A fellow student and I were dsicussing something,
and we certainly intent to ask our instructors.

There are some points in the flight where the simple
(but important) checklist needs to occur.
For example, after takeoff clean-up, after landing clean-up,
before landing check list, etc . . .
Places where the basic steps are pretty easy to remember.

So - DURING THE CHECKRIDE - how important is it to pull out the
actual checklist as opposed to just doing the checklist.
I'm not talking about the complicated stuff, or things
with a lot of items.

Does the Examiner want to see the actual checklist?
Or is "getting it right" enough?
You know, something with 4 steps could take 3 seconds to complete.
Pulling out the checklist makes it 10 seconds.

Would people mind commenting on whether we have to
"go through the motions" to be "right", or to "pass".
I mean, how many people actually pull out the checklist
for the before-landing checklist in a 152?
Feul, Seatbelts, carb-heat, landing lights, etc . . .

Thanks!

I don't know what the DE would want to see, but for simple items,
reciting the checklist out loud from memory (with the cue word, such as
GUMPS) should be sufficient to convince the examiner that you know what
you're doing.

Jose
r.a.student retained, though I don't follow that group
--
Quantum Mechanics is like this: God =does= play dice with the universe,
except there's no God, and there's no dice. And maybe there's no universe.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

On 8/8/2005 08:19, Gary G wrote:

> A fellow student and I were dsicussing something,
> and we certainly intent to ask our instructors.
>
> There are some points in the flight where the simple
> (but important) checklist needs to occur.
> For example, after takeoff clean-up, after landing clean-up,
> before landing check list, etc . . .
> Places where the basic steps are pretty easy to remember.
>
> So - DURING THE CHECKRIDE - how important is it to pull out the
> actual checklist as opposed to just doing the checklist.
> I'm not talking about the complicated stuff, or things
> with a lot of items.
>
> Does the Examiner want to see the actual checklist?
> Or is "getting it right" enough?
> You know, something with 4 steps could take 3 seconds to complete.
> Pulling out the checklist makes it 10 seconds.
>
> Would people mind commenting on whether we have to
> "go through the motions" to be "right", or to "pass".
> I mean, how many people actually pull out the checklist
> for the before-landing checklist in a 152?
> Feul, Seatbelts, carb-heat, landing lights, etc . . .
>
> Thanks!
>

You're going to get a lot of opinions on this, I'm sure. Here's mine ;-)

During my training (both PP-ASEL and IA) my instructors never had me use
the simple check lists (I always used check lists for pre-flight, before
take off, after landing, and close down, but not for Climb, Cruise,
Descent and Before Landing).

My instructors would say that I should do it, but would never make it
part of the lesson, so it was hard for me to remember.

When I've asked about it, though, I was told that I should always do it,
and that the DE would be looking for it. However, for the simple lists,
it would be ok to do the procedure first, then soon thereafter pull out
the check list and just make sure I didn't miss anything.

This is, in fact, what I now do. It works very well, and doesn't take
any time away from the procedure itself.

In some cases, I don't have a written check list, and so I rely on a
mnemonic memory aid, like setting up for an approach or the 5 'T's, etc.

I can't imagine why a mnemonic like GUMPS would not be an acceptable
alternative to a written check list.



--
Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Student
Sacramento, CA

"Mark Hansen" > wrote in message
...
> During my training (both PP-ASEL and IA) my instructors never had me use
> the simple check lists (I always used check lists for pre-flight, before
> take off, after landing, and close down, but not for Climb, Cruise,
> Descent and Before Landing)
>
> However, for the simple lists,
> it would be ok to do the procedure first, then soon thereafter pull out
> the check list and just make sure I didn't miss anything.

If the procedure was a landing, it's hard to belatedly perform a missing
step afterwards. :-)

> This is, in fact, what I now do. It works very well, and doesn't take
> any time away from the procedure itself.
>
> In some cases, I don't have a written check list, and so I rely on a
> mnemonic memory aid, like setting up for an approach or the 5 'T's, etc.
>
> I can't imagine why a mnemonic like GUMPS would not be an acceptable
> alternative to a written check list.

I agree. I used to use checklists all the time (that's how I was taught),
but I found it to be an unnecessary distraction, and I would still
occasionally skip a step. Eventually I switched to using flows and mnemonics
instead. I find that to be at least as reliable as the checklists were. I
often review my checklists just before flying, but not during a flight.

Checklists strike me as more suitable for multi-crew aircraft where one
pilot can recite and confirm elements of the list (and literally check them
off) while another pilot performs them. But for a single-pilot plane,
memorization makes more sense to me. (This may be a minority opinion,
however.)

--Gary

On 8/8/2005 09:14, Gary Drescher wrote:

> "Mark Hansen" > wrote in message
> ...
>> During my training (both PP-ASEL and IA) my instructors never had me use
>> the simple check lists (I always used check lists for pre-flight, before
>> take off, after landing, and close down, but not for Climb, Cruise,
>> Descent and Before Landing)
>>
>> However, for the simple lists,
>> it would be ok to do the procedure first, then soon thereafter pull out
>> the check list and just make sure I didn't miss anything.
>
> If the procedure was a landing, it's hard to belatedly perform a missing
> step afterwards. :-)

The check list is for the "before landing" tasks. For example:

- seat belts
- carb heat
- flaps
- etc.

Once you've performed this check list from memory, you can pull out the
hard copy and make sure nothing was missed.

At least, that was the intent of my comments.

>
>> This is, in fact, what I now do. It works very well, and doesn't take
>> any time away from the procedure itself.
>>
>> In some cases, I don't have a written check list, and so I rely on a
>> mnemonic memory aid, like setting up for an approach or the 5 'T's, etc.
>>
>> I can't imagine why a mnemonic like GUMPS would not be an acceptable
>> alternative to a written check list.
>
> I agree. I used to use checklists all the time (that's how I was taught),
> but I found it to be an unnecessary distraction, and I would still
> occasionally skip a step. Eventually I switched to using flows and mnemonics
> instead. I find that to be at least as reliable as the checklists were. I
> often review my checklists just before flying, but not during a flight.
>
> Checklists strike me as more suitable for multi-crew aircraft where one
> pilot can recite and confirm elements of the list (and literally check them
> off) while another pilot performs them. But for a single-pilot plane,
> memorization makes more sense to me. (This may be a minority opinion,
> however.)
>
> --Gary

But, of course, we're talking about a fairly new pilot (the topic is
with regard to a check ride), and I don't think a pilot can go wrong
with performing the checks from memory, then following up with the
hard copy check list to make sure nothing was missed. At least, I've
been taught that the examiner would view this as a good use of the
check list.


--
Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Student
Sacramento, CA

Gary G wrote:
>
> Does the Examiner want to see the actual checklist?

Mine didn't.

George Patterson
Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.

Flying a 172M VFR for 28 years, I have degenerated to a one item
checklist (FUEL!) as I feel I can deal with any of the other things as
either normal routine or as they become obvious. Fuel! is the one
thing I don't ever want to deal with on a priority basis.

GUMPS is good but it also needs to have (cowl and wing) flaps added.

Checklists would seem much more important for more complicated aircraft
or different aircraft even of the same type.

"Mark Hansen" > wrote in message
...
> On 8/8/2005 09:14, Gary Drescher wrote:
>> If the procedure was a landing, it's hard to belatedly perform a missing
>> step afterwards. :-)
>
> The check list is for the "before landing" tasks. [...]
> Once you've performed this check list from memory, you can pull out the
> hard copy and make sure nothing was missed.
>
> At least, that was the intent of my comments.

Yup, I was just making a feeble attempt at humor. :)

> But, of course, we're talking about a fairly new pilot (the topic is
> with regard to a check ride), and I don't think a pilot can go wrong
> with performing the checks from memory, then following up with the
> hard copy check list to make sure nothing was missed. At least, I've
> been taught that the examiner would view this as a good use of the
> check list.

Yes, I fully agree.

--Gary

The inspector will be expecting you to use good judgement regarding the
safety and practicality of using checklists (have a look at
"Applicant's Use of Checklists" in the PTS).

I would recommend demonstrating that you know what a checklist is, and
when and how to use one (e.g. pre-flight and before starting engines),
but use them in a safe and practical manner (e.g. memorized) during
other phases of the flight.

On 8/8/2005 10:05, Gary Drescher wrote:

> "Mark Hansen" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On 8/8/2005 09:14, Gary Drescher wrote:
>>> If the procedure was a landing, it's hard to belatedly perform a missing
>>> step afterwards. :-)
>>
>> The check list is for the "before landing" tasks. [...]
>> Once you've performed this check list from memory, you can pull out the
>> hard copy and make sure nothing was missed.
>>
>> At least, that was the intent of my comments.
>
> Yup, I was just making a feeble attempt at humor. :)

Oops, sorry about that. One of my complaints about Usenet is people
that do exactly what I did ;-(

Plus, I didn't really see who you were ... had I been paying attention...
well, you know ;-)



--
Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Student
Sacramento, CA

"Mark Hansen" > wrote in message
...
> On 8/8/2005 10:05, Gary Drescher wrote:
>> Yup, I was just making a feeble attempt at humor. :)
>
> Oops, sorry about that. One of my complaints about Usenet is people
> that do exactly what I did ;-(
>
> Plus, I didn't really see who you were ... had I been paying attention...
> well, you know ;-)

Heh, don't worry, Usenet is designed to promote misunderstandings. :-)

--Gary

What is "FUEL!"?

Jose
r.a.student stripped, as I don't follow it.
--
Quantum Mechanics is like this: God =does= play dice with the universe,
except there's no God, and there's no dice. And maybe there's no universe.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

An excellent idea, if you own the plane, or can convince the owner, is to
put a decal on the insturment panel somewhere with a quick and dirty list of
in flight checklists... very easy to put an After takeoff, descent, and
landing checklist on a small decal. The after landing checklist is an
interesting one, suppose you are landing at a controled airport, its busy,
you are at perhaps the only midfield turnoff, are you going to sit there and
block the turnoff by taking the time to fish out your checklist? My norm is
to have the ground control freq set in by the time I'm on final, and as SOON
as im told to contact ground, I flip that radio, cross the hold line, and do
a very quick after landing flow while contacting ground. A good five step
flow works in most piper products "Fuel pump off, landing light
off(depends), transponder standby, flaps up, mixture lean" by the time im
done witht that ground has usually cleared me for the rest of my taxi, and i
break out the checklist once rolling on the taxi. Time spent blocking the
turnoff is very brief, works great if you have a "Taxi and hold short"
clearance... you can hit the paper checklist while holding at the other
runway.

For the after takeoff items etc I hit them from memory at 1000agl, then
backup with the checklist once outside airspace and away from traffic.
Descent checklist is done from paper almost exclusively (there are items on
that checklist you do NOT want to miss if you have to declare a missed
approach or go around etc). Final checklist is usually done from memory
"Three green, lights out, props forward, mixtures set, runway clear, cleared
to land" Do that one on my base leg, and again on short final. All other
checklists, particluarly those on the ground are done from paper. Emergency
checklists are a mental flow, backed up by paper as soon as possible
(airplane is back under control, and i have time to look down at paper).

The checkride can be an interesting experience, I have heard of people
busting for not using the paper checklist all the time, at the same time i
have heard of people busting for fiddling around with the paper checklist
when they should know things from memory. I would brief the examiner on
your personal checklist usage before going out to the plane, that way if
they want you to do it differently they will tell you then. The DE is not
out to fail you, its your checkride to bust. I always ask my DE's pertinent
questions like "Who is in charge of the radio?" etc. "Who is responsible
for controls if we have an actual emergency" questions like that are bonus
points with the DE and make you look like a more responsible aviator before
even getting in the airplane. "That lazy eight was slightly out of PTS, but
your execution was on the ball, so I'll call it a pass" instead of a "Sorry
but the lazy 8 is gonna have to be resolved day after tommorrow, you were
outside PTS on altitude" I actually had this on my CPL ride, and i have to
think a professional attitude towards the ride, and airplane operations,
helped out a LOT on that.


Dan
newley certified professional student... CFI soone to be CFII and MEI


"Gary G" > wrote in message
...
>
> A fellow student and I were dsicussing something,
> and we certainly intent to ask our instructors.
>
> There are some points in the flight where the simple
> (but important) checklist needs to occur.
> For example, after takeoff clean-up, after landing clean-up,
> before landing check list, etc . . .
> Places where the basic steps are pretty easy to remember.
>
> So - DURING THE CHECKRIDE - how important is it to pull out the
> actual checklist as opposed to just doing the checklist.
> I'm not talking about the complicated stuff, or things
> with a lot of items.
>
> Does the Examiner want to see the actual checklist?
> Or is "getting it right" enough?
> You know, something with 4 steps could take 3 seconds to complete.
> Pulling out the checklist makes it 10 seconds.
>
> Would people mind commenting on whether we have to
> "go through the motions" to be "right", or to "pass".
> I mean, how many people actually pull out the checklist
> for the before-landing checklist in a 152?
> Feul, Seatbelts, carb-heat, landing lights, etc . . .
>
> Thanks!
>
>

"Jose" > wrote in message
. ..
> r.a.student stripped, as I don't follow it.

I wish you would stop doing that.

Assuming the original cross-post was valid (and it's true, it not always
is), the mere fact that YOU don't follow a particular newsgroup is a lousy
reason to take that newsgroup from the newsgroup line.

The whole point of cross-posting is to that the ENTIRE thread can be
followed by multiple newsgroup. When you take a newsgroup out just because
you're not reading the other newsgroup, you negate the whole point of
cross-posting. Doing so just because you don't read the other newsgroup is
silly.

If you object to cross-posting, either a specific instance or generally,
then say so. But if your objection is to posting to newsgroup you don't
read, that's just nonsense.

Ironically, in this particular instance, you weren't even contributing
anything. You were asking for a clarification. Which means you have
artificially limited the audience to whom your question was posed, reducing
the chances of you getting an answer. If "nrp" saw this thread in
r.a.student, he'll never see your question, and won't answer it. Duh.

Pete

Jose wrote:
> What is "FUEL!"?



It's what makes the airplane go. I would have thought you'd know that. <G>

On a "GUMPS" check, it's the (G)as.




--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN

> I wish you would stop doing that [sometimes stripping groups I don't follow].

I do that selectively. Sometimes it makes no sense to post to a group I
don't follow (such as asking a question), and sometimes it does makes
sense (such as to give information that was asked). In either case I
think it's courtious to say what I'm doing - if I make a comment in a
group I don't follow, I let them know that I won't receive followups
from that group (some newsreaders do not permit replies to more than one
group, some don't flag crossposts, some turn them into multple posts,
and it can otherwise seem like a drive-by posting when it isn't).

An ENTIRE thread doesn't always =remain= valid in multple groups due to
thread drift or other reasons.

> Ironically, in this particular instance, you weren't even contributing
> anything. You were asking for a clarification. Which means you have
> artificially limited the audience to whom your question was posed, reducing
> the chances of you getting an answer. If "nrp" saw this thread in
> r.a.student, he'll never see your question, and won't answer it.

That is exactly the reason for stripping it. If I didn't strip it,
somebody might see the post in r.a.s and answer it there, and I won't
see the answer (at least if he posts from a lame newsreader). Now
-that- would be silly.

Sometimes I keep the group and advise I don't read it, sometimes I strip
it and advise I don't read it.

Jose
--
Quantum Mechanics is like this: God =does= play dice with the universe,
except there's no God, and there's no dice. And maybe there's no universe.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

> On a "GUMPS" check, it's the (G)as

Ok. The way it was reffered to, it seemed like a checklist mnemonic in
itself.

Jose
--
Quantum Mechanics is like this: God =does= play dice with the universe,
except there's no God, and there's no dice. And maybe there's no universe.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"Jose" > wrote in message
. ..
> I do that selectively. Sometimes it makes no sense to post to a group I
> don't follow (such as asking a question)

It seems to me you may not understand how cross-posting works.

> [...]
> That is exactly the reason for stripping it. If I didn't strip it,
> somebody might see the post in r.a.s and answer it there, and I won't see
> the answer (at least if he posts from a lame newsreader). Now -that-
> would be silly.

That's an absurd hypothesis. The only way it would happen is if the person
*answering* the question did what you are doing now.

Cross-posting is bidirectional. As long as you leave the newsgroup on the
Newsgroup: field, a single post appears in both newsgroup. Someone reading
your question in r.a.student, as long as they just do a normal default
reply, you will see their answer here, in r.a.piloting, even if they don't
personally read this newsgroup.

In other words, the only time the hypothetical situation you propose occurs
is when someone does the exact same thing you're doing now. Fortunately,
very few people do. I'd wager, in fact, that you may be the only regular
participant in either newsgroup to be engaging in this practice.

Your justification is circular. The only way it would make sense is to
assume someone doing what you're doing. Without that kind of uncooperative
behavior, there's no reason to do what you're doing.

Pete

> It seems to me you may not understand how cross-posting works.

I believe I do. However, newsreaders often don't. Some newsreaders
(I've been stuck with them sometimes) will only post to the newsgroup
from which the reply was made, and ignore the rest of the crossposting.
Some newsreaders will present crossposted messages as new, even if
they have been read in a different thread. Some newsreaders can be set
to send replies to places other than the originating newsgroup, and
other newsreaders are unable to detect this and defend against it.

I don't know what newsreader any individual will be using.

Jose
--
Quantum Mechanics is like this: God =does= play dice with the universe,
except there's no God, and there's no dice. And maybe there's no universe.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

On Mon, 08 Aug 2005 10:19:25 -0500, Gary G wrote:

> I mean, how many people actually pull out the checklist
> for the before-landing checklist in a 152?
> Feul, Seatbelts, carb-heat, landing lights, etc . . .

I am approaching 500 hours, and use my checklist from preflight to shut
down like it's my first flight I ever took.

My checklist is from preflight, to pre-start, after starting, run-up, take
off, climbout, cruise, descent and shut down.

Since my plane requires a fuel boost during descents (in my before landing
checklist), using this checklist ensures I don't miss this important step
as well as the other GUMPS procedures.

Complacency will hurt you at minimum....

Allen

"Jose" > wrote in message
.. .
>> It seems to me you may not understand how cross-posting works.
>
> I believe I do. However, newsreaders often don't.

Often? I can safely state that is categorically false. Often would imply
that some significant number of newsreaders don't do cross-posting
correctly, and/or that a significant number people are using such
newsreaders. Name two such commonly used newsreaders, please.

> Some newsreaders (I've been stuck with them sometimes) will only post to
> the newsgroup from which the reply was made, and ignore the rest of the
> crossposting.

I have never heard of such a thing. Please name a couple of newsreaders
that, by default, reply only to the newsgroup that the user of that
newsreader is currently viewing, rather than respecting the entire
Newsgroups: field.

Not that it would be relevant to your point, but I have still never heard of
such a thing. You claim to have been "stuck with them", so not only do you
believe one such newsreader exists, you apparently believe there is more
than one and that you have even used more than one.

In any case, again: this particular assertion of yours simply claims that
some newsreaders are out there doing the same bad thing that you do
manually. I fail to see how you emulating a bad newsreader is supposed to
be a good thing.

> Some newsreaders will present crossposted messages as new, even if they
> have been read in a different thread.

This would be irrelevant to your behavior. Just because someone else's
newsreader isn't respecting the message ID (assuming there is such a
newsreader in common use), that's no reason for you to change the
Newsgroups: field.

But even so, please name two such newsreaders. The whole point of
cross-posting is to avoid this problem, and I have never heard of a
newsreader that exhibits that problem. You claim "some" exist...please let
us know which ones.

> Some newsreaders can be set to send replies to places other than the
> originating newsgroup, and other newsreaders are unable to detect this and
> defend against it.

"Defend against it"? You say that like it's some sort of attack or
something. Any user can of course edit the message headers prior to
posting, to change where the post goes. And of course, using the
"Followup-To:" field a person can change the default for where a post goes.
But this isn't default behavior, and in any case has nothing to do with
whether you leave the cross-posting fields intact or not.

> I don't know what newsreader any individual will be using.

So what? The point isn't what other people's newsreaders do, it's whether
it makes any sense whatsoever for you to prune the Newsgroups: field. The
only valid reason to do so is when one or more of the cross-posted
newsgroups is off-topic for the post. Doing so just because you don't read
the other newsgroup(s) makes no sense at all.

When you're asking a question, it's especially dumb since the person to whom
you are directing the question may not be reading the same newsgroup you
are, but even if you're contributing new information, you are hurting the
entire community of the relevant newsgroups by artificially restricting the
free flow of on-topic information.

Pete

Peter Duniho > wrote:

> Often? I can safely state that is categorically false. Often would imply
> that some significant number of newsreaders don't do cross-posting
> correctly, and/or that a significant number people are using such
> newsreaders. Name two such commonly used newsreaders, please.

This certainly doesn't directly support Jose's claim, but 40tude's Dialog
(http://www.40tude.com/dialog/), which is what I use these days, responds
with a warning message when the user attempts to reply to a cross-posted
thread. Selecting one of the options in this warning box directs the
newsreader to strip off all cross-posted newsgroups except the first.

--
Peter
























----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

Jose wrote:
>
> Ok. The way it was reffered to, it seemed like a checklist mnemonic in
> itself.

It probably is, but the guy who knows what it means won't see your question,
since you stripped out rec.aviation.student.

George Patterson
Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.

Peter Duniho wrote:
> "Jose" > wrote in message
> .. .

>>Some newsreaders (I've been stuck with them sometimes) will only post to
>>the newsgroup from which the reply was made, and ignore the rest of the
>>crossposting.
>
>
> I have never heard of such a thing. Please name a couple of newsreaders
> that, by default, reply only to the newsgroup that the user of that
> newsreader is currently viewing, rather than respecting the entire
> Newsgroups: field.

FWIW the mozilla on my (not current) linux machine at home won't accept a
posting to a newsgroup to which I am not subscribed.

Dave

Errm... XNews strongly discourages cross-posting when replying, and
that's a pretty popular program. There are more newsreaders in heaven
and on earth then perhaps are dreamed of in your philosophy, Pete. : )

That said, I prefer to leave cross-post newsgroups intact unless it's
an obvious mismatch. For example, I've seen posts to space groups that
were cross-posted to alt.test or alt.sex.barney.duct-tape and whatnot
or even *.callahans, where people are just trying to flood a newsgroup
with traffic.

A well judged pruning of x-post newsgroups is fine, it's the wholesale
clearcutting that's the problem.

Ben Hallert
PP-ASEL

I would reccommend pulling it out when he fails your engine. It's easy to
forget something with all the excitement and nervousness you're likely to
have on a checkride. Most other stuff is easy enough to remember.
Tecnically they are supposed to note that you use the appropriate checklist.
Alex

#1ACGuy wrote:
> I would reccommend pulling it out when he fails your engine. It's easy to
> forget something with all the excitement and nervousness you're likely to
> have on a checkride. Most other stuff is easy enough to remember.
> Tecnically they are supposed to note that you use the appropriate checklist.
> Alex

Good call. Normally I use a printed checklist on preflight, startup,
run-up, after landing, and shutting down. I refer to it in other
phases of flight when there is extra time, if I feel like I might have
forgotten something, or maybe to brief myself if I'm doing something a
little out of the ordinary like a short or soft field landing. For any
emergency, if there's time, I'll use a separately printed (on
differently colored paper) emergency checklist. "Emergency Checklist -
AVAILABLE AND ACCESSIBLE" is a standard preflight checklist item. For
an engine failure, my primary training was "A, B, C": Airspeed, Best
place to land, Checklist. I didn't hear any complaints from the D. E.
about my using the printed checklists in this way.

-R

"Rob" > wrote:
> I didn't hear any complaints from the D. E.
> about my using the printed checklists in this way.

When my D.E. did the engine failure in the checkride, I pitched for best
glide, pointed out where I planned to land, and began the
emergency/restart flow (that my CFI had insisted I have committed to
memory vs. having to use the checklist). He interrupted me, pushed my
hand away from the panel and said, "I don't want to hear all that sh*t
.... you have more important things to do, like *fly the plane*!"
<raising eyebrow!>

wrote:
>
> He interrupted me, pushed my
> hand away from the panel and said, "I don't want to hear all that sh*t
> ... you have more important things to do, like *fly the plane*!"

How high above ground were you? That would be the correct attitude at, say,
500'AGL, but not so good at 5,000' AGL. Of course, if a piston comes through the
cowling, it really doesn't matter how high you are, but it would be a shame to
crash a plane because you failed to switch tanks when you had several minutes to
try it.

George Patterson
Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.

"Ben Hallert" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Errm... XNews strongly discourages cross-posting when replying, and
> that's a pretty popular program. There are more newsreaders in heaven
> and on earth then perhaps are dreamed of in your philosophy, Pete. : )

Okay, thank you. I guess since it's been many years since I last used a
wide variety of newsreaders, I have missed developments in the technology.
Still, "strongly discourages" does not sound to me as though the newsreader
prevents one from cross-posting, and even the behavior Dave mentions on the
part of Mozilla is not the same as what Jose claims (though it's probably
what he's actually running into, in spite of his vague descriptions
otherwise).

I will say that the Mozilla behavior is just dumb. Requiring a person to be
subscribed to a newsgroup to which they are cross-posting makes as little
sense as removing a cross-post newsgroup just because you don't read that
newsgroup (and for the same reason). However, it does shed light onto
Jose's problem: he's using Mozilla.

It's funny, for all the religious conversion going on to try to get people
to switch to Mozilla Firefox, you'd think it'd be a better program. I use
the browser component, as a stop-gap way for getting RSS feeds (until I have
time to explore other options), and the browser has WAY more problems in
day-to-day use than I ever have with IE (mostly render errors and
performance problems). Now I learn the newsreader is also broken. And
people call this an improvement? Right.

> That said, I prefer to leave cross-post newsgroups intact unless it's
> an obvious mismatch. [...]

I as well. Cross-posting certainly is abused, and I think it's well and
good to try to minimize it. But forcing a user to not cross-post makes
about as much as sense as, well...kicking all general aviation aircraft out
of 2000 square miles of airspace just because some airline jets got run into
some buildings.

> A well judged pruning of x-post newsgroups is fine, it's the wholesale
> clearcutting that's the problem.

Agreed. That's my point.

Pete

On 8/9/2005 10:33, wrote:

> "Rob" > wrote:
>> I didn't hear any complaints from the D. E.
>> about my using the printed checklists in this way.
>
> When my D.E. did the engine failure in the checkride, I pitched for best
> glide, pointed out where I planned to land, and began the
> emergency/restart flow (that my CFI had insisted I have committed to
> memory vs. having to use the checklist). He interrupted me, pushed my
> hand away from the panel and said, "I don't want to hear all that sh*t
> ... you have more important things to do, like *fly the plane*!"
> <raising eyebrow!>

Perhaps he thought you were too low to attempt a restart?

I don't consider a restart until I'm sure I cam make my selected landing
spot. If I'm at 3,000' and am well within glide range to a field (typical
for a PP check ride), then I'll consider the restart - although in the
case of a check ride, you really don't want to initiate a restart, as
the engine isn't really stopped ;-)


--
Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Student
Sacramento, CA

Speaking of checklist, what words do any of you use for airplanes with no
radios /electrical, and emergencies in same type? Thread just got me curious
as to different ones. How bout ya Cub Driver you have any good ones!?

Patrick
student SPL
aircraft structural mech

"Mark Hansen" > wrote in message
...
> On 8/9/2005 10:33, wrote:
>
>> "Rob" > wrote:
>>> I didn't hear any complaints from the D. E.
>>> about my using the printed checklists in this way.
>>
>> When my D.E. did the engine failure in the checkride, I pitched for best
>> glide, pointed out where I planned to land, and began the
>> emergency/restart flow (that my CFI had insisted I have committed to
>> memory vs. having to use the checklist). He interrupted me, pushed my
>> hand away from the panel and said, "I don't want to hear all that sh*t
>> ... you have more important things to do, like *fly the plane*!" <raising
>> eyebrow!>
>
> Perhaps he thought you were too low to attempt a restart?
>
> I don't consider a restart until I'm sure I cam make my selected landing
> spot. If I'm at 3,000' and am well within glide range to a field (typical
> for a PP check ride), then I'll consider the restart - although in the
> case of a check ride, you really don't want to initiate a restart, as
> the engine isn't really stopped ;-)
>
>
> --
> Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Student
> Sacramento, CA

wrote:
> ... you have more important things to do, like *fly the plane*!"
> <raising eyebrow!>

Well that's true enough. I like the "A. B. C." mnemonic because in a
crisis it's simple and fairly complete, but if I see my passenger pull
the mixture control all the way out I'm probably not going to
specifically pitch for best glide and look for a place to land unless
we're at a low altitude, and even then I'll probably try pushing the
mixture control at an earlier point in the process than "when I get to
it on the checklist".

A real life engine failure reaction will have to be tailored to the
situation. If you just touched the fuel tank switch there's a high
probability it's related to the problem. I've experienced carb ice in
a Cessna 150 over hostile terrain a couple of times. Not really an
engine failure but it sure got my attention just the same. In both
cases, the engine started hesitating and my first thought (thanks to my
training) was to pull the carb heat control. My instinct was to
convert any available airspeed into altitude and I was certainly
looking around for a flat spot, but I didn't simply blindly follow my
"A. B. C." procedure.

-R

Mark Hansen > wrote:
> Perhaps he thought you were too low to attempt a restart?

We were at 1000 feet, adjacent to a dirt strip and I had a feeling he
was going to do the engine failure there, so was ready. There was plenty
of time to have done the simulated engine restart and no-restart
procedures.

> I don't consider a restart until I'm sure I cam make my selected landing
> spot. If I'm at 3,000' and am well within glide range to a field (typical
> for a PP check ride), then I'll consider the restart - although in the
> case of a check ride, you really don't want to initiate a restart, as
> the engine isn't really stopped ;-)

Agreed, and as another poster said, you wouldn't necessarily do all the
things in the order they appear on the checklist in a *real* engine
failure if there is an outward indication of something specific that
likely caused the problem.

But *for the checkride*, they DRILL you on the specific procedure in a
specific order, telling you "THIS is what he's going to be looking,
listening, and watching for." My point was just that no matter how well
rehearsed/learned/safe you are on a certain procedure/maneuver, the D.E.
may still want something different than how your CFI had you do it.

wrote:
>
> But *for the checkride*, they DRILL you on the specific procedure in a
> specific order, telling you "THIS is what he's going to be looking,
> listening, and watching for." My point was just that no matter how well
> rehearsed/learned/safe you are on a certain procedure/maneuver, the D.E.
> may still want something different than how your CFI had you do it.

Well, *my* CFI taught me not to attempt a restart below 1,000' AGL, so your D.E.
and my instructor were reading from the same book.

George Patterson
Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.

On 8/9/2005 11:18, wrote:

> Mark Hansen > wrote:
>> Perhaps he thought you were too low to attempt a restart?
>
> We were at 1000 feet, adjacent to a dirt strip and I had a feeling he
> was going to do the engine failure there, so was ready. There was plenty
> of time to have done the simulated engine restart and no-restart
> procedures.

Well, you were there, so you know better. At 1,000', you pretty much
need to fly the landing pattern, which will be different from the normal
landing already (due to the lack of power). I think I would have just
landed at that point.

>
>> I don't consider a restart until I'm sure I cam make my selected landing
>> spot. If I'm at 3,000' and am well within glide range to a field (typical
>> for a PP check ride), then I'll consider the restart - although in the
>> case of a check ride, you really don't want to initiate a restart, as
>> the engine isn't really stopped ;-)
>
> Agreed, and as another poster said, you wouldn't necessarily do all the
> things in the order they appear on the checklist in a *real* engine
> failure if there is an outward indication of something specific that
> likely caused the problem.
>
> But *for the checkride*, they DRILL you on the specific procedure in a
> specific order, telling you "THIS is what he's going to be looking,
> listening, and watching for." My point was just that no matter how well
> rehearsed/learned/safe you are on a certain procedure/maneuver, the D.E.
> may still want something different than how your CFI had you do it.

And that is true. When I took my PP-ASEL check ride, the DE asked me to
show her slow flight. I set it up as per my CFI's instructions and was
chastised for not going slow enough. At the time, I told the DE that the
current speed was as slow as my CFI has ever allowed me to go, but that
was a BS answer - I should know how slow the plane will fly and be willing
to do it. Oh well. Live and Learn.

Look at it as an opportunity to gain experience from another instructor.


--
Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Student
Sacramento, CA

Speaking of checklists & GUMP I was taking a check ride in a 172 from a VERY
young CFI at an FBO and when I got to the U I said "down and welded". I
thought the kid was going to have a cow he laughed through the base and the
turn to final and was still giggling about it when we shut the engine down.
He had never heard that before.

It's sad that the group memory of aviation is getting shorter and shorter.

"W P Dixon" > wrote in message
...
> Speaking of checklist, what words do any of you use for airplanes with no
> radios /electrical, and emergencies in same type? Thread just got me
> curious as to different ones. How bout ya Cub Driver you have any good
> ones!?
>
> Patrick
> student SPL
> aircraft structural mech
>
> "Mark Hansen" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On 8/9/2005 10:33, wrote:
>>
>>> "Rob" > wrote:
>>>> I didn't hear any complaints from the D. E.
>>>> about my using the printed checklists in this way.
>>>
>>> When my D.E. did the engine failure in the checkride, I pitched for best
>>> glide, pointed out where I planned to land, and began the
>>> emergency/restart flow (that my CFI had insisted I have committed to
>>> memory vs. having to use the checklist). He interrupted me, pushed my
>>> hand away from the panel and said, "I don't want to hear all that sh*t
>>> ... you have more important things to do, like *fly the plane*!"
>>> <raising eyebrow!>
>>
>> Perhaps he thought you were too low to attempt a restart?
>>
>> I don't consider a restart until I'm sure I cam make my selected landing
>> spot. If I'm at 3,000' and am well within glide range to a field (typical
>> for a PP check ride), then I'll consider the restart - although in the
>> case of a check ride, you really don't want to initiate a restart, as
>> the engine isn't really stopped ;-)
>>
>>
>> --
>> Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Student
>> Sacramento, CA
>

> wrote:
> >
> > But *for the checkride*, they DRILL you on the specific procedure in a
> > specific order, telling you "THIS is what he's going to be looking,
> > listening, and watching for." My point was just that no matter how well
> > rehearsed/learned/safe you are on a certain procedure/maneuver, the D.E.
> > may still want something different than how your CFI had you do it.

George Patterson > wrote:
> Well, *my* CFI taught me not to attempt a restart below 1,000' AGL, so your
> D.E. and my instructor were reading from the same book.

Again, I agree, and if you're at 1000 feet when you lose the engine *for
real* and you're adjacent to a landing strip, fly the "glider" and land.
But my CFI had never specified, "If he pulls the power at 1000 feet or
below, don't bother with the engine restart procedures" (how would he
know I knew them then?). I admit I was surprised when he basically told
me to "just shut up and fly," but I'd still rather have him do that than
bust me for appearing to space on the emergency flow.

On 8/9/2005 12:33, wrote:

>> wrote:
>> >
>> > But *for the checkride*, they DRILL you on the specific procedure in a
>> > specific order, telling you "THIS is what he's going to be looking,
>> > listening, and watching for." My point was just that no matter how well
>> > rehearsed/learned/safe you are on a certain procedure/maneuver, the D.E.
>> > may still want something different than how your CFI had you do it.
>
> George Patterson > wrote:
>> Well, *my* CFI taught me not to attempt a restart below 1,000' AGL, so your
>> D.E. and my instructor were reading from the same book.
>
> Again, I agree, and if you're at 1000 feet when you lose the engine *for
> real* and you're adjacent to a landing strip, fly the "glider" and land.
> But my CFI had never specified, "If he pulls the power at 1000 feet or
> below, don't bother with the engine restart procedures" (how would he
> know I knew them then?).

These are two different situations. In one, you have time to consider
a restart, while the other, you don't. It is important that you know
what to do in both cases, but the DE can't really check you out in
every possible circumstance, so he has to pick. He picked this one.

In general, things get easier as you have more time to think about them.
The DE probably wanted to see how you would handle the emergency with
the added pressure of the limited time factor.

However, if you're engine failure checklist (mental or otherwise)
doesn't consider the time you have available, it should be updated.


> I admit I was surprised when he basically told
> me to "just shut up and fly," but I'd still rather have him do that than
> bust me for appearing to space on the emergency flow.



--
Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Student
Sacramento, CA

> I don't consider a restart until I'm sure I cam make my selected landing
> spot.

I'd consider it if I was sure I wouldn't make my selected landing spot! :)

Jose
--
Quantum Mechanics is like this: God =does= play dice with the universe,
except there's no God, and there's no dice. And maybe there's no universe.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

> when I got to the U I said "down and welded".

Actually there is a check that should be performed in the pattern (other
than going outside and making sure the welds will hold) and that is to
ensure that the parking brake is not set. I can't think of why it might
end up set while you're crusing at six thousand feet, but a stuck brake
upon landing will add excitement to your day. It also gets you in the
habit of doing -something- besides entertaining your CFI. :)

Jose
--
Quantum Mechanics is like this: God =does= play dice with the universe,
except there's no God, and there's no dice. And maybe there's no universe.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Mark Hansen > wrote:
> In general, things get easier as you have more time to think about them.
> The DE probably wanted to see how you would handle the emergency with
> the added pressure of the limited time factor.

There really wasn't limited time *in this instance*. I was in a C-152 at
1000 feet AGL and was close to and flying parallel to the dirt strip. I
was already a licensed glider pilot, I knew the 180 to the runway w/o
power from 1000 feet was do-able, and there WAS time to show him I knew
the emergency flow. But *he* was the DE so ... his call about whether he
wanted to hear it or not.

Again, the only point I was making was that sometimes the DEs don't have
you do things the way you were taught to expect they would ... but the
unexpected is a test, too.

> However, if you're engine failure checklist (mental or otherwise)
> doesn't consider the time you have available, it should be updated.

Agreed.

> Often? I can safely state that is categorically false. Often would imply
> that some significant number of newsreaders don't do cross-posting
> correctly, and/or that a significant number people are using such
> newsreaders. Name two such commonly used newsreaders, please.

For many years I used AOL as my newsreader, for reasons that don't
belong here (and I won't defend here, but I will point out that at the
time an AOL account could not access any other newsreader). AOL has
over twenty million subscribers, and for many years was the absolute
biggest ISP there was. It's still pretty big. Its newsreader did not
permit crossposts. It did not permit multple posts. (you do know the
difference, right?) It presented crossposts to you again and again as
if they were new, once for every group, and if you replied to such a
post it would appear only in the group you were "in" when replying. For
a while it would honor the followups line but wouldn't tell you, so you
could reply to a post in rec.aviation, and your reply would go to
alt.humor without you having any control over it.

AOL recently stopped doing newsgroups entirely, sending members to
google. Google has its own problems which have also been discussed
here, though they are primarily related to quoting and such.

I am now using Netscape 7.2 (Mozilla based) and I'm not going to defend
that choice here either. It doesn't even matter what =I= use, since
many other people use it too, and that's the point. Netscape does
permit replies to crossposts, and appears to handle them ok, although I
have not followed through to see whether any of my crossposted replies
that include non-subscribed groups actually made it there. Netscape
also presents crossposted messages as "new" even if I've already seen
them in another group. I don't know (technically) how it sends out a
post, but it may be that it sends it out as a multple rather than a
cross, which by itself is a good reason to trim.

When I'm travelling, I use whatever is available where I'm staying.
This could be Outlook, Google, Firefox, or even some Mac thing I have to
figure out, and whose posting rules I don't know. I'm sure I'm not
unique (at least in that respect!)

>> Some newsreaders can be set to send replies to places other than the
>> originating newsgroup, and other newsreaders are unable to detect this and
>> defend against it.
> "Defend against it"? You say that like it's some sort of attack or
> something.

It was an attack, primarily aimed at AOL members, to get their postings
to appear to be spam. Members thought they were doing one thing, and in
fact were doing something else. The newsreader did not permit editing
of any headers, and the account did not permit any other newsreader.

>>I don't know what newsreader any individual will be using.
> So what? The point isn't what other people's newsreaders do, it's whether
> it makes any sense whatsoever for you to prune the Newsgroups: field. The
> only valid reason to do so is when one or more of the cross-posted
> newsgroups is off-topic for the post. Doing so just because you don't read
> the other newsgroup(s) makes no sense at all.

So, I don't know whether replies to my reply will be handled the way my
newsreader wants to expect it. There are more reasons to do something
than the ones you have thought up (or agree with). It is often rude to
post to a newsgroup without the intent of reading the replies, and
that's exactly what would happen if I leave in the full crossposting
list. OTOH sometimes it's quite reasonable to do so. Which I choose
depends on whether it is on-topic for the group, topic drift, whether it
is a question or an answer or a comment, and other factors. In either
case, I state which it is so that those who would reply will know to do
so elsewhere or from if appropriate.

The same kind of thing comes up with line length, HTML, quote marks,
signatures...

While I'm on this topic... the "proper" way to do a sig line is to
separate it from the message by a line that consists of two dashes and a
space, and nothing else. Compliant readers will recognize what follows
as a signature, and will apply some formatting (such as grey type) to
indicate this and allow the message to retain prominence over the sig
line that will be seen again and again. Noncompliant readers will
ignore it, so it's harmless.

If all newsreaders were identical, none of this would be an issue. But
where there are ten ways to do something, there will be twelve
standards, and fifteen of them will be "generally accepted". :)

Jose
--
Quantum Mechanics is like this: God =does= play dice with the universe,
except there's no God, and there's no dice. And maybe there's no universe.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"Jose" > wrote in message
. ..
> [nothing of real import]

I note that you trimmed the one part of my post that was directly relevant
to your choice to remove the newsgroup to which you don't subscribe. I
guess you didn't care to try to explain why it is you think that emulating
bad behavior is the proper response to bad behavior.

I have been duly corrected regarding the prevalence of various cross-posting
behavior, but as I already noted that really isn't relevant to the question
at hand. As far as your comments about AOL go, AOL has been the bane of
Usenet...there is *nothing* about AOL that one could use to justify how one
uses Usenet.

I clearly am talking to a brick wall here. You have decided what you're
going to do, and by gum it doesn't matter how illogical it is. It is
apparent to me that you simply don't want to switch newsreaders to one that
doesn't force you to do something that makes no sense, or for some bizarre
reason you actually think the Mozilla paradigm is sensible. Either way,
it's a waste of my time to try to explain it to you.

Good luck with that. Maybe when the only person who would know the answer
to your question has failed to read your question for the umpteenth time,
you'll figure it out. Until then, your loss.

Pete

Pretty close to my experience. I had my "engine failure" on what turned out
to be my last landing of the ride. I was high in the pattern and just
getting ready to turn to base when "it happened". I called a short
approach, pitched for best glide (and to slow) then told him that if I
wasn't in the pattern I'd have a landing spot in mind to head for, and try
to restart if time permitted, then called mayday on 121.5. I did some
s-turns while losing altitude, touched down longer down the runway than I
hoped but got it down. He had me stop when we taxied clear of the active
and had some questions. Why didn't you use a checklist and try to restart?
My answer was because I was in the pattern at the airport where I knew I
could make a landing (and did). My first responsibility was to fly the
airplane and get myself and passenger back on the ground, safely. He
nodded. Then he asked "Why S-turns instead of a slip?" I answered that I
was in coordinated flight with the turns in and airplane with a failed
engine and was more in control than in a slip. I then got a big grin,
handshake and "Congratulations on becoming a private pilot."

All the examiners are different but are looking for a safe pilot. If using
a checklist would compromise safety, you should be able to get away with not
using it.
--
Chris Ehlbeck, PP-ASEL
"It's a license to learn, have fun and buy really expensive hamburgers."

> wrote in message
...
> "Rob" > wrote:
> > I didn't hear any complaints from the D. E.
> > about my using the printed checklists in this way.
>
> When my D.E. did the engine failure in the checkride, I pitched for best
> glide, pointed out where I planned to land, and began the
> emergency/restart flow (that my CFI had insisted I have committed to
> memory vs. having to use the checklist). He interrupted me, pushed my
> hand away from the panel and said, "I don't want to hear all that sh*t
> ... you have more important things to do, like *fly the plane*!"
> <raising eyebrow!>

W P Dixon wrote:
> Speaking of checklist, what words do any of you use for airplanes with
> no radios /electrical, and emergencies in same type? Thread just got me
> curious as to different ones. How bout ya Cub Driver you have any good
> ones!?

Patrick, i don't understand your question.
I fly a '45 Champ. What are you asking?

Hi John,
I was just wondering if any of you guys had any special checklist "words"
for the older planes. Most people use the same ones but "I am just guessing
here" that some fellows that have been flying longer, or flying older
aircraft may have some special "words" for checklist that maybe are not used
anymore.

Patrick
student SPL
aircraft structural mech

"john smith" > wrote in message
. ..
>W P Dixon wrote:
>> Speaking of checklist, what words do any of you use for airplanes with no
>> radios /electrical, and emergencies in same type? Thread just got me
>> curious as to different ones. How bout ya Cub Driver you have any good
>> ones!?
>
> Patrick, i don't understand your question.
> I fly a '45 Champ. What are you asking?

> I note that you trimmed the one part of my post that was directly relevant
> to your choice to remove the newsgroup to which you don't subscribe.

I answered that in a previous post.

> It is
> apparent to me that you simply don't want to switch newsreaders to one that
> doesn't force you to do something that makes no sense, or for some bizarre
> reason you actually think the Mozilla paradigm is sensible.

It's none of usenet's business why I choose a particular newsreader (or
why it is chosen for me). I am not going to let usenet participants
choose my software. I am not going to choose software for the rest of
usenet.

Jose
--
Quantum Mechanics is like this: God =does= play dice with the universe,
except there's no God, and there's no dice. And maybe there's no universe.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"Mark Hansen" > wrote

> the DE can't really check you out in
> every possible circumstance, so he has to pick. He picked this one.

I've heard it said, that the DE knows if you are going to pass or not, by
the way you taxi out to the runway, and run-up. Kinda true?
--
Jim in NC

I have had one total engine failure, at less than 1000 ft.
At that condition, I would never consider spending any time
doing any in-cockpit process other than switching tanks.
No diagnosing. No restart procedures. In two minutes
or possibly less you will be on the ground. Where you
land, or what you won't hit, will be the most important
thing that you can decide.

One other suggestion is to have a conversation before
you take any checkride. Let the CFI or examiner know that
if he reduces the throttle, you will not advance it. You will
land. Then do what you say. It works. Go through whatever
checklist you want, but INTEND on landing. Often the
conversation will put a floor on the exercise, but really,
really intend on landing.

>Again, I agree, and if you're at 1000 feet when you lose the engine *for
>real* and you're adjacent to a landing strip, fly the "glider" and land.
>But my CFI had never specified, "If he pulls the power at 1000 feet or
>below, don't bother with the engine restart procedures" (how would he
>know I knew them then?). I admit I was surprised when he basically told
>me to "just shut up and fly," but I'd still rather have him do that than
>bust me for appearing to space on the emergency flow.

In article >,
"Morgans" > wrote:

> "Mark Hansen" > wrote
>
> > the DE can't really check you out in
> > every possible circumstance, so he has to pick. He picked this one.
>
> I've heard it said, that the DE knows if you are going to pass or not, by
> the way you taxi out to the runway, and run-up. Kinda true?

I suspect a good DE knows if you're going to pass or not long before you
ever get to the airplane.

On Mon, 8 Aug 2005 18:21:48 -0400, "Peter R." >
wrote:

>Peter Duniho > wrote:
>
>> Often? I can safely state that is categorically false. Often would imply
>> that some significant number of newsreaders don't do cross-posting
>> correctly, and/or that a significant number people are using such
>> newsreaders. Name two such commonly used newsreaders, please.
>
>This certainly doesn't directly support Jose's claim, but 40tude's Dialog
>(http://www.40tude.com/dialog/), which is what I use these days, responds
>with a warning message when the user attempts to reply to a cross-posted
>thread. Selecting one of the options in this warning box directs the
>newsreader to strip off all cross-posted newsgroups except the first.

As does Agent. Anything more than three is *usually* considered poor
form.


Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com
Roger

"Jose" > wrote in message
. ..
>> I note that you trimmed the one part of my post that was directly
>> relevant to your choice to remove the newsgroup to which you don't
>> subscribe.
>
> I answered that in a previous post.

No, you didn't. You made only one reply to the post in which I posed the
question, and that contained no reference the question.

> It's none of usenet's business why I choose a particular newsreader (or
> why it is chosen for me). I am not going to let usenet participants
> choose my software. I am not going to choose software for the rest of
> usenet.

I'm not trying to choose your software. But you have invented an absurd
justification for putting up with your chosen newsreader's behavior.

This whole thread could have been avoided if you'd simply been up front and
admitted that your behavior is entirely because of the way Mozilla's
newsreader works. Certainly the reason you actually gave makes no sense at
all.

I'm fine with you using whatever newsreader you want. I'm even fine if you
want to do so in spite of the stupid way it handle cross-posting. But why
make excuses for it? Just explain that your newsreader is stupid, and leave
it at that. Heaven knows almost everyone here has used stupid software
before.

Pete

"Roger" > wrote in message
...
>> but 40tude's Dialog [...] responds
>> with a warning message when the user attempts to reply to a cross-posted
>> thread. Selecting one of the options in this warning box directs the
>> newsreader to strip off all cross-posted newsgroups except the first.
>
> As does Agent. Anything more than three is *usually* considered poor
> form.

And putting up an alert, especially when there's a large number of
newsgroups in the field, makes a lot of sense. It helps educate users
regarding the hazards of cross-posting.

But that doesn't mean it makes any sense to remove legitimate cross-posted
newsgroups, and it *certainly* doesn't make sense to not give the user the
option.

Pete

> No, you didn't.

Yes I did. I answered the question on 8/8 at 2:52 pm. Thusly:

>> Ironically, in this particular instance, you weren't even contributing anything. You were asking for a clarification. Which means you have artificially limited the audience to whom your question was posed, reducing the chances of you getting an answer. If "nrp" saw this thread in r.a.student, he'll never see your question, and won't answer it.
> That is exactly the reason for stripping it. If I didn't strip it, somebody might see the post in r.a.s and answer it there, and I won't see the answer (at least if he posts from a lame newsreader). Now -that- would be silly.

You now say:
> But you have invented an absurd
> justification for putting up with your chosen newsreader's behavior.

I have given =no= justification for doing so. I do not feel that I need
to justify my choice of software to anybody in the Usenet community.

> This whole thread could have been avoided if you'd simply been up front and
> admitted that your behavior is entirely because of the way Mozilla's
> newsreader works.

This entire thread could have been avoided had you not taken issue with
my posting style, which has nothing to do with the way =my= newsreader
works, but rather, with the fact that not all newsreaders work the same
way regarding crossposts. I don't make assumptions about other people's
software is or what it should do, but I am cognizant of the fact that
some of them do not "properly" respect headers. For that reason, I
attempt to manually ensure that I do not ask a question in a place where
I am likely to not hear the response (or the thunderstorm that may
result), so I sometimes manually strip those newsgroups when I believe
it to be the best thing to do, or advise that I won't see responses when
I think it's better to crosspost anyway.

> Just explain that your newsreader is stupid, and leave
> it at that.

My newsreader is stupid. Feel better?

Jose
--
Quantum Mechanics is like this: God =does= play dice with the universe,
except there's no God, and there's no dice. And maybe there's no universe.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"Jose" > wrote in message
...
>> No, you didn't.
>
> Yes I did. I answered the question on 8/8 at 2:52 pm. Thusly:
> [quote snipped]

That did not address the question I posted. You may think it did, but it
did not. The question I'm talking about was quite a bit more direct, and
points out that if the only justification you have for doing something is
that someone else *might* do that same thing, that's not an actual
justification.

> [...]
> My newsreader is stupid. Feel better?

See, wasn't that easy?

Jose wrote:
> This entire thread could have been avoided had you not taken issue with
> my posting style, which has nothing to do with the way =my= newsreader
> works, but rather, with the fact that not all newsreaders work the same
> way regarding crossposts.


I have taken the advice of another poster in another newsgroup and have taken to
stripping out *my* newsgroup from the list of newsgroups in the header when I
reply. That way I can give them hell for crossposting while at the same time
keeping my reply out of my own newsgroup So far, so good.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN

W P Dixon wrote:
> I was just wondering if any of you guys had any special checklist
> "words" for the older planes. Most people use the same ones but "I am
> just guessing here" that some fellows that have been flying longer, or
> flying older aircraft may have some special "words" for checklist that
> maybe are not used anymore.

Early Champs and Cubs are too simple.
1. Oil Pressure
2. Oil Temperature
3. Airspeed Indicator
4. Altimeter
5. Tachometer
6. Fuel Gauge
7. Fuel ON/OFF valve
8. Carb Heat
9. Fixed landing gear
10. Trim
11. Throttle
12. Control Stick
13. Rudder Pedals
14. Seat Belts
15. Magneto Switch
16. Heel Brakes
That is the extent of controls, instruments and accessories.

Start
Fuel ON, Throttle Cracked, Brakes ON, Mags ON

Run Up
Brakes, Throttle, Mags, Gauges, Controls

Takeoff
Throttle FULL, Trim

Climb
Adjust Throttle and Trim

Cruise
Adjust Throttle and Trim

Descent
Adjust Throttle and Trim

Landing
G gas, single tank, any left?
U fixed landing gear, wheel on each side?
M mixture, don't have it
P prop, fixed
S seatbelts, fastened?
(That leaves us with GUS)

Shut Down
Throttle Closed, Mags OFF, Fuel OFF

Simple but the Champ is just alot of fun to fly, I love that plane! ;) I
wonder if they ever used anything other than GUMPS? Hard to see the old
timers using that word when you don't use all of it , know what I mean?

Patrick
student SPL
aircraft structural mech

"john smith" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> Early Champs and Cubs are too simple.
> 1. Oil Pressure
> 2. Oil Temperature
> 3. Airspeed Indicator
> 4. Altimeter
> 5. Tachometer
> 6. Fuel Gauge
> 7. Fuel ON/OFF valve
> 8. Carb Heat
> 9. Fixed landing gear
> 10. Trim
> 11. Throttle
> 12. Control Stick
> 13. Rudder Pedals
> 14. Seat Belts
> 15. Magneto Switch
> 16. Heel Brakes
> That is the extent of controls, instruments and accessories.
>
> Start
> Fuel ON, Throttle Cracked, Brakes ON, Mags ON
>
> Run Up
> Brakes, Throttle, Mags, Gauges, Controls
>
> Takeoff
> Throttle FULL, Trim
>
> Climb
> Adjust Throttle and Trim
>
> Cruise
> Adjust Throttle and Trim
>
> Descent
> Adjust Throttle and Trim
>
> Landing
> G gas, single tank, any left?
> U fixed landing gear, wheel on each side?
> M mixture, don't have it
> P prop, fixed
> S seatbelts, fastened?
> (That leaves us with GUS)
>
> Shut Down
> Throttle Closed, Mags OFF, Fuel OFF

You guys are lucky...

The DE on my check ride pulled the power about 2 minutes after he had told
me to get established on a radial from the VOR. when he pulled the power I
pitched for best glide and looked for a place to land.... There wasn't one.
All I could see was trees not a spot wider than the road that I had passed
over a minute or two before. So I think that must be where he expects me to
land so I 3000 ft of altitude and put the plane into a nice shallow bank and
I noticed the one clearing in all of this forest was behind me and within
range.

Looking back after the check ride was over I realized he knew exactly where
we were and wanted to see if I would look for a spot that we had passed
over. He knew I probably hadn't seen it because I was getting set up on the
VOR.




"Chris Ehlbeck" > wrote in message
...
> Pretty close to my experience. I had my "engine failure" on what turned
> out
> to be my last landing of the ride. I was high in the pattern and just
> getting ready to turn to base when "it happened". I called a short
> approach, pitched for best glide (and to slow) then told him that if I
> wasn't in the pattern I'd have a landing spot in mind to head for, and try
> to restart if time permitted, then called mayday on 121.5. I did some
> s-turns while losing altitude, touched down longer down the runway than I
> hoped but got it down. He had me stop when we taxied clear of the active
> and had some questions. Why didn't you use a checklist and try to
> restart?
> My answer was because I was in the pattern at the airport where I knew I
> could make a landing (and did). My first responsibility was to fly the
> airplane and get myself and passenger back on the ground, safely. He
> nodded. Then he asked "Why S-turns instead of a slip?" I answered that I
> was in coordinated flight with the turns in and airplane with a failed
> engine and was more in control than in a slip. I then got a big grin,
> handshake and "Congratulations on becoming a private pilot."
>
> All the examiners are different but are looking for a safe pilot. If
> using
> a checklist would compromise safety, you should be able to get away with
> not
> using it.
> --
> Chris Ehlbeck, PP-ASEL
> "It's a license to learn, have fun and buy really expensive hamburgers."
>
> > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Rob" > wrote:
>> > I didn't hear any complaints from the D. E.
>> > about my using the printed checklists in this way.
>>
>> When my D.E. did the engine failure in the checkride, I pitched for best
>> glide, pointed out where I planned to land, and began the
>> emergency/restart flow (that my CFI had insisted I have committed to
>> memory vs. having to use the checklist). He interrupted me, pushed my
>> hand away from the panel and said, "I don't want to hear all that sh*t
>> ... you have more important things to do, like *fly the plane*!"
>> <raising eyebrow!>
>
>

I would do the preflight from paper.

I would announce my checklist completion for each point in the flight.

If you can memorize all that is needed then that should be acceptable.

As you progress to more complex aircraft and procedures you need to
establish a flow that works for you every time.

The big three flows for me are:

(Whats Next...) Especially IFR, set up the radios, radials, listen to ATIS for
for whats next as soon as you have a spare moment.

Brief the approach (again IFR) I do it from the approach plate in exactly the same manner every time.

The really big one is GUMPS, do GUMPS on entering the pattern and again on Short final.

I belong to a club and routinely switch from a retractable to fixed gear airplanes.

I always do a "Gear down" when on final, in the fixed gear planes I add "and Bolted" ;-)

If it's high wing I actually visually LOOK at the gear leg.

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wr.giacona@coxDOTnet> wrote in message
news:VQuKe.15$7f5.1@okepread01...
> You guys are lucky...
>
> The DE on my check ride pulled the power about 2 minutes after he had told
> me to get established on a radial from the VOR. when he pulled the power I
> pitched for best glide and looked for a place to land.... There wasn't
> one. All I could see was trees not a spot wider than the road that I had
> passed over a minute or two before. So I think that must be where he
> expects me to land so I 3000 ft of altitude and put the plane into a nice
> shallow bank and I noticed the one clearing in all of this forest was
> behind me and within range.
>
> Looking back after the check ride was over I realized he knew exactly
> where we were and wanted to see if I would look for a spot that we had
> passed over. He knew I probably hadn't seen it because I was getting set
> up on the VOR.


On my checkride, the DE "failed" the engine over the middle of a dry, sandy
wash area. I think he wanted to see if I'd make the decision to us it early
enough (I feel I did) to work my way down to one end and set up to use as
much of it as possible as there was nothing else available.

Jay Beckman
PP-ASEL
Chandler, AZ

Chris - you said you prefer S turns to a slip ... my personal
preference would be to slip rather than turn , thereby continuing to
track my intended approach path. I have never felt that the aircraft to
be less in control in a slip...in fact , the descent is rather more
stabile.
Otoh , if I'm really high , I would first do S-turns to lose some
altitude , then come in somewhat high , and lose the rest using a slip.

Does anyone else feel the same ?
Any DEs out there - what would you say to a student who does this on a
PPL checkride ?

regards
Pavan Bhatnagar - student pilot.

Chris - you said you prefer S turns to a slip ... my personal
preference would be to slip rather than turn , thereby continuing to
track my intended approach path. I have never felt that the aircraft to
be less in control in a slip...in fact , the descent is rather more
stabile.
Otoh , if I'm really high , I would first do S-turns to lose some
altitude , then come in somewhat high , and lose the rest using a slip.

Does anyone else feel the same ?
Any DEs out there - what would you say to a student who does this on a
PPL checkride ?

regards
Pavan Bhatnagar - student pilot.


Chris Ehlbeck wrote:
> Pretty close to my experience. I had my "engine failure" on what turned out
> to be my last landing of the ride. I was high in the pattern and just
> getting ready to turn to base when "it happened". I called a short
> approach, pitched for best glide (and to slow) then told him that if I
> wasn't in the pattern I'd have a landing spot in mind to head for, and try
> to restart if time permitted, then called mayday on 121.5. I did some
> s-turns while losing altitude, touched down longer down the runway than I
> hoped but got it down. He had me stop when we taxied clear of the active
> and had some questions. Why didn't you use a checklist and try to restart?
> My answer was because I was in the pattern at the airport where I knew I
> could make a landing (and did). My first responsibility was to fly the
> airplane and get myself and passenger back on the ground, safely. He
> nodded. Then he asked "Why S-turns instead of a slip?" I answered that I
> was in coordinated flight with the turns in and airplane with a failed
> engine and was more in control than in a slip. I then got a big grin,
> handshake and "Congratulations on becoming a private pilot."
>
> All the examiners are different but are looking for a safe pilot. If using
> a checklist would compromise safety, you should be able to get away with not
> using it.
> --
> Chris Ehlbeck, PP-ASEL
> "It's a license to learn, have fun and buy really expensive hamburgers."
>
>

It's actually a coin toss. At that moment in time, I felt S-turns were
better. Call me weird but I've always thought slips were fun!
--
Chris Ehlbeck, PP-ASEL
"It's a license to learn, have fun and buy really expensive hamburgers."

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> Chris - you said you prefer S turns to a slip ... my personal
> preference would be to slip rather than turn , thereby continuing to
> track my intended approach path. I have never felt that the aircraft to
> be less in control in a slip...in fact , the descent is rather more
> stabile.
> Otoh , if I'm really high , I would first do S-turns to lose some
> altitude , then come in somewhat high , and lose the rest using a slip.
>
> Does anyone else feel the same ?
> Any DEs out there - what would you say to a student who does this on a
> PPL checkride ?
>
> regards
> Pavan Bhatnagar - student pilot.
>

I like slips too! ;)

Patrick
student SPL
aircraft structural mech

"Chris Ehlbeck" > wrote in message
...
> It's actually a coin toss. At that moment in time, I felt S-turns were
> better. Call me weird but I've always thought slips were fun!
> --
> Chris Ehlbeck, PP-ASEL
> "It's a license to learn, have fun and buy really expensive hamburgers."
>

My feeling on this is that it depends on the emergency situation.
If I have a fire situation, I want to put the plane down as fast as I can.
If the engine quits and I am putting the plane down in some field I want to
stay aloft as long as possible to transmit, Maday and call for help.

At least that is what I was taught.

Kevin Kubiak
PP-ASEL

wrote:

> Chris - you said you prefer S turns to a slip ... my personal
> preference would be to slip rather than turn , thereby continuing to
> track my intended approach path. I have never felt that the aircraft to
> be less in control in a slip...in fact , the descent is rather more
> stabile.
> Otoh , if I'm really high , I would first do S-turns to lose some
> altitude , then come in somewhat high , and lose the rest using a slip.
>
> Does anyone else feel the same ?
> Any DEs out there - what would you say to a student who does this on a
> PPL checkride ?
>
> regards
> Pavan Bhatnagar - student pilot.
>

On 8/9/2005 20:04, Morgans wrote:

> "Mark Hansen" > wrote
>
>> the DE can't really check you out in
>> every possible circumstance, so he has to pick. He picked this one.
>
> I've heard it said, that the DE knows if you are going to pass or not, by
> the way you taxi out to the runway, and run-up. Kinda true?

I took an IFR 'stage check' (not the final check ride) with the assistant
chief flight instructor at the FBO, and he said that I had already passed
before the flight started, and that it was up to me to show him that I
should fail.

I thought that was an interesting way to look at it...

--
Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Student
Sacramento, CA

wrote:
> Chris - you said you prefer S turns to a slip ... my personal
> preference would be to slip rather than turn , thereby continuing to
> track my intended approach path. I have never felt that the aircraft to
> be less in control in a slip...in fact , the descent is rather more
> stabile.
> Otoh , if I'm really high , I would first do S-turns to lose some
> altitude , then come in somewhat high , and lose the rest using a slip.
>
> Does anyone else feel the same ?
> Any DEs out there - what would you say to a student who does this on a
> PPL checkride ?

I'm neither Chris nor a DE, but I think the question of slip vs. s-turn is
airframe dependant. Slips just aren't effective at all in some models. In my
airplane, I think the most effective method for steepening the approach is to
raise the nose, decreasing airspeed below best glide. Whatever works should be
acceptable.

Dave

T o d d P a t t i s t wrote:
> Dave Butler > wrote:
>>
>>Whatever works should be acceptable.
>
>
> I agree, but we don't really want our skills to stop at just
> "acceptable," we want them good enough to cover any
> eventuality, and slips are a good skill to have in the
> toolbox.

Of course.

pavansheel's question was:

"Any DEs out there - what would you say to a student who does this on a
PPL checkride ?"

Dave

>"Any DEs out there - what would you say to a student who does this on a
>PPL checkride ?"
I did it on a check ride, it did not turn out well......

I grew up in Alaska.
I had my PPSES, PP glider and 200 or so hours when I went away to college
While in college I went to the local FBO to get PPSEL.
I took the checkride in a Tomahawk.

On the Short field part of the landing test I was a little hot/high.
so I put the flaps up and did a hard slip , put the flaps back down
and landed exactly on the spot at exactly the correct speed with minimal roll out.

I think the slip scared the DE.
The DE immediatly announced You Fail!

So we taxied back to the FBO.

The DE proclaimed that slips are prohibited in a T Hawk.
When he was writing up my fail slip I pointed out that the POH clearly says
slips are permitted with the flaps up.
I'd memorized the POH from cover to cover in preperation for the checkride.

At this point steam was comming out of his ears and
he tore up the fail slip and wrote me a pass slip without
finishing the check ride.

All of this happened 25 years ago
I was a 21 year old college student with an attitude,
not the way I'd reccomend passing a checkride.

My experience is that the DE will fail you, but you will get your PPL anyway ;-)


Paul

P.S. That was my last flight ever in the tramua hawk, what a horrible airplane.

> wrote in message ...
> >"Any DEs out there - what would you say to a student who does this on a
>>PPL checkride ?"
> I did it on a check ride, it did not turn out well......
>
> I grew up in Alaska.
> I had my PPSES, PP glider and 200 or so hours when I went away to college
> While in college I went to the local FBO to get PPSEL.
> I took the checkride in a Tomahawk.
>
> On the Short field part of the landing test I was a little hot/high.
> so I put the flaps up and did a hard slip , put the flaps back down
> and landed exactly on the spot at exactly the correct speed with minimal roll out.
>
> I think the slip scared the DE.
> The DE immediatly announced You Fail!
>
> So we taxied back to the FBO.
>
> The DE proclaimed that slips are prohibited in a T Hawk.
> When he was writing up my fail slip I pointed out that the POH clearly says
> slips are permitted with the flaps up.
> I'd memorized the POH from cover to cover in preperation for the checkride.
>
> At this point steam was comming out of his ears and
> he tore up the fail slip and wrote me a pass slip without
> finishing the check ride.
>
> All of this happened 25 years ago
> I was a 21 year old college student with an attitude,
> not the way I'd reccomend passing a checkride.
>
> My experience is that the DE will fail you, but you will get your PPL anyway ;-)
>

Paul,

That's hilarious! Terrific story, thanks!

--
John Clonts
Temple, Texas
N7NZ

One of my club's instructors told me this morning that a DE just failed
one of his ATP students for taxiing too fast.

john smith wrote:

> One of my club's instructors told me this morning that a DE just failed
> one of his ATP students for taxiing too fast.

Any idea how fast he was taxiing?

Matt

> john smith wrote:
>> One of my club's instructors told me this morning that a DE just
>> failed one of his ATP students for taxiing too fast.

Matt Whiting wrote:
> Any idea how fast he was taxiing?

No, it was speculated that the DE was just having a bad day.

john smith wrote:

>> john smith wrote:
>>
>>> One of my club's instructors told me this morning that a DE just
>>> failed one of his ATP students for taxiing too fast.
>
>
> Matt Whiting wrote:
>
>> Any idea how fast he was taxiing?
>
>
> No, it was speculated that the DE was just having a bad day.

Sounds like it. Maybe he hadn't met his quota for pink slips for the month.

Matt

> Get in the habit of ALWAYS using a paper check-list. Keep
> your thumb on each item until that item is confirmed. This
> is what the PROS do.

The pros more often than not have another guy sitting there so they can
run a proper challenge-response style checklist. Those of us who fly
single pilot have to make compromises, and not always being able to run
the checklist except from memory or via flow patterns is one of
those.........

#1ACGuy wrote:
> I would reccommend pulling it out when he fails your engine. It's easy to
> forget something with all the excitement and nervousness you're likely to
> have on a checkride. Most other stuff is easy enough to remember.
> Tecnically they are supposed to note that you use the appropriate checklist.
> Alex
>
>

Get in the habit of ALWAYS using a paper check-list. Keep your thumb on
each item until that item is confirmed. This is what the PROS do.
Getting out the list when you are distracted sounds nice, but then you
have the added distraction of finding the paper list.

If you are distracted due to an emergency and miss items on your check
list, you will now have additional distractions. All you have to do is
land with the gear up ONE TIME, and you will go back to the paper check
list. Don't ask me how I know.

Rule number one is FLY THE PLANE. After you have it in a stable glide and
are flying towards your chosen landing site, then get your checklist out. IF
you have time! Part of the test is to see that you make good descisions
under changing circumstances. Your DE would rather see you stay cool and
land the plane than get distracted with the checklist and not make the
field.

--
Hello, my name is Mike, and I am an airplane addict....