Sport Pilot Talk

In another thread, Brian was nice enough to say...

BrianL99 wrote:
FastEddie and a few others on here ... now they're pilots!

Thanks for the compliment!

But we're virtually all pilots here - barring those here who may not have yet started training.

We can talk about pilots and pilots and aviators and even, disparagingly, of "airplane drivers", but I'm not sure to what end.

Let me put forth that I recognize that, throughout my career I have been, at best, an average pilot. I took a fair number of hours to solo, needed some additional training beyond the 141 syllabus to get my Private, and really nothing ever came easy.

On the plus side, I'm good at written tests, so always did well there. And I never failed a checkride.

And thankfully, to date, no accidents or violations, though I have admittedly bent and scraped a few small parts along the way.

But if any of my skills now are now above average, it's mainly due to repetition and the insights gained from years of instructing.

I also recognize that my skills may be waning, both from the ravages of age, and lack of practice. It's humbling to admit I used to be a better pilot, but as Dirty Harry said, "A man's got to know his limitations". And it is what it is.

Anyway, I think it's important to realize one's own strengths and weaknesses - they'll always be there, and it's only a matter of recognizing them or not.

You're welcome Eddie, but now I'll comment further.

I'm appalled at the lack of knowledge and competency displayed by pilots I seem to run into, hanging around airports. Personally, I think the fault lies in the time honored tradition of "once a pilot, always a pilot" method of certification.

I'll pick on myself, first. I hadn't flown for 7 years, when I decided to get back into flying and buy an LSA. I mean, ZERO time in the pilot's seat. I flew an hour with an Instructor in a DA40, then another 50 minutes in a DA20 (neither of which I had any experience in) and I was signed off for my BFR and legal to fly.

Legal maybe, competent? No way!

I talk with guys all the time, who fly 5 hours a year and who think they're ready for anything. The majority of these guys aren't long time/high hour pilots, but guys who got their ticket in their 40's or 50's and probably have less than 300 hours in the air. It's particularly noticeable to me when flying close to local, private airports. I had one last Sunday, guy announces; "I'm abeam the #'s on RW 32". You are? In which case, you're in my airplane, not yours. I finally spotted the guy at the wrong altitude and 2 miles ahead of me. Not a flight goes by that I'm not amazed at some nonsense I hear on a radio call.

It happened on this site just last week, when one well known member declared "if you're in coordinated flight, you won't stall". WTF? What are you smokin', Dude?

On the other hand, there are people like you, who constantly and continually "stay in the game". These are the people I consider "pilots". Whether they have moderate time or seriously high time, they're constantly thinking about flying, talking about it, learning about it and actually piloting an aircraft.

I suppose it comes down to 2 simple words, experience and currency. Both experience and currency are often talked about, but I don't think they're given their due respect. You can read all the books you want about what to do when your engine quits at 400' on takeoff, but reading & "doing" are two entirely different things. "Currency" is not just about flying your plane an hour or 2 every month, it means staying up to date on regulations, equipment, airspace and actually controlling your airplane in changing and challenging environments.

I suppose at 500 hours and an IR, I can go from "driver" to "jockey", but I figure I'm at least 1000 hours away from "pilot" and may never get there.

BrianL99 wrote:I suppose at 500 hours and an IR, I can go from "driver" to "jockey", but I figure I'm at least 1000 hours away from "pilot" and may never get there.

I was born a pilot, I just didn't get to use it until I was in my 30s. As a kid growing up in the inner city with no money I could identify all of the air-liners that I saw flying over head.

Fast forward and in the 70s I got my first airplane ride, courtesy of my about to be in-laws that flew us from Los Angeles to Las Vegas for a "shot gun" wedding. At 21, and never having been in an air plane I was ready to take control if needed.

Moving to the Sierra Nevada, where I could literally watch the eagles soar finally got me in the air, behind the controls. I built a Quad City Challenger and flew it 700 hours in the Sierra Nevada and after that I got a pilot license.



When it came to getting a certificate the local flight schools didn't take me seriously as a student, they had seen too much of my flying, but they did endorse my log book when needed and ride along when I needed dual. I even got an endorsement to fly a 172 to Stockton to take my written and get my student pilot certificate.

As a result I was really weak on the radio with ATC and understanding air-space. On my solo cross country I did my first landing at Fresno Air Terminal on the parallel taxi-way thinking it was the parallel runway.

We are all pilots with our own strengths and weaknesses. Some pilots we choose to emulate some we do not.

Brian,

I think you're imposing a standard for the use of the word "pilot" that doesn't exist, and may well be contrary to legal definitions that DO exist. You say that you have not personally achieved the status of "Pilot". Say you're in an accident or reportable incident. The FAA will want to know who was "Pilot in Command." Are you going to reply with, "Nope, sorry... there was no pilot on board, but I was 'driver in command'?" I presume you're logging PIC time.

So... I would argue, that yes, particularly once licensed, we're all "pilots" (Webster has an even looser definition). But that designation doesn't convey "competence." That has to be continually honed and worked on. Goodness knows I'm light years from being competent (in a layoff like yours, except that I do fly a few hours a year with instructors). Obviously, you're setting solid standards for yourself, but to deny that you are a pilot does little except muddy the waters.

I AM a pilot. I'm not currently competent to fly anything more than a paper airplane without thorough re-training. But I am a pilot. Would you add a level of competency or currency to be able to claim that label? How about a current medical for PPL or above?

......

CTLSi wrote: you CANNOT stall if you are coordinated and avoid critical angle of attack. That is something you can take into your deadmans spin when it happens to you.

Coordination has NOTHING to due with a stall. If you remain below critical angle of attack, you will not stall. Full stop.

Even when righteously defending your position...

.......

......

An online forum like this is a great place to both learn and teach.

I have been corrected on things I had obviously gotten wrong. And after saying "I stand corrected", I'm grateful, because I've added to my knowledge bucket while making my false belief bucket a little lighter. IOW, I learned something.

Other times, I can pick up that another poster has something slightly or entirely wrong, and pick up on it. I then try to, being as polite as possible, correct the misunderstanding.

For example, an experienced pilot might opine that he likes to fly a tight pattern, especially when heavy. I might ask why, sensing a misunderstanding about weight and glide distance.

If they say, "Well, you can't glide as far when you're heavy", then I know it's a teachable moment because, in a nutshell, they're wrong.

After explaining why, even giving sources and/or links, the normal response would be, "Wow, thanks! I like the way you explained that - I did have that wrong."

But some seem to be incapable of that and will dig in in an attempt to shore up an indefensible position. Sometimes by ignoring the correction. Sometimes by moving the goalposts*. But never admitting error.

That's what I find odd.

*I'm only seeing this in bits, but I get the impression someone thought a coordinated plane could not be stalled. When corrected (not by me) there was apparently never a hint of retreat. Instead, the fallacious statement was modified to, "A plane cannot be stalled if coordinated, unless you exceed the critical angle of attack." And, of course, that's a completely different proposition.

.......

Not referring to any particular forum member, but this came up on another forum and seemed vaguely relevant:

CTLSi wrote:You CANNOT stall if you are coordinated and avoid critical angle of attack.

Now you've got it right (more or less). First time around, you omitted the reference to critical angle of attack, which is of course a critical consideration.

FastEddieB wrote:We can talk about pilots and pilots and aviators and even, disparagingly, of "airplane drivers"

That was my term, Eddie, and was never meant to be disparaging. To me, the badge is one to wear proudly, as it reminds post-solo students that one goal has been achieved, and another awaits, just ahead.

BTW, each of us has "airplane driver" moments, when we're not sure whether PIC stands for Pilot In Command or Plane In Command. (Well, I know I certainly do!)

MrMorden wrote:Coordination has NOTHING to due with a stall. If you remain below critical angle of attack, you will not stall. Full stop.

Well, sort of. Although his terminology is questionable, there's a kernel of truth to what CTLSi said this time around.

Consider that, if you're seriously uncoordinated, one wing may inadvertently exceed its critical angle of attack, even though you did nothing to overtly increase pitch angle. That's because the critical angle of attack is influenced by more than just pitch and airspeed. So, I will accept his modified statement that you won't stall if you stay coordinated AND don't exceed critical angle of attack.

drseti wrote:

FastEddieB wrote:We can talk about pilots and pilots and aviators and even, disparagingly, of "airplane drivers"

That was my term, Eddie, and was never meant to be disparaging.

Got it.

But I did not even recall you using that term, so it was not directed at you at all.

It's sometimes used as an insult hurled at Cirrus pilots, so there may be some sensitivity there.