FIRST TIME WARRIOR – WHAT CONSITUTES A CHECKRIDE IN A NEW TYPE AT A NEW AIRFIELD?
Simon Sparkes FRAeS
Test Pilot at Forsvarsmateriell - Norwegian Defence Materiel Agency
My experiences of checkrides was always the same when I was in the Royal Navy,??lots of preparation, often a long brief with questions from the examiner and then a nervous walk to the aircraft where hopefully everything would go okay.??In the vast majority of cases it did and the ride was passed successfully but on just a few occasions it didn’t sometimes because I was being dull other times because of some interesting event or circumstance I could have not predicted.??My experience when flying civil checkrides has typically been subtly different and while the nerves have remained the content and scope were more fixed and a little less stressful.??
One such occasion happened to me when I needed to fly for a family occasion in a PA-28 Warrior, an aircraft I had not flown before but one which sat within the mythical Single Engine Piston category, the one where a type rating is replaced by a class rating.??Of course the school I was leasing the aircraft from wanted to check me out, before they were to allow me to risk their aircraft and insurance premium on my own.??It was a windy day at Gamston, and airfield and an area I wasn’t particularly familiar with but, I thought, probably within my capabilities.
The FIight Instructor briefed me that he would do a short check ride after which I could take the aircraft on my own for some practice.??There was to be a rather significant crosswind on the day and I was given the flight manual to review (I had it a week in advance) so I knew the basics of the aircraft with performance being something definitely to understand of course.??Being a professional I made sure to read the main parts of the document and managed to get myself a kneeboard checklist just to make checks easier.??Of course I still actually hadn’t sat in it.
On the day we basically just walked straight to the aircraft, did the walkaround and climbed in the instructor telling me he was going to get me to do a couple of circuits and a short session of upper air work.??After faffing a little in the cockpit, just trying to work out where each of the main switches were (light aircraft cockpits being nothing if not non-standard) I got the engine running using basis SEP principles and, of course, knowing what the magnetos and carburettor heat were used for.??We then set off to the runway where the strength of the crosswind did start to disturb me.
Take-off was flapless (as the FI briefed me) and we were soon airborne with a mix of cross controlling and slight panic as I tried to stop the upwind wing lifting at low speed.??We then set out to climb to a reasonable altitude where I was asked to do a series of stalls (normal, turn and approach) before we then routed back to the airfield for some circuits (well two).??A normal circuit was followed by one without flaps and with a 15 kt crosswind it was all a little exciting with feet and the yoke moving almost the whole time.??The FI then got out and said it was all mine for the remained of the hours flying.
With a little trepidation then off I went to the runway to take-off again to depart the airfield and do an area familiarisation along with a little general handling and some more circuits.??Apart from being cautious, maybe to extreme, all went well and I delivered the aircraft, intact, back to the school.
A number of questions sprang to mind after that flight and some other similar flights I have done since (mainly fixed wing).??They centre on whether there might be a high degree of assumed knowledge from the FI when flying with an experienced pilot, even a helicopter one (he didn’t really check my logbook).??What was it that allowed the FI to think I needed so little supervised practice flying an unfamiliar aircraft, without any sort of briefing on the gotchas or interesting flying qualities???I know I wasn’t about to rip the wings off or dive into some aerobatics but every aircraft has idiosyncrasies that are not in the flight manual.
Local area flying can also be full of pitfalls with noise avoids, prohibited areas and other airfields to think about so perhaps that might have merited some discussion.??But none of that was forthcoming, odd really when I had come from the Boscombe Down Flying Club where the rules, regulations and other MOD induced nausea was never-ending.
Perhaps I am just being over sensitive to the variabilities of light aircraft flying in the UK (other experiences have been much more extensive) but such activity is certainly not without risk.??Such flying regularly leads to accidents and fatalities every year but is that the cost of light touch regulation or just something that most of us ex-military types are too sensitive about?
Professional Helicopter & Aeroplane Pilot
2 年Service flying is more complex and generally requires low level flying all the way up to instrument flying. Therefore service flying requires a very high standard of training. I'm a Class Rating Instructor SEP, and fly with a lot of low hour PPL pilots who generally fly at 1500ft, VMC, land at a licenced airfields. Therefore they don't require the same level of skill that a service pilot does. As Simon said in his post it surprised me as well when I first got involved in civil flying.
MSc Safety and Accident Investigation
2 年I agree with Nick. Military flying is heavily regulated in most areas, civilian less so. The main philosophy of civilian training is to create a pilot who will fly several types by adapting familiar techniques.. A civilian type conversion is more about differences training rather than learning a new philosophy. I have done plenty of type conversions and the main emphasis is on what handling and technical differences the pilot can expect, but to let them get on with it. I recall my conversion to the Decathlon, I asked about a checklist. The answer was "what sort of a checklist do you need for an aircraft with fixed gear and no flaps?" The instructor was correct. I needed to know the specific spin recovery, but the flying principles are the same for most GA types.
Test Pilot at Forsvarsmateriell - Norwegian Defence Materiel Agency
2 年Of course I am now back in the military environment (Norway) where again the focus is supervision and risk. The differences are stark and like Chris Tomlinson says often not well understood.
Test Pilot (Cat 1), CVE, and successful author.
2 年I agree with the previous comments from Chris and Nick. Sounds like the instructor did a good job.
Solutions Architect, civilian and defence aerospace
2 年Simon, therein lies the fundamental difference between military and civilian flying. In the military we have layers of supervision to manage both the safety of flight and the operational risk. In civilian flying, a pilot has his/her licence and they are expected to operate with the law. Clearly, the theme has more nuances than the simple statement but it is something I discuss with every new pilot who joins the team from the military.