Stupid pre-PPL pilot

"Stupid pre-PPL pilot"

All pre/post PPL are stupid. License to learn really is an understatement.
 
The approach seemed a little low for my taste. Other than that it looked pretty good to me. I dont think there is anything "stupid" in this video. Hell,my first solo landing was terrible, only because the airplane was light from the lack of an instructor in the other seat ;)
 
I wouldn't have authorized touch and go landings on the first solo..too many things happening at 40 knots/gusts. I wasn't there so I can only say thats me though.

Just an FYI, I don't think it was a first solo. I think it said 'final solo x-c' or something like that. He/she probably has done a fair amount of flying, might have 60+ hours TT, and is just finishing up before the check ride.

My opinion - it didn't look like there was anywhere near as much cross wind component as claimed.
 
The approach seemed a little low for my taste. Other than that it looked pretty good to me. I dont think there is anything "stupid" in this video. Hell,my first solo landing was terrible, only because the airplane was light from the lack of an instructor in the other seat ;)

The camera does that. Objects in lens are closer than they appear?
 
by the way, the wind in the video was 320 at 17kts G 26kts, he was landing on runway 24. His crosswind factor was 16.7 at the lowest gusting up to 25.6

When the aircraft lifts off the nose goes less than 10 degrees to the right, maybe 5 degrees even. Had the crosswind been very strong I'd expect it to go farther than that.
 
What is the demonstrated crosswind limit for the aircraft in question? One could argue that exceeding a limit established by test pilots is not the smartest thing to do...

and hate to give you crap jtrain - but you argued exactly the opposite on another thread about pilot judgement... your answer was essentially, if it is not by the book, you do not do it. Here... I am pretty certain this aircraft is not certified for greater than 17 xw... including gust.
 
What is the demonstrated crosswind limit for the aircraft in question? One could argue that exceeding a limit established by test pilots is not the smartest thing to do...

and hate to give you crap jtrain - but you argued exactly the opposite on another thread about pilot judgement... your answer was essentially, if it is not by the book, you do not do it. Here... I am pretty certain this aircraft is not certified for greater than 17 xw... including gust.

Demonstrated x-wind, not a limit.

And jtrain just likes to argue, regardless of the side he happens to be taking.
 
Demonstrated x-wind, not a limit.

And jtrain just likes to argue, regardless of the side he happens to be taking.

I know.... but... if you bend metal exceeding a demonstrated xw, you will not be making friends with the FAA.

And - FWIW - the company I fly for has changed our books and made demonstrated crosswind a LIMITATION now. No more pilot exceedence if he or she feels they are capable of it.
 
I know.... but... if you bend metal exceeding a demonstrated xw, you will not be making friends with the FAA.

And - FWIW - the company I fly for has changed our books and made demonstrated crosswind a LIMITATION now. No more pilot exceedence if he or she feels they are capable of it.

If you bend metal, you're not going to be making friends with the FAA regardless.

By changing it to a limitation, it seems to foster a much higher potential for violation. "At the time of your touchdown the reported winds had shifted and exceeded the demonstrated component by 3 knts, even though during the start of the approach the wind was reported to be below the limit..."
 
The landing looked solid to me, but I would have a talk about crosswind limitations if he/she were my student. Do you guys sign off your students with the maximum demonstrated crosswind component as the limitation? I usually put a lower limitiation on there endorsement just to cover my rear and thiers.:p

That being said, I still think if the crosswind was as strong as was claimed, he/she did a pretty good job.
 
Maybe it was just the camera angle, but didn't that landing look a little flat? I didn't have sound either, but it sort of looked like it was porpoising a little. I will watch it again later with sound.

The Xwind didn't seem too strong either. I am sure the winds were up, but maybe it just died down a little right as he landed. That happens to me all the time, they report a 25kt xwind, and by the time you land there isn't that much. Or course when you get to the gate it is kicking again, sometimes you just get lucky. :)
 
I kept waiting for something to happen... Looked good to me... If the winds were actually that strong, I wouldn't have launched, but this guy could have way more experience than I do, regardless of whether his permit and mine is plastic or not.
 
Looks like it's up to me to throw the BS flag.

For starters, it doesn't look like there's much of a cross wind, IF ANY AT ALL

Second, a look at the airport diagram shows runway 29, which would be a way better choice than 24 if the wind was 320- and that would surely be the runway in use if the winds were as claimed.

Nice landing though, even if the winds are exaggerated
 
The landing looked solid to me, but I would have a talk about crosswind limitations if he/she were my student. Do you guys sign off your students with the maximum demonstrated crosswind component as the limitation? I usually put a lower limitiation on there endorsement just to cover my rear and thiers.:p.
Most do. But what we don't know is the pilot's training environment, what crosswinds he was exposed to as part of this training.

Bridgeport, CT doesn't strike me as one of those places with a lot of significant crosswinds like, say Maui, but that doesn't mean hat this pilot didn't train in conditions that led his CFI to relax limitations, especially when the pilot was close to the checkride and would be making those decisions on his own very soon anyway.
 
He is a Pre-PPL, the wind was probably 5 knots with 5 degrees and just since it has been told has grown to the conditions mentioned.
 
Back
Top