Checkride Checklist Question

In article ,
"Morgans" wrote:

"Mark Hansen" wrote

the DE can't really check you out in
every possible circumstance, so he has to pick. He picked this one.

I've heard it said, that the DE knows if you are going to pass or not, by
the way you taxi out to the runway, and run-up. Kinda true?

I suspect a good DE knows if you're going to pass or not long before you
ever get to the airplane.

On Mon, 8 Aug 2005 18:21:48 -0400, "Peter R."
wrote:

Peter Duniho wrote:

Often? I can safely state that is categorically false. Often would imply
that some significant number of newsreaders don't do cross-posting
correctly, and/or that a significant number people are using such
newsreaders. Name two such commonly used newsreaders, please.

This certainly doesn't directly support Jose's claim, but 40tude's Dialog
(http://www.40tude.com/dialog/), which is what I use these days, responds
with a warning message when the user attempts to reply to a cross-posted
thread. Selecting one of the options in this warning box directs the
newsreader to strip off all cross-posted newsgroups except the first.

As does Agent. Anything more than three is *usually* considered poor
form.


Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com
Roger

"Jose" wrote in message
. ..
I note that you trimmed the one part of my post that was directly
relevant to your choice to remove the newsgroup to which you don't
subscribe.

I answered that in a previous post.

No, you didn't. You made only one reply to the post in which I posed the
question, and that contained no reference the question.

It's none of usenet's business why I choose a particular newsreader (or
why it is chosen for me). I am not going to let usenet participants
choose my software. I am not going to choose software for the rest of
usenet.

I'm not trying to choose your software. But you have invented an absurd
justification for putting up with your chosen newsreader's behavior.

This whole thread could have been avoided if you'd simply been up front and
admitted that your behavior is entirely because of the way Mozilla's
newsreader works. Certainly the reason you actually gave makes no sense at
all.

I'm fine with you using whatever newsreader you want. I'm even fine if you
want to do so in spite of the stupid way it handle cross-posting. But why
make excuses for it? Just explain that your newsreader is stupid, and leave
it at that. Heaven knows almost everyone here has used stupid software
before.

Pete

"Roger" wrote in message
...
but 40tude's Dialog [...] responds
with a warning message when the user attempts to reply to a cross-posted
thread. Selecting one of the options in this warning box directs the
newsreader to strip off all cross-posted newsgroups except the first.

As does Agent. Anything more than three is *usually* considered poor
form.

And putting up an alert, especially when there's a large number of
newsgroups in the field, makes a lot of sense. It helps educate users
regarding the hazards of cross-posting.

But that doesn't mean it makes any sense to remove legitimate cross-posted
newsgroups, and it *certainly* doesn't make sense to not give the user the
option.

Pete

No, you didn't.

Yes I did. I answered the question on 8/8 at 2:52 pm. Thusly:

Ironically, in this particular instance, you weren't even contributing anything. You were asking for a clarification. Which means you have artificially limited the audience to whom your question was posed, reducing the chances of you getting an answer. If "nrp" saw this thread in r.a.student, he'll never see your question, and won't answer it.
That is exactly the reason for stripping it. If I didn't strip it, somebody might see the post in r.a.s and answer it there, and I won't see the answer (at least if he posts from a lame newsreader). Now -that- would be silly.

You now say:
But you have invented an absurd
justification for putting up with your chosen newsreader's behavior.

I have given =no= justification for doing so. I do not feel that I need
to justify my choice of software to anybody in the Usenet community.

This whole thread could have been avoided if you'd simply been up front and
admitted that your behavior is entirely because of the way Mozilla's
newsreader works.

This entire thread could have been avoided had you not taken issue with
my posting style, which has nothing to do with the way =my= newsreader
works, but rather, with the fact that not all newsreaders work the same
way regarding crossposts. I don't make assumptions about other people's
software is or what it should do, but I am cognizant of the fact that
some of them do not "properly" respect headers. For that reason, I
attempt to manually ensure that I do not ask a question in a place where
I am likely to not hear the response (or the thunderstorm that may
result), so I sometimes manually strip those newsgroups when I believe
it to be the best thing to do, or advise that I won't see responses when
I think it's better to crosspost anyway.

Just explain that your newsreader is stupid, and leave
it at that.

My newsreader is stupid. Feel better?

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.

"Jose" wrote in message
...
No, you didn't.

Yes I did. I answered the question on 8/8 at 2:52 pm. Thusly:
[quote snipped]

That did not address the question I posted. You may think it did, but it
did not. The question I'm talking about was quite a bit more direct, and
points out that if the only justification you have for doing something is
that someone else *might* do that same thing, that's not an actual
justification.

[...]
My newsreader is stupid. Feel better?

See, wasn't that easy?

Jose wrote:
This entire thread could have been avoided had you not taken issue with
my posting style, which has nothing to do with the way =my= newsreader
works, but rather, with the fact that not all newsreaders work the same
way regarding crossposts.


I have taken the advice of another poster in another newsgroup and have taken to
stripping out *my* newsgroup from the list of newsgroups in the header when I
reply. That way I can give them hell for crossposting while at the same time
keeping my reply out of my own newsgroup So far, so good.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN

VE

W P Dixon wrote:
I was just wondering if any of you guys had any special checklist
"words" for the older planes. Most people use the same ones but "I am
just guessing here" that some fellows that have been flying longer, or
flying older aircraft may have some special "words" for checklist that
maybe are not used anymore.

Early Champs and Cubs are too simple.
1. Oil Pressure
2. Oil Temperature
3. Airspeed Indicator
4. Altimeter
5. Tachometer
6. Fuel Gauge
7. Fuel ON/OFF valve
8. Carb Heat
9. Fixed landing gear
10. Trim
11. Throttle
12. Control Stick
13. Rudder Pedals
14. Seat Belts
15. Magneto Switch
16. Heel Brakes
That is the extent of controls, instruments and accessories.

Start
Fuel ON, Throttle Cracked, Brakes ON, Mags ON

Run Up
Brakes, Throttle, Mags, Gauges, Controls

Takeoff
Throttle FULL, Trim

Climb
Adjust Throttle and Trim

Cruise
Adjust Throttle and Trim

Descent
Adjust Throttle and Trim

Landing
G gas, single tank, any left?
U fixed landing gear, wheel on each side?
M mixture, don't have it
P prop, fixed
S seatbelts, fastened?
(That leaves us with GUS)

Shut Down
Throttle Closed, Mags OFF, Fuel OFF

Simple but the Champ is just alot of fun to fly, I love that plane! I
wonder if they ever used anything other than GUMPS? Hard to see the old
timers using that word when you don't use all of it , know what I mean?

Patrick
student SPL
aircraft structural mech

"john smith" wrote in message
. ..

Early Champs and Cubs are too simple.
1. Oil Pressure
2. Oil Temperature
3. Airspeed Indicator
4. Altimeter
5. Tachometer
6. Fuel Gauge
7. Fuel ON/OFF valve
8. Carb Heat
9. Fixed landing gear
10. Trim
11. Throttle
12. Control Stick
13. Rudder Pedals
14. Seat Belts
15. Magneto Switch
16. Heel Brakes
That is the extent of controls, instruments and accessories.

Start
Fuel ON, Throttle Cracked, Brakes ON, Mags ON

Run Up
Brakes, Throttle, Mags, Gauges, Controls

Takeoff
Throttle FULL, Trim

Climb
Adjust Throttle and Trim

Cruise
Adjust Throttle and Trim

Descent
Adjust Throttle and Trim

Landing
G gas, single tank, any left?
U fixed landing gear, wheel on each side?
M mixture, don't have it
P prop, fixed
S seatbelts, fastened?
(That leaves us with GUS)

Shut Down
Throttle Closed, Mags OFF, Fuel OFF

You guys are lucky...

The DE on my check ride pulled the power about 2 minutes after he had told
me to get established on a radial from the VOR. when he pulled the power I
pitched for best glide and looked for a place to land.... There wasn't one.
All I could see was trees not a spot wider than the road that I had passed
over a minute or two before. So I think that must be where he expects me to
land so I 3000 ft of altitude and put the plane into a nice shallow bank and
I noticed the one clearing in all of this forest was behind me and within
range.

Looking back after the check ride was over I realized he knew exactly where
we were and wanted to see if I would look for a spot that we had passed
over. He knew I probably hadn't seen it because I was getting set up on the
VOR.




"Chris Ehlbeck" wrote in message
...
Pretty close to my experience. I had my "engine failure" on what turned
out
to be my last landing of the ride. I was high in the pattern and just
getting ready to turn to base when "it happened". I called a short
approach, pitched for best glide (and to slow) then told him that if I
wasn't in the pattern I'd have a landing spot in mind to head for, and try
to restart if time permitted, then called mayday on 121.5. I did some
s-turns while losing altitude, touched down longer down the runway than I
hoped but got it down. He had me stop when we taxied clear of the active
and had some questions. Why didn't you use a checklist and try to
restart?
My answer was because I was in the pattern at the airport where I knew I
could make a landing (and did). My first responsibility was to fly the
airplane and get myself and passenger back on the ground, safely. He
nodded. Then he asked "Why S-turns instead of a slip?" I answered that I
was in coordinated flight with the turns in and airplane with a failed
engine and was more in control than in a slip. I then got a big grin,
handshake and "Congratulations on becoming a private pilot."

All the examiners are different but are looking for a safe pilot. If
using
a checklist would compromise safety, you should be able to get away with
not
using it.
--
Chris Ehlbeck, PP-ASEL
"It's a license to learn, have fun and buy really expensive hamburgers."

wrote in message
...
"Rob" wrote:
I didn't hear any complaints from the D. E.
about my using the printed checklists in this way.

When my D.E. did the engine failure in the checkride, I pitched for best
glide, pointed out where I planned to land, and began the
emergency/restart flow (that my CFI had insisted I have committed to
memory vs. having to use the checklist). He interrupted me, pushed my
hand away from the panel and said, "I don't want to hear all that sh*t
... you have more important things to do, like *fly the plane*!"
raising eyebrow!