# Bad habits developed by civilian pilots



## trampbike

Hi,
I'm an aspiring RCAF pilot, currently at a civilian university, finishing my degree through the ROTP program. I have a PPL with a night rating and spend most of my money (every penny that's left once rent and food is paid...) on flying. I mostly fly an old tailwheel (Aeronca Champ) and a Grumman AA1 out of a small strip on the south shore of Montreal. Most of my flying time involves XC flying with only a compass and VNC charts for navigation and a lot of practise maneuvers (slow flights, steep turns, short field landings, stalls, engine failures, tight circuits).

I know civilian flying is very different from military flying. What are the things I should really be aware of? What kind of habits should I try to break down and what kind of skills should I try to developp?

Thanks!


----------



## Strike

One of the first things to work on is being exact on the numbers.  If you want to fly at 1300 ASL, for example, then fly at 1300.  Not 1400, not 1250. Try to be as exact as possible.  If you are cruising at 90, challenge yourself to hold 90, not 95 or even 87.

This is one of the biggest things the instructors harped on throughout training.  The benefit of being able to fly the numbers so well is that, when it comes time to do nav and IF, then your timings will make calculating things like fuel burn and time on target that much easier.


----------



## Loachman

Firstly, want it enough. Motivation is a huge factor.

Want it enough that you will work harder than you ever have before, and harder than you thought possible. There is a lot of work involved, and a very high standard is expected by your instructors.

As high as the standard expected of you by your instructors is, the standard that you expect of yourself should be higher, and you should drive yourself to exceed both.

Keep an open mind, listen to what your instructors tell you, and do things their (our) way, and not your own way. Our ways may not be any better than the ways that you were previously taught, but you will not be evaluated on how well you do things your old way. You will be evaluated on how well you do things our way.

No matter how much effort you put in, you should enjoy it. If you don't like what you are doing, your motivation will slip. Find balance between stress and pleasure.

These are simple concepts, yet they escape many.

As Strike said, be precise. Make the aircraft do what you want it to.

Know your numbers, and know your checks.


----------



## trampbike

Thank you for your replies.
Do you think it is a good idea to spend some time flying by instruments (I have a couple of friends that could act as check pilot) or should I continue doing what I described in my first post?


----------



## Loachman

You may just pick up more habits that need to be broken later.

Most of us who made it through the training system did so with no prior instrument experience - or any flying experience at all.

The programme is designed to work that way.


----------



## Zoomie

trampbike said:
			
		

> Do you think it is a good idea to spend some time flying by instruments


Please don't bother.  If anything - spend time in the circuit flying precise airspeeds and accurate 3 degree glidepaths to smooth landings.  Everything else will be taught and covered in detail - the way we want it.

I tell every aspiring CF pilot this little tidbit of advice - don't get a PPL whatever you do.  Spend some money getting "hands and feet" flying and a basic familiarity with how a plane is supposed to "feel" at different stages of flight.  Anything else is a waste of money.  If you make it through the complete pilot training program - Transport Canada will give you a Commercial, IFR pilots license, all for the low cost of writing a few written tests.


----------



## Journeyman

Looking in from the outside, you may or may not find this advice useful.


If you have sufficient free time before heading off to flying school, you may want to develop a personality. Now some, mostly army aviators, seem to have little difficulty with this PO check. Others, such as VIP Transport pilots have recurring difficulties -- this appears to be sparked by flying aircraft with supposedly important people (making them feel important by proximity) -- yet not being a fighter pilot able to claim having played beach volleyball with Tom Cruise.

Again, flying circuits could prove useful, but try to keep in mind that for every hour spent in the air, you _may_ have to spend up to 48 hours on the ground with  _~shudder~ _  mere humans. Eventually, you may even want to talk with one who isn't blonde, then trust me....you'll wish you had a personality.   :nod:



For those readers who are Maritime Air.....it's a joke; ask your AES Op to explain       ;D


----------



## justbud

Zoomie said:
			
		

> I tell every aspiring CF pilot this little tidbit of advice - don't get a PPL whatever you do.  Spend some money getting "hands and feet" flying and a basic familiarity with how a plane is supposed to "feel" at different stages of flight.  Anything else is a waste of money.  If you make it through the complete pilot training program - Transport Canada will give you a Commercial, IFR pilots license, all for the low cost of writing a few written tests.



I'm sorry, but I have seen a few people mention this same "suggestion" on these boards and it really irks me.

I know it may make sense coming from the other side. Every time I rotate and the rubber leaves contact with the ground is my ecstasy. Are you trying to rob us of this pleasure, because you think it will make us worse candidates? I may be a bit far stretched here, but I liken that to hazing.

I'm not giving up my right.


----------



## aesop081

justbud said:
			
		

> I'm not giving up my right.



It was good advice based on long experience as a *CF pilot* and, in Zoomie's case, a former *CF flight instructor*.

Which one of those 2 things are you ?


----------



## SeaKingTacco

justbud said:
			
		

> I'm sorry, but I have seen a few people mention this same "suggestion" on these boards and it really irks me.
> 
> I know it may make sense coming from the other side. Every time I rotate and the rubber leaves contact with the ground is my ecstasy. Are you trying to rob us of this pleasure, because you think it will make us worse candidates? I may be a bit far stretched here, but I liken that to hazing.
> 
> I'm not giving up my right.



Fly. don't fly. The choice is yours.  But you did ask for advice and got advice from an RCAF flight instructor.  Which you then argued with.

Yes- that is type of attitude we like to see in our flying schools.  :


----------



## HItorMiss

SKT,

Small point the poster of the that little tidbit wasn't the OP. Still you have a point about his attitude...


As for him... It is far far from hazing what it is; is solid advice based on experience teaching flying to pilot candidates of the RCAF. If you told me you wanted to be in the Infantry so you wanted to buy a Civi assault rifle and learn to shoot with techniques you have seen on the internet or through some quasi military training course. I would would tell you the same thing, don't waste your time it will simply cause me to spend hours trying to break you of bad habits learned that could potentially impact your chances of being successful.


----------



## Zoomie

justbud said:
			
		

> but I liken that to hazing.


Let's just call it the best advice you could ever get.

I've spelled it out before, but I don't mind repeating myself when it comes giving candidates the best chance to getting Wings.

Step 1 - Aircrew Selection - if you pass, go to step 2; if you fail - education upgrade.

Step 2 - Primary Flight Training - if you pass, go to step 3; if you fail - education upgrade.

Step 3 - Basic Flight Training - if you pass, go to step 4; if you fail - visit the WPSO (ie time to get another job).

Step 4 - Advance Flight Training - if you pass, Wings; if you fail - visit the WPSO.

Education Upgrade = advancing yourself in the pilot trade on the civilian side.  First step of upgrading is getting your Privates Pilot License (approx 65 hours), second step is Commercial Pilots License (200 hrs), third and final step is Airline Transport Pilots License (1500hrs minimum).

Here's where the good advice comes in.  If you start off with no licenses under your belt (highly recommended), then if you fail Aircrew Selection or PFT, all you need to do is get your PPL.  If you already have a PPL and fail any of those first two steps, you must get your CPL at a much greater expense.  If you already have a CPL, getting your ATPL is not a feasible option that could include a future in the CF as a pilot.

Just some simple advice - take it for what it's worth.


----------



## trampbike

Good advice Zoomie! I didn't do my CPL flight test before ASC for that exact reason (had the hours and the written test done). I knew that if I failed, I only had to pass my flight test and apply next year. Now since I was selected, there's no point anymore getting my CPL.



			
				BulletMagnet said:
			
		

> SKT,
> 
> Small point the poster of the that little tidbit wasn't the OP.



Good point  



			
				BulletMagnet said:
			
		

> I would would tell you the same thing, don't waste your time it will simply cause me to spend hours trying to break you of bad habits learned that could potentially impact your chances of being successful.



In your experience, what kind of bad habits do you most often have had to break down (my bet would be the "I already know how to fly" kind of attitude)?

Thanks to everyone for the replies. I do realise one should not spend the money in order to prepare himself for the RCAF training. I personally do it because I love to fly, and since I got use to live on my own with less than what an officer cadets makes, I now find myself in a situation where flying is kind of affordable. I'm  relieved that nobody suggested doing instruments. Flying an old taildragger on skis in the wild is much more fun than flying an ILS approach again and again!


----------



## Strike

trampbike said:
			
		

> Flying an old taildragger on skis in the wild is much more fun than flying an ILS approach again and again!



You may have to relearn how to take off and land then.   ;D

Seriously, if that's what you're flying, go out and keep having fun!  Don't stress about IF so much.  If you really feel it would help, hit the books then so it's not as much of a shock when you hit Moose Jaw.  You won't do much (Any? Not sure if the PFT has started doing any IF) IF in Portage.


----------



## Good2Golf

justbud said:
			
		

> I'm sorry, but I have seen a few people mention this same "suggestion" on these boards and it really irks me.
> 
> I know it may make sense coming from the other side. Every time I rotate and the rubber leaves contact with the ground is my ecstasy. Are you trying to rob us of this pleasure, because you think it will make us worse candidates? *I may be a bit far stretched here, but I liken that to hazing.*
> 
> I'm not giving up my right.



Here's a 'smiley' you might like.    :Tin-Foil-Hat:  

If you look closely, or check image properties, you'll see it's a tinfoil hat.  I think you're the only one in this thread who sees it as hazing.

As others have said, fly....or don't fly...you can do as you wish.  The feedback provided to trampbike was related in general to how some previous flying exposure may or may not help one's chances at being successful as a pilot in the RCAF.  In particular, Zoomie (a very experienced flight instructor) has pointed out some very real implications of completing certain civilian qualifications and how they may constrain your ability to deal with issues of slower progress within the RCAF's training system.  Again, none of use are telling you not to fly, and certainly not to do something that keeps you from achieving ecstasy -- that kind of stuff is between you and....well, you, and certainly best left that way.

 :2c: (available to be taken or left as desired...)

Regards
G2G


----------



## trampbike

As a pilot with no military experience, there are a couple of things I was wondering about:

1.



			
				Zoomie said:
			
		

> If anything - spend time in the circuit flying precise airspeeds and accurate 3 degree glidepaths to smooth landings.



Is that 3 degrees glidepath something essential that is always done in training (even in the Grob)? 
The airplane I fly most often has a glide ratio of about 9 to 1, so with the engine out in a no wind condition, the gliding angle is about 6 degrees. I suppose the Grob has a much better glide ratio, but still most light SE airplanes glide steeper than 3 degrees. Following a 3 degrees glidepath ensures you won't make it to the runway if you have an engine failure.

2. Cheklists. Are every items memorized (for sure the emergency procedures are) or do you use a written checklist?

3. Negative G. It seems to me that the Western air forces want to do everything under positive G's. I know high negative G's have very bad effects on the pilot and are hard to train for. What about low negative G's? Let's say a fighter does a strafing pass, wouldn't it be easier to push to the appropriate nose down attitude rather than roll inverted, getting into the nose down attitude, rolling back? What about nose high recoveries? Why roll to the nearest horizon and pull instead of pushing (if the nose is below vertical)? I just ordered a book about John Boyd, I might get some answers there.

I do not mean to imply that theses procedures are weird or not appropriate. I have a couple of ideas as to why it is done so in the military, but I don't know much and would love to hear from the experienced guys out here.

Thanks
Olivier


----------



## aesop081

trampbike said:
			
		

> 2. Cheklists. Are every items memorized (for sure the emergency procedures are) or do you use a written checklist?



My pilots have always had the checklist out and read from the checklist for the challenge & reply stuff (pre/post T/O, climb/decent check, taxi check, that kind of stuff). On the emergency side, some items have to be memorized but that is not for all emergencies. Some "red page" emergencies require you to memorize only certain items (usually the first items) but even then, the checklist comes out as soon as the memory items are done. Good luck trying to memorize all the checklist on some aircraft.


----------



## MAJONES

> Is that 3 degrees glidepath something essential that is always done in training (even in the Grob)?


The 3 degree glide slope is pretty standard in both the military and the airlines (except when you're doing a forced landing).  It's not a big deal to get used to doing it.



> 2. Cheklists. Are every items memorized (for sure the emergency procedures are) or do you use a written checklist?


That depends on what you are flying.  In training, (Grob and Harvard) you memorize everything.  I believe that fighters are the same.  In multi engine you memorize immediate actions and use checklists for everything else.



> Negative G.


Positive G works much better in many cases.  The +G limit is almost always higher than the -G limit; this means that you can manouver much more aggressively using +G (it is often faster to roll and pull than it is to straight up push).  Also, aircraft fuel and oil systems usually like +G better than 0 or -G (most aircraft are time limited as to the amount of time they can spend at 0 or -G)


----------



## trampbike

MAJONES said:
			
		

> Also, aircraft fuel and oil systems usually like +G better than 0 or -G (most aircraft are time limited as to the amount of time they can spend at 0 or -G)



Isn't this fact simply a consequence of the way the airplanes (especially fighters) were designed in the West? Why was it choosen in the first place to build aircraft that can't sustain 0 or negative G? 

Thanks again for the responses.


----------



## Loachman

trampbike said:
			
		

> 3. Negative G. It seems to me that the Western air forces want to do everything under positive G's. I know high negative G's have very bad effects on the pilot and are hard to train for. What about low negative G's? Let's say a fighter does a strafing pass, wouldn't it be easier to push to the appropriate nose down attitude rather than roll inverted, getting into the nose down attitude, rolling back?



Visibility forward and down is severely limited in a fighter. The old high threat attack was done at low-level with a pop-up climb and simultaneous thirty-degree offset at a calculated distance back from the target, followed by a roll to the inverted attitude (or nearly so) and sixty-degree turn to aim back at the target. That was the only time during which the fighter pilot would have the chance to see his target, and gave the FAC a few seconds to talk his eyes onto it. Everything was visual during the Cold War days; there was no GPS and laser designators were just coming in for ground FACs.

"Low level" was just that. I would be snugged back into a depression in a treeline on a hill where I could see the target and have sufficient stand-off and concealment/backdrop (hopefully) to avoid being engaged by an enemy, and a good view of the fighter's run-in. That view was not necessarily uninterrupted in hilly terrain, as the CF5s were generally lower than I was at that point. Flat open areas like Wainwright were a little easier in that regard, but concealment was next to impossible - carefully-timed pop-ups into a high hover for five seconds followed by repositioning was the only useable technique.



			
				trampbike said:
			
		

> What about nose high recoveries? Why roll to the nearest horizon and pull instead of pushing (if the nose is below vertical)?



Pushing increases the angle of attack, which, if the aircraft is already at or near the stall speed, could easily cause it to stall.


----------



## Loachman

trampbike said:
			
		

> Isn't this fact simply a consequence of the way the airplanes (especially fighters) were designed in the West? Why was it choosen in the first place to build aircraft that can't sustain 0 or negative G?



Most can, but not as much negative as they can positive. Why bother? Humans are less comfortable with negative G than positive, and less tolerant than aircraft can be designed to endure.

Do you really want a fighter pilot barfing into his oxygen mask during critical manoeuvring?

Other than for the entertainment value...


----------



## Zoomie

trampbike said:
			
		

> 1.
> 
> Is that 3 degrees glidepath something essential that is always done in training (even in the Grob)?
> The airplane I fly most often has a glide ratio of about 9 to 1, so with the engine out in a no wind condition, the gliding angle is about 6 degrees. I suppose the Grob has a much better glide ratio, but still most light SE airplanes glide steeper than 3 degrees. Following a 3 degrees glidepath ensures you won't make it to the runway if you have an engine failure.


Most approaches flown by military aircraft will be via a 3 degree glidepath - whether it be a factor of flying an ILS or simply flying the VFR pattern.  VASI and PAPI present all aviators with an ideal stable approach path, coincidentally this is 3 degrees.  Exceptions to this rule would be in the case of STOL, PFL and other abnormal landing approaches.



> 2. Cheklists. Are every items memorized (for sure the emergency procedures are) or do you use a written checklist?


All aircrew memorize their "red pages" - these could be as many as 20-30 individual checks of 2-15 steps each.  The normal operating aircraft checklist is a "challenge and response" style - usually only one member actually has the check list - the responses are all memorized.  By a rule, the challenges are almost always read verbatim from the actual checklist - no paraphrasing or short cuts permitted.


----------



## trampbike

Thank you for the answers.



			
				Loachman said:
			
		

> Pushing increases the angle of attack


 
???
I might be missing something, but the only way I can see that be true is if you have a negative AoA and consider that when you push, your negative AoA increases...
Please enlighten me.

Olivier


----------



## Loachman

trampbike said:
			
		

> I might be missing something, but the only way I can see that be true is if you have a negative AoA and consider that when you push, your negative AoA increases...
> Please enlighten me.
> 
> Olivier



It's been a long time since I had to understand aerodynamics rather than simply accept the fact that they work, let alone teach or explain them - and seized-wing aerodynamics not at all since early 1982 - so I cannot do that elegantly, and not without sketching a diagram. Somebody else may be able to.

As the aircraft rotates nose down, the airflow vector is moving a little closer to the vertical relative to the underside of the wing.


----------



## Good2Golf

trampbike said:
			
		

> Thank you for the answers.
> 
> ???
> I might be missing something, but the only way I can see that be true is if you have a negative AoA and consider that when you push, your negative AoA increases...
> Please enlighten me.
> 
> Olivier



That's exactly the case, otherwise the wing would not make lift in the "negative" direction.

What WILL be different is the proportionality of the CL v AOA function for negative AOAs if the airfoil is asymmetrical (highly likely in modern aircraft).


Regards
G2G


----------



## FormerHorseGuard

I am a non flyer and always wanted to fly but failed my  medical due to colour vision ( CV3 for own safety ratings). I did not realize you  could write a test as RCAF pilot and get  a CPL , that  is very  cool, I figured you had to dothat  on your own time and own dime. Learn something new here thanks for the education , finally one thing that  the military  gives you  that  take civilly  street, unlike 404s in Ontario lol


----------



## Fishbone Jones

.


----------



## trampbike

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> That's exactly the case, otherwise the wing would not make lift in the "negative" direction.
> 
> What WILL be different is the proportionality of the CL v AOA function for negative AOAs if the airfoil is asymmetrical (highly likely in modern aircraft).
> 
> 
> Regards
> G2G



Yeah I get that. Few airplanes can developp as much lift under negative Gs as they can under postive. I know Pitts and other pure aerobatic airplanes sometimes have symetrical wings (see the outside loop in line abreast formation: http://www.pittspecials.com/videos.html ). 

What I don't get is how pushing, while under positive Gs (even close to 0), can increase your AoA as Loachman pointed out. I always see the elevators as my AoA control. The more I pull, the greater the AoA, the more I push, the lower the AoA, no matter what the airplane attitude is. So if it is true that pushing can increase your AoA more than rolling/pulling in a nose high recovery, I'm really missing something.
I imagine that the procedure of rolling/pulling/rolling is a good way to prevent flow reversal or tumbles, but I really don't know much about the details.

Regards
Olivier


----------



## Loachman

I did some searching on the interweb.

Most sites gave the corrective action for nose-high attitudes as "lower the nose".

I am presuming, therefore, that the average civilian definition of "unusual attitudes" is somewhat less extreme than the military one. Aircraft characteristics may also be an influencing factor, along with pilot proficiency, training, and experience.

In Moose Jaw, on the Tutor, the technique was to roll towards the nearest horizon, allow the nose to descend, and, once sufficient airspeed had been regained, roll the wings level. Adding power was also in there. When at, or close to, the critical angle of attack and with the airspeed bleeding off and the nose way above the horizon, pushing forward could easily induce a stall. This was demonstrated.

Unusual attitudes are usually encountered while flying in cloud, either due to attitude indicator or other instrument failure or disorientation. My preference would be a self-induced controllable roll than an inadvertent stall under that circumstance.

Actually, my much higher preference is the cow-dodging environment rather than the cloud-dodging one.

Some of the discussion on a couple of sites talked about hammerhead stalls resulting from very high nose-up attitudes. That may be alright in a propeller-driven aircraft with an aerobatically-experienced pilot. It may not be so alright in a propeller-driven aircraft with a less-experienced pilot or a jet (and that's where the vast bulk of my limited seized-wing time derives) - airflow through a turbine is probably disrupted significantly during a hammerhead stall.

Most helicopters do not enjoy less-than-one-gee manoeuvres either, so we do the same thing - roll towards the nearest horizon.

There is some discussion of the rolling recovery at http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/tech_ops/read.main/110130/ but it is based more on reduced G as well.


----------



## DexOlesa

As an ex civilian flight instructor I can tell you the civilian procedure for a stall or spin is to lower the nose (in the case of the spin also apply opposite rudder) to "break" the stall and increase airflow over the wings/ increase airspeed. The only thing I can think of is that in military jets (especially fast air) you are probably going at a speed where pushing the nose down, would  probably induce enough negative G to be very uncomfortable, vs rolling to the horizon and pulling.


----------



## Loachman

The rolling recovery was designed to (help) prevent one from entering a stall or spin.

Once in one of those, the normal recoveries applied.


----------



## trampbike

At first I thought about starting a new thread for my next question, but I'm not too sure it deserved it, so I'll ask it here.

An aileron roll is a pretty basic maneuver. A 360 degrees turn around the longitudinal axis of an airplane. When done properly, the entry and exit altitude should be the same (raise the nose high enough considering your roll rate and entry speed). I do not doubt that any military pilot can do it easily, yet on EVERY single video I saw of a military airplane performing an aileron roll (except for airshows), it exits at a lower altitude. Why is that?


----------



## Good2Golf

trampbike said:
			
		

> At first I thought about starting a new thread for my next question, but I'm not too sure it deserved it, so I'll ask it here.
> 
> An aileron roll is a pretty basic maneuver. A 360 degrees turn around the longitudinal axis of an airplane. When done properly, the entry and exit altitude should be the same (raise the nose high enough considering your roll rate and entry speed). I do not doubt that any military pilot can do it easily, yet on EVERY single video I saw of a military airplane performing an aileron roll (except for airshows), it exits at a lower altitude. Why is that?



Asymmetrical drag coupling of the ailerons inducing a yaw rate, exacerbated by offset of the aircraft flight path from the extended longitudinal axis.

If you just use ailerons without blended rudder and elevator, the nose will drop by the time the roll is completed.  If you are rolling right, for example, the left (upgoing) wing's aileron will increase the local angle of attack due to increased effective camber as the trailing edge of the aileron moves downwards, which causes greater induced and form drag over portion of the wing with the aileron.  There is at the same time an opposite effect on the right (downgoing) wing (reduced AOA in the region of the upturned aileron).  The overall effect is yaw to the left, so to keep the nose "bullet straight" you would feed in a slight amount of right rudder....until, that is, the vertical axis of the airplane departed from the vertical enough that balanced flight forces between lift and gravity would reduce due to a reduced vertical component of (perpendicular) lift because of the bank angle, which would require compensation with aft stick to raise the elevator to increase perpendicular lift to keep the vertical component balanced with gravity, which requires left rudder to compensate against the rightwards lateral component of the aircraft's banked wings.  Uncorrected, the nose will drop, resulting in unintended descent.  The plane hasn't even gotten to 90 degrees of its 360 degree roll, and the pilot has been blending all the controls to keep the center of mass going straight forward along a level trajectory.  Keep rolling, adjusting for the varying yawing coupled forced with roll and pitch component through 270 more degrees, and if you've done everything right, you might be reasonably close to the original, pre-roll flight path.  The less symmetrical an aircraft is along its lateral and vertical axes, the greater the unintended coupling forces will be, and the greater coordinated compensation required to be input by the pilot during the conduct of the roll.

Purpose-built aerobatic aircraft, like the Pitts Special, Su-26, CAP 21, Christen Eagle, Xtra 300, etc... have relative aerodynamic symmetry (drag-wise) about their axes, so there is less unintended coupling between the controls than with other aircraft.  Even these aircraft will barrel slightly, but are relatively small, so the airshow crowd doesn't really pick up the slight gyrations of the aircraft's longitudinal axis during the roll (or other similar manoeuvres, for that matter).

The closest I've seen to a perfect roll other than an aerobatic aircraft is the 'Widow Maker', a.k.a. F-104 Starfighter...probably helped by the fact that at 90 degrees, the F-104's vertical fin is damn near as big as the two wings.  

Anyway, just because something appears simple or "basic" externally, doesn't mean it isn't complicated inside the cockpit.

Regards
G2G


----------



## trampbike

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> The overall effect is yaw to the left, so to keep the nose "bullet straight" you would feed in a slight amount of left rudder....



Did you mean a bit of right rudder, in order to counter adverse yaw?


I did not mean to say that a perfect aileron roll (no rotation about the lateral and normal axis, and constant altitude) was easy, I know it is in fact impossible for it to be perfect. 
A basic aileron roll that starts and ends at the same altitude is really not that hard. It can be done with or without using a knife edge component and while staying under positive G. Sure going negative helps keeping altitude thought! (he sure can't loose altitude here on this half roll: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FzeQlba8-Fk) . Raise the nose high enough (quite a lot when flying a low roll rate airplane), feed the proper amount of rudder for full aileron deflection, keep the airplane under low positive load, and you have a gentle roll without loosing altitude.

Any pilot, civilian or military, doing rolls right above the deck, raise the nose high enough to not loose altitude. Why, when higher in the sky, do we always see military airplane rolling from a level attitude (therefore loosing altitude since they don't transition to negative load while passing 90 degrees)? Does it have a purpose or it's just that they don't care about this when high?


----------



## Loachman

trampbike said:
			
		

> I do not doubt that any military pilot can do it easily



Thank-you.

As I have not done this in thirty years of happy helicopter flying, however, you may seek to be elsewhere than in the cockpit should I get a chance to try it again.


----------



## Good2Golf

trampbike said:
			
		

> Did you mean a bit of right rudder, in order to counter adverse yaw?
> 
> ...



Yes, bit of right rudder, but got ahead of myself, because by the time one does that to keep the nose from yawing left due to astmmetrical drag about the verical axis, the nose would be slicing due to gravity's affect at increasing bank angles, and you would then be into a lot more left to counter the slicing nose...


----------



## MAJONES

trampbike said:
			
		

> An aileron roll is a pretty basic maneuver. A 360 degrees turn around the longitudinal axis of an airplane. When done properly, the entry and exit altitude should be the same (raise the nose high enough considering your roll rate and entry speed). I do not doubt that any military pilot can do it easily, yet on EVERY single video I saw of a military airplane performing an aileron roll (except for airshows), it exits at a lower altitude. Why is that?


In the civi world aerobatic training is focused on the airshow paradigm;  all of the manouvers are flown as though they were being done at low altitude.  Thus, one of the overriding concerns with all civi aerobatics is coming out at the same altitude you started at.
In the military aerobatics are taught as a lead in to other skills and to get student pilots used to being under g and upside down.  Different things are stressed in military aerobatics, (pitch rate for example).
One of the best examples of this is the loop.  When I learned aerobatics in the civilian world one of the key characteristics of a good loop was coming out at the same altitude as I started it at.  The airspeed at exit was never much of a concern, nor was the pitch rate.
In Moose Jaw the charateristics of a good loop are a constant pitch rate and exiting at the same speed you started at.  The altitude at which you exit is not much of a concern.
So, in answer to the question at hand.  Most military pilots will lose some altitude in a roll because that is the way they were taught to do it.  In the MFT there is no mention of checking the stick forward while inverted.  This is different than in the civi aerobatics manuals. 

Trampbike, you wouldn't be related to Headly would you?


----------



## trampbike

Thank you very much for the answer.

I'm not related to Andrew, but would love to fly with him soon.


----------



## ClassIII

I currently have my CPL S.M.E.L.S Group I and Class III and approximately 700hours. I'm currently working as an instructor and have recently applied to the Air Force as a pilot. Just wondering if anyone had two cents to throw in in regards to training (if I'm accepted that is) in regards to any bad habits I should watch for in myself. Or any attitudes I may potentially unwittingly bring to the table. I value the input and may you all have maintains check your tires for Grease after your landings.


----------



## mariomike

ClassIII said:
			
		

> Just wondering if anyone had two cents to throw in in regards to training (if I'm accepted that is) in regards to any bad habits I should watch for in myself.



Some discussion here.

Bad habit developed by civilian pilots  
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/103528.0


----------



## Good2Golf

Resist the urge to brag, particularly in the presence of other candidates who don't have any PFE. In fact, the less you say to anyone about your PFE the better.  Don't make any predictions about how easy things will likely be for you, etc..., your reward should be in getting your wings, not in feeling good compared to others along the way during training.  

This doesn't mean you can't help others if their having difficulty, but use your past experience to AUGMENT what the RCAF is teaching, and how, and only provide assistance that aligns with the RCAF way of doing things. 'Helpful tricks' from a past flying life may not be nearly as helpful as one might think.

I had a large number of CPL fellow students on my Ph 2 in Moose Jaw, some I didn't even know were CPL (two were actually ATPL, Gp IV INRAT qual'd) until after the course. Most of the civy guys who failed out never shut up about how the Air Force was f'd up and doing things wrong... :nod: Yup, you guys are right and 1500 guys and gals are wrong... 

Good luck, work hard and enjoy the fruits of your labours a few years down the road.

Regards
G2G


----------



## MAJONES

I was a class one with 2500 hrs when I joined.  I went in with the attitude that I was now the student and that I would do things the way I was taught.  Bad habits didn't pose much of a problem.


----------

