Tight patterns?

I'm thinking maybe it's a good idea you have. Why bother with other
airplanes that bug me. Just do my own thing. There's no law against it,
right? Just wondering how you self announce in the pattern so I get it
right. Is it something like, "ABC traffic, N12123 downwind 32, number 2
behind, ah hell, I'm number one, base 32, ABC"
"Newps" wrote What's the point?

lardsoup wrote:
I'm thinking maybe it's a good idea you have. Why bother with other
airplanes that bug me. Just do my own thing. There's no law against it,
right? Just wondering how you self announce in the pattern so I get it
right. Is it something like, "ABC traffic, N12123 downwind 32, number 2
behind, ah hell, I'm number one, base 32, ABC"

No, I'll ask him. Something to the effect of..."N123 you gonna turn
base at the same place as last time?" He will say yes and then I will
say that I am starting my base now. Never a problem. If he were to say
something like "Nope, this will be a short approach." Then I'll follow.
Just because I have the misfortune to follow you for the first time
around the pattern doesn't mean it has to stay that way for the
remaining landings. They may have a good reason to go out that far.
Most of the time, from my perspective, they don't. Whatever. They have
to do what they are comfortable with. That doesn't mean I have to do it
too.



"Newps" wrote What's the point?

80 kts huh? I like to fly fast. Even in the pattern. Learned that during
the instrument training at BIG airports. You won't mind if I blow past you
at 100kts on the downwind. I mean why should I be stuck behind a slow poke.
Sure, I'll tell you I'm coming. Or maybe not. No reg against not using the
radio. Right?

Rick Durden wrote:

You've discovered one of the real shortcomings of ab initio flight
training where they teach students how to become commuter airline
pilots rather than how to fly. Thus the giant sized patterns. It's a
true pain in the whatsis.

Very, very close. These ab initio schools (we have two on field at
KOUN--the University of Oklahoma and (Sc)Airman Flight School) have two
problems. One, they're teaching people to be airline pilots. Two, they
assume the students are too dumb to figure out that a 747 ain't a 172,
and gets flown differently, so they teach students how they will fly
later. I've had instructors at OU--the chief ground instructor among
them--tell me that in almost as many words.

Patterns--you betcha. As I've commented many times, I've seen MD-80's
fly tighter patterns than these Cherokee- and 172-driving students. And
I'm not exaggerating--I was in the MD-80, looking at the parallel runway
below me. Airman is worse about that; I've seen their airplanes on
three-mile upwinds (no kidding!).

It's more than patterns, though. I learned to fly in a Champ, with an
old-school instructor (wonderful guy--anybody in the Indianapolis area,
go visit with Dale Byrom). Takeoff was to the effect of "full power,
raise the tailwheel a little to the takeoff attitude, and hold it there
until she flies off on her own." When I moved to the 150, it was the
same idea: "lighten the nosewheel until she takes off on her own."
"Rotation" was a special procedure only used in short-field takeoffs.
At OU, though, every airplane gets rotated on every takeoff. I did it
my way with the chief ground instructor as my flight instructor one day,
and he commented on how nice and smooth my takeoff was. I explained
why, and he said "oh, well, we rotate here because we're teaching...."
Discussion ensued debating the merits of teaching what you're flying,
instead of what you might be doing in a couple of years, but it
obviously had no effect, as they still rotate. Meanwhile, I still get
comments about how smooth I am. (Not that I'm that good, I just have a
large group of people dedicated to making me look better, I guess.)

Landings are another point of contention here. When I started working
on my instrument rating, I had a new-ish, wet-behind-the-ears
instructor. Good stick (wow, could he handle the airplane), but not a
great instructor, and no sense (barrel rolls around other students,
according to rumor, and I'd be inclined to believe it). It was clear
where he'd trained, though. About my second or third lesson, he
commented on my landings: "geez, Buckles, you land like a taildragger
pilot, with your nose up in the air like that." I replied "I am a
taildragger pilot; it's called full-stall, and you should try it
sometime." I can stop a Cherokee (well, a Warrior) less than 200 feet
from the threshold. I've done it, with one of the assistant chiefs in
the airplane with me. Show me, please, how these flat-approach guys,
doing fifteen or so over the stall, are going to stop in less than a
thousand feet. Admittedly, I don't usually land like that--it's not
nice to the passengers--but I have the skill, the ability to control the
aircraft and command it to do my bidding, to do it. And I recognize
that each aircraft is different. Would I do that in a jet? No way.
But, last I checked, the O-320 under my cowl had pistons, my wingspan
was about forty feet, and, well, it wasn't a big airplane. *So I'm not
going to fly it like one.*

"Always land on the centerline." Bullsqueeze. Always land the airplane
where you want it to land. Teaching habit here is a bad thing--it
removes thought, and that's why we have a pilot in the airplane in the
first place, instead of a computer. Why should I land on the
centerline? At most airports, on most runways, sure, that's the place
to be. But I can point to airports where such is not the case. 40I,
for example, in Waynesville, OH. Grass strip, about 125 feet wide.
After years of constant, heavy use, the centerline of that runway is the
roughest spot on field. Slip about 40 feet north of the centerline,
though (RWY 08/26) and it smoothes right out. Put the airplane where
you want it.

I think the real problem here is the lack of respect for the student on
the part of the instructor and the program as a whole. The whole
concept is based on the idea of teaching it this way now, so you do it
this way later, when the situation is very different. That idea works
on the presumption that the student can't figure out that things are
different, and should be treated differently; rephrased, it assumes the
student is dumb. Now, I'd like to think I'm a bright guy, maybe even a
little ahead of the average, but if the average pilot can't see the
differences I can see, well, folks, we have a *serious* problem here.
(Actually, based on the idiots I see on the news every night, I'd like
to think I'm way ahead of the average, but that's another story :-). )
This presumption that the student can't think for himself is the real
culprit. I prefer to make sure that the student can see the
differences; I am constantly talking to students, making them evaluate
everything they see. I force them to engage their brains and exercise
conscious thought. "Why are you going to do that?" is the question of
the day, every day, and the correct answer is *never* "because you said so."

I dunno, just the ranting and raving of an grumpy old (23-year-old)
codger who had a great instructor, I guess.

--Dave Buckles

http://www.flight-instruction.com

Dave, did you ever fly with Red at Waynesville?

For the uninitiated, at Waynesville, it is not uncommon to
simultaneously share the airspace with:
- skydivers
- student pilots
- gliders
- radio controlled aircraft
- transient traffic
- based aircraft

EDR wrote:

Dave, did you ever fly with Red at Waynesville?

For the uninitiated, at Waynesville, it is not uncommon to
simultaneously share the airspace with:
- skydivers
- student pilots
- gliders
- radio controlled aircraft
- transient traffic
- based aircraft

Never had the privilege; by the time I got there, he was in pretty bad
shape. His son, Emerson Jr. (Cub), owns the field, and I worked for
them for a while to pay for my training. I started my training with
Dale Byrom (who now lives in the Indianapolis area), and finished with
Emerson III (Cub's son). And are there many gliders there now? Last
time I was there, there was a 2-33 on the field, but I never saw it fly
much; most of the soaring was over at the Caesar Creek Soaring Club.
Ahh, good days; many of my fondest memories are of flying there. And
you forgot to mention that a significant portion of the students and
based aircraft were NORDO Cubs and Champs. :-)

--Dave Buckles

http://www.flight-instruction.com

EDR wrote:
Dave, did you ever fly with Red at Waynesville?
For the uninitiated, at Waynesville, it is not uncommon to
simultaneously share the airspace with:
- skydivers
- student pilots
- gliders
- radio controlled aircraft
- transient traffic
- based aircraft

Dave Buckles wrote:
Never had the privilege; by the time I got there, he was in pretty bad
shape. His son, Emerson Jr. (Cub), owns the field, and I worked for
them for a while to pay for my training. I started my training with
Dale Byrom (who now lives in the Indianapolis area), and finished with
Emerson III (Cub's son). And are there many gliders there now? Last
time I was there, there was a 2-33 on the field, but I never saw it fly
much; most of the soaring was over at the Caesar Creek Soaring Club.
Ahh, good days; many of my fondest memories are of flying there. And
you forgot to mention that a significant portion of the students and
based aircraft were NORDO Cubs and Champs. :-)

Red's philosophy was to start primary students in the Cub's (3) and
Champ (1) for the first ten hours. If you stayed with it that long, you
moved up to the C150 to learn how to use the radios. (This was back in
the late 70's/early 80's). In the winter, they would put one of the
Cub's on skis for rent. This lasted until one of the skis delaminated,
then it cost too much to replace, so that was the end of that. You can
get checked out in a Stearman and solo it if you provide your own hull
coverage.

john smith wrote:

Red's philosophy was to start primary students in the Cub's (3) and
Champ (1) for the first ten hours. If you stayed with it that long, you
moved up to the C150 to learn how to use the radios. (This was back in
the late 70's/early 80's). In the winter, they would put one of the
Cub's on skis for rent. This lasted until one of the skis delaminated,
then it cost too much to replace, so that was the end of that. You can
get checked out in a Stearman and solo it if you provide your own hull
coverage.

This was still true when I left in '99. When I was there, they had
skis, too, so they must've repaired them/bought a new pair. And all of
their airplanes require you to bring your own insurance (which makes
their fabulous rental prices a little less fabulous; I used to fly the
Champ for $34/hr, and the 150 for $41/hr).

Now, as an instructor myself, I wish *I* had a Champ to use as a primary
trainer. 'Course, the insurance company would never sign off on the
deal. Those guys are ruining aviation, and I'll stop there before I
start ranting. Politics and insurance....

--Dave Buckles

http://www.flight-instruction.com

If you are still behind me when I am on the downwind you'll never catch
me as I usually turn base at the numbers. Or sooner, depending on where
I am parking.



lardsoup wrote:
80 kts huh? I like to fly fast. Even in the pattern. Learned that during
the instrument training at BIG airports. You won't mind if I blow past you
at 100kts on the downwind. I mean why should I be stuck behind a slow poke.
Sure, I'll tell you I'm coming. Or maybe not. No reg against not using the
radio. Right?

Dave Buckles wrote
Now, as an instructor myself, I wish *I* had a Champ to use as a primary
trainer.

It is a lovely trainer, isn't it? Doesn't really do much of anything
else well, but it does make the student fly the airplane all the way
down the runway without the idiosyncracies and terrible visibility of
a Cub.

'Course, the insurance company would never sign off on the
deal.

Nonsense. When I got my tailwheel checkout, the rental Champ was
available for primary training. You could solo it with 5 hours
tailwheel time, no minimum time in make and model. It was used that
way until about a year ago, when it was grounded for maintenance
reasons (and no, not because it was crashed). Insurance company had
no problem with it.

Of course I don't believe they had a single CFI on the insurace with
less than 500 hours of tailwheel time. That's what it takes to get
insurers to sign off on primary training in taildraggers - the right
instructors. I can think of half a dozen light taildraggers available
for primary training within 50 miles of where I live (in Houston) but
none of them are use 300 hour CFI's with 15 hours of tailwheel time.
The absolute minimum to instruct in tailwheel at any of them is 100
hours tailwheel time, and most want more. Not unreasonable, IMO.

Remember that in the halcyon days when 300 hour CFI's routinely
instructed in taildraggers, they all had 200+ hours of tailwheel time
and learned in taildraggers themselves.

Don't blame insurance companies for the sad state of CFI training. If
it were up to me, you would need to make 10 solo takeoffs and landings
in a taildragger to be a CFI (even tri-gear). That would thin the
ranks and eliminate the land-at-15-knots-over-stall types in a
heartbeat. If you really want some quality control, require 10
takeoffs and landings in a single seat taildragger.

Michael