Flight simulator software for Cessna 172 question

This forum has been developed to discuss flight instruction/University and College programs.

Moderators: sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, Right Seat Captain, lilfssister, North Shore

Mark Rose
Rank 2
Rank 2
Posts: 57
Joined: Fri Jul 18, 2014 2:03 pm
Location: CYTZ

Re: Flight simulator software for Cessna 172 question

Post by Mark Rose »

Colonel Sanders wrote:Anyways, this lack of fundamental piloting skills is a huge
embarrassment to us in Canada. I get crapped on a lot
because I point it out - which hurts people's feelings - and
I try to do something about it.
Feelings are irrelevant when people could get hurt or die. I would want any future instructor of mine to insist I did things correctly above all else, and correctly from a reality standpoint, not PC dogma.

It's making me think I should learn how to fly well, then teach the same. I can't be the only one who wants to master the basics before moving on to gizmos (I do like gizmos).
Denial isn't just a river in Egypt.

Following is how students of today's instructors (and
future airline pilots) fly tailwheel:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vfy5SRKx ... page#t=139

Oh. My. God. As far as I can tell, he hates that Maule.
He has no idea what adverse yaw is. He has no idea
what the rudder pedals are for. Because his instructor
doesn't either.
That was painful to watch. :(
The FAA is not happy with this. After this latest spate
of accidents, they went bananas and insisted that everyone
up front in part 121 must have an ATP, which includes
1500 real hours in an aircraft, and a whole bunch of new
requirements, which are now in effect (Aug 1st).

The FAA is going exactly opposite to the rest of the world
in this respect. Everywhere else, people are trying to
get kids with 200TT into the right seats of Boeings. This
is not working terribly well in the Orient.
I think the FAA is doing the right thing. It takes at least a thousand hours of practice to get competent at anything in life. It's a universal truth, regardless of if it's woodworking, playing an instrument, programming, learning a language, or, dare I say, piloting a plane.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Mark Rose
Rank 2
Rank 2
Posts: 57
Joined: Fri Jul 18, 2014 2:03 pm
Location: CYTZ

Re: Flight simulator software for Cessna 172 question

Post by Mark Rose »

Shiny Side Up wrote: The thing to remember is that the classes of instructor aren't indicative of the skill level of airplanes. Class 2 is basically saying one has the understanding to be a CFI, Class 1 is saying that one can teach other instructors. Neither rating confers any other skill, just like it doesn't mean you're a multi instructor, a float instructor or an IFR instructor. It would probably be more accurate to say that - like a driver's license (at least in Alberta) - one is a Class 3,2 and 1 instructor, just like I hold a Class 5 and 6 driver's license.

While we probably should be like south of the border and have a specific endorsment for tailwheel, I think we also don't want to solve the problem with more government and more regulation.
After seeing the number of tailwheel accidents from pilots who can't fly, I understand why it's an endorsement. I also agree that more government is generally not a solution, as regulation usually creates more problems than it solves.
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
Colonel Sanders
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 7512
Joined: Sun Jun 14, 2009 5:17 pm
Location: Over Macho Grande

Re: Flight simulator software for Cessna 172 question

Post by Colonel Sanders »

In the USA, the FAA requires a logbook endorsement
from a CFI if a pilot wishes to fly tailwheel, or retractable
gear, etc. This is not a rating on a licence - just a one
time entry in the pilot logbook.

NB I am not required to have these endorsements,
even though I hold FAA COMM and ATP certificates,
because I logged PIC on these aircraft before the
FARs were enacted and hence I am grandfathered.

Anyways, we have no such requirements in Canada.
You want to jump into a Pitts or a Bonanza right
after you get your PPL signed off, fill your boots.

But, wait. You probably want insurance, right?
In Canada, the insurance companies are the
gatekeepers in this respect. I know a guy, bought
a Mooney, had to get FIFTY hours of dual
on it, to get insurance, which is far beyond anything
the FAA requires.

Same thing for tailwheel.

So, don't be fooled into thinking that extra training
isn't required in Canada, to fly something sporty.

Forcing people to get training (we do it indirectly in
Canada) isn't the problem.

Competent instruction is. What instructor at your
field is competent to check you out in a Pitts, or
a Luscombe, or Stearman, or Harvard, or Bonanza,
or Comanche, or Mooney?

How about a twin Comanche? Apache? Aztec?
C310? Baron? C421? Beech 18? Twin Bonanza?

That's the problem.

A local guy, bought a Skybolt. Insurance wanted
an instructor with time on type. How many instructors
at your airport have time on type on a Skybolt?
Or a Great Lakes? Or a Hatz? Or a Waco? What
model of Waco? How about a Piaggio Royal Gull?

Incredibly, most pilots have no interest whatsoever
in learning to fly the plethora of certified and homebuilt
types out there, which mystifies me.

All they want to fly are plastic airplanes, with a nosewheel
and a glass panel. Is that really flying? Why not save
your money and just stay in your basement and play
with Microsoft flight sim?

I should add that a plastic airplane with a tailwheel is a
horse of an entirely different colour:

Image
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
Shiny Side Up
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 5335
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2004 5:02 pm
Location: Group W bench

Re: Flight simulator software for Cessna 172 question

Post by Shiny Side Up »

Incredibly, most pilots have no interest whatsoever
in learning to fly the plethora of ... ...homebuilt
types out there, which mystifies me.
In the case of homebuilts I can understand... Some are works of art, some are freaking scary interpretive things that will try to kill you. Builders are wierd sometimes what they think helps make them "safe" and what are acceptable "issues".
---------- ADS -----------
 
We can't stop here! This is BAT country!
User avatar
Colonel Sanders
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 7512
Joined: Sun Jun 14, 2009 5:17 pm
Location: Over Macho Grande

Re: Flight simulator software for Cessna 172 question

Post by Colonel Sanders »

In the case of homebuilts I can understand
Point taken. I do a lot of first flights and training
on homebuilts, and there is a lot more than just
piloting involved.

To fly homebuilts, you had better be pretty mechanically
inclined and knowledgeable, which rules out most pilots.

For example, I did a first flight on a homebuilt about
a year ago. I noticed that some castellated nuts on
some control linkages did not have cotter pins. I asked
that they be installed before flight.

This was after two inspections by the MD-RA delegate,
which IMHO are worthless.

Remember what happened to Jimmy at Reno.

Another homebuilt, just imported. Again, MD-RA
inspections and paper signed off. I asked the new
owners to have my buddy, who has built 20 of the
type (RV) to take a look at it before I flew it.

Sure enough, the rudder was an unserviceable
mess. Rivets were not squeezed and it had been
damaged. Lest you think that I am too fussy, a
friend of mine (Andrew Philips) is quite dead now,
when his rudder came to pieces in flight on his
RV-7A.

I spent all day Saturday, getting the charging
system working on another homebuilt, so he
could do his first flight.

Most instructors aren't up for this, and that's
ok. But homebuilders really, really need
competent flight instruction. Their safety
record is really horrible, esp for the first
few flights.

Contrast this with a 1000TT instructor I
knew, that was too frightened to instruct
on a Cherokee. All his time was on 172.
He's flying a King Air out west now, not
too far from you. He's not up for the
homebuilt world.

Same thing applies to the warbird and
ex-military stuff that is right out of heavy
maintenance, and/or has not flown in a
long time.

Paper is nice, but you had better know your
systems and be very mechanically and
electrically and hydraulically inclined if you
want to live to see dinner.

However, I'm pretty stupid compared
to most people here, I am told. The
self-proclaimed experts here should have
no problem doing this kind of experimental
and production test flying.
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
Colonel Sanders
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 7512
Joined: Sun Jun 14, 2009 5:17 pm
Location: Over Macho Grande

Re: Flight simulator software for Cessna 172 question

Post by Colonel Sanders »

Anyone here remember say Tom Delashaw,
who was ferrying a Hawker Hunter to Montreal
for the Northern Lights?

http://www.aero-news.net/getmorefromann ... 36b4dda842
Tom 'Sharkbait' Delashaw Down in Pennsylvania

F-104 Performer, Lost in Hawker Hunter

This private T-MK 7 Hunter went down in Pittston Township shortly after taking off from the airport at about 9AM, said FAA spokesman Jim Peters. No one on the ground was hurt.

Delashaw (shown, right, in his Starfighter) was pulled from the wreck by construction workers in the area, who rushed to give aid; Tom was dead at the scene, according to local reports. The ejection seat and a partially-open 'chute were reported nearby.

The plane had been undergoing a lot of maintenance, for several months, according to a local report; the maintenance crew was identified as Canadian.
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
Shiny Side Up
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 5335
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2004 5:02 pm
Location: Group W bench

Re: Flight simulator software for Cessna 172 question

Post by Shiny Side Up »

The thing I hate are things that are technically "serviceable" but compared to certified aircraft, are terribly bad ideas. Usually switches, valves and other things that are in bad places, poorly accessible and other such things. See John Denver.

The fad these days of course is to squeeze a few yards of glass into these panels too, since that's where homebuilders usually place a paramount concern for "safety". Of course this often displaces stuff like throttles and mag switches, on top of the rats nest of wires for PCAS and additional layer of GPS "safety". Makes a telephone pole in Mumbai look tidy.
---------- ADS -----------
 
We can't stop here! This is BAT country!
User avatar
Shiny Side Up
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 5335
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2004 5:02 pm
Location: Group W bench

Re: Flight simulator software for Cessna 172 question

Post by Shiny Side Up »

Is it just me, or does a glass panel in any taildragger feel wrong? They're apparently making new Wacos with glass panels.
---------- ADS -----------
 
We can't stop here! This is BAT country!
Big Pistons Forever
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 5861
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2004 7:17 pm
Location: West Coast

Re: Flight simulator software for Cessna 172 question

Post by Big Pistons Forever »

Shiny Side Up wrote:Is it just me, or does a glass panel in any taildragger feel wrong? They're apparently making new Wacos with glass panels.
It is not you. Glass in a classic tail dragger is just wrong.
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
Colonel Sanders
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 7512
Joined: Sun Jun 14, 2009 5:17 pm
Location: Over Macho Grande

Re: Flight simulator software for Cessna 172 question

Post by Colonel Sanders »

a glass panel in any taildragger feel wrong?
It's surreal, I know. Complete incongruity.

Don't get me wrong, I love all the engine info
for diagnositics - all the CHTs, all the EGTs,
the fuel flow - but I can't help but thinking
that if you're flying an open cockpit biplane,
you should be looking outside. You know,
VFR in VMC.

People get terribly angry at you, when they
think you might have flown a biplane in cloud.
13 years later, you can expect to be heckled
on AvCan for it. Curiously, you're a BAD PERSON
for the rest of your life.

Stick to VMC in biplanes, I say.
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
Shiny Side Up
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 5335
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2004 5:02 pm
Location: Group W bench

Re: Flight simulator software for Cessna 172 question

Post by Shiny Side Up »

I got nothing against flying a biplane in cloud, it just seems like a misuse of a biplane. Who's crazy to be flying open cockpit IFR? Not to say you can't if you want to, but it just seems off.

Was just reading an article about the new Waco, seemed bizarre how what is a work of art in steel tubing and fabric, focused on its IFR capability.
---------- ADS -----------
 
We can't stop here! This is BAT country!
User avatar
Colonel Sanders
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 7512
Joined: Sun Jun 14, 2009 5:17 pm
Location: Over Macho Grande

Re: Flight simulator software for Cessna 172 question

Post by Colonel Sanders »

Yes - all-weather capability in an open
cockpit biplane. That's what everyone
wants, so they can takeoff and land in
the pouring rain.
---------- ADS -----------
 
CpnCrunch
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 4011
Joined: Mon Feb 08, 2010 9:38 am

Re: Flight simulator software for Cessna 172 question

Post by CpnCrunch »

He's talking about VFR in cloud, not IFR LOL. Anyway let's not go down that tribunal rabbit hole twice in the one week.

I might possibly have brushed the edges of a few clouds in VFR myself in the past for fun, but at least I didn't have spectators at the time.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Mark Rose
Rank 2
Rank 2
Posts: 57
Joined: Fri Jul 18, 2014 2:03 pm
Location: CYTZ

Re: Flight simulator software for Cessna 172 question

Post by Mark Rose »

Colonel Sanders wrote: But, wait. You probably want insurance, right?
In Canada, the insurance companies are the
gatekeepers in this respect. I know a guy, bought
a Mooney, had to get FIFTY hours of dual
on it, to get insurance, which is far beyond anything
the FAA requires.
That's nuts! Is because the wings are low? Aren't they all slow tricycles just like a 172? Are they really that different to fly?
Same thing for tailwheel.
Another reason for doing my PPL in one. Hopefully that will count for something with the insurance companies.
So, don't be fooled into thinking that extra training
isn't required in Canada, to fly something sporty.

Forcing people to get training (we do it indirectly in
Canada) isn't the problem.

Competent instruction is. What instructor at your
field is competent to check you out in a Pitts, or
a Luscombe, or Stearman, or Harvard, or Bonanza,
or Comanche, or Mooney?

How about a twin Comanche? Apache? Aztec?
C310? Baron? C421? Beech 18? Twin Bonanza?

That's the problem.

A local guy, bought a Skybolt. Insurance wanted
an instructor with time on type. How many instructors
at your airport have time on type on a Skybolt?
Or a Great Lakes? Or a Hatz? Or a Waco? What
model of Waco? How about a Piaggio Royal Gull?
I've never even heard of many of those. At what point do you have enough time on varied types that the insurance companies don't care?
Incredibly, most pilots have no interest whatsoever
in learning to fly the plethora of certified and homebuilt
types out there, which mystifies me.

All they want to fly are plastic airplanes, with a nosewheel
and a glass panel. Is that really flying? Why not save
your money and just stay in your basement and play
with Microsoft flight sim?

I should add that a plastic airplane with a tailwheel is a
horse of an entirely different colour:
I'm still thinking of buying a plastic, glass panel, tailwheel. But after I learn the basics. Just like how I want to master NDB approaches before I do my first ILS or GPS. It just makes sense to me to do it that way.

What makes a plastic tailwheel so much different? Just that it's a tailwheel?
---------- ADS -----------
 
Mark Rose
Rank 2
Rank 2
Posts: 57
Joined: Fri Jul 18, 2014 2:03 pm
Location: CYTZ

Re: Flight simulator software for Cessna 172 question

Post by Mark Rose »

Shiny Side Up wrote:The thing I hate are things that are technically "serviceable" but compared to certified aircraft, are terribly bad ideas. Usually switches, valves and other things that are in bad places, poorly accessible and other such things. See John Denver.

The fad these days of course is to squeeze a few yards of glass into these panels too, since that's where homebuilders usually place a paramount concern for "safety". Of course this often displaces stuff like throttles and mag switches, on top of the rats nest of wires for PCAS and additional layer of GPS "safety". Makes a telephone pole in Mumbai look tidy.
What are your thoughts on kit-built planes where everything but the panel is the same as the certified version?

I laughed aloud at your Mumbai telephone analogy.
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
Colonel Sanders
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 7512
Joined: Sun Jun 14, 2009 5:17 pm
Location: Over Macho Grande

Re: Flight simulator software for Cessna 172 question

Post by Colonel Sanders »

50 hrs dual was for the retractable gear Mooney.

Which I can kind of understand. Pilots often
forget to lower the gear. Even ones with ATPL's.

Insurance companies love me. I've never had
any trouble getting approved as PIC on anything,
and I fly some pretty weird stuff.

re: plastic tailwheel ... I was bowing down to the
composite unlimited-category aerobatic monoplanes,
which are all tailwheel, I might add. For people at
that skill level, tailwheel is not a problem.

Regardless of construction, a tailwheel aircraft will
keep you honest. It is unforgiving, and will teach
you to be a much better pilot. You can land a nosewheel
aircraft in a crab, and leave your feet flat on the floor,
but a tailwheel aircraft will not forgive that.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Mark Rose
Rank 2
Rank 2
Posts: 57
Joined: Fri Jul 18, 2014 2:03 pm
Location: CYTZ

Re: Flight simulator software for Cessna 172 question

Post by Mark Rose »

Colonel Sanders wrote:50 hrs dual was for the retractable gear Mooney.

Which I can kind of understand. Pilots often
forget to lower the gear. Even ones with ATPL's.
Ahh, that makes more sense. Was that 50 hours with no retractable experience? Still, seems a bit ridiculous to me.
re: plastic tailwheel ... I was bowing down to the
composite unlimited-category aerobatic monoplanes,
which are all tailwheel, I might add. For people at
that skill level, tailwheel is not a problem.
Gotcha. Something like a Swift S1? Though that doesn't have an engine.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gYQrJKcA4Js (Luca Bertossio pushes -4.25g at the 2 minute mark)

Regardless of construction, a tailwheel aircraft will
keep you honest. It is unforgiving, and will teach
you to be a much better pilot. You can land a nosewheel
aircraft in a crab, and leave your feet flat on the floor,
but a tailwheel aircraft will not forgive that.
Will it forgive you once you're facing backwards in the grass after landing? :smile:
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
Shiny Side Up
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 5335
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2004 5:02 pm
Location: Group W bench

Re: Flight simulator software for Cessna 172 question

Post by Shiny Side Up »

Mark Rose wrote: What are your thoughts on kit-built planes where everything but the panel is the same as the certified version?
I really don't care what's in the panel, its just that homebuilders I find tend to overdo things. I mean how much IFR capability do you need in a thing that's got no de-ice? Seems silly. Flew an airplane that had 3 panel mount GPSs in it, and that's not including all the suction cups for iPads and the yoke mount for another. I guess if you sink that kind of money you got to make a show of using it, but I threw the yoke mount into the back with the suction cups, cleaned up the window and flew the damn thing. Now that was a Cessna 340, but I've seen similar things stuffed into RVs until there's hardly enough room for people, and definitely a hazard since now you can't see important stuff like fuel selectors or fuel guages. I flew another with an overzealous triple redundant AoA indication replete with bitchin betty who was as afraid of stalling as the owner, since she started the bitching way before the poor thing was anywhere close to stalling. Consequently it leads (I feel) a lot of more-builders-than-pilots to land way long and fast and wear out a lot of tires and brakes. There's two things they're terrified of: Flying into clouds and stalling, and there's a lot of evidence of that in any magazine that covers the subject. There must be a hundred different stall-warning-AoA-flashing-light-gizmos for sale.
Ahh, that makes more sense. Was that 50 hours with no retractable experience? Still, seems a bit ridiculous to me.
You have to remember insurance people aren't pilots, they regulate by statistics. They also want to cover their asses as much as they think they can, so tend to overdo things rather than not. I suspect that if enough people are willing to undergo 50 hour dual gatekeeping, and the company still thinks they're paying out too much, they'll just increase the time. Insurance companies love hours, they really have no concept of testing processes or really any sort of logic. It sometimes is worth it to go through the trouble of lengthy explanations for them, like how yes, a 185 and a 180 are different models, but they are similar enough for flying purposes.
---------- ADS -----------
 
We can't stop here! This is BAT country!
CpnCrunch
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 4011
Joined: Mon Feb 08, 2010 9:38 am

Re: Flight simulator software for Cessna 172 question

Post by CpnCrunch »

Colonel Sanders wrote: Regardless of construction, a tailwheel aircraft will
keep you honest. It is unforgiving, and will teach
you to be a much better pilot. You can land a nosewheel
aircraft in a crab, and leave your feet flat on the floor,
but a tailwheel aircraft will not forgive that.
Out of curiosity, what is the correct technique for landing when the crosswind is too strong to track the centreline with sideslip alone? Should you use some crab, kick it out at the last moment, and put the thing on the ground before the wind blows you off the runway?

Also, how do ercoupes cope with landing in a wings-level crab in a crosswind (which is apparently the recommended/only technique)?
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
Colonel Sanders
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 7512
Joined: Sun Jun 14, 2009 5:17 pm
Location: Over Macho Grande

Re: Flight simulator software for Cessna 172 question

Post by Colonel Sanders »

landing when the crosswind is too strong to track the centreline with sideslip alone?
If you have a high-wing, little airplane, then
it is not very likely that you will scrape a wingtip
during a crosswind landing with a sideslip to
align the aircraft.

Eric and I were bored one day, with the windsock
straight out across the runway. Ottawa was calling
15 gusting 20 knots, so we did this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=US9je8STwjo

What you describe is more of a problem with
low-wing aircraft which have stuff hanging down
which limits the angle of bank which may be used
in the slip.

What I do in that situation is land on the upwind
main first, with as much slip as I safely can, and
crab as required, then straighten out and touch
the downwind main on.

This sounds more complicated than it really is.
You can probably find some youtube videos
that show this.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Post Reply

Return to “Flight Training”