On Sun, 01 May 2005 20:00:07 GMT, "Ed" > wrote in
>::

>-1G is nothing more than hanging in your belts during level
>inverted flight.

Isn't also the maximum negative G limit of a C-150 operating in the
Normal category? If so, the only reason it doesn't fail, is the
safety margin in certification standard.

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 01 May 2005 20:00:07 GMT, "Ed" > wrote in
> >::
>
> >-1G is nothing more than hanging in your belts during level
> >inverted flight.
>
> Isn't also the maximum negative G limit of a C-150 operating in the
> Normal category? If so, the only reason it doesn't fail, is the
> safety margin in certification standard.

I doubt -1G is a limit. The 120/140 limit is -2.26 G plus a 150% safety
margin. It is nearly impossible to get a Cessna to come apart in the air.

On Mon, 02 May 2005 03:45:21 GMT, "Dave Stadt" >
wrote in >::

>
>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>> On Sun, 01 May 2005 20:00:07 GMT, "Ed" > wrote in
>> >::
>>
>> >-1G is nothing more than hanging in your belts during level
>> >inverted flight.
>>
>> Isn't it also the maximum negative G limit of a C-150 operating in the
>> Normal category? If so, the only reason it doesn't fail, is the
>> safety margin in the certification standard.
>
>I doubt -1G is a limit.

A quick perusal of the Airworthiness certificates shows a load factor
of +4-4, -1.76 for non aerobatic C-150s and +6.0, -3.0 for Aerobats.
http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgMakeModel.nsf/0/f9939cf761ddfa3f86256e2b0053faa3/$FILE/3a19.pdf

>The 120/140 limit is -2.26 G plus a 150% safety margin.

That seems to exceed the C-150 specification.

>It is nearly impossible to get a Cessna to come apart in the air.

Do you have some data to support that, or is that opinion empirically
derived? :-)

> Do you have some data to support that, or is that opinion empirically
> derived? :-)

"empirical" means "by experiment" (data). As opposed to "by theory"
(mathematics and modelling)

Jose
--
Get high on gasoline: fly an airplane.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

On Mon, 02 May 2005 12:56:55 GMT, Jose >
wrote in >::

>> Do you have some data to support that, or is that opinion empirically
>> derived? :-)
>
>"empirical" means "by experiment" (data). As opposed to "by theory"
>(mathematics and modelling)

While what you assert is true, given Merriam-Webster's definition:

Main Entry:empirical
Pronunciation:-i-k*l
Variant:also empiric \-ik\
Function:adjective
Date:1569

1 : originating in or based on observation or experience
*empirical data*
2 : relying on experience or observation alone often without due
regard for system and theory
3 : capable of being verified or disproved by observation or
experiment *empirical laws*
4 : of or relating to empiricism
–empirically \-i-k(*-)l*\ adverb

I wonder why you felt the need to define the meaning of the word.
What was your point?

>>> Do you have some data to support that, or is that opinion empirically
>>> derived? :-)
>>
>>"empirical" means "by experiment" (data). As opposed to "by theory"
>>(mathematics and modelling)
>
> ...given [webster's definition, consistant with my statement]
> I wonder why you felt the need to define the meaning of the word.
> What was your point?
>
It was a UU. ("usenet urge"). The original quote seemed to misuse the
word, pitting "empirical" against "having some data", when they mean the
same thing.

The usage I would expect would be something like "is there any theory
behind this, or is that opinion empirically derived?" or "do you have
some data to support that, or is this merely a theoretically based opinion?"

Jose
--
Get high on gasoline: fly an airplane.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

On Mon, 02 May 2005 13:20:06 GMT, Jose >
wrote in >::

>>>> Do you have some data to support that, or is that opinion empirically
>>>> derived? :-)
>>>
>>>"empirical" means "by experiment" (data). As opposed to "by theory"
>>>(mathematics and modelling)
>>
>> ...given [webster's definition, consistant with my statement]
>> I wonder why you felt the need to define the meaning of the word.
>> What was your point?
>>
>It was a UU. ("usenet urge"). The original quote seemed to misuse the
>word, pitting "empirical" against "having some data", when they mean the
>same thing.
>
>The usage I would expect would be something like "is there any theory
>behind this, or is that opinion empirically derived?" or "do you have
>some data to support that, or is this merely a theoretically based opinion?"
>
>Jose


Oh, for a minute there, I thought you were attempting to define all
data as empirical.

> Oh, for a minute there, I thought you were attempting to define all
> data as empirical.

No. Only high altitude pressurized data. :)

Jose
--
Get high on gasoline: fly an airplane.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 02 May 2005 03:45:21 GMT, "Dave Stadt" >
> wrote in >::
>
> >
> >"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> On Sun, 01 May 2005 20:00:07 GMT, "Ed" > wrote in
> >> >::
> >>
> >> >-1G is nothing more than hanging in your belts during level
> >> >inverted flight.
> >>
> >> Isn't it also the maximum negative G limit of a C-150 operating in the
> >> Normal category? If so, the only reason it doesn't fail, is the
> >> safety margin in the certification standard.
> >
> >I doubt -1G is a limit.
>
> A quick perusal of the Airworthiness certificates shows a load factor
> of +4-4, -1.76 for non aerobatic C-150s and +6.0, -3.0 for Aerobats.
>
http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgMakeModel.nsf/0/f9939cf761ddfa3f86256e2b0053faa3/$FILE/3a19.pdf
>
> >The 120/140 limit is -2.26 G plus a 150% safety margin.
>
> That seems to exceed the C-150 specification.

Yep, 2.26 is further from 0 than is 1.76.

> >It is nearly impossible to get a Cessna to come apart in the air.
>
> Do you have some data to support that, or is that opinion empirically
> derived? :-)

The NTSB has the data. Those attempting to win a Darwin award would do well
to avoid Cessnas.

Dave Stadt wrote:
> "Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Mon, 02 May 2005 03:45:21 GMT, "Dave Stadt"
>
> > wrote in >::
> >
> > >
> > >"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >> On Sun, 01 May 2005 20:00:07 GMT, "Ed" > wrote
in
> > >> >::
> > >>
> > >> >-1G is nothing more than hanging in your belts during level
> > >> >inverted flight.
> > >>
> > >> Isn't it also the maximum negative G limit of a C-150 operating
in the
> > >> Normal category? If so, the only reason it doesn't fail, is the
> > >> safety margin in the certification standard.
> > >
> > >I doubt -1G is a limit.
> >
> > A quick perusal of the Airworthiness certificates shows a load
factor
> > of +4-4, -1.76 for non aerobatic C-150s and +6.0, -3.0 for
Aerobats.
> >
>
http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgMakeModel.nsf/0/f9939cf761ddfa3f86256e2b0053faa3/$FILE/3a19.pdf
> >
> > >The 120/140 limit is -2.26 G plus a 150% safety margin.
> >
> > That seems to exceed the C-150 specification.
>
> Yep, 2.26 is further from 0 than is 1.76.
>
> > >It is nearly impossible to get a Cessna to come apart in the air.
> >
> > Do you have some data to support that, or is that opinion
empirically
> > derived? :-)
>
> The NTSB has the data. Those attempting to win a Darwin award would
do well
> to avoid Cessnas.

The older C150s are rated at +4.4 / -1.76 g and you'd be pushing to get
anywhere over either number

Oh I dunno, it's pretty easy to reach -2G in a poorly done slow roll. You
let the nose drop a bit during knife edge flight, and then push a little too
aggressively to keep the nose up as you come over into inverted, and you'll
be pushing -2G easily. I've done it plenty of times in a Decathlon when I
was rusty.

You're probably right about the positive G's. Loops and other standard
aerobatic maneuvers can normally be done at +3.5G easily, and the difference
between 3.5 and 4.4 is more than most folks would think. The only time I
normally exceed 4.5 in my Decathlon is when I hold a straight downline with
full power and then then pull hard to level.

But then all this presupposes that the pilot knows what he is doing. Sure,
an experienced acro pilot could fly basic maneuvers in a C150 and not be at
serious risk. But a novice who watched it on TV or got some hangar flying
lessons could still easily kill himself trying it. He tries a slow roll,
panics when the engine burbles while inverted, and tries to Split S out of
it. Those wings are coming off.

>
> The older C150s are rated at +4.4 / -1.76 g and you'd be pushing to get
> anywhere over either number
>

On 17 May 2005 09:12:43 -0700, "Robert M. Gary" >
wrote in . com>::

>Ever see those things on T.V. when they put the fighter pilots in the G
>simulator by spinning them around in a circle. If you sat in the middle
>of that machine you would feel no G's (just like the cockpit of the
>airplane) but the guy out at the end of the arm (or wing tip) sure
>feels some G's.
>
>-Robert


While the rolling aircraft was inverted, wouldn't any centrifugal
force generated act against (rather than add to)any negative G forces
the wing may feel?

There doesn't have to be any neg G's in the aileron roll. It depends on
how high you start your pitch attitude and how slow the plane rolls. In
the Decathlon I'd just pitch up 30 degrees and throw the stick to the
left. At the end I was mostly zero pitch and never had to put any neg
Gs in (although you can if you'd like). A C-150 probably rolls slower
any may require less than 1 G (say 0.5 Gs) to prevent excessive nose
down, I'm not sure.

-Robert

On 17 May 2005 11:52:41 -0700, "Robert M. Gary" >
wrote in . com>::

>There doesn't have to be any neg G's in the aileron roll.

Right.

I was just pondering if the (probably miniscule) centrifugal force add
to or subtracted from any negative G that might occur in a roll.

On Tue, 17 May 2005 at 17:00:32 in message
>, B S D Chapman
> wrote:

>Nothing to do with that.
>Not sure about 1G in the cockpit scenario, but there are separate G
>limits for pure pitching verses combined rolling and pitching
>manouvers.

Indeed, the 'rolling pull-out' can put extra loads on one wing.

Your lines above have something of poetry about them? :-)

Cross posting reduced to rec.aviation.piloting,rec.aviation.student

--
David CL Francis

On Mon, 16 May 2005 at 19:08:12 in message
. com>, george
> wrote:

>Me too. This should be interesting. Different parts of the same a/c
>accelerating at different speeds.
>Hey look the wing's formating with us .............
>
Depends what you are doing. A steady roll rate at positive 'g' overall
will reduce the AoA of one wing and increase that of the other. Thus
reducing the load on one wing and increasing it on the other. If the
aircraft as whole is flying at zero 'g' then the wing loads will be
substantially the same but in different directions relative to the wing
section

However if you have a roll acceleration (Degrees per second per second)
then there will be a different 'g' acceleration at the wing tips from
the roots..

However just noting the 'g' in that case is not a good guide to finding
the forces on the structure.

Cross posting reduced to rec.aviation.piloting,rec.aviation.student
--
David CL Francis

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> However, I like you're use of the word force (which is really
> acceleration since God knows that F=ma).

Although acceleration is indeed proportional to force, the difference
between them is important to pilots.

* Because Va limits *acceleration*, Va becomes lower (hence more
restrictive) when the plane weighs less.

* Because Vno limits *force*, Vno is independent of the plane's weight.

--Gary

"Tauno Voipio" > wrote in message
...
> Matt Whiting wrote:
>> Robert M. Gary wrote:
>>
>>> Remember that F=ma. There is no force without acceleration. There is no
>>> acceleration without force.
>>
>> OK, Einstein, please explain where the acceleration is when two equal
>> forces are opposing each other diametrically.
>>
>
> The point is that there is *no* net forcce then.

Right. Matt is drawing the distinction between force(s) and net force.

Consider two objects sitting motionless on your floor. The first is being
pushed in opposite directions with the same amount of force. The second is
just sitting there.

In both cases, there is no net force and no acceleration. In the first case,
however, there are actual forces (even though there is no *net* force). In
other words, in the first case, the sum of the *absolute values* of the
forces upon the object is nonzero, even though the sum of the forces is
zero. In the second case, even the sum of the absolute values of the forces
is zero.

But in both cases, there is not only zero net acceleration, but also zero
accelerations. That is, there are no actual accelerations taking place--no
actual changes of the object's velocity (that's what acceleration is)--whose
absolute values have a nonzero sum. (Although 5-5=0, it would not be correct
to say that every motionless object has both a +5 and a -5 acceleration; we
have to distinguish the numbers in our equations from the actual physical
events they designate.)

Thus, in the first case, there are actual forces upon the object, but no
actual accelerations of the object (that is, no actual changes of the
object's velocity). Robert's claim that force "is really acceleration" isn't
correct. Forces cause (or prevent) accelerations, but it's important to
distinguish a cause from its effect.

This might all be pedantic in the context of aviation, except that (as
pointed out earlier) it's actually important for pilots to understand the
difference between Va (which limits acceleration) and Vno (which limits
force) in order to understand why Va changes with the plane's weight,
whereas Vno doesn't.

--Gary

Rod wrote:
>> I don't necessarily think that omitting spins from the PTS is the best
>> move the FAA has made, but I don't know the whole story.
>
> They had more people killed in spin training than were preventyed by the
> training.


Then they were done wrong. Started out too low?

I've had one inadvertant spin in my entire flying career... back when I was
doing slow flight while working on my commercial license. The air wasn't
particlarly smooth and a wing dropped. I picked it up with rudder and
immediately snapped over into a spin. Fortunately, I'd had spin training when
finishing up my private license and once you've seen that sight picture once,
you remember it for life. I instantly knew what had happened, what to do, and
then did it. I doubt we made more than half a turn.

My instructor was shaken up though: "Let's call it a day." I guess he was one
of those "new generation" instructors who never did much with spins. It sure
showed.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN

I was doing some training with my CFI (aka my Dad :) over the weekend
for power-on stalls in a Cherokee 140. Not having much experience with
power-on stalls, I was surprised at how easily that plane would spin.
We were not trying to spin, but the stall was violent enough that we did
drop a wing and were in the entry to a spin as he recovered very
quickly. Considering the most likely spot for a power-on stall is just
after takeoff, I want that spin training (which we're going to do in a
C150).

As for the people getting killed in spin training, I concur with
Mortimer. They didn't start high enough. The PTS specifically states
for stalls (and I would expect this to apply to spins) that recovery
must be completed before reaching 1500' AGL. We start our power-on
stall training at 5000' MSL (4800' AGL) because of the threat of spins.
I'm SURE we will follow that same altitude rule for spin training.
Btw, our lowest altitude after /all/ of the stall practice was at least
4500' MSL (4300' AGL).

Chris


Mortimer Schnerd, RN wrote:
> Rod wrote:
>
>>>I don't necessarily think that omitting spins from the PTS is the best
>>>move the FAA has made, but I don't know the whole story.
>>
>>They had more people killed in spin training than were preventyed by the
>>training.
>
>
>
> Then they were done wrong. Started out too low?
>
> I've had one inadvertant spin in my entire flying career... back when I was
> doing slow flight while working on my commercial license. The air wasn't
> particlarly smooth and a wing dropped. I picked it up with rudder and
> immediately snapped over into a spin. Fortunately, I'd had spin training when
> finishing up my private license and once you've seen that sight picture once,
> you remember it for life. I instantly knew what had happened, what to do, and
> then did it. I doubt we made more than half a turn.
>
> My instructor was shaken up though: "Let's call it a day." I guess he was one
> of those "new generation" instructors who never did much with spins. It sure
> showed.
>
>
>

Chris G. wrote:
> I was doing some training with my CFI (aka my Dad :) over the weekend
> for power-on stalls in a Cherokee 140. Not having much experience with
> power-on stalls, I was surprised at how easily that plane would spin. We
> were not trying to spin, but the stall was violent enough that we did
> drop a wing and were in the entry to a spin as he recovered very
> quickly. Considering the most likely spot for a power-on stall is just
> after takeoff, I want that spin training (which we're going to do in a
> C150).

Dropping a wing is not a spin, just a sloppy stall. The time is better
spent on nailing stalls than spinning the airplane.

Ron Natalie wrote:
> Dropping a wing is not a spin, just a sloppy stall. The time is better
> spent on nailing stalls than spinning the airplane.


Irregardless, the sight picture of a spin is unforgetable and unmistakable...
once you know what it looks like. An approach to stall isn't the same as a
stall. If you've ever carried a load of ice on the hairy edge of a stall,
you'll appreciate being able to balance yourself on the line if necessary.

I had a 135 checkride in a C-402 once where the check airman said, "let's do
stalls". OK, to me, that means STALL. It doesn't mean approach to stall. My
first 135 chief pilot, a grizzlied old USAF pilot, taught me to do full stalls
in the 402.

Good God... you would have thought I farted in church by the stunned reaction I
got when I didn't recover when the first burble was felt. I recovered
immediately after I felt the aircraft stall, and not before. "Let's try that
again", he said. We did the same thing again. It was only after some
discussion that I found that he meant to recover before I actually stalled.

The other guy along for the ride claimed that he NEVER did full stalls in a
twin. Well, it takes all kinds I guess. If it was good enough for my old chief
pilot it was good enough for me, but if these guys wanted a recovery initiated
when the stall is imminent, I can do that too. And did.

If anybody doesn't know, the C-402 stalls the same as the C-172. I don't
recommend it with asymetrical power though....




--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN

You are mostly correct. According to FAA-H-8083-3, "Airplane Flying
Handbook," pages 5-12 through 5-13 under the heading of "Sping Procedures":

"The entry phase [of a spin] is where the pilot provides the necessary
elements for a spin, either accidentally or intentionally."

"The incipient phase [of a spin] is from the time the airplane stalls
and rotation starts until the spin has fully developed."

"The developed phase [of a spin] occurs when the airplane's angular
rotation rate, airspeed, and vertical speed are stabilized while in a
flightpath that is nearly vertical."

---
Now, You are correct in that dropping a wing is not necessarily a spin,
but it CAN be considered the entry phase of a spin. We were in an
incipient spin based in the sight picture having gone way screwy on me.
My instructor was demonstrating how uncoodinated flight during a
power-on stall can cause the plane to snap and very quickly develop into
a spin. I don't yet know how far the spin developed, but I would think
it was between 1/4-1/2 turn.

Personally, I would feel much more comfortable knowing I can both
recognize and recover from a stall (at any point in the stall process)
and recognize and recover from a spin (at any phase of a spin). If that
means I spend extra time on stalls and spins, fine by me! You only get
to screw up once if you don't recover.

Cheers!
Chris


Ron Natalie wrote:
> Dropping a wing is not a spin, just a sloppy stall. The time is better
> spent on nailing stalls than spinning the airplane.

Mortimer Schnerd, RN wrote:
> Irregardless, the sight picture of a spin is unforgetable and unmistakable...
> once you know what it looks like.

You are so right about that!


> An approach to stall isn't the same as a stall.

I agree. I want to be comfortable enough with stalls/spins to recognize
and recover from both at any point in their development cycle.

Chris

Mortimer Schnerd, RN wrote:
> Ron Natalie wrote:
> > Dropping a wing is not a spin, just a sloppy stall. The time is better
> > spent on nailing stalls than spinning the airplane.
>
>
> Irregardless, the sight picture of a spin is unforgetable and unmistakable...
> once you know what it looks like. An approach to stall isn't the same as a
> stall. If you've ever carried a load of ice on the hairy edge of a stall,
> you'll appreciate being able to balance yourself on the line if necessary.
>
> I had a 135 checkride in a C-402 once where the check airman said, "let's do
> stalls". OK, to me, that means STALL. It doesn't mean approach to stall. My
> first 135 chief pilot, a grizzlied old USAF pilot, taught me to do full stalls
> in the 402.
>
> Good God... you would have thought I farted in church by the stunned reaction I
> got when I didn't recover when the first burble was felt. I recovered
> immediately after I felt the aircraft stall, and not before. "Let's try that
> again", he said. We did the same thing again. It was only after some
> discussion that I found that he meant to recover before I actually stalled.
>
> The other guy along for the ride claimed that he NEVER did full stalls in a
> twin. Well, it takes all kinds I guess. If it was good enough for my old chief
> pilot it was good enough for me, but if these guys wanted a recovery initiated
> when the stall is imminent, I can do that too. And did.
>
> If anybody doesn't know, the C-402 stalls the same as the C-172. I don't
> recommend it with asymetrical power though....

I'd rather find that out by going through it as an exercise rather than
discover it turning final one engine out in turbulence ..
and you're point about recovery on the onset of the stall
It is a commonly taught exercise nowadays

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> >
> However, this is meaingless. The issue isn't how many were killed by
> spins during training vs. otherwise, the issue is how many people
> recovered from a spin and thus weren't killed.

That is not even close to the issue. The issue is how many dead while spins
were required vs. how many dead after the requirement was dropped. The
later is a smaller number thus the logical option.

It is sort of like
> looking at stats for engine failures with singles vs. twins. We know
> how many singles lose an engine as they make a power-off landing, often
> off airport.

We certainly do not know that number. There are hundreds if not thousands
of unreported off field landings due to engine failure every year.

>We don't know, however, how many twins didn't make an
> emergency or off-airport because they were able to make it to an airport
> on their remaining engine.
> I also don't see the logic in spin recognition vs. spin training. I
> don't see how you can learn to be proficient in spin entry

Who cares if one is proficient in spin entry. For normal flight it is a
totally useless ability.

and recovery
> without learning to recognize a stall and incipient spin. So this whole
> concept of stall recognition vs. stall training seems pretty illogical
> to me.

We are not talking about stalls. Stalls do not equal spins. But as long as
you brought it up, learning to recognize and recover from an incipent stall
(NOT SPIN) will prevent a spin. It's the old chain of events scenario.
Break the chain early on and you don't need to worry about what might
happen later. This makes spin recovery an unneeded ability. If you've
screwed the pooch bad enough to get into a spin you are probably out of
altitude anyway and all the training in the world won't do you any good.

It's all extremely logical.

>
> Matt

Dave Stadt wrote:
> We are not talking about stalls. Stalls do not equal spins. But as long as
> you brought it up, learning to recognize and recover from an incipent stall
> (NOT SPIN) will prevent a spin. It's the old chain of events scenario.
> Break the chain early on and you don't need to worry about what might
> happen later. This makes spin recovery an unneeded ability. If you've
> screwed the pooch bad enough to get into a spin you are probably out of
> altitude anyway and all the training in the world won't do you any good.
>
> It's all extremely logical.



So I'm curious. Have you ever spun an airplane?



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN

"Mortimer Schnerd, RN" > wrote in message
...
> Dave Stadt wrote:
> > We are not talking about stalls. Stalls do not equal spins. But as long
as
> > you brought it up, learning to recognize and recover from an incipent
stall
> > (NOT SPIN) will prevent a spin. It's the old chain of events scenario.
> > Break the chain early on and you don't need to worry about what might
> > happen later. This makes spin recovery an unneeded ability. If you've
> > screwed the pooch bad enough to get into a spin you are probably out of
> > altitude anyway and all the training in the world won't do you any good.
> >
> > It's all extremely logical.
>
>
>
> So I'm curious. Have you ever spun an airplane?
>
>
>
> --
> Mortimer Schnerd, RN
>
>
>

Yep.

Dave Stadt wrote:
>> So I'm curious. Have you ever spun an airplane?
>
> Yep.


And you learned *nothing* worthwhile from that experience? I sure found it an
eye opener the one time I inadvertently spun. If I hadn't known what it was and
what to do about it I could see myself augering in.

On a practical note, I used to fly overgrossed aircraft from time to time. I've
also carried my share of ice. To suggest that I'd never stall/spin involves a
whole bunch of wishing.

I am reminded of a prospective pilot my employer was interviewing: what would he
do if he stumbled into a thunderstorm. Expecting the usual techniques, I was
surprised to hear him say: "I don't go into thunderstorms". My boss kept
pushing him on the subject: "Well, if you somehow did, what would you do?" The
prospect kept bleating he didn't fly in thunderstorms. Well, I don't either,
willingly, but sometimes they're hiding out there. He might as well have said
he didn't ever fly in real IFR. He didn't get the job.

I wonder what he'd have said if the boss asked him what would he do if the
aircraft entered a spin?



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN

"Dave Stadt" > wrote in message
om...
>

> Who cares if one is proficient in spin entry. For normal flight it is a
> totally useless ability.


The key words being "For normal flight". Can anyone here guarantee that
they will not be exposed to "unusual circumstances". You never know. You
won't know until it happens, and you become a test pilot. As a flight
instructor, I was once rolled almost inverted in a Cessna 172 on a base to
final turn. Yes, I was not really paying attention. Yes, I was allowing the
student to get deeper (i.e.make more mistakes in a row) than I should have.
I have had spin training, and it works. A private pilot friend in a 150 was
run over by a Piper. (Saratoga nears Van Nuys, I think). He lost a good
portion of the left wing tip and aileron. From left downwind, at night, he
made a high power, right aileron, right rudder, left traffic approach to a
full stop. He planned a "normal flight". He had no intention of
demonstrating the unlikely. The Piper went into an apartment house. It is
very easy to find the edge of an envelope. Ask someone who has packed some
ice around.

>If you've screwed the pooch bad enough to get into a spin you are probably
>out of
>altitude anyway and all the training in the world won't do you any good.
>

You are partly correct. I was out of altitude, maybe 300-400 feet. Until
then I didn't know the hardware store on short final had a Trane air
conditioner, for instance. You would be amazed at what Thrust & Rudder can
do.

Are you telling me that if something very strange happens to your
aircraft, you will make no effort to rectify the situation? You "PROBABLY"
can't do anything about it so why try? In 7000 hours, I've had 7 engine
failures on 6 aircraft, and landed every one of them on a paved runway. (3
singles, 3 twins) You should go listen to Al Haynes the next time he speaks.
(DC10, Sioux City). The pilots I know, will to a man/woman, fly the biggest
piece to the ground, and park it. Some of them have.


>It's all extremely logical.

Try lifting a Lear 24B from the very end of a runway by "pucker" factor
alone, then we'll talk. There should be a another column in the takeoff
distance charts, labeled "Fire warning activated, Single Engine past V1,
Night, Ice/Snow, High Altitude, Heavy, over a 1000' obstacle. Hint: turn the
landing light off.

Al Gerharter CFIAMI

Chris G. wrote:
> Considering the most likely spot for a power-on stall is just
> after takeoff, I want that spin training (which we're going to do in a
> C150).

I'm quite happy with the training I was given that allows me to recognize an
impending stall and avoid that. If I don't stall the aircraft, it's not going to
spin.

George Patterson
Why do men's hearts beat faster, knees get weak, throats become dry,
and they think irrationally when a woman wears leather clothing?
Because she smells like a new truck.

On Thu, 09 Jun 2005 09:44:29 GMT, "Mortimer Schnerd, RN"
> wrote:

>I am reminded of a prospective pilot my employer was interviewing: what would he
>do if he stumbled into a thunderstorm. Expecting the usual techniques, I was
>surprised to hear him say: "I don't go into thunderstorms". My boss kept
>pushing him on the subject: "Well, if you somehow did, what would you do?" The
>prospect kept bleating he didn't fly in thunderstorms. Well, I don't either,
>willingly, but sometimes they're hiding out there. He might as well have said
>he didn't ever fly in real IFR. He didn't get the job.

What is the answer your boss wants to hear?

Corky Scott

Corky Scott wrote:
>
> What is the answer your boss wants to hear?

That's the correct question to ask.

From what I've read, I think the "book" answer is to maintain attitude control
as well as possible, don't worry about altitude excursions much, and try to get
out of it. I've read differing opinions on the best way to accomplish the
latter; some people like a 180 and others say that the shortest way out may be
straight ahead. Communication with ATC also has to be fit in there somewhere.

George Patterson
Why do men's hearts beat faster, knees get weak, throats become dry,
and they think irrationally when a woman wears leather clothing?
Because she smells like a new truck.

Teranews wrote:
> "Dave Stadt" > wrote in message
> om...
>> It's all extremely logical.
>
> Try lifting a Lear 24B from the very end of a runway by "pucker" factor
> alone, then we'll talk. There should be a another column in the takeoff
> distance charts, labeled "Fire warning activated, Single Engine past V1,
> Night, Ice/Snow, High Altitude, Heavy, over a 1000' obstacle. Hint: turn the
> landing light off.


When he made that statement about logic I decided he was determined to be stupid
about this. If he's lucky, he'll never have to find out why I say that.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN

Corky Scott wrote:
> On Thu, 09 Jun 2005 09:44:29 GMT, "Mortimer Schnerd, RN"
> > wrote:
>
>> I am reminded of a prospective pilot my employer was interviewing: what
>> would he do if he stumbled into a thunderstorm. Expecting the usual
>> techniques, I was surprised to hear him say: "I don't go into
>> thunderstorms". My boss kept pushing him on the subject: "Well, if you
>> somehow did, what would you do?" The prospect kept bleating he didn't fly
>> in thunderstorms. Well, I don't either, willingly, but sometimes they're
>> hiding out there. He might as well have said he didn't ever fly in real
>> IFR. He didn't get the job.
>
> What is the answer your boss wants to hear?


Lower your seat all the way, put on your hat, tighten your seat belt *tight*,
turn up the instrument lights to their brightest setting (day or night), reduce
power, reduce speed to maneuvering speed, say a prayer. Did I forget anything?



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN

George Patterson wrote:
> From what I've read, I think the "book" answer is to maintain attitude control
> as well as possible, don't worry about altitude excursions much, and try to
> get out of it. I've read differing opinions on the best way to accomplish the
> latter; some people like a 180 and others say that the shortest way out may be
> straight ahead. Communication with ATC also has to be fit in there somewhere.


Don't worry about altitude excursions *at all*. My father told me about
crossing the Sea of Japan and getting caught in a thunderstorm. Upon being
querried by the copilot, he told him: "Don't worry everybody is in the same
updraft". That may or may not be true but more aircraft are bent by
overstressing than by collision. I've been at idle with the nose pointing
downhill and been climbing at a rate that pegged the VSI upward. I chose to let
the altitude go. Talking to ATC is a low priority compared to keeping the wings
level. That is your primary concern... wings level.

I'm a believer in the straight ahead method unless you have a reason not to.
Remember, thunderstorms are shaped like a "V" with the narrowest point down low.
Sometimes ATC will swear there's a huge area in front of you when in fact there
are numerous holes... down low. I prefer to fly underneath if at all possible.
With embedded storms, that isn't possible. You take what you get and hope you
get spit out on the other side intact.

They are *very* scary.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN

george wrote:

>
> Mortimer Schnerd, RN wrote:
>
>>Ron Natalie wrote:
>>
>>>Dropping a wing is not a spin, just a sloppy stall. The time is better
>>>spent on nailing stalls than spinning the airplane.
>>
>>
>>Irregardless, the sight picture of a spin is unforgetable and unmistakable...
>>once you know what it looks like. An approach to stall isn't the same as a
>>stall. If you've ever carried a load of ice on the hairy edge of a stall,
>>you'll appreciate being able to balance yourself on the line if necessary.
>>
>>I had a 135 checkride in a C-402 once where the check airman said, "let's do
>>stalls". OK, to me, that means STALL. It doesn't mean approach to stall. My
>>first 135 chief pilot, a grizzlied old USAF pilot, taught me to do full stalls
>>in the 402.
>>
>>Good God... you would have thought I farted in church by the stunned reaction I
>>got when I didn't recover when the first burble was felt. I recovered
>>immediately after I felt the aircraft stall, and not before. "Let's try that
>>again", he said. We did the same thing again. It was only after some
>>discussion that I found that he meant to recover before I actually stalled.
>>
>>The other guy along for the ride claimed that he NEVER did full stalls in a
>>twin. Well, it takes all kinds I guess. If it was good enough for my old chief
>>pilot it was good enough for me, but if these guys wanted a recovery initiated
>>when the stall is imminent, I can do that too. And did.
>>
>>If anybody doesn't know, the C-402 stalls the same as the C-172. I don't
>>recommend it with asymetrical power though....
>
>
> I'd rather find that out by going through it as an exercise rather than
> discover it turning final one engine out in turbulence ..
> and you're point about recovery on the onset of the stall
> It is a commonly taught exercise nowadays
>

Agreed. When I got my ticket back in 85, spin training was not required.
I got my instructor to show ne proper recovery technique.
Since that time every so often when I'm up, over a non populated area I
have at it. I usually do a power off stall with the nose as hard up as
it will go. Kick in rudder and do a wingover. Usually get recovered
and back to straight and level within a turn and a half and 100 feet alt
loss. It's a lot of fun and the training could save your ass one day.
I agree with george. On final is not the place to learn.

On Thu, 09 Jun 2005 17:37:20 GMT, "Mortimer Schnerd, RN"
> wrote:

>Don't worry about altitude excursions *at all*. My father told me about
>crossing the Sea of Japan and getting caught in a thunderstorm. Upon being
>querried by the copilot, he told him: "Don't worry everybody is in the same
>updraft". That may or may not be true but more aircraft are bent by
>overstressing than by collision. I've been at idle with the nose pointing
>downhill and been climbing at a rate that pegged the VSI upward. I chose to let
>the altitude go. Talking to ATC is a low priority compared to keeping the wings
>level. That is your primary concern... wings level.
>
>I'm a believer in the straight ahead method unless you have a reason not to.
>Remember, thunderstorms are shaped like a "V" with the narrowest point down low.
>Sometimes ATC will swear there's a huge area in front of you when in fact there
>are numerous holes... down low. I prefer to fly underneath if at all possible.
>With embedded storms, that isn't possible. You take what you get and hope you
>get spit out on the other side intact.
>
>They are *very* scary.

The one I passed close to while flying to Oshkosh in the UPF-7 Waco
was scary enough, and we were trying to stay away from it. This was
easy to do though because the cells were widely isolated and the
visibility between them was very good. It was late in the afternoon
which greatly contributed to their presence.

As I mentioned, the clouds were a vicious dark blue/green color and
the pure white column of rain coming down on the center of Chicago
literally blotted out the entire center of the city. Lightning bolts
were striking all around the water column every two to three seconds.
Wish I'd had a camcorder along.

Couldn't imagine attempting to fly through it because of the dense
column of water and lightning strikes. And I'm not even going to
think about the turbulence...

Anyone read that story about the fighter pilot who bailed out of his
jet and floated down through a thundercell? I use the word "floated"
loosely, it took him a long time between plummeting down and being
blasted up, all the while being cannonaded by blasts of lightning and
ear piercing concussions of thunder.

Guess it wasn't his day to go that day.

Did a quick Google search and found the story:
http://www.aero.com/publications/parachutes/9610/pc1096.htm

Corky Scott

George Patterson wrote:
> Corky Scott wrote:
> >
> > What is the answer your boss wants to hear?
>
> That's the correct question to ask.
>
> From what I've read, I think the "book" answer is to maintain attitude control
> as well as possible, don't worry about altitude excursions much, and try to get
> out of it. I've read differing opinions on the best way to accomplish the
> latter; some people like a 180 and others say that the shortest way out may be
> straight ahead. Communication with ATC also has to be fit in there somewhere.
>

I'm a fan for the 180.
Penetration of turbulance I'd slow the a/c and maintain direction (yes,
I've flown sailplanes in wave and viewed rotor from the wrong side)

"Mortimer Schnerd, RN" > wrote in message
.. .
> Dave Stadt wrote:
> >> So I'm curious. Have you ever spun an airplane?
> >
> > Yep.
>
>
> And you learned *nothing* worthwhile from that experience? I sure found
it an
> eye opener the one time I inadvertently spun. If I hadn't known what it
was and
> what to do about it I could see myself augering in.
>
> On a practical note, I used to fly overgrossed aircraft from time to time.
I've
> also carried my share of ice. To suggest that I'd never stall/spin
involves a
> whole bunch of wishing.

You honestly believe spin training would save you if you spun with a load of
ice? Surely you jest.

Dave Stadt wrote:

> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
> > I also don't see the logic in spin recognition vs. spin training. I
>
>>don't see how you can learn to be proficient in spin entry
>
>
> Who cares if one is proficient in spin entry. For normal flight it is a
> totally useless ability.

So are steep turns and other maneuvers. Most training isn't for normal
situations it is for the abnormal.


> and recovery
>
>>without learning to recognize a stall and incipient spin. So this whole
>>concept of stall recognition vs. stall training seems pretty illogical
>>to me.
>
>
> We are not talking about stalls. Stalls do not equal spins. But as long as
> you brought it up, learning to recognize and recover from an incipent stall
> (NOT SPIN) will prevent a spin. It's the old chain of events scenario.
> Break the chain early on and you don't need to worry about what might
> happen later. This makes spin recovery an unneeded ability. If you've
> screwed the pooch bad enough to get into a spin you are probably out of
> altitude anyway and all the training in the world won't do you any good.

Yes, and if you never get a flat tire you never need a spare, yet most
cars still have a spare as you simply can't be sure that you will never
hit something that puts down a tire. Same with spins. The reality is
that there are situations where you can stall and enter a spin pretty
quickly and knowing what has happened and how to address it is a very
useful ability.



> It's all extremely logical.

Only in your mind and that of FAA bureacrats.


Matt

George Patterson wrote:

> Chris G. wrote:
>
>> Considering the most likely spot for a power-on stall is just after
>> takeoff, I want that spin training (which we're going to do in a C150).
>
>
> I'm quite happy with the training I was given that allows me to
> recognize an impending stall and avoid that. If I don't stall the
> aircraft, it's not going to spin.

And I'm happy that you are happy with substandard training. However,
I'm not happy with substandard training. Not training in spins is like
not training on PP for the instrument rating. Sure, if you avoid a
vacuum failure, then you avoid the need for PP. The trouble is,
sometimes bad things happen...


Matt

George Patterson wrote:

> Corky Scott wrote:
>
>>
>> What is the answer your boss wants to hear?
>
>
> That's the correct question to ask.
>
> From what I've read, I think the "book" answer is to maintain attitude
> control as well as possible, don't worry about altitude excursions much,
> and try to get out of it. I've read differing opinions on the best way
> to accomplish the latter; some people like a 180 and others say that the
> shortest way out may be straight ahead. Communication with ATC also has
> to be fit in there somewhere.

But if you simply avoid thunderstorms like you avoid stalls, then you
don't need to worry about any of these techniques, right? :-)


Matt

Mortimer Schnerd, RN wrote:

> Corky Scott wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 09 Jun 2005 09:44:29 GMT, "Mortimer Schnerd, RN"
> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I am reminded of a prospective pilot my employer was interviewing: what
>>>would he do if he stumbled into a thunderstorm. Expecting the usual
>>>techniques, I was surprised to hear him say: "I don't go into
>>>thunderstorms". My boss kept pushing him on the subject: "Well, if you
>>>somehow did, what would you do?" The prospect kept bleating he didn't fly
>>>in thunderstorms. Well, I don't either, willingly, but sometimes they're
>>>hiding out there. He might as well have said he didn't ever fly in real
>>>IFR. He didn't get the job.
>>
>>What is the answer your boss wants to hear?
>
>
>
> Lower your seat all the way, put on your hat, tighten your seat belt *tight*,
> turn up the instrument lights to their brightest setting (day or night), reduce
> power, reduce speed to maneuvering speed, say a prayer. Did I forget anything?

Yes, lower the gear if in a retract.

Matt

Dave Stadt wrote:
> You honestly believe spin training would save you if you spun with a load of
> ice? Surely you jest.


I know what's going to happen if I do nothing.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN

Matt Whiting wrote:
> But if you simply avoid thunderstorms like you avoid stalls, then you
> don't need to worry about any of these techniques, right? :-)


Unfortunately, that requires you fly VFR at all times.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN

"Mortimer Schnerd, RN" > wrote in message
. ..
> Dave Stadt wrote:
> > You honestly believe spin training would save you if you spun with a
load of
> > ice? Surely you jest.
>
>
> I know what's going to happen if I do nothing.
>
>
>
> --
> Mortimer Schnerd, RN
>
>

Over gross, iced up and in a spin is Darwin award time.

"Dave Stadt" > wrote in
m:

>
> "Mortimer Schnerd, RN" > wrote in
> message . ..
>> Dave Stadt wrote:
>> > You honestly believe spin training would save you if you spun with a
> load of
>> > ice? Surely you jest.
>>
>>
>> I know what's going to happen if I do nothing.
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Mortimer Schnerd, RN
>>
>>
>
> Over gross, iced up and in a spin is Darwin award time.

This reminds me of a scenario my motorcycle class instructor
gave the class.

Your flying up the on ramp to a freeway, one of those clover
leaf types that have you go around in a 270 and the center is
filled with foliage. You're going as fast as you can, leaning
way over and dragging your knee on the ground just like the
best of them. Suddenly up ahead you notice a bus stopped at
the traffic light at the top of the ramp*.

What do you do?

The class offered up all sorts of answers, none of which were
right. I happened to have the right answer, that you don't put
yourself into that situation in the first place.

My point is, I see flying over gross weight as putting yourself
into a potentially unrecoverable situation.

*Don't know if other places have these, but here in LA there's
traffic lights at the top of the onramps to regulate the flow
cars entering the freeway during peak traffic hours. It's
supposed to space the oncoming vehicles apart so they can merge
smoothly with existing traffic.

The problem I have with these lights is that the stupid drivers
dont' hit the gas hard enough and they then try merging with
70 mph traffic at 30mph. It's bad enough that they do that
without the light.

Advantage is to the motorcycle, especially if there's a carpool
lane, as we are allowed to use them here in Kah-lee-for-nyuh.

Just some thoughts....

Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism

Home of the Seismic FAQ
http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html

Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?

Skywise wrote:
> My point is, I see flying over gross weight as putting yourself
> into a potentially unrecoverable situation.


Nobody wants to do it. OTOH, what do you do when you're flying Part 135; you're
given the load and expected to move it. Quit? Be out of work for several weeks
and have to move to find another job? I know the easy answer. I know the smart
answer. I also know the real answer.

Freight dogs do a lot of stuff smarter guys wouldn't attempt. Most of the time
we get away with it; sometimes we don't.

I worked for a company that had (among other things) a Geronimo conversion
Apache with 180 hp a side (compared to the normal Apache's 150 hp/side). My
boss wanted me to fly it but I was resistant, mostly due to its unconventional
instrument panel. ASI was on the far right, altimeter on the top left, etc... I
just couldn't see myself flying that thing IFR. He pushed, I delayed. Finally,
he sent his chief pilot down to Charlotte to pick me up in it one gray morning
and fly a load of cancelled checks to RDU. As it turned out, the load would put
us about 400 lbs overgrossed.

"Sheeitt.... you fly it to Raleigh and leave me behind", I said. "No need", he
said, "it can do it". Well, I was as nervous as a whore in church but I got in
and we took our place in line. To make a long story short, we were airborne
before I crossed the intersection of 5/23... a distance of about 1000 feet. Not
only were we airborne, we were climbing STRONGLY. "Hmmm.... maybe this isn't so
bad".

Of course, if an engine failed, I'd have been screwed. I knew that. I also
know if that airplane had arrived in Raleigh without me I'd likely be out of
work... and flying jobs in 1989 didn't grow on trees. You do what you do.

But every time a commuter or a freighter falls out of the sky I think about what
may really have happened that will never be discussed.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN

Dave Stadt wrote:
> You honestly believe spin training would save you if you spun with a load
of
> ice? Surely you jest.

Where did the ice come in?

Skywise wrote:
> "Dave Stadt" > wrote in
> m:
>
> >
> > "Mortimer Schnerd, RN" > wrote in
> > message . ..
> >> Dave Stadt wrote:
> >> > You honestly believe spin training would save you if you spun with a
> > load of
> >> > ice? Surely you jest.
> >>
> >>
> >> I know what's going to happen if I do nothing.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Mortimer Schnerd, RN
> >>
> >>
> >
> > Over gross, iced up and in a spin is Darwin award time.
>
> This reminds me of a scenario my motorcycle class instructor
> gave the class.
>
> Your flying up the on ramp to a freeway, one of those clover
> leaf types that have you go around in a 270 and the center is
> filled with foliage. You're going as fast as you can, leaning
> way over and dragging your knee on the ground just like the
> best of them. Suddenly up ahead you notice a bus stopped at
> the traffic light at the top of the ramp*.
>
> What do you do?
>
> The class offered up all sorts of answers, none of which were
> right. I happened to have the right answer, that you don't put
> yourself into that situation in the first place.
>
> My point is, I see flying over gross weight as putting yourself
> into a potentially unrecoverable situation.
>
> *Don't know if other places have these, but here in LA there's
> traffic lights at the top of the onramps to regulate the flow
> cars entering the freeway during peak traffic hours. It's
> supposed to space the oncoming vehicles apart so they can merge
> smoothly with existing traffic.
>
> The problem I have with these lights is that the stupid drivers
> dont' hit the gas hard enough and they then try merging with
> 70 mph traffic at 30mph. It's bad enough that they do that
> without the light.
>
> Advantage is to the motorcycle, especially if there's a carpool
> lane, as we are allowed to use them here in Kah-lee-for-nyuh.
>
> Just some thoughts....
>
> Brian
> --
> http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism
>
> Home of the Seismic FAQ
> http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
>
> Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?

Not too dificult to be over gross withoug knowing it. Do you think all
passengers know their weight or are honest about it? Do you think the
170 pound per person rule of thumb is very accurate? Do you think the
passengers know the weight of their baggage?

Matt Barrow wrote:
> Dave Stadt wrote:
>> You honestly believe spin training would save you if you spun with a load of
>> ice? Surely you jest.
>
> Where did the ice come in?


I suggested it as one possible scenario where somebody could unintentially get
into a spin despite their best intentions. I don't know whether I can fly out
of the spin or not but I sure as hell know how I'd try. Ignorance is not a
virtue.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN

Matt Barrow wrote:
> Dave Stadt wrote:
>> You honestly believe spin training would save you if you spun with a load of
>> ice? Surely you jest.
>
> Where did the ice come in?

This is a pretty good read about a fellow who took on a load of ice one week
into his instrument rating and ended up spinning it. Obviously, he survived to
write this:

http://www.fly4fun.com/rwagner/story.html

I don't think he thought spin recovery was a waste of time with or without a
load of ice.




--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN

Mortimer Schnerd, RN wrote:
> the altitude go. Talking to ATC is a low priority compared to keeping the wings
> level. That is your primary concern... wings level.

Aviate. Navigate. Communicate.

> are numerous holes... down low. I prefer to fly underneath if at all possible.

I prefer to avoid them altogether. There's no reason (for me) to fly in
any thunderstorm. If the weather is like that, I should be on the
ground watching.

Chris

Since I'm not IFR certified, that sounds good to me! ;-)

Chris


Mortimer Schnerd, RN wrote:
> Matt Whiting wrote:
>
>>But if you simply avoid thunderstorms like you avoid stalls, then you
>>don't need to worry about any of these techniques, right? :-)
>
>
>
> Unfortunately, that requires you fly VFR at all times.
>
>
>

If I have pax that I don't know and I have bags that I don't know, then
I have a bathroom scale that is small and gets used.

Chris


Sport Pilot wrote:
>
> Skywise wrote:
>
>>"Dave Stadt" > wrote in
m:
>>
>>
>>>"Mortimer Schnerd, RN" > wrote in
>>>message . ..
>>>
>>>>Dave Stadt wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>You honestly believe spin training would save you if you spun with a
>>>
>>>load of
>>>
>>>>>ice? Surely you jest.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I know what's going to happen if I do nothing.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>--
>>>>Mortimer Schnerd, RN
>>>>

>>>
>>>Over gross, iced up and in a spin is Darwin award time.
>>
>>This reminds me of a scenario my motorcycle class instructor
>>gave the class.
>>
>>Your flying up the on ramp to a freeway, one of those clover
>>leaf types that have you go around in a 270 and the center is
>>filled with foliage. You're going as fast as you can, leaning
>>way over and dragging your knee on the ground just like the
>>best of them. Suddenly up ahead you notice a bus stopped at
>>the traffic light at the top of the ramp*.
>>
>>What do you do?
>>
>>The class offered up all sorts of answers, none of which were
>>right. I happened to have the right answer, that you don't put
>>yourself into that situation in the first place.
>>
>>My point is, I see flying over gross weight as putting yourself
>>into a potentially unrecoverable situation.
>>
>>*Don't know if other places have these, but here in LA there's
>>traffic lights at the top of the onramps to regulate the flow
>>cars entering the freeway during peak traffic hours. It's
>>supposed to space the oncoming vehicles apart so they can merge
>>smoothly with existing traffic.
>>
>>The problem I have with these lights is that the stupid drivers
>>dont' hit the gas hard enough and they then try merging with
>>70 mph traffic at 30mph. It's bad enough that they do that
>>without the light.
>>
>>Advantage is to the motorcycle, especially if there's a carpool
>>lane, as we are allowed to use them here in Kah-lee-for-nyuh.
>>
>>Just some thoughts....
>>
>>Brian
>>--
>>http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism
>>
>>Home of the Seismic FAQ
>>http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
>>
>>Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?
>
>
> Not too dificult to be over gross withoug knowing it. Do you think all
> passengers know their weight or are honest about it? Do you think the
> 170 pound per person rule of thumb is very accurate? Do you think the
> passengers know the weight of their baggage?
>

Chris G. wrote:
> I prefer to avoid them altogether. There's no reason (for me) to fly in
> any thunderstorm. If the weather is like that, I should be on the
> ground watching.


We all should. Unfortunately, the nature of IFR flying doesn't always allow you
the luxury. There have been numerous trips in solid IFR where I avoided
convective events but needed to take the chance to get any utility out of
flying. (Can't get to the Bahamas without risking it *somewhere*.) There have
also been a few where I inadvertently flew into an embedded cell. No fun at
all.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN

"Sport Pilot" > wrote in news:1118415441.605435.128770
@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

<Snipola>
> Not too dificult to be over gross withoug knowing it. Do you think all
> passengers know their weight or are honest about it? Do you think the
> 170 pound per person rule of thumb is very accurate? Do you think the
> passengers know the weight of their baggage?

I thought we were talking about private light GA, not commercial airlines.

But even so, that's even more reason to be sure you don't break the
rules because you have a responsibility to others lives. If someone
wants to bend/break the rules at the risk of their own life, fine, be
a darwin award candidate. We dont' need them in the gene pool. But
don't risk other's lives while you're at it.

The same argument could even apply to light private GA. What if you
crash into someone's house and kill the residents? hmmm???

Better safe than sorry.

Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism

Home of the Seismic FAQ
http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html

Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?

Matt Whiting wrote:
>
> But if you simply avoid thunderstorms like you avoid stalls, then you
> don't need to worry about any of these techniques, right? :-)

Yep, and that's what I do. VFR all the way.

George Patterson
Why do men's hearts beat faster, knees get weak, throats become dry,
and they think irrationally when a woman wears leather clothing?
Because she smells like a new truck.

George Patterson wrote:

> Matt Whiting wrote:
>
>>
>> But if you simply avoid thunderstorms like you avoid stalls, then you
>> don't need to worry about any of these techniques, right? :-)
>
>
> Yep, and that's what I do. VFR all the way.

But where is the challenge there? :-)


Matt

Matt Whiting wrote:
> George Patterson wrote:
>
> > Matt Whiting wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> But if you simply avoid thunderstorms like you avoid stalls, then you
> >> don't need to worry about any of these techniques, right? :-)
> >
> >
> > Yep, and that's what I do. VFR all the way.
>
> But where is the challenge there? :-)
>
well for us non instrument trained pilots there is a sudden effect to
our entering cloud.
This is known as the 'graveyard spiral' and doesn't do a ****load of
good for pilot, pax or airframe

"george" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
>
> Matt Whiting wrote:
> > George Patterson wrote:
> >
> > > Matt Whiting wrote:
> > >
> > >>
> > >> But if you simply avoid thunderstorms like you avoid stalls, then you
> > >> don't need to worry about any of these techniques, right? :-)
> > >
> > >
> > > Yep, and that's what I do. VFR all the way.
> >
> > But where is the challenge there? :-)
> >
> well for us non instrument trained pilots there is a sudden effect to
> our entering cloud.
> This is known as the 'graveyard spiral' and doesn't do a ****load of
> good for pilot, pax or airframe

Besides, who wants to fly if you can't see anything. Sounds like an
absolutely horrible waste of time to me.

Dave Stadt wrote:

> "george" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>
>>
>>Matt Whiting wrote:
>>
>>>George Patterson wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Matt Whiting wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>But if you simply avoid thunderstorms like you avoid stalls, then you
>>>>>don't need to worry about any of these techniques, right? :-)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Yep, and that's what I do. VFR all the way.
>>>
>>>But where is the challenge there? :-)
>>>
>>
>>well for us non instrument trained pilots there is a sudden effect to
>>our entering cloud.
>>This is known as the 'graveyard spiral' and doesn't do a ****load of
>>good for pilot, pax or airframe
>
>
> Besides, who wants to fly if you can't see anything. Sounds like an
> absolutely horrible waste of time to me.

Some of us actually like to use our brain. Flying in IMC is a great
exercise of the brain. Also, 3 hours in the clouds in an airplane beats
8 hours in a car in the rain any day! :-)


Matt

Matt Whiting wrote:
> Some of us actually like to use our brain. Flying in IMC is a great
> exercise of the brain. Also, 3 hours in the clouds in an airplane beats
> 8 hours in a car in the rain any day! :-)


Or swimming for a month. It takes a long time to swim to the islands.

Frankly, at whatever point you decide to use aviation as a tool rather than just
entertainment, it behooves you to make it reliable. That just isn't possible in
an all-VFR world.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN

On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 11:13:40 GMT, Matt Whiting >
wrote in >::

>Flying in IMC is a great exercise of the brain.


I once wrote in 1998:

"For me, IFR flight is a lot like playing a game of Chess in the
blind while juggling three balls in the air and maintaining a
running conversation at a noisy cocktail party. You have to
mentally visualize the position of the "pieces" on the "board,"
continually monitor and interpret a myriad of arcane instruments
and make corrections to keep the airplane shinny side up, all
while constantly attempting to pick out the ATC communiques
intended for you from the rest of the "guests'" conversations. To
this add the _stress_ of the consequences of losing the game
(death). (Of course, this analogy fails to consider weather,
turbulence, flight planning, interpreting charts and plates,
tuning radios and OBS settings, equipment failures, ....)

Single-pilot IFR aircraft operation in the ATC system in IMC
without the benefit of Global Positioning Satellite receiver,
auto-pilot, and Active Noise Reduction headset, is probably one of
the most demanding things you will ever do."

Skywise wrote:
> "Sport Pilot" > wrote in news:1118415441.605435.128770
> @g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
>
> <Snipola>
> > Not too dificult to be over gross withoug knowing it. Do you think all
> > passengers know their weight or are honest about it? Do you think the
> > 170 pound per person rule of thumb is very accurate? Do you think the
> > passengers know the weight of their baggage?
>
> I thought we were talking about private light GA, not commercial airlines.
>
You never took your friends or their luggage? My wife has never told
me how much she weighs.


> But even so, that's even more reason to be sure you don't break the
> rules because you have a responsibility to others lives. If someone
> wants to bend/break the rules at the risk of their own life, fine, be
> a darwin award candidate. We dont' need them in the gene pool. But
> don't risk other's lives while you're at it.
>
As I said anyone could break the rule and not even know it.


> The same argument could even apply to light private GA. What if you
> crash into someone's house and kill the residents? hmmm???
>
> Better safe than sorry.
>
> Brian
> --
> http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism
>
> Home of the Seismic FAQ
> http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
>
> Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?

"Mortimer Schnerd, RN" > wrote in message
. ..
> Matt Whiting wrote:
> > Some of us actually like to use our brain. Flying in IMC is a great
> > exercise of the brain. Also, 3 hours in the clouds in an airplane beats
> > 8 hours in a car in the rain any day! :-)
>
>
> Or swimming for a month. It takes a long time to swim to the islands.
>
> Frankly, at whatever point you decide to use aviation as a tool rather
than just
> entertainment, it behooves you to make it reliable. That just isn't
possible in
> an all-VFR world.
> --
> Mortimer Schnerd, RN
>
>

I hope to never fall into that trap. Single engine, single pilot IFR in the
clag is not my definition of reliable or desirable transportation. Anything
beyond that means you are mostly a button pushing knob twisting passenger.
Not much brain activity required and horribly boring.

Dave Stadt wrote:
> I hope to never fall into that trap. Single engine, single pilot IFR in the
> clag is not my definition of reliable or desirable transportation. Anything
> beyond that means you are mostly a button pushing knob twisting passenger.
> Not much brain activity required and horribly boring.


BWAHAHAHAHA!!!! Spoken as a true know-nothing. If there's one thing single
pilot IFR isn't, it's boring. You're not flying in a video game; you're flying
in real weather.

I hate to be harsh but your statements bring it out of me.




--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN

"Mortimer Schnerd, RN" > wrote in message
. ..
> Dave Stadt wrote:
> > I hope to never fall into that trap. Single engine, single pilot IFR in
the
> > clag is not my definition of reliable or desirable transportation.
Anything
> > beyond that means you are mostly a button pushing knob twisting
passenger.
> > Not much brain activity required and horribly boring.
>
>
> BWAHAHAHAHA!!!! Spoken as a true know-nothing. If there's one thing
single
> pilot IFR isn't, it's boring. You're not flying in a video game; you're
flying
> in real weather.
>
> I hate to be harsh but your statements bring it out of me.
>
>
>
>
> --
> Mortimer Schnerd, RN
>
>

It works every time....heheheheheh.

Dave Stadt wrote:
> "Mortimer Schnerd, RN" > wrote in message
> . ..
>
>>Matt Whiting wrote:
>>
>>>Some of us actually like to use our brain. Flying in IMC is a great
>>>exercise of the brain. Also, 3 hours in the clouds in an airplane beats
>>>8 hours in a car in the rain any day! :-)
>>
>>
>>Or swimming for a month. It takes a long time to swim to the islands.
>>
>>Frankly, at whatever point you decide to use aviation as a tool rather
>
> than just
>
>>entertainment, it behooves you to make it reliable. That just isn't
>
> possible in
>
>>an all-VFR world.
>>--
>>Mortimer Schnerd, RN
>>

>
>
> I hope to never fall into that trap. Single engine, single pilot IFR in the
> clag is not my definition of reliable or desirable transportation. Anything
> beyond that means you are mostly a button pushing knob twisting passenger.
> Not much brain activity required and horribly boring.

It was both reliable and desirable for me for more than 6 years. When I
can own my own airplane again, it'll be the same again. The stats for
IFR flying aren't all that bad for a well-trained pilot in a
well-maintained airplane.

Matt

"Sport Pilot" > wrote in
ups.com:

> Skywise wrote:
>> "Sport Pilot" > wrote in
>> news:1118415441.605435.128770 @g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
>>
>> <Snipola>
>> > Not too dificult to be over gross withoug knowing it. Do you think
>> > all passengers know their weight or are honest about it? Do you
>> > think the 170 pound per person rule of thumb is very accurate? Do
>> > you think the passengers know the weight of their baggage?
>>
>> I thought we were talking about private light GA, not commercial
>> airlines.
>>
> You never took your friends or their luggage? My wife has never told
> me how much she weighs.

First, I'm not a pilot...yet. I hope to get my license but the
opportunity just hasn't prevailed itself upon me yet.

If there is one thing I've learned in the few months that I've been
reading this newsgroup is that the pilot is ultimately responsible
for the safety of the flight. Knowing the weight of your passengers
and cargo is part of your duty as pilot in command, is it not?

I would simply explain that I must know my passengers weight in
order make sure that we have a safe flight. If need be, I'd even
try explain some of the issues that could arise from not making a
proper weight calculation. If they still seem a little embarrassed
I'd promise not to tell anyone. It's simply for the safety of the
flight.

I would hate to think knowing all this a person would be so vain
that they would willingly choose weight over safety.


>> But even so, that's even more reason to be sure you don't break the
>> rules because you have a responsibility to others lives. If someone
>> wants to bend/break the rules at the risk of their own life, fine, be
>> a darwin award candidate. We dont' need them in the gene pool. But
>> don't risk other's lives while you're at it.
>>
> As I said anyone could break the rule and not even know it.
<Snipola>

There's always going to be things that can happen that are beyond ones
control, but that's no excuse for CHOOSING to ignore something that has
an affect on flight safety. Perhaps having an exact weight is not as
critical for a large airliner but is it not potentially critical for
something small like a 170?

As I said, better safe than sorry. Flying isn't like driving. You
can't just pull over in the sky to fix something that goes wrong.

Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism

Seismic FAQ: http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
Blog: http://www.skywise711.com/Blog

Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?

Skywise wrote:
> "Sport Pilot" > wrote in
> ups.com:
>
> > Skywise wrote:
> >> "Sport Pilot" > wrote in
> >> news:1118415441.605435.128770 @g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
> >>
> >> <Snipola>
> >> > Not too dificult to be over gross withoug knowing it. Do you think
> >> > all passengers know their weight or are honest about it? Do you
> >> > think the 170 pound per person rule of thumb is very accurate? Do
> >> > you think the passengers know the weight of their baggage?
> >>
> >> I thought we were talking about private light GA, not commercial
> >> airlines.
> >>
> > You never took your friends or their luggage? My wife has never told
> > me how much she weighs.
>
> First, I'm not a pilot...yet. I hope to get my license but the
> opportunity just hasn't prevailed itself upon me yet.
>
> If there is one thing I've learned in the few months that I've been
> reading this newsgroup is that the pilot is ultimately responsible
> for the safety of the flight. Knowing the weight of your passengers
> and cargo is part of your duty as pilot in command, is it not?
>
> I would simply explain that I must know my passengers weight in
> order make sure that we have a safe flight. If need be, I'd even
> try explain some of the issues that could arise from not making a
> proper weight calculation. If they still seem a little embarrassed
> I'd promise not to tell anyone. It's simply for the safety of the
> flight.
>
> I would hate to think knowing all this a person would be so vain
> that they would willingly choose weight over safety.
>
>
> >> But even so, that's even more reason to be sure you don't break the
> >> rules because you have a responsibility to others lives. If someone
> >> wants to bend/break the rules at the risk of their own life, fine, be
> >> a darwin award candidate. We dont' need them in the gene pool. But
> >> don't risk other's lives while you're at it.
> >>
> > As I said anyone could break the rule and not even know it.
> <Snipola>
>
> There's always going to be things that can happen that are beyond ones
> control, but that's no excuse for CHOOSING to ignore something that has
> an affect on flight safety. Perhaps having an exact weight is not as
> critical for a large airliner but is it not potentially critical for
> something small like a 170?
>
> As I said, better safe than sorry. Flying isn't like driving. You
> can't just pull over in the sky to fix something that goes wrong.
>

Refreshing post.
Keep thinking like that.
The rules are not there just to give the printer a job

Mortimer Schnerd, RN wrote:
> Dave Stadt wrote:
> > I hope to never fall into that trap. Single engine, single pilot IFR in the
> > clag is not my definition of reliable or desirable transportation. Anything
> > beyond that means you are mostly a button pushing knob twisting passenger.
> > Not much brain activity required and horribly boring.
>
>
> BWAHAHAHAHA!!!! Spoken as a true know-nothing. If there's one thing single
> pilot IFR isn't, it's boring. You're not flying in a video game; you're flying
> in real weather.
>
> I hate to be harsh but your statements bring it out of me.
>
>
>
>
> --
> Mortimer Schnerd, RN
>
>


I started the first steps toward getting an IFR rating more than 15
years ago. Took the ground school, was bored to death, but certainly
takes some smarts. Flew in the back seat of a Piper Arrow to Oshkosh
IFR with some friends a short time later. One leg was through some
clouds with a few horizontal lightening bolts. Hit my head on the
ceiling a few times. The pilots did ok but I was a wreck nontheless.
After that I resolved to never fly IFR in a light plane.

Later, I think it was Aviation Consumer, showed statics that GA IFR
flying was slightly safer than a motorcycle, and VFR flying slightly
less safe than an automobile.

Skywise wrote:
>
> Knowing the weight of your passengers
> and cargo is part of your duty as pilot in command, is it not?

Not necessarily. Knowing that the aircraft is at or below MGW and within the
envelope is part of your duty as PIC. If you have enough passengers and luggage
to be close to MGW, then, yes, you need to know the weights. If not, you don't.

For example, my Maule would carry 560 pounds with full tanks. Going up with a
single passenger, I never had to ask that person what they weighed. I simply
don't know people who weigh well over 350 pounds. I know that putting more than
210 pounds in the back seat will put me out of the envelope. If the EAA brings
me two typical 10 year olds, I know I can put them in the back seat with no
problems for a Young Eagles flight, and I can tell that by looking at them.

The only time I needed to know exact weights were when I took my family on
vacations.

George Patterson
Why do men's hearts beat faster, knees get weak, throats become dry,
and they think irrationally when a woman wears leather clothing?
Because she smells like a new truck.

George Patterson > wrote in
news:QJFre.5835$fa3.83@trndny01:

> Skywise wrote:
>>
>> Knowing the weight of your passengers
>> and cargo is part of your duty as pilot in command, is it not?
>
> Not necessarily. Knowing that the aircraft is at or below MGW and within
> the envelope is part of your duty as PIC. If you have enough passengers
> and luggage to be close to MGW, then, yes, you need to know the weights.
> If not, you don't.
>
> For example, my Maule would carry 560 pounds with full tanks. Going up
> with a single passenger, I never had to ask that person what they
> weighed. I simply don't know people who weigh well over 350 pounds. I
> know that putting more than 210 pounds in the back seat will put me out
> of the envelope. If the EAA brings me two typical 10 year olds, I know I
> can put them in the back seat with no problems for a Young Eagles
> flight, and I can tell that by looking at them.
>
> The only time I needed to know exact weights were when I took my family
> on vacations.
>
> George Patterson

I agree with you completely. There are obviously times when knowing
an exact weight is not necessary, but you are still giving the
weight consideration.

Then there are times when knowing exact weights are important.

You are obviously smart enough to know the difference. I was
getting the impression from some posters that they aren't.

Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism

Seismic FAQ: http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
Blog: http://www.skywise711.com/Blog

Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?

Sport Pilot wrote:
> I started the first steps toward getting an IFR rating more than 15
> years ago. Took the ground school, was bored to death, but certainly
> takes some smarts. Flew in the back seat of a Piper Arrow to Oshkosh
> IFR with some friends a short time later. One leg was through some
> clouds with a few horizontal lightening bolts. Hit my head on the
> ceiling a few times. The pilots did ok but I was a wreck nontheless.
> After that I resolved to never fly IFR in a light plane.


If you'd been the pilot you might have done better. I think it's the feeling of
lack of control that makes people not enjoy the experience. I know as a pilot,
I've never enjoyed those few moments my aircraft has been out of control in
convective events. There is a similar reaction in the car when somebody goes
around curves a little too fast... the driver doesn't mind but the passenger
does. No control. It makes you press your foot to the floor as if there were a
brake pedal there.

All that being said, it's a pity you never had a chance to fly a "good" IFR trip
before you decided you didn't like it: take off into a stratus layer, enjoy a
silky smooth flight followed by an instrument letdown down to maybe 400 feet...
low enough to be a challenge but not so low that you don't know whether you're
going to get in or not.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN

Mortimer Schnerd, RN wrote:
> Sport Pilot wrote:
> > I started the first steps toward getting an IFR rating more than 15
> > years ago. Took the ground school, was bored to death, but certainly
> > takes some smarts. Flew in the back seat of a Piper Arrow to Oshkosh
> > IFR with some friends a short time later. One leg was through some
> > clouds with a few horizontal lightening bolts. Hit my head on the
> > ceiling a few times. The pilots did ok but I was a wreck nontheless.
> > After that I resolved to never fly IFR in a light plane.
>
>
> If you'd been the pilot you might have done better. I think it's the feeling of
> lack of control that makes people not enjoy the experience. I know as a pilot,
> I've never enjoyed those few moments my aircraft has been out of control in
> convective events. There is a similar reaction in the car when somebody goes
> around curves a little too fast... the driver doesn't mind but the passenger
> does. No control. It makes you press your foot to the floor as if there were a
> brake pedal there.
>
> All that being said, it's a pity you never had a chance to fly a "good" IFR trip
> before you decided you didn't like it: take off into a stratus layer, enjoy a
> silky smooth flight followed by an instrument letdown down to maybe 400 feet...
> low enough to be a challenge but not so low that you don't know whether you're
> going to get in or not.
>
>
>
> --
> Mortimer Schnerd, RN
>
>

It's not just the experiance. I decided that flying by small plane is
such a poor and dangerous form of transportation, that from now on I
will just fly for fun, aka my screen name, which has nothing to do with
the newer sport catagory.

Skywise wrote:
> George Patterson > wrote in
> news:QJFre.5835$fa3.83@trndny01:
>
> > Skywise wrote:
> >>
> >> Knowing the weight of your passengers
> >> and cargo is part of your duty as pilot in command, is it not?
> >
> > Not necessarily. Knowing that the aircraft is at or below MGW and within
> > the envelope is part of your duty as PIC. If you have enough passengers
> > and luggage to be close to MGW, then, yes, you need to know the weights.
> > If not, you don't.
> >
> > For example, my Maule would carry 560 pounds with full tanks. Going up
> > with a single passenger, I never had to ask that person what they
> > weighed. I simply don't know people who weigh well over 350 pounds. I
> > know that putting more than 210 pounds in the back seat will put me out
> > of the envelope. If the EAA brings me two typical 10 year olds, I know I
> > can put them in the back seat with no problems for a Young Eagles
> > flight, and I can tell that by looking at them.
> >
> > The only time I needed to know exact weights were when I took my family
> > on vacations.
> >
> > George Patterson
>
> I agree with you completely. There are obviously times when knowing
> an exact weight is not necessary, but you are still giving the
> weight consideration.
>
> Then there are times when knowing exact weights are important.
>
> You are obviously smart enough to know the difference. I was
> getting the impression from some posters that they aren't.
>
> Brian
> --
> http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism
>
> Seismic FAQ: http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
> Blog: http://www.skywise711.com/Blog
>
> Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?


Using 170 pounds per person is supposed to be a legit method of
estimating the weight. Even the FAA doesn't expect you to carry a
scale and weigh the passengers and cargo. Esitmating is supposed to be
legit. So you could underestimate and be over the gross weight.

Sport Pilot wrote:
> Using 170 pounds per person is supposed to be a legit method of
> estimating the weight. Even the FAA doesn't expect you to carry a
> scale and weigh the passengers and cargo. Esitmating is supposed to be
> legit. So you could underestimate and be over the gross weight.


It's been my experience most aircraft are more sensitive to balance than weight.
Some aircraft are famous for their carrying ability... the Cherokee Six, Cessna
C-182, and Cessna C-210 come to mind. Supposedly they'll fly if you can get the
doors shut. I know for a fact that the Cherokee Six and the C-210 will carry
six people, full fuel , dive gear (less tanks) and baggage for a four day stay.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN

"Sport Pilot" > wrote in
ps.com:

<Snipola>
> It's not just the experiance. I decided that flying by small plane is
> such a poor and dangerous form of transportation, that from now on I
> will just fly for fun, aka my screen name, which has nothing to do with
> the newer sport catagory.

I gotta ask, do you still drive a car?

Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism

Seismic FAQ: http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
Blog: http://www.skywise711.com/Blog

Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?

"Sport Pilot" > wrote in news:1118839018.676955.266780
@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:

<Snipola>
> Using 170 pounds per person is supposed to be a legit method of
> estimating the weight. Even the FAA doesn't expect you to carry a
> scale and weigh the passengers and cargo. Esitmating is supposed to be
> legit. So you could underestimate and be over the gross weight.

Yes, but as others have pointed out in the 30 minute reserve threads,
the FAA rules are _minimum guidelines_. It is still up to the pilot
to make sure. There may be scenarios where following the FAA rules
to the letter isn't enough.

Perhaps this isn't the best analogy, but there are times driving
around here in the LA area, especially when on my motorcycle, that
I willingly and consciously choose to break traffic laws because
doing otherwise will increase the risk to my life.

When it comes to deciding between rules and safety, I'll choose
safety every time.

Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism

Seismic FAQ: http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
Blog: http://www.skywise711.com/Blog

Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?

Yeah. Great point. Everyone knows that the most dangerous time is when
you drive to the airport.

Yeah, everyone should decide what is safest for them regardless of stupid
rules, be they driving laws or FARs. To really increase safety on your
bike while on the "10" I'd pack a loaded 12-gauge on your rice rocket,
just like they do here in NH. Live free or die!

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
snip
> >>>I am reminded of a prospective pilot my employer was interviewing: what
> >>>would he do if he stumbled into a thunderstorm.
snip
> > Lower your seat all the way, put on your hat, tighten your seat belt
*tight*,
> > turn up the instrument lights to their brightest setting (day or night),
reduce
> > power, reduce speed to maneuvering speed, say a prayer. Did I forget
anything?
>
> Yes, lower the gear if in a retract.
>
> Matt

Explanation please. Would the air gusting inside the storm not exceed the
gear extended speed? (Dive bomber rated speed limiting brakes excepted.)

just my .02

>>Yes, lower the gear if in a retract.

> Explanation please. Would the air gusting inside the storm not exceed the
> gear extended speed? (Dive bomber rated speed limiting brakes excepted.)

Being inside a thunderstorm is an emergency. Extended gear helps you
slow down and makes the plane more stable.

Jose
--
"Never trust anything that can think for itself, if you can't see where
it keeps its brain."
(chapter 10 of book 3 - Harry Potter).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"Skylune" > wrote in
lkaboutaviation.com:

> Yeah, everyone should decide what is safest for them regardless of stupid
> rules, be they driving laws or FARs. To really increase safety on your
> bike while on the "10" I'd pack a loaded 12-gauge on your rice rocket,
> just like they do here in NH. Live free or die!

Shirley, you jest!!!

I guess you didn't see a recent post by me that stated I have a
Harley. I've been riding for 18 years, before it became fashionable
to own a Harley.

A weapon also is not needed. Since I adopted my current driving style
I've not had any problems in years. This is part of my 'rule bending'.
I don't allow myself to be near other cars if at all possible, or if
I must, I take control of the interaction so as to reduce to a minimum
the possibility of any negative side effects of said interaction.

But this is getting too OT for this group. My only reason for mentioning
it all was as an analogy in support an argument.

Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism

Seismic FAQ: http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
Blog: http://www.skywise711.com/Blog

Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?

"Jose" > wrote in message
m...
> >>Yes, lower the gear if in a retract.
>
> > Explanation please. Would the air gusting inside the storm not exceed
the
> > gear extended speed? (Dive bomber rated speed limiting brakes
excepted.)
>
> Being inside a thunderstorm is an emergency. Extended gear helps you
> slow down and makes the plane more stable.
snip

IMHO an emergency does not necessarily make unapproved operation outside the
envelope desirable or acceptable.

I agree that slowing down is desirable, what I am questioning is the
desirability of increasing drag. I would want to add carb heat, throttle
back, raise the nose and AOA to fly at just above Vy. I would want to hold
attitude but not altitude. I have never been there and so this is just IMHO,
I may not be correct and.YMMV.

I would love to slow down enough to use some flaps but I would not risk the
chance that one might rip off or jam. I understand that flaps are also
undesirable in possible icing situations.

What concerns me is that exceeding the gear (or flap) extended speed makes
you a test pilot. I do not think that inside a thunderstorm with severe and
random loadings is the time to experiment with unknown flight
characteristics or of the structural strength of the gear doors or of the
increased surface area exposed to possible icing. I would be afraid that
the failure of a flap or gear door could create an asymmetric drag condition
that could affect control.

Just my .02

Sport Pilot wrote:
>
> Using 170 pounds per person is supposed to be a legit method of
> estimating the weight.

Just where does the FAA say this?

George Patterson
Why do men's hearts beat faster, knees get weak, throats become dry,
and they think irrationally when a woman wears leather clothing?
Because she smells like a new truck.

> IMHO an emergency does not necessarily make unapproved operation outside the
> envelope desirable or acceptable.

No. But it does make the benefit (of better control) more likely to be
worth the cost (of damaged parts).

> What concerns me is that exceeding the gear (or flap) extended speed makes
> you a test pilot. I do not think that inside a thunderstorm with severe and
> random loadings is the time to experiment with unknown flight
> characteristics or of the structural strength of the gear doors or of the
> increased surface area exposed to possible icing.

If you are inside a thunderstorm you are already a test pilot. You are
getting close to being an ex-pilot. One would need to weigh the benefit
of the extra stability (of lowered gear) against the cost (of putting
known loadings - gear extension is not random) on an aircraft which is
being buffeted around like a banana in a blender.

Icing on the gear is much less important than icing on the wing, and if
that's what it takes to keep the wing attached, I'd make the trade. I
agree that flaps are probably not good to extend, but everything I've
read indicates that gear down is a good idea (in fact, put the gear down
before entering if you know you must enter).

Never been there, never want to, decide (either way) at your own risk.

Jose
--
"Never trust anything that can think for itself, if you can't see where
it keeps its brain."
(chapter 10 of book 3 - Harry Potter).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

private wrote:
> I agree that slowing down is desirable, what I am questioning is the
> desirability of increasing drag. I would want to add carb heat, throttle
> back, raise the nose and AOA to fly at just above Vy. I would want to hold
> attitude but not altitude. I have never been there and so this is just IMHO,
> I may not be correct and.YMMV.


I have flown through several thunderstorms and have never dropped the gear.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN

Skylune wrote:
> Yeah. Great point. Everyone knows that the most dangerous time is when
> you drive to the airport.

Cars are somewhat safer, don't kid yourself. Aircraft are 50's tech
when it comes to safety. Not that I wouldn't fly in one.

I don't think gust speeds count against the max extension speed anyway.
The average would be accepted. Besides the gust will most likely be
an up or down draft which whould not put much added stress on the
retract system.

"Sport Pilot" > wrote in news:1118892576.334534.300440
@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

>
>
> Skylune wrote:
>> Yeah. Great point. Everyone knows that the most dangerous time is when
>> you drive to the airport.
>
> Cars are somewhat safer, don't kid yourself. Aircraft are 50's tech
> when it comes to safety. Not that I wouldn't fly in one.

Gee....every study I've ever heard about indicates otherwise. DO
you know of a study that supports your position?

I'm willing to change my position if there's evidence to support it.

Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism

Seismic FAQ: http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
Blog: http://www.skywise711.com/Blog

Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?

Skywise wrote:
> "Sport Pilot" > wrote in news:1118892576.334534.300440
> @g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
>
>
>>
>>Skylune wrote:
>>
>>>Yeah. Great point. Everyone knows that the most dangerous time is when
>>>you drive to the airport.
>>
>>Cars are somewhat safer, don't kid yourself. Aircraft are 50's tech
>>when it comes to safety. Not that I wouldn't fly in one.
>
>
> Gee....every study I've ever heard about indicates otherwise. DO
> you know of a study that supports your position?

Are you talking about general aviation or scheduled airlines? This
study of comparative risks is over 10 years old, but I doubt the numbers
have changed too much since then:
http://www.magma.ca/~ocbc/comparat.html

Peter > wrote in news:GZudnWpDVupzlCzfRVn-
:

> http://www.magma.ca/~ocbc/comparat.html

Interesting. Thank you for the link.

Assuming the information is correct, then apparently what
I was hearing about was in regard to airliner service only.

Hmmm...so riding my Harley on the streets of the LA is
supposed to be nearly twice as safe as GA? For some reason
I have difficulty with that assessment, but they're the
experts.

I know I'd certainly FEEL much safer in a small plane with me
at the controls (when I get properly trained of course).

Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism

Seismic FAQ: http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
Blog: http://www.skywise711.com/Blog

Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?

Matt Whiting wrote:
>
> And I'm happy that you are happy with substandard training.

Uh .. That's *standard* training, thank you very much.

George Patterson
Why do men's hearts beat faster, knees get weak, throats become dry,
and they think irrationally when a woman wears leather clothing?
Because she smells like a new truck.

Skywise wrote:
> Peter > wrote in news:GZudnWpDVupzlCzfRVn-
> :
>
> > http://www.magma.ca/~ocbc/comparat.html
>
> Interesting. Thank you for the link.
>
> Assuming the information is correct, then apparently what
> I was hearing about was in regard to airliner service only.
>
> Hmmm...so riding my Harley on the streets of the LA is
> supposed to be nearly twice as safe as GA? For some reason
> I have difficulty with that assessment, but they're the
> experts.
>
> I know I'd certainly FEEL much safer in a small plane with me
> at the controls (when I get properly trained of course).
>
> Brian
> --
> http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism
>
> Seismic FAQ: http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
> Blog: http://www.skywise711.com/Blog
>
> Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?

Years ago, I think it was Aviation Consumer or something like that, had
VFR flying as being only somewhat less safe than an automobile, but IFR
flying was much worse than a motorcycle. I would guess that that a
large GA jet would be an exception to that.

"Sport Pilot" > wrote in news:1119036176.775030.215500
@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

> Skywise wrote:
>> Peter > wrote in news:GZudnWpDVupzlCzfRVn-
>> :
>>
>> > http://www.magma.ca/~ocbc/comparat.html
>>
>> Interesting. Thank you for the link.
>>
>> Assuming the information is correct, then apparently what
>> I was hearing about was in regard to airliner service only.
>>
>> Hmmm...so riding my Harley on the streets of the LA is
>> supposed to be nearly twice as safe as GA? For some reason
>> I have difficulty with that assessment, but they're the
>> experts.
>>
>> I know I'd certainly FEEL much safer in a small plane with me
>> at the controls (when I get properly trained of course).
>>
>> Brian
>> --
>> http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism
>>
>> Seismic FAQ: http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
>> Blog: http://www.skywise711.com/Blog
>>
>> Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?
>
> Years ago, I think it was Aviation Consumer or something like that, had
> VFR flying as being only somewhat less safe than an automobile, but IFR
> flying was much worse than a motorcycle. I would guess that that a
> large GA jet would be an exception to that.

All this brings up a question.

Is it easier to get a pilots license than a drivers license?

I'm talking purely from the POV of being able to pass the test.
All else being equal.

Or put another way, is it easier for stupid idiots to get into
an airplane?

My thinking is that flying is safer because of the training,
training that is not given in cars. It seems to me that people
get their drivers licenses WAAAAY too easily. I would hope it's
much harder to qualify for a pilots license. If it is, from
that POV would it not be safer to fly than to drive? That is,
a pilot is much more qualified to fly than a driver is qualified
to drive?

Of course there can still be more problems driving simply due
to the numbers of cars on the road. The more encounters there
are, the greater chance of a problem.

Also, flying can have lots of problems because the vehicle
is more complex, there's more variables to go wrong.

Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism

Seismic FAQ: http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
Blog: http://www.skywise711.com/Blog

Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?

Skywise wrote:
>
> Is it easier to get a pilots license than a drivers license?

No. Anyone with the brains to graduate high school can study for the NJ drivers'
license test for about 3 hours and ace it in less than 20 minutes. Try that with
the PPC exam.

George Patterson
Why do men's hearts beat faster, knees get weak, throats become dry,
and they think irrationally when a woman wears leather clothing?
Because she smells like a new truck.