Search results

Another RNAV approach. You would think they would get their act together after what happened in OKC.

The fact that regulations are "administrative rules" and who may or may not act as PIC has absolutely nothing to do with the topic. Can't admit you made an easily disproven false statement.

I understand them perfectly. Let's review: The FAA sure uses the term an awful lot. I am not the one that backed myself into a corner trying to explain how the FAA requires something that doesn't exist. Someone is confused and it's not me.

Ask what? I do not have any questions. Your cognitive dissonance is not a reason for me to write to the CC.

No, you didn't, because it clearly uses the term "solo training", which you said does not exist. I did not say solo could "be logged as flight training." Don't strawman the argument in an attempt to look right when you're not. 61.109(a) requires "10 hours of solo flight training." You say solo...

Did you even bother to read what you copied and pasted? Where is my $500? I didn't say anything about endorsements. Try reading the subparagraphs I cited, instead of quoting different ones and telling me it's not there. That's not how this works. What are you even talking about? Why would I...

What is item 4?

61.89(5) 61.109(a) 61.109(b) 61.109(c) 61.109(d) 61.109(e) 61.109(i) 61.109(j) 61.313(a)(1) 61.313(b)(1) 61.313(c)(1) 61.313(d)(1) 61.313(g)(1) 61.313(h)(1) 141 Appendix A 4. a. 141 Appendix A 5. 141 Appendix B 5. 141 Appendix B 5. a. 141 Appendix B 5. c. 141 Appendix B 5. d. 141 Appendix B 5...

The opposite of minimum floating is excessive floating. Not being able to touchdown within 200 feet of a specified point would seem to qualify as excessive floating, making the requirement of "minimum floating" redundant. If that's not what they mean, then the term is subjective and should be...

If Windows wasn't such a hacker's paradise maybe it would not need add-on security software.

Why do you expect us to waste our time trying to read your functionally illiterate rants?

VFR weather. He must have never had a CFI cover his instruments. Unfortunately, some believe such an exercise to be useless. @Salty

As the caption states, that is a diagram whose purpose is to illustrate a stabilized approach, not a landing flare. You are over-analyzing and experts arguing with each other in this thread isn't going to help you. Go practice it. The ACS does not care about the relationship between your aiming...

He has a lot of mixed up ideas about things. In this thread he insisted there is no such thing as "solo flight training." I asked why the FARs (Part 61 and 141) use the phrase "solo flight training" dozens of times. Never answered.

Where did she say she was expected to master steep turns prior to first solo?

"Stabilized approach" has two words: stabilized and approach. What happens after the obstacle is cleared, below 50 feet, is generally considered to be part of the landing, not the approach. The "stabilized approach" the FAA is referring to is what happens before the obstacle, not after (see post...

Going to idle while pitching up as the obstacle is cleared is a good way to slam the airplane into the ground, though flying an approach in a C172 at 61 knots 400-500 pounds below maximum gross weight, as you typically would in a training environment, could give one the misleading impression...

No, don't do that. There is no provision in the ACS for that. And you're not going to wear out the brakes from practicing short field landings. Five years worth of teaching student pilots and I never needed new brakes before I sold the plane.

You have consistently come here and asked questions only to disagree with all of the answers. So why are you asking if you think you know the answer already and won't listen to what anyone else has to say?

My opinion is you should see a doctor about your dementia.