Is the old dog ready for new tricks?

I have been exchanging emails and post comments with one of my readers (I’m going to call him Tom to keep things simple) who is just getting back into flying again. He  had not flown for a considerable period – measured in decades rather than years – but wanted to try it again. Tom remembered the feelings of accomplishment  and the enjoyment that he had experienced when he first took up flying and wanted to feel that again. There was a hurdle to overcome, though – all the changes to airspace, regulations and technology that have taken place since he stopped flying. It seemed like an insurmountable mountain of new information to learn and he wasn’t so sure that the time and money that would need to be invested would provide a sufficient return on the investment.

Tom decided that he’d first try auditing a groundschool class at the local airport with no intention of actually flying. It would simply be an attempt to catch up with the current flying environment. That started out well, but soon turned south…

After two interesting sessions of ground school, both modules dealing with FARs and such, the G.S. session is a bust.  Two of the four students had serious occupational conflicts.  Number three could continue, but we became subject to the minimum population rule.  I, as a mostly non-rev participant, had no vote.  We are trying to reform the group, with one or two more students, for late fall. I’m disappointed of course, but as a non-rev guest, I have no voice.  I’ve got some books and study guides and I’ll read them…   After only the two (long) sessions, it was perfectly clear to me than any returning pilot in 2011 and more than 2-3 years stale, ought to take a nearly full refresher course before flying.  Yup!  Those rules and regulations DO change quickly!

As you know, my purpose was not to fly again, but simply to understand the current methods and procedures of IFR flight a bit better.  There is a delay, but I’ll get there.  The modern toys and tools are simply amazing and I’d like to understand them a bit better.  As a funny aside, although 30 years stale, I easily out navigated my student peers (on paper) during the initial assessment evaluations.  While great fun… no one uses those old tools anymore – save an old pilot who might get lost. I still think it is fun to know how it is done.

Now Tom has changed his approach to the problem. He has found a retired professional pilot who now flies for fun. The two of them are making regular flights to ‘exotic’ breakfast locations and Tom is regaining his ‘air sense’ through actual application.

As the re-learning process progresses I’ll include the experiences that Tom passes along to me.  Perhaps some more ‘old dogs’ will realize that they can learn the new tricks in today’s flying environment.

The Key: Get out there and do it – don’t just sit there and try to remember what it was like…

I received an email from a reader recently that asked a question about the weather services that I use when flying my Swift – both during my preflight planning and enroute.

There are books written on aviation weather services. I have one on my desk by Gleim that incorporates both FAA AC 00-6A and AC 00-45G. I bought it to get ready to take an FAA test for the Ground Instructor ratings. I’m still working on that project.

I don’t fly the Swift any great distances any more – at least I haven’t lately. The other Swift I had made trips back and forth across the country several times during the 35 years I owned it. Most of those trips were made back before handheld electronic devices were everywhere you looked.  I remember reading the weather off of teletype machines in the Flight Service Stations at airport along the way. For several years I didn’t have a navigation radio of any kind in the plane. I used those old paper things called Sectionals and looked out the window. What a concept.

Most of my early preflight weather research is done using  TV weather for a broad outlook of where the weather systems are and where the meteorologists are guessing that they’ll go. The day before and the day of the trip I use AOPA’s Flight Planner to plot the route, print out a flight log and to get the weather, NOTAMS and weather charts through their integrated DUATS system.

My enroute weather sources are usually listening to ATIS/AWOS broadcasts of airports I am flying over and occasional calls to Flight Watch for conditions farther away. For more detailed weather in my area I look out the window.

I still don’t have a navigation radio in my ‘new’ Swift. I’m back to navigating by looking out the window again and using a sectional chart. Most of my flying has been around and to the west of Reno. I’m very familiar with the area so the chart is a backup to my local area knowledge and for details on the airports enroute. I also carry the newest version of Flight Guide.

I used to have an older handheld GPS with a small moving map but that seems to spend most of it’s time on a kayak on Lake Tahoe now. I have been looking into a new GPS solution for flying. I received an email recently that had a nice sale price on the Garmin 696 so I looked into that possibility. I like it’s capabilities and can afford the initial large cash outlay, but the yearly costs have turned me off to the unit. Between the database updates and the XM weather subscription I would be looking at another $100/month in flight costs. I just don’t fly enough to justify the fixed costs. Now I’m leaning toward an iPad solution with a ForeFlight subscription.  Smaller initial outlay, much lower annual costs and it’s a multi-use item rather than a dedicated GPS unit. (So when is the new iPad coming out?)

I have an instrument rating and lots of actual weather time, but I have no need to fly in less than VFR conditions any more. I land if I don’t like what I see by looking out the window. Whoever may be waiting for my arrival can wait a bit longer and there is no event I need to get to so badly that I need to fly in weather to get there. I have it on good authority that the earth will continue to rotate if I have to cancel or delay my plans.

So, the bottom line on the weather services I use is -

Preflight:

TV Weather (local & weather channel) and

AOPA Flight Planner access to DUATS.

Occasionally, National Weather Service (www.nws.noaa.gov) and

Aviation Weather Center – part of NOAA (www.aviationweather.gov)

Enroute:

Airport ATIS and AWOS broadcasts

Flight Watch (122.0)

The window.

If money was no object I’d have a nice flat panel cockpit and XM weather displaying on a big moving map.  That’s not going to happen.

I was reading some of my news feed this morning and came across one from Seth Godin, an internationally know marketing consultant.

His article, titled Naive or Professional? is a short, one page discussion of the difference between being naive about how you do your job or run your business and how you do it professionally. I read the article and sat there thinking about what Godin had put down on paper (in electrons?) and saw that what he said can be directly related to how we as pilots approach aviation.

There are all sorts of alphabet groups discussing ways to reduce the general aviation accident rate and increase student starts (and completions). Take a look at that last sentence in Godin’s article.  That is where we have to focus our efforts.

I attended another CFI workshop session but on by the FAASTeam in the Reno area. This workshop covered two modules, the Sport Pilot rules and the process of submitting certificate online known as IACRA.

Both modules were good overviews of their subjects and we had some nice discussions among the attendees. There was a sparse turnout this night – probably because the weather here in Reno has finally turned good enough to fly. We’ve had a terrible Spring so far – lots of clouds, cold temperatures and wind. I believe  one of the ski hills is still in operation – now mid-June.

As usual, the really interesting part of the evening came at the conclusion of the formal presentation when the three DPE’s (Designated Pilot Examiner) in attendance told us about the ‘problem areas’ that they have seen on check rides since the last workshop. Eye-opening once again.

One area – not teaching students to handle anything other than a total engine failure. Huh? Yes, it’s nice to put some emphasis on what to do if the engine quits – establish that maximum glide, look for a landing site and then, if you have time, troubleshoot the problem. But what if that’s not the problem?

What if the examiner says “You have black smoke and orange flames coming out of the cowling.” Some, but not all, students remembered to turn off the fuel. But then the vast majority followed up with – establish that maximum glide, look for a landing site and then, if you have time, troubleshoot the problem. Sound familiar? Dude! Why are you not pointing the airplane directly at the ground and putting it anywhere on terra firma before the fire burns through the firewall – or an engine mount? Not even a hint from the examiner like “Gee, the floor seems to be getting hot” made a difference.

There are probably a dozen or so emergency procedures in the manufacturer-supplied operating manual. Your student should be intimately familiar with every one of them. Face it – it may be the only time they are and they need to know that those procedures exist and how they work.

While we’re on the topic of finding that landing spot – What happened to the concept of energy management? One of the DPE’s gave a student the engine failure virtually abeam a runway – at altitude – and the student missed the 6000′ runway completely.  After lots and lots of maneuvering he arrived over the numbers at 1000′. Another at a different airport did a little better – he missed a 4000′ runway.

Sounds like these students were being taught to the ROTE level – unable to analyze the situation, adapt procedures to existing conditions and make corrections to ensure a successful outcome.

The DPEs also had a few failures before they even got into the airplane – just on the preflight alone. They attributed it to the instructor telling the student to go out and get the preflight done, he, she would meet them at the plane in a few minutes.  The examiner asked the student random questions during the preflight about what they were looking at and why – simple enough, right?  Many could not identify what a particular antenna did. One thought the aileron counterweights were metal stiffeners. And another identified the nosewheel shimmy dampener as part of the hydraulic system that controlled the nosewheel brakes.

I really don’t understand all this. Did the instructors for these students just not care what they were teaching their students – or did they not even know the material themselves? Yes, students will usually be pretty nervous for their check ride but the examiner will  take that into account. These examples weren’t due to nerves – they were a lack of knowledge and ability.

There’s always an argument about the cost of learning to fly – these students were not getting what they paid for – and that’s the problem with the cost of learning to fly. Quality is not expensive – crap for the same price is.

While I was on the treadmill this morning I listened to a couple of the podcasts in my subscription list. One had a discussion about the utility of getting a tailwheel endorsement. The bottom line was that, if you can find some way to do it you should – it will make you a better pilot. Why?

My opinion – you will be a better pilot because it will make you pay attention to what the airplane is doing and it will develop your ‘airplane sense.’

Some of you who frequent this site probably know that I retired from professional flying last month. I was an airline pilot for 22 years, most of it spent flying international routes.  But was I really a pilot? No, not really.

It took lots of flying experience to get the job, but the job itself required very little flying. Most airline pilots these days – especially the ones flying international routes- is far more a systems operator sand crew managers than hands-on-the-controls pilots. On a 12-hour flight the pilot might manipulate the controls for two hours – including taxi time.

Some pilots will hand-fly the plane from applying take-off power until 10,000 feet while others will engage the autopilot at 300′ on take-off. Some airports require the autopilot to be engaged in order to guarantee a specific sound-reducing ground track. On arrival most pilots will wait until the aircraft is in the final landing configuration before taking over manually. Others will wait until 500′ agl to take over.

Now more and more of our general aviation aircraft are being manufactured with glass panels with integrated GPS navigation and autopilots. Add to that the ease of landing and ground maneuvering associated with the nosewheel configuration and you have a perfect breeding ground for systems operators.

Most of us fly less than 100 hours a year in our general aviation aircraft – that’s almost 2 hours a week all year long.  The general aviation accident rate – and the types of accidents we are having indicates that we are trending toward being systems operators rather than pilots. You don’t increase your skills (or even maintain them) by pulling the plane out every couple of weeks, programming it, driving it to the end of the runway and then watching the autopilot take you to your destination.

We, as a pilot group, need to spend more of our time flying and less time programming. On the surface all the fancy new glass panels, GPS navigation and integrated autopilots are great safety improvements – but the person in command has to be a pilot with real piloting skills. In my opinion the best glass panel on the market is the clear one above the instrument panel that lets you look outside and see what the plane is really doing – and it leaves you enough brain computing power to actually feel the plane move around you. Try it – you’ll really like it.