X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2006 23:41:35 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from mxsf30.cluster1.charter.net ([209.225.28.230] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.1c.2) with ESMTP id 1239426 for lml@lancaironline.net; Sun, 16 Jul 2006 23:17:25 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=209.225.28.230; envelope-from=troneill@charter.net Received: from mxip03a.cluster1.charter.net (mxip03a.cluster1.charter.net [209.225.28.133]) by mxsf30.cluster1.charter.net (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id k6H3Geoj021690 for ; Sun, 16 Jul 2006 23:16:41 -0400 Received: from 68-184-229-22.dhcp.stls.mo.charter.com (HELO axs) ([68.184.229.22]) by mxip03a.cluster1.charter.net with SMTP; 16 Jul 2006 23:16:40 -0400 X-IronPort-AV: i="4.06,248,1149480000"; d="scan'208"; a="410682562:sNHT31865528" X-Original-Message-ID: <003901c6a94f$6c16ec70$6401a8c0@axs> From: "terrence o'neill" X-Original-To: "Lancair Mailing List" References: Subject: Re: [LML] Re: Hmmm X-Original-Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2006 22:16:37 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=response Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2905 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2869 Jack, Again we're just talking to what w eknow, and ignoring the problem of design improvement for safety. Serious lapses in checkrides don't kill people; and the reguilations of the BFR program were not justified by safety results ... accident records. If you just accept the viewpoint of those with vested interests, how can you get a clear picture olf the truth. Would youo even know what statistics to seek, and how to interpret them? You're just starting with unnecessary regulations after-the-fact. Terrence ----- Original Message ----- From: "Marvin Kaye" To: "Lancair Mailing List" Sent: Saturday, July 15, 2006 12:50 PM Subject: [LML] Re: Hmmm > > > Posted for J H Webb : > > Right on Jeff!!! I see serious lapses on checkrides as well and it is > not > the airplane's fault and I always make an effort to make them relax to try > to > eliminate checkitis. > Jack Webb > VTAILJEFF@aol.com wrote: > >> In a message dated 7/14/2006 12:31:36 PM Central Standard Time, >> marv@lancaironline.net writes: >> >> I think pilots are good enough already. >> >> Terrence, >> I give a lot of FAA checkrides. Last Friday a private pilot applicant I >> gave a checkride to got lost within 10 miles of his home field, right in >> the middle of the VFR practice area. He did not know how to dead reckon >> nor navigate via pilotage. His troubles began when I turned off the GPS. >> His young 300 hour CFI signed him off as proficient to pass the >> checkride-- but did not know how to teach and test navigation skills. The >> week before, a commercial pilot applicant was going to fly into >> convective activity because he thought I wanted him to maintain a >> centered CDI while on the cross country portion. When I pulled the engine >> back to simulate an engine out he immediately extended the landing gear. >> I have had multi engine applicants shut down the wrong engine and also >> attempt gear up landings. Good enough? I don't think so. The GA community >> can do better. >> Jeff > > -- > For archives and unsub http://mail.lancaironline.net/lists/lml/ >