question on student taxi practice

no!
"Mark" wrote in message
...
| Has anybody ever heard of an instructor turning a
pre-solo student loose
| in
| an airplane alone for taxi practice around an airport
without supervision
| ?
| It was basically "go taxi the airplane around the
airport and taxiways but
| don't go on the runway and don't take off, I'll come
back to check on you
| in
| 30 minutes" Is this a normal thing ?
|
| It wasn't me, and I don't care what the FAA thinks. I'll
rephrase my
| question. Is it a usual and accepted practice for a CFI
to let a 2 hour
| time, pre solo student taxi around unsupervised solo ?
|
|

Mark wrote:
It wasn't me, and I don't care what the FAA thinks. I'll rephrase my
question. Is it a usual and accepted practice for a CFI to let a 2 hour
time, pre solo student taxi around unsupervised solo ?

No, it is not usual and accepted practice.

USAF and probably WWII AAC let Mechanics taxi aircraft after a short
check out in taxing. These were multi million dollar aircraft.

Big John
`````````````````````````````````````````````````` ````````

On Thu, 06 Apr 2006 18:11:37 GMT, ktbr wrote:

Mark wrote:
It wasn't me, and I don't care what the FAA thinks. I'll rephrase my
question. Is it a usual and accepted practice for a CFI to let a 2 hour
time, pre solo student taxi around unsupervised solo ?

No, it is not usual and accepted practice.

Yes! Usually for the purpose of getting fuel or bringing the plane out
to the FBO.

-Robert, CFI

It wasn't me, and I don't care what the FAA thinks. I'll rephrase my
question. Is it a usual and accepted practice for a CFI to let a 2 hour
time, pre solo student taxi around unsupervised solo ?

I can find no point on the instruction curve where this would be either
necessary or advisable. Certainly I have never done this, nor would I allow
any instructor working for me to allow it. To cut a fine line on the
regulations to justify this is in my opinion anyway neglecting proper
instructional technique and procedures.
No instructor in my opinion, worth the title, should allow a student to
accept the FAA definition for "Pilot In Command" as the end of the line for
that definition.
Students should be taught from day one that a pilot becomes "pilot in
command" IN THE REAL WORLD from the INSTANT that pilot becomes involved as
the potential principle operator involving the movement of an airplane from
point A to point B, whether that be on the ground or otherwise.
Instructors should in my opinion make the transition of this responsibility
for the aircraft to the student at the solo point. The reason for this is
that the IMPORTANCE of the changeover in responsibility for the safety of
the aircraft should be clearly defined and understood by the student! This
transition includes the TOTAL responsibility for the aircraft including it's
ground operation.
What I'm talking about here goes beyond the FAA regulations for PIC
definition. It goes to the very heart of proper flight instruction.
To send a 2 hour student out to move an airplane from point A to point B
alone is in my opinion not responsible behavior on the part of the CFI
involved.
Dudley Henriques


"Mark" wrote in message
...
Has anybody ever heard of an instructor turning a pre-solo student loose
in
an airplane alone for taxi practice around an airport without supervision
?
It was basically "go taxi the airplane around the airport and taxiways
but
don't go on the runway and don't take off, I'll come back to check on you
in
30 minutes" Is this a normal thing ?

It wasn't me, and I don't care what the FAA thinks. I'll rephrase my
question. Is it a usual and accepted practice for a CFI to let a 2 hour
time, pre solo student taxi around unsupervised solo ?

Along these lines, of responsible actions, when I was
learning to fly, the FBO hired a farm boy with lots of
trailer and tractor experience as a lineboy. After an hour
of training they sent him to put the Illinois governor's
King Air 90 in the hanger by himself. He did a good job
except for the bi-fold door which stalled half way up. He
did put the fuselage in the hanger but removed the entire
vertical stabilizer and rudder.


--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

"Dudley Henriques" wrote in
message
ink.net...
|I can find no point on the instruction curve where this
would be either
| necessary or advisable. Certainly I have never done this,
nor would I allow
| any instructor working for me to allow it. To cut a fine
line on the
| regulations to justify this is in my opinion anyway
neglecting proper
| instructional technique and procedures.
| No instructor in my opinion, worth the title, should allow
a student to
| accept the FAA definition for "Pilot In Command" as the
end of the line for
| that definition.
| Students should be taught from day one that a pilot
becomes "pilot in
| command" IN THE REAL WORLD from the INSTANT that pilot
becomes involved as
| the potential principle operator involving the movement of
an airplane from
| point A to point B, whether that be on the ground or
otherwise.
| Instructors should in my opinion make the transition of
this responsibility
| for the aircraft to the student at the solo point. The
reason for this is
| that the IMPORTANCE of the changeover in responsibility
for the safety of
| the aircraft should be clearly defined and understood by
the student! This
| transition includes the TOTAL responsibility for the
aircraft including it's
| ground operation.
| What I'm talking about here goes beyond the FAA
regulations for PIC
| definition. It goes to the very heart of proper flight
instruction.
| To send a 2 hour student out to move an airplane from
point A to point B
| alone is in my opinion not responsible behavior on the
part of the CFI
| involved.
| Dudley Henriques
|
|
| "Mark" wrote in message
| ...
| Has anybody ever heard of an instructor turning a
pre-solo student loose
| in
| an airplane alone for taxi practice around an airport
without supervision
| ?
| It was basically "go taxi the airplane around the
airport and taxiways
| but
| don't go on the runway and don't take off, I'll come
back to check on you
| in
| 30 minutes" Is this a normal thing ?
|
| It wasn't me, and I don't care what the FAA thinks.
I'll rephrase my
| question. Is it a usual and accepted practice for a CFI
to let a 2 hour
| time, pre solo student taxi around unsupervised solo ?
|
|
|
|

"Jim Macklin" wrote in message
news:PtlZf.9845$t22.1756@dukeread08...
Along these lines, of responsible actions, when I was
learning to fly, the FBO hired a farm boy with lots of
trailer and tractor experience as a lineboy. After an hour
of training they sent him to put the Illinois governor's
King Air 90 in the hanger by himself. He did a good job
except for the bi-fold door which stalled half way up. He
did put the fuselage in the hanger but removed the entire
vertical stabilizer and rudder.

Ouch!! I see a mighty tax increase in there somewhere I think :-)

My issue with all this is of course the responsibility transition issue
between the instructor and a student as that addresses the pilot in command
issue. I've always stressed this to instructors whenever I could. It
pertains to the use of the FAR terms definition for "pilot in command", and
actually, the use of anything in the FAR's for that matter, as being
anything but a bare minimum definition for the competence/responsibility
issue.
I like to see instructors teaching new pilots to view the FAR's as minimum
requirements; then take the student above that level of understanding in how
the student views himself/herself in relation to the regulations.
It's this line of thinking that causes me to find fault with an instructor
who would allow a 2 hour student to go out un supervised and taxi an
airplane.
Doing this in my opinion fogs the issue of pilot responsibility for the
student, who can now easily start to believe that responsibility for the
safety of an airplane can be assumed in steps....or gradually, as the case
may be.
I like to see instructors work up to a definite dividing line for the
transition of responsibility for the aircraft to the student. The student
should realize that there is a moment in time when he/she has been
determined to be competent enough to assume total responsibility for an
airplane and it's operation. This operation should be considered as the
TOTAL operation of the aircraft, and the moment the student assumes this
responsibility from the instructor, if the instructor has done a credible
job of teaching, the student will make that all important TOTAL transition
to accepting responsibility and thinking as "pilot in command".
For me, this moment should occur at solo and not before. In fact, I believe
every action taken by an instructor during the pre-solo stage should be
designed to bring the student to this all important mental transition to
thinking as pilot in command, and that moment occurs with the responsibility
transition made from the instructor to the student as solo is accomplished.
Dudley Henriques

That was a long time ago, when the King Air lost its tail.
They did rebuild it, it is probably still flying. That was
back in the days when a Bonanza was about $40,000 and 90
King Air was about $400,000.

Lots of things that are legal are not safe, lots of safe
things are not legal and good judgment can be taught by
example. Some people will not learn, some instructor don't
teach, when those two types get together bad things happen.

We've all seen pilots do stupid tricks and get away with
most of them. I've also seen other things they didn't get
away with, the AeroCommander salesman, demo'd a Turbo 690
[?] to a university. He wanted to show the customer, not a
pilot, how safe the airplane was. He decided that putting
the gear lever UP while taxiing would be a good idea, to
show that the gear would not retract on the ground. He
didn't could on the struts being over-inflated. The gear
did retract but the plane just settled on the flat belly and
the props did not hit the ground. Actually sold that same
model to the customer. The damage was to the skin and
antennas.
Saw a Tulsa police officer and owner of a nice Citabra taxi
in after a few beers and a short flight at the Tulsa
Downtown Airpark. Everything would have been fine if he'd
stopped before the prop louvered the trunk lid on his car.
One winter, back in the 60s, I saw a Beech 18 mail plane
operated by an outfit called SEMO, land and take-off at SPI
with a 30 knot headwind on a sub-freezing night. They took
off on rwy 30 and used 3,000 feet to get the tail up and
about 4,000 feet to lift off. I don't know how many pounds
over gross the plane was, but I saw them load two trucks of
mail bags and boxes.
Too many CFIs are just trying to earn a living and get the
hours needed for a "real" job, too many students are
interested in the quickest time from first flight to the
license. JFK Jr. should be alive, so should John Denver, so
should Buddy Holly, so should a lot of people. As far as I
know all my students are alive and well.


--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.


"Dudley Henriques" wrote in
message
nk.net...
|
| "Jim Macklin" wrote
in message
| news:PtlZf.9845$t22.1756@dukeread08...
| Along these lines, of responsible actions, when I was
| learning to fly, the FBO hired a farm boy with lots of
| trailer and tractor experience as a lineboy. After an
hour
| of training they sent him to put the Illinois governor's
| King Air 90 in the hanger by himself. He did a good job
| except for the bi-fold door which stalled half way up.
He
| did put the fuselage in the hanger but removed the
entire
| vertical stabilizer and rudder.
|
| Ouch!! I see a mighty tax increase in there somewhere I
think :-)
|
| My issue with all this is of course the responsibility
transition issue
| between the instructor and a student as that addresses the
pilot in command
| issue. I've always stressed this to instructors whenever I
could. It
| pertains to the use of the FAR terms definition for "pilot
in command", and
| actually, the use of anything in the FAR's for that
matter, as being
| anything but a bare minimum definition for the
competence/responsibility
| issue.
| I like to see instructors teaching new pilots to view the
FAR's as minimum
| requirements; then take the student above that level of
understanding in how
| the student views himself/herself in relation to the
regulations.
| It's this line of thinking that causes me to find fault
with an instructor
| who would allow a 2 hour student to go out un supervised
and taxi an
| airplane.
| Doing this in my opinion fogs the issue of pilot
responsibility for the
| student, who can now easily start to believe that
responsibility for the
| safety of an airplane can be assumed in steps....or
gradually, as the case
| may be.
| I like to see instructors work up to a definite dividing
line for the
| transition of responsibility for the aircraft to the
student. The student
| should realize that there is a moment in time when he/she
has been
| determined to be competent enough to assume total
responsibility for an
| airplane and it's operation. This operation should be
considered as the
| TOTAL operation of the aircraft, and the moment the
student assumes this
| responsibility from the instructor, if the instructor has
done a credible
| job of teaching, the student will make that all important
TOTAL transition
| to accepting responsibility and thinking as "pilot in
command".
| For me, this moment should occur at solo and not before.
In fact, I believe
| every action taken by an instructor during the pre-solo
stage should be
| designed to bring the student to this all important mental
transition to
| thinking as pilot in command, and that moment occurs with
the responsibility
| transition made from the instructor to the student as solo
is accomplished.
| Dudley Henriques
|
|
|

Doing this in my opinion fogs the issue of pilot responsibility for the
student, who can now easily start to believe that responsibility for the
safety of an airplane can be assumed in steps....or gradually, as the case
may be.

I disagree. It is not the responsibility that is transferred in steps,
but rather, the authority (whether self imposed or not). A pilot who is
endorsed for solo flight has full responsibility for the flight during
all its stages, but is not (typically) authorized to fly at night or on
instruments. That comes later, with experience (and often, with other
endorsements, which could include certification). A smart, newly minted
instrument pilot does not give himself the =authority= (I'm stretching
the word here but I trust you get the concept) to fly in convective
activity, the edge of icing conditions, or widespread low IFR; that too
comes later with experience (and equipment capability). But the
responsibility for the flight always rests with the pilot.

I don't see how letting a student (who has demonstrated his ability,
irrespective of the number of hours he has) taxi an airplane solo prior
to being ready for and endorsed for actual through-the-air flying
transfers only =partial= responsibility for the handling of the aircraft.

Jose
--
Nothing takes longer than a shortcut.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

I'm no expert, but I believe that in a part 61 flight school no specific
structure is enforced upon instructors in their training of the Practical
Test Standards. However, the Private Pilot Practical Test Standards do
specifically require, in "Area II: Preflight Procedures, Task D: Taxiing",
that a private pilot be able to

1. Exhibit knowledge of the elements related to safe taxi procedures.
2. Perform a brake check immediately after the airplane begins
moving.
3. Position the flight controls properly for the existing wind conditions.
4. Control direction and speed without excessive use of brakes.
5. Comply with airport/taxiway markings, signals, ATC clearances,
and instructions.
6. Taxi so as to avoid other aircraft and hazards.

Personally, my instructors never had me taxi solo before flying solo - we
had 10 hours of flight time during which some percentage of that involved
taxiing and we covered taxiing enough in that process, that I was able to
eventually meet the PTS standards. And quite frankly, based on the rates
for taxiing a plane on a hobbs meter, I probably would not have been eager
to spend time taxiing separately anyway.

But all we know here is that a CFI asked a 2-hour time student to go taxi
an airplane. We don't know anything else about the circumstances around
this or the reasons that the CFI asked him to do this - or perhaps if the
student, in his eagerness to spend time learning to fly, wanted to get some
plane time while his CFI was with another student or otherwise
unavailable...

It wasn't me, and I don't care what the FAA thinks. I'll rephrase my
question. Is it a usual and accepted practice for a CFI to let a 2
hour time, pre solo student taxi around unsupervised solo ?