Acclaims..pilots

[triple8s]

IMHO if a person gets a Mooney, then gets an instructor that isn't a Mooney experienced instructor .......that person is only asking for it!

I'm no expert by any stretch of the imagination, ( 650+ hr pic) (250+ Mooney hrs) 75+ in an R and was thinking about this just yesterday. It's been windy for the last month or so here and for the last several months I have made some landings that I felt really good about, I was actually proud........until I got a little Mooney humble pie yesterday, winds were not really high but the were very inconsistent I came in just a tiny bit high so I went with full flaps. I didn't porpoise but it was FAR from those greasers I had been doing. I am going back today refocus on my approach and landings. Does everyone have an ugly one once in awhile?????

[Hank]

  On 3/31/2014 at 7:03 PM, triple8s said:

Does everyone have an ugly one once in awhile?????

I thought we all did, occasionally--short, mid- and long body. All it takes is funny wind, lack of recent experience or momentary lapse of attention

[DonMuncy]

Never....or at least since my last flight.

[WardHolbrook]

  On 3/31/2014 at 7:03 PM, triple8s said:

Does everyone have an ugly one once in awhile?????

It’s taken me 48 years and nearly 15,000 hours, but I have finally discovered the secret to making perfect landings every time. In the beginning, I figured that it had to do with maintaining a stabilized approach and proper airspeed control, but obviously that wasn't it. I then worked up a theory that involved planetary alignment and moon phases. I was getting closer. I finally put it all together when I figured out how to hold my mouth - you have hold it just right and the planets have to be in proper alignment and the moon has to be in the proper phase, in addition to flying a nice smooth stabilized approach and exercising proper airspeed control. If you get a good landing other than when you're doing all of that you're just lucky.

[Marauder]

Ward -- don't forget the effect of the Black Holes as well.

Sent using Tapatalk

[WardHolbrook]

  On 4/1/2014 at 2:19 PM, Marauder said:

Ward -- don't forget the effect of the Black Holes as well.

Sent using Tapatalk

That's one of those variables that you just have no control over so I choose to ignore it. 

[aviatoreb]

I was thinking about a sim-center for years, but annoyed that they mostly seem to be twin and bigger oriented. I was wondering if there was a sim-center that mimic the airplane I am flying, an M20?.  Today in the mail I received a postcard from Nashauflightsimulator.com  in Manchester, NH.  Any of you receive this same post card?  Any of you ever use them?  They cover several high performance singles including M20.

 

http://www.nashuaflightsimulator.com/sites/nashuaflightsimulator.com/files/pdf/mooneym20.pdf

 

They do a 10 hour sim + 10 hour ground program syllabus that takes 3 days.  Hmmm!  I am currently doing my commercial as my "raise my game" activity right now, but in six months…  I would love to hear some pirep if anyone has used them.

[WardHolbrook]

  On 4/2/2014 at 12:37 AM, aviatoreb said:

I was thinking about a sim-center for years, but annoyed that they mostly seem to be twin and bigger oriented. I was wondering if there was a sim-center that mimic the airplane I am flying, an M20?.  Today in the mail I received a postcard from Nashauflightsimulator.com  in Manchester, NH.  Any of you receive this same post card?  Any of you ever use them?  They cover several high performance singles including M20.

 

http://www.nashuaflightsimulator.com/sites/nashuaflightsimulator.com/files/pdf/mooneym20.pdf

 

They do a 10 hour sim + 10 hour ground program syllabus that takes 3 days.  Hmmm!  I am currently doing my commercial as my "raise my game" activity right now, but in six months…  I would love to hear some pirep if anyone has used them.

I'm having a problem seeing what a "generic" SEL sim will do for you. A generic sim works well for generic training, but doesn't do as much when it comes to type specific stuff. Have you considered investing in some serious "graduate level" aviation training along the lines of:

 

1. Engine Management at www.advancedpilot.com

2. Weather Training at  www.avwxworkshops.com

3. Aviation Physiology (Altitude Chamber) Training at www.faa.gov/pilots/training/airman_education/aerospace_physiology/

4. Extreme Unusual Attitude Recovery/Basic Aerobatic/Tailwheel Training at www.iacusn.org/schools

5. Glider Training at www.ssa.org/WhereToFly

 

There's a lot of productive and worthwhile training to be had without stepping foot in a simulator or even an airplane. Some of this training can be in lieu of or in conjunction with a BFR. Any or all of it will make you a better and more knowledgeable pilot. Flying the sim will help you raise your proficiency level when it comes to flying approaches, but if your instrument skills are already up to snuff it's not going to do a lot more for you. (Now if you're flying a type specific sim, that's a different story.) It's just as important to raise the bar when it comes to understanding the principles of engine operation and management, weather interpretation, aviation physiology, and enhanced stick and rudder skills, etc. (Down the road, if flying something equipped with weather radar is in your future there are courses on Airborne Weather Radar to look at.) My point is, there's an awful lot to learn and not all of it is learned in an airplane. Take your time, take it one step at a time but have a plan and stick to it. 

[aviatoreb]

  On 4/2/2014 at 2:02 AM, WardHolbrook said:

I'm having a problem seeing what a "generic" SEL sim will do for you. A generic sim works well for generic training, but doesn't do as much when it comes to type specific stuff. Have you considered investing in some serious "graduate level" aviation training along the lines of:

 

1. Engine Management at www.advancedpilot.com

2. Weather Training at  www.avwxworkshops.com

3. Aviation Physiology (Altitude Chamber) Training at www.faa.gov/pilots/training/airman_education/aerospace_physiology/

4. Extreme Unusual Attitude Recovery/Basic Aerobatic/Tailwheel Training at www.iacusn.org/schools

5. Glider Training at www.ssa.org/WhereToFly

 

There's a lot of productive and worthwhile training to be had without stepping foot in a simulator or even an airplane. Some of this training can be in lieu of or in conjunction with a BFR. Any or all of it will make you a better and more knowledgeable pilot. Flying the sim will help you raise your proficiency level when it comes to flying approaches, but if your instrument skills are already up to snuff it's not going to do a lot more for you. (Now if you're flying a type specific sim, that's a different story.) It's just as important to raise the bar when it comes to understanding the principles of engine operation and management, weather interpretation, aviation physiology, and enhanced stick and rudder skills, etc. (Down the road, if flying something equipped with weather radar is in your future there are courses on Airborne Weather Radar to look at.) My point is, there's an awful lot to learn and not all of it is learned in an airplane. Take your time, take it one step at a time but have a plan and stick to it. 

 

Hi Ward,

 

I do not disagree with all those sorts of training.  I have done some glider.  I plan on some aerobic/upset training soon - essentially my next up-my-game thing this summer.  Right now commercial in my own airplane for the same reason.

 

But I thought the general thinking was the sim time was useful too since you can practice specifically emergency scenarios that are too dangerous to practice in a real airplane, and to do them quickly one after the other for less expense.  That you are training your brain, so just a rough approximation of your airplane is good enough - I thought that was the general thinking anyway - please correct me if I am wrong since I have no such experience.

[WardHolbrook]

  On 4/2/2014 at 2:09 PM, aviatoreb said:

...But I thought the general thinking was the sim time was useful too since you can practice specifically emergency scenarios that are too dangerous to practice in a real airplane, and to do them quickly one after the other for less expense... 

Granted, but what highly detailed Mooney emergency and/or abnormal procedures are you going to practice over and over again until you get it right? I took your earlier post to mean that you'd be using a "generic" single-engine piston aircraft simulator. Honestly, I see those types of sims as most useful as basic and advanced instrument procedures trainers. The real value, IMHO, of simulation comes when you've moved up the ladder a bit in complexity - light twins and up. In multi-engine aircraft the value of sim training comes into its own. 

 

The best training you will ever get will be in a good simulator. No one's ever died (other than from embarrassment) when a sim crashed. You can practice, over and over, the procedures and drills necessary to safely operate out at the extreme edges of the operating and performance envelope. Day-to-day flying in a twin is pretty benign stuff. An owner/pilot probably isn't going to do what it would really take to keep current and fully proficient in their twin. Few owners would be willing to treat their engines that way - that's what multi-engine trainers are for. If you want to see how to stay sharp and proficient when it comes to multi-engine flying all you have to do is look to the example set by the airline, corporate, and fractional guys - essentially all of their training is done in the sim. You gain and maintain proficiency handling engine failures and other emergencies and abnormals by doing. In the real world of day-to-day flying there is seldom an opportunity to practice this stuff.

 

I guess what I'm trying to say is, if you feel rusty in your instrument skills and abilities, a generic simulator would be very useful. If you're looking to enhance your skill in dealing with a specific types of emergency and abnormal procedures then those generic devices aren't as useful. If it were me, I'd take the money I was planning to spend on a 3-day sim course and put it towards other things on that list that I posted. That is assuming that your instrument skills are up to snuff. 

[aviatoreb]

  On 4/2/2014 at 3:47 PM, WardHolbrook said:

Granted, but what highly detailed Mooney emergency and/or abnormal procedures are you going to practice over and over again until you get it right? I took your earlier post to mean that you'd be using a "generic" single-engine piston aircraft simulator. Honestly, I see those types of sims as most useful as basic and advanced instrument procedures trainers. The real value, IMHO, of simulation comes when you've moved up the ladder a bit in complexity - light twins and up. In multi-engine aircraft the value of sim training comes into its own. 

 

The best training you will ever get will be in a good simulator. No one's ever died (other than from embarrassment) when a sim crashed. You can practice, over and over, the procedures and drills necessary to safely operate out at the extreme edges of the operating and performance envelope. Day-to-day flying in a twin is pretty benign stuff. An owner/pilot probably isn't going to do what it would really take to keep current and fully proficient in their twin. Few owners would be willing to treat their engines that way - that's what multi-engine trainers are for. If you want to see how to stay sharp and proficient when it comes to multi-engine flying all you have to do is look to the example set by the airline, corporate, and fractional guys - essentially all of their training is done in the sim. You gain and maintain proficiency handling engine failures and other emergencies and abnormals by doing. In the real world of day-to-day flying there is seldom an opportunity to practice this stuff.

 

I guess what I'm trying to say is, if you feel rusty in your instrument skills and abilities, a generic simulator would be very useful. If you're looking to enhance your skill in dealing with a specific types of emergency and abnormal procedures then those generic devices aren't as useful. If it were me, I'd take the money I was planning to spend on a 3-day sim course and put it towards other things on that list that I posted. That is assuming that your instrument skills are up to snuff. 

 

Hi Ward,  I'm not feeling rusty on IFR procedures as I practice it quite a bit and fly it quite a bit too.  I brought up sim, not having ever had experience with it, because it is what I see the big guys doing and so I figure it must be the good stuff.  For practicing emergency procedures.  I am hearing from you that it is not worth the trouble for singles, even high performance singles.

 

My last BFR, six months ago my CFI wanted to show me something I had not thought about, so he "failed" my engine soon after departure when I was at 3000ft and under the hood and wanted to see what I did (besides punching him, taking off the foggles and then turning the engine back up…..).  So I did ok, I hit Vg, turned around and started heading toward the IAF.  Nope…that wasn't going to work and by 500AGL we called it off.  For this airport, and this approach the solution that works is to head straight for the FAF.  Ok, in my specific airplane I get an even better glide ratio in a real engine out than a simulated engine out because the windmilling prop creates drag that goes away in a real engine out if I feather it, so I always figured I could glide back to anyplace I started since I have a climb rate that out climbs my glide gradient.   Still - Lesson learned for that scenario and point well taken.  Ok, what else do I need to know?  I don't know!  So I was thinking this sort of thing is what sim is for - and I would learn in a sim class?  I don't know.

[WardHolbrook]

The best training you can have for that inevitable engine failure in a single isn't in a "generic" SE sim. It would be in a glider. You quickly develop a sense about what you can and cannot do and that carries over to any fixed-wing flying. The "fancy" sims excel at teaching specific procedures and techniques - for example engine failures in multiengine aircraft, V1 cuts in jets, and all manner of systems failures. Over the years I've gone to over 50 simulator-based initial and recurrent training courses representing 9 different makes and models of turboprop and turbojet aircraft, that's over 600 hours in Level D sims. For training in that type of aircraft there is no better way, but I honestly don't see the value of using one of the cheap "generic single-engine" simulators for anything other than instrument work. Others may disagree with me on this, but if it were me I'd spend the money on some of those other courses I've listed, I think they represent a better training value. 

[aviatoreb]

Thanks ward.

Tail dragger and glider training definitely is a more fun way to spend training dollars and time.

[triple8s]

I was a home builder for a few years and several of the brainy builders worked on a sim model of our planes iirc it was this one.............X- Plane.

X-Plane differentiates itself from other simulators by implementing an aerodynamic model called blade element theory.[2] Traditionally, flight simulators emulate the real-world performance of an aircraft by using predefined lookup tables to determine aerodynamic forces such as lift or drag, which vary with differing flight conditions. These simulators sufficiently simulate the flight characteristics of the aircraft, specifically those with known aerodynamic data, but are not useful in design work, and do not predict the performance of aircraft when the actual figures are not available.

Blade element theory improves on this type of simulation by modeling the forces and moments on an aircraft, and individually evaluating the parts that constitute it. Blade-element theory and other computational aerodynamic models are often used to compute aerodynamic forces in real time or pre-compute aerodynamic forces of a new design for use in a simulator employing lookup tables.

With blade element theory, a surface (e.g. wing) may be made up of many sections (1 to 4 is typical), and each section is further divided into as many as 10 separate subsections. After that, the lift and drag of each section is calculated, and the resulting effect is applied to the whole aircraft. When this process is applied to each component, the simulated aircraft will fly similar to its real-life counterpart. This approach allows users to design aircraft quickly and easily, as the simulator engine immediately illustrates how an aircraft with a given design might perform in the real world.

X-Plane can model fairly complex aircraft designs, including helicopters, rockets, rotor craft, and tilt-rotor craft.

Blade element theory has shortcomings, as it can sometimes be difficult to design an aircraft that performs precisely as would real-world aircraft.[citation needed] However, as the flight model is refined, the simulator can better resemble real-world performance, and aircraft quirks, and design flaws.

[WardHolbrook]

  On 4/2/2014 at 11:10 PM, aviatoreb said:

Thanks ward.

Tail dragger and glider training definitely is a more fun way to spend training dollars and time.

If you have a bunch of rust to knock off when it comes to your instrument flying skills, a sim is a great way to do it. But there are other skills just as necessary. My suggestion to my students is to grab a CFI once or twice a year and go fly for an hour or so instead of just going out and boring holes in the sky. If it has been more than a year since you last flew with a CFII, grab one and find out where your instrument skills need tweaking. An hour or two every year with a CFI isn't going to break anybody's budget. As far as that stuff on my list goes, that is in addition to the occasional flights with a CFI. It's pretty tough to be truly proficient if you're only flying 50 to 100 hours per year and only get a basic flight review every couple of years.