Scudrunners

To add, I would change also that CPL should be mandatory in the retractable/work like plane.

EDIT: I used "complex"  and it should be "work" as in closest to the typical multi-retract with the budget in mind. DC3 would be nice but too expensive.

in the retractable/complex plane.

First we need to determine what a "" Complex "" plane is.

I think it is important for us to discuss what constitutes a " complex " airplane.

There are differences in the definition between Europe and Canada, that part I understand.

However the designation here is what counts as we are stuck with what Canada thinks " complex " means.

So how about one of you guys / gals that are blessed by TC with instructor ratings explaining the difference between basic and complex airplanes.

Here is an interesting factoid.

In Canada a PIC is referred to as the " Captain ".

In Europe a PIC is referred to as the " Commander "

Commander sounds like a much more a powerful individual don't ya'all think?

Chuck Ellsworth wrote: First we need to determine what a "" Complex "" plane is.

----
CAR 400.01: “complex aeroplane” means an aeroplane that has flaps and a constant-speed propeller and, except in the case of a seaplane, retractable landing gear.
----

This is what "complex" means. Seems pretty straightforward to me.

You could always argue for a different definition (or a different term) if you think this level of complexity isn't good enough.  But add in some halfway decent avionics (no CPL holders who have never used a transponder!) and I think this is an appropriate level of complexity for a CPL candidate.  The bulk of the "on-course" requirements should have to be met in a complex aircraft.  I say "bulk"because I'm also an advocate of requiring some basic aerobatic training.

Thanks for the CAR's reference as it shows how low the bar is set to describe complex.

And the bar remains low regarding the training and experience/ equipment requirements to go from a bare commercial to an ATPL.

I look back at the last sixty two years since I received my pilots licenses and instead of it becoming harder to get the ATPL it has become easier.

However to balance this situation out the aircraft are far more reliable and easier to operate...

...I wonder if I will live to see pilots replaced by smart airplanes...we have smart phones.

Chuck Ellsworth wrote: Thanks for the CAR's reference as it shows how low the bar is set to describe complex.

So suggest an alternative.

The reality is that "complex" is just a word.  It could be any word.  We could call it "Level 2", where a C-150/C-172/PA-28 would be "Level 1" and a B-747 is a "Level 26".  It doesn't matter. What matters is that the term be objectively defined so that when we use it we're all on the same page.

Whatever you want to call  it, I think the current definition of "complex" provides an appropriate level of complexity for the airframe used in CPL training.  Even if you disagree (and if you do, I'd like to hear your alternative), it would certainly be an improvement over the status quo.

(re: CPL 180 power-off approach) ...
Just practice gliding the airplane

Indeed.  More practice, but I might also
that during the power-off 180, that the
student

LOOK OUTSIDE

at the runway almost the entire time,
instead of staring at the pretty coloured
glass in the panel.

Sure, glance at the airspeed every once
in a while, but if the pitch attitude (and
trim) is where it should be, the aircraft
should almost fly hands-off.  Just keep
15 degrees of bank on.  That's it.

You cannot catch a ball if you do not look
at it.  How people expect to land on a
runway without looking at it, is beyond
me.

You MUST be spending most of your time
during the power-off 180 looking at the
runway, continually gauging if you are
high or low, and adjusting your bank
angle accordingly to either increase
or decrease the distance you are going
to fly before touchdown.

This is incredibly simple, yet this information
is hoarded like the crown jewels and people
insist on flunking what is such a simple
maneuver.  I have done this thousands
of times:



Power goes all the way to idle on downwind
abeam the numbers, and stays there.  The
helmet cam shows where I am looking,
the entire time - the runway!!

Ok, at 0:30 you can see me look right for the
requisite biplane belly check for other traffic
on final.

I don't spend a lot of time with my head down,
looking at the TWO flight instruments on the
panel, do I?

One thing I should mention:  high-wing aircraft
(such as the mighty 172) can really suck for a
power-off 180, because the wing can block the
view of the runway in the turn.

For this reason, I teach the use of landmarks
on the ground for high-wing aircraft.

My students get shit on by civilian DPE's who 
have been told by Transport to not use landmarks,
but the military and I might respectfully disagree.