Help me clear up my brain fart

"Peter Duniho" writes:

"Roger Long" om wrote in
message ...
[...] You should always be dividing your attention between inside
and outside.

IMHO, not even close. Not for VFR flight.

Have to agree with this.

Look: with an instructor, cover up the airspeed indicator, the gyros,
all that crap. Try flying around the pattern a couple of times. Get
used to it. There, not so bad, eh? You don't really need that stuff.

On 11 Nov 2003 17:50:35 -0800, Bob Fry wrote:

(Ekim) writes:

"Never cross control!!!"
"Keep that ball centered!"
"Never use more than 20 degrees bank!"
"Too high on final - go around. Never slip unless its an emergency
landing."

I understand. It took me a long time to get rid of that kind of stuff
too.

If you can, get some instruction and time in a J-3 Cub. It slips
beautifully and will cure you of worries about cross-controlling, etc.
There's no flying experience like slipping a Cub to landing on a grass
strip on a warm summer evening, the strong Delta breeze offering a
hint of a cool, pleasant night. In the distance, I can easily see the
skyscrapers and Capitol Building of downtown, but as I turn onto final
my only thoughts are to avoid that big, damn oak tree right at the
base of the levee on the Sacramento River. That, and the power lines.
It's a game to see how close I

Oops. Got carried away in my little daydream. The Aircoupe I have
now has rudder pedals but doesn't slip for squat. But seriously, get
some Cub time and get those feet moving. Then get a spin endorsement
and you'll be a happy flyer.

We ought to be mentioning that the danger in crossing controls is
skids, not slips. A stall from a skid as you hurry yourself around
during an overshot final can have you spinning-in awfully quick.

Kirschner used to have a dandy series of drawings in the old Private
Pilot Guide. Did they go away in the new book?

Don

Ken Hornstein wrote:


I can't speak for anyone else, but I've never been able to judge turn
coordination without the use of the ball (bank angle, I'm "ok" on). If
I don't look at the ball, I have no idea if I'm coordinated or not.
My instructor tried very hard to get me to judge coordination "naturally",
but I just never got it. How do you teach something like that?

I couldn't either for a while, but now I never have to look inside the
plane to land. How many hours do you have?

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...
"Roger Long" om wrote in
message ...
[...] You should always be dividing your attention between inside
and outside.

IMHO, not even close. Not for VFR flight.

The airplane is perfectly flyable without ANY reference to the instruments,
or anything inside the airplane. Turning base to final is no time to be
wasting ANY effort looking at instruments, and is certainly no time to be
attempting to use the instruments as feedback for control inputs.

snip lots of good stuff

I'll make that another "me too" post. You want to learn how to fly without
instruments? Get a lesson in a Cub, or another tandem seat airplane you fly
from the back. Most have only an airspeed, tach and altimeter, and with an
instructor in front, all you can see is a little bit of the tach.

You learn to fly by feel, by noting what the engine sounds like and where your
throttle is at a certian RPM, and what the pitch attitude looks like in all
regimes of flight. And for the pilot who didn't know what "uncoordinated" felt
like, swinging back and forth in the tail will show 'ya. If not, open the door
and windows. If the wind isn't hitting your face, you're coordinated.

FWIW, I learned to fly in Skyhawks and Archers. Then I towed banners for a few
seasons in Cubs and PA-12's. One of our planes had an airspeed indicator out of
an Aztec (ever see a Cub with a blue line?) For most of our pattern and towing,
the airspeed just wasn't sensative enough, and would sit on the peg. After
about the second day, you didn't even miss it. My second season, I went and
flew a "new" PA-12. I picked up two banners before I even looked at the
airspeed indicator, because you learn what it "feels" like.

--
Mike

On 11 Nov 2003 04:25:56 -0800, (Ekim) wrote:

"Never cross control!!!"
"Keep that ball centered!"
"Never use more than 20 degrees bank!"
"Too high on final - go around. Never slip unless its an emergency
landing."

These are things that were hammered in my head by my numerous CFIs
during pattern training as a student pilot. Now that I have my PPL,
you would think I should have this understood. Unfortunately, now this
is really twisted up in my head.

Was all that preaching JUST to reduce the chance of invoking a deadly
spin in case the wings are accidentally stalled? It seems to all
contradict everything about slips on final and the famous
"low-wing-into-the-wind" crosswind landings?

In my mind, as long as I keep my airspeed sufficiently high and keep
the nose pointed down, (ie. keep my AOA under control) things like a
steeper banks and routine slip to landings should be relatively safe.
Right?

Thanks,
Ekim

Now that you have your PPL, you should seek out some experienced
instructors. The "numerous CFIs" you had "during pattern training as a
student pilot" have done you a great disservice by hammering those things
into your head.

As a matter of fact, every single one of those caveats are WRONG, depending
on the phase of flight and type aircraft you are flying. They are
certainly WRONG for the usual GA aircraft.

(They may be correct if you are learning to fly B-52's or other large
aircraft with which I am not familiar).



Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

Here's a bet for you: I bet that a metric ****load more GA pilots have crashed
due to NOT looking at the instruments (like in IMC) than have crashed due to
(over)reliance on instruments.

It's a great exercise to do a landing with the ASI, etc. out once in a while
whether a student or experienced pilot just to know that it can be done in the
event of an instrument failure. But I will tell you that when one is faced with
it, either real or simulated, it is a grave mistake to fly any sort pattern
other than an unhurried one with gentle turns. There is no good reason to
compound one problem (e.g. ASI inop) with another (steep
turn/uncoordinated/sudden pitch changes/etc.). Most accidents, including
training accidents, are caused by a series of events and bad decisions - not
just one. You know, my old C-150 was real easy to land without looking at the
ASI. It had a low stall speed, lots of warning before a stall, and a wide band
of approach speeds that would work. But my Musketeer, while easier in general to
fly and land, has a high(er) stall speed, little warning before a stall, and a
narrow band of approach speeds that will work. Can I land without an ASI? Damn
skippy I can, but I'm going to take advantage of everything in my toolbox if it
comes to it. I'll try to go to an airport with a long runway, make shallow
turns, use full flaps, keep the ball centered, and I'm not going to practice it
either. It's just not worth it.

Stepping up on an even higher soap box now: I get absolutly worn out with the
guys who want to tell everybody that they aren't a good/safe/real pilot if they
aren't completely minimalist and avoid use of any new-fangled inventions. Like
the slip/skid ball. Oh please! "Boy, you just ain't a real pilot if you can't
fly a tail dragger". Fine. I don't want to be a "real" pilot then. Tricycle gear
is easier and safer. Ask your insurance man if you want proof. Good enough for
me. "Back in my day, we had to learn to spin them aeroplanes. You just ain't no
kinda pilot if you don't do it and like it.". Well why is it now that spin
avoidance rather than spin training is taught that the occurance of stall/spin
accidents is lower? And so forth. If you want to fly a plane with no dials, then
go right ahead. Just stop telling everybody that you are superior to those of us
who divide their time properly to looking at the panel and out the window.

Off my soap box now.

Best regards,

Steve Robertson, CFI and old guy
N4732J 1967 Beechcraft A23-24 Musketeer Super III

Roger Long wrote:

Guilty as charged of poor word choice. The key point is that an overshot
turn, in most cases, doesn't have to even be salvaged. Just hold normal
pattern turn attitude and you'll come back to centerline in time to get down
on most runways used by anything larger than trainers. Holding attitude
instead of trying to increase the turn with bank and or rudder is the core
message. Even if you are going around, you want to get back to the
centerline in case someone is flying a real tight downwind. Holding that 20
degree bank until you get there will make it easier to look for them.

I got us off on instrument use which is really a separate discussion that
applies to all pattern flying; not just an overshot turn. If I were a CFI
and my student got into that position, I would sure want to think he would
take a quick check at the gauges to be sure he hadn't strayed too far out of
the envelope instead of thinking he wasn't supposed to do that and trying to
feel his way out.

Learning to rely less on the instruments, attitude flying, and all that is
an important part of training and an objective for proficiency. However,
"Don't look at the panel!", is not a dogma that should be handed out to
blindly apply to all landing situations. Learning to fly without reference
to the instruments is something the student should be initially doing with a
CFI in the right seat. Most students will be overshooting a number of final
turns before they are ready to judge RPM, airspeed, and coordination
without instruments.

Being able to get a plane landed with out looking at the instruments is one
thing. Flying a precise pattern, landing in the minimum distance, at the
lowest touchdown speed is another. Most pilots are not going to be able to
maintain the level of proficiency where they can do those things safely
without a glance at the panel at certain points in the pattern. Flying like
it was flight simulator is a different issue which should be addressed.

Pilots should practice patterns without looking at gauges. They should also
do patterns with gauge checks to be sure that they really are flying the
flight profile they are practicing.

A sad but true thing is that the kind of training most students are going to
get will require that they use the instruments as checks while they teach
themselves how to fly the pattern properly. Having CFI's who teach attitude
flying properly telling them in a forum like this that looking at the panel
is a bad thing is, in my view, a bad thing.

--
Roger Long

A Lieberman wrote in message
...
Roger Long wrote:

Sure it is, if you are a low time student pilot trying to salvage an
overshot turn before you have developed a good feel for the plane.

Hi Roger,

Just "my opinion". but salvage and student in the same sentence is a bad
choice of words.

If the low time student overshot the turn to the point where the word
salvage comes into play, I would suggest just going around and trying
again.....

Allen
(who is not a CFI).

If you never use a slip until it's an emergency.. you may not do it right
when you need to..

Slip to landing is part of the Glider Practical Test Standard..

It's part of the Private AIRPLANE test standards as well.

"Don Tuite" wrote in message ...

We ought to be mentioning that the danger in crossing controls is
skids, not slips.

And skidding is not normally CROSS controlled.

Steve,

Thank you for taking time to write such a long and excellent post. I'm used
to all sorts wacky opinions and divergent viewpoints in these newsgroups but
the near unanimous position that I'm a dangerous nut because I look at my
gauges while flying was startling. I asked the question in the Pilot
Techniques Forum at Cessna Pilots Association where I spend a lot of time
and the unanimous position there backed up my view point. Interesting
cultural difference. A fellow who teaches seminars for advanced pilots
said, "Relying on the sight picture ONLY and not glancing at the airspeed
has resulted in many a flatlander stalling on final at a high altitude
airport. Airspeed, airspeed, airspeed."

I would hate to thing that a student pilot, perhaps not getting the best of
instruction, would look at the consensus of lot of high time pilots here and
decide that he should stop looking at his gauges as opposed to properly
integrating no panel flying into his training.

Let's see if we can get anyone to take you up on your bet

--
Roger Long

"Roger Long" om wrote in
message ...
[...] I asked the question in the Pilot
Techniques Forum at Cessna Pilots Association where I spend a lot of time
and the unanimous position there backed up my view point. Interesting
cultural difference. A fellow who teaches seminars for advanced pilots
said, "Relying on the sight picture ONLY and not glancing at the airspeed
has resulted in many a flatlander stalling on final at a high altitude
airport. Airspeed, airspeed, airspeed."

No one here is proposing one rely ONLY on the sight picture. I made it very
clear that one needs to pay attention to the other sensory input. In
particular, engine and airstream noise along with control feel are very
important and clear indications of airspeed. If all else fails, you have a
stall warning indicator (on any reasonably "modern" airplane), but it really
shouldn't get that far.

The sight picture is useful only for airplane attitude information and for
that, is only completely accurate in unaccelerated flight (though it's still
useful in accelerated flight).

I am always amused when someone takes a debate from one forum, claims to
have posed it in another forum and then comes back and says "well, at least
*those* guys agree 100% with me". It is almost never the case that a) the
nature of the debate was actually conveyed accurately, and b) that the
support in the other forum is as unanimous as claimed (unless the
information posed in the other forum was SO skewed as to be absurdly and
obviously wrong).

Steve's post also demonstrates a sad misinterpretation of the debate at
hand. He's obviously a bit touchy about the subject and is taking things
personally. No one is claiming that he isn't a good pilot just because he
wants to use "new-fangled" inventions, nor is this debate anything like the
"tricycle vs conventional" stuffed-shirt crap. He's getting his ego bent
out of shape for no reason at all.

No one is suggesting that aircraft instruments should be ignored. But to
claim that during VFR flight, the aircraft's instruments deserve anywhere
close to 50% of your attention is just plain absurd. Yes, pilots need to
"divide their time properly to looking at the panel and out the window".
But "divide their time properly" means the vast majority of time is spent
looking OUTSIDE. And those instruments are NOT the primary reference for
maneuvering, not even close.

Pete