C172S Landing accident

Why is it rare to see a 'JC" maneuver in a tail dragger?

This question should start another group of posts from the 'been there
done that' guys (and gals) G

Big John

On Sat, 26 Jul 2003 15:15:33 -0500, Greg Esres
wrote:

A solo student (not mine) had a landing accident today. Landed on the
nose wheel, porpoised a few times, and stalled the airplane in a
slightly nose down attitude. The student was unharmed, but the
aircraft is totaled.

Our flight school has been moving towards an all-new aircraft fleet.
It it wise to be putting solo students out in a $170,000 airplane?

The poster to whom you responded asked if the student was specifically
trained about porpoising. IN HIS OWN POST he says that "the topic of
porpoising wasn't even mentioned to" him during his entire training
process, implying that he believes that some discussion of porpoising might
have qualified as training even if one was never demonstrated. In fact, it
is strongly implied that he was not trained in dealing with a bounce
either, because he describes his third bounce down the runway when he
remembered a cartoon that helped him recognize his iminent stall situation
and add power.

Secondly, if the student was properly trained to handle a bounce, as you
say, then by your own definition he would not have porpoised down the
runway and destroyed a perfectly good $170,000 airplane!

IMHO training involves education, not necessarily by actual demonstration.
For example, I learned to fly in a non-spin-rated aircraft, so performing a
spin was not permitted. Yet I still was educated and trained on how to
avoid, and if necessary, recover from a spin.

By your definition, I did not receive "real" spin training. For that
matter, I did not receive "real training" in several other techniques, such
as basic instrument flying, short-field landings, soft-field landings, or
flying partial panel. I did not receive "real training" in detecting ice,
dealing with Pitot-Static system problems, or carb ice. Heck - for that
matter, I did not receive "real" training in Emergency Landing Procedures -
because it was all simulated.

In any event, it is all semantics. The Original Poster's question was
actually whether students should be allowed to solo in $170,000 airplanes.
And I think you and I both agree that the answer is "only if they are
properly educated." And from your last comment, it seems that we would both
agree that "REAL Porpoise Training" is probably not a requirement for being
properly educated to solo in a $170,000 airplane.

But I DO believe that proper education on preventing with and dealing with
bounces and porpoises is... Whatever you want to call that is fine with me.


Greg Esres wrote in
:

I had some very specific discussions about adding power during a
bounce to avoid porpoising down the runway.

Certainly the students have had training to handle bounces. If this
is properly handled, they'll never see porpoising.

The original poster regarding "porpoising training" asked about
"training", and I don't consider mentioning porpoising to be
"training."

To be real training, the instructor would have to set up a porpoising
event and then turn the aircraft over to the student. I'll have to
think about whether that's a real good idea...... :-)

the topic of porpoising wasn't even mentioned to" him during his
entire training process


Which may, or may not, be true. Student pilots have lots and lots to
learn, and unless an item of knowledge is imparted multiple times by
the instructor, it's not likely to be retained.

What's the Chinese proverb: I hear and I forget, I see and I
remember, I do and I understand.

The vast majority of study that is not constantly reinforced by flight
activities is forgotten by most pilots.

"Greg Esres" wrote in message
...
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.

Agreed - my primary instructors never wanted to teach a go-around, but
always wanted to land (or touch-n-go) somehow or the other. I had to
practically beg my instructor to do a couple of G-A's. That was on the
lesson just before I had to do it for real, solo.

-- David Brooks

In article , Greg Esres
writes
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."

Back in the early 1950s I was sent solo after 7 hours 10 minutes. I did
3 consecutive landings that satisfied my instructor who got out when I
was ready to take off and walked back across the field! That was on tail
draggers of course. I could not have done that today I am sure as we had
no radios or procedures to worry about!

In 2:55 solo and 13:45 dual we had covered stalling and spinning, steep
turns, cross wind landings, forced landing practice, short take-offs and
a few compass turns as well as use of flap including a go-around with
full flap set.

Then I gave up for various reasons, one of which was that I did not feel
that I would make a good pilot, perhaps because my father had been a
professional pilot in the RAF. I had also had a couple of encounters in
the air with other aircraft. One with the instructor and one solo. I
regret giving it up now a little but I also enjoyed the day many years
later when my son took me flying.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------
David Francis E-Mail reply to
-----------------------------------------------------------

In article ,
"C J Campbell" wrote:

I think that it is better to put a solo
student in a $180,000 airplane with modern safety features than in a run-out
$34,000 jalopy.

Which "modern safety features" would those be? Front and side airbags?
Front and rear anti-lock brakes?

--
Larry Fransson
Aviation software for Mac OS X!
http://www.subcritical.com

"C J Campbell" wrote:


I think that it is better to put a solo
student in a $180,000 airplane with modern safety features than in a run-out
$34,000 jalopy.


Yeah, right. What safety features? The better seat? Give the kid the
cheap plane.

"Larry Fransson" wrote in message
...
| In article ,
| "C J Campbell" wrote:
|
| I think that it is better to put a solo
| student in a $180,000 airplane with modern safety features than in a
run-out
| $34,000 jalopy.
|
| Which "modern safety features" would those be? Front and side airbags?
| Front and rear anti-lock brakes?
|

Cessna claims more than 140 safety improvements: fuel injected engine,
better seat tracks, seats stressed for higher g loads, re-routed fuel lines,
an auxiliary fuel pump, dual vacuum system, improved electrical system, more
reliable avionics and radios, strengthened airframe, more fuel sumps,
greatly improved seat belts, better lighting, improved engine
instrumentation, more reliable fuel gauges, separate fuel shut-off valve,
higher gross weight allowance, wider flap operating airspeed range,
electronic annunciator panel, more fire resistant cockpit interior, more
sound proofing, higher useful load, improved landing gear, split avionics
busses each with their own avionics master switch, etc. The 172 SP has more
redundancy and is better built than almost all single engine piston aircraft
that came before it. The 172 SP is not simply 172 P with some cosmetic
improvements. It is different enough that, for all effects and purposes, it
is a different type of aircraft.

I also find it a great sales tool. Most of my students can afford the 172 SP
and they prefer it over the older models. They are more comfortable in a
newer airplane and most of those who have flown both find the 172 SP easier
to fly and to land. The airplane looks safer and it is.

"Newps" wrote in message
...
|
|
|
|
| "C J Campbell" wrote:
|
|
| I think that it is better to put a solo
| student in a $180,000 airplane with modern safety features than in a
run-out
| $34,000 jalopy.
|
|
| Yeah, right. What safety features? The better seat? Give the kid the
| cheap plane.
|

Actually, I have only one student under thirty years old. My schedule is
full of older pilots who are learning to fly. They are used to nice cars and
they expect their airplanes to be something other than thirty year old
trashed out relics.

"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...

"Larry Fransson" wrote in message
...
| In article ,
| "C J Campbell" wrote:
|
| I think that it is better to put a solo
| student in a $180,000 airplane with modern safety features than in a
run-out
| $34,000 jalopy.
|
| Which "modern safety features" would those be? Front and side airbags?
| Front and rear anti-lock brakes?
|

Cessna claims more than 140 safety improvements: fuel injected engine,
better seat tracks, seats stressed for higher g loads, re-routed fuel
lines,
an auxiliary fuel pump, dual vacuum system, improved electrical system,
more
reliable avionics and radios, strengthened airframe, more fuel sumps,
greatly improved seat belts, better lighting, improved engine
instrumentation, more reliable fuel gauges, separate fuel shut-off valve,
higher gross weight allowance, wider flap operating airspeed range,
electronic annunciator panel, more fire resistant cockpit interior, more
sound proofing, higher useful load, improved landing gear, split avionics
busses each with their own avionics master switch, etc. The 172 SP has
more
redundancy and is better built than almost all single engine piston
aircraft
that came before it. The 172 SP is not simply 172 P with some cosmetic
improvements. It is different enough that, for all effects and purposes,
it
is a different type of aircraft.

I also find it a great sales tool. Most of my students can afford the 172
SP
and they prefer it over the older models. They are more comfortable in a
newer airplane and most of those who have flown both find the 172 SP
easier
to fly and to land. The airplane looks safer and it is.



I find that the 172SP is harder to land. Maybe it's just my experience, but
it seems to want to float along the runway longer than the old 172P models,
it just doesn't want to settle onto the runway... The fleet at my flight
school is a 4 new/8 old mix and I've experienced the "floating" with all of
the new ones, and none of the old ones. I much prefer the new ones, except
for warm starts on a warm day...

Kev