Landing without flaps

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 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

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

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 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

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.

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?

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