-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
Aerobatics
- Thread starter JIMMY
- Start date
- Status
Grade Weighting: For Pap and jpaviator
For Pap:
The only weighting factor for your instrument grades is the proportionality of Instrument versus non instrument flights. There is no special weighting of instrument grades. For that matter, no flight weighs more than another.
Shouldn't check rides count higher than regular flights?
I took a stroll through the MPTS curriculum, the current course of primary instruction: CNATRAINST 1542.140C. Got it from the CNATRA web site. What is this JPPT that fella is talking about?
Having walked through the methodology, the "meets the Course Training Standards" theory would argue for Check rides counting more than the "learning" flights in the block of training. It does not seem to be that way.
The weighting: Hard to tell, since the book says you only need to get 75% of the items done on any flight, the outcome could be inconsistent from student to student, though it appears that the TGI correction should account for that.
33.8 hours in 26 events in Instrument Sims.
I assume that Sim grades still count. That has been and on again, off again thing since my T-28 days. I called my old buddy who worked in CNATRA N5, he tells me that in all CNATRA syllabi, a sim counts the same as a flight, grade wise.
57.1 hours in 31* (27 graded?) events in VFR flying: Contact, Form, Day and Night Nav
23.5 hours in 13 events in Instruments and Instrument Navigation.
8.4 hours in 5 events solo, basically ungraded.
89.0 hours in 49 aircraft events and 33.8 simulator hours in 26 sim events.
* It appears that the first 4 flights are freebies: grades don't "count." In the old days, you only got one freebie, FAM 1. What's up with this? Anyone call the Fraud, Waste, and Abuse hotline on this yet?
Is there some rule that Instruments count more than VFR flying published somewhere other than in the syllabus? That seems counter-intuitive.
For jpaviator:
Look up that curriculum on the web, you will find it under Publications on the CNATRA web site. On page I-2, it spells out specifically how the syllabus deals with Accelerated students. From my recollection, Accelerated Students tended to have better scores when all was said and done, due to their grades not being watered down by a lot of averages.
Sea Story: When I was a LT back in the 80's, a young man named Frank Smith entered our flight with some 300+ hours, to include considerable aerobatics experience. Frank was put on the accelerated program and he smoked it! I flew a PA with him, and still, some 17 years later, remember how fun that flight was for me as an IP. He took to the T-34C like a fish to water.
Buno 161826, just checked my log book, from July 14 of 1987.
Pap said:
For Pap:
The only weighting factor for your instrument grades is the proportionality of Instrument versus non instrument flights. There is no special weighting of instrument grades. For that matter, no flight weighs more than another.
Shouldn't check rides count higher than regular flights?
I took a stroll through the MPTS curriculum, the current course of primary instruction: CNATRAINST 1542.140C. Got it from the CNATRA web site. What is this JPPT that fella is talking about?
Having walked through the methodology, the "meets the Course Training Standards" theory would argue for Check rides counting more than the "learning" flights in the block of training. It does not seem to be that way.
The weighting: Hard to tell, since the book says you only need to get 75% of the items done on any flight, the outcome could be inconsistent from student to student, though it appears that the TGI correction should account for that.
33.8 hours in 26 events in Instrument Sims.
I assume that Sim grades still count. That has been and on again, off again thing since my T-28 days. I called my old buddy who worked in CNATRA N5, he tells me that in all CNATRA syllabi, a sim counts the same as a flight, grade wise.
57.1 hours in 31* (27 graded?) events in VFR flying: Contact, Form, Day and Night Nav
23.5 hours in 13 events in Instruments and Instrument Navigation.
8.4 hours in 5 events solo, basically ungraded.
89.0 hours in 49 aircraft events and 33.8 simulator hours in 26 sim events.
* It appears that the first 4 flights are freebies: grades don't "count." In the old days, you only got one freebie, FAM 1. What's up with this? Anyone call the Fraud, Waste, and Abuse hotline on this yet?
Is there some rule that Instruments count more than VFR flying published somewhere other than in the syllabus? That seems counter-intuitive.
For jpaviator:
Look up that curriculum on the web, you will find it under Publications on the CNATRA web site. On page I-2, it spells out specifically how the syllabus deals with Accelerated students. From my recollection, Accelerated Students tended to have better scores when all was said and done, due to their grades not being watered down by a lot of averages.
Sea Story: When I was a LT back in the 80's, a young man named Frank Smith entered our flight with some 300+ hours, to include considerable aerobatics experience. Frank was put on the accelerated program and he smoked it! I flew a PA with him, and still, some 17 years later, remember how fun that flight was for me as an IP. He took to the T-34C like a fish to water.
Buno 161826, just checked my log book, from July 14 of 1987.
I've formed some pretty strong opinions about prior flight time going through this program, do bear in mind that I'm only just wrapping up the T-2 program so view my remarks from that perspective.
If I could go back and start the process over again, I would have hocked my car, taken college loans etc to get the max amount of flight time before start. Why?
First off, in any activity, people are going to fall into that standard S curve, so if you give 100 random people who have never played baseball a bat, 10 will suck, 10 will be **** hot and about 80 of them will be average. If you took the 10 that sucked and put them in baseball camp, they should outperform the average, at least initially, but eventually they'll probably end up where they were. However, for the 80 guys in the pack they will probably be better their peers if they receive more training and depending on where they lie in the pack, quality of training, motivation etc, they may or may not always be high performers. My point being, if you were not cut out for military flying then it will come out initially. If however you like the vast majority of us are the average performer, then any help you get is just a boost. I believe that is the cause of the "I had no prior flight time and got an 80NSS while 2ndLT Schmuck had 2000 hours and attrited"
I remember reading once how the USAF stopped inviting reserve squadrons to Gunsmoke, their aerial gunnery competition. Turns out that it was kinda embarrassing when the lean, young steely eyed, 300 hour nuggets were getting creamed by the 2000 hour paunchy part timers. Experience counts.
If I could go back and start the process over again, I would have hocked my car, taken college loans etc to get the max amount of flight time before start. Why?
First off, in any activity, people are going to fall into that standard S curve, so if you give 100 random people who have never played baseball a bat, 10 will suck, 10 will be **** hot and about 80 of them will be average. If you took the 10 that sucked and put them in baseball camp, they should outperform the average, at least initially, but eventually they'll probably end up where they were. However, for the 80 guys in the pack they will probably be better their peers if they receive more training and depending on where they lie in the pack, quality of training, motivation etc, they may or may not always be high performers. My point being, if you were not cut out for military flying then it will come out initially. If however you like the vast majority of us are the average performer, then any help you get is just a boost. I believe that is the cause of the "I had no prior flight time and got an 80NSS while 2ndLT Schmuck had 2000 hours and attrited"
I remember reading once how the USAF stopped inviting reserve squadrons to Gunsmoke, their aerial gunnery competition. Turns out that it was kinda embarrassing when the lean, young steely eyed, 300 hour nuggets were getting creamed by the 2000 hour paunchy part timers. Experience counts.
Fuggin point-to-points... man, this instrument stuff takes a lotta practice. The more the better...
The T-6 doesn't have TACAN anyways...
I've been practicing on the 2B47 and I'm getting the gist of it. Still doing too much of a drunken weave, but it's getting cleaner
I just think that getting a lot of instrument time prior to flight school would be a lot more useful than aerobatics. I'm just an NFO, but BINAV has been the toughest part yet and takes the most time to master...
I've been practicing on the 2B47 and I'm getting the gist of it. Still doing too much of a drunken weave, but it's getting cleaner
I just think that getting a lot of instrument time prior to flight school would be a lot more useful than aerobatics. I'm just an NFO, but BINAV has been the toughest part yet and takes the most time to master...
PITTSdriver
Registered User
I am in flight school with a lot of PA time. The PA's are a little different than the civilian world. Just get sed to the inputs for basic maneuevers like loop, aileron roll, barrell roll, immelman, and split s. Also there are a total of 3 graded PA flights, and 3 Cruise form flights. Cruise form have PA's in them wingover and barell roll. SO aerobatics are a much bigger grade. Be comfortable upside down, and get used to an RMI for instruments if you are going to start flight school in the next 2-3 years. Good luck.
- Status