I had the occasion to talk with a couple of ultralight pilots at an open house over the weekend. The conversation left me a bit concerned. I started off by asking the first pilot what the all up weight of the aircraft was. She responded with a blank stare and finally asked, "What's all up weight?" I asked what the maximum certified take off weight was. Again a bit of blank stare, then a hesitant, "1230?". I asked what it weight empty, was told 740lbs. I then made a joking comment that, due to my weighing 250 lbs I'd have to take a light passenger or go on a diet. She then responds, in complete sincerity, that they have two 250 lbs guys who fly it together on a regular basis. They just take half tanks.
At this point the second pilot shows up and starts pulling the lower prop blade through, just for fun, while his head, and several other peoples body parts are in the propeller arc. I tell him, don't do that. He tells me its his plane and its all right. I explain that if his mags aren't properly grounded it could kick over and that I've see people get hurt from that. He tells me that there is no way he could get the prop spinning fast enough to start. At this point I bid them good day and head for the next display.
I was just kind of startled at the lack of basic knowledge these two displayed. Is this just due to pilot training being generally dumbed down, or is it due to the training standards for ultra lights?
Thoughts?
Quality of Ultra Lite Training
-
Colonel
- Posts: 3450
- Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2015 10:31 am
I remember there being plenty of ultralight accidents. It was sort of
the forerunner in Canadian flight training, in that there was plenty of
paper but precious little knowledge, and the skill was pretty shaky.
They seemed pretty much self-taught. Sort of how I might imagine
aviation before World War One, except with Monty Python-esque
bureaucracy.
It comes down to the Rule of Inequality. Students might approach
50% (pick a number: 30%, 70%) of their instructor's knowledge and
skill. But when the instructors have abysmal knowledge and little
skill, well, guess how the students are going to turn out. They
might live, and they might not. The ones that live, might teach
themselves enough to survive.
the forerunner in Canadian flight training, in that there was plenty of
paper but precious little knowledge, and the skill was pretty shaky.
They seemed pretty much self-taught. Sort of how I might imagine
aviation before World War One, except with Monty Python-esque
bureaucracy.
It comes down to the Rule of Inequality. Students might approach
50% (pick a number: 30%, 70%) of their instructor's knowledge and
skill. But when the instructors have abysmal knowledge and little
skill, well, guess how the students are going to turn out. They
might live, and they might not. The ones that live, might teach
themselves enough to survive.
-
JW Scud
- Posts: 252
- Joined: Sun Aug 14, 2016 12:44 am
[quote author=mcrit link=topic=10016.msg28720#msg28720 date=1568044536]
At this point the second pilot shows up and starts pulling the lower prop blade through, just for fun, while his head, and several other peoples body parts are in the propeller arc. I tell him, don't do that. He tells me its his plane and its all right. I explain that if his mags aren't properly grounded it could kick over and that I've see people get hurt from that. He tells me that there is no way he could get the prop spinning fast enough to start. At this point I bid them good day and head for the next display.
[/quote]
What kind of engine/ignition system was it? If it js a capacitance type ignition that is used on the Rotax 912 engines, this guy was not doing anything unsafe when he pulled the prop through.
At this point the second pilot shows up and starts pulling the lower prop blade through, just for fun, while his head, and several other peoples body parts are in the propeller arc. I tell him, don't do that. He tells me its his plane and its all right. I explain that if his mags aren't properly grounded it could kick over and that I've see people get hurt from that. He tells me that there is no way he could get the prop spinning fast enough to start. At this point I bid them good day and head for the next display.
[/quote]
What kind of engine/ignition system was it? If it js a capacitance type ignition that is used on the Rotax 912 engines, this guy was not doing anything unsafe when he pulled the prop through.
-
digits
[quote author=mcrit link=topic=10016.msg28720#msg28720 date=1568044536]
I had the occasion to talk with a couple of ultralight pilots at an open house over the weekend. The conversation left me a bit concerned. I started off by asking the first pilot what the all up weight of the aircraft was. She responded with a blank stare and finally asked, "What's all up weight?" I asked what the maximum certified take off weight was. Again a bit of blank stare, then a hesitant, "1230?". I asked what it weight empty, was told 740lbs. I then made a joking comment that, due to my weighing 250 lbs I'd have to take a light passenger or go on a diet. She then responds, in complete sincerity, that they have two 250 lbs guys who fly it together on a regular basis. They just take half tanks.
[/quote]
I don't condone flying overweight. But I'm not too surprised people don't know their MTOW on such smaller airplanes. It's a number that is meaningless unless you know the empty weight and the weight of your pax and fuel. Basically, making a weight and balance. I must admit, there was a time when I wouldn't know the MTOW of the planes I was flying either. I was flying 5 small types regularly at that time, and once the W&B was done, I had no idea what the weight of my plane was without looking it up. Because it didn't matter at that point.
It reminds me a bit of the PPC examiner who wanted me to know the numbers of all the different oil and fuel pressure numbers of the different arcs on the instruments. That information is right there in front of you the whole flight. Useless tidbits of information to memorize.
I had the occasion to talk with a couple of ultralight pilots at an open house over the weekend. The conversation left me a bit concerned. I started off by asking the first pilot what the all up weight of the aircraft was. She responded with a blank stare and finally asked, "What's all up weight?" I asked what the maximum certified take off weight was. Again a bit of blank stare, then a hesitant, "1230?". I asked what it weight empty, was told 740lbs. I then made a joking comment that, due to my weighing 250 lbs I'd have to take a light passenger or go on a diet. She then responds, in complete sincerity, that they have two 250 lbs guys who fly it together on a regular basis. They just take half tanks.
[/quote]
I don't condone flying overweight. But I'm not too surprised people don't know their MTOW on such smaller airplanes. It's a number that is meaningless unless you know the empty weight and the weight of your pax and fuel. Basically, making a weight and balance. I must admit, there was a time when I wouldn't know the MTOW of the planes I was flying either. I was flying 5 small types regularly at that time, and once the W&B was done, I had no idea what the weight of my plane was without looking it up. Because it didn't matter at that point.
It reminds me a bit of the PPC examiner who wanted me to know the numbers of all the different oil and fuel pressure numbers of the different arcs on the instruments. That information is right there in front of you the whole flight. Useless tidbits of information to memorize.
-
mcrit
[quote author=JW Scud link=topic=10016.msg28776#msg28776 date=1568769815]
What kind of engine/ignition system was it? If it js a capacitance type ignition that is used on the Rotax 912 engines, this guy was not doing anything unsafe when he pulled the prop through.
[/quote]
I see your point, but pulling a prop through while standing in the prop arc is just something that will always make me cringe. 30 years of habit is just hard to break.
What kind of engine/ignition system was it? If it js a capacitance type ignition that is used on the Rotax 912 engines, this guy was not doing anything unsafe when he pulled the prop through.
[/quote]
I see your point, but pulling a prop through while standing in the prop arc is just something that will always make me cringe. 30 years of habit is just hard to break.
-
mcrit
[quote author=digits link=topic=10016.msg28780#msg28780 date=1568822152]
It's a number that is meaningless unless you know the empty weight and the weight of your pax and fuel. Basically, making a weight and balance.
[/quote]
Not knowing the maximum certified take of weight of an aircraft or ignoring it, has lead to a huge number of deaths (google Air Georgian Peele Island). Weight and balance is one of the most crucial aspects of pre flight planning. You bloody well better know the weight of your pax, fuel and baggage empty aircraft or there’s a good chance your going to wind up dead.
It's a number that is meaningless unless you know the empty weight and the weight of your pax and fuel. Basically, making a weight and balance.
[/quote]
Not knowing the maximum certified take of weight of an aircraft or ignoring it, has lead to a huge number of deaths (google Air Georgian Peele Island). Weight and balance is one of the most crucial aspects of pre flight planning. You bloody well better know the weight of your pax, fuel and baggage empty aircraft or there’s a good chance your going to wind up dead.
-
digits
[quote author=mcrit link=topic=10016.msg28814#msg28814 date=1569024406]
[quote author=digits link=topic=10016.msg28780#msg28780 date=1568822152]
It's a number that is meaningless unless you know the empty weight and the weight of your pax and fuel. Basically, making a weight and balance.
[/quote]
Not knowing the maximum certified take of weight of an aircraft or ignoring it, has lead to a huge number of deaths (google Air Georgian Peele Island). Weight and balance is one of the most crucial aspects of pre flight planning. You bloody well better know the weight of your pax, fuel and baggage empty aircraft or there’s a good chance your going to wind up dead.
[/quote]
Yup. Which doesn't contradict what I wrote. I'm even pretty sure that a lot of pilots who died in overweight airplanes knew exactly what their MTOW was.
Knowing the maximum take off weight of your aircraft is meaningless in itself, unless you also know the empty weight and the weight of your pax and fuel. I doubt any pilot makes an accurate weight and balance completely from memory. So he'll be using a weight and balance sheet, preferably one like in the POH or at least very close to it, and fill in all the correct numbers. Those papers have the MTOW listed on them, so no need to memorize it. Walking on a ramp and asking people what their MTOW is in an attempt to determine if they are competent pilots, is a bit silly.
"Can you show me your W&B calculation" or "Did you calculate we are within limits for the flight?" would be much more valuable questions.
[quote author=digits link=topic=10016.msg28780#msg28780 date=1568822152]
It's a number that is meaningless unless you know the empty weight and the weight of your pax and fuel. Basically, making a weight and balance.
[/quote]
Not knowing the maximum certified take of weight of an aircraft or ignoring it, has lead to a huge number of deaths (google Air Georgian Peele Island). Weight and balance is one of the most crucial aspects of pre flight planning. You bloody well better know the weight of your pax, fuel and baggage empty aircraft or there’s a good chance your going to wind up dead.
[/quote]
Yup. Which doesn't contradict what I wrote. I'm even pretty sure that a lot of pilots who died in overweight airplanes knew exactly what their MTOW was.
Knowing the maximum take off weight of your aircraft is meaningless in itself, unless you also know the empty weight and the weight of your pax and fuel. I doubt any pilot makes an accurate weight and balance completely from memory. So he'll be using a weight and balance sheet, preferably one like in the POH or at least very close to it, and fill in all the correct numbers. Those papers have the MTOW listed on them, so no need to memorize it. Walking on a ramp and asking people what their MTOW is in an attempt to determine if they are competent pilots, is a bit silly.
"Can you show me your W&B calculation" or "Did you calculate we are within limits for the flight?" would be much more valuable questions.
-
JW Scud
- Posts: 252
- Joined: Sun Aug 14, 2016 12:44 am
To be honest, I don’t do a W&B for most of the light aircraft I fly. That includes the two seat LSA aircraft. They fly all the time with instructor and student. I don’t expect much difference when I am the student. Maybe go with half tanks. Works so far.
When do I do a W&B? At the schools where you need one for a sign out and on very rare occasion when it seems one might be a good idea.
When do I do a W&B? At the schools where you need one for a sign out and on very rare occasion when it seems one might be a good idea.
-
Colonel
- Posts: 3450
- Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2015 10:31 am
I really don't understand the fixation on weight & balance.
To me, the C of G is tremendously important, because the flight characteristics
with the C of G too far forward or too far back are not good.
But weight. Honestly, when was the last time you saw an aircraft take off over
max gross, and the wing fell off? That's the bullshit narrative that you get from
the paperpushers.
But hold on. I can apply for a piece of paper and legally fly 30% over max gross.
But hold on - the airplane can't read, so how does it know if I have this paper,
and it's ok to fly over max gross?
Flying over max gross is all about performance. You know, stall speed,
takeoff run, climb rate.
No one gives a flying fuck at a donut about density altitude, but if you're one
pound over max gross, it's like you threw a bucket of dildos at a group of nuns
walking down the street. What the fuck?!
Weight is all about performance. People care about weight, but not about
performance, because they don't give a fuck about density altitude.
As usual, people have their knickers in a bunch about paper, not physics.
I know, I know, I know, I'm a BAD PERSONâ„¢ because I worry about physics,
not paper.
The purpose of the paper, in my humble opinion, is safety. Safety actually
comes from understanding physics.
To me, the C of G is tremendously important, because the flight characteristics
with the C of G too far forward or too far back are not good.
But weight. Honestly, when was the last time you saw an aircraft take off over
max gross, and the wing fell off? That's the bullshit narrative that you get from
the paperpushers.
But hold on. I can apply for a piece of paper and legally fly 30% over max gross.
But hold on - the airplane can't read, so how does it know if I have this paper,
and it's ok to fly over max gross?
Flying over max gross is all about performance. You know, stall speed,
takeoff run, climb rate.
No one gives a flying fuck at a donut about density altitude, but if you're one
pound over max gross, it's like you threw a bucket of dildos at a group of nuns
walking down the street. What the fuck?!
Weight is all about performance. People care about weight, but not about
performance, because they don't give a fuck about density altitude.
As usual, people have their knickers in a bunch about paper, not physics.
I know, I know, I know, I'm a BAD PERSONâ„¢ because I worry about physics,
not paper.
The purpose of the paper, in my humble opinion, is safety. Safety actually
comes from understanding physics.
-
Colonel
- Posts: 3450
- Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2015 10:31 am
I have spent more years and hours than I care to admit, giving dual in Cessnas.
Let's talk about W&B in the 172. Pretty common airplane. I used to instruct on
a couple of 172M's which had a max gross of 2300 lbs. And, that was sacred,
right? To exceed that was worse than throwing a bucket full of dildos at a bunch
of nuns on the sidewalk from the open window of a passing car.
Only Bad Peopleâ„¢ do that. Don't throw dildos at nuns, ok?
But let me tell you about a piece of paper that you can buy for a 172M. If you buy
that piece of paper, and promise to never use more than 30 flap (172M stock is
max 40 flap) you can increase your max gross weight by 100 lbs.
Crickets. Oh my god.
The reason for the max gross weight of 2300 lbs wasn't structural - it was
[size=14pt]PERFORMANCE[/size]
during a full-flap overshoot. And, that's why max gross weight - and density
altitude - is important. It determines performance.
But no one gives a shit about density altitude. I remember Eric and I leaving
Flagstaff, AZ on a warm day with a density altitude of 10,000 feet, loaded to
the gills with fuel. We leaned the mixture for max RPM, and in a quarter inch,
because we gave a shit about performance. Actually, with that 540 and a 3
blade MT prop, we did fine, but in a normal airplane, you couldn't just ignore
the density altitude.
Try a 150 or 152 or 172 at legal max gross weight at Flagstaff on warm day,
and get back to me, especially if you don't bother to lean the mixture. No one
bothers to lean the mixture, at least no one in Canada, that I ever met.
Hint: You might wish to use LESS than legal max gross weight in that situation,
because PERFORMANCE is what's really important.
I need to stop giving a shit about physics, and caring more about paper, I guess,
but what you really want to do, is determine the max weight at that density altitude
that will give you 500 fpm on the VSI after takeoff. Anything less than that is
dangerous. Remember, it will decrease even more as you climb up to cruise.
PS It was sunny and 96F here again, today. Hot on the motorcycle, even with
just a t-shirt.
[img width=444 height=500]https://cdn.tzy.li/tzy/previews/images/ ... -shirt.jpg[/img]
Let's talk about W&B in the 172. Pretty common airplane. I used to instruct on
a couple of 172M's which had a max gross of 2300 lbs. And, that was sacred,
right? To exceed that was worse than throwing a bucket full of dildos at a bunch
of nuns on the sidewalk from the open window of a passing car.
Only Bad Peopleâ„¢ do that. Don't throw dildos at nuns, ok?
But let me tell you about a piece of paper that you can buy for a 172M. If you buy
that piece of paper, and promise to never use more than 30 flap (172M stock is
max 40 flap) you can increase your max gross weight by 100 lbs.
Crickets. Oh my god.
The reason for the max gross weight of 2300 lbs wasn't structural - it was
[size=14pt]PERFORMANCE[/size]
during a full-flap overshoot. And, that's why max gross weight - and density
altitude - is important. It determines performance.
But no one gives a shit about density altitude. I remember Eric and I leaving
Flagstaff, AZ on a warm day with a density altitude of 10,000 feet, loaded to
the gills with fuel. We leaned the mixture for max RPM, and in a quarter inch,
because we gave a shit about performance. Actually, with that 540 and a 3
blade MT prop, we did fine, but in a normal airplane, you couldn't just ignore
the density altitude.
Try a 150 or 152 or 172 at legal max gross weight at Flagstaff on warm day,
and get back to me, especially if you don't bother to lean the mixture. No one
bothers to lean the mixture, at least no one in Canada, that I ever met.
Hint: You might wish to use LESS than legal max gross weight in that situation,
because PERFORMANCE is what's really important.
I need to stop giving a shit about physics, and caring more about paper, I guess,
but what you really want to do, is determine the max weight at that density altitude
that will give you 500 fpm on the VSI after takeoff. Anything less than that is
dangerous. Remember, it will decrease even more as you climb up to cruise.
PS It was sunny and 96F here again, today. Hot on the motorcycle, even with
just a t-shirt.
[img width=444 height=500]https://cdn.tzy.li/tzy/previews/images/ ... -shirt.jpg[/img]
-
- Similar Topics
- Replies
- Views
- Last post
-
- 1 Replies
- 394 Views
-
Last post by David MacRay
-
- 0 Replies
- 2931 Views
-
Last post by News
