Or perhaps Rainboe you should read and follow the FCTM?

Raiboe I'm not going to argue with you (you seem to think everyone is wrong apart from you). Unfortunately you think you know it all because you have hours and thus the don't think rules apply to you. Question do you think you are better than a test pilot ? I know I'm not and never will be, that's why I follow the manual. I figure that in the 30-40 years the 73's been around they have figured out what is best.

Olster is absolutely correct deviate from the manuals at your peril! Boeing know what they are doing!

As for using the word knob.... its a term the us in the colonies use. Perhaps I should have said fool. Sorry if its lost on you northern hemisphere types.

I'm saddened that people could come on here and take what you said as gospel and apply it on the line with unfortunate/ unforeseen results. What they should do as Rubik and Olster pointed out is read the manuals to see the proper way to do it. ;)

Rhodes13 -

The only problem with your "going by the book" thing is that in many cases when things really go wrong in a transport catagory aircraft (you ARE qualified in one, right?), you can take your book and throw it out the window!

One case comes to mind: AA 191. Another (can't recall the Flt No.) was our 747 out of PHNL when a cargo door blew out taking two engines with it.

Granted, you have to START with book procedures, but many times it just simply isn't in the book and that's where expeience comes in.

DC-ate we are not talking about emergencies we are talking about NORMAL procedures. Thus we stick to the book because the aircraft has been certified to handle those conditions.

A cargo door coming off which isn't covered in the QRH and wasn't taken into account in certification then I agree do all you can then rely on experience!

And yes I do fly the 73 and what a lovely machine it is too.

Well, this whole discussion centers around the incident in Denver, so I guess we'd better wait and see what the "Official" outcome is before persuing it further.

To Rhodes, and many others who are of similar age and experience, I would say this. Some posters here will write utter twaddle, rumour, peurile tripe and complete trash and qualify it with the expression, IMO.
It doesn't make it any more reliable.
In fact, it generally means that they are of the school of thinking mentioned earlier, 'The Captain is always right.'
IMO, these posters are a danger and extremely detrimental to our 'profession'.
They should be ignored and consigned to the scrap heap from whence they came. After a few months on this forum you will learn which posters to ignore.
If you want to learn how to fly an aeroplane, read the manufacturers manuals, FCOMs, Training manuals and listen to the people who train you. They are doing their best to instill in our you all the experience and knowledge learned and earned over the past 100 years of aviation. Anyone who tells you that they know better is wrong, an idiot and dangerous.
Ignore them and their fantasies.

Probably better to keep individual IDs out of the firing line ? - JT

Follow the book and be safe.
Happy landings.
BTW, my 38 years flying and 27.000 hours mean little to the likes of such professional posters/bloggers on this forum.

rubik101 -
"If you want to learn how to fly an aeroplane, read the manufacturers manuals, FCOMs, Training manuals and listen to the people who train you.....Anyone who tells you that they know better is wrong, an idiot and dangerous."


Poppy-cock!

I can relate a personal experience to you that had I not done it "my way", you would have read about a Boeing 737 "lost" in a "training accident". The "instructor" sat in the left seat dumb-founded while our airplane was in a deep stall, at night, in the overcast! Following the "book procedure" for stall recovery would have lead us right into the ground. Fortunately, after seeing that he knew nothing about what was happening, I took the necessary step toward a safe recovery, after which he had no comment.

This was NOT in a simulator either, but the actual aircraft.

There just happens to be times when some pilots have the knowledge that saves them, their airplane, and passengers (had they been aboard in this case). Is the Captain ALWAYS right? Of course not. Again, read between the lines of the post in question.

In the case I refer to above, the Captain was NOT right.

I think we deserve some more information about that event as it would obviously have major safety implications. I have only stalled the sim but found the stalling characteristics conventional apart from the larger than usual thrust pitch couple when TOGA thrust is applied. Presumably you reported it so I would like to know what Boeing had to say. Also, what on earth were you doing to get into a deep stall in those weather conditions?

We were in the overcast at 15T (MSL), terrain ~ 7000 (Colorado Springs area). We DID have engine anit-ice on, but NOT wing. 737 has NO tail de-ice. Boeing said the tail didn't ice. How stupid can you be?!

Anyway, after doing the Clean, and Maneuver stall and revocery, the Landing configuation was next (gear down, 40 flap). I started to feel the elevator buffet before receiving the stick shaker, so called for the recovery procedure: T/O Power (excuse me...thrust), Flaps 15 (that procedure has changed a few times with regard to Flap setting). The "Captain Instructor" criticized me for not "taking it to the stick shaker." I told him I thought the "procedure" was to recognize an impending stall and recover. He said to take it to the stick shaker. Knowing I had sufficient altitude, I agreed and re-did the maneuver. As I started to feel the elevator buffet, I called that to his attention. You could see the stick moving back and forth! He said..."Take it to the Stick Shaker!" I might add that the buffett occured at a higher IAS than previous (more ICE!). Well, the stick shaker did come on and I called for the recovery procedure. He firewalled the throttles (excuse me...thrust levers) and we simply started to go DOWN with no increase in speed. I aksed him if he believed me now that we we starting to stall when I felt the buffett. He was kinda over there frozen not knowing just what was going on. Well, if you've flown the 737 (this was a -200 BTW), you'll know that with increased thrust the nose has a tendency to go up. I waited to see if this "Captain/Instructor" knew what to do. It was obvious he did not so I merely removed his hands from the throttles and pulled the throttles back about half way. The nose came down; speed picked up and I flew out of it. Simple.

I asked him after that if he though we might have some ice. My flying partner and I had both suggested wing anti-ice earlier, but he "knew better!" We flipped on the wing ice light and what do ya know? ICE. About 3 to 4 inches of the nice stuff! So, he calmly turns on the wing ice and we head for the barn. I said what about the tail, knowing there is NO tail anti-ice. He said not to worry because Boeing says the tail doesn't ice on this airplane.

Yes, this incedent was fully reported with NOTHING comming out of it. Wonder why?!?! We lost a 37 at MDW because of airfoil ice but it was never admitted to in the accident report. Why? Because Charlie Fox Dog (the Chicago Fire Department) said there was no ice visible when they got to the crash site. Well, .....the aircraft was on fire!

So.....the "BOOK" isn't always right. There's quite a few people no longer with us because some thought that. Sad.

Enough!

I'll just bring this back to the topic cause I don't want it to get closed. Earlier I asked this question and I'm just wondering what some others think, a few more opinions maybe;
Cheers.

Framer - hopefully helping you back onto the centreline:)

IF you just stick on a fixed amount of aileron there is a good chance that your proposition will be true, but negligible. If you use aileron purely to control any wing-lift tendency then not, since the 'effective' weight on the wheel that side will be pretty much unchanged.

To diverge briefly from the topic (again), I have, I think, been fortunate all my flying career in being able to sense minute changes in acceleration and attitude (which has always made the artificial simulator 'motion' a problem for me) and as such have always been in the 'use aileron as and when needed' group (ie when I 'sense' the wing wanting to lift) during a x-wind takeoff in all the a/c I have flown. I also fully endorse the advice above to follow the manufacturers' guidelines rather than individual whims. In my time in aviation I have never seen a 'formal' suggestion to put on a fixed amount of aileron - it has, however, been 'suggested' by various training pilots, and I have watched many co-pilots (and a few Captains) do it. I suppose that for those of us who are 'blind' to the feel of an aircraft and cannot sense the lady wanting to do x. y or z, then some sort of robotic formula for setting into-wind aileron is better than rolling onto a wing-tip or engine pod.

It is always interesting to hear and think about others' techniques, but vital not to assume that because they appear to be 'experienced' they are the ones to follow.

Even you with your 9000 posts can't 'sense' the wing wanting to lift! It already is lifting when your 'ever alert' razor senses have sensed it! That is why you should already be holding it down. But the point is, you are not holding it down- you are merely preventing it lifting by prebalancing the weight on the wheels. Get the point- you are NOT pressing the upwind wheel down. The standard former procedure beats the current advice from Boeing, probably because Boeing have totally 'dumbed down' their crosswind take-off advice because pilots who don't understand will possibly overdo it. Do it correctly and smoothly and it works like a dream....like it used to be done as normal procedure. Quite simple- 1 division per 5 kts across, hold it on steady. It used to work as standard procedure. Still does amazingly!

It's a shame that as I repeatedly stressed (IMO), this was merely a discussion item and an alternative suggestion to current advice. It was the old advice that works better for most people without superhuman, highly-honed and incredibly alert senses of.....something, like the previous former pilot. Fortunately, most of us normal plodders don't have such amazing senses- we do it on skills we pick up over the years, often from conversing with others who've been there and done it many times.

It was depressing to see the abuse it earned from yet another immature anti-podean (why do they talk to each other like that?) with a loud, expletive laden keyboard, like they all seem to have down there! Why was the Oz section closed a while ago? I have removed the postings. Better to keep it a secret (like the Boeing 'push')!

Morning old chap- and a happy stress-free New Year to you.:D

May I point out that while you consider yourself an expert on everything else, you are not an expert on 'me'?

it appears we should get into a less contentious discussion about RTO's after V1 :ouch:


the Boeing push is a secret?


my stance most flight handbooks stipulate somewhere that " this manual is not intended to replace prerequisite flight skills"

spoilers do increase drag and can create directional control problems and you can 'feel an airplane'

there was a famous TP who did discuss crosswinds and I think you'll find most AFMs in line with what he wrote in a little book for all of us mere mortals:ooh:

oh and in my best professorial tone

"one should follow the guidance as specified in the airplane flight manual as it IS the MOST authoritative source----
there is a lotta faith in aviation never HOPE just faith

HOPE = Horrendous Outcomes Per Emotions [not my invention]

PA

This incident involved TWA Flight 841, a 727-100 on April 4 1979. The number seven leading edge slat extended in flight at altitude. The crew was accused of "cracking" the flaps - following an "urban myth" on increasing performance at altitude. This was denied by the entire crew, under oath. No crew could ever be found to have actually attempted the procedure, and when tested it was shown that performance immediately and markedly deteriorated (as you would expect, or Boeing would sell the aircraft with drooping flaps!).

While the slat is held shut by hydraulic pressure, and a mechanical lock, fracture of the actuating piston could cause a separation, however the suspect parts were never recovered. Boeing issued an AD strengthening the area in 1973, prior to this there were fifteen instances of uncommanded slat deployment. After the AD, and up to the accident there were a further two slat deployments, one from a failure of the slat actuator support fitting.

The CVR on the aircraft was found to be erased after the aircraft landed, however it was proven that this was impossible to achieve from the cockpit, as the landing gear squat switches were damaged in the event, and CVR erasure requires a safe gear indication (i.e. three greens, and the aircraft landed with three reds).

On balance, Captain Gibson most probably was a hero, and regardless it was his excellent flying skills which managed to save his aircraft and passengers.

Let's understand- the only reason you can 'sense' the wing wanting to lift is because it is actually in the process of lifting. It is actually coming up, and that is what you are feeling. Pray explain how you can 'sense' something that is not moving, unless you are hammered in which case you can definitely 'sense' your bed is swaying, and one side is definitely 'lifting'. This precedes emtying the contents of your stomach, which is what I feel when I read people bragging about their superhuman senses of.....sense or whatever they claim to have special powers of!

All this boils down to the FCTM, and the relevant quote is:
So, if you rotate in a crosswind, regardless of the techniques written here, if your wings remain level, you are following the FCTM. :ugh:

Advocates of presetting the aileron (and I am one) are not saying anything different - simply suggesting that using experience to anticipate a requirement is better than attempting to react to a requirement. :rolleyes:

... you may as well add:

• cancell your PPRuNe membership, and never read TechLog
• Never read industry magazines, or professional pamphlets from organisations such as BALPA
• never read original NASA research papers
• Absolutely never discuss flying with experienced pilots

...etc. :ugh:

I happen to believe that I don't know everything about my job. :bored:

I believe that to be true of my company's training department and Boeing's US lawyer-flitered lowest common denominator manuals as well. :suspect:

Aexactly what Davies says something like it's better to stop a wing from lifting then to try and put it down then he says [basically] watch out with the spoilers and don't be too active on the wheel

Re: 'feel'
the dynamic pressure reactions can be felt whether you Preset or not

I have a sense that although there's not total agreement in this thread there is also not total disagreement either:cool:

now let us just hope the wings don't just fall off for no reason--:}


I hope the punters don't see my last sentence

About that 727 incident, I don't see why any explanation has to be made about the apparent erasure of the CVR. The obnly reason why such a 'spy in the sky' was permitted in our 'offices' was that it was a post-accident investigation device should there be no other way of establishing the events . If the pilots are there to give evidence, then there is no allowable function for the CVR to serve, so it must not be used. That was the basis we accepted the darn thing in the first place. Now it is apparently used as a prosecution device by lawyers against pilots. If anyone is alive to erase it, then it should be erased.

I think what BOAC is describing is seat of the pants flying. Not the "flies by the seat of his pants" maverick plonker but simply feeling and reacting to movement of the aircraft or merely - flying an aeroplane.

If the wing begins to lift during the take off simply use enough aileron to stop it and keep the wings level. Just like you do when you're airborne.

My old man is a test pilot and his answer to this question when I asked him a long time ago was -

A wing is designed NOT to produce lift on the ground (which is why wake vortex, a product of lift, only starts at rotation). Therefore, by using spoilers and ailerons during the take off roll you are simply increasing drag and reducing your performance margins (balanced field!). Use enough, but no more, aileron to keep the wings level should it be required and fly the aeroplane down the runway. At rotation, fly the aeroplane off the runway maintaining wings level. Do not preset roll control.

It's not verbatim but you get the idea.

For those that preset the aileron. How do you know you are not using too much?