152 crash at Sussex
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A few of us old farts do tend to get wrapped up in esoteric theoretical discussions that while interesting to us, are probably are less so to the majority of the readers of this thread
The above is true we like to challenge each other and also established principals.
There are some very experienced and knowledgable Pilots! You mentioned Pilot Dar BPF and MJ who all have very sound advice ignore the Pace guy on your list! very suspect character with dubious flying methods
Pace
Last edited by Pace; 19th Aug 2012 at 18:38.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sound more than competent to be debating for me 
Sometimes a students perspective is what the debate actually needs.
Thats the good thing about people with outside avaition experence in both teaching and application. You can point to examples in your own field of experence which are more than valid for flying as well.
Pace does OK as well as long as you don't listen to him about stallling and holding the attitude
Sometimes a students perspective is what the debate actually needs.
Thats the good thing about people with outside avaition experence in both teaching and application. You can point to examples in your own field of experence which are more than valid for flying as well.
Pace does OK as well as long as you don't listen to him about stallling and holding the attitude
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: London
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for the kind words. I should add that I, for one, find these debates enormously useful. They may help with the exams but will certainly help with my understanding.
Trying to get my head around this debate has made me think long and hard about AOA vs pitch attitude and even simply what landing really means. If the plane is in contact with the ground but has flying speed and enough kinetic energy to get back to 50' has it landed?
Trying to get my head around this debate has made me think long and hard about AOA vs pitch attitude and even simply what landing really means. If the plane is in contact with the ground but has flying speed and enough kinetic energy to get back to 50' has it landed?
[[off-topic]]
Then search for the world's only jet-powered biplane, the PZL M15. Closer to everyday reality, there's a Belgian designed microlight too: the Aviasud Mistral.
(not that I can think of a trike biplane)
Last edited by Jan Olieslagers; 19th Aug 2012 at 23:25.
Moderator
I, for one, find these debates enormously useful.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There are some highly experenced pilots that maintain the plane hasn't landed until you have shut down.
Most conditions this is a bit over kill but in some you are flying the aircraft using into wind control inputs depending on which way you are pointing etc while taxing.
One of the common mistakes on landing is to stop flying even though the aircraft is on the ground. Which leads to a sudden lose of directional controll as the into wind roll is released to early and the aircraft weather cocks into wind.
Most conditions this is a bit over kill but in some you are flying the aircraft using into wind control inputs depending on which way you are pointing etc while taxing.
One of the common mistakes on landing is to stop flying even though the aircraft is on the ground. Which leads to a sudden lose of directional controll as the into wind roll is released to early and the aircraft weather cocks into wind.
No instructor ever did that to me, until I asked one to, many years after getting my licence, having read yet another report of someone killing themselves following an ASI failure. And this was before AF 447.
A very prudent practice. I've had two real ASI failures (one due to a mud-wasp nest in the pitot and the other due to water in the pitot) and neither was a big deal since I had practiced it before.
Most conditions this is a bit over kill but in some you are flying the aircraft using into wind control inputs depending on which way you are pointing etc while taxing.
I agree. With nearly a 1000 glider-tows under my belt, a Scout nearly bit me one day when a cross-wind gust lifted one of the main wheels a foot off the ground near the end if the landing run. However, I was still "flying" the aircraft and managed to get the wing down again, without having to resort to a go-around.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A very prudent practice. I've had two real ASI failures (one due to a mud-wasp nest in the pitot and the other due to water in the pitot) and neither was a big deal since I had practiced it before.
Ok it won't be 100 % reliable as you will need to know the wind component and that will change slightly but it's a good reference should the ASI fail as well as the usual stuff for ASI fail
Pace
I'd regard GPS groundspeed as potentially dangerously misleading for a variety of reasons. Wind being the biggest, effects of slope being the next.
Pitch attitude is your best friend - using the AI if IMC, or the real horizon once VMC, which would be a good idea to be.
If you know that in a given type the pitch attitude and power for a well flown approach, the ASI should, realistically, just be a "nice to have".
G
Pitch attitude is your best friend - using the AI if IMC, or the real horizon once VMC, which would be a good idea to be.
If you know that in a given type the pitch attitude and power for a well flown approach, the ASI should, realistically, just be a "nice to have".
G
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
G
I did say not 100 % reliable Depends on being wind aware and as a backup to the normal failed ASI methods.
There was a near accident at my old airfield where a pilot accidentally knocked off the Pitot while flying IMC. The pitot froze and the airspeed started a fairly quick decline.
The pilot panicked and seeing the ASI head for the stall pushed the nose over into a high speed dive in IMC!
A quick glance at the GPS might of made him
Question the ASI indications!
Pace
I did say not 100 % reliable Depends on being wind aware and as a backup to the normal failed ASI methods.
There was a near accident at my old airfield where a pilot accidentally knocked off the Pitot while flying IMC. The pitot froze and the airspeed started a fairly quick decline.
The pilot panicked and seeing the ASI head for the stall pushed the nose over into a high speed dive in IMC!
A quick glance at the GPS might of made him
Question the ASI indications!
Pace
Last edited by Pace; 20th Aug 2012 at 10:53.
Agreed, question the ASI's reliability where it doesn't match other indications.
But the GPS could have been misleading and supported his incorrect actions because it gives speed over the ground and a steep high speed dive wouldn't have given a particularly high speed.
Conversely a GPS could show below Vs in a climb, where for example the aeroplane's around Vx and into wind - a perfectly safe condition.
If the power is about right, and the altimeter / VSI show zero/low rate of climb or descent, even in IMC that's a pretty good indicator that the aeroplane's in a sensible flight condition, even if the ASI says otherwise. Those are standard instrument training of-course, but getting sidetracked from that to start using the GPS strikes me as potentially misleading.
G
But the GPS could have been misleading and supported his incorrect actions because it gives speed over the ground and a steep high speed dive wouldn't have given a particularly high speed.
Conversely a GPS could show below Vs in a climb, where for example the aeroplane's around Vx and into wind - a perfectly safe condition.
If the power is about right, and the altimeter / VSI show zero/low rate of climb or descent, even in IMC that's a pretty good indicator that the aeroplane's in a sensible flight condition, even if the ASI says otherwise. Those are standard instrument training of-course, but getting sidetracked from that to start using the GPS strikes me as potentially misleading.
G
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Qualify that with unless in icing Genghis ;-)
And no lanhamlad Pace isn't the type to fanny around in the stall he flys a paricularly slippery machine for work which has a particualrly high thrust to mass ratio which there has been some discussion in the past on stall recovery in it. To be honest it may very well be the exception that proves the rule. But to all piston pilots apart from maybe the war bird drivers it distracts from the point that to unstall an aircraft you have to lower the AoA away from the critical before you unstall it.
And no lanhamlad Pace isn't the type to fanny around in the stall he flys a paricularly slippery machine for work which has a particualrly high thrust to mass ratio which there has been some discussion in the past on stall recovery in it. To be honest it may very well be the exception that proves the rule. But to all piston pilots apart from maybe the war bird drivers it distracts from the point that to unstall an aircraft you have to lower the AoA away from the critical before you unstall it.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
d but has flying speed and enough kinetic energy to get back to 50' has it landed?
So it's his skills or lack of them which will determine whether the still flying aircraft with bags of potential energy inhand lands on a smooth runway or heads to 50 feet !
Pace
Last edited by Pace; 20th Aug 2012 at 17:47.
Just a clarification other than a massive up draught of air the only thing that will take the aircraft back up to 50 feet intentionally or otherwise is the pilot.
So it's his skills or lack of them which will determine whether the still flying aircraft with bags of potential energy inhand lands on a smooth runway or heads to 50 feet !
Pace
So it's his skills or lack of them which will determine whether the still flying aircraft with bags of potential energy inhand lands on a smooth runway or heads to 50 feet !
Pace
There are some highly experenced pilots that maintain the plane hasn't landed until you have shut down.
Most conditions this is a bit over kill but in some you are flying the aircraft using into wind control inputs depending on which way you are pointing etc while taxing.
One of the common mistakes on landing is to stop flying even though the aircraft is on the ground. Which leads to a sudden lose of directional controll as the into wind roll is released to early and the aircraft weather cocks into wind.
Most conditions this is a bit over kill but in some you are flying the aircraft using into wind control inputs depending on which way you are pointing etc while taxing.
One of the common mistakes on landing is to stop flying even though the aircraft is on the ground. Which leads to a sudden lose of directional controll as the into wind roll is released to early and the aircraft weather cocks into wind.
. To get to it I had to backtrack as there was no taxiways. I gave a lot of thought to how I was going to perform the into wind to downwind turn as the aircraft was going to be very vulnerable to an upset when it was part way around the turn. I ended up waiting about 10 minuites staring at the wind sock until there was a brief lull which allowed me to get around, back track the runway and make the turn onto the ramp. It was still pretty scary with the aircraft light on the tires the whole way
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Or better yet uses their good judgement to avoid arriving at the runway with "bags of potential energy" in the first place
Here we go again : ) I can think of quite a few situations where I would be very greatful arriving with bags of potential energy but then I will leave the discussion in the name of peace and goodwill to all men : )
Pace
Last edited by Pace; 20th Aug 2012 at 19:13.
Pace
My reply was not meant as a personal criticism, but rather as a general observation, although rereading it I can now see it sounds like I am having a go at you.
I apologize as that was not my intent.
My reply was not meant as a personal criticism, but rather as a general observation, although rereading it I can now see it sounds like I am having a go at you.
I apologize as that was not my intent.
I just finished reading my e copy of "Pilot" magazine and saw that there was a report on a C 152 landing accident. I thought they where talking about the subject of this thread, but regrettably no, it is for a different earlier accident,
Sadly the theme is so familiar. A series of bounces occur with a major nosewheel first hit leading to a wrecked aircraft. At any time full power could have been applied and the aircraft would have naturally pitched up and then could be flown away
Sadly the theme is so familiar. A series of bounces occur with a major nosewheel first hit leading to a wrecked aircraft. At any time full power could have been applied and the aircraft would have naturally pitched up and then could be flown away
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Scotland
Posts: 158
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I gave a lot of thought to how I was going to perform the into wind to downwind turn as the aircraft was going to be very vulnerable to an upset when it was part way around the turn.