A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Soaring
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

How Low to Spin??



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #2  
Old August 30th 04, 08:37 PM
Tom Seim
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Ian Johnston" wrote in message news:cCUlhtvFIYkV-pn2-8OXf57VN35wC@localhost...
On Fri, 27 Aug 2004 21:38:02 UTC, (Mark James
Boyd) wrote:

: "Oh yeah? He had an accident? I bet he
: didn't use the checklist!"

I once had someone try to persuade me to use a checklist for a winch
cable break. Yes, great, run through a list of actions which have to
be started within a second and completed within a few ... the idiot's
an instructor now, and feedback tells me that he's no less of an
idiot...


I recently read the accident report of the ASW20 crash (fatal) at
Williams, CA. Per the check list, they did a positive control check of
the elevator by having the assistant (co-owner) hold the elevator
while the pilot applied force on the stick. Resistance was felt, check
list passed. Only problem was the elevator was not hooked up and what
the pilot felt was the push rod hitting the bottom of the elevator.
Now, if the guy just LOOKED at the connection it would have been
obvious that it was not hooked up (it is in plain site).

Still, he had a second chance to save himself. When the glider decided
to launch itself he could have immediately released and delt with the
situation at a more survivable attitude (the tow pilot released him
instead).

Check lists are not substitutes for plain common sense. If you use
them, do another walk around the glider without the list, looking for
things you might have missed. Following a list may give you tunnel
vision. A DC-9 was landed gear up by two experienced pilots following
a check list (they missed one step). They were so certain that they
had done everything right that they ignored the lack of the sound and
thump of the gear lowering (common sense, again).

Tom
  #3  
Old August 31st 04, 03:08 PM
Herbert Kilian
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

(Tom Seim) wrote in message . com...

I recently read the accident report of the ASW20 crash (fatal) at
Williams, CA. Per the check list, they did a positive control check of
the elevator by having the assistant (co-owner) hold the elevator
while the pilot applied force on the stick. Resistance was felt, check
list passed. Only problem was the elevator was not hooked up and what
the pilot felt was the push rod hitting the bottom of the elevator.
Now, if the guy just LOOKED at the connection it would have been
obvious that it was not hooked up (it is in plain site).

Tom and all,

Your report triggers my a "Pavlov's dog" reaction in me. Rather than
salivating like the dog I shake my head in sorrow that in the US we
are practicing placing the pilot in the cockpit for a positive control
check. If the pilot in your example had done the walk-around combined
with the PCC he would most likely have noticed the disconnected
elevator. In most other countries (input from Europe, Australia, S.
Africa etc. welcome) they put a helper at the controls (in the
cockpit) and the pilot asks for specific movements i.e. 'elevator full
up, elevator full down' with the helper repeating the words and
applying force to the controls. I have talked about this to many
pilots here in the US including instructors and the reaction was
always that most here think the pilot needs to "feel" the controls
from the cockpit to know what's going on. I think that's incorrect
mainly because different helpers will apply different forces to the
control surfaces leading to inconsistent feedback.
Another observation in the same vein: most US pilots fail to do the
walk-around check with the justification that they just taped wings
and tail and looked over the glider while doing so.
Another comment: poking fun at the use of check-lists in this thread
is very unfortunate.

Herb, J7
  #5  
Old August 31st 04, 04:54 PM
Jack
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Herbert Kilian wrote:

[....]

Another comment: poking fun at the use of check-lists in this thread
is very unfortunate.


Herb,

I see the main thrust of references to checklists in this thread as a
denigration of overly detailed checklists, and as a warning against
using checklists in situations where time is of the essence in
responding to an abnormal attitude or condition of flight.

I hope that everyone understands it is the misuse of checklists and not
their proper and very necessary uses at which fun was being poked. Some
immediate action steps must be committed to memory and become second
nature. In many phases of flight, both normal and abnormal, a checklist
is best used as a review.

I think you are right about the conduct of control checks. Anybody
should be able to move the stick as instructed, but only the pilot can
be expected to know the feel of a properly connected system and that
feel is best gained at the control surface.

Assembly, control, and walk-around checks (always performed separately)
seem to me to be the best examples of the "menu" approach to using a
checklist.


Jack
  #6  
Old August 31st 04, 07:19 PM
Tom Seim
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Another comment: poking fun at the use of check-lists in this thread
is very unfortunate.


Exactly which part of my post was "poking fun"? I thought that I was
being dead (pardon the pun) serious.

I have 4 opportunities to catch an error on control linkages:
1. The initial hookup.
2. An immediate check of each control linkage after hookup.
3. The walk-around inspection.
4. Visual observation of control movement standing by the cockpit.

Missing all 4 falls into the "being hit by an asteroid" category.

Tom
  #7  
Old September 1st 04, 07:28 AM
Ian Johnston
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Tue, 31 Aug 2004 18:19:55 UTC, (Tom Seim)
wrote:

: 2. An immediate check of each control linkage after hookup.

Which I always get someone else to do.

Ian

--

  #10  
Old September 1st 04, 12:42 AM
Bob Korves
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Herbert Kilian" wrote in message
(snip)
Another comment: poking fun at the use of check-lists in this thread
is very unfortunate.

Herb, J7


I wasn't making fun of using a checklist. Using a checklist is important
and I use a fairly detailed one religiously before each flight. I do not,
however, need a line item telling me to remove the canopy cover before
flight!
-Bob Korves


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
AOPA Stall/Spin Study -- Stowell's Review (8,000 words) Rich Stowell Aerobatics 28 January 2nd 09 02:26 PM
SR22 Spin Recovery gwengler Piloting 9 September 24th 04 07:31 AM
Spin Training JJ Sinclair Soaring 6 February 16th 04 04:49 PM
Cessna 150 Price Outlook Charles Talleyrand Owning 80 October 16th 03 02:18 PM
AOPA Stall/Spin Study -- Stowell's Review (8,000 words) Rich Stowell Piloting 25 September 11th 03 01:27 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:17 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.