Landing without flaps

On 7 Mar, 20:26, Dudley Henriques wrote:
buttman wrote:
On 7 Mar, 19:56, Dudley Henriques wrote:
buttman wrote:
On 7 Mar, 19:31, Dudley Henriques wrote:
Interesting. Why not discuss right here exactly what it is you don't
agree with? I'm friendly and willing :-))) Let's see where we differ on
things related to flying.
Can't be more fair than this?
--
Dudley Henriques
OK. For starters, I believe there is only one thing in the world that
can be objectively considered "unsafe". And that one and only thing is
being unprepared. No matter what it is, it can be done safely as long
as the peoper precautions are made. Whether it be doing aerobatics
10ft above the ground, barrel rolling a 737, flying over max gross,
cleaning a loaded gun, jumping the grand canyon on a morotcycle, etc
etc. You seem to believe safety is determined by who-the-hell-knows-
what.
Theres more, but thats a good starting point.
Are you back from the FAA office yet Butts? Then we'll talk flying, and
not before.
Avoiding the task I gave you by changing the subject and trying to
engage won't work.
You DON'T starve an engine on takeoff on a student...EVER!!
Now go see what the FAA says about this and I'll discuss anything you wish.

--
Dudley Henriques

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignoratio_elenchi

Butts;

Another poster said it and I agree. It's getting out of hand. I'm as
guilty as you are. It's drawing in old advasaries on all sides and isn't
healthy for the forum. Let's end this right now with no further comment
good or bad.
I'm sorry for my part in it. Neither one of us is going to solve
anything flight safety wise going this route.
Let's just end it and let it go.
Best to you

--
Dudley Henriques

Taking your ball and going home: not just for 10 year olds anymore!

On Fri, 7 Mar 2008 13:25:01 -0800 (PST), buttman wrote:

I've knows this Dudley guy to be nothing but a fraud for years now.
The only thing that bothers me is that more people on this group don't
seem to realize this

I have been on Usenet for over a decade. I never understood why anyone uses
a killfile.

I now have three in mine, piloting is too damn difficult, there is too much
to read and learn and waaaay too much at stake to have to put up with the
irrelevant.
--
Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!

On 08 Mar 2008 01:39:36 GMT, Robert Moore wrote:

Since I don't post a lot pure bull****, I have no need to
hide my identity behind some childish name.
snipped personal ID

Robert, this is never a good idea although I know you mean well, keep your
personal ID off Usenet.
--
Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!

On Mar 7, 2:12 pm, Dudley Henriques wrote:
Ken S. Tucker wrote:
....
Mr. Buttman (appropriately) raised the question
of engine failure at rotation or ascent, I'd like him
as an instructor. Why, because he's strict.
As a prof teacher, I happen to know that a suggested
lesson should be weighed by it's merits by his peers,
and you "dud" are not near in his class, otherwise
you would have discussed the issue of anomally
in that T-O circumstance.
And that's how I know the "dud" is a web-phony.

"dud" is CHECKMATED by
Ken S. Tucker
PS: Now predicably "dud" or his "bertie" sidekick
will engage in the usual name calling, to avoid the
issue.

Tucker, you just CAN'T be this uninformed :-))

Of course I'm "uninformed", Mr. Buttman helped
make me aware of that. To often I've read about
a small plane crashing at or near Take-Off killing
all on board. Sometimes witnesses claim that the
engine quit, other times there is no good certain
explanation.

Every pilot is elated to ascend following rotation,
but what should you do if your engine sputters
and quits while climbing at just a few hundred feet.

Off hand I'd suggest pushing the yoke forward to
use decent to prevent stall, because the stall can
happen real fast in that attitude, so be prepared.
((Don't freeze like a deer in head lights)).

Glide back to the runway or have knowledge of a
safe alternative and use it.
Ken

On Mar 7, 5:01 pm, wrote:
On Mar 7, 1:02 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" wrote:

Dud, you've never been in an airplane, and you're
NOT an instructor. I'm a prof teacher and I can
sniff your bad **** off the net, you're a phony!

If Dudley or Bertie are frauds, they are very, very good frauds.
The terminology and all other aspects of their posts regarding
aviation and learning to fly are accurate and perceptive. There would
be few folks who could come up with this stuff unless they were
savants of some sort. Those of us who actually fly have little
argument with most of what they say.
There are some other posters here who were obvious frauds from
the start. And the more they post, the deeper they dig their holes of
discredit. They're just incredible.

Anybody can sound good on the net where knowledge
is concerned, but you can't fake an attitude for long.

Pulling mixture or fooling with fuel valves immediately after
takeoff is asking to die. Soon.

No not really, Mr. Buttman is not a suicidal maniac
and one has to presume if the pilot didn't react
properly he take control and have that figured out.

Pulling the throttle has the same
engine-loss effect without the extreme risk associated with killing
the engine. Pulling mixture or fuel also carries
the more remote risk of a control failure, whereby the mixture control
cable or fuel valve linkage breaks at that exact moment, making a
recovery of the engine impossible.

Sure that can happen. I suppose that's part of the
point of Mr. Buttman's suggested exercise.

In the last 15 years or so we've
had a throttle cable failure and a carb heat cable failure, so now we
replace all the controls when we replace the engine. There's no legal
requirement to do it, but after seeing old controls break I decided
that it was going to get done.
Dan

My personal fear is loosing elevator control, it's
very rare, but that Alaska Air crash a few years
back (in the Pacific) was blamed on the screw
that adjusts the elevator getting stripped or jammed.
Ken

On Mar 7, 11:24*pm, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
WingFlaps wrote :





On Mar 6, 8:49*am, "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 he
lps
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.

Hey that was my idea! Do you like it really? I worry though, will dog
**** on the airport runway be a problem when projected by jet blast?
What do you think?

Well, obviously they would wear diapers.

Damn, you are smart. Depends or huggies?

Cheers

On Mar 8, 2:58*pm, buttman wrote:
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".


But what if it's basically the truth?
?Human factors : You show macho invulnerability

Cheers

On Mar 8, 3:43*pm, Robert Moore wrote:
Dudley Henriques *wrote

OK. Fair enough. You DON'T starve an engine of fuel on a student on
takeoff to teach him about engine failure on takeoff.
How's that? Learned something?:-)

Sorry Dudley....so YOU say.... I've done it as a routine procedure and
given a long enough runway (mine was 6,000') I see nothing wrong in
doing it.
It's about time that you stopped preaching "your" flight instructing
dogma. Perhaps some of us are more confident in our abilities than
others.


Hi Bob

I don't think you got the scenario buttman was suggesting. He proposed
to secretly pull the fuel cut off as the plane started to roll. The
danger was that he had no idea when the engine would cut and there
would be no way of recovering a student error with power.

That's why it was unecessarily dangerous.

Cheers

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

buttman wrote in
:

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?


You could grow a brain.


Bertie