Steering on the taxiway

Mxsmanic writes:
Doug writes:

And contrary to how many are being taught, you don't need the
brakes on the beginning of takeoff run to stay aligned with the center
stripe.

Pilots are taught to use the brakes on take-off? Isn't that unsafe?

Note -- I believe Doug is an airline pilot. He probably knows what he is talking about.

To answer your question: depends on the plane, depends on the
conditions. For most planes you probably don't want to touch the
brakes on takeoff at all. For the DA-20 I am currently training in,
the POH claims that in crosswind conditions you may need to tap one of
the brakes a bit during the initial takeoff roll to retain directional
control before the rudder gains full authority -- but doing this
increases your takeoff distance.

Chris

Doug,

And contrary to how many are being taught, you don't need the
brakes on the beginning of takeoff run to stay aligned with the center
stripe.


Ah, at last. Thanks. I have never understood where that silly notion
came from.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Mxsmanic wrote:

Mx- I'm trying to find some hope for you, and thought that maybe there
are circumstances that warrent more kindness in replies to you from
people. And, really, if you want to fly and can't, I send you my wishes
that you find your way to meeting whatever goal you are aiming for.
Just tell people. But your previous comment is EXTREMELY insulting:

It's the nature of USENET, and I seem to attract more of the standard
USENET kiddies than most, for some reason. I stopped paying attention
to the children years ago. There are always a few people who want a
serious discussion, if one sifts through the noise.


Children? Noise?- ouch......
You want serious discussion? It's not that you are a sim pilot that
bothers some people- it's your ego. If you were a little more humble,
you' would see that. Since you do seem to know so much, why do you come
here? Discussion is all about different points of view, but you can't
pick and choose answers you like and cast judgement on the ones you
don't. Especially if you aren't a pilot(in this case). Or am I a kiddie
for asking?

Cirrus writes:

But your previous comment is EXTREMELY insulting:

It's an accurate description of the people it references (the kiddies
and children), who unfortunately are very common on USENET. Someone
who counts himself among the kiddies and children might feel insulted,
particularly since people in these categories tend to take everything
as an insult. There's nothing I can do about that.

Children? Noise?- ouch......

Why ouch?

You want serious discussion?

Always.

It's not that you are a sim pilot that bothers some people- it's
your ego. If you were a little more humble, you' would see that.

If people are bothered by me, they should avoid me. Such people
aren't likely to be willing or able to participate in a normal
discussion, so interaction with them is usually a waste of time.

Since you do seem to know so much, why do you come here?

If I knew so much, I would not ask questions.

However, I long ago learned--the hard way--that most people are
blowing smoke when they answer questions. I don't take answers at
face value unless I know from long personal interaction with a person
that he has an excellent track record for giving reliable answers.
Few people are in that category. On USENET, almost everyone is
posturing, so all responses must be taken with a large grain of salt.

A good way to explore the validity of an answer is to question it.
Most people giving good answers can effortlessly support them and can
easily explain why they have chosen those answers; not only does this
make the answer much safer to accept, but it can also provide a lot of
interesting additional information. People blowing smoke simply
become emotional and resort to personal attacks, and I promptly write
off anything they've said.

Discussion is all about different points of view, but you can't
pick and choose answers you like and cast judgement on the ones you
don't.

Why not? I like answers that are supported by sound reasoning based
on acceptable premises. I ignore answers that amount to unsupported
assertions. Credentials are not a factor, in part because (1)
credentials are not reliable, and (2) everyone on USENET is a
self-appointed world expert in everything.

Especially if you aren't a pilot(in this case).

Being a pilot isn't a guarantee of anything, unfortunately, except
that one holds a pilot's license. As a group, pilots are likely to
know more about aviation than non-pilots, but this general observation
is useless for predicting the reliability of individuals who call
themselves pilots. I've encountered too many pilots who blithely
contradict extremely reliable sources of aviation information. I
don't call pilots on their mistakes, as a general rule, in order to
avoid embarrassment; but I do silently write them off.

What I find revealing is how often "pilots" cannot even agree among
themselves. If they knew as much as they believe themselves to know,
they would not provide wildly varying answers to so many of the same
questions. I try to extract a majority opinion from the serious
answers I receive, and I compare this with whatever other sources I
can locate for answers to the same questions. If all goes well, I
eventually learn something useful.

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

Mxsmanic,

If people are bothered by me, they should avoid me. Such people
aren't likely to be willing or able to participate in a normal
discussion, so interaction with them is usually a waste of time.


The way your life seems to be going, it might be time to ask if YOU are
the cause of the problems, not "such people". But you knew that - just
as well as you know that your style of "discussion" is anything but
normal.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

In article ,
says...

If people are bothered by me, they should avoid me. Such people
aren't likely to be willing or able to participate in a normal
discussion, so interaction with them is usually a waste of time.



Break into their group, then say they should avoid you.
Anyone who's bothered by you is, by definition, unlikely to be willing or
able to participate in a normal discussion?


Funny thing about humans. They are such unrelaible sources of
information. They have ideas, opinions - they disagree with each other
- they even make mistakes, and when they do, they are capable of still
trying to defend themselves! Such children!It's hard to imagine what
pleasure they can get out of hearing one anothers' opinions, when, by
definition, only one can be right, and the others can only be "blowing
smoke".

There are much more reliable sources of information - books for
example. But wait a minute - this argument is made by one who refuses
to research a subject before discussing it - who cannot find the
motivation to look up the simplest subject before coming to the public
place to tell the experts they are amateurs and children . . .

"Mxsmanic" wrote

It's an accurate description of the people it references (the kiddies
and children), who unfortunately are very common on USENET.

Hey group! This is what you get, if you deal with this one!

If people are bothered by me, they should avoid me. Such people
aren't likely to be willing or able to participate in a normal
discussion, so interaction with them is usually a waste of time.

You are the authority on interaction being a waste of time. It is always a
waste of time to communicate with you.

However, I long ago learned--the hard way--that most people are
blowing smoke when they answer questions. On USENET, almost everyone is
posturing, so all responses must be taken with a large grain of salt.

See what I mean, group? This is what he thinks of your answers. Just say no!

Credentials are not a factor, in part because (1)
credentials are not reliable, and (2) everyone on USENET is a
self-appointed world expert in everything.

Again, this is what he thinks of you, group.
--
Jim in NC

MX,
You do raise valid points, and I appreciate that you at least replied.
Now I'm going to be sentimental....There is one underlying thing for
you to keep in the back of your mind here, however. There is an
underlying principle that bonds pilots subconsciously together- that
mistakes can lead to death. Being a pilot doesn't guarantee anything,
you are right. A lot of us have friends who have died flying, with
their license providing no help. But, despite that, we love flying, and
it is safe. Not knowing the perfect taxi speed might not hurt anyone,
but the collective package of knowledge a pilot possesses makes him/her
safer up there. It takes a lifetime commitment to being a safe pilot.

Try to get to the right answer, but be sensitive to the fact that this
group of people's differing opinions stem from a deeper belief that
their well being (as well as their passengers) depends on their
ultimate actions in the cockpit. Often times there are multiple ways to
do the same thing, and everyone who has done it their way safely wants
to tell others. (And yes, some people just want to show off...). But
what is good for one pilot might not be for another. So of Course there
are different answers. Examples:

You are too high on final. Do you sideslip or go around?
How much do you lean the mixture while on the ground?
What visibility is too low for takeoff? Part 91 lets me go with 0.
Am I safe at 9000ft at night without supplemental oxygen? FAR says it's
legal
When you taxi, how fast is too fast?
Is that runway too short today?


I know my abilities and limitations. For instance, I have great
crosswind landing skills, but am more timid with small mountain strips.
Most people here have different opinions OR experience levels, and you
can't just poke them with sticks when they know that you are detached
from the issue. If you screw up, no problem. If I screw up, somebody
might die, and that's why we try so hard to tell each other what we
think is best. Sometimes it seems you toy with this principle (without
knowing it, I hope) and it really ****es people off. Just my 2 cents.


Being a pilot isn't a guarantee of anything, unfortunately, except
that one holds a pilot's license. As a group, pilots are likely to
know more about aviation than non-pilots, but this general observation
is useless for predicting the reliability of individuals who call
themselves pilots.

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
People blowing smoke simply become emotional and resort to personal
attacks, and I promptly write
off anything they've said.

Is that your definition of "refractory"?

Mxsmanic,

I seem to attract more of the standard
USENET kiddies than most


That must be it. ROFL.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)