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 |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
CHEROKEE LANDS ON STINSON: ALL OK
"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
... While I am fully aware that it is common practice for aircraft participating in the CTAF self-announcement position broadcast system at uncontrolled air fields to negotiate via two-way radio, despite it being neither recommended in FAA published Advisory Circulars nor being mentioned in federal regulations, my view is that if such negotiation hadn't been conducted in this incident, the mishap may not have occurred. Are you are able to appreciate the logic of that point of view in this incident? There is no logic in that point of view. Implicit in that analysis is the question, by what authority is the airman who negotiates right-of-way, contrary to what the Administrator has codified in federal regulation 91.113(g), empowered to override those regulations? Are you able to cite a regulation, other than 91.3(b), or another authoritative source that grants an airman that authority to deviate from federal regulations? No regulations are being overridden. |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
CHEROKEE LANDS ON STINSON: ALL OK
On Wed, 21 May 2008 13:58:17 -0500, Gig 601Xl Builder
wrote: If for some reason I can't think of they never had each other in sight or especially if the Cherokee never had the Stinson in sight the Cherokee should have broken off the approach if he had any reason to think the Stinson was on the runway. I agree. |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
CHEROKEE LANDS ON STINSON: ALL OK
Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
That's an interesting question. Let's say I'm on final and I call you on the CTAF and tell you that I'm coming in slow and you have plenty of time [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] speed and distance of an aircraft on final from the runup area, assume the vis is 3 miles and I'm flying a helicopter. Why do you even bother with runways when you're flying a helicopter? Because I can. John Galban=====N4BQ (PA28-180) -- Message posted via AviationKB.com http://www.aviationkb.com/Uwe/Forums...ation/200805/1 |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
CHEROKEE LANDS ON STINSON: ALL OK
"JGalban via AviationKB.com" u32749@uwe wrote in message news:848a66ea82477@uwe... Why do you even bother with runways when you're flying a helicopter? Because I can. Why do you even bother to respond with a non-answer? Because you can? |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
CHEROKEE LANDS ON STINSON: ALL OK
Frank Olson wrote in
news:dMYYj.157252$Cj7.137901@pd7urf2no: Bertie the Bunyip wrote: Lou wrote in news:ee8fa5a7-9927-4c7c-8576- : Im very impressed on the ability of the stinson on not collapsing. Lou it's a real airplane,. not a beer can! Nice thing about the older airplanes, especially the rag and tube ones, is you can rebuild them from the data plate up if you want to. they'e also safer in an accident. You carry your own roll cage around with you. Bertie Considering that most of the older "rag and tube" aircraft employ a coating of powdered aluminum (AKA rocket fuel) and highly flammable dope, your chances of surviving a controlled crash in the Cherokee are much better. :-) Not statistically. BTW, what's a controlled crash? I try not to crash when I'm in control. Bertie |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
CHEROKEE LANDS ON STINSON: ALL OK
Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Frank Olson wrote in news:dMYYj.157252$Cj7.137901@pd7urf2no: Bertie the Bunyip wrote: Lou wrote in news:ee8fa5a7-9927-4c7c-8576- : Im very impressed on the ability of the stinson on not collapsing. Lou it's a real airplane,. not a beer can! Nice thing about the older airplanes, especially the rag and tube ones, is you can rebuild them from the data plate up if you want to. they'e also safer in an accident. You carry your own roll cage around with you. Bertie Considering that most of the older "rag and tube" aircraft employ a coating of powdered aluminum (AKA rocket fuel) and highly flammable dope, your chances of surviving a controlled crash in the Cherokee are much better. :-) Not statistically. BTW, what's a controlled crash? I try not to crash when I'm in control. Bertie Heh. Me too. If your engine fails you still have "full control" of the aircraft and can guide it to a safe landing (with a little luck and some altitude), as opposed to losing a primary flight system (like a wing or your horizontal stab). In the latter examples your only option is KYAG (Kiss Your Ass Goodbye). |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
CHEROKEE LANDS ON STINSON: ALL OK
Frank Olson wrote in
news:aWzZj.289324$pM4.202964@pd7urf1no: Bertie the Bunyip wrote: Frank Olson wrote in news:dMYYj.157252$Cj7.137901@pd7urf2no: Bertie the Bunyip wrote: Lou wrote in news:ee8fa5a7-9927-4c7c-8576- : Im very impressed on the ability of the stinson on not collapsing. Lou it's a real airplane,. not a beer can! Nice thing about the older airplanes, especially the rag and tube ones, is you can rebuild them from the data plate up if you want to. they'e also safer in an accident. You carry your own roll cage around with you. Bertie Considering that most of the older "rag and tube" aircraft employ a coating of powdered aluminum (AKA rocket fuel) and highly flammable dope, your chances of surviving a controlled crash in the Cherokee are much better. :-) Not statistically. BTW, what's a controlled crash? I try not to crash when I'm in control. Bertie Heh. Me too. If your engine fails you still have "full control" of the aircraft and can guide it to a safe landing (with a little luck and some altitude), as opposed to losing a primary flight system (like a wing or your horizontal stab). In the latter examples your only option is KYAG (Kiss Your Ass Goodbye). Yeah, true. I saw stats for this years ago. I think it might have been in Tony Bengelis's books or maybe sprot aviation, but steel tube airplanes are much safer in a crash than anything else. Tin is next but trails well behind, with composite and wood bringing up the rear. Bertie |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
CHEROKEE LANDS ON STINSON: ALL OK
Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
Why do you even bother to respond with a non-answer? Because you can? No. Because why I'm flying a helicopter to the runway was not the point of the hypothetical question. I could be flying the ILS, or maybe I just feel like making an approach to the runway. It doesn't really matter. John Galban=====N4BQ (PA28-180) -- Message posted via http://www.aviationkb.com |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
CHEROKEE LANDS ON STINSON: ALL OK
"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message ... Not statistically. BTW, what's a controlled crash? I try not to crash when I'm in control. Bertie That's when I decide I'm gonna hit the pillow as opposed to just falling over sleeping... |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
CHEROKEE LANDS ON STINSON: ALL OK
JGalban via AviationKB.com wrote:
Steven P. McNicoll wrote: Why do you even bother to respond with a non-answer? Because you can? No. Because why I'm flying a helicopter to the runway was not the point of the hypothetical question. I could be flying the ILS, or maybe I just feel like making an approach to the runway. It doesn't really matter. I'll take that as a "Yes". |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
stinson 108-3 | cc0248037 | Aviation Marketplace | 0 | February 13th 07 08:07 PM |
stinson 108-3 | cc0248037 | Aviation Marketplace | 1 | November 7th 06 02:30 AM |
stinson 108-3 | cc0248037 | Aviation Marketplace | 1 | November 4th 06 05:44 PM |
FS Stinson 108-2 | Robert Little | Aviation Marketplace | 0 | April 11th 06 01:08 AM |
stinson stc | [email protected] | Home Built | 7 | December 10th 05 10:12 PM |