On Wed, 19 May 2004 22:27:00 -0700, "C J Campbell"
wrote:

Personally, I think the manufacturer probably has a better idea of how the
airplane should be flown than a bunch of Usenet know-it-alls. You pitch for
airspeed, not for position of the yoke. If you can't control your airspeed,
you have serious problems.

Dude, have been reading your stuff for quite awhile here in the
groups, always enjoyed it. Am really having a tuff time figuring out
just what is going on inside yer head on this one.

WTF are you trying to say here? I expect "the manufacturer" to provide
me with basic operating limitations, and I'll follow them to the
letter. Flap "speeds", gear extend/retract "speeds", never exceed
"speeds", operating weight/moment/envelope limitations, etc. I expect
the Feds to set operating limitations, how I can fly, where I can fly,
even when I can fly, I'll follow them also.

Other than that, I'll fly the damn thing in whatever manner I choose
as PIC. Is Cessna/Piper/Beech going to tell me how to deal with the
infinite combinations of day-to-day
TO/climb/cruise/descend/approach/land flight conditions? Heck no, they
are going to shoot for the average and hope for the best.

Screw the average. For that matter, screw any pilot that is happy with
being "average".

I've never flown two "identical" make/ model aircraft that reacted in
exactly the same manner to control inputs, and I've never been lucky
enuff to fly on two days where the temperature/humidity/winds were the
same.

I really couldn't care less whether or not a CFI feels a "standard
stabilized approach" profile is the only one acceptable. If I feel
like doing one, I will, if I don't I won't.

"Pitch for airspeed"-real original. "If you can't control your
airspeed, you have serious problems" No ****? My all-time favorite is
"all you really need to fly is oil pressure". Doh! Forgot about the
glider rating-that one won't work. Know-it-all? I don't know squat,
and am not afraid to prove it!

You have just convinced me that flying taildraggers not only does not make
you a better pilot, it makes you worse to the point of being destructive.
The Cessna 172 was not meant to be landed like a tailwheel aircraft.
Attempts to do that are both dangerous and wasteful.

You have apparently been trying really, really hard to convince me
that you are incapable of thinking anywhere outside of the lines of
your own personal experience. What exactly is "dangerous and
wasteful" about setting up a Cessna 172 for a full-stall spot landing
at an altitude of 4-6 inches AGL and an infinitesimal rate of descent
if local conditions will permit it, and the PIC can perform it? What
part of this is going to put the tail tie-down into the pavement? At
this point, who really cares what the "airspeed" is?

Not only that, I am increasingly disturbed by tailwheel pilots' obsession
with landing as the only measure of the quality of a pilot. It really tells
me something -- like, they don't know how to do anything else. I hope you
will excuse me now. It is obvious that I have disturbed a bunch of religious
fanatics.

Last time I checked, most GA pilots tend to bend things after running
out gas, or at some point in the sequence of events involved in
ceasing to fly. Not that there is a limit to the inventive ways they
can make the media think that the sky is falling.

Do you instruct pilots in airplanes, at airports? Do the BFR deal?
You mean to tell me that you've never been exposed to an
obsessed/possessed pilot before? With some it's airspeed, some
stalling-and-dying, strictly overhead mid-field pattern guys, only
carrier-landing gals, always looking at the instruments, never looking
at the instruments, hog the freq or ignore the comms, some are afraid
of the pavement, some are not afraid of anything.

Never met one without an ego.

Why do you think it would be any different here?

puzzled, not ****ed-off;

TC