Landing without flaps

"Ken S. Tucker" wrote in
:

Hi all, studied the posts to this thread.

On Mar 8, 8:40 am, Dudley Henriques wrote:
Ken S. Tucker wrote:
On Mar 7, 5:01 pm, wrote:
On Mar 7, 1:02 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" wrote:

Dud, you've never been in an airplane, and you're
NOT an instructor. I'm a prof teacher and I can
sniff your bad **** off the net, you're a phony!
If Dudley or Bertie are frauds, they are very, very good
frauds.
The terminology and all other aspects of their posts regarding
aviation and learning to fly are accurate and perceptive. There
would be few folks who could come up with this stuff unless they
were savants of some sort. Those of us who actually fly have
little argument with most of what they say.
There are some other posters here who were obvious frauds
from
the start. And the more they post, the deeper they dig their holes
of discredit. They're just incredible.

Anybody can sound good on the net where knowledge
is concerned, but you can't fake an attitude for long.

Pulling mixture or fooling with fuel valves immediately after
takeoff is asking to die. Soon.

No not really, Mr. Buttman is not a suicidal maniac
and one has to presume if the pilot didn't react
properly he take control and have that figured out.

Pulling the throttle has the same
engine-loss effect without the extreme risk associated with
killing the engine. Pulling mixture or fuel also carries
the more remote risk of a control failure, whereby the mixture
control cable or fuel valve linkage breaks at that exact moment,
making a recovery of the engine impossible.

Sure that can happen. I suppose that's part of the
point of Mr. Buttman's suggested exercise.

In the last 15 years or so we've
had a throttle cable failure and a carb heat cable failure, so now
we replace all the controls when we replace the engine. There's no
legal requirement to do it, but after seeing old controls break I
decided that it was going to get done.
Dan

My personal fear is loosing elevator control, it's
very rare, but that Alaska Air crash a few years
back (in the Pacific) was blamed on the screw
that adjusts the elevator getting stripped or jammed.
Ken

The answer to this entire issue is quite easily proved one way or the
other. Anyone.....and I mean ANYONE, reading about this issue here
can easily pick up the phone and call their local FAA office here in
the United States anyway, and ask for an official opinion on the
following question. (Someone please do this :-)
"Is it acceptable procedure for a flight instructor to turn off a
fuel valve on a student on takeoff causing fuel starvation and
subsequent engine failure as a teaching method"

No flames......no back and forth on who's an idiot or who's a fraud;
no banter on who's a good instructor and who isn't.....simply get the
official position of the authoritative body officially responsible
for flight instruction and flight safety in the United
States.......then post the answer right here for the world to see.
How fair and up front is that?
Dudley Henriques

Dud if you're asking me, the govmonks create minimum
standards, that I would expect instructors to exceed.
How they do that is a matter of experience.


No, there is a professional consencus and there is common sense and that
instructor waved sayonora to both.


P.S. you're a moron


Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Dudley Henriques wrote in
:

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
wrote in news:ef4a41c9-f87b-4afd-9045-
:

On Mar 7, 11:37 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" wrote:

Glide back to the runway
Ken
Students, this is dangerous. Do not turn back to the runway if you
are below 1000' agl and lose the engine. You won't make it. You lose
considerable altitude in the turn and tend to lift the nose,
reducing speed, and to keep near the runway you'll tend to tighten
the turn using a skid. It's death waiting to happen via a stall and
spin.
Normal practice is to pick a spot with 30° or so of your flight
path. Not a pleasant choice, considering the location of some
airports.

Well, I'll add to this. You can turn back and make . it can be done.
The guy in the airport coffee shop who says it can be done is
probably right. I have done it in practice, form fairly short field
in standard lightplanes like cubs and 150s. Most of the instructors
where I worked agreed that it was the thing to do as long as you were
proficient and it was planned before the takeoff roll started. We
knew they couldn't neccesarily be done in all airplanes and in all
situations. The wind had to be considered as well as traffic ( bad
idea to turn back toward a runway with something rolling on it) and
so on. We had it sussed. then one of the guys had one one day. Very
good stci as well. Better than me back then anyway. He had a good bit
of altitude, too 50 or so, he turned around and made the runway but
stalled coming across the threshold and cartwheeled donw the runway.
He and his father in law survived, but they were lucky. They would
definitely have been better off going straight ahead.



Bertie
The reason we teach straight ahead is sound. One has to consider some
kind of average pilot in dealing with this issue.
Whether or not it can be done successfully as a turn around is so full
of variables it muddies the equation.
Considering altitude, wind, and exact position in relation to the
departing runway, on the extreme high end of the experience level, a
highly trained aerobatic pilot on one hand might could possibly even
make the turn using a half turn accelerated stall done in the vertical
plane, (modified hammerhead with practically no vertical up line using
the vertical plane to reduce the horizontal turning component)
This is even possible done by such a pilot flying something like a 172
or a 150, but I would never recommend doing it to anyone.
For the "average Joe", that straight ahead within reasonable degree
offset approach to the engine failure scenario on takeoff is still the
safe way to deal with this issue and probably always will be in my
opinion.

Exactly. This guy was way above average and he didn;t manage it... I
don't mean to muddy the waters by bringing it up, but the notion is out
there. Of course that fjukkwit Ken latched onto it as soon as he heard
it.


Bertie
Yeah. I had to laugh as I read this. Could we ACTUALLY muddy up the
waters any more on this thread? :-)))))

--
Dudley Henriques

On Mar 8, 3:16 pm, Dudley Henriques wrote:
Dan wrote:
On Mar 8, 1:57 pm, Dudley Henriques wrote:
Dan wrote:
On Mar 8, 12:00 pm, Dudley Henriques wrote:
I actually went out this week and bought a new Macbook Air just for
Usenet and email. Wish I'd waited a bit longer though. I'm getting more
disillusioned with Usenet by the minute :-))))
--
Dudley Henriques
Not so fast -- you have the best platform for FSX AND SimCity at the
same time...
Have all your simulated people flying on your simulated airplanes.
Load o' fun!
Dan
I actually quit working with Microsoft on their sim program
this year.
PLEASE don't tell me that you're one of these people who believe I'm a
"simulator" pilot because they have discovered I have advised on the
program :-)))

--
Dudley Henriques

Come on, now...

Though I disagree with folks but bright and not so, surely you give me
more credit than that....

Dan

I don't mean anything personal at all Dan. Just seems every time someone
associates me with Microsoft, somebody suggests I don't fly or haven't
flown in real life. In fact, this thread has been full of just that type
of accusation by two individuals.
No big deal by a long shot. :-))

--
Dudley Henriques

Reasonable people usually figure out who's who....

I used MSFS 2004 to great advantage in preparing for my instrument
rating. It saved me many hours of dual and I took the test at the
minimum logged time (though I probably twice that unlogged on the
sim). It was worth it for holds alone

Is this an endorsement of MFS in all cases for all people? Of course
not! In the same way I don't use a torque wrench to hammer nails.

MSFS/X-Plane/what-have-you is a tool like any other. Misuse a tool and
you'll have bad results.
Why is this so hard to understand?

Dan

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Dudley Henriques wrote in
:

WingFlaps wrote:
On Mar 9, 5:53 am, Dudley Henriques wrote:
Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
wrote in news:ef4a41c9-f87b-4afd-9045-
:
On Mar 7, 11:37 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" wrote:
Glide back to the runway
Ken
Students, this is dangerous. Do not turn back to the runway if
you
are below 1000' agl and lose the engine. You won't make it. You
lose considerable altitude in the turn and tend to lift the nose,
reducing speed, and to keep near the runway you'll tend to tighten
the turn using a skid. It's death waiting to happen via a stall
and spin.
Normal practice is to pick a spot with 30° or so of your
flight
path. Not a pleasant choice, considering the location of some
airports.
Well, I'll add to this. You can turn back and make . it can be
done. The guy in the airport coffee shop who says it can be done is
probably right. I have done it in practice, form fairly short field
in standard lightplanes like cubs and 150s. Most of the instructors
where I worked agreed that it was the thing to do as long as you
were proficient and it was planned before the takeoff roll started.
We knew they couldn't neccesarily be done in all airplanes and in
all situations. The wind had to be considered as well as traffic (
bad idea to turn back toward a runway with something rolling on it)
and so on. We had it sussed. then one of the guys had one one day.
Very good stci as well. Better than me back then anyway. He had a
good bit of altitude, too 50 or so, he turned around and made the
runway but stalled coming across the threshold and cartwheeled donw
the runway. He and his father in law survived, but they were lucky.
They would definitely have been better off going straight ahead.
Bertie
The reason we teach straight ahead is sound. One has to consider
some kind of average pilot in dealing with this issue.
Whether or not it can be done successfully as a turn around is so
full of variables it muddies the equation.
Considering altitude, wind, and exact position in relation to the
departing runway, on the extreme high end of the experience level, a
highly trained aerobatic pilot on one hand might could possibly even
make the turn using a half turn accelerated stall done in the
vertical plane, (modified hammerhead with practically no vertical up
line using the vertical plane to reduce the horizontal turning
component) This is even possible done by such a pilot flying
something like a 172 or a 150, but I would never recommend doing it
to anyone. For the "average Joe", that straight ahead within
reasonable degree offset approach to the engine failure scenario on
takeoff is still the safe way to deal with this issue and probably
always will be in my opinion.

I'm not a n acro pilot so I'd like you (or some other pilot) to try
that manouver power off from the glide and see how much altitude they
loose. I'm guessing 200' minimum.

Cheers
Depends on the airplane and the pilot combination. Such a maneuver
assuming a normal climb speed at entry of 80mph as the engine quits
would require an immediate aggressive pull into accelerated stall
followed by aggressive pro spin rudder to induce a required yaw rate.
The trick is to catch the spin entry on the first half turn nose down.
200 feet could easily be required in some airplanes.
This isn't something you argue on the specifics. The variables are
just too vast.
Put it this way. If I had 200 feet in a 172 with an engine failure,
I'd be looking for a landing area straight ahead, or more properly I'd
already know if such an area existed for the runway I was using since
I would have asked :-) (There are runways where no such landing is
possible of course)
On the other hand, in a Pitts or an Extra in the same scenario, I
wouldn't hesitate to attempt what I have described here.
I've done this easily in the Pitts with under 100 feet lost and a 180
change in the flight path.


One of the problems is you need to do more than 180 degrees, of course.
This can be minimised by turning into wind if you have some across and
if your runway is wide you've saved a bit of turn that way as well, but
you're probably going to have a bit of 'essing' to do on finals and
that's going to cost. That's where my friend lost it.


Bertie

Yeah, that's right. No matter what you do the chances are you will have
a heading "adjustment" to make after the reversal. It can get sticky,
and requires a lot of judgment. You screw up and it could spoil your
whole day :-))

--
Dudley Henriques

Dan wrote:
On Mar 8, 3:16 pm, Dudley Henriques wrote:
Dan wrote:
On Mar 8, 1:57 pm, Dudley Henriques wrote:
Dan wrote:
On Mar 8, 12:00 pm, Dudley Henriques wrote:
I actually went out this week and bought a new Macbook Air just for
Usenet and email. Wish I'd waited a bit longer though. I'm getting more
disillusioned with Usenet by the minute :-))))
--
Dudley Henriques
Not so fast -- you have the best platform for FSX AND SimCity at the
same time...
Have all your simulated people flying on your simulated airplanes.
Load o' fun!
Dan
I actually quit working with Microsoft on their sim program
this year.
PLEASE don't tell me that you're one of these people who believe I'm a
"simulator" pilot because they have discovered I have advised on the
program :-)))
--
Dudley Henriques
Come on, now...
Though I disagree with folks but bright and not so, surely you give me
more credit than that....
Dan
I don't mean anything personal at all Dan. Just seems every time someone
associates me with Microsoft, somebody suggests I don't fly or haven't
flown in real life. In fact, this thread has been full of just that type
of accusation by two individuals.
No big deal by a long shot. :-))

--
Dudley Henriques

Reasonable people usually figure out who's who....

I used MSFS 2004 to great advantage in preparing for my instrument
rating. It saved me many hours of dual and I took the test at the
minimum logged time (though I probably twice that unlogged on the
sim). It was worth it for holds alone

Is this an endorsement of MFS in all cases for all people? Of course
not! In the same way I don't use a torque wrench to hammer nails.

MSFS/X-Plane/what-have-you is a tool like any other. Misuse a tool and
you'll have bad results.
Why is this so hard to understand?

Dan
Beats me. Lord knows I've spent a ton of time online trying to explain
it to people.
I reviewed the Bruce Williams book on using MSFS as a training tool for
flight instructors for ASA and covered most of it there.
That review can be found on www.simflight.com BTW (just search
Henriques)if you'd like to glance at it.

--
Dudley Henriques

In rec.aviation.student Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
One of the problems is you need to do more than 180 degrees, of course.
This can be minimised by turning into wind if you have some across and
if your runway is wide you've saved a bit of turn that way as well, but
you're probably going to have a bit of 'essing' to do on finals and
that's going to cost. That's where my friend lost it.

A good tow pilot will let the formation drift downwind (once obstacles
have been cleared, of course) so that in the event that the glider behind
him needs to do a 180 back to the runway, the turn into the wind will get
him more or less lined up.

When I took my checkride there was a fair crosswind. On the second
takeoff, the tow pilot for whatever reason had us turned into the wind
instead of drifting with it. And of course this was the one where the
examiner pulled the rope on me at exactly 200ft AGL.

A quick 180 still left me quite far downwind, so it took a bit of exciting
maneuvering to get lined up, but there was still plenty of room to spare.
It would have been much simpler to start from the downwind side, though.

Of course even a medium-performance glider can do with ease at 200ft what
the average windmilling GA airplane will have difficulty with at two or
three times the altitude, so it's really a different world. But when you
don't want to change position too much, always turn into the wind when you
can.

--
Michael Ash
Rogue Amoeba Software

Michael Ash wrote in
:

In rec.aviation.student Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
One of the problems is you need to do more than 180 degrees, of
course. This can be minimised by turning into wind if you have some
across and if your runway is wide you've saved a bit of turn that way
as well, but you're probably going to have a bit of 'essing' to do on
finals and that's going to cost. That's where my friend lost it.

A good tow pilot will let the formation drift downwind (once obstacles
have been cleared, of course) so that in the event that the glider
behind him needs to do a 180 back to the runway, the turn into the
wind will get him more or less lined up.


Hmm, I used to tow ( a lot) and never heard this before. Good idea.

When I took my checkride there was a fair crosswind. On the second
takeoff, the tow pilot for whatever reason had us turned into the wind
instead of drifting with it. And of course this was the one where the
examiner pulled the rope on me at exactly 200ft AGL.

A quick 180 still left me quite far downwind, so it took a bit of
exciting maneuvering to get lined up, but there was still plenty of
room to spare. It would have been much simpler to start from the
downwind side, though.

Wel, you still probably would have been better off turning into wind
unless you were well upwind of the runway.

Of course even a medium-performance glider can do with ease at 200ft
what the average windmilling GA airplane will have difficulty with at
two or three times the altitude, so it's really a different world. But
when you don't want to change position too much, always turn into the
wind when you can.


Yeah, even a student in a 2-22 should be able to do it on th eworst day.


Bertie

On Mar 8, 3:47 pm, Dudley Henriques wrote:
Dan wrote:
On Mar 8, 3:16 pm, Dudley Henriques wrote:
Dan wrote:
On Mar 8, 1:57 pm, Dudley Henriques wrote:
Dan wrote:
On Mar 8, 12:00 pm, Dudley Henriques wrote:
I actually went out this week and bought a new Macbook Air just for
Usenet and email. Wish I'd waited a bit longer though. I'm getting more
disillusioned with Usenet by the minute :-))))
--
Dudley Henriques
Not so fast -- you have the best platform for FSX AND SimCity at the
same time...
Have all your simulated people flying on your simulated airplanes.
Load o' fun!
Dan
I actually quit working with Microsoft on their sim program
this year.
PLEASE don't tell me that you're one of these people who believe I'm a
"simulator" pilot because they have discovered I have advised on the
program :-)))
--
Dudley Henriques
Come on, now...
Though I disagree with folks but bright and not so, surely you give me
more credit than that....
Dan
I don't mean anything personal at all Dan. Just seems every time someone
associates me with Microsoft, somebody suggests I don't fly or haven't
flown in real life. In fact, this thread has been full of just that type
of accusation by two individuals.
No big deal by a long shot. :-))

--
Dudley Henriques

Reasonable people usually figure out who's who....

I used MSFS 2004 to great advantage in preparing for my instrument
rating. It saved me many hours of dual and I took the test at the
minimum logged time (though I probably twice that unlogged on the
sim). It was worth it for holds alone

Is this an endorsement of MFS in all cases for all people? Of course
not! In the same way I don't use a torque wrench to hammer nails.

MSFS/X-Plane/what-have-you is a tool like any other. Misuse a tool and
you'll have bad results.
Why is this so hard to understand?

Dan

Beats me. Lord knows I've spent a ton of time online trying to explain
it to people.
I reviewed the Bruce Williams book on using MSFS as a training tool for
flight instructors for ASA and covered most of it there.
That review can be found onwww.simflight.comBTW (just search
Henriques)if you'd like to glance at it.

--
Dudley Henriques

Read it.
Have it.
Good stuff.


Dan

On Mar 8, 9:30 am, Dudley Henriques wrote:
wrote:
On Mar 7, 11:37 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" wrote:

Glide back to the runway
Ken

Students, this is dangerous. Do not turn back to the runway if you
are below 1000' agl and lose the engine. You won't make it. You lose
considerable altitude in the turn and tend to lift the nose, reducing
speed, and to keep near the runway you'll tend to tighten the turn
using a skid. It's death waiting to happen via a stall and spin.
Normal practice is to pick a spot with 30° or so of your flight
path. Not a pleasant choice, considering the location of some
airports.

Dan

I'm slowly changing the way I view Usenet at this point in time. You can
do as both of us have been doing and attempt to deal with this crap post
by post, or you can come to the inevitable conclusion that doing it is a
waste of time.
Sooner or later, one has to conclude that student pilots are all under
the control of a CFI one way or the other and that these people all have
the common sense not to take anything they read on Usenet into a
practical situation in the airplane.

I know that I for one, personally anyway, am coming to the conclusion
that I care less and less about Usenet and my interactive role with it
every day.

--
Dudley Henriques

Either a pathetic cry for attention, or the best news I've heard all
day. Hoping for the latter.

On Fri, 7 Mar 2008 22:37:55 -0800 (PST), Ken S. Tucker wrote:

Every pilot is elated to ascend following rotation,
but what should you do if your engine sputters
and quits while climbing at just a few hundred feet.

Off hand I'd suggest pushing the yoke forward to
use decent to prevent stall, because the stall can
happen real fast in that attitude, so be prepared.
((Don't freeze like a deer in head lights)).

Glide back to the runway or have knowledge of a
safe alternative and use it.
Ken

Wow, Ken, even *I* know this is idiotic.
--
Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!