Have you ever...

On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 19:59:30 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
wrote in
CSe7e.15587$8Z6.12366@attbi_s21::

If we're
trying to be more inclusive, and get more people into the sky, I think we
need to make the process not just easier, but more logical.

I believe the aim of pilot certification is not to "get more people
into the sky," but to train safe pilots.

Jay Honeck wrote:

And you could eliminate all the "pressure altitude" versus "density
altitude" computational B.S., too. Never used it yet.

If you fly in the mountains in the summer time, knowing the
difference and being able to compute the D.A. can mean the difference
between flying and eating a tree sandwich. Given some of the antics
I've seen from newbie mountain pilots over the years, I was under the
impression that they'd already dropped this from the curriculum.

John Galban=====N4BQ (PA28-180)

And you could eliminate all the "pressure altitude" versus "density
altitude" computational B.S., too. Never used it yet.

If you fly in the mountains in the summer time, knowing the
difference and being able to compute the D.A. can mean the difference
between flying and eating a tree sandwich. Given some of the antics
I've seen from newbie mountain pilots over the years, I was under the
impression that they'd already dropped this from the curriculum.

It would be child's play to make a chart that says "when the temperature is
'x' and the altitude is 'y' your runway must be 'z' length" for each
aircraft type. In fact, I'm surprised that this isn't a required part of
the POH.

Perhaps it is on newer aircraft?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Jay,

It would be child's play to make a chart that says "when the temperature is
'x' and the altitude is 'y' your runway must be 'z' length" for each
aircraft type. In fact, I'm surprised that this isn't a required part of
the POH.


This post after you so strongly advocate AGAINST rote learning? You don't make
sense!

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 19:54:29 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
wrote:

It would be child's play to make a chart that says "when the temperature is
'x' and the altitude is 'y' your runway must be 'z' length" for each
aircraft type. In fact, I'm surprised that this isn't a required part of
the POH.

There in fact IS such a chart. It's actually one of those adjustable
cardboard devices that allows you to dial in various parameters such
as temperature, altitude, wind, direction of wind, runway surface
type, whether it's sloped up or down and by how much, what type of
airplane etc. etc.

Dial all that stuff in and the calculator reads out the necessary
runway length. Compare that to the runway you are about to use.

I found mine at Sporty's Pilot Shop. Saw it recommended in the "Hold
on Harvey (or whatever the name was) FAA video about density altitude.

There were three very sobering video's in the VCR. The above
mentioned one was poor quality because the Video cam wasn't found for
several years or so in the wreck. It was shot from a Cessna L-19, or
the civilian version of it and there were two guys in it flying up a
mountain range that kept getting higher and higher. They got
themselves trapped heading into a mountain canyon that rose faster
than they could climb and attempted to turn around. The pilots last
words were "Hang on Harvey (or whatever the passengers name was)" and
you see the ground go upside down. You can hear the stall warning
horn going off as the pilot attempts the turn (to the right). He
drops the nose, but then has to pull it back up right away because the
ground is so close. The stall warning horn goes off again and the
ground goes upside down.

In the second accident you are looking at a scene in a really rugged
canyon from the hikers viewpoint. They hear the sound of an airplane
and a Cessna goes by at about their eye level. You hear them
discussing it and then the airplane noises come back and you see the
airplane coming back at them, but below the rim of the canyon. It
smashes right into it below them.

The third accident was the best quality video because it was shot at
an airshow. It looked like it was a Beech T-34 or something very
similar. It was at a high altitude runway and it was apparently very
hot. The pilot goes up for a loop and as he's rounding out for the
pull out, he runs out of air.

All of these accidents were due to the pilots not understanding the
affect of density altitude on the performance of their airplane, and
not allowing for it.

In addition to the crash video's there is a comprehensive discussion
by a very heavy set FAA crash investigator who had an ego to match.
He was impressively overbearing and caustic.

Most density altitude misshaps occur in the high plains or mountain
area's of the west, but not all of them.

There was a density altitude related accident here at a local turf
runway airport in Vermont a number of years ago. A pilot (think he
was flying a Cherokee) was visiting and decided to take off with three
passengers during the heat of the day (it was high summer). Several
of the local pilots got in his face and aggressively spoke to him
about the situation pointing out how hot it was and that with the full
load what effect that would have on his marginal performance and tried
to persuade him to wait.

He relented and waited another couple of hours then decided he was
going to go and loaded his passengers, one of whom was his son. Again
the pilots intervened. One offered to drive the passengers to the
nearby Class D airport (KLEB) which has mile long paved runways. He
could fly there, pick up the passengers and take off with his full
load no problem. He refused the offer.

His takeoff was to the north, which is slightly uphill. The airplane
broke ground abouth 3/4 the length of the 2500 foot long runway and
wallowed nose high along the runway without gaining much height.

He wandered off to the right in this condition with his nose so high
he probably could not see the tall pinetree he flew into that bordered
the runway.

The airplane clipped off the top of the tree and crashed nose down on
the far side of it killing the two front seat occupants. His son and
the other rear passenger survived.

Corky Scott

Jay,

And you could eliminate all the "pressure altitude" versus "density
altitude" computational B.S., too. Never used it yet.


Every year, pilots get hurt by disregarding DA effects on their flying.
And you want to do away with at least trying to educate them on it?

And what's wrong with having airspace numbered A thru G instead of
ridiculous acronyms?

As you can easily see, your view on what makes sense and what doesn't
is extremely personal...

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Every year, pilots get hurt by disregarding DA effects on their flying.
And you want to do away with at least trying to educate them on it?

Not at all. Density altitude is extremely dangerous, and must always be
considered, especially in underpowered aircraft, or at high altitude
airports.

Which has NOTHING to do with the Feds asking absurd questions about
"pressure" versus "density" altitude in the written exam. These questions
could be easily replaced entirely with questions that were actually relevant
to the problem.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 14:28:15 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
wrote in 30a7e.12275$Bb3.8317@attbi_s22::

Just off the top of my head I can think of half a dozen stupid, pointless
things I was forced to puke back on the written that I've never, ever
used
again...

Are you talking about flight training, or High School? :~

Well, flight training, in this thread.

I personally would eliminate all the stupid "look at the picture of the VOR,
and tell me your position from the station" crap. Same with the ADF.
(Hell, I don't even *have* an ADF in my plane.)

And you could eliminate all the "pressure altitude" versus "density
altitude" computational B.S., too. Never used it yet.

And while we're at it, the FAA could simplify the ridiculous VFR versus IFR
ceiling/visibility rules, along with the almost laughable alphabet-soup
airspace designations.

I couldn't agree less.

Larry Dighera wrote:

On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 14:28:15 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
wrote in 30a7e.12275$Bb3.8317@attbi_s22::

I personally would eliminate all the stupid "look at the picture of the
VOR,
and tell me your position from the station" crap. Same with the ADF.
(Hell, I don't even *have* an ADF in my plane.)

During my IR checkride, I spent time under the hood while the DE kept
putting the airplane into unusual attitudes (he wasn't a terribly good
pilot, obviously {8^).

After I got tired of that and removed the hood, I asked "so, where are we".
He laughed and told me that I was supposed to figure it out. So I did.

This seems rather useful to me. Why eliminate it?

And you could eliminate all the "pressure altitude" versus "density
altitude" computational B.S., too. Never used it yet.

What do you mean? How can you understand density altitude w/o understanding
pressure altitude? And how safe can you be in the summer w/o understanding
density altitude and its effects?

And while we're at it, the FAA could simplify the ridiculous VFR versus
IFR ceiling/visibility rules, along with the almost laughable
alphabet-soup airspace designations.

How would you propose it be simplified? The only way I can imagine that
occurring is if some of the less restrictive rules be make more restrictive
(ie. VFR in all airspaces (but B, I'd imagine) requiring 1000' vertical and
1 mile horizontal).

I expect a lot of GA would dislike that simplification.

Or did you mean something different? I'm not sure why you mentioned IFR,
for example.

- Andrew

After I got tired of that and removed the hood, I asked "so, where are
we".
He laughed and told me that I was supposed to figure it out. So I did.

This seems rather useful to me. Why eliminate it?

You figured out your position using VORs? What decade was this? ;-)

Can I do that? Sure. Can I name the last time I needed to know that?
Nope. Can I even name the last time I did it? Nope.

If, in ten years and nearly 1000 hours of flying, I've never needed to
figure out my position by looking at the face of my VOR, as if I'd suddenly
awakened in my plane and didn't have a clue where I was, what the hell is it
doing on the written exam for Private Pilot? Who in the world uses VORs
for daily flight anymore?

I know, a lot of you guys do. Despite the fact that you've probably got a
Garmin/Lowrance/AvMap on your yoke that is 500 - 1000 times more accurate
and intuitive than your old 1953 Narco 12, you feel compelled to "follow the
needle" cuz that's what you're used to doing. Have fun, but don't fool
yourself into believing that this is a necessary or common way of flying
anymore. It *can* be eliminated from the Private Pilot curriculum, right
along with ADFs.

Which isn't to say that tracking a VOR isn't kind of fun, and (for those of
us at the bottom of the aviation food chain) still necessary for IFR flight.
But for regular, VFR navigation, VORs have pretty much outlived their
usefulness.

Oh, well. Keep VOR questions on the written exam for Instrument Pilot, for
the moment. In five more years everything will be GPS based, and
interpreting a VOR will be like knowing how to gauge your position by
listening to two tones in your headset.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"