Most of instrument approaches are based on 3 degrees slope. Not speed, not descent rate. Imagine b737 descending at 90kt or at 500fpm? To descend on 3 deg slope, simply multiply your ground speed by 5 and that will give you the descent rate. 95kt x 5 = 475fpm. For b737, 140kt x 5 = 700fpm will produce 3 deg approach.
When we teach this, we usually use some mental math to determine the power settings. 100RPM or 1"MP = 5kts or 100fpm. You're level at 2500RPM at 110kts, you want to slow to 90kts and descend at 500fpm. To drop from 110kts to 90kts, you reduce the power by 400RPM. To descend at 500fpm, you subtract another 500RPM. Therefor your descent power setting is approx. 1600RPM. Reduce the power, keep the nose level until 90kts, then lower the nose to maintain it. Adjust the RPM as required to fine-tune the rate. Pitch+Power = Performance!
Well…the glide path don’t care about airspeed. It’s ground speed that matters! In a 20knot headwind, you’ll need an extra 20 knots airspeed or at 90 knots, you’ll need to descend slower. So a cookbook setting will only work in 0 wind, uncommon in real IFR conditions.
Disguisting behaviour from a "teaching pilot" The way you handled yourself on Dans channel and as PIC during that flight is embarassing for any student you taught or acquittance you've made flying you should be ashamed Jason
I have done like this in the past but these days I use the conventional "pitch for airspeed, power for rate of descent". When making a precise descent I slow the aircraft by reducing power, pitch up as the aircraft slows to maintain height. At the target airspeed I apply power to fly level for a SHORT time at that speed then I trim for that speed. When trimmed I reduce power to achieve the desired rate of descent then fine trim the aircraft. Trim for speed, power for rate of descent (or climb) It is basicly the reverse when climbing but with full (or climb) power. With this technique the aircraft practically flys itself. I am a 70 year old, retired flight instructor, I have some 30 different aircraft types in by logbook including six light twin types and IFR qualifications. (No jet experience) Both ways will work and I used to do it your way, but these days I do it as above in my own aircraft ( a light single). PS: I like your videos.
Great Video as usual! It’s refreshing to hear an instructor teach pitch for descent/power for speed! That’s what auto pilot/auto throttle do. The quote I remember is “Power when Available and Variable controls Speed”. After Take Off and in Climb Power is Not Variable so Pitch controls Speed. In descent as you so aptly demonstrated Power controls Speed just like an auto throttle and pitch controls rate of descent just like an autopilot. My goal is to fly as smoothly as an autopilot!
Jason. So sad to see your hazardous attitude in full view during your interview with Dan Gryder. You would have been a class act to on some level acknowledge that you made a poor choice turning final in front of the cirrus…but instead to accepted nothing of the sort. Worse off, you showed lack of self control by trying to call out Dan for not being “out there” like you are some kind of instructor king or something. You made a poor choice in my opinion. Your comment about getting a tower clearance for traffic on 2 mile final and you take off without having visual on the traffic is also indicative of poor judgement. It is a strong safety practice duringVFR to check final before taking the runway. Let me guess….you accept runway crossing clearances without clearing left or right just because the controller tells you its ok to clear. You should have just put your tail between your legs and as a good instructor owned the fact that the decision to turn in front of traffic on final without seeing them was poor. Had you done that many of the viewers like myself would not be doing what I am doing now. Anyway, I have over 40 years of GA and Airline experience in all types of aircraft. Instructing, accident investigation, and much more….and I too was disappointed in your choice to turn final, but more disappointed in the hazardous attitude you displayed during your talk with Dan. Safe flying. Respectfully…mb
Mark, if you want a text book lesson in hazardous attitudes, look no further than Dan Gryders arrest rap sheet......Read up on Dan then get back to us on which of the two pilots is more disrespectful of aviation safety...
@@meburman Oh really?? Sorry, I just think it is a little hypocritical for Banjo Dan to be lecturing anybody about hazardous attitudes.. Maybe he should do a show on his aviation exploits that got him arrested.. Maybe he could acknowledge that he made poor choices... Doubtful...
Let me get this mid air convo and hatred straight. The cirrus pilot called straight in, traffic permitting. Instead of forcing the cirrus around, Jason did a power off 180, and landed 90 seconds ahead of the cirrus?
Q: What are TWO methods to use Pitch + Power = Performance on an ILS? Pitch for airspeed. Power for Altitude (VSI) o You are flying straight and level with Pitch ½ dot UP + Power 2150 (C172) o You hit your glide slope intercept, then you Power 1800 RPM and let your nose drop Pitch DOWN ½ dot for 90 KIAS. (known pitch + power = performance). o Pitch to maintain or adjust your airspeed (90 KIAS). o Power to maintain or adjust your VSI (500 FPM). o Pitch 90 KIAS, Power 500 FPM. o If you are flying your targeted airspeed of 90 KIAS, but your VSI is 600 FPM, then Power UP slightly to slow your sink rate to 500 FPM while still pitching for 90 KIAS. Make targeted changes. Allow a few seconds for the performance instruments (Airspeed, VSI) to catch up, then verify it is at your target of 90 KIAS and 500 FPM. Always make small targeted Pitch and Power changes until your AS and VSI is perfected. Pitch for Altitude (VSI), Power for Airspeed o You are flying straight and level with Pitch ½ dot UP + Power 2150 (C172) o You hit your glide slope intercept, then you Pitch DOWN ½ dot for 500 FPM while powering to 1800 RPM (known pitch + power = performance). o Pitch to maintain or adjust your VSI (500 FPM) o Power to maintain or adjust your airspeed. o Pitch for 500 FPM, Power for 90 KIAS o If you are flying your targeted airspeed of 90 KIAS, but your VSI is 600 FPM, then pitch UP slightly to slow your sink rate to 500 FPM while still powering for 90 KIAS. If you are too slow, then add a little power. If you are too fast then reduce a little power. Make targeted changes. Allow a few seconds for the performance instruments (VSI, Airspeed) to catch up, then verify it is at your target of 500 FPM and 90 KIAS. Always make small targeted Pitch and Power changes until your VSI and Airspeed is perfected. As always -Execute a missed approach if you are not on a stabilized approach (Constant Power, Constant Airspeed, Constant Rate of Descent), are off course, or you just don't feel comfortable.
In calm wind (ideal conditions) the power for climb/descend method makes sense, but in ‘real world’ with gusts and air currents your method makes more sense. Going on a limb here …. Your thoughts on use of GPS_ground_speed-Indicated for “our 90 kts” to factor-out air currents affecting ‘V_pitot’ Indicated airspeed? Of course, while monitoring V_pitot well above stall speed, obviously! Thinking that upwinds & downdrafts often work in pairs, so by maintaining ground speed with power, and NOT chasing the VS vertical speed with elevator, and jerking the a/c up and down, more like smoothing out the challenges of air movements/gusts/thermals.
Nicely done Jason, I like teaching the concepts of the glide path angle vs ground speed. Saying that an ILS glide-slope is designed for 500 FPM is incorrect however. A standard ILS glide-path angle is 3 degrees. By doing a bit of math in advance of the flight when our brains aren’t overloaded by flying we find that a 3 degree glide path can be closely maintained flying a specific vertical speed. Simply divide your ground speed by half and add a zero. So a ninety knot ground speed divided by 2 is 45, add a zero and you get 450 FPM as a V/S target. By going through this exercise a pilot is trained to quickly figure his target V/S whether he is doing 60 knots across the ground (300 FPM) or 150 (750 FPM). Bringing ground speed into the discussion arms the pilot with the knowledge of adjustments necessary when winds increase or decrease ground speed. V/S will be higher at a higher ground speed meaning less power to hold the G/S and vice versa. A pilot who captures and then maintains the glide slope using known pitch and power settings to establish a target A/S and V/S is far less likely to chase the glide-slope needle. He will adjust pitch and power as necessary with reference to the primary pitch instruments of A/S and V/S and then wait for the glide-slope to recapture rather than attempting a guaranteed failed strategy of adjusting things by watching the needle.
I’d actually go the other way with this. Pitch meaning trim not stick for speed, power for VVI. We trim for an AOA which as weight isn’t significantly changing and as we’re not significantly turning correlates basically to a set speed. If we don’t touch the trim and don’t push or pull the stick, we’ll now maintain that speed while power will determine VVI. If you do it the other way, you’ll end up chasing both parameters because one will change the needs of the other. If you trim for speed and then leave pitch alone, you’ll only need to work one variable being power to get results in one dependent variable. As you’re using this as a VFR skill to apply to IFR, it is even more so the way I say.
Imo it’s way more convenient and easy to trim that airspeed before intercepting pfaf/faf and begin my descend just by reducing power and adjusting it to keep the glide slope. From that point just exercise your control performance method for fine tuning.
Personally I would teach this differently for a couple reasons. One reason is that for my school at least we require students to be fully configured by the final approach fix, which means 6 miles out two notches of flaps. This means we do the majority of our approaches at 80 knots not 90, as our flaps 2 speed is 85. Second, the VSI is not a good pitch indicator. Focusing on it will likely get you to overcorrect, as the VSI is on a 6 second delay due to the calibrated leak, which means you’re adjusting on outdated information. I’ve seen way too many people bobbing up and down, including myself when I was in instrument, because they were following the VSI. What I would personally do is have my student set a pitch and power setting using the RPM and attitude indicator(as pitch+power=performance), and see whether or not it gives us the desired approach course. And since our airplanes have autopilot it should be fairly easy to figure out what ballpark settings our pitch and power should be at, and if we didn’t a good couple approaches from an experienced instructor should do the trick. This is the cornerstone of visual flying as well. Setting a desired pitch on the horizon, power set to what you want. Adjust as necessary. Now using a VSI only is doable if your attitude indicator were to fail, but shouldn’t be the primary way of training it.
You have me curious. What do you guys teach them about instrument approaches into busy controlled airports with their 80 KTS and heavy flaps? Doesn't sound very real world for IFR. OTOH, I know it's done. I was once on an instrument approach and asked to slow down - in a 172!
@@midlifeflyer It depends on the area that you’re approaching too. Like in my area there generally isn’t a whole lot of traffic so it saves a lot of time to roll it in at 80 knots rather than a 6 mile approach at 60.
I disagree with you, When maintaing a constant rate of descent or climb............airspeed is controlled by pitch and power controls rate. I'll give you a couple of examples. First if your engine quit, how would you control airspeed? Second, climb rate is dependent on excess power to maintain level flight. Don't feel bad, this had been debated for years. Even the FAA over the years has reversed their thinking. I've been instructing for 45 plus years and will stick with what has worked for me and my students. The real emphasis should be on, when you change one, such as power, you'll need to adjust pitch and vice versa.
You mention “in this airplane” this works (pitch for rate of descent and power for airspeed). What types of airplanes does this work for? (I fly and Maule M5 and a Cessna 185)
Great question. Every airplane is different as you insinuated. Therefore my technique would be to try various control performance numbers. Do in VFR clear conditions and note your findings. Then when you need to fly them in a real approach, you can implement. This can apply to straight and level holds too. For example if you want to fly a hold at 90 kias, youd experiment with various power settings until you nail your benchmark power and pitch settings for straight and level flight at 90kias. Then you'd simply input these known numbers whenever you want to fly your airplane at whatever desired result you want to achieve.
I teach controlled descents - airspeed then capture descent rate - from the very brand new student pilot lesson. I've even taught it on discovery flights. (And yes, I agree on switching the usual pitch for airspeed/power for altitude model for instrument approaches - just easier)
As an experienced pilot I appreciated this video. When doing short strip VFR work it is pitch for speed and power for rate of decent. When I did my instrument rating however I was taught by a very experienced examiner that on an IFR approach it was easier to do it just like Jason has said. Love your simple explanation Jason. Keep up the good work. As to Dans Video I don't think it is as straight forward a situation. I can appreciate, as you said yourself, that it would have been better to actually have sight of the other aircraft before turning final, and making a better effort to communicate would have been good. These are the takeaways and I agree with Dan on that. In the real world however this isn't always possible and sometimes I have had to extend downwind way out of the airport zone from the airport to get behind someone on a 5 mile final when I clearly had the pattern all to myself in reality. I often do straight in approaches but always make sure to fit in with the other traffic. For me, in the VFR world I am not really on final until within the zone which is 2 miles at the most. What do you think about that? Of course we must be vigilant because it's better to be safe than dead even if we think we are in the right. One place I cannot see is behind me. I guess it would have been better to communicate with the other aircraft or wait until you see it before trusting that the other pilot was being truthful with his final calls.
knowing your target CONTROL inputs will give your desired results (PERFORMANCE). (Control /Performance). In the C172....1800 RPM and pitch down 5 degrees will give your 500fpm and 90 kias. However you may need to make MINOR adjustments as Jason stated. Try this in your airplane. Note the respective power and pitch settings. Use these figures as your benchmark control inputs to get your desired results. Of course the outside environment will vary, so thats why you may need to make minor adjustments once your benchmark control inputs are implemented. The 1800RPM and 5 degrees down on the pitch will get you close however in the C172.
I got the "how" but I'm still baffled about the "why". Why is it better to pitch for vertical speed and power for airspeed, in a constant-airspeed descent?
Thank You, Man! I am a student pilot and Your vídeos help me keep learning between classes. I am almost being released for solo flight. This message came just on perfect timing.
Not related to this but have to say I'm very disappointed with you being so defensive with Dan on his call with you. All he wanted is for you to see you got lucky an accident didn't happen. You were way over defensive and didnt need to be. You should have owned up and be thankful it turned out ok and use it for learning.
Or you have a instructor like I did. "That's why I quit. Looking for a better one" that just tells you it's all on feel. Just rotate the aircraft don't look at your instrument's. Damn swear to God I wish I had gone with a direct csi because of 10 hours in and quiting I should have had my ppl by now. But scared to waste money on a crappy cfi. I only have 3 to choose from without driving 2 to 3 hours away.
Here in S. FL where I am taking instrument lessons it is always so windy (horizontal AND vertical) that there is no such thing here as a constant rate + airspeed decent. I'm looking for recommendations where to go that's not so windy all the time, to finish up and undergo the checkride.
where are you at? I did flight training in Miami last December and didn't struggle with wind but maybe that's a seasonal occurrence at this time. Anyways, you should be able to do your check ride no matter the weather and if you constantly practice in windy conditions it is a much better training than always flying in perfectly calm skies. I hope that helps you get a different outlook on your situation. Best regards!
I'm not sure the point of this. Tracking the glideslope vertically is energy management while keeping the the approach airspeed constant. Focusing on vertical speed doesn't seem necessary when simply managing energy via throttle input and airspeed via pitch is extremely effective in keeping the diamond centered. If youre on the glideslope your vertical speed has to be correct by necessity.
Yes but you’ll end up chasing the needle. It’s the same concept as bracketing a course laterally, it gives you a starting point and then something to positively control the airplane with while you monitor the effectiveness of that on the needles.
"Pitch for airspeed, power for vertical speed, keep it small and pull back your temporary corrections once you rejoin" *watches LOC overshoot and correcting 15 degrees*
Imagine you are following an ILS glide slope needle. You pull power, slow to 90 kts, trim and set power for constant altitude at 90 kts. Then you intercept the vertical needle. As you intercept the slope, you reduce power to begin the descent and allow the nose to drop. While you are following the vertical needle, you make small pitch adjustments to keep the glide slope lined up. Your airspeed will deviate as you hold the glide slope based on whether your power setting is spot on or not. Then you make a power adjustment to correct the airspeed deficiency, all while continuously holding the plane on the glide slope needle. In this sense, power is controlling airspeed. Personally I think of it in terms of total energy state. If I have inadequate energy, I’ll either be slow or be below glide slope. So I need to add energy (from the engine). And vice versa. Managing the total energy while maintaining the glide slope and target airspeed for the approach.
In the jet world you tend to land even with power for speed since it takes time for the engines to spool up and down. At the end of the day you are controlling variables in the lift formula.
In reality, both affect both. How you think of it depends on the flight regime you're in and what you're trying to accomplish. Sometimes it's advantageous to control airspeed with pitch and vertical speed with power. Sometimes it's advantageous to do the opposite. Dealing effectively with that ambiguity comes with experience and is part of the art and craft of flying.
@@glennwatson sure, but he was clearly talking about light aircraft (90kts). But I've seen more students understand to trim for speed and leave it, and adjust glide slope using power/VSI changes. It's just so much simpler. In the 172 we used a nice 100rpm rule for speed/VSI changes. takes the thinking out of it.
After seeing how he acted with Dan Gryder, it’s kind of hard to give Jason any merit right now. Especially when he can’t admit his own mistakes. Be accountable. Be humble. It might just save your life.
If any of you want to sub to an actual pilot check out Dan Gryder Probable Cause. If this Jason guy continues flying like he does he may be one of the fatalities Dan speaks of. Admit your wrong and be safe up there 👆
I'm sticking with Jason despite my questioning his decision to turn base when he did when the Cirrus pilot was such a cowboy. After years of listening to Jason's podcasts and attending his seminars, I think he is a great teacher and has helped numerous pilots, beginners and veterans alike. HIs eBook "Setting the Standard" is something every pilot should have in their collection. I'll steer clear of Dan Gryder who sounds like a pompous ass.
Jordan.. .Jason never used his DC-3 to commit two counts of aggravated assault and one count of obstruction like your hero Banjo Gryder.... He is lucky he didn't kill multiple people.. Will Banjo and his fan boys ever admit he was wrong?? Doubtful..
@@eds.173 He is not only a pompous ass but was hauled out of the cockpit of a DC-3 and charged with obstruction of justice and two counts of aggravated assault for his antics at a Georgia Airport.....Lets check off the hazardous attitudes.... Macho, check. Anti-authority, check. Impulsivity, check. Invulnerability, check.. .The only hazardous attitude not displayed was resignation, but I think that came after he had to resign from Delta...
Thanks for the video. I learned to do approaches in 1982. I was taught "pitch controls airspeed and power controls altitude". after thousands of approaches, this is how I do it. I believe this works just as well. And clearly it works. Please comment on these differing approaches to approaches! Thanks!
About Dans interview.....There is no way that there was any conflict what so ever if Jason was already in his parking spot when the Cirrus exited the runway, ...if so we all are quilty.....there are numerous requests from ATC to perform a short approach in front of faster and bigger landing aircraft. Jason made the call that the Cirrus was far enough out? Don't tell me you see all aircraft 5 miles, 3 miles or 2 miles from you at all times. Isn't the recommendation to fly high enough to make a suitable landing spot .....Jason did, don't ever make your landing pattern bigger than your gliding range to the runway, doing so not wise. The Cirrus pilot was doing just that, he flew lower, further away f on the airport and never would have made it in if his engine quit. So he is a low flying hot dogging pilot in the vicinity of a airport. Jason had a co pilot that saw the plane and would have said if there was conflict. Dan I love and spread your DMMS and marked it on my airspeed indicator but you just wanted to poke at Jason with a stick to make a point after the midair collisions and that is uncalled for. The only thing Jason did not do was to get into a conversation with the Cirrus pilot and even that is frowned upon by the aviation industry. He flew the traffic altitude, the Cirrus did not, he at all times could reach the runway in case of a new engine out, the Cirrus did not, there were way enough spacing to park before the Cirrus taxied up. Jason flew his plane in the traffic pattern with attention on aviate not being distracted by a plane 3 miles out. His co pilot kept a lookout in case the Cirrus was closer than what he said. Turning base to final is where pilots go wrong....right, don't you preach that, so in that critical phase of flight Jason did what he should have ...aviate.
Ask Banjo Dan about cutting people off.. Like that time he tried to cut off the cops with his DC-3 and got charged for obstruction and aggravated assault.... Wonder what his BAC was.... Dan has no business lecturing people about airplane safety.
Jason, this has nothing to do with this video, just wanted to say I applaud your effort with DG trying to get to the root cause of unsafe practices at un-towered airports. I'm so tired of aircraft in the pattern getting blamed for selfish straight- in pilots. You did absolutely nothing wrong, period. I get the way the video was edited makes it look worse. The fact is the Cirrus didn't cancel his straight-in once he knew there was at a minimum one other aircraft already established in the pattern ahead of him but continued with his straight-in proves who was unsafe. I totally support Dan trying to encourage pilots to do a better job of communicating, but it's aviate, navigate, communicate in that order for a reason, the first thing all pilots my do is aviate safely and joining the pattern is undeniably safer. The number one thing people in the comments forget are the aircraft in the pattern without radios, which is why it is way more important to aviate safely.
The majority of negative commentary here is coming from people who will never get closer to flying than their bootleg copy of flight simulator. Where I live straight-ins are not legal at uncontrolled fields with the exception of jusy a few mandatory frequency control zones, for good reason. They are the root of the problem, full stop. You want safer uncontrolled ops, you get rid of straight-ins. The fact that Dan refused to entertain the discussion on straight-ins was a light bulb moment for me on DG.
@@togen8032 Done everyday when someone calls a 5 mile final. Nobody is going to fly 4 miles out to obtain visual and fall in behind the guy who thinks he's more important than all the people already established and in line to land... not at 3 miles either... its just not realistic. Dan is out to lunch on this one. Its okay to admit it lol
FYI I totally side with you on your short approaches with traffic 5 mile on straight in. Good communications, situational awareness, and consistency trumps excessive time of exposure to fulfill an unrealistic expectation of 100% visual contact and alter consistency.
Except it wasn't exactly the best communication or situational awareness. And I wouldn't say 100% visual contact is all that unrealistic. If you fly patterns at most deltas, they will have the expectation of you to find traffic you are following.
@@micham8278 By all means, correct the record.. Dan was charged with two counts of aggravated assault and one count of obstruction.. He threatened to chop up a police officer with the propeller of his DC3. Embarrassing...and not very safe...
I haven't watched this channel much in the last few years, but what Dan just pulled was unjust. Talk about losing the forest for the trees. For anyone reading negative comments here from a mob of mostly unruly non aviators, this channel should be a go to for anyone actually looking to the sky and dreaming of becoming a pilot. Don't let the failure to launch sidewalk gazer mentality of that other channel's increasingly distasteful fanbase (and creator, sadly) ruin that for you.
I don't know how you can watch that interview and not see Jason paint himself with clown makeup. %80 of that was Jason talking and covering for himself, without letting Dan complete his point. He stated multiple times that "I would not teach this" and "I would not post this on my channel", he pretty much admitted he was a hypocrite . That interview showed so much arrogance and absolutely no humility on behalf of Jason, especially in light of the recent Watsonville accident.
@@ValentinoDagher You see what you want to see I guess. I spend almost all my time at busy uncontrolled airports and agree there was nothing crazy about this situation. Dan's lost the plot here... particularly being so focused on nothing more than railing Jason, that he wouldn't even question continuing a straight in with traffic in the pattern... He has a problem with Jason I suspect.. something more than that video, and this was his attempt at "gotcha" Its worked on his increasingly crash hungry non flying fan base. The aviators who watch him and comment decrease with every controversy.
I think to Dan's point- there wasn't crazy about THAT situation, but there were open opportunities for BOTH pilots in that exchange to make it safer. Jason even admitted to dan "Ill give you that bone" that he could of done better- but the fact that it was like pulling teeth to get that much of a response shows there is so much arrogance and boasting in his experience and status, that he struggles to admit there was something better that he could of done. Aviation 101, FlightChops, Angle Of Attack, and even Dan (when he crashed that 152 not too long ago) all have had instances where they admit their mistakes, humble themselves, learn, and move on. I don't get why Jason should be exempt of that level of scrutiny/humility.
@@ValentinoDagher you can chose to ignore the numerous times where Jason said "yeah, I get that" but it only shows your falling for the cult of celebrity Dan is carving out for himself... that or you're the guy who thinks straight-ins are cool. I'm happy I live in a country where straight-ins are not legal at non-controlled aerodromes.
Great technique. I'll use it for my next straight-in!
Very true. Realize that I rarely train for this yet am an IFR pilot. Thanks.
Most of instrument approaches are based on 3 degrees slope. Not speed, not descent rate. Imagine b737 descending at 90kt or at 500fpm? To descend on 3 deg slope, simply multiply your ground speed by 5 and that will give you the descent rate. 95kt x 5 = 475fpm. For b737, 140kt x 5 = 700fpm will produce 3 deg approach.
Excellent exclamation very simple and straightforward
When we teach this, we usually use some mental math to determine the power settings. 100RPM or 1"MP = 5kts or 100fpm. You're level at 2500RPM at 110kts, you want to slow to 90kts and descend at 500fpm. To drop from 110kts to 90kts, you reduce the power by 400RPM. To descend at 500fpm, you subtract another 500RPM. Therefor your descent power setting is approx. 1600RPM. Reduce the power, keep the nose level until 90kts, then lower the nose to maintain it. Adjust the RPM as required to fine-tune the rate. Pitch+Power = Performance!
Thanks Jason! Awesomeness as usual.
Great explanation and tips Jason. Thank you!
Awesome
Well…the glide path don’t care about airspeed. It’s ground speed that matters! In a 20knot headwind, you’ll need an extra 20 knots airspeed or at 90 knots, you’ll need to descend slower. So a cookbook setting will only work in 0 wind, uncommon in real IFR conditions.
I am glad someone corrected this... it is based on ground speed.
True enough, but it's a starting point. 10-15 knot headwind, you might find 400 or so better suits, but you have to have an initial plan.
What avionics setup are you using?
However, in slow flight / on final it's the opposite: power for rate of decent and pitch for speed !!!
Jason Jason Jason why don't you listen. Don't cut other planes off without visual.
NEVER descend until you are within gliding distance of a runway right Jason? Then chop the power and disregard anyone else landing.
Disguisting behaviour from a "teaching pilot" The way you handled yourself on Dans channel and as PIC during that flight is embarassing for any student you taught or acquittance you've made flying you should be ashamed Jason
I have done like this in the past but these days I use the conventional "pitch for airspeed, power for rate of descent".
When making a precise descent I slow the aircraft by reducing power, pitch up as the aircraft slows to maintain height.
At the target airspeed I apply power to fly level for a SHORT time at that speed then I trim for that speed.
When trimmed I reduce power to achieve the desired rate of descent then fine trim the aircraft.
Trim for speed, power for rate of descent (or climb)
It is basicly the reverse when climbing but with full (or climb) power.
With this technique the aircraft practically flys itself.
I am a 70 year old, retired flight instructor, I have some 30 different aircraft types in by logbook including six light twin types and IFR qualifications. (No jet experience)
Both ways will work and I used to do it your way, but these days I do it as above in my own aircraft ( a light single).
PS: I like your videos.
Great Video as usual! It’s refreshing to hear an instructor teach pitch for descent/power for speed! That’s what auto pilot/auto throttle do. The quote I remember is “Power when Available and Variable controls Speed”. After Take Off and in Climb Power is Not Variable so Pitch controls Speed. In descent as you so aptly demonstrated Power controls Speed just like an auto throttle and pitch controls rate of descent just like an autopilot. My goal is to fly as smoothly as an autopilot!
Jason. So sad to see your hazardous attitude in full view during your interview with Dan Gryder. You would have been a class act to on some level acknowledge that you made a poor choice turning final in front of the cirrus…but instead to accepted nothing of the sort. Worse off, you showed lack of self control by trying to call out Dan for not being “out there” like you are some kind of instructor king or something. You made a poor choice in my opinion. Your comment about getting a tower clearance for traffic on 2 mile final and you take off without having visual on the traffic is also indicative of poor judgement. It is a strong safety practice duringVFR to check final before taking the runway. Let me guess….you accept runway crossing clearances without clearing left or right just because the controller tells you its ok to clear. You should have just put your tail between your legs and as a good instructor owned the fact that the decision to turn in front of traffic on final without seeing them was poor. Had you done that many of the viewers like myself would not be doing what I am doing now. Anyway, I have over 40 years of GA and Airline experience in all types of aircraft. Instructing, accident investigation, and much more….and I too was disappointed in your choice to turn final, but more disappointed in the hazardous attitude you displayed during your talk with Dan. Safe flying. Respectfully…mb
Mark, if you want a text book lesson in hazardous attitudes, look no further than Dan Gryders arrest rap sheet......Read up on Dan then get back to us on which of the two pilots is more disrespectful of aviation safety...
@@friendeleven5123 Hi friend. I am aware of Dan’s history, but none of that is relevant to the issue being discussed.
@@meburman Oh really?? Sorry, I just think it is a little hypocritical for Banjo Dan to be lecturing anybody about hazardous attitudes.. Maybe he should do a show on his aviation exploits that got him arrested.. Maybe he could acknowledge that he made poor choices... Doubtful...
Let me get this mid air convo and hatred straight. The cirrus pilot called straight in, traffic permitting. Instead of forcing the cirrus around, Jason did a power off 180, and landed 90 seconds ahead of the cirrus?
Q: What are TWO methods to use Pitch + Power = Performance on an ILS?
Pitch for airspeed. Power for Altitude (VSI)
o You are flying straight and level with Pitch ½ dot UP + Power 2150 (C172)
o You hit your glide slope intercept, then you Power 1800 RPM and let your nose drop Pitch DOWN ½ dot for 90 KIAS. (known pitch + power = performance).
o Pitch to maintain or adjust your airspeed (90 KIAS).
o Power to maintain or adjust your VSI (500 FPM).
o Pitch 90 KIAS, Power 500 FPM.
o If you are flying your targeted airspeed of 90 KIAS, but your VSI is 600 FPM, then Power UP slightly to slow your sink rate to 500 FPM while still pitching for 90 KIAS. Make targeted changes. Allow a few seconds for the performance instruments (Airspeed, VSI) to catch up, then verify it is at your target of 90 KIAS and 500 FPM. Always make small targeted Pitch and Power changes until your AS and VSI is perfected.
Pitch for Altitude (VSI), Power for Airspeed
o You are flying straight and level with Pitch ½ dot UP + Power 2150 (C172)
o You hit your glide slope intercept, then you Pitch DOWN ½ dot for 500 FPM while powering to 1800 RPM (known pitch + power = performance).
o Pitch to maintain or adjust your VSI (500 FPM)
o Power to maintain or adjust your airspeed.
o Pitch for 500 FPM, Power for 90 KIAS
o If you are flying your targeted airspeed of 90 KIAS, but your VSI is 600 FPM, then pitch UP slightly to slow your sink rate to 500 FPM while still powering for 90 KIAS. If you are too slow, then add a little power. If you are too fast then reduce a little power. Make targeted changes. Allow a few seconds for the performance instruments (VSI, Airspeed) to catch up, then verify it is at your target of 500 FPM and 90 KIAS. Always make small targeted Pitch and Power changes until your VSI and Airspeed is perfected.
As always -Execute a missed approach if you are not on a stabilized approach (Constant Power, Constant Airspeed, Constant Rate of Descent), are off course, or you just don't feel comfortable.
In calm wind (ideal conditions) the power for climb/descend method makes sense, but in ‘real world’ with gusts and air currents your method makes more sense. Going on a limb here …. Your thoughts on use of GPS_ground_speed-Indicated for “our 90 kts” to factor-out air currents affecting
‘V_pitot’ Indicated airspeed? Of course, while monitoring V_pitot well above stall speed, obviously!
Thinking that upwinds & downdrafts often work in pairs, so by maintaining ground speed with power, and NOT chasing the VS vertical speed with elevator, and jerking the a/c up and down, more like smoothing out the challenges of air movements/gusts/thermals.
Nicely done Jason, I like teaching the concepts of the glide path angle vs ground speed. Saying that an ILS glide-slope is designed for 500 FPM is incorrect however. A standard ILS glide-path angle is 3 degrees. By doing a bit of math in advance of the flight when our brains aren’t overloaded by flying we find that a 3 degree glide path can be closely maintained flying a specific vertical speed. Simply divide your ground speed by half and add a zero. So a ninety knot ground speed divided by 2 is 45, add a zero and you get 450 FPM as a V/S target. By going through this exercise a pilot is trained to quickly figure his target V/S whether he is doing 60 knots across the ground (300 FPM) or 150 (750 FPM). Bringing ground speed into the discussion arms the pilot with the knowledge of adjustments necessary when winds increase or decrease ground speed. V/S will be higher at a higher ground speed meaning less power to hold the G/S and vice versa. A pilot who captures and then maintains the glide slope using known pitch and power settings to establish a target A/S and V/S is far less likely to chase the glide-slope needle. He will adjust pitch and power as necessary with reference to the primary pitch instruments of A/S and V/S and then wait for the glide-slope to recapture rather than attempting a guaranteed failed strategy of adjusting things by watching the needle.
I’d actually go the other way with this. Pitch meaning trim not stick for speed, power for VVI. We trim for an AOA which as weight isn’t significantly changing and as we’re not significantly turning correlates basically to a set speed. If we don’t touch the trim and don’t push or pull the stick, we’ll now maintain that speed while power will determine VVI. If you do it the other way, you’ll end up chasing both parameters because one will change the needs of the other. If you trim for speed and then leave pitch alone, you’ll only need to work one variable being power to get results in one dependent variable. As you’re using this as a VFR skill to apply to IFR, it is even more so the way I say.
Imo it’s way more convenient and easy to trim that airspeed before intercepting pfaf/faf and begin my descend just by reducing power and adjusting it to keep the glide slope. From that point just exercise your control performance method for fine tuning.
That's my method. Trimmed up and about 1"/100 feet gets you close enough to fine tune it. This is just one method he looked at from an old IFH though.
Hello
Cud you took about a Cessna 185
How should it land properly
Shanks a lot for video
Personally I would teach this differently for a couple reasons.
One reason is that for my school at least we require students to be fully configured by the final approach fix, which means 6 miles out two notches of flaps. This means we do the majority of our approaches at 80 knots not 90, as our flaps 2 speed is 85.
Second, the VSI is not a good pitch indicator. Focusing on it will likely get you to overcorrect, as the VSI is on a 6 second delay due to the calibrated leak, which means you’re adjusting on outdated information. I’ve seen way too many people bobbing up and down, including myself when I was in instrument, because they were following the VSI.
What I would personally do is have my student set a pitch and power setting using the RPM and attitude indicator(as pitch+power=performance), and see whether or not it gives us the desired approach course. And since our airplanes have autopilot it should be fairly easy to figure out what ballpark settings our pitch and power should be at, and if we didn’t a good couple approaches from an experienced instructor should do the trick. This is the cornerstone of visual flying as well. Setting a desired pitch on the horizon, power set to what you want. Adjust as necessary. Now using a VSI only is doable if your attitude indicator were to fail, but shouldn’t be the primary way of training it.
You have me curious. What do you guys teach them about instrument approaches into busy controlled airports with their 80 KTS and heavy flaps? Doesn't sound very real world for IFR. OTOH, I know it's done. I was once on an instrument approach and asked to slow down - in a 172!
@@midlifeflyer It depends on the area that you’re approaching too. Like in my area there generally isn’t a whole lot of traffic so it saves a lot of time to roll it in at 80 knots rather than a 6 mile approach at 60.
@@littleferrhis You can be sure I *wasn't* recommending slower.
I disagree with you, When maintaing a constant rate of descent or climb............airspeed is controlled by pitch and power controls rate. I'll give you a couple of examples. First if your engine quit, how would you control airspeed? Second, climb rate is dependent on excess power to maintain level flight. Don't feel bad, this had been debated for years. Even the FAA over the years has reversed their thinking. I've been instructing for 45 plus years and will stick with what has worked for me and my students. The real emphasis should be on, when you change one, such as power, you'll need to adjust pitch and vice versa.
You mention “in this airplane” this works (pitch for rate of descent and power for airspeed). What types of airplanes does this work for? (I fly and Maule M5 and a Cessna 185)
Great question. Every airplane is different as you insinuated. Therefore my technique would be to try various control performance numbers. Do in VFR clear conditions and note your findings. Then when you need to fly them in a real approach, you can implement. This can apply to straight and level holds too. For example if you want to fly a hold at 90 kias, youd experiment with various power settings until you nail your benchmark power and pitch settings for straight and level flight at 90kias. Then you'd simply input these known numbers whenever you want to fly your airplane at whatever desired result you want to achieve.
I teach controlled descents - airspeed then capture descent rate - from the very brand new student pilot lesson. I've even taught it on discovery flights. (And yes, I agree on switching the usual pitch for airspeed/power for altitude model for instrument approaches - just easier)
As an experienced pilot I appreciated this video. When doing short strip VFR work it is pitch for speed and power for rate of decent. When I did my instrument rating however I was taught by a very experienced examiner that on an IFR approach it was easier to do it just like Jason has said. Love your simple explanation Jason. Keep up the good work. As to Dans Video I don't think it is as straight forward a situation. I can appreciate, as you said yourself, that it would have been better to actually have sight of the other aircraft before turning final, and making a better effort to communicate would have been good. These are the takeaways and I agree with Dan on that. In the real world however this isn't always possible and sometimes I have had to extend downwind way out of the airport zone from the airport to get behind someone on a 5 mile final when I clearly had the pattern all to myself in reality. I often do straight in approaches but always make sure to fit in with the other traffic. For me, in the VFR world I am not really on final until within the zone which is 2 miles at the most. What do you think about that? Of course we must be vigilant because it's better to be safe than dead even if we think we are in the right. One place I cannot see is behind me. I guess it would have been better to communicate with the other aircraft or wait until you see it before trusting that the other pilot was being truthful with his final calls.
Thanks for the video, great teaching tip!
And... I see Smokey Bearhawk!
Thanks for this. I'm doing my ifr and always had difficulty getting this right
Good one. 👍
knowing your target CONTROL inputs will give your desired results (PERFORMANCE). (Control /Performance). In the C172....1800 RPM and pitch down 5 degrees will give your 500fpm and 90 kias. However you may need to make MINOR adjustments as Jason stated. Try this in your airplane. Note the respective power and pitch settings. Use these figures as your benchmark control inputs to get your desired results. Of course the outside environment will vary, so thats why you may need to make minor adjustments once your benchmark control inputs are implemented. The 1800RPM and 5 degrees down on the pitch will get you close however in the C172.
I got the "how" but I'm still baffled about the "why". Why is it better to pitch for vertical speed and power for airspeed, in a constant-airspeed descent?
Thanks, Jason!
Thank You, Man! I am a student pilot and Your vídeos help me keep learning between classes. I am almost being released for solo flight. This message came just on perfect timing.
Not related to this but have to say I'm very disappointed with you being so defensive with Dan on his call with you. All he wanted is for you to see you got lucky an accident didn't happen. You were way over defensive and didnt need to be. You should have owned up and be thankful it turned out ok and use it for learning.
Great tip, Jason, thanks!
Or you have a instructor like I did. "That's why I quit. Looking for a better one" that just tells you it's all on feel. Just rotate the aircraft don't look at your instrument's. Damn swear to God I wish I had gone with a direct csi because of 10 hours in and quiting I should have had my ppl by now. But scared to waste money on a crappy cfi. I only have 3 to choose from without driving 2 to 3 hours away.
Edit " better cfi"
Here in S. FL where I am taking instrument lessons it is always so windy (horizontal AND vertical) that there is no such thing here as a constant rate + airspeed decent. I'm looking for recommendations where to go that's not so windy all the time, to finish up and undergo the checkride.
where are you at? I did flight training in Miami last December and didn't struggle with wind but maybe that's a seasonal occurrence at this time. Anyways, you should be able to do your check ride no matter the weather and if you constantly practice in windy conditions it is a much better training than always flying in perfectly calm skies. I hope that helps you get a different outlook on your situation. Best regards!
That was a great tip, thanks!
Great presentation. Thanks.
I'm not sure the point of this. Tracking the glideslope vertically is energy management while keeping the the approach airspeed constant. Focusing on vertical speed doesn't seem necessary when simply managing energy via throttle input and airspeed via pitch is extremely effective in keeping the diamond centered. If youre on the glideslope your vertical speed has to be correct by necessity.
Yes but you’ll end up chasing the needle. It’s the same concept as bracketing a course laterally, it gives you a starting point and then something to positively control the airplane with while you monitor the effectiveness of that on the needles.
"Pitch for airspeed, power for vertical speed, keep it small and pull back your temporary corrections once you rejoin"
*watches LOC overshoot and correcting 15 degrees*
This is very interesting! Is this something learned when training for private?
most learn it in Instrument for flying the approaches. but doesn't hurt for private pilots only to know it.
pitch controls airspeed, power controls VSI
for a basic landing under VFR, but he's not talking about that.
Imagine you are following an ILS glide slope needle. You pull power, slow to 90 kts, trim and set power for constant altitude at 90 kts. Then you intercept the vertical needle. As you intercept the slope, you reduce power to begin the descent and allow the nose to drop.
While you are following the vertical needle, you make small pitch adjustments to keep the glide slope lined up. Your airspeed will deviate as you hold the glide slope based on whether your power setting is spot on or not. Then you make a power adjustment to correct the airspeed deficiency, all while continuously holding the plane on the glide slope needle.
In this sense, power is controlling airspeed.
Personally I think of it in terms of total energy state. If I have inadequate energy, I’ll either be slow or be below glide slope. So I need to add energy (from the engine). And vice versa. Managing the total energy while maintaining the glide slope and target airspeed for the approach.
In the jet world you tend to land even with power for speed since it takes time for the engines to spool up and down. At the end of the day you are controlling variables in the lift formula.
In reality, both affect both. How you think of it depends on the flight regime you're in and what you're trying to accomplish. Sometimes it's advantageous to control airspeed with pitch and vertical speed with power. Sometimes it's advantageous to do the opposite. Dealing effectively with that ambiguity comes with experience and is part of the art and craft of flying.
@@glennwatson sure, but he was clearly talking about light aircraft (90kts). But I've seen more students understand to trim for speed and leave it, and adjust glide slope using power/VSI changes. It's just so much simpler. In the 172 we used a nice 100rpm rule for speed/VSI changes. takes the thinking out of it.
Great video
New to the channel thanks to Dan, I agree with Neil, That was unjust, The only thing I can think of, You made fun of his music. Lol.
After seeing how he acted with Dan Gryder, it’s kind of hard to give Jason any merit right now. Especially when he can’t admit his own mistakes. Be accountable. Be humble. It might just save your life.
What about Dan Gryder?? Have you checked his rap sheet?? When you do, get back and let us know how much merit you give to Banjo Gryder..
If any of you want to sub to an actual pilot check out Dan Gryder Probable Cause. If this Jason guy continues flying like he does he may be one of the fatalities Dan speaks of. Admit your wrong and be safe up there 👆
Jason has to much pride, admit you made a mistake, learn from it and go on.
I'm sticking with Jason despite my questioning his decision to turn base when he did when the Cirrus pilot was such a cowboy. After years of listening to Jason's podcasts and attending his seminars, I think he is a great teacher and has helped numerous pilots, beginners and veterans alike. HIs eBook "Setting the Standard" is something every pilot should have in their collection. I'll steer clear of Dan Gryder who sounds like a pompous ass.
Jordan.. .Jason never used his DC-3 to commit two counts of aggravated assault and one count of obstruction like your hero Banjo Gryder.... He is lucky he didn't kill multiple people.. Will Banjo and his fan boys ever admit he was wrong?? Doubtful..
@@eds.173 He is not only a pompous ass but was hauled out of the cockpit of a DC-3 and charged with obstruction of justice and two counts of aggravated assault for his antics at a Georgia Airport.....Lets check off the hazardous attitudes.... Macho, check. Anti-authority, check. Impulsivity, check. Invulnerability, check.. .The only hazardous attitude not displayed was resignation, but I think that came after he had to resign from Delta...
Dan Gryder just ended your career boy.
💀
Oof. Unsubbed after Dan Gryder's interview of Jason.
Thanks for the video. I learned to do approaches in 1982. I was taught "pitch controls airspeed and power controls altitude". after thousands of approaches, this is how I do it. I believe this works just as well. And clearly it works. Please comment on these differing approaches to approaches! Thanks!
About Dans interview.....There is no way that there was any conflict what so ever if Jason was already in his parking spot when the Cirrus exited the runway, ...if so we all are quilty.....there are numerous requests from ATC to perform a short approach in front of faster and bigger landing aircraft. Jason made the call that the Cirrus was far enough out? Don't tell me you see all aircraft 5 miles, 3 miles or 2 miles from you at all times. Isn't the recommendation to fly high enough to make a suitable landing spot .....Jason did, don't ever make your landing pattern bigger than your gliding range to the runway, doing so not wise. The Cirrus pilot was doing just that, he flew lower, further away f on the airport and never would have made it in if his engine quit. So he is a low flying hot dogging pilot in the vicinity of a airport. Jason had a co pilot that saw the plane and would have said if there was conflict. Dan I love and spread your DMMS and marked it on my airspeed indicator but you just wanted to poke at Jason with a stick to make a point after the midair collisions and that is uncalled for. The only thing Jason did not do was to get into a conversation with the Cirrus pilot and even that is frowned upon by the aviation industry. He flew the traffic altitude, the Cirrus did not, he at all times could reach the runway in case of a new engine out, the Cirrus did not, there were way enough spacing to park before the Cirrus taxied up. Jason flew his plane in the traffic pattern with attention on aviate not being distracted by a plane 3 miles out. His co pilot kept a lookout in case the Cirrus was closer than what he said. Turning base to final is where pilots go wrong....right, don't you preach that, so in that critical phase of flight Jason did what he should have ...aviate.
What IFR also does for you is allows you to cut people off who have the right of way and claim “you never saw them”.
No, ifr allows you to call straight in while others are already over the airport.
Ask Banjo Dan about cutting people off.. Like that time he tried to cut off the cops with his DC-3 and got charged for obstruction and aggravated assault.... Wonder what his BAC was.... Dan has no business lecturing people about airplane safety.
Jason, this has nothing to do with this video, just wanted to say I applaud your effort with DG trying to get to the root cause of unsafe practices at un-towered airports. I'm so tired of aircraft in the pattern getting blamed for selfish straight- in pilots. You did absolutely nothing wrong, period. I get the way the video was edited makes it look worse. The fact is the Cirrus didn't cancel his straight-in once he knew there was at a minimum one other aircraft already established in the pattern ahead of him but continued with his straight-in proves who was unsafe. I totally support Dan trying to encourage pilots to do a better job of communicating, but it's aviate, navigate, communicate in that order for a reason, the first thing all pilots my do is aviate safely and joining the pattern is undeniably safer. The number one thing people in the comments forget are the aircraft in the pattern without radios, which is why it is way more important to aviate safely.
The majority of negative commentary here is coming from people who will never get closer to flying than their bootleg copy of flight simulator.
Where I live straight-ins are not legal at uncontrolled fields with the exception of jusy a few mandatory frequency control zones, for good reason. They are the root of the problem, full stop. You want safer uncontrolled ops, you get rid of straight-ins. The fact that Dan refused to entertain the discussion on straight-ins was a light bulb moment for me on DG.
You don't blindly turn base and final when there is another airplane on final - period. I didn't need Gryders video to tell me that.
@@togen8032 Done everyday when someone calls a 5 mile final. Nobody is going to fly 4 miles out to obtain visual and fall in behind the guy who thinks he's more important than all the people already established and in line to land... not at 3 miles either... its just not realistic. Dan is out to lunch on this one. Its okay to admit it lol
FYI I totally side with you on your short approaches with traffic 5 mile on straight in. Good communications, situational awareness, and consistency trumps excessive time of exposure to fulfill an unrealistic expectation of 100% visual contact and alter consistency.
Except it wasn't exactly the best communication or situational awareness. And I wouldn't say 100% visual contact is all that unrealistic. If you fly patterns at most deltas, they will have the expectation of you to find traffic you are following.
He turned blindly. I cringed when I saw the original video posted. Dan might have been a bit harsh, but he's correct.
@@micham8278 Dan should give lessons in how to cut off cop cars with his DC-3 while on the runway to avoid arrest.......
@@friendeleven5123 Sounds like you read a tabloid and don't know what actually happened.
@@micham8278 By all means, correct the record.. Dan was charged with two counts of aggravated assault and one count of obstruction.. He threatened to chop up a police officer with the propeller of his DC3.
Embarrassing...and not very safe...
I haven't watched this channel much in the last few years, but what Dan just pulled was unjust. Talk about losing the forest for the trees. For anyone reading negative comments here from a mob of mostly unruly non aviators, this channel should be a go to for anyone actually looking to the sky and dreaming of becoming a pilot. Don't let the failure to launch sidewalk gazer mentality of that other channel's increasingly distasteful fanbase (and creator, sadly) ruin that for you.
I don't know how you can watch that interview and not see Jason paint himself with clown makeup. %80 of that was Jason talking and covering for himself, without letting Dan complete his point. He stated multiple times that "I would not teach this" and "I would not post this on my channel", he pretty much admitted he was a hypocrite .
That interview showed so much arrogance and absolutely no humility on behalf of Jason, especially in light of the recent Watsonville accident.
@@ValentinoDagher You see what you want to see I guess. I spend almost all my time at busy uncontrolled airports and agree there was nothing crazy about this situation. Dan's lost the plot here... particularly being so focused on nothing more than railing Jason, that he wouldn't even question continuing a straight in with traffic in the pattern... He has a problem with Jason I suspect.. something more than that video, and this was his attempt at "gotcha"
Its worked on his increasingly crash hungry non flying fan base. The aviators who watch him and comment decrease with every controversy.
I think to Dan's point- there wasn't crazy about THAT situation, but there were open opportunities for BOTH pilots in that exchange to make it safer.
Jason even admitted to dan "Ill give you that bone" that he could of done better- but the fact that it was like pulling teeth to get that much of a response shows there is so much arrogance and boasting in his experience and status, that he struggles to admit there was something better that he could of done.
Aviation 101, FlightChops, Angle Of Attack, and even Dan (when he crashed that 152 not too long ago) all have had instances where they admit their mistakes, humble themselves, learn, and move on. I don't get why Jason should be exempt of that level of scrutiny/humility.
@@ValentinoDagher you can chose to ignore the numerous times where Jason said "yeah, I get that" but it only shows your falling for the cult of celebrity Dan is carving out for himself... that or you're the guy who thinks straight-ins are cool.
I'm happy I live in a country where straight-ins are not legal at non-controlled aerodromes.
@@Neil_ The justifications are what makes him look like an ass.
Is your brand at risk after the Dan Gryder video?
Address the allegations NOW! Your silence is deafening, Jason.
He won’t he’s a coward.
Jason's the kind of driver to make a left turn by closing his eyes, yanking the wheel, and hoping for the best.
lmao. probaly doesnt use his rear view mirror, " I'll just merge without looking"