If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#91
|
|||
|
|||
Too many accidents
On 9/11/2018 1:15 AM, Ian wrote: Anecdotally, I notice that quite a few of these accidents involve 2 seaters. Maybe when there are two, experienced, pilots on board, the dynamics change - both waiting for each other to take control and recover when things go wrong? Not an accident, but... I was once in the back of my friend's two seater and we had been in a straight line cruise towards home for quite some time.Â* At about 5-10 miles out he said that he'd take over now.Â* What?Â* I thought you were flying! There should never be waiting to take over; the pilot flying should take action when something goes wrong.Â* And there should always be a positive transfer of control when switching over. -- Dan, 5J |
#92
|
|||
|
|||
Too many accidents
Good point Dan,
The best procedure to insure both pilots know who is actually flying the aircraft is for pilot 1 to say, "you have the aircraft", then pilot 2 says, "I have the aircraft" and then shakes the stick! Never a good idea to add any other info with the transfer of control, like "we need to program the computer, you fly". This message can be easily misunderstood and both pilots start programming the computer and nobody is flying the aircraft! Food for thought, JJ |
#93
|
|||
|
|||
Too many accidents
On Tuesday, September 11, 2018 at 8:33:57 AM UTC-7, wrote:
Good point Dan, The best procedure to insure both pilots know who is actually flying the aircraft is for pilot 1 to say, "you have the aircraft", then pilot 2 says, "I have the aircraft" and then shakes the stick! Never a good idea to add any other info with the transfer of control, like "we need to program the computer, you fly". This message can be easily misunderstood and both pilots start programming the computer and nobody is flying the aircraft! Food for thought, JJ I know in the case of my CFI friend David who died a few weeks ago in a citabria spin two CFI's onboard. Dave was insistent on positive transfer of control. And when doing a task, it was sterile cockpit, only relevant information for task at hand. |
#94
|
|||
|
|||
Too many accidents
On Monday, September 10, 2018 at 9:26:48 PM UTC-7, Eric Greenwell wrote:
George Haeh wrote on 9/10/2018 12:57 PM: So how does one demonstrate or practice a spin or incipient spin without "misusing" the rudder? [Puchaz excepted] In my ASW 20C and ASH 26 E, I could easily get a wing drop from coordinated flight. I never let either enter a full spin, but always recovered at less than a quarter turn. Easy to do: I circle at about 20 degree bank while continuously slowing down, always maintaining coordinated flight; at some point as I slow, the inner wing will drop and can not be picked up with the ailerons. So, spin entry with no rudder misuse, just flying too slowly in a turn. The above is harder to do at 30 degree bank, and I couldn't get it too happen at 40-45 degree bank. I did not experiment with different CG positions - mine was a bit towards the aft side, but not near the rear limit. -- Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to email me) - "A Guide to Self-Launching Sailplane Operation" https://sites.google.com/site/motorg...ad-the-guide-1 - "Transponders in Sailplanes - Dec 2014a" also ADS-B, PCAS, Flarm http://soaringsafety.org/prevention/...anes-2014A.pdf Thanks Eric and Hank for this. I recently viewed on YouTube a good video of a K-23 doing spins from coordinated flight. I had a Nimbus 4T start a spin in coordinated thermaling flight. Quick to put stick against forward stop and rudder opposite to rotation was flying in quarter turn and not sure how much altitude loss, but would be surprised if it was more than 75 feet. |
#95
|
|||
|
|||
Too many accidents
Great idea!
I do that, I have also flown with other CFIG's and tend to make it obvious whom is flying and whom "may" take control. In limited cases, the "friendly handshake" is replaced by, grabbing the stick, huge wiggle with a "my ship!" Is crude, but our asses are on the line! Most "fun" to me was flying power with a towpilot/my GF at the time. Coming in on final in a C-150, short of field, stall warning going off, calm day, they were reaching for yoke, my comment, "Don't **** with the plane!". Hit the numbers, slight tap on brakes, first turnoff. Stall warning was early, butt and feel said plenty,of margin. Yes, knowing whom is flying is paramount. With my mentor or others, a stick nudge or comment is a suggestion to do something else, but, no transfer of PIC. |
#96
|
|||
|
|||
Too many accidents
On Tuesday, September 11, 2018 at 8:47:49 AM UTC-7, Jonathan St. Cloud wrote:
On Tuesday, September 11, 2018 at 8:33:57 AM UTC-7, wrote: Good point Dan, The best procedure to insure both pilots know who is actually flying the aircraft is for pilot 1 to say, "you have the aircraft", then pilot 2 says, "I have the aircraft" and then shakes the stick! Never a good idea to add any other info with the transfer of control, like "we need to program the computer, you fly". This message can be easily misunderstood and both pilots start programming the computer and nobody is flying the aircraft! Food for thought, JJ I know in the case of my CFI friend David who died a few weeks ago in a citabria spin two CFI's onboard. Dave was insistent on positive transfer of control. And when doing a task, it was sterile cockpit, only relevant information for task at hand. "I know in the case of my CFI friend David who died a few weeks ago in a citabria spin two CFI's onboard." That's very interesting because there hasn't been an accident, fatal or otherwise, involving a Citabria since 2006. Was this outside the US? Tom |
#97
|
|||
|
|||
Too many accidents
On Tuesday, September 11, 2018 at 8:47:49 AM UTC-7, Jonathan St. Cloud wrote:
On Tuesday, September 11, 2018 at 8:33:57 AM UTC-7, wrote: Good point Dan, The best procedure to insure both pilots know who is actually flying the aircraft is for pilot 1 to say, "you have the aircraft", then pilot 2 says, "I have the aircraft" and then shakes the stick! Never a good idea to add any other info with the transfer of control, like "we need to program the computer, you fly". This message can be easily misunderstood and both pilots start programming the computer and nobody is flying the aircraft! Food for thought, JJ I know in the case of my CFI friend David who died a few weeks ago in a citabria spin two CFI's onboard. Dave was insistent on positive transfer of control. And when doing a task, it was sterile cockpit, only relevant information for task at hand. "I know in the case of my CFI friend David who died a few weeks ago in a citabria spin two CFI's onboard." There hasn't been an accident involving a Citabria since 2006. Tom |
#98
|
|||
|
|||
Too many accidents
The NTSB Aviation Accident Database indicates there have been 13 accidents of Champion built aircraft since February of this year.
5 Scouts (8GCBC), 3 fatalities in 2 accidents, 8 Citabrias (7XXXX, several variants) 1 fatality. |
#99
|
|||
|
|||
Too many accidents
On Mon, 10 Sep 2018 08:56:05 -0700 (PDT), krasw
wrote: maanantai 10. syyskuuta 2018 16.54.53 UTC+3 kirjoitti: Un-spinable? You might want to watch this and look up the USAF report conducted on the spin characteristics of the ASK-21. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yXH6XDxQdPY ASK21 is unspinable unless you equip with spin kit designed to move cg well aft of normal limits. Without this kit you cannot spin 21. One addition: The spin weights put the CG to the normal aft limit, but not beyond it. This is the same CG that you would have if a light pilot flies without a copilot. With the spin weights the ASK-21 is an excellent spin trainer. Cheers Andreas |
#100
|
|||
|
|||
Too many accidents
Referring to the ASK21 TM4b, publicly available on the
AS site. I see on page 4 : "By following the spin ballast table a c.g. of approx. 406 mm (16 inch) is set in for the flight." As far as I can tell from other data, this is not the aft limit. I believe the aft limit is 469mm. The USAF spinning tests are well documented in the technical note flight manual and discusses inertia effects as well as just CG position effects. 406mm is aft enough. At 23:32 13 September 2018, Andreas Maurer wrote: On Mon, 10 Sep 2018 08:56:05 -0700 (PDT), krasw wrote: maanantai 10. syyskuuta 2018 16.54.53 UTC+3 kirjoitti: Un-spinable? You might want to watch this and look up the USAF report conducted on the spin characteristics of the ASK-21. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yXH6XDxQdPY ASK21 is unspinable unless you equip with spin kit designed to move cg well aft of normal limits. Without this kit you cannot spin 21. One addition: The spin weights put the CG to the normal aft limit, but not beyond it. This is the same CG that you would have if a light pilot flies without a copilot. With the spin weights the ASK-21 is an excellent spin trainer. Cheers Andreas |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
UK Air Accidents | Graham Drinkell | Soaring | 12 | June 18th 09 02:29 PM |
Physiology and accidents | Bill Daniels | Soaring | 7 | May 30th 07 02:14 PM |
Physiology and accidents | [email protected] | Soaring | 0 | May 29th 07 09:50 PM |
Accidents in progress | Dave Kearton | Aviation Photos | 1 | April 30th 07 03:27 PM |
Accidents | Big John | Piloting | 3 | December 14th 05 01:19 PM |