Time to earn license for professionals

[[email protected]]

Hello all,

I just wanted to see if other CFIs and pilots have been seeing the
same trend I have. I've been flying with a student for a little over a
year now, and she's almost ready to solo. It will take her another
year to get her ticket, for a total of 2 years, and probably 100 - 120
hours total, when done. Why? Because she's a busy CPA, and sometimes
cannot fly for periods of up to a month. Obviously if a student pilot
hasn't flown for a month, much of the next lesson is simply brushing
off the rust.

I've talked to a couple other local CFIs about this, and they have
noticed a similar trend. As the cost of flight training has gone up
(schools near mine cost approximately $130-$140 per hour, wet, with
CFI), we have seen a seeming increase in the number of early mid-life
(30-50 years old) professionals (CPAs, lawyers, doctors, etc.) taking
lessons, because to them, money isn't a major issue. But TIME is. One
CFI told me he has been working with a well-known doctor for over 2
years, and he probably won't take his checkride for another 1-2 years,
simply because he cannot fly often. But, like my student, he really
DOES want to fly, and DOES want to get their ticket. I talked to my
student about this, and she's fine with taking 2 years.

So is this becoming a trend? Two years or more to get a PP-ASEL, start
to finish? And does this mean that it might be necessary to modify the
traditional PP-ASEL curriculum to better meet the needs of these
students?

Just wanted to hear what other thought.

Cheers,

[Shirl]

wrote:
> So is this becoming a trend? Two years or more to get a PP-ASEL, start
> to finish? And does this mean that it might be necessary to modify the
> traditional PP-ASEL curriculum to better meet the needs of these
> students?
>
> Just wanted to hear what other thought.

I'm not a CFI, but I was Customer Service at a flight school. The
younger students were more committed to starting lessons, focusing on
THAT alone, and completing the training in the average 60-80 hours. Many
of these kids were hoping to make a career out of it, so they were
intent on getting it done.

Of the age group you are asking about -- 30-50 -- the scenario you
described was not unusual because (a) it wasn't going to be a career,
(b) money wasn't as much of a concern as time (as you said), (c) they
HAVE things such as a career, family, and other obligations, and (d)
since they're doing it for themselves alone, they don't WANT to add the
pressure of getting it done within a certain timeframe. I was in that
age group when I got my ticket, and personally, it would have driven me
crazy to have taken that long, if for no other reason, just having the
oral exam and checkride hanging over your head for that long -- there
comes a point where you just want it DONE!

The longest time at our school was 180 hours -- a guy in his early 50s,
dedicated, but with other commitments that took priority, so no way
around it. Another guy in his late 40s was 65 hours exactly, intent on
not spending more than he had to doing review after review rather than
flying back to back flights, and also keeping all the knowledge fresh in
his mind for the oral exam.

[news.chi.sbcglobal.net]

An ancillary thought...

If somebody doesn't have the time to learn to fly, will they actually have
time to fly?

And I would wonder how much proficiency these folks would be able to
maintain with such a limited flying schedule.

And while I know that flight instructors have to make a living, is it really
a good idea to continue teaching people who cannot devote an adequate amount
of time to learning to fly?

Not trolling, not trying to start a fight, just trying to consider the
risks...



"Shirl" > wrote in message
...
> wrote:
>> So is this becoming a trend? Two years or more to get a PP-ASEL, start
>> to finish? And does this mean that it might be necessary to modify the
>> traditional PP-ASEL curriculum to better meet the needs of these
>> students?
>>
>> Just wanted to hear what other thought.
>
> I'm not a CFI, but I was Customer Service at a flight school. The
> younger students were more committed to starting lessons, focusing on
> THAT alone, and completing the training in the average 60-80 hours. Many
> of these kids were hoping to make a career out of it, so they were
> intent on getting it done.
>
> Of the age group you are asking about -- 30-50 -- the scenario you
> described was not unusual because (a) it wasn't going to be a career,
> (b) money wasn't as much of a concern as time (as you said), (c) they
> HAVE things such as a career, family, and other obligations, and (d)
> since they're doing it for themselves alone, they don't WANT to add the
> pressure of getting it done within a certain timeframe. I was in that
> age group when I got my ticket, and personally, it would have driven me
> crazy to have taken that long, if for no other reason, just having the
> oral exam and checkride hanging over your head for that long -- there
> comes a point where you just want it DONE!
>
> The longest time at our school was 180 hours -- a guy in his early 50s,
> dedicated, but with other commitments that took priority, so no way
> around it. Another guy in his late 40s was 65 hours exactly, intent on
> not spending more than he had to doing review after review rather than
> flying back to back flights, and also keeping all the knowledge fresh in
> his mind for the oral exam.

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> I just wanted to see if other CFIs and pilots have been seeing the
> same trend I have. I've been flying with a student for a little over a
> year now, and she's almost ready to solo. It will take her another
> year to get her ticket, for a total of 2 years, and probably 100 - 120
> hours total, when done. Why? Because she's a busy CPA, and sometimes
> cannot fly for periods of up to a month. Obviously if a student pilot
> hasn't flown for a month, much of the next lesson is simply brushing
> off the rust.
>
> I've talked to a couple other local CFIs about this, and they have
> noticed a similar trend. As the cost of flight training has gone up
> (schools near mine cost approximately $130-$140 per hour, wet, with
> CFI), we have seen a seeming increase in the number of early mid-life
> (30-50 years old) professionals (CPAs, lawyers, doctors, etc.) taking
> lessons, because to them, money isn't a major issue. But TIME is. One
> CFI told me he has been working with a well-known doctor for over 2
> years, and he probably won't take his checkride for another 1-2 years,
> simply because he cannot fly often. But, like my student, he really
> DOES want to fly, and DOES want to get their ticket. I talked to my
> student about this, and she's fine with taking 2 years.
>
> So is this becoming a trend? Two years or more to get a PP-ASEL, start
> to finish? And does this mean that it might be necessary to modify the
> traditional PP-ASEL curriculum to better meet the needs of these
> students?
>
> Just wanted to hear what other thought.
>
> Cheers,
>
Yes, I believe it will require some "creative thought". This is an issue
that has been around a long time with some professional people. I
remember having to "adjust" to this many years ago. The situation might
very well as you have related, be getting worse as deeper flight
instruction becomes necessary due to the enhanced atmosphere required
when working a student in a high ATC environment.
Bottom line is that I have noticed this as well and agree with you if
you are leaning in the direction of re-thinking how these students
should be handled.
DH

--
Dudley Henriques

[Larry Dighera]

On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 07:29:02 -0700, wrote in
m>:

>I've been flying with a student for a little over a
>year now, and she's almost ready to solo. It will take her another
>year to get her ticket, for a total of 2 years, and probably 100 - 120
>hours total, when done. Why? Because she's a busy CPA, and sometimes
>cannot fly for periods of up to a month. Obviously if a student pilot
>hasn't flown for a month, much of the next lesson is simply brushing
>off the rust.

Personally, I believe that there is reason for concern with this sort
of hit-or-miss, long period flight training. Here are some thoughts
to ponder:

1. JFK Jr. chose a similar course of instruction for similar
reasons. His case bears grim testament to it's effectiveness.

2. Piloting requires a certain amount of recent experience
if proficiency is to be maintained, hence the passenger-carrying
and night proficiency requirements mandated by regulation.

3. The notion, that "now I have my airmans certificate, therefore
I can fly as sporadically as I please" is a dangerous trap.

I have spoken to a dental surgeon who used to do free medical flights
to Mexico; he was transported by a pilot who let him take the aircraft
controls at times (and he would reciprocate by letting the pilot pull
teeth), and he considered becoming an airman. But he thought better
of it, because he understood the necessity for ongoing recent
experience, and knew he wouldn't be able to meet it.

Perhaps you student should consider this ten-day path to an airmans
certificate:

http://www.perfectplanes.com/10day.html

You'll find some more of my thoughts on the subject here:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.aviation.piloting/msg/c4ef161ca7613f9a?dmode=source

[RST Engineering]

It has long been my goal, and I'll probably achieve it after I retire from
teaching engineering, to establish what Richard Bach called "School For
Perfection". (c.f. "Gift of Wings", R. Bach)

Four students per class, three classes during the first 4 weeks in June,
July (or August, depending on the Oshkosh schedule), September, and October.
(July or August is preparing for/recovering from Oshkosh.) One scholarship
student per class, chosen from essays written by the applicants themselves
.... age limit 17 up.

50 hours of wet time in a 172 and 25 hours of CFI time up front, cash, no
refunds. $1000 into the "scholarship" fund each. You finish early, you get
the balance back. You need more time, pony up per hour.

You commit during those four weeks to come to our little mountain airstrip
and stay in a local hotel; your significant other is welcome. Morning
briefings at the hotel conference center. One flight in the morning of 1:00
with one observer in the back seat of the 172. Two students on the ground
listening to the radio or studying ground school in the FBO. Land. Pilot
gets out and gets to be one of the radio persons. The back seat gets into
the left front, one of the radio guys gets into the back. Another 1:00
lesson. Rotate. Lunch at the airport deli. Another 1:00 in the afternoon
using the same sort of rotation. Dinner somewhere together, be it at a
local bistro or bbq over at my place. Ground school prep for the written
back at the hotel until 9 pm.

Do it again next morning. Sunday mornings off. Sunday afternoons wrenching
on "your" plane getting ready for Monday morning lessons.

Gotta go back home for an "emergency"? Unless it is a medical emergency in
your immediate family, you are gone, never again to come back. Bye. No
refund. Medical emergencies get to come back in next year's "class".

When it gets to cross-country time, the schedule changes, but you've got the
idea.

Expensive? Nowhere NEAR as expensive as wet flight time at $120 an hour for
100-200 hours to get your ticket over a three or four year span.

And, I believe, turning out pilots as opposed to airplane drivers.

I'd dearly LOVE to do it back in Iowa City using Jay's place as the hotel,
but I just can't handle four months away from home. And, I've got all my
wrenching tools out here. It would be difficult, but it would be ideal.



Drake: "...You ask about a flight school...young Mister Terrell is just
beginning to fly, but he has spent a year and a half studying the wind and
the sky, and the dynamics of unpowered flight. He has built forty gliders.
Wingspans from eight inches up to the one you saw ... thirty-one feet. He
has made his own wind tunnel and he has worked with the full size tunnel on
Level Three."

I said, "At that rate...it is going to take him a lifetime to learn how to
fly."

Drake: "Well of COURSE it will." (R. Bach)



Jim



--
"If you think you can, or think you can't, you're right."
--Henry Ford


> wrote in message
ps.com...
> Hello all,
>
> I just wanted to see if other CFIs and pilots have been seeing the
> same trend I have. I've been flying with a student for a little over a
> year now, and she's almost ready to solo. It will take her another
> year to get her ticket, for a total of 2 years, and probably 100 - 120
> hours total, when done. Why? Because she's a busy CPA, and sometimes
> cannot fly for periods of up to a month. Obviously if a student pilot
> hasn't flown for a month, much of the next lesson is simply brushing
> off the rust.

[[email protected]]

>
> When it gets to cross-country time, the schedule changes, but you've got the
> idea.
>
> Expensive? Nowhere NEAR as expensive as wet flight time at $120 an hour for
> 100-200 hours to get your ticket over a three or four year span.
>
> And, I believe, turning out pilots as opposed to airplane drivers.
>

Sounds like a good idea although I have my reservations. I also spread
out my instruction over 3 years (with 4 different instructors) due to
a lack of time and travel etc that kept me away from flying for months
on occasions. While obviously it cost me a lot more, I also got
exposed to a lot more scenarios than I would have in one month.
Stronger crosswinds, and all kinds of different weather situations
from wind shear on final to wet runways. I also feel uncomfortable
with the idea of ponying up a lot of cash to go flying for a month
with one instructor, what if I don't get along well with that
instructor? Flexibility is important and since there are no guarantees
of any kind, I wouldn't recommend a one month crash course to
everybody, maybe it works for some people but I don't think it does
for every one.

[JGalban via AviationKB.com]

I'm not a doctor, lawyer or CPA, but I was in a similar boat when I did my
PPL training. As an overworked IT guy, I was often working 60 hr. weeks and
had to provide on-call support when not working (i.e. no flying when on call).


I think it depends on the student. In my case, whenever I wasn't at work
or in the airplane, I was studying everything I could get my hands on. I
completed the PPL in 1.5 yrs. and 60 hrs. total time.

Once I had the ticket in my hand I made more of an effort to keep current,
but rental scheduling being what it is, I found that I only flew 60 hrs. the
first year. That wasn't enough to make me feel comfortable, so I bought my
own plane. Determined not to turn the plane into a ramp queen, I altered my
schedule to make flying more of a priority. Frankly, it was a good excuse
to quit working all the time. I doubt anyone has been on their deathbed
regretting that they didn't spend more time at the office.

For those that have overcrowded schedules, I think that some adjustment
would eventually be necessary in order to keep current. I've flown with
some busy professionals that only get 30 or so hrs of flying time per year
and their skills are in a perpetual state of rustiness.

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

--
Message posted via http://www.aviationkb.com

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

RST Engineering wrote:
> It has long been my goal, and I'll probably achieve it after I retire from
> teaching engineering, to establish what Richard Bach called "School For
> Perfection". (c.f. "Gift of Wings", R. Bach)
>
> Four students per class, three classes during the first 4 weeks in June,
> July (or August, depending on the Oshkosh schedule), September, and October.
> (July or August is preparing for/recovering from Oshkosh.) One scholarship
> student per class, chosen from essays written by the applicants themselves
> ... age limit 17 up.
>
> 50 hours of wet time in a 172 and 25 hours of CFI time up front, cash, no
> refunds. $1000 into the "scholarship" fund each. You finish early, you get
> the balance back. You need more time, pony up per hour.
>
> You commit during those four weeks to come to our little mountain airstrip
> and stay in a local hotel; your significant other is welcome. Morning
> briefings at the hotel conference center. One flight in the morning of 1:00
> with one observer in the back seat of the 172. Two students on the ground
> listening to the radio or studying ground school in the FBO. Land. Pilot
> gets out and gets to be one of the radio persons. The back seat gets into
> the left front, one of the radio guys gets into the back. Another 1:00
> lesson. Rotate. Lunch at the airport deli. Another 1:00 in the afternoon
> using the same sort of rotation. Dinner somewhere together, be it at a
> local bistro or bbq over at my place. Ground school prep for the written
> back at the hotel until 9 pm.
>
> Do it again next morning. Sunday mornings off. Sunday afternoons wrenching
> on "your" plane getting ready for Monday morning lessons.
>
> Gotta go back home for an "emergency"? Unless it is a medical emergency in
> your immediate family, you are gone, never again to come back. Bye. No
> refund. Medical emergencies get to come back in next year's "class".
>
> When it gets to cross-country time, the schedule changes, but you've got the
> idea.
>
> Expensive? Nowhere NEAR as expensive as wet flight time at $120 an hour for
> 100-200 hours to get your ticket over a three or four year span.
>
> And, I believe, turning out pilots as opposed to airplane drivers.
>
> I'd dearly LOVE to do it back in Iowa City using Jay's place as the hotel,
> but I just can't handle four months away from home. And, I've got all my
> wrenching tools out here. It would be difficult, but it would be ideal.
>
>
>
> Drake: "...You ask about a flight school...young Mister Terrell is just
> beginning to fly, but he has spent a year and a half studying the wind and
> the sky, and the dynamics of unpowered flight. He has built forty gliders.
> Wingspans from eight inches up to the one you saw ... thirty-one feet. He
> has made his own wind tunnel and he has worked with the full size tunnel on
> Level Three."
>
> I said, "At that rate...it is going to take him a lifetime to learn how to
> fly."
>
> Drake: "Well of COURSE it will." (R. Bach)
>
>
>
> Jim
>
>
>
I've always had a problem with crash courses for pilots, ESPECIALLY for
primary training. The reason is that most of the actual learning you do
in training isn't done during dual while under the pressure of flying
the airplane but rather in between flights where the relaxed mind can
better understand and comprehend what was done by rote in the air with
the instructor. In other words, the time spent between dual sessions is
in my opinion a necessary part of any OPTIMIZED training program as it
is during these periods where maximum retention is attained.
In any good training program, you need a constant schedule of dual inter
spaced with periods away from the aircraft. ANY program that pushes a
student on an inflexible ridged time line is in my opinion not an
optimized training regimen.


--
Dudley Henriques

[[email protected]]

On Sep 17, 12:40 pm, Larry Dighera > wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 07:29:02 -0700, wrote in
> m>:
>
> >I've been flying with a student for a little over a
> >year now, and she's almost ready to solo. It will take her another
> >year to get her ticket, for a total of 2 years, and probably 100 - 120
> >hours total, when done. Why? Because she's a busy CPA, and sometimes
> >cannot fly for periods of up to a month. Obviously if a student pilot
> >hasn't flown for a month, much of the next lesson is simply brushing
> >off the rust.
>
> Personally, I believe that there is reason for concern with this sort
> of hit-or-miss, long period flight training. Here are some thoughts
> to ponder:
>
> 1. JFK Jr. chose a similar course of instruction for similar
> reasons. His case bears grim testament to it's effectiveness.
>
> 2. Piloting requires a certain amount of recent experience
> if proficiency is to be maintained, hence the passenger-carrying
> and night proficiency requirements mandated by regulation.
>
> 3. The notion, that "now I have my airmans certificate, therefore
> I can fly as sporadically as I please" is a dangerous trap.
>
> I have spoken to a dental surgeon who used to do free medical flights
> to Mexico; he was transported by a pilot who let him take the aircraft
> controls at times (and he would reciprocate by letting the pilot pull
> teeth), and he considered becoming an airman. But he thought better
> of it, because he understood the necessity for ongoing recent
> experience, and knew he wouldn't be able to meet it.
>
> Perhaps you student should consider this ten-day path to an airmans
> certificate:
>
> http://www.perfectplanes.com/10day.html
>
> You'll find some more of my thoughts on the subject here:http://groups.google.com/group/rec.aviation.piloting/msg/c4ef161ca761...

You make some good points Larry. But I've also been rethinking the
issue of flight proficiency as well. I have come to believe (after
having done some...ahem..."interesting" BFRs) that pilot proficiency
has a lot more to do with a reasonable self-assessment of one's
skills, and self-discipline.

I believe it is very possible to be an adequately proficient pilot
flying just one hour per month (for example), IF the kind of flying
one does allows for it. I flew with a guy for a BFR who flew no more
than 20 hours per year. The first thing I do on BFRs is sit down with
a cup of coffee and chat about flying - what kind of flying do you
do...what do you want out of flying...tell me about your last flying
trip, etc.

This guy just loved to fly by himelf on nice days, VFR only...just
flying around, looking at the beauty, enjoying being in the air. He
usualy flew out of a low-traffic 5000 foot asphalt strip, outside of
ATC-controlled airspace. Always flew on nice days, had personal minima
he (said he) never broke. Just flew a 172. Occasionally flew a 60 mile
XC to get a piece of pie or hamburger. In his BFR, he was adequate;
above PP-ASEL PTS standards, but not much more. Now, this kind of low-
risk, low-difficulty flying is (IMO) certainly reasonable for a guy
who only flys once a month, in great weather, to long fields, in a
simple plane he understands. He knew his limitations, and was
seemingly appropriately managing them.

Another guy I flew with flew a lot. Was much more active, and flew IFR
a lot. His logbook showed about 150 hours in the previous year, with
maybe 60 in the soup. He said his last trip was a long XC in a 182RG,
ending in a localizer approach to minimums at an airport he'd never
been to before. He was also OK in the cockpit...better than the first
guy in terms of maneuvers and technical skill, but sometimes he seemed
to have a hard time multitasking well.

Now, I'm MUCH more concerned that I'll read about the second guy
cashing in his chips in an airplane someday. I don't think he really
will...he 'passed' his BFR, and we did some work on a couple of
things, including multi-tasking. But he IS more likely (IMO) to run
into trouble than the first guy, even tho he's far more 'proficient'
and 'current', simply because of the kind of flying he does.

I guess I am saying that I think a professional (or anyone else) who
can only devote an hour a month to flying (or even less) can quite
posibly be a completely safe and proficient pilot, as long as they
understand the limitations imposed on their flying by their
situation.

Just my $0.02 worth :)

Cheers,

Cap

[Vaughn Simon]

"news.chi.sbcglobal.net" > wrote in message
...
> An ancillary thought...
>
> If somebody doesn't have the time to learn to fly, will they actually have
> time to fly?
>
> And I would wonder how much proficiency these folks would be able to maintain
> with such a limited flying schedule.
>
> And while I know that flight instructors have to make a living, is it really a
> good idea to continue teaching people who cannot devote an adequate amount of
> time to learning to fly?
>
> Not trolling, not trying to start a fight, just trying to consider the
> risks...


What is wrong with folks learning at their own pace? ...and just what
"risks" are we talking about here?

Consider that some of those folks just like to fly, and want to do it
safely. The extra cost of the CFI is a small matter to them, so they see no
reason to rush a solo. They consider that "flying is flying" and having backup
in the right seat takes nothing away from the experience. They are happy to
have the CFI along to keep them safe while they tool around in the air and learn
at their own pace. They probably have no problem absorbing the written
material, but realize that it takes them longer to learn the physical skills
than it would take a teenager. Further, they have no pressing need to get their
ticket in any particular time frame.

As a CFI, I have seen many students like this, and I would be happy to take
all I can get.

Vaughn

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Vaughn Simon wrote:
>
> What is wrong with folks learning at their own pace? ...and just
> what "risks" are we talking about here?
>
> Consider that some of those folks just like to fly, and want to
> do it safely. The extra cost of the CFI is a small matter to them,
> so they see no reason to rush a solo. They consider that "flying is
> flying" and having backup in the right seat takes nothing away from
> the experience. They are happy to have the CFI along to keep them
> safe while they tool around in the air and learn at their own pace. They
> probably have no problem absorbing the written material, but
> realize that it takes them longer to learn the physical skills than
> it would take a teenager. Further, they have no pressing need to get
> their ticket in any particular time frame.
> As a CFI, I have seen many students like this, and I would be
> happy to take all I can get.
>
> Vaughn

I think the concern is that some of those guys aren't as you describe. They
are doctors or lawyers who are going to get the ratings with an hour here
and a hour there and then they are going to buy a Bo and get checked out it.
Then they are going to fly even less and then a few times a year go on
vacation or for a golf weekend and they aren't going to be proficient.

On top of that I'll bet (and I have nothing to back this up) the drop out
rate for pilots that spread training over a long period of time is probably
higher. And God knows we hate to loose somebody that wants to fly bad enough
to start the process.

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Gig 601XL Builder" wrote

> I think the concern is that some of those guys aren't as you describe.
> They are doctors or lawyers who are going to get the ratings with an hour
> here and a hour there and then they are going to buy a Bo and get checked
> out it. Then they are going to fly even less and then a few times a year
> go on vacation or for a golf weekend and they aren't going to be
> proficient.
>
> On top of that I'll bet (and I have nothing to back this up) the drop out
> rate for pilots that spread training over a long period of time is
> probably higher. And God knows we hate to loose somebody that wants to fly
> bad enough to start the process.

Thing is, there isn't a thing you or I can do about the situation. As long
as they pass the requirements, and complete their BFR's, possess a medical,
and get current for whatever flight they are going on, they are legal.
Perhaps not wise, but legal.

We all know they are out there. Hopefully, most of them realize there is a
problem with what they are doing and fly more, or get out. If they get out,
at least they were with us for a while, and perhaps may be again some day
when their life settles down.

For the ones out there that are not up on their proficiency, there is the
good ole "big sky theory" to keep us on the ground or in nearby planes safe.
Hopefully it only harms the person that should be flying more, and nobody
else. Too many time it gets loved ones, too.
--
Jim in NC

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote

> In any good training program, you need a constant schedule of dual inter
> spaced with periods away from the aircraft. ANY program that pushes a
> student on an inflexible ridged time line is in my opinion not an
> optimized training regimen.

I hear what you are saying, an on the surface I don't disagree. But !...

It is also far from optimum, to wait so long in-between lessons that there
is no continuity, and much time is spent trying to brush up on skills
forgotten since the last lesson.

So, given that, and the fact that some time will be spent observing, would
the observing help teach some lessons not realized fully while actually
flying?

Would it not still be better to have intensive learning taking place, than
have intensive forgetting taken place?

I feel like there is a good chance that the intensive training may be better
in the long run, even though it may not be the best. Perhaps if it is the
only way, then it should be used, and then some follow-ups to check and see
that good practices are still taking place.

I don't know the answers. It just seems like this may be a way, for some
that this is the only way.
--
Jim in NC

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Morgans wrote:
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote
>
>> In any good training program, you need a constant schedule of dual inter
>> spaced with periods away from the aircraft. ANY program that pushes a
>> student on an inflexible ridged time line is in my opinion not an
>> optimized training regimen.
>
> I hear what you are saying, an on the surface I don't disagree. But !...
>
> It is also far from optimum, to wait so long in-between lessons that there
> is no continuity, and much time is spent trying to brush up on skills
> forgotten since the last lesson.
>
> So, given that, and the fact that some time will be spent observing, would
> the observing help teach some lessons not realized fully while actually
> flying?
>
> Would it not still be better to have intensive learning taking place, than
> have intensive forgetting taken place?
>
> I feel like there is a good chance that the intensive training may be better
> in the long run, even though it may not be the best. Perhaps if it is the
> only way, then it should be used, and then some follow-ups to check and see
> that good practices are still taking place.
>
> I don't know the answers. It just seems like this may be a way, for some
> that this is the only way.
Optimum initial primary training as I have observed it during my tenure
as an instructor is a fairly constant schedule of dual inter spaced with
a period of at least a day or two between lessons.
There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that this "off period" is
critical and absolutely necessary so that what happened in the airplane
has time to sink in, be researched, thought about, and questioned and
answered.
Many instructors in my opinion make a HUGE mistake by trying to teach
everything about everything while the student is flying the airplane.
Any good lesson plan should allow for a brief period of pre-brief
between the CFI and the student, covering the basics of what will be
done during the session along with some idea of how to accomplish the
upcoming tasks. While the student is in the air attempting to accomplish
these tasks, the instructor should keep things as simple as possible,
allowing the student to rote the task. Then after the flight, there
should be a period of de-brief, where what was done by rote in the air
is explained in the detail needed to begin the next process which is the
time period between lessons I deem so critical.
It's during this "down time", that the student is encouraged to study
the theory behind what was done in the air, asking whatever questions
are necessary to allow a more comprehensive understanding of what has
been done in the air.
The bottom line on all this is that if these periods of down time are
skipped or neglected, the result in many cases (and I have observed this
over fifty years in the flight instruction business in one capacity or
another) is a student progressing rapidly, but mainly by being able to
duplicate the required flying tasks based on a rote understanding, which
is not optimum for the student.
In other words, rushing the student can produce a pilot who can perform
a task and even fly the airplane and pass a test, but not necessarily a
student who understands what he/she has been taught on a higher level
which would have been possible by utilizing more down time between dual
sessions.


--
Dudley Henriques

[[email protected]]

I completely agree with what you said but I was wondering what is the
brief period you refer to in terms of time? Does it depend on the
individual student?

> Optimum initial primary training as I have observed it during my tenure
> as an instructor is a fairly constant schedule of dual inter spaced with
> a period of at least a day or two between lessons.
> There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that this "off period" is
> critical and absolutely necessary so that what happened in the airplane
> has time to sink in, be researched, thought about, and questioned and
> answered.
> Many instructors in my opinion make a HUGE mistake by trying to teach
> everything about everything while the student is flying the airplane.
> Any good lesson plan should allow for a brief period of pre-brief
> between the CFI and the student, covering the basics of what will be
> done during the session along with some idea of how to accomplish the
> upcoming tasks. While the student is in the air attempting to accomplish
> these tasks, the instructor should keep things as simple as possible,
> allowing the student to rote the task. Then after the flight, there
> should be a period of de-brief, where what was done by rote in the air
> is explained in the detail needed to begin the next process which is the
> time period between lessons I deem so critical.
> It's during this "down time", that the student is encouraged to study
> the theory behind what was done in the air, asking whatever questions
> are necessary to allow a more comprehensive understanding of what has
> been done in the air.
> The bottom line on all this is that if these periods of down time are
> skipped or neglected, the result in many cases (and I have observed this
> over fifty years in the flight instruction business in one capacity or
> another) is a student progressing rapidly, but mainly by being able to
> duplicate the required flying tasks based on a rote understanding, which
> is not optimum for the student.
> In other words, rushing the student can produce a pilot who can perform
> a task and even fly the airplane and pass a test, but not necessarily a
> student who understands what he/she has been taught on a higher level
> which would have been possible by utilizing more down time between dual
> sessions.
>
> --
> Dudley Henriques

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Viperdoc wrote:
> I agree with the challenges faced by professionals trying to learn flying. I
> got my PPL and IFR ratings while doing research, but now, with 60 hour work
> weeks, on call during the weekends, working as a colonel in the Air National
> Guard, coaching and playing hockey, and running a research lab, there is
> precious little time to get an advanced rating. I still somehow log around
> 150-175 hours a year, a lot of real IMC or acro. Still, would like to do
> more and get the commercial ticket and instructor ratings.
>
> One solution is that we pretty much live at the hangar on the weekends and
> summer- all of our friends are involved in aviation, and this has been the
> only way to keep the hours up. I even got my 11 year old son to clean the
> entire hangar floor for $20 bucks!
>
> The other hang up is that it is difficult to fly with a 20 year old
> instructor with less hours and experience than me, and have him tell me how
> to fly the plane.
>
> What happened to all the old grey haired curmudgeonly flight instructors
> that actually have some experience?
>
>
My wife says you can find at least one of these old characters out in
the back in about an hour doing yard work :-)

On the young CFI vs the ATP dual situation;

This is an old issue and in fact requires some degree of tact on the
part of a young CFI. I've actually included this aspect of flight
instruction in several lectures I've given to CFI's in the past.

Without going into a lot of unnecessary detail here, I'll simply say
that when young instructors are required to fly with highly experienced
pilots where that flight involves the instructor's professional role,
the situation requires some degree of tact. It does NOT however, require
an atmosphere of subservience on the part of the instructor.

The bottom line on dealing professionally with experienced pilots as a
young instructor is that before you ever get to the airplane, the
instructor MUST establish a MUTUAL respect with the pilot involved. If
this is not done correctly, the purpose of the flight will be defeated
before the wheels leave the ground.
It's up to each instructor to take the time to analyze a highly
experienced applicant correctly as to potential personality conflict and
deal with it professionally during a carefully conducted pre-flight
discussion.
Any CFI worth the title, regardless of age and experience, should be
able to deal with this issue professionally and tactfully. As a young
instructor, you should NOT be intimidated by more experienced pilots.
Conversely, you should NEVER, as a CFI, make any attempt to intimidate
another pilot.



--
Dudley Henriques

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

wrote:
> I completely agree with what you said but I was wondering what is the
> brief period you refer to in terms of time? Does it depend on the
> individual student?
>
>>

See other posts for time suggestion between flights please;

EVERYTHING in flight instruction depends on the individual student.
There is no room in any good CFI's teaching method for generalization.


--
Dudley Henriques

[RST Engineering]

Don't forget the original postulate ... "license for professionals". The
instances quoted were doctors, lawyers, CPAs, and the like. If you have
ever been around a med school, a law school, or a graduate program of any
sort, you will see that these people are used to having it hammered to them
day after day and somehow they seem to thrive on this sort of intensive
learning.

Did I in any way imply that this method would work for any and all students?
I wouldn't for the world say that in any way, shape, or form. I've had
students take six months to a year to get their ticket and they liked
working that way. I've had students that wanted it Friday starting on
Monday.

Would I take everybody that applied to the school I described? Hell NO.
Since I haven't done it, I haven't thought about the application criteria,
but it would be one in which I find out whether compressed learning is right
for the individuals involved.

Sheesh, I've only been playing this education game at the college level for
what, 40 years now? I've got one kid in my class tonight that is finishing
up the semester's work in the third week of a 16 week semester. I've got
two more that are two weeks behind going into the fourth week. I completely
understand different learning styles and rates. But should I keep the kid
that is finishing up in his chair playing solitare on the computer just to
have a warm body in the class? Not on your tintype. That kid gets his
grade and a hearty well done, and go have fun from me.

Jim

--
"If you think you can, or think you can't, you're right."
--Henry Ford


"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
...

> Optimum initial primary training as I have observed it during my tenure
> as an instructor is a fairly constant schedule of dual inter spaced with
> a period of at least a day or two between lessons.

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

RST Engineering wrote:
> Don't forget the original postulate ... "license for professionals". The
> instances quoted were doctors, lawyers, CPAs, and the like. If you have
> ever been around a med school, a law school, or a graduate program of any
> sort, you will see that these people are used to having it hammered to them
> day after day and somehow they seem to thrive on this sort of intensive
> learning.
>
> Did I in any way imply that this method would work for any and all students?
> I wouldn't for the world say that in any way, shape, or form. I've had
> students take six months to a year to get their ticket and they liked
> working that way. I've had students that wanted it Friday starting on
> Monday.
>
> Would I take everybody that applied to the school I described? Hell NO.
> Since I haven't done it, I haven't thought about the application criteria,
> but it would be one in which I find out whether compressed learning is right
> for the individuals involved.
>
> Sheesh, I've only been playing this education game at the college level for
> what, 40 years now? I've got one kid in my class tonight that is finishing
> up the semester's work in the third week of a 16 week semester. I've got
> two more that are two weeks behind going into the fourth week. I completely
> understand different learning styles and rates. But should I keep the kid
> that is finishing up in his chair playing solitare on the computer just to
> have a warm body in the class? Not on your tintype. That kid gets his
> grade and a hearty well done, and go have fun from me.
>
> Jim
>
The first thing new instructors have to be taught as they become
instructors is that there are base differences between teaching in a
classroom that isn't moving and teaching in a classroom that is moving
at 100 mph plus.
Bottom line on extended experience as a classroom teacher is that it's a
plus of course when entering a flight instruction environment, and SOME
of the methods you used as a professional classroom teacher will
transfer to the flight instruction scenario, BUT.........there are
enough differences between the two environments that flight instruction
has to be approached uniquely by the instructor.
Carrying the classroom mindset into the flight instruction scenario
without this "adjustment" can seriously affect the quality of the flight
instruction given.
You can perform as a CFI using classic classroom teaching technique, but
in my opinion, you will be a much better CFI if you consider carefully
the dynamics involved with teaching in a moving classroom.
All this having been said, and as you have stated for my consideration
your "40 years of experience" in the classroom as a counter to what I am
saying to you, I am perfectly content not to push my position further
with you on this matter.

--
Dudley Henriques

[Larry Dighera]

On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 12:54:00 -0700, wrote in
om>:

>You make some good points Larry. But I've also been rethinking the
>issue of flight proficiency as well. I have come to believe (after
>having done some...ahem..."interesting" BFRs) that pilot proficiency
>has a lot more to do with a reasonable self-assessment of one's
>skills, and self-discipline.

The problem with self-assessments is their subjectivity. I can recall
several instances during my Commercial flight instruction during which
I believed that I had fully mastered various of the required maneuvers
during solo sessions only to have my erroneous self-assessments dashed
by my flight instructor.

>I believe it is very possible to be an adequately proficient pilot
>flying just one hour per month (for example), IF the kind of flying
>one does allows for it.

The issue I have with such a notion of proficiency is that the airmans
certificate permits flying of more than one kind, so there is no
assurance that the examinee will only indulge in one kind of flying.

>I flew with a guy for a BFR who flew no more
>than 20 hours per year. The first thing I do on BFRs is sit down with
>a cup of coffee and chat about flying - what kind of flying do you
>do...what do you want out of flying...tell me about your last flying
>trip, etc.
>
>This guy just loved to fly by himelf on nice days, VFR only...just
>flying around, looking at the beauty, enjoying being in the air. He
>usualy flew out of a low-traffic 5000 foot asphalt strip, outside of
>ATC-controlled airspace. Always flew on nice days, had personal minima
>he (said he) never broke. Just flew a 172. Occasionally flew a 60 mile
>XC to get a piece of pie or hamburger. In his BFR, he was adequate;
>above PP-ASEL PTS standards, but not much more. Now, this kind of low-
>risk, low-difficulty flying is (IMO) certainly reasonable for a guy
>who only flys once a month, in great weather, to long fields, in a
>simple plane he understands. He knew his limitations, and was
>seemingly appropriately managing them.

It is difficult to believe that 20 hours a year is adequate to
maintain a significant level of flight proficiency, but I suppose it
depends on the individual pilot's mental and physical strengths and
weaknesses. But how well would he perform if, for instance,
circumstances conspired to put him on a return flight on a moonless
night?

>Another guy I flew with flew a lot. Was much more active, and flew IFR
>a lot. His logbook showed about 150 hours in the previous year, with
>maybe 60 in the soup. He said his last trip was a long XC in a 182RG,
>ending in a localizer approach to minimums at an airport he'd never
>been to before. He was also OK in the cockpit...better than the first
>guy in terms of maneuvers and technical skill, but sometimes he seemed
>to have a hard time multitasking well.

Given the intensives requirements of single-pilot IFR operations, it's
difficult to believe that a pilot who does a significant amount of it
has difficulty multitasking. How did you determine that weakness in
him?

>Now, I'm MUCH more concerned that I'll read about the second guy
>cashing in his chips in an airplane someday. I don't think he really
>will...he 'passed' his BFR, and we did some work on a couple of
>things, including multi-tasking. But he IS more likely (IMO) to run
>into trouble than the first guy, even tho he's far more 'proficient'
>and 'current', simply because of the kind of flying he does.

More demanding flight conditions lead to increased hazard, for sure.

>I guess I am saying that I think a professional (or anyone else) who
>can only devote an hour a month to flying (or even less) can quite
>posibly be a completely safe and proficient pilot, as long as they
>understand the limitations imposed on their flying by their
>situation.

A lot of things CAN be true, but generally speaking I'd have to
believe that recent experience makes a pilot more competent. If not,
what is the reasoning behind the 90-day currency regulations for
carrying passengers and night flight?

[RST Engineering]

Sorry, Dudley, I got my CFI (airplane) 37 years ago and my CFI (glider) 30
years ago. I have roughly 500 primary students under my belt, so no, I know
for a fact that the classroom on the ground and the classroom in the air are
two totally different things. My point was that I've learned to adapt to
many different learning capabilities in both environments.

Jim

--
"If you think you can, or think you can't, you're right."
--Henry Ford

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
...

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

RST Engineering wrote:
> Sorry, Dudley, I got my CFI (airplane) 37 years ago and my CFI (glider) 30
> years ago. I have roughly 500 primary students under my belt, so no, I know
> for a fact that the classroom on the ground and the classroom in the air are
> two totally different things. My point was that I've learned to adapt to
> many different learning capabilities in both environments.
>
> Jim
>

I can see there is absolutely nothing you can learn from me so I'll be
moving along :-))

--
Dudley Henriques

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Bob Moore wrote:
> Dudley Henriques wrote
>> The first thing new instructors have to be taught as they become
>> instructors is that there are base differences between teaching in a
>> classroom that isn't moving and teaching in a classroom that is moving
>> at 100 mph plus.
>
> This is what is wrong with most flight instruction. A professional
> Flight Instructor does not teach in a 100 mph classroom. Done properly,
> ALL instruction is done in the classroom (briefing room) and then the
> student is allowed to practice in the airplane.
>
> My qualifications...first, the US Navy sent me to a two month "How to
> Instruct" course. I would then teach that course for two years. Second,
> I received my FAA Flight Instructor Certificate in a professional Part
> 141 Training Center. Third, I completed an FAA approved Part 121 Airline
> Flight Instructor Training Program. I would later, as Mgr Flightcrew
> Training, be responsible for developing and implementing such programs
> at other airlines. Fourth, I did manage a staff of about 8 instructors in
> the Jet Training Division of the old Burnside-Ott Flight Training Center
> at Opaloca Airport in Miami.
>
> Bob Moore

Is there anything about the following sentence taken from an earlier
post of mine in this thread that you are having trouble understanding?

Dudley Henriques wrote;
"Many instructors in my opinion make a HUGE mistake by trying to teach
everything about everything while the student is flying the airplane. "

Of COURSE a flight instructor teaches in a 100mph plus classroom, and in
even faster classrooms in higher performance aircraft. This in no way
should be construed as you have attempted to do here into meaning that a
flight instructor should use the time in the aircraft to teach what
should have been covered on the ground both during the preflight and
post flight phases of a dual session.
There is a place for detailed instruction and that is NOT while the
student is under the stress of flying the aircraft.
Your premise that ALL instruction is done in the classroom and allowing
the student to "practice" in the aircraft is not exactly correct. It is
more correct that theory and procedure are taught on the ground and
closely monitored and corrected practice with the student is done in the
air. To say that no instruction is performed in the air is incorrect. It
is however correct to say that all instruction in the air be restricted
to it's simplest common denominator, allowing the student to error and
correct with verbal guidance. It is during the post flight debrief that
the more detailed instruction should take place.
To address your basic premise, I believe you might want to re-read what
I have said in this thread about what constitutes proper flight
instruction technique. With a few minor changes, we are not that far
apart, but make no mistake, flight instruction does indeed take place in
a moving classroom. Ground instruction takes place in a classroom.



--
Dudley Henriques

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Dudley Henriques > wrote in
:

> Bob Moore wrote:
>> Dudley Henriques wrote
>>> The first thing new instructors have to be taught as they become
>>> instructors is that there are base differences between teaching in a
>>> classroom that isn't moving and teaching in a classroom that is
>>> moving at 100 mph plus.
>>
>> This is what is wrong with most flight instruction. A professional
>> Flight Instructor does not teach in a 100 mph classroom. Done
>> properly, ALL instruction is done in the classroom (briefing room)
>> and then the student is allowed to practice in the airplane.
>>
>> My qualifications...first, the US Navy sent me to a two month "How to
>> Instruct" course. I would then teach that course for two years.
>> Second, I received my FAA Flight Instructor Certificate in a
>> professional Part 141 Training Center. Third, I completed an FAA
>> approved Part 121 Airline Flight Instructor Training Program. I would
>> later, as Mgr Flightcrew Training, be responsible for developing and
>> implementing such programs at other airlines. Fourth, I did manage a
>> staff of about 8 instructors in the Jet Training Division of the old
>> Burnside-Ott Flight Training Center at Opaloca Airport in Miami.
>>
>> Bob Moore
>
> Is there anything about the following sentence taken from an earlier
> post of mine in this thread that you are having trouble understanding?
>
> Dudley Henriques wrote;
> "Many instructors in my opinion make a HUGE mistake by trying to teach
> everything about everything while the student is flying the airplane.
> "
>
> Of COURSE a flight instructor teaches in a 100mph plus classroom, and
> in even faster classrooms in higher performance aircraft. This in no
> way should be construed as you have attempted to do here into meaning
> that a flight instructor should use the time in the aircraft to teach
> what should have been covered on the ground both during the preflight
> and post flight phases of a dual session.
> There is a place for detailed instruction and that is NOT while the
> student is under the stress of flying the aircraft.
> Your premise that ALL instruction is done in the classroom and
> allowing the student to "practice" in the aircraft is not exactly
> correct. It is more correct that theory and procedure are taught on
> the ground and closely monitored and corrected practice with the
> student is done in the air. To say that no instruction is performed in
> the air is incorrect. It is however correct to say that all
> instruction in the air be restricted to it's simplest common
> denominator, allowing the student to error and correct with verbal
> guidance. It is during the post flight debrief that the more detailed
> instruction should take place. To address your basic premise, I
> believe you might want to re-read what I have said in this thread
> about what constitutes proper flight instruction technique. With a few
> minor changes, we are not that far apart, but make no mistake, flight
> instruction does indeed take place in a moving classroom. Ground
> instruction takes place in a classroom.
>
>
>

Ever heard the one about the three blind men examining an elephant?


Bertie

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
> :
>
>> Bob Moore wrote:
>>> Dudley Henriques wrote
>>>> The first thing new instructors have to be taught as they become
>>>> instructors is that there are base differences between teaching in a
>>>> classroom that isn't moving and teaching in a classroom that is
>>>> moving at 100 mph plus.
>>> This is what is wrong with most flight instruction. A professional
>>> Flight Instructor does not teach in a 100 mph classroom. Done
>>> properly, ALL instruction is done in the classroom (briefing room)
>>> and then the student is allowed to practice in the airplane.
>>>
>>> My qualifications...first, the US Navy sent me to a two month "How to
>>> Instruct" course. I would then teach that course for two years.
>>> Second, I received my FAA Flight Instructor Certificate in a
>>> professional Part 141 Training Center. Third, I completed an FAA
>>> approved Part 121 Airline Flight Instructor Training Program. I would
>>> later, as Mgr Flightcrew Training, be responsible for developing and
>>> implementing such programs at other airlines. Fourth, I did manage a
>>> staff of about 8 instructors in the Jet Training Division of the old
>>> Burnside-Ott Flight Training Center at Opaloca Airport in Miami.
>>>
>>> Bob Moore
>> Is there anything about the following sentence taken from an earlier
>> post of mine in this thread that you are having trouble understanding?
>>
>> Dudley Henriques wrote;
>> "Many instructors in my opinion make a HUGE mistake by trying to teach
>> everything about everything while the student is flying the airplane.
>> "
>>
>> Of COURSE a flight instructor teaches in a 100mph plus classroom, and
>> in even faster classrooms in higher performance aircraft. This in no
>> way should be construed as you have attempted to do here into meaning
>> that a flight instructor should use the time in the aircraft to teach
>> what should have been covered on the ground both during the preflight
>> and post flight phases of a dual session.
>> There is a place for detailed instruction and that is NOT while the
>> student is under the stress of flying the aircraft.
>> Your premise that ALL instruction is done in the classroom and
>> allowing the student to "practice" in the aircraft is not exactly
>> correct. It is more correct that theory and procedure are taught on
>> the ground and closely monitored and corrected practice with the
>> student is done in the air. To say that no instruction is performed in
>> the air is incorrect. It is however correct to say that all
>> instruction in the air be restricted to it's simplest common
>> denominator, allowing the student to error and correct with verbal
>> guidance. It is during the post flight debrief that the more detailed
>> instruction should take place. To address your basic premise, I
>> believe you might want to re-read what I have said in this thread
>> about what constitutes proper flight instruction technique. With a few
>> minor changes, we are not that far apart, but make no mistake, flight
>> instruction does indeed take place in a moving classroom. Ground
>> instruction takes place in a classroom.
>>
>>
>>
>
> Ever heard the one about the three blind men examining an elephant?
>
>
> Bertie
Hi Bertie; howgozit? Hope you're well these days.

I agree. Much of it is in perspective. I think all of us are approaching
the basic premise from different directions. The macro is intact but the
micros are in flux :-)


--
Dudley Henriques

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Dudley Henriques > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> Bob Moore wrote:
>>>> Dudley Henriques wrote
>>>>> The first thing new instructors have to be taught as they become
>>>>> instructors is that there are base differences between teaching in
a
>>>>> classroom that isn't moving and teaching in a classroom that is
>>>>> moving at 100 mph plus.
>>>> This is what is wrong with most flight instruction. A professional
>>>> Flight Instructor does not teach in a 100 mph classroom. Done
>>>> properly, ALL instruction is done in the classroom (briefing room)
>>>> and then the student is allowed to practice in the airplane.
>>>>
>>>> My qualifications...first, the US Navy sent me to a two month "How
to
>>>> Instruct" course. I would then teach that course for two years.
>>>> Second, I received my FAA Flight Instructor Certificate in a
>>>> professional Part 141 Training Center. Third, I completed an FAA
>>>> approved Part 121 Airline Flight Instructor Training Program. I
would
>>>> later, as Mgr Flightcrew Training, be responsible for developing
and
>>>> implementing such programs at other airlines. Fourth, I did manage
a
>>>> staff of about 8 instructors in the Jet Training Division of the
old
>>>> Burnside-Ott Flight Training Center at Opaloca Airport in Miami.
>>>>
>>>> Bob Moore
>>> Is there anything about the following sentence taken from an earlier
>>> post of mine in this thread that you are having trouble
understanding?
>>>
>>> Dudley Henriques wrote;
>>> "Many instructors in my opinion make a HUGE mistake by trying to
teach
>>> everything about everything while the student is flying the
airplane.
>>> "
>>>
>>> Of COURSE a flight instructor teaches in a 100mph plus classroom,
and
>>> in even faster classrooms in higher performance aircraft. This in no
>>> way should be construed as you have attempted to do here into
meaning
>>> that a flight instructor should use the time in the aircraft to
teach
>>> what should have been covered on the ground both during the
preflight
>>> and post flight phases of a dual session.
>>> There is a place for detailed instruction and that is NOT while the
>>> student is under the stress of flying the aircraft.
>>> Your premise that ALL instruction is done in the classroom and
>>> allowing the student to "practice" in the aircraft is not exactly
>>> correct. It is more correct that theory and procedure are taught on
>>> the ground and closely monitored and corrected practice with the
>>> student is done in the air. To say that no instruction is performed
in
>>> the air is incorrect. It is however correct to say that all
>>> instruction in the air be restricted to it's simplest common
>>> denominator, allowing the student to error and correct with verbal
>>> guidance. It is during the post flight debrief that the more
detailed
>>> instruction should take place. To address your basic premise, I
>>> believe you might want to re-read what I have said in this thread
>>> about what constitutes proper flight instruction technique. With a
few
>>> minor changes, we are not that far apart, but make no mistake,
flight
>>> instruction does indeed take place in a moving classroom. Ground
>>> instruction takes place in a classroom.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Ever heard the one about the three blind men examining an elephant?
>>
>>
>> Bertie
> Hi Bertie; howgozit? Hope you're well these days.

not too bad, thanks.
>
> I agree. Much of it is in perspective. I think all of us are
approaching
> the basic premise from different directions. The macro is intact but
the
> micros are in flux :-)
>

Well, exactly. I agree with your stance though. The airplane is a
classroom in itself. A good airplane is a better instructor than the
instructor is. but the point i think you are trying to make is that
while the student is practicing whatever, you gotta shout some
additional instruction his way. Otherwise dual would be pointless.
after all, if he goes out and practices it all wrong after his thorough
classroom briefing what's he learned?


Bertie


>

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
> :
>
>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>>> :
>>>
>>>> Bob Moore wrote:
>>>>> Dudley Henriques wrote
>>>>>> The first thing new instructors have to be taught as they become
>>>>>> instructors is that there are base differences between teaching in
> a
>>>>>> classroom that isn't moving and teaching in a classroom that is
>>>>>> moving at 100 mph plus.
>>>>> This is what is wrong with most flight instruction. A professional
>>>>> Flight Instructor does not teach in a 100 mph classroom. Done
>>>>> properly, ALL instruction is done in the classroom (briefing room)
>>>>> and then the student is allowed to practice in the airplane.
>>>>>
>>>>> My qualifications...first, the US Navy sent me to a two month "How
> to
>>>>> Instruct" course. I would then teach that course for two years.
>>>>> Second, I received my FAA Flight Instructor Certificate in a
>>>>> professional Part 141 Training Center. Third, I completed an FAA
>>>>> approved Part 121 Airline Flight Instructor Training Program. I
> would
>>>>> later, as Mgr Flightcrew Training, be responsible for developing
> and
>>>>> implementing such programs at other airlines. Fourth, I did manage
> a
>>>>> staff of about 8 instructors in the Jet Training Division of the
> old
>>>>> Burnside-Ott Flight Training Center at Opaloca Airport in Miami.
>>>>>
>>>>> Bob Moore
>>>> Is there anything about the following sentence taken from an earlier
>>>> post of mine in this thread that you are having trouble
> understanding?
>>>> Dudley Henriques wrote;
>>>> "Many instructors in my opinion make a HUGE mistake by trying to
> teach
>>>> everything about everything while the student is flying the
> airplane.
>>>> "
>>>>
>>>> Of COURSE a flight instructor teaches in a 100mph plus classroom,
> and
>>>> in even faster classrooms in higher performance aircraft. This in no
>>>> way should be construed as you have attempted to do here into
> meaning
>>>> that a flight instructor should use the time in the aircraft to
> teach
>>>> what should have been covered on the ground both during the
> preflight
>>>> and post flight phases of a dual session.
>>>> There is a place for detailed instruction and that is NOT while the
>>>> student is under the stress of flying the aircraft.
>>>> Your premise that ALL instruction is done in the classroom and
>>>> allowing the student to "practice" in the aircraft is not exactly
>>>> correct. It is more correct that theory and procedure are taught on
>>>> the ground and closely monitored and corrected practice with the
>>>> student is done in the air. To say that no instruction is performed
> in
>>>> the air is incorrect. It is however correct to say that all
>>>> instruction in the air be restricted to it's simplest common
>>>> denominator, allowing the student to error and correct with verbal
>>>> guidance. It is during the post flight debrief that the more
> detailed
>>>> instruction should take place. To address your basic premise, I
>>>> believe you might want to re-read what I have said in this thread
>>>> about what constitutes proper flight instruction technique. With a
> few
>>>> minor changes, we are not that far apart, but make no mistake,
> flight
>>>> instruction does indeed take place in a moving classroom. Ground
>>>> instruction takes place in a classroom.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Ever heard the one about the three blind men examining an elephant?
>>>
>>>
>>> Bertie
>> Hi Bertie; howgozit? Hope you're well these days.
>
> not too bad, thanks.
>> I agree. Much of it is in perspective. I think all of us are
> approaching
>> the basic premise from different directions. The macro is intact but
> the
>> micros are in flux :-)
>>
>
> Well, exactly. I agree with your stance though. The airplane is a
> classroom in itself. A good airplane is a better instructor than the
> instructor is. but the point i think you are trying to make is that
> while the student is practicing whatever, you gotta shout some
> additional instruction his way. Otherwise dual would be pointless.
> after all, if he goes out and practices it all wrong after his thorough
> classroom briefing what's he learned?
>
>
> Bertie
>
>
>
Exactly! I think the main point if you were to reduce everything down to
it's lowest common denominator would be that there are actually two
teaching personas that the CFI has to master; the first is the teacher
who covers what needs to be covered on the ground in the manner best
suited for that scenario (this would be the classroom approach).
The second is a teaching personna that knows how to simplify, observe
,direct and correct with minimal interference while the airplane is in
motion. This second teaching personna is what we usually have to "teach"
people coming into the flight instruction business from a formal
professional teaching background. It's usually a quick transition if the
"teacher" is amenable and able to adjust to this added dimension
required of a good flight instructor.
I totally agree with you that the airplane itself is the best flight
instructor a pilot will ever have.

--
Dudley Henriques

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Dudley Henriques > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>>>> :
>>>>
>>>>> Bob Moore wrote:
>>>>>> Dudley Henriques wrote
>>>>>>> The first thing new instructors have to be taught as they become
>>>>>>> instructors is that there are base differences between teaching
in
>> a
>>>>>>> classroom that isn't moving and teaching in a classroom that is
>>>>>>> moving at 100 mph plus.
>>>>>> This is what is wrong with most flight instruction. A
professional
>>>>>> Flight Instructor does not teach in a 100 mph classroom. Done
>>>>>> properly, ALL instruction is done in the classroom (briefing
room)
>>>>>> and then the student is allowed to practice in the airplane.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> My qualifications...first, the US Navy sent me to a two month
"How
>> to
>>>>>> Instruct" course. I would then teach that course for two years.
>>>>>> Second, I received my FAA Flight Instructor Certificate in a
>>>>>> professional Part 141 Training Center. Third, I completed an FAA
>>>>>> approved Part 121 Airline Flight Instructor Training Program. I
>> would
>>>>>> later, as Mgr Flightcrew Training, be responsible for developing
>> and
>>>>>> implementing such programs at other airlines. Fourth, I did
manage
>> a
>>>>>> staff of about 8 instructors in the Jet Training Division of the
>> old
>>>>>> Burnside-Ott Flight Training Center at Opaloca Airport in Miami.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Bob Moore
>>>>> Is there anything about the following sentence taken from an
earlier
>>>>> post of mine in this thread that you are having trouble
>> understanding?
>>>>> Dudley Henriques wrote;
>>>>> "Many instructors in my opinion make a HUGE mistake by trying to
>> teach
>>>>> everything about everything while the student is flying the
>> airplane.
>>>>> "
>>>>>
>>>>> Of COURSE a flight instructor teaches in a 100mph plus classroom,
>> and
>>>>> in even faster classrooms in higher performance aircraft. This in
no
>>>>> way should be construed as you have attempted to do here into
>> meaning
>>>>> that a flight instructor should use the time in the aircraft to
>> teach
>>>>> what should have been covered on the ground both during the
>> preflight
>>>>> and post flight phases of a dual session.
>>>>> There is a place for detailed instruction and that is NOT while
the
>>>>> student is under the stress of flying the aircraft.
>>>>> Your premise that ALL instruction is done in the classroom and
>>>>> allowing the student to "practice" in the aircraft is not exactly
>>>>> correct. It is more correct that theory and procedure are taught
on
>>>>> the ground and closely monitored and corrected practice with the
>>>>> student is done in the air. To say that no instruction is
performed
>> in
>>>>> the air is incorrect. It is however correct to say that all
>>>>> instruction in the air be restricted to it's simplest common
>>>>> denominator, allowing the student to error and correct with verbal
>>>>> guidance. It is during the post flight debrief that the more
>> detailed
>>>>> instruction should take place. To address your basic premise, I
>>>>> believe you might want to re-read what I have said in this thread
>>>>> about what constitutes proper flight instruction technique. With a
>> few
>>>>> minor changes, we are not that far apart, but make no mistake,
>> flight
>>>>> instruction does indeed take place in a moving classroom. Ground
>>>>> instruction takes place in a classroom.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Ever heard the one about the three blind men examining an elephant?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Bertie
>>> Hi Bertie; howgozit? Hope you're well these days.
>>
>> not too bad, thanks.
>>> I agree. Much of it is in perspective. I think all of us are
>> approaching
>>> the basic premise from different directions. The macro is intact but
>> the
>>> micros are in flux :-)
>>>
>>
>> Well, exactly. I agree with your stance though. The airplane is a
>> classroom in itself. A good airplane is a better instructor than the
>> instructor is. but the point i think you are trying to make is that
>> while the student is practicing whatever, you gotta shout some
>> additional instruction his way. Otherwise dual would be pointless.
>> after all, if he goes out and practices it all wrong after his
thorough
>> classroom briefing what's he learned?
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>>
>>
>>
> Exactly! I think the main point if you were to reduce everything down
to
> it's lowest common denominator would be that there are actually two
> teaching personas that the CFI has to master; the first is the teacher
> who covers what needs to be covered on the ground in the manner best
> suited for that scenario (this would be the classroom approach).
> The second is a teaching personna that knows how to simplify, observe
> ,direct and correct with minimal interference while the airplane is in
> motion. This second teaching personna is what we usually have to
"teach"
> people coming into the flight instruction business from a formal
> professional teaching background. It's usually a quick transition if
the
> "teacher" is amenable and able to adjust to this added dimension
> required of a good flight instructor.
> I totally agree with you that the airplane itself is the best flight
> instructor a pilot will ever have.
>

Well, unless t's a cherokee! :)

Bertie

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
> :
>
>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>>> :
>>>
>>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>>>>> :
>>>>>
>>>>>> Bob Moore wrote:
>>>>>>> Dudley Henriques wrote
>>>>>>>> The first thing new instructors have to be taught as they become
>>>>>>>> instructors is that there are base differences between teaching
> in
>>> a
>>>>>>>> classroom that isn't moving and teaching in a classroom that is
>>>>>>>> moving at 100 mph plus.
>>>>>>> This is what is wrong with most flight instruction. A
> professional
>>>>>>> Flight Instructor does not teach in a 100 mph classroom. Done
>>>>>>> properly, ALL instruction is done in the classroom (briefing
> room)
>>>>>>> and then the student is allowed to practice in the airplane.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> My qualifications...first, the US Navy sent me to a two month
> "How
>>> to
>>>>>>> Instruct" course. I would then teach that course for two years.
>>>>>>> Second, I received my FAA Flight Instructor Certificate in a
>>>>>>> professional Part 141 Training Center. Third, I completed an FAA
>>>>>>> approved Part 121 Airline Flight Instructor Training Program. I
>>> would
>>>>>>> later, as Mgr Flightcrew Training, be responsible for developing
>>> and
>>>>>>> implementing such programs at other airlines. Fourth, I did
> manage
>>> a
>>>>>>> staff of about 8 instructors in the Jet Training Division of the
>>> old
>>>>>>> Burnside-Ott Flight Training Center at Opaloca Airport in Miami.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Bob Moore
>>>>>> Is there anything about the following sentence taken from an
> earlier
>>>>>> post of mine in this thread that you are having trouble
>>> understanding?
>>>>>> Dudley Henriques wrote;
>>>>>> "Many instructors in my opinion make a HUGE mistake by trying to
>>> teach
>>>>>> everything about everything while the student is flying the
>>> airplane.
>>>>>> "
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Of COURSE a flight instructor teaches in a 100mph plus classroom,
>>> and
>>>>>> in even faster classrooms in higher performance aircraft. This in
> no
>>>>>> way should be construed as you have attempted to do here into
>>> meaning
>>>>>> that a flight instructor should use the time in the aircraft to
>>> teach
>>>>>> what should have been covered on the ground both during the
>>> preflight
>>>>>> and post flight phases of a dual session.
>>>>>> There is a place for detailed instruction and that is NOT while
> the
>>>>>> student is under the stress of flying the aircraft.
>>>>>> Your premise that ALL instruction is done in the classroom and
>>>>>> allowing the student to "practice" in the aircraft is not exactly
>>>>>> correct. It is more correct that theory and procedure are taught
> on
>>>>>> the ground and closely monitored and corrected practice with the
>>>>>> student is done in the air. To say that no instruction is
> performed
>>> in
>>>>>> the air is incorrect. It is however correct to say that all
>>>>>> instruction in the air be restricted to it's simplest common
>>>>>> denominator, allowing the student to error and correct with verbal
>>>>>> guidance. It is during the post flight debrief that the more
>>> detailed
>>>>>> instruction should take place. To address your basic premise, I
>>>>>> believe you might want to re-read what I have said in this thread
>>>>>> about what constitutes proper flight instruction technique. With a
>>> few
>>>>>> minor changes, we are not that far apart, but make no mistake,
>>> flight
>>>>>> instruction does indeed take place in a moving classroom. Ground
>>>>>> instruction takes place in a classroom.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> Ever heard the one about the three blind men examining an elephant?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Bertie
>>>> Hi Bertie; howgozit? Hope you're well these days.
>>> not too bad, thanks.
>>>> I agree. Much of it is in perspective. I think all of us are
>>> approaching
>>>> the basic premise from different directions. The macro is intact but
>>> the
>>>> micros are in flux :-)
>>>>
>>> Well, exactly. I agree with your stance though. The airplane is a
>>> classroom in itself. A good airplane is a better instructor than the
>>> instructor is. but the point i think you are trying to make is that
>>> while the student is practicing whatever, you gotta shout some
>>> additional instruction his way. Otherwise dual would be pointless.
>>> after all, if he goes out and practices it all wrong after his
> thorough
>>> classroom briefing what's he learned?
>>>
>>>
>>> Bertie
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> Exactly! I think the main point if you were to reduce everything down
> to
>> it's lowest common denominator would be that there are actually two
>> teaching personas that the CFI has to master; the first is the teacher
>> who covers what needs to be covered on the ground in the manner best
>> suited for that scenario (this would be the classroom approach).
>> The second is a teaching personna that knows how to simplify, observe
>> ,direct and correct with minimal interference while the airplane is in
>> motion. This second teaching personna is what we usually have to
> "teach"
>> people coming into the flight instruction business from a formal
>> professional teaching background. It's usually a quick transition if
> the
>> "teacher" is amenable and able to adjust to this added dimension
>> required of a good flight instructor.
>> I totally agree with you that the airplane itself is the best flight
>> instructor a pilot will ever have.
>>
>
> Well, unless t's a cherokee! :)
>
> Bertie
>
Well...there's always room for a "driving instructor". :-))))

--
Dudley Henriques

[Shirl[_2_]]

Larry Dighera:
> 1. JFK Jr. chose a similar course of instruction for similar
> reasons. His case bears grim testament to it's effectiveness.

I agree with all about hit-and-miss training, but JFK Jr's grim story
is not a testament to the effectiveness of his course of instruction.
If he'd gotten his ticket in 3 months and 60 hours of consistent
training,
that wouldn't have necessarily made him, or *anyone*, any more or
less apt to make better decisions, as evidenced by people with far
more consistent training and ratings than JFK Jr that have suffered
equally grim results from such decisions.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Dudley Henriques > wrote in news:h62dnYU0n_
:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>>>> :
>>>>
>>>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>>>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>>>>>> :
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Bob Moore wrote:
>>>>>>>> Dudley Henriques wrote
>>>>>>>>> The first thing new instructors have to be taught as they
become
>>>>>>>>> instructors is that there are base differences between
teaching
>> in
>>>> a
>>>>>>>>> classroom that isn't moving and teaching in a classroom that
is
>>>>>>>>> moving at 100 mph plus.
>>>>>>>> This is what is wrong with most flight instruction. A
>> professional
>>>>>>>> Flight Instructor does not teach in a 100 mph classroom. Done
>>>>>>>> properly, ALL instruction is done in the classroom (briefing
>> room)
>>>>>>>> and then the student is allowed to practice in the airplane.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> My qualifications...first, the US Navy sent me to a two month
>> "How
>>>> to
>>>>>>>> Instruct" course. I would then teach that course for two years.
>>>>>>>> Second, I received my FAA Flight Instructor Certificate in a
>>>>>>>> professional Part 141 Training Center. Third, I completed an
FAA
>>>>>>>> approved Part 121 Airline Flight Instructor Training Program. I
>>>> would
>>>>>>>> later, as Mgr Flightcrew Training, be responsible for
developing
>>>> and
>>>>>>>> implementing such programs at other airlines. Fourth, I did
>> manage
>>>> a
>>>>>>>> staff of about 8 instructors in the Jet Training Division of
the
>>>> old
>>>>>>>> Burnside-Ott Flight Training Center at Opaloca Airport in
Miami.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Bob Moore
>>>>>>> Is there anything about the following sentence taken from an
>> earlier
>>>>>>> post of mine in this thread that you are having trouble
>>>> understanding?
>>>>>>> Dudley Henriques wrote;
>>>>>>> "Many instructors in my opinion make a HUGE mistake by trying to
>>>> teach
>>>>>>> everything about everything while the student is flying the
>>>> airplane.
>>>>>>> "
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Of COURSE a flight instructor teaches in a 100mph plus
classroom,
>>>> and
>>>>>>> in even faster classrooms in higher performance aircraft. This
in
>> no
>>>>>>> way should be construed as you have attempted to do here into
>>>> meaning
>>>>>>> that a flight instructor should use the time in the aircraft to
>>>> teach
>>>>>>> what should have been covered on the ground both during the
>>>> preflight
>>>>>>> and post flight phases of a dual session.
>>>>>>> There is a place for detailed instruction and that is NOT while
>> the
>>>>>>> student is under the stress of flying the aircraft.
>>>>>>> Your premise that ALL instruction is done in the classroom and
>>>>>>> allowing the student to "practice" in the aircraft is not
exactly
>>>>>>> correct. It is more correct that theory and procedure are taught
>> on
>>>>>>> the ground and closely monitored and corrected practice with the
>>>>>>> student is done in the air. To say that no instruction is
>> performed
>>>> in
>>>>>>> the air is incorrect. It is however correct to say that all
>>>>>>> instruction in the air be restricted to it's simplest common
>>>>>>> denominator, allowing the student to error and correct with
verbal
>>>>>>> guidance. It is during the post flight debrief that the more
>>>> detailed
>>>>>>> instruction should take place. To address your basic premise, I
>>>>>>> believe you might want to re-read what I have said in this
thread
>>>>>>> about what constitutes proper flight instruction technique. With
a
>>>> few
>>>>>>> minor changes, we are not that far apart, but make no mistake,
>>>> flight
>>>>>>> instruction does indeed take place in a moving classroom. Ground
>>>>>>> instruction takes place in a classroom.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ever heard the one about the three blind men examining an
elephant?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Bertie
>>>>> Hi Bertie; howgozit? Hope you're well these days.
>>>> not too bad, thanks.
>>>>> I agree. Much of it is in perspective. I think all of us are
>>>> approaching
>>>>> the basic premise from different directions. The macro is intact
but
>>>> the
>>>>> micros are in flux :-)
>>>>>
>>>> Well, exactly. I agree with your stance though. The airplane is a
>>>> classroom in itself. A good airplane is a better instructor than
the
>>>> instructor is. but the point i think you are trying to make is that
>>>> while the student is practicing whatever, you gotta shout some
>>>> additional instruction his way. Otherwise dual would be pointless.
>>>> after all, if he goes out and practices it all wrong after his
>> thorough
>>>> classroom briefing what's he learned?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Bertie
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Exactly! I think the main point if you were to reduce everything
down
>> to
>>> it's lowest common denominator would be that there are actually two
>>> teaching personas that the CFI has to master; the first is the
teacher
>>> who covers what needs to be covered on the ground in the manner best
>>> suited for that scenario (this would be the classroom approach).
>>> The second is a teaching personna that knows how to simplify,
observe
>>> ,direct and correct with minimal interference while the airplane is
in
>>> motion. This second teaching personna is what we usually have to
>> "teach"
>>> people coming into the flight instruction business from a formal
>>> professional teaching background. It's usually a quick transition if
>> the
>>> "teacher" is amenable and able to adjust to this added dimension
>>> required of a good flight instructor.
>>> I totally agree with you that the airplane itself is the best flight
>>> instructor a pilot will ever have.
>>>
>>
>> Well, unless t's a cherokee! :)
>>
>> Bertie
>>
> Well...there's always room for a "driving instructor". :-))))
>

Unfortunately, we're living with the Cherokee's children now.
Having said that, it was the best workhouse of that bunch, and it was
damn near bulletproof. You must have know Albie Cornell. I flew a few of
his for a while. He had the highest time PA 28 in the world at the time.
(I think it was 4625L) Damn thing would lift anything you could squeeze
into it out of a 1500 foot strip and hardly ever needed fixing..

Bertie

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> Dudley Henriques > wrote in news:h62dnYU0n_
> :
>
>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>>> :
>>>
>>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>>>>> :
>>>>>
>>>>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>>>>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Bob Moore wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Dudley Henriques wrote
>>>>>>>>>> The first thing new instructors have to be taught as they
> become
>>>>>>>>>> instructors is that there are base differences between
> teaching
>>> in
>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>> classroom that isn't moving and teaching in a classroom that
> is
>>>>>>>>>> moving at 100 mph plus.
>>>>>>>>> This is what is wrong with most flight instruction. A
>>> professional
>>>>>>>>> Flight Instructor does not teach in a 100 mph classroom. Done
>>>>>>>>> properly, ALL instruction is done in the classroom (briefing
>>> room)
>>>>>>>>> and then the student is allowed to practice in the airplane.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> My qualifications...first, the US Navy sent me to a two month
>>> "How
>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>> Instruct" course. I would then teach that course for two years.
>>>>>>>>> Second, I received my FAA Flight Instructor Certificate in a
>>>>>>>>> professional Part 141 Training Center. Third, I completed an
> FAA
>>>>>>>>> approved Part 121 Airline Flight Instructor Training Program. I
>>>>> would
>>>>>>>>> later, as Mgr Flightcrew Training, be responsible for
> developing
>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>> implementing such programs at other airlines. Fourth, I did
>>> manage
>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>> staff of about 8 instructors in the Jet Training Division of
> the
>>>>> old
>>>>>>>>> Burnside-Ott Flight Training Center at Opaloca Airport in
> Miami.
>>>>>>>>> Bob Moore
>>>>>>>> Is there anything about the following sentence taken from an
>>> earlier
>>>>>>>> post of mine in this thread that you are having trouble
>>>>> understanding?
>>>>>>>> Dudley Henriques wrote;
>>>>>>>> "Many instructors in my opinion make a HUGE mistake by trying to
>>>>> teach
>>>>>>>> everything about everything while the student is flying the
>>>>> airplane.
>>>>>>>> "
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Of COURSE a flight instructor teaches in a 100mph plus
> classroom,
>>>>> and
>>>>>>>> in even faster classrooms in higher performance aircraft. This
> in
>>> no
>>>>>>>> way should be construed as you have attempted to do here into
>>>>> meaning
>>>>>>>> that a flight instructor should use the time in the aircraft to
>>>>> teach
>>>>>>>> what should have been covered on the ground both during the
>>>>> preflight
>>>>>>>> and post flight phases of a dual session.
>>>>>>>> There is a place for detailed instruction and that is NOT while
>>> the
>>>>>>>> student is under the stress of flying the aircraft.
>>>>>>>> Your premise that ALL instruction is done in the classroom and
>>>>>>>> allowing the student to "practice" in the aircraft is not
> exactly
>>>>>>>> correct. It is more correct that theory and procedure are taught
>>> on
>>>>>>>> the ground and closely monitored and corrected practice with the
>>>>>>>> student is done in the air. To say that no instruction is
>>> performed
>>>>> in
>>>>>>>> the air is incorrect. It is however correct to say that all
>>>>>>>> instruction in the air be restricted to it's simplest common
>>>>>>>> denominator, allowing the student to error and correct with
> verbal
>>>>>>>> guidance. It is during the post flight debrief that the more
>>>>> detailed
>>>>>>>> instruction should take place. To address your basic premise, I
>>>>>>>> believe you might want to re-read what I have said in this
> thread
>>>>>>>> about what constitutes proper flight instruction technique. With
> a
>>>>> few
>>>>>>>> minor changes, we are not that far apart, but make no mistake,
>>>>> flight
>>>>>>>> instruction does indeed take place in a moving classroom. Ground
>>>>>>>> instruction takes place in a classroom.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ever heard the one about the three blind men examining an
> elephant?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Bertie
>>>>>> Hi Bertie; howgozit? Hope you're well these days.
>>>>> not too bad, thanks.
>>>>>> I agree. Much of it is in perspective. I think all of us are
>>>>> approaching
>>>>>> the basic premise from different directions. The macro is intact
> but
>>>>> the
>>>>>> micros are in flux :-)
>>>>>>
>>>>> Well, exactly. I agree with your stance though. The airplane is a
>>>>> classroom in itself. A good airplane is a better instructor than
> the
>>>>> instructor is. but the point i think you are trying to make is that
>>>>> while the student is practicing whatever, you gotta shout some
>>>>> additional instruction his way. Otherwise dual would be pointless.
>>>>> after all, if he goes out and practices it all wrong after his
>>> thorough
>>>>> classroom briefing what's he learned?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Bertie
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Exactly! I think the main point if you were to reduce everything
> down
>>> to
>>>> it's lowest common denominator would be that there are actually two
>>>> teaching personas that the CFI has to master; the first is the
> teacher
>>>> who covers what needs to be covered on the ground in the manner best
>>>> suited for that scenario (this would be the classroom approach).
>>>> The second is a teaching personna that knows how to simplify,
> observe
>>>> ,direct and correct with minimal interference while the airplane is
> in
>>>> motion. This second teaching personna is what we usually have to
>>> "teach"
>>>> people coming into the flight instruction business from a formal
>>>> professional teaching background. It's usually a quick transition if
>>> the
>>>> "teacher" is amenable and able to adjust to this added dimension
>>>> required of a good flight instructor.
>>>> I totally agree with you that the airplane itself is the best flight
>>>> instructor a pilot will ever have.
>>>>
>>> Well, unless t's a cherokee! :)
>>>
>>> Bertie
>>>
>> Well...there's always room for a "driving instructor". :-))))
>>
>
> Unfortunately, we're living with the Cherokee's children now.
> Having said that, it was the best workhouse of that bunch, and it was
> damn near bulletproof. You must have know Albie Cornell. I flew a few of
> his for a while. He had the highest time PA 28 in the world at the time.
> (I think it was 4625L) Damn thing would lift anything you could squeeze
> into it out of a 1500 foot strip and hardly ever needed fixing..
>
> Bertie
>
>
>
I used to have fits "reteaching" people who learned to fly in Cherokees
when they came in to us for checkouts in our tail wheel airplanes. Even
checking out someone in a 150 required some degree of "rudder rehab" :-)
I vaguely recall Albie Cornell but for the life of me I can't associate
it with one of our surrounding fields. I take it he operated a small
strip? I'm thinking New Jersey but not at all sure.
You're right about the 28's lifting capacity, especially the pre-Warrior
Hershey Bars. We had several on the line but I always favored the
150/152 for primary instruction for the reasons we have been discussing.
:-)

--
Dudley Henriques

[Shirl[_2_]]

"Gig 601XL Builder":
> On top of that I'll bet (and I have nothing to back this up) the drop out
> rate for pilots that spread training over a long period of time is probably
> higher. And God knows we hate to loose somebody that wants to fly
> bad enough to start the process.

Our flight school encouraged people to fly often/consistently and
complete their goal(s), and counseled people who spread flights
apart by more than a week -- aside from skill/proficiency, many
CFIs don't stay at these schools more than a few months (they
build the hours they need and then they're gone). But few such
endeavors have a 100% completion rate, and dropouts are not
always a failure on anyone's part. Sometimes as the training
progresses, it just becomes clear that it's going to take more time,
dedication and money than the person initially thought, and he/she
realizes it isn't something they want or need that bad or is cut out
to
do. Sometimes it's a common sense, realistic, prudent decision.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Dudley Henriques > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in news:h62dnYU0n_
>> :
>>
>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>>>> :
>>>>
>>>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>>>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>>>>>> :
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>>>>>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>>>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Bob Moore wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Dudley Henriques wrote
>>>>>>>>>>> The first thing new instructors have to be taught as they
>> become
>>>>>>>>>>> instructors is that there are base differences between
>> teaching
>>>> in
>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>> classroom that isn't moving and teaching in a classroom that
>> is
>>>>>>>>>>> moving at 100 mph plus.
>>>>>>>>>> This is what is wrong with most flight instruction. A
>>>> professional
>>>>>>>>>> Flight Instructor does not teach in a 100 mph classroom. Done
>>>>>>>>>> properly, ALL instruction is done in the classroom (briefing
>>>> room)
>>>>>>>>>> and then the student is allowed to practice in the airplane.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> My qualifications...first, the US Navy sent me to a two month
>>>> "How
>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>> Instruct" course. I would then teach that course for two
>>>>>>>>>> years. Second, I received my FAA Flight Instructor
>>>>>>>>>> Certificate in a professional Part 141 Training Center.
>>>>>>>>>> Third, I completed an
>> FAA
>>>>>>>>>> approved Part 121 Airline Flight Instructor Training Program.
>>>>>>>>>> I
>>>>>> would
>>>>>>>>>> later, as Mgr Flightcrew Training, be responsible for
>> developing
>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>> implementing such programs at other airlines. Fourth, I did
>>>> manage
>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>> staff of about 8 instructors in the Jet Training Division of
>> the
>>>>>> old
>>>>>>>>>> Burnside-Ott Flight Training Center at Opaloca Airport in
>> Miami.
>>>>>>>>>> Bob Moore
>>>>>>>>> Is there anything about the following sentence taken from an
>>>> earlier
>>>>>>>>> post of mine in this thread that you are having trouble
>>>>>> understanding?
>>>>>>>>> Dudley Henriques wrote;
>>>>>>>>> "Many instructors in my opinion make a HUGE mistake by trying
>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>> teach
>>>>>>>>> everything about everything while the student is flying the
>>>>>> airplane.
>>>>>>>>> "
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Of COURSE a flight instructor teaches in a 100mph plus
>> classroom,
>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>> in even faster classrooms in higher performance aircraft. This
>> in
>>>> no
>>>>>>>>> way should be construed as you have attempted to do here into
>>>>>> meaning
>>>>>>>>> that a flight instructor should use the time in the aircraft
>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>> teach
>>>>>>>>> what should have been covered on the ground both during the
>>>>>> preflight
>>>>>>>>> and post flight phases of a dual session.
>>>>>>>>> There is a place for detailed instruction and that is NOT
>>>>>>>>> while
>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> student is under the stress of flying the aircraft.
>>>>>>>>> Your premise that ALL instruction is done in the classroom and
>>>>>>>>> allowing the student to "practice" in the aircraft is not
>> exactly
>>>>>>>>> correct. It is more correct that theory and procedure are
>>>>>>>>> taught
>>>> on
>>>>>>>>> the ground and closely monitored and corrected practice with
>>>>>>>>> the student is done in the air. To say that no instruction is
>>>> performed
>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>> the air is incorrect. It is however correct to say that all
>>>>>>>>> instruction in the air be restricted to it's simplest common
>>>>>>>>> denominator, allowing the student to error and correct with
>> verbal
>>>>>>>>> guidance. It is during the post flight debrief that the more
>>>>>> detailed
>>>>>>>>> instruction should take place. To address your basic premise,
>>>>>>>>> I believe you might want to re-read what I have said in this
>> thread
>>>>>>>>> about what constitutes proper flight instruction technique.
>>>>>>>>> With
>> a
>>>>>> few
>>>>>>>>> minor changes, we are not that far apart, but make no mistake,
>>>>>> flight
>>>>>>>>> instruction does indeed take place in a moving classroom.
>>>>>>>>> Ground instruction takes place in a classroom.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Ever heard the one about the three blind men examining an
>> elephant?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Bertie
>>>>>>> Hi Bertie; howgozit? Hope you're well these days.
>>>>>> not too bad, thanks.
>>>>>>> I agree. Much of it is in perspective. I think all of us are
>>>>>> approaching
>>>>>>> the basic premise from different directions. The macro is intact
>> but
>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> micros are in flux :-)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Well, exactly. I agree with your stance though. The airplane is a
>>>>>> classroom in itself. A good airplane is a better instructor than
>> the
>>>>>> instructor is. but the point i think you are trying to make is
>>>>>> that while the student is practicing whatever, you gotta shout
>>>>>> some additional instruction his way. Otherwise dual would be
>>>>>> pointless. after all, if he goes out and practices it all wrong
>>>>>> after his
>>>> thorough
>>>>>> classroom briefing what's he learned?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Bertie
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> Exactly! I think the main point if you were to reduce everything
>> down
>>>> to
>>>>> it's lowest common denominator would be that there are actually
>>>>> two teaching personas that the CFI has to master; the first is the
>> teacher
>>>>> who covers what needs to be covered on the ground in the manner
>>>>> best suited for that scenario (this would be the classroom
>>>>> approach). The second is a teaching personna that knows how to
>>>>> simplify,
>> observe
>>>>> ,direct and correct with minimal interference while the airplane
>>>>> is
>> in
>>>>> motion. This second teaching personna is what we usually have to
>>>> "teach"
>>>>> people coming into the flight instruction business from a formal
>>>>> professional teaching background. It's usually a quick transition
>>>>> if
>>>> the
>>>>> "teacher" is amenable and able to adjust to this added dimension
>>>>> required of a good flight instructor.
>>>>> I totally agree with you that the airplane itself is the best
>>>>> flight instructor a pilot will ever have.
>>>>>
>>>> Well, unless t's a cherokee! :)
>>>>
>>>> Bertie
>>>>
>>> Well...there's always room for a "driving instructor". :-))))
>>>
>>
>> Unfortunately, we're living with the Cherokee's children now.
>> Having said that, it was the best workhouse of that bunch, and it was
>> damn near bulletproof. You must have know Albie Cornell. I flew a few
>> of his for a while. He had the highest time PA 28 in the world at the
>> time. (I think it was 4625L) Damn thing would lift anything you could
>> squeeze into it out of a 1500 foot strip and hardly ever needed
>> fixing..
>>
>> Bertie
>>
>>
>>
> I used to have fits "reteaching" people who learned to fly in
> Cherokees when they came in to us for checkouts in our tail wheel
> airplanes. Even checking out someone in a 150 required some degree of
> "rudder rehab" :-) I vaguely recall Albie Cornell but for the life of
> me I can't associate it with one of our surrounding fields. I take it
> he operated a small strip? I'm thinking New Jersey but not at all
> sure. You're right about the 28's lifting capacity, especially the
> pre-Warrior Hershey Bars. We had several on the line but I always
> favored the 150/152 for primary instruction for the reasons we have
> been discussing.
>:-)

Yeah, the Cessnas were at least a bit better. Albie's field was
Warrington PA, just north of Willow Grove NAS. He was there for a
loooong time. The field is gone now, but if oyu look at a low level
instrument chart, you'll find Albie intersection where it used to be..

Bertie
>

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
> :
>
>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in news:h62dnYU0n_
>>> :
>>>
>>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>>>>> :
>>>>>
>>>>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>>>>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>>>>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Bob Moore wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Dudley Henriques wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>> The first thing new instructors have to be taught as they
>>> become
>>>>>>>>>>>> instructors is that there are base differences between
>>> teaching
>>>>> in
>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>> classroom that isn't moving and teaching in a classroom that
>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>> moving at 100 mph plus.
>>>>>>>>>>> This is what is wrong with most flight instruction. A
>>>>> professional
>>>>>>>>>>> Flight Instructor does not teach in a 100 mph classroom. Done
>>>>>>>>>>> properly, ALL instruction is done in the classroom (briefing
>>>>> room)
>>>>>>>>>>> and then the student is allowed to practice in the airplane.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> My qualifications...first, the US Navy sent me to a two month
>>>>> "How
>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>> Instruct" course. I would then teach that course for two
>>>>>>>>>>> years. Second, I received my FAA Flight Instructor
>>>>>>>>>>> Certificate in a professional Part 141 Training Center.
>>>>>>>>>>> Third, I completed an
>>> FAA
>>>>>>>>>>> approved Part 121 Airline Flight Instructor Training Program.
>>>>>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>> would
>>>>>>>>>>> later, as Mgr Flightcrew Training, be responsible for
>>> developing
>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>> implementing such programs at other airlines. Fourth, I did
>>>>> manage
>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>> staff of about 8 instructors in the Jet Training Division of
>>> the
>>>>>>> old
>>>>>>>>>>> Burnside-Ott Flight Training Center at Opaloca Airport in
>>> Miami.
>>>>>>>>>>> Bob Moore
>>>>>>>>>> Is there anything about the following sentence taken from an
>>>>> earlier
>>>>>>>>>> post of mine in this thread that you are having trouble
>>>>>>> understanding?
>>>>>>>>>> Dudley Henriques wrote;
>>>>>>>>>> "Many instructors in my opinion make a HUGE mistake by trying
>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>> teach
>>>>>>>>>> everything about everything while the student is flying the
>>>>>>> airplane.
>>>>>>>>>> "
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Of COURSE a flight instructor teaches in a 100mph plus
>>> classroom,
>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>> in even faster classrooms in higher performance aircraft. This
>>> in
>>>>> no
>>>>>>>>>> way should be construed as you have attempted to do here into
>>>>>>> meaning
>>>>>>>>>> that a flight instructor should use the time in the aircraft
>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>> teach
>>>>>>>>>> what should have been covered on the ground both during the
>>>>>>> preflight
>>>>>>>>>> and post flight phases of a dual session.
>>>>>>>>>> There is a place for detailed instruction and that is NOT
>>>>>>>>>> while
>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>> student is under the stress of flying the aircraft.
>>>>>>>>>> Your premise that ALL instruction is done in the classroom and
>>>>>>>>>> allowing the student to "practice" in the aircraft is not
>>> exactly
>>>>>>>>>> correct. It is more correct that theory and procedure are
>>>>>>>>>> taught
>>>>> on
>>>>>>>>>> the ground and closely monitored and corrected practice with
>>>>>>>>>> the student is done in the air. To say that no instruction is
>>>>> performed
>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>> the air is incorrect. It is however correct to say that all
>>>>>>>>>> instruction in the air be restricted to it's simplest common
>>>>>>>>>> denominator, allowing the student to error and correct with
>>> verbal
>>>>>>>>>> guidance. It is during the post flight debrief that the more
>>>>>>> detailed
>>>>>>>>>> instruction should take place. To address your basic premise,
>>>>>>>>>> I believe you might want to re-read what I have said in this
>>> thread
>>>>>>>>>> about what constitutes proper flight instruction technique.
>>>>>>>>>> With
>>> a
>>>>>>> few
>>>>>>>>>> minor changes, we are not that far apart, but make no mistake,
>>>>>>> flight
>>>>>>>>>> instruction does indeed take place in a moving classroom.
>>>>>>>>>> Ground instruction takes place in a classroom.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Ever heard the one about the three blind men examining an
>>> elephant?
>>>>>>>>> Bertie
>>>>>>>> Hi Bertie; howgozit? Hope you're well these days.
>>>>>>> not too bad, thanks.
>>>>>>>> I agree. Much of it is in perspective. I think all of us are
>>>>>>> approaching
>>>>>>>> the basic premise from different directions. The macro is intact
>>> but
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> micros are in flux :-)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Well, exactly. I agree with your stance though. The airplane is a
>>>>>>> classroom in itself. A good airplane is a better instructor than
>>> the
>>>>>>> instructor is. but the point i think you are trying to make is
>>>>>>> that while the student is practicing whatever, you gotta shout
>>>>>>> some additional instruction his way. Otherwise dual would be
>>>>>>> pointless. after all, if he goes out and practices it all wrong
>>>>>>> after his
>>>>> thorough
>>>>>>> classroom briefing what's he learned?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Bertie
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Exactly! I think the main point if you were to reduce everything
>>> down
>>>>> to
>>>>>> it's lowest common denominator would be that there are actually
>>>>>> two teaching personas that the CFI has to master; the first is the
>>> teacher
>>>>>> who covers what needs to be covered on the ground in the manner
>>>>>> best suited for that scenario (this would be the classroom
>>>>>> approach). The second is a teaching personna that knows how to
>>>>>> simplify,
>>> observe
>>>>>> ,direct and correct with minimal interference while the airplane
>>>>>> is
>>> in
>>>>>> motion. This second teaching personna is what we usually have to
>>>>> "teach"
>>>>>> people coming into the flight instruction business from a formal
>>>>>> professional teaching background. It's usually a quick transition
>>>>>> if
>>>>> the
>>>>>> "teacher" is amenable and able to adjust to this added dimension
>>>>>> required of a good flight instructor.
>>>>>> I totally agree with you that the airplane itself is the best
>>>>>> flight instructor a pilot will ever have.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Well, unless t's a cherokee! :)
>>>>>
>>>>> Bertie
>>>>>
>>>> Well...there's always room for a "driving instructor". :-))))
>>>>
>>> Unfortunately, we're living with the Cherokee's children now.
>>> Having said that, it was the best workhouse of that bunch, and it was
>>> damn near bulletproof. You must have know Albie Cornell. I flew a few
>>> of his for a while. He had the highest time PA 28 in the world at the
>>> time. (I think it was 4625L) Damn thing would lift anything you could
>>> squeeze into it out of a 1500 foot strip and hardly ever needed
>>> fixing..
>>>
>>> Bertie
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> I used to have fits "reteaching" people who learned to fly in
>> Cherokees when they came in to us for checkouts in our tail wheel
>> airplanes. Even checking out someone in a 150 required some degree of
>> "rudder rehab" :-) I vaguely recall Albie Cornell but for the life of
>> me I can't associate it with one of our surrounding fields. I take it
>> he operated a small strip? I'm thinking New Jersey but not at all
>> sure. You're right about the 28's lifting capacity, especially the
>> pre-Warrior Hershey Bars. We had several on the line but I always
>> favored the 150/152 for primary instruction for the reasons we have
>> been discussing.
>> :-)
>
> Yeah, the Cessnas were at least a bit better. Albie's field was
> Warrington PA, just north of Willow Grove NAS. He was there for a
> loooong time. The field is gone now, but if oyu look at a low level
> instrument chart, you'll find Albie intersection where it used to be..
>
> Bertie
>
I think I remember him vaguely. I managed Hi Line Airport for Ed Size
for a while. We were right next door to Art Turner's place.

--
Dudley Henriques

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Dudley Henriques > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in news:h62dnYU0n_
>>>> :
>>>>
>>>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>>>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>>>>>> :
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>>>>>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>>>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>>>>>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Bob Moore wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Dudley Henriques wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The first thing new instructors have to be taught as they
>>>> become
>>>>>>>>>>>>> instructors is that there are base differences between
>>>> teaching
>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> classroom that isn't moving and teaching in a classroom
that
>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>>> moving at 100 mph plus.
>>>>>>>>>>>> This is what is wrong with most flight instruction. A
>>>>>> professional
>>>>>>>>>>>> Flight Instructor does not teach in a 100 mph classroom.
Done
>>>>>>>>>>>> properly, ALL instruction is done in the classroom
(briefing
>>>>>> room)
>>>>>>>>>>>> and then the student is allowed to practice in the
airplane.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> My qualifications...first, the US Navy sent me to a two
month
>>>>>> "How
>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>> Instruct" course. I would then teach that course for two
>>>>>>>>>>>> years. Second, I received my FAA Flight Instructor
>>>>>>>>>>>> Certificate in a professional Part 141 Training Center.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Third, I completed an
>>>> FAA
>>>>>>>>>>>> approved Part 121 Airline Flight Instructor Training
Program.
>>>>>>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>> would
>>>>>>>>>>>> later, as Mgr Flightcrew Training, be responsible for
>>>> developing
>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>> implementing such programs at other airlines. Fourth, I did
>>>>>> manage
>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>> staff of about 8 instructors in the Jet Training Division
of
>>>> the
>>>>>>>> old
>>>>>>>>>>>> Burnside-Ott Flight Training Center at Opaloca Airport in
>>>> Miami.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Bob Moore
>>>>>>>>>>> Is there anything about the following sentence taken from an
>>>>>> earlier
>>>>>>>>>>> post of mine in this thread that you are having trouble
>>>>>>>> understanding?
>>>>>>>>>>> Dudley Henriques wrote;
>>>>>>>>>>> "Many instructors in my opinion make a HUGE mistake by
trying
>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>> teach
>>>>>>>>>>> everything about everything while the student is flying the
>>>>>>>> airplane.
>>>>>>>>>>> "
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Of COURSE a flight instructor teaches in a 100mph plus
>>>> classroom,
>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>> in even faster classrooms in higher performance aircraft.
This
>>>> in
>>>>>> no
>>>>>>>>>>> way should be construed as you have attempted to do here
into
>>>>>>>> meaning
>>>>>>>>>>> that a flight instructor should use the time in the aircraft
>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>> teach
>>>>>>>>>>> what should have been covered on the ground both during the
>>>>>>>> preflight
>>>>>>>>>>> and post flight phases of a dual session.
>>>>>>>>>>> There is a place for detailed instruction and that is NOT
>>>>>>>>>>> while
>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> student is under the stress of flying the aircraft.
>>>>>>>>>>> Your premise that ALL instruction is done in the classroom
and
>>>>>>>>>>> allowing the student to "practice" in the aircraft is not
>>>> exactly
>>>>>>>>>>> correct. It is more correct that theory and procedure are
>>>>>>>>>>> taught
>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>>>>> the ground and closely monitored and corrected practice with
>>>>>>>>>>> the student is done in the air. To say that no instruction
is
>>>>>> performed
>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>> the air is incorrect. It is however correct to say that all
>>>>>>>>>>> instruction in the air be restricted to it's simplest common
>>>>>>>>>>> denominator, allowing the student to error and correct with
>>>> verbal
>>>>>>>>>>> guidance. It is during the post flight debrief that the more
>>>>>>>> detailed
>>>>>>>>>>> instruction should take place. To address your basic
premise,
>>>>>>>>>>> I believe you might want to re-read what I have said in this
>>>> thread
>>>>>>>>>>> about what constitutes proper flight instruction technique.
>>>>>>>>>>> With
>>>> a
>>>>>>>> few
>>>>>>>>>>> minor changes, we are not that far apart, but make no
mistake,
>>>>>>>> flight
>>>>>>>>>>> instruction does indeed take place in a moving classroom.
>>>>>>>>>>> Ground instruction takes place in a classroom.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Ever heard the one about the three blind men examining an
>>>> elephant?
>>>>>>>>>> Bertie
>>>>>>>>> Hi Bertie; howgozit? Hope you're well these days.
>>>>>>>> not too bad, thanks.
>>>>>>>>> I agree. Much of it is in perspective. I think all of us are
>>>>>>>> approaching
>>>>>>>>> the basic premise from different directions. The macro is
intact
>>>> but
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> micros are in flux :-)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Well, exactly. I agree with your stance though. The airplane is
a
>>>>>>>> classroom in itself. A good airplane is a better instructor
than
>>>> the
>>>>>>>> instructor is. but the point i think you are trying to make is
>>>>>>>> that while the student is practicing whatever, you gotta shout
>>>>>>>> some additional instruction his way. Otherwise dual would be
>>>>>>>> pointless. after all, if he goes out and practices it all wrong
>>>>>>>> after his
>>>>>> thorough
>>>>>>>> classroom briefing what's he learned?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Bertie
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Exactly! I think the main point if you were to reduce everything
>>>> down
>>>>>> to
>>>>>>> it's lowest common denominator would be that there are actually
>>>>>>> two teaching personas that the CFI has to master; the first is
the
>>>> teacher
>>>>>>> who covers what needs to be covered on the ground in the manner
>>>>>>> best suited for that scenario (this would be the classroom
>>>>>>> approach). The second is a teaching personna that knows how to
>>>>>>> simplify,
>>>> observe
>>>>>>> ,direct and correct with minimal interference while the airplane
>>>>>>> is
>>>> in
>>>>>>> motion. This second teaching personna is what we usually have to
>>>>>> "teach"
>>>>>>> people coming into the flight instruction business from a formal
>>>>>>> professional teaching background. It's usually a quick
transition
>>>>>>> if
>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> "teacher" is amenable and able to adjust to this added dimension
>>>>>>> required of a good flight instructor.
>>>>>>> I totally agree with you that the airplane itself is the best
>>>>>>> flight instructor a pilot will ever have.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Well, unless t's a cherokee! :)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Bertie
>>>>>>
>>>>> Well...there's always room for a "driving instructor". :-))))
>>>>>
>>>> Unfortunately, we're living with the Cherokee's children now.
>>>> Having said that, it was the best workhouse of that bunch, and it
was
>>>> damn near bulletproof. You must have know Albie Cornell. I flew a
few
>>>> of his for a while. He had the highest time PA 28 in the world at
the
>>>> time. (I think it was 4625L) Damn thing would lift anything you
could
>>>> squeeze into it out of a 1500 foot strip and hardly ever needed
>>>> fixing..
>>>>
>>>> Bertie
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> I used to have fits "reteaching" people who learned to fly in
>>> Cherokees when they came in to us for checkouts in our tail wheel
>>> airplanes. Even checking out someone in a 150 required some degree
of
>>> "rudder rehab" :-) I vaguely recall Albie Cornell but for the life
of
>>> me I can't associate it with one of our surrounding fields. I take
it
>>> he operated a small strip? I'm thinking New Jersey but not at all
>>> sure. You're right about the 28's lifting capacity, especially the
>>> pre-Warrior Hershey Bars. We had several on the line but I always
>>> favored the 150/152 for primary instruction for the reasons we have
>>> been discussing.
>>> :-)
>>
>> Yeah, the Cessnas were at least a bit better. Albie's field was
>> Warrington PA, just north of Willow Grove NAS. He was there for a
>> loooong time. The field is gone now, but if oyu look at a low level
>> instrument chart, you'll find Albie intersection where it used to
be..
>>
>> Bertie
>>
> I think I remember him vaguely. I managed Hi Line Airport for Ed Size
> for a while. We were right next door to Art Turner's place.

He was a local fixture for almost fifty years there. He didn't wander
from from the place much himself. He was a noted character and well
thought of. They just don't make 'em like that anymore..


Bertie
>

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

Yeah, you're right. As these guys die off the world will never see the
likes of them again. I really miss the good ole' common sense people we
had in aviation way back when.


>


--
Dudley Henriques

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
...
> RST Engineering wrote:
>> Sorry, Dudley, I got my CFI (airplane) 37 years ago and my CFI (glider)
>> 30 years ago. I have roughly 500 primary students under my belt, so no,
>> I know for a fact that the classroom on the ground and the classroom in
>> the air are two totally different things. My point was that I've learned
>> to adapt to many different learning capabilities in both environments.
>>
>> Jim
>>
>
> I can see there is absolutely nothing you can learn from me so I'll be
> moving along :-))

Or anybody else, apparently.

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Matt Barrow wrote:
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
> ...
>> RST Engineering wrote:
>>> Sorry, Dudley, I got my CFI (airplane) 37 years ago and my CFI (glider)
>>> 30 years ago. I have roughly 500 primary students under my belt, so no,
>>> I know for a fact that the classroom on the ground and the classroom in
>>> the air are two totally different things. My point was that I've learned
>>> to adapt to many different learning capabilities in both environments.
>>>
>>> Jim
>>>
>> I can see there is absolutely nothing you can learn from me so I'll be
>> moving along :-))
>
> Or anybody else, apparently.
>
>
I'm not quite sure I understand this remark. Could you possibly be more
explicit?
Thank you

--
Dudley Henriques

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Dudley Henriques > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>
> Yeah, you're right. As these guys die off the world will never see the
> likes of them again. I really miss the good ole' common sense people we
> had in aviation way back when.


Few left, not many. They're more interested in flying Nintendos that are
wafting around these days than real airplanes, and people, I guess

Bertie

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote

> I'm not quite sure I understand this remark. Could you possibly be more
> explicit?

Dud, that is what is commonly know as a "pot shot" and is typical fare for
Matt.

Consider the source, and take it for what it is worth.
--
Jim in NC

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Morgans wrote:
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote
>
>> I'm not quite sure I understand this remark. Could you possibly be more
>> explicit?
>
> Dud, that is what is commonly know as a "pot shot" and is typical fare for
> Matt.
>
> Consider the source, and take it for what it is worth.

That's how I read it. I just can't figure out why he would want to take it.

--
Dudley Henriques

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
> :
>
>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>
>> Yeah, you're right. As these guys die off the world will never see the
>> likes of them again. I really miss the good ole' common sense people we
>> had in aviation way back when.
>
>
> Few left, not many. They're more interested in flying Nintendos that are
> wafting around these days than real airplanes, and people, I guess
>
> Bertie

I took a J3 all the way down the East coast to Key West once. Lowered
the side door panel and flew the beaches down low. At Hilton Head I
throttled back and traded "hello's" with a young couple on the beach as
I went by.
Man, you can't BUY those days again :-))


--
Dudley Henriques

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Dudley Henriques > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>
>>> Yeah, you're right. As these guys die off the world will never see
>>> the likes of them again. I really miss the good ole' common sense
>>> people we had in aviation way back when.
>>
>>
>> Few left, not many. They're more interested in flying Nintendos that
>> are wafting around these days than real airplanes, and people, I
>> guess
>>
>> Bertie
>
> I took a J3 all the way down the East coast to Key West once. Lowered
> the side door panel and flew the beaches down low. At Hilton Head I
> throttled back and traded "hello's" with a young couple on the beach
> as I went by.
> Man, you can't BUY those days again :-))
>
>


You can still do it. Some guys still do! I still fly little ones (well, not
lately, but when I get the contraption in the shed finished I will)
Great fun though. I remember flying my T-craft right over the top of PHL,
no radio, watching the jet airliners taking off underneath me. (dating
myself now)

Bertie

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
> :
>
>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>>> :
>>>
>>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Yeah, you're right. As these guys die off the world will never see
>>>> the likes of them again. I really miss the good ole' common sense
>>>> people we had in aviation way back when.
>>>
>>> Few left, not many. They're more interested in flying Nintendos that
>>> are wafting around these days than real airplanes, and people, I
>>> guess
>>>
>>> Bertie
>> I took a J3 all the way down the East coast to Key West once. Lowered
>> the side door panel and flew the beaches down low. At Hilton Head I
>> throttled back and traded "hello's" with a young couple on the beach
>> as I went by.
>> Man, you can't BUY those days again :-))
>>
>>
>
>
> You can still do it. Some guys still do! I still fly little ones (well, not
> lately, but when I get the contraption in the shed finished I will)
> Great fun though. I remember flying my T-craft right over the top of PHL,
> no radio, watching the jet airliners taking off underneath me. (dating
> myself now)
>
> Bertie


Neat little bird that T Craft. Could float a bit for the guys coming out
of a J3 into it for the first time :-)
I still believe the only thing that ended Duane Cole's run in
competition was the low power factor on his clipped wing T Craft. He
just couldn't get the vertical performance he needed to stay
competitive, but his air show work was absolutely amazing in that little
bird.




--
Dudley Henriques

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Dudley Henriques > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>>>> :
>>>>
>>>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Yeah, you're right. As these guys die off the world will never see
>>>>> the likes of them again. I really miss the good ole' common sense
>>>>> people we had in aviation way back when.
>>>>
>>>> Few left, not many. They're more interested in flying Nintendos
>>>> that are wafting around these days than real airplanes, and people,
>>>> I guess
>>>>
>>>> Bertie
>>> I took a J3 all the way down the East coast to Key West once.
>>> Lowered the side door panel and flew the beaches down low. At Hilton
>>> Head I throttled back and traded "hello's" with a young couple on
>>> the beach as I went by.
>>> Man, you can't BUY those days again :-))
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> You can still do it. Some guys still do! I still fly little ones
>> (well, not lately, but when I get the contraption in the shed
>> finished I will) Great fun though. I remember flying my T-craft right
>> over the top of PHL, no radio, watching the jet airliners taking off
>> underneath me. (dating myself now)
>>
>> Bertie
>
>
> Neat little bird that T Craft. Could float a bit for the guys coming
> out of a J3 into it for the first time :-)
> I still believe the only thing that ended Duane Cole's run in
> competition was the low power factor on his clipped wing T Craft. He
> just couldn't get the vertical performance he needed to stay
> competitive, but his air show work was absolutely amazing in that
> little bird.
>
>

Yeah, I've always hankered after a clipped t-craft. He's still the best
I've ever seen. Had a few a-65 powered airplanes over the years and
that was one of the best. Loved my Luscombes the best, though.
>
>

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
> :
>
>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>>> :
>>>
>>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>>>>> :
>>>>>
>>>>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yeah, you're right. As these guys die off the world will never see
>>>>>> the likes of them again. I really miss the good ole' common sense
>>>>>> people we had in aviation way back when.
>>>>> Few left, not many. They're more interested in flying Nintendos
>>>>> that are wafting around these days than real airplanes, and people,
>>>>> I guess
>>>>>
>>>>> Bertie
>>>> I took a J3 all the way down the East coast to Key West once.
>>>> Lowered the side door panel and flew the beaches down low. At Hilton
>>>> Head I throttled back and traded "hello's" with a young couple on
>>>> the beach as I went by.
>>>> Man, you can't BUY those days again :-))
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> You can still do it. Some guys still do! I still fly little ones
>>> (well, not lately, but when I get the contraption in the shed
>>> finished I will) Great fun though. I remember flying my T-craft right
>>> over the top of PHL, no radio, watching the jet airliners taking off
>>> underneath me. (dating myself now)
>>>
>>> Bertie
>>
>> Neat little bird that T Craft. Could float a bit for the guys coming
>> out of a J3 into it for the first time :-)
>> I still believe the only thing that ended Duane Cole's run in
>> competition was the low power factor on his clipped wing T Craft. He
>> just couldn't get the vertical performance he needed to stay
>> competitive, but his air show work was absolutely amazing in that
>> little bird.
>>
>>
>
> Yeah, I've always hankered after a clipped t-craft. He's still the best
> I've ever seen. Had a few a-65 powered airplanes over the years and
> that was one of the best. Loved my Luscombes the best, though.
>>
>
The 8A was a fine airplane....strong too. Snapped like a Pitts :-))

--
Dudley Henriques

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Dudley Henriques > wrote in
:


>> Yeah, I've always hankered after a clipped t-craft. He's still the best
>> I've ever seen. Had a few a-65 powered airplanes over the years and
>> that was one of the best. Loved my Luscombes the best, though.
>>>
>>
> The 8A was a fine airplane....strong too. Snapped like a Pitts :-))

!!! Not any Pitts I flew! Not unless you enterd at a fairly high speed,
anyway.
They weren't as strong as their reputation would lead you to believe,
though. A number of ADs over the years make me cringe when I think of what
I used to do in my old pre war ragwing model 8 (it wasn't even an 8a,
though it had been converted to 65 HP when I got it) Quick though, and very
satisfying to fly. I'd still loop and barrel roll one even as old as they
are, though.. No snap manuevers, though!




Bertie
>

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
...
> Morgans wrote:
>> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote
>>
>>> I'm not quite sure I understand this remark. Could you possibly be more
>>> explicit?
>>
>> Dud, that is what is commonly know as a "pot shot" and is typical fare
>> for Matt.
>>
>> Consider the source, and take it for what it is worth.
>
> That's how I read it. I just can't figure out why he would want to take
> it.

Because RST/Jim, like Morgans, learns next to nothing from anybody.

RST/Jim is pretty knowledgeable, but blockheaded beyond belief FWIS.

I recall several posts that other knowledgeable types have tried pointing
things out to him so clearly that his not making the connect was
astonishing. It seems you're just another in line.

It's amazing how many people "have been doing this for 40 years", and they
can't stand to find out that it's WRONG.

--
"I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest
complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most obvious truth if it
be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they
delighted in explaining to colleagues, which they have proudly taught to
others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabric of
their lives." - Tolstoy


OTOH, Morgans is just a half-wit punk whose total capacity is merely barfing
back something shoved down his throat. When someone points it out, he runs
home to mommy.

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
...
>
> I took a J3 all the way down the East coast to Key West once. Lowered the
> side door panel and flew the beaches down low. At Hilton Head I throttled
> back and traded "hello's" with a young couple on the beach as I went by.
> Man, you can't BUY those days again :-))

How long ago was that?

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Matt Barrow"> wrote

> OTOH, Morgans is just a half-wit punk whose total capacity is merely
> barfing back something shoved down his throat. When someone points it out,
> he runs home to mommy.

At least I am not such an obnoxious human (I hesitate to use that term with
you) that I do not alienate nearly everyone I have contact with.

I am always happy to learn something from reading this group. Many people
have much to offer, and I listen too what they have to say, and if it is
good information, I attempt to remember it. You, on the other hand, do not
have to try to learn anything, because you know it all, already. I can't
remember when you have contributed anything other than insults and your
incorrect or one-sided observations.

It must be lonely being so right all the time, as you tell us repeatedly,
you are.

You should try not to be such a blowhard. You are consuming oxygen that
someone else could make better use of.

Next time you call someone a half-wit punk, step out of behind the mirror.
You are seeing your reflection; a perfect definition of the term.
--
Jim in NC

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
> :
>
>
>>> Yeah, I've always hankered after a clipped t-craft. He's still the best
>>> I've ever seen. Had a few a-65 powered airplanes over the years and
>>> that was one of the best. Loved my Luscombes the best, though.
>> The 8A was a fine airplane....strong too. Snapped like a Pitts :-))
>
> !!! Not any Pitts I flew! Not unless you enterd at a fairly high speed,
> anyway.
> They weren't as strong as their reputation would lead you to believe,
> though. A number of ADs over the years make me cringe when I think of what
> I used to do in my old pre war ragwing model 8 (it wasn't even an 8a,
> though it had been converted to 65 HP when I got it) Quick though, and very
> satisfying to fly. I'd still loop and barrel roll one even as old as they
> are, though.. No snap manuevers, though!
>
>
>
>
> Bertie
>


Not REALLY as fast as a Pitts :-)). That's why I attached that little
smilie thingy :-))
You could get a decent snap out of the 8A by breaking the stall in a
little early to accelerate it a bit holding in the back stick, then
throw in full inside rudder AND full aileron as the stall broke.
Actually went around pretty fast for the length of the wings.
Barrel rolls are beautiful in just about any airplane.
Never flew the 8. Just the 8A, and that just a few times. Fellow on the
field had one and wanted some acro dual. Mainly I just wanted to make
sure he had his entry speeds down pat so he didn't stress it.
Nice little airplane.
D

--
Dudley Henriques

[Larry Dighera]

On Wed, 19 Sep 2007 09:14:35 -0400, Dudley Henriques
> wrote in
>:

>You could get a decent snap out of the 8A by breaking the stall ...

I don't recall the Luscomb nor the Taylorcraft being certified for
aerobatics. Did you two fellows have an FAA waiver for aerobatics in
the aircraft in question, or were they registered in the experimental
category?

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Larry Dighera wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Sep 2007 09:14:35 -0400, Dudley Henriques
> > wrote in
> >:
>
>> You could get a decent snap out of the 8A by breaking the stall ...
>
> I don't recall the Luscomb nor the Taylorcraft being certified for
> aerobatics. Did you two fellows have an FAA waiver for aerobatics in
> the aircraft in question, or were they registered in the experimental
> category?

The Luscombe 8A (I don't believe the 8 ) had a letter of limited
aerobatic capability from the CAA dated 1947 included in the aircraft's
operating manual. This letter listed specific aerobatic maneuvers
approved for the 8A after joint tests between Luscombe and the CAA were
performed.
The limit load factors both ways if I remember right were -2.2 to + 4.5.
The airplane was never certified in the aerobatic category however, and
even the limited aerobatics approved for the airplane were approved
suggesting a high degree of skill if these maneuvers were to be attempted.
That's all I remember about the airplane. Perhaps Bertie, having owned
them has more detailed data for you.

--
Dudley Henriques

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Matt Barrow wrote:
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
> ...
>> I took a J3 all the way down the East coast to Key West once. Lowered the
>> side door panel and flew the beaches down low. At Hilton Head I throttled
>> back and traded "hello's" with a young couple on the beach as I went by.
>> Man, you can't BUY those days again :-))
>
> How long ago was that?
>
>
>
>
A LONG time ago in a galaxy far far away.................
:-)

--
Dudley Henriques

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Larry Dighera > wrote in
:

> On Wed, 19 Sep 2007 09:14:35 -0400, Dudley Henriques
> > wrote in
> >:
>
>>You could get a decent snap out of the 8A by breaking the stall ...
>
> I don't recall the Luscomb nor the Taylorcraft being certified for
> aerobatics. Did you two fellows have an FAA waiver for aerobatics in
> the aircraft in question, or were they registered in the experimental
> category?
>


Get a grip Larry. All aircraft built before 49 are allowed to do
aerobatics. Some cub handbooks has directions on how to do loops.

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Dudley Henriques > wrote in
:

> Larry Dighera wrote:
>> On Wed, 19 Sep 2007 09:14:35 -0400, Dudley Henriques
>> > wrote in
>> >:
>>
>>> You could get a decent snap out of the 8A by breaking the stall ...
>>
>> I don't recall the Luscomb nor the Taylorcraft being certified for
>> aerobatics. Did you two fellows have an FAA waiver for aerobatics in
>> the aircraft in question, or were they registered in the experimental
>> category?
>
> The Luscombe 8A (I don't believe the 8 ) had a letter of limited
> aerobatic capability from the CAA dated 1947 included in the
> aircraft's operating manual. This letter listed specific aerobatic
> maneuvers approved for the 8A after joint tests between Luscombe and
> the CAA were performed.
> The limit load factors both ways if I remember right were -2.2 to +
> 4.5. The airplane was never certified in the aerobatic category
> however, and even the limited aerobatics approved for the airplane
> were approved suggesting a high degree of skill if these maneuvers
> were to be attempted. That's all I remember about the airplane.
> Perhaps Bertie, having owned them has more detailed data for you.
>

They were good for considerably more than that on paper, but the CAA didn't
realy have an aerobatic category back then, so almost everything was legal.
The handbook did indeed have a list of entry speeds and some have competed
(not very well) in the sportsman class. Unlike the T-Cart, of course, one
of which won the '66 (?) world championship.
As you said, the t-craft would still be competitive today if vertical stuff
didn't get as many points as the did.. Now where are those Swick plans...


Bertie

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
> ...
>> RST Engineering wrote:
>>> Sorry, Dudley, I got my CFI (airplane) 37 years ago and my CFI (glider)
>>> 30 years ago. I have roughly 500 primary students under my belt, so no,
>>> I know for a fact that the classroom on the ground and the classroom in
>>> the air are two totally different things. My point was that I've
>>> learned to adapt to many different learning capabilities in both
>>> environments.
>>>
>>> Jim
>>>
>>
>> I can see there is absolutely nothing you can learn from me so I'll be
>> moving along :-))
>
> Or anybody else, apparently.
>
>

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> RST Engineering wrote:
>>>> Sorry, Dudley, I got my CFI (airplane) 37 years ago and my CFI (glider)
>>>> 30 years ago. I have roughly 500 primary students under my belt, so
>>>> no, I know for a fact that the classroom on the ground and the
>>>> classroom in the air are two totally different things. My point was
>>>> that I've learned to adapt to many different learning capabilities in
>>>> both environments.
>>>>
>>>> Jim
>>>>
>>>
>>> I can see there is absolutely nothing you can learn from me so I'll be
>>> moving along :-))
>>
>> Or anybody else, apparently.
Too quick on the SEND button!

My apologies to all (especially Dude) for my too quick read of Dudley's
remarks!

My wife heard me grumbling in the den and told me to "knock it off".

As a partial explanation, my meds are making me grumpy, crabby, lightheaded
(more so than normal according to many) and my attention span is greatly
reduced.

Those meds, BTW, are a second run at fixing the tumor that I had removed a
bit over a year ago. Evidently, the docs didn't get everything, so they have
to go in again. If that doesn't get it, I'm really in deep doodoo.

So, I either have to knock of the groups where attention span is critical,
or knock off the meds. Unfortunately, that latter isn't an option.

Again, my apologies to Dud' and Jim [even the poophead he can be :~), ] and
we'll see you when recovery is complete.

Thanks for some very interesting conversation and information.

--
Matt Barrow
Performance Homes, LLC.
Cheyenne, WY

[RST Engineering]

God bless you and the best of luck.

Jim

--
"If you think you can, or think you can't, you're right."
--Henry Ford


> Those meds, BTW, are a second run at fixing the tumor that I had removed a
> bit over a year ago. Evidently, the docs didn't get everything, so they
> have to go in again. If that doesn't get it, I'm really in deep doodoo.

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Matt Barrow" > wrote

> Again, my apologies to Dud' and Jim [even the poophead he can be :~), ]
> and we'll see you when recovery is complete.

Apologies accepted.

My best wishes for a speedy and full recovery.
--
Jim in NC

[Larry Dighera]

On Wed, 19 Sep 2007 11:35:10 -0400, Dudley Henriques
> wrote in
>:

>The Luscombe 8A (I don't believe the 8 ) had a letter of limited
>aerobatic capability from the CAA dated 1947 included in the aircraft's
>operating manual. This letter listed specific aerobatic maneuvers
>approved for the 8A after joint tests between Luscombe and the CAA were
>performed.

Do you recall if snap rolls were among those maneuvers listed in that
letter?

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Larry Dighera > wrote in
:

> On Wed, 19 Sep 2007 11:35:10 -0400, Dudley Henriques
> > wrote in
> >:
>
>>The Luscombe 8A (I don't believe the 8 ) had a letter of limited
>>aerobatic capability from the CAA dated 1947 included in the
aircraft's
>>operating manual. This letter listed specific aerobatic maneuvers
>>approved for the 8A after joint tests between Luscombe and the CAA
were
>>performed.
>
> Do you recall if snap rolls were among those maneuvers listed in that
> letter?


They were. I still have it.

It's irrelevant in any case. Then an airplane was an airplane. Part of
what an airplane did was go upside down. They thought better of that
policy eventually and an aerobatic category was established, but
airplanes certified before whatever date that was, (about 1950, maybe a
bit earlier) were, for better or worse, exempt from any such
restriction.
Luscombes are tough, but not as tough as legend would have one believe.
A couple have been lost over the years, but fewer than many of it's
certified aerobatic brethren. It's not a particularly good aerobatic
airplane. The roll rate is very slow, almost glider like. Barrel rolls
are fine and it loops OK but snaps are not great especially at the
relatively low entry speed of 70 mph that's recommended.
Add in the multiple structural ADs the airplane has and it's not what
you could call a first class aerobatic mount. I'd still loop, barrel
roll and wingover a good one, but that's all.
A new one would be another story..

The Taylorcraft was well able for aerobatics in stock form. Same sort fo
stuff It does aileron rolls quite a lot better than the Luscombe (though
it;s been many years since I've flown one, wheras I've had a Luscombe
upside down recently)

Modded for aerbatics with clipped wings and only a few more ponies, it's
one of the best aerobatic airplanes ever made.




Bertie

[Larry Dighera]

On Wed, 19 Sep 2007 11:35:10 -0400, Dudley Henriques
> wrote in
>:

>
>The Luscombe 8A (I don't believe the 8 ) had a letter of limited
>aerobatic capability from the CAA dated 1947 included in the aircraft's
>operating manual. This letter listed specific aerobatic maneuvers
>approved for the 8A after joint tests between Luscombe and the CAA were
>performed.

Yep. Here it is:

http://www.popularaviation.com/docs/LuscombeAerobatics.pdf

Article about Luscombe aerobatic "certification":
http://www.popularaviation.com/Luscombe/ListTechArticleDtl.asp?id=7
Is the Luscombe Aerobatic?
Disclaimer: PopularAviation.com makes no claim or warranty as to
accuracy of these articles. You and your mechanic are responsible
for your aircraft.

By: Bill Dickey
Posted: Tuesday, July 17, 2001

Updated February 17, 2004

Question: My Instructor is a great aerobatic pilot and says the
Luscombe is a full acrobatic airplane. How aerobatic is the
Luscombe really?.

Answer: The Luscombe is an FAA standard category aircraft. It is
not certified nor built for aerobatics. During World War II a list
of entry speeds for various aerobatic maneuvers was published in
1947 for the Luscombe Airplane Corporation. Its purpose was to aid
sale of Luscombes to schools teaching flying to WW II veterans
learning to fly under Public Law 346. This was the much praised GI
Bill of Rights that paid educational expenses for returning
veterans. The letter from the CAA included both 8A and 8E
airplanes but did not include fabric wing airplanes. The speeds
were the result of an evaluation by a US CAA test pilot who deemed
that the aircraft could safely perform correctly executed mild
aerobatics. This document spawned the myth that the Luscombe 8
series are aerobatic airplanes. (See a PDF version of that
document by clicking here.)

Like a number of people, I misunderstood that the Luscombe was
aerobatic and, twenty five years ago, performed a number of loops,
Immelmans, wingovers, hammerheads and various rolls including snap
rolls. When the airplane was disassembled for restoration three
years ago we discovered that the number 8 fuselage bulkhead
(vertical fin rear spar attach point) was deformed and torn. The
damage may have been due to overstress during the snap rolls.

Can correctly performed 1G aerobatics be safely performed in a
Standard Category airplane? Of course, if you don't make a mistake
that could result in overstress. Is it a good idea to perform
aerobatics in a 50 year old airplane that wasn't designed for
them? Perhaps not.

The Luscombe was marketed as a strong airplane, thus the many
factory photos of two dozen pretty girls perched on the wing.
These images were specifically created to counter the concerns at
the time that a metal airplane was not as strong as airplanes that
had welded steel tube fuselages and laminated wood wing spars.
True, Luscombes are pretty tough, but there are several
Airworthiness Directives on the airframe that were the result of
structural failures or persistent corrosion damage.

As far as aerobatic performance and handling are concerned, the
Luscombe is OK for a low powered airplane. Smooth manuevers are
the result of good technique and careful energy management. Those
heavy ailerons make rolls a bit of work, but it sure does snap
well due to that powerful rudder. Ditto for hammerheads. The
airplane spins well and recoveries are very conventional. Spins,
by the way, are legal in standard category aiplanes (unless
prohibited by placard) for training purposes.

My source of historical data on this topic was a series of
conversations with Mr. Doug Combs, the founder of DLAHF. His
knowledge of the Luscombe type is well known. He also has some
personal experience with in flight structural failures in
Luscombes.

If you decide to perform areobatics in your Luscombe, good
luck--you may need it.

Bill Dickey
Kirkland, WA



Type certificate:
http://www.popularaviation.com/docs/LuscombeTC.pdf

Pilot Operation Handbooks, Service Bulletions and other manuals:
http://www.popularaviation.com/Luscombe/LuscombeManuals.asp

http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgMakeModel.nsf/0/8d006abbddeb78428525673c004dd3f3/$FILE/a-694.pdf

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Matt Barrow wrote:
> "Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> RST Engineering wrote:
>>>>> Sorry, Dudley, I got my CFI (airplane) 37 years ago and my CFI (glider)
>>>>> 30 years ago. I have roughly 500 primary students under my belt, so
>>>>> no, I know for a fact that the classroom on the ground and the
>>>>> classroom in the air are two totally different things. My point was
>>>>> that I've learned to adapt to many different learning capabilities in
>>>>> both environments.
>>>>>
>>>>> Jim
>>>>>
>>>> I can see there is absolutely nothing you can learn from me so I'll be
>>>> moving along :-))
>>> Or anybody else, apparently.
> Too quick on the SEND button!
>
> My apologies to all (especially Dude) for my too quick read of Dudley's
> remarks!
>
> My wife heard me grumbling in the den and told me to "knock it off".
>
> As a partial explanation, my meds are making me grumpy, crabby, lightheaded
> (more so than normal according to many) and my attention span is greatly
> reduced.
>
> Those meds, BTW, are a second run at fixing the tumor that I had removed a
> bit over a year ago. Evidently, the docs didn't get everything, so they have
> to go in again. If that doesn't get it, I'm really in deep doodoo.
>
> So, I either have to knock of the groups where attention span is critical,
> or knock off the meds. Unfortunately, that latter isn't an option.
>
> Again, my apologies to Dud' and Jim [even the poophead he can be :~), ] and
> we'll see you when recovery is complete.
>
> Thanks for some very interesting conversation and information.
>
Hi Matt;
I'm really sorry you are having so many health problems. I sincerely
hope things improve for you soon.
My wife and I are as well deeply into health issues so I know full well
how it can get sometimes.
Don't sweat the small stuff and by all means keep posting here with your
friends.
Dudley

--
Dudley Henriques

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Larry Dighera > wrote in
:

> On Wed, 19 Sep 2007 11:35:10 -0400, Dudley Henriques
> > wrote in
> >:
>
>>
>>The Luscombe 8A (I don't believe the 8 ) had a letter of limited
>>aerobatic capability from the CAA dated 1947 included in the
>>aircraft's operating manual. This letter listed specific aerobatic
>>maneuvers approved for the 8A after joint tests between Luscombe and
>>the CAA were performed.
>
> Yep. Here it is:

Yes, i've seen it. It's all correct except that there was no "standard"
category back in 1947.


What's your point?

Bertie

[Montblack]

("Bertie the Bunyip" wrote)
> Ever heard the one about the three blind men examining an elephant?


Don't you think alluding to Three Blind Mice, however indirectly or
unintentionally, was just a little bit cruel and insensitive to all
elephants, everywhere?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_Men_and_an_Elephant
It was six men of Indostan
To learning much inclined,
Who went to see the Elephant
(Though all of them were blind),
That each by observation
Might satisfy his mind

(More from Wiki...)
Three blind elephants argue what a man looks like. The first one feels the
man with his leg, and says that the man is flat. The other elephants touch
the man as well, and agree.


Montblack

I know what you're going to say - why then is it ok to have "three blind
elephants"? <g>

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"Montblack" > wrote in
:

> ("Bertie the Bunyip" wrote)
>> Ever heard the one about the three blind men examining an elephant?
>
>
> Don't you think alluding to Three Blind Mice, however indirectly or
> unintentionally, was just a little bit cruel and insensitive to all
> elephants, everywhere?

That's just the kind of ******* I am.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_Men_and_an_Elephant
> It was six men of Indostan
> To learning much inclined,
> Who went to see the Elephant
> (Though all of them were blind),
> That each by observation
> Might satisfy his mind
>
> (More from Wiki...)
> Three blind elephants argue what a man looks like. The first one feels
> the man with his leg, and says that the man is flat. The other
> elephants touch the man as well, and agree.
>

Bawhahwhahhahhwhahwhahw!

Very good.
>
> Montblack
>
> I know what you're going to say - why then is it ok to have "three
> blind elephants"? <g>

I wasn't. I'm actually OK with that concept.

Bertie






>
>
>

[Montblack]

("Matt Barrow" wrote)
> When someone points it out, he runs home to mommy.


I do believe 'Morgans' can give you the actual time & date that he last
"ran" anywhere.


Montblack

[Montblack]

("Matt Barrow" wrote)
> Those meds, BTW, are a second run at fixing the tumor that I had removed a
> bit over a year ago. Evidently, the docs didn't get everything, so they
> have to go in again. If that doesn't get it, I'm really in deep doodoo.
>
> So, I either have to knock of the groups where attention span is critical,
> or knock off the meds. Unfortunately, that latter isn't an option.
>
> Again, my apologies to Dud' and Jim [even the poophead he can be :~), ]
> and we'll see you when recovery is complete.
>
> Thanks for some very interesting conversation and information.


I call one of the headsets.

What? What' I say? :-)


Paul
Good luck and have a speedy recovery!

BTW, and apropos of absolutely nothing, is the Mrs. a looker? <g>

[B A R R Y[_2_]]

Matt Barrow wrote:
>
> we'll see you when recovery is complete.


Best wishes and hurry back!

[Denny]

On Sep 19, 11:48 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> Larry Dighera > wrote :
>
> > On Wed, 19 Sep 2007 09:14:35 -0400, Dudley Henriques
> > > wrote in
> > >:
>
> >>You could get a decent snap out of the 8A by breaking the stall ...
>
> > I don't recall the Luscomb nor the Taylorcraft being certified for
> > aerobatics. Did you two fellows have an FAA waiver for aerobatics in
> > the aircraft in question, or were they registered in the experimental
> > category?
>
> Get a grip Larry. All aircraft built before 49 are allowed to do
> aerobatics. Some cub handbooks has directions on how to do loops.
>
> Bertie

I routinely did +G maneuvers in my '46 BC12D back in the 60's... I
saw it again recently, still flying and looks good...

denny

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Montblack" > wrote in message
...
> ("Matt Barrow" wrote)
>> When someone points it out, he runs home to mommy.
>
>
> I do believe 'Morgans' can give you the actual time & date that he last
> "ran" anywhere.

Nope.

That would have been before written history was recorded! <g>
--
Jim in NC

[Montblack]

("Morgans" wrote)
> Nope.
>
> That would have been before written history was recorded! <g>


And here I thought it was that time, a few years ago, you fell off the
roof/scaffold/ladder...


Montblack

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Denny > wrote in
ups.com:

> On Sep 19, 11:48 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> Larry Dighera > wrote
>> :
>>
>> > On Wed, 19 Sep 2007 09:14:35 -0400, Dudley Henriques
>> > > wrote in
>> > >:
>>
>> >>You could get a decent snap out of the 8A by breaking the stall ...
>>
>> > I don't recall the Luscomb nor the Taylorcraft being certified for
>> > aerobatics. Did you two fellows have an FAA waiver for aerobatics
>> > in the aircraft in question, or were they registered in the
>> > experimental category?
>>
>> Get a grip Larry. All aircraft built before 49 are allowed to do
>> aerobatics. Some cub handbooks has directions on how to do loops.
>>
>> Bertie
>
> I routinely did +G maneuvers in my '46 BC12D back in the 60's... I
> saw it again recently, still flying and looks good...

Mine's still flying too. Nice thing about wooden spars is if you don't
crack them doing whatever mad maneuver you might try they are just as
strong the next time you fly, unlike a tin airplane..
>

They were nice airplanes. I'd love to try a clip wing somtime. A much
better contender for a modern aerobatic trainer than the Champ ever
was..


Bertie

[xyzzy]

On Sep 17, 10:29 am, wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> I just wanted to see if other CFIs and pilots have been seeing the
> same trend I have. I've been flying with a student for a little over a
> year now, and she's almost ready to solo. It will take her another
> year to get her ticket, for a total of 2 years, and probably 100 - 120
> hours total, when done. Why? Because she's a busy CPA, and sometimes
> cannot fly for periods of up to a month. Obviously if a student pilot
> hasn't flown for a month, much of the next lesson is simply brushing
> off the rust.
>
> I've talked to a couple other local CFIs about this, and they have
> noticed a similar trend. As the cost of flight training has gone up
> (schools near mine cost approximately $130-$140 per hour, wet, with
> CFI), we have seen a seeming increase in the number of early mid-life
> (30-50 years old) professionals (CPAs, lawyers, doctors, etc.) taking
> lessons, because to them, money isn't a major issue. But TIME is. One
> CFI told me he has been working with a well-known doctor for over 2
> years, and he probably won't take his checkride for another 1-2 years,
> simply because he cannot fly often. But, like my student, he really
> DOES want to fly, and DOES want to get their ticket. I talked to my
> student about this, and she's fine with taking 2 years.
>
> So is this becoming a trend? Two years or more to get a PP-ASEL, start
> to finish? And does this mean that it might be necessary to modify the
> traditional PP-ASEL curriculum to better meet the needs of these
> students?
>
> Just wanted to hear what other thought.
>
> Cheers,

I'm one of those guys. A software engineer, was in my late 30's when
I did my PPL, and it took me 80 hours over 2 years to earn my PPL. I
scheduled one flight a week, on the weekend, and about half of them
would be cancelled due to weather, mechanical problems, etc, so in
reality I usually flew twice a month. Oh yeah, and 9/11 happened
during my first year of flight training and my home airport is within
10 miles of a nuke plant. Feh.

One thing that was intersting is that I was generally better in
lessons after a long layoff (like 2 weeks) than in lessons close
together. Not sure why, but there ya go. Everyone's different.

It then took me about a year to do my IFR ticket and I flew over 70
hours that year. That was a great year. I sure would like to do that
again. But cost and time are always prohibitive.

I belong to a flying club which really helps keep current. I can often
fly safety pilot for someone when I can't fly myself (because of $$ or
whatever). Usually there are opportunities to fly with other members
for various reasons and trips. The club also has currency rules, like
no flying with pax without 3 t/o's and ldgs within 90 days, and an
annual club checkout that is basically a BFR. There's always an
instructor to grab and go do x-wind landings with when feeling
rusty. You can stay current and safe with 20-30 hours a year, if you
keep that consideration in mind all the time.

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Montblack" > wrote

> And here I thought it was that time, a few years ago, you fell off the
> roof/scaffold/ladder...

No, that was definitely not running.

Faaallllliiiinnng...Thud!

Ouch! To put it in an understated kind of way. <g>
--
Jim in NC

[Shirl]

xyzzy > wrote:
> I'm one of those guys. A software engineer, was in my
> late 30's when I did my PPL, and it took me 80 hours
> over 2 years to earn my PPL.

Two years may be a long time, but three years ago, our school (a Cessna
Pilot Center) quoted prices based on *approximately* 60-80 hours of
flight time for PPL. It was suggested and highly encouraged that
students fly at least once/week, preferably twice, to build and maintain
momentum and not spend a lot of extra time/money on review. But in the
end, you're absolutely right that everyone is different.

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
...
> Matt Barrow wrote:
>>
>> My apologies to all (especially Dude) for my too quick read of Dudley's
>> remarks!
>>
>> My wife heard me grumbling in the den and told me to "knock it off".
>>
>> As a partial explanation, my meds are making me grumpy, crabby,
>> lightheaded (more so than normal according to many) and my attention span
>> is greatly reduced.
>>
>> Those meds, BTW, are a second run at fixing the tumor that I had removed
>> a bit over a year ago. Evidently, the docs didn't get everything, so they
>> have to go in again. If that doesn't get it, I'm really in deep doodoo.
>>
>> So, I either have to knock of the groups where attention span is
>> critical, or knock off the meds. Unfortunately, that latter isn't an
>> option.
>>
>> Again, my apologies to Dud' and Jim [even the poophead he can be :~), ]
>> and we'll see you when recovery is complete.
>>
>> Thanks for some very interesting conversation and information.
>>
> Hi Matt;
> I'm really sorry you are having so many health problems. I sincerely hope
> things improve for you soon.
> My wife and I are as well deeply into health issues so I know full well
> how it can get sometimes.
> Don't sweat the small stuff and by all means keep posting here with your
> friends.
> Dudley

Thanks, Dudley. It's much appreciated.

The ****er is, everything else about my health (except maybe mental,
according to some) is excellent. I'm 52, and my BP was measured at 122/76.

When I had the tumor removed last year, the doc thought she got everything
(of course, when she walked in for the pre-surgery, I though she was the
nurse -- she looked 18 years old). Now they're playing the cautionary
medication game. We'll see what happens! I'm just hoping that they don't say
"Chemo", if this doesn't work.

Of course, flying is out (right after I got my long awaited "Dream"
airplane), so I'm playing the desk-jockey for the interim. But my #2 son and
son-in-law are taking up the slack rather nicely, so that worry is avoided.

IIRC, your wife had some "health issues", so you certainly have my sympathy,
empathy and all the rest, is such is the case. I guess all we can do it
remain hopeful and give it our best shot.

Best regards,

Matt

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"Montblack" > wrote in message
...
> ("Matt Barrow" wrote)
>> Those meds, BTW, are a second run at fixing the tumor that I had removed
>> a bit over a year ago. Evidently, the docs didn't get everything, so they
>> have to go in again. If that doesn't get it, I'm really in deep doodoo.
>>
>> So, I either have to knock of the groups where attention span is
>> critical, or knock off the meds. Unfortunately, that latter isn't an
>> option.
>>
>> Again, my apologies to Dud' and Jim [even the poophead he can be :~), ]
>> and we'll see you when recovery is complete.
>>
>> Thanks for some very interesting conversation and information.
>
>
> I call one of the headsets.
>
> What? What' I say? :-)
>
>
> Paul
> Good luck and have a speedy recovery!

Thanks! Here's hoping!
>
> BTW, and apropos of absolutely nothing, is the Mrs. a looker? <g>

You bet. She turns 50 in about three weeks, and can still pass for late
30's. And that's after three kids, and dealing with me for 27 years.

Her father was Lebanese and her mother is Iranian (no Hezbollah jokes,
please - they came to the US in 1954). She has very delicate features, and
at her "age" is 5'4" and 120 lbs, though she's "irked" that on her wedding
day, she was only 118 lbs.


--
Matt Barrow
Performance Homes, LLC.
Cheyenne, WY

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"B A R R Y" > wrote in message
t...
> Matt Barrow wrote:
>>
>> we'll see you when recovery is complete.
>
>
> Best wishes and hurry back!

Thanks, Barry! Much appreciated.

Matt

[Montblack]

A) Hear about poor Matt? Gone. No more.
B) No! What happened, cancer get him?

A) Nope. He'd beaten that.
B) Then what? What was it?

A) "This" ...posted to a (world wide) internet forum:

> She turns 50 in about three weeks,

B) Poor, poor, poor (former) Matt.
A) Authorities at first thought it was a grizzly what got him.


Montblack :-)
So, we're back to dibs on one of the headsets then. Cool. <g>

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Matt Barrow wrote:
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Matt Barrow wrote:
>>> My apologies to all (especially Dude) for my too quick read of Dudley's
>>> remarks!
>>>
>>> My wife heard me grumbling in the den and told me to "knock it off".
>>>
>>> As a partial explanation, my meds are making me grumpy, crabby,
>>> lightheaded (more so than normal according to many) and my attention span
>>> is greatly reduced.
>>>
>>> Those meds, BTW, are a second run at fixing the tumor that I had removed
>>> a bit over a year ago. Evidently, the docs didn't get everything, so they
>>> have to go in again. If that doesn't get it, I'm really in deep doodoo.
>>>
>>> So, I either have to knock of the groups where attention span is
>>> critical, or knock off the meds. Unfortunately, that latter isn't an
>>> option.
>>>
>>> Again, my apologies to Dud' and Jim [even the poophead he can be :~), ]
>>> and we'll see you when recovery is complete.
>>>
>>> Thanks for some very interesting conversation and information.
>>>
>> Hi Matt;
>> I'm really sorry you are having so many health problems. I sincerely hope
>> things improve for you soon.
>> My wife and I are as well deeply into health issues so I know full well
>> how it can get sometimes.
>> Don't sweat the small stuff and by all means keep posting here with your
>> friends.
>> Dudley
>
> Thanks, Dudley. It's much appreciated.
>
> The ****er is, everything else about my health (except maybe mental,
> according to some) is excellent. I'm 52, and my BP was measured at 122/76.
>
> When I had the tumor removed last year, the doc thought she got everything
> (of course, when she walked in for the pre-surgery, I though she was the
> nurse -- she looked 18 years old). Now they're playing the cautionary
> medication game. We'll see what happens! I'm just hoping that they don't say
> "Chemo", if this doesn't work.
>
> Of course, flying is out (right after I got my long awaited "Dream"
> airplane), so I'm playing the desk-jockey for the interim. But my #2 son and
> son-in-law are taking up the slack rather nicely, so that worry is avoided.
>
> IIRC, your wife had some "health issues", so you certainly have my sympathy,
> empathy and all the rest, is such is the case. I guess all we can do it
> remain hopeful and give it our best shot.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Matt
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>


Hang in, and the very best of luck to you.
D

--
Dudley Henriques

[Shirl]

"Montblack" > wrote:
> A) Hear about poor Matt? Gone. No more.
> B) No! What happened, cancer get him?
>
> A) Nope. He'd beaten that.
> B) Then what? What was it?
>
> A) "This" ...posted to a (world wide) internet forum:
>
> > She turns 50 in about three weeks,
>
> B) Poor, poor, poor (former) Matt.
> A) Authorities at first thought it was a grizzly what got him.

LOL. Funny. He posted her weight, too ... not that it's a lot for
someone who's 5'4", by any means, but if my DH posted my age and weight
to the internet ...