Sweatin' the C-172...

[Autothrust Blue]

I'm still a proponent of "fly the airplane you're in." I think the methodologies are not mutually exclusive, and that's an important distinction. Habit patterns of "paperwork / numbers flying" a Cessna can kill you in the same manner that 'seat of the pants' flying can kill you in a much larger airplane. (I presume—my direect experience only runs to slightly larger airplanes at the present time.)

I think I have a compromise approach. It prevents me from/saves me the effort of having two different sets of habits, and all the things I fly now, even for fun, are complex airplanes. (I'm lazy.)

As far as "seat of the pants," I assume you're talking about airmanship. Having an innate awareness of the aircraft's energy state and lateral and vertical flight situations/paths is absolutely essential and it doesn't matter what you're flying—you've got to have it. For what it's worth, even the larger aircraft I've flown have a "feel" to them, and they all talk to you. Some of them are more subtle than others.

Your seat of the pants is often right. If the ball is out of the cage, I'm likely to tell because my ass* is having assymmetric force applied to it, even without putting down, uh, my FOM to look at the ball. And so on.

* you can TOTALLY say that on here

 

[Roger Roger]

I'm still a proponent of "fly the airplane you're in." I think the methodologies are not mutually exclusive, and that's an important distinction. Habit patterns of "paperwork / numbers flying" a Cessna can kill you in the same manner that 'seat of the pants' flying can kill you in a much larger airplane. (I presume—my direect experience only runs to slightly larger airplanes at the present time.)

My answer to anyone who asks me about the numbers on a 207 is a blank stare, but you bet your ass I'd know the numbers cold in a transport category airplane.

I'm not saying I'm right, by the way. I'm saying "my opinion is currently." I don't think one set of habit patterns is correct for all types of flying.

-Fox

Well and all your numbers are bugged for you....

 

[🦈💜]

Well and all your numbers are bugged for you....

Ssh! ;>

-Fox

 

[Autothrust Blue]

Well and all your numbers are bugged for you....

"Airspeed indicator about there crossing the fence"

 

[Roger Roger]

"Airspeed indicator about there crossing the fence"

Tapes. Vx and vy are bugged, Vg is a green dot (to match the green of the glide range ring of the MFD)

 

[Autothrust Blue]

Tapes. Vx and vy are bugged, Vg is a green dot (to match the green of the glide range ring of the MFD)

"GREEN DOT!"

@Derg

 

[TwoTwoLeft]

Yup!

 

[Maurus]

I am a really really big fan of flying the airplane you are in. Not that one you want to be or think you will be someday. The one right now.

I understand that however primacy says it is better to get in the habit of using a checklist.

 

[killbilly]

It says "avoid."

I thought that was only on the older models that had 40 degree flaps. You can do a fair amount of slipping with flaps in the newer 172s, you just lose some rudder authority doing it. Cessna doesn't recommend it but I don't think it's inherently unsafe. I only say this because I was doing some slipping with flaps last night and my CFI said this exact thing to me.

 

[Autothrust Blue]

I thought that was only on the older models that had 40 degree flaps. You can do a fair amount of slipping with flaps in the newer 172s, you just lose some rudder authority doing it. Cessna doesn't recommend it but I don't think it's inherently unsafe. I only say this because I was doing some slipping with flaps last night and my CFI said this exact thing to me.

I know. I'm largely being difficult. "AVOID" is not the same to me as "DON'T DO THIS," you see.

"Meh. I avoided it, for most of the flight..."

 

[killbilly]

I know. I'm largely being difficult. "AVOID" is not the same to me as "DON'T DO THIS," you see.

"Meh. I avoided it, for most of the flight..."

Oh, okay. Cool. I thought maybe I was doing something verboten there for a minute....

 

[Autothrust Blue]

Oh, okay. Cool. I thought maybe I was doing something verboten there for a minute....

All the ones that I've flown (non-40 models) slip just fine with flaps extended. And we're not talking kindergarten crap either, we're talking full-on, rudder buried, forward slip, (something with no flaps) style.

 

[PropSettin']

IMO, the flying the in the military is more difficult but the check rides in the civilian world, especially simulators..much harder.

I have always wanted to know about this! Just curious as to why the civilian side would be harder? I definitely thought it would be the other way around.

 

[Hacker15e]

I have always wanted to know about this! Just curious as to why the civilian side would be harder? I definitely thought it would be the other way around.

Based on my small sample size of civilian-world checkrides (1 x FSI type rating, 3 DPE-administered checkrides), I don't agree. Pretty much every military checkride I've taken (even as a student) has had a higher standard of knowledge and demonstrated performance than any of the civilian checks.

Just as a ballpark example of the differences, for the Fight Safety type ride the examiner listed for me in the briefing the different emergencies he was going to give. In some instances, he was very specific as to when I was going to see them (as in, "on the first attempt we'll see a bus failure, and then on the second we'll have zero oil pressure"), but even the less specific other occasions were pretty well defined ("we'll have an engine fire, and that will lead us into the single-engine precision approach...").

In the USAF, the simulator checks are colloquially called "dial-a-death". The examinee is simply supposed to try and execute a briefed flight plan, and at every step along the way the examiner will randomly drop failures and emergencies in, both to see how the examinee recognizes and interprets the indications given, and also to determine how the examinee will decide to handle the emergency in terms of the conduct of the flight. No guidance is given to the examinee on what is coming, when it is coming, or how the examinee will be expected to resolve the emergency. The emergencies given, too, aren't simple single-failures, but many times complex multiple failure scenarios.

In the fighter community we also have separate "mission checkrides" where we fly a simulated sortie and have various system failures/emergencies thrown at us to see how we will handle them in the context of completing (or not completing) the mission tasked. Those checkrides, too, have various random failures that have varying impacts to mission accomplishment, and we are being evaluated on how we handle both the safety of flight aspect but also continuing or non-continuing missions or portions of missions.

So, not saying that the FAA checkrides I've taken were a walk in the park, but for for me I think the military checks have been notably tougher.

 

[Hacker15e]

I understand that however primacy says it is better to get in the habit of using a checklist.

I don't know that I agree that is true across the board. I have to agree with @z987k, because there are differing standards for different aircraft and different operating conditions. Not all aircraft operations require read-and-execute checklist use, so IMHO such a task does not fall into the category of "law of primacy".

In the 2-seat fighters I have the majority of my time/experience in, I very rarely ever pulled out a checklist and the vast majority of my normal ops were completed from memorized flows.

Yet, I also have a significant amount of time in the military King Air following those thousands of hours of memorized flows, where the expected standard was read-and-execute checklist use. I never had a problem accomplishing that or "accidentally forgetting" to do that, regardless of if under stress or a more simple operation. None of the other fighter background guys in that same aircraft and operating environment did, either, that I'm aware of.

If "primacy" were truly that significant of a factor, then in that scenario we'd expect to see more errors of varying severity.

IMO, a good airman can adapt their airmanship to the aircraft and environment and apply the skills needed for that specific situation.

 

[Maurus]

I don't know that I agree that is true across the board. I have to agree with @z987k, because there are differing standards for different aircraft and different operating conditions. Not all aircraft operations require read-and-execute checklist use, so IMHO such a task does not fall into the category of "law of primacy".

In the 2-seat fighters I have the majority of my time/experience in, I very rarely ever pulled out a checklist and the vast majority of my normal ops were completed from memorized flows.

Yet, I also have a significant amount of time in the military King Air following those thousands of hours of memorized flows, where the expected standard was read-and-execute checklist use. I never had a problem accomplishing that or "accidentally forgetting" to do that, regardless of if under stress or a more simple operation. None of the other fighter background guys in that same aircraft and operating environment did, either, that I'm aware of.

IMO, a good airman can adapt their airmanship to the aircraft and environment and apply the skills needed for that specific situation.

I never said "read and execute". "Flow then check" works just fine and gets people in the habit. I obviously don't know how the AF works with this stuff but every civilian air carrier I know of requires checklist usage after a flow. Flow + checklist is an industry standard for a reason and does help find errors. Flying single pilot I caught errors all the time because of my checklist. I catch errors with the checklists all the time in the crew environment as well.

I understand a simple airplane such as a 172 can easily be flown without a checklist but a small change such as flying primarily fuel injected aircraft and swapping to an old carbureted aircraft can be big in some situations.

As I recall old 172 and 150/2s require carb heat below certain RPMs and will come into play when low and slow (approach to Landing).

Sent from my SM-P600 using Tapatalk

 

[ppragman]

Just as a ballpark example of the differences, for the Fight Safety type ride the examiner listed for me in the briefing the different emergencies he was going to give. In some instances, he was very specific as to when I was going to see them (as in, "on the first attempt we'll see a bus failure, and then on the second we'll have zero oil pressure"), but even the less specific other occasions were pretty well defined ("we'll have an engine fire, and that will lead us into the single-engine precision approach...").

This really depends on who you have giving the checkride. I've had "easy" check rides, and I've had "hard" checkrides, all depending on who's giving them.

Strangely enough, the "hardest" checkride I've ever had was in the Pilatus - arguably one of the world's easiest airplanes to fly, and the easiest checkride I ever had was the single pilot checkride ATP check and 135 checkride in the 1900 in the simulator at FSI. Incidentally, that PC12 checkride was done by a former Navy pilot, was split into half (because the plane had a charter between my flights), it had been over a week since I'd flown the airplane, and was done in a way that was totally different from the way I had been trained. The 1900 checkride was right after Flight Safety, was done in the simulator I had practiced in, and was exactly the profiles and approaches I had been trained to complete. Easy money.

Checkrides aren't supposed to be hard. I'm not under the impression that you are accurately testing a guy's ability if you make it so taxing that it nearly kills him. Things like simultaneous failures of systems, and cascading problems should be demonstrated in training, talked about in the classroom, and reminded at recurrent, mostly because these things aren't what is most likely to kill you. What's going to kill you? CFIT, V1 Cuts and Engine Failures (as rare as they are if they aren't practiced), flying approaches improperly, pressurization problems. If it were me, I'd be testing those things and not much else (which is pretty much what the FAA does check).

 

[Autothrust Blue]

I never said "read and execute". "Flow then check" works just fine and gets people in the habit. I obviously don't know how the AF works with this stuff but every civilian air carrier I know of requires checklist usage after a flow. Flow + checklist is an industry standard for a reason and does help find errors. Flying single pilot I caught errors all the time because of my checklist. I catch errors with the checklists all the time in the crew environment as well.

Do and verify gives you the awareness of the airplane.

Read and do does not.

 

[Hacker15e]

Checkrides aren't supposed to be hard. I'm not under the impression that you are accurately testing a guy's ability if you make it so taxing that it nearly kills him. Things like simultaneous failures of systems, and cascading problems should be demonstrated in training, talked about in the classroom, and reminded at recurrent, mostly because these things aren't what is most likely to kill you. What's going to kill you? CFIT, V1 Cuts and Engine Failures (as rare as they are if they aren't practiced), flying approaches improperly, pressurization problems. If it were me, I'd be testing those things and not much else (which is pretty much what the FAA does check).

While that is your personal philosophy, that's not the USAF's checkride philosophy -- hence the difference in intensity between the two we're discussing. Your experience with the FSI 1900 checkride mirrors mine; several of the sim rides leading up to the checkride were item-for-item rehearsals of the checkride profile. I've never had that with a military checkride, either in the sim or the airplane.

Not arguing which philosophy is better for making a better/more prepared aviator, just noting that there are differences and that those differences, in my opinion, require differing levels of preparation, skill, and performance to pass.

I'm interested to hear @bunk22's experiences and what has led him to see some of the FAA sim checks as more challenging than his military experience. Obviously, military flying communities and services have sometimes significant cultural differences between them, so I'm speaking only from the perspective of the USAF fighter/trainer world and the (rapidly disappearing) MC-12 Liberty.

 

[ryan1234]

While that is your personal philosophy, that's not the USAF's checkride philosophy -- hence the difference in intensity between the two we're discussing. Your experience with the FSI 1900 checkride mirrors mine; several of the sim rides leading up to the checkride were item-for-item rehearsals of the checkride profile. I've never had that with a military checkride, either in the sim or the airplane.

Not arguing which philosophy is better for making a better/more prepared aviator, just noting that there are differences and that those differences, in my opinion, require differing levels of preparation, skill, and performance to pass.

I'm interested to hear @bunk22's experiences and what has led him to see some of the FAA sim checks as more challenging than his military experience. Obviously, military flying communities and services have sometimes significant cultural differences between them, so I'm speaking only from the perspective of the USAF fighter/trainer world and the (rapidly disappearing) MC-12 Liberty.

I think a lot of it has to do with how prepared you are for the check ride. I've had a lot of civilian checkrides and I never once felt as prepared for them as with the military side. The level of performance demand (especially with GK and "airmanship") is higher I believe in the military... However the training programs are structured to prepare you for that.

The civilian world...outside of say 121, FSI, etc checks are just a mixed bag of expectations based loosely on the PTS with an equally mixed bag of training programs and instructors.

So I think it's all relative. There's just a larger delta in the civilian world.