question on student taxi practice

Isn't amazing how much time seems to exist in those few
moments. And all the details that you see.


"Dudley Henriques" wrote in
message
nk.net...
|
| "Jim Macklin" wrote
in message
| news:vfmZf.9862$t22.8921@dukeread08...
| That was a long time ago, when the King Air lost its
tail.
| They did rebuild it, it is probably still flying. That
was
| back in the days when a Bonanza was about $40,000 and 90
| King Air was about $400,000.
|
| Lots of things that are legal are not safe, lots of safe
| things are not legal and good judgment can be taught by
| example. Some people will not learn, some instructor
don't
| teach, when those two types get together bad things
happen.
|
| We've all seen pilots do stupid tricks and get away with
| most of them. I've also seen other things they didn't
get
| away with, the AeroCommander salesman, demo'd a Turbo
690
| [?] to a university. He wanted to show the customer,
not a
| pilot, how safe the airplane was. He decided that
putting
| the gear lever UP while taxiing would be a good idea, to
| show that the gear would not retract on the ground. He
| didn't could on the struts being over-inflated. The
gear
| did retract but the plane just settled on the flat belly
and
| the props did not hit the ground. Actually sold that
same
| model to the customer. The damage was to the skin and
| antennas.
| Saw a Tulsa police officer and owner of a nice Citabra
taxi
| in after a few beers and a short flight at the Tulsa
| Downtown Airpark. Everything would have been fine if
he'd
| stopped before the prop louvered the trunk lid on his
car.
| One winter, back in the 60s, I saw a Beech 18 mail plane
| operated by an outfit called SEMO, land and take-off at
SPI
| with a 30 knot headwind on a sub-freezing night. They
took
| off on rwy 30 and used 3,000 feet to get the tail up and
| about 4,000 feet to lift off. I don't know how many
pounds
| over gross the plane was, but I saw them load two trucks
of
| mail bags and boxes.
| Too many CFIs are just trying to earn a living and get
the
| hours needed for a "real" job, too many students are
| interested in the quickest time from first flight to the
| license. JFK Jr. should be alive, so should John
Denver, so
| should Buddy Holly, so should a lot of people. As far
as I
| know all my students are alive and well.
|
|
| --
| James H. Macklin
| ATP,CFI,A&P
|
| So true! When it's all been said and done, all we can
expect to leave with
| is the knowledge we did the best we could with what we had
to work with.
| God only knows I've been given a second chance more than
once by something a
| lot more powerful than me :-)
| I remember one day coming out of a loop as the trailer in
a two ship P51
| formation where the lead had taken us in way too fast at
the high apex. On
| the bottom, he had me pinned between the ground and his
airplane. I was
| cutting grass at 300 plus and looking up the butt crack of
a cow. My prop
| probably shaved his antlers a bit as I went over him and
with no place to
| go, I hollered "give me some room...NOW!!" Lead pitched up
to the right and
| I went between two buildings in knife edge, standing on
the right rudder
| with forward stick. Think I had about 4 feet of tip
clearance, but I'm
| here!!! :-)
| Yup...we've ALL had our moments
| :-)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))) )
| Dudley Henriques
|
|

The PIC is responsible for ensuring that the airplane has
the required maintenance entries in the logbook and that the
airplane is ready for the flight. The owner is responsible
for having the work done and making the entries [making sure
that the mechanic properly signs everything off and returns
to service.] A student pilot/aircraft owner is expected to
know those regulations and maintain the airplane as well as
the 10,000 hour plane owner. That was my point.

Most students rent airplanes from an FBO and the CFI can, as
an employee or the FBO or the FBO as an agent of the CFI,
restrict access to a student pilot. If the student pilot
owns the airplane, they can fly it when they want and only
the students training and the restrictions that are complied
with, will restrict the owner/student.


--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.


"Peter Duniho" wrote in
message ...
| "Jim Macklin" wrote
in message
| news:fqmZf.9863$t22.8410@dukeread08...
| [...] you as the owner are
| legally responsible for making [or having made] all the
| required entries in the logbooks for the engine,
propeller,
| airframe and appliances.
|
| The FAA has held that the PIC, whether the owner or not,
is responsible for
| ensuring that the airplane is airworthy (eg, "required
entries in the
| logbooks for the engine, propeller, airframe and
appliances").
|
| You're responsible for ADs under
| FAR 39 and as the owner, your CFI has less control over
what
| you do with your airplane. Once you are endorsed for
solo,
| you can fly whenever you want, whether the CFI approves.
| You will need a solo entry in your logbook every 90
days,
| but the CFI can not lock up your airplane. [...]
|
| As long as I'm nitpicking, the CFI has no more or less
control over your
| airplane when you are the owner. It's the FBO that
controls access to the
| airplane itself. I admit that this distinction is subtle,
and it's true
| that an airplane owner doesn't have to deal with the FBO
which is always
| nice. But still, if the FBO lets the student take the
airplane out, the
| fact that the CFI didn't want that to happen won't matter.
|
| Pete
|
|

"Jim Macklin" wrote in message
news:hBtZf.1$8q.0@dukeread08...

Isn't amazing how much time seems to exist in those few
moments. And all the details that you see.

Yup! In a fraction of a second there, I was doing the mental footwork
between the ground, my prop arc (my Hamilton 24D50 cut an 11' 2" swath ),
the angular sight distance between my plane and the other Mustang, my
wingspan vs the ground if I attempted to bank out of it, the buildings
coming right at me at 300 plus, AND that damn cow!!
I had almost accepted hitting the cow and trying to put the airplane down
somehow between the two buildings as I was yelling at lead to give me some
air.
It's funny. I've discussed this same "feeling" with friends of mine in
NASCAR and Indy Racing. They all say the same thing.
In these moments, the mind short circuits and thought based on reason stops
cold. Reaction is instinctive and will be right or wrong based on how deeply
ingrained your training has taken your mind.
I'm far from being qualified to analyze what actually happens to you
mentally, but I can tell you this much. To this day, I can sit here in the
den typing this post and remember in my mind's eye the exact markings on
that cow standing in that field :-))
Dudley Henriques

That isn't the issues here. The issue
is instructor judgment. [...]
Making a case for allowing a 2 hour student to taxi an airplane unsupervised
is something you might want to revisit.

Well, all we know about the pilot is that he is a "two hour student",
which doesn't say much. The same argument you made could be made for
IFR flight - allowing a ten hour student to fly an airplane all by
himself, through the air, and a hundred miles an hour, even though he is
not ready to fly in instrument conditions. The issue =there= is also
instructor judgement. However, the lack of instrument experience has no
bearing if the student is not going to fly on instruments. Likewise,
the (presumed) lack of ability to fly through the air safely and land
gently has no bearing if the student is only going to taxi at ten knots
with a nosewheel.

Instructor judgement would include this.

Jose
--
Nothing takes longer than a shortcut.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Taildragger?
As far as I'm concerned, the type of airplane is irrelevant to the question.

It bears on the skill required for taxiing, and the possible reasons for
solo taxi practice before solo flight.

Jose
--
Nothing takes longer than a shortcut.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

An instructor can sit in an airplane and monitor student
skill, this is what instruction is, protect the student from
their errors while they gain experience. First explain,
then demonstrate, then practice. Critique, practice,
eventually skill develops. Then solo, with a logbook and
certificate endorsement. Still, no passengers and a flight
check at least every 90 days in each make and model.

For a certificated land pilot, 90% of the seaplane rating is
how to taxi, sail and dock, beaching, and the rules of water
navigation. Yet no seaplane instructor would allow a
student to practice solo in the seaplane, yet if the
instructor in a land plane or seaplane is just sitting
there, not flying or riding the controls, the student is
effectively "solo." When the student has demonstrated skill
and judgment, the instructor takes the steps to advance the
student to the next level.


--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

"Jose" wrote in message
t...
| Taildragger?
| As far as I'm concerned, the type of airplane is
irrelevant to the question.
|
| It bears on the skill required for taxiing, and the
possible reasons for
| solo taxi practice before solo flight.
|
| Jose
| --
| Nothing takes longer than a shortcut.
| for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

For a certificated land pilot, 90% of the seaplane rating is
how to taxi, sail and dock, beaching, and the rules of water
navigation. Yet no seaplane instructor would allow a
student to practice solo in the seaplane

Then you'd agree that the ability to taxi a land plane (on land) has
little bearing on the ability to taxi a seaplane (on water). One
without the skills to solo a seaplane could very easily have the skills
to taxi a land plane (or even fly it).

One without the skills to fly any kind of plane could still have the
skills to taxi a nosewheel landplane safely solo (but not have the
skills to taxi a tailwheel landplane safely solo).

This gets down to instructor judgement, and the type of plane (sea,
land, nosewheel, ski) makes a difference in what would be considered
good judgement.

Jose
--
Nothing takes longer than a shortcut.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Doing this in my opinion fogs the issue of pilot responsibility for the
student, who can now easily start to believe that responsibility for the
safety of an airplane can be assumed in steps....or gradually, as the case
may be.

I disagree. It is not the responsibility that is transferred in steps,
but rather, the authority (whether self imposed or not). A pilot who is
endorsed for solo flight has full responsibility for the flight during
all its stages, but is not (typically) authorized to fly at night or on
instruments. That comes later, with experience (and often, with other
endorsements, which could include certification). A smart, newly minted
instrument pilot does not give himself the =authority= (I'm stretching
the word here but I trust you get the concept) to fly in convective
activity, the edge of icing conditions, or widespread low IFR; that too
comes later with experience (and equipment capability). But the
responsibility for the flight always rests with the pilot.

I don't see how letting a student (who has demonstrated his ability,
irrespective of the number of hours he has) taxi an airplane solo prior
to being ready for and endorsed for actual through-the-air flying
transfers only =partial= responsibility for the handling of the aircraft.

Jose
--
Nothing takes longer than a shortcut.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

I think it is always "bad instructor judgment" to allow a
student who has not yet soloed and been properly endorsed to
operate an airplane of any type or configuration as the only
occupant of the airplane. Whether the student has the skill
or judgment to taxi a trike, tailwheel, seaplane or
skiplane, they are NOT yet good enough to do so until they
have enough skill and experience to rate the solo
endorsement. Now, if they are on an island about to be hit
by a tidal wave and there are just enough planes and seats
to take everybody to safety and one lane has to be flown
solo by a student pilot, your exercise emergency authority
and go.

The skill required to taxi is vitally important to flying,
you can't take-off or land without taxiing. You can crash
during taxi. The FAA/NTSB accident and incident reports
indicate that taxiing is a very hazardous area of operation.
So for me, students are either dual or endorsed and
supervised.


--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.


"Jose" wrote in message
t...
| For a certificated land pilot, 90% of the seaplane rating
is
| how to taxi, sail and dock, beaching, and the rules of
water
| navigation. Yet no seaplane instructor would allow a
| student to practice solo in the seaplane
|
| Then you'd agree that the ability to taxi a land plane (on
land) has
| little bearing on the ability to taxi a seaplane (on
water). One
| without the skills to solo a seaplane could very easily
have the skills
| to taxi a land plane (or even fly it).
|
| One without the skills to fly any kind of plane could
still have the
| skills to taxi a nosewheel landplane safely solo (but not
have the
| skills to taxi a tailwheel landplane safely solo).
|
| This gets down to instructor judgement, and the type of
plane (sea,
| land, nosewheel, ski) makes a difference in what would be
considered
| good judgement.
|
| Jose
| --
| Nothing takes longer than a shortcut.
| for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Originally Posted by Private

Women pilots are not common and women taildragger pilots are VERY special.
You will intimidate many men.

Happy landings,

I agree with the bits about "not common" and "very special", but - as another newly-minted taildragger driver - I have a much more positive feeling than intimidated.