motzartmerv

Not to be picky dave, but are you saying that the pilot in a sidelsip only uses rudder to steer? Or do they still use rudder and aileron together, all beit in a crossed fashion. If you tell me that a pitts pilot locks aileron solid and uses his feet to steer down final ALONE...I will come to Melbourne and eat the aeroplane..!!..

........

Perhaps you guys should start a separate thread? Its very informative but getting off track a bit..

That's a good idea;)

Thanx for the advice daffyd.

And in other news....... The RAA is under massive pressure from the coroner to make freedom losing changes to ALL of us.. And we wonder why?...

Having a good understanding of the secondary effects is important, and part of that understanding is knowing when NOT to use them, as in this discussion.:) Just curious oscar, why would you need to use rudder to stay level when being tugged too fast.?

Ps. I used to be a pick it up man, but I had some bad experiences with students doing this, and was shown a different way years later by another instructor.

That's ok POW, I'll try answer without putting my foot in it. Lol If you experience a wing drop and don't prevent the yaw but you DO un stall the wing, you can't be in a spin. To remain in auto rotation you have to be stalled. So you will still have a wing low condition but be flying, not stalled. The result? That depends on several things, like how low the nose got? How fast you are when you recover etc, but generally ( and I do mean generally) you will just fly out of the nose low wing low with normal control inputs. Yes, I hve had aircraft get upset by not preventing yaw and start to auto rotate, and yes, I have had them flick the other way when trying to pick up the wing. The later is far more violent, in my experience, then the former. If you are not stalled, you can NoT be spinning:) Cheers

Been several people charged with misuse of an aeroplane due To low flying . ;)

Pow. The key statement is "pick up the dropped wing" . Preventing yaw with opposite rudder is certainly what we need to do. ( if anything) . But actually bringing the wing up with rudder is only going to induce yaw in the opposite direction which could lead to an auto rotation in the opposite direction. There Is still a large school of thought that say pick it up with rudder, but I think the idea of preventing yaw is deffinately becoming the normal way. All this is of course theoretical and should not replace what your instructor taught you. Cheers

Dynamic + static?

Bumma.. Would have been cool!!

Did you check it out Nev? Might have been Charles?

What's funny keenaviator?

Gibbo. Report that to the police. That constitutes a crime under the missuse of an aeroplane act (i think). Dont bother with the RAA, they wont do sh!t.. Go to CASA and the cops.

No Bob, the system checked out..

We picked up a Senneca from a strip out west once. the pitot must have had dried mud in it, as we flew through the soup to get it home the IAS failed, due to the moisture in the pitot. The chief looked at me and grinned and said , "o]h good, some IAS failure practice for your approach"..lol..At night, in the rain...he's a braver man than I!!!!.. Doesnt really mean much to say set a familiart attitude and power setting for the apporoach when its your first time flying the thing...lol..Ahhh...good times!!!

Agreed nev. AIS failure is an absolute must!!. I dont just use it as failure mode practice either. I often cover the dash in early circuits to get pilots to fly the attitude and stop chasing IAS. Particularly with glass, which is good, it usually just means turning the screen off. (get ready for the on slaught of people telling how dangerous this is) Thinking about the Jab with the over reading IAS in the slip. It must be related to the pitot head itself. The static system is identical to other jabs we have that dont display this characteristic. The 170 for instance has an identical static port but the skinny tube with a hose attached to the wing strutt for the pitot, and doesnt over read in the slip.

Not at all..Just good to see thats all.. builds confidence in the product..

Lol..Dam..The race is on..Its not if...Its WHEN!!! Wow, a company standing behind the reliability of their product. Refreshing....

Im not sure col. I know Jill is around the proposed changes having drafted them (or so I believe). Perhaps if you give her a call? At a recent audit she mentioned several changes that were drafted and that its in CASA's hands now, which we all know, but she certainly wasnt holding things close to her chest so to speak. From memory, there was mention of a facility for experienced GA pilots to bypass some of the CFI requirements, removal of the nose wheel tailwheel thing. Some changes to L1 requirements, a more in depth student record and formalisation of the syllabus, and a requirement for all CFI's to test on the same criteria. That's what i recall, but please dont take it as Gospel as it was just idle chit chat., Give her a call im sure she will give you the skinny!!!

I think there was more a little while back, maybe they only show us one change at a time so we dont have coronary's!!

Thats fair enough Bob, but from an instructing point of view we have to point out that the IAS does read erroneously on the dangerous side in aggressive sideslips on that particular system. While on others it reads the other way. i wonder how this design standard would be applied to an aeroplane with an approach speed of say 40 kts. The error "allowable" by the standard would be greater than 10% of the IAS.. Interesting..

If you log into the RAA website there is stacks of info there. Including, proposed ops manual changes.