Things I Would Like To See

[Panglos]

I would like to see ATC require at least one controller in 5000 to have
a pilots license and a minimal amount of aviating ability or knowledge.
I would also like to see airports start operating based on the
operational needs of pilots and aircraft; not what the new neighbors
want. It would be nice if people would start asking themselves ´does
this make sense?¡ And last but not least, I would like for flight
schools to start teaching students what a FREAKING wind sock is! Maybe
then, thirty years from now, one of those students will ask themselves
´does this make sense¡ and they wonÿt land on a short snow covered
runway with a tailwind, even if the numbers say itÿs possible and
theyÿve been cleared to land.
--
President of Houston
http://www.linkedin.com/pub/1/90a/2b8

[Orval Fairbairn[_2_]]

In article >, Panglos >
wrote:

> I would like to see ATC require at least one controller in 5000 to have
> a pilots license and a minimal amount of aviating ability or knowledge.
> I would also like to see airports start operating based on the
> operational needs of pilots and aircraft; not what the new neighbors
> want. It would be nice if people would start asking themselves ³does
> this make sense?² And last but not least, I would like for flight
> schools to start teaching students what a FREAKING wind sock is! Maybe
> then, thirty years from now, one of those students will ask themselves
> ³does this make sense² and they won¹t land on a short snow covered
> runway with a tailwind, even if the numbers say it¹s possible and
> they¹ve been cleared to land.

I would also like to see the elimination of the "stabilized approach."
The records show no safety advantage gained --and -- it clutters up the
pattern with spam cans making two mile "stabilized" finals.

--
Remove _'s from email address to talk to me.

[Steven P. McNicoll[_2_]]

"Panglos" > wrote in message
...
>
> I would like to see ATC require at least one controller in 5000 to have
> a pilots license and a minimal amount of aviating ability or knowledge.
>

There are already more than three licensed pilots working as FAA air traffic
controllers.

[Dave Doe]

In article >, says...
> I would like to see ATC require at least one controller in 5000 to have
> a pilots license and a minimal amount of aviating ability or knowledge.

I would say that ratio is *naturally* achieved - easily. Certainly is
in my country.

--
Duncan

[Jay Honeck[_2_]]

>I would like to see ATC require at least one controller in 5000 to have
> a pilots license and a minimal amount of aviating ability or knowledge.

In my experience flying primarily in the U.S. Midwest, most controllers are
knowledgeable and seem to have a good sense of what we, as pilots, need.

Also, just as an aside, Lockheed-Martin was preferentially hiring pilots for
flight service when they first took over the system. Don't know if they've
stuck to that plan, though...
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Ash Wyllie]

Orval Fairbairn opined

>In article >, Panglos >
>wrote:

>> I would like to see ATC require at least one controller in 5000 to have
>> a pilots license and a minimal amount of aviating ability or knowledge.
>> I would also like to see airports start operating based on the
>> operational needs of pilots and aircraft; not what the new neighbors
>> want. It would be nice if people would start asking themselves ³does
>> this make sense?² And last but not least, I would like for flight
>> schools to start teaching students what a FREAKING wind sock is! Maybe
>> then, thirty years from now, one of those students will ask themselves
>> ³does this make sense² and they won¹t land on a short snow covered
>> runway with a tailwind, even if the numbers say it¹s possible and
>> they¹ve been cleared to land.

Or listen to an AWOS ond the Unicom frequency, rather than asking which is the
active runway.

>I would also like to see the elimination of the "stabilized approach."
>The records show no safety advantage gained --and -- it clutters up the
>pattern with spam cans making two mile "stabilized" finals.

Hear, hear.


-ash
Cthulhu in 2008!
Vote the greater evil.

[B A R R Y[_2_]]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "Panglos" > wrote in message
> ...
>> I would like to see ATC require at least one controller in 5000 to have
>> a pilots license and a minimal amount of aviating ability or knowledge.
>>
>
> There are already more than three licensed pilots working as FAA air traffic
> controllers.
>

Last time I toured my local small TRACON, there were more than that _on
duty_ at the time of my tour. Quite a few had every rating to CFII.

[Steven P. McNicoll[_2_]]

"B A R R Y" > wrote in message
...
> Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
>> "Panglos" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> I would like to see ATC require at least one controller in 5000 to have
>>> a pilots license and a minimal amount of aviating ability or knowledge.
>>>
>>
>> There are already more than three licensed pilots working as FAA air
>> traffic controllers.
>
> Last time I toured my local small TRACON, there were more than that _on
> duty_ at the time of my tour. Quite a few had every rating to CFII.
>

No surprise there. Within the US general population about one person in
every 500 holds a pilots license of some kind. Since many controllers
pursued the job because of an interest in aviation one should expect to find
a greater ratio.

[Robert M. Gary]

On Apr 28, 1:50*pm, Orval Fairbairn >
wrote:
> In article >, Panglos >
> wrote:
>

> I would also like to see the elimination of the "stabilized approach."
> The records show no safety advantage gained --and -- it clutters up the
> pattern with spam cans making two mile "stabilized" finals.

There is lots of evidence that the stabilized approach is safer than
the old engine out approach. Especially in retracts. Its mandatory for
when we teach at most factory training events.

-robert, CFII

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in news:e40960d5-7b86-4d5f-
:

> On Apr 28, 1:50*pm, Orval Fairbairn >
> wrote:
>> In article >, Panglos >
>> wrote:
>>
>
>> I would also like to see the elimination of the "stabilized
approach."
>> The records show no safety advantage gained --and -- it clutters up
the
>> pattern with spam cans making two mile "stabilized" finals.
>
> There is lots of evidence that the stabilized approach is safer than
> the old engine out approach. Especially in retracts. Its mandatory for
> when we teach at most factory training events.

The apporach isn't any safer, it's just easier. There's a difference.


Bertie

[Robert M. Gary]

On Apr 29, 2:34*pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote in news:e40960d5-7b86-4d5f-
> :

> The apporach isn't any safer, it's just easier. There's a difference.

I'm not sure I would say "easier" so much as less busy. The net result
is a pilot ready to land when he gets over the numbers. Airlines have
required this for decades.

-Robert

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in news:c269afe4-4bb2-45e6-
:

> On Apr 29, 2:34*pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote in news:e40960d5-7b86-4d5f-
>> :
>
>> The apporach isn't any safer, it's just easier. There's a difference.
>
> I'm not sure I would say "easier" so much as less busy. The net result
> is a pilot ready to land when he gets over the numbers. Airlines have
> required this for decades.

Airliners are different. Very different. They're not very speed stable
and they generally ahve more than one engine! There realy is no
comparison and it's this old saw that is usually drug up first when this
argument crops up. The other thing with airliners, though not so much
these days, is spool up times which is not a problem with small pistons.
Less busy, easier, cal it what you like, the stabilised approach in
general aviation has degraded skills.


Bertie

Bertie

[Robert M. Gary]

On Apr 29, 3:00*pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote in news:c269afe4-4bb2-45e6-

> Airliners are different. Very different. They're not very speed stable
> and they generally ahve more than one engine! There realy is no
> comparison and it's this old saw that is usually drug up first when this
> argument crops up. The other thing with airliners, though not so much
> these days, is spool up times which is not a problem with small pistons.
> Less busy, easier, cal it what you like, the stabilised approach in
> general aviation has degraded skills.

As has nosewheels, GPS, etc. However, I see no movement to increase
insurance claims just to increase skills. I've done several primary
students in Mooneys. I certainly don't want them doing yank-n-bank
approaches on short final.

-robert, CFII

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in news:1ffcebed-9f5e-4e37-8f73-
:

> On Apr 29, 3:00*pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote in news:c269afe4-4bb2-45e6-
>
>> Airliners are different. Very different. They're not very speed stable
>> and they generally ahve more than one engine! There realy is no
>> comparison and it's this old saw that is usually drug up first when this
>> argument crops up. The other thing with airliners, though not so much
>> these days, is spool up times which is not a problem with small pistons.
>> Less busy, easier, cal it what you like, the stabilised approach in
>> general aviation has degraded skills.
>
> As has nosewheels, GPS, etc. However, I see no movement to increase
> insurance claims just to increase skills. I've done several primary
> students in Mooneys. I certainly don't want them doing yank-n-bank
> approaches on short final.
>

Well, do what you like. Also, someone who's done his initial training in a
Mooney would be missing out on his education as well.
I'm seeing more and more of the products of modern teaching methods in
professional aviation and the results are often not too pretty. Having said
that, I'm not advocating a strictly stick and rudder approach to education,
but I'm seeing it excluded more and more these days and I've seen several
accidents occur locally as a direct result.


Stabilised approaches are here to stay, but they are not safer nor are they
superior in any way. That's not to say there isn't a movement agin 'em,
though.

Bertie

[WingFlaps]

On Apr 30, 11:07*am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote in news:1ffcebed-9f5e-4e37-8f73-
> :
>
>
>
> > On Apr 29, 3:00*pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> >> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote in news:c269afe4-4bb2-45e6-
>
> >> Airliners are different. Very different. They're not very speed stable
> >> and they generally ahve more than one engine! There realy is no
> >> comparison and it's this old saw that is usually drug up first when this
> >> argument crops up. The other thing with airliners, though not so much
> >> these days, is spool up times which is not a problem with small pistons..
> >> Less busy, easier, cal it what you like, the stabilised approach in
> >> general aviation has degraded skills.
>
> > As has nosewheels, GPS, etc. However, I see no movement to increase
> > insurance claims just to increase skills. I've done several primary
> > students in Mooneys. I certainly don't want them doing yank-n-bank
> > approaches on short final.
>
> Well, do what you like. Also, someone who's done his initial training in a
> Mooney would be missing out on his education as well.
> I'm seeing more and more of the products of modern teaching methods in
> professional aviation and the results are often not too pretty. Having said
> that, I'm not advocating a strictly stick and rudder approach to education,
> but I'm seeing it excluded more and more these days and I've seen several
> accidents occur locally as a direct result.
>
> Stabilised approaches are here to stay, but they are not safer nor are they
> superior in any way. That's not to say there isn't a movement agin 'em,
> though.
>

I can see arguments in both directions. While I was a student getting
that stabilized approach down really helped the work load in the last
few seconds to touch down. I can see that it becomes less important as
I find it easier to make adjustments/decisions on late final.

Cheers

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

WingFlaps > wrote in
:

> On Apr 30, 11:07*am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote in
>> news:1ffcebed-9f5e-4e37-8f73-
>
>> :
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Apr 29, 3:00*pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> >> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote in
>> >> news:c269afe4-4bb2-45e6-
>>
>> >> Airliners are different. Very different. They're not very speed
>> >> stable and they generally ahve more than one engine! There realy
>> >> is no comparison and it's this old saw that is usually drug up
>> >> first when thi
> s
>> >> argument crops up. The other thing with airliners, though not so
>> >> much these days, is spool up times which is not a problem with
>> >> small pistons
> .
>> >> Less busy, easier, cal it what you like, the stabilised approach
>> >> in general aviation has degraded skills.
>>
>> > As has nosewheels, GPS, etc. However, I see no movement to increase
>> > insurance claims just to increase skills. I've done several primary
>> > students in Mooneys. I certainly don't want them doing yank-n-bank
>> > approaches on short final.
>>
>> Well, do what you like. Also, someone who's done his initial training
>> in a
>
>> Mooney would be missing out on his education as well.
>> I'm seeing more and more of the products of modern teaching methods
>> in professional aviation and the results are often not too pretty.
>> Having sai
> d
>> that, I'm not advocating a strictly stick and rudder approach to
>> education
> ,
>> but I'm seeing it excluded more and more these days and I've seen
>> several accidents occur locally as a direct result.
>>
>> Stabilised approaches are here to stay, but they are not safer nor
>> are the
> y
>> superior in any way. That's not to say there isn't a movement agin
>> 'em, though.
>>
>
> I can see arguments in both directions. While I was a student getting
> that stabilized approach down really helped the work load in the last
> few seconds to touch down. I can see that it becomes less important as
> I find it easier to make adjustments/decisions on late final.

I'm not saying they don't have their place, even in lightplanes, but
they have no place in primary training. However, that's the way it's
gone and that's that. Those who choose to go further with their flying
can opt out of the flying Chevy Caprice thing and actualy learn to
control their aircraft instead of riding around in it and in fact that
aspect of flying seems alive and well in some circles. I know of two
wrecks in my neck of the woods directly attributable to **** poor
training of exactly that sort, though.


Bertie

[Andrew Sarangan]

On Apr 28, 4:20 pm, Panglos > wrote:
> I would like to see ATC require at least one controller in 5000 to have
> a pilots license and a minimal amount of aviating ability or knowledge.
> I would also like to see airports start operating based on the
> operational needs of pilots and aircraft; not what the new neighbors
> want. It would be nice if people would start asking themselves ´does
> this make sense?¡ And last but not least, I would like for flight
> schools to start teaching students what a FREAKING wind sock is! Maybe
> then, thirty years from now, one of those students will ask themselves
> ´does this make sense¡ and they wonÿt land on a short snow covered
> runway with a tailwind, even if the numbers say itÿs possible and
> theyÿve been cleared to land.
> --

All very nice, but we should be more worried about whether there will
be any place to land thirty years from now, let alone in snow with a
tailwind.

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
...
> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote in news:c269afe4-4bb2-45e6-
> :
>
>> On Apr 29, 2:34 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote in news:e40960d5-7b86-4d5f-
>>> :
>>
>>> The apporach isn't any safer, it's just easier. There's a difference.
>>
>> I'm not sure I would say "easier" so much as less busy. The net result
>> is a pilot ready to land when he gets over the numbers. Airlines have
>> required this for decades.
>
> Airliners are different. Very different. They're not very speed stable
> and they generally ahve more than one engine! There realy is no
> comparison and it's this old saw that is usually drug up first when this
> argument crops up. The other thing with airliners, though not so much
> these days, is spool up times which is not a problem with small pistons.
> Less busy, easier, cal it what you like, the stabilised approach in
> general aviation has degraded skills.
>
>
> Bertie
>
> Bertie

Yeah, no **** Buttlip, we need to get rid of those electric starters too. If
a guy can't hand prop a plane, he shouldn't be allowed to leave the pattern.

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
...
> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote in news:1ffcebed-9f5e-4e37-8f73-
> :
>
>> On Apr 29, 3:00 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote in news:c269afe4-4bb2-45e6-
>>
>>> Airliners are different. Very different. They're not very speed stable
>>> and they generally ahve more than one engine! There realy is no
>>> comparison and it's this old saw that is usually drug up first when this
>>> argument crops up. The other thing with airliners, though not so much
>>> these days, is spool up times which is not a problem with small pistons.
>>> Less busy, easier, cal it what you like, the stabilised approach in
>>> general aviation has degraded skills.
>>
>> As has nosewheels, GPS, etc. However, I see no movement to increase
>> insurance claims just to increase skills. I've done several primary
>> students in Mooneys. I certainly don't want them doing yank-n-bank
>> approaches on short final.
>>
>
> Well, do what you like. Also, someone who's done his initial training in a
> Mooney would be missing out on his education as well.
> I'm seeing more and more of the products of modern teaching methods in
> professional aviation and the results are often not too pretty. Having
> said
> that, I'm not advocating a strictly stick and rudder approach to
> education,
> but I'm seeing it excluded more and more these days and I've seen several
> accidents occur locally as a direct result.
>
>
> Stabilised approaches are here to stay, but they are not safer nor are
> they
> superior in any way. That's not to say there isn't a movement agin 'em,
> though.
>
> Bertie

You apparently don't know jack **** about the safety of the traffic pattern.
What a dinosaur.

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
...
> WingFlaps > wrote in
> :
>
>> On Apr 30, 11:07 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote in
>>> news:1ffcebed-9f5e-4e37-8f73-
>>
>>> :
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> > On Apr 29, 3:00 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>> >> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote in
>>> >> news:c269afe4-4bb2-45e6-
>>>
>>> >> Airliners are different. Very different. They're not very speed
>>> >> stable and they generally ahve more than one engine! There realy
>>> >> is no comparison and it's this old saw that is usually drug up
>>> >> first when thi
>> s
>>> >> argument crops up. The other thing with airliners, though not so
>>> >> much these days, is spool up times which is not a problem with
>>> >> small pistons
>> .
>>> >> Less busy, easier, cal it what you like, the stabilised approach
>>> >> in general aviation has degraded skills.
>>>
>>> > As has nosewheels, GPS, etc. However, I see no movement to increase
>>> > insurance claims just to increase skills. I've done several primary
>>> > students in Mooneys. I certainly don't want them doing yank-n-bank
>>> > approaches on short final.
>>>
>>> Well, do what you like. Also, someone who's done his initial training
>>> in a
>>
>>> Mooney would be missing out on his education as well.
>>> I'm seeing more and more of the products of modern teaching methods
>>> in professional aviation and the results are often not too pretty.
>>> Having sai
>> d
>>> that, I'm not advocating a strictly stick and rudder approach to
>>> education
>> ,
>>> but I'm seeing it excluded more and more these days and I've seen
>>> several accidents occur locally as a direct result.
>>>
>>> Stabilised approaches are here to stay, but they are not safer nor
>>> are the
>> y
>>> superior in any way. That's not to say there isn't a movement agin
>>> 'em, though.
>>>
>>
>> I can see arguments in both directions. While I was a student getting
>> that stabilized approach down really helped the work load in the last
>> few seconds to touch down. I can see that it becomes less important as
>> I find it easier to make adjustments/decisions on late final.
>
> I'm not saying they don't have their place, even in lightplanes, but
> they have no place in primary training. However, that's the way it's
> gone and that's that. Those who choose to go further with their flying
> can opt out of the flying Chevy Caprice thing and actualy learn to
> control their aircraft instead of riding around in it and in fact that
> aspect of flying seems alive and well in some circles. I know of two
> wrecks in my neck of the woods directly attributable to **** poor
> training of exactly that sort, though.
>
>
> Bertie
>

Bull****, there are a lot safer and more effective places to teach a student
to handle and aircraft, without compromising safety in the pattern. God what
are you smoking.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in
:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote in news:c269afe4-4bb2-45e6-
>> :
>>
>>> On Apr 29, 2:34 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>>> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote in
>>>> news:e40960d5-7b86-4d5f-
>>>> :
>>>
>>>> The apporach isn't any safer, it's just easier. There's a
>>>> difference.
>>>
>>> I'm not sure I would say "easier" so much as less busy. The net
>>> result is a pilot ready to land when he gets over the numbers.
>>> Airlines have required this for decades.
>>
>> Airliners are different. Very different. They're not very speed
>> stable and they generally ahve more than one engine! There realy is
>> no comparison and it's this old saw that is usually drug up first
>> when this argument crops up. The other thing with airliners, though
>> not so much these days, is spool up times which is not a problem with
>> small pistons. Less busy, easier, cal it what you like, the
>> stabilised approach in general aviation has degraded skills.
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>>
>> Bertie
>
> Yeah, no **** Buttlip, we need to get rid of those electric starters
> too. If a guy can't hand prop a plane, he shouldn't be allowed to
> leave the pattern.


You allowed to leave rehab yet?


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in
:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote in
>> news:1ffcebed-9f5e-4e37-8f73-
>> :
>>
>>> On Apr 29, 3:00 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>>> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote in
>>>> news:c269afe4-4bb2-45e6-
>>>
>>>> Airliners are different. Very different. They're not very speed
>>>> stable and they generally ahve more than one engine! There realy is
>>>> no comparison and it's this old saw that is usually drug up first
>>>> when this argument crops up. The other thing with airliners, though
>>>> not so much these days, is spool up times which is not a problem
>>>> with small pistons. Less busy, easier, cal it what you like, the
>>>> stabilised approach in general aviation has degraded skills.
>>>
>>> As has nosewheels, GPS, etc. However, I see no movement to increase
>>> insurance claims just to increase skills. I've done several primary
>>> students in Mooneys. I certainly don't want them doing yank-n-bank
>>> approaches on short final.
>>>
>>
>> Well, do what you like. Also, someone who's done his initial training
>> in a Mooney would be missing out on his education as well.
>> I'm seeing more and more of the products of modern teaching methods
>> in professional aviation and the results are often not too pretty.
>> Having said
>> that, I'm not advocating a strictly stick and rudder approach to
>> education,
>> but I'm seeing it excluded more and more these days and I've seen
>> several accidents occur locally as a direct result.
>>
>>
>> Stabilised approaches are here to stay, but they are not safer nor
>> are they
>> superior in any way. That's not to say there isn't a movement agin
>> 'em, though.
>>
>> Bertie
>
> You apparently don't know jack **** about the safety of the traffic
> pattern. What a dinosaur.
>

Yeah, that's why I'm a check airman.



Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in
:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> ...
>> WingFlaps > wrote in
>> news:c49af0dd-deae-4a1f-ad4a-ef4a0dca1a59
@a9g2000prl.googlegroups.com:
>>
>>> On Apr 30, 11:07 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>>> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote in
>>>> news:1ffcebed-9f5e-4e37-8f73-
>>>
>>>> :
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> > On Apr 29, 3:00 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>>> >> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote in
>>>> >> news:c269afe4-4bb2-45e6-
>>>>
>>>> >> Airliners are different. Very different. They're not very speed
>>>> >> stable and they generally ahve more than one engine! There realy
>>>> >> is no comparison and it's this old saw that is usually drug up
>>>> >> first when thi
>>> s
>>>> >> argument crops up. The other thing with airliners, though not so
>>>> >> much these days, is spool up times which is not a problem with
>>>> >> small pistons
>>> .
>>>> >> Less busy, easier, cal it what you like, the stabilised approach
>>>> >> in general aviation has degraded skills.
>>>>
>>>> > As has nosewheels, GPS, etc. However, I see no movement to
>>>> > increase insurance claims just to increase skills. I've done
>>>> > several primary students in Mooneys. I certainly don't want them
>>>> > doing yank-n-bank approaches on short final.
>>>>
>>>> Well, do what you like. Also, someone who's done his initial
>>>> training in a
>>>
>>>> Mooney would be missing out on his education as well.
>>>> I'm seeing more and more of the products of modern teaching methods
>>>> in professional aviation and the results are often not too pretty.
>>>> Having sai
>>> d
>>>> that, I'm not advocating a strictly stick and rudder approach to
>>>> education
>>> ,
>>>> but I'm seeing it excluded more and more these days and I've seen
>>>> several accidents occur locally as a direct result.
>>>>
>>>> Stabilised approaches are here to stay, but they are not safer nor
>>>> are the
>>> y
>>>> superior in any way. That's not to say there isn't a movement agin
>>>> 'em, though.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I can see arguments in both directions. While I was a student
>>> getting that stabilized approach down really helped the work load in
>>> the last few seconds to touch down. I can see that it becomes less
>>> important as I find it easier to make adjustments/decisions on late
>>> final.
>>
>> I'm not saying they don't have their place, even in lightplanes, but
>> they have no place in primary training. However, that's the way it's
>> gone and that's that. Those who choose to go further with their
>> flying can opt out of the flying Chevy Caprice thing and actualy
>> learn to control their aircraft instead of riding around in it and in
>> fact that aspect of flying seems alive and well in some circles. I
>> know of two wrecks in my neck of the woods directly attributable to
>> **** poor training of exactly that sort, though.
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>>
>
> Bull****, there are a lot safer and more effective places to teach a
> student to handle and aircraft, without compromising safety in the
> pattern. God what are you smoking.


You are an idiot.



Bertie

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
.. .
> "Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in
> :
>
>>
>> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote in
>>> news:1ffcebed-9f5e-4e37-8f73-
>>> :
>>>
>>>> On Apr 29, 3:00 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>>>> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote in
>>>>> news:c269afe4-4bb2-45e6-
>>>>
>>>>> Airliners are different. Very different. They're not very speed
>>>>> stable and they generally ahve more than one engine! There realy is
>>>>> no comparison and it's this old saw that is usually drug up first
>>>>> when this argument crops up. The other thing with airliners, though
>>>>> not so much these days, is spool up times which is not a problem
>>>>> with small pistons. Less busy, easier, cal it what you like, the
>>>>> stabilised approach in general aviation has degraded skills.
>>>>
>>>> As has nosewheels, GPS, etc. However, I see no movement to increase
>>>> insurance claims just to increase skills. I've done several primary
>>>> students in Mooneys. I certainly don't want them doing yank-n-bank
>>>> approaches on short final.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Well, do what you like. Also, someone who's done his initial training
>>> in a Mooney would be missing out on his education as well.
>>> I'm seeing more and more of the products of modern teaching methods
>>> in professional aviation and the results are often not too pretty.
>>> Having said
>>> that, I'm not advocating a strictly stick and rudder approach to
>>> education,
>>> but I'm seeing it excluded more and more these days and I've seen
>>> several accidents occur locally as a direct result.
>>>
>>>
>>> Stabilised approaches are here to stay, but they are not safer nor
>>> are they
>>> superior in any way. That's not to say there isn't a movement agin
>>> 'em, though.
>>>
>>> Bertie
>>
>> You apparently don't know jack **** about the safety of the traffic
>> pattern. What a dinosaur.
>>
>
> Yeah, that's why I'm a check airman.
>
>
>
> Bertie

Sure you are wannabe. Is that what all the co-pilots and flight engineers
in the white uniforms tell you?

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in
:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> .. .
>> "Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in
>> :
>>
>>>
>>> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote in
>>>> news:1ffcebed-9f5e-4e37-8f73-
>>>> :
>>>>
>>>>> On Apr 29, 3:00 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>>>>> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote in
>>>>>> news:c269afe4-4bb2-45e6-
>>>>>
>>>>>> Airliners are different. Very different. They're not very speed
>>>>>> stable and they generally ahve more than one engine! There realy
>>>>>> is no comparison and it's this old saw that is usually drug up
>>>>>> first when this argument crops up. The other thing with
>>>>>> airliners, though not so much these days, is spool up times which
>>>>>> is not a problem with small pistons. Less busy, easier, cal it
>>>>>> what you like, the stabilised approach in general aviation has
>>>>>> degraded skills.
>>>>>
>>>>> As has nosewheels, GPS, etc. However, I see no movement to
>>>>> increase insurance claims just to increase skills. I've done
>>>>> several primary students in Mooneys. I certainly don't want them
>>>>> doing yank-n-bank approaches on short final.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Well, do what you like. Also, someone who's done his initial
>>>> training in a Mooney would be missing out on his education as well.
>>>> I'm seeing more and more of the products of modern teaching methods
>>>> in professional aviation and the results are often not too pretty.
>>>> Having said
>>>> that, I'm not advocating a strictly stick and rudder approach to
>>>> education,
>>>> but I'm seeing it excluded more and more these days and I've seen
>>>> several accidents occur locally as a direct result.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Stabilised approaches are here to stay, but they are not safer nor
>>>> are they
>>>> superior in any way. That's not to say there isn't a movement agin
>>>> 'em, though.
>>>>
>>>> Bertie
>>>
>>> You apparently don't know jack **** about the safety of the traffic
>>> pattern. What a dinosaur.
>>>
>>
>> Yeah, that's why I'm a check airman.
>>
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>
> Sure you are wannabe. Is that what all the co-pilots and flight
> engineers in the white uniforms tell you?


Nope..


Bertie

[gatt[_3_]]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

>> Yeah, no **** Buttlip, we need to get rid of those electric starters
>> too. If a guy can't hand prop a plane, he shouldn't be allowed to
>> leave the pattern.

It's trying to hand-prop the turbines that get ya.


-c

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

gatt > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>
>>> Yeah, no **** Buttlip, we need to get rid of those electric starters
>>> too. If a guy can't hand prop a plane, he shouldn't be allowed to
>>> leave the pattern.
>
> It's trying to hand-prop the turbines that get ya.
>
>
> -c
>

seen a jet blow started! They parked another jet in fornt of it and
wound it up with the exhaust of the airplane in front.



Bertie

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
...
> gatt > wrote in
> :
>
>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>
>>>> Yeah, no **** Buttlip, we need to get rid of those electric starters
>>>> too. If a guy can't hand prop a plane, he shouldn't be allowed to
>>>> leave the pattern.
>>
>> It's trying to hand-prop the turbines that get ya.
>>
>>
>> -c
>>
>
> seen a jet blow started! They parked another jet in fornt of it and
> wound it up with the exhaust of the airplane in front.
>
>
>
> Bertie

No, be we heard you could suck start one!

[Gig 601Xl Builder]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

> seen a jet blow started!

No but I knew a girl once that could probably suck start a 182.

[Gig 601Xl Builder]

Maxwell wrote:

> No, be we heard you could suck start one!
>
>

This crap has got to stop. You screwed up my perfectly good joke.

Both of you quit it!

[gatt[_3_]]

Gig 601Xl Builder wrote:
> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>
>> seen a jet blow started!
>
> No but I knew a girl once that could probably suck start a 182.

Excellent. I wonder what could she do with a twin.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in news:c6qSj.59207$QC.36078
@newsfe20.lga:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> ...
>> gatt > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Yeah, no **** Buttlip, we need to get rid of those electric
starters
>>>>> too. If a guy can't hand prop a plane, he shouldn't be allowed to
>>>>> leave the pattern.
>>>
>>> It's trying to hand-prop the turbines that get ya.
>>>
>>>
>>> -c
>>>
>>
>> seen a jet blow started! They parked another jet in fornt of it and
>> wound it up with the exhaust of the airplane in front.
>>
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>
> No, be we heard you could suck start one!
>

Well, you could try. you certainly suck.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Gig 601Xl Builder > wrote in
m:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>
>> seen a jet blow started!
>
> No but I knew a girl once that could probably suck start a 182.
>

Groan. It was a 707 wiht no APU. The GPU at this fairly rurla field was
defunct and they pulled a 737 in front of it and it did work, though I
wouldn't like to be the owner of that engine.


Bertie

[WingFlaps]

On May 2, 10:54*am, gatt > wrote:
> Gig 601Xl Builder wrote:
> > Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>
> >> seen a jet blow started!
>
> > No but I knew a girl once that could probably suck start a 182.
>
> Excellent. *I wonder what could she do with a twin.

Menage a trois?

Cheers

[Dave[_19_]]

Nancy?

Dave


On Thu, 01 May 2008 16:35:29 -0500, Gig 601Xl Builder
> wrote:

>Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>
>> seen a jet blow started!
>
>No but I knew a girl once that could probably suck start a 182.

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
...
> Gig 601Xl Builder > wrote in
> m:
>
>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>
>>> seen a jet blow started!
>>
>> No but I knew a girl once that could probably suck start a 182.
>>
>
> Groan. It was a 707 wiht no APU. The GPU at this fairly rurla field was
> defunct and they pulled a 737 in front of it and it did work, though I
> wouldn't like to be the owner of that engine.
>
>
> Bertie

Can't you follow a thread. No one give a **** Bertie Butlipp.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in news:sxsSj.111775$Ft5.20420
@newsfe15.lga:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Gig 601Xl Builder > wrote in
>> m:
>>
>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>
>>>> seen a jet blow started!
>>>
>>> No but I knew a girl once that could probably suck start a 182.
>>>
>>
>> Groan. It was a 707 wiht no APU. The GPU at this fairly rurla field was
>> defunct and they pulled a 737 in front of it and it did work, though I
>> wouldn't like to be the owner of that engine.
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>
> Can't you follow a thread. No one give a **** Bertie Butlipp.
>
>
>

No one gives you what?



Bertie

[Robert M. Gary]

On Apr 30, 5:50*pm, "Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote:
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in .com...

> You apparently don't know jack **** about the safety of the traffic pattern.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in
:

> On Apr 30, 5:50*pm, "Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote:
>> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in
>> messagenews:fv89o2$imp$1@blackhe
> licopter.databasix.com...
>
>> You apparently don't know jack **** about the safety of the traffic
>> patter
> n.
>> What a dinosaur.
>
> I don't know of a single DE that will pass a student who does not use
> a stable approach. Yank-n-bank approaches are the quickest way for
> your student to fail his checkride. I'm sure the FSDO talks about that
> at their DE meetings.


Who's talking about yank and bank?

Oh, wait, it's you.


Bertie

[Robert M. Gary]

On May 2, 1:51*pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote :

> Who's talking about yank and bank?
>
> Oh, wait, it's you.

When I speak with the examiners I use I hear all the time that they
want stabliized approaches. They don't want much maneuvering below a
certain altitude (usually 500 feet). When I learned in the Aeronca
landing meant power to idle abeam, full slip around the turn to final
and be on the ground within seconds. That is yank-n-bank and will
never pass today.

-Robert

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in
:

> On May 2, 1:51*pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote
>> innews:2bf535e9-1694-402e-9768-7
> :
>
>> Who's talking about yank and bank?
>>
>> Oh, wait, it's you.
>
> When I speak with the examiners I use I hear all the time that they
> want stabliized approaches. They don't want much maneuvering below a
> certain altitude (usually 500 feet). When I learned in the Aeronca
> landing meant power to idle abeam, full slip around the turn to final
> and be on the ground within seconds. That is yank-n-bank and will
> never pass today.

So, that's your definition of a non-stabilised approach?

Good grief.

I know of at least one examiner who would certainly pass that,
especially if it were done in a champ, but that isn't what I was talking
about in any case.





Bertie.

[Robert M. Gary]

On May 1, 1:37*pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> gatt > wrote :

> seen a jet blow started! They parked another jet in fornt of it and
> wound it up with the exhaust of the airplane in front.
>
> Bertie

No, you read that in the book "Right Stuff".

-Robert

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in
:

> On May 1, 1:37*pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> gatt > wrote
>> innews:166dndmr7PzkuIfVnZ2dnUVZ_g2dn
> :
>
>> seen a jet blow started! They parked another jet in fornt of it and
>> wound it up with the exhaust of the airplane in front.
>>
>> Bertie
>
> No, you read that in the book "Right Stuff".
>
> -Robert
>


No, I didn't read the right stuff. I saw a 737 park in front of a 707
and do just that in Maidugari.



Bertie

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
...
> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote in
> :
>
>> On May 2, 1:51 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote
>>> innews:2bf535e9-1694-402e-9768-7
>> :
>>
>>> Who's talking about yank and bank?
>>>
>>> Oh, wait, it's you.
>>
>> When I speak with the examiners I use I hear all the time that they
>> want stabliized approaches. They don't want much maneuvering below a
>> certain altitude (usually 500 feet). When I learned in the Aeronca
>> landing meant power to idle abeam, full slip around the turn to final
>> and be on the ground within seconds. That is yank-n-bank and will
>> never pass today.
>
> So, that's your definition of a non-stabilised approach?
>
> Good grief.
>
> I know of at least one examiner who would certainly pass that,
> especially if it were done in a champ, but that isn't what I was talking
> about in any case.
>
>
>
>
>
> Bertie.
>

You're a liar.

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
...
> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote in
> :
>
>> On May 1, 1:37 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>> gatt > wrote
>>> innews:166dndmr7PzkuIfVnZ2dnUVZ_g2dn
>> :
>>
>>> seen a jet blow started! They parked another jet in fornt of it and
>>> wound it up with the exhaust of the airplane in front.
>>>
>>> Bertie
>>
>> No, you read that in the book "Right Stuff".
>>
>> -Robert
>>
>
>
> No, I didn't read the right stuff. I saw a 737 park in front of a 707
> and do just that in Maidugari.
>
>
>
> Bertie

Still lying.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in news:rLZSj.69482$y05.27329
@newsfe22.lga:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> On May 2, 1:51 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>>> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote
>>>> innews:2bf535e9-1694-402e-9768-7
>>> :
>>>
>>>> Who's talking about yank and bank?
>>>>
>>>> Oh, wait, it's you.
>>>
>>> When I speak with the examiners I use I hear all the time that they
>>> want stabliized approaches. They don't want much maneuvering below a
>>> certain altitude (usually 500 feet). When I learned in the Aeronca
>>> landing meant power to idle abeam, full slip around the turn to
final
>>> and be on the ground within seconds. That is yank-n-bank and will
>>> never pass today.
>>
>> So, that's your definition of a non-stabilised approach?
>>
>> Good grief.
>>
>> I know of at least one examiner who would certainly pass that,
>> especially if it were done in a champ, but that isn't what I was
talking
>> about in any case.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Bertie.
>>
>
> You're a liar.
>
>
>

No i'm not.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in news:ILZSj.69483$y05.59198
@newsfe22.lga:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote in
>> news:f9dce011-543b-4876-b292-36e27975f6f1
@u12g2000prd.googlegroups.com:
>>
>>> On May 1, 1:37 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>>> gatt > wrote
>>>> innews:166dndmr7PzkuIfVnZ2dnUVZ_g2dn
>>> :
>>>
>>>> seen a jet blow started! They parked another jet in fornt of it and
>>>> wound it up with the exhaust of the airplane in front.
>>>>
>>>> Bertie
>>>
>>> No, you read that in the book "Right Stuff".
>>>
>>> -Robert
>>>
>>
>>
>> No, I didn't read the right stuff. I saw a 737 park in front of a 707
>> and do just that in Maidugari.
>>
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>
> Still lying.
>
>
>

Snort!

You wish wannabe boi.

Bertie

[John M. Martin Jr.]

On Thu, 01 May 2008 15:54:34 -0700, gatt wrote:

> Gig 601Xl Builder wrote:
>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>
>>> seen a jet blow started!
>>
>> No but I knew a girl once that could probably suck start a 182.
>
> Excellent. I wonder what could she do with a twin.

Cum Guzzling Sperm Burping Bitch (n)

The once in a lifetime act of blowing a hot steamy load down the
back of a girl's throat and then proceeding to give her a large
cold bottle of your favorite carbonated drink, making her guzzle
it down. Then, shake her head vigorously back and forth to create
the Cum Guzzling, Sperm Burping effect. A great way to impress
your friends.
--
I bought a $450,000 house for $720,000. Bright, huh?

[Orval Fairbairn[_2_]]

In article
>,
"Robert M. Gary" > wrote:

> On May 2, 1:51*pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> > "Robert M. Gary" > wrote
> > :
>
> > Who's talking about yank and bank?
> >
> > Oh, wait, it's you.
>
> When I speak with the examiners I use I hear all the time that they
> want stabliized approaches. They don't want much maneuvering below a
> certain altitude (usually 500 feet). When I learned in the Aeronca
> landing meant power to idle abeam, full slip around the turn to final
> and be on the ground within seconds. That is yank-n-bank and will
> never pass today.
>
> -Robert

You are not supposed to slip in the turns; slips are reserved for final
approach adjustments to make the desired spot.

The schools don't teach airmanship -- they teach "airplane driving."

--
Remove _'s from email address to talk to me.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Orval Fairbairn > wrote in
:

> In article
> >,
> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote:
>
>> On May 2, 1:51*pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> > "Robert M. Gary" > wrote
>> > innews:2bf535e9-1694-402e-9768-

>> > .com:
>>
>> > Who's talking about yank and bank?
>> >
>> > Oh, wait, it's you.
>>
>> When I speak with the examiners I use I hear all the time that they
>> want stabliized approaches. They don't want much maneuvering below a
>> certain altitude (usually 500 feet). When I learned in the Aeronca
>> landing meant power to idle abeam, full slip around the turn to final
>> and be on the ground within seconds. That is yank-n-bank and will
>> never pass today.
>>
>> -Robert
>
> You are not supposed to slip in the turns; slips are reserved for
> final approach adjustments to make the desired spot.
>
> The schools don't teach airmanship -- they teach "airplane driving."
>

Exactly. Stabilised approaches have their place, but tgeaching them to
the exclusion of all else is robbing the student.




Bertie

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
...
>
> Exactly. Stabilised approaches have their place, but tgeaching them to
> the exclusion of all else is robbing the student.
>

Robbing the student of what?

[Orval Fairbairn[_2_]]

In article >,
"Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote:

> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Exactly. Stabilised approaches have their place, but tgeaching them to
> > the exclusion of all else is robbing the student.
> >
>
> Robbing the student of what?

Knowledge. How many "pilots" being "trained" in those pilot mills can
handle even a simple power-off landing?

--
Remove _'s from email address to talk to me.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in news:rUhTj.145$tM1.85
@newsfe20.lga:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> Exactly. Stabilised approaches have their place, but tgeaching them to
>> the exclusion of all else is robbing the student.
>>
>
> Robbing the student of what?
>
>
>

Whoosh.

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Orval Fairbairn > wrote in
:

> In article >,
> "Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote:
>
>> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> > Exactly. Stabilised approaches have their place, but tgeaching them
to
>> > the exclusion of all else is robbing the student.
>> >
>>
>> Robbing the student of what?
>
> Knowledge. How many "pilots" being "trained" in those pilot mills can
> handle even a simple power-off landing?
>

Not many. It's been relegated to the area an extreme emergency wheras it
should be second nature.



Bertie

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Orval Fairbairn" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote:
>
>> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> > Exactly. Stabilised approaches have their place, but tgeaching them to
>> > the exclusion of all else is robbing the student.
>> >
>>
>> Robbing the student of what?
>
> Knowledge. How many "pilots" being "trained" in those pilot mills can
> handle even a simple power-off landing?
>

Ok, but how does the stabilized approached rob the student of that
knowledge?

Accepted traffic pattern and approach procedures do nothing to limit an
instructors ability to teach aircraft handling or dead stick landings.

If they are not teaching such, they themselves are robbing the student. It
has nothing to do with current landing procedures.

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
...
> "Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in news:rUhTj.145$tM1.85
> @newsfe20.lga:
>
>>
>> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> Exactly. Stabilised approaches have their place, but tgeaching them to
>>> the exclusion of all else is robbing the student.
>>>
>>
>> Robbing the student of what?
>>
>>
>>
>
> Whoosh.
>
> Bertie

Wear ear muffs on windy days, and that won't happen.

Squirt, squirt.

[Orval Fairbairn[_2_]]

In article >,
"Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote:

> "Orval Fairbairn" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >,
> > "Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote:
> >
> >> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> >
> >> > Exactly. Stabilised approaches have their place, but tgeaching them to
> >> > the exclusion of all else is robbing the student.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Robbing the student of what?
> >
> > Knowledge. How many "pilots" being "trained" in those pilot mills can
> > handle even a simple power-off landing?
> >
>
> Ok, but how does the stabilized approached rob the student of that
> knowledge?
>
> Accepted traffic pattern and approach procedures do nothing to limit an
> instructors ability to teach aircraft handling or dead stick landings.
>
> If they are not teaching such, they themselves are robbing the student. It
> has nothing to do with current landing procedures.
>

If a student is taught power-on approaches all the time, he won't know
how to approach an airport and do a power-off approach. I agree that
they are being robbed. In many cases, the instructors themselves are
simple regurgitating the same bad training that they themselves received.

--
Remove _'s from email address to talk to me.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in
:

>
> "Orval Fairbairn" > wrote in message
> news:o_r_fairbairn-738598.09022604052008@70-3-168-
216.area5.spcsdns.net
> ...
>> In article >,
>> "Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote:
>>
>>> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>> >
>>> > Exactly. Stabilised approaches have their place, but tgeaching
>>> > them to the exclusion of all else is robbing the student.
>>> >
>>>
>>> Robbing the student of what?
>>
>> Knowledge. How many "pilots" being "trained" in those pilot mills can
>> handle even a simple power-off landing?
>>
>
> Ok, but how does the stabilized approached rob the student of that
> knowledge?
>
> Accepted traffic pattern and approach procedures do nothing to limit
> an instructors ability to teach aircraft handling or dead stick
> landings.
>
> If they are not teaching such, they themselves are robbing the
> student. It has nothing to do with current landing procedures.


Yes, it does.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in news:wblTj.690$hJ1.642
@newsfe17.lga:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in news:rUhTj.145$tM1.85
>> @newsfe20.lga:
>>
>>>
>>> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> Exactly. Stabilised approaches have their place, but tgeaching them
to
>>>> the exclusion of all else is robbing the student.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Robbing the student of what?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Whoosh.
>>
>> Bertie
>
> Wear ear muffs on windy days, and that won't happen.
>
> Squirt, squirt.
>


Whoosh. ~IKYABWAI boi.



Bertie

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Orval Fairbairn" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote:
>
>>
>> Ok, but how does the stabilized approached rob the student of that
>> knowledge?
>>
>> Accepted traffic pattern and approach procedures do nothing to limit an
>> instructors ability to teach aircraft handling or dead stick landings.
>>
>> If they are not teaching such, they themselves are robbing the student.
>> It
>> has nothing to do with current landing procedures.
>>
>
> If a student is taught power-on approaches all the time, he won't know
> how to approach an airport and do a power-off approach. I agree that
> they are being robbed. In many cases, the instructors themselves are
> simple regurgitating the same bad training that they themselves received.
>

Ok, but how does the stabilized approached rob the student of that
knowledge?

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in
:

>
> "Orval Fairbairn" > wrote in message
> news:o_r_fairbairn-39EFE0.13522504052008@70-3-168-
216.area5.spcsdns.net
> ...
>> In article >,
>> "Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Ok, but how does the stabilized approached rob the student of that
>>> knowledge?
>>>
>>> Accepted traffic pattern and approach procedures do nothing to limit
>>> an instructors ability to teach aircraft handling or dead stick
>>> landings.
>>>
>>> If they are not teaching such, they themselves are robbing the
>>> student. It
>>> has nothing to do with current landing procedures.
>>>
>>
>> If a student is taught power-on approaches all the time, he won't
>> know how to approach an airport and do a power-off approach. I agree
>> that they are being robbed. In many cases, the instructors themselves
>> are simple regurgitating the same bad training that they themselves
>> received.
>>
>
> Ok, but how does the stabilized approached rob the student of that
> knowledge?

Whoosh.


Bertie

[Jay Honeck[_2_]]

> This reminds me of the 'engine failure exercise' claims made by some
> in here a while back..

If I'm remembering that right, that thread was about engine management, not
piloting.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Michael Ash]

In rec.aviation.student Jay Honeck > wrote:
>> This reminds me of the 'engine failure exercise' claims made by some
>> in here a while back..
>
> If I'm remembering that right, that thread was about engine management, not
> piloting.

While the aircraft I fly don't even have engines, I think you have to have
a pretty perverse definition of piloting if engine management doesn't
count as part of it.

--
Michael Ash
Rogue Amoeba Software

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in
news:oQhUj.153573$yE1.116054@attbi_s21:

>> This reminds me of the 'engine failure exercise' claims made by some
>> in here a while back..
>
> If I'm remembering that right, that thread was about engine
> management, not piloting.

None of your posts are about piloting.



Bertie