willing to put up with the lousy pay and working conditions that are the norm at the regional level. The one's that do are desperate, or have working spouses or parents to support them during this 'pay your dues' career phase. They will put up with it, but they generally are low-time CFIs or recent graduates of some airline academy, typically with no more than 200 to 500 hours total time.

Such people are fine as co-pilots but they will require several years of seasoning flying with experienced captains before they can move to the left seat. The problem occurs when the captains bail out before their replacements are up to speed. If a carrier can't find enough qualified captains to hire off the street, that's when you see some pretty low time people being asked to step up. Fortunately the vast vast majority of them do just fine with the challenge.
 
Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 09-18-2007, 03:51 PM:
 
You're right about the regionals.

The entry level hours at Republic is 1100; at PSA (part of U. S. Air it's 250, commercial, multi, instrument if you can pass the tests).

I am a "parent supporting". Republic apparently plans to hire 1000+ pilots by end 2008. (More if Captains leave.)

Reading the "tea leaves" it looks like 1.5 to 2.0 years upgrade time for the daughter from time of hire. Faster, obviously, if Captains leave for the majors. Louis
 
Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 09-18-2007, 04:35 PM:
 
quote: Paul Mayer
In my experience T-tailed aircraft don't handle as well as those that have the tail where it belongs.
Interesting. The KLM MME-AMS flight, which I do as a passenger around 5-10 times a year, is sometimes operated by a Fokker 50 (tail where it belongs) and sometimes by a Fokker 70 (looks very similar to a DC-9 to my untrained eyes). If the weather over the North Sea is seriously windy, the Fokker 70 tends to start this weird side-to-side rocking motion that doesn't feel massively violent, but leaves you not wanting to eat or drink anything much for hours after the flight. On the approach to landing, especially a landing from the west at Teesside, the wings often dip and correct significantly, really quite close to the ground, giving the impression that the pilot is finding it hard work to keep the aircraft level. Sorry if this sounds like jumping to conclusions - I just get the feeling that something isn't quite right when the weather gets bad. I never get that worry at the back of my mind in the Fokker 50 - it seems to be able to fly through anything nature can throw at it, completely stable. Would I be right in guessing that the T-shaped tailed aircraft are more efficient at high speed/high altitude cruising, but these aircraft are more difficult to control during take-off/climb and approach/landing phases in bad weather?
 
Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 09-18-2007, 06:40 PM:
 
Leo; many aircraft are difficult/impossible to handle without a working yaw damper. ((controls these oscillations using the rudder only) I was once on a Boeing, prob 737 or 727 that had problems with said damper, tried several times to get it working and then they descended to 29,000 ft as required due to inop equipment. This made the trip somewhat longer and allowed legal "manual control." This was explained by the Captain.

Certainly my old Navajo, a twin engine Piper, was hard to endure if seated in the tail if the yaw damper was off. Louis
 
Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 09-18-2007, 07:42 PM:
 
quote: Paul Mayer
Windshear is a problem in any aircraft
....just have some massive acreage up there when a shear do hit..and stay away from the mountains when you go spotting for elk, deer and goat.
 
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 09-18-2007, 08:55 PM:
 
Actually time on spent Flight Simulator does apply to some aspects of your license these days. I have 38 hours of lessons that I did back in the 70's in a Piper Tomahawk at Dupage County Airport and countless hours flying around Illinois and Wisconsin with a now deceased friend in his 180. He is now deceased for attempting to do a barrel roll 100 feet off the ground... the legal aerobatic altitude is 1500 feet!. Funny thing is that he made it twice around and went for a third roll and that took him right into the ground. Was witnessed by a close friend. Both of these guys were long time airline pilots.

My advice is that if you can't afford the time and money to ultimately achieve instrument rating you're taking your life and anyone elses that flies with you to great risk.

Mark
 
Posted by Jason Black (Member # 684) on 09-18-2007, 09:26 PM:
 
Wow! You guys have some GREAT information!

I'm getting decent feedback on another forum as well.. A few civil and military pilots there to..

I'l plan to dive into this a little more towards the end of the year when I have a *little* more free time, and hopefully, the funds to move forward, which is what it ALL hinges on anyway. No Dough, No Go..

Thanks for the pointers and keep the advice coming.. [Smile]

I neglected to mention that a few others from work would like to get their license as well.. and we're talking about partnering on a plane... twin engine.. like this..
http://cgi.ebay.com/1977-CESSNA-414-Lowest-Total-Time_W0QQitemZ110171835279QQihZ001QQcategoryZ63678QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

[ 09-18-2007, 10:27 PM: Message edited by: Jason Black ]
 
Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 09-19-2007, 10:40 AM:
 
Jason: Dreams are wonderful. When you go to get insurance, you will be judged by the member with the least time and experience. I would guess that insurance for that aircraft will be in excess of $20k/year plus yearly Flight Safety training for all pilots.

I traded a Navajo back to a 210. For partnerships, think of a 182/206 which will be more economical and reasonable for the least of your number.

Not as sexy, I know, but more "possible." Louis
 
Posted by Lance C. McFetridge (Member # 95) on 09-19-2007, 12:07 PM:
 
Jason,
I would suggest that you look for a flying club. You can become a member and have less expensive access to several types of planes. Next, interview flight instructors and their students to see how they are. Learning to fly in a C150 is a lot less expensive than almost any other plane. Go for your private license not a recreational or sport. You will want to go places and take people with you. Once you get your private license then step up to a c182 or c172 or pipers, learn the basics. If you are willing to study, take lessons regularly, you could complete your ppl in less than 100 hours. Forget the sims....learn the basics in the left seat next to a qualified CFII and learn spins and stalls.
Twins are nice, they burn somewhere around 35+gallons an hour, at 4.50/gallon. Annual inspections are much more on a twin, maintenance on twins are more. You might better look for an Arrow or a Mooney for your first, and when someone mentioned insurance...they were right, it is based on owners experience in that particular plane. I have my private, working on my instruments, any questions feel free.
lance
 
Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 09-19-2007, 01:37 PM:
 
(lol a little late to post on this one..) I liked Phil's comments on me being not up to date...

..but, didn't carbon arc lamphouses put out a lot better light than any xenon lamphouse made?

Sometimes, the old fashioned way still merits its rewards.

-Monte
 
Posted by Paul Mayer (Member # 355) on 09-19-2007, 02:03 PM:
 
Wow, a 414?!? That's a whole lotta airplane even for an experienced pilot/owner!

So in addition to a PPL (no recreational certificate will do with this class of aircraft), you and your partners will each need:

A multi-engine rating (a misnomer since you'll do most of this on one engine [Big Grin] ).
Possibly a complex aircraft logbook endorsement (constant-speed prop and retractable landing gear training).
An multi-engine instrument rating (an absolute must-have in this kind of airplane).
A high-altitude logbook endorsement (pressurization system and oxygen hypoxia training).

As Louis points out, this is assuming you can find an aviation underwriter like Avemco that will write a policy for you and your group. Training for advanced aircraft such as this is beyond most flight schools and their CFIs - you're definitely going to do your training for this aircraft at a place like Flight Safety or Alteon. And you'll be required to do that training annually in order to get the best insurance rate, or any insurance at all.
This aircraft-specific training will be after you get your PPL, AMEL, and Instrument tickets at a regular flight school. The annual training will be done in a simulator at their facility - figure on about a week every year.

The numbers quoted for the airplane look good - about 1/3 to mid-time on the engines. They'll both come up for overhaul at about the same time, assuming they both make it to TBO, which they usually do if they are handled gently. I'd have an inspector do at least an AD (Airworthiness Directive) search and maybe even an annual on this airframe to see that it doesn't have any nasty and expensive surprises coming up - some of those cost more to comply with than the airplane is worth. The asking price seems a little too good to be true to me - I'd like to know why.

Which brings up a maintenance fund. You'll need to start building a maintenance fund to be able to afford that pair of overhauls in a couple of years - figure about $30,000 each for those turbocharged fuel-injected Continental TSIO-520 engines. Sock away some dough (like about $20/engine) every hour the airplane flies (including the 500 hours it's already flown on those engines) and you'll have the funds ready when it's time. Same thing for the prop overhauls. And the annual inspection and AD compliance check. And the bi-annual transponder and pitot/static system checks. Oh and you'll probably need at least a shade hangar. One doesn't usually keep an airplane like this just tied down out in the open.

A lot of partnerships hire a management company to take care of the business side of aircraft ownership. That and they can lease the aircraft out and bring in some cash when you're not flying it. Just don't count on a leaseback to pay for the airplane - you have to be able to afford it without any leasebacks. If you do a leaseback, add 100-hour inspections to the other required maintenance.

It's definitely a big dream and goal you've set for yourself. It can be done - if John Travolta can have a Boeing 707 type rating on his PPL, you can fly a Cessna 414 on yours. All it takes is money. And time, patience, passion, and tenacity. But mostly money. [Big Grin]
 
Posted by Jason Black (Member # 684) on 09-19-2007, 05:50 PM:
 
Paul:
Very wise words..

Didn't mean to infer that we were actively looking at the C414 right now, but, ultimately, this is what I'd like to get to, something twin engine, seating about 6 or 7.

I'm sure that I'd need to start out on a much more basic single engine setup, and, truthfully, I don't even *know* what the various aircraft types are. I do plan on doing some snoopin at the local FBO and talking the the guys/gals there. I'm sure that they would have to have some info on local flying clubs, lessons, instructors, etc.

I have a long way to go.. and a lot to overcome.. but, like all else in my life, with the directive set, I will accomplish the goal!
 
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 09-19-2007, 06:12 PM:
 
quote: Paul Mayer
if John Travolta can have a Boeing 707 type rating on his PPL, you can fly a Cessna 414 on yours. All it takes is money. And time, patience, passion, and tenacity. But mostly money.
well... and the ability to dress up as a big fat woman and perform in a musical... can you do that Jason?

Also, since you already live in Florida you might want to check out Embry Riddle Aeronautical University if you have any inkling of aviation as a living this is the place to go.

Mark
 
Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 09-19-2007, 06:17 PM:
 
Mark:
Jacksonville has ATP Academy; with branches in at least 15 towns in FL. There are others. Louis
 
Posted by Joel N. Weber II (Member # 3530) on 09-19-2007, 07:52 PM:
 
What benefit are you hoping to get out of the second engine?

It's a lot of extra cost, and it doubles the probability that you'll experience an engine failure.

I've talked to people who've known people who've experienced engine failures in single engine planes, and I can think of two cases where the pilots safely landed on regular runways at airports.

A twin might be safer when an engine quits if the pilot does everything right. But you can also find a fair number of accident reports where the pilot didn't do things right, and in some cases the simpler procedures on a single engine plane might have made the pilot less likely to screw up. The minimum safe airspeed on a twin with only one engine running is a significant issue, as is the procedure for shutting down the correct engine correctly.

And the bigger twins also often have retractable gear, which also adds to the cost of the insurance.
 
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 09-19-2007, 09:28 PM:
 
Louis,

I just brought up Embry Riddle because a friend's son is going there... Its oriented more towards aeronautical engineering but they also teach you how to fly as part of your education. My friend's son already has his twin rating and he's only in his second year.

BTW: Even with a twin if you loose an engine you're still going down... might take longer... might not.

Mark
 
Posted by Jack Ondracek (Member # 1466) on 09-19-2007, 10:06 PM:
 
Lots of interesting comments here. I haven't seen anything approximating a school with wrecks out back though. Maybe that's because most all students in our area have learn how to deal with airspace surrounding Seattle-Tacoma International, a couple of military airports and numerous surrounding municipal fields, and a slacker school wouldn't last long.

Here's a link to a flight school at the airport next door to us:

http://avianflight.com

Doug O'Donnell and Doug Hanson can tell you a lot about the various ratings and what to look for in a school where you are.

I'd have to look up the requirements for the recreational rating, but it's pretty restrictive, compared to a private certificate. For the private, you need a minimum of 40 hours, including dual, solo, night and cross-country. Our local flight school says the average is more like 60-70 hours.

Rental rates around here run between $85 and $120 per hour for single engine, depending on the model and when you rent it. Add $35-$40 per hour for any dual time you use, including some ground time.

Ground schools here are generally flat-rated, including class time and materials, but not for flight and instructor time. Then, there are fees for medicals, written (computerized) tests and final check rides with an FAA designated examiner.

From what I can tell around here (Washington State), you'd be lucky to get by at around $4,500... probably more, depending on the time you need to be proficient for the practical test. If you own your own plane, hourly flight costs are roughly half what you'd pay to rent someone else's.

If you can pull this off, it will be one of the really significant points in your life. Not too many people do this (or necessarily want to). However, I've never known a pilot who lacked enthusiasm for the experience.

Good luck!

Jack
N6505W
 
Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 09-20-2007, 05:54 AM:
 
This is one thing I started in the early 80s, but never finished - due to the high cost. Louis Bornwasser got me hooked on flying. It was always great fun tooling around in his (at the time) 182. Louis also took me on my first flight ever.

Always wished I'd gotten my private pilot's license. Today, I can't fly without getting physically ill. Don't know what that's all about, but I'll get flu-like symptoms that last for days... [Frown]
 
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 09-20-2007, 09:18 AM:
 
quote: Jack Ondracek
If you own your own plane, hourly flight costs are roughly half what you'd pay to rent someone else's.
It doesn't really matter if you own a plane or not there is still the hourly cost to operate a plane... at least everyone I've known with a plane still views it as cost per hour to operate.... a wise viewpoint indeed. Engine overhaul is very expensive... ya can't hid that part of owning a plane.

quote: Tim Reed
Today, I can't fly without getting physically ill.
Tim... its all to do with that hair!
Mark
 
Posted by Jack Ondracek (Member # 1466) on 09-20-2007, 10:15 AM:
 
Sort of thought that's what I said.

You're right about the maintenance costs though. Ours will be going in for the engine, probably next year. This year, it's new radios.
 
Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 09-20-2007, 04:53 PM:
 
quote: Mark G.
its all to do with that hair!
You goof! [Razz] [Smile] LOL!
 
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 09-20-2007, 08:28 PM:
 
Tim.... you can still finish ya know... hair or not [Eek!] .

Mark
 
Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 09-20-2007, 09:35 PM:
 
Eh, I doubt it, Mark. Not now. I get sick, really. Must be changes in air pressure, or oxygen levels doesn't agree with me... something. But it sure happens. [Frown]
 
Posted by Paul Mayer (Member # 355) on 09-21-2007, 06:26 PM:
 
ERAU grad here, BS Professional Aeronautics - class of '93. Go Eagles! At the Prescott, AZ campus there are most definitely "wrecks" out back - it's the lab for the aircraft accident investigation course. [Big Grin]

I took that course (without the lab dammit!) as part of my degree studies at ERAU's satellite campus at Nellis AFB. Even without the lab it is a fascinating course of study, one that all professional pilots should take.

ERAU is a private university and hella expensive. I recommend it only for those that are going into aviation or aerospace as a career. One can go to any local flight school to train for an FAA airman certificate. Much cheaper and easier if an airman certificate is all you are looking for.
 
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 09-21-2007, 06:58 PM:
 
You did all that to be able to service planes on the ramp? What gives?

Mark
 
Posted by Paul Mayer (Member # 355) on 05-13-2008, 12:12 AM:
 
Just a bump for me to selfishly say today is my 30th anniversary as a pilot.

May 12, 1978 - North Las Vegas Air Terminal (VGT)
1947 model Cessna 140A - N55DC

Dave Baker was my instructor, Bob Thorne was the unfortunate designated pilot examiner that day. Written and oral exams went fine, but it took two tries for me to get the wheel landings down to where I wasn't scaring everyone.

Went on to fly for another 17 years and 2100 hours. Flying - Drugs would be cheaper. [Big Grin]

My how time flies. [beer]
 
Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 05-13-2008, 09:23 AM:
 
Congratulations! Learned in 1981 along with my wife. Many fun times together. Daughter is FO with Republic on the Embrarer 170/175; a "girly girl." (looks like she should be the "stewardess." Louis
 
Posted by Mike Olpin (Member # 1115) on 05-13-2008, 02:25 PM:
 
Congrats, Paul!

One of the ways I'm trying to confront my fear of flight is by watching aircraft take off and land down at our airport. They have an observation area that allows you to tune in to the air traffic controllers over the car stereo. It's weird because I'm starting to get a little geeky about it. I look up n-numbers on the FAA registry, try to guess type of aircraft before I look it up, etc.

At the end of July, I'm planing a trip that will include 3 flights, a 737, a CRJ700 (don't much like these), and an A320 (love these).

Anyway, It's not a full blown fear where I refuse to travel, but flight hasn't ever been something I've thought of as fun. I'm just a little amused at myself for starting to geek out on something I'm fearful of.
 
Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 05-13-2008, 02:50 PM:
 
quote: Mike Olpin
At the end of July, I'm planing a trip that will include 3 flights, a 737, a CRJ700 (don't much like these), and an A320 (love these).
To me, A319/20/21s are completely featureless - just like the name says, an Airbus. They don't have a characteristic sound or feel or anything. The only thing which sticks in my mind about them is that they can do longer distances than I guess I'd expect (e.g. I've done Seattle to Memphis and Detroit to LAX in an A320). They must be pretty versatile across both short haul and medium haul trips, given that, along with the 737, they also seem to be the bogstandard plane for taking 150 people or so on a 250 mile/one hour flight, too.

I kind of miss the Northwest DC-10s, because they sort of had a retro chic to them. I could still feel the vibration from that tail mounted engine through the fuselage several hours after stepping off the plane, and boy did you feel it as they accelerated for takeoff! The A330s they replaced them with are a lot more comfortable, quieter and calmer, and the cabin air feels a hell of a lot fresher, especially towards the end of a transatlantic flight. I've never been on a NW DC-9, but am hoping to manage it before the last ones are retired. It's pretty amazing that some of those aircraft are 40 years old or so, and still perfectly reliable in revenue earning operation.
 
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 05-13-2008, 05:07 PM:
 
Congrats Paul! Keep on flyin.....

Leo,

If you watch that Luftansa Airbus(on U-Tube) try to land in 140 mph cross wind you will have alot more respect for Airbus [Cool] . I still don't know why they even attempted that landing except they may have been low on fuel... they had to go around again anyway and they landed safely on the second try. There was almost no damage to the left wingtip and the plane was repaired and back in the skies the next day. However no doubt that all the passengers had to buy new shorts right after de-planeing.

Mark
 
Posted by Mike Olpin (Member # 1115) on 05-13-2008, 05:31 PM:
 
I was referring to the cabin. The A320s feel more spacious inside, so If I have to be bar-b-qued to death, I'd prefer it on an A320 [Razz]
 
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 05-13-2008, 08:14 PM:
 
quote: Leo Enticknap
To me, A319/20/21s are completely featureless - just like the name says, an Airbus.
Well, We can all thank God that Greyhound didn't do a double take and buy some of them [Eek!] !
 
Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 05-14-2008, 01:34 AM:
 
Mark,

I think I'd need a new pair of shorts after this!

...and here's one done right at my local airport.
 
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 05-14-2008, 10:18 AM:
 
Thats interesting... even after the RJ145 lands its still being blown sideways. Watch the wing landing gear tires...
 
Posted by Paul Mayer (Member # 355) on 05-14-2008, 12:48 PM:
 
That ERJ landing was a thing of beauty - absolutely perfect kickout technique. Unlike a lot of so-called pilots these days, that guy or gal definitely knew how to work a rudder. Couldn't have done it better myself. [thumbsup] [beer]

As for that BAE Quadrapuff at London City, well, you can't win 'em all! [Big Grin]
 
Posted by Will Kutler (Member # 770) on 05-15-2008, 12:33 PM:
 
You guys are all a bunch of woosies!!!! [Big Grin]

Ya aint flown unless your behind the throttle of a P & R R2800 or RR Merlin V-12!!! [Big Grin] [beer] [thumbsup]
 
Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 05-15-2008, 01:32 PM:
 
London City is seriously scary (as a humble passenger, anyway!) to land at. The runway is on reclaimed land in the former dockland area of East London (if you've seen the film Pool of London, it shows you what that part of town was like before the docks declined and the area was regenerated in the late '80s). The glideslope is pretty steep, and if you're landing from north to south, there's a hangar at the end of the runway ... and then the River Thames. Landing in the other direction, there isn't even the hangar. Fail to stop in time, and basically you're taking a swim. It's kind of like landing at Boston coming in over the harbour, only with a much steeper descent and a runway less than half the length! Had I been on that jet (from the 'Ha ha ha - Euromanx is shite!' commment on the YouTube page, I guess that's whose it is), then I wouldn't been so scared at the buffeting about than at the prospect of what would be about to happen if the heavy landing had knackered the brakes...
 
Posted by Paul Mayer (Member # 355) on 05-19-2008, 08:55 PM:
 
I suppose London City (LCY) looks scary, but like anything involving applied technology, when used within its limits it is perfectly acceptable.

LCY is restricted to STOL (Short Take Off Landing) aircraft only. It's runway is 4900' short and yes, the ILS approach is quite steep at 5.5 degrees (almost double the 3.0 degrees of a typical ILS). Aircraft have to be certified for steep approaches in order to use the airport, and flight crews must go through additional training for those approaches. LCY is one of those places that everyone knows about, so crews tend to be on their toes when operating there. In that sense LCY is like Hong Kong's old Kai Tak, or Washington Reagan National, Aspen, CO or Lugano, Switzerland - unusual but perfectly safe when flown properly.

Up until this week the biggest airliner that could use the place was the BAE-146, the type shown in Leo's first video. This week Airbus demonstrated that the A-318 can operate in and out of LCY as well. So now some longer routes (the 318 has twice the range of the 146) can be flown into LCY.

As for Leo's video, it must've been one of those days. Even monkeys fall out of trees occasionally. Sounded like it was windy that day, and probably gusty too. That crew looked like it flew the approach a little fast, which is what is supposed to happen in gusty winds. Then right at the flare, it looks like the aircraft flew through a shear, momentarily dropping the headwind component and causing the aircraft to sink. There wasn't enough time or height to recover other than to abruptly pitch up (and power up if there's time), trading speed and momentum for more lift and less sink. Looks like they didn't have quite enough speed/momentum to trade though, especially with the speed brakes already out, resulting in that nice FIRM set of arrivals. The wheel brakes should be just fine - after that arrival in that wind the airplane isn't going very fast, probably not even 100 knots.

At least that crew could sign off on their 3-landings in 90-days currency requirement with just that arrival! [Big Grin]
 
Posted by Jason Black (Member # 684) on 05-20-2008, 12:31 PM:
 
FWIW,
I still haven't had the opportunity to pursue these lessons. I will, once money allows, follow through with my plans to become certified, or at least to take the lessons and see if I can make it through.. [Smile]
 
Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 05-20-2008, 12:39 PM:
 
quote: Paul Mayer
So now some longer routes (the 318 has twice the range of the 146) can be flown into LCY.
Interesting - after the Heathrow Terminal 5 fiasco and the reputation Heathrow is rapidly gaining as the world's worst airport, there must be a potentially lucrative market for higher paying business customers using A318s to fly longer routes out of LCY, thereby avoiding the place altogether. Are there any restrictions on the load (either of passengers and/or fuel) that they can carry, given the very short runway, or can they take off fully loaded?

I've only used LCY on two occasions. Unless your destination is in the financial district of east London, it's a pain to get to and from it (to the city centre proper it takes just as long as from Heathrow or Gatwick). The first time was on a return trip from the US, when the inbound transatlantic was delayed and I missed the connection to MME. The only other one that day was fully booked, so they offered me a seat on an AMS-LCY followed by LHR-MME (though I had to make my own way between the two airports). The other time was a day trip for a meeting from Manchester, picking up a colleague who lived about half way between home and the airport. All three of those flights were in Fokker 50s, and the rate of descent did feel very steep.
 
Posted by Paul Mayer (Member # 355) on 05-20-2008, 01:47 PM:
 
It'll come Jason. I ran out of money after my first solo in 1974 and had to wait until 1977 to start up again. Later on I ran out of cash again a couple of times (depended on whether I was in favor or not with the IATSE local at the time). So keep pluggin' at whatever you're doing for money. It'll happen.

Leo, I didn't read about how Airbus conducted that demonstration. I was a bit surprised that a 318 could do it at all. But since the article mentioned the 318's longer range, I'm assuming (yeah, I know what that means) that anyone operating a 318 out of LCY will be able to do so with some useful pay and fuel loads.

I didn't know that LCY is a pain to get to from anywhere other than the Docklands. But I guess there's enough potential Docklands-only traffic to justify the airport. Lots of well-heeled financial types about these days. I imagine the taxi fare LCY to LHR must be something!

I see that the BAA exec in charge of the T5 startup was (pick your favorite - sacked / canned / pink slipped / shown the door / given the boot / given the ax / dejobbed / uninstalled / had the rollers put under him) after that disaster. Maybe someday LHR will again become just a busy airport instead of a passenger nightmare.
 




Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.3.1.2