Wow - heard on the air... (long)

George Patterson wrote:
I learned very early how
to bring a 172 to the numbers at 120k (yes, it can be done at full
throttle with the nose pushed over) and get off on the first high speed.

My old Maule would've needed a JATO unit to land at that speed.


Your old Maule would have needed a JATO unit to *fly* at that speed. G




--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN

VE

Jose wrote:
How does one discover a brake problem during the take-off roll?

The plane pulls to the right as you near takeoff speed. In any case,
you don't have to say it's a brake problem, just an equipment problem.


Not in this case. First off, the brake *failed*, not hung up. Secondly,
turning moments on takeoff roll are normally handled with slight variations of
differential power in a twin. You have no reason to touch your brakes until
you're trying to stop.

Now, when the brake failed on landing in Shelby, I just rolled out longer than
usual and taxied with opposite brake and engine. It's a real PITA. Tighter
maneuvering requires a 270 degree turn to the other side. Looks a bit goofy on
the ramp but it works.

I had to land with essentially no brakes in Charleston, WV, Cleveland, OH, and
then back to Charlotte, NC. I picked up a load of ice over WV. My attitude
indicator went out on takeoff out of Cleveland. It was a hard IFR departure to
an on-top cruise. By the time I got back to Charlotte, it was clear. All in
all, an interesting flight.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN

VE

Not in this case.

Maybe not, but the point is that you can say "unable due to equipment
problems" without admitting anything, or even raising an eyebrow, and
unless you are already being watched for suspicious activity, I doubt
there would be any fallout.

Now whether in this case it was appropriate (i.e. everything was doable
until the surprise at the end) is another question.

Jose
--
Nothing takes longer than a shortcut.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Margy wrote:

wrote:

Here in southern CT I've heard some exchanges with NY Approach (don't
recall if the acft in question was trying to get into JFK or LGA) that
just had me shaking my head. Personally I'd never fly into a Class B
airport in something slow, but I know guys that have with varying
degress of success (measured by the controller's level of
exasperation). The airspace just south of here is too damn busy to
accommodate newbies or most weekend flyers safely.
Will

I did all my primary training in a Class B and it's not the tough, but
you have to follow the rules and be flexible! I learned very early how
to bring a 172 to the numbers at 120k (yes, it can be done at full
throttle with the nose pushed over) and get off on the first high speed.
It's the folks who try to fly the approach at 60k who make life
intersting for the controllers.

Only controllers who are inept and put the 172 in line 10 miles out on
final.

Matt

Jose wrote:

Would you admit on the air that you took off knowing that there was
an item of no-go equipment that didn't work?


No such admission is necessary. Equipment problems can develop or be
discovered during flight, including brake problems that showed up during
the takeoff roll but at a point where lifting the nose was reasonable.

Jose

Interesting. I've never hit my brakes right before lift-off. Is this a
new technique? :-)


Matt

No, but I regularly hit them at 100 agl or so just to stop the main wheel
noise.

Jim


Interesting. I've never hit my brakes right before lift-off. Is this a
new technique? :-)


Matt

Matt Whiting wrote:
Margy wrote:

wrote:

Here in southern CT I've heard some exchanges with NY Approach (don't
recall if the acft in question was trying to get into JFK or LGA) that
just had me shaking my head. Personally I'd never fly into a Class B
airport in something slow, but I know guys that have with varying
degress of success (measured by the controller's level of
exasperation). The airspace just south of here is too damn busy to
accommodate newbies or most weekend flyers safely.
Will

I did all my primary training in a Class B and it's not the tough, but
you have to follow the rules and be flexible! I learned very early
how to bring a 172 to the numbers at 120k (yes, it can be done at full
throttle with the nose pushed over) and get off on the first high
speed. It's the folks who try to fly the approach at 60k who make
life intersting for the controllers.


Only controllers who are inept and put the 172 in line 10 miles out on
final.

Matt
This is true as 120k won't do it if you are 10 miles out (and I wouldn't
have enough altitude to maintain 120k). 120k is in the pattern.

Margy

Doug wrote:
Guy is nuts to go into OHare. I can just imagine what happened when
they had him taxi in. Those taxiways are complicated and crowded. I
don't think I'd go into OHare without a copilot who had been there.

But what about O'Hara?

Doug wrote:
One thing a LOT of pilots don't do right. When you call fligh****ch,
you should give your position on your initial callup. This is because
although it's all the same frequency, there are different transmitters.
If you don't give your position, he has to reply on ALL the
transmitters he has becuase he doesn't know WHERE YOU ARE!

I hear this mistake time and time again.

Have you been to a flight circus station in the last decade?
They know where you are because their console twinkles all the
receivers you hit.

Matt Whiting wrote:
Interesting. I've never hit my brakes right before lift-off. Is this a
new technique? :-)


Actually, the tailwheel version of the Me-262 required one to tap the brakes for
a second during the takeoff run to pop the tail up off the ground. Aside from
that, probably not. Not too many Me-262's floating around any more.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN

VE