-----Original Message-----
From: Paul S <wypaul2001@...>
To: Q-LIST <Q-LIST@...>
Sent: Sun, Oct 9, 2011 12:14 pm
Subject: [Q-LIST] Re: We can do better!++




I think that is a great idea Lynn, one problem with the AC's is that they are very broad and long.
Paul

--- In Q-LIST@..., "L.J. French" <LJFrench@...> wrote:

Paul - this has been updated since I saw it years ago. There is some good and relevant info in here. I like the flow chart. Maybe something that could be customized for our Quickies.

LJ

Short & simple from my mobile

On Oct 9, 2011, at 11:32 AM, "Paul S" <wypaul2001@...> wrote:

I have added a folder (Flight Testing Files) and file to the files section which contains FAA AC 90-109
(http://f1.grp.yahoofs.com/v1/AMWRTiCRAtejlJjiuSRlil8rm697zu1TV_j_NumXx6xaigyepRjkwtMwaOXlWMm3FQMTA3uzf9OQgaF5wqL50Yk9lYWIbk91/Flight%20Testing%20Files/AC90-109.pdf

I had hoped that there would be an option to allow others to add files to the folder as is possible with photos but it does not appear to be the case. So if anyone would like to add files to this folder contact me with a link and I will be happy to add them.

It will be a while before we have more details as to what caused the crash and with that said, landing/crashing short of the runway is usually caused by mechanical/fuel issues. One issue that is unique to plastic airplanes is the fuel filter being clogged by glass particles from the tank. No matter how clean you think the tank is, there will likely be enough material loosen up during flight testing to plug up the fuel filters (you do have more than one I hope). I recommend changing the fuel filters after the first flight and every 3 hrs for the first ten hours for a total of four times in the first ten hours of testing. This may be excessive but it is darn cheap insurance IMHO.

Paul

--- In Q-LIST@..., "jcrain2@" <jcrain2@> wrote:

That is a great question Jim! I think the 6000' runway plus flying up over the airport and staying there until all of the slow flight characteristics are mastered is a must along with all of the things Lynn posted. We still don't know what happened to Jerry's flight so until that bit of info comes out we won't know what we can do to take that out of the equation.Hey can I be your friend Jerry Marstall? Doh, wait already am!Bruce

---------- Original Message ----------
From: "L.J. French" <LJFrench@>
To: "Q-LIST@..." <Q-LIST@...>
Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] We can do better!++
Date: Sun, 9 Oct 2011 05:02:24 -0500


Jim,
Good question. When I get my normal PC going again I am going to forward the agenda that i used for my first few flights Since the beginning of time, the first flight landings have always been the most problematic. So my focus was to do enough airwork to setup a good landing. Things like knowing your aircrafts slow speed characteristics, pitch-buck tendencies, trim setup, aircraft setup that establishes the proper descent rate, etc. My first flight agenda called for a minimum of three simulated approaches before final landing. More if that's what was needed to get approach and round out right. The caveat here is that on first flights, the engine cooling / performance may not allow you to do as much airwork / landing setup as you would like.
Not saying my approach to all of this is the right way, but is simply one persons methodology.

Regards,
LJ French

Short & simple from my mobile

On Oct 8, 2011, at 8:24 PM, JMasal@ wrote:

When testing a new plane/pilot combination should you be focusing on the landing phase or touch and go's
or should you be doing your basic airwork???

j.



-----Original Message-----
From: jcrain2 <jcrain2@>
To: Q-LIST <Q-LIST@...>
Sent: Sat, Oct 8, 2011 7:00 pm
Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] We can do better!




Since we don't know what happened yet to Jerry's flight it would be interesting to know if it was actually pilot error or something came loose in flight or engine out. Jerry had already landed several times with some amount of success.
One of the points I want to make in the test flights at first is this....you need at least a 6000' runway (longer would be better). With that length you could have an engine out and still make the runway. Unless you are trying to fly a long downwind and "drag her in" to give you time to set up. My attitude is the Q should be set up every flight for an emergency landing "spiral down" from the "Perch". We won't know for awhile what happened to Jerry Brinkerhoff but Jerry Marstall's advice comes from lots of military experience and I have called him for advice when I needed help.
My 2 cents worth
Bruce Crain

__________________________________________________________
Penny Stock Jumping 3000%
Sign up to the #1 voted penny stock newsletter for free today!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/4e90e40a368238d0715st05vuc






[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



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

Quickie Builders Association WEB site
http://www.quickiebuilders.org

Yahoo! Groups Links

__________________________________________________________
Penny Stock Jumping 3000%
Sign up to the #1 voted penny stock newsletter for free today!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/4e919f73adf698f0c17st05vuc

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

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

Quickie Builders Association WEB site
http://www.quickiebuilders.org

Yahoo! Groups Links

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

-----Original Message-----
From: Paul S <wypaul2001@...>
To: Q-LIST <Q-LIST@...>
Sent: Sun, Oct 9, 2011 7:04 pm
Subject: [Q-LIST] Re: We can do better!++Paul




Jim I was not able to find specific statistics on accidents of aircraft landing short. What I did find is here at the ACRO site which compiles statistic for the world.

http://www.baaa-acro.com/Statistiques%20diverses.htm

It certianly points to pilot error being the leading cause for accidents.

Paul

--- In Q-LIST@..., JMasal@... wrote:

Can you point me to any statistics which reveal that most short landings are due to fuel or mechanical issues? I need to change my thinking on this subject.

j.


-----Original Message-----
From: Paul S <wypaul2001@...>
To: Q-LIST <Q-LIST@...>
Sent: Sun, Oct 9, 2011 12:14 pm
Subject: [Q-LIST] Re: We can do better!++




I think that is a great idea Lynn, one problem with the AC's is that they are very broad and long.
Paul

--- In Q-LIST@..., "L.J. French" <LJFrench@> wrote:

Paul - this has been updated since I saw it years ago. There is some good and relevant info in here. I like the flow chart. Maybe something that could be customized for our Quickies.

LJ

Short & simple from my mobile

On Oct 9, 2011, at 11:32 AM, "Paul S" <wypaul2001@> wrote:

I have added a folder (Flight Testing Files) and file to the files section which contains FAA AC 90-109
(http://f1.grp.yahoofs.com/v1/AMWRTiCRAtejlJjiuSRlil8rm697zu1TV_j_NumXx6xaigyepRjkwtMwaOXlWMm3FQMTA3uzf9OQgaF5wqL50Yk9lYWIbk91/Flight%20Testing%20Files/AC90-109.pdf

I had hoped that there would be an option to allow others to add files to the folder as is possible with photos but it does not appear to be the case. So if anyone would like to add files to this folder contact me with a link and I will be happy to add them.

It will be a while before we have more details as to what caused the crash and with that said, landing/crashing short of the runway is usually caused by mechanical/fuel issues. One issue that is unique to plastic airplanes is the fuel filter being clogged by glass particles from the tank. No matter how clean you think the tank is, there will likely be enough material loosen up during flight testing to plug up the fuel filters (you do have more than one I hope). I recommend changing the fuel filters after the first flight and every 3 hrs for the first ten hours for a total of four times in the first ten hours of testing. This may be excessive but it is darn cheap insurance IMHO.

Paul

--- In Q-LIST@..., "jcrain2@" <jcrain2@> wrote:

That is a great question Jim! I think the 6000' runway plus flying up over the airport and staying there until all of the slow flight characteristics are mastered is a must along with all of the things Lynn posted. We still don't know what happened to Jerry's flight so until that bit of info comes out we won't know what we can do to take that out of the equation.Hey can I be your friend Jerry Marstall? Doh, wait already am!Bruce

---------- Original Message ----------
From: "L.J. French" <LJFrench@>
To: "Q-LIST@..." <Q-LIST@...>
Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] We can do better!++
Date: Sun, 9 Oct 2011 05:02:24 -0500


Jim,
Good question. When I get my normal PC going again I am going to forward the agenda that i used for my first few flights Since the beginning of time, the first flight landings have always been the most problematic. So my focus was to do enough airwork to setup a good landing. Things like knowing your aircrafts slow speed characteristics, pitch-buck tendencies, trim setup, aircraft setup that establishes the proper descent rate, etc. My first flight agenda called for a minimum of three simulated approaches before final landing. More if that's what was needed to get approach and round out right. The caveat here is that on first flights, the engine cooling / performance may not allow you to do as much airwork / landing setup as you would like.
Not saying my approach to all of this is the right way, but is simply one persons methodology.

Regards,
LJ French

Short & simple from my mobile

On Oct 8, 2011, at 8:24 PM, JMasal@ wrote:

When testing a new plane/pilot combination should you be focusing on the landing phase or touch and go's
or should you be doing your basic airwork???

j.



-----Original Message-----
From: jcrain2 <jcrain2@>
To: Q-LIST <Q-LIST@...>
Sent: Sat, Oct 8, 2011 7:00 pm
Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] We can do better!




Since we don't know what happened yet to Jerry's flight it would be interesting to know if it was actually pilot error or something came loose in flight or engine out. Jerry had already landed several times with some amount of success.
One of the points I want to make in the test flights at first is this....you need at least a 6000' runway (longer would be better). With that length you could have an engine out and still make the runway. Unless you are trying to fly a long downwind and "drag her in" to give you time to set up. My attitude is the Q should be set up every flight for an emergency landing "spiral down" from the "Perch". We won't know for awhile what happened to Jerry Brinkerhoff but Jerry Marstall's advice comes from lots of military experience and I have called him for advice when I needed help.
My 2 cents worth
Bruce Crain

__________________________________________________________
Penny Stock Jumping 3000%
Sign up to the #1 voted penny stock newsletter for free today!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/4e90e40a368238d0715st05vuc






[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



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

Quickie Builders Association WEB site
http://www.quickiebuilders.org

Yahoo! Groups Links

__________________________________________________________
Penny Stock Jumping 3000%
Sign up to the #1 voted penny stock newsletter for free today!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/4e919f73adf698f0c17st05vuc

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

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

Quickie Builders Association WEB site
http://www.quickiebuilders.org

Yahoo! Groups Links

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

-----Original Message-----
From: Paul S <wypaul2001@...>
To: Q-LIST <Q-LIST@...>
Sent: Mon, Oct 10, 2011 5:49 am
Subject: [Q-LIST] Re: We can do better!++Paul




Ok Jim here are some facts that support my case. These were obtained from the NTSB by doing a search on that database using the search criteria "landing short".

Of the 13 listed accidents 10 were listed as mechanical failure, 2 can be attributed to pilot error and one runway conditions on a private airstrip which I will give you as pilot error. This works out to 76.92% of these accidents were caused by mechanical/fuel issues.
I realise that this one search is not the gospel but these are the facts for this search.

Here is a link to the results of the search if you care to check for yourself.

http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/index.aspx

--- In Q-LIST@..., JMasal@... wrote:

Can you point me to any statistics which reveal that most short landings are due to fuel or mechanical issues? I need to change my thinking on this subject.

j.


-----Original Message-----
From: Paul S <wypaul2001@...>
To: Q-LIST <Q-LIST@...>
Sent: Sun, Oct 9, 2011 12:14 pm
Subject: [Q-LIST] Re: We can do better!++




I think that is a great idea Lynn, one problem with the AC's is that they are very broad and long.
Paul

--- In Q-LIST@..., "L.J. French" <LJFrench@> wrote:

Paul - this has been updated since I saw it years ago. There is some good and relevant info in here. I like the flow chart. Maybe something that could be customized for our Quickies.

LJ

Short & simple from my mobile

On Oct 9, 2011, at 11:32 AM, "Paul S" <wypaul2001@> wrote:

I have added a folder (Flight Testing Files) and file to the files section which contains FAA AC 90-109
(http://f1.grp.yahoofs.com/v1/AMWRTiCRAtejlJjiuSRlil8rm697zu1TV_j_NumXx6xaigyepRjkwtMwaOXlWMm3FQMTA3uzf9OQgaF5wqL50Yk9lYWIbk91/Flight%20Testing%20Files/AC90-109.pdf

I had hoped that there would be an option to allow others to add files to the folder as is possible with photos but it does not appear to be the case. So if anyone would like to add files to this folder contact me with a link and I will be happy to add them.

It will be a while before we have more details as to what caused the crash and with that said, landing/crashing short of the runway is usually caused by mechanical/fuel issues. One issue that is unique to plastic airplanes is the fuel filter being clogged by glass particles from the tank. No matter how clean you think the tank is, there will likely be enough material loosen up during flight testing to plug up the fuel filters (you do have more than one I hope). I recommend changing the fuel filters after the first flight and every 3 hrs for the first ten hours for a total of four times in the first ten hours of testing. This may be excessive but it is darn cheap insurance IMHO.

Paul

--- In Q-LIST@..., "jcrain2@" <jcrain2@> wrote:

That is a great question Jim! I think the 6000' runway plus flying up over the airport and staying there until all of the slow flight characteristics are mastered is a must along with all of the things Lynn posted. We still don't know what happened to Jerry's flight so until that bit of info comes out we won't know what we can do to take that out of the equation.Hey can I be your friend Jerry Marstall? Doh, wait already am!Bruce

---------- Original Message ----------
From: "L.J. French" <LJFrench@>
To: "Q-LIST@..." <Q-LIST@...>
Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] We can do better!++
Date: Sun, 9 Oct 2011 05:02:24 -0500


Jim,
Good question. When I get my normal PC going again I am going to forward the agenda that i used for my first few flights Since the beginning of time, the first flight landings have always been the most problematic. So my focus was to do enough airwork to setup a good landing. Things like knowing your aircrafts slow speed characteristics, pitch-buck tendencies, trim setup, aircraft setup that establishes the proper descent rate, etc. My first flight agenda called for a minimum of three simulated approaches before final landing. More if that's what was needed to get approach and round out right. The caveat here is that on first flights, the engine cooling / performance may not allow you to do as much airwork / landing setup as you would like.
Not saying my approach to all of this is the right way, but is simply one persons methodology.

Regards,
LJ French

Short & simple from my mobile

On Oct 8, 2011, at 8:24 PM, JMasal@ wrote:

When testing a new plane/pilot combination should you be focusing on the landing phase or touch and go's
or should you be doing your basic airwork???

j.



-----Original Message-----
From: jcrain2 <jcrain2@>
To: Q-LIST <Q-LIST@...>
Sent: Sat, Oct 8, 2011 7:00 pm
Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] We can do better!




Since we don't know what happened yet to Jerry's flight it would be interesting to know if it was actually pilot error or something came loose in flight or engine out. Jerry had already landed several times with some amount of success.
One of the points I want to make in the test flights at first is this....you need at least a 6000' runway (longer would be better). With that length you could have an engine out and still make the runway. Unless you are trying to fly a long downwind and "drag her in" to give you time to set up. My attitude is the Q should be set up every flight for an emergency landing "spiral down" from the "Perch". We won't know for awhile what happened to Jerry Brinkerhoff but Jerry Marstall's advice comes from lots of military experience and I have called him for advice when I needed help.
My 2 cents worth
Bruce Crain

__________________________________________________________
Penny Stock Jumping 3000%
Sign up to the #1 voted penny stock newsletter for free today!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/4e90e40a368238d0715st05vuc






[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



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

Quickie Builders Association WEB site
http://www.quickiebuilders.org

Yahoo! Groups Links

__________________________________________________________
Penny Stock Jumping 3000%
Sign up to the #1 voted penny stock newsletter for free today!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/4e919f73adf698f0c17st05vuc

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

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

Quickie Builders Association WEB site
http://www.quickiebuilders.org

Yahoo! Groups Links

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

On 10/11/2011 4:27 AM, Paul S wrote:

Well Jim I can't argue with you on your line of thinking.
Paul
--- In Q-LIST@... <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com>,
JMasal@... wrote:

Okey dokey, Paul, thanks for setting me straight. Sometimes I get

confused by real life. Here is how my thinking got haywire.We were all
trained in how to adjust our flight path to "make the airport" if we
had an engine out/mechanical/fuel emergency at pattern altitude or
higher in proximity to the airport. So I'm thinking that since we were
trained and practiced, landing short would be a judgement error.

Cases in point:
one day a Q guy and wife were coming to Livermore in a Cessna 150.

He ran out of fuel on short final, hit the overrun, bounced onto the
runway and had to be pushed off onto a taxiway by several guys. The
NTSB would call this landed short: fuel exhaustion. Since he passed up
an open gas station on his route and took a risk I would call this BAD
JUDGEMENT. This could easily have been a really bad accident... but
ehere is a God.

Another day a beautiful Q200 had a mechanical at altitude in close

proximity to an airport. The aircraft ended up in a pile, the
occupants in ICU. It is thought even by the pilot that he had plenty
of altitude to make the field, but he didnt. The NTSB would call this
landed short: mechanical. I would call this BAD JUDGEMENT.

I secretly think that other short landings, if investigated more

closely, would reveal bad judgement. But that's just me. So I hope you
will understand how real life has caused my confused statistical thinking.

And I hope you will not castigate me too harshly (I hate to be

castigated!!)

Jim


-----Original Message-----
From: Paul S <wypaul2001@...>
To: Q-LIST <Q-LIST@... <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com>>
Sent: Mon, Oct 10, 2011 5:49 am
Subject: [Q-LIST] Re: We can do better!++Paul




Ok Jim here are some facts that support my case. These were obtained

from the NTSB by doing a search on that database using the search
criteria "landing short".

Of the 13 listed accidents 10 were listed as mechanical failure, 2

can be attributed to pilot error and one runway conditions on a
private airstrip which I will give you as pilot error. This works out
to 76.92% of these accidents were caused by mechanical/fuel issues.

I realise that this one search is not the gospel but these are the

facts for this search.

Here is a link to the results of the search if you care to check for

yourself.

http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/index.aspx

--- In Q-LIST@... <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com>,

JMasal@ wrote:

Can you point me to any statistics which reveal that most short

landings are due to fuel or mechanical issues? I need to change my
thinking on this subject.

j.

On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 1:54 PM, Paul S <wypaul2001@...> wrote:

The truth of the matter is that it is all moot at this point and the sad
part is that the Q group is short another pilot.

While I was nosing around the NTSB I noticed that the fellow that bought
Jon Finley's plane crashed it shortly after purchasing it. I hope we find a
way to reach people buying our airplanes and help them make a safe
transition.

Paul

--- In Q-LIST@..., Mike Perry <dmperry1012@...> wrote:

To Paul and Jimmy:

Perhaps it is better to think in terms of "and" rather than "or"; in
other words, accidents happen when bad judgement intersects with

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

Quickie Builders Association WEB site
http://www.quickiebuilders.org

Yahoo! Groups Links

On Tue, 11 Oct 2011 14:44:02 -0700, Patrick Panzera wrote:

I was getting trained by Justin Mace in his Dragonfly. We were doing
circuits and I was pretty much nailing the approach, and doing so-so
on the
landings. The plane and pilot were reusable after each one anyhow.

He then declared me to be sufficiently trained to fly any Dragonfly.
But I
wasn't feeling it.

...so I asked him if I could solo in his, already knowing what the
answer
would be.

After a long pause, he said no.

So if you are giving lessons as proposed, and you feel your
"student" is
ready to fly his plane for the first time, just be sure you'd be
comfortable
with him taking your baby up solo before you give him the green
light on
his.

Pat

On 10/11/2011 6:32 PM, Patrick Panzera wrote:

On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 3:12 PM, jnmarstall <jnmarstall@...
<mailto:jnmarstall%40bellsouth.net>>wrote:

I don't see it as signing the dude off. He has to make the ultimate
decision. We are only there to assist in his familiarization and
understanding of what he is about to undertake.
Jerry

But he's making the decision based on your assessment of his skills.
If you
aren't willing to have him fly YOUR plane, then maybe you shouldn't
tell him
he's good to go in his. If he's good enough for your plane, and he
bites it
in his, you might be able to sleep at night. If you question his
ability to
return your plane to you unscathed, and he crashes his and dies, would you
be okay with that?

When I was getting my taildragger endorsement, the instructor was ready to
sign me off, but I asked him to do another 10 circuits with me, all wheel
landings. I did this before I ever took up Justin's time. Maybe that
should
be phase one of transition training? Maybe at a minimum, we should fly
with
the student in a conventional taildragger?

Pat

On 10/11/2011 6:45 PM, Patrick Panzera wrote:

On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 3:38 PM, jnmarstall <jnmarstall@...
<mailto:jnmarstall%40bellsouth.net>>wrote:

The Q-Flight counselor is just that - a counselor. He is not an
instructor, nor should he present himself as such. the Q-flight
counselor is not there to teach him to fly. Again, his mission is as I
said before - to assist in the familiarization and understanding of what
he is about to undertake. Nothing more.

He can get that by reading the newsletters.

On 10/11/2011 8:01 PM, Patrick Panzera wrote:

On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 4:47 PM, jnmarstall <jnmarstall@...
<mailto:jnmarstall%40bellsouth.net>>wrote:

Ok, I guess you are not interested.

I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion.
I'm very much interested in seeing pilots new to tandem-wing aircraft
having
successful flights, through a community effort. just as what's being
proposed.

I just feel (as someone who's been through it) that it needs to be
more than
what they can get by reading the newsletters. To me, that just sounds like
a band-aid as opposed to a cure.

Jerry
On 10/11/2011 6:45 PM, Patrick Panzera wrote:

On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 3:38 PM, jnmarstall

<jnmarstall@... <mailto:jnmarstall%40bellsouth.net>

<mailto:jnmarstall%40bellsouth.net>>wrote:

The Q-Flight counselor is just that - a counselor. He is not an
instructor, nor should he present himself as such. the Q-flight
counselor is not there to teach him to fly. Again, his mission

is as I

said before - to assist in the familiarization and understanding of

what

he is about to undertake. Nothing more.

He can get that by reading the newsletters.

On Oct 11, 2011, at 5:12 PM, jnmarstall <jnmarstall@...> wrote:

I don't see it as signing the dude off. He has to make the ultimate
decision. We are only there to assist in his familiarization and
understanding of what he is about to undertake.
Jerry

On 10/11/2011 5:57 PM, dan@... wrote:

Pat,
This is a great point. "Is he REALLY ready?" There's lots to think
about here, and lots of thought needs to be put into how to facilitate
this kind of training, and maybe even cultivate a new crop of trainers!

Thanks,
Dan Yager
QBA Editor
www.quickheads.com

On Tue, 11 Oct 2011 14:44:02 -0700, Patrick Panzera wrote:

I was getting trained by Justin Mace in his Dragonfly. We were doing
circuits and I was pretty much nailing the approach, and doing so-so
on the
landings. The plane and pilot were reusable after each one anyhow.

He then declared me to be sufficiently trained to fly any Dragonfly.
But I
wasn't feeling it.

...so I asked him if I could solo in his, already knowing what the
answer
would be.

After a long pause, he said no.

So if you are giving lessons as proposed, and you feel your
"student" is
ready to fly his plane for the first time, just be sure you'd be
comfortable
with him taking your baby up solo before you give him the green
light on
his.

Pat

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



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

Quickie Builders Association WEB site
http://www.quickiebuilders.org

Yahoo! Groups Links

---------- Original Message ----------
From: "L.J. French" <LJFrench@...>
To: "Q-LIST@..." <Q-LIST@...>
Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] Re: We can do better!++Paul
Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2011 23:07:00 -0500


Agreed Jerry.
Besides, just in case something did happen there would be no insurance so make sure your pockets are already empty.
LJ French

Short & simple from my mobile

On Oct 11, 2011, at 5:12 PM, jnmarstall <jnmarstall@...> wrote:

> I don't see it as signing the dude off. He has to make the ultimate
> decision. We are only there to assist in his familiarization and
> understanding of what he is about to undertake.
> Jerry
>
> On 10/11/2011 5:57 PM, dan@... wrote:
>>
>> Pat,
>> This is a great point. "Is he REALLY ready?" There's lots to think
>> about here, and lots of thought needs to be put into how to facilitate
>> this kind of training, and maybe even cultivate a new crop of trainers!
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Dan Yager
>> QBA Editor
>> www.quickheads.com
>>
>> On Tue, 11 Oct 2011 14:44:02 -0700, Patrick Panzera wrote:
>>> I was getting trained by Justin Mace in his Dragonfly. We were doing
>>> circuits and I was pretty much nailing the approach, and doing so-so
>>> on the
>>> landings. The plane and pilot were reusable after each one anyhow.
>>>
>>> He then declared me to be sufficiently trained to fly any Dragonfly.
>>> But I
>>> wasn't feeling it.
>>>
>>> ...so I asked him if I could solo in his, already knowing what the
>>> answer
>>> would be.
>>>
>>> After a long pause, he said no.
>>>
>>> So if you are giving lessons as proposed, and you feel your
>>> "student" is
>>> ready to fly his plane for the first time, just be sure you'd be
>>> comfortable
>>> with him taking your baby up solo before you give him the green
>>> light on
>>> his.
>>>
>>> Pat
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Quickie Builders Association WEB site
> http://www.quickiebuilders.org
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

____________________________________________________________
#1 Stock Pick: EMBA
#1 Cloud-based Tech Stock to own. Get in early now. Read more today
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/4e957eb1b1e006418f0st03vuc