CHEROKEE LANDS ON STINSON: ALL OK

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...

While I am fully aware that it is common practice for aircraft
participating in the CTAF self-announcement position broadcast system
at uncontrolled air fields to negotiate via two-way radio, despite it
being neither recommended in FAA published Advisory Circulars nor
being mentioned in federal regulations, my view is that if such
negotiation hadn't been conducted in this incident, the mishap may not
have occurred. Are you are able to appreciate the logic of that point
of view in this incident?


There is no logic in that point of view.



Implicit in that analysis is the question, by what authority is the
airman who negotiates right-of-way, contrary to what the Administrator
has codified in federal regulation 91.113(g), empowered to override
those regulations? Are you able to cite a regulation, other than
91.3(b), or another authoritative source that grants an airman that
authority to deviate from federal regulations?


No regulations are being overridden.

On Wed, 21 May 2008 13:58:17 -0500, Gig 601Xl Builder
wrote:

If for some reason I can't think of they never had each other in sight
or especially if the Cherokee never had the Stinson in sight the
Cherokee should have broken off the approach if he had any reason to
think the Stinson was on the runway.

I agree.

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
That's an interesting question. Let's say I'm on final and I call you on
the CTAF and tell you that I'm coming in slow and you have plenty of time
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
speed and distance of an aircraft on final from the runup area, assume the
vis is 3 miles and I'm flying a helicopter.

Why do you even bother with runways when you're flying a helicopter?

Because I can.

John Galban=====N4BQ (PA28-180)

--
Message posted via AviationKB.com
http://www.aviationkb.com/Uwe/Forums...ation/200805/1

"JGalban via AviationKB.com" u32749@uwe wrote in message
news:848a66ea82477@uwe...

Why do you even bother with runways when you're flying a helicopter?


Because I can.


Why do you even bother to respond with a non-answer? Because you can?

Frank Olson wrote in
news:dMYYj.157252$Cj7.137901@pd7urf2no:

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Lou wrote in news:ee8fa5a7-9927-4c7c-8576-
:

Im very impressed on the ability of the stinson on not collapsing.
Lou

it's a real airplane,. not a beer can! Nice thing about the older
airplanes, especially the rag and tube ones, is you can rebuild them
from the data plate up if you want to. they'e also safer in an
accident. You carry your own roll cage around with you.


Bertie


Considering that most of the older "rag and tube" aircraft employ a
coating of powdered aluminum (AKA rocket fuel) and highly flammable
dope, your chances of surviving a controlled crash in the Cherokee are
much better. :-)


Not statistically.


BTW, what's a controlled crash? I try not to crash when I'm in control.


Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Frank Olson wrote in
news:dMYYj.157252$Cj7.137901@pd7urf2no:

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Lou wrote in news:ee8fa5a7-9927-4c7c-8576-
:

Im very impressed on the ability of the stinson on not collapsing.
Lou
it's a real airplane,. not a beer can! Nice thing about the older
airplanes, especially the rag and tube ones, is you can rebuild them
from the data plate up if you want to. they'e also safer in an
accident. You carry your own roll cage around with you.


Bertie

Considering that most of the older "rag and tube" aircraft employ a
coating of powdered aluminum (AKA rocket fuel) and highly flammable
dope, your chances of surviving a controlled crash in the Cherokee are
much better. :-)


Not statistically.


BTW, what's a controlled crash? I try not to crash when I'm in control.


Bertie


Heh. Me too. If your engine fails you still have "full control" of the
aircraft and can guide it to a safe landing (with a little luck and some
altitude), as opposed to losing a primary flight system (like a wing or
your horizontal stab). In the latter examples your only option is KYAG
(Kiss Your Ass Goodbye).

Frank Olson wrote in
news:aWzZj.289324$pM4.202964@pd7urf1no:

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Frank Olson wrote in
news:dMYYj.157252$Cj7.137901@pd7urf2no:

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Lou wrote in news:ee8fa5a7-9927-4c7c-8576-
:

Im very impressed on the ability of the stinson on not collapsing.
Lou
it's a real airplane,. not a beer can! Nice thing about the older
airplanes, especially the rag and tube ones, is you can rebuild
them
from the data plate up if you want to. they'e also safer in an
accident. You carry your own roll cage around with you.


Bertie

Considering that most of the older "rag and tube" aircraft employ a
coating of powdered aluminum (AKA rocket fuel) and highly flammable
dope, your chances of surviving a controlled crash in the Cherokee
are
much better. :-)


Not statistically.


BTW, what's a controlled crash? I try not to crash when I'm in
control.


Bertie


Heh. Me too. If your engine fails you still have "full control" of
the
aircraft and can guide it to a safe landing (with a little luck and
some
altitude), as opposed to losing a primary flight system (like a wing
or
your horizontal stab). In the latter examples your only option is
KYAG
(Kiss Your Ass Goodbye).


Yeah, true.

I saw stats for this years ago. I think it might have been in Tony
Bengelis's books or maybe sprot aviation, but steel tube airplanes are
much safer in a crash than anything else. Tin is next but trails well
behind, with composite and wood bringing up the rear.


Bertie

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

Why do you even bother to respond with a non-answer? Because you can?

No. Because why I'm flying a helicopter to the runway was not the point of
the hypothetical question. I could be flying the ILS, or maybe I just feel
like making an approach to the runway. It doesn't really matter.

John Galban=====N4BQ (PA28-180)

--
Message posted via http://www.aviationkb.com

"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message ...


Not statistically.


BTW, what's a controlled crash? I try not to crash when I'm in control.


Bertie

That's when I decide I'm gonna hit the pillow as opposed to just falling over sleeping...

JGalban via AviationKB.com wrote:
Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

Why do you even bother to respond with a non-answer? Because you
can?

No. Because why I'm flying a helicopter to the runway was not the
point of the hypothetical question. I could be flying the ILS, or
maybe I just feel like making an approach to the runway. It doesn't
really matter.


I'll take that as a "Yes".