Plane crash near Basingstoke UK
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: with bosun Blue Sky and the jenny haniver "Hot Stuff"
Posts: 106
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We purchased two Alpha 200 helmets from SES. The RAF helmets are too heavy and the field of view of an Alpha is better.
Interestingly it is, actually, illegal to purchase and wear ex-RAF helmets. When I rang the manufacturers to ask for a size chart I got a very curt idea where I should put it
p.s. Please don't listen to the naysayers. Carry on wearing that helmet.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Philippines
Posts: 460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mary's right
Glider pilots train for and carry out 'forced landings' on a regular basis (you could argue EVERY landing is a 'forced landing'), whereas power pilots really just play at it.
A PPL/RT is, after all, a very basic flying qualification.
Go on, guys, when is the last time you SERIOUSLY looked at fields? low down?
A PPL/RT is, after all, a very basic flying qualification.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Speaking as a line Captain as well as being an Instructor and Examainer I would pit a good many of those "play pilots" against many of the professionals I have flown with.
You still did not respond to my earlier comment about why if everything in commercial aviation can be trained for we have had so many airliners in the drink?
You still did not respond to my earlier comment about why if everything in commercial aviation can be trained for we have had so many airliners in the drink?
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Philippines
Posts: 460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bose-X
Trained for is what I said - not whether accidents had happened or not.
Apart from midair collisions and catastrophic structural failure, I don't know of any scenarios which are not covered in a B737 QRH for example - including double engine failures, engines dropping off and the like.
Now most private pilots take off knowing (or at least should be aware) that there are situations where the consequences of engine failure, for example, would pose a serious threat to life - engine failure at a low height (low level route?), engine failure at night, ditching, flight over hostile terrain, flight into deteriorating weather and flight after sunset (if not suitably rated).
Not something a commercial pilot flying public transport would generally consider or be affected by.
Private pilots waltz off into the unknown often without a care in the World.
I wonder how many pilots reading this might one day say to the husband/wife: 'There's a d******d on PPruNe who winds everyone up talking about "motorway flying" and being caught out by weather. What a p***t' - only one day to find themselves flying in deteriorating weather, at low level, with no options and end up crashing killing themselves, their partner and injuring their child?
No one is too qualified or too experienced - or too confident or wealthy not to have an accident.
Really? Seems to have been rather a lot of airliners in the drink over the last few years........
Apart from midair collisions and catastrophic structural failure, I don't know of any scenarios which are not covered in a B737 QRH for example - including double engine failures, engines dropping off and the like.
Now most private pilots take off knowing (or at least should be aware) that there are situations where the consequences of engine failure, for example, would pose a serious threat to life - engine failure at a low height (low level route?), engine failure at night, ditching, flight over hostile terrain, flight into deteriorating weather and flight after sunset (if not suitably rated).
Not something a commercial pilot flying public transport would generally consider or be affected by.
Private pilots waltz off into the unknown often without a care in the World.
I wonder how many pilots reading this might one day say to the husband/wife: 'There's a d******d on PPruNe who winds everyone up talking about "motorway flying" and being caught out by weather. What a p***t' - only one day to find themselves flying in deteriorating weather, at low level, with no options and end up crashing killing themselves, their partner and injuring their child?
No one is too qualified or too experienced - or too confident or wealthy not to have an accident.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Glens o' Angus by way of LA
Age: 60
Posts: 1,975
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Shytorque
Wouldn't you have that unlatched, slid back and pinned during the practice ?
In a low winged aircraft with a rearwards sliding canopy that would mean you won't get out unassisted. If spilled fuel ignited, you're done
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,573
Received 422 Likes
on
222 Posts
No. Have you ever flown a Bulldog?
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Glens o' Angus by way of LA
Age: 60
Posts: 1,975
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No, never flown in an aircraft with a rear sliding canopy, closest I have to this is the Varga Kachina which opens from the side and can be flown open, I would be hesitant to fly an aircraft that you could not pin or block the door as you know the most likely damage in a rough put down after the nose gear/prop is the firewall with the door and frame getting bent/jammed in place .
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Varga_2150_Kachina
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Varga_2150_Kachina
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1,464
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Anyone learning to fly, power or glider, when doing the exercise entitled Emergency Field Landing, would profit from going to a gliding club and flying IN A MOTOR GLIDER with an instructor who is qualified to teach the exercise called CHOOSING A FIELD. Power instructors make a dash at this, but not in a very expert way. The glider pilot who intends to fly cross country MUST be able to choose a field, so this motor glider training intended to teach field landings is the very best and most intense. And it usually costs a lot less than a power lesson.
Go on, guys, when is the last time you SERIOUSLY looked at fields? low down?
Go on, guys, when is the last time you SERIOUSLY looked at fields? low down?
We were told a story about this when the CAA did a safety evening at the gliding club. They firstly told glider pilots to shut up, then showed an image of nasty bit black threatening clouds above a stubble field and asked the rest of the audience what they would do. 'turn around'. 'it looks the same all round'. Apparently they were pretty stumped at coming up with the answer of landing in the stubble field.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,573
Received 422 Likes
on
222 Posts
Obviously no helicopter pilots in the audience, then.
I have done 2 PPL courses separated by over 25 years. On the first one, in a Tiger Moth, I certainly had to carry out a precautionary landing as part of my test. I hated doing them in the Tiger because you had to fly very close to the stall, with the nose well up so you couldn't see anything, and I never felt confident enough to do that without an instructor. I do remember that it was a frosty morning and, when I looked back after my landing the tail skid marks were satisfyingly close to the hedge.
On the second course, I never did any precautionary landings or glide approaches although I did carry out a Xcountry leg simulating low cloud. I did have to do glide approaches on the test but made a mess of them because I didn't know how to set it up at a fairly busy airport with rigid circuit procedures. Crazy really because, in my Tiger days, I only ever did glide approaches.
On the second course, I never did any precautionary landings or glide approaches although I did carry out a Xcountry leg simulating low cloud. I did have to do glide approaches on the test but made a mess of them because I didn't know how to set it up at a fairly busy airport with rigid circuit procedures. Crazy really because, in my Tiger days, I only ever did glide approaches.
On the first one, in a Tiger Moth, I certainly had to carry out a precautionary landing as part of my test. I hated doing them in the Tiger because you had to fly very close to the stall, with the nose well up so you couldn't see anything, and I never felt confident enough to do that without an instructor. I do remember that it was a frosty morning and, when I looked back after my landing the tail skid marks were satisfyingly close to the hedge.
Even if you are power on, coming in slowly at a high angle of attack and suddenly applying full power could potentially cause to to flick if you came out of a gust and a tip stalled.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,573
Received 422 Likes
on
222 Posts
As is very often the case in aviation, it's wrong to over generalise. Different aircraft have different requirements and sometimes quite different techniques are required to achieve the same thing.
Mechta,
I was trained to speed up for the approach in gliders because, if you suffered a wind gradient at low altitude, you had no other weapon. In a powered aircraft you do have another weapon, the engine. The trick is to recognise you might need to use it before it is too late. As I said, in the Tiger I never felt confident enough to do it solo, bearing in mind that the Tiger does not have flaps. I once remember my instructors were having a laugh, so I'm told, as I flew solo across the airfield in what turned out to be a very slow fly by instead of a precautionary landing. I am more confident now with a lot more hours and an aircraft with a better view even with the nose high and good flaps.
I was trained to speed up for the approach in gliders because, if you suffered a wind gradient at low altitude, you had no other weapon. In a powered aircraft you do have another weapon, the engine. The trick is to recognise you might need to use it before it is too late. As I said, in the Tiger I never felt confident enough to do it solo, bearing in mind that the Tiger does not have flaps. I once remember my instructors were having a laugh, so I'm told, as I flew solo across the airfield in what turned out to be a very slow fly by instead of a precautionary landing. I am more confident now with a lot more hours and an aircraft with a better view even with the nose high and good flaps.
I was trained to speed up for the approach in gliders because, if you suffered a wind gradient at low altitude
The primary reason for flying faster on approach is because gliders, particularly trainers, are often flown slower than a safe approach speed (1.3 Vso). Then on top of that, an additional increase in speed can be required, depending on the wind velocity, to allow for wind gradient effects, just like in a powered aeroplane. For example, the SAC Instructor's Manual recommends an approach speed of 1.3 Vso plus the full wind speed.
http://www.sac.ca/website/index.php/...rts-a-a-b/file
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Any flight training needs to be geared towards the reality of the situation that you are training for.
Hence why in jets so much is done in sims.
A PL flown to 500 feet on a glorious day is completely useless when the reality is more likely to be that an aircraft is flying low level in poor visibility and surrounded by mist and clouds maybe rain and turbulence or icing.
So there should be three aspects of training
Slow flight and short field landings under power!
Identification of suitable landing areas
Operations in low visibility conditions.
An off airfield landing can be for a number of reasons which require the aircraft to be on the ground as quickly as possible so not just for a situation where the pilot has flown into weather conditions he or the aircraft cannot handle but also pilot unwell, mechanical or structural problems, smoke, fire etc.
Going by the stats a PL is a skill which would be more likely to be used than a FL although both are important in a SEP
Operating in low visibility conditions is a skill of its own and the cause of many loss of control situations with the pilot fixated on looking out and not controlling airspeed or attitude
Pace
Hence why in jets so much is done in sims.
A PL flown to 500 feet on a glorious day is completely useless when the reality is more likely to be that an aircraft is flying low level in poor visibility and surrounded by mist and clouds maybe rain and turbulence or icing.
So there should be three aspects of training
Slow flight and short field landings under power!
Identification of suitable landing areas
Operations in low visibility conditions.
An off airfield landing can be for a number of reasons which require the aircraft to be on the ground as quickly as possible so not just for a situation where the pilot has flown into weather conditions he or the aircraft cannot handle but also pilot unwell, mechanical or structural problems, smoke, fire etc.
Going by the stats a PL is a skill which would be more likely to be used than a FL although both are important in a SEP
Operating in low visibility conditions is a skill of its own and the cause of many loss of control situations with the pilot fixated on looking out and not controlling airspeed or attitude
Pace
Last edited by Pace; 11th Jan 2015 at 10:05.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Philippines
Posts: 460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pace
Absolutely.
... and I can't help thinking that the 'fear' of a telling off for getting into the situation in the first place, the possibly of damaging an aircraft and the inconvenience of getting back late, override the sensible approach of carrying out a PL.
Therefore pilots will tend to press on and hope it all works out rather than taking an early decision and completing a successful off-airfield PL.
A shame really because in most parts of the UK there is a wealth of suitable landing sites, and therefore options, if the decision to land away is taken early enough.
No aerodrome, airfield or airport is going to turn you away in an emergency. It might prove expensive, be slightly embarrassing and/or inconvenient but at least you'll live to tell the tale.
I know it's been said many times but aeroplanes can be replaced, people can't.
Absolutely.
... and I can't help thinking that the 'fear' of a telling off for getting into the situation in the first place, the possibly of damaging an aircraft and the inconvenience of getting back late, override the sensible approach of carrying out a PL.
Therefore pilots will tend to press on and hope it all works out rather than taking an early decision and completing a successful off-airfield PL.
A shame really because in most parts of the UK there is a wealth of suitable landing sites, and therefore options, if the decision to land away is taken early enough.
No aerodrome, airfield or airport is going to turn you away in an emergency. It might prove expensive, be slightly embarrassing and/or inconvenient but at least you'll live to tell the tale.
I know it's been said many times but aeroplanes can be replaced, people can't.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
500 ft Culture
It would seem that Spanner, Pace and myself are more or less in agreement that the Precautionary landing is not well taught and that the reason it is not used enough is probably 60% a CRM issue and 40% lack of skills issue.
I keep hearing this 500 ft thing talked about in flying training circles, do you think that misinterpritation of the 500 ft rule and the fear of the lawyers has resulted in instructors abandoning training in the PL/PFL area at a height that makes the training unrealistic ?
PACE, its A and C not A and E !...................... A and E is what we want to keep people out of !!
I keep hearing this 500 ft thing talked about in flying training circles, do you think that misinterpritation of the 500 ft rule and the fear of the lawyers has resulted in instructors abandoning training in the PL/PFL area at a height that makes the training unrealistic ?
PACE, its A and C not A and E !...................... A and E is what we want to keep people out of !!
Interestingly it is, actually, illegal to purchase and wear ex-RAF helmets. When I rang the manufacturers to ask for a size chart I got a very curt idea where I should put it
Actually Bug Smasher they may be sometimes correct. RAF helmet originally belong to the RAF and should have been handed back to stores. If aircrew leave the military and keep their bone domes, I suppose they are stealing. But I suppose some are sold by the MOD so I cannot think what case manufacturers have. Bit like a motor manufacturer not allowing cars to be sold secondhand.
Actually Bug Smasher they may be sometimes correct. RAF helmet originally belong to the RAF and should have been handed back to stores. If aircrew leave the military and keep their bone domes, I suppose they are stealing. But I suppose some are sold by the MOD so I cannot think what case manufacturers have. Bit like a motor manufacturer not allowing cars to be sold secondhand.
When I was actively instructing I had a number of sites that I used where I could take a student down to the flare without fear of prosecution; it instills confidence in their ability to conduct the manoeuvre.