Garfly

https://www.avweb.com/blogs/insider/Runaway-Terror-231851-1.html https://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/Pilots-Not-Told-About-737-MAX-Auto-Trim-System-Updated-231846-1.html

https://theaircurrent.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/B737-MAX-AD-1107.pdf FAA Issues Emergency Airworthiness Directive Against Boeing 737 Max 8

... and furthermore, when art imitates life, life fights back: Stills from Nausicaä of the Valley of the Wind https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P5ftsTVwTfs:130

Speaking of Japanese attention to detail and the pursuit of perfection; did anyone catch the documentary last Thursday (SBS Viceland) about Hayao Miyazaki, the famous animator, and director of The Wind Rises (among lots of others, including Porco Rosso)? THE WIND RISES The feature length documentary (called Miyazaki: the Kingdom of Dreams and Madness) was shot inside the Ghibli Studios over a full year during the making of The Wind Rises (an animated biopic about Jiro Horikoshi, renowned designer of the Mitsubishii Zero.) MIYAZAKI: THE KINGDOM OF DREAMS AND MADNESS I missed the first half of the documentary and was hoping to pick it up on SBS On-Demand, but, so far, I haven't seen it. But I did discover I could buy it (the doc) on YouTube premium so I will watch it in full later. It's a beautifully done film in the observational style. We learn a lot about the guy and his philosophy and his way of working just by hanging out over a long period; listening in - with the magic of subtitles - to his ordinary conversations with colleagues and employees. Miyazaki is an amazing person and, as it happens, a total aeroplane nut. (But who among us finds that a strange combo!!?? ;-) Here's Wiki about the doc, the man and his more aeronautical films: The Kingdom of Dreams and Madness - Wikipedia Hayao Miyazaki - Wikipedia The Wind Rises - Wikipedia Porco Rosso - Wikipedia (The fact that he named his animation studio "Ghibli" after an airplane - the Caproni_Ca.309 - indicates just how much of an aviation fanatic he has always been.)

Dying pilot tries to clear his name after fatal plane crash This relates to the earlier thread: https://www.aircraftpilots.com/threads/cessna-down-with-4-on-board.156745/

By the way, there's a fair bit of discussion online about the use of "Clear to Land" in the US as opposed to the rest. e.g: Question about "clear to land" instruction [Archive] - PPRuNe Forums Differences Between ATC In USA Vs UK - Airliners.net Here's one comment (from a Brit on Airliners.net): "In my 5 years of flying a 757 commercially I never experienced or saw any issues with ... late landing clearances. But I did have a problem wrapping my head around a landing clearance in the US, with 2 aircraft in front of you on final and one just about to vacate the runway. This shows another difference between the US and 'The World' - US controllers are very keen on pushing separation responsibility onto pilots. I prefer the 'talking traffic lights' to assume this responsibility, after all they're the ones sitting on the ground with the best overall view of the traffic situation. As we have been told more times than I care to remember, TCAS is not a separation tool, is not certified for such and not intended to be used as such. But in the US, pilots seem quite happy to report 'we've got the traffic on the fish finder', displaying both their love of slang and what seems to be a lack of understanding of what TCAS is designed to do."

Try this: https://www.courts.qld.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/578010/nif-millard-r-20180723.pdf

Huh? It was a stall spin, loss of control accident that could happen to any of us; that has happened to many of us. [Thanks to Powerin for linking to this Coroner's Report on Ross Millard's accident on another thread. https://www.courts.qld.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/578010/nif-millard-r-20180723.pdf ]

That being said, the above accident has several spooky similarities to the fatal Cirrus crash analysed in this video, below: In any event, the well considered conclusion of this analysis applies equally to both. Incidentally, I can't help thinking that the practice by US Tower controllers to issue landing clearances quite early in the sequence - and to more than one aircraft at a time - is unnecessary and likely to contribute to confusion - as it seems to have done in this case. I believe that in Australia, the usual terminology would be 'Continue approach' until the next-to-land aircraft was well established on final and the runway ahead was clear. Is that right? Can anyone enlighten us on this difference?

Yeah, according to the report, she was fully 20 Kts under flap retraction speed - and with power coming off - at the time of the stall. So I'd say it was less a case of unforgiving plane and more about unforgiving human factors (in this case stress overload - including, I'd say, an awareness of her passengers' mounting anxiety). That's my takeaway.

This fairly recent video "The Rudder - it gets no Respect" from the Air Safety Institute (AOPA USA) has, I see, rekindled the debate about the real causes of adverse yaw. Or rather, about the causes of the secondary effect of yaw. The vid deploys the conventional explanation: when an aircraft yaws, roll results from the inside wing's 'retreating' and thus going slower (around a circular path) than the outside one which therefore produces more lift. I remember reading, years ago, an aeronautical engineer (I'm pretty sure it was an Aussie in a local magazine) using maths to debunk this explanation. He reckoned that this supposed 'speed difference' through the air of the two wings would be negligible. I was totally persuaded by him then but unfortunately I can't find that article anymore. Anyway, I was interested to see this discussion arise in the YouTube comments: [EXCERPTS]: Garrett McEwen Who approved this crap? The yaw roll coupling does not occur because of a difference in airspeed between the wings. That's like idiot old wives tale "CFI aerodynamics" 3 REPLY Show more replies tomleonhartITC so how does yaw causes roll then ? 1 REPLY stlmusic Agree. It has to do with angle of attack of the wing and not one wing going faster through the air. The more dihedral the more affect. The reason for rudder in a turn is to offset the the force of adverse yaw created by the ailerons. If just rudder is used and no adverse yaw is created, you will decrease angle of attack on one wing while increasing on the other to the relative air. That creates the bank if only rudder is used. I've found that too many pilots have no idea what adverse yaw is and how it's created. Remember, lift creates drag - draw an imaginary line from leading edge of wing to trailing edge of aileron - you will see the angle of attack is greater when the aileron is down which creates both lift and drag. Push the stick to the left to bank left and the right aileron goes down and creates a higher angle of attack and the left wing aileron goes up and decreases angle of attack. This creates the bank but at the same time the wing with the most lift creates drag which is why the nose swings the opposite of the bank unless the rudder is used to offset this effect. Adverse yaw is actually a very good thing when used correctly. It is very helpful in crosswind landing. If you don't know how to use it to your advantage you might run out of rudder. If you understand how to use it you will be able to handle a much stronger crosswind. It's also important on takeoff. I have video (set to private video) of a new pilot at our field that ran a perfectly good airplane off the runway into a plowed field which flipped the plane over. The reason he crashed is that he tried using his ailerons to steer on the ground. The airplane started going to the right so he push the stick to the left in an attempt to steer left. What happened? The right aileron went down and created more lift while at the same time created more drag. So the airplane yawed to the right and off the runway he went. If you don't believe me, taxi down a runway at a good clip but not fast enough to fly. Without moving the ruder, give full aileron deflection one direction and you'll see the airplane go the opposite direction. It can be a very powerful effect. Show less 3 REPLY tomleonhartITC why are you talking about adverse yaw? That's yaw created by roll. In the video they mention roll created by yaw, 2 complete different things. 4 REPLY stlmusic They were wrong as Garrett pointed out. The intentional yaw with rudder creates bank but the main reason of the video was suppose to talk about the importance of the rudder (saying that pilots don't use it) but barely touched on the point of the real reason for the rudder while off the ground is to counter adverse yaw. If you don't understand adverse yaw then you don't understand how the rudder helps. That's why I talked about adverse yaw.

And more of his entertaining Cirro-centred vids here: Stefan Drury

But the problem is for a person to be 'assertive' in a given situation he/she really needs the confidence and the savvy as to what ought be asserted. Failing that, one's likely to fall back on the relative comfort that a posture of compliance affords. (I, myself have recurring nightmares where I'm in trouble with ATC ;-) In her situation - with her experience level - I too, would have been keen to do anything and everything that I was told to. Yes, one could say "unable" if one had a clear idea of what exactly you were able to do, as an alternative. (e.g: "We'll be in the Hudson".) But yes, perhaps "Standby" is something we could and should learn to say in such situations; whenever we feel overloaded and in danger of losing it. I tend to agree with Garrison (in his Flying article): "The pilot is unfailingly polite, composed and calm. She reads back clearances accurately, requests clarification when she needs to and does not appear to become flustered during the 18-minute-long attempt to land. I don’t know what the NTSB thinks she should have been more assertive about; perhaps they thought she should have been a man." Personally, I take two main lessons from this misfortune befalling a pilot who, I'm pretty sure, on another day, would have been judged at least as competent and careful as I am, myself, in general flying. (i.e 'acceptable') The first is that whilst you can get away with sloppy airmanship most of the time, in a stressful situation the merely sloppy turns deadly in an instant. And the second: whilst growing in confidence and competence by extending one's comfort zone, is desirable, we really shouldn't push ourselves too far or too quick, lest we find ourselves in situations beyond our skill level. Then it ain't fun no more.