View Full Version : Cirrus down, Chapel Hill NC
a[_3_]
July 13th 10, 12:47 PM
It may be selective memory on my part, but it seems these airplanes
have been over represented among GA accidents lately.
The story of this crash can be found here (and elsewhere)
http://www.heraldsun.com/view/full_story/8740196/article-Plane-crashes-in-Chapel-Hill?instance=homefirstleft
Agent Gibbs
July 14th 10, 03:33 PM
On Jul 13, 7:47*am, a > wrote:
> It may be selective memory on my part, but it seems these airplanes
> have been over represented among GA accidents lately.
>
> The story of this crash can be found here (and elsewhere)
>
> http://www.heraldsun.com/view/full_story/8740196/article-Plane-crashe...
In times past the Beech Bonanza, especially the V tail
variant was deemed the "Doctor Killer". It has now
been replaced by the Cirrus SR series.
And there's not a thing wrong with either. It's just
$ + high performance + low experience = incident.
Also, I read or heard somewhere that the BRS parachutes
don't work if your speed is excessive at deployment. The
lines can snap.
---
Mark
---
Mxsmanic
July 14th 10, 05:12 PM
a writes:
> It may be selective memory on my part, but it seems these airplanes
> have been over represented among GA accidents lately.
They are indeed over-represented.
There's nothing wrong with the airplanes, but there's a lot wrong with the
manufacturer's marketing strategy, which encourages low-time, inexperienced,
naïve pilots to buy Cirrus aircraft, with an emphasis on luxury and prestige
and gadgets, and the subtle suggestion that a parachute can fix any problem
and prevent any accident.
I guess the parachute didn't help in this case, which isn't the least bit
surprising.
Ron Wanttaja[_2_]
July 15th 10, 05:28 AM
Mxsmanic wrote:
> a writes:
>
>> It may be selective memory on my part, but it seems these airplanes
>> have been over represented among GA accidents lately.
>
> They are indeed over-represented.
No. Their accident rate is less than that of Cessna 172s manufactured
over the same time period.
In 2009, there were 23 Cirrus accidents, vs. 3699 aircraft registered as
of January 2010. There were 3003 Cessna 172s on the registry that had
been manufactured since production restarted in the '90s. The NTSB
accident listing for 2009 shows 23 Cessna 172S models and four 172R models.
Cirrus: 23/3699 = 0.62%
New-Production 172s: 27/3003 = 0.89%
Ron Wanttaja
a[_3_]
July 15th 10, 08:05 AM
On Jul 15, 12:28*am, Ron Wanttaja > wrote:
> Mxsmanic wrote:
> > a writes:
>
> >> It may be selective memory on my part, but it seems these airplanes
> >> have been over represented among GA accidents lately.
>
> > They are indeed over-represented.
>
> No. *Their accident rate is less than that of Cessna 172s manufactured
> over the same time period.
>
> In 2009, there were 23 Cirrus accidents, vs. 3699 aircraft registered as
> of January 2010. *There were 3003 Cessna 172s on the registry that had
> been manufactured since production restarted in the '90s. *The NTSB
> accident listing for 2009 shows 23 Cessna 172S models and four 172R models.
>
> Cirrus: *23/3699 = *0.62%
>
> New-Production 172s: *27/3003 = 0.89%
>
> Ron Wanttaja
Thanks Ron. I would expect too the C172s are more in the rental fleet,
probably get at least as many hours as the Cirrus. That is a guess of
course, it may normalize the distribution a bit.
I appreciate the factual input as opposed to opinion or my selective
memory.
Mxsmanic
July 15th 10, 12:24 PM
Ron Wanttaja writes:
> No. Their accident rate is less than that of Cessna 172s manufactured
> over the same time period.
But there are far more Cessna 172s actually flying. About 43,000 of them have
been built, and more than 26,000 are still registered.
>
> In 2009, there were 23 Cirrus accidents, vs. 3699 aircraft registered as
> of January 2010. There were 3003 Cessna 172s on the registry that had
> been manufactured since production restarted in the '90s. The NTSB
> accident listing for 2009 shows 23 Cessna 172S models and four 172R models.
>
> Cirrus: 23/3699 = 0.62%
>
> New-Production 172s: 27/3003 = 0.89%
Why are you counting only new-production Cessna 172s? What about the other
26,000 Cessna 172s that are still flying?
If all Cessna 172s in service are compared to all Cirrus aircraft in service,
then the accident rate for Cirrus aircraft is about ten times greater than
that of Cessna 172s.
Ron Wanttaja[_2_]
July 15th 10, 03:23 PM
Mxsmanic wrote:
> Ron Wanttaja writes:
>> Cirrus: 23/3699 = 0.62%
>>
>> New-Production 172s: 27/3003 = 0.89%
>
> Why are you counting only new-production Cessna 172s? What about the other
> 26,000 Cessna 172s that are still flying?
Just because they're registered doesn't mean they're still flying. You
come up with a good way to tell how many are still flying, and we'll
have an apples-to-apples comparison.
Keep in mind that the FAA does not cancel an aircraft's registration
after a crash. Being on the registry doesn't mean the airplane even exists.
As a point of interest, there are more 50+ year-old Cessna 172s on the
rolls than there are new-production models. A third of them haven't
changed ownership in the past 20 years. Satisfied owners...or inactive
aircraft?
In 2009, there were 26,228 Cessnas of all vintages on the FAA rolls, and
115 accidents. This is a rate of about 0.43%...the Cirrus was about 50%
higher, but the new-production 172s had TWICE the accident rate of the
overall fleet.
Should we conclude that there's something wrong with the new-production
172s? Or is just in the way Cessna markets them?
Comparing new-production 172s avoids the active/inactive issues. The
172 came back into production within a few years of the Cirrus, thus the
two types should be evenly affected by the active/inactive aircraft.
The FAA has started an initiative to clean up the registry. We will
probably be seeing the total number of GA aircraft drop over the next
several years.
Ron Wanttaja
Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Why are you counting only new-production Cessna 172s?
In order to get a somewhat valid comparison.
The numbers of both built are in the same ballpark and the ages are comparable
so the same percentage of both are likely still flying.
> What about the other
> 26,000 Cessna 172s that are still flying?
Because no one knows how many of them are still flying.
If you had ever visited any real airports you would know there are lots of
airplanes that exist on the records but don't fly, or even exist anymore.
--
Jim Pennino
Remove .spam.sux to reply.
Mxsmanic
July 15th 10, 07:10 PM
Ron Wanttaja writes:
> Just because they're registered doesn't mean they're still flying. You
> come up with a good way to tell how many are still flying, and we'll
> have an apples-to-apples comparison.
So how do you know that all those Cirrus aircraft are flying?
> As a point of interest, there are more 50+ year-old Cessna 172s on the
> rolls than there are new-production models. A third of them haven't
> changed ownership in the past 20 years. Satisfied owners...or inactive
> aircraft?
My guess is the former. Just because an airplane has had the same owner for 20
years hardly means that it isn't being used.
> In 2009, there were 26,228 Cessnas of all vintages on the FAA rolls, and
> 115 accidents. This is a rate of about 0.43%...the Cirrus was about 50%
> higher, but the new-production 172s had TWICE the accident rate of the
> overall fleet.
So?
> Should we conclude that there's something wrong with the new-production
> 172s? Or is just in the way Cessna markets them?
Why not just look at the way they are marketed? The problems with Cirrus'
marketing are obvious.
> Comparing new-production 172s avoids the active/inactive issues.
And helps massage the numbers to make Cirrus look better.
Mxsmanic
July 15th 10, 07:13 PM
writes:
> In order to get a somewhat valid comparison.
What's invalid about comparing all Cessnas?
> The numbers of both built are in the same ballpark and the ages are comparable
> so the same percentage of both are likely still flying.
What evidence is there that older aircraft are not being flown?
> Because no one knows how many of them are still flying.
Nobody knows how many of the new aircraft are flying, either.
> If you had ever visited any real airports you would know there are lots of
> airplanes that exist on the records but don't fly, or even exist anymore.
Why would Cessnas produced before Cirrus was around be especially prone to
non-flying status?
How about comparing Cirrus with Diamond? Both companies are about the same
age. Which has more accidents?
Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
>
>> In order to get a somewhat valid comparison.
>
> What's invalid about comparing all Cessnas?
As the airplane gets older, the odds that it is not flying gets higher.
>> The numbers of both built are in the same ballpark and the ages are comparable
>> so the same percentage of both are likely still flying.
>
> What evidence is there that older aircraft are not being flown?
Simple observation at any GA airport.
>> Because no one knows how many of them are still flying.
>
> Nobody knows how many of the new aircraft are flying, either.
By comparing comperable age aircraft, the likelyhood is that the non-flying
fractions are both smaller and more likely equal.
>> If you had ever visited any real airports you would know there are lots of
>> airplanes that exist on the records but don't fly, or even exist anymore.
>
> Why would Cessnas produced before Cirrus was around be especially prone to
> non-flying status?
Because they are old, because the owners are likely old and have stopped
flying.
By comparing aircraft produced during the same period those differences
go away and you get a true comparison.
> How about comparing Cirrus with Diamond?
Why?
Are you finally realizing your statements are not backed up by fact and
now you want to change the subject?
--
Jim Pennino
Remove .spam.sux to reply.
On Jul 15, 1:31*pm, wrote:
> Are you finally realizing your statements are not backed up by fact and
> now you want to change the subject?
They never are backed up with statements as shown consistently in this
thread and when called to task, he answers a question with a question
as a diversion to the root of the problem and that he hasn't a clue
what he talks about in the real world of aviation.
Mxsmanic
July 15th 10, 08:50 PM
writes:
> As the airplane gets older, the odds that it is not flying gets higher.
Are you sure? Where did you acquire this information?
> Simple observation at any GA airport.
How do you determine the flying history and age of an aircraft by simple
observation?
> By comparing comperable age aircraft, the likelyhood is that the non-flying
> fractions are both smaller and more likely equal.
How do you know that?
> Because they are old, because the owners are likely old and have stopped
> flying.
How do you know this?
> Why?
Because comparing Cirrus with Diamond would make it harder to manipulate the
numbers to conceal any higher accident rate with Cirrus.
a[_3_]
July 15th 10, 09:07 PM
On Jul 15, 12:28*am, Ron Wanttaja > wrote:
> Mxsmanic wrote:
> > a writes:
>
> >> It may be selective memory on my part, but it seems these airplanes
> >> have been over represented among GA accidents lately.
>
> > They are indeed over-represented.
>
> No. *Their accident rate is less than that of Cessna 172s manufactured
> over the same time period.
>
> In 2009, there were 23 Cirrus accidents, vs. 3699 aircraft registered as
> of January 2010. *There were 3003 Cessna 172s on the registry that had
> been manufactured since production restarted in the '90s. *The NTSB
> accident listing for 2009 shows 23 Cessna 172S models and four 172R models.
>
> Cirrus: *23/3699 = *0.62%
>
> New-Production 172s: *27/3003 = 0.89%
>
> Ron Wanttaja
That you compared aircraft and accident rates manufactured in the same
interval -- S model 172s -- very nicely compares apples with apples
in my view. Nice data, nice logic.
Peter Dohm
July 15th 10, 09:18 PM
"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> writes:
>
>> In order to get a somewhat valid comparison.
>
> What's invalid about comparing all Cessnas?
>
>> The numbers of both built are in the same ballpark and the ages are
>> comparable
>> so the same percentage of both are likely still flying.
>
> What evidence is there that older aircraft are not being flown?
>
>> Because no one knows how many of them are still flying.
>
> Nobody knows how many of the new aircraft are flying, either.
>
>> If you had ever visited any real airports you would know there are lots
>> of
>> airplanes that exist on the records but don't fly, or even exist anymore.
>
> Why would Cessnas produced before Cirrus was around be especially prone to
> non-flying status?
>
> How about comparing Cirrus with Diamond? Both companies are about the same
> age. Which has more accidents?
Shirley, you jest!
Peter Dohm
July 15th 10, 09:21 PM
"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> writes:
>
>> As the airplane gets older, the odds that it is not flying gets higher.
>
> Are you sure? Where did you acquire this information?
>
>> Simple observation at any GA airport.
>
> How do you determine the flying history and age of an aircraft by simple
> observation?
>
>> By comparing comperable age aircraft, the likelyhood is that the
>> non-flying
>> fractions are both smaller and more likely equal.
>
> How do you know that?
>
>> Because they are old, because the owners are likely old and have stopped
>> flying.
>
> How do you know this?
>
>> Why?
>
> Because comparing Cirrus with Diamond would make it harder to manipulate
> the
> numbers to conceal any higher accident rate with Cirrus.
Those of us who use, or have used, the equipment find it pretty essy and
surprisingly accurate. It works pretty well for boats, cars and trucks, and
even lawnmowers as well.
Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
>
>> As the airplane gets older, the odds that it is not flying gets higher.
>
> Are you sure? Where did you acquire this information?
Life and the fact that the FAA acknowledges the fact that there are a lot
of registered but not flying, or even existing, aircraft.
>> Simple observation at any GA airport.
>
> How do you determine the flying history and age of an aircraft by simple
> observation?
If you had ever been to a GA airport, you wouldn't ask such a stupid
question.
>> By comparing comperable age aircraft, the likelyhood is that the non-flying
>> fractions are both smaller and more likely equal.
>
> How do you know that?
It is obvious.
>> Because they are old, because the owners are likely old and have stopped
>> flying.
>
> How do you know this?
Simple observation at any GA airport.
>> Why?
>
> Because comparing Cirrus with Diamond would make it harder to manipulate the
> numbers to conceal any higher accident rate with Cirrus.
Babbling nonsense.
Both of your "comparisons" are bogus from the start.
It has been well documented that the faster and more complex an aircraft is,
the higher the accident rate.
Comparing Cirrus to a C172 or anything Diamond makes is nonsense as the
Cirrus is a fast, complex airplane.
--
Jim Pennino
Remove .spam.sux to reply.
a > wrote:
> On Jul 15, 12:28Â*am, Ron Wanttaja > wrote:
>> Mxsmanic wrote:
>> > a writes:
>>
>> >> It may be selective memory on my part, but it seems these airplanes
>> >> have been over represented among GA accidents lately.
>>
>> > They are indeed over-represented.
>>
>> No. Â*Their accident rate is less than that of Cessna 172s manufactured
>> over the same time period.
>>
>> In 2009, there were 23 Cirrus accidents, vs. 3699 aircraft registered as
>> of January 2010. Â*There were 3003 Cessna 172s on the registry that had
>> been manufactured since production restarted in the '90s. Â*The NTSB
>> accident listing for 2009 shows 23 Cessna 172S models and four 172R models.
>>
>> Cirrus: Â*23/3699 = Â*0.62%
>>
>> New-Production 172s: Â*27/3003 = 0.89%
>>
>> Ron Wanttaja
>
> That you compared aircraft and accident rates manufactured in the same
> interval -- S model 172s -- very nicely compares apples with apples
> in my view. Nice data, nice logic.
Yeah and with rates that low you can not establish any "blame" on the
manufacturer, you are down into the realm of random, stupid pet tricks.
--
Jim Pennino
Remove .spam.sux to reply.
Jim Logajan
July 15th 10, 10:41 PM
Ron Wanttaja > wrote:
> Mxsmanic wrote:
>> a writes:
>>
>>> It may be selective memory on my part, but it seems these airplanes
>>> have been over represented among GA accidents lately.
>>
>> They are indeed over-represented.
>
> No. Their accident rate is less than that of Cessna 172s manufactured
> over the same time period.
>
> In 2009, there were 23 Cirrus accidents, vs. 3699 aircraft registered
> as of January 2010. There were 3003 Cessna 172s on the registry that
> had been manufactured since production restarted in the '90s. The
> NTSB accident listing for 2009 shows 23 Cessna 172S models and four
> 172R models.
>
> Cirrus: 23/3699 = 0.62%
>
> New-Production 172s: 27/3003 = 0.89%
Having between 0.5% and 1% of an aircraft fleet (or subset) involved in
accidents per year always seemed a high attrition rate to me. But I can't
say I ever bothered to check before what the equivalent number was with
respect to automobiles. A quick check of approximate number of autos in the
U.S.[1] and accidents per year in the U.S.[2] seems to yield:
Autos: 6,000,000/250,000,000 = 2.4%
On the other hand, the auto accidents probably include many fender benders
which would probably be more equivalent to "Incidents" rather than
"Accidents" as those terms are defined by the FAA (or NTSB?), so the two
ratios aren't directly comparable. For fatal automobile accidents[3] the
numbers appear to be (roughly):
Fatal Auto Accidents: 40,000/250,000,000 = 0.016%
And idea how many of those Cirrus and Cessna 172 accidents involved
fatalities?
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passenger_vehicles_in_the_United_States
[2] http://www.car-accidents.com/pages/stats.html
[3] http://www.car-accidents.com/pages/fatal-accident-statistics.html
Mxsmanic
July 15th 10, 11:48 PM
writes:
> It has been well documented that the faster and more complex an aircraft is,
> the higher the accident rate.
Explain bizjets.
> Comparing Cirrus to a C172 or anything Diamond makes is nonsense as the
> Cirrus is a fast, complex airplane.
I suppose that's a matter of viewpoint, but if it's true, then most of this
thread is moot, isn't it?
Let's look at it a different way: How much does it cost to insure a Cessna
172, and how much does it cost to insure a Cirrus SR-22?
Mxsmanic
July 16th 10, 12:03 AM
Jim Logajan writes:
> And idea how many of those Cirrus and Cessna 172 accidents involved
> fatalities?
A quick look at the NTSB database reveals 85 fatalities for Cessna 172s since
January 1, 2008, and 48 fatalities for Cirrus SR-22s since that same date.
There are 26,163 Cessna 172s registered currently, and 3,746 Cirrus SR-22s.
The fatality rate during this period on a per-aircraft basis is therefore
0.00324 for Cessna 172s and 0.01281 for Cirrus SR-22s. The rate for the SR-22s
is thus nearly four times higher than that for Cessna 172s.
Now, if you are convinced that 23,000 Cessna 172s are idle and only 3000 or so
are flying, and/or that all Ciruss SR-22s are flying, you're going to have to
show data to support this--otherwise it is pure and misleading speculation.
Just glancing at aircraft at the local airport won't do.
Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
>
>> It has been well documented that the faster and more complex an aircraft is,
>> the higher the accident rate.
>
> Explain bizjets.
Why?
The discussion was piston aircraft, or are you just being your asshole,
grasp at straws, try to turn the discussion from your original statement,
self?
>> Comparing Cirrus to a C172 or anything Diamond makes is nonsense as the
>> Cirrus is a fast, complex airplane.
>
> I suppose that's a matter of viewpoint, but if it's true, then most of this
> thread is moot, isn't it?
Yep, just about everything you've said on the subject is pointless, pulled
out of your ass, babble.
> Let's look at it a different way: How much does it cost to insure a Cessna
> 172, and how much does it cost to insure a Cirrus SR-22?
Yet another apples and oranges comparison?
Why don't you compare the cost to insure a Honda Civic to a Mercedes E550?
--
Jim Pennino
Remove .spam.sux to reply.
Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Jim Logajan writes:
>
>> And idea how many of those Cirrus and Cessna 172 accidents involved
>> fatalities?
>
> A quick look at the NTSB database reveals 85 fatalities for Cessna 172s since
> January 1, 2008, and 48 fatalities for Cirrus SR-22s since that same date.
>
> There are 26,163 Cessna 172s registered currently, and 3,746 Cirrus SR-22s.
>
> The fatality rate during this period on a per-aircraft basis is therefore
> 0.00324 for Cessna 172s and 0.01281 for Cirrus SR-22s. The rate for the SR-22s
> is thus nearly four times higher than that for Cessna 172s.
How does that compare to the rate for a Chevrolet Corvair?
--
Jim Pennino
Remove .spam.sux to reply.
Mxsmanic
July 16th 10, 12:27 AM
writes:
> Mxsmanic > wrote:
>
> > Explain bizjets.
>
> Why?
Because you said that the faster and more complex an aircraft is, the higher
the accident rate. But the rate for bizjets and larger transport aircraft is
very low, which invalidates your statement.
> The discussion was piston aircraft, or are you just being your asshole,
> grasp at straws, try to turn the discussion from your original statement,
> self?
No, I'm exposing the flaws in your arguments. Clearly, the complexity or
speed of an aircraft does not lead to more accidents in itself. Nor does a
combination of complexity, speed, and a piston engine.
> Why don't you compare the cost to insure a Honda Civic to a Mercedes E550?
Surely you are not comparing a Civic to a C172 and a Mercedes to a SR22?
If you want to see an example of how Cirrus deliberately misleads its
customers, check out this page:
http://www.cirrusaircraft.com/perspective/fiki.aspx
It is clearly written to create the false and dangerous impression that
certification for flight into known icing conditions allows a pilot to fly
indefinitely in icing conditions of any kind with impunity, when the reality
is almost diametrically opposed to that impression. Naive, low-time pilots
reading this ad may be led astray in ways that will lead to their early
demise.
Mxsmanic
July 16th 10, 12:44 AM
writes:
> How does that compare to the rate for a Chevrolet Corvair?
I'm not familiar with that aircraft.
Peter Dohm
July 16th 10, 12:49 AM
"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Jim Logajan writes:
>
>> And idea how many of those Cirrus and Cessna 172 accidents involved
>> fatalities?
>
> A quick look at the NTSB database reveals 85 fatalities for Cessna 172s
> since
> January 1, 2008, and 48 fatalities for Cirrus SR-22s since that same date.
>
> There are 26,163 Cessna 172s registered currently, and 3,746 Cirrus
> SR-22s.
>
> The fatality rate during this period on a per-aircraft basis is therefore
> 0.00324 for Cessna 172s and 0.01281 for Cirrus SR-22s. The rate for the
> SR-22s
> is thus nearly four times higher than that for Cessna 172s.
>
> Now, if you are convinced that 23,000 Cessna 172s are idle and only 3000
> or so
> are flying, and/or that all Ciruss SR-22s are flying, you're going to have
> to
> show data to support this--otherwise it is pure and misleading
> speculation.
> Just glancing at aircraft at the local airport won't do.
Using your figures, fatal accidents are lower for the Cirrus SR22 than for
automobiles.
As to accidents involving "substantial damage" to automobiles, for which I
have never seen a seperate statistic, the point probably is that there is no
point!
Mxsmanic
July 16th 10, 01:02 AM
Peter Dohm writes:
> Using your figures, fatal accidents are lower for the Cirrus SR22 than for
> automobiles.
Of that I have no doubt.
a[_3_]
July 16th 10, 01:35 AM
On Jul 13, 7:47*am, a > wrote:
> It may be selective memory on my part, but it seems these airplanes
> have been over represented among GA accidents lately.
>
> The story of this crash can be found here (and elsewhere)
>
> http://www.heraldsun.com/view/full_story/8740196/article-Plane-crashe...
A little more about this crash.
It appears the airplane landed, bounced along the runway, and 600 feet
from touchdown went off the runway, hit a tree, and the impact
deployed the rescue parachute.
At first blush, an accident on landing. The NTSB report will be
instructive, it's not often I've read of GA airplanes at that stage of
landing being in a fatality.
http://www.newsobserver.com/2010/07/15/582046/plane-hopped-along-runway-veered.html
Jim Logajan
July 16th 10, 01:52 AM
Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Jim Logajan writes:
>
>> And idea how many of those Cirrus and Cessna 172 accidents involved
>> fatalities?
>
> A quick look at the NTSB database reveals 85 fatalities for Cessna
> 172s since January 1, 2008, and 48 fatalities for Cirrus SR-22s since
> that same date.
I was asking Ron for the number of accidents in his count that yielded
fatalities, not the number of fatalities for your subset.
> There are 26,163 Cessna 172s registered currently, and 3,746 Cirrus
> SR-22s.
As has been already pointed out to you, the registration count for
Cessna 172s does not provide any idea how many are actually in use for
any measurement period. Here is what the FAA says about their
registration records with respect to this issue:
"Of the more than 343,000 aircraft registered, an estimated 104,000, or
about one-third, are possibly no longer eligible for registration."
From:
http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgNPRM.nsf/0/0f806e40ad8cabce862573fd006db5f7!OpenDocument&ExpandSection=-5
> Now, if you are convinced that 23,000 Cessna 172s are idle and only
> 3000 or so are flying, and/or that all Ciruss SR-22s are flying,
Unfortunately you continue to use data sets that have already been
pointed out as unreliable basis for normalization.
Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
>
>> Mxsmanic > wrote:
>>
>> > Explain bizjets.
>>
>> Why?
>
> Because you said that the faster and more complex an aircraft is, the higher
> the accident rate. But the rate for bizjets and larger transport aircraft is
> very low, which invalidates your statement.
The discussion was GA spam cans whether you want to admit that or not.
>> The discussion was piston aircraft, or are you just being your asshole,
>> grasp at straws, try to turn the discussion from your original statement,
>> self?
>
> No, I'm exposing the flaws in your arguments. Clearly, the complexity or
> speed of an aircraft does not lead to more accidents in itself. Nor does a
> combination of complexity, speed, and a piston engine.
Yes, it does, and it has been shown time and time again.
The C210 accident rate was greater than the C182 accident rate which was
greater than the C172 accident rate.
The same occured for all makers and when comparing comperabale aircraft,
such as a C172 to a Warrior, the rates were comperable.
>> Why don't you compare the cost to insure a Honda Civic to a Mercedes E550?
>
> Surely you are not comparing a Civic to a C172 and a Mercedes to a SR22?
It makes as much sense as comparing a C172 to a SR22.
The comperable Cessna aircraft was the now out of production C210.
<snip babble>
--
Jim Pennino
Remove .spam.sux to reply.
Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
>
>> How does that compare to the rate for a Chevrolet Corvair?
>
> I'm not familiar with that aircraft.
Nor any other.
--
Jim Pennino
Remove .spam.sux to reply.
Mxsmanic
July 16th 10, 02:07 AM
Jim Logajan writes:
> Unfortunately you continue to use data sets that have already been
> pointed out as unreliable basis for normalization.
Which datasets are you using?
Jim Logajan
July 16th 10, 02:44 AM
Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Jim Logajan writes:
>
>> Unfortunately you continue to use data sets that have already been
>> pointed out as unreliable basis for normalization.
>
> Which datasets are you using?
For what?
Mxsmanic
July 16th 10, 03:33 AM
Jim Logajan writes:
> For what?
For the determination of how many aircraft are not being actively used, and
for the determination of any correlation between complexity and accident
rates.
On Jul 15, 9:33*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Jim Logajan writes:
> > For what?
>
> For the determination of how many aircraft are not being actively used, and
> for the determination of any correlation between complexity and accident
> rates.
What data sets are YOU using to base your uninformed opinion?????
Links please
Jim Logajan
July 16th 10, 04:17 AM
Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Jim Logajan writes:
>
>> For what?
>
> For the determination of how many aircraft are not being actively
> used, and for the determination of any correlation between complexity
> and accident rates.
What post of mine made claims about such things?
Are you perhaps confusing my posts with someone elses?
Ron Wanttaja[_2_]
July 16th 10, 05:52 AM
Mxsmanic wrote:
> How about comparing Cirrus with Diamond? Both companies are about the same
> age. Which has more accidents?
2009 Statistics:
Cirrus SR-20/22: 23 accidents /3699 Registered aircraft = 0.62%
Diamond DA-40: 6 accidents / 700 Registered aircraft: 0.85%.
The DA-40's accident rate is just about the same as the new-production 172s.
Ron Wanttaja
VOR-DME[_4_]
July 16th 10, 05:53 AM
In article >,
says...
>
>If you want to see an example of how Cirrus deliberately misleads its
>customers, check out this page:
>
>http://www.cirrusaircraft.com/perspective/fiki.aspx
>
>It is clearly written to create the false and dangerous impression that
>certification for flight into known icing conditions allows a pilot to fly
>indefinitely in icing conditions of any kind with impunity, when the reality
>is almost diametrically opposed to that impression. Naive, low-time pilots
>reading this ad may be led astray in ways that will lead to their early
>demise.
I do not agree that this advertisement _deliberately misleads_ anyone about
the capabilities of the aircraft, and I wonder if you really understand the
FIKI packages on Cirrus and Mooney to make the statements you do. I do agree
that the video portion of the ad glorifies flight with reduced margins, and
this is probably irresponsible advertising.
There is considerable discussion as to whether Cirrus is over-represented in
accident and fatality statistics, some of it quite well formulated, unlike
your comparisons with wildly different airplane populations (C172/Diamond)
which are quite meaningless. It will take more analysis to determine if, and
the extent to which Cirrus’ wide popularity has put too many inexperienced
pilots at the commands of too fast and too demanding an aircraft, with
resultant degradation of accident statistics. Today, such a statement is at
best an oversimplification, and your assertion that this is due to an
advertising campaign luring inexperienced pilots to their graves is hasty
and irresponsible.
It is surprising to me that someone with your demonstrated intelligence is so
consistently drawn to simplistic and fatuous arguments. Have you really no
interest or ability to discuss anything seriously?
Ron Wanttaja[_2_]
July 16th 10, 06:23 AM
Mxsmanic wrote:
> Jim Logajan writes:
>
>> And idea how many of those Cirrus and Cessna 172 accidents involved
>> fatalities?
>
> A quick look at the NTSB database reveals 85 fatalities for Cessna 172s since
> January 1, 2008, and 48 fatalities for Cirrus SR-22s since that same date.
>
> There are 26,163 Cessna 172s registered currently, and 3,746 Cirrus SR-22s.
>
> The fatality rate during this period on a per-aircraft basis is therefore
> 0.00324 for Cessna 172s and 0.01281 for Cirrus SR-22s. The rate for the SR-22s
> is thus nearly four times higher than that for Cessna 172s.
I've been looking at fatality rates in regards to homebuilt aircraft.
There's a strong correlation between the cruise speed of an aircraft
with its fatality rate. This is obvious...twice the speed at impact
means the occupants are subjected to four times the energy. The Cirrus
is faster than the 172, hence passengers will be subjected to more
energy in a crash.
Planes don't all CRASH at cruise speed, of course. But generally
speaking, faster airplanes have faster approach speeds and hence there's
more energy to be absorbed at impact.
For instance, compare the fatality ratio for the Lancair IV vs. the
Zenith CH 701. The Lancair's rate is about seven times higher.
The other factor is that Cessna 172s are commonly used as trainers, and
training accidents are usually more in the "fender bender" line. For
example, there were 155 Cessna 172 accidents in 2007. In over half the
cases (81), the NTSB report says the purpose of the flight was
instruction. Of those, only four resulted in fatalities.
Ron Wanttaja
a[_3_]
July 16th 10, 10:01 AM
On Jul 16, 12:53*am, VOR-DME > wrote:
> In article >,
> says...
>
>
>
> >If you want to see an example of how Cirrus deliberately misleads its
> >customers, check out this page:
>
> >http://www.cirrusaircraft.com/perspective/fiki.aspx
>
> >It is clearly written to create the false and dangerous impression that
> >certification for flight into known icing conditions allows a pilot to fly
> >indefinitely in icing conditions of any kind with impunity, when the reality
> >is almost diametrically opposed to that impression. Naive, low-time pilots
> >reading this ad may be led astray in ways that will lead to their early
> >demise.
>
> I do not agree that this advertisement _deliberately misleads_ anyone about
> the capabilities of the aircraft, and I wonder if you really understand the
> FIKI packages on Cirrus and Mooney to make the statements you do. *I do agree
> that the video portion of the ad glorifies flight with reduced margins, and
> this is probably irresponsible advertising.
>
> There is considerable discussion as to whether Cirrus is over-represented in
> accident and fatality statistics, some of it quite well formulated, unlike
> your comparisons with wildly different airplane populations (C172/Diamond)
> which are quite meaningless. It will take more analysis to determine if, and *
> the extent to which Cirrus’ wide popularity has put too many inexperienced
> pilots at the commands of too fast and too demanding an aircraft, with
> resultant degradation of accident statistics. Today, such a statement is at
> best an oversimplification, and your assertion that this is due to an
> advertising campaign luring inexperienced pilots to their graves *is hasty
> and irresponsible.
>
> It is surprising to me that someone with your demonstrated intelligence is so
> consistently drawn to simplistic and fatuous arguments. Have you really no
> interest or ability to discuss anything seriously?
Has anyone heard of a Cirrus going down because it flew into icing
conditions?
Icing conditions are most often found in IMC -- does any pilot among
us rated for IFR take his SEL into known icing conditions?
We have here someone with no known real world training in the art
offering his insights: humor him if you like, but there is no
evidence, at least none that I remember, that when confronted with
factual information that is in opposition to his views that he changed
his views.
VOR-DME[_4_]
July 16th 10, 09:27 PM
In article >, says...
>It is surprising to me that someone with your demonstrated intelligence is so
>consistently drawn to simplistic and fatuous arguments. Have you really no
>interest or ability to discuss anything seriously?
>
>
I guess we can just take your refusalto respond to this, and any other serious
question, as a "no"...
I think we're all in agreement on that premise.
Mxsmanic
July 16th 10, 11:19 PM
VOR-DME writes:
> I do not agree that this advertisement _deliberately misleads_ anyone about
> the capabilities of the aircraft, and I wonder if you really understand the
> FIKI packages on Cirrus and Mooney to make the statements you do.
The advertisement fails to make any mention of the fact that flight in icing
conditions is dangerous, even if the aircraft is certified for flight into
known icing conditions. The latter certification gives you an extra margin for
escape from the icing conditions; it is not a blank check that allows you to
flying through icing conditions whenever and wherever you wish with impunity.
I notice that "flight into" is even omitted at certain points, as if to hide
the fact that FIKI isn't designed for continuous arbitrary icing conditions.
FIKI allows you to enter icing conditions within certain narrow limits and
continue flying indefinitely within those narrow limits. That doesn't mean
that it's a good idea to fly in icing conditions. And icing conditions can
change within seconds from something your aircraft can tolerate to something
that will bring your aircraft down in just a few minutes.
The only prudent way to deal with icing is to avoid it. FIKI gives you less
reason to panic if you find yourself in icing conditions, but no more.
The article makes it sound like you can just sail through any type of icing
conditions without a care in the world. It doesn't explicitly say this, it
just does just about everything _but_ explicitly say it.
> I do agree
> that the video portion of the ad glorifies flight with reduced margins, and
> this is probably irresponsible advertising.
I haven't seen the video part. I'll have to take a look at it, although that
will probably only worry me more.
> There is considerable discussion as to whether Cirrus is over-represented in
> accident and fatality statistics, some of it quite well formulated, unlike
> your comparisons with wildly different airplane populations (C172/Diamond)
> which are quite meaningless. It will take more analysis to determine if, and
> the extent to which Cirrus’ wide popularity has put too many inexperienced
> pilots at the commands of too fast and too demanding an aircraft, with
> resultant degradation of accident statistics. Today, such a statement is at
> best an oversimplification, and your assertion that this is due to an
> advertising campaign luring inexperienced pilots to their graves is hasty
> and irresponsible.
No more hasty and irresponsible than asserting that any Cessna 172
manufactured before Cirrus starting building airplanes can be ignored in
statistics because it's probably no longer flying.
Mxsmanic
July 16th 10, 11:24 PM
a writes:
> Has anyone heard of a Cirrus going down because it flew into icing
> conditions?
Yes. There have been at least seven incidents in which icing was a factor,
according to the NTSB.
> Icing conditions are most often found in IMC -- does any pilot among
> us rated for IFR take his SEL into known icing conditions?
Does any pilot here fall for the marketing spiel that Cirrus maintains?
> We have here someone with no known real world training in the art
> offering his insights: humor him if you like, but there is no
> evidence, at least none that I remember, that when confronted with
> factual information that is in opposition to his views that he changed
> his views.
If you spent as much time as I have looking at the accident database, instead
of wasting time on the formulation of petty personal attacks, you'd have the
same evidence I have.
Mxsmanic
July 16th 10, 11:25 PM
writes:
> What data sets are YOU using to base your uninformed opinion?????
The NTSB's accident database, and the FAA's aircraft registry database.
Mxsmanic
July 16th 10, 11:26 PM
Jim Logajan writes:
> What post of mine made claims about such things?
> Are you perhaps confusing my posts with someone elses?
I haven't been trying to keep track of who posts what, as the discussion
concerns aviation, not individuals.
Mxsmanic > wrote:
> If you spent as much time as I have looking at the accident database, instead
> of wasting time on the formulation of petty personal attacks, you'd have the
> same evidence I have.
If you had spent any time looking at accident databases and had any
understanding of what you were looking at, you would be well aware that
the rates increase with complexity and wouldn't be arguing about it.
But given your superficial understanding of aviation and statistics, you
would probably think comparing the stats of a C150 to a 747 means something.
--
Jim Pennino
Remove .spam.sux to reply.
Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Jim Logajan writes:
>
>> What post of mine made claims about such things?
>> Are you perhaps confusing my posts with someone elses?
>
> I haven't been trying to keep track of who posts what, as the discussion
> concerns aviation, not individuals.
You don't have to as the newsreader does that for you.
--
Jim Pennino
Remove .spam.sux to reply.
a[_3_]
July 16th 10, 11:47 PM
On Jul 16, 6:24*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> a writes:
> > Has anyone heard of a Cirrus going down because it flew into icing
> > conditions?
>
> Yes. There have been at least seven incidents in which icing was a factor,
> according to the NTSB.
>
> > Icing conditions are most often found in IMC -- does any pilot among
> > us rated for IFR take his SEL into known icing conditions?
>
> Does any pilot here fall for the marketing spiel that Cirrus maintains?
>
> > We have here someone with no known real world training in the art
> > offering his insights: humor him if you like, but there is no
> > evidence, at least none that I remember, that when confronted with
> > factual information that is in opposition to his views that he changed
> > his views.
>
> If you spent as much time as I have looking at the accident database, instead
> of wasting time on the formulation of petty personal attacks, you'd have the
> same evidence I have.
My comment and questions were actually directed to pilots. I rarely
respond directly to trolls.
Mxsmanic
July 17th 10, 12:00 AM
writes:
> If you had spent any time looking at accident databases and had any
> understanding of what you were looking at, you would be well aware that
> the rates increase with complexity and wouldn't be arguing about it.
The rates of encounters with icing conditions? I don't think so.
Mxsmanic
July 17th 10, 12:01 AM
writes:
> You don't have to as the newsreader does that for you.
I don't bother to look. Since I respond to specific points rather than to
specific personalities, it doesn't really matter who wrote the post.
Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
>
>> If you had spent any time looking at accident databases and had any
>> understanding of what you were looking at, you would be well aware that
>> the rates increase with complexity and wouldn't be arguing about it.
>
> The rates of encounters with icing conditions? I don't think so.
Changing the subject in midstream again, I see.
--
Jim Pennino
Remove .spam.sux to reply.
Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
>
>> You don't have to as the newsreader does that for you.
>
> I don't bother to look. Since I respond to specific points rather than to
> specific personalities, it doesn't really matter who wrote the post.
Babbling nonsense.
If you respond to specific points you are responding to the writer of
those points unless you are doing something extremely stupid like
responding to something quoted many posts ago instead of the original
posting of that point.
--
Jim Pennino
Remove .spam.sux to reply.
Jim Logajan
July 17th 10, 01:56 AM
Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Jim Logajan writes:
>
>> What post of mine made claims about such things?
>> Are you perhaps confusing my posts with someone elses?
>
> I haven't been trying to keep track of who posts what, as the discussion
> concerns aviation, not individuals.
What dataset are you using that shows Cirrus has fewer accidents per plane
per year than Cessna 172s?
Mxsmanic
July 17th 10, 02:28 AM
Jim Logajan writes:
> What dataset are you using that shows Cirrus has fewer accidents per plane
> per year than Cessna 172s?
The NTSB accident database, and the FAA aircraft registry database.
On Jul 16, 5:25*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
> > What data sets are YOU using to base your uninformed opinion?????
>
> The NTSB's accident database, and the FAA's aircraft registry database.
I ASK YOU again what datasets do you use to come up with your
uninformed opinion.
Please provide cases that support your analysis, not just a bullcrap
answer like the above.
IF you can make conclusions then surely you can provide what incidents
you used to BASE your uninfomed opinions you keep spewing out
OR IS YOU HAVE CLUE NO ON WHAT YOUR ARE TALKING ABOUT TO SUPPORT WHAT
YOU SAY????????
Mxsmanic
July 17th 10, 03:18 AM
writes:
> On Jul 16, 5:25*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> > writes:
> > > What data sets are YOU using to base your uninformed opinion?????
> >
> > The NTSB's accident database, and the FAA's aircraft registry database.
>
> I ASK YOU again what datasets do you use to come up with your
> uninformed opinion.
The NTSB's accident database, and the FAA's aircraft registry database.
Jim Logajan
July 17th 10, 03:26 AM
Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Jim Logajan writes:
>
>> What dataset are you using that shows Cirrus has fewer accidents per
>> plane per year than Cessna 172s?
>
> The NTSB accident database, and the FAA aircraft registry database.
So your dataset shows the Cirrus is the safer airplane.
Mxsmanic
July 17th 10, 03:36 AM
Jim Logajan writes:
> So your dataset shows the Cirrus is the safer airplane.
I've already pointed out that the opposite appears to be true when all the
data is considered.
Jim Logajan
July 17th 10, 04:10 AM
Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Jim Logajan writes:
>
>> So your dataset shows the Cirrus is the safer airplane.
>
> I've already pointed out that the opposite appears to be true when all
> the data is considered.
It doesn't matter what you have pointed out, as the discussion concerns
aviation, not individuals. Why do you insist on making this discussion
about you?
On Jul 16, 9:18*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
> > On Jul 16, 5:25*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> > > writes:
> > > > What data sets are YOU using to base your uninformed opinion?????
>
> > > The NTSB's accident database, and the FAA's aircraft registry database.
>
> > I ASK YOU again what datasets do you use to come up with your
> > uninformed opinion.
>
> The NTSB's accident database, and the FAA's aircraft registry database.
Please point me to the data you used for your analysis. I ASK A VERY
DIRECT QUESTION.
NOT WEBSITES I KNOW THAT CONTAIN EVERYTHING.
What part DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND OF MY QUESTION??????????????
Let me guess, you won't provide the data YOU USED and you talk nothing
but bull****.
On Jul 16, 9:36*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Jim Logajan writes:
> > So your dataset shows the Cirrus is the safer airplane.
>
> I've already pointed out that the opposite appears to be true when all the
> data is considered.
SHOW US THE DATA YOU CONSIDERED.
SEE MY OTHER POST.
I WANT THE DATA YOU USED TO COME UP WITH YOUR CONCLUSIONS.
WHAT DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND ON MY QUESTION????????????
T182T
July 17th 10, 08:27 AM
In article >,
says...
>
>The advertisement fails to make any mention of the fact that flight in icing
>conditions is dangerous, even if the aircraft is certified for flight into
>known icing conditions. (BS clipped)
The advertisement fails only to conform to your own completely misinformed
conception of what icing is all about. This is a real example of why the fact
that you do not fly airplanes disqualifies you from forming meaningful
opinions and insights into the potential dangers of flying. It’s all about
experience. (Here’s your cue to set us all laughing by stating that experience
is of no importance in safe flying).
I don’t fly the Rockies, but I fly all the time in the mountains of the
Northeast, all seasons, IFR mostly. Icing is a concern for a good portion of
the year. Forecasts are of limited value, as to cover their a***s they
forecast very wide-ranging icing probability at a broad range of altitudes.
Someone like you has to take these forecasts at face value, because you don’t
know any better, but those of us with experience know that we’re just as
likely to not see any ice at all, and if there’s ice at 7000, we’ll likely be
clear of it at 4000 (terrain permitting) or at 10000 (climb rate permitting).
The recent ADDS icing tools help a lot, as do pireps, but if you’re launching
early, there may not be very many of the latter, and some are not pertinent.
If I’m flying from Albany to Buffalo, a B747 descending through 15000 over
Bradley inbound to JFK reporting moderate rime doesn’t help me, and neither
does a CRJ at FL200 right over ALB reporting nil. What matters is having an
idea of when and where we might encounter ice, and most of all, a plan for
what to do about it. It is not instant death, as you believe, if you see some
ice collecting in the corner of the windshield. You just have to be ready, and
know what to do about it. In this respect the anti-icing packages in the
Mooney and now Cirrus are just a HUGE benefit and allow you to file and fly
almost anywhere with confidence. Your statement that this is _diametrically
opposed_ to reality shows only that you and reality are not even distant
acquaintances!
You have confirmed, through your last post, your complete ignorance of the
subject, which comes as no surprise to most of us because there is no
substitute for experience in this matter. If you try to trump experience with
silly platitudes, you end up with a complete flight ban, due to _potential
risks_ which is what you have imposed on yourself, to the benefit of all
humanity certainly.
Go ahead - we’re all waiting for you to label my attitude cavalier and angry
young male endangering lives, but it’s really only the voice of a moderate
amount of experience (many here have much more) countering your timid whimper
of ignorance. Go for it. Give us a nice, pithy statement about _bad things
happening_ and _lives at risk_. You’re on!
VOR-DME[_4_]
July 17th 10, 09:09 AM
What I didn't like in the video portion of the advertisement was the fact he
said "weather was bad, so we needed to get off quickly" and later "we had to
get in". I have been in both situations, but I consider them learning
experiences, and I certainly wouldn't advertise them.
All the stuff they say about ice protection with these systems is true, not
that you would know that.
In article >,
says...
>
>The advertisement fails to make any mention of the fact that flight in icing
>conditions is dangerous, even if the aircraft is certified for flight into
>known icing conditions. The latter certification gives you an extra margin
for
>escape from the icing conditions; it is not a blank check that allows you to
>flying through icing conditions whenever and wherever you wish with impunity.
>
>I notice that "flight into" is even omitted at certain points, as if to hide
>the fact that FIKI isn't designed for continuous arbitrary icing conditions.
>
>FIKI allows you to enter icing conditions within certain narrow limits and
>continue flying indefinitely within those narrow limits. That doesn't mean
>that it's a good idea to fly in icing conditions. And icing conditions can
>change within seconds from something your aircraft can tolerate to something
>that will bring your aircraft down in just a few minutes.
>
>The only prudent way to deal with icing is to avoid it. FIKI gives you less
>reason to panic if you find yourself in icing conditions, but no more.
>
>The article makes it sound like you can just sail through any type of icing
>conditions without a care in the world. It doesn't explicitly say this, it
>just does just about everything _but_ explicitly say it.
>
>> I do agree
>> that the video portion of the ad glorifies flight with reduced margins, and
>> this is probably irresponsible advertising.
>
>I haven't seen the video part. I'll have to take a look at it, although that
>will probably only worry me more.
>
>> There is considerable discussion as to whether Cirrus is over-represented
in
>> accident and fatality statistics, some of it quite well formulated, unlike
>> your comparisons with wildly different airplane populations (C172/Diamond)
>> which are quite meaningless. It will take more analysis to determine if,
and
>> the extent to which Cirrus’ wide popularity has put too many
inexperienced
>> pilots at the commands of too fast and too demanding an aircraft, with
>> resultant degradation of accident statistics. Today, such a statement is at
>> best an oversimplification, and your assertion that this is due to an
>> advertising campaign luring inexperienced pilots to their graves is hasty
>> and irresponsible.
>
>No more hasty and irresponsible than asserting that any Cessna 172
>manufactured before Cirrus starting building airplanes can be ignored in
>statistics because it's probably no longer flying.
Mxsmanic
July 17th 10, 12:45 PM
T182T writes:
> It is not instant death, as you believe, if you see some
> ice collecting in the corner of the windshield.
I don't believe that it is instant death. But I also know that it's not a good
idea to fly blissfully on through icing conditions, no matter what equipment
you have on board.
> You just have to be ready, and know what to do about it.
And what exactly do you do about it?
> In this respect the anti-icing packages in the
> Mooney and now Cirrus are just a HUGE benefit and allow you to file and fly
> almost anywhere with confidence. Your statement that this is _diametrically
> opposed_ to reality shows only that you and reality are not even distant
> acquaintances!
An icing package gives you more time to get out of icing conditions, that's
all.
> Go ahead - we’re all waiting for you to label my attitude cavalier and angry
> young male endangering lives, but it’s really only the voice of a moderate
> amount of experience (many here have much more) countering your timid whimper
> of ignorance.
It sounds like the voice of someone who has encountered icing but hasn't been
nearly killed by it yet. The more often you get away with something, the more
you tend to assume that you'll always be able to get away with it.
Mxsmanic
July 17th 10, 12:47 PM
Jim Logajan writes:
> It doesn't matter what you have pointed out, as the discussion concerns
> aviation, not individuals. Why do you insist on making this discussion
> about you?
There are three occurrences of "you" in this post, and only one mention of
aviation. Does that answer the question?
> > You just have to be ready, and know what to do about it.
>
> And what exactly do you do about it?
YOU KNOW THIS ANSWER, WHY DO YOU ASK?????????????
On Jul 17, 6:45*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> It sounds like the voice of someone who has encountered icing but hasn't been
> nearly killed by it yet. The more often you get away with something, the more
> you tend to assume that you'll always be able to get away with it.
WRONG.
WHAT IS YOUR REAL WORLD EXPERIENCE TO BACK YOUR STATEMENT UP?
Mxsmanic > wrote:
> T182T writes:
>
>> It is not instant death, as you believe, if you see some
>> ice collecting in the corner of the windshield.
>
> I don't believe that it is instant death. But I also know that it's not a good
> idea to fly blissfully on through icing conditions, no matter what equipment
> you have on board.
"fly blissfully on"?
That's an inane and ignorant thing to say.
>> You just have to be ready, and know what to do about it.
>
> And what exactly do you do about it?
Even student pilots know what to do about it.
Take some lessons and find out.
>> In this respect the anti-icing packages in the
>> Mooney and now Cirrus are just a HUGE benefit and allow you to file and fly
>> almost anywhere with confidence. Your statement that this is _diametrically
>> opposed_ to reality shows only that you and reality are not even distant
>> acquaintances!
>
> An icing package gives you more time to get out of icing conditions, that's
> all.
A fire extinguisher will put out a fire and that's all.
>> Go ahead - we’re all waiting for you to label my attitude cavalier and angry
>> young male endangering lives, but it’s really only the voice of a moderate
>> amount of experience (many here have much more) countering your timid whimper
>> of ignorance.
>
> It sounds like the voice of someone who has encountered icing but hasn't been
> nearly killed by it yet. The more often you get away with something, the more
> you tend to assume that you'll always be able to get away with it.
You sound like someone who hasn't a clue what they are talking about.
--
Jim Pennino
Remove .spam.sux to reply.
a[_3_]
July 18th 10, 01:32 AM
On Jul 17, 12:18*pm, wrote:
> Mxsmanic > wrote:
> > T182T writes:
>
> >> It is not instant death, as you believe, if you see some
> >> ice collecting in the corner of the windshield.
>
> > I don't believe that it is instant death. But I also know that it's not a good
> > idea to fly blissfully on through icing conditions, no matter what equipment
> > you have on board.
>
> "fly blissfully on"?
>
> That's an inane and ignorant thing to say.
>
> >> You just have to be ready, and know what to do about it.
>
> > And what exactly do you do about it?
>
> Even student pilots know what to do about it.
>
> Take some lessons and find out.
>
> >> In this respect the anti-icing packages in the
> >> Mooney and now Cirrus are just a HUGE benefit and allow you to file and fly
> >> almost anywhere with confidence. Your statement that this is _diametrically
> >> opposed_ to reality shows only that you and reality are not even distant
> >> acquaintances!
>
> > An icing package gives you more time to get out of icing conditions, that's
> > all.
>
> A fire extinguisher will put out a fire and that's all.
>
> >> Go ahead - we’re all waiting for you to label my attitude cavalier and angry
> >> young male endangering lives, but it’s really only the voice of a moderate
> >> amount of experience (many here have much more) countering your timid whimper
> >> of ignorance.
>
> > It sounds like the voice of someone who has encountered icing but hasn't been
> > nearly killed by it yet. The more often you get away with something, the more
> > you tend to assume that you'll always be able to get away with it.
>
> You sound like someone who hasn't a clue what they are talking about.
>
> --
> Jim Pennino
>
> Remove .spam.sux to reply.
Certainly it's someone who has no need to monitor forecasted freezing
levels and real time pilot reports when flight planning when
meteorological conditions are favorable for ice formation. It is very
rare for me to cancel a planned flight for weather related reasons
unless those conditions include reported ice at reasonable altitudes,
penetrating an active warm front with a temp inversion that includes
freezing rain, or embedded thunderstorms. Airports simply don't go
below minimums that often -- my last weather caused missed approach
was years ago on a non precision approach into an uncontrolled airport
in the mountains of PA and I'd bet very few of us SEL or light twin
pilots here have flown more than one or two in the past half dozen
years.
On Jul 17, 7:32*pm, a > wrote:
>Airports simply don't go
> below minimums that often -- my last weather caused missed approach
> was years ago on a non precision approach into an uncontrolled airport
> in the mountains of PA and I'd bet very few of us SEL or light twin
> pilots here have flown more than one or two in the past half dozen
> years.
Actually, A it may be a regional thing but it's very common for my
airport KMBO to go below approach minimums especially in the morning
when low stratus moves up from the gulf.. ILS KJAN minimums are very
common in fall and spring here as well.
I would have shot lots of those ILS approaches myself however, that
meant not coming home to my own non precision approach airport (KMBO)
a[_3_]
July 18th 10, 03:03 AM
On Jul 17, 9:52*pm, " > wrote:
> On Jul 17, 7:32*pm, a > wrote:
>
> >Airports simply don't go
> > below minimums that often -- my last weather caused missed approach
> > was years ago on a non precision approach into an uncontrolled airport
> > in the mountains of PA and I'd bet very few of us SEL or light twin
> > pilots here have flown more than one or two in the past half dozen
> > years.
>
> Actually, A it may be a regional thing but it's very common for my
> airport KMBO to go below approach minimums especially in the morning
> when low stratus moves up from the gulf.. *ILS *KJAN minimums are very
> common in fall and spring here as well.
>
> I would have shot lots of those ILS approaches myself however, that
> meant not coming home to my own non precision approach airport (KMBO)
Thanks! I guess my experience/mission profile is different and may
not be representative. Most times places where I am going are serviced
by an ILS. Even secondary 'reliever' airports around major cities have
ILS approaches and car rental kiosks.
a[_3_]
July 20th 10, 04:07 PM
On Jul 13, 7:47*am, a > wrote:
> It may be selective memory on my part, but it seems these airplanes
> have been over represented among GA accidents lately.
>
> The story of this crash can be found here (and elsewhere)
>
> http://www.heraldsun.com/view/full_story/8740196/article-Plane-crashe...
The NTSB preliminary report has been issued.
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=ERA10FA356&rpt=p
There are several items embedded in the report that were
'inconsistent' with my guesses as to what might have contributed to
this accident. Note that the pilot had a significant number of hours
-- over a hundred -- as PIC in this airplane, and a reasonable amount
of total time -- 400 plus. A hundred hours in the Cirrus, probably 70
landings. The PIC could have been any medium time pilot among us. If
it was VFR those numbers would have given me enough confidence to sit
in the back seat!
What is the lesson we who fly can learn from this-- be careful to
control airspeed on final? Control attitude on go-round? Pay
attention to the basics?
It was a flight for a sad purpose with an even sadder ending. May all
somehow find peace.
On Jul 20, 10:07*am, a > wrote:
> What is the lesson we who fly can learn from this-- be careful to
> control airspeed on final? Control attitude on go-round? *Pay
> attention to the basics?
Talk about basics.... Why a downwind landing? We all know AWOS not
always correct.
In the report.
>The airplane appeared to be coming in faster than usual for a small plane and according to the
>windsock beside the runway; the plane was landing with the wind not against it.
Witness statement would seem to be credible if the plane had a
tailwind.
a[_3_]
July 20th 10, 04:39 PM
On Jul 20, 11:27*am, " > wrote:
> On Jul 20, 10:07*am, a > wrote:
>
> > What is the lesson we who fly can learn from this-- be careful to
> > control airspeed on final? Control attitude on go-round? *Pay
> > attention to the basics?
>
> Talk about basics.... Why a downwind landing? *We all know AWOS not
> always correct.
>
> In the report.
>
> >The airplane appeared to be coming in faster than usual for a small plane and according to the
> >windsock beside the runway; the plane was landing with the wind not against it.
>
> Witness statement would seem to be credible if the plane had a
> tailwind.
NTSB report says 4 knots
On Jul 20, 10:39*am, a > wrote:
> On Jul 20, 11:27*am, " > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 20, 10:07*am, a > wrote:
>
> > > What is the lesson we who fly can learn from this-- be careful to
> > > control airspeed on final? Control attitude on go-round? *Pay
> > > attention to the basics?
>
> > Talk about basics.... Why a downwind landing? *We all know AWOS not
> > always correct.
>
> > In the report.
>
> > >The airplane appeared to be coming in faster than usual for a small plane and according to the
> > >windsock beside the runway; the plane was landing with the wind not against it.
>
> > Witness statement would seem to be credible if the plane had a
> > tailwind.
>
> NTSB report says 4 knots- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Yeah, I saw that as well as it being a direct Xwind for runway 9 per
ASOS which seems to conflict the witness report of seeing the windsock
running the same direction of the runway.
a[_3_]
July 21st 10, 01:57 AM
On Jul 20, 12:14*pm, " > wrote:
> On Jul 20, 10:39*am, a > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jul 20, 11:27*am, " > wrote:
>
> > > On Jul 20, 10:07*am, a > wrote:
>
> > > > What is the lesson we who fly can learn from this-- be careful to
> > > > control airspeed on final? Control attitude on go-round? *Pay
> > > > attention to the basics?
>
> > > Talk about basics.... Why a downwind landing? *We all know AWOS not
> > > always correct.
>
> > > In the report.
>
> > > >The airplane appeared to be coming in faster than usual for a small plane and according to the
> > > >windsock beside the runway; the plane was landing with the wind not against it.
>
> > > Witness statement would seem to be credible if the plane had a
> > > tailwind.
>
> > NTSB report says 4 knots- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Yeah, I saw that as well as it being a direct Xwind for runway 9 per
> ASOS which seems to conflict the witness report of seeing the windsock
> running the same direction of the runway.
4 knots of wind is enough to move leaves, and you can feel it on your
face. If it was a tail wind he'd have come in with an over-the-ground
speed 4 knots more than he might expect. It's a little worse than
that, if it was 4 knots at 6 feet AGL it would be half that at his
wing's AGL at touch down, in effect increasing his airspeed. My
airplane, and I am pretty sure the Cirrus has the same characteristic,
is if you carry too much speed into ground effect you're in for a
long, long, float. My experience is, you have to be patient and let
the beast want to stop flying before it settles onto the gear. Too
fast down and it'll bounce, as this man seems to have done with the
Cirrus. . It's another GA tragedy no matter what the cause.
On Jul 20, 7:57*pm, a > wrote:
> On Jul 20, 12:14*pm, " > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jul 20, 10:39*am, a > wrote:
>
> > > On Jul 20, 11:27*am, " > wrote:
>
> > > > On Jul 20, 10:07*am, a > wrote:
>
> > > > > What is the lesson we who fly can learn from this-- be careful to
> > > > > control airspeed on final? Control attitude on go-round? *Pay
> > > > > attention to the basics?
>
> > > > Talk about basics.... Why a downwind landing? *We all know AWOS not
> > > > always correct.
>
> > > > In the report.
>
> > > > >The airplane appeared to be coming in faster than usual for a small plane and according to the
> > > > >windsock beside the runway; the plane was landing with the wind not against it.
>
> > > > Witness statement would seem to be credible if the plane had a
> > > > tailwind.
>
> > > NTSB report says 4 knots- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > Yeah, I saw that as well as it being a direct Xwind for runway 9 per
> > ASOS which seems to conflict the witness report of seeing the windsock
> > running the same direction of the runway.
>
> 4 knots of wind is enough to move leaves, and you can feel it on your
> face. If it was a tail wind he'd have come in with an over-the-ground
> speed 4 knots more than he might expect. It's a little worse than
> that, if it was 4 knots at 6 feet AGL it would be half that at his
> wing's AGL at touch down, in effect increasing his airspeed. *My
> airplane, and I am pretty sure the Cirrus has the same characteristic,
> is if you carry too much speed into ground effect you're in for a
> long, long, float. My experience is, you have to be patient and let
> the beast want to stop flying before it settles onto the gear. Too
> fast down and it'll bounce, as this man seems to have done with the
> Cirrus. . It's another GA tragedy no matter what the cause.
Exactly my point hence me bringing out that downwind landing factor.
Real estate gets eaten up pretty quickly and in the Sundowner I
previously owned, just as your experiences, too much speed and you
float kind dom kong. I wouldn't want to imagine a tail wind component
exasperating that.
To me, it can seem somewhat conceivable that an experience person who
works at an airport be able to notice a plane moving about 7 to 10 mph
faster then normal assuming the winds were 4 knits (could have easily
been higher especially if witnesses state it seemed faster then
normal)
a[_3_]
July 24th 10, 10:30 PM
On Jul 24, 3:43*pm, "Stephen!" > wrote:
> " > wrote in news:36a79c66-d103-46fb-
> :
>
> > previously owned, just as your experiences, too much speed and you
> > float kind dom kong.
>
> * Is that anywhere near Kingdom Come? *:P
>
> --
> RCOS #7
> IBA# 11465http://imagesdesavions.com
Speaking of kingdoms come and gone, try this sometime. Get slowed down
to 80 knots at an altitude that's good for stall practice, retard the
throttle and start a stop watch and hold altitude: see how long it
takes to get you to almost stall. Do the same thing at 75 kts
indicated, then 70, then 65, build a graph. Say the average speed from
80 to 55 or whatever is 67, figure out how far into the kingdom (AKA
past the threshold) you'd have gone, do the same calculation for the
other speeds, and remember because of ground effect you'd probably add
30% to that distance. You need a bigger and bigger kingdom if you
carry too much speed into the flare.
It's even worse if, as has been suggested, there's a bit of a tail
wind in the case of the Cirrus. You might be carrying 65 knots
airspeed at 10 feet AGL, but because of the wind gradient, that might
turn into 68 knots at 5 feet AGL and you have to fly that much farther
to burn off that energy and get the damn thing to stop flying. That
may have bought the pilot and one other an early and unfortunate
admission into the next kingdom.
The likely lesson is, learn or relearn to control your energy!
Brian Whatcott
July 24th 10, 11:10 PM
On 7/24/2010 2:40 PM, Stephen! wrote:
> > wrote in news:0425e0c8-3e89-40c5-a659-04964ffd3d53
> @q22g2000yqm.googlegroups.com:
>
>>
>> The NTSB preliminary report has been issued.
>>
>> http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=ERA10FA356&rpt=p
>>
>
> PIO. Certainly not the first and sadly not the last.
>
Landing bunny-hops, specially divergent hops are risky.
I did a series like that on first landing a short coupled
Tippsey Nipper long ago.
But they were not divergent. Just bounce, power, try again - three or
four times. Naughty. One bounce is cause enough to go round, no doubt.
Never heard these called a "PIO" before - which I associate with
control corrections which cause divergent oscillations, for which the
remedy is to remove your hands from the yoke!
Still, bunny hops ARE divergent oscillations, come to think of it....
Brian W
Franklin[_26_]
July 30th 10, 04:24 PM
Stephen! wrote:
> a > wrote in
> news:9bc82c51-ad2d-48c4-bbd8-03eb64291845
> @g35g2000yqa.googlegroups.com:
>
>> The likely lesson is, learn or relearn to control your energy!
>
> All good points but I think a better lesson from this crash would
> be how to decide when you've blown the landing and go around.
>
It take time to know how to land a plane. It takes longer to know when not
to land a plane.
anthony
August 1st 10, 03:39 AM
On Jul 30, 11:24*am, Franklin
> wrote:
> Stephen! wrote:
> > a > wrote in
> > news:9bc82c51-ad2d-48c4-bbd8-03eb64291845
> > @g35g2000yqa.googlegroups.com:
>
> >> The likely lesson is, learn or relearn to control your energy!
>
> > * All good points but I think a better lesson from this crash would
> > * be how to decide when you've blown the landing and go around.
>
> It take time to know how to land a plane. It takes longer to know when not
> to land a plane.
Franklin wrote
It take time to know how to land a plane. It takes longer to know when
not
to land a plane.
Good point. Note to CFIs doing BFIs -- at least once when your client
is deep in the flare, command "Go around". It would be a way of
reminding us the throttle may sometimes have to be advanced when we
are planning to land.
Gemini
August 5th 10, 09:11 PM
On 2010-08-01, anthony > wrote:
> On Jul 30, 11:24*am, Franklin
> wrote:
>> Stephen! wrote:
>> > a > wrote in
>> > news:9bc82c51-ad2d-48c4-bbd8-03eb64291845
>> > @g35g2000yqa.googlegroups.com:
>>
>> >> The likely lesson is, learn or relearn to control your energy!
>>
>> > * All good points but I think a better lesson from this crash would
>> > * be how to decide when you've blown the landing and go around.
>>
>> It take time to know how to land a plane. It takes longer to know when not
>> to land a plane.
>
> Franklin wrote
> It take time to know how to land a plane. It takes longer to know when
> not
> to land a plane.
>
> Good point. Note to CFIs doing BFIs -- at least once when your client
> is deep in the flare, command "Go around". It would be a way of
> reminding us the throttle may sometimes have to be advanced when we
> are planning to land.
Really good point. I'm currently a student pilot (only had 1st solo on
7/4/10), and before the solo, my CFI did exactly that, whilst right in
the flare, he, in a conversational tone, said, "Go around." Proudly,
I was on it, and smoothly increased throttle, and reduced flaps...
I got to learn another lesson that day:
When going around, and you need to decrease the flap by 1 "click",
make sure you don't let out ALL the flap. Fortunately, the CFI
calmly said, "You let out all the flap; we're going to lose altitude
if you don't..." I already caught my mistake and put 2 clicks back
in of flaps. Now I'm always aware!
But this is why we train, right? I want to make ALL my mistakes
when the CFI is right there.
In my second solo - simply flying the pattern for 3 T/O landings -
I exercised my own judgemnt to Go Around. I came in too fast, and
ground effect was making me float way too far - so, rather than
chance it, I simply "went around".
I almost had the urge to not do it. I was thinking, I know what
I'm doing, so, I can stick this. A split second later, I said
to myself that if I'm trying to convince myself that I can make
this, on a simple landing that is getting close, I better just
go around.
That will stick with me now. I know what to expect of myself and
the signs to look for - at least in this case.
Cheers
a[_3_]
August 5th 10, 09:57 PM
On Aug 5, 4:11*pm, Gemini > wrote:
> On 2010-08-01, anthony > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jul 30, 11:24*am, Franklin
> > wrote:
> >> Stephen! wrote:
> >> > a > wrote in
> >> > news:9bc82c51-ad2d-48c4-bbd8-03eb64291845
> >> > @g35g2000yqa.googlegroups.com:
>
> >> >> The likely lesson is, learn or relearn to control your energy!
>
> >> > * All good points but I think a better lesson from this crash would
> >> > * be how to decide when you've blown the landing and go around.
>
> >> It take time to know how to land a plane. It takes longer to know when not
> >> to land a plane.
>
> > Franklin wrote
> > It take time to know how to land a plane. It takes longer to know when
> > not
> > to land a plane.
>
> > Good point. Note to CFIs doing BFIs -- at least once when your client
> > is deep in the flare, command "Go around". It would be a way of
> > reminding us the throttle may sometimes have to be advanced when we
> > are planning to land.
>
> Really good point. I'm currently a student pilot (only had 1st solo on
> 7/4/10), and before the solo, my CFI did exactly that, whilst right in
> the flare, he, in a conversational tone, said, "Go around." Proudly,
> I was on it, and smoothly increased throttle, and reduced flaps...
>
> I got to learn another lesson that day:
>
> When going around, and you need to decrease the flap by 1 "click",
> make sure you don't let out ALL the flap. Fortunately, the CFI
> calmly said, "You let out all the flap; we're going to lose altitude
> if you don't..." I already caught my mistake and put 2 clicks back
> in of flaps. Now I'm always aware!
>
> But this is why we train, right? I want to make ALL my mistakes
> when the CFI is right there.
>
> In my second solo - simply flying the pattern for 3 T/O landings -
> I exercised my own judgemnt to Go Around. I came in too fast, and
> ground effect was making me float way too far - so, rather than
> chance it, I simply "went around".
>
> I almost had the urge to not do it. I was thinking, I know what
> I'm doing, so, I can stick this. A split second later, I said
> to myself that if I'm trying to convince myself that I can make
> this, on a simple landing that is getting close, I better just
> go around.
>
> That will stick with me now. I know what to expect of myself and
> the signs to look for - at least in this case.
>
> Cheers
Some decades ago my CFII pounded into my head that during an
instrument approach the prudent rated pilot EXPECTS to have to go
around and is ready to push the throttle in and do that. He treats the
appearance of the runway environment as a happy accident. Your
experience suggests we should treat completing the landing as an
exception and be ready to 'go around' and if we do so we may be better
pilots. "Fly ready to execute in response to the exceptional
circumstance" is a good mantra.
I'd be happy to fly in the back seat if I knew the low time person at
the controls was prepared to say "I don't like the way this is shaping
up" and won't try force fit a maneuver when the initial conditions
have slipped from acceptable.
Nice call, nice post. Thanks.
Gemini
August 5th 10, 10:24 PM
On 2010-08-05, a > wrote:
> On Aug 5, 4:11*pm, Gemini > wrote:
>> On 2010-08-01, anthony > wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Jul 30, 11:24*am, Franklin
>> > wrote:
>> >> Stephen! wrote:
>> >> > a > wrote in
>> >> > news:9bc82c51-ad2d-48c4-bbd8-03eb64291845
>> >> > @g35g2000yqa.googlegroups.com:
>>
>> >> >> The likely lesson is, learn or relearn to control your energy!
>>
>> >> > * All good points but I think a better lesson from this crash would
>> >> > * be how to decide when you've blown the landing and go around.
>>
>> >> It take time to know how to land a plane. It takes longer to know when not
>> >> to land a plane.
>>
>> > Franklin wrote
>> > It take time to know how to land a plane. It takes longer to know when
>> > not
>> > to land a plane.
>>
>> > Good point. Note to CFIs doing BFIs -- at least once when your client
>> > is deep in the flare, command "Go around". It would be a way of
>> > reminding us the throttle may sometimes have to be advanced when we
>> > are planning to land.
>>
>> Really good point. I'm currently a student pilot (only had 1st solo on
>> 7/4/10), and before the solo, my CFI did exactly that, whilst right in
>> the flare, he, in a conversational tone, said, "Go around." Proudly,
>> I was on it, and smoothly increased throttle, and reduced flaps...
>>
>> I got to learn another lesson that day:
>>
>> When going around, and you need to decrease the flap by 1 "click",
>> make sure you don't let out ALL the flap. Fortunately, the CFI
>> calmly said, "You let out all the flap; we're going to lose altitude
>> if you don't..." I already caught my mistake and put 2 clicks back
>> in of flaps. Now I'm always aware!
>>
>> But this is why we train, right? I want to make ALL my mistakes
>> when the CFI is right there.
>>
>> In my second solo - simply flying the pattern for 3 T/O landings -
>> I exercised my own judgemnt to Go Around. I came in too fast, and
>> ground effect was making me float way too far - so, rather than
>> chance it, I simply "went around".
>>
>> I almost had the urge to not do it. I was thinking, I know what
>> I'm doing, so, I can stick this. A split second later, I said
>> to myself that if I'm trying to convince myself that I can make
>> this, on a simple landing that is getting close, I better just
>> go around.
>>
>> That will stick with me now. I know what to expect of myself and
>> the signs to look for - at least in this case.
>>
>> Cheers
>
> Some decades ago my CFII pounded into my head that during an
> instrument approach the prudent rated pilot EXPECTS to have to go
> around and is ready to push the throttle in and do that. He treats the
> appearance of the runway environment as a happy accident. Your
> experience suggests we should treat completing the landing as an
> exception and be ready to 'go around' and if we do so we may be better
> pilots. "Fly ready to execute in response to the exceptional
> circumstance" is a good mantra.
>
> I'd be happy to fly in the back seat if I knew the low time person at
> the controls was prepared to say "I don't like the way this is shaping
> up" and won't try force fit a maneuver when the initial conditions
> have slipped from acceptable.
>
> Nice call, nice post. Thanks.
Thanks, a!
I was actually going to write a tidbit that I heard somewhere
regarding the Go Around - that one should be on final expecting
to have to Go Around - but I couldn't quite remember how it was
worded - I'm glad you mentioned it!
Everything I have read so far suggests a big component that
contributes to accidents is the failure of the pilot to
believe that soemthing is happening that is beyond their
control to take action against. Like the pilot that had a tough
time keeping the plane straight on take off, and kept trying
to recover the situation instead of simply aborting the T/O,
takxiing back, and trying again - instead he ran off the side of
the runway, damaging the plane and injuring passengers.
There are enough uncontrollable factors involved in flying to
cause issues that I never want to be the guy that believes that
it can't happen; and fails to abort or go around or whatever
when the situation comes up.
It also taught me to strive for precision. I was 1 CFI lighter in
weight, and there was no headwind, and I shut down a tad late
which = Go Around.
Cheers!
Dave Doe
August 6th 10, 01:20 AM
In article >,
says...
>
> On 2010-08-01, anthony > wrote:
> > On Jul 30, 11:24*am, Franklin
> > wrote:
> >> Stephen! wrote:
> >> > a > wrote in
> >> > news:9bc82c51-ad2d-48c4-bbd8-03eb64291845
> >> > @g35g2000yqa.googlegroups.com:
> >>
> >> >> The likely lesson is, learn or relearn to control your energy!
> >>
> >> > * All good points but I think a better lesson from this crash would
> >> > * be how to decide when you've blown the landing and go around.
> >>
> >> It take time to know how to land a plane. It takes longer to know when not
> >> to land a plane.
> >
> > Franklin wrote
> > It take time to know how to land a plane. It takes longer to know when
> > not
> > to land a plane.
> >
> > Good point. Note to CFIs doing BFIs -- at least once when your client
> > is deep in the flare, command "Go around". It would be a way of
> > reminding us the throttle may sometimes have to be advanced when we
> > are planning to land.
>
> Really good point. I'm currently a student pilot (only had 1st solo on
> 7/4/10), and before the solo, my CFI did exactly that, whilst right in
> the flare, he, in a conversational tone, said, "Go around." Proudly,
> I was on it, and smoothly increased throttle, and reduced flaps...
I hope you achieved a positive rate of climb before letting *any* flaps
go. Then smoothly drop 'em away - just as per std. T/O for your
aircraft.
PS: in the comment you reply to above, what does BFI mean? - here in New
Zealand we call it a BFR (Bi-annual Flight Review) - and it's just that,
a review. ie it's not a "test". But that's irrelevant, just wondering
what the 'I' means for you folk over there.
>
> I got to learn another lesson that day:
>
> When going around, and you need to decrease the flap by 1 "click",
> make sure you don't let out ALL the flap. Fortunately, the CFI
> calmly said, "You let out all the flap; we're going to lose altitude
> if you don't..." I already caught my mistake and put 2 clicks back
> in of flaps. Now I'm always aware!
>
> But this is why we train, right? I want to make ALL my mistakes
> when the CFI is right there.
The silly/bad ones, yes :) You'll still make mistakes when you are
fully certified w' your PPL - I'd like think they'll be minor ones. :)
It sounds like you were onto the flaps thing yourself - so that's good.
> In my second solo - simply flying the pattern for 3 T/O landings -
> I exercised my own judgemnt to Go Around. I came in too fast, and
> ground effect was making me float way too far - so, rather than
> chance it, I simply "went around".
>
> I almost had the urge to not do it. I was thinking, I know what
> I'm doing, so, I can stick this. A split second later, I said
> to myself that if I'm trying to convince myself that I can make
> this, on a simple landing that is getting close, I better just
> go around.
>
> That will stick with me now. I know what to expect of myself and
> the signs to look for - at least in this case.
Sound good to me - certainly made the right decision again. Persevering
with a high-speed landing has taken many a front wheel off as the
"forced" landing turns into a nasty bunny-hop.
--
Duncan.
Dave Doe
August 6th 10, 01:32 AM
In article >,
says...
>
> On 2010-08-05, a > wrote:
> > On Aug 5, 4:11*pm, Gemini > wrote:
> >> On 2010-08-01, anthony > wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> > On Jul 30, 11:24*am, Franklin
> >> > wrote:
> >> >> Stephen! wrote:
> >> >> > a > wrote in
> >> >> > news:9bc82c51-ad2d-48c4-bbd8-03eb64291845
> >> >> > @g35g2000yqa.googlegroups.com:
> >>
> >> >> >> The likely lesson is, learn or relearn to control your energy!
> >>
> >> >> > * All good points but I think a better lesson from this crash would
> >> >> > * be how to decide when you've blown the landing and go around.
> >>
> >> >> It take time to know how to land a plane. It takes longer to know when not
> >> >> to land a plane.
> >>
> >> > Franklin wrote
> >> > It take time to know how to land a plane. It takes longer to know when
> >> > not
> >> > to land a plane.
> >>
> >> > Good point. Note to CFIs doing BFIs -- at least once when your client
> >> > is deep in the flare, command "Go around". It would be a way of
> >> > reminding us the throttle may sometimes have to be advanced when we
> >> > are planning to land.
> >>
> >> Really good point. I'm currently a student pilot (only had 1st solo on
> >> 7/4/10), and before the solo, my CFI did exactly that, whilst right in
> >> the flare, he, in a conversational tone, said, "Go around." Proudly,
> >> I was on it, and smoothly increased throttle, and reduced flaps...
> >>
> >> I got to learn another lesson that day:
> >>
> >> When going around, and you need to decrease the flap by 1 "click",
> >> make sure you don't let out ALL the flap. Fortunately, the CFI
> >> calmly said, "You let out all the flap; we're going to lose altitude
> >> if you don't..." I already caught my mistake and put 2 clicks back
> >> in of flaps. Now I'm always aware!
> >>
> >> But this is why we train, right? I want to make ALL my mistakes
> >> when the CFI is right there.
> >>
> >> In my second solo - simply flying the pattern for 3 T/O landings -
> >> I exercised my own judgemnt to Go Around. I came in too fast, and
> >> ground effect was making me float way too far - so, rather than
> >> chance it, I simply "went around".
> >>
> >> I almost had the urge to not do it. I was thinking, I know what
> >> I'm doing, so, I can stick this. A split second later, I said
> >> to myself that if I'm trying to convince myself that I can make
> >> this, on a simple landing that is getting close, I better just
> >> go around.
> >>
> >> That will stick with me now. I know what to expect of myself and
> >> the signs to look for - at least in this case.
> >>
> >> Cheers
> >
> > Some decades ago my CFII pounded into my head that during an
> > instrument approach the prudent rated pilot EXPECTS to have to go
> > around and is ready to push the throttle in and do that. He treats the
> > appearance of the runway environment as a happy accident. Your
> > experience suggests we should treat completing the landing as an
> > exception and be ready to 'go around' and if we do so we may be better
> > pilots. "Fly ready to execute in response to the exceptional
> > circumstance" is a good mantra.
> >
> > I'd be happy to fly in the back seat if I knew the low time person at
> > the controls was prepared to say "I don't like the way this is shaping
> > up" and won't try force fit a maneuver when the initial conditions
> > have slipped from acceptable.
> >
> > Nice call, nice post. Thanks.
>
> Thanks, a!
>
> I was actually going to write a tidbit that I heard somewhere
> regarding the Go Around - that one should be on final expecting
> to have to Go Around - but I couldn't quite remember how it was
> worded - I'm glad you mentioned it!
>
> Everything I have read so far suggests a big component that
> contributes to accidents is the failure of the pilot to
> believe that soemthing is happening that is beyond their
> control to take action against. Like the pilot that had a tough
> time keeping the plane straight on take off, and kept trying
> to recover the situation instead of simply aborting the T/O,
> takxiing back, and trying again - instead he ran off the side of
> the runway, damaging the plane and injuring passengers.
>
> There are enough uncontrollable factors involved in flying to
> cause issues that I never want to be the guy that believes that
> it can't happen; and fails to abort or go around or whatever
> when the situation comes up.
>
> It also taught me to strive for precision. I was 1 CFI lighter in
> weight, and there was no headwind, and I shut down a tad late
> which = Go Around.
>
> Cheers!
Quite amazing huh, what a diffence minus one CFI does to a wee plane.
Hopefully you've quickly recognised the need to keep your approach just
the same, regardless of all-up-weight - and not do that by just nosing
down to do it - use the throttle (less of it), use the flaps - take the
last notch early if you seem high - get your approach profile right and
keep your speed exactly where you want it. The right airspeed is vital
for an easy transition to flare and landing. Often, in early training
days, when the approach is a bit off, not getting it corrected early
leads to chasing your airspeed (or approach profile, but usually the
former) - and yer just making life hard for yourself :)
Get onto your approach profile, get your speed right - adjust profile
(not airspeed) with throttle.
It's a good feeling turning finals and sitting on 1,500 RPM all the way
down without having to adjust throttle - yeah!, got that right! :) And
you will do it - regularly, as you gain experience.
--
Duncan.
Gemini
August 6th 10, 04:53 AM
On 2010-08-06, Dave Doe > wrote:
> In article >,
> says...
>>
>> On 2010-08-05, a > wrote:
>> > On Aug 5, 4:11*pm, Gemini > wrote:
>> >> On 2010-08-01, anthony > wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> > On Jul 30, 11:24*am, Franklin
>> >> > wrote:
>> >> >> Stephen! wrote:
>> >> >> > a > wrote in
>> >> >> > news:9bc82c51-ad2d-48c4-bbd8-03eb64291845
>> >> >> > @g35g2000yqa.googlegroups.com:
>> >>
>> >> >> >> The likely lesson is, learn or relearn to control your energy!
>> >>
>> >> >> > * All good points but I think a better lesson from this crash would
>> >> >> > * be how to decide when you've blown the landing and go around.
>> >>
>> >> >> It take time to know how to land a plane. It takes longer to know when not
>> >> >> to land a plane.
>> >>
>> >> > Franklin wrote
>> >> > It take time to know how to land a plane. It takes longer to know when
>> >> > not
>> >> > to land a plane.
>> >>
>> >> > Good point. Note to CFIs doing BFIs -- at least once when your client
>> >> > is deep in the flare, command "Go around". It would be a way of
>> >> > reminding us the throttle may sometimes have to be advanced when we
>> >> > are planning to land.
>> >>
>> >> Really good point. I'm currently a student pilot (only had 1st solo on
>> >> 7/4/10), and before the solo, my CFI did exactly that, whilst right in
>> >> the flare, he, in a conversational tone, said, "Go around." Proudly,
>> >> I was on it, and smoothly increased throttle, and reduced flaps...
>> >>
>> >> I got to learn another lesson that day:
>> >>
>> >> When going around, and you need to decrease the flap by 1 "click",
>> >> make sure you don't let out ALL the flap. Fortunately, the CFI
>> >> calmly said, "You let out all the flap; we're going to lose altitude
>> >> if you don't..." I already caught my mistake and put 2 clicks back
>> >> in of flaps. Now I'm always aware!
>> >>
>> >> But this is why we train, right? I want to make ALL my mistakes
>> >> when the CFI is right there.
>> >>
>> >> In my second solo - simply flying the pattern for 3 T/O landings -
>> >> I exercised my own judgemnt to Go Around. I came in too fast, and
>> >> ground effect was making me float way too far - so, rather than
>> >> chance it, I simply "went around".
>> >>
>> >> I almost had the urge to not do it. I was thinking, I know what
>> >> I'm doing, so, I can stick this. A split second later, I said
>> >> to myself that if I'm trying to convince myself that I can make
>> >> this, on a simple landing that is getting close, I better just
>> >> go around.
>> >>
>> >> That will stick with me now. I know what to expect of myself and
>> >> the signs to look for - at least in this case.
>> >>
>> >> Cheers
>> >
>> > Some decades ago my CFII pounded into my head that during an
>> > instrument approach the prudent rated pilot EXPECTS to have to go
>> > around and is ready to push the throttle in and do that. He treats the
>> > appearance of the runway environment as a happy accident. Your
>> > experience suggests we should treat completing the landing as an
>> > exception and be ready to 'go around' and if we do so we may be better
>> > pilots. "Fly ready to execute in response to the exceptional
>> > circumstance" is a good mantra.
>> >
>> > I'd be happy to fly in the back seat if I knew the low time person at
>> > the controls was prepared to say "I don't like the way this is shaping
>> > up" and won't try force fit a maneuver when the initial conditions
>> > have slipped from acceptable.
>> >
>> > Nice call, nice post. Thanks.
>>
>> Thanks, a!
>>
>> I was actually going to write a tidbit that I heard somewhere
>> regarding the Go Around - that one should be on final expecting
>> to have to Go Around - but I couldn't quite remember how it was
>> worded - I'm glad you mentioned it!
>>
>> Everything I have read so far suggests a big component that
>> contributes to accidents is the failure of the pilot to
>> believe that soemthing is happening that is beyond their
>> control to take action against. Like the pilot that had a tough
>> time keeping the plane straight on take off, and kept trying
>> to recover the situation instead of simply aborting the T/O,
>> takxiing back, and trying again - instead he ran off the side of
>> the runway, damaging the plane and injuring passengers.
>>
>> There are enough uncontrollable factors involved in flying to
>> cause issues that I never want to be the guy that believes that
>> it can't happen; and fails to abort or go around or whatever
>> when the situation comes up.
>>
>> It also taught me to strive for precision. I was 1 CFI lighter in
>> weight, and there was no headwind, and I shut down a tad late
>> which = Go Around.
>>
>> Cheers!
>
> Quite amazing huh, what a diffence minus one CFI does to a wee plane.
> Hopefully you've quickly recognised the need to keep your approach just
> the same, regardless of all-up-weight - and not do that by just nosing
> down to do it - use the throttle (less of it), use the flaps - take the
> last notch early if you seem high - get your approach profile right and
> keep your speed exactly where you want it. The right airspeed is vital
> for an easy transition to flare and landing. Often, in early training
> days, when the approach is a bit off, not getting it corrected early
> leads to chasing your airspeed (or approach profile, but usually the
> former) - and yer just making life hard for yourself :)
>
> Get onto your approach profile, get your speed right - adjust profile
> (not airspeed) with throttle.
>
> It's a good feeling turning finals and sitting on 1,500 RPM all the way
> down without having to adjust throttle - yeah!, got that right! :) And
> you will do it - regularly, as you gain experience.
>
That actually really amazed me. He warned me that the airplane would feel
noticeably different once he got out - that it would be real easy to
come in too fast. The first hint was how the plane simply lept off the
runway waaay sooner than I was used to! I had no idea just how much
it changes things - that 200# in the right seat.
What a rush that first solo was. I thought I was going to have fear, but
I didn't! I was surprised. I even asked myself why I wasn't, and realized
I had already done it over 20 times already - and several w/o ANY CFI
commentary...so, I knew I could do it. It just stayed in my head, if I
had any issues, simply go around...go around until it feels right if
need be.
Yep. My CFI actually told me to observe the field when I turn to base -
you can tell right there if your glide slope is off - if you're too high,
too, too far, too close, and you can start to fix it right there - but
every time should be the same approach - the way the field looks, the
way the runway looks should all look the same on each one. They're close,
but not prefect, right now. Every time they get better. ;)
My CFI has taught me pitch=speed and throttle=altitude.
We do full stall landings - never NEVER point the nose down on landing
gotta just let her drop out of ground effect. That's why I went around.
I was floating - and there was no way I was going to point the nose
down. Any more up elevator, and I started climbing. I hit PONR for
touchdown, and executed a Go Around w/o hesitation. I was very
happy I did, but very rattled that I had to. That did, however,
serve to make the next pattern much better. :)
Lots of little throttle adjustments on the way down. So far, I've done
pretty well on airspeed - in this case, I was too high, and shut the
throttle down too late (so had lots of excess energy)
Its a blast when it all works - OH AND TRIM. Trim is definately your
friend. Until i started lessons, I would have never guessed how
helpful trim can be.
Thanks, Dave, for the feedback. Every bit helps. I'm devouring every bit of
info I can right now. Student book, magazines, websites and now, for
some actual pilot feedback (I'm the only pilot I know :( ), Usenet.
Sorry if I babble...
Cheers!
Scott
Gemini
August 6th 10, 05:04 AM
On 2010-08-06, Dave Doe > wrote:
> In article >,
> says...
>>
>> On 2010-08-01, anthony > wrote:
>> > On Jul 30, 11:24*am, Franklin
>> > wrote:
>> >> Stephen! wrote:
>> >> > a > wrote in
>> >> > news:9bc82c51-ad2d-48c4-bbd8-03eb64291845
>> >> > @g35g2000yqa.googlegroups.com:
>> >>
>> >> >> The likely lesson is, learn or relearn to control your energy!
>> >>
>> >> > * All good points but I think a better lesson from this crash would
>> >> > * be how to decide when you've blown the landing and go around.
>> >>
>> >> It take time to know how to land a plane. It takes longer to know when not
>> >> to land a plane.
>> >
>> > Franklin wrote
>> > It take time to know how to land a plane. It takes longer to know when
>> > not
>> > to land a plane.
>> >
>> > Good point. Note to CFIs doing BFIs -- at least once when your client
>> > is deep in the flare, command "Go around". It would be a way of
>> > reminding us the throttle may sometimes have to be advanced when we
>> > are planning to land.
>>
>> Really good point. I'm currently a student pilot (only had 1st solo on
>> 7/4/10), and before the solo, my CFI did exactly that, whilst right in
>> the flare, he, in a conversational tone, said, "Go around." Proudly,
>> I was on it, and smoothly increased throttle, and reduced flaps...
>
> I hope you achieved a positive rate of climb before letting *any* flaps
> go. Then smoothly drop 'em away - just as per std. T/O for your
> aircraft.
I did. I slowly added throttle - once the climb started, I grabbed the
flap lever and started letting out the flaps. That was proof of the
"muscle memory" concept, and the only the I EVER did to that point
when letting out flaps, was post landing and letting the ALL the way
out - so, it was just automatic - I simply pressed the button, and
slowly lowered to the floor!
Fortunatley, 8 years in the USMC taught me to always keep a level
head, so, even though I made a potentially fatal mistake, I kept
a level head, and 1 click at a time, and two clicks of flap back.
Thank you USMC! ::whew::
>
> PS: in the comment you reply to above, what does BFI mean? - here in New
> Zealand we call it a BFR (Bi-annual Flight Review) - and it's just that,
> a review. ie it's not a "test". But that's irrelevant, just wondering
> what the 'I' means for you folk over there.
I'm still kinda new. I only know it to be called a Bi-annual Flight Review
(BFR) - but I believe that since he was referring to the CFI - he meant the
Biannual Flight Instruction that might occur during the review. Someone
please correct me if I'm wrong.
>> I got to learn another lesson that day:
>>
>> When going around, and you need to decrease the flap by 1 "click",
>> make sure you don't let out ALL the flap. Fortunately, the CFI
>> calmly said, "You let out all the flap; we're going to lose altitude
>> if you don't..." I already caught my mistake and put 2 clicks back
>> in of flaps. Now I'm always aware!
>>
>> But this is why we train, right? I want to make ALL my mistakes
>> when the CFI is right there.
>
> The silly/bad ones, yes :) You'll still make mistakes when you are
> fully certified w' your PPL - I'd like think they'll be minor ones. :)
>
> It sounds like you were onto the flaps thing yourself - so that's good.
Yeah. We strive for perfection, but, I'm sure we're never perfect. I
actually made the same mistake a couple of weeks later on my second
solo T/O landing - one where I chose to Go Around. I was really glad it
happened that first time, b/c the second the lever hit the floor I
realized what I did, and brought the flaps back up again. Important,
b/c on this runway, there were trees pretty close to the end of the
runway.
>> In my second solo - simply flying the pattern for 3 T/O landings -
>> I exercised my own judgemnt to Go Around. I came in too fast, and
>> ground effect was making me float way too far - so, rather than
>> chance it, I simply "went around".
>>
>> I almost had the urge to not do it. I was thinking, I know what
>> I'm doing, so, I can stick this. A split second later, I said
>> to myself that if I'm trying to convince myself that I can make
>> this, on a simple landing that is getting close, I better just
>> go around.
>>
>> That will stick with me now. I know what to expect of myself and
>> the signs to look for - at least in this case.
>
> Sound good to me - certainly made the right decision again. Persevering
> with a high-speed landing has taken many a front wheel off as the
> "forced" landing turns into a nasty bunny-hop.
Thanks. I have much to learn; but I've been enjoying every second!
Cheers!
Dave Doe
August 6th 10, 06:14 AM
In article >,
says...
>
> On 2010-08-06, Dave Doe > wrote:
> > In article >,
> > says...
> >>
> >> On 2010-08-05, a > wrote:
> >> > On Aug 5, 4:11*pm, Gemini > wrote:
> >> >> On 2010-08-01, anthony > wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> > On Jul 30, 11:24*am, Franklin
> >> >> > wrote:
> >> >> >> Stephen! wrote:
> >> >> >> > a > wrote in
> >> >> >> > news:9bc82c51-ad2d-48c4-bbd8-03eb64291845
> >> >> >> > @g35g2000yqa.googlegroups.com:
> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> The likely lesson is, learn or relearn to control your energy!
> >> >>
> >> >> >> > * All good points but I think a better lesson from this crash would
> >> >> >> > * be how to decide when you've blown the landing and go around.
> >> >>
> >> >> >> It take time to know how to land a plane. It takes longer to know when not
> >> >> >> to land a plane.
> >> >>
> >> >> > Franklin wrote
> >> >> > It take time to know how to land a plane. It takes longer to know when
> >> >> > not
> >> >> > to land a plane.
> >> >>
> >> >> > Good point. Note to CFIs doing BFIs -- at least once when your client
> >> >> > is deep in the flare, command "Go around". It would be a way of
> >> >> > reminding us the throttle may sometimes have to be advanced when we
> >> >> > are planning to land.
> >> >>
> >> >> Really good point. I'm currently a student pilot (only had 1st solo on
> >> >> 7/4/10), and before the solo, my CFI did exactly that, whilst right in
> >> >> the flare, he, in a conversational tone, said, "Go around." Proudly,
> >> >> I was on it, and smoothly increased throttle, and reduced flaps...
> >> >>
> >> >> I got to learn another lesson that day:
> >> >>
> >> >> When going around, and you need to decrease the flap by 1 "click",
> >> >> make sure you don't let out ALL the flap. Fortunately, the CFI
> >> >> calmly said, "You let out all the flap; we're going to lose altitude
> >> >> if you don't..." I already caught my mistake and put 2 clicks back
> >> >> in of flaps. Now I'm always aware!
> >> >>
> >> >> But this is why we train, right? I want to make ALL my mistakes
> >> >> when the CFI is right there.
> >> >>
> >> >> In my second solo - simply flying the pattern for 3 T/O landings -
> >> >> I exercised my own judgemnt to Go Around. I came in too fast, and
> >> >> ground effect was making me float way too far - so, rather than
> >> >> chance it, I simply "went around".
> >> >>
> >> >> I almost had the urge to not do it. I was thinking, I know what
> >> >> I'm doing, so, I can stick this. A split second later, I said
> >> >> to myself that if I'm trying to convince myself that I can make
> >> >> this, on a simple landing that is getting close, I better just
> >> >> go around.
> >> >>
> >> >> That will stick with me now. I know what to expect of myself and
> >> >> the signs to look for - at least in this case.
> >> >>
> >> >> Cheers
> >> >
> >> > Some decades ago my CFII pounded into my head that during an
> >> > instrument approach the prudent rated pilot EXPECTS to have to go
> >> > around and is ready to push the throttle in and do that. He treats the
> >> > appearance of the runway environment as a happy accident. Your
> >> > experience suggests we should treat completing the landing as an
> >> > exception and be ready to 'go around' and if we do so we may be better
> >> > pilots. "Fly ready to execute in response to the exceptional
> >> > circumstance" is a good mantra.
> >> >
> >> > I'd be happy to fly in the back seat if I knew the low time person at
> >> > the controls was prepared to say "I don't like the way this is shaping
> >> > up" and won't try force fit a maneuver when the initial conditions
> >> > have slipped from acceptable.
> >> >
> >> > Nice call, nice post. Thanks.
> >>
> >> Thanks, a!
> >>
> >> I was actually going to write a tidbit that I heard somewhere
> >> regarding the Go Around - that one should be on final expecting
> >> to have to Go Around - but I couldn't quite remember how it was
> >> worded - I'm glad you mentioned it!
> >>
> >> Everything I have read so far suggests a big component that
> >> contributes to accidents is the failure of the pilot to
> >> believe that soemthing is happening that is beyond their
> >> control to take action against. Like the pilot that had a tough
> >> time keeping the plane straight on take off, and kept trying
> >> to recover the situation instead of simply aborting the T/O,
> >> takxiing back, and trying again - instead he ran off the side of
> >> the runway, damaging the plane and injuring passengers.
> >>
> >> There are enough uncontrollable factors involved in flying to
> >> cause issues that I never want to be the guy that believes that
> >> it can't happen; and fails to abort or go around or whatever
> >> when the situation comes up.
> >>
> >> It also taught me to strive for precision. I was 1 CFI lighter in
> >> weight, and there was no headwind, and I shut down a tad late
> >> which = Go Around.
> >>
> >> Cheers!
> >
> > Quite amazing huh, what a diffence minus one CFI does to a wee plane.
> > Hopefully you've quickly recognised the need to keep your approach just
> > the same, regardless of all-up-weight - and not do that by just nosing
> > down to do it - use the throttle (less of it), use the flaps - take the
> > last notch early if you seem high - get your approach profile right and
> > keep your speed exactly where you want it. The right airspeed is vital
> > for an easy transition to flare and landing. Often, in early training
> > days, when the approach is a bit off, not getting it corrected early
> > leads to chasing your airspeed (or approach profile, but usually the
> > former) - and yer just making life hard for yourself :)
> >
> > Get onto your approach profile, get your speed right - adjust profile
> > (not airspeed) with throttle.
> >
> > It's a good feeling turning finals and sitting on 1,500 RPM all the way
> > down without having to adjust throttle - yeah!, got that right! :) And
> > you will do it - regularly, as you gain experience.
> >
>
> That actually really amazed me. He warned me that the airplane would feel
> noticeably different once he got out - that it would be real easy to
> come in too fast. The first hint was how the plane simply lept off the
> runway waaay sooner than I was used to! I had no idea just how much
> it changes things - that 200# in the right seat.
>
> What a rush that first solo was. I thought I was going to have fear, but
> I didn't! I was surprised. I even asked myself why I wasn't, and realized
> I had already done it over 20 times already - and several w/o ANY CFI
> commentary...so, I knew I could do it. It just stayed in my head, if I
> had any issues, simply go around...go around until it feels right if
> need be.
>
> Yep. My CFI actually told me to observe the field when I turn to base -
> you can tell right there if your glide slope is off - if you're too high,
> too, too far, too close, and you can start to fix it right there - but
> every time should be the same approach - the way the field looks, the
> way the runway looks should all look the same on each one. They're close,
> but not prefect, right now. Every time they get better. ;)
>
> My CFI has taught me pitch=speed and throttle=altitude.
That's absolutely correct - indeed, after I posted, I was going to
'correct' myself - attitude for speed, throttle down or up hard to
correct glide path - then you should be able to set 1,500 again. Adjust
as necessary, sorta thing. :)
>
> We do full stall landings - never NEVER point the nose down on landing
> gotta just let her drop out of ground effect. That's why I went around.
> I was floating - and there was no way I was going to point the nose
> down. Any more up elevator, and I started climbing. I hit PONR for
> touchdown, and executed a Go Around w/o hesitation. I was very
> happy I did, but very rattled that I had to. That did, however,
> serve to make the next pattern much better. :)
>
> Lots of little throttle adjustments on the way down. So far, I've done
> pretty well on airspeed - in this case, I was too high, and shut the
> throttle down too late (so had lots of excess energy)
>
> Its a blast when it all works - OH AND TRIM. Trim is definately your
> friend. Until i started lessons, I would have never guessed how
> helpful trim can be.
>
> Thanks, Dave, for the feedback. Every bit helps. I'm devouring every bit of
> info I can right now. Student book, magazines, websites and now, for
> some actual pilot feedback (I'm the only pilot I know :( ), Usenet.
Sounds like you are doing well - and congrats on your first solo - it's
quite a buzz. Personally, I think the best buzz I got out of my
training days was my first solo cross-country. I'm glad there were no
cockpit voice recorders to hear my yee-hahs! :)
--
Duncan.
a[_3_]
August 6th 10, 01:40 PM
On Aug 6, 12:04*am, Gemini > wrote:
> On 2010-08-06, Dave Doe > wrote:
>
>
>
> > In article >,
> > says...
>
> >> On 2010-08-01, anthony > wrote:
> >> > On Jul 30, 11:24*am, Franklin
> >> > wrote:
> >> >> Stephen! wrote:
> >> >> > a > wrote in
> >> >> > news:9bc82c51-ad2d-48c4-bbd8-03eb64291845
> >> >> > @g35g2000yqa.googlegroups.com:
>
> >> >> >> The likely lesson is, learn or relearn to control your energy!
>
> >> >> > * All good points but I think a better lesson from this crash would
> >> >> > * be how to decide when you've blown the landing and go around.
>
> >> >> It take time to know how to land a plane. It takes longer to know when not
> >> >> to land a plane.
>
> >> > Franklin wrote
> >> > It take time to know how to land a plane. It takes longer to know when
> >> > not
> >> > to land a plane.
>
> >> > Good point. Note to CFIs doing BFIs -- at least once when your client
> >> > is deep in the flare, command "Go around". It would be a way of
> >> > reminding us the throttle may sometimes have to be advanced when we
> >> > are planning to land.
>
> >> Really good point. I'm currently a student pilot (only had 1st solo on
> >> 7/4/10), and before the solo, my CFI did exactly that, whilst right in
> >> the flare, he, in a conversational tone, said, "Go around." Proudly,
> >> I was on it, and smoothly increased throttle, and reduced flaps...
>
> > I hope you achieved a positive rate of climb before letting *any* flaps
> > go. *Then smoothly drop 'em away - just as per std. T/O for your
> > aircraft.
>
> I did. I slowly added throttle - once the climb started, I grabbed the
> flap lever and started letting out the flaps. That was proof of the
> "muscle memory" concept, and the only the I EVER did to that point
> when letting out flaps, was post landing and letting the ALL the way
> out - so, it was just automatic - I simply pressed the button, and
> slowly lowered to the floor!
>
> Fortunatley, 8 years in the USMC taught me to always keep a level
> head, so, even though I made a potentially fatal mistake, I kept
> a level head, and 1 click at a time, and two clicks of flap back.
> Thank you USMC! ::whew::
>
>
>
> > PS: in the comment you reply to above, what does BFI mean? - here in New
> > Zealand we call it a BFR (Bi-annual Flight Review) - and it's just that,
> > a review. *ie it's not a "test". *But that's irrelevant, just wondering
> > what the 'I' means for you folk over there.
>
> I'm still kinda new. I only know it to be called a Bi-annual Flight Review
> (BFR) - but I believe that since he was referring to the CFI - he meant the
> Biannual Flight Instruction that might occur during the review. Someone
> please correct me if I'm wrong.
>
> >> I got to learn another lesson that day:
>
> >> When going around, and you need to decrease the flap by 1 "click",
> >> make sure you don't let out ALL the flap. Fortunately, the CFI
> >> calmly said, "You let out all the flap; we're going to lose altitude
> >> if you don't..." I already caught my mistake and put 2 clicks back
> >> in of flaps. Now I'm always aware!
>
> >> But this is why we train, right? I want to make ALL my mistakes
> >> when the CFI is right there.
>
> > The silly/bad ones, yes :) *You'll still make mistakes when you are
> > fully certified w' your PPL - I'd like think they'll be minor ones. :)
>
> > It sounds like you were onto the flaps thing yourself - so that's good.
>
> Yeah. We strive for perfection, but, I'm sure we're never perfect. I
> actually made the same mistake a couple of weeks later on my second
> solo T/O landing - one where I chose to Go Around. I was really glad it
> happened that first time, b/c the second the lever hit the floor I
> realized what I did, and brought the flaps back up again. Important,
> b/c on this runway, there were trees pretty close to the end of the
> runway.
>
>
>
> >> In my second solo - simply flying the pattern for 3 T/O landings -
> >> I exercised my own judgemnt to Go Around. I came in too fast, and
> >> ground effect was making me float way too far - so, rather than
> >> chance it, I simply "went around".
>
> >> I almost had the urge to not do it. I was thinking, I know what
> >> I'm doing, so, I can stick this. A split second later, I said
> >> to myself that if I'm trying to convince myself that I can make
> >> this, on a simple landing that is getting close, I better just
> >> go around.
>
> >> That will stick with me now. I know what to expect of myself and
> >> the signs to look for - at least in this case.
>
> > Sound good to me - certainly made the right decision again. *Persevering
> > with a high-speed landing has taken many a front wheel off as the
> > "forced" landing turns into a nasty bunny-hop.
>
> Thanks. I have much to learn; but I've been enjoying every second!
>
> Cheers!
A couple of very minor points: most experienced pilots will tell you
it takes them a few seconds, maybe 5, to go from closed to open
throttle. It may not be as important in a 152, but as you move along
into bigger engines it really matters, you want to be gentle unless
circumstances dictate otherwise.
Excess speed is best burned off a wingspan above the surface, else the
additional efficiency of ground effect will float you into the next
county or state. This is especially true for low winged airplanes. If
you come in hot those few seconds at 30 feet will tell you if you'll
want to continue the landing or go around because there's not a
comfortable amount of runway left, and any headwind will likely be
greater there than closer to the ground.
As your experience increases, ask your CFI it it's ok to plan your
touch down point with respect to the turn off you want to use rather
than the numbers. This pilot at least considers his landing acceptable
when from closing the throttle entering the flare to making the turn
off I need to use neither throttle or brakes. The guys on short final
will appreciate you vacating the active quickly too.(Question for the
rest of you: if you get before a judge who happens to be a pilot, do
you think you'd get off with a suspended sentence because it was
justifiable homicide if the guy in the 152 ahead of you landed on the
numbers and taxied 2500 feet to the turnoff when the pattern was
crowded?)
Among (many) other things, the times I lend my airplane to friends
depends on if on check out they land that way.
Gemini[_2_]
August 6th 10, 07:50 PM
On 2010-08-06, a > wrote:
> On Aug 6, 12:04*am, Gemini > wrote:
>> On 2010-08-06, Dave Doe > wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > In article >,
>> > says...
>>
>> >> On 2010-08-01, anthony > wrote:
>> >> > On Jul 30, 11:24*am, Franklin
>> >> > wrote:
>> >> >> Stephen! wrote:
>> >> >> > a > wrote in
>> >> >> > news:9bc82c51-ad2d-48c4-bbd8-03eb64291845
>> >> >> > @g35g2000yqa.googlegroups.com:
>>
>> >> >> >> The likely lesson is, learn or relearn to control your energy!
>>
>> >> >> > * All good points but I think a better lesson from this crash would
>> >> >> > * be how to decide when you've blown the landing and go around.
>>
>> >> >> It take time to know how to land a plane. It takes longer to know when not
>> >> >> to land a plane.
>>
>> >> > Franklin wrote
>> >> > It take time to know how to land a plane. It takes longer to know when
>> >> > not
>> >> > to land a plane.
>>
>> >> > Good point. Note to CFIs doing BFIs -- at least once when your client
>> >> > is deep in the flare, command "Go around". It would be a way of
>> >> > reminding us the throttle may sometimes have to be advanced when we
>> >> > are planning to land.
>>
>> >> Really good point. I'm currently a student pilot (only had 1st solo on
>> >> 7/4/10), and before the solo, my CFI did exactly that, whilst right in
>> >> the flare, he, in a conversational tone, said, "Go around." Proudly,
>> >> I was on it, and smoothly increased throttle, and reduced flaps...
>>
>> > I hope you achieved a positive rate of climb before letting *any* flaps
>> > go. *Then smoothly drop 'em away - just as per std. T/O for your
>> > aircraft.
>>
>> I did. I slowly added throttle - once the climb started, I grabbed the
>> flap lever and started letting out the flaps. That was proof of the
>> "muscle memory" concept, and the only the I EVER did to that point
>> when letting out flaps, was post landing and letting the ALL the way
>> out - so, it was just automatic - I simply pressed the button, and
>> slowly lowered to the floor!
>>
>> Fortunatley, 8 years in the USMC taught me to always keep a level
>> head, so, even though I made a potentially fatal mistake, I kept
>> a level head, and 1 click at a time, and two clicks of flap back.
>> Thank you USMC! ::whew::
>>
>>
>>
>> > PS: in the comment you reply to above, what does BFI mean? - here in New
>> > Zealand we call it a BFR (Bi-annual Flight Review) - and it's just that,
>> > a review. *ie it's not a "test". *But that's irrelevant, just wondering
>> > what the 'I' means for you folk over there.
>>
>> I'm still kinda new. I only know it to be called a Bi-annual Flight Review
>> (BFR) - but I believe that since he was referring to the CFI - he meant the
>> Biannual Flight Instruction that might occur during the review. Someone
>> please correct me if I'm wrong.
>>
>> >> I got to learn another lesson that day:
>>
>> >> When going around, and you need to decrease the flap by 1 "click",
>> >> make sure you don't let out ALL the flap. Fortunately, the CFI
>> >> calmly said, "You let out all the flap; we're going to lose altitude
>> >> if you don't..." I already caught my mistake and put 2 clicks back
>> >> in of flaps. Now I'm always aware!
>>
>> >> But this is why we train, right? I want to make ALL my mistakes
>> >> when the CFI is right there.
>>
>> > The silly/bad ones, yes :) *You'll still make mistakes when you are
>> > fully certified w' your PPL - I'd like think they'll be minor ones. :)
>>
>> > It sounds like you were onto the flaps thing yourself - so that's good.
>>
>> Yeah. We strive for perfection, but, I'm sure we're never perfect. I
>> actually made the same mistake a couple of weeks later on my second
>> solo T/O landing - one where I chose to Go Around. I was really glad it
>> happened that first time, b/c the second the lever hit the floor I
>> realized what I did, and brought the flaps back up again. Important,
>> b/c on this runway, there were trees pretty close to the end of the
>> runway.
>>
>>
>>
>> >> In my second solo - simply flying the pattern for 3 T/O landings -
>> >> I exercised my own judgemnt to Go Around. I came in too fast, and
>> >> ground effect was making me float way too far - so, rather than
>> >> chance it, I simply "went around".
>>
>> >> I almost had the urge to not do it. I was thinking, I know what
>> >> I'm doing, so, I can stick this. A split second later, I said
>> >> to myself that if I'm trying to convince myself that I can make
>> >> this, on a simple landing that is getting close, I better just
>> >> go around.
>>
>> >> That will stick with me now. I know what to expect of myself and
>> >> the signs to look for - at least in this case.
>>
>> > Sound good to me - certainly made the right decision again. *Persevering
>> > with a high-speed landing has taken many a front wheel off as the
>> > "forced" landing turns into a nasty bunny-hop.
>>
>> Thanks. I have much to learn; but I've been enjoying every second!
>>
>> Cheers!
>
> A couple of very minor points: most experienced pilots will tell you
> it takes them a few seconds, maybe 5, to go from closed to open
> throttle. It may not be as important in a 152, but as you move along
> into bigger engines it really matters, you want to be gentle unless
> circumstances dictate otherwise.
I dunno about the 152 - never flown a Cessna. I do try and go slow
and smooth, but I don't think I take 5 seconds. I'm concious of the
fact that taking an idling engine, in a cooling descent, could cause
sputting and loss of power if you punch it. Something you DO NOT
want to have happen if you're executing a Go Around. I'll see what
the CFI says for the Piper. He mentioned slow increase, but never
a time-frame to shoot for. Good stuff, thanks!
> Excess speed is best burned off a wingspan above the surface, else the
> additional efficiency of ground effect will float you into the next
> county or state. This is especially true for low winged airplanes. If
> you come in hot those few seconds at 30 feet will tell you if you'll
> want to continue the landing or go around because there's not a
> comfortable amount of runway left, and any headwind will likely be
> greater there than closer to the ground.
That's what was happening! Being in a low-wing Cherokee, it was like
there was wall underneath. I'll wont nose down, and she wasn't descend-
ing (I applied a little up elevator but started to climb). With no
headwind, I was just like, this is no go - Go Around. I may have
even said it out load, I dunno!
> As your experience increases, ask your CFI it it's ok to plan your
> touch down point with respect to the turn off you want to use rather
> than the numbers. This pilot at least considers his landing acceptable
> when from closing the throttle entering the flare to making the turn
> off I need to use neither throttle or brakes. The guys on short final
> will appreciate you vacating the active quickly too.(Question for the
> rest of you: if you get before a judge who happens to be a pilot, do
> you think you'd get off with a suspended sentence because it was
> justifiable homicide if the guy in the 152 ahead of you landed on the
> numbers and taxied 2500 feet to the turnoff when the pattern was
> crowded?)
I'll have to try that if we go to an airport with numbers. So far,
just soft, short field (turf) landings for me. Did do 3 T&Gs at
the local regional airport. That was pretty cool. The runway looked
absolutley GIGANTIC to me; compared to what I was used to. CFI
said that will give the impression you're closer than you are (our
grass field is tiny), and you may be higher than you should be.
I will consider landing for the turn off. Never thought abiout that
one before. No real opportunities to practice it yet.
> Among (many) other things, the times I lend my airplane to friends
> depends on if on check out they land that way.
Thanks for the insight. Very much appreciated. Its great to hear
from other pilots. There's almost no GA around here...
Cheers!
Scott
Gemini[_2_]
August 6th 10, 07:55 PM
On 2010-08-06, Dave Doe > wrote:
> In article >,
> says...
>>
>> On 2010-08-06, Dave Doe > wrote:
>> > In article >,
>> > says...
>> >>
>> >> On 2010-08-05, a > wrote:
>> >> > On Aug 5, 4:11*pm, Gemini > wrote:
>> >> >> On 2010-08-01, anthony > wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > On Jul 30, 11:24*am, Franklin
>> >> >> > wrote:
>> >> >> >> Stephen! wrote:
>> >> >> >> > a > wrote in
>> >> >> >> > news:9bc82c51-ad2d-48c4-bbd8-03eb64291845
>> >> >> >> > @g35g2000yqa.googlegroups.com:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> The likely lesson is, learn or relearn to control your energy!
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >> > * All good points but I think a better lesson from this crash would
>> >> >> >> > * be how to decide when you've blown the landing and go around.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >> It take time to know how to land a plane. It takes longer to know when not
>> >> >> >> to land a plane.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > Franklin wrote
>> >> >> > It take time to know how to land a plane. It takes longer to know when
>> >> >> > not
>> >> >> > to land a plane.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > Good point. Note to CFIs doing BFIs -- at least once when your client
>> >> >> > is deep in the flare, command "Go around". It would be a way of
>> >> >> > reminding us the throttle may sometimes have to be advanced when we
>> >> >> > are planning to land.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Really good point. I'm currently a student pilot (only had 1st solo on
>> >> >> 7/4/10), and before the solo, my CFI did exactly that, whilst right in
>> >> >> the flare, he, in a conversational tone, said, "Go around." Proudly,
>> >> >> I was on it, and smoothly increased throttle, and reduced flaps...
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I got to learn another lesson that day:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> When going around, and you need to decrease the flap by 1 "click",
>> >> >> make sure you don't let out ALL the flap. Fortunately, the CFI
>> >> >> calmly said, "You let out all the flap; we're going to lose altitude
>> >> >> if you don't..." I already caught my mistake and put 2 clicks back
>> >> >> in of flaps. Now I'm always aware!
>> >> >>
>> >> >> But this is why we train, right? I want to make ALL my mistakes
>> >> >> when the CFI is right there.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> In my second solo - simply flying the pattern for 3 T/O landings -
>> >> >> I exercised my own judgemnt to Go Around. I came in too fast, and
>> >> >> ground effect was making me float way too far - so, rather than
>> >> >> chance it, I simply "went around".
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I almost had the urge to not do it. I was thinking, I know what
>> >> >> I'm doing, so, I can stick this. A split second later, I said
>> >> >> to myself that if I'm trying to convince myself that I can make
>> >> >> this, on a simple landing that is getting close, I better just
>> >> >> go around.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> That will stick with me now. I know what to expect of myself and
>> >> >> the signs to look for - at least in this case.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Cheers
>> >> >
>> >> > Some decades ago my CFII pounded into my head that during an
>> >> > instrument approach the prudent rated pilot EXPECTS to have to go
>> >> > around and is ready to push the throttle in and do that. He treats the
>> >> > appearance of the runway environment as a happy accident. Your
>> >> > experience suggests we should treat completing the landing as an
>> >> > exception and be ready to 'go around' and if we do so we may be better
>> >> > pilots. "Fly ready to execute in response to the exceptional
>> >> > circumstance" is a good mantra.
>> >> >
>> >> > I'd be happy to fly in the back seat if I knew the low time person at
>> >> > the controls was prepared to say "I don't like the way this is shaping
>> >> > up" and won't try force fit a maneuver when the initial conditions
>> >> > have slipped from acceptable.
>> >> >
>> >> > Nice call, nice post. Thanks.
>> >>
>> >> Thanks, a!
>> >>
>> >> I was actually going to write a tidbit that I heard somewhere
>> >> regarding the Go Around - that one should be on final expecting
>> >> to have to Go Around - but I couldn't quite remember how it was
>> >> worded - I'm glad you mentioned it!
>> >>
>> >> Everything I have read so far suggests a big component that
>> >> contributes to accidents is the failure of the pilot to
>> >> believe that soemthing is happening that is beyond their
>> >> control to take action against. Like the pilot that had a tough
>> >> time keeping the plane straight on take off, and kept trying
>> >> to recover the situation instead of simply aborting the T/O,
>> >> takxiing back, and trying again - instead he ran off the side of
>> >> the runway, damaging the plane and injuring passengers.
>> >>
>> >> There are enough uncontrollable factors involved in flying to
>> >> cause issues that I never want to be the guy that believes that
>> >> it can't happen; and fails to abort or go around or whatever
>> >> when the situation comes up.
>> >>
>> >> It also taught me to strive for precision. I was 1 CFI lighter in
>> >> weight, and there was no headwind, and I shut down a tad late
>> >> which = Go Around.
>> >>
>> >> Cheers!
>> >
>> > Quite amazing huh, what a diffence minus one CFI does to a wee plane.
>> > Hopefully you've quickly recognised the need to keep your approach just
>> > the same, regardless of all-up-weight - and not do that by just nosing
>> > down to do it - use the throttle (less of it), use the flaps - take the
>> > last notch early if you seem high - get your approach profile right and
>> > keep your speed exactly where you want it. The right airspeed is vital
>> > for an easy transition to flare and landing. Often, in early training
>> > days, when the approach is a bit off, not getting it corrected early
>> > leads to chasing your airspeed (or approach profile, but usually the
>> > former) - and yer just making life hard for yourself :)
>> >
>> > Get onto your approach profile, get your speed right - adjust profile
>> > (not airspeed) with throttle.
>> >
>> > It's a good feeling turning finals and sitting on 1,500 RPM all the way
>> > down without having to adjust throttle - yeah!, got that right! :) And
>> > you will do it - regularly, as you gain experience.
>> >
>>
>> That actually really amazed me. He warned me that the airplane would feel
>> noticeably different once he got out - that it would be real easy to
>> come in too fast. The first hint was how the plane simply lept off the
>> runway waaay sooner than I was used to! I had no idea just how much
>> it changes things - that 200# in the right seat.
>>
>> What a rush that first solo was. I thought I was going to have fear, but
>> I didn't! I was surprised. I even asked myself why I wasn't, and realized
>> I had already done it over 20 times already - and several w/o ANY CFI
>> commentary...so, I knew I could do it. It just stayed in my head, if I
>> had any issues, simply go around...go around until it feels right if
>> need be.
>>
>> Yep. My CFI actually told me to observe the field when I turn to base -
>> you can tell right there if your glide slope is off - if you're too high,
>> too, too far, too close, and you can start to fix it right there - but
>> every time should be the same approach - the way the field looks, the
>> way the runway looks should all look the same on each one. They're close,
>> but not prefect, right now. Every time they get better. ;)
>>
>> My CFI has taught me pitch=speed and throttle=altitude.
>
> That's absolutely correct - indeed, after I posted, I was going to
> 'correct' myself - attitude for speed, throttle down or up hard to
> correct glide path - then you should be able to set 1,500 again. Adjust
> as necessary, sorta thing. :)
>
>>
>> We do full stall landings - never NEVER point the nose down on landing
>> gotta just let her drop out of ground effect. That's why I went around.
>> I was floating - and there was no way I was going to point the nose
>> down. Any more up elevator, and I started climbing. I hit PONR for
>> touchdown, and executed a Go Around w/o hesitation. I was very
>> happy I did, but very rattled that I had to. That did, however,
>> serve to make the next pattern much better. :)
>>
>> Lots of little throttle adjustments on the way down. So far, I've done
>> pretty well on airspeed - in this case, I was too high, and shut the
>> throttle down too late (so had lots of excess energy)
>>
>> Its a blast when it all works - OH AND TRIM. Trim is definately your
>> friend. Until i started lessons, I would have never guessed how
>> helpful trim can be.
>>
>> Thanks, Dave, for the feedback. Every bit helps. I'm devouring every bit of
>> info I can right now. Student book, magazines, websites and now, for
>> some actual pilot feedback (I'm the only pilot I know :( ), Usenet.
>
> Sounds like you are doing well - and congrats on your first solo - it's
> quite a buzz. Personally, I think the best buzz I got out of my
> training days was my first solo cross-country. I'm glad there were no
> cockpit voice recorders to hear my yee-hahs! :)
Thanks! I thought I would be nervous - but I was too focused to be nervous.
Once I got back to the hangar, shutdown, and writing downs the Hobbs, I
started shaking like a leaf - almost couldn't right. That's when I real-
ized just how jazzed I actually was.
I'm *really* looking forward to the X_Country. After all, that's a big
reason why we fly, right? I'm sure the 1st solo XC will be even more
exciting.
Scott
Morgans[_2_]
August 7th 10, 04:39 AM
"Gemini" > wrote
> Thanks! I thought I would be nervous - but I was too focused to be
> nervous.
> Once I got back to the hangar, shutdown, and writing downs the Hobbs, I
> started shaking like a leaf - almost couldn't right. That's when I real-
> ized just how jazzed I actually was.
>
> I'm *really* looking forward to the X_Country. After all, that's a big
> reason why we fly, right? I'm sure the 1st solo XC will be even more
> exciting.
Do you suppose after being jazzed, you could take the time to trim the old
responses? Both of you in the conversation would be much appreciated if you
would do that little thing for the rest of us reading the thread.
And I was the one to post it, but everyone else was thinking it. ;-)
--
Jim in NC
Andy Hawkins
August 7th 10, 12:22 PM
Hi,
In article >,
> wrote:
> Do you suppose after being jazzed, you could take the time to trim the old
> responses? Both of you in the conversation would be much appreciated if you
> would do that little thing for the rest of us reading the thread.
>
> And I was the one to post it, but everyone else was thinking it. ;-)
I was just about to do the same myself :)
Andy
Gemini[_2_]
August 9th 10, 05:33 PM
On 2010-08-07, Morgans > wrote:
>
> "Gemini" > wrote
>
<snip>
> Do you suppose after being jazzed, you could take the time to trim the old
> responses? Both of you in the conversation would be much appreciated if you
> would do that little thing for the rest of us reading the thread.
>
> And I was the one to post it, but everyone else was thinking it. ;-)
You bet! My apologies - especially considering that at that
point we were way off topic; I should have known better.
Regards,
Scott
Morgans[_2_]
August 9th 10, 06:23 PM
"Gemini" > wrote
>
> You bet! My apologies - especially considering that at that
> point we were way off topic; I should have known better.
Off topic is a way of life around here, it seems. Occasionally going down a
different trail is expected.
Others are less likely to mind, if it is done politely, though! ;-)
--
Jim in NC
vBulletin® v3.6.4, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.