PSA: Don't be rude on the radio

[buttman]

I had two recent situations where other pilots thought they'd be cool
by being condescending jackasses over the radio, which effected my
ability to teach my student.

The first time was when I was at a local uncontrolled field with one
of my students to introduce solf-field takeoffs and landings. When we
were turning downwind, I heard a Cirrus call "On the ILS at the outer
marker". I haven't flown any approaches for months, so I had no idea
how exactly far out he was. There were at least two other people in
the pattern, so instead of asking him to give a more accurate position
report, I just went on. Just before I got abeam the numbers on
downwind, the Cirrus guy called 3 miles out, so I told my student to
just do a short approach instead of extending which would have screwed
everyone else up.

I'm looking out the window like crazy to find this Cirrus guy but I
don't see him anywhere. Then suddenly I hear him say in a snappy voice
"Cessna on base at *** do you plan on cutting me off?" Startled, I
looked around but couldn't for the life of me see him. I responded
"uuhh, Cirrus on ILS I don't see you", then he snaps back
sarcastically, "oh 45 seconds before impact..."

I look right in front of me and there he is zooming by. I didn't
realize Cirrus's were so fast. He had to have been going more than 150
knots. I've turned short approaches in front of Seminoles when they
were on 3 mile ILS finals and it has never been a problem...

Anyways, the guy didn't have to be such a huge asshole. A busy pattern
is stressful enough, the ones coming in straight in can at least be a
little helpful, or at the VERY LEAST not act like a little baby when
things don't go their way.

Of the 50 or so times I've been on extended downwind when someone else
in on a 3-10 mile final, I'd say 10 times I went behind them and it
hasn't been a problem, 35 times I've gone behind them and it hasn't
been a problem, and 5 times I messed it up and either cut the person
off, or caused some other disruption. The other 4 times it was just a
simple "sorry about that", or some other professional way of handing
the situation, then forgetting it and moving on. It just makes it that
much harder to shake it off when the person decides to act that way.
Maybe I need to get thicker skin, but that situation had me all worked
up for the rest of the flight, and I admit it hindered my instructing
ability a little.

As a little side note, that same Cirrus guy came today to my home
airport which is even busier. There were like 7 planes already in the
pattern, 3 on 45 for the pattern, and then comes my Cirrus. I
recognized it was him because I remembered the tail number (N903CD).
As soon as he called, tower told him to slow to final approach speed
(which I just had to snicker to myself when I heard that ^_^). About a
minute later I, on an extended downwind, was told to turn base, which
would have put me right in front of the Cirrus. The tower cleared me
for a full stop only (which I've never been issued before, our
controllers are really good at accommodating a bunch of pattern
traffic), and told the Cirrus to break off and enter on the 45 for a
left traffic. After I landed, I switched to ground and just called it
a day. When I got back to the training room, another instructor joked
about how I was "kicked out of the pattern". He asked me of I heard
about the Cirrus who "got ****ed off and left". I said no but I can
only imagine what he actually said...

Anyways, back on topic. Also today, on another flight with another
student, we were coming back on the 45 for a downwind entry. Not too
long after he told me to report established on the downwind, someone's
mic got stuck and all I could hear on the radio was "EEEERRRRRRCHSHH
EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE" punctuated with my call sign and the words "I'm not
communicating with him", then some more "AAAAAAEERRRRNNNGH". I saw a
plane on downwind which was about to converge with me, a helicopter
which looked like was doing WHO KNOWS WHAT, and someone else on upwind
about to turn crosswind. It looked like I was going to converge with
the plane on downwind, so I just decided to do a 360 where I was
(about a mile before entering downwind). As soon as a break in the
radio screeching appeared, I quickly told tower I'm doing a 360 to
avoid what by then I thought was a clueless student on a solo who
didn't know how to use the radio.

Well as soon as I told tower, a voice came on saying "..and that will
put you right in front of 64 Delta" (or whatever his tail number was).
Apparently there was a plane behind me, but I had no idea. Buy
anyways, he had to do a evasive maneuver also, and he was ticked off.
He came back on and told tower he had to do an evasive to avoid "the
kamikaze" as he called me.

Well guess what, bub? I had to do an evasive maneuver too. Thats an
everyday thing 'round these parts. There are two busy flight schools,
as well as a lot of military activity (a C-130 comes here a few times
a week to do touch and goes, gives us a lot of wake turbulence
avoidance practice ^_^). I had to fly a downwind parallel to him and
then follow him in. I couldn't let my student do the flying because it
was an atypical situation. AND I had to do all this while I'm getting
name-called by some tard out of no-where. It just makes things that
much more frustrating.


So please, don't be a jackass show off on the radio. I actually saw
the second guy climb out his plane after we landed. I saw he had what
looked like his wife in there with him. I imagine he was acting like
that to show off in front of his wife *rolleyes*.

Anyways, just please be mindful of others, especially considering the
environment your in (busy airspace; emergency in the area; whatever it
may be). Just be aware that those snappy one liners may make you look
cool, but they just make others frustrated and more life more
difficult.

I know this post is getting long, but theres one more instance I want
to bring up. When I was getting my multi rating a few months ago, we
went to a towered airport a few miles away to do a few ILS/VOR
approaches. While we were doing the procedure turns and stuff, we
could hear this clueless student pilot entering on a solo cross
country. This guy was a total wreck. First he was 10 miles south; then
he was 5 miles north, then he was over such and such lake which is 15
miles northwest. The controllers at this particular airport aren't
known as the friendliest around, so as you can imagine, the poor guy
wasn't having a good time.

I wasn't really paying attention to what all was being said because I
was focusing on my approaches, but after doing about 3 full ILS/VOR
approaches (procedure turn and all) he still was confused as to where
he was and hadn't landed yet (but I believe was still in the pattern).
We were just doing missed approaches, breaking off well before the
airport area to stay out of the way.

I don't really blame the controller because he was frustrated too, but
it was what my instructor said which I think was worst of all. During
our last approach, he said something to the effect of "Do you want us
to do another low approach so you can handle this guy, or can we do a
touch and go the this next one?"

I just cringed when I heard that. I just can imagine being in his
shoes. The last thing I want to know is that I'm messing not only the
controller's thing, but other pilots as well. We didn't NEED to do a
touch and go, we could have just did our share by helping out with the
low approaches, then moved on. Indirectly telling the poor student how
incompetent he is (which he HAS to already know by then) just helps no
one out. It just makes things worse.

I don't think what my instructor said

[buttman]

On May 9, 11:35 pm, buttman > wrote:
> I don't think what my instructor said

stupid freaking google groups submitting my post before it was done...

the past paragraph should say:

I don't think what my instructor said was intentionally meant as
harassment, but if I were in the student's shoes, I would have
interpreted it as harassment just the same. So please everyone, mind
what you say on the radio!

[Jay Honeck]

> I had two recent situations where other pilots thought they'd be cool
> by being condescending jackasses over the radio, which effected my
> ability to teach my student.

I can't comment too much on your experiences, but I will say this:
I've heard more rude and improper radio talk in the last two years
than I had in the previous ten. The rudeness that has invaded our
society is starting to penetrate the cockpit environment, and *that*
is a shame.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[John Theune]

buttman wrote:
> I had two recent situations where other pilots thought they'd be cool
> by being condescending jackasses over the radio, which effected my
> ability to teach my student.
>
> The first time was when I was at a local uncontrolled field with one
> of my students to introduce solf-field takeoffs and landings. When we
> were turning downwind, I heard a Cirrus call "On the ILS at the outer
> marker". I haven't flown any approaches for months, so I had no idea
> how exactly far out he was. There were at least two other people in
> the pattern, so instead of asking him to give a more accurate position
> report, I just went on. Just before I got abeam the numbers on
> downwind, the Cirrus guy called 3 miles out, so I told my student to
> just do a short approach instead of extending which would have screwed
> everyone else up.
>
> I'm looking out the window like crazy to find this Cirrus guy but I
> don't see him anywhere. Then suddenly I hear him say in a snappy voice
> "Cessna on base at *** do you plan on cutting me off?" Startled, I
> looked around but couldn't for the life of me see him. I responded
> "uuhh, Cirrus on ILS I don't see you", then he snaps back
> sarcastically, "oh 45 seconds before impact..."
>
> I look right in front of me and there he is zooming by. I didn't
> realize Cirrus's were so fast. He had to have been going more than 150
> knots. I've turned short approaches in front of Seminoles when they
> were on 3 mile ILS finals and it has never been a problem...
>
> Anyways, the guy didn't have to be such a huge asshole. A busy pattern
> is stressful enough, the ones coming in straight in can at least be a
> little helpful, or at the VERY LEAST not act like a little baby when
> things don't go their way.
>
> Of the 50 or so times I've been on extended downwind when someone else
> in on a 3-10 mile final, I'd say 10 times I went behind them and it
> hasn't been a problem, 35 times I've gone behind them and it hasn't
> been a problem, and 5 times I messed it up and either cut the person
> off, or caused some other disruption. The other 4 times it was just a
> simple "sorry about that", or some other professional way of handing
> the situation, then forgetting it and moving on. It just makes it that
> much harder to shake it off when the person decides to act that way.
> Maybe I need to get thicker skin, but that situation had me all worked
> up for the rest of the flight, and I admit it hindered my instructing
> ability a little.
>
> As a little side note, that same Cirrus guy came today to my home
> airport which is even busier. There were like 7 planes already in the
> pattern, 3 on 45 for the pattern, and then comes my Cirrus. I
> recognized it was him because I remembered the tail number (N903CD).
> As soon as he called, tower told him to slow to final approach speed
> (which I just had to snicker to myself when I heard that ^_^). About a
> minute later I, on an extended downwind, was told to turn base, which
> would have put me right in front of the Cirrus. The tower cleared me
> for a full stop only (which I've never been issued before, our
> controllers are really good at accommodating a bunch of pattern
> traffic), and told the Cirrus to break off and enter on the 45 for a
> left traffic. After I landed, I switched to ground and just called it
> a day. When I got back to the training room, another instructor joked
> about how I was "kicked out of the pattern". He asked me of I heard
> about the Cirrus who "got ****ed off and left". I said no but I can
> only imagine what he actually said...
>
> Anyways, back on topic. Also today, on another flight with another
> student, we were coming back on the 45 for a downwind entry. Not too
> long after he told me to report established on the downwind, someone's
> mic got stuck and all I could hear on the radio was "EEEERRRRRRCHSHH
> EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE" punctuated with my call sign and the words "I'm not
> communicating with him", then some more "AAAAAAEERRRRNNNGH". I saw a
> plane on downwind which was about to converge with me, a helicopter
> which looked like was doing WHO KNOWS WHAT, and someone else on upwind
> about to turn crosswind. It looked like I was going to converge with
> the plane on downwind, so I just decided to do a 360 where I was
> (about a mile before entering downwind). As soon as a break in the
> radio screeching appeared, I quickly told tower I'm doing a 360 to
> avoid what by then I thought was a clueless student on a solo who
> didn't know how to use the radio.
>
> Well as soon as I told tower, a voice came on saying "..and that will
> put you right in front of 64 Delta" (or whatever his tail number was).
> Apparently there was a plane behind me, but I had no idea. Buy
> anyways, he had to do a evasive maneuver also, and he was ticked off.
> He came back on and told tower he had to do an evasive to avoid "the
> kamikaze" as he called me.
>
> Well guess what, bub? I had to do an evasive maneuver too. Thats an
> everyday thing 'round these parts. There are two busy flight schools,
> as well as a lot of military activity (a C-130 comes here a few times
> a week to do touch and goes, gives us a lot of wake turbulence
> avoidance practice ^_^). I had to fly a downwind parallel to him and
> then follow him in. I couldn't let my student do the flying because it
> was an atypical situation. AND I had to do all this while I'm getting
> name-called by some tard out of no-where. It just makes things that
> much more frustrating.
>
>
> So please, don't be a jackass show off on the radio. I actually saw
> the second guy climb out his plane after we landed. I saw he had what
> looked like his wife in there with him. I imagine he was acting like
> that to show off in front of his wife *rolleyes*.
>
> Anyways, just please be mindful of others, especially considering the
> environment your in (busy airspace; emergency in the area; whatever it
> may be). Just be aware that those snappy one liners may make you look
> cool, but they just make others frustrated and more life more
> difficult.
>
> I know this post is getting long, but theres one more instance I want
> to bring up. When I was getting my multi rating a few months ago, we
> went to a towered airport a few miles away to do a few ILS/VOR
> approaches. While we were doing the procedure turns and stuff, we
> could hear this clueless student pilot entering on a solo cross
> country. This guy was a total wreck. First he was 10 miles south; then
> he was 5 miles north, then he was over such and such lake which is 15
> miles northwest. The controllers at this particular airport aren't
> known as the friendliest around, so as you can imagine, the poor guy
> wasn't having a good time.
>
> I wasn't really paying attention to what all was being said because I
> was focusing on my approaches, but after doing about 3 full ILS/VOR
> approaches (procedure turn and all) he still was confused as to where
> he was and hadn't landed yet (but I believe was still in the pattern).
> We were just doing missed approaches, breaking off well before the
> airport area to stay out of the way.
>
> I don't really blame the controller because he was frustrated too, but
> it was what my instructor said which I think was worst of all. During
> our last approach, he said something to the effect of "Do you want us
> to do another low approach so you can handle this guy, or can we do a
> touch and go the this next one?"
>
> I just cringed when I heard that. I just can imagine being in his
> shoes. The last thing I want to know is that I'm messing not only the
> controller's thing, but other pilots as well. We didn't NEED to do a
> touch and go, we could have just did our share by helping out with the
> low approaches, then moved on. Indirectly telling the poor student how
> incompetent he is (which he HAS to already know by then) just helps no
> one out. It just makes things worse.
>
> I don't think what my instructor said
>
The same could be said about your reply here. You want to rag on
somebody for being a condescending jackass on the radio and then your
are just as bad when describing a student pilot as clueless and a total
wreck. As for yourself, you said you were not to the numbers yet on
downwind when he reported a 3 mile final and you turned in front of him
anyway. You still had to go further on your downwind before you could
turn base then traverse the base leg all while he was covering the 3
miles of his final. I'm not surprised he got ****ed. You need to be
flexable in the pattern as much as anyone else.

[B A R R Y[_2_]]

Jay Honeck wrote:
>
> The rudeness that has invaded our
> society is starting to penetrate the cockpit environment, and *that*
> is a shame.

How's this for rude:

<http://www.cnn.com/2007/SHOWBIZ/Music/05/10/odd.bostonpopsfight.ap/index.html>

A fight at the symphony. <G>

[Jose]

> The tower cleared me
> for a full stop only (which I've never been issued before, our
> controllers are really good at accommodating a bunch of pattern
> traffic), and told the Cirrus to break off and enter on the 45 for a
> left traffic.

Sounds like the tower wanted the cirrus to have to go around.

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.

[RST Engineering]

At the risk of being rude on the newsgroups, you quoted the whole g055@mned
message for nine lousy lines of reply?

Jim



"John Theune" > wrote in message
news:2SE0i.11222$dj2.6382@trndny02...
> The same could be said about your reply here. You want to rag on somebody
> for being a condescending jackass on the radio and then your are just as
> bad when describing a student pilot as clueless and a total wreck.

[[email protected]]

On May 10, 2:35 am, buttman > wrote:
> I had two recent situations where other pilots thought they'd be cool
> by being condescending jackasses over the radio, which effected my
> ability to teach my student.
>

I don't post here that often anymore, but the recent spat of posts
about pattern etiquette has got me going. I really would like to know
how this theory that just because you're doing touch and goes in the
pattern, means you can go ahead and cut off straight in traffic? The
only thing the FAA has to say, regulatory, regarding traffic patterns
is that all turns must be to the left, unless noted, AND take note of
91.113(g)

Landing. Aircraft while on final approach to land or while landing,
have the right-of-way over other aircraft in flight or operating on
the surface, except that they shall not take advantage of this rule to
force and aircraft off the runway surface which has already landed...

You're a professional aviator. Your student is paying you for your
expertise in this field, "I don't remember where the maker is" is not
acceptable. Should the Cirrus have been more clear about his position
earlier? Maybe. But as a professional you SHOULD be aware that the
marker is typically 6-7 miles from the threshold. At typical approach
speeds that would mean he's 2-3 minutes out. He then called 3 mile
final; that's 90 seconds. You couldn't see the traffic on final, and
not only did you turn base, but you put your tail to him. You CREATED
a collision hazard by cutting him off, and hoped it would either work
out, or he'd see you and get out of your way. BAD FORM.

And in case you were wondering what the FAA's stance on this practice
is, read this- http://www.ntsb.gov/alj/O_n_O/docs/aviation/4236.PDF

CFI was in a habit of cutting off traffic on straight in because HE
was in the pattern. FAA yanked his certificates.

Keep this in mind next time; extending your downwind 30 seconds will
not cost your student any more touch and goes; you probably waste more
time cleaning fouled plugs on the run-up than it takes to extend for
traffic. Meanwhile, that traffic flying a straight in most likely is
NOT training, but going somewhere. Would it not be proper courtesy to
let them go about their business and get out of your way? Instead of
playing "mine is bigger" in the traffic pattern.

[Gene Seibel]

On May 10, 1:38 am, buttman > wrote:
> On May 9, 11:35 pm, buttman > wrote:
>
> > I don't think what my instructor said
>
> stupid freaking google groups submitting my post before it was done...
>
> the past paragraph should say:
>
> I don't think what my instructor said was intentionally meant as
> harassment, but if I were in the student's shoes, I would have
> interpreted it as harassment just the same. So please everyone, mind
> what you say on the radio!

"stupid freaking google groups" doesn't do anything you don't tell it
to do.
--
Gene Seibel
Gene & Sue's Aeroplanes - http://pad39a.com/gene/planes.html
Because we fly, we envy no one.

[Peter R.]

On 5/10/2007 10:59:13 AM, wrote:

> And in case you were wondering what the FAA's stance on this practice
> is, read this- http://www.ntsb.gov/alj/O_n_O/docs/aviation/4236.PDF

Wow. That now ex-pilot appeared to have some real issues there. I got bored
reading the list of incidents outlined in the PDF, there were so many.

--
Peter

[Mark T. Dame]

Jay Honeck wrote:
>> I had two recent situations where other pilots thought they'd be cool
>> by being condescending jackasses over the radio, which effected my
>> ability to teach my student.
>
> I can't comment too much on your experiences, but I will say this:
> I've heard more rude and improper radio talk in the last two years
> than I had in the previous ten.

I thought I just hadn't noticed it before...


-m
--
## Mark T. Dame >
## CP-ASEL, AGI
## <insert tail number here>
## KHAO, KISZ
"There's still some duplication (i.e., several places where I say
close to the same thing twice, and also where I'm redundant :-)"
-- Daniel Mocsny

[Bob Fry]

>>>>> "RST" == RST Engineering > writes:

RST> At the risk of being rude on the newsgroups, you quoted the
RST> whole g055@mned message for nine lousy lines of reply?

Jim, Jim, you never take the *risk* of being rude. You *always* are
rude. But we like it.

--
Why do bunches of people run from a shark when they see one, if
there is a bunch of people, and one of that shark, wouldn't it be
easy to just attack him and kick his ass?
- Jack Handey

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Bob Fry" > wrote in message
...
>
> Why do bunches of people run from a shark when they see one, if
> there is a bunch of people, and one of that shark, wouldn't it be
> easy to just attack him and kick his ass?
>

If you're able to run from a shark you're on land and there's no need to run
at all.

[Allen[_1_]]

> wrote in message
ups.com...
> On May 10, 2:35 am, buttman > wrote:
>> I had two recent situations where other pilots thought they'd be cool
>> by being condescending jackasses over the radio, which effected my
>> ability to teach my student.
>>
>
> I don't post here that often anymore, but the recent spat of posts
> about pattern etiquette has got me going. I really would like to know
> how this theory that just because you're doing touch and goes in the
> pattern, means you can go ahead and cut off straight in traffic? The
> only thing the FAA has to say, regulatory, regarding traffic patterns
> is that all turns must be to the left, unless noted, AND take note of
> 91.113(g)
>
> Landing. Aircraft while on final approach to land or while landing,
> have the right-of-way over other aircraft in flight or operating on
> the surface, except that they shall not take advantage of this rule to
> force and aircraft off the runway surface which has already landed...

Which does nothing to define what "final approach" is. If you are aligned
with the runway and intending to land does final begin 5 miles from the
threshold? 10 miles? 15 miles? 50 miles?

[Gene Seibel]

On May 10, 11:29 am, "Allen" > wrote:
> > wrote in message
>
> ups.com...
>
>
>
> > On May 10, 2:35 am, buttman > wrote:
> >> I had two recent situations where other pilots thought they'd be cool
> >> by being condescending jackasses over the radio, which effected my
> >> ability to teach my student.
>
> > I don't post here that often anymore, but the recent spat of posts
> > about pattern etiquette has got me going. I really would like to know
> > how this theory that just because you're doing touch and goes in the
> > pattern, means you can go ahead and cut off straight in traffic? The
> > only thing the FAA has to say, regulatory, regarding traffic patterns
> > is that all turns must be to the left, unless noted, AND take note of
> > 91.113(g)
>
> > Landing. Aircraft while on final approach to land or while landing,
> > have the right-of-way over other aircraft in flight or operating on
> > the surface, except that they shall not take advantage of this rule to
> > force and aircraft off the runway surface which has already landed...
>
> Which does nothing to define what "final approach" is. If you are aligned
> with the runway and intending to land does final begin 5 miles from the
> threshold? 10 miles? 15 miles? 50 miles?

Maybe it would make more sense to announce position in minutes from
touchdown rather than miles.
--
Gene Seibel
Gene & Sue's Aeroplanes - http://pad39a.com/gene/planes.html
Because we fly, we envy no one.

[Jose]

> Maybe it would make more sense to announce position in minutes from
> touchdown rather than miles.

That presumes you aren't trying to actually find him in the sky.

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.

[Peter Dohm]

> I had two recent situations where other pilots thought they'd be cool
> by being condescending jackasses over the radio, which effected my
> ability to teach my student.
>
> The first time was when I was at a local uncontrolled field with one
> of my students to introduce solf-field takeoffs and landings. When we
> were turning downwind, I heard a Cirrus call "On the ILS at the outer
> marker". I haven't flown any approaches for months, so I had no idea
> how exactly far out he was. There were at least two other people in
> the pattern, so instead of asking him to give a more accurate position
> report, I just went on. Just before I got abeam the numbers on
> downwind, the Cirrus guy called 3 miles out, so I told my student to
> just do a short approach instead of extending which would have screwed
> everyone else up.
>
> I'm looking out the window like crazy to find this Cirrus guy but I
> don't see him anywhere. Then suddenly I hear him say in a snappy voice
> "Cessna on base at *** do you plan on cutting me off?" Startled, I
> looked around but couldn't for the life of me see him. I responded
> "uuhh, Cirrus on ILS I don't see you", then he snaps back
> sarcastically, "oh 45 seconds before impact..."
>
> I look right in front of me and there he is zooming by. I didn't
> realize Cirrus's were so fast. He had to have been going more than 150
> knots. I've turned short approaches in front of Seminoles when they
> were on 3 mile ILS finals and it has never been a problem...
>
> Anyways, the guy didn't have to be such a huge asshole. A busy pattern
> is stressful enough, the ones coming in straight in can at least be a
> little helpful, or at the VERY LEAST not act like a little baby when
> things don't go their way.
>
Lemme get this straight! You are in instructor, which means you are
instrument rated, which means that you should know that outer markers are
typically at least five miles from the landing zone--so, if you can not
recall for a specific airport, you can still guess five miles. In addition,
you did not bother to maintain familiarity with the procedures at an airport
where you typically instruct, you failed to understant that the Cirrus had
travelled a substantial (probably between a third and a half) of the
distance to the runway, and then you turned in front of known traffic which
you did not see.

IMHO, your usenet handle is well chosen. If you were my instructor; the
landing would be a full stop, followed by a very firm "You're fired!" (That
is, of course, presuming that I was stricken speechless back when I refused
to turn base.)

Peter

[Gene Seibel]

On May 10, 11:49 am, Jose > wrote:
> > Maybe it would make more sense to announce position in minutes from
> > touchdown rather than miles.
>
> That presumes you aren't trying to actually find him in the sky.
>
> 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.

Good point.
--
Gene Seibel
Gene & Sue's Flying Machine - http://pad39a.com/gene/
Because we fly, we envy no one.

[buttman]

On May 10, 10:20 am, "Peter Dohm" > wrote:
> > I had two recent situations where other pilots thought they'd be cool
> > by being condescending jackasses over the radio, which effected my
> > ability to teach my student.
>
> > The first time was when I was at a local uncontrolled field with one
> > of my students to introduce solf-field takeoffs and landings. When we
> > were turning downwind, I heard a Cirrus call "On the ILS at the outer
> > marker". I haven't flown any approaches for months, so I had no idea
> > how exactly far out he was. There were at least two other people in
> > the pattern, so instead of asking him to give a more accurate position
> > report, I just went on. Just before I got abeam the numbers on
> > downwind, the Cirrus guy called 3 miles out, so I told my student to
> > just do a short approach instead of extending which would have screwed
> > everyone else up.
>
> > I'm looking out the window like crazy to find this Cirrus guy but I
> > don't see him anywhere. Then suddenly I hear him say in a snappy voice
> > "Cessna on base at *** do you plan on cutting me off?" Startled, I
> > looked around but couldn't for the life of me see him. I responded
> > "uuhh, Cirrus on ILS I don't see you", then he snaps back
> > sarcastically, "oh 45 seconds before impact..."
>
> > I look right in front of me and there he is zooming by. I didn't
> > realize Cirrus's were so fast. He had to have been going more than 150
> > knots. I've turned short approaches in front of Seminoles when they
> > were on 3 mile ILS finals and it has never been a problem...
>
> > Anyways, the guy didn't have to be such a huge asshole. A busy pattern
> > is stressful enough, the ones coming in straight in can at least be a
> > little helpful, or at the VERY LEAST not act like a little baby when
> > things don't go their way.
>
> Lemme get this straight! You are in instructor, which means you are
> instrument rated, which means that you should know that outer markers are
> typically at least five miles from the landing zone--so, if you can not
> recall for a specific airport, you can still guess five miles. In addition,
> you did not bother to maintain familiarity with the procedures at an airport
> where you typically instruct, you failed to understant that the Cirrus had
> travelled a substantial (probably between a third and a half) of the
> distance to the runway, and then you turned in front of known traffic which
> you did not see.
>


First off, I never said I did nothing wrong. I know I made a mistake
by turning in front of him. We all make mistakes, whether you're an
instructor or not. THE WHOLE POINT of the post was that the Cirrus guy
had to act like a pumpus ass. In my probably 2 years of instructing,
I've had maybe 3 run-ins similar to this, the other two were handled
professionally and were good learning experiences for me and my
students.

I knew the guy was 3 miles out, which is why I turned base early (I'm
pretty sure I mentioned this in my OP). I normally extend about one
mile, here I turned base about a half mile. Like I said before, I have
done short approaches with twins only 3 miles out and it has never
been a problem.


> IMHO, your usenet handle is well chosen. If you were my instructor; the
> landing would be a full stop, followed by a very firm "You're fired!" (That
> is, of course, presuming that I was stricken speechless back when I refused
> to turn base.)
>
> Peter

ah, the ol' internet tough guy routine...

[John Godwin]

wrote in
ups.com:

> Landing. Aircraft while on final approach to land or while
> landing, have the right-of-way over other aircraft in flight or
> operating on the surface, except that they shall not take
> advantage of this rule to force and aircraft off the runway
> surface which has already landed...

.... and I believe that the AIM defines "Final Approach" as:
A flight path in the direction of landing along the extended
runway centerline from the base leg to the runway.

--

[RST Engineering]

"Cessna Seventy-three Charlie Quebec is departing runway 25 at Grass Valley
on a 2300 mile final for runway 9 Oshkosh."

{;-)

Jim



"Allen" > wrote in message
...


>
> Which does nothing to define what "final approach" is. If you are aligned
> with the runway and intending to land does final begin 5 miles from the
> threshold? 10 miles? 15 miles? 50 miles?
>

[[email protected]]

On May 10, 1:46 pm, John Godwin > wrote:
> wrote roups.com:
>
> > Landing. Aircraft while on final approach to land or while
> > landing, have the right-of-way over other aircraft in flight or
> > operating on the surface, except that they shall not take
> > advantage of this rule to force and aircraft off the runway
> > surface which has already landed...
>
> ... and I believe that the AIM defines "Final Approach" as:
> A flight path in the direction of landing along the extended
> runway centerline from the base leg to the runway.
>
> --

"FINAL APPROACH -- ICAO. That part of an instrument approach
procedure which commences at the specified final approach fix or
point, or where such fix or point is not specified:
a. At the end of the last procedure turn, base turn or inbound
turn or a racetrack procedure, if specified
b. At the point of interception of the last track specified in the
approach procedure; and ends at a point in the vicinity of an
aerodrome from which:
1. A landing can be made; or
2. A missed approach procedure is initiated.

FINAL APPROACH -- IFR. The flight path of an aircraft which is
inbound to an airport on a final instrument approach course, beginning
at the final approach fix or point and extending to the airport or the
point where a circle-to-land maneuver or missed approach is executed."

>From that definition, "final approach" would be from the marker
inbound on an ILS, or wherever the arriving traffic happens to get
lined up with the final approach course. I'm sure you're aware that
traffic arriving IFR is often vectored onto 5-10 mile final, so that
"base leg" may have been flown, just 10 miles from where you're used
to turning base-final. Faster, high performance aircraft often take
time to slow down and transition from the terminal phase to approach
and landing.

[Allen[_1_]]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> On May 10, 1:46 pm, John Godwin > wrote:
>> wrote
>> roups.com:
>>
>> > Landing. Aircraft while on final approach to land or while
>> > landing, have the right-of-way over other aircraft in flight or
>> > operating on the surface, except that they shall not take
>> > advantage of this rule to force and aircraft off the runway
>> > surface which has already landed...
>>
>> ... and I believe that the AIM defines "Final Approach" as:
>> A flight path in the direction of landing along the extended
>> runway centerline from the base leg to the runway.
>>
>> --
>
> "FINAL APPROACH -- ICAO. That part of an instrument approach
> procedure which commences at the specified final approach fix or
> point, or where such fix or point is not specified:
> a. At the end of the last procedure turn, base turn or inbound
> turn or a racetrack procedure, if specified
> b. At the point of interception of the last track specified in the
> approach procedure; and ends at a point in the vicinity of an
> aerodrome from which:
> 1. A landing can be made; or
> 2. A missed approach procedure is initiated.
>
> FINAL APPROACH -- IFR. The flight path of an aircraft which is
> inbound to an airport on a final instrument approach course, beginning
> at the final approach fix or point and extending to the airport or the
> point where a circle-to-land maneuver or missed approach is executed."
>
>>From that definition, "final approach" would be from the marker
> inbound on an ILS, or wherever the arriving traffic happens to get
> lined up with the final approach course. I'm sure you're aware that
> traffic arriving IFR is often vectored onto 5-10 mile final, so that
> "base leg" may have been flown, just 10 miles from where you're used
> to turning base-final. Faster, high performance aircraft often take
> time to slow down and transition from the terminal phase to approach
> and landing.

So you are saying that 10 miles is where final approach begins? The AIM
says you should complete your turn to final at least 1/4 mile from the
runway; it does not specify a maximum distance. It also defines "final" as
the term commonly used to mean that an aircraft is on the final approach
course or is aligned with a landing area.

[Montblack]

("Steven P. McNicoll" swrote)
> If you're able to run from a shark you're on land and there's no need to
> run at all.


Let alone searching for a shark's ass, to kick.


Mont-black-in-the-water-everyone

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

"Montblack" > wrote in message
...
> ("Steven P. McNicoll" swrote)
>> If you're able to run from a shark you're on land and there's no need to
>> run at all.
>
>
> Let alone searching for a shark's ass, to kick.

They must have one. Otherwise they'd just eat all day and night and keep
getting bigger and bigger wouldn't they? :-))
Dudley Henriques

[[email protected]]

On May 10, 3:20 pm, "Allen" > wrote:
> > wrote in message
>
> oups.com...
>
>
>
> > On May 10, 1:46 pm, John Godwin > wrote:
> >> wrote
> >> roups.com:
>
> >> > Landing. Aircraft while on final approach to land or while
> >> > landing, have the right-of-way over other aircraft in flight or
> >> > operating on the surface, except that they shall not take
> >> > advantage of this rule to force and aircraft off the runway
> >> > surface which has already landed...
>
> >> ... and I believe that the AIM defines "Final Approach" as:
> >> A flight path in the direction of landing along the extended
> >> runway centerline from the base leg to the runway.
>
> >> --
>
> > "FINAL APPROACH -- ICAO. That part of an instrument approach
> > procedure which commences at the specified final approach fix or
> > point, or where such fix or point is not specified:
> > a. At the end of the last procedure turn, base turn or inbound
> > turn or a racetrack procedure, if specified
> > b. At the point of interception of the last track specified in the
> > approach procedure; and ends at a point in the vicinity of an
> > aerodrome from which:
> > 1. A landing can be made; or
> > 2. A missed approach procedure is initiated.
>
> > FINAL APPROACH -- IFR. The flight path of an aircraft which is
> > inbound to an airport on a final instrument approach course, beginning
> > at the final approach fix or point and extending to the airport or the
> > point where a circle-to-land maneuver or missed approach is executed."
>
> >>From that definition, "final approach" would be from the marker
> > inbound on an ILS, or wherever the arriving traffic happens to get
> > lined up with the final approach course. I'm sure you're aware that
> > traffic arriving IFR is often vectored onto 5-10 mile final, so that
> > "base leg" may have been flown, just 10 miles from where you're used
> > to turning base-final. Faster, high performance aircraft often take
> > time to slow down and transition from the terminal phase to approach
> > and landing.
>
> So you are saying that 10 miles is where final approach begins? The AIM
> says you should complete your turn to final at least 1/4 mile from the
> runway; it does not specify a maximum distance. It also defines "final" as
> the term commonly used to mean that an aircraft is on the final approach
> course or is aligned with a landing area.


I'm saying the official definition of "final approach" is vague with
regards to distance from the end of the runway. Realisticly, I would
argue that "final approach" would begin at the point you can see the
runway. Outside of that, I'd call distance and intention; ie- "Twin
Cessna 3AB, 15 to the west, straight in runway 9.... Twin Cessna 3AB,
10 mile final, runway 9" etc.

[Jim Logajan]

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote:
> "Montblack" > wrote:
>> Let alone searching for a shark's ass, to kick.
>
> They must have one. Otherwise they'd just eat all day and night and
> keep getting bigger and bigger wouldn't they? :-))

Really, no ****?

;-)

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

"Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
.. .
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote:
>> "Montblack" > wrote:
>>> Let alone searching for a shark's ass, to kick.
>>
>> They must have one. Otherwise they'd just eat all day and night and
>> keep getting bigger and bigger wouldn't they? :-))
>
> Really, no ****?
>
> ;-)

OUCH!!!

What's REALLY troublesome to me about this is that I have to reason to
myself how 50 odd (and odd is indeed appropriate here :-) years in
professional aviation has finally come down for me to this thread.
:-)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
Dudley Henriques

[Allen[_1_]]

> wrote in message
ups.com...
> On May 10, 3:20 pm, "Allen" > wrote:
>> > wrote in message
>>
>> oups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>> > On May 10, 1:46 pm, John Godwin > wrote:
>> >> wrote
>> >> roups.com:
>>
>> >> > Landing. Aircraft while on final approach to land or while
>> >> > landing, have the right-of-way over other aircraft in flight or
>> >> > operating on the surface, except that they shall not take
>> >> > advantage of this rule to force and aircraft off the runway
>> >> > surface which has already landed...
>>
>> >> ... and I believe that the AIM defines "Final Approach" as:
>> >> A flight path in the direction of landing along the extended
>> >> runway centerline from the base leg to the runway.
>>
>> >> --
>>
>> > "FINAL APPROACH -- ICAO. That part of an instrument approach
>> > procedure which commences at the specified final approach fix or
>> > point, or where such fix or point is not specified:
>> > a. At the end of the last procedure turn, base turn or inbound
>> > turn or a racetrack procedure, if specified
>> > b. At the point of interception of the last track specified in the
>> > approach procedure; and ends at a point in the vicinity of an
>> > aerodrome from which:
>> > 1. A landing can be made; or
>> > 2. A missed approach procedure is initiated.
>>
>> > FINAL APPROACH -- IFR. The flight path of an aircraft which is
>> > inbound to an airport on a final instrument approach course, beginning
>> > at the final approach fix or point and extending to the airport or the
>> > point where a circle-to-land maneuver or missed approach is executed."
>>
>> >>From that definition, "final approach" would be from the marker
>> > inbound on an ILS, or wherever the arriving traffic happens to get
>> > lined up with the final approach course. I'm sure you're aware that
>> > traffic arriving IFR is often vectored onto 5-10 mile final, so that
>> > "base leg" may have been flown, just 10 miles from where you're used
>> > to turning base-final. Faster, high performance aircraft often take
>> > time to slow down and transition from the terminal phase to approach
>> > and landing.
>>
>> So you are saying that 10 miles is where final approach begins? The AIM
>> says you should complete your turn to final at least 1/4 mile from the
>> runway; it does not specify a maximum distance. It also defines "final"
>> as
>> the term commonly used to mean that an aircraft is on the final approach
>> course or is aligned with a landing area.
>
>
> I'm saying the official definition of "final approach" is vague with
> regards to distance from the end of the runway. Realisticly, I would
> argue that "final approach" would begin at the point you can see the
> runway. Outside of that, I'd call distance and intention; ie- "Twin
> Cessna 3AB, 15 to the west, straight in runway 9.... Twin Cessna 3AB,
> 10 mile final, runway 9" etc.

No, I am with you on this! I just think there should be some (even if it is
arbitrary number pulled from a hat) distance to define when you are on
"final". What if you are approaching an airport from the wrong side and
make a right-hand turn to align with a runway with a left-hand traffic
pattern. There should be some distance from the airport you could do this
and then make a "straight-in" approach without violating any regs or the
AIM.

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"buttman" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> On May 10, 10:20 am, "Peter Dohm" > wrote:
>>
>> Lemme get this straight! You are in instructor, which means you are
>> instrument rated, which means that you should know that outer markers are
>> typically at least five miles from the landing zone--so, if you can not
>> recall for a specific airport, you can still guess five miles. In
>> addition,
>> you did not bother to maintain familiarity with the procedures at an
>> airport
>> where you typically instruct, you failed to understant that the Cirrus
>> had
>> travelled a substantial (probably between a third and a half) of the
>> distance to the runway, and then you turned in front of known traffic
>> which
>> you did not see.
>>
>
>
> First off, I never said I did nothing wrong. I know I made a mistake
> by turning in front of him. We all make mistakes, whether you're an
> instructor or not. THE WHOLE POINT of the post was that the Cirrus guy
> had to act like a pumpus ass.

Sounds like a typical childish response (ie, making excuses).

The only pompous ass here is yourself.
--
Matt Barrow
Performace Homes, LLC.
Colorado Springs, CO

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"Gene Seibel" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> On May 10, 11:49 am, Jose > wrote:
>> > Maybe it would make more sense to announce position in minutes from
>> > touchdown rather than miles.
>>
>> That presumes you aren't trying to actually find him in the sky.
>>
>> 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.
>
> Good point.

No, it isn't. It's outright blather.

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Montblack" > wrote in message
> ...
>> ("Steven P. McNicoll" swrote)
>>> If you're able to run from a shark you're on land and there's no need to
>>> run at all.
>>
>>
>> Let alone searching for a shark's ass, to kick.
>
> They must have one. Otherwise they'd just eat all day and night and keep
> getting bigger and bigger wouldn't they? :-))

Only if they were also drinking beer.

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
>
> "buttman" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>> On May 10, 10:20 am, "Peter Dohm" > wrote:
>>>
>>> Lemme get this straight! You are in instructor, which means you are
>>> instrument rated, which means that you should know that outer markers
>>> are
>>> typically at least five miles from the landing zone--so, if you can not
>>> recall for a specific airport, you can still guess five miles. In
>>> addition,
>>> you did not bother to maintain familiarity with the procedures at an
>>> airport
>>> where you typically instruct, you failed to understant that the Cirrus
>>> had
>>> travelled a substantial (probably between a third and a half) of the
>>> distance to the runway, and then you turned in front of known traffic
>>> which
>>> you did not see.
>>>
>>
>>
>> First off, I never said I did nothing wrong. I know I made a mistake
>> by turning in front of him. We all make mistakes, whether you're an
>> instructor or not. THE WHOLE POINT of the post was that the Cirrus guy
>> had to act like a pumpus ass.
>
> Sounds like a typical childish response (ie, making excuses).
>
> The only pompous ass here is yourself.
> --
> Matt Barrow
> Performace Homes, LLC.
> Colorado Springs, CO

I try and avoid this guy unless he posts on the student group where I have
an interest from an instructor's point of view. Over here it's every man for
himself and I try to avoid taking him on.
Last time we "got together", was fairly recently when he posted on the
student group about yanking the fuel to shutoff on takeoff with "his
student" and wanted to know if it was a good idea :-)
I believe after my answer to him on this "little issue" that he now refers
to me as a "Usenet bully".
I'd be very interested in actually seeing his CFI certificate number and
knowing his real name for checkup with the FAA. I find it extremely
difficult from his dialog and points of view to envision him as a CFI, but
stranger things have happened I guess :-))
Dudley Henriques

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Montblack" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> ("Steven P. McNicoll" swrote)
>>>> If you're able to run from a shark you're on land and there's no need
>>>> to run at all.
>>>
>>>
>>> Let alone searching for a shark's ass, to kick.
>>
>> They must have one. Otherwise they'd just eat all day and night and keep
>> getting bigger and bigger wouldn't they? :-))
>
> Only if they were also drinking beer.

A study below in reverse logic :-))

These poor sharks really take a beating from us humans. I was just reading
the other day that in Australia, at least one expert says to punch them in
the nose when they get too close. You'd think that after being punched in
the nose and kicked in the butt, the stupid things would know enough to
leave us humans alone......but NO!! They just keep on eating more of us
every year. :-))
Dudley Henriques

[gatt]

"Allen" > wrote in message
...

>> FINAL APPROACH -- IFR. The flight path of an aircraft which is
>> inbound to an airport on a final instrument approach course, beginning
>> at the final approach fix or point and extending to the airport or the
>> point where a circle-to-land maneuver or missed approach is executed."
>>
>>>From that definition, "final approach" would be from the marker
>> inbound on an ILS, or wherever the arriving traffic happens to get
>> lined up with the final approach course...

> So you are saying that 10 miles is where final approach begins? The AIM
> says you should complete your turn to final at least 1/4 mile from the
> runway; it does not specify a maximum distance.


The ILS approach at McMinnville, Oregon (KMMV) is pretty typical and the
FAF-to-MAP distance indicated on the approach plate is 5.1 miles.

(Couldn't resist; I've had the approach plate tacked the the wall next to my
monitor for weeks now for no reason I can remember.)
-c

[Jim Stewart]

Dudley Henriques wrote:

> Last time we "got together", was fairly recently when he posted on the
> student group about yanking the fuel to shutoff on takeoff with "his
> student" and wanted to know if it was a good idea :-)

Now everything makes a little more sense.

Thanks for pointing out the history.

[gatt]

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
...

> These poor sharks really take a beating from us humans. I was just reading
> the other day that in Australia, at least one expert says to punch them in
> the nose when they get too close.

Hey, Dudley, I heard that too. When I was a kid I knew a guy who had been a
surfer-bum in San Diego. He told me that the sharks would chase the
surfboard and if they got too close you'd just kick 'em in the nose.
Except, one time in doing so he fell off the board and ended up more or less
kicking the shark in the mouth and then ending up in the water with it.

Strangest thing....he gave up surfing, moved to Denver and took up
skydiving. :> (Seriously.)

-c

[Grumman-581[_1_]]

Jay Honeck wrote:
>> I had two recent situations where other pilots thought they'd be cool
>> by being condescending jackasses over the radio, which effected my
>> ability to teach my student.
>
> I can't comment too much on your experiences, but I will say this:
> I've heard more rude and improper radio talk in the last two years
> than I had in the previous ten. The rudeness that has invaded our
> society is starting to penetrate the cockpit environment, and *that*
> is a shame.

It's because we're all getting older (Baby Boom Generation) and we're
becoming Grumpy Old Men... Of course, we also have to balance this with
being Dirty Old Men In Training...

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> "Montblack" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> ("Steven P. McNicoll" swrote)
>>>>> If you're able to run from a shark you're on land and there's no need
>>>>> to run at all.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Let alone searching for a shark's ass, to kick.
>>>
>>> They must have one. Otherwise they'd just eat all day and night and keep
>>> getting bigger and bigger wouldn't they? :-))
>>
>> Only if they were also drinking beer.
>
> A study below in reverse logic :-))
>
> These poor sharks really take a beating from us humans. I was just reading
> the other day that in Australia, at least one expert says to punch them in
> the nose when they get too close. You'd think that after being punched in
> the nose and kicked in the butt, the stupid things would know enough to
> leave us humans alone......but NO!! They just keep on eating more of us
> every year. :-))

*******s!!

[Larry Dighera]

On Thu, 10 May 2007 11:29:04 -0500, "Allen" >
wrote in >:

>Which does nothing to define what "final approach" is. If you are aligned
>with the runway and intending to land does final begin 5 miles from the
>threshold? 10 miles? 15 miles? 50 miles?
>


http://www.faa.gov/ATpubs/PCG/F.HTM
FINAL APPROACH [ICAO]- That part of an instrument approach
procedure which commences at the specified final approach fix or
point, or where such a fix or point is not specified.

a. At the end of the last procedure turn, base turn or inbound
turn of a racetrack procedure, if specified; or

b. At the point of interception of the last track specified in the
approach procedure; and ends at a point in the vicinity of an
aerodrome from which:

1. A landing can be made; or

2. A missed approach procedure is initiated.

FINAL APPROACH COURSE- A bearing/radial/track of an instrument
approach leading to a runway or an extended runway centerline all
without regard to distance.

FINAL APPROACH FIX- The fix from which the final approach (IFR) to
an airport is executed and which identifies the beginning of the
final approach segment. It is designated on Government charts by
the Maltese Cross symbol for nonprecision approaches and the
lightning bolt symbol for precision approaches; or when ATC
directs a lower-than-published glideslope/path intercept altitude,
it is the resultant actual point of the glideslope/path intercept.

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

"Jim Stewart" > wrote in message
...
> Dudley Henriques wrote:
>
>> Last time we "got together", was fairly recently when he posted on the
>> student group about yanking the fuel to shutoff on takeoff with "his
>> student" and wanted to know if it was a good idea :-)
>
> Now everything makes a little more sense.
>
> Thanks for pointing out the history.
>
>
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.aviation.student/browse_thread/thread/bb7456ddb7679b82/f6fcecd2c0126ad5?lnk=st&q=buttman+Henriques&rnum=1&hl=en#f6fcecd2c0126ad5

Interesting read. Just what you want in an instructor :-))
Dudley Henriques

[Larry Dighera]

On Thu, 10 May 2007 14:20:24 -0500, "Allen" >
wrote in >:

>It also defines "final" as
>the term commonly used to mean that an aircraft is on the final approach
>course or is aligned with a landing area.


Right. So VFR flights are on final approach at the time they turn
from the Base to Final leg of the landing pattern, and IFR flights at
the FAF. Easy.

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

"gatt" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> These poor sharks really take a beating from us humans. I was just
>> reading the other day that in Australia, at least one expert says to
>> punch them in the nose when they get too close.
>
> Hey, Dudley, I heard that too. When I was a kid I knew a guy who had been
> a surfer-bum in San Diego. He told me that the sharks would chase the
> surfboard and if they got too close you'd just kick 'em in the nose.
> Except, one time in doing so he fell off the board and ended up more or
> less kicking the shark in the mouth and then ending up in the water with
> it.
>
> Strangest thing....he gave up surfing, moved to Denver and took up
> skydiving. :> (Seriously.)

Sounds like my kind of guy :-))
Dudley Henriques

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

"Grumman-581" > wrote in message
...
> Jay Honeck wrote:
>>> I had two recent situations where other pilots thought they'd be cool
>>> by being condescending jackasses over the radio, which effected my
>>> ability to teach my student.
>>
>> I can't comment too much on your experiences, but I will say this:
>> I've heard more rude and improper radio talk in the last two years
>> than I had in the previous ten. The rudeness that has invaded our
>> society is starting to penetrate the cockpit environment, and *that*
>> is a shame.
>
> It's because we're all getting older (Baby Boom Generation) and we're
> becoming Grumpy Old Men... Of course, we also have to balance this with
> being Dirty Old Men In Training...

Then again there are some of us out here who completed the DOM training by
age 6
:-)
Dudley Henriques

[JGalban via AviationKB.com]

Dudley Henriques wrote:
>I'd be very interested in actually seeing his CFI certificate number and
>knowing his real name for checkup with the FAA. I find it extremely
>difficult from his dialog and points of view to envision him as a CFI, but
>stranger things have happened I guess :-))

Personally, after that "turn off the fuel" post, I didn't think he was a
real CFI.

The idea of unlilaterally turning a 360 in a busy pattern, struck me as odd.
There are other ways to avoid converging traffic without going heads up with
the guy behind you.

John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

--
Message posted via AviationKB.com
http://www.aviationkb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/aviation/200705/1

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

"JGalban via AviationKB.com" <u32749@uwe> wrote in message
news:71fd1e7873b37@uwe...
> Dudley Henriques wrote:
>>I'd be very interested in actually seeing his CFI certificate number and
>>knowing his real name for checkup with the FAA. I find it extremely
>>difficult from his dialog and points of view to envision him as a CFI, but
>>stranger things have happened I guess :-))
>
> Personally, after that "turn off the fuel" post, I didn't think he was a
> real CFI.
>
> The idea of unlilaterally turning a 360 in a busy pattern, struck me as
> odd.
> There are other ways to avoid converging traffic without going heads up
> with
> the guy behind you.
>
> John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)
>
> --
> Message posted via AviationKB.com
> http://www.aviationkb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/aviation/200705/1
>
I could be wrong of course, but I just don't see anything that says "CFI" to
me in his posting. Everything about this guy sends me negative signals.
Anyway, just considering what he has posted already, I'd REALLY like to meet
the examiner who gave him a CFI :-)
Dudley Henriques

[gatt]

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
...

> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.aviation.student/browse_thread/thread/bb7456ddb7679b82/f6fcecd2c0126ad5?lnk=st&q=buttman+Henriques&rnum=1&hl=en#f6fcecd2c0126ad5
>
> Interesting read. Just what you want in an instructor :-))

Hey, all, I have a question about a comment in there:

"Sounds like another stupid instructor trick: practicing engine out
procedure at altitude by actually killing the engine. Could lead to an
'Oh ****!' experience. "

Is that really a stupid instructor trick at altitude? My first instructor
did it during our first cross country work--"Oops. I wonder how that
happened?" Later he said he did it because the examiner would do it on the
checkride. In fact, when the examiner did it on the checkride I reflexively
checked the fuel lever first.

....When he asked me why I didn't go through the whole emergency procedure in
order, I said because I checked the fuel shutoff valve first because it's so
easy for some passenger to accidentally bump it. The rest of the maneuver
started with him saying something like "Okay [implied "smartass"], suppose
that wasn't the problem. What would you do?"

Is this no longer considered good instructional practice?

-c

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Grumman-581" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Jay Honeck wrote:
>>>> I had two recent situations where other pilots thought they'd be cool
>>>> by being condescending jackasses over the radio, which effected my
>>>> ability to teach my student.
>>>
>>> I can't comment too much on your experiences, but I will say this:
>>> I've heard more rude and improper radio talk in the last two years
>>> than I had in the previous ten. The rudeness that has invaded our
>>> society is starting to penetrate the cockpit environment, and *that*
>>> is a shame.
>>
>> It's because we're all getting older (Baby Boom Generation) and we're
>> becoming Grumpy Old Men... Of course, we also have to balance this with
>> being Dirty Old Men In Training...
>
> Then again there are some of us out here who completed the DOM training by
> age 6
> :-)

You needed TRAINING?

[The Visitor]

Wow, so different than in Canada. Here he would should coform to the
circuit and join it. Although he could land of an ils, but not cutting
off circuit traffic.

buttman wrote:
> I had two recent situations where other pilots thought they'd be cool
> by being condescending jackasses over the radio, which effected my
> ability to teach my student.
>
> The first time was when I was at a local uncontrolled field with one
> of my students to introduce solf-field takeoffs and landings. When we
> were turning downwind, I heard a Cirrus call "On the ILS at the outer
> marker". I haven't flown any approaches for months, so I had no idea
> how exactly far out he was. There were at least two other people in
> the pattern, so instead of asking him to give a more accurate position
> report, I just went on. Just before I got abeam the numbers on
> downwind, the Cirrus guy called 3 miles out, so I told my student to
> just do a short approach instead of extending which would have screwed
> everyone else up.
>
> I'm looking out the window like crazy to find this Cirrus guy but I
> don't see him anywhere. Then suddenly I hear him say in a snappy voice
> "Cessna on base at *** do you plan on cutting me off?" Startled, I
> looked around but couldn't for the life of me see him. I responded
> "uuhh, Cirrus on ILS I don't see you", then he snaps back
> sarcastically, "oh 45 seconds before impact..."
>
> I look right in front of me and there he is zooming by. I didn't
> realize Cirrus's were so fast. He had to have been going more than 150
> knots. I've turned short approaches in front of Seminoles when they
> were on 3 mile ILS finals and it has never been a problem...
>
> Anyways, the guy didn't have to be such a huge asshole. A busy pattern
> is stressful enough, the ones coming in straight in can at least be a
> little helpful, or at the VERY LEAST not act like a little baby when
> things don't go their way.
>
> Of the 50 or so times I've been on extended downwind when someone else
> in on a 3-10 mile final, I'd say 10 times I went behind them and it
> hasn't been a problem, 35 times I've gone behind them and it hasn't
> been a problem, and 5 times I messed it up and either cut the person
> off, or caused some other disruption. The other 4 times it was just a
> simple "sorry about that", or some other professional way of handing
> the situation, then forgetting it and moving on. It just makes it that
> much harder to shake it off when the person decides to act that way.
> Maybe I need to get thicker skin, but that situation had me all worked
> up for the rest of the flight, and I admit it hindered my instructing
> ability a little.
>
> As a little side note, that same Cirrus guy came today to my home
> airport which is even busier. There were like 7 planes already in the
> pattern, 3 on 45 for the pattern, and then comes my Cirrus. I
> recognized it was him because I remembered the tail number (N903CD).
> As soon as he called, tower told him to slow to final approach speed
> (which I just had to snicker to myself when I heard that ^_^). About a
> minute later I, on an extended downwind, was told to turn base, which
> would have put me right in front of the Cirrus. The tower cleared me
> for a full stop only (which I've never been issued before, our
> controllers are really good at accommodating a bunch of pattern
> traffic), and told the Cirrus to break off and enter on the 45 for a
> left traffic. After I landed, I switched to ground and just called it
> a day. When I got back to the training room, another instructor joked
> about how I was "kicked out of the pattern". He asked me of I heard
> about the Cirrus who "got ****ed off and left". I said no but I can
> only imagine what he actually said...
>
> Anyways, back on topic. Also today, on another flight with another
> student, we were coming back on the 45 for a downwind entry. Not too
> long after he told me to report established on the downwind, someone's
> mic got stuck and all I could hear on the radio was "EEEERRRRRRCHSHH
> EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE" punctuated with my call sign and the words "I'm not
> communicating with him", then some more "AAAAAAEERRRRNNNGH". I saw a
> plane on downwind which was about to converge with me, a helicopter
> which looked like was doing WHO KNOWS WHAT, and someone else on upwind
> about to turn crosswind. It looked like I was going to converge with
> the plane on downwind, so I just decided to do a 360 where I was
> (about a mile before entering downwind). As soon as a break in the
> radio screeching appeared, I quickly told tower I'm doing a 360 to
> avoid what by then I thought was a clueless student on a solo who
> didn't know how to use the radio.
>
> Well as soon as I told tower, a voice came on saying "..and that will
> put you right in front of 64 Delta" (or whatever his tail number was).
> Apparently there was a plane behind me, but I had no idea. Buy
> anyways, he had to do a evasive maneuver also, and he was ticked off.
> He came back on and told tower he had to do an evasive to avoid "the
> kamikaze" as he called me.
>
> Well guess what, bub? I had to do an evasive maneuver too. Thats an
> everyday thing 'round these parts. There are two busy flight schools,
> as well as a lot of military activity (a C-130 comes here a few times
> a week to do touch and goes, gives us a lot of wake turbulence
> avoidance practice ^_^). I had to fly a downwind parallel to him and
> then follow him in. I couldn't let my student do the flying because it
> was an atypical situation. AND I had to do all this while I'm getting
> name-called by some tard out of no-where. It just makes things that
> much more frustrating.
>
>
> So please, don't be a jackass show off on the radio. I actually saw
> the second guy climb out his plane after we landed. I saw he had what
> looked like his wife in there with him. I imagine he was acting like
> that to show off in front of his wife *rolleyes*.
>
> Anyways, just please be mindful of others, especially considering the
> environment your in (busy airspace; emergency in the area; whatever it
> may be). Just be aware that those snappy one liners may make you look
> cool, but they just make others frustrated and more life more
> difficult.
>
> I know this post is getting long, but theres one more instance I want
> to bring up. When I was getting my multi rating a few months ago, we
> went to a towered airport a few miles away to do a few ILS/VOR
> approaches. While we were doing the procedure turns and stuff, we
> could hear this clueless student pilot entering on a solo cross
> country. This guy was a total wreck. First he was 10 miles south; then
> he was 5 miles north, then he was over such and such lake which is 15
> miles northwest. The controllers at this particular airport aren't
> known as the friendliest around, so as you can imagine, the poor guy
> wasn't having a good time.
>
> I wasn't really paying attention to what all was being said because I
> was focusing on my approaches, but after doing about 3 full ILS/VOR
> approaches (procedure turn and all) he still was confused as to where
> he was and hadn't landed yet (but I believe was still in the pattern).
> We were just doing missed approaches, breaking off well before the
> airport area to stay out of the way.
>
> I don't really blame the controller because he was frustrated too, but
> it was what my instructor said which I think was worst of all. During
> our last approach, he said something to the effect of "Do you want us
> to do another low approach so you can handle this guy, or can we do a
> touch and go the this next one?"
>
> I just cringed when I heard that. I just can imagine being in his
> shoes. The last thing I want to know is that I'm messing not only the
> controller's thing, but other pilots as well. We didn't NEED to do a
> touch and go, we could have just did our share by helping out with the
> low approaches, then moved on. Indirectly telling the poor student how
> incompetent he is (which he HAS to already know by then) just helps no
> one out. It just makes things worse.
>
> I don't think what my instructor said
>

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Grumman-581" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Jay Honeck wrote:
>>>>> I had two recent situations where other pilots thought they'd be cool
>>>>> by being condescending jackasses over the radio, which effected my
>>>>> ability to teach my student.
>>>>
>>>> I can't comment too much on your experiences, but I will say this:
>>>> I've heard more rude and improper radio talk in the last two years
>>>> than I had in the previous ten. The rudeness that has invaded our
>>>> society is starting to penetrate the cockpit environment, and *that*
>>>> is a shame.
>>>
>>> It's because we're all getting older (Baby Boom Generation) and we're
>>> becoming Grumpy Old Men... Of course, we also have to balance this with
>>> being Dirty Old Men In Training...
>>
>> Then again there are some of us out here who completed the DOM training
>> by age 6
>> :-)
>
> You needed TRAINING?

It came naturally by age 5. :-)
DH

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

"gatt" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
> ...
>[i]
>> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.aviation.student/browse_thread/thread/bb7456ddb7679b82/f6fcecd2c0126ad5?lnk=st&q=buttman+Henriques&rnum=1&hl=en#f6fcecd2c0126ad5
>>
>> Interesting read. Just what you want in an instructor :-))
>
> Hey, all, I have a question about a comment in there:
>
> "Sounds like another stupid instructor trick: practicing engine out
> procedure at altitude by actually killing the engine. Could lead to an
> 'Oh ****!' experience. "
>
> Is that really a stupid instructor trick at altitude? My first instructor
> did it during our first cross country work--"Oops. I wonder how that
> happened?" Later he said he did it because the examiner would do it on
> the checkride. In fact, when the examiner did it on the checkride I
> reflexively checked the fuel lever first.
>
> ...When he asked me why I didn't go through the whole emergency procedure
> in order, I said because I checked the fuel shutoff valve first because
> it's so easy for some passenger to accidentally bump it. The rest of the
> maneuver started with him saying something like "Okay , suppose that wasn't the problem. What would you do?"
>
> Is this no longer considered good instructional practice?

Number 1 on the list for an actual engine out is to lower the nose and
maintain airspeed and control of the aircraft. Fly the airplane is always
number 1. Changing tanks and/or checking the fuel shutoff valve should be an
automatic first action on the checklist.
I don't believe in shutting an engine down completely to teach realism to a
student. Never had to do this, and don't recommend other CFI's do it either.
There's always the chance of packing up the engine playing around like this
and the gain in creating a more realistic scenario for the student can
easily be countered by the instructor facing an actual engine out and forced
landing.
The difference between a windmilling propeller (I'm talking singles here)
and a stopped prop on glide can easily be covered by an instructor and
understood by the student without actually stopping the prop.
Bottom line for me anyway, is that I never recommend an actual shutdown. I
DO recommend serious practice of simulated engine out landings (no power
assist from an unknown point through the landing) ON THE RUNWAY with
particular attention to the attainment of a key position for the subsequent
power off approach and landing on the runway.
In all the years I was instructing, I found this method completely
satisfactory for preparing a pilot to handle a forced landing.
Dudley Henriques

[Peter Dohm]

> >>>
> >>> It's because we're all getting older (Baby Boom Generation) and we're
> >>> becoming Grumpy Old Men... Of course, we also have to balance this
with
> >>> being Dirty Old Men In Training...
> >>
> >> Then again there are some of us out here who completed the DOM training
> >> by age 6
> >> :-)
> >
> > You needed TRAINING?
>
> It came naturally by age 5. :-)
> DH
>
>
I was also much more of a DOM at that age than today. I have simply
presumed that I must have shared some ancestry with Mr. Ford Prefect--of
"Hitchhiker's Guide" infamy.

Peter

[Peter Dohm]

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "buttman" > wrote in message
> > oups.com...
> >> On May 10, 10:20 am, "Peter Dohm" > wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Lemme get this straight! You are in instructor, which means you are
> >>> instrument rated, which means that you should know that outer markers
> >>> are
> >>> typically at least five miles from the landing zone--so, if you can
not
> >>> recall for a specific airport, you can still guess five miles. In
> >>> addition,
> >>> you did not bother to maintain familiarity with the procedures at an
> >>> airport
> >>> where you typically instruct, you failed to understant that the Cirrus
> >>> had
> >>> travelled a substantial (probably between a third and a half) of the
> >>> distance to the runway, and then you turned in front of known traffic
> >>> which
> >>> you did not see.
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> First off, I never said I did nothing wrong. I know I made a mistake
> >> by turning in front of him. We all make mistakes, whether you're an
> >> instructor or not. THE WHOLE POINT of the post was that the Cirrus guy
> >> had to act like a pumpus ass.
> >
> > Sounds like a typical childish response (ie, making excuses).
> >
> > The only pompous ass here is yourself.
> > --
> > Matt Barrow
> > Performace Homes, LLC.
> > Colorado Springs, CO
>
> I try and avoid this guy unless he posts on the student group where I have
> an interest from an instructor's point of view. Over here it's every man
for
> himself and I try to avoid taking him on.
> Last time we "got together", was fairly recently when he posted on the
> student group about yanking the fuel to shutoff on takeoff with "his
> student" and wanted to know if it was a good idea :-)
> I believe after my answer to him on this "little issue" that he now refers
> to me as a "Usenet bully".
> I'd be very interested in actually seeing his CFI certificate number and
> knowing his real name for checkup with the FAA. I find it extremely
> difficult from his dialog and points of view to envision him as a CFI, but
> stranger things have happened I guess :-))
> Dudley Henriques
>
>
I remembered the opinion that I had formed, but had forgotten the incident.
Thanks for the reminder.

Peter

[C J Campbell[_1_]]

On 2007-05-10 09:29:04 -0700, "Allen" > said:
>>
>>
>> Landing. Aircraft while on final approach to land or while landing,
>> have the right-of-way over other aircraft in flight or operating on
>> the surface, except that they shall not take advantage of this rule to
>> force and aircraft off the runway surface which has already landed...
>
> Which does nothing to define what "final approach" is. If you are aligned
> with the runway and intending to land does final begin 5 miles from the
> threshold? 10 miles? 15 miles? 50 miles?

Well, in the case linked, in each incident the pilot of the Cessna 150
turned inside and cut in front of aircraft that were lower than him and
on final approach. At least one aircraft appears to have been in the
pattern that was lower than him but not on final was considered by the
FAA to be on "final approach" and lower. This behavior by the Cessna
pilot occurred repeatedly and on more than one flight.

So many planes can be on "final approach" but the lower aircraft has
right of way. However, you cannot deliberately try to descend lower
than another plane simply to position yourself in front of him. In the
case of the Cessna 150 pilot, he nearly hit a plane that had just
landed as well as one that was on the runway ready to take off. While
landing aircraft normally have right of way over departing aircraft,
the FAA ruled that the Cessna pilot was operating dangerously and
recklessly and that he cannot claim to have right of way if he is
flying recklessly.

--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

[C J Campbell[_1_]]

On 2007-05-09 23:35:14 -0700, buttman > said:

> I had two recent situations where other pilots thought they'd be cool
> by being condescending jackasses over the radio, which effected my
> ability to teach my student.
>
> The first time was when I was at a local uncontrolled field with one
> of my students to introduce solf-field takeoffs and landings. When we
> were turning downwind, I heard a Cirrus call "On the ILS at the outer
> marker". I haven't flown any approaches for months, so I had no idea
> how exactly far out he was. There were at least two other people in
> the pattern, so instead of asking him to give a more accurate position
> report, I just went on. Just before I got abeam the numbers on
> downwind, the Cirrus guy called 3 miles out, so I told my student to
> just do a short approach instead of extending which would have screwed
> everyone else up.
>
> I'm looking out the window like crazy to find this Cirrus guy but I
> don't see him anywhere. Then suddenly I hear him say in a snappy voice
> "Cessna on base at *** do you plan on cutting me off?" Startled, I
> looked around but couldn't for the life of me see him. I responded
> "uuhh, Cirrus on ILS I don't see you", then he snaps back
> sarcastically, "oh 45 seconds before impact..."

Well, he was reckless. He saw you, but bull-headedly continued anyway
despite the risk of collision. It no longer matters who was right; he
was willing to kill both you and him simply to prove a point. It
appears he even sped up in order to make sure he stayed in front of you
or to intimidate you.

All pilots make mistakes, which is all the more reason we cannot allow
air rage to overcome our good judgment and sense of courtesy. Pilots
should be understanding and tolerant of each others' mistakes, if for
no other reason that no one is perfect.

People who cannot control their anger or other emotions in the cockpit
are a danger to both themselves and everyone around them. For this
reason alone I find the Cirrus pilot's behavior alarming.

However, that does not relieve you of your duty to both see and avoid
other aircraft, to follow the rules of right of way, or to communicate
more clearly on the radio. A little cooperation while the Cirrus was
still at the outer marker would have been more appropriate. A
preemptive "I don't see you or understand where you are; we are on base
about to turn final" might still have elicited a sharp response, but it
is one more thing you could have done to prevent the incident.

I think filing a NASA form is also a very good idea any time aircraft
communication (or the lack thereof) poses a hazard to operations. This
could go a long way toward improving communication in the future and is
a good resource to instructors.

--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

[buttman]

On May 10, 7:19 pm, C J Campbell >
wrote:
> On 2007-05-09 23:35:14 -0700, buttman > said:
>
>
>
> > I had two recent situations where other pilots thought they'd be cool
> > by being condescending jackasses over the radio, which effected my
> > ability to teach my student.
>
> > The first time was when I was at a local uncontrolled field with one
> > of my students to introduce solf-field takeoffs and landings. When we
> > were turning downwind, I heard a Cirrus call "On the ILS at the outer
> > marker". I haven't flown any approaches for months, so I had no idea
> > how exactly far out he was. There were at least two other people in
> > the pattern, so instead of asking him to give a more accurate position
> > report, I just went on. Just before I got abeam the numbers on
> > downwind, the Cirrus guy called 3 miles out, so I told my student to
> > just do a short approach instead of extending which would have screwed
> > everyone else up.
>
> > I'm looking out the window like crazy to find this Cirrus guy but I
> > don't see him anywhere. Then suddenly I hear him say in a snappy voice
> > "Cessna on base at *** do you plan on cutting me off?" Startled, I
> > looked around but couldn't for the life of me see him. I responded
> > "uuhh, Cirrus on ILS I don't see you", then he snaps back
> > sarcastically, "oh 45 seconds before impact..."
>
> Well, he was reckless. He saw you, but bull-headedly continued anyway
> despite the risk of collision. It no longer matters who was right; he
> was willing to kill both you and him simply to prove a point. It
> appears he even sped up in order to make sure he stayed in front of you
> or to intimidate you.
>
> All pilots make mistakes, which is all the more reason we cannot allow
> air rage to overcome our good judgment and sense of courtesy. Pilots
> should be understanding and tolerant of each others' mistakes, if for
> no other reason that no one is perfect.
>
> People who cannot control their anger or other emotions in the cockpit
> are a danger to both themselves and everyone around them. For this
> reason alone I find the Cirrus pilot's behavior alarming.
>
> However, that does not relieve you of your duty to both see and avoid
> other aircraft, to follow the rules of right of way, or to communicate
> more clearly on the radio. A little cooperation while the Cirrus was
> still at the outer marker would have been more appropriate. A
> preemptive "I don't see you or understand where you are; we are on base
> about to turn final" might still have elicited a sharp response, but it
> is one more thing you could have done to prevent the incident.
>
> I think filing a NASA form is also a very good idea any time aircraft
> communication (or the lack thereof) poses a hazard to operations. This
> could go a long way toward improving communication in the future and is
> a good resource to instructors.
>
> --
> Waddling Eagle
> World Famous Flight Instructor

THANK YOU for actually reading my post and understanding my point. I
know in the case of the Cirrus, I could have done more to avoid that
situation. There were a few other planes in the pattern so it's not
like we could have just freely opened up an dialog between one
another. I hope my post didn't come off as "wah wah a mean cirrus cut
me off what a meany head wah wah" like some others are making it out
to be. No one is perfect, and I don't know why some people can't
accept the fact that I'm not...

My point was that rage over the radio is ABSOLUTELY NEVER
constructive. EVER. All it does is cause more problems.

[buttman]

On May 10, 2:43 pm, "Matt Barrow" >
wrote:
> "buttman" > wrote in message
>
> oups.com...
>
>
>
> > On May 10, 10:20 am, "Peter Dohm" > wrote:
>
> >> Lemme get this straight! You are in instructor, which means you are
> >> instrument rated, which means that you should know that outer markers are
> >> typically at least five miles from the landing zone--so, if you can not
> >> recall for a specific airport, you can still guess five miles. In
> >> addition,
> >> you did not bother to maintain familiarity with the procedures at an
> >> airport
> >> where you typically instruct, you failed to understant that the Cirrus
> >> had
> >> travelled a substantial (probably between a third and a half) of the
> >> distance to the runway, and then you turned in front of known traffic
> >> which
> >> you did not see.
>
> > First off, I never said I did nothing wrong. I know I made a mistake
> > by turning in front of him. We all make mistakes, whether you're an
> > instructor or not. THE WHOLE POINT of the post was that the Cirrus guy
> > had to act like a pumpus ass.
>
> Sounds like a typical childish response (ie, making excuses).
>
> The only pompous ass here is yourself.
> --
> Matt Barrow
> Performace Homes, LLC.
> Colorado Springs, CO

Is this a joke? Are you being intentionally obtuse? Can you read?
Assuming you can, go back and read the first sentence I wrote.

I know I could have handled that situation a little better. Hindsight
is always 20/20. I accept full responsibility for me turning in front
of him. I have never said anything to the contrary. What on earth
makes you think I'm making excuses?

Are you saying the Cirrus guy was in the right to say what he said on
the radio? You think what I did gave him the right to act as
unprofessionally as he did? Or do you think what he said and how he
said it was indeed professional?

[Aluckyguess]

I dont know if this is true but if it is you sure have a lot of problems.
"buttman" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>I had two recent situations where other pilots thought they'd be cool
> by being condescending jackasses over the radio, which effected my
> ability to teach my student.
>
> The first time was when I was at a local uncontrolled field with one
> of my students to introduce solf-field takeoffs and landings. When we
> were turning downwind, I heard a Cirrus call "On the ILS at the outer
> marker". I haven't flown any approaches for months, so I had no idea
> how exactly far out he was. There were at least two other people in
> the pattern, so instead of asking him to give a more accurate position
> report, I just went on. Just before I got abeam the numbers on
> downwind, the Cirrus guy called 3 miles out, so I told my student to
> just do a short approach instead of extending which would have screwed
> everyone else up.
>
> I'm looking out the window like crazy to find this Cirrus guy but I
> don't see him anywhere. Then suddenly I hear him say in a snappy voice
> "Cessna on base at *** do you plan on cutting me off?" Startled, I
> looked around but couldn't for the life of me see him. I responded
> "uuhh, Cirrus on ILS I don't see you", then he snaps back
> sarcastically, "oh 45 seconds before impact..."
>
> I look right in front of me and there he is zooming by. I didn't
> realize Cirrus's were so fast. He had to have been going more than 150
> knots. I've turned short approaches in front of Seminoles when they
> were on 3 mile ILS finals and it has never been a problem...
>
> Anyways, the guy didn't have to be such a huge asshole. A busy pattern
> is stressful enough, the ones coming in straight in can at least be a
> little helpful, or at the VERY LEAST not act like a little baby when
> things don't go their way.
>
> Of the 50 or so times I've been on extended downwind when someone else
> in on a 3-10 mile final, I'd say 10 times I went behind them and it
> hasn't been a problem, 35 times I've gone behind them and it hasn't
> been a problem, and 5 times I messed it up and either cut the person
> off, or caused some other disruption. The other 4 times it was just a
> simple "sorry about that", or some other professional way of handing
> the situation, then forgetting it and moving on. It just makes it that
> much harder to shake it off when the person decides to act that way.
> Maybe I need to get thicker skin, but that situation had me all worked
> up for the rest of the flight, and I admit it hindered my instructing
> ability a little.
>
> As a little side note, that same Cirrus guy came today to my home
> airport which is even busier. There were like 7 planes already in the
> pattern, 3 on 45 for the pattern, and then comes my Cirrus. I
> recognized it was him because I remembered the tail number (N903CD).
> As soon as he called, tower told him to slow to final approach speed
> (which I just had to snicker to myself when I heard that ^_^). About a
> minute later I, on an extended downwind, was told to turn base, which
> would have put me right in front of the Cirrus. The tower cleared me
> for a full stop only (which I've never been issued before, our
> controllers are really good at accommodating a bunch of pattern
> traffic), and told the Cirrus to break off and enter on the 45 for a
> left traffic. After I landed, I switched to ground and just called it
> a day. When I got back to the training room, another instructor joked
> about how I was "kicked out of the pattern". He asked me of I heard
> about the Cirrus who "got ****ed off and left". I said no but I can
> only imagine what he actually said...
>
> Anyways, back on topic. Also today, on another flight with another
> student, we were coming back on the 45 for a downwind entry. Not too
> long after he told me to report established on the downwind, someone's
> mic got stuck and all I could hear on the radio was "EEEERRRRRRCHSHH
> EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE" punctuated with my call sign and the words "I'm not
> communicating with him", then some more "AAAAAAEERRRRNNNGH". I saw a
> plane on downwind which was about to converge with me, a helicopter
> which looked like was doing WHO KNOWS WHAT, and someone else on upwind
> about to turn crosswind. It looked like I was going to converge with
> the plane on downwind, so I just decided to do a 360 where I was
> (about a mile before entering downwind). As soon as a break in the
> radio screeching appeared, I quickly told tower I'm doing a 360 to
> avoid what by then I thought was a clueless student on a solo who
> didn't know how to use the radio.
>
> Well as soon as I told tower, a voice came on saying "..and that will
> put you right in front of 64 Delta" (or whatever his tail number was).
> Apparently there was a plane behind me, but I had no idea. Buy
> anyways, he had to do a evasive maneuver also, and he was ticked off.
> He came back on and told tower he had to do an evasive to avoid "the
> kamikaze" as he called me.
>
> Well guess what, bub? I had to do an evasive maneuver too. Thats an
> everyday thing 'round these parts. There are two busy flight schools,
> as well as a lot of military activity (a C-130 comes here a few times
> a week to do touch and goes, gives us a lot of wake turbulence
> avoidance practice ^_^). I had to fly a downwind parallel to him and
> then follow him in. I couldn't let my student do the flying because it
> was an atypical situation. AND I had to do all this while I'm getting
> name-called by some tard out of no-where. It just makes things that
> much more frustrating.
>
>
> So please, don't be a jackass show off on the radio. I actually saw
> the second guy climb out his plane after we landed. I saw he had what
> looked like his wife in there with him. I imagine he was acting like
> that to show off in front of his wife *rolleyes*.
>
> Anyways, just please be mindful of others, especially considering the
> environment your in (busy airspace; emergency in the area; whatever it
> may be). Just be aware that those snappy one liners may make you look
> cool, but they just make others frustrated and more life more
> difficult.
>
> I know this post is getting long, but theres one more instance I want
> to bring up. When I was getting my multi rating a few months ago, we
> went to a towered airport a few miles away to do a few ILS/VOR
> approaches. While we were doing the procedure turns and stuff, we
> could hear this clueless student pilot entering on a solo cross
> country. This guy was a total wreck. First he was 10 miles south; then
> he was 5 miles north, then he was over such and such lake which is 15
> miles northwest. The controllers at this particular airport aren't
> known as the friendliest around, so as you can imagine, the poor guy
> wasn't having a good time.
>
> I wasn't really paying attention to what all was being said because I
> was focusing on my approaches, but after doing about 3 full ILS/VOR
> approaches (procedure turn and all) he still was confused as to where
> he was and hadn't landed yet (but I believe was still in the pattern).
> We were just doing missed approaches, breaking off well before the
> airport area to stay out of the way.
>
> I don't really blame the controller because he was frustrated too, but
> it was what my instructor said which I think was worst of all. During
> our last approach, he said something to the effect of "Do you want us
> to do another low approach so you can handle this guy, or can we do a
> touch and go the this next one?"
>
> I just cringed when I heard that. I just can imagine being in his
> shoes. The last thing I want to know is that I'm messing not only the
> controller's thing, but other pilots as well. We didn't NEED to do a
> touch and go, we could have just did our share by helping out with the
> low approaches, then moved on. Indirectly telling the poor student how
> incompetent he is (which he HAS to already know by then) just helps no
> one out. It just makes things worse.
>
> I don't think what my instructor said
>

[Blanche]

Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>
>I try and avoid this guy unless he posts on the student group where I have
>an interest from an instructor's point of view. Over here it's every man for
>himself and I try to avoid taking him on.
>Last time we "got together", was fairly recently when he posted on the
>student group about yanking the fuel to shutoff on takeoff with "his
>student" and wanted to know if it was a good idea :-)

aHA! Now I remember the "buttman incident" from a few weeks ago.
I thought the OP sounded vaguely familiar...

[Blanche]

buttman > wrote:

>Is this a joke? Are you being intentionally obtuse? Can you read?
>Assuming you can, go back and read the first sentence I wrote.
>
>I know I could have handled that situation a little better. Hindsight
>is always 20/20. I accept full responsibility for me turning in front
>of him. I have never said anything to the contrary. What on earth
>makes you think I'm making excuses?
>
>Are you saying the Cirrus guy was in the right to say what he said on
>the radio? You think what I did gave him the right to act as
>unprofessionally as he did? Or do you think what he said and how he
>said it was indeed professional?

Stop whining and get a thicker skin. It happens. So what? You expect
everyone around you to be explicit adherents to Miss Manners?

Not only that, all we have read is your perception of the event.

And following Dudley's train of thought - can you prove you're a CFI?

[buttman]

On May 10, 10:12 pm, Blanche > wrote:
> buttman > wrote:
> >Is this a joke? Are you being intentionally obtuse? Can you read?
> >Assuming you can, go back and read the first sentence I wrote.
>
> >I know I could have handled that situation a little better. Hindsight
> >is always 20/20. I accept full responsibility for me turning in front
> >of him. I have never said anything to the contrary. What on earth
> >makes you think I'm making excuses?
>
> >Are you saying the Cirrus guy was in the right to say what he said on
> >the radio? You think what I did gave him the right to act as
> >unprofessionally as he did? Or do you think what he said and how he
> >said it was indeed professional?
>
> Stop whining and get a thicker skin. It happens. So what? You expect
> everyone around you to be explicit adherents to Miss Manners?
>

I'm not whining. I started this thread to make others aware that being
a jackass over the radio is not at all constructive. I just used those
three events to make my point. People make threads like this all the
time here. It's a subject matter that I felt needed some attention, so
I thought I'd write up some experiences I have and get a discussion
going. Sheesh, I thought people would actually appreciate my effort.
Silly me. Next time I just won't bother, would that make you happier?

> Not only that, all we have read is your perception of the event.

I give the Cirrus guy total benefit of the doubt. Maybe he is normally
a very nice guy who is never short with people. Maybe he was having a
bad day, and me turning in front of him (for the 10th time I agree was
totally my fault) caused him to snap. I didn't snap back at him
(something I'd NEVER do), nor did I feel it necessary to peruse the
matter further with him. The fact of the matter is, I handled the
resulting situation professionally, he did not. When something like
that happens, both parties must act responsibly no matter which one
"caused" the situation in the first place. Heck, I've had people pull
out in front me a few times. Did I overreact? No. Even though I may
have had the "right" to get all snappy.

> And following Dudley's train of thought - can you prove you're a CFI?

And what would my CFI number add to the discussion? Why does it even
matter? If you don't believe I really have a CFI then you can go right
on ahead and believe that. It doesn't change what I wrote one bit. You
should judge me by my words, not my credentials. Thats the thing that
****es me off about this group; people think having credentials
automatically makes your word concrete. In the other thread I made a
few weeks ago in r.a.s it was the same way. People just came in and
said "I've been an instructor for thirty years and I say its unsafe,
END OF DISCUSSION" without providing any real arguments. I'm here to
argue and debate, not play the stupid "who has the biggest e-penis"
game. Anyways, even if I did give my CFI number/name people would just
say I made the number up...

[Larry Dighera]

On 10 May 2007 22:50:25 -0700, buttman > wrote in
. com>:

>even if I did give my CFI number/name people would just
>say I made the number up...

If you provide your true name and state of residence, your
certificates may be searched on the FAA web site, not to mention what
it would do for your credibility compared to your present pseudonym.

Aside from those who prefer to criticize you, can you provide any
regulatory statute against what occurred on the radio? As far as I
understand, the FAA authorizes (presumably with the concurrence of the
FCC) the self-announcement broadcast of position and intentions by
pilots at non-towered airports as set forth in Advisory Circular
AC90-42F below.

You will note, that it does NOT authorize _two-way_ communication
between aircraft, so it would seem that such _two-way_ communication
may be contrary to FAA policy if not regulation. (That's not to say
that two-way communication between pilots isn't useful at times.) This
is an issue you might consider discussing with the local FSDO
inspector for a more definitive answer (hopefully).



http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/0/C54E50252A7FA56D862569D8007804BA?OpenDocument
AC 90-42F Traffic Advisory Practices at Airports without Operating
Control Towers

9. SELF-ANNOUNCE POSITION AND/OR INTENTIONS.
a. General. ‘Self-announce” is a procedure whereby pilots
broadcast their position, intended flight activity or ground
operation on the designated CTAF. This procedure is used primarily
at airports which do not have a control tower or an FSS on the
airport.
...
11. EXAMPLES OF SELF-ANNOUNCE PHRASEOLOGIES. It should be noted
that aircraft operating to or from another nearby airport may be
making self-announce broadcasts on the same UNICOM or MULTICOM
frequency. To help identify one airport from another, the airport
name should be spoken at the beginning and end of each
self-announce transmission.

(1) Inbound:
STRAWN TRAFFIC, APACHE TWO TWO FIVE ZULU, (POSITION), (ALTITUDE),
(DESCENDING) OR ENTERING DOWNWIND/BASE/FINAL (AS APPROPRIATE)
RUNWAY ONE SEVEN FULL STOP,
TOUCH-AND-GO, STRAWN.

* STRAWN TRAFFIC APACHE TWO IWO FIVE ZULU CLEAR OF RUNWAY ONE
SEVEN STRAWN. *

(2) outbound:
$TRAWN TRAFFIC, QUEENAIRE SEVEN ONE FIVE FIVE BRAVO (LOCATION ON
AIRPORT) TAXIING TO RUNWAY TWO SIX STRAWN.

STRAWN TRAFFIC, QUEENAIRE SEVEN ONE FCVE FIVE BRAVO DEPARTING
RUNWAY TWO SIX, DEPARTING THE PATTERN TO THE (DIRECTION),
CLIMBING TO (ALTITUDE) STRAWN.

(3) Practice Instrument Approach:
STRAWN TRAFFIC, CESSNA TWO THREE FOUR THREE QUEBEC (NAME - FINAL
APPROACH FIX) INBOUND DESCENDING THROUGH (ALTITUDE) PRACTICE
(TYPE) APPROACH RUNWAY THREE FIVE STRAWN.

STRAWN TRAFFIC, CESSNA TWO ONE FOUR THREE QUEBEC PRACTICE (TYPE)
APPROACH COMPLETED OR TERMINATED RUNWAY THREE FIVE STRAWN.


12 SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDED COMMUNCATIONS PROCEDURES.
...

[Allen[_1_]]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 10 May 2007 11:29:04 -0500, "Allen" >
> wrote in >:
>
> >Which does nothing to define what "final approach" is. If you are
aligned[i]
> >with the runway and intending to land does final begin 5 miles from the
> >threshold? 10 miles? 15 miles? 50 miles?
> >
>
>
> http://www.faa.gov/ATpubs/PCG/F.HTM
> FINAL APPROACH - That part of an instrument approach
> procedure which commences at the specified final approach fix or
> point, or where such a fix or point is not specified.
>
> a. At the end of the last procedure turn, base turn or inbound
> turn of a racetrack procedure, if specified; or
>
> b. At the point of interception of the last track specified in the
> approach procedure; and ends at a point in the vicinity of an
> aerodrome from which:
>
> 1. A landing can be made; or
>
> 2. A missed approach procedure is initiated.
>
> FINAL APPROACH COURSE- A bearing/radial/track of an instrument
> approach leading to a runway or an extended runway centerline all
> without regard to distance.
>
> FINAL APPROACH FIX- The fix from which the final approach (IFR) to
> an airport is executed and which identifies the beginning of the
> final approach segment. It is designated on Government charts by
> the Maltese Cross symbol for nonprecision approaches and the
> lightning bolt symbol for precision approaches; or when ATC
> directs a lower-than-published glideslope/path intercept altitude,
> it is the resultant actual point of the glideslope/path intercept.

And if you are in an NORDO Aeronca Champ doing touch and goes on Sunday
afternoon how do you determine it?

[Allen[_1_]]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 10 May 2007 14:20:24 -0500, "Allen" >
> wrote in >:
>
> >It also defines "final" as
> >the term commonly used to mean that an aircraft is on the final approach
> >course or is aligned with a landing area.
>
>
> Right. So VFR flights are on final approach at the time they turn
> from the Base to Final leg of the landing pattern, and IFR flights at
> the FAF. Easy.
>

So if you are on a VFR flight doing a straight in you are never on final?

[B A R R Y[_2_]]

Jim Stewart wrote:
> Dudley Henriques wrote:
>
>> Last time we "got together", was fairly recently when he posted on the
>> student group about yanking the fuel to shutoff on takeoff with "his
>> student" and wanted to know if it was a good idea :-)
>
> Now everything makes a little more sense.
>
> Thanks for pointing out the history.
>

If he keeps doing that, he may not be posting for long.

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

"buttman" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>> And following Dudley's train of thought - can you prove you're a CFI?
>
> And what would my CFI number add to the discussion? Why does it even
> matter? If you don't believe I really have a CFI then you can go right
> on ahead and believe that. It doesn't change what I wrote one bit. You
> should judge me by my words, not my credentials.

Quite to the contrary, it's your "words" that make some pilots on these
groups question your "credentials".
Although its a fact that you don't have to post your real name on these
groups, its also a fact that many new student pilots frequent these groups.
For that reason, most of the pilots and instructors who post here are very
careful with the information they present. Although ALL information
presented on Usenet should be checked for accuracy, there is always a
potential flight safety factor in play here, especially when someone posts
using a CFI format.
I've read your posts and I have serious questions about you. Basically I'm
concerned not so much about the statements you have made but rather the
questions you have asked. In my opinion, if you are indeed a CFI as you have
stated on these groups, you should already know the answers to the questions
you are asking.
So I have a double problem with you. Your questions are suspect to me, and
your overall reasoning is suspect as well.
You are correct when you say that credentials on Usenet are not as important
as the information posted. The pilots here have been reading each other as
well as newbies for many years. Our opinions on the validity of a post is
based on years of actual experience reading what an individual poster has to
say.
With this in mind, and based only on the information you have posted to
these groups, I have to tell you that in my opinion you are either posing as
a flight instructor or a completely ill prepared CFI.
As I have said before, I personally will give you a great deal more
lattitude on the piloting group than I will on the student group. As someone
who has invested a great deal of time and effort in the instruction
business, I naturally have an aversion to bad information and will say so
when presented with same. This has nothing at all to do with being a "Usenet
Bully".



Thats the thing that
> ****es me off about this group; people think having credentials
> automatically makes your word concrete.

Again, your reasoning and deduction is suspect.
If you will notice, hardly anyone on these groups stresses credentials. Most
of us mention them only in passing. We all realize that it's the information
that actually establishes the "credentials" on these groups. Respect here
has been earned through hundreds and in some cases thousands of postings
containing information that those reading the posts know to be factual and
correct. In this manner, "credentials" are earned on Usenet, and by no other
means.


In the other thread I made a
> few weeks ago in r.a.s it was the same way. People just came in and
> said "I've been an instructor for thirty years and I say its unsafe,
> END OF DISCUSSION" without providing any real arguments.

Actually its longer than that, and you received precise and direct argument
stating exactly why as a CFI you don't turn off the fuel on takeoff. The
fact that you even asked this question and posed this scenario is one of the
prime reasons I suspect that you are either not a CFI or a VERY poor one.
You will notice that I'm questioning your information as well as your
"credentials."



I'm here to
> argue and debate, not play the stupid "who has the biggest e-penis"
> game. Anyways, even if I did give my CFI number/name people would just
> say I made the number up...
>

Again, your powers of deductive reasoning are in my opinion, suspect.
It is not the purpose of these groups to "argue and debate". The purpose of
these groups is to SHARE useful and accurate data and information about
flying and aviation.
Its fine to argue your point, and its fine to engage in debate, but to enter
these groups for the specific purpose of arguing and debating shows a basic
lack of understanding for why the majority of people engage on these pilot
forums.
Dudley Henriques

[Larry Dighera]

On Fri, 11 May 2007 06:42:17 -0500, "Allen" >
wrote in >:

>
>And if you are in an NORDO Aeronca Champ doing touch and goes on Sunday
>afternoon how do you determine it?
>

My guess would be, that the same FAAO 7110.65 PCG definitions apply to
all flights including NORDO flights, as well as those who choose not
to participate in the position and intentions broadcasts

To determine if it's appropriate to begin the turns to the base and
final legs of the landing pattern, the NORDO pilot on downwind would
use the same method pilots of aircraft with electrical systems use,
the Mark I Eyeball.

If visibility is three miles in Class E airspace surrounding the
non-towered airport, and there is an inbound IFR flight past the five
mile distant FAF in line with the runway centerline, the NORDO pilot
won't be able to visually acquire the conflicting IFR traffic that has
the right of way. But, a Champ could land and be tied down before
there is an opportunity for a MAC.

At one mile visibility in Class G airspace, the Champ would probably
still not be too much of a hazard to the IFR arrival if its pilot made
a short approach. However, if the NORDO Champ turns base up against
the face of a cumulus cloud, there is potential for an 'aluminum
thunder shower', but the same would be true for radio equipped
aircraft despite the pilot being aware of the position and intentions
broadcast by the IFR arrival.

Do you see it differently?

[Larry Dighera]

On Fri, 11 May 2007 06:44:59 -0500, "Allen" >
wrote in >:

>
>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>> On Thu, 10 May 2007 14:20:24 -0500, "Allen" >
>> wrote in >:
>>
>> >It also defines "final" as
>> >the term commonly used to mean that an aircraft is on the final approach
>> >course or is aligned with a landing area.
>>
>>
>> Right. So VFR flights are on final approach at the time they turn
>> from the Base to Final leg of the landing pattern, and IFR flights at
>> the FAF. Easy.
>>
>
>So if you are on a VFR flight doing a straight in you are never on final?
>

[Larry Dighera]

On Fri, 11 May 2007 06:44:59 -0500, "Allen" >
wrote in >:

>
>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>> On Thu, 10 May 2007 14:20:24 -0500, "Allen" >
>> wrote in >:
>>
>> >It also defines "final" as
>> >the term commonly used to mean that an aircraft is on the final approach
>> >course or is aligned with a landing area.
>>
>>
>> Right. So VFR flights are on final approach at the time they turn
>> from the Base to Final leg of the landing pattern, and IFR flights at
>> the FAF. Easy.
>>
>
>So if you are on a VFR flight doing a straight in you are never on final?
>

Not the way I see it.

If you are aligned with the runway centerline VFR inbound, past the
FAF fix if there is a published instrument approach, I would say your
flight meets the PCG definition of being on the final approach leg of
the landing pattern. If there is no published FAF, (again, as in my
answer to your previous question in Message-ID:
qv) there are issues
governed by the prevailing metrological conditions and the class of
airspace in which the flight is being conducted.

I realize you are attempting to point out, that there are often
instances where the flight on downwind will inadvertently violate the
first sentence of CFR Title 14, Part 91 §91.113(g):


http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=391bdf23098172240eee2243ba892c10&rgn=div5&view=text&node=14:2.0.1.3.10&idno=14#14:2.0.1.3.10.2.4.7
(g) Landing. Aircraft, while on final approach to land or while
landing, have the right-of-way over other aircraft in flight or
operating on the surface, except that they shall not take
advantage of this rule to force an aircraft off the runway surface
which has already landed and is attempting to make way for an
aircraft on final approach. When two or more aircraft are
approaching an airport for the purpose of landing, the aircraft at
the lower altitude has the right-of-way, but it shall not take
advantage of this rule to cut in front of another which is on
final approach to land or to overtake that aircraft.

But the second sentence of §91.113(g) above relating to the relative
altitudes of the aircraft makes that interpretation a bit ambiguous.

In practice, the point you are attempting to make is probably moot, as
I'm not aware of a significant number of MACs resulting from
§91.113(g) violations.

But you might do some research on the NTSB aviation accident database
to verify your concern: http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/query.asp

[buttman]

On May 11, 6:59 am, "Dudley Henriques" > wrote:
> "buttman" > wrote in message
>
> oups.com...
>
> >> And following Dudley's train of thought - can you prove you're a CFI?
>
> > And what would my CFI number add to the discussion? Why does it even
> > matter? If you don't believe I really have a CFI then you can go right
> > on ahead and believe that. It doesn't change what I wrote one bit. You
> > should judge me by my words, not my credentials.
>
> Quite to the contrary, it's your "words" that make some pilots on these
> groups question your "credentials".

What are some of these 'words' that makes you think i'm one of the
worlds worst instructors? Just give me an example. I've made less than
100 posts on this group since I started using usenet back in 2005, and
I've made a whopping 5 posts on r.a.s, so finding one shouldn't be
hard.

> Although its a fact that you don't have to post your real name on these
> groups, its also a fact that many new student pilots frequent these groups.
> For that reason, most of the pilots and instructors who post here are very
> careful with the information they present. Although ALL information
> presented on Usenet should be checked for accuracy, there is always a
> potential flight safety factor in play here, especially when someone posts
> using a CFI format.

I'm not following you. How does my CFI number have anything to do with
new students reading this group?

> I've read your posts and I have serious questions about you. Basically I'm
> concerned not so much about the statements you have made but rather the
> questions you have asked.

What questions should a CFI be asking, and what questions shouldn't be
asked? Or do you think CFI's should not ask questions at all? If
you're referring to the fuel valve incident, I thought it was a valid
question. You have 2 miles of runway which was 150 feet wide, a low
horsepower engine (so no huge yaw), and me on board who can take over
if the student locks up. I admit it's pushing some safety boundaries,
but so does completely shutting down one engine in a twin, or a
simulated engine failure (via the throttle) in the traffic pattern...
Hell, TAKING OFF in even a perfectly airworthy airplane is pushing
certain safety boundaries.

> In my opinion, if you are indeed a CFI as you have
> stated on these groups, you should already know the answers to the questions
> you are asking.
> So I have a double problem with you. Your questions are suspect to me, and
> your overall reasoning is suspect as well.
> You are correct when you say that credentials on Usenet are not as important
> as the information posted. The pilots here have been reading each other as
> well as newbies for many years. Our opinions on the validity of a post is
> based on years of actual experience reading what an individual poster has to
> say.
>
> With this in mind, and based only on the information you have posted to
> these groups, I have to tell you that in my opinion you are either posing as
> a flight instructor or a completely ill prepared CFI.
> As I have said before, I personally will give you a great deal more
> lattitude on the piloting group than I will on the student group. As someone
> who has invested a great deal of time and effort in the instruction
> business, I naturally have an aversion to bad information and will say so
> when presented with same.

Get over yourself.

> This has nothing at all to do with being a "Usenet
> Bully".

I never called you or anyone a usenet bully. "Internet tough guy" is
someone who feels the need to act like a tough guy over the internet
over something they wouldn't dare do in real life. It's like me saying
if my piano teacher played a wrong note I'm going to get up and yell
into her face "YOU'RE FIRED". In the real world its a cumulation of
small things, or one big thing that causes someone to get tired.
Accidentally pulling in front of a straight in is not something a sane
person would fire their CFI over. It's just ridiculous.

> Again, your reasoning and deduction is suspect.
> If you will notice, hardly anyone on these groups stresses credentials.

Are you kidding? Just about everyone has their real name / location /
certificates held in their signature. I've been using internet
discussion forums since the early 2000's, and I've never been part of
a group that does that. I've even been part of professional groups,
with doctors post
about medical matters, lawyers post about legal matters, pilots post
about aviation matters; none of them do that.

I've spoke with real life CFI's, including examiners, very high time
instructors, ex-FAA inspectors, and they all have treated me with
respect. This is the only group that feels the need to jump down my
throat.

> > In the other thread I made a
> > few weeks ago in r.a.s it was the same way. People just came in and
> > said "I've been an instructor for thirty years and I say its unsafe,
> > END OF DISCUSSION" without providing any real arguments.
>
> Actually its longer than that, and you received precise and direct argument
> stating exactly why as a CFI you don't turn off the fuel on takeoff.

People compared what I was doing with shutting down one engine in a
twin (which I completely agree is unsafe during takeoff regardless of
the runway length). They posted accident reports where someone stalled/
spun on takeoff and the plane was found to have the fuel valve turned
off; not the same situation.

Everyone just kneejerk reacted to me challenging their already held
beliefs. Instead of acknowledging I had some points, they just all
made me out to be a crazy madman. It's easier to do that, than it is
to change your way of thinking.

> Again, your powers of deductive reasoning are in my opinion, suspect.
> It is not the purpose of these groups to "argue and debate". The purpose of
> these groups is to SHARE useful and accurate data and information about
> flying and aviation.

And what on earth is the difference?

[gatt]

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
...

> The difference between a windmilling propeller (I'm talking singles here)
> and a stopped prop on glide can easily be covered by an instructor and
> understood by the student without actually stopping the prop.
> Bottom line for me anyway, is that I never recommend an actual shutdown. I
> DO recommend serious practice of simulated engine out landings (no power
> assist from an unknown point through the landing) ON THE RUNWAY with
> particular attention to the attainment of a key position for the
> subsequent power off approach and landing on the runway.
> In all the years I was instructing, I found this method completely
> satisfactory for preparing a pilot to handle a forced landing.
> Dudley Henriques

Thanks, Dudley! That answers my question exactly.

-c

[gatt]

Regardless of whether anybody agrees with the OP, I think the "PSA"
requesting that people not be rude on the radio has merit.

If we just disregard the conventions and what seems like an unwritten
gentleman's agreement as to conduct on the radio, it won't be long before
somebody starts calling out "TEN FOUR" or "BREAKER BREAKER PODUNK
TRAFFIC..." If there are students in the air and they hear
unprofessional conduct, they will learn to expect this as acceptable
behavior in radio communication.

-c

[gatt]

"Peter Dohm" > wrote in message
news:fAP0i.964$t7.39@bigfe9...

<I have simply
> presumed that I must have shared some ancestry with Mr. Ford Prefect--of
> "Hitchhiker's Guide" infamy.


"The knack of flying is learning how to throw yourself at the ground and
miss." -Douglas Adams

[B A R R Y]

On Fri, 11 May 2007 12:57:37 -0700, "gatt"
> wrote:

>
>Regardless of whether anybody agrees with the OP, I think the "PSA"
>requesting that people not be rude on the radio has merit.

Agreed!

[Vic Baron]

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Grumman-581" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Jay Honeck wrote:
>>>> I had two recent situations where other pilots thought they'd be cool
>>>> by being condescending jackasses over the radio, which effected my
>>>> ability to teach my student.
>>>
>>> I can't comment too much on your experiences, but I will say this:
>>> I've heard more rude and improper radio talk in the last two years
>>> than I had in the previous ten. The rudeness that has invaded our
>>> society is starting to penetrate the cockpit environment, and *that*
>>> is a shame.
>>
>> It's because we're all getting older (Baby Boom Generation) and we're
>> becoming Grumpy Old Men... Of course, we also have to balance this with
>> being Dirty Old Men In Training...
>
> Then again there are some of us out here who completed the DOM training by
> age 6
> :-)
> Dudley Henriques

Gee! I heard that you wrote the syllabus, Dudley

:)

Vic

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"B A R R Y" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 11 May 2007 12:57:37 -0700, "gatt"
> > wrote:
>
>>
>>Regardless of whether anybody agrees with the OP, I think the "PSA"
>>requesting that people not be rude on the radio has merit.
>
> Agreed!

Oh. blow it out your ass! :)

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Matt Barrow" > wrote

> Oh. blow it out your ass! :)

You need to be telling him that on the radio, to give it the right "flavor."
<g>
--
Jim in NC

[B A R R Y]

On Fri, 11 May 2007 14:10:42 -0700, "Matt Barrow"
> wrote:
>
>Oh. blow it out your ass! :)
>

Thank you sir, may I have another?

[Phil]

buttman wrote:
> I had two recent situations where other pilots thought they'd be cool
> by being condescending jackasses over the radio, which effected my
> ability to teach my student.
>
> The first time was when I was at a local uncontrolled field with one
> of my students to introduce solf-field takeoffs and landings. When we
> were turning downwind, I heard a Cirrus call "On the ILS at the outer
> marker". I haven't flown any approaches for months, so I had no idea
> how exactly far out he was. There were at least two other people in
> the pattern, so instead of asking him to give a more accurate position
> report, I just went on. Just before I got abeam the numbers on
> downwind, the Cirrus guy called 3 miles out, so I told my student to
> just do a short approach instead of extending which would have screwed
> everyone else up.
>
> I'm looking out the window like crazy to find this Cirrus guy but I
> don't see him anywhere. Then suddenly I hear him say in a snappy voice
> "Cessna on base at *** do you plan on cutting me off?" Startled, I
> looked around but couldn't for the life of me see him. I responded
> "uuhh, Cirrus on ILS I don't see you", then he snaps back
> sarcastically, "oh 45 seconds before impact..."
>
> I look right in front of me and there he is zooming by. I didn't
> realize Cirrus's were so fast. He had to have been going more than 150
> knots. I've turned short approaches in front of Seminoles when they
> were on 3 mile ILS finals and it has never been a problem...
>
> Anyways, the guy didn't have to be such a huge asshole. A busy pattern
> is stressful enough, the ones coming in straight in can at least be a
> little helpful, or at the VERY LEAST not act like a little baby when
> things don't go their way.
>
> Of the 50 or so times I've been on extended downwind when someone else
> in on a 3-10 mile final, I'd say 10 times I went behind them and it
> hasn't been a problem, 35 times I've gone behind them and it hasn't
> been a problem, and 5 times I messed it up and either cut the person
> off, or caused some other disruption. The other 4 times it was just a
> simple "sorry about that", or some other professional way of handing
> the situation, then forgetting it and moving on. It just makes it that
> much harder to shake it off when the person decides to act that way.
> Maybe I need to get thicker skin, but that situation had me all worked
> up for the rest of the flight, and I admit it hindered my instructing
> ability a little.
>
> As a little side note, that same Cirrus guy came today to my home
> airport which is even busier. There were like 7 planes already in the
> pattern, 3 on 45 for the pattern, and then comes my Cirrus. I
> recognized it was him because I remembered the tail number (N903CD).
> As soon as he called, tower told him to slow to final approach speed
> (which I just had to snicker to myself when I heard that ^_^). About a
> minute later I, on an extended downwind, was told to turn base, which
> would have put me right in front of the Cirrus. The tower cleared me
> for a full stop only (which I've never been issued before, our
> controllers are really good at accommodating a bunch of pattern
> traffic), and told the Cirrus to break off and enter on the 45 for a
> left traffic. After I landed, I switched to ground and just called it
> a day. When I got back to the training room, another instructor joked
> about how I was "kicked out of the pattern". He asked me of I heard
> about the Cirrus who "got ****ed off and left". I said no but I can
> only imagine what he actually said...
>
> Anyways, back on topic. Also today, on another flight with another
> student, we were coming back on the 45 for a downwind entry. Not too
> long after he told me to report established on the downwind, someone's
> mic got stuck and all I could hear on the radio was "EEEERRRRRRCHSHH
> EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE" punctuated with my call sign and the words "I'm not
> communicating with him", then some more "AAAAAAEERRRRNNNGH". I saw a
> plane on downwind which was about to converge with me, a helicopter
> which looked like was doing WHO KNOWS WHAT, and someone else on upwind
> about to turn crosswind. It looked like I was going to converge with
> the plane on downwind, so I just decided to do a 360 where I was
> (about a mile before entering downwind). As soon as a break in the
> radio screeching appeared, I quickly told tower I'm doing a 360 to
> avoid what by then I thought was a clueless student on a solo who
> didn't know how to use the radio.
>
> Well as soon as I told tower, a voice came on saying "..and that will
> put you right in front of 64 Delta" (or whatever his tail number was).
> Apparently there was a plane behind me, but I had no idea. Buy
> anyways, he had to do a evasive maneuver also, and he was ticked off.
> He came back on and told tower he had to do an evasive to avoid "the
> kamikaze" as he called me.
>
> Well guess what, bub? I had to do an evasive maneuver too. Thats an
> everyday thing 'round these parts. There are two busy flight schools,
> as well as a lot of military activity (a C-130 comes here a few times
> a week to do touch and goes, gives us a lot of wake turbulence
> avoidance practice ^_^). I had to fly a downwind parallel to him and
> then follow him in. I couldn't let my student do the flying because it
> was an atypical situation. AND I had to do all this while I'm getting
> name-called by some tard out of no-where. It just makes things that
> much more frustrating.
>
>
> So please, don't be a jackass show off on the radio. I actually saw
> the second guy climb out his plane after we landed. I saw he had what
> looked like his wife in there with him. I imagine he was acting like
> that to show off in front of his wife *rolleyes*.
>
> Anyways, just please be mindful of others, especially considering the
> environment your in (busy airspace; emergency in the area; whatever it
> may be). Just be aware that those snappy one liners may make you look
> cool, but they just make others frustrated and more life more
> difficult.
>
> I know this post is getting long, but theres one more instance I want
> to bring up. When I was getting my multi rating a few months ago, we
> went to a towered airport a few miles away to do a few ILS/VOR
> approaches. While we were doing the procedure turns and stuff, we
> could hear this clueless student pilot entering on a solo cross
> country. This guy was a total wreck. First he was 10 miles south; then
> he was 5 miles north, then he was over such and such lake which is 15
> miles northwest. The controllers at this particular airport aren't
> known as the friendliest around, so as you can imagine, the poor guy
> wasn't having a good time.
>
> I wasn't really paying attention to what all was being said because I
> was focusing on my approaches, but after doing about 3 full ILS/VOR
> approaches (procedure turn and all) he still was confused as to where
> he was and hadn't landed yet (but I believe was still in the pattern).
> We were just doing missed approaches, breaking off well before the
> airport area to stay out of the way.
>
> I don't really blame the controller because he was frustrated too, but
> it was what my instructor said which I think was worst of all. During
> our last approach, he said something to the effect of "Do you want us
> to do another low approach so you can handle this guy, or can we do a
> touch and go the this next one?"
>
> I just cringed when I heard that. I just can imagine being in his
> shoes. The last thing I want to know is that I'm messing not only the
> controller's thing, but other pilots as well. We didn't NEED to do a
> touch and go, we could have just did our share by helping out with the
> low approaches, then moved on. Indirectly telling the poor student how
> incompetent he is (which he HAS to already know by then) just helps no
> one out. It just makes things worse.
>
> I don't think what my instructor said
>

Well, so what? Big deal and quit whining. When I learned to fly my Dad's
Aeronca Champ it didn't have a radio - nor did half the planes at the
airport - and we had to deal with Larson AFB also.

No one got all hot and bothered if they were cut off, or had to go
around or whatever, they just did so without all that cry-baby crap - we
all seemed to get along.

Your story is typical of todays pilot and pilot instructor.

Much ado about nothing.

--
"Religion began when the first scoundrel met the first fool."
—- Voltaire

[gatt]

"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...

>>>Regardless of whether anybody agrees with the OP, I think the "PSA"
>>>requesting that people not be rude on the radio has merit.
>>
>> Agreed!
>
> Oh. blow it out your ass! :)

LOL! Fortunately, air traffic doesn't communicate over Usenet or we'd all
be in trouble!


-c

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

I have looked over your posting as well as my responses and the responses of
others to you and find that I have, along with others, supplied you with
more than sufficient information to satisfy the requests involved with this
post from you. I feel no need to delve into a micro rehash when the macro
has already been discussed.
Suffice to say that on the subject of flight instruction as you have
presented it on these newsgroups, my opinion of you based on these posts is
that I personally have strong issues with what you have presented
here....period.
As you say, it's the information that's important. Rather than engage you
with some kind of back and forth dialog where you begin by telling me to
"get over myself", I think what I'd rather do is pass on this type of post
and instead deal directly with any and all information dealing with flight
instruction ONLY that you post as a CFI on these newsgroups in the future.
Dudley Henriques


"buttman" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> On May 11, 6:59 am, "Dudley Henriques" > wrote:
>> "buttman" > wrote in message
>>
>> oups.com...
>>
>> >> And following Dudley's train of thought - can you prove you're a CFI?
>>
>> > And what would my CFI number add to the discussion? Why does it even
>> > matter? If you don't believe I really have a CFI then you can go right
>> > on ahead and believe that. It doesn't change what I wrote one bit. You
>> > should judge me by my words, not my credentials.
>>
>> Quite to the contrary, it's your "words" that make some pilots on these
>> groups question your "credentials".
>
> What are some of these 'words' that makes you think i'm one of the
> worlds worst instructors? Just give me an example. I've made less than
> 100 posts on this group since I started using usenet back in 2005, and
> I've made a whopping 5 posts on r.a.s, so finding one shouldn't be
> hard.
>
>> Although its a fact that you don't have to post your real name on these
>> groups, its also a fact that many new student pilots frequent these
>> groups.
>> For that reason, most of the pilots and instructors who post here are
>> very
>> careful with the information they present. Although ALL information
>> presented on Usenet should be checked for accuracy, there is always a
>> potential flight safety factor in play here, especially when someone
>> posts
>> using a CFI format.
>
> I'm not following you. How does my CFI number have anything to do with
> new students reading this group?
>
>> I've read your posts and I have serious questions about you. Basically
>> I'm
>> concerned not so much about the statements you have made but rather the
>> questions you have asked.
>
> What questions should a CFI be asking, and what questions shouldn't be
> asked? Or do you think CFI's should not ask questions at all? If
> you're referring to the fuel valve incident, I thought it was a valid
> question. You have 2 miles of runway which was 150 feet wide, a low
> horsepower engine (so no huge yaw), and me on board who can take over
> if the student locks up. I admit it's pushing some safety boundaries,
> but so does completely shutting down one engine in a twin, or a
> simulated engine failure (via the throttle) in the traffic pattern...
> Hell, TAKING OFF in even a perfectly airworthy airplane is pushing
> certain safety boundaries.
>
>> In my opinion, if you are indeed a CFI as you have
>> stated on these groups, you should already know the answers to the
>> questions
>> you are asking.
>> So I have a double problem with you. Your questions are suspect to me,
>> and
>> your overall reasoning is suspect as well.
>> You are correct when you say that credentials on Usenet are not as
>> important
>> as the information posted. The pilots here have been reading each other
>> as
>> well as newbies for many years. Our opinions on the validity of a post is
>> based on years of actual experience reading what an individual poster has
>> to
>> say.
>>
>> With this in mind, and based only on the information you have posted to
>> these groups, I have to tell you that in my opinion you are either posing
>> as
>> a flight instructor or a completely ill prepared CFI.
>> As I have said before, I personally will give you a great deal more
>> lattitude on the piloting group than I will on the student group. As
>> someone
>> who has invested a great deal of time and effort in the instruction
>> business, I naturally have an aversion to bad information and will say so
>> when presented with same.
>
> Get over yourself.
>
>> This has nothing at all to do with being a "Usenet
>> Bully".
>
> I never called you or anyone a usenet bully. "Internet tough guy" is
> someone who feels the need to act like a tough guy over the internet
> over something they wouldn't dare do in real life. It's like me saying
> if my piano teacher played a wrong note I'm going to get up and yell
> into her face "YOU'RE FIRED". In the real world its a cumulation of
> small things, or one big thing that causes someone to get tired.
> Accidentally pulling in front of a straight in is not something a sane
> person would fire their CFI over. It's just ridiculous.
>
>> Again, your reasoning and deduction is suspect.
>> If you will notice, hardly anyone on these groups stresses credentials.
>
> Are you kidding? Just about everyone has their real name / location /
> certificates held in their signature. I've been using internet
> discussion forums since the early 2000's, and I've never been part of
> a group that does that. I've even been part of professional groups,
> with doctors post
> about medical matters, lawyers post about legal matters, pilots post
> about aviation matters; none of them do that.
>
> I've spoke with real life CFI's, including examiners, very high time
> instructors, ex-FAA inspectors, and they all have treated me with
> respect. This is the only group that feels the need to jump down my
> throat.
>
>> > In the other thread I made a
>> > few weeks ago in r.a.s it was the same way. People just came in and
>> > said "I've been an instructor for thirty years and I say its unsafe,
>> > END OF DISCUSSION" without providing any real arguments.
>>
>> Actually its longer than that, and you received precise and direct
>> argument
>> stating exactly why as a CFI you don't turn off the fuel on takeoff.
>
> People compared what I was doing with shutting down one engine in a
> twin (which I completely agree is unsafe during takeoff regardless of
> the runway length). They posted accident reports where someone stalled/
> spun on takeoff and the plane was found to have the fuel valve turned
> off; not the same situation.
>
> Everyone just kneejerk reacted to me challenging their already held
> beliefs. Instead of acknowledging I had some points, they just all
> made me out to be a crazy madman. It's easier to do that, than it is
> to change your way of thinking.
>
>> Again, your powers of deductive reasoning are in my opinion, suspect.
>> It is not the purpose of these groups to "argue and debate". The purpose
>> of
>> these groups is to SHARE useful and accurate data and information about
>> flying and aviation.
>
> And what on earth is the difference?
>

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

"Vic Baron" > wrote in message
t...
>
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Grumman-581" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Jay Honeck wrote:
>>>>> I had two recent situations where other pilots thought they'd be cool
>>>>> by being condescending jackasses over the radio, which effected my
>>>>> ability to teach my student.
>>>>
>>>> I can't comment too much on your experiences, but I will say this:
>>>> I've heard more rude and improper radio talk in the last two years
>>>> than I had in the previous ten. The rudeness that has invaded our
>>>> society is starting to penetrate the cockpit environment, and *that*
>>>> is a shame.
>>>
>>> It's because we're all getting older (Baby Boom Generation) and we're
>>> becoming Grumpy Old Men... Of course, we also have to balance this with
>>> being Dirty Old Men In Training...
>>
>> Then again there are some of us out here who completed the DOM training
>> by age 6
>> :-)
>> Dudley Henriques
>
> Gee! I heard that you wrote the syllabus, Dudley
>
> :)
>
> Vic

Well I did actually have a Cub Scout ask me once what Wilber and Orville
Wright were like
:-)
Dudley Henriques

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

buttman > wrote in news:1178778914.218335.90810
@e51g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:

> I had two recent situations where other pilots thought they'd be cool
> by being condescending jackasses over the radio, which effected my
> ability to teach my student.
>
> The first time was when I was at a local uncontrolled field with one
> of my students to introduce solf-field takeoffs and landings. When we
> were turning downwind, I heard a Cirrus call "On the ILS at the outer
> marker". I haven't flown any approaches for months, so I had no idea
> how exactly far out he was. There were at least two other people in
> the pattern, so instead of asking him to give a more accurate position
> report, I just went on. Just before I got abeam the numbers on
> downwind, the Cirrus guy called 3 miles out, so I told my student to
> just do a short approach instead of extending which would have screwed
> everyone else up.
>
> I'm looking out the window like crazy to find this Cirrus guy but I
> don't see him anywhere. Then suddenly I hear him say in a snappy voice
> "Cessna on base at *** do you plan on cutting me off?" Startled, I
> looked around but couldn't for the life of me see him. I responded
> "uuhh, Cirrus on ILS I don't see you", then he snaps back
> sarcastically, "oh 45 seconds before impact..."
>
> I look right in front of me and there he is zooming by. I didn't
> realize Cirrus's were so fast. He had to have been going more than 150
> knots. I've turned short approaches in front of Seminoles when they
> were on 3 mile ILS finals and it has never been a problem...
>
> Anyways, the guy didn't have to be such a huge asshole. A busy pattern
> is stressful enough, the ones coming in straight in can at least be a
> little helpful, or at the VERY LEAST not act like a little baby when
> things don't go their way.
>
> Of the 50 or so times I've been on extended downwind when someone else
> in on a 3-10 mile final, I'd say 10 times I went behind them and it
> hasn't been a problem, 35 times I've gone behind them and it hasn't
> been a problem, and 5 times I messed it up and either cut the person
> off, or caused some other disruption. The other 4 times it was just a
> simple "sorry about that", or some other professional way of handing
> the situation, then forgetting it and moving on. It just makes it that
> much harder to shake it off when the person decides to act that way.
> Maybe I need to get thicker skin, but that situation had me all worked
> up for the rest of the flight, and I admit it hindered my instructing
> ability a little.
>
> As a little side note, that same Cirrus guy came today to my home
> airport which is even busier. There were like 7 planes already in the
> pattern, 3 on 45 for the pattern, and then comes my Cirrus. I
> recognized it was him because I remembered the tail number (N903CD).
> As soon as he called, tower told him to slow to final approach speed
> (which I just had to snicker to myself when I heard that ^_^). About a
> minute later I, on an extended downwind, was told to turn base, which
> would have put me right in front of the Cirrus. The tower cleared me
> for a full stop only (which I've never been issued before, our
> controllers are really good at accommodating a bunch of pattern
> traffic), and told the Cirrus to break off and enter on the 45 for a
> left traffic. After I landed, I switched to ground and just called it
> a day. When I got back to the training room, another instructor joked
> about how I was "kicked out of the pattern". He asked me of I heard
> about the Cirrus who "got ****ed off and left". I said no but I can
> only imagine what he actually said...
>
> Anyways, back on topic. Also today, on another flight with another
> student, we were coming back on the 45 for a downwind entry. Not too
> long after he told me to report established on the downwind, someone's
> mic got stuck and all I could hear on the radio was "EEEERRRRRRCHSHH
> EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE" punctuated with my call sign and the words "I'm not
> communicating with him", then some more "AAAAAAEERRRRNNNGH". I saw a
> plane on downwind which was about to converge with me, a helicopter
> which looked like was doing WHO KNOWS WHAT, and someone else on upwind
> about to turn crosswind. It looked like I was going to converge with
> the plane on downwind, so I just decided to do a 360 where I was
> (about a mile before entering downwind). As soon as a break in the
> radio screeching appeared, I quickly told tower I'm doing a 360 to
> avoid what by then I thought was a clueless student on a solo who
> didn't know how to use the radio.
>
> Well as soon as I told tower, a voice came on saying "..and that will
> put you right in front of 64 Delta" (or whatever his tail number was).
> Apparently there was a plane behind me, but I had no idea. Buy
> anyways, he had to do a evasive maneuver also, and he was ticked off.
> He came back on and told tower he had to do an evasive to avoid "the
> kamikaze" as he called me.
>
> Well guess what, bub? I had to do an evasive maneuver too. Thats an
> everyday thing 'round these parts. There are two busy flight schools,
> as well as a lot of military activity (a C-130 comes here a few times
> a week to do touch and goes, gives us a lot of wake turbulence
> avoidance practice ^_^). I had to fly a downwind parallel to him and
> then follow him in. I couldn't let my student do the flying because it
> was an atypical situation. AND I had to do all this while I'm getting
> name-called by some tard out of no-where. It just makes things that
> much more frustrating.
>
>
> So please, don't be a jackass show off on the radio. I actually saw
> the second guy climb out his plane after we landed. I saw he had what
> looked like his wife in there with him. I imagine he was acting like
> that to show off in front of his wife *rolleyes*.
>
> Anyways, just please be mindful of others, especially considering the
> environment your in (busy airspace; emergency in the area; whatever it
> may be). Just be aware that those snappy one liners may make you look
> cool, but they just make others frustrated and more life more
> difficult.
>
> I know this post is getting long, but theres one more instance I want
> to bring up. When I was getting my multi rating a few months ago, we
> went to a towered airport a few miles away to do a few ILS/VOR
> approaches. While we were doing the procedure turns and stuff, we
> could hear this clueless student pilot entering on a solo cross
> country. This guy was a total wreck. First he was 10 miles south; then
> he was 5 miles north, then he was over such and such lake which is 15
> miles northwest. The controllers at this particular airport aren't
> known as the friendliest around, so as you can imagine, the poor guy
> wasn't having a good time.
>
> I wasn't really paying attention to what all was being said because I
> was focusing on my approaches, but after doing about 3 full ILS/VOR
> approaches (procedure turn and all) he still was confused as to where
> he was and hadn't landed yet (but I believe was still in the pattern).
> We were just doing missed approaches, breaking off well before the
> airport area to stay out of the way.


You are an instructor? I'd love to point out each and every one of the
idiotic things you did and said here, but I haven't got enough time.



Jesus wept.

Bertie
>

[Jose]

> Well I did actually have a Cub Scout ask me once what Wilber and Orville
> Wright were like
> :-)

Did you tell him?

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.

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

"Jose" > wrote in message
. net...
>> Well I did actually have a Cub Scout ask me once what Wilber and Orville
>> Wright were like
>> :-)
>
> Did you tell him?
>
> Jose

Actually I did. I just didn't tell him I KNEW them personally :-))
Dudley Henriques

[buttman]

On May 11, 4:48 pm, Phil > wrote:
> buttman wrote:
> > I had two recent situations where other pilots thought they'd be cool
> > by being condescending jackasses over the radio, which effected my
> > ability to teach my student.

> Well, so what? Big deal and quit whining. When I learned to fly my Dad's
> Aeronca Champ it didn't have a radio - nor did half the planes at the
> airport - and we had to deal with Larson AFB also.
>
> No one got all hot and bothered if they were cut off, or had to go
> around or whatever, they just did so without all that cry-baby crap - we
> all seemed to get along.

You realize I am in 100% agreement with you? My OP is exactly what you
wrote, but with more words and without the "in my day" part.

> Your story is typical of todays pilot and pilot instructor.
>
> Much ado about nothing.

So let me get this straight:

1. I pull out in front of a Cirrus
2. I admit I was wrong and could have done more to avoid this
situation.
3. Cirrus guy gets all snotty with me over the radio as I'm trying to
see and avoid all other pattern traffic as well as teach to my
student.
4. Instead of snapping back I just go on my merry way and try best I
can to carry on with the instruction.
5. A similar situation happens a few days later with similar results.
Me not snapping back, and making the situation more stressful.
6. I realize things like this happen somewhat often so I decide to
make a post on usenet to warn others of what being snotty on the radio
can cause. Ask any controller their opinion on snotty pilots on a freq
with 5 planes in the pattern...
7. Said post to bring this issue to everyone's attention makes me a
cry baby who needs to shut up

[buttman]

On May 11, 6:11 pm, "Dudley Henriques" > wrote:
> Suffice to say that on the subject of flight instruction as you have
> presented it on these newsgroups, my opinion of you based on these posts is
> that I personally have strong issues with what you have presented
> here....period..

So in other words, you're saying you think I'm a bad flight
instructor, but don't have any evidence to back this claim up. Mind
you, this is based on my less than 20 posts I've made on usenet from a
CFI standpoint...

I find it funny that the only ones insulting me are doing it with one
liners: "my god you're a terrible instructor", "if you were my
instructor, I'd fire you", "I can't even begin to count the things in
your post that tell me you aren't a real CFI", "I'd like to know the
DE that passed you".

The first few replies to my OP were polite and on topic. As soon as
one person started insulting me, a bunch others else had to join the
bandwagon. I guarantee if my post was made word for word by someone
else more "respected" here, such as CJ Campbell, or Bob Hoover, you
wouldn't see ONE SINGLE negative reply. What if my post was made word
for word by everyone's favorite punching bag mxsmanic? Information is
information, regardless who brings it about. If it can be backed up
then it holds water. If it can't be backed up, no matter who says it,
it don't hold water. The same goes for opinions. An opinion not based
on any facts is not an opinion worth having. At least thats how I
feel...

I don't care if you have 10,000 hours of dual given, if you can't come
up with a compelling argument that I have "serious problems" then you
need to shut up about my CFI ability. And I'm sorry but "I just feel
this way" isn't a compelling argument. Quoting an irrelevant accident
report or personal experience is not one either.

> As you say, it's the information that's important. Rather than engage you
> with some kind of back and forth dialog where you begin by telling me to
> "get over myself", I think what I'd rather do is pass on this type of post
> and instead deal directly with any and all information dealing with flight
> instruction ONLY that you post as a CFI on these newsgroups in the future.
> Dudley Henriques

If it's the information thats important, then why did you feel the
need to bring up my question on r.a.s? Why do you want me to give you
my real name and CFI number?

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

PLEASE!
Do I REALLY have to reiterate to you that pulling a fuel valve on a student
on takeoff is poor technique for a flight instructor dealing with a
student.....and this goes for having a runway 50 miles long....IT JUST ISN'T
A GOOD SAFE PRACTICE TO DO THIS?
Do I REALLY have to tell you that regardless of a traffic situation in the
pattern, and regardless of your position in that pattern and the position of
another aircraft in or coming into that pattern, YOU as the pilot in
command, and as the instructor flying with a student, should KNOW what to do
in ALL situations and should have done whatever was needed quietly and
professionally without further discussion or incident regardless of the
actions of the other pilot ? This situation should have been a non event for
you as an instructor....period! At the very least, what you SHOULD have done
in the Cirrus situation is avoid the problem by taking whatever action was
necessary to insure the safety of your aircraft. If there was an issue with
the Cirrus pilot concerning his language, this should have been nothing more
to you than a golden opportunity to stress the safety issue with your
student. The language issue should have been another golden opportunity to
stress the need for proper radio etiquette with the student at the moment of
infraction, NOT here on the group as a rant!
In my opinion, just these two examples are quite enough for me to make a
decision about you as a flight instructor.
You asked me for specifics. I have given them to you.
I realize of course that my personal opinion of you as a CFI might not be
exactly to your liking. I have no objection whatsoever if you would like to
print out the entire two threads on pulling the fuel valve on your student
pilot and also the incident in the pattern with the Cirrus and take both of
them down to your local FAA office. Then report back here if you like with
their collective opinion on these two situations involving your decision
making abilities as a CFI.
Sometimes a fresh input from another source will shed much needed light on
an issue.
Dudley Henriques

"buttman" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> On May 11, 6:11 pm, "Dudley Henriques" > wrote:
>> Suffice to say that on the subject of flight instruction as you have
>> presented it on these newsgroups, my opinion of you based on these posts
>> is
>> that I personally have strong issues with what you have presented
>> here....period..
>
> So in other words, you're saying you think I'm a bad flight
> instructor, but don't have any evidence to back this claim up. Mind
> you, this is based on my less than 20 posts I've made on usenet from a
> CFI standpoint...
>
> I find it funny that the only ones insulting me are doing it with one
> liners: "my god you're a terrible instructor", "if you were my
> instructor, I'd fire you", "I can't even begin to count the things in
> your post that tell me you aren't a real CFI", "I'd like to know the
> DE that passed you".
>
> The first few replies to my OP were polite and on topic. As soon as
> one person started insulting me, a bunch others else had to join the
> bandwagon. I guarantee if my post was made word for word by someone
> else more "respected" here, such as CJ Campbell, or Bob Hoover, you
> wouldn't see ONE SINGLE negative reply. What if my post was made word
> for word by everyone's favorite punching bag mxsmanic? Information is
> information, regardless who brings it about. If it can be backed up
> then it holds water. If it can't be backed up, no matter who says it,
> it don't hold water. The same goes for opinions. An opinion not based
> on any facts is not an opinion worth having. At least thats how I
> feel...
>
> I don't care if you have 10,000 hours of dual given, if you can't come
> up with a compelling argument that I have "serious problems" then you
> need to shut up about my CFI ability. And I'm sorry but "I just feel
> this way" isn't a compelling argument. Quoting an irrelevant accident
> report or personal experience is not one either.
>
>> As you say, it's the information that's important. Rather than engage you
>> with some kind of back and forth dialog where you begin by telling me to
>> "get over myself", I think what I'd rather do is pass on this type of
>> post
>> and instead deal directly with any and all information dealing with
>> flight
>> instruction ONLY that you post as a CFI on these newsgroups in the
>> future.
>> Dudley Henriques
>
> If it's the information thats important, then why did you feel the
> need to bring up my question on r.a.s? Why do you want me to give you
> my real name and CFI number?
>

[buttman]

On May 11, 9:28 pm, "Dudley Henriques" > wrote:
> PLEASE!
> Do I REALLY have to reiterate to you that pulling a fuel valve on a student
> on takeoff is poor technique for a flight instructor dealing with a
> student.....and this goes for having a runway 50 miles long....IT JUST ISN'T
> A GOOD SAFE PRACTICE TO DO THIS?

'Safe' is a relative term. What is exactly does 'safe' begin and end?
You admit that a practice engine failure on takeoff is perfectly safe
when done by closing the throttle. The only difference between pulling
the throttle instead of the gas valve means you have power if you need
it. With a wide and long runway 50 feet below you, what would you need
the power for?

I admit there could be a perfectly good reason why you losing that
ability to add back power could result in an accident, but I haven't
heard it. I bet if I were to print out this thread and give it to the
FAA office, I'm pretty sure they'd agree with you. I actually would be
surprised if they recommended doing it. But at the very least, they'd
give good reason to not do so (I hope). It's like one of those puzzles
that you know has an answer, and you kind of know the answer, but non
the less is nowhere to be found.

> Do I REALLY have to tell you that regardless of a traffic situation in the
> pattern, and regardless of your position in that pattern and the position of
> another aircraft in or coming into that pattern, YOU as the pilot in
> command, and as the instructor flying with a student, should KNOW what to do
> in ALL situations and should have done whatever was needed quietly and
> professionally without further discussion or incident regardless of the
> actions of the other pilot ?

What should I have done? I misjudged the Cirrus. It was a mistake. I
regret that it happened, but it happened. I thought it would be
further out, but apparently he was closer. I wasn't looking right in
front of me, I was looking further out because thats where I thought
he was. I'll say it for the 100 millionth time; I made a mistake. I
don't know what you want me to do...

> This situation should have been a non event for
> you as an instructor....period!

It sort of was a non-event. I took the controls from my student,
turned back to rejoin the extended downwind until the cirrus passed,
turned final behind the cirrus, then made a call to the CTAF saying I
had re-established on final behind the cirrus. I didn't snap back at
him, I didn't start crying, I didn't end the flight there... It did
bother me a little, but what do you expect? Are you saying that the
comment bothering me means I'm a bad instructor? Is a controller who
is annoyed by a snappy pilot a bad controller?

> At the very least, what you SHOULD have done
> in the Cirrus situation is avoid the problem by taking whatever action was
> necessary to insure the safety of your aircraft.

What makes you think I didn't "ensure safety of my aircraft"? You are
making things up.

> If there was an issue with
> the Cirrus pilot concerning his language, this should have been nothing more
> to you than a golden opportunity to stress the safety issue with your
> student. The language issue should have been another golden opportunity to
> stress the need for proper radio etiquette with the student at the moment of
> infraction,

What makes you think I didn't use this as an opportunity to teach my
student proper radio technique? If I remember correctly, my student
(who is a native Chinese speaker, who can hardly speak English in the
first place) even commented "what was that guy's problem" as we were
heading home.

I also think that way I didn't snap back (something I'd never EVER do)
goes to teach my student more than I could ever tell him on the
ground.

> NOT here on the group as a rant!

Why? People here made threads ranting about little stuff like this all
the time. I remember a thread about tower induced go-arounds lot too
long ago. How is that any different? Or any of the other 10,000
threads that are made here every year. What exactly makes this thread
so intolerable? I seriously want to know so I won't make anymore.

> In my opinion, just these two examples are quite enough for me to make a
> decision about you as a flight instructor.

And those "two examples" are completely ridiculous. So your opinion is
worthless.

> You asked me for specifics. I have given them to you.
> I realize of course that my personal opinion of you as a CFI might not be
> exactly to your liking. I have no objection whatsoever if you would like to
> print out the entire two threads on pulling the fuel valve on your student
> pilot and also the incident in the pattern with the Cirrus and take both of
> them down to your local FAA office. Then report back here if you like with
> their collective opinion on these two situations involving your decision
> making abilities as a CFI.
> Sometimes a fresh input from another source will shed much needed light on
> an issue.
> Dudley Henriques

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

buttman > wrote in news:1178940211.472891.25410
@e51g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:

> On May 11, 4:48 pm, Phil > wrote:
>> buttman wrote:
>> > I had two recent situations where other pilots thought they'd be
cool
>> > by being condescending jackasses over the radio, which effected my
>> > ability to teach my student.
>
>> Well, so what? Big deal and quit whining. When I learned to fly my
Dad's
>> Aeronca Champ it didn't have a radio - nor did half the planes at the
>> airport - and we had to deal with Larson AFB also.
>>
>> No one got all hot and bothered if they were cut off, or had to go
>> around or whatever, they just did so without all that cry-baby crap -
we
>> all seemed to get along.
>
> You realize I am in 100% agreement with you? My OP is exactly what you
> wrote, but with more words and without the "in my day" part.
>
>> Your story is typical of todays pilot and pilot instructor.
>>
>> Much ado about nothing.
>
> So let me get this straight:
>
> 1. I pull out in front of a Cirrus
> 2. I admit I was wrong and could have done more to avoid this
> situation.
> 3. Cirrus guy gets all snotty with me over the radio as I'm trying to
> see and avoid all other pattern traffic as well as teach to my
> student.
> 4. Instead of snapping back I just go on my merry way and try best I
> can to carry on with the instruction.
> 5. A similar situation happens a few days later with similar results.
> Me not snapping back, and making the situation more stressful.
> 6. I realize things like this happen somewhat often so I decide to
> make a post on usenet to warn others of what being snotty on the radio
> can cause. Ask any controller their opinion on snotty pilots on a freq
> with 5 planes in the pattern...
> 7. Said post to bring this issue to everyone's attention makes me a
> cry baby who needs to shut up
>

Actualy the cry baby thing would be the least of my worries..


Bertie

[Matt Whiting]

buttman wrote:
> On May 11, 9:28 pm, "Dudley Henriques" > wrote:
>> PLEASE!
>> Do I REALLY have to reiterate to you that pulling a fuel valve on a student
>> on takeoff is poor technique for a flight instructor dealing with a
>> student.....and this goes for having a runway 50 miles long....IT JUST ISN'T
>> A GOOD SAFE PRACTICE TO DO THIS?
>
> 'Safe' is a relative term. What is exactly does 'safe' begin and end?
> You admit that a practice engine failure on takeoff is perfectly safe
> when done by closing the throttle. The only difference between pulling
> the throttle instead of the gas valve means you have power if you need
> it. With a wide and long runway 50 feet below you, what would you need
> the power for?

When the maintenance truck drives onto the runway ahead of you by
mistake. When the (deer, moose, etc.) runs onto the runway ahead of
you. I can probably think of others, but these two have happened to me
personally. Cutting the fuel is simply an unnecessary risk in this
situation.

Matt

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

You are either an imposter posing as a flight instructor or a CFI who uses
the worst deductive reasoning I have ever seen posted on these forums. You
in fact might simply be a teen age troll.
I suggest you either quit instructing before you kill someone or disconnect
your little plastic stick from the computer and put it away for the night.
Dudley Henriques


"buttman" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> On May 11, 9:28 pm, "Dudley Henriques" > wrote:
>> PLEASE!
>> Do I REALLY have to reiterate to you that pulling a fuel valve on a
>> student
>> on takeoff is poor technique for a flight instructor dealing with a
>> student.....and this goes for having a runway 50 miles long....IT JUST
>> ISN'T
>> A GOOD SAFE PRACTICE TO DO THIS?
>
> 'Safe' is a relative term. What is exactly does 'safe' begin and end?
> You admit that a practice engine failure on takeoff is perfectly safe
> when done by closing the throttle. The only difference between pulling
> the throttle instead of the gas valve means you have power if you need
> it. With a wide and long runway 50 feet below you, what would you need
> the power for?
>
> I admit there could be a perfectly good reason why you losing that
> ability to add back power could result in an accident, but I haven't
> heard it. I bet if I were to print out this thread and give it to the
> FAA office, I'm pretty sure they'd agree with you. I actually would be
> surprised if they recommended doing it. But at the very least, they'd
> give good reason to not do so (I hope). It's like one of those puzzles
> that you know has an answer, and you kind of know the answer, but non
> the less is nowhere to be found.
>
>> Do I REALLY have to tell you that regardless of a traffic situation in
>> the
>> pattern, and regardless of your position in that pattern and the position
>> of
>> another aircraft in or coming into that pattern, YOU as the pilot in
>> command, and as the instructor flying with a student, should KNOW what to
>> do
>> in ALL situations and should have done whatever was needed quietly and
>> professionally without further discussion or incident regardless of the
>> actions of the other pilot ?
>
> What should I have done? I misjudged the Cirrus. It was a mistake. I
> regret that it happened, but it happened. I thought it would be
> further out, but apparently he was closer. I wasn't looking right in
> front of me, I was looking further out because thats where I thought
> he was. I'll say it for the 100 millionth time; I made a mistake. I
> don't know what you want me to do...
>
>> This situation should have been a non event for
>> you as an instructor....period!
>
> It sort of was a non-event. I took the controls from my student,
> turned back to rejoin the extended downwind until the cirrus passed,
> turned final behind the cirrus, then made a call to the CTAF saying I
> had re-established on final behind the cirrus. I didn't snap back at
> him, I didn't start crying, I didn't end the flight there... It did
> bother me a little, but what do you expect? Are you saying that the
> comment bothering me means I'm a bad instructor? Is a controller who
> is annoyed by a snappy pilot a bad controller?
>
>> At the very least, what you SHOULD have done
>> in the Cirrus situation is avoid the problem by taking whatever action
>> was
>> necessary to insure the safety of your aircraft.
>
> What makes you think I didn't "ensure safety of my aircraft"? You are
> making things up.
>
>> If there was an issue with
>> the Cirrus pilot concerning his language, this should have been nothing
>> more
>> to you than a golden opportunity to stress the safety issue with your
>> student. The language issue should have been another golden opportunity
>> to
>> stress the need for proper radio etiquette with the student at the moment
>> of
>> infraction,
>
> What makes you think I didn't use this as an opportunity to teach my
> student proper radio technique? If I remember correctly, my student
> (who is a native Chinese speaker, who can hardly speak English in the
> first place) even commented "what was that guy's problem" as we were
> heading home.
>
> I also think that way I didn't snap back (something I'd never EVER do)
> goes to teach my student more than I could ever tell him on the
> ground.
>
>> NOT here on the group as a rant!
>
> Why? People here made threads ranting about little stuff like this all
> the time. I remember a thread about tower induced go-arounds lot too
> long ago. How is that any different? Or any of the other 10,000
> threads that are made here every year. What exactly makes this thread
> so intolerable? I seriously want to know so I won't make anymore.
>
>> In my opinion, just these two examples are quite enough for me to make a
>> decision about you as a flight instructor.
>
> And those "two examples" are completely ridiculous. So your opinion is
> worthless.
>
>> You asked me for specifics. I have given them to you.
>> I realize of course that my personal opinion of you as a CFI might not be
>> exactly to your liking. I have no objection whatsoever if you would like
>> to
>> print out the entire two threads on pulling the fuel valve on your
>> student
>> pilot and also the incident in the pattern with the Cirrus and take both
>> of
>> them down to your local FAA office. Then report back here if you like
>> with
>> their collective opinion on these two situations involving your decision
>> making abilities as a CFI.
>> Sometimes a fresh input from another source will shed much needed light
>> on
>> an issue.
>> Dudley Henriques
>
>

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...

> buttman wrote:

>The only difference between pulling
> the throttle instead of the gas valve means you have power if you need
> it.

This single sentence is enough for me . It says it all :-))

Dudley Henriques

[RomeoMike]

This quote you quoted was my post in that thread. I remember, but cannot
reference at this point, two instances where an instructor killed the
engine at altitude over an airport. When it became clear that the
student was going to overshoot the runway, the engine would not
re-start, and a crash ensued. Why take a chance on making a real
emergency trying to simulate one?

gatt wrote:

>
> Hey, all, I have a question about a comment in there:
>
> "Sounds like another stupid instructor trick: practicing engine out
> procedure at altitude by actually killing the engine. Could lead to an
> 'Oh ****!' experience. "
>

>
> Is this no longer considered good instructional practice?
>
> -c
>
>

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

"buttman" > wrote in message
oups.com...

>No one is perfect, and I don't know why some people can't
> accept the fact that I'm not...

You're right. No one IS perfect, but the job of the flight instructor is NOT
to accept this fact as easily as you obviously accept it from the tone of
your posts.
You spend entirely too much time explaining to one and all that not being
perfect is acceptable in a pilot when in fact you should be spending every
minute of your time as a flight instructor doing all in your power to bring
perfection as close to being attainable as possible for your student.
The name of the game in instructing people to fly airplanes is in knowing
that perfection is unattainable while at the same time spending your entire
career as a pilot trying to attain it.
If you don't understand this one single all important concept, and are
unable to pass it on to a student pilot, in my opnion you are SERIOUSLY
lacking in the basic fundementals of proper flight instruction.
You should NEVER...and I repeat it again for you....EVER.....accept an error
made in the air by you, your student, or any other pilot as simply the fact
that "no one is perfect". This loigic has no place in
aviation.......ESPECIALLY professional aviation.......and MOST CERTAINLY not
in the CFI's deductive reasoning.
Dudley Henriques

[mike regish]

I did an 85 mile final to Barnes from BID once.

mike

"RST Engineering" > wrote in message
...
> "Cessna Seventy-three Charlie Quebec is departing runway 25 at Grass
> Valley on a 2300 mile final for runway 9 Oshkosh."
>
> {;-)
>
> Jim
>
>
>
> "Allen" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>
>>
>> Which does nothing to define what "final approach" is. If you are
>> aligned with the runway and intending to land does final begin 5 miles
>> from the threshold? 10 miles? 15 miles? 50 miles?
>>
>
>

[Viperdoc[_4_]]

In a similar vein, I had an instructor slap my hands from the controls and
take over while we taxied up to a parking spot after a check out. We were
going at a slow speed, but he wanted to go to another tie down. There was no
emergency or impending event, he just wanted to go in a different direction.

I explained to him why I thought this was not acceptable for him as an
instructor, and after hearing his weak response, I walked away and never
flew with him again.

He could have said "park over there" or even "I've got the plane", but as a
result, he lost a student and client.

[RST Engineering]

Just about as many problems as a person who quotes several hundred lines of
text for a one line answer.

Jim



"Aluckyguess" > wrote in message
...


>I dont know if this is true but if it is you sure have a lot of problems.

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

"Viperdoc" > wrote in message
...
> In a similar vein, I had an instructor slap my hands from the controls and
> take over while we taxied up to a parking spot after a check out. We were
> going at a slow speed, but he wanted to go to another tie down. There was
> no emergency or impending event, he just wanted to go in a different
> direction.
>
> I explained to him why I thought this was not acceptable for him as an
> instructor, and after hearing his weak response, I walked away and never
> flew with him again.
>
> He could have said "park over there" or even "I've got the plane", but as
> a result, he lost a student and client.

I agree. If I were grading this instructor based on solid knowledge this
event occurred exactly as stated, I would find that the instructor should
never have allowed the incident to progress to the point where the airplane
was entering into a parking area he didn't want it to be in. His errors in
this case were several.
The progress of the airplane on the ground should have been better planned
by the instructor so that the first area of parking entered by the student
was the one desired by the instructor; so poor planning to begin with.
Next, physical contact in the corrective sense with a student is never
acceptable behavior for a flight instructor. If the CFI is teaching
properly, the student should not be in a position where this type of
correction is necessary. Not to say that sudden corrective action is never
necessary for an instructor, but if it is, it should be recognized early
enough by the instructor that the "correction" comes more as a "helping
hand" than as a sudden corrective movement.
The entire process of flight instruction is geared toward instilling
confidence in the student. A poor instructor using poor technique can easily
destroy in one second of sudden reaction at the end of a dual session what
has been achieved in the building of confidence with the student through a
last hour of dual.
Dudley Henriques

[Larry Dighera]

On Sat, 12 May 2007 11:13:55 -0500, "Viperdoc"
> wrote in
>:

>I had an instructor slap my hands from the controls and
>take over while we taxied up to a parking spot after a check out.

Did your instructor earn his certificate in the '30s. Instructors,
indeed pilots, of that era were expected to be treated as gods. At
least that has been my experience.

Was he a military instructor at one time?

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 12 May 2007 11:13:55 -0500, "Viperdoc"
> > wrote in
> >:
>
>>I had an instructor slap my hands from the controls and
>>take over while we taxied up to a parking spot after a check out.
>
> Did your instructor earn his certificate in the '30s. Instructors,
> indeed pilots, of that era were expected to be treated as gods. At
> least that has been my experience.
>
> Was he a military instructor at one time?

Military instructors in most cases don't use normal (or what you as a
civilian would consider normal) teaching practices when giving dual. First
of all, there isn't time for good "civilian style" teaching practice.
Everything in the military is on a strict time line basis. The instructor
throws it out and the student either gets it or he/she doesn't. Also, giving
dual in a T38 isn't the same as giving dual in a Cessna 172. There is little
time in these airplanes for "proper accepted teaching standards :-)
Its not an optimum teaching situation at all, and indeed it's not meant to
be. The objective in military flight instruction is geared as much toward
weeding out those who can't get it the first time through the door as it is
in teaching the student to fly the airplane.
If anything, the military IP is actually placing obstacles in front of the
student for the student to trip over. If the student trips, its all over.
What I'm describing here is far away from the civilian teaching methods as
we know them, and perhaps helps explain why the instructors trained under
the military system were the way they were in the "old days".
In short, the way these military IP's were teaching in the civilian market
wasn't necessarily the way it should have been, but it was understandable
considering their training at the time.
Dudley Henriques

[Viperdoc[_4_]]

He was not and never was a military instructor. I have flown in T-37s,
F-16s, and KC-135s with IPs. Some were better than others, but none of them
ever slapped my hands (admittedly hard to do in a 16), and all were better
than this guy.

This guy was just a macho individual, and this was his style of interaction
with students. I later asked him some question about the commercial rating
when I ran into him in the FBO, and later learned that he totally blew smoke
and was completely wrong.

He clearly didn't have the maturity or self confidence to admit that he
didn't know the answer, or possibly could be wrong. In my opinion this is a
dangerous attitude, whether it comes from a pilot or a surgeon (my real
profession)

Regardless, I never flew with him again.

[Bob Moore]

Dudley Henriques wrote
> Military instructors in most cases don't use normal (or what you as a
> civilian would consider normal) teaching practices when giving dual.

Dudley, were you either a student or instructor in the military?

Bob Moore

[Jon Woellhaf]

Viperdoc wrote
> ... [A CFI Viperdoc once flew with] clearly didn't have the maturity
> or self confidence to admit that he didn't know the answer, or possibly
> could be wrong. In my opinion this is a dangerous attitude, whether it
> comes from a pilot or a surgeon (my real profession)

Is there a surgeon somewhere who will admit that he or she, "possibly could
be wrong?" <g>

[Viperdoc]

Only when there aren't any patients around.

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

"Bob Moore" > wrote in message
46.128...
> Dudley Henriques wrote
>> Military instructors in most cases don't use normal (or what you as a
>> civilian would consider normal) teaching practices when giving dual.
>
> Dudley, were you either a student or instructor in the military?
>
> Bob Moore

I never quite know how to read your posts to me Moore, so I'll just assume
this isn't the opening gambit in a hostile Usenet chess game and reply as
neutrally as I can.

I was a civilian instructor specializing in flying, demonstrating, and
instructing in high performance military fighter aircraft. I probably know
as many pilots who were military instructors as anyone on the planet and
have spent at least as much time learning from and teaching these pilots as
I have spent in the civilian market.
I hope this answers your "question"
Dudley Henriques

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

"Viperdoc" > wrote in message
...
> Only when there aren't any patients around.


...............and lawyers for sure!!! :-)
Dudley Henriques

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

"Viperdoc" > wrote in message
...
> He was not and never was a military instructor. I have flown in T-37s,
> F-16s, and KC-135s with IPs. Some were better than others, but none of
> them ever slapped my hands (admittedly hard to do in a 16), and all were
> better than this guy.
>
> This guy was just a macho individual, and this was his style of
> interaction with students. I later asked him some question about the
> commercial rating when I ran into him in the FBO, and later learned that
> he totally blew smoke and was completely wrong.
>
> He clearly didn't have the maturity or self confidence to admit that he
> didn't know the answer, or possibly could be wrong. In my opinion this is
> a dangerous attitude, whether it comes from a pilot or a surgeon (my real
> profession)
>
> Regardless, I never flew with him again.

I don't blame you. I wouldn't have flown again with him either.
As an aside, some of the military IP's I've been associated with
professionally, especially fighter lead in IP's, were some of the finest
pilots I've ever had the privilege of working with.
Dudley Henriques

[buttman]

> >No one is perfect, and I don't know why some people can't
> > accept the fact that I'm not...
>
> You're right. No one IS perfect, but the job of the flight instructor is NOT
> to accept this fact as easily as you obviously accept it from the tone of
> your posts. You spend entirely too much time explaining to one and all that not being
> perfect is acceptable in a pilot when in fact you should be spending every
> minute of your time as a flight instructor doing all in your power to bring
> perfection as close to being attainable as possible for your student.

What on earth makes you think I'm not doing this? I'm constantly
refining my skills. Posting and reading messages on this group is part
of that process. And it's a process I'm very familiar with. I got my
CFI with just a little over 250 hours, and over my tenure of
instructing, I've learned almost as much as I've learned as a student
myself. If you think it's a crime to be a CFI without having mastered
every single little minute facet of flying, then I'm not the one to
get mad at. Petition the FAA to get the CFI minimum requirements
raised. Write letters to schools telling them to refuse instructors
who don't have at least 1000 hours total time. I'm not the only one.

Everyone ganged up on me by saying how I should be fired because I
made a mistake. My "I'm only human" defense is a response to those who
say I'm unfit to instruct because I made a mistake. I don't deny it
was my fault; I do not deny I could have done more to avoid the
situation. You choose to conveniently ignore these posts and instead
CONTINUE maintain the opinion that I'm some kind of cowboy moron with
no regard for safety or my students education. Just admit it, there is
nothing can say or do that will change you mind about me as an
instructor. This exactly why I choose not to use my real name here.

My intent is not to excuse myself from having to learn anything from
the situation. Anyways, in my OP I only mentioned the incident to
illustrate how radio rudeness can effect others. I made no statement
of fault or dismissiveness. When others brought it up, I chimed in to
say, "yeah I probably could have done some more, but whats done is
done" All these your cries of "you are an unfit instructor because you
don't accept responsibility", "you could have used this as a way to
teach your student, BUT INSTEAD YOU SAID NOTHING TO YOUR STUDENT AND
JUST CAME HERE TO WHINE" and "you're just writing it all off as
someone else's fault" are completely made up by you. It boggles my
mind that someone could be so mindless...

You have proven to me over and over again that you're just not to
discuss aviation safety, instructional competence, radio politeness,
or pattern etiquette at all. You're just here to follow me around,
reading between the lines to try and come up with ways to "prove" I'm
a bad instructor. No matter what I post you're going to find something
wrong with it, whether it's true or not. You don't care about any of
these things. You're just here to toot your horn about how gifted an
instuctor you THINK are, and how anyone who disagrees, is CLEARLY a
reckless moron.

> If you don't understand this one single all important concept, and are
> unable to pass it on to a student pilot, in my opnion you are SERIOUSLY
> lacking in the basic fundementals of proper flight instruction.
> You should NEVER...and I repeat it again for you....EVER.....accept an error
> made in the air by you, your student, or any other pilot as simply the fact
> that "no one is perfect". This loigic has no place in
> aviation.......ESPECIALLY professional aviation.......and MOST CERTAINLY not
> in the CFI's deductive reasoning.
> Dudley Henriques

I'll say it once more: Get over yourself.

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

I can see we're at the inevitable impasse here, so I'll just disengage from
you at this point if possible and let this go.
Perhaps we'll meet again over on the student group. I can't say I'll be
looking forward to it.
:-))
Have a nice day.
Dudley Henriques


"buttman" > wrote in message
ps.com...
>> >No one is perfect, and I don't know why some people can't
>> > accept the fact that I'm not...
>>
>> You're right. No one IS perfect, but the job of the flight instructor is
>> NOT
>> to accept this fact as easily as you obviously accept it from the tone of
>> your posts. You spend entirely too much time explaining to one and all
>> that not being
>> perfect is acceptable in a pilot when in fact you should be spending
>> every
>> minute of your time as a flight instructor doing all in your power to
>> bring
>> perfection as close to being attainable as possible for your student.
>
> What on earth makes you think I'm not doing this? I'm constantly
> refining my skills. Posting and reading messages on this group is part
> of that process. And it's a process I'm very familiar with. I got my
> CFI with just a little over 250 hours, and over my tenure of
> instructing, I've learned almost as much as I've learned as a student
> myself. If you think it's a crime to be a CFI without having mastered
> every single little minute facet of flying, then I'm not the one to
> get mad at. Petition the FAA to get the CFI minimum requirements
> raised. Write letters to schools telling them to refuse instructors
> who don't have at least 1000 hours total time. I'm not the only one.
>
> Everyone ganged up on me by saying how I should be fired because I
> made a mistake. My "I'm only human" defense is a response to those who
> say I'm unfit to instruct because I made a mistake. I don't deny it
> was my fault; I do not deny I could have done more to avoid the
> situation. You choose to conveniently ignore these posts and instead
> CONTINUE maintain the opinion that I'm some kind of cowboy moron with
> no regard for safety or my students education. Just admit it, there is
> nothing can say or do that will change you mind about me as an
> instructor. This exactly why I choose not to use my real name here.
>
> My intent is not to excuse myself from having to learn anything from
> the situation. Anyways, in my OP I only mentioned the incident to
> illustrate how radio rudeness can effect others. I made no statement
> of fault or dismissiveness. When others brought it up, I chimed in to
> say, "yeah I probably could have done some more, but whats done is
> done" All these your cries of "you are an unfit instructor because you
> don't accept responsibility", "you could have used this as a way to
> teach your student, BUT INSTEAD YOU SAID NOTHING TO YOUR STUDENT AND
> JUST CAME HERE TO WHINE" and "you're just writing it all off as
> someone else's fault" are completely made up by you. It boggles my
> mind that someone could be so mindless...
>
> You have proven to me over and over again that you're just not to
> discuss aviation safety, instructional competence, radio politeness,
> or pattern etiquette at all. You're just here to follow me around,
> reading between the lines to try and come up with ways to "prove" I'm
> a bad instructor. No matter what I post you're going to find something
> wrong with it, whether it's true or not. You don't care about any of
> these things. You're just here to toot your horn about how gifted an
> instuctor you THINK are, and how anyone who disagrees, is CLEARLY a
> reckless moron.
>
>> If you don't understand this one single all important concept, and are
>> unable to pass it on to a student pilot, in my opnion you are SERIOUSLY
>> lacking in the basic fundementals of proper flight instruction.
>> You should NEVER...and I repeat it again for you....EVER.....accept an
>> error
>> made in the air by you, your student, or any other pilot as simply the
>> fact
>> that "no one is perfect". This loigic has no place in
>> aviation.......ESPECIALLY professional aviation.......and MOST CERTAINLY
>> not
>> in the CFI's deductive reasoning.
>> Dudley Henriques
>
> I'll say it once more: Get over yourself.
>

[buttman]

On May 12, 12:19 pm, "Dudley Henriques" > wrote:
> I can see we're at the inevitable impasse here, so I'll just disengage from
> you at this point if possible and let this go.
> Perhaps we'll meet again over on the student group. I can't say I'll be
> looking forward to it.
> :-))
> Have a nice day.
> Dudley Henriques

If this means you'll stop making things up to try to fuel your jihad
against me, then it's A-OK with me.

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

"buttman" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> On May 12, 12:19 pm, "Dudley Henriques" > wrote:
>> I can see we're at the inevitable impasse here, so I'll just disengage
>> from
>> you at this point if possible and let this go.
>> Perhaps we'll meet again over on the student group. I can't say I'll be
>> looking forward to it.
>> :-))
>> Have a nice day.
>> Dudley Henriques
>
> If this means you'll stop making things up to try to fuel your jihad
> against me, then it's A-OK with me.

Actually, what it means is that I don't believe you are a CFI at all, or if
you are, a very bad one, and that if you and I tangle again, it will be on
the student newsgroup where I have an active interest in flight safety.

Dudley Henriques

[buttman]

> Actually, what it means is that I don't believe you are a CFI at all, or if
> you are, a very bad one, and that if you and I tangle again, it will be on
> the student newsgroup where I have an active interest in flight safety.
>
> Dudley Henriques

No, it means you ran out of straw man arguments so you're pathetically
taking your ball and going home. Whatever. As long as you promise to
not reply to any of my postings then thats best for both of us.

[Viperdoc[_3_]]

I agree completely- one of the nicest fighter guys I flew with was also the
smoothest (the best in energy management). As an IP, he was comfortable
letting me do a bunch of acro in the 16, although except for the raw power
it flies like a pig compared to my Extra. He is now a wing commander, and on
the way to becoming a BG.

On the other hand, I flew with a T-37 pilot who didn't get promoted to major
for some reason, and was getting out. He sounded kind of bitter, and it made
me a little nervous flying with him. He wouldn't let me put the gear down.
Considering how underpowered it is, the T-37 was amazingly quick in pitch.

Perhaps there's some truth about the cream rising to the top.

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

"Viperdoc" > wrote in message
t...

> Perhaps there's some truth about the cream rising to the top.

Well I'd tell you the truth, but I have a feeling you know this already :-))
As an IP you have to be just a bit quicker and think just a bit faster in
the 38 than in the 37.
:-))
DH

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

"buttman" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
>> Actually, what it means is that I don't believe you are a CFI at all, or
>> if
>> you are, a very bad one, and that if you and I tangle again, it will be
>> on
>> the student newsgroup where I have an active interest in flight safety.
>>
>> Dudley Henriques
>
> No, it means you ran out of straw man arguments so you're pathetically
> taking your ball and going home. Whatever. As long as you promise to
> not reply to any of my postings then thats best for both of us.
>

Oh, I'll be around :-))
You have a nice day
Dudley Henriques

[John Theune]

buttman wrote:
>> Actually, what it means is that I don't believe you are a CFI at all, or if
>> you are, a very bad one, and that if you and I tangle again, it will be on
>> the student newsgroup where I have an active interest in flight safety.
>>
>> Dudley Henriques
>
> No, it means you ran out of straw man arguments so you're pathetically
> taking your ball and going home. Whatever. As long as you promise to
> not reply to any of my postings then thats best for both of us.
>
Kindly just go away, I'm tired of your whining.

[RST Engineering]

Most of the world runs on the septic tank principle ...

Most of it flows downhill, but the really big chunks float to the top.

{;-)

Jim



"Viperdoc" > wrote in message
t...


>
> Perhaps there's some truth about the cream rising to the top.
>
>

[RST Engineering]

Dudley, for the love of God, DON'T MUD WRESTLE WITH A PIG. You get all
dirty and the pig likes it.

Jim


"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
...
>
> "buttman" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>> On May 12, 12:19 pm, "Dudley Henriques" > wrote:
>>> I can see we're at the inevitable impasse here, so I'll just disengage

[B A R R Y]

On Sat, 12 May 2007 09:30:58 -0400, "Dudley Henriques"
> wrote:

> With a wide and long runway 50 feet below you, what would you need
> the power for?

When at a high AOA at Vx? <G>

A stall @ 50 feet would really, really hurt.

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

"RST Engineering" > wrote in message
...
> Dudley, for the love of God, DON'T MUD WRESTLE WITH A PIG. You get all
> dirty and the pig likes it.
>
> Jim

I know. Slow day here. getting ready to storm like hell and I have 2 huge
filet mignons and veggies to match all oiled and marinated and readied up
for the grill. A big CB has been sitting right over our heads for a few
hours now and I've been bored to tears waiting for it to blow over.
It's either post to the Butthead or eat the stuff raw.
Dudley Henriques

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

"B A R R Y" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 12 May 2007 09:30:58 -0400, "Dudley Henriques"
> > wrote:
>
>> With a wide and long runway 50 feet below you, what would you need
>> the power for?
>
> When at a high AOA at Vx? <G>
>
> A stall @ 50 feet would really, really hurt.

I didn't write this.
Dudley Henriques

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

It's funny about the cream rising to the top. I can remember like it was
yesterday walking down the street as a boy in the dead of winter and seeing
the glass milk bottles with the cream on the top...one on every stoop left
by the milkman.
The cream being so cold would push the little cardboard tops of the bottles
up until they "popped".
Would you believe a cat on every stoop???
:-))
Dudley Henriques


"RST Engineering" > wrote in message
...
> Most of the world runs on the septic tank principle ...
>
> Most of it flows downhill, but the really big chunks float to the top.
>
> {;-)
>
> Jim
>
>
>
> "Viperdoc" > wrote in message
> t...
>
>
>>
>> Perhaps there's some truth about the cream rising to the top.
>>
>>
>
>

[B A R R Y]

On Sat, 12 May 2007 18:06:28 -0400, "Dudley Henriques"
> wrote:

>
>"B A R R Y" > wrote in message
...
>> On Sat, 12 May 2007 09:30:58 -0400, "Dudley Henriques"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> With a wide and long runway 50 feet below you, what would you need
>>> the power for?
>>
>> When at a high AOA at Vx? <G>
>>
>> A stall @ 50 feet would really, really hurt.
>
>I didn't write this.
>Dudley Henriques


I know! Buttman did.

Sorry for screwing up the quote.

Barry

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

"B A R R Y" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 12 May 2007 18:06:28 -0400, "Dudley Henriques"
> > wrote:
>
>>
>>"B A R R Y" > wrote in message
...
>>> On Sat, 12 May 2007 09:30:58 -0400, "Dudley Henriques"
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> With a wide and long runway 50 feet below you, what would you need
>>>> the power for?
>>>
>>> When at a high AOA at Vx? <G>
>>>
>>> A stall @ 50 feet would really, really hurt.
>>
>>I didn't write this.
>>Dudley Henriques
>
>
> I know! Buttman did.
>
> Sorry for screwing up the quote.
>
> Barry

No sweat, but this guy is the LAST person on earth I want to be attributed
to as having quoted :-))))
Thanks for the correction Barry. Appreciate it.
Dudley Henriques

[B A R R Y]

On Sat, 12 May 2007 18:19:03 -0400, "Dudley Henriques"
> wrote:
>
>No sweat, but this guy is the LAST person on earth I want to be attributed
>to as having quoted :-))))

On the subject...

I've practiced this at a safe altitude, similar to a departure stall.

In departure configuration:
1.) Slow to rotation speed
2.) Apply full power
3.) While climbing @ Vx (full power + proper AOA to create a Vx
airspeed), pull the throttle
4.) Recover

Considering the swift and positive actions that need to happen (and I
know it's coming!), I imagine that one of his students will kill both
of them someday, if he is in fact doing this @ 50 feet.

Not to mention, at a safe altitude I'm not at all worried about ground
track, as I would be at 50 feet.

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
"Dudley Henriques" > wrote:

> It's either post to the Butthead or eat the stuff raw.

you must REALLY hate eating the stuff raw. :-/

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote:
>
>> It's either post to the Butthead or eat the stuff raw.
>
> you must REALLY hate eating the stuff raw. :-/

Well, I have to admit that just watching the stuff it's beginning to look
better all the time
:-)
Dudley Henriques

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

"B A R R Y" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 12 May 2007 18:19:03 -0400, "Dudley Henriques"
> > wrote:
>>
>>No sweat, but this guy is the LAST person on earth I want to be attributed
>>to as having quoted :-))))
>
> On the subject...
>
> I've practiced this at a safe altitude, similar to a departure stall.
>
> In departure configuration:
> 1.) Slow to rotation speed
> 2.) Apply full power
> 3.) While climbing @ Vx (full power + proper AOA to create a Vx
> airspeed), pull the throttle
> 4.) Recover
>
> Considering the swift and positive actions that need to happen (and I
> know it's coming!), I imagine that one of his students will kill both
> of them someday, if he is in fact doing this @ 50 feet.
>
> Not to mention, at a safe altitude I'm not at all worried about ground
> track, as I would be at 50 feet.

He might not even be an instructor, but if he is, after posting through
these "exchanges" he's had with myself and others dealing with his "CFI
philosophy", I'd like to think that all the gruff dialog aside, he's learned
something even though he doesn't admit it.
Actually, I learned a long time ago in the aviation business that it's not
admitting you learned something that matters, it's the LEARNING that
matters.
Perhaps something has been gained......but who knows really. It's Usenet
after all :-))
Dudley Henriques

[RST Engineering]

Only for a few dozen milliseconds and then you'd never have to worry about
feeling hurt ever again.

Jim



"B A R R Y" > wrote in message
...

> A stall @ 50 feet would really, really hurt.

[Matt Whiting]

buttman wrote:
>> Actually, what it means is that I don't believe you are a CFI at all, or if
>> you are, a very bad one, and that if you and I tangle again, it will be on
>> the student newsgroup where I have an active interest in flight safety.
>>
>> Dudley Henriques
>
> No, it means you ran out of straw man arguments so you're pathetically
> taking your ball and going home. Whatever. As long as you promise to
> not reply to any of my postings then thats best for both of us.
>

And if you stop posting ... that is best for all of us. :-)

[Matt Whiting]

Dudley Henriques wrote:
> "RST Engineering" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Dudley, for the love of God, DON'T MUD WRESTLE WITH A PIG. You get all
>> dirty and the pig likes it.
>>
>> Jim
>
> I know. Slow day here. getting ready to storm like hell and I have 2 huge
> filet mignons and veggies to match all oiled and marinated and readied up
> for the grill. A big CB has been sitting right over our heads for a few
> hours now and I've been bored to tears waiting for it to blow over.
> It's either post to the Butthead or eat the stuff raw.

You mean there is a difference between those choices? :-)

Matt

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> Dudley Henriques wrote:
>> "RST Engineering" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Dudley, for the love of God, DON'T MUD WRESTLE WITH A PIG. You get all
>>> dirty and the pig likes it.
>>>
>>> Jim
>>
>> I know. Slow day here. getting ready to storm like hell and I have 2 huge
>> filet mignons and veggies to match all oiled and marinated and readied up
>> for the grill. A big CB has been sitting right over our heads for a few
>> hours now and I've been bored to tears waiting for it to blow over.
>> It's either post to the Butthead or eat the stuff raw.
>
> You mean there is a difference between those choices? :-)
>
> Matt

Well, we just ate the filets and they were great! The other choice wasn't
so appetizing really
:-)
Dudley Henriques

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Allen" > wrote in message
...
>
> Which does nothing to define what "final approach" is. If you are aligned
> with the runway and intending to land does final begin 5 miles from the
> threshold? 10 miles? 15 miles? 50 miles?
>

All of those. You're on final when you're aligned with the landing area.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"John Godwin" > wrote in message
. 3.50...
>
> ... and I believe that the AIM defines "Final Approach" as:
> A flight path in the direction of landing along the extended
> runway centerline from the base leg to the runway.
>

P/CG:

FINAL- Commonly used to mean that an aircraft is on the final approach
course or is aligned with a landing area.

[Allen[_1_]]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
link.net...
>
> "Allen" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Which does nothing to define what "final approach" is. If you are
aligned
> > with the runway and intending to land does final begin 5 miles from the
> > threshold? 10 miles? 15 miles? 50 miles?
> >
>
> All of those. You're on final when you're aligned with the landing area.
>

I don't agree with you. If you are aligned with the landing area but still
20 miles out you are enroute, not on final.

[Larry Dighera]

On Sun, 13 May 2007 02:08:23 GMT, "Allen" >
wrote in >:

>
>"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
link.net...
>>
>> "Allen" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> > Which does nothing to define what "final approach" is. If you are
>aligned
>> > with the runway and intending to land does final begin 5 miles from the
>> > threshold? 10 miles? 15 miles? 50 miles?
>> >
>>
>> All of those. You're on final when you're aligned with the landing area.
>>
>
>I don't agree with you. If you are aligned with the landing area but still
>20 miles out you are enroute, not on final.
>

It would seem that is true if there is a published FAF for that
runway.

[B A R R Y]

On Sun, 13 May 2007 02:08:23 GMT, "Allen" >
wrote:

>
>I don't agree with you. If you are aligned with the landing area but still
>20 miles out you are enroute, not on final.
>

Big jets are on long final at my local international airport all the
time.

We hear ATC stating stuff like "BigJet 233, 15 mile final, rwy 24"
usually in IFR. I've also heard jets being told "BigJet 233, report 3
mile left base rwy 24", on a clear day.

On snowy days, I've heard final approach described as 30 mile final,
then 20, then 10, which is relayed to the ground maintenance folks
doing snow removal.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Allen" > wrote in message
t...
>
> I don't agree with you. If you are aligned with the landing area but
> still
> 20 miles out you are enroute, not on final.
>

Your disagreement alters nothing.

[Matt Whiting]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "Allen" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Which does nothing to define what "final approach" is. If you are aligned
>> with the runway and intending to land does final begin 5 miles from the
>> threshold? 10 miles? 15 miles? 50 miles?
>>
>
> All of those. You're on final when you're aligned with the landing area.

So if airport A has a runway that is perfectly aligned to airport B
which is 100 miles distant and I fly directly from airport B to airport
A (into the wind so I'm landing on the appropriate runway without
turning), that means I'm on final the entire trip? Cool!


Matt

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
>
> So if airport A has a runway that is perfectly aligned to airport B which
> is 100 miles distant and I fly directly from airport B to airport A (into
> the wind so I'm landing on the appropriate runway without turning), that
> means I'm on final the entire trip? >

Yes.

[buttman]

> I know. Slow day here. getting ready to storm like hell and I have 2 huge
> filet mignons and veggies to match all oiled and marinated and readied up
> for the grill. A big CB has been sitting right over our heads for a few
> hours now and I've been bored to tears waiting for it to blow over.
> It's either post to the Butthead or eat the stuff raw.
> Dudley Henriques

Yeah, me too. I'm getting ready for a party at my place in a few
hours. Right now I'm just sitting here on a floaty in my pool,
drinking some Hennessy, watching some topless chicks play water
volleyball. I don't wonder fort;liur;qwrejt oops one of the topless
chicks just accidently hit the volleyball over here and it hit my
keyboard. I think she's just mad because I wouldn't give her a
backrub. Anyways, I'm just posting here to keep myself busy between
watching my multi-million dollar stocks go up on my laptop, and
avoiding calls on my razr from my sycophant friend Lindsay Lohan. I'm
bored out of my mind here too. It's either talk to Doody Henjerkaids
here, or answer my phone.

[buttman]

On May 12, 2:01 pm, "Dudley Henriques" > wrote:
> "buttman" > wrote in message
>
> oups.com...
>
>
>
> >> Actually, what it means is that I don't believe you are a CFI at all, or
> >> if
> >> you are, a very bad one, and that if you and I tangle again, it will be
> >> on
> >> the student newsgroup where I have an active interest in flight safety.
>
> >> Dudley Henriques
>
> > No, it means you ran out of straw man arguments so you're pathetically
> > taking your ball and going home. Whatever. As long as you promise to
> > not reply to any of my postings then thats best for both of us.
>
> Oh, I'll be around :-))
> You have a nice day
> Dudley Henriques

Oh and for the record, YOU'RE the one who had to break down this
discussion with your silly personal attacks. Don't act all high and
mighty. I'm still waiting for rebuttals, if you have any.

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
...
> PLEASE!
> Do I REALLY have to reiterate to you that pulling a fuel valve on a
> student on takeoff is poor technique for a flight instructor dealing with
> a student.....

Only for crack-heads like this guy...


> "buttman" > wrote in message
> ups.com...

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"B A R R Y" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 12 May 2007 09:30:58 -0400, "Dudley Henriques"
> > wrote:
>
>> With a wide and long runway 50 feet below you, what would you need
>> the power for?
>
> When at a high AOA at Vx? <G>

At night...in IMC....when you have a head cold...


> A stall @ 50 feet would really, really hurt.

Silly person.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

buttman > wrote in
ups.com:

> On May 12, 2:01 pm, "Dudley Henriques" > wrote:
>> "buttman" > wrote in message
>>
>> oups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>> >> Actually, what it means is that I don't believe you are a CFI at
>> >> all, or if
>> >> you are, a very bad one, and that if you and I tangle again, it
>> >> will be on
>> >> the student newsgroup where I have an active interest in flight
>> >> safety.
>>
>> >> Dudley Henriques
>>
>> > No, it means you ran out of straw man arguments so you're
>> > pathetically taking your ball and going home. Whatever. As long as
>> > you promise to not reply to any of my postings then thats best for
>> > both of us.
>>
>> Oh, I'll be around :-))
>> You have a nice day
>> Dudley Henriques
>
> Oh and for the record, YOU'RE the one who had to break down this
> discussion with your silly personal attacks. Don't act all high and
> mighty. I'm still waiting for rebuttals, if you have any.
>

Shrieeeek Shrieeeek **** moan bithc whine whine whine..


bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

buttman > wrote in
oups.com:

>> I know. Slow day here. getting ready to storm like hell and I have 2
>> huge filet mignons and veggies to match all oiled and marinated and
>> readied up for the grill. A big CB has been sitting right over our
>> heads for a few hours now and I've been bored to tears waiting for it
>> to blow over. It's either post to the Butthead or eat the stuff raw.
>> Dudley Henriques
>
> Yeah, me too. I'm getting ready for a party at my place in a few
> hours. Right now I'm just sitting here on a floaty in my pool,
> drinking some Hennessy, watching some topless chicks play water
> volleyball.

oow, you should write to Penthouse, quick!

Bertie

[DR]

buttman wrote:

> 'Safe' is a relative term. What is exactly does 'safe' begin and end?
> You admit that a practice engine failure on takeoff is perfectly safe
> when done by closing the throttle. The only difference between pulling
> the throttle instead of the gas valve means you have power if you need
> it. With a wide and long runway 50 feet below you, what would you need
> the power for?
>
> I admit there could be a perfectly good reason why you losing that
> ability to add back power could result in an accident, but I haven't
> heard it.

Hi Buttman, I'm not a CFI but and I can think of many good reasons why
not having power on tap from a glide approach _is_ a _real_ safety
issue. Are you saying that as a CFI you don't think it possible that (in
an instructing situation) you will suddenly need to shove the throttle
in and initiate a go-around? How many times have you had to add power to
control a balloon? What if you suddenly need to go around? What if the
engine takes 30s to cut out -where are you then?

Think about your human factors, cool off and, as I've said before, take
it in the chin. I'm sorry, but even with my very limited knowlege I can
see where you are wrong. Why not say 'mea culpa' and agree with your
protagonists -I would certainly respect a CFI more who can admit his
mistakes (after all, aren't all good pilots learning?).

I'm learning a lot by listening and evaluating responses here -I hope
you can too!

Cheers MarkC

[Allen[_1_]]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
hlink.net...
>
> "Allen" > wrote in message
> t...
> >
> > I don't agree with you. If you are aligned with the landing area but
> > still
> > 20 miles out you are enroute, not on final.
> >
>
> Your disagreement alters nothing.
>

Your saying so does not make it true.

[Mark T. Dame]

gatt wrote:
>
> Is that really a stupid instructor trick at altitude? My first instructor
> did it during our first cross country work--"Oops. I wonder how that
> happened?" Later he said he did it because the examiner would do it on the
> checkride. In fact, when the examiner did it on the checkride I reflexively
> checked the fuel lever first.

When I took my PP-ASEL checkride (in 1996) my DE told me that they don't
do that anymore because of the risk of not being able to restart the
engine. I've always practiced engine out procedures by pulling the
throttle to idle. On my checkride, the DE didn't even do that. He said
something to the extent: "I'm not going to actually do a simulated
engine out, but if your engine quit right now, what would you do?" I
then went through the procedures with him without actually flying it.
He was satisfied. I asked him why he didn't want to even simulate the
engine out and he replied with "why take the chance on creating a real
emergency? If you can fly the airplane and you know what the emergency
procedures are, you can fly them. I don't need you to actually do it to
show you can." Which makes sense.

Interestingly, I was getting checked out in a new airplane a couple of
months ago and the instructor I was flying with had a friend with a
private grass strip near our practice area. When we did emergency
procedures, he had me use the grass strip as my "field" so we could take
it all the way to the ground. That was the first time I've done that
outside of a normal airport environment. It added a lot of realism to
the maneuver because I didn't have to artificially fly a pattern first
and had a realistic evaluation of my approach to the field. Most
simulated engine out practicing ends 500' above the ground. While that
is generally enough to know whether or not you will make the field you
picked, it's nice to actually prove it.

I think this approach is *far* more useful than killing the engine to
"simulate" an engine out. I've had an actual engine out in flight and
the difference between that and having the throttle at idle was
unnoticeable (at least until I went to add power, which is how I found
out my engine was dead). Instructors who feel that it is necessary to
actually kill the engine don't really understand the point of the
maneuver: it's about the approach and landing procedure, not the
attempt to restart a dead engine in flight. The restart portion of the
maneuver is stepped through so in a real engine out situation the pilot
knows what to do, but the main thing is to make sure the pilot can
safely land the plane if the engine doesn't restart. Anybody go through
an emergency checklist to switch fuel tanks, turn on boost pumps and
carb heat, or check the position of a mag switch. The skill is flying
the airplane at best glide, finding a suitable field, and then getting
there.


-m
--
## Mark T. Dame >
## CP-ASEL, AGI
## <insert tail number here>
## KHAO, KISZ
"I've got a very bad feeling about this."
-- Star Wars: Han Solo

[Mark T. Dame]

Matt Whiting wrote:
> buttman wrote:
>>
>> You admit that a practice engine failure on takeoff is perfectly safe
>> when done by closing the throttle. The only difference between pulling
>> the throttle instead of the gas valve means you have power if you need
>> it. With a wide and long runway 50 feet below you, what would you need
>> the power for?
>
> When the maintenance truck drives onto the runway ahead of you by
> mistake. When the (deer, moose, etc.) runs onto the runway ahead of
> you. I can probably think of others, but these two have happened to me
> personally.

I think these situations have happened to many people. The airports I
fly out of have a lot of deer (and groundhogs) that like to play on the
runway. They also have other airplanes and from time to time someone
who isn't paying attention does something stupid. I'm not trying to win
the "stupid act of the day" award, so I think I'll stick to pulling the
throttle instead of the mixture (it's too hard to reach the fuel shutoff
from the right seat of a Piper).

Regardless, I'll be taking my CFI checkride in a couple of weeks. I
don't think I'll mention that procedure. I want to actually pass the
checkride.


-m
--
## Mark T. Dame >
## CP-ASEL, AGI
## <insert tail number here>
## KHAO, KISZ
"Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by
stupidity."
-- Hanlon's Razor

[Mark T. Dame]

B A R R Y wrote:
>
>> With a wide and long runway 50 feet below you, what would you need
>> the power for?
>
> When at a high AOA at Vx? <G>
>
> A stall @ 50 feet would really, really hurt.

Case in point (at my home field a couple of weeks ago):
http://www.wlwt.com/newsarchive/13219000/detail.html

Although there is no official cause yet, it seems apparent that they
stalled at about 50 feet above the runway. Witnesses reported hearing
the power increase right before the plane crashed, so in this case,
having power didn't prevent the accident, but if they had no power, they
probably would all be dead.


-m
--
## Mark T. Dame >
## CP-ASEL, AGI
## <insert tail number here>
## KHAO, KISZ
"There's still some duplication (i.e., several places where I say
close to the same thing twice, and also where I'm redundant :-)"
-- Daniel Mocsny

[Steven P. McNicoll[_2_]]

On May 14, 6:46 am, "Allen" > wrote:
>
> Your saying so does not make it true.
>

No, but the Pilot/Controller Glossary saying so DOES make it true.

[gatt]

"buttman" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
>> Actually, what it means is that I don't believe you are a CFI at all, or
>> if
>> you are, a very bad one, and that if you and I tangle again, it will be
>> on
>> the student newsgroup where I have an active interest in flight safety.
>>
>> Dudley Henriques
>
> No, it means you ran out of straw man arguments so you're pathetically
> taking your ball and going home.

You're not winning much in terms of credibility here.


-=c

[gatt]

"buttman" > wrote in message
oups.com...

>>A big CB has been sitting right over our heads for a few
>> hours now and I've been bored to tears waiting for it to blow over.
>> It's either post to the Butthead or eat the stuff raw.
>> Dudley Henriques
>
> Yeah, me too. I'm getting ready for a party at my place in a few
> hours. Right now I'm just sitting here on a floaty in my pool,
> drinking some Hennessy, watching some topless chicks play water
> volleyball.

Dude, seriously. You're not winning points here, just making yourself look
less-than-professional.

-c

[Matt Whiting]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> On May 14, 6:46 am, "Allen" > wrote:
>> Your saying so does not make it true.
>>
>
> No, but the Pilot/Controller Glossary saying so DOES make it true.
>
>

The P/GC is not very precise and thus absolute truth is elusive in this
case.

Matt

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
>
> The P/GC is not very precise and thus absolute truth is elusive in this
> case.
>

The P/CG is exactly correct in this case.

[Matt Whiting]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
>> The P/GC is not very precise and thus absolute truth is elusive in this
>> case.
>>
>
> The P/CG is exactly correct in this case.
>
>

Hardly. Nobody with half a brain would consider me to be "on final" for
an airport that is 100 miles distant when I'm still climbing out from
the departure airport.

Matt

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
>
> Hardly. Nobody with half a brain would consider me to be "on final" for
> an airport that is 100 miles distant when I'm still climbing out from the
> departure airport.
>

Would you self announce to aircraft at your destination airport that you
were on final when 100 miles distant?

[Dylan Smith]

On 2007-05-11, buttman > wrote:
> I give the Cirrus guy total benefit of the doubt.

Not particularly directed against this Cirrus pilot (because I don't
know the facts), but generally directed at people with fast singles who
feel the need to hurtle around the circuit, scattering Cessna 150s in
their wake. (Often to be found doing a straight-in at 120 knots).

Please don't do it. If the pattern is busy, slow down - you can do it -
and fit in. I've got a fair few hours in an S-35 Bonanza. I found it
flew perfectly well at 80 knots with the first stage (of the highly
effective flaps) extended. It was more neighbourly (the engine throttled
back and much quieter), and it didn't make student pilots feel the need
to rush their downwind. There was just no need to go hurtling on
downwind at 120 knots like far too many people in this kind of aircraft
seem to prefer.

Similarly, there is no need to shove the prop control to fine pitch on
downwind leading to that loud rrrrrRRRRRRRR! sound that bothers the
airport neighbours so much. Leave the prop control alone until short
final when the RPMs probably won't change at all when you push it
forwards.

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de

[Matt Whiting]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Hardly. Nobody with half a brain would consider me to be "on final" for
>> an airport that is 100 miles distant when I'm still climbing out from the
>> departure airport.
>>
>
> Would you self announce to aircraft at your destination airport that you
> were on final when 100 miles distant?
>
>

Absolutely not. I'm not the one who said I would be on final this far
away ... that would be you who said that.

Matt

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
>
> Absolutely not.

Then it's irrelevant.


>
> I'm not the one who said I would be on final this far away ... that would
> be you who said that.
>

I didn't say that.

[Larry Dighera]

On Tue, 15 May 2007 09:50:17 +0000 (UTC), Dylan Smith
> wrote in
>:

>Not particularly directed against this Cirrus pilot (because I don't
>know the facts), but generally directed at people with fast singles who
>feel the need to hurtle around the circuit, scattering Cessna 150s in
>their wake. (Often to be found doing a straight-in at 120 knots).
>
>Please don't do it. If the pattern is busy, slow down - you can do it -
>and fit in. I've got a fair few hours in an S-35 Bonanza. I found it
>flew perfectly well at 80 knots with the first stage (of the highly
>effective flaps) extended. It was more neighbourly (the engine throttled
>back and much quieter), and it didn't make student pilots feel the need
>to rush their downwind. There was just no need to go hurtling on
>downwind at 120 knots like far too many people in this kind of aircraft
>seem to prefer.

Perhaps I'm missing something here, but I don't see the issue you
apparently do with a faster aircraft trailing a slower one on
downwind. There's no need for the slower one in front to feel any
pressure to rush at all. In fact it's doubtful that the pilot of the
slower aircraft is even aware of the speed of the aircraft behind him.
The faster aircraft need only pass the slower one on the outside of
the pattern, and turn base when appropriate. What am I missing?

While I may be able to appreciate the situation of the fast aircraft
on straight-in, I'm not sure it's much of an issue either.

Obviously you've had some negative experience with these two
situations. Perhaps you'd be good enough to point out the problems
you feel they create. Otherwise, I would prefer pilots pilot their
own aircraft, and let the other pilots pilot theirs (at whatever
speeds they see fit).

[Dylan Smith]

On 2007-05-15, Larry Dighera > wrote:
> Perhaps I'm missing something here, but I don't see the issue you
> apparently do with a faster aircraft trailing a slower one on
> downwind. There's no need for the slower one in front to feel any
> pressure to rush at all. In fact it's doubtful that the pilot of the
> slower aircraft is even aware of the speed of the aircraft behind him.

Only if they are a NORDO. If both aircraft are radio equipped, it
becomes very apparent if an aircraft behind is catching up on you
quickly from how much closer the position calls are getting to your
actual position.

Most pilots at that stage in the slower aircraft (PARTICULARLY student
pilots, who are likely to be in slower aircraft) will begin to get
anxious that an aircraft they can't see that's behind them, is catching
up on them quickly, and apparently making no allowances for them - have
they seen me? Have they heard my position announcements? Where exactly
are they?

It's probably not a big deal if no one else is in the circuit. But when
it's a fairly busy non-towered field with three or four student pilots
fighting with the crosswind - and then someone comes hurtling into the
pattern on a straight in, doing 120 knots, then I submit it's a bit
discourteous at the very least (especially when nearly every single,
even a hot one, will happily fly much more slowly and nicely slot in
with the prevailing traffic speed without making anyone anxious about
being run over).

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de

[Newps]

Dylan Smith wrote:

> Only if they are a NORDO. If both aircraft are radio equipped, it
> becomes very apparent if an aircraft behind is catching up on you
> quickly from how much closer the position calls are getting to your
> actual position.

So what? You're both on downwind, why can't he just follow you? If
he's too fast he moves over, he may even get to a point where he's
looking right over at you. Big deal. He'll extend hiw downwind. If
that makes the slow guy nervous get over it.



>
> Most pilots at that stage in the slower aircraft (PARTICULARLY student
> pilots, who are likely to be in slower aircraft) will begin to get
> anxious that an aircraft they can't see that's behind them, is catching
> up on them quickly, and apparently making no allowances for them - have
> they seen me? Have they heard my position announcements? Where exactly
> are they?

Ask. Do you have me in sight?

[Larry Dighera]

On Tue, 15 May 2007 09:52:18 -0600, Newps > wrote
in >:

>
>
>Dylan Smith wrote:
>
>> Only if they are a NORDO. If both aircraft are radio equipped, it
>> becomes very apparent if an aircraft behind is catching up on you
>> quickly from how much closer the position calls are getting to your
>> actual position.
>
>So what? You're both on downwind, why can't he just follow you? If
>he's too fast he moves over, he may even get to a point where he's
>looking right over at you. Big deal. He'll extend hiw downwind. If
>that makes the slow guy nervous get over it.
>
>
>
>>
>> Most pilots at that stage in the slower aircraft (PARTICULARLY student
>> pilots, who are likely to be in slower aircraft) will begin to get
>> anxious that an aircraft they can't see that's behind them, is catching
>> up on them quickly, and apparently making no allowances for them - have
>> they seen me? Have they heard my position announcements? Where exactly
>> are they?
>
>Ask. Do you have me in sight?
>
>

Thank you.

[Matt Whiting]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Absolutely not.
>
> Then it's irrelevant.
>
>
>> I'm not the one who said I would be on final this far away ... that would
>> be you who said that.
>>
>
> I didn't say that.
>
>

Actually, you did. May 13th at 9:08 AM. At least the person who wrote
yes did so under your name.

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.aviation.piloting/browse_thread/thread/accdb017123e5f52/da65519e8e9c8d7a?lnk=st&q=whiting+final+100+cool&rnum=3#da65519e8e9c8d7a

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
>
> Actually, you did.

Actually, I didn't.


>
> May 13th at 9:08 AM. At least the person who wrote yes did so under your
> name.
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.aviation.piloting/browse_thread/thread/accdb017123e5f52/da65519e8e9c8d7a?lnk=st&q=whiting+final+100+cool&rnum=3#da65519e8e9c8d7a

You asked a question, I simply provided the correct answer.

[RST Engineering]

Matt, Steve, stop it please. "Yes you did" "No I didn't"; haven't heard an
exchange like this since the fourth grade.


Jim



"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
hlink.net...
>
> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> Actually, you did.
>
> Actually, I didn't.
>
>
>>
>> May 13th at 9:08 AM. At least the person who wrote yes did so under your
>> name.
>>
>> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.aviation.piloting/browse_thread/thread/accdb017123e5f52/da65519e8e9c8d7a?lnk=st&q=whiting+final+100+cool&rnum=3#da65519e8e9c8d7a
>
> You asked a question, I simply provided the correct answer.
>
>
>
>
>

[Morgans[_2_]]

"RST Engineering" > wrote

> Matt, Steve, stop it please. "Yes you did" "No I didn't"; haven't heard
> an exchange like this since the fourth grade.

Steve is the king of these arguments. Various other suckers get drawn in,
along the way.

I quit reading Steven's posts, because of his picking nits off of nits.

Shame really, because he has a lot of good experience and information.
--
Jim in NC

[Matt Whiting]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Actually, you did.
>
> Actually, I didn't.
>
>
>> May 13th at 9:08 AM. At least the person who wrote yes did so under your
>> name.
>>
>> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.aviation.piloting/browse_thread/thread/accdb017123e5f52/da65519e8e9c8d7a?lnk=st&q=whiting+final+100+cool&rnum=3#da65519e8e9c8d7a
>
> You asked a question, I simply provided the correct answer.

And the answer affirmed that you would consider a flight aligned with
the landing runway, with the intent to land, but at 100 miles distant to
be "on final."

[Matt Whiting]

RST Engineering wrote:
> Matt, Steve, stop it please. "Yes you did" "No I didn't"; haven't heard an
> exchange like this since the fourth grade.

You are right. It is almost as bad as people that constantly whine
about posts that aren't trimmed.

Matt

[Alek]

How's this for rude too: http://www.liveatc.net/forums/index.php/topic,1836.msg10018.html#msg10018

[Dylan Smith]

On 2007-05-15, Newps > wrote:
> So what? You're both on downwind, why can't he just follow you? If
> he's too fast he moves over, he may even get to a point where he's
> looking right over at you. Big deal. He'll extend hiw downwind. If
> that makes the slow guy nervous get over it.

We're talking about a pattern full of student pilots here. If a fast
aircraft can actually fly at the prevailing speed of the pattern, isn't
it courteous to do so?

> Ask. Do you have me in sight?

Houston Gulf traffic, Cessna 123 downwind >screeee!< tuning base, La
Porte >screeee< two second gap, press Push to talk "Cessna 345, Bonanza
behind me do you have me in sight?" release PTT "mid field downwind, La
Porte" click "Houston Gulf traffic, Tripacer 789 departing 13 ...."

I specifically mentinoned a busy training airfield. On a nice sunny day,
with three airfields sharing the same frequency, the radio is squealing
like a pig with heterodyning. All the (in this example) Bonanza would
have to do would be to slow to prevailing traffic speed. Is this too
much to ask? No.

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
>
> And the answer affirmed that you would consider a flight aligned with the
> landing runway, with the intent to land, but at 100 miles distant to be
> "on final."
>

"On final" means an aircraft is on the final approach course or is aligned
with a landing area. Distance does not matter.