Complex Endorsement Training Time

[Douglas]

3 types. The third is those who won't.

flukes

 

[jrh]

There are two types of GA pilots, those who have landed gear and those who will.

That's like saying, "There are two types of pilots. Those who have crashed and those who will."

I hear the same kind of nonsense about flying tailwheels and ground looping.

The fact is, if a person gets good training and adheres to good procedures, there is no reason they have to crash, ground loop, or in this case, land gear up in their entire lifetime.

 

[Douglas]

That's like saying, "There are two types of pilots. Those who have crashed and those who will."

I hear the same kind of nonsense about flying tailwheels and ground looping.

The fact is, if a person gets good training and adheres to good procedures, there is no reason they have to crash, ground loop, or in this case, land gear up in their entire lifetime.

Oh,I don't know anything about tailwheel, but I honestly disagree with the bold. I watch the 182RG retract and just wonder, how?

Along a long enough time line, we all will have gear problems. Landing gear up is not always a pilot simply forgetting to put them down. It's:
-Failing to get down and locked (malfunctions) (2)
- Retracting the gear instead of the flaps on the runway (1)
- during emergency's not gear related, your mind is else where. (2)
- Disabling the auto-gear extension in the practice area (1)

I have personally been around or involved in six. I have not been in this game very long. Very few of the operations that take place around me are complex, 6 is a huge percentage.
I don't think I am being pessimistic, it is a simple fact that along a long enough time line, it will happen to all of us flying GA complex, and it is not as simple as remembering to put the gear down.

My two cents
It's worth about two cents.

 

[Blackhawk]

While we all like to snicker at the silliness of FOI, this is a classic case where helping a pilot get over the rote stage of learning, to the understanding, the application... then correlation will help him not just to understand the Arrow, but assist him in being able to understand the systems on a 172RG and get him the flying techniques that will keep him out of trouble in the RG. For example, with the propeller, don't just go over the specifics of the Arrow, but point out how most modern airplanes use an identical system- although there are some out there that are different. Same with the electrical system- most are similar (with the exception of being 12 or 24 volts). Landing gear systems may be different, but it is a good opportunity to cover the different types and some of the pitfalls/advantages of different landing gear systems (electrical, mechanical, hydro/electrical, etc). Same with fuel systems... especially since fuel problems are one of the leading causes of crashses; and not just running out of fuel, but not understanding the fuel system and not being able to access all of it. Get some information on the RG and try to tie in the similarities and differences during the training.
You can not cover every possibility during a complex endorsement, but you can cover some of the common things a pilot is likely to see. Remember, the day after you sign him off, the pilot will be legal to fly ANY complex airplane.

 

[jrh]

Along a long enough time line, we all will have gear problems. Landing gear up is not always a pilot simply forgetting to put them down. It's:
-Failing to get down and locked (malfunctions) (2)
- Retracting the gear instead of the flaps on the runway (1)
- during emergency's not gear related, your mind is else where. (2)
- Disabling the auto-gear extension in the practice area (1)

Ok, I agree with you that anything man-made will at some point in time break, so you have a valid point about mechanical issues. Even then, proper maintenance goes a long way though (and it seems many aircraft owners want to pinch pennies in this area). This applies to the first and third issues above.

The rest is pilot error and should not happen if the pilot adheres to good procedures. If the pilot is trained to *always* *always* *always* check gear down and locked at key points...say, after initial extension, upon entering the pattern, and on final (this is how I usually teach it), how can they land gear up? This applies to the fourth situation you listed.

As for the second situation, that's a classic example of why a pilot should never touch anything until stopped and clear of the runway unless there's a very good reason for it.

I have personally been around or involved in six. I have not been in this game very long. Very few of the operations that take place around me are complex, 6 is a huge percentage.

Wow. I don't know. That's some terrible luck. Honestly, I've never personally seen or known anyone who's gone in gear up. At my old college we flew two Piper Arrows several hundred hours per year and I don't think anyone had ever landed gear up in the history of the program...or if they had, it was long in the past, well before my time. In other words, we had thousands of hours of incident-free operation of those aircraft.

If anything, I'd consider your experience an example of areas that need improved in general aviation--training and maintenance. It's not proof RG aircraft by definition will be landed gear up at some point in time.

 

[mshunter]

Ok, I agree with you that anything man-made will at some point in time break, so you have a valid point about mechanical issues. Even then, proper maintenance goes a long way though (and it seems many aircraft owners want to pinch pennies in this area). This applies to the first and third issues above.

The rest is pilot error and should not happen if the pilot adheres to good procedures. If the pilot is trained to *always* *always* *always* check gear down and locked at key points...say, after initial extension, upon entering the pattern, and on final (this is how I usually teach it), how can they land gear up? This applies to the fourth situation you listed.

As for the second situation, that's a classic example of why a pilot should never touch anything until stopped and clear of the runway unless there's a very good reason for it.



Wow. I don't know. That's some terrible luck. Honestly, I've never personally seen or known anyone who's gone in gear up. At my old college we flew two Piper Arrows several hundred hours per year and I don't think anyone had ever landed gear up in the history of the program...or if they had, it was long in the past, well before my time. In other words, we had thousands of hours of incident-free operation of those aircraft.

If anything, I'd consider your experience an example of areas that need improved in general aviation--training and maintenance. It's not proof RG aircraft by definition will be landed gear up at some point in time.

Agree with you on this one-----very strongly------. Maint' issues are not a good enough reason to justify the cause. I have been around aviation for a long time. And I have never been present for a gear up. Like what was expressed earlier, if you prepare a pilot for a gear problem on ever landing, they will expect tha failure, and know how to deal with it when it happens.

On a side not, when the gear does fail, and you can't get it down, kill the engine on short final. Overhauling an engine because of sudden stopage is very very expensive. Where I work, there is about 7-8 props collected over the course of 60-ish years in the maint. hanger. Boss man tells us instructors that if for anyreason we can't get the 182's legs to lock, fly an approach that will allow us to get'er shut down on final.

Last thing you say when walking away from the plane after a gear up, "I had three green!"

 

[Roger, Roger]

On a side not, when the gear does fail, and you can't get it down, kill the engine on short final. Overhauling an engine because of sudden stopage is very very expensive. Where I work, there is about 7-8 props collected over the course of 60-ish years in the maint. hanger. Boss man tells us instructors that if for anyreason we can't get the 182's legs to lock, fly an approach that will allow us to get'er shut down on final.

Screw that. That's what insurance is for. IF everything is lookin' good, I MIGHT get around to killing the engine. Or if there is another person in the other seat, get them to do it. Why change things up? Just makes more chances for something else to go wrong.

 

[jrh]

On a side not, when the gear does fail, and you can't get it down, kill the engine on short final. Overhauling an engine because of sudden stopage is very very expensive. Where I work, there is about 7-8 props collected over the course of 60-ish years in the maint. hanger. Boss man tells us instructors that if for anyreason we can't get the 182's legs to lock, fly an approach that will allow us to get'er shut down on final.

I hope you're kidding. This is absolutely what should ***not*** be done. Pulling this kind of crap has gotten people killed.

If you shut down the engine you just took one emergency (gear won't extend) and turned it in to two emergencies (gear won't extend with an engine failure on top).

We buy insurance for a reason. Your job as a pilot is to get the plane on the ground safely. Period. Don't screw around trying to be a hero to save the insurance company's money. Money should be the absolutely last thing on your mind during an abnormal situation.


Read this article to learn more about why I feel so strongly about this type of situation. Print it off and show it to your boss as well:

http://www.avweb.com/news/pilotlounge/188627-1.html

 

[Douglas]

Maint' issues are not a good enough reason to justify the cause.

That don't ain't make no sense.

On a side not, when the gear does fail, and you can't get it down, kill the engine on short final.

For the love, stop teaching your students that. If you feel tall enough you can try it yourself but the number one rule of flight instruction, "fly the airplane."

 

[Roger, Roger]

Thanks for posting that link, jrh.

 

[IslandFlyer]

Thanks for posting that link. Very interesting and informative!

 

[mshunter]

I think you are all missing the point. When the runway is maid, and the landing is assured, pull the throttle to idle, and the mixture to idle cut-off. But, after reading your article, I think I will pass this on to the boss. It's a little different in a single than a twin, as we practice power off approaches, but, this article made me think twice, and hopefully it does him to.

BTW, anyone notice the 172RG in the picture was from American Flyers? LOL

 

[MikeD]

I look at this one in two ways, only because I believe there are not too many absolutes in aviation. Good article, btw. Here's my take:

1. I agree with you that there's no reason to make one emergency into two. And yes, insurance is there for a reason, as well as $$$ being the last thing on your mind. Excellent points. Pilots should concentrate on this one situation at hand, since it defines "non-standard", obviously. My only caveat, and it's a very loose caveat, is next:

2. IF, and I capatalize that, IF you feel you are ahead of the aircraft enough, IF you've thought this through before in reviews while practicing in ground orals, IF you've planned ahead for aircraft control purposes and have a good idea what to expect, and IF you have the experience to do something like this, and you feel like minimizing damage to the aircraft. ONLY if all the aforementioned prerequisites are met, should you try to attempt to do this. DO NOT: sacrifice aircraft control to do this, add to workload if you do not have the mental brain bytes left to do so, or if you haven't planned or thought ahead of time on this. It can be done, but as I'm telling you (and the article reinforces) it can't really be done successfully "on the fly"....[it could, but that's depending on luck, not skill], and truthfully, really only will work with a two blade prop aircraft, for aircraft where the prop/engine would get damaged anyway from a gear up.

LOTS of if's there. Just know, if you want to do this, it can be done. DO not take it lightly, though. More often than not, it's not something the average pilot will want to do.

I hope you're kidding. This is absolutely what should ***not*** be done. Pulling this kind of crap has gotten people killed.

If you shut down the engine you just took one emergency (gear won't extend) and turned it in to two emergencies (gear won't extend with an engine failure on top).

We buy insurance for a reason. Your job as a pilot is to get the plane on the ground safely. Period. Don't screw around trying to be a hero to save the insurance company's money. Money should be the absolutely last thing on your mind during an abnormal situation.


Read this article to learn more about why I feel so strongly about this type of situation. Print it off and show it to your boss as well:

http://www.avweb.com/news/pilotlounge/188627-1.html

 

[29.92inHg]

As far as I know,most singles don't feather, so you would still have a prop spinning into the runway, therefore still damaging the engine, so on a single whats the point. For that matter when a twin has no power it has the glide ratio of a rock, so I can't see any benifit to shutting them down. That article posted above really demonstrates that problem.

I do, however, get shutting off the fuel after you have touched down to deal witht he fire aspect of it all.

I hope I didn't bite off more than I can chew for my first post.

 

[MikeD]

As far as I know,most singles don't feather, so you would still have a prop spinning into the runway, therefore still damaging the engine, so on a single whats the point. For that matter when a twin has no power it has the glide ratio of a rock, so I can't see any benifit to shutting them down. That article posted above really demonstrates that problem.

I do, however, get shutting off the fuel after you have touched down to deal witht he fire aspect of it all.

I hope I didn't bite off more than I can chew for my first post.

No worries, good info you're posting!

 

[Roger, Roger]

For that matter when a twin has no power it has the glide ratio of a rock, so I can't see any benifit to shutting them down. That article posted above really demonstrates that problem.

:yeahthat:
Like I said, if you've got another person in the plane who can kill them while you're flaring, then maybe. Even then, if it's the school's/company's plane I'll prolly let their insurance and maintenance sort it out. If it was my plane...I'm afraid I'd be more tempted to do something out of the ordinary just to keep it from being down for too long.

 

[mooneyguy]

There are two types of GA pilots, those who have landed gear and those who will.

An endorsement at my school is a non event because our insurance says that they need 15 hours time in type (182RG).
At my last school, I always said 10 hours. If they get if before then great; it is better to say 10 hours and do it in 8. They really hate it when you say 8 and do it in 10.

Just because the student can physically go through the motions, it doesn't mean that it is ingrained in his thought process.
Our 182 has been gear-up twice. The complex endorsement shouldn't be taken lightly.

I dont buy into that statement! I hear it from time to time, but IMO being in a gear up accident is not something I believe WILL happen to everyone who flys a RG aircraft.

 

[jrh]

Even then, if it's the school's/company's plane I'll prolly let their insurance and maintenance sort it out. If it was my plane...I'm afraid I'd be more tempted to do something out of the ordinary just to keep it from being down for too long.

I think one of the hardest things to learn in professional flying is to not care.

What I mean is that I try to operate in the same way and to the same standards no matter if I'm flying my own plane, a school plane, an owner plane, or a jump plane. All of those operations have different external pressures involved, but the pilot has to keep safe and legal operations as the top priority no matter what. Time, money, etc. don't matter, but especially so in an emergency. When I have a tough decision to make, I have to force myself to not care about anything except keeping it safe and legal.

Another way to think of this principle is to ask yourself, "If I had to explain my actions to a fed, would I be ok?" The feds don't care who owns what or how long it'll be down for. They only want to see the pilot take the safest course of action at all times.

Fly like you train and train like you fly. Don't do something a certain way in training or for a checkride, then go and change it in your day to day flying. It's either a good way to operate or it isn't.

 

[mooneyguy]

I say "going through the motions" because he knows that he's going to buy a Cessna, and he knows the gear and flaps work differently in the Cessna than the Arrow that we're flying.

Normally, my flight school would require 10 hours of dual and the student would get their endorsement at the end of the 10 hours. He doesn't want to spend 10 hours of training time in a plane he can't fly solo (not enough TT for insurance co.), just to get his endorsement, and I understand that. I can understand why he wouldn't necessarily want to learn all about an Arrow, when he knows he's going to be flying a Cessna. I'm not really sure why he's getting his complex in the Arrow in the first place. I told him that it would be better (maybe I should say more applicable) if he learned from someone that had a Cessna RG, but he didn't seem interested. I also tried to explain to him that even with a complex endorsement, his insurance company is probably going to require him to fly with an instructor in his own plane because of his low TT.

I think he is learning about the systems in the Arrow to a certain extent, it just seems like he wants to hurry up and get through this so he can move on.

Who said that? I don't think I or anyone else here did.

post #11 "student would get their endorsement at the end of the 10 hours"

 

[MikeD]

Fly like you train and train like you fly. Don't do something a certain way in training or for a checkride, then go and change it in your day to day flying. It's either a good way to operate or it isn't.

Another way of saying this is never do the 3 D's...anything Dumb/Dangerous/Different.