It’s because there likely is a difference in quality of instruction betweenhe old RFs and the old FTOs..
Is this another case of more paperwork from EASA resulting in less quality ( safety) we have seen it in aircraft maintenance, are we now seeing it in pilot training?
I don’t quite follow, boscomantico. In my experience there is much good and much sh*t in both worlds. And the motivation often differs a bit. I know of some instructors at FTOs, who feel like “parked” on their way to unfreeze their ATPL or just waiting for an Airline gig. I know of many instructors in flying clubs RFs, who have a passion to teach and who will work very hard to impart all they know. I know of instructors in RFs, who don’t know what they are supposed to teach and they don’t care. And I know of very knowledgeable instructors in FTOs, who live to teach people flying. There are organized RFs and sloppy FTOs, and so on and so forth.
Perhaps I should have said that it differs from instructor to instructor, but the mentioned situations are in the curriculum and how intense they are trained, is very individual. But some people sometimes make it sound like the very basics are not taught, which is plain wrong in many cases. There are far more good pilots and instructors out there, than some of the posts here could make you believe there were.
cheers,
In the glider world it is expected that your very first cross country flight (the 50km silver distance) will terminate in a random farmer’s field.
Hopefully I won’t ever put myself in this kind of situation but if I were to get myself trapped by weather in (our strictly day VFR) Auster, I’d not hesistate to land in a field (and of course try to depart before anyone at all, let alone anyone official showed up :-)). The Auster generally needs no more runway than a glider to land, we have larger wheels than most typical light aircraft and landing gear built for rough fields. When the Auster Autocrat was designed, rough fields is what most people flew out of.
It’s also true quite a few instructors seem to like to add on 5 knots for grandma. The (now defunct) aero club at Ronaldsway had instructors who habitually taught (and got very very nervous if you went slower) 70 knot approaches in a Cessna 172. Of course the aircraft floats for miles when you do this. The book speed for a C172 at gross is 65kt. Two up and half fuel you can go much, much slower. If you get checked out at somewhere like Manchester Barton the instructor will have a fit if you’re in the last stage of the approach and doing more than 55kt. I always wanted to take the Manx club’s instructor up in the Auster, our book normal approach speed is 50 mph, and if you want to make a really short field landing you can slow to 40 mph in the last stages of the approach (although you need a little bit of power to prevent an excessive sink rate) – just to see the look on his face when he saw the ASI :-)
Precautionary landings – would anybody do one, really?
I have been quite close to it today – at one moment I saw either a slight chance of pushing on and maybe I’d get through OR land at a closed field some 10 NM away OR divert to the closest operational field, some 40 NM away and quite expensive and completely out of my way, OR putting down in the first suitable field. Luckily, the first option worked, even if I had to reroute. Otherwise, I’d have preferred the first suitable field.
But I must add that, like IMHO any microlight pilot should, I have a trailer ready to haul the craft after such an exercise. With a non-foldable non-trailerable plane, the matter becomes much much harder.
It’s a tough call this one. I guess I would if the engine was running rough, or there was an electric failure, or something I just wasn’t comfortable handling. But as Pilot’s, every flight has things that could be stacked up against it – bad weather, engine or avionic issues, dodgy readings from a gauge, another aircraft, getting lost and so on. What this means to me is that as pilots you have to be bold even to take off, otherwise you would never fly, but the question is how bold should you be when flying, and presented with a potential problem. Even if you own the plane, there is the practical issue of resolving the problem in the proverbial farmers field, and a load of hassle securing the plane overnight, or potential questions from an insurance company if a claim needed to be made. But then you don’t want to die or injure yourself.
I had a relatively low fuel situation not so long ago, and I should have opted to land at an enroute airfield for fuel, but I didn’t, and when I was beginning to really get worried (e.g. what happens if I bank more than 15 degrees, and the remaining fuel sloshes to the outboard side of the tank and the engine splutters, or the same pitching up), my nearest airport was Luton. Luton isn’t part of the Strasser Scheme so you will be hit with the large landing fee, which I didn’t want to pay, but then I didn’t want to land in an unsuitable field either.
Most situations are unique, at least in their location at the time something might happen. Its all timing, judgement, assessing the situation, making a calculated and sensible decision call, and luck I guess.
I would certainly consider one if there was smoke or fire and it was the only way to get on the ground . I have had one real Mayday in my life due to smoke and it is not a good experience.
