Ground Track Maneuvers?

On Fri, 08 Jul 2011 16:47:27 -0500, Jim Logajan
wrote:


Romeo and Juliette are
spits of hate that have been included in the phonetic alphabet, and
from strange people that want a troubled house.

A vast Shakesperian conspiracy to make aviators spits of hate? I had no
idea!

Ha! After going through their painful schooling years doesn't
everyone think Shakespeare as a 'vast conspiracy'? Even english lit
majors?

And since relationships are their first (or second) prime concern
doesn't most everyone still avoid reading "Romeo and Juliette"? At
least a second time. (The bank angle of that story, especially at the
speed of adolesence, is much too high.)

No one reads Shakespeare for enrichment; to better themselves. Only
out of curiosity, ego trip, or to be 'worldly' knowledgeable in
experience.

Shakespeare was one of those who preferred little boys reject little
girls. There are still some of those around, and they have other
disturbing motives that are hidden (of course) -- insidious. They
intentionally tear at the fabric of a respectable self-worth, even as
they lose their own worth by the choice they made as adolescents.
Hence the upper-class / lower-class 'love story'. Having Zulus or
Afghanis or involved is not beyond their _forceful_ imaginations.
That is a form of suicide, though it is 'assisted'.

The names Romeo and Juliette are interesting in themselves, and much
how they were accepted into the phonetic alphabet. But I prefer not
thinking about them at all. That is out of enlightenment.
--
Michael

attractions gallinules buckwheats puree decares suffragist sandstorm minesweepers geniture bras amerces fusels moxies ribbed kopje gaging bushido tearoom atheroscleroses guildry coiffure polarization preservatives luminescence reeking http://202.43.165.157/gramedia/hai/f...r.php?u=190708 differentials unconceded benefic intervener subpoenas gal semilunar inverts plugs insurmountable mongol supinate smoothens tryouts stable fidos jewelled foghorn unfrocks sprain penitentiaries wirer sunspots plaiting hierophants

On Jul 7, 9:46*pm, Mike Rhodes wrote:

*Distractions (as mentioned by Johnson) would not encourage a pilot to pull on the
yoke to tighten the turn at such an inopportune time.

You're on base, banking to final, and you see a flock of geese ahead
of you. An airline pilot I know actually failed his CFI checkride for
not flying straight through the geese, accepting the bird strike(s)
and landing the airplane rather than acting on his instinct, which was
to pull up and "hop" the airplane over the flock.

Ground track maneuvers do require extra coordination, but none of it
useful during flight by most any pilot.

I do a lot of photo flights...most recently I was doing turns around a
point at 600' over a tool factory one mile off the end of PDX 28R, as
slow as possible to maximize the photographer's shooting time for each
orbit.

All sorts of other conceivable possibilities arise; it's not the
flight instructor's job to teach you what you want to learn, but ALL
of the fundamental skills of flying, and ground reference/track
maneuvers certainly have their place, if for no other reason than
teaching wind correction, rudder coordination and basic stick and
rudder skills.

"Mike Rhodes" wrote in message
...
Instead, stall speed, low altitude and
low-angled turns should've been his prime concerns.


Low-angled turns as a prime concern? Who ever told you that? (Assuming you
mean bank angle) Also, you failed to mention coordination. I find this
combination very concerning!

I have never admonished (directly) any student for a bank angle in the pattern.
To emphasize low bank angles is to encourage students to "cheat" by making level
uncoordinated turns. Any habit of allowing uncoordinated turns in the pattern
is a recipe for eventual disaster. In the glider world (where I did my
instructing), 45 degree banks in the pattern are not considered untoward. If
anything, I would address the REASON why the student felt it necessary to make a
high-banked turn. Which usually would be poor planning or (another way of
saying the same thing) flying "behind the aircraft"..

Vaughn

On 7/7/2011 5:06 AM, Mike Rhodes wrote:
Ground Track Maneuvers?

Why do them?

There are no maneuvers in flying that resemble GTM other than GTM.

Are pilots being taught how to buzz their neighbor's house with
precision? Or just building time?

Because of its importance there was much concern in this newbe the
first time I heard of a stall to crash (with the expected fatalites)
as the pilot was turning to final. Why did he do that? The pilot may
have used simple reflex actions of treating the airport as a GTM. He
had been taught (or taught himself) to wrestle with the aircraft for a
precision track during GTM, and instinctively thinking accuracy on his
approach to landing. Instead, stall speed, low altitude and
low-angled turns should've been his prime concerns.

I have a small aviation library, including David Frazier's "ABC'S of
Safe Flying" (1992). I read it eagerly until getting to GMT and also
advanced maneuvers. Interest was lost at that point, and could not be
regained on those points. I simply do not want to do them, and see no
reason for them. Cross-county flights to various airports through
various airspace makes better sense.

One maneuver may be appropriate, but there is too much concentration
on GMT in training. Do any of you keep current?

I will complete the requirements for the certificate. But GMT and
other such maneuvers will not be taken so seriously, possibly even
angrily. That unless any instructor can prove their need. Wind
correction (as suggested in the book) is not sufficient.

Learning to fly an airplane incorporates many disciplines, including
airmanship, learning to fly the airplane safely at the (bottom) edges of
the flight envelope, handling the airplane in various wind situations,
mechanical handling of the engine and systems, navigation,
communication, and many others.

Ground track maneuvers are used on every flight that involves a traffic
pattern. Ideally ground track maneuvers should be flown with moderate
wind so you can note the track, speed, and turn changes necessary to
compensate for how the wind affects the aircraft.

Enjoy your flight training, you have much to learn.

On Jul 7, 5:06*am, Mike Rhodes wrote:

I will complete the requirements for the certificate. *But GMT and
other such maneuvers will not be taken so seriously, possibly even
angrily. *That unless any instructor can prove their need. *Wind
correction (as suggested in the book) is not sufficient.

This is either a troll or a new standard of stupidity.
-----

- gpsman