I got my PPL at Morristown, MMU, and part of determining if you were ready for "the ride" involved leaving Morristown and heading start for Newark, at about 1,400 feet. You had to figure out how to call Newark tower, and utter your request to fly up the Hudson River. The freq. was busy, airplanes in a steady stream into Newark, helicopters coming and going, the class Bravo issue. You also had the anxiety of figuring out where they wanted you. They told, but WTH was that?

No pyschos for CFI, but surviving in that airspace helped me.

For me, I try to be a perfect gentlemen in the air. Stupid people in planes, and stupid people in cars, what is the difference? You will always have them in either place, but why give anybody a chance to say something bad that will affect our beloved GA rights?

They can't quit jet dreaming. They think they've got to be ready for the jet, so they're practicing those procedures on unwary beginners who don't know enough to question their airplane god.

The biggest hurtle in radio usage is fear of making a mistake. Gets folks all jumbled up trying to sound like Yeager and blow'n it, when they should just listen and repeat in a similar fashion. The best thing a lot of guys could do is just sit around the tower with a handheld for a few hours when things are active, listening, critiquing, and then applying their new found knowledge to their own times aloft. Speak simply, ask for what you want, and listen up for the reply.

Oh yeah...Deakin did a number on this over 10 years ago: http://www.avweb.com/news/pelican/182047-1.html

thanks Paul. Good reference.

Todd, it sounds like you were on a 5 mile final or so following an ERJ who was most likely on about a 2 1/2 mile final or so, give or take. If I am wrong about the situation, let me know so I can correct my analysis. But here's the deal on following airliners, whether they be 50 seat ERJ's or 300 seat 777's - We have what are called "approach gates." In other words, we are required, by the company operations manual and aircraft flight manual, to fly a stabilized approach and have the aircraft in a certain configuration and speed regime at various points throughout the final approach (IMC and VMC). The parameters for that stabilized approach tighten up as one gets closer to the ground. If that RJ was on short final (<1000 AGL), then he is most likely required to be on glidepath, on speed (probably +10/-5 knots), configured for landing (gear down, flaps 45 degrees), and thrust spooled (about 60% N1 or so). Speeding up 20 knots at that point to accomodate you would have caused that crew to be in violation of company SOP's (and as a result, breaking an FAR, since the company SOP's are essentially as binding as FAR's), especially since the max speed on 90% of all ERJ's with flaps 45 is 145 kts (only XJT has the XR model which has a 160 kt limit for the extension and operation of flaps 45). That said, that is why the RJ crew was unable to speed up on such a short final. Also remember, as an addendum, that slowing down a jet is a much different animal than slowing down a piston/turbine aircraft with a propeller out front, even if the jet is configured for landing (the 737 is notorious for being a pain to slow down and go down).

Runway overruns in the airline industry are largely attributable to unstable approaches and as a result, in the last few years the airline industry (and FAA) have made great strides in tightening up approach standards. Also one should realize that if an unstable approach is flown, the airplane's FOQA equipment will shoot a message to the people who administer the FOQA program that the airplane flew outside of the stabilized approach parameters...and the pilots will get a call from the FOQA "gatekeeper" about the infraction (non-disciplinary however).

Hope this helps...let me know if you need any more information on this stuff and as a caveat, my knowledge of the ERJ is a little rusty as it has been 4 years since I've flown one, although I flew it for 5 of the previous 6 years at my last job.

-Neal

Count me as one of the people who was a little put off by this comment. I know that Mike had good intentions with his comment but I think a retraction is in order. I've flown planes worth $60,000 and flown planes worth $60,000,000. I've picked up a brand new $600,000 G36 from the factory and also picked up a brand new $23,000,000 ERJ-145 from the factory in Brazil. At no point, whether I was flying a 1965 Beech Musketeer or that brand new jet or G36 did I feel I was better or more qualified than anyone else out there. The comment by the former Navy pointy-nosed jet driver above is appropriate and excellent and clearly illustrates my view as well. We need as many new pilots to become involved in aviation as possible, whether they be 16 year old kids (like I was when I started, pumping gas at the airport on the weekends) or the 80 year old retiree looking for a sunset adventure. Look around guys, piston engine GA (and the pilot ranks) are shrinking...and we, along with Harrison Ford and the rest of the pro-GA PR crew, need to do our part. But one of the things I've always loved about this world of flying that we live in is that it can be incredibly welcoming and comforting to all pilots, regardless of size of plane or speed of plane, or cost of plane, etc. Elitist pilots serve no purpose in today's environment in my view.

And lastly (not to beat a dead horse but I guess I'll try anyway), the size of one's bank account has no correllation to the skill level, competence, and passion of a pilot. That is one truism that has proven itself true to me over and over in my short 17 years of flying.

-Neal

Hi Mike,
I really don't think that's the case. I rented for many years because I couldn't afford to own. I imagine that many of the pilots you rent to are in the same boat. How would putting someone into an affordable plane be any worse than renting the same airplane to the same pilot? BTW, My first airplane cost less than my wife's minivan - a used citabria.
Dave

Thanks!

Best...
John Deakin

Neal,

Thank you for the response. I was unaware of the policy of final approach speeds; however, I am very aware of the Ref speeds needed to land a jet. I cut my teeth in jets in a TS-11 Iskra fighter trainer. 10 knots over Ref and you floated 2000 extra feet down the runway.

My point was that the big boys can be in the way also, so they shouldn't be complaining when they have to wait on someone.

Mike,

I can understand your point somewhat, as I see that action at our airport a lot. We have a "cherokee crew" that spends all their time working on their planes themselves (removing cylinders, ailerons, etc) because they don't want to pay the "evil" mechanic to do the work. They fly about 25 hours per year and talk about flying the rest of the time. I do worry about them.

One thing I would like to point out is that you just sold one of the cheapest twins out there - a Twinkee. I put that plane right in there Apache and slugged out Aztec. It's for the people that want a twin, but onlky can afford a single. No, disrespect Yves - I wouldn't own a plane at all in Europe

I also compare the TC with people that own sailboats. They talk about how efficient the plane/boat is and how if they rig the ailerons -1 degree how they will pick up 2 knots, etc. and how they burn 14 GPH etc. If asked on what I think of the TC I remind them that they might get 4 small adults and no bags with any real fuel and on a high DA day they are a single engine plane so they might as well buy a regular Commanche and have a better plane. I also tell them that I burn 21 GPH at 175 knots with 4 normal adults on board with 6 hours fuel and 150 lbs of bags and can still climb 300-400 FPM if needed on one engine. The discussion usually ends there.

The new cheap plane does bother me somewhat also. You give a guy a plane with a 525 lb useful load (they usually want to put in 700 lbs) for $120k that he can fly with a driver's license in his pocket. The outcome will be people gravitating to these little planes for their simplicity and economy therefore abandoning the larger aircraft which will continue to deline in value and support. We will be left with choosing between a LSA, King Air (or bigger), or riding the airlines and this is just what the airlines and our federal governement want.

Todd, very few pilots complain when they have to slow down or hold for a bit (unless they are on the last leg of a trip!). Why? Because we are paid by the minute

But I agree with you, all pilots need to "share the road" with each other, whether it means speeding up for someone (if possible) or slowing down for someone else (if possible). Heck, we get slowed down and sped up in jets all the time, since not every jet is capable of the same speeds and/or climb performance. Personally, I will do whatever I can to help out another pilot and/or ATC, as long as it doesn't compromise safety. I think most other turbine pilots think the same way. And when I am in a piston airplane, I think the same way you do...I'll do a 360 in the pattern or widen things out, etc, in order to let that Citation in ahead of me since it just makes sense.

Sidebar: I've often found that speeding up that extra 10 to 20 knots for the last few minutes or cutting off a mile or two of the final approach (on a visual) doesn't exactly save tons of time. I think it is the "illusion of progress."

-Neal

I agree 100%. I will tell you that the controllers were much happier seeing me at 170 instead of 115 since there was one behind me on the visual and two more coming in right behind them. Me at 115 makes more work for the controller and for the traffic behind me. I always try to help the controller if possible as well.

Also, the high speed in the last 2-3 miles is not a big deal, but it sure is nice to keep that speed for the last 15 miles of vectoring.

No...thank YOU. I've benefitted immeasurably from the fact that you took up writing just as I was taking up flying!

What is it specifically that differentiates the owner from the non-owner when it comes to dedication to maintaining the skillset?

I could easily make the argument that the renter pilot is far more likely to keep his skills polished because he/she never faces anything beyond the hourly cost of flying on any given day. The owner pilot is much more likely to defer flying necessary for proficiency because he/she needs to husband their resources to keep the airplane available for planned trips.



It's far more than a generalization, it's a supposition with nothing backing it up. Please expound on your theory.

Again, please offer some logic to back up these views.



Back in my CFI days I regarded owner pilots as about equal to their renter counterparts. Some better some worse.

The owners were more likely to get into trouble, however, because within their group was a subset of pilots that utilized their airplanes for transportation but did not put in the time to maintain their skills. They continued to operate as though they were as skilled as the day they received their instrument tickets without doing the requisite proficiency flying. This type of mission/attitude was uncommon in the renter group.

As an aside, I am curious how many hours a year most owners are flying?

The break even point where it used to make sense to shift from renting to owning was 170hrs/year.

(I recognize that there are other factors - i.e. if you want to fly a late model Baron/Bonanza there simply is no rental market and ownership is the only avenue available.)

As far as I am concerned you can say whatever the heck you want as you are not hurting anyone. Some peope may think my Baron is a POS and I am a terrible pilot, so be it since that is their opinion. You think a cheap airplane would not be good for GA and that is your opinion.

I do understand your comments completely and I think you are misunderstood. I have the same thoughts sometimes. I own a couple of SeaDoos and have owned many of them since 1987 when they were relatively new. Now that they are popular anyone with $10k can buy a 70 MPH 235HP SeaDoo and go across the lake with no training and run right into someone else. They have ruined the sport since it is now being regulated to death with everyone hating the machines. If they were $50k and required training to ride them then there would be about 95% les problems in the sport.