A disturbing statistic

Jim Macklin wrote:
The point is that turn radius is directly related to speed.
It is possible to fly a 300 King Air at a slower speed than
Lidle was flying his SR20



The reports say his ground speed was 112 mph. That's Cessna 150 territory.

It is still knots faster than he should have been to make
the turn. The true airspeed is what controls the radius,
along with the bank angle. He had a quartering headwind and
the turn was such that it was a nearly direct tailwind.
Being aware of the required turn and the speed and wind
[which should have been on display in the glass panel] both
pilots screwed up IMHO.



"Newps" wrote in message
. ..
|
|
| Jim Macklin wrote:
| The point is that turn radius is directly related to
speed.
| It is possible to fly a 300 King Air at a slower speed
than
| Lidle was flying his SR20
|
|
|
| The reports say his ground speed was 112 mph. That's
Cessna 150 territory.

"Jim Macklin" wrote in message
...
It is still knots faster than he should have been to make
the turn.

Probably. But even at that airspeed (112 mph), if they'd turned with a
60-degree bank, they'd have had room to spare even if the crosswind
component had been as high as 30 knots (the turn diameter would have been
975', and the turn would have taken 10 seconds, adding 500' of drift; the
river is 2000' wide).

--Gary

The true airspeed is what controls the radius,
along with the bank angle. He had a quartering headwind and
the turn was such that it was a nearly direct tailwind.
Being aware of the required turn and the speed and wind
[which should have been on display in the glass panel] both
pilots screwed up IMHO.


"Newps" wrote in message
. ..
|
|
| Jim Macklin wrote:
| The point is that turn radius is directly related to
speed.
| It is possible to fly a 300 King Air at a slower speed
than
| Lidle was flying his SR20
|
|
|
| The reports say his ground speed was 112 mph. That's
Cessna 150 territory.

Jim Macklin wrote:
It is still knots faster than he should have been to make
the turn.

No, it's not. The turn could be made at that speed at pretty much any
flyable crosswind.

Jose wrote:
Does this "business flying" include bizjets?
No. Professionally flown is a separate (and even safer) category.

I would include (as personal flying) only that business
flying that is piloted by the person wanting to make the trip.
That is how the Nall Report does it.

Then the relative safety of "business flying" is news to me. I'll have
to look further. Thanks.

Start with the Nall Report. It contains much that is unexpected. In
fact, I formulated my theory of the J-curve as it relates to flight
safety largely on the basis of the results - which I initially found
surprising.

1: requirement for an instrument rating to fly IFR.
Because otherwise people would blunder around in IMC without training?

Because it codifies the required training. Absent such a requirement,
people would blunder around in IMC without =sufficient= or =appropriate=
training.

Actually, that is what is happening now. The standards for an
instrument rating are inappropriate. They focus too much on what is
unimportant, and too little on what is important. I must admit this is
changing - some relatively unimportant maneuvers were dropped, and some
things having to do with new technology were added. But there are
still major problems.

Much of instrument training still focuses on holds and hold entries -
and while this isn't totally worthless, I would argue that for the
average IFR pilot flying a light single or twin, it's not of much value
either. Lost comm stuff is largely a joke, and goes directly contrary
to what a controller would actually want you to do. On the other hand,
active weather avoidance and planning for partial/gradual engine
failure is not even considered.

When an instrument rated pilot upgrades from a trainer-class airplane
into something actually useful for IFR, I train him very differently
then when I train for the checkride. I can focus on what I know (from
years of experience flying IFR) is important, rather than what's in the
PTS.

What's important for flying IFR is skill and knowledge, not a piece of
paper from the FAA. I find there is little correlation between the
two.

I suppose that's your point. But I suspect that there is enough
correlation to warrant the instrument rating rules. Even the cheaters
have a standard to go by.

I think the cheaters make their own standards. That's why they're
safer than the rated pilots.

2: BFR/wings
Because you belive a BFR is effective at keeping people sharp?

Because I believe that it helps keep the ones that don't fly often
enough up to a minimum standard.

There we disagree. I don't think it actually accomplishes this. See
below.

A BFR for someone who flies a lot is
probably going to seem like a joke.

It sure does. My favorite quote, from the first time I took a BFR in
my own airplane: "Wow, you do these maneuvers even better than someone
who just took his private checkride." The CFI actually said this, and
truly meant it as a compliment. Implicitly, he was saying that people
are routinely passing BFR's without meeting private pilot standards.

Some people are
ready for an instrument rating at 100 hours. Most are not. All the
rule ever accomplished is holding back the ones who were.

I think that is a good thing. "Being ready for" an isntrument rating is
not sufficient, IMHO, especially in this electronic world. I think that
one must be well in the habit of looking OUTSIDE before one starts to
look inside. Otherwise, one may never get into the habit of really
LOOKING outside.

Some people get into that habit quickly. Some don't. 100 hours can
easily be enough.

Michael

: A BFR for someone who flies a lot is
: probably going to seem like a joke.

: It sure does. My favorite quote, from the first time I took a BFR in
: my own airplane: "Wow, you do these maneuvers even better than someone
: who just took his private checkride." The CFI actually said this, and
: truly meant it as a compliment. Implicitly, he was saying that people
: are routinely passing BFR's without meeting private pilot standards.

Not to pick nits (FWIW I mostly agree with what you are saying), but this logic isn't quite true. Just because someone going
for a BFR is not passing maneuvers as well as a student pilot going for a checkride does not mean that he's not up to checkride PTS
standards. Many a checkride candidate *well* exceeds the PTS standards on most airwork things, but is held up due to other reasons.
A student pilot likely has lots of recent experience, which results in a good "feel."

-Cory

--

************************************************** ***********************
* Cory Papenfuss, Ph.D., PPSEL-IA *
* Electrical Engineering *
* Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University *
************************************************** ***********************

Yes, also, reported that they were in the middle of the
river, not near the upwind shore.



"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
. ..
| "Jim Macklin" wrote
in message
| ...
| It is still knots faster than he should have been to
make
| the turn.
|
| Probably. But even at that airspeed (112 mph), if they'd
turned with a
| 60-degree bank, they'd have had room to spare even if the
crosswind
| component had been as high as 30 knots (the turn diameter
would have been
| 975', and the turn would have taken 10 seconds, adding
500' of drift; the
| river is 2000' wide).
|
| --Gary
|
| The true airspeed is what controls the radius,
| along with the bank angle. He had a quartering headwind
and
| the turn was such that it was a nearly direct tailwind.
| Being aware of the required turn and the speed and wind
| [which should have been on display in the glass panel]
both
| pilots screwed up IMHO.
|
|
| "Newps" wrote in message
| . ..
| |
| |
| | Jim Macklin wrote:
| | The point is that turn radius is directly related to
| speed.
| | It is possible to fly a 300 King Air at a slower
speed
| than
| | Lidle was flying his SR20
| |
| |
| |
| | The reports say his ground speed was 112 mph. That's
| Cessna 150 territory.
|
|
|
|

In article .com,
"Michael" wrote:

Bob Noel wrote:
another viewpoint is: Pilots are not managing the risks.

It doesn't matter how often you fly. The pilot that flies within
his abilities is going to have less risk than the pilot that
flies beyond his abilities.

The problem is that if you don't fly often enough, you will not have
the abilities to safely fly on an average day in average conditions.
At that point, your risk management becomes flying easy hops on
bluebird days only. Then that gets boring and you quit.

bored is better than dead.

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

In article , Sam Spade
wrote:

Nothing beats walking for safety,

yet my most serious accident occurred while I was walking
and required surgery, a 14 day hospital stay, was out of
work for more than to months, and I'm still recovering.

Where you walking during good daylight conditions? Were you on a
sidewalk or otherwise away from motor vehicles?

I was crossing a street, but there was no involvement or contact with
any motor vehicle.

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

"Jim Macklin" wrote in message
...
Yes, also, reported that they were in the middle of the
river, not near the upwind shore.

Was their path recorded with enough precision to make that determination?

--Gary

"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
. ..
| "Jim Macklin" wrote
in message
| ...
| It is still knots faster than he should have been to
make
| the turn.
|
| Probably. But even at that airspeed (112 mph), if they'd
turned with a
| 60-degree bank, they'd have had room to spare even if the
crosswind
| component had been as high as 30 knots (the turn diameter
would have been
| 975', and the turn would have taken 10 seconds, adding
500' of drift; the
| river is 2000' wide).
|
| --Gary
|
| The true airspeed is what controls the radius,
| along with the bank angle. He had a quartering headwind
and
| the turn was such that it was a nearly direct tailwind.
| Being aware of the required turn and the speed and wind
| [which should have been on display in the glass panel]
both
| pilots screwed up IMHO.
|
|
| "Newps" wrote in message
| . ..
| |
| |
| | Jim Macklin wrote:
| | The point is that turn radius is directly related to
| speed.
| | It is possible to fly a 300 King Air at a slower
speed
| than
| | Lidle was flying his SR20
| |
| |
| |
| | The reports say his ground speed was 112 mph. That's
| Cessna 150 territory.
|
|
|
|