Learning to fly, or thinking of learning? Post your questions, comments and experiences here

Moderator: AndyR

  • 1
  • 20
  • 21
  • 22
  • 23
  • 24
  • 37
User avatar
By T6Harvard
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1909579
Oh brilliant! A great read and a whole different confidence level. Nice one :thumleft:

Well done on Met, too. It sank in after all :thumright:

I'm working on Nav in the garden (not that our garden is that big, but it is sunny today, IYSWIM :lol: ).

I've also just ordered some new varifocals because I struggled yesterday to read the Kollsman without raising my untinted distance glasses. I can see every other bit of info perfectly but that was tricky. Given that it is pretty crucial I'm happy to send Glasses Direct a little dosh. (I already have varifocal sunnies but not clear specs).
Milty liked this
By TopCat
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1909584
Sounds like a thoroughly excellent trip, well done. Just a couple of things, if I may:

> Benson call was a bit odd. Had to prompt for a clearance which came back a
> little later than comfortable but all OK in the end.

Did you go through the ATZ - which would need a clearance - or just the MATZ? Outside the ATZ, a standard MATZ is not controlled airspace. So you get - somewhat confusingly - 'MATZ penetration approved', not a 'cleared to cross etc'. It's a subtle but important difference.

> Discussed the 70kt approach and lack of stall warner with the instructor.
> He gave a credible explanation and I put my faith in him.

I won't (necessarily!!) argue further, but I'd be interested to hear what he said :)

Anyway, great progress, all sounding good. :thumleft:
User avatar
By Milty
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1909605
TopCat wrote:
> Sounds like a thoroughly excellent trip, well done. Just a couple of things, if I
> may:

Thank you, and of course you may - I expect nothing else :wink:

> > Benson call was a bit odd. Had to prompt for a clearance which came back a
> > little later than comfortable but all OK in the end.
>
> Did you go through the ATZ - which would need a clearance - or just the MATZ?
> Outside the ATZ, a standard MATZ is not controlled airspace. So you get - somewhat
> confusingly - 'MATZ penetration approved', not a 'cleared to cross etc'. It's a
> subtle but important difference.

Just the MATZ pen and this was as expected. I think that it just felt a bit strange as Brize had been so nice and helpful and complimentary about us accepting the pass to tower and back without fuss. Benson was just less helpful and left a lot of pauses despite there being no traffic (on VHF anyway). In fairness, I butchered the call a bit worse than the Brize one so he probably treated me deservedly as a bit of an ****. Not a big problem and he was helpful to pass us on to Brize so didn’t need to ask for the full permission on the way back through.

> > Discussed the 70kt approach and lack of stall warner with the instructor.
> > He gave a credible explanation and I put my faith in him.
>
> I won't (necessarily!!) argue further, but I'd be interested to hear what he said :)

I’m honestly in two minds how to respond and will not be getting into a big diatribe on this. I really appreciate your input on all posts and I’m in no position to say whether you or my instructor is right or wrong (or both right or both wrong or neither). But I am putting my faith in my instructor for now as he’s not let me down so far.

Principally, 70kt approach is because Glos is a busy airport often with a lot of traffic and 70kts until over the hedge helps avoid slowing others up and has no real downside. Ideally 65kts after the hedge. Gives a bit of margin for new students if conditions are a bit gusty. He’s not a fan of teaching land with the stall warner and feels it teaches bad practice. Has examples of other students taught that way who fixated on it, then stalled at 10ft from the runway and wrote the aircraft off. Also commented that many aircraft don’t have stall warners so what then. Also, stall warners on old Cessnas (and I suspect others) are not exactly calibrated. They’re principally party blowers and he was pretty sure that if you took the three school 152’s out, the stall warners would all go at different speeds. He commented that a good landing is where you are at the lowest descent rate and horizontal speed but feels that teaching correct setup and attitude is better than fixating on the stall warner. Agreed that for shorter runways, a different setup is needed and understanding of what to do which is also not just reliant on the stall warner. As I said, I’m in no position to argue with either of you so I’m going to leave it at that. He was happy with todays landing without it and so was I.

As with my most recent post, my epiphany is that I’m learning and don’t need to be perfect. I need to be good enough to not kill myself, others or aircraft. Next step is be good enough to pass a skills test. After that, learning and finessing starts.

If any of that reads offensive at all, it’s not meant to. We all have our thoughts and opinions and I respect everyone’s right to theirs. I’m saying until I need to consider another viewpoint, I’m putting my faith in the guy that has got me this far with all pieces still intact (mine and his).

> Anyway, great progress, all sounding good. :thumleft:

Thanks. As mentioned, I appreciate yours and all others support.
T6Harvard, Cessna571 liked this
By TopCat
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1909625
Absolutely, if you're happy with your instructor, he's the guy you should be paying attention to. I've said loads of times that I'm just some guy off the internet, take what I say how you please, and ignore it completely if you want.

I will comment, but only to clarify a couple of things about what I've said in the past.

Firstly, I've never said that the stall warner should be 'used' in any way. As your instructor says,

>
> a good landing is where you are at the lowest descent rate and horizontal speed
>

Of course this is true! It is also of course obviously true that:

> teaching correct setup and attitude is better than fixating on the stall
> warner.

I've never said anything to the contrary. I very much agree with your instructor that fixating on anything to the exclusion of all else is bad.

All I've ever said is that if you set the flare and hold-off up correctly, and continue holding off until the wing stops flying, the stall warner will go off as an inevitable by-product. The technique is exactly the same whether the aircraft has a stall warner or not. Mine wasn't working for ages a while back, and it made absolutely zero difference to my landings.

If it doesn't sound, assuming it's working, it simply means that you've landed faster than the speed that it operates at.

That will usually be ok on a long smooth runway like Gloucester's. On a short runway, the extra speed may mean you can't stop if the brakes aren't great or grass is wet, and if the runway is bumpy or undulating, you're likely to float off again, and this can end up as a real rollercoaster ride which can be quite unpleasant.

But I'll say again, the stall warner is absolutely *nothing* to do with any part of the technique of landing, whether on long runways or short, and if I've somehow given the impression that it is, I'm sorry about that.

It just happens by itself if you land at or close to minimum airspeed.

>
> If any of that reads offensive at all, it’s not meant to.

It doesn't :thumright:

> I’m putting my faith in the guy that has got me this far
> with all pieces still intact (mine and his).

As absolutely you should.
T6Harvard, Milty liked this
User avatar
By Milty
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1909629
All fair enough and understood both viewpoints. Personally, I don’t have plans to do any short farm strip stuff early on and if I did, I would do it with further training. I have already asked my instructor if we can do some grass landings at some point and he has agreed.

Thanks again for being that guy on the internet. The world needs a range of inputs rather than just one source. :thumleft:
ericgreveson liked this
User avatar
By T6Harvard
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1909631
Milty wrote:
> All fair enough and understood both viewpoints. Personally, I don’t have
> plans to do any short farm strip stuff early on and if I did, I would do it
> with further training. I have already asked my instructor if we can do some
> grass landings at some point and he has agreed.
>
> Thanks again for being that guy on the internet. The world needs a range of
> inputs rather than just one source. :thumleft:

I've experienced, as rightseat, a couple of grass landings. It all seemed so natural somehow (although Duxford was bumpy :shock: ).
I especially love the idea of a vintage ac landing on grass, there's something a bit poetic about it. And don't get me started on all the amazing places one can go ....
Milty, ericgreveson liked this
User avatar
By Milty
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1909636
Personally, I’m not that bothered with the vintage stuff. I like to see it and I’m pleased that there are people that keep them flying, but have no real urge to have a go in one. I can see the appeal of some grass strip stuff. I read a few of the trip reports to more remote places and it seems like a nice thing to do. But I’m in no rush. Plenty of other places with cafes to go to in the meantime.
T6Harvard liked this
User avatar
By lobstaboy
#1909637
It's very important to get some experience on grass so that you will realise that it's just the same as tarmac, only easier :)
There are lots of grass aerodrome with good facilities that you will enjoy visiting. They are not the same thing at all as farm strips which do need some care.
Vintage aircraft? Entirely up to you...
And I agree with [usermention=862]@TopCat[/usermention] and your instructor that the stall warner is not a landing aid. Indeed I've never flown as P1 an aeroplane that had one, and a few of my landings have been quite pleasing.
By TopCat
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1909652
Milty wrote:

> I have already asked my instructor if we can do some
> grass landings at some point and he has agreed.
>

Kemble has a grass runway, 561m. Nice and close to Gloucester.

Should be eminently doable in a C152.
By TopCat
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1909654
Miscellaneous wrote:
> lobstaboy wrote:
> > It's very important to get some experience on grass so that you will realise
> that it's just the same as tarmac, only easier :)
>
> There is something more pleasing about grass. :D :thumright:

Except White Waltham's runway 11, which is horrible.

It's even worse on days without wind, like today. I got back from Oaksey Park (which is a delight) just now, and as I knew what it was going to be like, I flew the last couple of hundred yards of the approach at an indicated 59 knots (short field approach max weight is 61), as I wanted a very short ground roll. Even with that it was a fairly unpleasant ride without braking (which would have made it even worse, as I've learned from experience).

Generally, I prefer grass, and I very much like White Waltham, based there as I've been for over 20 years. But that one runway is quite nasty, even if you do everything right, for an aeroplane with a virtually undamped nose leg. It's not actually dangerous, I hasten to add, but I really don't like it.

The PA28s probably don't notice it :)
User avatar
By Flyingfemme
#1909669
Gloucester has a grass runway.....just saying.

And “vintage aircraft” vary a lot, like most things. Ye Old Comanche was built in 1960 but has a glass panel, autopilot and plumbed Bose..........
Milty, AndyR liked this
By TopCat
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1909679
Flyingfemme wrote:

> Gloucester has a grass runway.....just saying.
>

304m according to the SkyDemon plate. I wouldn't absolutely insist that [usermention=25385]@Milty[/usermention] should tackle anything quite that short just yet :wink:

I took 360m to get airborne from Oaksey Park today, so I won't be trying the grass at Gloucester either :D

But as I say, the Kemble grass is about right, with his instructor, obviously.
Milty liked this
User avatar
By Milty
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1909687
Defford Croft farm nearby too with 570m. All in good time. Just enjoying the learning.

No offence meant to those who like the vintage stuff. I appreciate it and respect those that love it. Just doesn’t float my boat as much. I used to be into old Land Rovers so I do get it. I do like the idea of a modernised vintage though - I merged an old Land Rover with a newer Range Rover years ago. That was a fun vehicle.
Flyingfemme liked this
User avatar
By T6Harvard
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1909688
Milty wrote:
> Defford Croft farm nearby too with 570m. All in good time. Just enjoying
> the learning.
>
> No offence meant to those who like the vintage stuff. I appreciate it and
> respect those that love it. Just doesn’t float my boat as much. I used to
> be into old Land Rovers so I do get it. I do like the idea of a modernised
> vintage though - I merged an old Land Rover with a newer Range Rover years
> ago. That was a fun vehicle.

A cut n shut? I thought better of you :lol:
Milty liked this
  • 1
  • 20
  • 21
  • 22
  • 23
  • 24
  • 37