Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

How not to train instrument students

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web
Register   Log in
You do realize your calling and making yourself an ass right?
 
Pilots whine so much.

Common sense dictates that it isn't a great idea as you theoretically block out your field of vision.

We've all probably shoved a jacket up front during our instrument training. I know I have (on myside only and just enough to limit the effects of the sun) when landing into the sun on an ILS just outside the marker (class C RADAR environment) so the sun had less effect on the scratched up foogles.

Go ahead and throw me under the bus. I dont care.

Its obviously not a good idea during VMC cruise under the hood, but during an approach, riding the rails down under RADAR with a safety pilot doesn't comprimise safety too much.

I think some of the discussion here is asinine.

Good day.
 
Air thick with testosterone and verbal bile. CCCCan't breathe! MMMMust bail out!

This forum site is badly in need of good humour. Go check out Jet Blast at pprune.org if you need an example.

Unless, you guys are kidding. Right?
 
You do realize your calling and making yourself an ass right?
Click to expand...

I didn't call anybody anything; you assume, again, incorrectly.

Once more, put words in your own mouth, not mine.

However, when you assume, as you do so much, you do live up to the well worn catch phrase, "when you assume, you make as ass out of u and me." Assumption is the mother of all screwups.

Assumption runs rife...when you make guesses and state "it probably is" you're making an assumption. You're performing guesswork. You're saying, in essence that you haven't a clue, but it "might" mean this, and it "might" mean that. You don't know. What this means is that on the subject upon which you choose to comment, you are clueless.

We see this constantly here in many forms. I elected to beat you up a little here not really because I care what the people in a light piston twin are doing in another country, but to make a point regarding assumption...which has clearly gone well over your head.

There's a worn-out interview question that still gets used, in which you're asked "You are in your hotel room, and there's a knock on the door. You answer the door, and the captain is standing there in a dress. What do you do?"

The question is a trap, of course, designed to see how much you assume. If you assume it's a man in a dress, then you assume too much, you assume incorrectly. The captain in the question is, in fact a woman, and there's nothing more to do than say "What can I do for you this evening, captain?" Many pilots, in fact most who haven't heard the question before, immediately pass judgement, assume.

A company loses an airplane. It crashes. The cries go up like coyotes howling at the moon "What poor maintenance! Pilot error! How stupid was that?" Without knowing any of the facts.

You're in a mall, Christmas shopping. You see a man enter a store. He reaches into his waistband and draws a firearm. He points the firearm at the clerk, and yells very loudly for the clerk to put his hands in the air. Is this a hold-up? Is this a reason to fear? Assumption might say so...but it's really a police officer making a fugitive arrest. Assumption is assinine.

Many years ago a man was beaten to death by a group of joggers in a park. He was seen on top of another man, who was lying on his back, unconscious. Both mean were dead when police responded. The man on his back...he'd had a heart attack. The man who was beaten to death was a first responder, attempting to perform CPR. The crowd assumed he was attacking the first man, and attacked him, killing him, and denying the heart attack victim the lifesaving help he needed. The first man died of his heart attack because the crowd beat to death the first responder...because the assumed.

I've seen pilots attempt to shut down the wrong engine and do all manner of incorrect things...because they assumed they had all the facts. Just as you did when you started this thread attacking the people in the video, assuming you knew what was going on. What you've learned, hopefully as the thread unfolded, is that you really didn't know...anything. You simply assumed...most of your assumptions were wrong, as has been demonstrated. Rather than explore that, regroup, and address correct information, you've continued to defend assumptions, and make more assumptions...a number of which have also been wrong.

You're inexperienced, and far, far too sure of yourself. One of the best things you can do as a pilot, the moment you wake up, the moment you sit in the cockpit, and every moment of the flight, is to constantly ask yourself "what is it I don't know yet?"

Far too few people take the time to say "I don't have enough information, yet." In the case of the airplane in this video, you didn't have enough information, and still don't, to pass the judgement you've passed. Instead, you've brayed and cawed about the scent of feces, called names, leveled insults and attacks, and defended poor decisions and pathetically poor airmanship.

It's time to grow up, alimbo. Flying is an adult profession; assumption is a childish trait. Set it aside.
 
It does not take me assuming this is a bad idea to think its a bad idea. Really if you think this is the least bit acceptable than that really shows what type of pilot you are. Apparently you growing up has not given you to much intellect either. You using your age and amount of hours to prove you being right and knowing near everything does not mean sh*t. In fact I bet my lack of sheer experience and your over confidence in flying puts us at about the same risk level. Furthermore I never attacked anyone I merely stated this is how not to train instrument students. See it is you that assumed that not me. The fact that this thread has gone for 3 pages is pure humor for me, especially when you go and bring up this whole issue of assumptions. Please do not make comments on my thread if you have nothing positive to say about it. If you want to go ahead and condone flying like this because it is legal fine I can care less just stay the fu*k outta of the air when I'm up there. Remember what's right is not always good but what's good is not always right.
 
Last edited:
Please do not make comments on my thread if you have nothing positive to say about it.
Click to expand...

Don't post is you don't want replies, and don't post stupidly if you aren't willing to take the criticism.
 
Sweet!

I think it's awesome how AVBUG made the "ass" in assume bold faced as if he was pointing out that ALIMBO was an ass! And then I thought it was funny that ALIMBO then started making the "ass" in assume bold faced also because he thought AVBUG was an ass! This is awesome! I totally can read between the lines and am able to detect your setiments for each other! I'm going to pop some popcorn! This is great!

ASSume! HA! That's so cool!
 
lowtimedriver said:
Provided that the camera is on a fixed mount, nothing. If a person is in the back seat filming this, then that is not a good thing.
Click to expand...


When I instructed in 172's, I supervised power-on stalls with a student in the left seat and the back seat. As long as the CG is within limits, you can perform power-on stalls. This was done both VFR and under the hood. Obviously, you need to keep the coordination/yaw in check though.
 
Amish RakeFight said:
When I instructed in 172's, I supervised power-on stalls with a student in the left seat and the back seat. As long as the CG is within limits, you can perform power-on stalls. This was done both VFR and under the hood. Obviously, you need to keep the coordination/yaw in check though.
Click to expand...

Oh, Lordy, I know you mean well but most 4 seat airplane hand books prohibit any stalls with the rear seat(s) occupied. It is rediculous I know but that is the way it is now.
 
Donsa320 said:
Oh, Lordy, I know you mean well but most 4 seat airplane hand books prohibit any stalls with the rear seat(s) occupied. It is rediculous I know but that is the way it is now.
Click to expand...

I'm left feeling a bit smitten, then. My old instructors did it and so did I. :blush:
 
Donsa320 said:
Oh, Lordy, I know you mean well but most 4 seat airplane hand books prohibit any stalls with the rear seat(s) occupied. It is rediculous I know but that is the way it is now.
Click to expand...

They do? I've seen the prohibition of spins with the rear seats occupied; but, I've never seen any restriction on stalls. Which aircraft have this restriction?
 
7574EVER said:
They do? I've seen the prohibition of spins with the rear seats occupied; but, I've never seen any restriction on stalls. Which aircraft have this restriction?
Click to expand...

I haven't looked at a Cessna/Piper POH in a long while. Did they recently prohibit all stalls with a rear seat passenger?

Perhaps. Logically speaking though, a student needs to know how to recover from a departure stall with a person in the back (this is real world). Teechnically, if the CG and weight are within limits and the departure stall is performed in coordinated flight, there shouldn't be an issue with performing them.

It's also important to demonstrate to students the different handling characteristics outside of the CFI-only regime which is so common. The weight and CG differences will be more pronounced with an added load in the back.
 
I looked through my 172R POH and only found a limitation on spins with back seaters. My Cirrus POH prohibits spins altogether, but I see nothing about stalls with a back seater. I know when I was student we used to do them all the time, and now that I am instructing I still do.
 
When I was going for my comm multi we did partial panel spins with foggels and one engine simulated at zero thrust.
 
Naw just me an Sheloy but I forgot to add she was going down on me when we were doing the maneuver. Don't worry guys we cleared the area first.
 
ALIMBO said:
Naw just me an Sheloy but I forgot to add she was going down on me when we were doing the maneuver. Don't worry guys we cleared the area first.
Click to expand...

Well then for her sake I hope SHE was the one wearing the foggles.....

That sight is something no human being should ever have to be subjected to!
 
Amish RakeFight said:
I haven't looked at a Cessna/Piper POH in a long while. Did they recently prohibit all stalls with a rear seat passenger?

Perhaps. Logically speaking though, a student needs to know how to recover from a departure stall with a person in the back (this is real world). Teechnically, if the CG and weight are within limits and the departure stall is performed in coordinated flight, there shouldn't be an issue with performing them.

It's also important to demonstrate to students the different handling characteristics outside of the CFI-only regime which is so common. The weight and CG differences will be more pronounced with an added load in the back.
Click to expand...


Yep, I feel the same way. BTW I saw it in limitations for a C-172 and a PA-28-140 but I do not recall the year models and I'm guessing that older books won't have the limitation. And it was in "Limitations". I would venture it was written by lawyers.
They lumped stalls in with mild aerobatics, arg!
So you really could not get around it with sand bags since the CG would be out of the utility range IMHO. Be careful out there. :)
 
One of my college roomies decided to take his high-school buddies up for a spin. Four of them in a 172. Nobody survived. I also met an MEI once who bragged about VMC rollovers in his school twin and how he took it to one and a half turns. There are some idiots who just go too far. Let the past NTSB records tell the stories.
 
Hey man, I've banked over 60 degrees without a parachute! :eek: - and still lived to tell about it.

Agreeably, anyone who VMC's a twin or spins four occupants isn't too bright a candle though.
 
Amish RakeFight said:
Hey man, I've banked over 60 degrees without a parachute! :eek: - and still lived to tell about it.

Agreeably, anyone who VMC's a twin or spins four occupants isn't too bright a candle though.
Click to expand...

Oh,oh. The definition of acrobatic flight has also changed, I hate to tell ya. No more hard limits in pitch and bank.
 
Back to the original video, did anyone NOT see what I saw at around the 2 minute mark?
 

Share this page

Latest posts

Latest resources

Latest media

Carbon Cub FX-3 Shenandoah Valley
Carbon Cub at Kittyhawk
FX-3 in the backcountry
IFR Panel in a Carbon Cub FX-3
Cub-Provo-UT-c.jpg
Back
Top Bottom