If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#201
|
|||
|
|||
"Jeff" wrote in message ... But this is no different then if you were VFR so shouldnt be an issue. Power management is part of flying any airplane. I cant see this as being a reason for complex airplanes causing more accidents in IMC. Has to be something more. I agree; we're getting a lot of statistical "correlation" but nothing meaningful in terms of causation. So far, the "causation" is that retractables are faster, and thus they more readily will "get away" from you in IMC. Well DUH!! That's why they're there -- for PERFORMANCE. Of course, retractables are flown FOR SPEED, whereas fixed gears are not necessarily in that same category. |
#202
|
|||
|
|||
This was where we came in on this loss of control
discussion a fair while ago...would a slippery ship like the Cirrus be any better was the question that was asked. I guess time will tell. (or an experiment much like the one metioned). Paul "Michael" wrote in message om... I would love to see a Tiger vs. Arrow study - somehow, having flown both, I have the feeling the fixed gear advantage would go away. |
#203
|
|||
|
|||
"Jeff" wrote in message ... See, thats not an acceptable answer. Power management is part of flying any airplane, VMC or IMC. Its part of your scan. Personally, in smooth air, I will take my plane up to the yellow line and have no concerns about losing control. But once established on the approach course, you get it in landing configuration. If you fly your airplane more then a few times, your used to the speed and know when to slow down. It has to be a different reason or the people that were in what ever study that said this was not experienced in the aircraft they were flying or were yahoo's and didnt care. I dont believe its the plane (complex/fixed gear), I think its pilot error. Quite so. I wonder what the record would be if they included twins and turboprops (also "retractables" in the equasion? The "equal time pilots" in that later category are different than the ones in the former. markjen wrote: what makes people lose control in complex plane and not fixed gear? I dont understand the big difference. As has been discussed at least twice in this thread, it is not that much that retracts lose contol more often, it is that they're less forgiving when they do. The fixed-gear pilot has longer to figure out what to do and speeds stay under control enough that they have a good chance of emerging from the bottom of the cloud and getting it upright. The retract has either broken up already, or emerges from the cloud 40K over redline and the pilot pulls the wings off attempting to recover before hitting the ground. I'll also note that my Bonanza is much more laterally stable with the gear down, but I don't really know if fixed-gears tend to be more laterally stable as a rule. - Mark |
#204
|
|||
|
|||
"Scott Aron Bloom" wrote in message ... Honestly, Ive heard this so many times before that I used to ignore it.... Then it happend 3000 feet in the clouds, just finishing the departure, setting up for my approach into seatac, im in a single engine 172XP, and the engine starts running VERY rough. Net result, I broke out at 700 feet above the ground, luckily a road was there, I landed fine, but a car pulled out infront of me and I rear ended her. Every one was ok (me 2 passengers and the car on the ground) but I still thank god I learned to fly IFR the hard way..... No auto pilot, and my unusual attitudes were real. Would I have pulled the parachute? Maybe, but im glad I had the skills to FLY the plane first. Except (IIRC) Cirrus recommends NOT dicking around but going right to the chute. |
#205
|
|||
|
|||
"Dylan Smith" wrote in message ... In article , Tom S. wrote: Cite? That's nuts, as nutty as teaching crash avoidance. /me raises eyebrows. I had lots of crash avoidance training when I learned to fly. Where did you get instruction where it was considered nutty to teach crash avoidance? Read the entire context of the original post: The point is they stopped teaching spin recovery and rather now just teach spin avoidance. That's teaching ONLY one facet. The analogy is teaching ONLY defensive driving and not teaching how to recover from a skid. (Of course, that new favored police citation "speed excessive for conditions" is a cover-all-occurrences and it's meaningless.) Recall the last line: "**** Happens". |
#206
|
|||
|
|||
I remember the incident. Landing short on the approach to R17 must have
been pretty exciting (though landing short on R35 would be even more so!). Good job to get down and walk away! No Cirrus pilot I know of thinks of the BRS as anything less than a last resort. Check out the COPA site for info on the CPPP program www.cirruspilots.org Having invested money and time on spin training and emergency maneuvers training, in the end, I like the idea of having one more aid in case of a problem. I know my wife and daughter like knowing that if I should become incapacitated they've got a way down (both are briefed on what to do in that event as part of each flight's pax briefing). "Scott Aron Bloom" wrote in message ... "Stu Gotts" wrote in message ... On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 11:01:02 +0100, Thomas Borchert wrote: Stu, Wow, remember the old days when airplanes didn't have chutes and pilots knew how to fly? Oh, yeah, and they didn't have autopilots. And real men flew by just flapping their arms. Jeeze, how stupidly macho do you want to get? Hardly a difference between recognizing an imminent spin then being able to maneuver (fly) out of it and being unable to get out due to design and pulling a chute, don't you think? My arms still hurt when I think about those old days, sonny! Honestly, Ive heard this so many times before that I used to ignore it.... Then it happend 3000 feet in the clouds, just finishing the departure, setting up for my approach into seatac, im in a single engine 172XP, and the engine starts running VERY rough. Net result, I broke out at 700 feet above the ground, luckily a road was there, I landed fine, but a car pulled out infront of me and I rear ended her. Every one was ok (me 2 passengers and the car on the ground) but I still thank god I learned to fly IFR the hard way..... No auto pilot, and my unusual attitudes were real. Would I have pulled the parachute? Maybe, but im glad I had the skills to FLY the plane first. Scott N1909V (the plane is totaled, but the report is in the NTSB database if you want to read the prelim) |
#207
|
|||
|
|||
In article , Michael wrote:
That's not what he's talking about. The risk we're concerned with is not gear-up landing (which is, for all practical purposes, a financial rather than a life-and-lib risk) but loss of control in IMC. Having the gear hanging out means it takes that much longer to overspeed the airplane, giving the pilot that much more time to recover from the unusual attitude. My strategy for handling a vacuum failure in the Bonanza was to slow down, get the gear out, and put some flaps down. The trouble with the one we had is that it would wag its tail quite a bit in any turbulence, which would make flying without the attitude gyro and DG more challenging than it should be. However, slowing the plane down and putting the gear out and some flaps made it as docile as a C172, and extremely draggy. Of course, if you don't realise you've got a gyro failure until you are actually in the unusual attitude and rapidly picking up speed, things are going to be much tougher. -- Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net "Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee" |
#208
|
|||
|
|||
In article , Snowbird wrote:
I don't think difference in cruise speed is the issue. If you read the study carefully, IIRC the vacuum failure was done during climbout after a missed approach -- a point where the speed difference is not as large. I believe the same protocol was followed during the previous simulator study. The vacuum failure was also done at a high workload point in the climbout by the looks of things. In a Cherokee, climbout from a missed approach or takeoff in IMC is accomplished by going wide open throttle and leaving it there. In a Bonanza, there's engine management to be done (go from takeoff to climb power, which involves reducing throttle and prop), and raise the gear. Also things happen A LOT quicker in the climb in a Bonanza. The Cherokee in the study was probably climbing out at 800 fpm. The Bonanza was probably climbing out at around 1600 fpm. (Lightly loaded, the takeoff power climb rate of our club's S35 Bonanza would exceed 1800 fpm). This means not only do you have to do more in the Bonanza, you have much less time to do it in. Also, if you get into an unusual attitude, relative to a Cherokee, you've got a tremendous amount of power helping the slippery airframe to accelerate. A pilot who has only marginal control and is mentally 'maxed out' might be able to pull it off in a Cherokee. Add the extra tasks of putting the gear up, setting climb power and climb RPM plus double the climb rate, a pilot who's 'maxed out' will quite possibly be pushed over the edge. I note that there are several pairs of planes where the retract apparently has a higher LOC accident rate than its fixed gear "brother" yet the handling is pretty much the same and the speed difference not that great. If the pilot is already 'maxed out' by operating on partial panel, the additional task of retracting the gear might be enough to push them over the edge if they are only marginally in control in the first place. A bit like the straw that breaks the camel's back. -- Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net "Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee" |
#209
|
|||
|
|||
On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 14:18:43 -0700, "Tom S."
wrote: "Dylan Smith" wrote in message ... In article , Tom S. wrote: Cite? That's nuts, as nutty as teaching crash avoidance. /me raises eyebrows. I had lots of crash avoidance training when I learned to fly. Where did you get instruction where it was considered nutty to teach crash avoidance? Read the entire context of the original post: The point is they stopped teaching spin recovery and rather now just teach spin avoidance. That's Yah, but at least they went back to teaching stalls in addition to stall avoidance.:-)) Roger Halstead (K8RI EN73 & ARRL Life Member) www.rogerhalstead.com N833R World's oldest Debonair? (S# CD-2) teaching ONLY one facet. The analogy is teaching ONLY defensive driving and not teaching how to recover from a skid. (Of course, that new favored police citation "speed excessive for conditions" is a cover-all-occurrences and it's meaningless.) Recall the last line: "**** Happens". |
#210
|
|||
|
|||
"Roger Halstead" wrote in message ... On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 14:18:43 -0700, "Tom S." wrote: "Dylan Smith" wrote in message ... In article , Tom S. wrote: Cite? That's nuts, as nutty as teaching crash avoidance. /me raises eyebrows. I had lots of crash avoidance training when I learned to fly. Where did you get instruction where it was considered nutty to teach crash avoidance? Read the entire context of the original post: The point is they stopped teaching spin recovery and rather now just teach spin avoidance. That's Yah, but at least they went back to teaching stalls in addition to stall avoidance.:-)) Well, thannnnkkk youuuu!!! :~) |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|