Takeoff/Landing same direction?

"kirk.stant" wrote in message
ups.com...

Chuck Griswold wrote:
At 19:01 11 September 2006, Kirk.Stant wrote:

Kirk.
Really now, if you must ask that question then you
should not be flying
anything.

Chuck, I totally agree - I was amazed by the answers to the question!

I've flown from a German glider field located on the side of a hill -
took off (winch) one way (downhill) and landed the other (uphill),
regardless of wind. And of course, a rope break will require you to
land opposite your takeoff direction, normally. And out west, late in
the evening you may have to land down-Sun/down wind or you are blind;
the list goes on. You do what makes sense and is safest.

The point is, many "casual" pilots really do not understand all this.
So the discussion (BS session, of course) goes: " well, he busted
because he landed in the opposite direction that he took off from..."
accompanied by nodding of heads by some of the local pilots (both
experienced and inexperienced). Other pilots jump in: "WTF are you
talking about, there isn't anything in the FARs or AIM or (pick your
source) that says that!". Much arm waving and spirited discussion
ensues, more adult beverages are consumed, and everybody goes home
thinking the other pilots are clueless dorks!

Classic case of a little knowledge being a dangerous think, I think. A
problem which I fear is endemic in american soaring due to the somewhat
inconsistent skills of our instructors, god bless them.

Kirk
66


We don't know the facts that might apply to the situation between the
examiner and the applicant so we can't comment. I would assume the DPE had
a very good reason for his decision.

But, to address the situation of stuck-open spoilers, I would exercise my
authority under FAR 91.3(b) and "land the damn aircraft the safest way I
could" regardless of landing direction. Spoilers are a primary flight
control and stuck-open spoilers is a full fledged emergency requiring
decisive action. FAR 91.3b allows any reasonable deviation from the regs
needed to achieve a safe landing. This is not to suggest any FARs were
broken.

Bill Daniels

kirk.stant wrote:


The point is, many "casual" pilots really do not understand all this.
So the discussion (BS session, of course) goes: " well, he busted
because he landed in the opposite direction that he took off from..."
accompanied by nodding of heads by some of the local pilots (both
experienced and inexperienced).

I gotta know - how long do you have to fly that day before you are
allowed to land in the opposite direction from your takeoff? It's hard
to imagine anyone becoming a glider pilot without landing in the
opposite direction a few times shortly after takeoff. Perhaps too many
adult beverages preceded the discussion, or is it still reaallly hot out
there in Arizona and some pilots hats aren't big enough?

--
Note: email address new as of 9/4/2006
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA

"Transponders in Sailplanes" on the Soaring Safety Foundation website
www.soaringsafety.org/prevention/articles.html

"A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation" at www.motorglider.org

Eric Greenwell wrote:

I gotta know - how long do you have to fly that day before you are
allowed to land in the opposite direction from your takeoff? It's hard
to imagine anyone becoming a glider pilot without landing in the
opposite direction a few times shortly after takeoff. Perhaps too many
adult beverages preceded the discussion, or is it still reaallly hot out
there in Arizona and some pilots hats aren't big enough?

Erik,

I think we have our conversations garbled, but anyway - When I was
flying out of Turf, we usually took off on 23 due to prevailing winds.
If returning late in the day, landing on 23 could be challenging due to
looking directly into the setting sun, through dust, etc and it was
common to land on 5 (or even 14, which was a better runway anyway).

Time between landing and takeoff could be six hours (XC to the Grand
Canyon) or sixteen minutes (last commercial acro ride of the day).

BTW - big hats are uncool looking and incredibly unsafe in the air -
they block a huge part of the sky. Need to wear those goofy european
gliding hats...plus they make the groupies giggle...

If you reread the thread, you will catch which side of the argument I'm
on, BTW ;).

Ok, your turn again!

Kirk
66

kirk.stant wrote:
Eric Greenwell wrote:
I gotta know - how long do you have to fly that day before you are
allowed to land in the opposite direction from your takeoff? It's hard
to imagine anyone becoming a glider pilot without landing in the
opposite direction a few times shortly after takeoff. Perhaps too many
adult beverages preceded the discussion, or is it still reaallly hot out
there in Arizona and some pilots hats aren't big enough?

Erik,

I think we have our conversations garbled, but anyway - When I was
flying out of Turf, we usually took off on 23 due to prevailing winds.
If returning late in the day, landing on 23 could be challenging due to
looking directly into the setting sun, through dust, etc and it was
common to land on 5 (or even 14, which was a better runway anyway).

I was just curious if the folks that supported the landing and takeoff
in the same direction had thought about how long this "rule" was good
for! I suspect it might be 10 minutes, say, rather than at the end of a
long flight. A fun argument, I bet, and funner with each adult beverage
that leaves the cooler. I wish I'd been there - at least some flying
went on.

--
Note: email address new as of 9/4/2006
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA

"Transponders in Sailplanes" on the Soaring Safety Foundation website
www.soaringsafety.org/prevention/articles.html

"A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation" at www.motorglider.org

Willie wrote:
Here is a question for you DPE's and Instructors to weigh in on.

the DPE instructed the student to cross the
IP and as he did so he instructed the student to open the dive brakes
(SGS-233) fully and then announced to the student "Stuck Spoilers".


I say the check ride went wrong right there. In my opinion the
airbrake stuck open emergency should only be introduced at the time the
student/applicant conducts the airbrake check. I teach the airbrake
check to happen on down wind at which time the runway is selected and
the landing should be assured with any amount of airbrake. If you use
"IP" to mean the point at which the 45 deg to downwind leg begins that
is far too early to introduce a simulated stuck open airbrake failure.

The is no requirement to land on the same runway you took off from with
or without an emergency. The only requirement with an control failure
is to get down safe.

Andy (CFI not DPE)

At 21:12 11 September 2006, Bill Daniels wrote:
Spoilers are a primary flight control and stuck-open
spoilers
is a full fledged emergency requiring decisive action.
FAR 91.3b allows any reasonable deviation from the
regs
needed to achieve a safe landing.
Bill Daniels

What reference materials are you using that list
spoilers as a primary flight control?

M Eiler

Martin Eiler wrote:
At 21:12 11 September 2006, Bill Daniels wrote:
Spoilers are a primary flight control and stuck-open
spoilers
is a full fledged emergency requiring decisive action.
FAR 91.3b allows any reasonable deviation from the
regs
needed to achieve a safe landing.
Bill Daniels

What reference materials are you using that list
spoilers as a primary flight control?

M Eiler

He seems to me to be using commonsense. I've found it to be a very good
reference.

You DO have issues, don't you. Are you a DPE?

GC

I have been told that if a DPE passes 100% of his examinees the first time
through he will have a lot of explaining to do to the FAA when it is time to
renew - and that came from the FAA.

Wonder how much this played in the decision to flunk the examinee?

Colin

COLIN LAMB wrote:
I have been told that if a DPE passes 100% of his examinees the first time
through he will have a lot of explaining to do to the FAA when it is time to
renew - and that came from the FAA.

Wonder how much this played in the decision to flunk the examinee?

Colin
================================================== =========

That is easy.

ZERO CHANCE.

The applicant passes or fails based upon the PTS. Otherwise the DPE
would not be a DPE very long.

Terry

COLIN LAMB wrote:
I have been told that if a DPE passes 100% of his examinees the first time
through he will have a lot of explaining to do to the FAA when it is time to
renew - and that came from the FAA.

Wonder how much this played in the decision to flunk the examinee?

That depends on whether you ask a DPE - or someone who isn't.

I actually know an examiner who has something like a 95% pass rate.
There are various reasons for this - but the main one is that he is
known in the CFI community, and instructors generally know better than
to send him someone who is marginal - meaning he will pass if he has a
good day. The particular DPE has an uncanny knack for finding the
applicant's weak area - and setting him up to fail because of it, and
CFI's know to send the marginal ones to someone else, who might miss
the weak area and pass the student. On the flip side, he also doesn't
make up his own rules or standards, doesn't throw curveballs, doesn't
make private pilot applicants go through five hour orals, and does his
level best to put the applicant at ease - including telling jokes. So
as long as the student is merely nervous rather than weak, and knows
his stuff to a level appropriate to the certificate/rating sought,
there's no issue sending him to this DPE. I send him my students
whenever possible, and I've never had a bust with him - ALL of my busts
have come from sending the student to a different, unknown examiner
when this one was not, for whatever reason, available. He has a core
group of FBO's and independents who send him students that should pass,
and he stays busy passing them.

I've seen him bust students - and in every case, it was because the
student did something really wrong (slammed the airplane into the
ground flat to make a touchdown point, failed to shut down the
operating engine with an engine failure on the takeoff roll in a twin,
failed to divert properly, started descent to MDA well short of the
FAF, could not turn to a heading of 320 in a glider, even
approximately, because 320 wasn't marked on the compass, that sort of
thing) and usually the instructor's at fault for not training the
student properly in the first place.

But one of the reasons he is not always available is because he is
PERPETUALLY in trouble with the FSDO - because of his pass rate. They
take every possible opportunity to investigate him - and always suspend
his DPE while they do. Every time it comes out the same - turns out
that he is not at fault, and his DPE is reinstated - but it is a huge
hassle and damages his business. The DPE's who maintain the
FAA-recommended 85% pass rate don't get hassled that way and make more
money.

The reality is that most people go to their checkrides prepared - the
days of sending a student for the checkride just because he has the
minimum hours are mostly gone - and busting 15% means a DPE has to bust
some people for minor or imagined infractions to keep his pass rate
down and stay out of trouble with the FAA. That's especially true in
glider instruction, where the instructors tend to be more experienced
and the incremental cost of additional training flights tends to be
lower. Those DPE's who have the strength of character to stand up to
the FAA and do what's right get in trouble for it. The ones who don't
make their 15% fail rate.

That's the reality. Many DPE's will tell you different, because it's
not a terribly palatable reality.

Michael
CFI-ASME-IA-G, ATP, A&P, and other good alphabet soup