Pitch. Power. Trim.

[Douglas]

I think it is time to go flying.

Somethings in aviation need to be seen from the air.

 

[ppragman]

Clear as mud? Clear as crystal! Thanks. That was one of the most well articulated and structured pieces of thinking I've seen on this subject. Thanks for the "structure" and none of the ego! Exactly what I needed. The 100,000 ft view [first] followed by the rubber meets the road details [second]. Perfect.

Now, is there anyone in disagreement with Ppragman?

He seems to have strategically mapped out my entire question with the structural feedback I was hoping for - mixing the technical with the rubber meets road application.

Thanks again, Ppragman - that was timely and practical and you put your ego aside, to deal with the actual question on the table.

I bet you are a damn good Instructor. Oh, wait a minute - you are from Alaska! That means you must be a damn good pilot to begin with, operating in all those mountains. I guess, in many ways that must be like flying up in high-country Colorado. I actually thought of packing my bags and just finding an Instructor who lives and flies [constantly] in and around high density airport territory and mountains ranges. My theory was that such an Instructor really must understand the concept of energy management, or at the very least, have a better "appreciation" for the same.

My Wife always wanted to cruise to Alaska, anyway. A great excuse for her at least....

Thanks man that means a lot to me, if you need anything ever up norht, send me a PM.

 

[Matt777]

Scary when they try that in a multi...

Power on stall recovery...hmm, why are we yawing....OH CRAP STOP USING AILERONS UNTIL YOU GET US UNSTALLED!!!!

Fortunately the DA42 is pretty uneventful when they try that, it just sort of adverse yaws all over the place.

Yeah the 42 is about as docile as the 40 - and that's saying a lot!

I don't want to even approach spinning in a twin so I brief thoroughly about how keeping the ball centered (since we do it in a turn) is our #1 priority so the airplane has no tendency to spin... if I had just a penny for everytime I said right rudder in a 42 I'd be rich!

For VFR stuff I encourage my students to use the standby instruments since they are closer to the windshield and the glass makes them so heads-down for steep turns etc (so I'm not having htem look down when I say center the ball!)... seems to work great.

Where are you flying the 42?

KBFI here

 

[Approach Control]

I would like to guarantee you a few things (!):

Thanks for the summary input - I think I get what you are saying, here. Much appreciated.

This is my point. Midlifeflyer, among others, say that pitching for altitude and powering for airspeed works in this regime; this clearly shows that it doesn't....

Note that Barry, on page 48, says "It may seem confusing that lowering the nose causes an airplane to climb, but that is the way things work on the back side of the power curve."

One of the very reasons why I created this thread. Not only the lack of intuitiveness within Barry's suggestion, but the fact that if you put 100 CFI's into a room and task them with Barry's story in chapter 6, you might get 50 answers in one direction and 50 answers in the other.

Now, an observant student just starting out on the path of doing his pre-private instruction research, is going to stop himself and ask:

"What the [fill in the blank]! Why is there so much confusion over this?"

When I read Penglis' [The Complete Guide To Flight Instruction], it reinforced the idea of obtaining those conditional Pitch/Power/Trim settings before the hard-core flight instruction begins. Penglis, seems to think that students do themselves a bad turn when they don't take the time out to obtain these values as "baselines" for how to operate their training aircraft.

Not in my view. If you accept that AoA controls airspeed, and that throttle should be the *primary* control of altitude, the front and back sides of the curve are identical.

So, on the back-side the pilot can count of positive dynamic stability?

If it is true that the airflow about the airfoil [wings] is what provides the "measure" or "degree" of positive dynamic stability, then won't [by definition] the back-side provide diminished returns for such stability built into the aircraft by the designer - regardless of whether or not I get on the back-side and apply more power or more pitch? I mean, the fact that on the back-side, my airspeed does not allow for the proper amount of relative wind to interact with the airfoil in such a way as to enable the designer's goal of positive dynamic stability - does that make the front and back-side of the curve, dissimilar and not similar?

Let me give you my humble opinion, no you should not expect this from your instructor. The CFI that I did my initial CFI certification with called this "monkey see, monkey do" method of training....

Thanks for the reply, MNFlyGuy.

When I ask for Pitch/Power/Trim values for a particular aircraft, I'm not necessarily thinking that "only" those numbers should, could or would be flown at all times and under all conditions and/or circumstances.

Most people out there obtaining their Private, don't have high performance goals beyond that. I've got no problem with that. Others, are learning to fly and have plans to become a 747 Captain someday, but they still don't know if it will ever happen for them.

I know that I've got to go from C-172 to SJ30-2 and the ViperJet. I know that's where I'm headed right off the bat whereas, the average Private student has no idea what their future holds in two (2-3) short years. So, I know that I've got to get prepared mentally for higher performance aircraft.

I know one has to learn the basics, first. I'm just wondering if one can integrate some [not all] "concepts" of advance flying WHILE learning the basics, so that those concepts won't seem extremely new when the high-perf aircraft arrive.

I wish I were starting out in a T-37. When I was a Cadet, our detachment had T-37 and T-38 manuals in our library. We studies those manuals more than we did our undergraduate homework, lol! I know how they train in the Air Force. I've flown T-37 and T-38 simulators at Columbus AFB. I've flown the C-5B from Travis to Columbus AFB and back again [4 Cadets got to take turns in the left seat]. I know that flying turbine aircraft at altitude, is much different than flying low-perf at low altitudes. And, I've sat in the back of T-37 and T-38 UPT classes where ground instruction was being delivered, again at Columbus.

All of those guys and gals were learning how to fly - By The Numbers. All of them, without exception. I heard zero SOTP instruction or teaching given - zero. I remember sitting in those classes like it was yesterday and it had to have been over 20 years ago. It was all about the numbers, settings, parameters, thresholds, configurations coming out of your ears! Config the aircraft for this - config the aircraft for that. The Air Force UPT might as well be called T-37 and T-38 Configuration Training. Just go ahead and drop the Undergraduate Pilot part - it is all about the Configuration. I remember that like it was last night.

Config, Config, Config. The C-172 is no ViperJet or SJ30-2. Likewise, the T-37 is no F-15 or F-22. Those guys had to learn how to "Config" from the word GO in their initial flight training.

Go stop any former Tweet pilot on the street today and he or she can vomit up ALL the "configurations" for the six segments of flight that I'm referring to in this thread - all of them. Find me a former Tweet pilot who can't and I'll show you a Tweet pilot who probably never made it to T-38s, let alone an F-15/F16/F-22.

Config, Config, Config. And, when you are done, go Config some more. Eat Config - Drink Config - Urinate Config - Config until you are blue in the face. Because if you forget the Configurations, you won't fly that day. And, if you continue to demonstrate that you can't remember/execute on the Configurations, you will eventually wash out of the program.

Now, what ultimately went on in the cockpit between the IP and the Student, I have no idea - I was never there. But, I was inside some of those Tweet and Talon classrooms and I can tell anyone that "numbers", "settings" and "positions" [Configurations] were extremely important to those guys back then. Has the Air Force changed over the years? I don't know, I have no idea.

But, I cannot possibly see or understand how that Col., who was being recognized for recently reaching 10,000 flight hours in the C-5, could ever simply fly that giant by the seat of his pants, predominantly.

My goodness - listen to what you guys are saying in essence. Fly the C-5 Galaxy by the seat of your pants? Sorry. I've flown the C-5. How many of you can say that. SOTP simply would not work with that aircraft.

The thing felt like I was flying the World. It felt very heavy in my hands [the yoke]. I was allowed to bank the aircraft and when I did, she was initially resistant and then quickly the roll rate began to increase rapidly. It was like nothing I had ever flown before. You constantly had to be thinking waaaay out in front of this aircraft. Everything had to be planned, waaaay in advance of actually doing it. That's what I remember about flying the C-5. Not knowing exactly and precisely how to set that aircraft up to do what I needed it to do [Configurations] and being allowed to continue flying that aircraft, I would have killed myself and everyone else on board.

On departure from Columbus, we road up the front-side of a storm front, bouncing all the way up through FL310. It was fun. All the while, the Col. [the one with over 10,000 hours in the Galaxy] had his head down inside the numbers. In fact, I remember his head bouncing up and down rarely looking "outside" with his right hand glued to the throttle quadrant and his left hand on the yoke - with zero visibility outside the cockpit. It was the most bizarre flying experience I had ever had in my entire life up til that point, seeing a pilot work like that for the first time up close and personal. We were climbing hard and fast in zero visibility. The Col's. head was firmly planted inside the numbers. Config/Config/Config. That's all he ever did on that departure.

The dialog between himself and the Major (with 5,000 C-5 hours) was all about the numbers, folks - nothing else mattered to those guys back then. Nothing! Config/Config/Config. And, when you are done - Config some more.

[I won the coin toss to see which Cadet would ride jump seat that day.]

So, this is why I'm asking these questions, folks.

I have some experience, but that was years ago. All I remember, is that numbers and parameters for the aircraft were very important to the Air Force, back then. And, if they were that important to the Air Force, why should they not be important to me now, as a lowly student? Should we not attempt to model the very best even during primary training? Or, does the newbie just pick an Instructor, jump into a plane and go for it without a single solitary clue about WHY or HOW to configure the aircraft to do anything?

I can accept any verdict and do what my Instructor tells me to do. But, not drilling Configurations very early on in the training cycle will always seem a bit un-intuitive to my structure seeking brain.

In the end however, I will comply with my Instructor's authority and experience because they are supposed to know more than me and their credentials are on the line with me as their student. Still though, I have a hard time coming to grips with the idea that Configurations are not a super high priority in the world of General Aviation primary flight training.

[no offense to Pensacola at all - I'm just USAF biased, that's all.]

 

[Approach Control]

Vy climb.
Normal cruise at 2200 RPM (can be set within 50 RPM by sound)
65 knot glide.
85/75/65 for downwind/base/final (same pitch attitude and power setting, different flap settings)

This doesn't really pertain to the extended discussion, but maybe addresses the OP's question.

Sounds like a Man with a Configuration plan to me. Config/Config/Config.

Roger, those look like "settings" and "protocols" and totally useless "Configuration" data. What on earth are you thinking, Man! Just fly the plane, Roger! Forget about those pointless numbers. There not gonna help you get out of a bad situation anyway.

I like the way you start out by saying: "I have four (4)...."

Note where I said that these can (and SHOULD) be set completely via outside references (then verified with the gages).

What about that 9pm night flight back home for that 8am meeting in the morning you have with that very important client? Or, how about that IFR cross country you need to do right at minimums upon departure and in the clouds all the way en-route, so you can get that construction site up and running on-time, with rain forecast and barely 3 miles visibility at your destination airport?

Do you use the horizon on that trip - or do you Configure the aircraft and rely on the numbers to fly the T/O (at IFR mins), climb (zero visibility), cruise (in the clouds w/partial visibility en-route), descend (down through rain and clouds), approach (just breaking out below the ceiling) and landing (in rain)?

That's the kind of flying I'll need to be able to do [in a jet], and I'll need to be able to do it, effortlessly [or, as close to effortlessly as I can get it]. How can I get from here to there by the seat of my pants. [rhetorical]

That's what this whole thread is all about as you hit the nail squarely on the head. Thanks, Roger!

 

[MikeD]

I wish I were starting out in a T-37. When I was a Cadet, our detachment had T-37 and T-38 manuals in our library. We studies those manuals more than we did our undergraduate homework, lol! I know how they train in the Air Force. I've flown T-37 and T-38 simulators at Columbus AFB. I've flown the C-5B from Travis to Columbus AFB and back again [4 Cadets got to take turns in the left seat]. I know that flying turbine aircraft at altitude, is much different than flying low-perf at low altitudes. And, I've sat in the back of T-37 and T-38 UPT classes where ground instruction was being delivered, again at Columbus.

Alright, since you stepped into my territory here, I'll answer you. So far as studying Tweet Dash-1s while in ROTC, do you see the fallacy of that? You've got to walk before you can run....by that I mean, you need to graduate college before you get into UPT. If you don't spend the time getting the undergrad stuff done and passed, then none of those Dash-1s are gonna matter a wit. Even reading them, you don't know how to apply them until you've had some sims and flights, so delving into them as deep as you were, is wasted effort. Kind of like the massive breakdown you're doing here before you've even done the items. Why not take a few flights first...SEE the maneuvers you're trying to study now, THEN you will have an idea of whats important or not based on what you've seen, rather than pack your brain with useless crap and equations that won't help you in the air. Remember, higher math in the cockpit ISN'T a good thing.

All of those guys and gals were learning how to fly - By The Numbers. All of them, without exception. I heard zero SOTP instruction or teaching given - zero. I remember sitting in those classes like it was yesterday and it had to have been over 20 years ago. It was all about the numbers, settings, parameters, thresholds, configurations coming out of your ears! Config the aircraft for this - config the aircraft for that. The Air Force UPT might as well be called T-37 and T-38 Configuration Training. Just go ahead and drop the Undergraduate Pilot part - it is all about the Configuration. I remember that like it was last night.

Yes. They were teaching rote knowledge because none of the UPT studs had any experience to fall back on. So everything was very canned and "get here--do this; get there--do that". Pattern work was very much like that. Once you gained experience, you knew when this or that could be modified, or needed, or not.

Go stop any former Tweet pilot on the street today and he or she can vomit up ALL the "configurations" for the six segments of flight that I'm referring to in this thread - all of them. Find me a former Tweet pilot who can't and I'll show you a Tweet pilot who probably never made it to T-38s, let alone an F-15/F16/F-22.

I can't really; and I made it to th F-117 after the A-10. But I know what you mean and what you're saying; in that, I can still vomit the Tweet spin recovery word-for-word. Only things I remember from the Tweet specifically were 5-20 psi for oil ppp; how the thrust attenuators worked, and the fuel system operation with the low/mid/high fuel sensors and how they activated the pump system.

Config, Config, Config. And, when you are done, go Config some more. Eat Config - Drink Config - Urinate Config - Config until you are blue in the face. Because if you forget the Configurations, you won't fly that day. And, if you continue to demonstrate that you can't remember/execute on the Configurations, you will eventually wash out of the program.

This is true, but remember....you're flying while you're doing it...seeing it and reinforcing it. Not just studying and memorizing it never having seen it, to where it means nothing to you and gets ram-dumped, or lost in memory because the hard drive in the brain is too overloaded.

Now, what ultimately went on in the cockpit between the IP and the Student, I have no idea - I was never there. But, I was inside some of those Tweet and Talon classrooms and I can tell anyone that "numbers", "settings" and "positions" [Configurations] were extremely important to those guys back then. Has the Air Force changed over the years? I don't know, I have no idea.

UPT is pretty much the same....with the exception of UAV assignments....poor bastards. But again, have the right idea of how to apply the USAF way of training to what you're trying to do; I don't think you're doing that.

But, I cannot possibly see or understand how that Col., who was being recognized for recently reaching 10,000 flight hours in the C-5, could ever simply fly that giant by the seat of his pants, predominantly.

My goodness - listen to what you guys are saying in essence. Fly the C-5 Galaxy by the seat of your pants? Sorry. I've flown the C-5. How many of you can say that. SOTP simply would not work with that aircraft.

And you're basing this solid statement on what experience? Are you freaking kidding me? And NO, you haven't flown the C-5....you've merely sat in the seat and steered it around a bit; lets get that straight here and now. Flying it, to where you can speak intelligently about it's operations, means BEING QUALED IN IT; and you're speaking with authority on it without even wearing wings of silver, much less having passed the FTU? EVERY aircraft is flown to some extent seat of the pants, some more than others; but if you don't have a feel for the aircraft you're flying and are only doing it by numbers and theory, you WILL end up a smoking hole in the ground at some time in your life. SOTP is the basic foundation for when everything else fails. A DC-10 is akin to a C-5 insofar as being a transport-type aircraft. Do you think Al Haynes and crew could've recovered UA232 with no sense of SOTP? Choke yourself if you don't think so..in fact choke yourself anyways for the entire last paragraph you wrote. And no, I haven't flown a C-5...and no desire to. Neat plane, just no interest.

The thing felt like I was flying the World. It felt very heavy in my hands [the yoke]. I was allowed to bank the aircraft and when I did, she was initially resistant and then quickly the roll rate began to increase rapidly. It was like nothing I had ever flown before. You constantly had to be thinking waaaay out in front of this aircraft. Everything had to be planned, waaaay in advance of actually doing it. That's what I remember about flying the C-5. Not knowing exactly and precisely how to set that aircraft up to do what I needed it to do [Configurations] and being allowed to continue flying that aircraft, I would have killed myself and everyone else on board.

Thats because you haven't been trained in it. Trust me, the guys flying it...it's second nature to them. Why? Because of experience. Because of time. Because of SOTP combined with knowledge of the jet itself and of what it can and can't do. Because of CRM.

On departure from Columbus, we road up the front-side of a storm front, bouncing all the way up through FL310. It was fun. All the while, the Col. [the one with over 10,000 hours in the Galaxy] had his head down inside the numbers. In fact, I remember his head bouncing up and down rarely looking "outside" with his right hand glued to the throttle quadrant and his left hand on the yoke - with zero visibility outside the cockpit. It was the most bizarre flying experience I had ever had in my entire life up til that point, seeing a pilot work like that for the first time up close and personal. We were climbing hard and fast in zero visibility. The Col's. head was firmly planted inside the numbers. Config/Config/Config. That's all he ever did on that departure.

What the hell is there to look outside at at FL310? Of course his head was reviewing numbers and instruments...that's called planning. He wasn't firmly planted in the numbers....he was flying....ie- being a pilot. Not a novel concept. I bet he likely wasn't even sweating it.

The dialog between himself and the Major (with 5,000 C-5 hours) was all about the numbers, folks - nothing else mattered to those guys back then. Nothing! Config/Config/Config. And, when you are done - Config some more.

[I won the coin toss to see which Cadet would ride jump seat that day.]

So, this is why I'm asking these questions, folks.

I have some experience, but that was years ago. All I remember, is that numbers and parameters for the aircraft were very important to the Air Force, back then. And, if they were that important to the Air Force, why should they not be important to me now, as a lowly student? Should we not attempt to model the very best even during primary training? Or, does the newbie just pick an Instructor, jump into a plane and go for it without a single solitary clue about WHY or HOW to configure the aircraft to do anything?

You problem is you have no idea what you don't know, and are trying to cram everything into one briefing. You're also basing what you think the AF does on viewing a few snapshots as a cadet. I'm telling you....and I've BTDT and still doing it.......that the way you're viewing and going about it is a great example of misprioritization and tunnel vision. You're going to burn yourself out SO quick if you keep this up, since you're not even out of the starting gate yet, and are trying to do things 50 steps ahead. When I flew the A-10, we had a guy lke you. Couldn't shoot Maverick missiles worth a damn..had trouble with setup/target contrasts and lock-ons. He was SO into how the missile thought and worked....all it's freaking process algorithms, that he completely lost out on the basics...just using the damn thing. I thought all that algorithm stuff was interesting...how the missile worked; but I could give a rats ass how to build the damn thing; I need to know how to employ it. It either works or it doesn't......if it's not a setting I can change from or troubleshoot from the cockpit, then I don't worry about it. See the difference in individuals?

I can accept any verdict and do what my Instructor tells me to do. But, not drilling Configurations very early on in the training cycle will always seem a bit un-intuitive to my structure seeking brain.

Your over-structure seeking brain is your downfall my friend. Guys like you have washed out of UPT for not prioritizing stuff correctly. They get bogged-down in useless minutia at the wrong time, and go off on tangents that have no importance to the task at hand.....save that stuff for later to where it's gee-whiz, AFTER you have the concept down. You're so freaking one-track minded (config/config/config), that you're your own worst enemy....I see that flexibility isn't a strongpoint....or at least you don't tap into it if it is there. (remember the whole "key to airpower" thing?)

In the end however, I will comply with my Instructor's authority and experience because they are supposed to know more than me and their credentials are on the line with me as their student. Still though, I have a hard time coming to grips with the idea that Configurations are not a super high priority in the world of General Aviation primary flight training.

[no offense to Pensacola at all - I'm just USAF biased, that's all.]

Time and place my friend....time and place. Things are a priority. But whereas in contact flying, the horizon and looking outside is a priority (and configs aren't, apart from things like pattern basics, etc); in instruments, they are moreso. Time and place, my friend.

Seriously...you need to really unscrew yourself and get on the right track, if you hope to make flying any kind of a success. Your single-mindedness will translate to dangerous in the air if you don't change it. And another thing....berating guys on "how" it's supposed to be done in the air, when you're not even there, is extremely low SA.

Now, anything more on USAF operational flying you'd like to lecture me on?

 

[Hacker15e]

The guy who is not worrying about lift is an F-15 pilot?

If you and I were F-15 pilots I don't think we'd worry about lack of lift too much either- since we could always get the power needed from those huge engines... mix in a bit of AOA and there ya go.

Which Eagle pilot are you refering to?

My earlier post had nothing to do with "not worrying about lift". It had to do with how jets with very thin wings fly on final approach, when on the back side of the L/Dmax curve. In order to maintain the correct AOA, as well as make the airplane touch down where you need it to, you have to use the stick to pitch for an aim point and use the throttles to maintain your airspeed. The techniques and theoretical discussions posed in this thread are very interesting -- but they don't change the way that these two particular airplanes are flown.

Again, if you try to "pitch for airspeed", all you will do is end up landing short and slow or long and fast. If you try to "power for altitude", you will end up....probably anywhere but where you want to land, and probably with a gear strut up through the wing if you're lucky.

The point of the post was that these hard and fast rules that many CFIs like to teach as Gospel really aren't. That there are at least two airplanes I've flown that don't work that way, and I have to suspect that there are others that I have no knowledge of. Many CFIs can't seem to get their head outside the world of a single engine general aviation aircraft.

I'm actually very concerned about lift in both the Eagle and the Talon. Much of the flying in many different flight regimes is performed in direct reference to AOA. Because of the wide potential differences in landing weights, AOA is the only reliable way to set the correct final approach and landing speed (we back it up by computing an actual speed using rules of thumb). When dogfighting, we only know when we are maximum performing in a turn (and in an accelerated stall) based on G and AOA.

 

[MikeD]

Which Eagle pilot are you refering to?

My earlier post had nothing to do with "not worrying about lift". It had to do with how jets with very thin wings fly on final approach, when on the back side of the L/Dmax curve. In order to maintain the correct AOA, as well as make the airplane touch down where you need it to, you have to use the stick to pitch for an aim point and use the throttles to maintain your airspeed. The techniques and theoretical discussions posed in this thread are very interesting -- but they don't change the way that these two particular airplanes are flown.

Again, if you try to "pitch for airspeed", all you will do is end up landing short and slow or long and fast. If you try to "power for altitude", you will end up....probably anywhere but where you want to land, and probably with a gear strut up through the wing if you're lucky.

The point of the post was that these hard and fast rules that many CFIs like to teach as Gospel really aren't. That there are at least two airplanes I've flown that don't work that way, and I have to suspect that there are others that I have no knowledge of. Many CFIs can't seem to get their head outside the world of a single engine general aviation aircraft.

I'm actually very concerned about lift in both the Eagle and the Talon. Much of the flying in many different flight regimes is performed in direct reference to AOA. Because of the wide potential differences in landing weights, AOA is the only reliable way to set the correct final approach and landing speed (we back it up by computing an actual speed using rules of thumb). When dogfighting, we only know when we are maximum performing in a turn (and in an accelerated stall) based on G and AOA.

+2

Esp the gospel-that-really-isn't part. Very true.

 

[Matt777]

Which Eagle pilot are you refering to?

My earlier post had nothing to do with "not worrying about lift". It had to do with how jets with very thin wings fly on final approach, when on the back side of the L/Dmax curve. In order to maintain the correct AOA, as well as make the airplane touch down where you need it to, you have to use the stick to pitch for an aim point and use the throttles to maintain your airspeed. The techniques and theoretical discussions posed in this thread are very interesting -- but they don't change the way that these two particular airplanes are flown.

Again, if you try to "pitch for airspeed", all you will do is end up landing short and slow or long and fast. If you try to "power for altitude", you will end up....probably anywhere but where you want to land, and probably with a gear strut up through the wing if you're lucky.

The point of the post was that these hard and fast rules that many CFIs like to teach as Gospel really aren't. That there are at least two airplanes I've flown that don't work that way, and I have to suspect that there are others that I have no knowledge of. Many CFIs can't seem to get their head outside the world of a single engine general aviation aircraft.

I'm actually very concerned about lift in both the Eagle and the Talon. Much of the flying in many different flight regimes is performed in direct reference to AOA. Because of the wide potential differences in landing weights, AOA is the only reliable way to set the correct final approach and landing speed (we back it up by computing an actual speed using rules of thumb). When dogfighting, we only know when we are maximum performing in a turn (and in an accelerated stall) based on G and AOA.

Ooops I mixed you up with tgrayson apparently. I agree with your viewpoint 100%.
Here's my paragraph that precedes where I made the "F-15 pilot" comment:

"Guess what? Power for altitude does not work in a jet because the jets are not blowing air over the wing to increase lift or over the horizontal stabilizer to push the tail down.
If you are on approach in a 737 and you add power for altitude, without pitching up, I'm pretty sure you are gonna have a bad day (but all I've flown is a C-Jet for 2 hours).
In a jet without the Cessna's helpful propwash you have to pitch up to climb and also power up to maintain airspeed.

Re: Physics... the 737 is climbing due to excess power, but IN PRACTICE is what we are discussing here."

that last line was me backpedaling a bit so that tgrayson wouldn't take issue to my opposing statement, but, in practice I really don't think a jet is climbin from excess power- it is climbing because we increase AOA... even though physics does say that ever airplane climbs from excess power (which I am aware of)!

 

[ILS37R]

Well, this conversation has gone to a level far above my area of experience--something I'm quite happy with as it's very informative--so I'll keep my comment well within my GA CFI, CFI-I, MEI sphere.

Configurations are a great starting point, but when tower requests S-Turns on a 2-mile final or approach is asleep at the switch and gives you a 110 degree intercept and needs you 2,000' lower at the same time, configurations alone aren't going to cut it. Most aircraft have a 'feel' for when you're doing something right, when you're doing it wrong and when you're on the edge of the performance envelope. To operate safely in a dynamic environment, you need to develop that feel for when configurations are neither applicable nor timely.

Let me also echo MikeD.'s missile operation comment from my GA perspective: safe and effective aviating is about controlling the controllable. Having a broad base of knowledge is good, but only to a point. When your single engine catastrophically throws a rod at 500' on climb out, all the IO-360-L2A knowledge in the world won't make it start running again. Choosing your landing site quickly and having a feel for your airplane's flying characteristics, however, may just save your rear.

 

[zmiller4]

So, my question is this: Would I be stepping too far out in front of my Instructor, if I asked him/her to provide me with pitch/power/trim settings for all phases of normal flight in the aircraft that he/she is giving me instruction? [take-off, climb, cruise, descent, approach and landing]

Would my IP think that I'm trying to rush him/her into teaching too far ahead in their syllabus?

I don't think that figuring out some basic power and pitch combinations for various phases of flight is a bad idea, and I can't imagine a CFI would mind. I used to initially teach my students the idea that picture plus power equals performance. For my private students, I'd get them to learn the approximate pitches for the various phases of flight based on visual reference. For instrument students, it was in degrees. Trim settings are worthless to memorize. That should be done by feel--and that's how you trim a turbine aircraft as well (except for takeoff).

The problem with writing these down and taking them with you is that they change all the time. Your pitch attitude for climbout when you're solo is going to be different from when you and your instructor and your girl/boyfriend are all in the 172...you have to be able to adjust for varying conditions and configurations. I bet you're going to hinder that by memorizing the crap out of a bunch of numbers. Again, I have no problem with learning a couple of power settings and generic pitch attitudes, but it sounds like you're going overboard.

I know that I've got to go from C-172 to SJ30-2 and the ViperJet. I know that's where I'm headed right off the bat whereas, the average Private student has no idea what their future holds in two (2-3) short years. So, I know that I've got to get prepared mentally for higher performance aircraft.

I think people have told this this a bunch of times, but I'd really, really not put the added pressure of "I have to learn this fast so I can go fly my own jet". You're going to have bad days as a student, and the more pressure you put on yourself the more damaging they'll be.

All of those guys and gals were learning how to fly - By The Numbers. All of them, without exception. I heard zero SOTP instruction or teaching given - zero.

How on earth would you teach flying by "feel" (I'm trying to present you with alternatives to making up acronyms) in a classroom? It's pretty difficult, especially if the student has no experience.

But, I cannot possibly see or understand how that Col., who was being recognized for recently reaching 10,000 flight hours in the C-5, could ever simply fly that giant by the seat of his pants, predominantly.

No one is saying that flying a turbine aircraft is predominately done by "feel". But it's an essential part of flying any airplane, and the *biggest* part of flying very light aircraft. If you try to skip the basic steps, you're going to fail.

My goodness - listen to what you guys are saying in essence. Fly the C-5 Galaxy by the seat of your pants? Sorry. I've flown the C-5. How many of you can say that. SOTP simply would not work with that aircraft.

:banghead:
Did you really just say that? A word of advice...I'd really watch out for that attitude. If I had a student tell me how things are because they had "flown" a C-5 20 years ago, they would potentially be heading for "difficult student" classification.

The thing felt like I was flying the World. It felt very heavy in my hands [the yoke]. I was allowed to bank the aircraft...It was like nothing I had ever flown before.

Because, by your own count, you had like 5hrs! You pretty much hadn't flown anything before.

Not knowing exactly and precisely how to set that aircraft up to do what I needed it to do [Configurations] and being allowed to continue flying that aircraft, I would have killed myself and everyone else on board.

You didn't know precisely how to set up configurations, and you didn't kill yourself because there was an instructor right next to you. To tell you the truth, I would forget about that whole experience, or at least not mention it to any instructors for the next decade.

Now that I think about it, forget about flying a jet in the future until you at least solo. If you can't learn to fly the airplane by feel and visual reference, you're never going to solo. Learning a couple of power settings for climb, cruise, descents, and in pattern is a good thing, but you could memorize those in 10 minutes. Get a good instructor, get in an airplane, and start learning to fly. The more you pressure yourself beforehand, the more difficult it will be.

 

[Douglas]

What about that 9pm night flight back home for that 8am meeting in the morning you have with that very important client? Or, how about that IFR cross country

Yes, even at night do not keep your head inside the cockpit.

IFR?
You have to walk before you can run. VFR comes first.

 

[contactground.9]

My goodness - listen to what you guys are saying in essence. Fly the C-5 Galaxy by the seat of your pants? Sorry. I've flown the C-5. How many of you can say that. SOTP simply would not work with that aircraft.

 

[Approach Control]

Alright, since you stepped into my territory here, I'll answer you. So far as studying Tweet Dash-1s while in ROTC, do you see the fallacy of that? You've got to walk before you can run....by that I mean, you need to graduate college before you get into UPT.

Are you serious? I had my USAF Pilot Slot before you even knew what an aircraft looked like.

I eventually graduated with multiple technical degrees, so I think I had the priorities set correctly. You lay a Dash 1 in front of a civilian Cadet and you had better have your light bill paid, because the lights will be on 7 days a week! Heck, we lived at the detachment once the manuals got there. Our Commander of Cadets was a former B-52 pilot, not a paper pusher, so he knew what Cadets needed and he knew what would help them. We loved that man - we would have done anything for him becasue we KNEW that he would have done anything for us - and he did. How do you think I got in the left seat of a C-5B Galaxy? How do you think I got to sit inside those Tweet/Talon classrooms at Columbus?

I did everything exactly the way I was supposed to, in order to eventually become an Eagle Driver, but family ended up changing my career and my life.

I'm not green to this business - I've just been away for a very long time.

I was USAF pilot qualified while you were probably coming out of elementary school [possibly] - if not a lot sooner. I don't know how things worked were you got yoru Pilot Slot, but where I cam from you got into UPT by obtaining your Cadet Wings. Graduating, was icing on the cake! Are you kidding me! At Detachment 085, that's how things were done. I turned down an appointment to the USAF Academy, for family reasons [not to be discussed here]. I later had to give up my Pilot's Slot [well earned] for those same family reasons. It was the most painful thing I have ever had to voluntarily do.

The Dash 1s, were to give us incentive and insight into what would be expected of us academically. Not to turn us into pilots over night, of course. We wanted to go into UPT having some idea of what we were getting ourselves into and to get as much advantage as possible. That's exactly what a combat pilot does - gain the advantage. That's what we were trying to do. I have an old friend who ended up retiring out of the F-111, sometime after having flown in the first Gulf War. He told me that the work our old Cadet Commander has us doing back at 085, actually helped him in the initial weeks of both the Tweet and the Talon phases of training. So, I know having the manuals actually helped some of us.

And you're basing this solid statement on what experience? Are you freaking kidding me? And NO, you haven't flown the C-5....you've merely sat in the seat and steered it around a bit; lets get that straight here and now.

I don't think anyone with at least two brain cells remaining in their head, in at least a partially functining neurosynaptic network, thinks that I wrote anything convincing them that I was C-5B qualified. That should have been crystal clear to anyone with real flight experience, especially in the Air Force.

...He wasn't firmly planted in the numbers....he was flying....ie- being a pilot. Not a novel concept. I bet he likely wasn't even sweating it.

I think you've missed the point a long time ago. And, quite frankly, I'm not even sure you ever understood the question to begin with.

You problem is you have no idea what you don't know,

Well, that's obvious - tell me something I don't already know. Or, how about anything of substance, at the very least.

You're also basing what you think the AF does on viewing a few snapshots as a cadet. I'm telling you....and I've BTDT and still doing it.......that the way you're viewing and going about it is a great example of misprioritization and tunnel vision.

There was an T-38C [you know what that is don't you] that recently went down due to pilot error. Are you sure you were not the IP who trained that poor pilot.

You're going to burn yourself out SO quick if you keep this up, since you're not even out of the starting gate yet, and are trying to do things 50 steps ahead.

Now, you are starting to catch on! I was afraid that you did not understand the original premise, here.

Let me say it again: Light Single Engine Trainer -----> to -----> Twin Engine Single Pilot Certified Light Business Jet in 2 years.

That means, my training must [by definition] be unlike most others. That's why I'm asking these questions [FIRST] and not out wasting my time learning bad habits that only have to be unlearned down the road.

You don't seem to get the premise, here.

When I flew the A-10, we had a guy lke you. Couldn't shoot Maverick missiles worth a damn..had trouble with setup/target contrasts and lock-ons.

Blah, blah, blah. At what point will you drop your faulty ego long enough to actually have an epiphany about what the underlying premise is here? Quite frankly, this thread is not about your and your Tank Killer. This thread is about ME NOT KILLING MYSELF BECAUSE I DID SOMETHING STUPID AFTER HAVING BEEN GIVEN BAD INSTRUCTION BY AN ARROGANT INSTURCTOR WITH AN ATTITUDE SIMILAR TO YOURS.

That's what this thread is about. It is about me staying ALIVE.

Wake up!

Your over-structure seeking brain is your downfall my friend.

I can't believe that under-structure seeking brains like yours are allowed to go anywhere near an Thunderbolt, much less a 117. You have no idea what my total approach to flight training would be, yet you've got me pegged right down to that mythical figure that you seemed to know so well in your last crack about me.

You have been given one question among many questions that I have yet to ask anyone and bingo - just like that, you've got me all mapped out. You presume way too much, my dear friend - way too much. Assumption is the mother of all screw-ups. Stop assuming everything damn thing you can't possibly know about me, or my situation.


...

berating guys on "how" it's supposed to be done in the air, when you're not even there, is extremely low SA.

What the heck are you talking about? Berating guys? Have you been smoking something? What the heck do I look like berating someone while asking for their help? Only a total moron, would contemplate something so dumb.

Now, anything more on USAF operational flying you'd like to lecture me on?

You've got to be kidding me.

No one was lecturing you, but you did allow your ego to pull your pants down in public. Thanks for the worthless contribution to this thread and for being a total waste of my valuable time.

Radar contact terminated 10 miles from nowhere...frequency changed approved. Have a nice day.

 

[Approach Control]

I've been lurking, but I'm one of the few guys who does use target pitch and power settings for most things. I'm a military IP with about 1000 hours of instruction...

...Of course, we military types are huge "control and performance concept" instructors.

Seems like Fish made it through UPT with an understanding of the original premise of the thread.

Control & Performance. That sounds very much like Optimized & Efficient in civilian terms.

 

[zmiller4]

Are you serious? I had my USAF Pilot Slot before you even knew what an aircraft looked like.

I had 3 IFT guys who had been awarded pilot slots through ROTC. Two of them had no business being near an airplane and had C GPA's in easy majors from easy colleges. That doesn't impress me.

I was USAF pilot qualified while you were probably coming out of elementary school [possibly] - if not a lot sooner.

There was an T-38C [you know what that is don't you] that recently went down due to pilot error. Are you sure you were not the IP who trained that poor pilot.

Classy.

I can't believe that under-structure seeking brains like yours are allowed to go anywhere near an Thunderbolt, much less a 117.

Let me say it again: Light Single Engine Trainer -----> to -----> Twin Engine Single Pilot Certified Light Business Jet in 2 years.

That means, my training must [by definition] be unlike most others. That's why I'm asking these questions [FIRST] and not out wasting my time learning bad habits that only have to be unlearned down the road.

This thread is about ME NOT KILLING MYSELF BECAUSE I DID SOMETHING STUPID AFTER HAVING BEEN GIVEN BAD INSTRUCTION BY AN ARROGANT INSTURCTOR WITH AN ATTITUDE SIMILAR TO YOURS.

No, this thread is now about you only listening to answers you like.

To tell you the truth, I smell a fair amount of trolling in your posts. You came on here last year asking the same questions, and reappeared under a different name eight months later. I find it really difficult to believe that anyone has the financial resources and financial sense to purchase an unpopular and unproven jet and an L-39/viperjet/whatever (not to mention a Bugatti?) having essentially no experience in aviation.

It's just a pretty hard story to believe, that's all. If you're being honest and plan on going through with flight training, I'd really check the attitude. If you talk back to a guy with the experience of MikeD, I can't imagine how you'd treat a CFI.

 

[Approach Control]

I think the person [not online here] who asked me to do this, wins the bet. I told him that ego would not enter this debate and that I could get a number of CFI's to hold a respectful dialog on the subject and give sound advice in the process. You were given a straight forward question with a straight forward underlying premise. The premise was lost on most of you - precious few actually addressed it head-on. Proof positive that even people with "experience" can misread a well formatted and very simple question.

Ego entered the debate and side-tracked it to the max - even to the point of making the thread starter the source of the problem.

The point was lost on all but three (3) people who entered this discussion. That's sad. To think that America is getting this level of ego while selecting an instructor, is equally sad. With all the pointless rebuttal, only three (3) here actually read and understood the question, which was very clearly written. Too many have engaged in typical group think and group ego sharing as you incorrectly rallied against what you thought was the "problem"; the OP asking a question that makes no sense. Some have even taken my words and twisted their meaning to match their own need to spew worthless, off-topic drivel.

Most importantly, this little experiment taught me the importance of really doing my psychological homework on my instructor, before I select him/her. Having some ego driven maniac in the right seat giving dual instruction to someone he is incapable of respecting, is dumb and certainly not a mistake that I'm going to make. You might be the best instructor pilot in the world, but if your attitude is piss poor, you'll never instruct me, or anyone like me. But, I guess there is a sucker born every minute, so there will always be those who fail to do their homework, before picking a solid instructor.
----------------------------------------

For the three (3) who "got it," Thank You!

You addressed the question directly and simply gave your best opinion on the subject, absent the ego. You understood that the premise was connected to a much broader domain of safety, efficiency, optimization and common sense.

You obviously understood the "goal" which included a rapid progression from low to high performace platforms and the best way to go about integrating training form one to the next. I appreciate your input, wisdom, helpful insight and honest opinion. Clearly, your written replies have demonstrated knowledge, skill and real-world flying experience.

It is to you three (3) that I say, good luck with your flying careers!

 

[contactground.9]

Where I come from this kinda stunt'll get ya banned...

 

[fish314]

Seems like Fish made it through UPT with an understanding of the original premise of the thread.

Control & Performance. That sounds very much like Optimized & Efficient in civilian terms.

Well, I still think there is a very important place for knowing what the airplane "feels" like. I just disagree with some of the CFI's above that having a target or a reference prevents you from getting a "feel" for the aircraft. On the contrary, it can let you know that something is wrong... for example, if it normally takes 50% power to hold 200 KIAS, and it is currently taking 65% power, then I check to make sure my gear, flaps, and speedbrake are all retracted. But "seat of your pants" is important too. Eventually I suppose you develop both, and if you feel your instructor isn't providing you what you need to learn, nothing stops you from getting a different instructor.

On the other hand, there isn't really a whole lot to the Hershey bar Cessnas like the 152 and 172. They're very forgiving, and fly pretty well at just about any power setting except idle (just slower!). Ok, that's a slight exaggeration, but still, they're not that complicated. So a guy saying that you don't really need a specific pitch and power reference on that aircraft is probably fine, too. They're not that difficult to just figure out and fly. After all, even if you do have a target setting in mind, you still need to cross check to see if it's giving the desired output. Which is a heck of a lot like just flying it and figuring it out.

But hey, I've seen instructors give out hand outs with memorized things to do at action points (like, at the perch "Flaps-LNDG, PWR-15%, Pitch 2/3 ground and 1/3 sky, roll 30 degrees). Other guys don't. No harm asking the question.

 

[fish314]

Oops. Looks like I posted after the cat was let out of the bag.