Landing without flaps

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

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

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.

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

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

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?

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?

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

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

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".