APenNameAndThatA

Why does the race cost $7k? 

1 hour ago, Roundsounds said:

Still hung on IAS? Exceeding the critical angle of attack causes the stall and uncoordinated flight at the stall causes the spin. There’s a lot going on for the typical PPL holder following an EFATO, which is why it’s often best to not turn back.

 The post you quoted did not mention IAS. 

Power + attitude - hysteresis = performance. Who knew? 

15 minutes ago, Blueadventures said:

In gliding turning downwind to base to final the airspeed would drop a bit and students would put the nose down 'chasing the ASI number they wanted' instead of maintaining the attitude picture through the canopy.  Resulting in being over the desired / intended speed.  Only a couple of knots and there were a few seconds lag for the asi to catchup.  Apology if poor explaination.  Cheers.

Was the lag because the ASI took time to catch up ot because the airplane took time to accelerate. My guess is the latter, but I wasn’t there. 

As for the lag in airspeed indication, I had not thought of that. What is it? 

3 minutes ago, Roundsounds said:

You do realise there’s quite a lag in the indications associated with the pitot / static system fitted to light airplanes? This leads to people wasting valuable time chasing IAS and I believe leads to LOCi accidents. If you practice learning and  establishing glide attitudes for various types of flight, wings level, 30 degrees, 45 degrees angle of bank the IAS will follow.

That’s a bit of a straw man, but I’m sure an accidental one. When I drop the nose, and bank as the speed climbs, there is no time to chase an IAS. 

The other thing is, if I drop my nose below the horizon to get to a safe speed, can you explain when I’m going to get this site picture? You can’t because I went from nose up to nose down and flew straight through it. 

I agree that chasing an IAS is dangerous. I think that it is far safer to lower the nose lower than the horizon. If you do that, you get safe airspeed fast, without chasing it. 

On 29/8/2022 at 9:22 PM, Roundsounds said:

IAS means very little as you load up in a turn.
You need to be able to establish a known attitude to establish the glide. Given power + attitude = performance you only need to know the correct attitude given there’s no power. 

Power + attitude = performance isn’t actually true. Power + attitude + time + equilibrium = performance would be more accurate. 

If you are taking off and the engine stops, and you adopt the site picture for a Vy 45 degree banked turn, you could easily stall and spin. That is because there is every chance you will be going way less than Vy! 

On 29/8/2022 at 9:22 PM, Roundsounds said:

IAS means very little as you load up in a turn.
You need to be able to establish a known attitude to establish the glide. Given power + attitude = performance you only need to know the correct attitude given there’s no power. 

 When I practiced impossible turns at height, I would be climbing at Vy, close the throttle, wait three seconds to simulate fright, then start the turn. Because I was already slower than I wanted to be, and wanted to begin a tight turn ASAP, I dropped the nose well below the horizon, then began my turn, then started raising my nose. 

It would take a *lot* of practice to get that right relying on external sight picture, *and* the picture would be a bit different with idling engine vs stopped vs windmilling engine because the speed at different stages in the manoeuvre would change. I never really got around to establishing a glide because I was manoeuvring the whole time. 

You referred to establishing a glide. Well, if you are in cruise and the engine stops, you climb, gain height, and at Vy, establish the glide. You can’t tell from the airplane’s attitude when you get to Vy because you are climbing when it happens. 

Like the movie title says, IAS is everything everywhere all the time. 

65 kg sounds heaps to me. I am no expert. A Foxbat might be 20 kg. 

You’re not supposed to use the nose wheel for taxiing, 

3 hours ago, Thruster88 said:

It would seem unlikely that the student froze on the controls. He had been flying for 10 years and had 250 hours (that is an hour every second weekend over those years so not nothing). He had also previously taken an aerobatic trial flight in a Decathlon. He wanted to do the aerobatic endorsement in the C150. 

 

Would the student do the first spin or would the instructor demonstrate and talk through the procedure? 

I froze at the controls of a 4WD once, driving down a hill for fun. A pilot of a B36 Peacemaker froze on the controls even though he had been considered above average, 

Also, from an animal behavioural point of view, freezing happens *before* an animal has got so scared that they have run away. The point being that people can freeze when they are less frightened than they are capable of being. 

We don’t know if the student did any spins in the Decathlon. In my experience spins are vastly different from other aerobatic manoeuvres because they are so visceral for so long, (and also because of the delayed control response.) 

screw it in with a ratchet. I use the drill for a handle and in case i need to drill a pilot hole in harder ground, with the drill and a bit and brace. 

For soft earth, consider these. The tape measure is out about 30 cm iirc. Not cheap. Image upside down. 

8 hours ago, facthunter said:

No one else has bothered (I  think) so I won't be.  Don't take it as an insult but really there's a lot if BS out there. Hang in, but dig deeper.   Since I started here, 2006 I've posted lots of stuff on these matters. Nev

I don’t take anything as an insult, because social media is social media. But, saying something is wrong and refusing to say why is rude. Also, the idea that things can’t be discussed on forums is just silly. Forums and books are both written material after all. 

8 hours ago, facthunter said:

No one else has bothered (I  think) so I won't be.  Don't take it as an insult but really there's a lot if BS out there. Hang in, but dig deeper.   Since I started here, 2006 I've posted lots of stuff on these matters. Nev

Those were pretty much my own thoughts, that people should be taught properly about the elevator from the start. What are you talking about with “dig deeper”? I’m not going to review the literature about how to teach people to fly. What factual errors? 

On 10/8/2022 at 8:42 AM, facthunter said:

Sorry, there's so many factual errors there and wrong assumptions I don't know where to start. Get sources of more reliability. Nev

I would really appreciate it if you would make a start. 

On 10/8/2022 at 6:36 PM, Thruster88 said:

I agree there is no risk involved in spinning certified aircraft when done by appropriately trained pilots. I have done spins.

 

Chances of recovery from a spin in the circuit by a pilot that has had a few spin lessons would be almost zero? Let's face it no one accidentally spins in cruise flight.

 

If the the spin training makes pilots more aware of the risks of stalling in the the circuit then yes there is some benefit. The same result could be achieved by all student pilots being made to watch 20 mins of stall spin crashes as part of their licence.  Stall/ spinning to the ground = death

It improves your situational awareness and decreases the risk of panicking and pulling back on the stick. The benefit of spin recovery training is not recovery from spins.

On 7/8/2022 at 11:49 AM, Garfly said:

Yes, which is why Perdue in the video above says we must push when we're surprised to find ourselves nose-low hanging from the straps.

But any student doing Lesson One  "Effects of Controls" will have nowhere, yet, to put that knowledge.  Insisting on it so soon would put 'em in a pedagogical spin.

In the end, all learning is self-teaching.  And no matter what your instructor or text book has said about what the elevator does, it is only your muscle memory that will determine how you act in a crisis.  And it's not your instructor who is to blame for your muscles thinking that pulling will make the ground go away.  Every $100 hamburger run you've done since passing your test will imbed that idea. As Perdue says you need to do upset training (and re-training) so that your muscles will do the right thing - quick enough - to save the day, in an emergency.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I agree that there would be nowhere to put it the way things are currently taught, which, IIRC is primary and secondary effects of controls (in the pre-flight briefing) and straight and level fight (in the actual lesson). 

I suggest that the earliest briefing be about the elevator and main wing, rather than about all the controls. Start by discussing the elevator and the effect on angle of attack. Then mention inverted flight. The discuss the critical angle of attack and stalls. Then mention spins as a special type of stall. Then, during the flight, don't worry about the rudder and ailerons but worry about angle of attack. See how the nose comes up as the AOA increases? Do you want to do a stall? Yes? See how the stick coming back makes the nose go down? 

On of the flying Youtubers talks about the laws of learning. One of the laws is the law of primacy. That is, what you learn first, you learn best. If you teach the student right from the start that the nose going up when you pull back on the stick is just a special case, they will know it forever. I also agree with what you said about muscle memory. That is important, too. I also mentally rehearse, from time to time, as I am going about my normal day, easing back pressure, and moving the stick forward quickly. 

The bottom line is that the solution is to start off teaching the elevator rather than beginning with a more superficial treatment of all three controls. Also, if you started off with the elevator and AOA, when you went to teach ailerons, you could explain how the aileron can stall by increasing the AOA and thereby stop the habit of picking up a wing with ailerons before the habit started, or at least start down that path. 

13 hours ago, Garfly said:

I don't see anything amiss with what the book says.  It doesn't say "pulling back is what makes you go up". 

In my experience instructors are always at pains to point out that it's the throttle wot makes you climb - not the elevator (nomenclature notwithstanding ;- )

 

But yes, some things are drilled into ab initio flyers that do need to be undrilled, a bit, later, but I suppose it could hardly be otherwise.  Another example might be the exaggerated fear of banking instilled in beginners (clearly for good reasons).  It's often said that excessive bank-shyness can lead to the dangerous habit of ruddering around the base to final turn.  In any case, this is why advanced training - such as you did - is such a good idea.  I suppose all learning requires some unlearning along the way.  After all, what Jupiter is allowed, might not be permitted the cattle. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What’s wrong is that the book says that pulling back on the stick lifts the nose. It does, except in the emergencies when pulling back on the stick does the opposite. 🙄

Simpson Desert, South East Corner of NT. 

On 4/2/2022 at 7:40 AM, Jerry_Atrick said:

True-ish.. In straight and level flight, thrust = drag at that angle of attack. At normal angles of attack, when you raise the nose, you will have an increase angle of attack and thanks to inertia, the airspeed will hold for a bit. With the increase angle of attach and the same air mollecules going past, you will enter a climb. At that angle of attack (assuming a small increase), you may have excess thrust and be able to maintain the climb, although likely, to maintain the climb if pulling back the elevator at cruise, you will have to up the throttle or reduce the AoA slightly. Of course, you can be straight and level with a nose high attitude and the throttle rammed to the firewall.. I wouldn't pull back the control column at this stage, and I have no more thrust to apply - so to climb, counterintuitively, I have to ease up on the control column slightly and reduce the AoA.

 

Of course, I am talking fixed pitch props..

 

In the PPL syllabus (and I am assuming the RAA), you are taught when entering a climb or descent, power, attitude, trim.. and when levelling off, attitude, power trim I try and follow it, but don't always.. but invariably the change in AoA of lower powered a/c means at some stage you have to adjust the power. But power is the rate of ascent/descent control, and elevator is the airspeed control (within normal parameters of flight in piston engine aircraft, anyway).

 

 

Moral of the story - don't bleedin' well use the elevator for the climb or the descent - use the power first.. then get your airspeed with the elevator, then trim.. or at least that's how I have been taught.. (of course, minor deviations in height/altitude - yeah go for the elevator).

 

Re wake/vortex turbulence - the aircraft in front doesn't have to be too much bigger. Unfortunately, the PPL theory alludes to them aircraft having to be a lot bigger. I believe I suffered a wake turbulence problem on very late finals into Moorabbin while I was a student - and in a PA28 from memory (could have been a C150/152). I was bang on my speed (for once!) and there was a twin in front of me. No idea what type; bigger than an Navajo I think, but smaller than a king air (maybe a small one??). Well, I must have flown under its flight path because out of no where, my left wing decided it couldn't be bothered flying anymore and scared the living poop out of a solo-ing student. I was landing from the north ont rwy 18L, so coming on over the park (Kingswood park??) on a mild day with very light if any wind. So thermals or shear should not have been a problem. Scared the living carp pout of me, tbut thankfully, I read a book called "All About Stalls and Spins"  by Everett Gentry (a book I recommend) and forgot turning the control column and used rudder and judicious amounts of power.. I am sure it was wake turbulence, but thankfully not intense enough to spin me into the ground like this - which was in front of an AN2.:

 

[Edit] BTW, I don't blame the pilot for using aileron.. if you have used up all your options.. try something else (no matter how unlikely it is to get you out of the situation.. The state of mind at the time is such that what have you got to lose.

I wonder if you would have been better off using rudder and aileron to maintain coordinated flight? Of course, aileron alone would have been worst. 

On 10/12/2021 at 11:37 AM, Garfly said:

I don't think I've ever known an instructor to 'teach' that pulling back on the stick (always) makes you go up.  Lived experience does, though, because it mostly works that way.  But that's the whole point, I suppose, of upset recovery training; unlearning ingrained muscle memory.

It's like advanced driver training teaches that more braking ≄ more stopping, in all situations.  Yet we still hear of even very experienced pilots pulling back in panic to save themselves.  Anyway, great move to do that course.

Im not saying you’re wrong, but this is page 18 of Bob Tait’s Volume 1 of RPL/PPL. “Pulling back on the control column … higher nose attitude” What he said was true except for stalls, spins, spiral dives and inverted flight. It matters because what you learn first sticks. 

5 hours ago, marshallarts said:

Disappointing (for me) to see that the wing strut goes down to a point at the front of the entry door, not the back.  That means the strut basically bisects the field of view for both occupants. I like high-wings for the view downwards, but this is a spoiler in Cessnas and a lot of others.  It would be nice to have no struts, but if they must - quite a few modern high-wings attach the strut behind the doors, which is a lot better.  So yes, very Cessna-like, albeit undoubtedly much better performance.  But it's completely irrelevant for me, I'm not a potential builder, or buyer, of anything.

And yes rgmwa, I'm sure Vans have said that a tri-gear will happen at some stage - a competitor for the Glasair Sportsman maybe.

I’m not saying you’re wrong, but if the strut is in front of the door, exiting the aircraft while the engine is running is safer. 

I was paying $700 per month in Archerfield fir hangar space. If you find hangar space, it might be competing with someone who wants to hangar an SR22. 

19 hours ago, Methusala said:

 My grandpa told me when I was 5 years old, “There are 2 sides to all stories.”

The modern tragedy that is unfolding in northern Europe is blighted by the fact that the western media allows only one side to be reported. Western media relies on three news agencies for most international coverage. These are AP (US based), AFP (from France) and Reuters (UK).

 

Their reports on events in the Ukraine rely mostly on information helpfully provided by the Zelensky dominated Ukrainian govt. Often these reports are accompanied by statements to the effect that they have not been independently corroborated.

 

 

 

These reports are mostly based loosely on some facts but given a bias to throw responsibility on “those Russians”. For example the notorious shelling of the maternity hospital in Mariupol neglects to report that the hospital had been cleared of patients and taken over by Ukrainian troops as a lookout and fire base thus becoming a legitimate target for Russian attack.

 

 

 

Similarly, the shopping centre that Zelensky reported was occupied by 1,000 civilian shoppers had been closed for 4 months and was located adjacent to a factory used for storage of military equipment. Google images show few vehicles in the carpark. Again, Google images show that it was never directly hit but suffered some damage to its N/W corner from a strike some distance from the mall.

 

 

 

The latest “black flag” reported from Ukrainian sources, on an apartment block ostensibly as a cowardly attack by Russian forces on civilians turns out, as reported by a journalist from the New York Times, to have been taken over by Ukrainian troops, the civilian tenants having been advised to evacuate well before the shelling occurred. 10 elderly women declined to move and, tragically, became casualties. The majority of those wounded or killed were troops. The western media chooses to maintain silence on these facts and prefers the story as supplied by Ukrainian sources.

 

 

 

What is never discussed in our media is that Ukrainian forces, as a matter of tactics, set up their artillery in civilian populated centres using the inhabitants as human shields. These sights include schools, kindergartens and apartment blocks. This is an absolute war crime. Ukrainians are also using heavy artillery, including US supplied HIMARS guided rockets, to attack civilian targets, most commonly now in Russian controlled Donetsk.

 

 

 

This information is readily available from internet based sites. A little effort will enable access to alternate information sources. Do not accept any information from any source as being wholly reliable. The way to finding some semblance of actual events is to read widely and apply analysis till you are satisfied with you own judgements. Not everybody is inclined to put this effort into finding truth. But if you accept the common media’s version without doing this you cannot expect your opinion to have much value. The superb, adult diplomat, Sergey Lavrov, was stating the obvious when advising Penny Wong to do her homework and to read the widely available history of the west’s provocation, leading to Russia’s launch of their special military operation in Ukraine.

 

Try to see the big picture. Russia invaded Ukraine, and > 50 000 people got killed. It does not really matter if this building or that building got hit.