|
sellouts posted:Can the collective refrain from quoting Apollo? I'd like to not see his blatant, unfunny homophobia and gay shaming. No. Captain Apollo posted:TIL I learned that I am homophobic towards Slaughter one of my IRL friends
|
#
¿
Aug 9, 2017 22:49
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 12:33 |
|
|
Captain Apollo posted:Okay real question. Huh, so upon looking up what that means, that's a really significant difference between the US and Canada. We have no Part 61 equivalent as far as I'm aware (I may be wrong), and you'd need to be a very experienced instructor (Class 1 in Canadian parlance) to operate your own flight training unit (which I assume is the equivalent of a Part 141 school). EDIT: Depending on what your article is on, you might consider mentioning the Canadian "class" system for instructors. From what I've heard, it seems like a better system because it's less focused on being cock-hard during the flight test, and more focused on making sure you're instructing properly under supervision from experienced instructors. On the other hand, it seems like a much more massive pain in the rear end for instructors who own their own plane and would like to work part-time. PT6A fucked around with this message at 02:49 on Aug 10, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Aug 10, 2017 02:46
|
|
|
I took one of my friends out flying the other night. He said he used to be afraid of flying, but he's not anymore. If what I saw was "not" I can only imagine the sort of existential terror that gripped him while flying before... There wasn't even turbulence. He was getting freaked out at minor changes in pitch. So yeah, that was not a particularly fun flight for either of us.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 12, 2017 19:53
|
|
|
sleepy gary posted:This is a pretty interesting question. I think a gentle transition to disorientation is the most likely thing to happen in real life so you could argue that's the best way to do it in training. But in training you are deliberately not looking at anything at all, so it's already kind of a weird and unrealistic setup. I had one ex-RCAF instructor for my PPL. Doing unusual attitudes with him was fun. I didn't know a 172 could do those things!
|
|
#
¿
Aug 15, 2017 18:23
|
|
|
Animal posted:Didn't an Allegiant captain get in trouble (or even fired) because he evacuated an airplane after what he determined was a mechanical emergency on the ground? "Smoke infiltrating the cabin" is not something I would make a judgement call about as a pilot, unless I were absolutely certain of the source and my ability to extinguish it. gently caress. Look at the videos of planes that were evacuated just in time, before the entire thing went up, and the fatalities that have resulted from not evacuating a smoke-filled cabin quickly enough, or treating smoke as less than a serious matter. How dare the company second-guess the PIC in such a situation? PT6A fucked around with this message at 00:31 on Aug 25, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Aug 25, 2017 00:28
|
|
|
KCRP 260151Z AUTO A2932 RMK OHFUCKNO (Only modified for tone, not content)
|
|
#
¿
Aug 26, 2017 03:46
|
|
|
a patagonian cavy posted:also mostly edited for content, the .gov website has most of the information missing for ~some mysterious reason~ The sensors have had a rough night, give them a break.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 26, 2017 04:16
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:They're probably having a relaxing vacation in Mexico now.  Poll for the thread: What's the highest windspeed you've seen on your local airport's sensors? Mine was 45G51KT, and thank gently caress I wasn't flying at the time...
|
|
#
¿
Aug 26, 2017 04:28
|
|
|
e.pilot posted:I landed with 43kt sustained once. Hmm, where was that, out of curiosity? As far as I know, this (Calgary) is the only area that calls those winds Chinooks. If it was indeed Calgary or area, yeah, I can believe it. Our winds are right hosed around here. My max was sustained 20, gusting 25, but in a 172. We're not allowed to fly much beyond that. Straight down the runway, though.... usually when those winds hits, it's straight out of the west.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 26, 2017 04:55
|
|
|
Flew the Seneca for the first time today. Wow is there a lot more poo poo happening, a lot faster, than in a 172. And the money leaves my wallet faster too! I totally get why piston twins are a dying market now...
|
|
#
¿
Aug 28, 2017 22:50
|
|
|
AWSEFT posted:I remember leaving the Seminole to fly a 172 again and thinking: "Hu, this is REALLY slow. I'm bored"... at 100 feet I'm taking a buddy flying Wednesday night in the 172 so I guess we'll see. I remember after dealing with the new procedures for run-up, takeoff and climb, after we levelled out I was like "huh, uh... should I be doing something right now?" before realising it's still just a plane and we need to get out to the practice area.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 29, 2017 01:41
|
|
|
Second flight on the Seneca today. I felt slightly less overwhelmed by every single thing, so that's progress I guess! We were in the circuit and all my landings were pretty good.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 31, 2017 22:18
|
|
|
a patagonian cavy posted:+1 goon PPL as of today. Finally got my flying checkride with good weather. On to instrument! Congratulations!
|
|
#
¿
Aug 31, 2017 22:30
|
|
|
Bob A Feet posted:I think it's pretty stupid if you have the option to have a radio. It's an extra safety net you are avoiding. Yeah, if you can have a radio, you should have a radio, but I have no problem with NORDO aircraft being allowed to fly if there's a reason they can't have a radio. If you operate NORDO despite having a radio, you are a lazy moron and hopefully you don't take anyone out with you when your laziness leads you to compromise safety in some other way. Hell, I know guys who carry a backup handheld radio for every night flight to activate ARCAL in the case of an electrical system failure. Maybe overkill, but not the worst idea I've ever heard.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 4, 2017 20:42
|
|
|
The Ferret King posted:I don't believe see and avoid actually helps any more than random chance. Nobody sees poo poo. I see things sometimes, but it's definitely easier when I know where to look because the other plane has been making radio calls.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 6, 2017 20:47
|
|
|
Update the list, I just passed my multi-engine ride!
|
|
#
¿
Sep 24, 2017 01:48
|
|
|
e.pilot posted:Pics of your enlarged quads on your right leg? I did the rating in a Seneca, so I had counter-rotating props and thus no critical engine. Thank god for the small things -- at least I got both legs worked evenly. It's a really goddamn nice plane, extremely well-mannered and easy to control. I think all of the three flight schools at my home airport are using them exclusively for twin training now, after the lovely incident with the awful, lovely Tecnam piece of Italian trash.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 24, 2017 02:22
|
|
|
e.pilot posted:Deets on the tecnam incident? Sounds like fun. An idiot bought a plane with a SESC of 3000 ft. for a flight school based at 4000 ft. and then one crashed and people died. The report hasn't been released but I'm willing to bet it involved an adventure below Vmc with simulated engine failure, followed by a spin which may have been unrecoverable. Two instructors on board at the time. Later, we found out all the CFIs around told them what a poor plane they were buying, and some flight test examiners refused to do checkrides on them even before the crash. I totally get the appeal of a twin trainer that sips avgas, rather than burning 18-20 gph, but it turns out that when you optimise for efficiency alone, you get a poo poo plane.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 24, 2017 03:10
|
|
|
Captain Apollo posted:Congrats PT6A. Thanks! There are no minimum hours, you just need a recommendation from an instructor. Most people do the flight test with around 10 hours. Myself, I had 10.8. The ground portion was fairly simple. You had to demonstrate that you could calculate weight and balance, fuel requirements, ASD, single engine service ceiling, etc. Then he asked some questions about multi-engine-specific theory (critical engines, Vmc, effects of forward vs. rear loading with one engine inoperative, etc.), had me recite the important V-speeds from memory, and asked some systems-related questions about the aircraft. He supervised the walk-around (which is technically an "air item," meaning if you were to fail you are eligible for a partial re-test of that item alone). The practical portion consisted of a standard circuit and a touch-and-go, followed by general climb/departure procedure. He gave me a simulated engine failure during cruise, then we did the upper air work. We started with maneuvering at reduced airspeeds -- basically slow the aircraft down to 80 KIAS, add in flaps and gear, all while maintaining speed, heading and altitude, including through a 180-degree turn with 30 degrees of bank. From there, without returning to cruise configuration, we did the approach-to-stall in dirty configuration (meaning you recover at the first indication of a stall). Then we did the full stall in clean configuration, followed by recovery to cruise flight. Then we did steep turns, 180 degrees one way, 180 degrees the other way at 45 degrees of bank. Finally, we did simulated engine failure during overshoot (the one exercise I was worst at during training, but pulled off perfectly on the flight test). On the way back to the airport, he simulated an engine fire, so we set zero thrust on the engine in question after I had simulated securing the engine properly, and flew the circuit and landed on one engine. After we taxied back, he asked a few questions about other emergency situations -- such as gear extension problems, propeller overspeed and something else I can't remember. The official Transport Canada standard is here: https://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/civilaviation/publications/tp219-menu-3292.htm Interestingly, I don't think there's any requirement to have a separate rating in order to instruct the multi-engine rating in Canada -- you just need a multi-engine rating and an instructor rating. That being said, it is our policy (due to insurance requirements, I believe) that instructors must have 50 hours on type to instruct the rating, so at the moment only our CFI can do them. With students that already have the multi-engine rating, an instructor that holds a group 1 instrument rating can instruct the instrument rating in the Seneca without 50 hours on type, I believe. EDIT: I'd be interested to know how that compares to the US standard. Another difference is that there is no complex aircraft requirement for the CPL in Canada, so this was my (and I'm guessing a lot of students') first exposure to retractable landing gear and constant-speed props. PT6A fucked around with this message at 19:23 on Sep 24, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Sep 24, 2017 19:11
|
|
|
Rickety Cricket posted:OP update - ATP ERJ170/190 KLGA !! I guess I'm an airline pilot now! Congrats, that's awesome!
|
|
#
¿
Sep 28, 2017 16:06
|
|
|
e.pilot posted:It's a great time to be an up and coming pilot that's for sure. I don't know that the employment landscape has ever looked like this. Well... that's encouraging. I'm still thinking of getting my instructor rating to get up to 1000-1500 hours, maybe further, but I feel way better than I did when I was choosing between college and a CPL a decade ago.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 28, 2017 19:41
|
|
|
EvilJoven posted:Dude I've been hearing of people getting right seat at Jazz with 200 hours. I'd just find some gig that'll get you building hours. Instructing is a lot of weird hours and days sitting around hoping your students don't flake again. Last time I asked one of the instructors at my school how the life was treating him he kinda got a dejected look on his face and said 'well, last paycheck I made $300..'. I may try firing out a few resumes, but I don't believe all the stories I hear just yet.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 29, 2017 03:37
|
|
|
babyeatingpsychopath posted:So there were three flights this year, and one last year. Customs services are available there according to the website, so I imagine it receives a bit more traffic than that. Looks like a decent place for a $100 hamburger (god what an outdated phrase) if you happened to be near that area. They have a courtesy car, even!
|
|
#
¿
Oct 6, 2017 22:36
|
|
|
Rudest Buddhist posted:I like the 15-week ground school idea. Seems like a bunch of GA buffs just cranking people through with one PA-140. As far as I can tell, it would have to, by law, be a registered FTU, which means there's at least one class 1 instructor involved and Transport Canada has given it its blessing. I think trying to complete a license at a FTU with a single plane would be ridiculous and frustrating, but I suppose it would be possible.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 6, 2017 23:27
|
|
|
Welp. https://twitter.com/abc/status/919588623015727105 Goddamnit this is why we can't have nice things. Should drone operators have to be licensed and should drones have to be registered? Ideally, no, but when people just completely ignore existing laws and common sense, what other options do we have? I hope they find the operator and give him some free accommodation at the federal hotel.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 15, 2017 17:08
|
|
|
Just did my first actual flight under IFR after a bunch of time in the simulator. It's so much more challenging, obviously, but I'm really enjoying the extra challenge. Granted, doing holds for the first time in a 40-50 knot upper wind was probably not ideal. My holds were not very good, I'm certain.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 21, 2017 00:17
|
|
|
Well gently caress, there was another fatal crash at the airport I train out of. It's a lovely reminder that this is not an incredibly safe hobby/profession until you have a proper amount of experience. Mind you, on the other hand, people die driving cars every day too and we all do that without a second thought.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 26, 2017 19:13
|
|
|
One thing to remember is that, if you're at a big or busy airport, you will spend more time on the ground so you'll spend a bit more money for the same amount of airtime. On the other hand, you can get straight in approaches instead of having to deal with uncontrolled airport procedures ever time, so that saves time. I think it's probably worth it. I'm glad I have the experience of flying out of a busy airport, I just wish I had a bit more experience in dealing with more varied air traffic. My airport is controlled and busy, but the largest thing you'll see is a PC-12 or a small business jet.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 31, 2017 20:23
|
|
|
Rolo posted:You’ll probably save money but I feel like the extra comm work in controlled spaces prepares you more for your instrument training. You don’t want to be learning approaches when you aren’t 100% on your radio game yet, it just adds unnecessary stress. Yeah, instrument is difficult enough when you're already really comfortable flying within a busy airspace. I just got done my second actual IFR flight and comms are definitely one of the trickiest parts to get right, even though I feel 100% confident on the radio flying VFR. On the first flight, even my instructor was loving up clearances... Now the weather's gone to poo poo and I probably won't be able to fly for the rest of the week at least, so I'll be rusty when I get up in the air again.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2017 01:14
|
|
|
a patagonian cavy posted:+1 instrument pilot as of today. I hope no checkride is ever that stressful again. Congrats! I'm hoping to get mine done in the next month or so, most especially because my instructor just got hired to fly Lears at a local charter company and will probably be gone in another few weeks.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 17, 2017 21:13
|
|
|
I'm guessing it's also partially bureaucratic in nature, i.e. if you remove a published approach entirely it's a pain in the rear end to add it again if you ever want to or need to. I know the non-GNSS approaches into CYCG were NOTAM'd unavailable for months, maybe even years, before finally being removed a few months ago. It's a shame because, while they were comically awful compared to the now-available GNSS approach (which is, itself, still extremely dodgy), they were good for training purposes in the sim because where else are you going to have to understand and brief an NDB/LOC/DME-to-circling approach? EDIT: I misremembered, it was LOC/NDB/NDB or LOC/DME. Still a bit tricky compared to the average non-precision approach. PT6A fucked around with this message at 16:37 on Dec 11, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Dec 11, 2017 15:09
|
|
|
Jesus, I guess it's just what I'm used to, but NavCanada plates are way easier to understand than FAA plates.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 12, 2017 05:11
|
|
|
Flew a 172 for the first time since mid-August, after spending a few months flying the Seneca. Holy poo poo, everything moves in slow motion now and the controls are feather-light!
|
|
#
¿
Dec 23, 2017 01:11
|
|
|
e.pilot posted:Wait until you go on to flying turbine aircraft and go back to a 172, it feels like a toy. Yeah, I can only imagine! Hopefully that's only a few years away at this point... I should be getting my MIFR done in January, and then I'm starting my instructor rating. My instructor is about to start training on the Lear 55. He sounds kind of excited about it, but it's a bit hard to tell 
PT6A fucked around with this message at 03:06 on Dec 23, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Dec 23, 2017 02:59
|
|
|
I went to check the KJFK METARs, and either there’s a wildly different format than in Canada or something has gone awry. Should I be able to decode this? KJFK 042351Z 31030G37KT 8SM SCT037 OVC075 M04/M09 A2938 RMK AO2 PK WND 31045/2337 SLP950 PRESENT WX DRSN 931018 4/008 60011 T10391089 11039 21050 53037 $ What the hell is going on after DRSN? The rest makes sense and then...
|
|
#
¿
Jan 5, 2018 01:18
|
|
|
Huh, cool. I wonder if there's a Canadian equivalent to that code, I've never seen anything like it in the remarks section of our METARs.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 5, 2018 23:08
|
|
|
Canadian documents recommend that active pilots do not donate blood, but if you do, you should wait 48 hours before acting as a flight crew. However, I'm 99% sure that's an advisory thing, not a legal requirement. They also recommend waiting a full 24 hours after drinking any alcohol, and I'm sure there's a lot of pilots who make due with 8 (legally required, as in the States) or 12.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 7, 2018 19:56
|
|
|
I passed my multi-IFR flight test! I got a decent mark (52/64, you need 39 to pass), but oddly enough my worst marks were both approaches, which I know I could've done better, and I have done better, but I just hosed up reasonably bad out of nerves. Apparently my examiner has a bit of a reputation as a hardass (our CFI said not to pick her, and to go with the other guy, but my instructor said "you're gonna learn a lot from her, her training is responsible for getting me past my sim evals at my new job -- do it with her!") but she was super nice and reasonably forgiving, provided you were willing to learn from your mistakes and what she had to say about them, instead of acting like you're hot poo poo all the time. With that over, it is now beer o'clock.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 13, 2018 03:11
|
|
|
Bob A Feet posted:Pass is a pass. Nice work! Hey, that's exactly what I said to myself!
|
|
#
¿
Jan 13, 2018 05:08
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 12:33 |
|
|
a patagonian cavy posted:It is. I’m literally in the same boat and location that you are and I was offered a job at the flight school I did my training at and I haven’t even passed my CFI checkrides. Canada's quite similar. Nothing formal, but our CFI "offered" me a job as soon as he heard I was interested in doing an instructor rating. We're so short-staffed for instructors that the ones we have right now are booking three to four weeks ahead.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 18, 2018 14:14
|
|