|
Delivery McGee posted:Airliners are surprisingly spry when they're not loaded down with 350 fatass Americans and their luggage, and only minimal fuel. A 787 weighs around 300,000 pounds empty, and makes around 150,000 pounds of thrust; with just enough fuel for a photo op, that's still power/weight on par with '60s fighter jets. Weight makes a huge, huge difference for performance for every aircraft, and every pilot should figure that out through observation no later than their first solo.
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2015 20:51
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 8, 2024 20:27 |
|
|
The Ferret King posted:Assuming you're not too nervous to notice. The plane flies so much better without that other guy in the right seat. If you don't notice at some point during your first circuit, you're probably going to need to go around on account of being several hundred feet too high on final.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2015 21:49
|
|
|
Could be worse. My first solo landing was pretty good (and the second, etc.) but my 2 short field landings on my checkride were poo poo, due to the previously-mentioned "second landing happening a few seconds after the first." Partial re-test time! That was just for my recreational pilot permit, though; the PPL checkride went perfectly.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 15, 2015 17:40
|
|
|
Captain Apollo posted:If anybody would like me to make a serious I would like this; please tell us more.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 16, 2015 06:47
|
|
post I would be glad to oblige.
|
hobbesmaster posted:This must be awkward if you instruct with it. What am I missing here? Is "my airplane" the US equivalent of "I have control" or am I missing something else entirely?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 18, 2015 06:22
|
|
|
Hauldren Collider posted:Hi, I'm currently working on getting a private pilot's license. Just a few questions: 1. It depends how much you want to spend. Unless you think there's a chance you'll get bored and give up, you might as well just buy what you want the first time. David Clarks are good, but if you don't mind the price, go with noise-cancelling Bose because they're the poo poo and you will be happier with them -- I've flown with both. 2. It will take longer to complete and thus be more expensive because you will forget more between lessons, and that's without the possibility of the weather being poo poo for an entire weekend. it's not the end of the world, though, and I wouldn't say it's necessarily any more difficult. The more time you can get in uninterrupted, the better off you'll be (you'll lose more ground, so to speak, if you have large gaps earlier in your training rather than later -- at least that was my experience). In the long run, it will absolutely not matter, and frankly I have some serious reservations about the idea that you can or should get a PPL in a single month, even if it's technically possible. It's like cramming for a test; it works in the short term, but you will not retain what you've learned as well in the long run unless you make sure to practice. Other people feel differently on this subject, and I am biased because I spread my training out quite a bit for various reasons. 3. If it's like the Canadian equivalent, you'll be expected to be familiar with the parts that pertain to whatever you're doing, and the important parts will be covered in ground school. You certainly don't need to memorize it front-to-back or anything like that, and there are certain parts of it that will presumably not matter to you at all until you get additional licenses or endorsements.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 19, 2015 04:39
|
|
|
Hauldren Collider posted:Thanks! The particular headset I am interested in at the moment is this guy, but I'm gonna take a few more flights before I decide. I haven't flown in a while, but when I did, E6Bs were most certainly still used. Why would you be motivated to use something else?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 19, 2015 06:09
|
|
|
It depends. It could be something he knows about with that specific plane, in which case he's an idiot that doesn't maintain his aircraft properly (or works for a company that doesn't maintain its aircraft properly, more likely), instead of an idiot who would purposefully ignore a problem with the fuel system. Either way, it's bad, but one way you might also want to look for a different company entirely.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 22, 2015 17:10
|
|
|
The Ferret King posted:Are there planes with sumps after the fuel selector valve? Maybe it was closed. Shouldn't the instructor know that, and turn it to the open position as part of the pre-flight?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 22, 2015 19:55
|
|
|
The Ferret King posted:100% yes. Rolo posted:Yep. A clogged or contaminated fuel bowl is what you're looking for. Ignoring a clog may as well be you not checking it. I've taken bowls apart and found shredded selector parts in it. It was a rhetorical question, but I quite agree. There's no excuse for cutting corners during the pre-flight, especially when it comes to a possibly-blocked fuel system.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 23, 2015 06:16
|
|
|
azflyboy posted:Skywest also limited their CRJ-200's to a maximum of FL280, which is equal parts depressing and entertaining. Isn't it more economical to cruise at a higher altitude?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 23, 2015 06:20
|
|
|
azflyboy posted:One of the advantages of being capped at FL250 is the fact that since no one else flies in our altitude range, we can pretty much change altitudes at will to find smooth air, so we don't seem to request anywhere near as many ride reports as CRJ operators tend to. The lack of traffic at our altitudes also makes it pretty easy to get shortcuts or deviations for weather, which does come in handy during thunderstorm season. I don't know what the fuel burn numbers are like, but wouldn't it make more sense to fly at a higher altitude at a higher IAS than to fly lower and slower? Couldn't you get the same fuel burn at a higher IAS at a higher altitude?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 23, 2015 06:51
|
|
|
Yeah, that's not at all the same. I'm sort of in the same situation (8 years since I flew now... wow) but I just don't have the money nor the time to indulge it as a pure hobby. I do miss it, though, even playing sims from time to time.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 6, 2015 01:23
|
|
|
Kilonum posted:I'm only a sim pilot As long as you use that one sim that is STRICTLY SERIOUS AND YOU MUST NOT HAVE FUN WITH IT EVER, we'll let you hang around in here 
|
|
#
¿
Jul 10, 2015 00:50
|
|
Mental poo poo would keep me from passing a physical and too poor to afford an SPL.
|
And that's why you don't ever not pre-flight. It's possible you'll catch something you didn't notice that happened during the previous flight, even if you haven't left your plane parked for long. The guys I trained with had the policy that, if you parked your plane, you did the walkaround for your next flight, even if it was 30 minutes after your last flight in the same plane. As with the discussion about not strictly having to talk to ATC, or not being legally required to file a flight plan, it was always drilled into my head that, yes, you can get away with it, but one time out of a thousand (or maybe less, I'm not sure), it could literally save your life, prevent an injury, or save a lot of hassle. Is saving 15 minutes really worth it? I'm glad you did the responsible thing and found a potential problem  Being a pilot is not a hobby/career for the lazy or the reckless. As the video The Ferret King posted shows, being complacent, lazy or indecisive can have fatal consequences.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 11, 2015 01:38
|
|
|
Tide posted:Call me crazy but I walked away from a discovery flight because the instructor "just landed a few minutes ago and knew the aircraft was fine". Maybe me being paranoid but it just didn't sit well with me for some reason. The instructor was wrong, and even if he honestly believed that and had literally just landed from a previous flight, I would still want to go through the pre-flight walkaround with anyone who's on a discovery flight. Not only is it a good idea for safety, but it's something that will be interesting to the person taking the discovery flight, because you get to explain all the various parts of the aircraft as you're doing it anyway. Whenever I took people flying, especially if it was their first time in a small aircraft, I always made sure to take them with me as I was doing the walkaround so I could tell them about the aircraft, and some of the safety procedures that we go through to ensure we have a safe flight. What a dumb thing to skip.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 11, 2015 05:07
|
|
|
The Ferret King posted:Gonna pick on you because you were the last person mentioning CAP: I think it's really dependent on the area and the people involved, much like anything. If you have volunteers who are there because they actually want to help people and do useful things, it will be good. If you have a bunch of morons who are there because they want to play dress-up and pretend they're in the air force, it will be bad.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 14, 2015 17:15
|
|
|
bunnyofdoom posted:Ahhh, last time I drew up a flight on a VNC I was flying da-20s. Now that I fly c-172s i am completely lost! (Well, I mean, the chart portion was fine, it's the paperwork, like my power setting, projected speed etc.) To the POH you go! Out of curiosity, which do you prefer flying? I only ever flew the C-172, but I liked it because it seemed like the GA equivalent of an old F-150 -- reliable if not particularly fast, and roomy enough to take passengers and luggage no problem. I never flew a DA-20, but they always struck me as fairly tiny/cramped whenever I saw them. (p.s. please come back to the Canada thread, it's complete insanity in there without you to inject an ounce of reality)
|
|
#
¿
Jul 17, 2015 01:21
|
|
|
Ironic, given the discussion of how pilots are ultimately responsible for everything even when the FAA fucks up. Or are TFRs different from NOTAMs in the States? If there's a temporary airspace change in Canada, I think it's just issued as a NOTAM, so you best check that poo poo before your flight.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 27, 2015 19:55
|
|
|
Yeah, that's basically what I expected. So given the context of someone making a mistake about a TFR, why is this Inhofe guy (who I gather is a senator and a pilot) saying "most pilots just don't check NOTAMs! It's impractical!" That sounds either incorrect or very hosed up. Keep in mind I have no idea who this guy is or what he did or didn't do.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 27, 2015 20:14
|
|
|
I'll admit, I have a significant amount of trouble understanding why any pilots should be able to exercise the privileges of their license without a medical of some sort. If the standards are unnecessarily strict for private pilots, then change the standards, but don't eliminate the medical altogether. What good can that bring?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 28, 2015 04:18
|
|
|
Captain Apollo posted:The gently caress? Have you read ANY of this thread? The FAA is a bureaucracy that is stagnant, and resistant to change, incredibly inconsistent, and uncaring about its population. So, you agree that the problem is with unnecessarily rigid standards, and not the very concept of a medical examination itself? Good! Me too! If the problem is that aviation medical examination standards are excluding people who are actually medically fit to fly, the problem is with the standards, not with the fact that we require medical clearance for pilots. I agree that people with conditions that are well-controlled with medication, where the medication does not create its own issues interfering with one's fitness as a pilot, should be able to hold a medical. Possibly even a class 1. That doesn't render the very concept of a medical clearance nonsensical, it just means that the current standards are hosed. Maybe we're talking past each other since I'm only familiar with Canadian laws, and not very familiar at that. Perhaps the standards and exemptions are quite different.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 28, 2015 05:29
|
|
|
Good lord, I wasn't aware the US medical procedure involved a trial by fire followed by interrogation on the rack. I can't imagine being so aggrieved by the idea of going to the doctor twice a decade. I held my class 1 medical until I finally decided not to be a pilot as a career, and I kept it current instead of letting it lapse to class 3 during that time. It wasn't a drama, even though I do have a medical condition which I was able to demonstrate to the AME did not affect my fitness to fly a plane. I agree that the standards need to be revised in some fashion so that people with controlled conditions are able to fly, but why should that require a full exemption from getting a medical altogether? Furthermore, why should people who are actually medically fit to fly, but unable to get a class 3 as it currently stands, be restricted from exercising the full privileges of a PPL? The exemption seems like bad policy compared to a comprehensive review and modification of the medical standards.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 28, 2015 12:58
|
|
|
Captain Apollo posted:Why don't the Canadians just stop talking about their medical and airplane system. It's obviously way better than our American counterpart. We're pointing out that the system is lovely and does need, very much, to be modified. I haven't the faintest idea why people think the best way is to exempt certain pilots from the medical system entirely instead of, you know, making the medical system less lovely. The problems are still there even if certain pilots no longer get affected by them. Wouldn't it be better to simply fix the problems instead of trying to go around them? Don't even get me started on the stupidity of basically saying, "I don't need no doctors with their fancy book-learnin' tellin me bout mah health!" They're trained professionals. If they are improperly constrained by the system, the system needs to be changed, and if they are not acting professionally, they need to be fired. Finally, if you actually want to convince people that this exemption is a good idea, it might be a good idea to present its merits instead of coming in all butthurt going "Waah, why did the ALPA make a perfectly reasonable statement?"
|
|
#
¿
Jul 28, 2015 15:21
|
|
|
As a Canadian, I just want to apologize again for the horror that is the passenger experience on a CRJ. God, those things are loving uncomfortable. Are they any better from a pilot's perspective, at least compared to alternatives?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 4, 2015 14:49
|
|
|
Animal posted:I've flown CRJ-200/700/900. The CRJ-700/900 is like a Mercedez Benz compared to the CRJ-200 (a beat up 97' Camry). The CRJ-200 is not only underpowered, the engines are optimized for lower altitudes, so it climbs and performs like poo poo. It has no FADEC to control the engines so you manually have to adjust them, constantly compensating for asymmetric thrust just like you would on a prop plane. Systems such as hydraulic controls make no sense. As far as the passengers, the CRJ-700/900 has MUCH better air conditioning which makes a huge difference in the summer. I almost stood up and walked away from an Endeavor CRJ-200 last summer during a deadhead, it had a broken pack and I was about to pass out as we waited and waited for push-back. Also two lavatories on the 900 which can be important to some people. The passenger windows are reasonably located in the CRJ-700/900(seriously, who thought of putting the windows down to your elbow level on the CRJ-200?). Seating can be more comfortable depending on your airline's configuration. I remember being on an Air Canada CRJ-705 and it had two lavs, one for business class and one for economy. It was not constructed in such a way that an adult male could use it in the "usual fashion" but it was indeed there. Even in business class, that was a piece of poo poo cramped-rear end aircraft. I had originally booked United, which runs a 737 or an A320 on that route (YYC-IAH), but apparently it had a mechanical issue. The CRJs I flew on in Spain last year (200 one way, 1000 the other way) were tolerable, but that's because you were only on them for an hour and the flights were empty enough that I never had a neighbour in the next seat.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 4, 2015 18:01
|
|
|
azflyboy posted:The issue with turboprops is that there are currently only two on the market (the ATR-72 and Bombardier Q400), and they're both not terribly attractive in the US for various reasons. Since the ATR-72 is relatively slow, only has 68 seats, and has somewhat limited hot/high performance, it doesn't work terribly well for American regionals that generally need the airplane for longer routes and/or more flights per day and need more seats. On the other hand, WestJet, Porter, and Air Canada are all operating significant fleets of Q400s at this point in a country that's at least as spread out as the US, so I think it mostly comes down to your last point -- public perception of turboprops being slow and more dangerous. To be fair, that's probably why Air Canada and WestJet took so long to operate them -- Porter took the plunge and showed it could be successful.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 6, 2015 17:54
|
|
|
simble posted:http://www.kpho.com/story/29768179/storm-knocks-over-planes-at-chandler-airport Yikes. Were the planes not tied down, or was the storm so severe that even that wasn't enough?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 12, 2015 16:10
|
|
|
It's my general feeling that there's eventually going to be a massive reckoning, because a lot of people were probably like myself and decided against a career as a pilot simply due to the employment conditions. If enough people, who otherwise would've become pilots, have done that... it's going to be a very, very bad time to be an airline and a very good time to be one of the pilots that actually stuck it out.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 25, 2015 22:54
|
|
|
What's really scary, after hearing all these horror stories about United, is that I still preferred my experience on United (three flights total) over anything I've experienced on Air Canada. Granted, I was lucky enough to fly business class on United, but it was much better than AC business class, and they count Canada->US itineraries as international for the purposes of lounge access, unlike American. How is it, mind you, that European airlines are better in every way compared to all North American airlines? Occasionally, they're also cheaper on directly competing routes!
|
|
#
¿
Sep 11, 2015 06:15
|
|
|
I think every airline overbooks seats all the time. That's not really something that you can criticize one airline for above another.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 11, 2015 22:48
|
|
|
Animal posted:I had an FAA inspector in the jumpseat who said they have been talking about this. Incidentally, this inspector was supposedly the chief of all regional airline inspectors in a certain area, and he was cool. He just sat there, didn't interrupt our job, and had friendly chit-chat. By the end he said we did a good job and didn't criticize anything at all. It would seem that its the ones lower on the chain of command that you gotta keep an eye out for. Makes sense. The lower-down ones have to prove to someone that they're actually doing something.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 19, 2015 19:10
|
|
|
Is getting a medical in the US particularly expensive? Is that where the massive opposition comes from? Up here, it's literally insignificant compared to the cost of any other part of flying.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 20, 2015 16:56
|
|
|
CBJSprague24 posted:Mine last month was $165. I was just deferred because of sleep apnea (which has been cured; AME was also the surgeon who handled it) and because of a short-term anxiety event. They approved me after a couple weeks. I'm sure there are people out there who have had bigger problems then I had you could be disqualified in spite of being medically fine in reality. Ah, I misread the post right above mine; it was referring to a test that the FAA wanted done, not the actual cost of the medical itself. That makes more sense (and is really lovely; you guys should totally get some single-payer healthcare, it's good poo poo  ).
|
|
#
¿
Sep 20, 2015 17:07
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:Your stereotypical aging pilot is a hell of a lot more of a liability behind the wheel of the 5400lb SUV dodging through traffic than he is in his 2200lb airplane. Why is he allowed to drive with a condition that denies him the privilege to fly? I don't know! It would be a good idea to require people to be in adequate physical health to drive, too.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 20, 2015 19:12
|
|
|
bunnyofdoom posted:So, my school rented two new 172s. One is a P, and one is an R with 160hp and fuel injected and made in 98 and oh my god I am in loving love, and I kinda wanna to take i and fly it everywhere. (For context, been flying M and N The universe is clearly trying to pay you back for having to put up with a bunch of ignorant racists ranting at you for two months straight.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 24, 2015 16:30
|
|
|
CBJSprague24 posted:I get they're trying to protect against people who may have visions of going out in a blaze of glory like the Germanwings F/O Or EgyptAir 990, SilkAir 185, Royal Air Maroc 630, JAL 350, LAM Mozambique 470.... Or the guy that intentionally crashed his plane into the IRS office that one time. To be honest, it's not an insignificant risk. I don't think the medical system should be punitive, but I would like to make very sure that anyone flying a plane is mentally fit to do so. I don't particularly care if someone is being treated for a mental illness if it's working, mind you.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2015 16:22
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:There is 0% chance of being treated for a mental illness if you will be fired from your job for even hinting that you have one. I agree, I've never said the medical system as it exists is perfect.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2015 20:13
|
|
|
God willing, US politicians will be banned from flying because they seem to be really poo poo at it.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 12, 2015 22:08
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 8, 2024 20:27 |
|
|
Butt Reactor posted:Careful, you'll piss off Apollo, he'll obviously argue that it was all the FAA's fault somehow Pilots know best for themselves whether they're turning onto a service road or a taxiway, I'm sure
|
|
#
¿
Oct 13, 2015 15:24
|
|
