Landing without flaps

On Mar 6, 3:13 pm, "Owner" wrote:
"buttman" wrote in message

...



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.

On Mar 6, 1:56 pm, buttman wrote:
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. 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.

What's the bottom line?
Maybe real or induced, we're rotating to lift off and
my engine quits. That's fair, a number of accidents
have been reported during the ascent phase.
I think you're right that an aware pilot should have a
safety net pre-thought-out going forward.
Ken

buttman wrote:
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. 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.

How an idiot like you EVER made it through the system as a CFI is beyond
belief to me. Listen up once and for all before you kill someone.
NO competent instructor EVER....and I repeat it once more so even a
moron like you can understand it...EVER, starves an engine on takeoff
with a student. I don't give a GD if you use the mixture or the fuel
valve, either way you're deliberately causing a potentially dangerous
situation.
Are you getting it yet? Fuel Valve or Mixture, you are STARVING the
engine. It's the same result safety wise. YOU JUST DON'T DO THIS WITH A
STUDENT
PILOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


--
Dudley Henriques

buttman wrote:
On Mar 6, 3:13 pm, "Owner" wrote:
"buttman" wrote in message

...



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

"buttman" wrote in message
...
On Mar 6, 3:13 pm, "Owner" wrote:
"buttman" wrote in message

...



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.

It was most definitely *less* than a year ago--not that it really matters as
you are clearly a hazard to yourself and everyone nearby!

Peter

BTW I recognize that name from somewhere else. :-))


I had to use Google... Too funny! :-))))

Peter

On Mar 7, 11:02*am, Gig 601XL Builder
wrote:
WingFlaps wrote:

You train Gerbils?

Cheers

No but I'm willing to bet he does other things with them.

Is that before or after he's trained them?

Cheers

On Mar 7, 10:08*am, Dudley Henriques wrote:
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

I can see the headlines now........

"Three hundred and fifty killed in crash of DC10 on take off at Kennedy.
Investigators are puzzled by an initial report of strange evidence of
small dogs found to have been sucked through the engines."


Well we can fix that. We'll train them to rrun away from jet engines
as well. If just one small dog once in a while is a bit slow we'll
send him to the meat pie faactory early.

Cheers

WingFlaps wrote:
On Mar 7, 10:08 am, Dudley Henriques wrote:
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
I can see the headlines now........

"Three hundred and fifty killed in crash of DC10 on take off at Kennedy.
Investigators are puzzled by an initial report of strange evidence of
small dogs found to have been sucked through the engines."


Well we can fix that. We'll train them to rrun away from jet engines
as well. If just one small dog once in a while is a bit slow we'll
send him to the meat pie faactory early.

Cheers

Make sure the dogs aren't too small. They're using Perigrin Falcons now
for bird control. The falcons LOVE fresh meat!! :-))

--
Dudley Henriques

On Mar 6, 7:54 pm, Dudley Henriques wrote:

Make sure the dogs aren't too small. They're using Perigrin Falcons now
for bird control. The falcons LOVE fresh meat!! :-))

--
Dudley Henriques

OK, story time...

Way back (1981) when I was an NCO working on various items used as
props in Dr Strangelove, we had guys riding mowers all over the
storage igloos cutting the grass. The problem was, all maintenance had
to cease since while they had clearances, they weren't cleared high
enough to see inside while we did our thing.

The Air Force had a suggestion program (you could earn up to $200
bucks if they accepted the suggestion and implemented it).

My suggestion was that the Air Force replace the mower guys with
sheep.

The benefits would be that the sheep would provide wool for us to use
to get through those cold Northern Tier winters, the sheep would not
require security clearances, and the sheep would be non-polluting.

I expected it to go as far as the Squadron CO, get a talking-to, and
that would be it.

Three months later a letter arrived from the Department of the Air
Force, The Pentagon.

After researching the suggestion, they determined that the only reason
they could not implement the sheep-as-mowers idea was that if the
storage areas were attacked, the attackers could hide behind the
sheep.

Otherwise, they determined it was a "plausible concept, simply
infeasible given the security concerns."

After the mirth subsided, I read through the levels involved in making
this determination. We figured that piece of paper cost the Air Force
about 1/2 a million bucks in manpower.

It was a lesson on how far a stupid idea will go trhough a
bureacracy..



Dan.