Things I Would Like To See

"Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in
news:lalTj.689$hJ1.261@newsfe17.lga:

>
> "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.


Yes, it does.


Bertie

"Orval Fairbairn" <o_r_fairbairn@earth_link.net> wrote in message
news:o_r_fairbairn-39EFE0.13522504052008@70-3-168-216.area5.spcsdns.net...
> In article <lalTj.689$hJ1.261@newsfe17.lga>,
> "Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote:
>
>>
>> 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.
>>
>
> If a student is taught power-on approaches all the time, he won't know
> how to approach an airport and do a power-off approach. I agree that
> they are being robbed. In many cases, the instructors themselves are
> simple regurgitating the same bad training that they themselves received.
>

Ok, but how does the stabilized approached rob the student of that
knowledge?

"Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in
news:e4oTj.31416$KJ1.7794@newsfe19.lga:

>
> "Orval Fairbairn" <o_r_fairbairn@earth_link.net> wrote in message
> news:o_r_fairbairn-39EFE0.13522504052008@70-3-168-
216.area5.spcsdns.net
> ...
>> In article <lalTj.689$hJ1.261@newsfe17.lga>,
>> "Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>
>> If a student is taught power-on approaches all the time, he won't
>> know how to approach an airport and do a power-off approach. I agree
>> that they are being robbed. In many cases, the instructors themselves
>> are simple regurgitating the same bad training that they themselves
>> received.
>>
>
> Ok, but how does the stabilized approached rob the student of that
> knowledge?

Whoosh.


Bertie

On May 5, 5:52 am, Orval Fairbairn <o_r_fairbairn@earth_link.net>
wrote:

> If a student is taught power-on approaches all the time, he won't know
> how to approach an airport and do a power-off approach. I agree that
> they are being robbed. In many cases, the instructors themselves are
> simple regurgitating the same bad training that they themselves received.
>

This reminds me of the 'engine failure exercise' claims made by some
in here a while back..
There is a certain instructor mindset in some circles that produce
aeroplane drivers. :-(