Things I Would Like To See

On Apr 29, 2:34*pm, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
"Robert M. Gary" wrote in news:e40960d5-7b86-4d5f-
:

The apporach isn't any safer, it's just easier. There's a difference.

I'm not sure I would say "easier" so much as less busy. The net result
is a pilot ready to land when he gets over the numbers. Airlines have
required this for decades.

-Robert

"Robert M. Gary" wrote in news:c269afe4-4bb2-45e6-
:

On Apr 29, 2:34*pm, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
"Robert M. Gary" wrote in news:e40960d5-7b86-4d5f-
:

The apporach isn't any safer, it's just easier. There's a difference.

I'm not sure I would say "easier" so much as less busy. The net result
is a pilot ready to land when he gets over the numbers. Airlines have
required this for decades.

Airliners are different. Very different. They're not very speed stable
and they generally ahve more than one engine! There realy is no
comparison and it's this old saw that is usually drug up first when this
argument crops up. The other thing with airliners, though not so much
these days, is spool up times which is not a problem with small pistons.
Less busy, easier, cal it what you like, the stabilised approach in
general aviation has degraded skills.


Bertie

Bertie

On Apr 29, 3:00*pm, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
"Robert M. Gary" wrote in news:c269afe4-4bb2-45e6-

Airliners are different. Very different. They're not very speed stable
and they generally ahve more than one engine! There realy is no
comparison and it's this old saw that is usually drug up first when this
argument crops up. The other thing with airliners, though not so much
these days, is spool up times which is not a problem with small pistons.
Less busy, easier, cal it what you like, the stabilised approach in
general aviation has degraded skills.

As has nosewheels, GPS, etc. However, I see no movement to increase
insurance claims just to increase skills. I've done several primary
students in Mooneys. I certainly don't want them doing yank-n-bank
approaches on short final.

-robert, CFII

"Robert M. Gary" wrote in news:1ffcebed-9f5e-4e37-8f73-
:

On Apr 29, 3:00*pm, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
"Robert M. Gary" wrote in news:c269afe4-4bb2-45e6-

Airliners are different. Very different. They're not very speed stable
and they generally ahve more than one engine! There realy is no
comparison and it's this old saw that is usually drug up first when this
argument crops up. The other thing with airliners, though not so much
these days, is spool up times which is not a problem with small pistons.
Less busy, easier, cal it what you like, the stabilised approach in
general aviation has degraded skills.

As has nosewheels, GPS, etc. However, I see no movement to increase
insurance claims just to increase skills. I've done several primary
students in Mooneys. I certainly don't want them doing yank-n-bank
approaches on short final.


Well, do what you like. Also, someone who's done his initial training in a
Mooney would be missing out on his education as well.
I'm seeing more and more of the products of modern teaching methods in
professional aviation and the results are often not too pretty. Having said
that, I'm not advocating a strictly stick and rudder approach to education,
but I'm seeing it excluded more and more these days and I've seen several
accidents occur locally as a direct result.


Stabilised approaches are here to stay, but they are not safer nor are they
superior in any way. That's not to say there isn't a movement agin 'em,
though.

Bertie

On Apr 30, 11:07*am, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
"Robert M. Gary" wrote in news:1ffcebed-9f5e-4e37-8f73-
:



On Apr 29, 3:00*pm, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
"Robert M. Gary" wrote in news:c269afe4-4bb2-45e6-

Airliners are different. Very different. They're not very speed stable
and they generally ahve more than one engine! There realy is no
comparison and it's this old saw that is usually drug up first when this
argument crops up. The other thing with airliners, though not so much
these days, is spool up times which is not a problem with small pistons..
Less busy, easier, cal it what you like, the stabilised approach in
general aviation has degraded skills.

As has nosewheels, GPS, etc. However, I see no movement to increase
insurance claims just to increase skills. I've done several primary
students in Mooneys. I certainly don't want them doing yank-n-bank
approaches on short final.

Well, do what you like. Also, someone who's done his initial training in a
Mooney would be missing out on his education as well.
I'm seeing more and more of the products of modern teaching methods in
professional aviation and the results are often not too pretty. Having said
that, I'm not advocating a strictly stick and rudder approach to education,
but I'm seeing it excluded more and more these days and I've seen several
accidents occur locally as a direct result.

Stabilised approaches are here to stay, but they are not safer nor are they
superior in any way. That's not to say there isn't a movement agin 'em,
though.


I can see arguments in both directions. While I was a student getting
that stabilized approach down really helped the work load in the last
few seconds to touch down. I can see that it becomes less important as
I find it easier to make adjustments/decisions on late final.

Cheers

WingFlaps wrote in
:

On Apr 30, 11:07*am, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
"Robert M. Gary" wrote in
news:1ffcebed-9f5e-4e37-8f73-

:



On Apr 29, 3:00*pm, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
"Robert M. Gary" wrote in
news:c269afe4-4bb2-45e6-

Airliners are different. Very different. They're not very speed
stable and they generally ahve more than one engine! There realy
is no comparison and it's this old saw that is usually drug up
first when thi
s
argument crops up. The other thing with airliners, though not so
much these days, is spool up times which is not a problem with
small pistons
.
Less busy, easier, cal it what you like, the stabilised approach
in general aviation has degraded skills.

As has nosewheels, GPS, etc. However, I see no movement to increase
insurance claims just to increase skills. I've done several primary
students in Mooneys. I certainly don't want them doing yank-n-bank
approaches on short final.

Well, do what you like. Also, someone who's done his initial training
in a

Mooney would be missing out on his education as well.
I'm seeing more and more of the products of modern teaching methods
in professional aviation and the results are often not too pretty.
Having sai
d
that, I'm not advocating a strictly stick and rudder approach to
education
,
but I'm seeing it excluded more and more these days and I've seen
several accidents occur locally as a direct result.

Stabilised approaches are here to stay, but they are not safer nor
are the
y
superior in any way. That's not to say there isn't a movement agin
'em, though.


I can see arguments in both directions. While I was a student getting
that stabilized approach down really helped the work load in the last
few seconds to touch down. I can see that it becomes less important as
I find it easier to make adjustments/decisions on late final.

I'm not saying they don't have their place, even in lightplanes, but
they have no place in primary training. However, that's the way it's
gone and that's that. Those who choose to go further with their flying
can opt out of the flying Chevy Caprice thing and actualy learn to
control their aircraft instead of riding around in it and in fact that
aspect of flying seems alive and well in some circles. I know of two
wrecks in my neck of the woods directly attributable to **** poor
training of exactly that sort, though.


Bertie

On Apr 28, 4:20 pm, Panglos wrote:
I would like to see ATC require at least one controller in 5000 to have
a pilots license and a minimal amount of aviating ability or knowledge.
I would also like to see airports start operating based on the
operational needs of pilots and aircraft; not what the new neighbors
want. It would be nice if people would start asking themselves ´does
this make sense?¡ And last but not least, I would like for flight
schools to start teaching students what a FREAKING wind sock is! Maybe
then, thirty years from now, one of those students will ask themselves
´does this make sense¡ and they wonÿt land on a short snow covered
runway with a tailwind, even if the numbers say itÿs possible and
theyÿve been cleared to land.
--

All very nice, but we should be more worried about whether there will
be any place to land thirty years from now, let alone in snow with a
tailwind.

"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message
...
"Robert M. Gary" wrote in news:c269afe4-4bb2-45e6-
:

On Apr 29, 2:34 pm, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
"Robert M. Gary" wrote in news:e40960d5-7b86-4d5f-
:

The apporach isn't any safer, it's just easier. There's a difference.

I'm not sure I would say "easier" so much as less busy. The net result
is a pilot ready to land when he gets over the numbers. Airlines have
required this for decades.

Airliners are different. Very different. They're not very speed stable
and they generally ahve more than one engine! There realy is no
comparison and it's this old saw that is usually drug up first when this
argument crops up. The other thing with airliners, though not so much
these days, is spool up times which is not a problem with small pistons.
Less busy, easier, cal it what you like, the stabilised approach in
general aviation has degraded skills.


Bertie

Bertie

Yeah, no **** Buttlip, we need to get rid of those electric starters too. If
a guy can't hand prop a plane, he shouldn't be allowed to leave the pattern.

"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message
...
"Robert M. Gary" wrote in news:1ffcebed-9f5e-4e37-8f73-
:

On Apr 29, 3:00 pm, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
"Robert M. Gary" wrote in news:c269afe4-4bb2-45e6-

Airliners are different. Very different. They're not very speed stable
and they generally ahve more than one engine! There realy is no
comparison and it's this old saw that is usually drug up first when this
argument crops up. The other thing with airliners, though not so much
these days, is spool up times which is not a problem with small pistons.
Less busy, easier, cal it what you like, the stabilised approach in
general aviation has degraded skills.

As has nosewheels, GPS, etc. However, I see no movement to increase
insurance claims just to increase skills. I've done several primary
students in Mooneys. I certainly don't want them doing yank-n-bank
approaches on short final.


Well, do what you like. Also, someone who's done his initial training in a
Mooney would be missing out on his education as well.
I'm seeing more and more of the products of modern teaching methods in
professional aviation and the results are often not too pretty. Having
said
that, I'm not advocating a strictly stick and rudder approach to
education,
but I'm seeing it excluded more and more these days and I've seen several
accidents occur locally as a direct result.


Stabilised approaches are here to stay, but they are not safer nor are
they
superior in any way. That's not to say there isn't a movement agin 'em,
though.

Bertie

You apparently don't know jack **** about the safety of the traffic pattern.
What a dinosaur.

"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message
...
WingFlaps wrote in
:

On Apr 30, 11:07 am, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
"Robert M. Gary" wrote in
news:1ffcebed-9f5e-4e37-8f73-

:



On Apr 29, 3:00 pm, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
"Robert M. Gary" wrote in
news:c269afe4-4bb2-45e6-

Airliners are different. Very different. They're not very speed
stable and they generally ahve more than one engine! There realy
is no comparison and it's this old saw that is usually drug up
first when thi
s
argument crops up. The other thing with airliners, though not so
much these days, is spool up times which is not a problem with
small pistons
.
Less busy, easier, cal it what you like, the stabilised approach
in general aviation has degraded skills.

As has nosewheels, GPS, etc. However, I see no movement to increase
insurance claims just to increase skills. I've done several primary
students in Mooneys. I certainly don't want them doing yank-n-bank
approaches on short final.

Well, do what you like. Also, someone who's done his initial training
in a

Mooney would be missing out on his education as well.
I'm seeing more and more of the products of modern teaching methods
in professional aviation and the results are often not too pretty.
Having sai
d
that, I'm not advocating a strictly stick and rudder approach to
education
,
but I'm seeing it excluded more and more these days and I've seen
several accidents occur locally as a direct result.

Stabilised approaches are here to stay, but they are not safer nor
are the
y
superior in any way. That's not to say there isn't a movement agin
'em, though.


I can see arguments in both directions. While I was a student getting
that stabilized approach down really helped the work load in the last
few seconds to touch down. I can see that it becomes less important as
I find it easier to make adjustments/decisions on late final.

I'm not saying they don't have their place, even in lightplanes, but
they have no place in primary training. However, that's the way it's
gone and that's that. Those who choose to go further with their flying
can opt out of the flying Chevy Caprice thing and actualy learn to
control their aircraft instead of riding around in it and in fact that
aspect of flying seems alive and well in some circles. I know of two
wrecks in my neck of the woods directly attributable to **** poor
training of exactly that sort, though.


Bertie


Bull****, there are a lot safer and more effective places to teach a student
to handle and aircraft, without compromising safety in the pattern. God what
are you smoking.