MTV,

Why do you write so organized? And you haven't bent many airplanes either. Oh well.

Contact

hpux735 wrote:He asked me "what is the one thing different about short field approach?" His answer was "you have to be stabilized by 1000' agl." On that part of the flight he had me fly a one mile final. He was totally unfazed when I said that a lot of time a field is short because there's a mountain there, and responded that the faa guarantees a 3-percent glide slope.

Perhaps, maybe you can find another cfi? If he has you flying 1 mile finals and stabilized at 1000'AGL in cub type aircraft for short field work he probably shouldn't be giving dual in them.

If you are stabilized at 1000'AGL what was TPA? 3000'?

soyAnarchisto wrote:

hpux735 wrote:He asked me "what is the one thing different about short field approach?" His answer was "you have to be stabilized by 1000' agl." On that part of the flight he had me fly a one mile final. He was totally unfazed when I said that a lot of time a field is short because there's a mountain there, and responded that the faa guarantees a 3-percent glide slope.

Perhaps, maybe you can find another cfi? If he has you flying 1 mile finals and stabilized at 1000'AGL in cub type aircraft for short field work he probably shouldn't be giving dual in them.

If you are stabilized at 1000'AGL what was TPA? 3000'?

That's the reason for the one-mile final. Cruise down at tpa, turn base, final, then descend. It was surreal.

I'm already looking. Luckily, my former cfi, who is great, is going to do grad school in town, so he might need supplemental income.

FAA short field is different than real world short field anyway. You will not be a short field master in any airplane for a few hundred hours or more. Do what your cfi says, learn what he has to offer, get your certificate, then learn the finer arts. My two cents.

I'll add that it is possible to find ones self instantly in IFR while still in VMC, in an Alaska style whiteout without being in Alaska, and without any snow. In Texas of all places.

I was flying above a thin, broken cloud layer with bases 800ft agl and tops 100ft or so above that. A 1,000ft or so above me a solid layer of pure white clouds. Visibility unlimited. Ahead of me the broken clouds below were becoming solid. Do I stay between layers where I have unlimited visibility or drop through the broken clouds where the ceiling will become hard at 800ft agl (perhaps lowering), with visibility only a few miles in light mist? About 20 miles ahead I can see the clouds above and below me end, and I can see a town.

Whether I go above or below the cloud layer beneath me, I’m still less then 1,200ft agl and in Class G airspace so all I need is 1 mile visibility and clear of clouds. I opt to go between the layers, lots of room, unlimited visibility. I’m flying along happy as a clam. The sun is bright and rising behind me and as it gets between the layers it reflects off all the white above, below and to the side of me with such intensity that it instantly visually "seals" the layers to the front and sides. In the time it takes to snap your fingers it's like being inside a milk bottle without a single bit of definition anywhere. The whiteout glare from all directions was intense.

I don't have an IFR ticket but have taken enough IFR training that I was able to transition from outside the cockpit to my instruments and make an easy standard rate 180 degree turn. Have to admit my heart rate increased just a tad. Sure was nice to be looking at the sun again. As I emerged back into the broken clouds below area, and turned 90 degrees, I could once again see the town 20 miles distant, and that conditions hadn’t changed - other then the sun.

Troy,

Most of my fellow instructors agree with what you say about the hours required to become a proficient pilot. And the flight schools need the money. I am the odd man out. I just don't believe it, and my experience has backed me. My big problem with this most common attitude is that what is learned first is more likely to become indoctrinated than what is learned later. For the kind of flying my students and I did, this was an unacceptable problem.

I soloed young, bright ag aspirants in six hours in TW airplanes. On their first supervised solo, they made three apparent brisk walk rate of closure landings on the numbers. They knew no other way to land. They didn't know how to use and airspeed indicator for landing. Later they learned to approach fast, round out, float in a long hold off, and flair to land somewhere down the runway. This, the school solution, was required to pass the test.

These students also allowed the nose to go down in every turn in the pattern, because they hadn't learned the proper climbing and level, load factor producing, turn. Later they learned to make instrument type climbing and level turns because they are required to pass the test.

I wanted those boys to survive crop dusting. I didn't want to have to reteach those boys after they got their Commercial.

Since those days I have had older and/or less motivated students and I see what everybody is talking about to some extent. Yet, I still believe it is possible to teach to real proficiency from the start. The military does it that way.

It is not the fault of the instructors, and certainly not the fault of the students that the system is the way it is. It is the fault of the FAA and the PTS. I expect non-teaching and avoidance are statistically safer. At least when it comes to incidents and accidents. I really believe it is less safe when it comes to fatalities per 1,000 accidents. No real way to scientifically know, I guess. The way I taught is perceived as illegal.

Jim

Troy Hamon wrote:FAA short field is different than real world short field anyway. You will not be a short field master in any airplane for a few hundred hours or more. Do what your cfi says, learn what he has to offer, get your certificate, then learn the finer arts. My two cents.

I've already got the cert, thankfully from a competent cfi who got me landing a 172 in far less runway than it can take off in. The other guy was needed for club proficiency checks and my bfr.

Executive summary:

It's better to be lucky than smart.

Contact...I don't disagree that learning right at first is the best way. But you aren't available to teach most students. If they all wait for a cfi of your experience and expertise, we will not make any pilots. And we need pilots.

Troy,

True. I am just griping. I am encouraged that the PTS now says to accelerate in ground effect until Vx or Vy as appropriate and to use no more than 1.3Vso on approach.

Jim

contactflying wrote:Troy,

True. I am just griping. I am encouraged that the PTS now says to accelerate in ground effect until Vx or Vy as appropriate and to use no more than 1.3Vso on approach.

Jim

Now to retrain all those pilots who learned to take the higher of the speeds mentioned in the POH (you know, the ones that say final is flown at 65-75), then add 5 for Aunt Betty and 5 more for Uncle Ray in the back seat, plus 5 more for the baggage. Right?

Cary

That's right Cary. We haven't used good wind management if we let a fine headwind component cause us to land with greater ground speed than in a no wind.