The new Fork Tailed Doctor Killer

[Denny]

Time moves along... The old V-tails are no longer the status symbol...
It appears to me that the Cirrus line of aircraft has become the new
"fork tailed doctor killer", along with stock broker, dentist, lawyer,
etc...

http://tinyurl.com/yqt94a

denny

[Thomas Borchert]

Denny,

> It appears to me that the Cirrus line of aircraft has become the new
> "fork tailed doctor killer", along with stock broker, dentist, lawyer,
> etc...
>

And the statistics you base that "appearance" in can be found where? I'd
be very interested...

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[AJ]

I've heard the therm "doctor killer" before, but I have no idea how it
came to be. Where did it come from? (I have an idea, but I've been
wronf sooooo many times ...)

[Denny]

Tom, don't have statistic 'one'... What I do have is a set of MK-I
eyeballs... And I know what I see at the airports, and I know what the
'professionals' in my area are buying...
Of the 3 new Cirrus in the area, each one is owned by a professional
who is light in cross country, hi-perf, flying time and heavy in the
wallet... One has already given up flying after pranging his Cirrus 20
for the third time in 18 months and losing his insurance... Good
thing, as we had him ear marked for a black ribbon on the wall... The
other two are still a work in progress...


What I see is the hard charging, 40 something, professionals, buying
this machine and taking it into sloppy weather, going skiing, night
time mountain departures, canyon flying <including NYC>, and so on...
Just like they used to do with the V-Tails... In sloppy weather -
200/300 and a half - we get primarily two kinds of airplanes hitting
the ramp at my hangout... Pro pilot turbine stuff, and
'professionals' driving a Cirrus or a Malibu... Seems like more Cirrus
in recent years...

denny

[[email protected]]

On Mar 17, 10:46*am, Denny > wrote:
> Tom, don't have statistic 'one'... *What I do have is a set of MK-I
> eyeballs... And I know what I see at the airports, and I know what the
> 'professionals' in my area are buying...
> Of the 3 new Cirrus in the area, each one is owned by a professional
> who is light in cross country, hi-perf, flying time and heavy in the
> wallet... One has already given up flying after pranging his Cirrus 20
> for the third time in 18 months and losing his insurance... Good
> thing, as we had him ear marked for a black ribbon on the wall... *The
> other two are still a work in progress...
>
> What I see is the hard charging, 40 something, professionals, buying
> this machine and taking it into sloppy weather, *going skiing, night
> time mountain departures, canyon flying <including NYC>, and so on...
> Just like they used to do with the V-Tails... *In sloppy weather *-
> 200/300 and a half - *we get primarily two kinds of airplanes hitting
> the ramp at my hangout... *Pro pilot turbine stuff, and
> 'professionals' driving a Cirrus or a Malibu... Seems like more Cirrus
> in recent years...
>
> denny

Denny,

The fault is not the airplane, it is and always has been this class of
pilot. Piloting is primarily a skillset of judgement and caution,
along with plane handling skills. Many who get into flying tend to
think that plane handling skills are primary, when in fact they are
secondary to judgement, planning and caution. Anyone who pushes their
own limits too far is likely to wind up a statistic.

The simple fact that Cirrus is outselling most other models means that
statistically you are going to have more low time cocky types flying
them, and that is what also gave the Bonanza its reputation.
Arrogance, in flying, is the deadliest sin.

Dean

[Dan Luke[_2_]]

"Denny" wrote:

> What I see is the hard charging, 40 something, professionals, buying
> this machine and taking it into sloppy weather, going skiing, night
> time mountain departures, canyon flying <including NYC>, and so on...
> Just like they used to do with the V-Tails... In sloppy weather -
> 200/300 and a half -

Cirrus marketing must come in for some of the blame for this.

They've always sold the idea that the airplane has a safety edge because of
its avionics (not anymore) and parachute. I think new pilots with money
believe it. How can such a slick, technically advanced vehicle get them
into trouble? They don't have the experience to realize that it's still an
airplane and it will auger in just like any of them if they fly it when or
where they shouldn't.

That said, I think the SR-22 is a terrific airplane, especially the model
with a TAT on it. If only the wings were in the right place...

--
Dan

T-182T at 4R4

[Dallas]

On Mon, 17 Mar 2008 13:16:09 -0400, Bill Watson wrote:

> As time moves along, I've begun to realize that the casual trashing of
> Doctor/Dentist/Lawyer pilots is as distasteful and probably as
> wrong-headed as other kinds of stereotyping.

I donno... I've more than one instructor tell me that they hate "Doctor
students".


--
Dallas

[Denny]

Bill - Yup it's probably not PC to call em like I see em, but I do -
when you have been hanging around airports as long as I have you
develop an attitude... See Dean's accurate analysis...


Dean - Right On...

Dan - it is a nice machine... It is a fast and complex airplane- and
needs a pilot of that skill level...

Dallas - Me too!


The facts are simple: He put his son into a single engine plane with
him and made a night takeoff into a no horizon black pit, directly at
a mountain... This is a no margin gamble and he rolled craps...


cheers ... denny

[Larry Dighera]

On Mon, 17 Mar 2008 12:34:46 -0700 (PDT), Denny >
wrote:

>The facts are simple: He put his son into a single engine plane with
>him and made a night takeoff into a no horizon black pit, directly at
>a mountain... This is a no margin gamble and he rolled craps...


Just like JFK Jr. Tragic.

This sort of accident seems to happen all too often. I don't recall
anything in the private licensing curricula about horizonless night
flight hazards. Perhaps it got overlooked, and it's time the FAA took
steps to include it in pilot training.

It does seem to be addressed in this
http://www.faa.gov/pilots/safety/pilotsafetybrochures/media/SpatialD_Seeing.pdf.

That said, it is pretty apparent that the pilot failed to plan his
flight on the ground as he was taught before departing. That's a bad
habit to get into.

[[email protected]]

> This sort of accident seems to happen all too often. *I don't recall
> anything in the private licensing curricula about horizonless night
> flight hazards. *Perhaps it got overlooked, and it's time the FAA took
> steps to include it in pilot training.

Actually that is covered in PPL training. In particular the "Airplane
Flying Handbook" covers the many of the nighttime hazaards.

It's also covered in the checkride but only orally.

I wonder if Denny might enlighten us about what non-pilot profession
gets his thumbs up as far as accident rates go. If the Bonanza and
Cirrus are popularly referred to as "Doctor Killers", then I guess 30
year old C150s and C152s must be the "Average Working Stiff Killers".
Or maybe doctors and lawyers lead the charge there too?

[[email protected]]

On Mar 17, 6:48*am, Denny > wrote:
> Time moves along... The old V-tails are no longer the status symbol...
> It appears to me that the Cirrus line of aircraft has become the new
> "fork tailed doctor killer", along with stock broker, dentist, lawyer,
> etc...
>
> http://tinyurl.com/yqt94a
>
> denny

I note that the Nall Report doesn't have an accident factor category
"Flown By Doctor or Lawyer".

But since those people are more likely to be able to afford a GA
aircraft, they are naturally more likely to be killed by direct
proportion.

I think that is the only reason for the "doctor killer" reputation. No
one else can afford those planes. If they could, there'd be just as
many from other professions that would die.

[[email protected]]

On Mar 17, 3:34*pm, Denny > wrote:
> The facts are simple: He put his son into a single engine plane with
> him and made a night takeoff into a no horizon black pit, directly at
> a mountain... * This is a no margin gamble and he rolled craps...

Facts? The high terrain is more than two miles west of the field. The
destination was due east. The pilot is instrument rated, according to
the FAA database.

The available facts so far suggest that there should have been ample
margin to launch safely.

[Dan[_10_]]

On Mar 17, 5:24 pm, Larry Dighera > wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Mar 2008 12:34:46 -0700 (PDT), Denny >
> wrote:
>
> >The facts are simple: He put his son into a single engine plane with
> >him and made a night takeoff into a no horizon black pit, directly at
> >a mountain... This is a no margin gamble and he rolled craps...
>
> Just like JFK Jr. Tragic.
>
> This sort of accident seems to happen all too often. I don't recall
> anything in the private licensing curricula about horizonless night
> flight hazards. Perhaps it got overlooked, and it's time the FAA took
> steps to include it in pilot training.
>
> It does seem to be addressed in thishttp://www.faa.gov/pilots/safety/pilotsafetybrochures/media/SpatialD_....
>
> That said, it is pretty apparent that the pilot failed to plan his
> flight on the ground as he was taught before departing. That's a bad
> habit to get into.

It's smart practice to file IFR for any night flight, period.

VFR only pilots should be very wary of SEL operations at night.

Is it really worth the added risk?

Dan Mc

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

AJ wrote:
> I've heard the therm "doctor killer" before, but I have no idea how it
> came to be. Where did it come from? (I have an idea, but I've been
> wronf sooooo many times ...)
The term had its origin during the time period after the initial release
of the Bonanza. The aircraft was and still is extremely clean
aerodynamically. It didn't suffer fools gladly in single engine IFR.
Unfortunately, its price tag and performance figured right in the range
where Doctors and other professional people had access.
What was unfortunately happening was that a lot of these pilots were
getting Instrument Ratings and buying these airplanes with minimum
actual instrument time. A lot of Bo's were lost due to structrual
failure caused by these low time pilots entering marginal or full IFR
conditions then allowing the nose of the airplane to lower in turns.
The Bo built up speed nose low like an express train. Many of these
pilots apparently tried to raise the nose without solving the bank issue
first, which of course tightened the spiral. This led to ultimate
failures of the airframe and subsequent fatalities.
I remember two such incidents personally.
The reputation of the Bo was in part the result of what I have described
above.

--
Dudley Henriques

[Margy Natalie]

wrote:
>>This sort of accident seems to happen all too often. I don't recall
>>anything in the private licensing curricula about horizonless night
>>flight hazards. Perhaps it got overlooked, and it's time the FAA took
>>steps to include it in pilot training.
>
>
> Actually that is covered in PPL training. In particular the "Airplane
> Flying Handbook" covers the many of the nighttime hazaards.
>
> It's also covered in the checkride but only orally.
>
> I wonder if Denny might enlighten us about what non-pilot profession
> gets his thumbs up as far as accident rates go. If the Bonanza and
> Cirrus are popularly referred to as "Doctor Killers", then I guess 30
> year old C150s and C152s must be the "Average Working Stiff Killers".
> Or maybe doctors and lawyers lead the charge there too?

I think the reason doctors and lawyers may seem to get into more trouble
is because more doctors and lawyers (and probably software developers
now) can afford slick aircraft and they also have jobs that they really
HAVE to be there on Monday morning (I'm sorry Mr. Smith, I can't do your
heart surgery I'm weathered in ...). Get there itis is a powerful
disease. I can call in that I'm weathered in and take a day of leave,
no problem.

Margy

[Margy Natalie]

Airbus wrote:
> In article >,
> says...
>
>
>>I donno... I've more than one instructor tell me that they hate "Doctor
>>students".
>>
>
>
>
> There could actually be a justifiable psychological basis for such
> reasoning, and the stereotype it's engendered. In classical psychoanalysis,
> the financial burden of the analysis is considered to play a real role in
> the success of the process. Thus for those who can easily afford it, the
> prognosis is poorer. One could argue that this philosophy is extremely
> convenient for the practitioners who promulgate it, but it is a recognized
> aspect of analysis.
>
> Who has difficulty believing that the 20-year-old, mowing lawns and
> cleaning pools to pay for flying lessons will have better success that the
> doctor who escapes from his clinic for an hour, with patients waiting, and
> snaps his instructor to attention for a few runs in the pattern . . . Yet
> which of the two is a likely purchase candidate for a new SR22?
>
Yup, my instructor had a guy who we went up for an IPC with. Started
out after a full day in court, flew out to an airport with a good
restaurant, had dinner and then started to fly for real. He'd been at
work all day and flew until 3 in morning. Good idea?

Margy

[Jack Allison]

Dallas wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Mar 2008 13:16:09 -0400, Bill Watson wrote:
>
>> As time moves along, I've begun to realize that the casual trashing of
>> Doctor/Dentist/Lawyer pilots is as distasteful and probably as
>> wrong-headed as other kinds of stereotyping.
>
> I donno... I've more than one instructor tell me that they hate "Doctor
> students".
>
>
Yep, my CFII said the students that drove him the most nuts were either
doctors or lawyers. One guy in our instrument ground school (the
lawyer) went out and bought himself a Trinidad as his tool of choice for
his IR lessons. Last I heard, he hadn't completed his rating.


--
Jack Allison
PP-ASEL-Instrument Airplane
Student - CP-ASEL

"To become a Jedi knight, you must master a single force. To become
a private pilot you must strive to master four of them"
- Rod Machado

(Remove the obvious from address to reply via e-mail)

[Dave S]

Bill Watson wrote:
> Denny wrote:
>> Time moves along... The old V-tails are no longer the status symbol...
>> It appears to me that the Cirrus line of aircraft has become the new
>> "fork tailed doctor killer", along with stock broker, dentist, lawyer,
>> etc...
>
> As time moves along, I've begun to realize that the casual trashing of
> Doctor/Dentist/Lawyer pilots is as distasteful and probably as
> wrong-headed as other kinds of stereotyping.
>
> I used to do it but I've stopped voicing it. Like most prejudices and
> beliefs, changing one's attitude is much more difficult than changing
> what comes out of one's mouth... but I'm trying.
>
> Thanks

The root cause behind the stereotyping is people with large wallets and
beginners skills... and a flippant attitude: I've finished grad school,
and this isn't rocket science! Sure.. there are lots of blue collar
people with flip attitude and poor skills, but they cant pay the ante to
get into the Cirrus/Bonanza/Mooney club...

I've met some very cavalier physician pilots, and I've met more than a
few deliberate, methodical physician pilots.

Dave

[Airbus[_4_]]

In article >,
says...

>
>I donno... I've more than one instructor tell me that they hate "Doctor
>students".
>


There could actually be a justifiable psychological basis for such
reasoning, and the stereotype it's engendered. In classical psychoanalysis,
the financial burden of the analysis is considered to play a real role in
the success of the process. Thus for those who can easily afford it, the
prognosis is poorer. One could argue that this philosophy is extremely
convenient for the practitioners who promulgate it, but it is a recognized
aspect of analysis.

Who has difficulty believing that the 20-year-old, mowing lawns and
cleaning pools to pay for flying lessons will have better success that the
doctor who escapes from his clinic for an hour, with patients waiting, and
snaps his instructor to attention for a few runs in the pattern . . . Yet
which of the two is a likely purchase candidate for a new SR22?

[Thomas Borchert]

Denny,

> Tom, don't have statistic 'one'... What I do have is a set of MK-I
> eyeballs... And I know what I see at the airports, and I know what the
> 'professionals' in my area are buying...
>

Well, that's all fine and dandy, but it is not how statistics or
accident analysis work. The earth seems pretty flat when ssen with my
eyeballs, too...

All I'm trying to say is: Before dissing an airplane and its
manufacturer plus trampling on certain professions, I'd like to see the
facts.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Frank Stutzman[_2_]]

Jack Allison > wrote:

> Yep, my CFII said the students that drove him the most nuts were either
> doctors or lawyers. One guy in our instrument ground school (the
> lawyer) went out and bought himself a Trinidad as his tool of choice for
> his IR lessons. Last I heard, he hadn't completed his rating.

Uhm, I'm missing your point.

Is there something bad about using a Trinidad as the platform instrument
training? Is there something bad about someone with the monetary means
buying a high performance single?

In the interest of disclosure, I used my crusty Bonanza to get my IR.
I already owned it and its the only thing I fly so it made no sense to
rent a trainer. I'm not a doctor or lawyer (although my non-pilot wife is
a physician).


--
Frank Stutzman
Bonanza N494B "Hula Girl"
Boise, ID

[Dan[_10_]]

On Mar 17, 7:48 am, Denny > wrote:
> Time moves along... The old V-tails are no longer the status symbol...
> It appears to me that the Cirrus line of aircraft has become the new
> "fork tailed doctor killer", along with stock broker, dentist, lawyer,
> etc...
>
> http://tinyurl.com/yqt94a
>
> denny

The term "fork tailed doctor killer" survives because it has a better
lilt than "ruddervator equipped high performance retractable single."

Every airplane has the capacity to kill anyone -- no matter the
credentials.


Dan Mc

[Darkwing]

"Denny" > wrote in message
...
> Time moves along... The old V-tails are no longer the status symbol...
> It appears to me that the Cirrus line of aircraft has become the new
> "fork tailed doctor killer", along with stock broker, dentist, lawyer,
> etc...
>
> http://tinyurl.com/yqt94a
>
> denny

I had a customer come in the other day, he is a dentist and was talking to
me about his Bonanza and that I should go fly with him sometime, I was
thinking NO WAY! I did ask him if it was a V-tail, it isn't.

[Dan[_10_]]

On Mar 18, 2:42 pm, "Darkwing" <theducksmail"AT"yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> I had a customer come in the other day, he is a dentist and was talking to
> me about his Bonanza and that I should go fly with him sometime, I was
> thinking NO WAY! I did ask him if it was a V-tail, it isn't.



...and later you find out he is an ATP with 10k hours on his sixth
Bonanza......



Dan Mc

[gliderguynj]

I don't know what the pilot's occupation is, but where I fly, I've
witnessed someone go directly from the Piper Cherokee trainer to a
mega bux twin while still taking lessons. It probably costs more to
gas up and get towed to the flight line than I spend all month flying
my 150. Maybe the guy is the safest man to ever sit in a cockpit, I
don't know. Would I do the same If I had the money? No Way.

Perhaps a cure to the judgement vs money equation would be to send
some of these rich know it all's up in a Schweizer 1-26 and let them
learn what judgement means.

Another poster mentioned VFR flight at night with a SEL rating.....
that's another thing I see low time pilots doing. I don't quite
follow the FAA logic behind allowing this, but I digress....

Doug

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

gliderguynj > wrote in news:fdc2b536-b0b9-4bd4-9e50-
:

> I don't know what the pilot's occupation is, but where I fly, I've
> witnessed someone go directly from the Piper Cherokee trainer to a
> mega bux twin while still taking lessons.

A future darwin award recipient, I have no doubt.


Bertie
>

[Dan[_10_]]

On Mar 18, 2:53 pm, gliderguynj > wrote:

>
> Another poster mentioned VFR flight at night with a SEL rating.....
> that's another thing I see low time pilots doing. I don't quite
> follow the FAA logic behind allowing this, but I digress....
>
> Doug


True, though I'd hate to see a *requirement* for IFR simply because
it's night.

There are some nights that VFR is perfectly fine option.

I just think for longer XC where weather changes often and landing
sites are few that filing helps a bit.

But most times I can't justify the added risk factor of SEL long XC at
night, IFR or not.


Dan Mc

[gliderguynj]

On Mar 18, 3:02*pm, Dan > wrote:
> There are some nights that VFR is perfectly fine option.
> Dan Mc


I agree Dan, but for me that means cloudless calm full moon nights. I
don't think that the average newly minted pilot has the ability to
safely handle all that can happen at night. Especially flying when
conditions aren't perfect. 6 miles visibility in the day can be
challenging, let alone 3 miles....do that at night?

From my own experience, flying with a safety pilot in the right seat
on such a calm clear night my landing light fuse blew on final. No
problem, the safety pilot putzed around with replacing the fuse while
I did a go around. Had I been solo, the pucker factor would have gone
way up. If I had a passenger instead of a safety pilot, again not
ideal. If it wasn't a perfect night weather wise.......the prang
factor just goes up and up.

There are just a bunch of complications that night flying brings. I'm
not saying change it to IFR only, but 3 hours with an instructor and
10 take off and landings does not a safe night pilot make.

Doug

[Dan[_10_]]

On Mar 18, 3:35 pm, gliderguynj > wrote:
> On Mar 18, 3:02 pm, Dan > wrote:
>
> > There are some nights that VFR is perfectly fine option.
> > Dan Mc
>
> I agree Dan, but for me that means cloudless calm full moon nights. I
> don't think that the average newly minted pilot has the ability to
> safely handle all that can happen at night. Especially flying when
> conditions aren't perfect. 6 miles visibility in the day can be
> challenging, let alone 3 miles....do that at night?
>
> From my own experience, flying with a safety pilot in the right seat
> on such a calm clear night my landing light fuse blew on final. No
> problem, the safety pilot putzed around with replacing the fuse while
> I did a go around. Had I been solo, the pucker factor would have gone
> way up. If I had a passenger instead of a safety pilot, again not
> ideal. If it wasn't a perfect night weather wise.......the prang
> factor just goes up and up.
>
> There are just a bunch of complications that night flying brings. I'm
> not saying change it to IFR only, but 3 hours with an instructor and
> 10 take off and landings does not a safe night pilot make.
>
> Doug


We all have our ideas of acceptable risk, so I can't fault you. And we
should all know that the CFRsa re legal minimums, not recipes for
success.

That said...

When I do night T/O&Ldg practice every month, I usually do about 2-3
with no landing light (you need a landing light if you're flying for
hire, of course).

Most C172s with Landing Lights mounted in the nose are notoriously
short lived -- if you fly one of these birds at night you should be
proficient in a no landing light landing.

When I practice this I turn the runway lights up full bright. If I see
flickering I know something's between me and the lights, so I go
around (my technique -- in no way universal).

Something I haven't practiced in a while (but should) is a landing or
two with runway lights off (and fully operational airplane landing
lights). This takes some coordination with the tower and not all are
obliging.

I enjoy flying at night -- air's usually stable, traffic is visible,
and the frequencies less busy. I keep my night flights to known routes
and if going longer I'll route over airports. I also restrict these
flights to airplanes that I know by sight, sound, smell, and feel.


Dan Mc

[Gig 601XL Builder[_2_]]

Dan wrote:

>
> Most C172s with Landing Lights mounted in the nose are notoriously
> short lived -- if you fly one of these birds at night you should be
> proficient in a no landing light landing.
>

I think I'd done 4 or 5 night landings with my CFI before he ever let me
even use the landing light. His feeling was, "why train with it if it
isn't going to work when you need it?"

[[email protected]]

On Mar 17, 7:16*pm, Dan > wrote:
> It's smart practice to file IFR for any night flight, period.

Did the pilot do that in this instance? We know he was intrument-
rated, and the article said he had a flight plan, but didn't say if it
was VFR or IFR.

[Alan[_6_]]

In article > Dan > writes:

>Most C172s with Landing Lights mounted in the nose are notoriously
>short lived -- if you fly one of these birds at night you should be
>proficient in a no landing light landing.

There were two noteworthy problems here.

The first is that for a very long time, the "approved" lights were
junk. If you examined them after failure, you would see that the filament
did not break, it FELL OUT of the small holding bracket. The relatively
thin filament was stuck in the larger posts, which then were crimped to
hold it in. The crimps were not tight.

This went on for some years. I was considering finding motorcycle
headlamps or some other source from another maker.


The other problem is that the mounting for the lights is rather poor
and the vibration, corrosion, and wear of frequent removal to replace
the bulbs (see above) eventually cause it to vibrate even more.


The early bulbs in my 172 (which had 2, one for taxi and one for landing)
lasted for years.


Alan

[Matt W. Barrow]

"Gig 601XL Builder" > wrote in message
...
> Dan wrote:
>
>>
>> Most C172s with Landing Lights mounted in the nose are notoriously
>> short lived -- if you fly one of these birds at night you should be
>> proficient in a no landing light landing.
>>
>
> I think I'd done 4 or 5 night landings with my CFI before he ever let me
> even use the landing light. His feeling was, "why train with it if it
> isn't going to work when you need it?"

Did he start you in a glider since the engine might quit when you really
needed it?

Or maybe you sat on the ramp making engine noises...

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

"Matt W. Barrow" > wrote in
:

>
> "Gig 601XL Builder" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Dan wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Most C172s with Landing Lights mounted in the nose are notoriously
>>> short lived -- if you fly one of these birds at night you should be
>>> proficient in a no landing light landing.
>>>
>>
>> I think I'd done 4 or 5 night landings with my CFI before he ever let
>> me even use the landing light. His feeling was, "why train with it if
>> it isn't going to work when you need it?"
>
> Did he start you in a glider since the engine might quit when you
> really needed it?

Mine did

Bertie

[Gig 601XL Builder[_2_]]

Matt W. Barrow wrote:
> "Gig 601XL Builder" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Dan wrote:
>>
>>> Most C172s with Landing Lights mounted in the nose are notoriously
>>> short lived -- if you fly one of these birds at night you should be
>>> proficient in a no landing light landing.
>>>
>> I think I'd done 4 or 5 night landings with my CFI before he ever let me
>> even use the landing light. His feeling was, "why train with it if it
>> isn't going to work when you need it?"
>
> Did he start you in a glider since the engine might quit when you really
> needed it?
>
> Or maybe you sat on the ramp making engine noises...
>
>

You'll be happy to know that he did not start me in a glider. But I'm
glad he did teach me to land with out the landing light because the
thing went out on me on my second solo night landing.

[WJRFlyBoy]

On Tue, 18 Mar 2008 14:34:06 +0000 (UTC), Frank Stutzman wrote:

> Jack Allison > wrote:
>
>> Yep, my CFII said the students that drove him the most nuts were either
>> doctors or lawyers. One guy in our instrument ground school (the
>> lawyer) went out and bought himself a Trinidad as his tool of choice for
>> his IR lessons. Last I heard, he hadn't completed his rating.
>
> Uhm, I'm missing your point.
>
> Is there something bad about using a Trinidad as the platform instrument
> training? Is there something bad about someone with the monetary means
> buying a high performance single?
>
> In the interest of disclosure, I used my crusty Bonanza to get my IR.
> I already owned it and its the only thing I fly so it made no sense to
> rent a trainer. I'm not a doctor or lawyer (although my non-pilot wife is
> a physician).

Thanks for chiming in, Frank. I was waiting to see what I was missing on
the Trinidad and the SR-22. Same issue upcoming for me this Summer,
dedicated flying, one plane that I own or partner. My headscratcher is
whether to go single or twin (may have over water considerations). The
22 os on a short list.

Brad and Joleyn told me so. :)

In the 60s, saved my money first car was a GTO, an overpowered,
underbraked slog hog w/ no seat belts.

Modern airplanes, this ain't the 60s.
--
Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!
I hesitate to add to this discussion because I'm not an instructor,
just a rather slow student who's not qualified to give advice that
might kill someone.

[WJRFlyBoy]

On Mon, 17 Mar 2008 22:15:34 -0400, Margy Natalie wrote:

> Yup, my instructor had a guy who we went up for an IPC with. Started
> out after a full day in court, flew out to an airport with a good
> restaurant, had dinner and then started to fly for real. He'd been at
> work all day and flew until 3 in morning. Good idea?
>
> Margy

Could be. That's a normal day for a lot of folks.
--
Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!
I hesitate to add to this discussion because I'm not an instructor,
just a rather slow student who's not qualified to give advice that
might kill someone.

[gliderguynj]

On Mar 18, 5:49*pm, Gig 601XL Builder >
wrote:

> You'll be happy to know that he did not start me in a glider

IMHO starting in a glider is the most logical way to learn to fly.

Doug

[The Visitor]

There are some places that do not allow vfr night. It is only ifr at night.

John



Dan wrote:

> On Mar 18, 2:53 pm, gliderguynj > wrote:
>
>
>>Another poster mentioned VFR flight at night with a SEL rating.....
>>that's another thing I see low time pilots doing. I don't quite
>>follow the FAA logic behind allowing this, but I digress....
>>
>>Doug
>
>
>
> True, though I'd hate to see a *requirement* for IFR simply because
> it's night.
>
> There are some nights that VFR is perfectly fine option.
>
> I just think for longer XC where weather changes often and landing
> sites are few that filing helps a bit.
>
> But most times I can't justify the added risk factor of SEL long XC at
> night, IFR or not.
>
>
> Dan Mc

[Dan[_10_]]

On Mar 18, 7:16 pm, The Visitor >
wrote:
> There are some places that do not allow vfr night. It is only ifr at night.
>
> John
>
> Dan wrote:
> > On Mar 18, 2:53 pm, gliderguynj > wrote:
>
> >>Another poster mentioned VFR flight at night with a SEL rating.....
> >>that's another thing I see low time pilots doing. I don't quite
> >>follow the FAA logic behind allowing this, but I digress....
>
> >>Doug
>
> > True, though I'd hate to see a *requirement* for IFR simply because
> > it's night.
>
> > There are some nights that VFR is perfectly fine option.
>
> > I just think for longer XC where weather changes often and landing
> > sites are few that filing helps a bit.
>
> > But most times I can't justify the added risk factor of SEL long XC at
> > night, IFR or not.
>
> > Dan Mc

Such as...?

[Matt W. Barrow]

"Gig 601XL Builder" > wrote in message
...
> Matt W. Barrow wrote:
>> "Gig 601XL Builder" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Dan wrote:
>>>
>>>> Most C172s with Landing Lights mounted in the nose are notoriously
>>>> short lived -- if you fly one of these birds at night you should be
>>>> proficient in a no landing light landing.
>>>>
>>> I think I'd done 4 or 5 night landings with my CFI before he ever let me
>>> even use the landing light. His feeling was, "why train with it if it
>>> isn't going to work when you need it?"
>>
>> Did he start you in a glider since the engine might quit when you really
>> needed it?
>>
>> Or maybe you sat on the ramp making engine noises...
>
> You'll be happy to know that he did not start me in a glider. But I'm glad
> he did teach me to land with out the landing light because the thing went
> out on me on my second solo night landing.

Just wondering why he started without the light, rather than teaching you
with it, then teaching you without it.

[Matt W. Barrow]

"gliderguynj" > wrote in message
...
On Mar 18, 5:49 pm, Gig 601XL Builder >
wrote:

> You'll be happy to know that he did not start me in a glider

-> IMHO starting in a glider is the most logical way to learn to fly.

Depends on your ultimate goals I'd suspect.

[Big John[_2_]]

On Mon, 17 Mar 2008 22:13:06 -0400, Margy Natalie >
wrote:

wrote:
>>>This sort of accident seems to happen all too often. I don't recall
>>>anything in the private licensing curricula about horizonless night
>>>flight hazards. Perhaps it got overlooked, and it's time the FAA took
>>>steps to include it in pilot training.
>>
>>
>> Actually that is covered in PPL training. In particular the "Airplane
>> Flying Handbook" covers the many of the nighttime hazaards.
>>
>> It's also covered in the checkride but only orally.
>>
>> I wonder if Denny might enlighten us about what non-pilot profession
>> gets his thumbs up as far as accident rates go. If the Bonanza and
>> Cirrus are popularly referred to as "Doctor Killers", then I guess 30
>> year old C150s and C152s must be the "Average Working Stiff Killers".
>> Or maybe doctors and lawyers lead the charge there too?
>
>I think the reason doctors and lawyers may seem to get into more trouble
>is because more doctors and lawyers (and probably software developers
>now) can afford slick aircraft and they also have jobs that they really
>HAVE to be there on Monday morning (I'm sorry Mr. Smith, I can't do your
> heart surgery I'm weathered in ...). Get there itis is a powerful
>disease. I can call in that I'm weathered in and take a day of leave,
>no problem.
>
>Margy

************************************************** **********

Margy

I agree with you. Get home I'tis played a big part in the Sunday
accidents of Bo's and professional people.

I was a friend with a ex USAF Doc (he died in bed with his boots on
:o) and his wife. She is a 99er. If they got stuck out due to Wx, he
jumped on a big Aluminum bird and went home for his Monday
appointments. She RON'd and brought bird home when Wx cleared for safe
flying. She's still alive and enjoying her grand children.

Big John

[Highflyer]

"Gig 601XL Builder" > wrote in message
...

> I think I'd done 4 or 5 night landings with my CFI before he ever let me
> even use the landing light. His feeling was, "why train with it if it
> isn't going to work when you need it?"

Back in the days when Orville was signing licenses you could get a pilots
license without ever having flown at
night. You were authorized to do so, but it wasn't covered before the
ticket. :-) As a result, my first landing at night was in a 65HP
Taylorcraft with no electrical system. No landing lights, no clearance
lights, no strobe lights, no rotating beacon, no instrument lights, no
nuttin! :-) Didn't mean to fly after dark. After all it was a day VFR
airplane with no gyros or vacuum system either. Trying to make it to the
next airport and suddenly it was getting dark down there. By the time I got
to the airport it was full dark and no moon. Sort of landed between the
runway lights, on the plane defined by the lights themselves. It was
actually one of my better landings. Set up my three point attitude going
across the threshold and then used a smidge of power to hold the settling
rate down to something easy. Sort of like a a glassy water seaplane
landing, which is, after all the same problem. You don't know exactly when
you are going to touch down! :-)

Highflyer
Highflight Aviation Services
Pinckneyville Airport PJY
PS: It is rec.aviation annual flyin time again. See the flyin faq at
http://www.ousterhout.net/pjy-faq.html If you are going to come this year
please drop Mary a note at and let her know. It helps
tremendously when buying the groceries for the flyin.

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Highflyer wrote:
> "Gig 601XL Builder" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> I think I'd done 4 or 5 night landings with my CFI before he ever let me
>> even use the landing light. His feeling was, "why train with it if it
>> isn't going to work when you need it?"
>
> Back in the days when Orville was signing licenses you could get a pilots
> license without ever having flown at
> night. You were authorized to do so, but it wasn't covered before the
> ticket. :-) As a result, my first landing at night was in a 65HP
> Taylorcraft with no electrical system. No landing lights, no clearance
> lights, no strobe lights, no rotating beacon, no instrument lights, no
> nuttin! :-) Didn't mean to fly after dark. After all it was a day VFR
> airplane with no gyros or vacuum system either. Trying to make it to the
> next airport and suddenly it was getting dark down there. By the time I got
> to the airport it was full dark and no moon. Sort of landed between the
> runway lights, on the plane defined by the lights themselves. It was
> actually one of my better landings. Set up my three point attitude going
> across the threshold and then used a smidge of power to hold the settling
> rate down to something easy. Sort of like a a glassy water seaplane
> landing, which is, after all the same problem. You don't know exactly when
> you are going to touch down! :-)
>
> Highflyer
> Highflight Aviation Services
> Pinckneyville Airport PJY
> PS: It is rec.aviation annual flyin time again. See the flyin faq at
> http://www.ousterhout.net/pjy-faq.html If you are going to come this year
> please drop Mary a note at and let her know. It helps
> tremendously when buying the groceries for the flyin.
>
>
Hi HF;

You're bringing back old memories here. The first night landing I ever
made was in a J3 at the old Dupont Airport. Had no electrical system
naturally so no lights either. Wore an old miner's light on my head with
a piece of transparent red paper covering the lens attached by a rubber
band. :-))

--
Dudley Henriques

[Highflyer]

"Matt W. Barrow" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Gig 601XL Builder" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Dan wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Most C172s with Landing Lights mounted in the nose are notoriously
>>> short lived -- if you fly one of these birds at night you should be
>>> proficient in a no landing light landing.
>>>
>>
>> I think I'd done 4 or 5 night landings with my CFI before he ever let me
>> even use the landing light. His feeling was, "why train with it if it
>> isn't going to work when you need it?"
>
> Did he start you in a glider since the engine might quit when you really
> needed it?
>
> Or maybe you sat on the ramp making engine noises...
>

I t wasn't necessary to start in a glider. ALL landings were done power
off. You pulled the throttle off and the carb heat on at your key point.
You were allowed a 3 second blip on base to clear the pipes so the engine
wouldn't load up on you. This business of carrying power all the way to the
threshold is new and I don't really understand it. It puts you on the 3
degree glideslope so you can pretend you are an airline pilot, but it also
ensures that you will NOT make it to the airport if the engine burps after
you reduce the power. Also it makes an accurate landing more difficult
because your rate of descent is less! ( see if that one starts an argument!
:-)

By the way, I strongly recommend a glider rating to all serious pilots. It
will improve your general flying tremendously. You will learn to pay
attention to the little things in life. Power plane instructors teach you
to NEVER turn back if the engine quits. I always get the impression that
they believe it will be instantly fatal if you turn back from 10,000 AGL! A
glider instructor will purposely cut you off at 200 feet on takeoff and
EXPECT you to get back to the runway safely. A turnback maneuver is
mandatory. :-)

Highflyer
Highflight Aviation Services
Pinckneyville Airport PJY

[Highflyer]

"Dan" > wrote in message
...
> On Mar 18, 7:16 pm, The Visitor >
> wrote:
>> There are some places that do not allow vfr night. It is only ifr at
>> night.
>>
>> John
>>
>> Dan wrote:
>> > On Mar 18, 2:53 pm, gliderguynj > wrote:
>>
>> >>Another poster mentioned VFR flight at night with a SEL rating.....
>> >>that's another thing I see low time pilots doing. I don't quite
>> >>follow the FAA logic behind allowing this, but I digress....
>>
>> >>Doug
>>
>> > True, though I'd hate to see a *requirement* for IFR simply because
>> > it's night.
>>
>> > There are some nights that VFR is perfectly fine option.
>>
>> > I just think for longer XC where weather changes often and landing
>> > sites are few that filing helps a bit.
>>
>> > But most times I can't justify the added risk factor of SEL long XC at
>> > night, IFR or not.
>>
>> > Dan Mc
>
> Such as...?

Mexico

Highflyer

[Dan[_10_]]

On Mar 18, 9:29 pm, "Highflyer" > wrote:
> "Dan" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
> > On Mar 18, 7:16 pm, The Visitor >
> > wrote:
> >> There are some places that do not allow vfr night. It is only ifr at
> >> night.
>
> >> John
>
> >> Dan wrote:
> >> > On Mar 18, 2:53 pm, gliderguynj > wrote:
>
> >> >>Another poster mentioned VFR flight at night with a SEL rating.....
> >> >>that's another thing I see low time pilots doing. I don't quite
> >> >>follow the FAA logic behind allowing this, but I digress....
>
> >> >>Doug
>
> >> > True, though I'd hate to see a *requirement* for IFR simply because
> >> > it's night.
>
> >> > There are some nights that VFR is perfectly fine option.
>
> >> > I just think for longer XC where weather changes often and landing
> >> > sites are few that filing helps a bit.
>
> >> > But most times I can't justify the added risk factor of SEL long XC at
> >> > night, IFR or not.
>
> >> > Dan Mc
>
> > Such as...?
>
> Mexico
>
> Highflyer

I thought he was referring to locations covered by FAA jurisdiction...

Flying at night in Mexico VFR only means one type of flight....

[Matt W. Barrow]

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
...
> Highflyer wrote:
>
> You're bringing back old memories here. The first night landing I ever
> made was in a J3 at the old Dupont Airport. Had no electrical system
> naturally so no lights either. Wore an old miner's light on my head with a
> piece of transparent red paper covering the lens attached by a rubber
> band. :-))
>

So, wha' do you use now? :~)

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Matt W. Barrow wrote:
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Highflyer wrote:
>>
>> You're bringing back old memories here. The first night landing I ever
>> made was in a J3 at the old Dupont Airport. Had no electrical system
>> naturally so no lights either. Wore an old miner's light on my head with a
>> piece of transparent red paper covering the lens attached by a rubber
>> band. :-))
>>
>
> So, wha' do you use now? :~)
>
>
The ultimate in night vision products.........2 flashlights :-)

--
Dudley Henriques

[Matt W. Barrow]

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
...
> Matt W. Barrow wrote:
>> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Highflyer wrote:
>>>
>>> You're bringing back old memories here. The first night landing I ever
>>> made was in a J3 at the old Dupont Airport. Had no electrical system
>>> naturally so no lights either. Wore an old miner's light on my head with
>>> a piece of transparent red paper covering the lens attached by a rubber
>>> band. :-))
>>>
>>
>> So, wha' do you use now? :~)
> The ultimate in night vision products.........2 flashlights :-)

LED's, I hope!

[Jack Allison]

Frank Stutzman wrote:
> Jack Allison > wrote:
>
>> Yep, my CFII said the students that drove him the most nuts were either
>> doctors or lawyers. One guy in our instrument ground school (the
>> lawyer) went out and bought himself a Trinidad as his tool of choice for
>> his IR lessons. Last I heard, he hadn't completed his rating.
>
> Uhm, I'm missing your point.
>
> Is there something bad about using a Trinidad as the platform instrument
> training? Is there something bad about someone with the monetary means
> buying a high performance single?
>
> In the interest of disclosure, I used my crusty Bonanza to get my IR.
> I already owned it and its the only thing I fly so it made no sense to
> rent a trainer. I'm not a doctor or lawyer (although my non-pilot wife is
> a physician).
>
>
Sorry Frank, I wasn't very clear. IMHO, it's not the airplane nor the
financial means to buy something like a Trinidad that were the main
issue. In this case, it was the particular student and a generally
unteachable attitude when it came to instrument flying. To me, adding
in a higher performance airplane to the mix seems like more of a recipe
for disaster.



--
Jack Allison
PP-ASEL-Instrument Airplane
Student - CP-ASEL

"To become a Jedi knight, you must master a single force. To become
a private pilot you must strive to master four of them"
- Rod Machado

(Remove the obvious from address to reply via e-mail)

[Dylan Smith]

On 2008-03-17, > wrote:
> I wonder if Denny might enlighten us about what non-pilot profession
> gets his thumbs up as far as accident rates go. If the Bonanza and
> Cirrus are popularly referred to as "Doctor Killers", then I guess 30
> year old C150s and C152s must be the "Average Working Stiff Killers".
> Or maybe doctors and lawyers lead the charge there too?

Well, probably not.

If you screw up in a C172 in IFR, it doesn't build speed on you like a
Bonanza does. A C172 is much simpler to manage.

I've had the privilege to fly a Bonanza, I have about 100 hours in the
S-35 model, most of that cross country. It's a fabulous aircraft, and I
found it very easy to fly IFR. However, if you have access to a Bonanza,
or any other reasonably slippery and responsive aircraft, start a bank
in it and let go of the controls. It keeps on banking (until it gets in
a spiral dive). Do that in a C150 or C172 and so long as you haven't
rolled it hard into a 45 degree bank, it'll just roll out wings level
again.

If you are a highly paid professional, you can get into a plane you
don't really have the experience to fly. 'Average working stiffs' have
to get all kinds of experience because they can only rent this kind of
aircraft. IIRC, you needed 500 hrs TT and an IR to get in the one that I
flew.

--
From the sunny Isle of Man.
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.

[Dan[_10_]]

On Mar 19, 7:10 am, Dylan Smith > wrote:

> If you screw up in a C172 in IFR, it doesn't build speed on you like a
> Bonanza does. A C172 is much simpler to manage.
>
> I've had the privilege to fly a Bonanza, I have about 100 hours in the
> S-35 model, most of that cross country. It's a fabulous aircraft, and I
> found it very easy to fly IFR. However, if you have access to a Bonanza,
> or any other reasonably slippery and responsive aircraft, start a bank
> in it and let go of the controls. It keeps on banking (until it gets in
> a spiral dive). Do that in a C150 or C172 and so long as you haven't
> rolled it hard into a 45 degree bank, it'll just roll out wings level
> again.

Good post -- but to clarify...

This spiral instability is a desired feature in a high performance
airplane, not a design flaw.

If you're flying any model Bonanza in IFR a wing leveler AP should be
considered minimum equipment.


Dan Mc

[Dylan Smith]

On 2008-03-19, Highflyer > wrote:
> to NEVER turn back if the engine quits. I always get the impression that
> they believe it will be instantly fatal if you turn back from 10,000 AGL! A
> glider instructor will purposely cut you off at 200 feet on takeoff and
> EXPECT you to get back to the runway safely. A turnback maneuver is
> mandatory. :-)

We do winch launches here, as well as aerotow.

If the cable goes (or the weak link - a strong gust of wind will do it
in the main part of the climb), you find yourself at 50 degrees nose up
with all the power suddenly gone away!

This is not a naturally tenable place for the glider, at 450 ft AGL. The
procedure is do a zero-G pushover until you are in a significantly nose
down attitude, allow the speed to rebuild to flying speed, and then
recover to the normal gliding attitude. It's quite exciting doing
semi-aerobatic manoevres that close to the ground. Then, from the
recovery altitude of around 350 feet, you can fly an abbreviated circuit
with a downwind, base and final!

--
From the sunny Isle of Man.
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.

[Gig 601XL Builder[_2_]]

Matt W. Barrow wrote:

>
> Just wondering why he started without the light, rather than teaching you
> with it, then teaching you without it.
>
>


It was just his thing. Admittedly, we had a very well lit airport, for
and uncontrolled field, and he always did the first night flight for
students on a clear full moon night.

I think it was his pet issue. He had been a freight pilot for a bunch of
years and he didn't trust landing lights at all.

He was also big on shutting off the landing light on final.

One bonus to his instruction that has lasted for 30 years is that I
don't have the same fear of night flight that many others have. A lot of
respect for night flight but not fear.

[The Visitor]

Bahamas.
And many others.
Some places at 3000 feet agl you change to flight levels.





Dan wrote:

> On Mar 18, 7:16 pm, The Visitor >
> wrote:
>
>>There are some places that do not allow vfr night. It is only ifr at night.
>>
>>John
>>
>>Dan wrote:
>>
>>>On Mar 18, 2:53 pm, gliderguynj > wrote:
>>
>>>>Another poster mentioned VFR flight at night with a SEL rating.....
>>>>that's another thing I see low time pilots doing. I don't quite
>>>>follow the FAA logic behind allowing this, but I digress....
>>
>>>>Doug
>>
>>>True, though I'd hate to see a *requirement* for IFR simply because
>>>it's night.
>>
>>>There are some nights that VFR is perfectly fine option.
>>
>>>I just think for longer XC where weather changes often and landing
>>>sites are few that filing helps a bit.
>>
>>>But most times I can't justify the added risk factor of SEL long XC at
>>>night, IFR or not.
>>
>>>Dan Mc
>
>
> Such as...?

[The Visitor]

Highflyer wrote:

> Mexico
>


Didn't know about that.

Dan. Night vfr doesn't exist many places because sometimes it is just
too dark. And I suppose invites lesser expierienced pilots to rely on
their decision making ability. So it just doesn't exist. Doesn't really
seem like a bad thing, to me.

John

[[email protected]]

On Mar 18, 3:48*pm, Dan > wrote:
> On Mar 18, 3:35 pm, gliderguynj > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 18, 3:02 pm, Dan > wrote:
>
> > > There are some nights that VFR is perfectly fine option.
> > > Dan Mc
>
> > I agree Dan, but for me that means cloudless calm full moon nights. *I
> > don't think *that the average newly minted pilot has the ability to
> > safely handle all that can happen at night. *Especially flying when
> > conditions aren't perfect. *6 miles visibility in the day can be
> > challenging, let alone 3 miles....do that at night?
>
> > From my own experience, flying with a safety pilot in the right seat
> > on such a calm clear night my landing light fuse blew on final. *No
> > problem, the safety pilot putzed around with replacing the fuse while
> > I did a go around. *Had I been solo, the pucker factor would have gone
> > way up. *If I had a passenger instead of a safety pilot, again not
> > ideal. *If it wasn't a perfect night weather wise.......the prang
> > factor just goes up and up.
>
> > There are just a bunch of complications that night flying brings. *I'm
> > not saying change it to IFR only, but 3 hours with an instructor and
> > 10 take off and landings does not a safe night pilot make.
>
> > Doug
>
> We all have our ideas of acceptable risk, so I can't fault you. And we
> should all know that the CFRsa re legal minimums, not recipes for
> success.
>
> That said...
>
> When I do night T/O&Ldg practice every month, I usually do about 2-3
> with no landing light (you need a landing light if you're flying for
> hire, of course).
>
> Most C172s with Landing Lights mounted in the nose are notoriously
> short lived -- if you fly one of these birds at night you should be
> proficient in a no landing light landing.
>
> When I practice this I turn the runway lights up full bright. If I see
> flickering I know something's between me and the lights, so I go
> around (my technique -- in no way universal).
>
> Something I haven't practiced in a while (but should) is a landing or
> two with runway lights off (and fully operational airplane landing
> lights). This takes some coordination with the tower and not all are
> obliging.
>
> I enjoy flying at night -- air's usually stable, traffic is visible,
> and the frequencies less busy. I keep my night flights to known routes
> and if going longer I'll route over airports. I also restrict these
> flights to airplanes that I know by sight, sound, smell, and feel.
>
> Dan Mc- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I hardly ever fly at night so I'm always losing my night currency. A
couple weeks ago I scheduled a 172 and an instructor to fly a night XC
and get my 3 T/O&L's. During pre-flight I discovered that the LL was
not working (detached filament,) but since it was a clear night we
elected to fly anyway. In general, I tend to make better landings at
night, even without a LL. I think that it is because I don't make
unconcious minute corrections because my peripheral vision is limited
- I just let the plane stop flying and settle to the runway.

[Dan[_10_]]

On Mar 19, 2:47 pm, wrote:

> I hardly ever fly at night so I'm always losing my night currency. A
> couple weeks ago I scheduled a 172 and an instructor to fly a night XC
> and get my 3 T/O&L's. During pre-flight I discovered that the LL was
> not working (detached filament,) but since it was a clear night we
> elected to fly anyway. In general, I tend to make better landings at
> night, even without a LL. I think that it is because I don't make
> unconcious minute corrections because my peripheral vision is limited
> - I just let the plane stop flying and settle to the runway.

Funny -- I find the same thing -- landings at night are consistently
better as the cues are limited to all that really matters in landing.


Dan Mc

[Dylan Smith]

On 2008-03-19, Dan > wrote:

> This spiral instability is a desired feature in a high performance
> airplane, not a design flaw.

Oh, I absolutely agree - the neutral stability in roll is one of the
things that made the Bonanza so nice to fly. All it ever needed was
a light touch on the controls, and I found this valuable on those IMC
flights that won't necessarily in smooth air.

> If you're flying any model Bonanza in IFR a wing leveler AP should be
> considered minimum equipment.

And your back seat passengers will *really* appreciate a yaw damper :-)

--
From the sunny Isle of Man.
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Dylan Smith wrote:

> And your back seat passengers will *really* appreciate a yaw damper :-)
>
You can say that again :-)) I think we went through about 6 line boys
who quit over having to clean up the back seat vomit from our charter
flights in the Bo. :-))

--
Dudley Henriques

[Dan[_10_]]

On Mar 19, 4:21 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> Dylan Smith wrote:
> > And your back seat passengers will *really* appreciate a yaw damper :-)
>
> You can say that again :-)) I think we went through about 6 line boys
> who quit over having to clean up the back seat vomit from our charter
> flights in the Bo. :-))
>
> --
> Dudley Henriques

yikes!

Didn't you use the poor man's yaw damper?

(e.g. Both feet solidly on the rudder pedals with instant pressure to
counteract the yaw)

Dan Mc

[[email protected]]

On Mar 19, 12:55*pm, The Visitor >
wrote:
>
> Night VFR doesn't exist many places because sometimes it is just
> too dark.

Huh? Even if it is pitch black outside, and you see nothing whatsoever
beyond your plane, and you need to fly by reference to instruments in
order to stay upright, you can still be in VFR conditions.

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Dan wrote:
> On Mar 19, 4:21 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>> Dylan Smith wrote:
>>> And your back seat passengers will *really* appreciate a yaw damper :-)
>> You can say that again :-)) I think we went through about 6 line boys
>> who quit over having to clean up the back seat vomit from our charter
>> flights in the Bo. :-))
>>
>> --
>> Dudley Henriques
>
> yikes!
>
> Didn't you use the poor man's yaw damper?
>
> (e.g. Both feet solidly on the rudder pedals with instant pressure to
> counteract the yaw)
>
> Dan Mc

I can tell you for sure, and I flew that airplane myself many times.
There was NO way to completely stop that subtle gentle back and forth
yaw in that airplane. Trust me...we knew ALL the tricks :-))

--
Dudley Henriques

[Dan[_10_]]

On Mar 19, 4:43 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:

>
> I can tell you for sure, and I flew that airplane myself many times.
> There was NO way to completely stop that subtle gentle back and forth
> yaw in that airplane. Trust me...we knew ALL the tricks :-))
>
> --
> Dudley Henriques

I'm sure.. maybe I feel like I've dampened them since I'm not as
sensitive to the roll. I haven't had any back seat Pax in the v-tail
yet.


Dan Mc

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Dan wrote:
> On Mar 19, 4:43 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>
>> I can tell you for sure, and I flew that airplane myself many times.
>> There was NO way to completely stop that subtle gentle back and forth
>> yaw in that airplane. Trust me...we knew ALL the tricks :-))
>>
>> --
>> Dudley Henriques
>
> I'm sure.. maybe I feel like I've dampened them since I'm not as
> sensitive to the roll. I haven't had any back seat Pax in the v-tail
> yet.
>
>
> Dan Mc
>
It was just the V Tail that had the oscillation problem. We flew a Deb
later on that handled as straight as an arrow.

--
Dudley Henriques

[Bob F.]

And I can vouch for that. The Arrow II that I owned always flew straight.
;-)

--
Regards, BobF.
"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
...
> Dan wrote:
>> On Mar 19, 4:43 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>>
>>> I can tell you for sure, and I flew that airplane myself many times.
>>> There was NO way to completely stop that subtle gentle back and forth
>>> yaw in that airplane. Trust me...we knew ALL the tricks :-))
>>>
>>> --
>>> Dudley Henriques
>>
>> I'm sure.. maybe I feel like I've dampened them since I'm not as
>> sensitive to the roll. I haven't had any back seat Pax in the v-tail
>> yet.
>>
>>
>> Dan Mc
>>
> It was just the V Tail that had the oscillation problem. We flew a Deb
> later on that handled as straight as an arrow.
>
> --
> Dudley Henriques

[Dan[_10_]]

On Mar 19, 4:50 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:

>
> It was just the V Tail that had the oscillation problem. We flew a Deb
> later on that handled as straight as an arrow.
>
> --
> Dudley Henriques

A36 is the same -- like an arrow

Nice looking a/c, but that V tail just looks cool.

The line guy comments about every other flight -- "It sounds like a
WW2 fighter when you take off..."

:-)

Dan Mc

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Dan wrote:
> On Mar 19, 4:50 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>
>> It was just the V Tail that had the oscillation problem. We flew a Deb
>> later on that handled as straight as an arrow.
>>
>> --
>> Dudley Henriques
>
> A36 is the same -- like an arrow
>
> Nice looking a/c, but that V tail just looks cool.
>
> The line guy comments about every other flight -- "It sounds like a
> WW2 fighter when you take off..."
>
> :-)
>
> Dan Mc

Well.....it's too bad I couldn't have stood you by the side of the
runway to hear the Merlin at 61 inches as it went past you on takeoff.
.......a little less loud of course when I had to go to 100LL and drop
the takeoff power to 55 inches...but I think you would have known I was
there :-))
Great Doppler effect BTW!!! :-))

--
Dudley Henriques

[Dan[_10_]]

On Mar 19, 5:22 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:

> Well.....it's too bad I couldn't have stood you by the side of the
> runway to hear the Merlin at 61 inches as it went past you on takeoff.
> ......a little less loud of course when I had to go to 100LL and drop
> the takeoff power to 55 inches...but I think you would have known I was
> there :-))
> Great Doppler effect BTW!!! :-))
>
> --
> Dudley Henriques


I would definitely like to hear that...

I spent many hours on flight lines listening to F-102s , F-4s, B-52s,
and A-10s taking off.

But those birds all had their own roar -- not that wonderful throaty
hum of a big IC engine.


Dan Mc

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Dan wrote:
> On Mar 19, 5:22 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>
>> Well.....it's too bad I couldn't have stood you by the side of the
>> runway to hear the Merlin at 61 inches as it went past you on takeoff.
>> ......a little less loud of course when I had to go to 100LL and drop
>> the takeoff power to 55 inches...but I think you would have known I was
>> there :-))
>> Great Doppler effect BTW!!! :-))
>>
>> --
>> Dudley Henriques
>
>
> I would definitely like to hear that...
>
> I spent many hours on flight lines listening to F-102s , F-4s, B-52s,
> and A-10s taking off.
>
> But those birds all had their own roar -- not that wonderful throaty
> hum of a big IC engine.
>
>
> Dan Mc
>
The Chain Saw sound on the R2800 round engine in the F8F wasn't all that
bad either. In the 51, the stacks were right in line with my ears. Even
with the canopy closed, either the 51 or the Bear required cotton in the
ears :-)

--
Dudley Henriques

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Bob F. wrote:
> And I can vouch for that. The Arrow II that I owned always flew
> straight. ;-)
>
You've been hanging around me too long Bob. It's rubbing off. My wife is
right. It's contagious!!

--
Dudley Henriques

[Matt W. Barrow]

"Gig 601XL Builder" > wrote in message
...
> Matt W. Barrow wrote:
>
>>
>> Just wondering why he started without the light, rather than teaching you
>> with it, then teaching you without it.
>>
>>
>
>
> It was just his thing. Admittedly, we had a very well lit airport, for and
> uncontrolled field, and he always did the first night flight for students
> on a clear full moon night.
>
> I think it was his pet issue. He had been a freight pilot for a bunch of
> years and he didn't trust landing lights at all.
>
> He was also big on shutting off the landing light on final.
>
> One bonus to his instruction that has lasted for 30 years is that I don't
> have the same fear of night flight that many others have. A lot of respect
> for night flight but not fear.

Yes, experience is the best method to weed out fears. I'm just thinking his
TEACHING method is/was inverted to how people actually LEARN. (i.e., the old
cliché about learning to walk before you can run).

[Edward A. Falk]

In article >,
Dylan Smith > wrote:
>
>I've had the privilege to fly a Bonanza, I have about 100 hours in the
>S-35 model, most of that cross country. It's a fabulous aircraft, and I
>found it very easy to fly IFR.

I've been thinking about Bonanzas lately. I recently met someone
with an old 6-seat V-tail, and he claimed to go 170 kts at 11 gph.
Could he be telling the truth? That sounds pretty impressive and
a little incredible.

--
-Ed Falk,
http://thespamdiaries.blogspot.com/

[Bob F.[_2_]]

That's a little hot. He may have meant mph.

--
Regards, BobF.
"Edward A. Falk" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> Dylan Smith > wrote:
>>
>>I've had the privilege to fly a Bonanza, I have about 100 hours in the
>>S-35 model, most of that cross country. It's a fabulous aircraft, and I
>>found it very easy to fly IFR.
>
> I've been thinking about Bonanzas lately. I recently met someone
> with an old 6-seat V-tail, and he claimed to go 170 kts at 11 gph.
> Could he be telling the truth? That sounds pretty impressive and
> a little incredible.
>
> --
> -Ed Falk,
> http://thespamdiaries.blogspot.com/

[Roger[_4_]]

On Mon, 17 Mar 2008 10:35:59 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

>On Mar 17, 10:46*am, Denny > wrote:
>> Tom, don't have statistic 'one'... *What I do have is a set of MK-I
>> eyeballs... And I know what I see at the airports, and I know what the
>> 'professionals' in my area are buying...
>> Of the 3 new Cirrus in the area, each one is owned by a professional
>> who is light in cross country, hi-perf, flying time and heavy in the
>> wallet... One has already given up flying after pranging his Cirrus 20
>> for the third time in 18 months and losing his insurance... Good
>> thing, as we had him ear marked for a black ribbon on the wall... *The
>> other two are still a work in progress...
>>
>> What I see is the hard charging, 40 something, professionals, buying
>> this machine and taking it into sloppy weather, *going skiing, night
>> time mountain departures, canyon flying <including NYC>, and so on...
>> Just like they used to do with the V-Tails... *In sloppy weather *-
>> 200/300 and a half - *we get primarily two kinds of airplanes hitting
>> the ramp at my hangout... *Pro pilot turbine stuff, and
>> 'professionals' driving a Cirrus or a Malibu... Seems like more Cirrus
>> in recent years...
>>
>> denny
>
>Denny,
>
>The fault is not the airplane, it is and always has been this class of
>pilot. Piloting is primarily a skillset of judgement and caution,

To me that's what he said. The cirrus has earned/taken the title from
the Bo.

IOW it's the 100 MPH mind in a 200 MPH + airplane.

>along with plane handling skills. Many who get into flying tend to
>think that plane handling skills are primary, when in fact they are

That may be partially true, but the Bo and Cirrus are not like flying
the old Cessna or Cherokee. In many of them you can climb to 10,000
feet faster than you can safely descend back to the airport. Even with
the gear down "down and welded" the Cirrus is like flying a fairly
heavy single retract with the gear up. All too often pilots still
think of it as a fixed gear airplane with the old "fixed gear"
performance.

They are not gentle and mild mannered like the 150, 172, or Cherokee
line. They are heavier and they are slipperier than snot on a
doorknob. That means when they start accelerating down hill the pilot
only has a fraction of the time to safely get things under control IF
they do every thing right, compared to the old Cessna.

Piloting skills are _extra_important with the Bo and the new
generation of plastic airplanes. A mistake that would be of no
concern in a Cherokee or 172 can rapidly become life threatening in
these planes. IOW these planes are demanding! The do not suffer the
incompetent well.

>secondary to judgement, planning and caution. Anyone who pushes their
>own limits too far is likely to wind up a statistic.

Judgmental and planning have always been right up there, but the
change to a 200 MPH plus airplane means the pilot has to think much
farther ahead. In these planes you have to know how far out you will
have to start your descent whether VFR or IFR. If IFR ATC isn't going
to always start you down as soon as needed. I've almost always had to
ask to start down for the approach. If at 7000 and cruise I need to
start down about 40 miles out for a cruise descent to be leveled off
and slowed to approach speed. Miss that by a minute late and ATC will
be vectoring me back around to pick up the approach and they expect me
to know better (which I do) Otherwise it's extra single pilot work
after a long flight.

>
>The simple fact that Cirrus is outselling most other models means that

Although most might disagree, the Cirrus is an inexpensive airplane
that gives speed, comfort, class, and long legs. inexpensive is a
relative term, but when compared to other planes of the same
capabilities the price of most run about 50% or even more than the
Cirrus. An A36 which admittedly has a lot more room can easily run 60
to 70% more

>statistically you are going to have more low time cocky types flying
>them, and that is what also gave the Bonanza its reputation.
>Arrogance, in flying, is the deadliest sin.

I'd say it'd be Invulnerability and complacency. Less arrogance and
more of the 100 MPH mind in the 200 MPH airplane.

In these planes you have to have "It *all* together". Piloting
skills, attitude, judgmental skills, and weather knowledge must all be
present and polished.

I've spent many hours just mucking around in marginal conditions in a
Cherokee 180 and in the Deb. In the Cherokee I could almost always
say, "well it looks like it's getting a bit thicker and worse ahead so
we'd better turn around" While in the Deb at near 200 MPH it basically
goes from marginal to "where'd everything go?" in the blink of an eye.
Even being able to file you still have to have every thing ready and
the mind set to fly IFR. When I say being ready to file I mean
*competent* and polished not just current.
>
>Dean
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Roger[_4_]]

On Mon, 17 Mar 2008 13:16:09 -0400, Bill Watson
> wrote:

>Denny wrote:
>> Time moves along... The old V-tails are no longer the status symbol...
>> It appears to me that the Cirrus line of aircraft has become the new
>> "fork tailed doctor killer", along with stock broker, dentist, lawyer,
>> etc...
>
>As time moves along, I've begun to realize that the casual trashing of
>Doctor/Dentist/Lawyer pilots is as distasteful and probably as
>wrong-headed as other kinds of stereotyping.

No way can I find fault with the OP for making this observation.

The Bo earned the title due to the group of pilots who were flying it.
That same group is now moving into the Cirrus. As the majority of the
pilots in these two planes come from the same groups the title is
appropriate even if said planes were docile and forgiving which they
definitely are not.

Here's a couple of figures.
When I went to proficiency training there were 63 of us. Only 3 had
ever done full stalls in the Bo. Most of those pilots didn't even like
doing steep turns.

Over the years I have twice had to take evasive action from someone
being where they weren't supposed to be. One was in the dark. These
involved putting the plane in attitudes that certainly could be
considered unusual and maneuvering at the very limits for the airplane
close to the ground and in the pattern.

Just an observation but at our airport (not the same one Denny flies
out of, but just a hop skip and a jump away) of the pilots who have
had an incident over the last 20 years over half have been Lawyers,
Doctors, judges and other professionals. Right now I can only think
of two who were "normal people"
>

Me? I'm a professional, or rather a retired one, just not one of the
above.

>I used to do it but I've stopped voicing it. Like most prejudices and
>beliefs, changing one's attitude is much more difficult than changing
>what comes out of one's mouth... but I'm trying.
>
>Thanks
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Roger[_4_]]

On Mon, 17 Mar 2008 15:24:31 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

>> This sort of accident seems to happen all too often. *I don't recall
>> anything in the private licensing curricula about horizonless night
>> flight hazards. *Perhaps it got overlooked, and it's time the FAA took
>> steps to include it in pilot training.
>
>Actually that is covered in PPL training. In particular the "Airplane
>Flying Handbook" covers the many of the nighttime hazaards.
>
>It's also covered in the checkride but only orally.
>
>I wonder if Denny might enlighten us about what non-pilot profession
>gets his thumbs up as far as accident rates go. If the Bonanza and
>Cirrus are popularly referred to as "Doctor Killers", then I guess 30
>year old C150s and C152s must be the "Average Working Stiff Killers".
>Or maybe doctors and lawyers lead the charge there too?

Hmmm...I do know a lawyer who pranged a 150 onto 06 and one day less
than a year later pretty much did the same with a 172 on 18. Put
shoulders in the wings he hit so hard. However he quit flying at that
point.
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Roger[_4_]]

On Mon, 17 Mar 2008 22:13:06 -0400, Margy Natalie >
wrote:

wrote:
>>>This sort of accident seems to happen all too often. I don't recall
>>>anything in the private licensing curricula about horizonless night
>>>flight hazards. Perhaps it got overlooked, and it's time the FAA took
>>>steps to include it in pilot training.
>>
>>
>> Actually that is covered in PPL training. In particular the "Airplane
>> Flying Handbook" covers the many of the nighttime hazaards.
>>
>> It's also covered in the checkride but only orally.
>>
>> I wonder if Denny might enlighten us about what non-pilot profession
>> gets his thumbs up as far as accident rates go. If the Bonanza and
>> Cirrus are popularly referred to as "Doctor Killers", then I guess 30
>> year old C150s and C152s must be the "Average Working Stiff Killers".
>> Or maybe doctors and lawyers lead the charge there too?
>
>I think the reason doctors and lawyers may seem to get into more trouble
>is because more doctors and lawyers (and probably software developers

You just had to add that profession didn't you. <:-))

>now) can afford slick aircraft and they also have jobs that they really
>HAVE to be there on Monday morning (I'm sorry Mr. Smith, I can't do your
> heart surgery I'm weathered in ...). Get there itis is a powerful
>disease. I can call in that I'm weathered in and take a day of leave,
>no problem.
>
>Margy
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Roger[_4_]]

On Wed, 19 Mar 2008 16:43:52 -0400, Dudley Henriques
> wrote:

>Dan wrote:
>> On Mar 19, 4:21 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>>> Dylan Smith wrote:
>>>> And your back seat passengers will *really* appreciate a yaw damper :-)
>>> You can say that again :-)) I think we went through about 6 line boys
>>> who quit over having to clean up the back seat vomit from our charter
>>> flights in the Bo. :-))
>>>
>>> --
>>> Dudley Henriques
>>
>> yikes!
>>
>> Didn't you use the poor man's yaw damper?
>>
>> (e.g. Both feet solidly on the rudder pedals with instant pressure to
>> counteract the yaw)

I really think it's more of a stirring motion. They are about 3 to 3
1/2 feet behind the main spar. In turbulence they not only have the
side to side motion, but when the nose bumps up they drop, and when
the nose drops they feel pushed up. Both axies impart a motion counter
to what the eyes are seeing.

>>
>> Dan Mc
>
>I can tell you for sure, and I flew that airplane myself many times.
>There was NO way to completely stop that subtle gentle back and forth
>yaw in that airplane. Trust me...we knew ALL the tricks :-))
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Roger[_4_]]

On Wed, 19 Mar 2008 17:22:16 -0400, Dudley Henriques
> wrote:

>Dan wrote:
>> On Mar 19, 4:50 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>>
>>> It was just the V Tail that had the oscillation problem. We flew a Deb
>>> later on that handled as straight as an arrow.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Dudley Henriques
>>
>> A36 is the same -- like an arrow
>>
>> Nice looking a/c, but that V tail just looks cool.
>>
>> The line guy comments about every other flight -- "It sounds like a
>> WW2 fighter when you take off..."
>>
>> :-)
>>
>> Dan Mc
>
>Well.....it's too bad I couldn't have stood you by the side of the
>runway to hear the Merlin at 61 inches as it went past you on takeoff.
>......a little less loud of course when I had to go to 100LL and drop
>the takeoff power to 55 inches...but I think you would have known I was
>there :-))
>Great Doppler effect BTW!!! :-))

I *love* that sound. OTOH about 20 of them taking off is pretty
impressive. I think even more so than a high speed pass and that is
impressive.
..
I think the Stewart S-51 has done a good job of imitating it and out
of 8 pipes too<:-)). Although the Legend's first incarnation was
pretty good too.
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Roger wrote:

> Hmmm...I do know a lawyer who pranged a 150 onto 06 and one day less
> than a year later pretty much did the same with a 172 on 18. Put
> shoulders in the wings he hit so hard. However he quit flying at that
> point.
> Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
> (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
> www.rogerhalstead.com

Most likely he quit because being the PIC he couldn't figure an angle to
sue himself :-)
--
Dudley Henriques

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Roger wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Mar 2008 16:43:52 -0400, Dudley Henriques
> > wrote:
>
>> Dan wrote:
>>> On Mar 19, 4:21 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>>>> Dylan Smith wrote:
>>>>> And your back seat passengers will *really* appreciate a yaw damper :-)
>>>> You can say that again :-)) I think we went through about 6 line boys
>>>> who quit over having to clean up the back seat vomit from our charter
>>>> flights in the Bo. :-))
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Dudley Henriques
>>> yikes!
>>>
>>> Didn't you use the poor man's yaw damper?
>>>
>>> (e.g. Both feet solidly on the rudder pedals with instant pressure to
>>> counteract the yaw)
>
> I really think it's more of a stirring motion. They are about 3 to 3
> 1/2 feet behind the main spar. In turbulence they not only have the
> side to side motion, but when the nose bumps up they drop, and when
> the nose drops they feel pushed up. Both axies impart a motion counter
> to what the eyes are seeing.
>
>>> Dan Mc
>> I can tell you for sure, and I flew that airplane myself many times.
>> There was NO way to completely stop that subtle gentle back and forth
>> yaw in that airplane. Trust me...we knew ALL the tricks :-))
> Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
> (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
>
You're right. That's exactly how it is. I saw it more as a couple, and a
"stirring motion" sounds just about right. :-)

--
Dudley Henriques

[Roger[_4_]]

On Wed, 19 Mar 2008 17:32:13 -0400, Dudley Henriques
> wrote:

>Dan wrote:
>> On Mar 19, 5:22 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>>
>>> Well.....it's too bad I couldn't have stood you by the side of the
>>> runway to hear the Merlin at 61 inches as it went past you on takeoff.
>>> ......a little less loud of course when I had to go to 100LL and drop
>>> the takeoff power to 55 inches...but I think you would have known I was
>>> there :-))
>>> Great Doppler effect BTW!!! :-))
>>>
>>> --
>>> Dudley Henriques
>>
>>
>> I would definitely like to hear that...
>>
>> I spent many hours on flight lines listening to F-102s , F-4s, B-52s,
>> and A-10s taking off.
>>
>> But those birds all had their own roar -- not that wonderful throaty
>> hum of a big IC engine.
>>
>>
>> Dan Mc
>>
>The Chain Saw sound on the R2800 round engine in the F8F wasn't all that
>bad either. In the 51, the stacks were right in line with my ears. Even
>with the canopy closed, either the 51 or the Bear required cotton in the
>ears :-)

Who usedto do the aaerobatic routine to the Phantom of the Opera? IIRC
it was in a Sea Fury
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Roger wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Mar 2008 17:22:16 -0400, Dudley Henriques
> > wrote:
>
>> Dan wrote:
>>> On Mar 19, 4:50 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>>>
>>>> It was just the V Tail that had the oscillation problem. We flew a Deb
>>>> later on that handled as straight as an arrow.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Dudley Henriques
>>> A36 is the same -- like an arrow
>>>
>>> Nice looking a/c, but that V tail just looks cool.
>>>
>>> The line guy comments about every other flight -- "It sounds like a
>>> WW2 fighter when you take off..."
>>>
>>> :-)
>>>
>>> Dan Mc
>> Well.....it's too bad I couldn't have stood you by the side of the
>> runway to hear the Merlin at 61 inches as it went past you on takeoff.
>> ......a little less loud of course when I had to go to 100LL and drop
>> the takeoff power to 55 inches...but I think you would have known I was
>> there :-))
>> Great Doppler effect BTW!!! :-))
>
> I *love* that sound. OTOH about 20 of them taking off is pretty
> impressive. I think even more so than a high speed pass and that is
> impressive.
> .
> I think the Stewart S-51 has done a good job of imitating it and out
> of 8 pipes too<:-)). Although the Legend's first incarnation was
> pretty good too.
> Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
> (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
> www.rogerhalstead.com

The Stewart's have done a beautiful job of replication with their
project. The S51's performance figures are quite impressive and the
airplane is gorgeous.


--
Dudley Henriques

[Roger[_4_]]

On Mon, 17 Mar 2008 16:16:34 -0700 (PDT), Dan >
wrote:

>On Mar 17, 5:24 pm, Larry Dighera > wrote:
>> On Mon, 17 Mar 2008 12:34:46 -0700 (PDT), Denny >
>> wrote:
>>
>> >The facts are simple: He put his son into a single engine plane with
>> >him and made a night takeoff into a no horizon black pit, directly at
>> >a mountain... This is a no margin gamble and he rolled craps...
>>
>> Just like JFK Jr. Tragic.
>>
>> This sort of accident seems to happen all too often. I don't recall
>> anything in the private licensing curricula about horizonless night
>> flight hazards. Perhaps it got overlooked, and it's time the FAA took
>> steps to include it in pilot training.
>>
>> It does seem to be addressed in thishttp://www.faa.gov/pilots/safety/pilotsafetybrochures/media/SpatialD_....
>>
>> That said, it is pretty apparent that the pilot failed to plan his
>> flight on the ground as he was taught before departing. That's a bad
>> habit to get into.
>
>It's smart practice to file IFR for any night flight, period.
>
>VFR only pilots should be very wary of SEL operations at night.
>
>Is it really worth the added risk?
>

I did a lot of night VFR including long cross country flying and never
considered it much different than day VFR. Of course we don't have
mountains around here and I never considered day VFR lightly.

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

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Roger wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Mar 2008 17:32:13 -0400, Dudley Henriques
> > wrote:
>
>> Dan wrote:
>>> On Mar 19, 5:22 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>>>
>>>> Well.....it's too bad I couldn't have stood you by the side of the
>>>> runway to hear the Merlin at 61 inches as it went past you on takeoff.
>>>> ......a little less loud of course when I had to go to 100LL and drop
>>>> the takeoff power to 55 inches...but I think you would have known I was
>>>> there :-))
>>>> Great Doppler effect BTW!!! :-))
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Dudley Henriques
>>>
>>> I would definitely like to hear that...
>>>
>>> I spent many hours on flight lines listening to F-102s , F-4s, B-52s,
>>> and A-10s taking off.
>>>
>>> But those birds all had their own roar -- not that wonderful throaty
>>> hum of a big IC engine.
>>>
>>>
>>> Dan Mc
>>>
>> The Chain Saw sound on the R2800 round engine in the F8F wasn't all that
>> bad either. In the 51, the stacks were right in line with my ears. Even
>> with the canopy closed, either the 51 or the Bear required cotton in the
>> ears :-)
>
> Who usedto do the aaerobatic routine to the Phantom of the Opera? IIRC
> it was in a Sea Fury
> Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
> (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
> www.rogerhalstead.com

Boy, I must be getting old Rog, but I don't remember anybody doing a Sea
Fury act to Phantom. The only guys I knew who worked a Sea Fury were
Ormond Hayden Bailee and Charlie Hilliard and I don't recall either
using music. Frank Sanders I don't know about, although he's more into
racing than air show work.
That bird uses a hell of a lot of air in the vertical plane. I would
imagine that recording would have to be slowed down a bit from Webber's
original score :-)

--
Dudley Henriques

[Frank Stutzman[_2_]]

Edward A. Falk > wrote:

> I've been thinking about Bonanzas lately. I recently met someone
> with an old 6-seat V-tail, and he claimed to go 170 kts at 11 gph.
> Could he be telling the truth? That sounds pretty impressive and
> a little incredible.

OK, fine, but just how big was that fish that got away?

Well, if its a six seater it would have to be a S model or later with at
least a IO-520-B. The referance at my fingertips sez that the book 75%
power cruise at 6500 feet for a S model is 205 mph. No mention what the
fuel flow is at that speed, but it'll be way more than 11 gph.

I won't say the claimed numbers are completely bogus, but it is streching
the envelope a tiny bit in my opinion. Have the plane at very empty weights,
in perfect trim and rig as well as excessively lean of peak and it could be
possibly be done.

I usually figure my crusty A model with the weenie E-225 will do about 135
knots on a bit more than 9 GPH. I did have a terrific flight a few weeks
ago where the GPS was saying 185 knots and the the JPI was saying 8.5 GPH.
Gotta love cold, strong tailwinds ;-)

--
Frank Stutzman
Bonanza N494B "Hula Girl"
Boise, ID

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Roger wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Mar 2008 16:16:34 -0700 (PDT), Dan >
> wrote:
>
>> On Mar 17, 5:24 pm, Larry Dighera > wrote:
>>> On Mon, 17 Mar 2008 12:34:46 -0700 (PDT), Denny >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> The facts are simple: He put his son into a single engine plane with
>>>> him and made a night takeoff into a no horizon black pit, directly at
>>>> a mountain... This is a no margin gamble and he rolled craps...
>>> Just like JFK Jr. Tragic.
>>>
>>> This sort of accident seems to happen all too often. I don't recall
>>> anything in the private licensing curricula about horizonless night
>>> flight hazards. Perhaps it got overlooked, and it's time the FAA took
>>> steps to include it in pilot training.
>>>
>>> It does seem to be addressed in thishttp://www.faa.gov/pilots/safety/pilotsafetybrochures/media/SpatialD_....
>>>
>>> That said, it is pretty apparent that the pilot failed to plan his
>>> flight on the ground as he was taught before departing. That's a bad
>>> habit to get into.
>> It's smart practice to file IFR for any night flight, period.
>>
>> VFR only pilots should be very wary of SEL operations at night.
>>
>> Is it really worth the added risk?
>>
>
> I did a lot of night VFR including long cross country flying and never
> considered it much different than day VFR. Of course we don't have
> mountains around here and I never considered day VFR lightly.
>
>> Dan Mc
> Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
> (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
> www.rogerhalstead.com

I took off one night on a charter out of Cumberland Maryland. You
wouldn't believe how dark it was. The airport sits in the middle of a
valley in a fishbowl with mountains all around it.
I took off and began a circling departure as briefed by the FBO there.
I kept seeing this 'light" ABOVE me each time I came around. I knew it
was a light on top of a mountain, but I can tell you, that was the
darkest night I've ever seen, and it was downright erie seeing that damn
light on TOP of me every time around. I was a bit nervous until I
finally saw it below me as I exited out on course to Philadelphia
International.

I'll tell you. A night takeoff out of Bader Field in Atlantic City NJ
out over the ocean on a moonless night can get "interesting: as well.
:-)

--
Dudley Henriques

[Larry Dighera]

On Wed, 19 Mar 2008 21:17:19 -0400, Roger >
wrote:

>In these planes you have to have "It *all* together". Piloting
>skills, attitude, judgmental skills, and weather knowledge must all be
>present and polished.
>
>I've spent many hours just mucking around in marginal conditions in a
>Cherokee 180 and in the Deb. In the Cherokee I could almost always
>say, "well it looks like it's getting a bit thicker and worse ahead so
>we'd better turn around" While in the Deb at near 200 MPH it basically
>goes from marginal to "where'd everything go?" in the blink of an eye.
>Even being able to file you still have to have every thing ready and
>the mind set to fly IFR. When I say being ready to file I mean
>*competent* and polished not just current.
>
>Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
>(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
>www.rogerhalstead.com


Well said.

To accomplish such polished competency requires regular use and
maintenance. I'd say a minimum of a cross country flight or more
weekly.

[Roger[_4_]]

On Wed, 19 Mar 2008 13:31:54 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

>On Mar 19, 12:55*pm, The Visitor >
>wrote:
>>
>> Night VFR doesn't exist many places because sometimes it is just
>> too dark.
>
>Huh? Even if it is pitch black outside, and you see nothing whatsoever
>beyond your plane, and you need to fly by reference to instruments in
>order to stay upright, you can still be in VFR conditions.

Which is the very reason it's not allowed in some countries.
If the pilot has to rely only on the instruments then he/she is
essentially IMC . Whether the visibility is 5 or 100 miles as it might
as well be zero.


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

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Larry Dighera wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Mar 2008 21:17:19 -0400, Roger >
> wrote:
>
>> In these planes you have to have "It *all* together". Piloting
>> skills, attitude, judgmental skills, and weather knowledge must all be
>> present and polished.
>>
>> I've spent many hours just mucking around in marginal conditions in a
>> Cherokee 180 and in the Deb. In the Cherokee I could almost always
>> say, "well it looks like it's getting a bit thicker and worse ahead so
>> we'd better turn around" While in the Deb at near 200 MPH it basically
>> goes from marginal to "where'd everything go?" in the blink of an eye.
>> Even being able to file you still have to have every thing ready and
>> the mind set to fly IFR. When I say being ready to file I mean
>> *competent* and polished not just current.
>>
>> Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
>> (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
>> www.rogerhalstead.com
>
>
> Well said.
>
> To accomplish such polished competency requires regular use and
> maintenance. I'd say a minimum of a cross country flight or more
> weekly.
>
>
The cross country is the easy part. It's working the pattern and the
airplane at and near the left side of the envelope in all configurations
that really completes the currency picture.
These airplanes require their pilots to simply go out and PRACTICE with
them perhaps more than they do.

--
Dudley Henriques

[Larry Dighera]

On Wed, 19 Mar 2008 22:01:08 -0400, Roger >
wrote:

>I really think it's more of a stirring motion. They are about 3 to 3
>1/2 feet behind the main spar. In turbulence they not only have the
>side to side motion, but when the nose bumps up they drop, and when
>the nose drops they feel pushed up. Both axies impart a motion counter
>to what the eyes are seeing.

Isn't it a Foucault Oscillation?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foucault_pendulum
Animation of a Foucault pendulum, with the rotation rate greatly
exaggerated. The green trace shows the path of the pendulum bob
over the ground, and the blue trace shows the path in a frame of
reference rotating with the plane of the pendulum.

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Larry Dighera wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Mar 2008 22:01:08 -0400, Roger >
> wrote:
>
>> I really think it's more of a stirring motion. They are about 3 to 3
>> 1/2 feet behind the main spar. In turbulence they not only have the
>> side to side motion, but when the nose bumps up they drop, and when
>> the nose drops they feel pushed up. Both axies impart a motion counter
>> to what the eyes are seeing.
>
> Isn't it a Foucault Oscillation?
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foucault_pendulum
> Animation of a Foucault pendulum, with the rotation rate greatly
> exaggerated. The green trace shows the path of the pendulum bob
> over the ground, and the blue trace shows the path in a frame of
> reference rotating with the plane of the pendulum.
I saw it more as a very subtle fishtailing Dutch Roll. You could at
least partially control it by resting your right foot on the right
rudder. This worked for us quite well actually.

--
Dudley Henriques

[Roger[_4_]]

On Wed, 19 Mar 2008 22:49:23 -0400, Dudley Henriques
> wrote:

>Larry Dighera wrote:
>> On Wed, 19 Mar 2008 21:17:19 -0400, Roger >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> In these planes you have to have "It *all* together". Piloting
>>> skills, attitude, judgmental skills, and weather knowledge must all be
>>> present and polished.
>>>
>>> I've spent many hours just mucking around in marginal conditions in a
>>> Cherokee 180 and in the Deb. In the Cherokee I could almost always
>>> say, "well it looks like it's getting a bit thicker and worse ahead so
>>> we'd better turn around" While in the Deb at near 200 MPH it basically
>>> goes from marginal to "where'd everything go?" in the blink of an eye.
>>> Even being able to file you still have to have every thing ready and
>>> the mind set to fly IFR. When I say being ready to file I mean
>>> *competent* and polished not just current.
>>>
>>> Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
>>> (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
>>> www.rogerhalstead.com
>>
>>
>> Well said.
>>
>> To accomplish such polished competency requires regular use and
>> maintenance. I'd say a minimum of a cross country flight or more
>> weekly.
>>
I think it depends on the pilot and the pilot's relationship with the
specific plane.

>>
Here I agree with Dudley. Unless you are out in "weather" that is
beating the snot out of you the cross county , even in the clouds can
be relatively relaxed and even hand flown although that begins to
become tiresome after a couple of hours and that 's the time you are
going to need to be your sharpest. It's flying those new approaches
with the little unexpected things popping up that really build up the
polish.

>The cross country is the easy part. It's working the pattern and the
>airplane at and near the left side of the envelope in all configurations
>that really completes the currency picture.
>These airplanes require their pilots to simply go out and PRACTICE with
>them perhaps more than they do.

PERHAPS? <:-))

I think "purely personal opinion" based on 1300 hours in the Deb over
the last 12 years, these aren't exactly forgiving airplanes. They may
be pussycats (OK Streak excepted) compared to the big military
fighters, but they do not suffer lack of proficiency well.<:-)) The
pilot really needs to know just about everything there is to know
about the specific plane when coming in to land be it an approach or
VFR pattern and they have to be flexible. Side step, circle to land,
missed and published holds, going missed on ATC's command, traffic
avoidance, doing things without hesitation or having to stop and
think. And this is assuming every thing works.<:-)) Are we tilting a
little, do I have the leans, or is the AI dying? Man, what a time to
go partial panel.

Joining the ILS right at the outer marker when you have a tail wind of
20 or 30 knots (90 degrees to the localizer) really messes up your
nice turns.

Follow the guy ahead and expect the visual. Eh? I can't see the guy
ahead or the airport and I'm supposed to FOLLOW HIM? (Ben there,
done that ) Ahhhh... Approach, I can't see the twin ahead or the
airport. It's solid IMC up here. OK, maintain heading (what ever),
expect vectors to the visual on 09.

Circle left for the visual to 27. Say what? There's a whole string
of airliners departing 09. Oh! Then circle right for 09. I think
they do that just to see if you are paying attention.

And multitasking. Why is it that approach always manages to squeeze a
5 minute transmission into 20 seconds telling you what to do for the
next 15 minutes right at the outer marker when you are busier than a
cat covering crap on a marble floor and hauling dirt two miles. This
can be particularly interesting if there is only one ILS, it has a
tail wind of 20 knots and you have to circle to land WHILE departing
traffic is going the other direction.
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Dylan Smith]

On 2008-03-20, Edward A. Falk > wrote:
> I've been thinking about Bonanzas lately. I recently met someone
> with an old 6-seat V-tail, and he claimed to go 170 kts at 11 gph.
> Could he be telling the truth? That sounds pretty impressive and
> a little incredible.

That does sound a little bit incredible - the real numbers for the S-35
that I flew was a hair over 13 gph for 165 ktas.

--
From the sunny Isle of Man.
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.

[Dan[_10_]]

On Mar 19, 10:19 pm, Roger > wrote:

> >Is it really worth the added risk?
>
> I did a lot of night VFR including long cross country flying and never
> considered it much different than day VFR. Of course we don't have
> mountains around here and I never considered day VFR lightly.

There are more than mountains to contend with here, day or night.

Fly south from here and you are over WV -- not much is flat there. If
you're east of south you're over some serious wilderness and real
mountains.

Fly east and you're over the Alleghenies which -- while not the
Rockies -- have plenty of traps for the reckless. (Departing on 14
from my home field I'd better make the turn to crosswind quick if I
want to avoid the 1200' ridge directly in my flight path. The night
IFR departure is N/A).

Fly north over the rather unforgiving urban sprawl of Pittsburgh.
Those unlit stretches below are either rivers or deep draws.

Fly west and you're above the Pittsburgh Plateau -- a 75 mile wide
series of 150-200' hills with houses and farms and roads, and power
and gas lines scattered over the whole conglomeration.

I don't fly at night lightly here. While I've flown my share of night
XC, I'm aware that there is an added risk factor SEL. In most cases
the risk is not justified.


Dan Mc

[Dan[_10_]]

On Mar 19, 10:38 pm, Frank Stutzman >
wrote:
>
> I usually figure my crusty A model with the weenie E-225 will do about 135
> knots on a bit more than 9 GPH. I did have a terrific flight a few weeks
> ago where the GPS was saying 185 knots and the the JPI was saying 8.5 GPH.
> Gotta love cold, strong tailwinds ;-)


The JPI is the greatest thing since -- GPS!

Running LOP with GAMinjectors, I can get a lightly-loaded A36 to fly
130 KIAS on 10 gph.

140 KIAS requires 11.6

The Straight 35 (1947) can fly 120 KIAS on 7 gph (E-185 with electric
prop)

Groundspeeds -- well.. let's just say double digits has not been
uncommon westbound lately.


Dan Mc

[Dan[_10_]]

On Mar 19, 10:45 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>
> I'll tell you. A night takeoff out of Bader Field in Atlantic City NJ
> out over the ocean on a moonless night can get "interesting: as well.
> :-)
>
> --
> Dudley Henriques


Here's a sad NTSB that validates the danger of a moonless night
transition from land to ocean:

Accident occurred Friday, March 15, 2002 in Ocean City, MD
Aircraft: Cessna 172P, registration: N96811
Injuries: 4 Fatal.

The airplane was over water, making a night VFR approach to a coastal
airport. Witnesses observed it suddenly transition from horizontal
flight, to a vertical descent into the ocean. According to a witness
flying in the area at the time, the accident airplane went over a
"black hole," and he saw "strobe over strobe" before it disappeared.
The witness also noted that disorientation around the airport at night
was common because of the ocean. The accident occurred on a clear,
dark night, with no illumination from the moon. The pilot was not
instrument-rated, but had received instrument training under a hood in
VFR conditions.

The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable
cause(s) of this accident as follows:
The pilot's spatial disorientation, which resulted in his subsequent
loss of control of the airplane. A factor was the dark night, over
water visual conditions.

Last time I was at OXB, I took some friends for a night flight along
the coast. On takeoff from 14 by 200' AGL I was on solid instruments
until I could get turned back towards the shore. Even though I was
qualified and current, it required some disciple to maintain altitude
and heading.

Night VFR -- especially moonless nights in remote areas -- should be
considered IFR flying, if not legally, than practically.


Dan Mc

[Dylan Smith]

On 2008-03-20, Dan > wrote:
> Fly east and you're over the Alleghenies which -- while not the
> Rockies --

Small mountains need to be treated with as much respect as big ones.
They are just as hard when you hit them. Our mountains here are very
small. Snaefell, at just over 2000 feet, is the largest one.

However, our small mountains have been claiming aircraft for decades
now. There's a memorial on North Barrule where a US B17 smacked into it.
The peak of North Barrule is only 1700' (it's a ridge). Many light
aircraft had been claimed by these hills - there's an entire book
devoted to Manx air crashes, and many of these were CFIT.

The most recent Manx hill victim was just last April.

Strong wind, rotor, curlover... small underpowered aircraft got caught
by the "clutching hand", and the 6000 hour pilot stalled and spun trying
to get out of it. Both of them survived, but the pilot, in the front
seat, was very seriously injured. The hills generating the rotor were
only 300 feet high, but just off the end of the runway, and there was 20
kts of wind.

The bigger hills, like Snaefell and North Barrule can generate severe
turbulence in all light aircraft altitudes, as well as some fairly
strong mountain wave. I've soared a powered aircraft in the wave lift
off these hills!

--
From the sunny Isle of Man.
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Roger wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Mar 2008 22:49:23 -0400, Dudley Henriques
> > wrote:
>
>> Larry Dighera wrote:
>>> On Wed, 19 Mar 2008 21:17:19 -0400, Roger >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> In these planes you have to have "It *all* together". Piloting
>>>> skills, attitude, judgmental skills, and weather knowledge must all be
>>>> present and polished.
>>>>
>>>> I've spent many hours just mucking around in marginal conditions in a
>>>> Cherokee 180 and in the Deb. In the Cherokee I could almost always
>>>> say, "well it looks like it's getting a bit thicker and worse ahead so
>>>> we'd better turn around" While in the Deb at near 200 MPH it basically
>>>> goes from marginal to "where'd everything go?" in the blink of an eye.
>>>> Even being able to file you still have to have every thing ready and
>>>> the mind set to fly IFR. When I say being ready to file I mean
>>>> *competent* and polished not just current.
>>>>
>>>> Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
>>>> (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
>>>> www.rogerhalstead.com
>>>
>>> Well said.
>>>
>>> To accomplish such polished competency requires regular use and
>>> maintenance. I'd say a minimum of a cross country flight or more
>>> weekly.
>>>
> I think it depends on the pilot and the pilot's relationship with the
> specific plane.
>
> Here I agree with Dudley. Unless you are out in "weather" that is
> beating the snot out of you the cross county , even in the clouds can
> be relatively relaxed and even hand flown although that begins to
> become tiresome after a couple of hours and that 's the time you are
> going to need to be your sharpest. It's flying those new approaches
> with the little unexpected things popping up that really build up the
> polish.
>
>> The cross country is the easy part. It's working the pattern and the
>> airplane at and near the left side of the envelope in all configurations
>> that really completes the currency picture.
>> These airplanes require their pilots to simply go out and PRACTICE with
>> them perhaps more than they do.
>
> PERHAPS? <:-))
>
> I think "purely personal opinion" based on 1300 hours in the Deb over
> the last 12 years, these aren't exactly forgiving airplanes. They may
> be pussycats (OK Streak excepted) compared to the big military
> fighters, but they do not suffer lack of proficiency well.<:-)) The
> pilot really needs to know just about everything there is to know
> about the specific plane when coming in to land be it an approach or
> VFR pattern and they have to be flexible. Side step, circle to land,
> missed and published holds, going missed on ATC's command, traffic
> avoidance, doing things without hesitation or having to stop and
> think. And this is assuming every thing works.<:-)) Are we tilting a
> little, do I have the leans, or is the AI dying? Man, what a time to
> go partial panel.
>
> Joining the ILS right at the outer marker when you have a tail wind of
> 20 or 30 knots (90 degrees to the localizer) really messes up your
> nice turns.
>
> Follow the guy ahead and expect the visual. Eh? I can't see the guy
> ahead or the airport and I'm supposed to FOLLOW HIM? (Ben there,
> done that ) Ahhhh... Approach, I can't see the twin ahead or the
> airport. It's solid IMC up here. OK, maintain heading (what ever),
> expect vectors to the visual on 09.
>
> Circle left for the visual to 27. Say what? There's a whole string
> of airliners departing 09. Oh! Then circle right for 09. I think
> they do that just to see if you are paying attention.
>
> And multitasking. Why is it that approach always manages to squeeze a
> 5 minute transmission into 20 seconds telling you what to do for the
> next 15 minutes right at the outer marker when you are busier than a
> cat covering crap on a marble floor and hauling dirt two miles. This
> can be particularly interesting if there is only one ILS, it has a
> tail wind of 20 knots and you have to circle to land WHILE departing
> traffic is going the other direction.
> Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
> (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
> www.rogerhalstead.com
This is all true, and leans heavily into the IFR experience for all
airplanes, especially the high performance aircraft.
What I had in mind was much more basic; the getting out there and
practicing with the airplane in the area where a lot of the accidents
actually happen.....basic flying.

--
Dudley Henriques

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Dan wrote:
> On Mar 19, 10:45 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>> I'll tell you. A night takeoff out of Bader Field in Atlantic City NJ
>> out over the ocean on a moonless night can get "interesting: as well.
>> :-)
>>
>> --
>> Dudley Henriques
>
>
> Here's a sad NTSB that validates the danger of a moonless night
> transition from land to ocean:
>
> Accident occurred Friday, March 15, 2002 in Ocean City, MD
> Aircraft: Cessna 172P, registration: N96811
> Injuries: 4 Fatal.
>
> The airplane was over water, making a night VFR approach to a coastal
> airport. Witnesses observed it suddenly transition from horizontal
> flight, to a vertical descent into the ocean. According to a witness
> flying in the area at the time, the accident airplane went over a
> "black hole," and he saw "strobe over strobe" before it disappeared.
> The witness also noted that disorientation around the airport at night
> was common because of the ocean. The accident occurred on a clear,
> dark night, with no illumination from the moon. The pilot was not
> instrument-rated, but had received instrument training under a hood in
> VFR conditions.
>
> The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable
> cause(s) of this accident as follows:
> The pilot's spatial disorientation, which resulted in his subsequent
> loss of control of the airplane. A factor was the dark night, over
> water visual conditions.
>
> Last time I was at OXB, I took some friends for a night flight along
> the coast. On takeoff from 14 by 200' AGL I was on solid instruments
> until I could get turned back towards the shore. Even though I was
> qualified and current, it required some disciple to maintain altitude
> and heading.
>
> Night VFR -- especially moonless nights in remote areas -- should be
> considered IFR flying, if not legally, than practically.
>
>
> Dan Mc
>
>
I agree. I never performed a night checkout that didn't include my
covering this exact scenario with a pilot. It's one of the "problem
scenarios" for the Private Pilot who flies a lot during the daytime VFR
going into night flying.

--
Dudley Henriques

[Dan[_10_]]

On Mar 20, 8:48 am, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>
> I agree. I never performed a night checkout that didn't include my
> covering this exact scenario with a pilot. It's one of the "problem
> scenarios" for the Private Pilot who flies a lot during the daytime VFR
> going into night flying.
>
> --
> Dudley Henriques

Back in October I was flying the V tail on a short repositioning
flight (40 nm) an on arrival I flew a circling approach to the only
manageable runway -- 14 which is basically the extra runway with no
PAPI, no REILS, poor condition markings, and a relatively short
runway.

There was a light overcast and no moon. There are no houses or roads
near the 14 approach, and the go around requires an immediate turn to
avoid flying straight into the ridge.

The pucker factor was high, and I remember repeating to myself "Fly
the airplane, and don't descend until you know you can glide directly
to the touchdown point."

Winds were rough and there was an easterly mountain rotor effect
giving me constant uncommanded rolls 30 degrees plus either direction.

On short final I had to tell myself repeatedly "Don't descend until
you see the numbers!"

Touchdown was gentle, but I had to open the vent window while still
rolling.

In rough conditions -- especially at night -- the temptation to "just
get it down" can be very strong. I can even empathize with the low
time or non proficient pilot being overwhelmed when all the variables
collide into one scary series of events.

I'm confident but wary at night. I spent many hours behind a set of
night vision devices during the Army's "we own the night" training
push, but that was in a Tank. A tree was just a bump.

Not so in an airplane.


Dan Mc

[[email protected]]

On Mar 19, 10:47*pm, Roger > wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Mar 2008 13:31:54 -0700 (PDT),
> wrote:
> > Even if it is pitch black outside, and you see nothing whatsoever
> >beyond your plane, and you need to fly by reference to instruments in
> >order to stay upright, you can still be in VFR conditions.
>
> Which is the very reason it's not allowed in some countries.
> If the pilot has to rely only on the instruments then he/she is
> essentially IMC . Whether the visibility is 5 or 100 miles as it might
> as well be zero.

Except for purposes of seeing (and being seen by) other aircraft.

Anyway, just keeping the plane upright by reference to instruments is
a very small part of the instrument curriculum. And it's also in the
private pilot curriculum. Sadly, though, many pilots do seem to
attempt night VFR flight without having maintained their core
instrument-flying proficiency.

[Denny]

approach always manages to squeeze a
5 minute transmission into 20 seconds telling you what to do for the
next 15 minutes right at the outer marker when you are busier than a
cat covering crap on a marble floor and hauling dirt two miles.
************************************************** **********************************
I have met some real experts at that... They are the superstars of
ATC...
I think their xmas bonus is calculated from the number of pilots they
have managed to panic into freezing up and blowing through the
localizer - like a deer in the headlights...

In their defense I will comment that they probably have given the same
litany so many hundreds of times it is like the Pope saying a Hail
Mary; over in 3.2 milliseconds...

denny

[Dan[_10_]]

On Mar 20, 11:49 am, Denny > wrote:
> approach always manages to squeeze a
> 5 minute transmission into 20 seconds telling you what to do for the
> next 15 minutes right at the outer marker when you are busier than a
> cat covering crap on a marble floor and hauling dirt two miles.
> ************************************************** **********************************
> I have met some real experts at that... They are the superstars of
> ATC...
> I think their xmas bonus is calculated from the number of pilots they
> have managed to panic into freezing up and blowing through the
> localizer - like a deer in the headlights...
>
> In their defense I will comment that they probably have given the same
> litany so many hundreds of times it is like the Pope saying a Hail
> Mary; over in 3.2 milliseconds...
>
> denny

"Unable"

[[email protected]]

On Mar 17, 7:48*am, Denny > wrote:
> Time moves along... The old V-tails are no longer the status symbol...
> It appears to me that the Cirrus line of aircraft has become the new
> "fork tailed doctor killer", along with stock broker, dentist, lawyer,
> etc...
>
> http://tinyurl.com/yqt94a

The preliminary NTSB report is out:
http://www.ntsb.gov/NTSB/brief.asp?ev_id=20080319X00332&key=1 .

There was an IFR flight plan. The plane crashed 3 west of the
departure airport. The terrain at the crash site was 500' higher than
the airport.

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Dan wrote:
> On Mar 20, 8:48 am, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>> I agree. I never performed a night checkout that didn't include my
>> covering this exact scenario with a pilot. It's one of the "problem
>> scenarios" for the Private Pilot who flies a lot during the daytime VFR
>> going into night flying.
>>
>> --
>> Dudley Henriques
>
> Back in October I was flying the V tail on a short repositioning
> flight (40 nm) an on arrival I flew a circling approach to the only
> manageable runway -- 14 which is basically the extra runway with no
> PAPI, no REILS, poor condition markings, and a relatively short
> runway.
>
> There was a light overcast and no moon. There are no houses or roads
> near the 14 approach, and the go around requires an immediate turn to
> avoid flying straight into the ridge.
>
> The pucker factor was high, and I remember repeating to myself "Fly
> the airplane, and don't descend until you know you can glide directly
> to the touchdown point."
>
> Winds were rough and there was an easterly mountain rotor effect
> giving me constant uncommanded rolls 30 degrees plus either direction.
>
> On short final I had to tell myself repeatedly "Don't descend until
> you see the numbers!"
>
> Touchdown was gentle, but I had to open the vent window while still
> rolling.
>
> In rough conditions -- especially at night -- the temptation to "just
> get it down" can be very strong. I can even empathize with the low
> time or non proficient pilot being overwhelmed when all the variables
> collide into one scary series of events.
>
> I'm confident but wary at night. I spent many hours behind a set of
> night vision devices during the Army's "we own the night" training
> push, but that was in a Tank. A tree was just a bump.
>
> Not so in an airplane.
>
>
> Dan Mc
>
>
>
>
>
>
I know this situation well :-)) We had a small field we had to go into
at night and pick up pharmaceuticals in dry ice for delivery to Air
Freight at Philadelphia (many moons ago :-)

Going in there was like flying into an ink well. Nothing around for
miles but farmers fields. At 1AM, even the lights in the few houses
around the airport were out. You could see the landing lights on the
runway but little else, and they weren't the brightest either.
To make it worse, at that hour the local weather conditions in the
summer were usually conducive to low layers of ground fog.
You learned early on NEVER to use the landing lights. If you flew into
one of those layers, they blinded you right away and you lost ll sense
of the approach if you weren't careful. Without the lights on, you could
hit a layer of the stuff but still hold the lights through it.

Those were fun times. I was young and full of **** and vinegar. The most
important lessons we learned at that stage probably was that Nietzsche
was right. "That which doesn't kill you makes you stronger" :-)))


--
Dudley Henriques

[Larry Dighera]

On Thu, 20 Mar 2008 12:13:06 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

>On Mar 17, 7:48*am, Denny > wrote:
>> Time moves along... The old V-tails are no longer the status symbol...
>> It appears to me that the Cirrus line of aircraft has become the new
>> "fork tailed doctor killer", along with stock broker, dentist, lawyer,
>> etc...
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/yqt94a
>
>The preliminary NTSB report is out:
>http://www.ntsb.gov/NTSB/brief.asp?ev_id=20080319X00332&key=1 .
>
>There was an IFR flight plan. The plane crashed 3 west of the
>departure airport. The terrain at the crash site was 500' higher than
>the airport.

Selected excerpts:

All three propeller blades exhibited s-bending, chordwise
scratching, and leading edge gouging.

So there's a possibility the engine was developing power at the time
of impact.

The pilot owned and operated the accident airplane, which he
purchased new in 2006. The pilot's most recent Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) third-class medical certificate was issued on
October 15, 2007. At that time, he reported a total flight
experience of 180 hours. The pilot obtained his instrument rating
on September 20, 2006.

That's not a lot of hours, but the pilot flew ~111 hours in 9 months,
so he was keeping reasonably current:

... the airplane's most recent annual inspection was completed on
June 13, 2007. At that time, the airplane had accumulated 157.7
total hours of operation. An airworthiness directive was complied
with 9 days prior to the accident. At that time the airplane had
accumulated 267.8 total hours of operation.

An airworthiness directive was complied with 9 days prior to the
accident. At that time the airplane had accumulated 267.8 total
hours of operation.

The temporal juxtaposition of the AD work and the accident may be
coincidental, but... I wonder what the AD was about.

Winchester Regional Airport (OKV) was located about 15 miles north
of the accident site. The reported weather at OKV, at 0000, was:
wind from 340 degrees at 4 knots; visibility 3 miles in rain;
broken ceiling at 2,400 feet; overcast ceiling at 3,000 feet;...

There's plenty of room for marginal VFR conditions in that report.

The NTSB report states:

An instrument flight rules (IFR) flight plan was filed for the
personal flight conducted under 14 Code of Federal Regulations
Part 91.

But it's unclear if the flight was conducted under IFR. If it were,
wouldn't it be operating under Part 97?

The airplane departed on runway 27, and impacted a mountain ridge
approximately 3 miles west at 2350. The airport elevation was 709
feet above mean sea level (msl).

The wreckage was located on the mountain ridge, about 1200 feet
msl. An approximate 100-feet debris path was observed through
trees, extending on a 170-degree magnetic course, to the main
wreckage.

It looks like lower terrain was to the south:

http://maps.google.com/maps?q=38.917533,-78.253515+(KFRR)&ie=UTF8&ll=38.917533,-78.253515&spn=0.017497,0.029612&t=p&z=15

[Jay Maynard]

On 2008-03-20, Dan > wrote:
> Night VFR -- especially moonless nights in remote areas -- should be
> considered IFR flying, if not legally, than practically.

Moonless nights in remote areas, I can believe. I'm not quite so sure about
nice clear nights over large cities, or even reasonably populated areas
where there are plenty of lights on the ground.
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
Fairmont, MN (FRM) (Yes, that's me!)
AMD Zodiac CH601XLi N55ZC (ordered 17 March, delivery 2 June)

[Edward A. Falk]

In article >,
Frank Stutzman > wrote:
>Edward A. Falk > wrote:
>
>
>Well, if its a six seater it would have to be a S model or later with at
>least a IO-520-B. The referance at my fingertips sez that the book 75%
>power cruise at 6500 feet for a S model is 205 mph. No mention what the
>fuel flow is at that speed, but it'll be way more than 11 gph.

That's what I was thinking.

>I usually figure my crusty A model with the weenie E-225 will do about 135
>knots on a bit more than 9 GPH.

OK, got it. My Mooney C (with speed mods) will do 142 kts at 9.5 gph. I'll
probably stick with it.

--
-Ed Falk,
http://thespamdiaries.blogspot.com/

[Dan[_10_]]

On Mar 20, 8:55 pm, (Edward A. Falk) wrote:
> In article >,
> Frank Stutzman > wrote:
>
> >Edward A. Falk > wrote:
>
> >Well, if its a six seater it would have to be a S model or later with at
> >least a IO-520-B. The referance at my fingertips sez that the book 75%
> >power cruise at 6500 feet for a S model is 205 mph. No mention what the
> >fuel flow is at that speed, but it'll be way more than 11 gph.
>
> That's what I was thinking.
>
> >I usually figure my crusty A model with the weenie E-225 will do about 135
> >knots on a bit more than 9 GPH.
>
> OK, got it. My Mooney C (with speed mods) will do 142 kts at 9.5 gph. I'll
> probably stick with it.
>
> --
> -Ed Falk,
> http://thespamdiaries.blogspot.com/

The Mooney must be more efficient, given it's narrow surface, but you
can't wear a hat and you have to really like your co-pilot!

:-)

Dan Mc

[[email protected]]

On Mar 20, 5:40*pm, Larry Dighera > wrote:
> * * An instrument flight rules (IFR) flight plan was filed for the
> * * personal flight conducted under 14 Code of Federal Regulations
> * * Part 91.
>
> But it's unclear if the flight was conducted under IFR. *If it were,
> wouldn't it be operating under Part 97?

No, Part 91 sets forth the general operating rules for VFR and IFR
alike. Part 97 just has some details about IAPs, ODPs, and takeoff
minimums. It's possible to fly IFR from takeoff to landing and not be
governed by anything in Part 97.

"Flight conducted under Part 91" just means as opposed to Part 121,
Part 135, etc.

[Roger[_4_]]

On Thu, 20 Mar 2008 00:45:31 +0000 (UTC), (Edward
A. Falk) wrote:

>In article >,
>Dylan Smith > wrote:
>>
>>I've had the privilege to fly a Bonanza, I have about 100 hours in the
>>S-35 model, most of that cross country. It's a fabulous aircraft, and I
>>found it very easy to fly IFR.
>
>I've been thinking about Bonanzas lately. I recently met someone
>with an old 6-seat V-tail, and he claimed to go 170 kts at 11 gph.
>Could he be telling the truth? That sounds pretty impressive and
>a little incredible.

Depending on ower they are rated to 175K IAS cruise, but not at 11
GPH.
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Dave[_19_]]

Posted on another chat group.... I think it is the same accident..

I am NOT the author..FWIW only.....

Dave
____________________________________

There is more learning (and/or relearning) in the following 250 words
than a whole stack of NTSB reports
The author happened to be on site when the FAA and the NTSB was
reviewing the tapes.

?Such a sad and tragic event. This pilot made several bad choices. I
just viewed the security camera footage of the entire event from
getting out of the taxi to actually hitting and exploding on the
mountain. I noted several major mistakes taken by this pilot. One it
was only 6min from getting out of the cab to point of impact. The
pilot made no preflight inspection of the aircraft, just opened the
doors climbed in and started. Then next to no run up, great systems
check and brief on what you are going to do after takeoff into a pitch
black mountainous area. The IFR departures page states that no IFR
takeoffs on rwy 27. The video showed a normal takeoff and initial
climb until about what looked like 500 agl, then a level off and
acceleration. He entered a small scud layer then poped out,(I am sure
he did not receive a IFR clearance from Potomac). Not knowing exactly
how fast a Cirrus is, but I hear about 180kts. If he did level off and
accelerate, the mountain is 2.5nm off the end of rwy 27. He did fly
for about 90sec which means thats probably what he did. I see this as
a classic example of hurry up and go, and should be a lesson for us
all to slow down and think. Feel horrible for the family left behind
after this tragic and most likely preventable event.?

Six minutes from taxi cab to crash!

Slow down, think and fly safe,

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






On Thu, 20 Mar 2008 19:01:41 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

>On Mar 20, 5:40?pm, Larry Dighera > wrote:
>> ? ? An instrument flight rules (IFR) flight plan was filed for the
>> ? ? personal flight conducted under 14 Code of Federal Regulations
>> ? ? Part 91.
>>
>> But it's unclear if the flight was conducted under IFR. ?If it were,
>> wouldn't it be operating under Part 97?
>
>No, Part 91 sets forth the general operating rules for VFR and IFR
>alike. Part 97 just has some details about IAPs, ODPs, and takeoff
>minimums. It's possible to fly IFR from takeoff to landing and not be
>governed by anything in Part 97.
>
>"Flight conducted under Part 91" just means as opposed to Part 121,
>Part 135, etc.

[Roger[_4_]]

On Thu, 20 Mar 2008 08:41:05 -0400, Dudley Henriques
> wrote:

>Roger wrote:
>> On Wed, 19 Mar 2008 22:49:23 -0400, Dudley Henriques
>> > wrote:
>>

>> And multitasking. Why is it that approach always manages to squeeze a
>> 5 minute transmission into 20 seconds telling you what to do for the
>> next 15 minutes right at the outer marker when you are busier than a
>> cat covering crap on a marble floor and hauling dirt two miles. This
>> can be particularly interesting if there is only one ILS, it has a
>> tail wind of 20 knots and you have to circle to land WHILE departing
>> traffic is going the other direction.
>> Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
>> (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
>> www.rogerhalstead.com
>This is all true, and leans heavily into the IFR experience for all
>airplanes, especially the high performance aircraft.
>What I had in mind was much more basic; the getting out there and
>practicing with the airplane in the area where a lot of the accidents
>actually happen.....basic flying.

Agreed. If the pilot is proficient enough to do the approaches,
holds, and other *stuff* dished out by ATC around the airports (IE
maneuvers under a heavy work load) the cross country part should be
easy.

I would think the majority of accidents occur while maneuvering near
the airports regardless of whether the pilot is flying a Cessna 172 or
a Cirrus SR-22. Things just happen faster and the workload is higher
in the high performance stuff.
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Larry Dighera]

On Thu, 20 Mar 2008 19:01:41 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

>On Mar 20, 5:40*pm, Larry Dighera > wrote:
>> * * An instrument flight rules (IFR) flight plan was filed for the
>> * * personal flight conducted under 14 Code of Federal Regulations
>> * * Part 91.
>>
>> But it's unclear if the flight was conducted under IFR. *If it were,
>> wouldn't it be operating under Part 97?
>
>No, Part 91 sets forth the general operating rules for VFR and IFR
>alike.

That's what I thought too.

>Part 97 just has some details about IAPs, ODPs, and takeoff
>minimums. It's possible to fly IFR from takeoff to landing and not be
>governed by anything in Part 97.

Ignoring ODPs may be possible in other than IFR departures on runway
27, but in the instance in question I believe Part 97 may have
prohibited the pilot from departing IFR on runway 27:


http://www.airnav.com/depart?http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/0802/NE3TO.PDF
IFR TAKE-OFF MINIMUMS AND (OBSTACLE) DEPARTURE PROCEDURES
Civil Airports and Selected Military Airports
ALL USERS: Airports that have Departure Procedures (DPs) designed
specifically to assist pilots in avoiding obstacles during the
climb to the minimum enroute altitude , and/or airports that have
civil IFR take-off minimums other than standard, are listed below.
Take-off Minimums and Departure Procedures apply to all runways
unless otherwise specified.

FRONT ROYAL, VA
FRONTROYAL-WARREN COUNTY
TAKE-OFF MINIMUMS: Rwy 9, std. w/ min. climb of
409' per NM to 1100, or 2300-3 for climb in visual
conditions. Rwy 27, NA-obstacles....

Would this indicate that, although the preliminary NTSB report
indicates an IFR flight plan was filed, the flight was not operating
on it?

>"Flight conducted under Part 91" just means as opposed to Part 121,
>Part 135, etc.

I guess what I found missing in the preliminary NTSB report was any
mention that the flight was operating under IFR/ATC control.

[terry]

On Mar 20, 12:50*pm, Roger > wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Mar 2008 13:16:09 -0400, Bill Watson
>
> > wrote:
> >Denny wrote:
> >> Time moves along... The old V-tails are no longer the status symbol...
> >> It appears to me that the Cirrus line of aircraft has become the new
> >> "fork tailed doctor killer", along with stock broker, dentist, lawyer,
> >> etc...
>
> >As time moves along, I've begun to realize that the casual trashing of
> >Doctor/Dentist/Lawyer pilots is as distasteful and probably as
> >wrong-headed as other kinds of stereotyping.
>
> No way can I find fault with the OP for making this observation. *
>
> The Bo earned the title due to the group of pilots who were flying it.
> That same group is now moving into the Cirrus. As the majority of the
> pilots in these two planes come from the same groups *the title is
> appropriate even if said planes were docile and forgiving which they
> definitely are not.
>
> Here's a couple of figures.
> When I went to proficiency training there were 63 of us. Only 3 had
> ever done full stalls in the Bo. Most of those pilots didn't even like
> doing steep turns.
>
> Over the years I have twice had to take evasive action from someone
> being where they weren't supposed to be. * One was in the dark. *These
> involved putting the plane in attitudes that certainly could be
> considered unusual and maneuvering at the very limits for the airplane
> close to the ground and in the pattern.
>
> Just an observation *but at our airport (not the same one Denny flies
> out of, but just a hop skip and a jump away) of the pilots who have
> had an incident over the last 20 years over half have been Lawyers,
> Doctors, judges and other professionals. *Right now I can only think
> of two who were "normal people"
>
>
>
> Me? I'm a professional, or rather a retired one, just not one of the
> above.


Just an observation, but more aircraft accidents involve commercial
pilots than any other single profession.
But so what, why does one need to categorise aircraft accidents by the
profession of the pilot? why not the color of his skin or their sex?
So more than half of incidents involved professionals, but you can
only think of 2 that were "normal people" So from your own
admission , as a professional, you are a. not normal. and b. since
you only know 2 people who were normal who had incidents and yet you
know that more than half who had incidents were professionals you are
implying that there have only been been about 5 incidents, since if
you knew there were 6 or more and only 2 were normal you would have
said at least 2/3 or more were professionals. So 5 incidents in 20
years is hardly enough to make any statistically meaningful
observations on the link between ones profession and the likliehood of
having an accident. And of those 5 incidents , 3 of which involved the
professions of doctor, lawyer , judge and other profession ( hang on
thats 4 ?), are you able to further advise us on whether doctors or
lawyers are worse? And I am confused as to how you can be a
professional but not one of the above which included "other
professionals"? What use is it to state that more than half of
incidents involved professionals unless it is stated in comparison to
the % of pilots that are what you would define as professionals?
What I detect here is typical professional envy, which as usual gets
directed at those professions that are generally considered as being
above the other professions by virtue of the intelligence and
remuneration associated with them.

Me? Im a professional ( one of the above ) and a normal person.
Terry

[[email protected]]

On Mar 20, 11:30*pm, Dave > wrote:
> Posted on another chat group.... I think it is the same accident..

The NTSB report does not mention any video tape of this accident, nor
the flight details contained in this post. Nor is this post's
chronology consistent with the NTSB report, which says the pilot
arrived at the airport in the airplane 15 minutes before the crash,
not in a taxi cab 6 minutes before the crash.


> I am NOT the author..FWIW only.....
>
> Dave
> ____________________________________
>
> There is more learning (and/or relearning) in the following 250 words
> than a whole stack of NTSB reports
> The author happened to be on site when the FAA and the NTSB was
> reviewing the tapes.
>
> ?Such a sad and tragic event. This pilot made several bad choices. I
> just viewed the security camera footage of the entire event from
> getting out of the taxi to actually hitting and exploding on the
> mountain. I noted several major mistakes taken by this pilot. One it
> was only 6min from getting out of the cab to point of impact. The
> pilot made no preflight inspection of the aircraft, just opened the
> doors climbed in and started. Then next to no run up, great systems
> check and brief on what you are going to do after takeoff into a pitch
> black mountainous area. The IFR departures page states that no IFR
> takeoffs on rwy 27. The video showed a normal takeoff and initial
> climb until about what looked like 500 agl, then a level off and
> acceleration. He entered a small scud layer then poped out,(I am sure
> he did not receive a IFR clearance from Potomac). Not knowing exactly
> how fast a Cirrus is, but I hear about 180kts. If he did level off and
> accelerate, the mountain is 2.5nm off the end of rwy 27. He did fly
> for about 90sec which means thats probably what he did. I see this as
> a classic example of hurry up and go, and should be a lesson for us
> all to slow down and think. Feel horrible for the family left behind
> after this tragic and most likely preventable event.?
>
> Six minutes from taxi cab to crash!
>
> Slow down, think and fly safe, *
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------*-------------

[Denny]

This is a complex sociological subject and will require a book, not a
usenet email to analyze...

The issue here is the professional, 40 something <usually>,
intelligent, aggressive <results oriented, no excuses>, person who has
spent most of the first half of his life getting 20 or more years of
formal education, another 10-15 years of building a prefessional
reputation and growing his business, who can now afford the payments
on a $600K machine... There are issues of deferred gratification, a
sense of having to look invulnerable, and lots of other stuff I will
only allude to but otherwise ignore...
He is goal oriented (going to be here, there, and over there, and so
on, today), time driven (can't be late), and has relatively low pilot
experience, both in logbook time, and calendar time...

Now the profession doesn't matter... I like the old "fork tailed
doctor killer" attribution because it wraps up the whole package in
one pithy statement... But it is also the guy with three franchise
restaurants, doctors, lawyers, and maybe even indian chiefs... It is
the personality set that matters, not the business that makes it
financially possible...
The airplane is also variable... Used to be the venerable fork tail,
now it is the SR 22 <currently the favorite yuppie status symbol with
that "parachute">

Now, I don't know what I would have done had that been my son I was
picking up at that airport that night... My view of the world is
colored by years of flying... I fly in the Great Lakes ice machine out
over those fresh water seas and often at night... So I fly a clapped
out old twin, for the second motor and other reasons that don't matter
here <not much of a status symbol, eh>... Given this airport down in
a hole, a pitch black night, no horizon, rapidly rising ground, and
low clouds; given that I been up since 5AM and worked a full day and
that it was now some 16 hours later; given my family was on board, I
might have refused the takeoff and waited for light...

denny

[Dylan Smith]

On 2008-03-21, Dan > wrote:
> The Mooney must be more efficient, given it's narrow surface, but you
> can't wear a hat and you have to really like your co-pilot!

The M20F, at least, has at least as much shoulder room as an S-35
Bonanza.

The thing I don't like about Mooneys though, is the tank slit like
visibility and the top of the panel being so high. You sit up much
higher in a Bonanza, and it's a bit taller, and has a MUCH larger glass
area to look out of.

Still, I wouldn't turn a Mooney down.

--
From the sunny Isle of Man.
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.

[[email protected]]

On Mar 21, 5:18*am, Larry Dighera > wrote:
> I believe Part 97 may have prohibited
> the pilot from departing IFR on runway 27:

No, it's not a prohibition for Part 91 flights.
"91.175f: Civil airport takeoff minimums. This paragraph applies to
persons operating an aircraft under part 121, 125, 129, or 135 of this
chapter.
(1) Unless otherwise authorized by the FAA, no pilot may takeoff from
a civil airport under IFR unless the weather conditions at time of
takeoff are at or above the weather minimums for IFR takeoff
prescribed for that airport under part 97 of this chapter."

[Peter Clark]

On Fri, 21 Mar 2008 05:26:43 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

>On Mar 21, 5:18*am, Larry Dighera > wrote:
>> I believe Part 97 may have prohibited
>> the pilot from departing IFR on runway 27:
>
>No, it's not a prohibition for Part 91 flights.
>"91.175f: Civil airport takeoff minimums. This paragraph applies to
>persons operating an aircraft under part 121, 125, 129, or 135 of this
>chapter.
>(1) Unless otherwise authorized by the FAA, no pilot may takeoff from
>a civil airport under IFR unless the weather conditions at time of
>takeoff are at or above the weather minimums for IFR takeoff
>prescribed for that airport under part 97 of this chapter."

Would a weather minimum exemption (ceiling and visibility) also exempt
the requirement to use a DP/ODP if assigned to that runway?

[[email protected]]

On Mar 21, 8:04*am, Denny > wrote:
> Now, I don't know what I would have done had that been my son I was
> picking up at that airport that night...
> Given this airport down in a hole, a pitch black night, no horizon,
> rapidly rising ground, and low clouds;

The dark and clouds shouldn't have been prohibitive, given the IFR
flight plan. The airport wasn't in a hole--terrain was flat for two
miles west and forever to the north and northeast (the direction of
the destination).

What puzzles me is not the decision to take off, but rather the low
climb rate and the decision to use runway 27. If the weather resembled
what was reported nearby at OKV, runway 9 would have had a negligible
tailwind component.

[[email protected]]

On Mar 21, 8:57*am, Peter Clark
> wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Mar 2008 05:26:43 -0700 (PDT),
> wrote:
>
> >On Mar 21, 5:18*am, Larry Dighera > wrote:
> >> I believe Part 97 may have prohibited
> >> the pilot from departing IFR on runway 27:
>
> >No, it's not a prohibition for Part 91 flights.
> >"91.175f: Civil airport takeoff minimums. This paragraph applies to
> >persons operating an aircraft under part 121, 125, 129, or 135 of this
> >chapter.
>
> Would a weather minimum exemption (ceiling and visibility) also exempt
> the requirement to use a DP/ODP if assigned to that runway?

It wouldn't. But the qualification at the beginning of 91.175f isn't
just a weather-minimum exemption. It scopes over all of 91.175f,
including 91.175f1 (weather minimums) and 91.175f3 (ODPs).

Of course, what's permitted may not be wise.

[William Hung[_2_]]

On Mar 20, 2:07*am, Roger > wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Mar 2008 22:49:23 -0400, Dudley Henriques
>
>
>
>
>
> > wrote:
> >Larry Dighera wrote:
> >> On Wed, 19 Mar 2008 21:17:19 -0400, Roger >
> >> wrote:
>
> >>> In these planes you have to have "It *all* together". *Piloting
> >>> skills, attitude, judgmental skills, and weather knowledge must all be
> >>> present and polished.
>
> >>> I've spent many hours just mucking around in marginal conditions in a
> >>> Cherokee 180 and in the Deb. *In the Cherokee I could almost always
> >>> say, "well it looks like it's getting a bit thicker and worse ahead so
> >>> we'd better turn around" While in the Deb at near 200 MPH it basically
> >>> goes from marginal to "where'd everything go?" in the blink of an eye.
> >>> Even being able to file you still have to have every thing ready and
> >>> the mind set to fly IFR. When I say being ready to file I mean
> >>> *competent* and polished not just current.
>
> >>> Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
> >>> (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
> >>>www.rogerhalstead.com
>
> >> Well said. *
>
> >> To accomplish such polished competency requires regular use and
> >> maintenance. *I'd say a minimum of a cross country flight or more
> >> weekly.
>
> I think it depends on the pilot and the pilot's relationship with the
> specific plane. *
>
>
>
> Here I agree with Dudley. *Unless you are out in "weather" that is
> beating the snot out of you the cross county , even *in the clouds can
> be relatively relaxed and even hand flown although that begins to
> become tiresome after *a couple of hours and that 's the time you are
> going to need to be your sharpest. *It's flying those new approaches
> with the little unexpected things popping up that really build up the
> polish.
>
> >The cross country is the easy part. It's working the pattern and the
> >airplane at and near the left side of the envelope in all configurations
> >that really completes the currency picture.
> >These airplanes require their pilots to simply go out and PRACTICE with
> >them perhaps more than they do.
>
> PERHAPS? *<:-)) *
>
> I think "purely personal opinion" based on 1300 hours in the Deb over
> the last 12 years, these aren't exactly forgiving airplanes. *They may
> be pussycats *(OK Streak excepted) compared to the big military
> fighters, but they do not suffer lack of proficiency well.<:-)) *The
> pilot really needs to know just about everything there is to know
> about the specific plane when coming in to land be it an approach or
> VFR pattern and they have to be flexible. *Side step, circle to land,
> missed and published holds, going missed on ATC's command, traffic
> avoidance, doing things without hesitation or having to stop and
> think. *And this is assuming every thing works.<:-)) *Are we tilting a
> little, do I have the leans, or is the AI dying? *Man, what a time to
> go partial panel.
>
> Joining the ILS right at the outer marker when you have a tail wind of
> 20 or 30 knots (90 degrees to the localizer) really messes up your
> nice turns.
>
> Follow the guy ahead and expect the visual. Eh? I can't see the guy
> ahead or the airport and I'm supposed to FOLLOW HIM? * (Ben there,
> done that ) *Ahhhh... Approach, I can't see the twin ahead or the
> airport. *It's solid IMC up here. *OK, *maintain heading (what ever),
> expect vectors to the visual on 09.
>
> Circle left for the visual to 27. *Say what? *There's a whole string
> of airliners departing 09. *Oh! Then circle right for 09. *I think
> they do that *just to see if you are paying attention.
>
> And multitasking. *Why is it that approach always manages to squeeze a
> 5 minute transmission into 20 seconds telling you what to do for the
> next 15 minutes right at the outer marker when you are busier than a
> cat covering crap on a marble floor and hauling dirt two miles. *This
> can be particularly interesting if there is only one ILS, it has a
> tail wind of 20 knots and you have to circle to land WHILE departing
> traffic is going the other *direction.
> Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
> (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)www.rogerhalstead.com- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Hi Roger,

Sort of off topic, but I was browsing your sites again and saw that
you are/were building a G-III. Yuor last entry was in 2006 if I'm not
mistaken. Are you still at it? If so, how far along are you now?

Wil

[Peter Clark]

On Fri, 21 Mar 2008 06:13:01 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

>On Mar 21, 8:57*am, Peter Clark
> wrote:
>> On Fri, 21 Mar 2008 05:26:43 -0700 (PDT),
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Mar 21, 5:18*am, Larry Dighera > wrote:
>> >> I believe Part 97 may have prohibited
>> >> the pilot from departing IFR on runway 27:
>>
>> >No, it's not a prohibition for Part 91 flights.
>> >"91.175f: Civil airport takeoff minimums. This paragraph applies to
>> >persons operating an aircraft under part 121, 125, 129, or 135 of this
>> >chapter.
>>
>> Would a weather minimum exemption (ceiling and visibility) also exempt
>> the requirement to use a DP/ODP if assigned to that runway?
>
>It wouldn't. But the qualification at the beginning of 91.175f isn't
>just a weather-minimum exemption. It scopes over all of 91.175f,
>including 91.175f1 (weather minimums) and 91.175f3 (ODPs).
>
>Of course, what's permitted may not be wise.

Um, since the beginning of 91.175f in it's entirety is "Civil airport
takeoff minimums. Unless otherwise authorized by the Administrator, no
pilot operating an aircraft under parts 121, 125, 129, or 135 of this
chapter may take off from a civil airport under IFR unless weather
conditions are at or above the weather minimum for IFR takeoff
prescribed for that airport under part 97 of this chapter. If takeoff
minimums are not prescribed under part 97 of this chapter for a
particular airport, the following minimums apply to takeoffs under IFR
for aircraft operating under those parts: " where do you see that it's
anything other than a weather-minimum? (f)1 (f)2 and (f)3 define
standard visibility requirements for takeoff referenced to how many
engines or helicopter, nothing about DP or ODP.

I don't see offhand anything in part 91 that speaks to DP/ODP directly
at all. You might be right on there being nothing in 91 for it, but
91.175(f) isn't your basis. Still, taking off on a runway that's
listed as "NA - Obsticle" in the AF/D without being able to see it at
night isn't wise.

[[email protected]]

On Mar 21, 11:08*am, Peter Clark
> wrote:
> Um, since the beginning of 91.175f in it's entirety is "[...]"
> where do you see that it's anything other than a weather-minimum? *
> (f)1 (f)2 and (f)3 define
> standard visibility requirements for takeoff referenced to how many
> engines or helicopter, nothing about DP or ODP.

The first sentence of 91.175f (exempting Part 91) occurs prior to f1,
f2, and f3, and scopes over all of those. Please re-read 91.175f3; it
does refer to ODPs.

Part 97 says what the takeoff minimums and ODPs are. But 91.175f says
which flights the Part 97 resrictions do or don't apply to.

[[email protected]]

On Mar 21, 11:08*am, Peter Clark
> wrote:
> Um, since the beginning of 91.175f in it's entirety is "Civil airport
> takeoff minimums. Unless otherwise authorized by the Administrator, no
> pilot operating an aircraft under parts 121, 125, 129, or 135 of this
> chapter may take off from a civil airport under IFR unless weather
> conditions are at or above the weather minimum for IFR takeoff
> prescribed for that airport under part 97 of this chapter. [...]"

Oops, I shouldn't have snipped your FAR quote from my previous reply;
the quote is the crux of the matter. What you've quoted does not match
the CFRs as currently given on the government's web site (just google
e-CFR). There, 91.175f begins as I quoted it previously. Perhaps
you're referring to an obsolete version?

[Roger[_4_]]

On Fri, 21 Mar 2008 05:58:38 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

>On Mar 21, 8:04*am, Denny > wrote:
>> Now, I don't know what I would have done had that been my son I was
>> picking up at that airport that night...
>> Given this airport down in a hole, a pitch black night, no horizon,
>> rapidly rising ground, and low clouds;
>
>The dark and clouds shouldn't have been prohibitive, given the IFR
>flight plan. The airport wasn't in a hole--terrain was flat for two
>miles west and forever to the north and northeast (the direction of
>the destination).
>
>What puzzles me is not the decision to take off, but rather the low
>climb rate and the decision to use runway 27. If the weather resembled
>what was reported nearby at OKV, runway 9 would have had a negligible
>tailwind component.

Probably the same reason after all these years of using tools I stuck
my thumb in a table saw a little over a month ago. Up 16 hours,
something on his mind, decision making capabilities gone out the
window.

BTW, the thumb is healing nicely but the thumb print will never be the
same and being "just a tad sensitive" I seem to keep poking things
with it.
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Edward A. Falk]

In article >,
Dan > wrote:
>
>The Mooney must be more efficient, given it's narrow surface, but you
>can't wear a hat and you have to really like your co-pilot!

True. Luckily, I don't and I do.

--
-Ed Falk,
http://thespamdiaries.blogspot.com/

[Peter Clark]

On Fri, 21 Mar 2008 08:28:46 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

>On Mar 21, 11:08*am, Peter Clark
> wrote:
>> Um, since the beginning of 91.175f in it's entirety is "[...]"
>> where do you see that it's anything other than a weather-minimum? *
>> (f)1 (f)2 and (f)3 define
>> standard visibility requirements for takeoff referenced to how many
>> engines or helicopter, nothing about DP or ODP.
>
>The first sentence of 91.175f (exempting Part 91) occurs prior to f1,
>f2, and f3, and scopes over all of those. Please re-read 91.175f3; it
>does refer to ODPs.
>
>Part 97 says what the takeoff minimums and ODPs are. But 91.175f says
>which flights the Part 97 resrictions do or don't apply to.

Sec. 91.175 - Takeoff and landing under IFR.

(f) Civil airport takeoff minimums. Unless otherwise authorized by the
Administrator, no pilot operating an aircraft under parts 121, 125,
129, or 135 of this chapter may take off from a civil airport under
IFR unless weather conditions are at or above the weather minimum for
IFR takeoff prescribed for that airport under part 97 of this chapter.
If takeoff minimums are not prescribed under part 97 of this chapter
for a particular airport, the following minimums apply to takeoffs
under IFR for aircraft operating under those parts:

(1) For aircraft, other than helicopters, having two engines or less
-- 1 statute mile visibility.

(2) For aircraft having more than two engines -- 1/2 statute mile
visibility.

(3) For helicopters -- 1/2 statute mile visibility.

Where does it say DP/ODP? It says weather conditions.

Part 97:

Sec. 97.1 - Applicability.

This part prescribes standard instrument approach procedures for
instrument letdown to airports in the United States and the weather
minimums that apply to takeoffs and landings under IFR at those
airports.

Says IAP and weather minimums, not DP/ODP.

Where do you see DP/ODP?

[Peter Clark]

On Fri, 21 Mar 2008 08:36:46 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

>On Mar 21, 11:08*am, Peter Clark
> wrote:
>> Um, since the beginning of 91.175f in it's entirety is "Civil airport
>> takeoff minimums. Unless otherwise authorized by the Administrator, no
>> pilot operating an aircraft under parts 121, 125, 129, or 135 of this
>> chapter may take off from a civil airport under IFR unless weather
>> conditions are at or above the weather minimum for IFR takeoff
>> prescribed for that airport under part 97 of this chapter. [...]"
>
>Oops, I shouldn't have snipped your FAR quote from my previous reply;
>the quote is the crux of the matter. What you've quoted does not match
>the CFRs as currently given on the government's web site (just google
>e-CFR). There, 91.175f begins as I quoted it previously. Perhaps
>you're referring to an obsolete version?

Original paste was from risingup. Looks like they might need to
update the FAR. Interesting.

[[email protected]]

On Mar 21, 1:23*pm, Peter Clark
> wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Mar 2008 08:36:46 -0700 (PDT),
> wrote:
>
> >What you've quoted does not match
> >the CFRs as currently given on the government's web site (just google
> >e-CFR). There, 91.175f begins as I quoted it previously. Perhaps
> >you're referring to an obsolete version?
>
> Original paste was from risingup. *Looks like they might need to
> update the FAR. *Interesting.

Risingup.com's version of that section is from 2001. Their page
contains a link to the 2004 amendment, but the link is broken. The
most recent amendment was in 2007. Risingup's database copyright says
1998-2006, so it may not have been updated for a couple of years. It
has a disclaimer saying not to trust it.

[Peter Clark]

On Fri, 21 Mar 2008 10:40:37 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

>On Mar 21, 1:23*pm, Peter Clark
> wrote:
>> On Fri, 21 Mar 2008 08:36:46 -0700 (PDT),
>> wrote:
>>
>> >What you've quoted does not match
>> >the CFRs as currently given on the government's web site (just google
>> >e-CFR). There, 91.175f begins as I quoted it previously. Perhaps
>> >you're referring to an obsolete version?
>>
>> Original paste was from risingup. *Looks like they might need to
>> update the FAR. *Interesting.
>
>Risingup.com's version of that section is from 2001. Their page
>contains a link to the 2004 amendment, but the link is broken. The
>most recent amendment was in 2007. Risingup's database copyright says
>1998-2006, so it may not have been updated for a couple of years. It
>has a disclaimer saying not to trust it.

Yea, but I've not seen it be that wrong on something before.

[[email protected]]

On Mar 21, 1:43*pm, Peter Clark
> wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Mar 2008 10:40:37 -0700 (PDT),
> wrote:
> >Risingup.com's version of that section is from 2001. Their page
> >contains a link to the 2004 amendment, but the link is broken. The
> >most recent amendment was in 2007. Risingup's database copyright says
> >1998-2006, so it may not have been updated for a couple of years. It
> >has a disclaimer saying not to trust it.
>
> Yea, but I've not seen it be that wrong on something before.

How often have you cross-checked? (You didn't in this instance even
after you found text there that differed from what I'd already posted,
so I assume you don't routinely verify what appears there.)

But yeah, most of the CFRs are fairly static, so that probably limits
their opportunity to get it wrong.

[[email protected]]

On Mar 21, 1:43*pm, Peter Clark
> wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Mar 2008 10:40:37 -0700 (PDT),
> wrote:
> >Risingup.com's version of that section is from 2001. Their page
> >contains a link to the 2004 amendment, but the link is broken. The
> >most recent amendment was in 2007. Risingup's database copyright says
> >1998-2006, so it may not have been updated for a couple of years. It
> >has a disclaimer saying not to trust it.
>
> Yea, but I've not seen it be that wrong on something before.

I notice that its version of 61.1 says it's from 1997; but the latest
amendment was in 2004.

It seems like a great resource for historical versions of the FARs,
but I wouldn't use it for anything current.

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Roger wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Mar 2008 08:41:05 -0400, Dudley Henriques
> > wrote:
>
>> Roger wrote:
>>> On Wed, 19 Mar 2008 22:49:23 -0400, Dudley Henriques
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>
>>> And multitasking. Why is it that approach always manages to squeeze a
>>> 5 minute transmission into 20 seconds telling you what to do for the
>>> next 15 minutes right at the outer marker when you are busier than a
>>> cat covering crap on a marble floor and hauling dirt two miles. This
>>> can be particularly interesting if there is only one ILS, it has a
>>> tail wind of 20 knots and you have to circle to land WHILE departing
>>> traffic is going the other direction.
>>> Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
>>> (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
>>> www.rogerhalstead.com
>> This is all true, and leans heavily into the IFR experience for all
>> airplanes, especially the high performance aircraft.
>> What I had in mind was much more basic; the getting out there and
>> practicing with the airplane in the area where a lot of the accidents
>> actually happen.....basic flying.
>
> Agreed. If the pilot is proficient enough to do the approaches,
> holds, and other *stuff* dished out by ATC around the airports (IE
> maneuvers under a heavy work load) the cross country part should be
> easy.
>
> I would think the majority of accidents occur while maneuvering near
> the airports regardless of whether the pilot is flying a Cessna 172 or
> a Cirrus SR-22. Things just happen faster and the workload is higher
> in the high performance stuff.
> Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
> (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
> www.rogerhalstead.com

Something our human factors accident workgroup came up with early on is
the tie in between accidents and a breakdown in the basics somewhere in
the accident chain .
On the face of this statement, this might seem obvious, but it's
amazing how this link shows up under scrutiny in every accident
involving human factors.

--
Dudley Henriques

[Dan[_10_]]

On Mar 21, 8:27 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:

>
> Something our human factors accident workgroup came up with early on is
> the tie in between accidents and a breakdown in the basics somewhere in
> the accident chain .
> On the face of this statement, this might seem obvious, but it's
> amazing how this link shows up under scrutiny in every accident
> involving human factors.
>
> --
> Dudley Henriques

The dangerous reality about the accident chain is that many pilots get
away with just this one tiny thing over and over.

Nothing breeds complacency like unexpected success.


Dan Mc

[Bob F.[_2_]]

I had an interesting event years ago with an owner of a light twin who took
off from FXE to go to PMP, just after lift off, reach down to pull the gear
up, stopped and said, "you know what, It's only 7 miles to PMP, I'm just
going to leave the gear down". Ok, sounds ok to me. There was a quick call
to PMP, two turns later and we are downwind. He does a GUMPS check and
RETRACTS the gear. I said to myself, this is going to be interesting. He's
trying to slow the airplane down but hasn't put it together that he just got
rid of a lot of drag. He turns final, still over speed, and I ask him to
do another GUMP check and he misses it again. Halfway down final I tell him
to call the tower and tell him we are going around. He does, initiates a go
around procedure and this time, on climb out, realizes the gear is already
up. What a surprise look on his face. So after we got on the ground and
started talking about this, we wondered what it was that he was actually
training himself to do. He was not correlating gear up - take off, gear
down -landing. Nor was he correlating "three green - gear down". All he was
training himself to do was to "flip the switch into the other position". We
talked about using rituals in order to reduce accidents, like when you take
off, bring the gear up, no matter how close the next landing will be. I
also have never heard of one of my students land gear up since I teach 3
checks. 1 full check list before pattern, 2 enter pattern GUMPS list, and 3
short final say "three green".
--
Regards, BobF.
"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
...
> Roger wrote:
>> On Thu, 20 Mar 2008 08:41:05 -0400, Dudley Henriques
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> Roger wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 19 Mar 2008 22:49:23 -0400, Dudley Henriques
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>
>>>> And multitasking. Why is it that approach always manages to squeeze a
>>>> 5 minute transmission into 20 seconds telling you what to do for the
>>>> next 15 minutes right at the outer marker when you are busier than a
>>>> cat covering crap on a marble floor and hauling dirt two miles. This
>>>> can be particularly interesting if there is only one ILS, it has a
>>>> tail wind of 20 knots and you have to circle to land WHILE departing
>>>> traffic is going the other direction.
>>>> Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
>>>> (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
>>>> www.rogerhalstead.com
>>> This is all true, and leans heavily into the IFR experience for all
>>> airplanes, especially the high performance aircraft.
>>> What I had in mind was much more basic; the getting out there and
>>> practicing with the airplane in the area where a lot of the accidents
>>> actually happen.....basic flying.
>>
>> Agreed. If the pilot is proficient enough to do the approaches,
>> holds, and other *stuff* dished out by ATC around the airports (IE
>> maneuvers under a heavy work load) the cross country part should be
>> easy.
>>
>> I would think the majority of accidents occur while maneuvering near
>> the airports regardless of whether the pilot is flying a Cessna 172 or
>> a Cirrus SR-22. Things just happen faster and the workload is higher
>> in the high performance stuff.
>> Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
>> (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
>> www.rogerhalstead.com
>
> Something our human factors accident workgroup came up with early on is
> the tie in between accidents and a breakdown in the basics somewhere in
> the accident chain .
> On the face of this statement, this might seem obvious, but it's amazing
> how this link shows up under scrutiny in every accident involving human
> factors.
>
> --
> Dudley Henriques

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Bob F. wrote:
> I had an interesting event years ago with an owner of a light twin who
> took off from FXE to go to PMP, just after lift off, reach down to pull
> the gear up, stopped and said, "you know what, It's only 7 miles to PMP,
> I'm just going to leave the gear down". Ok, sounds ok to me. There was
> a quick call to PMP, two turns later and we are downwind. He does a
> GUMPS check and RETRACTS the gear. I said to myself, this is going to
> be interesting. He's trying to slow the airplane down but hasn't put it
> together that he just got rid of a lot of drag. He turns final, still
> over speed, and I ask him to do another GUMP check and he misses it
> again. Halfway down final I tell him to call the tower and tell him we
> are going around. He does, initiates a go around procedure and this
> time, on climb out, realizes the gear is already up. What a surprise
> look on his face. So after we got on the ground and started talking
> about this, we wondered what it was that he was actually training
> himself to do. He was not correlating gear up - take off, gear down
> -landing. Nor was he correlating "three green - gear down". All he was
> training himself to do was to "flip the switch into the other
> position". We talked about using rituals in order to reduce accidents,
> like when you take off, bring the gear up, no matter how close the next
> landing will be. I also have never heard of one of my students land
> gear up since I teach 3 checks. 1 full check list before pattern, 2
> enter pattern GUMPS list, and 3 short final say "three green".

I do the same, and did so for years while instructing. Many gear up
accidents are caused by the go around scenario where the gear cycle gets
reversed. I've always taught that a go around means a complete clean up
of the airplane, then a recheck of the prelanding checklist. I also
agree on the triple check. I suggest a final GUMPS check performed by a
verbal touch, identify, and verify method immediately after the base to
final turn.
There's nothing better to keep you in good health in the aviation
business than a good solid no changes allowed habit pattern!!

--
Dudley Henriques

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Dudley Henriques > wrote in
:

> Bob F. wrote:
>> I had an interesting event years ago with an owner of a light twin
>> who took off from FXE to go to PMP, just after lift off, reach down
>> to pull the gear up, stopped and said, "you know what, It's only 7
>> miles to PMP, I'm just going to leave the gear down". Ok, sounds ok
>> to me. There was a quick call to PMP, two turns later and we are
>> downwind. He does a GUMPS check and RETRACTS the gear. I said to
>> myself, this is going to be interesting. He's trying to slow the
>> airplane down but hasn't put it together that he just got rid of a
>> lot of drag. He turns final, still over speed, and I ask him to do
>> another GUMP check and he misses it again. Halfway down final I tell
>> him to call the tower and tell him we are going around. He does,
>> initiates a go around procedure and this time, on climb out, realizes
>> the gear is already up. What a surprise look on his face. So after
>> we got on the ground and started talking about this, we wondered what
>> it was that he was actually training himself to do. He was not
>> correlating gear up - take off, gear down -landing. Nor was he
>> correlating "three green - gear down". All he was training himself
>> to do was to "flip the switch into the other position". We talked
>> about using rituals in order to reduce accidents, like when you take
>> off, bring the gear up, no matter how close the next landing will be.
>> I also have never heard of one of my students land gear up since I
>> teach 3 checks. 1 full check list before pattern, 2 enter pattern
>> GUMPS list, and 3 short final say "three green".
>
> I do the same, and did so for years while instructing. Many gear up
> accidents are caused by the go around scenario where the gear cycle
> gets reversed. I've always taught that a go around means a complete
> clean up of the airplane, then a recheck of the prelanding checklist.
> I also agree on the triple check. I suggest a final GUMPS check
> performed by a verbal touch, identify, and verify method immediately
> after the base to final turn.
> There's nothing better to keep you in good health in the aviation
> business than a good solid no changes allowed habit pattern!!
>


Hmm. My own view of it is that at any given moment, you're screwing
somethng up. If there's a mistake to be made, you're going to make it.
That means looking around for the error and double checking double
checking and double checking again. Assuming that your habits will
protect you just never worked for me. I'm not saying you shouldn't have
them, far from it, I'm just saying the best safety net I've discovered
for myself is that of a heft suspicion that ATC, the company, Boeing,
the FO and myself especially, are all conspiring to kill me.


Bertie

[Roger[_4_]]

On Fri, 21 Mar 2008 20:27:01 -0400, Dudley Henriques
> wrote:

>Roger wrote:
>> On Thu, 20 Mar 2008 08:41:05 -0400, Dudley Henriques
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> Roger wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 19 Mar 2008 22:49:23 -0400, Dudley Henriques
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>
>>>> And multitasking. Why is it that approach always manages to squeeze a
>>>> 5 minute transmission into 20 seconds telling you what to do for the
>>>> next 15 minutes right at the outer marker when you are busier than a
>>>> cat covering crap on a marble floor and hauling dirt two miles. This
>>>> can be particularly interesting if there is only one ILS, it has a
>>>> tail wind of 20 knots and you have to circle to land WHILE departing
>>>> traffic is going the other direction.
>>>> Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
>>>> (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
>>>> www.rogerhalstead.com
>>> This is all true, and leans heavily into the IFR experience for all
>>> airplanes, especially the high performance aircraft.
>>> What I had in mind was much more basic; the getting out there and
>>> practicing with the airplane in the area where a lot of the accidents
>>> actually happen.....basic flying.
>>
>> Agreed. If the pilot is proficient enough to do the approaches,
>> holds, and other *stuff* dished out by ATC around the airports (IE
>> maneuvers under a heavy work load) the cross country part should be
>> easy.
>>
>> I would think the majority of accidents occur while maneuvering near
>> the airports regardless of whether the pilot is flying a Cessna 172 or
>> a Cirrus SR-22. Things just happen faster and the workload is higher
>> in the high performance stuff.
>> Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
>> (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
>> www.rogerhalstead.com
>
>Something our human factors accident workgroup came up with early on is
>the tie in between accidents and a breakdown in the basics somewhere in
>the accident chain .
>On the face of this statement, this might seem obvious, but it's
>amazing how this link shows up under scrutiny in every accident
>involving human factors.

On a few occasions I've had instructors push me to my limits and even
to the breaking point. Not as a primary student, but flying
instruments and flight reviews. These came about when I did
particularly well. On a review it was "Hey! Let's keep going for a
while if it's OK with you" after we'd done everything.

One was while working on my instrument rating when I was ready to go
take the PTS. We spent 2 1/2 hours partial panel doing timed turns to
a heading, timed climbing and descending turns to a heading AND
altitude, Timed climbing and descending turns (at constant airspeeds)
to intercept radials or courses inbound and outbound. All of this
was done using one nav (VOR or ADF) and one com and as I said, partial
panel.
Oh, one step down hold to the approach over an NDB and one VOR entered
from a hold and these included the published missed. That sounds
like a lot to do in 2 1/2 hours but this stuff was combined and we
went directly from one to the next. The only real breather was after
the missed on the NDB I had about 6 minutes to rest up before the VOR
hold course reversal.<:-)) No way could I do that today.

Given the proper conditions be they physical, psychological, flight
conditions, or aircraft we can all reach out limits sooner or later
and these limits can vary widely. Hitting mental overload is a very
humbling experience and I think a good experience as well if done
under controlled conditions. Like the "vertigo chair", none of us are
completely immune. <:-))

I was rung out after that one but I was still flying OK.
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[[email protected]]

On Mar 21, 12:18*pm, Roger > wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Mar 2008 05:58:38 -0700 (PDT),
> wrote:
> >What puzzles me is not the decision to take off, but rather the low
> >climb rate and the decision to use runway 27. If the weather resembled
> >what was reported nearby at OKV, runway 9 would have had a negligible
> >tailwind component.
>
> Probably the same reason after all these years of using tools I stuck
> my thumb in a table saw a little over a month ago. *Up 16 hours,
> something on his mind, decision making capabilities gone out the
> window. *

Yeah, probably so. Sad.

Sorry 'bout the thumb.

[Dan[_10_]]

On Mar 21, 11:51 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>
> I do the same, and did so for years while instructing. Many gear up
> accidents are caused by the go around scenario where the gear cycle gets
> reversed. I've always taught that a go around means a complete clean up
> of the airplane, then a recheck of the prelanding checklist. I also
> agree on the triple check. I suggest a final GUMPS check performed by a
> verbal touch, identify, and verify method immediately after the base to
> final turn.
> There's nothing better to keep you in good health in the aviation
> business than a good solid no changes allowed habit pattern!!
>
> --
> Dudley Henriques

A good habit that was drilled into me during my Comm work was to
extend gear first. No flaps unless gear down was confirmed.

The reasoning in that with full flaps and 13" MAP the descent profile
is close enough to full flaps + gear down, and the gear horn would be
the only remaining safeguard.

Another was the have gear down upon pattern entry. This forces
airspeed control prior to pattern entry (helps maintain the discipline
to be at Pattern altitude prior to pattern entry as well), provides
more time to confirm "gear down and locked" and results in 3 full
GUMPS checks -- downwind midfield, abeam the numbers, on base, on
final.

The layout in the A36 helps this, as the gear switch is on the other
side of the monstrous yoke.

In the air: Start right before left. (some use the term "Flip the down
switch")

On the ground: Don't reach to that side.

The Straight 35 has the Piano key controls. I thought that would make
it far too easy to confuse things, but what it does is force me to
point, say, and do.


Dan Mc

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
> :
>
>> Bob F. wrote:
>>> I had an interesting event years ago with an owner of a light twin
>>> who took off from FXE to go to PMP, just after lift off, reach down
>>> to pull the gear up, stopped and said, "you know what, It's only 7
>>> miles to PMP, I'm just going to leave the gear down". Ok, sounds ok
>>> to me. There was a quick call to PMP, two turns later and we are
>>> downwind. He does a GUMPS check and RETRACTS the gear. I said to
>>> myself, this is going to be interesting. He's trying to slow the
>>> airplane down but hasn't put it together that he just got rid of a
>>> lot of drag. He turns final, still over speed, and I ask him to do
>>> another GUMP check and he misses it again. Halfway down final I tell
>>> him to call the tower and tell him we are going around. He does,
>>> initiates a go around procedure and this time, on climb out, realizes
>>> the gear is already up. What a surprise look on his face. So after
>>> we got on the ground and started talking about this, we wondered what
>>> it was that he was actually training himself to do. He was not
>>> correlating gear up - take off, gear down -landing. Nor was he
>>> correlating "three green - gear down". All he was training himself
>>> to do was to "flip the switch into the other position". We talked
>>> about using rituals in order to reduce accidents, like when you take
>>> off, bring the gear up, no matter how close the next landing will be.
>>> I also have never heard of one of my students land gear up since I
>>> teach 3 checks. 1 full check list before pattern, 2 enter pattern
>>> GUMPS list, and 3 short final say "three green".
>> I do the same, and did so for years while instructing. Many gear up
>> accidents are caused by the go around scenario where the gear cycle
>> gets reversed. I've always taught that a go around means a complete
>> clean up of the airplane, then a recheck of the prelanding checklist.
>> I also agree on the triple check. I suggest a final GUMPS check
>> performed by a verbal touch, identify, and verify method immediately
>> after the base to final turn.
>> There's nothing better to keep you in good health in the aviation
>> business than a good solid no changes allowed habit pattern!!
>>
>
>
> Hmm. My own view of it is that at any given moment, you're screwing
> somethng up. If there's a mistake to be made, you're going to make it.
> That means looking around for the error and double checking double
> checking and double checking again. Assuming that your habits will
> protect you just never worked for me. I'm not saying you shouldn't have
> them, far from it, I'm just saying the best safety net I've discovered
> for myself is that of a heft suspicion that ATC, the company, Boeing,
> the FO and myself especially, are all conspiring to kill me.
>
>
> Bertie

Basically no conflict here. Knowing when to think defensively is
entirely cohesive with the existence of good habit patterns in a pilot.



--
Dudley Henriques

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Dan wrote:
> On Mar 21, 11:51 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>> I do the same, and did so for years while instructing. Many gear up
>> accidents are caused by the go around scenario where the gear cycle gets
>> reversed. I've always taught that a go around means a complete clean up
>> of the airplane, then a recheck of the prelanding checklist. I also
>> agree on the triple check. I suggest a final GUMPS check performed by a
>> verbal touch, identify, and verify method immediately after the base to
>> final turn.
>> There's nothing better to keep you in good health in the aviation
>> business than a good solid no changes allowed habit pattern!!
>>
>> --
>> Dudley Henriques
>
> A good habit that was drilled into me during my Comm work was to
> extend gear first. No flaps unless gear down was confirmed.
>
> The reasoning in that with full flaps and 13" MAP the descent profile
> is close enough to full flaps + gear down, and the gear horn would be
> the only remaining safeguard.
>
> Another was the have gear down upon pattern entry. This forces
> airspeed control prior to pattern entry (helps maintain the discipline
> to be at Pattern altitude prior to pattern entry as well), provides
> more time to confirm "gear down and locked" and results in 3 full
> GUMPS checks -- downwind midfield, abeam the numbers, on base, on
> final.
>
> The layout in the A36 helps this, as the gear switch is on the other
> side of the monstrous yoke.
>
> In the air: Start right before left. (some use the term "Flip the down
> switch")
>
> On the ground: Don't reach to that side.
>
> The Straight 35 has the Piano key controls. I thought that would make
> it far too easy to confuse things, but what it does is force me to
> point, say, and do.
>
>
> Dan Mc
>
>
>
>
>
>

What gets confusing to new pilots sometimes is that flying requires both
structure and the ability to think and act freely. The operating
environment is dynamic and as such is constantly changing. This is the
very essence of a multi-task environment.
Good structure and habit patterns are the tools that take the "edge" off
the potential overload and allow the pilot some room to think.
When you are operating within the area where your thinking process is
ahead of the required tasks, you are competent at that moment in time.

I view the establishment of solid habit patterns in a pilot as one of
the most prime responsibilities of a flight instructor.

--
Dudley Henriques

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Roger wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Mar 2008 20:27:01 -0400, Dudley Henriques
> > wrote:
>
>> Roger wrote:
>>> On Thu, 20 Mar 2008 08:41:05 -0400, Dudley Henriques
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> Roger wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 19 Mar 2008 22:49:23 -0400, Dudley Henriques
>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> And multitasking. Why is it that approach always manages to squeeze a
>>>>> 5 minute transmission into 20 seconds telling you what to do for the
>>>>> next 15 minutes right at the outer marker when you are busier than a
>>>>> cat covering crap on a marble floor and hauling dirt two miles. This
>>>>> can be particularly interesting if there is only one ILS, it has a
>>>>> tail wind of 20 knots and you have to circle to land WHILE departing
>>>>> traffic is going the other direction.
>>>>> Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
>>>>> (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
>>>>> www.rogerhalstead.com
>>>> This is all true, and leans heavily into the IFR experience for all
>>>> airplanes, especially the high performance aircraft.
>>>> What I had in mind was much more basic; the getting out there and
>>>> practicing with the airplane in the area where a lot of the accidents
>>>> actually happen.....basic flying.
>>> Agreed. If the pilot is proficient enough to do the approaches,
>>> holds, and other *stuff* dished out by ATC around the airports (IE
>>> maneuvers under a heavy work load) the cross country part should be
>>> easy.
>>>
>>> I would think the majority of accidents occur while maneuvering near
>>> the airports regardless of whether the pilot is flying a Cessna 172 or
>>> a Cirrus SR-22. Things just happen faster and the workload is higher
>>> in the high performance stuff.
>>> Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
>>> (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
>>> www.rogerhalstead.com
>> Something our human factors accident workgroup came up with early on is
>> the tie in between accidents and a breakdown in the basics somewhere in
>> the accident chain .
>> On the face of this statement, this might seem obvious, but it's
>> amazing how this link shows up under scrutiny in every accident
>> involving human factors.
>
> On a few occasions I've had instructors push me to my limits and even
> to the breaking point. Not as a primary student, but flying
> instruments and flight reviews. These came about when I did
> particularly well. On a review it was "Hey! Let's keep going for a
> while if it's OK with you" after we'd done everything.
>
> One was while working on my instrument rating when I was ready to go
> take the PTS. We spent 2 1/2 hours partial panel doing timed turns to
> a heading, timed climbing and descending turns to a heading AND
> altitude, Timed climbing and descending turns (at constant airspeeds)
> to intercept radials or courses inbound and outbound. All of this
> was done using one nav (VOR or ADF) and one com and as I said, partial
> panel.
> Oh, one step down hold to the approach over an NDB and one VOR entered
> from a hold and these included the published missed. That sounds
> like a lot to do in 2 1/2 hours but this stuff was combined and we
> went directly from one to the next. The only real breather was after
> the missed on the NDB I had about 6 minutes to rest up before the VOR
> hold course reversal.<:-)) No way could I do that today.
>
> Given the proper conditions be they physical, psychological, flight
> conditions, or aircraft we can all reach out limits sooner or later
> and these limits can vary widely. Hitting mental overload is a very
> humbling experience and I think a good experience as well if done
> under controlled conditions. Like the "vertigo chair", none of us are
> completely immune. <:-))
>
> I was rung out after that one but I was still flying OK.
> Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
> (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
> www.rogerhalstead.com

In effect, this is what all of us do as pilots.
Every time we fly, we operate in a world of changing personal limits. At
any moment in time, based on literally hundreds of factors, we will
either be ahead or behind the airplane we are flying.
This constantly changing dynamic is the very essence of the human
factors issue in flying.

--
Dudley Henriques

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Dudley Henriques > wrote in news:n-
:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> Bob F. wrote:
>>>> I had an interesting event years ago with an owner of a light twin
>>>> who took off from FXE to go to PMP, just after lift off, reach down
>>>> to pull the gear up, stopped and said, "you know what, It's only 7
>>>> miles to PMP, I'm just going to leave the gear down". Ok, sounds
ok
>>>> to me. There was a quick call to PMP, two turns later and we are
>>>> downwind. He does a GUMPS check and RETRACTS the gear. I said to
>>>> myself, this is going to be interesting. He's trying to slow the
>>>> airplane down but hasn't put it together that he just got rid of a
>>>> lot of drag. He turns final, still over speed, and I ask him to
do
>>>> another GUMP check and he misses it again. Halfway down final I
tell
>>>> him to call the tower and tell him we are going around. He does,
>>>> initiates a go around procedure and this time, on climb out,
realizes
>>>> the gear is already up. What a surprise look on his face. So
after
>>>> we got on the ground and started talking about this, we wondered
what
>>>> it was that he was actually training himself to do. He was not
>>>> correlating gear up - take off, gear down -landing. Nor was he
>>>> correlating "three green - gear down". All he was training himself
>>>> to do was to "flip the switch into the other position". We talked
>>>> about using rituals in order to reduce accidents, like when you
take
>>>> off, bring the gear up, no matter how close the next landing will
be.
>>>> I also have never heard of one of my students land gear up since I
>>>> teach 3 checks. 1 full check list before pattern, 2 enter pattern
>>>> GUMPS list, and 3 short final say "three green".
>>> I do the same, and did so for years while instructing. Many gear up
>>> accidents are caused by the go around scenario where the gear cycle
>>> gets reversed. I've always taught that a go around means a complete
>>> clean up of the airplane, then a recheck of the prelanding
checklist.
>>> I also agree on the triple check. I suggest a final GUMPS check
>>> performed by a verbal touch, identify, and verify method immediately
>>> after the base to final turn.
>>> There's nothing better to keep you in good health in the aviation
>>> business than a good solid no changes allowed habit pattern!!
>>>
>>
>>
>> Hmm. My own view of it is that at any given moment, you're screwing
>> somethng up. If there's a mistake to be made, you're going to make
it.
>> That means looking around for the error and double checking double
>> checking and double checking again. Assuming that your habits will
>> protect you just never worked for me. I'm not saying you shouldn't
have
>> them, far from it, I'm just saying the best safety net I've
discovered
>> for myself is that of a heft suspicion that ATC, the company, Boeing,
>> the FO and myself especially, are all conspiring to kill me.
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>
> Basically no conflict here.

Oh I meant none, just elaborating using my own "thing"

Knowing when to think defensively is
> entirely cohesive with the existence of good habit patterns in a
pilot.
>
>
Xactly.

Bertie

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> Dudley Henriques > wrote in news:n-
> :
>
>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>>> :
>>>
>>>> Bob F. wrote:
>>>>> I had an interesting event years ago with an owner of a light twin
>>>>> who took off from FXE to go to PMP, just after lift off, reach down
>>>>> to pull the gear up, stopped and said, "you know what, It's only 7
>>>>> miles to PMP, I'm just going to leave the gear down". Ok, sounds
> ok
>>>>> to me. There was a quick call to PMP, two turns later and we are
>>>>> downwind. He does a GUMPS check and RETRACTS the gear. I said to
>>>>> myself, this is going to be interesting. He's trying to slow the
>>>>> airplane down but hasn't put it together that he just got rid of a
>>>>> lot of drag. He turns final, still over speed, and I ask him to
> do
>>>>> another GUMP check and he misses it again. Halfway down final I
> tell
>>>>> him to call the tower and tell him we are going around. He does,
>>>>> initiates a go around procedure and this time, on climb out,
> realizes
>>>>> the gear is already up. What a surprise look on his face. So
> after
>>>>> we got on the ground and started talking about this, we wondered
> what
>>>>> it was that he was actually training himself to do. He was not
>>>>> correlating gear up - take off, gear down -landing. Nor was he
>>>>> correlating "three green - gear down". All he was training himself
>>>>> to do was to "flip the switch into the other position". We talked
>>>>> about using rituals in order to reduce accidents, like when you
> take
>>>>> off, bring the gear up, no matter how close the next landing will
> be.
>>>>> I also have never heard of one of my students land gear up since I
>>>>> teach 3 checks. 1 full check list before pattern, 2 enter pattern
>>>>> GUMPS list, and 3 short final say "three green".
>>>> I do the same, and did so for years while instructing. Many gear up
>>>> accidents are caused by the go around scenario where the gear cycle
>>>> gets reversed. I've always taught that a go around means a complete
>>>> clean up of the airplane, then a recheck of the prelanding
> checklist.
>>>> I also agree on the triple check. I suggest a final GUMPS check
>>>> performed by a verbal touch, identify, and verify method immediately
>>>> after the base to final turn.
>>>> There's nothing better to keep you in good health in the aviation
>>>> business than a good solid no changes allowed habit pattern!!
>>>>
>>>
>>> Hmm. My own view of it is that at any given moment, you're screwing
>>> somethng up. If there's a mistake to be made, you're going to make
> it.
>>> That means looking around for the error and double checking double
>>> checking and double checking again. Assuming that your habits will
>>> protect you just never worked for me. I'm not saying you shouldn't
> have
>>> them, far from it, I'm just saying the best safety net I've
> discovered
>>> for myself is that of a heft suspicion that ATC, the company, Boeing,
>>> the FO and myself especially, are all conspiring to kill me.
>>>
>>>
>>> Bertie
>> Basically no conflict here.
>
> Oh I meant none, just elaborating using my own "thing"
>
> Knowing when to think defensively is
>> entirely cohesive with the existence of good habit patterns in a
> pilot.
>>
> Xactly.
>
> Bertie
You have it exactly right. Each pilot should and will develop his/her
own method of dealing with the flying environment.

The "tools" we ingrain from the beginning will just be integrated and
used to reflect this individual platform.
The main thing is that we all have to learn to use some form of
structure within a solid habit pattern scenario.

--
Dudley Henriques

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Dudley Henriques > wrote in
:



> You have it exactly right. Each pilot should and will develop his/her
> own method of dealing with the flying environment.
>
> The "tools" we ingrain from the beginning will just be integrated and
> used to reflect this individual platform.
> The main thing is that we all have to learn to use some form of
> structure within a solid habit pattern scenario.

Yes. absolutlely.The thing is, when you are loaded up and your brain
turns to that of a lizard, it's the habits that you develop that wil
allow that tiny lizard brain to do what it has to do to save your neck.


Bertie
>

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
> :
>
>
>
>> You have it exactly right. Each pilot should and will develop his/her
>> own method of dealing with the flying environment.
>>
>> The "tools" we ingrain from the beginning will just be integrated and
>> used to reflect this individual platform.
>> The main thing is that we all have to learn to use some form of
>> structure within a solid habit pattern scenario.
>
> Yes. absolutlely.The thing is, when you are loaded up and your brain
> turns to that of a lizard, it's the habits that you develop that wil
> allow that tiny lizard brain to do what it has to do to save your neck.
>
>
> Bertie
>

This is exactly what I've been working on with our display pilots work
group. We're brainstorming questions like, "What causes a highly trained
demonstration pilot who knows his airplane, knows his skills, knows the
show site, knows the regulations, knows his personal limitations, has
attended the show safety meeting, is fully aware of the density altitude
and temperature at the show site, commit to a high gate inverted down
line pull that is too low to allow recovery.
It "ain't" easy, but we are working hard to find answers to questions
like these. There isn't any magic bullet solution to these issues.

--
Dudley Henriques

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Dudley Henriques > wrote in news:NtidnVqz55F6-
:

> This is exactly what I've been working on with our display pilots work
> group. We're brainstorming questions like, "What causes a highly
trained
> demonstration pilot who knows his airplane, knows his skills, knows
the
> show site, knows the regulations, knows his personal limitations, has
> attended the show safety meeting, is fully aware of the density
altitude
> and temperature at the show site, commit to a high gate inverted down
> line pull that is too low to allow recovery.
> It "ain't" easy, but we are working hard to find answers to questions
> like these. There isn't any magic bullet solution to these issues.
>
No, there isn't. you're obviously thinking of that Hurricane in the UK.
Are there any items that they think may have contributed? altimeter
setting? I never went in for field zero or QFE, but a lot of low level
guys do, as well as glider pilots. It's commonplace in the UK.
I suppose that it does give a you a quick no-math gate, though.



Bertie

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> Dudley Henriques > wrote in news:NtidnVqz55F6-
> :
>
>> This is exactly what I've been working on with our display pilots work
>> group. We're brainstorming questions like, "What causes a highly
> trained
>> demonstration pilot who knows his airplane, knows his skills, knows
> the
>> show site, knows the regulations, knows his personal limitations, has
>> attended the show safety meeting, is fully aware of the density
> altitude
>> and temperature at the show site, commit to a high gate inverted down
>> line pull that is too low to allow recovery.
>> It "ain't" easy, but we are working hard to find answers to questions
>> like these. There isn't any magic bullet solution to these issues.
>>
> No, there isn't. you're obviously thinking of that Hurricane in the UK.
> Are there any items that they think may have contributed? altimeter
> setting? I never went in for field zero or QFE, but a lot of low level
> guys do, as well as glider pilots. It's commonplace in the UK.
> I suppose that it does give a you a quick no-math gate, though.
>
>
>
> Bertie

I always preset at zero. It eliminates the math and gives you a familiar
visual cue through the high gates.

The Hurricane accident is indeed under scrutiny. One of our group was in
the show flying another warbird.
The Cane was flown by a pilot who was extremely well qualified and knew
his numbers. What caused him to commit in the specific instance that
killed him is still conjecture.
We all have opinions and have expressed them in the work group.
I can say that one common denominator was a cogent discussion on low
level hard decks as opposed to ground level unlimited waivers. There is
a lot of "opinion" on this issue alone.


--
Dudley Henriques

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Dudley Henriques > wrote in
:
>
> I always preset at zero. It eliminates the math and gives you a
familiar
> visual cue through the high gates.

I can see the value, just never liked it, myself. Can't say why.
>
> The Hurricane accident is indeed under scrutiny. One of our group was
in
> the show flying another warbird.
> The Cane was flown by a pilot who was extremely well qualified and
knew
> his numbers. What caused him to commit in the specific instance that
> killed him is still conjecture.
> We all have opinions and have expressed them in the work group.
> I can say that one common denominator was a cogent discussion on low
> level hard decks as opposed to ground level unlimited waivers. There
is
> a lot of "opinion" on this issue alone.

OK, you lost me here. You're talking about a low level floor of a few
hundred feet as opposed to an unlimited waiver? I can't see it making
alot of difference, to be honest, but that's your department...



Bertie

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
> :
>> I always preset at zero. It eliminates the math and gives you a
> familiar
>> visual cue through the high gates.
>
> I can see the value, just never liked it, myself. Can't say why.
>> The Hurricane accident is indeed under scrutiny. One of our group was
> in
>> the show flying another warbird.
>> The Cane was flown by a pilot who was extremely well qualified and
> knew
>> his numbers. What caused him to commit in the specific instance that
>> killed him is still conjecture.
>> We all have opinions and have expressed them in the work group.
>> I can say that one common denominator was a cogent discussion on low
>> level hard decks as opposed to ground level unlimited waivers. There
> is
>> a lot of "opinion" on this issue alone.
>
> OK, you lost me here. You're talking about a low level floor of a few
> hundred feet as opposed to an unlimited waiver? I can't see it making
> alot of difference, to be honest, but that's your department...
>
>
>
> Bertie

In low level work, many pilots, myself among them, feel that being
restricted to an arbitrary hard deck puts you in a decision making
process at a critical time in a vertical recovery.

Many pilots flying in this environment don't like the idea of trying to
"visualize" a hard deck vs an altimeter visual cue during this critical
time in a routine when you are visually and physically constantly
comparing the recovery sight picture to your radial g situation.

Also, using the ground allows a familiar visual cue at all locations
going through a known altitude at your high gate where the visual angles
are trended to giving you positive feedback on your accuracy.


--
Dudley Henriques

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Dudley Henriques > wrote in
:
>
> In low level work, many pilots, myself among them, feel that being
> restricted to an arbitrary hard deck puts you in a decision making
> process at a critical time in a vertical recovery.
>
> Many pilots flying in this environment don't like the idea of trying
to
> "visualize" a hard deck vs an altimeter visual cue during this
critical
> time in a routine when you are visually and physically constantly
> comparing the recovery sight picture to your radial g situation.

OK. Makes sense. When I started getting very low I almost never looked
at the altimeter anyway. I would never do a split S towards the deck in
any case and for other vertical stuff like a loop I'd be more concerned
with the speed and feel through the first half
>
> Also, using the ground allows a familiar visual cue at all locations
> going through a known altitude at your high gate where the visual
angles
> are trended to giving you positive feedback on your accuracy.
>

Yeah, also makes sense.

Bertie

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
> :
>> In low level work, many pilots, myself among them, feel that being
>> restricted to an arbitrary hard deck puts you in a decision making
>> process at a critical time in a vertical recovery.
>>
>> Many pilots flying in this environment don't like the idea of trying
> to
>> "visualize" a hard deck vs an altimeter visual cue during this
> critical
>> time in a routine when you are visually and physically constantly
>> comparing the recovery sight picture to your radial g situation.
>
> OK. Makes sense. When I started getting very low I almost never looked
> at the altimeter anyway. I would never do a split S towards the deck in
> any case and for other vertical stuff like a loop I'd be more concerned
> with the speed and feel through the first half
>> Also, using the ground allows a familiar visual cue at all locations
>> going through a known altitude at your high gate where the visual
> angles
>> are trended to giving you positive feedback on your accuracy.
>>
>
> Yeah, also makes sense.
>
> Bertie

Remember, we're talking professional display flying here. Some of these
guys and gals are unrestricted. That's level 1 flying and vertical
recoveries with these guys are made right on the deck. This means
extreme accuracy through their top gates where airspeed and altitude
have to be exactly right. Too slow and you lose altitude through the
float. Too fast and the recovery line is extended. Too low and you have
Chris Stricklin's Thunderbird F16 at Mountain Home, and "that ain't
good" :-))

--
Dudley Henriques

[Roger[_4_]]

On Fri, 21 Mar 2008 23:35:31 -0400, "Bob F." >
wrote:

>I had an interesting event years ago with an owner of a light twin who took
>off from FXE to go to PMP, just after lift off, reach down to pull the gear
>up, stopped and said, "you know what, It's only 7 miles to PMP, I'm just
>going to leave the gear down". Ok, sounds ok to me. There was a quick call
>to PMP, two turns later and we are downwind. He does a GUMPS check and
>RETRACTS the gear. I said to myself, this is going to be interesting. He's
>trying to slow the airplane down but hasn't put it together that he just got
>rid of a lot of drag. He turns final, still over speed, and I ask him to
>do another GUMP check and he misses it again. Halfway down final I tell him
>to call the tower and tell him we are going around. He does, initiates a go
>around procedure and this time, on climb out, realizes the gear is already
>up. What a surprise look on his face. So after we got on the ground and
>started talking about this, we wondered what it was that he was actually
>training himself to do. He was not correlating gear up - take off, gear
>down -landing. Nor was he correlating "three green - gear down". All he was
>training himself to do was to "flip the switch into the other position". We

It may not be that simple and in most cases I don't believe it is.
When I was getting checked out, I went through the whole 9 yards or
point to it, say it, then do it. recognized it and say it again.

I was ready to be signed off to make my insurance company happy. We
were on down wind, I hit the gear switch, waited, checked the green
light, pointed at the nose gear pointer, identified it as down,
adjusted the MP, added a tad bit of flaps. At the turn to base I was a
little fast but a little more flaps and steeper turn slowed me to
where I wanted. I again did the put my finger on the light, identify
it, and say it. I also pointed to the nose gear mechanical pointer,
and identified it as down On final I kept coming back on the power.
About 100 AGL the gear warning horn went off.

I had physically identified the lights and mechanical indicator three
times and each time I saw a green light and the pointer as down. IOW
I had not programmed myself to push buttons or flip switches. I saw
what I expected to see. Even though the light was red and the pointer
was up I really saw green and pointer down.

>talked about using rituals in order to reduce accidents, like when you take
>off, bring the gear up, no matter how close the next landing will be. I
>also have never heard of one of my students land gear up since I teach 3
>checks. 1 full check list before pattern, 2 enter pattern GUMPS list, and 3
>short final say "three green".

And my example shows that even then you can program yourself to see
what you expect. The human mind can be easily programmed.
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Roger[_4_]]

On Sat, 22 Mar 2008 05:10:15 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
wrote:

>Dudley Henriques > wrote in
:
>
>> Bob F. wrote:
>>> I had an interesting event years ago with an owner of a light twin
>>> who took off from FXE to go to PMP, just after lift off, reach down
>>> to pull the gear up, stopped and said, "you know what, It's only 7
>>> miles to PMP, I'm just going to leave the gear down". Ok, sounds ok
>>> to me. There was a quick call to PMP, two turns later and we are
>>> downwind. He does a GUMPS check and RETRACTS the gear. I said to
>>> myself, this is going to be interesting. He's trying to slow the
>>> airplane down but hasn't put it together that he just got rid of a
>>> lot of drag. He turns final, still over speed, and I ask him to do
>>> another GUMP check and he misses it again. Halfway down final I tell
>>> him to call the tower and tell him we are going around. He does,
>>> initiates a go around procedure and this time, on climb out, realizes
>>> the gear is already up. What a surprise look on his face. So after
>>> we got on the ground and started talking about this, we wondered what
>>> it was that he was actually training himself to do. He was not
>>> correlating gear up - take off, gear down -landing. Nor was he
>>> correlating "three green - gear down". All he was training himself
>>> to do was to "flip the switch into the other position". We talked
>>> about using rituals in order to reduce accidents, like when you take
>>> off, bring the gear up, no matter how close the next landing will be.
>>> I also have never heard of one of my students land gear up since I
>>> teach 3 checks. 1 full check list before pattern, 2 enter pattern
>>> GUMPS list, and 3 short final say "three green".
>>
>> I do the same, and did so for years while instructing. Many gear up
>> accidents are caused by the go around scenario where the gear cycle
>> gets reversed. I've always taught that a go around means a complete
>> clean up of the airplane, then a recheck of the prelanding checklist.
>> I also agree on the triple check. I suggest a final GUMPS check
>> performed by a verbal touch, identify, and verify method immediately
>> after the base to final turn.
>> There's nothing better to keep you in good health in the aviation
>> business than a good solid no changes allowed habit pattern!!
>>
>
>
>Hmm. My own view of it is that at any given moment, you're screwing
>somethng up. If there's a mistake to be made, you're going to make it.
>That means looking around for the error and double checking double
>checking and double checking again. Assuming that your habits will
>protect you just never worked for me. I'm not saying you shouldn't have
>them, far from it, I'm just saying the best safety net I've discovered
>for myself is that of a heft suspicion that ATC, the company, Boeing,
>the FO and myself especially, are all conspiring to kill me.

I know for a fact ATC has tried a number of times on me<:-))
First, I use a verbal checklist, do it, then verify against a written.
Even then, if we do it enough times we will see what we expect and
particularly when pressed for time.

In addition I have a 100 foot gear check.
>
>
>Bertie
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Dudley Henriques > wrote in
:


>
> Remember, we're talking professional display flying here. Some of these
> guys and gals are unrestricted. That's level 1 flying and vertical
> recoveries with these guys are made right on the deck. This means
> extreme accuracy through their top gates where airspeed and altitude
> have to be exactly right. Too slow and you lose altitude through the
> float. Too fast and the recovery line is extended. Too low and you have
> Chris Stricklin's Thunderbird F16 at Mountain Home, and "that ain't
> good" :-))
>



Oh I know. No more for me, thanks. Not with what I know now.

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Roger > wrote in
:


>
> I know for a fact ATC has tried a number of times on me<:-))
> First, I use a verbal checklist, do it, then verify against a written.
> Even then, if we do it enough times we will see what we expect and
> particularly when pressed for time.

Yeah, very good point. The mind often ses what it wants to. One of my
earliest instructors repeatedly warned me about this and taught me to
touch everything I was checking in a deliberate manner. The theory being
that the hand is not so easily fooled as the eye. I especially like you
ucing the checklist as a checklist rather than a do list..
>
> In addition I have a 100 foot gear check.

Hey, I'd send my kids up with you


Bertie

[WJRFlyBoy]

On Sat, 22 Mar 2008 12:53:25 -0400, Dudley Henriques wrote:

> Each pilot should and will develop his/her
> own method of dealing with the flying environment.
>
> The "tools" we ingrain from the beginning will just be integrated and
> used to reflect this individual platform.
> The main thing is that we all have to learn to use some form of
> structure within a solid habit pattern scenario.
>
> --
> Dudley Henriques

The mark of a great instructor (in any field IMO) is the ability to do
exactly that. Structure the teaching, make room for the student to
absorb it then deliver performance within his own "way", personality,
mechanics.....two extreme examples of low and high performances are
pitching a baseball/hitting a baseball and hop skotch. You can teach
only certain number of principles in the first two, at release or
impact, both players will, essentially, be close to the same (within
certain tolerances that can be measured).

Prior to release or impact, a great deal of variance is not only
acceptable but arguably mandatory. This is the personalization of the
task, the "way" or mechanics.

Hop skotch can be taught the same way to nearly everyone.

[WJRFlyBoy]

On Fri, 21 Mar 2008 12:18:06 -0400, Roger wrote:

>>What puzzles me is not the decision to take off, but rather the low
>>climb rate and the decision to use runway 27. If the weather resembled
>>what was reported nearby at OKV, runway 9 would have had a negligible
>>tailwind component.
>
> Probably the same reason after all these years of using tools I stuck
> my thumb in a table saw a little over a month ago. Up 16 hours,
> something on his mind, decision making capabilities gone out the
> window.

Not making excuses but doctors (for one of many professions) are like
this. They are forced to have to deal with fatigue and high level
decision making, it usually is someone else's life. Familiarity breeds
contempt (of life possibly ITC)

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
> :
>
>
>> Remember, we're talking professional display flying here. Some of these
>> guys and gals are unrestricted. That's level 1 flying and vertical
>> recoveries with these guys are made right on the deck. This means
>> extreme accuracy through their top gates where airspeed and altitude
>> have to be exactly right. Too slow and you lose altitude through the
>> float. Too fast and the recovery line is extended. Too low and you have
>> Chris Stricklin's Thunderbird F16 at Mountain Home, and "that ain't
>> good" :-))
>>
>
>
>
> Oh I know. No more for me, thanks. Not with what I know now.
>
> Bertie

Well don't feel lonely. My "glory days" are long gone as well. I still
get a word or two in once in a while, and I'd like to think that my
experience helps them a bit, but this new batch of youngsters are some
of the best I've ever seen, and they are doing things with airplanes
that you and I only dreamed of doing.
Patty Wagstaff and I are email buddies. She demonstrates at up to +10g's
and -5'gs routinely.
It's a whole new world up there :-))

--
Dudley Henriques

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Dudley Henriques > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>
>>> Remember, we're talking professional display flying here. Some of
>>> these guys and gals are unrestricted. That's level 1 flying and
>>> vertical recoveries with these guys are made right on the deck. This
>>> means extreme accuracy through their top gates where airspeed and
>>> altitude have to be exactly right. Too slow and you lose altitude
>>> through the float. Too fast and the recovery line is extended. Too
>>> low and you have Chris Stricklin's Thunderbird F16 at Mountain Home,
>>> and "that ain't good" :-))
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Oh I know. No more for me, thanks. Not with what I know now.
>>
>> Bertie
>
> Well don't feel lonely. My "glory days" are long gone as well. I still
> get a word or two in once in a while, and I'd like to think that my
> experience helps them a bit, but this new batch of youngsters are some
> of the best I've ever seen, and they are doing things with airplanes
> that you and I only dreamed of doing.
> Patty Wagstaff and I are email buddies. She demonstrates at up to
> +10g's and -5'gs routinely.
> It's a whole new world up there :-))
>

Jesus wept. I've been a bit over five Gs and that was extremely
punishing. Even that was only in the corners of a square loop and
momentary. i can't imagine how bad that would feel to me now. Of course
the seating was more upright..

Bertie

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
> :
>
>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>>> :
>>>
>>>
>>>> Remember, we're talking professional display flying here. Some of
>>>> these guys and gals are unrestricted. That's level 1 flying and
>>>> vertical recoveries with these guys are made right on the deck. This
>>>> means extreme accuracy through their top gates where airspeed and
>>>> altitude have to be exactly right. Too slow and you lose altitude
>>>> through the float. Too fast and the recovery line is extended. Too
>>>> low and you have Chris Stricklin's Thunderbird F16 at Mountain Home,
>>>> and "that ain't good" :-))
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Oh I know. No more for me, thanks. Not with what I know now.
>>>
>>> Bertie
>> Well don't feel lonely. My "glory days" are long gone as well. I still
>> get a word or two in once in a while, and I'd like to think that my
>> experience helps them a bit, but this new batch of youngsters are some
>> of the best I've ever seen, and they are doing things with airplanes
>> that you and I only dreamed of doing.
>> Patty Wagstaff and I are email buddies. She demonstrates at up to
>> +10g's and -5'gs routinely.
>> It's a whole new world up there :-))
>>
>
> Jesus wept. I've been a bit over five Gs and that was extremely
> punishing. Even that was only in the corners of a square loop and
> momentary. i can't imagine how bad that would feel to me now. Of course
> the seating was more upright..
>
> Bertie
Patty of course flies a bevy of mounts. Her personal plane is an Extra
300S. It's got a Lycoming modified to 350hp and a roll rate of 420
degrees/sec.
Patty works out constantly and is probably in the same shape as an
Olympic athlete. She's also flying Jim Beasley's Mustangs.
....and she's pretty too!!! :-))


--
Dudley Henriques

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Dudley Henriques > wrote in
:

>
> Patty of course flies a bevy of mounts. Her personal plane is an Extra
> 300S. It's got a Lycoming modified to 350hp and a roll rate of 420
> degrees/sec.
> Patty works out constantly and is probably in the same shape as an
> Olympic athlete. She's also flying Jim Beasley's Mustangs.
> ...and she's pretty too!!! :-))
>
>

You'd have to be in good shape for that. I've been doing a bit in
anticipation of the arrival of the Citabria (now pushed back yet another
month because of the crap Wx in PA) Just watching those red bull guys gives
me a hedache.


Bertie

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
> :
>
>> Patty of course flies a bevy of mounts. Her personal plane is an Extra
>> 300S. It's got a Lycoming modified to 350hp and a roll rate of 420
>> degrees/sec.
>> Patty works out constantly and is probably in the same shape as an
>> Olympic athlete. She's also flying Jim Beasley's Mustangs.
>> ...and she's pretty too!!! :-))
>>
>>
>
> You'd have to be in good shape for that. I've been doing a bit in
> anticipation of the arrival of the Citabria (now pushed back yet another
> month because of the crap Wx in PA) Just watching those red bull guys gives
> me a hedache.
>
>
> Bertie

We have several Red Bull Pilots in the workgroup. I'm with you. These
guys are redefining flying as we knew it.
What are they doing to the Citabria..fabric or engine work or both?
The weather's beginning to break in Pa. if that helps any.

--
Dudley Henriques

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Dudley Henriques > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> Patty of course flies a bevy of mounts. Her personal plane is an
>>> Extra 300S. It's got a Lycoming modified to 350hp and a roll rate of
>>> 420 degrees/sec.
>>> Patty works out constantly and is probably in the same shape as an
>>> Olympic athlete. She's also flying Jim Beasley's Mustangs.
>>> ...and she's pretty too!!! :-))
>>>
>>>
>>
>> You'd have to be in good shape for that. I've been doing a bit in
>> anticipation of the arrival of the Citabria (now pushed back yet
>> another month because of the crap Wx in PA) Just watching those red
>> bull guys gives me a hedache.
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>
> We have several Red Bull Pilots in the workgroup. I'm with you. These
> guys are redefining flying as we knew it.
> What are they doing to the Citabria..fabric or engine work or both?
> The weather's beginning to break in Pa. if that helps any.

Yeah, the guy doing it wasn't able for the weather, he's very old. And
you can't paint in sub zero temps.
It's a complete rebuild. I didn't have time to do it so I got a friend
who owns an airport to do it for me. It'll be a virtually new airplane
when it's done. It's a KCAB so it will be a good sport machine.
Actually, I have a query for you. My understanding is that the aerobatic
category requires a load of +5/-3 and my memeory of the airplane is that
is what it was rated for, but I just bought a flight manual for it that
says +5 and -2, but it says the airplane is aerobatic. The new ones seem
to be the same, so presumably it was always that way. Any idea?


Bertie
>

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
> :
>
>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>>> :
>>>
>>>> Patty of course flies a bevy of mounts. Her personal plane is an
>>>> Extra 300S. It's got a Lycoming modified to 350hp and a roll rate of
>>>> 420 degrees/sec.
>>>> Patty works out constantly and is probably in the same shape as an
>>>> Olympic athlete. She's also flying Jim Beasley's Mustangs.
>>>> ...and she's pretty too!!! :-))
>>>>
>>>>
>>> You'd have to be in good shape for that. I've been doing a bit in
>>> anticipation of the arrival of the Citabria (now pushed back yet
>>> another month because of the crap Wx in PA) Just watching those red
>>> bull guys gives me a hedache.
>>>
>>>
>>> Bertie
>> We have several Red Bull Pilots in the workgroup. I'm with you. These
>> guys are redefining flying as we knew it.
>> What are they doing to the Citabria..fabric or engine work or both?
>> The weather's beginning to break in Pa. if that helps any.
>
> Yeah, the guy doing it wasn't able for the weather, he's very old. And
> you can't paint in sub zero temps.
> It's a complete rebuild. I didn't have time to do it so I got a friend
> who owns an airport to do it for me. It'll be a virtually new airplane
> when it's done. It's a KCAB so it will be a good sport machine.
> Actually, I have a query for you. My understanding is that the aerobatic
> category requires a load of +5/-3 and my memeory of the airplane is that
> is what it was rated for, but I just bought a flight manual for it that
> says +5 and -2, but it says the airplane is aerobatic. The new ones seem
> to be the same, so presumably it was always that way. Any idea?
>
>
> Bertie
>
Actually, if the airplane is a production model the limits for full
aerobatic category are +6 and -3.
My understanding on the Citabria at +5 -2 I believe had something to do
with the wood spars. Also, the Citabria is licenced as a production
airplane with a Limited Aerobatic Category rating at +5 and -2. The
Decathlon has a FULL Aerobatic rating at 6/3.


I've never actually looked it up but the full details are probably in
FAR's 21 and/or 23.

I haven't had much to do with Citabria's for quite a while so my
information might need a bit of updating :-)


--
Dudley Henriques

[M[_1_]]

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20080319X00332&key=1 is out

Departed runway 27, VFR, midnight, in marginal condition. According
to http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/0802/NE3TO.PDF, IFR departure procedure
off runway 27 is N/A due to obstacles.

I bet if the pilot had read anything on http://www.terps.com (the very
first article, no less) he probably wouldn't have taken the odds he
took. What a shame, killing himself and his son.


On Mar 17, 4:48 am, Denny > wrote:
> Time moves along... The old V-tails are no longer the status symbol...
> It appears to me that the Cirrus line of aircraft has become the new
> "fork taileddoctorkiller", along with stock broker, dentist, lawyer,
> etc...
>
> http://tinyurl.com/yqt94a
>
> denny

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Dudley Henriques > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>>>> :
>>>>
>>>>> Patty of course flies a bevy of mounts. Her personal plane is an
>>>>> Extra 300S. It's got a Lycoming modified to 350hp and a roll rate
>>>>> of 420 degrees/sec.
>>>>> Patty works out constantly and is probably in the same shape as an
>>>>> Olympic athlete. She's also flying Jim Beasley's Mustangs.
>>>>> ...and she's pretty too!!! :-))
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> You'd have to be in good shape for that. I've been doing a bit in
>>>> anticipation of the arrival of the Citabria (now pushed back yet
>>>> another month because of the crap Wx in PA) Just watching those red
>>>> bull guys gives me a hedache.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Bertie
>>> We have several Red Bull Pilots in the workgroup. I'm with you.
>>> These guys are redefining flying as we knew it.
>>> What are they doing to the Citabria..fabric or engine work or both?
>>> The weather's beginning to break in Pa. if that helps any.
>>
>> Yeah, the guy doing it wasn't able for the weather, he's very old.
>> And you can't paint in sub zero temps.
>> It's a complete rebuild. I didn't have time to do it so I got a
>> friend who owns an airport to do it for me. It'll be a virtually new
>> airplane when it's done. It's a KCAB so it will be a good sport
>> machine. Actually, I have a query for you. My understanding is that
>> the aerobatic category requires a load of +5/-3 and my memeory of the
>> airplane is that is what it was rated for, but I just bought a flight
>> manual for it that says +5 and -2, but it says the airplane is
>> aerobatic. The new ones seem to be the same, so presumably it was
>> always that way. Any idea?
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>>
> Actually, if the airplane is a production model the limits for full
> aerobatic category are +6 and -3.
> My understanding on the Citabria at +5 -2 I believe had something to
> do with the wood spars. Also, the Citabria is licenced as a production
> airplane with a Limited Aerobatic Category rating at +5 and -2. The
> Decathlon has a FULL Aerobatic rating at 6/3.
>
So, was it changed at some time in the recent past?
>
> I've never actually looked it up but the full details are probably in
> FAR's 21 and/or 23.
>
> I haven't had much to do with Citabria's for quite a while so my
> information might need a bit of updating :-)

Me too. It's pretty obvious that it has always had limited aerobatic
capability. that;'s just the kind of airplane it is. But I don't
remember the G restriction on it. Maybe it's a concession due to the
spar AD.
Our's has wood spars, which I prefer anyway, but they're new and STC'd
with several mods provided by a guy in Oregon who has thickend them up
in both thickness and height. and they have improved, feathered, doubler
plates, so the psar issues should be no problem with this airplane. Also
there will be only three of us flying it so it shouldn't get any knocks
that we don;t know about.


Bertie

[Roger[_4_]]

On Sat, 22 Mar 2008 04:37:06 -0700 (PDT), Dan >
wrote:

>On Mar 21, 11:51 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>>
>> I do the same, and did so for years while instructing. Many gear up
>> accidents are caused by the go around scenario where the gear cycle gets
>> reversed. I've always taught that a go around means a complete clean up
>> of the airplane, then a recheck of the prelanding checklist. I also
>> agree on the triple check. I suggest a final GUMPS check performed by a
>> verbal touch, identify, and verify method immediately after the base to
>> final turn.
>> There's nothing better to keep you in good health in the aviation
>> business than a good solid no changes allowed habit pattern!!
>>
>> --
>> Dudley Henriques
>
>A good habit that was drilled into me during my Comm work was to
>extend gear first. No flaps unless gear down was confirmed.

That's a given in the Deb as Gear down is 140 MPH while full flaps is
only 120.

>
>The reasoning in that with full flaps and 13" MAP the descent profile
>is close enough to full flaps + gear down, and the gear horn would be

In the Deb they are quite different. First you have a devil of a
time getting more than partial flaps without the gear down and with
the gear up it floats forever.

>the only remaining safeguard.
>
>Another was the have gear down upon pattern entry. This forces
>airspeed control prior to pattern entry (helps maintain the discipline
>to be at Pattern altitude prior to pattern entry as well), provides
>more time to confirm "gear down and locked" and results in 3 full
>GUMPS checks -- downwind midfield, abeam the numbers, on base, on
>final.

I try to make each pattern different. If the pattern is empty I may
hit it fast enough I need to use the turn to down wind to slow enough
to get the gear down. I fly tight patterns with base nothing more
than a slipping U-turn to the end of the runway. The next one may be a
short field followed by a simulated power out from some where on down
wind and not always close enough to make the runway., or a no flap
landing. I use about every variation you can think of including long
wide patterns to allow for a string of students. That way there
really is nothing different for me whether I need to make that tight
U-turn or fly s-turns behind a caravan of trainers. OTOH if there's
one guy 2 miles out and hasn't turned base yet I'm more than likely
to make that U-turn (after clearly stating my intentions ) and be
clear the runway before he is ready to make his base to final turn.
The Caveat is to never do this if there is any likely hood of it
interfering with any other traffic. OTOH some pilots get all bent out
of shape if everyone doesn't dutifully stay in line following a Cub
flying a base 3 or 4 miles out.

If it's a quite day I may shoot the GPS for 06 ,or 24 which is
essentially a straight in or do a long final holding the speed up as
long as possible. I don't know how many times I've had ATC ask me to
keep the speed up as long as practicable.

The pilot always has the option of saying "unable" to ATC's
out-of-the-ordinary requests, but the down side is you may end up
circling in no man's land far longer than you wish waiting for a
string of airliners to land. You may not hear that "cleared to land
until they see a 10 minute gap in traffic to allow for the perceived
lack of ability to fit in.



>
>The layout in the A36 helps this, as the gear switch is on the other
>side of the monstrous yoke.
>
>In the air: Start right before left. (some use the term "Flip the down
>switch")
>
>On the ground: Don't reach to that side.
>
>The Straight 35 has the Piano key controls. I thought that would make
>it far too easy to confuse things, but what it does is force me to
>point, say, and do.

That is my litany followed by verification and I have regular switches
in the Deb.
>
>
>Dan Mc
>
>
>
>
>
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Roger[_4_]]

On Sat, 22 Mar 2008 04:01:24 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

>On Mar 21, 12:18*pm, Roger > wrote:
>> On Fri, 21 Mar 2008 05:58:38 -0700 (PDT),
>> wrote:
>> >What puzzles me is not the decision to take off, but rather the low
>> >climb rate and the decision to use runway 27. If the weather resembled
>> >what was reported nearby at OKV, runway 9 would have had a negligible
>> >tailwind component.
>>
>> Probably the same reason after all these years of using tools I stuck
>> my thumb in a table saw a little over a month ago. *Up 16 hours,
>> something on his mind, decision making capabilities gone out the
>> window. *
>
>Yeah, probably so. Sad.
>
>Sorry 'bout the thumb.

Me too, but it's healing nicely... Looks healed, but still tender so
I still keep a bandaid on it for protection.

The thumb isn't nearly the problem of flying into the side of a
mountain<:-))
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Roger" > wrote

> Probably the same reason after all these years of using tools I stuck
> my thumb in a table saw a little over a month ago. Up 16 hours,
> something on his mind, decision making capabilities gone out the
> window.
>
> BTW, the thumb is healing nicely but the thumb print will never be the
> same and being "just a tad sensitive" I seem to keep poking things
> with it.

BT,DT!

Might I suggest the most basic safety practice; keep the blade no higher
than necessary to cut the wood.

Also, there is a rule that says once you hit your finger with a hammer, or
cut it with a saw, you WILL hit it on everything nearby, as often as is
possible. Seen it many times. DONE it many times! <g>
--
Jim in NC

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

> So, was it changed at some time in the recent past?

To my knowledge, the Citabria's certification hasn't changed since the
initial FAA certification tests.


> Me too. It's pretty obvious that it has always had limited aerobatic
> capability. that;'s just the kind of airplane it is. But I don't
> remember the G restriction on it. Maybe it's a concession due to the
> spar AD.

The g restriction actually IS the limited aerobatic cert. 6/3 is the
full category, and the Citabria is reduced to 5/2 which defines the
limited category.



> Our's has wood spars, which I prefer anyway, but they're new and STC'd
> with several mods provided by a guy in Oregon who has thickend them up
> in both thickness and height. and they have improved, feathered, doubler
> plates, so the psar issues should be no problem with this airplane. Also
> there will be only three of us flying it so it shouldn't get any knocks
> that we don;t know about.

Sounds like a good setup. Just tell everybody to get the nose well up
before rolling it and you'll keep the nose low rolling pullouts with
that added g under control :-))
>
>
> Bertie


--
Dudley Henriques

[Roger[_4_]]

On Sun, 23 Mar 2008 08:14:01 -0400, "Morgans"
> wrote:

>
>"Roger" > wrote
>
>> Probably the same reason after all these years of using tools I stuck
>> my thumb in a table saw a little over a month ago. Up 16 hours,
>> something on his mind, decision making capabilities gone out the
>> window.
>>
>> BTW, the thumb is healing nicely but the thumb print will never be the
>> same and being "just a tad sensitive" I seem to keep poking things
>> with it.
>
>BT,DT!
>
>Might I suggest the most basic safety practice; keep the blade no higher
>than necessary to cut the wood.
>

That is why I only lost the very tip of my thumb.<:-)) Even the
thumbnail is OK. Finger print will never be the same though.

Besides, you get a much cleaner cut on the wood with the blade low
like that.
>Also, there is a rule that says once you hit your finger with a hammer, or
>cut it with a saw, you WILL hit it on everything nearby, as often as is
>possible. Seen it many times. DONE it many times! <g>
Doorknobs are magnetic to thumbs!

Joyce went out and purchased one of those metal splints they use on
broken fingers and toes. Twas only a buck plus change. (and well
worth it) One of the drug store chains had the same brand, but in
multiple sizes for around $6 each. The thing is soft Aluminum with a
foam padding. It's very easy to reshape the single size to fit most
any appendage. I reshaped the thing to fit snug but comfortably

As it's fully healed over I'm only wearing a Band-Aid over it to help
reduce the sensitivity IOW The Band-Aid is fro cleanliness and does
little to reduce the sensation when "bumping" things, but the amount
of swearing has been greatly reduced.
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[[email protected]]

On Mar 23, 1:35*am, M > wrote:
> http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20080319X00332&key=1is out
>
> Departed runway 27, VFR, midnight, in marginal condition. *

No, the NTSB report doesn't say the departure was VFR. The report says
there was an IFR plan, and doesn't say whether a clearance had been
obtained before takeoff.

> According
> tohttp://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/0802/NE3TO.PDF, IFR departure procedure
> off runway 27 is N/A due to obstacles.

Right, but as was discussed in this thread when the NTSB report came
out a few days ago, takeoff minimums and ODPs were not mandatory for
this flight, so he could have legally departed runway 27 under IFR.

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Roger" > wrote

> As it's fully healed over I'm only wearing a Band-Aid over it to help
> reduce the sensitivity IOW The Band-Aid is fro cleanliness and does
> little to reduce the sensation when "bumping" things, but the amount
> of swearing has been greatly reduced.

I did the deed, and used one of the metal splints to protect it, too.

One of the best other things I found were tube gauze bandages. Imagine a
mesh made like a tube sock. Put a gauze pad on the wound, then a tube
bandage over it, twist it a couple times at the end, then cut it long enough
to push back over it all again. It beats a bunch of tape, putting too much
pressure on it and making it throb!

I had a clean saw blade kerfs, right in the middle of the last joint of my
thumb. Seems the saw leaves mangled flesh that has to be clipped away, so
it will heal properly.

That was the worst I have ever done with a power tool, and I hope it stays
that way! (knock on wood)

Now, my hint on keeping from doing this again? ALWAYS have a couple fingers
hooked over top of the rip fence as you hand passes beside the blade, unless
the piece you are cutting is over a foot and a half wide. If the wood ever
kicks, or you slip, or ........., having a positive lock with you had will
keep from having it drawn into the blade before you could have a chance to
react. Plus, you always know where your hand is without looking at it. It
also does not cut down on your efficiency, at all, once you are used to
doing things that way.
--
Jim in NC

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Dudley Henriques > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>
>> So, was it changed at some time in the recent past?
>
> To my knowledge, the Citabria's certification hasn't changed since the
> initial FAA certification tests.


Yeah, looked it up. It was always +5 and -2.3 The Univair manuals I got
for it are copies of the originals and they say the same thing. It's
Airworthiness cert says it's licenced in the normal and aerobatic
category. It also gives load limits for a lighter operating weight whihc
are obviously higher, but still wel under 6G.
There's no mention in the old '75 manual I have about any kind of
limitations on the aerobatics, either. Strange. It's not like the FAA to
do things like that, in my experience.
>
>
>> Me too. It's pretty obvious that it has always had limited aerobatic
>> capability. that;'s just the kind of airplane it is. But I don't
>> remember the G restriction on it. Maybe it's a concession due to the
>> spar AD.
>
> The g restriction actually IS the limited aerobatic cert. 6/3 is the
> full category, and the Citabria is reduced to 5/2 which defines the
> limited category.

OK, is this a recognised category? I've never come across it before.

>
>
>
>> Our's has wood spars, which I prefer anyway, but they're new and
>> STC'd with several mods provided by a guy in Oregon who has thickend
>> them up in both thickness and height. and they have improved,
>> feathered, doubler plates, so the psar issues should be no problem
>> with this airplane. Also there will be only three of us flying it so
>> it shouldn't get any knocks that we don;t know about.
>
> Sounds like a good setup. Just tell everybody to get the nose well up
> before rolling it and you'll keep the nose low rolling pullouts with
> that added g under control :-))
>>

Yes, the extra 16th inchches in thickness and and height adds up to a
substantial increase in mass. The feathered doublers aren't in the
original and together they should provide a substantial increase in the
safety margin.
The wing mounting brackets on the fuselage are amazingly light, though!
If I were welding something up to hold a potted plant I'd make somethign
heavier!

Bertie
>

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
> :
>
>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>
>>> So, was it changed at some time in the recent past?
>> To my knowledge, the Citabria's certification hasn't changed since the
>> initial FAA certification tests.
>
>
> Yeah, looked it up. It was always +5 and -2.3 The Univair manuals I got
> for it are copies of the originals and they say the same thing. It's
> Airworthiness cert says it's licenced in the normal and aerobatic
> category. It also gives load limits for a lighter operating weight whihc
> are obviously higher, but still wel under 6G.
> There's no mention in the old '75 manual I have about any kind of
> limitations on the aerobatics, either. Strange. It's not like the FAA to
> do things like that, in my experience.
>>
>>> Me too. It's pretty obvious that it has always had limited aerobatic
>>> capability. that;'s just the kind of airplane it is. But I don't
>>> remember the G restriction on it. Maybe it's a concession due to the
>>> spar AD.
>> The g restriction actually IS the limited aerobatic cert. 6/3 is the
>> full category, and the Citabria is reduced to 5/2 which defines the
>> limited category.
>
> OK, is this a recognised category? I've never come across it before.
>
>>
>>
>>> Our's has wood spars, which I prefer anyway, but they're new and
>>> STC'd with several mods provided by a guy in Oregon who has thickend
>>> them up in both thickness and height. and they have improved,
>>> feathered, doubler plates, so the psar issues should be no problem
>>> with this airplane. Also there will be only three of us flying it so
>>> it shouldn't get any knocks that we don;t know about.
>> Sounds like a good setup. Just tell everybody to get the nose well up
>> before rolling it and you'll keep the nose low rolling pullouts with
>> that added g under control :-))
>
> Yes, the extra 16th inchches in thickness and and height adds up to a
> substantial increase in mass. The feathered doublers aren't in the
> original and together they should provide a substantial increase in the
> safety margin.
> The wing mounting brackets on the fuselage are amazingly light, though!
> If I were welding something up to hold a potted plant I'd make somethign
> heavier!
>
> Bertie
>
On the Limited Aerobatic issue. I don't have my FAR's here, but if you
check 21 and 23 when you get a free moment and access, I think the
technical answer is there.

--
Dudley Henriques