Re: Landing without flaps

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
> :
>
>> Owner wrote:
>>> "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in message
>>> news:ba21ea5f-fc9b-41b5-9b8c-33784b7e9533
> @s19g2000prg.googlegroups.com
>>> ...
>>>> On Mar 2, 2:01 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>>>>> Ken S. Tucker wrote:
>>>>>> On Mar 2, 6:29 am, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>>>>>>> Ken S. Tucker wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Feb 27, 2:12 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>> Wiggle the ailerons huh? Sounds like a Ken Tucker original
>>>>>>>>> technique to
>>>>>>>>> me :-))
>>>>>>>> You should ask a naval aviator that question,
>>>>>>>> I think that's SOP for those guys.
>>>>>>>> It would be an "oscillating slip", slip left then
>>>>>>>> right then left... etc...to blow off altitude.
>>>>>>>> If you think it through, it may safer than a fixed slip,
>>>>>>>> set left or right as you fella's have been discussing.
>>>>>>>> Recall the issue of fuel loading in left and right fuel
>>>>>>>> tanks for one thing.
>>>>>>>> Well if you do a lot uncoordinated banking turns
>>>>>>>> (which is another name for a slip) you can fill up
>>>>>>>> one tank more than the other, and have the A/C
>>>>>>>> balance distorted, so that one wing is loaded
>>>>>>>> more than the other, rendering asymmetrical
>>>>>>>> stall.
>>>>>>>> Ken
>>>>>>> Thanks for the chuckle Ken. :-)))
>>>>>>> Dudley Henriques
>>>>>> My pleasure Dud, it's something REAL pilots know,
>>>>>> about. I've been listening to your spew about slips
>>>>>> without interrupting you, hoping you'd mention fuel
>>>>>> loading flow, relating to balance. but you didn't,
>>>>>> evidentally you're unaware of that ... that figures.
>>>>>> What you FAILED to mention is a long one-sided
>>>>>> slip on final, as opposed to crab, if your problem
>>>>>> is x-wind, will drain one wing tank into the other.
>>>>>> **Dud** has one demerit point and will now be
>>>>>> addressed as *dud* :-/. It will be my pleasure
>>>>>> to hear something intelligent from *dud* to give
>>>>>> him back his 2 star rating.
>>>>>> Now let's discuss fuel balancing as it relates to
>>>>>> uncoordinated turns and slips. If I made a mistake
>>>>>> to bring up the subject I'll take a demerit.
>>>>>> Ken
>>>>> Everyone PLEASE.....Support mental health :-)
>>>>> Dudley Henriques
>>>> Say *dud* my best flight instructor knows that
>>>> doing uncoordinated banks and/or slips spills
>>>> fuel from one wing tank to the other, is that true
>>>> for a Cessna 152 for example?
>>>> Does that affect the A/C balance?
>>>> ((BTW, if we get one more sarcastic remark from
>>>> you, we'll demote you to 'dud', )).
>>>> *****Ken*****
>>>>
>>> Dudley, I have just shot off a rather large check in support of
>>> mental health, as this has definately been proof that help is needed!
>>> ;)
>>>
>>>
>> The guy is amazing isn't he? :-)) I think he gets some kind of "kick"
>> out of pretending the people he posts to actually need to know what he
>> has to say. He picks them carefully I've noticed. He likes Bertie and
>> me especially since we both fly or have flown professionally. It seems
>> the more his "target" knows, the more "kick" he gets out of
>> "lecturing" them. Half of his stuff is just garbage. The other half is
>> copied from Wikipedia. He claims Mensa, and I happen to know he's not
>> from my own personal contacts within that organization.
>> Personally, I think the guy's a mental case, but he's humorous. My
>> wife thinks he's a hoot. She prints out some of his more colorful crap
>> and shows it to her friends :-))
>
>
> Oh he's givne up on me altogether. A common occurence with my kooks.I
> guess I'm a bit heavy handed with some of them, but it is for their own
> good.
>
> I'm thining of putting in for a Golden Kilfile award, but I'm not
> allowed to nominate myself.
> :(
>
>
>
>
> Bertie
>

He says he's kill filed you, then he answers you saying he's kill filed
you. I mean, how damn brilliant can one guy be? :-))

--
Dudley Henriques

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Dudley Henriques > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> Owner wrote:
>>>> "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in message
>>>> news:ba21ea5f-fc9b-41b5-9b8c-33784b7e9533
>> @s19g2000prg.googlegroups.com
>>>> ...
>>>>> On Mar 2, 2:01 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>>>>>> Ken S. Tucker wrote:
>>>>>>> On Mar 2, 6:29 am, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>>>>>>>> Ken S. Tucker wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Feb 27, 2:12 pm, Dudley Henriques >
wrote:
>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>> Wiggle the ailerons huh? Sounds like a Ken Tucker original
>>>>>>>>>> technique to
>>>>>>>>>> me :-))
>>>>>>>>> You should ask a naval aviator that question,
>>>>>>>>> I think that's SOP for those guys.
>>>>>>>>> It would be an "oscillating slip", slip left then
>>>>>>>>> right then left... etc...to blow off altitude.
>>>>>>>>> If you think it through, it may safer than a fixed slip,
>>>>>>>>> set left or right as you fella's have been discussing.
>>>>>>>>> Recall the issue of fuel loading in left and right fuel
>>>>>>>>> tanks for one thing.
>>>>>>>>> Well if you do a lot uncoordinated banking turns
>>>>>>>>> (which is another name for a slip) you can fill up
>>>>>>>>> one tank more than the other, and have the A/C
>>>>>>>>> balance distorted, so that one wing is loaded
>>>>>>>>> more than the other, rendering asymmetrical
>>>>>>>>> stall.
>>>>>>>>> Ken
>>>>>>>> Thanks for the chuckle Ken. :-)))
>>>>>>>> Dudley Henriques
>>>>>>> My pleasure Dud, it's something REAL pilots know,
>>>>>>> about. I've been listening to your spew about slips
>>>>>>> without interrupting you, hoping you'd mention fuel
>>>>>>> loading flow, relating to balance. but you didn't,
>>>>>>> evidentally you're unaware of that ... that figures.
>>>>>>> What you FAILED to mention is a long one-sided
>>>>>>> slip on final, as opposed to crab, if your problem
>>>>>>> is x-wind, will drain one wing tank into the other.
>>>>>>> **Dud** has one demerit point and will now be
>>>>>>> addressed as *dud* :-/. It will be my pleasure
>>>>>>> to hear something intelligent from *dud* to give
>>>>>>> him back his 2 star rating.
>>>>>>> Now let's discuss fuel balancing as it relates to
>>>>>>> uncoordinated turns and slips. If I made a mistake
>>>>>>> to bring up the subject I'll take a demerit.
>>>>>>> Ken
>>>>>> Everyone PLEASE.....Support mental health :-)
>>>>>> Dudley Henriques
>>>>> Say *dud* my best flight instructor knows that
>>>>> doing uncoordinated banks and/or slips spills
>>>>> fuel from one wing tank to the other, is that true
>>>>> for a Cessna 152 for example?
>>>>> Does that affect the A/C balance?
>>>>> ((BTW, if we get one more sarcastic remark from
>>>>> you, we'll demote you to 'dud', )).
>>>>> *****Ken*****
>>>>>
>>>> Dudley, I have just shot off a rather large check in support of
>>>> mental health, as this has definately been proof that help is
needed!
>>>> ;)
>>>>
>>>>
>>> The guy is amazing isn't he? :-)) I think he gets some kind of
"kick"
>>> out of pretending the people he posts to actually need to know what
he
>>> has to say. He picks them carefully I've noticed. He likes Bertie
and
>>> me especially since we both fly or have flown professionally. It
seems
>>> the more his "target" knows, the more "kick" he gets out of
>>> "lecturing" them. Half of his stuff is just garbage. The other half
is
>>> copied from Wikipedia. He claims Mensa, and I happen to know he's
not
>>> from my own personal contacts within that organization.
>>> Personally, I think the guy's a mental case, but he's humorous. My
>>> wife thinks he's a hoot. She prints out some of his more colorful
crap
>>> and shows it to her friends :-))
>>
>>
>> Oh he's givne up on me altogether. A common occurence with my kooks.I
>> guess I'm a bit heavy handed with some of them, but it is for their
own
>> good.
>>
>> I'm thining of putting in for a Golden Kilfile award, but I'm not
>> allowed to nominate myself.
>> :(
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>>
>
> He says he's kill filed you, then he answers you saying he's kill
filed
> you. I mean, how damn brilliant can one guy be? :-))
>

Really. Most of 'em do that though. The marginally brighter kooks claim
that they only see my posts through replies to them...


God I love usenet.


Bertie

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
> :
>
>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>>> :
>>>
>>>> Owner wrote:
>>>>> "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in message
>>>>> news:ba21ea5f-fc9b-41b5-9b8c-33784b7e9533
>>> @s19g2000prg.googlegroups.com
>>>>> ...
>>>>>> On Mar 2, 2:01 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>>>>>>> Ken S. Tucker wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Mar 2, 6:29 am, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Ken S. Tucker wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Feb 27, 2:12 pm, Dudley Henriques >
> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>>> Wiggle the ailerons huh? Sounds like a Ken Tucker original
>>>>>>>>>>> technique to
>>>>>>>>>>> me :-))
>>>>>>>>>> You should ask a naval aviator that question,
>>>>>>>>>> I think that's SOP for those guys.
>>>>>>>>>> It would be an "oscillating slip", slip left then
>>>>>>>>>> right then left... etc...to blow off altitude.
>>>>>>>>>> If you think it through, it may safer than a fixed slip,
>>>>>>>>>> set left or right as you fella's have been discussing.
>>>>>>>>>> Recall the issue of fuel loading in left and right fuel
>>>>>>>>>> tanks for one thing.
>>>>>>>>>> Well if you do a lot uncoordinated banking turns
>>>>>>>>>> (which is another name for a slip) you can fill up
>>>>>>>>>> one tank more than the other, and have the A/C
>>>>>>>>>> balance distorted, so that one wing is loaded
>>>>>>>>>> more than the other, rendering asymmetrical
>>>>>>>>>> stall.
>>>>>>>>>> Ken
>>>>>>>>> Thanks for the chuckle Ken. :-)))
>>>>>>>>> Dudley Henriques
>>>>>>>> My pleasure Dud, it's something REAL pilots know,
>>>>>>>> about. I've been listening to your spew about slips
>>>>>>>> without interrupting you, hoping you'd mention fuel
>>>>>>>> loading flow, relating to balance. but you didn't,
>>>>>>>> evidentally you're unaware of that ... that figures.
>>>>>>>> What you FAILED to mention is a long one-sided
>>>>>>>> slip on final, as opposed to crab, if your problem
>>>>>>>> is x-wind, will drain one wing tank into the other.
>>>>>>>> **Dud** has one demerit point and will now be
>>>>>>>> addressed as *dud* :-/. It will be my pleasure
>>>>>>>> to hear something intelligent from *dud* to give
>>>>>>>> him back his 2 star rating.
>>>>>>>> Now let's discuss fuel balancing as it relates to
>>>>>>>> uncoordinated turns and slips. If I made a mistake
>>>>>>>> to bring up the subject I'll take a demerit.
>>>>>>>> Ken
>>>>>>> Everyone PLEASE.....Support mental health :-)
>>>>>>> Dudley Henriques
>>>>>> Say *dud* my best flight instructor knows that
>>>>>> doing uncoordinated banks and/or slips spills
>>>>>> fuel from one wing tank to the other, is that true
>>>>>> for a Cessna 152 for example?
>>>>>> Does that affect the A/C balance?
>>>>>> ((BTW, if we get one more sarcastic remark from
>>>>>> you, we'll demote you to 'dud', )).
>>>>>> *****Ken*****
>>>>>>
>>>>> Dudley, I have just shot off a rather large check in support of
>>>>> mental health, as this has definately been proof that help is
> needed!
>>>>> ;)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> The guy is amazing isn't he? :-)) I think he gets some kind of
> "kick"
>>>> out of pretending the people he posts to actually need to know what
> he
>>>> has to say. He picks them carefully I've noticed. He likes Bertie
> and
>>>> me especially since we both fly or have flown professionally. It
> seems
>>>> the more his "target" knows, the more "kick" he gets out of
>>>> "lecturing" them. Half of his stuff is just garbage. The other half
> is
>>>> copied from Wikipedia. He claims Mensa, and I happen to know he's
> not
>>>> from my own personal contacts within that organization.
>>>> Personally, I think the guy's a mental case, but he's humorous. My
>>>> wife thinks he's a hoot. She prints out some of his more colorful
> crap
>>>> and shows it to her friends :-))
>>>
>>> Oh he's givne up on me altogether. A common occurence with my kooks.I
>>> guess I'm a bit heavy handed with some of them, but it is for their
> own
>>> good.
>>>
>>> I'm thining of putting in for a Golden Kilfile award, but I'm not
>>> allowed to nominate myself.
>>> :(
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Bertie
>>>
>> He says he's kill filed you, then he answers you saying he's kill
> filed
>> you. I mean, how damn brilliant can one guy be? :-))
>>
>
> Really. Most of 'em do that though. The marginally brighter kooks claim
> that they only see my posts through replies to them...
>
>
> God I love usenet.
>
>
> Bertie
>
It is a hoot sometimes isn't it? :-))

--
Dudley Henriques

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Dudley Henriques > wrote in news:x-idncL4fIv--
:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>>>> :
>>>>
>>>>> Owner wrote:
>>>>>> "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in message
>>>>>> news:ba21ea5f-fc9b-41b5-9b8c-33784b7e9533
>>>> @s19g2000prg.googlegroups.com
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>> On Mar 2, 2:01 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>>>>>>>> Ken S. Tucker wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Mar 2, 6:29 am, Dudley Henriques >
wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Ken S. Tucker wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Feb 27, 2:12 pm, Dudley Henriques >
>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>>>> Wiggle the ailerons huh? Sounds like a Ken Tucker original
>>>>>>>>>>>> technique to
>>>>>>>>>>>> me :-))
>>>>>>>>>>> You should ask a naval aviator that question,
>>>>>>>>>>> I think that's SOP for those guys.
>>>>>>>>>>> It would be an "oscillating slip", slip left then
>>>>>>>>>>> right then left... etc...to blow off altitude.
>>>>>>>>>>> If you think it through, it may safer than a fixed slip,
>>>>>>>>>>> set left or right as you fella's have been discussing.
>>>>>>>>>>> Recall the issue of fuel loading in left and right fuel
>>>>>>>>>>> tanks for one thing.
>>>>>>>>>>> Well if you do a lot uncoordinated banking turns
>>>>>>>>>>> (which is another name for a slip) you can fill up
>>>>>>>>>>> one tank more than the other, and have the A/C
>>>>>>>>>>> balance distorted, so that one wing is loaded
>>>>>>>>>>> more than the other, rendering asymmetrical
>>>>>>>>>>> stall.
>>>>>>>>>>> Ken
>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for the chuckle Ken. :-)))
>>>>>>>>>> Dudley Henriques
>>>>>>>>> My pleasure Dud, it's something REAL pilots know,
>>>>>>>>> about. I've been listening to your spew about slips
>>>>>>>>> without interrupting you, hoping you'd mention fuel
>>>>>>>>> loading flow, relating to balance. but you didn't,
>>>>>>>>> evidentally you're unaware of that ... that figures.
>>>>>>>>> What you FAILED to mention is a long one-sided
>>>>>>>>> slip on final, as opposed to crab, if your problem
>>>>>>>>> is x-wind, will drain one wing tank into the other.
>>>>>>>>> **Dud** has one demerit point and will now be
>>>>>>>>> addressed as *dud* :-/. It will be my pleasure
>>>>>>>>> to hear something intelligent from *dud* to give
>>>>>>>>> him back his 2 star rating.
>>>>>>>>> Now let's discuss fuel balancing as it relates to
>>>>>>>>> uncoordinated turns and slips. If I made a mistake
>>>>>>>>> to bring up the subject I'll take a demerit.
>>>>>>>>> Ken
>>>>>>>> Everyone PLEASE.....Support mental health :-)
>>>>>>>> Dudley Henriques
>>>>>>> Say *dud* my best flight instructor knows that
>>>>>>> doing uncoordinated banks and/or slips spills
>>>>>>> fuel from one wing tank to the other, is that true
>>>>>>> for a Cessna 152 for example?
>>>>>>> Does that affect the A/C balance?
>>>>>>> ((BTW, if we get one more sarcastic remark from
>>>>>>> you, we'll demote you to 'dud', )).
>>>>>>> *****Ken*****
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Dudley, I have just shot off a rather large check in support of
>>>>>> mental health, as this has definately been proof that help is
>> needed!
>>>>>> ;)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> The guy is amazing isn't he? :-)) I think he gets some kind of
>> "kick"
>>>>> out of pretending the people he posts to actually need to know
what
>> he
>>>>> has to say. He picks them carefully I've noticed. He likes Bertie
>> and
>>>>> me especially since we both fly or have flown professionally. It
>> seems
>>>>> the more his "target" knows, the more "kick" he gets out of
>>>>> "lecturing" them. Half of his stuff is just garbage. The other
half
>> is
>>>>> copied from Wikipedia. He claims Mensa, and I happen to know he's
>> not
>>>>> from my own personal contacts within that organization.
>>>>> Personally, I think the guy's a mental case, but he's humorous. My
>>>>> wife thinks he's a hoot. She prints out some of his more colorful
>> crap
>>>>> and shows it to her friends :-))
>>>>
>>>> Oh he's givne up on me altogether. A common occurence with my
kooks.I
>>>> guess I'm a bit heavy handed with some of them, but it is for their
>> own
>>>> good.
>>>>
>>>> I'm thining of putting in for a Golden Kilfile award, but I'm not
>>>> allowed to nominate myself.
>>>> :(
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Bertie
>>>>
>>> He says he's kill filed you, then he answers you saying he's kill
>> filed
>>> you. I mean, how damn brilliant can one guy be? :-))
>>>
>>
>> Really. Most of 'em do that though. The marginally brighter kooks
claim
>> that they only see my posts through replies to them...
>>
>>
>> God I love usenet.
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>>
> It is a hoot sometimes isn't it? :-))
>

el, outside of visiting a looney bin where else you gonna see all this?

Bertie

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> Dudley Henriques > wrote in news:x-idncL4fIv--
> :
>
>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>>> :
>>>
>>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>>>>> :
>>>>>
>>>>>> Owner wrote:
>>>>>>> "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:ba21ea5f-fc9b-41b5-9b8c-33784b7e9533
>>>>> @s19g2000prg.googlegroups.com
>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>> On Mar 2, 2:01 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Ken S. Tucker wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 2, 6:29 am, Dudley Henriques >
> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Ken S. Tucker wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Feb 27, 2:12 pm, Dudley Henriques >
>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Wiggle the ailerons huh? Sounds like a Ken Tucker original
>>>>>>>>>>>>> technique to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> me :-))
>>>>>>>>>>>> You should ask a naval aviator that question,
>>>>>>>>>>>> I think that's SOP for those guys.
>>>>>>>>>>>> It would be an "oscillating slip", slip left then
>>>>>>>>>>>> right then left... etc...to blow off altitude.
>>>>>>>>>>>> If you think it through, it may safer than a fixed slip,
>>>>>>>>>>>> set left or right as you fella's have been discussing.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Recall the issue of fuel loading in left and right fuel
>>>>>>>>>>>> tanks for one thing.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Well if you do a lot uncoordinated banking turns
>>>>>>>>>>>> (which is another name for a slip) you can fill up
>>>>>>>>>>>> one tank more than the other, and have the A/C
>>>>>>>>>>>> balance distorted, so that one wing is loaded
>>>>>>>>>>>> more than the other, rendering asymmetrical
>>>>>>>>>>>> stall.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Ken
>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for the chuckle Ken. :-)))
>>>>>>>>>>> Dudley Henriques
>>>>>>>>>> My pleasure Dud, it's something REAL pilots know,
>>>>>>>>>> about. I've been listening to your spew about slips
>>>>>>>>>> without interrupting you, hoping you'd mention fuel
>>>>>>>>>> loading flow, relating to balance. but you didn't,
>>>>>>>>>> evidentally you're unaware of that ... that figures.
>>>>>>>>>> What you FAILED to mention is a long one-sided
>>>>>>>>>> slip on final, as opposed to crab, if your problem
>>>>>>>>>> is x-wind, will drain one wing tank into the other.
>>>>>>>>>> **Dud** has one demerit point and will now be
>>>>>>>>>> addressed as *dud* :-/. It will be my pleasure
>>>>>>>>>> to hear something intelligent from *dud* to give
>>>>>>>>>> him back his 2 star rating.
>>>>>>>>>> Now let's discuss fuel balancing as it relates to
>>>>>>>>>> uncoordinated turns and slips. If I made a mistake
>>>>>>>>>> to bring up the subject I'll take a demerit.
>>>>>>>>>> Ken
>>>>>>>>> Everyone PLEASE.....Support mental health :-)
>>>>>>>>> Dudley Henriques
>>>>>>>> Say *dud* my best flight instructor knows that
>>>>>>>> doing uncoordinated banks and/or slips spills
>>>>>>>> fuel from one wing tank to the other, is that true
>>>>>>>> for a Cessna 152 for example?
>>>>>>>> Does that affect the A/C balance?
>>>>>>>> ((BTW, if we get one more sarcastic remark from
>>>>>>>> you, we'll demote you to 'dud', )).
>>>>>>>> *****Ken*****
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Dudley, I have just shot off a rather large check in support of
>>>>>>> mental health, as this has definately been proof that help is
>>> needed!
>>>>>>> ;)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> The guy is amazing isn't he? :-)) I think he gets some kind of
>>> "kick"
>>>>>> out of pretending the people he posts to actually need to know
> what
>>> he
>>>>>> has to say. He picks them carefully I've noticed. He likes Bertie
>>> and
>>>>>> me especially since we both fly or have flown professionally. It
>>> seems
>>>>>> the more his "target" knows, the more "kick" he gets out of
>>>>>> "lecturing" them. Half of his stuff is just garbage. The other
> half
>>> is
>>>>>> copied from Wikipedia. He claims Mensa, and I happen to know he's
>>> not
>>>>>> from my own personal contacts within that organization.
>>>>>> Personally, I think the guy's a mental case, but he's humorous. My
>>>>>> wife thinks he's a hoot. She prints out some of his more colorful
>>> crap
>>>>>> and shows it to her friends :-))
>>>>> Oh he's givne up on me altogether. A common occurence with my
> kooks.I
>>>>> guess I'm a bit heavy handed with some of them, but it is for their
>>> own
>>>>> good.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm thining of putting in for a Golden Kilfile award, but I'm not
>>>>> allowed to nominate myself.
>>>>> :(
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Bertie
>>>>>
>>>> He says he's kill filed you, then he answers you saying he's kill
>>> filed
>>>> you. I mean, how damn brilliant can one guy be? :-))
>>>>
>>> Really. Most of 'em do that though. The marginally brighter kooks
> claim
>>> that they only see my posts through replies to them...
>>>
>>>
>>> God I love usenet.
>>>
>>>
>>> Bertie
>>>
>> It is a hoot sometimes isn't it? :-))
>>
>
> el, outside of visiting a looney bin where else you gonna see all this?
>
> Bertie

You mean this ISN'T a loony bin? :-)))))))))))))))))

--
Dudley Henriques

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Dudley Henriques > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in news:x-idncL4fIv--
>> :
>>
>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>>>> :
>>>>
>>>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>>>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>>>>>> :
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Owner wrote:
>>>>>>>> "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in message
>>>>>>>> news:ba21ea5f-fc9b-41b5-9b8c-33784b7e9533
>>>>>> @s19g2000prg.googlegroups.com
>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>> On Mar 2, 2:01 pm, Dudley Henriques >
wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Ken S. Tucker wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 2, 6:29 am, Dudley Henriques >
>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Ken S. Tucker wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Feb 27, 2:12 pm, Dudley Henriques >
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Wiggle the ailerons huh? Sounds like a Ken Tucker
original
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> technique to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> me :-))
>>>>>>>>>>>>> You should ask a naval aviator that question,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think that's SOP for those guys.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> It would be an "oscillating slip", slip left then
>>>>>>>>>>>>> right then left... etc...to blow off altitude.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you think it through, it may safer than a fixed slip,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> set left or right as you fella's have been discussing.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Recall the issue of fuel loading in left and right fuel
>>>>>>>>>>>>> tanks for one thing.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well if you do a lot uncoordinated banking turns
>>>>>>>>>>>>> (which is another name for a slip) you can fill up
>>>>>>>>>>>>> one tank more than the other, and have the A/C
>>>>>>>>>>>>> balance distorted, so that one wing is loaded
>>>>>>>>>>>>> more than the other, rendering asymmetrical
>>>>>>>>>>>>> stall.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ken
>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for the chuckle Ken. :-)))
>>>>>>>>>>>> Dudley Henriques
>>>>>>>>>>> My pleasure Dud, it's something REAL pilots know,
>>>>>>>>>>> about. I've been listening to your spew about slips
>>>>>>>>>>> without interrupting you, hoping you'd mention fuel
>>>>>>>>>>> loading flow, relating to balance. but you didn't,
>>>>>>>>>>> evidentally you're unaware of that ... that figures.
>>>>>>>>>>> What you FAILED to mention is a long one-sided
>>>>>>>>>>> slip on final, as opposed to crab, if your problem
>>>>>>>>>>> is x-wind, will drain one wing tank into the other.
>>>>>>>>>>> **Dud** has one demerit point and will now be
>>>>>>>>>>> addressed as *dud* :-/. It will be my pleasure
>>>>>>>>>>> to hear something intelligent from *dud* to give
>>>>>>>>>>> him back his 2 star rating.
>>>>>>>>>>> Now let's discuss fuel balancing as it relates to
>>>>>>>>>>> uncoordinated turns and slips. If I made a mistake
>>>>>>>>>>> to bring up the subject I'll take a demerit.
>>>>>>>>>>> Ken
>>>>>>>>>> Everyone PLEASE.....Support mental health :-)
>>>>>>>>>> Dudley Henriques
>>>>>>>>> Say *dud* my best flight instructor knows that
>>>>>>>>> doing uncoordinated banks and/or slips spills
>>>>>>>>> fuel from one wing tank to the other, is that true
>>>>>>>>> for a Cessna 152 for example?
>>>>>>>>> Does that affect the A/C balance?
>>>>>>>>> ((BTW, if we get one more sarcastic remark from
>>>>>>>>> you, we'll demote you to 'dud', )).
>>>>>>>>> *****Ken*****
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Dudley, I have just shot off a rather large check in support of
>>>>>>>> mental health, as this has definately been proof that help is
>>>> needed!
>>>>>>>> ;)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The guy is amazing isn't he? :-)) I think he gets some kind of
>>>> "kick"
>>>>>>> out of pretending the people he posts to actually need to know
>> what
>>>> he
>>>>>>> has to say. He picks them carefully I've noticed. He likes
Bertie
>>>> and
>>>>>>> me especially since we both fly or have flown professionally. It
>>>> seems
>>>>>>> the more his "target" knows, the more "kick" he gets out of
>>>>>>> "lecturing" them. Half of his stuff is just garbage. The other
>> half
>>>> is
>>>>>>> copied from Wikipedia. He claims Mensa, and I happen to know
he's
>>>> not
>>>>>>> from my own personal contacts within that organization.
>>>>>>> Personally, I think the guy's a mental case, but he's humorous.
My
>>>>>>> wife thinks he's a hoot. She prints out some of his more
colorful
>>>> crap
>>>>>>> and shows it to her friends :-))
>>>>>> Oh he's givne up on me altogether. A common occurence with my
>> kooks.I
>>>>>> guess I'm a bit heavy handed with some of them, but it is for
their
>>>> own
>>>>>> good.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm thining of putting in for a Golden Kilfile award, but I'm not
>>>>>> allowed to nominate myself.
>>>>>> :(
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Bertie
>>>>>>
>>>>> He says he's kill filed you, then he answers you saying he's kill
>>>> filed
>>>>> you. I mean, how damn brilliant can one guy be? :-))
>>>>>
>>>> Really. Most of 'em do that though. The marginally brighter kooks
>> claim
>>>> that they only see my posts through replies to them...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> God I love usenet.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Bertie
>>>>
>>> It is a hoot sometimes isn't it? :-))
>>>
>>
>> el, outside of visiting a looney bin where else you gonna see all
this?
>>
>> Bertie
>
> You mean this ISN'T a loony bin? :-)))))))))))))))))
>

Well, there's no restraints. No physical ones anyway.

Bertie

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
> :
>
>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in news:x-idncL4fIv--
>>> :
>>>
>>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>>>>> :
>>>>>
>>>>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>>>>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Owner wrote:
>>>>>>>>> "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in message
>>>>>>>>> news:ba21ea5f-fc9b-41b5-9b8c-33784b7e9533
>>>>>>> @s19g2000prg.googlegroups.com
>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 2, 2:01 pm, Dudley Henriques >
> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Ken S. Tucker wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 2, 6:29 am, Dudley Henriques >
>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ken S. Tucker wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Feb 27, 2:12 pm, Dudley Henriques >
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Wiggle the ailerons huh? Sounds like a Ken Tucker
> original
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> technique to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> me :-))
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You should ask a naval aviator that question,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think that's SOP for those guys.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It would be an "oscillating slip", slip left then
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> right then left... etc...to blow off altitude.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you think it through, it may safer than a fixed slip,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> set left or right as you fella's have been discussing.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Recall the issue of fuel loading in left and right fuel
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tanks for one thing.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well if you do a lot uncoordinated banking turns
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (which is another name for a slip) you can fill up
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> one tank more than the other, and have the A/C
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> balance distorted, so that one wing is loaded
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> more than the other, rendering asymmetrical
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stall.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ken
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for the chuckle Ken. :-)))
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dudley Henriques
>>>>>>>>>>>> My pleasure Dud, it's something REAL pilots know,
>>>>>>>>>>>> about. I've been listening to your spew about slips
>>>>>>>>>>>> without interrupting you, hoping you'd mention fuel
>>>>>>>>>>>> loading flow, relating to balance. but you didn't,
>>>>>>>>>>>> evidentally you're unaware of that ... that figures.
>>>>>>>>>>>> What you FAILED to mention is a long one-sided
>>>>>>>>>>>> slip on final, as opposed to crab, if your problem
>>>>>>>>>>>> is x-wind, will drain one wing tank into the other.
>>>>>>>>>>>> **Dud** has one demerit point and will now be
>>>>>>>>>>>> addressed as *dud* :-/. It will be my pleasure
>>>>>>>>>>>> to hear something intelligent from *dud* to give
>>>>>>>>>>>> him back his 2 star rating.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Now let's discuss fuel balancing as it relates to
>>>>>>>>>>>> uncoordinated turns and slips. If I made a mistake
>>>>>>>>>>>> to bring up the subject I'll take a demerit.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Ken
>>>>>>>>>>> Everyone PLEASE.....Support mental health :-)
>>>>>>>>>>> Dudley Henriques
>>>>>>>>>> Say *dud* my best flight instructor knows that
>>>>>>>>>> doing uncoordinated banks and/or slips spills
>>>>>>>>>> fuel from one wing tank to the other, is that true
>>>>>>>>>> for a Cessna 152 for example?
>>>>>>>>>> Does that affect the A/C balance?
>>>>>>>>>> ((BTW, if we get one more sarcastic remark from
>>>>>>>>>> you, we'll demote you to 'dud', )).
>>>>>>>>>> *****Ken*****
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Dudley, I have just shot off a rather large check in support of
>>>>>>>>> mental health, as this has definately been proof that help is
>>>>> needed!
>>>>>>>>> ;)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The guy is amazing isn't he? :-)) I think he gets some kind of
>>>>> "kick"
>>>>>>>> out of pretending the people he posts to actually need to know
>>> what
>>>>> he
>>>>>>>> has to say. He picks them carefully I've noticed. He likes
> Bertie
>>>>> and
>>>>>>>> me especially since we both fly or have flown professionally. It
>>>>> seems
>>>>>>>> the more his "target" knows, the more "kick" he gets out of
>>>>>>>> "lecturing" them. Half of his stuff is just garbage. The other
>>> half
>>>>> is
>>>>>>>> copied from Wikipedia. He claims Mensa, and I happen to know
> he's
>>>>> not
>>>>>>>> from my own personal contacts within that organization.
>>>>>>>> Personally, I think the guy's a mental case, but he's humorous.
> My
>>>>>>>> wife thinks he's a hoot. She prints out some of his more
> colorful
>>>>> crap
>>>>>>>> and shows it to her friends :-))
>>>>>>> Oh he's givne up on me altogether. A common occurence with my
>>> kooks.I
>>>>>>> guess I'm a bit heavy handed with some of them, but it is for
> their
>>>>> own
>>>>>>> good.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm thining of putting in for a Golden Kilfile award, but I'm not
>>>>>>> allowed to nominate myself.
>>>>>>> :(
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Bertie
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> He says he's kill filed you, then he answers you saying he's kill
>>>>> filed
>>>>>> you. I mean, how damn brilliant can one guy be? :-))
>>>>>>
>>>>> Really. Most of 'em do that though. The marginally brighter kooks
>>> claim
>>>>> that they only see my posts through replies to them...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> God I love usenet.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Bertie
>>>>>
>>>> It is a hoot sometimes isn't it? :-))
>>>>
>>> el, outside of visiting a looney bin where else you gonna see all
> this?
>>> Bertie
>> You mean this ISN'T a loony bin? :-)))))))))))))))))
>>
>
> Well, there's no restraints. No physical ones anyway.
>
> Bertie

If Usenet represents man's ultimate attempt at meaningful communication,
no wonder the world is in such crappy shape. :-)

--
Dudley Henriques

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Dudley Henriques > wrote in
:

>>
>> Well, there's no restraints. No physical ones anyway.
>>
>> Bertie
>
> If Usenet represents man's ultimate attempt at meaningful communication,
> no wonder the world is in such crappy shape. :-)
>



Well, it si educational, you gotta give it that.


Bertie

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
> :
>
>>> Well, there's no restraints. No physical ones anyway.
>>>
>>> Bertie
>> If Usenet represents man's ultimate attempt at meaningful communication,
>> no wonder the world is in such crappy shape. :-)
>>
>
>
>
> Well, it si educational, you gotta give it that.
>
>
> Bertie

:-))

--
Dudley Henriques

[buttman]

On Mar 2, 9:11 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> > Dudley Henriques > wrote in
> :
>
> >>> Well, there's no restraints. No physical ones anyway.
>
> >>> Bertie
> >> If Usenet represents man's ultimate attempt at meaningful communication,
> >> no wonder the world is in such crappy shape. :-)
>
> > Well, it si educational, you gotta give it that.
>
> > Bertie
>
> :-))
>
> --
> Dudley Henriques

In the future, if you two rub buds could do your mutual fellating in
private email, it'd be great.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

buttman > wrote in
:

> On Mar 2, 9:11 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> > Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>> :
>>
>> >>> Well, there's no restraints. No physical ones anyway.
>>
>> >>> Bertie
>> >> If Usenet represents man's ultimate attempt at meaningful
>> >> communication, no wonder the world is in such crappy shape. :-)
>>
>> > Well, it si educational, you gotta give it that.
>>
>> > Bertie
>>
>> :-))
>>
>> --
>> Dudley Henriques
>
> In the future, if you two rub buds could do your mutual fellating in
> private email, it'd be great.
>

Ah, gay lames. Kewt.


Bertie

[buttman]

On Mar 3, 10:03 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> buttman > wrote :
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 2, 9:11 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> >> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> >> > Dudley Henriques > wrote in
> >> :
>
> >> >>> Well, there's no restraints. No physical ones anyway.
>
> >> >>> Bertie
> >> >> If Usenet represents man's ultimate attempt at meaningful
> >> >> communication, no wonder the world is in such crappy shape. :-)
>
> >> > Well, it si educational, you gotta give it that.
>
> >> > Bertie
>
> >> :-))
>
> >> --
> >> Dudley Henriques
>
> > In the future, if you two rub buds could do your mutual fellating in
> > private email, it'd be great.
>
> Ah, gay lames. Kewt.
>
> Bertie

ehehejehjehejeheheheehhe idjiot.

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

buttman wrote:
> On Mar 2, 9:11 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>>> :
>>>>> Well, there's no restraints. No physical ones anyway.
>>>>> Bertie
>>>> If Usenet represents man's ultimate attempt at meaningful communication,
>>>> no wonder the world is in such crappy shape. :-)
>>> Well, it si educational, you gotta give it that.
>>> Bertie
>> :-))
>>
>> --
>> Dudley Henriques
>
> In the future, if you two rub buds could do your mutual fellating in
> private email, it'd be great.
Get lost you moron, or post the path to the CFI rating you claim you
have :-)

--
Dudley Henriques

[buttman]

On Mar 3, 10:50 am, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> buttman wrote:
> > On Mar 2, 9:11 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> >> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> >>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
> :
> >>>>> Well, there's no restraints. No physical ones anyway.
> >>>>> Bertie
> >>>> If Usenet represents man's ultimate attempt at meaningful communication,
> >>>> no wonder the world is in such crappy shape. :-)
> >>> Well, it si educational, you gotta give it that.
> >>> Bertie
> >> :-))
>
> >> --
> >> Dudley Henriques
>
> > In the future, if you two rub buds could do your mutual fellating in
> > private email, it'd be great.
>
> Get lost you moron, or post the path to the CFI rating you claim you
> have :-)
>
> --
> Dudley Henriques

ok

first I got my private license
then got an instrument rating
then I did the commercial
then I did the CFI training and passed the checkride

is that what you're looking for?

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

buttman > wrote in
:

> On Mar 3, 10:03 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> buttman > wrote
>> innews:3f56fe5b-a0fb-4679-a640-fddf85615011
@d21g2000prf.googlegroups.c
>> om:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Mar 2, 9:11 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>> >> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> >> > Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>> >> :
>>
>> >> >>> Well, there's no restraints. No physical ones anyway.
>>
>> >> >>> Bertie
>> >> >> If Usenet represents man's ultimate attempt at meaningful
>> >> >> communication, no wonder the world is in such crappy shape. :-)
>>
>> >> > Well, it si educational, you gotta give it that.
>>
>> >> > Bertie
>>
>> >> :-))
>>
>> >> --
>> >> Dudley Henriques
>>
>> > In the future, if you two rub buds could do your mutual fellating
>> > in private email, it'd be great.
>>
>> Ah, gay lames. Kewt.
>>
>> Bertie
>
> ehehejehjehejeheheheehhe idjiot.
>


God I love usent.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

buttman > wrote in
:

> On Mar 3, 10:50 am, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>> buttman wrote:
>> > On Mar 2, 9:11 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>> >> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> >>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>> :
>> >>>>> Well, there's no restraints. No physical ones anyway.
>> >>>>> Bertie
>> >>>> If Usenet represents man's ultimate attempt at meaningful
>> >>>> communication, no wonder the world is in such crappy shape. :-)
>> >>> Well, it si educational, you gotta give it that.
>> >>> Bertie
>> >> :-))
>>
>> >> --
>> >> Dudley Henriques
>>
>> > In the future, if you two rub buds could do your mutual fellating
>> > in private email, it'd be great.
>>
>> Get lost you moron, or post the path to the CFI rating you claim you
>> have :-)
>>
>> --
>> Dudley Henriques
>
> ok
>
> first I got my private license
> then got an instrument rating
> then I did the commercial
> then I did the CFI training and passed the checkride
>
> is that what you're looking for?
>

Nope.


Bertie

[buttman]

On Mar 3, 11:34 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> buttman > wrote :
>
>
>
> > On Mar 3, 10:50 am, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> >> buttman wrote:
> >> > On Mar 2, 9:11 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> >> >> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> >> >>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
> >> :
> >> >>>>> Well, there's no restraints. No physical ones anyway.
> >> >>>>> Bertie
> >> >>>> If Usenet represents man's ultimate attempt at meaningful
> >> >>>> communication, no wonder the world is in such crappy shape. :-)
> >> >>> Well, it si educational, you gotta give it that.
> >> >>> Bertie
> >> >> :-))
>
> >> >> --
> >> >> Dudley Henriques
>
> >> > In the future, if you two rub buds could do your mutual fellating
> >> > in private email, it'd be great.
>
> >> Get lost you moron, or post the path to the CFI rating you claim you
> >> have :-)
>
> >> --
> >> Dudley Henriques
>
> > ok
>
> > first I got my private license
> > then got an instrument rating
> > then I did the commercial
> > then I did the CFI training and passed the checkride
>
> > is that what you're looking for?
>
> Nope.
>
> Bertie

Yep.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

buttman > wrote in
:

> On Mar 3, 11:34 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> buttman > wrote
>> innews:84cda90b-1edc-4b95-9a3d-e30ddc7f40d2
@s13g2000prd.googlegroups.c
>> om:
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Mar 3, 10:50 am, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>> >> buttman wrote:
>> >> > On Mar 2, 9:11 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>> >> >> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> >> >>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>> >> :
>> >> >>>>> Well, there's no restraints. No physical ones anyway.
>> >> >>>>> Bertie
>> >> >>>> If Usenet represents man's ultimate attempt at meaningful
>> >> >>>> communication, no wonder the world is in such crappy shape.
>> >> >>>> :-)
>> >> >>> Well, it si educational, you gotta give it that.
>> >> >>> Bertie
>> >> >> :-))
>>
>> >> >> --
>> >> >> Dudley Henriques
>>
>> >> > In the future, if you two rub buds could do your mutual
>> >> > fellating in private email, it'd be great.
>>
>> >> Get lost you moron, or post the path to the CFI rating you claim
>> >> you have :-)
>>
>> >> --
>> >> Dudley Henriques
>>
>> > ok
>>
>> > first I got my private license
>> > then got an instrument rating
>> > then I did the commercial
>> > then I did the CFI training and passed the checkride
>>
>> > is that what you're looking for?
>>
>> Nope.
>>
>> Bertie
>
> Yep.
>

Nope.

God you're dim, aren't you?


Bertie

[Ken S. Tucker]

On Mar 3, 10:40 am, buttman > wrote:
> On Mar 3, 11:34 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:

> > buttman > wrote :
>
> > > On Mar 3, 10:50 am, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> > >> buttman wrote:
> > >> > On Mar 2, 9:11 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> > >> >> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> > >> >>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
> > >> :
> > >> >>>>> Well, there's no restraints. No physical ones anyway.
> > >> >>>>> Bertie
> > >> >>>> If Usenet represents man's ultimate attempt at meaningful
> > >> >>>> communication, no wonder the world is in such crappy shape. :-)
> > >> >>> Well, it si educational, you gotta give it that.
> > >> >>> Bertie
> > >> >> :-))
>
> > >> >> --
> > >> >> Dudley Henriques
>
> > >> > In the future, if you two rub buds could do your mutual fellating
> > >> > in private email, it'd be great.
>
> > >> Get lost you moron, or post the path to the CFI rating you claim you
> > >> have :-)
>
> > >> --
> > >> Dudley Henriques
>
> > > ok
>
> > > first I got my private license
> > > then got an instrument rating
> > > then I did the commercial
> > > then I did the CFI training and passed the checkride
> > > is that what you're looking for?
> Yep.

I had a great Instructor, he was strict and informative.
While doing our bank instruction - up to 60 degs - he
gently admonished that my ball was not centered.
He went on to explain that most pilots bank left to
site see and also in the circuit, so the left tank may
fill up from the right if your uncoordinated and too
lax to coordinate turns while site seeing.

I agree that may not mean much *normally*,
but flying is also about *anomally*, and something
unanticipated can go wrong at any time, and that
compounded with an unbalanced A/C is undesirable.
Ken

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in
:

> On Mar 3, 10:40 am, buttman > wrote:
>> On Mar 3, 11:34 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
>> > buttman > wrote
>> > innews:84cda90b-1edc-4b95-9a3d-e30ddc7f40d2
@s13g2000prd.googlegroups
>> > .com:
>>
>> > > On Mar 3, 10:50 am, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>> > >> buttman wrote:
>> > >> > On Mar 2, 9:11 pm, Dudley Henriques >
>> > >> > wrote:
>> > >> >> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> > >> >>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>> > >> :
>> > >> >>>>> Well, there's no restraints. No physical ones anyway.
>> > >> >>>>> Bertie
>> > >> >>>> If Usenet represents man's ultimate attempt at meaningful
>> > >> >>>> communication, no wonder the world is in such crappy shape.
>> > >> >>>> :-)
>> > >> >>> Well, it si educational, you gotta give it that.
>> > >> >>> Bertie
>> > >> >> :-))
>>
>> > >> >> --
>> > >> >> Dudley Henriques
>>
>> > >> > In the future, if you two rub buds could do your mutual
>> > >> > fellating in private email, it'd be great.
>>
>> > >> Get lost you moron, or post the path to the CFI rating you claim
>> > >> you have :-)
>>
>> > >> --
>> > >> Dudley Henriques
>>
>> > > ok
>>
>> > > first I got my private license
>> > > then got an instrument rating
>> > > then I did the commercial
>> > > then I did the CFI training and passed the checkride
>> > > is that what you're looking for?
>> Yep.
>
> I had a great Instructor, he was strict and informative.
> While doing our bank instruction - up to 60 degs - he
> gently admonished that my ball was not centered.
> He went on to explain that most pilots bank left to
> site see and also in the circuit, so the left tank may
> fill up from the right if your uncoordinated and too
> lax to coordinate turns while site seeing.
>
> I agree that may not mean much *normally*,
> but flying is also about *anomally*, and something
> unanticipated can go wrong at any time, and that
> compounded with an unbalanced A/C is undesirable.
> Ken
>
>
>
>

Just curious as to what caused this short circuit in your head, Kennie.

Have you been playing with gamma rays?


Bertie

[WingFlaps]

On Mar 4, 8:13*am, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:

>
> I had a great Instructor, he was strict and informative.
> While doing our bank instruction - up to 60 degs - he
> gently admonished that my ball was not centered.

Eeeeeeeeeeeeeuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww
TMI

LOL

Cheers

[Gig 601XL Builder[_2_]]

Ken S. Tucker wrote:

>
> I had a great Instructor, he was strict and informative.
> While doing our bank instruction - up to 60 degs - he
> gently admonished that my ball was not centered.
> He went on to explain that most pilots bank left to
> site see and also in the circuit, so the left tank may
> fill up from the right if your uncoordinated and too
> lax to coordinate turns while site seeing.
>

It sort of depends on the aircraft and its' fuel system.

[Ken S. Tucker]

On Mar 3, 12:04 pm, Gig 601XL Builder >
wrote:
> Ken S. Tucker wrote:
>
> > I had a great Instructor, he was strict and informative.
> > While doing our bank instruction - up to 60 degs - he
> > gently admonished that my ball was not centered.
> > He went on to explain that most pilots bank left to
> > site see and also in the circuit, so the left tank may
> > fill up from the right if your uncoordinated and too
> > lax to coordinate turns while site seeing.
>
> It sort of depends on the aircraft and its' fuel system.

Of course, Cessna 150/2 herein.
Ken

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in news:9392c30d-3c25-46e7-
:

> On Mar 3, 12:04 pm, Gig 601XL Builder >
> wrote:
>> Ken S. Tucker wrote:
>>
>> > I had a great Instructor, he was strict and informative.
>> > While doing our bank instruction - up to 60 degs - he
>> > gently admonished that my ball was not centered.
>> > He went on to explain that most pilots bank left to
>> > site see and also in the circuit, so the left tank may
>> > fill up from the right if your uncoordinated and too
>> > lax to coordinate turns while site seeing.
>>
>> It sort of depends on the aircraft and its' fuel system.
>
> Of course, Cessna 150/2 herein.


You're an idiot, Kennie.

Bertie
>

[[email protected]]

On Mar 3, 1:27 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
> On Mar 3, 12:04 pm, Gig 601XL Builder >
> wrote:
>
> > Ken S. Tucker wrote:
>
> > > I had a great Instructor, he was strict and informative.
> > > While doing our bank instruction - up to 60 degs - he
> > > gently admonished that my ball was not centered.
> > > He went on to explain that most pilots bank left to
> > > site see and also in the circuit, so the left tank may
> > > fill up from the right if your uncoordinated and too
> > > lax to coordinate turns while site seeing.
>
> > It sort of depends on the aircraft and its' fuel system.
>
> Of course, Cessna 150/2 herein.
> Ken

Go out, do a long slip, and report back as to how much
imbalance occurs.

Dan

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

wrote in news:b550bda9-cdfa-4ebf-83b7-
:

> On Mar 3, 1:27 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>> On Mar 3, 12:04 pm, Gig 601XL Builder >
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Ken S. Tucker wrote:
>>
>> > > I had a great Instructor, he was strict and informative.
>> > > While doing our bank instruction - up to 60 degs - he
>> > > gently admonished that my ball was not centered.
>> > > He went on to explain that most pilots bank left to
>> > > site see and also in the circuit, so the left tank may
>> > > fill up from the right if your uncoordinated and too
>> > > lax to coordinate turns while site seeing.
>>
>> > It sort of depends on the aircraft and its' fuel system.
>>
>> Of course, Cessna 150/2 herein.
>> Ken
>
> Go out, do a long slip, and report back as to how much
> imbalance occurs.

I think we're starting with a considerable amount of imbalance to start
with.


Bertie

[Ken S. Tucker]

Hi Mr. **BIG HEAD**

On Mar 3, 1:38 pm, wrote:
> On Mar 3, 1:27 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:

> > On Mar 3, 12:04 pm, Gig 601XL Builder >
> > wrote:
>
> > > Ken S. Tucker wrote:
>
> > > > I had a great Instructor, he was strict and informative.
> > > > While doing our bank instruction - up to 60 degs - he
> > > > gently admonished that my ball was not centered.
> > > > He went on to explain that most pilots bank left to
> > > > site see and also in the circuit, so the left tank may
> > > > fill up from the right if your uncoordinated and too
> > > > lax to coordinate turns while site seeing.
>
> > > It sort of depends on the aircraft and its' fuel system.
>
> > Of course, Cessna 150/2 herein.
> > Ken
>
> Go out, do a long slip, and report back as to how much
> imbalance occurs.
> Dan

So you advocate SOP in an F104 would be ok
with one wing tip tank empty and another one
full...The purpose of training is make the new
pilot AWARE, they have to become part of the
airplane they are flying. That's a vital part of
learning how to fly REAL A/C, something you
BIG HEAD have very limited experience with.

Good thing I'm here to back-stop this operation.
Ken

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in news:1e53e789-854e-
:

> Hi Mr. **BIG HEAD**
>
> On Mar 3, 1:38 pm, wrote:
>> On Mar 3, 1:27 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>
>> > On Mar 3, 12:04 pm, Gig 601XL Builder >
>> > wrote:
>>
>> > > Ken S. Tucker wrote:
>>
>> > > > I had a great Instructor, he was strict and informative.
>> > > > While doing our bank instruction - up to 60 degs - he
>> > > > gently admonished that my ball was not centered.
>> > > > He went on to explain that most pilots bank left to
>> > > > site see and also in the circuit, so the left tank may
>> > > > fill up from the right if your uncoordinated and too
>> > > > lax to coordinate turns while site seeing.
>>
>> > > It sort of depends on the aircraft and its' fuel system.
>>
>> > Of course, Cessna 150/2 herein.
>> > Ken
>>
>> Go out, do a long slip, and report back as to how much
>> imbalance occurs.
>> Dan
>
> So you advocate SOP in an F104 would be ok
> with one wing tip tank empty and another one
> full...The purpose of training is make the new
> pilot AWARE, they have to become part of the
> airplane they are flying. That's a vital part of
> learning how to fly REAL A/C, something you
> BIG HEAD have very limited experience with.
>
> Good thing I'm here to back-stop this operation.

See what I mean? How is one supposed to deal with this level of
cluelessness? It's monumental.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Owner" > wrote in news:47cc7d56$0$4965
:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in news:1e53e789-854e-
>> :
>>
>>> Hi Mr. **BIG HEAD**
>>>
>>> On Mar 3, 1:38 pm, wrote:
>>>> On Mar 3, 1:27 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>>>
>>>> > On Mar 3, 12:04 pm, Gig 601XL Builder >
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > > Ken S. Tucker wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > > > I had a great Instructor, he was strict and informative.
>>>> > > > While doing our bank instruction - up to 60 degs - he
>>>> > > > gently admonished that my ball was not centered.
>>>> > > > He went on to explain that most pilots bank left to
>>>> > > > site see and also in the circuit, so the left tank may
>>>> > > > fill up from the right if your uncoordinated and too
>>>> > > > lax to coordinate turns while site seeing.
>>>>
>>>> > > It sort of depends on the aircraft and its' fuel system.
>>>>
>>>> > Of course, Cessna 150/2 herein.
>>>> > Ken
>>>>
>>>> Go out, do a long slip, and report back as to how much
>>>> imbalance occurs.
>>>> Dan
>>>
>>> So you advocate SOP in an F104 would be ok
>>> with one wing tip tank empty and another one
>>> full...The purpose of training is make the new
>>> pilot AWARE, they have to become part of the
>>> airplane they are flying. That's a vital part of
>>> learning how to fly REAL A/C, something you
>>> BIG HEAD have very limited experience with.
>>>
>>> Good thing I'm here to back-stop this operation.
>>
>> See what I mean? How is one supposed to deal with this level of
>> cluelessness? It's monumental.
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>>
>
> Though it's good to know Ken is available as a back-stop if needed ;)
>
>
Do yuo think he's got enough brains to stand still?

Bertie
>

[george]

On Mar 4, 7:07 am, buttman > wrote:
> On Mar 3, 10:50 am, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>
>
>
> > buttman wrote:
> > > On Mar 2, 9:11 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> > >> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> > >>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
> > :
> > >>>>> Well, there's no restraints. No physical ones anyway.
> > >>>>> Bertie
> > >>>> If Usenet represents man's ultimate attempt at meaningful communication,
> > >>>> no wonder the world is in such crappy shape. :-)
> > >>> Well, it si educational, you gotta give it that.
> > >>> Bertie
> > >> :-))
>
> > >> --
> > >> Dudley Henriques
>
> > > In the future, if you two rub buds could do your mutual fellating in
> > > private email, it'd be great.
>
> > Get lost you moron, or post the path to the CFI rating you claim you
> > have :-)
>
> > --
> > Dudley Henriques
>
> ok
>
> first I got my private license
> then got an instrument rating
> then I did the commercial
> then I did the CFI training and passed the checkride
>
Then you closed down MSFS.
went out to an Airport for an Introductory Flight which scared you
****less

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

buttman wrote:
> On Mar 3, 10:50 am, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>> buttman wrote:
>>> On Mar 2, 9:11 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>>>>> :
>>>>>>> Well, there's no restraints. No physical ones anyway.
>>>>>>> Bertie
>>>>>> If Usenet represents man's ultimate attempt at meaningful communication,
>>>>>> no wonder the world is in such crappy shape. :-)
>>>>> Well, it si educational, you gotta give it that.
>>>>> Bertie
>>>> :-))
>>>> --
>>>> Dudley Henriques
>>> In the future, if you two rub buds could do your mutual fellating in
>>> private email, it'd be great.
>> Get lost you moron, or post the path to the CFI rating you claim you
>> have :-)
>>
>> --
>> Dudley Henriques
>
> ok
>
> first I got my private license
> then got an instrument rating
> then I did the commercial
> then I did the CFI training and passed the checkride
>
> is that what you're looking for?
No, but this is what I expected from you. What I want to see is your CFI
certificate number. I don't believe you're a CFI at all. You don't have
to post it, but I won't believe it until I see it.

--
Dudley Henriques

[Steve Hix]

In article
>,
wrote:

> On Mar 3, 1:27 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
> > On Mar 3, 12:04 pm, Gig 601XL Builder >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Ken S. Tucker wrote:
> >
> > > > I had a great Instructor, he was strict and informative.
> > > > While doing our bank instruction - up to 60 degs - he
> > > > gently admonished that my ball was not centered.
> > > > He went on to explain that most pilots bank left to
> > > > site see and also in the circuit, so the left tank may
> > > > fill up from the right if your uncoordinated and too
> > > > lax to coordinate turns while site seeing.
> >
> > > It sort of depends on the aircraft and its' fuel system.
> >
> > Of course, Cessna 150/2 herein.
> > Ken

Um... what's a Cessna 75?

[Benjamin Dover]

Steve Hix > wrote in news:sehix-
:

> In article
> >,
> wrote:
>
>> On Mar 3, 1:27 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>> > On Mar 3, 12:04 pm, Gig 601XL Builder >
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > > Ken S. Tucker wrote:
>> >
>> > > > I had a great Instructor, he was strict and informative.
>> > > > While doing our bank instruction - up to 60 degs - he
>> > > > gently admonished that my ball was not centered.
>> > > > He went on to explain that most pilots bank left to
>> > > > site see and also in the circuit, so the left tank may
>> > > > fill up from the right if your uncoordinated and too
>> > > > lax to coordinate turns while site seeing.
>> >
>> > > It sort of depends on the aircraft and its' fuel system.
>> >
>> > Of course, Cessna 150/2 herein.
>> > Ken
>
> Um... what's a Cessna 75?
>

The only aircraft Ken ****head Tucker knows how to fly.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Owner" > wrote in news:47ccaa93$0$4951
:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Owner" > wrote in news:47cc7d56$0$4965
>> :
>>
>>>
>>> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in news:1e53e789-
854e-
>>>> :
>>>>
>>>>> Hi Mr. **BIG HEAD**
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mar 3, 1:38 pm, wrote:
>>>>>> On Mar 3, 1:27 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> > On Mar 3, 12:04 pm, Gig 601XL Builder <wrgiac...
@REMOVEgmail.com>
>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> > > Ken S. Tucker wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> > > > I had a great Instructor, he was strict and informative.
>>>>>> > > > While doing our bank instruction - up to 60 degs - he
>>>>>> > > > gently admonished that my ball was not centered.
>>>>>> > > > He went on to explain that most pilots bank left to
>>>>>> > > > site see and also in the circuit, so the left tank may
>>>>>> > > > fill up from the right if your uncoordinated and too
>>>>>> > > > lax to coordinate turns while site seeing.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> > > It sort of depends on the aircraft and its' fuel system.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> > Of course, Cessna 150/2 herein.
>>>>>> > Ken
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Go out, do a long slip, and report back as to how much
>>>>>> imbalance occurs.
>>>>>> Dan
>>>>>
>>>>> So you advocate SOP in an F104 would be ok
>>>>> with one wing tip tank empty and another one
>>>>> full...The purpose of training is make the new
>>>>> pilot AWARE, they have to become part of the
>>>>> airplane they are flying. That's a vital part of
>>>>> learning how to fly REAL A/C, something you
>>>>> BIG HEAD have very limited experience with.
>>>>>
>>>>> Good thing I'm here to back-stop this operation.
>>>>
>>>> See what I mean? How is one supposed to deal with this level of
>>>> cluelessness? It's monumental.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Bertie
>>>>
>>>
>>> Though it's good to know Ken is available as a back-stop if needed
;)
>>>
>>>
>> Do yuo think he's got enough brains to stand still?
>>
>> Bertie
>>>
>>
>
> No, I just thought he probably doesn't have enough brains to move!
>
>
>

I bet his neighbors do..


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Dudley Henriques > wrote in
:

> buttman wrote:
>> On Mar 3, 10:50 am, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>
>>
>> is that what you're looking for?
> No, but this is what I expected from you. What I want to see is your
> CFI certificate number. I don't believe you're a CFI at all. You don't
> have to post it, but I won't believe it until I see it.
>


Oh I'd believe he's one. There has to be some reason that flying skills are
going down the drain....



Bertie

[Bob F.]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
...
> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
> :
>
>> buttman wrote:
>>> On Mar 3, 10:50 am, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> is that what you're looking for?
>> No, but this is what I expected from you. What I want to see is your
>> CFI certificate number. I don't believe you're a CFI at all. You don't
>> have to post it, but I won't believe it until I see it.
>>
>
>
> Oh I'd believe he's one. There has to be some reason that flying skills
> are
> going down the drain....
>
>
>
> Bertie


If you have to land "without" flaps you are probably in big trouble. Where
did they go? ;-)
(I am sure we are talking about flaps "retracted")

--
BobF.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Bob F." > wrote in
:

> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> buttman wrote:
>>>> On Mar 3, 10:50 am, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> is that what you're looking for?
>>> No, but this is what I expected from you. What I want to see is your
>>> CFI certificate number. I don't believe you're a CFI at all. You
>>> don't have to post it, but I won't believe it until I see it.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Oh I'd believe he's one. There has to be some reason that flying
>> skills are
>> going down the drain....
>>
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>
>
> If you have to land "without" flaps you are probably in big trouble.
> Where did they go? ;-)
> (I am sure we are talking about flaps "retracted")
>

Or maybe not installed!



Bertie

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
> :
>
>> buttman wrote:
>>> On Mar 3, 10:50 am, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>>> is that what you're looking for?
>> No, but this is what I expected from you. What I want to see is your
>> CFI certificate number. I don't believe you're a CFI at all. You don't
>> have to post it, but I won't believe it until I see it.
>>
>
>
> Oh I'd believe he's one. There has to be some reason that flying skills are
> going down the drain....
>
>
>
> Bertie
First time I ran into this guy he was advocating mixture pulling on
takeoff "as long as you have enough runway ahead of you" . I'm sure
he'll say there was some caveat to this, but the general gist was that
if he was working for me, he'd have been out the door so fast he
wouldn't know he had ever worked for us :-)

--
Dudley Henriques

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Dudley Henriques > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> buttman wrote:
>>>> On Mar 3, 10:50 am, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>>>> is that what you're looking for?
>>> No, but this is what I expected from you. What I want to see is your
>>> CFI certificate number. I don't believe you're a CFI at all. You
>>> don't have to post it, but I won't believe it until I see it.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Oh I'd believe he's one. There has to be some reason that flying
>> skills are going down the drain....
>>
>>
>>
>> Bertie
> First time I ran into this guy he was advocating mixture pulling on
> takeoff "as long as you have enough runway ahead of you" . I'm sure
> he'll say there was some caveat to this, but the general gist was that
> if he was working for me, he'd have been out the door so fast he
> wouldn't know he had ever worked for us :-)
>

What? Mixture pulling on takeoff? For what?

My first introduction was that pfaff about calls in the pattern. I found it
worrying to think he might be even in the air in the same hemisphere as me
at any given moment after that..


Bertie

[[email protected]]

On Mar 3, 2:58 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:

> So you advocate SOP in an F104 would be ok
> with one wing tip tank empty and another one
> full...The purpose of training is make the new
> pilot AWARE, they have to become part of the
> airplane they are flying. That's a vital part of
> learning how to fly REAL A/C, something you
> BIG HEAD have very limited experience with.
>
> Good thing I'm here to back-stop this operation.
> Ken

Oh. F-104s. No, I have never flown an F-104 and have no idea
what a slip might do to the fuel balance. Seems to me, though, looking
at the wings on an F-104, that there's no room for fuel in them.
Seems, too, that the people that have flown them (a friend here used
to do avionics work on them and has been in them several times during
flight testing of the radios) that if the power is pulled to idle, the
thing doesn't glide. At all. Slips surely wouldn't be necessary.
Parachutes, on the other hand, would be handy if it quit.
You keep insisting I have little or no flight experience.
Yesterday I did two test flights on a Citabria we just put back
together. The testing involved full stalls, spin entries and
recoveries, steep turns and so on. How many flights did you do this
week?

Dan

[buttman]

On Mar 3, 8:48 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>
> > is that what you're looking for?
>
> No, but this is what I expected from you. What I want to see is your CFI
> certificate number. I don't believe you're a CFI at all. You don't have
> to post it, but I won't believe it until I see it.
>
> --
> Dudley Henriques

Whats the point? Will you knowing my CFI number automatically make you
(or anyone else) respect my opinion? Unlikley.

Why should I care than internet poster "Dudley Henriques" doesn't
believe I'm actually a CFI?

[buttman]

On Mar 4, 9:33 am, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>
> First time I ran into this guy he was advocating mixture pulling on
> takeoff "as long as you have enough runway ahead of you" . I'm sure
> he'll say there was some caveat to this, but the general gist was that
> if he was working for me, he'd have been out the door so fast he
> wouldn't know he had ever worked for us :-)
>
> --
> Dudley Henriques

Since we're bringing up past events, do you remember the time you
claimed you printed out Jay Honek's video page and sent it to all your
airshow crash investigator buddies, in hope they'd all turn up at his
lobby to break his bones all because he used the word "ENJOY" and
"COOL"? I had a real belly laugh when I read that one :)

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

buttman > wrote in news:eba66c86-9786-4c9d-8f6e-
:

> On Mar 4, 9:33 am, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>>
>> First time I ran into this guy he was advocating mixture pulling on
>> takeoff "as long as you have enough runway ahead of you" . I'm sure
>> he'll say there was some caveat to this, but the general gist was that
>> if he was working for me, he'd have been out the door so fast he
>> wouldn't know he had ever worked for us :-)
>>
>> --
>> Dudley Henriques
>
> Since we're bringing up past events, do you remember the time you
> claimed you printed out Jay Honek's video page and sent it to all your
> airshow crash investigator buddies, in hope they'd all turn up at his
> lobby to break his bones all because he used the word "ENJOY" and
> "COOL"? I had a real belly laugh when I read that one :)
>

I'm sure you did. It's what makes you, "you"


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

buttman > wrote in news:1f22b2d5-a2fe-46b4-bedd-
:

> On Mar 3, 8:48 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>>
>> > is that what you're looking for?
>>
>> No, but this is what I expected from you. What I want to see is your CFI
>> certificate number. I don't believe you're a CFI at all. You don't have
>> to post it, but I won't believe it until I see it.
>>
>> --
>> Dudley Henriques
>
> Whats the point? Will you knowing my CFI number automatically make you
> (or anyone else) respect my opinion? Unlikley.


Correct. **** is **** no matrter where it comes from

And all we;d get from you is certified ****.

>
> Why should I care than internet poster "Dudley Henriques" doesn't
> believe I'm actually a CFI?


You might disappear like tinkerbelle if he doesn't!


Bertie

[buttman]

On Mar 4, 10:27 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> buttman > wrote in news:1f22b2d5-a2fe-46b4-bedd-
> :
>
> > On Mar 3, 8:48 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>
> >> > is that what you're looking for?
>
> >> No, but this is what I expected from you. What I want to see is your CFI
> >> certificate number. I don't believe you're a CFI at all. You don't have
> >> to post it, but I won't believe it until I see it.
>
> >> --
> >> Dudley Henriques
>
> > Whats the point? Will you knowing my CFI number automatically make you
> > (or anyone else) respect my opinion? Unlikley.
>
> Correct. **** is **** no matrter where it comes from
>
> And all we;d get from you is certified ****.
>
>
>
> > Why should I care than internet poster "Dudley Henriques" doesn't
> > believe I'm actually a CFI?
>
> You might disappear like tinkerbelle if he doesn't!
>
> Bertie

ehehejehehjejhehehe idjiot

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

buttman > wrote in
:

> On Mar 4, 10:27 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> buttman > wrote in news:1f22b2d5-a2fe-46b4-bedd-
>> :
>>
>> > On Mar 3, 8:48 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>>
>> >> > is that what you're looking for?
>>
>> >> No, but this is what I expected from you. What I want to see is
>> >> your CFI certificate number. I don't believe you're a CFI at all.
>> >> You don't have to post it, but I won't believe it until I see it.
>>
>> >> --
>> >> Dudley Henriques
>>
>> > Whats the point? Will you knowing my CFI number automatically make
>> > you (or anyone else) respect my opinion? Unlikley.
>>
>> Correct. **** is **** no matrter where it comes from
>>
>> And all we;d get from you is certified ****.
>>
>>
>>
>> > Why should I care than internet poster "Dudley Henriques" doesn't
>> > believe I'm actually a CFI?
>>
>> You might disappear like tinkerbelle if he doesn't!
>>
>> Bertie
>
> ehehejehehjejhehehe idjiot
>
IKYABWAI

Bertie

[buttman]

On Mar 4, 11:02 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> buttman > wrote :
>
>
>
> > On Mar 4, 10:27 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> >> buttman > wrote in news:1f22b2d5-a2fe-46b4-bedd-
> >> :
>
> >> > On Mar 3, 8:48 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>
> >> >> > is that what you're looking for?
>
> >> >> No, but this is what I expected from you. What I want to see is
> >> >> your CFI certificate number. I don't believe you're a CFI at all.
> >> >> You don't have to post it, but I won't believe it until I see it.
>
> >> >> --
> >> >> Dudley Henriques
>
> >> > Whats the point? Will you knowing my CFI number automatically make
> >> > you (or anyone else) respect my opinion? Unlikley.
>
> >> Correct. **** is **** no matrter where it comes from
>
> >> And all we;d get from you is certified ****.
>
> >> > Why should I care than internet poster "Dudley Henriques" doesn't
> >> > believe I'm actually a CFI?
>
> >> You might disappear like tinkerbelle if he doesn't!
>
> >> Bertie
>
> > ehehejehehjejhehehe idjiot
>
> IKYABWAI
>
> Bertie

dumber'n'dirt

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

buttman > wrote in
:

> On Mar 4, 11:02 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> buttman > wrote
>> innews:1917f00b-2329-43a6-9960-

>> om:
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Mar 4, 10:27 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> >> buttman > wrote in news:1f22b2d5-a2fe-46b4-bedd-
>> >> :
>>
>> >> > On Mar 3, 8:48 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>>
>> >> >> > is that what you're looking for?
>>
>> >> >> No, but this is what I expected from you. What I want to see is
>> >> >> your CFI certificate number. I don't believe you're a CFI at
>> >> >> all. You don't have to post it, but I won't believe it until I
>> >> >> see it.
>>
>> >> >> --
>> >> >> Dudley Henriques
>>
>> >> > Whats the point? Will you knowing my CFI number automatically
>> >> > make you (or anyone else) respect my opinion? Unlikley.
>>
>> >> Correct. **** is **** no matrter where it comes from
>>
>> >> And all we;d get from you is certified ****.
>>
>> >> > Why should I care than internet poster "Dudley Henriques"
>> >> > doesn't believe I'm actually a CFI?
>>
>> >> You might disappear like tinkerbelle if he doesn't!
>>
>> >> Bertie
>>
>> > ehehejehehjejhehehe idjiot
>>
>> IKYABWAI
>>
>> Bertie
>
> dumber'n'dirt
>
IKYABWAI


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

buttman > wrote in
:

> On Mar 4, 11:16 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> buttman > wrote
>> innews:63d0f050-3267-4137-8870-

>> om:
>>
>> > On Mar 4, 11:02 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> >> buttman > wrote
>> >> innews:1917f00b-2329-43a6-9960-
>>
>>
>>
>> >> om:
>>
>> >> > On Mar 4, 10:27 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> >> >> buttman > wrote in
>> >> >> news:1f22b2d5-a2fe-46b4-bedd-
>> >> >> :
>>
>> >> >> > On Mar 3, 8:48 pm, Dudley Henriques >
>> >> >> > wrote:
>>
>> >> >> >> > is that what you're looking for?
>>
>> >> >> >> No, but this is what I expected from you. What I want to see
>> >> >> >> is your CFI certificate number. I don't believe you're a CFI
>> >> >> >> at all. You don't have to post it, but I won't believe it
>> >> >> >> until I see it.
>>
>> >> >> >> --
>> >> >> >> Dudley Henriques
>>
>> >> >> > Whats the point? Will you knowing my CFI number automatically
>> >> >> > make you (or anyone else) respect my opinion? Unlikley.
>>
>> >> >> Correct. **** is **** no matrter where it comes from
>>
>> >> >> And all we;d get from you is certified ****.
>>
>> >> >> > Why should I care than internet poster "Dudley Henriques"
>> >> >> > doesn't believe I'm actually a CFI?
>>
>> >> >> You might disappear like tinkerbelle if he doesn't!
>>
>> >> >> Bertie
>>
>> >> > ehehejehehjejhehehe idjiot
>>
>> >> IKYABWAI
>>
>> >> Bertie
>>
>> > dumber'n'dirt
>>
>> IKYABWAI
>>
>> Bertie
>
> another quality, award winning usenet post from internet satirist and
> master kook bertie the bunyip. keep it up man.
>

Always, fjukktard.


Bertie

[buttman]

On Mar 4, 11:16 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> buttman > wrote :
>
> > On Mar 4, 11:02 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> >> buttman > wrote
> >> innews:1917f00b-2329-43a6-9960-
>
>
>
> >> om:
>
> >> > On Mar 4, 10:27 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> >> >> buttman > wrote in news:1f22b2d5-a2fe-46b4-bedd-
> >> >> :
>
> >> >> > On Mar 3, 8:48 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>
> >> >> >> > is that what you're looking for?
>
> >> >> >> No, but this is what I expected from you. What I want to see is
> >> >> >> your CFI certificate number. I don't believe you're a CFI at
> >> >> >> all. You don't have to post it, but I won't believe it until I
> >> >> >> see it.
>
> >> >> >> --
> >> >> >> Dudley Henriques
>
> >> >> > Whats the point? Will you knowing my CFI number automatically
> >> >> > make you (or anyone else) respect my opinion? Unlikley.
>
> >> >> Correct. **** is **** no matrter where it comes from
>
> >> >> And all we;d get from you is certified ****.
>
> >> >> > Why should I care than internet poster "Dudley Henriques"
> >> >> > doesn't believe I'm actually a CFI?
>
> >> >> You might disappear like tinkerbelle if he doesn't!
>
> >> >> Bertie
>
> >> > ehehejehehjejhehehe idjiot
>
> >> IKYABWAI
>
> >> Bertie
>
> > dumber'n'dirt
>
> IKYABWAI
>
> Bertie

another quality, award winning usenet post from internet satirist and
master kook bertie the bunyip. keep it up man.

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

buttman wrote:
> On Mar 4, 9:33 am, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>> First time I ran into this guy he was advocating mixture pulling on
>> takeoff "as long as you have enough runway ahead of you" . I'm sure
>> he'll say there was some caveat to this, but the general gist was that
>> if he was working for me, he'd have been out the door so fast he
>> wouldn't know he had ever worked for us :-)
>>
>> --
>> Dudley Henriques
>
> Since we're bringing up past events, do you remember the time you
> claimed you printed out Jay Honek's video page and sent it to all your
> airshow crash investigator buddies, in hope they'd all turn up at his
> lobby to break his bones all because he used the word "ENJOY" and
> "COOL"? I had a real belly laugh when I read that one :)

What's your point? I did exactly that and Jay contacted me and explained
the what and why's of what he was doing on the page and completely
straightened it out. Might be an "event" to you, but not to Jay and myself.
It was no big deal at all. Jay and I are on a continuing friendly basis
to this day and correspond all the time. In fact, the history of the
IFPF, an organization that I founded is represented on Jay's web site.
So what else is bothering you today Mr CFI :-))

--
Dudley Henriques

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

buttman wrote:
> On Mar 3, 8:48 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>>> is that what you're looking for?
>> No, but this is what I expected from you. What I want to see is your CFI
>> certificate number. I don't believe you're a CFI at all. You don't have
>> to post it, but I won't believe it until I see it.
>>
>> --
>> Dudley Henriques
>
> Whats the point? Will you knowing my CFI number automatically make you
> (or anyone else) respect my opinion? Unlikley.
>
> Why should I care than internet poster "Dudley Henriques" doesn't
> believe I'm actually a CFI?

You are either not a CFI and are impersonating one on this forum or you
are the worst CFI I have ever run across on Usenet.
What you care about my opinion of you is of little consequence to me or
to anyone else here. It's what OTHERS here think of my opinion of you
that might be of some consequence.:-)

--
Dudley Henriques

[buttman]

On Mar 4, 12:31 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:

> So what else is bothering you today Mr CFI :-))
>
> --
> Dudley Henriques

It doesn't bother me, it cracks me the hell up. The reasoning escape
me as to how a person above the age of 11 can have such a meltdown
over two words displayed on an internet webpage. I really feel that
anger, a lot of times, comes through as a manifestation of a strong
desire to express how better they think they are over everyone else. I
was the same way when I was in high school. I was a life guard at the
local city pool, and would try my hardest to look for reasons to yell
at kids to express to the world how great I am. If I saw a kid splash
another kid, I for some reason I would get so angry and make them both
sit out for an hour or two, regardless if anyone got hurt or was
bothered. Eventually I grew out of it though. I realized I wasn't the
center of the universe, as do most people as they mature.

It just kind of gives me a smirk to know that someone who apparently
is so decorated in the industry as you, can be so immature in that
regard.

[buttman]

On Mar 4, 12:37 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> It's what OTHERS here think of my opinion of you
> that might be of some consequence.:-)
>
> --
> Dudley Henriques

Ah, that patented Dudley brand of self-importance. Like clockwork.
What would we do without it?

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

buttman > wrote in news:e025f270-6408-4179-a043-
:

> On Mar 4, 12:31 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>
>> So what else is bothering you today Mr CFI :-))
>>
>> --
>> Dudley Henriques
>
> It doesn't bother me, it cracks me the hell up. The reasoning escape
> me as to how a person above the age of 11 can have such a meltdown
> over two words displayed on an internet webpage. I really feel that
> anger, a lot of times, comes through as a manifestation of a strong
> desire to express how better they think they are over everyone else.

I used to get that feeling, then I met you and it vanished.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

buttman > wrote in news:63d81446-c91c-4b9f-82d8-
:

> On Mar 4, 12:37 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>> It's what OTHERS here think of my opinion of you
>> that might be of some consequence.:-)
>>
>> --
>> Dudley Henriques
>
> Ah, that patented Dudley brand of self-importance. Like clockwork.
> What would we do without it?
>

Uh oh. he's gotten into Kennie's stash.

bertie

[buttman]

On Mar 4, 1:44 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> buttman > wrote in news:63d81446-c91c-4b9f-82d8-
> :
>
> > On Mar 4, 12:37 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> >> It's what OTHERS here think of my opinion of you
> >> that might be of some consequence.:-)
>
> >> --
> >> Dudley Henriques
>
> > Ah, that patented Dudley brand of self-importance. Like clockwork.
> > What would we do without it?
>
> Uh oh. he's gotten into Kennie's stash.
>
> bertie

LMAO!! keep them knee slappers comin' bertie (-:

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

buttman > wrote in news:309c45a8-464d-43a7-b2ce-
:

> On Mar 4, 1:44 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> buttman > wrote in news:63d81446-c91c-4b9f-82d8-
>> :
>>
>> > On Mar 4, 12:37 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>> >> It's what OTHERS here think of my opinion of you
>> >> that might be of some consequence.:-)
>>
>> >> --
>> >> Dudley Henriques
>>
>> > Ah, that patented Dudley brand of self-importance. Like clockwork.
>> > What would we do without it?
>>
>> Uh oh. he's gotten into Kennie's stash.
>>
>> bertie
>
> LMAO!! keep them knee slappers comin' bertie (-:
>

No prob. I've got a zillion of 'em.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Gary L. Burnore > wrote in news:fqkf78$goh$4
@blackhelicopter.databasix.com:

> On Tue, 4 Mar 2008 13:03:31 -0800 (PST), buttman >
> wrote:
>
>>On Mar 4, 1:44 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>> buttman > wrote in news:63d81446-c91c-4b9f-82d8-
>>> :
>>>
>>> > On Mar 4, 12:37 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>>> >> It's what OTHERS here think of my opinion of you
>>> >> that might be of some consequence.:-)
>>>
>>> >> --
>>> >> Dudley Henriques
>>>
>>> > Ah, that patented Dudley brand of self-importance. Like clockwork.
>>> > What would we do without it?
>>>
>>> Uh oh. he's gotten into Kennie's stash.
>>>
>>> bertie
>>
>>LMAO!! keep them knee slappers comin' bertie (-:
>
> Come on! His name is DUDley. How hard can it be? Damn, Birtie. You
> gotta find a higher calibre of k00k.

I know. I had some gems there last month, but as usual, I was a bit too
heavy handed with them and scared them off. Mike's back though!

Bertie

[[email protected]]

On Mar 4, 3:31 pm, buttman > wrote:
> On Mar 4, 12:31 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>
> > So what else is bothering you today Mr CFI :-))
>
> > --
> > Dudley Henriques
>
> It doesn't bother me, it cracks me the hell up. The reasoning escape
> me as to how a person above the age of 11 can have such a meltdown
> over two words displayed on an internet webpage. I really feel that
> anger, a lot of times, comes through as a manifestation of a strong
> desire to express how better they think they are over everyone else. I
> was the same way when I was in high school. I was a life guard at the
> local city pool, and would try my hardest to look for reasons to yell
> at kids to express to the world how great I am. If I saw a kid splash
> another kid, I for some reason I would get so angry and make them both
> sit out for an hour or two, regardless if anyone got hurt or was
> bothered. Eventually I grew out of it though. I realized I wasn't the
> center of the universe, as do most people as they mature.
>
> It just kind of gives me a smirk to know that someone who apparently
> is so decorated in the industry as you, can be so immature in that
> regard.

After wading through all that, I feel WAY better than you, on so many
levels.

Thanks, I needed that.


Dan

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

buttman wrote:
> On Mar 4, 12:37 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>> It's what OTHERS here think of my opinion of you
>> that might be of some consequence.:-)
>>
>> --
>> Dudley Henriques
>
> Ah, that patented Dudley brand of self-importance. Like clockwork.
> What would we do without it?


Whatever pleases you, but you still would never fly in one of my
operations.
I still would offer you a challenge to present either your rating number
or some proof that you are a rated CFI. I just don't believe it.
My email address is on all my posts. You don't have to display this is
public. Just send me your name and certificate number. No one will know
but th two of us.
Of course I can't make you do this. It would have to be voluntary on
your part.
How bout it?

--
Dudley Henriques

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

buttman wrote:
> On Mar 4, 12:31 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>
>> So what else is bothering you today Mr CFI :-))
>>
>> --
>> Dudley Henriques
>
> It doesn't bother me, it cracks me the hell up. The reasoning escape
> me as to how a person above the age of 11 can have such a meltdown
> over two words displayed on an internet webpage. I really feel that
> anger, a lot of times, comes through as a manifestation of a strong
> desire to express how better they think they are over everyone else. I
> was the same way when I was in high school. I was a life guard at the
> local city pool, and would try my hardest to look for reasons to yell
> at kids to express to the world how great I am. If I saw a kid splash
> another kid, I for some reason I would get so angry and make them both
> sit out for an hour or two, regardless if anyone got hurt or was
> bothered. Eventually I grew out of it though. I realized I wasn't the
> center of the universe, as do most people as they mature.
>
> It just kind of gives me a smirk to know that someone who apparently
> is so decorated in the industry as you, can be so immature in that
> regard.
Whatever floats your boat my friend. :-))

--
Dudley Henriques

[buttman]

On Mar 4, 3:57 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> buttman wrote:
> > On Mar 4, 12:37 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> >> It's what OTHERS here think of my opinion of you
> >> that might be of some consequence.:-)
>
> >> --
> >> Dudley Henriques
>
> > Ah, that patented Dudley brand of self-importance. Like clockwork.
> > What would we do without it?
>
> Whatever pleases you, but you still would never fly in one of my
> operations.
> I still would offer you a challenge to present either your rating number
> or some proof that you are a rated CFI. I just don't believe it.
> My email address is on all my posts. You don't have to display this is
> public. Just send me your name and certificate number. No one will know
> but th two of us.
> Of course I can't make you do this. It would have to be voluntary on
> your part.
> How bout it?
>
> --
> Dudley Henriques

How many times do I have to say this? I don't care what you think of
me. I know this is a hard concept for you to grasp, but you are not
the center of my universe, or anyone else's; you only appear to be the
center of your own. You can go on pretending that your constant
mentioning of me "not being a CFI", or "e-firing" me from an imaginary
job position of yours is somehow hurting me, because I can't put it
into words how much it just isn't.

And anyways, I'd be crazy to give you ANY personal information of
mine, considering how much of an unstable person you have proven
yourself to be.

LOL you'll probably find something offensive about my name or
something and fly off the handle by mailing my information to all your
crash investigators buddies...

[buttman]

On Mar 4, 4:46 pm, buttman > wrote:
> On Mar 4, 3:57 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>
>
>
> > buttman wrote:
> > > On Mar 4, 12:37 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> > >> It's what OTHERS here think of my opinion of you
> > >> that might be of some consequence.:-)
>
> > >> --
> > >> Dudley Henriques
>
> > > Ah, that patented Dudley brand of self-importance. Like clockwork.
> > > What would we do without it?
>
> > Whatever pleases you, but you still would never fly in one of my
> > operations.
> > I still would offer you a challenge to present either your rating number
> > or some proof that you are a rated CFI. I just don't believe it.
> > My email address is on all my posts. You don't have to display this is
> > public. Just send me your name and certificate number. No one will know
> > but th two of us.
> > Of course I can't make you do this. It would have to be voluntary on
> > your part.
> > How bout it?
>
> > --
> > Dudley Henriques
>
> How many times do I have to say this? I don't care what you think of
> me. I know this is a hard concept for you to grasp, but you are not
> the center of my universe, or anyone else's; you only appear to be the
> center of your own. You can go on pretending that your constant
> mentioning of me "not being a CFI", or "e-firing" me from an imaginary
> job position of yours is somehow hurting me, because I can't put it
> into words how much it just isn't.
>
> And anyways, I'd be crazy to give you ANY personal information of
> mine, considering how much of an unstable person you have proven
> yourself to be.
>
> LOL you'll probably find something offensive about my name or
> something and fly off the handle by mailing my information to all your
> crash investigators buddies...

but just to shut you up, here:

http://xs.to/xs.php?h=xs225&d=08103&f=license856.jpg

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

buttman wrote:
> On Mar 4, 3:57 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>> buttman wrote:
>>> On Mar 4, 12:37 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>>>> It's what OTHERS here think of my opinion of you
>>>> that might be of some consequence.:-)
>>>> --
>>>> Dudley Henriques
>>> Ah, that patented Dudley brand of self-importance. Like clockwork.
>>> What would we do without it?
>> Whatever pleases you, but you still would never fly in one of my
>> operations.
>> I still would offer you a challenge to present either your rating number
>> or some proof that you are a rated CFI. I just don't believe it.
>> My email address is on all my posts. You don't have to display this is
>> public. Just send me your name and certificate number. No one will know
>> but th two of us.
>> Of course I can't make you do this. It would have to be voluntary on
>> your part.
>> How bout it?
>>
>> --
>> Dudley Henriques
>
> How many times do I have to say this? I don't care what you think of
> me. I know this is a hard concept for you to grasp, but you are not
> the center of my universe, or anyone else's; you only appear to be the
> center of your own. You can go on pretending that your constant
> mentioning of me "not being a CFI", or "e-firing" me from an imaginary
> job position of yours is somehow hurting me, because I can't put it
> into words how much it just isn't.
>
> And anyways, I'd be crazy to give you ANY personal information of
> mine, considering how much of an unstable person you have proven
> yourself to be.
>
> LOL you'll probably find something offensive about my name or
> something and fly off the handle by mailing my information to all your
> crash investigators buddies...
Don't flatter yourself. I could care less if you are a CFI or not other
than establishing that if you are, you're certainly not worth the title.
If you have the rating, as I seem to see below, this simply verifies
that the system allowed you through.

Your posts attesting to how you handle the rating are more than enough
for my use. How you profess to be teaching your students is much more
revealing than whether or not you actually are a CFI.
Be advised that I intend using your online personna of "Buttman" and
some of your posting as a negative example other CFI's on how NOT to
instruct.

I'm sure this means little to you From my email however,it apparently
means something to others who frequent this forum.



--
Dudley Henriques

[Dan[_10_]]

On Mar 4, 7:30 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> buttman wrote:
> > On Mar 4, 3:57 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> >> buttman wrote:
> >>> On Mar 4, 12:37 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> >>>> It's what OTHERS here think of my opinion of you
> >>>> that might be of some consequence.:-)
> >>>> --
> >>>> Dudley Henriques
> >>> Ah, that patented Dudley brand of self-importance. Like clockwork.
> >>> What would we do without it?
> >> Whatever pleases you, but you still would never fly in one of my
> >> operations.
> >> I still would offer you a challenge to present either your rating number
> >> or some proof that you are a rated CFI. I just don't believe it.
> >> My email address is on all my posts. You don't have to display this is
> >> public. Just send me your name and certificate number. No one will know
> >> but th two of us.
> >> Of course I can't make you do this. It would have to be voluntary on
> >> your part.
> >> How bout it?
>
> >> --
> >> Dudley Henriques
>
> > How many times do I have to say this? I don't care what you think of
> > me. I know this is a hard concept for you to grasp, but you are not
> > the center of my universe, or anyone else's; you only appear to be the
> > center of your own. You can go on pretending that your constant
> > mentioning of me "not being a CFI", or "e-firing" me from an imaginary
> > job position of yours is somehow hurting me, because I can't put it
> > into words how much it just isn't.
>
> > And anyways, I'd be crazy to give you ANY personal information of
> > mine, considering how much of an unstable person you have proven
> > yourself to be.
>
> > LOL you'll probably find something offensive about my name or
> > something and fly off the handle by mailing my information to all your
> > crash investigators buddies...
>
> Don't flatter yourself. I could care less if you are a CFI or not other
> than establishing that if you are, you're certainly not worth the title.
> If you have the rating, as I seem to see below, this simply verifies
> that the system allowed you through.
>
> Your posts attesting to how you handle the rating are more than enough
> for my use. How you profess to be teaching your students is much more
> revealing than whether or not you actually are a CFI.
> Be advised that I intend using your online personna of "Buttman" and
> some of your posting as a negative example other CFI's on how NOT to
> instruct.
>
> I'm sure this means little to you From my email however,it apparently
> means something to others who frequent this forum.
>
> --
> Dudley Henriques

I've learned plenty.

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Dan wrote:
> On Mar 4, 7:30 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>> buttman wrote:
>>> On Mar 4, 3:57 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>>>> buttman wrote:
>>>>> On Mar 4, 12:37 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>>>>>> It's what OTHERS here think of my opinion of you
>>>>>> that might be of some consequence.:-)
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Dudley Henriques
>>>>> Ah, that patented Dudley brand of self-importance. Like clockwork.
>>>>> What would we do without it?
>>>> Whatever pleases you, but you still would never fly in one of my
>>>> operations.
>>>> I still would offer you a challenge to present either your rating number
>>>> or some proof that you are a rated CFI. I just don't believe it.
>>>> My email address is on all my posts. You don't have to display this is
>>>> public. Just send me your name and certificate number. No one will know
>>>> but th two of us.
>>>> Of course I can't make you do this. It would have to be voluntary on
>>>> your part.
>>>> How bout it?
>>>> --
>>>> Dudley Henriques
>>> How many times do I have to say this? I don't care what you think of
>>> me. I know this is a hard concept for you to grasp, but you are not
>>> the center of my universe, or anyone else's; you only appear to be the
>>> center of your own. You can go on pretending that your constant
>>> mentioning of me "not being a CFI", or "e-firing" me from an imaginary
>>> job position of yours is somehow hurting me, because I can't put it
>>> into words how much it just isn't.
>>> And anyways, I'd be crazy to give you ANY personal information of
>>> mine, considering how much of an unstable person you have proven
>>> yourself to be.
>>> LOL you'll probably find something offensive about my name or
>>> something and fly off the handle by mailing my information to all your
>>> crash investigators buddies...
>> Don't flatter yourself. I could care less if you are a CFI or not other
>> than establishing that if you are, you're certainly not worth the title.
>> If you have the rating, as I seem to see below, this simply verifies
>> that the system allowed you through.
>>
>> Your posts attesting to how you handle the rating are more than enough
>> for my use. How you profess to be teaching your students is much more
>> revealing than whether or not you actually are a CFI.
>> Be advised that I intend using your online personna of "Buttman" and
>> some of your posting as a negative example other CFI's on how NOT to
>> instruct.
>>
>> I'm sure this means little to you From my email however,it apparently
>> means something to others who frequent this forum.
>>
>> --
>> Dudley Henriques
>
> I've learned plenty.

Now here's an ambiguous comment :-) Am I the bad guy or the good guy in
this novel? :-))

--
Dudley Henriques

[Dan[_10_]]

On Mar 4, 7:37 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>
> > I've learned plenty.
>
> Now here's an ambiguous comment :-) Am I the bad guy or the good guy in
> this novel? :-))
>
> --
> Dudley Henriques

I don't have affinity for folks named "buttman." Talk about ambiguous.

The only Dudley I ever knew was Do-Right, and as a Mountie, he was a
good chap.

Dan

[buttman]

On Mar 4, 5:30 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:

> Don't flatter yourself. I could care less if you are a CFI or not other
> than establishing that if you are, you're certainly not worth the title.
> If you have the rating, as I seem to see below, this simply verifies
> that the system allowed you through.

You're the one who has been harping on me for the past few months
trying to get me to "prove" I'm really a CFI. I finally do and you
blow it off. Thats basically what I expected.

>
> Your posts attesting to how you handle the rating are more than enough
> for my use. How you profess to be teaching your students is much more
> revealing than whether or not you actually are a CFI.
> Be advised that I intend using your online personna of "Buttman" and
> some of your posting as a negative example other CFI's on how NOT to
> instruct.

You realize I've posted maybe 15 times in my entire 3 year Usenet
career on the subject of flight instructing? I'd LOOOVE to hear your
case against me.

So you're with a CFI applicant. Today is the day where you give him
the "how not to be a CFI" talk. You go over to your computer, load up
Usenet, and begin to show this person all the horrors internet user
Buttman has brought upon the profession. I really don't even care
about specifics, but I'd really like to know what kind of things you'd
say.

Based on your posting here, you'd probably just make some blanket
claims "this guy is a horrible instructor", the try to justify it
solely by the virtue of the fact you have some achievements, rather
than any kind of logic or reasoning, "This is true because I've been
in the industry for 200 years and I've worked with blah blah blah".
I've not read a single thing you've posted here where you've made ANY
attempt to justify your points other than with your signature file.


> I'm sure this means little to you From my email however,it apparently
> means something to others who frequent this forum.

Don't flatter yourself.

[Dan[_10_]]

On Mar 4, 8:14 pm, buttman > wrote:
> On Mar 4, 5:30 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>
> > Don't flatter yourself. I could care less if you are a CFI or not other
> > than establishing that if you are, you're certainly not worth the title.
> > If you have the rating, as I seem to see below, this simply verifies
> > that the system allowed you through.
>
> You're the one who has been harping on me for the past few months
> trying to get me to "prove" I'm really a CFI. I finally do and you
> blow it off. Thats basically what I expected.
>
>
>
> > Your posts attesting to how you handle the rating are more than enough
> > for my use. How you profess to be teaching your students is much more
> > revealing than whether or not you actually are a CFI.
> > Be advised that I intend using your online personna of "Buttman" and
> > some of your posting as a negative example other CFI's on how NOT to
> > instruct.
>
> You realize I've posted maybe 15 times in my entire 3 year Usenet
> career on the subject of flight instructing? I'd LOOOVE to hear your
> case against me.
>
> So you're with a CFI applicant. Today is the day where you give him
> the "how not to be a CFI" talk. You go over to your computer, load up
> Usenet, and begin to show this person all the horrors internet user
> Buttman has brought upon the profession. I really don't even care
> about specifics, but I'd really like to know what kind of things you'd
> say.
>
> Based on your posting here, you'd probably just make some blanket
> claims "this guy is a horrible instructor", the try to justify it
> solely by the virtue of the fact you have some achievements, rather
> than any kind of logic or reasoning, "This is true because I've been
> in the industry for 200 years and I've worked with blah blah blah".
> I've not read a single thing you've posted here where you've made ANY
> attempt to justify your points other than with your signature file.
>
> > I'm sure this means little to you From my email however,it apparently
> > means something to others who frequent this forum.
>
> Don't flatter yourself.

Dude... you might be Bill Kershner reincarnated, but I'd be tempted to
stall-spin it in if I had to listen to you blather on in the right
seat of a 152.

..

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

buttman wrote:
> On Mar 4, 5:30 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>
>> Don't flatter yourself. I could care less if you are a CFI or not other
>> than establishing that if you are, you're certainly not worth the title.
>> If you have the rating, as I seem to see below, this simply verifies
>> that the system allowed you through.
>
> You're the one who has been harping on me for the past few months
> trying to get me to "prove" I'm really a CFI. I finally do and you
> blow it off. Thats basically what I expected.
>
>> Your posts attesting to how you handle the rating are more than enough
>> for my use. How you profess to be teaching your students is much more
>> revealing than whether or not you actually are a CFI.
>> Be advised that I intend using your online personna of "Buttman" and
>> some of your posting as a negative example other CFI's on how NOT to
>> instruct.
>
> You realize I've posted maybe 15 times in my entire 3 year Usenet
> career on the subject of flight instructing? I'd LOOOVE to hear your
> case against me.
>
> So you're with a CFI applicant. Today is the day where you give him
> the "how not to be a CFI" talk. You go over to your computer, load up
> Usenet, and begin to show this person all the horrors internet user
> Buttman has brought upon the profession. I really don't even care
> about specifics, but I'd really like to know what kind of things you'd
> say.
>
> Based on your posting here, you'd probably just make some blanket
> claims "this guy is a horrible instructor", the try to justify it
> solely by the virtue of the fact you have some achievements, rather
> than any kind of logic or reasoning, "This is true because I've been
> in the industry for 200 years and I've worked with blah blah blah".
> I've not read a single thing you've posted here where you've made ANY
> attempt to justify your points other than with your signature file.
>
>
>> I'm sure this means little to you From my email however,it apparently
>> means something to others who frequent this forum.
>
> Don't flatter yourself.

I have nothing against you personally. I don't even know you. You don't
use your actual name and the stage personna you've chosen souns like it
came from a 2 year old.

I just think your approach to flight instruction can use some
"amplification" so to speak. A lot of us spend a great deal of time on
these groups trying to help people learn to fly PROPERLY.
Every now and then someone like yourself comes along and starts posting
here in some "authorative manner". I simply want every student here to
know that for whatever they want to take out of it either way, I for one
don't care for the things you have to say concerning flying and flight
instruction and in fact believe that some of what you profess to do with
students is in my opinion anyway, downright dangerous.
That's all there is to it my friend. Just a vast difference in opinion
between you and me as to how flight instruction should be performed.
How people on the forum take this is strictly up to each individual who
reads what each of us has to say.
Nothing personal at all. I just wouldn't fly with you that's all.



--
Dudley Henriques

[buttman]

On Mar 4, 6:18 pm, Dan > wrote:
> On Mar 4, 8:14 pm, buttman > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mar 4, 5:30 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>
> > > Don't flatter yourself. I could care less if you are a CFI or not other
> > > than establishing that if you are, you're certainly not worth the title.
> > > If you have the rating, as I seem to see below, this simply verifies
> > > that the system allowed you through.
>
> > You're the one who has been harping on me for the past few months
> > trying to get me to "prove" I'm really a CFI. I finally do and you
> > blow it off. Thats basically what I expected.
>
> > > Your posts attesting to how you handle the rating are more than enough
> > > for my use. How you profess to be teaching your students is much more
> > > revealing than whether or not you actually are a CFI.
> > > Be advised that I intend using your online personna of "Buttman" and
> > > some of your posting as a negative example other CFI's on how NOT to
> > > instruct.
>
> > You realize I've posted maybe 15 times in my entire 3 year Usenet
> > career on the subject of flight instructing? I'd LOOOVE to hear your
> > case against me.
>
> > So you're with a CFI applicant. Today is the day where you give him
> > the "how not to be a CFI" talk. You go over to your computer, load up
> > Usenet, and begin to show this person all the horrors internet user
> > Buttman has brought upon the profession. I really don't even care
> > about specifics, but I'd really like to know what kind of things you'd
> > say.
>
> > Based on your posting here, you'd probably just make some blanket
> > claims "this guy is a horrible instructor", the try to justify it
> > solely by the virtue of the fact you have some achievements, rather
> > than any kind of logic or reasoning, "This is true because I've been
> > in the industry for 200 years and I've worked with blah blah blah".
> > I've not read a single thing you've posted here where you've made ANY
> > attempt to justify your points other than with your signature file.
>
> > > I'm sure this means little to you From my email however,it apparently
> > > means something to others who frequent this forum.
>
> > Don't flatter yourself.
>
> Dude... you might be Bill Kershner reincarnated, but I'd be tempted to
> stall-spin it in if I had to listen to you blather on in the right
> seat of a 152.
>
> .

The gallant Dan rolls in wearing his finest white knight armor to
defend the honor of his fair maiden Dudly. How touching.

[buttman]

On Mar 4, 6:57 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:

> I have nothing against you personally. I don't even know you. You don't
> use your actual name and the stage personna you've chosen souns like it
> came from a 2 year old.

You think I don't know that? I picked this name for that very reason.
I don't play that name game crap. It don't matter what name appears
above my posts, the meaning stays the same.

> Just a vast difference in opinion
> between you and me as to how flight instruction should be performed.

You're darn right. If a student comes to me asking about somethi9ng,
I'll do my best to explain it to him in terms he or she can
understand. I'll never just bluntly say "This is how it is" without
any kind of reasoning, which is the technique you seem to prefer. I've
asked you how many times now to point out what exactly you find so
appaling about my ability to be an instructor? All I ever get from you
is "You are downright dangerous", "You damage this profession", "I
would never fly with you", these are very loaded words to be using
without any kind of backup whatsoever.

You don't post here because you care about safety. You don't post here
because you care about instructing. You don't even post here because
you care about aviation. You post here so you can call out people like
myself on weak bases such as my freaking internet chitchat handle.
Your existence here has never, and will never be anything more than a
huge ego stroke.

[Dan[_10_]]

On Mar 4, 9:14 pm, buttman > wrote:
>
> > Dude... you might be Bill Kershner reincarnated, but I'd be tempted to
> > stall-spin it in if I had to listen to you blather on in the right
> > seat of a 152.

> The gallant Dan rolls in wearing his finest white knight armor to
> defend the honor of his fair maiden Dudly. How touching.

I was talking about you -- not Dudley. I don't know Dudley, but I've
read some of his posts and he seems reasonable, but that doesn't mean
I'm signing up for the DH School O' Aerospace.

In your case, I think you spend far too much time typing defensive
tomes.

And the "buttman" thing gives me the hibbly-jibblies.


Dan

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Dan wrote:
> On Mar 4, 7:37 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>>> I've learned plenty.
>> Now here's an ambiguous comment :-) Am I the bad guy or the good guy in
>> this novel? :-))
>>
>> --
>> Dudley Henriques
>
> I don't have affinity for folks named "buttman." Talk about ambiguous.
>
> The only Dudley I ever knew was Do-Right, and as a Mountie, he was a
> good chap.
>
> Dan
>
>
>
Know that one well. My wife changed it to Dudley Dowrong though :-)

--
Dudley Henriques

[WingFlaps]

On Mar 5, 2:11*pm, Dan > wrote:
> On Mar 4, 7:37 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>
>
>
> > > I've learned plenty.
>
> > Now here's an ambiguous *comment :-) Am I the bad guy or the good guy in
> > this novel? :-))
>
> > --
> > Dudley Henriques
>
> I don't have affinity for folks named "buttman." Talk about ambiguous.
>

He's overweight so perhaps it's appropriate.

Cheers

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

buttman wrote:
> On Mar 4, 5:30 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>
>> Don't flatter yourself. I could care less if you are a CFI or not other
>> than establishing that if you are, you're certainly not worth the title.
>> If you have the rating, as I seem to see below, this simply verifies
>> that the system allowed you through.
>
> You're the one who has been harping on me for the past few months
> trying to get me to "prove" I'm really a CFI. I finally do and you
> blow it off. Thats basically what I expected.
>
>> Your posts attesting to how you handle the rating are more than enough
>> for my use. How you profess to be teaching your students is much more
>> revealing than whether or not you actually are a CFI.
>> Be advised that I intend using your online personna of "Buttman" and
>> some of your posting as a negative example other CFI's on how NOT to
>> instruct.
>
> You realize I've posted maybe 15 times in my entire 3 year Usenet
> career on the subject of flight instructing? I'd LOOOVE to hear your
> case against me.
>
> So you're with a CFI applicant. Today is the day where you give him
> the "how not to be a CFI" talk. You go over to your computer, load up
> Usenet, and begin to show this person all the horrors internet user
> Buttman has brought upon the profession. I really don't even care
> about specifics, but I'd really like to know what kind of things you'd
> say.
>
> Based on your posting here, you'd probably just make some blanket
> claims "this guy is a horrible instructor", the try to justify it
> solely by the virtue of the fact you have some achievements, rather
> than any kind of logic or reasoning, "This is true because I've been
> in the industry for 200 years and I've worked with blah blah blah".
> I've not read a single thing you've posted here where you've made ANY
> attempt to justify your points other than with your signature file.
>
>
>> I'm sure this means little to you From my email however,it apparently
>> means something to others who frequent this forum.
>
> Don't flatter yourself.
You take care now. :-)

--
Dudley Henriques

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

buttman wrote:
> On Mar 4, 6:57 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>
>> I have nothing against you personally. I don't even know you. You don't
>> use your actual name and the stage personna you've chosen souns like it
>> came from a 2 year old.
>
> You think I don't know that? I picked this name for that very reason.
> I don't play that name game crap. It don't matter what name appears
> above my posts, the meaning stays the same.
>
>> Just a vast difference in opinion
>> between you and me as to how flight instruction should be performed.
>
> You're darn right. If a student comes to me asking about somethi9ng,
> I'll do my best to explain it to him in terms he or she can
> understand. I'll never just bluntly say "This is how it is" without
> any kind of reasoning, which is the technique you seem to prefer. I've
> asked you how many times now to point out what exactly you find so
> appaling about my ability to be an instructor? All I ever get from you
> is "You are downright dangerous", "You damage this profession", "I
> would never fly with you", these are very loaded words to be using
> without any kind of backup whatsoever.
>
> You don't post here because you care about safety. You don't post here
> because you care about instructing. You don't even post here because
> you care about aviation. You post here so you can call out people like
> myself on weak bases such as my freaking internet chitchat handle.
> Your existence here has never, and will never be anything more than a
> huge ego stroke.

Right as usual. :-))))))))))))))))))))))

--
Dudley Henriques

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

WingFlaps wrote:
> On Mar 5, 2:11 pm, Dan > wrote:
>> On Mar 4, 7:37 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>> I've learned plenty.
>>> Now here's an ambiguous comment :-) Am I the bad guy or the good guy in
>>> this novel? :-))
>>> --
>>> Dudley Henriques
>> I don't have affinity for folks named "buttman." Talk about ambiguous.
>>
>
> He's overweight so perhaps it's appropriate.
>
> Cheers

You noticed that too huh??? :-)))) Well, I guess the extra weight helps
to get that ole airplane down again on the remaining runway when you
pull that ole mixture back on a student right after rotation :-))))

--
Dudley Henriques

[Dan[_10_]]

So, I figured I would sift through the gems the buttman has posted and
see if he deserves the calumny that hovers about like so many flies.

The evidence mounts, but this one seals the deal: "its the military,
they do whatever they want"

Idiot, arise.


Dan

[george]

On Mar 5, 4:06 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:

> You noticed that too huh??? :-)))) Well, I guess the extra weight helps
> to get that ole airplane down again on the remaining runway when you
> pull that ole mixture back on a student right after rotation :-))))
>

I still can't believe that some-one claiming to be a pilot made the
'pull mixture on takeoff' statement and is still here

[Ken S. Tucker]

On Mar 4, 7:35 pm, george > wrote:
> On Mar 5, 4:06 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>
> > You noticed that too huh??? :-)))) Well, I guess the extra weight helps
> > to get that ole airplane down again on the remaining runway when you
> > pull that ole mixture back on a student right after rotation :-))))
>
> I still can't believe that some-one claiming to be a pilot made the
> 'pull mixture on takeoff' statement and is still here

What's a typo, or it there a reason?

BTW, here's a video of that x-wind landing...
http://www.thestar.com/News/World/article/309221
(It ****es me off it's an amateur video, for the price
of a bit of tape, one would think all landings should
be properly video taped, cheap ****in' ****s).

Anyway, the rudder steering seems odd to me,
based on squinty frame advance...grrrr.
Ken

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

george wrote:
> On Mar 5, 4:06 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>
>> You noticed that too huh??? :-)))) Well, I guess the extra weight helps
>> to get that ole airplane down again on the remaining runway when you
>> pull that ole mixture back on a student right after rotation :-))))
>>
>
> I still can't believe that some-one claiming to be a pilot made the
> 'pull mixture on takeoff' statement and is still here
>
He keeps asking me to specifically state why I have issues with him.
This single item has been the mainstay of my problem with him. No
instructor worth the rating would yank a mixture on a student on takeoff.
This "procedure" is so antithesis to competent flight instruction that
it defies description.
If this guy does things like this to his students, I am one instructor
who doesn't agree with the way he "teaches".


--
Dudley Henriques

[Michael Ash]

In rec.aviation.student Ken S. Tucker > wrote:
> BTW, here's a video of that x-wind landing...
> http://www.thestar.com/News/World/article/309221
> (It ****es me off it's an amateur video, for the price
> of a bit of tape, one would think all landings should
> be properly video taped, cheap ****in' ****s).

If it's so cheap, and you think it's so important, why don't you
contribute the cash to set it up?

--
Michael Ash
Rogue Amoeba Software

[Gig 601XL Builder[_2_]]

Ken S. Tucker wrote:
> On Mar 4, 7:35 pm, george > wrote:
>> On Mar 5, 4:06 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>>
>>> You noticed that too huh??? :-)))) Well, I guess the extra weight helps
>>> to get that ole airplane down again on the remaining runway when you
>>> pull that ole mixture back on a student right after rotation :-))))
>> I still can't believe that some-one claiming to be a pilot made the
>> 'pull mixture on takeoff' statement and is still here
>
> What's a typo, or it there a reason?
>
> BTW, here's a video of that x-wind landing...
> http://www.thestar.com/News/World/article/309221
> (It ****es me off it's an amateur video, for the price
> of a bit of tape, one would think all landings should
> be properly video taped, cheap ****in' ****s).
>
> Anyway, the rudder steering seems odd to me,
> based on squinty frame advance...grrrr.
> Ken


Weren't you the guy that was also suggesting that the runway be subject
to a walk down before every take-off? So I guess the next step will be
required CVR in C-150s.

[george]

On Mar 5, 5:07 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> george wrote:
> > On Mar 5, 4:06 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>
> >> You noticed that too huh??? :-)))) Well, I guess the extra weight helps
> >> to get that ole airplane down again on the remaining runway when you
> >> pull that ole mixture back on a student right after rotation :-))))
>
> > I still can't believe that some-one claiming to be a pilot made the
> > 'pull mixture on takeoff' statement and is still here
>
> He keeps asking me to specifically state why I have issues with him.
> This single item has been the mainstay of my problem with him. No
> instructor worth the rating would yank a mixture on a student on takeoff.
> This "procedure" is so antithesis to competent flight instruction that
> it defies description.
> If this guy does things like this to his students, I am one instructor
> who doesn't agree with the way he "teaches".

My point also.
Engine failure on takeoff is, in my experience, simulated by the
instructor/testing officer pulling power.
The student then carries out the engine failure on takeoff drills
whereupon the instructor/testing officer restores power
IMO he is not an instructor.

[Ken S. Tucker]

On Mar 5, 6:17 am, Gig 601XL Builder >
wrote:
> Ken S. Tucker wrote:
> > On Mar 4, 7:35 pm, george > wrote:
> >> On Mar 5, 4:06 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>
> >>> You noticed that too huh??? :-)))) Well, I guess the extra weight helps
> >>> to get that ole airplane down again on the remaining runway when you
> >>> pull that ole mixture back on a student right after rotation :-))))
> >> I still can't believe that some-one claiming to be a pilot made the
> >> 'pull mixture on takeoff' statement and is still here
>
> > What's a typo, or it there a reason?
>
> > BTW, here's a video of that x-wind landing...
> >http://www.thestar.com/News/World/article/309221
> > (It ****es me off it's an amateur video, for the price
> > of a bit of tape, one would think all landings should
> > be properly video taped, cheap ****in' ****s).
>
> > Anyway, the rudder steering seems odd to me,
> > based on squinty frame advance...grrrr.
> > Ken
>
> Weren't you the guy that was also suggesting that the runway be subject
> to a walk down before every take-off?

For major airports, radar is being developed,
but I think dogs could do it faster and better.

> So I guess the next step will be
> required CVR in C-150s.

A 7-11 can afford video survalience but a major a
airport can't, sounds like as if a govmonk is making
a decision....runaway ....
Ken

[Ken S. Tucker]

On Mar 5, 11:34 am, george > wrote:
> On Mar 5, 5:07 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>
>
>
> > george wrote:
> > > On Mar 5, 4:06 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>
> > >> You noticed that too huh??? :-)))) Well, I guess the extra weight helps
> > >> to get that ole airplane down again on the remaining runway when you
> > >> pull that ole mixture back on a student right after rotation :-))))
>
> > > I still can't believe that some-one claiming to be a pilot made the
> > > 'pull mixture on takeoff' statement and is still here
>
> > He keeps asking me to specifically state why I have issues with him.
> > This single item has been the mainstay of my problem with him. No
> > instructor worth the rating would yank a mixture on a student on takeoff.
> > This "procedure" is so antithesis to competent flight instruction that
> > it defies description.
> > If this guy does things like this to his students, I am one instructor
> > who doesn't agree with the way he "teaches".
>
> My point also.
> Engine failure on takeoff is, in my experience, simulated by the
> instructor/testing officer pulling power.
> The student then carries out the engine failure on takeoff drills
> whereupon the instructor/testing officer restores power
> IMO he is not an instructor.

Yeah, but there is that cardinal rule, that one or the
other controls the ship and of course the CFI has
priority, but that does not allow the CFI to interfere
by sneaky with the aircraft, at least not in my ship.
Ken

[WingFlaps]

On Mar 6, 8:49*am, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
> On Mar 5, 6:17 am, Gig 601XL Builder >
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Ken S. Tucker wrote:
> > > On Mar 4, 7:35 pm, george > wrote:
> > >> On Mar 5, 4:06 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>
> > >>> You noticed that too huh??? :-)))) Well, I guess the extra weight helps
> > >>> to get that ole airplane down again on the remaining runway when you
> > >>> pull that ole mixture back on a student right after rotation :-))))
> > >> I still can't believe that some-one claiming to be a pilot made the
> > >> 'pull mixture on takeoff' statement and is still here
>
> > > What's a typo, or it there a reason?
>
> > > BTW, here's a video of that x-wind landing...
> > >http://www.thestar.com/News/World/article/309221
> > > (It ****es me off it's an amateur video, for the price
> > > of a bit of tape, one would think all landings should
> > > be properly video taped, cheap ****in' ****s).
>
> > > Anyway, the rudder steering seems odd to me,
> > > based on squinty frame advance...grrrr.
> > > Ken
>
> > Weren't you the guy that was also suggesting that the runway be subject
> > to a walk down before every take-off?
>
> For major airports, radar is being developed,
> but I think dogs could do it faster and better.
>

Hey that was my idea! Do you like it really? I worry though, will dog
**** on the airport runway be a problem when projected by jet blast?
What do you think?

Cheers

Cheers

[WingFlaps]

On Mar 6, 8:49*am, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
> On Mar 5, 6:17 am, Gig 601XL Builder >
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Ken S. Tucker wrote:
> > > On Mar 4, 7:35 pm, george > wrote:
> > >> On Mar 5, 4:06 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>
> > >>> You noticed that too huh??? :-)))) Well, I guess the extra weight helps
> > >>> to get that ole airplane down again on the remaining runway when you
> > >>> pull that ole mixture back on a student right after rotation :-))))
> > >> I still can't believe that some-one claiming to be a pilot made the
> > >> 'pull mixture on takeoff' statement and is still here
>
> > > What's a typo, or it there a reason?
>
> > > BTW, here's a video of that x-wind landing...
> > >http://www.thestar.com/News/World/article/309221
> > > (It ****es me off it's an amateur video, for the price
> > > of a bit of tape, one would think all landings should
> > > be properly video taped, cheap ****in' ****s).
>
> > > Anyway, the rudder steering seems odd to me,
> > > based on squinty frame advance...grrrr.
> > > Ken
>
> > Weren't you the guy that was also suggesting that the runway be subject
> > to a walk down before every take-off?
>
> For major airports, radar is being developed,
> but I think dogs could do it faster and better.
>
> > So I guess the next step will be
> > required CVR in C-150s.
>
> A 7-11 can afford video survalience but a major a
> airport can't, sounds like as if a govmonk is making
> a decision....runaway ....

How about planes wear a net diaper to catch all the bits that fall
off?

Cheers

[Dan[_10_]]

On Mar 5, 2:49 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
> > Weren't you the guy that was also suggesting that the runway be subject
> > to a walk down before every take-off?
>
> For major airports, radar is being developed,
> but I think dogs could do it faster and better.

> Ken

Dogs?

[Gig 601XL Builder[_2_]]

Dan wrote:
> On Mar 5, 2:49 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>>> Weren't you the guy that was also suggesting that the runway be subject
>>> to a walk down before every take-off?
>> For major airports, radar is being developed,
>> but I think dogs could do it faster and better.
>
>> Ken
>
> Dogs?
>
>

Ken is trying to find work for his girl friend.

[[email protected]]

On Mar 5, 12:49 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:

> A 7-11 can afford video survalience but a major a
> airport can't, sounds like as if a govmonk is making
> a decision....runaway ....
> Ken

Runway cameras. At night. In the fog. Or snow. A lot of good
they would do, considering that many accidents happen in those
conditions.
Damage to the aircraft, scratches on the runway and surrounding
areas, and eyewitness reports (tend to be a lot of those at major
airports) are more than enough. There are investigators trained in
those techniques, and I've sat through presentations explaining how
they do it. Fairly thorough.
I've never before heard anyone suggest that cameras lined up
with the runway might be useful. Besides, the picture I see on TV from
7-11 cameras are little better than a verbal description of the event.
Blurry, jerky, grainy, next to useless. I can just see a runway
camera, a few yards back from the threshold, surviving repeated
treatments of jet blast, which involves considerable heat, extremely
high winds, and dust. It's not a nice place to be. They'd have to be
far back on the approach light stanchions. Now the visibilty is an
even bigger factor.

Dan

[Bertie the Bunyip]

On 5 Mar, 01:14, buttman > wrote:
> On Mar 4, 5:30 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>

>
> You realize I've posted maybe 15 times in my entire 3 year Usenet
> career on the subject of flight instructing? I'd LOOOVE to hear your
> case against me.

Me, i never make a case against anyone. I merely facilitate thier
making a case against themselves.

It's a gift.

Bertie

[Steve Hix]

In article
>,
Dan > wrote:

> On Mar 5, 2:49 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
> > > Weren't you the guy that was also suggesting that the runway be subject
> > > to a walk down before every take-off?
> >
> > For major airports, radar is being developed,
> > but I think dogs could do it faster and better.
>
> > Ken
>
> Dogs?

Instead of using FOD-detection radar, I suppose.

[WingFlaps]

On Mar 6, 2:45*pm, Bertie the Bunyip >
wrote:
> On 5 Mar, 01:14, buttman > wrote:
>
> > On Mar 4, 5:30 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>
> > You realize I've posted maybe 15 times in my entire 3 year Usenet
> > career on the subject of flight instructing? I'd LOOOVE to hear your
> > case against me.
>
> Me, i never make a case against anyone. I merely facilitate thier
> making a case against themselves.
>
> It's a gift.
>

What astonishes/depresses me is how ugly some people really are.

Cheers

[Bertie the Bunyip]

On 6 Mar, 02:58, WingFlaps > wrote:
> On Mar 6, 2:45*pm, Bertie the Bunyip >
> wrote:
>
> > On 5 Mar, 01:14, buttman > wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 4, 5:30 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>
> > > You realize I've posted maybe 15 times in my entire 3 year Usenet
> > > career on the subject of flight instructing? I'd LOOOVE to hear your
> > > case against me.
>
> > Me, i never make a case against anyone. I merely facilitate thier
> > making a case against themselves.
>
> > It's a gift.
>
> What astonishes/depresses me is how ugly some people really are.
>
> Cheers

I find it 'interesting' for want of a better word.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip]

On 5 Mar, 19:57, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
> On Mar 5, 11:34 am, george > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 5, 5:07 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>
> > > george wrote:
> > > > On Mar 5, 4:06 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>
> > > >> You noticed that too huh??? :-)))) Well, I guess the extra weight helps
> > > >> to get that ole airplane down again on the remaining runway when you
> > > >> pull that ole mixture back on a student right after rotation :-))))
>
> > > > I still can't believe that some-one claiming to be a pilot made the
> > > > 'pull mixture on takeoff' statement and is still here
>
> > > He keeps asking me to specifically state why I have issues with him.
> > > This single item has been the mainstay of my problem with him. No
> > > instructor worth the rating would yank a mixture on a student on takeoff.
> > > This "procedure" is so antithesis to competent flight instruction that
> > > it defies description.
> > > If this guy does things like this to his students, I am one instructor
> > > who doesn't agree with the way he "teaches".
>
> > My point also.
> > Engine failure on takeoff is, in my experience, simulated by the
> > instructor/testing officer pulling power.
> > The student then carries out the engine failure on takeoff drills
> > whereupon the instructor/testing officer restores power
> > IMO he is not an instructor.
>
> Yeah, but there is that cardinal rule, that one or the
> other controls the ship and of course the CFI has
> priority, but that does not allow the CFI to interfere
> by sneaky with the aircraft, at least not in my ship.

Good grief, it's like reading something a nine year old would write.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip]

On 5 Mar, 19:49, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
> On Mar 5, 6:17 am, Gig 601XL Builder >
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Ken S. Tucker wrote:
> > > On Mar 4, 7:35 pm, george > wrote:
> > >> On Mar 5, 4:06 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>
> > >>> You noticed that too huh??? :-)))) Well, I guess the extra weight helps
> > >>> to get that ole airplane down again on the remaining runway when you
> > >>> pull that ole mixture back on a student right after rotation :-))))
> > >> I still can't believe that some-one claiming to be a pilot made the
> > >> 'pull mixture on takeoff' statement and is still here
>
> > > What's a typo, or it there a reason?
>
> > > BTW, here's a video of that x-wind landing...
> > >http://www.thestar.com/News/World/article/309221
> > > (It ****es me off it's an amateur video, for the price
> > > of a bit of tape, one would think all landings should
> > > be properly video taped, cheap ****in' ****s).
>
> > > Anyway, the rudder steering seems odd to me,
> > > based on squinty frame advance...grrrr.
> > > Ken
>
> > Weren't you the guy that was also suggesting that the runway be subject
> > to a walk down before every take-off?
>
> For major airports, radar is being developed,
> but I think dogs could do it faster and better.

What, you got sum ol hound you tryin ta sell?
>
> > So I guess the next step will be
> > required CVR in C-150s.
>
> A 7-11 can afford video survalience but a major a
> airport can't, sounds like as if a govmonk is making
> a decision....runaway ....

Boggle


Bertie

[Jim Stewart]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> On 5 Mar, 19:57, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>> On Mar 5, 11:34 am, george > wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Mar 5, 5:07 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>>>> george wrote:
>>>>> On Mar 5, 4:06 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>>>>>> You noticed that too huh??? :-)))) Well, I guess the extra weight helps
>>>>>> to get that ole airplane down again on the remaining runway when you
>>>>>> pull that ole mixture back on a student right after rotation :-))))
>>>>> I still can't believe that some-one claiming to be a pilot made the
>>>>> 'pull mixture on takeoff' statement and is still here
>>>> He keeps asking me to specifically state why I have issues with him.
>>>> This single item has been the mainstay of my problem with him. No
>>>> instructor worth the rating would yank a mixture on a student on takeoff.
>>>> This "procedure" is so antithesis to competent flight instruction that
>>>> it defies description.
>>>> If this guy does things like this to his students, I am one instructor
>>>> who doesn't agree with the way he "teaches".
>>> My point also.
>>> Engine failure on takeoff is, in my experience, simulated by the
>>> instructor/testing officer pulling power.
>>> The student then carries out the engine failure on takeoff drills
>>> whereupon the instructor/testing officer restores power
>>> IMO he is not an instructor.
>> Yeah, but there is that cardinal rule, that one or the
>> other controls the ship and of course the CFI has
>> priority, but that does not allow the CFI to interfere
>> by sneaky with the aircraft, at least not in my ship.
>
> Good grief, it's like reading something a nine year old would write.

It's not clear it wasn't written by a nine year old.

[Ken S. Tucker]

On Mar 5, 6:57 pm, Steve Hix > wrote:
> In article
> >,
>
> Dan > wrote:
> > On Mar 5, 2:49 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
> > > > Weren't you the guy that was also suggesting that the runway be subject
> > > > to a walk down before every take-off?
>
> > > For major airports, radar is being developed,
> > > but I think dogs could do it faster and better.
> > > Ken
>
> > Dogs?
>
> Instead of using FOD-detection radar, I suppose.

I would use the words, "in competition".
Allow me to enumerate the main advantage of using
dogs to search the runway and return the scraps or
bark at said debris for a doggy biscuit.

Suppose a doggy gets run over, then all those cute
animal rights activists chicks will show up at said
airport flashing their tits to protest animal cruelty.
Then said airport and it's airlines will sell more tickets
to people who want to see said tits.

A recent marketing study performed by the Randy
corporation, actually confirmed that male passengers
would rather look at tits than radar, except for the
queers, so this system may not work well in Frisco,
but otherwise, everywhere else doggies are competitive.

Oh, and let's not forget the children. Would you want
to take your kids through a dreary airport with no dogs,
or one that has happy dogs running all over the runways
creating joy for the children, while saving lives.

Lassie would be proud...snifles.
Ken

[Roger[_4_]]

On Tue, 04 Mar 2008 23:07:23 -0500, Dudley Henriques
> wrote:

>george wrote:
>> On Mar 5, 4:06 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>>
>>> You noticed that too huh??? :-)))) Well, I guess the extra weight helps
>>> to get that ole airplane down again on the remaining runway when you
>>> pull that ole mixture back on a student right after rotation :-))))
>>>
>>
>> I still can't believe that some-one claiming to be a pilot made the
>> 'pull mixture on takeoff' statement and is still here
>>
>He keeps asking me to specifically state why I have issues with him.
>This single item has been the mainstay of my problem with him. No
>instructor worth the rating would yank a mixture on a student on takeoff.
>This "procedure" is so antithesis to competent flight instruction that
>it defies description.

Know an instructor who used to do that ...until he did it on one side
of a 310 during takeoff roll. He never did it again. Before they
could catch it the right tip tank was supporting the plane (from the
other side of the ditch. one prop was bent and the gear required major
surgery which meant a thorough of the spars and most of the structure.
Admittedly it was a twin, but pulling the mix on TO is creating a real
emergency if everything doesn't go right. Pulling it in the air is no
real biggie as the prop will keep turning and you have lots of
choices for landing along with lots of time for a restart which
*should* happen when the mixture is pushed back in with the prop still
turning.

Doing that without a LOT of runway ahead is really limiting your
options. Of course maybe he only does this in 150s on 10,000 foot
runways.

BTW I recognize that name from somewhere else. <:-))

>If this guy does things like this to his students, I am one instructor
>who doesn't agree with the way he "teaches".
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Ken S. Tucker]

On Mar 5, 9:39 pm, Jim Stewart > wrote:
> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> > On 5 Mar, 19:57, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
> >> On Mar 5, 11:34 am, george > wrote:
>
> >>> On Mar 5, 5:07 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> >>>> george wrote:
> >>>>> On Mar 5, 4:06 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> >>>>>> You noticed that too huh??? :-)))) Well, I guess the extra weight helps
> >>>>>> to get that ole airplane down again on the remaining runway when you
> >>>>>> pull that ole mixture back on a student right after rotation :-))))
> >>>>> I still can't believe that some-one claiming to be a pilot made the
> >>>>> 'pull mixture on takeoff' statement and is still here
> >>>> He keeps asking me to specifically state why I have issues with him.
> >>>> This single item has been the mainstay of my problem with him. No
> >>>> instructor worth the rating would yank a mixture on a student on takeoff.
> >>>> This "procedure" is so antithesis to competent flight instruction that
> >>>> it defies description.
> >>>> If this guy does things like this to his students, I am one instructor
> >>>> who doesn't agree with the way he "teaches".
> >>> My point also.
> >>> Engine failure on takeoff is, in my experience, simulated by the
> >>> instructor/testing officer pulling power.
> >>> The student then carries out the engine failure on takeoff drills
> >>> whereupon the instructor/testing officer restores power
> >>> IMO he is not an instructor.
> >> Yeah, but there is that cardinal rule, that one or the
> >> other controls the ship and of course the CFI has
> >> priority, but that does not allow the CFI to interfere
> >> by sneaky with the aircraft, at least not in my ship.
>
> > Good grief, it's like reading something a nine year old would write.
>
> It's not clear it wasn't written by a nine year old.

I think you're confused, I understand the command
of the ship is a very specific directive with NO
ambiguity. LOL, the way some of these alleged flight
instructors who post to this group, it sounds more
like Curly, Larry and Moe flying an airplane by
concensus. ... I'm splitting a gut from laughing.

Get Dan (BIG HEAD) Thomas, the "dud" (Dudlley)
and toss in bertie all on a bench seat in ole airplane,
and watch how they fly an airplane by consensus.
That trio would make the 3 stooges look like genius's.
LOL
Ken

[WingFlaps]

On Mar 6, 7:20*pm, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
> On Mar 5, 6:57 pm, Steve Hix > wrote:
>
> > In article
> > >,
>
> > *Dan > wrote:
> > > On Mar 5, 2:49 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
> > > > > Weren't you the guy that was also suggesting that the runway be subject
> > > > > to a walk down before every take-off?
>
> > > > For major airports, radar is being developed,
> > > > but I think dogs could do it faster and better.
> > > > Ken
>
> > > Dogs?
>
> > Instead of using FOD-detection radar, I suppose.
>
> I would use the words, "in competition".
> Allow me to enumerate the main advantage of using
> dogs to search the runway and return the scraps or
> bark at said debris for a doggy biscuit.
>
> Suppose a doggy gets run over, then all those cute
> animal rights activists chicks will show up at said
> airport flashing their tits to protest animal cruelty.
> Then said airport and it's airlines will sell more tickets
> to people who want to see said tits.
>
> A recent marketing study performed by the Randy
> corporation, actually confirmed that male passengers
> would rather look at tits than radar, except for the
> queers, so this system may not work well in Frisco,
> but otherwise, everywhere else doggies are competitive.
>
> Oh, and let's not forget the children. Would you want
> to take your kids through a dreary airport with no dogs,
> or one that has happy dogs running all over the runways
> creating joy for the children, while saving lives.
>
> Lassie would be proud...snifles.
> Ken

Are you ripping MY IDEA off? What's the big idea -either give me
credit or I'll send around my brother to turn you into lasagna with
extra tomato paste.

Cheers

[[email protected]]

On Mar 6, 2:27 am, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:

> Get Dan (BIG HEAD) Thomas, the "dud" (Dudlley)
> and toss in bertie all on a bench seat in ole airplane,
> and watch how they fly an airplane by consensus.
> That trio would make the 3 stooges look like genius's.
> LOL
> Ken

At least we'd be flying a real airplane while you're sitting
at the desk, pretending to fly.

Dan

[Ken S. Tucker]

On Mar 6, 2:20 am, WingFlaps > wrote:
> On Mar 6, 7:20 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mar 5, 6:57 pm, Steve Hix > wrote:
>
> > > In article
> > > >,
>
> > > Dan > wrote:
> > > > On Mar 5, 2:49 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
> > > > > > Weren't you the guy that was also suggesting that the runway be subject
> > > > > > to a walk down before every take-off?
>
> > > > > For major airports, radar is being developed,
> > > > > but I think dogs could do it faster and better.
> > > > > Ken
>
> > > > Dogs?
>
> > > Instead of using FOD-detection radar, I suppose.
>
> > I would use the words, "in competition".
> > Allow me to enumerate the main advantage of using
> > dogs to search the runway and return the scraps or
> > bark at said debris for a doggy biscuit.
>
> > Suppose a doggy gets run over, then all those cute
> > animal rights activists chicks will show up at said
> > airport flashing their tits to protest animal cruelty.
> > Then said airport and it's airlines will sell more tickets
> > to people who want to see said tits.
>
> > A recent marketing study performed by the Randy
> > corporation, actually confirmed that male passengers
> > would rather look at tits than radar, except for the
> > queers, so this system may not work well in Frisco,
> > but otherwise, everywhere else doggies are competitive.
>
> > Oh, and let's not forget the children. Would you want
> > to take your kids through a dreary airport with no dogs,
> > or one that has happy dogs running all over the runways
> > creating joy for the children, while saving lives.
>
> > Lassie would be proud...snifles.
> > Ken
>
> Are you ripping MY IDEA off? What's the big idea -either give me
> credit or I'll send around my brother to turn you into lasagna with
> extra tomato paste.
> Cheers

Sure it's your idea.
Dogs would love the work, they'd find every screw and
washer that normally gets sucked threw the engines.
(Boeing estimates $4 billion damage per year from
runway debris).
I think it's worth an experiment.
Ken

[Ken S. Tucker]

On Mar 6, 8:13 am, wrote:
> On Mar 6, 2:27 am, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>
> > Get Dan (BIG HEAD) Thomas, the "dud" (Dudlley)
> > and toss in bertie all on a bench seat in ole airplane,
> > and watch how they fly an airplane by consensus.
> > That trio would make the 3 stooges look like genius's.
> > LOL
> > Ken
>
> At least we'd be flying a real airplane while you're sitting
> at the desk, pretending to fly.
> Dan

Are you kidding? I'd pay you guys to sit in the back
seat and watch flying by commitee.
Ken

[WingFlaps]

On Mar 7, 8:02*am, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
> On Mar 6, 2:20 am, WingFlaps > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 6, 7:20 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 5, 6:57 pm, Steve Hix > wrote:
>
> > > > In article
> > > > >,
>
> > > > *Dan > wrote:
> > > > > On Mar 5, 2:49 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
> > > > > > > Weren't you the guy that was also suggesting that the runway be subject
> > > > > > > to a walk down before every take-off?
>
> > > > > > For major airports, radar is being developed,
> > > > > > but I think dogs could do it faster and better.
> > > > > > Ken
>
> > > > > Dogs?
>
> > > > Instead of using FOD-detection radar, I suppose.
>
> > > I would use the words, "in competition".
> > > Allow me to enumerate the main advantage of using
> > > dogs to search the runway and return the scraps or
> > > bark at said debris for a doggy biscuit.
>
> > > Suppose a doggy gets run over, then all those cute
> > > animal rights activists chicks will show up at said
> > > airport flashing their tits to protest animal cruelty.
> > > Then said airport and it's airlines will sell more tickets
> > > to people who want to see said tits.
>
> > > A recent marketing study performed by the Randy
> > > corporation, actually confirmed that male passengers
> > > would rather look at tits than radar, except for the
> > > queers, so this system may not work well in Frisco,
> > > but otherwise, everywhere else doggies are competitive.
>
> > > Oh, and let's not forget the children. Would you want
> > > to take your kids through a dreary airport with no dogs,
> > > or one that has happy dogs running all over the runways
> > > creating joy for the children, while saving lives.
>
> > > Lassie would be proud...snifles.
> > > Ken
>
> > Are you ripping MY IDEA off? What's the big idea -either give me
> > credit or I'll send around my brother to turn you into lasagna with
> > extra tomato paste.
> > Cheers
>
> Sure it's your idea.
> Dogs would love the work, they'd find every screw and
> washer that normally gets sucked threw the engines.
> (Boeing estimates $4 billion damage per year from
> runway debris).
> I think it's worth an experiment.
> Ken- Hide quoted text -
>

I think small dogs would be better than big dogs. The eat less, drop
smaller turds that will not make such a mess of the terminal windows
(a jet blast problem), do less damage to engines and props when sucked
into them, and will make less of a bump when run over. Their only
disadvanatge is that they would be less of a deterrant for the hoards
of terrorists wanting to get to the apron. This migh be offset by
having aggressive packs of little dogs trained to attack any one who
does not have an identification badge. When the dogs get older they
could be retired to the pie factory for processing and then sold to
asia to thelp the balance of payments. What do you think?

Cheers

[george]

On Mar 6, 10:27 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
> On Mar 5, 9:39 pm, Jim Stewart > wrote:
>
>
>
> > Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> > > On 5 Mar, 19:57, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
> > >> On Mar 5, 11:34 am, george > wrote:
>
> > >>> On Mar 5, 5:07 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> > >>>> george wrote:
> > >>>>> On Mar 5, 4:06 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> > >>>>>> You noticed that too huh??? :-)))) Well, I guess the extra weight helps
> > >>>>>> to get that ole airplane down again on the remaining runway when you
> > >>>>>> pull that ole mixture back on a student right after rotation :-))))
> > >>>>> I still can't believe that some-one claiming to be a pilot made the
> > >>>>> 'pull mixture on takeoff' statement and is still here
> > >>>> He keeps asking me to specifically state why I have issues with him.
> > >>>> This single item has been the mainstay of my problem with him. No
> > >>>> instructor worth the rating would yank a mixture on a student on takeoff.
> > >>>> This "procedure" is so antithesis to competent flight instruction that
> > >>>> it defies description.
> > >>>> If this guy does things like this to his students, I am one instructor
> > >>>> who doesn't agree with the way he "teaches".
> > >>> My point also.
> > >>> Engine failure on takeoff is, in my experience, simulated by the
> > >>> instructor/testing officer pulling power.
> > >>> The student then carries out the engine failure on takeoff drills
> > >>> whereupon the instructor/testing officer restores power
> > >>> IMO he is not an instructor.
> > >> Yeah, but there is that cardinal rule, that one or the
> > >> other controls the ship and of course the CFI has
> > >> priority, but that does not allow the CFI to interfere
> > >> by sneaky with the aircraft, at least not in my ship.
>
> > > Good grief, it's like reading something a nine year old would write.
>
> > It's not clear it wasn't written by a nine year old.
>
> I think you're confused, I understand the command
> of the ship is a very specific directive with NO
> ambiguity. LOL, the way some of these alleged flight
> instructors who post to this group, it sounds more
> like Curly, Larry and Moe flying an airplane by
> concensus. ... I'm splitting a gut from laughing.
>
> Get Dan (BIG HEAD) Thomas, the "dud" (Dudlley)
> and toss in bertie all on a bench seat in ole airplane,
> and watch how they fly an airplane by consensus.
> That trio would make the 3 stooges look like genius's.
> LOL


Any-one else have trouble equating kens waffle and spin with what one
would expect from a real pilot?

[buttman]

On Mar 4, 9:07 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> george wrote:
> > On Mar 5, 4:06 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>
> >> You noticed that too huh??? :-)))) Well, I guess the extra weight helps
> >> to get that ole airplane down again on the remaining runway when you
> >> pull that ole mixture back on a student right after rotation :-))))
>
> > I still can't believe that some-one claiming to be a pilot made the
> > 'pull mixture on takeoff' statement and is still here
>
> He keeps asking me to specifically state why I have issues with him.
> This single item has been the mainstay of my problem with him. No
> instructor worth the rating would yank a mixture on a student on takeoff.
> This "procedure" is so antithesis to competent flight instruction that
> it defies description.
> If this guy does things like this to his students, I am one instructor
> who doesn't agree with the way he "teaches".
>
> --
> Dudley Henriques

First off, I wasn't asking about pulling the mixture, I was a asking
about switching the fuel selector valve. My reasoning was that when
students see the instructor reach over to grab one of the throttles,
it's not an accurate simulation of an engine failure. Theres an
element of surprise that is lost when you get a few moments of
preemptive awareness. I had planned on doing this "maneuver" on more
advanced students that have already demonstrated to me that they know
how to handle such situation.

And secondly, I wasn't arguing this maneuver is objectively "safe".
Just about everyone who replied to that thread was attempting to
classify this maneuver as objectively "unsafe" regardless of any other
circumstances. The majority is my arguments were against this line of
reasoning. I don't believe ANYTHING can be fairly classified as
objectively unsafe except for one thing and one thing only;
unpreparedness. How can you see nothing wrong with shutting down both
engines on a business aircraft, and doing aerobatics? Or airshow
pilots doing barrel rolls 10ft above the ground, or ANY kind of low
level aerobatics for that matter? How can you be OK with MEI's pulling
the mixture on takeoff roll, YET throw such a hissy fit over what I
had posted? The only reason I posted the thread in the first place was
to gather information from the group to help me better understand what
to expect? I was attempting to sufficiently prepare myself, but the
thread ended up being a circle-jerk instead.

I truly believe that if you objectively and systematically analyze any
situation, and address each and every factor that can go wrong,
anything can be done safely. In my case, I believe I did (or at least
attempted) to do just that. The runway was long and wide; the student
was, to my best judgment, capable of handling this without my help;
the plane is not going to do anything unpredictable as long as the
nose is lowered in due time (me and the student has done power off and
on stalls many times and we both sufficiently know how to avoid them);
I also was aware that the C152 only needs 200 feet or so to recover
from a stall in case one were to happen -- and so on and so on... I
made the post in an attempt to get a little extra piece of mind in
case there was something I happened to overlooked.

If people would have replied in a reasonable manner to gave real
insight, I would have definitely listened, because I agree I'm
stepping a little bit out of the bounds of normal everyday CFI
instruction techniques. I believed I was skilled enough in both giving
meaningful instruction, and piloting ability, in order to pull
something like this off safely and educatively.

But I never got any of those responses. All I got was "HURR NOT REALLY
AN INSTRUCTOR HHUUURRRR WORLDS WORST PILOT I CANT BELIEVE SOMEONE THIS
STUPID IS FLYING DDDUUUHHH I'M CALLING THE COPS FOR ATTEMPTED MURDER
LOLOL KINDERGARDEN USERNAEM I'M SO GLAD THAT I'M NOT THAT STUPID
HUGHLAUGHLAUGUHGUHGU HUUUURRRRR". I might have gotten a single
response or maybe two, that I definitely took into consideration, but
as soon as the first monkeyn decided to make the thread into an ego
stroke, (HUUR I'M SO MUCH BETTER THAT YOU), they all started. Within a
few days there were hundreds of similar replies. The exact same thing
went on with my thread about turning base in front of the Cirrus. It
started out well, until everyone started playing "follow the idiot".

Anyways, thats all for now, I just got back from Mexico and I'm tired.

[[email protected]]

On Mar 6, 12:02 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
> Sure it's your idea.
> Dogs would love the work, they'd find every screw and
> washer that normally gets sucked threw the engines.
> (Boeing estimates $4 billion damage per year from
> runway debris).
> I think it's worth an experiment.
> Ken

How does a washer that gets sucked throw an engine?

Where does the $4 billion figure come from? Quote a source.

How is a dog trained to smell out a screw? What do screws smell
like? Do washers smell like soap?

There is no limit to the number of ideas that we think
government should implement. An individual doesn't have to be
especially intelligent to come up with ideas. But there is a limit to
how much more taxation we'll tolerate to pay for all those ideas. At a
time when health care is strained beyond reason, when education is
slipping beyond the reach of many, when infrastructure (like bridges,
highways, public buildings) is collapsing, you'll have a hard time
convincing that the safest form of transportation ever devised needs
more public money thrown at it.

Dan

[buttman]

On Mar 6, 2:27 am, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:

> I think you're confused, I understand the command
> of the ship is a very specific directive with NO
> ambiguity. LOL, the way some of these alleged flight
> instructors who post to this group, it sounds more
> like Curly, Larry and Moe flying an airplane by
> concensus. ... I'm splitting a gut from laughing.
>
> Get Dan (BIG HEAD) Thomas, the "dud" (Dudlley)
> and toss in bertie all on a bench seat in ole airplane,
> and watch how they fly an airplane by consensus.
> That trio would make the 3 stooges look like genius's.
> LOL
> Ken

The ultimate goal of flight instruction is to get the student to a
point where he/she has the ability/confidence to actually be the
person in command. This obviously is not going to happen over night.
It's actually the single most challenging thing to "teach" in flight
instruction. Even commercial pilots with hundreds of hours will
immediately look to the instructor when something goes wrong. I've
found what works best is to try to do as much instructing as you can
passively. That means instead of the instructor being the one "doing",
it should be the student "doing" most of whats going on. Grabbing the
throttle and pulling it back, then saying to the student "do an engine
failure", is not instructing passively. You're telling the student
what to do. You don't want that, you want the student to tell the
student what to do because thats how it's going to be in the real
world once that student moves on. Eventually they get used to being
the one calling the shots, so when it gets time for them to solo, they
are more confident.

Another way is to not be too harsh when the student makes the wrong
decision. Everyone makes mistakes, especially inexperienced students.
If you negatively enforce wrong decisions, you are mostly discouraging
decision making in general. I could go on, but I'm the worlds worst
instructor, so what do I know LOL (-:

[Ken S. Tucker]

On Mar 6, 11:32 am, WingFlaps > wrote:
> On Mar 7, 8:02 am, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:

> > On Mar 6, 2:20 am, WingFlaps > wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 6, 7:20 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>
> > > > On Mar 5, 6:57 pm, Steve Hix > wrote:
>
> > > > > In article
> > > > > >,
>
> > > > > Dan > wrote:
> > > > > > On Mar 5, 2:49 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
> > > > > > > > Weren't you the guy that was also suggesting that the runway be subject
> > > > > > > > to a walk down before every take-off?
>
> > > > > > > For major airports, radar is being developed,
> > > > > > > but I think dogs could do it faster and better.
> > > > > > > Ken
>
> > > > > > Dogs?
>
> > > > > Instead of using FOD-detection radar, I suppose.
>
> > > > I would use the words, "in competition".
> > > > Allow me to enumerate the main advantage of using
> > > > dogs to search the runway and return the scraps or
> > > > bark at said debris for a doggy biscuit.
>
> > > > Suppose a doggy gets run over, then all those cute
> > > > animal rights activists chicks will show up at said
> > > > airport flashing their tits to protest animal cruelty.
> > > > Then said airport and it's airlines will sell more tickets
> > > > to people who want to see said tits.
>
> > > > A recent marketing study performed by the Randy
> > > > corporation, actually confirmed that male passengers
> > > > would rather look at tits than radar, except for the
> > > > queers, so this system may not work well in Frisco,
> > > > but otherwise, everywhere else doggies are competitive.
>
> > > > Oh, and let's not forget the children. Would you want
> > > > to take your kids through a dreary airport with no dogs,
> > > > or one that has happy dogs running all over the runways
> > > > creating joy for the children, while saving lives.
>
> > > > Lassie would be proud...snifles.
> > > > Ken
>
> > > Are you ripping MY IDEA off? What's the big idea -either give me
> > > credit or I'll send around my brother to turn you into lasagna with
> > > extra tomato paste.
> > > Cheers
>
> > Sure it's your idea.
> > Dogs would love the work, they'd find every screw and
> > washer that normally gets sucked threw the engines.
> > (Boeing estimates $4 billion damage per year from
> > runway debris).
> > I think it's worth an experiment.
> > Ken- Hide quoted text -
>
> I think small dogs would be better than big dogs. The eat less, drop
> smaller turds that will not make such a mess of the terminal windows
> (a jet blast problem), do less damage to engines and props when sucked
> into them, and will make less of a bump when run over. Their only
> disadvanatge is that they would be less of a deterrant for the hoards
> of terrorists wanting to get to the apron. This migh be offset by
> having aggressive packs of little dogs trained to attack any one who
> does not have an identification badge. When the dogs get older they
> could be retired to the pie factory for processing and then sold to
> asia to thelp the balance of payments. What do you think?
> Cheers

Mr. Wing Flaps it was your idea to use dogs :-).
I like it! Most dogs are stupidly trained by stupid
owners and they're both fat-headed crap machines.
But an intelligent dog, well trained, will even train
other dogs.
Best
Ken
PS: Gerbils.

[WingFlaps]

On Mar 7, 9:23*am, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
> On Mar 6, 11:32 am, WingFlaps > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 7, 8:02 am, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
> > > On Mar 6, 2:20 am, WingFlaps > wrote:
>
> > > > On Mar 6, 7:20 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>
> > > > > On Mar 5, 6:57 pm, Steve Hix > wrote:
>
> > > > > > In article
> > > > > > >,
>
> > > > > > *Dan > wrote:
> > > > > > > On Mar 5, 2:49 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > Weren't you the guy that was also suggesting that the runway be subject
> > > > > > > > > to a walk down before every take-off?
>
> > > > > > > > For major airports, radar is being developed,
> > > > > > > > but I think dogs could do it faster and better.
> > > > > > > > Ken
>
> > > > > > > Dogs?
>
> > > > > > Instead of using FOD-detection radar, I suppose.
>
> > > > > I would use the words, "in competition".
> > > > > Allow me to enumerate the main advantage of using
> > > > > dogs to search the runway and return the scraps or
> > > > > bark at said debris for a doggy biscuit.
>
> > > > > Suppose a doggy gets run over, then all those cute
> > > > > animal rights activists chicks will show up at said
> > > > > airport flashing their tits to protest animal cruelty.
> > > > > Then said airport and it's airlines will sell more tickets
> > > > > to people who want to see said tits.
>
> > > > > A recent marketing study performed by the Randy
> > > > > corporation, actually confirmed that male passengers
> > > > > would rather look at tits than radar, except for the
> > > > > queers, so this system may not work well in Frisco,
> > > > > but otherwise, everywhere else doggies are competitive.
>
> > > > > Oh, and let's not forget the children. Would you want
> > > > > to take your kids through a dreary airport with no dogs,
> > > > > or one that has happy dogs running all over the runways
> > > > > creating joy for the children, while saving lives.
>
> > > > > Lassie would be proud...snifles.
> > > > > Ken
>
> > > > Are you ripping MY IDEA off? What's the big idea -either give me
> > > > credit or I'll send around my brother to turn you into lasagna with
> > > > extra tomato paste.
> > > > Cheers
>
> > > Sure it's your idea.
> > > Dogs would love the work, they'd find every screw and
> > > washer that normally gets sucked threw the engines.
> > > (Boeing estimates $4 billion damage per year from
> > > runway debris).
> > > I think it's worth an experiment.
> > > Ken- Hide quoted text -
>
> > I think small dogs would be better than big dogs. The eat less, drop
> > smaller turds that will not make such a mess of the terminal windows
> > (a jet blast problem), do less damage to engines and props when sucked
> > into them, and will make less of a bump when run over. Their only
> > disadvanatge is that they would be less of a deterrant for the hoards
> > of terrorists wanting to get to the apron. This migh be offset by
> > having aggressive packs of little dogs trained to attack any one who
> > does not have an identification badge. When the dogs get older they
> > could be retired to the pie factory for processing and then sold to
> > asia to thelp the balance of payments. What do you think?
> > Cheers
>
> Mr. Wing Flaps it was your idea to use dogs :-).
> I like it! Most dogs are stupidly trained by stupid
> owners and they're both fat-headed crap machines.
> But an intelligent dog, well trained, will even train
> other dogs.
> Best
> Ken
> PS: Gerbils.- Hide quoted text -
>

You train Gerbils?

Cheers

[WingFlaps]

On Mar 7, 8:51*am, buttman > wrote:
I don't believe ANYTHING can be fairly classified as
> objectively unsafe except for one thing and one thing only;
> unpreparedness.

Here's an example, start cleaning a loaded gun.

Cheers

[Ken S. Tucker]

On Mar 6, 12:27 pm, WingFlaps > wrote:
> On Mar 7, 9:23 am, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mar 6, 11:32 am, WingFlaps > wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 7, 8:02 am, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
> > > > On Mar 6, 2:20 am, WingFlaps > wrote:
>
> > > > > On Mar 6, 7:20 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Mar 5, 6:57 pm, Steve Hix > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > In article
> > > > > > > >,
>
> > > > > > > Dan > wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Mar 5, 2:49 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > Weren't you the guy that was also suggesting that the runway be subject
> > > > > > > > > > to a walk down before every take-off?
>
> > > > > > > > > For major airports, radar is being developed,
> > > > > > > > > but I think dogs could do it faster and better.
> > > > > > > > > Ken
>
> > > > > > > > Dogs?
>
> > > > > > > Instead of using FOD-detection radar, I suppose.
>
> > > > > > I would use the words, "in competition".
> > > > > > Allow me to enumerate the main advantage of using
> > > > > > dogs to search the runway and return the scraps or
> > > > > > bark at said debris for a doggy biscuit.
>
> > > > > > Suppose a doggy gets run over, then all those cute
> > > > > > animal rights activists chicks will show up at said
> > > > > > airport flashing their tits to protest animal cruelty.
> > > > > > Then said airport and it's airlines will sell more tickets
> > > > > > to people who want to see said tits.
>
> > > > > > A recent marketing study performed by the Randy
> > > > > > corporation, actually confirmed that male passengers
> > > > > > would rather look at tits than radar, except for the
> > > > > > queers, so this system may not work well in Frisco,
> > > > > > but otherwise, everywhere else doggies are competitive.
>
> > > > > > Oh, and let's not forget the children. Would you want
> > > > > > to take your kids through a dreary airport with no dogs,
> > > > > > or one that has happy dogs running all over the runways
> > > > > > creating joy for the children, while saving lives.
>
> > > > > > Lassie would be proud...snifles.
> > > > > > Ken
>
> > > > > Are you ripping MY IDEA off? What's the big idea -either give me
> > > > > credit or I'll send around my brother to turn you into lasagna with
> > > > > extra tomato paste.
> > > > > Cheers
>
> > > > Sure it's your idea.
> > > > Dogs would love the work, they'd find every screw and
> > > > washer that normally gets sucked threw the engines.
> > > > (Boeing estimates $4 billion damage per year from
> > > > runway debris).
> > > > I think it's worth an experiment.
> > > > Ken- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > I think small dogs would be better than big dogs. The eat less, drop
> > > smaller turds that will not make such a mess of the terminal windows
> > > (a jet blast problem), do less damage to engines and props when sucked
> > > into them, and will make less of a bump when run over. Their only
> > > disadvanatge is that they would be less of a deterrant for the hoards
> > > of terrorists wanting to get to the apron. This migh be offset by
> > > having aggressive packs of little dogs trained to attack any one who
> > > does not have an identification badge. When the dogs get older they
> > > could be retired to the pie factory for processing and then sold to
> > > asia to thelp the balance of payments. What do you think?
> > > Cheers
>
> > Mr. Wing Flaps it was your idea to use dogs :-).
> > I like it! Most dogs are stupidly trained by stupid
> > owners and they're both fat-headed crap machines.
> > But an intelligent dog, well trained, will even train
> > other dogs.
> > Best
> > Ken
> > PS: Gerbils.- Hide quoted text -
>
> You train Gerbils?

Well let me put it this way, your doggies have
competition. I won't even mention robots.
Ken

[WingFlaps]

On Mar 7, 8:51*am, buttman > wrote:

> I also was aware that the C152 only needs 200 feet or so to recover
> from a stall in case one were to happen -- and so on and so on... I
> made the post in an attempt to get a little extra piece of mind in
> case there was something I happened to overlooked.
>


How the hell did you pass you pass your flight tests losing 200' in
stall recovery? What you can't accept is that you were universally
judged to be a bad flight instructor for suggesting a very unsafe
manouver and you still have not got it into your head that you were
WRONG and you need some more education. I suggest you go back and
start with HUMAN FACTORS and this time think about it -OK?

Cheers

[WingFlaps]

On Mar 7, 9:23*am, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
> On Mar 6, 11:32 am, WingFlaps > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 7, 8:02 am, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
> > > On Mar 6, 2:20 am, WingFlaps > wrote:
>
> > > > On Mar 6, 7:20 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>
> > > > > On Mar 5, 6:57 pm, Steve Hix > wrote:
>
> > > > > > In article
> > > > > > >,
>
> > > > > > *Dan > wrote:
> > > > > > > On Mar 5, 2:49 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > Weren't you the guy that was also suggesting that the runway be subject
> > > > > > > > > to a walk down before every take-off?
>
> > > > > > > > For major airports, radar is being developed,
> > > > > > > > but I think dogs could do it faster and better.
> > > > > > > > Ken
>
> > > > > > > Dogs?
>
> > > > > > Instead of using FOD-detection radar, I suppose.
>
> > > > > I would use the words, "in competition".
> > > > > Allow me to enumerate the main advantage of using
> > > > > dogs to search the runway and return the scraps or
> > > > > bark at said debris for a doggy biscuit.
>
> > > > > Suppose a doggy gets run over, then all those cute
> > > > > animal rights activists chicks will show up at said
> > > > > airport flashing their tits to protest animal cruelty.
> > > > > Then said airport and it's airlines will sell more tickets
> > > > > to people who want to see said tits.
>
> > > > > A recent marketing study performed by the Randy
> > > > > corporation, actually confirmed that male passengers
> > > > > would rather look at tits than radar, except for the
> > > > > queers, so this system may not work well in Frisco,
> > > > > but otherwise, everywhere else doggies are competitive.
>
> > > > > Oh, and let's not forget the children. Would you want
> > > > > to take your kids through a dreary airport with no dogs,
> > > > > or one that has happy dogs running all over the runways
> > > > > creating joy for the children, while saving lives.
>
> > > > > Lassie would be proud...snifles.
> > > > > Ken
>
> > > > Are you ripping MY IDEA off? What's the big idea -either give me
> > > > credit or I'll send around my brother to turn you into lasagna with
> > > > extra tomato paste.
> > > > Cheers
>
> > > Sure it's your idea.
> > > Dogs would love the work, they'd find every screw and
> > > washer that normally gets sucked threw the engines.
> > > (Boeing estimates $4 billion damage per year from
> > > runway debris).
> > > I think it's worth an experiment.
> > > Ken- Hide quoted text -
>
> > I think small dogs would be better than big dogs. The eat less, drop
> > smaller turds that will not make such a mess of the terminal windows
> > (a jet blast problem), do less damage to engines and props when sucked
> > into them, and will make less of a bump when run over. Their only
> > disadvanatge is that they would be less of a deterrant for the hoards
> > of terrorists wanting to get to the apron. This migh be offset by
> > having aggressive packs of little dogs trained to attack any one who
> > does not have an identification badge. When the dogs get older they
> > could be retired to the pie factory for processing and then sold to
> > asia to thelp the balance of payments. What do you think?
> > Cheers
>
> Mr. Wing Flaps it was your idea to use dogs :-).
> I like it! Most dogs are stupidly trained by stupid
> owners and they're both fat-headed crap machines.
> But an intelligent dog, well trained, will even train
> other dogs.
> Best

Some people let their dogs lick the dinner dishes clean to save
washing up. I don't eat at those people's house though. Dogs are also
a good size for domestic freezers and are a good source of protein!
Defeacating everywhere remains an unsolved problem. The strange thing
is they willingly eat human faeces but not their own and this is a
pity as they could then clean up after themselves and then do the
dishes!
Cheers

[buttman]

On Mar 6, 1:37 pm, WingFlaps > wrote:
>
> How the hell did you pass you pass your flight tests losing 200' in
> stall recovery?

I'm taking into account human Factors.

> I suggest you go back and
> start with HUMAN FACTORS and this time think about it -OK?
>
> Cheers

Oh LOL I get it, you're being ironic! LOL Good one!

[buttman]

On Mar 6, 1:29 pm, WingFlaps > wrote:
> On Mar 7, 8:51 am, buttman > wrote:
> I don't believe ANYTHING can be fairly classified as
>
> > objectively unsafe except for one thing and one thing only;
> > unpreparedness.
>
> Here's an example, start cleaning a loaded gun.
>
> Cheers

LOL another first rate knee slapper!! LOLOLOL I love it

[WingFlaps]

On Mar 7, 9:32*am, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
> On Mar 6, 12:27 pm, WingFlaps > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 7, 9:23 am, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 6, 11:32 am, WingFlaps > wrote:
>
> > > > On Mar 7, 8:02 am, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
> > > > > On Mar 6, 2:20 am, WingFlaps > wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Mar 6, 7:20 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Mar 5, 6:57 pm, Steve Hix > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > In article
> > > > > > > > >,
>
> > > > > > > > *Dan > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Mar 5, 2:49 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > Weren't you the guy that was also suggesting that the runway be subject
> > > > > > > > > > > to a walk down before every take-off?
>
> > > > > > > > > > For major airports, radar is being developed,
> > > > > > > > > > but I think dogs could do it faster and better.
> > > > > > > > > > Ken
>
> > > > > > > > > Dogs?
>
> > > > > > > > Instead of using FOD-detection radar, I suppose.
>
> > > > > > > I would use the words, "in competition".
> > > > > > > Allow me to enumerate the main advantage of using
> > > > > > > dogs to search the runway and return the scraps or
> > > > > > > bark at said debris for a doggy biscuit.
>
> > > > > > > Suppose a doggy gets run over, then all those cute
> > > > > > > animal rights activists chicks will show up at said
> > > > > > > airport flashing their tits to protest animal cruelty.
> > > > > > > Then said airport and it's airlines will sell more tickets
> > > > > > > to people who want to see said tits.
>
> > > > > > > A recent marketing study performed by the Randy
> > > > > > > corporation, actually confirmed that male passengers
> > > > > > > would rather look at tits than radar, except for the
> > > > > > > queers, so this system may not work well in Frisco,
> > > > > > > but otherwise, everywhere else doggies are competitive.
>
> > > > > > > Oh, and let's not forget the children. Would you want
> > > > > > > to take your kids through a dreary airport with no dogs,
> > > > > > > or one that has happy dogs running all over the runways
> > > > > > > creating joy for the children, while saving lives.
>
> > > > > > > Lassie would be proud...snifles.
> > > > > > > Ken
>
> > > > > > Are you ripping MY IDEA off? What's the big idea -either give me
> > > > > > credit or I'll send around my brother to turn you into lasagna with
> > > > > > extra tomato paste.
> > > > > > Cheers
>
> > > > > Sure it's your idea.
> > > > > Dogs would love the work, they'd find every screw and
> > > > > washer that normally gets sucked threw the engines.
> > > > > (Boeing estimates $4 billion damage per year from
> > > > > runway debris).
> > > > > I think it's worth an experiment.
> > > > > Ken- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > I think small dogs would be better than big dogs. The eat less, drop
> > > > smaller turds that will not make such a mess of the terminal windows
> > > > (a jet blast problem), do less damage to engines and props when sucked
> > > > into them, and will make less of a bump when run over. Their only
> > > > disadvanatge is that they would be less of a deterrant for the hoards
> > > > of terrorists wanting to get to the apron. This migh be offset by
> > > > having aggressive packs of little dogs trained to attack any one who
> > > > does not have an identification badge. When the dogs get older they
> > > > could be retired to the pie factory for processing and then sold to
> > > > asia to thelp the balance of payments. What do you think?
> > > > Cheers
>
> > > Mr. Wing Flaps it was your idea to use dogs :-).
> > > I like it! Most dogs are stupidly trained by stupid
> > > owners and they're both fat-headed crap machines.
> > > But an intelligent dog, well trained, will even train
> > > other dogs.
> > > Best
> > > Ken
> > > PS: Gerbils.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > You train Gerbils?
>
> Well let me put it this way, your doggies have
> competition. I won't even mention robots.
> Ken- Hide quoted text -
>
Well, my dogs will eat your gerbils! Robots sucked into jet engines
will case a lot of damage too.

Cheers

[Gig 601XL Builder[_2_]]

Ken S. Tucker wrote:
>
> Sure it's your idea.
> Dogs would love the work, they'd find every screw and
> washer that normally gets sucked threw the engines.
> (Boeing estimates $4 billion damage per year from
> runway debris).
> I think it's worth an experiment.
> Ken
>
>

And it will be so much more convenient to have all the screws and
washers in a handy meat storage unit that can get sucked up into those
same engines.

My little airport just spent more than $1Mil of taxpayer money to build
a fence to keep animals off the runways. The last thing we need is to
put dogs inside the fence.

[buttman]

On Mar 4, 7:46 pm, Dan > wrote:
>
> In your case, I think you spend far too much time typing defensive
> tomes.
>
> Dan

Well that kind of what happens when you have about a dozen people
following you around throwing stones in glass houses.

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

WingFlaps wrote:
> On Mar 7, 8:02 am, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>> On Mar 6, 2:20 am, WingFlaps > wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Mar 6, 7:20 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>>>> On Mar 5, 6:57 pm, Steve Hix > wrote:
>>>>> In article
>>>>> >,
>>>>> Dan > wrote:
>>>>>> On Mar 5, 2:49 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>>>>>>>> Weren't you the guy that was also suggesting that the runway be subject
>>>>>>>> to a walk down before every take-off?
>>>>>>> For major airports, radar is being developed,
>>>>>>> but I think dogs could do it faster and better.
>>>>>>> Ken
>>>>>> Dogs?
>>>>> Instead of using FOD-detection radar, I suppose.
>>>> I would use the words, "in competition".
>>>> Allow me to enumerate the main advantage of using
>>>> dogs to search the runway and return the scraps or
>>>> bark at said debris for a doggy biscuit.
>>>> Suppose a doggy gets run over, then all those cute
>>>> animal rights activists chicks will show up at said
>>>> airport flashing their tits to protest animal cruelty.
>>>> Then said airport and it's airlines will sell more tickets
>>>> to people who want to see said tits.
>>>> A recent marketing study performed by the Randy
>>>> corporation, actually confirmed that male passengers
>>>> would rather look at tits than radar, except for the
>>>> queers, so this system may not work well in Frisco,
>>>> but otherwise, everywhere else doggies are competitive.
>>>> Oh, and let's not forget the children. Would you want
>>>> to take your kids through a dreary airport with no dogs,
>>>> or one that has happy dogs running all over the runways
>>>> creating joy for the children, while saving lives.
>>>> Lassie would be proud...snifles.
>>>> Ken
>>> Are you ripping MY IDEA off? What's the big idea -either give me
>>> credit or I'll send around my brother to turn you into lasagna with
>>> extra tomato paste.
>>> Cheers
>> Sure it's your idea.
>> Dogs would love the work, they'd find every screw and
>> washer that normally gets sucked threw the engines.
>> (Boeing estimates $4 billion damage per year from
>> runway debris).
>> I think it's worth an experiment.
>> Ken- Hide quoted text -
>>
>
> I think small dogs would be better than big dogs. The eat less, drop
> smaller turds that will not make such a mess of the terminal windows
> (a jet blast problem), do less damage to engines and props when sucked
> into them, and will make less of a bump when run over. Their only
> disadvanatge is that they would be less of a deterrant for the hoards
> of terrorists wanting to get to the apron. This migh be offset by
> having aggressive packs of little dogs trained to attack any one who
> does not have an identification badge. When the dogs get older they
> could be retired to the pie factory for processing and then sold to
> asia to thelp the balance of payments. What do you think?
>
> Cheers
I can see the headlines now........

"Three hundred and fifty killed in crash of DC10 on take off at Kennedy.
Investigators are puzzled by an initial report of strange evidence of
small dogs found to have been sucked through the engines."



--
Dudley Henriques

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

buttman wrote:
> On Mar 4, 9:07 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>> george wrote:
>>> On Mar 5, 4:06 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>>>> You noticed that too huh??? :-)))) Well, I guess the extra weight helps
>>>> to get that ole airplane down again on the remaining runway when you
>>>> pull that ole mixture back on a student right after rotation :-))))
>>> I still can't believe that some-one claiming to be a pilot made the
>>> 'pull mixture on takeoff' statement and is still here
>> He keeps asking me to specifically state why I have issues with him.
>> This single item has been the mainstay of my problem with him. No
>> instructor worth the rating would yank a mixture on a student on takeoff.
>> This "procedure" is so antithesis to competent flight instruction that
>> it defies description.
>> If this guy does things like this to his students, I am one instructor
>> who doesn't agree with the way he "teaches".
>>
>> --
>> Dudley Henriques
>
> First off, I wasn't asking about pulling the mixture, I was a asking
> about switching the fuel selector valve. My reasoning was that when
> students see the instructor reach over to grab one of the throttles,
> it's not an accurate simulation of an engine failure. Theres an
> element of surprise that is lost when you get a few moments of
> preemptive awareness. I had planned on doing this "maneuver" on more
> advanced students that have already demonstrated to me that they know
> how to handle such situation.
>
> And secondly, I wasn't arguing this maneuver is objectively "safe".
> Just about everyone who replied to that thread was attempting to
> classify this maneuver as objectively "unsafe" regardless of any other
> circumstances. The majority is my arguments were against this line of
> reasoning. I don't believe ANYTHING can be fairly classified as
> objectively unsafe except for one thing and one thing only;
> unpreparedness. How can you see nothing wrong with shutting down both
> engines on a business aircraft, and doing aerobatics? Or airshow
> pilots doing barrel rolls 10ft above the ground, or ANY kind of low
> level aerobatics for that matter? How can you be OK with MEI's pulling
> the mixture on takeoff roll, YET throw such a hissy fit over what I
> had posted? The only reason I posted the thread in the first place was
> to gather information from the group to help me better understand what
> to expect? I was attempting to sufficiently prepare myself, but the
> thread ended up being a circle-jerk instead.
>
> I truly believe that if you objectively and systematically analyze any
> situation, and address each and every factor that can go wrong,
> anything can be done safely. In my case, I believe I did (or at least
> attempted) to do just that. The runway was long and wide; the student
> was, to my best judgment, capable of handling this without my help;
> the plane is not going to do anything unpredictable as long as the
> nose is lowered in due time (me and the student has done power off and
> on stalls many times and we both sufficiently know how to avoid them);
> I also was aware that the C152 only needs 200 feet or so to recover
> from a stall in case one were to happen -- and so on and so on... I
> made the post in an attempt to get a little extra piece of mind in
> case there was something I happened to overlooked.
>
> If people would have replied in a reasonable manner to gave real
> insight, I would have definitely listened, because I agree I'm
> stepping a little bit out of the bounds of normal everyday CFI
> instruction techniques. I believed I was skilled enough in both giving
> meaningful instruction, and piloting ability, in order to pull
> something like this off safely and educatively.
>
> But I never got any of those responses. All I got was "HURR NOT REALLY
> AN INSTRUCTOR HHUUURRRR WORLDS WORST PILOT I CANT BELIEVE SOMEONE THIS
> STUPID IS FLYING DDDUUUHHH I'M CALLING THE COPS FOR ATTEMPTED MURDER
> LOLOL KINDERGARDEN USERNAEM I'M SO GLAD THAT I'M NOT THAT STUPID
> HUGHLAUGHLAUGUHGUHGU HUUUURRRRR". I might have gotten a single
> response or maybe two, that I definitely took into consideration, but
> as soon as the first monkeyn decided to make the thread into an ego
> stroke, (HUUR I'M SO MUCH BETTER THAT YOU), they all started. Within a
> few days there were hundreds of similar replies. The exact same thing
> went on with my thread about turning base in front of the Cirrus. It
> started out well, until everyone started playing "follow the idiot".
>
> Anyways, thats all for now, I just got back from Mexico and I'm tired.

The posts you made concerning pulling mixture on take off involved a
single engine airplane and a primary student. No competent instructor
does this REGARDLESS of the runway remaining.
The fact that you are actually defending this idiotic and incompetent
procedure is all I need to support my initial judgment of you as a CFI.
Your feeble attempts at portraying me in the light of a "know it all"
and a "blow hard" would seem to fly in the face of what I see from
others (Ken Tucker excepted of course) concerning your judgment on this
matter as well.
In other words, it appears that you have a judgment problem...something
not desirable in a CFI.


--
Dudley Henriques

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

buttman wrote:
> On Mar 4, 7:46 pm, Dan > wrote:
>> In your case, I think you spend far too much time typing defensive
>> tomes.
>>
>> Dan
>
> Well that kind of what happens when you have about a dozen people
> following you around throwing stones in glass houses.

You are wrong again. What's needed from you is not defensive comment but
rather positive comment reinforcing your decision to pull mixture on
takeoff in a single engine airplane while instructing a primary student.
Try that and see what happens!

--
Dudley Henriques

[buttman]

On Mar 6, 2:40 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>
> The posts you made concerning pulling mixture on take off involved a
> single engine airplane and a primary student. No competent instructor
> does this REGARDLESS of the runway remaining.
> The fact that you are actually defending this idiotic and incompetent
> procedure is all I need to support my initial judgment of you as a CFI.
> Your feeble attempts at portraying me in the light of a "know it all"
> and a "blow hard" would seem to fly in the face of what I see from
> others (Ken Tucker excepted of course) concerning your judgment on this
> matter as well.
> In other words, it appears that you have a judgment problem...something
> not desirable in a CFI.
>
> --
> Dudley Henriques

Did you not read the 5 paragraph post that you just quoted? Obviously
you didn't as you continue to say I pulled the mixture. It wasn't the
mixture, it was the fuel valve!

In my post I addressed my reasoning for coming to the stance I take on
this issue. I do not necessarily "support" doing that particular
maneuver. What I do support the idea that things like pulling the fuel
valve (or anything else for that matter) CAN be done safely as long as
the proper precautions are made. Since you're not willing to follow
along, it only proves that you are indeed nothing but a blowhard who
is full of himself.

The thread I made over a year ago was intended to solicit the help of
this group in preparing myself for something I thought my students
could benefit from. The only thing people wanted to do was act self-
righteous, which is exactly what you're continuing to do right now.

[Gig 601XL Builder[_2_]]

WingFlaps wrote:

>
> You train Gerbils?
>
> Cheers

No but I'm willing to bet he does other things with them.

[george]

On Mar 7, 10:56 am, buttman > wrote:
snip
> What I do support the idea that things like pulling the fuel
> valve (or anything else for that matter) CAN be done safely as long as
> the proper precautions are made.

NO!
Not safe
FFS are you looking for an obituary to star in?

Pulling the fuel valve eh...............
Me myself I select left tank right tank or off but then apart from
flying aeroplanes what do I know.
The proper drill is to pull the power not endanger the aircraft and
crew by shutting systems down during takeoff...

[buttman]

On Mar 6, 3:09 pm, george > wrote:
> On Mar 7, 10:56 am, buttman > wrote:
> snip
>
> > What I do support the idea that things like pulling the fuel
> > valve (or anything else for that matter) CAN be done safely as long as
> > the proper precautions are made.
>
> NO!
> Not safe
> FFS are you looking for an obituary to star in?
>
> Pulling the fuel valve eh...............
> Me myself I select left tank right tank or off but then apart from
> flying aeroplanes what do I know.
> The proper drill is to pull the power not endanger the aircraft and
> crew by shutting systems down during takeoff...

Another idiot that can't read. Congratulations.

[buttman]

On Mar 6, 3:13 pm, "Owner" > wrote:
> "buttman" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
> > On Mar 6, 2:40 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>
> >> The posts you made concerning pulling mixture on take off involved a
> >> single engine airplane and a primary student. No competent instructor
> >> does this REGARDLESS of the runway remaining.
> >> The fact that you are actually defending this idiotic and incompetent
> >> procedure is all I need to support my initial judgment of you as a CFI.
> >> Your feeble attempts at portraying me in the light of a "know it all"
> >> and a "blow hard" would seem to fly in the face of what I see from
> >> others (Ken Tucker excepted of course) concerning your judgment on this
> >> matter as well.
> >> In other words, it appears that you have a judgment problem...something
> >> not desirable in a CFI.
>
> >> --
> >> Dudley Henriques
>
> > Did you not read the 5 paragraph post that you just quoted? Obviously
> > you didn't as you continue to say I pulled the mixture. It wasn't the
> > mixture, it was the fuel valve!
>
> > In my post I addressed my reasoning for coming to the stance I take on
> > this issue. I do not necessarily "support" doing that particular
> > maneuver.
> >What I do support the idea that things like pulling the fuel
> > valve (or anything else for that matter) CAN be done safely as long as
> > the proper precautions are made.
>
> Wow, what a load of crap, but what would one expect from someone known as
> buttman?
>
> >Since you're not willing to follow
> > along, it only proves that you are indeed nothing but a blowhard who
> > is full of himself.
>
> > The thread I made over a year ago was intended to solicit the help of
> > this group in preparing myself for something I thought my students
> > could benefit from. The only thing people wanted to do was act self-
> > righteous, which is exactly what you're continuing to do right now.

HHHUUURRR

wow they're really coming out of the wooodwork this afrernoon.

[Ken S. Tucker]

On Mar 6, 1:56 pm, buttman > wrote:
> On Mar 6, 2:40 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>
>
>
> > The posts you made concerning pulling mixture on take off involved a
> > single engine airplane and a primary student. No competent instructor
> > does this REGARDLESS of the runway remaining.
> > The fact that you are actually defending this idiotic and incompetent
> > procedure is all I need to support my initial judgment of you as a CFI.
> > Your feeble attempts at portraying me in the light of a "know it all"
> > and a "blow hard" would seem to fly in the face of what I see from
> > others (Ken Tucker excepted of course) concerning your judgment on this
> > matter as well.
> > In other words, it appears that you have a judgment problem...something
> > not desirable in a CFI.
>
> > --
> > Dudley Henriques
>
> Did you not read the 5 paragraph post that you just quoted? Obviously
> you didn't as you continue to say I pulled the mixture. It wasn't the
> mixture, it was the fuel valve!
>
> In my post I addressed my reasoning for coming to the stance I take on
> this issue. I do not necessarily "support" doing that particular
> maneuver. What I do support the idea that things like pulling the fuel
> valve (or anything else for that matter) CAN be done safely as long as
> the proper precautions are made. Since you're not willing to follow
> along, it only proves that you are indeed nothing but a blowhard who
> is full of himself.
>
> The thread I made over a year ago was intended to solicit the help of
> this group in preparing myself for something I thought my students
> could benefit from. The only thing people wanted to do was act self-
> righteous, which is exactly what you're continuing to do right now.

What's the bottom line?
Maybe real or induced, we're rotating to lift off and
my engine quits. That's fair, a number of accidents
have been reported during the ascent phase.
I think you're right that an aware pilot should have a
safety net pre-thought-out going forward.
Ken

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

buttman wrote:
> On Mar 6, 2:40 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>> The posts you made concerning pulling mixture on take off involved a
>> single engine airplane and a primary student. No competent instructor
>> does this REGARDLESS of the runway remaining.
>> The fact that you are actually defending this idiotic and incompetent
>> procedure is all I need to support my initial judgment of you as a CFI.
>> Your feeble attempts at portraying me in the light of a "know it all"
>> and a "blow hard" would seem to fly in the face of what I see from
>> others (Ken Tucker excepted of course) concerning your judgment on this
>> matter as well.
>> In other words, it appears that you have a judgment problem...something
>> not desirable in a CFI.
>>
>> --
>> Dudley Henriques
>
> Did you not read the 5 paragraph post that you just quoted? Obviously
> you didn't as you continue to say I pulled the mixture. It wasn't the
> mixture, it was the fuel valve!
>
> In my post I addressed my reasoning for coming to the stance I take on
> this issue. I do not necessarily "support" doing that particular
> maneuver. What I do support the idea that things like pulling the fuel
> valve (or anything else for that matter) CAN be done safely as long as
> the proper precautions are made. Since you're not willing to follow
> along, it only proves that you are indeed nothing but a blowhard who
> is full of himself.
>
> The thread I made over a year ago was intended to solicit the help of
> this group in preparing myself for something I thought my students
> could benefit from. The only thing people wanted to do was act self-
> righteous, which is exactly what you're continuing to do right now.
>
How an idiot like you EVER made it through the system as a CFI is beyond
belief to me. Listen up once and for all before you kill someone.
NO competent instructor EVER....and I repeat it once more so even a
moron like you can understand it...EVER, starves an engine on takeoff
with a student. I don't give a GD if you use the mixture or the fuel
valve, either way you're deliberately causing a potentially dangerous
situation.
Are you getting it yet? Fuel Valve or Mixture, you are STARVING the
engine. It's the same result safety wise. YOU JUST DON'T DO THIS WITH A
STUDENT
PILOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


--
Dudley Henriques

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

buttman wrote:
> On Mar 6, 3:13 pm, "Owner" > wrote:
>> "buttman" > wrote in message
>>
>> ...
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Mar 6, 2:40 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>>>> The posts you made concerning pulling mixture on take off involved a
>>>> single engine airplane and a primary student. No competent instructor
>>>> does this REGARDLESS of the runway remaining.
>>>> The fact that you are actually defending this idiotic and incompetent
>>>> procedure is all I need to support my initial judgment of you as a CFI.
>>>> Your feeble attempts at portraying me in the light of a "know it all"
>>>> and a "blow hard" would seem to fly in the face of what I see from
>>>> others (Ken Tucker excepted of course) concerning your judgment on this
>>>> matter as well.
>>>> In other words, it appears that you have a judgment problem...something
>>>> not desirable in a CFI.
>>>> --
>>>> Dudley Henriques
>>> Did you not read the 5 paragraph post that you just quoted? Obviously
>>> you didn't as you continue to say I pulled the mixture. It wasn't the
>>> mixture, it was the fuel valve!
>>> In my post I addressed my reasoning for coming to the stance I take on
>>> this issue. I do not necessarily "support" doing that particular
>>> maneuver.
>>> What I do support the idea that things like pulling the fuel
>>> valve (or anything else for that matter) CAN be done safely as long as
>>> the proper precautions are made.
>> Wow, what a load of crap, but what would one expect from someone known as
>> buttman?
>>
>>> Since you're not willing to follow
>>> along, it only proves that you are indeed nothing but a blowhard who
>>> is full of himself.
>>> The thread I made over a year ago was intended to solicit the help of
>>> this group in preparing myself for something I thought my students
>>> could benefit from. The only thing people wanted to do was act self-
>>> righteous, which is exactly what you're continuing to do right now.
>
> HHHUUURRR
>
> wow they're really coming out of the wooodwork this afrernoon.
Yes. Isn't it amazing how many disagree with you and/or believe you are
wrong......and isn't it amazing how you can't seem to be able to
entertain the idea that there are people on this forum who know more
than you do.
So far I see not one supporter for your idiotic assertions.
Good God man, get out of the CFI business before you kill some innocent
student.

--
Dudley Henriques

[Peter Dohm]

"buttman" > wrote in message
...
> On Mar 6, 3:13 pm, "Owner" > wrote:
>> "buttman" > wrote in message
>>
>> ...
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Mar 6, 2:40 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>>
>> >> The posts you made concerning pulling mixture on take off involved a
>> >> single engine airplane and a primary student. No competent instructor
>> >> does this REGARDLESS of the runway remaining.
>> >> The fact that you are actually defending this idiotic and incompetent
>> >> procedure is all I need to support my initial judgment of you as a
>> >> CFI.
>> >> Your feeble attempts at portraying me in the light of a "know it all"
>> >> and a "blow hard" would seem to fly in the face of what I see from
>> >> others (Ken Tucker excepted of course) concerning your judgment on
>> >> this
>> >> matter as well.
>> >> In other words, it appears that you have a judgment
>> >> problem...something
>> >> not desirable in a CFI.
>>
>> >> --
>> >> Dudley Henriques
>>
>> > Did you not read the 5 paragraph post that you just quoted? Obviously
>> > you didn't as you continue to say I pulled the mixture. It wasn't the
>> > mixture, it was the fuel valve!
>>
>> > In my post I addressed my reasoning for coming to the stance I take on
>> > this issue. I do not necessarily "support" doing that particular
>> > maneuver.
>> >What I do support the idea that things like pulling the fuel
>> > valve (or anything else for that matter) CAN be done safely as long as
>> > the proper precautions are made.
>>
>> Wow, what a load of crap, but what would one expect from someone known as
>> buttman?
>>
>> >Since you're not willing to follow
>> > along, it only proves that you are indeed nothing but a blowhard who
>> > is full of himself.
>>
>> > The thread I made over a year ago was intended to solicit the help of
>> > this group in preparing myself for something I thought my students
>> > could benefit from. The only thing people wanted to do was act self-
>> > righteous, which is exactly what you're continuing to do right now.
>
> HHHUUURRR
>
> wow they're really coming out of the wooodwork this afrernoon.

It was most definitely *less* than a year ago--not that it really matters as
you are clearly a hazard to yourself and everyone nearby!

Peter

[Peter Dohm]

>
> BTW I recognize that name from somewhere else. <:-))
>

I had to use Google... Too funny! :-))))

Peter

[WingFlaps]

On Mar 7, 11:02*am, Gig 601XL Builder >
wrote:
> WingFlaps wrote:
>
> > You train Gerbils?
>
> > Cheers
>
> No but I'm willing to bet he does other things with them.

Is that before or after he's trained them?

Cheers

[WingFlaps]

On Mar 7, 10:08*am, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> WingFlaps wrote:
> > On Mar 7, 8:02 am, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
> >> On Mar 6, 2:20 am, WingFlaps > wrote:
>
> >>> On Mar 6, 7:20 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
> >>>> On Mar 5, 6:57 pm, Steve Hix > wrote:
> >>>>> In article
> >>>>> >,
> >>>>> *Dan > wrote:
> >>>>>> On Mar 5, 2:49 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Weren't you the guy that was also suggesting that the runway be subject
> >>>>>>>> to a walk down before every take-off?
> >>>>>>> For major airports, radar is being developed,
> >>>>>>> but I think dogs could do it faster and better.
> >>>>>>> Ken
> >>>>>> Dogs?
> >>>>> Instead of using FOD-detection radar, I suppose.
> >>>> I would use the words, "in competition".
> >>>> Allow me to enumerate the main advantage of using
> >>>> dogs to search the runway and return the scraps or
> >>>> bark at said debris for a doggy biscuit.
> >>>> Suppose a doggy gets run over, then all those cute
> >>>> animal rights activists chicks will show up at said
> >>>> airport flashing their tits to protest animal cruelty.
> >>>> Then said airport and it's airlines will sell more tickets
> >>>> to people who want to see said tits.
> >>>> A recent marketing study performed by the Randy
> >>>> corporation, actually confirmed that male passengers
> >>>> would rather look at tits than radar, except for the
> >>>> queers, so this system may not work well in Frisco,
> >>>> but otherwise, everywhere else doggies are competitive.
> >>>> Oh, and let's not forget the children. Would you want
> >>>> to take your kids through a dreary airport with no dogs,
> >>>> or one that has happy dogs running all over the runways
> >>>> creating joy for the children, while saving lives.
> >>>> Lassie would be proud...snifles.
> >>>> Ken
> >>> Are you ripping MY IDEA off? What's the big idea -either give me
> >>> credit or I'll send around my brother to turn you into lasagna with
> >>> extra tomato paste.
> >>> Cheers
> >> Sure it's your idea.
> >> Dogs would love the work, they'd find every screw and
> >> washer that normally gets sucked threw the engines.
> >> (Boeing estimates $4 billion damage per year from
> >> runway debris).
> >> I think it's worth an experiment.
> >> Ken- Hide quoted text -
>
> > I think small dogs would be better than big dogs. The eat less, drop
> > smaller turds that will not make such a mess of the terminal windows
> > (a jet blast problem), do less damage to engines and props when sucked
> > into them, and will make less of a bump when run over. Their only
> > disadvanatge is that they would be less of a deterrant for the hoards
> > of terrorists wanting to get to the apron. This migh be offset by
> > having aggressive packs of little dogs trained to attack any one who
> > does not have an identification badge. When the dogs get older they
> > could be retired to the pie factory for processing and then sold to
> > asia to thelp the balance of payments. What do you think?
>
> > Cheers
>
> I can see the headlines now........
>
> "Three hundred and fifty killed in crash of DC10 on take off at Kennedy.
> Investigators are puzzled by an initial report of strange evidence of
> small dogs found to have been sucked through the engines."
>

Well we can fix that. We'll train them to rrun away from jet engines
as well. If just one small dog once in a while is a bit slow we'll
send him to the meat pie faactory early.

Cheers

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

WingFlaps wrote:
> On Mar 7, 10:08 am, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>> WingFlaps wrote:
>>> On Mar 7, 8:02 am, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>>>> On Mar 6, 2:20 am, WingFlaps > wrote:
>>>>> On Mar 6, 7:20 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>>>>>> On Mar 5, 6:57 pm, Steve Hix > wrote:
>>>>>>> In article
>>>>>>> >,
>>>>>>> Dan > wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Mar 5, 2:49 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Weren't you the guy that was also suggesting that the runway be subject
>>>>>>>>>> to a walk down before every take-off?
>>>>>>>>> For major airports, radar is being developed,
>>>>>>>>> but I think dogs could do it faster and better.
>>>>>>>>> Ken
>>>>>>>> Dogs?
>>>>>>> Instead of using FOD-detection radar, I suppose.
>>>>>> I would use the words, "in competition".
>>>>>> Allow me to enumerate the main advantage of using
>>>>>> dogs to search the runway and return the scraps or
>>>>>> bark at said debris for a doggy biscuit.
>>>>>> Suppose a doggy gets run over, then all those cute
>>>>>> animal rights activists chicks will show up at said
>>>>>> airport flashing their tits to protest animal cruelty.
>>>>>> Then said airport and it's airlines will sell more tickets
>>>>>> to people who want to see said tits.
>>>>>> A recent marketing study performed by the Randy
>>>>>> corporation, actually confirmed that male passengers
>>>>>> would rather look at tits than radar, except for the
>>>>>> queers, so this system may not work well in Frisco,
>>>>>> but otherwise, everywhere else doggies are competitive.
>>>>>> Oh, and let's not forget the children. Would you want
>>>>>> to take your kids through a dreary airport with no dogs,
>>>>>> or one that has happy dogs running all over the runways
>>>>>> creating joy for the children, while saving lives.
>>>>>> Lassie would be proud...snifles.
>>>>>> Ken
>>>>> Are you ripping MY IDEA off? What's the big idea -either give me
>>>>> credit or I'll send around my brother to turn you into lasagna with
>>>>> extra tomato paste.
>>>>> Cheers
>>>> Sure it's your idea.
>>>> Dogs would love the work, they'd find every screw and
>>>> washer that normally gets sucked threw the engines.
>>>> (Boeing estimates $4 billion damage per year from
>>>> runway debris).
>>>> I think it's worth an experiment.
>>>> Ken- Hide quoted text -
>>> I think small dogs would be better than big dogs. The eat less, drop
>>> smaller turds that will not make such a mess of the terminal windows
>>> (a jet blast problem), do less damage to engines and props when sucked
>>> into them, and will make less of a bump when run over. Their only
>>> disadvanatge is that they would be less of a deterrant for the hoards
>>> of terrorists wanting to get to the apron. This migh be offset by
>>> having aggressive packs of little dogs trained to attack any one who
>>> does not have an identification badge. When the dogs get older they
>>> could be retired to the pie factory for processing and then sold to
>>> asia to thelp the balance of payments. What do you think?
>>> Cheers
>> I can see the headlines now........
>>
>> "Three hundred and fifty killed in crash of DC10 on take off at Kennedy.
>> Investigators are puzzled by an initial report of strange evidence of
>> small dogs found to have been sucked through the engines."
>>
>
> Well we can fix that. We'll train them to rrun away from jet engines
> as well. If just one small dog once in a while is a bit slow we'll
> send him to the meat pie faactory early.
>
> Cheers
>
Make sure the dogs aren't too small. They're using Perigrin Falcons now
for bird control. The falcons LOVE fresh meat!! :-))

--
Dudley Henriques

[Dan[_10_]]

On Mar 6, 7:54 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>
> Make sure the dogs aren't too small. They're using Perigrin Falcons now
> for bird control. The falcons LOVE fresh meat!! :-))
>
> --
> Dudley Henriques

OK, story time...

Way back (1981) when I was an NCO working on various items used as
props in Dr Strangelove, we had guys riding mowers all over the
storage igloos cutting the grass. The problem was, all maintenance had
to cease since while they had clearances, they weren't cleared high
enough to see inside while we did our thing.

The Air Force had a suggestion program (you could earn up to $200
bucks if they accepted the suggestion and implemented it).

My suggestion was that the Air Force replace the mower guys with
sheep.

The benefits would be that the sheep would provide wool for us to use
to get through those cold Northern Tier winters, the sheep would not
require security clearances, and the sheep would be non-polluting.

I expected it to go as far as the Squadron CO, get a talking-to, and
that would be it.

Three months later a letter arrived from the Department of the Air
Force, The Pentagon.

After researching the suggestion, they determined that the only reason
they could not implement the sheep-as-mowers idea was that if the
storage areas were attacked, the attackers could hide behind the
sheep.

Otherwise, they determined it was a "plausible concept, simply
infeasible given the security concerns."

After the mirth subsided, I read through the levels involved in making
this determination. We figured that piece of paper cost the Air Force
about 1/2 a million bucks in manpower.

It was a lesson on how far a stupid idea will go trhough a
bureacracy..



Dan.

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Dan wrote:
> On Mar 6, 7:54 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>> Make sure the dogs aren't too small. They're using Perigrin Falcons now
>> for bird control. The falcons LOVE fresh meat!! :-))
>>
>> --
>> Dudley Henriques
>
> OK, story time...
>
> Way back (1981) when I was an NCO working on various items used as
> props in Dr Strangelove, we had guys riding mowers all over the
> storage igloos cutting the grass. The problem was, all maintenance had
> to cease since while they had clearances, they weren't cleared high
> enough to see inside while we did our thing.
>
> The Air Force had a suggestion program (you could earn up to $200
> bucks if they accepted the suggestion and implemented it).
>
> My suggestion was that the Air Force replace the mower guys with
> sheep.
>
> The benefits would be that the sheep would provide wool for us to use
> to get through those cold Northern Tier winters, the sheep would not
> require security clearances, and the sheep would be non-polluting.
>
> I expected it to go as far as the Squadron CO, get a talking-to, and
> that would be it.
>
> Three months later a letter arrived from the Department of the Air
> Force, The Pentagon.
>
> After researching the suggestion, they determined that the only reason
> they could not implement the sheep-as-mowers idea was that if the
> storage areas were attacked, the attackers could hide behind the
> sheep.
>
> Otherwise, they determined it was a "plausible concept, simply
> infeasible given the security concerns."
>
> After the mirth subsided, I read through the levels involved in making
> this determination. We figured that piece of paper cost the Air Force
> about 1/2 a million bucks in manpower.
>
> It was a lesson on how far a stupid idea will go trhough a
> bureacracy..
>
>
>
> Dan.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
The sheep sounds like a great idea to me. I think I would have
considered it even with the security issue which I think was a bit of a
stretch.
As a matter of fact, I think this idea might even be useful in getting
me out of yard work; although I have to admit, it might be hard
considering Mrs H's intelligence, to "pull the wool over her eyes" on
this one :-))

--
Dudley Henriques

[Peter Dohm]

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
...
> Dan wrote:
>> On Mar 6, 7:54 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>>> Make sure the dogs aren't too small. They're using Perigrin Falcons now
>>> for bird control. The falcons LOVE fresh meat!! :-))
>>>
>>> --
>>> Dudley Henriques
>>
>> OK, story time...
>>
>> Way back (1981) when I was an NCO working on various items used as
>> props in Dr Strangelove, we had guys riding mowers all over the
>> storage igloos cutting the grass. The problem was, all maintenance had
>> to cease since while they had clearances, they weren't cleared high
>> enough to see inside while we did our thing.
>>
>> The Air Force had a suggestion program (you could earn up to $200
>> bucks if they accepted the suggestion and implemented it).
>>
>> My suggestion was that the Air Force replace the mower guys with
>> sheep.
>>
>> The benefits would be that the sheep would provide wool for us to use
>> to get through those cold Northern Tier winters, the sheep would not
>> require security clearances, and the sheep would be non-polluting.
>>
>> I expected it to go as far as the Squadron CO, get a talking-to, and
>> that would be it.
>>
>> Three months later a letter arrived from the Department of the Air
>> Force, The Pentagon.
>>
>> After researching the suggestion, they determined that the only reason
>> they could not implement the sheep-as-mowers idea was that if the
>> storage areas were attacked, the attackers could hide behind the
>> sheep.
>>
>> Otherwise, they determined it was a "plausible concept, simply
>> infeasible given the security concerns."
>>
>> After the mirth subsided, I read through the levels involved in making
>> this determination. We figured that piece of paper cost the Air Force
>> about 1/2 a million bucks in manpower.
>>
>> It was a lesson on how far a stupid idea will go trhough a
>> bureacracy..
>>
>>
>>
>> Dan.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
> The sheep sounds like a great idea to me. I think I would have considered
> it even with the security issue which I think was a bit of a stretch.
> As a matter of fact, I think this idea might even be useful in getting me
> out of yard work; although I have to admit, it might be hard considering
> Mrs H's intelligence, to "pull the wool over her eyes" on this one :-))
>
> --
> Dudley Henriques

I swear that I remember being told, as a boy, that sheep had been used in
this manner to "mow the lawn of the White House" during World War II

Whether that was actually true or not, they were so used during World War I
according to these web pages:
http://www.american-lawns.com/history/history_lawn.html and
http://www.landscape-america.com/history/history_lawn.html

Peter

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Peter Dohm wrote:
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Dan wrote:
>>> On Mar 6, 7:54 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>>>> Make sure the dogs aren't too small. They're using Perigrin Falcons now
>>>> for bird control. The falcons LOVE fresh meat!! :-))
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Dudley Henriques
>>> OK, story time...
>>>
>>> Way back (1981) when I was an NCO working on various items used as
>>> props in Dr Strangelove, we had guys riding mowers all over the
>>> storage igloos cutting the grass. The problem was, all maintenance had
>>> to cease since while they had clearances, they weren't cleared high
>>> enough to see inside while we did our thing.
>>>
>>> The Air Force had a suggestion program (you could earn up to $200
>>> bucks if they accepted the suggestion and implemented it).
>>>
>>> My suggestion was that the Air Force replace the mower guys with
>>> sheep.
>>>
>>> The benefits would be that the sheep would provide wool for us to use
>>> to get through those cold Northern Tier winters, the sheep would not
>>> require security clearances, and the sheep would be non-polluting.
>>>
>>> I expected it to go as far as the Squadron CO, get a talking-to, and
>>> that would be it.
>>>
>>> Three months later a letter arrived from the Department of the Air
>>> Force, The Pentagon.
>>>
>>> After researching the suggestion, they determined that the only reason
>>> they could not implement the sheep-as-mowers idea was that if the
>>> storage areas were attacked, the attackers could hide behind the
>>> sheep.
>>>
>>> Otherwise, they determined it was a "plausible concept, simply
>>> infeasible given the security concerns."
>>>
>>> After the mirth subsided, I read through the levels involved in making
>>> this determination. We figured that piece of paper cost the Air Force
>>> about 1/2 a million bucks in manpower.
>>>
>>> It was a lesson on how far a stupid idea will go trhough a
>>> bureacracy..
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Dan.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> The sheep sounds like a great idea to me. I think I would have considered
>> it even with the security issue which I think was a bit of a stretch.
>> As a matter of fact, I think this idea might even be useful in getting me
>> out of yard work; although I have to admit, it might be hard considering
>> Mrs H's intelligence, to "pull the wool over her eyes" on this one :-))
>>
>> --
>> Dudley Henriques
>
> I swear that I remember being told, as a boy, that sheep had been used in
> this manner to "mow the lawn of the White House" during World War II
>
> Whether that was actually true or not, they were so used during World War I
> according to these web pages:
> http://www.american-lawns.com/history/history_lawn.html and
> http://www.landscape-america.com/history/history_lawn.html
>
> Peter
>
>
>
>
You might be right. I recall reading something about sheep and grass
control myself but I can't remember the details.

--
Dudley Henriques

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Owner wrote:
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
> ...
>> buttman wrote:
>>> On Mar 6, 3:13 pm, "Owner" > wrote:
>>>> "buttman" > wrote in message
>>>>
>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On Mar 6, 2:40 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>>>>>> The posts you made concerning pulling mixture on take off involved a
>>>>>> single engine airplane and a primary student. No competent instructor
>>>>>> does this REGARDLESS of the runway remaining.
>>>>>> The fact that you are actually defending this idiotic and incompetent
>>>>>> procedure is all I need to support my initial judgment of you as a
>>>>>> CFI.
>>>>>> Your feeble attempts at portraying me in the light of a "know it all"
>>>>>> and a "blow hard" would seem to fly in the face of what I see from
>>>>>> others (Ken Tucker excepted of course) concerning your judgment on
>>>>>> this
>>>>>> matter as well.
>>>>>> In other words, it appears that you have a judgment
>>>>>> problem...something
>>>>>> not desirable in a CFI.
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Dudley Henriques
>>>>> Did you not read the 5 paragraph post that you just quoted? Obviously
>>>>> you didn't as you continue to say I pulled the mixture. It wasn't the
>>>>> mixture, it was the fuel valve!
>>>>> In my post I addressed my reasoning for coming to the stance I take on
>>>>> this issue. I do not necessarily "support" doing that particular
>>>>> maneuver.
>>>>> What I do support the idea that things like pulling the fuel
>>>>> valve (or anything else for that matter) CAN be done safely as long as
>>>>> the proper precautions are made.
>>>> Wow, what a load of crap, but what would one expect from someone known
>>>> as
>>>> buttman?
>>>>
>>>>> Since you're not willing to follow
>>>>> along, it only proves that you are indeed nothing but a blowhard who
>>>>> is full of himself.
>>>>> The thread I made over a year ago was intended to solicit the help of
>>>>> this group in preparing myself for something I thought my students
>>>>> could benefit from. The only thing people wanted to do was act self-
>>>>> righteous, which is exactly what you're continuing to do right now.
>>> HHHUUURRR
>>>
>>> wow they're really coming out of the wooodwork this afrernoon.
>> Yes. Isn't it amazing how many disagree with you and/or believe you are
>> wrong......and isn't it amazing how you can't seem to be able to entertain
>> the idea that there are people on this forum who know more than you do.
>> So far I see not one supporter for your idiotic assertions.
>> Good God man, get out of the CFI business before you kill some innocent
>> student.
>>
>> --
>> Dudley Henriques
>
> If' this is the kind of CFI that's teaching today's young pilots, then maybe
> it's time to take the prop off my Tiger and hang it in my office :(
>
> Fortunately, this guy is an odyssey. In 50 years being exposed to CFI's
of all makes and models, this idiot stands out as unique. I've never
come across an instructor who not only does what this guy claims to do
with students, but who when told it's wrong, attacks the pilots
correcting him.
Pilots like this guy are an accident waiting to happen. I only hope it
doesn't happen to him.
The positive side is that what usually happens with people like this is
that after they shoot off their mouth on Usenet telling off the pilots
who disagree with them, they usually sulk on back to the hangar and
never do again what they were taken out to the shed for.
If this is the result, I'm thoroughly satisfied.


--
Dudley Henriques

[Dan[_10_]]

On Mar 6, 8:21 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> The sheep sounds like a great idea to me. I think I would have
> considered it even with the security issue which I think was a bit of a
> stretch.
> As a matter of fact, I think this idea might even be useful in getting
> me out of yard work; although I have to admit, it might be hard
> considering Mrs H's intelligence, to "pull the wool over her eyes" on
> this one :-))
>
> --
> Dudley Henriques

2 1/2 of our four acres are under pasture with two 1000 lb lawn
mowers.

Once in a while we strap a saddle to their backs and ride 'em.

Best thing I ever did, putting up that fence. Now the lawn mowing that
used to take 3 hours is done in 30 minutes.

Dan

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Dan wrote:
> On Mar 6, 8:21 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>> The sheep sounds like a great idea to me. I think I would have
>> considered it even with the security issue which I think was a bit of a
>> stretch.
>> As a matter of fact, I think this idea might even be useful in getting
>> me out of yard work; although I have to admit, it might be hard
>> considering Mrs H's intelligence, to "pull the wool over her eyes" on
>> this one :-))
>>
>> --
>> Dudley Henriques
>
> 2 1/2 of our four acres are under pasture with two 1000 lb lawn
> mowers.
>
> Once in a while we strap a saddle to their backs and ride 'em.
>
> Best thing I ever did, putting up that fence. Now the lawn mowing that
> used to take 3 hours is done in 30 minutes.
>
> Dan
>
Sounds like you are enjoying the country life :-)

--
Dudley Henriques

[Dan[_10_]]

On Mar 6, 9:30 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:

>
> Sounds like you are enjoying the country life :-)
>
> --
> Dudley Henriques

Land stretching out for miles and miles.
Keep Manhattan just give me that country style.

:-)

Dan

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Dan wrote:
> On Mar 6, 9:30 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>
>> Sounds like you are enjoying the country life :-)
>>
>> --
>> Dudley Henriques
>
> Land stretching out for miles and miles.
> Keep Manhattan just give me that country style.
>
> :-)
>
> Dan
>
>
Mrs H and I drove all the way across the country with no plan at all.
Took in the parks and drove the high dessert. Loved every minute of it.
Walked in the moonlight up in Bryce Canyon. Once out there you could see
the stars...millions of them. Beautiful. They are hidden in the big
cities pollution and haze and reflected lights.
Got to do that trip again :-))

--
Dudley Henriques

[Jim Logajan]

Dan > wrote:
> My suggestion was that the Air Force replace the mower guys with
> sheep.

If you had suggested goats your idea might have been implemented.
;-)

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Jim Logajan wrote:
> Dan > wrote:
>> My suggestion was that the Air Force replace the mower guys with
>> sheep.
>
> If you had suggested goats your idea might have been implemented.
> ;-)

Knowing how the Air Force works, I'm fairly sure this might have been
"rammed" right on through :-))

--
Dudley Henriques

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
.. .
> Dan > wrote:
>> My suggestion was that the Air Force replace the mower guys with
>> sheep.
>
> If you had suggested goats your idea might have been implemented.
> ;-)

Yeah, I'm thinking the same thing Jim. I think the Air Force had "other"
reasons for passing on the sheep.

Now we just have to wonder if Dan really wanted them for mowing the grass.

[WingFlaps]

On Mar 7, 4:43*pm, "Maxwell" <luv^2^fly^99@^cox.^net> wrote:
> "Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
>
> .. .
>
> > Dan > wrote:
> >> My suggestion was that the Air Force replace the mower guys with
> >> sheep.
>
> > If you had suggested goats your idea might have been implemented.
> > ;-)
>
> Yeah, I'm thinking the same thing Jim. I think the Air Force had "other"
> reasons for passing on the sheep.
>
> Now we just have to wonder if Dan really wanted them for mowing the grass.

You mean he's a closet........................................
knitter?

Cheers

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

buttman > wrote in news:e15473b8-11ae-4778-a67f-
:

>
>
> How many times do I have to say this? I don't care what you think of
> me.


I think maybe about 1,000 more times.

I'm closer to being convinced every time you do.



Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in
:

> On Mar 4, 7:35 pm, george > wrote:
>> On Mar 5, 4:06 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>>
>> > You noticed that too huh??? :-)))) Well, I guess the extra weight
>> > helps to get that ole airplane down again on the remaining runway
>> > when you pull that ole mixture back on a student right after
>> > rotation :-))))
>>
>> I still can't believe that some-one claiming to be a pilot made the
>> 'pull mixture on takeoff' statement and is still here
>
> What's a typo, or it there a reason?

Oh you know, it't the entry to the "triple outside inverted spoin on
takeoff"
>
> BTW, here's a video of that x-wind landing...
> http://www.thestar.com/News/World/article/309221
> (It ****es me off it's an amateur video, for the price
> of a bit of tape, one would think all landings should
> be properly video taped, cheap ****in' ****s).


What, so ubes like you could misinterpret them down at the 7-11?
>
> Anyway, the rudder steering seems odd to me,

Yeah, right fjukktard.


Bertie
>
>
>
>
>
>

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in
:

>

>
> A 7-11 can afford video survalience



Got caught shoplifting chaw again eh?


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

WingFlaps > wrote in
:

> On Mar 6, 8:49*am, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>> On Mar 5, 6:17 am, Gig 601XL Builder >
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > Ken S. Tucker wrote:
>> > > On Mar 4, 7:35 pm, george > wrote:
>> > >> On Mar 5, 4:06 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>>
>> > >>> You noticed that too huh??? :-)))) Well, I guess the extra
>> > >>> weight he
> lps
>> > >>> to get that ole airplane down again on the remaining runway
>> > >>> when you
>
>> > >>> pull that ole mixture back on a student right after rotation
>> > >>> :-))))
>> > >> I still can't believe that some-one claiming to be a pilot made
>> > >> the 'pull mixture on takeoff' statement and is still here
>>
>> > > What's a typo, or it there a reason?
>>
>> > > BTW, here's a video of that x-wind landing...
>> > >http://www.thestar.com/News/World/article/309221
>> > > (It ****es me off it's an amateur video, for the price
>> > > of a bit of tape, one would think all landings should
>> > > be properly video taped, cheap ****in' ****s).
>>
>> > > Anyway, the rudder steering seems odd to me,
>> > > based on squinty frame advance...grrrr.
>> > > Ken
>>
>> > Weren't you the guy that was also suggesting that the runway be
>> > subject to a walk down before every take-off?
>>
>> For major airports, radar is being developed,
>> but I think dogs could do it faster and better.
>>
>
> Hey that was my idea! Do you like it really? I worry though, will dog
> **** on the airport runway be a problem when projected by jet blast?
> What do you think?
>

Well, obviously they would wear diapers.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

buttman > wrote in
:


>> .
>
> The gallant Dan rolls in wearing his finest white knight armor to
> defend the honor of his fair maiden Dudly. How touching.
>

I thnk I'm starting to se how little you care.. Do go on.

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

buttman > wrote in news:40ecef62-ab94-4c32-aa89-
:

> On Mar 4, 7:46 pm, Dan > wrote:
>>
>> In your case, I think you spend far too much time typing defensive
>> tomes.
>>
>> Dan
>
> Well that kind of what happens when you have about a dozen people
> following you around throwing stones in glass houses.
>

At, fjukkwit, at.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

buttman > wrote in news:24e58b46-6e28-45c9-93fb-
:

> On Mar 4, 6:57 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>
>> I have nothing against you personally. I don't even know you. You don't
>> use your actual name and the stage personna you've chosen souns like it
>> came from a 2 year old.
>
> You think I don't know that? I picked this name for that very reason.
> I don't play that name game crap. It don't matter what name appears
> above my posts, the meaning stays the same.
>
>> Just a vast difference in opinion
>> between you and me as to how flight instruction should be performed.
>
> You're darn right. If a student comes to me asking about somethi9ng,
> I'll do my best to explain it to him in terms he or she can
> understand. I'll never just bluntly say "This is how it is" without
> any kind of reasoning, which is the technique you seem to prefer. I've
> asked you how many times now to point out what exactly you find so
> appaling about my ability to be an instructor? All I ever get from you
> is "You are downright dangerous", "You damage this profession", "I
> would never fly with you", these are very loaded words to be using
> without any kind of backup whatsoever.
>
> You don't post here because you care about safety. You don't post here
> because you care about instructing. You don't even post here because
> you care about aviation. You post here so you can call out people like
> myself on weak bases such as my freaking internet chitchat handle.
> Your existence here has never, and will never be anything more than a
> huge ego stroke.
>
Hey,I never called you on yournhandle and I can see you are a complete and
utter tit..

Bertie

[Dan[_10_]]

On Mar 6, 10:43 pm, "Maxwell" <luv^2^fly^99@^cox.^net> wrote:

>
> Yeah, I'm thinking the same thing Jim. I think the Air Force had "other"
> reasons for passing on the sheep.
>
> Now we just have to wonder if Dan really wanted them for mowing the grass.

I'm not from Iowa, where men are men and sheep are scared....

[cavedweller]

On Mar 7, 6:54 am, Dan > wrote:
> On Mar 6, 10:43 pm, "Maxwell" <luv^2^fly^99@^cox.^net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Yeah, I'm thinking the same thing Jim. I think the Air Force had "other"
> > reasons for passing on the sheep.
>
> > Now we just have to wonder if Dan really wanted them for mowing the grass.
>
> I'm not from Iowa, where men are men and sheep are scared....

That's Timmins

[buttman]

On Mar 6, 6:55 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> Owner wrote:
> > "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> buttman wrote:
> >>> On Mar 6, 3:13 pm, "Owner" > wrote:
> >>>> "buttman" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> >>>>> On Mar 6, 2:40 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> >>>>>> The posts you made concerning pulling mixture on take off involved a
> >>>>>> single engine airplane and a primary student. No competent instructor
> >>>>>> does this REGARDLESS of the runway remaining.
> >>>>>> The fact that you are actually defending this idiotic and incompetent
> >>>>>> procedure is all I need to support my initial judgment of you as a
> >>>>>> CFI.
> >>>>>> Your feeble attempts at portraying me in the light of a "know it all"
> >>>>>> and a "blow hard" would seem to fly in the face of what I see from
> >>>>>> others (Ken Tucker excepted of course) concerning your judgment on
> >>>>>> this
> >>>>>> matter as well.
> >>>>>> In other words, it appears that you have a judgment
> >>>>>> problem...something
> >>>>>> not desirable in a CFI.
> >>>>>> --
> >>>>>> Dudley Henriques
> >>>>> Did you not read the 5 paragraph post that you just quoted? Obviously
> >>>>> you didn't as you continue to say I pulled the mixture. It wasn't the
> >>>>> mixture, it was the fuel valve!
> >>>>> In my post I addressed my reasoning for coming to the stance I take on
> >>>>> this issue. I do not necessarily "support" doing that particular
> >>>>> maneuver.
> >>>>> What I do support the idea that things like pulling the fuel
> >>>>> valve (or anything else for that matter) CAN be done safely as long as
> >>>>> the proper precautions are made.
> >>>> Wow, what a load of crap, but what would one expect from someone known
> >>>> as
> >>>> buttman?
>
> >>>>> Since you're not willing to follow
> >>>>> along, it only proves that you are indeed nothing but a blowhard who
> >>>>> is full of himself.
> >>>>> The thread I made over a year ago was intended to solicit the help of
> >>>>> this group in preparing myself for something I thought my students
> >>>>> could benefit from. The only thing people wanted to do was act self-
> >>>>> righteous, which is exactly what you're continuing to do right now.
> >>> HHHUUURRR
>
> >>> wow they're really coming out of the wooodwork this afrernoon.
> >> Yes. Isn't it amazing how many disagree with you and/or believe you are
> >> wrong......and isn't it amazing how you can't seem to be able to entertain
> >> the idea that there are people on this forum who know more than you do.
> >> So far I see not one supporter for your idiotic assertions.
> >> Good God man, get out of the CFI business before you kill some innocent
> >> student.
>
> >> --
> >> Dudley Henriques
>
> > If' this is the kind of CFI that's teaching today's young pilots, then maybe
> > it's time to take the prop off my Tiger and hang it in my office :(
>
> > Fortunately, this guy is an odyssey. In 50 years being exposed to CFI's
>
> of all makes and models, this idiot stands out as unique. I've never
> come across an instructor who not only does what this guy claims to do
> with students, but who when told it's wrong, attacks the pilots
> correcting him.
> Pilots like this guy are an accident waiting to happen. I only hope it
> doesn't happen to him.
> The positive side is that what usually happens with people like this is
> that after they shoot off their mouth on Usenet telling off the pilots
> who disagree with them, they usually sulk on back to the hangar and
> never do again what they were taken out to the shed for.
> If this is the result, I'm thoroughly satisfied.
>
> --
> Dudley Henriques

This is like talking to a brick wall. I've said it a million times, I
do not agree that is is necessarily "safe" to pull the engine on
takeoff.

My argument was that is can be safe if the proper precautions were to
be made.

Also, I know you're going to find some way to wriggle out of this one,
but were you ever an MEI? Did you not do engine cuts on take off? If
you did, how did you exactly do them? How do you suggest they should
be done? Because engine cuts on takeoff are part of the PTS. Do you
not follow the PTS?

And don't try to tell me engine cuts in a twin are "safe" because one
thing can lead to another and the plane can get below Vmc.

I'm not trying to pick a fight with you, I am genuinely curious how
you can be perfectly OK with doing it in a twin, but go off the handle
when suggesting doing it in a single.

[Ken S. Tucker]

On Mar 7, 10:05 am, buttman > wrote:
> On Mar 6, 6:55 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>
>
>
> > Owner wrote:
> > > "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >> buttman wrote:
> > >>> On Mar 6, 3:13 pm, "Owner" > wrote:
> > >>>> "buttman" > wrote in message
>
> > ...
>
> > >>>>> On Mar 6, 2:40 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> > >>>>>> The posts you made concerning pulling mixture on take off involved a
> > >>>>>> single engine airplane and a primary student. No competent instructor
> > >>>>>> does this REGARDLESS of the runway remaining.
> > >>>>>> The fact that you are actually defending this idiotic and incompetent
> > >>>>>> procedure is all I need to support my initial judgment of you as a
> > >>>>>> CFI.
> > >>>>>> Your feeble attempts at portraying me in the light of a "know it all"
> > >>>>>> and a "blow hard" would seem to fly in the face of what I see from
> > >>>>>> others (Ken Tucker excepted of course) concerning your judgment on
> > >>>>>> this
> > >>>>>> matter as well.
> > >>>>>> In other words, it appears that you have a judgment
> > >>>>>> problem...something
> > >>>>>> not desirable in a CFI.
> > >>>>>> --
> > >>>>>> Dudley Henriques
> > >>>>> Did you not read the 5 paragraph post that you just quoted? Obviously
> > >>>>> you didn't as you continue to say I pulled the mixture. It wasn't the
> > >>>>> mixture, it was the fuel valve!
> > >>>>> In my post I addressed my reasoning for coming to the stance I take on
> > >>>>> this issue. I do not necessarily "support" doing that particular
> > >>>>> maneuver.
> > >>>>> What I do support the idea that things like pulling the fuel
> > >>>>> valve (or anything else for that matter) CAN be done safely as long as
> > >>>>> the proper precautions are made.
> > >>>> Wow, what a load of crap, but what would one expect from someone known
> > >>>> as
> > >>>> buttman?
>
> > >>>>> Since you're not willing to follow
> > >>>>> along, it only proves that you are indeed nothing but a blowhard who
> > >>>>> is full of himself.
> > >>>>> The thread I made over a year ago was intended to solicit the help of
> > >>>>> this group in preparing myself for something I thought my students
> > >>>>> could benefit from. The only thing people wanted to do was act self-
> > >>>>> righteous, which is exactly what you're continuing to do right now.
> > >>> HHHUUURRR
>
> > >>> wow they're really coming out of the wooodwork this afrernoon.
> > >> Yes. Isn't it amazing how many disagree with you and/or believe you are
> > >> wrong......and isn't it amazing how you can't seem to be able to entertain
> > >> the idea that there are people on this forum who know more than you do.
> > >> So far I see not one supporter for your idiotic assertions.
> > >> Good God man, get out of the CFI business before you kill some innocent
> > >> student.
>
> > >> --
> > >> Dudley Henriques
>
> > > If' this is the kind of CFI that's teaching today's young pilots, then maybe
> > > it's time to take the prop off my Tiger and hang it in my office :(
>
> > > Fortunately, this guy is an odyssey. In 50 years being exposed to CFI's
>
> > of all makes and models, this idiot stands out as unique. I've never
> > come across an instructor who not only does what this guy claims to do
> > with students, but who when told it's wrong, attacks the pilots
> > correcting him.
> > Pilots like this guy are an accident waiting to happen. I only hope it
> > doesn't happen to him.
> > The positive side is that what usually happens with people like this is
> > that after they shoot off their mouth on Usenet telling off the pilots
> > who disagree with them, they usually sulk on back to the hangar and
> > never do again what they were taken out to the shed for.
> > If this is the result, I'm thoroughly satisfied.
>
> > --
> > Dudley Henriques
>
> This is like talking to a brick wall. I've said it a million times, I
> do not agree that is is necessarily "safe" to pull the engine on
> takeoff.
>
> My argument was that is can be safe if the proper precautions were to
> be made.
>
> Also, I know you're going to find some way to wriggle out of this one,
> but were you ever an MEI? Did you not do engine cuts on take off? If
> you did, how did you exactly do them? How do you suggest they should
> be done? Because engine cuts on takeoff are part of the PTS. Do you
> not follow the PTS?
>
> And don't try to tell me engine cuts in a twin are "safe" because one
> thing can lead to another and the plane can get below Vmc.
>
> I'm not trying to pick a fight with you, I am genuinely curious how
> you can be perfectly OK with doing it in a twin, but go off the handle
> when suggesting doing it in a single.

I agree with Mr. Buttman, provided the student has been
briefed.
Heres why : I've read *unexplained* crashes following
Take-Off. Could be a mouse (not a moose unless your
from Timmins), bird, rag from last overhaul, gets sucked
into the carb at full power and max suction.
We're supposed to be trained to handle a ****ed engine
at any time in the flight and a thoughtful pilot should
review that procedure at warm-up, maybe on the checklist.
Ken

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

buttman > wrote in
:

> On Mar 6, 6:55 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>> Owner wrote:
>> > "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >> buttman wrote:
>> >>> On Mar 6, 3:13 pm, "Owner" > wrote:
>> >>>> "buttman" > wrote in message
>>
>> >>>>news:5597b148-f803-4679-b40e-ea7768c139e1
@m36g2000hse.googlegroups
>> >>>>.com...
>>
>> >>>>> On Mar 6, 2:40 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>> >>>>>> The posts you made concerning pulling mixture on take off
>> >>>>>> involved a single engine airplane and a primary student. No
>> >>>>>> competent instructor does this REGARDLESS of the runway
>> >>>>>> remaining. The fact that you are actually defending this
>> >>>>>> idiotic and incompetent procedure is all I need to support my
>> >>>>>> initial judgment of you as a CFI.
>> >>>>>> Your feeble attempts at portraying me in the light of a "know
>> >>>>>> it all" and a "blow hard" would seem to fly in the face of
>> >>>>>> what I see from others (Ken Tucker excepted of course)
>> >>>>>> concerning your judgment on this
>> >>>>>> matter as well.
>> >>>>>> In other words, it appears that you have a judgment
>> >>>>>> problem...something
>> >>>>>> not desirable in a CFI.
>> >>>>>> --
>> >>>>>> Dudley Henriques
>> >>>>> Did you not read the 5 paragraph post that you just quoted?
>> >>>>> Obviously you didn't as you continue to say I pulled the
>> >>>>> mixture. It wasn't the mixture, it was the fuel valve!
>> >>>>> In my post I addressed my reasoning for coming to the stance I
>> >>>>> take on this issue. I do not necessarily "support" doing that
>> >>>>> particular maneuver.
>> >>>>> What I do support the idea that things like pulling the fuel
>> >>>>> valve (or anything else for that matter) CAN be done safely as
>> >>>>> long as the proper precautions are made.
>> >>>> Wow, what a load of crap, but what would one expect from someone
>> >>>> known as
>> >>>> buttman?
>>
>> >>>>> Since you're not willing to follow
>> >>>>> along, it only proves that you are indeed nothing but a
>> >>>>> blowhard who is full of himself.
>> >>>>> The thread I made over a year ago was intended to solicit the
>> >>>>> help of this group in preparing myself for something I thought
>> >>>>> my students could benefit from. The only thing people wanted to
>> >>>>> do was act self- righteous, which is exactly what you're
>> >>>>> continuing to do right now.
>> >>> HHHUUURRR
>>
>> >>> wow they're really coming out of the wooodwork this afrernoon.
>> >> Yes. Isn't it amazing how many disagree with you and/or believe
>> >> you are wrong......and isn't it amazing how you can't seem to be
>> >> able to entertain the idea that there are people on this forum who
>> >> know more than you do. So far I see not one supporter for your
>> >> idiotic assertions. Good God man, get out of the CFI business
>> >> before you kill some innocent student.
>>
>> >> --
>> >> Dudley Henriques
>>
>> > If' this is the kind of CFI that's teaching today's young pilots,
>> > then maybe it's time to take the prop off my Tiger and hang it in
>> > my office :(
>>
>> > Fortunately, this guy is an odyssey. In 50 years being exposed to
>> > CFI's
>>
>> of all makes and models, this idiot stands out as unique. I've never
>> come across an instructor who not only does what this guy claims to
>> do with students, but who when told it's wrong, attacks the pilots
>> correcting him.
>> Pilots like this guy are an accident waiting to happen. I only hope
>> it doesn't happen to him.
>> The positive side is that what usually happens with people like this
>> is that after they shoot off their mouth on Usenet telling off the
>> pilots who disagree with them, they usually sulk on back to the
>> hangar and never do again what they were taken out to the shed for.
>> If this is the result, I'm thoroughly satisfied.
>>
>> --
>> Dudley Henriques
>
> This is like talking to a brick wall. I've said it a million times, I
> do not agree that is is necessarily "safe" to pull the engine on
> takeoff.
>
> My argument was that is can be safe if the proper precautions were to
> be made.
>
> Also, I know you're going to find some way to wriggle out of this one,
> but were you ever an MEI? Did you not do engine cuts on take off? If
> you did, how did you exactly do them? How do you suggest they should
> be done? Because engine cuts on takeoff are part of the PTS. Do you
> not follow the PTS?
>
> And don't try to tell me engine cuts in a twin are "safe" because one
> thing can lead to another and the plane can get below Vmc.
>


I'm an mei and a check airman. Anyone who lets an airplane get below VMC
during training is a complete tit. And a short lived one.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in
:

> On Mar 7, 10:05 am, buttman > wrote:
>> On Mar 6, 6:55 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > Owner wrote:
>> > > "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
>> > ...
>> > >> buttman wrote:
>> > >>> On Mar 6, 3:13 pm, "Owner" > wrote:
>> > >>>> "buttman" > wrote in message
>>
>> > >>>>news:5597b148-f803-4679-b40e-ea7768c139e1
@m36g2000hse.googlegrou
>> > >>>>ps.com...
>>
>> > >>>>> On Mar 6, 2:40 pm, Dudley Henriques >
>> > >>>>> wrote:
>> > >>>>>> The posts you made concerning pulling mixture on take off
>> > >>>>>> involved a single engine airplane and a primary student. No
>> > >>>>>> competent instructor does this REGARDLESS of the runway
>> > >>>>>> remaining. The fact that you are actually defending this
>> > >>>>>> idiotic and incompetent procedure is all I need to support
>> > >>>>>> my initial judgment of you as a CFI.
>> > >>>>>> Your feeble attempts at portraying me in the light of a
>> > >>>>>> "know it all" and a "blow hard" would seem to fly in the
>> > >>>>>> face of what I see from others (Ken Tucker excepted of
>> > >>>>>> course) concerning your judgment on this
>> > >>>>>> matter as well.
>> > >>>>>> In other words, it appears that you have a judgment
>> > >>>>>> problem...something
>> > >>>>>> not desirable in a CFI.
>> > >>>>>> --
>> > >>>>>> Dudley Henriques
>> > >>>>> Did you not read the 5 paragraph post that you just quoted?
>> > >>>>> Obviously you didn't as you continue to say I pulled the
>> > >>>>> mixture. It wasn't the mixture, it was the fuel valve!
>> > >>>>> In my post I addressed my reasoning for coming to the stance
>> > >>>>> I take on this issue. I do not necessarily "support" doing
>> > >>>>> that particular maneuver.
>> > >>>>> What I do support the idea that things like pulling the fuel
>> > >>>>> valve (or anything else for that matter) CAN be done safely
>> > >>>>> as long as the proper precautions are made.
>> > >>>> Wow, what a load of crap, but what would one expect from
>> > >>>> someone known as
>> > >>>> buttman?
>>
>> > >>>>> Since you're not willing to follow
>> > >>>>> along, it only proves that you are indeed nothing but a
>> > >>>>> blowhard who is full of himself.
>> > >>>>> The thread I made over a year ago was intended to solicit the
>> > >>>>> help of this group in preparing myself for something I
>> > >>>>> thought my students could benefit from. The only thing people
>> > >>>>> wanted to do was act self- righteous, which is exactly what
>> > >>>>> you're continuing to do right now.
>> > >>> HHHUUURRR
>>
>> > >>> wow they're really coming out of the wooodwork this afrernoon.
>> > >> Yes. Isn't it amazing how many disagree with you and/or believe
>> > >> you are wrong......and isn't it amazing how you can't seem to be
>> > >> able to entertain the idea that there are people on this forum
>> > >> who know more than you do. So far I see not one supporter for
>> > >> your idiotic assertions. Good God man, get out of the CFI
>> > >> business before you kill some innocent student.
>>
>> > >> --
>> > >> Dudley Henriques
>>
>> > > If' this is the kind of CFI that's teaching today's young pilots,
>> > > then maybe it's time to take the prop off my Tiger and hang it in
>> > > my office :(
>>
>> > > Fortunately, this guy is an odyssey. In 50 years being exposed to
>> > > CFI's
>>
>> > of all makes and models, this idiot stands out as unique. I've
>> > never come across an instructor who not only does what this guy
>> > claims to do with students, but who when told it's wrong, attacks
>> > the pilots correcting him.
>> > Pilots like this guy are an accident waiting to happen. I only hope
>> > it doesn't happen to him.
>> > The positive side is that what usually happens with people like
>> > this is that after they shoot off their mouth on Usenet telling off
>> > the pilots who disagree with them, they usually sulk on back to the
>> > hangar and never do again what they were taken out to the shed for.
>> > If this is the result, I'm thoroughly satisfied.
>>
>> > --
>> > Dudley Henriques
>>
>> This is like talking to a brick wall. I've said it a million times, I
>> do not agree that is is necessarily "safe" to pull the engine on
>> takeoff.
>>
>> My argument was that is can be safe if the proper precautions were to
>> be made.
>>
>> Also, I know you're going to find some way to wriggle out of this
>> one, but were you ever an MEI? Did you not do engine cuts on take
>> off? If you did, how did you exactly do them? How do you suggest they
>> should be done? Because engine cuts on takeoff are part of the PTS.
>> Do you not follow the PTS?
>>
>> And don't try to tell me engine cuts in a twin are "safe" because one
>> thing can lead to another and the plane can get below Vmc.
>>
>> I'm not trying to pick a fight with you, I am genuinely curious how
>> you can be perfectly OK with doing it in a twin, but go off the
>> handle when suggesting doing it in a single.
>
> I agree with Mr. Buttman, =

As if anty moreproof were needed tha buttman is a complete tit.


Bertie

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in
> :
>
>> On Mar 7, 10:05 am, buttman > wrote:
>>> On Mar 6, 6:55 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Owner wrote:
>>>>> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>>> buttman wrote:
>>>>>>> On Mar 6, 3:13 pm, "Owner" > wrote:
>>>>>>>> "buttman" > wrote in message
>>>>>>>> news:5597b148-f803-4679-b40e-ea7768c139e1
> @m36g2000hse.googlegrou
>>>>>>>> ps.com...
>>>>>>>>> On Mar 6, 2:40 pm, Dudley Henriques >
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> The posts you made concerning pulling mixture on take off
>>>>>>>>>> involved a single engine airplane and a primary student. No
>>>>>>>>>> competent instructor does this REGARDLESS of the runway
>>>>>>>>>> remaining. The fact that you are actually defending this
>>>>>>>>>> idiotic and incompetent procedure is all I need to support
>>>>>>>>>> my initial judgment of you as a CFI.
>>>>>>>>>> Your feeble attempts at portraying me in the light of a
>>>>>>>>>> "know it all" and a "blow hard" would seem to fly in the
>>>>>>>>>> face of what I see from others (Ken Tucker excepted of
>>>>>>>>>> course) concerning your judgment on this
>>>>>>>>>> matter as well.
>>>>>>>>>> In other words, it appears that you have a judgment
>>>>>>>>>> problem...something
>>>>>>>>>> not desirable in a CFI.
>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>> Dudley Henriques
>>>>>>>>> Did you not read the 5 paragraph post that you just quoted?
>>>>>>>>> Obviously you didn't as you continue to say I pulled the
>>>>>>>>> mixture. It wasn't the mixture, it was the fuel valve!
>>>>>>>>> In my post I addressed my reasoning for coming to the stance
>>>>>>>>> I take on this issue. I do not necessarily "support" doing
>>>>>>>>> that particular maneuver.
>>>>>>>>> What I do support the idea that things like pulling the fuel
>>>>>>>>> valve (or anything else for that matter) CAN be done safely
>>>>>>>>> as long as the proper precautions are made.
>>>>>>>> Wow, what a load of crap, but what would one expect from
>>>>>>>> someone known as
>>>>>>>> buttman?
>>>>>>>>> Since you're not willing to follow
>>>>>>>>> along, it only proves that you are indeed nothing but a
>>>>>>>>> blowhard who is full of himself.
>>>>>>>>> The thread I made over a year ago was intended to solicit the
>>>>>>>>> help of this group in preparing myself for something I
>>>>>>>>> thought my students could benefit from. The only thing people
>>>>>>>>> wanted to do was act self- righteous, which is exactly what
>>>>>>>>> you're continuing to do right now.
>>>>>>> HHHUUURRR
>>>>>>> wow they're really coming out of the wooodwork this afrernoon.
>>>>>> Yes. Isn't it amazing how many disagree with you and/or believe
>>>>>> you are wrong......and isn't it amazing how you can't seem to be
>>>>>> able to entertain the idea that there are people on this forum
>>>>>> who know more than you do. So far I see not one supporter for
>>>>>> your idiotic assertions. Good God man, get out of the CFI
>>>>>> business before you kill some innocent student.
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Dudley Henriques
>>>>> If' this is the kind of CFI that's teaching today's young pilots,
>>>>> then maybe it's time to take the prop off my Tiger and hang it in
>>>>> my office :(
>>>>> Fortunately, this guy is an odyssey. In 50 years being exposed to
>>>>> CFI's
>>>> of all makes and models, this idiot stands out as unique. I've
>>>> never come across an instructor who not only does what this guy
>>>> claims to do with students, but who when told it's wrong, attacks
>>>> the pilots correcting him.
>>>> Pilots like this guy are an accident waiting to happen. I only hope
>>>> it doesn't happen to him.
>>>> The positive side is that what usually happens with people like
>>>> this is that after they shoot off their mouth on Usenet telling off
>>>> the pilots who disagree with them, they usually sulk on back to the
>>>> hangar and never do again what they were taken out to the shed for.
>>>> If this is the result, I'm thoroughly satisfied.
>>>> --
>>>> Dudley Henriques
>>> This is like talking to a brick wall. I've said it a million times, I
>>> do not agree that is is necessarily "safe" to pull the engine on
>>> takeoff.
>>>
>>> My argument was that is can be safe if the proper precautions were to
>>> be made.
>>>
>>> Also, I know you're going to find some way to wriggle out of this
>>> one, but were you ever an MEI? Did you not do engine cuts on take
>>> off? If you did, how did you exactly do them? How do you suggest they
>>> should be done? Because engine cuts on takeoff are part of the PTS.
>>> Do you not follow the PTS?
>>>
>>> And don't try to tell me engine cuts in a twin are "safe" because one
>>> thing can lead to another and the plane can get below Vmc.
>>>
>>> I'm not trying to pick a fight with you, I am genuinely curious how
>>> you can be perfectly OK with doing it in a twin, but go off the
>>> handle when suggesting doing it in a single.
>> I agree with Mr. Buttman, =
>
> As if anty moreproof were needed tha buttman is a complete tit.
>
>
> Bertie
>
You took the words right out of my mouth :-) After 50 years in the
aviation instruction and safety business, there's nothing like arguing
these issues with a paper plane idiot and an instructor who advocates
starving an engine on take off to "teach his students properly"
To coin a phrase from a friend,
"God I LOVE Usenet!!!" :-))

--
Dudley Henriques

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> buttman > wrote in
> :
>
>> On Mar 6, 6:55 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>>> Owner wrote:
>>>> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> buttman wrote:
>>>>>> On Mar 6, 3:13 pm, "Owner" > wrote:
>>>>>>> "buttman" > wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:5597b148-f803-4679-b40e-ea7768c139e1
> @m36g2000hse.googlegroups
>>>>>>> .com...
>>>>>>>> On Mar 6, 2:40 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>>>>>>>>> The posts you made concerning pulling mixture on take off
>>>>>>>>> involved a single engine airplane and a primary student. No
>>>>>>>>> competent instructor does this REGARDLESS of the runway
>>>>>>>>> remaining. The fact that you are actually defending this
>>>>>>>>> idiotic and incompetent procedure is all I need to support my
>>>>>>>>> initial judgment of you as a CFI.
>>>>>>>>> Your feeble attempts at portraying me in the light of a "know
>>>>>>>>> it all" and a "blow hard" would seem to fly in the face of
>>>>>>>>> what I see from others (Ken Tucker excepted of course)
>>>>>>>>> concerning your judgment on this
>>>>>>>>> matter as well.
>>>>>>>>> In other words, it appears that you have a judgment
>>>>>>>>> problem...something
>>>>>>>>> not desirable in a CFI.
>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>> Dudley Henriques
>>>>>>>> Did you not read the 5 paragraph post that you just quoted?
>>>>>>>> Obviously you didn't as you continue to say I pulled the
>>>>>>>> mixture. It wasn't the mixture, it was the fuel valve!
>>>>>>>> In my post I addressed my reasoning for coming to the stance I
>>>>>>>> take on this issue. I do not necessarily "support" doing that
>>>>>>>> particular maneuver.
>>>>>>>> What I do support the idea that things like pulling the fuel
>>>>>>>> valve (or anything else for that matter) CAN be done safely as
>>>>>>>> long as the proper precautions are made.
>>>>>>> Wow, what a load of crap, but what would one expect from someone
>>>>>>> known as
>>>>>>> buttman?
>>>>>>>> Since you're not willing to follow
>>>>>>>> along, it only proves that you are indeed nothing but a
>>>>>>>> blowhard who is full of himself.
>>>>>>>> The thread I made over a year ago was intended to solicit the
>>>>>>>> help of this group in preparing myself for something I thought
>>>>>>>> my students could benefit from. The only thing people wanted to
>>>>>>>> do was act self- righteous, which is exactly what you're
>>>>>>>> continuing to do right now.
>>>>>> HHHUUURRR
>>>>>> wow they're really coming out of the wooodwork this afrernoon.
>>>>> Yes. Isn't it amazing how many disagree with you and/or believe
>>>>> you are wrong......and isn't it amazing how you can't seem to be
>>>>> able to entertain the idea that there are people on this forum who
>>>>> know more than you do. So far I see not one supporter for your
>>>>> idiotic assertions. Good God man, get out of the CFI business
>>>>> before you kill some innocent student.
>>>>> --
>>>>> Dudley Henriques
>>>> If' this is the kind of CFI that's teaching today's young pilots,
>>>> then maybe it's time to take the prop off my Tiger and hang it in
>>>> my office :(
>>>> Fortunately, this guy is an odyssey. In 50 years being exposed to
>>>> CFI's
>>> of all makes and models, this idiot stands out as unique. I've never
>>> come across an instructor who not only does what this guy claims to
>>> do with students, but who when told it's wrong, attacks the pilots
>>> correcting him.
>>> Pilots like this guy are an accident waiting to happen. I only hope
>>> it doesn't happen to him.
>>> The positive side is that what usually happens with people like this
>>> is that after they shoot off their mouth on Usenet telling off the
>>> pilots who disagree with them, they usually sulk on back to the
>>> hangar and never do again what they were taken out to the shed for.
>>> If this is the result, I'm thoroughly satisfied.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Dudley Henriques
>> This is like talking to a brick wall. I've said it a million times, I
>> do not agree that is is necessarily "safe" to pull the engine on
>> takeoff.
>>
>> My argument was that is can be safe if the proper precautions were to
>> be made.
>>
>> Also, I know you're going to find some way to wriggle out of this one,
>> but were you ever an MEI? Did you not do engine cuts on take off? If
>> you did, how did you exactly do them? How do you suggest they should
>> be done? Because engine cuts on takeoff are part of the PTS. Do you
>> not follow the PTS?
>>
>> And don't try to tell me engine cuts in a twin are "safe" because one
>> thing can lead to another and the plane can get below Vmc.
>>
>
>
> I'm an mei and a check airman. Anyone who lets an airplane get below VMC
> during training is a complete tit. And a short lived one.
>
>
> Bertie
>
>
>
>
>
>
We lost an MEI and his student both at KILG in a Baron doing just this.


--
Dudley Henriques

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Dudley Henriques > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> buttman > wrote in
>> news:432f5a57-2a31-43d9-bfef-51efa61863c2
@f47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com
>> :
>>
>>> On Mar 6, 6:55 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>>>> Owner wrote:
>>>>> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>>> buttman wrote:
>>>>>>> On Mar 6, 3:13 pm, "Owner" > wrote:
>>>>>>>> "buttman" > wrote in message
>>>>>>>> news:5597b148-f803-4679-b40e-ea7768c139e1
>> @m36g2000hse.googlegroups
>>>>>>>> .com...
>>>>>>>>> On Mar 6, 2:40 pm, Dudley Henriques >
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> The posts you made concerning pulling mixture on take off
>>>>>>>>>> involved a single engine airplane and a primary student. No
>>>>>>>>>> competent instructor does this REGARDLESS of the runway
>>>>>>>>>> remaining. The fact that you are actually defending this
>>>>>>>>>> idiotic and incompetent procedure is all I need to support my
>>>>>>>>>> initial judgment of you as a CFI.
>>>>>>>>>> Your feeble attempts at portraying me in the light of a "know
>>>>>>>>>> it all" and a "blow hard" would seem to fly in the face of
>>>>>>>>>> what I see from others (Ken Tucker excepted of course)
>>>>>>>>>> concerning your judgment on this
>>>>>>>>>> matter as well.
>>>>>>>>>> In other words, it appears that you have a judgment
>>>>>>>>>> problem...something
>>>>>>>>>> not desirable in a CFI.
>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>> Dudley Henriques
>>>>>>>>> Did you not read the 5 paragraph post that you just quoted?
>>>>>>>>> Obviously you didn't as you continue to say I pulled the
>>>>>>>>> mixture. It wasn't the mixture, it was the fuel valve!
>>>>>>>>> In my post I addressed my reasoning for coming to the stance I
>>>>>>>>> take on this issue. I do not necessarily "support" doing that
>>>>>>>>> particular maneuver.
>>>>>>>>> What I do support the idea that things like pulling the fuel
>>>>>>>>> valve (or anything else for that matter) CAN be done safely as
>>>>>>>>> long as the proper precautions are made.
>>>>>>>> Wow, what a load of crap, but what would one expect from
>>>>>>>> someone known as
>>>>>>>> buttman?
>>>>>>>>> Since you're not willing to follow
>>>>>>>>> along, it only proves that you are indeed nothing but a
>>>>>>>>> blowhard who is full of himself.
>>>>>>>>> The thread I made over a year ago was intended to solicit the
>>>>>>>>> help of this group in preparing myself for something I thought
>>>>>>>>> my students could benefit from. The only thing people wanted
>>>>>>>>> to do was act self- righteous, which is exactly what you're
>>>>>>>>> continuing to do right now.
>>>>>>> HHHUUURRR
>>>>>>> wow they're really coming out of the wooodwork this afrernoon.
>>>>>> Yes. Isn't it amazing how many disagree with you and/or believe
>>>>>> you are wrong......and isn't it amazing how you can't seem to be
>>>>>> able to entertain the idea that there are people on this forum
>>>>>> who know more than you do. So far I see not one supporter for
>>>>>> your idiotic assertions. Good God man, get out of the CFI
>>>>>> business before you kill some innocent student.
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Dudley Henriques
>>>>> If' this is the kind of CFI that's teaching today's young pilots,
>>>>> then maybe it's time to take the prop off my Tiger and hang it in
>>>>> my office :(
>>>>> Fortunately, this guy is an odyssey. In 50 years being exposed to
>>>>> CFI's
>>>> of all makes and models, this idiot stands out as unique. I've
>>>> never come across an instructor who not only does what this guy
>>>> claims to do with students, but who when told it's wrong, attacks
>>>> the pilots correcting him.
>>>> Pilots like this guy are an accident waiting to happen. I only hope
>>>> it doesn't happen to him.
>>>> The positive side is that what usually happens with people like
>>>> this is that after they shoot off their mouth on Usenet telling off
>>>> the pilots who disagree with them, they usually sulk on back to the
>>>> hangar and never do again what they were taken out to the shed for.
>>>> If this is the result, I'm thoroughly satisfied.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Dudley Henriques
>>> This is like talking to a brick wall. I've said it a million times,
>>> I do not agree that is is necessarily "safe" to pull the engine on
>>> takeoff.
>>>
>>> My argument was that is can be safe if the proper precautions were
>>> to be made.
>>>
>>> Also, I know you're going to find some way to wriggle out of this
>>> one, but were you ever an MEI? Did you not do engine cuts on take
>>> off? If you did, how did you exactly do them? How do you suggest
>>> they should be done? Because engine cuts on takeoff are part of the
>>> PTS. Do you not follow the PTS?
>>>
>>> And don't try to tell me engine cuts in a twin are "safe" because
>>> one thing can lead to another and the plane can get below Vmc.
>>>
>>
>>
>> I'm an mei and a check airman. Anyone who lets an airplane get below
>> VMC during training is a complete tit. And a short lived one.
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
> We lost an MEI and his student both at KILG in a Baron doing just
> this.
>
>

Always hated doing takeoff cuts no matter which method, but I always
used the throttle in any case. My boss did not and we had one idiot who
liked to do feathered landings and crashed ( they walked away from it,
though)
We used to do V1 cuts in jets for training, but not anymore. It can be
hairy as hell in some airplanes and quite a few have rolled over and
crashed in training. So now, if we don't do a zero time thingie, we just
do three touch and goes for certifiaction, but even this is dying out.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Dudley Henriques > wrote in
:


>>
> You took the words right out of my mouth :-) After 50 years in the
> aviation instruction and safety business, there's nothing like arguing
> these issues with a paper plane idiot and an instructor who advocates
> starving an engine on take off to "teach his students properly"
> To coin a phrase from a friend,
> "God I LOVE Usenet!!!" :-))

Don't get me wrong, I think students need to get to see cetain things, but
taknig chances that are just completely unnnecesary is just.. stupid..


bertie
>

[Ken S. Tucker]

On Mar 7, 11:24 am, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> > "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in
> :
>
> >> On Mar 7, 10:05 am, buttman > wrote:
> >>> On Mar 6, 6:55 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>
> >>>> Owner wrote:
> >>>>> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>>>>> buttman wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Mar 6, 3:13 pm, "Owner" > wrote:
> >>>>>>>> "buttman" > wrote in message
> >>>>>>>> news:5597b148-f803-4679-b40e-ea7768c139e1
> > @m36g2000hse.googlegrou
> >>>>>>>> ps.com...
> >>>>>>>>> On Mar 6, 2:40 pm, Dudley Henriques >
> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> The posts you made concerning pulling mixture on take off
> >>>>>>>>>> involved a single engine airplane and a primary student. No
> >>>>>>>>>> competent instructor does this REGARDLESS of the runway
> >>>>>>>>>> remaining. The fact that you are actually defending this
> >>>>>>>>>> idiotic and incompetent procedure is all I need to support
> >>>>>>>>>> my initial judgment of you as a CFI.
> >>>>>>>>>> Your feeble attempts at portraying me in the light of a
> >>>>>>>>>> "know it all" and a "blow hard" would seem to fly in the
> >>>>>>>>>> face of what I see from others (Ken Tucker excepted of
> >>>>>>>>>> course) concerning your judgment on this
> >>>>>>>>>> matter as well.
> >>>>>>>>>> In other words, it appears that you have a judgment
> >>>>>>>>>> problem...something
> >>>>>>>>>> not desirable in a CFI.
> >>>>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>>> Dudley Henriques
> >>>>>>>>> Did you not read the 5 paragraph post that you just quoted?
> >>>>>>>>> Obviously you didn't as you continue to say I pulled the
> >>>>>>>>> mixture. It wasn't the mixture, it was the fuel valve!
> >>>>>>>>> In my post I addressed my reasoning for coming to the stance
> >>>>>>>>> I take on this issue. I do not necessarily "support" doing
> >>>>>>>>> that particular maneuver.
> >>>>>>>>> What I do support the idea that things like pulling the fuel
> >>>>>>>>> valve (or anything else for that matter) CAN be done safely
> >>>>>>>>> as long as the proper precautions are made.
> >>>>>>>> Wow, what a load of crap, but what would one expect from
> >>>>>>>> someone known as
> >>>>>>>> buttman?
> >>>>>>>>> Since you're not willing to follow
> >>>>>>>>> along, it only proves that you are indeed nothing but a
> >>>>>>>>> blowhard who is full of himself.
> >>>>>>>>> The thread I made over a year ago was intended to solicit the
> >>>>>>>>> help of this group in preparing myself for something I
> >>>>>>>>> thought my students could benefit from. The only thing people
> >>>>>>>>> wanted to do was act self- righteous, which is exactly what
> >>>>>>>>> you're continuing to do right now.
> >>>>>>> HHHUUURRR
> >>>>>>> wow they're really coming out of the wooodwork this afrernoon.
> >>>>>> Yes. Isn't it amazing how many disagree with you and/or believe
> >>>>>> you are wrong......and isn't it amazing how you can't seem to be
> >>>>>> able to entertain the idea that there are people on this forum
> >>>>>> who know more than you do. So far I see not one supporter for
> >>>>>> your idiotic assertions. Good God man, get out of the CFI
> >>>>>> business before you kill some innocent student.
> >>>>>> --
> >>>>>> Dudley Henriques
> >>>>> If' this is the kind of CFI that's teaching today's young pilots,
> >>>>> then maybe it's time to take the prop off my Tiger and hang it in
> >>>>> my office :(
> >>>>> Fortunately, this guy is an odyssey. In 50 years being exposed to
> >>>>> CFI's
> >>>> of all makes and models, this idiot stands out as unique. I've
> >>>> never come across an instructor who not only does what this guy
> >>>> claims to do with students, but who when told it's wrong, attacks
> >>>> the pilots correcting him.
> >>>> Pilots like this guy are an accident waiting to happen. I only hope
> >>>> it doesn't happen to him.
> >>>> The positive side is that what usually happens with people like
> >>>> this is that after they shoot off their mouth on Usenet telling off
> >>>> the pilots who disagree with them, they usually sulk on back to the
> >>>> hangar and never do again what they were taken out to the shed for.
> >>>> If this is the result, I'm thoroughly satisfied.
> >>>> --
> >>>> Dudley Henriques
> >>> This is like talking to a brick wall. I've said it a million times, I
> >>> do not agree that is is necessarily "safe" to pull the engine on
> >>> takeoff.
>
> >>> My argument was that is can be safe if the proper precautions were to
> >>> be made.
>
> >>> Also, I know you're going to find some way to wriggle out of this
> >>> one, but were you ever an MEI? Did you not do engine cuts on take
> >>> off? If you did, how did you exactly do them? How do you suggest they
> >>> should be done? Because engine cuts on takeoff are part of the PTS.
> >>> Do you not follow the PTS?
>
> >>> And don't try to tell me engine cuts in a twin are "safe" because one
> >>> thing can lead to another and the plane can get below Vmc.
>
> >>> I'm not trying to pick a fight with you, I am genuinely curious how
> >>> you can be perfectly OK with doing it in a twin, but go off the
> >>> handle when suggesting doing it in a single.
> >> I agree with Mr. Buttman, =
>
> > As if anty moreproof were needed tha buttman is a complete tit.
>
> > Bertie
>
> You took the words right out of my mouth :-) After 50 years in the
> aviation instruction and safety business, there's nothing like arguing
> these issues with a paper plane idiot and an instructor who advocates
> starving an engine on take off to "teach his students properly"
> To coin a phrase from a friend,
> "God I LOVE Usenet!!!" :-))
> Dudley Henriques

Dud, you've never been in an airplane, and you're
NOT an instructor. I'm a prof teacher and I can
sniff your bad **** off the net, you're a phony!

Mr. Buttman (appropriately) raised the question
of engine failure at rotation or ascent, I'd like him
as an instructor. Why, because he's strict.
As a prof teacher, I happen to know that a suggested
lesson should be weighed by it's merits by his peers,
and you "dud" are not near in his class, otherwise
you would have discussed the issue of anomally
in that T-O circumstance.
And that's how I know the "dud" is a web-phony.

"dud" is CHECKMATED by
Ken S. Tucker
PS: Now predicably "dud" or his "bertie" sidekick
will engage in the usual name calling, to avoid the
issue.

[george]

On Mar 8, 8:49 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> Dudley Henriques > wrote :
>
>
>
> > You took the words right out of my mouth :-) After 50 years in the
> > aviation instruction and safety business, there's nothing like arguing
> > these issues with a paper plane idiot and an instructor who advocates
> > starving an engine on take off to "teach his students properly"
> > To coin a phrase from a friend,
> > "God I LOVE Usenet!!!" :-))
>
> Don't get me wrong, I think students need to get to see cetain things, but
> taknig chances that are just completely unnnecesary is just.. stupid..


The moment I saw the 'pulling mixture on takeoff to simulate engine
failure' I knew the claimant is another Anthony.
How do we shut down?
By leaning the engine right out with the mixture control.
To do so upon takeoff during such a crucial part of flight is going to
eventually kill a student and the instructor.

His other claim about 'pulling' the fuel reinforces the fact that he
knows nothing about flying.

The term was and is 'selecting' as in selecting left tank, right tank
and selecting off which will stop the engine through fuel starvation
and again kill a student and instructor..

The tried and true method of demonstrating engine failure on take off
is by reducing power via throttle just the same as engine failure
training at altitude.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in
:

> On Mar 7, 11:24 am, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> > "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in
>> >news:5b78a5ee-281c-4b7d-9252-

>> >m:
>>
>> >> On Mar 7, 10:05 am, buttman > wrote:
>> >>> On Mar 6, 6:55 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>>
>> >>>> Owner wrote:
>> >>>>> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >>>>>> buttman wrote:
>> >>>>>>> On Mar 6, 3:13 pm, "Owner" > wrote:
>> >>>>>>>> "buttman" > wrote in message
>> >>>>>>>> news:5597b148-f803-4679-b40e-ea7768c139e1
>> > @m36g2000hse.googlegrou
>> >>>>>>>> ps.com...
>> >>>>>>>>> On Mar 6, 2:40 pm, Dudley Henriques >
>> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>> The posts you made concerning pulling mixture on take off
>> >>>>>>>>>> involved a single engine airplane and a primary student.
>> >>>>>>>>>> No competent instructor does this REGARDLESS of the runway
>> >>>>>>>>>> remaining. The fact that you are actually defending this
>> >>>>>>>>>> idiotic and incompetent procedure is all I need to support
>> >>>>>>>>>> my initial judgment of you as a CFI.
>> >>>>>>>>>> Your feeble attempts at portraying me in the light of a
>> >>>>>>>>>> "know it all" and a "blow hard" would seem to fly in the
>> >>>>>>>>>> face of what I see from others (Ken Tucker excepted of
>> >>>>>>>>>> course) concerning your judgment on this
>> >>>>>>>>>> matter as well.
>> >>>>>>>>>> In other words, it appears that you have a judgment
>> >>>>>>>>>> problem...something
>> >>>>>>>>>> not desirable in a CFI.
>> >>>>>>>>>> --
>> >>>>>>>>>> Dudley Henriques
>> >>>>>>>>> Did you not read the 5 paragraph post that you just quoted?
>> >>>>>>>>> Obviously you didn't as you continue to say I pulled the
>> >>>>>>>>> mixture. It wasn't the mixture, it was the fuel valve!
>> >>>>>>>>> In my post I addressed my reasoning for coming to the
>> >>>>>>>>> stance I take on this issue. I do not necessarily "support"
>> >>>>>>>>> doing that particular maneuver.
>> >>>>>>>>> What I do support the idea that things like pulling the
>> >>>>>>>>> fuel valve (or anything else for that matter) CAN be done
>> >>>>>>>>> safely as long as the proper precautions are made.
>> >>>>>>>> Wow, what a load of crap, but what would one expect from
>> >>>>>>>> someone known as
>> >>>>>>>> buttman?
>> >>>>>>>>> Since you're not willing to follow
>> >>>>>>>>> along, it only proves that you are indeed nothing but a
>> >>>>>>>>> blowhard who is full of himself.
>> >>>>>>>>> The thread I made over a year ago was intended to solicit
>> >>>>>>>>> the help of this group in preparing myself for something I
>> >>>>>>>>> thought my students could benefit from. The only thing
>> >>>>>>>>> people wanted to do was act self- righteous, which is
>> >>>>>>>>> exactly what you're continuing to do right now.
>> >>>>>>> HHHUUURRR
>> >>>>>>> wow they're really coming out of the wooodwork this
>> >>>>>>> afrernoon.
>> >>>>>> Yes. Isn't it amazing how many disagree with you and/or
>> >>>>>> believe you are wrong......and isn't it amazing how you can't
>> >>>>>> seem to be able to entertain the idea that there are people on
>> >>>>>> this forum who know more than you do. So far I see not one
>> >>>>>> supporter for your idiotic assertions. Good God man, get out
>> >>>>>> of the CFI business before you kill some innocent student.
>> >>>>>> --
>> >>>>>> Dudley Henriques
>> >>>>> If' this is the kind of CFI that's teaching today's young
>> >>>>> pilots, then maybe it's time to take the prop off my Tiger and
>> >>>>> hang it in my office :(
>> >>>>> Fortunately, this guy is an odyssey. In 50 years being exposed
>> >>>>> to CFI's
>> >>>> of all makes and models, this idiot stands out as unique. I've
>> >>>> never come across an instructor who not only does what this guy
>> >>>> claims to do with students, but who when told it's wrong,
>> >>>> attacks the pilots correcting him.
>> >>>> Pilots like this guy are an accident waiting to happen. I only
>> >>>> hope it doesn't happen to him.
>> >>>> The positive side is that what usually happens with people like
>> >>>> this is that after they shoot off their mouth on Usenet telling
>> >>>> off the pilots who disagree with them, they usually sulk on back
>> >>>> to the hangar and never do again what they were taken out to the
>> >>>> shed for. If this is the result, I'm thoroughly satisfied.
>> >>>> --
>> >>>> Dudley Henriques
>> >>> This is like talking to a brick wall. I've said it a million
>> >>> times, I do not agree that is is necessarily "safe" to pull the
>> >>> engine on takeoff.
>>
>> >>> My argument was that is can be safe if the proper precautions
>> >>> were to be made.
>>
>> >>> Also, I know you're going to find some way to wriggle out of this
>> >>> one, but were you ever an MEI? Did you not do engine cuts on take
>> >>> off? If you did, how did you exactly do them? How do you suggest
>> >>> they should be done? Because engine cuts on takeoff are part of
>> >>> the PTS. Do you not follow the PTS?
>>
>> >>> And don't try to tell me engine cuts in a twin are "safe" because
>> >>> one thing can lead to another and the plane can get below Vmc.
>>
>> >>> I'm not trying to pick a fight with you, I am genuinely curious
>> >>> how you can be perfectly OK with doing it in a twin, but go off
>> >>> the handle when suggesting doing it in a single.
>> >> I agree with Mr. Buttman, =
>>
>> > As if anty moreproof were needed tha buttman is a complete tit.
>>
>> > Bertie
>>
>> You took the words right out of my mouth :-) After 50 years in the
>> aviation instruction and safety business, there's nothing like
>> arguing these issues with a paper plane idiot and an instructor who
>> advocates starving an engine on take off to "teach his students
>> properly" To coin a phrase from a friend,
>> "God I LOVE Usenet!!!" :-))
>> Dudley Henriques
>
> Dud, you've never been in an airplane, and you're
> NOT an instructor. I'm a prof teacher and I can
> sniff your bad **** off the net, you're a phony!
>
> Mr. Buttman (appropriately) raised the question
> of engine failure at rotation or ascent, I'd like him
> as an instructor. Why, because he's strict.
> As a prof teacher, I happen to know that a suggested
> lesson should be weighed by it's merits by his peers,
> and you "dud" are not near in his class, otherwise
> you would have discussed the issue of anomally
> in that T-O circumstance.
> And that's how I know the "dud" is a web-phony.
>
> "dud" is CHECKMATED by
> Ken S. Tucker
> PS: Now predicably "dud" or his "bertie" sidekick
> will engage in the usual name calling, to avoid the
> issue.


Yeh, right, fjukktard..

Happy?

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

george > wrote in
:

> On Mar 8, 8:49 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> Dudley Henriques > wrote
>> :
>>
>>
>>
>> > You took the words right out of my mouth :-) After 50 years in the
>> > aviation instruction and safety business, there's nothing like
>> > arguing these issues with a paper plane idiot and an instructor who
>> > advocates starving an engine on take off to "teach his students
>> > properly" To coin a phrase from a friend,
>> > "God I LOVE Usenet!!!" :-))
>>
>> Don't get me wrong, I think students need to get to see cetain
>> things, but taknig chances that are just completely unnnecesary is
>> just.. stupid..
>
>
> The moment I saw the 'pulling mixture on takeoff to simulate engine
> failure' I knew the claimant is another Anthony.


Actualy, some instructors are that dumb..


> How do we shut down?
> By leaning the engine right out with the mixture control.
> To do so upon takeoff during such a crucial part of flight is going to
> eventually kill a student and the instructor.
>
> His other claim about 'pulling' the fuel reinforces the fact that he
> knows nothing about flying.
>
> The term was and is 'selecting' as in selecting left tank, right tank
> and selecting off which will stop the engine through fuel starvation
> and again kill a student and instructor..
>
> The tried and true method of demonstrating engine failure on take off
> is by reducing power via throttle just the same as engine failure
> training at altitude.
>

It's the only way I did it unless the POH dicated otherwise..


Bertie

[buttman]

On Mar 7, 1:02 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>
> > You took the words right out of my mouth :-) After 50 years in the
> > aviation instruction and safety business, there's nothing like arguing
> > these issues with a paper plane idiot and an instructor who advocates
> > starving an engine on take off to "teach his students properly"
> > To coin a phrase from a friend,
> > "God I LOVE Usenet!!!" :-))
> > Dudley Henriques
>
> Dud, you've never been in an airplane, and you're
> NOT an instructor. I'm a prof teacher and I can
> sniff your bad **** off the net, you're a phony!
>
> Mr. Buttman (appropriately) raised the question
> of engine failure at rotation or ascent, I'd like him
> as an instructor. Why, because he's strict.
> As a prof teacher, I happen to know that a suggested
> lesson should be weighed by it's merits by his peers,
> and you "dud" are not near in his class, otherwise
> you would have discussed the issue of anomally
> in that T-O circumstance.
> And that's how I know the "dud" is a web-phony.
>
> "dud" is CHECKMATED by
> Ken S. Tucker
> PS: Now predicably "dud" or his "bertie" sidekick
> will engage in the usual name calling, to avoid the
> issue.

I agree with you 100%. If you read through his posts in this thread,
all you'll see is him insulting me, and nothing more. The reason he
won't post anything else, is because he can't. He has no idea what
he's talking about, ever.

I've knows this Dudley guy to be nothing but a fraud for years now.
The only thing that bothers me is that more people on this group don't
seem to realize this :(

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

buttman > wrote in news:6bccb7b0-2953-4281-a851-
:


>> "dud" is CHECKMATED by
>> Ken S. Tucker
>> PS: Now predicably "dud" or his "bertie" sidekick
>> will engage in the usual name calling, to avoid the
>> issue.
>
> I agree with you 100%. If you read through his posts in this thread,
> all you'll see is him insulting me, and nothing more. The reason he
> won't post anything else, is because he can't. He has no idea what
> he's talking about, ever.
>
> I've knows this Dudley guy to be nothing but a fraud for years now.
> The only thing that bothers me is that more people on this group don't
> seem to realize this :(
>

Kook wedding!

Bertie

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
> :
>
>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>> buttman > wrote in
>>> news:432f5a57-2a31-43d9-bfef-51efa61863c2
> @f47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com
>>> :
>>>
>>>> On Mar 6, 6:55 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>>>>> Owner wrote:
>>>>>> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>> buttman wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Mar 6, 3:13 pm, "Owner" > wrote:
>>>>>>>>> "buttman" > wrote in message
>>>>>>>>> news:5597b148-f803-4679-b40e-ea7768c139e1
>>> @m36g2000hse.googlegroups
>>>>>>>>> .com...
>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 6, 2:40 pm, Dudley Henriques >
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> The posts you made concerning pulling mixture on take off
>>>>>>>>>>> involved a single engine airplane and a primary student. No
>>>>>>>>>>> competent instructor does this REGARDLESS of the runway
>>>>>>>>>>> remaining. The fact that you are actually defending this
>>>>>>>>>>> idiotic and incompetent procedure is all I need to support my
>>>>>>>>>>> initial judgment of you as a CFI.
>>>>>>>>>>> Your feeble attempts at portraying me in the light of a "know
>>>>>>>>>>> it all" and a "blow hard" would seem to fly in the face of
>>>>>>>>>>> what I see from others (Ken Tucker excepted of course)
>>>>>>>>>>> concerning your judgment on this
>>>>>>>>>>> matter as well.
>>>>>>>>>>> In other words, it appears that you have a judgment
>>>>>>>>>>> problem...something
>>>>>>>>>>> not desirable in a CFI.
>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>> Dudley Henriques
>>>>>>>>>> Did you not read the 5 paragraph post that you just quoted?
>>>>>>>>>> Obviously you didn't as you continue to say I pulled the
>>>>>>>>>> mixture. It wasn't the mixture, it was the fuel valve!
>>>>>>>>>> In my post I addressed my reasoning for coming to the stance I
>>>>>>>>>> take on this issue. I do not necessarily "support" doing that
>>>>>>>>>> particular maneuver.
>>>>>>>>>> What I do support the idea that things like pulling the fuel
>>>>>>>>>> valve (or anything else for that matter) CAN be done safely as
>>>>>>>>>> long as the proper precautions are made.
>>>>>>>>> Wow, what a load of crap, but what would one expect from
>>>>>>>>> someone known as
>>>>>>>>> buttman?
>>>>>>>>>> Since you're not willing to follow
>>>>>>>>>> along, it only proves that you are indeed nothing but a
>>>>>>>>>> blowhard who is full of himself.
>>>>>>>>>> The thread I made over a year ago was intended to solicit the
>>>>>>>>>> help of this group in preparing myself for something I thought
>>>>>>>>>> my students could benefit from. The only thing people wanted
>>>>>>>>>> to do was act self- righteous, which is exactly what you're
>>>>>>>>>> continuing to do right now.
>>>>>>>> HHHUUURRR
>>>>>>>> wow they're really coming out of the wooodwork this afrernoon.
>>>>>>> Yes. Isn't it amazing how many disagree with you and/or believe
>>>>>>> you are wrong......and isn't it amazing how you can't seem to be
>>>>>>> able to entertain the idea that there are people on this forum
>>>>>>> who know more than you do. So far I see not one supporter for
>>>>>>> your idiotic assertions. Good God man, get out of the CFI
>>>>>>> business before you kill some innocent student.
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Dudley Henriques
>>>>>> If' this is the kind of CFI that's teaching today's young pilots,
>>>>>> then maybe it's time to take the prop off my Tiger and hang it in
>>>>>> my office :(
>>>>>> Fortunately, this guy is an odyssey. In 50 years being exposed to
>>>>>> CFI's
>>>>> of all makes and models, this idiot stands out as unique. I've
>>>>> never come across an instructor who not only does what this guy
>>>>> claims to do with students, but who when told it's wrong, attacks
>>>>> the pilots correcting him.
>>>>> Pilots like this guy are an accident waiting to happen. I only hope
>>>>> it doesn't happen to him.
>>>>> The positive side is that what usually happens with people like
>>>>> this is that after they shoot off their mouth on Usenet telling off
>>>>> the pilots who disagree with them, they usually sulk on back to the
>>>>> hangar and never do again what they were taken out to the shed for.
>>>>> If this is the result, I'm thoroughly satisfied.
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Dudley Henriques
>>>> This is like talking to a brick wall. I've said it a million times,
>>>> I do not agree that is is necessarily "safe" to pull the engine on
>>>> takeoff.
>>>>
>>>> My argument was that is can be safe if the proper precautions were
>>>> to be made.
>>>>
>>>> Also, I know you're going to find some way to wriggle out of this
>>>> one, but were you ever an MEI? Did you not do engine cuts on take
>>>> off? If you did, how did you exactly do them? How do you suggest
>>>> they should be done? Because engine cuts on takeoff are part of the
>>>> PTS. Do you not follow the PTS?
>>>>
>>>> And don't try to tell me engine cuts in a twin are "safe" because
>>>> one thing can lead to another and the plane can get below Vmc.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I'm an mei and a check airman. Anyone who lets an airplane get below
>>> VMC during training is a complete tit. And a short lived one.
>>>
>>>
>>> Bertie
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> We lost an MEI and his student both at KILG in a Baron doing just
>> this.
>>
>>
>
> Always hated doing takeoff cuts no matter which method, but I always
> used the throttle in any case. My boss did not and we had one idiot who
> liked to do feathered landings and crashed ( they walked away from it,
> though)
> We used to do V1 cuts in jets for training, but not anymore. It can be
> hairy as hell in some airplanes and quite a few have rolled over and
> crashed in training. So now, if we don't do a zero time thingie, we just
> do three touch and goes for certifiaction, but even this is dying out.
>
>
> Bertie
When this idiot buttman or whatever he is first posted on this takeoff
issue he wasn't talking multi-engine at all, but rather a single with a
primary student. Even in the multi sense he has never once even
mentioned zero thrusting an engine.
The bottom line is that what he was initially discussing here on this
forum was shutting down fuel on a single on takeoff with a primary
student based on the "logic" that he had enough runway ahead of him to
make that a safe procedure.
NO instructor should EVER be doing this with a student. First of all
it's asking for trouble you don't need, and secondly, it isn't even
close to being necessary as a tool to teach engine failure procedure on
takeoff in a single engine airplane on ANY learning curve.


--
Dudley Henriques

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Dudley Henriques > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>> buttman > wrote in
>>>> news:432f5a57-2a31-43d9-bfef-51efa61863c2
>> @f47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com
>>>> :
>>>>
>>>>> On Mar 6, 6:55 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>>>>>> Owner wrote:
>>>>>>> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>> buttman wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Mar 6, 3:13 pm, "Owner" > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> "buttman" > wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>> news:5597b148-f803-4679-b40e-ea7768c139e1
>>>> @m36g2000hse.googlegroups
>>>>>>>>>> .com...
>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 6, 2:40 pm, Dudley Henriques >
>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> The posts you made concerning pulling mixture on take off
>>>>>>>>>>>> involved a single engine airplane and a primary student. No
>>>>>>>>>>>> competent instructor does this REGARDLESS of the runway
>>>>>>>>>>>> remaining. The fact that you are actually defending this
>>>>>>>>>>>> idiotic and incompetent procedure is all I need to support
>>>>>>>>>>>> my initial judgment of you as a CFI.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Your feeble attempts at portraying me in the light of a
>>>>>>>>>>>> "know it all" and a "blow hard" would seem to fly in the
>>>>>>>>>>>> face of what I see from others (Ken Tucker excepted of
>>>>>>>>>>>> course) concerning your judgment on this
>>>>>>>>>>>> matter as well.
>>>>>>>>>>>> In other words, it appears that you have a judgment
>>>>>>>>>>>> problem...something
>>>>>>>>>>>> not desirable in a CFI.
>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>> Dudley Henriques
>>>>>>>>>>> Did you not read the 5 paragraph post that you just quoted?
>>>>>>>>>>> Obviously you didn't as you continue to say I pulled the
>>>>>>>>>>> mixture. It wasn't the mixture, it was the fuel valve!
>>>>>>>>>>> In my post I addressed my reasoning for coming to the stance
>>>>>>>>>>> I take on this issue. I do not necessarily "support" doing
>>>>>>>>>>> that particular maneuver.
>>>>>>>>>>> What I do support the idea that things like pulling the fuel
>>>>>>>>>>> valve (or anything else for that matter) CAN be done safely
>>>>>>>>>>> as long as the proper precautions are made.
>>>>>>>>>> Wow, what a load of crap, but what would one expect from
>>>>>>>>>> someone known as
>>>>>>>>>> buttman?
>>>>>>>>>>> Since you're not willing to follow
>>>>>>>>>>> along, it only proves that you are indeed nothing but a
>>>>>>>>>>> blowhard who is full of himself.
>>>>>>>>>>> The thread I made over a year ago was intended to solicit
>>>>>>>>>>> the help of this group in preparing myself for something I
>>>>>>>>>>> thought my students could benefit from. The only thing
>>>>>>>>>>> people wanted to do was act self- righteous, which is
>>>>>>>>>>> exactly what you're continuing to do right now.
>>>>>>>>> HHHUUURRR
>>>>>>>>> wow they're really coming out of the wooodwork this afrernoon.
>>>>>>>> Yes. Isn't it amazing how many disagree with you and/or believe
>>>>>>>> you are wrong......and isn't it amazing how you can't seem to
>>>>>>>> be able to entertain the idea that there are people on this
>>>>>>>> forum who know more than you do. So far I see not one supporter
>>>>>>>> for your idiotic assertions. Good God man, get out of the CFI
>>>>>>>> business before you kill some innocent student.
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> Dudley Henriques
>>>>>>> If' this is the kind of CFI that's teaching today's young
>>>>>>> pilots, then maybe it's time to take the prop off my Tiger and
>>>>>>> hang it in my office :(
>>>>>>> Fortunately, this guy is an odyssey. In 50 years being exposed
>>>>>>> to CFI's
>>>>>> of all makes and models, this idiot stands out as unique. I've
>>>>>> never come across an instructor who not only does what this guy
>>>>>> claims to do with students, but who when told it's wrong, attacks
>>>>>> the pilots correcting him.
>>>>>> Pilots like this guy are an accident waiting to happen. I only
>>>>>> hope it doesn't happen to him.
>>>>>> The positive side is that what usually happens with people like
>>>>>> this is that after they shoot off their mouth on Usenet telling
>>>>>> off the pilots who disagree with them, they usually sulk on back
>>>>>> to the hangar and never do again what they were taken out to the
>>>>>> shed for. If this is the result, I'm thoroughly satisfied.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Dudley Henriques
>>>>> This is like talking to a brick wall. I've said it a million
>>>>> times, I do not agree that is is necessarily "safe" to pull the
>>>>> engine on takeoff.
>>>>>
>>>>> My argument was that is can be safe if the proper precautions were
>>>>> to be made.
>>>>>
>>>>> Also, I know you're going to find some way to wriggle out of this
>>>>> one, but were you ever an MEI? Did you not do engine cuts on take
>>>>> off? If you did, how did you exactly do them? How do you suggest
>>>>> they should be done? Because engine cuts on takeoff are part of
>>>>> the PTS. Do you not follow the PTS?
>>>>>
>>>>> And don't try to tell me engine cuts in a twin are "safe" because
>>>>> one thing can lead to another and the plane can get below Vmc.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I'm an mei and a check airman. Anyone who lets an airplane get
>>>> below VMC during training is a complete tit. And a short lived one.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Bertie
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> We lost an MEI and his student both at KILG in a Baron doing just
>>> this.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Always hated doing takeoff cuts no matter which method, but I always
>> used the throttle in any case. My boss did not and we had one idiot
>> who liked to do feathered landings and crashed ( they walked away
>> from it, though)
>> We used to do V1 cuts in jets for training, but not anymore. It can
>> be hairy as hell in some airplanes and quite a few have rolled over
>> and crashed in training. So now, if we don't do a zero time thingie,
>> we just do three touch and goes for certifiaction, but even this is
>> dying out.
>>
>>
>> Bertie
> When this idiot buttman or whatever he is first posted on this takeoff
> issue he wasn't talking multi-engine at all, but rather a single with
> a primary student. Even in the multi sense he has never once even
> mentioned zero thrusting an engine.
> The bottom line is that what he was initially discussing here on this
> forum was shutting down fuel on a single on takeoff with a primary
> student based on the "logic" that he had enough runway ahead of him to
> make that a safe procedure.
> NO instructor should EVER be doing this with a student. First of all
> it's asking for trouble you don't need, and secondly, it isn't even
> close to being necessary as a tool to teach engine failure procedure
> on takeoff in a single engine airplane on ANY learning curve.
>

Oh yeah, I undersood that. Something about twins was mentioned as well
which is why I expressed my disapproval of this practice there.
We do take chances instructing. Manipulating the throttle on takeoff is
a bit of a risk, for instance. But where we take chances they are
generray calculated and at least have a point. I can't see any point or
lesson to be learned by shutting the fuel off.


Bertie

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
> :
>
>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>>> :
>>>
>>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>>> buttman > wrote in
>>>>> news:432f5a57-2a31-43d9-bfef-51efa61863c2
>>> @f47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com
>>>>> :
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mar 6, 6:55 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>>>>>>> Owner wrote:
>>>>>>>> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>> buttman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 6, 3:13 pm, "Owner" > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> "buttman" > wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>> news:5597b148-f803-4679-b40e-ea7768c139e1
>>>>> @m36g2000hse.googlegroups
>>>>>>>>>>> .com...
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 6, 2:40 pm, Dudley Henriques >
>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The posts you made concerning pulling mixture on take off
>>>>>>>>>>>>> involved a single engine airplane and a primary student. No
>>>>>>>>>>>>> competent instructor does this REGARDLESS of the runway
>>>>>>>>>>>>> remaining. The fact that you are actually defending this
>>>>>>>>>>>>> idiotic and incompetent procedure is all I need to support
>>>>>>>>>>>>> my initial judgment of you as a CFI.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your feeble attempts at portraying me in the light of a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "know it all" and a "blow hard" would seem to fly in the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> face of what I see from others (Ken Tucker excepted of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> course) concerning your judgment on this
>>>>>>>>>>>>> matter as well.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> In other words, it appears that you have a judgment
>>>>>>>>>>>>> problem...something
>>>>>>>>>>>>> not desirable in a CFI.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dudley Henriques
>>>>>>>>>>>> Did you not read the 5 paragraph post that you just quoted?
>>>>>>>>>>>> Obviously you didn't as you continue to say I pulled the
>>>>>>>>>>>> mixture. It wasn't the mixture, it was the fuel valve!
>>>>>>>>>>>> In my post I addressed my reasoning for coming to the stance
>>>>>>>>>>>> I take on this issue. I do not necessarily "support" doing
>>>>>>>>>>>> that particular maneuver.
>>>>>>>>>>>> What I do support the idea that things like pulling the fuel
>>>>>>>>>>>> valve (or anything else for that matter) CAN be done safely
>>>>>>>>>>>> as long as the proper precautions are made.
>>>>>>>>>>> Wow, what a load of crap, but what would one expect from
>>>>>>>>>>> someone known as
>>>>>>>>>>> buttman?
>>>>>>>>>>>> Since you're not willing to follow
>>>>>>>>>>>> along, it only proves that you are indeed nothing but a
>>>>>>>>>>>> blowhard who is full of himself.
>>>>>>>>>>>> The thread I made over a year ago was intended to solicit
>>>>>>>>>>>> the help of this group in preparing myself for something I
>>>>>>>>>>>> thought my students could benefit from. The only thing
>>>>>>>>>>>> people wanted to do was act self- righteous, which is
>>>>>>>>>>>> exactly what you're continuing to do right now.
>>>>>>>>>> HHHUUURRR
>>>>>>>>>> wow they're really coming out of the wooodwork this afrernoon.
>>>>>>>>> Yes. Isn't it amazing how many disagree with you and/or believe
>>>>>>>>> you are wrong......and isn't it amazing how you can't seem to
>>>>>>>>> be able to entertain the idea that there are people on this
>>>>>>>>> forum who know more than you do. So far I see not one supporter
>>>>>>>>> for your idiotic assertions. Good God man, get out of the CFI
>>>>>>>>> business before you kill some innocent student.
>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>> Dudley Henriques
>>>>>>>> If' this is the kind of CFI that's teaching today's young
>>>>>>>> pilots, then maybe it's time to take the prop off my Tiger and
>>>>>>>> hang it in my office :(
>>>>>>>> Fortunately, this guy is an odyssey. In 50 years being exposed
>>>>>>>> to CFI's
>>>>>>> of all makes and models, this idiot stands out as unique. I've
>>>>>>> never come across an instructor who not only does what this guy
>>>>>>> claims to do with students, but who when told it's wrong, attacks
>>>>>>> the pilots correcting him.
>>>>>>> Pilots like this guy are an accident waiting to happen. I only
>>>>>>> hope it doesn't happen to him.
>>>>>>> The positive side is that what usually happens with people like
>>>>>>> this is that after they shoot off their mouth on Usenet telling
>>>>>>> off the pilots who disagree with them, they usually sulk on back
>>>>>>> to the hangar and never do again what they were taken out to the
>>>>>>> shed for. If this is the result, I'm thoroughly satisfied.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Dudley Henriques
>>>>>> This is like talking to a brick wall. I've said it a million
>>>>>> times, I do not agree that is is necessarily "safe" to pull the
>>>>>> engine on takeoff.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> My argument was that is can be safe if the proper precautions were
>>>>>> to be made.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Also, I know you're going to find some way to wriggle out of this
>>>>>> one, but were you ever an MEI? Did you not do engine cuts on take
>>>>>> off? If you did, how did you exactly do them? How do you suggest
>>>>>> they should be done? Because engine cuts on takeoff are part of
>>>>>> the PTS. Do you not follow the PTS?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And don't try to tell me engine cuts in a twin are "safe" because
>>>>>> one thing can lead to another and the plane can get below Vmc.
>>>>>>
>>>>> I'm an mei and a check airman. Anyone who lets an airplane get
>>>>> below VMC during training is a complete tit. And a short lived one.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Bertie
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> We lost an MEI and his student both at KILG in a Baron doing just
>>>> this.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Always hated doing takeoff cuts no matter which method, but I always
>>> used the throttle in any case. My boss did not and we had one idiot
>>> who liked to do feathered landings and crashed ( they walked away
>>> from it, though)
>>> We used to do V1 cuts in jets for training, but not anymore. It can
>>> be hairy as hell in some airplanes and quite a few have rolled over
>>> and crashed in training. So now, if we don't do a zero time thingie,
>>> we just do three touch and goes for certifiaction, but even this is
>>> dying out.
>>>
>>>
>>> Bertie
>> When this idiot buttman or whatever he is first posted on this takeoff
>> issue he wasn't talking multi-engine at all, but rather a single with
>> a primary student. Even in the multi sense he has never once even
>> mentioned zero thrusting an engine.
>> The bottom line is that what he was initially discussing here on this
>> forum was shutting down fuel on a single on takeoff with a primary
>> student based on the "logic" that he had enough runway ahead of him to
>> make that a safe procedure.
>> NO instructor should EVER be doing this with a student. First of all
>> it's asking for trouble you don't need, and secondly, it isn't even
>> close to being necessary as a tool to teach engine failure procedure
>> on takeoff in a single engine airplane on ANY learning curve.
>>
>
> Oh yeah, I undersood that. Something about twins was mentioned as well
> which is why I expressed my disapproval of this practice there.
> We do take chances instructing. Manipulating the throttle on takeoff is
> a bit of a risk, for instance. But where we take chances they are
> generray calculated and at least have a point. I can't see any point or
> lesson to be learned by shutting the fuel off.
>
>
> Bertie
>
Your right. the whole idea of instructing is to teach people to deal
with a potentially dangerous environment. The idea is to do the
"teaching" in such a way that the danger level of the lesson isn't more
than the danger you're trying to teach the student to avoid.
In this vein most of the sane among us have found the way to do this
with some air under our butts :-))

--
Dudley Henriques

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Ken S. Tucker wrote:
> On Mar 7, 11:24 am, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>> "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in
>>> :
>>>> On Mar 7, 10:05 am, buttman > wrote:
>>>>> On Mar 6, 6:55 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>>>>>> Owner wrote:
>>>>>>> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>> buttman wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Mar 6, 3:13 pm, "Owner" > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> "buttman" > wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>> news:5597b148-f803-4679-b40e-ea7768c139e1
>>> @m36g2000hse.googlegrou
>>>>>>>>>> ps.com...
>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 6, 2:40 pm, Dudley Henriques >
>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> The posts you made concerning pulling mixture on take off
>>>>>>>>>>>> involved a single engine airplane and a primary student. No
>>>>>>>>>>>> competent instructor does this REGARDLESS of the runway
>>>>>>>>>>>> remaining. The fact that you are actually defending this
>>>>>>>>>>>> idiotic and incompetent procedure is all I need to support
>>>>>>>>>>>> my initial judgment of you as a CFI.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Your feeble attempts at portraying me in the light of a
>>>>>>>>>>>> "know it all" and a "blow hard" would seem to fly in the
>>>>>>>>>>>> face of what I see from others (Ken Tucker excepted of
>>>>>>>>>>>> course) concerning your judgment on this
>>>>>>>>>>>> matter as well.
>>>>>>>>>>>> In other words, it appears that you have a judgment
>>>>>>>>>>>> problem...something
>>>>>>>>>>>> not desirable in a CFI.
>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>> Dudley Henriques
>>>>>>>>>>> Did you not read the 5 paragraph post that you just quoted?
>>>>>>>>>>> Obviously you didn't as you continue to say I pulled the
>>>>>>>>>>> mixture. It wasn't the mixture, it was the fuel valve!
>>>>>>>>>>> In my post I addressed my reasoning for coming to the stance
>>>>>>>>>>> I take on this issue. I do not necessarily "support" doing
>>>>>>>>>>> that particular maneuver.
>>>>>>>>>>> What I do support the idea that things like pulling the fuel
>>>>>>>>>>> valve (or anything else for that matter) CAN be done safely
>>>>>>>>>>> as long as the proper precautions are made.
>>>>>>>>>> Wow, what a load of crap, but what would one expect from
>>>>>>>>>> someone known as
>>>>>>>>>> buttman?
>>>>>>>>>>> Since you're not willing to follow
>>>>>>>>>>> along, it only proves that you are indeed nothing but a
>>>>>>>>>>> blowhard who is full of himself.
>>>>>>>>>>> The thread I made over a year ago was intended to solicit the
>>>>>>>>>>> help of this group in preparing myself for something I
>>>>>>>>>>> thought my students could benefit from. The only thing people
>>>>>>>>>>> wanted to do was act self- righteous, which is exactly what
>>>>>>>>>>> you're continuing to do right now.
>>>>>>>>> HHHUUURRR
>>>>>>>>> wow they're really coming out of the wooodwork this afrernoon.
>>>>>>>> Yes. Isn't it amazing how many disagree with you and/or believe
>>>>>>>> you are wrong......and isn't it amazing how you can't seem to be
>>>>>>>> able to entertain the idea that there are people on this forum
>>>>>>>> who know more than you do. So far I see not one supporter for
>>>>>>>> your idiotic assertions. Good God man, get out of the CFI
>>>>>>>> business before you kill some innocent student.
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> Dudley Henriques
>>>>>>> If' this is the kind of CFI that's teaching today's young pilots,
>>>>>>> then maybe it's time to take the prop off my Tiger and hang it in
>>>>>>> my office :(
>>>>>>> Fortunately, this guy is an odyssey. In 50 years being exposed to
>>>>>>> CFI's
>>>>>> of all makes and models, this idiot stands out as unique. I've
>>>>>> never come across an instructor who not only does what this guy
>>>>>> claims to do with students, but who when told it's wrong, attacks
>>>>>> the pilots correcting him.
>>>>>> Pilots like this guy are an accident waiting to happen. I only hope
>>>>>> it doesn't happen to him.
>>>>>> The positive side is that what usually happens with people like
>>>>>> this is that after they shoot off their mouth on Usenet telling off
>>>>>> the pilots who disagree with them, they usually sulk on back to the
>>>>>> hangar and never do again what they were taken out to the shed for.
>>>>>> If this is the result, I'm thoroughly satisfied.
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Dudley Henriques
>>>>> This is like talking to a brick wall. I've said it a million times, I
>>>>> do not agree that is is necessarily "safe" to pull the engine on
>>>>> takeoff.
>>>>> My argument was that is can be safe if the proper precautions were to
>>>>> be made.
>>>>> Also, I know you're going to find some way to wriggle out of this
>>>>> one, but were you ever an MEI? Did you not do engine cuts on take
>>>>> off? If you did, how did you exactly do them? How do you suggest they
>>>>> should be done? Because engine cuts on takeoff are part of the PTS.
>>>>> Do you not follow the PTS?
>>>>> And don't try to tell me engine cuts in a twin are "safe" because one
>>>>> thing can lead to another and the plane can get below Vmc.
>>>>> I'm not trying to pick a fight with you, I am genuinely curious how
>>>>> you can be perfectly OK with doing it in a twin, but go off the
>>>>> handle when suggesting doing it in a single.
>>>> I agree with Mr. Buttman, =
>>> As if anty moreproof were needed tha buttman is a complete tit.
>>> Bertie
>> You took the words right out of my mouth :-) After 50 years in the
>> aviation instruction and safety business, there's nothing like arguing
>> these issues with a paper plane idiot and an instructor who advocates
>> starving an engine on take off to "teach his students properly"
>> To coin a phrase from a friend,
>> "God I LOVE Usenet!!!" :-))
>> Dudley Henriques
>
> Dud, you've never been in an airplane, and you're
> NOT an instructor. I'm a prof teacher and I can
> sniff your bad **** off the net, you're a phony!
>
> Mr. Buttman (appropriately) raised the question
> of engine failure at rotation or ascent, I'd like him
> as an instructor. Why, because he's strict.
> As a prof teacher, I happen to know that a suggested
> lesson should be weighed by it's merits by his peers,
> and you "dud" are not near in his class, otherwise
> you would have discussed the issue of anomally
> in that T-O circumstance.
> And that's how I know the "dud" is a web-phony.
>
> "dud" is CHECKMATED by
> Ken S. Tucker
> PS: Now predicably "dud" or his "bertie" sidekick
> will engage in the usual name calling, to avoid the
> issue.
Tucker, you just CAN'T be this uninformed :-))

--
Dudley Henriques

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Dudley Henriques > wrote in news:5ZidnVP-
:

>
>>
> Your right. the whole idea of instructing is to teach people to deal
> with a potentially dangerous environment. The idea is to do the
> "teaching" in such a way that the danger level of the lesson isn't more
> than the danger you're trying to teach the student to avoid.
> In this vein most of the sane among us have found the way to do this
> with some air under our butts :-))
>

I don't see much point in doing one in a single on take off anyway. About
the only lesson learned there is "pretty scary, eh?" The most likely way
someone is going to come to grief with a terminal engine failure on takeoff
is from stalling aor spinning in. The best place to ingrain the sort of
training to avoid this scenario is done at altitude anyway.

Bertie

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

buttman wrote:
> On Mar 7, 1:02 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>>> You took the words right out of my mouth :-) After 50 years in the
>>> aviation instruction and safety business, there's nothing like arguing
>>> these issues with a paper plane idiot and an instructor who advocates
>>> starving an engine on take off to "teach his students properly"
>>> To coin a phrase from a friend,
>>> "God I LOVE Usenet!!!" :-))
>>> Dudley Henriques
>> Dud, you've never been in an airplane, and you're
>> NOT an instructor. I'm a prof teacher and I can
>> sniff your bad **** off the net, you're a phony!
>>
>> Mr. Buttman (appropriately) raised the question
>> of engine failure at rotation or ascent, I'd like him
>> as an instructor. Why, because he's strict.
>> As a prof teacher, I happen to know that a suggested
>> lesson should be weighed by it's merits by his peers,
>> and you "dud" are not near in his class, otherwise
>> you would have discussed the issue of anomally
>> in that T-O circumstance.
>> And that's how I know the "dud" is a web-phony.
>>
>> "dud" is CHECKMATED by
>> Ken S. Tucker
>> PS: Now predicably "dud" or his "bertie" sidekick
>> will engage in the usual name calling, to avoid the
>> issue.
>
> I agree with you 100%. If you read through his posts in this thread,
> all you'll see is him insulting me, and nothing more. The reason he
> won't post anything else, is because he can't. He has no idea what
> he's talking about, ever.
>
> I've knows this Dudley guy to be nothing but a fraud for years now.
> The only thing that bothers me is that more people on this group don't
> seem to realize this :(

Won't work Butt but I don't blame you for trying. It's no secret I think
you're not a good instructor.



--
Dudley Henriques

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Dudley Henriques > wrote in
:

> Ken S. Tucker wrote:
>> On Mar 7, 11:24 am, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>> "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in
>>>>
>>>> om:
>>>>> On Mar 7, 10:05 am, buttman > wrote:
>>>>>> On Mar 6, 6:55 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>>>>>>> Owner wrote:
>>>>>>>> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>> buttman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 6, 3:13 pm, "Owner" > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> "buttman" > wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>> news:5597b148-f803-4679-b40e-ea7768c139e1
>>>> @m36g2000hse.googlegrou
>>>>>>>>>>> ps.com...
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 6, 2:40 pm, Dudley Henriques >
>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The posts you made concerning pulling mixture on take off
>>>>>>>>>>>>> involved a single engine airplane and a primary student.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> No competent instructor does this REGARDLESS of the runway
>>>>>>>>>>>>> remaining. The fact that you are actually defending this
>>>>>>>>>>>>> idiotic and incompetent procedure is all I need to support
>>>>>>>>>>>>> my initial judgment of you as a CFI.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your feeble attempts at portraying me in the light of a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "know it all" and a "blow hard" would seem to fly in the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> face of what I see from others (Ken Tucker excepted of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> course) concerning your judgment on this
>>>>>>>>>>>>> matter as well.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> In other words, it appears that you have a judgment
>>>>>>>>>>>>> problem...something
>>>>>>>>>>>>> not desirable in a CFI.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dudley Henriques
>>>>>>>>>>>> Did you not read the 5 paragraph post that you just quoted?
>>>>>>>>>>>> Obviously you didn't as you continue to say I pulled the
>>>>>>>>>>>> mixture. It wasn't the mixture, it was the fuel valve!
>>>>>>>>>>>> In my post I addressed my reasoning for coming to the
>>>>>>>>>>>> stance I take on this issue. I do not necessarily "support"
>>>>>>>>>>>> doing that particular maneuver.
>>>>>>>>>>>> What I do support the idea that things like pulling the
>>>>>>>>>>>> fuel valve (or anything else for that matter) CAN be done
>>>>>>>>>>>> safely as long as the proper precautions are made.
>>>>>>>>>>> Wow, what a load of crap, but what would one expect from
>>>>>>>>>>> someone known as
>>>>>>>>>>> buttman?
>>>>>>>>>>>> Since you're not willing to follow
>>>>>>>>>>>> along, it only proves that you are indeed nothing but a
>>>>>>>>>>>> blowhard who is full of himself.
>>>>>>>>>>>> The thread I made over a year ago was intended to solicit
>>>>>>>>>>>> the help of this group in preparing myself for something I
>>>>>>>>>>>> thought my students could benefit from. The only thing
>>>>>>>>>>>> people wanted to do was act self- righteous, which is
>>>>>>>>>>>> exactly what you're continuing to do right now.
>>>>>>>>>> HHHUUURRR
>>>>>>>>>> wow they're really coming out of the wooodwork this
>>>>>>>>>> afrernoon.
>>>>>>>>> Yes. Isn't it amazing how many disagree with you and/or
>>>>>>>>> believe you are wrong......and isn't it amazing how you can't
>>>>>>>>> seem to be able to entertain the idea that there are people on
>>>>>>>>> this forum who know more than you do. So far I see not one
>>>>>>>>> supporter for your idiotic assertions. Good God man, get out
>>>>>>>>> of the CFI business before you kill some innocent student.
>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>> Dudley Henriques
>>>>>>>> If' this is the kind of CFI that's teaching today's young
>>>>>>>> pilots, then maybe it's time to take the prop off my Tiger and
>>>>>>>> hang it in my office :(
>>>>>>>> Fortunately, this guy is an odyssey. In 50 years being exposed
>>>>>>>> to CFI's
>>>>>>> of all makes and models, this idiot stands out as unique. I've
>>>>>>> never come across an instructor who not only does what this guy
>>>>>>> claims to do with students, but who when told it's wrong,
>>>>>>> attacks the pilots correcting him.
>>>>>>> Pilots like this guy are an accident waiting to happen. I only
>>>>>>> hope it doesn't happen to him.
>>>>>>> The positive side is that what usually happens with people like
>>>>>>> this is that after they shoot off their mouth on Usenet telling
>>>>>>> off the pilots who disagree with them, they usually sulk on back
>>>>>>> to the hangar and never do again what they were taken out to the
>>>>>>> shed for. If this is the result, I'm thoroughly satisfied.
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Dudley Henriques
>>>>>> This is like talking to a brick wall. I've said it a million
>>>>>> times, I do not agree that is is necessarily "safe" to pull the
>>>>>> engine on takeoff.
>>>>>> My argument was that is can be safe if the proper precautions
>>>>>> were to be made.
>>>>>> Also, I know you're going to find some way to wriggle out of this
>>>>>> one, but were you ever an MEI? Did you not do engine cuts on take
>>>>>> off? If you did, how did you exactly do them? How do you suggest
>>>>>> they should be done? Because engine cuts on takeoff are part of
>>>>>> the PTS. Do you not follow the PTS?
>>>>>> And don't try to tell me engine cuts in a twin are "safe" because
>>>>>> one thing can lead to another and the plane can get below Vmc.
>>>>>> I'm not trying to pick a fight with you, I am genuinely curious
>>>>>> how you can be perfectly OK with doing it in a twin, but go off
>>>>>> the handle when suggesting doing it in a single.
>>>>> I agree with Mr. Buttman, =
>>>> As if anty moreproof were needed tha buttman is a complete tit.
>>>> Bertie
>>> You took the words right out of my mouth :-) After 50 years in the
>>> aviation instruction and safety business, there's nothing like
>>> arguing these issues with a paper plane idiot and an instructor who
>>> advocates starving an engine on take off to "teach his students
>>> properly" To coin a phrase from a friend,
>>> "God I LOVE Usenet!!!" :-))
>>> Dudley Henriques
>>
>> Dud, you've never been in an airplane, and you're
>> NOT an instructor. I'm a prof teacher and I can
>> sniff your bad **** off the net, you're a phony!
>>
>> Mr. Buttman (appropriately) raised the question
>> of engine failure at rotation or ascent, I'd like him
>> as an instructor. Why, because he's strict.
>> As a prof teacher, I happen to know that a suggested
>> lesson should be weighed by it's merits by his peers,
>> and you "dud" are not near in his class, otherwise
>> you would have discussed the issue of anomally
>> in that T-O circumstance.
>> And that's how I know the "dud" is a web-phony.
>>
>> "dud" is CHECKMATED by
>> Ken S. Tucker
>> PS: Now predicably "dud" or his "bertie" sidekick
>> will engage in the usual name calling, to avoid the
>> issue.
> Tucker, you just CAN'T be this uninformed :-))
>
Sure he can!

He's spent his whole life practicing.


Bertie

[buttman]

On Mar 7, 3:04 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>
> Your right. the whole idea of instructing is to teach people to deal
> with a potentially dangerous environment. The idea is to do the
> "teaching" in such a way that the danger level of the lesson isn't more
> than the danger you're trying to teach the student to avoid.
> In this vein most of the sane among us have found the way to do this
> with some air under our butts :-))
>
> --
> Dudley Henriques

But if "doing it in a way that is safer than the actual situation"
changes the event all together, then whats the point? An extreme
example would be saying, "full stalls are unsafe, so we'll do all
stall maneuvers until Vs + 20 kts then recover" Doing this, you're
missing out on a lot of things that needs to be taught regarding
stalls.

The biggest thing that gets lost when instructing is the practicality
of things. For instance when I was doing my instrument training, not
never once did I actually land coming off an instrument approach.
Every time we'd do a missed approach. It wasn't until I became a CFII
and started instructing at an airport with an instrument approach that
I realized landing from a VOR approach at 400' AGL .2 miles out is a
lot different than landing from a traffic pattern.

The same thing occurred to me when I was doing my multi-engine
training. Every single flight me and my instructor would do, the
instructor would grab the throttle and say to me "do your thing". I
would then go through the motions, resulting in one engine being
pretend feathered. I knew that if an actual engine failure were to go
down, it wasn't going to be like that at all. There would be a lot
more things to consider. I've never had a real engine failure, but I
doubt it'll go exactly as how my instructor would do it with me.

The reason I thought up this fuel valve on takeoff thing, was to add
back into the equation an element that has been removed by doing it
the "safe" way. I even mentioned in my thread a few months ago that if
there was a way to do this with a hidden throttle behind my seat, I'd
do that instead. And I never insinuated I would do this with primary
students, at least not primary students who have demonstrated to me
that they know how to handle the plane very well.

But quite frankly, I don't know why I even waste my time. Even if I
were to recant everything I've ever said that you don't agree with,
you'll still have the personality flaw that will cause you to reply to
everyone of my posts to remind everybody how better than me you think
you are. I now see why you and Bertie make such a nice couple.

[[email protected]]

On Mar 7, 1:02 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:

> Dud, you've never been in an airplane, and you're
> NOT an instructor. I'm a prof teacher and I can
> sniff your bad **** off the net, you're a phony!

If Dudley or Bertie are frauds, they are very, very good frauds.
The terminology and all other aspects of their posts regarding
aviation and learning to fly are accurate and perceptive. There would
be few folks who could come up with this stuff unless they were
savants of some sort. Those of us who actually fly have little
argument with most of what they say.
There are some other posters here who were obvious frauds from
the start. And the more they post, the deeper they dig their holes of
discredit. They're just incredible.

Pulling mixture or fooling with fuel valves immediately after
takeoff is asking to die. Soon. Pulling the throttle has the same
engine-loss effect without the extreme risk associated with killing
the engine. Pulling mixture or fuel also carries
the more remote risk of a control failure, whereby the mixture control
cable or fuel valve linkage breaks at that exact moment, making a
recovery of the engine impossible. In the last 15 years or so we've
had a throttle cable failure and a carb heat cable failure, so now we
replace all the controls when we replace the engine. There's no legal
requirement to do it, but after seeing old controls break I decided
that it was going to get done.

Dan

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

buttman wrote:
> On Mar 7, 3:04 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>> Your right. the whole idea of instructing is to teach people to deal
>> with a potentially dangerous environment. The idea is to do the
>> "teaching" in such a way that the danger level of the lesson isn't more
>> than the danger you're trying to teach the student to avoid.
>> In this vein most of the sane among us have found the way to do this
>> with some air under our butts :-))
>>
>> --
>> Dudley Henriques
>
> But if "doing it in a way that is safer than the actual situation"
> changes the event all together, then whats the point? An extreme
> example would be saying, "full stalls are unsafe, so we'll do all
> stall maneuvers until Vs + 20 kts then recover" Doing this, you're
> missing out on a lot of things that needs to be taught regarding
> stalls.
>
> The biggest thing that gets lost when instructing is the practicality
> of things. For instance when I was doing my instrument training, not
> never once did I actually land coming off an instrument approach.
> Every time we'd do a missed approach. It wasn't until I became a CFII
> and started instructing at an airport with an instrument approach that
> I realized landing from a VOR approach at 400' AGL .2 miles out is a
> lot different than landing from a traffic pattern.
>
> The same thing occurred to me when I was doing my multi-engine
> training. Every single flight me and my instructor would do, the
> instructor would grab the throttle and say to me "do your thing". I
> would then go through the motions, resulting in one engine being
> pretend feathered. I knew that if an actual engine failure were to go
> down, it wasn't going to be like that at all. There would be a lot
> more things to consider. I've never had a real engine failure, but I
> doubt it'll go exactly as how my instructor would do it with me.
>
> The reason I thought up this fuel valve on takeoff thing, was to add
> back into the equation an element that has been removed by doing it
> the "safe" way. I even mentioned in my thread a few months ago that if
> there was a way to do this with a hidden throttle behind my seat, I'd
> do that instead. And I never insinuated I would do this with primary
> students, at least not primary students who have demonstrated to me
> that they know how to handle the plane very well.
>
> But quite frankly, I don't know why I even waste my time. Even if I
> were to recant everything I've ever said that you don't agree with,
> you'll still have the personality flaw that will cause you to reply to
> everyone of my posts to remind everybody how better than me you think
> you are. I now see why you and Bertie make such a nice couple.

You know Butts, I was actually reading through this post thinking for
the first time since "meeting" you, I'd consider dealing with you on a
discussion level; perhaps making a professional attempt to reach through
to you. That is until I got to your last paragraph.
You seem to have a personality trait that gets you ever deeper into
trouble as you attempt to explain things. This is really undesirable in
an instructor.
You just can't seem to engage me without slipping "off the wagon" and
denigrating into some personal thing that voids everything that came
before it.
It's a shame really, and I fear that this will perpetually interfere
with you and I ever getting in formation on anything.
Too bad.
You almost had an honest shot with this post :-))


--
Dudley Henriques

[buttman]

On 7 Mar, 18:14, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> buttman wrote:
> > On Mar 7, 3:04 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> >> Your right. the whole idea of instructing is to teach people to deal
> >> with a potentially dangerous environment. The idea is to do the
> >> "teaching" in such a way that the danger level of the lesson isn't more
> >> than the danger you're trying to teach the student to avoid.
> >> In this vein most of the sane among us have found the way to do this
> >> with some air under our butts :-))
>
> >> --
> >> Dudley Henriques
>
> > But if "doing it in a way that is safer than the actual situation"
> > changes the event all together, then whats the point? An extreme
> > example would be saying, "full stalls are unsafe, so we'll do all
> > stall maneuvers until Vs + 20 kts then recover" Doing this, you're
> > missing out on a lot of things that needs to be taught regarding
> > stalls.
>
> > The biggest thing that gets lost when instructing is the practicality
> > of things. For instance when I was doing my instrument training, not
> > never once did I actually land coming off an instrument approach.
> > Every time we'd do a missed approach. It wasn't until I became a CFII
> > and started instructing at an airport with an instrument approach that
> > I realized landing from a VOR approach at 400' AGL .2 miles out is a
> > lot different than landing from a traffic pattern.
>
> > The same thing occurred to me when I was doing my multi-engine
> > training. Every single flight me and my instructor would do, the
> > instructor would grab the throttle and say to me "do your thing". I
> > would then go through the motions, resulting in one engine being
> > pretend feathered. I knew that if an actual engine failure were to go
> > down, it wasn't going to be like that at all. There would be a lot
> > more things to consider. I've never had a real engine failure, but I
> > doubt it'll go exactly as how my instructor would do it with me.
>
> > The reason I thought up this fuel valve on takeoff thing, was to add
> > back into the equation an element that has been removed by doing it
> > the "safe" way. I even mentioned in my thread a few months ago that if
> > there was a way to do this with a hidden throttle behind my seat, I'd
> > do that instead. And I never insinuated I would do this with primary
> > students, at least not primary students who have demonstrated to me
> > that they know how to handle the plane very well.
>
> > But quite frankly, I don't know why I even waste my time. Even if I
> > were to recant everything I've ever said that you don't agree with,
> > you'll still have the personality flaw that will cause you to reply to
> > everyone of my posts to remind everybody how better than me you think
> > you are. I now see why you and Bertie make such a nice couple.
>
> You know Butts, I was actually reading through this post thinking for
> the first time since "meeting" you, I'd consider dealing with you on a
> discussion level; perhaps making a professional attempt to reach through
> to you. That is until I got to your last paragraph.
> You seem to have a personality trait that gets you ever deeper into
> trouble as you attempt to explain things. This is really undesirable in
> an instructor.
> You just can't seem to engage me without slipping "off the wagon" and
> denigrating into some personal thing that voids everything that came
> before it.
> It's a shame really, and I fear that this will perpetually interfere
> with you and I ever getting in formation on anything.
> Too bad.
> You almost had an honest shot with this post :-))
>
> --
> Dudley Henriques

Oh, really. Because there's nothing unique about that post of mine.
I'm the one who always makes it personal? Do you remember that 5
paragraph post that you replied with basically "You're an idiot". I'm
the one here trying to explain myself. You're the one who refuses to
see it any other way.

But truthfully, is there anything in the realm of possibility that
will make you change your mind of me?

[buttman]

On 7 Mar, 18:39, Robert Moore > wrote:
> buttman > wrote
>
> > But quite frankly, I don't know why I even waste my time.
>
> And without a real name and identity, you ARE just wasting
> your time. We all know that Dudley is a real person even though
> I personally disagree with much that he has to say.
>
> Since I don't post a lot pure bull****, I have no need to
> hide my identity behind some childish name.

I don't need a name. I'm not here to make a name for myself, or draw
attention to my character. I'm here to learn more about flying. Thats
it. Putting my real name out there does not benefit me one bit. It
doesn't change the validity of what I say, nor would it help me
understand things better.

Come to think of it, why would ANYONE use their real name here? What
benefits does it bring? Why is being anonymous frowned upon?

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

buttman wrote:

> I don't need a name. I'm not here to make a name for myself, or draw
> attention to my character. I'm here to learn more about flying. Thats
> it.

OK. Fair enough. You DON'T starve an engine of fuel on a student on
takeoff to teach him about engine failure on takeoff.
How's that? Learned something?:-)


--
Dudley Henriques

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Robert Moore wrote:
> buttman > wrote
>> But quite frankly, I don't know why I even waste my time.
>
> And without a real name and identity, you ARE just wasting
> your time. We all know that Dudley is a real person even though
> I personally disagree with much that he has to say.
>
> Since I don't post a lot pure bull****, I have no need to
> hide my identity behind some childish name.
>
> Robert Moore (PanAm, retired)
> ATP 1450645 ASMEL B-727, B-707, L-188
> CFI 1450645CFI ASEL, IA
> Naval Aviator V-15753 S-2F, P-2V, P-3B
>
> 39820 US Hwy 19 North #256
> Tarpon Springs, FL 34689
> (727) 934-3811
>

Larry Wheaton mean anything to you?

--
Dudley Henriques

[buttman]

On 7 Mar, 19:22, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>
> How's that? Learned something?:-)
>
> --
> Dudley Henriques

No because you did not teach anything. "This is how it is" is not
teaching, it's telling.

Anyways, the topic of discussion has never been about "is it OK to
starve fuel on takeoff". Even if it was, its not a matter of "yes" or
"no"

Safety is, in my opinion, never a "yes" or "no" kind of thing. Its
like discussing abortion or something. It's never as simple as "yes"
or "no".

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Robert Moore wrote:
> buttman > wrote
>> But quite frankly, I don't know why I even waste my time.
>
> And without a real name and identity, you ARE just wasting
> your time. We all know that Dudley is a real person even though
> I personally disagree with much that he has to say.
>
> Since I don't post a lot pure bull****, I have no need to
> hide my identity behind some childish name.
>
> Robert Moore (PanAm, retired)
> ATP 1450645 ASMEL B-727, B-707, L-188
> CFI 1450645CFI ASEL, IA
> Naval Aviator V-15753 S-2F, P-2V, P-3B
>
> 39820 US Hwy 19 North #256
> Tarpon Springs, FL 34689
> (727) 934-3811
>
Interesting. Why not discuss right here exactly what it is you don't
agree with? I'm friendly and willing :-))) Let's see where we differ on
things related to flying.
Can't be more fair than this?


--
Dudley Henriques

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

buttman wrote:
> On 7 Mar, 19:22, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>> How's that? Learned something?:-)
>>
>> --
>> Dudley Henriques
>
> No because you did not teach anything. "This is how it is" is not
> teaching, it's telling.
>
> Anyways, the topic of discussion has never been about "is it OK to
> starve fuel on takeoff". Even if it was, its not a matter of "yes" or
> "no"
>
> Safety is, in my opinion, never a "yes" or "no" kind of thing. Its
> like discussing abortion or something. It's never as simple as "yes"
> or "no".

I see. Well, how about this for a lesson. You take my post that you just
answered down to the nearest FAA office and show it to them. Then come
on back here and post exactly what they told you along with the phone
number of that office.
Can't be more fair than this. If they agree with you that simply telling
you not to do this is not lesson enough , I will publicly apologize to
you in front of this entire forum. If they agree with me, come on back
and we'll try again.
Your call!
--
Dudley Henriques

[buttman]

On 7 Mar, 19:31, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>
> Interesting. Why not discuss right here exactly what it is you don't
> agree with? I'm friendly and willing :-))) Let's see where we differ on
> things related to flying.
> Can't be more fair than this?
>
> --
> Dudley Henriques

OK. For starters, I believe there is only one thing in the world that
can be objectively considered "unsafe". And that one and only thing is
being unprepared. No matter what it is, it can be done safely as long
as the peoper precautions are made. Whether it be doing aerobatics
10ft above the ground, barrel rolling a 737, flying over max gross,
cleaning a loaded gun, jumping the grand canyon on a morotcycle, etc
etc. You seem to believe safety is determined by who-the-hell-knows-
what.

Theres more, but thats a good starting point.

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Robert Moore wrote:
> Dudley Henriques wrote
>> OK. Fair enough. You DON'T starve an engine of fuel on a student on
>> takeoff to teach him about engine failure on takeoff.
>> How's that? Learned something?:-)
>
> Sorry Dudley....so YOU say.... I've done it as a routine procedure and
> given a long enough runway (mine was 6,000') I see nothing wrong in
> doing it.
> It's about time that you stopped preaching "your" flight instructing
> dogma. Perhaps some of us are more confident in our abilities than
> others.
>
> Bob Moore

Sorry Moore; Air Florida Chief Pilot not withstanding (Larry Wheaton
remember), I don't have to defend this procedure to you or anyone else
for that matter, and if you were doing it, I can well understand how
Wheaton put hat bird in the Potomac.
Now YOU march your butt down to the local FAA office with what I have
said about doing this and get their opinion, then come on back here and
let us all know what they have to say about it.
I wouldn't have believed what you have just written if i hadn't seen it
myself.
If you believe that starving an engine in a single engine airplane with
a student is acceptable procedure, you are a damn idiot and right up
there with Butthead!

--
Dudley Henriques

[Bob F.]

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
...
> Robert Moore wrote:
>> Dudley Henriques wrote
>>> OK. Fair enough. You DON'T starve an engine of fuel on a student on
>>> takeoff to teach him about engine failure on takeoff.
>>> How's that? Learned something?:-)
>>
>> Sorry Dudley....so YOU say.... I've done it as a routine procedure and
>> given a long enough runway (mine was 6,000') I see nothing wrong in
>> doing it. It's about time that you stopped preaching "your" flight
>> instructing
>> dogma. Perhaps some of us are more confident in our abilities than
>> others.
>>
>> Bob Moore
>
> Sorry Moore; Air Florida Chief Pilot not withstanding (Larry Wheaton
> remember), I don't have to defend this procedure to you or anyone else for
> that matter, and if you were doing it, I can well understand how Wheaton
> put hat bird in the Potomac.
> Now YOU march your butt down to the local FAA office with what I have said
> about doing this and get their opinion, then come on back here and let us
> all know what they have to say about it.
> I wouldn't have believed what you have just written if i hadn't seen it
> myself.
> If you believe that starving an engine in a single engine airplane with a
> student is acceptable procedure, you are a damn idiot and right up there
> with Butthead!
>
> --
> Dudley Henriques


Why don't you guy take it off line. We got it! You are way down in the
noise now and we don't want to hear it anymore.

--
BobF.

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

buttman wrote:
> On 7 Mar, 19:31, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>> Interesting. Why not discuss right here exactly what it is you don't
>> agree with? I'm friendly and willing :-))) Let's see where we differ on
>> things related to flying.
>> Can't be more fair than this?
>>
>> --
>> Dudley Henriques
>
> OK. For starters, I believe there is only one thing in the world that
> can be objectively considered "unsafe". And that one and only thing is
> being unprepared. No matter what it is, it can be done safely as long
> as the peoper precautions are made. Whether it be doing aerobatics
> 10ft above the ground, barrel rolling a 737, flying over max gross,
> cleaning a loaded gun, jumping the grand canyon on a morotcycle, etc
> etc. You seem to believe safety is determined by who-the-hell-knows-
> what.
>
> Theres more, but thats a good starting point.

Are you back from the FAA office yet Butts? Then we'll talk flying, and
not before.
Avoiding the task I gave you by changing the subject and trying to
engage won't work.
You DON'T starve an engine on takeoff on a student...EVER!!
Now go see what the FAA says about this and I'll discuss anything you wish.

--
Dudley Henriques

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Bob F. wrote:
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Robert Moore wrote:
>>> Dudley Henriques wrote
>>>> OK. Fair enough. You DON'T starve an engine of fuel on a student on
>>>> takeoff to teach him about engine failure on takeoff.
>>>> How's that? Learned something?:-)
>>>
>>> Sorry Dudley....so YOU say.... I've done it as a routine procedure and
>>> given a long enough runway (mine was 6,000') I see nothing wrong in
>>> doing it. It's about time that you stopped preaching "your" flight
>>> instructing
>>> dogma. Perhaps some of us are more confident in our abilities than
>>> others.
>>>
>>> Bob Moore
>>
>> Sorry Moore; Air Florida Chief Pilot not withstanding (Larry Wheaton
>> remember), I don't have to defend this procedure to you or anyone else
>> for that matter, and if you were doing it, I can well understand how
>> Wheaton put hat bird in the Potomac.
>> Now YOU march your butt down to the local FAA office with what I have
>> said about doing this and get their opinion, then come on back here
>> and let us all know what they have to say about it.
>> I wouldn't have believed what you have just written if i hadn't seen
>> it myself.
>> If you believe that starving an engine in a single engine airplane
>> with a student is acceptable procedure, you are a damn idiot and right
>> up there with Butthead!
>>
>> --
>> Dudley Henriques
>
>
> Why don't you guy take it off line. We got it! You are way down in
> the noise now and we don't want to hear it anymore.
>
Trim your posts! :-)

--
Dudley Henriques

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Bob F. wrote:
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Robert Moore wrote:
>>> Dudley Henriques wrote
>>>> OK. Fair enough. You DON'T starve an engine of fuel on a student on
>>>> takeoff to teach him about engine failure on takeoff.
>>>> How's that? Learned something?:-)
>>>
>>> Sorry Dudley....so YOU say.... I've done it as a routine procedure and
>>> given a long enough runway (mine was 6,000') I see nothing wrong in
>>> doing it. It's about time that you stopped preaching "your" flight
>>> instructing
>>> dogma. Perhaps some of us are more confident in our abilities than
>>> others.
>>>
>>> Bob Moore
>>
>> Sorry Moore; Air Florida Chief Pilot not withstanding (Larry Wheaton
>> remember), I don't have to defend this procedure to you or anyone else
>> for that matter, and if you were doing it, I can well understand how
>> Wheaton put hat bird in the Potomac.
>> Now YOU march your butt down to the local FAA office with what I have
>> said about doing this and get their opinion, then come on back here
>> and let us all know what they have to say about it.
>> I wouldn't have believed what you have just written if i hadn't seen
>> it myself.
>> If you believe that starving an engine in a single engine airplane
>> with a student is acceptable procedure, you are a damn idiot and right
>> up there with Butthead!
>>
>> --
>> Dudley Henriques
>
>
> Why don't you guy take it off line. We got it! You are way down in
> the noise now and we don't want to hear it anymore.
>
Your probably right Fry. I'll make an attempt to disengage on this.
Thanx

--
Dudley Henriques

[buttman]

On 7 Mar, 19:56, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> buttman wrote:
> > On 7 Mar, 19:31, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> >> Interesting. Why not discuss right here exactly what it is you don't
> >> agree with? I'm friendly and willing :-))) Let's see where we differ on
> >> things related to flying.
> >> Can't be more fair than this?
>
> >> --
> >> Dudley Henriques
>
> > OK. For starters, I believe there is only one thing in the world that
> > can be objectively considered "unsafe". And that one and only thing is
> > being unprepared. No matter what it is, it can be done safely as long
> > as the peoper precautions are made. Whether it be doing aerobatics
> > 10ft above the ground, barrel rolling a 737, flying over max gross,
> > cleaning a loaded gun, jumping the grand canyon on a morotcycle, etc
> > etc. You seem to believe safety is determined by who-the-hell-knows-
> > what.
>
> > Theres more, but thats a good starting point.
>
> Are you back from the FAA office yet Butts? Then we'll talk flying, and
> not before.
> Avoiding the task I gave you by changing the subject and trying to
> engage won't work.
> You DON'T starve an engine on takeoff on a student...EVER!!
> Now go see what the FAA says about this and I'll discuss anything you wish.
>
> --
> Dudley Henriques

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignoratio_elenchi

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

buttman wrote:
> On 7 Mar, 19:56, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>> buttman wrote:
>>> On 7 Mar, 19:31, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>>>> Interesting. Why not discuss right here exactly what it is you don't
>>>> agree with? I'm friendly and willing :-))) Let's see where we differ on
>>>> things related to flying.
>>>> Can't be more fair than this?
>>>> --
>>>> Dudley Henriques
>>> OK. For starters, I believe there is only one thing in the world that
>>> can be objectively considered "unsafe". And that one and only thing is
>>> being unprepared. No matter what it is, it can be done safely as long
>>> as the peoper precautions are made. Whether it be doing aerobatics
>>> 10ft above the ground, barrel rolling a 737, flying over max gross,
>>> cleaning a loaded gun, jumping the grand canyon on a morotcycle, etc
>>> etc. You seem to believe safety is determined by who-the-hell-knows-
>>> what.
>>> Theres more, but thats a good starting point.
>> Are you back from the FAA office yet Butts? Then we'll talk flying, and
>> not before.
>> Avoiding the task I gave you by changing the subject and trying to
>> engage won't work.
>> You DON'T starve an engine on takeoff on a student...EVER!!
>> Now go see what the FAA says about this and I'll discuss anything you wish.
>>
>> --
>> Dudley Henriques
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignoratio_elenchi
Butts;

Another poster said it and I agree. It's getting out of hand. I'm as
guilty as you are. It's drawing in old advasaries on all sides and isn't
healthy for the forum. Let's end this right now with no further comment
good or bad.
I'm sorry for my part in it. Neither one of us is going to solve
anything flight safety wise going this route.
Let's just end it and let it go.
Best to you


--
Dudley Henriques

[buttman]

On 7 Mar, 20:26, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> buttman wrote:
> > On 7 Mar, 19:56, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> >> buttman wrote:
> >>> On 7 Mar, 19:31, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> >>>> Interesting. Why not discuss right here exactly what it is you don't
> >>>> agree with? I'm friendly and willing :-))) Let's see where we differ on
> >>>> things related to flying.
> >>>> Can't be more fair than this?
> >>>> --
> >>>> Dudley Henriques
> >>> OK. For starters, I believe there is only one thing in the world that
> >>> can be objectively considered "unsafe". And that one and only thing is
> >>> being unprepared. No matter what it is, it can be done safely as long
> >>> as the peoper precautions are made. Whether it be doing aerobatics
> >>> 10ft above the ground, barrel rolling a 737, flying over max gross,
> >>> cleaning a loaded gun, jumping the grand canyon on a morotcycle, etc
> >>> etc. You seem to believe safety is determined by who-the-hell-knows-
> >>> what.
> >>> Theres more, but thats a good starting point.
> >> Are you back from the FAA office yet Butts? Then we'll talk flying, and
> >> not before.
> >> Avoiding the task I gave you by changing the subject and trying to
> >> engage won't work.
> >> You DON'T starve an engine on takeoff on a student...EVER!!
> >> Now go see what the FAA says about this and I'll discuss anything you wish.
>
> >> --
> >> Dudley Henriques
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignoratio_elenchi
>
> Butts;
>
> Another poster said it and I agree. It's getting out of hand. I'm as
> guilty as you are. It's drawing in old advasaries on all sides and isn't
> healthy for the forum. Let's end this right now with no further comment
> good or bad.
> I'm sorry for my part in it. Neither one of us is going to solve
> anything flight safety wise going this route.
> Let's just end it and let it go.
> Best to you
>
> --
> Dudley Henriques

Taking your ball and going home: not just for 10 year olds anymore!

[WJRFlyBoy]

On Fri, 7 Mar 2008 13:25:01 -0800 (PST), buttman wrote:

> I've knows this Dudley guy to be nothing but a fraud for years now.
> The only thing that bothers me is that more people on this group don't
> seem to realize this :(

I have been on Usenet for over a decade. I never understood why anyone uses
a killfile.

I now have three in mine, piloting is too damn difficult, there is too much
to read and learn and waaaay too much at stake to have to put up with the
irrelevant.
--
Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!

[WJRFlyBoy]

On 08 Mar 2008 01:39:36 GMT, Robert Moore wrote:

> Since I don't post a lot pure bull****, I have no need to
> hide my identity behind some childish name.
> <snipped personal ID>

Robert, this is never a good idea although I know you mean well, keep your
personal ID off Usenet.
--
Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!

[Ken S. Tucker]

On Mar 7, 2:12 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> Ken S. Tucker wrote:
....
> > Mr. Buttman (appropriately) raised the question
> > of engine failure at rotation or ascent, I'd like him
> > as an instructor. Why, because he's strict.
> > As a prof teacher, I happen to know that a suggested
> > lesson should be weighed by it's merits by his peers,
> > and you "dud" are not near in his class, otherwise
> > you would have discussed the issue of anomally
> > in that T-O circumstance.
> > And that's how I know the "dud" is a web-phony.
>
> > "dud" is CHECKMATED by
> > Ken S. Tucker
> > PS: Now predicably "dud" or his "bertie" sidekick
> > will engage in the usual name calling, to avoid the
> > issue.
>
> Tucker, you just CAN'T be this uninformed :-))

Of course I'm "uninformed", Mr. Buttman helped
make me aware of that. To often I've read about
a small plane crashing at or near Take-Off killing
all on board. Sometimes witnesses claim that the
engine quit, other times there is no good certain
explanation.

Every pilot is elated to ascend following rotation,
but what should you do if your engine sputters
and quits while climbing at just a few hundred feet.

Off hand I'd suggest pushing the yoke forward to
use decent to prevent stall, because the stall can
happen real fast in that attitude, so be prepared.
((Don't freeze like a deer in head lights)).

Glide back to the runway or have knowledge of a
safe alternative and use it.
Ken

[Ken S. Tucker]

On Mar 7, 5:01 pm, wrote:
> On Mar 7, 1:02 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>
> > Dud, you've never been in an airplane, and you're
> > NOT an instructor. I'm a prof teacher and I can
> > sniff your bad **** off the net, you're a phony!
>
> If Dudley or Bertie are frauds, they are very, very good frauds.
> The terminology and all other aspects of their posts regarding
> aviation and learning to fly are accurate and perceptive. There would
> be few folks who could come up with this stuff unless they were
> savants of some sort. Those of us who actually fly have little
> argument with most of what they say.
> There are some other posters here who were obvious frauds from
> the start. And the more they post, the deeper they dig their holes of
> discredit. They're just incredible.

Anybody can sound good on the net where knowledge
is concerned, but you can't fake an attitude for long.

> Pulling mixture or fooling with fuel valves immediately after
> takeoff is asking to die. Soon.

No not really, Mr. Buttman is not a suicidal maniac
and one has to presume if the pilot didn't react
properly he take control and have that figured out.

> Pulling the throttle has the same
> engine-loss effect without the extreme risk associated with killing
> the engine. Pulling mixture or fuel also carries
> the more remote risk of a control failure, whereby the mixture control
> cable or fuel valve linkage breaks at that exact moment, making a
> recovery of the engine impossible.

Sure that can happen. I suppose that's part of the
point of Mr. Buttman's suggested exercise.

>In the last 15 years or so we've
> had a throttle cable failure and a carb heat cable failure, so now we
> replace all the controls when we replace the engine. There's no legal
> requirement to do it, but after seeing old controls break I decided
> that it was going to get done.
> Dan

My personal fear is loosing elevator control, it's
very rare, but that Alaska Air crash a few years
back (in the Pacific) was blamed on the screw
that adjusts the elevator getting stripped or jammed.
Ken

[WingFlaps]

On Mar 7, 11:24*pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> WingFlaps > wrote :
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 6, 8:49*am, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
> >> On Mar 5, 6:17 am, Gig 601XL Builder >
> >> wrote:
>
> >> > Ken S. Tucker wrote:
> >> > > On Mar 4, 7:35 pm, george > wrote:
> >> > >> On Mar 5, 4:06 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>
> >> > >>> You noticed that too huh??? :-)))) Well, I guess the extra
> >> > >>> weight he
> > lps
> >> > >>> to get that ole airplane down again on the remaining runway
> >> > >>> when you
>
> >> > >>> pull that ole mixture back on a student right after rotation
> >> > >>> :-))))
> >> > >> I still can't believe that some-one claiming to be a pilot made
> >> > >> the 'pull mixture on takeoff' statement and is still here
>
> >> > > What's a typo, or it there a reason?
>
> >> > > BTW, here's a video of that x-wind landing...
> >> > >http://www.thestar.com/News/World/article/309221
> >> > > (It ****es me off it's an amateur video, for the price
> >> > > of a bit of tape, one would think all landings should
> >> > > be properly video taped, cheap ****in' ****s).
>
> >> > > Anyway, the rudder steering seems odd to me,
> >> > > based on squinty frame advance...grrrr.
> >> > > Ken
>
> >> > Weren't you the guy that was also suggesting that the runway be
> >> > subject to a walk down before every take-off?
>
> >> For major airports, radar is being developed,
> >> but I think dogs could do it faster and better.
>
> > Hey that was my idea! Do you like it really? I worry though, will dog
> > **** on the airport runway be a problem when projected by jet blast?
> > What do you think?
>
> Well, obviously they would wear diapers.
>
Damn, you are smart. Depends or huggies?

Cheers

[WingFlaps]

On Mar 8, 2:58*pm, buttman > wrote:
> On 7 Mar, 18:14, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > buttman wrote:
> > > On Mar 7, 3:04 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> > >> Your right. the whole idea of instructing is to teach people to deal
> > >> with a potentially dangerous environment. The idea is to do the
> > >> "teaching" in such a way that the danger level of the lesson isn't more
> > >> than the danger you're trying to teach the student to avoid.
> > >> In this vein most of the sane among us have found the way to do this
> > >> with some air under our butts :-))
>
> > >> --
> > >> Dudley Henriques
>
> > > But if "doing it in a way that is safer than the actual situation"
> > > changes the event all together, then whats the point? An extreme
> > > example would be saying, "full stalls are unsafe, so we'll do all
> > > stall maneuvers until Vs + 20 kts then recover" Doing this, you're
> > > missing out on a lot of things that needs to be taught regarding
> > > stalls.
>
> > > The biggest thing that gets lost when instructing is the practicality
> > > of things. For instance when I was doing my instrument training, not
> > > never once did I actually land coming off an instrument approach.
> > > Every time we'd do a missed approach. It wasn't until I became a CFII
> > > and started instructing at an airport with an instrument approach that
> > > I realized landing from a VOR approach at 400' AGL .2 miles out is a
> > > lot different than landing from a traffic pattern.
>
> > > The same thing occurred to me when I was doing my multi-engine
> > > training. Every single flight me and my instructor would do, the
> > > instructor would grab the throttle and say to me "do your thing". I
> > > would then go through the motions, resulting in one engine being
> > > pretend feathered. I knew that if an actual engine failure were to go
> > > down, it wasn't going to be like that at all. There would be a lot
> > > more things to consider. I've never had a real engine failure, but I
> > > doubt it'll go exactly as how my instructor would do it with me.
>
> > > The reason I thought up this fuel valve on takeoff thing, was to add
> > > back into the equation an element that has been removed by doing it
> > > the "safe" way. I even mentioned in my thread a few months ago that if
> > > there was a way to do this with a hidden throttle behind my seat, I'd
> > > do that instead. And I never insinuated I would do this with primary
> > > students, at least not primary students who have demonstrated to me
> > > that they know how to handle the plane very well.
>
> > > But quite frankly, I don't know why I even waste my time. Even if I
> > > were to recant everything I've ever said that you don't agree with,
> > > you'll still have the personality flaw that will cause you to reply to
> > > everyone of my posts to remind everybody how better than me you think
> > > you are. I now see why you and Bertie make such a nice couple.
>
> > You know Butts, I was actually reading through this post thinking for
> > the first time since "meeting" you, I'd consider dealing with you on a
> > discussion level; perhaps making a professional attempt to reach through
> > to you. That is until I got to your last paragraph.
> > You seem to have a personality trait that gets you ever deeper into
> > trouble as you attempt to explain things. This is really undesirable in
> > an instructor.
> > You just can't seem to engage me without slipping "off the wagon" and
> > denigrating into some personal thing that voids everything that came
> > before it.
> > It's a shame really, and I fear that this will perpetually interfere
> > with you and I ever getting in formation on anything.
> > Too bad.
> > You almost had an honest shot with this post :-))
>
> > --
> > Dudley Henriques
>
> Oh, really. Because there's nothing unique about that post of mine.
> I'm the one who always makes it personal? Do you remember that 5
> paragraph post that you replied with basically "You're an idiot".


But what if it's basically the truth?
?Human factors : You show macho invulnerability

Cheers

[WingFlaps]

On Mar 8, 3:43*pm, Robert Moore > wrote:
> Dudley Henriques *wrote
>
> > OK. Fair enough. You DON'T starve an engine of fuel on a student on
> > takeoff to teach him about engine failure on takeoff.
> > How's that? Learned something?:-)
>
> Sorry Dudley....so YOU say.... I've done it as a routine procedure and
> given a long enough runway (mine was 6,000') I see nothing wrong in
> doing it.
> It's about time that you stopped preaching "your" flight instructing
> dogma. Perhaps some of us are more confident in our abilities than
> others.
>

Hi Bob

I don't think you got the scenario buttman was suggesting. He proposed
to secretly pull the fuel cut off as the plane started to roll. The
danger was that he had no idea when the engine would cut and there
would be no way of recovering a student error with power.

That's why it was unecessarily dangerous.

Cheers

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

buttman > wrote in news:77b1894f-3396-424e-a484-
:

> On Mar 7, 3:04 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>>
>> Your right. the whole idea of instructing is to teach people to deal
>> with a potentially dangerous environment. The idea is to do the
>> "teaching" in such a way that the danger level of the lesson isn't
more
>> than the danger you're trying to teach the student to avoid.
>> In this vein most of the sane among us have found the way to do this
>> with some air under our butts :-))
>>
>> --
>> Dudley Henriques
>
> But if "doing it in a way that is safer than the actual situation"
> changes the event all together, then whats the point?


You are a moron.

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

buttman > wrote in
:

> On 7 Mar, 18:14, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>> buttman wrote:
>> > On Mar 7, 3:04 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>> >> Your right. the whole idea of instructing is to teach people to
>> >> deal with a potentially dangerous environment. The idea is to do
>> >> the "teaching" in such a way that the danger level of the lesson
>> >> isn't more than the danger you're trying to teach the student to
>> >> avoid. In this vein most of the sane among us have found the way
>> >> to do this with some air under our butts :-))
>>
>> >> --
>> >> Dudley Henriques
>>
>> > But if "doing it in a way that is safer than the actual situation"
>> > changes the event all together, then whats the point? An extreme
>> > example would be saying, "full stalls are unsafe, so we'll do all
>> > stall maneuvers until Vs + 20 kts then recover" Doing this, you're
>> > missing out on a lot of things that needs to be taught regarding
>> > stalls.
>>
>> > The biggest thing that gets lost when instructing is the
>> > practicality of things. For instance when I was doing my instrument
>> > training, not never once did I actually land coming off an
>> > instrument approach. Every time we'd do a missed approach. It
>> > wasn't until I became a CFII and started instructing at an airport
>> > with an instrument approach that I realized landing from a VOR
>> > approach at 400' AGL .2 miles out is a lot different than landing
>> > from a traffic pattern.
>>
>> > The same thing occurred to me when I was doing my multi-engine
>> > training. Every single flight me and my instructor would do, the
>> > instructor would grab the throttle and say to me "do your thing". I
>> > would then go through the motions, resulting in one engine being
>> > pretend feathered. I knew that if an actual engine failure were to
>> > go down, it wasn't going to be like that at all. There would be a
>> > lot more things to consider. I've never had a real engine failure,
>> > but I doubt it'll go exactly as how my instructor would do it with
>> > me.
>>
>> > The reason I thought up this fuel valve on takeoff thing, was to
>> > add back into the equation an element that has been removed by
>> > doing it the "safe" way. I even mentioned in my thread a few months
>> > ago that if there was a way to do this with a hidden throttle
>> > behind my seat, I'd do that instead. And I never insinuated I would
>> > do this with primary students, at least not primary students who
>> > have demonstrated to me that they know how to handle the plane very
>> > well.
>>
>> > But quite frankly, I don't know why I even waste my time. Even if I
>> > were to recant everything I've ever said that you don't agree with,
>> > you'll still have the personality flaw that will cause you to reply
>> > to everyone of my posts to remind everybody how better than me you
>> > think you are. I now see why you and Bertie make such a nice
>> > couple.
>>
>> You know Butts, I was actually reading through this post thinking for
>> the first time since "meeting" you, I'd consider dealing with you on
>> a discussion level; perhaps making a professional attempt to reach
>> through to you. That is until I got to your last paragraph.
>> You seem to have a personality trait that gets you ever deeper into
>> trouble as you attempt to explain things. This is really undesirable
>> in an instructor.
>> You just can't seem to engage me without slipping "off the wagon" and
>> denigrating into some personal thing that voids everything that came
>> before it.
>> It's a shame really, and I fear that this will perpetually interfere
>> with you and I ever getting in formation on anything.
>> Too bad.
>> You almost had an honest shot with this post :-))
>>
>> --
>> Dudley Henriques
>
> Oh, really. Because there's nothing unique about that post of mine.
> I'm the one who always makes it personal? Do you remember that 5
> paragraph post that you replied with basically "You're an idiot". I'm
> the one here trying to explain myself. You're the one who refuses to
> see it any other way.
>
> But truthfully, is there anything in the realm of possibility that
> will make you change your mind of me?


You could grow a brain.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

buttman > wrote in news:16caa1d3-b06b-4d42-86a3-
:

>
>
> I don't need a name. I'm not here to make a name for myself, or draw
> attention to my character. I'm here to learn more about flying. Thats
> it.


You sure fooled me.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

buttman > wrote in news:622b77e4-399c-4580-8599-
:

> On 7 Mar, 19:22, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>>
>> How's that? Learned something?:-)
>>
>> --
>> Dudley Henriques
>
> No because you did not teach anything. "This is how it is" is not
> teaching, it's telling.
>
> Anyways, the topic of discussion has never been about "is it OK to
> starve fuel on takeoff". Even if it was, its not a matter of "yes" or
> "no"


Evasion noted


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

buttman > wrote in news:f55fccd5-a3bd-4514-97b4-
:

> On 7 Mar, 19:31, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>>
>> Interesting. Why not discuss right here exactly what it is you don't
>> agree with? I'm friendly and willing :-))) Let's see where we differ
on
>> things related to flying.
>> Can't be more fair than this?
>>
>> --
>> Dudley Henriques
>
> OK. For starters, I believe there is only one thing in the world that
> can be objectively considered "unsafe". And that one and only thing is
> being unprepared. No matter what it is, it can be done safely as long
> as the peoper precautions are made. Whether it be doing aerobatics
> 10ft above the ground, barrel rolling a 737, flying over max gross,
> cleaning a loaded gun, jumping the grand canyon on a morotcycle, etc
> etc. You seem to believe safety is determined by who-the-hell-knows-
> what.
>


I know what.


Most people do.

You do not and you just admitted it.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

buttman > wrote in
:

> On 7 Mar, 20:26, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>> buttman wrote:
>> > On 7 Mar, 19:56, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>> >> buttman wrote:
>> >>> On 7 Mar, 19:31, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>> >>>> Interesting. Why not discuss right here exactly what it is you
>> >>>> don't agree with? I'm friendly and willing :-))) Let's see where
>> >>>> we differ on things related to flying.
>> >>>> Can't be more fair than this?
>> >>>> --
>> >>>> Dudley Henriques
>> >>> OK. For starters, I believe there is only one thing in the world
>> >>> that can be objectively considered "unsafe". And that one and
>> >>> only thing is being unprepared. No matter what it is, it can be
>> >>> done safely as long as the peoper precautions are made. Whether
>> >>> it be doing aerobatics 10ft above the ground, barrel rolling a
>> >>> 737, flying over max gross, cleaning a loaded gun, jumping the
>> >>> grand canyon on a morotcycle, etc etc. You seem to believe safety
>> >>> is determined by who-the-hell-knows- what.
>> >>> Theres more, but thats a good starting point.
>> >> Are you back from the FAA office yet Butts? Then we'll talk
>> >> flying, and not before.
>> >> Avoiding the task I gave you by changing the subject and trying to
>> >> engage won't work.
>> >> You DON'T starve an engine on takeoff on a student...EVER!!
>> >> Now go see what the FAA says about this and I'll discuss anything
>> >> you wish.
>>
>> >> --
>> >> Dudley Henriques
>>
>> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignoratio_elenchi
>>
>> Butts;
>>
>> Another poster said it and I agree. It's getting out of hand. I'm as
>> guilty as you are. It's drawing in old advasaries on all sides and
>> isn't healthy for the forum. Let's end this right now with no further
>> comment good or bad.
>> I'm sorry for my part in it. Neither one of us is going to solve
>> anything flight safety wise going this route.
>> Let's just end it and let it go.
>> Best to you
>>
>> --
>> Dudley Henriques
>
> Taking your ball and going home: not just for 10 year olds anymore!
>

I'm still here!



Wanna play?


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in news:4e85f758-faf7-
:

> On Mar 7, 5:01 pm, wrote:
>> On Mar 7, 1:02 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>>
>> > Dud, you've never been in an airplane, and you're
>> > NOT an instructor. I'm a prof teacher and I can
>> > sniff your bad **** off the net, you're a phony!
>>
>> If Dudley or Bertie are frauds, they are very, very good frauds.
>> The terminology and all other aspects of their posts regarding
>> aviation and learning to fly are accurate and perceptive. There would
>> be few folks who could come up with this stuff unless they were
>> savants of some sort. Those of us who actually fly have little
>> argument with most of what they say.
>> There are some other posters here who were obvious frauds from
>> the start. And the more they post, the deeper they dig their holes of
>> discredit. They're just incredible.
>
> Anybody can sound good on the net where knowledge
> is concerned, but you can't fake an attitude for long.
>
>> Pulling mixture or fooling with fuel valves immediately after
>> takeoff is asking to die. Soon.
>
> No not really, Mr. Buttman is not a suicidal maniac
> and one has to presume if the pilot didn't react
> properly he take control and have that figured out.
>
>> Pulling the throttle has the same
>> engine-loss effect without the extreme risk associated with killing
>> the engine. Pulling mixture or fuel also carries
>> the more remote risk of a control failure, whereby the mixture
control
>> cable or fuel valve linkage breaks at that exact moment, making a
>> recovery of the engine impossible.
>
> Sure that can happen. I suppose that's part of the
> point of Mr. Buttman's suggested exercise.
>
>>In the last 15 years or so we've
>> had a throttle cable failure and a carb heat cable failure, so now we
>> replace all the controls when we replace the engine. There's no legal
>> requirement to do it, but after seeing old controls break I decided
>> that it was going to get done.
>> Dan
>
> My personal fear is loosing elevator control, it's
> very rare, but that Alaska Air crash a few years
> back (in the Pacific) was blamed on the screw
> that adjusts the elevator getting stripped or jammed.
> Ken
>

Hey, maybe buttboi will pull the cotter pins on the elevaotr hinges to
help you get over it.



Great fan club you got there Buttboi.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

wrote in news:9e39b7ff-bac6-4276-919e-
:

> On Mar 7, 1:02 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>
>> Dud, you've never been in an airplane, and you're
>> NOT an instructor. I'm a prof teacher and I can
>> sniff your bad **** off the net, you're a phony!
>
> If Dudley or Bertie are frauds, they are very, very good frauds.
> The terminology and all other aspects of their posts regarding
> aviation and learning to fly are accurate and perceptive. There would
> be few folks who could come up with this stuff unless they were
> savants of some sort.


I'm thinking of coming back as an aviation savant in my next life.
Or maybe a wrestling manager, I haven't decided yet.




Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

WJRFlyBoy > wrote in
:

> On 08 Mar 2008 01:39:36 GMT, Robert Moore wrote:
>
>> Since I don't post a lot pure bull****, I have no need to
>> hide my identity behind some childish name.
>> <snipped personal ID>
>
> Robert, this is never a good idea although I know you mean well, keep
> your personal ID off Usenet.

Ah, some people are immune. He's right. He keeps it honorable and doesn't
bother with kooks so I can;t see him having difficulty. OTOH, you just
never know for sure...



Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in news:84cd2ed7-0d0a-
:

> On Mar 7, 2:12 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>> Ken S. Tucker wrote:
> ...
>> > Mr. Buttman (appropriately) raised the question
>> > of engine failure at rotation or ascent, I'd like him
>> > as an instructor. Why, because he's strict.
>> > As a prof teacher, I happen to know that a suggested
>> > lesson should be weighed by it's merits by his peers,
>> > and you "dud" are not near in his class, otherwise
>> > you would have discussed the issue of anomally
>> > in that T-O circumstance.
>> > And that's how I know the "dud" is a web-phony.
>>
>> > "dud" is CHECKMATED by
>> > Ken S. Tucker
>> > PS: Now predicably "dud" or his "bertie" sidekick
>> > will engage in the usual name calling, to avoid the
>> > issue.
>>
>> Tucker, you just CAN'T be this uninformed :-))
>
> Of course I'm "uninformed", Mr. Buttman helped
> make me aware of that. To often I've read about
> a small plane crashing at or near Take-Off killing
> all on board. Sometimes witnesses claim that the
> engine quit, other times there is no good certain
> explanation.
>
> Every pilot is elated to ascend following rotation,
> but what should you do if your engine sputters
> and quits while climbing at just a few hundred feet.
>
> Off hand I'd suggest pushing the yoke forward to
> use decent to prevent stall, because the stall can
> happen real fast in that attitude, so be prepared.
> ((Don't freeze like a deer in head lights)).
>
> Glide back to the runway or have knowledge of a
> safe alternative and use it.


God I love usenet.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

WingFlaps > wrote in
:

> On Mar 7, 11:24*pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> WingFlaps > wrote
>> innews:a529f378-4eb7-42f4-b8eb-5fce8
> :
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Mar 6, 8:49*am, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>> >> On Mar 5, 6:17 am, Gig 601XL Builder >
>> >> wrote:
>>
>> >> > Ken S. Tucker wrote:
>> >> > > On Mar 4, 7:35 pm, george > wrote:
>> >> > >> On Mar 5, 4:06 pm, Dudley Henriques >
>> >> > >> wrote:
>>
>> >> > >>> You noticed that too huh??? :-)))) Well, I guess the extra
>> >> > >>> weight he
>> > lps
>> >> > >>> to get that ole airplane down again on the remaining runway
>> >> > >>> when you
>>
>> >> > >>> pull that ole mixture back on a student right after rotation
>> >> > >>> :-))))
>> >> > >> I still can't believe that some-one claiming to be a pilot
>> >> > >> made the 'pull mixture on takeoff' statement and is still
>> >> > >> here
>>
>> >> > > What's a typo, or it there a reason?
>>
>> >> > > BTW, here's a video of that x-wind landing...
>> >> > >http://www.thestar.com/News/World/article/309221
>> >> > > (It ****es me off it's an amateur video, for the price
>> >> > > of a bit of tape, one would think all landings should
>> >> > > be properly video taped, cheap ****in' ****s).
>>
>> >> > > Anyway, the rudder steering seems odd to me,
>> >> > > based on squinty frame advance...grrrr.
>> >> > > Ken
>>
>> >> > Weren't you the guy that was also suggesting that the runway be
>> >> > subject to a walk down before every take-off?
>>
>> >> For major airports, radar is being developed,
>> >> but I think dogs could do it faster and better.
>>
>> > Hey that was my idea! Do you like it really? I worry though, will
>> > dog **** on the airport runway be a problem when projected by jet
>> > blast? What do you think?
>>
>> Well, obviously they would wear diapers.
>>
> Damn, you are smart. Depends or huggies?
>

We'll have to get a $4,000,000 research grant and try both.



Bertie

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Robert Moore wrote:
> WingFlaps wrote
>> I don't think you got the scenario buttman was suggesting. He proposed
>> to secretly pull the fuel cut off as the plane started to roll. The
>> danger was that he had no idea when the engine would cut and there
>> would be no way of recovering a student error with power.
>
> At takeoff power, when the mixture is placed to cut-off, the engine
> will quit "right now". What you say might be true if the fuel valve
> is used instead of the mixture control.
>
> Bob Moore

It WAS the fuel valve he was using. The phrase "cutting the mixture" has
been used in the discussion only generically.

--
Dudley Henriques

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

buttman wrote:
> On 7 Mar, 20:26, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>> buttman wrote:
>>> On 7 Mar, 19:56, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>>>> buttman wrote:
>>>>> On 7 Mar, 19:31, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>>>>>> Interesting. Why not discuss right here exactly what it is you don't
>>>>>> agree with? I'm friendly and willing :-))) Let's see where we differ on
>>>>>> things related to flying.
>>>>>> Can't be more fair than this?
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Dudley Henriques
>>>>> OK. For starters, I believe there is only one thing in the world that
>>>>> can be objectively considered "unsafe". And that one and only thing is
>>>>> being unprepared. No matter what it is, it can be done safely as long
>>>>> as the peoper precautions are made. Whether it be doing aerobatics
>>>>> 10ft above the ground, barrel rolling a 737, flying over max gross,
>>>>> cleaning a loaded gun, jumping the grand canyon on a morotcycle, etc
>>>>> etc. You seem to believe safety is determined by who-the-hell-knows-
>>>>> what.
>>>>> Theres more, but thats a good starting point.
>>>> Are you back from the FAA office yet Butts? Then we'll talk flying, and
>>>> not before.
>>>> Avoiding the task I gave you by changing the subject and trying to
>>>> engage won't work.
>>>> You DON'T starve an engine on takeoff on a student...EVER!!
>>>> Now go see what the FAA says about this and I'll discuss anything you wish.
>>>> --
>>>> Dudley Henriques
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignoratio_elenchi
>> Butts;
>>
>> Another poster said it and I agree. It's getting out of hand. I'm as
>> guilty as you are. It's drawing in old advasaries on all sides and isn't
>> healthy for the forum. Let's end this right now with no further comment
>> good or bad.
>> I'm sorry for my part in it. Neither one of us is going to solve
>> anything flight safety wise going this route.
>> Let's just end it and let it go.
>> Best to you
>>
>> --
>> Dudley Henriques
>
> Taking your ball and going home: not just for 10 year olds anymore!


Hardly. Just realizing that Usenet being what it is, nothing is going to
be changed by this discussion, but more importantly, realizing I really
don't care any longer.

--
Dudley Henriques

[[email protected]]

On Mar 7, 11:37 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:

> Off hand I'd suggest pushing the yoke forward to
> use decent to prevent stall, because the stall can
> happen real fast in that attitude, so be prepared.
> ((Don't freeze like a deer in head lights)).

Offhand? That's what students are trained to do reflexively. The nose
will drop anyway when the engine quits, but maintaining glide speed is
life itself, even if there's an obstacle of some sort. A controlled
crash is better than the stall/spin.
I always use the throttle, just pulling it back. It doesn't even
have to happen all that suddenly. And I do it past the end of the
runway, over open fields. The student has to get the glide speed, pick
his spot, and get flaps coming out if appropriate. When we're close,
we add power and get out of there.

Dan

[[email protected]]

On Mar 7, 11:37 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:

> Glide back to the runway
> Ken

Students, this is dangerous. Do not turn back to the runway if you
are below 1000' agl and lose the engine. You won't make it. You lose
considerable altitude in the turn and tend to lift the nose, reducing
speed, and to keep near the runway you'll tend to tighten the turn
using a skid. It's death waiting to happen via a stall and spin.
Normal practice is to pick a spot with 30° or so of your flight
path. Not a pleasant choice, considering the location of some
airports.

Dan

[[email protected]]

On Mar 8, 12:02 am, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:

> My personal fear is loosing elevator control, it's
> very rare, but that Alaska Air crash a few years
> back (in the Pacific) was blamed on the screw
> that adjusts the elevator getting stripped or jammed.
> Ken

Stabilizer trim screw nut stripped so that it banged up and down
to the max, making the thing uncontrollable. The elevator still
worked, but not with enough authority.
Elevator loss in most lightplanes is survivable using the trim
tab and the throttle. I'm Canadian, but I understand the US commercial
ride requires a landing using trim and power. Is that true?

Dan

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

wrote:
> On Mar 7, 11:37 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>
>> Glide back to the runway
>> Ken
>
> Students, this is dangerous. Do not turn back to the runway if you
> are below 1000' agl and lose the engine. You won't make it. You lose
> considerable altitude in the turn and tend to lift the nose, reducing
> speed, and to keep near the runway you'll tend to tighten the turn
> using a skid. It's death waiting to happen via a stall and spin.
> Normal practice is to pick a spot with 30° or so of your flight
> path. Not a pleasant choice, considering the location of some
> airports.
>
> Dan

I'm slowly changing the way I view Usenet at this point in time. You can
do as both of us have been doing and attempt to deal with this crap post
by post, or you can come to the inevitable conclusion that doing it is a
waste of time.
Sooner or later, one has to conclude that student pilots are all under
the control of a CFI one way or the other and that these people all have
the common sense not to take anything they read on Usenet into a
practical situation in the airplane.

I know that I for one, personally anyway, am coming to the conclusion
that I care less and less about Usenet and my interactive role with it
every day.

--
Dudley Henriques

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

wrote in news:ef4a41c9-f87b-4afd-9045-
:

> On Mar 7, 11:37 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>
>> Glide back to the runway
>> Ken
>
> Students, this is dangerous. Do not turn back to the runway if you
> are below 1000' agl and lose the engine. You won't make it. You lose
> considerable altitude in the turn and tend to lift the nose, reducing
> speed, and to keep near the runway you'll tend to tighten the turn
> using a skid. It's death waiting to happen via a stall and spin.
> Normal practice is to pick a spot with 30° or so of your flight
> path. Not a pleasant choice, considering the location of some
> airports.
>

Well, I'll add to this. You can turn back and make . it can be done. The
guy in the airport coffee shop who says it can be done is probably
right. I have done it in practice, form fairly short field in standard
lightplanes like cubs and 150s. Most of the instructors where I worked
agreed that it was the thing to do as long as you were proficient and it
was planned before the takeoff roll started. We knew they couldn't
neccesarily be done in all airplanes and in all situations. The wind had
to be considered as well as traffic ( bad idea to turn back toward a
runway with something rolling on it) and so on. We had it sussed.
then one of the guys had one one day. Very good stci as well. Better
than me back then anyway. He had a good bit of altitude, too 50 or so,
he turned around and made the runway but stalled coming across the
threshold and cartwheeled donw the runway. He and his father in law
survived, but they were lucky. They would definitely have been better
off going straight ahead.



Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

wrote in news:b32835ea-a075-4351-ba9c-
:

> On Mar 8, 12:02 am, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>
>> My personal fear is loosing elevator control, it's
>> very rare, but that Alaska Air crash a few years
>> back (in the Pacific) was blamed on the screw
>> that adjusts the elevator getting stripped or jammed.
>> Ken
>
> Stabilizer trim screw nut stripped so that it banged up and down
> to the max, making the thing uncontrollable. The elevator still
> worked, but not with enough authority.
> Elevator loss in most lightplanes is survivable using the trim
> tab and the throttle. I'm Canadian, but I understand the US commercial
> ride requires a landing using trim and power. Is that true?
>

Wasn't on mine, but that was a while ago. I had done it under
instruction a couple of times, though. We have to do it in the sim on
some airplanes, though.
>

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Ken S. Tucker wrote:
> On Mar 7, 5:01 pm, wrote:
>> On Mar 7, 1:02 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>>
>>> Dud, you've never been in an airplane, and you're
>>> NOT an instructor. I'm a prof teacher and I can
>>> sniff your bad **** off the net, you're a phony!
>> If Dudley or Bertie are frauds, they are very, very good frauds.
>> The terminology and all other aspects of their posts regarding
>> aviation and learning to fly are accurate and perceptive. There would
>> be few folks who could come up with this stuff unless they were
>> savants of some sort. Those of us who actually fly have little
>> argument with most of what they say.
>> There are some other posters here who were obvious frauds from
>> the start. And the more they post, the deeper they dig their holes of
>> discredit. They're just incredible.
>
> Anybody can sound good on the net where knowledge
> is concerned, but you can't fake an attitude for long.
>
>> Pulling mixture or fooling with fuel valves immediately after
>> takeoff is asking to die. Soon.
>
> No not really, Mr. Buttman is not a suicidal maniac
> and one has to presume if the pilot didn't react
> properly he take control and have that figured out.
>
>> Pulling the throttle has the same
>> engine-loss effect without the extreme risk associated with killing
>> the engine. Pulling mixture or fuel also carries
>> the more remote risk of a control failure, whereby the mixture control
>> cable or fuel valve linkage breaks at that exact moment, making a
>> recovery of the engine impossible.
>
> Sure that can happen. I suppose that's part of the
> point of Mr. Buttman's suggested exercise.
>
>> In the last 15 years or so we've
>> had a throttle cable failure and a carb heat cable failure, so now we
>> replace all the controls when we replace the engine. There's no legal
>> requirement to do it, but after seeing old controls break I decided
>> that it was going to get done.
>> Dan
>
> My personal fear is loosing elevator control, it's
> very rare, but that Alaska Air crash a few years
> back (in the Pacific) was blamed on the screw
> that adjusts the elevator getting stripped or jammed.
> Ken
The answer to this entire issue is quite easily proved one way or the other.
Anyone.....and I mean ANYONE, reading about this issue here can easily
pick up the phone and call their local FAA office here in the United
States anyway, and ask for an official opinion on the following
question. (Someone please do this :-)
"Is it acceptable procedure for a flight instructor to turn off a fuel
valve on a student on takeoff causing fuel starvation and subsequent
engine failure as a teaching method"

No flames......no back and forth on who's an idiot or who's a fraud; no
banter on who's a good instructor and who isn't.....simply get the
official position of the authoritative body officially responsible for
flight instruction and flight safety in the United States.......then
post the answer right here for the world to see.

How fair and up front is that?

--
Dudley Henriques

[Dan[_10_]]

On Mar 8, 11:40 am, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> Ken S. Tucker wrote:
> > On Mar 7, 5:01 pm, wrote:
> >> On Mar 7, 1:02 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>
> >>> Dud, you've never been in an airplane, and you're
> >>> NOT an instructor. I'm a prof teacher and I can
> >>> sniff your bad **** off the net, you're a phony!
> >> If Dudley or Bertie are frauds, they are very, very good frauds.
> >> The terminology and all other aspects of their posts regarding
> >> aviation and learning to fly are accurate and perceptive. There would
> >> be few folks who could come up with this stuff unless they were
> >> savants of some sort. Those of us who actually fly have little
> >> argument with most of what they say.
> >> There are some other posters here who were obvious frauds from
> >> the start. And the more they post, the deeper they dig their holes of
> >> discredit. They're just incredible.
>
> > Anybody can sound good on the net where knowledge
> > is concerned, but you can't fake an attitude for long.
>
> >> Pulling mixture or fooling with fuel valves immediately after
> >> takeoff is asking to die. Soon.
>
> > No not really, Mr. Buttman is not a suicidal maniac
> > and one has to presume if the pilot didn't react
> > properly he take control and have that figured out.
>
> >> Pulling the throttle has the same
> >> engine-loss effect without the extreme risk associated with killing
> >> the engine. Pulling mixture or fuel also carries
> >> the more remote risk of a control failure, whereby the mixture control
> >> cable or fuel valve linkage breaks at that exact moment, making a
> >> recovery of the engine impossible.
>
> > Sure that can happen. I suppose that's part of the
> > point of Mr. Buttman's suggested exercise.
>
> >> In the last 15 years or so we've
> >> had a throttle cable failure and a carb heat cable failure, so now we
> >> replace all the controls when we replace the engine. There's no legal
> >> requirement to do it, but after seeing old controls break I decided
> >> that it was going to get done.
> >> Dan
>
> > My personal fear is loosing elevator control, it's
> > very rare, but that Alaska Air crash a few years
> > back (in the Pacific) was blamed on the screw
> > that adjusts the elevator getting stripped or jammed.
> > Ken
>
> The answer to this entire issue is quite easily proved one way or the other.
> Anyone.....and I mean ANYONE, reading about this issue here can easily
> pick up the phone and call their local FAA office here in the United
> States anyway, and ask for an official opinion on the following
> question. (Someone please do this :-)
> "Is it acceptable procedure for a flight instructor to turn off a fuel
> valve on a student on takeoff causing fuel starvation and subsequent
> engine failure as a teaching method"
>
> No flames......no back and forth on who's an idiot or who's a fraud; no
> banter on who's a good instructor and who isn't.....simply get the
> official position of the authoritative body officially responsible for
> flight instruction and flight safety in the United States.......then
> post the answer right here for the world to see.
>
> How fair and up front is that?
>
> --
> Dudley Henriques

That's way too easy and implies moments away from the computer.

Are you KIDDING?

Sheese...


Dan

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> wrote in news:ef4a41c9-f87b-4afd-9045-
> :
>
>> On Mar 7, 11:37 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>>
>>> Glide back to the runway
>>> Ken
>> Students, this is dangerous. Do not turn back to the runway if you
>> are below 1000' agl and lose the engine. You won't make it. You lose
>> considerable altitude in the turn and tend to lift the nose, reducing
>> speed, and to keep near the runway you'll tend to tighten the turn
>> using a skid. It's death waiting to happen via a stall and spin.
>> Normal practice is to pick a spot with 30° or so of your flight
>> path. Not a pleasant choice, considering the location of some
>> airports.
>>
>
> Well, I'll add to this. You can turn back and make . it can be done. The
> guy in the airport coffee shop who says it can be done is probably
> right. I have done it in practice, form fairly short field in standard
> lightplanes like cubs and 150s. Most of the instructors where I worked
> agreed that it was the thing to do as long as you were proficient and it
> was planned before the takeoff roll started. We knew they couldn't
> neccesarily be done in all airplanes and in all situations. The wind had
> to be considered as well as traffic ( bad idea to turn back toward a
> runway with something rolling on it) and so on. We had it sussed.
> then one of the guys had one one day. Very good stci as well. Better
> than me back then anyway. He had a good bit of altitude, too 50 or so,
> he turned around and made the runway but stalled coming across the
> threshold and cartwheeled donw the runway. He and his father in law
> survived, but they were lucky. They would definitely have been better
> off going straight ahead.
>
>
>
> Bertie
The reason we teach straight ahead is sound. One has to consider some
kind of average pilot in dealing with this issue.
Whether or not it can be done successfully as a turn around is so full
of variables it muddies the equation.
Considering altitude, wind, and exact position in relation to the
departing runway, on the extreme high end of the experience level, a
highly trained aerobatic pilot on one hand might could possibly even
make the turn using a half turn accelerated stall done in the vertical
plane, (modified hammerhead with practically no vertical up line using
the vertical plane to reduce the horizontal turning component)
This is even possible done by such a pilot flying something like a 172
or a 150, but I would never recommend doing it to anyone.
For the "average Joe", that straight ahead within reasonable degree
offset approach to the engine failure scenario on takeoff is still the
safe way to deal with this issue and probably always will be in my opinion.

--
Dudley Henriques

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Dan wrote:
> On Mar 8, 11:40 am, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>> Ken S. Tucker wrote:
>>> On Mar 7, 5:01 pm, wrote:
>>>> On Mar 7, 1:02 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>>>>> Dud, you've never been in an airplane, and you're
>>>>> NOT an instructor. I'm a prof teacher and I can
>>>>> sniff your bad **** off the net, you're a phony!
>>>> If Dudley or Bertie are frauds, they are very, very good frauds.
>>>> The terminology and all other aspects of their posts regarding
>>>> aviation and learning to fly are accurate and perceptive. There would
>>>> be few folks who could come up with this stuff unless they were
>>>> savants of some sort. Those of us who actually fly have little
>>>> argument with most of what they say.
>>>> There are some other posters here who were obvious frauds from
>>>> the start. And the more they post, the deeper they dig their holes of
>>>> discredit. They're just incredible.
>>> Anybody can sound good on the net where knowledge
>>> is concerned, but you can't fake an attitude for long.
>>>> Pulling mixture or fooling with fuel valves immediately after
>>>> takeoff is asking to die. Soon.
>>> No not really, Mr. Buttman is not a suicidal maniac
>>> and one has to presume if the pilot didn't react
>>> properly he take control and have that figured out.
>>>> Pulling the throttle has the same
>>>> engine-loss effect without the extreme risk associated with killing
>>>> the engine. Pulling mixture or fuel also carries
>>>> the more remote risk of a control failure, whereby the mixture control
>>>> cable or fuel valve linkage breaks at that exact moment, making a
>>>> recovery of the engine impossible.
>>> Sure that can happen. I suppose that's part of the
>>> point of Mr. Buttman's suggested exercise.
>>>> In the last 15 years or so we've
>>>> had a throttle cable failure and a carb heat cable failure, so now we
>>>> replace all the controls when we replace the engine. There's no legal
>>>> requirement to do it, but after seeing old controls break I decided
>>>> that it was going to get done.
>>>> Dan
>>> My personal fear is loosing elevator control, it's
>>> very rare, but that Alaska Air crash a few years
>>> back (in the Pacific) was blamed on the screw
>>> that adjusts the elevator getting stripped or jammed.
>>> Ken
>> The answer to this entire issue is quite easily proved one way or the other.
>> Anyone.....and I mean ANYONE, reading about this issue here can easily
>> pick up the phone and call their local FAA office here in the United
>> States anyway, and ask for an official opinion on the following
>> question. (Someone please do this :-)
>> "Is it acceptable procedure for a flight instructor to turn off a fuel
>> valve on a student on takeoff causing fuel starvation and subsequent
>> engine failure as a teaching method"
>>
>> No flames......no back and forth on who's an idiot or who's a fraud; no
>> banter on who's a good instructor and who isn't.....simply get the
>> official position of the authoritative body officially responsible for
>> flight instruction and flight safety in the United States.......then
>> post the answer right here for the world to see.
>>
>> How fair and up front is that?
>>
>> --
>> Dudley Henriques
>
> That's way too easy and implies moments away from the computer.
>
> Are you KIDDING?
>
> Sheese...
>
>
> Dan
I actually went out this week and bought a new Macbook Air just for
Usenet and email. Wish I'd waited a bit longer though. I'm getting more
disillusioned with Usenet by the minute :-))))

--
Dudley Henriques

[Dan[_10_]]

On Mar 8, 12:00 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>
> I actually went out this week and bought a new Macbook Air just for
> Usenet and email. Wish I'd waited a bit longer though. I'm getting more
> disillusioned with Usenet by the minute :-))))
>
> --
> Dudley Henriques

Not so fast -- you have the best platform for FSX AND SimCity at the
same time...

Have all your simulated people flying on your simulated airplanes.
Load o' fun!

Dan

[WingFlaps]

On Mar 8, 10:47*pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> WingFlaps > wrote :
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 7, 11:24*pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> >> WingFlaps > wrote
> >> innews:a529f378-4eb7-42f4-b8eb-5fce8
> > :
>
> >> > On Mar 6, 8:49*am, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
> >> >> On Mar 5, 6:17 am, Gig 601XL Builder >
> >> >> wrote:
>
> >> >> > Ken S. Tucker wrote:
> >> >> > > On Mar 4, 7:35 pm, george > wrote:
> >> >> > >> On Mar 5, 4:06 pm, Dudley Henriques >
> >> >> > >> wrote:
>
> >> >> > >>> You noticed that too huh??? :-)))) Well, I guess the extra
> >> >> > >>> weight he
> >> > lps
> >> >> > >>> to get that ole airplane down again on the remaining runway
> >> >> > >>> when you
>
> >> >> > >>> pull that ole mixture back on a student right after rotation
> >> >> > >>> :-))))
> >> >> > >> I still can't believe that some-one claiming to be a pilot
> >> >> > >> made the 'pull mixture on takeoff' statement and is still
> >> >> > >> here
>
> >> >> > > What's a typo, or it there a reason?
>
> >> >> > > BTW, here's a video of that x-wind landing...
> >> >> > >http://www.thestar.com/News/World/article/309221
> >> >> > > (It ****es me off it's an amateur video, for the price
> >> >> > > of a bit of tape, one would think all landings should
> >> >> > > be properly video taped, cheap ****in' ****s).
>
> >> >> > > Anyway, the rudder steering seems odd to me,
> >> >> > > based on squinty frame advance...grrrr.
> >> >> > > Ken
>
> >> >> > Weren't you the guy that was also suggesting that the runway be
> >> >> > subject to a walk down before every take-off?
>
> >> >> For major airports, radar is being developed,
> >> >> but I think dogs could do it faster and better.
>
> >> > Hey that was my idea! Do you like it really? I worry though, will
> >> > dog **** on the airport runway be a problem when projected by jet
> >> > blast? What do you think?
>
> >> Well, obviously they would wear diapers.
>
> > Damn, you are smart. Depends or huggies?
>
> We'll have to get a $4,000,000 research grant and try both.
>
> Bertie- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[WingFlaps]

On Mar 8, 10:47*pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> WingFlaps > wrote :
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 7, 11:24*pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> >> WingFlaps > wrote
> >> innews:a529f378-4eb7-42f4-b8eb-5fce8
> > :
>
> >> > On Mar 6, 8:49*am, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
> >> >> On Mar 5, 6:17 am, Gig 601XL Builder >
> >> >> wrote:
>
> >> >> > Ken S. Tucker wrote:
> >> >> > > On Mar 4, 7:35 pm, george > wrote:
> >> >> > >> On Mar 5, 4:06 pm, Dudley Henriques >
> >> >> > >> wrote:
>
> >> >> > >>> You noticed that too huh??? :-)))) Well, I guess the extra
> >> >> > >>> weight he
> >> > lps
> >> >> > >>> to get that ole airplane down again on the remaining runway
> >> >> > >>> when you
>
> >> >> > >>> pull that ole mixture back on a student right after rotation
> >> >> > >>> :-))))
> >> >> > >> I still can't believe that some-one claiming to be a pilot
> >> >> > >> made the 'pull mixture on takeoff' statement and is still
> >> >> > >> here
>
> >> >> > > What's a typo, or it there a reason?
>
> >> >> > > BTW, here's a video of that x-wind landing...
> >> >> > >http://www.thestar.com/News/World/article/309221
> >> >> > > (It ****es me off it's an amateur video, for the price
> >> >> > > of a bit of tape, one would think all landings should
> >> >> > > be properly video taped, cheap ****in' ****s).
>
> >> >> > > Anyway, the rudder steering seems odd to me,
> >> >> > > based on squinty frame advance...grrrr.
> >> >> > > Ken
>
> >> >> > Weren't you the guy that was also suggesting that the runway be
> >> >> > subject to a walk down before every take-off?
>
> >> >> For major airports, radar is being developed,
> >> >> but I think dogs could do it faster and better.
>
> >> > Hey that was my idea! Do you like it really? I worry though, will
> >> > dog **** on the airport runway be a problem when projected by jet
> >> > blast? What do you think?
>
> >> Well, obviously they would wear diapers.
>
> > Damn, you are smart. Depends or huggies?
>
> We'll have to get a $4,000,000 research grant and try both.
>

Great idea. You deal with the **** side and I'll fly the planes!

Cheers

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Dan wrote:
> On Mar 8, 12:00 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>> I actually went out this week and bought a new Macbook Air just for
>> Usenet and email. Wish I'd waited a bit longer though. I'm getting more
>> disillusioned with Usenet by the minute :-))))
>>
>> --
>> Dudley Henriques
>
> Not so fast -- you have the best platform for FSX AND SimCity at the
> same time...
>
> Have all your simulated people flying on your simulated airplanes.
> Load o' fun!
>
> Dan
>
I actually quit working with Microsoft on their sim program
this year.
PLEASE don't tell me that you're one of these people who believe I'm a
"simulator" pilot because they have discovered I have advised on the
program :-)))



--
Dudley Henriques

[WingFlaps]

On Mar 9, 5:32*am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
. Better
> than me back then anyway. He had a good bit of altitude, too 50 or so,
> he turned around and made the runway but stalled coming across the
> threshold and cartwheeled donw the runway. He and his father in law
> survived, but they were lucky.

They did a 360 with 50' altitude? Is this a typo? You need a lot of
altidude for the impossible turn maybe curcuit height?

Cheers

[WingFlaps]

On Mar 9, 5:53*am, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> > wrote in news:ef4a41c9-f87b-4afd-9045-
> > :
>
> >> On Mar 7, 11:37 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>
> >>> Glide back to the runway
> >>> Ken
> >> *Students, this is dangerous. Do not turn back to the runway if you
> >> are below 1000' agl and lose the engine. You won't make it. You lose
> >> considerable altitude in the turn and tend to lift the nose, reducing
> >> speed, and to keep near the runway you'll tend to tighten the turn
> >> using a skid. It's death waiting to happen via a stall and spin.
> >> * * Normal practice is to pick a spot with 30° or so of your flight
> >> path. Not a pleasant choice, considering the location of some
> >> airports.
>
> > Well, I'll add to this. You can turn back and make . it can be done. The
> > guy in the airport coffee shop who says it can be done is probably
> > right. I have done it in practice, form fairly short field in standard
> > lightplanes like cubs and 150s. Most of the instructors where I worked
> > agreed that it was the thing to do as long as you were proficient and it
> > was planned before the takeoff roll started. We knew they couldn't
> > neccesarily be done in all airplanes and in all situations. The wind had
> > to be considered as well as traffic ( bad idea to turn back toward a
> > runway with something rolling on it) and so on. We had it sussed.
> > then one of the guys had one one day. Very good stci as well. Better
> > than me back then anyway. He had a good bit of altitude, too 50 or so,
> > he turned around and made the runway but stalled coming across the
> > threshold and cartwheeled donw the runway. He and his father in law
> > survived, but they were lucky. They would definitely have been better
> > off going straight ahead.
>
> > Bertie
>
> The reason we teach straight ahead is sound. One has to consider some
> kind of average pilot in dealing with this issue.
> Whether or not it can be done successfully as a turn around is so full
> of variables it muddies the equation.
> Considering altitude, wind, and exact position in relation to the
> departing runway, on the extreme high end of the experience level, a
> highly trained aerobatic pilot on one hand might could possibly even
> make the turn using a half turn accelerated stall done in the vertical
> plane, (modified hammerhead with practically no vertical up line using
> the vertical plane to reduce the horizontal turning component)
> This is even possible done by such a pilot flying something like a 172
> or a 150, but I would never recommend doing it to anyone.
> For the "average Joe", that straight ahead within reasonable degree
> offset approach to the engine failure scenario on takeoff is still the
> safe way to deal with this issue and probably always will be in my opinion..
>

I'm not a n acro pilot so I'd like you (or some other pilot) to try
that manouver power off from the glide and see how much altitude they
loose. I'm guessing 200' minimum.

Cheers

[george]

On Mar 8, 10:41 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:

> Hey, maybe buttboi will pull the cotter pins on the elevaotr hinges to
> help you get over it.
>
> Great fan club you got there Buttboi.
>
Anyway ken and buttman are going to pass their next checkride with
their 'knowledge' exhibited here?
Unless of course they are not pilots

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

WingFlaps wrote:
> On Mar 9, 5:53 am, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>> wrote in news:ef4a41c9-f87b-4afd-9045-
>>> :
>>>> On Mar 7, 11:37 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>>>>> Glide back to the runway
>>>>> Ken
>>>> Students, this is dangerous. Do not turn back to the runway if you
>>>> are below 1000' agl and lose the engine. You won't make it. You lose
>>>> considerable altitude in the turn and tend to lift the nose, reducing
>>>> speed, and to keep near the runway you'll tend to tighten the turn
>>>> using a skid. It's death waiting to happen via a stall and spin.
>>>> Normal practice is to pick a spot with 30° or so of your flight
>>>> path. Not a pleasant choice, considering the location of some
>>>> airports.
>>> Well, I'll add to this. You can turn back and make . it can be done. The
>>> guy in the airport coffee shop who says it can be done is probably
>>> right. I have done it in practice, form fairly short field in standard
>>> lightplanes like cubs and 150s. Most of the instructors where I worked
>>> agreed that it was the thing to do as long as you were proficient and it
>>> was planned before the takeoff roll started. We knew they couldn't
>>> neccesarily be done in all airplanes and in all situations. The wind had
>>> to be considered as well as traffic ( bad idea to turn back toward a
>>> runway with something rolling on it) and so on. We had it sussed.
>>> then one of the guys had one one day. Very good stci as well. Better
>>> than me back then anyway. He had a good bit of altitude, too 50 or so,
>>> he turned around and made the runway but stalled coming across the
>>> threshold and cartwheeled donw the runway. He and his father in law
>>> survived, but they were lucky. They would definitely have been better
>>> off going straight ahead.
>>> Bertie
>> The reason we teach straight ahead is sound. One has to consider some
>> kind of average pilot in dealing with this issue.
>> Whether or not it can be done successfully as a turn around is so full
>> of variables it muddies the equation.
>> Considering altitude, wind, and exact position in relation to the
>> departing runway, on the extreme high end of the experience level, a
>> highly trained aerobatic pilot on one hand might could possibly even
>> make the turn using a half turn accelerated stall done in the vertical
>> plane, (modified hammerhead with practically no vertical up line using
>> the vertical plane to reduce the horizontal turning component)
>> This is even possible done by such a pilot flying something like a 172
>> or a 150, but I would never recommend doing it to anyone.
>> For the "average Joe", that straight ahead within reasonable degree
>> offset approach to the engine failure scenario on takeoff is still the
>> safe way to deal with this issue and probably always will be in my opinion.
>>
>
> I'm not a n acro pilot so I'd like you (or some other pilot) to try
> that manouver power off from the glide and see how much altitude they
> loose. I'm guessing 200' minimum.
>
> Cheers
Depends on the airplane and the pilot combination. Such a maneuver
assuming a normal climb speed at entry of 80mph as the engine quits
would require an immediate aggressive pull into accelerated stall
followed by aggressive pro spin rudder to induce a required yaw rate.
The trick is to catch the spin entry on the first half turn nose down.
200 feet could easily be required in some airplanes.
This isn't something you argue on the specifics. The variables are just
too vast.
Put it this way. If I had 200 feet in a 172 with an engine failure, I'd
be looking for a landing area straight ahead, or more properly I'd
already know if such an area existed for the runway I was using since I
would have asked :-) (There are runways where no such landing is
possible of course)
On the other hand, in a Pitts or an Extra in the same scenario, I
wouldn't hesitate to attempt what I have described here.
I've done this easily in the Pitts with under 100 feet lost and a 180
change in the flight path.
--
Dudley Henriques

[Ken S. Tucker]

Hi all, studied the posts to this thread.

On Mar 8, 8:40 am, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> Ken S. Tucker wrote:
> > On Mar 7, 5:01 pm, wrote:
> >> On Mar 7, 1:02 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>
> >>> Dud, you've never been in an airplane, and you're
> >>> NOT an instructor. I'm a prof teacher and I can
> >>> sniff your bad **** off the net, you're a phony!
> >> If Dudley or Bertie are frauds, they are very, very good frauds.
> >> The terminology and all other aspects of their posts regarding
> >> aviation and learning to fly are accurate and perceptive. There would
> >> be few folks who could come up with this stuff unless they were
> >> savants of some sort. Those of us who actually fly have little
> >> argument with most of what they say.
> >> There are some other posters here who were obvious frauds from
> >> the start. And the more they post, the deeper they dig their holes of
> >> discredit. They're just incredible.
>
> > Anybody can sound good on the net where knowledge
> > is concerned, but you can't fake an attitude for long.
>
> >> Pulling mixture or fooling with fuel valves immediately after
> >> takeoff is asking to die. Soon.
>
> > No not really, Mr. Buttman is not a suicidal maniac
> > and one has to presume if the pilot didn't react
> > properly he take control and have that figured out.
>
> >> Pulling the throttle has the same
> >> engine-loss effect without the extreme risk associated with killing
> >> the engine. Pulling mixture or fuel also carries
> >> the more remote risk of a control failure, whereby the mixture control
> >> cable or fuel valve linkage breaks at that exact moment, making a
> >> recovery of the engine impossible.
>
> > Sure that can happen. I suppose that's part of the
> > point of Mr. Buttman's suggested exercise.
>
> >> In the last 15 years or so we've
> >> had a throttle cable failure and a carb heat cable failure, so now we
> >> replace all the controls when we replace the engine. There's no legal
> >> requirement to do it, but after seeing old controls break I decided
> >> that it was going to get done.
> >> Dan
>
> > My personal fear is loosing elevator control, it's
> > very rare, but that Alaska Air crash a few years
> > back (in the Pacific) was blamed on the screw
> > that adjusts the elevator getting stripped or jammed.
> > Ken
>
> The answer to this entire issue is quite easily proved one way or the other.
> Anyone.....and I mean ANYONE, reading about this issue here can easily
> pick up the phone and call their local FAA office here in the United
> States anyway, and ask for an official opinion on the following
> question. (Someone please do this :-)
> "Is it acceptable procedure for a flight instructor to turn off a fuel
> valve on a student on takeoff causing fuel starvation and subsequent
> engine failure as a teaching method"
>
> No flames......no back and forth on who's an idiot or who's a fraud; no
> banter on who's a good instructor and who isn't.....simply get the
> official position of the authoritative body officially responsible for
> flight instruction and flight safety in the United States.......then
> post the answer right here for the world to see.
> How fair and up front is that?
> Dudley Henriques

Dud if you're asking me, the govmonks create minimum
standards, that I would expect instructors to exceed.
How they do that is a matter of experience.

Assuming you Take-Off into the wind, should you max
your climb rate?
If so, should you use flaps? (Note Ken slyly gets on topic).

I think altitude is a pilots friend where safety is concerned,
so if a malfunction does occur in the ascent stage, a
glide path back to runway is a reasonable maneuver?
Ken

[Dan[_10_]]

On Mar 8, 1:57 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> Dan wrote:
> > On Mar 8, 12:00 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> >> I actually went out this week and bought a new Macbook Air just for
> >> Usenet and email. Wish I'd waited a bit longer though. I'm getting more
> >> disillusioned with Usenet by the minute :-))))
>
> >> --
> >> Dudley Henriques
>
> > Not so fast -- you have the best platform for FSX AND SimCity at the
> > same time...
>
> > Have all your simulated people flying on your simulated airplanes.
> > Load o' fun!
>
> > Dan
>
> I actually quit working with Microsoft on their sim program
> this year.
> PLEASE don't tell me that you're one of these people who believe I'm a
> "simulator" pilot because they have discovered I have advised on the
> program :-)))
>
> --
> Dudley Henriques

Come on, now...

Though I disagree with folks but bright and not so, surely you give me
more credit than that....


Dan

[WingFlaps]

On Mar 9, 8:29*am, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> WingFlaps wrote:
> > On Mar 9, 5:53 am, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> >> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> >>> wrote in news:ef4a41c9-f87b-4afd-9045-
> >>> :
> >>>> On Mar 7, 11:37 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
> >>>>> Glide back to the runway
> >>>>> Ken
> >>>> *Students, this is dangerous. Do not turn back to the runway if you
> >>>> are below 1000' agl and lose the engine. You won't make it. You lose
> >>>> considerable altitude in the turn and tend to lift the nose, reducing
> >>>> speed, and to keep near the runway you'll tend to tighten the turn
> >>>> using a skid. It's death waiting to happen via a stall and spin.
> >>>> * * Normal practice is to pick a spot with 30° or so of your flight
> >>>> path. Not a pleasant choice, considering the location of some
> >>>> airports.
> >>> Well, I'll add to this. You can turn back and make . it can be done. The
> >>> guy in the airport coffee shop who says it can be done is probably
> >>> right. I have done it in practice, form fairly short field in standard
> >>> lightplanes like cubs and 150s. Most of the instructors where I worked
> >>> agreed that it was the thing to do as long as you were proficient and it
> >>> was planned before the takeoff roll started. We knew they couldn't
> >>> neccesarily be done in all airplanes and in all situations. The wind had
> >>> to be considered as well as traffic ( bad idea to turn back toward a
> >>> runway with something rolling on it) and so on. We had it sussed.
> >>> then one of the guys had one one day. Very good stci as well. Better
> >>> than me back then anyway. He had a good bit of altitude, too 50 or so,
> >>> he turned around and made the runway but stalled coming across the
> >>> threshold and cartwheeled donw the runway. He and his father in law
> >>> survived, but they were lucky. They would definitely have been better
> >>> off going straight ahead.
> >>> Bertie
> >> The reason we teach straight ahead is sound. One has to consider some
> >> kind of average pilot in dealing with this issue.
> >> Whether or not it can be done successfully as a turn around is so full
> >> of variables it muddies the equation.
> >> Considering altitude, wind, and exact position in relation to the
> >> departing runway, on the extreme high end of the experience level, a
> >> highly trained aerobatic pilot on one hand might could possibly even
> >> make the turn using a half turn accelerated stall done in the vertical
> >> plane, (modified hammerhead with practically no vertical up line using
> >> the vertical plane to reduce the horizontal turning component)
> >> This is even possible done by such a pilot flying something like a 172
> >> or a 150, but I would never recommend doing it to anyone.
> >> For the "average Joe", that straight ahead within reasonable degree
> >> offset approach to the engine failure scenario on takeoff is still the
> >> safe way to deal with this issue and probably always will be in my opinion.
>
> > I'm not a n acro pilot so I'd like you (or some other pilot) to try
> > that manouver power off from the glide and see how much altitude they
> > loose. I'm guessing 200' minimum.
>
> > Cheers
>
> Depends on the airplane and the pilot combination. Such a maneuver
> assuming a normal climb speed at entry of 80mph as the engine quits
> would require an immediate aggressive pull into accelerated stall
> followed by aggressive pro spin rudder to induce a required yaw rate.
> The trick is to catch the spin entry on the first half turn nose down.
> 200 feet could easily be required in some airplanes.
> This isn't something you argue on the specifics. The variables are just
> too vast.
> Put it this way. If I had 200 feet in a 172 with an engine failure, I'd
> be looking for a landing area straight ahead, or more properly I'd
> already know if such an area existed for the runway I was using since I
> would have asked :-) (There are runways where no such landing is
> possible of course)
> On the other hand, in a Pitts or an Extra in the same scenario, I
> wouldn't hesitate to attempt what I have described here.
> I've done this easily in the Pitts with under 100 feet lost and a 180
> change in the flight path.
> --

Controlling the spin sounds like a real problem -get it wrong and you
are ....

Cheers

[Jay Maynard]

On 2008-03-08, > wrote:
> Students, this is dangerous. Do not turn back to the runway if you
> are below 1000' agl and lose the engine. You won't make it.

While folks will disagree with several things my primary instructor did,
and I'm not sure about a couple of them, this is one he did with me that I
agree with. We demonstrated a return to the runway and an opposite direction
landing from 400 AGL in a Warrior. I'm not going to try it that low, but I'd
be comfortable doing it from 600 AGL - which happened to be the pattern
altitude of the airport I flew out of (EFD) while I was doing my primary
training.

Now, I will say that you should not attempt this on your own the first time.
Go over it with your CFI, and see what he says about the subject.
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
Fairmont, MN (FRM) (Yes, that's me!)
AMD Zodiac CH601XLi N55ZC (getting ready to order)

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

WingFlaps > wrote in
:

> On Mar 8, 10:47*pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> WingFlaps > wrote
>> innews:bdf80955-b25f-47b5-91ed-17d86
> :
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Mar 7, 11:24*pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> >> WingFlaps > wrote
>> >> innews:a529f378-4eb7-42f4-b8eb-5fce8
>> > :
>>
>> >> > On Mar 6, 8:49*am, "Ken S. Tucker" >
>> >> > wrote:
>> >> >> On Mar 5, 6:17 am, Gig 601XL Builder
>> >> >> > wrote:
>>
>> >> >> > Ken S. Tucker wrote:
>> >> >> > > On Mar 4, 7:35 pm, george > wrote:
>> >> >> > >> On Mar 5, 4:06 pm, Dudley Henriques >
>> >> >> > >> wrote:
>>
>> >> >> > >>> You noticed that too huh??? :-)))) Well, I guess the
>> >> >> > >>> extra weight he
>> >> > lps
>> >> >> > >>> to get that ole airplane down again on the remaining
>> >> >> > >>> runway when you
>>
>> >> >> > >>> pull that ole mixture back on a student right after
>> >> >> > >>> rotation
>> >> >> > >>> :-))))
>> >> >> > >> I still can't believe that some-one claiming to be a pilot
>> >> >> > >> made the 'pull mixture on takeoff' statement and is still
>> >> >> > >> here
>>
>> >> >> > > What's a typo, or it there a reason?
>>
>> >> >> > > BTW, here's a video of that x-wind landing...
>> >> >> > >http://www.thestar.com/News/World/article/309221
>> >> >> > > (It ****es me off it's an amateur video, for the price
>> >> >> > > of a bit of tape, one would think all landings should
>> >> >> > > be properly video taped, cheap ****in' ****s).
>>
>> >> >> > > Anyway, the rudder steering seems odd to me,
>> >> >> > > based on squinty frame advance...grrrr.
>> >> >> > > Ken
>>
>> >> >> > Weren't you the guy that was also suggesting that the runway
>> >> >> > be subject to a walk down before every take-off?
>>
>> >> >> For major airports, radar is being developed,
>> >> >> but I think dogs could do it faster and better.
>>
>> >> > Hey that was my idea! Do you like it really? I worry though,
>> >> > will dog **** on the airport runway be a problem when projected
>> >> > by jet blast? What do you think?
>>
>> >> Well, obviously they would wear diapers.
>>
>> > Damn, you are smart. Depends or huggies?
>>
>> We'll have to get a $4,000,000 research grant and try both.
>>
>
> Great idea. You deal with the **** side and I'll fly the planes!

Oh it's Ken's idea. We should let him have the glory.



Bet he can make 6 maybe 7 bucks an hour with this one.



Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

george > wrote in news:2ce339e1-c3c6-4319-bda3-
:

> On Mar 8, 10:41 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
>> Hey, maybe buttboi will pull the cotter pins on the elevaotr hinges
to
>> help you get over it.
>>
>> Great fan club you got there Buttboi.
>>
> Anyway ken and buttman are going to pass their next checkride with
> their 'knowledge' exhibited here?
> Unless of course they are not pilots


Well, if buttman is he's a ****poor one. Ken definitely isn't. Best
guess is he's a perrenial student who drives his local instructors nuts
with his blather.



Bertie

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Dan wrote:
> On Mar 8, 1:57 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>> Dan wrote:
>>> On Mar 8, 12:00 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>>>> I actually went out this week and bought a new Macbook Air just for
>>>> Usenet and email. Wish I'd waited a bit longer though. I'm getting more
>>>> disillusioned with Usenet by the minute :-))))
>>>> --
>>>> Dudley Henriques
>>> Not so fast -- you have the best platform for FSX AND SimCity at the
>>> same time...
>>> Have all your simulated people flying on your simulated airplanes.
>>> Load o' fun!
>>> Dan
>> I actually quit working with Microsoft on their sim program
>> this year.
>> PLEASE don't tell me that you're one of these people who believe I'm a
>> "simulator" pilot because they have discovered I have advised on the
>> program :-)))
>>
>> --
>> Dudley Henriques
>
> Come on, now...
>
> Though I disagree with folks but bright and not so, surely you give me
> more credit than that....
>
>
> Dan
I don't mean anything personal at all Dan. Just seems every time someone
associates me with Microsoft, somebody suggests I don't fly or haven't
flown in real life. In fact, this thread has been full of just that type
of accusation by two individuals.
No big deal by a long shot. :-))

--
Dudley Henriques

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

WingFlaps wrote:
> On Mar 9, 8:29 am, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>> WingFlaps wrote:
>>> On Mar 9, 5:53 am, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>>> wrote in news:ef4a41c9-f87b-4afd-9045-
>>>>> :
>>>>>> On Mar 7, 11:37 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>>>>>>> Glide back to the runway
>>>>>>> Ken
>>>>>> Students, this is dangerous. Do not turn back to the runway if you
>>>>>> are below 1000' agl and lose the engine. You won't make it. You lose
>>>>>> considerable altitude in the turn and tend to lift the nose, reducing
>>>>>> speed, and to keep near the runway you'll tend to tighten the turn
>>>>>> using a skid. It's death waiting to happen via a stall and spin.
>>>>>> Normal practice is to pick a spot with 30° or so of your flight
>>>>>> path. Not a pleasant choice, considering the location of some
>>>>>> airports.
>>>>> Well, I'll add to this. You can turn back and make . it can be done. The
>>>>> guy in the airport coffee shop who says it can be done is probably
>>>>> right. I have done it in practice, form fairly short field in standard
>>>>> lightplanes like cubs and 150s. Most of the instructors where I worked
>>>>> agreed that it was the thing to do as long as you were proficient and it
>>>>> was planned before the takeoff roll started. We knew they couldn't
>>>>> neccesarily be done in all airplanes and in all situations. The wind had
>>>>> to be considered as well as traffic ( bad idea to turn back toward a
>>>>> runway with something rolling on it) and so on. We had it sussed.
>>>>> then one of the guys had one one day. Very good stci as well. Better
>>>>> than me back then anyway. He had a good bit of altitude, too 50 or so,
>>>>> he turned around and made the runway but stalled coming across the
>>>>> threshold and cartwheeled donw the runway. He and his father in law
>>>>> survived, but they were lucky. They would definitely have been better
>>>>> off going straight ahead.
>>>>> Bertie
>>>> The reason we teach straight ahead is sound. One has to consider some
>>>> kind of average pilot in dealing with this issue.
>>>> Whether or not it can be done successfully as a turn around is so full
>>>> of variables it muddies the equation.
>>>> Considering altitude, wind, and exact position in relation to the
>>>> departing runway, on the extreme high end of the experience level, a
>>>> highly trained aerobatic pilot on one hand might could possibly even
>>>> make the turn using a half turn accelerated stall done in the vertical
>>>> plane, (modified hammerhead with practically no vertical up line using
>>>> the vertical plane to reduce the horizontal turning component)
>>>> This is even possible done by such a pilot flying something like a 172
>>>> or a 150, but I would never recommend doing it to anyone.
>>>> For the "average Joe", that straight ahead within reasonable degree
>>>> offset approach to the engine failure scenario on takeoff is still the
>>>> safe way to deal with this issue and probably always will be in my opinion.
>>> I'm not a n acro pilot so I'd like you (or some other pilot) to try
>>> that manouver power off from the glide and see how much altitude they
>>> loose. I'm guessing 200' minimum.
>>> Cheers
>> Depends on the airplane and the pilot combination. Such a maneuver
>> assuming a normal climb speed at entry of 80mph as the engine quits
>> would require an immediate aggressive pull into accelerated stall
>> followed by aggressive pro spin rudder to induce a required yaw rate.
>> The trick is to catch the spin entry on the first half turn nose down.
>> 200 feet could easily be required in some airplanes.
>> This isn't something you argue on the specifics. The variables are just
>> too vast.
>> Put it this way. If I had 200 feet in a 172 with an engine failure, I'd
>> be looking for a landing area straight ahead, or more properly I'd
>> already know if such an area existed for the runway I was using since I
>> would have asked :-) (There are runways where no such landing is
>> possible of course)
>> On the other hand, in a Pitts or an Extra in the same scenario, I
>> wouldn't hesitate to attempt what I have described here.
>> I've done this easily in the Pitts with under 100 feet lost and a 180
>> change in the flight path.
>> --
>
> Controlling the spin sounds like a real problem -get it wrong and you
> are ....
>
> Cheers
>
>
Absolutely. No argument from me there :-)) As I've said, I'd never
advocate doing this to anyone else. I personally would feel confident to
do it under specific circumstances with specific parameters in place.
Well.....let me rephrase that a bit. There was a TIME when I would have
done this. No longer I'm afraid. The days of being that sharp are long
gone. :-))

--
Dudley Henriques

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

WingFlaps > wrote in news:2e98a96c-168e-4484-ac42-
:

> On Mar 9, 5:32*am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> . Better
>> than me back then anyway. He had a good bit of altitude, too 50 or
so,
>> he turned around and made the runway but stalled coming across the
>> threshold and cartwheeled donw the runway. He and his father in law
>> survived, but they were lucky.
>
> They did a 360 with 50' altitude? Is this a typo? You need a lot of
> altidude for the impossible turn maybe curcuit height?

Sorry. Typo, he had around 500 feet. Runway length was about 2700 feet
and there were two converging runways at the airport this episode
occured so it couldn't have been a better setup. I don't know what the
wind was doing at the time. This place was a gliderport and it's normal
to turn back in a glider if you get a rope break once you're over 200'
below that you go stright ahead. You take a similar tack when you plan a
turnaound on an engine failure after takeoff.
If it didn't come across in my previous post, though,. I'll state it
clearly here. I am not advocating anyone does this. At that time I'd
practiced them and so did the guy who crashed, but on the day it didn't
work out for him.
The reason I mentioned this is that guys will hear that it is possible,
and the guy telling you may well have done it, maybe even in anger. I
read a magazine article about it years ago and the author was advocating
it. He'd tried it and got it to work out just fine, "so why don;t we
teach this?" he asked.
On the day, however, you stand a really good chance of spinning in out
of the turn even if you've praciticed it and have briefed yourself prior
to departure. Even when we were what we considered to be proficient we
never, ever would suggest to a student that this was something that they
should consider doing. Knowing what I know now, I wouldn't chance it
myself nowadays even if I were as sharp as I was then which i'll prolly
never be again.




Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Dudley Henriques > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> wrote in news:ef4a41c9-f87b-4afd-9045-
>> :
>>
>>> On Mar 7, 11:37 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>>>
>>>> Glide back to the runway
>>>> Ken
>>> Students, this is dangerous. Do not turn back to the runway if you
>>> are below 1000' agl and lose the engine. You won't make it. You lose
>>> considerable altitude in the turn and tend to lift the nose,
>>> reducing speed, and to keep near the runway you'll tend to tighten
>>> the turn using a skid. It's death waiting to happen via a stall and
>>> spin.
>>> Normal practice is to pick a spot with 30° or so of your flight
>>> path. Not a pleasant choice, considering the location of some
>>> airports.
>>>
>>
>> Well, I'll add to this. You can turn back and make . it can be done.
>> The guy in the airport coffee shop who says it can be done is
>> probably right. I have done it in practice, form fairly short field
>> in standard lightplanes like cubs and 150s. Most of the instructors
>> where I worked agreed that it was the thing to do as long as you were
>> proficient and it was planned before the takeoff roll started. We
>> knew they couldn't neccesarily be done in all airplanes and in all
>> situations. The wind had to be considered as well as traffic ( bad
>> idea to turn back toward a runway with something rolling on it) and
>> so on. We had it sussed. then one of the guys had one one day. Very
>> good stci as well. Better than me back then anyway. He had a good bit
>> of altitude, too 50 or so, he turned around and made the runway but
>> stalled coming across the threshold and cartwheeled donw the runway.
>> He and his father in law survived, but they were lucky. They would
>> definitely have been better off going straight ahead.
>>
>>
>>
>> Bertie
> The reason we teach straight ahead is sound. One has to consider some
> kind of average pilot in dealing with this issue.
> Whether or not it can be done successfully as a turn around is so full
> of variables it muddies the equation.
> Considering altitude, wind, and exact position in relation to the
> departing runway, on the extreme high end of the experience level, a
> highly trained aerobatic pilot on one hand might could possibly even
> make the turn using a half turn accelerated stall done in the vertical
> plane, (modified hammerhead with practically no vertical up line using
> the vertical plane to reduce the horizontal turning component)
> This is even possible done by such a pilot flying something like a 172
> or a 150, but I would never recommend doing it to anyone.
> For the "average Joe", that straight ahead within reasonable degree
> offset approach to the engine failure scenario on takeoff is still the
> safe way to deal with this issue and probably always will be in my
> opinion.

Exactly. This guy was way above average and he didn;t manage it... I
don't mean to muddy the waters by bringing it up, but the notion is out
there. Of course that fjukkwit Ken latched onto it as soon as he heard
it.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Dudley Henriques > wrote in
:

> WingFlaps wrote:
>> On Mar 9, 5:53 am, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>> wrote in news:ef4a41c9-f87b-4afd-9045-
>>>> :
>>>>> On Mar 7, 11:37 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>>>>>> Glide back to the runway
>>>>>> Ken
>>>>> Students, this is dangerous. Do not turn back to the runway if
>>>>> you
>>>>> are below 1000' agl and lose the engine. You won't make it. You
>>>>> lose considerable altitude in the turn and tend to lift the nose,
>>>>> reducing speed, and to keep near the runway you'll tend to tighten
>>>>> the turn using a skid. It's death waiting to happen via a stall
>>>>> and spin.
>>>>> Normal practice is to pick a spot with 30° or so of your
>>>>> flight
>>>>> path. Not a pleasant choice, considering the location of some
>>>>> airports.
>>>> Well, I'll add to this. You can turn back and make . it can be
>>>> done. The guy in the airport coffee shop who says it can be done is
>>>> probably right. I have done it in practice, form fairly short field
>>>> in standard lightplanes like cubs and 150s. Most of the instructors
>>>> where I worked agreed that it was the thing to do as long as you
>>>> were proficient and it was planned before the takeoff roll started.
>>>> We knew they couldn't neccesarily be done in all airplanes and in
>>>> all situations. The wind had to be considered as well as traffic (
>>>> bad idea to turn back toward a runway with something rolling on it)
>>>> and so on. We had it sussed. then one of the guys had one one day.
>>>> Very good stci as well. Better than me back then anyway. He had a
>>>> good bit of altitude, too 50 or so, he turned around and made the
>>>> runway but stalled coming across the threshold and cartwheeled donw
>>>> the runway. He and his father in law survived, but they were lucky.
>>>> They would definitely have been better off going straight ahead.
>>>> Bertie
>>> The reason we teach straight ahead is sound. One has to consider
>>> some kind of average pilot in dealing with this issue.
>>> Whether or not it can be done successfully as a turn around is so
>>> full of variables it muddies the equation.
>>> Considering altitude, wind, and exact position in relation to the
>>> departing runway, on the extreme high end of the experience level, a
>>> highly trained aerobatic pilot on one hand might could possibly even
>>> make the turn using a half turn accelerated stall done in the
>>> vertical plane, (modified hammerhead with practically no vertical up
>>> line using the vertical plane to reduce the horizontal turning
>>> component) This is even possible done by such a pilot flying
>>> something like a 172 or a 150, but I would never recommend doing it
>>> to anyone. For the "average Joe", that straight ahead within
>>> reasonable degree offset approach to the engine failure scenario on
>>> takeoff is still the safe way to deal with this issue and probably
>>> always will be in my opinion.
>>>
>>
>> I'm not a n acro pilot so I'd like you (or some other pilot) to try
>> that manouver power off from the glide and see how much altitude they
>> loose. I'm guessing 200' minimum.
>>
>> Cheers
> Depends on the airplane and the pilot combination. Such a maneuver
> assuming a normal climb speed at entry of 80mph as the engine quits
> would require an immediate aggressive pull into accelerated stall
> followed by aggressive pro spin rudder to induce a required yaw rate.
> The trick is to catch the spin entry on the first half turn nose down.
> 200 feet could easily be required in some airplanes.
> This isn't something you argue on the specifics. The variables are
> just too vast.
> Put it this way. If I had 200 feet in a 172 with an engine failure,
> I'd be looking for a landing area straight ahead, or more properly I'd
> already know if such an area existed for the runway I was using since
> I would have asked :-) (There are runways where no such landing is
> possible of course)
> On the other hand, in a Pitts or an Extra in the same scenario, I
> wouldn't hesitate to attempt what I have described here.
> I've done this easily in the Pitts with under 100 feet lost and a 180
> change in the flight path.


One of the problems is you need to do more than 180 degrees, of course.
This can be minimised by turning into wind if you have some across and
if your runway is wide you've saved a bit of turn that way as well, but
you're probably going to have a bit of 'essing' to do on finals and
that's going to cost. That's where my friend lost it.


Bertie