How to tell my instructor to increase glidespeed with headwind?

"Judah" wrote in message
. ..
Mxsmanic wrote in
:

Correct the instructor if he is wrong. If this creates an obstacle to
attaining your own objectives, find another instructor.

You're kidding, right?

Obviously he's not. Mxsmanic has no qualms about "correcting" his
instructors even when they are already right. Clearly he would have no
problem correcting his instructor if he is wrong.

Peter Duniho wrote:
Obviously he's not. Mxsmanic has no qualms about "correcting" his
instructors even when they are already right. Clearly he would have no
problem correcting his instructor if he is wrong.

Yeah, the ****in' troll would just say, "Well, that's not how it works
in MSFS, so you are wrong"...

"Peter Duniho" wrote in news:12kihq1mi75qef1
@corp.supernews.com:

Correct the instructor if he is wrong. If this creates an obstacle to
attaining your own objectives, find another instructor.

You're kidding, right?

Obviously he's not. Mxsmanic has no qualms about "correcting" his
instructors even when they are already right. Clearly he would have no
problem correcting his instructor if he is wrong.

Yeah, but he's suggesting the OP go find a new instructor if correcting him
doesn't work.

So why does he refuse to do the same?

Judah writes:

You're kidding, right?

No.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

O
No, because the same instructor may misinform others who do not have
the benefit of other sources of information, and someone may be
injured or killed as a result of his misinformation.

Correct the instructor if he is wrong. If this creates an obstacle to
attaining your own objectives, find another instructor. But don't
just leave him to put other students in danger.


Go take the PPL or Glider written and maybe the FOI...then you can
make comments like that.
Don Byrer KJ5KB
Radar Tech & Smilin' Commercial Pilot Guy
Glider & CFI wannabe
kj5kb-at-hotmail.com

"I have slipped the surly bonds of earth; now if I can just land without bending the gear..."
"Watch out for those doves...smack-smack-smack-smack..."

Don Byrer writes:

Go take the PPL or Glider written and maybe the FOI...then you can
make comments like that.

I can make that comment without any exam of any kind. It's a question
of ethics, morals, and conscience, not acquired knowledge. Hurting
other people isn't good in my book. But not everyone uses the same
book.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

wrote in message
ups.com...
[...]
In other words, for what you're trying to get done, please the
professor first. Engage in the debate after you get your license. Odds
are that you'd have the same tough sell in front of you if you attempt
the same argument during your checkride. You can prove you're right
later.

Does that seem sensible?

That advice makes some sense for someone in Schiff's position. I don't
agree that it makes sense for a student who is actually hiring his
instructor to teach him something.

In this case, the student knows the answer, understands the answer, and is
confident in that knowledge. But what if something else comes up in which
the instructor is *also* mistaken, and in which the instructor refuses to
consider the possibility that he's wrong? If it turns out in that situation
that Nik either doesn't know for sure what the right answer is, or doesn't
even have reason to suspect the instructor is wrong, then Nik will be at a
disadvantage, being taught by an instructor who should not be instructing in
the first place.

I have had situations with instructors in which I was only to fly with the
instructor once, for the purpose of showing some competence in an airplane
or type of flight or something like that and in which the instructor said or
did something that I disagreed with (and most of the time, it turned out I
was right ). In those situations, you're right...you just go with the
flow, and let the instructor have his way (assuming it's not a safety of
flight issue, of course...I had to terminate an IPC prematurely, because of
an instructor who was so bad, he was interfering with the safety of the
flight).

But for someone with whom you expect to have an on-going relationship, even
if for a few lessons but especially for a primary student, it's important to
a) resolve every single issue to the point of truthful consensus, and b) to
know that you can trust your instructor to not tell you something is
absolutely true when in fact it's known to be absolutely false.

I don't know whether the flight in question was a one-time thing, or is part
of on-going instruction that Nik is taking from the instructor, but in
absence of that knowledge, I think it's important to make sure that no one
thinks it's okay to just let an instructor say wrong things, especially if
one is doing more than just the one flight with that instructor.

Pete

Oh, I agree wholeheartedly and have been lucky enough to have an
instructor who would work that way with me.

However, and this is the biggie, the piece of knowledge we're talking
about...simply ain't taught if you're in a 172, for instance!!

If the POH has a published best glide speed, the instructor and the
examiner expect you to know that value and fly it. If you can explain a
variation, great! Go for it! You're still going to be asked to fly the
airplane to the POH spec. So perhaps my assumption is the fault in my
reasoning: I assumed an airplane where the POH publishes a value and,
as you examine the curriculum, it becomes apparent that the POH and the
candidates familiarity and observance of the data seem to be treated as
paramount. Check out the PPL knowledge guides for the written exam and
you'll note that this subject isn't even part of the curriculum!

I was once on a check out flight in a 172 over water next to Paine
field. Winds at altitude were gusting to speeds higher than the
published best glide. Instructor pulls the throttle, predictably, and I
react using the published data. He notes this and I observe to him, "We
aren't going to make that field upwind and 2 miles from us because
we're going backward."

"So what are you going to do?", he says.

"I'm going to trade altitude for speed to make that field as there are
no other clear areas reachable from this altitude including downwind.",
I reply.

"Fine, do it.", says he.

Same theory, same issue.

I think it would be good for Nik to chase that data down and teach his
instructor something he might need to know. But I don't think it will
do him much good if his examiner has a similar hole in knowledge. So
I'm suggesting should the situation repeat itself, he should
demonstrate competence in the expected manner and then consider a
conversation on the topic later. Should save him some trouble and he'll
still have useful knoweldge he can exercise should he really need it at
some point.

No instructor's knoweldge is perfectly complete, similarly, the same is
true for examiners, students or any other pilot. The situation of one
knowing something the other doesn't is normal. Attempting to share that
knowledge is good and commendable. But if doing so is going to cost
you, suppress it, get through the exercise, achieve your goal, teach
later.

That is, unless you enjoy arguing it...like we obviously do!

Greg Chapman


Peter Duniho wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...
[...]
In other words, for what you're trying to get done, please the
professor first. Engage in the debate after you get your license. Odds
are that you'd have the same tough sell in front of you if you attempt
the same argument during your checkride. You can prove you're right
later.

Does that seem sensible?

That advice makes some sense for someone in Schiff's position. I don't
agree that it makes sense for a student who is actually hiring his
instructor to teach him something.

In this case, the student knows the answer, understands the answer, and is
confident in that knowledge. But what if something else comes up in which
the instructor is *also* mistaken, and in which the instructor refuses to
consider the possibility that he's wrong? If it turns out in that situation
that Nik either doesn't know for sure what the right answer is, or doesn't
even have reason to suspect the instructor is wrong, then Nik will be at a
disadvantage, being taught by an instructor who should not be instructing in
the first place.

I have had situations with instructors in which I was only to fly with the
instructor once, for the purpose of showing some competence in an airplane
or type of flight or something like that and in which the instructor said or
did something that I disagreed with (and most of the time, it turned out I
was right ). In those situations, you're right...you just go with the
flow, and let the instructor have his way (assuming it's not a safety of
flight issue, of course...I had to terminate an IPC prematurely, because of
an instructor who was so bad, he was interfering with the safety of the
flight).

But for someone with whom you expect to have an on-going relationship, even
if for a few lessons but especially for a primary student, it's important to
a) resolve every single issue to the point of truthful consensus, and b) to
know that you can trust your instructor to not tell you something is
absolutely true when in fact it's known to be absolutely false.

I don't know whether the flight in question was a one-time thing, or is part
of on-going instruction that Nik is taking from the instructor, but in
absence of that knowledge, I think it's important to make sure that no one
thinks it's okay to just let an instructor say wrong things, especially if
one is doing more than just the one flight with that instructor.

Pete

On Wed, 01 Nov 2006 17:14:42 -0800, Peter Duniho wrote:

That advice makes some sense for someone in Schiff's position.

I don't agree even there.

Others have already pointed out the benefit of educating the instructor.
In fact, if I recall that story correctly, the instructor did come away
with more knowledge than he'd before. That's a gain for all of us.

The reason I've not seen mentioned is that he [Schiff] could be sure about
something that does happen to be wrong. "Correcting" the CFI isn't just a
chance to teach the CFI something. It also confirms that the correction
is accurate.

Admittedly, after numerous corrections of the same misconception, I could
absolutely see the motivation on Schiff's part to just let it glide by
laugh. It's to his credit, I believe, that he hasn't.

- Andrew

"Andrew Gideon" wrote in message
news
On Wed, 01 Nov 2006 17:14:42 -0800, Peter Duniho wrote:

That advice makes some sense for someone in Schiff's position.

I don't agree even there.

I doubt that's true. My point isn't that one just never revists the issue.
It's that in mid-flight, getting into an argument with someone about
something that's not directly related to the safety of the flight isn't
worthwhile.

You seem to be disagreeing with something else, and not something I actually
wrote.