[quote author=Colonel link=topic=266.msg879#msg879 date=1434380676]
IMHO a class 1 instructor must be both a master pilot
and an expert teacher. If he is lacking in either
department, it's going to severely limit his usefulness.
[/quote]
Sounds good. Make it so.
Hi Everybody!
-
Four Bars
- Posts: 87
- Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2015 6:48 am
[quote author=Napoleon So Low link=topic=266.msg864#msg864 date=1434320747]
Well, maybe I was wrong and Four Bars isn't a Great Pretender.
I just figured anyone who had owned a Pitts would know there's no apostrophe, and anyone who [i]"wore three-or four-bars for fourty-one years"[/i] would know how to spell "forty".
Ya can't be too careful, ya know..
[/quote]
Not so fast, young man.
Not only did I own that little biplane, I also built it myself. From plans.
And-as the designer was Curtis Pitts-the name was originally the Pitts' Special, which is proper and IIRC that's what was on the tail of mine.
And since when is "fourty" not the correct spelling? Unless you're contributing from The Excited States of America, I urge you not to dumb down and instead use English.
And I now buzz around in an RV-6 which I also assembled from a slow-build kit, when I'm not doing either my Class 1 stuff or sitting in the back of a sim for Boeing.
The Colonel already has figured out who I am anyways...
Well, maybe I was wrong and Four Bars isn't a Great Pretender.
I just figured anyone who had owned a Pitts would know there's no apostrophe, and anyone who [i]"wore three-or four-bars for fourty-one years"[/i] would know how to spell "forty".
Ya can't be too careful, ya know..
[/quote]
Not so fast, young man.
Not only did I own that little biplane, I also built it myself. From plans.
And-as the designer was Curtis Pitts-the name was originally the Pitts' Special, which is proper and IIRC that's what was on the tail of mine.
And since when is "fourty" not the correct spelling? Unless you're contributing from The Excited States of America, I urge you not to dumb down and instead use English.
And I now buzz around in an RV-6 which I also assembled from a slow-build kit, when I'm not doing either my Class 1 stuff or sitting in the back of a sim for Boeing.
The Colonel already has figured out who I am anyways...
-
Napoleon So Low
- Posts: 49
- Joined: Thu May 28, 2015 8:58 pm
[quote author=Four Bars link=topic=266.msg928#msg928 date=1434431804]And since when is "fourty" not the correct spelling? [/quote]
Okey, fine. Carry on.
Okey, fine. Carry on.
-
praveen4143
- Posts: 57
- Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2015 12:57 am
[quote author=Four Bars link=topic=266.msg928#msg928 date=1434431804]
And since when is "fourty" not the correct spelling? Unless you're contributing from The Excited States of America, I urge you not to dumb down and instead use English.
[/quote]
Umm actually, forty is spelt without a 'u' in what people consider real English.. Even American English spells it without a 'u'.
http://grammarist.com/spelling/forty-fourty/
Lots of good points here from Chuck, Colonel and SSU about class 1 instructors!
Improperly quoting the flight instructor flight test guide I believe you're expected to show excellence in flying skills and superlative skills in instructional techniques using mostly developmental teaching to go through the lesson being taught for a class 1 instructor. So I guess you need to be the best, Period!
I agree with the Colonel that a good instructor should be able to jump in and start teaching an airplane without being checked out. I always tell my students the biggest thing about flying a new airplane is to know what cruise attitude looks like and how the airplane sits on the runway. If you can figure those out, learning to fly a new type is a breeze, because other than a landing all airplanes fly the same! Whether it's a Tail dragger or a nose bouncer! A checkout on a fixed pitch single engine nose wheel airplane should be doable in about 2-3 circuits Max and that's just to give a licence holder some confidence that he/she won't totally wreck the airplane! There's nothing really to show in the air otherwise!
And since when is "fourty" not the correct spelling? Unless you're contributing from The Excited States of America, I urge you not to dumb down and instead use English.
[/quote]
Umm actually, forty is spelt without a 'u' in what people consider real English.. Even American English spells it without a 'u'.
http://grammarist.com/spelling/forty-fourty/
Lots of good points here from Chuck, Colonel and SSU about class 1 instructors!
Improperly quoting the flight instructor flight test guide I believe you're expected to show excellence in flying skills and superlative skills in instructional techniques using mostly developmental teaching to go through the lesson being taught for a class 1 instructor. So I guess you need to be the best, Period!
I agree with the Colonel that a good instructor should be able to jump in and start teaching an airplane without being checked out. I always tell my students the biggest thing about flying a new airplane is to know what cruise attitude looks like and how the airplane sits on the runway. If you can figure those out, learning to fly a new type is a breeze, because other than a landing all airplanes fly the same! Whether it's a Tail dragger or a nose bouncer! A checkout on a fixed pitch single engine nose wheel airplane should be doable in about 2-3 circuits Max and that's just to give a licence holder some confidence that he/she won't totally wreck the airplane! There's nothing really to show in the air otherwise!
-
Colonel
- Posts: 3450
- Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2015 10:31 am
[quote]a good instructor should be able to jump in and start teaching an airplane without being checked out[/quote]
Remember that the definition of a class 3
instructor is that he can freelance, on guess
what - possibly something other than a
mighty 172. Maybe a Cherokee.
And the CARs deal with this specific subject
in detail, by requiring the instructor to read
the POH/AFM beforehand - but he does not
require any dual.
And this is reasonable, for a certified aircraft.
Pilots seem to think that certified aircraft
are fire-breathing dragons, and they need
to spend two weeks in Dallas being spoon-
fed what they need to know to fly them (the
four bars checkout).
No, they aren't, and no, they don't.
Despite what pilots think, it's a buttload of
work to certify an aircraft, and it must have
docile handling characteristics which are
extensively tested so even the weakest
licensed pilot can fly it.
One would hope that a class 3 instructor
would not have skills below that of the
weakest licensed pilot.
And a class 2 instructor has more experience
than an class 3 instructor. And a class 1
instructor has more experience than a
class 2 instructor.
So, one would hope that a class 1 instructor
would have sufficient pilot skill, to read a
POH/AFM and jump into an unfamiliar
certified aircraft and act as PIC. When
they don't, Chuck thinks it is very strange.
I do, all the time, and people think I'm
a moron compared to them. Ok, if I'm
such a moron, you must be brighter than
I am, so why are you having trouble
doing stuff that I find so easy?
Something wrong in that logic that gets
laid on me, all the time. I can do it, so
can you.
Now, we come to homebuilts. Most
instructors and pilot examiners run
screaming from homebuilts, and that's
a real pity, because the percentage
of them is increasing rapidly, and it's
not hard to see why.
Ever seen one of those electric stall
switches on the leading edge of a
wing? Certified is usd$2800, homebuilt
is usd$70. Think about what that means
for the future of certified aircraft.
Van's RV aircraft are everywhere, and
instructors need to get up to speed on
them. They are not fucking fire breathing
dragons, although I am sure that their
handling characteristics are not certifiable.
Remember that the definition of a class 3
instructor is that he can freelance, on guess
what - possibly something other than a
mighty 172. Maybe a Cherokee.
And the CARs deal with this specific subject
in detail, by requiring the instructor to read
the POH/AFM beforehand - but he does not
require any dual.
And this is reasonable, for a certified aircraft.
Pilots seem to think that certified aircraft
are fire-breathing dragons, and they need
to spend two weeks in Dallas being spoon-
fed what they need to know to fly them (the
four bars checkout).
No, they aren't, and no, they don't.
Despite what pilots think, it's a buttload of
work to certify an aircraft, and it must have
docile handling characteristics which are
extensively tested so even the weakest
licensed pilot can fly it.
One would hope that a class 3 instructor
would not have skills below that of the
weakest licensed pilot.
And a class 2 instructor has more experience
than an class 3 instructor. And a class 1
instructor has more experience than a
class 2 instructor.
So, one would hope that a class 1 instructor
would have sufficient pilot skill, to read a
POH/AFM and jump into an unfamiliar
certified aircraft and act as PIC. When
they don't, Chuck thinks it is very strange.
I do, all the time, and people think I'm
a moron compared to them. Ok, if I'm
such a moron, you must be brighter than
I am, so why are you having trouble
doing stuff that I find so easy?
Something wrong in that logic that gets
laid on me, all the time. I can do it, so
can you.
Now, we come to homebuilts. Most
instructors and pilot examiners run
screaming from homebuilts, and that's
a real pity, because the percentage
of them is increasing rapidly, and it's
not hard to see why.
Ever seen one of those electric stall
switches on the leading edge of a
wing? Certified is usd$2800, homebuilt
is usd$70. Think about what that means
for the future of certified aircraft.
Van's RV aircraft are everywhere, and
instructors need to get up to speed on
them. They are not fucking fire breathing
dragons, although I am sure that their
handling characteristics are not certifiable.
-
David MacRay
- Posts: 1259
- Joined: Wed Jun 03, 2015 3:00 pm
[quote author=Colonel link=topic=266.msg1139#msg1139 date=1435065056]
Van's RV aircraft are everywhere, and
instructors need to get up to speed on
them. They are not fucking fire breathing
dragons, although I am sure that their
handling characteristics are not certifiable.
[/quote]
But quite a few of them are on conventional gear. :-[
Van's RV aircraft are everywhere, and
instructors need to get up to speed on
them. They are not fucking fire breathing
dragons, although I am sure that their
handling characteristics are not certifiable.
[/quote]
But quite a few of them are on conventional gear. :-[
-
Colonel
- Posts: 3450
- Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2015 10:31 am
[quote]quite a few of them are on conventional gear[/quote]
Yes, my favorite ones :D
As taildraggers go, they are very docile.
They do not have nasty ground handling
characteristics. They are closer to the
SuperD or Citabria, IMHO (really easy)
and roll out with very little effort as say
compared to the M4-210C or S-2B.
Yes, my favorite ones :D
As taildraggers go, they are very docile.
They do not have nasty ground handling
characteristics. They are closer to the
SuperD or Citabria, IMHO (really easy)
and roll out with very little effort as say
compared to the M4-210C or S-2B.
-
Chuck Ellsworth
[quote]
As taildraggers go, they are very docile.[/quote]
And perfect for wheel landings.
As taildraggers go, they are very docile.[/quote]
And perfect for wheel landings.