PSA: Don't be rude on the radio
buttman
by being condescending jackasses over the radio, which effected my
ability to teach my student.
The first time was when I was at a local uncontrolled field with one
of my students to introduce solf-field takeoffs and landings. When we
were turning downwind, I heard a Cirrus call "On the ILS at the outer
marker". I haven't flown any approaches for months, so I had no idea
how exactly far out he was. There were at least two other people in
the pattern, so instead of asking him to give a more accurate position
report, I just went on. Just before I got abeam the numbers on
downwind, the Cirrus guy called 3 miles out, so I told my student to
just do a short approach instead of extending which would have screwed
everyone else up.
I'm looking out the window like crazy to find this Cirrus guy but I
don't see him anywhere. Then suddenly I hear him say in a snappy voice
"Cessna on base at *** do you plan on cutting me off?" Startled, I
looked around but couldn't for the life of me see him. I responded
"uuhh, Cirrus on ILS I don't see you", then he snaps back
sarcastically, "oh 45 seconds before impact..."
I look right in front of me and there he is zooming by. I didn't
realize Cirrus's were so fast. He had to have been going more than 150
knots. I've turned short approaches in front of Seminoles when they
were on 3 mile ILS finals and it has never been a problem...
Anyways, the guy didn't have to be such a huge asshole. A busy pattern
is stressful enough, the ones coming in straight in can at least be a
little helpful, or at the VERY LEAST not act like a little baby when
things don't go their way.
Of the 50 or so times I've been on extended downwind when someone else
in on a 3-10 mile final, I'd say 10 times I went behind them and it
hasn't been a problem, 35 times I've gone behind them and it hasn't
been a problem, and 5 times I messed it up and either cut the person
off, or caused some other disruption. The other 4 times it was just a
simple "sorry about that", or some other professional way of handing
the situation, then forgetting it and moving on. It just makes it that
much harder to shake it off when the person decides to act that way.
Maybe I need to get thicker skin, but that situation had me all worked
up for the rest of the flight, and I admit it hindered my instructing
ability a little.
As a little side note, that same Cirrus guy came today to my home
airport which is even busier. There were like 7 planes already in the
pattern, 3 on 45 for the pattern, and then comes my Cirrus. I
recognized it was him because I remembered the tail number (N903CD).
As soon as he called, tower told him to slow to final approach speed
(which I just had to snicker to myself when I heard that ^_^). About a
minute later I, on an extended downwind, was told to turn base, which
would have put me right in front of the Cirrus. The tower cleared me
for a full stop only (which I've never been issued before, our
controllers are really good at accommodating a bunch of pattern
traffic), and told the Cirrus to break off and enter on the 45 for a
left traffic. After I landed, I switched to ground and just called it
a day. When I got back to the training room, another instructor joked
about how I was "kicked out of the pattern". He asked me of I heard
about the Cirrus who "got pissed off and left". I said no but I can
only imagine what he actually said...
Anyways, back on topic. Also today, on another flight with another
student, we were coming back on the 45 for a downwind entry. Not too
long after he told me to report established on the downwind, someone's
mic got stuck and all I could hear on the radio was "EEEERRRRRRCHSHH
EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE" punctuated with my call sign and the words "I'm not
communicating with him", then some more "AAAAAAEERRRRNNNGH". I saw a
plane on downwind which was about to converge with me, a helicopter
which looked like was doing WHO KNOWS WHAT, and someone else on upwind
about to turn crosswind. It looked like I was going to converge with
the plane on downwind, so I just decided to do a 360 where I was
(about a mile before entering downwind). As soon as a break in the
radio screeching appeared, I quickly told tower I'm doing a 360 to
avoid what by then I thought was a clueless student on a solo who
didn't know how to use the radio.
Well as soon as I told tower, a voice came on saying "..and that will
put you right in front of 64 Delta" (or whatever his tail number was).
Apparently there was a plane behind me, but I had no idea. Buy
anyways, he had to do a evasive maneuver also, and he was ticked off.
He came back on and told tower he had to do an evasive to avoid "the
kamikaze" as he called me.
Well guess what, bub? I had to do an evasive maneuver too. Thats an
everyday thing 'round these parts. There are two busy flight schools,
as well as a lot of military activity (a C-130 comes here a few times
a week to do touch and goes, gives us a lot of wake turbulence
avoidance practice ^_^). I had to fly a downwind parallel to him and
then follow him in. I couldn't let my student do the flying because it
was an atypical situation. AND I had to do all this while I'm getting
name-called by some tard out of no-where. It just makes things that
much more frustrating.
So please, don't be a jackass show off on the radio. I actually saw
the second guy climb out his plane after we landed. I saw he had what
looked like his wife in there with him. I imagine he was acting like
that to show off in front of his wife *rolleyes*.
Anyways, just please be mindful of others, especially considering the
environment your in (busy airspace; emergency in the area; whatever it
may be). Just be aware that those snappy one liners may make you look
cool, but they just make others frustrated and more life more
difficult.
I know this post is getting long, but theres one more instance I want
to bring up. When I was getting my multi rating a few months ago, we
went to a towered airport a few miles away to do a few ILS/VOR
approaches. While we were doing the procedure turns and stuff, we
could hear this clueless student pilot entering on a solo cross
country. This guy was a total wreck. First he was 10 miles south; then
he was 5 miles north, then he was over such and such lake which is 15
miles northwest. The controllers at this particular airport aren't
known as the friendliest around, so as you can imagine, the poor guy
wasn't having a good time.
I wasn't really paying attention to what all was being said because I
was focusing on my approaches, but after doing about 3 full ILS/VOR
approaches (procedure turn and all) he still was confused as to where
he was and hadn't landed yet (but I believe was still in the pattern).
We were just doing missed approaches, breaking off well before the
airport area to stay out of the way.
I don't really blame the controller because he was frustrated too, but
it was what my instructor said which I think was worst of all. During
our last approach, he said something to the effect of "Do you want us
to do another low approach so you can handle this guy, or can we do a
touch and go the this next one?"
I just cringed when I heard that. I just can imagine being in his
shoes. The last thing I want to know is that I'm messing not only the
controller's thing, but other pilots as well. We didn't NEED to do a
touch and go, we could have just did our share by helping out with the
low approaches, then moved on. Indirectly telling the poor student how
incompetent he is (which he HAS to already know by then) just helps no
one out. It just makes things worse.
I don't think what my instructor said
buttman
> I don't think what my instructor said
stupid freaking google groups submitting my post before it was done...
the past paragraph should say:
I don't think what my instructor said was intentionally meant as
harassment, but if I were in the student's shoes, I would have
interpreted it as harassment just the same. So please everyone, mind
what you say on the radio!
Jay Honeck
> by being condescending jackasses over the radio, which effected my
> ability to teach my student.
I can't comment too much on your experiences, but I will say this:
I've heard more rude and improper radio talk in the last two years
than I had in the previous ten. The rudeness that has invaded our
society is starting to penetrate the cockpit environment, and *that*
is a shame.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"
John Theune
somebody for being a condescending jackass on the radio and then your
are just as bad when describing a student pilot as clueless and a total
wreck. As for yourself, you said you were not to the numbers yet on
downwind when he reported a 3 mile final and you turned in front of him
anyway. You still had to go further on your downwind before you could
turn base then traverse the base leg all while he was covering the 3
miles of his final. I'm not surprised he got pissed. You need to be
flexable in the pattern as much as anyone else.
B A R R Y
>
> The rudeness that has invaded our
> society is starting to penetrate the cockpit environment, and *that*
> is a shame.
How's this for rude:
<http://www.cnn.com/2007/SHOWBIZ/Music/05/10/odd.bostonpopsfight.ap/index.html>
A fight at the symphony. <G>
Jose
> for a full stop only (which I've never been issued before, our
> controllers are really good at accommodating a bunch of pattern
> traffic), and told the Cirrus to break off and enter on the 45 for a
> left traffic.
Sounds like the tower wanted the cirrus to have to go around.
Jose
--
Quantum Mechanics is like this: God =does= play dice with the universe,
except there's no God, and there's no dice. And maybe there's no universe.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.
RST Engineering
message for nine lousy lines of reply?
Jim
"John Theune" <JTh...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:2SE0i.11222$dj2.6382@trndny02...
momal...@gmail.com
> I had two recent situations where other pilots thought they'd be cool
> by being condescending jackasses over the radio, which effected my
> ability to teach my student.
>
I don't post here that often anymore, but the recent spat of posts
about pattern etiquette has got me going. I really would like to know
how this theory that just because you're doing touch and goes in the
pattern, means you can go ahead and cut off straight in traffic? The
only thing the FAA has to say, regulatory, regarding traffic patterns
is that all turns must be to the left, unless noted, AND take note of
91.113(g)
Landing. Aircraft while on final approach to land or while landing,
have the right-of-way over other aircraft in flight or operating on
the surface, except that they shall not take advantage of this rule to
force and aircraft off the runway surface which has already landed...
You're a professional aviator. Your student is paying you for your
expertise in this field, "I don't remember where the maker is" is not
acceptable. Should the Cirrus have been more clear about his position
earlier? Maybe. But as a professional you SHOULD be aware that the
marker is typically 6-7 miles from the threshold. At typical approach
speeds that would mean he's 2-3 minutes out. He then called 3 mile
final; that's 90 seconds. You couldn't see the traffic on final, and
not only did you turn base, but you put your tail to him. You CREATED
a collision hazard by cutting him off, and hoped it would either work
out, or he'd see you and get out of your way. BAD FORM.
And in case you were wondering what the FAA's stance on this practice
is, read this- http://www.ntsb.gov/alj/O_n_O/docs/aviation/4236.PDF
CFI was in a habit of cutting off traffic on straight in because HE
was in the pattern. FAA yanked his certificates.
Keep this in mind next time; extending your downwind 30 seconds will
not cost your student any more touch and goes; you probably waste more
time cleaning fouled plugs on the run-up than it takes to extend for
traffic. Meanwhile, that traffic flying a straight in most likely is
NOT training, but going somewhere. Would it not be proper courtesy to
let them go about their business and get out of your way? Instead of
playing "mine is bigger" in the traffic pattern.
Gene Seibel
"stupid freaking google groups" doesn't do anything you don't tell it
to do.
--
Gene Seibel
Gene & Sue's Aeroplanes - http://pad39a.com/gene/planes.html
Because we fly, we envy no one.
Peter R.
> And in case you were wondering what the FAA's stance on this practice
> is, read this- http://www.ntsb.gov/alj/O_n_O/docs/aviation/4236.PDF
Wow. That now ex-pilot appeared to have some real issues there. I got bored
reading the list of incidents outlined in the PDF, there were so many.
--
Peter
Mark T. Dame
>> I had two recent situations where other pilots thought they'd be cool
>> by being condescending jackasses over the radio, which effected my
>> ability to teach my student.
>
> I can't comment too much on your experiences, but I will say this:
> I've heard more rude and improper radio talk in the last two years
> than I had in the previous ten.
I thought I just hadn't noticed it before...
-m
--
## Mark T. Dame <mailto:md...@mfm.com>
## CP-ASEL, AGI
## <insert tail number here>
## KHAO, KISZ
"There's still some duplication (i.e., several places where I say
close to the same thing twice, and also where I'm redundant :-)"
-- Daniel Mocsny
Bob Fry
RST> At the risk of being rude on the newsgroups, you quoted the
RST> whole g055@mned message for nine lousy lines of reply?
Jim, Jim, you never take the *risk* of being rude. You *always* are
rude. But we like it.
--
Why do bunches of people run from a shark when they see one, if
there is a bunch of people, and one of that shark, wouldn't it be
easy to just attack him and kick his ass?
- Jack Handey
Steven P. McNicoll
"Bob Fry" <bob...@mailinator.com> wrote in message
news:wszgll...@mailinator.com...
>
> Why do bunches of people run from a shark when they see one, if
> there is a bunch of people, and one of that shark, wouldn't it be
> easy to just attack him and kick his ass?
>
If you're able to run from a shark you're on land and there's no need to run
at all.
Allen
<momal...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1178809156.6...@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> On May 10, 2:35 am, buttman <nbvF...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I had two recent situations where other pilots thought they'd be cool
>> by being condescending jackasses over the radio, which effected my
>> ability to teach my student.
>>
>
> I don't post here that often anymore, but the recent spat of posts
> about pattern etiquette has got me going. I really would like to know
> how this theory that just because you're doing touch and goes in the
> pattern, means you can go ahead and cut off straight in traffic? The
> only thing the FAA has to say, regulatory, regarding traffic patterns
> is that all turns must be to the left, unless noted, AND take note of
> 91.113(g)
>
> Landing. Aircraft while on final approach to land or while landing,
> have the right-of-way over other aircraft in flight or operating on
> the surface, except that they shall not take advantage of this rule to
> force and aircraft off the runway surface which has already landed...
Which does nothing to define what "final approach" is. If you are aligned
with the runway and intending to land does final begin 5 miles from the
threshold? 10 miles? 15 miles? 50 miles?
Gene Seibel
> <momalle...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Maybe it would make more sense to announce position in minutes from
touchdown rather than miles.
Jose
> touchdown rather than miles.
That presumes you aren't trying to actually find him in the sky.
Peter Dohm
instrument rated, which means that you should know that outer markers are
typically at least five miles from the landing zone--so, if you can not
recall for a specific airport, you can still guess five miles. In addition,
you did not bother to maintain familiarity with the procedures at an airport
where you typically instruct, you failed to understant that the Cirrus had
travelled a substantial (probably between a third and a half) of the
distance to the runway, and then you turned in front of known traffic which
you did not see.
IMHO, your usenet handle is well chosen. If you were my instructor; the
landing would be a full stop, followed by a very firm "You're fired!" (That
is, of course, presuming that I was stricken speechless back when I refused
to turn base.)
Peter
Gene Seibel
buttman
First off, I never said I did nothing wrong. I know I made a mistake
by turning in front of him. We all make mistakes, whether you're an
instructor or not. THE WHOLE POINT of the post was that the Cirrus guy
had to act like a pumpus ass. In my probably 2 years of instructing,
I've had maybe 3 run-ins similar to this, the other two were handled
professionally and were good learning experiences for me and my
students.
I knew the guy was 3 miles out, which is why I turned base early (I'm
pretty sure I mentioned this in my OP). I normally extend about one
mile, here I turned base about a half mile. Like I said before, I have
done short approaches with twins only 3 miles out and it has never
been a problem.
> IMHO, your usenet handle is well chosen. If you were my instructor; the
> landing would be a full stop, followed by a very firm "You're fired!" (That
> is, of course, presuming that I was stricken speechless back when I refused
> to turn base.)
>
> Peter
ah, the ol' internet tough guy routine...
John Godwin
news:1178809156.6...@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:
> Landing. Aircraft while on final approach to land or while
> landing, have the right-of-way over other aircraft in flight or
> operating on the surface, except that they shall not take
> advantage of this rule to force and aircraft off the runway
> surface which has already landed...
... and I believe that the AIM defines "Final Approach" as:
A flight path in the direction of landing along the extended
runway centerline from the base leg to the runway.
--
RST Engineering
on a 2300 mile final for runway 9 Oshkosh."
{;-)
Jim
"Allen" <ha_sm...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:QIH0i.1113$mR2...@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net...
momal...@gmail.com
"FINAL APPROACH -- ICAO. That part of an instrument approach
procedure which commences at the specified final approach fix or
point, or where such fix or point is not specified:
a. At the end of the last procedure turn, base turn or inbound
turn or a racetrack procedure, if specified
b. At the point of interception of the last track specified in the
approach procedure; and ends at a point in the vicinity of an
aerodrome from which:
1. A landing can be made; or
2. A missed approach procedure is initiated.
FINAL APPROACH -- IFR. The flight path of an aircraft which is
inbound to an airport on a final instrument approach course, beginning
at the final approach fix or point and extending to the airport or the
point where a circle-to-land maneuver or missed approach is executed."
>From that definition, "final approach" would be from the marker
inbound on an ILS, or wherever the arriving traffic happens to get
lined up with the final approach course. I'm sure you're aware that
traffic arriving IFR is often vectored onto 5-10 mile final, so that
"base leg" may have been flown, just 10 miles from where you're used
to turning base-final. Faster, high performance aircraft often take
time to slow down and transition from the terminal phase to approach
and landing.
Allen
<momal...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1178821280.4...@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
So you are saying that 10 miles is where final approach begins? The AIM
says you should complete your turn to final at least 1/4 mile from the
runway; it does not specify a maximum distance. It also defines "final" as
the term commonly used to mean that an aircraft is on the final approach
course or is aligned with a landing area.
Montblack
> If you're able to run from a shark you're on land and there's no need to
> run at all.
Let alone searching for a shark's ass, to kick.
Mont-black-in-the-water-everyone
Dudley Henriques
"Montblack" <Y4_NOT!...4monty4blacky@yyvisyyiy.comy> wrote in message
news:1346skj...@corp.supernews.com...
> ("Steven P. McNicoll" swrote)
>> If you're able to run from a shark you're on land and there's no need to
>> run at all.
>
>
> Let alone searching for a shark's ass, to kick.
They must have one. Otherwise they'd just eat all day and night and keep
getting bigger and bigger wouldn't they? :-))
Dudley Henriques
momal...@gmail.com
> <momalle...@gmail.com> wrote in message
I'm saying the official definition of "final approach" is vague with
regards to distance from the end of the runway. Realisticly, I would
argue that "final approach" would begin at the point you can see the
runway. Outside of that, I'd call distance and intention; ie- "Twin
Cessna 3AB, 15 to the west, straight in runway 9.... Twin Cessna 3AB,
10 mile final, runway 9" etc.
Jim Logajan
> "Montblack" <Y4_NOT!...4monty4blacky@yyvisyyiy.comy> wrote:
>> Let alone searching for a shark's ass, to kick.
>
> They must have one. Otherwise they'd just eat all day and night and
> keep getting bigger and bigger wouldn't they? :-))
Really, no shit?
;-)
Dudley Henriques
"Jim Logajan" <Jam...@Lugoj.com> wrote in message
news:Xns992C87B3898E...@216.168.3.30...
OUCH!!!
What's REALLY troublesome to me about this is that I have to reason to
myself how 50 odd (and odd is indeed appropriate here :-) years in
professional aviation has finally come down for me to this thread.
:-)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
Dudley Henriques
Allen
<momal...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1178826413.5...@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
No, I am with you on this! I just think there should be some (even if it is
arbitrary number pulled from a hat) distance to define when you are on
"final". What if you are approaching an airport from the wrong side and
make a right-hand turn to align with a runway with a left-hand traffic
pattern. There should be some distance from the airport you could do this
and then make a "straight-in" approach without violating any regs or the
AIM.
Matt Barrow
"buttman" <nbv...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1178818605.3...@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> On May 10, 10:20 am, "Peter Dohm" <lefty...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>
>> Lemme get this straight! You are in instructor, which means you are
>> instrument rated, which means that you should know that outer markers are
>> typically at least five miles from the landing zone--so, if you can not
>> recall for a specific airport, you can still guess five miles. In
>> addition,
>> you did not bother to maintain familiarity with the procedures at an
>> airport
>> where you typically instruct, you failed to understant that the Cirrus
>> had
>> travelled a substantial (probably between a third and a half) of the
>> distance to the runway, and then you turned in front of known traffic
>> which
>> you did not see.
>>
>
>
> First off, I never said I did nothing wrong. I know I made a mistake
> by turning in front of him. We all make mistakes, whether you're an
> instructor or not. THE WHOLE POINT of the post was that the Cirrus guy
> had to act like a pumpus ass.
Sounds like a typical childish response (ie, making excuses).
The only pompous ass here is yourself.
--
Matt Barrow
Performace Homes, LLC.
Colorado Springs, CO
Matt Barrow
"Gene Seibel" <ge...@pad39a.com> wrote in message
news:1178817774.9...@h2g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> On May 10, 11:49 am, Jose <teache...@aol.nospam.com> wrote:
>> > Maybe it would make more sense to announce position in minutes from
>> > touchdown rather than miles.
>>
>> That presumes you aren't trying to actually find him in the sky.
>>
>> Jose
>> --
>> Quantum Mechanics is like this: God =does= play dice with the universe,
>> except there's no God, and there's no dice. And maybe there's no
>> universe.
>
No, it isn't. It's outright blather.
Matt Barrow
"Dudley Henriques" <dhenr...@rcn.com> wrote in message
news:BpKdnRULWpdv6d7b...@rcn.net...
Only if they were also drinking beer.
Dudley Henriques
"Matt Barrow" <mba...@performancehomes.com> wrote in message
news:%lM0i.161388$nh4.1...@newsfe20.lga...
I try and avoid this guy unless he posts on the student group where I have
an interest from an instructor's point of view. Over here it's every man for
himself and I try to avoid taking him on.
Last time we "got together", was fairly recently when he posted on the
student group about yanking the fuel to shutoff on takeoff with "his
student" and wanted to know if it was a good idea :-)
I believe after my answer to him on this "little issue" that he now refers
to me as a "Usenet bully".
I'd be very interested in actually seeing his CFI certificate number and
knowing his real name for checkup with the FAA. I find it extremely
difficult from his dialog and points of view to envision him as a CFI, but
stranger things have happened I guess :-))
Dudley Henriques
Dudley Henriques
A study below in reverse logic :-))
These poor sharks really take a beating from us humans. I was just reading
the other day that in Australia, at least one expert says to punch them in
the nose when they get too close. You'd think that after being punched in
the nose and kicked in the butt, the stupid things would know enough to
leave us humans alone......but NO!! They just keep on eating more of us
every year. :-))
Dudley Henriques
gatt
>> FINAL APPROACH -- IFR. The flight path of an aircraft which is
>> inbound to an airport on a final instrument approach course, beginning
>> at the final approach fix or point and extending to the airport or the
>> point where a circle-to-land maneuver or missed approach is executed."
>>
>>>From that definition, "final approach" would be from the marker
>> inbound on an ILS, or wherever the arriving traffic happens to get
>> lined up with the final approach course...
> So you are saying that 10 miles is where final approach begins? The AIM
> says you should complete your turn to final at least 1/4 mile from the
> runway; it does not specify a maximum distance.
The ILS approach at McMinnville, Oregon (KMMV) is pretty typical and the
FAF-to-MAP distance indicated on the approach plate is 5.1 miles.
(Couldn't resist; I've had the approach plate tacked the the wall next to my
monitor for weeks now for no reason I can remember.)
-c
Jim Stewart
> Last time we "got together", was fairly recently when he posted on the
> student group about yanking the fuel to shutoff on takeoff with "his
> student" and wanted to know if it was a good idea :-)
Now everything makes a little more sense.
Thanks for pointing out the history.
gatt
> These poor sharks really take a beating from us humans. I was just reading
> the other day that in Australia, at least one expert says to punch them in
> the nose when they get too close.
Hey, Dudley, I heard that too. When I was a kid I knew a guy who had been a
surfer-bum in San Diego. He told me that the sharks would chase the
surfboard and if they got too close you'd just kick 'em in the nose.
Except, one time in doing so he fell off the board and ended up more or less
kicking the shark in the mouth and then ending up in the water with it.
Strangest thing....he gave up surfing, moved to Denver and took up
skydiving. :> (Seriously.)
-c
Grumman-581
>> I had two recent situations where other pilots thought they'd be cool
>> by being condescending jackasses over the radio, which effected my
>> ability to teach my student.
>
> I've heard more rude and improper radio talk in the last two years
> than I had in the previous ten. The rudeness that has invaded our
> society is starting to penetrate the cockpit environment, and *that*
> is a shame.
It's because we're all getting older (Baby Boom Generation) and we're
becoming Grumpy Old Men... Of course, we also have to balance this with
being Dirty Old Men In Training...
Matt Barrow
Bastards!!
Larry Dighera
wrote in <QIH0i.1113$mR2...@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net>:
>Which does nothing to define what "final approach" is. If you are aligned
>with the runway and intending to land does final begin 5 miles from the
>threshold? 10 miles? 15 miles? 50 miles?
>
http://www.faa.gov/ATpubs/PCG/F.HTM
FINAL APPROACH [ICAO]- That part of an instrument approach
procedure which commences at the specified final approach fix or
point, or where such a fix or point is not specified.
a. At the end of the last procedure turn, base turn or inbound
turn of a racetrack procedure, if specified; or
b. At the point of interception of the last track specified in the
approach procedure; and ends at a point in the vicinity of an
aerodrome from which:
1. A landing can be made; or
2. A missed approach procedure is initiated.
FINAL APPROACH COURSE- A bearing/radial/track of an instrument
approach leading to a runway or an extended runway centerline all
without regard to distance.
FINAL APPROACH FIX- The fix from which the final approach (IFR) to
an airport is executed and which identifies the beginning of the
final approach segment. It is designated on Government charts by
the Maltese Cross symbol for nonprecision approaches and the
lightning bolt symbol for precision approaches; or when ATC
directs a lower-than-published glideslope/path intercept altitude,
it is the resultant actual point of the glideslope/path intercept.
Dudley Henriques
"Jim Stewart" <jste...@jkmicro.com> wrote in message
news:dO-dndE1oskQAd7b...@omsoft.com...
Interesting read. Just what you want in an instructor :-))
Dudley Henriques
Larry Dighera
wrote in <rdK0i.2008$UU....@newssvr19.news.prodigy.net>:
>It also defines "final" as
>the term commonly used to mean that an aircraft is on the final approach
>course or is aligned with a landing area.
Right. So VFR flights are on final approach at the time they turn
from the Base to Final leg of the landing pattern, and IFR flights at
the FAF. Easy.
Dudley Henriques
"gatt" <LiveFromTh...@gfy.com> wrote in message
news:134779q...@corp.supernews.com...
Sounds like my kind of guy :-))
Dudley Henriques
Dudley Henriques
"Grumman-581" <grumm...@DIE-SPAMMER-SCUM-gmail.com> wrote in message
news:46439f26$0$9949$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
Then again there are some of us out here who completed the DOM training by
age 6
:-)
Dudley Henriques
JGalban via AviationKB.com
>I'd be very interested in actually seeing his CFI certificate number and
>knowing his real name for checkup with the FAA. I find it extremely
>difficult from his dialog and points of view to envision him as a CFI, but
>stranger things have happened I guess :-))
Personally, after that "turn off the fuel" post, I didn't think he was a
real CFI.
The idea of unlilaterally turning a 360 in a busy pattern, struck me as odd.
There are other ways to avoid converging traffic without going heads up with
the guy behind you.
John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)
--
Message posted via AviationKB.com
http://www.aviationkb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/aviation/200705/1
Dudley Henriques
"JGalban via AviationKB.com" <u32749@uwe> wrote in message
news:71fd1e7873b37@uwe...
me in his posting. Everything about this guy sends me negative signals.
Anyway, just considering what he has posted already, I'd REALLY like to meet
the examiner who gave him a CFI :-)
Dudley Henriques
gatt
> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.aviation.student/browse_thread/thread/bb7456ddb7679b82/f6fcecd2c0126ad5?lnk=st&q=buttman+Henriques&rnum=1&hl=en#f6fcecd2c0126ad5
>
> Interesting read. Just what you want in an instructor :-))
Hey, all, I have a question about a comment in there:
"Sounds like another stupid instructor trick: practicing engine out
procedure at altitude by actually killing the engine. Could lead to an
'Oh Shit!' experience. "
Is that really a stupid instructor trick at altitude? My first instructor
did it during our first cross country work--"Oops. I wonder how that
happened?" Later he said he did it because the examiner would do it on the
checkride. In fact, when the examiner did it on the checkride I reflexively
checked the fuel lever first.
...When he asked me why I didn't go through the whole emergency procedure in
order, I said because I checked the fuel shutoff valve first because it's so
easy for some passenger to accidentally bump it. The rest of the maneuver
started with him saying something like "Okay [implied "smartass"], suppose
that wasn't the problem. What would you do?"
Is this no longer considered good instructional practice?
-c
Matt Barrow
You needed TRAINING?
Dudley Henriques
It came naturally by age 5. :-)
DH
Dudley Henriques
Number 1 on the list for an actual engine out is to lower the nose and
maintain airspeed and control of the aircraft. Fly the airplane is always
number 1. Changing tanks and/or checking the fuel shutoff valve should be an
automatic first action on the checklist.
I don't believe in shutting an engine down completely to teach realism to a
student. Never had to do this, and don't recommend other CFI's do it either.
There's always the chance of packing up the engine playing around like this
and the gain in creating a more realistic scenario for the student can
easily be countered by the instructor facing an actual engine out and forced
landing.
The difference between a windmilling propeller (I'm talking singles here)
and a stopped prop on glide can easily be covered by an instructor and
understood by the student without actually stopping the prop.
Bottom line for me anyway, is that I never recommend an actual shutdown. I
DO recommend serious practice of simulated engine out landings (no power
assist from an unknown point through the landing) ON THE RUNWAY with
particular attention to the attainment of a key position for the subsequent
power off approach and landing on the runway.
In all the years I was instructing, I found this method completely
satisfactory for preparing a pilot to handle a forced landing.
Dudley Henriques
Peter Dohm
> >>> It's because we're all getting older (Baby Boom Generation) and we're
> >>> becoming Grumpy Old Men... Of course, we also have to balance this
with
> >>> being Dirty Old Men In Training...
> >>
> >> Then again there are some of us out here who completed the DOM training
> >> by age 6
> >> :-)
> >
> > You needed TRAINING?
>
> It came naturally by age 5. :-)
> DH
>
>
presumed that I must have shared some ancestry with Mr. Ford Prefect--of
"Hitchhiker's Guide" infamy.
Peter
Peter Dohm
Thanks for the reminder.
Peter
C J Campbell
>>
>>
>> Landing. Aircraft while on final approach to land or while landing,
>> have the right-of-way over other aircraft in flight or operating on
>> the surface, except that they shall not take advantage of this rule to
>> force and aircraft off the runway surface which has already landed...
>
> Which does nothing to define what "final approach" is. If you are aligned
> with the runway and intending to land does final begin 5 miles from the
> threshold? 10 miles? 15 miles? 50 miles?
Well, in the case linked, in each incident the pilot of the Cessna 150
turned inside and cut in front of aircraft that were lower than him and
on final approach. At least one aircraft appears to have been in the
pattern that was lower than him but not on final was considered by the
FAA to be on "final approach" and lower. This behavior by the Cessna
pilot occurred repeatedly and on more than one flight.
So many planes can be on "final approach" but the lower aircraft has
right of way. However, you cannot deliberately try to descend lower
than another plane simply to position yourself in front of him. In the
case of the Cessna 150 pilot, he nearly hit a plane that had just
landed as well as one that was on the runway ready to take off. While
landing aircraft normally have right of way over departing aircraft,
the FAA ruled that the Cessna pilot was operating dangerously and
recklessly and that he cannot claim to have right of way if he is
flying recklessly.
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor
C J Campbell
> I had two recent situations where other pilots thought they'd be cool
> by being condescending jackasses over the radio, which effected my
> ability to teach my student.
>
> The first time was when I was at a local uncontrolled field with one
> of my students to introduce solf-field takeoffs and landings. When we
> were turning downwind, I heard a Cirrus call "On the ILS at the outer
> marker". I haven't flown any approaches for months, so I had no idea
> how exactly far out he was. There were at least two other people in
> the pattern, so instead of asking him to give a more accurate position
> report, I just went on. Just before I got abeam the numbers on
> downwind, the Cirrus guy called 3 miles out, so I told my student to
> just do a short approach instead of extending which would have screwed
> everyone else up.
>
> I'm looking out the window like crazy to find this Cirrus guy but I
> don't see him anywhere. Then suddenly I hear him say in a snappy voice
> "Cessna on base at *** do you plan on cutting me off?" Startled, I
> looked around but couldn't for the life of me see him. I responded
> "uuhh, Cirrus on ILS I don't see you", then he snaps back
> sarcastically, "oh 45 seconds before impact..."
Well, he was reckless. He saw you, but bull-headedly continued anyway
despite the risk of collision. It no longer matters who was right; he
was willing to kill both you and him simply to prove a point. It
appears he even sped up in order to make sure he stayed in front of you
or to intimidate you.
All pilots make mistakes, which is all the more reason we cannot allow
air rage to overcome our good judgment and sense of courtesy. Pilots
should be understanding and tolerant of each others' mistakes, if for
no other reason that no one is perfect.
People who cannot control their anger or other emotions in the cockpit
are a danger to both themselves and everyone around them. For this
reason alone I find the Cirrus pilot's behavior alarming.
However, that does not relieve you of your duty to both see and avoid
other aircraft, to follow the rules of right of way, or to communicate
more clearly on the radio. A little cooperation while the Cirrus was
still at the outer marker would have been more appropriate. A
preemptive "I don't see you or understand where you are; we are on base
about to turn final" might still have elicited a sharp response, but it
is one more thing you could have done to prevent the incident.
I think filing a NASA form is also a very good idea any time aircraft
communication (or the lack thereof) poses a hazard to operations. This
could go a long way toward improving communication in the future and is
a good resource to instructors.
buttman
wrote:
THANK YOU for actually reading my post and understanding my point. I
know in the case of the Cirrus, I could have done more to avoid that
situation. There were a few other planes in the pattern so it's not
like we could have just freely opened up an dialog between one
another. I hope my post didn't come off as "wah wah a mean cirrus cut
me off what a meany head wah wah" like some others are making it out
to be. No one is perfect, and I don't know why some people can't
accept the fact that I'm not...
My point was that rage over the radio is ABSOLUTELY NEVER
constructive. EVER. All it does is cause more problems.
buttman
wrote:
> "buttman" <nbvF...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Is this a joke? Are you being intentionally obtuse? Can you read?
Assuming you can, go back and read the first sentence I wrote.
I know I could have handled that situation a little better. Hindsight
is always 20/20. I accept full responsibility for me turning in front
of him. I have never said anything to the contrary. What on earth
makes you think I'm making excuses?
Are you saying the Cirrus guy was in the right to say what he said on
the radio? You think what I did gave him the right to act as
unprofessionally as he did? Or do you think what he said and how he
said it was indeed professional?
Aluckyguess
>I had two recent situations where other pilots thought they'd be cool
> by being condescending jackasses over the radio, which effected my
> ability to teach my student.
>
> The first time was when I was at a local uncontrolled field with one
> of my students to introduce solf-field takeoffs and landings. When we
> were turning downwind, I heard a Cirrus call "On the ILS at the outer
> marker". I haven't flown any approaches for months, so I had no idea
> how exactly far out he was. There were at least two other people in
> the pattern, so instead of asking him to give a more accurate position
> report, I just went on. Just before I got abeam the numbers on
> downwind, the Cirrus guy called 3 miles out, so I told my student to
> just do a short approach instead of extending which would have screwed
> everyone else up.
>
> I'm looking out the window like crazy to find this Cirrus guy but I
> don't see him anywhere. Then suddenly I hear him say in a snappy voice
> "Cessna on base at *** do you plan on cutting me off?" Startled, I
> looked around but couldn't for the life of me see him. I responded
> "uuhh, Cirrus on ILS I don't see you", then he snaps back
> sarcastically, "oh 45 seconds before impact..."
>
> realize Cirrus's were so fast. He had to have been going more than 150
> knots. I've turned short approaches in front of Seminoles when they
> were on 3 mile ILS finals and it has never been a problem...
>
> Anyways, the guy didn't have to be such a huge asshole. A busy pattern
> is stressful enough, the ones coming in straight in can at least be a
> little helpful, or at the VERY LEAST not act like a little baby when
> things don't go their way.
>
> Of the 50 or so times I've been on extended downwind when someone else
> in on a 3-10 mile final, I'd say 10 times I went behind them and it
> hasn't been a problem, 35 times I've gone behind them and it hasn't
> been a problem, and 5 times I messed it up and either cut the person
> off, or caused some other disruption. The other 4 times it was just a
> simple "sorry about that", or some other professional way of handing
> the situation, then forgetting it and moving on. It just makes it that
> much harder to shake it off when the person decides to act that way.
> Maybe I need to get thicker skin, but that situation had me all worked
> up for the rest of the flight, and I admit it hindered my instructing
> ability a little.
>
> As a little side note, that same Cirrus guy came today to my home
> airport which is even busier. There were like 7 planes already in the
> pattern, 3 on 45 for the pattern, and then comes my Cirrus. I
> recognized it was him because I remembered the tail number (N903CD).
> As soon as he called, tower told him to slow to final approach speed
> (which I just had to snicker to myself when I heard that ^_^). About a
> minute later I, on an extended downwind, was told to turn base, which
> would have put me right in front of the Cirrus. The tower cleared me
> for a full stop only (which I've never been issued before, our
> controllers are really good at accommodating a bunch of pattern
> traffic), and told the Cirrus to break off and enter on the 45 for a
> left traffic. After I landed, I switched to ground and just called it
> a day. When I got back to the training room, another instructor joked
> about how I was "kicked out of the pattern". He asked me of I heard
> about the Cirrus who "got pissed off and left". I said no but I can
> only imagine what he actually said...
>
> Anyways, back on topic. Also today, on another flight with another
> student, we were coming back on the 45 for a downwind entry. Not too
> long after he told me to report established on the downwind, someone's
> mic got stuck and all I could hear on the radio was "EEEERRRRRRCHSHH
> EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE" punctuated with my call sign and the words "I'm not
> communicating with him", then some more "AAAAAAEERRRRNNNGH". I saw a
> plane on downwind which was about to converge with me, a helicopter
> which looked like was doing WHO KNOWS WHAT, and someone else on upwind
> about to turn crosswind. It looked like I was going to converge with
> the plane on downwind, so I just decided to do a 360 where I was
> (about a mile before entering downwind). As soon as a break in the
> radio screeching appeared, I quickly told tower I'm doing a 360 to
> avoid what by then I thought was a clueless student on a solo who
> didn't know how to use the radio.
>
> Well as soon as I told tower, a voice came on saying "..and that will
> put you right in front of 64 Delta" (or whatever his tail number was).
> Apparently there was a plane behind me, but I had no idea. Buy
> anyways, he had to do a evasive maneuver also, and he was ticked off.
> He came back on and told tower he had to do an evasive to avoid "the
> kamikaze" as he called me.
>
> Well guess what, bub? I had to do an evasive maneuver too. Thats an
> everyday thing 'round these parts. There are two busy flight schools,
> as well as a lot of military activity (a C-130 comes here a few times
> a week to do touch and goes, gives us a lot of wake turbulence
> avoidance practice ^_^). I had to fly a downwind parallel to him and
> then follow him in. I couldn't let my student do the flying because it
> was an atypical situation. AND I had to do all this while I'm getting
> name-called by some tard out of no-where. It just makes things that
> much more frustrating.
>
>
> So please, don't be a jackass show off on the radio. I actually saw
> the second guy climb out his plane after we landed. I saw he had what
> looked like his wife in there with him. I imagine he was acting like
> that to show off in front of his wife *rolleyes*.
>
> Anyways, just please be mindful of others, especially considering the
> environment your in (busy airspace; emergency in the area; whatever it
> may be). Just be aware that those snappy one liners may make you look
> cool, but they just make others frustrated and more life more
> difficult.
>
> I know this post is getting long, but theres one more instance I want
> to bring up. When I was getting my multi rating a few months ago, we
> went to a towered airport a few miles away to do a few ILS/VOR
> approaches. While we were doing the procedure turns and stuff, we
> could hear this clueless student pilot entering on a solo cross
> country. This guy was a total wreck. First he was 10 miles south; then
> he was 5 miles north, then he was over such and such lake which is 15
> miles northwest. The controllers at this particular airport aren't
> known as the friendliest around, so as you can imagine, the poor guy
> wasn't having a good time.
>
> I wasn't really paying attention to what all was being said because I
> was focusing on my approaches, but after doing about 3 full ILS/VOR
> approaches (procedure turn and all) he still was confused as to where
> he was and hadn't landed yet (but I believe was still in the pattern).
> We were just doing missed approaches, breaking off well before the
> airport area to stay out of the way.
>
> I don't really blame the controller because he was frustrated too, but
> it was what my instructor said which I think was worst of all. During
> our last approach, he said something to the effect of "Do you want us
> to do another low approach so you can handle this guy, or can we do a
> touch and go the this next one?"
>
> I just cringed when I heard that. I just can imagine being in his
> shoes. The last thing I want to know is that I'm messing not only the
> controller's thing, but other pilots as well. We didn't NEED to do a
> touch and go, we could have just did our share by helping out with the
> low approaches, then moved on. Indirectly telling the poor student how
> incompetent he is (which he HAS to already know by then) just helps no
> one out. It just makes things worse.
>
> I don't think what my instructor said
>
Blanche
>
>I try and avoid this guy unless he posts on the student group where I have
>an interest from an instructor's point of view. Over here it's every man for
>himself and I try to avoid taking him on.
>Last time we "got together", was fairly recently when he posted on the
>student group about yanking the fuel to shutoff on takeoff with "his
>student" and wanted to know if it was a good idea :-)
aHA! Now I remember the "buttman incident" from a few weeks ago.
I thought the OP sounded vaguely familiar...
Blanche
>Is this a joke? Are you being intentionally obtuse? Can you read?
>Assuming you can, go back and read the first sentence I wrote.
>
>I know I could have handled that situation a little better. Hindsight
>is always 20/20. I accept full responsibility for me turning in front
>of him. I have never said anything to the contrary. What on earth
>makes you think I'm making excuses?
>
>Are you saying the Cirrus guy was in the right to say what he said on
>the radio? You think what I did gave him the right to act as
>unprofessionally as he did? Or do you think what he said and how he
>said it was indeed professional?
Stop whining and get a thicker skin. It happens. So what? You expect
everyone around you to be explicit adherents to Miss Manners?
Not only that, all we have read is your perception of the event.
And following Dudley's train of thought - can you prove you're a CFI?
buttman
> buttman <nbvF...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >Is this a joke? Are you being intentionally obtuse? Can you read?
> >Assuming you can, go back and read the first sentence I wrote.
>
> >I know I could have handled that situation a little better. Hindsight
> >is always 20/20. I accept full responsibility for me turning in front
> >of him. I have never said anything to the contrary. What on earth
> >makes you think I'm making excuses?
>
> >Are you saying the Cirrus guy was in the right to say what he said on
> >the radio? You think what I did gave him the right to act as
> >unprofessionally as he did? Or do you think what he said and how he
> >said it was indeed professional?
>
> Stop whining and get a thicker skin. It happens. So what? You expect
> everyone around you to be explicit adherents to Miss Manners?
>
I'm not whining. I started this thread to make others aware that being
a jackass over the radio is not at all constructive. I just used those
three events to make my point. People make threads like this all the
time here. It's a subject matter that I felt needed some attention, so
I thought I'd write up some experiences I have and get a discussion
going. Sheesh, I thought people would actually appreciate my effort.
Silly me. Next time I just won't bother, would that make you happier?
> Not only that, all we have read is your perception of the event.
I give the Cirrus guy total benefit of the doubt. Maybe he is normally
a very nice guy who is never short with people. Maybe he was having a
bad day, and me turning in front of him (for the 10th time I agree was
totally my fault) caused him to snap. I didn't snap back at him
(something I'd NEVER do), nor did I feel it necessary to peruse the
matter further with him. The fact of the matter is, I handled the
resulting situation professionally, he did not. When something like
that happens, both parties must act responsibly no matter which one
"caused" the situation in the first place. Heck, I've had people pull
out in front me a few times. Did I overreact? No. Even though I may
have had the "right" to get all snappy.
> And following Dudley's train of thought - can you prove you're a CFI?
And what would my CFI number add to the discussion? Why does it even
matter? If you don't believe I really have a CFI then you can go right
on ahead and believe that. It doesn't change what I wrote one bit. You
should judge me by my words, not my credentials. Thats the thing that
pisses me off about this group; people think having credentials
automatically makes your word concrete. In the other thread I made a
few weeks ago in r.a.s it was the same way. People just came in and
said "I've been an instructor for thirty years and I say its unsafe,
END OF DISCUSSION" without providing any real arguments. I'm here to
argue and debate, not play the stupid "who has the biggest e-penis"
game. Anyways, even if I did give my CFI number/name people would just
say I made the number up...
Larry Dighera
<1178862625.7...@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>:
>even if I did give my CFI number/name people would just
>say I made the number up...
If you provide your true name and state of residence, your
certificates may be searched on the FAA web site, not to mention what
it would do for your credibility compared to your present pseudonym.
Aside from those who prefer to criticize you, can you provide any
regulatory statute against what occurred on the radio? As far as I
understand, the FAA authorizes (presumably with the concurrence of the
FCC) the self-announcement broadcast of position and intentions by
pilots at non-towered airports as set forth in Advisory Circular
AC90-42F below.
You will note, that it does NOT authorize _two-way_ communication
between aircraft, so it would seem that such _two-way_ communication
may be contrary to FAA policy if not regulation. (That's not to say
that two-way communication between pilots isn't useful at times.) This
is an issue you might consider discussing with the local FSDO
inspector for a more definitive answer (hopefully).
http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/0/C54E50252A7FA56D862569D8007804BA?OpenDocument
AC 90-42F Traffic Advisory Practices at Airports without Operating
Control Towers
9. SELF-ANNOUNCE POSITION AND/OR INTENTIONS.
a. General. ‘Self-announce” is a procedure whereby pilots
broadcast their position, intended flight activity or ground
operation on the designated CTAF. This procedure is used primarily
at airports which do not have a control tower or an FSS on the
airport.
...
11. EXAMPLES OF SELF-ANNOUNCE PHRASEOLOGIES. It should be noted
that aircraft operating to or from another nearby airport may be
making self-announce broadcasts on the same UNICOM or MULTICOM
frequency. To help identify one airport from another, the airport
name should be spoken at the beginning and end of each
self-announce transmission.
(1) Inbound:
STRAWN TRAFFIC, APACHE TWO TWO FIVE ZULU, (POSITION), (ALTITUDE),
(DESCENDING) OR ENTERING DOWNWIND/BASE/FINAL (AS APPROPRIATE)
RUNWAY ONE SEVEN FULL STOP,
TOUCH-AND-GO, STRAWN.
* STRAWN TRAFFIC APACHE TWO IWO FIVE ZULU CLEAR OF RUNWAY ONE
SEVEN STRAWN. *
(2) outbound:
$TRAWN TRAFFIC, QUEENAIRE SEVEN ONE FIVE FIVE BRAVO (LOCATION ON
AIRPORT) TAXIING TO RUNWAY TWO SIX STRAWN.
STRAWN TRAFFIC, QUEENAIRE SEVEN ONE FCVE FIVE BRAVO DEPARTING
RUNWAY TWO SIX, DEPARTING THE PATTERN TO THE (DIRECTION),
CLIMBING TO (ALTITUDE) STRAWN.
(3) Practice Instrument Approach:
STRAWN TRAFFIC, CESSNA TWO THREE FOUR THREE QUEBEC (NAME - FINAL
APPROACH FIX) INBOUND DESCENDING THROUGH (ALTITUDE) PRACTICE
(TYPE) APPROACH RUNWAY THREE FIVE STRAWN.
STRAWN TRAFFIC, CESSNA TWO ONE FOUR THREE QUEBEC PRACTICE (TYPE)
APPROACH COMPLETED OR TERMINATED RUNWAY THREE FIVE STRAWN.
12 SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDED COMMUNCATIONS PROCEDURES.
...
Allen
"Larry Dighera" <LDig...@att.net> wrote in message
news:m18743dvo1cvpregh...@4ax.com...
And if you are in an NORDO Aeronca Champ doing touch and goes on Sunday
afternoon how do you determine it?
Allen
So if you are on a VFR flight doing a straight in you are never on final?
B A R R Y
> Dudley Henriques wrote:
>
>> Last time we "got together", was fairly recently when he posted on the
>> student group about yanking the fuel to shutoff on takeoff with "his
>> student" and wanted to know if it was a good idea :-)
>
>
> Thanks for pointing out the history.
>
If he keeps doing that, he may not be posting for long.
Dudley Henriques
>> And following Dudley's train of thought - can you prove you're a CFI?
>
> And what would my CFI number add to the discussion? Why does it even
> matter? If you don't believe I really have a CFI then you can go right
> on ahead and believe that. It doesn't change what I wrote one bit. You
> should judge me by my words, not my credentials.
Quite to the contrary, it's your "words" that make some pilots on these
groups question your "credentials".
Although its a fact that you don't have to post your real name on these
groups, its also a fact that many new student pilots frequent these groups.
For that reason, most of the pilots and instructors who post here are very
careful with the information they present. Although ALL information
presented on Usenet should be checked for accuracy, there is always a
potential flight safety factor in play here, especially when someone posts
using a CFI format.
I've read your posts and I have serious questions about you. Basically I'm
concerned not so much about the statements you have made but rather the
questions you have asked. In my opinion, if you are indeed a CFI as you have
stated on these groups, you should already know the answers to the questions
you are asking.
So I have a double problem with you. Your questions are suspect to me, and
your overall reasoning is suspect as well.
You are correct when you say that credentials on Usenet are not as important
as the information posted. The pilots here have been reading each other as
well as newbies for many years. Our opinions on the validity of a post is
based on years of actual experience reading what an individual poster has to
say.
With this in mind, and based only on the information you have posted to
these groups, I have to tell you that in my opinion you are either posing as
a flight instructor or a completely ill prepared CFI.
As I have said before, I personally will give you a great deal more
lattitude on the piloting group than I will on the student group. As someone
who has invested a great deal of time and effort in the instruction
business, I naturally have an aversion to bad information and will say so
when presented with same. This has nothing at all to do with being a "Usenet
Bully".
Thats the thing that
> pisses me off about this group; people think having credentials
> automatically makes your word concrete.
Again, your reasoning and deduction is suspect.
If you will notice, hardly anyone on these groups stresses credentials. Most
of us mention them only in passing. We all realize that it's the information
that actually establishes the "credentials" on these groups. Respect here
has been earned through hundreds and in some cases thousands of postings
containing information that those reading the posts know to be factual and
correct. In this manner, "credentials" are earned on Usenet, and by no other
means.
In the other thread I made a
> few weeks ago in r.a.s it was the same way. People just came in and
> said "I've been an instructor for thirty years and I say its unsafe,
> END OF DISCUSSION" without providing any real arguments.
Actually its longer than that, and you received precise and direct argument
stating exactly why as a CFI you don't turn off the fuel on takeoff. The
fact that you even asked this question and posed this scenario is one of the
prime reasons I suspect that you are either not a CFI or a VERY poor one.
You will notice that I'm questioning your information as well as your
"credentials."
I'm here to
> argue and debate, not play the stupid "who has the biggest e-penis"
> game. Anyways, even if I did give my CFI number/name people would just
> say I made the number up...
>
Again, your powers of deductive reasoning are in my opinion, suspect.
It is not the purpose of these groups to "argue and debate". The purpose of
these groups is to SHARE useful and accurate data and information about
flying and aviation.
Its fine to argue your point, and its fine to engage in debate, but to enter
these groups for the specific purpose of arguing and debating shows a basic
lack of understanding for why the majority of people engage on these pilot
forums.
Dudley Henriques
Larry Dighera
wrote in <cEY0i.2612$zj3....@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net>:
>
>And if you are in an NORDO Aeronca Champ doing touch and goes on Sunday
>afternoon how do you determine it?
>
My guess would be, that the same FAAO 7110.65 PCG definitions apply to
all flights including NORDO flights, as well as those who choose not
to participate in the position and intentions broadcasts
To determine if it's appropriate to begin the turns to the base and
final legs of the landing pattern, the NORDO pilot on downwind would
use the same method pilots of aircraft with electrical systems use,
the Mark I Eyeball.
If visibility is three miles in Class E airspace surrounding the
non-towered airport, and there is an inbound IFR flight past the five
mile distant FAF in line with the runway centerline, the NORDO pilot
won't be able to visually acquire the conflicting IFR traffic that has
the right of way. But, a Champ could land and be tied down before
there is an opportunity for a MAC.
At one mile visibility in Class G airspace, the Champ would probably
still not be too much of a hazard to the IFR arrival if its pilot made
a short approach. However, if the NORDO Champ turns base up against
the face of a cumulus cloud, there is potential for an 'aluminum
thunder shower', but the same would be true for radio equipped
aircraft despite the pilot being aware of the position and intentions
broadcast by the IFR arrival.
Do you see it differently?
Larry Dighera
wrote in <KGY0i.2613$zj3....@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net>:
Larry Dighera
wrote in <KGY0i.2613$zj3....@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net>:
Not the way I see it.
If you are aligned with the runway centerline VFR inbound, past the
FAF fix if there is a published instrument approach, I would say your
flight meets the PCG definition of being on the final approach leg of
the landing pattern. If there is no published FAF, (again, as in my
answer to your previous question in Message-ID:
KGY0i.2613$zj3....@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net qv) there are issues
governed by the prevailing metrological conditions and the class of
airspace in which the flight is being conducted.
I realize you are attempting to point out, that there are often
instances where the flight on downwind will inadvertently violate the
first sentence of CFR Title 14, Part 91 §91.113(g):
http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=391bdf23098172240eee2243ba892c10&rgn=div5&view=text&node=14:2.0.1.3.10&idno=14#14:2.0.1.3.10.2.4.7
(g) Landing. Aircraft, while on final approach to land or while
landing, have the right-of-way over other aircraft in flight or
operating on the surface, except that they shall not take
advantage of this rule to force an aircraft off the runway surface
which has already landed and is attempting to make way for an
aircraft on final approach. When two or more aircraft are
approaching an airport for the purpose of landing, the aircraft at
the lower altitude has the right-of-way, but it shall not take
advantage of this rule to cut in front of another which is on
final approach to land or to overtake that aircraft.
But the second sentence of §91.113(g) above relating to the relative
altitudes of the aircraft makes that interpretation a bit ambiguous.
In practice, the point you are attempting to make is probably moot, as
I'm not aware of a significant number of MACs resulting from
§91.113(g) violations.
But you might do some research on the NTSB aviation accident database
to verify your concern: http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/query.asp
buttman
> "buttman" <nbvF...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1178862625.7...@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> And following Dudley's train of thought - can you prove you're a CFI?
>
> > And what would my CFI number add to the discussion? Why does it even
> > matter? If you don't believe I really have a CFI then you can go right
> > on ahead and believe that. It doesn't change what I wrote one bit. You
> > should judge me by my words, not my credentials.
>
> Quite to the contrary, it's your "words" that make some pilots on these
> groups question your "credentials".
What are some of these 'words' that makes you think i'm one of the
worlds worst instructors? Just give me an example. I've made less than
100 posts on this group since I started using usenet back in 2005, and
I've made a whopping 5 posts on r.a.s, so finding one shouldn't be
hard.
> Although its a fact that you don't have to post your real name on these
> groups, its also a fact that many new student pilots frequent these groups.
> For that reason, most of the pilots and instructors who post here are very
> careful with the information they present. Although ALL information
> presented on Usenet should be checked for accuracy, there is always a
> potential flight safety factor in play here, especially when someone posts
> using a CFI format.
I'm not following you. How does my CFI number have anything to do with
new students reading this group?
> I've read your posts and I have serious questions about you. Basically I'm
> concerned not so much about the statements you have made but rather the
> questions you have asked.
What questions should a CFI be asking, and what questions shouldn't be
asked? Or do you think CFI's should not ask questions at all? If
you're referring to the fuel valve incident, I thought it was a valid
question. You have 2 miles of runway which was 150 feet wide, a low
horsepower engine (so no huge yaw), and me on board who can take over
if the student locks up. I admit it's pushing some safety boundaries,
but so does completely shutting down one engine in a twin, or a
simulated engine failure (via the throttle) in the traffic pattern...
Hell, TAKING OFF in even a perfectly airworthy airplane is pushing
certain safety boundaries.
> In my opinion, if you are indeed a CFI as you have
> stated on these groups, you should already know the answers to the questions
> you are asking.
> So I have a double problem with you. Your questions are suspect to me, and
> your overall reasoning is suspect as well.
> You are correct when you say that credentials on Usenet are not as important
> as the information posted. The pilots here have been reading each other as
> well as newbies for many years. Our opinions on the validity of a post is
> based on years of actual experience reading what an individual poster has to
> say.
>
> With this in mind, and based only on the information you have posted to
> these groups, I have to tell you that in my opinion you are either posing as
> a flight instructor or a completely ill prepared CFI.
> As I have said before, I personally will give you a great deal more
> lattitude on the piloting group than I will on the student group. As someone
> who has invested a great deal of time and effort in the instruction
> business, I naturally have an aversion to bad information and will say so
> when presented with same.
Get over yourself.
> This has nothing at all to do with being a "Usenet
> Bully".
I never called you or anyone a usenet bully. "Internet tough guy" is
someone who feels the need to act like a tough guy over the internet
over something they wouldn't dare do in real life. It's like me saying
if my piano teacher played a wrong note I'm going to get up and yell
into her face "YOU'RE FIRED". In the real world its a cumulation of
small things, or one big thing that causes someone to get tired.
Accidentally pulling in front of a straight in is not something a sane
person would fire their CFI over. It's just ridiculous.
> Again, your reasoning and deduction is suspect.
> If you will notice, hardly anyone on these groups stresses credentials.
Are you kidding? Just about everyone has their real name / location /
certificates held in their signature. I've been using internet
discussion forums since the early 2000's, and I've never been part of
a group that does that. I've even been part of professional groups,
with doctors post
about medical matters, lawyers post about legal matters, pilots post
about aviation matters; none of them do that.
I've spoke with real life CFI's, including examiners, very high time
instructors, ex-FAA inspectors, and they all have treated me with
respect. This is the only group that feels the need to jump down my
throat.
> > In the other thread I made a
> > few weeks ago in r.a.s it was the same way. People just came in and
> > said "I've been an instructor for thirty years and I say its unsafe,
> > END OF DISCUSSION" without providing any real arguments.
>
> Actually its longer than that, and you received precise and direct argument
> stating exactly why as a CFI you don't turn off the fuel on takeoff.
People compared what I was doing with shutting down one engine in a
twin (which I completely agree is unsafe during takeoff regardless of
the runway length). They posted accident reports where someone stalled/
spun on takeoff and the plane was found to have the fuel valve turned
off; not the same situation.
Everyone just kneejerk reacted to me challenging their already held
beliefs. Instead of acknowledging I had some points, they just all
made me out to be a crazy madman. It's easier to do that, than it is
to change your way of thinking.
> Again, your powers of deductive reasoning are in my opinion, suspect.
> It is not the purpose of these groups to "argue and debate". The purpose of
> these groups is to SHARE useful and accurate data and information about
> flying and aviation.
And what on earth is the difference?
gatt
> The difference between a windmilling propeller (I'm talking singles here)
> and a stopped prop on glide can easily be covered by an instructor and
> understood by the student without actually stopping the prop.
> Bottom line for me anyway, is that I never recommend an actual shutdown. I
> DO recommend serious practice of simulated engine out landings (no power
> assist from an unknown point through the landing) ON THE RUNWAY with
> particular attention to the attainment of a key position for the
> subsequent power off approach and landing on the runway.
> In all the years I was instructing, I found this method completely
> satisfactory for preparing a pilot to handle a forced landing.
> Dudley Henriques
Thanks, Dudley! That answers my question exactly.
-c
gatt
Regardless of whether anybody agrees with the OP, I think the "PSA"
requesting that people not be rude on the radio has merit.
If we just disregard the conventions and what seems like an unwritten
gentleman's agreement as to conduct on the radio, it won't be long before
somebody starts calling out "TEN FOUR" or "BREAKER BREAKER PODUNK
TRAFFIC..." If there are students in the air and they hear
unprofessional conduct, they will learn to expect this as acceptable
behavior in radio communication.
-c
gatt
"Peter Dohm" <left...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:fAP0i.964$t7.39@bigfe9...
<I have simply
> presumed that I must have shared some ancestry with Mr. Ford Prefect--of
> "Hitchhiker's Guide" infamy.
"The knack of flying is learning how to throw yourself at the ground and
miss." -Douglas Adams
B A R R Y
<LiveFromTh...@gfy.com> wrote:
>
>Regardless of whether anybody agrees with the OP, I think the "PSA"
>requesting that people not be rude on the radio has merit.
Agreed!
Vic Baron
>
> "Grumman-581" <grumm...@DIE-SPAMMER-SCUM-gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:46439f26$0$9949$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
>> Jay Honeck wrote:
>>>> by being condescending jackasses over the radio, which effected my
>>>> ability to teach my student.
>>>
>>> I've heard more rude and improper radio talk in the last two years
>>> than I had in the previous ten. The rudeness that has invaded our
>>> society is starting to penetrate the cockpit environment, and *that*
>>> is a shame.
>>
>> becoming Grumpy Old Men... Of course, we also have to balance this with
>> being Dirty Old Men In Training...
>
> Then again there are some of us out here who completed the DOM training by
> age 6
> :-)
Gee! I heard that you wrote the syllabus, Dudley
:)
Vic
Matt Barrow
"B A R R Y" <Dwight...@dundermifflin.com> wrote in message
news:9ek943t2dvtfltvqn...@4ax.com...
Oh. blow it out your ass! :)
Morgans
"Matt Barrow" > wrote
> Oh. blow it out your ass! :)
You need to be telling him that on the radio, to give it the right "flavor."
<g>
--
Jim in NC
B A R R Y
<mba...@performancehomes.com> wrote:
>
>Oh. blow it out your ass! :)
>
Thank you sir, may I have another?
Phil
> I had two recent situations where other pilots thought they'd be cool
> by being condescending jackasses over the radio, which effected my
> ability to teach my student.
>
Well, so what? Big deal and quit whining. When I learned to fly my Dad's
Aeronca Champ it didn't have a radio - nor did half the planes at the
airport - and we had to deal with Larson AFB also.
No one got all hot and bothered if they were cut off, or had to go
around or whatever, they just did so without all that cry-baby crap - we
all seemed to get along.
Your story is typical of todays pilot and pilot instructor.
Much ado about nothing.
--
"Religion began when the first scoundrel met the first fool."
—- Voltaire
gatt
"Matt Barrow" <mba...@performancehomes.com> wrote in message
news:_Y41i.37475$jt2....@newsfe13.lga...
>>>Regardless of whether anybody agrees with the OP, I think the "PSA"
>>>requesting that people not be rude on the radio has merit.
>>
>> Agreed!
>
> Oh. blow it out your ass! :)
LOL! Fortunately, air traffic doesn't communicate over Usenet or we'd all
be in trouble!
-c
Dudley Henriques
others to you and find that I have, along with others, supplied you with
more than sufficient information to satisfy the requests involved with this
post from you. I feel no need to delve into a micro rehash when the macro
has already been discussed.
Suffice to say that on the subject of flight instruction as you have
presented it on these newsgroups, my opinion of you based on these posts is
that I personally have strong issues with what you have presented
here....period.
As you say, it's the information that's important. Rather than engage you
with some kind of back and forth dialog where you begin by telling me to
"get over myself", I think what I'd rather do is pass on this type of post
and instead deal directly with any and all information dealing with flight
instruction ONLY that you post as a CFI on these newsgroups in the future.
Dudley Henriques
"buttman" <nbv...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1178911863.7...@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
Dudley Henriques
"Vic Baron" <vgb...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:mX41i.2703$zj3....@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net...
Well I did actually have a Cub Scout ask me once what Wilber and Orville
Wright were like
:-)
Dudley Henriques
Bertie the Bunyip
@e51g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:
> I had two recent situations where other pilots thought they'd be cool
> by being condescending jackasses over the radio, which effected my
> ability to teach my student.
>
You are an instructor? I'd love to point out each and every one of the
idiotic things you did and said here, but I haven't got enough time.
Jesus wept.
Bertie
>
Jose
> Wright were like
> :-)
Did you tell him?
Jose
--
Quantum Mechanics is like this: God =does= play dice with the universe,
except there's no God, and there's no dice. And maybe there's no universe.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.
Dudley Henriques
"Jose" <teac...@aol.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:nea1i.21176$JZ3....@newssvr13.news.prodigy.net...
>> Well I did actually have a Cub Scout ask me once what Wilber and Orville
>> Wright were like
>> :-)
>
> Did you tell him?
>
> Jose
Actually I did. I just didn't tell him I KNEW them personally :-))
Dudley Henriques
buttman
> buttman wrote:
> > I had two recent situations where other pilots thought they'd be cool
> > by being condescending jackasses over the radio, which effected my
> > ability to teach my student.
> Well, so what? Big deal and quit whining. When I learned to fly my Dad's
> Aeronca Champ it didn't have a radio - nor did half the planes at the
> airport - and we had to deal with Larson AFB also.
>
> No one got all hot and bothered if they were cut off, or had to go
> around or whatever, they just did so without all that cry-baby crap - we
> all seemed to get along.
You realize I am in 100% agreement with you? My OP is exactly what you
wrote, but with more words and without the "in my day" part.
> Your story is typical of todays pilot and pilot instructor.
>
> Much ado about nothing.
So let me get this straight:
1. I pull out in front of a Cirrus
2. I admit I was wrong and could have done more to avoid this
situation.
3. Cirrus guy gets all snotty with me over the radio as I'm trying to
see and avoid all other pattern traffic as well as teach to my
student.
4. Instead of snapping back I just go on my merry way and try best I
can to carry on with the instruction.
5. A similar situation happens a few days later with similar results.
Me not snapping back, and making the situation more stressful.
6. I realize things like this happen somewhat often so I decide to
make a post on usenet to warn others of what being snotty on the radio
can cause. Ask any controller their opinion on snotty pilots on a freq
with 5 planes in the pattern...
7. Said post to bring this issue to everyone's attention makes me a
cry baby who needs to shut up
buttman
> Suffice to say that on the subject of flight instruction as you have
> presented it on these newsgroups, my opinion of you based on these posts is
> that I personally have strong issues with what you have presented
So in other words, you're saying you think I'm a bad flight
instructor, but don't have any evidence to back this claim up. Mind
you, this is based on my less than 20 posts I've made on usenet from a
CFI standpoint...
I find it funny that the only ones insulting me are doing it with one
liners: "my god you're a terrible instructor", "if you were my
instructor, I'd fire you", "I can't even begin to count the things in
your post that tell me you aren't a real CFI", "I'd like to know the
DE that passed you".
The first few replies to my OP were polite and on topic. As soon as
one person started insulting me, a bunch others else had to join the
bandwagon. I guarantee if my post was made word for word by someone
else more "respected" here, such as CJ Campbell, or Bob Hoover, you
wouldn't see ONE SINGLE negative reply. What if my post was made word
for word by everyone's favorite punching bag mxsmanic? Information is
information, regardless who brings it about. If it can be backed up
then it holds water. If it can't be backed up, no matter who says it,
it don't hold water. The same goes for opinions. An opinion not based
on any facts is not an opinion worth having. At least thats how I
feel...
I don't care if you have 10,000 hours of dual given, if you can't come
up with a compelling argument that I have "serious problems" then you
need to shut up about my CFI ability. And I'm sorry but "I just feel
this way" isn't a compelling argument. Quoting an irrelevant accident
report or personal experience is not one either.
> As you say, it's the information that's important. Rather than engage you
> with some kind of back and forth dialog where you begin by telling me to
> "get over myself", I think what I'd rather do is pass on this type of post
> and instead deal directly with any and all information dealing with flight
> instruction ONLY that you post as a CFI on these newsgroups in the future.
> Dudley Henriques
If it's the information thats important, then why did you feel the
need to bring up my question on r.a.s? Why do you want me to give you
my real name and CFI number?
Dudley Henriques
Do I REALLY have to reiterate to you that pulling a fuel valve on a student
on takeoff is poor technique for a flight instructor dealing with a
student.....and this goes for having a runway 50 miles long....IT JUST ISN'T
A GOOD SAFE PRACTICE TO DO THIS?
Do I REALLY have to tell you that regardless of a traffic situation in the
pattern, and regardless of your position in that pattern and the position of
another aircraft in or coming into that pattern, YOU as the pilot in
command, and as the instructor flying with a student, should KNOW what to do
in ALL situations and should have done whatever was needed quietly and
professionally without further discussion or incident regardless of the
actions of the other pilot ? This situation should have been a non event for
you as an instructor....period! At the very least, what you SHOULD have done
in the Cirrus situation is avoid the problem by taking whatever action was
necessary to insure the safety of your aircraft. If there was an issue with
the Cirrus pilot concerning his language, this should have been nothing more
to you than a golden opportunity to stress the safety issue with your
student. The language issue should have been another golden opportunity to
stress the need for proper radio etiquette with the student at the moment of
infraction, NOT here on the group as a rant!
In my opinion, just these two examples are quite enough for me to make a
decision about you as a flight instructor.
You asked me for specifics. I have given them to you.
I realize of course that my personal opinion of you as a CFI might not be
exactly to your liking. I have no objection whatsoever if you would like to
print out the entire two threads on pulling the fuel valve on your student
pilot and also the incident in the pattern with the Cirrus and take both of
them down to your local FAA office. Then report back here if you like with
their collective opinion on these two situations involving your decision
making abilities as a CFI.
Sometimes a fresh input from another source will shed much needed light on
an issue.
Dudley Henriques
"buttman" <nbv...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1178941868....@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
buttman
> PLEASE!
> Do I REALLY have to reiterate to you that pulling a fuel valve on a student
> on takeoff is poor technique for a flight instructor dealing with a
> student.....and this goes for having a runway 50 miles long....IT JUST ISN'T
> A GOOD SAFE PRACTICE TO DO THIS?
'Safe' is a relative term. What is exactly does 'safe' begin and end?
You admit that a practice engine failure on takeoff is perfectly safe
when done by closing the throttle. The only difference between pulling
the throttle instead of the gas valve means you have power if you need
it. With a wide and long runway 50 feet below you, what would you need
the power for?
I admit there could be a perfectly good reason why you losing that
ability to add back power could result in an accident, but I haven't
heard it. I bet if I were to print out this thread and give it to the
FAA office, I'm pretty sure they'd agree with you. I actually would be
surprised if they recommended doing it. But at the very least, they'd
give good reason to not do so (I hope). It's like one of those puzzles
that you know has an answer, and you kind of know the answer, but non
the less is nowhere to be found.
> Do I REALLY have to tell you that regardless of a traffic situation in the
> pattern, and regardless of your position in that pattern and the position of
> another aircraft in or coming into that pattern, YOU as the pilot in
> command, and as the instructor flying with a student, should KNOW what to do
> in ALL situations and should have done whatever was needed quietly and
> professionally without further discussion or incident regardless of the
> actions of the other pilot ?
What should I have done? I misjudged the Cirrus. It was a mistake. I
regret that it happened, but it happened. I thought it would be
further out, but apparently he was closer. I wasn't looking right in
front of me, I was looking further out because thats where I thought
he was. I'll say it for the 100 millionth time; I made a mistake. I
don't know what you want me to do...
> This situation should have been a non event for
> you as an instructor....period!
It sort of was a non-event. I took the controls from my student,
turned back to rejoin the extended downwind until the cirrus passed,
turned final behind the cirrus, then made a call to the CTAF saying I
had re-established on final behind the cirrus. I didn't snap back at
him, I didn't start crying, I didn't end the flight there... It did
bother me a little, but what do you expect? Are you saying that the
comment bothering me means I'm a bad instructor? Is a controller who
is annoyed by a snappy pilot a bad controller?
> At the very least, what you SHOULD have done
> in the Cirrus situation is avoid the problem by taking whatever action was
> necessary to insure the safety of your aircraft.
What makes you think I didn't "ensure safety of my aircraft"? You are
making things up.
> If there was an issue with
> the Cirrus pilot concerning his language, this should have been nothing more
> to you than a golden opportunity to stress the safety issue with your
> student. The language issue should have been another golden opportunity to
> stress the need for proper radio etiquette with the student at the moment of
> infraction,
What makes you think I didn't use this as an opportunity to teach my
student proper radio technique? If I remember correctly, my student
(who is a native Chinese speaker, who can hardly speak English in the
first place) even commented "what was that guy's problem" as we were
heading home.
I also think that way I didn't snap back (something I'd never EVER do)
goes to teach my student more than I could ever tell him on the
ground.
> NOT here on the group as a rant!
Why? People here made threads ranting about little stuff like this all
the time. I remember a thread about tower induced go-arounds lot too
long ago. How is that any different? Or any of the other 10,000
threads that are made here every year. What exactly makes this thread
so intolerable? I seriously want to know so I won't make anymore.
> In my opinion, just these two examples are quite enough for me to make a
> decision about you as a flight instructor.
And those "two examples" are completely ridiculous. So your opinion is
worthless.
Bertie the Bunyip
@e51g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:
Actualy the cry baby thing would be the least of my worries..
Bertie
Matt Whiting
> On May 11, 9:28 pm, "Dudley Henriques" <dhenriq...@rcn.com> wrote:
>> PLEASE!
>> Do I REALLY have to reiterate to you that pulling a fuel valve on a student
>> on takeoff is poor technique for a flight instructor dealing with a
>> student.....and this goes for having a runway 50 miles long....IT JUST ISN'T
>> A GOOD SAFE PRACTICE TO DO THIS?
>
> 'Safe' is a relative term. What is exactly does 'safe' begin and end?
> You admit that a practice engine failure on takeoff is perfectly safe
> when done by closing the throttle. The only difference between pulling
> the throttle instead of the gas valve means you have power if you need
> it. With a wide and long runway 50 feet below you, what would you need
> the power for?
When the maintenance truck drives onto the runway ahead of you by
mistake. When the (deer, moose, etc.) runs onto the runway ahead of
you. I can probably think of others, but these two have happened to me
personally. Cutting the fuel is simply an unnecessary risk in this
situation.
Matt
Dudley Henriques
the worst deductive reasoning I have ever seen posted on these forums. You
in fact might simply be a teen age troll.
I suggest you either quit instructing before you kill someone or disconnect
your little plastic stick from the computer and put it away for the night.
Dudley Henriques
"buttman" <nbv...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1178948233.4...@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
Dudley Henriques
"Matt Whiting" <whi...@epix.net> wrote in message
news:r9i1i.9888$Oc.2...@news1.epix.net...
> buttman wrote:
>The only difference between pulling
> the throttle instead of the gas valve means you have power if you need
> it.
This single sentence is enough for me . It says it all :-))
Dudley Henriques
RomeoMike
reference at this point, two instances where an instructor killed the
engine at altitude over an airport. When it became clear that the
student was going to overshoot the runway, the engine would not
re-start, and a crash ensued. Why take a chance on making a real
emergency trying to simulate one?
gatt wrote:
>
> Hey, all, I have a question about a comment in there:
>
> "Sounds like another stupid instructor trick: practicing engine out
> procedure at altitude by actually killing the engine. Could lead to an
> 'Oh Shit!' experience. "
>
>
> Is this no longer considered good instructional practice?
>
> -c
>
>
Dudley Henriques
>No one is perfect, and I don't know why some people can't
> accept the fact that I'm not...
You're right. No one IS perfect, but the job of the flight instructor is NOT
to accept this fact as easily as you obviously accept it from the tone of
your posts.
You spend entirely too much time explaining to one and all that not being
perfect is acceptable in a pilot when in fact you should be spending every
minute of your time as a flight instructor doing all in your power to bring
perfection as close to being attainable as possible for your student.
The name of the game in instructing people to fly airplanes is in knowing
that perfection is unattainable while at the same time spending your entire
career as a pilot trying to attain it.
If you don't understand this one single all important concept, and are
unable to pass it on to a student pilot, in my opnion you are SERIOUSLY
lacking in the basic fundementals of proper flight instruction.
You should NEVER...and I repeat it again for you....EVER.....accept an error
made in the air by you, your student, or any other pilot as simply the fact
that "no one is perfect". This loigic has no place in
aviation.......ESPECIALLY professional aviation.......and MOST CERTAINLY not
in the CFI's deductive reasoning.
Dudley Henriques
mike regish
mike
"RST Engineering" <j...@rstengineering.com> wrote in message
news:1346n7r...@news.supernews.com...
> "Cessna Seventy-three Charlie Quebec is departing runway 25 at Grass
> Valley on a 2300 mile final for runway 9 Oshkosh."
>
> {;-)
>
> Jim
>
>
>
> "Allen" <ha_sm...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:QIH0i.1113$mR2...@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net...
>
>
>>
>> Which does nothing to define what "final approach" is. If you are
>> aligned with the runway and intending to land does final begin 5 miles
>> from the threshold? 10 miles? 15 miles? 50 miles?
>>
>
>
Viperdoc
take over while we taxied up to a parking spot after a check out. We were
going at a slow speed, but he wanted to go to another tie down. There was no
emergency or impending event, he just wanted to go in a different direction.
I explained to him why I thought this was not acceptable for him as an
instructor, and after hearing his weak response, I walked away and never
flew with him again.
He could have said "park over there" or even "I've got the plane", but as a
result, he lost a student and client.
RST Engineering
text for a one line answer.
Jim
"Aluckyguess" <n...@me.com> wrote in message
news:mRS0i.595$9i6...@newsfe02.lga...
>I dont know if this is true but if it is you sure have a lot of problems.
Dudley Henriques
"Viperdoc" <jni...@NOattglobalSPAMMS.net> wrote in message
news:4645e7c3$0$9935$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
I agree. If I were grading this instructor based on solid knowledge this
event occurred exactly as stated, I would find that the instructor should
never have allowed the incident to progress to the point where the airplane
was entering into a parking area he didn't want it to be in. His errors in
this case were several.
The progress of the airplane on the ground should have been better planned
by the instructor so that the first area of parking entered by the student
was the one desired by the instructor; so poor planning to begin with.
Next, physical contact in the corrective sense with a student is never
acceptable behavior for a flight instructor. If the CFI is teaching
properly, the student should not be in a position where this type of
correction is necessary. Not to say that sudden corrective action is never
necessary for an instructor, but if it is, it should be recognized early
enough by the instructor that the "correction" comes more as a "helping
hand" than as a sudden corrective movement.
The entire process of flight instruction is geared toward instilling
confidence in the student. A poor instructor using poor technique can easily
destroy in one second of sudden reaction at the end of a dual session what
has been achieved in the building of confidence with the student through a
last hour of dual.
Dudley Henriques