Page 15 – Key Publishing

Flying chick

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 211 through 225 (of 289 total)

← 1 2 3 … 14 15 16 … 18 19 20 →

Author

Posts
January 21, 2005 at 9:34 am in reply to: Replica F6F Hellcat #433116

Flying chick
Participant

Well, I was thinking, as I intend to mostly fly for fun, the NPPL might be better for me (as well as cost-wise). But, I suppose I can always go for the full PPL later on if I wanted?

(stop me if I’m asking stupid questions!)

You can upgrade it but it’s a bit of a faff. I would have to redo my cross country as its not long enough to qualify for JAR, have a class 2 medical and do 15 hours of training. The 15 hours seems a bit crazy to me but I don’t know if that’s a strict rule or whether it can be relaxed. I suspect that in the fullness of time they will realise that someone with 200 hrs NPPL doesn’t really need to spend 15 hours with an instructor! I would say the 5 hours instrument flying are really the only bit you need to do that is missed out of the NPPL. And who knows, by 2008 it may all change again anyway! My boyfriend had a national licence before JAR existed and when it all changed he got all the privileges of JAR (nearly) with none of the renewal costs – very sneaky!

January 20, 2005 at 8:09 pm in reply to: Replica F6F Hellcat #433126

Flying chick
Participant

I have an NPPL. My medical was £18 and took about thirty seconds while my GP looked at my records and signed it! Its great for people with slight medical issues. The reason I have it is because I couldn’t afford to do a JAR licence.

I would have to disagree with Moggy on this one – I think the NPPL system is a good one. It means we have one licence for the professional- type pilots (people who want to fly commercially) and then one for people who just want to fly for fun. It depends on what type of flying you want to do. You can’t add certain things to an NPPL such as a night rating, IMC etc but you CAN add a tailwheel conversion. The reason being that recreational flyers would propbably want to fly tailwheel stuff.

There are various advantages to the NPPL. You don’t have to renew a medical until you’re 45, you don’t have to pay to renew it every 5 years like JAR, you can do it in 32 hours instead of 45 and if you fail a part of the test you can just take that bit again, rather than the whole test.

My licence gives me all the privleges I need at the moment. The only thing that is a bit annoying is that I can’t go to France but they are looking at changing that. In fact lots of other EASA states are looking at bringing in their own licences, so by 2008 we might even be able to go all over Europe!

So the NPPL suits me and I cant see me having the need to upgrade it anytime soon. But it depends on the individual I think. I would just recommend that you consider both options before you decide for certain what to do.

January 20, 2005 at 7:55 pm in reply to: Aviation in Cyprus #433130

Flying chick
Participant

Funny, im planning a flying holiday but I have not even passed my check-ride yet!

I found one or two schools with Yahoo out that way:

Type: Laraca flying schools and clubs

(QXC ABANDONED UNTIL FRIDAY 21ST DUE TO BAD WEATHER!)

What is this ‘check-ride’ all about? Do you mean your GFT? :confused:

January 13, 2005 at 7:28 pm in reply to: Bemused #433214

Flying chick
Participant

I know I didn’t get my ATPL in a cornflakes packet!!!!!

You mean you didn’t go to the Kelloggs school of aviation?? 😮

January 11, 2005 at 12:18 pm in reply to: Air Law Exams #433290

Flying chick
Participant

cheers guys….

did another run through today after some cramming last nightand got 85% on the 167 questions in the confuser – im gonna give that airquiz on line a go so i get some variation on the questions.

Pretty good going i’d say! I hated air law and managed to get through with 80-something % (can’t remember exactly) and I mainly used the confuser. My advice would be to make sure you know that Chicago convention stuff – my exam was heavy on that stuff – all that business about sovereignity – have forgotten it all now but I knew it at the time!

January 11, 2005 at 12:15 pm in reply to: Bemused #433292

Flying chick
Participant

anybody wanna subscribe to the FCFC? What’s FCFC?? Oh come on guys! Flying Chick Fan Club! 😀
This girl’s been a fighter pilot in a precedent life, no doubt! 😀

Alex

Don’t even get me started on the fighter pilots – raaaarrr!! :dev2:

January 11, 2005 at 12:14 pm in reply to: Bemused #433294

Flying chick
Participant

I think ATPL’s are generally more aware, due to them being placed in a lot more scenarios. Not necessarily better, it’s just they have had a experience that many GA pilots may not have had.

DME

Exactly, you can’t really compare the two – it is impossible to define ‘better.’ ATPLs are much better at following complex procedures and GA pilots are probably better at flying tricky machines with few avionics. That is possibly the reality but is still a huge generalisation – and I probably speak from a fairly skewed perspective as I generally know GA pilots who fly unusual machines – cubs, pitts, warbirds etc and not many who just zip about in pipers and cessnas (except myself!)

It is impossible to speak for the whole of the GA community or indeed the whole commercial community. This is why it is impossible to decide who is better – and indeed the whole argument becomes derivative if you attempt to. Nobody is better or worse than anyone else but macho arrogance is something that really winds me up – particularly in this case as it can injury innocent people.

January 11, 2005 at 10:06 am in reply to: Bemused #433303

Flying chick
Participant

I was not questioning Alex’s ability to become a successful pilot, nor his ability to argue his point, which he has done extremely well and in a very level headed manner. I’m just questioning whether he really wants to go ahead with his chosen career if he feels so many airline pilots are I quote ‘arrogant’. We have nothing to be arrogant about, we fly our planes and get people from A to B and we’ve trained hard for it, but we’re not that special. It was just that Alex seems to insinuate that he has met many many arrogant pilots who claim to be special just because they fly airliners and he seemed to be accusing WD of the same thing, despite the fact that WD has also argued a very level headed arguement and that he is a fine example of a decent airline pilot who I would be proud to fly with.

Trouble is, he hasn’t actually argued his point at all. He has just reiterated his point about ATPLs having more training and therefore being better over and over again. Not once has he actually responded to anyone’s posts that there are good and bad on both sides of the aviation coin and you can’t begin to compare such diverse groups.

Arrogance is a prominent thing in aviation both GA and commercial. Its a kind of macho hobby/career I guess. Sad thing is, arrogance is what gets people killed in aviation, which I why I believe that a person’s attitude to flying is the most important thing. In fact, it is almost more important than ability in a strange way.

January 10, 2005 at 10:06 pm in reply to: Bemused #433332

Flying chick
Participant

My view

and for the arrogance? who cares 😉

Arrogance kills. That’s why I care 😮

January 10, 2005 at 10:00 am in reply to: Bemused #433364

Flying chick
Participant

We have 2 pilots due to the workload requirements of the aircraft and the environment in which it is operated. By your implication accident rates would be less with 3 or 4 crew members than with 2. Since the 1960’s the accident rate has actually dropped even though the number of crewmembers has decreased as well.

Ok My turn,

So you’re saying that the quality of the pilot is proportioned to the age of his equipment? That’s BS. Did I learn more or have more valuable experiences flying a 1956 AeroCommander vs. a 1979 Seminole? Heck no.

You also seem under the impression that the difficulty of the job is lowered by the increase of glass tubes in the cockpit. How is tracking a VOR needle (which as been done for 50 odd years) different that tracking a GPS course line (which as only been done for the last 7 years or so)?

It’s all the same skills with different applications.

There are quite a few airliners flying with less equipment that your standard Cessna 172.

I’m just curious what personal comparisons you’ve been able to make between the 2 groups.

Again, contrary to what you may think the average GA aircraft has more avionics capabilties than your average airliner.

I can tell you the easiest way to get a groan from a flight crew is to tell them “I’m a GA pilot so I know all about this” as you poke your head up front. :rolleyes: I seem to hear this about once a month. The fundementals may be the same but it’s like comparing Apples and Oranges.

Again missing the point. You are making a linguistic value judgement to say that one group are better than the other – there good and bad of each. What you’re saying is fundamentally wrong.

Its like saying all women are good at cooking. Now lots of women are good at cooking but lots of women are terrible cooks. You can make generalisation about such large groups of people only linked together by characteristic (eg. being female, holding a PPL)

Have you got it now or am I going to have to got through it again??? :rolleyes:

Ps. Where on earth did you get that swanky cockpit from? Its looks like a Cessna Skylane I think (?). Dunno when that became an average GA aircraft, wish I could afford one! Would have certainly helped my qualifying cross country, but then I was just dreaming of having a transponder!

January 10, 2005 at 9:56 am in reply to: Bemused #433366

Flying chick
Participant

Alex, I suggest if this is your attitude towards airline pilots you seriously rethink your career plans. How are you going to work with us everyday if you hold this attitude. I personally think WD is making some extremely valid points, lets put it very basically, the more training that is undertaken, the better the pilot is going to be. We get checked every six months, I fly six sectors a day (roughly 8 hours on average), most GA guys fly an hour, maybe two a month. This does not make them bad pilots, far from it, but we are naturally going to be better at it because we get more practise. This is not airline pilot arrogance, it’s just common sense.

Sorry to step into the fray again but I can’t sit back and watch this rubbish being posted. The way Alex will work everyday as a commercial pilot is with a sensible attitude and not by thinking he’s better than everyone else. You are criticising him for taking the attitude that neither commercial or GA pilots are better than each other – just different. The airline pilots job is made easier by the equipment available to him, of course it is. Alex, has a mature and down to earth attitude to commercial aviation and I would be a passenger on an airliner he was flying anyday….. not sure about some of you others though. You don’t seem to have the mental capacity to comprehend the arguments people are making, let alone fly these super complex pieces of machinery you keep on about.

January 9, 2005 at 9:51 pm in reply to: Bemused #433390

Flying chick
Participant

It’s not a personal attribute that permits this, professional pilots are products of their training and experiences. More of both lowers the accident rate significantly when compared to the GA community.

I thought it was more redundancy on your average airliner that lowered accident rates? 😉

January 9, 2005 at 9:45 pm in reply to: Bemused #433395

Flying chick
Participant

Blah blah blah. You’re clearly not listening to me so there’s not a lot of point me reiterating what I’ve said. It seems that you won’t give it up until you’ve convinced me that you’re right and the simple fact is that I don’t think that you are. Simple. End of conversation.

January 9, 2005 at 9:04 pm in reply to: Bemused #433399

Flying chick
Participant

Too right Flying Chick.

Anyway, I’m just guessing R.w’s words. Honest. My opinion is that this forum should be taken very very seriously. You can’t argue with that?

Can you?

No comment 😉

January 9, 2005 at 8:33 pm in reply to: Bemused #433407

Flying chick
Participant

Alternatively it may mean:
“I’m trying to do a quantitative analysis of a quadratic function, subject to linear constraints right now, so I cannot put my mind to the futility of the forum. Sorry”

Futility? How so?! I mean frivolity maybe, but futility! Tut tut Janie. I thought you realised the enduring validity of this forum and its earth shattering importance to the aviation world. I’m surprised at you. :diablo:
Author

Posts

Viewing 15 posts - 211 through 225 (of 289 total)

← 1 2 3 … 14 15 16 … 18 19 20 →