Who does flight plans?

[Michael 182]

I'm kind of curious - does anyone with more than 100 hours do a flight plan,
with winds and all, before they fly cross country? Most of my planning is of
the fuel stop, or occasionally detour for weather variety - but it is rare
for me to include more than one or two waypoints in my "plan", and I almost
never file an airway, even when I file ifr. Maybe it's because I live in the
west. A typical flight plan will be Longmont - Amarillo - Austin, or if the
winds are good, Longmont - Austin. What do others do?

Michael

[George Patterson]

Michael 182 wrote:
> I'm kind of curious - does anyone with more than 100 hours do a flight plan,
> with winds and all, before they fly cross country?

I plan each flight on my computer. I tend to navigate by LORAN. Given that I'm
in an area with perhaps more areas of protected airspace than any other in the
States, my plans tend to have a fair number of waypoints at this end of the
flight. This is especially true if I'm headed towards the DC ADIZ. I tend to
swag the winds because, by the time I can get a decent forecast from the FAA,
it's usually too late to crank up the computer and add them to the plan -- I'm
heading out the door.

Of course, if I've made a particular flight before, I already have it planned.
All I have to do is bring it up and check it with a current chart to make sure
there's nothing new in my way.

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

[tony roberts]

Here in Canada if we fly more than 25 miles from our home base we must
be on a flight plan or flight itinerary. I have no problem at all with
that.
i live and fly in the mountains - and if I go down I really do want
people to know exactly what my route was. Downside is that it is
difficult (but not impossible) to change plans halfway through the
flight - it can be done - we just have to make contact via radio and
advise of the change

Tony
C-GICE.

In article >,
"Michael 182" > wrote:

> I'm kind of curious - does anyone with more than 100 hours do a flight plan,
> with winds and all, before they fly cross country? Most of my planning is of
> the fuel stop, or occasionally detour for weather variety - but it is rare
> for me to include more than one or two waypoints in my "plan", and I almost
> never file an airway, even when I file ifr. Maybe it's because I live in the
> west. A typical flight plan will be Longmont - Amarillo - Austin, or if the
> winds are good, Longmont - Austin. What do others do?
>
> Michael




--

Tony Roberts
PP-ASEL
VFR OTT
Night
Cessna 172H C-GICE

[A Lieberman]

On Thu, 2 Jun 2005 22:24:29 -0600, Michael 182 wrote:

> I'm kind of curious - does anyone with more than 100 hours do a flight plan,
> with winds and all, before they fly cross country?

I always do a flight plan. No, not with the ole EB6, but with DUATS or
AOPA flight planner. I always print out my briefings to take with me. I
still always call FSS before departure.

I do this so the person at my destination will know my arrival time. For
those flights that I don't have flight following or that I filed IFR, at
least they know to start worrying if I am overdue by more then 20 minutes.

I generally pad 10 minutes to my expected ETA for ATC deviations around JAN
approach and weather considerations.

Since getting my IA rating, it's either IFR or no ATC contact. I have not
filed a VFR flight plan pretty much since my initial training.

So far, my IFR flights, I have filed direct even though I file /A on the
flight plan.

The majority of my cross country trips are greater then 100 NM which I do
at minimum 2 times a month. Anything shorter, I find that my commute to
the airport, flight and then airport to my destination negates the time it
takes to drive from point A to B anyway.

Allen

[Michael 182]

"A Lieberman" > wrote in message
.. .
> On Thu, 2 Jun 2005 22:24:29 -0600, Michael 182 wrote:
>
>> I'm kind of curious - does anyone with more than 100 hours do a flight
>> plan,
>> with winds and all, before they fly cross country?
>
> I always do a flight plan. No, not with the ole EB6, but with DUATS or
> AOPA flight planner. I always print out my briefings to take with me. I
> still always call FSS before departure.

Yeah - I always call as well. The briefings have changed my route, advised
me on TFRs or given me cause not to go at all (usually ice) many times. I
hate to think we may lose this service to computers someday. I really
appreciate good briefers.


> I do this so the person at my destination will know my arrival time. For
> those flights that I don't have flight following or that I filed IFR, at
> least they know to start worrying if I am overdue by more then 20 minutes.

> Since getting my IA rating, it's either IFR or no ATC contact. I have not
> filed a VFR flight plan pretty much since my initial training.
>

If I'm IFR I'm talking and, 99% of the time, on radar, so if something comes
up ATC will know about it. If I'm VFR I'm usually listening to the iPod. No
flight plans - hope the ELT is good and loud if something happens ;)
(called the Aron Ralston approach)

> So far, my IFR flights, I have filed direct even though I file /A on the
> flight plan.

I thought you had to have a navigation aid in your suffix to file direct -
like /G or /R. Aren't you setting yourself up for a problem filing /A and
direct?

>
> The majority of my cross country trips are greater then 100 NM which I do
> at minimum 2 times a month. Anything shorter, I find that my commute to
> the airport, flight and then airport to my destination negates the time it
> takes to drive from point A to B anyway.

Unless you are flying Longmont to Colorado Springs and looking down on the
I-25 parking lot...

Michael

>
> Allen

[[email protected]]

Still do the plans the old fashioned way.
Ruler, map, piece of paper and my E6B.
Most waypoints are about 10NM apart.
The nice thing is that it works every time and that without power or
batteries.
And it is still fun to do.

-Kees

[Peter Duniho]

"Michael 182" > wrote in message
...
> I'm kind of curious - does anyone with more than 100 hours do a flight
> plan, with winds and all, before they fly cross country? [...]

I'm well past 100 hours. For me, it just depends, but it appears I always
plan with more detail than you do.

I always plan at least a basic route for total mileage, adjust my cruise
speed for the winds to get total time and thus fuel burn. I don't correct
individual legs for winds; I just look at the worst-case scenario and use
that as my cruise speed for the entire trip. Winds aloft can vary so much
from the forecast anyway that it's pointless to try to include them with any
greater detail than that. I always carry at least an hour of fuel in
reserve, and on shorter flights (two or three hours or so) it can be more
than that.

It's MUCH more important to then cross-check your expected fuel burn and ETA
with what transpires during the flight, since the winds can change at any
time anyway. The initial planning is just so you have some idea of whether
the flight can be done with the fuel on board, and generally how long you
can expect to be in the airplane.

I find it funny that your question uses the phrase "with winds and all", as
if the winds are the most important element of the flight plan. They are,
IMHO, the least important during planning (though they become very important
during flight). The "and all" includes a bunch of much more important
things.

For routes that I'm not familiar with, I do more detailed planning. This
includes, of course, noting airspaces, landmarks for waypoints and general
navigation purposes, terrain for inclusion in cruise altitude
decision-making, possible emergency landing sites, etc. The "this is what
will happen" goal is to find an efficient route from Point A to Point B,
while either avoiding or anticipating any impediments along the way. The
"this is what might happen" goal is to identify various things that
shouldn't happen, but which might anyway, and develop strategies for dealing
with them. Knowing where one might land if the headwind is greater than
expected, adjusting the route for friendlier emergency landing sites (if
possible), identifying alternate airports in case of things like the
original destination being closed, equipment trouble, emergency bathroom
break, etc. (yes, there's overlap in those various criteria...but it's not
always the same overlap).

One thing I'm surprised at is that you include only one or two waypoints in
your plan. Perhaps you are flying the same routes over and over again, in
which case I can understand that. But I only neglect waypoints like that
for routes where I am completely familiar with the terrain along and around
the entire route. For any route I haven't flown repeatedly and recently, I
like to know some good waypoints that I'll pass every 10 to 15 minutes.
Note that this is also true for the familiar routes, it's just that I've got
those waypoints memorized in that case (and I know roughly what time during
the flight I should expect to see them).

I have a reasonably reliable Loran in my airplane, and so I admit I do slack
a bit on the groundspeed calculations while enroute. However, I need to
have the waypoints for backup in case the Loran goes south, and even with
the Loran, on longer flights I am still double-checking my groundspeed with
waypoints every 30-60 minutes. In addition, the Loran is much better with
groundspeed than it is with absolute position, and I'm not always flying a
route for which the Loran has waypoints along my route in its database
anyway. So I need the waypoints for off-airway navigation (both "where" and
"when").

Note that having a Loran (or even IFR-certified GPS) doesn't obviate the
need for proper planning. Even if the equipment was 100% reliable, you
still need to actually inspect the route for the details along the way, to
avoid obstacles and so that you can double-check your navigation equipment
(even the GPS, which is supposed to tell you when it's lying, can
theoretically go wrong without you knowing...you don't want to be the first
pilot that happens to, and not know it when it's happening :) ). But on top
of all that, you need a backup plan in case you lose your nav equipment for
any reason (electronics get fried, electrical failure, bird hits your
antenna, whatever).

I readily admit to not filling out a full "flight log", and definitely
abbreviating my planning from what's typically required for FAA testing.
But much of the same detail needs to go into the actual planning, IMHO, even
if it doesn't get written down.

As for the computerized planning, well...probably if I didn't spend so much
time with computers already, I'd be all over that. But my life already
revolves around them as it is. Much of my enjoyment of flying comes from
the somewhat anachronistic aspects of it, and I actually like spreading the
charts out on the floor and measuring distances with my plotter. It does
take longer, that's for sure. :) But for me, it's all part of the whole
experience.

Pete

[Greg Farris]

Many rental companies REQUIRE you to file a flight plan if yoiu're going more
than 50nm from their base. This is a bit of an inconvenience, as it cuts your
liberty to fly where you want. I am all for flight plans, flight following,
continuous radio contact and business-like conduct for most flights, even VFR
- but when the weather's beautiful, and you're only going 100nm or so, of
route that you know like the back of your hand, it's a bit of a shame not to
be able to take your time, check something out, show someone who's never been
up before something special - even land somewhere else if you feel like it.
Under these conditions, the only use for a flight plan is to assist SAR.
Flight following is just as good - and probably better. This is a kink in the
rental system today.

G Faris

[Michael 182]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
> "Michael 182" > wrote in message
> ...
>> I'm kind of curious - does anyone with more than 100 hours do a flight
>> plan, with winds and all, before they fly cross country? [...]
>
> I'm well past 100 hours. For me, it just depends, but it appears I always
> plan with more detail than you do.
>
> I always plan at least a basic route for total mileage, adjust my cruise
> speed for the winds to get total time and thus fuel burn. <snip> I always
> carry at least an hour of fuel in reserve, and on shorter flights (two or
> three hours or so) it can be more than that.

I agree, I just don't actively plan for this. I usually take off with a full
tank. I have a Shadin to measure fuel flow, which I know from experience is
very accurate. Since I also have a Garmin 430 I know, pretty accutaely, my
time to destination. I have a backup Pilot III in the glove box if I need
it. If all of this fails (a very low probability - never happened in over
1200 hours in this plane), I can tune in VORs, figure out where I am, and
find an airport.

> It's MUCH more important to then cross-check your expected fuel burn and
> ETA with what transpires during the flight, since the winds can change at
> any time anyway.

I never go below 1.5 hours in reserve. All of this can easily be handled in
flight, with very minimal ground planning.

> For routes that I'm not familiar with, I do more detailed planning. This
> includes, of course, noting airspaces, landmarks for waypoints and general
> navigation purposes, terrain for inclusion in cruise altitude
> decision-making, possible emergency landing sites, etc.

Come on, you plan for emergency landing spots on a long cross country? No
way - you might generally say "I'm not flying across the Rockies in IMC, but
beyond that, how can you plan for emergency landing spots? In any case, I'm
generally just buying IFR charts - I have no idea of the terrain beyond some
general altitude information.

> The "this is what will happen" goal is to find an efficient route from
> Point A to Point B, while either avoiding or anticipating any impediments
> along the way. The "this is what might happen" goal is to identify
> various things that shouldn't happen, but which might anyway, and develop
> strategies for dealing with them. Knowing where one might land if the
> headwind is greater than expected, adjusting the route for friendlier
> emergency landing sites (if possible), identifying alternate airports in
> case of things like the original destination being closed, equipment
> trouble, emergency bathroom break, etc. (yes, there's overlap in those
> various criteria...but it's not always the same overlap).

Once again, all of this is easily done in the air. ... Hmmm, I'm hungry.
What airports are within 50 miles? Oh yeah - there's one. Do they have a
restaurant? (Open the Flight Guide... ) "Albuquerque Center, Skylane 123 is
changing my destination and landing at Santa Fe..."

> I have a reasonably reliable Loran in my airplane, and so I admit I do
> slack a bit on the groundspeed calculations while enroute. However, I
> need to have the waypoints for backup in case the Loran goes south, and
> even with the Loran, on longer flights I am still double-checking my
> groundspeed with waypoints every 30-60 minutes.

Why? If you are in the air for two hours, and you only have three hours
fuel, get on the ground and refuel. What difference does continually
checking waypoints make?

>
> Note that having a Loran (or even IFR-certified GPS) doesn't obviate the
> need for proper planning. Even if the equipment was 100% reliable, you
> still need to actually inspect the route for the details along the way, to
> avoid obstacles and so that you can double-check your navigation equipment
> (even the GPS, which is supposed to tell you when it's lying, can
> theoretically go wrong without you knowing...

I do double check it occasionally, out of boredom on some flights - but how
can it "theoretically go wrong without you knowing"? I know about RAIM
errors - they have totaled maybe 5 minutes in the past four years of flying,
and even during the errors the navigation was accurate. But, once again,
even if the GPS miraculously failed, and the hand held backup failed, and
the VOR's (both of them) failed, and the radio died (so I couldn't get
vectors) - I rarely fly more than 30 minutes anywhere in the US without
seeing an airport, or at least a private ranch strip.


> Much of my enjoyment of flying comes from the somewhat anachronistic
> aspects of it, and I actually like spreading the charts out on the floor
> and measuring distances with my plotter. It does take longer, that's for
> sure. :) But for me, it's all part of the whole experience.

Now this I fully appreciate - I rarely do it, but I can see why it is
appealing to some people.

I don't want to sound cavalier about flying. I am fanatical about
maintenance on my plane. I will do extensive planning for a go-no go
decision based on weather. I get an IPC at least once a year, even if I am
current. But it seems to me that for a reasonably high performance plane the
geography of planning has, for the most part, been displaced by technology.

Michael

[Guillermo]

"Michael 182" > wrote in message
...
> I'm kind of curious - does anyone with more than 100 hours do a flight
plan,
> with winds and all, before they fly cross country? Most of my planning is
of
> the fuel stop, or occasionally detour for weather variety - but it is rare
> for me to include more than one or two waypoints in my "plan", and I
almost
> never file an airway, even when I file ifr. Maybe it's because I live in
the
> west. A typical flight plan will be Longmont - Amarillo - Austin, or if
the
> winds are good, Longmont - Austin. What do others do?

I plan in AOPA flight planner, and since I got my IFR rating I always file
IFR when I'm going somewhere far (i.e. more than 50 miles or so). I usually
don't bother on filing VFR flight plans, as I always have a tough time
talking to FSS to open it, and then I might forget to close it.
The flight planner does the winds, and I try to fly on airways if they don't
take me too much out of the way (if they do, I'll just do direct on the
GPS); in that way if the GPS has a problem it would be less of a hazzle.
I don't select visual checkpoints or plan for landing areas beforehand, but
while I'm flying I am taking a look at the VFR charts, looking for airports
(if VMC) and in general always try to know exactly where I'm at in the VFR
chart. I'll look for emergency landing spots ocasionally as well. I should
do that a little more often.

Fuel is usually not a problem for me. I also keep it at 1.5 hours reserve,
and my last crosscountries have not required fuel stops (I don't go that far
and I got 6 hours of fuel)

[Guillermo]

"Greg Farris" > wrote in message
...
> Many rental companies REQUIRE you to file a flight plan if yoiu're going
more
> than 50nm from their base. This is a bit of an inconvenience, as it cuts
your
> liberty to fly where you want. I am all for flight plans, flight
following,
> continuous radio contact and business-like conduct for most flights, even
VFR
> - but when the weather's beautiful, and you're only going 100nm or so, of
> route that you know like the back of your hand, it's a bit of a shame not
to
> be able to take your time, check something out, show someone who's never
been
> up before something special - even land somewhere else if you feel like
it.
> Under these conditions, the only use for a flight plan is to assist SAR.
> Flight following is just as good - and probably better. This is a kink in
the
> rental system today.

You can always cancel your flight plan. Or not open it. (if VFR). The rental
company says you got to file it only :).

[Cub Driver]

On Thu, 2 Jun 2005 22:24:29 -0600, "Michael 182"
> wrote:

>I'm kind of curious - does anyone with more than 100 hours do a flight plan,
>with winds and all, before they fly cross country?

In the J-3, in southern New Hampshire and eastern Massachusetts, I
don't file a flight plan. If I'm going around the (White) mountains,
or into Maine or western Massachusetts, I do.

The winds come into it only on DUATS, which is how I create the flight
plan. I don't use an E6B wheel, if that's what you mean. The GPS is
better than the wheel.


-- all the best, Dan Ford

email (put Cubdriver in subject line)

Warbird's Forum: www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum: www.pipercubforum.com
the blog: www.danford.net
In Search of Lost Time: www.readingproust.com

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Michael 182 > posted:

> I'm kind of curious - does anyone with more than 100 hours do a
> flight plan, with winds and all, before they fly cross country?
>
As I see it, the main idea of flight planning is to reduce the workload in
the cockpit. So, for any long XC or a trip to a new location, I plan the
heck out of it. Here in the midwest, the land is flat and can be
undifferentiated for as far as you can see and for quite a while, so
getting lost is not all that difficult. There are also lots of Class C & D
airports, so if you fly for 5 minutes in any direction you'll be in
someone's vicinity, and I like as much information about local traffic as
I can get. There's nothing like discovering a flight of F-15s about to
take off from a Class D airport just as you're approaching it (it
happened!).

To make XC planning easier, I've set up an Exel spreadsheet that goes
beyond the paper form, listing all pertinent info; VOR radials, radio
freqs, headings, bearings, fuel status and so forth for each leg of the
trip. The TAFs are usually good enough to plug in the wind factors ahead
of time, and then headings and fuel consumption for all the waypoints are
calculated automatically. I also mark up the sectional to correspond with
the printed Excel pages, and set up my GPS to correspond with both.
Comparing ETAs with against the GPS becomes a simple task that can be done
without needing a calculator. By doing all this, most of the emergency
landing options are determined ahead of time, and I can focus on what's
going on outside the plane and enjoy the trip.

Neil

[Dan Luke]

"Michael 182" wrote:
> I'm kind of curious - does anyone with more than 100 hours do a flight
> plan, with winds and all, before they fly cross country?

Yep; every flight.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[Doug Vetter]

Michael 182 wrote:
> I'm kind of curious - does anyone with more than 100 hours do a flight plan,
> with winds and all, before they fly cross country? Most of my planning is of
> the fuel stop, or occasionally detour for weather variety - but it is rare
> for me to include more than one or two waypoints in my "plan", and I almost
> never file an airway, even when I file ifr. Maybe it's because I live in the
> west. A typical flight plan will be Longmont - Amarillo - Austin, or if the
> winds are good, Longmont - Austin. What do others do?
>
> Michael

I used to calculate everything manually, and took pride in interpolating
wind / temperature data, and tweaking my climb and descent profiles to
get the total time enroute accurate to a minute or two. That became
boring, so I then concentrated on improving the speed with which I did
all the calculations.

Then my time became money, and I realized that doing it manually no
longer served any purpose (there's only so much you can learn from a
whiz-wheel, or calculating these things manually...particularly after a
few zillion times). Now I let the computers do it and I find that given
the right data, they're accurate to within 1 minute. I don't dig holes
with shovels anymore.

FYI, if you want to plan / file direct VFR, fine. But don't try that
IFR -- particularly in the northeast. It irritates the controllers, and
no surprise. The AIM specifies that you should file airways (sorry I
don't have the exact reference handy...but just read Don Brown's columns
on Avweb for more info). The entire ATC system (airspace boundaries,
etc.) are based on the airway system, and when you file direct, you
increase controller workload. Given the shortage of controllers, that's
just about the last thing you should do.

-Doug

--
--------------------
Doug Vetter, CFIMEIA

http://www.dvcfi.com
--------------------

[Dylan Smith]

In article >, Michael 182 wrote:
> Why? If you are in the air for two hours, and you only have three hours
> fuel, get on the ground and refuel. What difference does continually
> checking waypoints make?

Well, I'd hardly call checking your progress every 30 to 60 minutes
'continously checking your waypoints', but the difference is it keeps
you more situationally aware, and keeps you in practise in case the
electrical system some day DOES take a dump. It also means you notice a
lot more about the flight, such as ground features, and generally makes
the flight a lot more fun.

My VFR flight planning approach is to draw a line on the chart, mark it
up with mileage points, then keep track of my progress on the same chart
during the flight (by marking my position whenever I notice anything of
interest on the ground, in minutes past the hour). If I then get unsure
of my position, it's trivially easy to find out where you are - it takes
seconds. Once you've navigated this method for a while, it feels like
you have a GPS built into your mind. I've navigated accurately from
coast to coast in the US using this method. It's enormously satisfying.

My day job involves messing with computers. I have a hobby of messing
with computers in my spare time. Flying allows me to get away from all
of that - hence I typically like older planes with the minimum required
electronics (which for me means a transponder and 720 channel COM
radio).

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

[OtisWinslow]

I haven't filed a VFR flight plan for a lonnnggggg time. I use Flight
Following
or if I'm current an IFR plan.


"Michael 182" > wrote in message
...
> I'm kind of curious - does anyone with more than 100 hours do a flight
> plan, with winds and all, before they fly cross country? Most of my
> planning is of the fuel stop, or occasionally detour for weather variety -
> but it is rare for me to include more than one or two waypoints in my
> "plan", and I almost never file an airway, even when I file ifr. Maybe
> it's because I live in the west. A typical flight plan will be Longmont -
> Amarillo - Austin, or if the winds are good, Longmont - Austin. What do
> others do?
>
> Michael
>

[OtisWinslow]

I do the same. The closest thing to computerized planning I use
is aeroplanner if I'm away from a map and need a quick idea
of distance/time.


> wrote in message
ups.com...
> Still do the plans the old fashioned way.
> Ruler, map, piece of paper and my E6B.
> Most waypoints are about 10NM apart.
> The nice thing is that it works every time and that without power or
> batteries.
> And it is still fun to do.
>
> -Kees
>

[Jose]

> I'm kind of curious - does anyone with more than 100 hours do a flight plan,
> with winds and all, before they fly cross country?

Sure. Especially for long, low XCs. I find it very convenient to have
waypoints, frequencies, "things to watch for", and other stuff all laid
out neatly on a sheet of paper in the cockpit.

One of the additional things I add on my sheet is runway layout and FBO
I'm using. I pre-plan that to avoid surprizes like outrageous parking
fees (which would be free across the field) and such.

Jose
--
The price of freedom is... well... freedom.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Maule Driver]

Not sure whether you are referring to a flight plan with ATC or a the
kind of plan you do to estimate headings, times, and fuel for planning
purposes.

I never file VFR. Often file IFR.

Almost always fly for travel and usually have someone on the other end
curious about when to pick us up. So, I'm always interested in at least
how long it will take to get there. With the winds on ADDS, I love to
plan the optimal altitude for favorable winds. The accuracy is amazing
and the findings sometimes surprising (e.g. headwinds being
substantially less at 8,000 than at 6,000 on a given day). $3.50 fuel
and a slow plane make the exercise valuable on even 1 hour flights.

GPS makes heading calcs unneccessary. Duats provides accurate winds and
dead reckoning flight plans. GPS groundspeed allows detailed wind
soundings during the climb. Again, amazing how accurate ADDS winds are.

Major victory flying Raleigh NC to Tampa FL non-stop both ways last
weekend. Planned IFR both legs with 1 stop. Detailed wind information,
<10 mins of cloud flying, range extenders, and a sleeping passenger
allowed non-stoppers of 4.5 and 5 hours (it was worth it).

Michael 182 wrote:
> I'm kind of curious - does anyone with more than 100 hours do a flight plan,
> with winds and all, before they fly cross country? Most of my planning is of
> the fuel stop, or occasionally detour for weather variety - but it is rare
> for me to include more than one or two waypoints in my "plan", and I almost
> never file an airway, even when I file ifr. Maybe it's because I live in the
> west. A typical flight plan will be Longmont - Amarillo - Austin, or if the
> winds are good, Longmont - Austin. What do others do?
>
> Michael
>
>

[Maule Driver]

I would say that is increasingly a NE issue. In the SE boonies (south
of the Wash ADIZ), once they see /G, they tend to clear you direct
*independent* of your plan. In FL my experience is that you will be
initially cleared on airways then either thru request or offer, you can
get direct for many portions. Leave the busier FL airspace and it's
"cleared direct destination". I guess it's fewer words to say or
something. Amazing!

Doug Vetter wrote:
>
> FYI, if you want to plan / file direct VFR, fine. But don't try that
> IFR -- particularly in the northeast. It irritates the controllers, and
> no surprise. The AIM specifies that you should file airways (sorry I
> don't have the exact reference handy...but just read Don Brown's columns
> on Avweb for more info). The entire ATC system (airspace boundaries,
> etc.) are based on the airway system, and when you file direct, you
> increase controller workload. Given the shortage of controllers, that's
> just about the last thing you should do.
>
> -Doug
>
> --
> --------------------
> Doug Vetter, CFIMEIA
>
> http://www.dvcfi.com
> --------------------

[Greg Farris]

In article >,
says...
>
>
>Not sure whether you are referring to a flight plan with ATC or a the
>kind of plan you do to estimate headings, times, and fuel for planning
>purposes.
>
>I never file VFR. Often file IFR.
>


Yes - I think I also answered off-topic a bit. I thought we were talking about
flight plans, when reading more carefully I realize we were talking more about
flight planning. As I said before, I think VFR flight plans are frequently a
bother, and do not enhance safety that much, particularly if you plan to use
flight following.

I do not feel the same about flight planning. I did my PPL some years ago, but
I still make up a log sheet for long flights, and I measure the distaznce
between waypoints. Nothing like 10nm waypoints - frequently 25 or 30nm, but I
do feel better prepared if I've studied the map. With a GPS *AND* DME it's
pretty hard to justify doing all the calcuations and wind corrections, except
that it gives you something to do - If you're in a Skyhawk, screaming along at
110KTAS but with an ultra-modern panel, it's like the extra capabilities of
the latter help to compensate the shortcomings of the former!

My detailed, annotated course lines have been reduced to little more than a
light pencil trace on the sectional, and a sheet with mostly frequencies on
it, but some waypoints, distances and altitude changes as well.

Recently, I had a radio problem, on a day with a pretty strong wind, and
marginal visibility. In dealing with the problem I let myself get off course a
few nm. I ended up west of an airfield I had planned to fly east of, and
getting close to another class "D". OK, this was nowhere close to anything
really untoward happening - but it was useful to have all sorts of pertinent
info right in front of me on my "cheat sheet". I jot down (type out, actually)
anything I think may be useful along the way - mostly contact frequencies, and
some VOR crossing radials. Of course it would only take a minute to look any
of this up - but it was nice to have everything right there on one
kneeboard-sized page.

There's also an "administrative" justification. With pilots being responsible
to have accumulated "all pertinent information" about the flight, you always
wonder just how far an over-zealous inspector might go in insinuating you were
not fully prepared. What if my class D had been a class B, and I actually
violated it. I could easily find myself trying to explain to some unfriendly
folks once on the ground, and in that case it wouldn't hurt to be able to show
I had the weather and all "pertinent" data .

G Faris

[Chris]

"Maule Driver" > wrote in message
. com...
> Not sure whether you are referring to a flight plan with ATC or a the kind
> of plan you do to estimate headings, times, and fuel for planning
> purposes.

I always do a PLOG

[Peter Duniho]

"Greg Farris" > wrote in message
...
> Many rental companies REQUIRE you to file a flight plan if yoiu're going
> more
> than 50nm from their base. This is a bit of an inconvenience, as it cuts
> your
> liberty to fly where you want. [...]

As has been pointed out, if the requirement is only to file, that's hardly
an inconvenience with respect to flying where you want to.

Even if you are required to have an active flight plan, diversions are not
difficult to deal with. You simply find the nearest FSS frequency, and
amend your plan (ETA for sure, route if it's changed significantly enough).

I've never run into an FBO that requires flight plans, but if I did, I would
pay very close attention to their exact requirements, and what -- if any --
implications it has for insurance coverage. In many cases, the renter's not
actually covered by the FBO's insurance anyway, but it's possible that where
a renter is covered, and where a "flight plan required" policy is in force,
the insurance would be valid only if the flight plan requirement is met.

Anyway, I do use VFR flight plans for long cross-country flights, especially
if they are over hostile terrain and/or I don't expect to be in radio
contact during the flight. Of course, I'm not sure that the question of
filing or opening a flight plan is what the original poster had in mind.

Pete

[Michael 182]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
> "Greg Farris" > wrote in message
> ...
> Of course, I'm not sure that the question of filing or opening a flight
> plan is what the original poster had in mind.
>
> Pete
>

No, it wasn't what I had in mind. I file flight plans all the time since I
do a lot of IFR flying. I was asking about the pre-filing flight planning
activities that people engage in. For me that activity is 90% weather.

And, it has become clear to me from reading the responses in this thread
that it is different in the Washington - Boston corridor. I have flown there
a number of times, usually between Gaithersburg, Reading, East Hampton and
Portland (cities where I have family or business) and when I do I file
airways, as one other poster suggested. Maybe it is because I don't have
enough knowledge of preferred routes in the area, but my experience has been
that I never get what I file anyway, and that I usually get at least one or
two clearances changes in route.

Michael

[Peter Duniho]

"Michael 182" > wrote in message
...
>> I always plan at least a basic route for total mileage, adjust my cruise
>> speed for the winds to get total time and thus fuel burn. <snip> I
>> always carry at least an hour of fuel in reserve, and on shorter flights
>> (two or three hours or so) it can be more than that.
>
> I agree, I just don't actively plan for this.

I'm not sure what you mean by "I just don't actively plan for this". Are
you saying that you regularly make flights where you don't actually know the
mileage or expected time enroute for the flight prior to takeoff?

> I usually take off with a full tank. I have a Shadin to measure fuel flow,
> which I know from experience is very accurate.

I do have a fuel flow meter as well. It's very nice to have, but it only
gives me information after the fact.

> Since I also have a Garmin 430 I know, pretty accutaely, my time to
> destination.

Not until you're in the airplane. Seems like, unless you have in-flight
refueling capabilities, it would be better to have that information earlier.

> I have a backup Pilot III in the glove box if I need it.

Assuming whatever caused the 430 to fail doesn't also cause the Pilot III to
fail. And assuming that the Pilot III doesn't suffer its own independent
failure.

> If all of this fails (a very low probability - never happened in over 1200
> hours in this plane), I can tune in VORs, figure out where I am, and find
> an airport.

VORs only help if they work. The same electrical failure that could knock
out your 430 would disable your VOR receivers, I assume. In any case, I
don't feel that in-flight is the best time to be "figuring out" where you
are. It's MUCH better to already know where you are, and know what your
available options are.

In the event that things start going wrong in-flight, I would much rather
spend my limited attention flying the airplane and dealing with the
situation, than to waste time doing work that could have been done on the
ground, or as the flight progressed.

>> It's MUCH more important to then cross-check your expected fuel burn and
>> ETA with what transpires during the flight, since the winds can change at
>> any time anyway.
>
> I never go below 1.5 hours in reserve. All of this can easily be handled
> in flight, with very minimal ground planning.

All of what? The statement you quoted pertains only to something that has
to be done in flight. I would argue that not only can it easily be handled
in flight, it can ONLY be handled in flight. But you can't do the
cross-check unless you have something to cross-check against, and that
requires preflight action.

It sounds to me as though you basically top off the tanks, enter your
destination in your GPS, and as you fly compare your ETE with your fuel-flow
meter's report of time left (assuming it even has that function...not all
do), and as long as your ETE doesn't go past your time left on the fuel-flow
meter, you consider that good. If for some reason the ETE shows you past
your fuel endurance, you then start planning for an arrival somewhere else
while enroute.

IMHO, that's very sloppy "planning", and simply doesn't prepare you for the
possibilities of what can happen during a flight. The cockpit is a pretty
lousy environment for a variety of things, and flight planning is one of
those things. You certainly should be able to do flight planning while
enroute, but to intentionally put yourself in a position where that's
assured, that's just lazy and dangerous.

> Come on, you plan for emergency landing spots on a long cross country? No
> way - you might generally say "I'm not flying across the Rockies in IMC,
> but beyond that, how can you plan for emergency landing spots?

How can you NOT? I know what my approximate glide performance is. I know
what altitude I'm planning to cruise. When planning my route, I inspect the
entire route for reasonable assurance that there are suitable emergency
landing sites along the route. I may not know the exact lat/long of where
I'll land should the engine fail, but I have a very good idea of the
topography in any given area of the flight, and roughly what direction turn
will likely be required at any given point along the flight.

Sometimes the route simply cannot be done with reasonably assurance of safe
landing sites, which is what I described as "hostile terrain" in a previous
post. It doesn't mean I won't fly over those areas, necessarily, but it
does mean I take extra precautions and I at least am aware of the section(s)
of the route that will require even greater vigilance with respect to engine
monitoring and careful identification of even the most marginal-but-doable
emergency landing site (you'd be surprised at what can be found even in
hostile terrain, if you're looking for it).

> In any case, I'm generally just buying IFR charts - I have no idea of the
> terrain beyond some general altitude information.

Dumb. Dumb. DUMB!

Sorry, but you asked the question, and I think it's absurd that anyone would
fly over ground that they have no idea what it looks like. If you're flying
a jet with glide performance of 100-200 miles, and little chance of landing
off-airport successfully no matter how friendly the terrain, that's one
thing. But anyone in a light piston aircraft needs to know what the ground
is like along their route.

You need to understand what sort of emergency landing sites are available.
You need to know how the terrain will affect the winds aloft. You need to
know whether you are flying over densely or sparsely populated areas. You
need to know whether your route takes you along a major highway, or far away
from any services.

There's just too much information available from VFR charts for any pilot
with any sense of self-preservation and who takes the charge of "pilot in
command" seriously to ignore that information.

> Once again, all of this is easily done in the air. ... Hmmm, I'm hungry.
> What airports are within 50 miles? Oh yeah - there's one. Do they have a
> restaurant? (Open the Flight Guide... ) "Albuquerque Center, Skylane 123
> is changing my destination and landing at Santa Fe..."

It's MORE easily done on the ground. That's what the whole concept of
"planning" is all about. By planning ahead, you make the in-flight decision
making vastly simpler. You'll never eliminate the possibility of having to
make up an entirely new plan in the air, but by having considered likely
disruptions to the flight, you avoid distractions during the flight.

Don't forget, many aircraft accidents happened only because the pilot was
distracted from the duty of controlling the aircraft. Anything you can do
to minimize the distractions while flying the aircraft, you should. This
definitely includes proper and thorough pre-flight planning.

> Why? If you are in the air for two hours, and you only have three hours
> fuel, get on the ground and refuel. What difference does continually
> checking waypoints make?

Well, for one...by the time you realize you only have an hour of fuel left,
you may not be within an hour of an airport that has fuel available. Duh.

Even if you are within an hour, do you really want to come floating in on
fumes? I know I don't, which means I need an airport even closer than that.
The closer the airport needs the be, the greater the chance it won't be
close enough when you finally figure out you need fuel.

Checking waypoints during the flight provides you with nearly fool-proof
(subject only to your own computational skills) information regarding your
fuel status. Yes, other resources provide that information as well, but
cross-checking is always good. Reliance on fewer sources of information
than are available is bad.

Don't forget that in the cockpit, with your fuel running low, is a pretty
bad time to be calling up an FBO on the radio and asking them if they
actually have fuel. This assumes the FBO even has a Unicom frequency or
similar, and that you can contact them from your position.

Pre-flight planning allows you to contact an FBO on the phone prior to
flight. This is a good thing to do at the very least for a planned fuel
stop, and should probably be done for possible alternates as well. You
can't even do it for the planned fuel stop, unless you actually HAVE a
planned fuel stop before you get into the airplane.

> I do double check it occasionally, out of boredom on some flights - but
> how can it "theoretically go wrong without you knowing"?

Well, for one, there might be some flaw in the RAIM feature.

> I know about RAIM errors - they have totaled maybe 5 minutes in the past
> four years of flying, and even during the errors the navigation was
> accurate.

How do you know the navigation was accurate, unless you were cross-checking?

> But, once again, even if the GPS miraculously failed, and the hand held
> backup failed, and the VOR's (both of them) failed, and the radio died (so
> I couldn't get vectors) - I rarely fly more than 30 minutes anywhere in
> the US without seeing an airport, or at least a private ranch strip.

So your plan is to just keep heading in a specific direction until you see
an airport? That's not much of a plan, IMHO.

> I don't want to sound cavalier about flying. I am fanatical about
> maintenance on my plane. I will do extensive planning for a go-no go
> decision based on weather. I get an IPC at least once a year, even if I am
> current. But it seems to me that for a reasonably high performance plane
> the geography of planning has, for the most part, been displaced by
> technology.

IMHO, those who put too much trust in technology are making unnecessary
risks. The one thing that technology has demonstrated itself to be is
always flawed. No matter how reliable humans believe they have made
technology, there are always ways for things to go wrong. Given that
there's very little downside in additional pre-flight planning, and lots of
potential upside, it boggles my mind that there are pilots out there who
don't take the pre-flight planning more seriously.

Ironically, I replied to this thread thinking that I'm a slacker compared to
many pilots, not taking my pre-flight planning seriously enough. It's clear
to me though, after considering all of the things I still do during my
pre-flight planning (in spite of the fact that it probably wouldn't pass
muster with a DE), there are folks out there who are completely abdicating
their responsibility as pilot in command to ensure the safety of the flight,
and instead trusting that responsibility to a small pile of silicon.

Pete

[Peter Duniho]

"Michael 182" > wrote in message
...
> [...]
> And, it has become clear to me from reading the responses in this thread
> that it is different in the Washington - Boston corridor.

Most of the people haven't even said where they fly. How is that clear to
you?

For what it's worth, I live in the Pacific Northwest, and the bulk of my
cross-country flying is done in the western states. The planning is
different from that used in densely populated areas, but just as important.

Pete

[Michael 182]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
> "Michael 182" > wrote in message
> ...
>>> I always plan at least a basic route for total mileage, adjust my cruise
>>> speed for the winds to get total time and thus fuel burn. <snip> I
>>> always carry at least an hour of fuel in reserve, and on shorter flights
>>> (two or three hours or so) it can be more than that.
>>
>> I agree, I just don't actively plan for this.
>
> I'm not sure what you mean by "I just don't actively plan for this". Are
> you saying that you regularly make flights where you don't actually know
> the mileage or expected time enroute for the flight prior to takeoff?

No, I guess I overstated it. I do know both mileage and expected flight
time - but usually just for the whole route, not for multiple waypoints
enroute.

>
>> I usually take off with a full tank. I have a Shadin to measure fuel
>> flow, which I know from experience is very accurate.
>
> I do have a fuel flow meter as well. It's very nice to have, but it only
> gives me information after the fact.

I don't understand this comment. Obviously I plan, at least in my head, fuel
flow and distance. But this is not very extensive planning - in fact it is
almost second nature. I'm filing IFR, and I have to give time enroute and
fuel on board as two of the items in the plan.


>> Since I also have a Garmin 430 I know, pretty accutaely, my time to
>> destination.
>
> Not until you're in the airplane. Seems like, unless you have in-flight
> refueling capabilities, it would be better to have that information
> earlier.

That's ridiculous. I fly 150 kts TAS. Give me the distance to the
destination, and 20 seconds, and I'll tell you the enroute time within 10%.
During the weather briefing (which I never skip - I have a lot of respect
for weather) I may adjust that for winds. Once again - easily done in my
head.


>> I have a backup Pilot III in the glove box if I need it.
>
> Assuming whatever caused the 430 to fail doesn't also cause the Pilot III
> to fail. And assuming that the Pilot III doesn't suffer its own
> independent failure.

> VORs only help if they work. The same electrical failure that could knock
> out your 430 would disable your VOR receivers, I assume.

Come on, I have dual in-panel navigation and two levels of battery backup
with a Pilot III and a battery operated NavCom. And, as a way last resort, I
have a cell phone. Yes, anything could happen, but I don't see how
pre-flight planning will help me here if everything went south, which, once
again, I just don't believe will happen. There is too much redundancy here.

If I was in VMC, there is really no emergency. Fly until I find an airport
and land. Virtually every midsize town (and most small towns) in the west
has an airport.

If I was in IMC I fail to see how doing extensive pre-flight route planning
would help. I know where I am while I'm flying from the GPS. If and when it
goes out (and the handheld goes out...) I'll know where I am at that point.
Assuming I still have the radios, or the handheld NavCom I'll contact ATC
and get assistance. If I don't have any communications or Nav equipment, I
may be in for a lot of trouble. but remember, I'm IMC at this point. I don't
believe that pre-flight planning of waypoints will be a lot of help at this
point...

> But you can't do the cross-check unless you have something to cross-check
> against, and that requires preflight action.

Uh, no. That's what having on-board navigation equipment allows you to do.

> It sounds to me as though you basically top off the tanks, enter your
> destination in your GPS, and as you fly compare your ETE with your
> fuel-flow meter's report of time left (assuming it even has that
> function...not all do), and as long as your ETE doesn't go past your time
> left on the fuel-flow meter, you consider that good. If for some reason
> the ETE shows you past your fuel endurance, you then start planning for an
> arrival somewhere else while enroute.
>
> IMHO, that's very sloppy "planning", and simply doesn't prepare you for
> the possibilities of what can happen during a flight. The cockpit is a
> pretty lousy environment for a variety of things, and flight planning is
> one of those things. You certainly should be able to do flight planning
> while enroute, but to intentionally put yourself in a position where
> that's assured, that's just lazy and dangerous.

Sorry, I disagree. Once again, I spend as much time as is necessary to fully
brief myself and make weather decisions. I make a quick ETE and fuel plan
with a very wide margin for error. I have invested in equipment and backup,
and know how to use them very well. I don't see this as sloppy or dangerous.
In fact, I believe it makes for much safer enroute environment than
extensive plotting on charts. Having said that, I fully respect pilotage,
and do not consider those that use it unsafe - they just fly with different
parameters than I do.

>> Come on, you plan for emergency landing spots on a long cross country? No
>> way - you might generally say "I'm not flying across the Rockies in IMC,
>> but beyond that, how can you plan for emergency landing spots?
>
> How can you NOT? I know what my approximate glide performance is. I know
> what altitude I'm planning to cruise. When planning my route, I inspect
> the entire route for reasonable assurance that there are suitable
> emergency landing sites along the route. I may not know the exact
> lat/long of where I'll land should the engine fail, but I have a very good
> idea of the topography in any given area of the flight, and roughly what
> direction turn will likely be required at any given point along the
> flight.

So what do you do - the fan stops, and instead of looking out the window for
a landing spot you start referencing your charts. Ridiculous. Sectionals
give very broad altitude and terrain information. There is no way you will
have time during a true emergency to use them or your preflight planning of
emergency landing spots. You will look down, pick a spot, and follow the
emergency checklist. At least I hope you will. I have had two in-flight
emergencies, one in IMC. Preflight route planning would have had absolutely
no impact on the situations. Having emergency checklists memorized and
concentration on flying the plane was completely the key.

>> In any case, I'm generally just buying IFR charts - I have no idea of the
>> terrain beyond some general altitude information.
>
> Dumb. Dumb. DUMB!
>
> Sorry, but you asked the question, and I think it's absurd that anyone
> would fly over ground that they have no idea what it looks like. If
> you're flying a jet with glide performance of 100-200 miles, and little
> chance of landing off-airport successfully no matter how friendly the
> terrain, that's one thing. But anyone in a light piston aircraft needs to
> know what the ground is like along their route.

Which I know by looking out the window. Some things are obvious. I live in
Colorado. I don't fly west over the Rockies in IMC or at night. I avoid open
water. I don't need VFR sectional charts for this stuff. The midwest is
flat. The plains are rolling. The desert is harsh. The mountains are pointy.
Minnesota has trees everywhere. You really don't need a sectional to know
this stuff.


> You need to understand what sort of emergency landing sites are available.
> You need to know how the terrain will affect the winds aloft. You need to
> know whether you are flying over densely or sparsely populated areas. You
> need to know whether your route takes you along a major highway, or far
> away from any services.

Once again, I know all this stuff without sectionals.

>> Once again, all of this is easily done in the air. ... Hmmm, I'm hungry.
>> What airports are within 50 miles? Oh yeah - there's one. Do they have a
>> restaurant? (Open the Flight Guide... ) "Albuquerque Center, Skylane 123
>> is changing my destination and landing at Santa Fe..."
>
> It's MORE easily done on the ground. That's what the whole concept of
> "planning" is all about. By planning ahead, you make the in-flight
> decision making vastly simpler. You'll never eliminate the possibility of
> having to make up an entirely new plan in the air, but by having
> considered likely disruptions to the flight, you avoid distractions during
> the flight.

I think this is a big difference between us. I don't consider this a
distraction in the air. It is as simple as setting the pitch or mixture. I
do it all the time.

>
>> Why? If you are in the air for two hours, and you only have three hours
>> fuel, get on the ground and refuel. What difference does continually
>> checking waypoints make?
>
> Well, for one...by the time you realize you only have an hour of fuel
> left, you may not be within an hour of an airport that has fuel available.
> Duh.
>
> Even if you are within an hour, do you really want to come floating in on
> fumes? I know I don't, which means I need an airport even closer than
> that. The closer the airport needs the be, the greater the chance it won't
> be close enough when you finally figure out you need fuel.

You seem to think if I don't have waypoints and sectionals all laid out in
advance I won't know where I am or what my fuel situation is. I know both
all the time when I am in the air. And, as an aside, not that I'd ever let
myself get to that point, but you would be hard pressed to ever be further
than one hour from fuel flying in 90% of the US.

>
> Checking waypoints during the flight provides you with nearly fool-proof
> (subject only to your own computational skills) information regarding your
> fuel status. Yes, other resources provide that information as well, but
> cross-checking is always good. Reliance on fewer sources of information
> than are available is bad.

Well then, by your reasoning you should be using ded-reckoning (or however
that is spelled) as well. Do you do that? And, more reasonably, by your
reasoning you should clearly invest in better and safer technology than you
have. Anything else is clearly unsafe.

The reality is there is no reason for you to do either. You fly to the level
of planning and safety that is legal and within your comfort zone. You sound
like a prudent pilot. I'm happy to know you are out there flying safely when
our paths cross. But your insistence on your particular brand of safety is
not convincing me.

> Don't forget that in the cockpit, with your fuel running low, is a pretty
> bad time to be calling up an FBO on the radio and asking them if they
> actually have fuel. This assumes the FBO even has a Unicom frequency or
> similar, and that you can contact them from your position.

> Pre-flight planning allows you to contact an FBO on the phone prior to
> flight. This is a good thing to do at the very least for a planned fuel
> stop, and should probably be done for possible alternates as well. You
> can't even do it for the planned fuel stop, unless you actually HAVE a
> planned fuel stop before you get into the airplane.

You really do this - you call the FBO to make sure they have fuel before you
take off? I'm amazed. Never occurred to me. That's like calling a
restaurant and asking them if they have food before you come in for dinner.

>
>> I do double check it occasionally, out of boredom on some flights - but
>> how can it "theoretically go wrong without you knowing"?
>
> Well, for one, there might be some flaw in the RAIM feature.
>
>> I know about RAIM errors - they have totaled maybe 5 minutes in the past
>> four years of flying, and even during the errors the navigation was
>> accurate.
>
> How do you know the navigation was accurate, unless you were
> cross-checking?

I never said I don't cross check the navigation aids. I said I don't plan
the waypoints on the ground. I fly over a town, I'll dial in the GPS and see
what town it is. I can cross check highways, rivers, airports, runways,
VORs, NDBs, intersections. All easily done in the air.

>
>
> IMHO, those who put too much trust in technology are making unnecessary
> risks. The one thing that technology has demonstrated itself to be is
> always flawed. No matter how reliable humans believe they have made
> technology, there are always ways for things to go wrong. Given that
> there's very little downside in additional pre-flight planning, and lots
> of potential upside, it boggles my mind that there are pilots out there
> who don't take the pre-flight planning more seriously.
>
> Ironically, I replied to this thread thinking that I'm a slacker compared
> to many pilots, not taking my pre-flight planning seriously enough. It's
> clear to me though, after considering all of the things I still do during
> my pre-flight planning (in spite of the fact that it probably wouldn't
> pass muster with a DE), there are folks out there who are completely
> abdicating their responsibility as pilot in command to ensure the safety
> of the flight, and instead trusting that responsibility to a small pile of
> silicon.

I guess we are at the agree to disagree point. I don't see myself abdicating
anything. I'm not making any judgments about your level of safety when you
fly - other than knowing you spend more time plotting on charts I have no
idea if you are a safe pilot of not. But none of your arguments you put
forth here convince me that your methodology is safer than mine. In fact, I
would argue that the level of redundancy and the experience I have in
putting the technology to use might make my methodology safer than yours.
But then again, I may be wrong...

>
> Pete
>

[Jimmy B.]

Michael 182 wrote:
> I'm kind of curious - does anyone with more than 100 hours do a flight plan,
> with winds and all, before they fly cross country? Most of my planning is of
> the fuel stop, or occasionally detour for weather variety - but it is rare
> for me to include more than one or two waypoints in my "plan", and I almost
> never file an airway, even when I file ifr. Maybe it's because I live in the
> west. A typical flight plan will be Longmont - Amarillo - Austin, or if the
> winds are good, Longmont - Austin. What do others do?
>
> Michael
>
>
I always do flight plans. I find them interesting. (Yeah, I'm weird,
but knowing it is half the battle, right.)

Actually, I'm a purist, When I'm flying VFR, I use pilotage and dead
reckoning as my primary navigation devices. I feel I failed if I have
to refer to my GPS.

Flying IFR, I file airways because I like being able to backup the VORs
with the GPS. With GPS direct, I have no backup means other than the
very cumbersome cross VOR radial.

[Frank Ch. Eigler]

"Michael 182" wrote:

> [...]
> > I'm not sure what you mean by "I just don't actively plan for this". Are
> > you saying that you regularly make flights where you don't actually know
> > the mileage or expected time enroute for the flight prior to takeoff?
>
> No, I guess I overstated it. I do know both mileage and expected flight
> time - but usually just for the whole route, not for multiple waypoints
> enroute. [...]

Another way of saying this is that roughly estimating these quantities
in one's head can be accurate to (say) 25%, which is sufficient for
trips that don't have unusual risk characteristics. If the airplane's
endurance may get tight, or ground services iffy, then more formal
planning may be called for. But at least in my case, that is very rare.

You're making a lot of sense on this issue, Michael.


- FChE

[Jose]

>> [much snippage]

Michael, you seem to place so much emphasis and trust in silicon that it
makes me wonder who's flying the plane. I don't know where you fly and
what the terrain and such is, but in the Northeast, where I fly, there
are plenty of landmarks. I can get up to four or five thousand feet on
a clear day and see the entire sectional laid out before me. (ok I
exaggerate, but just a bit :) Still I find it not only prudent, but
quite useful to have done a detailled flight plan with waypoints and
ETEs, headings, wind correction (and a little section for winds aloft),
TPAs (yes, there are surprises), FBOs (including fuel price and
availability - saved me hundreds of dollars), frequencies, reminders of
critical areas (towers, parachute and glider areas, restricted and
prohibited areas), MSAs and target altitudes, and all that stuff that
you seem to relegate to student pilot busywork. I have over 800 hours
and still find it is valuable.

Perusing the charts before flight, and copying down the key items in an
easy-to-use format makes all the difference, especially flying a long
cross country at a thousand feet AGL using pilotage and dead reckoning.
(in fact, I'd reccomend this excercise to all pilots)

I don't even use the computer for planning, let alone in the cockpit.
(I will admit I use AirNav to find good fuel prices and locations, but I
plan them on the chart on paper)

The planes I fly have GPS, and though I do turn it on, I do not rely on
it for navigation. Sometimes I turn it to some non-informative page to
ensure that the purple line doesn't seduce me into the Dark Side. All
of this is just part of flying.

I just don't understand the attitude of "the computer will do it for me".

Jose
--
The price of freedom is... well... freedom.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Matt Whiting]

Michael 182 wrote:

> I'm kind of curious - does anyone with more than 100 hours do a flight plan,
> with winds and all, before they fly cross country? Most of my planning is of
> the fuel stop, or occasionally detour for weather variety - but it is rare
> for me to include more than one or two waypoints in my "plan", and I almost
> never file an airway, even when I file ifr. Maybe it's because I live in the
> west. A typical flight plan will be Longmont - Amarillo - Austin, or if the
> winds are good, Longmont - Austin. What do others do?

I use CTC duats flight planner for pretty much every flight I make. It
is quick, easy and I like to have their flight log to stick on my clipboard.


Matt

[Peter Duniho]

"Michael 182" > wrote in message
...
> No, I guess I overstated it. I do know both mileage and expected flight
> time - but usually just for the whole route, not for multiple waypoints
> enroute.

Then how do you know what your actual groundspeed is? Oh, right...I
forgot...you trust your GPS completely to tell you this. And of course, you
will never be without your GPS.

> [...]
> That's ridiculous. I fly 150 kts TAS. Give me the distance to the
> destination, and 20 seconds, and I'll tell you the enroute time within
> 10%. During the weather briefing (which I never skip - I have a lot of
> respect for weather) I may adjust that for winds. Once again - easily done
> in my head.

Then why did you suggest you don't do that part of the planning? You are
now asserting that you do. I never said the planning should be HARD. I
simply said it should be done.

> [...]
> So what do you do - the fan stops, and instead of looking out the window
> for a landing spot you start referencing your charts. Ridiculous.

That's right, it would be ridiculous to do it that way. I never said I did.
The point is that having properly planned the flight, and properly
navigating along the route of the flight, you know at all times where you're
going to land. If "the fan stops", you simply land where you planned to.

> Sectionals give very broad altitude and terrain information.

I guess that depends on your definition of "broad". I find sectionals to be
quite detailed in their depiction of altitude and terrain information
(whatever the difference between the two might be...not sure why you use two
different words to describe basically the same information). Using a
sectional, I can plan a flight through a canyon just a few miles wide, and
be completely assured of terrain avoidance, and of being able to correlate
the chart with the visual recognition of the terrain while enroute.
Sectionals certainly have FAR more detailed terrain elevation data than any
GPS I've seen.

> There is no way you will have time during a true emergency to use them or
> your preflight planning of emergency landing spots. You will look down,
> pick a spot, and follow the emergency checklist.

IMHO, if you are picking the landing spot after the emergency commences, you
have failed in your duty as pilot in command. This is whether you've done
any flight planning or not.

> [...]
> Which I know by looking out the window. Some things are obvious. I live in
> Colorado. I don't fly west over the Rockies in IMC or at night. I avoid
> open water. I don't need VFR sectional charts for this stuff. The midwest
> is flat. The plains are rolling. The desert is harsh. The mountains are
> pointy. Minnesota has trees everywhere. You really don't need a sectional
> to know this stuff.

I feel pity for a pilot who thinks those kinds of generalities suffice for
the purpose of understanding the effects of terrain and man-made objects on
the flight.

>> You need to understand what sort of emergency landing sites are
>> available. You need to know how the terrain will affect the winds aloft.
>> You need to know whether you are flying over densely or sparsely
>> populated areas. You need to know whether your route takes you along a
>> major highway, or far away from any services.
>
> Once again, I know all this stuff without sectionals.

You can't possibly, not without some other reference that is basically
identical to a sectional.

> [...]
> I think this is a big difference between us. I don't consider this a
> distraction in the air. It is as simple as setting the pitch or mixture. I
> do it all the time.

No, it doesn't sound like you do. Not really. There's a big difference
between punching a new airport ID into a GPS, and coming up with a *plan*.
Though, admittedly, in your case perhaps there is no difference, since your
plan never seems to go beyond that anyway.

> [...]
> You seem to think if I don't have waypoints and sectionals all laid out in
> advance I won't know where I am or what my fuel situation is. I know both
> all the time when I am in the air. And, as an aside, not that I'd ever let
> myself get to that point, but you would be hard pressed to ever be further
> than one hour from fuel flying in 90% of the US.

Well, first of all, I already pointed out that you really need to be closer
than one hour to the nearest fuel. But even so, I find myself an hour from
the nearest fuel on a reasonably regular basis. It's not hard, flying
around the west.

>> Checking waypoints during the flight provides you with nearly fool-proof
>> (subject only to your own computational skills) information regarding
>> your fuel status. Yes, other resources provide that information as well,
>> but cross-checking is always good. Reliance on fewer sources of
>> information than are available is bad.
>
> Well then, by your reasoning you should be using ded-reckoning (or however
> that is spelled) as well.

How so? Dead-reckoning is not nearly as reliable as pilotage. It's
basically a "poor man's intertial navigation system". With pilotage, you
know exactly where you are. All dead-reckoning does is give you a rough
guess as to where you think you might be.

There is NOTHING more reliable than seeing out the window of the airplane
and knowing with 100% certainty how the picture out the window matches the
image on your chart. Nothing.

> [...]
>> Pre-flight planning allows you to contact an FBO on the phone prior to
>> flight. This is a good thing to do at the very least for a planned fuel
>> stop, and should probably be done for possible alternates as well. You
>> can't even do it for the planned fuel stop, unless you actually HAVE a
>> planned fuel stop before you get into the airplane.
>
> You really do this - you call the FBO to make sure they have fuel before
> you take off?

Yes, of course I do. I verify that they have fuel, their hours of
operation, their methods of payment, and if they have pilots on staff around
when I call, I'll even ask about any "local knowledge" that might be useful
to a transient pilot with respect to my arrival and subsequent departure.

It's not even that hard to find stories of pilots who have arrived at an
airport, expecting to take on fuel, only to discover some problem.

Of course, even calling ahead isn't fail-safe. For example, on a recent
flight from Medford, OR to Fort Collins, CO, I stopped for fuel in Idaho. I
had called ahead to make sure they had fuel and were going to be there, but
when I arrived, they had some sort of technical issue with their credit-card
system. We worked something out, but had they known of the problem before I
took off, I probably would have landed somewhere else.

> I'm amazed. Never occurred to me. That's like calling a restaurant and
> asking them if they have food before you come in for dinner.

It's more like calling a restaurant and asking them if they have food before
you come in for dinner, if you are going to expire from hunger if no food is
available there. In reality, your analogy sucks because a) food is almost
never a critical resource for survival for folks like us, and b) if there's
one restaurant, there is almost always another across the street.

With fuel, especially when flying at the limits of endurance for one's
aircraft, or when flying in very sparsely settled areas such as exist here
in the west, you may only get one chance for fuel, especially if you apply
the kind of "planning" to your flight that you apparently do.

> [...]
>> How do you know the navigation was accurate, unless you were
>> cross-checking?
>
> I never said I don't cross check the navigation aids. I said I don't plan
> the waypoints on the ground. I fly over a town, I'll dial in the GPS and
> see what town it is.

How do you know the GPS is telling you the correct information?

> I can cross check highways, rivers, airports, runways, VORs, NDBs,
> intersections. All easily done in the air.

Again, how do you know the GPS is telling you the correct information?

In any case, your argument relies heavily on the Garmin 430 GPS you have
installed. Your original question said NOTHING about the kind of equipment
one might be using, and as common as GPS is becoming, nice moving map GPS
receivers such as the 430 are hardly ubiquitous.

Even if I had a 430 in my plane, I would plan my flights with more detail
than you do. But I hardly think it's useful for you to equivocate on your
original question by bringing in new elements to it. If you had asked "does
anyone with a 430 still plan their flights?" I would not have even bothered
to answer.

Pete

[Michael 182]

"Jose" > wrote in message
. com...
> >> [much snippage]
>
> Michael, you seem to place so much emphasis and trust in silicon that it
> makes me wonder who's flying the plane.

Why? If I had a decent autopilot, rather than the Cessna wing-leveler I have
I'd use that extensively as well. I'm flying the plane - I'm just using
technology to assist me.


> I don't even use the computer for planning, let alone in the cockpit. (I
> will admit I use AirNav to find good fuel prices and locations, but I plan
> them on the chart on paper)
>
> The planes I fly have GPS, and though I do turn it on, I do not rely on it
> for navigation. Sometimes I turn it to some non-informative page to
> ensure that the purple line doesn't seduce me into the Dark Side. All of
> this is just part of flying.
>
> I just don't understand the attitude of "the computer will do it for me".

Because, it appears you get enjoyment from the charting and pilotage. Very
cool. I don't. In fact, in my TR-182, my flying is pretty much
transportation or currency flying. I don't fly for the "joy of flying". Now
maybe if I bought a Cub that would change, as would my approach to cross
countries. I am considering a glider license (I looked into paragliding, but
comments on this board and from fellow pilots turned me off) because I would
like to recapture some of that "wonder and awe" I had when I first started
flying. But pilotage and charts don't do it for me.

So, with regard to "I just don't understand the attitude of the computer
will do it for me", my response is I just don't understand the reluctance to
accept that computers are far superior to human skills at a great multitude
of what we try to cogitate. Not using them because it is more fun for you
makes a lot of sense. Not using them in the (I believe) mistaken belief that
it makes you a safer pilot doesn't fly with me. (pun weak, but intended...)

Michael

[Jose]

> So, with regard to "I just don't understand the attitude of the computer
> will do it for me", my response is I just don't understand the reluctance to
> accept that computers are far superior to human skills at a great multitude
> of what we try to cogitate.

Maybe it's because I've been around computers and computer programmers.

The more you rely on others (be they people or machines), the more your
own skills will silently erode, and the one time when you need them, you
may find it to be more exciting than you had ... er... planned. :)

> If I had a decent autopilot, rather than the Cessna wing-leveler I have
> I'd use that extensively as well. I'm flying the plane - I'm just using
> technology to assist me.

I have an autopilot in the club planes I fly. I feel so out of the loop
when I use it that I almost never do. It's just so natural (at least
for me) to have my hand on the yoke that I don't even notice. And that
way, if my skills start to deteriorate, I notice it right away. With an
autopilot doing the flying and the navigating, I wouldn't.

Jose
--
The price of freedom is... well... freedom.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[A Lieberman]

On Thu, 2 Jun 2005 23:01:36 -0600, Michael 182 wrote:

> I thought you had to have a navigation aid in your suffix to file direct -
> like /G or /R. Aren't you setting yourself up for a problem filing /A and
> direct?

Hi Michael,

So far, I have had no problems. Probably, location has a lot to do with
it, as I have always received "cleared as filed".

> Unless you are flying Longmont to Colorado Springs and looking down on the
> I-25 parking lot...

Yeah, I'd imagine that you have more on that I-25 parking lot, then we have
in the state of Mississippi :-)

Rush hour here means speeds slow down from 90 mph down to the speed limit
of 60 mph.

Allen

[Matt Barrow]

"Michael 182" > wrote in message
...
> I'm kind of curious - does anyone with more than 100 hours do a flight
plan,
> with winds and all, before they fly cross country? Most of my planning is
of
> the fuel stop, or occasionally detour for weather variety - but it is rare
> for me to include more than one or two waypoints in my "plan", and I
almost
> never file an airway, even when I file ifr. Maybe it's because I live in
the
> west. A typical flight plan will be Longmont - Amarillo - Austin, or if
the
> winds are good, Longmont - Austin. What do others do?
>

Every flight, though they typically average about 350nm.

Loaded in FliteStar, it gives me all the weather, NOTAMS, forecasts,
winds,etc. I give it waypoints and legs then it creates worksheets/reports
that I can print out which go into a manila folder. On returns, I load it
into the laptop and have a portable color printer to print for carry-along.

Takes all of ten minutes.


--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

[Michael 182]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...


> Using a sectional, I can plan a flight through a canyon just a few miles
> wide, and be completely assured of terrain avoidance, and of being able to
> correlate the chart with the visual recognition of the terrain while
> enroute.

Hmm - maybe this is some of the difference. I don't fly through canyons. In
fact, I usually fly between 15,000 feet and FL 200. When I fly over canyons
I'm looking at emergency landing spots far to either side of them. Maybe
this accounts for some of the difference in our approach.


> I feel pity for a pilot who thinks those kinds of generalities suffice for
> the purpose of understanding the effects of terrain and man-made objects
> on the flight.

Well, always nice to be pitied...


>
> Even if I had a 430 in my plane, I would plan my flights with more detail
> than you do. But I hardly think it's useful for you to equivocate on your
> original question by bringing in new elements to it. If you had asked
> "does anyone with a 430 still plan their flights?" I would not have even
> bothered to answer.

Sorry to waste your time. In fact, since I did mention the 430 about four
posts back, one wonders why you did continue to respond. In any case, I
appreciate it - you have some interesting points. I don't agree with them,
but they are interesting.

Michael

[BTIZ]

our local flight school rental agency requires flight plans on file with
them for any cross country outside the immediate valley.. DUATS is great for
that.. make two printouts.

BT

"Michael 182" > wrote in message
...
> I'm kind of curious - does anyone with more than 100 hours do a flight
> plan, with winds and all, before they fly cross country? Most of my
> planning is of the fuel stop, or occasionally detour for weather variety -
> but it is rare for me to include more than one or two waypoints in my
> "plan", and I almost never file an airway, even when I file ifr. Maybe
> it's because I live in the west. A typical flight plan will be Longmont -
> Amarillo - Austin, or if the winds are good, Longmont - Austin. What do
> others do?
>
> Michael
>

[Seth Masia]

I make three- and four-hour hops over the Rockies and Sierra, usually over
familiar routes. I check winds aloft carefully beforehand and have in mind
three or four different passes I can use in case of mountain obscuration. I
always file a VFR flightplan and talk to Flight Watch often -- radar
coverage for flight following is spotty at my altitudes, 10,500 to 13,500,
sometimes higher to take advantage of a tailwind. Biggest issue after
weather is restricted airspace and TFRs --

Seth
Comanche N8100R

"BTIZ" > wrote in message
news:_V7oe.202$xr.199@fed1read05...
> our local flight school rental agency requires flight plans on file with
> them for any cross country outside the immediate valley.. DUATS is great
> for that.. make two printouts.
>
> BT
>
> "Michael 182" > wrote in message
> ...
>> I'm kind of curious - does anyone with more than 100 hours do a flight
>> plan, with winds and all, before they fly cross country? Most of my
>> planning is of the fuel stop, or occasionally detour for weather
>> variety - but it is rare for me to include more than one or two waypoints
>> in my "plan", and I almost never file an airway, even when I file ifr.
>> Maybe it's because I live in the west. A typical flight plan will be
>> Longmont - Amarillo - Austin, or if the winds are good, Longmont -
>> Austin. What do others do?
>>
>> Michael
>>
>
>

[Larry Dighera]

On Thu, 2 Jun 2005 23:01:36 -0600, "Michael 182"
> wrote in
>::

>I thought you had to have a navigation aid in your suffix to file direct -
>like /G or /R. Aren't you setting yourself up for a problem filing /A and
>direct?

You can go direct via dead reckoning with /A.

[Doug Vetter]

Maule Driver wrote:
> I would say that is increasingly a NE issue. In the SE boonies (south
> of the Wash ADIZ), once they see /G, they tend to clear you direct
> *independent* of your plan. In FL my experience is that you will be
> initially cleared on airways then either thru request or offer, you can
> get direct for many portions. Leave the busier FL airspace and it's
> "cleared direct destination". I guess it's fewer words to say or
> something. Amazing!

It probably has more to do with traffic count per square mile (and
therefore workload), which is almost always lower in places other than
the northeast. Getting direct may also have something to do with getting
lucky, no matter where you fly.

Don Brown indicates that one of the chief reasons they hate pilots who
file direct (even out in the boonies where radio calls are made every
100 miles) is that if a direct courseline quickly crosses or nears
several sector boundaries (which can happen in both the horizontal or
vertical planes), they have to do tons of point outs and (lacking
successful communication with the neighboring controllers) radar
vectors, reroutes, and other hand-holding that would not have been
necessary had the pilot filed airways and avoided those trouble-spots in
the first place.

That said, on my way down the coast from New Jersey to Florida a couple
weeks ago, I was about 10 miles south of my second departure point
(Newport News, VA) when I was cleared to my destination (N. Myrtle
Beach, Grand Strand) 225NM out -- a personal direct-to distance record
under IFR. Of course, V1 is almost a straight line between the two
airports and more or less equivalent to a direct-to route (thus I was
getting lucky) but in general I agree with you that you are certainly
more likely to get direct in places OTHER than the northeast.

-Doug

--------------------
Doug Vetter, CFIMEIA

http://www.dvcfi.com
--------------------

[John Gaquin]

"Michael 182" > wrote

> I'm kind of curious - does anyone with more than 100 hours do a flight
> plan,

I note that in your very first line you've attempted to establish your
premise that flight plans are for the novice or the inept. Not so. I have
many friends with 20K plus hours who fully comprehend the value of a plan.
If you're motoring about with XX hundred or XX thousand in the book, and
sincerely believe that flight plans are for kids, perhaps you are the one
who needs to reevaluate your thought process.

[Michael 182]

"John Gaquin" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Michael 182" > wrote
>
>> I'm kind of curious - does anyone with more than 100 hours do a flight
>> plan,
>
> I note that in your very first line you've attempted to establish your
> premise that flight plans are for the novice or the inept. Not so. I
> have many friends with 20K plus hours who fully comprehend the value of a
> plan. If you're motoring about with XX hundred or XX thousand in the book,
> and sincerely believe that flight plans are for kids, perhaps you are the
> one who needs to reevaluate your thought process.

Hmmm - I think I write the OP poorly. I file flight plans for almost every
cross country since I fly IFR most of the time. What I was wondering about
was the form of flight planning, which many posts have answered in this
thread.

Michael

[Peter Duniho]

"Michael 182" > wrote in message
...
> Hmm - maybe this is some of the difference. I don't fly through canyons.
> In fact, I usually fly between 15,000 feet and FL 200. [...]

Frankly, if it weren't for your already reasonable reputation around here,
it's at this point that I'd accuse you of being a troll.

So far, practically every aspect of your argument against flight planning
relies on equipment that is simply not available to most pilots, 100 hour or
not. You're flying with an IFR certified GPS receiver in the oxygen levels,
and that seems to be the core justification behind your failure to do
detailed flight planning.

Yet, your original post clearly implies that the difference between a person
who spends time flight planning and one who does not is simply pilot time.

Well, you sure stirred things up good. You deserve the benefit of the
doubt, and I'll assume it wasn't intentional. But you could not possibly
have lead off with a more misleading question if you'd done it on purpose.

Pete

[Greg Farris]

In article >,
says...
>
>
> >> [much snippage]
>
>Michael, you seem to place so much emphasis and trust in silicon that it
>makes me wonder who's flying the plane.

[much snippage]

>
>I just don't understand the attitude of "the computer will do it for me".
>


I think Michael (or anyone else) is justified in placing his trust in the
on-board wizardry. The old "what if it fails" argument is wearing thin
these days, what with so much redundancy. With a panel GPS, and a
handheld, a vor/dme, another Vor, Adf - and I'm just talking about an
entry-level skyhawk here - your chances of screwing up are far less than
using pilotage, mistaking one small town for a different one, then landing
at the wrong airport . . .

If you want to go "purist", and turn off the GPS in fair weather, that's
great too. Personally, I have a log and map and waypoints to check, and I
feel more prepared - but I honestly have trouble imagining a scenario
where that preparation would make the difference between getting there or
not. The plane's nav equipment is far more precise and reliable.

How purist do you want to go? I fly in the US and in Europe. There, they
teach you to calculate wind correction (speed and drift) in your head.
It's fun to do - and surprisingly accurate - but in practical terms, it's
"playing games" compared with the navigational information available to
every pilot today.

Greg

[Cub Driver]

On Fri, 03 Jun 2005 11:00:38 GMT, "Neil Gould"
> wrote:

>As I see it, the main idea of flight planning is to reduce the workload in
>the cockpit. So, for any long XC or a trip to a new location, I plan the
>heck out of it.

And of course that's a way to increase the pleasure you take in the
trip. I pay $75 an hour for the Cub. The flight planning (and
anticipation) are like having an extra hour free.



-- all the best, Dan Ford

email (put Cubdriver in subject line)

Warbird's Forum: www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum: www.pipercubforum.com
the blog: www.danford.net
In Search of Lost Time: www.readingproust.com

[gregg]

Michael 182 wrote:


> Yeah - I always call as well. The briefings have changed my route, advised
> me on TFRs or given me cause not to go at all (usually ice) many times. I
> hate to think we may lose this service to computers someday. I really
> appreciate good briefers.


For sure. When I was a student working on my PLL, and I'd call fora
briefing, the guys I talked with around here were extremely helpful,
patient, and informative. That would be gone with computerization.


--
Saville

Replicas of 15th-19th century nautical navigational instruments:

http://home.comcast.net/~saville/backstaffhome.html

Restoration of my 82 year old Herreshoff S-Boat sailboat:

http://home.comcast.net/~saville/SBOATrestore.htm

Steambending FAQ with photos:

http://home.comcast.net/~saville/Steambend.htm

[Maule Driver]

Maybe ATC in the SE Atlantic seaboard have somehow 'broken the code' on
handling direct. I swear that your experience with direct to N Myrtle
is becoming the norm rather than the exception. Between the Wash ADIZ
and Jacksonville I've been filing airways and getting cleared direct
without requesting it. And I'm filing the airways to avoid SUAs that
clog the airspace. The interesting part is that for someone like me
flying at 9 or below, flights typically involve center and multiple
approaches with constant switching. And yet I'm getting cleared direct
3 or 4 handoffs out from my destination. Who knows, it may be
particular to the routes.

I don't know who Doug Brown is but I'm going to continue to be pretty
aggressive in filing and/or requesting direct where I consider it a
reasonable request. And I expect to get it more often than not outside
of those areas where it just isn't doable (ADIZ, Phille/NY corridor, FL
ooastal routes). It's working better than one might expect in my
experience. I'll have to get out more....

Doug Vetter wrote:
> Maule Driver wrote:
>
>> I would say that is increasingly a NE issue. In the SE boonies (south
>> of the Wash ADIZ), once they see /G, they tend to clear you direct
>> *independent* of your plan. In FL my experience is that you will be
>> initially cleared on airways then either thru request or offer, you
>> can get direct for many portions. Leave the busier FL airspace and
>> it's "cleared direct destination". I guess it's fewer words to say or
>> something. Amazing!
>
>
> It probably has more to do with traffic count per square mile (and
> therefore workload), which is almost always lower in places other than
> the northeast. Getting direct may also have something to do with getting
> lucky, no matter where you fly.
>
> Don Brown indicates that one of the chief reasons they hate pilots who
> file direct (even out in the boonies where radio calls are made every
> 100 miles) is that if a direct courseline quickly crosses or nears
> several sector boundaries (which can happen in both the horizontal or
> vertical planes), they have to do tons of point outs and (lacking
> successful communication with the neighboring controllers) radar
> vectors, reroutes, and other hand-holding that would not have been
> necessary had the pilot filed airways and avoided those trouble-spots in
> the first place.
>
> That said, on my way down the coast from New Jersey to Florida a couple
> weeks ago, I was about 10 miles south of my second departure point
> (Newport News, VA) when I was cleared to my destination (N. Myrtle
> Beach, Grand Strand) 225NM out -- a personal direct-to distance record
> under IFR. Of course, V1 is almost a straight line between the two
> airports and more or less equivalent to a direct-to route (thus I was
> getting lucky) but in general I agree with you that you are certainly
> more likely to get direct in places OTHER than the northeast.
>
> -Doug
>
> --------------------
> Doug Vetter, CFIMEIA
>
> http://www.dvcfi.com
> --------------------

[Maule Driver]

AMEN.

I like to think "Whatever floats your boat" when I hear folks talk
about turning off the GPS so as to avoid using it as a crutch.

I'm 100% on my GPS and only track VORs when IMC. I do keep track of
where I am on the map (I tend to use WACs for my 'cleared direct' sojourns)

Purists? After getting my SEL and slogging thru all that VOR work, I
flew sailplanes CC for 15+ years. The first 3-5 years were pure
pilotage. Dead recon doesn't work when you are circling and chasing
lift but you do learn to back up your pilotage with it even in those
conditions. I've been sooo lost, sooo many times, and sooo paid the
price that I became pretty proficient at seat-o-pants chart based, low
level, engine-less pilotage. My character was strengthened as earned
confidence grew.....

Then came GPS. Due to a quirk in sailplane racing rules, VORs and such
were illegal but GPS was legal as soon as it came over the horizon.
Early first generation GPS technology was immediately incorporated into
panel mounted glide computers and those carbon fiber, laminar flow
beauties once again got out ahead of the rest of GA.

What was notable was how few pilots fully utilized the new tech. Most
competitors had it onboard (Honey, did Foxtrot Uniform leave the chart
in the car?) but just never learned to use it fully. Purists I guess
but it seemeed slow to me.

This "turn off the GPS" stuff seems slow to me now too as I sit in my
retrograde Maule wishing I had an autopilot.

Greg Farris wrote:
>
> I think Michael (or anyone else) is justified in placing his trust in the
> on-board wizardry. The old "what if it fails" argument is wearing thin
> these days, what with so much redundancy. With a panel GPS, and a
> handheld, a vor/dme, another Vor, Adf - and I'm just talking about an
> entry-level skyhawk here - your chances of screwing up are far less than
> using pilotage, mistaking one small town for a different one, then landing
> at the wrong airport . . .
>
> If you want to go "purist", and turn off the GPS in fair weather, that's
> great too. Personally, I have a log and map and waypoints to check, and I
> feel more prepared - but I honestly have trouble imagining a scenario
> where that preparation would make the difference between getting there or
> not. The plane's nav equipment is far more precise and reliable.
>
> How purist do you want to go? I fly in the US and in Europe. There, they
> teach you to calculate wind correction (speed and drift) in your head.
> It's fun to do - and surprisingly accurate - but in practical terms, it's
> "playing games" compared with the navigational information available to
> every pilot today.
>
> Greg
>

[Blanche]

Flight plans? You betcha! Altho the cherokee is IFR legal, I'm not. So any
trip more than 60 min or so I've got Plan B, Plan C, Plan D, etc. I don't
worry so much about winds but mountains, MOAs, TFRs, etc. are big time
issues out here in the Timezone-Everyone-Forgets-About (mountain). I don't
want to be fiddling with charts and such if something happens.
So I've got the list of airport freqs that I'll be flying over on a sheet
clipped to the yoke. And the charts for any airport that I may
need in an emergency really handy. Much easier to monitor local traffic
that way. It means changing freqs all the time, but that's good practice.
One radio stays tuned to 121.5, of course....

Flight planning with winds, times, fuel, etc? Not really. Since the
body really doesn't like being in the seat more than a couple hours or
so, I'm not worried about that stuff. Hence my flight planning is more
emergency planning rather than flight planning.

And FSS for weather, NOTAMs and TFRs, of course. Unfortunately, the
local newspaper is more current with TFRs and NOTAMs - not official
ones, of course. For example, publicity about VP or Pres trips starts
long before the official TFR is published.

[Matt Whiting]

Maule Driver wrote:
> AMEN.
>
> I like to think "Whatever floats your boat" when I hear folks talk about
> turning off the GPS so as to avoid using it as a crutch.
>
> I'm 100% on my GPS and only track VORs when IMC. I do keep track of
> where I am on the map (I tend to use WACs for my 'cleared direct' sojourns)

The nice thing is that GPS complements pilotage very nicely as most of
us flew direct when using pilotage. :-)


Matt

[Newps]

Doug Vetter wrote:

>
> Don Brown indicates that one of the chief reasons they hate pilots who
> file direct (even out in the boonies where radio calls are made every
> 100 miles) is that if a direct courseline quickly crosses or nears
> several sector boundaries (which can happen in both the horizontal or
> vertical planes), they have to do tons of point outs and (lacking
> successful communication with the neighboring controllers) radar
> vectors, reroutes, and other hand-holding that would not have been
> necessary had the pilot filed airways and avoided those trouble-spots in
> the first place.

This is a typical FAA attitude that is very difficult to overcome.
Don't do something that is convenient to you because I then have to work
too hard. Or change what I have been doing for the last 50 years. Busy
airspace is one thing but to say they hate pilots filing direct because
that line nicks other sectors and airspaces is assinine.

[George Patterson]

Matt Whiting wrote:
>
> The nice thing is that GPS complements pilotage very nicely as most of
> us flew direct when using pilotage. :-)

Most of us *tried* to fly direct when using pilotage. :-)

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

[Dylan Smith]

In article >, Peter Duniho wrote:
> How so? Dead-reckoning is not nearly as reliable as pilotage. It's
> basically a "poor man's intertial navigation system". With pilotage, you
> know exactly where you are. All dead-reckoning does is give you a rough
> guess as to where you think you might be.

Dead reckoning is an incredibly important complement to pilotage, and
it's how my in-built (i.e. in-brain) "GPS" gets much better accuracy.
Keep track of time since the last major waypoint or landmark, and it
stops you mis-identifying one ground feature for another, or one airport
for another. It forms a very important cross check when I'm doing
radioless navigation.

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

[Matt Whiting]

George Patterson wrote:

> Matt Whiting wrote:
>
>>
>> The nice thing is that GPS complements pilotage very nicely as most of
>> us flew direct when using pilotage. :-)
>
>
> Most of us *tried* to fly direct when using pilotage. :-)

Good point. Now we can really do it!

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Dylan Smith wrote:

> In article >, Peter Duniho wrote:
>
>>How so? Dead-reckoning is not nearly as reliable as pilotage. It's
>>basically a "poor man's intertial navigation system". With pilotage, you
>>know exactly where you are. All dead-reckoning does is give you a rough
>>guess as to where you think you might be.
>
>
> Dead reckoning is an incredibly important complement to pilotage, and
> it's how my in-built (i.e. in-brain) "GPS" gets much better accuracy.
> Keep track of time since the last major waypoint or landmark, and it
> stops you mis-identifying one ground feature for another, or one airport
> for another. It forms a very important cross check when I'm doing
> radioless navigation.
>

Why do you need dead/ded reckoning when you can see the ground?


Matt

[Maule Driver]

Matt Whiting wrote:
> Dylan Smith wrote:
>> In article >, Peter Duniho wrote:

>>> How so? Dead-reckoning is not nearly as reliable as pilotage. It's
>>> basically a "poor man's intertial navigation system". With pilotage,
>>> you know exactly where you are. All dead-reckoning does is give you
>>> a rough guess as to where you think you might be.
>>

>> Dead reckoning is an incredibly important complement to pilotage, and
>> it's how my in-built (i.e. in-brain) "GPS" gets much better accuracy.
>> Keep track of time since the last major waypoint or landmark, and it
>> stops you mis-identifying one ground feature for another, or one airport
>> for another. It forms a very important cross check when I'm doing
>> radioless navigation.
>>
> Why do you need dead/ded reckoning when you can see the ground?
>
Don't take this wrong way but that's seems like a question from someone
who hasn't really done a lot of pilotage in unknown territory without
backup. Watch the landscape and ignore time and distance, and you will
get stung. Even a rough calc will help keep you out of trouble.

Lesson 1 in pilotage is see the feature, then find it on the map
..... and after you master that along with lessons 2,3,etc
Lesson 10 is complement your pilotage with some rough dead reckoning or
you will end up relearning lesson 1 the hard way.

Does that make any sense?

[George Patterson]

Matt Whiting wrote:
>
> Why do you need dead/ded reckoning when you can see the ground?

I thought Dylan explained why very well.

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

[Matt Whiting]

Maule Driver wrote:

>
> Matt Whiting wrote:
>
>> Dylan Smith wrote:
>>
>>> In article >, Peter Duniho wrote:
>
>
>>>> How so? Dead-reckoning is not nearly as reliable as pilotage. It's
>>>> basically a "poor man's intertial navigation system". With
>>>> pilotage, you know exactly where you are. All dead-reckoning does
>>>> is give you a rough guess as to where you think you might be.
>>>
>>>
>
>>> Dead reckoning is an incredibly important complement to pilotage, and
>>> it's how my in-built (i.e. in-brain) "GPS" gets much better accuracy.
>>> Keep track of time since the last major waypoint or landmark, and it
>>> stops you mis-identifying one ground feature for another, or one airport
>>> for another. It forms a very important cross check when I'm doing
>>> radioless navigation.
>>>
>> Why do you need dead/ded reckoning when you can see the ground?
>>
> Don't take this wrong way but that's seems like a question from someone
> who hasn't really done a lot of pilotage in unknown territory without
> backup. Watch the landscape and ignore time and distance, and you will
> get stung. Even a rough calc will help keep you out of trouble.

Don't take this the wrong way, but talking without thinking can lead to
saying things that don't make sense. I've been flying since 1978 and
use pilotage on almost all flights, including most IFR flights that
aren't in IMC. The biggest determinant of success, other than having
basic map reading skills, is the terrain, not the "unknownness" of the
territory.


> Lesson 1 in pilotage is see the feature, then find it on the map
> .... and after you master that along with lessons 2,3,etc
> Lesson 10 is complement your pilotage with some rough dead reckoning or
> you will end up relearning lesson 1 the hard way.
>
> Does that make any sense?

It makes sense of the terrain is all about the same (some areas of the
midwest), but not for where I live. I live in northern PA and flying
mostly in PA, NY, and other states within 500 or so miles of here. I've
never been in an area, other than the urban areas around Philly, NYC,
BWI, etc., where pilotage wasn't rather easy if you are paying attention
at all. We have lots of mountains, valleys, roads, railroads, lakes,
rivers, towers, etc. that make pilotage quite easy without dead
reckoning. Sure, I use it when I need it, but that is very rare where I
fly.


Matt

[Matt Whiting]

George Patterson wrote:

> Matt Whiting wrote:
>
>>
>> Why do you need dead/ded reckoning when you can see the ground?
>
>
> I thought Dylan explained why very well.

I don't as he basically excluded the terrain which is the most
signficant determination of the ease and effectiveness of pilotage.


Matt

[vincent p. norris]

>And of course that's a way to increase the pleasure you take in the
>trip. ..... The flight planning (and anticipation) are like having an extra hour free.
>
Damn right! I've spent many happy hours planning two trips to Alaska
(different routes), one around the perimeter of the lower 48, and two
to the Canadian Maritimes. It was almost as much fun as making the
flights.

>I pay $75 an hour for the Cub.

WOW! That's awfully high for a Cub. I've beenpaying that for a
Warrior.

vince norris

[George Patterson]

Matt Whiting wrote:
>
> I don't as he basically excluded the terrain which is the most
> signficant determination of the ease and effectiveness of pilotage.

No, he didn't. He simply said that dead reckoning is a good way to keep from
confusing one landmark with a similar one. That's "terrain." I can certainly
identify with his statement, having mistaken one bridge for another after flying
for an hour over a particularly featureless section of Maryland.

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

[Maule Driver]

Well Matt,I'd agree and disagree...
I'd agree that the area you fly in is some of the most distinctive in
the country, at least to these eyes. Though I don't think that applies
to a Western pilot flying there for the first time - it all looks the
same to the inexperienced eye...

Which is where I'd disagree that the terrain makes the difference.
Unknowingness, a state you've probably not been in for awhile, is *the*
difference.

Most of my time is in the same district. Starting in 1970 at Pgh's AGC,
buzzing around central NJ, then doing the the glider circuit from 82
to 97 starting at Sugarbush VT, Elmira, Danville NY, Blairstown NJ,
Middletown NY, Candlewood Lake CT, Solberg NJ, New Castle VA, Fairfield
PA, Chester NC, Mifflin PA, and practically every inch of the ridge
system from Wurtzboro NY to Lock Haven to Burnt Cabins to New Castle to
the Masanuttin (sp). I flew all of the above using pilotage and charts
and often at ridgetop height. Preparation and 'knowingness' made dead
reckon unnecessary (though I got lost anyway in the early days). So I
agree with your point, up to a point.

But I also went out to Hobbs NM, and Minden NV and Marfa TX, and Caddo
Mills TX, and Bozeman MT and Uvalde TX and Ionia MI and even Homestead
FL. At every site I had the chance to fly 5 to 10 cross countries in a
100 to 150 mile radius of the site. None of them are featureless
mid-western sites, at least to the locals. I was totally challenged to
follow my progress via pilotage - but I did have GPS so all my
observations are suspect.

But it really came into focus when I flew one of my last contests in
Mifflin PA. It attracted a bunch of guys from the left coast who were
flying in the NE for the first time. Their discomfort with both flying
and navigating the terrain was obvious and it effected their
performance enormously - for a couple of days anyway.

So, I would suggest that your familiarity with the 500 miles surrounding
northern PA makes pilotage a breeze, especially at 4000' or better.
But fly in the very distinctive terrain around Reno NV or Austin TX for
the first time, and you might find your pilotage skills totally
challenged, even at 10,000'. And you might discover why a little dead
reckoning for backup might prove an ego saver.

Mark Twain wrote about our enormous ability to remember the details of
our environment in "Life on the Mississippi". As I recall, he talked
about how a river captain's job depended on his recall of every snag,
shoal, turn, wreck, and current in the ever changing river - 100s of
miles worth of detail. "Knowingness' may be one of our core
competencies as humans. Good book and a good read for pilots.

Matt Whiting wrote:
> Maule Driver wrote:

>> Matt Whiting wrote:
>>> Dylan Smith wrote:
>>>>> How so? Dead-reckoning is not nearly as reliable as pilotage.
>>>>> It's basically a "poor man's intertial navigation system". With
>>>>> pilotage, you know exactly where you are. All dead-reckoning does
>>>>> is give you a rough guess as to where you think you might be.
>>
>>>> Dead reckoning is an incredibly important complement to pilotage, and
>>>> it's how my in-built (i.e. in-brain) "GPS" gets much better accuracy.
>>>> Keep track of time since the last major waypoint or landmark, and it
>>>> stops you mis-identifying one ground feature for another, or one
>>>> airport
>>>> for another. It forms a very important cross check when I'm doing
>>>> radioless navigation.
>>>>
>>> Why do you need dead/ded reckoning when you can see the ground?
>>>
>> Don't take this wrong way but that's seems like a question from
>> someone who hasn't really done a lot of pilotage in unknown territory
>> without backup. Watch the landscape and ignore time and distance, and
>> you will get stung. Even a rough calc will help keep you out of trouble.
>
> Don't take this the wrong way, but talking without thinking can lead to
> saying things that don't make sense. I've been flying since 1978 and
> use pilotage on almost all flights, including most IFR flights that
> aren't in IMC. The biggest determinant of success, other than having
> basic map reading skills, is the terrain, not the "unknownness" of the
> territory.
>
>> Lesson 1 in pilotage is see the feature, then find it on the map
>> .... and after you master that along with lessons 2,3,etc
>> Lesson 10 is complement your pilotage with some rough dead reckoning
>> or you will end up relearning lesson 1 the hard way.
>>
>> Does that make any sense?
>
> It makes sense of the terrain is all about the same (some areas of the
> midwest), but not for where I live. I live in northern PA and flying
> mostly in PA, NY, and other states within 500 or so miles of here. I've
> never been in an area, other than the urban areas around Philly, NYC,
> BWI, etc., where pilotage wasn't rather easy if you are paying attention
> at all. We have lots of mountains, valleys, roads, railroads, lakes,
> rivers, towers, etc. that make pilotage quite easy without dead
> reckoning. Sure, I use it when I need it, but that is very rare where I
> fly.
>

[Matt Whiting]

Maule Driver wrote:

>
> But it really came into focus when I flew one of my last contests in
> Mifflin PA. It attracted a bunch of guys from the left coast who were
> flying in the NE for the first time. Their discomfort with both flying
> and navigating the terrain was obvious and it effected their
> performance enormously - for a couple of days anyway.

I never have discomfort navigating, but I often have discomfort when
looking for an emergency landing site and finding absolutely nothing
hospitable, especially from west of N38 to nearly ERI! The thought of
full stalling into the trees has just never given me great comfort. :-)

Matt

[Jose]

> Why do you need dead/ded reckoning when you can see the ground?

Well, it depends how much of the ground you can see (i.e. altitude,
haze) and how much of the ground your chart portrays. Depending on
where you are, there may be a stretch where you can't really see
anything identifiable, and then in eight minutes you expect to see a
lake with a curve in it and a dam.

Well, you do but it's off to the left. No, that's not the right one -
that must be one that's not charted, because it's only been four minutes.

Jose
--
The price of freedom is... well... freedom.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Peter Duniho]

"Dylan Smith" > wrote in message
...
> Dead reckoning is an incredibly important complement to pilotage

For the record (I was going to leave this alone, but this tangent spawned
such a tangle of new complaints)...

Here's the original exchange (the relevant part, anyway):

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
> "Michael 182" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Well then, by your reasoning you should be using ded-reckoning (or
>> however
>> that is spelled) as well.
>
> How so? Dead-reckoning is not nearly as reliable as pilotage.

I'm not sure how the statement to which I replied was intended, but I read
it to mean that I should be using dead-reckoning rather than pilotage.

Upon re-reading, I see that it could mean that I should be using it WITH
pilotage. To which I have no disagreement. I would certainly not use
dead-reckoning as my sole source of navigation, unless that's all that was
available to me (ie in an emergency), but I agree with Dylan and others who
point out that as a cross-check it can be valuable.

The only reason I interpreted the original statement differently is that it
didn't seem all that controversial an assertion if interpreted to mean
dead-reckoning should be used with other forms of navigation, and I assumed
it was intended to be controversial (that is, I didn't get the impression
Michael was writing something he expected me to agree with).

If I correctly inferred it was supposed to be controversial, but incorrectly
interpreted the meaning, well...that's the kind of irony we all live for,
right? :)

Pete

[Marc J. Zeitlin]

Peter Duniho wrote:

> How so? Dead-reckoning is not nearly as reliable as pilotage....

To send us off on another tangent, and one that I haven't seen mentioned
in this thread before, it's "ded-reckoning", not "dead-reckoning". The
"ded" stands for "deduced", not <whatever "dead" might stand for other
than the obvious>.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled navigation argument.

--
Marc J. Zeitlin
http://marc.zeitlin.home.comcast.net/
http://www.cozybuilders.org/
Copyright (c) 2005

[Peter Duniho]

"Marc J. Zeitlin" > wrote in message
...
> To send us off on another tangent, and one that I haven't seen mentioned
> in this thread before, it's "ded-reckoning", not "dead-reckoning".

Baloney. Please see Google for the vast discussion on that particular topic
right here in this newsgroup.

Ignoring the fact that "deduced reckoning" is a perfectly redundant phrase,
there is ample evidence that "ded reckoning" is elitist after-the-fact
revisionist history-making, and that it's been "dead reckoning" all along.

If and when you have incontrovertible evidence that the correct deriviation
is "deduced reckoning", feel free to make such a correction. Until then,
you're just creating unjustified smugness for yourself.

Pete

[Dylan Smith]

In article >, Matt Whiting wrote:
>> Dead reckoning is an incredibly important complement to pilotage, and
>> it's how my in-built (i.e. in-brain) "GPS" gets much better accuracy.
>> Keep track of time since the last major waypoint or landmark, and it
>> stops you mis-identifying one ground feature for another, or one airport
>> for another. It forms a very important cross check when I'm doing
>> radioless navigation.
>
> Why do you need dead/ded reckoning when you can see the ground?

As I said - dead reckoning (it's dead reckoning by the way, NOT ded
reckoning - deduced reckoning would be a tautology [0]) is used to
form a cross check. Cross checks are always useful, especially over
unfamiliar terrain or an area where several ground features (towns,
lakes etc.) all look very similar.

Dead reckoning does not necessarily mean going to the effort of
calculating precise time/distance calculations with your E6B, it can be
a simple estimation (and that makes the vast majority of my dead
reckoning calculations - either estimating when I'll pass a certain
feature, or cross checking that the ground feature I'm currently over is
what I think it is. In unfamiliar terrain, I like to have three things
confirming my position - the feature looks like it should on the map,
the current time tells me I should be in the vicinity of the feature
(i.e dead reckoning), and another feature I can see on the map appears
where I expect it to be looking out of the window.

As a consequence, I can say with all honesty I have NEVER been lost when
performing pure VFR navigation since being a student pilot. Keeping
track of time (i.e. the dead reckoning part) is how I've turned being
unsure of my position to positive of my position on several occasions.
It's not as if I've only done short cross countries - I've flown coast
to coast in the United States. I've flown a light plane (mostly my old
C140) in 26 states.

ATC (at least here) will occasionally ask you for an estimate, too. If
you've been keeping track of time all along and doing dead reckoning all
along you don't have to tell the controller 'standby' whilst you work it
out because you already know the number he wants.

[0] http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/encyclopedia/D/De/Dead_reckoning.htm
--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

[Dylan Smith]

In article >, Marc J. Zeitlin wrote:
> To send us off on another tangent, and one that I haven't seen mentioned
> in this thread before, it's "ded-reckoning", not "dead-reckoning". The
> "ded" stands for "deduced", not <whatever "dead" might stand for other
> than the obvious>.

Dead does not stand for anything.
From http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/encyclopedia/D/De/Dead_reckoning.htm :

There is some controversy about the derivation of the phrase. It is
popularly thought to come from deduced reckoning and is sometimes given
in modern sources as ded reckoning. However, according to
the Oxford English Dictionary, the phrase dead reckoning dates from
Elizabethan times (1605-1615).

The popular etymology from deduced is not documented in the Oxford
English Dictionary or any other historical dictionary. Dead reckoning
is navigation without stellar observation. With stellar observation,
you are "live", working with the stars and the movement of the planet.
With logs, compasses, clocks, but no sky, you are working "dead".
--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

[[email protected]]

On Wed, 08 Jun 2005 23:29:42 GMT, Matt Whiting >
wrote:

>Maule Driver wrote:
>
>>
>> But it really came into focus when I flew one of my last contests in
>> Mifflin PA. It attracted a bunch of guys from the left coast who were
>> flying in the NE for the first time. Their discomfort with both flying
>> and navigating the terrain was obvious and it effected their
>> performance enormously - for a couple of days anyway.
>
>I never have discomfort navigating, but I often have discomfort when
>looking for an emergency landing site and finding absolutely nothing
>hospitable, especially from west of N38 to nearly ERI! The thought of
>full stalling into the trees has just never given me great comfort. :-)
>
>Matt

Some years ago the BBC was filming, in Canada, from a light aircraft
(not sure if 4 or 6 seat) when the aircraft was unable to climb.
I assume due to downdraft exceeding aircraft climb. The aircraft was
descending and the pilot had no option but to fly into a forrest. The
outside camera was torn off as it went into the trees but the
cameraman inside kept filming the accident. You could see the
professionalism of the pilot as he flew the aircraft all the way to
the crash. There was one point where you could even see a slight
deviation as the pilot slightly maneuvered between the trees.

The result was not a disaster and the aircraft came to rest in the
trees with the most damage being done to the passengers when trying to
climb out of the trees. Once on the ground the presenter decided to do
a piece to camera. This was an amazing piece of filming and shows that
you should always 'Fly the plane' :-)

[Marc J. Zeitlin]

Peter Duniho wrote:

> If and when you have incontrovertible evidence that the correct
> deriviation is "deduced reckoning", feel free to make such a
> correction. Until then, you're just creating unjustified smugness for
> yourself.

So let's assume that you're right (and after reading some web
references, I'm inclined to believe that you are). Somehow, Dylan Smith
managed to point out the same thing in a civilized way, without being
insulting. While I usually tend to agree with your pronouncements
around here, I can certainly see why many folks can't stand you and
think that you're a complete (well, maybe not complete) dickhead.

I'm willing to admit when I'm wrong - are you?

--
Marc J. Zeitlin
http://marc.zeitlin.home.comcast.net/
http://www.cozybuilders.org/
Copyright (c) 2005

[W P Dixon]

"Maybe not complete"? ;)

Patrick
student SPL
aircraft structural mech

"Marc J. Zeitlin" > wrote in message
...
I can certainly see why many folks can't stand you and
> think that you're a complete (well, maybe not complete) dickhead.
>

[Maule Driver]

I've been in, seen and been around the aftermath of a few landings in
the trees - gliders and SELs. No injuries in the gliders, light
injuries in the SELs.

The gliders stayed in the canopy (except mine - stunted trees) and the
SELs came to rest on the ground - 2X the wt and twice the wing perhaps

No question the most damage to the gliders was removal from the trees
(and a loss of pilot dignity for the 70+ yo we had winch down with a
stop for pics half way down, hee hee.

The take-away message is "fly it in, don't stall it in". As long as you
fly it in, seems to be very surviveable. Stall it or spin/dive it seems
to be another matter. Mininum speed/energy is different than a stall.

wrote:
> On Wed, 08 Jun 2005 23:29:42 GMT, Matt Whiting >
> wrote:
>
>
>>Maule Driver wrote:
>>
>>Matt
>
> Some years ago the BBC was filming, in Canada, from a light aircraft
> (not sure if 4 or 6 seat) when the aircraft was unable to climb.
> I assume due to downdraft exceeding aircraft climb. The aircraft was
> descending and the pilot had no option but to fly into a forrest. The
> outside camera was torn off as it went into the trees but the
> cameraman inside kept filming the accident. You could see the
> professionalism of the pilot as he flew the aircraft all the way to
> the crash. There was one point where you could even see a slight
> deviation as the pilot slightly maneuvered between the trees.
>
> The result was not a disaster and the aircraft came to rest in the
> trees with the most damage being done to the passengers when trying to
> climb out of the trees. Once on the ground the presenter decided to do
> a piece to camera. This was an amazing piece of filming and shows that
> you should always 'Fly the plane' :-)
>
>

[Maule Driver]

Grand Canyon! Yeah, that territory is at the same time feature-rich and
feature-less depending on your familiarity. Damn, I've been so lost
there! Pilotage in engineless aircraft 1500' above the terrain can be
nerve-racking - where is that damn Hornell?

I landed 'out' at Grand Canyon once in a sailplane. The PIK20b was a
2nd generation fiberglass gliders with a laminar type airfoil known to
be bug sensitive (bug smashes significantly degraded the performance).
A weak willed Citabria came to give me an aero retrieve. As he began
the takeoff roll, a rain sprinkle started. We ran down the runway and
when we reached my normal liftoff speed, I couldn't. Rain had degraded
the the performance that much. The added drag of me rolling kept him on
the ground. He got off before I did with his wheels kissing the grass.
I dragged off the end of the asphalt and found out why they call it
Grand Canyon - thank goodness. Quite a drop off as I recall... Is that
the same N38?

Interestingly I sat down at the tube last night and they were doing a
show on the Mississippi and featured Sam Clemens/Mark Twain's stories
about piloting the Mississippi. Even interviewed a river pilot about
the test they have to take and his ability to draw a detailed 100 mile
map of the river from memory.

Matt Whiting wrote:
>
> I never have discomfort navigating, but I often have discomfort when
> looking for an emergency landing site and finding absolutely nothing
> hospitable, especially from west of N38 to nearly ERI! The thought of
> full stalling into the trees has just never given me great comfort. :-)
>
> Matt

[George Patterson]

Marc J. Zeitlin wrote:
>
> To send us off on another tangent, and one that I haven't seen mentioned
> in this thread before, it's "ded-reckoning", not "dead-reckoning".

Not according to the OED.

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

[Happy Dog]

"Maule Driver" > wrote in

> I've been in, seen and been around the aftermath of a few landings in the
> trees - gliders and SELs. No injuries in the gliders, light injuries in
> the SELs.

That aside, does anyone know anyone whose ass was saved by the pilotage and
dead reckoning skills taught at the PPL and CPL level? I do.

moo

[Peter Duniho]

"Marc J. Zeitlin" > wrote in message
...
> [...]
> I'm willing to admit when I'm wrong - are you?

Sure. I'm not perfect. I have admitted to being wrong several times here,
the rare instances it happened.

My post was less-than-kind simply because your post was as well. I realize
Usenet is the perfect forum for petty nit-picking, but that doesn't make it
okay. Whether it's ded or dead, it was clear that everyone involved knew
what we were talking about. Your post had no point, other than to (falsely,
as it happens) claim some superior knowledge. It contributed nothing to the
discussion, and was no more useful than a post the purpose of which was
solely to correct a spelling or grammar error.

Those kinds of posts **** me off. If it were actually important to correct
spelling or grammar errors here on Usenet, each thread would be half
messages about spelling and grammar. Clearly it's not important, but still
every now and then, some smug "I know something you don't" person comes
along and posts nothing but a correction to spelling or grammar.

And by the way, as person who works very hard to ensure his posts are as
free of spelling and grammatical errors as possible, I feel I have the right
to assert that such errors really aren't all that important. I do the work
because it's important TO ME, not because I think it's a critical need in
the newsgroup.

Such posts are, whether worded nicely or not, simply belittling. They imply
that the person or people to whom they refer are somehow ignorant or
otherwise less-worthy of consideration, based on no greater evidence than a
simple spelling or grammatical error.

It's irritating enough when they are correct, but when they actually aren't,
it's even more annoying. Annoyances beget rude posts. Even more so when
that's the first contribution a person has made in a month.

I should probably be following the old adage, "if you have nothing good to
say, say nothing at all". But that cuts both ways. You should have thought
about that yourself before posting your message.

Pete

[Maule Driver]

Oh lighten up. The supposedly offensive post was just an attempt at
being entertaining. Nothing wrong with that and it was better than this
spittle.

The original:
"To send us off on another tangent, and one that I haven't seen mentioned
in this thread before, it's "ded-reckoning", not "dead-reckoning". The
"ded" stands for "deduced", not <whatever "dead" might stand for other
than the obvious>."

We now return you to your regularly scheduled navigation argument.

Peter Duniho wrote:
> "Marc J. Zeitlin" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>[...]
>>I'm willing to admit when I'm wrong - are you?
>
>
> Sure. I'm not perfect. I have admitted to being wrong several times here,
> the rare instances it happened.
>
> My post was less-than-kind simply because your post was as well. I realize
> Usenet is the perfect forum for petty nit-picking, but that doesn't make it
> okay. Whether it's ded or dead, it was clear that everyone involved knew
> what we were talking about. Your post had no point, other than to (falsely,
> as it happens) claim some superior knowledge. It contributed nothing to the
> discussion, and was no more useful than a post the purpose of which was
> solely to correct a spelling or grammar error.
>
> Those kinds of posts **** me off. If it were actually important to correct
> spelling or grammar errors here on Usenet, each thread would be half
> messages about spelling and grammar. Clearly it's not important, but still
> every now and then, some smug "I know something you don't" person comes
> along and posts nothing but a correction to spelling or grammar.
>
> And by the way, as person who works very hard to ensure his posts are as
> free of spelling and grammatical errors as possible, I feel I have the right
> to assert that such errors really aren't all that important. I do the work
> because it's important TO ME, not because I think it's a critical need in
> the newsgroup.
>
> Such posts are, whether worded nicely or not, simply belittling. They imply
> that the person or people to whom they refer are somehow ignorant or
> otherwise less-worthy of consideration, based on no greater evidence than a
> simple spelling or grammatical error.
>
> It's irritating enough when they are correct, but when they actually aren't,
> it's even more annoying. Annoyances beget rude posts. Even more so when
> that's the first contribution a person has made in a month.
>
> I should probably be following the old adage, "if you have nothing good to
> say, say nothing at all". But that cuts both ways. You should have thought
> about that yourself before posting your message.
>
> Pete
>
>

[Peter Duniho]

"Maule Driver" > wrote in message
...
> Oh lighten up. The supposedly offensive post was just an attempt at being
> entertaining.

We'll just have to disagree on that claim. I saw no smiley, and found the
post far from entertaining.

[Casey Wilson]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
> "Marc J. Zeitlin" > wrote in message
> ...
>> [...]
>> I'm willing to admit when I'm wrong - are you?
>
> Sure. I'm not perfect. I have admitted to being wrong several times
> here, the rare instances it happened.
>
> My post was less-than-kind simply because your post was as well. I
> realize Usenet is the perfect forum for petty nit-picking, but that
> doesn't make it okay. Whether it's ded or dead, it was clear that
> everyone involved knew what we were talking about. Your post had no
> point, other than to (falsely, as it happens) claim some superior
> knowledge. It contributed nothing to the discussion, and was no more
> useful than a post the purpose of which was solely to correct a spelling
> or grammar error.
>
> Those kinds of posts **** me off. If it were actually important to
> correct spelling or grammar errors here on Usenet, each thread would be
> half messages about spelling and grammar. Clearly it's not important, but
> still every now and then, some smug "I know something you don't" person
> comes along and posts nothing but a correction to spelling or grammar.

Becuzz I'm in agreemint with youre pazishun about knot kerrecting posts
jest to bee doing somthing, I offer the following in regards to Dead
Reckoning:

The Dictionary of Misinformation says of the "deduced" theory, "There is no
evidence for such a belief." The Oxford English Dictionary says that the
term is from the adjective "dead" and doesn't deign to even discuss the
supposed derivation from "deduced". The Oxford Dictionary of English
Etymology provides the final nail in the coffin: "a proposed etym. ded., for
deduced, has no justification." [From:
http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mdeadreckoning.html]

Regards,

Casey

[Marc J. Zeitlin]

Peter Duniho wrote:

> Sure. I'm not perfect. I have admitted to being wrong several times
> here, the rare instances it happened.

Very big of you :-). In many years of watching you post, I can't
remember any, but maybe my memory is just faulty.

> My post was less-than-kind simply because your post was as well....
> .... Your post had no point, other than to (falsely, as it happens)
> claim some superior knowledge. It contributed nothing to the
> discussion, and was no more useful than a post the purpose of which
> was solely to correct a spelling or grammar error.

That's certainly not what was intended, nor what I believe I did - see
below.

> Those kinds of posts **** me off.

What, if anything, does not?

<extraneous contemporizing about grammer and spelling posts deleted for
brevity's sake, since no one was correcting grammer and/or spelling>.

> Such posts are, whether worded nicely or not, simply belittling.....

There was no reference to spelling, since the issue at hand was whether
or not "ded" or "dead" was the right "reckoning" type, based on the
derivation of the term, not on the spelling of a word. I THOUGHT that I
knew the answer, so was explaining it. Since I was probably wrong, a
couple of folks nicely pointed that out, with references to where I
could find the correct information. There was nothing belittling about
my post, and no-one else seemed to take it that way. Is it at all
possible that the fact that you seem to find just about everything
annoying a function of you, and not the world around you?

> It's irritating enough when they are correct, but when they actually
> aren't, it's even more annoying. Annoyances beget rude posts.

Especially when someone has an particularly short fuse.

>.... Even more so when that's the first contribution a person has made
>in a month.

Aha. So the validity of a post is determined by the prolificity of the
poster? My post was probably wrong, but certainly on topic for the
group. If you do a Google search on my postings, you'll find that I'm
on topic 99% of the time, and have a very high S/N ratio. Many other
folks would be hard pressed to say the same.

> I should probably be following the old adage, "if you have nothing
> good to say, say nothing at all". But that cuts both ways. You
> should have thought about that yourself before posting your message.

Since I thought that I was distributing information that might be of
interest to folks (wrongly, as it probably turns out), and wasn't
attacking anyone or insulting them, I'm not sure how that applies.

NOW, we're off topic, so I won't respond any more.

--
Marc J. Zeitlin
http://marc.zeitlin.home.comcast.net/
http://www.cozybuilders.org/
Copyright (c) 2005

[Stefan]

Casey Wilson wrote:
> "Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>"Marc J. Zeitlin" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>>[...]
>>>I'm willing to admit when I'm wrong - are you?
>>
>>Sure. I'm not perfect. I have admitted to being wrong several times
>>here, the rare instances it happened.
>>
>>My post was less-than-kind simply because your post was as well. I
>>realize Usenet is the perfect forum for petty nit-picking, but that
>>doesn't make it okay. Whether it's ded or dead, it was clear that
>>everyone involved knew what we were talking about. Your post had no
>>point, other than to (falsely, as it happens) claim some superior
>>knowledge. It contributed nothing to the discussion, and was no more
>>useful than a post the purpose of which was solely to correct a spelling
>>or grammar error.
>>
>>Those kinds of posts **** me off. If it were actually important to
>>correct spelling or grammar errors here on Usenet, each thread would be
>>half messages about spelling and grammar. Clearly it's not important, but
>>still every now and then, some smug "I know something you don't" person
>>comes along and posts nothing but a correction to spelling or grammar.
>
>
> Becuzz I'm in agreemint with youre pazishun about knot kerrecting posts
> jest to bee doing somthing, I offer the following in regards to Dead
> Reckoning:
>
> The Dictionary of Misinformation says of the "deduced" theory, "There is no
> evidence for such a belief." The Oxford English Dictionary says that the
> term is from the adjective "dead" and doesn't deign to even discuss the
> supposed derivation from "deduced". The Oxford Dictionary of English
> Etymology provides the final nail in the coffin: "a proposed etym. ded., for
> deduced, has no justification." [From:
> http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mdeadreckoning.html]
>
> Regards,
>
> Casey
>
>

[Peter Duniho]

"Marc J. Zeitlin" > wrote in message
...
> What, if anything, does not?

Hardy har har har. Still, it should be clear enough to the most casual
observer that there are plenty of posts that don't **** me off.

> <extraneous contemporizing about grammer and spelling posts deleted for
> brevity's sake, since no one was correcting grammer and/or spelling>.

I put the type of correction you made in exactly that same category.
Whether we spell it "ded" or "dead" is irrelevant, and amounts only to a
spelling "error" one way or the other.

> [...]
> Especially when someone has an particularly short fuse.

It's true I have a shorter fuse than many other folks. So what? Life would
be pretty boring if we were all exactly the same.

> Aha. So the validity of a post is determined by the prolificity of the
> poster?

No. But certainly when it's your sole contribution for the month, it
illustrates quite clearly what your primary interest in the newsgroup is.
That primary interest is clearly correcting other people's language usage,
rather than contributing to aviation topics.

Pete

[Matt Whiting]

Marc J. Zeitlin wrote:

> Peter Duniho wrote:
>
>
>>How so? Dead-reckoning is not nearly as reliable as pilotage....
>
>
> To send us off on another tangent, and one that I haven't seen mentioned
> in this thread before, it's "ded-reckoning", not "dead-reckoning". The
> "ded" stands for "deduced", not <whatever "dead" might stand for other
> than the obvious>.
>
> We now return you to your regularly scheduled navigation argument.
>

Hardly that clear. There are about as many references that say "dead"
as there are that say "ded."

Saying deduced reckoning is close to being redundant.


Matt

[Matt Whiting]

wrote:

> On Wed, 08 Jun 2005 23:29:42 GMT, Matt Whiting >
> wrote:
>
>
>>Maule Driver wrote:
>>
>>
>>>But it really came into focus when I flew one of my last contests in
>>>Mifflin PA. It attracted a bunch of guys from the left coast who were
>>>flying in the NE for the first time. Their discomfort with both flying
>>>and navigating the terrain was obvious and it effected their
>>>performance enormously - for a couple of days anyway.
>>
>>I never have discomfort navigating, but I often have discomfort when
>>looking for an emergency landing site and finding absolutely nothing
>>hospitable, especially from west of N38 to nearly ERI! The thought of
>>full stalling into the trees has just never given me great comfort. :-)
>>
>>Matt
>
>
> Some years ago the BBC was filming, in Canada, from a light aircraft
> (not sure if 4 or 6 seat) when the aircraft was unable to climb.
> I assume due to downdraft exceeding aircraft climb. The aircraft was
> descending and the pilot had no option but to fly into a forrest. The
> outside camera was torn off as it went into the trees but the
> cameraman inside kept filming the accident. You could see the
> professionalism of the pilot as he flew the aircraft all the way to
> the crash. There was one point where you could even see a slight
> deviation as the pilot slightly maneuvered between the trees.
>
> The result was not a disaster and the aircraft came to rest in the
> trees with the most damage being done to the passengers when trying to
> climb out of the trees. Once on the ground the presenter decided to do
> a piece to camera. This was an amazing piece of filming and shows that
> you should always 'Fly the plane' :-)

I agree. I would certainly plan to do that should I have no choice, but
it still doesn't give me great comfort! :-)

All it takes is one errant limb to snap and come through the windshield
and you become a kabob.

A lot depends on the type of trees. Evergreens are generally much more
resilient than the hardwoods that predominant in my part of PA. A might
oak tree would stop most light planes in very short order and with high
deceleration and also the possibility of a broken limb coming right
through the windshield or door.


Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Maule Driver wrote:

> Grand Canyon! Yeah, that territory is at the same time feature-rich and
> feature-less depending on your familiarity. Damn, I've been so lost
> there! Pilotage in engineless aircraft 1500' above the terrain can be
> nerve-racking - where is that damn Hornell?

Yes, it is feature-rich, but I don't think feature-less. Then again, I
was born here... :-)


> I landed 'out' at Grand Canyon once in a sailplane. The PIK20b was a
> 2nd generation fiberglass gliders with a laminar type airfoil known to
> be bug sensitive (bug smashes significantly degraded the performance). A
> weak willed Citabria came to give me an aero retrieve. As he began the
> takeoff roll, a rain sprinkle started. We ran down the runway and when
> we reached my normal liftoff speed, I couldn't. Rain had degraded the
> the performance that much. The added drag of me rolling kept him on the
> ground. He got off before I did with his wheels kissing the grass. I
> dragged off the end of the asphalt and found out why they call it Grand
> Canyon - thank goodness. Quite a drop off as I recall... Is that the
> same N38?


Yep, it is the same Grand Canyon airport, but not for long. It will
soon be renamed to something like the Wellsboro Johnston airport in
honor of Dick and Ada Johnston who operated the airport for many decades
and just retired a few years ago when the state sold the airport to a
local airport authority.


Matt

[John Gaquin]

"Michael 182" > wrote
>
> Hmmm - I think I write the OP poorly.

I agree. "...does anyone with more than 100 hours do a flight plan..."

BTW, are you a doctor? You sound like a doctor in an airplane.

[Dylan Smith]

In article >, Happy Dog wrote:
> That aside, does anyone know anyone whose ass was saved by the pilotage and
> dead reckoning skills taught at the PPL and CPL level? I do.

There's a very good story in one of the ILAFFT books from a military
instructor who had a total radio and electrical failure in hard IMC, and
dead reckoned himself out of trouble.

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

[Matt Whiting]

Dylan Smith wrote:

> In article >, Happy Dog wrote:
>
>>That aside, does anyone know anyone whose ass was saved by the pilotage and
>>dead reckoning skills taught at the PPL and CPL level? I do.
>
>
> There's a very good story in one of the ILAFFT books from a military
> instructor who had a total radio and electrical failure in hard IMC, and
> dead reckoned himself out of trouble.
>

Yes, any good CFII should teach that an essential part of preflight
planning is knowing where the better weather is so that you can head
that direction of the doodoo hits the fan. And knowing the direction
and approximate distance of a large body of water can be helpful if you
have to do an emergency let-down to, hopefully, visual conditions after
a nav failure.


Matt

[George Patterson]

Matt Whiting wrote:
>
> The thought of
> full stalling into the trees has just never given me great comfort. :-)

I remember a thread a year or more back in which this technique was discussed. A
few posts claimed (and, IIRC, proof was presented) that stalling an aircraft
into the trees would usually result in such a strong decelleration force when
you hit that compression of the spine would result. This would frequently
produce paralysis or death. The claim was made that flying the aircraft into the
trees (basically a "greaser landing" in the upper limbs) was far safer than
stalling it in.

I decided at that time that the argument seems reasonable to me and that I would
try to fly the plane in if the situation ever came up.

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

[Matt Whiting]

George Patterson wrote:

> Matt Whiting wrote:
>
>>
>> The thought of
>> full stalling into the trees has just never given me great comfort. :-)
>
>
> I remember a thread a year or more back in which this technique was
> discussed. A few posts claimed (and, IIRC, proof was presented) that
> stalling an aircraft into the trees would usually result in such a
> strong decelleration force when you hit that compression of the spine
> would result. This would frequently produce paralysis or death. The
> claim was made that flying the aircraft into the trees (basically a
> "greaser landing" in the upper limbs) was far safer than stalling it in.
>
> I decided at that time that the argument seems reasonable to me and that
> I would try to fly the plane in if the situation ever came up.

I can see where flying it in might change the angle of the force such
that your spine might be in less danger, but the extra speed also
greatly increases the force.

I do greaser full-stall landings just as I was taught. If I ever have
to land in the trees, I'll do it the same way. I'll minimize the speed
of impact and try to impact at a vertical speed of nearly zero, just
like a greaser landing.


Matt

[Dylan Smith]

On 2005-06-11, George Patterson > wrote:
> I remember a thread a year or more back in which this technique was discussed. A
> few posts claimed (and, IIRC, proof was presented) that stalling an aircraft
> into the trees would usually result in such a strong decelleration force when
> you hit that compression of the spine would result. This would frequently
> produce paralysis or death.

We had an aviation doctor come to our flying club for one of our monthly
safety meetings. His talk was basically how to properly crash a plane.

The salient points are that the body (and the restraint systems) are
extremely well equipped to take enormous momentary decelerations in
the normal direction of travel, but very poorly equipped to take side
loadings or loadings from underneath. You can survive momentary
decelerations over 100G if you're going forwards, but going sideways
or down, only a tiny fraction of that. Sideways in particular, what
happens is that rescuers get to the crash scene to find a seemingly
unscathed but very dead person - the heart and other organs can get
torn from their 'mountings' in that direction (which is very bad juju)
and the person has died from internal injuries.

From what I've seen, I'm firmly convinced that so long as the angle
of arrival isn't too steep and I keep going forwards until everything
stops, I've got a decent chance of escaping from a really bad day.
Keep flying it until you're done crashing was the lesson.

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

[Chris]

"Dylan Smith" > wrote in message
...
> On 2005-06-11, George Patterson > wrote:
>> I remember a thread a year or more back in which this technique was
>> discussed. A
>> few posts claimed (and, IIRC, proof was presented) that stalling an
>> aircraft
>> into the trees would usually result in such a strong decelleration force
>> when
>> you hit that compression of the spine would result. This would frequently
>> produce paralysis or death.
>
> We had an aviation doctor come to our flying club for one of our monthly
> safety meetings. His talk was basically how to properly crash a plane.
>
> The salient points are that the body (and the restraint systems) are
> extremely well equipped to take enormous momentary decelerations in
> the normal direction of travel, but very poorly equipped to take side
> loadings or loadings from underneath. You can survive momentary
> decelerations over 100G if you're going forwards, but going sideways
> or down, only a tiny fraction of that. Sideways in particular, what
> happens is that rescuers get to the crash scene to find a seemingly
> unscathed but very dead person - the heart and other organs can get
> torn from their 'mountings' in that direction (which is very bad juju)
> and the person has died from internal injuries.
>
> From what I've seen, I'm firmly convinced that so long as the angle
> of arrival isn't too steep and I keep going forwards until everything
> stops, I've got a decent chance of escaping from a really bad day.
> Keep flying it until you're done crashing was the lesson.
>

I would echo that. I was involve in a car accident where I was T Boned.
Apart from the head going through the driver door window and requiring 43
stiches the medics were more concerned about any internal injuries from the
side impact. Whilst covered in blood on the outside it was the possibility
of bloodloss on the inside which was the issue.

Fortunately for me the worst of the injury was a couple of cracked ribs and
a cracked vertebrae between the shoulder blades as well as the cut.

What was impressive though was how far the glass penetrated the skin and I
would be finding glass fragments coming to the top of the skin for months
after the accident, usually whilst in the shower.

Was back flying with the medical ok after 4 months.

[George Patterson]

Matt Whiting wrote:
>
> I do greaser full-stall landings just as I was taught.

I have never seen anyone do a greaser full-stall landing; the two are
contradictory. If you have enough speed to grease it on, you're not even close
to a stall. Most people rarely do full-stall landings, and nobody I know teaches
students to stall the plane in. You touch down with some flying speed.

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

[Jose]

> If you have enough speed to grease it on, you're not even close to a stall.

While this may be generally the case, it is not of necessity true. One
can stall and maintain altitude (with power). Maintain one foot of
altitude, and gradually reduce power on a calm day. Greaser.

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

[George Patterson]

Jose wrote:
>
> While this may be generally the case, it is not of necessity true. One
> can stall and maintain altitude (with power). Maintain one foot of
> altitude, and gradually reduce power on a calm day. Greaser.

You aren't going to be doing this deadstick into the trees, that's for sure.

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

[Jose]

> You aren't going to be doing this deadstick into the trees, that's for sure.

Right. Not without a Mexican dinner.

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

[Maule Driver]

You are kidding, right?

None of the a/c flown by most of us can be 'flown' while stalled no
matter how much engine power is applied. They may be flown below normal
stall speed in such a config but they are not stalled. They can be
'dragged in' below stall speed and even smoothly landed, but not
stalled. And with power-on, the stall will probably be more exciting.

Stall speed and a stalled wing are 2 different things. Right?

Jose wrote:
>> If you have enough speed to grease it on, you're not even close to a
>> stall.
>
>
> While this may be generally the case, it is not of necessity true. One
> can stall and maintain altitude (with power). Maintain one foot of
> altitude, and gradually reduce power on a calm day. Greaser.
>
> Jose

[Jose]

> None of the a/c flown by most of us can be 'flown' while stalled no matter how much engine power is applied.

Then what am I doing when I practice stalls at altitude, holding the
aircraft at the stall buffet? I suppose that's not fully stalled yet,
and when it does fully stall I would lose altitude, but ok, fly it juat
above this speed (unstalled) six inches above the runway, and reduce power.

I don't reccomend this, but put it out since it would not be impossible
to do, and would result in a full stall greaser if all conditions were
right.

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

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Jose > posted:

>> None of the a/c flown by most of us can be 'flown' while stalled no
>> matter how much engine power is applied.
>
> Then what am I doing when I practice stalls at altitude, holding the
> aircraft at the stall buffet?
>
You're holding the aircraft at just above the stall speed. When you're
stalled, you're falling, not flying.

What I thought you were describing in your earlier post was there is
adequate power to remain in flight strictly on the engine alone. Think
F-18, not C-172. ;-)

> I don't reccomend this, but put it out since it would not be
> impossible to do, and would result in a full stall greaser if
> all conditions were right.
>
What you seem to describing now is one where you reach stall speed at
exactly the point where your wheels touch down. What's the point in that,
when you can grease it on at 2-3 kts above stall without the risk of being
wrong and dropping, or hitting a gust and being lifted a few feet and
*then* dropping because you don't have the airspeed to fly?

Neil

[Jose]

> What you seem to describing now is one where you reach stall speed at
> exactly the point where your wheels touch down. What's the point in that,
> when you can grease it on at 2-3 kts above stall without the risk of being
> wrong and dropping, or hitting a gust and being lifted a few feet and
> *then* dropping because you don't have the airspeed to fly?

I was taking issue with the idea that a greaser full stall landing is
self-contradictory.

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

[Maule Driver]

Jose wrote:
> I was taking issue with the idea that a greaser full stall landing is
> self-contradictory.
>
Well, lot's of semantic problems in this whole discussion. I would say
that what people commonly *call* a full stall is not a good way to
grease it on. I would also say that what is called a full stall landing
is actually a landing where power is off, and the plane is at an
attitude and speed where you run out of elevator authority just as you
touch the ground - perhaps the wing is stalled but what I think is
that the nose is simply dropping to continue flying as you run out of
elevator. The only way out of this is to add power or let the nose drop
until more airspeed is gained.

I can do this in the Maule when I make a minimum speed approach, flare
at the right moment, and touch the ground just as the wheel is pulled
all the way back. Not a good way to grease it on but it is wonderful
thing when it happens.

Normally, I come in at a normal approach speed, flare to the 3 point
attitude and touch down. If I pull back too far or too fast, I can and
will touch the tailwheel first.

So I agree that what we think of as a full stall landing, can be greased
on. It's just not the best way. I also suggest that the idea of
holding it off with power at a high angle of attack (dragging it in) is
neither a 'full stall landing' nor a good way to grease it.

Perhaps just a different perspective.

[Neil Gould]

Recently, T o d d P a t t i s t > posted:

> There are a couple of points I'd like to make in this
> thread.
>
> "Neil Gould" > wrote:
>
>>>> None of the a/c flown by most of us can be 'flown' while stalled no
>>>> matter how much engine power is applied.
>>>
>>> Then what am I doing when I practice stalls at altitude, holding the
>>> aircraft at the stall buffet?
>>>
>> You're holding the aircraft at just above the stall speed.
>
> That is indeed what he's doing.
>
>> When you're stalled, you're falling, not flying.
>
> This is a matter of semantics. I consider myself to be
> flying even when practicing spins with both wings stalled.
>
I thought one could only maintain a spin where *one* wing is stalled, and
the other not? If both wings stall, the spin should stop and the plane
should fall.

> First point:
> I also consider aerobatics pilots to be flying when using a
> powerful engine to supplement reduced lift and fly with both
> wings stalled.
>
Well, they're "flying" by power lift, in the same sense that a Harrier is
"flying" when hovering. The wings are irrelevant in those situations. So,
in the context of "greasing on" a full-stall landing in a typical SEL,
those scenarios are irrelevant to the OP.

[...]
> The
> point I'm making here is that a stalled wing still produces
> lots of lift. In fact, near stall, it's producing nearly
> the maximum lift that the wing is capable of producing.
>
Is that like saying, "Even those that don't have an income can purchase
the most expensive plane they can afford"? ;-)

> Second Point:
> It is exceptionally difficult to actually get to a full
> stall attitude for landing. What is often called a "full
> stall landing" or "3 point landing" does not actually have
> the wing at stall AOA. Many aircraft would hit their tail
> if they were low enough to safely land and the wing was at
> stall AOA.
>
I completely disagree with this notion. The AOA is a vector of the
relative direction of travel through air. There is no requirement that
there be a nose-high attitude in a stall, only that the wind traveling
over the wing is lower than what is required to produce lift. It isn't
difficult to hold a typical SEL aircraft in a nose-down stall, and in
fact, a descending turning stall is a required manouvre in the private
PTS.

Neil

[Peter Duniho]

"Neil Gould" > wrote in message
. ..
> Recently, T o d d P a t t i s t > posted:
>
>> This is a matter of semantics. I consider myself to be
>> flying even when practicing spins with both wings stalled.
>>
> I thought one could only maintain a spin where *one* wing is stalled, and
> the other not? If both wings stall, the spin should stop and the plane
> should fall.

Anyone trying to describe spin aerodynamics in one or two sentences is
doomed to failure. :) That said, to think of it as a "one wing stalled,
one wing flying" scenario is insufficient, IMHO. Each wing is creating
different amounts of lift, true...and a stall has occurred, also true. But
both wings can still be generating lift, while still both remaining stalled.
It's the asymmetric lift that causes the spin, regardless of whether both
wings are stalled or not.

>> First point:
>> I also consider aerobatics pilots to be flying when using a
>> powerful engine to supplement reduced lift and fly with both
>> wings stalled.
>>
> Well, they're "flying" by power lift, in the same sense that a Harrier is
> "flying" when hovering. The wings are irrelevant in those situations. So,
> in the context of "greasing on" a full-stall landing in a typical SEL,
> those scenarios are irrelevant to the OP.

If the wing has non-zero motion relative to the air, it has a defined
angle-of-attack, and thus can be determined to be stalled or not stalled.
Whether the wing is providing any significant lift contribution to helping
the airplane maintain altitude is irrelevant to the question of whether the
airplane is flying with both wings stalled or not.

In particular, Todd's comment simply corrects the statement that "when
you're stalled, you're falling, not flying". Using power to keep oneself
aloft is still "flying", even if the wings are stalled. Thus, it is not
always true that "when you're stalled, you're...not flying", even if it IS
true in most situations.

>> The
>> point I'm making here is that a stalled wing still produces
>> lots of lift. In fact, near stall, it's producing nearly
>> the maximum lift that the wing is capable of producing.
>>
> Is that like saying, "Even those that don't have an income can purchase
> the most expensive plane they can afford"? ;-)

That depends on what you mean by "don't have an income". It's more like
saying that "even those whose income has peaked and is now going back down
can purchase an airplane almost as expensive as one they could have afforded
at their peak income".

In other words, what Todd is saying is that lift doesn't just quit in a
discontinuous way at the stall. If you look at the graph of lift versus
angle of attack, the peak of that graph occurs right at the stalling angle
of attack, and then starts to drop off from there. It does drop quite a bit
more rapidly than the other side of the graph where lift is increasing, but
it doesn't just jump to zero.

Assuming you could maintain control of the airplane in a fashion to ensure
that you exceeded the stalling angle of attack only by a tiny fraction of a
degree, you would wind up getting almost as much lift as you were getting
right at the instant you stalled.

There are, of course, other issues. The graph I'm talking about is actually
the lift coefficient graph; actual lift depends on the lift coefficient
(angle of attack) and airspeed. Drag increases dramatically at stall, and
it would require a lot of extra power to maintain an airspeed sufficient to
produce lift equal to the airplane's weight, flying just past the stalling
angle of attack. But it certainly is theoretically possibly.

>> Second Point:
>> It is exceptionally difficult to actually get to a full
>> stall attitude for landing. What is often called a "full
>> stall landing" or "3 point landing" does not actually have
>> the wing at stall AOA. Many aircraft would hit their tail
>> if they were low enough to safely land and the wing was at
>> stall AOA.
>>
> I completely disagree with this notion. The AOA is a vector of the
> relative direction of travel through air.

The AOA is the "angle-of-attack". It's not a vector at all, never mind the
one you describe. It is true that the AOA is relative to direction of
travel through air (ie the "relative wind").

> There is no requirement that
> there be a nose-high attitude in a stall, only that the wind traveling
> over the wing is lower than what is required to produce lift. It isn't
> difficult to hold a typical SEL aircraft in a nose-down stall, and in
> fact, a descending turning stall is a required manouvre in the private
> PTS.

Read Todd's statement again. He is clearly talking only about the situation
during a landing. The motion of the aircraft through the air just prior to
touchdown is necessarily nearly or precisely parallel to the ground. And it
is true that with most airplanes, the stalling angle-of-attack produces a
pitch angle so nose-high that the tail will hit the ground before the main
gear does.

Which was the entire point of the phrase Todd uses: "if they were low enough
to safely land and the wing was at stall AOA". If they are low enough to
land and are at a nose-down stalling AOA, they are milliseconds from
crashing. Which is clearly not the scenario we're talking about here.

You are certainly correct that an airplane can be stalled in any attitude.
But that in no way provides a basis for disagreement with Todd's statements.

Pete

[George Patterson]

T o d d P a t t i s t wrote:
>
> If you want to get closer to a true stall at landing, you'd
> probably want to come in about a foot or two higher and
> really get the nose up before touching the tail. Of course
> your Maule probably wouldn't be so happy with that technique

Maules are not happy with that technique. When a Maule is in three-point
attitude, it is not stalled. Power-off stall in no-wind conditions occurs when
the mains are about 6" higher than the tailwheel.

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

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Peter Duniho > posted:
>
> In particular, Todd's comment simply corrects the statement that "when
> you're stalled, you're falling, not flying". Using power to keep
> oneself aloft is still "flying", even if the wings are stalled.
> Thus, it is not always true that "when you're stalled, you're...not
> flying", even if it IS true in most situations.
>
Then, the issue is one trying to make an absolute statement out of one
intended only in the context of the discussion, specifically, "full stall
greasers" in the typical SEL aircraft. Any discussion about other forms of
flying, whether it be in hovering Harriers or personal batwings are
irrelevant to that context.

> In other words, what Todd is saying is that lift doesn't just quit in
> a discontinuous way at the stall. If you look at the graph of lift
> versus angle of attack, the peak of that graph occurs right at the
> stalling angle of attack, and then starts to drop off from there. It
> does drop quite a bit more rapidly than the other side of the graph
> where lift is increasing, but it doesn't just jump to zero.
>
I wasn't claiming that it does. It's just that the amount of lift after
stall isn't sufficient to be relevant.

> There are, of course, other issues. The graph I'm talking about is
> actually the lift coefficient graph; actual lift depends on the lift
> coefficient (angle of attack) and airspeed. Drag increases
> dramatically at stall, and it would require a lot of extra power to
> maintain an airspeed sufficient to produce lift equal to the
> airplane's weight, flying just past the stalling angle of attack.
> But it certainly is theoretically possibly.
>
Of course, if you have enough power. That's why my original reply stated,
"Think F-18..." This theoretical possibility isn't very relevant to the
context of the post to which I originally replied, e.g., "full-stall
greased landings" in a typical SEL.

>>> Second Point:
>>> It is exceptionally difficult to actually get to a full
>>> stall attitude for landing. What is often called a "full
>>> stall landing" or "3 point landing" does not actually have
>>> the wing at stall AOA. Many aircraft would hit their tail
>>> if they were low enough to safely land and the wing was at
>>> stall AOA.
>>>
>> I completely disagree with this notion. The AOA is a vector of the
>> relative direction of travel through air.
>
> The AOA is the "angle-of-attack". It's not a vector at all, never
> mind the one you describe. It is true that the AOA is relative to
> direction of travel through air (ie the "relative wind").
>
One doesn't have directional motion *without* a vector. ;-)

"Vector...Etymology: New Latin, from Latin, carrier, from vehere to
carry -- more at WAY
1 a : a quantity that has magnitude and direction and that is commonly
represented by a directed line segment whose length represents the
magnitude and whose orientation in space represents the direction..."

When one refers to the "angle of attack" (and, yes, I know that "AOA" is
the acronym), one is definitely referring to motion having both direction
and magnitude. "Relative wind" is just a non-technical way to state this.
However, it would have been better stated if I had said "... relative
direction of _the wing's_ travel...", even though the typical SEL's wing
pitch isn't drastically different from the rest of the aircraft. ;-)

>> There is no requirement that
>> there be a nose-high attitude in a stall, only that the wind
>> traveling over the wing is lower than what is required to produce
>> lift. It isn't difficult to hold a typical SEL aircraft in a
>> nose-down stall, and in fact, a descending turning stall is a
>> required manouvre in the private PTS.
>
> Read Todd's statement again. He is clearly talking only about the
> situation during a landing. The motion of the aircraft through the
> air just prior to touchdown is necessarily nearly or precisely
> parallel to the ground.
>
My reply specifically separates the AOA from any ground reference.

> And it is true that with most airplanes, the
> stalling angle-of-attack produces a pitch angle so nose-high that the
> tail will hit the ground before the main gear does.
>
I responded to that. In the context of landing, if one flies slowly enough
to stall, one can stall "flat" relative to the ground because the decrease
in forward "relative wind" increases the AOA. That is what my remark
addresses.

> You are certainly correct that an airplane can be stalled in any
> attitude. But that in no way provides a basis for disagreement with
> Todd's statements.
>
I think it does with regard to necessarily hitting the tail before
stalling.

Neil

[Peter Duniho]

"Neil Gould" > wrote in message
...
> [...] Any discussion about other forms of
> flying, whether it be in hovering Harriers or personal batwings are
> irrelevant to that context.

Then perhaps you should take that up with the person who brought up such
examples. Todd was not that person. Oh, wait...it was YOU that mentioned
the F-18.

(Minor nitpick: I don't recall for sure whether the F-18 actually has more
thrust than weight; I believe that the F-16 does, and it's the only airplane
I understood to have that characteristic. I will continue saying "F-18" in
this post, with the assumption that you know for a fact it also has more
thrust than weight...perhaps it's just one of the later models, like the
Super Hornet, that does).

> I wasn't claiming that it does. It's just that the amount of lift after
> stall isn't sufficient to be relevant.

That's a false claim. As the lift drops off in a continuous manner, there
is a region "after stall" where the lift coefficient is just as high as
usable regions "before stall".

You may equivocate on whether a pilot can maintain the airplane at the
angle-of-attack required to obtain that "after stall" coefficient of lift.
But the fact remains that the lift is theoretically obtainable. As long as
you don't want a lift coefficient very close to the maximum lift coefficient
for the wing, it may not even be that hard to obtain the desired
coefficient.

>> There are, of course, other issues. The graph I'm talking about is
>> actually the lift coefficient graph; actual lift depends on the lift
>> coefficient (angle of attack) and airspeed. Drag increases
>> dramatically at stall, and it would require a lot of extra power to
>> maintain an airspeed sufficient to produce lift equal to the
>> airplane's weight, flying just past the stalling angle of attack.
>> But it certainly is theoretically possibly.
>>
> Of course, if you have enough power. That's why my original reply stated,
> "Think F-18..."

I fear we're back to square one. The F-18 has more power than is necessary.
You only need enough power to overcome the drag. You don't need enough
power to overcome weight, which is what you seem to be saying.

> This theoretical possibility isn't very relevant to the
> context of the post to which I originally replied, e.g., "full-stall
> greased landings" in a typical SEL.

Sure it is. It discusses the actual aerodynamics, allowing someone to
consider what would be required to make a "full-stall greaser". Physical
characteristics of most airplanes preclude actually stalling the wing when
in a safe landable position (mainly the issue of the tail winding up too low
for a safe landing), but otherwise there's no obvious reason one could not
only make a "full-stall greaser", but could actually *fly* the airplane onto
the runway in the stalled condition.

In fact, if anything (again, ignoring the geometry of the situation) the
landing scenario is the most likely scenario in which a pilot could maintain
the post-stall condition, since ground effect would dramatically reduce
induced drag, induced drag being a primary reason that maintaining the
airplane in a flying condition past the stall is so difficult.

Of course, as Todd correctly pointed out, the physical geometry of most
airplanes preclude stalling the airplane when in a position for a safe
landing (ie just above the runway). But you incorrectly attempt to dispute
that as well.

>> The AOA is the "angle-of-attack". It's not a vector at all, never
>> mind the one you describe. It is true that the AOA is relative to
>> direction of travel through air (ie the "relative wind").
>>
> One doesn't have directional motion *without* a vector. ;-)

I never said there were no vectors. I said the angle-of-attack is not a
vector.

> "Vector...Etymology: New Latin, from Latin, carrier, from vehere to
> carry -- more at WAY
> 1 a : a quantity that has magnitude and direction and that is commonly
> represented by a directed line segment whose length represents the
> magnitude and whose orientation in space represents the direction..."

When in doubt, post a definition? Seriously...what purpose was that
supposed to serve?

> When one refers to the "angle of attack" (and, yes, I know that "AOA" is
> the acronym), one is definitely referring to motion having both direction
> and magnitude.

No, they are not. The angle-of-attack is a specific angle, measured between
the wing's chord and the relative wind. In fact, a motionless airplane can
still have an angle-of-attack, just as long as there is some wind.

> "Relative wind" is just a non-technical way to state this.

Actually, "relative wind" is a *technical* way to state the apparent wind
relative to the chord of the wing. But angle-of-attack is something else
entirely. Relative wind is indeed a vector. Angle-of-attack is not.

> However, it would have been better stated if I had said "... relative
> direction of _the wing's_ travel...", even though the typical SEL's wing
> pitch isn't drastically different from the rest of the aircraft. ;-)

The angle of incidence (which is what you appear to be talking about
now...that is, the angle between the wing chord and the longitudinal axis of
the airplane) is yet again something else entirely different from
angle-of-attack. The phrase you suggest as a replacement for
angle-of-attack (that is, "relative direction of _the wing's_ travel") would
not be a suitable replacement at all for "angle-of-attack", though it might
serve as an synonymous phrase for "relative wind".

The confusion here is not between the airplane's pitch angle and the wing's
angle-of-attack. It's your insistence on calling the angle-of-attack a
vector, when it's a scalar (and, it appears, your confusion between
"relative wind" and "angle-of-attack").

> My reply specifically separates the AOA from any ground reference.

Actually, your reply implies that Todd doesn't understand that the
angle-of-attack isn't measure relative to the ground. He does understand
that, but the fact that angle-of-attack isn't measured relative to the
ground doesn't change the fact that you can't stall most planes while in a
position for a safe landing.

>> And it is true that with most airplanes, the
>> stalling angle-of-attack produces a pitch angle so nose-high that the
>> tail will hit the ground before the main gear does.
>>
> I responded to that. In the context of landing, if one flies slowly enough
> to stall, one can stall "flat" relative to the ground because the decrease
> in forward "relative wind" increases the AOA. That is what my remark
> addresses.

Your claim is incorrect. As long as the airplane is flying just above the
ground, the relative wind is parallel to the ground. No change in the
angle-of-attack will occur from any decrease in speed, not directly.

It is simply impossible to do what you suggest one might do. If one "flies
slowly enough to stall", the angle-of-attack is at the stalling
angle-of-attack, period. Furthermore, if one flies at a constant altitude
(as one must do when landing an airplane, once over the runway), the
relative wind is parallel to the ground, and thus the airplane's pitch angle
is the same as the wing's angle-of-attack (ignoring the angle of incidence,
of course).

What WILL happen is that as the aircraft slows, the pitch angle of the
aircraft will need to be increased, so as to continually increase the
angle-of-attack of the wing. The increase in AOA increases the lift
coefficient, compensating for the reduction in airspeed to maintain a lift
force equal to the airplane's weight. If you do not increase the pitch
angle, the airplane will simply descend onto the runway.

You will not stall "flat" relative to the ground. Only one of two things
can happen in the scenario you describe. You will either prevent the
airplane from touching the runway by continually increase the
angle-of-attack (which means no stall "flat" relative to the ground) , or
the airplane will descend and touch the runway (again, no stall "flat"
relative to the ground). In *either* case, the airplane will touch the
runway before the wing stalls, assuming a safe landing.

>> You are certainly correct that an airplane can be stalled in any
>> attitude. But that in no way provides a basis for disagreement with
>> Todd's statements.
>>
> I think it does with regard to necessarily hitting the tail before
> stalling.

You think wrong.

Pete

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Peter Duniho > posted:

> "Neil Gould" > wrote in message
>> I wasn't claiming that it does. It's just that the amount of lift
>> after stall isn't sufficient to be relevant.
>
> That's a false claim. As the lift drops off in a continuous manner,
> there is a region "after stall" where the lift coefficient is just as
> high as usable regions "before stall".
>
> You may equivocate on whether a pilot can maintain the airplane at the
> angle-of-attack required to obtain that "after stall" coefficient of
> lift. But the fact remains that the lift is theoretically obtainable.
> As long as you don't want a lift coefficient very close to the
> maximum lift coefficient for the wing, it may not even be that hard
> to obtain the desired coefficient.
>
Again, the _context_ is a response to Matt & Jose's claim of controlling a
typical SEL to "greaser full-stall landings". I was agreeing with George
that this is probably not what they were experiencing, and Todd's
explanation regarding the high pitch angle typical of stall speeds is in
agreement with this, albeit for other reasons. So, in context, how is your
theoretically available lift relevant?

>> When one refers to the "angle of attack" (and, yes, I know that
>> "AOA" is the acronym), one is definitely referring to motion having
>> both direction and magnitude.
>
> No, they are not. The angle-of-attack is a specific angle, measured
> between the wing's chord and the relative wind. In fact, a
> motionless airplane can still have an angle-of-attack, just as long
> as there is some wind.
>
If there is wind, there is motion, direction and magnitude relative to the
wing, ergo, a vector. If there is no wind, there is no "attack", and that
angle then describes something entirely different.

[...]
>> However, it would have been better stated if I had said "...
>> relative direction of _the wing's_ travel...", even though the
>> typical SEL's wing pitch isn't drastically different from the rest
>> of the aircraft. ;-)
>
> The angle of incidence (which is what you appear to be talking about
> now...that is, the angle between the wing chord and the longitudinal
> axis of the airplane) is yet again something else entirely different
> from angle-of-attack.
>
Two different things are being described. In context (the direction of
travel), the difference between the AOA and the angle of incidence is not
"drastically different".

[...]
> The confusion here is not between the airplane's pitch angle and the
> wing's angle-of-attack. It's your insistence on calling the
> angle-of-attack a vector, when it's a scalar (and, it appears, your
> confusion between "relative wind" and "angle-of-attack").
>
To be a scalar, it would have to lack motion, ergo no "attack".

[...]
>> I responded to that. In the context of landing, if one flies slowly
>> enough to stall, one can stall "flat" relative to the ground because
>> the decrease in forward "relative wind" increases the AOA. That is
>> what my remark addresses.
>
> Your claim is incorrect. As long as the airplane is flying just
> above the ground, the relative wind is parallel to the ground. No
> change in the angle-of-attack will occur from any decrease in speed,
> not directly.
>
My claim is that if the aircraft is flying parallel to the ground just
before touch-down, it isn't stalled.

[...]
> It is simply impossible to do what you suggest one might do. If one
> "flies slowly enough to stall", the angle-of-attack is at the stalling
> angle-of-attack, period.
>
And all I'm saying is that this is independent of the pitch angle relative
to the ground.

[...]
> What WILL happen is that as the aircraft slows, the pitch angle of the
> aircraft will need to be increased, so as to continually increase the
> angle-of-attack of the wing.
>
We are describing the same phenomena from two perspectives. In the context
of my usage, if one maintains the pitch angle as the aircraft slows, the
AOA will continually increase (normally, the pitch angle changes as the
aircraft slows). But, again, the context of what happens during landing;
one is maintaining a safe pitch angle as the aircraft slows, not
necessarily increasing the pitch angle to insure a stall.

[...]
> In *either* case, the
> airplane will touch the runway before the wing stalls, assuming a
> safe landing.
>
In fact, I stated that the risk is something quite different from a safe
landing.

Neil

[Maule Driver]

You're right. It definitely isn't stalled. And it doesn't like that
technique.

T o d d P a t t i s t wrote:
> And I suspect the wings would not be stalled even with the
> tailwheel touching first as you describe. Usually what
> happens is the tail touches before stall, which rotates the
> nose down, decreasing wing lift and forcing the touchdown.
>
> If you want to get closer to a true stall at landing, you'd
> probably want to come in about a foot or two higher and
> really get the nose up before touching the tail. Of course
> your Maule probably wouldn't be so happy with that technique
> :-)

> (first handbook issued with the Curtis-Wright flyer)

[Maule Driver]

George Patterson wrote:
>> If you want to get closer to a true stall at landing, you'd
>> probably want to come in about a foot or two higher and
>> really get the nose up before touching the tail. Of course
>> your Maule probably wouldn't be so happy with that technique
>
> Maules are not happy with that technique. When a Maule is in three-point
> attitude, it is not stalled. Power-off stall in no-wind conditions
> occurs when the mains are about 6" higher than the tailwheel.

Agreed.

The condition that people *call* a full stall landing can be achieved in
the Maule by doing this, "...make a minimum speed approach, flare at the
right moment, and touch the ground just as the wheel is pulled all the
way back. Not a good way to grease it on but it is wonderful thing when
it happens". The key being 'minimum speed approach' in a power-off
condition.

I don't think it's stalled in that configuration because if I add just a
little power, I can continue to bring the nose up and float, and even
touch down tail first. But if you leave the power off, the nose will
not come up any further and begin to fall. Just no more elevator authority.

[Neil Gould]

Recently, T o d d P a t t i s t > posted:

> "Neil Gould" > wrote:
>
>> There is no requirement that
>> there be a nose-high attitude in a stall,
>
> Ah, but here we're talking about a landing, and that means
> that the path of the aircraft has to be nearly parallel to
> the ground (otherwise it's called "crashing" :-)
>
Well, that is what my original response addressed. If Jose & Matt were
truly doing "full-stall" landings, the likelihood that they'd be greasers
would be fairly low. OTOH, the likelihood that they'd be grease marks on
the runway would increase dramatically. ;-)

Neil

[Peter Duniho]

"Neil Gould" > wrote in message
...
> [...] So, in context, how is your theoretically available lift relevant?

It is relevant only to your false claim that a stalled wing provides no
lift. Had you not made that false claim, I would have had no reason to
bring up that element of the discussion.

> [...]
> To be a scalar, it would have to lack motion, ergo no "attack".

Wrong. "To be a scalar" it needs to be a single value. And it is.
Angle-of-attack is just an angle. A single value.

Every angle requires two reference lines in order to define that angle.
That doesn't change the fact that the angle itself is a single value,
without any direction component. Likewise, the fact that two reference
lines (one defined by a direction of travel) are used to define
angle-of-attack DOES NOT MAKE ANGLE-OF-ATTACK ITSELF A VECTOR. It's still
just an angle.

> [...]
>>> I responded to that. In the context of landing, if one flies slowly
>>> enough to stall, one can stall "flat" relative to the ground because
>>> the decrease in forward "relative wind" increases the AOA. That is
>>> what my remark addresses.
>>
>> Your claim is incorrect. As long as the airplane is flying just
>> above the ground, the relative wind is parallel to the ground. No
>> change in the angle-of-attack will occur from any decrease in speed,
>> not directly.
>>
> My claim is that if the aircraft is flying parallel to the ground just
> before touch-down, it isn't stalled.

That's a new claim. Your previous claim (quoted above) was that you COULD
stall while flying parallel to the ground. That is, one could "stall
'flat'".

In any case, other than the issue with the geometry of the airplane, there
is absolutely no justification in claiming that flight parallel to the
ground precludes a stall.

> [...]
>> It is simply impossible to do what you suggest one might do. If one
>> "flies slowly enough to stall", the angle-of-attack is at the stalling
>> angle-of-attack, period.
>>
> And all I'm saying is that this is independent of the pitch angle relative
> to the ground.

It is NOT independent of the pitch angle relative to the ground if the
airplane is being flown in a flight path parallel to the ground.

> [...]
>> What WILL happen is that as the aircraft slows, the pitch angle of the
>> aircraft will need to be increased, so as to continually increase the
>> angle-of-attack of the wing.
>>
> We are describing the same phenomena from two perspectives.

I am fairly certain we're not.

> In the context
> of my usage, if one maintains the pitch angle as the aircraft slows, the
> AOA will continually increase (normally, the pitch angle changes as the
> aircraft slows).

You cannot "maintain the pitch angle as the aircraft slows" without touching
the runway. If the aircraft slows and the pitch angle is not changed, lift
is reduced and the airplane will descend onto the runway.

I'll say it again: the scenario you propose is an impossibility.

Pete

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Peter Duniho > posted:

> "Neil Gould" > wrote in message
> ...
>> [...] So, in context, how is your theoretically available lift
>> relevant?
>
> It is relevant only to your false claim that a stalled wing provides
> no lift. Had you not made that false claim, I would have had no
> reason to bring up that element of the discussion.
>
The only falsity here is your claim that I made such a statement. So,
apparently you have no reason to bring up that element in the discussion.

What I *did* claim is:
"You're holding the aircraft at just above the stall speed. When you're
stalled, you're falling, not flying."

This makes *no* reference to the amount of lift that a stalled wing
provides beyond it being inadequate to support flight, which should be
obvious to one who pays so much attention to details as you.

>> [...]
>> To be a scalar, it would have to lack motion, ergo no "attack".
>
> Wrong. "To be a scalar" it needs to be a single value. And it is.
> Angle-of-attack is just an angle. A single value.
>
Wrong. A scalar can not contain elements of direction by definition. Ergo,
AOA has no meaning as a scalar.

> Every angle requires two reference lines in order to define that
> angle. That doesn't change the fact that the angle itself is a single
> value, without any direction component. Likewise, the fact that two
> reference lines (one defined by a direction of travel) are used to
> define angle-of-attack DOES NOT MAKE ANGLE-OF-ATTACK ITSELF A VECTOR.
> It's still just an angle.
>
Wrong, it's AOA only has meaning when referenced by a direction and
motion. Without that direction and motion, THERE IS NO ANGLE OF ATTACK. If
you still don't understand this, what is the AOA when the aircraft is
parked in the hangar (with the doors closed and no fans running, if you
insist on picking nits)? ;-)

Finally, when you apply a direction to a scalar, what does it become?
;-)

>> [...]
>>>> I responded to that. In the context of landing, if one flies slowly
>>>> enough to stall, one can stall "flat" relative to the ground
>>>> because the decrease in forward "relative wind" increases the AOA.
>>>> That is what my remark addresses.
>>>
>>> Your claim is incorrect. As long as the airplane is flying just
>>> above the ground, the relative wind is parallel to the ground. No
>>> change in the angle-of-attack will occur from any decrease in speed,
>>> not directly.
>>>
>> My claim is that if the aircraft is flying parallel to the ground
>> just before touch-down, it isn't stalled.
>
> That's a new claim.
>
Wrong, that's my original claim:

Jose: "> Then what am I doing when I practice stalls at altitude, holding
the aircraft at the stall buffet?"

I wrote: "You're holding the aircraft at just above the stall speed."

> Your previous claim (quoted above) was that you
> COULD stall while flying parallel to the ground. That is, one could
> "stall 'flat'".
>
Again, I made no such statement. My above claim is actually a
clarification of my original statement for your benefit.

My "stall flat" comment refers to pitch angle relative to the ground (as
was stated in the same paragraph). I made no claim about travelling
parallel to the runway. Indeed, one would *not* be going parallel to the
ground in a flat stall.

> In any case, other than the issue with the geometry of the airplane,
> there is absolutely no justification in claiming that flight parallel
> to the ground precludes a stall.
>
I made no such claim as this, either.

>> [...]
>>> It is simply impossible to do what you suggest one might do. If one
>>> "flies slowly enough to stall", the angle-of-attack is at the
>>> stalling angle-of-attack, period.
>>>
>> And all I'm saying is that this is independent of the pitch angle
>> relative to the ground.
>
> It is NOT independent of the pitch angle relative to the ground if the
> airplane is being flown in a flight path parallel to the ground.
>
Again, "a flight path parallel to the ground" is *your* assumption, and
not a claim of mine. A flight path parallel to the ground, but with a high
AOA is Todd's assumption, and again not a claim of mine. I have no problem
with these scenarios, they just have nothing to do with what I've written.

>> [...]
>>> What WILL happen is that as the aircraft slows, the pitch angle of
>>> the aircraft will need to be increased, so as to continually
>>> increase the angle-of-attack of the wing.
>>>
>> We are describing the same phenomena from two perspectives.
>
> I am fairly certain we're not.
>
I am fairly certain that you are confused about this.

>> In the context
>> of my usage, if one maintains the pitch angle as the aircraft slows,
>> the AOA will continually increase (normally, the pitch angle changes
>> as the aircraft slows).
>
> You cannot "maintain the pitch angle as the aircraft slows" without
> touching the runway. If the aircraft slows and the pitch angle is
> not changed, lift is reduced and the airplane will descend onto the
> runway.
>
That is NOT incongrous with what I've written. The aircraft "descends"
because the AOA increases as the aircraft slows and the pitch angle is
maintained. Do you *really* disagree with this?

> I'll say it again: the scenario you propose is an impossibility.
>
And, I'll say it again, you are confused about what I've written. You've
repeatedly attributed claims to me that I never made, and set up straw men
that have nothing to do with the issue at hand.

Neil

[Gary Drescher]

"Neil Gould" > wrote in message
.. .
> This makes *no* reference to the amount of lift that a stalled wing
> provides beyond it being inadequate to support flight,

Interestingly enough, a stall occurs at the critical angle of attack, which
is the AOA at which the coefficient of lift is the *maximum possible*. Just
past the critical angle of attack (that is, further into the stall), the
lift coefficient is no longer maximal, but is still well above what it is in
ordinary cruise flight.

What *does* happen just past the critical AOA--that is, just into the
stall--is *not* that there's insufficient lift to support the plane's
weight, but rather that there's a loss of *vertical damping*. John Denker (a
physicist and a pilot) has a nice explanation here:
http://www.av8n.com/how/htm/vdamp.html#sec-vertical-damping.

>> Wrong. "To be a scalar" it needs to be a single value. And it is.
>> Angle-of-attack is just an angle. A single value.
>>
> Wrong. A scalar can not contain elements of direction by definition. Ergo,
> AOA has no meaning as a scalar.

No, an angle is unquestionably a scalar, not a vector. Check any
introductory math text. If an angle were a vector, then a symbol
representing an angle would be set in boldface; but it is not.

You're right that an angle is defined by reference to vectors, but so is
(for example) the *dot product* of two vectors (yet the dot product is a
scalar); or so is the *magnitude* of a vector (but the magnitude is a
scalar). So being defined by reference to vectors does not preclude a
quantity from being scalar.

--Gary

[Roger]

On Wed, 15 Jun 2005 13:52:58 GMT, Maule Driver
> wrote:

>You are kidding, right?
>
>None of the a/c flown by most of us can be 'flown' while stalled no
>matter how much engine power is applied. They may be flown below normal
>stall speed in such a config but they are not stalled. They can be
>'dragged in' below stall speed and even smoothly landed, but not
>stalled. And with power-on, the stall will probably be more exciting.

Most of my landings are "full stall". The horn goes off whitht he
nose way "up there", then the stall breaks. Being that close to the
runway it just drops onto the mains, nose high.

But I agree. Once that wind stalls you are not going to stay up there.
If you don't come down the wing isn't stalled.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com
>
>Stall speed and a stalled wing are 2 different things. Right?
>
>Jose wrote:
>>> If you have enough speed to grease it on, you're not even close to a
>>> stall.
>>
>>
>> While this may be generally the case, it is not of necessity true. One
>> can stall and maintain altitude (with power). Maintain one foot of
>> altitude, and gradually reduce power on a calm day. Greaser.
>>
>> Jose

[Roger]

On Thu, 2 Jun 2005 22:24:29 -0600, "Michael 182"
> wrote:

>I'm kind of curious - does anyone with more than 100 hours do a flight plan,
>with winds and all, before they fly cross country? Most of my planning is of
>the fuel stop, or occasionally detour for weather variety - but it is rare
>for me to include more than one or two waypoints in my "plan", and I almost
>never file an airway, even when I file ifr. Maybe it's because I live in the
>west. A typical flight plan will be Longmont - Amarillo - Austin, or if the
>winds are good, Longmont - Austin. What do others do?

If you mean a complete, on paper flight plan then no I don't.
OTOH, I get a DUATs briefing and then talk to FSS prior to departure.
I file IFR. VRF I rarely talk to any one, but that depends on the
area(s) through which I'm going to fly.

I either print the charts, or have the standard Sectionals and Low
Altitude charts along with the approach charts whether going IFR or
VFR. Even printing out a detailed route chart is only a guide, so
it's about as easy for me to just use a chart as except for direct I
usually get rerouted any way.

So, I have an unofficial flight plan and I do print out the IFR
routes, but 9 times out of 10 I go direct and I can figure the times
and headings in my head.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com
>
>Michael
>

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Gary Drescher > posted:

> "Neil Gould" > wrote in message
> .. .
>> This makes *no* reference to the amount of lift that a stalled wing
>> provides beyond it being inadequate to support flight,
>
> Interestingly enough, a stall occurs at the critical angle of attack,
> which is the AOA at which the coefficient of lift is the *maximum
> possible*. Just past the critical angle of attack (that is, further
> into the stall), the lift coefficient is no longer maximal, but is
> still well above what it is in ordinary cruise flight.
>
> What *does* happen just past the critical AOA--that is, just into the
> stall--is *not* that there's insufficient lift to support the plane's
> weight, but rather that there's a loss of *vertical damping*. John
> Denker (a physicist and a pilot) has a nice explanation here:
> http://www.av8n.com/how/htm/vdamp.html#sec-vertical-damping.
>
Thanks for that! I'm not sure that resolves the issue of trying to land
with these parameters.

>>> Wrong. "To be a scalar" it needs to be a single value. And it is.
>>> Angle-of-attack is just an angle. A single value.
>>>
>> Wrong. A scalar can not contain elements of direction by definition.
>> Ergo, AOA has no meaning as a scalar.
>
> No, an angle is unquestionably a scalar, not a vector. Check any
> introductory math text. If an angle were a vector, then a symbol
> representing an angle would be set in boldface; but it is not.
>
Mathematically, an "angle" by itself *is* a scalar, and I'm not arguing
otherwise. I'm saying that "Angle Of Attack" requires direction to have
meaning. Without direction, there is no AOA.

> You're right that an angle is defined by reference to vectors, but so
> is (for example) the *dot product* of two vectors (yet the dot
> product is a scalar); or so is the *magnitude* of a vector (but the
> magnitude is a scalar). So being defined by reference to vectors does
> not preclude a quantity from being scalar.
>
Well, OK. Then, how do you determine the AOA when the aircraft is parked?
If the component of direction is inseparable from the definition of AOA,
how can it be a scalar?

Neil

[Jose]

> Mathematically, an "angle" by itself *is* a scalar, and I'm not arguing
> otherwise. I'm saying that "Angle Of Attack" requires direction to have
> meaning. Without direction, there is no AOA.
> [...]
>
> Well, OK. Then, how do you determine the AOA when the aircraft is parked?
> If the component of direction is inseparable from the definition of AOA,
> how can it be a scalar?

How long is it between 11 AM and 1:30 PM? The answer is 150 minutes.
Now, is that 150 minutes AM or 150 minutes PM?

In order to form the difference, you NEED to know whether the original
times are AM or PM, but the result is a pure number of minutes. 11 AM
is a =time of day=, 1:30 pm is a =time of day= but the difference is
=not= a time of day, it is just a number (of minutes).

In a similar vein, in order to form an angle (a pure number), you need
to have not just one direction, but two. You need TWO quantites that
have direction (they don't even have to have magnitude!). However, the
result (the angle between them) has no direction (beyond the algebraic
sign).

When you say:

> I'm saying that "Angle Of Attack" requires direction to have
> meaning.

all you're really saying is that you don't have an angle of attack if
you don't have the requisite components (a relative wind, and a chord).
But don't confuse the components with the result. Area is made up of
length and width, but area is not in itself one dimesional. Cakes are
made with raw eggs and flour, but I'm not likely to confuse the two any
time soon. :)

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

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Jose > posted:

>> Mathematically, an "angle" by itself *is* a scalar, and I'm not
>> arguing otherwise. I'm saying that "Angle Of Attack" requires
>> direction to have meaning. Without direction, there is no AOA.
>> [...]
>>
>> Well, OK. Then, how do you determine the AOA when the aircraft is
>> parked? If the component of direction is inseparable from the
>> definition of AOA, how can it be a scalar?
>
[...]

> When you say:
>
>> I'm saying that "Angle Of Attack" requires direction to have
>> meaning.
>
> all you're really saying is that you don't have an angle of attack if
> you don't have the requisite components (a relative wind, and a
> chord).
>
I'm not sure that I follow your analogies, here, Jose. But, it may be a
good idea for you to look up the definition of "scalar". It *can not*
include a directional component. Conversely, AOA can not exist without
one.

Neil

[Dave Butler]

Neil Gould wrote:

> But, it may be a
> good idea for you to look up the definition of "scalar". It *can not*
> include a directional component. Conversely, AOA can not exist without
> one.

Angle of attack does not "include a directional component". It is just an angle,
which is a scalar quantity.

You have evidently looked up the dictionary definition of scalar, and you read
it, but you didn't understand it.

Dave

[Bob Moore]

"Neil Gould" wrote
> Mathematically, an "angle" by itself *is* a scalar, and I'm not arguing
> otherwise. I'm saying that "Angle Of Attack" requires direction to have
> meaning. Without direction, there is no AOA.

Neil, give us an example of AOA having a "direction".

> Well, OK. Then, how do you determine the AOA when the aircraft is parked?

When parked with no wind, there is no relative wind and therefore NO AOA.

Bob Moore

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Bob Moore > posted:

> "Neil Gould" wrote
>> Mathematically, an "angle" by itself *is* a scalar, and I'm not
>> arguing otherwise. I'm saying that "Angle Of Attack" requires
>> direction to have meaning. Without direction, there is no AOA.
>
> Neil, give us an example of AOA having a "direction".
>
>> Well, OK. Then, how do you determine the AOA when the aircraft is
>> parked?
>
> When parked with no wind, there is no relative wind and therefore NO
> AOA.
>
Stated another way, AOA doesn't exist *without* a directional component.

Neil

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Dave Butler > posted:

> Neil Gould wrote:
>
>> But, it may be a
>> good idea for you to look up the definition of "scalar". It *can not*
>> include a directional component. Conversely, AOA can not exist
>> without one.
>
> Angle of attack does not "include a directional component". It is
> just an angle, which is a scalar quantity.
>
If what you think is true, then it is possible to determine the AOA when
the aircraft is parked. Do so, and I'll revise my thinking. The wonderful
thing about this level of mathematics is that it is not ambiguous. If any
usage results in a violation of the definition, then the usage is wrong,
period.

Neil

[Jose]

> I'm not sure that I follow your analogies, here, Jose.

The analogy is merely that you can use one kind of quantity to derive
another kind of quantity. You can use eggs to derive cake, you can use
"time of day" to derive "time", you can use length to derive area, and
you can use vectors to derive scalars.

The simplest example, I suppose, is a ratio. Fifteen kilograms is THREE
times as much as five kilograms. Fifteen inches is THREE times as much
as five inches. The "three" in both cases is the same - it is a pure
scalar quantity. It is the same "three" as the number of fingers on my
hand that are surrounded by other fingers and the number of days in a
long weekend.

Fifteen kilograms is =not= three times as much as five inches. The
units are important when =deriving= the result, but once the result is
correctly derived, it has its own units (or lack of them).

Similarly, two vectors can intersect at an angle. The angle is not a
vector, it is a scalar. As an aside, two vectors (of the same units)
can also define an area; that area is not a vector, it is a scalar (with
units of square fubars, where "fubars" are the unit both vectors are
measured in).

A vector has magnitude and direction. AOA has no direction in and of
itself. To see this, imagine a wing chord which is inclined three
degrees (the leading edge higher) from some reference plane (say, the
fuselage), and a relative wind which is blowing up from ahead and
underneath at an angle of eighteen degrees to that same fuselage, at
seventy knots. This is typical of an approach in a light aircraft.

What is the angle of attack? To be a scalar, it would have just
magnitude (which could include an algebraic sign). To be a vector, it
would have to have magnitude AND direction.

In this case, the angle of attack is twenty-one degrees. It is the
difference between the two angles given (with reference to the same
fuselage). There is no "direction" to this angle (except perhaps an
algebraic sign). So it is not a vector.

One source of confusion arises because in other contexts angles are also
used to define direction, for example wind velocity is a vector whose
angle is a direction component, not a magnigude component. For example,
"zero three zero at ten knots" is a vector, where the magnitude part is
ten knots, and the direction part is 30 degrees East of North. However,
if you put a weight on an old fashioned butcher scale, the pointer moves
through some angle. That angle does =not= represent a direction, it is
a magnitude only, and thus a scalar (related to the weight of the meat
put in the pan). And if you weigh two cuts of meat, note the angles of
the pointer for each weighing, and subtract those angles, the result is
also an angle - a magnitude with no direction component. This is a scalar.

So, depending on context, angles can be magnitudes =or= directions, but
not both at once.

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

[Dave Butler]

Neil Gould wrote:

> If what you think is true, then it is possible to determine the AOA when
> the aircraft is parked. Do so, and I'll revise my thinking. The wonderful
> thing about this level of mathematics is that it is not ambiguous. If any
> usage results in a violation of the definition, then the usage is wrong,
> period.

I don't give a flip whether you revise your thinking or not. Your loss.

[Bob Moore]

"Neil Gould" wrote
> Stated another way, AOA doesn't exist *without* a directional component.

Directions are measured in reference to "somewhere", Up, Down,
North, South, etc. What is the reference for measuring AOA?

Bob Moore

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Dave Butler > posted:

> Neil Gould wrote:
>
>> If what you think is true, then it is possible to determine the AOA
>> when the aircraft is parked. Do so, and I'll revise my thinking. The
>> wonderful thing about this level of mathematics is that it is not
>> ambiguous. If any usage results in a violation of the definition,
>> then the usage is wrong, period.
>
> I don't give a flip whether you revise your thinking or not. Your
> loss.
>
Not really.

Have a nice weekend, and fly safely.

Neil

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Jose > posted:
[...]
> A vector has magnitude and direction. AOA has no direction in and of
> itself.
>
[...]
> What is the angle of attack? To be a scalar, it would have just
> magnitude (which could include an algebraic sign). To be a vector, it
> would have to have magnitude AND direction.
>
However, it is valid for a vector to have a magnitude of zero. It is NOT
valid for a scalar to have a directional component, and it is meaningless
to have an AOA with no directional component and magnitude (e.g. parked
aircraft have no AOA). Ergo, to have an AOA, you *must* also have velocity
(magnitude) and direction.

[...]
> In this case, the angle of attack is twenty-one degrees. It is the
> difference between the two angles given (with reference to the same
> fuselage).
>
The two aspects of the AOA is referenced to the wing chord and relative
wind, not the fuselage.

> There is no "direction" to this angle (except perhaps an
> algebraic sign). So it is not a vector.
>
I'd say that it is often "OK" to PRESUME the directional components and
IGNORE their value if they are unimportant to usages where only the angle
is needed. But, that's quite a different situation than calling AOA
something it can't be by definition.

[...]
> So, depending on context, angles can be magnitudes =or= directions,
> but not both at once.
>
We're not talking about generic "angles", but an "Angle Of Attack", i.e.,
a specific usage which is defined by and inseparable from the components
of motion (aka relative wind). Without those components, AOA doesn't
exist.

Neil

[Stefan]

T o d d P a t t i s t wrote:

> AOA is a scalar.

Actually, if the wing is reasonably designed, the AOA *is* a vector. It
changes along the wing, usually being smaller at the wing tip and bigger
at the wing root. Hence, it cannot be described by a single scalar, but
rather by a -you guessed it- vector. On the most modern wings (e.g.
Antares), this vector is even infinite-dimensional.

I'm aware that this was not what Neil meant when he was talking of AOA
being a vector.

Stefan

[Stefan]

T o d d P a t t i s t wrote:

> the span into that function and evaluate it. It's never a
> vector.

Two ways to describe the same thing. (Reminds me on Newton and
Bernoulli... shall we start? :-) But I agree that the function picture
is more natural.

> As a side note, this is getting kind of tangential to
> aviation.

Not too surprizing in this group.

Stefan

[Dave Butler]

Neil Gould wrote:

>>>If what you think is true, then it is possible to determine the AOA
>>>when the aircraft is parked. Do so, and I'll revise my thinking. The
>>>wonderful thing about this level of mathematics is that it is not
>>>ambiguous. If any usage results in a violation of the definition,
>>>then the usage is wrong, period.

Sorry if I was harsh. The point is, usually one coming seeking knowledge is not
quite so sure of himself. You might do better to ask questions rather than
asserting that you know everything, that you are right, and anyone claiming
otherwise is "wrong, period". If you rely on a brief dictionary definition of
terms, it is likely you are missing a lot of nuance and detail.

Anyway, a high-school or undergraduate mathematics text is a better source of
knowledge about scalar and vector mathematics than either a dictionary or this
group. I recommend you get one and read and understand it.

Dave
--really-- gone from this thread this time.

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Dave Butler > posted:

> Neil Gould wrote:
>
>>>> If what you think is true, then it is possible to determine the AOA
>>>> when the aircraft is parked. Do so, and I'll revise my thinking.
>>>> The wonderful thing about this level of mathematics is that it is
>>>> not ambiguous. If any usage results in a violation of the
>>>> definition, then the usage is wrong, period.
>
> Sorry if I was harsh. The point is, usually one coming seeking
> knowledge is not quite so sure of himself. You might do better to ask
> questions rather than asserting that you know everything, that you
> are right, and anyone claiming otherwise is "wrong, period". If you
> rely on a brief dictionary definition of terms, it is likely you are
> missing a lot of nuance and detail.
>
Your guidance is appreciated, Dave. However, I think you may have an
impression of me and "how we got here" that doesn't reflect my
"self-assurance". I am not claiming to "know everything", or even nearly
so. I do ask questions, such as the one that I've repeatedly asked, above,
and so far have gotten only replies that I'm wrong and everyone else has
the "right answer period". As well, a lot of my "attitude problem" stems
from the claims that were erroneously attributed to me, and the subsequent
responses from those that thought those attributions were true, or at
least didn't acknowledge that they weren't.

Frankly, I think we've all been dancing around this, and I suspect it's
gone way beyond its importance with regard to how we use AOA in every-day
aviation. ;-)

> Anyway, a high-school or undergraduate mathematics text is a better
> source of knowledge about scalar and vector mathematics than either a
> dictionary or this group. I recommend you get one and read and
> understand it.
>
(chuckle) Unfortunately, I got rid of those many decades ago. However, the
few calculus, geometry, and logic texts that I still have from my time in
engineering school (also many decades ago, so I'm not claiming any special
priveledge on the basis of that experience) so far don't refute what I've
presented: a vector with a magnitude of zero is legit; a scalar with a
directional component is not.

I can envision an argument that hasn't been presented that would establish
AOA as a scalar, and it relates to the question re: the AOA of an aircraft
while parked. I'm searching for a valid example of it (off-line, btw),
but, so far, I've come up dry. If I do find one that supports the argument
I envision, I'll present it as a follow-up refuting my own assertion,
along with an apology to those I suggested were "wrong". Not that they're
holding their breath, since they just think I'm just "wrong", anyway!
;-)

Regards,

Neil

[Jose]

> Stated another way, AOA doesn't exist *without* a directional component.

No. AOL doesn't exist without a =component= with a directional
component. Not the same.

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

[Jose]

> it is valid for a vector to have a magnitude of zero.

Correct.

> It is NOT
> valid for a scalar to have a directional component

Correct.

> and it is meaningless
> to have an AOA with no directional component and magnitude

Incorrect. I can give you many examples of such AOAs. Can you give me
an example of an AOA that =itself= has a direction and magnitude? (Not
that it's derived from things that have direction and magnitude, but
that it, =itself= has such)

> The two aspects of the AOA is referenced to the wing chord and relative
> wind, not the fuselage.

The two aspects of the AOA are referenced to each other. I refereneced
them to the same other thing (fuselage) and then derived their relation
to each other.

> I'd say that it is often "OK" to PRESUME the directional components and
> IGNORE their value if they are unimportant to usages where only the angle
> is needed.

It is not OK to presume anything in math. Things are what they are
defined to be.

You might be thinking of "unit vectors" in which case a magnitude of one
is used, but they are defined that way. Or you might be thinking of the
algebraic sign (which is part of a scalar quantity).

> We're not talking about generic "angles", but an "Angle Of Attack"

An angle of attack =is= an angle. All angles are scalars. Therefore,
an angle of attack is a scalar. Which part of this do you disagree with?

> i.e.,
> a specific usage which is defined by and inseparable from the components
> of motion (aka relative wind).

Defined by, yes. Inseperable from, no.

The price to earnings ratio (PE) of a stock is =defined by= the dollar
price of a stock, and the dollar earnings of the company divided by the
number of shares outstanding. Without those components, you don't have
a PE ratio. But the PE is a pure number. It is not a dollar amount.

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

[Jose]

> Actually, if the wing is reasonably designed, the AOA *is* a vector. It changes along the wing, usually being smaller at the wing tip and bigger at the wing root. Hence, it cannot be described by a single scalar, but rather by a

That's not what a vector is.

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

[Matt Whiting]

George Patterson wrote:

> Matt Whiting wrote:
>
>>
>> I do greaser full-stall landings just as I was taught.
>
>
> I have never seen anyone do a greaser full-stall landing; the two are
> contradictory. If you have enough speed to grease it on, you're not even
> close to a stall. Most people rarely do full-stall landings, and nobody
> I know teaches students to stall the plane in. You touch down with some
> flying speed.

Not at all. You come in and level out an inch or less above the runway
and then bleed off speed until you stall and settle onto the runway. It
is very smooth when done correctly.

Maybe nobody you know does, but R.C. Johnston at N38 taught his students
this way for probably 50 years.

Matt

[Dave Stadt]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> George Patterson wrote:
>
> > Matt Whiting wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> I do greaser full-stall landings just as I was taught.
> >
> >
> > I have never seen anyone do a greaser full-stall landing; the two are
> > contradictory. If you have enough speed to grease it on, you're not even
> > close to a stall. Most people rarely do full-stall landings, and nobody
> > I know teaches students to stall the plane in. You touch down with some
> > flying speed.
>
> Not at all. You come in and level out an inch or less above the runway
> and then bleed off speed until you stall and settle onto the runway. It
> is very smooth when done correctly.
>
> Maybe nobody you know does, but R.C. Johnston at N38 taught his students
> this way for probably 50 years.
>
> Matt

That's not a full stall landing. That's flying it on.

[Matt Barrow]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> George Patterson wrote:
> > I have never seen anyone do a greaser full-stall landing; the two are
> > contradictory. If you have enough speed to grease it on, you're not even
> > close to a stall. Most people rarely do full-stall landings, and nobody
> > I know teaches students to stall the plane in. You touch down with some
> > flying speed.
>
> Not at all. You come in and level out an inch or less above the runway
> and then bleed off speed until you stall and settle onto the runway. It
> is very smooth when done correctly.
>
> Maybe nobody you know does, but R.C. Johnston at N38 taught his students
> this way for probably 50 years.

An inch or two? Chuck Yeager should be so good.

[George Patterson]

Matt Whiting wrote:
>
> Not at all. You come in and level out an inch or less above the runway
> and then bleed off speed until you stall and settle onto the runway. It
> is very smooth when done correctly.

The plane isn't stalling.

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

[Cub Driver]

>>> I do greaser full-stall landings just as I was taught.
>>
>> I have never seen anyone do a greaser full-stall landing; the two are
>> contradictory. If you have enough speed to grease it on, you're not even
>> close to a stall. Most people rarely do full-stall landings, and nobody
>> I know teaches students to stall the plane in. You touch down with some
>> flying speed.
>
>Not at all. You come in and level out an inch or less above the runway
>and then bleed off speed until you stall and settle onto the runway. It
>is very smooth when done correctly.
>
>Maybe nobody you know does, but R.C. Johnston at N38 taught his students
>this way for probably 50 years.

Talking about taildraggers here? I greased the three-point landing on
my check-flight, but rarely since. Even on grass, there's generally a
rumble. Perhaps it can be done consistently, but I've never met anyone
who does, not even my instructor.

Wheelies, now ....


-- all the best, Dan Ford

email (put Cubdriver in subject line)

Warbird's Forum: www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum: www.pipercubforum.com
the blog: www.danford.net
In Search of Lost Time: www.readingproust.com

[Matt Whiting]

George Patterson wrote:

> Matt Whiting wrote:
>
>>
>> Not at all. You come in and level out an inch or less above the
>> runway and then bleed off speed until you stall and settle onto the
>> runway. It is very smooth when done correctly.
>
>
> The plane isn't stalling.

True, it is just the wing that is stalling. At the onset of stall the
airplane will settle very smoothly to the runway assuming that the
wheels are very close when the stall occurs.

You somehow seem to think that you can let the airplane down more
gradually using elevator while at a higher speed than what occurs when
the wing stalls. This simply isn't the case in most airplanes. When
the wing stalls, the lost of list is fairly dramatic, but it still takes
time for the airplane to accelerate downward. If you are within inches
of the runway, this will set you onto the ground very gently. Few
pilots can do a more gently touchdown using elevator control alone.

It is obvious that you weren't taught full-stall landings (by that I
mean having the control wheel full-aft and the stall horn blaring at the
moment of touchdown) and don't know how they are done or how good the
results can be when done properly.

You should find an instructor competent in this area and take a lesson
or two. It will be both fun and enlightening.

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Cub Driver wrote:

>>>>I do greaser full-stall landings just as I was taught.
>>>
>>>I have never seen anyone do a greaser full-stall landing; the two are
>>>contradictory. If you have enough speed to grease it on, you're not even
>>>close to a stall. Most people rarely do full-stall landings, and nobody
>>>I know teaches students to stall the plane in. You touch down with some
>>>flying speed.
>>
>>Not at all. You come in and level out an inch or less above the runway
>>and then bleed off speed until you stall and settle onto the runway. It
>>is very smooth when done correctly.
>>
>>Maybe nobody you know does, but R.C. Johnston at N38 taught his students
>>this way for probably 50 years.
>
>
> Talking about taildraggers here? I greased the three-point landing on
> my check-flight, but rarely since. Even on grass, there's generally a
> rumble. Perhaps it can be done consistently, but I've never met anyone
> who does, not even my instructor.

Nope, Cessna 150s, 172s and 182s. He flew them all pretty much the same
way. Dick could do them very consistently, but then he probably
averaged 20+ landings per day for something close to 50 years. He's
retired now, but still flies his 150 for fun.

I can't do them consistently, but probably hit what I'd call a greaser
about 40% of the time. Most folks I've flown with or watched, don't do
greasers any more than that during a "flown on" landing.

I didn't say it was EASY to do full-stall greasers, I just said it was
possible. I believe the OP asserted it wasn't possible. That is simply
not true.


Matt

[Peter Duniho]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> True, it is just the wing that is stalling. At the onset of stall the
> airplane will settle very smoothly to the runway assuming that the wheels
> are very close when the stall occurs.

You really should have gone and read this whole thread before reviving it.
This trail has been worn quite smooth already, and you're on the wrong side
of correctness with respect to the possibility of a literal "full-stall
landing".

> You somehow seem to think that you can let the airplane down more
> gradually using elevator while at a higher speed than what occurs when the
> wing stalls. This simply isn't the case in most airplanes. When the wing
> stalls, the lost of list is fairly dramatic, but it still takes time for
> the airplane to accelerate downward. If you are within inches of the
> runway, this will set you onto the ground very gently. Few pilots can do
> a more gently touchdown using elevator control alone.

You cannot achieve a pitch angle sufficient to stall the wing while "within
inches of the runway". The tail of the airplane will hit the ground first.

> It is obvious that you weren't taught full-stall landings (by that I mean
> having the control wheel full-aft and the stall horn blaring at the moment
> of touchdown) and don't know how they are done or how good the results can
> be when done properly.

Obvious? What's obvious is that you are making statements without having
the knowledge to back them up. It's also obvious you don't have the good
sense to avoid insulting someone else's flying ability without ensuring
first that you have a clue about what you're talking about.

I can't vouch for George's flying ability, but there's nothing in his posts
to suggest it's anything less than stellar. Your denigration of his flying
skills was completely unjustified.

> You should find an instructor competent in this area and take a lesson or
> two. It will be both fun and enlightening.

Take your own advice.

Pete

[Gary Drescher]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
> You cannot achieve a pitch angle sufficient to stall the wing while
> "within inches of the runway". The tail of the airplane will hit the
> ground first.

Pete, what are the numbers on that? (Sorry if I missed it earlier in the
thread.) Let's consider a 172. I've heard (though I don't know if this is
right) that the critical AoA for 172s is somewhere around 15-18 degrees.
Looking at the diagram in the POH, I see the wing chord at an angle of about
20 degrees to a line tangent to the underside of the main wheels and the
tail. So there seems to be room for a stalled landing--especially if there's
flap deployment, which increases the camber and AoA even further. Or am I
missing something here?

--Gary

[Matt Whiting]

Peter Duniho wrote:

> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>True, it is just the wing that is stalling. At the onset of stall the
>>airplane will settle very smoothly to the runway assuming that the wheels
>>are very close when the stall occurs.
>
>
> You really should have gone and read this whole thread before reviving it.
> This trail has been worn quite smooth already, and you're on the wrong side
> of correctness with respect to the possibility of a literal "full-stall
> landing".

That sometimes happens when you come back from vacatoin.


>>You somehow seem to think that you can let the airplane down more
>>gradually using elevator while at a higher speed than what occurs when the
>>wing stalls. This simply isn't the case in most airplanes. When the wing
>>stalls, the lost of list is fairly dramatic, but it still takes time for
>>the airplane to accelerate downward. If you are within inches of the
>>runway, this will set you onto the ground very gently. Few pilots can do
>>a more gently touchdown using elevator control alone.
>
>
> You cannot achieve a pitch angle sufficient to stall the wing while "within
> inches of the runway". The tail of the airplane will hit the ground first.

In some airplanes, yes, but in many, no.


>>It is obvious that you weren't taught full-stall landings (by that I mean
>>having the control wheel full-aft and the stall horn blaring at the moment
>>of touchdown) and don't know how they are done or how good the results can
>>be when done properly.
>
>
> Obvious? What's obvious is that you are making statements without having
> the knowledge to back them up. It's also obvious you don't have the good
> sense to avoid insulting someone else's flying ability without ensuring
> first that you have a clue about what you're talking about.
>
> I can't vouch for George's flying ability, but there's nothing in his posts
> to suggest it's anything less than stellar. Your denigration of his flying
> skills was completely unjustified.

I didn't denigrate his flying skills, simply suggested that there is a
skill he wasn't taught. Nothing to be ashamed of about that and it
certainly isn't an insult. I wasn't taught to do Immelmanns, and saying
I can't do one is hardly an insult, just a fact.


>>You should find an instructor competent in this area and take a lesson or
>>two. It will be both fun and enlightening.
>
>
> Take your own advice.

I do at least once a year.

Matt

[Peter Duniho]

"Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
...
> Pete, what are the numbers on that?

Having accidently scraped the tail on the runway without stalling the
airplane, I have emperical evidence of that fact. Keep in mind also that
the stalling AOA while in ground effect is not the same as that at altitude.

Pete

[Matt Whiting]

Peter Duniho wrote:

> "Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Pete, what are the numbers on that?
>
>
> Having accidently scraped the tail on the runway without stalling the
> airplane, I have emperical evidence of that fact. Keep in mind also that
> the stalling AOA while in ground effect is not the same as that at altitude.

What aircraft type? Sure, if you fly along low with sufficient airspeed
and then yank back on the yoke, I'm not surprised that you could get a
tail strike. However, if you fly inches above the runway and hold the
plane off as the airspeed decays, you can get the yoke all the way back
and the stall horn on just a second before touchdown. I've done it many
times and this is the way my instructor taught me to make virtually
every landing, even crosswind landings in light winds.


Matt

[Peter Duniho]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> [...] you can get the yoke all the way back and the stall horn on just a
> second before touchdown.

If the stall horn is on only a second before touchdown, you have not stalled
the airplane. The stall horn sounds well before you reach the stalling
angle of attack.

[George Patterson]

Matt Whiting wrote:
>
> True, it is just the wing that is stalling.

No, it's not. You can't get the angle of attack required to stall the wing
without hitting the tail.

> You somehow seem to think that you can let the airplane down more
> gradually using elevator while at a higher speed than what occurs when
> the wing stalls. This simply isn't the case in most airplanes.

Bull**** -- that's *exactly* what you are doing.

> It is obvious that you weren't taught full-stall landings

No, I was taught by instructors who were educated enough to know what they were
actually doing.

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

[Matt Whiting]

Peter Duniho wrote:
> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>[...] you can get the yoke all the way back and the stall horn on just a
>>second before touchdown.
>
>
> If the stall horn is on only a second before touchdown, you have not stalled
> the airplane. The stall horn sounds well before you reach the stalling
> angle of attack.

True, but only a few knots above in the Cessna's I've flown 150 - 182.
If you keep smoothly pulling back the yoke, the airspeed will bleed into
stall territory very shortly after you get a full stall horn.


Matt

[Matt Whiting]

George Patterson wrote:
> Matt Whiting wrote:
>
>>
>> True, it is just the wing that is stalling.
>
>
> No, it's not. You can't get the angle of attack required to stall the
> wing without hitting the tail.

I get enough angle of attack that the wing will no longer support the
weight of the aircraft even with full up elevator. I'm not sure your
definition of stall, but this one works for me.


>> You somehow seem to think that you can let the airplane down more
>> gradually using elevator while at a higher speed than what occurs when
>> the wing stalls. This simply isn't the case in most airplanes.
>
>
> Bull**** -- that's *exactly* what you are doing.

Yes, I'm using the elevator to bleed off airspeed until the wing will no
longer support the airplane. That isn't quite the same as using power
and pitch when "flying onto" the runway. The wing will still support
the weight of the airplane in that approach so you are flying it onto
the ground.


>> It is obvious that you weren't taught full-stall landings
>
>
> No, I was taught by instructors who were educated enough to know what
> they were actually doing.

How many of your instructors have been appeared in AOPA Pilot's Pilot
feature?


Matt

[Peter Duniho]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> True, but only a few knots above in the Cessna's I've flown 150 - 182.

Per certification rules, the stall warning must occur AT LEAST 5 knots prior
to stall. In my experience, it commonly occurs with an even greater margin.

> If you keep smoothly pulling back the yoke, the airspeed will bleed into
> stall territory very shortly after you get a full stall horn.

No, it won't. The airplane will settle onto the runway before you stall.
You have to move the yoke pretty sharply to keep lift equal to weight at
that airspeed.

Pete

[Peter Duniho]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> I get enough angle of attack that the wing will no longer support the
> weight of the aircraft even with full up elevator.

Any angle of attack may be insufficient to support the weight of the
airplane. All you need is a low enough airspeed.

> I'm not sure your definition of stall, but this one works for me.

The definition of stall is quite different, and has already been discussed
in detail in this thread. Bottom line: you don't define stall based on the
lift the wing is generating. You *may* relate stall to (but not definite it
based on) the coefficient of lift, but to figure out actual lift you need to
account for airspeed, and stall has nothing to do with airspeed, not from a
definition point of view.

> Yes, I'm using the elevator to bleed off airspeed until the wing will no
> longer support the airplane.

That does not mean you are stalling the airplane. It just means your angle
of attack is insufficient to generate lift equal to the weight of the
airplane at your current airspeed.

Pete

[Matt Whiting]

Peter Duniho wrote:
> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>True, but only a few knots above in the Cessna's I've flown 150 - 182.
>
>
> Per certification rules, the stall warning must occur AT LEAST 5 knots prior
> to stall. In my experience, it commonly occurs with an even greater margin.

I think 5 is considered "a few" by most, even hair-splitters such as
yourself.


>>If you keep smoothly pulling back the yoke, the airspeed will bleed into
>>stall territory very shortly after you get a full stall horn.
>
>
> No, it won't. The airplane will settle onto the runway before you stall.
> You have to move the yoke pretty sharply to keep lift equal to weight at
> that airspeed.

Yes, it does require that you accelerate the rearward movement of the
yoke as the plane begins to settle in order to hit the stop at or slight
before the tires touch.

Again, I guess it depends on how you define stall. To me, a stall has
occurred when I can't maintain altitude with the elevator full-up. That
is the condition in which I attempt to land in normal conditions (light
crosswind and lack of significant wind gusts). I've never flown a
Cessna with an AOA indicator so I can't say if I've achieved the
critical angle of attack prior to touchdown, but these have been called
"full stall landings" since before I was born so that is good enough for me.


Matt

[Peter Duniho]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> I think 5 is considered "a few" by most, even hair-splitters such as
> yourself.

Each person has their own definition. If you want to split hairs, you need
to use a more precise term. To me, "a few" is generally three, while I'd
use "several" for five or more.

In any case, the real question is how much before you stall will the horn go
off. It goes off much longer than a second before you stall the wing.

> [...] but these have been called "full stall landings" since before I was
> born so that is good enough for me.

As long as you understand that you are not actually stalling the airplane,
that's fine. Use whatever inaccurate terminology you like.

Pete

[Matt Whiting]

Peter Duniho wrote:

> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>I think 5 is considered "a few" by most, even hair-splitters such as
>>yourself.
>
>
> Each person has their own definition. If you want to split hairs, you need
> to use a more precise term. To me, "a few" is generally three, while I'd
> use "several" for five or more.

If you check Websters it says a small number of units. Five is a small
number.


> In any case, the real question is how much before you stall will the horn go
> off. It goes off much longer than a second before you stall the wing.
>
>
>>[...] but these have been called "full stall landings" since before I was
>>born so that is good enough for me.
>
>
> As long as you understand that you are not actually stalling the airplane,
> that's fine. Use whatever inaccurate terminology you like.

I understand that I'm stalling the wing, not the airplane.

Matt

[Peter Duniho]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> If you check Websters it says a small number of units. Five is a small
> number.

My point is that "a few" is undefined with respect to a real number. If you
want someone to interpret your statement of "a few" with other than THEIR
definition, you need to be more specific. It is useless to come back later
and redefine it for them.

>> As long as you understand that you are not actually stalling the
>> airplane, that's fine. Use whatever inaccurate terminology you like.
>
> I understand that I'm stalling the wing, not the airplane.

Now you're just being an ass; "stalling the airplane" is the same as
"stalling the wing". In any case, you are not stalling the wing either.

Pete