Snoopy AFAIK there is no glaringly obvious thing in peril at the moment but much of that is to do with the situation we find ourselves at.
But perceived threats in the past.
1/ The UK IMC rating, compromise was made and the rating became exactly as it was ie limited to UK and called IR(r)
2) What wad to be called the " all weather rating"
which went nowhere until France decided to start its own IR rating
3) the French Brevet de Base gone now but only because the LAPL was tinkered with enough but still upsets some French pilots.
4) No agreement across the EASA NAAs on shared costs.
5) Different medical requirements especially in the case of the LAPL
UK, even as a member of EASA had its own National Licence and self declared medical.
That might have become Europe wide if everyone could have agreed. They didn’t, but who actually didn’t ? Some reports say it was AOPA who pushed against it.
6) The AOPA were definately the association that lobbied for the 2 tonne limit for Eurocontrol instrument charges The FFA pushed for 5.4tonnes to be the dividing limit. (I’m not saying this was not altruistic, it was.)
7)Differences on MTOWs of ULMs their maintenance and licencing regimes.
Within country there are also differences of opinion
eg it could possibly be that in France the main ULM association FFPLUM could make an agreement with the DGAC to not restrict ULM operations to day VFR ie allow night and possibly even IFR. It has been discussed and rejected by FFPLUM members because it would probably mean an end to self declaration and a move to the tighter EASA regs.
I am not saying anyone is right or anyone is wrong in any of these matters; just that we all have different opinions. Perhaps pilots disagree more than most. These differences are reflected in regulation made at EASA level.
Either an acceptable compromise is struck between all EASA members or countries opt out.
This has always been the case ever since the Chicago Convention and ICAO.
To get back on topic johnh blog experience is in some ways an example of differences within a country. Eg many French flying clubs allow GPS and SDVFR type flight bags for PPL training. Some will go somewhere in between full GPS and dead reckoning. But a part of French PPL training has always involved some initiation to instruments VOR ADF and often DME as VFR on Top has been part of the curriculum and most club aircraft used for navigation are equipped for night VFR. At many clubs this has now morphed into GPS.
The side slip does seem to cause some controversy. There are 2 reasons for side slip
a) Cross wind landing. Most club instructors here prefer the crab method in a crosswind to the wing down side slip. Whether this is personal preferences which have propogated across France or whether there is an obvious safety reason I do not know.
b) forward side slip used to lose altitude quickly.
Back 30 to 40 years ago the side slip was part of the curriculum. But that is when the planes we learnt on didn’t have flaps and there was no nose wheel. With modern aircraft and a wheel appearing at the front there was less need for side slip training and it went the way of spins. It is still taught as part of aerobatic training (as of course are spins) and in the clubs which hang on to their old Jodels etc for PPL training.
However, the FFA the BEA and DSAC looked at a range of landing incidents in which forward side slips had been used and discovered that some modern aircraft for various technical reasons (most often seemed to be shifts in fuel load) were not well suited to losing altitude quickly at low level as would be used in the side slip. Also there was the obvious that new PPL student pilots were not always well enough trained in side slip techniques due to above mentioned flaps and nose wheel. In the interest of both safety and standardisation that club instructors should be encouraged to both encourage the go round and/or the “S” technique to lose height.
Conversely, I find myself having to regain my forward side slip skills in the Super Guépard as, even though it has a nose wheel and flaps I am flying into some airfields of around 200m with trees to clear not far before the threshold.
Did some of that this weekend but practice at altitude to see how the SG performs when slipped.
Eg many French flying clubs allow GPS and SDVFR type flight bags for PPL training.
Both Dax and UACA at Cannes were adamant that GPS wasn’t allowed in the cockpit during PPL training. Arcachon was a lot more relaxed but my relationship with them was a bit different, “experienced pilot needing French qualifications” rather than “raw PPL student who happens to have seen the inside of a cockpit before – but we’re not going to let that get in the way”.
I flew with the chief instructor at UACA who reacted with horror when I asked him about using the iPad, as if I’d asked him if it would be OK to have a couple of beers before we started..
The side slip does seem to cause some controversy.
Certainly does. In the end I redacted the details of what happened with the “chief pilot” at Dax. He didn’t just “react with surprise”, he grabbed the controls and practically accused me of trying to kill us both. Later he tried to tell me the “right” way to enter a slip, which was completely nuts – first enter a coordinated turn and only then apply opposite rudder. By which time of course you’re pointing the wrong way. I bounced this off several US instructors and experienced pilots, and their universal reaction was “Huh???”.
French pilots seem convinced that a blended slip entry is almost bound to end in a spin – which it isn’t.
“French pilots seem convinced that a blended slip entry is almost bound to end in a spin – which it isn’t.”
This is simply false. Maybe some you have met.
It is roughly as i described and information on the dangers of slide slipping and the research carried out within clubs might well have lead many club presidents/CFIs to discourage it and morph towards the “S” technique.
At the clubs I have been or am a member of plus the clubs in the area with presidents and intructors I know well (and that’s quite a few,would never dream of yelling at you for side slipping but would be more likely to talk through the reasons why it was not a good idea on particular aircraft.
When you are not flying a club plane they don’t give a fig what you do as long you don’t put them in danger.
How did your instructors teach VFR on top or the hours VSV?
Here the instructors have no problem with use of Ipad and SDVFR. In fact the CFI held a course in its use for anybody interested. Also our club and our sister club both run DA40s with Garmin 430 which the intructors are quite happy for you to use. They do however expect you to be capable to deal with GPS failure and if available to be able to use both ADF and VOR so I really don’t know what your instructors were on about.
As you say, all clubs are different. I can only talk about what happened at the ones I know. The exact words of the chief instructor at UACA when I asked about iPad/GPS/SDVFR were “Hors question”. Can’t get much clearer than that.
I’ve also redacted my pre-checkride checkout with the “chief pilot” at Dax, though I think the story is probably somewhere in here. There also they insisted on pencil/paper/watch only, on the basis that this was what their examiner insisted on. I won’t say anything about that individual except that I would never, ever share a cockpit with him again. That’s why I don’t fly at Dax or have anything to do with them any more.
Maybe there are clubs who have accepted to move into the 1990s, but not those two.
We didn’t do anything for VFR on top nor for VSV. Are those even required for a French PPL?
This is simply false. Maybe some you have met.
After the spin incident, I happened to be at a get together of a few French pilots, including one who flies for AF. One who flies a Cub said he’d do it in that, but not in anything else. The airline pilot said, “I know how to do it but I don’t think I ever would” (obviously not in the 777, she flies a PA28 too).
Whereas every instructor I ever flew with in the US teaches it as a matter of course, in particular as a way to get down fast if for example you’re too high for th eonly decent place to land after engine failure.
The only case I know where it’s un-recommended is the 172 with full flaps. Even then, my primary instructor showed it to me specifically to show nothing bad happens.
gallois wrote:
due to above mentioned flaps and nose wheel.
I have never heard of that. What is the issue with side slips on aircraft with flaps and/or nose wheels?
johnh wrote:
The only case I know where it’s un-recommended is the 172 with full flaps. Even then, my primary instructor showed it to me specifically to show nothing bad happens.
This manoeuver is entirely ok according to the POH. The POH does warn that some pitch oscillation may occur, but this is only to prevent pilots from being surprised, not because it would be dangerous or compromise control.
You must do what you think is correct of course but here the FFA collects experiences and incidences and accidents which are examined by a safety committee to look at the causes of problems and what can be done to avoid them in the future. They then disseminate this advice to clubs and instructors. The clubs and instructors are under no obligation to heed the advice but of course most do for both insurance reasons and because usually the advice is backed by information on what lies behind it.
I don’t think it is mandatory to do VFR on Top during PPL training but most instructors I know will try to find a slot somewhere where they can introduce a student to climbing and descending through holes in the cloud ceiling and how to navigate above the cloud with no or only occasional glimpses of the ground or the horizon.
AFAIK 5hours of VSV is still mandatory for the PPL. I did the VSV when it had just been introduced back in the early 1990s. It consisted of things like a 180° turn under foggles without altitude change of more than 100ft and then positioning the aircraft on a locator lined up on the runway so that when you took the foggles off the runway was straight ahead for a visual landing. It was a long time ago.🙂
I have to admit some pilots in UACA are a bit dusty or too old fashion. I don’t really care – I mean after 150hours in various club/airschools here, I learnt that I have to adapt to the instructor, try to understand what he wants me to learn and how to do it well. What I will do once in the air will be some other things. Flying – even for FIs, go through a list of experience and preferences, and some FI will want you to do like this, and the other will do it either with a different manner, or will just avoid. It’s just personnal preferences and you cannot really go against. Few schools can go as far as possible in SOP to regulate that, but at the end… It’s all preferences.
I have been lucky to have all my IRME (40 hours sim and 20 hour DA42) almost with only 1 old pilot (~70yo) who still calculates its cosinus (for radial and interceptions) by heart, makes always 150kn+ approaches, and is full of great stories like flying on Pou-du-ciel (an horror to fly), old jodels. He is still very efficient, and uses Ipad since years and used early version of conspicuity softwares with SDR antenna (kind of stratux). We did CPL lessons in very marginal VFR weather to learn about flying minima – and he’s still IRI/IRE/CRI/CRE in the flight school at the moment.
He had no problem with side slip, we did with a DA40 but never had to with the DA42 – this plane can slow down very hard with prop windmiling and gear down, knowing that you learn that once, but it’s not what a CPL should do – meaning that you can’t get stabilized at 500ft while sidesliping :D.
Airliners cannot really do that, the rudder is much too powerfull compared to ailerons – if we speak of the B737, and I am not sure the A320 ELACs would let you do this.
Good write up John. I liked the odd touch of irony.
You should have had a glass of pinard with the instructor before flying. You’d be on the same page from the start.
I suspect that because must clubs have a school, and FIs have oversight of the membership, aeroclub flying deviates little from the current PPL syllabus.
I spoke to a glider tug pilot at LJPZ a few years ago who was convinced that in a DR.400, flap + slip = death. I later went and tried myself it in approach configuration down to 110kmh and it remained controllable.
Now aircraft are fitted with flaps, I can see that the need to slip is much less than in the past. Also, newer aircraft have a lot less drag when presented sideways to the airflow. Compare the slab-sided DR400 to the wasp-waisted DA40:
I did a few flights on top during my 2007-2008 PPL, and all non-local navigation was by VOR, with map-reading as backup.
