“Ground instruction” scenarios

Just a reminder that sometimes the feds say and do things that don't make much sense nor solve the real problem. Many posts on here appear to believe that as long as something is legal then it is ok to do. I'm trying to pushback on that mistaken belief. And also point out that legal opinions/rulings are perhaps not the ultimate thing upon which to base actions.
 
jonvcaples said:
Just a reminder that sometimes the feds say and do things that don't make much sense nor solve the real problem. Many posts on here appear to believe that as long as something is legal then it is ok to do. I'm trying to pushback on that mistaken belief. And also point out that legal opinions/rulings are perhaps not the ultimate thing upon which to base actions.
Click to expand...

Just bizarre. o_O
 
jonvcaples said:
Ryan the statement about using the CFI FIRC as a substitute after 3 years is that that FIRC would have expired within 2 years. Thus trying to use it as a substitute for the ground portion of a flight review would seem to me to be a none starter. But that's my opinion.
Click to expand...
I said “24 calendar months” and “three years is obviously out” in that post in reply to @Witmo. Why do you say I need a reminder of what I just said? You need to slow down and read more carefully.
 
Last edited:
Doc

Just pointing out that things in hopes of getting folks to think. The feds sometimes don't always make sense especially when it comes to aviation and legal matters. Their philosophy seems to be legislate, aviate, navigate then communicate. I'm more than willing to play devil's advocate and or challenge the status quo if it gets people to think and seek a better understanding.

As an example consider stabilized approaches. Good idea and should be taught and emphasized in all airplanes. I've had many people tell me they don't need to fly a stabilized approach in a C172 because you can do all sorts of things on approach. I still insist on them flying stabilized approaches for none emergency landings or no sign off. Subsequently, when they checkout in the 182, they discover just how important this concept is. Everyone I've checked out in the 182 who did not have experience in heavier than 172 airplanes needed numerous stalls, approaches, and landings. To a person their comment was wow you weren't kidding when you said the 182 is nose heavy!

Again I go back to teach the right thing from the beginning. There are a number of sayings that are based on bent metal and blood bodies...hence before asking can I you better know if you should.
 
jonvcaples said:
Doc

Just pointing out that things in hopes of getting folks to think. The feds sometimes don't always make sense especially when it comes to aviation and legal matters. Their philosophy seems to be legislate, aviate, navigate then communicate. I'm more than willing to play devil's advocate and or challenge the status quo if it gets people to think and seek a better understanding.

As an example consider stabilized approaches. Good idea and should be taught and emphasized in all airplanes. I've had many people tell me they don't need to fly a stabilized approach in a C172 because you can do all sorts of things on approach. I still insist on them flying stabilized approaches for none emergency landings or no sign off. Subsequently, when they checkout in the 182, they discover just how important this concept is. Everyone I've checked out in the 182 who did not have experience in heavier than 172 airplanes needed numerous stalls, approaches, and landings. To a person their comment was wow you weren't kidding when you said the 182 is nose heavy!

Again I go back to teach the right thing from the beginning. There are a number of sayings that are based on bent metal and blood bodies...hence before asking can I you better know if you should.
Click to expand...


You are all over the place with this topic, and in fact you are having an extremely difficult time staying on topic. I seriously hope you instruct better than you communicate here.

You seem to believe you know better than the FAA, and everyone else for that matter. From your postings so far, you seem more interested in pontificating with no real substance.
 
jonvcaples said:
Many posts on here appear to believe that as long as something is legal then it is ok to do. I'm trying to pushback on that mistaken belief.
Click to expand...
Don't know much about piloting issues but have read a FAR or two over the years. And you've made some interesting comments in this thread that are rather unique especially the one quoted above. Care to share some specific examples to your quote? I prefer mx topics but will entertain any examples you can provide on when it can be a "mistake" to not follow a legal means?

And just as a friendly FYI: FAA Orders are not "work-aids." Orders are an internal agency mandates that FAA employees must follow. Orders direct FAA personal in how the FAR will be enforced.
 
Last edited:
Doc Holliday said:
You are all over the place with this topic, and in fact you are having an extremely difficult time staying on topic. I seriously hope you instruct better than you communicate here.

You seem to believe you know better than the FAA, and everyone else for that matter. From your postings so far, you seem more interested in pontificating with no real substance.
Click to expand...

Badly programmed GoogleBots tend to do that.
 
A few examples of the if it is legal it must be safe mentality:
1-0/0 take off under 91 is legal but definitely not safe
2-IFR departure from an airfield when weather is below mins for an approach at that airport should you need immediate return.
3-Add to the above no requirement for an alternate.
These come to mind most readily.

Some of the outlandishly stupid things heard/scene:
1-Mountain Flying
A-Just follow a road because they are easy to see and go over lowest passes, Both wrong!
B-Fly as low as possible.
C-(my all time favorite!) Don't worry about downdrafts because the air stops at the surface of the ground so your airplane will stop there too.
2-During flight reviews, pilots who are continually riding the brakes to control speed instead of reducing power.
3-Pilots who can't figure out even the simplest audio panels so they route all audio to the speaker.

What I'm saying is the FAA is run by political appointees who usually are not pilots and have no knowledge of aviation. Their rulings and regs may be well thought out from a legal perspective but have little or no bearing on the real world. Compliance does not guarantee your safety. Compliance is the first step and if you will the easiest but also weakest link in the accident chain. The other two links is it safe and does this make sense are somewhat fuzzier. Example I'm planning to fly under a bridge at sea level that is 1,050 tall. The weather is clear with unlimited visibility. Wanting to stay 500 feet away from people or structures my plan is to fly at 520 feet. Would you do this or tell another pilot to do this? If so explain. I'd say not only no but hell no unless the pilot is a cop or medevac pilot on a mission or something of that ilk.

Pilots need to understand this and apply this knowledge, not use it to circumvent common sense and good judgement. As CFIs we need to teach this to our students by word and our actions!

I like using easy to remember sayings because they are good tools to help people remember and think. Thus be legal, safe, and smart. I've espoused that philosophy for years. If the AOPA or someone came up with it first then great and I'll keep using it. My opinions were forged by more than 5,000 hours in the cockpit which includes several hundred hours (courtesy of CAP) looking for pilots who didn't get to their destination. Why didn't they make it? Because they followed a road in mountains. Tried to fly through a thunderstorm. Most of the reports could have been one of five proforma reports where the only change is the name, location, date time of day and aircraft data. I've done some stupid things too and fortunately survived them. Other factors include a lot of experience in 121 operations and training, decades of experience in engineering and as an officer in the Navy. A common thread through all of this is analyzing things that have happened and continually being amazed at how we never learn basic simple truths of following the rules combined with not doing stupid things.
 
jonvcaples said:
A few examples of the if it is legal it must be safe mentality:
1-0/0 take off under 91 is legal but definitely not safe
2-IFR departure from an airfield when weather is below mins for an approach at that airport should you need immediate return.
3-Add to the above no requirement for an alternate.
These come to mind most readily.
Click to expand...

So you want the FAA to come up even more stringent regulations to cover any and all circumstances? Is your point to regulate common sense?

jonvcaples said:
Some of the outlandishly stupid things heard/scene:
1-Mountain Flying
A-Just follow a road because they are easy to see and go over lowest passes, Both wrong!
B-Fly as low as possible.
C-(my all time favorite!) Don't worry about downdrafts because the air stops at the surface of the ground so your airplane will stop there too.
2-During flight reviews, pilots who are continually riding the brakes to control speed instead of reducing power.
3-Pilots who can't figure out even the simplest audio panels so they route all audio to the speaker.
Click to expand...

Now please go back and actually read this thread. Honestly I don't think you bother reading what people have written, or you just have poor comprehension skills.

That, and it appears you just can't accept when you're wrong.


jonvcaples said:
What I'm saying is the FAA is run by political appointees who usually are not pilots and have no knowledge of aviation. Their rulings and regs may be well thought out from a legal perspective but have little or no bearing on the real world. Compliance does not guarantee your safety. Compliance is the first step and if you will the easiest but also weakest link in the accident chain. The other two links is it safe and does this make sense are somewhat fuzzier. Example I'm planning to fly under a bridge at sea level that is 1,050 tall. The weather is clear with unlimited visibility. Wanting to stay 500 feet away from people or structures my plan is to fly at 520 feet. Would you do this or tell another pilot to do this? If so explain. I'd say not only no but hell no unless the pilot is a cop or medevac pilot on a mission or something of that ilk.
Click to expand...

WTF? Seriously. o_O

jonvcaples said:
Pilots need to understand this and apply this knowledge, not use it to circumvent common sense and good judgement. As CFIs we need to teach this to our students by word and our actions!
Click to expand...

Once again you are all over the map here.
 
Doc

We both have our opinions and are both entitled to express them within reasonable bounds.

Yes at times I drift off the exact point but that is not uncommon on here. I try to give food for thought because there is more to being a pilot than being able to manipulate the controls. You fly transport category aircraft if I am understanding some of your posts. Would you agree there is far more to this than being able to take off, engage the autopilot, follow the line, and then land?

I hear a lot of people who want to become airline pilots who think that the above is all they have to be prepared to do. Woohoo great pay, wonderful bennies, and tons of time off who could ask for more? Maybe you are content to sit back and feed that illusion, but I'm not. Engine failures, emergencies, catastrophic system failures nah that's not going to happen to them. And that may prove to be true. But then it may happen and if they are not prepared we have another aviation disaster in the headlines.

Many of us deplore the generally poor level of flight instruction today. I do and again I am trying to push back against it. Agree, disagree it is your choice. Accept the status quo or try to make things better...again your choice.

Think you are going to silence me with your words, no how no way! Productive exchanges on how to improve things are welcome. Snark, sarcasm etc. is and will be ignored.
 
jonvcaples said:
Doc
Think you are going to silence me with your words, no how no way!
Click to expand...

No one is trying to silence you. But your inane diatribes are being questioned.

jonvcaples said:
Productive exchanges on how to improve things are welcome.
Click to expand...

With that in mind, how about staying on topic and dispense with the droning sermons?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top