Mooney down in Jefferson county, West Virginia

[skykrawler]

14 hours ago, ArtVandelay said:

How does that tape work on glass?
A better idea is just add an auditory alert when speed drops below a user setting. Easy to do with glass, and while not accurate, could even be done with a portable using ground speed.

If you want to use ground speed you are missing the point.

Our airspeed indicators already show stall speed with flaps and gear retracted - for max GW level flight - which is the bottom of the green arc.  The proposed mark just tells you to pay more attention when clean and below airspeed where maneuvering brings you closer to the stall AOA.  Modern airliners show maneuvering margins on the speed tape relative to the deployed flaps and current gross weight.

 

[ArtVandelay]

If you want to use ground speed you are missing the point.
Our airspeed indicators already show stall speed with flaps and gear retracted - for max GW level flight - which is the bottom of the green arc.  The proposed mark just tells you to pay more attention when clean and below airspeed where maneuvering brings you closer to the stall AOA.  Modern airliners show maneuvering margins on the speed tape relative to the deployed flaps and current gross weight.
 

And you missed the point of my post :
But they don’t provide auditory alerts, personally I don’t look at the airspeed indicator except in IMC.
This doesn’t work with glass, but auditory alerts would.

I wonder how many airline accidents I can find where airspeed was slow but pilot didn’t recognize it.


Tom

[Hank]

1 hour ago, ArtVandelay said:

I wonder how many airline accidents I can find where airspeed was slow but pilot didn’t recognize it.

I can think of one Air France Airbus, where the Captain didn't know the other one was holding full Up Elevator at / below stall speed, despite rapidly decreasing altitude. But that's more than the pilot getting slow, it's also an HMI issue where the fly-by-wire system doesn't let either pilot know what the other one is doing. 

[skykrawler]

4 hours ago, ArtVandelay said:

And you missed the point of my post :
But they don’t provide auditory alerts, personally I don’t look at the airspeed indicator except in IMC.
This doesn’t work with glass, but auditory alerts would.

I wonder how many airline accidents I can find where airspeed was slow but pilot didn’t recognize it.


Tom

I must have.

Plenty have landed gear up with the horn wailing.

You might find a few - Colgan Air for example.   There have been some wind-shear accidents.  But you will find a lot more in general aviation.

[Guest]

6 hours ago, ArtVandelay said:

And you missed the point of my post :
But they don’t provide auditory alerts, personally I don’t look at the airspeed indicator except in IMC.
This doesn’t work with glass, but auditory alerts would.

I wonder how many airline accidents I can find where airspeed was slow but pilot didn’t recognize it.


Tom

Here’s one, Turkish Airlines 1951, stalled on approach in Amsterdam.

Clarence

[ArtVandelay]

Here’s one, Turkish Airlines 1951, stalled on approach in Amsterdam.
Clarence

/sarcasm on

If only they had a piece of tape in their airspeed indicator, this would not have happened.


Tom

[Bob_Belville]

+1 for “Stick and Rudder”. First published in 1944, I think, much of the book deals with the primary cause of fatal accidents which he identifies as stall spin! Wolfgang blames poor training, bad instruction.

 

He explains that if the plane is trimmed for a level speed sufficiently over Vs, banking the wings will not cause a stall... unless the pilot dislikes the pitch down view that is what happens when you bank with neutral elevator so he pulls back on the stick. He wants instructors to drill into the student until it becomes their non-thinking instinct to not pull the stick back in a bank.

 

He would not hang his hat on the asi! (He would like AoA of which I have 2. The CYA 100 costs about $1000 installed.)

 

Nothing new under the sun.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[ArtVandelay]

He explains that if the plane is trimmed for a level speed sufficiently over Vs, banking the wings will not cause a stall... unless the pilot dislikes the pitch down view that is what happens when you bank with neutral elevator so he pulls back on the stick. He wants instructors to drill into the student until it becomes their non-thinking instinct to not pull the stick back in a bank.

They do the opposite, PP test for steep turns requires minimal loss of altitude.


Tom

[brndiar]

OK, TURN- The secret of keeping a turn strictly level lies entirely in the proportion of BANK to BACK PRESSURE. Theoretically with 60 grad bank wou have 2Gs and x 1,4 Vs. By too little  pressure in turn - you loses altitude + initially you have slip, too much pressure - you gain altitude.  One more time- to  get a nice book turn -at any one moment the back pressure must be exactly RIGHT FOR THE STEEPNESS of BANK. At shallow turns there is a tendency to adjust the back pressure to bank und vice versa in the steep turn.  If during any part of turn the airplane slips, the reason ist almost certainly lack of sufficient pressure and correction should be done with increase the back pressure /NOT WITH RUDDER!!!/.

I personally like 45 grad turns, also in emergency, because 45 grad turn is  the most effective, with  load Factor 1,42 only  and does not increase your stall speed dramatically (1,2xVs).

BUT !!!!!- all this  applies to nice, book, coordinated turn (+ BACK PRESSURE ist correct for that BANK).  IN OTHER WORDS SELTEN the case in stress and case of abrupt turn. Skidding turn ( in emergency often the case + classically, base to final turn) can trick you to PULL MORE AND THAT IS THE PROBLEM. In the worst case this can lead to crossed control  with stick in the right rear corner (in case of left spin). No Tape (Orange, black, pink ... whatever) will help you here.

The anatomy of that Problem is nice explained in Langenwiesche Book (60 year old) written in Pilot language (no Maths, no Formulas). In this book for me most valuable ist chapter The dangers of the air.

 

m.

Edited November 11, 2019 by brndiar

[eman1200]

.....Another example only yesterday, a student pilot at my club came in having done his qualifying cross country.  Said the weather was a bit dodgy, "descended to 1600 to get under some cloud" I asked what his MSA was and he said 1700, Iasked him again what his MINIMUM SECTOR SAFETY ALTITUDE  was, he said 1700, so why "did you descend below your minima?"  Etc....

Would you prefer him going into the clouds?

[Cyril Gibb]

17 hours ago, Hyett6420 said:

Another example only yesterday, a student pilot at my club came in having done his qualifying cross country.  Said the weather was a bit dodgy, "descended to 1600 to get under some cloud" I asked what his MSA was and he said 1700, Iasked him again what his MINIMUM SECTOR SAFETY ALTITUDE  was, he said 1700, so why "did you descend below your minima?"  Etc. 

If you are referring to the ICAO definition of MSA, it means Minimum Sector Altitude.  The MSA guarantees 1000'  clearance within a 25 NM radius.  A student pilot dropping 100' and hence keeping 900' feet above obstacles to avoid entering cloud sounds like a reasonable, safe and prudent action.  He should be applauded for making a good decision under the circumstances.

[brndiar]

On 11/11/2019 at 10:26 AM, Hyett6420 said:

Ill just reiterate, the airlines have a better accident record than GA does, quoting books from decades ago whentheir accident record was similar to ours, hmm, ill let you draw the conclusions from that.  

The tape idea is for anything that you are doing except on final. So yes it will help the base leg final turn scenario, it will help the engine out on take off scenario.  Will it stop the pilot pulling back, no, nothing but a rap on the knuckles with a hammer will stop that, but as one of our supermarket adverts says, "every little helps".  

Another example only yesterday, a student pilot at my club came in having done his qualifying cross country.  Said the weather was a bit dodgy, "descended to 1600 to get under some cloud" I asked what his MSA was and he said 1700, Iasked him again what his MINIMUM SECTOR SAFETY ALTITUDE  was, he said 1700, so why "did you descend below your minima?"  Etc.  

If we do not learn from the Airlines our accident rate will never go down.  

Hope not off topic. With better accident record of airliner we have something to learn from them.

But WHAT?????? 

I would like to put here some topic to "tematizieren" 

1, GA Fatal Accident Rate Continues to Fall:  (28th Joseph T. Nall Report General Aviation Accidents in 2016) https://www.aopa.org/-/media/files/aopa/home/training-and-safety/nall-report/28th-nall-report/non-commercial-fixed-wing/non-commercial-fixed-wing-totals.pdf?la=en&hash=0B36F11DC48273D0A18458FF8FA6BBFDF4A8B8DE

2, Pilots involved in fuel management accidents (accident lethality%) :  ATP 12.5%,     Private 9.7%        CFI on board !!! 18.8%

3, Pilots involved in maneuvering accidents: ATP 40.0% of Fatal accidents with 66.7% Lethality.     Private 24.0%  with 54.5% Lethality.      CFI on board 37.2%!!!! of all accidents with 62.5% Lethality.

4, The FAA has formally requested the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) to address the issue of declining manual flight skills among airline pilots. In a brief submitted to ICAO, the agency says pilots have become too dependent on aircraft systems and either haven’t adequately learned or have not maintained their ability to manually control their aircraft, particularly during the emergencies that result in loss of the systems. “When automation ceases to work properly, pilots who do not have sufficient manual control experience and proper training may be hesitant or not have enough skills to take control of the aircraft,” the FAA report to ICAO said.

m.

 

Edited November 13, 2019 by brndiar

[jetdriven]

It appears you’re trying to insinuate that ATPs have more accidents or something.

i don’t know where you got those numbers but they are completely cherry picked.  
from your link. 
 

 

Edited November 12, 2019 by jetdriven

[brndiar]

37 minutes ago, jetdriven said:

It appears you’re trying to insinuate that ATPs have more accidents or something.

i don’t know where you got those numbers but they are completely cherry picked.  
from your link. 
 

 

Thanks for Reply.  Please, see Figure 1.5.5: Pilots involved in maneuvering accidents in the Report  and Figure 1.4.5: Pilots involved in fuel management accidents and there  % Lethality. Point 4 is from FAA. I am not trying to offend anyone. Just statistic.

Where is the mistake?

Sorry.m.

[mike_elliott]

4 hours ago, jetdriven said:

It appears you’re trying to insinuate that ATPs have more accidents or something.

i don’t know where you got those numbers but they are completely cherry picked.  
from your link. 
 

 

Sure looks like the student has the best record from these stats

[tigers2007]

Those figures all note “non-commercial fixed wing”. I’d be willing to be that the ATP wrecks are connected to 70-85yr old ATP’s. Just think of how many more flight hours that PP and IR pilots fly per year over the students.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[brndiar]

2 hours ago, mike_elliott said:

Sure looks like the student has the best record from these stats

Students with best CFIs of the Word :-)))).... Sorry for sarkasmus.

[AH-1 Cobra Pilot]

1.  Totals may not mean much.  For instance, what is the per flight hour rate of accidents broken down by rating?  Do ATPs fly more hours?  Probably.

2.  A long time ago, I was told Army Aviators had three "danger zones":  200 hours, 1500 hours, and 4500 hours.  At 200, they just lacked experience; at 1500 hours, they were now capable of out-flying the aircraft; at 4500 hours, they grew complacent.

3.  Age and hours should be relevant to statistics; probably more so than the rating held.

4.  Recency is possibly VERY important to accident statistics.

5.  The combination of recency and total hours is probably MOST important to accident statistics.