Who does flight plans?

Dylan Smith wrote:

In article , Happy Dog wrote:

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


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


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


Matt

Matt Whiting wrote:

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

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

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

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

George Patterson wrote:

Matt Whiting wrote:


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


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

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

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

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


Matt

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

Was back flying with the medical ok after 4 months.

Matt Whiting wrote:

I do greaser full-stall landings just as I was taught.

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

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

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

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

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

Jose wrote:

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

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

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

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

Right. Not without a Mexican dinner.

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

You are kidding, right?

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

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

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


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

Jose