About Stall Psychology and Pilots

"Dudley Henriques" wrote in message
...
...
You're right. Power on stalls have a natural tendency to make newbies more
nervous than power off. The nose attitude is generally higher, it's louder,
(this is a factor BTW), the break is cleaner and more sudden, and the
recovery can seem hurried to a newbie who is experiencing the recovery
under stress.

Are you familiar with what Derrik Piggott has written about some peoples
sensitivity to reduced G forces? It used to be on-line but I can't find a
copy anymore.

But his theory is that some people react very poorly to reduced G and will
can attempt to "brace" themself to avoid falling which can result in an
accident when stalling at a low altitude...

I'll have to keep looking - it was an interesting read for me since my
youngest just HATES even things like elevators or driving over a bit of a
hill (reduced G situations)

--
Geoff
The Sea Hawk at Wow Way d0t Com
remove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mail
When immigration is outlawed, only outlaws will immigrate.

Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe wrote:
"Dudley Henriques" wrote in message
...
...
You're right. Power on stalls have a natural tendency to make newbies
more nervous than power off. The nose attitude is generally higher,
it's louder, (this is a factor BTW), the break is cleaner and more
sudden, and the recovery can seem hurried to a newbie who is
experiencing the recovery under stress.

Are you familiar with what Derrik Piggott has written about some peoples
sensitivity to reduced G forces? It used to be on-line but I can't find
a copy anymore.

But his theory is that some people react very poorly to reduced G and
will can attempt to "brace" themself to avoid falling which can result
in an accident when stalling at a low altitude...

I'll have to keep looking - it was an interesting read for me since my
youngest just HATES even things like elevators or driving over a bit of
a hill (reduced G situations)

Haven't seen this specific report, but the symptom is a common one and
something every good instructor feels out carefully in the beginning
stages of a newbies training.
I've often said to new CFI's that probably the most important time they
will ever spend with a new student is in that first few hours of
exposure with that student. It's during this time the instructor has to
evaluate exactly how he/she will interface with that specific student,
and also during the first hour of dual, just where a specific student is
comfort wise in the airplane.
Instructors who fail to make these assessments do great harm to
themselves AND their students.


--
Dudley Henriques

"Dudley Henriques" wrote in message
...
wrote:
A point that is critical to make here is that it's not necessary that
you actually fly outside the 30/60 on any constant basis for you to be
comfortable there. What IS important is that although the vast majority
of your flying will remain inside the 30/60 zone, your training has
resulted in your not being uncomfortable outside your normal area.
...
Dudley Henriques

I'm probably much luckier than many in that my club has both an
Aerobat and an instructor available with an aerobatics rating (or
endorsement, whatever it's called). She has me working through the
Kershner book as a prereq. I plan for a 5 or 6 hour course this April/
May.

Speaking directly to the discomfort outside of 30/60: I had moderate
nerves flying slow at first, but after a time or two of dual I found
myself settled. I became at ease with power-off stalls, as the
aircraft just wasn't doing any bucking or dipping. But I didn't get
comfortable with power-on -- even though I was comfortable in the
reverse power curve in steady slow flight with the stall horn buzzing
constantly. Still, solo I was quite nervous with power-on stalls. When
it came time to really practice that before the checkride I had a hard
time finding the same calm place I was at with power-off stalls. The
power-on has a harder break in the Aerobat; I had trouble holding
course and keeping coordinated. On one flight I got rather exasperated
with myself and thought "dang it, this is an airplane, it's okay if it
banks and pitches and rolls about!", then, after doing some clearing
turns I did some steeper banks while power-off in a moderately steep
nose down attitude (less than 30 -- but definitely far from straight
and level).

I kept doing that until I settled down. Even though I knew before I
did those steeper maneuvers that I could recover from them (they were
"unusual attitudes"), nevertheless ACTUALLY performing them and
recovering made a huge difference to my comfort level.

After than I was able to do better power-on stalls and not have the
nerves about when the plane would suddenly lose lift. They weren't
perfect but I didn't have the nerves anymore.

By the way, though the checkride DE did not make be do a power-on to
full stall break, my instructor always did. In retrospect, though it
was more uncomfortable at first, I'm glad she always made me do to a
full break stall. If I didn't, she'd say "let's do that again", rather
sternly.

Oddly, I was more frightened of the spin from power-on than power off
(which may be reasonable, I'm not sure); even though the two spins she
demonstrated for me were done power-off. I think maybe because I felt
it was easier to stay coordinated power-off, without all those extra
precession and p-factor effects twisting the plane, thus was at lower
risk to a flight condition I had not myself recovered from.

For me there's a mental wall of nerves/fear when I have not done a
manuever myself -- even if I know how in theory. For spin, PARE. But I
haven't done it; thus, a wall exists that I have to bust through.

That is one big motivator for Aerobatic training, but not the only.
All told, I just want to understand control inputs to make the plane
do what I want it to do regardless of my orientation in the sky.

Your assessment of your entire situation sounds completely normal to me in
every respect. It's a healthy attitude, and as well a good summation based
on sound principle.
You're right. Power on stalls have a natural tendency to make newbies more
nervous than power off. The nose attitude is generally higher, it's
louder, (this is a factor BTW), the break is cleaner and more sudden, and
the recovery can seem hurried to a newbie who is experiencing the recovery
under stress.
This can be partially addressed by allowing the aircraft to slow as the
nose is raised to normal climb speed before climb power is applied.
This will generally cause the break with a lower nose attitude which can
show an immediate improving effect on a newbie.

One thing that will definitely help you develop some added confidence
doing power on stalls is in actively changing your attitude up front about
them.
Think about this for a second. You know what to expect, and you know the
airplane will recover with normal recovery control application, so the
only thing left that is contributing to your apprehension is the stall
itself.
Think for a moment what would happen if instead of getting that sudden
adrenalin flow you have been experiencing as your system reacts as the
stall breaks, you were instead mentally and physically AHEAD of the stall
break and now EXPECTING it, and more importantly, WANTING IT!
You have just changed your entire interface with the stall. When it
happens, your system is waiting for it; you react as trained, and recover
the airplane.
The ingredient that has been added to your equation is simply EXPECTATION.
You do several power on stalls in this frame of mind and I guarantee that
you will not be apprehensive again when dealing with power on stalls.

Just something to think about before you fly again :-))

--
Dudley Henriques


I agree, lots of good stuff in this thread.

I would (humbly) like to suggest that some of the apprehension of performing
and dealing with stalls is due to the feeling that they must be corrected
immediately and with minimal loss of altitude.

At my request, my first two training flights were almost completely devoted
to stalls and especially spins. By the end of the second lesson I was able
to recover on a heading that my instructor requested after the full
incipient stage of the spin had developed. We had lots of altitude and a
stable spinning Super Cub which allowed me to experience that the fully
developed spin was really quite stable and that I had the ability to stop it
whenever I wanted even to the point of recovering on (=fairly close to) a
desired heading. It allowed me time to look at the airspeed indicator and
confirm that we were in a stall and not a spiral and to note that the VSI
showed a relatively slow decent rate. I could also check the T&B to note
the reported spin direction and to confirm that this was also what my eyes
were telling me. It made me understand that I was always in control of the
situation and helped me with spatial awareness and seemed to slow the
experience down somewhat so that I had lots of time to internalize what was
happening and what my eyes were seeing.

Later in my training I was better able to enjoy and comprehend the
demonstration and execution of the full range of accelerated stalls, and
this gave me the confidence to perform and enjoy all these maneuvers while
solo. I need to note that the above only applies to stable spinning
aircraft and that one of the problems of learning in a more modern and
therefore dumbed down aircraft like the C172 is that they will not spin long
enough to really experience a stable fully developed spin and IMHE will
spiral out of the spin far too quickly, and that is a flight condition that
I do NOT suggest should be savored or not corrected immediately.

Once a person is fully comfortable with the full regime of stalls and spins
then stall demonstration and recovery on heading and with minimal loss of
altitude is IMHE a much simpler exercise. I do not mean to suggest that I
am in any way special, but only that I was fortunate to have had instructors
who taught me that there was little to fear on the left side of the
envelope.

Happy landings,

It's interesting to note that although stall recovery should be thought
of as something done with a minimum loss of altitude, the emphasis on
recovery should always be placed on the regaining of angle of attack as
PRIME to recovery.
I am one instructor who strongly believes that instructors should
consider altering their approach to teaching stall to focus more
strongly on recovering angle of attack than recovering in minimum
altitude. Stalls entered at low altitude have many times resulted in
secondary stall entry or a mushed recovery followed by ground impact by
pilots who COULD have lowered the nose and held it down there a bit
longer than they did, using the air under them to better advantage and
giving themselves the needed time to regain angle of attack and smooth
airflow as they attempted a recovery. But because they had been taught
that ALTITUDE rather than AOA was the killer, they recovered trying to
save altitude, when in reality what was needed was to USE THE AVAILABLE
ALTITUDE CORRECTLY....and save the airplane.

Toward this goal, I strongly encourage all CFI's to reference AOA in
stall recovery. This doesn't mean INSTEAD of altitude, but it does mean
that to recover the airplane, you absolutely HAVE to restore AOA, and at
low altitude that might very well mean using available altitude to the
last foot of air to do that.
I have always taught stall recovery both with and without power. The FAA
requires power. I want the student to see the difference and at the same
time be able to stress that it's the ANGLE OF ATTACK that saves your
butt. The strong lesson here is that you USE altitude......you don't try
to minimize it at the expense of angle of attack.
Sounds like you had a fine instructor.



Private wrote:
"Dudley Henriques" wrote in message
...
wrote:
A point that is critical to make here is that it's not necessary that
you actually fly outside the 30/60 on any constant basis for you to be
comfortable there. What IS important is that although the vast majority
of your flying will remain inside the 30/60 zone, your training has
resulted in your not being uncomfortable outside your normal area.
...
Dudley Henriques
I'm probably much luckier than many in that my club has both an
Aerobat and an instructor available with an aerobatics rating (or
endorsement, whatever it's called). She has me working through the
Kershner book as a prereq. I plan for a 5 or 6 hour course this April/
May.

Speaking directly to the discomfort outside of 30/60: I had moderate
nerves flying slow at first, but after a time or two of dual I found
myself settled. I became at ease with power-off stalls, as the
aircraft just wasn't doing any bucking or dipping. But I didn't get
comfortable with power-on -- even though I was comfortable in the
reverse power curve in steady slow flight with the stall horn buzzing
constantly. Still, solo I was quite nervous with power-on stalls. When
it came time to really practice that before the checkride I had a hard
time finding the same calm place I was at with power-off stalls. The
power-on has a harder break in the Aerobat; I had trouble holding
course and keeping coordinated. On one flight I got rather exasperated
with myself and thought "dang it, this is an airplane, it's okay if it
banks and pitches and rolls about!", then, after doing some clearing
turns I did some steeper banks while power-off in a moderately steep
nose down attitude (less than 30 -- but definitely far from straight
and level).

I kept doing that until I settled down. Even though I knew before I
did those steeper maneuvers that I could recover from them (they were
"unusual attitudes"), nevertheless ACTUALLY performing them and
recovering made a huge difference to my comfort level.

After than I was able to do better power-on stalls and not have the
nerves about when the plane would suddenly lose lift. They weren't
perfect but I didn't have the nerves anymore.

By the way, though the checkride DE did not make be do a power-on to
full stall break, my instructor always did. In retrospect, though it
was more uncomfortable at first, I'm glad she always made me do to a
full break stall. If I didn't, she'd say "let's do that again", rather
sternly.

Oddly, I was more frightened of the spin from power-on than power off
(which may be reasonable, I'm not sure); even though the two spins she
demonstrated for me were done power-off. I think maybe because I felt
it was easier to stay coordinated power-off, without all those extra
precession and p-factor effects twisting the plane, thus was at lower
risk to a flight condition I had not myself recovered from.

For me there's a mental wall of nerves/fear when I have not done a
manuever myself -- even if I know how in theory. For spin, PARE. But I
haven't done it; thus, a wall exists that I have to bust through.

That is one big motivator for Aerobatic training, but not the only.
All told, I just want to understand control inputs to make the plane
do what I want it to do regardless of my orientation in the sky.

Your assessment of your entire situation sounds completely normal to me in
every respect. It's a healthy attitude, and as well a good summation based
on sound principle.
You're right. Power on stalls have a natural tendency to make newbies more
nervous than power off. The nose attitude is generally higher, it's
louder, (this is a factor BTW), the break is cleaner and more sudden, and
the recovery can seem hurried to a newbie who is experiencing the recovery
under stress.
This can be partially addressed by allowing the aircraft to slow as the
nose is raised to normal climb speed before climb power is applied.
This will generally cause the break with a lower nose attitude which can
show an immediate improving effect on a newbie.

One thing that will definitely help you develop some added confidence
doing power on stalls is in actively changing your attitude up front about
them.
Think about this for a second. You know what to expect, and you know the
airplane will recover with normal recovery control application, so the
only thing left that is contributing to your apprehension is the stall
itself.
Think for a moment what would happen if instead of getting that sudden
adrenalin flow you have been experiencing as your system reacts as the
stall breaks, you were instead mentally and physically AHEAD of the stall
break and now EXPECTING it, and more importantly, WANTING IT!
You have just changed your entire interface with the stall. When it
happens, your system is waiting for it; you react as trained, and recover
the airplane.
The ingredient that has been added to your equation is simply EXPECTATION.
You do several power on stalls in this frame of mind and I guarantee that
you will not be apprehensive again when dealing with power on stalls.

Just something to think about before you fly again :-))

--
Dudley Henriques


I agree, lots of good stuff in this thread.

I would (humbly) like to suggest that some of the apprehension of performing
and dealing with stalls is due to the feeling that they must be corrected
immediately and with minimal loss of altitude.

At my request, my first two training flights were almost completely devoted
to stalls and especially spins. By the end of the second lesson I was able
to recover on a heading that my instructor requested after the full
incipient stage of the spin had developed. We had lots of altitude and a
stable spinning Super Cub which allowed me to experience that the fully
developed spin was really quite stable and that I had the ability to stop it
whenever I wanted even to the point of recovering on (=fairly close to) a
desired heading. It allowed me time to look at the airspeed indicator and
confirm that we were in a stall and not a spiral and to note that the VSI
showed a relatively slow decent rate. I could also check the T&B to note
the reported spin direction and to confirm that this was also what my eyes
were telling me. It made me understand that I was always in control of the
situation and helped me with spatial awareness and seemed to slow the
experience down somewhat so that I had lots of time to internalize what was
happening and what my eyes were seeing.

Later in my training I was better able to enjoy and comprehend the
demonstration and execution of the full range of accelerated stalls, and
this gave me the confidence to perform and enjoy all these maneuvers while
solo. I need to note that the above only applies to stable spinning
aircraft and that one of the problems of learning in a more modern and
therefore dumbed down aircraft like the C172 is that they will not spin long
enough to really experience a stable fully developed spin and IMHE will
spiral out of the spin far too quickly, and that is a flight condition that
I do NOT suggest should be savored or not corrected immediately.

Once a person is fully comfortable with the full regime of stalls and spins
then stall demonstration and recovery on heading and with minimal loss of
altitude is IMHE a much simpler exercise. I do not mean to suggest that I
am in any way special, but only that I was fortunate to have had instructors
who taught me that there was little to fear on the left side of the
envelope.

Happy landings,




--
Dudley Henriques

As much as I like the "dud" his post is the
most completely idiotic thing I had to read.

On Feb 16, 12:10 pm, Dudley Henriques wrote:
It's interesting to note that although stall recovery should be thought
of as something done with a minimum loss of altitude, the emphasis on
recovery should always be placed on the regaining of angle of attack as
PRIME to recovery.

NUTZ. You need airspeed, it's called kinetic
energy that is needed to suck off, using the
wings (you know, those little things that
protude out the side of airplanes).

I am one instructor who strongly believes that instructors should
consider altering their approach to teaching stall to focus more
strongly on recovering angle of attack than recovering in minimum
altitude.

See KIAS, Dud, you'd last 2 minutes in the RHS
of my plane, after that you'd be lickin' pavement,
from my shoe on your ass.

Stalls entered at low altitude have many times resulted in
secondary stall entry or a mushed recovery followed by ground impact by
pilots who COULD have lowered the nose and held it down there a bit
longer than they did, using the air under them to better advantage and
giving themselves the needed time to regain angle of attack and smooth
airflow as they attempted a recovery. But because they had been taught
that ALTITUDE rather than AOA was the killer, they recovered trying to
save altitude, when in reality what was needed was to USE THE AVAILABLE
ALTITUDE CORRECTLY....and save the airplane.

Toward this goal, I strongly encourage all CFI's to reference AOA in
stall recovery. This doesn't mean INSTEAD of altitude, but it does mean
that to recover the airplane, you absolutely HAVE to restore AOA, and at
low altitude that might very well mean using available altitude to the
last foot of air to do that.
I have always taught stall recovery both with and without power. The FAA
requires power. I want the student to see the difference and at the same
time be able to stress that it's the ANGLE OF ATTACK that saves your
butt. The strong lesson here is that you USE altitude......you don't try
to minimize it at the expense of angle of attack.

Dud, you're clueless, you have not a clue about KIAS,
spiral dives or g-force recovery's. In short I see NO
evidence you have even been in an airplane with your
focus on AoA.
I can get a good AoA at 10 KIAS or 200 KIAS,
what are going to do?
Regards
Ken

"Dudley Henriques" wrote in message
...

It's interesting to note that although stall recovery should be thought of
as something done with a minimum loss of altitude, the emphasis on
recovery should always be placed on the regaining of angle of attack as
PRIME to recovery.

Agreed, I have always thought of myself as flying a wing to which is
attached a fuselage rather than the reverse.

I am one instructor who strongly believes that instructors should consider
altering their approach to teaching stall to focus more strongly on
recovering angle of attack than recovering in minimum altitude. Stalls
entered at low altitude have many times resulted in secondary stall entry
or a mushed recovery followed by ground impact by pilots who COULD have
lowered the nose and held it down there a bit longer than they did, using
the air under them to better advantage and giving themselves the needed
time to regain angle of attack and smooth airflow as they attempted a
recovery. But because they had been taught that ALTITUDE rather than AOA
was the killer, they recovered trying to save altitude, when in reality
what was needed was to USE THE AVAILABLE ALTITUDE CORRECTLY....and save
the airplane.

'Flying requires airspeed, altidude and brains.
A lack of one can be traded for an excess of another.
Try not to run out of all three at the same time.'

Toward this goal, I strongly encourage all CFI's to reference AOA in stall
recovery. This doesn't mean INSTEAD of altitude, but it does mean that to
recover the airplane, you absolutely HAVE to restore AOA, and at low
altitude that might very well mean using available altitude to the last
foot of air to do that.
I have always taught stall recovery both with and without power. The FAA
requires power. I want the student to see the difference and at the same
time be able to stress that it's the ANGLE OF ATTACK that saves your butt.
The strong lesson here is that you USE altitude......you don't try to
minimize it at the expense of angle of attack.
Sounds like you had a fine instructor.

I was very fortunate to have had several good instructors and only a few not
so good. The best of them were fully confident in the abilities of the
aircraft and were not afraid to demonstrate the full range of aircraft
behavior. IMHE it is easier to find good instructors at schools offering
tailwheel. Here in Canada VFR instructors are licensed at 4 different
levels plus 2 levels of acro instructor, (IIRC, IFR is an additional
qualification on top of each of the VFR levels) (CPL is permitted to do
some training of PPL level pilots.) IMHE hiring instructors with level 1
rating (required to train other instructors) results in finding much more
experience and a much better learning experience, they usually cost a little
bit more but it is minimal in the big picture of total training costs. The
typical level 4 instructor is often referred to as a 231 hr wonder, as that
is the minimum amount of time required to obtain this license.

After my initial power lessons I did most of my training in sailplane
gliders and there the only thing we have is AOA. Sailplanes spend a great
deal of time scratching in minimal lift conditions flying just above the
stall looking for the minimum sink rate. Adverse yaw is substantial and
quick footwork is required to lift a dropping wing. The need to stay
coordinated is helped by the yaw string but they are great for training ones
feet. I found it relatively easy to transition back into powered tailwheel
aircraft but it did take some time to add power management to the various
recovery procedures. I experienced no reluctance from my gliding
instructors to demonstrate or practice stalls or spins. Since all stalls
are power off, they are quite gentle but spinning over the top while
reclined in a full canopy glider gives a view of the action that a Cessna
student can only imagine. Thermalling @60 deg bank and pulling a constant
2Gs while crosscontrolled is quite different from steep turns in a Cessna.
I did experience much more variability in instructor ability and experience
in sailplane training than I did in power.

Happy landings,

On Feb 15, 6:37 pm, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
"Robert M. Gary" wrote in news:ebb74b75-9910-4c50-ae86-
:

On Feb 15, 3:56 pm, Dudley Henriques wrote:
Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Dudley Henriques wrote in
:

Man there are a lot of posts on this topic. Too much newsgrouping,
people need to do more flying

When my airplane is finished!

Bertie

Watchu building?

On Feb 15, 2:37 pm, WingFlaps wrote:
I see your point but I admit to being "uncomfortable" with advanced
stalling manouvers. I can recover well within PTS when the wings let
go but I don't like it. What runs in my mind is: Should I feel
comfortable at the edge of control, and if I am comfortable will I be
more likely to go where I should not? When I get onto my dream of
aerobatics I'll let you know how my comfort zone extends.

Here's half the battle: Realizing that the airplane is never out of
control. It's only doing what we ask it to do. It will stall if we
make it, it will unstall if we make it. It will spin if we ask it to
and will stop spinning when we say so. Of course, the CG had better be
within limits.
The folks who get into trouble with stalls or spins are getting
into them without knowing what happened, and why. They learned by rote
and did not get an understanding and some experience with these things
so they don't recognize the situations that lead to them, and they
don't know the methods of control throughout.
When I show students that the airplane does exactly what I
demand of it, they lose their fear of all this.

Dan

On Feb 15, 9:54 pm, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
wrote :



On Feb 15, 9:06 pm, wrote:
The ultimate answer to getting the quality level up in the GA pilot
community will in my opinion require a whole new look at the way
flight instruction is conducted.
...

Dudley Henriques

Obliquely related to the topic of comfort in the left hand curve of
the flight envelope, some low speed F22 aerobatics:

http://www.airventure.org/2008/news/080214_raptors.html

What a ride that aircraft provides.

Well, that thing looks after alpha for you.

Bertie

OH that's just great. Now I have to ask WTF 'alpha' is. ****.
Thanks. ;-)

Sew watt is it?

"Ken S. Tucker" wrote in message
...
As much as I like the "dud" his post is the
most completely idiotic thing I had to read.

On Feb 16, 12:10 pm, Dudley Henriques wrote:
It's interesting to note that although stall recovery should be thought
of as something done with a minimum loss of altitude, the emphasis on
recovery should always be placed on the regaining of angle of attack as
PRIME to recovery.

NUTZ. You need airspeed, it's called kinetic
energy that is needed to suck off, using the
wings (you know, those little things that
protude out the side of airplanes).

I am one instructor who strongly believes that instructors should
consider altering their approach to teaching stall to focus more
strongly on recovering angle of attack than recovering in minimum
altitude.

See KIAS, Dud, you'd last 2 minutes in the RHS
of my plane, after that you'd be lickin' pavement,
from my shoe on your ass.

Stalls entered at low altitude have many times resulted in
secondary stall entry or a mushed recovery followed by ground impact by
pilots who COULD have lowered the nose and held it down there a bit
longer than they did, using the air under them to better advantage and
giving themselves the needed time to regain angle of attack and smooth
airflow as they attempted a recovery. But because they had been taught
that ALTITUDE rather than AOA was the killer, they recovered trying to
save altitude, when in reality what was needed was to USE THE AVAILABLE
ALTITUDE CORRECTLY....and save the airplane.

Toward this goal, I strongly encourage all CFI's to reference AOA in
stall recovery. This doesn't mean INSTEAD of altitude, but it does mean
that to recover the airplane, you absolutely HAVE to restore AOA, and at
low altitude that might very well mean using available altitude to the
last foot of air to do that.
I have always taught stall recovery both with and without power. The FAA
requires power. I want the student to see the difference and at the same
time be able to stress that it's the ANGLE OF ATTACK that saves your
butt. The strong lesson here is that you USE altitude......you don't try
to minimize it at the expense of angle of attack.

Dud, you're clueless, you have not a clue about KIAS,
spiral dives or g-force recovery's. In short I see NO
evidence you have even been in an airplane with your
focus on AoA.
I can get a good AoA at 10 KIAS or 200 KIAS,
what are going to do?
Regards
Ken

Ken,
With respect, I think you must have missed my reply in another thread. I am
enclosing it here for your convenience and consideration.

"Private" wrote in message
...

"Ken S. Tucker" wrote in message
...
I was out paying taxes, to get some coin for the
piggy bank, I shook it 3 times and still didn't hear
any rattling, that's simple accounting to tell me
when I'm broke, works every time!
Ken

Some here would suggest that you apply the same strategy to your head
before
posting.

I am somewhat embarrassed to be entering this thread, but I just can't
resist swinging at a soft pitch like that.
Happy landings,

To elaborate, my suggestion was that before posting you should give your
head a shake to determine if there is anything inside and to consider
whether you really wished to make the fact public.

Happy landings,