Soft Field Technique

Cat Driver · Post by **Cat Driver** » Wed Feb 16, 2005 3:29 pm

Hedley :

I would love to meet you guys and go flying with you, if I get back from Europe in time I will try and make a point of visiting you.

Speaking of cost the Dutch Government has decided that we do not qualify for the tax rebate on fuel anymore and this year we will have to pay one euro per litre more, I shudder to think what that will do to the Connie the group was planning to fly this year. Fuel alone will now cost us over twelve hundred dollars Canadian per hour on the Cat.

Yeh , you hit it in the head my hourly rate is not their biggest problem.

.

Flaperons · Post by **Flaperons** » Wed Feb 16, 2005 3:37 pm

Jesus Chr*st , Cat! Are you finished with your f*cking resume?

You wonder why I come on strong? It's because there's this crusty, old, overconfident and often incorrect bastard who keeps posting here.

You.

It's impossible to count the number of times you have posted a smug reply about some issue, where the point of your reply was simply to let everyone know that you know everything. Sorry, old chum, but I've worked with and flown with some of the best instructors in Canada. And some of the sh*t that comes out of your mouth is just that -- sh*t.

The more you learn, the more you learn there is more to learn. But you've figured everything out, haven't you? When the old dog stops learning new tricks, maybe it's best to put him down. If you'd like, I could do it for half my usual rate...

And back to your "serious question": What's your answer, assh*le? What's your big number one reason for flat landings? Let us know so I can shoot you down, f*cker. I'll even wait for you to go change your depends first.

By the way, you've got some balls bragging about making 250 Euros an hour when a big chunk of the people reading this post are probably pulling in $15 - $20 per flight hour.

And finally: I love to know (as I'm sure many would) just what happened to have TC prevent you from instructing in Canada. It can't be just because they're jealous of your greatness. Something went wrong somewhere, didn't it? I'm sure your answer will be impartial...

Cat Driver · Post by **Cat Driver** » Wed Feb 16, 2005 3:49 pm

flaperons :

Go back a couple of posts I just got through telling Tango 01 why I no longer teach in Canada.

Now please do me a favour and answer the question I origionally asked of you.

Here it is again:

I'm still waiting for flaperons to tell me why so many pilots land flat or on the nose wheel.

And let me give you some friendly advice, if you are unable to respond in a more intelligent manner than your last post I can't be bothered to waste any more time with you.

Cat

Flaperons · Post by **Flaperons** » Wed Feb 16, 2005 5:54 pm

Cat:

Go back to my second last post and if you actually read it, you'll find that I already have answered your question. You should be able to understand what I mean. Unfortunately, I don't feel like giving you any dual instruction because, as I've said before, you are no longer able to learn.

Now, answer my question:

And back to your "serious question": What's your answer, assh*le? What's your big number one reason for flat landings? Let us know so I can shoot you down, f*cker. I'll even wait for you to go change your depends first.

I apologize for the language this time. I'm just quoting...

Cat Driver · Post by **Cat Driver** » Wed Feb 16, 2005 6:22 pm

flaperons :

You mean this is your answer?

-----------------------------------------------

" The answer to your query, I'm sure, is that it's my fault somehow.

Based on your non-stop whining about how it's wrong to transfer your gaze towards the far end of the runway as you approach the flare, I'm going to guess that's what you're looking for. Can't say that I agree with you, though
-----------------------------------------

I guess we will just have to agree to disagree then flaperons, because that is exactly what I find most of the pilots doing wrong...

..it is usually easy to teach them how to judge height and get them landing insead of arriving though.

You say:

" I don't feel like giving you any dual instruction because, as I've said before, you are no longer able to learn. "

I'm courious, supposed I decided to get some dual from you what do you get paid an hour for dual? Ýou notice I did not ask what you would charge me, because I am not that old yet that I can't think.

Cat

Shiny Side Up · Post by **Shiny Side Up** » Wed Feb 16, 2005 6:38 pm

Remember what I was saying about bad attitudes and poor landing techniques Cat? I present exibit A...

Cat Driver · Post by **Cat Driver** » Wed Feb 16, 2005 6:45 pm

Shiny side...

I hope you don't want to off me too ?

Here is flaperons attitude :

"When the old dog stops learning new tricks, maybe it's best to put him down. If you'd like, I could do it for half my usual rate..."

Gees I can understand someone not having any respect for their elders but wanting to put em down like ending a dogs life is really out there.

Anyhow I will probly sleep tonight anyhow.

Cat

Shiny Side Up · Post by **Shiny Side Up** » Wed Feb 16, 2005 6:56 pm

Why would I want to off you? I might need someone to steal a ride in a PBY from someday.

I merely meant that here we have two pilots with plenty of experience and neither can agree on a proper meathod for landing an airplane. I mean if you fellows can't agree how on earth are we to convince the hordes out there how to do it? Really, its a good demonstration here of the root of the problem. No matter what actually might be the correct or best technique, you'll never convince all of the people all of the time to do it that way.

Ah well, we can only do our best.

Cat Driver · Post by **Cat Driver** » Wed Feb 16, 2005 7:21 pm

Shiny side :

Well lets look at this and see if we can make it easier to decide whos advice may be more beneficial.

"I merely meant that here we have two pilots with plenty of experience and neither can agree on a proper meathod for landing an airplane. "

I post using my real name and my experience level is easy to confirm, on the other hand flaperons may never have flown anything except his computer.

Cat

. ._ · Post by **. ._** » Wed Feb 16, 2005 7:52 pm

Here's my little theory...

Landing a plane is like backing a tractor-trailer into a loading bay:

After reading a book on how to do it, you can't do it.

After an instructor shows you how to do it, sometimes you can do it.

After practice, you can do it, and wonder why you could never do it in the first place.

After a LOT of practice, you become good at it.

How do you do it? Who knows? But some can.

-istp

Hedley · Post by **Hedley** » Wed Feb 16, 2005 8:10 pm

Flaperon: when you say that Cat Driver must be a bad pilot or person to have pissed off TC, I can only assume you are very young and inexperienced, and not particularly bright.

I suppose you have never heard of Bob Hoover. One of the finest pilots ever, he was the victim of an amazing campaign by the FAA, who yanked his medical for "cognitive dissonance", whatever the hell that is. So Bob, who is a decorated war hero, left his country and went to Australia, where he passed a tougher medical and flew airshows down there. After lobbying efforts by Congressmen, Senators and no less than F. Lee Bailey, Bob Hoover got his medical back.

I suppose you have never heard of Jason Newburgh, either. A very nice young pilot and AME, he was driven out of Canada by your government. What he says about Transport I cannot repeat here. He now lives in the USA and is an A&P/IA and aerobatic instructor. He recently represented Canada at the Advanced World Aerobatic Championship in Europe. I must ask you, where in the Aeronautics Act is Transport empowered to disenfranchise citizens?

Now to me, and my team. To my utter amazement, Transport contacted all the airshow operators in Ontario and threatened them that if they hired us, they wouldn't get their SFOC's. I had trouble believing this, but this is what I am told. Transport personally pulled my SFOC, and I had to go to great expense and trouble to get it back. Afterwards, the director general for Ontario region sent me a letter saying there was no justification for the revocation, but he sure didn't offer to compensate me for the trouble on that one. Transport has attacked me personally for years in court, where I have run up a legal bit of tens of thousands of dollars. They also attacked my father to try to take a chunk out of me, which I consider disgusting behaviour. They also had me flagged with Customs - I can't go across the border now, without having the contents of my wallet examined. I even have a Federal Court Order "enjoining" them to cease and desist from their bizarre campaign, which they simply ignore. They are above the law. Like a speeding policement, they can disregard the law because there is no one to take them to task for their violations of it.

So please, you have no idea how young and stupid you appear when you imply that government is always good, and . must be a bad person because Transport personally detests him.

Cat Driver · Post by **Cat Driver** » Wed Feb 16, 2005 8:33 pm

Hedley, like you I have won my case against transoprt.

There was no contest that some of the higest placed in TC, lied and changed the rules over and over in their campain to teach me who is boss.

Like you I have yet to receive one penny of the thousands I have lost to these moral degenerates.

Also like those who you mentioned I have been driven out of my own country and have been approved by several foreign Governments to fly, teach and perform in airshows.

But it ain't over yet, my MP has finally got the thin end of the wedge into parliament to bring some pressure on TC.

Cat

Big Pistons Forever · Post by **Big Pistons Forever** » Wed Feb 16, 2005 9:43 pm

Why do many pilots land nose wheel first? Well obviously the airplane is going to fast if it is touching down in a level flight attitude. The real question IMHO is why are they consistantly not slowing down to a speed that allows a proper tail low landing. For what it is worth here is my 2 cents. Most flying training is carried out at busy airports which encourages faster speeds on final. This is combined with from what I see is a consistant weak spot in instruction, making sure that students control their airspeed as well as maintain the proper approach path. I may be over generalising but I see a lot of pilots will add power if they are low but will not reduce power if they are high and just let the airspeed increase. Also there seems to be quite unrealistic appreciation of what really constitutes slow flight. Many pilots seem to get nervous when in a C 172 the airspeed gets below 75 kts. I personaly always spend some time on a "lets see if we can get the airspeed indicator to read zero". I find that it gives students a lot of confidence and proves if you are smooth and stay coordinated you can fly all day at very low airspeeds. It is also a good way to get students to recognize the control feel of an aircraft that is starting to get a bit slow. Anyway the botom line is when somebody flying your standard light cessna/piper asks BPF for advice on improving their landings I tell them to cross the fence 10 knots slower than they were tought.

Hedley · Post by **Hedley** » Wed Feb 16, 2005 9:50 pm

Glad to hear you're getting somewhere with your MP. Mine is a nice young fellow called Scott Reid, whom unfortunately just gets blown off by the arrogant Transport Minister's flunkies, whom just smile and assure him that everything is going swimmingly. I gave up on that route.

Note the common thread to the pilots that the paperpushers detest - aerobatics. Specifically, airshow pilots. I can only speculate that the vindictive paperpushers are perhaps jealous of, or are intimidated by airshow pilots. I really don't understand how their twisted little minds work. Sort of like trying to understand the mentality of Nazi prison camp guards.

Cat Driver · Post by **Cat Driver** » Thu Feb 17, 2005 9:06 am

whom unfortunately just gets blown off by the arrogant Transport Minister's flunkies, whom just smile and assure him that everything is going swimmingly.

The flunkies are doing what flunkies do, they are stalling hoping the irritation will go away.

When they contact TC for the minister, they of course get fed a pile of crap that is the exact opposite of the truth, then write you a letter saying they looked into it and your allegations have no basis in fact.

Where I have them is I have piles of facts showning that they are lying, right up to the Director General, and it is him that I am after.

It helps to copy the opposition now that the Liberals are not the majority.

As to your wondering why so many TC types are miserable pricks, how would you like to work in a cubicule every day, with maybe the chance of an office when a few of the top parasites leave, and the closest you can get to a real airplane is to ramp check the crew?

Cat

Shiny Side Up · Post by **Shiny Side Up** » Thu Feb 17, 2005 9:43 am

Cat Driver wrote:Shiny side :

Well lets look at this and see if we can make it easier to decide whos advice may be more beneficial.

"I merely meant that here we have two pilots with plenty of experience and neither can agree on a proper meathod for landing an airplane. "

I post using my real name and my experience level is easy to confirm, on the other hand flaperons may never have flown anything except his computer.

Cat

I'm not placing your experience in doubt Cat, and to be fair lets not place flaperons in that area either - follow me on this one for sake of my point here. Yet despite all of your accumulated wisdom, experience and skill through out all of this little debate you have not convinced flaperons that you know the correct meathod of landing the aircraft. Suppose the two of you actually went out dual in a humble 172 for an hour. If you can't change his attitude towards the idea you're trying to present, do you really think you're going to change the way he lands the airplane? You might be able to make him do it propperly under threat or duress, once left alone again he's likely to go back to the way he believes is correct.

Right Seat Captain · Post by **Right Seat Captain** » Thu Feb 17, 2005 11:59 am

I'm not placing your experience in doubt Cat, and to be fair lets not place flaperons in that area either - follow me on this one for sake of my point here. Yet despite all of your accumulated wisdom, experience and skill through out all of this little debate you have not convinced flaperons that you know the correct meathod of landing the aircraft. Suppose the two of you actually went out dual in a humble 172 for an hour. If you can't change his attitude towards the idea you're trying to present, do you really think you're going to change the way he lands the airplane? You might be able to make him do it propperly under threat or duress, once left alone again he's likely to go back to the way he believes is correct.

And I think that's what you'll get with a large portion of the pilot population. Lets face it, pilots are stubborn. Once one has confidence in their method, they tend to shut out any other method. The safe pilots are always the ones willing to learn, and are open to new ways of doing the same job.

Cat Driver · Post by **Cat Driver** » Thu Feb 17, 2005 4:13 pm

O.K. I have read the posts again leading up to where we are now.

There is more to landing an aircraft that what flaperons thinks is the correct method...

Here is his opinion from an earlier post.

---------------------------------------------------

"Based on your non-stop whining about how it's wrong to transfer your gaze towards the far end of the runway as you approach the flare, I'm going to guess that's what you're looking for. Can't say that I agree with you, though. "

------------------------------------------------------------

Therein lies one of the problems as far as judging height goes.

It is not possible for the eyes to accurately transfer height and closure rate ( as in sink ) when looking that far ahead, peripheral vision is not accurate enough for height judgement, remember you want to land on the runway close to your present position, not at the far end.

Lets examine the touch down when flying a Gyroplane or a Helicopter either of which can be landed at zero airspeed / ground speed.

From the stablized approach you transition into the flare to decay foward speed over the ground, as foward speed decreases you must progressively keep your center of vision moving closer to the touch down point to accurately judge the position of the machine in relation to the touch down area to determine height and foward/ lateral movement.

In a helicopter once in the hover at zero ground speed you must keep your center of vision close in to recognize any movement up/ down/ sideways/ backwards....if you were to look at the far end of the runway you would lose the close up clues that allow you to hover without changing your position in relation to the ground.

Fixed wing aircraft will not require you to center your vision that close to the machine as the speed over the ground will remain quite fast compared to a rotary wing aircraft.

Depending on touch down speed the center of sight should vary from about five hundred feet ahead to about three or four hundred feet ahead to get accurate height and velocity clues.

I train with a camcorder and debrief with the student using a laser to point the red dot on the TV screen to exactly where they were looking at any part of the approach and landing...when they show problems with height and or directional control.

...I have never yet failed to improve the landing skills of any pilot using this method and I have never yet found a pilot who could accurately judge height looking at the far end of the runway....where very accurate height judgement is manditory is flying fixed wing Ag. planes...go and try and flare to the level attitude at two feet above the ground from a thirty degree nose down approach by looking at the far end of the airport..

Oh, another thing one of the reasons so many pilots land Cessna trainers on the nose wheel is they try and look straight ahead and will not raise the nose to the proper touch down attitude because they will lose sight of the far end of the runway.

Cat

Flaperons · Post by **Flaperons** » Thu Feb 17, 2005 8:09 pm

Sorry again for being away, but there are far too manny nosewheels out there without significant damage yet, so I had to do my best to correct the situation.

Let's get one thing straight. I have not once said that there is only one correct way to teach landings. That was never my point. Cat, on the other hand, is always alluding to it needing to be his way or the highway.

Secondly, the transfer of gaze is usefull during the initial phases of training because students will, more often than not, fix their gaze on the numbers, and then as the numbers disappear under the plane during closure, they'll keep looking at the ground right in front of the cowling. This inevitably leads to them shying away from the ground and flaring too much, too early, resulting in a balloon, and possibly ending in a porpoise. Then the instructor takes control and the student's confidence has been marred. By having them transfer their gaze TOWARDS the far end of the runway (not having them fixate on the fence 4000 feet away, Cat) this helps them to eliminate the pull up reflex. Hence, he student can now begin to get the feel of how to level off properly, what the correct level off and then flare attitudes look like, and how to hold the plane off and then gently set down it down when it's ready to land.

Oh, another thing one of the reasons so many pilots land Cessna trainers on the nose wheel is they try and look straight ahead and will not raise the nose to the proper touch down attitude because they will lose sight of the far end of the runway.

Cat

Curious, Cat, but how does this point make any sense when you are saying that they should be looking even lower down than the end of the runway? Clarify please.

Thirdly, I happen to agree with you, Cat, that the ideal place to be looking would be somewhere around 500' to 1000' ahead of the aircraft. "Transfer your gaze towards the end of the runway" is a general phrase used to get their eyes away from the ground directly in front of the plane. Granted, some instructors may not understand this, but such is life.

There is more to landing an aircraft that what flaperons thinks is the correct method...

Here is his opinion from an earlier post.

---------------------------------------------------

"Based on your non-stop whining about how it's wrong to transfer your gaze towards the far end of the runway as you approach the flare, I'm going to guess that's what you're looking for. Can't say that I agree with you, though. "

------------------------------------------------------------

Therein lies one of the problems as far as judging height goes.

Again, you're not making sense, Cat. That is not a quote of me telling you how to land a plane. And your question to me was not "How do you land a plane?" You asked me what I thought the number one reason people landed flat was, and I responded sarcastically because I don't like your tone of print. But based on your last post, it seems that the number one problem you've encountered is actually incorrect flare attitude, which, if you look back to my original response, is what I was actually offering as my answer.

Thing is, I haven't come across this consistent problem you're talking about. Sure, I've seen some bad landings in my time (and it usually comes down to attitude), but not to the extent that you're going on about. Maybe it's something to do with how you all teach out west.

See? You should have been able to understand that, but you're just too stubborn and lofty. What you were looking for was an incorrect answer so you could latch onto it and shoot me down. This is, again, why I railed against you in the first place. Sorry, old man, but you can be a real assh*le sometimes.

Finally: Someone earlier posted that often pilots are lazy, especially licensed private owners. I can agree with that. Quite often students give up their nose before they're actually done. Just like they give up their x-wind inputs once they're on the ground. But this has pretty much nothing to do with where they're looking. It has to do with bad airmanship, or you could say, a bad attitude. See? It's attitudes again, Cat!

My experience and knowledge is reflected in my posts. You'll see it or not, it doesn't concern me. But don't you ever tell me, or any others on this board, that you know it all. Quite simply, you don't. And don't get the young guys thinking that they can get their students safely soloed in 5 hours, because they can't.

I love you.

Cat Driver · Post by **Cat Driver** » Thu Feb 17, 2005 8:32 pm

O.K. flapperons this conversation has gone on long enough, as we are getting nowhere.

I read your previous posts since you started posting here and you really should not preach attitude to me or anyone else here....

This your first post here on Sept 25/04...

I'm sure someone's going to try to argue this, but they're wrong. For all you low-time instructors out there -- trust me.

Anyone who disagrees -- go f*ck yourself.
_________________
It's better to keep your mouth shut and let everyone think you're a fool, than to open it and prove them right.

Back to top

And just now this is another example of your attitude.

Sorry, old man, but you can be a real assh*le sometimes.

Referring to me as "Old man " shows your lack of respect for others.

I may be old in your mind, but I still fly for a living and still compete at the top end of the industry.

And finally this:

And don't get the young guys thinking that they can get their students safely soloed in 5 hours, because they can't.

At no time did I ever mention how many hours a student should be soloed at.

Cat

Flaperons · Post by **Flaperons** » Thu Feb 17, 2005 9:05 pm

Okay, then.

I guess we're done.

P.S. Read the entire first post of mine so you can see it in context.

P.P.S. Nice avoidance.

Cat Driver · Post by **Cat Driver** » Thu Feb 17, 2005 9:26 pm

When I discuss flying with my colleauges I prefeer to chose whom I debate, please read this statement you wrote and God forbid you have parents who may some day get old.

This was completely uncalled for :

" And back to your "serious question": What's your answer, assh*le? What's your big number one reason for flat landings? Let us know so I can shoot you down, f*cker. I'll even wait for you to go change your depends first. "

Yes I will avoid you, not because I am unable to debate flying but because you have demonstrated you are immature and have no respect for anyone.

I would hope that all the young instructors here read your posts and realize that with an attitude like that it will pretty well guarantee that it will be difficult to get out of the minor leagues.

By the way I at least have the integrity to use my real name.

. . ........Cat

Right Seat Captain · Post by **Right Seat Captain** » Thu Feb 17, 2005 9:35 pm

Flaperons can't use his real name now. He knows with his wonderful attitude displayed on here he'd never get a job when the employer saw his resume on his desk.

And Flaperons, quite frankly, I really hope you don't instruct, or fly in any multi-crew aircraft. I pitty the poor fellow having to put up with your childishness.

shitdisturber · Post by **shitdisturber** » Thu Feb 17, 2005 10:54 pm

Flaperons wrote: I love you.

I thought that was rather touching myself.

Flaperons · Post by **Flaperons** » Fri Feb 18, 2005 12:32 am

Out of the minors for quite a while now, thank you.

I find it interesting how you still managed to avoid my point, though.

God bless us, everyone.