My wife getting scared

Dudley Henriques wrote:
Paul Riley wrote:
"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...
Paul Riley wrote:
"Dudley Henriques" wrote in message
news Each pilot in other words, is being encouraged and REMINDED, to be
in a constant state of self evaluation as to the ability to perform
at any given time and place.
It ain't much......but it helps!

--
Dudley Henriques
Dudley,

You are exactly right.

I flew a zero-zero GCA, at night, in a UHIB, at the An Khe airfield
in late 1965. No other place to go. We were on mortar patrol, had
just been relieved on station by our replacement aircraft. Ground
fog had moved in, even the replacement aircraft was not aware of
it. No one expected it. I had an instrument rating, my copilot did
not. Our other option was to go crash in the jungle someplace (with
the bad guys, but where it was clear). Since we did not have enough
fuel to divert to a safe landing area--more than 45 minutes away
(hey, this was Nam) we decided it was our only option. Obviously, we
made it, believe it or not, no damage to aircraft or crew. The GCA
Controller got three quarts of Johnny Walker Red the next morning. G
Let me guess ... this was what was left over from the 6 quarts the
crew started with that night! :-)

I'm glad you made it!

Matt

Nope, we had zero when we started. But when we finished, we did, err,
uhhh, imbibe somewhat--AFTER we changed our shorts. :-))))

Then, we went to our footlockers, got out what we had stashed, gave it
to the GCA guy. He earned it!!!!!!!!!!!!

Paul



A good GCA final controller, if they are REALLY good, can calm down a
jittery pilot just by the tone of their voice.
It's funny about things like that. Good pilots remember a good final
controller.


I guess you really pay attention when this may be the last voice you
hear! :-)

I've never flown a GCA approach, but it sounds like fun ... in practice!

Matt

Jay Honeck wrote:
Yep, I agree. You're the voice of experience here, which is why I'm
engaged in this thread. I *am* worried about not practicing the
procedures enough, but I just don't want to shorten the lifespan of a
very expensive engine needlessly...


Jay, I have to ask. Which do you think is going to have the greater negative
effect on your engine and/or general well being? A few simulated engine outs
every once in a while or landing 1/2 a mile short after a real engine out?

"Shirl" wrote:
but I just don't want to shorten the lifespan of a
very expensive engine needlessly...

Yeah, I hear ya. I just don't think an occasional simulated engine-out
practice is "needlessly".


And I still want to know *how* it harms the engine. Exactly what parts will
be damaged, and why?

--
Dan
T-182T at BFM

Yeah, I hear ya. I just don't think an occasional simulated engine-out
practice is "needlessly".

And I still want to know *how* it harms the engine. Exactly what parts will
be damaged, and why?

Can we agree that idle power/full power engine management will cause
more wear and tear (AKA: "Damage") to an engine than steady-state
operation?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Jay, I have to ask. Which do you think is going to have the greater negative
effect on your engine and/or general well being? A few simulated engine outs
every once in a while or landing 1/2 a mile short after a real engine out?

Well, ya got me there. But, of course, the odds of a real engine out
are (thankfully) quite small.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Engines have vibration and resonances that vary with RPM. Running at a
constant RPM for long periods of time causes a certain wear pattern on
certain parts. Varying RPM over time induces different vibration an
part resonances and spreads the wear over different areas. This isn't a
bad, bad, bad thing.

True enough. It is good for your engine to vary RPMs gradually and
gently.

In my experience, every mechanical thing last longer when treated
gently. This is why I (and others) take a full 3 or 4 seconds to
apply full power at take off, rather than simply slapping the throttle
lever to the stops. (I confess that I never worried about such things
as a renter...)

Young people -- especially young men -- take a long time to learn
this. (I know I did.) To illustrate this phenomenon, we need only
look at my riding lawn mower. For four years it ran perfectly with
me on board. This summer, my 16 (now 17) year old son took over the
hotel mowing duties. Within two weeks, the mower needed to be
repaired. Rough, abrupt usage of ANY mechanical equipment will
shorten its lifespan.

At the core I think we're talking about a matter of degree and
technique here. In my experience of doing engine out practice with
CFIs, we would get down to within a few hundred feet of the ground
(this in the wide-open Midwest, remember) and then quickly apply full-
power when we knew we had made (or not made) the chosen field.

I am going to try to practice them with a gentler technique next time
I fly.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Jay Honeck wrote:
Jay, I have to ask. Which do you think is going to have the greater
negative effect on your engine and/or general well being? A few
simulated engine outs every once in a while or landing 1/2 a mile
short after a real engine out?

Well, ya got me there. But, of course, the odds of a real engine out
are (thankfully) quite small.

That's the point. We practice lots of things that have pretty small odds of
actually happening. If things happen every flight or every 5th flight we
don't have to practice them because we do them.

Last month, we learned a great way to fly from an
instructor who specialized in Cardinal flying. One of the maneuvers
we learned was the spiral emergency descent. I could not believe how
we could do steep spiral 2000' over the number, dropped like a 'coke
machine', executed a super slip, kicked it out the last few seconds
and landed as soft as a butterfly right over the number.

I've done that a few times, with and without an instructor, and it's
REALLY fun! Not something you want to do at a busy field full of
NORDO planes, however.

I don't believe in shock cooling and seriously doubt that such
maneuver can harm my engine.

I don't think the maneuver you describe will harm your engine, as it
only includes cutting the power to idle. I have no statistics to back
this up, but I think it's the application of full power from idle (as
in a go-round, touch and go, or engine out emergency landing practice)
that causes the most wear and tear.

Even if it does shorten the life of my
engine, I will continue to practice it until I can execute it
flawlessly all the time. I may never need to use the skill for real
but knowing that I am ready to do it in any situation boosts my
confidence tremendously. Besides, it is sheer exhilaration practicing
the maneuver. Definitely worth the price of the engine overhaul ;-)

I'm not putting myself, my engine, or my plane at increased risk
because it's exhilarating. The maneuver you describe, while not
aerobatic, is a relatively high-risk maneuver in that it takes place
directly over the airport, and involves a completely non-standard
approach to landing. Almost all mid-airs occur near an airport, and
this maneuver can end badly if not executed properly.

Which brings up another interesting line of thought. How many actual
accidents occur whilst practicing these kinds of maneuvers? When
does practicing engine out (for example) landings cause more problems
than it fixes?

For example, spin training was eliminated from the Private training
because it was determined that more pilots were being killed by
teaching it than could be saved by teaching it. The debate about this
decision still rages on today, but it can be extended to many parts of
flight training.

Another example, not quite so cut & dry: There is no doubt that touch
& goes are more risky than full-stop landings, and there has been some
debate about eliminating them from training. The added cost (in
hours) to the student is really the sole reason for keeping them in
the syllabus, and (as a result) a small-but-real number of students
die each year doing them.

So I must ask: When does the risk outweigh the benefit?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Jay Honeck wrote:

snip

Another example, not quite so cut & dry: There is no doubt that touch
& goes are more risky than full-stop landings, and there has been some
debate about eliminating them from training. The added cost (in
hours) to the student is really the sole reason for keeping them in
the syllabus, and (as a result) a small-but-real number of students
die each year doing them.

Oh, I'm not sure of that.

How about touch & goes on a 172 on a 10,000 X 200 runway with 1,000
foot overrun at each end?

However I don't do touch & goes.

I come to a full stop, clean up the airplane, then critique the
last landing and ponder what I need to do next time to make it
better while taxiing back.

I see lots of people doing touch & goes repeating the exact same,
less than optimal (to put it mildly) thing each and every time.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Jay Honeck wrote:
In my experience, every mechanical thing last longer when treated
gently. This is why I (and others) take a full 3 or 4 seconds to
apply full power at take off, rather than simply slapping the throttle
lever to the stops. (I confess that I never worried about such things
as a renter...)

I do, too, but I did this as a renter, too. My dad was a carpenter -- he
insisted that we go easy on EVERYTHING! If we changed channels on the TV
"too fast", we were in trouble because that was considered "hard" on the
dial and the TV. Not to mention that everything in life generally
responds better when treated gently and with respect rather than being
manhandled!
;-)

Young people -- especially young men -- take a long time to learn
this. (I know I did.) To illustrate this phenomenon, we need only
look at my riding lawn mower. For four years it ran perfectly with
me on board. This summer, my 16 (now 17) year old son took over the
hotel mowing duties. Within two weeks, the mower needed to be
repaired. Rough, abrupt usage of ANY mechanical equipment will
shorten its lifespan.

I think part of this is learned and sinks in more once you start paying
for your own stuff and its associated maintenance out of your own
pocket, with money YOU have earned!