Things I Would Like To See

"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message
...

Exactly. Stabilised approaches have their place, but tgeaching them to
the exclusion of all else is robbing the student.


Robbing the student of what?

In article ,
"Maxwell" luv2^fly99@cox.^net wrote:

"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message
...

Exactly. Stabilised approaches have their place, but tgeaching them to
the exclusion of all else is robbing the student.


Robbing the student of what?

Knowledge. How many "pilots" being "trained" in those pilot mills can
handle even a simple power-off landing?

--
Remove _'s from email address to talk to me.

"Maxwell" luv2^fly99@cox.^net wrote in news:rUhTj.145$tM1.85
@newsfe20.lga:


"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message
...

Exactly. Stabilised approaches have their place, but tgeaching them to
the exclusion of all else is robbing the student.


Robbing the student of what?




Whoosh.

Bertie

Orval Fairbairn wrote in
news
In article ,
"Maxwell" luv2^fly99@cox.^net wrote:

"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message
...

Exactly. Stabilised approaches have their place, but tgeaching them
to
the exclusion of all else is robbing the student.


Robbing the student of what?

Knowledge. How many "pilots" being "trained" in those pilot mills can
handle even a simple power-off landing?


Not many. It's been relegated to the area an extreme emergency wheras it
should be second nature.



Bertie

"Orval Fairbairn" wrote in message
news
In article ,
"Maxwell" luv2^fly99@cox.^net wrote:

"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message
...

Exactly. Stabilised approaches have their place, but tgeaching them to
the exclusion of all else is robbing the student.


Robbing the student of what?

Knowledge. How many "pilots" being "trained" in those pilot mills can
handle even a simple power-off landing?


Ok, but how does the stabilized approached rob the student of that
knowledge?

Accepted traffic pattern and approach procedures do nothing to limit an
instructors ability to teach aircraft handling or dead stick landings.

If they are not teaching such, they themselves are robbing the student. It
has nothing to do with current landing procedures.

"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message
...
"Maxwell" luv2^fly99@cox.^net wrote in news:rUhTj.145$tM1.85
@newsfe20.lga:


"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message
...

Exactly. Stabilised approaches have their place, but tgeaching them to
the exclusion of all else is robbing the student.


Robbing the student of what?




Whoosh.

Bertie

Wear ear muffs on windy days, and that won't happen.

Squirt, squirt.

In article ,
"Maxwell" luv2^fly99@cox.^net wrote:

"Orval Fairbairn" wrote in message
news
In article ,
"Maxwell" luv2^fly99@cox.^net wrote:

"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message
...

Exactly. Stabilised approaches have their place, but tgeaching them to
the exclusion of all else is robbing the student.


Robbing the student of what?

Knowledge. How many "pilots" being "trained" in those pilot mills can
handle even a simple power-off landing?


Ok, but how does the stabilized approached rob the student of that
knowledge?

Accepted traffic pattern and approach procedures do nothing to limit an
instructors ability to teach aircraft handling or dead stick landings.

If they are not teaching such, they themselves are robbing the student. It
has nothing to do with current landing procedures.


If a student is taught power-on approaches all the time, he won't know
how to approach an airport and do a power-off approach. I agree that
they are being robbed. In many cases, the instructors themselves are
simple regurgitating the same bad training that they themselves received.

--
Remove _'s from email address to talk to me.

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


"Orval Fairbairn" wrote in message
news_r_fairbairn-738598.09022604052008@70-3-168-
216.area5.spcsdns.net
...
In article ,
"Maxwell" luv2^fly99@cox.^net wrote:

"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message
...

Exactly. Stabilised approaches have their place, but tgeaching
them to the exclusion of all else is robbing the student.


Robbing the student of what?

Knowledge. How many "pilots" being "trained" in those pilot mills can
handle even a simple power-off landing?


Ok, but how does the stabilized approached rob the student of that
knowledge?

Accepted traffic pattern and approach procedures do nothing to limit
an instructors ability to teach aircraft handling or dead stick
landings.

If they are not teaching such, they themselves are robbing the
student. It has nothing to do with current landing procedures.


Yes, it does.


Bertie

"Maxwell" luv2^fly99@cox.^net wrote in news:wblTj.690$hJ1.642
@newsfe17.lga:


"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message
...
"Maxwell" luv2^fly99@cox.^net wrote in news:rUhTj.145$tM1.85
@newsfe20.lga:


"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message
...

Exactly. Stabilised approaches have their place, but tgeaching them
to
the exclusion of all else is robbing the student.


Robbing the student of what?




Whoosh.

Bertie

Wear ear muffs on windy days, and that won't happen.

Squirt, squirt.



Whoosh. ~IKYABWAI boi.



Bertie

"Orval Fairbairn" wrote in message
news
In article ,
"Maxwell" luv2^fly99@cox.^net wrote:


Ok, but how does the stabilized approached rob the student of that
knowledge?

Accepted traffic pattern and approach procedures do nothing to limit an
instructors ability to teach aircraft handling or dead stick landings.

If they are not teaching such, they themselves are robbing the student.
It
has nothing to do with current landing procedures.


If a student is taught power-on approaches all the time, he won't know
how to approach an airport and do a power-off approach. I agree that
they are being robbed. In many cases, the instructors themselves are
simple regurgitating the same bad training that they themselves received.


Ok, but how does the stabilized approached rob the student of that
knowledge?