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 |
#121
|
|||
|
|||
Another stall spin
On Sep 5, 6:45*am, Don Burns wrote:
Another reason I trim full forward while in the pattern is that I feel the back pressure during the entire approach. *If I slow from approach speed to say 10 knots slower, I feel the additional back pressure. *A kind of pressure warning system. I noticed that my chances of inadvertently slowing down go way up if I am flying out of trim. The interesting part is that this applies both to trimming forward or aft. Basically, I find it easier to feel "little pressure" vs "no pressure" than "some pressure" vs "more pressure." Bart |
#122
|
|||
|
|||
Another stall spin
On Sep 5, 6:45*am, Don Burns wrote:
Another reason I trim full forward while in the pattern is that I feel the back pressure during the entire approach. *If I slow from approach speed to say 10 knots slower, I feel the additional back pressure. *A kind of pressure warning system. Can you tell us how many off airport landings you have made using this technique? My experience is that any distraction will result in the speed trending towards the trim speed. Off airport landings are often high stress and therefore a continuous distraction. I would never deliberately fly an approach out of trim. Too fast can be a bigger problem than too slow. Andy (GY) |
#123
|
|||
|
|||
Another stall spin
I am with Bart, for the same reason - always trim for approach speed as it
is easier to sense if not at trimmed speed. As a former instructor, I would never teach or encourage anyone to do anything else. (Dunno exactly how many off-field landings – over 100 in farm fields and another 50 or so at other airfields etc..) Chris N |
#124
|
|||
|
|||
Another stall spin
At 15:46 05 September 2012, Bart wrote:
On Sep 5, 6:45=A0am, Don Burns wrote: Another reason I trim full forward while in the pattern is that I feel th= e back pressure during the entire approach. =A0If I slow from approach spee= d to say 10 knots slower, I feel the additional back pressure. =A0A kind of pressure warning system. I noticed that my chances of inadvertently slowing down go way up if I am flying out of trim. The interesting part is that this applies both to trimming forward or aft. Basically, I find it easier to feel "little pressure" vs "no pressure" than "some pressure" vs "more pressure." Bart Not a good practice - and, BTW, a technique designed to detect a 10 knot drop in airspeed suggests acceptance of an approach speed target range that is not sufficiently precise for safety in one direction or accurate landing in the other. Trim for approach speed, monitor your airspeed and look out. John Galloway |
#125
|
|||
|
|||
Another stall spin
Can you tell us how many off airport landings you have made using this technique? ABOUT 60 IN 23 YEARS My experience is that any distraction will result in the speed trending towards the trim speed. Off airport landings are often high stress and therefore a continuous distraction. I would never deliberately fly an approach out of trim. Too fast can be a bigger problem than too slow. I CONSTANTLY CHECK THE AIRSPEED DURING THE APPROACH AND HAVE NOT HAD A PROBLEM WITH TOO MUCH AIRSPEED. I BELIEVE MOST SPEED RELATED AVIATION ACCIDENTS RESULT FROM FLYING TOO SLOW NOT FROM FLYING TOO FAST. Andy (GY) |
#126
|
|||
|
|||
Another stall spin
I CONSTANTLY CHECK THE AIRSPEED DURING THE APPROACH
AND HAVE NOT HAD A PROBLEM WITH TOO MUCH AIRSPEED. I BELIEVE MOST SPEED RELATED AVIATION ACCIDENTS RESULT FROM FLYING TOO SLOW NOT FROM FLYING TOO FAST. Are you a flight instructor? |
#127
|
|||
|
|||
Another stall spin
In my last post I talked about making an early decision to land out and
never attempting low saves ala 300' AGL. The many following posts are all about low altitude departures from controlled flight. Nobody thinks he'll die on this flight but, if I was an insurance underwriter, I'd give lower premiums to those who commit to safe field landings over those who attempt low saves. I have a hard time accepting "safety lectures" which espouse safely pulling your fat out of the fire rather than not letting it get there in the first place. "Bob Whelan" wrote in message ... On 9/3/2012 9:43 AM, Dan Marotta wrote: If I thought I was going to die every time I flew, I wouldn't fly. Nor would I. I've never thought I "*was* going to die every time I flew," only that if I didn't get certain things "right enough" on THIS approach that I *could* die. Big difference. There's a long history of dead pilots - better and more experienced than I - who *did* die from not getting some basic things right. - - - - - - The problem, as I see it, with these low altitude stall/spin accidents stems from the desire to get home rather than landing out. Back in the '70s the USAF called it "Get-Home-itis" and warned that it was a good way to get killed. Pilots need to make the decision to terminate a flight before there is no option other than landing in an unlandable place or trying to make a low save a mile from home just to avoid the inconvenience of a retrieve. Good thinking...with which I'm in 100% agreement. - - - - - - Long ago I made the commitment to never be outside of gliding distance of a suitable landing area. I also carry the phone numbers of people who have told me that they will come to get me if I land out. I always know where I will land if I don't get that next thermal so there's no problem if I don't get it and there are never any attempts to thermal at 300' AGL. If my conservatism causes me to rarely get more than 500Km in a day, but I can *live* with that. More good thinking, IMO! Most soaring pilots fly for personal satisfaction, as distinct - say - from setting state/national/international records. Learning how to intelligently expand one's personal limits is a key piece of the soaring puzzle. - - - - - - For the record, my underlying reason to finger "misguided/absent thought patterns" as a very real hazard within the sport of soaring comes from decades of specifically ad-hoc discussions with the "committing PIC" regarding "flaky patterns": e.g. "drunken sailor," low, perplexing-to-me-under-the-circumstances, etc. Based purely on non-quantifiable, lengthy, experience discussing these sorts of events with the pilots involved, I think I've seen a consistent pattern of "brains not where they need to be" in terms of not fundamentally focusing on high-priority (to THAT pattern's ultimate outcome) items. Why that is - e.g. complacency, distraction, pushing personal limits, whatever - is less clear to me. In any event, how a pilot thinks, matters. FWIW, Bob W. |
#128
|
|||
|
|||
Another stall spin
On 9/5/2012 6:34 PM, Dan Marotta wrote:
In my last post I talked about making an early decision to land out and never attempting low saves ala 300' AGL. The many following posts are all about low altitude departures from controlled flight. Nobody thinks he'll die on this flight but, if I was an insurance underwriter, I'd give lower premiums to those who commit to safe field landings over those who attempt low saves. I have a hard time accepting "safety lectures" which espouse safely pulling your fat out of the fire rather than not letting it get there in the first place. Lordy. Are we reading the same posts? *I'm* certainly not espousing safely pulling my - or anyone else's - fat out of the fire (by attempting low saves in Russian roulette territory) vs. "not going there in the first place". Just to be clear, I think attempted thermalling at Russian roulette height agl (and each pilot gets to determine what that height is for them) is (choose what you'd like): asinine; foolish; irresponsible (at many levels); playing with fire; etc., etc., etc. That said, no "safety lecture" anyone thinks I may be indulging in applies *only* to low thermalling. Minor messing about in the NTSB database, paying attention to what one reads over the years, etc., reveals lots of pattern-based, fatal, departures from controlled flight that may easily have been avoidable had the pilots' involved not been "surprised". Remember the Questair Venture? Designed by two highly experienced professional aeronautical types, one of whom eventually died in a Venture after a (very) high-altitude (meaning, lots of time to get things sorted out and develop a plan) engine failure that resulted in a base-to-final departure-from-controlled flight when they easily had the Des Moines International Airport made. That crunch merely springs to mind...there're lots more, including "benign spam can" crunches. Nor are pattern departure fatalities limited to power planes. FWIW, Bob W. |
#129
|
|||
|
|||
Another stall spin
|
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 |
It's Da' Spin,Boss! Da' Spin! | [email protected] | Home Built | 8 | November 19th 08 10:28 PM |
Stall/ Spin testing the RV-12 | cavelamb himself[_4_] | Home Built | 3 | May 14th 08 07:01 PM |
Glider Stall Spin Video on YouTube | ContestID67 | Soaring | 13 | July 5th 07 08:56 AM |
AOPA Stall/Spin Study -- Stowell's Review (8,000 words) | Rich Stowell | Piloting | 25 | September 11th 03 01:27 PM |