Air Gyro found their Sothern California Representative.

[ventana7]

Vance- I remember a thread awhile ago when Awad and I and some others were posting highly in favor of learning to fly in a traditional FW flight and GROUND school then transitioning to gyros.

You felt it was unnecessary.

I can't help but think that so much of the challenge you now face is because you did not go through a typical FW flight school and ground school.

Rob

 

[ventana7]

Jeff you are right- I should have said 360 steep turns (which are constant bank angle) and either of the other two which as you pointed out are varying bank angle to account for wind.

Though all three require power adjustments to maintain altitude and airspeed within PTS requirements.

My real point however was to try to get Vance to focus on the WHY each maneuver is taught- not just how you move the controls to accomplish it. The WHY is what should drive the syllabus.

My primary instructor in FW was fantastic but I remember a light bulb going off in my head late in my training. I knew how to do power on and power off stalls and recoveries. I knew the danger of stalling, etc. I knew HOW to move the controls-- but one day when we were doing precision landings for short field I tried to stretch a glide- it was not until that point that I learned WHY I had been taught power off stalls. I then re-focused on what phases of flight could likely lead to a power on and power off stall. For me knowing the WHY is at least as important as knowing which control to move when and where.


Rob

 

[ventana7]

Another example of a time during my training that the WHY escaped me. I learned at a towered field where a controller was always telling me where to be in the pattern. But we would practice at a non towered field and I had learned HOW to make all my announcements as I went around the pattern. On one of my early solos I went to the busy non towered field and had done 2-3 circuits dutifully announcing my position at downwind, base, final, etc. It sounds stupid to write this now but it was not until my 3 circuit that I realized I needed to be listening to all the other planes to make sure I was not in conflict with any of them. I had to have complete situational awareness of ALL planes in the pattern.

I was doing the HOW of announcing but not also focused on the WHY.

Rob

 

[JEFF TIPTON]

Agreed Rob.

 

[Vance]

Keep it simple.

Keep it simple.

I would have to argue about each is teaching something different. With the turn about a point the student is concentrating on keeping a radius on the point by changing the bank angle as it relates to wind direction. Most often performed to the left in a fixed wing.

The S turns are basically the same maneuver, except we have introduced right hand turns, but also introduced altitude control as the aircraft will go up in altitude as we change the turn direction, if we do not release the back pressure.

Each maneuver is essentially adding another layer to what has already been learned and also reaffirming what has already been learned.

There are only four basic flight maneuvers that an aircraft can do. Turns, climbs (constant airspeed), descents (constant airspeed), and straight-and-level flight. How we combine them determines what we do.

I like that Jeff, keep it simple.

I feel ground reference maneuvers are about wind correction and divided attention.

In my opinion there would not be much point in turns around a point or S turns over a line if there was no wind to compensate for.

I feel the student needs to divide his attention between the ground track, anticipating the wind, watching his altimeter and indicated air speed.

In my opinion ground reference maneuvers are good preparation for managing a pattern and landing in the wind.

I feel a steep turn is a performance maneuver again requiring divided attention between the sight picture of angle of bank, the entry and exit heading, indicated air speed and the altimeter. I practice steep turns at a higher altitude because the ground reference is a smaller part of the picture.

Thank you, Vance

 

[Vance]

My opinion had not changed Rob.

My opinion had not changed Rob.

Vance- I remember a thread awhile ago when Awad and I and some others were posting highly in favor of learning to fly in a traditional FW flight and GROUND school then transitioning to gyros.

You felt it was unnecessary.

I can't help but think that so much of the challenge you now face is because you did not go through a typical FW flight school and ground school.

Rob

I still feel learning to fly a fixed wing first is not the most efficient way to learn to fly a gyroplane Rob.

I took fixed wing ground school because it was more convenient than going to Buckeye, Arizona.

I spent time under the hood in a fixed wing because it was easier than doing it in a gyroplane. It helped me appreciate gyroplanes.

What part of my current challenges would have been lessened by learning to fly a fixed wing aircraft before learning to fly a gyroplane?

I am going to recommend to gyroplane students that they take a fixed wing ground school so that I don’t have to teach it one on one which is more expensive and less efficient.

Terry feels I still need to be able to teach things like our national airspace system or privileges and limitations because that is my responsibility to the student.

I feel I need to understand the FARs well so I can help to prepare the student for the knowledge test and the practical test.

In my opinion I need to teach flight planning in a gyroplane because I feel it emphasizes different things because of the slower speeds.

Thank you, Vance

 

[eddie]

obtaining a private license in a fixed wing you have to be able to navigate solo cross

countrys,its a major part of learning to fly. flying cross country is the reason most of us

fly,regardless of what we fly in. it appears to me navigation is less important when

teaching in a gyro than a fixed wing.

best regards,eddie.....

 

[ventana7]

Vance - I did not realize you took a FW ground school. Good for you - definitely a big help for the reason you mentioned. No gyro CFI can do it one on one efficiently.

However if you were taking FW lessons at the same time you would have put all the ground school theory into practice and likely internalized it better. Also the structure of a syllabus would have been more apparent to you if your flying and ground school were better integrated as most schools do where you are getting the ground and the flying from instructors who know what each other are teaching.

Also specifically you would have done plenty of tracking inbound and outbound radials, intercepting radials, etc. Plus all sorts of other navigation and general flying tasks that are more suited to learning in a FW than a slow gyro.
Rob

 

[Vance]

I hope we can agree to disagree Rob.

I hope we can agree to disagree Rob.

Vance - I did not realize you took a FW ground school. Good for you - definitely a big help for the reason you mentioned. No gyro CFI can do it one on one efficiently.

However if you were taking FW lessons at the same time you would have put all the ground school theory into practice and likely internalized it better. Also the structure of a syllabus would have been more apparent to you if your flying and ground school were better integrated as most schools do where you are getting the ground and the flying from instructors who know what each other are teaching.

Also specifically you would have done plenty of tracking inbound and outbound radials, intercepting radials, etc. Plus all sorts of other navigation and general flying tasks that are more suited to learning in a FW than a slow gyro.
Rob

Knowing what I know now if I was starting over and I wanted to become a proficient gyroplane pilot with the least cost; I would take gyroplane training.

I know it is possible to become legal with less cost by learning to fly a fixed wing and getting an gyroplane add on.

I do not feel legal and safe are interchangeable.

I feel that the hours of dual gyroplane instruction I would miss would make me less safe flying a gyroplane.

I have had over a hundred hours of dual instruction in a gyroplane and learned something from every one of them.

I have had five and a half hours of fixed wing training and 19 hours of helicopter training and I do not feel that makes me a safer gyroplane pilot.

I feel that a fixed wing aircraft flying hours and gyroplane flying hours are not interchangeable.

I personally found that that my 19 hours of helicopter training interfered with learning to fly a gyroplane.

The ground school I attended was not integrated with a flight school for anyone in the class. The flight school wanted the ground school completed before flight training began.

I also listened to Rod Machado’s tapes on the way to Bensen days and read several books.

I have met and talked to the Kings at length several times and reviewed their private pilot tapes.

To pass the commercial written test I needed to understand how to use very high frequency omnidirectional radio range (VOR) navigation.

I also needed 2.5 hours under the hood navigating by instruments in order to take the commercial practical test.

What I did not know how to do is use my 696 to simulate using VOR navigation because I had not had an occasion to use that feature.

As I read the practical test standards if I did not have radio navigation equipment I did not need to use it on the check ride.

The way Terry read it was because my Garmin could simulate radio navigation I needed to be proficient in finding VORs and intercepting radials.

I went to Spanish Fork after I failed because I needed another signoff from Michael Burton to retest.

It took about ten minutes to learn how to find a VOR and intercept a radial with the Garmin.

I practiced intercepting radials with the Garmin to make certain I was proficient. Michael flew with me to test me before he would sign me off for a retest.

The Cessna I flew for the under the hood time did not have a Garmin 696 and even if it had the instructor had no reason to teach me to intercept radials with it.

I also took some time to practice emergency procedures while I was in Spanish Fork.

I am using the practical test standards for Private Pilot Rotorcraft Gyroplane as the outline for my Syllabus. I am using the Robinson 22 flight training guide as an example to follow.

I have several fixed wing training books as reference.

In short I don’t see where any of the challenges I am having now would be mitigated if I had learned to fly a fixed wing before learning to fly a gyroplane.

Thank you, Vance

 

[Vance]

obtaining a private license in a fixed wing you have to be able to navigate solo cross

countrys,its a major part of learning to fly. flying cross country is the reason most of us

fly,regardless of what we fly in. it appears to me navigation is less important when

teaching in a gyro than a fixed wing.

best regards,eddie.....

I feel learning to navigate in any aircraft is important Eddie.

Because I am lower and slower I use more waypoints and have an hour fuel reserve.

Because I cannot glide as far I tend to follow roads so if I do have an emergency landing I won’t have as far to walk.

In my opinion being lower makes navigation more difficult so I feel that teaching flight planning and navigation is even more important in a gyroplane.

My primary navigation is by charts and my backup is the GPS.

Thank you, Vance

 

[GyroPro]

Glad to hear you are on task and track for your CFI. Its a joy hearing your process and progression.

 

[WaspAir]

In my opinion being lower makes navigation more difficult so I feel that teaching flight planning and navigation is even more important in a gyroplane.

My primary navigation is by charts and my backup is the GPS.

I have found that people used to a fancy panel and flying at 3500 agl have a very difficult time just spotting unfamiliar airports with a bare panel from 800 agl. The low angle of view creates lots of issues for them. Good pilotage skills are rare, too.

All my early helicopter cross country time was flown low with no nav equipment at all (just compass, chart, and eyeballs) and it was very helpful for my skills.

After lots of time navigating that way, I think it's really quite amazing what a stupendous job the chart-making people do; those sectional and TACs are incredibly good and full of the information you need without clutter from what you don't. If we had an unsung aviation hero award, I'd vote for them.

 

[ms80831]

I have found that people used to a fancy panel and flying at 3500 agl have a very difficult time just spotting unfamiliar airports with a bare panel from 800 agl. The low angle of view creates lots of issues for them. Good pilotage skills are rare, too.

All my early helicopter cross country time was flown low with no nav equipment at all (just compass, chart, and eyeballs) and it was very helpful for my skills.

After lots of time navigating that way, I think it's really quite amazing what a stupendous job the chart-making people do; those sectional and TACs are incredibly good and full of the information you need without clutter from what you don't. If we had an unsung aviation hero award, I'd vote for them.

I agree J.R.

I had several cross-country hours logged at flight level 190 and above when I took my first helicopter instruction back in the 80s.I found my small amount of time in ultra lights to be more helpful in navigation than the fixed wing cross-country time. Same is true for gyrocopters. And yes, TAC charts are very helpful. GPS is great but it's good to look at the chart when you're going into an unfamiliar area. Good post.

 

[Monarchist]

Vance wrote:

I know it is possible to become legal with less cost by learning to fly a fixed wing and getting an gyroplane add on.

I do not feel legal and safe are interchangeable.

Thank you, Vance...I have been preaching this for a long time now.

A gyroplane does NOT fly like a fixed wing. Some very prominent people, including Phil Harwood, are quoted as saying that gyroplanes basically fly like a fixed wing. (Don't get me wrong, I *love* what Phil Harwood is doing for the sport.)

I think this is a dangerous myth.

Gyroplanes fly like gyroplanes. They are closer to helicopters in their flight characteristics, because ultimately they are a rotorcraft. Sure, you have the "push left, go left...push right, go right" control paradigm like a fixed wing. Even helicopters have this in forward flight.

We hear stories about people forgetting they're in a gyroplane and falling back on the their fixed wing habits, holding the stick forward on the takeoff roll. This is symptomatic, I think, of the "it flies like an airplane" mindset.

I do maneuvers in my gyroplane that no one would even *think* of trying in a fixed wing. Not crazy or weird maneuvers...just maneuvers that are specific to gyros.

-John

 

[Vance]

Glad to hear you are on task and track for your CFI. Its a joy hearing your process and progression.

I am glad you are having fun following along David.

Becoming a CFI is more of a challenge than I anticipated.

I love a challenge.

It makes a better story because it is not going according to plan.

Thank you, Vance

 

[Vance]

J.R. and Mark, we are aligned on flight planning.

I have learned to flight plan the fixed wing way and it does not seem entirely appropriate for the low and slow of a gyroplane.

Fixed wing flight planning is a nice foundation.

I feel there are many additional considerations that need to go into a good plan for a gyroplane.

I feel flight planning is a much bigger picture than that encouraged by a fixed wing flight plan.

I learn something any time I go somewhere new and plan the flight.

I will post a great example of this shortly.

For me flight planning is a way to imagine the flight in the greatest detail without the distractions of flying.

I have all kinds of tools to use for planning that are not available to me while I am flying.

To me flight planning is like foreplay.

More planning makes for a more joyful journey.

I hope to instill this attitude in my students.

Thank you, Vance

 

[Vance]

Vance wrote:



Thank you, Vance...I have been preaching this for a long time now.

A gyroplane does NOT fly like a fixed wing. Some very prominent people, including Phil Harwood, are quoted as saying that gyroplanes basically fly like a fixed wing. (Don't get me wrong, I *love* what Phil Harwood is doing for the sport.)

I think this is a dangerous myth.

Gyroplanes fly like gyroplanes. They are closer to helicopters in their flight characteristics, because ultimately they are a rotorcraft. Sure, you have the "push left, go left...push right, go right" control paradigm like a fixed wing. Even helicopters have this in forward flight.

We hear stories about people forgetting they're in a gyroplane and falling back on the their fixed wing habits, holding the stick forward on the takeoff roll. This is symptomatic, I think, of the "it flies like an airplane" mindset.

I do maneuvers in my gyroplane that no one would even *think* of trying in a fixed wing. Not crazy or weird maneuvers...just maneuvers that are specific to gyros.

-John

Thank you for your support John.

Because I only fly gyroplanes I feel a little funny defending this point of view.

I feel if a person has lots of funds it would be best to fly a variety of aircraft.

My resources are limited and I want to be the best gyroplane pilot I can be so the majority of my training has been in gyroplanes.

The majority of my mentors are fixed wing pilots just because there are more of them.

I learn a lot from fixed wing pilots about all sorts of things.

I imagine that I will persuade my students to take a fixed wing ground school before they start training with me.

I believe is scenario based training so hopefully I will be able to weave what they learned from the FAR/AIM into the lessons.

I feel I will have to take advantage of opportunities rather than try to plan for this integration.

Thank you, Vance

 

[StanFoster]

Vance- Have you considered the wide variety of students desires that you will be training? I feel some will welcome detailed training for complex airspace flying.....and then you will have some like myself that just want to fly....safely of course....but not with all the detail. I fear I would be overwhelmed learning all this. Of course consider where I am coming from,...out in the sticks flying free as can be, but I feel very safely.

If I were located under the veil of controlled airspace....I more than likely would not have experienced the flying I have.

You will be a most excellent and thorough instructor to those that want to know as much as they can.

 

[Vance]

Three exciting steps today.

Three exciting steps today.

As I watched the fog obscuring the valley from my office I looked up the radio that is in Puff (a funke ATR833-LCD) and found it has some wonderful features.

First I discovered it could monitor two frequencies at once and priorities them. I could have used it just today as the ATIS changed as we were already in the SMX class Delta airspace. There was a fire in Nipomo and the smoke obscured the airport. I wanted to hear the new ATIS with the visibility but there was a three way traffic conflict with a water bomber so I didn’t want to leave SMX ATC to listen to the new ATIS. If I had read the manual this morning instead of just finding it I could have pushed the button labeled DW and monitored ATIS while listening and talking to the tower. How cool is that? I can think of many uses for it.

The second thing I like is the funke radio’s ability to store 99 frequencies and label them with letters. In other words the Santa Maria Tower could be saved as SMXT and ground could be saved as SMXG. This is addition to storing them numerically. I have not yet learned how to do this. I hope to before my flight to Chino next Friday through the Los Angles airspace quagmire.

Second: I took a young (33) friend (Ben) up flying today to practice teaching.

He is a heavy equipment operator and the son of a friend of mine. His situational awareness was remarkable and he did very well.

I made several mistakes that I have fixes for. I continue to be too arrogant to use all the tools I already have.

I suspect teaching people to fly is going to be a lot of fun.


Third: I am planning on flying to Chino (CNO) next Friday 9/19 for the AOPA fly in Saturday 9/20 and I was having trouble imagining my way around Bracket (POC) and Ontario (ONT).
I stopped my Kim’s hangar (one of my aviation mentors) and she used to do flight training out of CNO so she gave me enhanced situational awareness for the flight. One of my possible routes turning south after Bracket had me flying across the approach for ONT. The other possible route involved overflying ONT talking to the ONT tower and hoping the approved a frequency change in time to talk to ATC at CNO before I entered their air space. Apparently the tower at ONT has a reputation for not letting go before it is too late to give CNO ATC enough warning of my impending arrival in their class Delta airspace.

Kim’s plan is to turn south before (POC), following some major freeways and sliding into CNO from the west.

I love progress!

Thank you, Vance

 

[Vance]

Yes Stan; I have considered the students desires.

Yes Stan; I have considered the students desires.

Vance- Have you considered the wide variety of students desires that you will be training? I feel some will welcome detailed training for complex airspace flying.....and then you will have some like myself that just want to fly....safely of course....but not with all the detail. I fear I would be overwhelmed learning all this. Of course consider where I am coming from,...out in the sticks flying free as can be, but I feel very safely.

If I were located under the veil of controlled airspace....I more than likely would not have experienced the flying I have.

You will be a most excellent and thorough instructor to those that want to know as much as they can.

Part of the practical test is flight planning and our airspace system Stan so I will need to teach it on some level.

I am the Sothern California representative for Air Gyro and will be teaching out of a class Delta airport with a tower (KSMX).

I suspect most of the people I will be training will be flying an aircraft with cross country capability.

If I fly south 42 nautical miles I run into Santa Barbara’s class Charlie airspace.

It I fly south 117 nautical miles I am at KLAX, a class B airport.

If I fly north 188 miles and I am at KSFO, a class B airport.

Either direction very far and there is a mishmash of complex air space.

If someone didn’t want to learn about airspace and radio work I feel they would be choosing badly if they chose me to train them.

I suspect there are many fine gyroplane CFIs who are not so connected to class D or above airspace.

It someone just wants some training to improve their skills I can tailor the lessons for the airspace they are going to fly in.

If I am training them to be private pilots I feel I don’t have a choice.

Thank you, Vance