MossY

Alas, poor Jeff! I knew him Horatio...

Yep, I knew "Mossy" IRL. Back in my CFI days, flying out of SMO. We even flew a flight together back in 2006. He gave me 1.1 in a Cirrus as part of a familiarization deal back when I was flying with this rich dude who ended up buying a Columbia 400 and a Jet. Maybe he took pity on me... The flight was on my 31st birthday.

I appreciated the time in the plane because it was another small step towards my airline career. .6 of IFR and a (I assume practice - it's been like 18 years almost to the day...) ILS into SNA. At the time I was trying to leverage anything that I could for time and experience and even tired to pursue one of those Cirrus instructor side-deals from the whole thing. The professional instructor/delivery pilot/whatever thing never worked out... and I was able to get enought time within another year to be in class at Skyway by early '07. I knew that my final destination was the airlines.

It was a crazy time in my life. Doing the instructor grind, not knowing where I was going to end up.

I don't really know what to say. I haven't thought about him in years. He was always a character. I have one of his goofy online pictures in my logbook along with the note: "CFI of the Year. - Oy Vey!" I made a note about the flight that it was a familiarization flight. That Jeff was onboard. I can't remember if he let me sit left or right seat. I didn't write much about the hour we spent sitting next to each other behind the controls. At the time, it was special. Now, it's just tears in the rain. Lost amongst my thousands of hours of memories.

I know that didn't think much of him as an instructor. I didn't like his 'style' - I was a different kind of teacher.

He found his place in the industry. And I'm glad for him for that. RIP Jeff.

1713000453517.png
 
Hiboglossi said:
I suppose you could say he kind of was, but he was mainly an actual CFI. He had these online courses, and a lot of people on here did not approve of his teaching style as displayed in the training videos he made. I remember there was a huge thread making fun of him in 2014 but I can't find it so I guess it was deleted. Like with most internet pile-ons, it definitely seemed like MossY's critics were blowing it out of proportion a bit.

After that, someone made an account on here falsely claiming to be MossY, and complaining about the mean things people had said about him:

jetcareers.com

Hey guys

I hope I am posting this in the right area. The other post is locked and I cannot reply. I was referred here by a friend. I had to register to read the comments, so I haven't had time to read through the whole thing. I would like to say that I am genuinely offended by some of the things I have...
jetcareers.com jetcareers.com
Click to expand...

He was probably a good CFI but he was the textbook example of "The airlines do it this way, so GA pilots should do it that way too." which is a philosophy I disagree with.

121 airlines do things a certain way because that fits within their narrow scope of operations and their requirement to stay at the lowest risk level possible. This has led to the amazing safety record that should be admired. However too many GA pilots look at airline pilots as somehow superior or that they have some "secret sauce". This is where guys like Dan Gryder get their "credibility" that so many new pilots look up to.

OTOH, GA operates in a much more varied environment and can choose to tolerate different levels of risk depending on the PIC's discretion. Cessnas do not fly like airliners, nor should we copy all of airlines procedures where they don't apply. For example, Forelight is by far superior to Jeppeson iPad apps. Riding a motorcycle is inherently more risky, but it's a whole lot of fun.

I've walked in both worlds and 121 airline pilots are not superior.
 
USMCmech said:
He was probably a good CFI but he was the textbook example of "The airlines do it this way, so GA pilots should do it that way too." which is a philosophy I disagree with.

121 airlines do things a certain way because that fits within their narrow scope of operations and their requirement to stay at the lowest risk level possible. This has led to the amazing safety record that should be admired. However too many GA pilots look at airline pilots as somehow superior or that they have some "secret sauce". This is where guys like Dan Gryder get their "credibility" that so many new pilots look up to.

OTOH, GA operates in a much more varied environment and can choose to tolerate different levels of risk depending on the PIC's discretion. Cessnas do not fly like airliners, nor should we copy all of airlines procedures where they don't apply. For example, Forelight is by far superior to Jeppeson iPad apps. Riding a motorcycle is inherently more risky, but it's a whole lot of fun.

I've walked in both worlds and 121 airline pilots are not superior.
Click to expand...
121 airlines do things a certain way because that fits into the very broad scope comprising the highly variable competencies of their operators relative to their equipment, and the airlines' requirements to meet minimal FAA requirements while garnishing the highest profits possible.

FTFY

There's not anything necessarily wrong with that, but let's be honest; Airlines train McPilots to fly McAirplanes. And, you know, they produce a fairly consistent burger almost every single time. That's one of the highest metrics of "quality" in most industries. So, again, nothing to be ashamed of if flipping burgers consistently is your thing.
 
USMCmech said:
He was probably a good CFI but he was the textbook example of "The airlines do it this way, so GA pilots should do it that way too." which is a philosophy I disagree with.

121 airlines do things a certain way because that fits within their narrow scope of operations and their requirement to stay at the lowest risk level possible. This has led to the amazing safety record that should be admired. However too many GA pilots look at airline pilots as somehow superior or that they have some "secret sauce". This is where guys like Dan Gryder get their "credibility" that so many new pilots look up to.

OTOH, GA operates in a much more varied environment and can choose to tolerate different levels of risk depending on the PIC's discretion. Cessnas do not fly like airliners, nor should we copy all of airlines procedures where they don't apply. For example, Forelight is by far superior to Jeppeson iPad apps. Riding a motorcycle is inherently more risky, but it's a whole lot of fun.

I've walked in both worlds and 121 airline pilots are not superior.
Click to expand...
I liked this purely for the reference to ForeFlight. It’s so far ahead of jepp it’s not even funny.

The rest of it I agree and disagree. There are DEFINITELY things that GA should have taken from 121 a long, long time ago but not everything. The biggest is flows and checklist design, GA checklists are so terrible it’s not even funny and IMHO that’s why checklist use in GA tends to be so bad.
 
Roger Roger said:
I liked this purely for the reference to ForeFlight. It’s so far ahead of jepp it’s not even funny.

The rest of it I agree and disagree. There are DEFINITELY things that GA should have taken from 121 a long, long time ago but not everything. The biggest is flows and checklist design, GA checklists are so terrible it’s not even funny and IMHO that’s why checklist use in GA tends to be so bad.
Click to expand...
I think that GA should learn and apply the general principles that 121 operations can teach us (stabilized approach). What I object to is GA pilots or instructors strictly following 121 procedures (fully configured and stabilized at 1000 AGL) because “that’s how they do it at the airlines”. Take that rule and adjust it to your airplane or operation (must be stable and configured by 400).

Jepp vs Foreflight is a classic example. The Jepp app was horrible and only improved when Boeing bought Fore flight and FF helped make the app much more user friendly. However many (including MossY) were using Jepp for GA because “that’s what the airlines use” despite it being by far the inferior product. I use Jepp at work and FF at home.
 
USMCmech said:
I think that GA should learn and apply the general principles that 121 operations can teach us (stabilized approach). What I object to is GA pilots or instructors strictly following 121 procedures (fully configured and stabilized at 1000 AGL) because “that’s how they do it at the airlines”. Take that rule and adjust it to your airplane or operation (must be stable and configured by 400).
Click to expand...
I like this philosophy. If you’re flying final at 65, being configured by 400 and and stable at 200 is pretty equivalent to 1000 and 500 when you fly final at 150 knots
 
Roger Roger said:
I liked this purely for the reference to ForeFlight. It’s so far ahead of jepp it’s not even funny.

The rest of it I agree and disagree. There are DEFINITELY things that GA should have taken from 121 a long, long time ago but not everything. The biggest is flows and checklist design, GA checklists are so terrible it’s not even funny and IMHO that’s why checklist use in GA tends to be so bad.
Click to expand...

Then again, even individual airlines aren’t standardized on a basic checklist and procedures for the exact same make and model of aircraft that each flies.
 
MikeD said:
Then again, even individual airlines aren’t standardized on a basic checklist and procedures for the exact same make and model of aircraft that each flies.
Click to expand...
Sure, I rode the JS on a Southernjets guppy and watching that was funny because it was familiar enough that I knew what was going on, but different enough that it felt just off. And I’m not going to be a company cheerleader and say that the Eskimo checklists are the be all and end all, but they are far more concise and usable than pretty much any GA manufacturer checklist I’ve seen.
 
Roger Roger said:
I like this philosophy. If you’re flying final at 65, being configured by 400 and and stable at 200 is pretty equivalent to 1000 and 500 when you fly final at 150 knots
Click to expand...
Don’t be the Cirrus that slowed to final approach speed 10 miles out and had traffic backed up for two counties.
 
USMCmech said:
I think that GA should learn and apply the general principles that 121 operations can teach us (stabilized approach). What I object to is GA pilots or instructors strictly following 121 procedures (fully configured and stabilized at 1000 AGL) because “that’s how they do it at the airlines”. Take that rule and adjust it to your airplane or operation (must be stable and configured by 400).
Click to expand...

That’s comes from people who hear something that sounds good, but really don’t know what they don’t know.

An airliner isn’t flown like a light GA aircraft, anymore than a light GA aircraft is flown like an airliner. General safety ideas can cross over between the two like you mention above, but they are different machines at the end of the day.
 
Roger Roger said:
Sure, I rode the JS on a Southernjets guppy and watching that was funny because it was familiar enough that I knew what was going on, but different enough that it felt just off. And I’m not going to be a company cheerleader and say that the Eskimo checklists are the be all and end all, but they are far more concise and usable than pretty much any GA manufacturer checklist I’ve seen.
Click to expand...

So my shop that I’m part time at, there are no new pilots on the 737. Everyone has some degree of experience on the plane, but that’s because most of the pilots come from somewhere else, normally having retired from somewhere earlier than 65. The standardization isn’t so rigid that no variations are allowed, since there are some solid habits people have from their previous employers, all from flying the 737. Everyone knows what’s going on, but there are interesting nuances. The SWA guys never ask for
Flaps 1 when configuring, Flaps 5 is their first call. The AS guys turn on the engine ignitions before crossfeeding. And a few other weirdisms that aren’t in any way unsafe, they’re just…..different. :)
 
MikeD said:
So my shop that I’m part time at, there are no new pilots on the 737. Everyone has some degree of experience on the plane, but that’s because most of the pilots come from somewhere else, normally having retired from somewhere earlier than 65. The standardization isn’t so rigid that no variations are allowed, since there are some solid habits people have from their previous employers, all from flying the 737. Everyone knows what’s going on, but there are interesting nuances. The SWA guys never ask for
Flaps 1 when configuring, Flaps 5 is their first call. The AS guys turn on the engine ignitions before crossfeeding. And a few other weirdisms that aren’t in any way unsafe, they’re just…..different. :)
Click to expand...
Does anyone use Flaps 2 or 10?

Anybody change the autobrake setting while rolling down the runway?
 
roundout said:
Does anyone use Flaps 2 or 10?

Anybody change the autobrake setting while rolling down the runway?
Click to expand...

Flaps 10 is used by the SWA guys.

Flaps 2 is verboten by the AS guys. They look at be like I asked them to kill someone when I request it. 😆

No one has yet ever changed an autobrake setting on rollout…for the times it’s even used.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top