Another of those unreliable AC engines stalled on approach

Judah wrote:
Why should we have to change our use of the term? I think the new term for an
engine stall should be an engine shutdown, and stall should relate only to
loss of lift over a wing or other airfoil.

--- others please note his smiley

You're right, that should be easy to do. Just a few kazillion people
to retrain

If I see another movie where the engines stall, and the airplane starts
screaming down at high speed to the ground while the pilots valiantly
pull back on the yokes with all their might, I'm gonna choke.

I once suggested that AOPA sponsor a "young reporters" day each year,
to get all the local news types up in the air. I believe someone said
that was tried?

Kev

T,

My experience has been that the average person thinks that
all aircraft talk to someone on the ground on every flight
and that the person on the ground controls them, or gives
them permission to take off, land and fly


Also, they all think onboard-radar is for traffic avoidance.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Mxsmanic wrote:

I think it's safe to say that the average layman has never heard of
ATC or flight plans. They just think that pilots take off and fly [...]

Perhaps where you are. Here in the USA, ATC makes the news all the
time, especially in the Northeast. Shows about 9/11 also heightened
awareness.

Every time a plane gets into trouble, talking news heads are "shocked"
that the pilot wasn't talking to air traffic control, or didn't have
their permission. Just look at the hubbub over the Cirrus-building
crash recently in New York City.

Kev

Thomas Borchert wrote:
My experience has been that the average person thinks that
all aircraft talk to someone on the ground on every flight
and that the person on the ground controls them, or gives
them permission to take off, land and fly


Also, they all think onboard-radar is for traffic avoidance.


Hell, I use mine in the pattern for fire control - I take it very
personally when I'm cut off G

Crash Lander wrote:
"Kyle Boatright" wrote in message
. ..
What are the odds that the pilot stalled the aircraft and the engine was
performing just fine? Writers often miss the fact that the word
"stalled" has an additional meaning in the aviation realm.

KB
My thoughts exactly. What's the bet he tried to climb too steeply and
stalled it, dropped the nose as per his training, and found he wasn't as
high as he had hoped. I bet the engine was still running as he hit the
ground, and it's the journalist that's stalled.
Oz Lander

Hmmmm... Ya think Cessna's new LSA might come with a stick pusher for
just that reason? It'd avoid a lot of bad press G

"Kyle Boatright" wrote in message
. ..
The theory about that accident in the RV community is that the pilot had
used the seatbelt on the passenger's side as a control lock, was in a rush
to leave the show, and didn't do a control check before takeoff. With the
belt latched, the elevator was in an "up" configuration, and the rest,
unfortunately, is history.

That was a popular theory, true, and not just among RVers. However, the
NTSB carefully looked at the possibility and while they could not with 100%
certainty exclude that possibility, the investigation showed no evidence
whatsoever that the controls were secured by the seatbelt on takeoff, and
some reasonable evidence that they were not (in particular, there was no
burn residue of the seatbelt found on the control stick, in spite of there
being seatbelt burn residue elsewhere...also, several witnesses failed to
note any unusual deflection of the elevator, as would be readily apparent if
the theory were true).

The final NTSB conclusion was "The pilot's excessive climb rate, which lead
to his failure to maintain an airspeed above stalling speed", with the
"seatbelt control lock" theory carrying no weight at all.

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief2.asp?...FA105& akey=1

Pete

Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
"Judah" wrote in message
. ..
"Kev" wrote in
ps.com:

I sometimes think the aviation community should come up with an
alternative description for a wing "stall", so that the layman doesn't
confuse it with engines. Anyone care to propose a nice short
descriptive phrase?

Why should we have to change our use of the term? I think the new term for
an
engine stall should be an engine shutdown, and stall should relate only to
loss of lift over a wing or other airfoil.



The problem is the word stall means something to the general public. When
they hear the word stall they associate with something they understand in
this cas, the engine stopping.

I like the term used in a Recent Lycoming AD: "Uncommanded
engine shutdown." It was referring to a catastrohic engine failure.
Understatement, huh?

Dan

I like the term used in a Recent Lycoming AD: "Uncommanded
engine shutdown." It was referring to a catastrohic engine failure.
Understatement, huh?

My favorite understatement is "energetic decomposition" for nuclear bomb
blast.

Jose
--
"There are 3 secrets to the perfect landing. Unfortunately, nobody knows
what they are." - (mike).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

T o d d P a t t i s t writes:

My experience has been that the average person thinks that
all aircraft talk to someone on the ground on every flight
and that the person on the ground controls them, or gives
them permission to take off, land and fly. They're hazy on
who that person is.

Maybe. I haven't interrogated lay people on the subject. They do
seem to be aware of radio communications, but I think they don't know
exactly who controls whom, or how.

The rest start off being unsure but act a bit surprised if
you tell them you don't need permission and don't need to
talk to anyone if you don't want to.

It may be best not to tell them that.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Thomas Borchert writes:

Also, they all think onboard-radar is for traffic avoidance.

It often is these days.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.