Autothrust Blue
Welcome aboard the Washington State Ferries
My first Twin Bonanza takeoff was an eyebrow-raising experience.
(That is, both of them simultaneously—that's a different kind of eyebrow-raising than, say, Santa Fe on a hot summer day.)
Still fly recreationally after becoming a professional pilot?
- Thread starter erndollas
- Start date
(That is, both of them simultaneously—that's a different kind of eyebrow-raising than, say, Santa Fe on a hot summer day.)
Hacker15e
Who am I? Where are my pants?
Interestingly enough, even after so many years flying pointy-nose kerosene burners, I find enormous joy in putting around in GA airplanes.
Lately I've been flying around with @uncreative in a 172 doing basic instrument stuff and it has been an absolute blast.
I've said this before on JC (and it received a notably bad reception), but I think 121 companies should also own a fleet of Decathlons and make their Captains have a monthly currency to go fly acro and get tailwheel landings. I'm still amazed that we have airline pilots out there who've never been upside-down in an airplane, and I think the automation-induced atrophy of stick-and-rudder airmanship (see Air France 447, et al) would be well countered by horsing a taildragger around the pattern.
Failing that, I think it is the professional responsibility of pilots who carry pax for a living to make their airmanship experience bucket as deep as possible. That means they should be out doing non-121 flying in the most non-121 types possible: gliders, acro, seaplanes, etc.
If I remember right, the answer I received from the JC 121 crowd was something to the effect of, "if my airline wanted me to have that kind of experience, they'd include it in my training."
Because, after all, no pilot has ever had to deal with a situation that wasn't covered in formal training.
Last edited:
High_Alpha
Well-Known Member
That'd be nice, but they'd better include FOs. Would definitely put a different face on "recurrent."
jtrain609
Antisocial Monster
Bro, I'm paid $23,000 a year to fly an airliner around, and I have 11-12 days off per month. When I'm not at work, I'm chasing my kid around, and spending that entire $23,000 on her.
I'm sure you can understand that I'm not sinking my entire paycheck back into the professional development that has been advocated for on the internets.
High_Alpha
Well-Known Member
Yes, when it takes about 5 hours' pay to rent a 172 for an hour...
jtrain609
Antisocial Monster
FIFY.
Autothrust Blue
Welcome aboard the Washington State Ferries
Maybe it's time to put 'pilot' back in my job title.That'd be nice, but they'd better include FOs. Would definitely put a different face on "recurrent."
High_Alpha
Well-Known Member
Uh, sorry, having trouble with the inference.... say again?
Autothrust Blue
Welcome aboard the Washington State Ferries
"First officer."
Hacker15e
Who am I? Where are my pants?
Yeah, understand your point. We all have choices to make.
Besides, I'm not even talking about the financial viability of it (hence why I said I thought the company should foot the bill). I'm talking about the mindset that says your professional skill and experience are not only your livelihood but also your lifeblood when you get into a dangerous aviation situation (and hence it is in your interest to cultivate those skills).
Personally, my wife and kids are exactly *the* reason why I want to have deep experience to pull on when that dark day comes and an Al Haynes or Chesley Sullenberger situation gets dropped on my lap. I've been in no kidding "I'm about to die" situations in an airplane, and the singular thing I wished in the immediate minutes after surviving was that I'd spent more time studying my systems/threats/tactics and practicing how to do whatever I needed to do to live. Aviators don't get to choose when they'll need to dig into their airmanship bucket (like deferring it until income is better) or even what kinds of skills they'll need when that day arrives.
And FWIW, I'm also supporting a family of 4 on my single income. I'm probably going to be well behind you on a regional seniority list in the next year, too. I don't have money to be throwing at unimportant stuff, either (and nowhere am I advocating "sinking [your] entire paycheck" into such experience). I just prioritize being as good at my craft as possible, because that's what's going to help me get home safe at night. If that takes time and money, then that has to be part of the compromise in my time and money budget.
Cherokee_Cruiser
Bronteroc
That can work against you in some cases. Lets not forget the rouge AA training guys who were former F4 fighter pilots that wrote an unusual upset/recovery course for AA's A300 fleet and recommended basically F14 procedures for an A300 widebody airliner. The NTSB particularly came down hard on this kind of training. No, you cant teach pilots that you are going to put them in a 90 degree bank because that was a wake turbulence encounter. No widebody airliner has ever flipped like that for wake turbulence. Nor can you teach them to use the rudder like that either. Similarly, you can't apply Decathlon methods on an Airbus 330. Passenger airliners are not acrobatic aircraft, and if you want to teach unusual attitudes and proper recoveries, then that should be in the level D sim for the A330 (or whatever respective jet the pilot is on).
Cherokee_Cruiser
Bronteroc
?
Are you not a XJT FO anymore? I thought you had several years there. I hope that's not what senior XJT FOs are making.
Hacker15e
Who am I? Where are my pants?
You mean the sims that don't have any data on which to validate the flight models in those attitudes, and thus aren't certified to do any operating there? If the hang up is on learning only aircraft-specific responses and recoveries, then certainly learning control inputs in a realm where the sim has no verified accuracy would be off highly dubious value, if not even actual negative training.
Besides, no sim can recreate the physical sensation of being upside-down, or under G, or any of the physiological elements of being in a real unusual attitude. Just in the same way that a pilot can't fully learn to be an instrument pilot in a simulator because he simply needs to experience the somatic sensations where his body is telling him something is happening other than what is being indicated on the panel.
KLM didn't seem to think that unusual attitude training in an Extra 300 would be negative training:
http://forums.jetcareers.com/threads/klm-upset-training.122773/
Last edited:
Cherokee_Cruiser
Bronteroc
So you're saying that because an Airbus sim might not recognize a flight condition of a deep stall like AF447, that the proper way to deal with it is in an Extra? Not sure I follow. The sim is still valuable. In the A320, we do go to cruise flight, get thrown in alternate law, and then stall the aircraft. We let it develop before recovery just to see what it looks like. I've also had a sim scenario of climbing out and having the pitot probes get blocked to re-created the Northwest Orient B727 scenario. They are all good learning experiences. Now if you wan to provide me an Extra 300S session for acrobat/unusual attitude recoveries, I'd be all for that. If anything, I'd learn a few things (yes, I've never been upside down in a plane, and I fly an A320), have fun, and come out better for having done it.
Hacker15e
Who am I? Where are my pants?
Exactly my point.
CFI A&P
Exploring the world one toilet at a time.
Cherokee_Cruiser
Bronteroc
Yes, but most pilots aren't going to pony the thousands it costs for a typical Extra 300 upset/recovery course. In my case, it isn't worth it. I'd rather fly in the sim in alternate law. Or how about direct law, which I haven't flown in since the type ride. These things are much more important IMO for my line of work than an Extra 300 session.
Cherokee_Cruiser
Bronteroc
uncreative
Well-Known Member
Come on man, I wasn't *that* far below glideslope last night!