Accident report on the midair at Tenino

Bela P. Havasreti wrote:
On Wed, 9 Jun 2004 07:58:32 -0700, "C J Campbell"
wrote:
off, you don't lose your nose gear!) At the same time, losing all that
weight might improve your glide significantly.

No, less weight does not significantly improve glide
performance, it just shifts your best glide to a lower
speed range. (It will improve your glide downwind
though, and make it worse into wind)

More important however would be the aerodynamic shape of
whatever was left of the nose after having prop, engine and
part of the cowling fall off. It is not too bold a bet to
say the aerodynamic characteristics will have been clearly
worse after the damage than before, thus more drag and
worse glide.

CV

On Wed, 09 Jun 2004 23:21:25 +0200, CV wrote:

Bela P. Havasreti wrote:
On Wed, 9 Jun 2004 07:58:32 -0700, "C J Campbell"
wrote:
off, you don't lose your nose gear!) At the same time, losing all that
weight might improve your glide significantly.

No, less weight does not significantly improve glide
performance, it just shifts your best glide to a lower
speed range. (It will improve your glide downwind
though, and make it worse into wind)

More important however would be the aerodynamic shape of
whatever was left of the nose after having prop, engine and
part of the cowling fall off. It is not too bold a bet to
say the aerodynamic characteristics will have been clearly
worse after the damage than before, thus more drag and
worse glide.

CV

Please watch who you quote (I didn't write that....).

Bela P. Havasreti

On Wed, 9 Jun 2004 16:56:34 GMT, Bela P. Havasreti
wrote:


I'm not saying flight following is bad, or you shouldn't use it,
just that you should be able to fly from point A to point B
by looking out the windows and seeing / avoiding any
other airplanes in the sky. Simple as that.

This mid-air could have been avoided had either pilot
done exactly that.

Not necessarily true. There have been times when I have been on with
ATC, had TCAS and there was another pilot sitting in the front seat
when traffic was called out to us and TCAS telling us about the
traffic as well. We never did see the plane despite both of us
looking in the direction where the traffic was and our MFD showing us
exactly where he was. So just by looking outside, does not prevent all
accidents.


Scott D

The only "successful" flights I have seen after an engine departs, involved
VERY steep bank angles until VERY near the ground. Both a/c (A T6 at Reno,
and a Swift in Idaho) came to rest close to the engine that had departed. I
assume the engine didn't glide very well.
Al Gerharter


"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:eAFxc.19854$HG.16770@attbi_s53...
Both pilots are well known and respected in the Puget Sound area.
Amazing
that the pilot of the 170 was able to fly his plane at all:

This is the second NTSB report I've read where pilots were able to
maintain
control of an engine-less plane.

How is this possible? Without an engine up front, the CG would pitch so
far
aft that the plane should fall like a maple leaf -- yet these two guys
were
able to nose the plane over and maintain flight.

How can this be?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"Bela P. Havasreti" wrote:

I'm not saying flight following is bad, or you shouldn't use it,
just that you should be able to fly from point A to point B
by looking out the windows and seeing / avoiding any
other airplanes in the sky. Simple as that.

This mid-air could have been avoided had either pilot
done exactly that.

That may be true for the 210 pilot, but not the 170. It appears from the report that
the 210 overtook the 170 from behind on the left side at about a 30 degree angle.
Unless the 170 pilot had rear-view mirrors, he could not have seen the 210 until it
was way too late.

George Patterson
None of us is as dumb as all of us.

Bela P. Havasreti wrote in message ...
I'm not saying flight following is bad, or you shouldn't use it,
just that you should be able to fly from point A to point B
by looking out the windows and seeing / avoiding any
other airplanes in the sky. Simple as that.

It's a great theory, but you only have half of see-and-avoid available
if one plane is approaching from your rear, and if they're flying into
the sun, they likely won't see you either.

Ever fly in the Northeast on a nice weekend? There are planes
everywhere. I had a Beech fly right under me from my rear quarter one
day... about 50' below. I doubt he saw me. Pretty unnerving.

Best, Kev

Jay Honeck opined

Both pilots are well known and respected in the Puget Sound area. Amazing
that the pilot of the 170 was able to fly his plane at all:

This is the second NTSB report I've read where pilots were able to maintain
control of an engine-less plane.

How is this possible? Without an engine up front, the CG would pitch so far
aft that the plane should fall like a maple leaf -- yet these two guys were
able to nose the plane over and maintain flight.

How can this be?

AIrspeed. Given enough airsped a tail (or nose) heavy aircraft can fly. But
the feedback becomes positive instead of negative. If you slow down the tail
drops. More down elevator is needed increasing drag. Get too slow and you
cannot recover. Computers can handle the problem better than people. See late
model jet aircraft with relaxed stability.



-ash
Cthulhu for President!
Why vote for a lesser evil?

"John Harlow" wrote in message
...

I never, ever fly without at least trying to get traffic advisories, and
it's very rare I don't get it. As a student, because NONE of my
instructors
ever did, I didn't think to much about it (they are the pros, don't you
know?). Now, I consider anyone who is to lazy to get flight following as
someone too foolish to fly with.


As I think I pointed out, flight following is not always available in this
area due to low altitudes and poor radar and radio coverage. Seattle
Approach is often too busy to handle flight following. Flight following is
no substitute for "see and avoid" anyway. We have too many things like
seaplanes and helicopters conducting operations everywhere around here to
rely on flight following. A great many airplanes have neither radios nor
transponders. The TFRs have made things worse. There are a number of pilots
around here who attempt to avoid airspace trouble by turning their
transponders off and refusing to talk to anyone. Some of them will fly in
IMC.

I have been listening to an ongoing debate about flight following among
instructors for some time. Some of these instructors think that flight
following actually hinders teaching pilots to see and avoid and they don't
think that students should be introduced to it until the second cross
country. These instructors don't seem particularly irrational to me. Most of
them are old flight instructors who also think that places like Tacoma Tower
rely too much on radar and not enough on looking out at the traffic. I don't
agree with their viewpoint necessarily but I can understand it quite well.
They do have a point.

Flight following is no substitute for "see and avoid" anyway.


I'll second that and third that. I see =so= many new pilots unable to function
without the kind of reassurance that flight following, GPS, handheld navcomms,
and autopilots provide. They are afraid to fly without it, and are unable to
fly with just a chart, a window, and CAVU. As a result, they are also no
longer PILOT IN COMMAND, but PASSENGER IN LEFT SEAT.

It's nice to have traffic pointed out, and it's (sometimes) nice to get vectors
around a problem, but the more you do that, the more you rely on the guy on the
ground to fly the plane. It becomes an attitude, and is a Bad Thing.

If you can't fly CAVU with a chart and a compass, you should not be in the air.
If you don't think you can or should fly without the geegaws and the radios,
find an instructor who will teach you how - because when you KNOW you can do
it, flight following is no longer a crutch or substitute, but an aid.

Jose


--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

On Wed, 09 Jun 2004 16:07:19 -0600, SD c o f l y i n g @ p c i s y s
d o t n e t wrote:

On Wed, 9 Jun 2004 16:56:34 GMT, Bela P. Havasreti
wrote:


I'm not saying flight following is bad, or you shouldn't use it,
just that you should be able to fly from point A to point B
by looking out the windows and seeing / avoiding any
other airplanes in the sky. Simple as that.

This mid-air could have been avoided had either pilot
done exactly that.

Not necessarily true. There have been times when I have been on with
ATC, had TCAS and there was another pilot sitting in the front seat
when traffic was called out to us and TCAS telling us about the
traffic as well. We never did see the plane despite both of us
looking in the direction where the traffic was and our MFD showing us
exactly where he was. So just by looking outside, does not prevent all
accidents.


Scott D

Point taken... but if you have TCAS on board, were talking to ATC and
had your eyeballs peeled looking out the windows, and were still
struck by another aircraft, your number was simply up! 8^)

Bela P. Havasreti