APenNameAndThatA

My bad!

I was talking about when the rudder is added when the wings are not level to begin with.

I don't get it. If you are in a coordinated turn and you stall, you unstall by releasing the back pressure. What has that got to do with keeping the wings level when you are flying straight ahead and stall. I'm not saying that keeping the wings level with the rudder isn't dangerous, I just don't know why from this.

Thank you for your reply! Ain’t no doubt about it, the FAA says to lower the nose first, and to later on level the wings with coordinated ailerons and rudder! What is is that makes keeping the wings level with the rudder (in a stall) dangerous?

To answer your question, stalls scare the s--- out of me. I am worried that if I had to correct one in real life that I would freeze - which means that it is a bit tricky practicing them on my own! I am perfectly aware that they are safe. I might try correcting them by easing the control column forward without worrying about using the rudder to keep the wings level. That might stop me worrying that if I don't keep the wings level I will spin. And die. Frozen.

I read about the Fly Better books by Noel Kruse on these forums, but want to amplify how good they are. Because they come as a (free) down loadable PDF, they are easy to put on an iPhone and listen to with NaturalReader Pro or similar. I have half way through the first of four books. Just by listening to the book, I have been able to picture in my mind just how Dutch roll works - something that I had given up ever understanding or picturing in my mind's eye. And if you plot the rectangular area from a point on the speed-drag curve, you have described the power required. Obvious, now it is mentioned. And if you have wind blowing over a church spire, you can view the situation as the church spire moving through the body of air. Obvious, too, but when I first thought of it, it did my head in. That means that next time I am sideslipping to the left, coming in to land, I can view myself as moving to the left through the air mass to catch up to the runway which is also moving through the air mass to the left. (But, TBH, this way of thinking about things does lose its utility when gusts come into play. Or does it? If the wind suddenly stopped, that would be, from my point of view, a gust from the right and the runway suddenly stopping moving. The problem is, why would the runway stop moving just because there was a gust from the right. The answer might be that, from the reference point of the wind, my aircraft was suddenly jerked to the right, for no reason.) In spite of the above, I think that he will very much emphasise *practicable* flying. I just havn't got far enough into the books.

He seems to land almost on all three wheels, much faster than a full stall. And therefore not protect his nose wheel at all. (Disclaimer: I have 40 hrs total time.)

That is impressive.

Wouldn’t a milling machine be a better idea? Been around for decades and don’t make things out of the crappest plastic known to humankind?

That is exactly what happened. The government deliberately restricted the number of medical students in Australia to reduce costs. When that blew up, we imported a huge number of international doctors.

Denied insurance means no premiums at all. Who would provide cover for that?

I'd never made the connection before: the faster you come in, the lower you AOA and the more likely you are to bang the nose wheel. Thanks.

Hats off to them. I think that they are far too bright to be bogans. Doing something like that surely is not easy. It is one step short of building your own flying machine with the pilot just beneath the rotors.

Fascinating. I thought that the Wirraway was an Australian design. I wonder if the Spitfire and Hurricane were too complex to build under licence? Edit: that was the Boomerang, 1942-45.

I am fine with HF training. From my point of view, the problem with AF's solution is that more training will not help. All pilots know not to be emotionally pressured into flying in bad weather. Six-monthly training about how to say "no" to people might work, but AF's solution seemed to be just more intensive training when people are given their qualifications.

A plague on both their houses. There is no way that extra human factors training is a good idea. My life is too short to work out if the ATSB cooked the books, but looks like they could have. I still think a dispatching system of some type would be the best way to avoid VFR into IMC accidents. I doubt there are enough instrument qualified pilots but might be wrong.

You might be right - it sounds like you are. The actual report does have a section about statistical significance. I would be interested to know what you think.

I should have been more clear. The patient and and GP could have skyped the specialist from the GP's office.

I was surprised to read that Angel Flight said that it was CASA who regulated things and not to blame them (Angel Flight), *and* they lobbied CASA to not regulate them or their pilots more fully! It seems that the problem is pilots feeling pressure and taking off into dicey weather. The obvious solution would be for a dispatcher of some type being involved. Perhaps volunteer flying instructors could have pilots describe the weather and etc to them and sign off on the trip. That would give the pilots an out. Or Angel Flight could do that themselves. There would be insurance issues to consider. One of the people who died had juvenile rheumatoid arthritis. That could have been managed by a GP and Skype I would have thought.

On ABC News Web Page https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-08-13/atsb-releases-findings-into-fatal-angel-flight-crash/11407294 That would explain the talks about being much more strict with Angel Flights. I don't know about the statistical significance of the difference and have not read the original report.

As someone else said, RPT should be doing a 1500 ft circuit and that should keep them out of the way, and everyone should have a radio at such a field. On the other hand, I do worry that someone (I) might “overfly” a field at 1500 when the field is big enough for planes that circuit at 1500. I don’t see how a RPT and a small aircraft will tangle at an airport. Their circuits are in different places... except on final where all the other manoeuvring will decrease the risk of a collision. ———- I only just found out that final is where 80% of collisions in the circuit occur. Seems that having a highwing with transparent doors will help: I will be able to see to the right during gentle left turns. Also, my plane descends at about 450 ft/min at 60kts, about a 9 degreed angle of descent. I don’t think anyone will be descending on top of me on final. I will need to be looking around more, not just looking at the airspeed and the piano keys. Also, I just found out that many collisions occur when a slow plane (me) is being overtaken. I need to look behind myself on downwind, particularly to the right (left circuit) ————- Sorry about the irritated comment. I take that back.

Tax dodges can’t pay for hobbies. You only get back 30 or ? 47c back per dollar.

According to the book The Killing Zone, “Eighty percent of traffic pattern midairs happen on final when the pilot’s complete concentration is on the upcoming landing.” That means that by avoiding the circuit, you skip where 20% of collisions take place and increase the risk where 80% of collisions take place. I’m pretty sure that means that you thereby increase your risk of collision. It is recommended that people don’t do straight-in landings. It irritates me when people come up with procedures that are ‘improvements’ in standard procedures. Disclaimer: 35 hrs total time.

AOPA says that the hazardous attitudes are being antiauthority, impulsivity, invulnerability, macho and resignation. They said that resignation was when someone does not do something because it feels too hard and/or one is exhausted. The writer used the example of being impaired because he felt airsick and using the wrong runway. I, myself, think that 'agreeableness' would be just as good a word as 'resignation'. To be completely frank, not speaking up to the pilot and CASA are examples of resignation. It is letting a dangerous situation persist because speaking up is difficult and conflict is unpleasant. A while ago I was doing circuits and was on downwind when a low-wing glider tug entered the same downwind a little above me and a little in front of me. (By "a little", I mean about two meters in front of me and 20 m above/to the right.) Towing a tow rope! I told CASA. I told the gliding club, who seem to be taking it seriously. Sure, I feel a bit of shame at dobbing, and a bit anxious that I have cut my own throat, but duty is duty. F---- that! Furthermore, I radioed the tug to say that he was above me on downwind and he did not even reply!

My understanding of the rules is that straight-in landings are legal but discouraged. That means that the best thing to do would be to join downwind, from the active side of the dead side. Disclaimer: 35 hrs total time.