Things I Would Like To See

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


"Orval Fairbairn" wrote in message
news_r_fairbairn-39EFE0.13522504052008@70-3-168-
216.area5.spcsdns.net
...
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?

Whoosh.


Bertie

This reminds me of the 'engine failure exercise' claims made by some
in here a while back..

If I'm remembering that right, that thread was about engine management, not
piloting.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

In rec.aviation.student Jay Honeck wrote:
This reminds me of the 'engine failure exercise' claims made by some
in here a while back..

If I'm remembering that right, that thread was about engine management, not
piloting.

While the aircraft I fly don't even have engines, I think you have to have
a pretty perverse definition of piloting if engine management doesn't
count as part of it.

--
Michael Ash
Rogue Amoeba Software

"Jay Honeck" wrote in
newsQhUj.153573$yE1.116054@attbi_s21:

This reminds me of the 'engine failure exercise' claims made by some
in here a while back..

If I'm remembering that right, that thread was about engine
management, not piloting.

None of your posts are about piloting.



Bertie