Landing without flaps

On Mar 5, 2:49 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" wrote:
Weren't you the guy that was also suggesting that the runway be subject
to a walk down before every take-off?

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

Ken

Dogs?

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

Ken

Dogs?



Ken is trying to find work for his girl friend.

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

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

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

Dan

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



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

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

It's a gift.

Bertie

In article
,
Dan wrote:

On Mar 5, 2:49 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" wrote:
Weren't you the guy that was also suggesting that the runway be subject
to a walk down before every take-off?

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

Ken

Dogs?

Instead of using FOD-detection radar, I suppose.

On Mar 6, 2:45*pm, Bertie the Bunyip
wrote:
On 5 Mar, 01:14, buttman wrote:

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

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

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

It's a gift.


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

Cheers

On 6 Mar, 02:58, WingFlaps wrote:
On Mar 6, 2:45*pm, Bertie the Bunyip
wrote:

On 5 Mar, 01:14, buttman wrote:

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

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

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

It's a gift.

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

Cheers

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


Bertie

On 5 Mar, 19:57, "Ken S. Tucker" wrote:
On Mar 5, 11:34 am, george wrote:





On Mar 5, 5:07 pm, Dudley Henriques wrote:

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

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

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

He keeps asking me to specifically state why I have issues with him.
This single item has been the mainstay of my problem with him. No
instructor worth the rating would yank a mixture on a student on takeoff.
This "procedure" is so antithesis to competent flight instruction that
it defies description.
If this guy does things like this to his students, I am one instructor
who doesn't agree with the way he "teaches".

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

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

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


Bertie

On 5 Mar, 19:49, "Ken S. Tucker" wrote:
On Mar 5, 6:17 am, Gig 601XL Builder
wrote:





Ken S. Tucker wrote:
On Mar 4, 7:35 pm, george wrote:
On Mar 5, 4:06 pm, Dudley Henriques wrote:

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

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

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

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

Weren't you the guy that was also suggesting that the runway be subject
to a walk down before every take-off?

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

What, you got sum ol hound you tryin ta sell?

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

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

Boggle


Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
On 5 Mar, 19:57, "Ken S. Tucker" wrote:
On Mar 5, 11:34 am, george wrote:





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

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

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