How to fly with another pilot?

[gsengle]

No way anyone under a couple hundred hours should fly IMC

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ArtVandelay]

No way anyone under a couple hundred hours should fly IMC

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You got to start sometime...you can at least do local IMC under benign conditions.

[Amelia]

I appreciate having my right-seater actively engaged. I appreciate having a quiet queried reminder if it seems I may have overlooked something, if something needs my immediate attention, if there's a better way to accomplish a task. Once, my copilot in my fairly new-to-me Mooney was a consummate Mooney pilot, smooth as glass. We were coming home from a short trip and the engine faltered and quit without warning. He calmly advised "switch-tanks" as my hand was headed between the seats. The engine roared back to life, we landed uneventfully, and the mechanic sorted out the problem quickly. It didn't matter that there was clearly plenty of fuel in that tank. It didn't matter that I had just switched to the fuller tank as we began our descent. It didn't matter whose job it was. Switch now. My action was confirmed by a better pilot, no drama. 

That experience happened again years later. in another airplane. The Cherokee's engine began to sputter on a remarkably generous downwind leg, and I suggested switching tanks, as the pilot shuffled through voluminous notes to see when the last time it was done. I couldn't reach the switch by the pilot's left knee, another more urgent request to switch now was rejected, because surely the half hour wasn't up yet, I have the time written down here somewhere...and we entered base leg with the engine on its last cough. I said much more firmly, Nevermind that, Switch. Tanks.Now. NOW! The third admonition was the charm, and we entered our 4-mile final under power while the pilot huffily continued to insist that tank couldn't possibly be empty. But empty it was, and the gauge agreed. I opined that In my thankfully-limited experience, there were other reasons to have the fuel flow interrupted, that the time to check the records was after the landing, not before, but it was not a point conceded. Awkward!! But not as awkward as putting it into the bean field not very far ahead, with 10 gallons of gas still in the other tank.

CRM is hard for those of us who fly single pilot, and even harder when we have been trained in very different circumstances. My friend learned at a busy commercial field where the traffic pattern usually meant tucking in behind an airliner or C-130. I learned to chop power abeam the numbers and land on the 25'x 2900' strip beneath the C150's left wing. My first CFI had no use for radios. My friend revered them. Both were valid, but we had very different ideas on how to fly a little airplane. I hope not to be that pilot, ignoring good advice because it's MY airplane. 

[Parker_Woodruff]

On ‎3‎/‎31‎/‎2016 at 11:19 AM, 201er said:

I don't fly much with other pilots but when I do, I notice so much sloppiness and mistakes that it disturbs me. I'm by no means the world's greatest pilot but I'd like to think that I'm pretty on top of things. It's rare to fly with someone that does everything as I would do or better. I'd like to go flying with someone that leaves me thinking, "damn, I wish I could be that good." But in reality, I see a lot of the opposite.

 

Am I being too critical? How do you deal with flying with someone that gives you the impression that they barely know what they are doing? Do you say it or keep your mouth shut and be nice?

What you're seeing is often proportional to the regularity that someone flies.

You fly a lot.  Your mind operates at the speed of Mooney.  You don't let the rust build.

If pilots flew as much as you do, they'd probably be polished like you.

I flew with a guy who was pretty rusty last year.  We flew 3 times in 3 days (probably 15 hours of flying?).  He started with the sloppiness you describe (and you're not too critical!) and he ended with a confident demeanor and able to fly his airplane well.

I wish pilots would get out and fly more often...

It's incredibly awkward when you have to say someone doesn't get their flight review signoff - but it may save their life by going up with you a couple more times and regaining some of the skills they once had.

[201er]

43 minutes ago, Parker_Woodruff said:

What you're seeing is often proportional to the regularity that someone flies.

I wish pilots would get out and fly more often...

The rustier you are, the more imperative it is to diligently use the checklist! Rusty is not holding altitude to +/-50 or drifting a bit on heading and stuff like that. These things get improved with some extra flight hours. I even notice it in myself. By the end of my recent 30+ hour Caribbean trip I was flying better than when I left.

But forgetting to take off the pitot cover? Not setting DG? Not sumping tanks? This can be instantly remembered through use of checklist!

[Shadrach]

On April 1, 2016 at 8:25 PM, Yooper Rocketman said:

Your kidding right?

Sorry, I just had to poke the pig.

Tom

Dear God man, What's up with that "John Holmes" thrust lever??? It's a friggin' IVP, there's no need to over compensate.  It looks like that thing is actually obscuring the panel.  If that's out of the standard Lancair parts bin, I'd take advantage of the "flexibility" of building an EXP and pitch that monstrosity... I've seen more understated crowbars.

[carusoam]

Ross,

After pushing it all the way in, Yooper may need to reach for it from the back seat to adjust it...

'Chewy, make the jump to light speed' is the phrase that comes to mind.

Best regards,

-a-

[PTK]

5 hours ago, Hyett6420 said:

I like the idea but to be honest I know a few pilots that I would not let lose in VFR in anything but a 152 let alone IMC. 

I DO DO DO believe that every pilot should have at least 5 hours crap weather experience before they get their PPLs. Why, well just because you can fly under the hood, that is totally different to being in the soup or that bad viz day into the sun back from the beach in France etc.  

Andrew

The IR teaches discipline and precision flying by the numbers. Isn't this what we all want?!

While nothing is absolute, I believe a current instrument rated pilot is, on the average, a more disciplined and safer pilot.

[Shadrach]

To Mike's original post.  I can appreciate some of the stuff you're talking about.  However, you should keep something in mind.  Most pilots don't fly with other pilots often and the times that they do, likely involves an IPC or a FR. Bottom line is that people perform differently when under the microscope.  Just having another aviator in the plane may take the performance level of the PF down a few notches.  I have a number of pilots in my family, all of them are more experienced than me and a couple of them are turbine pros as well as CFIIs.  All of them are thoughtful and talented pilots, none of them is immune to doing something boneheaded.  What's odd is how differently I feel with each of them in the plane with me.  There is one who is an ATP with about 15,000hrs who has flown all over the world in various types of aircraft. I am always on edge with him in the plane and my performance suffers. It's an odd dynamic that is also complicated by our non-aviation relationship.  I would hate to have my skills as a pilot evaluated solely on my performance with this particular individual.  Conversely, I perform at an elevated level with the other ATP in my family on board. He did my last flight review and it went beautifully.  I nailed all of the maneuvers and even hit my own wake on both steep turn demos. Unfortunately, I can tell that he is bit uneasy in the left seat when we fly together. Why? Who knows?  He has 7000hrs,  several type ratings and about 11 pilots working under him professionally and yet he gets a little rattled by little old 1000hr me.  

My dad has about 3000hrs with over 2000 in Mooneys. However, most of his time was accrued in the 60s, 70s, and 80s. I'd be surprised if he logged more than 500hrs in the last 20 years.  He does not fly much anymore and almost never alone. We tend to butt heads because he learned things one way a long time ago and has not really ever evolved to more modern methods. This means I have to bite my tongue when he does things like reduce to 25"/2500 at 1000 feet for "the climb". He has however, given up on turning the prop through by hand before start up... 

The moral here is that while it may be that you are unlucky enough to fly with the worst of our ranks, it may also be that the pilot is rattled by your presence and is letting it affect his/her performance.  

[Shadrach]

7 hours ago, PTK said:

The IR teaches discipline and precision flying by the numbers. Isn't this what we all want?!

While nothing is absolute, I believe a current instrument rated pilot is, on the average, a more disciplined and safer pilot.

I don't disagree with you, but all work and no play makes Jack a dull boy. Instrument training makes for a better pilot, but so does aerobatic training.   I am a numbers guy, but I/m not really interested in being a systems manager unless I have to.  I watched a video the other day of an Ovation pilot treating his Mooney like it was an A380. He was very organized and precise.  A long and tedious run up, Autopilot on as soon as the gear was up. A check list (sometimes a "do list") for every configuration change.  5 mile pattern never exceeding 30° of bank.  He then proceeded to float down the first 1500' of runway (which is perfectly acceptable to some).  These airplanes are like personal airliners, but as much as we might wish to be "Captain", they are single engine, GA aircraft. Keep it simple. My check lists are right on the panel, and are as short as possible.  If I'm going somewhere in the boonies poking holes in the sky below 3000' AGL, I'll do as I chose within the regs.  Unless it's a training flight, I couldn't give two $hits if my right seater thinks I should be on course and +/-100'.  I often fly in some of the busiest airspace in the country and get plenty of practice being on alt and heading while being watched by both the feds and the military.  

[ArtVandelay]

Reducing to 25/2500 is how i was taught, M20J POH states 26/2600 for a normal climb.

[Mooneymite]

16 minutes ago, teejayevans said:

.....M20J POH states 26/2600 for a normal climb.

As does my C POH.

But what would a manufacturer know about operating an airplane? 

[midlifeflyer]

9 hours ago, PTK said:

Let's see...VFR only pilot launching into marginal VFR with an inop AI and a CFI urging him to go!  That's a good one! You just can't make this stuff up!

I knew I had the link somewhere. http://ntsb.gov/_layouts/ntsb.aviation/brief.aspx?ev_id=20001208X05581&key=1  A real shame.

I propose a change in how we train pilots. We should do away with the VFR/IFR distinction. All pilots should be trained on instruments and graduate with an IR. Period.

That right seat passenger? A CFI who presumably had an instrument rating. The problem with your proposal is that, at least according to the literature out there, an instrument rating does not prevent a VFR into IMC accident. Apparently, if you are thinking "VFR flight" you are in a completely different mindset to begin with.

 

[bradp]

1 hour ago, Shadrach said:

I don't disagree with you, but all work and no play makes Jack a dull boy. Instrument training makes for a better pilot, but so does aerobatic training.   I am a numbers guy, but I/m not really interested in being a systems manager unless I have to.  I watched a video the other day of an Ovation pilot treating his Mooney like it was an A380. He was very organized and precise.  A long and tedious run up, Autopilot on as soon as the gear was up. A check list (sometimes a "do list") for every configuration change.  5 mile pattern never exceeding 30° of bank.  He then proceeded to float down the first 1500' of runway (which is perfectly acceptable to some).  These airplanes are like personal airliners, but as much as we might wish to be "captain", they are Single engine, GA aircraft. Keep it simple, My check lists are right on the panel, and are as short as possible.  If I'm going somewhere in the boonies poking holes in the sky below 3000' AGL, I'll do as I chose within the regs.  Unless it's a training flight, I couldn't give two $hits if my right seater thinks I should be on course and +/-100'.  I often fly in some of the busiest airspace in the country and get plenty of practice being on alt and heading while being watched by both the feds and the military.  

I'm in agreement with Ross.  Fly as you will when burning holes in the sky.  I initially had a checklist for everything much like the dude referred to in the video above.  Then I flew a bit with a friend who questioned why I had so many checklists- just fly the darn plane he said.  Where I have arrived is a hybrid.  I have exactly three checklists 1-preflight 2-takeoff (which is emblazzened on the panel and 3- landing (which is also printed on the panel).  During critical phases of flight I ask out loud what can kill us now (I try to do so silently if any passengers but my wife and copilot and overall good sport) are in the plane.  That makes you double check trim setting, fuel selector etc even through you've run the checklist.  

Yes there are a number of non normals that I keep, as well as a pdf of speeds and power settings, but all other flying is with flows.  Personally this works and I think I'm safer with this method, but I could see how another might question my lack of airline style checklists and callouts in my 159kt 2700lb airplane.   

[Shadrach]

40 minutes ago, Mooneymite said:

As does my C POH.

But what would a manufacturer know about operating an airplane? 

 

1 hour ago, teejayevans said:

Reducing to 25/2500 is how i was taught, M20J POH states 26/2600 for a normal climb.

And the Dinos reveal themselves!

By all means gents, party like it's 1982 er..uh..196X for Mooneymite.  My F POH also says 25/2500. But my own testing shows it to be sub optimal. 25"/2500 is hotter, slower to alt and likely burns more fuel...brilliant!  My POH is also so full of typos and inconsistencies that I think they subbed the work out the Kerville Elementary School.  

The fact is that the factory has evolved (kicking and screaming) a great deal on engine management over the last 3 decades and our aircraft (at least most) are far better instrumented then they were just 25 years ago...or say what Lycoming is currently using to test engines.   

I can't speak to what works on C models.  It seems to me that either cooling or FF was never well sorted by "the factory". But then I think 400° is hot. That's 100° margin below what "the factory" says is redline.  I have read absolutely asinine statements put out by Lycoming.  I can't speak to what they know and don't now, only to what they say.

Both Bill Wheat and Bob Kromer both have put in writing during their airplane evaluations that climbing at reduced power has no upside. (those crazy progressives probably wore ANR headsets too)  By all means prop open that 30 to 50 year old POH and take it as gospel... I have some old Encyclopedia Britannicas from the 30s if you're interested.  They make for interesting reading, but I'd likely check a few other sources before taking all of the information at face value...

I wonder what Curtis put in the POH of the Jenny...I wonder if perhaps some of it might now be dated.

 

[jetdriven]

1 hour ago, Mooneymite said:

As does my C POH.

But what would a manufacturer know about operating an airplane? 

it just wont die will it, here we go again

 

They didnt have digital engine monitors 30 years ago, and now we know more.  Testwest did a vey nice thesis paper on Vz climb, (which involves full throttle, 2700 RPM, and target EGT.)   It resulted in the same fuel burn to cruise altitude, lower temperatures, and an extra twenty knots in the climb, for free.  Yes, free.  I think you gave up 18% of your performance in the climb by pulling the prop back to 2500 RPM.

Edited April 18, 2016 by jetdriven

[Mooneymite]

Just now, jetdriven said:

it just wont die will it, here we go again

Calm down, guys.  I don't use 26 squared.  I was just commenting.

It's the old traditionalists versus the progressives thing.  There's just no middle ground.  

Resurrecting the ANR thing, flying back from E.Carolina today, my wife was wearing the Bose completely oblivious (happily!) to the leaking door seal.  I heard it immediately and soon discovered "something" stuck in the door seal.

The reason one wears ANR is to reduce sound.  She (sitting right next to the door) didn't hear a thing, I did.  I am hugely entertained by hearing the ANR true believers tell me what they hear!  I think to myself....how could they possibly know WHAT they're missing!  

Carry on, Gentlemen.

Edited April 18, 2016 by Mooneymite

[Shadrach]

19 minutes ago, bradp said:

I'm in agreement with Ross.  Fly as you will when burning holes in the sky.  I initially had a checklist for everything much like the dude referred to in the video above.  Then I flew a bit with a friend who questioned why I had so many checklists- just fly the darn plane he said.  Where I have arrived is a hybrid.  I have exactly three checklists 1-preflight 2-takeoff (which is emblazzened on the panel and 3- landing (which is also printed on the panel).  During critical phases of flight I ask out loud what can kill us now (I try to do so silently if any passengers but my wife and copilot and overall good sport) are in the plane.  That makes you double check trim setting, fuel selector etc even through you've run the checklist.  

Yes there are a number of non normals that I keep, as well as a pdf of speeds and power settings, but all other flying is with flows.  Personally this works and I think I'm safer with this method, but I could see how another might question my lack of airline style checklists and callouts in my 159kt 2700lb airplane.   

Be precise! it's 2740!

The thing that scares me most is one day missing a tank change with partial fuel and losing power in the patten or on short final. It's why I am ademant about concentrating all remaining fuel in one tank on long XCs.  It's the weekend partial fuel,1.5hr, $100 hamburger with other folks on board that I worry about. It's easy to get casual. Too casual can end with an Oh$hit moment...

[201er]

11 hours ago, PTK said:

Let's see...VFR only pilot launching into marginal VFR with an inop AI and a CFI urging him to go!  That's a good one! You just can't make this stuff up!

I propose a change in how we train pilots. We should do away with the VFR/IFR distinction. All pilots should be trained on instruments and graduate with an IR. Period. 

Or just don't let doctors/dentists fly airplanes. Either would do a lot for the GA safety record...

[PTK]

3 hours ago, midlifeflyer said:

I knew I had the link somewhere. http://ntsb.gov/_layouts/ntsb.aviation/brief.aspx?ev_id=20001208X05581&key=1  A real shame.

 

 

That right seat passenger? A CFI who presumably had an instrument rating. The problem with your proposal is that, at least according to the literature out there, an instrument rating does not prevent a VFR into IMC accident. Apparently, if you are thinking "VFR flight" you are in a completely different mindset to begin with.

 

You are correct, however, VFR into IMC would probably have a more benign outcome if the pilot is IR. We need to change the "mindset." What better way than revamping pilot training! Graduate all pilots with an IR. I'd go a step further. Have a mandatory comprehensive and all encompassing BFR that includes an IPC, with an FAA designated examiner. This in addition to the currency requirements.

[PTK]

4 hours ago, Shadrach said:

I don't disagree with you, but all work and no play makes Jack a dull boy. Instrument training makes for a better pilot, but so does aerobatic training.   I am a numbers guy, but I/m not really interested in being a systems manager unless I have to.  I watched a video the other day of an Ovation pilot treating his Mooney like it was an A380. He was very organized and precise.  A long and tedious run up, Autopilot on as soon as the gear was up. A check list (sometimes a "do list") for every configuration change.  5 mile pattern never exceeding 30° of bank.  He then proceeded to float down the first 1500' of runway (which is perfectly acceptable to some).  These airplanes are like personal airliners, but as much as we might wish to be "captain", they are Single engine, GA aircraft. Keep it simple, My check lists are right on the panel, and are as short as possible.  If I'm going somewhere in the boonies poking holes in the sky below 3000' AGL, I'll do as I chose within the regs.  Unless it's a training flight, I couldn't give two $hits if my right seater thinks I should be on course and +/-100'.  I often fly in some of the busiest airspace in the country and get plenty of practice being on alt and heading while being watched by both the feds and the military.  

Being organized and precise are very good traits for a pilot to have. 

 

[Shadrach]

1 hour ago, PTK said:

Being organized and precise are very good traits for a pilot to have. 

 

Agreed, but so it is also good to be proficient and flexible when your plan is upset.

 

 

[midlifeflyer]

10 hours ago, PTK said:

You are correct, however, VFR into IMC would probably have a more benign outcome if the pilot is IR. We need to change the "mindset." What better way than revamping pilot training! Graduate all pilots with an IR. I'd go a step further. Have a mandatory comprehensive and all encompassing BFR that includes an IPC, with an FAA designated examiner. This in addition to the currency requirements.

You are welcome to your desire to create more rules and regulations for other people to follow and pay for. I don't see how forcing the extra hours and expense will help the poor decision-making that generally leads to VFR into IMC accidents, except perhaps by acting a disincentive for people to learn to or continue to fly at all, so I'll pass on that one.

[Hank]

10 hours ago, PTK said:

You are correct, however, VFR into IMC would probably have a more benign outcome if the pilot is IR. We need to change the "mindset." What better way than revamping pilot training! Graduate all pilots with an IR. I'd go a step further. Have a mandatory comprehensive and all encompassing BFR that includes an IPC, with an FAA designated examiner. This in addition to the currency requirements.

This will significantly reduce accident numbers by significantly reducing pilot numbers. But I don't think it will reduce the accident rate (# accidents / # hours flown).

Nall Report data contradicts your thoughts about IFR pilots doing VFR into IMC. Nice speculation, next time bring data. 

[PTK]

17 minutes ago, midlifeflyer said:

You are welcome to your desire to create more rules and regulations for other people to follow and pay for. I don't see how forcing the extra hours and expense will help the poor decision-making that generally leads to VFR into IMC accidents, except perhaps by acting a disincentive for people to learn to or continue to fly at all, so I'll pass on that one.

 

8 minutes ago, Hank said:

This will significantly reduce accident numbers by significantly reducing pilot numbers. But I don't think it will reduce the accident rate (# accidents / # hours flown).

Nall Report data contradicts your thoughts about IFR pilots doing VFR into IMC. Nice speculation, next time bring data. 

Why don't we try it and if it doesn't work change it! A 10 year "pilot" program. Nothing wrong with trying a new "approach!" (Puns intended!) Build some data and see where we go from there! Change is good!

Hank, what you said is interesting. Reduce accident numbers by reducing pilot numbers. Is that a bad thing necessarily? Or maybe it will not reduce pilot numbers. Why do you think it will? Folks who think it's a burden maybe should not be flying! I don't know, I'm thinking as I'm typing!