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 |
#81
|
|||
|
|||
|
#82
|
|||
|
|||
Marc Ramsey wrote:
Mark James Boyd wrote: For some of us with less currency and less practice in type, this could be quite dangerous. Vertigo, inadvertent coarse use of controls (including roll), imperfect centering technique, visual illusions due to wind and movement of the ground, different pressure feel caused by different gliders or C.G.'s, etc. can make this more hazardous. Well, I disagree, and I strongly believe that a well-trained glider pilot, in any glider, low or high, should be every bit as comfortable and safe (if not more so) in a 50 degree bank as in a 20 degree bank. Marc Agreed for feeling safe, but when comfortable is the question, I think most pilots would find 1.02g is much more comfortable than 1.75g. |
#83
|
|||
|
|||
I must say, however, that I vaguely recall that other countries don't
fly rectangles, but a V and then a 45 deg turn onto final. Is this true? It seems like a better way to avoid looking back over the shoulder for the touchdown spot... -- ------------+ Mark Boyd Avenal, California, USA Not in this country (UK). But I was taught to do a 45 degree approach at Minden. -- Mike Lindsay |
#84
|
|||
|
|||
In article mOsXc.187980$8_6.23896@attbi_s04, Bill Daniels
writes Most of us pretty well know the routes we will use on XC flying. Get your handheld GPS, a digital camera and a good map with a Lat/Long grid and go driving. Looking over fields from ground level is much better than from 1000' feet while stressed out. You don't need to find many fields, just enough to fill in the gaps between airports. When you find a good one, note the GPS coordinates and take photos and notes. Maybe include the name of the landowner and a phone number. If you can, walk the landing area. Then, post them on your club web site. The Albuquerque Soaring Club is a good example of this. Scratching for a save when within an easy glide of a known safe landing site is a lot less stressful. Bill Daniels Excellent idea. But the trouble is, what might be a good field in August 2004 might be terrible in June 2005, with a rape or potato crop.. -- Mike Lindsay |
#85
|
|||
|
|||
Kirk Stant wrote:
1) If they ain't locked for takeoff, a gnarly pio 1. Use a checklist. Oh, and why is the tow pilot fanning his rudder at me? LOL! "use a checklist." Kind of covers everything, huh? "Oh yeah? He had an accident? I bet he didn't use the checklist!" everyone nods solemnly in agreement, and the speaker passes Leadership 101 for saying the most obvious, non-controversial thing anyone can think of ROFL! Man, I remember my MEI and his checklists. We added so much stuff, I think there was something about taking our pulse and blood pressure in the runup to ensure we weren't overstressed for the flight. Oh, and zipper check and make sure we had chewing gum in case ATC gave us a real fast descent. I think we had to taxi back for fuel one time because we'd drained the tanks in the runup area doing the checklist. But hey, Kirk, I'm just teasin ya'. Just one of my pet peeves, the checklist with the important points buried. How about just three critical safety items in the PW-5: 1. Airbrakes locked 2. Trim forward 3. Belts on tight I'm a big fan of the prioritized checklist. Do the three most important items first. Do the nine most important items next. Do the 27 most important items next. Do the 81 most important items next. And so on... To figure out what the priority list should be, I follow this advice: You should learn from the mistakes of others, because you?ll never have enough time to make all those mistakes yourself. --- Ben Franklin So I scour the accident reports, and see what killed other pilots, and put that at the top three. Then I see what caused non-fatal accidents, and put that in the next 6-9. Then I add in the stuff from the factory checklist. Then I add the piddly stuff that just prevents a nuisance (vent closed to avoid dust, for example, or towrope attached. It's hard for me to imagine why an unattached towrope would be a safety hazard Despite my best efforts, I've found myself getting sleepy after the 45th item on the checklist. So this has worked best for me. -- ------------+ Mark Boyd Avenal, California, USA |
#86
|
|||
|
|||
That means that the NTSB can add to the accident report:
1. Failed to use proper check list. Along with my favorite: 2. The aircraft had not filed a flight plan. As in: A sharp wind blew up and destroyed the properly secured glider while the operator was home in bed. The operator had NOT filed a flight plan. The NTSB finds the probable cause to be the Pilot's failure to use a proper check list and file a flight plan. Contributing factors were the 100 knot wind and the fact that the pilot was home in bed at the time of the accident. Allan "Mark James Boyd" wrote in message news:412fa9ba$1@darkstar... Kirk Stant wrote: 1) If they ain't locked for takeoff, a gnarly pio 1. Use a checklist. Oh, and why is the tow pilot fanning his rudder at me? LOL! "use a checklist." Kind of covers everything, huh? ... Snip ... |
#87
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
Robert Ehrlich wrote: Well, I disagree, and I strongly believe that a well-trained glider pilot, in any glider, low or high, should be every bit as comfortable and safe (if not more so) in a 50 degree bank as in a 20 degree bank. Marc Agreed for feeling safe, but when comfortable is the question, I think most pilots would find 1.02g is much more comfortable than 1.75g. That's 1.06 vs 1.56, actually. -- Bruce | 41.1670S | \ spoken | -+- Hoult | 174.8263E | /\ here. | ----------O---------- |
#88
|
|||
|
|||
Andy,
I guess my only comment is a question: Does it really make any difference in what you see? Framing wires against the sky (if that's your intent) requires being lower than the wires. Which in turn means you are at risk of hitting other wires. What is the genesis of this approach? It clearly requires advanced energy management skills, so it isn't appropriate for low time pilots (the majority) or lower peformance sailplanes. Was it suggested by someone, or is it someplace you arrived through time and experience? I'll give it a try at the home drome during my next few flights. But I guess I'm still having trouble determining what advantage I have by flying a base and final leg low and fast. Would you apply the same method for an approach over tall trees? Even if it meant losing sight of your intended touch down point during much of the final leg? As an aside, I'll suggest that best way to avoid wires is to land in the very center of the biggest appropriately textured field you can find. If the field is more than 500 feet wide and you see no poles, you'll find no wires (unless of course, they're marked on your sectional!). Alas, we can't get farmers to grow turf in such proportions in appropriately spaced fields. |
#89
|
|||
|
|||
Marc,
Per earlier discussions, the spin is avoided by coordinating rudder with aileron input. The stall is avoided by decreasing angle of attack. Yes, aileron input will increase angle of attack at the tip, but in modern sailplanes, if you use an equal deflection of rudder, even on the cusp of a stall, a certified aircraft will not spin. Of course, this ignores other variables, and there's nothing like a few extra knots (read lower AOA) to keep things manageable. But we really should start discarding some of the old axioms. Or at least replacing them with more accurate ones. Let me give you an example for the sake of continuing the discussion on an interesting tangent. You are very close to the ground, turning base to very short final. In a twenty degree bank, you sense your speed has decreased and your bank is suddenly steepening. You fear that your wingtip will touch the tree tops before completing the turn. What do you do? Think this one through. According to an axiomatic approach, you make no aileron input because your fear entering a spin (or your muscle memory keeps you from doing it). Lowering your angle of attack means a momentary increase in sink rate. Kicking the rudder exclusively will also increase your sink rate, even if manages to slow or stop your roll momentarily. There's only one effective solution. Maybe we should spawn a new thread. Cheers, Chris |
#90
|
|||
|
|||
ADP wrote:
1. Failed to use proper check list. 2. The aircraft had not filed a flight plan. 3. Pilot failed to maintain proper terrain clearance. everyone nods heads solemnly in agreement with the wise sage who figured this one out too -- ------------+ Mark Boyd Avenal, California, USA |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
AOPA Stall/Spin Study -- Stowell's Review (8,000 words) | Rich Stowell | Aerobatics | 28 | January 2nd 09 02:26 PM |
SR22 Spin Recovery | gwengler | Piloting | 9 | September 24th 04 07:31 AM |
Spin Training | JJ Sinclair | Soaring | 6 | February 16th 04 04:49 PM |
Cessna 150 Price Outlook | Charles Talleyrand | Owning | 80 | October 16th 03 02:18 PM |
AOPA Stall/Spin Study -- Stowell's Review (8,000 words) | Rich Stowell | Piloting | 25 | September 11th 03 01:27 PM |