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

Moderator: AndyR

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 11
User avatar
By Paul_Sengupta
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1908303
akg1486 wrote:
> The best-looking by far are Randolph Engineering. Are there cheaper ones that are
> good enough? Of course. Would you look as cool in them? Not even close. 8)

I think you'd look just as cool (or uncool) in these.

https://www.aliexpress.com/item/1005002293374706.html
https://www.aliexpress.com/item/1005003411211084.html
https://www.aliexpress.com/item/1005002136685304.html

:clown:
Hexsplosions liked this
By TopCat
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1908643
Hexsplosions wrote:
>
> I definitely need them. I've learned the hard way!

Me too. I've always had incredibly sensitive eyes. In the air I need sunglasses even when it's OVC. On the ground, even fog can be unpleasantly bright. I get odd looks wearing sunglasses in fog but it's that or eyes streaming.
Hexsplosions liked this
User avatar
By T6Harvard
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1908645
TopCat wrote:
> Hexsplosions wrote:
> >
> > I definitely need them. I've learned the hard way!
>
> Me too. I've always had incredibly sensitive eyes. In the air I need sunglasses
> even when it's OVC. On the ground, even fog can be unpleasantly bright. I get odd
> looks wearing sunglasses in fog but it's that or eyes streaming.

That's because you're a cat :lol:
Just so long as you don't use fog lights on your car when it's not foggy! :roll:
Hexsplosions liked this
User avatar
By Milty
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1908646
Just for interest, in the Ops Proc EasyPPL courses, it suggests not wearing sunglasses on the apron. I questionned this and had the following response.

"Certainly when doing a walk round, you need to take sunglasses off to see in the cracks and crevices of the moveable control surfaces instead of it just being a black dark space inside.

The idea of not wearing them when on an airfield is due to an accident I witnessed a while back. A lady wearing sunglasses walked straight into the trailing edge of a Cessna wing requiring stiches. It was because the wing of the Cessna blended nicely with the horizon and she was walking at an angle to the aircraft, and was not “aviation aware” so to speak. Not having sunglasses would have helped in that she would have been more likely to see the obstacle…."

Seems fair enough to me and another learning point that I thought I'd share.
Hexsplosions liked this
#1908662
So that’s exercises 9(i) and 9(ii) done! I’m flying through them (pun intended…) :D

I’m seriously hooked. I’m looking to be starting circuits fairly soon. Any tips in advance?

I’ve also started on book 2 of the Air Pilot’s Manual, Air Law & Meteorology. This one is quite hard going, but still very interesting.
T6Harvard, JAFO, ericgreveson and 1 others liked this
By TopCat
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1908664
Milty wrote:
>
> it suggests not wearing sunglasses on the apron. I questionned this and had the following
> response.
> "Certainly when doing a walk round, you need to take sunglasses off to
> see in the cracks and crevices of the moveable control surfaces instead of
> it just being a black dark space inside.

Frankly, I think this is ridiculously nannying. If you can't see what you're looking at properly, take the damn things off and then put them back on again when you've inspected the dark bits. No sunglasses on the apron, my arris. :roll:

>
> The idea of not wearing them when on an airfield is due to an accident I
> witnessed a while back. A lady wearing sunglasses walked straight into the
> trailing edge of a Cessna wing requiring stiches. It was because the wing
> of the Cessna blended nicely with the horizon and she was walking at an
> angle to the aircraft, and was not “aviation aware” so to speak. Not having
> sunglasses would have helped in that she would have been more likely to
> see the obstacle…."
>

And people that aren't 'aviation aware' should be under the care of, and being escorted by someone that is, if they're going to be walking round aeroplanes.

P1 responsibilities start from the second you go airside with pax IMO.
Hexsplosions liked this
User avatar
By T6Harvard
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1908668
Hexsplosions wrote:
> So that’s exercises 9(i) and 9(ii) done! I’m flying through them (pun
> intended…) :D
>
> I’m seriously hooked. I’m looking to be starting circuits fairly soon. Any
> tips in advance?
>
> I’ve also started on book 2 of the Air Pilot’s Manual, Air Law &
> Meteorology. This one is quite hard going, but still very interesting.

Excellent!

Air Law is a big topic, vital of course, but very 'dry'. Read in conjunction with the Skyway Code for more accessible notes and diagrams, and the relevant CAA Safety Sense leaflets.
Incidentally, it combines very well with the Operational Procedures module, which I loved because it's safety and common sense, and it includes the marshalling signals which you can scare the neighbours with by practising in the garden :lol:

Many of us sat both Law and Ops on one day, it's multiple choice after all, not reams of notes to write / type :)

I'm studying Nav now, then Met will be next.

As for circuits.... you're asking the wrong person :lol: :roll:
Hexsplosions liked this
#1908688
Nice progress! What [usermention=23363]@T6Harvard[/usermention] said about the exams makes sense. I actually did them in batches of 3 - starting with Air Law, Ops Procs and Human Performance (you might find the last one to be a bit of a "freebie" compared to the first two!). Air Law is probably the exam that I found the hardest as far as learning the subject went - I found quite a lot of it a bit boring... but it is important.

Regarding the circuits - sounds like you're progressing fast so I'm sure you will be fine! I found that there was a lot going on the first couple of circuits lessons and it was hard to keep up and easy to be overwhelmed, especially if flying a fairly tight circuit. For example, after take off, you're checking Ts & Ps, altitude, doing a climbing turn to crosswind, making sure you're on the right heading, levelling out at the right altitude, bringing the power back, turning to the correct downwind heading, making the downwind call (after listening for a suitable gap if it's busy), doing the BUMPFFITCHH pre-landing checks, etc etc all within a couple of minutes and trying to maintain heading and altitude at the same time. I guess your instructor might handle some of it (like the radio calls) early on since there can be too much to get on top of until you're more used to it. But that's fine! Learning things like the BUMPFFITCHH checks (or whatever local variation you might be taught) and the common radio calls in advance might help a bit, and of course reading the relevant Book 1 chapters in advance, but I'm sure your instructor will give you all the right information and feedback on what you should be doing when you get to that stage.

Perhaps the best thing to do pre-circuits is to just focus on doing the basic handling (climbing, descending, turns, slow flight etc) that you'll be covering in your current lessons as best you can. If you can hold altitude and headings precisely, get used to the visual picture for standard bank angles, climbs etc, get used to changes in flap configuration and keeping airspeed well monitored and under control, and keep the ball in the middle and keep in trim when doing all this, then it will make everything else a bit easier later on... I still have plenty of room for improvement in all of these things, especially controlling altitude accurately in bumpy conditions when concentrating on other things!
Hexsplosions liked this
User avatar
By T6Harvard
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1908690
^^^ That. A great summary from [usermention=25756]@ericgreveson[/usermention]

While I'm here, checkout the forum Fly-ins and Socials board later.
I'm about to post about a poss meet up at the next Duxford air show, VE Day. A couple of forumites are definitely going.
Hexsplosions liked this
User avatar
By Milty
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1908699
[usermention=862]@TopCat[/usermention] in hindsight, I probably shouldn’t have posted that. I’m pretty much in agreement with you. If you can’t determine that you need to take your shades off to see a dark cranny on your walk around, you shouldn’t really be flying. As for P1 responsibility, I’ve not got to that stage yet but know that I was made very aware of hazards on my first few trips to the hangar and apron.

[usermention=28542]@Hexsplosions[/usermention] circuits advice - take your time. It’s a big step up in workload, especially if your instructor gets you doing some radio stuff (mine did from day 1). Part of me thinks it’s good to try and prepare but conversely, just go at the pace of your learning. This is important stuff and deserves to be given the time needed to take it in and process.

Air law is quite dry and a lot of crossover with ops proc so as mentioned, worth taking both together. Don’t make my mistake though. I thought they were closer than they were so didn’t study ops proc as much as I should have. I therefore failed the first time and with a bit more study, got it second time. If you like and get on well with the study (I don’t), the human performance would be a doddle to study for at the same time.
T6Harvard, Hexsplosions liked this
User avatar
By Hexsplosions
#1908791
I'm working through the Pooley's Air Law & Meteorology book at the moment, and part of it has me confused.

In the section on semi-circular rules, it states that aircraft flying VFR should, for best practice, fly at 1000 feet plus 500 feet, with 3500 feet being the minimum for aircraft on a magnetic heading of 000 degrees to 179 degrees, and 4500 feet being the minimum for aircraft on a magnetic heading of 180 degrees to 359 degrees.

In the practice questions it asks "What is the correct semi-circular cruising level to adopt for a VFR aircraft maintaining a heading of 055 degrees M?"

The answer is stated as FL 55, but I cant see an explanation as to why, as I thought it could be FL 35. So am I missing something or is this just a poorly worded question? i.e. should I interpret the question as "from the options, which one is correct?", as then it makes sense to me.

Thanks!
By FlyingBoot
#1908793
It is because 3500ft may be above or below FL35 depending on the ambient pressure as FL35 is a pressure altitude. It is based on a pressure of 1013.25hPa at mean sea level. So you have to go to the next flight level up to be 'safe' or at least certain because at FL35 you might be below the transition altitude (3000ft in general in the UK). So FL55 is the correct answer. Was FL35 an option?
That was the short answer, the long answer is, well, longer
User avatar
By Hexsplosions
#1908794
FlyingBoot wrote:
> It is because 3500ft may be above or below FL35 depending on the ambient
> pressure as FL35 is a pressure altitude. It is based on a pressure of
> 1013.25hPa at mean sea level. So you have to go to the next flight level up
> to be 'safe' or at least certain because at FL35 you might be below the
> transition altitude (3000ft in general in the UK). So FL55 is the correct
> answer. Was FL35 an option?
> That was the short answer, the long answer is, well, longer

Thanks. That makes sense, but I can't see it explained in the book, hence my confusion. The cruise level table included in the book also lists FL 35 in the 000 to 179 degrees column, which increased my confusion.

FL 35 wasn't an option for the question, but I couldn't understand why.

Does this mean, then, that if the regional pressure setting or aerodrome QNH is lower, or likely to be lower, than 1013 hPa, that FL 35 would be sufficient, but if the regional pressure setting or aerodrome QNH is higher, or likely to be higher, than 1013 hPa, then FL 55 becomes more appropriate?

This has really fried my brain. The book is quite good, but I feel like they've omitted things a newbie needs to know in order to understand the question.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 11