About Stall Psychology and Pilots

WingFlaps wrote in news:3c62ecc9-9a01-4341-9b6d-
:

On Feb 17, 11:39*am, "Ken S. Tucker" wrote:

Me and the "dud" ****ed your mush mind.
Get a ****in life, crack a book.

Cuniform tablets are quite outdated ...

I stil need 'em. My outfit does all of our manual updates on CD every few
months. I insist on paper copies as well. I just can't find anythingn in
the PDF manual! You stick in a keyword on, say "First officer landing
limitations" and you get 435 returns on FO, 1687 on landing and 4622 on
limitations. Crap! I can nearly find what I want in a paper manual by
dropping it 'just so' on its binding.



Bertie

WingFlaps wrote in
:

On Feb 17, 11:41*am, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
wrote
innews:5df6e0b3-35d5-490f-8b31-1a1fbe48eeed@62g
2000hsn.googlegroups.com:



On Feb 15, 6:37 pm, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
"Robert M. Gary" wrote in
news:ebb74b75-9910-4c50-ae86-
:

On Feb 15, 3:56 pm, Dudley Henriques wrote:
Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Dudley Henriques wrote in
:

Man there are a lot of posts on this topic. Too much
newsgrouping, people need to do more flying

When my airplane is finished!

Bertie

Watchu building?

A Hatz, but it's a Citabria being restored I'm waiting to fly.


Are you building alone? How far along is it? Where is it -I'd like to
see it if I got the chance.


It's in my shop, of course!

The Hatz is not as far along as it ought to be! the Citabria is nearly
done ( I hope) and whouc be up and going in a few weeks.


Bertie

On Feb 17, 12:41*pm, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
WingFlaps wrote :



On Feb 17, 11:41*am, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
wrote
innews:5df6e0b3-35d5-490f-8b31-1a1fbe48eeed@62g
2000hsn.googlegroups.com:

On Feb 15, 6:37 pm, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
"Robert M. Gary" wrote in
news:ebb74b75-9910-4c50-ae86-
:

On Feb 15, 3:56 pm, Dudley Henriques wrote:
Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Dudley Henriques wrote in
:

Man there are a lot of posts on this topic. Too much
newsgrouping, people need to do more flying

When my airplane is finished!

Bertie

Watchu building?

A Hatz, but it's a Citabria being restored I'm waiting to fly.

Are you building alone? How far along is it? Where is it -I'd like to
see it if I got the chance.

It's in my shop, of course!

The Hatz is not as far along as it ought to be! the Citabria is nearly
done ( I hope) and whouc be up and going in a few weeks.


Ah, OK I understand you don't wan't to reveal you location but perhaps
you could tell me the time zone on my gmail?

Cheers

WingFlaps wrote in
:

On Feb 17, 12:41*pm, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
WingFlaps wrote
innews:617cc4fe-42ad-4f70-940b-916fa
:



On Feb 17, 11:41*am, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
wrote
innews:5df6e0b3-35d5-490f-8b31-1a1fbe48eeed@62g
2000hsn.googlegroups.com:

On Feb 15, 6:37 pm, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
"Robert M. Gary" wrote in
news:ebb74b75-9910-4c50-ae86-
:

On Feb 15, 3:56 pm, Dudley Henriques
wrote:
Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Dudley Henriques wrote in
:

Man there are a lot of posts on this topic. Too much
newsgrouping, people need to do more flying

When my airplane is finished!

Bertie

Watchu building?

A Hatz, but it's a Citabria being restored I'm waiting to fly.

Are you building alone? How far along is it? Where is it -I'd like
to see it if I got the chance.

It's in my shop, of course!

The Hatz is not as far along as it ought to be! the Citabria is
nearly done ( I hope) and whouc be up and going in a few weeks.


Ah, OK I understand you don't wan't to reveal you location but perhaps
you could tell me the time zone on my gmail?

Sorry! but there are a string of very ****ed off people looking for
Bertie!

N70 your field?



Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
"Private" wrote in :

"Dudley Henriques" wrote in message
...
It's interesting to note that although stall recovery should be
thought of as something done with a minimum loss of altitude, the
emphasis on recovery should always be placed on the regaining of
angle of attack as PRIME to recovery.
Agreed, I have always thought of myself as flying a wing to which is
attached a fuselage rather than the reverse.



Xactly right IMO. All you need is a wing to fly, after all.

Bertie

As you already know and I can confirm emphatically , as soon as you
start flying high performance jets, it's all about wing management.


--
Dudley Henriques

On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 23:43:10 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip
wrote:

Dudley Henriques wrote in
:

That's true. After the war a lot of highly qualified pilots hit the
streets as new GA instructors. They brought with them the military
approach to flying that was based on maximum result in minimum time,
which was the natural process of the military scenario.
Many of these pilots were great sticks, but few of them possessed any
teaching skills at all as we define those skills in a GA market place.
The result of this influx was a no nonsense teaching environment that
actually clashed with the changes that were occurring in GA at that
time. Gradually, these military pilots became a liability in the new
marketplace and many were "replaced" as FBO's began to realize that
new students like "Mrs. Duffy" the housewife, was coming back in from
her hour of dual looking a bit pale and concerned :-)

What happened is what we have now; a few holdovers from the "old
school" and a whole lot of the "new breed" of instructor.

The ultimate answer to getting the quality level up in the GA pilot
community will in my opinion require a whole new look at the way
flight instruction is conducted.

I know from my own personal experience that it is possible to take an
average newbie with the average apprehensive feeling about flying and
take that newbie through a learning process that replaces the
apprehension with confidence. These newbies can be trained by GOOD
instructors to function not only well, but VERY well in the flying
environment with comfort zones well beyond their initial level of
apprehension found at the initiation of training.

Barring the influx of CFI's who are capable of teaching students in
this manner, I would project no meaningful changes in the present GA
environment.



I've had very few nervous students. Only two that really stood out that
i can recall. One was terrfied of stalls and did this hyperventilating
thing, which was really freaky, every time we went to do them. He got
over it by me demonstrating that the airplane would sit happily in the
stall for ages without the earth coming up to smite us. He got over it.
Another guy was terrified of the engine failing and no amount of
explaining to him that the idling engine was the same as having the
engine not running at all made no difference at all to him, he spent
most of every flight half freaked out over the prospect of this
happening. I finally got so ****ed off with him I just pulled the
mixture and raised the nose until the prop stopped. The transformation
in him was almost instantaneous.
In retrospect, it was not such a clever thing to do since we were at
about 1,000' and nowhere near an airport! It started up straight away,
fortunately. That's an incident/accident that would have made
interesting reading.

It worked, though.


Bertie
************************************************** ****************************

Bertie

I used to shut the engine down in a T-33 to give students an actuall
air start. Had them talk me through the air start procedure as they
did each step so I could correct them if they were going to screw up.

Know there was a lot of talking back in baracks at night between my
studebts but they all learned the emergency rocedures as they never
knew if I was going to give them an actual emergency to use the
procedures in.

I talked to some of my students years later and they all said that
what I did in training made them good Fighter Pilots in the Squadrons.

Big John

Ken S. Tucker wrote:
On Feb 16, 2:08 pm, "Private" wrote:
"Ken S. Tucker" wrote in ...







As much as I like the "dud" his post is the
most completely idiotic thing I had to read.
On Feb 16, 12:10 pm, Dudley Henriques wrote:
It's interesting to note that although stall recovery should be thought
of as something done with a minimum loss of altitude, the emphasis on
recovery should always be placed on the regaining of angle of attack as
PRIME to recovery.
NUTZ. You need airspeed, it's called kinetic
energy that is needed to suck off, using the
wings (you know, those little things that
protude out the side of airplanes).
I am one instructor who strongly believes that instructors should
consider altering their approach to teaching stall to focus more
strongly on recovering angle of attack than recovering in minimum
altitude.
See KIAS, Dud, you'd last 2 minutes in the RHS
of my plane, after that you'd be lickin' pavement,
from my shoe on your ass.
Stalls entered at low altitude have many times resulted in
secondary stall entry or a mushed recovery followed by ground impact by
pilots who COULD have lowered the nose and held it down there a bit
longer than they did, using the air under them to better advantage and
giving themselves the needed time to regain angle of attack and smooth
airflow as they attempted a recovery. But because they had been taught
that ALTITUDE rather than AOA was the killer, they recovered trying to
save altitude, when in reality what was needed was to USE THE AVAILABLE
ALTITUDE CORRECTLY....and save the airplane.
Toward this goal, I strongly encourage all CFI's to reference AOA in
stall recovery. This doesn't mean INSTEAD of altitude, but it does mean
that to recover the airplane, you absolutely HAVE to restore AOA, and at
low altitude that might very well mean using available altitude to the
last foot of air to do that.
I have always taught stall recovery both with and without power. The FAA
requires power. I want the student to see the difference and at the same
time be able to stress that it's the ANGLE OF ATTACK that saves your
butt. The strong lesson here is that you USE altitude......you don't try
to minimize it at the expense of angle of attack.
Dud, you're clueless, you have not a clue about KIAS,
spiral dives or g-force recovery's. In short I see NO
evidence you have even been in an airplane with your
focus on AoA.
I can get a good AoA at 10 KIAS or 200 KIAS,
what are going to do?
Regards
Ken
Ken,
With respect, I think you must have missed my reply in another thread. I am
enclosing it here for your convenience and consideration.

"Private" wrote in message

...

"Ken S. Tucker" wrote in message
...
I was out paying taxes, to get some coin for the
piggy bank, I shook it 3 times and still didn't hear
any rattling, that's simple accounting to tell me
when I'm broke, works every time!
Ken
Some here would suggest that you apply the same strategy to your head
before
posting.
I am somewhat embarrassed to be entering this thread, but I just can't
resist swinging at a soft pitch like that.
Happy landings,
To elaborate, my suggestion was that before posting you should give your
head a shake to determine if there is anything inside and to consider
whether you really wished to make the fact public.
Happy landings,

If I were you, I'd ****-off and read.
You're swinging at screw-balls...
Me and the "dud" ****ed your mush mind.
Get a ****in life, crack a book.

Best Regards
Ken
xxxx

Just for the record, and on the off chance that there might just be one
person on Usenet who needs to be informed of this, please be advised
that regardless of what this idiot says and when he uses my name in his
posts; I am in NO way even remotely involved with this character in any
way whatsoever.


--
Dudley Henriques

Dudley Henriques wrote in news:J6mdnf-
:

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
"Private" wrote in :

"Dudley Henriques" wrote in message
...
It's interesting to note that although stall recovery should be
thought of as something done with a minimum loss of altitude, the
emphasis on recovery should always be placed on the regaining of
angle of attack as PRIME to recovery.
Agreed, I have always thought of myself as flying a wing to which is
attached a fuselage rather than the reverse.



Xactly right IMO. All you need is a wing to fly, after all.

Bertie

As you already know and I can confirm emphatically , as soon as you
start flying high performance jets, it's all about wing management.


Actualy, in the turkeys we fly it's all about nailing your pitch to what
the computer wants, but you're right, they're all about the wing. I've
always understood that to be the case, but I learned to fly in gliders, so
it was more about pefromance and less about procedure like it is in a lot
of lightplane instruction.


Bertie

Big John wrote in
:

On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 23:43:10 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip
wrote:

Dudley Henriques wrote in
:

That's true. After the war a lot of highly qualified pilots hit the
streets as new GA instructors. They brought with them the military
approach to flying that was based on maximum result in minimum time,
which was the natural process of the military scenario.
Many of these pilots were great sticks, but few of them possessed
any teaching skills at all as we define those skills in a GA market
place. The result of this influx was a no nonsense teaching
environment that actually clashed with the changes that were
occurring in GA at that time. Gradually, these military pilots
became a liability in the new marketplace and many were "replaced"
as FBO's began to realize that new students like "Mrs. Duffy" the
housewife, was coming back in from her hour of dual looking a bit
pale and concerned :-)

What happened is what we have now; a few holdovers from the "old
school" and a whole lot of the "new breed" of instructor.

The ultimate answer to getting the quality level up in the GA pilot
community will in my opinion require a whole new look at the way
flight instruction is conducted.

I know from my own personal experience that it is possible to take
an average newbie with the average apprehensive feeling about flying
and take that newbie through a learning process that replaces the
apprehension with confidence. These newbies can be trained by GOOD
instructors to function not only well, but VERY well in the flying
environment with comfort zones well beyond their initial level of
apprehension found at the initiation of training.

Barring the influx of CFI's who are capable of teaching students in
this manner, I would project no meaningful changes in the present GA
environment.



I've had very few nervous students. Only two that really stood out
that i can recall. One was terrfied of stalls and did this
hyperventilating thing, which was really freaky, every time we went to
do them. He got over it by me demonstrating that the airplane would
sit happily in the stall for ages without the earth coming up to smite
us. He got over it. Another guy was terrified of the engine failing
and no amount of explaining to him that the idling engine was the same
as having the engine not running at all made no difference at all to
him, he spent most of every flight half freaked out over the prospect
of this happening. I finally got so ****ed off with him I just pulled
the mixture and raised the nose until the prop stopped. The
transformation in him was almost instantaneous.
In retrospect, it was not such a clever thing to do since we were at
about 1,000' and nowhere near an airport! It started up straight away,
fortunately. That's an incident/accident that would have made
interesting reading.

It worked, though.


Bertie
************************************************** ********************
*
*******

Bertie

I used to shut the engine down in a T-33 to give students an actuall
air start. Had them talk me through the air start procedure as they
did each step so I could correct them if they were going to screw up.

Know there was a lot of talking back in baracks at night between my
studebts but they all learned the emergency rocedures as they never
knew if I was going to give them an actual emergency to use the
procedures in.

I talked to some of my students years later and they all said that
what I did in training made them good Fighter Pilots in the Squadrons.


Good fun, eh?

Did they have hydraulic controls?


Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Dudley Henriques wrote in news:J6mdnf-
:

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
"Private" wrote in :

"Dudley Henriques" wrote in message
...
It's interesting to note that although stall recovery should be
thought of as something done with a minimum loss of altitude, the
emphasis on recovery should always be placed on the regaining of
angle of attack as PRIME to recovery.
Agreed, I have always thought of myself as flying a wing to which is
attached a fuselage rather than the reverse.


Xactly right IMO. All you need is a wing to fly, after all.

Bertie

As you already know and I can confirm emphatically , as soon as you
start flying high performance jets, it's all about wing management.


Actualy, in the turkeys we fly it's all about nailing your pitch to what
the computer wants, but you're right, they're all about the wing. I've
always understood that to be the case, but I learned to fly in gliders, so
it was more about pefromance and less about procedure like it is in a lot
of lightplane instruction.


Bertie



In the T38 for example, the approach is flown at an optimum alpha on the
indexer or at a specific airspeed plus fuel. Either way, the object is
to keep the wing within specific limits aoa wise. The bird will develop
a sink rate that can't be recovered otherwise.
I've always wondered why you guys in the big jets don't use alpha more
on the approach. I'm guessing it's because of the complicated fuel loads
possible which gives you such a wide range of approach speeds to bug to
keep the pitch angle right at touchdown.
I know that Boeing for one is doing some research into providing better
aoa data to you on the ADI for approaches but haven't heard much about
how this outreach is being accepted by the carriers.


--
Dudley Henriques