TC pilots unfortunately are not allowed to fly for hire outside of work. This is very unfortunate because its hard to stay current. I never understood why they did not encourage sabbaticals or weekend instructing or whatever to stay relevant. Take a year off, go fly in Africa or up north or whatever.
Basic aerobatic questions (pitts)
-
BCPilotguy
- Posts: 134
- Joined: Sun May 24, 2015 9:56 pm
[quote author=cgzro link=topic=5424.msg14073#msg14073 date=1484873074]
TC pilots unfortunately are not allowed to fly for hire outside of work. This is very unfortunate because its hard to stay current. I never understood why they did not encourage sabbaticals or weekend instructing or whatever to stay relevant. Take a year off, go fly in Africa or up north or whatever.
[/quote]
I met a guy a while back who worked for Transport and did just that. He was the religious type so he'd take sabbaticals and go do missionary flying in Africa. He had some interesting stories to tell. This was about a decade ago though so maybe the policy has changed.
TC pilots unfortunately are not allowed to fly for hire outside of work. This is very unfortunate because its hard to stay current. I never understood why they did not encourage sabbaticals or weekend instructing or whatever to stay relevant. Take a year off, go fly in Africa or up north or whatever.
[/quote]
I met a guy a while back who worked for Transport and did just that. He was the religious type so he'd take sabbaticals and go do missionary flying in Africa. He had some interesting stories to tell. This was about a decade ago though so maybe the policy has changed.
-
Colonel
- Posts: 3450
- Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2015 10:31 am
There is one competent current TC Inspector,
in BC. I will not mention him by name - I don't
want to get him in trouble - but I was told when
they re-hired him, he insisted they make an exemption
and allow him to continue his airshow flying in his
T-6 and L29. I believe he is also an ICAS ACE.
While I suppose all of that implies of conflicts of
interest, it's nice that at least one TC Inspector
in Canada can actually fly an airplane.
Canadians get such poor value for their taxpaying
dollar. When you consider the lavish pension and
benefits and decent salary (given the banker's hours)
it would be reasonable for pilots to expect a little
bit of help from their local government employees.
Instead, they come out to my airport and hide
behind the hangars with cameras, trying to get
evidence of bad flying on my part.
Please, just fuck off. My tax dollars at work.
Blech.
in BC. I will not mention him by name - I don't
want to get him in trouble - but I was told when
they re-hired him, he insisted they make an exemption
and allow him to continue his airshow flying in his
T-6 and L29. I believe he is also an ICAS ACE.
While I suppose all of that implies of conflicts of
interest, it's nice that at least one TC Inspector
in Canada can actually fly an airplane.
Canadians get such poor value for their taxpaying
dollar. When you consider the lavish pension and
benefits and decent salary (given the banker's hours)
it would be reasonable for pilots to expect a little
bit of help from their local government employees.
Instead, they come out to my airport and hide
behind the hangars with cameras, trying to get
evidence of bad flying on my part.
Please, just fuck off. My tax dollars at work.
Blech.
-
Pittsartist
- Posts: 4
- Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2017 8:10 am
Here's a few thoughts for you on Pitts Flying
Landing
Is the one time a Pitts is less than Joyful to fly. Most anyone who's even flown one (and even some that have not) will have an opinion (usually passionate) on how to do it.
My suggestions
- Only listen to the ones who have > 300 accident free Pitts hours, and even then think carefully about what they are saying applies to YOUR context and YOUR aeroplane
- Be Timid (by which I mean, No short / narrow / bumpy / soft runways, tricky approaches, No strong crosswinds (I use a 10mph limit - and I have 500+ Pitts hours).
- Pay attention (You need to be right "in the Now", not nervous / jumpy - but FULLY focussed)
- Personally, I don't like flying lots of circuits in a Pitts. Pitts have a unusually high proportion of short flights (and therefore a high proportion of landings per hour logged) Just 2 or 3 Practice landings per flight and they soon rack up
In 2011 I had a fatal mid air in a Pitts. In my opinion the lack of visibility is one of the greatest dangers of the type, yet it is much less discussed than landings. You simply cannot see in front below the nose. Many aeroplanes are the same, but most don't change course as much as a Pitts.
If you want to fly aeros in a Pitts I'd suggest a book called "Better Aerobatics" by Alan Cassidy, Like me, he's a Brit. But I'm not biased - It genuinely is the best book I've found on the subject (and I have all the others).
Other required reading is "Spins in a Pitts Special" by Gene Beggs - But don't think you can just read this and teach yourself - Qualified practical instruction required !
Have fun & be safe .........
Landing
Is the one time a Pitts is less than Joyful to fly. Most anyone who's even flown one (and even some that have not) will have an opinion (usually passionate) on how to do it.
My suggestions
- Only listen to the ones who have > 300 accident free Pitts hours, and even then think carefully about what they are saying applies to YOUR context and YOUR aeroplane
- Be Timid (by which I mean, No short / narrow / bumpy / soft runways, tricky approaches, No strong crosswinds (I use a 10mph limit - and I have 500+ Pitts hours).
- Pay attention (You need to be right "in the Now", not nervous / jumpy - but FULLY focussed)
- Personally, I don't like flying lots of circuits in a Pitts. Pitts have a unusually high proportion of short flights (and therefore a high proportion of landings per hour logged) Just 2 or 3 Practice landings per flight and they soon rack up
In 2011 I had a fatal mid air in a Pitts. In my opinion the lack of visibility is one of the greatest dangers of the type, yet it is much less discussed than landings. You simply cannot see in front below the nose. Many aeroplanes are the same, but most don't change course as much as a Pitts.
If you want to fly aeros in a Pitts I'd suggest a book called "Better Aerobatics" by Alan Cassidy, Like me, he's a Brit. But I'm not biased - It genuinely is the best book I've found on the subject (and I have all the others).
Other required reading is "Spins in a Pitts Special" by Gene Beggs - But don't think you can just read this and teach yourself - Qualified practical instruction required !
Have fun & be safe .........
-
Colonel
- Posts: 3450
- Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2015 10:31 am
Everyone flies a Pitts differently. What works for you
may not work for someone else, and vice versa, and
that's ok.
Some comments on the above:
[quote]No strong crosswinds[/quote]
Not sure I agree with this. The ability of the Pitts to
handle lots wind during landing is one of the rewards of
mastering the type. You can land a Pitts in wind that
would be nearly impossible for many other taildraggers,
because of it's high wing loading.
My initial checkout in the Pitts, back in the 90's, was
in a crosswind which exceeded the POH limitation. It's
that good in a crosswind.
[quote]I don't like flying lots of circuits in a Pitts[/quote]
Not sure I agree with this advice. What I tell every
new Pitts owner is to buy two new sets of main tires
and tubes, and a new tailwheel, and try to burn them
off as fast as you can.
You can easily do 20-25 circuits per hour in the Pitts,
and that's what new Pitts owners should do, to solidify
their new skills. They need 300-500 landings as soon
as possible, in the type.
Rise to the challenge. Don't back away from it. If
you don't like the challenge, and don't fly the airplane,
sell it before the engine has a chance to rust out.
I have flown thousands and thousands of Pitts landings,
and I really enjoy them. I probably don't do it as well
as you, but I'm trying.
[img width=500 height=306][/img]
[quote]In 2011 I had a fatal mid air in a Pitts[/quote]
Ok. I presume you are not typing this in, from the
"other side", as William Lyon Mackenzie King would say?
[quote]In my opinion the lack of visibility is one of the greatest dangers of the type[/quote]
Yes, that's one of two things that makes it hard to
land - you can't see anything forward in the 3-point
landing attitude. People really struggle with this.
Ever flown any WWII stuff? Stearman, T-6, any of
the penis piston warbirds? All the same.
IMHO, either taxiing on the ground, or maneuvering
in the circuit is when the lack of visibility will bite
you.
I deal with the lack of visibility in the circuit by
entering it at 200 mph. However, I am a [b]BAD
PERSON[/b]. I presume you are a good person and
tried to fit in with the flow, flying 90 mph on downwind,
the way other non-Pitts pilots told you to. That is
not going to work out well for you.
Taking advice from non-Pitts pilots, about how to fly
your Pitts, is not a good idea, even if it hurts their
feelings to ignore them. I know hurt feelings are a
capital offense in Canadian aviation - worse than
having an accident, oddly - but if hurting someone's
feelings bothers you, again, get rid of the Pitts.
It's not an airplane for everyone. It has extremely
challenging ground handling characteristics, and yes
it's blind out the front. But for me at least, the
positives outweigh the negatives.
[img width=375 height=500][/img]
This is how I fly a circuit in the Pitts, and land:
[youtube][/youtube]
Note that on downwind I am inverted, and have
excellent visibility forwards. This vastly improves
safety, even if it enrages airlines pilots, and causes
TC Inspectors to conduct "covert surveillance" on
you, hiding behind hangars, taking pictures of you
(quite seriously).
Note the belly check on base, so I don't have a
midair with a spam can on long final like Andrew
Wright did, years ago (not his recent fatal mid-air
breakup).
Note the slant final, so I don't land on top of a
182 on the numbers, like Bill Finegan did. Remember
what Budd Davisson says about the "black zone"
even if he's not British.
may not work for someone else, and vice versa, and
that's ok.
Some comments on the above:
[quote]No strong crosswinds[/quote]
Not sure I agree with this. The ability of the Pitts to
handle lots wind during landing is one of the rewards of
mastering the type. You can land a Pitts in wind that
would be nearly impossible for many other taildraggers,
because of it's high wing loading.
My initial checkout in the Pitts, back in the 90's, was
in a crosswind which exceeded the POH limitation. It's
that good in a crosswind.
[quote]I don't like flying lots of circuits in a Pitts[/quote]
Not sure I agree with this advice. What I tell every
new Pitts owner is to buy two new sets of main tires
and tubes, and a new tailwheel, and try to burn them
off as fast as you can.
You can easily do 20-25 circuits per hour in the Pitts,
and that's what new Pitts owners should do, to solidify
their new skills. They need 300-500 landings as soon
as possible, in the type.
Rise to the challenge. Don't back away from it. If
you don't like the challenge, and don't fly the airplane,
sell it before the engine has a chance to rust out.
I have flown thousands and thousands of Pitts landings,
and I really enjoy them. I probably don't do it as well
as you, but I'm trying.
[img width=500 height=306][/img]
[quote]In 2011 I had a fatal mid air in a Pitts[/quote]
Ok. I presume you are not typing this in, from the
"other side", as William Lyon Mackenzie King would say?
[quote]In my opinion the lack of visibility is one of the greatest dangers of the type[/quote]
Yes, that's one of two things that makes it hard to
land - you can't see anything forward in the 3-point
landing attitude. People really struggle with this.
Ever flown any WWII stuff? Stearman, T-6, any of
the penis piston warbirds? All the same.
IMHO, either taxiing on the ground, or maneuvering
in the circuit is when the lack of visibility will bite
you.
I deal with the lack of visibility in the circuit by
entering it at 200 mph. However, I am a [b]BAD
PERSON[/b]. I presume you are a good person and
tried to fit in with the flow, flying 90 mph on downwind,
the way other non-Pitts pilots told you to. That is
not going to work out well for you.
Taking advice from non-Pitts pilots, about how to fly
your Pitts, is not a good idea, even if it hurts their
feelings to ignore them. I know hurt feelings are a
capital offense in Canadian aviation - worse than
having an accident, oddly - but if hurting someone's
feelings bothers you, again, get rid of the Pitts.
It's not an airplane for everyone. It has extremely
challenging ground handling characteristics, and yes
it's blind out the front. But for me at least, the
positives outweigh the negatives.
[img width=375 height=500][/img]
This is how I fly a circuit in the Pitts, and land:
[youtube][/youtube]
Note that on downwind I am inverted, and have
excellent visibility forwards. This vastly improves
safety, even if it enrages airlines pilots, and causes
TC Inspectors to conduct "covert surveillance" on
you, hiding behind hangars, taking pictures of you
(quite seriously).
Note the belly check on base, so I don't have a
midair with a spam can on long final like Andrew
Wright did, years ago (not his recent fatal mid-air
breakup).
Note the slant final, so I don't land on top of a
182 on the numbers, like Bill Finegan did. Remember
what Budd Davisson says about the "black zone"
even if he's not British.
-
Colonel
- Posts: 3450
- Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2015 10:31 am
PS There are many different types out there. A
Pitts is not for everyone.
For example, on Saturday I did a checkout on an
Extra 300 (certified two-seat low-wing). I wrote
it up, but did not post it here to avoid hurting
feelings of airline pilots and TC Inspectors.
Always with the hurt feelings. Canadians are
such tiresome pussies. It's hard to believe these
whiny bitches are the same people that fought in
World War One, for example.
I'm sure you've never heard of this. Modern
pussy Canadians are very careful to erase their
history:
[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada's_Hundred_Days]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada's_Hundred_Days[/url]
[quote]Canada’s Hundred Days is the name given to the series of attacks made by the Canadian Corps between 8 August and 11 November 1918, during the Hundred Days Offensive of World War I.
Reference to this period as Canada's Hundred Days is due to the substantial role the Canadian Corps of the British First Army played during the offensive.
During this time, the Canadian Corps fought in the
Battle of Amiens,
Second Battle of the Somme,
Battle of the Scarpe,
Battle of the Canal du Nord,
Battle of Cambrai,
Battle of the Selle,
Battle of Valenciennes and finally at
Mons, on the final day of combat before the Armistice of 11 November 1918.
In terms of numbers, during those 96 days [b]the Canadian Corps' four over-strength or 'heavy' divisions of roughly 100 000 men, engaged and defeated or put to flight elements of forty seven German divisions[/b], which represented one quarter of the German forces faced by the Allied Powers fighting on the Western Front.
However their successes came at a heavy cost; Canadians suffered 20% of their battle-sustained casualties of the war during the same period.
The Canadian Corps suffered 45,835 casualties during this offensive[/quote]
One hundred years ago, Canadians were not pussies for 100 days.
If you do the arithmetic, that 477 casualties per day, on average.
That's one battalion wiped out, every day, for 96 days.
They were a bunch of goddamned tough farm boys that you didn't
fuck with. Four divisions of Canadians took down forty-seven
divisions of Germans. Feelings may have been hurt.
Not that one cock-sucking left-wing teacher in Canada would
ever teach that to a single Canadian student.
Anyways, all that to say that I won't talk about flying the
Extra on Saturday to avoid hurting feelings.
Ok, here's a picture of my dogs in the car on the way home
on Sunday, after spending the day at the beach:
[img width=500 height=281][/img]
Hope that doesn't hurt any feelings. They had a great time.
[img width=375 height=500][/img]
Pitts is not for everyone.
For example, on Saturday I did a checkout on an
Extra 300 (certified two-seat low-wing). I wrote
it up, but did not post it here to avoid hurting
feelings of airline pilots and TC Inspectors.
Always with the hurt feelings. Canadians are
such tiresome pussies. It's hard to believe these
whiny bitches are the same people that fought in
World War One, for example.
I'm sure you've never heard of this. Modern
pussy Canadians are very careful to erase their
history:
[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada's_Hundred_Days]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada's_Hundred_Days[/url]
[quote]Canada’s Hundred Days is the name given to the series of attacks made by the Canadian Corps between 8 August and 11 November 1918, during the Hundred Days Offensive of World War I.
Reference to this period as Canada's Hundred Days is due to the substantial role the Canadian Corps of the British First Army played during the offensive.
During this time, the Canadian Corps fought in the
Battle of Amiens,
Second Battle of the Somme,
Battle of the Scarpe,
Battle of the Canal du Nord,
Battle of Cambrai,
Battle of the Selle,
Battle of Valenciennes and finally at
Mons, on the final day of combat before the Armistice of 11 November 1918.
In terms of numbers, during those 96 days [b]the Canadian Corps' four over-strength or 'heavy' divisions of roughly 100 000 men, engaged and defeated or put to flight elements of forty seven German divisions[/b], which represented one quarter of the German forces faced by the Allied Powers fighting on the Western Front.
However their successes came at a heavy cost; Canadians suffered 20% of their battle-sustained casualties of the war during the same period.
The Canadian Corps suffered 45,835 casualties during this offensive[/quote]
One hundred years ago, Canadians were not pussies for 100 days.
If you do the arithmetic, that 477 casualties per day, on average.
That's one battalion wiped out, every day, for 96 days.
They were a bunch of goddamned tough farm boys that you didn't
fuck with. Four divisions of Canadians took down forty-seven
divisions of Germans. Feelings may have been hurt.
Not that one cock-sucking left-wing teacher in Canada would
ever teach that to a single Canadian student.
Anyways, all that to say that I won't talk about flying the
Extra on Saturday to avoid hurting feelings.
Ok, here's a picture of my dogs in the car on the way home
on Sunday, after spending the day at the beach:
[img width=500 height=281][/img]
Hope that doesn't hurt any feelings. They had a great time.
[img width=375 height=500][/img]
-
Chris
- Posts: 162
- Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2016 5:05 pm
Feeling hurt. I miss my little sausage dog.
[img width=500 height=374]https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/bJDaO ... 51-h563-no[/img]
[img width=500 height=374]https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/bJDaO ... 51-h563-no[/img]
-
Colonel
- Posts: 3450
- Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2015 10:31 am
They are a funny breed. Stubborn as anything, but
oh my god, can you hurt their feelings.
On my third min-dach now. Generally, any dog
has superior character to any human.
Remember, you can cut the balls off a dog, leave
it alone locked up in your house all day, and it's
honestly glad to see you in the evening when you
get home from work.
But try that with [i]just one[/i] TC Inspector, and all
hell breaks loose.
oh my god, can you hurt their feelings.
On my third min-dach now. Generally, any dog
has superior character to any human.
Remember, you can cut the balls off a dog, leave
it alone locked up in your house all day, and it's
honestly glad to see you in the evening when you
get home from work.
But try that with [i]just one[/i] TC Inspector, and all
hell breaks loose.
-
ScudRunner-d95
- Posts: 1349
- Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 5:08 pm
I need my safe space,
[img width=375 height=500]https://img.thewhiskyexchange.com/900/glvob.15yov1.jpg[/img]
Found it carry on
[img width=375 height=500]https://img.thewhiskyexchange.com/900/glvob.15yov1.jpg[/img]
Found it carry on
-
- Similar Topics
- Replies
- Views
- Last post
-
- 17 Replies
- 4924 Views
-
Last post by Chuck Ellsworth
-
- 0 Replies
- 13945 Views
-
Last post by Scudrunner
