About Stall Psychology and Pilots

On Feb 22, 2:35 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" wrote:
FWIW, I definitely agree, I'm talking about hitting pavement.
It's the ground-effect that can keep the plane floating, that
is a mysterious effect (not really well understood) that does
happen at landings, but can be used to advantage, if you're
not a *fraidy cat*.
Once the rolling air from ground effect is achieved, a new
dynamic is effective. Of course that "rolling air" needs AoA
to be maintained, so nudging forward kills the "ground effect"
and you're very near a 3 point landing.
Maybe you guys want to analyse "ground effect lift".
Ken

Ground effect is not a mystery to those who have taken
groundschools and have licenses. It's mystery to simulated "pilots."
Ground effect was well understood by aerodynamicists a long time ago,
and it's been explained in the textbooks since then.
Lowering the nose just before touchdown just reduces AOA so
that the airplane thumps onto the runway. It's not going to squeak on.
It's sloppy and stupid and damages things.

Dan

wrote in news:40396cd2-7aa3-4d05-9875-
:




Lowering the nose just before touchdown just reduces AOA so
that the airplane thumps onto the runway. It's not going to squeak on.
It's sloppy and stupid and damages things.


He he. you should get a job with Jeppy writing pilot manuals!

Bertie

On Feb 25, 9:33 am, wrote:

I didn't think

Dan, I agree with that.

you had any licenses. You either never earned one, or
they took it from you because you were a menace to everyone.

When I got my license, I did of course read the
Aeronautical Act (canux), and there were no
circumstances to have the license revoked.
Go read the Act sonny, and get back to us.
Ken
PS: You don not understand the system.

wrote:
On Feb 22, 2:35 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" wrote:
FWIW, I definitely agree, I'm talking about hitting pavement.
It's the ground-effect that can keep the plane floating, that
is a mysterious effect (not really well understood) that does
happen at landings, but can be used to advantage, if you're
not a *fraidy cat*.
Once the rolling air from ground effect is achieved, a new
dynamic is effective. Of course that "rolling air" needs AoA
to be maintained, so nudging forward kills the "ground effect"
and you're very near a 3 point landing.
Maybe you guys want to analyse "ground effect lift".
Ken

Ground effect is not a mystery to those who have taken
groundschools and have licenses. It's mystery to simulated "pilots."
Ground effect was well understood by aerodynamicists a long time ago,
and it's been explained in the textbooks since then.
Lowering the nose just before touchdown just reduces AOA so
that the airplane thumps onto the runway. It's not going to squeak on.
It's sloppy and stupid and damages things.

Dan



I would strongly recommend that lowering the nose on any landing is
asking for trouble in a BIG way. In fact, the exact opposite is true.
You should be HOLDING the nose in the landing attitude as the airplane
touches down.

I don't know where this guy reads the crap he posts on these groups but
I wouldn't climb into an airplane with Ken Tucker for a million
bucks....and I mean even a PAPER airplane!!!!.

--
Dudley Henriques

Ken S. Tucker wrote:
On Feb 25, 9:33 am, wrote:

I didn't think

Dan, I agree with that.

you had any licenses. You either never earned one, or
they took it from you because you were a menace to everyone.

When I got my license, I did of course read the
Aeronautical Act (canux), and there were no
circumstances to have the license revoked.
Go read the Act sonny, and get back to us.
Ken
PS: You don not understand the system.

Obviously we don't understand the system. ANY system that allowed you a
pilot's certificate is quite frankly beyond our meager ability to
understand.
:-)

--
Dudley Henriques

"Ken S. Tucker" wrote in news:91159c92-dd52-4dbd-
:

On Feb 25, 9:33 am, wrote:

I didn't think

Dan, I agree with that.

you had any licenses. You either never earned one, or
they took it from you because you were a menace to everyone.

When I got my license, I did of course read the
Aeronautical Act (canux), and there were no
circumstances to have the license revoked.
Go read the Act sonny, and get back to us.
Ken
PS: You don not understand the system.


So now we know. A Cheerios lah-since is bulletproof.


Bertie

On Feb 25, 11:23 am, "Ken S. Tucker" wrote:
On Feb 25, 9:33 am, wrote:

I didn't think

Dan, I agree with that.

you had any licenses. You either never earned one, or
they took it from you because you were a menace to everyone.

When I got my license, I did of course read the
Aeronautical Act (canux), and there were no
circumstances to have the license revoked.
Go read the Act sonny, and get back to us.
Ken
PS: You don not understand the system.

No, YOU don't know anything.

If we have a look at the Aeronautics Act at
http://www.tc.gc.ca/civilaviation/Re...ct/Nov2007.htm
we will see this little item:

6.8 In addition to any grounds referred to in any of sections 4.4,
6.71, 6.9 to 7.1 and 7.21, the Minister may suspend, cancel or refuse
to issue, renew or amend a Canadian aviation document in the
circumstances and on the grounds prescribed by regulation of the
Governor in Council.

And if we have a look at the Canadian Aviation Regulations, referred
to above by "regulation of the Governor in Council" he

http://www.tc.gc.ca/CivilAviation/Re...103.htm#103_01

We will read thus:

103.06 (1) A notice issued by the Minister pursuant to subsections
6.9(1) and (2) of the Act shall include

(a) a description of the particulars of the alleged contravention;

(b) where the Minister has decided to suspend the Canadian aviation
document, a statement of the duration of the suspension; and

(c) a statement that a request for review by the Tribunal does not
operate as a stay of the suspension or cancellation but that an
application may be made in writing to the Tribunal, pursuant to
subsection 6.9(4) of the Act, to stay the suspension or cancellation
until the review of the decision of the Minister has been concluded.

(2) A notice issued by the Minister pursuant to subsections 7(1) and
(2) of the Act shall include

(a) a statement of the effective date of the suspension;

(b) a statement of the conditions under which the suspension is
terminated; and

(c) a statement that a request for review by the Tribunal does not
operate as a stay of the suspension.

(3) A notice issued by the Minister pursuant to subsections 7.1(1) and
(2) of the Act shall include

(a) where the Minister has decided to suspend or cancel a Canadian
aviation document, a statement of the effective date of the suspension
or cancellation;

(b) where the Minister has decided to suspend the Canadian aviation
document, a statement of the duration of the suspension or the
conditions under which the suspension is terminated; and

(c) a statement that a request for review by the Tribunal does not
operate as a stay of the suspension, cancellation or refusal to renew.

(4) A notice issued by the Minister under subsection 6.71(2) of the
Act informing an applicant or an owner or operator of an aircraft,
aerodrome, airport or other facility of the Minister's decision made
under subsection 6.71(1) of the Act to refuse to issue or amend a
Canadian aviation document in respect of the aircraft, aerodrome,
airport or other facility shall be in the form set out in Schedule I
to this Subpart.
(amended 2004/05/11; no previous version)

Administrative Grounds for Suspension, Cancellation or Refusal to
Renew

103.07 In addition to the grounds referred to in Sections 6.9 to 7.1
of the Act, the Minister may suspend, cancel or refuse to renew a
Canadian aviation document where

(a) the Canadian aviation document has been voluntarily surrendered to
the Minister by its holder;

(b) he Canadian aviation document has been mutilated, altered, or
rendered illegible;

(c) the aircraft in respect of which the Canadian aviation document
was issued has been destroyed or withdrawn from use; or

(d) the commercial air service, other service or undertaking in
respect of which the Canadian aviation document was issued has been
discontinued.

In Canada, Ken, "cancellation" means revocation. Lost
forever.

I still believe you don't have any licenses.

Dan

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
"Ken S. Tucker" wrote in news:91159c92-dd52-4dbd-
:

On Feb 25, 9:33 am, wrote:

I didn't think
Dan, I agree with that.

you had any licenses. You either never earned one, or
they took it from you because you were a menace to everyone.
When I got my license, I did of course read the
Aeronautical Act (canux), and there were no
circumstances to have the license revoked.
Go read the Act sonny, and get back to us.
Ken
PS: You don not understand the system.


So now we know. A Cheerios lah-since is bulletproof.


Bertie

Well, you have to admit; a Cheerios box top can make a paper airplane!
:-)

--
Dudley Henriques

On Feb 26, 8:28 am, Dudley Henriques wrote:

Obviously we don't understand the system. ANY system that allowed you a
pilot's certificate is quite frankly beyond our meager ability to
understand.
:-)

Yup.
All a group of dummies like us can do is fly aeroplanes and hold the
licenses and rating that are required ...
Is Ken the alterego of Mixedup?

george wrote:
On Feb 26, 8:28 am, Dudley Henriques wrote:

Obviously we don't understand the system. ANY system that allowed you a
pilot's certificate is quite frankly beyond our meager ability to
understand.
:-)

Yup.
All a group of dummies like us can do is fly aeroplanes and hold the
licenses and rating that are required ...
Is Ken the alterego of Mixedup?

Bertie seems to think they might be in the sock puppet business
together. He might very well be right. :-)

--
Dudley Henriques