Maxwell

"Orval Fairbairn" <o_r_fairbairn@earth_link.net> wrote in message
news:o_r_fairbairn-738598.09022604052008@70-3-168-216.area5.spcsdns.net...
> In article <rUhTj.145$tM1.85@newsfe20.lga>,
> "Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote:
>
>> "Bertie the Bunyip" <AA@AA.AA> wrote in message
>> news:fvjh1k$hmd$5@blackhelicopter.databasix.com...
>> >
>> > Exactly. Stabilised approaches have their place, but tgeaching them to
>> > the exclusion of all else is robbing the student.
>> >
>>
>> Robbing the student of what?
>
> Knowledge. How many "pilots" being "trained" in those pilot mills can
> handle even a simple power-off landing?
>

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.