Dumping Height: Why not stall?

[whatunion]

sorry fd, it was me that mentioned you had a better chance with horizontal impact than vertical, you see you do read my posts after all.

i dont mind you ignoring me but before you totally ignore me can i just mention this to you all


FNG posted this

No one has advocated stalling to lose height, and even we mere PPLs appreciate that stalling is (crikey!) dangerous.

i will say that again and as i know you guys like capitals

NO ONE HAS ADVOCATED STALLING TO LOOSE HEIGHT. strange really but the title of the original post is DUMPING HEIGHT: WHY NOT STALL. someone is very confused here.

someone mentioned parts of my post, thank you for going to the trouble of reproducing them.


May be you can elaborate and explain to us lesser gods how you can:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
even on a calm day with an inversion the shear can be extreme.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
sorry are you asking me, can you get shear with an inversion if so the answer is yes and it can be marked. a good quality avaition met book will explain it to you.

And how a pilot of your great knowledge and ability get themselves in a situation whereby:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
i went into a farm strip on top of a hill in wales and the sink was such that even with full power we could not change the sink from 600 fpm until we reached an updraft near the end of the strip which allowed to go around.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
thats an easy one, first of all you will never hear me say i have great knowledge about flying or any other subject, i can only tell you what i have experienced in my experience, sorry if that offends.

i took off from an aerodrome were the weather was considerably different from the weather we encountered at the farm, the weather or more correctly the wind was not forecasted to be of the nature we experienced. it was assumed i would land at the farm. the owner of the airfield was there waiting for us and he signalled with a lamp saying it was safe to land. from where he was standing i am sure it was. i was at the time a low houred instructor with a reasonable knbowledge of strip flying. i felt quite confident until i got into the last 3-400ft of the approach then i realised i was in an area of sink the like of i had never experienced before. i applied full power and raised the flap in stages but the a/c continued down towards the runway at around 600 fpm. at that stage i though i was just going to hit the runway, eventually we caught a updraught.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maybe you need to get the relevant bits of your ATPL syllabus out and revise the appropriate bits on meteorology and aircraft performance.
---------------------------------------------------------------

i found the old long hand cpl syllabus much more useful but agree some of us need to revise our thoughts. the most useful information wont be found in either syllabus. that's to go around if you are unsure and do not land at an airfield if you are not happy with the conditions. its something that lead to me being laughed at and called a coward but its something i still abide by even with 200 passengers behind me.

And:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
i have also encountered standing wave rotor where there was only 10 knots in the sock. the sink/turbulence was so bad that when the the glider tug took off it snapped the tow rope to the glider.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Is to prove what?

That you were operating a glider tug combination without a weak-link or that the rope you use is of inferior quality?
__________________________________________
i wasnt operating the tug or the glider, you completely missed the point. the tow rope to my knowledge has never in my experience at that airfield broken before.

in all the flying i have done from alaska to finland i have never come across such violent turbulence even at high altitude or over mountains in light a/c. my lasting memory is of the ignition key fob going from the down natural position to the uppermost position on the coaming/ins panel. it was the most frightening experience i have ever encountered in any a/c. the cfi an ex wartime pilot returned saying he had never known turbulence like it.

my point is that had you phoned that airfield in the morning and asked them if it was a good day for flying they would have said yes, until they flew in it. we were all suprised because there was only 10 kts in the sock.

to answer your question which you really should know as its been the subject of a multitude of saftey directives and information circulars is:

you may get a big suprise in the last 500 feet with an engine out. its always best to have some speed and height in hand rather than what this post suggests which is the opposite and could be downright dangerous. the sink or shear in the last 500 feet may cause you to undershoot with an accompanied increase in descent rate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have come accross many like our friend Whatunion, being Irish and a big fella, my Mission Statement was "Please do not give me crap like this as a smack in the mouth may offend"

John Anderson

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

being irish and big too my mission statement is, please dont let the irish down with statements like this, its not very original and only gives succour to the thick irish and terrorist jokes.