Co-pilot gets sick, stewardess helps land airplane

In rec.aviation.piloting Mxsmanic wrote:
Hatunen writes:

Really? How many private pilots do you know well enough to make
that claim?

Quite a few.

How is that possible since you have said seveal times you avoid social
contact with other people?

If. I'm not particulary fond of hitting tubulence when I'm in an
airliner, but physical sensations are hard to avoid if you fly
much.

Sure, but they are not an integral part of flying, unless you fly specifically
for the thrill of sensations.

Delusional.

Perfectly calm days with no thermals are a rarity.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

On Jun 23, 11:16*am, Mxsmanic wrote:

It's a judgment call. Spin practice is no longer required because more pilots
were dying from spins during training than were dying from spins during flight
thereafter. The cure was worse than the disease. So the emphasis was shifted
to avoiding spins, rather than recovering from them, at least for PPLs.

Bull****. Plain and simple.
See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQ60fitlU70
Best you stay in your cupboard in Paris and leave the rest of us to
get out there and actually do things

george writes:

Bull****. Plain and simple.
See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQ60fitlU70

All I see is a stupid pilot violating Federal air regulations and
overstressing his (rented?) aircraft.

On Wed, 23 Jun 2010 22:40:59 +0200, Mxsmanic
wrote:

george writes:

Bull****. Plain and simple.
See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQ60fitlU70

All I see is a stupid pilot violating Federal air regulations and
overstressing his (rented?) aircraft.

Again you display your actual lack of knowledge and willingness
to display it in public. First, there is no FAR prohibiting the
demonstration or practice of doing spins. Second, as anyone who
has done a spin is aware, there is hardly any structural stress
in a spin. In fact, once you get used to the fact that the earth
seems to be rotating very fast in front of you it's all rather
peaceful without any apparent extra G-forces save maybe a bit of
leaning in your seat.

The normal procedure is to work the controls until you have the
plane in a spiral and then just fly out of it; there is very
little structural stress involved unless you let yourself get too
close to the ground before pulling out and find yourself yanking
the yoke or joystick back too hard (a manouever that will not get
you out of a spin and will just make things worse).

--
************* DAVE HATUNEN ) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

Hatunen writes:

Again you display your actual lack of knowledge and willingness
to display it in public. First, there is no FAR prohibiting the
demonstration or practice of doing spins.

Spins must be permitted for the aircraft, and regulations permit them (and
other aerobatic maneuvers) only under certain conditions. In this case, the
Cessna 150 may be spun only after certain modifications are made (since 2009),
in part to prevent maximum rudder travel from interfering with the elevators.
Yes, I have the AD in front of me.

However, the video was uploaded in 2007, and the aircraft has a Canadian
registration number, so this might not apply to the pilot in question.

There's still the question of reckless and careless operation, but if he was
in Canada, that might not apply. In general, one must question the wisdom of a
pilot who executes aerobatic maneuvers in an aircraft not designed for that
purpose. Here again, this has parallels in the world of automobiles: executing
extreme maneuvers in an automobile not designed for such maneuvers is reckless
and careless.

On Wed, 23 Jun 2010 23:55:58 +0200, Mxsmanic
wrote:

Hatunen writes:

Again you display your actual lack of knowledge and willingness
to display it in public. First, there is no FAR prohibiting the
demonstration or practice of doing spins.

Spins must be permitted for the aircraft, and regulations permit them (and
other aerobatic maneuvers) only under certain conditions.

Plese cite the FAR.

Of course an aircraft has to be rated for a spin. But depending
on context, what that means is than many airplanes aimply cannot
be spun with a safe recover. This is true of most military
fighter jets. In this case it would be more accurate to say that
one should not spin in an aircraft from which rcovery is
impossible.

So I'd be fascinated to read the actual wording of the FAR you
refer to.

In this case, the
Cessna 150 may be spun only after certain modifications are made (since 2009),
in part to prevent maximum rudder travel from interfering with the elevators.

Well, OK. I have spun in a 150 many years ago, but this injuction
is not rally an injuction against spinning but ratehr a rather
bad design flaw that onley appera when spinning (I presume).

Yes, I have the AD in front of me.

I have no reaosn to doubt you on this one.

However, the video was uploaded in 2007, and the aircraft has a Canadian
registration number, so this might not apply to the pilot in question.

In view of hte fact you've already said spinning in a 150 was
enjoined in 2009, it soesn't apper to me to matter whether the
spin was in the USA or Canada.

There's still the question of reckless and careless operation, but if he was
in Canada, that might not apply.

In this case it would only be reckless had the pilot been made
aware of the design flaw. Spins are not intrinsicly reckless.

In general, one must question the wisdom of a
pilot who executes aerobatic maneuvers in an aircraft not designed for that
purpose.

As I pointed out, there are aircraft designed such that they
cannot recover from a spin and it would be stupid to attempt a
spin in such an aircraft. And you note there is a specific
aircraft, the 150, that has a design flaw that can lead to
trouble in a spin (but not inevitably as my presence here is
proof of). While not necessarily stupid, it would be rather
ill-advised in a 150.

Here again, this has parallels in the world of automobiles:
executing
extreme maneuvers in an automobile not designed for such maneuvers is reckless
and careless.

Duh.

But aircraft are not designed specifically to spin (save certain
planes designed for aerobatic use). The normal structural
integrity of a plane will allow it to spin in a quite
well-behaved manner, and the warning is really about aircraft
that shouldn't be spun.

I've been too long out of the game to remember if there is a
certification plate in aircraft that says "OK for spin" or "Do
not spin".

--
************* DAVE HATUNEN ) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

On 23 jun, 23:55, Mxsmanic wrote:
Hatunen writes:
Again you display your actual lack of knowledge and willingness
to display it in public. First, there is no FAR prohibiting the
demonstration or practice of doing spins.

Spins must be permitted for the aircraft, and regulations permit them (and
other aerobatic maneuvers) only under certain conditions. In this case, the
Cessna 150 may be spun only after certain modifications are made (since 2009),
in part to prevent maximum rudder travel from interfering with the elevators.
Yes, I have the AD in front of me.

Better start reading that AD.
a. Not all Cessna 150's are affected by this AD, just the ones with a
swept tail.
b. It has nothing to do with the rudder interfering with the elevator
but the head of rudder stop bolts got hooked.

In rec.aviation.piloting Mxsmanic wrote:
george writes:

Bull****. Plain and simple.
See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQ60fitlU70

All I see is a stupid pilot violating Federal air regulations and
overstressing his (rented?) aircraft.

All you see is delusion.

There is no FAR that prohibts doing spins and spins, unless very improperly
done, are not high stress manuevers.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

On Jun 24, 8:40*am, Mxsmanic wrote:
george writes:
*Bull****. Plain and simple.
*Seehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQ60fitlU70

All I see is a stupid pilot violating Federal air regulations and
overstressing his (rented?) aircraft.

How is CTC violating Federal Air Regulations?
They are training pilots to CPL standard in New Zealand.
And you should know that spinning an aircraft doesn't overstress it
either in the spin or recovery...

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...

As I've said, a lot of private pilots seem to give physical sensations
priority over everything else. But there's a lot more to flying than a
roller-coaster ride. I don't care much for the physical sensations
myself,
although takeoff and landing are kind of pleasant if they are smooth.

What physical sensations are you referring to? You don't fly and you know
nothing about flying. You just play a computer game in your cupboard in
Paris.
--
JohnT