Lancair crash at SnF

WingFlaps wrote in
:

On Apr 26, 12:58*pm, Michael Ash wrote:


I'd also like to suggest that from my point of view your reaction to
the confusion was *way* out of line. The correct response is simply
to note that you are using "velocity" in its technical sense as a
vector and not its lay sense as a synonym for speed, then continue
the discussion from there. Berating him for bad English is simply
uncalled for, although it is

of course par for the course on Usenet.


I simply started getting ****ed off when I had to state it for the
third time and he continued to try to put words into my mouth. Go back
over the thread and see it. Also I did not berate him, if you read the
thread you would see the following exchange

Stefan: What part of "everyday's language" wasn't clear?
Me: I can see you have trouble with English too.

Is that what you call berating him? Perhaps you did not read the
thread ?

Actually, though I'm too lazy to go look it up, in your original post I
also got the impression that you were talking about having to accelerate
with the wind.. Much as I hate to agree with the clockwork ****. ( Stefan)



Berti

On Apr 27, 3:31 am, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
WingFlaps wrote :





On Apr 26, 12:58 pm, Michael Ash wrote:


Actually, though I'm too lazy to go look it up, in your original post I
also got the impression that you were talking about having to accelerate
with the wind.. Much as I hate to agree with the clockwork ****. ( Stefan)


Yes, I was and that was the point. You do have to accelerate and it
does cost some energy -but the cost is not due to the change in ground
speed (I never mentioned the change in ground speed you will note).
What is interesting is how quickly people grabbed the idea
incorrectly, and how willling they were to strut their limited
understanding without giving some careful thought as to what might be
going on.

I feel quite passionate about safety (or rather the avoidable lack
thereof). It is illuminating that a post designed to (re)open minds
to the danger of the turn back on engine failure (the "impossible
turn") by giving some concrete glide numbers should have met such
visceral response (was it was mostly macho and invulnerability errors
in behaviour coming through?). For some reason many pilots here seem
to think an airport is the only safe place to put a plane down. Even
if EFATO landing zones include a school, mall and residential housing
there are always places to put a light plane within 90 degrees of
runway centerline that will allow a proper landing without huge
carnage.

What may be even more critical is how inflated some people think their
ability will be in an actual emergency. I have been in "extreme
danger" with other people so I can speak with some authority on how
people actually behave in life threatening situations.

For some (most?) pilots, when the fan stops there will be several
seconds of disbelief. Then they start to muddle through some checks -
taking more time than they should as they try to make sure they've got
the reason. The practised slick response becomes slowed or not carried
out correcly (e.g. the fuel valve is not turned to another tank or the
boost pump is not selected). Some panic will bite, the pilot knows
he's low and slow, away from the runway and the safety of "home". Even
if the turn might have just have been made by a very slick coordinated
pilot, in the actual event that option moves quickly out of the realm
of possibility. Then the pilot realizes that he's running short on
time and tries to turn tightly for "home" at low airspeed. The (nearly
always) fatal stall spin crash that results is a preventable event if
that turn is not made -so why do so many pilots try it and die? Is it
possible that they have become so conditioned to the idea that the
airport is the only place where a plane can land that no other options
can exist?

Sorry for the long post but here's a final thought: It is well known
that in emergency situations that infantile response patterns can
reappear. Look at how slowly a baby pilot works checks in EFATO (even
if they can rattle the FMI parts off on the ground). I suggest that in
a real emergency the PIC might take just as long... So I suggest that
a way to train EFATO properly might be to look at the height loss in
training and then double it and state that unless you are at least at
twice that altitude don't turn back. Make that decision point a part
of training, much in the same was as you clear forward at 400-500'
after T/O. What do you think of this idea, Dudley too?

Cheers

On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 22:05:22 -0700 (PDT), WingFlaps wrote:

I simply started getting ****ed off when I had to state it for the
third time and he continued to try to put words into my mouth. Go back
over the thread and see it. Also I did not berate him, if you read the
thread you would see the following exchange

Stefan: What part of "everyday's language" wasn't clear?
Me: I can see you have trouble with English too.

Is that what you call berating him? Perhaps you did not read the
thread ?

Yikes! I just had a horrible thought. What if DanMc (may he rot in
hell) and Wingflapper should get together and procreate? I would think
the result would be quite horrid, all ass and no forehead, three balls
and a blue cravat.
--
pLeEsE mEaT mY oWNer; sEnDs MoNIeS
http://s7y.us/32o

On Apr 27, 2:55*am, Michael Ash wrote:
In rec.aviation.student WingFlaps wrote:





On Apr 26, 12:58?pm, Michael Ash wrote:

I'd also like to suggest that from my point of view your reaction to the
confusion was *way* out of line. The correct response is simply to note
that you are using "velocity" in its technical sense as a vector and not
its lay sense as a synonym for speed, then continue the discussion from
there. Berating him for bad English is simply uncalled for, although it is
of course par for the course on Usenet.

I simply started getting ****ed off when I had to state it for the
third time and he continued to try to put words into my mouth. Go back
over the thread and see it. Also I did not berate him, if you read the
thread you would see the following exchange

Stefan: What part of "everyday's language" wasn't clear?
Me: I can see you have trouble with English too.

Is that what you call berating him?

Yes.


Here's what berate means:

"to scold or condemn vehemently and at length"

Is that what I did -come on be honest!

Sheesh.

On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 16:51:53 -0700 (PDT), WingFlaps wrote:

I declare you're a troll.

http://www.silverraven.com/fy.htm

On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 17:37:39 -0700, Hilton wrote:

Hi,

OK, too much noise here, let's just refrain from replying to personal
attacks shall we.

Two and two is four.

There, we've now exchanged platitudinous truisms. Are we bonding yet?

--
Gonad

On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 11:06:42 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

It's not so much the loss of altitude that will get you in this
manuever. it's the probable loss of control trying to manuever around
back towards the field.
Firstly, in any emergency that hasnt been drilled, you will have a
moment where you will be sitting there with your mouth open in utter
disbelief of what has just happened. in fact, even if you have drilled
for it you will still have this moment, but if it's been practiced the
moment you begine to do something about it will be sooner coming.
While you're sitting there wondering what's going on, the speed will be
bleeding off. Not good.

Nothing you do is useful. You very rarely even come up with a good
idea, and when the blind squirrel principal does kick in (astoundingly,
you've seem to even defeat random chance with your incompetence), you
manage to cock it up so badly that what might have been a useful thing
in a normal person's hands turns to low-grade fertilizer.

Those are your two claims to fame. Being a complete flake who can't
keep even the simplest of things on track for any significant period of
time, and being an absolute moron when it comes to understanding what's
useful to the piloting community, and implementing it.

--
____________________
Alric Knebel

http://www.ironeyefortress.com/C-SPAN_loon.html
http://www.ironeyefortress.com

On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 00:33:52 GMT, Larry Dighera wrote:
On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 00:33:52 GMT,*Larry Diarrhea* wrote:

The Kinetic Energy "Paradox"

Larry, there's a difference between 'bad' and 'so earth shatteringly
horrible it makes the angels scream in terror as they violently rip
their heads off, their blood spraying into the faces of a thousand sweet
innocent horrified children, who will forever have the terrible
images burned into their tiny little minds'.

You¢re the latter.

On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 03:45:41 -0700 (PDT), WingFlaps wrote:

I can see you missed the point entirely.

DickHead:

This is kind of like teasing you, a retarded kid, until he gets so
angry you **** yourself. Sure, in a perverse way, it's funny to watch
you stand there and scream and deny, all red-faced with **** dripping
from your cuffs of your shorts and down your pasty white legs. But,
still, I feel bad for you in a way, too. It's worse than shooting fish
in a barrel, it's just too easy.
--
http://tinyurl.com/ysv7sz

On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 12:59:19 -0700 (PDT), WingFlaps wrote:

WTF?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F48eTMgqF2w
--
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 8.0.2
iQA/AwUBR/qGPRv8knkS0DI6EQLqQQCfYI/+jhW28/0AaBVgq58mnuYYo2AAnRMP
r/ChOzrJkKnGHZcngwRffPMG
=2EPt
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----