Stalls??

Jim Logajan wrote in
:

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Almost all fears are born of ignorance.

Eh? I thought the line went "Ignorance is bliss," not "Ignornace is
fear?"


I never said that.


Or that if you are in a bad situation and aren't afraid, you're
probably ignorant of what's going on?

Or that.

Or is it "We have nothing to fear, but fear itself?"


Or that.



All these trite statements can't be right, can they?


Dunno. What is it you fear?


Bertie

On Feb 15, 4:36 pm, "Blueskies" wrote:

If you always land full flap the likelyhood of a tail strike in a full stall landing is nil....
Dan D.

Wrong. It's regularly done in 172s during soft-field landings.
As a mechanic as well as a pilot, I get to replace the bent and broken
tail tiedown rings that got banged on the runway. A little power, as
used in the soft-field technique, with full flaps, yet, allows the
airplane to achieve a higher deck angle in the touchdown and if the
piloet uses a little too much power, he'll get the nose really high so
that when the thing settles on the runway, the tail strikes first.
It can get expensive. The tiedown ring ($40) gets busted, but
if the strike was hard enough the whole tail section can sustain
damage. We look hard at the entire tailcone, rudder hinges (because
the big chunk of lead up top slugs downward on those little hinge
brackets and cracks them), the stabilizer spars (more big chunks of
lead on the elevator tips that want to keep going down, too, and can
bent the spars), and so on.

Dan

wrote in news:dc23e3cf-7070-4210-a22a-
:

On Feb 17, 9:05*am, wrote:
On Feb 16, 8:46 pm, Dudley Henriques wrote:
Instructors who teach stall "feel" are still out here, but you have
to
spend some time finding the right ones.
When you find a CFI who tapes up the ASI and pulls the circuit
breaker
on the stall warning horn to teach you to "feel" the
airplane...GRAB
THEM, you've found the right one :-))

I have hear a few different people on this ng say things like this.
And yet if you fly by feel in an incursion into IMC, it kills (or can
kill) non instrument rated pilots. *Am I missing a step here? *Do you
have to learn by feel before you can learn by instrument?

Good question. Dudley's talking about flying in visual conditions.
Then, a pilot should be looking out the window as much as possible, in
part to see and avoid other aircraft. So it's good to be able to
perceive as much as possible without reference to the instruments
(even though some use of instruments, as a crosscheck for airspeed
etc., is ordinarily advisable even in visual flight; aviation is all
about redundancy).

But in instrument conditions, when you can't see anything out the
window, you can't keep the plane upright for long without using the
instruments. But even in those conditions, it's possible to perceive
such things as coordinated vs. uncoordinated flight, or the onset of a
stall, just by the feel of the plane. And it's good to be able to do
so, for the sake of redundancy, even though the instruments should be
giving you that information too.


True, but having said that, the ASI should e regarded with some
suspicion even IMC. Most pilots ( and I did this exercise in the sim the
other day) when presented with bad airspeed info will chase it in
preference to attitude info. this has caused lots of accidensts over the
years. Two I can remember off the top of my head are the 757 off the
coast of Peru, I think, and the 727 in upstate new york. I'm sure there
have been lots of others in light airplanes. It's amazing to watch. The
airspeed sems to run away and the guy just zeroes in on it and pulls or
pushes until the whole scene is just such a mess recovery would be a
miracle.


Bertie


Bertie

On Feb 17, 3:58*pm, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
True, but having said that, the ASI should e regarded with some
suspicion even IMC. Most pilots ( and I did this exercise in the sim the
other day) when presented with bad airspeed info will chase it in
preference to attitude info. this has caused lots of accidensts over the
years. Two I can remember off the top of my head are the 757 off the
coast of Peru, I think, and the 727 in upstate new york. I'm sure there
have been lots of others in light airplanes. It's amazing to watch. The
airspeed sems to run away and the guy just zeroes in on it and pulls or
pushes until the whole scene is just such a mess recovery would be a
miracle.

Yeah, worst case is when the pitot freezes over or otherwise gets
sealed off, so the ASI says you're slowing down when you're speeding
up, and vice versa (because of the changing static-port pressure as
you climb or descend). In theory, the ASI should then be out-voted by
the altimeter and the attitude indicator, but I imagine it's tricky
(I've never experienced it myself).

That's one situation where the mushy response of a slow plane, or the
stiff controls and whooshing sound in a diving one, might be
especially helpful in augmenting what the instruments are saying (at
least for the light planes I fly--dunno how well that applies to
airliners).

I guess I'm going to have to start (and perhaps finish) my primary
training in order to understand this comment completely.

I understand that being able to see outside helps the brain make a
connection between the behavior of the airplane and what it looks
like. However, couldn't you learn to feel the airplane and how it
behaves only on instruments ever? Could you complete a PPL without
ever looking out the window? At the risk of sounding like a simmer,
why is this "feel" so necessary when training the beginning pilot and
then relearned for an instrument rating? I know I'm making an error
of logic here (otherwise pilot training would be much different), but
what is it exactly?

I have done enough research to understand the difference between VFR,
VMC, IFR, and IMC and who and why you would fly in each one. I would
imagine this is part of training when getting a PPL. So how would a
pilot mix up these two worlds?

-SPCT

On Feb 17, 9:34 am, Dudley Henriques wrote:

Yes. You are missing something, and it's vitally important you
understand it....and understand it completely.

Instrument flying is a totally separate issue from the way one learns to
fly an airplane during initial training. They are integrated in certain
ways. In other ways the two are entirely separate.

We are discussing here the initial process of learning to fly, NOT
flying in instrument conditions.

VFR is one thing IFR is quite another.

When an instructor discusses "flying by feel", they are in no way
advocating the non-use of instruments and warning sensors available to
the pilot in the aircraft. They are simply reducing the available
"tools" the pilot relies on to a lower level to help the pilot
understand his/her flight evironment more closely without the aid of
artificial help.

In the IFR scenario, an instructor will do the same thing when they
reduce a pilot to flying on the primary panel only.

Don't think of flying VFR and IFR in the same breath. This attitude can
get a pilot into deep trouble down the line.

When you start talking instruments, you're in a whole new ball game when
it comes to cues. Everything changes. There are no more visual cues.
There is no more "feeling" of the airplane. There are ONLY the instruments.

It's a whole different flying world. You learn to fly by "feel" to
better understand the aerodynamics and how the airplane interfaces in
it's environment. Visual cues are part of this equation.
Once these things are learned, you TRANSITION into a whole new world
where instruments replace these cues. Don't EVER, as long as you fly,
get these two worlds mixed up in your mind. Doing that will kill you in
an airplane faster than you can imagine!

--
Dudley Henriques

wrote in message ...
On Feb 15, 4:36 pm, "Blueskies" wrote:

If you always land full flap the likelyhood of a tail strike in a full stall landing is nil....
Dan D.

Wrong. It's regularly done in 172s during soft-field landings.
As a mechanic as well as a pilot, I get to replace the bent and broken
tail tiedown rings that got banged on the runway. A little power, as
used in the soft-field technique, with full flaps, yet, allows the
airplane to achieve a higher deck angle in the touchdown and if the
piloet uses a little too much power, he'll get the nose really high so
that when the thing settles on the runway, the tail strikes first.
It can get expensive. The tiedown ring ($40) gets busted, but
if the strike was hard enough the whole tail section can sustain
damage. We look hard at the entire tailcone, rudder hinges (because
the big chunk of lead up top slugs downward on those little hinge
brackets and cracks them), the stabilizer spars (more big chunks of
lead on the elevator tips that want to keep going down, too, and can
bent the spars), and so on.

Dan


Like I said, the likelihood is nil. I didn't say it couldn't be done...

Is this with the 'new' 30° flap limited machines or the older standard 40° flap machines?

d²

On Feb 17, 5:17*pm, wrote:
I guess I'm going to have to start (and perhaps finish) my primary
training in order to understand this comment completely.

I understand that being able to see outside helps the brain make a
connection between the behavior of the airplane and what it looks
like. *However, couldn't you learn to feel the airplane and how it
behaves only on instruments ever? *

Conceivably (except for landing, of course). But in VMC, you need to
be looking out the window almost all the time in order to scan for
other traffic (at least with current technology). The more time you
spend looking at your instruments, the less time you're devoting to
collision avoidance. So it's important to be able to perceive as much
as possible without reference to the instruments.

There's also the problem that instruments can fail, sometimes
unobviously. VFR aircraft aren't required to provide as much
rednundant information as IFR instruments. So again, it's important
not to rely too much on the instruments.

I have done enough research to understand the difference between VFR,
VMC, IFR, and IMC and who and why you would fly in each one. *I would
imagine this is part of training when getting a PPL. *So how would a
pilot mix up these two worlds?

If the transition to IMC is unexpected, a pilot may delay switching to
instrument flight, clinging instead to fading and inadequate visual
cues. Even in established, solid IMC, misleading perceptions of the
plane's orientation often conflict with the instruments, creating
illusions that can be dangerously hard to ignore.

Conversely, in VMC, many pilots spend too much time looking at their
instruments, creating an unnecessary collision hazard.

Big John wrote:

-----------------------------clip-------------------------
But when they break to a stall, it happens abruptly, at too
low a speed. They are totally stalled, and to boot one wing always
stalls first, falls of and immediately a spin develops in that
direction. One simply has to know that slow flight is always a touchy
thing to do and airspeed observation is crucial. The Mooney series
has leading edge stall strips about 30% out from the wing root to make
the stall beak earlier at a faster airspeed where control effectivenes
is better. light and powerful rudder and you have one easily spun
airplane.
-------------------------clip---------------------
Angelo campanella
************************************************** *************************
Stall strip on inboard portion of wings are to cause the inboard
section of wing to stall before the tips, where ailerons are located..
This is to give you some aileron control in early part of a stall.

OK, Thanks for reminding me of the more precise function of stall strips.

You say "But when they break to a stall, it happens abruptly, at too
low a speed".

By that I mean for laminar flow wings without stall strips, the stall
occurs at a low speed is not reversable; it really requires an increase
of speed to start flying again. With stall strips, loss of lift occurs
at a slightly higher speed where just dropping the nose to reduce the
angle of attack will resume flying status. I suspect that of one could
fly the same plane with and without stall strips, the bare wing would be
flying all the time at the speed where the plane with stall strips would
experience the mushing... I really can't say which plane would do
which... I'm just reierating some basic aerodynamics.

I've stalled aircraft at 400-500 mph. Not a big deal.

I can believe that.

Ang. C.

We don't fly in a one cue world. (Instruments)

Pilots have to learn to use any and all cues available to them to be
thoroughly proficient at all times, and in all normally anticipated
conditions commensurate with the ratings they hold and the aircraft they
are flying.
This means learning to use the senses such as the visual cues as well as
how the aircraft feels physically to them through their hands and feet.
The reason we learn to use all available cues is that when one cue fails
we have another. Also, the manner in which we use these cues change.
For example, when we are VFR, normally a pilot will use visual and
audible, as well as physical cuing backed up by instrument cuing. In
this case all cues are available so they are used.
When we go IFR, we lose the visual cues and we deliberately set aside
all the physically felt cues, and the instruments and audible cues
become prime.
The bottom line on all this is that if a pilot learned to fly using only
instruments, that pilot would be denied a properly trained reference set
of visual cues and physical cues.
In other words, if you're trying to solve a physics problem, don't leave
your algebra book at home! :-))

Flying a plane is nothing more than the proper application of a few
sound basics. Learning to use all the available cues is simply learning
sound basics.


Thank you






wrote:
I guess I'm going to have to start (and perhaps finish) my primary
training in order to understand this comment completely.

I understand that being able to see outside helps the brain make a
connection between the behavior of the airplane and what it looks
like. However, couldn't you learn to feel the airplane and how it
behaves only on instruments ever? Could you complete a PPL without
ever looking out the window? At the risk of sounding like a simmer,
why is this "feel" so necessary when training the beginning pilot and
then relearned for an instrument rating? I know I'm making an error
of logic here (otherwise pilot training would be much different), but
what is it exactly?

I have done enough research to understand the difference between VFR,
VMC, IFR, and IMC and who and why you would fly in each one. I would
imagine this is part of training when getting a PPL. So how would a
pilot mix up these two worlds?

-SPCT

On Feb 17, 9:34 am, Dudley Henriques wrote:
Yes. You are missing something, and it's vitally important you
understand it....and understand it completely.

Instrument flying is a totally separate issue from the way one learns to
fly an airplane during initial training. They are integrated in certain
ways. In other ways the two are entirely separate.

We are discussing here the initial process of learning to fly, NOT
flying in instrument conditions.

VFR is one thing IFR is quite another.

When an instructor discusses "flying by feel", they are in no way
advocating the non-use of instruments and warning sensors available to
the pilot in the aircraft. They are simply reducing the available
"tools" the pilot relies on to a lower level to help the pilot
understand his/her flight evironment more closely without the aid of
artificial help.

In the IFR scenario, an instructor will do the same thing when they
reduce a pilot to flying on the primary panel only.

Don't think of flying VFR and IFR in the same breath. This attitude can
get a pilot into deep trouble down the line.

When you start talking instruments, you're in a whole new ball game when
it comes to cues. Everything changes. There are no more visual cues.
There is no more "feeling" of the airplane. There are ONLY the instruments.

It's a whole different flying world. You learn to fly by "feel" to
better understand the aerodynamics and how the airplane interfaces in
it's environment. Visual cues are part of this equation.
Once these things are learned, you TRANSITION into a whole new world
where instruments replace these cues. Don't EVER, as long as you fly,
get these two worlds mixed up in your mind. Doing that will kill you in
an airplane faster than you can imagine!

--
Dudley Henriques



--
Dudley Henriques

On Feb 17, 3:32 pm, "Blueskies" wrote:
wrote in ...
On Feb 15, 4:36 pm, "Blueskies" wrote:

If you always land full flap the likelyhood of a tail strike in a full stall landing is nil....
Dan D.

Wrong. It's regularly done in 172s during soft-field landings.
As a mechanic as well as a pilot, I get to replace the bent and broken
tail tiedown rings that got banged on the runway. A little power, as
used in the soft-field technique, with full flaps, yet, allows the
airplane to achieve a higher deck angle in the touchdown and if the
piloet uses a little too much power, he'll get the nose really high so
that when the thing settles on the runway, the tail strikes first.
It can get expensive. The tiedown ring ($40) gets busted, but
if the strike was hard enough the whole tail section can sustain
damage. We look hard at the entire tailcone, rudder hinges (because
the big chunk of lead up top slugs downward on those little hinge
brackets and cracks them), the stabilizer spars (more big chunks of
lead on the elevator tips that want to keep going down, too, and can
bent the spars), and so on.

Dan

Like I said, the likelihood is nil. I didn't say it couldn't be done...

Is this with the 'new' 30° flap limited machines or the older standard 40° flap machines?

d²

40° flaps. With 30° it would be worse.

Dan