....how many different airplanes would you feel you could fly on a random basis as needed where you work?
Instead of a PPC the only requirement was profficiency on each airplane.
If there were no need to have a PPC......
Moderators: lilfssister, North Shore, sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, Right Seat Captain
-
Cat Driver
- Top Poster
- Posts: 18921
- Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 8:31 pm
If there were no need to have a PPC......
The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no
After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
-
just curious
- Rank Moderator
- Posts: 3592
- Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2004 9:29 am
- Location: The Frozen North
- Contact:
-
cruisecontrol
- Rank 1
- Posts: 30
- Joined: Thu May 31, 2007 7:37 pm
- Location: A pub near you
Anything of course because I AM A GOD! Cue the lightning bolts.
In theory any fixed wing following the rules of aerodynamics with varying degrees of success but realistically C150-206, single Diamonds and the PA44. The difference between being able to fly and being able to call myself current is being able to recall how the systems function and how to operate them, being able to recall memory items and the quirks that you see moving from one make and model to he next.
In theory any fixed wing following the rules of aerodynamics with varying degrees of success but realistically C150-206, single Diamonds and the PA44. The difference between being able to fly and being able to call myself current is being able to recall how the systems function and how to operate them, being able to recall memory items and the quirks that you see moving from one make and model to he next.
-
Cat Driver
- Top Poster
- Posts: 18921
- Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 8:31 pm
pika, I'm talking stuff below 12,500 pounds that pilots generally start their careers on.
There would be few companies where a pilot would be asked to fly a Boeing one day an Airbus the next day and MD11 the next day, not that it would not be possible just unlikely.
Not to mention the airline end of flying is far more structured crew wise and bidding equipment wise...of course you could be self employed as a ferry pilot and ferry various heavies from country to country...but where would you find the opportunity.
So my question is aimed at the small aircraft sector say up to 12,500 pounds as a cut off.
And lets just pretend the company operates light helicopters as well as the fixed wing stuff...so it would involve random flying of both fixed and rotary wing as a steady diet.
There would be few companies where a pilot would be asked to fly a Boeing one day an Airbus the next day and MD11 the next day, not that it would not be possible just unlikely.
Not to mention the airline end of flying is far more structured crew wise and bidding equipment wise...of course you could be self employed as a ferry pilot and ferry various heavies from country to country...but where would you find the opportunity.
So my question is aimed at the small aircraft sector say up to 12,500 pounds as a cut off.
And lets just pretend the company operates light helicopters as well as the fixed wing stuff...so it would involve random flying of both fixed and rotary wing as a steady diet.
The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no
After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
It all depends upon the pilot. For some pilots, one type is too much to handle. For others, 10 types might be easily handled.
This is not only a function of aptitude. Clearly, a highly experienced pilot that had spent the last 10 years flying each type solely for a complete year would have far less difficulty now flying all 10, than a new-hire who has never flown any of the 10 types.
I presume the use of checklists would be permitted? They kinda take the challenge out of all that memory work.
I'm sure that no one here remembers, but a few years back at Oshkosh Bob Hoover set a record, flying (IIRC) 51 different types in one hour.
That is no typo. He flew 51 different aircraft, each a different type, in one hour. Needless to say, he had a crew starting and warming up each aircraft, so he just jumped in and off he went.
It's easy to see why such a talented individual ran afoul of the envious bureaucrats. These days, I'm sure the brain trust would label such a person as "criminally negligent"
This is not only a function of aptitude. Clearly, a highly experienced pilot that had spent the last 10 years flying each type solely for a complete year would have far less difficulty now flying all 10, than a new-hire who has never flown any of the 10 types.
I presume the use of checklists would be permitted? They kinda take the challenge out of all that memory work.
I'm sure that no one here remembers, but a few years back at Oshkosh Bob Hoover set a record, flying (IIRC) 51 different types in one hour.
That is no typo. He flew 51 different aircraft, each a different type, in one hour. Needless to say, he had a crew starting and warming up each aircraft, so he just jumped in and off he went.
It's easy to see why such a talented individual ran afoul of the envious bureaucrats. These days, I'm sure the brain trust would label such a person as "criminally negligent"
-
Cat Driver
- Top Poster
- Posts: 18921
- Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 8:31 pm
Hedley, you and I know the vast chasm between pilots aptitude wise, however I thought I would pose this question to see if TC's decision to bring in the PPC requirement has had an effect on the general pilot population.
What moved me to start this thread was a thread in the helicopter forum that was discussing flying helicopters and fixed wing.
It seems that some people think that it is not safe for a pilot to fly both types.
Which led me to wonder how many airplanes the average pilot feels they could out think and not crash one.
What moved me to start this thread was a thread in the helicopter forum that was discussing flying helicopters and fixed wing.
It seems that some people think that it is not safe for a pilot to fly both types.
Which led me to wonder how many airplanes the average pilot feels they could out think and not crash one.
The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no
After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
-
Big Pistons Forever
- Top Poster
- Posts: 5955
- Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2004 7:17 pm
- Location: West Coast
The problem with the PPC is it is all about type specific trivia, yet most accidents are related to poor decsion making and/or poor airmanship. So why should I know the capacity of the brake reservior on a PA31 ( an actual question I was asked on a PPC ride ), Has anybody died because they didn't know this piece of aeronautical trivia ?
About 10 years ago I flew a corporate C 340. The owner ran it exactly like a jet operation from a maintance and operatonal standpoint, including annual recurrent training at SIMCOM. They had a 1.5 Million dollar custom made simulator with full visuals and an very high level of fidelity to the real airplane. After a morning spent with a pilot centred review of the systems I spent the remainder of the time doing all the stuff you would never do in the real airplane ( eg engine cuts at rotation) or can not easily simulate in an actual airpalne ( eg cascading failures, weather decison making when dealing with a busted forecast etc etc ). the instructors were mostly retired corporate guys with a ton of experience and there was a strong emphasis on realistic scenarios. Overall it was the best 3 days of training I have ever recieved and virtually all of it was in reality generic training I could directly apply to any piston twin. The major airlines have conclusively demonstrated the value of good simulator training. IMO if we want the PPC to actually mean anything then this level of mandatory annual training should be required for every 703 operator.
Since this is unlikely to be adopted I guess we will continue to have the current low value added, tick the box, meet the minimum level PPC....
About 10 years ago I flew a corporate C 340. The owner ran it exactly like a jet operation from a maintance and operatonal standpoint, including annual recurrent training at SIMCOM. They had a 1.5 Million dollar custom made simulator with full visuals and an very high level of fidelity to the real airplane. After a morning spent with a pilot centred review of the systems I spent the remainder of the time doing all the stuff you would never do in the real airplane ( eg engine cuts at rotation) or can not easily simulate in an actual airpalne ( eg cascading failures, weather decison making when dealing with a busted forecast etc etc ). the instructors were mostly retired corporate guys with a ton of experience and there was a strong emphasis on realistic scenarios. Overall it was the best 3 days of training I have ever recieved and virtually all of it was in reality generic training I could directly apply to any piston twin. The major airlines have conclusively demonstrated the value of good simulator training. IMO if we want the PPC to actually mean anything then this level of mandatory annual training should be required for every 703 operator.
Since this is unlikely to be adopted I guess we will continue to have the current low value added, tick the box, meet the minimum level PPC....
A quick peek at the ICAS website found this guy:
http://icas.networkats.com/members_onli ... rs.asp?p=6
http://icas.networkats.com/members_onli ... rs.asp?p=6
I'm sure there are other guys far more qualified - I just found him in 30 seconds.Cross, Eliot;COMM;12/31/2008
SOKO G2A, Commonwealth CA-13, Great Lakes, Stolp Strarduster, Waco, BD5J, Stewart 51, Bucker, Pitts Special, Stearman, AT-6, Vickers Spitfire, Aerostar, Cassutt, Agcat, Extra, NA P-51, SF-260, P-40
Solo Aerobatics Unrestricted
Formation aerobatics Unrestricted
Wing walking Unrestricted
-
LostinRotation
- Rank (9)
- Posts: 1048
- Joined: Wed Apr 06, 2005 11:54 pm
- Location: Cloud #8
C-GGGQ wrote:well the school has a couple of 172's and a seneca all i'm checked on, I've handled a Navajo before, and a King Air 200 (never landed that one though).
At 250ish hours with some unloggable right seat time on a Ho' I hardly think your capable of flying a BE-20 on your own. Stick and rudder on a 172 and a seneca are one thing. Systems management and emeg procedures on a King Air are completely another. I can also prolly come up with 10 reasons why I wouldn't even put you left seat on the Ho.
-=0=LiR=0=-
Sometimes I think it's a shame when I get feelin' better when I'm feelin no pain.
Cat.
People like GGGQ are the reason PPC's are necessary.
It is unfortunate that TC has to do the job an operator should be doing, but it necessary.
Keep in mind that 92% of pilots rate themselves above average. Virtually none below average. We are not good judges of our own competency.
The ability to safely move from one aircraft to another is subject to so many variables that I believe it impossible to state even a general number.
Having once again had some exposure to the Canadian industry , it seems with the high pilot turnover, many many companies are trying to spend even less on training and are content with the lowest acceptable quality of pilot. It is just to bad that the companies that do empahsize proper training, supervision, and currency are having to pay for it.
People like GGGQ are the reason PPC's are necessary.
It is unfortunate that TC has to do the job an operator should be doing, but it necessary.
Keep in mind that 92% of pilots rate themselves above average. Virtually none below average. We are not good judges of our own competency.
The ability to safely move from one aircraft to another is subject to so many variables that I believe it impossible to state even a general number.
Having once again had some exposure to the Canadian industry , it seems with the high pilot turnover, many many companies are trying to spend even less on training and are content with the lowest acceptable quality of pilot. It is just to bad that the companies that do empahsize proper training, supervision, and currency are having to pay for it.
Accident speculation:
Those that post don’t know. Those that know don’t post
Those that post don’t know. Those that know don’t post
An airplane is an airplane. At the end of the day, they're all the same with little quirks and differences.
You pull to go up, push to go down and add power to go faster. It's not rocket science.
The most I've flown in a day was 5 ranging from twin turbines to single turbines and a piston twin. It was no big deal. In fact the only time I thought about it was when I was adding up the hours for my logbook at the end of the month.
The hardest part is preflighting them all.
I don't have any special flying skills and I think anyone can fly as many planes as they can get their hands on as long as they understand the systems, speeds and engine limits.
If you feel comfortable, do it. If not, don't.
You pull to go up, push to go down and add power to go faster. It's not rocket science.
The most I've flown in a day was 5 ranging from twin turbines to single turbines and a piston twin. It was no big deal. In fact the only time I thought about it was when I was adding up the hours for my logbook at the end of the month.
The hardest part is preflighting them all.
I don't have any special flying skills and I think anyone can fly as many planes as they can get their hands on as long as they understand the systems, speeds and engine limits.
If you feel comfortable, do it. If not, don't.
-
Cat Driver
- Top Poster
- Posts: 18921
- Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 8:31 pm
