Another of those unreliable AC engines stalled on approach

[xxx]

Article reproduced in its entirety:

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Pilot hurt in plane crash at Thetford airport

Published: Monday, December 18, 2006
THETFORD - A pilot from Post Mills was injured Sunday morning when the
plane he was piloting crashed at the Post Mills Airport in Thetford,
said state police in Bradford.

Andy Gelston, 45, was transported by helicopter to Dartmouth Hitchcock
Medical Center for unspecified injuries after the engine on his light
sport aircraft stalled at between 50 and 100 feet in the air and
crashed, nose first, at the end of the grass runway.

The Federal Aviation Administration is conducting an investigation.

[Sylvain]

xxx wrote:

> Pilot hurt in plane crash at Thetford airport

This story does not make sense; if the aircraft was 'on
approach', I suppose it means landing, and looses its
engine 'between 50 and 100 feet in the air' I cannot see
why it would 'crash nose first at the end of the runway';

An aircraft does not fall out of the sky when the engine
quits. And in very short final (between 50 and 100 feet
in the air' it would be very short final indeed) it
would make no difference whatsoever that the engine is
running or not.

Another great moment in the history of journalism....

--Sylvain

[The Old Bloke]

"Sylvain" > wrote in message
...
> xxx wrote:
>
>> Pilot hurt in plane crash at Thetford airport
>
> This story does not make sense; if the aircraft was 'on
> approach', I suppose it means landing, and looses its
> engine 'between 50 and 100 feet in the air' I cannot see
> why it would 'crash nose first at the end of the runway';
>
> An aircraft does not fall out of the sky when the engine
> quits. And in very short final (between 50 and 100 feet
> in the air' it would be very short final indeed) it
> would make no difference whatsoever that the engine is
> running or not.
>
> Another great moment in the history of journalism....
>
> --Sylvain
>
..
I assumed it was taking off.

[Kyle Boatright]

"xxx" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> Article reproduced in its entirety:
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Pilot hurt in plane crash at Thetford airport
>
> Published: Monday, December 18, 2006
> THETFORD - A pilot from Post Mills was injured Sunday morning when the
> plane he was piloting crashed at the Post Mills Airport in Thetford,
> said state police in Bradford.
>
> Andy Gelston, 45, was transported by helicopter to Dartmouth Hitchcock
> Medical Center for unspecified injuries after the engine on his light
> sport aircraft stalled at between 50 and 100 feet in the air and
> crashed, nose first, at the end of the grass runway.
>
> The Federal Aviation Administration is conducting an investigation.

What are the odds that the pilot stalled the aircraft and the engine was
performing just fine? Writers often miss the fact that the word "stalled"
has an additional meaning in the aviation realm.

KB

[Peter Dohm]

Article reproduced in its entirety:

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Pilot hurt in plane crash at Thetford airport

Published: Monday, December 18, 2006
THETFORD - A pilot from Post Mills was injured Sunday morning when the
plane he was piloting crashed at the Post Mills Airport in Thetford,
said state police in Bradford.

Andy Gelston, 45, was transported by helicopter to Dartmouth Hitchcock
Medical Center for unspecified injuries after the engine on his light
sport aircraft stalled at between 50 and 100 feet in the air and
crashed, nose first, at the end of the grass runway.

The Federal Aviation Administration is conducting an investigation.

-------------end of original story----------------

>
> This story does not make sense; if the aircraft was 'on
> approach', I suppose it means landing, and looses its
> engine 'between 50 and 100 feet in the air' I cannot see
> why it would 'crash nose first at the end of the runway';
>
> An aircraft does not fall out of the sky when the engine
> quits. And in very short final (between 50 and 100 feet
> in the air' it would be very short final indeed) it
> would make no difference whatsoever that the engine is
> running or not.
>
> Another great moment in the history of journalism....
>
> --Sylvain
>
And such moments become greater and more frequent...

Twenty five years ago, the technical expertise was similar; but the
linguistic precision was far better. We would not have been left to presume
whether it was the aircraft, or only the engine, which crashed nose first...

Peter
(Just being an old grump)

[Crash Lander[_1_]]

"Kyle Boatright" > wrote in message
. ..
> What are the odds that the pilot stalled the aircraft and the engine was
> performing just fine? Writers often miss the fact that the word
> "stalled" has an additional meaning in the aviation realm.
>
> KB
My thoughts exactly. What's the bet he tried to climb too steeply and
stalled it, dropped the nose as per his training, and found he wasn't as
high as he had hoped. I bet the engine was still running as he hit the
ground, and it's the journalist that's stalled.
Oz Lander

[[email protected]]

Peter Dohm wrote:

> Twenty five years ago, the technical expertise was similar; but the
> linguistic precision was far better. We would not have been left to presume
> whether it was the aircraft, or only the engine, which crashed nose first...
>
> Peter
> (Just being an old grump)

Only by careful reading can we assure ourselves that it was not the
PILOT that crashed nose first...

[Greg Farris]

In article >,
says...
>
>
>"Kyle Boatright" > wrote in message
. ..
>> What are the odds that the pilot stalled the aircraft and the engine was
>> performing just fine? Writers often miss the fact that the word
>> "stalled" has an additional meaning in the aviation realm.
>>
>> KB
>My thoughts exactly. What's the bet he tried to climb too steeply and
>stalled it, dropped the nose as per his training, and found he wasn't as
>high as he had hoped. I bet the engine was still running as he hit the
>ground, and it's the journalist that's stalled.
>Oz Lander
>
>

My thoughts as well.
Departure stall - pretty unforgiving close to the ground.
When the journalist heard the word "stall" (s)he assumed the pilot, once
again, simply released the clutch too quickly and stalled the engine!
Journalists often make this mistake.

Judging from the town names, this accident happened in Vermont.
Post Mills is a tiny little grass strip.

[Stubby]

Greg Farris wrote:
> Judging from the town names, this accident happened in Vermont.
> Post Mills is a tiny little grass strip.
>
Post Mills Airport (about 10 sm north of Lebanon) used to host the
Experimental Balloon Festival, usually in May of each year. A few small
aircraft were welcome as were helicopters. The last one I went to was
in 1999. I heard an experimental balloon on a tethered flight blew up
and crashed from 50' just after we left.

[Judah]

"xxx" > wrote in news:1166574799.928243.156580
@f1g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

<snip>
> ... the engine on his light
> sport aircraft stalled at between 50 and 100 feet in the air and
> crashed, nose first, at the end of the grass runway.


You should try to become somewhat educated before you take the words of
journalists as gospel.

Airplanes do not suddenly go extremely nose low simply because of engine
failure. They essentially become gliders and begin descending in a manner
that is typically controllable and gradual. Pilots are trained to manage
such a situation to maximize their glide ratio so they can find a suitable
place to land. I believe the typical glide ratio of a small airplane is
over a mile of glide distance for every 1000' of available altitude.

On the other hand, if the Pilot stalled the aircraft (either with or
without engine power) by not properly managing the airspeed across his
wings (for example by climbing too aggressively), the plane may lose its
lift (aka stall), and drop its nose somewhat suddenly.

Part of the Pilot Private Training syllabus focuses on recognizing the
onset of a stall early and being able to recover from such a stall within
50'. There is even a sensor on the plane's wing to sound an alert in the
cockpit if a stall is imminent.

It seems likely to me that the wing, not the engine, "stalled", causing the
plane to drop its nose suddenly, and crash into the ground. Possibly the
pilot did not have the proper training or attention to recover at such a
low altitude.

It is equally as likely that the journalist who wrote the article has no
background in aviation, and as such did not accurately interpret or report
the information collected. Rather than properly research the story, she met
her deadline and moved on.

[Mxsmanic]

Judah writes:

> It is equally as likely that the journalist who wrote the article has no
> background in aviation, and as such did not accurately interpret or report
> the information collected. Rather than properly research the story, she met
> her deadline and moved on.

It is equally likely that aviators reading the article will make snap
judgements about what the journalist did or did not know or
understand, and will imagine their own version of the story that may
be dramatically different from what was reported.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Peter Dohm]

"Judah" > wrote in message
. ..
> "xxx" > wrote in news:1166574799.928243.156580
> @f1g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
>
> <snip>
> > ... the engine on his light
> > sport aircraft stalled at between 50 and 100 feet in the air and
> > crashed, nose first, at the end of the grass runway.
>
>
> You should try to become somewhat educated before you take the words of
> journalists as gospel.
>
> Airplanes do not suddenly go extremely nose low simply because of engine
> failure. They essentially become gliders and begin descending in a manner
> that is typically controllable and gradual. Pilots are trained to manage
> such a situation to maximize their glide ratio so they can find a suitable
> place to land. I believe the typical glide ratio of a small airplane is
> over a mile of glide distance for every 1000' of available altitude.
>
> On the other hand, if the Pilot stalled the aircraft (either with or
> without engine power) by not properly managing the airspeed across his
> wings (for example by climbing too aggressively), the plane may lose its
> lift (aka stall), and drop its nose somewhat suddenly.
>
> Part of the Pilot Private Training syllabus focuses on recognizing the
> onset of a stall early and being able to recover from such a stall within
> 50'. There is even a sensor on the plane's wing to sound an alert in the
> cockpit if a stall is imminent.
>
> It seems likely to me that the wing, not the engine, "stalled", causing
the
> plane to drop its nose suddenly, and crash into the ground. Possibly the
> pilot did not have the proper training or attention to recover at such a
> low altitude.
>
> It is equally as likely that the journalist who wrote the article has no
> background in aviation, and as such did not accurately interpret or report
> the information collected. Rather than properly research the story, she
met
> her deadline and moved on.
>
Several of us have allowed the reporter's phrasing to brighten our day(s),
and I believe that the OP was the first.

Peter

[Montblack]

("Judah" wrote)
> On the other hand, if the Pilot stalled the aircraft (either with or
> without engine power) by not properly managing the airspeed across his
> wings (for example by climbing too aggressively), the plane may lose its
> lift (aka stall), and drop its nose somewhat suddenly.


One year at OSH, hanging out at the Ultra-Light pasture, I heard the field
announcer put a stop to pilots trying to outdo one another with over
aggressive climbouts. He was pretty stern with his warning.


Montblack

[Mxsmanic]

Montblack writes:

> One year at OSH, hanging out at the Ultra-Light pasture, I heard the field
> announcer put a stop to pilots trying to outdo one another with over
> aggressive climbouts. He was pretty stern with his warning.

What kind of climbouts were they doing before he stopped them?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[[email protected]]

Montblack wrote:
> ("Judah" wrote)
> > On the other hand, if the Pilot stalled the aircraft (either with or
> > without engine power) by not properly managing the airspeed across his
> > wings (for example by climbing too aggressively), the plane may lose its
> > lift (aka stall), and drop its nose somewhat suddenly.
>
>
> One year at OSH, hanging out at the Ultra-Light pasture, I heard the field
> announcer put a stop to pilots trying to outdo one another with over
> aggressive climbouts. He was pretty stern with his warning.
>
>
> Montblack

Eight or 10 years ago at Arlington a fella killed himself that way.
I watched it happen. Short takeoff and steep climb to about 200', then
a fairly steep turn to return to the runway to demonstrate the
short-field capability of the airplane (an advanced ultralight). He did
it several times until it finally bit him. The airplane went left
wing/nose down and rotated into the ground. Classic stall/spin
scenario.
Too many ultralight pilots get too little training and do too
little reading on their own. And, like the rest of us males, they hate
to be outdone and might push things farther and farther until one of
them dies and the media have more junk to feed to the masses. I can
understand the "stern" warning. That field announcer might have
witnessed the same accident I did.

Dan

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> And, like the rest of us males, they hate
> to be outdone and might push things farther and farther until one of
> them dies and the media have more junk to feed to the masses.

It's natural selection. Beyond a certain number of hours, generally
only the safe pilots survive. The angry young males are either out of
the loop or dead.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Peter Dohm]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Montblack wrote:
> > ("Judah" wrote)
> > > On the other hand, if the Pilot stalled the aircraft (either with or
> > > without engine power) by not properly managing the airspeed across his
> > > wings (for example by climbing too aggressively), the plane may lose
its
> > > lift (aka stall), and drop its nose somewhat suddenly.
> >
> >
> > One year at OSH, hanging out at the Ultra-Light pasture, I heard the
field
> > announcer put a stop to pilots trying to outdo one another with over
> > aggressive climbouts. He was pretty stern with his warning.
> >
> >
> > Montblack
>
> Eight or 10 years ago at Arlington a fella killed himself that way.
> I watched it happen. Short takeoff and steep climb to about 200', then
> a fairly steep turn to return to the runway to demonstrate the
> short-field capability of the airplane (an advanced ultralight). He did
> it several times until it finally bit him. The airplane went left
> wing/nose down and rotated into the ground. Classic stall/spin
> scenario.
> Too many ultralight pilots get too little training and do too
> little reading on their own. And, like the rest of us males, they hate
> to be outdone and might push things farther and farther until one of
> them dies and the media have more junk to feed to the masses. I can
> understand the "stern" warning. That field announcer might have
> witnessed the same accident I did.
>
> Dan
>
About 25+ years ago at one of our local airports, in southeastern Florida,
the rag draggers used to make a very short takeoff at roughtly mid-field,
level off at around 50 feet, and make a very steep turn to transition across
the airport to their pick-up area. One had a mishap, and after that the
operation was much more conservative. I never heard the details or extent
of damage, but suspect that the apparent headwind may have only been a long
gust.

Peter

[Frank Barchi]

Was that accident at FXE?

Frank

"Peter Dohm" > wrote in message
...
> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>>
>> Montblack wrote:
>> > ("Judah" wrote)
>> > > On the other hand, if the Pilot stalled the aircraft (either with or
>> > > without engine power) by not properly managing the airspeed across
>> > > his
>> > > wings (for example by climbing too aggressively), the plane may lose
> its
>> > > lift (aka stall), and drop its nose somewhat suddenly.
>> >
>> >
>> > One year at OSH, hanging out at the Ultra-Light pasture, I heard the
> field
>> > announcer put a stop to pilots trying to outdo one another with over
>> > aggressive climbouts. He was pretty stern with his warning.
>> >
>> >
>> > Montblack
>>
>> Eight or 10 years ago at Arlington a fella killed himself that way.
>> I watched it happen. Short takeoff and steep climb to about 200', then
>> a fairly steep turn to return to the runway to demonstrate the
>> short-field capability of the airplane (an advanced ultralight). He did
>> it several times until it finally bit him. The airplane went left
>> wing/nose down and rotated into the ground. Classic stall/spin
>> scenario.
>> Too many ultralight pilots get too little training and do too
>> little reading on their own. And, like the rest of us males, they hate
>> to be outdone and might push things farther and farther until one of
>> them dies and the media have more junk to feed to the masses. I can
>> understand the "stern" warning. That field announcer might have
>> witnessed the same accident I did.
>>
>> Dan
>>
> About 25+ years ago at one of our local airports, in southeastern Florida,
> the rag draggers used to make a very short takeoff at roughtly mid-field,
> level off at around 50 feet, and make a very steep turn to transition
> across
> the airport to their pick-up area. One had a mishap, and after that the
> operation was much more conservative. I never heard the details or extent
> of damage, but suspect that the apparent headwind may have only been a
> long
> gust.
>
> Peter
>
>

[Christopher Campbell[_1_]]

On Tue, 19 Dec 2006 16:33:20 -0800, xxx wrote
(in article om>):

> Article reproduced in its entirety:
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Pilot hurt in plane crash at Thetford airport
>
> Published: Monday, December 18, 2006
> THETFORD - A pilot from Post Mills was injured Sunday morning when the
> plane he was piloting crashed at the Post Mills Airport in Thetford,
> said state police in Bradford.
>
> Andy Gelston, 45, was transported by helicopter to Dartmouth Hitchcock
> Medical Center for unspecified injuries after the engine on his light
> sport aircraft stalled at between 50 and 100 feet in the air and
> crashed, nose first, at the end of the grass runway.
>
> The Federal Aviation Administration is conducting an investigation.
>

The engine stalled and crashed nose first? What about the rest of the
airplane?

No doubt the illiterate news reporter heard that the aircraft "stalled" and
assumed that had something to do with the engine.

[Peter Dohm]

No, at North Perry (HWO)

Peter

"Frank Barchi" > wrote in message
. net...
> Was that accident at FXE?
>
> Frank
>
> "Peter Dohm" > wrote in message
> ...
> > > wrote in message
> > oups.com...
> >>
> >> Montblack wrote:
> >> > ("Judah" wrote)
> >> > > On the other hand, if the Pilot stalled the aircraft (either with
or
> >> > > without engine power) by not properly managing the airspeed across
> >> > > his
> >> > > wings (for example by climbing too aggressively), the plane may
lose
> > its
> >> > > lift (aka stall), and drop its nose somewhat suddenly.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > One year at OSH, hanging out at the Ultra-Light pasture, I heard the
> > field
> >> > announcer put a stop to pilots trying to outdo one another with over
> >> > aggressive climbouts. He was pretty stern with his warning.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Montblack
> >>
> >> Eight or 10 years ago at Arlington a fella killed himself that way.
> >> I watched it happen. Short takeoff and steep climb to about 200', then
> >> a fairly steep turn to return to the runway to demonstrate the
> >> short-field capability of the airplane (an advanced ultralight). He did
> >> it several times until it finally bit him. The airplane went left
> >> wing/nose down and rotated into the ground. Classic stall/spin
> >> scenario.
> >> Too many ultralight pilots get too little training and do too
> >> little reading on their own. And, like the rest of us males, they hate
> >> to be outdone and might push things farther and farther until one of
> >> them dies and the media have more junk to feed to the masses. I can
> >> understand the "stern" warning. That field announcer might have
> >> witnessed the same accident I did.
> >>
> >> Dan
> >>
> > About 25+ years ago at one of our local airports, in southeastern
Florida,
> > the rag draggers used to make a very short takeoff at roughtly
mid-field,
> > level off at around 50 feet, and make a very steep turn to transition
> > across
> > the airport to their pick-up area. One had a mishap, and after that the
> > operation was much more conservative. I never heard the details or
extent
> > of damage, but suspect that the apparent headwind may have only been a
> > long
> > gust.
> >
> > Peter
> >
> >
>
>

[Peter Dohm]

Well... it's like this... The story was told to me one day back around 1980,
after the operational techniques had suddenly changed--and become much more
conservative. I just checked FAA's accident database for Hollywood, FL for
the period from 1970 through 1990 and found no refference to any similar
accident. At this point, I can only presume that someone was "yanking my
chain" and I made the mistake of repeating the story without checking it
out, even though such stories are now quite easy to verify.

Peter
Sorry about the incorrect report.


"Peter Dohm" > wrote in message
news:1Mmih.895$_X.3@bigfe9...
> No, at North Perry (HWO)
>
> Peter
>
> "Frank Barchi" > wrote in message
> . net...
> > Was that accident at FXE?
> >
> > Frank
> >
> > "Peter Dohm" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > > wrote in message
> > > oups.com...
> > >>
> > >> Montblack wrote:
> > >> > ("Judah" wrote)
> > >> > > On the other hand, if the Pilot stalled the aircraft (either with
> or
> > >> > > without engine power) by not properly managing the airspeed
across
> > >> > > his
> > >> > > wings (for example by climbing too aggressively), the plane may
> lose
> > > its
> > >> > > lift (aka stall), and drop its nose somewhat suddenly.
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > One year at OSH, hanging out at the Ultra-Light pasture, I heard
the
> > > field
> > >> > announcer put a stop to pilots trying to outdo one another with
over
> > >> > aggressive climbouts. He was pretty stern with his warning.
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > Montblack
> > >>
> > >> Eight or 10 years ago at Arlington a fella killed himself that
way.
> > >> I watched it happen. Short takeoff and steep climb to about 200',
then
> > >> a fairly steep turn to return to the runway to demonstrate the
> > >> short-field capability of the airplane (an advanced ultralight). He
did
> > >> it several times until it finally bit him. The airplane went left
> > >> wing/nose down and rotated into the ground. Classic stall/spin
> > >> scenario.
> > >> Too many ultralight pilots get too little training and do too
> > >> little reading on their own. And, like the rest of us males, they
hate
> > >> to be outdone and might push things farther and farther until one of
> > >> them dies and the media have more junk to feed to the masses. I can
> > >> understand the "stern" warning. That field announcer might have
> > >> witnessed the same accident I did.
> > >>
> > >> Dan
> > >>
> > > About 25+ years ago at one of our local airports, in southeastern
> Florida,
> > > the rag draggers used to make a very short takeoff at roughtly
> mid-field,
> > > level off at around 50 feet, and make a very steep turn to transition
> > > across
> > > the airport to their pick-up area. One had a mishap, and after that
the
> > > operation was much more conservative. I never heard the details or
> extent
> > > of damage, but suspect that the apparent headwind may have only been a
> > > long
> > > gust.
> > >
> > > Peter
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

[Kyle Boatright]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Montblack wrote:
>> ("Judah" wrote)
>> > On the other hand, if the Pilot stalled the aircraft (either with or
>> > without engine power) by not properly managing the airspeed across his
>> > wings (for example by climbing too aggressively), the plane may lose
>> > its
>> > lift (aka stall), and drop its nose somewhat suddenly.
>>
>>
>> One year at OSH, hanging out at the Ultra-Light pasture, I heard the
>> field
>> announcer put a stop to pilots trying to outdo one another with over
>> aggressive climbouts. He was pretty stern with his warning.
>>
>>
>> Montblack
>
> Eight or 10 years ago at Arlington a fella killed himself that way.
> I watched it happen. Short takeoff and steep climb to about 200', then
> a fairly steep turn to return to the runway to demonstrate the
> short-field capability of the airplane (an advanced ultralight). He did
> it several times until it finally bit him. The airplane went left
> wing/nose down and rotated into the ground. Classic stall/spin
> scenario.

The theory about that accident in the RV community is that the pilot had
used the seatbelt on the passenger's side as a control lock, was in a rush
to leave the show, and didn't do a control check before takeoff. With the
belt latched, the elevator was in an "up" configuration, and the rest,
unfortunately, is history.

KB

<<snip>>
>
> Dan
>

[Kev]

Kyle Boatright wrote:
> What are the odds that the pilot stalled the aircraft and the engine was
> performing just fine? Writers often miss the fact that the word "stalled"
> has an additional meaning in the aviation realm.

I sometimes think the aviation community should come up with an
alternative description for a wing "stall", so that the layman doesn't
confuse it with engines. Anyone care to propose a nice short
descriptive phrase?

Of course, it's going to be impossible to impose. Sort of like the
attempt to change from "uncontrolled airports" to "nontowered airports"
:-)

Kev

[Jay Beckman]

"Kev" > wrote in message
ps.com...
>
> Kyle Boatright wrote:
>> What are the odds that the pilot stalled the aircraft and the engine was
>> performing just fine? Writers often miss the fact that the word
>> "stalled"
>> has an additional meaning in the aviation realm.
>
> I sometimes think the aviation community should come up with an
> alternative description for a wing "stall", so that the layman doesn't
> confuse it with engines. Anyone care to propose a nice short
> descriptive phrase?
>
> Of course, it's going to be impossible to impose. Sort of like the
> attempt to change from "uncontrolled airports" to "nontowered airports"
> :-)
>
> Kev

Actually, I believe the new buzz phrase is "Pilot Controlled Field."

At least that's what was used in multiple seminars at this past AOPA Expo.

Jay B

[Mxsmanic]

Jay Beckman writes:

> Actually, I believe the new buzz phrase is "Pilot Controlled Field."

That implies that pilots are not in control at other fields, which is
just as bad (if not worse) than implying that a field is out of
control.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Judah]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> It is equally likely that aviators reading the article will make snap
> judgements about what the journalist did or did not know or
> understand, and will imagine their own version of the story that may
> be dramatically different from what was reported.

Both are just stories...

Accurate facts will be listed in the NTSB report.

[Judah]

"Kev" > wrote in
ps.com:

> I sometimes think the aviation community should come up with an
> alternative description for a wing "stall", so that the layman doesn't
> confuse it with engines. Anyone care to propose a nice short
> descriptive phrase?

Why should we have to change our use of the term? I think the new term for an
engine stall should be an engine shutdown, and stall should relate only to
loss of lift over a wing or other airfoil.

;)

[Kev]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Jay Beckman writes:
> > Actually, I believe the new buzz phrase is "Pilot Controlled Field."
>
> That implies that pilots are not in control at other fields, which is
> just as bad (if not worse) than implying that a field is out of
> control.

No, it implies (to non-pilots) that Towers are in control of other
fields. Remember, most laymen believe that ATC is in charge of every
plane every second, and are surprised when they hear about an airplane
taking off without filing a flight plan.

Kev

[Mxsmanic]

Kev writes:

> No, it implies (to non-pilots) that Towers are in control of other
> fields. Remember, most laymen believe that ATC is in charge of every
> plane every second, and are surprised when they hear about an airplane
> taking off without filing a flight plan.

I think it's safe to say that the average layman has never heard of
ATC or flight plans. They just think that pilots take off and fly to
their destination. They only call ATC when a mad bomber explodes
something in the starboard can, injuring a pregnant and pretty
stewardess, or when the top of the plane is ripped off and they need
Charleton Heston to bring them in safely.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Judah" > wrote in message
. ..
> "Kev" > wrote in
> ps.com:
>
>> I sometimes think the aviation community should come up with an
>> alternative description for a wing "stall", so that the layman doesn't
>> confuse it with engines. Anyone care to propose a nice short
>> descriptive phrase?
>
> Why should we have to change our use of the term? I think the new term for
> an
> engine stall should be an engine shutdown, and stall should relate only to
> loss of lift over a wing or other airfoil.
>
> ;)

The problem is the word stall means something to the general public. When
they hear the word stall they associate with something they understand in
this cas, the engine stopping.

[Kev]

Judah wrote:
> Why should we have to change our use of the term? I think the new term for an
> engine stall should be an engine shutdown, and stall should relate only to
> loss of lift over a wing or other airfoil.
>
> ;) <--- others please note his smiley

You're right, that should be easy to do. Just a few kazillion people
to retrain :) :)

If I see another movie where the engines stall, and the airplane starts
screaming down at high speed to the ground while the pilots valiantly
pull back on the yokes with all their might, I'm gonna choke.

I once suggested that AOPA sponsor a "young reporters" day each year,
to get all the local news types up in the air. I believe someone said
that was tried?

Kev

[Thomas Borchert]

T,

> My experience has been that the average person thinks that
> all aircraft talk to someone on the ground on every flight
> and that the person on the ground controls them, or gives
> them permission to take off, land and fly
>

Also, they all think onboard-radar is for traffic avoidance.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Kev]

Mxsmanic wrote:
>
> I think it's safe to say that the average layman has never heard of
> ATC or flight plans. They just think that pilots take off and fly [...]

Perhaps where you are. Here in the USA, ATC makes the news all the
time, especially in the Northeast. Shows about 9/11 also heightened
awareness.

Every time a plane gets into trouble, talking news heads are "shocked"
that the pilot wasn't talking to air traffic control, or didn't have
their permission. Just look at the hubbub over the Cirrus-building
crash recently in New York City.

Kev

[Kingfish]

Thomas Borchert wrote:
> > My experience has been that the average person thinks that
> > all aircraft talk to someone on the ground on every flight
> > and that the person on the ground controls them, or gives
> > them permission to take off, land and fly
> >
>
> Also, they all think onboard-radar is for traffic avoidance.
>

Hell, I use mine in the pattern for fire control - I take it very
personally when I'm cut off <G>

[Kingfish]

Crash Lander wrote:
> "Kyle Boatright" > wrote in message
> . ..
> > What are the odds that the pilot stalled the aircraft and the engine was
> > performing just fine? Writers often miss the fact that the word
> > "stalled" has an additional meaning in the aviation realm.
> >
> > KB
> My thoughts exactly. What's the bet he tried to climb too steeply and
> stalled it, dropped the nose as per his training, and found he wasn't as
> high as he had hoped. I bet the engine was still running as he hit the
> ground, and it's the journalist that's stalled.
> Oz Lander

Hmmmm... Ya think Cessna's new LSA might come with a stick pusher for
just that reason? It'd avoid a lot of bad press <G>

[Peter Duniho]

"Kyle Boatright" > wrote in message
. ..
> The theory about that accident in the RV community is that the pilot had
> used the seatbelt on the passenger's side as a control lock, was in a rush
> to leave the show, and didn't do a control check before takeoff. With the
> belt latched, the elevator was in an "up" configuration, and the rest,
> unfortunately, is history.

That was a popular theory, true, and not just among RVers. However, the
NTSB carefully looked at the possibility and while they could not with 100%
certainty exclude that possibility, the investigation showed no evidence
whatsoever that the controls were secured by the seatbelt on takeoff, and
some reasonable evidence that they were not (in particular, there was no
burn residue of the seatbelt found on the control stick, in spite of there
being seatbelt burn residue elsewhere...also, several witnesses failed to
note any unusual deflection of the elevator, as would be readily apparent if
the theory were true).

The final NTSB conclusion was "The pilot's excessive climb rate, which lead
to his failure to maintain an airspeed above stalling speed", with the
"seatbelt control lock" theory carrying no weight at all.

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief2.asp?ev_id=20001212X19356&ntsbno=SEA99FA105&akey=1

Pete

[[email protected]]

Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
> "Judah" > wrote in message
> . ..
> > "Kev" > wrote in
> > ps.com:
> >
> >> I sometimes think the aviation community should come up with an
> >> alternative description for a wing "stall", so that the layman doesn't
> >> confuse it with engines. Anyone care to propose a nice short
> >> descriptive phrase?
> >
> > Why should we have to change our use of the term? I think the new term for
> > an
> > engine stall should be an engine shutdown, and stall should relate only to
> > loss of lift over a wing or other airfoil.
> >
> > ;)
>
> The problem is the word stall means something to the general public. When
> they hear the word stall they associate with something they understand in
> this cas, the engine stopping.

I like the term used in a Recent Lycoming AD: "Uncommanded
engine shutdown." It was referring to a catastrohic engine failure.
Understatement, huh?

Dan

[Jose[_1_]]

> I like the term used in a Recent Lycoming AD: "Uncommanded
> engine shutdown." It was referring to a catastrohic engine failure.
> Understatement, huh?

My favorite understatement is "energetic decomposition" for nuclear bomb
blast.

Jose
--
"There are 3 secrets to the perfect landing. Unfortunately, nobody knows
what they are." - (mike).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Mxsmanic]

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

> My experience has been that the average person thinks that
> all aircraft talk to someone on the ground on every flight
> and that the person on the ground controls them, or gives
> them permission to take off, land and fly. They're hazy on
> who that person is.

Maybe. I haven't interrogated lay people on the subject. They do
seem to be aware of radio communications, but I think they don't know
exactly who controls whom, or how.

> The rest start off being unsure but act a bit surprised if
> you tell them you don't need permission and don't need to
> talk to anyone if you don't want to.

It may be best not to tell them that.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Thomas Borchert writes:

> Also, they all think onboard-radar is for traffic avoidance.

It often is these days.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Kev writes:

> Every time a plane gets into trouble, talking news heads are "shocked"
> that the pilot wasn't talking to air traffic control, or didn't have
> their permission. Just look at the hubbub over the Cirrus-building
> crash recently in New York City.

My mistake. The last time I was in the U.S., it was still a free
country.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Kev writes:

> If I see another movie where the engines stall, and the airplane starts
> screaming down at high speed to the ground while the pilots valiantly
> pull back on the yokes with all their might, I'm gonna choke.

A very common popular misconception is that any problem with an
airplane will cause it to drop to the ground like a rock. The idea
seems to be that an aircraft is just barely being sustained in the
air, and that any problem is rather like cutting the cable in an
elevator shaft.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Thomas Borchert]

Mxsmanic,

> It often is these days.
>

It never is, these days, in civilian aircraft. Once again, you have no
clue.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Kingfish]

Thomas Borchert wrote:
> Mxsmanic,
>
> > It often is these days.
> >
>
> It never is, these days, in civilian aircraft. Once again, you have no
> clue.
>

I dunno Thomas.. You might get a Level 4 or 5 return in the vicinity of
another acft... just before plowing into them : )

But, yes... our friend has shown hisself to be sans clue again <sigh>

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
Thomas Borchert > wrote:

> > It often is these days.
>
> It never is, these days, in civilian aircraft. Once again, you have no
> clue.

I don't believe I'm doing this but....

um, wx radar isn't used for traffic avoidance. However, the TCAS II
system (which includes the Mode S IFF) is in fact a radar system
(radio detection and ranging). The TCAS processor interogates
and the transponder replies.

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

[Thomas Borchert]

Bob,

> However, the TCAS II
> system (which includes the Mode S IFF) is in fact a radar system
> (radio detection and ranging).
>

Ah, Usenet!

I know all that. And I knew someone would play semantics.

When I wrote "onboard radar" I was thinking about good old primary
radar. You know why? Context. The average layman has no idea about the
workings of TCAS. He's thinking about that big antenna in the nose of
the airplane. That is what they think detects traffic. And that is
strictly for weather (and ground).

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
Thomas Borchert > wrote:

[snip]
> I know all that. And I knew someone would play semantics.

:-)

>
> When I wrote "onboard radar" I was thinking about good old primary
> radar. You know why? Context. The average layman has no idea about the
> workings of TCAS. He's thinking about that big antenna in the nose of
> the airplane. That is what they think detects traffic. And that is
> strictly for weather (and ground).

btw (flogging the dead horse even more), on some military aircraft, there
is a variant of a commercial weather radar system that is used to detect
other aircraft. The system's primary (no pun) purpose is still weather
detection and depiction, but it also has a skin paint mode.

Merry Christmas

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

[Thomas Borchert]

Bob,

;-)

> Merry Christmas
>

To you (and all others) too!


--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Mxsmanic]

Thomas Borchert writes:

> When I wrote "onboard radar" I was thinking about good old primary
> radar. You know why? Context. The average layman has no idea about the
> workings of TCAS.

It appears that the average layman isn't the only one afflicted by
ignorance.

> He's thinking about that big antenna in the nose of the airplane.

Very few lay people have any belief that there is a big antenna
anywhere in an aircraft.

> That is what they think detects traffic. And that is
> strictly for weather (and ground).

Antennas can serve many purposes, and in many locations.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Thomas Borchert]

Mxsmanic,

> It appears that the average layman isn't the only one afflicted by
> ignorance.
>

Don't worry, you definitely count as a layman. Maybe not average,
though.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[EridanMan]

probably my favorite was a video posted a few years ago of a Delta IV
launch Vehicle exploding spectacularly a few seconds after liftoff...

And you hear the announcer very calmly respond

"We have an anomaly with the launch vehicle" as fiery debris begins the
rain down...



On Dec 21, 3:48 pm, Jose > wrote:
> > I like the term used in a Recent Lycoming AD: "Uncommanded
> > engine shutdown." It was referring to a catastrohic engine failure.
> > Understatement, huh?My favorite understatement is "energetic decomposition" for nuclear bomb
> blast.
>
> Jose
> --
> "There are 3 secrets to the perfect landing. Unfortunately, nobody knows
> what they are." - (mike).
> for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[EridanMan]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6K4Ra5Sy5HM&mode=related&search=

The Video for those who care...

still cracks me up.

On Dec 31, 1:17 am, "EridanMan" > wrote:
> probably my favorite was a video posted a few years ago of a Delta IV
> launch Vehicle exploding spectacularly a few seconds after liftoff...
>
> And you hear the announcer very calmly respond
>
> "We have an anomaly with the launch vehicle" as fiery debris begins the
> rain down...
>
> On Dec 21, 3:48 pm, Jose > wrote:
>
> > > I like the term used in a Recent Lycoming AD: "Uncommanded
> > > engine shutdown." It was referring to a catastrohic engine failure.
> > > Understatement, huh?My favorite understatement is "energetic decomposition" for nuclear bomb
> > blast.
>
> > Jose
> > --
> > "There are 3 secrets to the perfect landing. Unfortunately, nobody knows
> > what they are." - (mike).
> > for Email, make the obvious change in the address.