I learned about flying from this, too...

[Ricky]

In the mid 80s I was in flight training at a part 141 school, Navarro
College, In Corsicana, Texas. I would not recommend this college to
anyone seeking an aviation college, by the way. I'll let you know more
privately if you wish.

I took the nice 172 to Gilmer, Tx. for an overnight visit to part of
my family that lived there, parked on the asphalt ramp and didn't tie
down because the weather was so nice with light to no winds. I was
leaving in the morning, anyway. At my brother's house we were watching
the 10:00 p.m. news and during the weather there was a line of strong
thunderstorms heading our way. Back out to the airport to tie the
school's 172 down or fly the short distance to Longview & secure the
plane if I couldn't find any tie-down provisions.

After searching the area I noticed a thick wire rope sort of buried in
the grass, weeds & dirt just off the asphalt. Thinking it would be
hard to push the plane by myself once on the turf, I fired her up &
taxied off the tarmac into the grass and positioned the plane over the
rope. Just after the nose wheel left the asphalt I heard a sharp,
though not loud, "ping." The storm was rolling in & the wind was
picking up so I quickly secured the 172 to the rope and got back in
the car & to the house. I didn't even consider investigating what
could have made the "ping" noise (mistake # 1).
I accidently slept too long the next morning and, aware that the 172
was scheduled for other students that day, made haste in leaving east
Texas. My preflight was abbreviated and I skipped a step that I'd bet
many skip on a regular basis, running my hand over the prop (mistake #
2).
As I applied full power for takeoff I noticed an unusual vibration
shaking the airplane. I was baffled but I had "get-home-itis" so I
relegated the vibration to something the A&P should check on once I
got back in Corsicana. Discontinuing the takeoff roll was a fleeting
thought, but I didn't do it (mistake # 3).

As I powered down at cruise altitude the vibration almost disappeared,
putting my mind somewhat at ease.
After landing and parking at the gas pumps I went back inside the
pilot center to check out and shortly the lineman came inside and
asked me in a rather disturbed tone of voice; "Ricky, WHAT did you do
to the prop of that airplane!?"
With a bit of shock, back outside I saw there was about 1/4" to 1/2"
shaved right off from one blade of the propeller.

Reviewing the events of the flight I realized that the "ping" was the
prop striking something, probably the tie holding down the wire rope,
or the rope itself, as I taxied off of the tarmac onto the grass. I
did remember that the plane dipped slightly as I rolled off the
asphalt due to a gradient difference.
The A&P told me that it would not have been far-fetched for the
vibration to have vibrated the motor right off of the front of the
plane, which of course, would have been fatal.
Thankfully, the prop was within limits to have him file & balance the
opposing blade to match the other side so we didn't have to order a
new propeller.

SO - don't skip the little steps in your preflight, the ones that we
sometimes deem less important. Up until that point, I sometimes did
not check the prop. Now I consider it one of the more vital preflight
items! Don't get so rushed that safety is compromised in any way.
You've probably heard that the pressure to get to your destination
("get-home-itis") can be, and sometimes is, a fatal one.

Ricky

[Larry Dighera]

I realize you were just a student pilot at the time, but I find it
curious that the word checklist is not mentioned anywhere in your
article.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Ricky > wrote in news:cc267845-c05c-47cc-aa9e-
:

>
> In the mid 80s I was in flight training at a part 141 school, Navarro
> College, In Corsicana, Texas. I would not recommend this college to
> anyone seeking an aviation college, by the way. I'll let you know more
> privately if you wish.
>
> I took the nice 172 to Gilmer, Tx. for an overnight visit to part of
> my family that lived there, parked on the asphalt ramp and didn't tie
> down because the weather was so nice with light to no winds. I was
> leaving in the morning, anyway. At my brother's house we were watching
> the 10:00 p.m. news and during the weather there was a line of strong
> thunderstorms heading our way. Back out to the airport to tie the
> school's 172 down or fly the short distance to Longview & secure the
> plane if I couldn't find any tie-down provisions.
>
> After searching the area I noticed a thick wire rope sort of buried in
> the grass, weeds & dirt just off the asphalt. Thinking it would be
> hard to push the plane by myself once on the turf, I fired her up &
> taxied off the tarmac into the grass and positioned the plane over the
> rope. Just after the nose wheel left the asphalt I heard a sharp,
> though not loud, "ping." The storm was rolling in & the wind was
> picking up so I quickly secured the 172 to the rope and got back in
> the car & to the house. I didn't even consider investigating what
> could have made the "ping" noise (mistake # 1).
> I accidently slept too long the next morning and, aware that the 172
> was scheduled for other students that day, made haste in leaving east
> Texas. My preflight was abbreviated and I skipped a step that I'd bet
> many skip on a regular basis, running my hand over the prop (mistake #
> 2).
> As I applied full power for takeoff I noticed an unusual vibration
> shaking the airplane. I was baffled but I had "get-home-itis" so I
> relegated the vibration to something the A&P should check on once I
> got back in Corsicana. Discontinuing the takeoff roll was a fleeting
> thought, but I didn't do it (mistake # 3).
>
> As I powered down at cruise altitude the vibration almost disappeared,
> putting my mind somewhat at ease.
> After landing and parking at the gas pumps I went back inside the
> pilot center to check out and shortly the lineman came inside and
> asked me in a rather disturbed tone of voice; "Ricky, WHAT did you do
> to the prop of that airplane!?"
> With a bit of shock, back outside I saw there was about 1/4" to 1/2"
> shaved right off from one blade of the propeller.
>
> Reviewing the events of the flight I realized that the "ping" was the
> prop striking something, probably the tie holding down the wire rope,
> or the rope itself, as I taxied off of the tarmac onto the grass. I
> did remember that the plane dipped slightly as I rolled off the
> asphalt due to a gradient difference.
> The A&P told me that it would not have been far-fetched for the
> vibration to have vibrated the motor right off of the front of the
> plane, which of course, would have been fatal.
> Thankfully, the prop was within limits to have him file & balance the
> opposing blade to match the other side so we didn't have to order a
> new propeller.
>
> SO - don't skip the little steps in your preflight, the ones that we
> sometimes deem less important. Up until that point, I sometimes did
> not check the prop. Now I consider it one of the more vital preflight
> items! Don't get so rushed that safety is compromised in any way.
> You've probably heard that the pressure to get to your destination
> ("get-home-itis") can be, and sometimes is, a fatal one.
>
> Ricky

Well you won't do that again!


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Larry Dighera > wrote in
:

>
>
> I realize you were just a student pilot at the time, but I find it
> curious that the word checklist is not mentioned anywhere in your
> article.
>
Jesus Wept Larry, Does your checklist tell you to check to see if two wings
are attached?



Bertie

[Ricky]

On Feb 5, 9:14*am, Ricky > wrote:
> In the mid 80s I was in flight training at a part 141 school, Navarro
> College, In Corsicana, Texas. I would not recommend this college to
> anyone seeking an aviation college, by the way. I'll let you know more
> privately if you wish.
>
> I took the nice 172 to Gilmer, Tx. for an overnight visit to part of
> my family that lived there, parked on the asphalt ramp and didn't tie
> down because the weather was so nice with light to no winds. I was
> leaving in the morning, anyway. At my brother's house we were watching
> the 10:00 p.m. news and during the weather there was a line of strong
> thunderstorms heading our way. Back out to the airport to tie the
> school's 172 down or fly the short distance to Longview & secure the
> plane if I couldn't find any tie-down provisions.
>
> After searching the area I noticed a thick wire rope sort of buried in
> the grass, weeds & dirt just off the asphalt. Thinking it would be
> hard to push the plane by myself once on the turf, I fired her up &
> taxied off the tarmac into the grass and positioned the plane over the
> rope. Just after the nose wheel left the asphalt I heard a sharp,
> though not loud, "ping." The storm was rolling in & the wind was
> picking up so I quickly secured the 172 to the rope and got back in
> the car & to the house. I didn't even consider investigating what
> could have made the "ping" noise (mistake # 1).
> I accidently slept too long the next morning and, aware that the 172
> was scheduled for other students that day, made haste in leaving east
> Texas. My preflight was abbreviated and I skipped a step that I'd bet
> many skip on a regular basis, running my hand over the prop (mistake #
> 2).
> As I applied full power for takeoff I noticed an unusual vibration
> shaking the airplane. I was baffled but I had "get-home-itis" so I
> relegated the vibration to something the A&P should check on once I
> got back in Corsicana. Discontinuing the takeoff roll was a fleeting
> thought, but I didn't do it (mistake # 3).
>
> As I powered down at cruise altitude the vibration almost disappeared,
> putting my mind somewhat at ease.
> After landing and parking at the gas pumps I went back inside the
> pilot center to check out and shortly the lineman came inside and
> asked me in a rather disturbed tone of voice; "Ricky, WHAT did you do
> to the prop of that airplane!?"
> With a bit of shock, back outside I saw there was about 1/4" to 1/2"
> shaved right off from one blade of the propeller.
>
> Reviewing the events of the flight I realized that the "ping" was the
> prop striking something, probably the tie holding down the wire rope,
> or the rope itself, as I taxied off of the tarmac onto the grass. I
> did remember that the plane dipped slightly as I rolled off the
> asphalt due to a gradient difference.
> The A&P told me that it would not have been far-fetched for the
> vibration to have vibrated the motor right off of the front of the
> plane, which of course, would have been fatal.
> Thankfully, the prop was within limits to have him file & balance the
> opposing blade to match the other side so we didn't have to order a
> new propeller.
>
> SO - don't skip the little steps in your preflight, the ones that we
> sometimes deem less important. Up until that point, I sometimes did
> not check the prop. Now I consider it one of the more vital preflight
> items! Don't get so rushed that safety is compromised in any way.
> You've probably heard that the pressure to get to your destination
> ("get-home-itis") can be, and sometimes is, a fatal one.
>
> Ricky

Actually, additional mistakes were not knowing the weather well enough
to know there were thunderstorms on the way, which probably could have
flipped the 172. Another was just not tieing the plane down.

[Ricky]

On Feb 5, 9:27*am, Larry Dighera > wrote:
> I realize you were just a student pilot at the time, but I find it
> curious that the word checklist is not mentioned anywhere in your
> article. *

A checklist is/was used most of the time, possibly skipped if in a
hurry as I was.
Even now, I find myself not using a checklist sometimes for preflight
once I get to know a plane.
It's easy to get complacent, especially with a small Cessna.
I'd be curious to know how many actually carry around the checklist
outside while preflighting?

Ricky

[[email protected]]

On Feb 5, 8:14 am, Ricky > wrote:
> In the mid 80s I was in flight training at a part 141 school, Navarro
> College, In Corsicana, Texas. I would not recommend this college to
> anyone seeking an aviation college, by the way. I'll let you know more
> privately if you wish.
>
> I took the nice 172 to Gilmer, Tx. for an overnight visit to part of
> my family that lived there, parked on the asphalt ramp and didn't tie
> down because the weather was so nice with light to no winds. I was
> leaving in the morning, anyway. At my brother's house we were watching
> the 10:00 p.m. news and during the weather there was a line of strong
> thunderstorms heading our way. Back out to the airport to tie the
> school's 172 down or fly the short distance to Longview & secure the
> plane if I couldn't find any tie-down provisions.
>
> After searching the area I noticed a thick wire rope sort of buried in
> the grass, weeds & dirt just off the asphalt. Thinking it would be
> hard to push the plane by myself once on the turf, I fired her up &
> taxied off the tarmac into the grass and positioned the plane over the
> rope. Just after the nose wheel left the asphalt I heard a sharp,
> though not loud, "ping." The storm was rolling in & the wind was
> picking up so I quickly secured the 172 to the rope and got back in
> the car & to the house. I didn't even consider investigating what
> could have made the "ping" noise (mistake # 1).
> I accidently slept too long the next morning and, aware that the 172
> was scheduled for other students that day, made haste in leaving east
> Texas. My preflight was abbreviated and I skipped a step that I'd bet
> many skip on a regular basis, running my hand over the prop (mistake #
> 2).
> As I applied full power for takeoff I noticed an unusual vibration
> shaking the airplane. I was baffled but I had "get-home-itis" so I
> relegated the vibration to something the A&P should check on once I
> got back in Corsicana. Discontinuing the takeoff roll was a fleeting
> thought, but I didn't do it (mistake # 3).
>
> As I powered down at cruise altitude the vibration almost disappeared,
> putting my mind somewhat at ease.
> After landing and parking at the gas pumps I went back inside the
> pilot center to check out and shortly the lineman came inside and
> asked me in a rather disturbed tone of voice; "Ricky, WHAT did you do
> to the prop of that airplane!?"
> With a bit of shock, back outside I saw there was about 1/4" to 1/2"
> shaved right off from one blade of the propeller.
>
> Reviewing the events of the flight I realized that the "ping" was the
> prop striking something, probably the tie holding down the wire rope,
> or the rope itself, as I taxied off of the tarmac onto the grass. I
> did remember that the plane dipped slightly as I rolled off the
> asphalt due to a gradient difference.
> The A&P told me that it would not have been far-fetched for the
> vibration to have vibrated the motor right off of the front of the
> plane, which of course, would have been fatal.
> Thankfully, the prop was within limits to have him file & balance the
> opposing blade to match the other side so we didn't have to order a
> new propeller.
>
> SO - don't skip the little steps in your preflight, the ones that we
> sometimes deem less important. Up until that point, I sometimes did
> not check the prop. Now I consider it one of the more vital preflight
> items! Don't get so rushed that safety is compromised in any way.
> You've probably heard that the pressure to get to your destination
> ("get-home-itis") can be, and sometimes is, a fatal one.
>
> Ricky

If you did that now, with a Lycoming engine, the
solutions wouldn't be just dressing the prop. It would mean opening
the engine. $$.

Dan

[Larry Dighera]

On Tue, 5 Feb 2008 07:31:04 -0800 (PST), Ricky
> wrote in
>:

>Another was just not tieing the plane down.

Right. That can be cause for disallowing an insurance claim in the
event that it causes damage.

[John[_13_]]

I don't carry the checklist around when I'm preflighting but I do sit in the
plane after the external preflight and review it to make sure I did not miss
anything. This is for planes that I have many hours in so I've done the
preflight once or twice :). But I still review it to make sure.

John

"Ricky" > wrote in message
...
On Feb 5, 9:27 am, Larry Dighera > wrote:
> I realize you were just a student pilot at the time, but I find it
> curious that the word checklist is not mentioned anywhere in your
> article.

A checklist is/was used most of the time, possibly skipped if in a
hurry as I was.
Even now, I find myself not using a checklist sometimes for preflight
once I get to know a plane.
It's easy to get complacent, especially with a small Cessna.
I'd be curious to know how many actually carry around the checklist
outside while preflighting?

Ricky

[Steve Foley]

"Ricky" > wrote in message
...
>
> In the mid 80s I was in flight training at a part 141 school, Navarro
> College, In Corsicana, Texas.

Thanks for the reminders.

I was wondering I would find this on rec.aviation.stories, but I can see by
the comments by the moderator of that group that it would probably not be
approved.

Larry, ever wonder why there are no stories submitted?

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Larry Dighera > wrote in
:

> On Tue, 5 Feb 2008 07:31:04 -0800 (PST), Ricky
> > wrote in
> >:
>
>>Another was just not tieing the plane down.
>
> Right. That can be cause for disallowing an insurance claim in the
> event that it causes damage.
>

Wow, it's like you actually WANT to be the most boring person that ever
lived.

The main reason for tieing an airplane down is because someone lovingly
designed and crafted that airplane and it deserves the respect of it's
driver for that reason alone if there were no other.


Bertie

[Larry Dighera]

On Tue, 5 Feb 2008 07:49:29 -0800 (PST), Ricky
> wrote in
>:

>On Feb 5, 9:27*am, Larry Dighera > wrote:
>> I realize you were just a student pilot at the time, but I find it
>> curious that the word checklist is not mentioned anywhere in your
>> article. *
>
>A checklist is/was used most of the time, possibly skipped if in a
>hurry as I was.

If you consider, that being hurried is a reasonable an excuse for
reducing safety standards, that is your decision (not mine). That's
how an FAA Inspector would view it in the hopefully unlikely event he
was given the opportunity. It's best to consider his point of view
when making decisions, IMHO.

>Even now, I find myself not using a checklist sometimes for preflight
>once I get to know a plane.

External pre-flight inspection is rather awkward holding a checklist.
Fortunately, it's much the same for all aircraft, with the exception
of equipment unique to a particular aircraft type. There may be 13
fuel system drain points, or a fuel sump drain lever under the right
rear seat, but they all have Pitot systems, controls, engines, wheels,
breaks, ...

For nearly all other phases of operation, I find a checklist useful;
in fact I would feel vulnerable without it. Old-hands will tell you
that the 'flow' method of preflighting is superior, but I find a
written checklist is able to provide specific information that would
be lacking otherwise. A pre-landing GUMPS check is the minimum for
that phase of flight.

You can find a copy of my checklist here:
http://freechecklists.net/dl/pa28235checklist.pdf

http://freechecklists.net/

>It's easy to get complacent, especially with a small Cessna.

For me, the issues is not so much the size of the aircraft as it is
the height above the ground. :-)

>I'd be curious to know how many actually carry around the checklist
>outside while preflighting?
>
>Ricky

[rec.aviation.student added]

[Larry Dighera]

On Tue, 05 Feb 2008 16:42:20 GMT, "Steve Foley"
> wrote in <Ml0qj.8467$k%2.2641@trndny09>:

>"Ricky" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> In the mid 80s I was in flight training at a part 141 school, Navarro
>> College, In Corsicana, Texas.
>
>Thanks for the reminders.
>
>I was wondering I would find this on rec.aviation.stories, but I can see by
>the comments by the moderator of that group that it would probably not be
>approved.
>
>Larry, ever wonder why there are no stories submitted?
>

I'm sorry Mr. Foley, but your need to make personal implications
paints you the fool. Ricky submitted his story to
rec.aviation.stories: Tue, 5 Feb 2008 07:24:01 -0800 (PST).

What exactly did you find in my comments that lead you to believe I
would reject the article? Try to be specific, so that I might see
what you see. Thanks.

[Ricky]

On Feb 5, 10:42*am, "Steve Foley" > wrote:
> "Ricky" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
> > In the mid 80s I was in flight training at a part 141 school, Navarro
> > College, In Corsicana, Texas.
>
> Thanks for the reminders.
>
> I was wondering I would find this on rec.aviation.stories, but I can see by
> the comments by the moderator of that group that it would probably not be
> approved.
>
> Larry, ever wonder why there are no stories submitted?

I submitted this to rec.aviation.stories shortly after I put it here
and on the students group as well.
I am not too familiar with moderated groups but I guess if the
moderator sees fit it will show up on there.

Wht did you mean by "thanks for the reminders?"

Ricky

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Larry Dighera > wrote in
:

> On Tue, 5 Feb 2008 07:49:29 -0800 (PST), Ricky
> > wrote in
> >:
>
>>On Feb 5, 9:27*am, Larry Dighera > wrote:
>>> I realize you were just a student pilot at the time, but I find it
>>> curious that the word checklist is not mentioned anywhere in your
>>> article. *
>>
>>A checklist is/was used most of the time, possibly skipped if in a
>>hurry as I was.
>
> If you consider, that being hurried is a reasonable an excuse for
> reducing safety standards, that is your decision (not mine).
>
> For me, the issues is not so much the size of the aircraft as it is
> the height above the ground. :-)


You're an idiot. It's official.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Larry Dighera > wrote in
:

> On Tue, 05 Feb 2008 16:42:20 GMT, "Steve Foley"
> > wrote in <Ml0qj.8467$k%2.2641@trndny09>:
>
>>"Ricky" > wrote in message
>>news:cc267845-c05c-47cc-aa9e-
..
>>.
>>>
>>> In the mid 80s I was in flight training at a part 141 school,
>>> Navarro College, In Corsicana, Texas.
>>
>>Thanks for the reminders.
>>
>>I was wondering I would find this on rec.aviation.stories, but I can
>>see by the comments by the moderator of that group that it would
>>probably not be approved.
>>
>>Larry, ever wonder why there are no stories submitted?
>>
>
> I'm sorry Mr. Foley, but your need to make personal implications
> paints you the fool. Ricky submitted his story to
> rec.aviation.stories: Tue, 5 Feb 2008 07:24:01 -0800 (PST).
>
> What exactly did you find in my comments that lead you to believe I
> would reject the article? Try to be specific, so that I might see
> what you see. Thanks.
>
>

I'm guessing it was this.


http://imagecache2.allposters.com/images/pic/EPH/8516~Admitting-You-re-
an-Asshole-Posters.jpg


Bertie

[Steve Foley]

"Ricky" > wrote in message
...


>Wht did you mean by "thanks for the reminders?"
>
>Ricky

The reminder being that those little nagging voices in your head are trying
to tell you something.

I've made my share of mistakes, and, like you, have lived to tell about
them.

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Larry Dighera wrote:
> On Tue, 5 Feb 2008 07:49:29 -0800 (PST), Ricky
> > wrote in
> >:
>
>> On Feb 5, 9:27 am, Larry Dighera > wrote:
>>> I realize you were just a student pilot at the time, but I find it
>>> curious that the word checklist is not mentioned anywhere in your
>>> article.
>> A checklist is/was used most of the time, possibly skipped if in a
>> hurry as I was.
>
> If you consider, that being hurried is a reasonable an excuse for
> reducing safety standards, that is your decision (not mine). That's
> how an FAA Inspector would view it in the hopefully unlikely event he
> was given the opportunity. It's best to consider his point of view
> when making decisions, IMHO.
>
>> Even now, I find myself not using a checklist sometimes for preflight
>> once I get to know a plane.
>
> External pre-flight inspection is rather awkward holding a checklist.
> Fortunately, it's much the same for all aircraft, with the exception
> of equipment unique to a particular aircraft type. There may be 13
> fuel system drain points, or a fuel sump drain lever under the right
> rear seat, but they all have Pitot systems, controls, engines, wheels,
> breaks, ...
>
> For nearly all other phases of operation, I find a checklist useful;
> in fact I would feel vulnerable without it. Old-hands will tell you
> that the 'flow' method of preflighting is superior, but I find a
> written checklist is able to provide specific information that would
> be lacking otherwise. A pre-landing GUMPS check is the minimum for
> that phase of flight.
>
> You can find a copy of my checklist here:
> http://freechecklists.net/dl/pa28235checklist.pdf
>
> http://freechecklists.net/
>
>> It's easy to get complacent, especially with a small Cessna.
>
> For me, the issues is not so much the size of the aircraft as it is
> the height above the ground. :-)
>
>> I'd be curious to know how many actually carry around the checklist
>> outside while preflighting?
>>
>> Ricky
>
> [rec.aviation.student added]

There is absolutely no reason why a written checklist has to deviate
from a flow pattern, and indeed, a well written checklist will follow a
flow pattern. If it doesn't, I suggest re-writing it so it does.
I recommend using a written checklist all the time; the exterior
inspection included.


--
Dudley Henriques

[Dallas]

On Tue, 5 Feb 2008 07:49:29 -0800 (PST), Ricky wrote:

> I'd be curious to know how many actually carry around the checklist
> outside while preflighting?

I do.

I'm the only guy I've ever seen using one. But, it's not that big of a
deal for me.. I make my own checklist and slide it into a plastic sheet
protector. This makes it something you can tuck into your waistband while
you check the oil etc... not like a big plastic card.

--
Dallas

[Ken S. Tucker]

On Feb 5, 10:32 am, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> Larry Dighera wrote:
> > On Tue, 5 Feb 2008 07:49:29 -0800 (PST), Ricky
> > > wrote in
> > >:
>
> >> On Feb 5, 9:27 am, Larry Dighera > wrote:
> >>> I realize you were just a student pilot at the time, but I find it
> >>> curious that the word checklist is not mentioned anywhere in your
> >>> article.
> >> A checklist is/was used most of the time, possibly skipped if in a
> >> hurry as I was.
>
> > If you consider, that being hurried is a reasonable an excuse for
> > reducing safety standards, that is your decision (not mine). That's
> > how an FAA Inspector would view it in the hopefully unlikely event he
> > was given the opportunity. It's best to consider his point of view
> > when making decisions, IMHO.
>
> >> Even now, I find myself not using a checklist sometimes for preflight
> >> once I get to know a plane.
>
> > External pre-flight inspection is rather awkward holding a checklist.
> > Fortunately, it's much the same for all aircraft, with the exception
> > of equipment unique to a particular aircraft type. There may be 13
> > fuel system drain points, or a fuel sump drain lever under the right
> > rear seat, but they all have Pitot systems, controls, engines, wheels,
> > breaks, ...
>
> > For nearly all other phases of operation, I find a checklist useful;
> > in fact I would feel vulnerable without it. Old-hands will tell you
> > that the 'flow' method of preflighting is superior, but I find a
> > written checklist is able to provide specific information that would
> > be lacking otherwise. A pre-landing GUMPS check is the minimum for
> > that phase of flight.
>
> > You can find a copy of my checklist here:
> >http://freechecklists.net/dl/pa28235checklist.pdf
>
> >http://freechecklists.net/
>
> >> It's easy to get complacent, especially with a small Cessna.
>
> > For me, the issues is not so much the size of the aircraft as it is
> > the height above the ground. :-)
>
> >> I'd be curious to know how many actually carry around the checklist
> >> outside while preflighting?
>
> >> Ricky
>
> > [rec.aviation.student added]
>
> There is absolutely no reason why a written checklist has to deviate
> from a flow pattern, and indeed, a well written checklist will follow a
> flow pattern. If it doesn't, I suggest re-writing it so it does.
> I recommend using a written checklist all the time; the exterior
> inspection included.

Agreed! Even driving a car I walk around for
tires, clean windows, do seat, mirrors, check
fuel gauge, radio station settings, seat belt and
that's a simple list.

When launching Ballistic Missiles, we have a
Range Officer pump out a tape recording of what
to do in sequence so it's mainly audio with the
check-list in the RO's hands.
We'd have built in holds, where we play Major
Tom, it's very cool.

That's actually a good idea for a simple pilot.
Ken

[Gig 601XL Builder[_2_]]

Dallas wrote:
> On Tue, 5 Feb 2008 07:49:29 -0800 (PST), Ricky wrote:
>
>> I'd be curious to know how many actually carry around the checklist
>> outside while preflighting?
>
> I do.
>
> I'm the only guy I've ever seen using one. But, it's not that big of a
> deal for me.. I make my own checklist and slide it into a plastic sheet
> protector. This makes it something you can tuck into your waistband while
> you check the oil etc... not like a big plastic card.
>

I did when I first started flying then like many stopped. When I later
got my helicopter rating there were so many things to check you pretty
much couldn't do it with out a written list (well at least I couldn't)
and got back in the habit and do it for fixed wing now as well.

[Dallas]

On Tue, 5 Feb 2008 07:31:04 -0800 (PST), Ricky wrote:

> Actually, additional mistakes were not knowing the weather well enough
> to know there were thunderstorms on the way

I swore I'd never be rushed into getting an airplane into the air, but real
life proved me wrong.

I was renting an airplane at a new FBO and getting ready to fly with
instructor for the checkride. I did it at my own pace. Engine running,
the airplane failed the radio check.

Suddenly, everything turned into a rush... they pulled out another
airplane (a different model that I was less familiar with) and told me that
we had 45 minutes before it was rented to someone else. The instructor did
a bit of outside preflight and I didn't check his work. We rushed through
everything so I could drop him off and pick up my passenger.

Looking back, I was amazed how easily I could break my own rule. I trusted
the competence of someone I didn't know with my life and made assumptions
that everything would be alright.

I shall endeavor to walk away rather than do anything like that again.

--
Dallas

[Dallas]

On Tue, 05 Feb 2008 13:26:26 -0600, Gig 601XL Builder wrote:

> I did when I first started flying then like many stopped.

I suspect it's a bit of a badge of honor to not use an outside checklist.

--
Dallas

[romeomike]

Ricky wrote:


>
> SO - don't skip the little steps in your preflight, the ones that we
> sometimes deem less important. Up until that point, I sometimes did
> not check the prop. Now I consider it one of the more vital preflight
> items! Don't get so rushed that safety is compromised in any way.
> You've probably heard that the pressure to get to your destination
> ("get-home-itis") can be, and sometimes is, a fatal one.
>
> Ricky

As I read your post, I was thinking that "mistake #1" was not tying down
the aircraft in the first place. IMHO, tying down a light plane that
will be out of sight for any length of time, especially overnight, is a
given. Thanks for your post.

[Owner]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
...
> Larry Dighera > wrote in
> :
>
>> On Tue, 5 Feb 2008 07:49:29 -0800 (PST), Ricky
>> > wrote in
>> >:
>>
>>>On Feb 5, 9:27 am, Larry Dighera > wrote:
>>>> I realize you were just a student pilot at the time, but I find it
>>>> curious that the word checklist is not mentioned anywhere in your
>>>> article.
>>>
>>>A checklist is/was used most of the time, possibly skipped if in a
>>>hurry as I was.
>>
>> If you consider, that being hurried is a reasonable an excuse for
>> reducing safety standards, that is your decision (not mine).
>>
>> For me, the issues is not so much the size of the aircraft as it is
>> the height above the ground. :-)
>
>


> You're an idiot. It's official.

Have you looked in the mirror recently? :-)


>
>
> Bertie

[Vaughn Simon]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> I realize you were just a student pilot at the time, but I find it
> curious that the word checklist is not mentioned anywhere in your
> article.

I have never taught, nor been taught, to hold the checklist in hand when
doing a preflight. When doing your preflight, you have a huge memory aid in
front of you; the airplane itself! You should do it the same way every time.
If you get interrupted, don't be shy about backing up a few steps or even
starting over from the start. You are supposed to be giving that airframe your
full attention, you need both hands free to shake things, tweak things, feel
things, climb up on things etc. You certainly should not have a checklist in
one hand and a pencil in the other.

Once in the cockpit, and preferably before you strap in, you should pick up
the checklist and mentally review every item in your preflight looking
especially for omissions.

Vaughn

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in news:1d0b6331-1eff-
:

> On Feb 5, 10:32 am, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>> Larry Dighera wrote:
>> > On Tue, 5 Feb 2008 07:49:29 -0800 (PST), Ricky
>> > > wrote in
>> > <f9b216b8-7765-46af-b887-5ad76d2e2...
@q77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>:
>>
>> >> On Feb 5, 9:27 am, Larry Dighera > wrote:
>> >>> I realize you were just a student pilot at the time, but I find
it
>> >>> curious that the word checklist is not mentioned anywhere in your
>> >>> article.
>> >> A checklist is/was used most of the time, possibly skipped if in a
>> >> hurry as I was.
>>
>> > If you consider, that being hurried is a reasonable an excuse for
>> > reducing safety standards, that is your decision (not mine).
That's
>> > how an FAA Inspector would view it in the hopefully unlikely event
he
>> > was given the opportunity. It's best to consider his point of view
>> > when making decisions, IMHO.
>>
>> >> Even now, I find myself not using a checklist sometimes for
preflight
>> >> once I get to know a plane.
>>
>> > External pre-flight inspection is rather awkward holding a
checklist.
>> > Fortunately, it's much the same for all aircraft, with the
exception
>> > of equipment unique to a particular aircraft type. There may be 13
>> > fuel system drain points, or a fuel sump drain lever under the
right
>> > rear seat, but they all have Pitot systems, controls, engines,
wheels,
>> > breaks, ...
>>
>> > For nearly all other phases of operation, I find a checklist
useful;
>> > in fact I would feel vulnerable without it. Old-hands will tell
you
>> > that the 'flow' method of preflighting is superior, but I find a
>> > written checklist is able to provide specific information that
would
>> > be lacking otherwise. A pre-landing GUMPS check is the minimum for
>> > that phase of flight.
>>
>> > You can find a copy of my checklist here:
>> >http://freechecklists.net/dl/pa28235checklist.pdf
>>
>> >http://freechecklists.net/
>>
>> >> It's easy to get complacent, especially with a small Cessna.
>>
>> > For me, the issues is not so much the size of the aircraft as it is
>> > the height above the ground. :-)
>>
>> >> I'd be curious to know how many actually carry around the
checklist
>> >> outside while preflighting?
>>
>> >> Ricky
>>
>> > [rec.aviation.student added]
>>
>> There is absolutely no reason why a written checklist has to deviate
>> from a flow pattern, and indeed, a well written checklist will follow
a
>> flow pattern. If it doesn't, I suggest re-writing it so it does.
>> I recommend using a written checklist all the time; the exterior
>> inspection included.
>
> Agreed! Even driving a car I walk around for
> tires, clean windows, do seat, mirrors, check
> fuel gauge, radio station settings, seat belt and
> that's a simple list.
>
> When launching Ballistic Missiles, we have a
> Range Officer pump out a tape recording of what
> to do in sequence so it's mainly audio with the
> check-list in the RO's hands.
> We'd have built in holds, where we play Major
> Tom, it's very cool.
>
> That's actually a good idea for a simple pilot.


Good God.



Bertie
>

[WJRFlyBoy]

On Wed, 06 Feb 2008 01:34:56 GMT, Vaughn Simon wrote:

> I have never taught, nor been taught, to hold the checklist in hand when
> doing a preflight. When doing your preflight, you have a huge memory aid in
> front of you; the airplane itself! You should do it the same way every time.
> If you get interrupted, don't be shy about backing up a few steps or even
> starting over from the start. You are supposed to be giving that airframe your
> full attention, you need both hands free to shake things, tweak things, feel
> things, climb up on things etc. You certainly should not have a checklist in
> one hand and a pencil in the other.

Thanks for this. Sounds like sex...and well it should.
--
Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!

[Ken S. Tucker]

On Feb 5, 10:04 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in news:1d0b6331-1eff-
> :
>
> > On Feb 5, 10:32 am, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> >> Larry Dighera wrote:
> >> > On Tue, 5 Feb 2008 07:49:29 -0800 (PST), Ricky
> >> > > wrote in
> >> > <f9b216b8-7765-46af-b887-5ad76d2e2...
>
> @q77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>:
>
>
>
>
>
> >> >> On Feb 5, 9:27 am, Larry Dighera > wrote:
> >> >>> I realize you were just a student pilot at the time, but I find
> it
> >> >>> curious that the word checklist is not mentioned anywhere in your
> >> >>> article.
> >> >> A checklist is/was used most of the time, possibly skipped if in a
> >> >> hurry as I was.
>
> >> > If you consider, that being hurried is a reasonable an excuse for
> >> > reducing safety standards, that is your decision (not mine).
> That's
> >> > how an FAA Inspector would view it in the hopefully unlikely event
> he
> >> > was given the opportunity. It's best to consider his point of view
> >> > when making decisions, IMHO.
>
> >> >> Even now, I find myself not using a checklist sometimes for
> preflight
> >> >> once I get to know a plane.
>
> >> > External pre-flight inspection is rather awkward holding a
> checklist.
> >> > Fortunately, it's much the same for all aircraft, with the
> exception
> >> > of equipment unique to a particular aircraft type. There may be 13
> >> > fuel system drain points, or a fuel sump drain lever under the
> right
> >> > rear seat, but they all have Pitot systems, controls, engines,
> wheels,
> >> > breaks, ...
>
> >> > For nearly all other phases of operation, I find a checklist
> useful;
> >> > in fact I would feel vulnerable without it. Old-hands will tell
> you
> >> > that the 'flow' method of preflighting is superior, but I find a
> >> > written checklist is able to provide specific information that
> would
> >> > be lacking otherwise. A pre-landing GUMPS check is the minimum for
> >> > that phase of flight.
>
> >> > You can find a copy of my checklist here:
> >> >http://freechecklists.net/dl/pa28235checklist.pdf
>
> >> >http://freechecklists.net/
>
> >> >> It's easy to get complacent, especially with a small Cessna.
>
> >> > For me, the issues is not so much the size of the aircraft as it is
> >> > the height above the ground. :-)
>
> >> >> I'd be curious to know how many actually carry around the
> checklist
> >> >> outside while preflighting?
>
> >> >> Ricky
>
> >> > [rec.aviation.student added]
>
> >> There is absolutely no reason why a written checklist has to deviate
> >> from a flow pattern, and indeed, a well written checklist will follow
> a
> >> flow pattern. If it doesn't, I suggest re-writing it so it does.
> >> I recommend using a written checklist all the time; the exterior
> >> inspection included.
>
> > Agreed! Even driving a car I walk around for
> > tires, clean windows, do seat, mirrors, check
> > fuel gauge, radio station settings, seat belt and
> > that's a simple list.
>
> > When launching Ballistic Missiles, we have a
> > Range Officer pump out a tape recording of what
> > to do in sequence so it's mainly audio with the
> > check-list in the RO's hands.
> > We'd have built in holds, where we play Major
> > Tom, it's very cool.
>
> > That's actually a good idea for a simple pilot.
>
> Good God.
> Bertie

For a pilot, it's like a WalkMan do-dad check-list.
You know, kick the tires, bleed some gas and
check for condensated H20, prop check... and

NOW THE BIGGY,

review the runway.

Now here's where our little bertie jumps up and
asks "why Ken?". So I says to "bertie", bertie,
(that's what I call bertie), how do you wreck a
Concorde?

The USN carrier procedure is to review the flight
deck prior to every flight, suckin' up a washer is
not fun, a nut is worse (no offense bertie).

It's a ****-up that the Concorde pilot whose
plane dislodged runway debris, failed to review
his runway and killed himself, all his passengers
and destroyed an expensive A/C.

If that pilot had followed his check-list...well,
things would have been better, the aircraft
would have done a routine flight, the debris
would have been removed prior to take-off.

I mentioned previously, I walk the runways,
(with controller permission), to ascertain
quality and remove debris, i'm a bit tight but
I'll skid a shoe on it to get a friction feel, in
case of some need for a cross wind adherence,
at touch down.

One ****ing check-list mistake splashed a
Concorde.
Ken

[William Hung[_2_]]

On Feb 6, 3:03*am, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
> On Feb 5, 10:04 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in news:1d0b6331-1eff-
> > :
>
> > > On Feb 5, 10:32 am, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> > >> Larry Dighera wrote:
> > >> > On Tue, 5 Feb 2008 07:49:29 -0800 (PST), Ricky
> > >> > > wrote in
> > >> > <f9b216b8-7765-46af-b887-5ad76d2e2...
>
> > @q77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>:
>
> > >> >> On Feb 5, 9:27 am, Larry Dighera > wrote:
> > >> >>> I realize you were just a student pilot at the time, but I find
> > it
> > >> >>> curious that the word checklist is not mentioned anywhere in your
> > >> >>> article.
> > >> >> A checklist is/was used most of the time, possibly skipped if in a
> > >> >> hurry as I was.
>
> > >> > If you consider, that being hurried is a reasonable an excuse for
> > >> > reducing safety standards, that is your decision (not mine).
> > That's
> > >> > how an FAA Inspector would view it in the hopefully unlikely event
> > he
> > >> > was given the opportunity. *It's best to consider his point of view
> > >> > when making decisions, IMHO.
>
> > >> >> Even now, I find myself not using a checklist sometimes for
> > preflight
> > >> >> once I get to know a plane.
>
> > >> > External pre-flight inspection is rather awkward holding a
> > checklist.
> > >> > Fortunately, it's much the same for all aircraft, with the
> > exception
> > >> > of equipment unique to a particular aircraft type. *There may be 13
> > >> > fuel system drain points, or a fuel sump drain lever under the
> > right
> > >> > rear seat, but they all have Pitot systems, controls, engines,
> > wheels,
> > >> > breaks, ...
>
> > >> > For nearly all other phases of operation, I find a checklist
> > useful;
> > >> > in fact I would feel vulnerable without it. *Old-hands will tell
> > you
> > >> > that the 'flow' method of preflighting is superior, but I find a
> > >> > written checklist is able to provide specific information that
> > would
> > >> > be lacking otherwise. *A pre-landing GUMPS check is the minimum for
> > >> > that phase of flight.
>
> > >> > You can find a copy of my checklist here:
> > >> >http://freechecklists.net/dl/pa28235checklist.pdf
>
> > >> >http://freechecklists.net/
>
> > >> >> It's easy to get complacent, especially with a small Cessna.
>
> > >> > For me, the issues is not so much the size of the aircraft as it is
> > >> > the height above the ground. *:-)
>
> > >> >> I'd be curious to know how many actually carry around the
> > checklist
> > >> >> outside while preflighting?
>
> > >> >> Ricky
>
> > >> > [rec.aviation.student added]
>
> > >> There is absolutely no reason why a written checklist has to deviate
> > >> from a flow pattern, and indeed, a well written checklist will follow
> > a
> > >> flow pattern. If it doesn't, I suggest re-writing it so it does.
> > >> I recommend using a written checklist all the time; the exterior
> > >> inspection included.
>
> > > Agreed! Even driving a car I walk around for
> > > tires, clean windows, do seat, *mirrors, check
> > > fuel gauge, radio station settings, seat belt and
> > > that's a simple list.
>
> > > When launching Ballistic Missiles, we have a
> > > Range Officer pump out a tape recording of what
> > > to do in sequence so it's mainly audio with the
> > > check-list in the RO's hands.
> > > We'd have built in holds, where we play Major
> > > Tom, it's very cool.
>
> > > That's actually a good idea for a simple pilot.
>
> > Good God.
> > Bertie
>
> For a pilot, it's like a WalkMan do-dad check-list.
> You know, kick the tires, bleed some gas and
> check for condensated H20, prop check... and
>
> NOW THE BIGGY,
>
> review the runway.
>
> Now here's where our little bertie jumps up and
> asks "why Ken?". So I says to "bertie", bertie,
> (that's what I call bertie), how do you wreck a
> Concorde?
>
> The USN carrier procedure is to review the flight
> deck prior to every flight, suckin' up a washer is
> not fun, a nut is worse (no offense bertie).
>
> It's a ****-up that the Concorde pilot whose
> plane dislodged runway debris, failed to review
> his runway and killed himself, all his passengers
> and destroyed an expensive A/C.
>
> If that pilot had followed his check-list...well,
> things would have been better, the aircraft
> would have done a routine flight, the debris
> would have been removed prior to take-off.
>
> I mentioned previously, I walk the runways,
> (with controller permission), to ascertain
> quality and remove debris, i'm a bit tight but
> I'll skid a shoe on it to get a friction feel, in
> case of some need for a cross wind adherence,
> at touch down.
>
> One ****ing check-list mistake splashed a
> Concorde.
> Ken- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Wow, you have got to be kidding me. You walk the runway prior to
every flight like the US NAVY? Do you drive up to your destination
airport and walk that runway prior to your flight's arrival too?

Wil

[Ken S. Tucker]

On Feb 6, 12:39 am, William Hung > wrote:
> On Feb 6, 3:03 am, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 5, 10:04 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
> > > "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in news:1d0b6331-1eff-
> > > :
>
> > > > On Feb 5, 10:32 am, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> > > >> Larry Dighera wrote:
> > > >> > On Tue, 5 Feb 2008 07:49:29 -0800 (PST), Ricky
> > > >> > > wrote in
> > > >> > <f9b216b8-7765-46af-b887-5ad76d2e2...
>
> > > @q77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>:
>
> > > >> >> On Feb 5, 9:27 am, Larry Dighera > wrote:
> > > >> >>> I realize you were just a student pilot at the time, but I find
> > > it
> > > >> >>> curious that the word checklist is not mentioned anywhere in your
> > > >> >>> article.
> > > >> >> A checklist is/was used most of the time, possibly skipped if in a
> > > >> >> hurry as I was.
>
> > > >> > If you consider, that being hurried is a reasonable an excuse for
> > > >> > reducing safety standards, that is your decision (not mine).
> > > That's
> > > >> > how an FAA Inspector would view it in the hopefully unlikely event
> > > he
> > > >> > was given the opportunity. It's best to consider his point of view
> > > >> > when making decisions, IMHO.
>
> > > >> >> Even now, I find myself not using a checklist sometimes for
> > > preflight
> > > >> >> once I get to know a plane.
>
> > > >> > External pre-flight inspection is rather awkward holding a
> > > checklist.
> > > >> > Fortunately, it's much the same for all aircraft, with the
> > > exception
> > > >> > of equipment unique to a particular aircraft type. There may be 13
> > > >> > fuel system drain points, or a fuel sump drain lever under the
> > > right
> > > >> > rear seat, but they all have Pitot systems, controls, engines,
> > > wheels,
> > > >> > breaks, ...
>
> > > >> > For nearly all other phases of operation, I find a checklist
> > > useful;
> > > >> > in fact I would feel vulnerable without it. Old-hands will tell
> > > you
> > > >> > that the 'flow' method of preflighting is superior, but I find a
> > > >> > written checklist is able to provide specific information that
> > > would
> > > >> > be lacking otherwise. A pre-landing GUMPS check is the minimum for
> > > >> > that phase of flight.
>
> > > >> > You can find a copy of my checklist here:
> > > >> >http://freechecklists.net/dl/pa28235checklist.pdf
>
> > > >> >http://freechecklists.net/
>
> > > >> >> It's easy to get complacent, especially with a small Cessna.
>
> > > >> > For me, the issues is not so much the size of the aircraft as it is
> > > >> > the height above the ground. :-)
>
> > > >> >> I'd be curious to know how many actually carry around the
> > > checklist
> > > >> >> outside while preflighting?
>
> > > >> >> Ricky
>
> > > >> > [rec.aviation.student added]
>
> > > >> There is absolutely no reason why a written checklist has to deviate
> > > >> from a flow pattern, and indeed, a well written checklist will follow
> > > a
> > > >> flow pattern. If it doesn't, I suggest re-writing it so it does.
> > > >> I recommend using a written checklist all the time; the exterior
> > > >> inspection included.
>
> > > > Agreed! Even driving a car I walk around for
> > > > tires, clean windows, do seat, mirrors, check
> > > > fuel gauge, radio station settings, seat belt and
> > > > that's a simple list.
>
> > > > When launching Ballistic Missiles, we have a
> > > > Range Officer pump out a tape recording of what
> > > > to do in sequence so it's mainly audio with the
> > > > check-list in the RO's hands.
> > > > We'd have built in holds, where we play Major
> > > > Tom, it's very cool.
>
> > > > That's actually a good idea for a simple pilot.
>
> > > Good God.
> > > Bertie
>
> > For a pilot, it's like a WalkMan do-dad check-list.
> > You know, kick the tires, bleed some gas and
> > check for condensated H20, prop check... and
>
> > NOW THE BIGGY,
>
> > review the runway.
>
> > Now here's where our little bertie jumps up and
> > asks "why Ken?". So I says to "bertie", bertie,
> > (that's what I call bertie), how do you wreck a
> > Concorde?
>
> > The USN carrier procedure is to review the flight
> > deck prior to every flight, suckin' up a washer is
> > not fun, a nut is worse (no offense bertie).
>
> > It's a ****-up that the Concorde pilot whose
> > plane dislodged runway debris, failed to review
> > his runway and killed himself, all his passengers
> > and destroyed an expensive A/C.
>
> > If that pilot had followed his check-list...well,
> > things would have been better, the aircraft
> > would have done a routine flight, the debris
> > would have been removed prior to take-off.
>
> > I mentioned previously, I walk the runways,
> > (with controller permission), to ascertain
> > quality and remove debris, i'm a bit tight but
> > I'll skid a shoe on it to get a friction feel, in
> > case of some need for a cross wind adherence,
> > at touch down.
>
> > One ****ing check-list mistake splashed a
> > Concorde.
> > Ken- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Wow, you have got to be kidding me. You walk the runway prior to
> every flight like the US NAVY? Do you drive up to your destination
> airport and walk that runway prior to your flight's arrival too?
> Wil

You know what I think, you have a degree of
sarcasm in your post, I'll let it go this time ;-).

Have you ever played golf?

99% of golf is walking on a field, 1% is hitting balls.

I happen to enjoy walking on the field, but instead
of hitting a golf ball, I'll be launching an A/C.
Which do you think requires more attention?
Ken

[Flydive]

Ken S. Tucker wrote:
rop check... and
>
> NOW THE BIGGY,
>
> review the runway.
>
> Now here's where our little bertie jumps up and
> asks "why Ken?". So I says to "bertie", bertie,
> (that's what I call bertie), how do you wreck a
> Concorde?
>
> The USN carrier procedure is to review the flight
> deck prior to every flight, suckin' up a washer is
> not fun, a nut is worse (no offense bertie).
>
> It's a ****-up that the Concorde pilot whose
> plane dislodged runway debris, failed to review
> his runway and killed himself, all his passengers
> and destroyed an expensive A/C.
>
> If that pilot had followed his check-list...well,
> things would have been better, the aircraft
> would have done a routine flight, the debris
> would have been removed prior to take-off.
>
> I mentioned previously, I walk the runways,
> (with controller permission), to ascertain
> quality and remove debris, i'm a bit tight but
> I'll skid a shoe on it to get a friction feel, in
> case of some need for a cross wind adherence,
> at touch down.
>
> One ****ing check-list mistake splashed a
> Concorde.
> Ken


That was a joke, right? Please tell me it was.

[Jay Maynard]

On 2008-02-06, Ken S. Tucker > wrote:
> On Feb 6, 12:39 am, William Hung > wrote:
>> On Feb 6, 3:03 am, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>> > On Feb 5, 10:04 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> > > "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in news:1d0b6331-1eff-
>> > > :
>> > > > On Feb 5, 10:32 am, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>> > > >> Larry Dighera wrote:
>> > > >> > On Tue, 5 Feb 2008 07:49:29 -0800 (PST), Ricky
>> > > >> > > wrote in
>> > > >> > <f9b216b8-7765-46af-b887-5ad76d2e2...
>> > > >> >> On Feb 5, 9:27 am, Larry Dighera > wrote:

Merciful $DEITY, people. PLEASE TRIM YOUR QUOTES!!! There's absolutely no
excuse for including 150 lines of previous text just to add 7 lines of
comment.

It's crap like that that gives the top-posters an excuse.
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
http://www.hercules-390.org (Yes, that's me!)
Buy Hercules stuff at http://www.cafepress.com/hercules-390

[Steve Foley]

"Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in message
...

> The USN carrier procedure is to review the flight
> deck prior to every flight, suckin' up a washer is
> not fun, a nut is worse (no offense bertie).

My first thought when I read this line was

"What color shirt does a washer wear while washing the deck?"

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

William Hung > wrote in
:

> On Feb 6, 3:03*am, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>> On Feb 5, 10:04 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in
>> > news:1d0b6331-1eff-
>> > :
>>
>> > > On Feb 5, 10:32 am, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>> > >> Larry Dighera wrote:
>> > >> > On Tue, 5 Feb 2008 07:49:29 -0800 (PST), Ricky
>> > >> > > wrote in
>> > >> > <f9b216b8-7765-46af-b887-5ad76d2e2...
>>
>> > @q77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>:
>>
>> > >> >> On Feb 5, 9:27 am, Larry Dighera > wrote:
>> > >> >>> I realize you were just a student pilot at the time, but I
>> > >> >>> find
>> > it
>> > >> >>> curious that the word checklist is not mentioned anywhere in
>> > >> >>> your
>
>> > >> >>> article.
>> > >> >> A checklist is/was used most of the time, possibly skipped if
>> > >> >> in a
>
>> > >> >> hurry as I was.
>>
>> > >> > If you consider, that being hurried is a reasonable an excuse
>> > >> > for reducing safety standards, that is your decision (not
>> > >> > mine).
>> > That's
>> > >> > how an FAA Inspector would view it in the hopefully unlikely
>> > >> > event
>> > he
>> > >> > was given the opportunity. *It's best to consider his point of
>> > >> > vi
> ew
>> > >> > when making decisions, IMHO.
>>
>> > >> >> Even now, I find myself not using a checklist sometimes for
>> > preflight
>> > >> >> once I get to know a plane.
>>
>> > >> > External pre-flight inspection is rather awkward holding a
>> > checklist.
>> > >> > Fortunately, it's much the same for all aircraft, with the
>> > exception
>> > >> > of equipment unique to a particular aircraft type. *There may
>> > >> > be
> 13
>> > >> > fuel system drain points, or a fuel sump drain lever under the
>> > right
>> > >> > rear seat, but they all have Pitot systems, controls, engines,
>> > wheels,
>> > >> > breaks, ...
>>
>> > >> > For nearly all other phases of operation, I find a checklist
>> > useful;
>> > >> > in fact I would feel vulnerable without it. *Old-hands will
>> > >> > tell
>> > you
>> > >> > that the 'flow' method of preflighting is superior, but I find
>> > >> > a written checklist is able to provide specific information
>> > >> > that
>> > would
>> > >> > be lacking otherwise. *A pre-landing GUMPS check is the
>> > >> > minimum f
> or
>> > >> > that phase of flight.
>>
>> > >> > You can find a copy of my checklist here:
>> > >> >http://freechecklists.net/dl/pa28235checklist.pdf
>>
>> > >> >http://freechecklists.net/
>>
>> > >> >> It's easy to get complacent, especially with a small Cessna.
>>
>> > >> > For me, the issues is not so much the size of the aircraft as
>> > >> > it is
>
>> > >> > the height above the ground. *:-)
>>
>> > >> >> I'd be curious to know how many actually carry around the
>> > checklist
>> > >> >> outside while preflighting?
>>
>> > >> >> Ricky
>>
>> > >> > [rec.aviation.student added]
>>
>> > >> There is absolutely no reason why a written checklist has to
>> > >> deviate from a flow pattern, and indeed, a well written
>> > >> checklist will follow
>
>> > a
>> > >> flow pattern. If it doesn't, I suggest re-writing it so it does.
>> > >> I recommend using a written checklist all the time; the exterior
>> > >> inspection included.
>>
>> > > Agreed! Even driving a car I walk around for
>> > > tires, clean windows, do seat, *mirrors, check
>> > > fuel gauge, radio station settings, seat belt and
>> > > that's a simple list.
>>
>> > > When launching Ballistic Missiles, we have a
>> > > Range Officer pump out a tape recording of what
>> > > to do in sequence so it's mainly audio with the
>> > > check-list in the RO's hands.
>> > > We'd have built in holds, where we play Major
>> > > Tom, it's very cool.
>>
>> > > That's actually a good idea for a simple pilot.
>>
>> > Good God.
>> > Bertie
>>
>> For a pilot, it's like a WalkMan do-dad check-list.
>> You know, kick the tires, bleed some gas and
>> check for condensated H20, prop check... and
>>
>> NOW THE BIGGY,
>>
>> review the runway.
>>
>> Now here's where our little bertie jumps up and
>> asks "why Ken?". So I says to "bertie", bertie,
>> (that's what I call bertie), how do you wreck a
>> Concorde?
>>
>> The USN carrier procedure is to review the flight
>> deck prior to every flight, suckin' up a washer is
>> not fun, a nut is worse (no offense bertie).
>>
>> It's a ****-up that the Concorde pilot whose
>> plane dislodged runway debris, failed to review
>> his runway and killed himself, all his passengers
>> and destroyed an expensive A/C.
>>
>> If that pilot had followed his check-list...well,
>> things would have been better, the aircraft
>> would have done a routine flight, the debris
>> would have been removed prior to take-off.
>>
>> I mentioned previously, I walk the runways,
>> (with controller permission), to ascertain
>> quality and remove debris, i'm a bit tight but
>> I'll skid a shoe on it to get a friction feel, in
>> case of some need for a cross wind adherence,
>> at touch down.
>>
>> One ****ing check-list mistake splashed a
>> Concorde.
>> Ken- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Wow, you have got to be kidding me. You walk the runway prior to
> every flight like the US NAVY? Do you drive up to your destination
> airport and walk that runway prior to your flight's arrival too?
>


Not only that, he walks the road to the airport before he drives it!


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in
:

> On Feb 6, 12:39 am, William Hung > wrote:
>> On Feb 6, 3:03 am, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Feb 5, 10:04 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>
>> > > "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in
>> > > news:1d0b6331-1eff-
>> > > :
>>
>> > > > On Feb 5, 10:32 am, Dudley Henriques >
>> > > > wrote:
>> > > >> Larry Dighera wrote:
>> > > >> > On Tue, 5 Feb 2008 07:49:29 -0800 (PST), Ricky
>> > > >> > > wrote in
>> > > >> > <f9b216b8-7765-46af-b887-5ad76d2e2...
>>
>> > > @q77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>:
>>
>> > > >> >> On Feb 5, 9:27 am, Larry Dighera > wrote:
>> > > >> >>> I realize you were just a student pilot at the time, but I
>> > > >> >>> find
>> > > it
>> > > >> >>> curious that the word checklist is not mentioned anywhere
>> > > >> >>> in your article.
>> > > >> >> A checklist is/was used most of the time, possibly skipped
>> > > >> >> if in a hurry as I was.
>>
>> > > >> > If you consider, that being hurried is a reasonable an
>> > > >> > excuse for reducing safety standards, that is your decision
>> > > >> > (not mine).
>> > > That's
>> > > >> > how an FAA Inspector would view it in the hopefully unlikely
>> > > >> > event
>> > > he
>> > > >> > was given the opportunity. It's best to consider his point
>> > > >> > of view when making decisions, IMHO.
>>
>> > > >> >> Even now, I find myself not using a checklist sometimes for
>> > > preflight
>> > > >> >> once I get to know a plane.
>>
>> > > >> > External pre-flight inspection is rather awkward holding a
>> > > checklist.
>> > > >> > Fortunately, it's much the same for all aircraft, with the
>> > > exception
>> > > >> > of equipment unique to a particular aircraft type. There
>> > > >> > may be 13 fuel system drain points, or a fuel sump drain
>> > > >> > lever under the
>> > > right
>> > > >> > rear seat, but they all have Pitot systems, controls,
>> > > >> > engines,
>> > > wheels,
>> > > >> > breaks, ...
>>
>> > > >> > For nearly all other phases of operation, I find a checklist
>> > > useful;
>> > > >> > in fact I would feel vulnerable without it. Old-hands will
>> > > >> > tell
>> > > you
>> > > >> > that the 'flow' method of preflighting is superior, but I
>> > > >> > find a written checklist is able to provide specific
>> > > >> > information that
>> > > would
>> > > >> > be lacking otherwise. A pre-landing GUMPS check is the
>> > > >> > minimum for that phase of flight.
>>
>> > > >> > You can find a copy of my checklist here:
>> > > >> >http://freechecklists.net/dl/pa28235checklist.pdf
>>
>> > > >> >http://freechecklists.net/
>>
>> > > >> >> It's easy to get complacent, especially with a small
>> > > >> >> Cessna.
>>
>> > > >> > For me, the issues is not so much the size of the aircraft
>> > > >> > as it is the height above the ground. :-)
>>
>> > > >> >> I'd be curious to know how many actually carry around the
>> > > checklist
>> > > >> >> outside while preflighting?
>>
>> > > >> >> Ricky
>>
>> > > >> > [rec.aviation.student added]
>>
>> > > >> There is absolutely no reason why a written checklist has to
>> > > >> deviate from a flow pattern, and indeed, a well written
>> > > >> checklist will follow
>> > > a
>> > > >> flow pattern. If it doesn't, I suggest re-writing it so it
>> > > >> does. I recommend using a written checklist all the time; the
>> > > >> exterior inspection included.
>>
>> > > > Agreed! Even driving a car I walk around for
>> > > > tires, clean windows, do seat, mirrors, check
>> > > > fuel gauge, radio station settings, seat belt and
>> > > > that's a simple list.
>>
>> > > > When launching Ballistic Missiles, we have a
>> > > > Range Officer pump out a tape recording of what
>> > > > to do in sequence so it's mainly audio with the
>> > > > check-list in the RO's hands.
>> > > > We'd have built in holds, where we play Major
>> > > > Tom, it's very cool.
>>
>> > > > That's actually a good idea for a simple pilot.
>>
>> > > Good God.
>> > > Bertie
>>
>> > For a pilot, it's like a WalkMan do-dad check-list.
>> > You know, kick the tires, bleed some gas and
>> > check for condensated H20, prop check... and
>>
>> > NOW THE BIGGY,
>>
>> > review the runway.
>>
>> > Now here's where our little bertie jumps up and
>> > asks "why Ken?". So I says to "bertie", bertie,
>> > (that's what I call bertie), how do you wreck a
>> > Concorde?
>>
>> > The USN carrier procedure is to review the flight
>> > deck prior to every flight, suckin' up a washer is
>> > not fun, a nut is worse (no offense bertie).
>>
>> > It's a ****-up that the Concorde pilot whose
>> > plane dislodged runway debris, failed to review
>> > his runway and killed himself, all his passengers
>> > and destroyed an expensive A/C.
>>
>> > If that pilot had followed his check-list...well,
>> > things would have been better, the aircraft
>> > would have done a routine flight, the debris
>> > would have been removed prior to take-off.
>>
>> > I mentioned previously, I walk the runways,
>> > (with controller permission), to ascertain
>> > quality and remove debris, i'm a bit tight but
>> > I'll skid a shoe on it to get a friction feel, in
>> > case of some need for a cross wind adherence,
>> > at touch down.
>>
>> > One ****ing check-list mistake splashed a
>> > Concorde.
>> > Ken- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> > - Show quoted text -
>>
>> Wow, you have got to be kidding me. You walk the runway prior to
>> every flight like the US NAVY? Do you drive up to your destination
>> airport and walk that runway prior to your flight's arrival too?
>> Wil
>
> You know what I think, you have a degree of
> sarcasm in your post, I'll let it go this time ;-).
>
> Have you ever played golf?
>
> 99% of golf is walking on a field, 1% is hitting balls.

That's only when they play with you...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f9B9jHgFFA8&NR=1
>
> I happen to enjoy walking on the field, but instead
> of hitting a golf ball, I'll be launching an A/C.
> Which do you think requires more attention?

Hitting you in the balls.

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Jay Maynard > wrote in
:

> On 2008-02-06, Ken S. Tucker > wrote:
>> On Feb 6, 12:39 am, William Hung > wrote:
>>> On Feb 6, 3:03 am, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>>> > On Feb 5, 10:04 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>> > > "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in
>>> > > news:1d0b6331-1eff-
>>> > > :
>>> > > > On Feb 5, 10:32 am, Dudley Henriques >
>>> > > > wrote:
>>> > > >> Larry Dighera wrote:
>>> > > >> > On Tue, 5 Feb 2008 07:49:29 -0800 (PST), Ricky
>>> > > >> > > wrote in
>>> > > >> > <f9b216b8-7765-46af-b887-5ad76d2e2...
>>> > > >> >> On Feb 5, 9:27 am, Larry Dighera > wrote:
>
> Merciful $DEITY, people. PLEASE TRIM YOUR QUOTES!!! There's absolutely
> no excuse for including 150 lines of previous text just to add 7 lines
> of comment.


Sure there is! It drives people nuts..

>
> It's crap like that that gives the top-posters an excuse.

Make up your mind.

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Flydive > wrote in :

> Ken S. Tucker wrote:
> rop check... and
>>
>> NOW THE BIGGY,
>>
>> review the runway.
>>
>> Now here's where our little bertie jumps up and
>> asks "why Ken?". So I says to "bertie", bertie,
>> (that's what I call bertie), how do you wreck a
>> Concorde?
>>
>> The USN carrier procedure is to review the flight
>> deck prior to every flight, suckin' up a washer is
>> not fun, a nut is worse (no offense bertie).
>>
>> It's a ****-up that the Concorde pilot whose
>> plane dislodged runway debris, failed to review
>> his runway and killed himself, all his passengers
>> and destroyed an expensive A/C.
>>
>> If that pilot had followed his check-list...well,
>> things would have been better, the aircraft
>> would have done a routine flight, the debris
>> would have been removed prior to take-off.
>>
>> I mentioned previously, I walk the runways,
>> (with controller permission), to ascertain
>> quality and remove debris, i'm a bit tight but
>> I'll skid a shoe on it to get a friction feel, in
>> case of some need for a cross wind adherence,
>> at touch down.
>>
>> One ****ing check-list mistake splashed a
>> Concorde.
>> Ken
>
>
> That was a joke, right? Please tell me it was.


Yes, correct.

Ken is a joke.


You've just met Ken, right?


>

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in news:ac28b5c7-0905-49a6-
:

> On Feb 5, 10:04 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in news:1d0b6331-1eff-
>> :
>>
>> > On Feb 5, 10:32 am, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>> >> Larry Dighera wrote:
>> >> > On Tue, 5 Feb 2008 07:49:29 -0800 (PST), Ricky
>> >> > > wrote in
>> >> > <f9b216b8-7765-46af-b887-5ad76d2e2...
>>
>> @q77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >> >> On Feb 5, 9:27 am, Larry Dighera > wrote:
>> >> >>> I realize you were just a student pilot at the time, but I find
>> it
>> >> >>> curious that the word checklist is not mentioned anywhere in your
>> >> >>> article.
>> >> >> A checklist is/was used most of the time, possibly skipped if in a
>> >> >> hurry as I was.
>>
>> >> > If you consider, that being hurried is a reasonable an excuse for
>> >> > reducing safety standards, that is your decision (not mine).
>> That's
>> >> > how an FAA Inspector would view it in the hopefully unlikely event
>> he
>> >> > was given the opportunity. It's best to consider his point of view
>> >> > when making decisions, IMHO.
>>
>> >> >> Even now, I find myself not using a checklist sometimes for
>> preflight
>> >> >> once I get to know a plane.
>>
>> >> > External pre-flight inspection is rather awkward holding a
>> checklist.
>> >> > Fortunately, it's much the same for all aircraft, with the
>> exception
>> >> > of equipment unique to a particular aircraft type. There may be 13
>> >> > fuel system drain points, or a fuel sump drain lever under the
>> right
>> >> > rear seat, but they all have Pitot systems, controls, engines,
>> wheels,
>> >> > breaks, ...
>>
>> >> > For nearly all other phases of operation, I find a checklist
>> useful;
>> >> > in fact I would feel vulnerable without it. Old-hands will tell
>> you
>> >> > that the 'flow' method of preflighting is superior, but I find a
>> >> > written checklist is able to provide specific information that
>> would
>> >> > be lacking otherwise. A pre-landing GUMPS check is the minimum for
>> >> > that phase of flight.
>>
>> >> > You can find a copy of my checklist here:
>> >> >http://freechecklists.net/dl/pa28235checklist.pdf
>>
>> >> >http://freechecklists.net/
>>
>> >> >> It's easy to get complacent, especially with a small Cessna.
>>
>> >> > For me, the issues is not so much the size of the aircraft as it is
>> >> > the height above the ground. :-)
>>
>> >> >> I'd be curious to know how many actually carry around the
>> checklist
>> >> >> outside while preflighting?
>>
>> >> >> Ricky
>>
>> >> > [rec.aviation.student added]
>>
>> >> There is absolutely no reason why a written checklist has to deviate
>> >> from a flow pattern, and indeed, a well written checklist will follow
>> a
>> >> flow pattern. If it doesn't, I suggest re-writing it so it does.
>> >> I recommend using a written checklist all the time; the exterior
>> >> inspection included.
>>
>> > Agreed! Even driving a car I walk around for
>> > tires, clean windows, do seat, mirrors, check
>> > fuel gauge, radio station settings, seat belt and
>> > that's a simple list.
>>
>> > When launching Ballistic Missiles, we have a
>> > Range Officer pump out a tape recording of what
>> > to do in sequence so it's mainly audio with the
>> > check-list in the RO's hands.
>> > We'd have built in holds, where we play Major
>> > Tom, it's very cool.
>>
>> > That's actually a good idea for a simple pilot.
>>
>> Good God.
>> Bertie
>
> For a pilot, it's like a WalkMan do-dad check-list.
> You know, kick the tires, bleed some gas and
> check for condensated H20, prop check... and
>
> NOW THE BIGGY,
>
> review the runway.
>
> Now here's where our little bertie jumps up and
> asks "why Ken?".

No, I know why you do it Ken, It's because you'r a fjukktard.

So I says to "bertie", bertie,
> (that's what I call bertie), how do you wreck a
> Concorde?


Put you at the controls, of course.
>
> The USN carrier procedure is to review the flight
> deck prior to every flight, suckin' up a washer is
> not fun, a nut is worse (no offense bertie).

Yeh, and how much tie have you spent on carrier decks, wannabe boi?
>
> It's a ****-up that the Concorde pilot whose
> plane dislodged runway debris, failed to review
> his runway and killed himself, all his passengers
> and destroyed an expensive A/C.

Nope.
>
> If that pilot had followed his check-list...well,
> things would have been better, the aircraft
> would have done a routine flight, the debris
> would have been removed prior to take-off.
>


Yeah, tha'ts on my checklist, I know. .

Leessee,
Flight Controls, checked
Flaps 15 selected
Briefing, reviewed.
Radar. On, taws.
Runway, check to see if Ken is running around on it.
Checks complete.


> I mentioned previously, I walk the runways,
> (with controller permission), to ascertain
> quality and remove debris, i'm a bit tight but
> I'll skid a shoe on it to get a friction feel, in
> case of some need for a cross wind adherence,
> at touch down.
>
> One ****ing check-list mistake splashed a
> Concorde.

Splashed a concorde?


Bwawhahwhahwah


You are a fjukktard, Ken.


Bertie

[Jay Honeck[_2_]]

>> I did when I first started flying then like many stopped.
>
> I suspect it's a bit of a badge of honor to not use an outside checklist.

No, it's just not necessary after the first 100 walk-arounds.

My preflight method is "geographic", always done in precisely the same way,
always done without interruption. If I'm interrupted, I start over.

So long as you start in the exact same spot on the plane, and proceed 'round
the plane in precisely the same way each time, you will not miss anything.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck[_2_]]

> As I read your post, I was thinking that "mistake #1" was not tying down
> the aircraft in the first place.

No, "Mistake #1" was landing someplace where you couldn't just say "Tie 'er
up for the night, please." as you drove away in their courtesy car...

;-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Dan Luke[_2_]]

"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote:

>>> One ****ing check-list mistake splashed a
>>> Concorde.
>>> Ken
>>
>>
>> That was a joke, right? Please tell me it was.
>
>
> Yes, correct.
>
> Ken is a joke.
>
>
> You've just met Ken, right?

Ken's relatively new to me, too.

No way he's really Tarver, is there? Like, cloned or resurrected or
something?


--
Dan

"You have a total of 0 fans and 0 friends."
-Webshots

[Flydive]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

>
> Yes, correct.
>
> Ken is a joke.
>
>
> You've just met Ken, right?
>
>
>

Just had the "pleasure"

[Steve Hix]

In article >, Flydive >
wrote:

> Ken S. Tucker wrote:
> rop check... and
> >
> > NOW THE BIGGY,
> >
> > review the runway.
> >
> > Now here's where our little bertie jumps up and
> > asks "why Ken?". So I says to "bertie", bertie,
> > (that's what I call bertie), how do you wreck a
> > Concorde?
> >
> > The USN carrier procedure is to review the flight
> > deck prior to every flight, suckin' up a washer is
> > not fun, a nut is worse (no offense bertie).
> >
> > It's a ****-up that the Concorde pilot whose
> > plane dislodged runway debris, failed to review
> > his runway and killed himself, all his passengers
> > and destroyed an expensive A/C.
> >
> > If that pilot had followed his check-list...well,
> > things would have been better, the aircraft
> > would have done a routine flight, the debris
> > would have been removed prior to take-off.
> >
> > I mentioned previously, I walk the runways,
> > (with controller permission), to ascertain
> > quality and remove debris, i'm a bit tight but
> > I'll skid a shoe on it to get a friction feel, in
> > case of some need for a cross wind adherence,
> > at touch down.
> >
> > One ****ing check-list mistake splashed a
> > Concorde.
> > Ken
>
>
> That was a joke, right? Please tell me it was.

I didn't know that simulators let you do a FOD-walk before your "flight".

[Flydive]

Steve Hix wrote:

>
> I didn't know that simulators let you do a FOD-walk before your "flight".

Was tha ment for Mxsmanic?

The only Sim I fly is at Bombardier training in CYUL, once a year.

[Tom C]

>
>
> Yeah, tha'ts on my checklist, I know. .
>
> Leessee,
> Flight Controls, checked
> Flaps 15 selected
> Briefing, reviewed.
> Radar. On, taws.
> Runway, check to see if Ken is running around on it.
> Checks complete.
>


The weasel that got sucked into a jet engine? Hey, when is the last time
something got sucked through the prop into a Lycoming?


Tom C

[[email protected]]

On Feb 6, 1:03 am, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
> It's a ****-up that the Concorde pilot whose
> plane dislodged runway debris, failed to review
> his runway and killed himself, all his passengers
> and destroyed an expensive A/C.

There was no "Runway Walk Inspection" on his checklist.

> I mentioned previously, I walk the runways,
> (with controller permission), to ascertain
> quality and remove debris, i'm a bit tight but
> I'll skid a shoe on it to get a friction feel, in
> case of some need for a cross wind adherence,
> at touch down.

No, you don't do any such thing. Controllers don't allow it.
Can you imagine a busy airport with pilots walking around on the
runway between takeoffs every minute or so? What a plan for disaster.
"Airliner Crashes While Trying To Avoid Pilot Strolling On Runway"


DAn

[Steve Hix]

In article >, Flydive >
wrote:

> Steve Hix wrote:
>
> >
> > I didn't know that simulators let you do a FOD-walk before your "flight".
>
> Was tha ment for Mxsmanic?

Yep.

> The only Sim I fly is at Bombardier training in CYUL, once a year.

Sounds like fun, actually.

The last actual simulator I had anything to do with was for the Dassault
Falcon 20, built by Singer-Link, about 32 years ago. I think it was
controlled by a PDP-11/70 ... wonder what it might be equivalent to
today.

[Bob F.]

"Steve Hix" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, Flydive >
> wrote:
>
>> Steve Hix wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > I didn't know that simulators let you do a FOD-walk before your
>> > "flight".
>>
>> Was tha ment for Mxsmanic?
>
> Yep.
>
>> The only Sim I fly is at Bombardier training in CYUL, once a year.
>
> Sounds like fun, actually.
>
> The last actual simulator I had anything to do with was for the Dassault
> Falcon 20, built by Singer-Link, about 32 years ago. I think it was
> controlled by a PDP-11/70 ... wonder what it might be equivalent to
> today.

I flew the same config at Flight Safety LGA Marine Air Terminal about 1969.

Bob F.

[Ken S. Tucker]

On Feb 6, 11:18 am, wrote:
> On Feb 6, 1:03 am, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>
> > It's a ****-up that the Concorde pilot whose
> > plane dislodged runway debris, failed to review
> > his runway and killed himself, all his passengers
> > and destroyed an expensive A/C.
>
> There was no "Runway Walk Inspection" on his checklist.
>
> > I mentioned previously, I walk the runways,
> > (with controller permission), to ascertain
> > quality and remove debris, i'm a bit tight but
> > I'll skid a shoe on it to get a friction feel, in
> > case of some need for a cross wind adherence,
> > at touch down.
>
> No, you don't do any such thing. Controllers don't allow it.

They did at Oshawa Airport, it's not busy.
Many airports don't have controllers, like Emsdale.

> Can you imagine a busy airport with pilots walking around on the
> runway between takeoffs every minute or so? What a plan for disaster.
> "Airliner Crashes While Trying To Avoid Pilot Strolling On Runway"

Mr. BIG HEAD, CONCORDE CRASHED BECAUSE
RUNWAY >>>NOT<<< INSPECTED!!
I bet you're a weirdo who thinks the moon landing
was faked too!

I almost hit a flock of birds, following rotation,
on my checklist was added, watch for berties.
The runway was well treed on both sides and
my bird must have scared them up, and they
flocked over the runway.
I flattened the descent and eased back the
throttle. I was fortunate to have an IP in the
right seat. I was too damn busy looking at
the instruments to see that hazard.
Ken

[Ken S. Tucker]

On Feb 6, 11:18 am, wrote:
> On Feb 6, 1:03 am, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>
> > It's a ****-up that the Concorde pilot whose
> > plane dislodged runway debris, failed to review
> > his runway and killed himself, all his passengers
> > and destroyed an expensive A/C.
>
> There was no "Runway Walk Inspection" on his checklist.

Of course there is read the manual.
Cite where it says debris is permitted on the runway.
duhhh
Ken

[Gig 601XL Builder[_2_]]

Steve Hix wrote:

>
> I think it was
> controlled by a PDP-11/70 ... wonder what it might be equivalent to
> today.

I have a watch with more computing power.

[Michael Ash]

In rec.aviation.student wrote:
> Can you imagine a busy airport with pilots walking around on the
> runway between takeoffs every minute or so? What a plan for disaster.
> "Airliner Crashes While Trying To Avoid Pilot Strolling On Runway"

Not to mention that the titanium strip which caused the Concorde crash
came off a flight which took off only four minutes earlier. To do this
properly you'd have to inspect the entire runway between every takeoff.
This is impractical, to put it mildly.

What's more, the proximate cause to the fire which caused Concorde's
demise was a burst tire. It seems obvious to me that any passenger
aircraft should be able to survive a burst tire without a violent crash.
The fact that Concorde couldn't do so is a design flaw, and making sure
that aircraft won't catch fire and crash into a hotel after a burst tire
seems like a better solution than reducing the capacity of commercial
airports by an order of magnitude so that the runways can be inspected
before every single takeoff. If I'm wrong about this, I'd appreciate any
of the more knowledgeable people on the group correcting me.

--
Michael Ash
Rogue Amoeba Software

[Steve Hix]

In article >,
Gig 601XL Builder > wrote:

> Steve Hix wrote:
>
> >
> > I think it was
> > controlled by a PDP-11/70 ... wonder what it might be equivalent to
> > today.
>
> I have a watch with more computing power.

Sure, but will it heat your house?

Or move it, given enough hydraulics? :}

[Al G[_1_]]

"Michael Ash" > wrote in message
...
> In rec.aviation.student wrote:
>> Can you imagine a busy airport with pilots walking around on the
>> runway between takeoffs every minute or so? What a plan for disaster.
>> "Airliner Crashes While Trying To Avoid Pilot Strolling On Runway"
>
> Not to mention that the titanium strip which caused the Concorde crash
> came off a flight which took off only four minutes earlier. To do this
> properly you'd have to inspect the entire runway between every takeoff.
> This is impractical, to put it mildly.
>
> What's more, the proximate cause to the fire which caused Concorde's
> demise was a burst tire. It seems obvious to me that any passenger
> aircraft should be able to survive a burst tire without a violent crash.
> The fact that Concorde couldn't do so is a design flaw, and making sure
> that aircraft won't catch fire and crash into a hotel after a burst tire
> seems like a better solution than reducing the capacity of commercial
> airports by an order of magnitude so that the runways can be inspected
> before every single takeoff. If I'm wrong about this, I'd appreciate any
> of the more knowledgeable people on the group correcting me.
>


Ok,

"The fact that Concorde couldn't do so is a design flaw, and making sure
that aircraft won't catch fire and crash into a hotel after a burst tire
seems like a better solution than reducing the capacity of commercial
airports by an order of magnitude so that the runways can be inspected
before every single takeoff."

Is a run on sentence. There, you are corrected.

Al G

[Jim Logajan]

"Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
> I was too damn busy looking at
> the instruments to see that hazard.

Why are you looking only at instruments on takeoff?

[Gig 601XL Builder[_2_]]

Steve Hix wrote:
> In article >,
> Gig 601XL Builder > wrote:
>
>> Steve Hix wrote:
>>
>>> I think it was
>>> controlled by a PDP-11/70 ... wonder what it might be equivalent to
>>> today.
>> I have a watch with more computing power.
>
> Sure, but will it heat your house?

Of course it will. If it makes sure I get to work on time.

>
> Or move it, given enough hydraulics? :}

Given enough hydraulics, I'd have to say yes.

[Flydive]

Jim Logajan wrote:
> "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>> I was too damn busy looking at
>> the instruments to see that hazard.
>
> Why are you looking only at instruments on takeoff?

And why would he flatten his descent? Aren't you supposed to climb after
take off? :-)

Ken S. Tucker wrote:

> I flattened the descent and eased back the
> throttle.
> Ken

[Ken S. Tucker]

On Feb 6, 1:37 pm, Jim Logajan > wrote:
> "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>
> > I was too damn busy looking at
> > the instruments to see that hazard.
>
> Why are you looking only at instruments on takeoff?

Well I mentioned I had an IP in the right seat.
(Bob Burton out of the Oshawa Flying Club,
he's the best I ever had, he liked to have fun).

Following rotation and beginning ascent, I was
looking at RPM, rate of ascent, and KIAS,
something to do with best climb rate, the IP
ordered.
Ken

[Ken S. Tucker]

On Feb 6, 2:03 pm, Flydive > wrote:
> Jim Logajan wrote:
> > "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
> >> I was too damn busy looking at
> >> the instruments to see that hazard.
>
> > Why are you looking only at instruments on takeoff?
>
> And why would he flatten his descent? Aren't you supposed to climb after
> take off? :-)

Had to fly under the flock, it was a swarm,
probably a migration thing.

> Ken S. Tucker wrote:
>
> > I flattened the descent and eased back the
> > throttle.
> > Ken

[Ken S. Tucker]

On Feb 6, 1:02 pm, Michael Ash > wrote:
> In rec.aviation.student wrote:
> > Can you imagine a busy airport with pilots walking around on the
> > runway between takeoffs every minute or so? What a plan for disaster.
> > "Airliner Crashes While Trying To Avoid Pilot Strolling On Runway"
>
> Not to mention that the titanium strip which caused the Concorde crash
> came off a flight which took off only four minutes earlier. To do this
> properly you'd have to inspect the entire runway between every takeoff.
> This is impractical, to put it mildly.
>
> What's more, the proximate cause to the fire which caused Concorde's
> demise was a burst tire. It seems obvious to me that any passenger
> aircraft should be able to survive a burst tire without a violent crash.
> The fact that Concorde couldn't do so is a design flaw, and making sure
> that aircraft won't catch fire and crash into a hotel after a burst tire
> seems like a better solution than reducing the capacity of commercial
> airports by an order of magnitude so that the runways can be inspected
> before every single takeoff. If I'm wrong about this, I'd appreciate any
> of the more knowledgeable people on the group correcting me.

More than likely, a superficial runway inspection,
either by the controllers, the pilots or anyone
walking the runway would have noticed that debris
that destroyed the Concorde, and costed a $Billion.

How about using one of them fella's who's looking at
peoples shoes for bombs, why is that good to do?

Flyers need to learn from mistakes, this thread is
about check-lists. Who didn't follow the list, where
is the responsibility?
If it happened once, it will happen again, just a
matter of time.
You take care.
Ken

> Rogue Amoeba Software

[Gig 601XL Builder[_2_]]

Ken S. Tucker wrote:
> On Feb 6, 1:37 pm, Jim Logajan > wrote:
>> "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>>
>>> I was too damn busy looking at
>>> the instruments to see that hazard.
>> Why are you looking only at instruments on takeoff?
>
> Well I mentioned I had an IP in the right seat.
> (Bob Burton out of the Oshawa Flying Club,
> he's the best I ever had, he liked to have fun).
>
> Following rotation and beginning ascent, I was
> looking at RPM, rate of ascent, and KIAS,
> something to do with best climb rate, the IP
> ordered.
> Ken

He wasn't that good. He should have slapped you in the head and told you
look out the window.

[Ken S. Tucker]

On Feb 6, 2:49 pm, Gig 601XL Builder >
wrote:
> Ken S. Tucker wrote:
> > On Feb 6, 1:37 pm, Jim Logajan > wrote:
> >> "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>
> >>> I was too damn busy looking at
> >>> the instruments to see that hazard.
> >> Why are you looking only at instruments on takeoff?
>
> > Well I mentioned I had an IP in the right seat.
> > (Bob Burton out of the Oshawa Flying Club,
> > he's the best I ever had, he liked to have fun).
>
> > Following rotation and beginning ascent, I was
> > looking at RPM, rate of ascent, and KIAS,
> > something to do with best climb rate, the IP
> > ordered.
> > Ken
>
> He wasn't that good. He should have slapped you in the head and told you
> look out the window.

LOL, he practically did!
IIRC, I think all he said was "birds", he was a man
of few but good words, well he was smirking and
I was blushing, it was my faux pas, I knew that in
a split second.
BTW, at that time (80's), I was paying $35/hr rental
on a C-152 and an extra $15/hour to have the IP in
the plane, $50/hour....worth every penny.

If you fella's find a good IP, take him out for a spin,
like you would have a date for dinner, they are worth
their weight in gold for the relation of experience.
Ken

[Steve Hix]

In article >,
Gig 601XL Builder > wrote:

> Steve Hix wrote:
> > In article >,
> > Gig 601XL Builder > wrote:
> >
> >> Steve Hix wrote:
> >>
> >>> I think it was
> >>> controlled by a PDP-11/70 ... wonder what it might be equivalent to
> >>> today.
> >> I have a watch with more computing power.
> >
> > Sure, but will it heat your house?
>
> Of course it will. If it makes sure I get to work on time.

Indirect heating is good...

> > Or move it, given enough hydraulics? :}
>
> Given enough hydraulics, I'd have to say yes.

[Michael Ash]

In rec.aviation.student Al G > wrote:
>> If I'm wrong about this, I'd appreciate any
>> of the more knowledgeable people on the group correcting me.
>
> Ok,
>
> "The fact that Concorde couldn't do so is a design flaw, and making sure
> that aircraft won't catch fire and crash into a hotel after a burst tire
> seems like a better solution than reducing the capacity of commercial
> airports by an order of magnitude so that the runways can be inspected
> before every single takeoff."
>
> Is a run on sentence. There, you are corrected.

I suppose I asked for it. Well, thanks!

--
Michael Ash
Rogue Amoeba Software

[Michael Ash]

In rec.aviation.student Ken S. Tucker > wrote:
> On Feb 6, 1:02 pm, Michael Ash > wrote:
>> What's more, the proximate cause to the fire which caused Concorde's
>> demise was a burst tire. It seems obvious to me that any passenger
>> aircraft should be able to survive a burst tire without a violent crash.
>> The fact that Concorde couldn't do so is a design flaw, and making sure
>> that aircraft won't catch fire and crash into a hotel after a burst tire
>> seems like a better solution than reducing the capacity of commercial
>> airports by an order of magnitude so that the runways can be inspected
>> before every single takeoff. If I'm wrong about this, I'd appreciate any
>> of the more knowledgeable people on the group correcting me.
>
> More than likely, a superficial runway inspection,
> either by the controllers, the pilots or anyone
> walking the runway would have noticed that debris
> that destroyed the Concorde, and costed a $Billion.

How do you propose to allow people to walk a 3-mile runway between every
single takeoff and landing without completely destroying the airport's
ability to carry traffic?

--
Michael Ash
Rogue Amoeba Software

[[email protected]]

On Feb 5, 9:49*am, Ricky > wrote:
> On Feb 5, 9:27*am, Larry Dighera > wrote:
>
> > I realize you were just a student pilot at the time, but I find it
> > curious that the word checklist is not mentioned anywhere in your
> > article. *
>
> A checklist is/was used most of the time, possibly skipped if in a
> hurry as I was.
> Even now, I find myself not using a checklist sometimes for preflight
> once I get to know a plane.
> It's easy to get complacent, especially with a small Cessna.
> I'd be curious to know how many actually carry around the checklist
> outside while preflighting?
>
> Ricky

Me. Every time. I can't help myself.

[[email protected]]

> It's a ****-up that the Concorde pilot whose
> plane dislodged runway debris, failed to review
> his runway and killed himself, all his passengers
> and destroyed an expensive A/C.

You're kidding, right?

[Phil J]

On Feb 6, 4:03*pm, Flydive > wrote:
> Jim Logajan wrote:
> Ken S. Tucker wrote:
>
> > I flattened the descent and eased back the
> > throttle.
> > Ken
>
> And why would he flatten his descent? Aren't you supposed to climb after
> take off? :-)
>

He means he flattened the descent of the Earth beneath him!

Phil

[Some Other Guy]

Ken S. Tucker wrote:

> More than likely, a superficial runway inspection,
> either by the controllers, the pilots or anyone
> walking the runway would have noticed that debris
> that destroyed the Concorde, and costed a $Billion.

The crash happened at CDG airport, which is the busiest in Europe at over
half a million flights annually. It has four runways:

08L/26R 13,829'
09R/27L 13,780'
08R/26L 8,858'
09L/27R 8,858'

That's about 14 km worth of runway, and there's a flight roughly every 60
seconds. A full walking inspection of just one of those 13,800' runways
would take around 45 minutes, but you'd need to do it every minute or two.
Clearly it wouldn't be practical to insist that the pilots do it since by
the time they've finished, another 40-50 flights would have used the runway.

> How about using one of them fella's who's looking at
> peoples shoes for bombs, why is that good to do?

Since a shoe inspection guy can't run that fast, you'd need to have
some 20 of them strolling back and forth to ensure constant complete
coverage between each flight.

The debris that did in the Concorde was a thin strip just 3x50cm, which
they probably would have missed anyway since the runways are 150' wide;
more so at the shoulders were presumably your shoe inspectors would be
walking since jetwash isn't the most comfortable thing in the world.
Really you'd need one guy on each side of each runway.

So: 40 shoe inspectors for each 13,800' runway walking back and forth;
80 shoe inspectors total to cover both. We'll discount the 8800' runways
since presumably they won't be in use at the same time as the 13,800' ones.

How about you suggest it to the airport authorities and get back to us
with what they tell you? Or where they tell you to go as might be the case.

[Ken S. Tucker]

On Feb 6, 6:55 pm, Some Other Guy > wrote:
> Ken S. Tucker wrote:
> > More than likely, a superficial runway inspection,
> > either by the controllers, the pilots or anyone
> > walking the runway would have noticed that debris
> > that destroyed the Concorde, and costed a $Billion.
>
> The crash happened at CDG airport, which is the busiest in Europe at over
> half a million flights annually. It has four runways:
>
> 08L/26R 13,829'
> 09R/27L 13,780'
> 08R/26L 8,858'
> 09L/27R 8,858'
>
> That's about 14 km worth of runway, and there's a flight roughly every 60
> seconds. A full walking inspection of just one of those 13,800' runways
> would take around 45 minutes, but you'd need to do it every minute or two.
> Clearly it wouldn't be practical to insist that the pilots do it since by
> the time they've finished, another 40-50 flights would have used the runway.
>
> > How about using one of them fella's who's looking at
> > peoples shoes for bombs, why is that good to do?
>
> Since a shoe inspection guy can't run that fast, you'd need to have
> some 20 of them strolling back and forth to ensure constant complete
> coverage between each flight.
>
> The debris that did in the Concorde was a thin strip just 3x50cm, which
> they probably would have missed anyway since the runways are 150' wide;
> more so at the shoulders were presumably your shoe inspectors would be
> walking since jetwash isn't the most comfortable thing in the world.
> Really you'd need one guy on each side of each runway.
>
> So: 40 shoe inspectors for each 13,800' runway walking back and forth;
> 80 shoe inspectors total to cover both. We'll discount the 8800' runways
> since presumably they won't be in use at the same time as the 13,800' ones.
>
> How about you suggest it to the airport authorities and get back to us
> with what they tell you? Or where they tell you to go as might be the case.

First recognize and define the problem.
(The PROBLEM exists, that's proven).

Next we'll solve it. Mr. SOG, I see you're less than
qualified to detail that process, which is a science
and engineering problem, over-all.
Examples, "metal detectors", "optical scanners",
leave the "solution" to the pros. Smarter pilots
need only acknowledge the problem.
Ken

[[email protected]]

On Feb 6, 1:44 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
> I almost hit a flock of birds, following rotation,
> on my checklist was added, watch for berties.
> The runway was well treed on both sides and
> my bird must have scared them up, and they
> flocked over the runway.

See, there. It was all your fault, because you didn't go and
climb the trees to see if there were birds in them.
Didn't you see the "Climb trees and check for migratory birds" on the
150's checklist? It's there, just like the Concorde's checklist has
the "Walk runway before takeoff" on it.

Dan

[Jim Stewart]

wrote:
> On Feb 6, 1:44 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>> I almost hit a flock of birds, following rotation,
>> on my checklist was added, watch for berties.
>> The runway was well treed on both sides and
>> my bird must have scared them up, and they
>> flocked over the runway.
>
> See, there. It was all your fault, because you didn't go and
> climb the trees to see if there were birds in them.
> Didn't you see the "Climb trees and check for migratory birds" on the
> 150's checklist? It's there, just like the Concorde's checklist has
> the "Walk runway before takeoff" on it.

Another approach would be to wait for someone
to roll a biplane out of a hanger before taking
off. This is guarantied to attract the berties
away from the active runway.

[[email protected]]

On Feb 6, 3:24 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
> More than likely, a superficial runway inspection,
> either by the controllers, the pilots or anyone
> walking the runway would have noticed that debris
> that destroyed the Concorde, and costed a $Billion.

What you're not aware of, apparently, is that airports have
maintenance people in vehicles. These people periodically drive the
runways, when traffic is slow, to check for any dropped items and for
other issues. Airplanes do not regularly lose things, and if they do,
other pilots will usually spot them during their operations and tell
the controllers, who send the maintenance people out to clear them.
I'm an airport manager at a small rural airport, a busy small rural
airport, and in the 12 years I've been doing it we have found:
-One tailwheel steering spring.
-One large bolt washer, non-aircraft, probably off the lawn mowing
equipment. Found at runway edge.
-A few small stones, tracked onto the runway by snowplowing equipment.

And that's it. The bigger hazards, by far, are the wildlife that
wander around or the dorks who are on the runway when they have no
business being out there.

And how, pray tell, would a pilot, or anyone else, spot debris
on runways at night? Airliners do fly at night, you know. All night
long. And often in visibility that's really low. Looking for debris
that is 99.9990% likely not to be there, and if it is it's no big
deal, at night, or in low viz, or both, is a complete and naive waste
of time.

Dan

[Ken S. Tucker]

Hi BIG HEAD, (Dan).

On Feb 7, 12:11 pm, wrote:
> On Feb 6, 3:24 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>
> > More than likely, a superficial runway inspection,
> > either by the controllers, the pilots or anyone
> > walking the runway would have noticed that debris
> > that destroyed the Concorde, and costed a $Billion.
>
> What you're not aware of, apparently, is that airports have
> maintenance people in vehicles. These people periodically drive the
> runways, when traffic is slow, to check for any dropped items and for
> other issues. Airplanes do not regularly lose things, and if they do,
> other pilots will usually spot them during their operations and tell
> the controllers, who send the maintenance people out to clear them.
> I'm an airport manager at a small rural airport, a busy small rural
> airport, and in the 12 years I've been doing it we have found:
> -One tailwheel steering spring.
> -One large bolt washer, non-aircraft, probably off the lawn mowing
> equipment. Found at runway edge.
> -A few small stones, tracked onto the runway by snowplowing equipment.
>
> And that's it. The bigger hazards, by far, are the wildlife that
> wander around or the dorks who are on the runway when they have no
> business being out there.

Wonderful, and based on the BIG HEAD,
he denies the reason for why a Concord
was smashed. Well on that basis Mr. BIG
HEAD will determine future policy based
on his vast experience of finding bad stuff
that get's suck into turbo's, oh wait, agreed.


> And how, pray tell, would a pilot, or anyone else, spot debris
> on runways at night? Airliners do fly at night, you know. All night
> long. And often in visibility that's really low. Looking for debris
> that is 99.9990% likely not to be there, and if it is it's no big
> deal, at night, or in low viz, or both, is a complete and naive waste
> of time.
> Dan

Easy Mr. BIG HEAD, recall you have zip ability
to solve the problem, aside from opening them
old eyes of yours, for your little dinky A/C oneway.
That's why a fella like, who is a scientific engineer
can both define the problem AND understand a host
of possible solutions, something the BIG HEAD can't
do in this lifetime.
Think techno.
Ken

[Al G[_1_]]

"Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in message
...
> Hi BIG HEAD, (Dan).
>
> On Feb 7, 12:11 pm, wrote:
>> On Feb 6, 3:24 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>>
>> > More than likely, a superficial runway inspection,
>> > either by the controllers, the pilots or anyone
>> > walking the runway would have noticed that debris
>> > that destroyed the Concorde, and costed a $Billion.
>>
>> What you're not aware of, apparently, is that airports have
>> maintenance people in vehicles. These people periodically drive the
>> runways, when traffic is slow, to check for any dropped items and for
>> other issues. Airplanes do not regularly lose things, and if they do,
>> other pilots will usually spot them during their operations and tell
>> the controllers, who send the maintenance people out to clear them.
>> I'm an airport manager at a small rural airport, a busy small rural
>> airport, and in the 12 years I've been doing it we have found:
>> -One tailwheel steering spring.
>> -One large bolt washer, non-aircraft, probably off the lawn mowing
>> equipment. Found at runway edge.
>> -A few small stones, tracked onto the runway by snowplowing equipment.
>>
>> And that's it. The bigger hazards, by far, are the wildlife that
>> wander around or the dorks who are on the runway when they have no
>> business being out there.
>
> Wonderful, and based on the BIG HEAD,
> he denies the reason for why a Concord
> was smashed. Well on that basis Mr. BIG
> HEAD will determine future policy based
> on his vast experience of finding bad stuff
> that get's suck into turbo's, oh wait, agreed.
>
>
>> And how, pray tell, would a pilot, or anyone else, spot debris
>> on runways at night? Airliners do fly at night, you know. All night
>> long. And often in visibility that's really low. Looking for debris
>> that is 99.9990% likely not to be there, and if it is it's no big
>> deal, at night, or in low viz, or both, is a complete and naive waste
>> of time.
>> Dan
>
> Easy Mr. BIG HEAD, recall you have zip ability
> to solve the problem, aside from opening them
> old eyes of yours, for your little dinky A/C oneway.
> That's why a fella like, who is a scientific engineer
> can both define the problem AND understand a host
> of possible solutions, something the BIG HEAD can't
> do in this lifetime.
> Think techno.
> Ken

Walk=Techno?

Al G

[Ken S. Tucker]

Hi Al G.

On Feb 7, 1:27 pm, "Al G" > wrote:
> "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in ...
>
>
>
> > Hi BIG HEAD, (Dan).
>
> > On Feb 7, 12:11 pm, wrote:
> >> On Feb 6, 3:24 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>
> >> > More than likely, a superficial runway inspection,
> >> > either by the controllers, the pilots or anyone
> >> > walking the runway would have noticed that debris
> >> > that destroyed the Concorde, and costed a $Billion.
>
> >> What you're not aware of, apparently, is that airports have
> >> maintenance people in vehicles. These people periodically drive the
> >> runways, when traffic is slow, to check for any dropped items and for
> >> other issues. Airplanes do not regularly lose things, and if they do,
> >> other pilots will usually spot them during their operations and tell
> >> the controllers, who send the maintenance people out to clear them.
> >> I'm an airport manager at a small rural airport, a busy small rural
> >> airport, and in the 12 years I've been doing it we have found:
> >> -One tailwheel steering spring.
> >> -One large bolt washer, non-aircraft, probably off the lawn mowing
> >> equipment. Found at runway edge.
> >> -A few small stones, tracked onto the runway by snowplowing equipment.
>
> >> And that's it. The bigger hazards, by far, are the wildlife that
> >> wander around or the dorks who are on the runway when they have no
> >> business being out there.
>
> > Wonderful, and based on the BIG HEAD,
> > he denies the reason for why a Concord
> > was smashed. Well on that basis Mr. BIG
> > HEAD will determine future policy based
> > on his vast experience of finding bad stuff
> > that get's suck into turbo's, oh wait, agreed.
>
> >> And how, pray tell, would a pilot, or anyone else, spot debris
> >> on runways at night? Airliners do fly at night, you know. All night
> >> long. And often in visibility that's really low. Looking for debris
> >> that is 99.9990% likely not to be there, and if it is it's no big
> >> deal, at night, or in low viz, or both, is a complete and naive waste
> >> of time.
> >> Dan
>
> > Easy Mr. BIG HEAD, recall you have zip ability
> > to solve the problem, aside from opening them
> > old eyes of yours, for your little dinky A/C oneway.
> > That's why a fella like, who is a scientific engineer
> > can both define the problem AND understand a host
> > of possible solutions, something the BIG HEAD can't
> > do in this lifetime.
> > Think techno.
> > Ken
>
> Walk=Techno?
> Al G

If someone had taken a binocular scan of the
runway prior to that Concord take-off, he may
have spotted that dangerous debris.
Maybe not that hi-tech, but that peice could
have easily blowed a tire on a 747 as well.

The USN has a procedure to scan the take-off
area for their jets, and I think they are pretty
bright guys, why do they have that procdecure?
Regards
Ken

[Bertie the Bunyip]

On Feb 7, 9:43*pm, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
> Hi Al G.
>
> On Feb 7, 1:27 pm, "Al *G" > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in ...
>
> > > Hi BIG HEAD, (Dan).
>
> > > On Feb 7, 12:11 pm, wrote:
> > >> On Feb 6, 3:24 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>
> > >> > More than likely, a superficial runway inspection,
> > >> > either by the controllers, the pilots or anyone
> > >> > walking the runway would have noticed that debris
> > >> > that destroyed the Concorde, and costed a $Billion.
>
> > >> *What you're not aware of, apparently, is that airports have
> > >> maintenance people in vehicles. These people periodically drive the
> > >> runways, when traffic is slow, to check for any dropped items and for
> > >> other issues. Airplanes do not regularly lose things, and if they do,
> > >> other pilots will usually spot them during their operations and tell
> > >> the controllers, who send the maintenance people out to clear them.
> > >> I'm an airport manager at a small rural airport, a busy small rural
> > >> airport, and in the 12 years I've been doing it we have found:
> > >> -One tailwheel steering spring.
> > >> -One large bolt washer, non-aircraft, probably off the lawn mowing
> > >> equipment. Found at runway edge.
> > >> -A few small stones, tracked onto the runway by snowplowing equipment..
>
> > >> * And that's it. The bigger hazards, by far, are the wildlife that
> > >> wander around or the dorks who are on the runway when they have no
> > >> business being out there.
>
> > > Wonderful, and based on the BIG HEAD,
> > > he denies the reason for why a Concord
> > > was smashed. Well on that basis Mr. BIG
> > > HEAD will determine future policy based
> > > on his vast experience of finding bad stuff
> > > that get's suck into turbo's, oh wait, agreed.
>
> > >> *And how, pray tell, would a pilot, or anyone *else, spot debris
> > >> on runways at night? Airliners do fly at night, you know. All night
> > >> long. And often in visibility that's really low. Looking for debris
> > >> that is 99.9990% likely not to be there, and if it is it's no big
> > >> deal, at night, or in low viz, or both, is a complete and naive waste
> > >> of time.
> > >> * * * * Dan
>
> > > Easy Mr. BIG HEAD, *recall you have zip ability
> > > to solve the problem, aside from opening them
> > > old eyes of yours, for your little dinky A/C oneway.
> > > *That's why a fella like, who is a scientific engineer
> > > can both define the problem AND understand a host
> > > of possible solutions, something the BIG HEAD can't
> > > do in this lifetime.
> > > Think techno.
> > > Ken
>
> > * * Walk=Techno?
> > Al *G
>
> If someone had taken a binocular scan of the
> runway prior to that Concord take-off, he may
> have spotted that dangerous debris.
> Maybe not that hi-tech, but that peice could
> have easily blowed a tire on a 747 as well.
>
> The USN has a procedure to scan the take-off
> area for their jets, and I think they are pretty
> bright guys, why do they have that procdecure?
> Regards
> Ken- Hide quoted text -
>

Ken, please don't take this the wrong way, but you are a complete and
utter waste of space.
You are using up precious air that could be put to better use by a
horde of Rats infested with plague carrying fleas. \


Bertie

[Ricky]

On Feb 6, 12:04*am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:

> Good God.

Yes, He is.

Ricky

[Ricky]

On Feb 6, 2:03*am, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:

> NOW THE BIGGY,

> review the runway.

That's really interesting. I've never heard of anyone walking the
runway. I've never walked a runway before a flight.
I have done a low approach at turf or grass strips to try & look a
little but walk a runway? Wow. Do you really do this before a flight?
Before every flight?
You mentioned this being a Concorde checklist item. Is this really a
checklist item for the Concorde or other airlines, to review the
runway? How is it done?

Maybe I missed something with the Concorde but how did the plane
"dislodge" something from the runway? I thought there was already
something on the runway that Concorde ran over.
How did the Concorde pilot mess up by running over something on the
runway?

I've sometimes wondered if the Concorde would have been capable of
doing an immediate 180 and landing or shutting down the engine(s) on
the fire side and landing.

Ricky

> Ken

[Bertie the Bunyip]

On Feb 7, 10:30*pm, Ricky > wrote:
> On Feb 6, 12:04*am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
> > Good God.
>
> Yes, He is.
>
> Ricky

Well, as a corruption of the word "Good", of course.


Bertie

[Al G[_1_]]

"Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in message
...
> Hi Al G.
>
> On Feb 7, 1:27 pm, "Al G" > wrote:
>> "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in
>> ...
>>
>>
>>
>> > Hi BIG HEAD, (Dan).
>>
>> > On Feb 7, 12:11 pm, wrote:
>> >> On Feb 6, 3:24 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>>
>> >> > More than likely, a superficial runway inspection,
>> >> > either by the controllers, the pilots or anyone
>> >> > walking the runway would have noticed that debris
>> >> > that destroyed the Concorde, and costed a $Billion.
>>
>> >> What you're not aware of, apparently, is that airports have
>> >> maintenance people in vehicles. These people periodically drive the
>> >> runways, when traffic is slow, to check for any dropped items and for
>> >> other issues. Airplanes do not regularly lose things, and if they do,
>> >> other pilots will usually spot them during their operations and tell
>> >> the controllers, who send the maintenance people out to clear them.
>> >> I'm an airport manager at a small rural airport, a busy small rural
>> >> airport, and in the 12 years I've been doing it we have found:
>> >> -One tailwheel steering spring.
>> >> -One large bolt washer, non-aircraft, probably off the lawn mowing
>> >> equipment. Found at runway edge.
>> >> -A few small stones, tracked onto the runway by snowplowing equipment.
>>
>> >> And that's it. The bigger hazards, by far, are the wildlife that
>> >> wander around or the dorks who are on the runway when they have no
>> >> business being out there.
>>
>> > Wonderful, and based on the BIG HEAD,
>> > he denies the reason for why a Concord
>> > was smashed. Well on that basis Mr. BIG
>> > HEAD will determine future policy based
>> > on his vast experience of finding bad stuff
>> > that get's suck into turbo's, oh wait, agreed.
>>
>> >> And how, pray tell, would a pilot, or anyone else, spot debris
>> >> on runways at night? Airliners do fly at night, you know. All night
>> >> long. And often in visibility that's really low. Looking for debris
>> >> that is 99.9990% likely not to be there, and if it is it's no big
>> >> deal, at night, or in low viz, or both, is a complete and naive waste
>> >> of time.
>> >> Dan
>>
>> > Easy Mr. BIG HEAD, recall you have zip ability
>> > to solve the problem, aside from opening them
>> > old eyes of yours, for your little dinky A/C oneway.
>> > That's why a fella like, who is a scientific engineer
>> > can both define the problem AND understand a host
>> > of possible solutions, something the BIG HEAD can't
>> > do in this lifetime.
>> > Think techno.
>> > Ken
>>
>> Walk=Techno?
>> Al G
>
> If someone had taken a binocular scan of the
> runway prior to that Concord take-off, he may
> have spotted that dangerous debris.
> Maybe not that hi-tech, but that peice could
> have easily blowed a tire on a 747 as well.
>
> The USN has a procedure to scan the take-off
> area for their jets, and I think they are pretty
> bright guys, why do they have that procdecure?
> Regards
> Ken

Their procedure involves the use of enlisted men,
and is not done before each takeoff. Ask me how I know.
You're the one that decided walking down a runway was
a good idea.

Al G

[Al G[_1_]]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
...
On Feb 7, 9:43 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:


>
> The USN has a procedure to scan the take-off
> area for their jets, and I think they are pretty
> bright guys, why do they have that procdecure?
> Regards
> Ken- Hide quoted text -
>

Ken, please don't take this the wrong way, but you are a complete and
utter waste of space.
You are using up precious air that could be put to better use by a
horde of Rats infested with plague carrying fleas. \


Bertie




Too large a carbon footprint. In fact, any footprint is too large.

Al G

[Some Other Guy]

Ken S. Tucker wrote:

> Next we'll solve it. Mr. SOG, I see you're less than
> qualified to detail that process, which is a science
> and engineering problem, over-all.
> Examples, "metal detectors", "optical scanners",
> leave the "solution" to the pros. Smarter pilots
> need only acknowledge the problem.
> Ken

Qualified?

May I remind you that it was YOU who suggested that the
pilot should have "inspected" the runway. All I did was
put numbers to your weird idea to show how ludicrous it was.

You blamed the pilot 100% for the piece of debris that landed on the
runway 4 minutes before his takeoff, which is not just absurd but
a goddamned insult to the innocent pilot and crew.

Here is your original posting, so you don't try to weasel out of it.
Read it carefully again with a fresh eye.

From: "Ken S. Tucker" >
Message-ID:
>
> It's a ****-up that the Concorde pilot whose
> plane dislodged runway debris, failed to review
> his runway and killed himself, all his passengers
> and destroyed an expensive A/C.
>
> If that pilot had followed his check-list...well,
> things would have been better, the aircraft
> would have done a routine flight, the debris
> would have been removed prior to take-off.

[Michael Ash]

In rec.aviation.student Ken S. Tucker > wrote:
> If someone had taken a binocular scan of the
> runway prior to that Concord take-off, he may
> have spotted that dangerous debris.

Spotting a strip of metal the size of a large bookmark a mile away is not
exactly a given, even with really fancy binoculars.

> Maybe not that hi-tech, but that peice could
> have easily blowed a tire on a 747 as well.

And the 747's passengers would have survived the experience, I wager,
as should happen with any reasonable passenger airplane.

> The USN has a procedure to scan the take-off
> area for their jets, and I think they are pretty
> bright guys, why do they have that procdecure?

Do they scan the entire runway before every single takeoff, or do they
only do it once a day? To my very scarce knowledge it is the latter. When
composing your reply keep in mind that the titanium strip which killed Air
France 4590 fell off a flight which had departed only four minutes
earlier, so any measures which check less often than that would not have
saved the flight.

--
Michael Ash
Rogue Amoeba Software

[Rich Ahrens[_2_]]

Steve Hix wrote:
> The last actual simulator I had anything to do with was for the Dassault
> Falcon 20, built by Singer-Link, about 32 years ago. I think it was
> controlled by a PDP-11/70 ... wonder what it might be equivalent to
> today.

A severely crippled Palm Pilot.

Which, come to think of it, might be a good nickname for Anthony...

[Ken S. Tucker]

On Feb 7, 2:39 pm, Ricky > wrote:
> On Feb 6, 2:03 am, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>
> > NOW THE BIGGY,
> > review the runway.
>
> That's really interesting. I've never heard of anyone walking the
> runway. I've never walked a runway before a flight.
> I have done a low approach at turf or grass strips to try & look a
> little but walk a runway? Wow. Do you really do this before a flight?

No, but I check by eye, usually at warm-up.
Driving a car, I frequently swerve to avoid debris,
that option is not available to an aircraft.

> You mentioned this being a Concorde checklist item. Is this really a
> checklist item for the Concorde or other airlines, to review the
> runway? How is it done?

Of course there is a runway specification.

> Maybe I missed something with the Concorde but how did the plane
> "dislodge" something from the runway? I thought there was already
> something on the runway that Concorde ran over.
> How did the Concorde pilot mess up by running over something on the
> runway?

We always blame the pilot, but it was an honest
mistake, maybe 1 in a million, I don't know the
specific stats.

> Ricky
>
Ken

[Ken S. Tucker]

On Feb 7, 3:10 pm, Michael Ash > wrote:
> In rec.aviation.student Ken S. Tucker > wrote:
>
> > If someone had taken a binocular scan of the
> > runway prior to that Concord take-off, he may
> > have spotted that dangerous debris.
>
> Spotting a strip of metal the size of a large bookmark a mile away is not
> exactly a given, even with really fancy binoculars.
>
> > Maybe not that hi-tech, but that peice could
> > have easily blowed a tire on a 747 as well.
>
> And the 747's passengers would have survived the experience, I wager,
> as should happen with any reasonable passenger airplane.
>
> > The USN has a procedure to scan the take-off
> > area for their jets, and I think they are pretty
> > bright guys, why do they have that procdecure?
>
> Do they scan the entire runway before every single takeoff, or do they
> only do it once a day? To my very scarce knowledge it is the latter. When
> composing your reply keep in mind that the titanium strip which killed Air
> France 4590 fell off a flight which had departed only four minutes
> earlier, so any measures which check less often than that would not have
> saved the flight.
>
> --
> Michael Ash
> Rogue Amoeba Software

The truth of your (Mr. Ash) is the cost benefit ratio,
vs. risk. What's your attitude about the Challenger
and Columbia disasters?
Pilots by nature are optimists.
Ken

[Dallas]

On Wed, 06 Feb 2008 12:16:14 -0800, Steve Hix wrote:

> The last actual simulator I had anything to do with was for the Dassault
> Falcon 20, built by Singer-Link, about 32 years ago. I think it was
> controlled by a PDP-11/70 ... wonder what it might be equivalent to
> today.

Microsoft Flight Simulator on a PC.

:- )

--
Dallas

[Thomas Borchert]

Ken,

> Smarter pilots
> need only acknowledge the problem.
>

Glad you ask. There is no problem.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Flydive]

Ricky wrote:
> I've sometimes wondered if the Concorde would have been capable of
> doing an immediate 180 and landing or shutting down the engine(s) on
> the fire side and landing.
>
> Ricky
>
>> Ken
>
>

In this accident the best option was what they tried to do, fly straight
ahead and land at Bourget, runways are almost lined up.

[Peter Clark]

On Thu, 07 Feb 2008 17:10:15 -0600, Michael Ash >
wrote:


>Do they scan the entire runway before every single takeoff, or do they
>only do it once a day? To my very scarce knowledge it is the latter. When
>composing your reply keep in mind that the titanium strip which killed Air
>France 4590 fell off a flight which had departed only four minutes
>earlier, so any measures which check less often than that would not have
>saved the flight.

FWIW, I'm pretty sure my local class D has a runway and taxiway FOD
inspection (via car driven at quite high speed down the runway) every
hour. The authority car comes up on ground, asks for the inspection
run, and tower slots it into the pattern. I can't speak to large
bravos, I'll have to see if I can spot a car next time I'm in a
terminal.

[Stefan]

Ricky schrieb:

> ... how did the plane "dislodge" something from the runway? ...
> ... How did the Concorde pilot mess up by running over something ...
> ... I've sometimes wondered if the Concorde would have been capable of
> doing an immediate 180 and landing or shutting down the engine(s) on
> the fire side and landing.

All your questions are answered here:
http://www.bea-fr.org/docspa/2000/f-sc000725a/pdf/f-sc000725a.pdf

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Peter Clark" > wrote
>
> FWIW, I'm pretty sure my local class D has a runway and taxiway FOD
> inspection (via car driven at quite high speed down the runway) every
> hour. The authority car comes up on ground, asks for the inspection
> run, and tower slots it into the pattern. I can't speak to large
> bravos, I'll have to see if I can spot a car next time I'm in a
> terminal.

That has to be a feel good inspection.

If a driver driving at 55 MPH can spot a nut or bolt, or a 1/8" thick piece
of metal laying on the runway, while driving and scanning a 150' wide
runway, I would be extremely surprised.
--
Jim in NC

[Peter Clark]

On Fri, 8 Feb 2008 12:04:52 -0500, "Morgans"
> wrote:

>
>"Peter Clark" > wrote
>>
>> FWIW, I'm pretty sure my local class D has a runway and taxiway FOD
>> inspection (via car driven at quite high speed down the runway) every
>> hour. The authority car comes up on ground, asks for the inspection
>> run, and tower slots it into the pattern. I can't speak to large
>> bravos, I'll have to see if I can spot a car next time I'm in a
>> terminal.
>
>That has to be a feel good inspection.
>
>If a driver driving at 55 MPH can spot a nut or bolt, or a 1/8" thick piece
>of metal laying on the runway, while driving and scanning a 150' wide
>runway, I would be extremely surprised.

I know he's spotted and picked up a Cessna fuel cap before. I don't
know if he was out there speficially looking for it on that run or
what.

[Michael Ash]

In rec.aviation.student Ken S. Tucker > wrote:
> The truth of your (Mr. Ash) is the cost benefit ratio,
> vs. risk.

Of course, this is engineering, and engineering is always about tradeoffs.
You have not explained how you plan to prevent Concorde-like accidents
without effectively shutting down all of civil aviation. Since, as far as
I can tell, the Concorde accident has not been repeated with any other
aircraft, shutting down civil aviation to prevent one type of accident
which has happened once does not seem like a good tradeoff to me.

> What's your attitude about the Challenger
> and Columbia disasters?

I don't see the relevance, but IMO the space shuttle is a huge waste of
money and NASA does not properly deal with common risks. The problems
which killed those shuttles happened on many previous flights as well,
with less severity. They were identified and escalated, but management
took the attitude that if it hadn't killed a flight yet, it had to be
safe.

Despite all of this, the shuttle has an accident rate similar to that of
other manned launch systems. Space travel is simply very damned dangerous
at the moment.

> Pilots by nature are optimists.

This has not been my experience at all. Pilots, from what I have seen, are
extreme pessimists. They tend to assume that any problem they find with
the aircraft or see in the air will kill them, even though 99% of the time
it will not. This is, of course, because the other 1% of the time it will.
It's paranoid, but it's justified.

--
Michael Ash
Rogue Amoeba Software

[Ken S. Tucker]

On Feb 8, 12:49 am, Thomas Borchert >
wrote:
> Ken,
>
> > Smarter pilots
> > need only acknowledge the problem.
>
> Glad you ask. There is no problem.
> Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

I specified smart pilots,
http://www.stratechsystems.com/news/p_news72.htm
see also "Tarsier".
Ken

[Michael Ash]

In rec.aviation.student Peter Clark > wrote:
> On Thu, 07 Feb 2008 17:10:15 -0600, Michael Ash >
> wrote:
>
>>Do they scan the entire runway before every single takeoff, or do they
>>only do it once a day? To my very scarce knowledge it is the latter. When
>>composing your reply keep in mind that the titanium strip which killed Air
>>France 4590 fell off a flight which had departed only four minutes
>>earlier, so any measures which check less often than that would not have
>>saved the flight.
>
> FWIW, I'm pretty sure my local class D has a runway and taxiway FOD
> inspection (via car driven at quite high speed down the runway) every
> hour. The authority car comes up on ground, asks for the inspection
> run, and tower slots it into the pattern. I can't speak to large
> bravos, I'll have to see if I can spot a car next time I'm in a
> terminal.

Thanks for adding some facts to the discussion. That's very interesting to
know. Do they have both a driver and spotter in the car?

While I think this is probably a good idea (although every hour seems
excessive), this probably wouldn't have prevented the accident in
question, unless the FOD inspection had been lucky enough to fall into the
four minutes in which the metal strip was on the runway.

--
Michael Ash
Rogue Amoeba Software

[Ken S. Tucker]

On Feb 8, 10:17 am, Michael Ash > wrote:
> In rec.aviation.student Peter Clark > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Thu, 07 Feb 2008 17:10:15 -0600, Michael Ash >
> > wrote:
>
> >>Do they scan the entire runway before every single takeoff, or do they
> >>only do it once a day? To my very scarce knowledge it is the latter. When
> >>composing your reply keep in mind that the titanium strip which killed Air
> >>France 4590 fell off a flight which had departed only four minutes
> >>earlier, so any measures which check less often than that would not have
> >>saved the flight.
>
> > FWIW, I'm pretty sure my local class D has a runway and taxiway FOD
> > inspection (via car driven at quite high speed down the runway) every
> > hour. The authority car comes up on ground, asks for the inspection
> > run, and tower slots it into the pattern. I can't speak to large
> > bravos, I'll have to see if I can spot a car next time I'm in a
> > terminal.
>
> Thanks for adding some facts to the discussion. That's very interesting to
> know. Do they have both a driver and spotter in the car?
> Michael Ash
> Rogue Amoeba Software

Google "runway inspections" Mr. Software ;-),
perhaps learn to find your own facts as well.
Ken

[[email protected]]

On Feb 8, 11:39 am, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
> Google "runway inspections" Mr. Software ;-),
> perhaps learn to find your own facts as well.
> Ken

I did that, and guess what? Almost all the references were to
comments made in this thread, and the rest referred to the Concorde
accident. One accident.
So, it would appear that runway FOD isn't the huge risk you claim
it to be. If, for instance, I Googled "VFR into IMC", I would find
6,130 references to the risk of people dying in accidents caused by
doing exactly that. So, why don't we make aviation safer by
concentrating on the BIG killers, Ken? Why try to defend time-
consuming and traffic-paralyzing runway inspections, when thousands
are dying due to other far more common failures? It's like making a
big issue of acne pimples while millions die every year of lung
cancer.

Dan

[Thomas Borchert]

> Why try to defend time-
> consuming and traffic-paralyzing runway inspections, when thousands
> are dying due to other far more common failures?
>

Because the man likes to talk a walk. He told us so.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Ken,

> I specified smart pilots,
>

Yep. I noticed.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[WingFlaps]

On Feb 7, 9:44*am, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:

>
> I almost hit a flock of birds, following rotation,
> on my checklist was added, watch for berties.
> The runway was well treed on both sides and
> my bird must have scared them up, and they
> flocked over the runway.
> I flattened the descent and eased back the
> throttle.
> Ken

Did you stall too -that would have really scared the birds off. You
could also try throwing your model aviation gas at them. How about one
of your ballistic missiles?

Cheers

[WingFlaps]

On Feb 7, 11:08*am, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:

> Well I mentioned I had an IP in the right seat.
> (Bob Burton out of the Oshawa Flying Club,
> he's the best I ever had, he liked to have fun).
>

I hope you used protection. You can't be too careful these days.

Cheers

[WingFlaps]

On Feb 7, 11:24*am, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:

> If it happened once, it will happen again, just a
> matter of time.

I didn't know Concorde was still flying.

Cheers

[WingFlaps]

On Feb 8, 11:27*am, Bertie the Bunyip >
wrote:
> On Feb 7, 9:43*pm, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>
>
>
> > Hi Al G.
>
> > On Feb 7, 1:27 pm, "Al *G" > wrote:
>
> > > "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in ...
>
> > > > Hi BIG HEAD, (Dan).
>
> > > > On Feb 7, 12:11 pm, wrote:
> > > >> On Feb 6, 3:24 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>
> > > >> > More than likely, a superficial runway inspection,
> > > >> > either by the controllers, the pilots or anyone
> > > >> > walking the runway would have noticed that debris
> > > >> > that destroyed the Concorde, and costed a $Billion.
>
> > > >> *What you're not aware of, apparently, is that airports have
> > > >> maintenance people in vehicles. These people periodically drive the
> > > >> runways, when traffic is slow, to check for any dropped items and for
> > > >> other issues. Airplanes do not regularly lose things, and if they do,
> > > >> other pilots will usually spot them during their operations and tell
> > > >> the controllers, who send the maintenance people out to clear them.
> > > >> I'm an airport manager at a small rural airport, a busy small rural
> > > >> airport, and in the 12 years I've been doing it we have found:
> > > >> -One tailwheel steering spring.
> > > >> -One large bolt washer, non-aircraft, probably off the lawn mowing
> > > >> equipment. Found at runway edge.
> > > >> -A few small stones, tracked onto the runway by snowplowing equipment.

[WingFlaps]

On Feb 8, 11:39*am, Ricky > wrote:

> I've sometimes wondered if the Concorde would have been capable of
> doing an immediate 180 and landing or shutting down the engine(s) on
> the fire side and landing.
>

Concorde crashed because it could not climb. Lack of power would have
made the "impossible turn" even more impossible.

Cheers

[Rich Ahrens[_2_]]

Thomas Borchert wrote:
>> Why try to defend time-
>> consuming and traffic-paralyzing runway inspections, when thousands
>> are dying due to other far more common failures?
>>
>
> Because the man likes to talk a walk. He told us so.

Maybe we've found a way for Anthony to walk without spending any money!

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Rich Ahrens > wrote in
et:

> Steve Hix wrote:
>> The last actual simulator I had anything to do with was for the
>> Dassault Falcon 20, built by Singer-Link, about 32 years ago. I think
>> it was controlled by a PDP-11/70 ... wonder what it might be
>> equivalent to today.
>
> A severely crippled Palm Pilot.
>
> Which, come to think of it, might be a good nickname for Anthony...
>

Seconded.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Dan Luke" > wrote in
:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" wrote:
>
>>>> One ****ing check-list mistake splashed a
>>>> Concorde.
>>>> Ken
>>>
>>>
>>> That was a joke, right? Please tell me it was.
>>
>>
>> Yes, correct.
>>
>> Ken is a joke.
>>
>>
>> You've just met Ken, right?
>
> Ken's relatively new to me, too.
>
> No way he's really Tarver, is there? Like, cloned or resurrected or
> something?
>
>

Well, he's definitely of the smae ilk, but the style is differnet. I don't
think there's been any mention of rodents yet for instance. Did you catch
the thread about what did happen to him?


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Clark > wrote in news:Xns9A3C680AE3E79ch2uswestnet@
64.209.0.81:

> "Dan Luke" > wrote in
> :
>
>>
>> "Bertie the Bunyip" wrote:
>>
>>>>> One ****ing check-list mistake splashed a
>>>>> Concorde.
>>>>> Ken
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That was a joke, right? Please tell me it was.
>>>
>>>
>>> Yes, correct.
>>>
>>> Ken is a joke.
>>>
>>>
>>> You've just met Ken, right?
>>
>> Ken's relatively new to me, too.
>>
>> No way he's really Tarver, is there? Like, cloned or resurrected or
>> something?
>>
> May a pox be upon you for mentioning the unmentionable.
>
> As a side note, no one can ever match splaps-boy. (I hope)
>

He was a classic!

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Flydive > wrote in :

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>
>>
>> Yes, correct.
>>
>> Ken is a joke.
>>
>>
>> You've just met Ken, right?
>>
>>
>>
>
> Just had the "pleasure"
>

He has potential.

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Tom C" *> wrote in news:fod0sh$mt0$1
@aioe.org:

>
>
>>
>>
>> Yeah, tha'ts on my checklist, I know. .
>>
>> Leessee,
>> Flight Controls, checked
>> Flaps 15 selected
>> Briefing, reviewed.
>> Radar. On, taws.
>> Runway, check to see if Ken is running around on it.
>> Checks complete.
>>
>
>
> The weasel that got sucked into a jet engine? Hey, when is the last time
> something got sucked through the prop into a Lycoming



Dunno!

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Owner" > wrote in news:3-udndJ-
:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Larry Dighera > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> On Tue, 5 Feb 2008 07:49:29 -0800 (PST), Ricky
>>> > wrote in
>>> >:
>>>
>>>>On Feb 5, 9:27 am, Larry Dighera > wrote:
>>>>> I realize you were just a student pilot at the time, but I find it
>>>>> curious that the word checklist is not mentioned anywhere in your
>>>>> article.
>>>>
>>>>A checklist is/was used most of the time, possibly skipped if in a
>>>>hurry as I was.
>>>
>>> If you consider, that being hurried is a reasonable an excuse for
>>> reducing safety standards, that is your decision (not mine).
>>>
>>> For me, the issues is not so much the size of the aircraft as it is
>>> the height above the ground. :-)
>>
>>
>
>
>> You're an idiot. It's official.
>
> Have you looked in the mirror recently? :-)


Sure, why?

Bertie
>
>
>

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in
:

> On Feb 8, 10:17 am, Michael Ash > wrote:
>> In rec.aviation.student Peter Clark
>> > wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Thu, 07 Feb 2008 17:10:15 -0600, Michael Ash >
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >>Do they scan the entire runway before every single takeoff, or do
>> >>they only do it once a day? To my very scarce knowledge it is the
>> >>latter. When composing your reply keep in mind that the titanium
>> >>strip which killed Air France 4590 fell off a flight which had
>> >>departed only four minutes earlier, so any measures which check
>> >>less often than that would not have saved the flight.
>>
>> > FWIW, I'm pretty sure my local class D has a runway and taxiway FOD
>> > inspection (via car driven at quite high speed down the runway)
>> > every hour. The authority car comes up on ground, asks for the
>> > inspection run, and tower slots it into the pattern. I can't speak
>> > to large bravos, I'll have to see if I can spot a car next time I'm
>> > in a terminal.
>>
>> Thanks for adding some facts to the discussion. That's very
>> interesting to know. Do they have both a driver and spotter in the
>> car? Michael Ash
>> Rogue Amoeba Software
>
> Google "runway inspections" Mr. Software ;-),
> perhaps learn to find your own facts as well.
> Ken
>

Google "fjukkwit" and note pic of Ken next to it.



Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in news:8228ec2f-98c0-
:

> On Feb 7, 2:39 pm, Ricky > wrote:
>> On Feb 6, 2:03 am, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>>
>> > NOW THE BIGGY,
>> > review the runway.
>>
>> That's really interesting. I've never heard of anyone walking the
>> runway. I've never walked a runway before a flight.
>> I have done a low approach at turf or grass strips to try & look a
>> little but walk a runway? Wow. Do you really do this before a flight?
>
> No, but I check by eye, usually at warm-up.

So you lied before.


> Driving a car, I frequently swerve to avoid debris,

What a hero!


> that option is not available to an aircraft.


Yes, it is.


>
>> You mentioned this being a Concorde checklist item. Is this really a
>> checklist item for the Concorde or other airlines, to review the
>> runway? How is it done?
>
> Of course there is a runway specification.

Yeh, igh tKenny.
>
>> Maybe I missed something with the Concorde but how did the plane
>> "dislodge" something from the runway? I thought there was already
>> something on the runway that Concorde ran over.
>> How did the Concorde pilot mess up by running over something on the
>> runway?
>
> We always blame the pilot, but it was an honest
> mistake, maybe 1 in a million, I don't know the
> specific stats.

You don't know anything, in fact.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

WingFlaps > wrote in
:

> On Feb 10, 12:49*pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> WingFlaps > wrote
>> innews:adf00eaf-2bd4-4d85-8b8e-57c64
> :
>>
>> > What's so great about that. During WWII detecting runway damage was
>> > not a problem was it? You could probably teach a dog to do it... no
>> > wait that's my idea! I'll let the pentagon have it for a small
>> > fraction of their system and my dogs will also protect against
>> > insurgents!
>>
>> Or you could get an army of Trailer trash Kens out there walking the
>> runway!
>>
>
> You idea has merit, it will cause the insurgents to run out of bullets
> and they can be used to fill the craters!

Now that's cruel.

True, but cruel.

Bertie

[Ken S. Tucker]

On Feb 9, 4:09 pm, WingFlaps > wrote:
> On Feb 10, 12:49 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
> > WingFlaps > wrote :
>
> > > What's so great about that. During WWII detecting runway damage was
> > > not a problem was it? You could probably teach a dog to do it... no
> > > wait that's my idea! I'll let the pentagon have it for a small
> > > fraction of their system and my dogs will also protect against
> > > insurgents!
>
> > Or you could get an army of Trailer trash Kens out there walking the
> > runway!
>
> You idea has merit, it will cause the insurgents to run out of bullets
> and they can be used to fill the craters!
>
> Cheers

Thank you, Thank you very much my Fans.
My work is now done here, I shall now return
to the 6th dimension, 5 sensual + 1 of imagination,
with the fond memories of having been welcomed
to this group.
You all take now, and I'll getcha a good ole
Hound Dog to help with them runways, I've
got a "Cryin' Ole Hound Dog" that needs a job.
Ken

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in
:

> On Feb 9, 4:09 pm, WingFlaps > wrote:
>> On Feb 10, 12:49 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>
>> > WingFlaps > wrote
>> >
>> > .com:
>>
>> > > What's so great about that. During WWII detecting runway damage
>> > > was not a problem was it? You could probably teach a dog to do
>> > > it... no wait that's my idea! I'll let the pentagon have it for a
>> > > small fraction of their system and my dogs will also protect
>> > > against insurgents!
>>
>> > Or you could get an army of Trailer trash Kens out there walking
>> > the runway!
>>
>> You idea has merit, it will cause the insurgents to run out of
>> bullets and they can be used to fill the craters!
>>
>> Cheers
>
> Thank you, Thank you very much my Fans.
> My work is now done here, I shall now return
> to the 6th dimension, 5 sensual + 1 of imagination,
> with the fond memories of having been welcomed
> to this group.
> You all take now, and I'll getcha a good ole
> Hound Dog to help with them runways, I've
> got a "Cryin' Ole Hound Dog" that needs a job.


Translation- you're running away.



Bertie

[Blueskies]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message ...
> "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in
> :
>
>> On Feb 9, 4:09 pm, WingFlaps > wrote:
>>> On Feb 10, 12:49 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>>
>>> > WingFlaps > wrote
>>> >
>>> > .com:
>>>
>>> > > What's so great about that. During WWII detecting runway damage
>>> > > was not a problem was it? You could probably teach a dog to do
>>> > > it... no wait that's my idea! I'll let the pentagon have it for a
>>> > > small fraction of their system and my dogs will also protect
>>> > > against insurgents!
>>>
>>> > Or you could get an army of Trailer trash Kens out there walking
>>> > the runway!
>>>
>>> You idea has merit, it will cause the insurgents to run out of
>>> bullets and they can be used to fill the craters!
>>>
>>> Cheers
>>
>> Thank you, Thank you very much my Fans.
>> My work is now done here, I shall now return
>> to the 6th dimension, 5 sensual + 1 of imagination,
>> with the fond memories of having been welcomed
>> to this group.
>> You all take now, and I'll getcha a good ole
>> Hound Dog to help with them runways, I've
>> got a "Cryin' Ole Hound Dog" that needs a job.
>
>
> Translation- you're running away.
>
>
>
> Bertie



French?

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Blueskies" > wrote in
:

> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in
>> news:2a418510-3142-4a6a-a3cc-00e4ae01baf4
@e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com
>> :
>>
>>> On Feb 9, 4:09 pm, WingFlaps > wrote:
>>>> On Feb 10, 12:49 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > WingFlaps > wrote
>>>> > innews:adf00eaf-2bd4-4d85-8b8e-57c64c16cf54
@s12g2000prg.googlegrou
>>>> > ps .com:
>>>>
>>>> > > What's so great about that. During WWII detecting runway damage
>>>> > > was not a problem was it? You could probably teach a dog to do
>>>> > > it... no wait that's my idea! I'll let the pentagon have it for
>>>> > > a small fraction of their system and my dogs will also protect
>>>> > > against insurgents!
>>>>
>>>> > Or you could get an army of Trailer trash Kens out there walking
>>>> > the runway!
>>>>
>>>> You idea has merit, it will cause the insurgents to run out of
>>>> bullets and they can be used to fill the craters!
>>>>
>>>> Cheers
>>>
>>> Thank you, Thank you very much my Fans.
>>> My work is now done here, I shall now return
>>> to the 6th dimension, 5 sensual + 1 of imagination,
>>> with the fond memories of having been welcomed
>>> to this group.
>>> You all take now, and I'll getcha a good ole
>>> Hound Dog to help with them runways, I've
>>> got a "Cryin' Ole Hound Dog" that needs a job.
>>
>>
>> Translation- you're running away.
>>
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>
>
>
> French?


No thanks, unless you've flossed, of course.


Bertie

[WingFlaps]

On Feb 10, 1:34*pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> WingFlaps > wrote :
>
>
>
> > On Feb 10, 12:49*pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> >> WingFlaps > wrote
> >> innews:adf00eaf-2bd4-4d85-8b8e-57c64
> > :
>
> >> > What's so great about that. During WWII detecting runway damage was
> >> > not a problem was it? You could probably teach a dog to do it... no
> >> > wait that's my idea! I'll let the pentagon have it for a small
> >> > fraction of their system and my dogs will also protect against
> >> > insurgents!
>
> >> Or you could get an army of Trailer trash Kens out there walking the
> >> runway!
>
> > You idea has merit, it will cause the insurgents to run out of bullets
> > and they can be used to fill the craters!
>
> Now that's cruel.
>
> True, but cruel.
>

I apologise. I got carried away with trying to think of ways he might
be useful. I will try to curb such thoughts and try to accept his
current limitations. Good chewin tho'.

Cheers

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

WingFlaps > wrote in
:

> On Feb 10, 1:34*pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> WingFlaps > wrote
>> innews:dd4dd87c-c0d1-453f-bed5-38fbd
> :
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Feb 10, 12:49*pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> >> WingFlaps > wrote
>> >> innews:adf00eaf-2bd4-4d85-8b8e-57c64
>> > :
>>
>> >> > What's so great about that. During WWII detecting runway damage
>> >> > was not a problem was it? You could probably teach a dog to do
>> >> > it... no wait that's my idea! I'll let the pentagon have it for
>> >> > a small fraction of their system and my dogs will also protect
>> >> > against insurgents!
>>
>> >> Or you could get an army of Trailer trash Kens out there walking
>> >> the runway!
>>
>> > You idea has merit, it will cause the insurgents to run out of
>> > bullets and they can be used to fill the craters!
>>
>> Now that's cruel.
>>
>> True, but cruel.
>>
>
> I apologise. I got carried away with trying to think of ways he might
> be useful. I will try to curb such thoughts and try to accept his
> current limitations. Good chewin tho'.
>

Well, in another thread I suggested his use as a chock. I doubt he has
the sense to stay still long enough,though.


bertie

[WingFlaps]

On Feb 11, 4:17*am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> WingFlaps > wrote :
>
>
>
> > On Feb 10, 1:34*pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> >> WingFlaps > wrote
> >> innews:dd4dd87c-c0d1-453f-bed5-38fbd
> > :
>
> >> > On Feb 10, 12:49*pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> >> >> WingFlaps > wrote
> >> >> innews:adf00eaf-2bd4-4d85-8b8e-57c64
> >> > :
>
> >> >> > What's so great about that. During WWII detecting runway damage
> >> >> > was not a problem was it? You could probably teach a dog to do
> >> >> > it... no wait that's my idea! I'll let the pentagon have it for
> >> >> > a small fraction of their system and my dogs will also protect
> >> >> > against insurgents!
>
> >> >> Or you could get an army of Trailer trash Kens out there walking
> >> >> the runway!
>
> >> > You idea has merit, it will cause the insurgents to run out of
> >> > bullets and they can be used to fill the craters!
>
> >> Now that's cruel.
>
> >> True, but cruel.
>
> > I apologise. I got carried away with trying to think of ways he might
> > be useful. I will try to curb such thoughts and try to accept his
> > current limitations. Good chewin tho'.
>
> Well, in another thread I suggested his use as a chock. I doubt he has
> the sense to stay still long enough,though.
>
> bertie

I'd need a pair 'tho. Got any spare kook's in training? They need to
be light so I can slap 'em in the back of the plane.

Cheers

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

WingFlaps > wrote in
:


>
> I'd need a pair 'tho. Got any spare kook's in training? They need to
> be light so I can slap 'em in the back of the plane.
>


I got loads of em!

What size?


Bertie

[WingFlaps]

On Feb 11, 7:51*am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> WingFlaps > wrote :
>
>
>
> > I'd need a pair 'tho. Got any spare kook's in training? They need to
> > be light so I can slap 'em in the back of the plane.
>
> I got loads of em!
>
> What size?
>

About 8" wide and 3" tall. Ideally yellow but red faced will do. Oh
and not too hard, I don't want to dent the tires if I run over them
(axidentally off course).

Cheers

[Al G[_1_]]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
.. .
> "Tom C" *> wrote in news:fod0sh$mt0$1
> @aioe.org:
>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Yeah, tha'ts on my checklist, I know. .
>>>
>>> Leessee,
>>> Flight Controls, checked
>>> Flaps 15 selected
>>> Briefing, reviewed.
>>> Radar. On, taws.
>>> Runway, check to see if Ken is running around on it.
>>> Checks complete.
>>>
>>
>>
>> The weasel that got sucked into a jet engine? Hey, when is the last time
>> something got sucked through the prop into a Lycoming
>
>
>
> Dunno!
>
> Bertie

I know! I know!

Once upon a time...This ain't no ****... There I was...

I was being 135 checked in a Turbo C-206, when the Check pilot
opened the window and tossed out a roll of Toilet Paper. "Cut that", he
says.

I got a glimpse of this long straight streamer, and went for it. By
the time I got rid of some altitude, it was a large flat lens shape about 3'
across, and falling slowly. (Apparently you are supposed to put a paper clip
on the cardboard tube to keep it from separating after the roll un-rolls.)
Doing my very best balloon buster sound effect, I lined up and took it
directly into the spinner. Great fun.

An hour later, this very serious looking mechanic grabs me by the
collar, and marches me out to the C206 hangar. He's got the upper cowl off,
and there is TP stuffed into every baffle in the engine. It is hanging off
the exhaust, the wiring, and most of the exposed screw threads. A little is
stuffed under the windshield trim, and a piece is flapping from the Nav
antenna at the top of the vertical stab.

There was a discussion about man hours and fire danger that resulted
in me buying a case of beer.

Al G

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Michael Ash wrote:

> This has not been my experience at all. Pilots, from what I have seen, are
> extreme pessimists. They tend to assume that any problem they find with
> the aircraft or see in the air will kill them, even though 99% of the time
> it will not. This is, of course, because the other 1% of the time it will.
> It's paranoid, but it's justified.
>

You are absolutely correct. Good pilots treat anything and everything
connected with flying as something that can kill them...until either
it's proved not capable of doing that or they themselves have eliminated
it as a risk factor.

--
Dudley Henriques

[Ken S. Tucker]

Hmm....

On Feb 11, 2:33 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> Michael Ash wrote:
> > This has not been my experience at all. Pilots, from what I have seen, are
> > extreme pessimists. They tend to assume that any problem they find with
> > the aircraft or see in the air will kill them, even though 99% of the time
> > it will not. This is, of course, because the other 1% of the time it will.
> > It's paranoid, but it's justified.
>
> You are absolutely correct. Good pilots treat anything and everything
> connected with flying as something that can kill them...until either
> it's proved not capable of doing that or they themselves have eliminated
> it as a risk factor.

Nope, pilots aren't qualified to make those
decisions, an exceptional pilot might have a
Ph.d in Aerodynamics, electronics, mechanics
and physics, but that's like .01%, a fella like
Yeager has the equivalent, but he's a genius.
By and large, pilots are licensed by govmonk
workers, and the majority of accidents are
caused by licensed pilot error, that's a fact!
Ken

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Ken S. Tucker wrote:
> Hmm....
>
> On Feb 11, 2:33 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>> Michael Ash wrote:
>>> This has not been my experience at all. Pilots, from what I have seen, are
>>> extreme pessimists. They tend to assume that any problem they find with
>>> the aircraft or see in the air will kill them, even though 99% of the time
>>> it will not. This is, of course, because the other 1% of the time it will.
>>> It's paranoid, but it's justified.
>> You are absolutely correct. Good pilots treat anything and everything
>> connected with flying as something that can kill them...until either
>> it's proved not capable of doing that or they themselves have eliminated
>> it as a risk factor.
>
> Nope, pilots aren't qualified to make those
> decisions, an exceptional pilot might have a
> Ph.d in Aerodynamics, electronics, mechanics
> and physics, but that's like .01%, a fella like
> Yeager has the equivalent, but he's a genius.
> By and large, pilots are licensed by govmonk
> workers, and the majority of accidents are
> caused by licensed pilot error, that's a fact!
> Ken

The only fact here is that you are incorrect. The context of the
discussion clearly states GOOD pilots, and since assessing pilot quality
has been my business for over half a century, I just might be in a
better position to make this judgment than you are
BUT........considering your posting history, I'm sure you feel better
qualified than I am. On that issue, you also might very well be a
minority of 1 :-)


--
Dudley Henriques

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Ken S. Tucker wrote:
> Hmm....
>
> On Feb 11, 2:33 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>> Michael Ash wrote:
>>> This has not been my experience at all. Pilots, from what I have seen, are
>>> extreme pessimists. They tend to assume that any problem they find with
>>> the aircraft or see in the air will kill them, even though 99% of the time
>>> it will not. This is, of course, because the other 1% of the time it will.
>>> It's paranoid, but it's justified.
>> You are absolutely correct. Good pilots treat anything and everything
>> connected with flying as something that can kill them...until either
>> it's proved not capable of doing that or they themselves have eliminated
>> it as a risk factor.
>
> Nope, pilots aren't qualified to make those
> decisions, an exceptional pilot might have a
> Ph.d in Aerodynamics, electronics, mechanics
> and physics, but that's like .01%, a fella like
> Yeager has the equivalent, but he's a genius.
> By and large, pilots are licensed by govmonk
> workers, and the majority of accidents are
> caused by licensed pilot error, that's a fact!
> Ken

By the way Tucker, about Yeager being a "genius"; Wrong again! Yeager is
a blow hard asshole who although a fine stick at one time in his career,
managed to launch that career off the accomplishment of another pilot
(George Welsh). Yeager is considered many things by many people in the
aviation business, but I've never heard him even remotely referred to as
a "genius".......some other "fancy terms".....but never a "genius".
His interface with the civilian community at the events he frequents
leave a lot to be desired as well.



--
Dudley Henriques

[Ken S. Tucker]

On Feb 12, 8:07 am, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> Ken S. Tucker wrote:
> > Hmm....
>
> > On Feb 11, 2:33 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> >> Michael Ash wrote:
> >>> This has not been my experience at all. Pilots, from what I have seen, are
> >>> extreme pessimists. They tend to assume that any problem they find with
> >>> the aircraft or see in the air will kill them, even though 99% of the time
> >>> it will not. This is, of course, because the other 1% of the time it will.
> >>> It's paranoid, but it's justified.
> >> You are absolutely correct. Good pilots treat anything and everything
> >> connected with flying as something that can kill them...until either
> >> it's proved not capable of doing that or they themselves have eliminated
> >> it as a risk factor.
>
> > Nope, pilots aren't qualified to make those
> > decisions, an exceptional pilot might have a
> > Ph.d in Aerodynamics, electronics, mechanics
> > and physics, but that's like .01%, a fella like
> > Yeager has the equivalent, but he's a genius.
> > By and large, pilots are licensed by govmonk
> > workers, and the majority of accidents are
> > caused by licensed pilot error, that's a fact!
> > Ken
>
> The only fact here is that you are incorrect. The context of the
> discussion clearly states GOOD pilots, and since assessing pilot quality
> has been my business for over half a century, I just might be in a
> better position to make this judgment than you are.

Dudley, you have completely misused the word
"paranoid", <sic should be paranoia> do you also
claim to be a professional psychologist ?

Fact is, flying requires trust in 100's of specialized
individuals, you're advocating distrust, based on
unfounded suspicion, ie "paranoid".

> BUT........considering your posting history, I'm sure you feel better
> qualified than I am.

Yes, I do, in some things, but I willing to learn.

> On that issue, you also might very well be a
> minority of 1 :-)

If I'm the pilot "1" is a majority :-).

> Dudley Henriques

Cheers
Ken

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Ken S. Tucker wrote:
> On Feb 12, 8:07 am, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>> Ken S. Tucker wrote:
>>> Hmm....
>>> On Feb 11, 2:33 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>>>> Michael Ash wrote:
>>>>> This has not been my experience at all. Pilots, from what I have seen, are
>>>>> extreme pessimists. They tend to assume that any problem they find with
>>>>> the aircraft or see in the air will kill them, even though 99% of the time
>>>>> it will not. This is, of course, because the other 1% of the time it will.
>>>>> It's paranoid, but it's justified.
>>>> You are absolutely correct. Good pilots treat anything and everything
>>>> connected with flying as something that can kill them...until either
>>>> it's proved not capable of doing that or they themselves have eliminated
>>>> it as a risk factor.
>>> Nope, pilots aren't qualified to make those
>>> decisions, an exceptional pilot might have a
>>> Ph.d in Aerodynamics, electronics, mechanics
>>> and physics, but that's like .01%, a fella like
>>> Yeager has the equivalent, but he's a genius.
>>> By and large, pilots are licensed by govmonk
>>> workers, and the majority of accidents are
>>> caused by licensed pilot error, that's a fact!
>>> Ken
>> The only fact here is that you are incorrect. The context of the
>> discussion clearly states GOOD pilots, and since assessing pilot quality
>> has been my business for over half a century, I just might be in a
>> better position to make this judgment than you are.
>
> Dudley, you have completely misused the word
> "paranoid", <sic should be paranoia> do you also
> claim to be a professional psychologist ?
>
> Fact is, flying requires trust in 100's of specialized
> individuals, you're advocating distrust, based on
> unfounded suspicion, ie "paranoid".
>
>> BUT........considering your posting history, I'm sure you feel better
>> qualified than I am.
>
> Yes, I do, in some things, but I willing to learn.
>
>> On that issue, you also might very well be a
>> minority of 1 :-)
>
> If I'm the pilot "1" is a majority :-).
>
>> Dudley Henriques
>
> Cheers
> Ken

Whatever :-)

--
Dudley Henriques

[Larry Dighera]

On Tue, 12 Feb 2008 11:17:57 -0500, Dudley Henriques
> wrote in
>:

>Yeager is a blow hard asshole who although a fine stick at one time in
>his career, managed to launch that career off the accomplishment of
>another pilot (George Welsh).


How do you figure Yeager launched his career off of the accomplishment
of Walsh? George Welsh exceeded Mach 1 in a dive a week before Yeager
did it in level flight. Both men advanced aeronautical knowledge, but
differently.

Surely you're not referring to this:


http://au.encarta.msn.com/encnet/refpages/RefArticle.aspx?refid=781533139&pn=2
Aviation was not to enter the era of the sound barrier until well
into the latter half of the 1940s, when, on October 14, 1947,
Captain Charles “Chuck” Yeager took the rocket-propelled Bell X-1
to an airspeed of 1,078 km/h (670 mph) at 12,800 m (42,000 ft),
representing a Mach number of 1.015. Although he had proved
unquestionably that the sound barrier was penetrable, Yeager would
continue to learn at first hand that the little-known, and
potentially dangerous, side effects of compressibility could be
waiting around the next corner. More than six years after
breaching Mach 1, he encountered a new problem while flying at
Mach 2.4. In a phenomenon described as inertial roll coupling,
Yeager's X-1A suddenly began to roll; any attempt by the pilot to
regain height and control the aircraft only exacerbated the
problem. Within seconds all control was lost—as the aircraft
tumbled rapidly from its original altitude of 22,860 m (75,000 ft)
to around 10,670 m (35,000 ft), from which height it settled into
a subsonic, inverted spin. Yeager survived, but within the year
the same phenomenon had killed North American Aviation's senior
test pilot, George Welsh, which meant that deliveries of the
United States' first truly supersonic fighter, the F-100 Mach 1.3
Super Sabre, had to be discontinued until a solution to inertial
roll coupling and other effects was found.



If you're referring to Welsh's dive through Mach 1 as predating
Yeager's level flight through Mach 1 as the criterion for your
assertion (George Welsh claimed to have flown at Mach 1 first on Oct.
1, 1947 and then on Oct. 14, 1947 a half hour before Yeager, but
Welch's flights weren't documented and they weren't in level flight),
they, both Welsh and Yeager, were probably eclipsed by Mutke:


http://www.noeltyl.com/cgi-bin/webbbs/webbbs_config.pl?noframes;read=172379
Hans Guido Mutke, b. Mar. 25, 1921 Neisse, Germany?, claimed to
have broken the sound barrier even earlier on Apr. 9, 1945 at
Lagerlechfield, Germany.

[Gig 601XL Builder[_2_]]

Dudley Henriques wrote:

> By the way Tucker, about Yeager being a "genius"; Wrong again! Yeager is
> a blow hard asshole who although a fine stick at one time in his career,
> managed to launch that career off the accomplishment of another pilot
> (George Welsh). Yeager is considered many things by many people in the
> aviation business, but I've never heard him even remotely referred to as
> a "genius".......some other "fancy terms".....but never a "genius".
> His interface with the civilian community at the events he frequents
> leave a lot to be desired as well.
>
>
>

Last week on "Are You Smarter Than A 5th Grader" the million dollar
question to be answered by a lady either with or working on her PhD was
"Who was the first person to break the sound barrier?"

I thought about you Dudley and how you would answer that and how they
would deal with the issue.

BTW... She answered, "Howard Hughes."

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
> Dudley Henriques wrote:
>
>> By the way Tucker, about Yeager being a "genius"; Wrong again! Yeager
>> is a blow hard asshole who although a fine stick at one time in his
>> career, managed to launch that career off the accomplishment of
>> another pilot (George Welsh). Yeager is considered many things by many
>> people in the aviation business, but I've never heard him even
>> remotely referred to as a "genius".......some other "fancy
>> terms".....but never a "genius".
>> His interface with the civilian community at the events he frequents
>> leave a lot to be desired as well.
>>
>>
>>
>
> Last week on "Are You Smarter Than A 5th Grader" the million dollar
> question to be answered by a lady either with or working on her PhD was
> "Who was the first person to break the sound barrier?"
>
> I thought about you Dudley and how you would answer that and how they
> would deal with the issue.
>
> BTW... She answered, "Howard Hughes."

She would have been right if she was referencing the speed at which
Hughes was attracted to big breasted women :-))

--
Dudley Henriques

[Euan Kilgour]

On Feb 13, 4:40 am, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
> Hmm....
>
> On Feb 11, 2:33 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>
> > Michael Ash wrote:
> > > This has not been my experience at all. Pilots, from what I have seen, are
> > > extreme pessimists. They tend to assume that any problem they find with
> > > the aircraft or see in the air will kill them, even though 99% of the time
> > > it will not. This is, of course, because the other 1% of the time it will.
> > > It's paranoid, but it's justified.
>
> > You are absolutely correct. Good pilots treat anything and everything
> > connected with flying as something that can kill them...until either
> > it's proved not capable of doing that or they themselves have eliminated
> > it as a risk factor.
>
> Nope, pilots aren't qualified to make those
> decisions, an exceptional pilot might have a
> Ph.d in Aerodynamics, electronics, mechanics
> and physics, but that's like .01%, a fella like
> Yeager has the equivalent, but he's a genius.
> By and large, pilots are licensed by govmonk
> workers, and the majority of accidents are
> caused by licensed pilot error, that's a fact!
> Ken

The way I was instructed to fly included me building and maintaining a
working knowledge of aerodynamics, navigation, meteorology, aircraft
technical specs, and human physiology in the aviation environment. Do
I require a PhD in those aviation subjects in order to make decisions
that will keep the plane flying and me and my passengers safe? Hell
no! And why bother twisting facts to make a truly daft point of view
seem justified? You can never remove human error from any flight
where a pilot is involved, no matter how many degrees they have. Its
a matter of accepting that human error exists and utilizing procedures
designed to manage it as best you can.

[Michael Ash]

In rec.aviation.student Gig 601XL Builder > wrote:
> Last week on "Are You Smarter Than A 5th Grader" the million dollar
> question to be answered by a lady either with or working on her PhD was
> "Who was the first person to break the sound barrier?"

This is why I don't like this kind of show (or tests in similar format),
they encourage remembering popular bits of knowledge instead of actual
thought.

"Everybody knows" it was Yeager. But it was actually Welch. Or maybe this
German fellow* who says he did it in an ME-262, although probably not. Or,
the question is pretty vague, you could claim that the person who did this
is lost to the mists of time, being the first person to crack a bullwhip.

Of course, if you put any thought into the question you get it wrong, so
this encourages mindless regurgitation of the "everybody knows" facts.

* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Guido_Mutke is the German guy, but
apparently it's unlikely that he actually did it, and in any case it will
probably never be known for sure.

--
Michael Ash
Rogue Amoeba Software

[[email protected]]

On Feb 12, 9:34 am, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
> On Feb 12, 8:07 am, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>
>
>
> > Ken S. Tucker wrote:
> > > Hmm....
>
> > > On Feb 11, 2:33 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> > >> Michael Ash wrote:
> > >>> This has not been my experience at all. Pilots, from what I have seen, are
> > >>> extreme pessimists. They tend to assume that any problem they find with
> > >>> the aircraft or see in the air will kill them, even though 99% of the time
> > >>> it will not. This is, of course, because the other 1% of the time it will.
> > >>> It's paranoid, but it's justified.
> > >> You are absolutely correct. Good pilots treat anything and everything
> > >> connected with flying as something that can kill them...until either
> > >> it's proved not capable of doing that or they themselves have eliminated
> > >> it as a risk factor.
>
> > > Nope, pilots aren't qualified to make those
> > > decisions, an exceptional pilot might have a
> > > Ph.d in Aerodynamics, electronics, mechanics
> > > and physics, but that's like .01%, a fella like
> > > Yeager has the equivalent, but he's a genius.
> > > By and large, pilots are licensed by govmonk
> > > workers, and the majority of accidents are
> > > caused by licensed pilot error, that's a fact!
> > > Ken
>
> > The only fact here is that you are incorrect. The context of the
> > discussion clearly states GOOD pilots, and since assessing pilot quality
> > has been my business for over half a century, I just might be in a
> > better position to make this judgment than you are.
>
> Dudley, you have completely misused the word
> "paranoid", <sic should be paranoia> do you also
> claim to be a professional psychologist ?
>
> Fact is, flying requires trust in 100's of specialized
> individuals, you're advocating distrust, based on
> unfounded suspicion, ie "paranoid".
>
> > BUT........considering your posting history, I'm sure you feel better
> > qualified than I am.
>
> Yes, I do, in some things, but I willing to learn.
>
> > On that issue, you also might very well be a
> > minority of 1 :-)
>
> If I'm the pilot "1" is a majority :-).
>
> > Dudley Henriques
>
> Cheers
> Ken

I thought you had left the building. Was that statement wrong,
too?

Dan

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Michael Ash wrote:
> In rec.aviation.student Gig 601XL Builder > wrote:
>> Last week on "Are You Smarter Than A 5th Grader" the million dollar
>> question to be answered by a lady either with or working on her PhD was
>> "Who was the first person to break the sound barrier?"
>
> This is why I don't like this kind of show (or tests in similar format),
> they encourage remembering popular bits of knowledge instead of actual
> thought.
>
> "Everybody knows" it was Yeager. But it was actually Welch. Or maybe this
> German fellow* who says he did it in an ME-262, although probably not. Or,
> the question is pretty vague, you could claim that the person who did this
> is lost to the mists of time, being the first person to crack a bullwhip.
>
> Of course, if you put any thought into the question you get it wrong, so
> this encourages mindless regurgitation of the "everybody knows" facts.
>
> * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Guido_Mutke is the German guy, but
> apparently it's unlikely that he actually did it, and in any case it will
> probably never be known for sure.
>
Actually it is known. Mutke honestly believed he had gone supersonic in
a dive with the 262. Post war investigation with the 262 firmly
established that the basic airframe was incapable of transitioning the
transonic region through Mach 1. The drag curves were too high as the
shock waves formed on the aircraft shape.
Investigation also established that the PROBABLE CAUSE of Mutke thinking
he had gone supersonic involved issues with his airspeed indicator vs
the pressure changes involved in his dive.
--
Dudley Henriques

[Roger[_4_]]

On Tue, 05 Feb 2008 13:32:23 -0500, Dudley Henriques
> wrote:

<snip>

>>> I'd be curious to know how many actually carry around the checklist
>>> outside while preflighting?
>>>
>>> Ricky
>>
>> [rec.aviation.student added]
>
>There is absolutely no reason why a written checklist has to deviate
>from a flow pattern, and indeed, a well written checklist will follow a
>flow pattern. If it doesn't, I suggest re-writing it so it does.
>I recommend using a written checklist all the time; the exterior
>inspection included.

For many years I simply followed the "flow" *until* I was interrupted
in one preflight, three times. I had developed the habit of starting
over, but after three times I started in where I left off. All went
well until I brought the nose up on rotation. Strange thing, the left
cowl stood up about the same time. I'll swear more local pilots saw
that than we have room for parking at the airport.. I've always
used a written check list since then. If I could be interrupted once
and make a mistake, it could happen again.

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

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Roger wrote:
> On Tue, 05 Feb 2008 13:32:23 -0500, Dudley Henriques
> > wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>>>> I'd be curious to know how many actually carry around the checklist
>>>> outside while preflighting?
>>>>
>>>> Ricky
>>> [rec.aviation.student added]
>> There is absolutely no reason why a written checklist has to deviate
>>from a flow pattern, and indeed, a well written checklist will follow a
>> flow pattern. If it doesn't, I suggest re-writing it so it does.
>> I recommend using a written checklist all the time; the exterior
>> inspection included.
>
> For many years I simply followed the "flow" *until* I was interrupted
> in one preflight, three times. I had developed the habit of starting
> over, but after three times I started in where I left off. All went
> well until I brought the nose up on rotation. Strange thing, the left
> cowl stood up about the same time. I'll swear more local pilots saw
> that than we have room for parking at the airport.. I've always
> used a written check list since then. If I could be interrupted once
> and make a mistake, it could happen again.
>
> Roger (K8RI)
> Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
> (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
> www.rogerhalstead.com

Perfect example, and the exact reason why we should teach flow
interruption as a prime source of accidents.
Checklists rule!

--
Dudley Henriques

[Michael Ash]

In rec.aviation.student Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> Michael Ash wrote:
>> * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Guido_Mutke is the German guy, but
>> apparently it's unlikely that he actually did it, and in any case it will
>> probably never be known for sure.
>>
> Actually it is known. Mutke honestly believed he had gone supersonic in
> a dive with the 262. Post war investigation with the 262 firmly
> established that the basic airframe was incapable of transitioning the
> transonic region through Mach 1. The drag curves were too high as the
> shock waves formed on the aircraft shape.
> Investigation also established that the PROBABLE CAUSE of Mutke thinking
> he had gone supersonic involved issues with his airspeed indicator vs
> the pressure changes involved in his dive.

You learn something every day. The article I posted seems reluctant to
come to any sort of conclusion, but you're more trustworthy so I'll take
yours. Thanks!

--
Michael Ash
Rogue Amoeba Software

[romeomike]

Roger wrote:

>
> For many years I simply followed the "flow" *until* I was interrupted
> in one preflight, three times. I had developed the habit of starting
> over, but after three times I started in where I left off. All went
> well until I brought the nose up on rotation. Strange thing, the left
> cowl stood up about the same time. I'll swear more local pilots saw
> that than we have room for parking at the airport.. I've always
> used a written check list since then. If I could be interrupted once
> and make a mistake, it could happen again.
>
> Roger (K8RI)
> Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
> (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
> www.rogerhalstead.com

A similar experience for me. I was once interrupted during my run-up by
a radio call. I then started my take-off run, but had to abort because
of a noticeable lack of power. Turned out the engine was running on
one mag. The radio call had caught me in the middle of my mag check.

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Michael Ash wrote:
> In rec.aviation.student Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>> Michael Ash wrote:
>>> * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Guido_Mutke is the German guy, but
>>> apparently it's unlikely that he actually did it, and in any case it will
>>> probably never be known for sure.
>>>
>> Actually it is known. Mutke honestly believed he had gone supersonic in
>> a dive with the 262. Post war investigation with the 262 firmly
>> established that the basic airframe was incapable of transitioning the
>> transonic region through Mach 1. The drag curves were too high as the
>> shock waves formed on the aircraft shape.
>> Investigation also established that the PROBABLE CAUSE of Mutke thinking
>> he had gone supersonic involved issues with his airspeed indicator vs
>> the pressure changes involved in his dive.
>
> You learn something every day. The article I posted seems reluctant to
> come to any sort of conclusion, but you're more trustworthy so I'll take
> yours. Thanks!
>
Well, as for "trustworthy" :-)))) just be advised that like you, I
depend on outside sources for this kind of information. Mine came
through the Naval Test Pilot School, but they in turn have history
sources relying on their data.
The bottom line on these things is that the chances are what I've
related to you is factual and correct, but I wasn't there to verify in
person.
Hope this helps a bit

--
Dudley Henriques

[Michael Ash]

In rec.aviation.student Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> Michael Ash wrote:
>> In rec.aviation.student Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>>> Michael Ash wrote:
>>>> * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Guido_Mutke is the German guy, but
>>>> apparently it's unlikely that he actually did it, and in any case it will
>>>> probably never be known for sure.
>>>>
>>> Actually it is known. Mutke honestly believed he had gone supersonic in
>>> a dive with the 262. Post war investigation with the 262 firmly
>>> established that the basic airframe was incapable of transitioning the
>>> transonic region through Mach 1. The drag curves were too high as the
>>> shock waves formed on the aircraft shape.
>>> Investigation also established that the PROBABLE CAUSE of Mutke thinking
>>> he had gone supersonic involved issues with his airspeed indicator vs
>>> the pressure changes involved in his dive.
>>
>> You learn something every day. The article I posted seems reluctant to
>> come to any sort of conclusion, but you're more trustworthy so I'll take
>> yours. Thanks!
>>
> Well, as for "trustworthy" :-)))) just be advised that like you, I
> depend on outside sources for this kind of information. Mine came
> through the Naval Test Pilot School, but they in turn have history
> sources relying on their data.
> The bottom line on these things is that the chances are what I've
> related to you is factual and correct, but I wasn't there to verify in
> person.

All good points, but you have two key advantages. First, you tend to have
better sources (Naval Test Pilot School instead of random internet web
pages), and second, you have a better ability to judge the source.

> Hope this helps a bit

Always good food for thought around here.

--
Michael Ash
Rogue Amoeba Software

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Michael Ash wrote:
> In rec.aviation.student Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>> Michael Ash wrote:
>>> In rec.aviation.student Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>>>> Michael Ash wrote:
>>>>> * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Guido_Mutke is the German guy, but
>>>>> apparently it's unlikely that he actually did it, and in any case it will
>>>>> probably never be known for sure.
>>>>>
>>>> Actually it is known. Mutke honestly believed he had gone supersonic in
>>>> a dive with the 262. Post war investigation with the 262 firmly
>>>> established that the basic airframe was incapable of transitioning the
>>>> transonic region through Mach 1. The drag curves were too high as the
>>>> shock waves formed on the aircraft shape.
>>>> Investigation also established that the PROBABLE CAUSE of Mutke thinking
>>>> he had gone supersonic involved issues with his airspeed indicator vs
>>>> the pressure changes involved in his dive.
>>> You learn something every day. The article I posted seems reluctant to
>>> come to any sort of conclusion, but you're more trustworthy so I'll take
>>> yours. Thanks!
>>>
>> Well, as for "trustworthy" :-)))) just be advised that like you, I
>> depend on outside sources for this kind of information. Mine came
>> through the Naval Test Pilot School, but they in turn have history
>> sources relying on their data.
>> The bottom line on these things is that the chances are what I've
>> related to you is factual and correct, but I wasn't there to verify in
>> person.
>
> All good points, but you have two key advantages. First, you tend to have
> better sources (Naval Test Pilot School instead of random internet web
> pages), and second, you have a better ability to judge the source.
>
>> Hope this helps a bit
>
> Always good food for thought around here.
>

Well..I'm getting older for sure, but still managing to hang in there :-)

--
Dudley Henriques

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in
:

> Hmm....
>
> On Feb 11, 2:33 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>> Michael Ash wrote:
>> > This has not been my experience at all. Pilots, from what I have
>> > seen, are extreme pessimists. They tend to assume that any problem
>> > they find with the aircraft or see in the air will kill them, even
>> > though 99% of the time it will not. This is, of course, because the
>> > other 1% of the time it will. It's paranoid, but it's justified.
>>
>> You are absolutely correct. Good pilots treat anything and everything
>> connected with flying as something that can kill them...until either
>> it's proved not capable of doing that or they themselves have
>> eliminated it as a risk factor.
>
> Nope, pilots aren't qualified to make those
> decisions, an exceptional pilot might have a
> Ph.d in Aerodynamics, electronics, mechanics
> and physics, but that's like .01%, a fella like
> Yeager has the equivalent, but he's a genius.
> By and large, pilots are licensed by govmonk
> workers, and the majority of accidents are
> caused by licensed pilot error, that's a fact



Not that you'd need a licence to wreck an airpklane, Kenny.

O toucgh luck with the Looney Maroon award for January, but never fear,
I'm sure you'll win it eventualy.


Bertie
>

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Dudley Henriques > wrote in
:

>>
> Actually it is known. Mutke honestly believed he had gone supersonic
> in a dive with the 262. Post war investigation with the 262 firmly
> established that the basic airframe was incapable of transitioning the
> transonic region through Mach 1. The drag curves were too high as the
> shock waves formed on the aircraft shape.
> Investigation also established that the PROBABLE CAUSE of Mutke
> thinking he had gone supersonic involved issues with his airspeed
> indicator vs the pressure changes involved in his dive.



That's right. Compressibility can cause airspeed indicators to jump at
around critical mach depending on where they are mounted.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Euan Kilgour > wrote in
:

> On Feb 13, 4:40 am, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>> Hmm....
>>
>> On Feb 11, 2:33 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>>
>
>
> The way I was instructed to fly included me building and maintaining a
> working knowledge of aerodynamics, navigation, meteorology, aircraft
> technical specs, and human physiology in the aviation environment. Do
> I require a PhD in those aviation subjects in order to make decisions
> that will keep the plane flying and me and my passengers safe? Hell
> no! And why bother twisting facts to make a truly daft point of view
> seem justified? You can never remove human error from any flight
> where a pilot is involved, no matter how many degrees they have. Its
> a matter of accepting that human error exists and utilizing procedures
> designed to manage it as best you can.
>

Well, you simply don't need one. Test pilots all got them by and by so they
could talk to the guys who were buildng the things in their language,
basically. And like any sort of math, it gives a more thorough
understanding of of performance which allowsa pilto to sial closer to the
"edge"


Bertie

[Private]

"Michael Ash" > wrote in message
...
> In rec.aviation.student Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>> Michael Ash wrote:
>>> * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Guido_Mutke is the German guy, but
>>> apparently it's unlikely that he actually did it, and in any case it
>>> will
>>> probably never be known for sure.
>>>
>> Actually it is known. Mutke honestly believed he had gone supersonic in
>> a dive with the 262. Post war investigation with the 262 firmly
>> established that the basic airframe was incapable of transitioning the
>> transonic region through Mach 1. The drag curves were too high as the
>> shock waves formed on the aircraft shape.
>> Investigation also established that the PROBABLE CAUSE of Mutke thinking
>> he had gone supersonic involved issues with his airspeed indicator vs
>> the pressure changes involved in his dive.
>
> You learn something every day. The article I posted seems reluctant to
> come to any sort of conclusion, but you're more trustworthy so I'll take
> yours. Thanks!
>
> --
> Michael Ash
> Rogue Amoeba Software

More thoughts (and claims) at http://mach1.luftarchiv.de/mach1.htm

Happy landings,

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Private" > wrote in :

>
> "Michael Ash" > wrote in message
> ...
>> In rec.aviation.student Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>>> Michael Ash wrote:
>>>> * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Guido_Mutke is the German guy,
>>>> but apparently it's unlikely that he actually did it, and in any
>>>> case it will
>>>> probably never be known for sure.
>>>>
>>> Actually it is known. Mutke honestly believed he had gone supersonic
>>> in a dive with the 262. Post war investigation with the 262 firmly
>>> established that the basic airframe was incapable of transitioning
>>> the transonic region through Mach 1. The drag curves were too high
>>> as the shock waves formed on the aircraft shape.
>>> Investigation also established that the PROBABLE CAUSE of Mutke
>>> thinking he had gone supersonic involved issues with his airspeed
>>> indicator vs the pressure changes involved in his dive.
>>
>> You learn something every day. The article I posted seems reluctant
>> to come to any sort of conclusion, but you're more trustworthy so
>> I'll take yours. Thanks!
>>
>> --
>> Michael Ash
>> Rogue Amoeba Software
>
> More thoughts (and claims) at http://mach1.luftarchiv.de/mach1.htm

It's theroeticaly possible, but this article talks a lot of ****. While
sweep may not be strictly neccesary for supersonic flight, it does help
n th etransoninc region, particulalry if you don't want to use an
airfoil you can shave with. The buffet damage is consistent with
exceeding critical mach, which would have been quite high in the 262,
but isn't proof tha it went across. The biggest piece of evidence
against is that the airplane survived. Mach tuck should have finished it
off.



Bertie

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> "Private" > wrote in :
>
>> "Michael Ash" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> In rec.aviation.student Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>>>> Michael Ash wrote:
>>>>> * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Guido_Mutke is the German guy,
>>>>> but apparently it's unlikely that he actually did it, and in any
>>>>> case it will
>>>>> probably never be known for sure.
>>>>>
>>>> Actually it is known. Mutke honestly believed he had gone supersonic
>>>> in a dive with the 262. Post war investigation with the 262 firmly
>>>> established that the basic airframe was incapable of transitioning
>>>> the transonic region through Mach 1. The drag curves were too high
>>>> as the shock waves formed on the aircraft shape.
>>>> Investigation also established that the PROBABLE CAUSE of Mutke
>>>> thinking he had gone supersonic involved issues with his airspeed
>>>> indicator vs the pressure changes involved in his dive.
>>> You learn something every day. The article I posted seems reluctant
>>> to come to any sort of conclusion, but you're more trustworthy so
>>> I'll take yours. Thanks!
>>>
>>> --
>>> Michael Ash
>>> Rogue Amoeba Software
>> More thoughts (and claims) at http://mach1.luftarchiv.de/mach1.htm
>
> It's theroeticaly possible, but this article talks a lot of ****. While
> sweep may not be strictly neccesary for supersonic flight, it does help
> n th etransoninc region, particulalry if you don't want to use an
> airfoil you can shave with. The buffet damage is consistent with
> exceeding critical mach, which would have been quite high in the 262,
> but isn't proof tha it went across. The biggest piece of evidence
> against is that the airplane survived. Mach tuck should have finished it
> off.
>
>
>
> Bertie
This is exactly correct!

--
Dudley Henriques

[Roger[_4_]]

On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 12:52:46 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
wrote:

>Euan Kilgour > wrote in
:
>
>> On Feb 13, 4:40 am, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>>> Hmm....
>>>
>>> On Feb 11, 2:33 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>>>
>>
>>
>> The way I was instructed to fly included me building and maintaining a
>> working knowledge of aerodynamics, navigation, meteorology, aircraft
>> technical specs, and human physiology in the aviation environment. Do
>> I require a PhD in those aviation subjects in order to make decisions
>> that will keep the plane flying and me and my passengers safe? Hell
>> no! And why bother twisting facts to make a truly daft point of view
>> seem justified? You can never remove human error from any flight
>> where a pilot is involved, no matter how many degrees they have. Its
>> a matter of accepting that human error exists and utilizing procedures
>> designed to manage it as best you can.
>>
>
>Well, you simply don't need one. Test pilots all got them by and by so they
>could talk to the guys who were buildng the things in their language,
>basically. And like any sort of math, it gives a more thorough
>understanding of of performance which allowsa pilto to sial closer to the
>"edge"
>

and to me at least, the edges to which they fly are quite different
than those most of us approach in our single engine, utility category
2 and 4 seaters learing its and our limts.

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

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Roger > wrote in
:

> On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 12:52:46 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
> wrote:
>
>>Euan Kilgour > wrote in
>>news:2c52e38c-86f3-492b-8d6d-179562b84b31
@h11g2000prf.googlegroups.com:
>>
>>> On Feb 13, 4:40 am, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>>>> Hmm....
>>>>
>>>> On Feb 11, 2:33 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The way I was instructed to fly included me building and maintaining
>>> a working knowledge of aerodynamics, navigation, meteorology,
>>> aircraft technical specs, and human physiology in the aviation
>>> environment. Do I require a PhD in those aviation subjects in order
>>> to make decisions that will keep the plane flying and me and my
>>> passengers safe? Hell no! And why bother twisting facts to make a
>>> truly daft point of view seem justified? You can never remove human
>>> error from any flight where a pilot is involved, no matter how many
>>> degrees they have. Its a matter of accepting that human error
>>> exists and utilizing procedures designed to manage it as best you
>>> can.
>>>
>>
>>Well, you simply don't need one. Test pilots all got them by and by so
>>they could talk to the guys who were buildng the things in their
>>language, basically. And like any sort of math, it gives a more
>>thorough understanding of of performance which allowsa pilto to sial
>>closer to the "edge"
>>
>
> and to me at least, the edges to which they fly are quite different
> than those most of us approach in our single engine, utility category
> 2 and 4 seaters learing its and our limts.


True..

Bertie

[Roger[_4_]]

On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 12:58:16 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
wrote:

>Roger > wrote in
:
>
>> On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 12:52:46 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>Euan Kilgour > wrote in
>>>news:2c52e38c-86f3-492b-8d6d-179562b84b31
:
>>>
>>>> On Feb 13, 4:40 am, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>>>>> Hmm....
>>>>>
>>>>> On Feb 11, 2:33 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The way I was instructed to fly included me building and maintaining
>>>> a working knowledge of aerodynamics, navigation, meteorology,
>>>> aircraft technical specs, and human physiology in the aviation
>>>> environment. Do I require a PhD in those aviation subjects in order
>>>> to make decisions that will keep the plane flying and me and my
>>>> passengers safe? Hell no! And why bother twisting facts to make a
>>>> truly daft point of view seem justified? You can never remove human
>>>> error from any flight where a pilot is involved, no matter how many
>>>> degrees they have. Its a matter of accepting that human error
>>>> exists and utilizing procedures designed to manage it as best you
>>>> can.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Well, you simply don't need one. Test pilots all got them by and by so
>>>they could talk to the guys who were buildng the things in their
>>>language, basically. And like any sort of math, it gives a more
>>>thorough understanding of of performance which allowsa pilto to sial
>>>closer to the "edge"
>>>
>>
>> and to me at least, the edges to which they fly are quite different
>> than those most of us approach in our single engine, utility category
>> 2 and 4 seaters learing its and our limts.
>
>
>True..

Actually, I'd be willing to bet that very few PPLs flying single
engine, utility (or standard) category planes ever do learn the limits
of those planes.

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

[Ricky]

On Feb 12, 9:40*am, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:

> All snipped.....

I thought you were done, returning to your other demension or
whatever?

Guess it sounded too good to be true.

Ricky

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Roger > wrote in
:

> On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 12:58:16 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
> wrote:
>
>>Roger > wrote in
:
>>
>>> On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 12:52:46 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip
>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Euan Kilgour > wrote in
>>>>news:2c52e38c-86f3-492b-8d6d-179562b84b31
:
>>>>
>>>>> On Feb 13, 4:40 am, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>>>>>> Hmm....
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Feb 11, 2:33 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The way I was instructed to fly included me building and
maintaining
>>>>> a working knowledge of aerodynamics, navigation, meteorology,
>>>>> aircraft technical specs, and human physiology in the aviation
>>>>> environment. Do I require a PhD in those aviation subjects in
order
>>>>> to make decisions that will keep the plane flying and me and my
>>>>> passengers safe? Hell no! And why bother twisting facts to make
a
>>>>> truly daft point of view seem justified? You can never remove
human
>>>>> error from any flight where a pilot is involved, no matter how
many
>>>>> degrees they have. Its a matter of accepting that human error
>>>>> exists and utilizing procedures designed to manage it as best you
>>>>> can.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Well, you simply don't need one. Test pilots all got them by and by
so
>>>>they could talk to the guys who were buildng the things in their
>>>>language, basically. And like any sort of math, it gives a more
>>>>thorough understanding of of performance which allowsa pilto to
sial
>>>>closer to the "edge"
>>>>
>>>
>>> and to me at least, the edges to which they fly are quite
different
>>> than those most of us approach in our single engine, utility
category
>>> 2 and 4 seaters learing its and our limts.
>>
>>
>>True..
>
> Actually, I'd be willing to bet that very few PPLs flying single
> engine, utility (or standard) category planes ever do learn the limits
> of those planes.

Yes, but the low speed stuff hardly even counts as a limit. It's more a
flight region. One with some strange behavior in it, to be sure, but
generally most airplanes are quite controllable in it. Maybe part of the
problem is describing it as "the edge"


Bertie

[Ken S. Tucker]

Hi Ricky
On Feb 15, 11:27 pm, Ricky > wrote:
> On Feb 12, 9:40 am, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>
> > All snipped.....
>
> I thought you were done, returning to your other demension or
> whatever?

I was out paying taxes, to get some coin for the
piggy bank, I shook it 3 times and still didn't hear
any rattling, that's simple accounting to tell me
when I'm broke, works every time!
Ken

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in news:64fb5517-76cc-49df-
:

> Hi Ricky
> On Feb 15, 11:27 pm, Ricky > wrote:
>> On Feb 12, 9:40 am, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>>
>> > All snipped.....
>>
>> I thought you were done, returning to your other demension or
>> whatever?
>
> I was out paying taxes, to get some coin for the
> piggy bank, I shook it 3 times and still didn't hear
> any rattling, that's simple accounting to tell me
> when I'm broke, works every time!

IOW you are always broke.



Bertie

[Private]

"Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in message
...
> Hi Ricky
> On Feb 15, 11:27 pm, Ricky > wrote:
>> On Feb 12, 9:40 am, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>>
>> > All snipped.....
>>
>> I thought you were done, returning to your other demension or
>> whatever?
>
> I was out paying taxes, to get some coin for the
> piggy bank, I shook it 3 times and still didn't hear
> any rattling, that's simple accounting to tell me
> when I'm broke, works every time!
> Ken

Some here would suggest that you apply the same strategy to your head before
posting.

I am somewhat embarrassed to be entering this thread, but I just can't
resist swinging at a soft pitch like that.
Happy landings,

[Ken S. Tucker]

On Feb 16, 9:55 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in news:64fb5517-76cc-49df-
> :
>
> > Hi Ricky
> > On Feb 15, 11:27 pm, Ricky > wrote:
> >> On Feb 12, 9:40 am, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>
> >> > All snipped.....
>
> >> I thought you were done, returning to your other demension or
> >> whatever?
>
> > I was out paying taxes, to get some coin for the
> > piggy bank, I shook it 3 times and still didn't hear
> > any rattling, that's simple accounting to tell me
> > when I'm broke, works every time!
>
> IOW we are always broke.
> Bertie

That's right, you were born $100K in debt.
Ken

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

"Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in
:

> On Feb 16, 9:55 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in
>> news:64fb5517-76cc-49df-
>> :
>>
>> > Hi Ricky
>> > On Feb 15, 11:27 pm, Ricky > wrote:
>> >> On Feb 12, 9:40 am, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>>
>> >> > All snipped.....
>>
>> >> I thought you were done, returning to your other demension or
>> >> whatever?
>>
>> > I was out paying taxes, to get some coin for the
>> > piggy bank, I shook it 3 times and still didn't hear
>> > any rattling, that's simple accounting to tell me
>> > when I'm broke, works every time!
>>
>> IOW we are always broke.
>> Bertie
>
> That's right, you were born $100K in debt.


Nope. Never owed anything in my life.

Bertie

[Ken S. Tucker]

On Feb 16, 2:39 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote :
>
>
>
> > On Feb 16, 9:55 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> >> "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in
> >> news:64fb5517-76cc-49df-
> >> :
>
> >> > Hi Ricky
> >> > On Feb 15, 11:27 pm, Ricky > wrote:
> >> >> On Feb 12, 9:40 am, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>
> >> >> > All snipped.....
>
> >> >> I thought you were done, returning to your other demension or
> >> >> whatever?
>
> >> > I was out paying taxes, to get some coin for the
> >> > piggy bank, I shook it 3 times and still didn't hear
> >> > any rattling, that's simple accounting to tell me
> >> > when I'm broke, works every time!
>
> >> IOW we are always broke.
> >> Bertie
>
> > That's right, you were born $100K in debt.
>
> Nope. Never owed anything in my life.
> Bertie

Sell that to the IRS.
Ken
PS: I know that math is above pilots IQ, but
check out the thickness of your wallet.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

"Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in
:

> On Feb 16, 2:39 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote
>> innews:ef1fc3d9-9ba3-41d3-bdee-424c5e140014
@i29g2000prf.googlegroups.c
>> om:
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Feb 16, 9:55 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> >> "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in
>> >> news:64fb5517-76cc-49df-
>> >> :
>>
>> >> > Hi Ricky
>> >> > On Feb 15, 11:27 pm, Ricky > wrote:
>> >> >> On Feb 12, 9:40 am, "Ken S. Tucker" >
>> >> >> wrote:
>>
>> >> >> > All snipped.....
>>
>> >> >> I thought you were done, returning to your other demension or
>> >> >> whatever?
>>
>> >> > I was out paying taxes, to get some coin for the
>> >> > piggy bank, I shook it 3 times and still didn't hear
>> >> > any rattling, that's simple accounting to tell me
>> >> > when I'm broke, works every time!
>>
>> >> IOW we are always broke.
>> >> Bertie
>>
>> > That's right, you were born $100K in debt.
>>
>> Nope. Never owed anything in my life.
>> Bertie
>
> Sell that to the IRS.


Don't need to.

> Ken
> PS: I know that math is above pilots IQ, but
> check out the thickness of your wallet.
>

Why? I eat, so does my family. I have toys and own and have always owned
my house outright. Unless you plan on coming to take it from me I think
I needn't worry on that account.


Bertie


Nyah nyah.




Bertie

[[email protected]]

On Feb 5, 3:11 pm, Dallas > wrote:
> On Tue, 05 Feb 2008 13:26:26 -0600, Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
> > I did when I first started flying then like many stopped.
>
> I suspect it's a bit of a badge of honor to not use an outside checklist.
>
> --
> Dallas

Maybe... but if you fly the same airplane every day (or nearly so),
you develop a flow for what's right (like handling real currency all
day -- you can "feel" a phony bill).

I'm sure someone's observed me doing a preflight and thought, "He's
not using a checklist!"

He/she would be wrong.

I usually drop the checklist on the left wing, crawl down and do fuel
and gear checks, walk the left wing, pick up the checklist and
confirm. Then I open the cowling, check the engine, close it up, pick
up the checklist and confirm what I've done. After the prop and nose
gear I drop it on the right wing, repeat crawling, then pick it up and
carry it as I do the empennage inspection.

Once in and belted, the checklist is on my kneeboard and -- depending
on phase of flight -- is used for do and confirm or say and do.

The Pre-takeoff run up is a read and do. Even if I'm flying often it's
a long list and done by memory something gets forgotten.

I have a pre-takeoff brief I read through (out loud when I'm not solo)
that includes the following:

Taking off from Runway: ______ for Departure to the : _______
(Straight out or Cardinal Direction).
Rotation Speed 70 KIAS
Vx 78 KIAS
Vy 96 KIAS
Best Glide Speed 110 KIAS
Approach Speed for Emergency Return 110 KIAS
* Gear up Vy + Climbing and past opposite runway threshold
* Lost Power < 1000' AGL: Manuever to land in open area as straight
ahead as possible
* Lost Power > 1000' AGL: Left 180° with 45° bank angle to return to
runway (downwind landing)
* (Co-pilot) Monitor all engine instruments in the green prior to
rotation
* Exits & Ventilation
* Questions?

Once power is full the checklist is memory: Oil pressure in green,
RPM, Fuel Flow, MP as expected, airspeed as expected, rotate, Vx, VY,
Gear up.

I make my own checklist for every airplane I fly that includes
instrument checklists as well as a/c specific stuff (JPI Engine
Analyzer setup and checks, for example).

I use the Blue Air Force Air Crew checklist booklets. They fit
perfectly on a kneeboard and protect the pages far better than
lamination.

I think reading a checklist in certain phases of flight helps slow
things down and help maintain focus. That said, there are other phases
where memory checklists (GUMPSS) is better as you aren't searching for
text and reading what you should already know.

Dan