If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
Dave,
I'm willing to allow the risk level to go higher for myself than for unsuspecting passengers who don't have the knowledge or experience to assess the risk for themselves. I think that's a recipe for desaster. What makes you less vulnerable to risk? -- Thomas Borchert (EDDH) |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
Brad,
The 296 has a Attitude Indicator??? A TC, kind of. -- Thomas Borchert (EDDH) |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
"Michael" wrote in message m... Judah wrote I seem to recall a thread a while back that discussed getting down safely if you lose everything, and it involved trimming all the way up and reducing the throttle and flying with the rudder only... Admittedly, I never tried it, but it is an excercise worth trying because I'd be curious to see if it really works... When I owned a 100 kt fixed-gear, fixed-pitch airplane (TriPacer), I could do it. If I had to, I could keep the wings level with just the compass. Move up to a 160 kt retract, and it simply doesn't work that well. Works pretty well on a 172. |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
Thomas Borchert wrote:
Dave, I'm willing to allow the risk level to go higher for myself than for unsuspecting passengers who don't have the knowledge or experience to assess the risk for themselves. I think that's a recipe for desaster. What makes you less vulnerable to risk? I'm not less vulnerable. I just think others deserve a more conservative standard of caution when I am assessing the risk on their behalf, and they don't have the training or knowledge to assess it for themselves. I don't know what their risk tolerance is, so I assume they are more risk averse than I am. Others on the NG have expressed it more eloquently, sorry I wasn't clear. |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
"C Kingsbury" wrote in
nk.net: "Michael" wrote in message m... Judah wrote I seem to recall a thread a while back that discussed getting down safely if you lose everything, and it involved trimming all the way up and reducing the throttle and flying with the rudder only... Admittedly, I never tried it, but it is an excercise worth trying because I'd be curious to see if it really works... When I owned a 100 kt fixed-gear, fixed-pitch airplane (TriPacer), I could do it. If I had to, I could keep the wings level with just the compass. Move up to a 160 kt retract, and it simply doesn't work that well. Works pretty well on a 172. Something I learned once makes me wonder if this is a high-wing vs. low-wing issue... From what I remember, because high wing planes have the fuselage suspended from the Wing plane, they are more stable than low-wing planes which have the fuselage mounted on top of the wing plane. The person who made the comment to me compared it to hanging a ball from a stick, vs. trying to balance the ball on top of the stick... Maybe I'm just being a low-wing scapegoater. Of course, I fly Low Wings these days, and some of my best friends fly High Wings. So I couldn't be prejudiced! |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 02 Dec 2004 16:46:19 GMT, Judah wrote:
Something I learned once makes me wonder if this is a high-wing vs. low-wing issue... From what I remember, because high wing planes have the fuselage suspended from the Wing plane, they are more stable than low-wing planes which have the fuselage mounted on top of the wing plane. The person who made the comment to me compared it to hanging a ball from a stick, vs. trying to balance the ball on top of the stick... Maybe I'm just being a low-wing scapegoater. Of course, I fly Low Wings these days, and some of my best friends fly High Wings. So I couldn't be prejudiced! I think that's why low-wings have more dihedral designed into them, but I could be wrong. |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
Thomas Borchert wrote
The 296 has a Attitude Indicator??? A TC, kind of. Actually, to be pedantic, a T&S, kind of. The T part or the T&S (Turn&Slip) is a constrained gyro that shows rate of turn (really rate of yaw) only. The first attempts to build an autopilot that did not need an expensive and finicky free gyro (Attitude indicator) used these. They were uniformly unsuccessful. Thus the TC was developed. It's really the same kind of constrined gyro, only it's canted so that it shows a combined rate of turn and rate of roll. This way, the indicator shows that the wings are no longer level before the airplane has turned at all. That made the autopilots work. It also made it easier to fly partial panel, and these days the T&S is all but gone from GA. Now obviously the GPS has no way to detect roll, so while it shows a TC presentation, it really has T&S functionality - and on top of that, there is a delay. So don't get the idea that is will be as easy to fly the 296 panel as it is to fly normal partial panel. Michael |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
|
#49
|
|||
|
|||
"Michael" wrote: My initial reaction to reading that was that it was absolutely 100% right, and I couldn't see how anyone could possibly disagree. Then I realized that you (and I) made an implicit assumption. Let me make it explicit. The assumption you make is the assumption of a destination pilot. When you make a trip that you would make in any case, only by private airplane rather than an existing alternative (automobile, airline, etc.) there are two separate classes of reasons for this. First, there might be practical advantages such as cost (yeah, right), comfort (my seats are a lot more comfortable than coach), convenience (with regard to schedule flexibility and time - almost always the case), and lack of frustration (sitting in traffic, being treated like a criminal by the Thousands Standing Around, lost luggage). These I would class as practical reasons, just as valid for your passenger as they are for you, even if he doesn't care a bit about little airplanes and will spend the flight sleeping or reading a book. There is also that joy of flying that we all share - something that is valid for you but not your passenger. On the other hand, there is increased risk. It never ceases to amaze me how many pilots are in denial about this increased risk. The truth is, unless your alternative method of transportation was manufactured by Yamaha or Harley Davidson, it is almost certainly safer. Nevertheless, the other methods are not risk-free. So we as pilots accept the increased risk for the increased benefits. We have more increased benefits than our passengers (since we get to enjoy the flight) so are willing to accept more risk. So far, I am merely restating what you said, but in more detail (have you noticed I have a habit of doing this?) What!?! Never! [snip] If most of your flights have no real destination - meaning they are either to nowhere at all or to someplace you would not bother going if it meant driving or taking the airlines or the bus - then you're likely to have the same risk tolerance for yourself and your passengers, because your reasons for making the flight are fundamentally the same. If most of your flights are for the purpose of travel, and you would probably make the trip by other means if the airplane was not an option, then you are more likely to realize that you have more of a reason to make the trip by airplane than someone who does not enjoy the flight, and thus are willing to accept more risk. Nope, I disagree -- I think. Assuming our passenger on the $100 hamburger trip is just as ignorant about flying as the one going 400 miles to a business neeting, isn't he entitled to the same cautious discretion from his pilot as the serious traveler? With a flying buddy I've made a $100 hamburger trip with low IMC all the way just because, well, that's what we like to do, sick-os that we are. That's a notably elevated risk level over a nice VFR trip, IMO, given the airplane I fly. I would never invite a non-aviation savvy passenger on such a trip, even if I knew he would enjoy it. I guess what I'm trying to say is that it's not the purpose of the flight but the risk level that should make the pilot consider whether his passengers would decline the trip if they really knew the score. I must say that, aside from Angel Flight, I get very few passengers because, as much as I enjoy giving rides, I don't sugar coat the risks for people. I flat out tell them that flying in a light aircraft is more dangerous than riding in a car, and that tends to dampen a lot of folks' enthusiasm. -- Dan C172RG at BFM |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
"Thomas Borchert" wrote: Why would your own life somehow be less important than that of other people, however closely related you may be to them? I don't think that way. If I consider the risk acceptable to my life, it is acceptable to other people's, too. And yes, there would be types of IMC I consider too risky for myself. I don't agree, Thomas. Some people ferry single-engine airplanes across the vast oceans. This is indisputably a high risk thing to do, but they accept the risk because of the rewards of money and personal satisfaction. Still, I very much doubt many of them take their kids along for the ride, believing--appropriately, I would argue--that what is acceptable risk for them is not acceptable for an innocent child. Would you say that the ferry pilots think their lives are worth less than their children's? -- Dan C172RG at BFM |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
AOPA Stall/Spin Study -- Stowell's Review (8,000 words) | Rich Stowell | Aerobatics | 28 | January 2nd 09 02:26 PM |
Good plans-built Light Sport Aircraft | Rob Schneider | Home Built | 15 | August 19th 04 05:50 PM |
DCPilots for Washington, DC area pilots | Bill | Instrument Flight Rules | 3 | June 5th 04 12:32 AM |
Bush Pilots Fly-In. South Africa. | Bush Air | Home Built | 0 | May 25th 04 06:18 AM |
bulding a kitplane maybe Van's RV9A --- a good idea ????? | Flightdeck | Home Built | 10 | September 9th 03 07:20 PM |