Landing without flaps

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

How does a washer that gets sucked throw an engine?

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

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

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

Dan

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

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

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

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

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

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

On Mar 6, 2:20 am, WingFlaps wrote:

On Mar 6, 7:20 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" wrote:

On Mar 5, 6:57 pm, Steve Hix wrote:

In article
,

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

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

Dogs?

Instead of using FOD-detection radar, I suppose.

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

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

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

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

Lassie would be proud...snifles.
Ken

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

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

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

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

On Mar 7, 9:23*am, "Ken S. Tucker" wrote:
On Mar 6, 11:32 am, WingFlaps wrote:





On Mar 7, 8:02 am, "Ken S. Tucker" wrote:
On Mar 6, 2:20 am, WingFlaps wrote:

On Mar 6, 7:20 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" wrote:

On Mar 5, 6:57 pm, Steve Hix wrote:

In article
,

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

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

Dogs?

Instead of using FOD-detection radar, I suppose.

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

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

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

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

Lassie would be proud...snifles.
Ken

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

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

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

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


You train Gerbils?

Cheers

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

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

Cheers

On Mar 6, 12:27 pm, WingFlaps wrote:
On Mar 7, 9:23 am, "Ken S. Tucker" wrote:



On Mar 6, 11:32 am, WingFlaps wrote:

On Mar 7, 8:02 am, "Ken S. Tucker" wrote:
On Mar 6, 2:20 am, WingFlaps wrote:

On Mar 6, 7:20 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" wrote:

On Mar 5, 6:57 pm, Steve Hix wrote:

In article
,

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

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

Dogs?

Instead of using FOD-detection radar, I suppose.

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

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

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

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

Lassie would be proud...snifles.
Ken

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

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

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

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

You train Gerbils?

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

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

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



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

Cheers

On Mar 7, 9:23*am, "Ken S. Tucker" wrote:
On Mar 6, 11:32 am, WingFlaps wrote:





On Mar 7, 8:02 am, "Ken S. Tucker" wrote:
On Mar 6, 2:20 am, WingFlaps wrote:

On Mar 6, 7:20 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" wrote:

On Mar 5, 6:57 pm, Steve Hix wrote:

In article
,

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

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

Dogs?

Instead of using FOD-detection radar, I suppose.

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

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

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

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

Lassie would be proud...snifles.
Ken

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

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

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

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

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

On Mar 6, 1:37 pm, WingFlaps wrote:

How the hell did you pass you pass your flight tests losing 200' in
stall recovery?

I'm taking into account human Factors.

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

Cheers

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

On Mar 6, 1:29 pm, WingFlaps wrote:
On Mar 7, 8:51 am, buttman wrote:
I don't believe ANYTHING can be fairly classified as

objectively unsafe except for one thing and one thing only;
unpreparedness.

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

Cheers

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