Another Blow to Airbus

Bug Dout writes:

William Langewiesche, son of Wolfgang (Stick and Rudder) and a very
capable pilot and writer, makes the case that the Airbus design had as
much to do with the "Miracle on the Hudson" outcome as the pilots.

The pilots were everything, the Airbus was nothing. The only good thing about
the Airbus in that accident was that at least the computers didn't get in the
way.

Quite likely that the Airbus design has prevented more accidents than it may
have caused.

Pure speculation. Aircraft don't prevent accidents ... pilots do.

On Aug 8, 10:05*am, a wrote:
On Aug 8, 9:25*am, " wrote:



On Aug 8, 7:05*am, a wrote:

The more I fly and the older I get the more I want to be gentle with
the flight controls. Remember, fellow aviators, there are demons
lurking near the edges of the envelope.

Which begs a question on runup process.

My brother in law "vigorously" checked controls free and clear to the
point they banged at the stops. *I was quite more gentle, taking them
to the stops on free and clear. *In some ways, I could see why he did
what he did, but since my normal flight regime didn't abruptly take
control inputs to the stops I elected my way.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ki79yX4bhJ4Runupstarts 6 minutes into
the video.

I wonder how others did it?

As you, I move the controls to the limits, but gently. *You'll see
elsewhere recommendations that throttle advancement be slow as well,
and there's little reason to be abrupt with the prop for that matter.
If one pays for the repairs on a personal airplane, gentleness usually
equals lower bills as well as more comfortable passengers.

One wonders if in fly by wire airplanes pilots might assume the
software will *protect the mechanical parts. Speaking of that, if you
watch films of advanced jets landing (these airplanes are by design
unstable) you'll see very busy stabilizers, lots of flipping, but the
pilot will tell you he's just applying smooth back pressure to the
stick. The computers know the attitude the pilot wants and makes it
happen actively.

I did a test on our cars, in neutral or park full throttle will
accelerate the engine but it self limits well below redline. That and
the ABS mentioned in an earlier thread add a layer of protection. If
you extrapolate that sense of protection into taking a 1.1 g turn in
tires that can support only 0.9 gs you'll bend metal.

.

I've seen it done both ways too and as a jumper (non-pilot) I always
wondered if a more gentle approach might be more useful to detect a
subtle problem since (it seems to me) that a full force slam to the
stops would overcome any momentary resistance and could mask a problem
in a linkage. Conversely, I suppose it could force a *break* in a
weak link while on the ground. So then, YMMV.

On Aug 11, 3:08*pm, Richard wrote:
On Aug 8, 10:05*am, a wrote:



On Aug 8, 9:25*am, " wrote:

On Aug 8, 7:05*am, a wrote:

The more I fly and the older I get the more I want to be gentle with
the flight controls. Remember, fellow aviators, there are demons
lurking near the edges of the envelope.

Which begs a question on runup process.

My brother in law "vigorously" checked controls free and clear to the
point they banged at the stops. *I was quite more gentle, taking them
to the stops on free and clear. *In some ways, I could see why he did
what he did, but since my normal flight regime didn't abruptly take
control inputs to the stops I elected my way.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ki79yX4bhJ4Runupstarts6 minutes into
the video.

I wonder how others did it?

As you, I move the controls to the limits, but gently. *You'll see
elsewhere recommendations that throttle advancement be slow as well,
and there's little reason to be abrupt with the prop for that matter.
If one pays for the repairs on a personal airplane, gentleness usually
equals lower bills as well as more comfortable passengers.

One wonders if in fly by wire airplanes pilots might assume the
software will *protect the mechanical parts. Speaking of that, if you
watch films of advanced jets landing (these airplanes are by design
unstable) you'll see very busy stabilizers, lots of flipping, but the
pilot will tell you he's just applying smooth back pressure to the
stick. The computers know the attitude the pilot wants and makes it
happen actively.

I did a test on our cars, in neutral or park full throttle will
accelerate the engine but it self limits well below redline. That and
the ABS mentioned in an earlier thread add a layer of protection. If
you extrapolate that sense of protection into taking a 1.1 g turn in
tires that can support only 0.9 gs you'll bend metal.

.

I've seen it done both ways too and as a jumper (non-pilot) I always
wondered if a more gentle approach might be more useful to detect a
subtle problem since (it seems to me) that a full force slam to the
stops would overcome any momentary resistance and could mask a problem
in a linkage. *Conversely, I suppose it could force a *break* in a
weak link while on the ground. *So then, YMMV.

On airplanes without 'augmented' controls, the feedback forces on the
yoke and rudder are significantly greater in flight than on the
ground during run up, so if there's going to be a failure it might
very well be aloft. The good news is, it's rare to the best of my
knowledge that moving the controls to the extremes,. either fast or
slow, will uncover a problem, or that they fail in flight.

With several thousand hours of SEL PIC, I can't remember once when
after leaving the ramp going back because the control excursions were
unusual. I have come back because RPM drop was not right, because VOR
tests showed failure, a DG that wasn't 'crisp'. etc etc. Have not yet
had the prop not cycle correctly. Did see someone in a 680 Commander
get out to take off a rudder clamp, that would have been found because
the excursions were not 'free'. That brings up an interesting topic
for aviators -- when and why did you last return to your tiedown
without taking off on a planned flight? Or, not left the tiedown or
hanger because the airplane was not, in your view, airworthy?

"a" wrote in message
...
Did see someone in a 680 Commander
get out to take off a rudder clamp, that would have been found because
the excursions were not 'free'.

I once saw a renter pilot *return* from an apparently normal flight in a 172
with the rudder lock still installed. The fellow apparently never noticed!

Vaughn

In article ,
lid says...

"a" wrote in message
...
Did see someone in a 680 Commander
get out to take off a rudder clamp, that would have been found because
the excursions were not 'free'.

I once saw a renter pilot *return* from an apparently normal flight in a 172
with the rudder lock still installed. The fellow apparently never noticed!

Vaughn

Oh come on now. One on the empennage? You'd have to notice. You'd
need to be blind for starters! And what light aircraft pilot doesn't
push the pedals, even if it's just for a feel.

--
Duncan.

In article ,
says...

In article ,
lid says...

"a" wrote in message
...
Did see someone in a 680 Commander
get out to take off a rudder clamp, that would have been found because
the excursions were not 'free'.

I once saw a renter pilot *return* from an apparently normal flight in a 172
with the rudder lock still installed. The fellow apparently never noticed!

Vaughn

Oh come on now. One on the empennage? You'd have to notice. You'd
need to be blind for starters! And what light aircraft pilot doesn't
push the pedals, even if it's just for a feel.

Sorry, that's even if said pilot doesn't do pre-T/O checks (which
include of course the; Controls, full & free). PS: I hope they just fly
solo and aren't anywhere near me

--
Duncan.

On Aug 11, 8:42*pm, a wrote:

-- when and why did you last return to your tiedown
without taking off on a planned flight? Or, not left the tiedown or
hanger because the airplane was not, in your view, airworthy?- Hide quoted text -

Several times in 10 years A.

For flight controls, on my preflight, heard a "rubbing sound" when
moving ailerons. Turned out internconnect spring between ailerons and
rudder in the Sundower popped off.

Failed mag check twice. While both were spark plug issues, one was due
to a cylinder getting wet before engine overhaul. Got the plug
cleaned up enough to fly it a short 9 miles KJAN - KMBO to get the
engine yanked for a major (it was at TBO).

At KJAN, while not preflight, avionics issues (user induced DUH) that
shop deftly pointed out I needed to put toggle switch from speaker to
headset

For those interested on how I preflight can be seen in these videos.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Jnz8ikkAlA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SAhF-x1kvpQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a4mkhUFHWa0

"Dave Doe" wrote in message
...
PS: I hope they just fly
solo and aren't anywhere near me

It was one of those home-made plywood disk affairs on the rudder; and yes, there
was a passenger.

And yes, the guy obviously managed neither a proper preflight nor a control
check.

Vaughn

In article
,
a wrote:
That brings up an interesting topic
for aviators -- when and why did you last return to your tiedown
without taking off on a planned flight? Or, not left the tiedown or
hanger because the airplane was not, in your view, airworthy?


Used to have a share of a really pretty C-140 that was chronically
broken. Naive bunch that we were, when we bought it, we were fooled by
the nice paint (never skimp on the pre-buy inspection).

During preflight found completely broken welds on the upper motor mount
cluster weld. Broken enough that daylight was shining through the broken
mount. Of course, the engine was still warm from one of the other
partners having flown it earlier.

On another day: Found that the horizontal stabilizer was loose. The
mounting hardware had broken. Again, the engine was still warm from
someone having flown it that day.

Other problems: Found that the bolts holding the struts and wings on
were not aviation grade fasteners. Found that the primer leaked more
fuel than it pumped into the carb and that there were various electrical
system problems, such as bad wiring and no voltage regulator, in close
proximity to the leak. "Yellow tagged" mags were actually not and had
been rebuilt using stuff like bent paper clips (no kidding) and were
permanently "hot". Had a brake failure taxiing out to the runway. Had
tires going flat in the hangar or while taxiing. Tailwheel fell off. The
worst: the crankshaft broke in flight (previous owner had an
"undocumented" prop strike). Lucky that the crank broke just on entering
downwind, and we were all glider drivers anyway, so the landing was
interesting but not too scary.

It should be no surprise that we found that the logbook was pretty much
entirely fraudulent. Eventually everything was put right and it's a nice
airplane now. Still, I hated that airplane.

a wrote:

With several thousand hours of SEL PIC, I can't remember once when
after leaving the ramp going back because the control excursions were
unusual. I have come back because RPM drop was not right, because VOR
tests showed failure, a DG that wasn't 'crisp'. etc etc. Have not yet
had the prop not cycle correctly. Did see someone in a 680 Commander
get out to take off a rudder clamp, that would have been found because
the excursions were not 'free'. That brings up an interesting topic
for aviators -- when and why did you last return to your tiedown
without taking off on a planned flight? Or, not left the tiedown or
hanger because the airplane was not, in your view, airworthy?

Two years ago right after annual; no carb heat.

Turned out to just be an air duct coming loose 'cause the clamp wasn't tight.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.