Jim -- I downloaded it years ago and it sits in my digital collection. I found it to be awesome, it is those concepts in flying that I find just so utterly lacking in modern ground school and syllabi. Even a basic piece of that ---- trading airspeed for altitude -- such a basic fundamental, gets very little play.

I teach constant aoa and "cushion" w/ power (yes, I would put a tail hook on my plane if I could). I like the "slowing to a walking pace at the stop sign" but I kinda suck at it so I don't teach it. I get smooth landings when I think about coming to the stop sign --- but with a steep glide path (tree's on approach) I feel like I'm getting fast, then "swapping ends" in ground effect and then I either float it or bang it on --- just one too many variables for my dumb brain. I probably don't fully understand that contingency in the way you teach that. It may be that I fly more stubby wings big engines than big wings moderate engines?

Not sure if I stole the "funnel from the 180/perch/abeam the numbers" from you or not --- but I teach that as a good solution for non-traditional pattern landing. Wherever you are at, just get imagine your funnel, now get into it w/ airspeed under control and make the last 20 seconds "look right". Narrowing the error the whole way down. If you're out of your funnel (or airspeed not w/in about 5 kts) and you have less than 10 seconds to touchdown? that would be a great time to go around (I feel like people make that decision late because they don't have a good reference of what's out of tolerance at say 100').

I have read most if not all of your posts on BCP and it is amazing to me that you brought that stuff from helo's to ag and preach these ideas w/ a low alt/backcountry context in mind. It makes SO much sense in an ag flying frame, but how you got them from helo's? Crazy! (then again I'm a guy who looks at helo's like bumblebees, I do not believe that they actually fly, it cannot actually be scientifically possible, yet somehow I see them "flying"?)

So -- in short -- yes sir -- have read it and stolen from it shamelessly. I appreciate you putting it out there.

Flipfloplife,
I started in airplane when I was nine. E-mail me [email protected] so I can attach Contact Flying Revised to you. Same techniques but with war stories and lies.
Jim

Ground school isn't as much about learning to fly as it is about learning to pass the ground knowledge test. The learning to fly comes with the flying. .
I did the Machado ground school on my iPad, it was over 30 hours of studying to complete the program. There were five modules on weather alone. Getting a good score on the test also generally means the oral portion of the check ride will be a bit easier. The DPE will have the info on how you did and what questions you missed. Like I said before there's no need to take the test right away just to solo. You can get practice tests and review info over time while flying as well.

Agreed

I would actually wait to take the written until later in one’s training, some of the questions will make much more sense after you’ve “been there done that” for real in the plane

You have only to look at the most missed selection criteria background of many of those test questions to understand the torture this crazy educational mistake could impose on a young student. Yes. Wait to take the test until after she knows she can fly. Like many of us, take the test as often as necessary to figure out the system or lack thereof.

The FAA, actually ATC, does an excellent job of sorting things out high and IFR. They have no concept, however, of how to stay safe low and VFR. The legalistic needs of ATC make IFR easy to rule and even teach. The fluidity of VFR makes it very difficult for a large bureaucracy to teach. They have neither an educational concept nor safe and efficient maneuvering techniques. I have never been able to effectively teach the test based on PTS or ACS because so many of the maneuvers (techniques) are unsafe as prescribed. Teaching students to gain altitude as fast as possible makes them vulnerable to inadvertent stall which is usually fatal. Teaching students to ignore the safe design of the airplane by pulling gs in turns makes them vulnerable to inadvertent stall in the pattern which is usually fatal. Teaching students to do fancy figure skating (ground reference maneuvers) in limited wind make far less sense than teaching energy management, wind management, turns to target that will keep them alive around the airport and anywhere down low regardless of wind speed and direction. Teaching students to take off slow and land fast is as wrong and dangerous as it can possibly be. The only safe low flight training is AG, but the syllabus has to look identical to charter because charter is all the administrator knows.

Teach your children to fly or find a crop duster to teach them. Once they can aviate, navigation and communication can more easily be taught to a pilot. Any flight school can do navigation and communication adequately.