Things I Would Like To See

"Maxwell" luv2^fly99@cox.^net wrote in
:


"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.


You allowed to leave rehab yet?


Bertie

"Maxwell" luv2^fly99@cox.^net wrote in
:


"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.


Yeah, that's why I'm a check airman.



Bertie

"Maxwell" luv2^fly99@cox.^net wrote in
:


"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message
...
WingFlaps wrote in
news:c49af0dd-deae-4a1f-ad4a-ef4a0dca1a59
@a9g2000prl.googlegroups.com:

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.


You are an idiot.



Bertie

"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message
.. .
"Maxwell" luv2^fly99@cox.^net wrote in
:


"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.


Yeah, that's why I'm a check airman.



Bertie

Sure you are wannabe. Is that what all the co-pilots and flight engineers
in the white uniforms tell you?

"Maxwell" luv2^fly99@cox.^net wrote in
:


"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message
.. .
"Maxwell" luv2^fly99@cox.^net wrote in
:


"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.


Yeah, that's why I'm a check airman.



Bertie

Sure you are wannabe. Is that what all the co-pilots and flight
engineers in the white uniforms tell you?


Nope..


Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

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.

It's trying to hand-prop the turbines that get ya.


-c

gatt wrote in
:

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

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.

It's trying to hand-prop the turbines that get ya.


-c


seen a jet blow started! They parked another jet in fornt of it and
wound it up with the exhaust of the airplane in front.



Bertie

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

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

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.

It's trying to hand-prop the turbines that get ya.


-c


seen a jet blow started! They parked another jet in fornt of it and
wound it up with the exhaust of the airplane in front.



Bertie

No, be we heard you could suck start one!

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

seen a jet blow started!

No but I knew a girl once that could probably suck start a 182.

Maxwell wrote:

No, be we heard you could suck start one!



This crap has got to stop. You screwed up my perfectly good joke.

Both of you quit it!