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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
"Greg Esres" wrote in message
news Had the student been trained specifically about porpoising? Not likely. Who is, unless it's encountered accidentally during pre-solo training? Well, it's something that could be discussed a lot, even if it's not actually demonstrated (the same way "spin awareness" is taught to primary students without actually demonstrating a spin). My feeling is that porpoising is unlikely with a student who is trained to give a near-stall landing. Spinning is unlikely too, but both are worth being prepared for. A student who isn't ready to risk a $170,000 plane isn't ready to risk her or his life. In that past 6 years that I've been flying at this club, we've lost 5 airplanes due to landing accidents, 3 of which were solo students. Another 172R was badly damaged during a solo student touch and go, which ended touch and go's for students. No one was ever hurt duing these accidents, so clearly there are many more bent airplanes than bent pilots. Point taken. Overall, only 1% of landing accidents are fatal, according to the Nall Report. But presumably the fatality rate is higher among accidents serious enough to total the plane, and the rate of serious injury or death is higher still. Crashing any vehicle at 50 or 60 MPH is dangerous, and older airplane cabins have nothing like the crashworthy design of modern automobiles. A loss rate of one plane per year (out of 20 planes) is quite high, isn't it? I wonder if your club is being lax in its training and proficiency standards. My FBO has about the same number of planes, and I don't think we've lost any in the three years I've been around (although we did have a prop strike this year when someone forgot to extend the landing gear). --Gary |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Greg Esres wrote:
if they don't "know when to go" Probably the instructor is at fault, sometimes, when they teach students how to "save" landings. The student isn't always capable of determining which should be saved, and which shouldn't. I know I scared myself once or twice as a student pilot. Well, there's a balance here. On the one hand, the student does (IMO) need to be taught how to save a landing, because something can go awry and the correct reaction needs to be there. Just pushing in the throttle won't always do it. OTOH, sometimes this is taught as almost a "normal" procedure, rather than "when in doubt go around NOW". I think solo landings should be like landings in a strong crosswind: plan to go around, and if you find yourself over the runway correctly aligned at the correct airspeed in the correct attitude, go ahead and land. But that's just my opinion and I'm not a CFI. Cheers, Sydney |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Ryan Ferguson wrote:
Why do you assume that the attitude of the airplane has anything to do with its angle of attack? The attitude created by the the tail dropping after the nose wheel impacts the ground creates the positive angle of attack; airplane flys again... Terrified student crams the stick forward, lowering the attitude AND angle of attack and flys the airplane into the ground with the wing unstalled. Hopefully the student after repairing the $170,000 airplane will receive instruction on maintaining the proper attitude after the "bounce." Since I fly mostly aerobatics I do test the relationship between attitude, angle of attack and speed rather frequently but those cases where you can, in reality stall the wing while nose down hardly apply in this case. Now if you told me the student was attempting an outside snap roll on takoff, then we would be there... nose down, stalled (and dead). |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Neal wrote: Sure..., just as long as they're able and willing to pay the $150-200 per hour rent that you're gonna have to charge them to help pay the insurance premiums. I've told you a million times not to exaggerate. They're currently renting for around $100/hr at many places in the U.S. George Patterson The optimist feels that we live in the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist is afraid that he's correct. James Branch Cavel |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Sounds to me like the problem is more with the trainers, not the
trainees... Greg Esres wrote in news Had the student been trained specifically about porpoising? Not likely. Who is, unless it's encountered accidentally during pre-solo training? My feeling is that porpoising is unlikely with a student who is trained to give a near-stall landing. Do you mean to say that students perform their landings "to-spec" every time at 10 hours? I had some very specific discussions about adding power during a bounce to avoid porpoising down the runway. Maybe I was lucky to have an instructor who knew what to talk about, although I was his first full-time student. IIRC, the topic was listed on a sort-of checklist of things that we covered in training. We didn't follow it to the letter, but it did serve as a syllabus to help monitor progress as we went, and to review periodically to make sure we were on track and didn't miss anything. Perhaps you should have your club write up something similar... A student who isn't ready to risk a $170,000 plane isn't ready to risk her or his life. In that past 6 years that I've been flying at this club, we've lost 5 airplanes due to landing accidents, 3 of which were solo students. Another 172R was badly damaged during a solo student touch and go, which ended touch and go's for students. No one was ever hurt duing these accidents, so clearly there are many more bent airplanes than bent pilots. Sounds to me like you have been lucky till now. Does your club want to count on luck to prevent more serious consequences? |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Greg Esres wrote:
Had the student been trained specifically about porpoising? Not likely. Who is, unless it's encountered accidentally during pre-solo training? Um, well, I was. Porpoising was described, including what causes it, how to avoid it, and what to do if it is encountered. My feeling is that porpoising is unlikely with a student who is trained to give a near-stall landing. True. Provided they don't f*** up In that past 6 years that I've been flying at this club, we've lost 5 airplanes due to landing accidents, 3 of which were solo students. Another 172R was badly damaged during a solo student touch and go, which ended touch and go's for students. Greg, I don't know, but this seems very high to me. Perhaps pre-solo instruction and procedures at your club are over-due for review? Cheers, Sydney |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Sydney Hoeltzli wrote:
/snip/ In that past 6 years that I've been flying at this club, we've lost 5 airplanes due to landing accidents, 3 of which were solo students. Another 172R was badly damaged during a solo student touch and go, which ended touch and go's for students. Greg, I don't know, but this seems very high to me. /snip/ Actually, this is an *extremely* high accident rate. In the eleven years I was involved with a very busy flight school, during ten's of thousand's of student solos *per year*, there was exactly one aircraft lost due to the student's inadequate control of the situation. I would recommend the persons in charge of Greg's flying club do an immediate "stand down", and re-evaluate every aspect of their flight operation before any aircraft is allowed to fly again. Happy Flying! (students included!) Scott Skylane |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
I wonder if your club is being lax in its training and proficiency
standards. Possibly. Of course, I'm inclined to agree, because my students tend to have a lot more hours at any milestone. The earliest I've soloed someone is at about 17 hours. I've been criticized as being "excessive." |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Terrified student crams the stick forward, lowering the attitude AND
angle of attack and flys the airplane into the ground with the wing unstalled. That may have well been what happened, though it's certainly possible to have a nose down attitude and have the AOA exceeding the critical AOA. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Porpoising was described, including what causes it, how to avoid it,
and what to do if it is encountered. Describing porpoising is not "training" in my book, it's merely "describing." ;-) Discussion of flying techniques on the ground, which is not followed by specific maneuvers in the air, is of extremely limited value. I can't tell you how often a student can describe in flawless detail on the ground how something is to occur, but his execution in the air will be radically different. However, you might describe porpoising as aggravated bouncing; if you can recover from a bounce, you should never porpoise. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
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 |
Six aboard USS Kitty Hawk injured in F/A 18 landing accident | Otis Willie | Naval Aviation | 0 | January 31st 05 10:50 PM |
Diamond DA-40 with G-1000 pirep | C J Campbell | Instrument Flight Rules | 117 | July 22nd 04 05:40 PM |
"I Want To FLY!"-(Youth) My store to raise funds for flying lessons | Curtl33 | General Aviation | 7 | January 9th 04 11:35 PM |
USAF = US Amphetamine Fools | RT | Military Aviation | 104 | September 25th 03 03:17 PM |