Tweaking the throttle on approach

chris writes:

In real life, sometimes you get asked to do a 'short approach'. This
would be probably the closest to what you're doing in the sim, so if
you are looking to real life for validation of what you do in the sim,
then there you go..

I know I've seen real aircraft do it; I couldn't remember what it was called.

Ironically, I'd probably turn it down in real life, as I tend to be extremely
prudent.

I have done some wacky, crazy approaches when asked to do a short
approach, usually with healthy doses of sideslip..

You're braver than I am.

You don't feel it because the air and the ground are not connected..

That makes sense. I guess there's no telltale squeal of tires.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Ibby (The Artist Formerly Known as Chris) writes:

Gosh MX you ARE amazing.

Most Europeans know how to drive with a manual transmission, so it is routine
here. I know that it is considered a bit eccentric in the U.S.

Unfortunately, more and more cars are appearing with automatic transmissions,
even in Europe.

I have seen many drivers from Europe. Been
in a car with one driving and the quality of driving was absolutely
diabolical.

There really isn't anything one can generally say about European drivers,
apart from their fondness for manual transmissions. Different standards from
one country to another, and different cultures, have a considerable effect on
driving competence and behavior.

Perhaps he learnt to drive in a couple of hours too ;-((

Driving ability isn't necessarily linked to the number of hours of training.
Neither is piloting ability. Often it's just a matter of personality or
(sometimes) intelligence.

I've always been an extremely safe driver. I'm certain that I'd be equally
safe as a pilot. That's the type of personality I have.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Ibby (The Artist Formerly Known as Chris) writes:

Perhaps true but it serves a purpose with the likes of serious or
fatal injuries.

A better policy is to avoid serious or fatal injuries.

In the past I've worked for some companies that were self-insured. The
overall cost to them of paying for employee healthcare directly was far lower
than the cost of premiums paid to insurance companies. This was mainly
because the total premiums for insurance were vastly greater than the total
payouts, thanks to a handsome profit margin built into them.

This works best when you can spread risk over a large number of aircraft or
pilots. It also assumes that you will not be expected to make ridiculous
payouts as a result of litigation.

However, insurance companies encourage the above to some extent by regularly
settling with plaintiffs rather than going to trial. They just add the payout
to their premiums. Insurance companies don't care how many payouts they make,
as long as they preserve their margins. If that means forcing you to pay
$8000 a month for insurance (which you'll probably never need), that's your
tough luck, not theirs. They never lose money.

Indeed, the mere existence of insurance encourages huge damage awards in
litigation. People assume that others are insured, so they don't hesitate to
ask for large amounts of money. An insurance company can pay out $2 million;
an uninsured individual cannot, and there would be no point in suing the
latter.

Money makes the world go round so what better way to penalise worse
drivers and/or pilots by increasing their premiums for the higher risk
they pose to others.

The whole idea of insurance is to spread the risk, such that everyone pays to
some extent for the payouts to a few. If you adjust premiums too much, the
net effect is to have no insurance at all: the low-risk people pay nothing,
the high-risk people pay exactly what they would pay if they had no insurance
to begin with.

Furthermore, penalizing poor pilots within reason might make sense, but in
today's litigation-crazy society, the penalties are ridiculous. And having
insurance doesn't make them go away, it just guarantees that you'll pay them
whether you are involved in litigation or not.

I guess you can just pay premiums without complaint, but they will only rise,
and one day you won't be able to pay them, and then you won't be able to fly,
either.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

On Mar 11, 6:37 pm, Mxsmanic wrote:
Ibby (The Artist Formerly Known as Chris) writes:

Gosh MX you ARE amazing.

Most Europeans know how to drive with a manual transmission, so it is routine
here. I know that it is considered a bit eccentric in the U.S.

Same here in NZ


Unfortunately, more and more cars are appearing with automatic transmissions,
even in Europe.


Ditto

On Mar 11, 6:34 pm, Mxsmanic wrote:
chris writes:

I have done some wacky, crazy approaches when asked to do a short
approach, usually with healthy doses of sideslip..

You're braver than I am.


A short approach doesn't have to be crazy but some of us like it that
way :-)

You don't feel it because the air and the ground are not connected..

That makes sense. I guess there's no telltale squeal of tires.

There is no tyre noise until you touch down, of course, and you need
to look out the window to establish how much you correction you need
to apply..

chris writes:

Same here in NZ

In a car, I prefer manual transmission because it gives me better control of
the vehicle; with an automatic, you aren't the one who decides how to control
the gear ratio or clutch.

I'm not sure what the parallel would be for aircraft. I don't think autopilot
is it--that's more like cruise control. Perhaps those various systems that
"help" pilots, such as interconnections between rudder and ailerons that force
coordinated turns.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

On Mar 11, 10:28 pm, Mxsmanic wrote:
chris writes:
Same here in NZ

In a car, I prefer manual transmission because it gives me better control of
the vehicle; with an automatic, you aren't the one who decides how to control
the gear ratio or clutch.


Currently I drive a V6 Camry sedan, which by NZ standards is a large
car, and I can't be bothered with changing gears myself.. However,
when I drove a turbo RX-7 I had it converted to manual because I like
the control..

Seems that in NZ since we get so many second hand Jap imports and most
of them are auto, most of the people now drive autos, very sad..



I'm not sure what the parallel would be for aircraft. I don't think autopilot
is it--that's more like cruise control. Perhaps those various systems that
"help" pilots, such as interconnections between rudder and ailerons that force
coordinated turns.


The Ercoupe had no rudder pedals at all, I believe..

Oh, and I tend to think of cruise control in cars as a sort of Auto
Throttle..

Hi,

In article .com,
wrote:
The Ercoupe had no rudder pedals at all, I believe..

I'm a sim 'pilot' so apologies if this question appears obvious, but how do
you cope with a crosswind landing with no rudder control?

Andy

Andy Hawkins wrote:



The Ercoupe had no rudder pedals at all, I believe..


I'm a sim 'pilot' so apologies if this question appears obvious, but how do
you cope with a crosswind landing with no rudder control?

You land in a crab and the plane will straighten out when it touches down.

Hi,

In article ,
wrote:
You land in a crab and the plane will straighten out when it touches down.

How does this straightening out occur? Is rudder applied automatically, or
are you relyinn on the landing gear bringing the plane into line?

Cheers

Andy