Wonder if this CFI is still wondering how he let it happen.

Re: Wonder if this CFI is still wondering how he let it happ

It happens.
I came home today with VFR Day mins today....exactly three gallons.

Any guesses at what plane I was flying?

I ended up burning a little more than the normal six gallons/hour.
 
Re: Wonder if this CFI is still wondering how he let it happ

Douglas said:
Any guesses at what plane I was flying?
Click to expand...
152?

*edit* is this related to the previous post about the 150 continuing to amaze you?
 
Re: Wonder if this CFI is still wondering how he let it happ

Douglas said:
It happens.
I came home today with VFR Day mins today....exactly three gallons.

Any guesses at what plane I was flying?

I ended up burning a little more than the normal six gallons/hour.
Click to expand...


C-150??


I've landed with VFR Day minimums enough times to count on one hand, and I don't even use all 5 fingers. Even though it's still legal, I am figgity and constantly checking the fuel gauge and recalculating the time I've been airborne with my (conservative) fuel consumption calculation. I don't like landing with VFR mins, or even IFR mins. I like landing with at least 1.5hrs left worth of fuel, thats just me though.
 
Re: Wonder if this CFI is still wondering how he let it happ

Headwind will get ya, a poorly tuned engine... I think this type of thing happens when one is unfamiliar with the a/c and is a little complacent. Shouldn't happen, luckily this guy was experienced and no one was hurt, no metal bent either. :bandit:
 
Re: Wonder if this CFI is still wondering how he let it happ

Yes it is the C-150 and it still is amazing.
We had planned to return with 45 minutes in the tanks but I guess I had the power set a little too high.

I always try to one hour in the tanks when I return....three gallons does not make me a happy camper.
 
Re: Wonder if this CFI is still wondering how he let it happ

Landing with (day/night/IFR) reserves is perfectly safe and LEGAL.

I'm of the school of thought that we should teach someone to fly, not just pass the next test.
 
Re: Wonder if this CFI is still wondering how he let it happ

dhc2tacksby said:
Landing with (day/night/IFR) reserves is perfectly safe and LEGAL.

I'm of the school of thought that we should teach someone to fly, not just pass the next test.
Click to expand...

How is teaching someone to fly right up to the legal limit teaching someone to fly past passing a test? This isn't about about airmanship but judgment.
 
Re: Wonder if this CFI is still wondering how he let it happ

well, it's legal, and safe if you made it back exactly how you planned. But we should all know by now that things change. It's true you should teach someone to fly and not just pass the test, but you should also teach them to be conservative with their judgments and not try for the legal minimum each time.
 
Re: Wonder if this CFI is still wondering how he let it happ

These limits imposed on us are there for a reason.
Adding your "safety" buffer is setting them up for failure.

Imposing personal hour reserves for day VFR or what have you, is akin to placing bubble wrap on the world around you. Same with limiting x-wind exposure to 10-12 knots instead of the demonstrated 17 or so for most light Cessna's. Same with limiting VFR flights to 5 sm - 5000' or greater.

A pilot who knows the plane's and his own limits is a much better pilot and will make much better decisions when the time comes.

Reminds me of a college flight school grad I took flying . The day was about 5 sm and was about 2500 broken. He was skeptical about going VFR for a local flight.

When flying outside the mostly controlled world of flight training refusing a flight that is still VFR (like my example) will get you fired in a heart beat. Flying a twin like a Navajo, the difference between 30 and 60 minutes of gas is closer to 100lbs. 100lbs of possible freight, perhaps a passenger.

Like I said earlier, too many people are teaching a test, and not real world flying.
 
Re: Wonder if this CFI is still wondering how he let it happ

dhc2tacksby said:
Landing with (day/night/IFR) reserves is perfectly safe and LEGAL.

I'm of the school of thought that we should teach someone to fly, not just pass the next test.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily. It depends how you plan. There are places around here where, if you only planned on your day reserve you are landing off airport if your primary airport has a closed runway or at night if the runway lights go OTS you are really hosed.
Also, you need to be careful how you compute your IFR reserve. A pilot planning a flight into my home airport IFR, if they literally use the part 91 reserve of "primary airport, alternate airport+45 minutes", they run out of fuel over the mountains.
 
Re: Wonder if this CFI is still wondering how he let it happ

dhc2tacksby said:
These limits imposed on us are there for a reason.
Adding your "safety" buffer is setting them up for failure.

Imposing personal hour reserves for day VFR or what have you, is akin to placing bubble wrap on the world around you. Same with limiting x-wind exposure to 10-12 knots instead of the demonstrated 17 or so for most light Cessna's. Same with limiting VFR flights to 5 sm - 5000' or greater.

A pilot who knows the plane's and his own limits is a much better pilot and will make much better decisions when the time comes.

Reminds me of a college flight school grad I took flying . The day was about 5 sm and was about 2500 broken. He was skeptical about going VFR for a local flight.

When flying outside the mostly controlled world of flight training refusing a flight that is still VFR (like my example) will get you fired in a heart beat. Flying a twin like a Navajo, the difference between 30 and 60 minutes of gas is closer to 100lbs. 100lbs of possible freight, perhaps a passenger.

Like I said earlier, too many people are teaching a test, and not real world flying.
Click to expand...

I completely disagree with the bold statement above. I think by teaching them to plan with a bit of a buffer you are teaching them to be a better pilot. You have to of course let them know that the additional buffer you are adding are based off of YOUR personal limits.

I do agree that people should know the limits of themselves and the airplanes, but they should also be wise enough never to put themselves in a situation where those limits are close to being in doubt.
 
Re: Wonder if this CFI is still wondering how he let it happ

dhc2tacksby said:
These limits imposed on us are there for a reason.
Adding your "safety" buffer is setting them up for failure.

Imposing personal hour reserves for day VFR or what have you, is akin to placing bubble wrap on the world around you. Same with limiting x-wind exposure to 10-12 knots instead of the demonstrated 17 or so for most light Cessna's. Same with limiting VFR flights to 5 sm - 5000' or greater.

A pilot who knows the plane's and his own limits is a much better pilot and will make much better decisions when the time comes.

Reminds me of a college flight school grad I took flying . The day was about 5 sm and was about 2500 broken. He was skeptical about going VFR for a local flight.

When flying outside the mostly controlled world of flight training refusing a flight that is still VFR (like my example) will get you fired in a heart beat. Flying a twin like a Navajo, the difference between 30 and 60 minutes of gas is closer to 100lbs. 100lbs of possible freight, perhaps a passenger.

Like I said earlier, too many people are teaching a test, and not real world flying.
Click to expand...

BS. If someone wants to make their own minimums, that's fine with me. Too many people try to push themselves to take flights that they know they aren't ready for and end up in bad situations.

If I was a weekend warrior type, I certainly wouldn't want to go bouncing around VFR with it being 5sm and 2500.
 
Re: Wonder if this CFI is still wondering how he let it happ

dhc2tacksby said:
Landing with (day/night/IFR) reserves is perfectly safe and LEGAL.

I'm of the school of thought that we should teach someone to fly, not just pass the next test.
Click to expand...

Be gentle with him folks I remember this position from only a few months ago when I was fresh off the college boat. So were you taught by a college or by someone that aimed your teaching toward commercial aviation flying?

Just a guess, but in the FBO world if you take 15 (guesstimate, i don't know the exact amount) gallons in your 152 for a XC you won't make it home. These are old engines that are often poorly maintained and the aircraft are not equip with fuel flow gauges so you have no real way to verify your safe and legal.

On a side not in my aerodynamics class we were taught that you need to know a few things about performance data for an aircraft:

1) Do you trust the person that published that data
2) Can you perform the given task exactly as prescribed in the manual to attain that data
3) Can your aircraft perform to the benchmark standards that the brand new aircraft did in this data

For further proof that this method cannot be taught in the practical world. Sure it works with fuel flow meters and new engines, then fly it like an airplane to maximize safety/utility. For the typical FBO flyer you need to fudge factor the crap out of those numbers using the rules stated above for the given day.

Here is one more reference:
http://www.aopa.org/asf/hotspot/fuel_asrs.html


Welcome to the realm of the real ;)
 
Re: Wonder if this CFI is still wondering how he let it happ

shdw said:
Be gentle with him folks I remember this position from only a few months ago when I was fresh off the college boat. So were you taught by a college or by someone that aimed your teaching toward commercial aviation flying?
Click to expand...

Just a little insight about me. I was taught by someone who aimed their teaching towards flying commercially in the bush, back in the 90's.

I have never met (known) someone who flew within the Reg's, within the performance of the aircraft and within their limits who killed themselves. What insight do you have that requires you to add to them?


I agree, a freshly minted PPL/CPL's does not know their limits and shouldn't be expected to ride on the ragged edge.
However, instructors need to show more students what MVFR looks like. What 17 knots does from the side and landing with 91.151 (91.167) mins keeps the engine running.
 
Re: Wonder if this CFI is still wondering how he let it happ

Push whatever you want to the limit, it is still the limit. I agree 100% with testing landing to the maximum x-wind OR minimum visibility OR ... The FOI discusses the "Macho" attitude. There is also an 'antidote' which implies "Macho" is an undesireable trait. It's all well and good to possess the most "massive testicles" but in the end, who cares. One of my better friends who has done, flown and owned most everything aviation-wise appears to be the most cautious of all living humans. His reluctance to test the limits is because he has been there. Why tempt fate?
 
Re: Wonder if this CFI is still wondering how he let it happ

dhc2tacksby said:
These limits imposed on us are there for a reason.
Adding your "safety" buffer is setting them up for failure.

Imposing personal hour reserves for day VFR or what have you, is akin to placing bubble wrap on the world around you. Same with limiting x-wind exposure to 10-12 knots instead of the demonstrated 17 or so for most light Cessna's. Same with limiting VFR flights to 5 sm - 5000' or greater.

A pilot who knows the plane's and his own limits is a much better pilot and will make much better decisions when the time comes.

Reminds me of a college flight school grad I took flying . The day was about 5 sm and was about 2500 broken. He was skeptical about going VFR for a local flight.

When flying outside the mostly controlled world of flight training refusing a flight that is still VFR (like my example) will get you fired in a heart beat. Flying a twin like a Navajo, the difference between 30 and 60 minutes of gas is closer to 100lbs. 100lbs of possible freight, perhaps a passenger.

Like I said earlier, too many people are teaching a test, and not real world flying.
Click to expand...
legal and safe/smart are 2 completely different things. will i go and plan a flight that will put me at reserves, sure, no problems. will i do the same when it is IFR or Low IFR, hell no!

i have landed with tanks that were dry and it is a scary feeling when you check those tanks after you land expecting to see something. Winds aloft are a FORECAST and like most FORECASTS they are INCORRECT most of the time. so you plan your flight to bare legal mins and then you have a stronger wind than planned and then what?
 
Re: Wonder if this CFI is still wondering how he let it happ

dhc2tacksby said:
Just a little insight about me. I was taught by someone who aimed their teaching towards flying commercially in the bush, back in the 90's.

I have never met (known) someone who flew within the Reg's, within the performance of the aircraft and within their limits who killed themselves. What insight do you have that requires you to add to them?


I agree, a freshly minted PPL/CPL's does not know their limits and shouldn't be expected to ride on the ragged edge.
However, instructors need to show more students what MVFR looks like. What 17 knots does from the side and landing with 91.151 (91.167) mins keeps the engine running.
Click to expand...

No one is saying not to show pilots what a 17 knot cross wind looks like, or what MVFR looks like. There is training to be gained from this. The training to be gained from pushing your fuel? Don't see any and I've been doing this for a few years. I teach pilots to land on dirt strips and short runways. I try not to mess with fuel, however. Like I wrote previously, there are too many situations where carrying the legal fuel can easily put you in a very tough position. And yes, there have been accidents where pilots had the "legal" fuel, ran into unforcast situations and ended up balling it up.
 
Re: Wonder if this CFI is still wondering how he let it happ

Pushing fuel is down right retarded. Adding granny gas, and some for the kids isn't.

Being freaked out about landing with your reserve is also retarded.

Do you not see what I'm saying?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top