Things CFIs are Sick of saying, doing, or hearing
- Thread starter Ian_J
- Start date
desertdog71
Girthy Member
Foxcow said:
I am tired of CFI's that eat Chicken Planks at Long John Silvers and then blame the odors on the local Cattle while in flight. LMAO!!!!
FlyingNole
New Member
I have a student with real rank breath, he wonders why my head is always directly under the air vent.....Just picture it.
South Florida, 95 degrees in heat and humidity, and a kid with mild B.O. and rank breath, oh, and in turbulence.....Lovveelly.
South Florida, 95 degrees in heat and humidity, and a kid with mild B.O. and rank breath, oh, and in turbulence.....Lovveelly.
Ralgha
Well-Known Member
mtsu_av8er said:I've always loved it when people say that!!
If the AIM isn't regulatory, then neither are the PTS, aircraft POH or taxiway signs.
METAR contractions aren't regulatory, nor are turbulence reporting intensities!!!
Actually, the only thing in that list that is regulatory is certain sections of the POH. :nana2:
Foxcow
Well-Known Member
FlyingNole said:
Good grief
. I had one student that was pretty fat and always wore tank tops. When it got hot in the Seminole, I had the smell to deal with along with a big sweaty man arm that my left arm was touching all the time. I leaned out of the airplane with the door open until it was time to take off. I am torn though. I am glad he is gone though it was multi time 
desertdog71 said:
That is pretty funny!
adreamer
Well-Known Member
I almost forgot this part of AIM. However, during my primary training, my instructors always taught me turn to cross wind at 500' AGL. 
Well, I never teach my students climb to within 300' of TPA before turning due to close proximity of 2 large airports. Instructors of this particular airport are actually teaching students to look for ground references to turn.
adreamer
Well, I never teach my students climb to within 300' of TPA before turning due to close proximity of 2 large airports. Instructors of this particular airport are actually teaching students to look for ground references to turn.
adreamer
TaterSalad
New Member
I also teach 500' AGL for the first turn. Now, coincidentally at our airport this happens to be 300' from TPA. But the reason I teach 500' AGL is I believe it puts you in a better position to turn back to the runway if an engine were to fail. In each of our planes, I've gone up to altitude, "failed" an engine, and made a 180 degree turn. It takes just over 400'. This could be debateable, but in a lot of trainers, I believe by the time you climb the extra couple hundred feet, that extra altitude is negated by the extra distance from the runway (remember, we're going straight out, away from the runway during this extra climb time). Hence, if you have an engine failure after climbing to within 300' of TPA and just as you're turning crosswind, you may not be able to make the runway. If you turn at 500' AGL, not only are you turning at the (admittedly, bare minimum) point at which you could make a 180 degree turn anyways, you also find yourself on a leg where only ~90 degrees of turn is required (which equals less loss of altitude) to go back to the departure end of the runway and closer to said runway, should an engine fail at that point.
Timbuff10
Well-Known Member
TaterSalad said:
Yeah, I have tried that too at altitude and it seems to barely be able to work up there. The thing I would be worried about is you have to think about your students though. You want to teach them the correct way to do things from the beginning.
Another thing too is I am sure your student's skills aren't as good as yours and they may not be able to replicate your turn that needs to be done perfectly and immediately. Remember, alot of students don't fly that often and if they remember the wrong way, it may haunt them... It may haunt you too if the FAA comes to you asking why johnny student tried to make a turn back to the runway and couldn't make it because he was only so high off the ground.
Goonie
Never say die
If I hear one more person ask for an airport advisory when the airport has a working ASOS I think I will get murderous!
It seems I have to either tell a student or lean into them to turn base. I think we would fly north forever if i didnt say anything.
I love when other people in the traffic pattern correct me on the radio's......again murderous!
It seems I have to either tell a student or lean into them to turn base. I think we would fly north forever if i didnt say anything.
I love when other people in the traffic pattern correct me on the radio's......again murderous!
Ralgha
Well-Known Member
An "airport advisory" contains more information than just the weather such as known traffic in the area, runway in use, etc. Especially useful if there are aircraft in the area that don't have/aren't using a radio such as ultralights or crop dusters.
What torques me off is those who say "any traffic in the area please advise."
What torques me off is those who say "any traffic in the area please advise."
mtsu_av8er
Well-Known Member
TaterSalad said:
So, once your students realize that it's ok to pick and choose the things they want to comly with, what hazardous attitude do you encourage next?
jtrain609
Antisocial Monster
If you've ever flown into Arlington you'd understand why asking for an airport advisory is a dumb thing to do. All you need to do is listen to the ASOS, then listen to the CTAF for a few minutes; with how busy it gets it's better to have other aircraft giving position reports and to simply listen in than to have some useless guy on the unicom giving useless information to an incoming aircraft and blocking the transmission of aircraft that are already in the pattern.
Goonie
Never say die
Ralgha said:
Most people giving the airport advisory are more worried about their turkey sandwich then what airplanes are in the pattern. I wouldnt trust their traffic advisories. As far as runway in use, again ASOS will give you wind direction. If it is still unclear then listen to landing traffic, if their is none, use whatever runway you wish. Airport advisories are usless information.
Chris_Ford
Well-Known Member
mtsu_av8er said:
Didn't know that turning below 300' belown TPA is something that requires compliance. It's suggestive, AIM also recommends that you make a midfield 45 entry, and we know how often that happens.
desertdog71
Girthy Member
We all know that everybody follows the suggested radio procedures for uncontrolled airports.
Pilots never forget to call the corners, or their 10 mile inbound positions. They also always use the proper runways, and make radio calls while on the ground and departing. I'll remember that next time I am on Final and some a$$clown in a taildragger is taking off in the worng direction with no radio. So there are times when its nice to have a traffic advisory. Or at least pilots that have radios and use them, are abide by standard procedures, like using the proper runway for conditions and looking before taxiing onto the runway.
Pilots never forget to call the corners, or their 10 mile inbound positions. They also always use the proper runways, and make radio calls while on the ground and departing. I'll remember that next time I am on Final and some a$$clown in a taildragger is taking off in the worng direction with no radio. So there are times when its nice to have a traffic advisory. Or at least pilots that have radios and use them, are abide by standard procedures, like using the proper runway for conditions and looking before taxiing onto the runway.
Bah. That's why I just stay away from uncontrolled airports.
Seriously though, if there's more than 2 in the pattern I'll just go somewhere else. Know that's not an option in some locations, but there are plenty of airports here to justify avoiding un-wanted headaches.
Seriously though, if there's more than 2 in the pattern I'll just go somewhere else. Know that's not an option in some locations, but there are plenty of airports here to justify avoiding un-wanted headaches.
TaterSalad
New Member
mtsu_av8er said:
My students learn from day one to comply with all things *regulatory*. And yes, I know about the argument that the AIM might as well be regulatory, lest someday you don't follow a recommendation, have an incident, etc. However, in this case, I really believe the way I'm teaching is safer than what the AIM recommends. Try this someday with one of your students................fail an engine just at that 300' below TPA turn to crosswind and see if they make it back to the runway. Then try my method, having them turn at 500' AGL and fail their engine just as they turn crosswind and see what the result is. In my experience, they have better success turning at 500' AGL, because they're now closer to the runway, and less of a turn is required to make it back to the runway. Remember, the point of everything we teach when flying in the pattern is to be able to make the runway should the engine fail during this vulnerable time when we're near the ground. In this case, based on personal observation in nearly 1500 hrs dual given, I've found my method (teaching to make 1st turn at 500' AGL) is often safer than the AIM recommendation. And I would defend it as such were it ever to become an issue. Back to your original comment...........my students learn to comply with all things regulatory, but they also learn to think critically and that occasionally (very seldom, mind you) what's recommended isn't always best and to make that decision for themselves, based on their experience.
By the way, that was a terribly condescending tone in your post, and unnecessary in my opinion.
TaterSalad
New Member
Chris_Ford said:
Funny thing about that is, my students are taught to *always* make the 45 midfield entry, with very few exceptions. Yet I encourage "hazardous attitudes".........
There was an article done by Richard Collins (I think) on the turn back to the airport after an engine failure. He did a lot of testing, and if I recall correctly your 400 or 500 feet is not high enough. You need to take into account that a 180 degree turn will not put you back on the runway, but on a parallel course offset by the turning diameter. That distance needs to be accounted for by some additional turning to move laterally, then realign oneself with the runway again. There are additional factors to consider, including whether you make your turn towards or away from the wind (assuming it is not blowing directly down the runway but has some crosswind component), and how strong the wind is blowing. Also how long the runway is. And how soon the pilot reacts to the situation and starts the turn. There are even scenarios where turning back to the airport is wrong because you will not be able to get it down on the runway and stopped in time because the wind is too strong, kept you too close to the airport and you end up high and with too much tailwind to get it back down before running off the far end. I think that Richard's conclusions were that something like 800 or 900 feet (I might be wrong on the actual number) is the lowest that a pilot should seriously consider trying to make it back onto the runway, assuming a straight-out departure. Richard did his testing on a very large number of possible combinations, including whether to turn 45 degrees into (or away) from the wind before turning back the other way 235 degrees to get back on the runway centerline, or 30/210, or 90/270 worked better, or just to not do a preturn one direction and do a 270 degree turn first, then 90 degrees back to align, or to do a 225 degree turn, than 45 back to get aligned.....lots and lots of options and the outcomes all vary depending upon the wind speed, direction, and runway length.TaterSalad said:
For this I would argue that some math needs to be done to calculate glide distance versus climbing distance, then some analysis of the problem. For example, how far will the plane travel horizontally while climbing an additional 200 feet. Then how far can the plane glide horizontally while losing that same 200 vertical feet. A quick perusal of some climb charts and glide distance charts should give you an idea of whether the altitude above the field elevation is more important or the distance away from the runway. Now do the calculations again figuring that the climb is done into a headwind (reducing the distance traveled) while the return-to-the-field glide is done primarily with a tail wind. Do you still believe that it is better to be lower and closer rather than higher and slightly farther?
Personally, I am not a proponent of teaching pilots to try to return to the runway. I think that it is safer to tell them that their first reaction should be to find the safest place to put down straight ahead, or within 30 degrees of the runway heading. Then, as altitude permits, start to broaden their range of options (i.e. the higher they are they can start looking farther to the sides, or even behind them) for landing sites.