It only takes one...

Larry Dighera wrote:
On Wed, 2 May 2007 13:14:21 -0500, "Gig 601XL Builder"
wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net wrote in
:

Larry Dighera wrote:
On Wed, 02 May 2007 17:32:14 GMT, Orval Fairbairn
wrote in
:


I've had that happen to me! I extended a formation to let a Mooney
in, spaced myself so he would clear at the second exit -- he
decided to take exit #3, while slowing down to taxi speed and
keeping in the center of our 150 ft wide runway! I radioed,
"Mooney clear right, please." Nothing!

Another time (some 40+ years ago, I was flying a Beech 18 into an
airport, where a Champ was doing T&Gs. I spaced myself, but he
decided to stay on the runway and slow-taxi to the end. I cleaned
it up, applied climb power and held it low until I passed over
him. The sound of 2 R-985s at climb power HAD to get his attention!

Are you able to quote a specific regulation that prevents you from
landing behind the aircraft in these situations?

The laws of physics might come into play.


That's a matter of pilot judgment, isn't it?

No physics is not a matter of pilot judgement. If they are going to come
into play is a matter of pilot judgement.

In my high performance tail dragger there is absolutely no forward
visibility on the ground. If the preceding plane is not completely clear,
there is no way to see and avoid.

Kyle Boatright wrote:

So the airplane behind him (another Cessna) had to fly the same B-52
pattern, the Grumman behind *him* had to fly a B-47 pattern, and I followed
with a B-29 pattern. Two inbound aircraft recognized that the traffic
pattern was a mess and opted to do loiter outside the pattern to let things
correct themselves.


If he'd just kept on going, would you guys have kept on following? If
someone ahead of me is flying 2.5 miles beyond the normal downwind, I turn
base. I'll be tying up the airplane before he gets back.

John Galban=====N4BQ (PA28-180)

--
Message posted via AviationKB.com
http://www.aviationkb.com/Uwe/Forums...ation/200705/1

Peter R. wrote:
On 5/1/2007 11:12:37 PM, "Mortimer Schnerd, RN" wrote:

I'm not arguing with the general point of your posting but I will take a
poke at your assertion about being outside of gliding range of the field.

Isn't this guideline based on the theory that there is a higher chance of
engine failure during changes in power settings? A reduction of power while
entering the pattern, I recall reading, presents a statistically higher
chance of engine failure than while at cruise.

Old Wives Tale might be more appropriate. Lycoming reported on this
theory and the one about running "oversquare" rpm/mp settings. It's on page
65 of this .pdf :

http://www.lycoming.com/support/tips...Operations.pdf


Anecdotally, I've known quite a few pilots that have experienced engine
failure over the years and the vast majority happened in cruise.

John Galban=====N4BQ (PA28-1800

--
Message posted via AviationKB.com
http://www.aviationkb.com/Uwe/Forums...ation/200705/1

JGalban via AviationKB.com wrote:
Peter R. wrote:
On 5/1/2007 11:12:37 PM, "Mortimer Schnerd, RN" wrote:

I'm not arguing with the general point of your posting but I will
take a poke at your assertion about being outside of gliding range
of the field.

Isn't this guideline based on the theory that there is a higher
chance of engine failure during changes in power settings? A
reduction of power while entering the pattern, I recall reading,
presents a statistically higher chance of engine failure than while
at cruise.

Old Wives Tale might be more appropriate. Lycoming reported on this
theory and the one about running "oversquare" rpm/mp settings. It's
on page 65 of this .pdf :

http://www.lycoming.com/support/tips-advice/key-
reprints/pdfs/Key%20Operations.pdf


It's on the page marked as 65. It's really on page 31 of the 38 page pdf.

"flynrider via AviationKB.com" u32749@uwe wrote in message
news:7197219d35910@uwe...
Kyle Boatright wrote:

So the airplane behind him (another Cessna) had to fly the same B-52
pattern, the Grumman behind *him* had to fly a B-47 pattern, and I
followed
with a B-29 pattern. Two inbound aircraft recognized that the traffic
pattern was a mess and opted to do loiter outside the pattern to let
things
correct themselves.


If he'd just kept on going, would you guys have kept on following?

Interesting question. I was #4 on downwind. If #2 had turned base, I think
that would have been reasonable, but #4 turning base in front of 3 people on
downwind might not have been appropriate...

KB

If
someone ahead of me is flying 2.5 miles beyond the normal downwind, I turn
base. I'll be tying up the airplane before he gets back.

John Galban=====N4BQ (PA28-180)

--
Message posted via AviationKB.com
http://www.aviationkb.com/Uwe/Forums...ation/200705/1

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
oups.com...
We shall term this the "McNicoll effect", for while being entirely
within the bounds of the law, was being a complete ass and mucking it up
for the rest of us.

Excellent. Well done.

Actually, I think you are really on to something here. This newly
coined phenomenon could explain much about what happens in the air --
and on the ground.

In fact, this "McNicoll Effect" just might explain everything that is
wrong with our society -- and even the world! There is so much of
this sort of thing going on -- often completely unexplained -- that
some sort of a blanket explanation was just begging to be discovered.
And you did it!

Dang, Gnu, you may have just tipped the sociological and political
world on its ear today -- good show!

:-)
--
Jay Honeck

Outstanding work by both of you, particularly the Gnu. I have witnessed the
McNicoll Effect in this forum frequently. I was able to quickly identify the
root cause, but never came up with an appropriate name for it. Or at least
one that was suitable for a public forum.

KB

"ManhattanMan" wrote in message
...
I had an occassion where I entered downwind, had already passed the field,
only other traffic was a guy still several miles out on a straight in
final, and the tower cleared me for immediate landing, which was no
problem in a 150, so I turned base - the guy still miles out really got
his shorts bunched up and started screaming that someone had cut in front
of him!!!!! Tower told him to cool it, there was more than adequate
spacing.. d:-))

He obviously was not listening to the radio, otherwise he would have heard
tower give you clearance to land!
Crash Lander

On 5/2/2007 5:03:41 PM, "JGalban via AviationKB.com" wrote:

Old Wives Tale might be more appropriate.

So file that one away with the whole shock cooling thing, I see.

--
Peter

Crash Lander wrote:
"ManhattanMan" wrote in message
...
I had an occassion where I entered downwind, had already passed the
field, only other traffic was a guy still several miles out on a
straight in final, and the tower cleared me for immediate landing,
which was no problem in a 150, so I turned base - the guy still
miles out really got his shorts bunched up and started screaming
that someone had cut in front of him!!!!! Tower told him to cool it,
there was more than adequate spacing.. d:-))

He obviously was not listening to the radio, otherwise he would have
heard tower give you clearance to land!

He was listening, just not thinking. It did give me a VBG when the tower
told him to not sweat it!