Stalls and Thoughts

Did you take any of the classes at Boeing? I used to teach the FMCS and
EICAS portions in some of the classes. We used to say in the 777 classes
that when the pilots retire, they won't be able to fly worth a damn but they
will be able to type at 90 WPM. :-)

--
BobF.
"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message
.. .
"Bob F." wrote in
:

I remember that, there was a reason for it. It'll come to me and I'll
have to get back. It had something to do with persistent or
repetitive negative G, or always maintaining positive G for cabin
integrity over time...or something like that. It's funny because you
train people to do things and sometime don't teach them the reasons
why.


No more so than these days. My 757 course was a joke, really. I think it
took about ten minutes to do the engine module and maybe twenty to do the
fuel system, for instance. They don;t want us to play with anything
anymore. On the plus side, the new airplanes fly just like airplanes.
Spool
up times are almost as fast as pistons, they're speed stable on approach,
the controls are light. They have real good power/weight. IOW, they're for
kids.




Bertie

Dudley Henriques wrote in
:

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Dudley Henriques wrote in news:7JGdnS1ILaP_
:

Bob F. wrote:
Where did you come to the conclusion it was correct in both cases?
I just said I am not surprised the term got "high jacked. and it
wouldn't be the first time" Meaning, incorrectly. I've just never
heard it being used associated with the back of the power curve in
50 years of aviation that's all. Could have missed it. Love to
see some real documentation.

You might or might not not find documentation. The first time I
heard it was in connection with the F100 crash at Edwards. I've
heard it since used by several sources when discussing landing
accidents involving low and slow approach profiles.

Well, like "dragging it in" it's not exactly a tech term. But it's
origins are in the shape of the envelope and relate to mach buffet
problems associated with high alt flight. It's poorly understood,
even by most airline pilots, and frequently misused, usually as a
modrn equivelent of "there be dragons there" for all sorts of things
that happen around the edges of all sorts of flight envelopes. I've
heard a chopper guy use it to describe the lead lag roll they get
when they go too fast, for instance.


Bertie
Perhaps I misread the poster's question. he stated as follows;

The Sargon wrote and I answered;
"I am curious as to the meaning of the phrase "..dragging it in". As
in "...he turned on final, dragging it in".

Perhaps I'm nuts, but I took this wording to be referring to an
approach, not the high altitude scenario :-))


Yeh, the coffin corner thing is high alt.


Bertie

The hardest thing to teach a new Airline candidate is to plant the plane on
the ground, don't play with it. The tire brakes don't work and armed
spoiler won't come up unless you're down. They all want to hold it off to
make that perfect landing.

--
BobF.
"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message
.. .
Dudley Henriques wrote in
:

Dan wrote:
On Mar 15, 9:43 pm, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

Wouldn't a more exact definition be that the "region of reversed
command" is that condition where induced drag is at its greatest,
pitch only controls airspeed, and power only controls altitude?
One can "drag in" and airplane and not meet all the aforementioned
conditions.
The usefulness of this condition is apparent in short field
landings.
Wel, I don't do it and I bet you ten bucks I can pull off the runway
shorter than you.

Bertie

I didn't say it was the only technique, but it works well.

And what are you flying? Because I'll take that bet.


Dan


What I think he's saying Dan is that you can drag it in and plop it
down
if you do it right and don't screw it up, but it's not the best
procedure and can get you into trouble real fast.
It's not necessary to fly a behind the curve approach into a short
field. In fact, the accepted procedure for short field is nowhere near
back side.


Exaclty. The approach speed matters not a jot. It aonly matters that you
arrive at the spot and at the speed. Dragging it in is easy. A short
cut. Aside form the engine failure problem, there's the problem of wind
shear taking you even further back at an inopportune moment. Unless you
have moe power than god, you're screwed. A fairly normal 1.3 VSO
approach speed with excess bled off when it's safe to do so ( i.e., not
too far to fall) is a much better way to do it. It takes a lot more
practice, though...


Bertie

"Bob F." wrote in
:

Did you take any of the classes at Boeing? I used to teach the FMCS
and EICAS portions in some of the classes. We used to say in the 777
classes that when the pilots retire, they won't be able to fly worth a
damn but they will be able to type at 90 WPM. :-)

Yeh. I've heard that one alright. I tend to use FLCH a lot myself!

Nope, never done a course in Seattle. All in house stuff. I did a factory
course in Toulouse once, though. Aeroformation ( their training company)
didn't want us to know more than what was necessary, but I had an ex French
Air force instructor who knew his business who would tell you anything you
wanted to know. Very good.
I may be about to change types, so I might be out there yet!



Bertie

"Bob F." wrote in
:

The hardest thing to teach a new Airline candidate is to plant the
plane on the ground, don't play with it. The tire brakes don't work
and armed spoiler won't come up unless you're down. They all want to
hold it off to make that perfect landing.


Well, if you can do both!

They still teach the same things on the newer airplanes, but in fact you
can get a greaser without floating. I don't see a problem as long as you
aren't tight on runway and can afford to wait a nanosecond for the
speedbrakes to deploy. I tend not to use the brakes anyway unless theyre's
a good reason or the traffic is heavy and I need to get off the runway
quickly. I let the airplane slow down naturally and then brake near the
turnoff if I can. The kids I fly with now think it's dangerous to land
without autobrake for some reason.. They also seem to think they;re some
sort of control panacea. God help 'em if they ever get it sideways in a
wind...


Bertie

Bertie,
Ok...I'll send you a prize if in 5 minutes you can tell me what DENTK stands
for.

--
BobF.
"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message
.. .
"Bob F." wrote in
:

Did you take any of the classes at Boeing? I used to teach the FMCS
and EICAS portions in some of the classes. We used to say in the 777
classes that when the pilots retire, they won't be able to fly worth a
damn but they will be able to type at 90 WPM. :-)

Yeh. I've heard that one alright. I tend to use FLCH a lot myself!

Nope, never done a course in Seattle. All in house stuff. I did a factory
course in Toulouse once, though. Aeroformation ( their training company)
didn't want us to know more than what was necessary, but I had an ex
French
Air force instructor who knew his business who would tell you anything you
wanted to know. Very good.
I may be about to change types, so I might be out there yet!



Bertie

Robert Moore wrote:
Tell us once again how much solo
time you have in all of thse "Navy Test Pilot School" jets. My local
TV Newscaster can probably match your time with his many Blue Angel PR
flights.

Moore, you are really becoming a flaming bore. :-))

Don't know what your problem is but I'll say it again here for both you
and any intelligent people who might read this.

My flying in jets at the Test Pilot School and everywhere else connected
with the military was as a guest of these institutions. They made both
themselves and their aircraft available to me based on the mutual
respect we maintained and maintain even today for each other. I am NOT a
military pilot, nor have I ever claimed such status.
I am a civilian pilot with a commercial, CFI, and a center thrust rating.
My expertise is now and always has been in primary instruction,
aerobatic instruction, and the flying of high performance prop aircraft.




Bob Moore
Naval Aviator V-15753 1958-1967 S-2F, P-2V, P-3B
Airline Transpoprt Pilot ASMEL L-188, B-727, B-707
Flight Instructor ASEL, IA
PanAm (retired)




--
Dudley Henriques

I asked a lot of 72 pilots this and I get a 50 -50 answer. When I land a 72
I notice, or I think I can feel, a better landing when I drop the nose just
before it touches. I attributed it because the AC rotation center was so
far ahead of the main mounts that the tires started to "come up" on this
rotation, while the AC was descending. Ever notice that?

--
BobF.
"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message
.. .
"Bob F." wrote in
:

The hardest thing to teach a new Airline candidate is to plant the
plane on the ground, don't play with it. The tire brakes don't work
and armed spoiler won't come up unless you're down. They all want to
hold it off to make that perfect landing.


Well, if you can do both!

They still teach the same things on the newer airplanes, but in fact you
can get a greaser without floating. I don't see a problem as long as you
aren't tight on runway and can afford to wait a nanosecond for the
speedbrakes to deploy. I tend not to use the brakes anyway unless theyre's
a good reason or the traffic is heavy and I need to get off the runway
quickly. I let the airplane slow down naturally and then brake near the
turnoff if I can. The kids I fly with now think it's dangerous to land
without autobrake for some reason.. They also seem to think they;re some
sort of control panacea. God help 'em if they ever get it sideways in a
wind...


Bertie

"Bob F." wrote in
:

Bertie,
Ok...I'll send you a prize if in 5 minutes you can tell me what DENTK
stands for.


It's some training facility in Denver, isn't it? United? Never been to it
anyway. I've heard it mentioned in crew rooms. I initially learned jets
with Western ( contract training) and have done the rest in various places
round the world, some in the US and some elsewhere.


Bertie

"Bob F." wrote in
:

I asked a lot of 72 pilots this and I get a 50 -50 answer. When I
land a 72 I notice, or I think I can feel, a better landing when I
drop the nose just before it touches. I attributed it because the AC
rotation center was so far ahead of the main mounts that the tires
started to "come up" on this rotation, while the AC was descending.
Ever notice that?


Yeah, it definitely works, but you got to time it juuuust right! I flew the
BAC 1-11-500 and it was the same like that, but I didn;t use it in either.
What I did do was to ensure that I kept the pitch dead steady until about
20 feet, close the taps, check and give myself just a second to see if I
could find the ground myself before the airplane did it for me. If I
couldn't get a good one in that second or so I just let it sit down the way
it it wanted to and I would just sort out the rest!


Bertie