Use of Flaps on Takeoff...?
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: BackofBourke
Posts: 346
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I just hope some of the above posters do their 'experimentation' with their own aircraft, and no other crew/pax need to fly the machine thereafter.
The 727 crew who deployed the leading edge slats and pulled the breaker in the cruise comes to mind. Nothing mentioned in the QRH or POH, and they paid the price.
Coffee cup test pilots/engineers/cowboys have no place in an aeroplane, or the sky.
The 727 crew who deployed the leading edge slats and pulled the breaker in the cruise comes to mind. Nothing mentioned in the QRH or POH, and they paid the price.
Coffee cup test pilots/engineers/cowboys have no place in an aeroplane, or the sky.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: australia
Posts: 415
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Radio Saigon, Now I understand you are a person of great skill from whom I can learn.
Would you be kind and tell me how one might achieve VMCA in the cruise ??
Explain the derivation of your statement:
of the hangar after putting my machine away for the day and seeing the CP get out of another (we had 4 at that place) looking rather pale after a training flight. I said something fairly cheeky to him, which I won't repeat here, which prompted him to ask me if I'd ever done a VMCA roll -which of course, at that point I hadn't. Apparently he'd pulled one on his candidate during the cruise,
A VMCA roll in a Bongo , that is something I never want to see, I want to stay alive.
Would you be kind and tell me how one might achieve VMCA in the cruise ??
Explain the derivation of your statement:
of the hangar after putting my machine away for the day and seeing the CP get out of another (we had 4 at that place) looking rather pale after a training flight. I said something fairly cheeky to him, which I won't repeat here, which prompted him to ask me if I'd ever done a VMCA roll -which of course, at that point I hadn't. Apparently he'd pulled one on his candidate during the cruise,
A VMCA roll in a Bongo , that is something I never want to see, I want to stay alive.
Seasonally Adjusted
A very interesting and thought provoking debate.
However, up to this point I find myself agreeing with the views put forward by Radio Saigon and remoak.....hope that doesn't make me a Cowboy.
However, up to this point I find myself agreeing with the views put forward by Radio Saigon and remoak.....hope that doesn't make me a Cowboy.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: turn L @ Taupo, just past the Niagra Falls...
Posts: 596
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nice try Joker 10, but no cigar. I would have thought that anyone reading that post carefully and fully comprehending it would understand that when I used the term "pulled one in the cruise" that I was referring to an engine -not a VMCA roll. Seems that in every case (bar one) the people reading and posting subsequently did in fact understand.
In my experience the VMCA roll in an Islander is a relatively benign event. Any competent pilot will recognise the event in the incipient stages and take the appropriate action -in the Islanders' case, close both throttles, nose down to regain 65KIAS and recover with attitude and available power. There is little need for an excessively steep pitch-down, or height loss. Again something any normally competent pilot should handle with ease.
Quite. Something I am sure you would find much easier to achieve were you to find yourself in a VMCA situation, if you already knew what to expect, recognise and recover appropriately.
As for your opening sarcasm... I'm afraid I'm going to treat that with the contempt it deserves. I have another considerably more (personally) challenging post to write now.
Originally Posted by Joker 10[COLOR=Navy
]A VMCA roll in a Bongo , that is something I never want to see...[/COLOR]
In my experience the VMCA roll in an Islander is a relatively benign event. Any competent pilot will recognise the event in the incipient stages and take the appropriate action -in the Islanders' case, close both throttles, nose down to regain 65KIAS and recover with attitude and available power. There is little need for an excessively steep pitch-down, or height loss. Again something any normally competent pilot should handle with ease.
Originally Posted by Joker 10
...
Originally Posted by Joker 10
I want to stay alive.
Quite. Something I am sure you would find much easier to achieve were you to find yourself in a VMCA situation, if you already knew what to expect, recognise and recover appropriately.
As for your opening sarcasm... I'm afraid I'm going to treat that with the contempt it deserves. I have another considerably more (personally) challenging post to write now.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: turn L @ Taupo, just past the Niagra Falls...
Posts: 596
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wow. I'm humbled. I thank you FGD135, remoak and others that have contacted via PM. I will be in touch as time permits.
As with many others whose opinions I have come to respect -and there are more than a few of you in here, I try to speak only from deep personal conviction. The longer I spend in this industry (past 30 years now) and the more opinions I am exposed to, the more I am challenged (sometimes forced, kicking & screaming all the way
) to examine and evaluate my own convictions and beliefs -not only as a pilot, but also as a person. As much as anyone else in here, I am a student of aviation practice -never really was that good at theory, was always telling people; don't tell me why it's so, show me why it is!!! Still do, in fact.
This forum is a brilliant resource, sometimes subverted but always challenging, personally and professionally. One major drawback that I have realised is how easy it is to take anothers words in the wrong way. In here, we all miss the subtle clues of inflection, facial expression and body-language upon which we (often subconsciously) rely to fully understand anothers meaning in face-to-face coversation. That can and does lead to misinterpretation in the absence of those clues. I know it has on more than one occasion in my case and that I have disported myself poorly as a consequence.
Given that my subsequent dummy-spits have been public, so then must this:
remoak: I have disagreed with your point of view on more than a few occasions and consequently spoken quite harshly to you. I unreservedly apologise. A difference of opinion is not a good reason for making personal attacks, especially in public. I'm ashamed of that behaviour. I don't necessarily concede the point of difference but have definitely grown to appreciate your articulate, thoughtful considered views. Thank you, keep it up and don't let me away with it when I'm just talking ****!
As I have with the FTDK; again, you & I have crossed swords on more than a few occasions. I have grown now to appreciate your dry wit and am better able to recognise when you are being a devils advocate -sometimes I'm quite literally rolling on the floor pissing myself laughing! For those occasions I have let fly, again I unreservedly apologise. Your posts on many topics are worth their weight in gold -particularly the GPS ones and many others!
There are others too, who's handles elude me at the minute, perhaps deserving.
Before I turn this into some sort of a love-in though, there are a few that have caught a barrel for whatever reason to whom I tender no apology. You got what was coming. You can remain nameless here. There are always a few muppets.
OK, that's it. Back to the argument...
As with many others whose opinions I have come to respect -and there are more than a few of you in here, I try to speak only from deep personal conviction. The longer I spend in this industry (past 30 years now) and the more opinions I am exposed to, the more I am challenged (sometimes forced, kicking & screaming all the way
) to examine and evaluate my own convictions and beliefs -not only as a pilot, but also as a person. As much as anyone else in here, I am a student of aviation practice -never really was that good at theory, was always telling people; don't tell me why it's so, show me why it is!!! Still do, in fact.This forum is a brilliant resource, sometimes subverted but always challenging, personally and professionally. One major drawback that I have realised is how easy it is to take anothers words in the wrong way. In here, we all miss the subtle clues of inflection, facial expression and body-language upon which we (often subconsciously) rely to fully understand anothers meaning in face-to-face coversation. That can and does lead to misinterpretation in the absence of those clues. I know it has on more than one occasion in my case and that I have disported myself poorly as a consequence.
Given that my subsequent dummy-spits have been public, so then must this:
remoak: I have disagreed with your point of view on more than a few occasions and consequently spoken quite harshly to you. I unreservedly apologise. A difference of opinion is not a good reason for making personal attacks, especially in public. I'm ashamed of that behaviour. I don't necessarily concede the point of difference
but have definitely grown to appreciate your articulate, thoughtful considered views. Thank you, keep it up and don't let me away with it when I'm just talking ****!As I have with the FTDK; again, you & I have crossed swords on more than a few occasions. I have grown now to appreciate your dry wit and am better able to recognise when you are being a devils advocate -sometimes I'm quite literally rolling on the floor pissing myself laughing! For those occasions I have let fly, again I unreservedly apologise. Your posts on many topics are worth their weight in gold -particularly the GPS ones and many others!
There are others too, who's handles elude me at the minute, perhaps deserving.
Before I turn this into some sort of a love-in though, there are a few that have caught a barrel for whatever reason to whom I tender no apology. You got what was coming. You can remain nameless here. There are always a few muppets.
OK, that's it. Back to the argument...
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: australia
Posts: 415
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A corrected VMCA departure from normal flight path is one very different animal than a VMCA roll which in general end up very badly and should never be initiated below 5000 ft
I have experienced one VMCA roll in a Navaho and never want to do that again, the roll was bloody quick the earth appeared in the top of the wind screen and the recovery was way beyond unusual attitude recovery.
So in my view VMCA is not something one toys with at any time, quite different from securing an engine in cruise on a training flight, the amount of airspeed that would need to be lost to get to a VMCA incident is way beyond what would happen normally to a FAR 23 twin in cruise, in other words the VMCA demonstration would require speed to wash off approaching VYSE which is not feasable in cruise, level flight, unless the second engine has also reduced power delivery and the aircraft is above its single engine ceiling.
The ability in the takeoff phase after VRand before V2 to get to VMCA with a high drag configuration if one loses an engine and end up upside down into the ground is something every light twin pilot should think about every time they open the taps, there is no real room to recover, drag is the enemy.
Even qualified test pilots I know, highly respected folk, approach VMCA with a great deal of respect and caution, it is simply not a good place to be.
I have experienced one VMCA roll in a Navaho and never want to do that again, the roll was bloody quick the earth appeared in the top of the wind screen and the recovery was way beyond unusual attitude recovery.
So in my view VMCA is not something one toys with at any time, quite different from securing an engine in cruise on a training flight, the amount of airspeed that would need to be lost to get to a VMCA incident is way beyond what would happen normally to a FAR 23 twin in cruise, in other words the VMCA demonstration would require speed to wash off approaching VYSE which is not feasable in cruise, level flight, unless the second engine has also reduced power delivery and the aircraft is above its single engine ceiling.
The ability in the takeoff phase after VRand before V2 to get to VMCA with a high drag configuration if one loses an engine and end up upside down into the ground is something every light twin pilot should think about every time they open the taps, there is no real room to recover, drag is the enemy.
Even qualified test pilots I know, highly respected folk, approach VMCA with a great deal of respect and caution, it is simply not a good place to be.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: turn L @ Taupo, just past the Niagra Falls...
Posts: 596
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Joker 10
A corrected VMCA departure from normal flight path...
That's why pilots need to understand, demonstrate and be competent at VMCA recovery. To bring the discussion back on track, in many GA AFM's there may be mention of VMCA, but precious little in the way of speeds, recovery or avoidance. And surely the purpose of the exercise is to be able to recognise a VMCA departure and take the appropriate corrective action in good time and with minimal height-loss before it develops into a VMCA Roll -which would in all probability require more than average skill to recover.
But your argument is that to do so requires all involved to "become a test-pilot" because there were no procedures laid out in the AFM -something you seem to abhor. I wonder then, what were you in your VMCA roll in the Navajo?
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: back of the crew bus
Posts: 1,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ah, now I see where you got your user name from, as you must be joking with this nonsense.
FAR 23 was indeed intended to certify for this, because the manouever you describe is essentially a baulked landing. A baulked landing certification demonstration is done from a very low altitude (ie less than 50 feet) in exactly the configuration you describe. Please explain what the difference is, other than one or two knots.
You are also clearly not experienced in multi-engine ops, if you were you would know that the last thing you do in that situation is "drills". You fly the aircraft until at a safe height before you even think of doing "drills". In any case, the only drill required is to gently raise the flaps in appropriate stages.
Are you for real? There will ALWAYS be a coroners inquest following an aircraft crash, it is legally required, if only for the tox screen (ie looking for drugs/alcohol). In this case it sounds as though he turned back and probably mis-handled the turn and lost control. A classic case of bad airmanship, if that is what happened. The standard procedure in a (marginal) light twin is to either put it down straight ahead, or get things fully under control, with adequate altitude and airspeed, before trying to return to the field.
Assuming that you are trying to say specious argument - please feel free to poke holes in my assertions using stuff like facts and logic. You haven't managed to do that yet, but I live in hope.
No, it is an exceedingly simple legal position. If it is not prohibited, you can do it, but you have to be able to prove that you acted reasonably in so doing. This has already been established a few times in the preceding posts, Chesty Morgan's post being particularly relevant.
As Vmca in the Chieftain is, from memory, under both Vr and V2 (depending on whether you are talking about static or dynamic Vmca, amongst other factors), you must be talking about a situation where the pilot is losing airspeed following an engine failure and approaching Vmca (which is about 76 KIAS in the Chieftain/Navajo if I remember correctly, with a dirty stall speed of 74 knots). So we are presumably talking about an aircraft that cannot meet it's certification requirements. The answer is simple, close the taps and land straight ahead. It isn't your day. No need to get anywhere near a Vmca roll.
tio540
So what is your point? Doesn't that action strike you as exceedingly foolish? And in any case it is mentioned in the FM, there is a speed limitation on slat deployment and they clearly broke it.
RadioSaigon
Hey, no worries. I absolutely refuse to get offended by anything I read on a forum... but I do value having a good, direct, and hopefully intelligent debate. I'd buy you a beer any time!
So now we are in our FAR 23 certified twin doing full flap takeoffs and we suddenly lose one engine and we are now into a ful flap demonstration of how to avoid a VMCA incident with max drag , low airspeed close to the ground and only 2 hands to complete all the drills, fly the aircraft and stay alive.
FAR 23 was never intended to certify for this, good idea to read the FAR.
FAR 23 was never intended to certify for this, good idea to read the FAR.
You are also clearly not experienced in multi-engine ops, if you were you would know that the last thing you do in that situation is "drills". You fly the aircraft until at a safe height before you even think of doing "drills". In any case, the only drill required is to gently raise the flaps in appropriate stages.
The coroner in W.A. recently dealt with an incident/accident involving a FAR 23 twin flown by a very experienced pilot who lost an engine shortly after takeoff in conditions with a relatively high density altitude, the aircraft crashed parallel to the runway trying to make it back, the takeoff was in accord with the AFM flapless, the engine lost a fuel pump and quit, the aircraft was within W/B limits but close to gross.
one descends into specious reason to defend one's position.
if the AFM/POH is silent on a point it can be read as that might be acceptable to experiment with because the author/certifying authority has not prohibited the activity on which the AFM/POH is silent. This legally a very difficult position.
The ability in the takeoff phase after VRand before V2 to get to VMCA with a high drag configuration if one loses an engine and end up upside down into the ground is something every light twin pilot should think about every time they open the taps, there is no real room to recover, drag is the enemy.
tio540
The 727 crew who deployed the leading edge slats and pulled the breaker in the cruise comes to mind. Nothing mentioned in the QRH or POH, and they paid the price.
RadioSaigon
Hey, no worries. I absolutely refuse to get offended by anything I read on a forum... but I do value having a good, direct, and hopefully intelligent debate. I'd buy you a beer any time!
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: turn L @ Taupo, just past the Niagra Falls...
Posts: 596
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by remoak
I'd buy you a beer any time! 
Will look forward to it -it's bound to be a robust discussion!
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: australia
Posts: 415
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Absolute horse ****, I would one day like to meet Remoak if he /she is still alive.
FAR 23 specifically says the take off performance is not to be considered as part of the Balked apprach when the aircraft has stored energy.
Maybe you are reading FAR 25 but then I guess all you want to do is be a smart arse.
I hope you live through you FAR 23 rejected takeoff in the light twin most brakes don't cut it.
After take off failure your drills may save you if you have enough time and you are real quick and on the ball 5 degrees into the remaining engine and all cleaned up on to blue line, really the second engine is there to take you to the scene of the accident.
The pilot in the W.A. accident was a very experienced man flying for one of Australias most experienced Air Survey Operators, he really tried to fly the aircraft through the loss of engine, no go and it wasn't a bug smasher either.
The Coroner is reqired to investigate all unexplained deaths, not for Tox Screen but for the reason the life was extinct, learn the law.
Why was I sarcastic with Radio Saigon, for the same reason I am sarcastic now how many lives does it take to give sense to a simple fact, more lives have been lost by pilots not adhering to the AFM/POH than lives saved by pilots who design their own operating standards.
And For Radio Saigon, part of an endorsement, very bloody scary I can assure you
But your argument is that to do so requires all involved to "become a test-pilot" because there were no procedures laid out in the AFM -something you seem to abhor. I wonder then, what were you in your VMCA roll in the Navajo?
Very experienced instructor and above 5000 ft
FAR 23 specifically says the take off performance is not to be considered as part of the Balked apprach when the aircraft has stored energy.
Maybe you are reading FAR 25 but then I guess all you want to do is be a smart arse.
I hope you live through you FAR 23 rejected takeoff in the light twin most brakes don't cut it.
After take off failure your drills may save you if you have enough time and you are real quick and on the ball 5 degrees into the remaining engine and all cleaned up on to blue line, really the second engine is there to take you to the scene of the accident.
The pilot in the W.A. accident was a very experienced man flying for one of Australias most experienced Air Survey Operators, he really tried to fly the aircraft through the loss of engine, no go and it wasn't a bug smasher either.
The Coroner is reqired to investigate all unexplained deaths, not for Tox Screen but for the reason the life was extinct, learn the law.
Why was I sarcastic with Radio Saigon, for the same reason I am sarcastic now how many lives does it take to give sense to a simple fact, more lives have been lost by pilots not adhering to the AFM/POH than lives saved by pilots who design their own operating standards.
And For Radio Saigon, part of an endorsement, very bloody scary I can assure you
But your argument is that to do so requires all involved to "become a test-pilot" because there were no procedures laid out in the AFM -something you seem to abhor. I wonder then, what were you in your VMCA roll in the Navajo?
Very experienced instructor and above 5000 ft
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 743
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As Vmca in the Chieftain is, from memory, under both Vr and V2 (depending on whether you are talking about static or dynamic Vmca, amongst other factors).
How long has a Chieftain has Vr/V2 speeds? Having flown and endorsed many pilots on PA31 aircraft when they were introduced into Australia, CAO 20.1.7b didn't apply this type of aircraft because they were not certified in Transport Category. The only speed on take off was Vtoss, which was shown on the P charts. What has changed that they now have speeds which indicate gauranteed OEI climb performance?
In regard to the assymetric go around from 50' in the landing configuration, ie gear down/landing flap extended,is there a chart in the Chieftain Flight Manual which shows what performance can be expected under various weight/temperature combinations.
How long has a Chieftain has Vr/V2 speeds? Having flown and endorsed many pilots on PA31 aircraft when they were introduced into Australia, CAO 20.1.7b didn't apply this type of aircraft because they were not certified in Transport Category. The only speed on take off was Vtoss, which was shown on the P charts. What has changed that they now have speeds which indicate gauranteed OEI climb performance?
In regard to the assymetric go around from 50' in the landing configuration, ie gear down/landing flap extended,is there a chart in the Chieftain Flight Manual which shows what performance can be expected under various weight/temperature combinations.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: back of the crew bus
Posts: 1,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dog One
It doesn't, it has a generic rotate speed and a blue line. I was using the terminology used by Joker 10 in an attempt to illustrate, through the use of irony, how far away his contentions are from reality. Probably a step too far on my part!
Dunno, I don't have access to one, but as it has been considered for certification, the data must exist somewhere.
Joker 10
Of course you can't use T/O performance to prove the Baulked Landing case. But let me ask you this - if you have to go around from say 20 feet at Vref or whatever the Chieftain equivalent speed is - how much stored energy do you have? I'll give you a hint - the figure is very close to zero. Now, given that scenario, what is the performance difference between an aircraft rotating for takeoff with full flap, and one about to touch down with full flap? Use the same hint as before - the figure is roughly ZERO.
We "test pilots" know this because we take the time and trouble to fill in the holes left by the FM. You have no idea at all, because you can't see past the pathetic excuse for a FM sitting in your aircraft. I wonder which of us is better equipped to cope with the unexpected?
Possibly true if field length is very limiting, but if I reject my T/O with full flap I will stop a lot more quickly than you will if you reject with no flap, mainly because I will be rejecting from a lower speed. Or are you suggesting that you wouldn't reject a takeoff if one fails before rotation?
Another brainless statement. How do you quantify how many people have been saved by working stuff out for themselves and not relying solely on the FM? I certainly fit into that category. How many others? You will never know as it is never recorded. On the other hand, how many people have died because they directly contravened their AFM/POH?
A good idea can be found here - http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/...e_aircraft.pdf
To quote from that document:
• Just over one-third of power loss accidents in twin-engine fixed-wing aircraft occurred during a non-asymmetric power loss. The majority of these were related to fuel management, and no benefit was derived from the presence of a second engine.
• The vast majority (86 per cent) of non-asymmetric power loss accidents
occurred following a power loss in either the en route or approach phases and resulted in aircraft being forced landed.
• Almost two-thirds of power loss accidents in twin-engine fixed-wing aircraft occurred during an asymmetric power loss. The reasons for these power losses were more varied than those in the non-asymmetric power loss group, with fuel management, fuel system problems, engine and propeller malfunctions, perceived power losses, simulated engine failures and power losses for undetermined reasons all identified as causes of power loss.
• More accidents (46 per cent) occurred following an asymmetric power loss in the take-off phase than in any other phase of flight.
As you can see, few of those accidents seem toi have anything at all to do with ignoring the FM/PH, other than in an indirect way.
I note that you have, as yet, not managed to refute any of the performance issues that I have raised that the FM/POH does not cater for. perhaps you should give that a try before hiding behind FAR23.
How long has a Chieftain has Vr/V2 speeds?
In regard to the assymetric go around from 50' in the landing configuration, ie gear down/landing flap extended,is there a chart in the Chieftain Flight Manual which shows what performance can be expected under various weight/temperature combinations.
Joker 10
FAR 23 specifically says the take off performance is not to be considered as part of the Balked apprach when the aircraft has stored energy
We "test pilots" know this because we take the time and trouble to fill in the holes left by the FM. You have no idea at all, because you can't see past the pathetic excuse for a FM sitting in your aircraft. I wonder which of us is better equipped to cope with the unexpected?
I hope you live through you FAR 23 rejected takeoff in the light twin most brakes don't cut it.
more lives have been lost by pilots not adhering to the AFM/POH than lives saved by pilots who design their own operating standards.
A good idea can be found here - http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/...e_aircraft.pdf
To quote from that document:
• Just over one-third of power loss accidents in twin-engine fixed-wing aircraft occurred during a non-asymmetric power loss. The majority of these were related to fuel management, and no benefit was derived from the presence of a second engine.
• The vast majority (86 per cent) of non-asymmetric power loss accidents
occurred following a power loss in either the en route or approach phases and resulted in aircraft being forced landed.
• Almost two-thirds of power loss accidents in twin-engine fixed-wing aircraft occurred during an asymmetric power loss. The reasons for these power losses were more varied than those in the non-asymmetric power loss group, with fuel management, fuel system problems, engine and propeller malfunctions, perceived power losses, simulated engine failures and power losses for undetermined reasons all identified as causes of power loss.
• More accidents (46 per cent) occurred following an asymmetric power loss in the take-off phase than in any other phase of flight.
As you can see, few of those accidents seem toi have anything at all to do with ignoring the FM/PH, other than in an indirect way.
I note that you have, as yet, not managed to refute any of the performance issues that I have raised that the FM/POH does not cater for. perhaps you should give that a try before hiding behind FAR23.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: australia
Posts: 415
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GAWD I am astounded, you say numerics don't have any validity then attempt to use them to prove your argument, I retire whilst I am still alive and I really hope you can also.
Testing the argument using semantics reminds me of pavlovs dogs, predictable butb meaningless.
Just staying alive will do me , you test pilots enjoy what you have left, however long that might be.
Full flap takeoffs , bugger me, not on my watch.
Testing the argument using semantics reminds me of pavlovs dogs, predictable butb meaningless.
Just staying alive will do me , you test pilots enjoy what you have left, however long that might be.
Full flap takeoffs , bugger me, not on my watch.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: back of the crew bus
Posts: 1,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lol you really are a joker.
You didn't provide any "numerics", sunshine. You alluded to a completely unprovable statistic, whereas I provided you with statistics compiled by your own government.
Good luck on staying alive. It'll be more through good luck than good management. Maybe when you get to fly something bigger than old Chieftains and semi-warbirds, and advance beyond FAR23, you will start to understand what performance really is, and how it works.
-----------------------------
And a great big "Thank You" to all those who sent PMs supporting the position that myself and RadioSaigon have taken. I had no idea there so many people with an interest in this debate... much appreciated.
You didn't provide any "numerics", sunshine. You alluded to a completely unprovable statistic, whereas I provided you with statistics compiled by your own government.
Good luck on staying alive. It'll be more through good luck than good management. Maybe when you get to fly something bigger than old Chieftains and semi-warbirds, and advance beyond FAR23, you will start to understand what performance really is, and how it works.
-----------------------------
And a great big "Thank You" to all those who sent PMs supporting the position that myself and RadioSaigon have taken. I had no idea there so many people with an interest in this debate... much appreciated.
Last edited by remoak; 7th Jun 2009 at 15:01.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Victoria
Age: 62
Posts: 984
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
An interesting discussion here, although it looks like it's degenerating into willy-waving. On PPRuNE - who'da thunk it?!
Initially I was on the side of the "AFM = gospel" brigade. However upon reflection I realized that this was because of the quality of the manuals given to ADF pilots (yes, I'm one of those). As opposed to the "civvy" AFMs which seem to be written by lawyers in order to minimize the possibility of a law suit, all military manuals I've used contain much more information.
All the useful "good guts" information learned from experience is incorporated into the flight manual in regular amendment cycles, rather than being transmitted by word of mouth as seems to be the case in the civvy world.
Therefore the mindset of adhering to the flight maual is more prevalent in military aviation because we have flight manuals that are much more comprehensive and therefore actually useful.
We also have a flight trails unit (ARDU) with qualified test pilots (ETPS or USNTP), who are quite happy to do all the funky stuff when required.
Initially I was on the side of the "AFM = gospel" brigade. However upon reflection I realized that this was because of the quality of the manuals given to ADF pilots (yes, I'm one of those). As opposed to the "civvy" AFMs which seem to be written by lawyers in order to minimize the possibility of a law suit, all military manuals I've used contain much more information.
All the useful "good guts" information learned from experience is incorporated into the flight manual in regular amendment cycles, rather than being transmitted by word of mouth as seems to be the case in the civvy world.
Therefore the mindset of adhering to the flight maual is more prevalent in military aviation because we have flight manuals that are much more comprehensive and therefore actually useful.
We also have a flight trails unit (ARDU) with qualified test pilots (ETPS or USNTP), who are quite happy to do all the funky stuff when required.
Moderator
It needs to be kept in mind that a civil Flight Manual doesn't purport to be a "how to do it" compendium of all things for all people. The document gives (often the minimum of) essential certification information.
The civilian pilot then needs to refer to supporting documents for the fleshy bits of how the aircraft ought to be operated.
It is an oft held lemma that the OEM knows best how to design and manufacture but that the (experienced) operator knows best how to operate.
The concern is where pilots, often with only a part of the story, fill in the gaps in a less disciplined manner. Generally, this is only going to be tested in court after an accident .. and the latter may or may not have anything much to do with the pilot's quasi-certification activities.
.. or am I just an old fashioned fuddy duddy ?
Captain Sand Dune is, I presume, current or ex-, RAAF and his comments are right on the mark. ADF flight manuals endeavour to be both pertinent to the specific aircraft and comprehensive. The military folk have a considerable problem when faced with the typical, far more generic (in that multiple serial ranges may be addressed) civil flight manual. Those of us who have some exposure to both worlds see this with the increasing incidence of civil Types being brought across into the ADF environment via a military type certification process which, necessarily, has to rely to a large extent on the existing civil Type Certificate process.
The civilian pilot then needs to refer to supporting documents for the fleshy bits of how the aircraft ought to be operated.
It is an oft held lemma that the OEM knows best how to design and manufacture but that the (experienced) operator knows best how to operate.
The concern is where pilots, often with only a part of the story, fill in the gaps in a less disciplined manner. Generally, this is only going to be tested in court after an accident .. and the latter may or may not have anything much to do with the pilot's quasi-certification activities.
.. or am I just an old fashioned fuddy duddy ?
Captain Sand Dune is, I presume, current or ex-, RAAF and his comments are right on the mark. ADF flight manuals endeavour to be both pertinent to the specific aircraft and comprehensive. The military folk have a considerable problem when faced with the typical, far more generic (in that multiple serial ranges may be addressed) civil flight manual. Those of us who have some exposure to both worlds see this with the increasing incidence of civil Types being brought across into the ADF environment via a military type certification process which, necessarily, has to rely to a large extent on the existing civil Type Certificate process.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: turn L @ Taupo, just past the Niagra Falls...
Posts: 596
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At last! Captain Sand Dune and John Tullamarine -thank you. In a very few words you have highlighted what remoak and I have been trying to get across. If I may, I'll paraphrase a few of your comments, hopefully to further focus the discussion:
What a wonderful luxury that must be! Most GA AFM's published and able to be purchased today are identical in every respect (bar perhaps the cover illustration) to the original certification document written and published in 196X. There was another discussion here some months ago that also ventured into this AFM arena, and it was I think Chimbu Chuckles or the FTDK that related the story of having purchased a "new" AFM for the V35, only to find upon delivery that the document was identical to the 30-odd year old manual already in the aircraft. I can't find that discussion now after a quick search, but it'll be there somewhere. The point of course is that many of the components that the manufacturer installed or mandated in the manual probably have been updated to newer "next gen" equipment, but those changes are not reflected in the AFM. Likewise the experience and knowledge gained by a world-wide operational fleet never makes it into the GA AFM. About the only changes most GA AFM's ever see in their lifetime is that mandated by AD's or TSO equipment installed, which may be supported by an AFM supplement. Inevitably legalese upon legalese.
Precisely. Although personally I would have used "predominantly" where you used "often".
Again, precisely. Although I think it's regrettable that the "supporting documents" available to GA pilots are committed only to the oldest form of documentation known to mankind -word of mouth. It is very very hard to find anything operationally useful available, unless someone has written and published a book broadly pertinent to your needs. Some examples of those might include titles like: The Advanced Pilots' Flight Manual -Kershner; Guide to Bush Flying -Potts; Flying a Floatplane -Faure; Water Flying Concepts -de Remer, to name just a few. Before anyone pounces on me re the relevance of these texts, have a read of one or more of them. Although by their titles you may be able to deduce that they're pretty activity-specific texts, you'd best believe that most of the material written there is immediately relevant and pertinent to whatever you fly, wherever you fly it. Another brilliant example that springs to mind is the Cowboys Guide to the Cessna 185. Run a Google search, it'll pop straight up. That's a text that pulls no punches and again most of it is relevant to whatever and wherever you fly. There should be more texts like it IMO and a pox on politically correct arse-covering documents feebly supported by gutless regulators.
Hoorah. Ain't gonna be getting no argument from me on that one. Have to wonder though, how much does the "experienced operator" rely on the OEM AFM in his daily operation -beyond the limitations section? Waddya reckon???
Originally Posted by Captain Sand Dune
All the useful "good guts" information learned from experience is incorporated into the flight manual in regular amendment cycles...
Originally Posted by John Tullamarine
The document gives (often the minimum of) essential certification information...
Originally Posted by John Tullamarine
The civilian pilot then needs to refer to supporting documents for the fleshy bits...
Originally Posted by John Tullamarine
It is an oft held lemma that the OEM knows best how to design and manufacture but that the (experienced) operator knows best how to operate.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: australia
Posts: 415
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Capt Sand Dune,
Quite right and as it should be:
We also have a flight trails unit (ARDU) with qualified test pilots (ETPS or USNTP), who are quite happy to do all the funky stuff when required.
Quite right and as it should be:
We also have a flight trails unit (ARDU) with qualified test pilots (ETPS or USNTP), who are quite happy to do all the funky stuff when required.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Back again.
Posts: 1,140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Conversation has deviated a little from the original topic and question. Joker 10 has been taking the conservative line and Radio Saigon and Remoak have been espousing a little more freedom. As far as I can tell, there is nothing wrong with any of their arguments. Joker 10 flies one way and Re and Radio fly slightly differently. Maybe more of a result of the different environments in which they fly rather than different philosophies.
Chances are if you've flown an Islander, you've had to operate off short, dirt strips on a regular basis. You learn how to get the thing into the air quickly because there's nothing in the flight manual that mentions takeoff distance with puddles, mud, large rocks, loose dirt, stones, and a Chief Pilot who doesn't like stone chips in the propellor, etc. The AFM is a guide, not a bible. It defines the limits of the flight envelope with a little wriggle room. If you've spent most of your flying time on sealed strips, chances are you've had the luxury of not having to worry too much about variable runway conditions and the AFM can be referred to in black and white interpretation.
If the instructor tells you to fly a certain way, then fly that way. The methods that Re and Radio mention work and work well, but they do increase the requirements for attention on takeoff. If you're not prepared for it, then don't do it.
Chances are if you've flown an Islander, you've had to operate off short, dirt strips on a regular basis. You learn how to get the thing into the air quickly because there's nothing in the flight manual that mentions takeoff distance with puddles, mud, large rocks, loose dirt, stones, and a Chief Pilot who doesn't like stone chips in the propellor, etc. The AFM is a guide, not a bible. It defines the limits of the flight envelope with a little wriggle room. If you've spent most of your flying time on sealed strips, chances are you've had the luxury of not having to worry too much about variable runway conditions and the AFM can be referred to in black and white interpretation.
If the instructor tells you to fly a certain way, then fly that way. The methods that Re and Radio mention work and work well, but they do increase the requirements for attention on takeoff. If you're not prepared for it, then don't do it.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: turn L @ Taupo, just past the Niagra Falls...
Posts: 596
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Lowdown
...more of a result of the different environments in which they fly rather than different philosophies...
As you say, I (and many others) don't always have the luxury of a sealed runway disappearing over the horizon at either end of our operations. We are (more or less) frequently operating in conditions which the AFM simply does not consider -or for which little or no relevant information is provided. That does not make us fools, test pilots, cowboys or anything else -as long as we are operating within the parameters defined in the limitations section of our AFM, which we are. The gaps in the information available have to be filled by discussion with those experienced and competent in the operation in question, reference to existing supplementary documentation where available and individual experience.
Oh btw -if I ever have to wait for the CP to gyp me for stone-chipped props, then I deserve my arse kicked!!! One of my personal pet hates
Originally Posted by Lowdown
If the instructor tells you to fly a certain way, then fly that way...
That depends entirely on the instructor. There are (a majority) whose opinions and words can be relied upon, but there's also a growing cadre of muppets there too... don't reckon you'd have to look too far to find one either.