Emergency Descents with ATC COMS - Video

On Aug 23, 9:51*pm, Mike Ash wrote:
In article
,





*BeechSundowner wrote:
On Aug 23, 10:02*am, "Peter Dohm" wrote:

*Besides,
in an actual emergency, "ya gotta do what ya gotta do" and being prepared
under non-emergency conditions is usually more than half the battle!

Exactly why I went out Peter, and it's not like I didn't try to do the
research before doing this
maneuver in the first place.

The intent of this lesson wasn't to learn or fly acro but to better
myself in
see and avoid situations. *Last time I did this was 2001 when I was in
VFR training
in a Cessna so why not bring myself up to speed in "currency" in my
own plane?

Let me just toss in my two cents in support of your position. Nothing I
saw in the video looked even remotely dangerous. I can't speak to the
regs, not being a lawyer, but IMO keeping your skills sharp outweighs
following every dotted i and crossed t.

Seems some pilots can't stomach the idea of doing anything out of the
ordinary. 30-degree banks and no more, please! Fly all approaches at
1.3Vso and touch down at exactly 1000ft beyond the threshold!

Now, I don't want to sound like I'm advocating doing dangerous things
just because they're interesting. Quite the contrary: ensuring the
safety of the maneuver should be the top goal. But there is nothing
AUTOMATICALLY unsafe about exceeding 60 degrees of bank, just like it's
not AUTOMATICALLY safe to do anything that stays within the bounds set
by the FARs and the POH.

In short: carry on, and keep posting those videos!

--
Mike Ash
Radio Free Earth
Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

As a matter of interest, I asked the intial question re bank and pitch
limits because those are associated with the airplane I fly. The OP's
first reply was that he was not aware of those limits for the
Sundowner, and later seemed to find they did not apply to his
airplane. That's fine, my question was answered. As for advocating
flying outside the limits airplanes are certified for, you do that at
your own risk -- and I submit it's not a smart thing to do. Look at
the g loading for very high banked coordinated turns sometime. I can
peg the gauge at 2500 fpm down with an aggressive slip and stay within
the certified envelope of the airplane, but that's at airspeeds well
below normal cruise speeds. For what it's worth, a non pilot px is
much happier with a 60 degree bank and the associated g's into the
seat than an aggressive slip with only 1 g, if that g's vector is to
the side of the airplane.

The only time we fly the Mooney at pitch and bank limits is when we
are doing under the hood unusual attitude recoveries. The Sundowner
jock can do one better and do spin recoveries under the hood (gotta
find a Sundowner around here, that would be fun to do).


As for collision avoidance, I'm the guy who tends to fly assigned
altitude less 50 feet to provide some automatic margin, but I have
never had to abruptly alter course to avoid another airplane in the in-
route environment. I have had to near airports and descent to avoid in
that environment is not a good option.

Go commit aviation, but do it safely.

On Aug 24, 8:21*am, a wrote:

*As for collision avoidance, I'm the guy who tends to fly assigned
altitude less 50 feet to provide some automatic margin, but I have
never had to abruptly alter course to avoid another airplane in the in-
route environment.

Altimeter not an exact science. How would this 50 foot protect you?
Since 75 feet + or - of error is allowed, wouldn't flying 100 feet
below assigned altitude be a better "automatic margin"?

On Aug 24, 10:14*am, BeechSundowner wrote:
On Aug 24, 8:21*am, a wrote:

*As for collision avoidance, I'm the guy who tends to fly assigned
altitude less 50 feet to provide some automatic margin, but I have
never had to abruptly alter course to avoid another airplane in the in-
route environment.

exact science. *How would this 50 foot protect you?
Since 75 feet + or - of error is allowed, wouldn't flying 100 feet
below assigned altitude be a better "automatic margin"?

How would this 50 foot protect you?
Since 75 feet + or - of error is allowed, wouldn't flying 100 feet
below assigned altitude be a better "automatic margin"?


I think not. The average pilot may very well have set autopilot to
his altitude, if you assume the average error is zero with excursions
to the tolerances, you can model that my lower altitude is probably 30
or 40% safer and still leaves some margins. That I fly a low wing also
gives me greater visibility toward where possible traffic may be.
Having said that, it probably doesn't much matter, it's one of those
30 or 40% less than an already small number issues. I have never had
to change altitude ON MY OWN to avoid traffic. On many occasions I
have had center issue altitutude changes to avoid possible conflict.
For what it's worth I consider XC flight at less than 3000 agl
something to be mostly avoided, and nearly always am IFR on XC.

DIfferent strokes and differences of opinion keep things interesting.
You posted something that evoked some discussion, good on you. I'm
still suspect of 80 degree banking in a utility class airplane, but
it's hardly worth spending more bytes on, is it?

But it might be generally instructive to see some safety pilot
monitored under-the-hood spin recoveries since your airplane is
certified for spins. I don't think my spin recoveries in high wing
aerobatic airplanes have much application in solving that problem in a
Mooney -- even 25 degree nose at 100 knts dirty equals speeds not good
for flaps or gear in the blink of an eye.

On Aug 23, 8:17*am, Robert Moore wrote:

Jeeze...damn amateurs.......

Jeeze...grumpy, retired, ex-military, old men.......lighten up. Your experience and knowlege is very valuable here, but it would be much more well received with some grace and kindness.

Bob Moore

P-3B

P-3, huh? I am cutting my A&P teeth on a rehab of a P-3, which is what
my company does. My first P-3 is about to take it's maiden flight
after a 3 year rebuild, and after we get all the tank leaks sealed
(again).

Ricky

Ricky wrote

Jeeze...grumpy, retired, ex-military, old men.......lighten up. Your
experience and knowlege is very valuable here, but it would be much more
well received with some grace and kindness.

When someone "preaches" as much BS as Flaps_50! did in his post, someone
needs to call it BS in no uncertain terms.

If Flaps_50! wants to instruct pilots, maybe he should study some more
himself.

Bob Moore
CFIing since 1970

On Aug 25, 9:12*am, Ricky wrote:
On Aug 23, 8:17*am, Robert Moore wrote:

Jeeze...damn amateurs.......
Jeeze...grumpy, retired, ex-military, old men.......lighten up. Your experience and knowlege is very valuable here, but it would be much more well received with some grace and kindness.
Bob Moore
P-3B

P-3, huh? I am cutting my A&P teeth on a rehab of a P-3, which is what
my company does. My first P-3 is about to take it's maiden flight
after a 3 year rebuild, and after we get all the tank leaks sealed
(again).

Ricky

The M20J is a wet wing tank sealed with something that was found to
like to disolve in what ever is added to 100 octane low lead. We had
to fix the leaks a couple of times in an early M20J, I expect the
problem has been solved a long time ago. What is the nature of the
leaks your P-3 has: inital sealant a little better than bubble gum?

On Aug 25, 7:36*am, a wrote:
On Aug 25, 9:12*am, Ricky wrote:

On Aug 23, 8:17*am, Robert Moore wrote:

Jeeze...damn amateurs.......
Jeeze...grumpy, retired, ex-military, old men.......lighten up. Your experience and knowlege is very valuable here, but it would be much more well received with some grace and kindness.
Bob Moore
P-3B

P-3, huh? I am cutting my A&P teeth on a rehab of a P-3, which is what
my company does. My first P-3 is about to take it's maiden flight
after a 3 year rebuild, and after we get all the tank leaks sealed
(again).

Ricky

The M20J is a wet wing tank sealed with something that was found to
like to disolve in what ever is added to 100 octane low lead. We had
to fix the leaks a couple of times in an early M20J, I expect the
problem has been solved a long time ago. What is the nature of the
leaks your P-3 has: inital sealant a little better than bubble gum?

Well, you may know the P-3 is a wet-wing also, with a wet belly tank,
too, just behind the bomb bay. The sealing procedure is very, very
extensive after all external and internal reapairs & work have been
done on the wings and belly. Every single Hi-Lok, rivet, Cherry-Max,
bolt, screw, plank, doubler, tripler, etc, etc. is a potential leak.
So, there are literally hundreds, perhaps thousands, of potential
escape routes for the Jet-A. The sealant we use is fine, great,
actually, but with so many potential leaks, it is simply impossible to
aassure the sealant job is leak-proof in every single place.
We pressurised the tanks for the first time 2 weeks ago & there were
several leaks, albeit small ones. This means we must find the leak,
then do a re-sealant job to that area. After two weeks we finally have
almost 100% integrity with the fuel tanks. We have started engine runs/
testing and the plane will go to the paint shop soon, then back into
service until the ancient (but wonderful) bird is retired or replaced
by 737s.

Ricky

On Aug 24, 1:17*am, Robert Moore wrote:
"Flaps_50!" wrote

You were conducting aerobatic flight.

TRUE

Breaking the law is one thing

IN WHAT RESPECT

but are you certified for aerobatics?

PILOTS DON'T HAVE TO BE CERTIFIED FOR AEROBATICS in the USofA

What about your aircraft?

When properly equipped, the B23 and C23 are approved for limited
aerobatics. (Wikipedia)

And was it equipped and what are those limits?


This could get you killed.

Normal takeoffs and landings kill a lot of pilots.


Not intentionally.

Let me remind you that aerobatics are maneuvers
outside those required for "normal" flight FAR 91.303.

LET ME REMIND YOU.... that the Sundowner is approved for Spins.

Irrelevant. That's not the point and you know it.

Google "Beechcraft Sundowner Spins" and you will find a reference
to "The Light Airplane Pilot's Guide to Stall/Spin Awareness By Rich
Stowell". I would suggest that you read the paragraphs on the following
web page.http://books.google.com/books?id=i8r...A304&lpg=PA304
&dq=Spins+in+sundowner&source=bl&ots=u0xxM-hDbY&sig=r8g_VtQN_AjTS8Cql-
tWtg0geRo&hl=en&ei=KD2RSo_BKoH8tge9p6TPBA&sa=X&oi= book_result&ct=result&
resnum=10#v=onepage&q=&f=false

Jeeze...damn amateurs.......

Bob Moore
ATP B-727, B-707, L-188
USN S-2F , P-2V , P-3B
Flight Instructor ASE-I
PanAm (retired)

Jeez is that supposed to impress me or is it the PanAm (retired) bit?
Look up "appeal to authority" as a logical fallacy.

Cheers

On Aug 24, 2:16*am, BeechSundowner wrote:
On Aug 23, 8:17*am, Robert Moore wrote:

"Flaps_50!" wrote

You were conducting aerobatic flight.

TRUE

Robert,

I am under the impression what I did was a commercial maneuver. *This
is done for emergency descents for commercial jet jockeys and of
course Lears wouldn't be doing acro flight..

You can do aerobatics in controlled airspace without a waver from the
director?

Cheers

On Aug 24, 3:15*am, BeechSundowner wrote:
On Aug 23, 10:02*am, "Peter Dohm" wrote:

*Besides,
in an actual emergency, "ya gotta do what ya gotta do" and being prepared
under non-emergency conditions is usually more than half the battle!

Exactly why I went out Peter, and it's not like I didn't try to do the
research before doing this
maneuver in the first place.

The intent of this lesson wasn't to learn or fly acro but to better
myself in
see and avoid situations. *Last time I did this was 2001 when I was in
VFR training
in a Cessna so why not bring myself up to speed in "currency" in my
own plane?

As you can see, this from the Flight Aware thread I provided, came up
because of the Hudson
River mid air and discussions ensued on evasive maneuvers, thus me
wanting to expand
on my own envelope on avoiding a mid air collision.

I know I may be comparing apples and oranges when comparing jets to
pistons
but the concept of minimal G for the bank lead me to believe what was
posted
in the thread I brought here as it being a non acrobatic maneuver.

I now have expanded my avoidance in two directions rather then one.
Right and down rather
then just down.

This makes no sense. You just need to turn, diving at 90 degrees bank
may limit your ability to see the approaching aircraft and what if
that aircraft is diving too? But diving at high bank piles on the
airspeed (spiral dive as you may have experienced in spin recovery),
it would be a pity to risk structural failure as you recover...
Second, at high bank a collision is more likely as the intercept area
is larger (wingspans are larger than any other dimension). What I'm
advocating here is safety at all times, not hypothetical better
avoidance turns. Look, I don't want you to have an accident as you
explore your capabilities and those of your aircraft. I say, try your
your tricks in an aircraft you are less likely to break and then if
you are sure you can handle it, put it in your bag of skills for the
unlikely day you will need them.

Cheers