I learned about flying from this, too...

On Tue, 05 Feb 2008 13:32:23 -0500, Dudley Henriques
wrote:

snip

I'd be curious to know how many actually carry around the checklist
outside while preflighting?

Ricky

[rec.aviation.student added]

There is absolutely no reason why a written checklist has to deviate
from a flow pattern, and indeed, a well written checklist will follow a
flow pattern. If it doesn't, I suggest re-writing it so it does.
I recommend using a written checklist all the time; the exterior
inspection included.

For many years I simply followed the "flow" *until* I was interrupted
in one preflight, three times. I had developed the habit of starting
over, but after three times I started in where I left off. All went
well until I brought the nose up on rotation. Strange thing, the left
cowl stood up about the same time. I'll swear more local pilots saw
that than we have room for parking at the airport.. I've always
used a written check list since then. If I could be interrupted once
and make a mistake, it could happen again.

Roger (K8RI)
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

Roger wrote:
On Tue, 05 Feb 2008 13:32:23 -0500, Dudley Henriques
wrote:

snip

I'd be curious to know how many actually carry around the checklist
outside while preflighting?

Ricky
[rec.aviation.student added]
There is absolutely no reason why a written checklist has to deviate
from a flow pattern, and indeed, a well written checklist will follow a
flow pattern. If it doesn't, I suggest re-writing it so it does.
I recommend using a written checklist all the time; the exterior
inspection included.

For many years I simply followed the "flow" *until* I was interrupted
in one preflight, three times. I had developed the habit of starting
over, but after three times I started in where I left off. All went
well until I brought the nose up on rotation. Strange thing, the left
cowl stood up about the same time. I'll swear more local pilots saw
that than we have room for parking at the airport.. I've always
used a written check list since then. If I could be interrupted once
and make a mistake, it could happen again.

Roger (K8RI)
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

Perfect example, and the exact reason why we should teach flow
interruption as a prime source of accidents.
Checklists rule!

--
Dudley Henriques

In rec.aviation.student Dudley Henriques wrote:
Michael Ash wrote:
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Guido_Mutke is the German guy, but
apparently it's unlikely that he actually did it, and in any case it will
probably never be known for sure.

Actually it is known. Mutke honestly believed he had gone supersonic in
a dive with the 262. Post war investigation with the 262 firmly
established that the basic airframe was incapable of transitioning the
transonic region through Mach 1. The drag curves were too high as the
shock waves formed on the aircraft shape.
Investigation also established that the PROBABLE CAUSE of Mutke thinking
he had gone supersonic involved issues with his airspeed indicator vs
the pressure changes involved in his dive.

You learn something every day. The article I posted seems reluctant to
come to any sort of conclusion, but you're more trustworthy so I'll take
yours. Thanks!

--
Michael Ash
Rogue Amoeba Software

Roger wrote:


For many years I simply followed the "flow" *until* I was interrupted
in one preflight, three times. I had developed the habit of starting
over, but after three times I started in where I left off. All went
well until I brought the nose up on rotation. Strange thing, the left
cowl stood up about the same time. I'll swear more local pilots saw
that than we have room for parking at the airport.. I've always
used a written check list since then. If I could be interrupted once
and make a mistake, it could happen again.

Roger (K8RI)
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

A similar experience for me. I was once interrupted during my run-up by
a radio call. I then started my take-off run, but had to abort because
of a noticeable lack of power. Turned out the engine was running on
one mag. The radio call had caught me in the middle of my mag check.

Michael Ash wrote:
In rec.aviation.student Dudley Henriques wrote:
Michael Ash wrote:
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Guido_Mutke is the German guy, but
apparently it's unlikely that he actually did it, and in any case it will
probably never be known for sure.

Actually it is known. Mutke honestly believed he had gone supersonic in
a dive with the 262. Post war investigation with the 262 firmly
established that the basic airframe was incapable of transitioning the
transonic region through Mach 1. The drag curves were too high as the
shock waves formed on the aircraft shape.
Investigation also established that the PROBABLE CAUSE of Mutke thinking
he had gone supersonic involved issues with his airspeed indicator vs
the pressure changes involved in his dive.

You learn something every day. The article I posted seems reluctant to
come to any sort of conclusion, but you're more trustworthy so I'll take
yours. Thanks!

Well, as for "trustworthy" :-)))) just be advised that like you, I
depend on outside sources for this kind of information. Mine came
through the Naval Test Pilot School, but they in turn have history
sources relying on their data.
The bottom line on these things is that the chances are what I've
related to you is factual and correct, but I wasn't there to verify in
person.
Hope this helps a bit

--
Dudley Henriques

In rec.aviation.student Dudley Henriques wrote:
Michael Ash wrote:
In rec.aviation.student Dudley Henriques wrote:
Michael Ash wrote:
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Guido_Mutke is the German guy, but
apparently it's unlikely that he actually did it, and in any case it will
probably never be known for sure.

Actually it is known. Mutke honestly believed he had gone supersonic in
a dive with the 262. Post war investigation with the 262 firmly
established that the basic airframe was incapable of transitioning the
transonic region through Mach 1. The drag curves were too high as the
shock waves formed on the aircraft shape.
Investigation also established that the PROBABLE CAUSE of Mutke thinking
he had gone supersonic involved issues with his airspeed indicator vs
the pressure changes involved in his dive.

You learn something every day. The article I posted seems reluctant to
come to any sort of conclusion, but you're more trustworthy so I'll take
yours. Thanks!

Well, as for "trustworthy" :-)))) just be advised that like you, I
depend on outside sources for this kind of information. Mine came
through the Naval Test Pilot School, but they in turn have history
sources relying on their data.
The bottom line on these things is that the chances are what I've
related to you is factual and correct, but I wasn't there to verify in
person.

All good points, but you have two key advantages. First, you tend to have
better sources (Naval Test Pilot School instead of random internet web
pages), and second, you have a better ability to judge the source.

Hope this helps a bit

Always good food for thought around here.

--
Michael Ash
Rogue Amoeba Software

Michael Ash wrote:
In rec.aviation.student Dudley Henriques wrote:
Michael Ash wrote:
In rec.aviation.student Dudley Henriques wrote:
Michael Ash wrote:
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Guido_Mutke is the German guy, but
apparently it's unlikely that he actually did it, and in any case it will
probably never be known for sure.

Actually it is known. Mutke honestly believed he had gone supersonic in
a dive with the 262. Post war investigation with the 262 firmly
established that the basic airframe was incapable of transitioning the
transonic region through Mach 1. The drag curves were too high as the
shock waves formed on the aircraft shape.
Investigation also established that the PROBABLE CAUSE of Mutke thinking
he had gone supersonic involved issues with his airspeed indicator vs
the pressure changes involved in his dive.
You learn something every day. The article I posted seems reluctant to
come to any sort of conclusion, but you're more trustworthy so I'll take
yours. Thanks!

Well, as for "trustworthy" :-)))) just be advised that like you, I
depend on outside sources for this kind of information. Mine came
through the Naval Test Pilot School, but they in turn have history
sources relying on their data.
The bottom line on these things is that the chances are what I've
related to you is factual and correct, but I wasn't there to verify in
person.

All good points, but you have two key advantages. First, you tend to have
better sources (Naval Test Pilot School instead of random internet web
pages), and second, you have a better ability to judge the source.

Hope this helps a bit

Always good food for thought around here.


Well..I'm getting older for sure, but still managing to hang in there :-)

--
Dudley Henriques

"Ken S. Tucker" wrote in
:

Hmm....

On Feb 11, 2:33 pm, Dudley Henriques wrote:
Michael Ash wrote:
This has not been my experience at all. Pilots, from what I have
seen, are extreme pessimists. They tend to assume that any problem
they find with the aircraft or see in the air will kill them, even
though 99% of the time it will not. This is, of course, because the
other 1% of the time it will. It's paranoid, but it's justified.

You are absolutely correct. Good pilots treat anything and everything
connected with flying as something that can kill them...until either
it's proved not capable of doing that or they themselves have
eliminated it as a risk factor.

Nope, pilots aren't qualified to make those
decisions, an exceptional pilot might have a
Ph.d in Aerodynamics, electronics, mechanics
and physics, but that's like .01%, a fella like
Yeager has the equivalent, but he's a genius.
By and large, pilots are licensed by govmonk
workers, and the majority of accidents are
caused by licensed pilot error, that's a fact



Not that you'd need a licence to wreck an airpklane, Kenny.

O toucgh luck with the Looney Maroon award for January, but never fear,
I'm sure you'll win it eventualy.


Bertie

Dudley Henriques wrote in
:


Actually it is known. Mutke honestly believed he had gone supersonic
in a dive with the 262. Post war investigation with the 262 firmly
established that the basic airframe was incapable of transitioning the
transonic region through Mach 1. The drag curves were too high as the
shock waves formed on the aircraft shape.
Investigation also established that the PROBABLE CAUSE of Mutke
thinking he had gone supersonic involved issues with his airspeed
indicator vs the pressure changes involved in his dive.



That's right. Compressibility can cause airspeed indicators to jump at
around critical mach depending on where they are mounted.


Bertie

Euan Kilgour wrote in
:

On Feb 13, 4:40 am, "Ken S. Tucker" wrote:
Hmm....

On Feb 11, 2:33 pm, Dudley Henriques wrote:



The way I was instructed to fly included me building and maintaining a
working knowledge of aerodynamics, navigation, meteorology, aircraft
technical specs, and human physiology in the aviation environment. Do
I require a PhD in those aviation subjects in order to make decisions
that will keep the plane flying and me and my passengers safe? Hell
no! And why bother twisting facts to make a truly daft point of view
seem justified? You can never remove human error from any flight
where a pilot is involved, no matter how many degrees they have. Its
a matter of accepting that human error exists and utilizing procedures
designed to manage it as best you can.


Well, you simply don't need one. Test pilots all got them by and by so they
could talk to the guys who were buildng the things in their language,
basically. And like any sort of math, it gives a more thorough
understanding of of performance which allowsa pilto to sial closer to the
"edge"


Bertie