Ground Track Maneuvers?

Ground Track Maneuvers?

Why do them?

There are no maneuvers in flying that resemble GTM other than GTM.

Are pilots being taught how to buzz their neighbor's house with
precision? Or just building time?

Because of its importance there was much concern in this newbe the
first time I heard of a stall to crash (with the expected fatalites)
as the pilot was turning to final. Why did he do that? The pilot may
have used simple reflex actions of treating the airport as a GTM. He
had been taught (or taught himself) to wrestle with the aircraft for a
precision track during GTM, and instinctively thinking accuracy on his
approach to landing. Instead, stall speed, low altitude and
low-angled turns should've been his prime concerns.

I have a small aviation library, including David Frazier's "ABC'S of
Safe Flying" (1992). I read it eagerly until getting to GMT and also
advanced maneuvers. Interest was lost at that point, and could not be
regained on those points. I simply do not want to do them, and see no
reason for them. Cross-county flights to various airports through
various airspace makes better sense.

One maneuver may be appropriate, but there is too much concentration
on GMT in training. Do any of you keep current?

I will complete the requirements for the certificate. But GMT and
other such maneuvers will not be taken so seriously, possibly even
angrily. That unless any instructor can prove their need. Wind
correction (as suggested in the book) is not sufficient.
--
Michael

On Jul 7, 5:06*am, Mike Rhodes wrote:
Ground Track Maneuvers?

Why do them?

There are no maneuvers in flying that resemble GTM other than GTM.

Are pilots being taught how to buzz their neighbor's house with
precision? *Or just building time?

Because of its importance there was much concern in this newbe the
first time I heard of a stall to crash (with the expected fatalites)
as the pilot was turning to final. *Why did he do that? *The pilot may
have used simple reflex actions of treating the airport as a GTM. *He
had been taught (or taught himself) to wrestle with the aircraft for a
precision track during GTM, and instinctively thinking accuracy on his
approach to landing. *Instead, stall speed, low altitude and
low-angled turns should've been his prime concerns.

I have a small aviation library, including David Frazier's "ABC'S of
Safe Flying" (1992). *I read it eagerly until getting to GMT and also
advanced maneuvers. *Interest was lost at that point, and could not be
regained on those points. *I simply do not want to do them, and see no
reason for them. *Cross-county flights to various airports through
various airspace makes better sense.

One maneuver may be appropriate, but there is too much concentration
on GMT in training. *Do any of you keep current?

I will complete the requirements for the certificate. *But GMT and
other such maneuvers will not be taken so seriously, possibly even
angrily. *That unless any instructor can prove their need. *Wind
correction (as suggested in the book) is not sufficient.
--
Michael

As a long time instructor and active safety adviser I would
respectfully suggest you do some serious soul searching with your
attitude if you expect to survive in the air environment.
Actually, what I'm reading here might be the fault of your instructor
for not preparing you properly and/or in not knowing you well enough
to have spotted this in you and corrected it IMMEDIATELY.
Ground reference maneuvers are taught to acclimate you as a pilot to
operating the aircraft in close proximity to the ground while your
attention is focused ON the ground. They as well acclimate you to this
arena in a wind environment that affects your aircraft, teaching you
to deal correctly with the issues involved.
It's not your ability to perform these ground reference maneuvers I'm
worried about. A pilot will eventually pass or fail any flight test
given based on their ability to demonstrate these maneuvers as
required. The system takes care of that. What the system doesn't take
care of is a pilot's general attitude toward flying. THAT is a matter
of individual responsibility.
It's in this area I see a problem for you if not corrected.
Anyway, my read on this.
Dudley Henriques

On Thu, 07 Jul 2011 04:06:13 -0500, Mike Rhodes wrote:

One maneuver may be appropriate, but there is too much concentration on
GMT in training. Do any of you keep current?

Ignoring the educational benefit, which others covered, you seem to be
missing something important. These maneuvers are *fun*.

If I've a little free time and no need for something else, I'll go into
the practice area and lazy-8, spiral up and down, try something that's
less tough to fly than it is to spell, or even just do steep turns,
trying to catch my own wake. Sure, there are benefits. And I call it
"practice".

But it's really just having fun. If it's not fun, then why fly?

- Andrew

On Jul 8, 4:33*am, Dudley Henriques wrote:
On Jul 7, 5:06*am, Mike Rhodes wrote:









Ground Track Maneuvers?

Why do them?

There are no maneuvers in flying that resemble GTM other than GTM.

Are pilots being taught how to buzz their neighbor's house with
precision? *Or just building time?

Because of its importance there was much concern in this newbe the
first time I heard of a stall to crash (with the expected fatalites)
as the pilot was turning to final. *Why did he do that? *The pilot may
have used simple reflex actions of treating the airport as a GTM. *He
had been taught (or taught himself) to wrestle with the aircraft for a
precision track during GTM, and instinctively thinking accuracy on his
approach to landing. *Instead, stall speed, low altitude and
low-angled turns should've been his prime concerns.

I have a small aviation library, including David Frazier's "ABC'S of
Safe Flying" (1992). *I read it eagerly until getting to GMT and also
advanced maneuvers. *Interest was lost at that point, and could not be
regained on those points. *I simply do not want to do them, and see no
reason for them. *Cross-county flights to various airports through
various airspace makes better sense.

One maneuver may be appropriate, but there is too much concentration
on GMT in training. *Do any of you keep current?

I will complete the requirements for the certificate. *But GMT and
other such maneuvers will not be taken so seriously, possibly even
angrily. *That unless any instructor can prove their need. *Wind
correction (as suggested in the book) is not sufficient.
--
Michael

As a long time instructor and active safety adviser I would
respectfully suggest you do some serious soul searching with your
attitude if you expect to survive in the air environment.
Actually, what I'm reading here might be the fault of your instructor
for not preparing you properly and/or in not knowing you well enough
to have spotted this in you and corrected it IMMEDIATELY.
Ground reference maneuvers are taught to acclimate you as a pilot to
operating the aircraft in close proximity to the ground while your
attention is focused ON the ground. They as well acclimate you to this
arena in a wind environment that affects your aircraft, teaching you
to deal correctly with the issues involved.
It's not your ability to perform these ground reference maneuvers I'm
worried about. A pilot will eventually pass or fail any flight test
given based on their ability to demonstrate these maneuvers as
required. The system takes care of that. What the system doesn't take
care of is a pilot's general attitude toward flying. THAT is a matter
of individual responsibility.
It's in this area I see a problem for you if not corrected.
Anyway, my read on this.

That problem never arose where I was flying.
Mainly because most of the instructors were ex Ag pilots and we had
access to operational lowflyng training as one of the few jobs for new
Commercials was in Ag flying...

On Jul 7, 4:24*pm, george wrote:
On Jul 8, 4:33*am, Dudley Henriques wrote:









On Jul 7, 5:06*am, Mike Rhodes wrote:

Ground Track Maneuvers?

Why do them?

There are no maneuvers in flying that resemble GTM other than GTM.

Are pilots being taught how to buzz their neighbor's house with
precision? *Or just building time?

Because of its importance there was much concern in this newbe the
first time I heard of a stall to crash (with the expected fatalites)
as the pilot was turning to final. *Why did he do that? *The pilot may
have used simple reflex actions of treating the airport as a GTM. *He
had been taught (or taught himself) to wrestle with the aircraft for a
precision track during GTM, and instinctively thinking accuracy on his
approach to landing. *Instead, stall speed, low altitude and
low-angled turns should've been his prime concerns.

I have a small aviation library, including David Frazier's "ABC'S of
Safe Flying" (1992). *I read it eagerly until getting to GMT and also
advanced maneuvers. *Interest was lost at that point, and could not be
regained on those points. *I simply do not want to do them, and see no
reason for them. *Cross-county flights to various airports through
various airspace makes better sense.

One maneuver may be appropriate, but there is too much concentration
on GMT in training. *Do any of you keep current?

I will complete the requirements for the certificate. *But GMT and
other such maneuvers will not be taken so seriously, possibly even
angrily. *That unless any instructor can prove their need. *Wind
correction (as suggested in the book) is not sufficient.
--
Michael

As a long time instructor and active safety adviser I would
respectfully suggest you do some serious soul searching with your
attitude if you expect to survive in the air environment.
Actually, what I'm reading here might be the fault of your instructor
for not preparing you properly and/or in not knowing you well enough
to have spotted this in you and corrected it IMMEDIATELY.
Ground reference maneuvers are taught to acclimate you as a pilot to
operating the aircraft in close proximity to the ground while your
attention is focused ON the ground. They as well acclimate you to this
arena in a wind environment that affects your aircraft, teaching you
to deal correctly with the issues involved.
It's not your ability to perform these ground reference maneuvers I'm
worried about. A pilot will eventually pass or fail any flight test
given based on their ability to demonstrate these maneuvers as
required. The system takes care of that. What the system doesn't take
care of is a pilot's general attitude toward flying. THAT is a matter
of individual responsibility.
It's in this area I see a problem for you if not corrected.
Anyway, my read on this.

That problem never arose where I was flying.
Mainly because most of the instructors were ex Ag pilots and we had
access to operational lowflyng training as one of the few jobs for new
Commercials was in Ag flying...

Ag flying will teach you a ton for sure. Even tried it myself one
summer in a Calair A9. I can still smell that Malithion even
today. :-)))))))))
Great training, and I must have killed a whole lot of bugs in the
process.
DH

On Thu, 07 Jul 2011 04:06:13 -0500, Mike Rhodes
wrote:

snip

Thank you for your replies.

It was surprising that no one answered the "do any keep current?"
question. I expected most replies to be specific to that, and they
would be affirmative. Ground track maneuvers might be thought fun by
some. But news groups are not used for such casual yea/nay answers
any more.

Ground track maneuvers do force monitoring of instruments while
keeping one's head outside. And thinking ahead of what they should
read. But so do climbing turns. It is my belief that spins on final
have been directly influenced by ground track maneuvers. Distractions
(as mentioned by Johnson) would not encourage a pilot to pull on the
yoke to tighten the turn at such an inopportune time.

Ground track maneuvers do require extra coordination, but none of it
useful during flight by most any pilot. Ag spraying is anything but
normal. You may be better at it, but I would probably shrug it off,
and not think it so important to get involved in the competition, or
that line of work.

My attitude (commented by Henriques) was more stubborn and fussy this
time than the burn-down-the-house approach in the previous 'Apron'
thread. In it I mentioned 'Zulu' of the phonetic alphabet, but
'Romeo' and 'Juliette' actually started the house burning. The
heterosexual house (Shakespeare was not); and married into 'wrong side
of the tracks' class warfare. But they are not classics nor refer to
anything that is actually classical; only smart-alecky even
troublesome, (which is my opinion of GTM). Romeo and Juliette are
spits of hate that have been included in the phonetic alphabet, and
from strange people that want a troubled house. There must be a
response. Unfortunately the explanation can too easily get lost in
the anger.
--
Michael

"Mike Rhodes" wrote in message
...
Instead, stall speed, low altitude and
low-angled turns should've been his prime concerns.


Low-angled turns as a prime concern? Who ever told you that? (Assuming you
mean bank angle) Also, you failed to mention coordination. I find this
combination very concerning!

I have never admonished (directly) any student for a bank angle in the pattern.
To emphasize low bank angles is to encourage students to "cheat" by making level
uncoordinated turns. Any habit of allowing uncoordinated turns in the pattern
is a recipe for eventual disaster. In the glider world (where I did my
instructing), 45 degree banks in the pattern are not considered untoward. If
anything, I would address the REASON why the student felt it necessary to make a
high-banked turn. Which usually would be poor planning or (another way of
saying the same thing) flying "behind the aircraft"..

Vaughn

On 7/7/2011 5:06 AM, Mike Rhodes wrote:
Ground Track Maneuvers?

Why do them?

There are no maneuvers in flying that resemble GTM other than GTM.

Are pilots being taught how to buzz their neighbor's house with
precision? Or just building time?

Because of its importance there was much concern in this newbe the
first time I heard of a stall to crash (with the expected fatalites)
as the pilot was turning to final. Why did he do that? The pilot may
have used simple reflex actions of treating the airport as a GTM. He
had been taught (or taught himself) to wrestle with the aircraft for a
precision track during GTM, and instinctively thinking accuracy on his
approach to landing. Instead, stall speed, low altitude and
low-angled turns should've been his prime concerns.

I have a small aviation library, including David Frazier's "ABC'S of
Safe Flying" (1992). I read it eagerly until getting to GMT and also
advanced maneuvers. Interest was lost at that point, and could not be
regained on those points. I simply do not want to do them, and see no
reason for them. Cross-county flights to various airports through
various airspace makes better sense.

One maneuver may be appropriate, but there is too much concentration
on GMT in training. Do any of you keep current?

I will complete the requirements for the certificate. But GMT and
other such maneuvers will not be taken so seriously, possibly even
angrily. That unless any instructor can prove their need. Wind
correction (as suggested in the book) is not sufficient.

Learning to fly an airplane incorporates many disciplines, including
airmanship, learning to fly the airplane safely at the (bottom) edges of
the flight envelope, handling the airplane in various wind situations,
mechanical handling of the engine and systems, navigation,
communication, and many others.

Ground track maneuvers are used on every flight that involves a traffic
pattern. Ideally ground track maneuvers should be flown with moderate
wind so you can note the track, speed, and turn changes necessary to
compensate for how the wind affects the aircraft.

Enjoy your flight training, you have much to learn.

On Jul 7, 5:06*am, Mike Rhodes wrote:

I will complete the requirements for the certificate. *But GMT and
other such maneuvers will not be taken so seriously, possibly even
angrily. *That unless any instructor can prove their need. *Wind
correction (as suggested in the book) is not sufficient.

This is either a troll or a new standard of stupidity.
-----

- gpsman

Mike Rhodes wrote:
Ground track maneuvers do require extra coordination, but none of it
useful during flight by most any pilot.

Cynthia Smith appears to have already pointed out that the rectangular
pattern ground track maneuver must be mastered in order to land. Even
absent a standard pattern entry, landing on a runway of any sort always
involves the exact same skills as those needed to master any of the ground
track maneuvers.

Romeo and Juliette are
spits of hate that have been included in the phonetic alphabet, and
from strange people that want a troubled house.

A vast Shakesperian conspiracy to make aviators spits of hate? I had no
idea!

There must be a
response. Unfortunately the explanation can too easily get lost in
the anger.

(What a strange person.)