Dad had a couple of friends who flew their Swift to where he was working. They forgot to refuel and the engine quit on climb-out. They stalled, recovered, and stalled again. Both occupants survived with major injuries. When I was living in L.A. a P-51 took off from Santa Monica and ran out of fuel on take-off. Crashed into a house. Then there are reports of people taking off with the (external) gust locks installed, and I remember a case in WWII where a Spitfire pilot took off with a WAAF clinging to the tail…
I’m going to stick my nose into this thread with the hope that the OP doesn’t mind because (as Johnny well knows because I keep pestering him about it) I’m planning on going down this same path. I’m planning to take an introductory/discovery flight next weekend (might have to be the weekend after that, since I haven’t made my appointment yet), and then go from there. Due to time and money restraints, I wouldn’t be surprised at all if it took me two years or more to get a license, but there are some schools less than five miles from me that have sport planes on which to train, so I may start with the cheaper license option first.
A question: someone just loaned me a book called “The Student Pilot’s Flight Manual” by William K. Kershner. If anyone here is familiar with it, is it a worthwhile read for someone getting started?
Not so much “forget” as “missed”. It was a cracked tailfork on the nosewheel. The front wheel fell off just before rotation. Never seen an airplane do a headstand before…
Yes, that’s an excellent book. Very detailed - I’d say it goes well beyond what a Private Pilot applicant needs to know, but all knowledge is good when it comes to flying.
Also, if you’re on a budget, the FAA makes a lot of training materials available online for free. All of the expensive textbooks from Gleim and Jeppesen are pretty much drawn from FAA publications, but have slicker illustrations. Examples:
[QUOTE=Broomstick]
John Travolta flies a B707 on a Private license
[/quote]
Nitpick: Yes, you need at least a Private (with multiengine) to fly a 707, but to fly any jet you also need a type rating for that particular aircraft. A pilot-in-command type rating is essentially another license and requires a checkride. That also applies to any aircraft over 12,500 pounds, irrespective of powerplant.
OP, another thought just came to me. When I was taking lessons I used flight sims on the computer to help familiarize myself with the operation of the aircraft. The one I used was call Flight (I think that was it). Very very detailed, including correct start up procedures and interaction with the control tower etc. Not a replacement for the real thing of course, but helpful.
Be careful of using a simulator for initial training. They’re not very helpful for VFR flying, and can give you bad habits. In particular, they encourage looking at the instruments rather than outside. I’ve had some students who really screwed themselves up using simulators improperly.
Used in a structured manner for certain things, they can be fine. Procedures, VOR navigation, traffic pattern entries. But I’d strongly suggest you get some guidance from a CFI rather than teaching yourself.
Just to add to this from the rookie perspective, in going through the instruction on Microsoft’s Flight Simulator recently, one of the first things the author mentions is that the game lacks the ability to properly simulate the sort of looking out of the window that you’d be doing during a real VFR flight. I find it really annoying when ATC asks me to verify that I have traffic in sight, and I just know that it would be a lot easier to spot in real life by turning my head and looking around (and, in fact, hopefully I’d already have seen nearby traffic in a real plane).
I learned to fly over Summer 2008 in an old (1978, I think ) Cessna 172. I had a really good instructor and passed my private pilot checkride at about 54 hours. This was after about two months of training 2-3 times a week.
I’ve recently started flying the Flight Design CTLS. It’s a much nicer airplane than the 172, although it only seats two people. I like it a lot better than the 172, for several reasons:
It’s cheaper to operate than the 172 and should be about 30% cheaper to rent.
Despite being smaller and lighter, it’s actually much roomier inside than the 172.
It has much better visibility than the 172.
It is much more responsive and feels “sportier” than the 172.
It’s a relatively new design (about 10 years old, compared to 60 for the 172), it’s made entirely of carbon fiber, and as a result it doesn’t feel as archaic as the 172.
It is just about as fast as a 172 (nominally 120 knots) and burn about 5-6 gallons per hour. That’s about 20 mpg, and with a 33-gallon fuel capacity, it has a fantastic range. Most other light sport aircraft have much lower endurance. You can actually use the CTLS for serious cross-country flying.
Additionally, flying it properly demands that you use the rudder correctly, while you can get away with mostly ignoring it in the 172. This will make you a better pilot in the long run.
The only disadvantage is that the CTLS has a glass cockpit (like most brand-new general aviation aircraft), whereas most existing general aviation aircraft use traditional dials. While some people like the glass cockpit, traditional instruments are superior in my opinion. In any case, if you learn on a CT and then transition to another airplane, there will be a slight learning curve as you adjust.
Additionally, they’re not that common, so it’s unlikely a random flight school will have one (whereas the 172 is literally ubiquitous).
As far as I know, it is perfectly possible to train for your private pilot certificate in the CTLS. Whether you decide to go for that or to start with Sport Pilot, I would highly recommend the CTLS.
Kids these days! They don’t know what archaic is - fabric and dope biplane with a metal pan on the floor so your feet don’t go through the bottom when you step in, that’s an archaic airplane!
When I was a young pilot on my instrument instructor checkride I had to do an NDB hold! In a 20 knot crosswind! GPS?!
Actually, one of my specialties is teaching advanced GPS navigation for IFR. But experiences like that NDB hold and navigating (for real, not training) with pilotage and ded reckoning makes me appreciate what we have now all the more. I remember when a VOR with DME seemed like magic, and now GPS has totally changed flying. Largely for the better in my opinion. And the FAA adapted to it very quickly, for which they deserve credit.