Jackk Posted December 31, 2025 Report Posted December 31, 2025 1 hour ago, Aaviationist said: It must be very frustrating when someone proves you wrong with facts, information, and regulations then you double down on your incorrect thinking rather than admit defeat. you can get a ppl with an iq below 80. Yeah, you didn’t, like how you said you made a guy with a 80 IQ a CFI 2 hours ago, redbaron1982 said: You check all the boxes of a person that has all the hazardous attitudes and lack of ADM / CRM understanding. uhh, right, sooo care to elaborate on this theory of yours? Because there is a much better way of doing something and I’m not going to agree that doing something a worse way is better?
LANCECASPER Posted December 31, 2025 Report Posted December 31, 2025 Sorry to bring this one up again, but . . . It’s much more enjoyable to ignore*, then sit on the sidelines and once in a while look in to see the pig wrestling with itself. * To ignore someone bothersome on here is very easy to do. Hover your mouse or trackpad over the user’s name and a pop-up will give you that option. 2 1
midlifeflyer Posted December 31, 2025 Report Posted December 31, 2025 4 hours ago, Jackk said: Where did I say I was infallible? I didn’t. I don’t think I have met a single person in my life in any endeavor who insisted they were right and everyone else wrong on a matter of pure technique or opinion who would admit to feeling infallible. After all, that’s a bad thing, so it couldn’t possibly apply to them.
Aaviationist Posted December 31, 2025 Report Posted December 31, 2025 And there he is! “Can’t read Jackk”!. He will tell you all the reasons you’re wrong but can’t be bothered to read anything that doesn’t support his incorrect logic and alternative facts. you sir, are worse than my 5 year old nephew
Jackk Posted December 31, 2025 Report Posted December 31, 2025 2 hours ago, midlifeflyer said: I don’t think I have met a single person in my life in any endeavor who insisted they were right and everyone else wrong on a matter of pure technique or opinion who would admit to feeling infallible. After all, that’s a bad thing, so it couldn’t possibly apply to them. Sooo where was I wrong
midlifeflyer Posted January 1 Report Posted January 1 41 minutes ago, Jackk said: Sooo where was I wrong And there you go. Happy New Year. 1
Aaviationist Posted January 1 Report Posted January 1 12 minutes ago, midlifeflyer said: And there you go. Happy New Year. Classic can’t read jackk.
redbaron1982 Posted January 1 Author Report Posted January 1 1 hour ago, Jackk said: Sooo where was I wrong Nowhere. You're perfect and we are glad to have you here helping all of us. Our own DanG here in Mooneyspace. 2 4
Jackk Posted January 1 Report Posted January 1 36 minutes ago, redbaron1982 said: Nowhere. You're perfect and we are glad to have you here helping all of us. Our own DanG here in Mooneyspace. What are you on? So you have nothing? Gotcha The Gryder thing is also telling too, often the hobby pilots don’t like him because other hobby pilots don’t like him and can’t articulate their position. Damn shame the lack of independent thought these days, almost as bad as how sensitive and useless many have become
jamesyql Posted January 1 Report Posted January 1 Happy new year everyone. Turn off your devices. Go grab a glass of champagne and spend time with friends and family. That’s what I’m about to do. 5
dkkim73 Posted January 1 Report Posted January 1 12 minutes ago, jamesyql said: Happy new year everyone. Turn off your devices. Go grab a glass of champagne and spend time with friends and family. That’s what I’m about to do. Amen, brother! Good to meet you last summer, happy new year to you and your wife! 2
Pinecone Posted January 2 Report Posted January 2 On 12/25/2025 at 7:13 AM, midlifeflyer said: I’m not sure why you want to drill down. Is it that really that hard to accept that pilots use multiple techniques that work? Or are you like the CFII I encountered years ago who led me to come up with my First Commandment of Flight Instruction before I ever became a CFI? “Thou shalt not try to force a change in a pilot technique that works just because you happen to like another one better.” In the USAF it was Technique versus Procedure. Procedures were things that must be done that way. Like putting down the gear before turning base. Technique was those things that had many ways of doing them, with the choice being up to the pilot. An instructor my show you a different technique, but you were free to do it that way or another way.
hazek Posted January 2 Report Posted January 2 1 hour ago, Pinecone said: Technique was those things that had many ways of doing them, with the choice being up to the pilot. An instructor my show you a different technique, but you were free to do it that way or another way. I know you must have flown heavy, mean iron back in the day and have tons of experience, so who am I to question it, right? But this mindset frustrates me most in aviation: no universal, evidence-based prescription for the best technique. Instead, pilots wing it poorly and pass that on as “style.” Why do we tolerate every pilot playing artist with unproven flair, ignoring safety data? Only legends like Bob Hoover earned that through public demos of mastery. Where’s the authority for the rest? Just a license? A certain number of hours? Shouldn’t we do better? Shouldn’t we demand objective optimality: one proven technique per maneuver, via aerodynamics, NTSB/ICAO data, and human factors. Take landings for example, arguably the most critical maneuver: Why do we rely on vague “feel” when the Jacobson Flare offers a math-based geometric framework to pinpoint exact flare height for any aircraft? It’s quantifiable, consistent, and tolerant of variables, yet three years ago during my training, it wasn’t even mentioned, instead I was stuck with subjective methods that lead to inconsistency and had to find it myself. This ego-driven pride in suboptimal “craft” baffles me. Where’s the humility to seek better, data-proven paths? Aviation’s unforgiving nature calls for relentless optimization, not complacency in personal flair. We should stop confusing personal skill and technique. Personal skill of flying a technique is indeed individual, but physics and human factors dictate one optimal technique for safe, efficient flight. Let’s stop the confusion between the two!
Schllc Posted January 2 Report Posted January 2 24 minutes ago, hazek said: Personal skill of flying a technique is indeed individual, but physics and human factors dictate one optimal technique for safe, efficient flight. Let’s stop the confusion between the two! I don’t necessarily disagree with the core of your position, however this perspective, as stated, is awfully reductive and myopic. I don’t think physics and “feel” are mutually exclusive. Feel or style, or technique are not always merely preferences, they are usually a product of experience and practice. It’s somewhat analogous to flying a standard pattern. At times, this is described as the “correct method”. But how do I apply this when I am never really allowed to “fly the pattern”. My point is not to really challenge your assertion that physics and the math do not rule the day, ultimately they always do. What I mean is that you cannot really have one without the other when the permutations are so numerous. it is absolutely critical that one understand the physical axioms that we live by, but this does not mean that a more interpretive expression of those means they are being ignored. 3
Hank Posted January 2 Report Posted January 2 3 hours ago, hazek said: Why do we tolerate every pilot playing artist with unproven flair, ignoring safety data? ... Shouldn’t we demand objective optimality: one proven technique per maneuver, via aerodynamics, NTSB/ICAO data, and human factors. Take landings for example, arguably the most critical maneuver: Why do we rely on vague “feel” when the Jacobson Flare offers a math-based geometric framework to pinpoint exact flare height for any aircraft? ... Where’s the humility to seek better, data-proven paths? There is no one simple formula for making a great landing. ("There are three simple steps to a great landing. But nobody knows what they are!") For instance, there's a huge difference in power needed when landing into a 10 knot headwind, coming back from vacation with my wife, luggage and 15 gallons of fuel, compared to landing in calm wind, solo and nearly full tanks. How about the gusting 20+ knot crosswinds that I had at Thanksgiving, on a 30' wide runway? I'd done that before on a 200' wide runway, no comparison. Airspeed on final approach varies with aircraft weight, and any gust factor with the wind. Power and trim position vary with with aircraft weight, wind speed and direction, and Downwind to base turn position can be held fairly constant, but that makes power, speed and trim position vary more. Landing in strong crosswinds on a 10,000 x 200 runway, I can go easy, hold off if needed, land long, turn 10° into the wind and land across the runway, and who cares if I use 2000' or more of runway setting it all up. Now do the same winds on a 2770 x 30 runway, it all works differently, the same power settings and trim positions will not work for both, they must be optimized for this landing right now, at this weight, with this wind. And for the latter, i flew a 2-mile final to give me time to figure things out, rather than the standard one half mile . . . . 2 1
midlifeflyer Posted January 3 Report Posted January 3 5 hours ago, Pinecone said: In the USAF it was Technique versus Procedure. Procedures were things that must be done that way. Like putting down the gear before turning base. Technique was those things that had many ways of doing them, with the choice being up to the pilot. An instructor my show you a different technique, but you were free to do it that way or another way. It’s that way in civilian GA as well, although some don’t recognize the distinction and think their technique is procedure. 2
PT20J Posted January 3 Report Posted January 3 1 hour ago, Schllc said: I would add that all of this must happen by “feel”… So how does autoland work? Do computers “feel”? 1
Schllc Posted January 3 Report Posted January 3 1 minute ago, PT20J said: So how does autoland work? Do computers “feel”? No, they compute. what do believe that “feel” is?
Schllc Posted January 3 Report Posted January 3 8 minutes ago, PT20J said: So how does autoland work? Do computers “feel”? I understand your point though, I was referring to the adjustments we all make without thought to adjust for differences in weight or crosswind, or to speed up, slow down from atc etc. I am not advocating to fly instrument approaches by your gut. 1
Hank Posted January 3 Report Posted January 3 4 minutes ago, Schllc said: I understand your point though, I was referring to the adjustments we all make without thought to adjust for differences in weight or crosswind, or to speed up, slow down from atc etc. I am not advocating to fly instrument approaches by your gut. I move the primary.and secondary flight controls, and adjust power, as needed (based on my experience with my plane) to maintain the proper glideslope and my desired airspeed. Thencomputer does the same thing by making thousands of calculations and hundreds of adjustments per second. Biological systems just don't worknthat way . . . . Call it experience, call it muscle memory, call it feel, call it what you want, but no human pilot calculates the required change in throttle position and / or yoke movement in thousandth of an inch to maintain the desired descent angle in fractions of a degree.
hazek Posted January 3 Report Posted January 3 7 hours ago, Hank said: I move the primary.and secondary flight controls, and adjust power, as needed (based on my experience with my plane) to maintain the proper glideslope and my desired airspeed. Thencomputer does the same thing by making thousands of calculations and hundreds of adjustments per second. Biological systems just don't worknthat way . . . . Call it experience, call it muscle memory, call it feel, call it what you want, but no human pilot calculates the required change in throttle position and / or yoke movement in thousandth of an inch to maintain the desired descent angle in fractions of a degree. But you are describing personal skill, not technique. We can never have the skill to fly like a computer but we can utilize exactly the very same technique. The Jacobson flare is a perfect example of what I’m talking about. It uses trigonometry to provide you a visually easily identifiable moment when you are at the correct flare height. Anyone, human or a computer, can employ this technique to flare at the correct height, but for humans it will be down to personal skill how well they employ this technique. No one can make an argument that there is a better technique unless they can prove objectively with calculations and evidence that there is another technique that can more accurately more reliably provide this outcome. How is this so hard to grasp?
hazek Posted January 3 Report Posted January 3 Given that I’m not a native speaker I was worried I may be incorrectly using these words, but I have confirmed I’m not. From the dictionary: Personal skill (via “skill”): Individual ability to apply knowledge effectively in performance, dexterity in tasks, or learned competence/apptitude. Vs. technique: Method or manner of executing details/movements, body of methods, or specific approach to an aim. Vs. procedure: Ordered series of steps, particular/traditional way of acting, or a step therein. Key distinctions: Skill emphasizes personal proficiency; technique, the execution methods; procedure, the structured sequences. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/skill https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/technique https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/procedure
Hank Posted January 3 Report Posted January 3 I use skill to execute the techniques called for in the procedures. Here is my procedure for landing: Note the lack of specific checklist tasks. Yes, there is a Pre-Landing checklist (things like Mixture Rich, Carb Heat On, Reduce Airspeed to 120 mph, Gear Down, Prop Full Increase, Flaps as required, Trim as required, etc.), and a Post-Landing checklist (more fun stuff, Fuel Pump Off, Flaps Up, Throttle to 1000 RPM, etc.). All the stuff to actually put the plane on the ground is "as required," not a set list because every landing is different--different aircraft weight, different loading & CG, different winds, often different runway conditions unless you're doing pattern work, etc. No single set of steps will work every time, so steps are not given. Use your personal skills to execute the techniques called out in the procedure; my procedure is above, but I don't mechanically perform the same exact steps the same way every time, because it won't work every time. 2
hazek Posted January 3 Report Posted January 3 32 minutes ago, Hank said: All the stuff to actually put the plane on the ground is "as required," not a set list Yes, indeed: This is nearly useless for explaining the technique how to land. 34 minutes ago, Hank said: because every landing is different--different aircraft weight, different loading & CG, different winds, often different runway conditions unless you're doing pattern work, etc. No single set of steps will work every time, so steps are not given. Incorrect. The Jacobson flare method does this. I use my personal skill to execute that technique on every single landing and it has served me very well at my low 250TT.
Recommended Posts