My wife getting scared

Dudley Henriques wrote:

Gen Des Barker of the South African Air Force (and ex demonstration and
test pilot) has done an in-depth work on these issues in his book "Zero
Error Margin" where all that has been learned on this subject has been
accumulated in print.
The subject itself is so hefty I wouldn't even try getting into it with
a Usenet post.
Basically what we have discovered in our situation is that although most
display pilots fare well in following set procedures, regulations, and
rules, the breakdown comes at the local level and in many accidents can
be coupled with the psychological circumstances prevailing during an
incident as those circumstances are affecting the individual display pilot.
This is just a pedantic way of saying that what's going on in a pilot's
mental and emotional processes as a display is being flown can under
specific conditions, be a killer.
The fact that we accept these conditions as being present and a danger
doesn't really help us much in solving the issue. The reason for this is
that each pilot will have a specific tolerance for situational
awareness, cockpit over task, and distraction.
In other words, you can take a highly trained professional pilot, fully
checked out on a specific type of aircraft, and with a proven over time
ability to fly a specific demonstration, and that pilot can on a
specific day at a specific instant, make a fatal error.
Again, we realize this can occur, but the actual solution alludes us.
Where we are right now is in making sure we educate the community so
they are collectively aware that this danger lurks out there waiting.
By educating the community to the problem rather than trying to find a
specific "fix" that we believe doesn't exist, we hope to better the
safety record.
Each pilot in other words, is being encouraged and REMINDED, to be in a
constant state of self evaluation as to the ability to perform at any
given time and place.
It ain't much......but it helps!

Every little bit helps in the grander scheme of things.

Matt

Paul Riley wrote:
"Dudley Henriques" wrote in message
news
Each pilot in other words, is being encouraged and REMINDED, to be in a
constant state of self evaluation as to the ability to perform at any
given time and place.
It ain't much......but it helps!

--
Dudley Henriques

Dudley,

You are exactly right.

I flew a zero-zero GCA, at night, in a UHIB, at the An Khe airfield in late
1965. No other place to go. We were on mortar patrol, had just been relieved
on station by our replacement aircraft. Ground fog had moved in, even the
replacement aircraft was not aware of it. No one expected it. I had an
instrument rating, my copilot did not. Our other option was to go crash in
the jungle someplace (with the bad guys, but where it was clear). Since we
did not have enough fuel to divert to a safe landing area--more than 45
minutes away (hey, this was Nam) we decided it was our only option.
Obviously, we made it, believe it or not, no damage to aircraft or crew. The
GCA Controller got three quarts of Johnny Walker Red the next morning. G

Let me guess ... this was what was left over from the 6 quarts the crew
started with that night! :-)

I'm glad you made it!

Matt

The kinds of crashes that REALLY scare me are the ones where a control
surface fails, or a wing comes off in flight. There was a Cherokee
235 that crashed last year after the wings departed the fuselage, thus
far for reasons unknown. Did the pilot yank the yoke back in his lap
at redline? Or was it just metal fatigue in our old fleet, like the
Grumman seaplane in Florida?

Yeah, structural failure would be the scariest emergency one could
have - something where the "keep flying the airplane" advice could
suddenly become quite hard to follow even for an experienced pilot.
Its a worse situation than engine failure on takeoff but it must be
quite rare. The Killing Zone book's central point was that most
accidents can be attributed to a lack of currency and experience and
the number of deaths are mostly in the 50-150 hr range. Outside of
this range the number of accidents go down quite a bit if I remember
right. I don't remember the statistic on control surface failure
accidents but I am guessing it is quite low. One way to beat it would
be to take some skydiving lessons and always fly with a parachute
strapped on. ;-)


Conservative seems to be the best approach to longevity. It's the
strategy I'm planning to use so that I'm still around to fly with my
grandkids...

True, the conservative strategy also makes flying less stressful and
more enjoyable, just the way it was meant to be.

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...
Paul Riley wrote:
"Dudley Henriques" wrote in message
news
Each pilot in other words, is being encouraged and REMINDED, to be in a
constant state of self evaluation as to the ability to perform at any
given time and place.
It ain't much......but it helps!

--
Dudley Henriques

Dudley,

You are exactly right.

I flew a zero-zero GCA, at night, in a UHIB, at the An Khe airfield in
late 1965. No other place to go. We were on mortar patrol, had just been
relieved on station by our replacement aircraft. Ground fog had moved in,
even the replacement aircraft was not aware of it. No one expected it. I
had an instrument rating, my copilot did not. Our other option was to go
crash in the jungle someplace (with the bad guys, but where it was
clear). Since we did not have enough fuel to divert to a safe landing
area--more than 45 minutes away (hey, this was Nam) we decided it was our
only option. Obviously, we made it, believe it or not, no damage to
aircraft or crew. The GCA Controller got three quarts of Johnny Walker
Red the next morning. G

Let me guess ... this was what was left over from the 6 quarts the crew
started with that night! :-)

I'm glad you made it!

Matt

Nope, we had zero when we started. But when we finished, we did, err, uhhh,
imbibe somewhat--AFTER we changed our shorts. :-))))

Then, we went to our footlockers, got out what we had stashed, gave it to
the GCA guy. He earned it!!!!!!!!!!!!

Paul

On Tue, 2 Oct 2007 16:29:22 -0500, "Paul Riley"
wrote:


"Dudley Henriques" wrote in message
news
Each pilot in other words, is being encouraged and REMINDED, to be in a
constant state of self evaluation as to the ability to perform at any
given time and place.
It ain't much......but it helps!

--
Dudley Henriques

Dudley,

You are exactly right.

I flew a zero-zero GCA, at night, in a UHIB, at the An Khe airfield in late
1965. No other place to go. We were on mortar patrol, had just been relieved
on station by our replacement aircraft. Ground fog had moved in, even the
replacement aircraft was not aware of it. No one expected it. I had an
instrument rating, my copilot did not. Our other option was to go crash in
the jungle someplace (with the bad guys, but where it was clear). Since we
did not have enough fuel to divert to a safe landing area--more than 45
minutes away (hey, this was Nam) we decided it was our only option.
Obviously, we made it, believe it or not, no damage to aircraft or crew. The
GCA Controller got three quarts of Johnny Walker Red the next morning. G

Goes to show, you CAN handle a bad situation, IF you remember your training.

Regards,
Paul
PS Sorry about the misplaced thanks!!

Paul

Welcome to the crowd. There are only a few of us.

I too made ONE zero zero at Hamilton AFB in F-94C.

Finished mission and went RTB and as we approached the field watched
the San Francisco Bay fog roll in before we could land. No fuel for
alternate so continued with a GCA. Hit GCA minimums and no runway.
Told GCA to keep talking and rotated to a landing attitude and
continued decent. Next thing I knew was rolling down runway.

Like you, when you gotta do you gotta do.

Big John

Paul Riley wrote:
"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...
Paul Riley wrote:
"Dudley Henriques" wrote in message
news Each pilot in other words, is being encouraged and REMINDED, to be in a
constant state of self evaluation as to the ability to perform at any
given time and place.
It ain't much......but it helps!

--
Dudley Henriques
Dudley,

You are exactly right.

I flew a zero-zero GCA, at night, in a UHIB, at the An Khe airfield in
late 1965. No other place to go. We were on mortar patrol, had just been
relieved on station by our replacement aircraft. Ground fog had moved in,
even the replacement aircraft was not aware of it. No one expected it. I
had an instrument rating, my copilot did not. Our other option was to go
crash in the jungle someplace (with the bad guys, but where it was
clear). Since we did not have enough fuel to divert to a safe landing
area--more than 45 minutes away (hey, this was Nam) we decided it was our
only option. Obviously, we made it, believe it or not, no damage to
aircraft or crew. The GCA Controller got three quarts of Johnny Walker
Red the next morning. G
Let me guess ... this was what was left over from the 6 quarts the crew
started with that night! :-)

I'm glad you made it!

Matt

Nope, we had zero when we started. But when we finished, we did, err, uhhh,
imbibe somewhat--AFTER we changed our shorts. :-))))

Then, we went to our footlockers, got out what we had stashed, gave it to
the GCA guy. He earned it!!!!!!!!!!!!

Paul




A good GCA final controller, if they are REALLY good, can calm down a
jittery pilot just by the tone of their voice.
It's funny about things like that. Good pilots remember a good final
controller.

--
Dudley Henriques

Matt Whiting wrote:
Engines have vibration and resonances that vary with RPM. Running at a
constant RPM for long periods of time causes a certain wear pattern on
certain parts. Varying RPM over time induces different vibration an
part resonances and spreads the wear over different areas. This isn't a
bad, bad, bad thing.

My mechanic echoed this also. I was told even in cruise that it's a good
idea to vary the RPMs every 10 minutes or so.

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

Bertie the Bunyip writes:

How would you know?

The principles of risk management and safety are largely indepedent of
aviation and certainly don't require any piloting experience. Most
people are taught many of them in driver education, although many
don't absorb what they are taught.



Then how come you so consistently get it al wrong?


Bertie

Jay Honeck wrote:
He's an expert pilot, and a very experienced owner. He has hand-built
several airplanes from scratch -- no "kit planes" for him. (His next
project will be to recreate -- from photos only -- a 1916 aircraft
that flew out of Grinnell, IA.)

Cool. Sounds like an interesting, knowledgeable guy.

Well, your engine has a limited number of those cycles in it. It's
the same thing I explain to my 17 year old son: Yes, you can floor
the car and spin the rear wheels a certain number of times, without
harming the engine. Sooner or later, though, that kind of treatment
*will* break something.

Airplanes are no different. Cycling from full power to idle is just a
bad thing to do with your engine.

The engine was designed with the knowledge that in order to fly, the
transition from full power to idle will have to be made at some point
.... that in itself is not "a bad thing". If that's ALL you're constantly
doing in every flight, then yes, I would agree with you, but that isn't
what I meant by practicing simulated engine failures more often than
every other year (during BFRs). Certainly a healthy engine can do them
more often than that without being damaged.

When my buddy's engine crapped out 700 hours before TBO,
was it directly attributable to his doing a zillion touch & goes?

Maybe, maybe not.
But again, I wasn't talking about doing a zillion touch-n-goes, I was
talking about practicing simulated engine failures often enough that
*IF* the real thing occurs, you don't waste several precious seconds
reacting, trying to remember the drill, or make any mistakes because you
(not you personally) haven't flown enough power-off approaches/landings
in the airplane you always fly.

I don't know, but I can safely say that if he had simply let his
engine run at a steady-state 2200 RPM, it would still be running
today.

No, you can't. Not doing touch-n-goes is not a guarantee that any engine
will make it to TBO or still be running. It's hard to make ANY
guarantees where engines are concerned...we do what the experts we know
and respect recommend, and hope for the best, but even they don't make
guarantees.

THAT is an indication of the wear and tear inherent with full
power/idle power engine management, versus cruise flight.

I'm not disagreeing that there is wear and tear involved. But again, I
also was not talking about a plane that ONLY does touch-n-goes. Of
course cruise flight should make up the bulk of the time.

Touch & goes aren't necessary to practice after your first 1000 or so
landings, IMHO. If you don't have it down pat by then, a few more
T&Gs isn't gonna help, and the beating your plane takes during the T&G
process is something to be avoided.

It isn't a matter of "having it down pat" -- most of us have landings
down fairly pat by the time we get our ticket. But just because a person
has done 1000 landings doesn't mean it's never necessary to practice
touch-n-goes. Is there anyone who flies religiously once- or
twice-a-week *without fail*, FOREVER? If so, they likely don't have to
practice touch-n-goes. But who hasn't had to be off for a month or more
once in a while due to other priorities in life or when a mechanical
issue takes a month or more to resolve? When you get back in the air
after a long period off, are your approaches and landings just as sharp
as ever? If so, kudos to you! I'm not a professional pilot, and mine
aren't always as good as they could be after I've been off for a month
or more, and in those instances, three or four touch-n-goes is usually
just what the doctor ordered. And once again, I'm not suggesting that
EVERY flight should consist of touch-n-goes or include an engine-out
practice.

That's why airplane ads say stuff like "Never used as a trainer."

That's not the only reason. "Trainers" take a lot more forms of abuse
than just touch-n-goes.

Engine out practice IS a good thing to do, however, and is why I do
feel badly about my reluctance to do them. I'm thinking maybe we'll
do some next time we go up, maybe at reduced (not idle) power...

Good. As a friend, I'm glad to hear that.

Optimally, in order to run the longest possible number of hours, you
would never shut the engine off. I'll bet a Lycoming could run 10,000
hours easily if all you did was keep it running at 2000 RPM, and keep
adding oil and gas.

My mechanic was at my hangar this morning. I was picking his brain about
this stuff. He said an airplane should be flown *at least* once a week
to keep condensation/corrosion away (and other reasons but that being
most important). He said Lycoming documentation actually states that an
engine should be preserved (pickled) if it isn't going to be flown for
10 days or more, although no one does that. I've heard of pickling in
extreme temps (cold) when not being flown *for an entire season*, but
even then, seems a lot of people just let them sit.

The person in the hangar across the taxiway from me was there for the
first time this morning -- I'd never even seen or met him in the entire
time I've been there. He said he hasn't flown in 2 years, and his C-180
hasn't either. It's having an annual now and he's about to begin flying
again. It was not pickled, and I'll be interested to hear what was done
in this annual, with that in mind. (I didn't ask why he was off for 2
years...guessing it might have been a medical issue.)

But that's not "real world". Looking at trainers at big flight
schools, they usually fly daily, often for many hours per day. And
they usually get some pretty impressive time on their engines that
way. (Hours-wise, not calendar-wise, of course.)

We had a C-152 at our flight school. It had 13K hours on it when I got
my ticket in it, and while it had its own little quirks, it obviously
had been reliable. It was nearing 14K hours when a customer had an
emergency, landed in the desert, flipped it onto its back and totaled
it. Thankfully, they walked away. It had been a reliable, fun little
bird. I do not know how many overhauls it had or if it went to TBO each
time, but considering how much abuse it took doing T&Gs, spin training,
being khablammed by people learning to land, and who-knows-what else
customers put it through, it served everyone well and did Cessna proud.

I just spent at least that much, too, and I'm sure as heck not going to
intentionally abuse the engine. But I'm not going to skip some aspects
of ongoing skill retention drills that I've seen the pay off firsthand
in an emergency because I'm thinking about the $20K I just spent.

Yep, I agree. You're the voice of experience here, which is why I'm
engaged in this thread. I *am* worried about not practicing the
procedures enough, but I just don't want to shorten the lifespan of a
very expensive engine needlessly...

Yeah, I hear ya. I just don't think an occasional simulated engine-out
practice is "needlessly".

Shirl

Shirl wrote:
Matt Whiting wrote:
Engines have vibration and resonances that vary with RPM. Running at a
constant RPM for long periods of time causes a certain wear pattern on
certain parts. Varying RPM over time induces different vibration an
part resonances and spreads the wear over different areas. This isn't a
bad, bad, bad thing.

My mechanic echoed this also. I was told even in cruise that it's a good
idea to vary the RPMs every 10 minutes or so.

I believe that is a good idea also. Constant RPM is great for engines
that will ALWAYS run at constant RPM (stationary generators, etc.).
However, for engines that must run across a range of RPMs, I believe it
is better to operate them across that full range as often as practical.

Matt