X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Sat, 05 Jan 2013 11:19:59 -0500 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from mail-vc0-f173.google.com ([209.85.220.173] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 6.0.1) with ESMTPS id 5995925 for lml@lancaironline.net; Fri, 04 Jan 2013 17:06:31 -0500 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=209.85.220.173; envelope-from=toddlong1@gmail.com Received: by mail-vc0-f173.google.com with SMTP id f13so17020547vcb.18 for ; Fri, 04 Jan 2013 14:05:57 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.58.243.166 with SMTP id wz6mr80226817vec.28.1357337156963; Fri, 04 Jan 2013 14:05:56 -0800 (PST) X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from [10.84.173.210] (mobile-198-228-235-211.mycingular.net. [198.228.235.211]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id z20sm47407677vds.12.2013.01.04.14.05.55 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Fri, 04 Jan 2013 14:05:56 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: [LML] Re: stalls References: From: Todd Long Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-663FA942-15AD-4252-92E1-CBE81BAB15CC X-Mailer: iPad Mail (9B176) In-Reply-To: X-Original-Message-Id: <9A81037F-2496-4768-9BF2-5C1C82DC92A4@gmail.com> X-Original-Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2013 16:06:17 -0600 X-Original-To: Lancair Mailing List Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0) --Apple-Mail-663FA942-15AD-4252-92E1-CBE81BAB15CC Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii I have type ratings in jets which I currently fly and turboprops. In neithe= r do we teach stalls. Approach to stalls yes. Completely different animals. = We teach approach to stall recognition. AOA and shaker get your attention a= nd just power out. Back in the hawkers when we removed and replaced TKS lead= ing panel edges we had to go do full stalls past the stick shaker. One time w= e did end up on our back, continued the roll around to upright. Only special= ly trained PICs were authorized to do these tests. I was the lowely SIC at t= he time. I believe the low altitude single engine ops that were discontinued= in the reference was V1 cuts. We only do these in the sim now. There were a= number of accidents doing these in training. I have 8000+ hours and have never unintentionally stalled any aircraft nor e= ven got close. In high performance airplanes the pilot needs to fly by the n= umbers not the seat of the pants. This goes for jets, turbo props and defin= itely the lancair IV series. I have 3000+ hours in a Ce-750 Citation X as PI= C and have no idea how it handles in a full stall. Using some people's logic= I'm just too scared and shouldn't be flying it. Really? In fortunately I d= o know how the Hawker 1000 can stall in some situations and don't want to go= there again. And that was fully certified. If you can't fly without uninten= tionally stalling stay on the ground. I don't need my insurance going any hi= gher from stupid accidents.=20 Sent from my iPad On Jan 4, 2013, at 13:01, "Jarrett Johnson" wrote: > This certainly isn't a new discussion and like Gary has mentioned, there i= s no single silver bullet to answer it. I've been in the thick of things in p= ast discussions but have tried to stay in the bleachers this time and observ= e the discussion. A couple clarifications that I see [keep in mind I'm Canad= ian and our rules are 'slightly' different, but not by much] and some-more '= opinion' to add to the mix: > =20 > 1-It was mentioned that pilots of twin engine planes don't do stall traini= ng,which [in Canada] is false, I do approach to stall training every year wh= ile training and flight testing for my PPC on the C425XP that I fly [for wor= k]. Stall recovery is great... bring it up to max torque and hold the pitch a= ngle.. it immediately transitions from many hundreds fpm of decent to a coup= le thousand fpm of climb.. a really interesting experience compared to the s= ame thing in a single [push, power, recover]. > 2-In Canada spin demonstrations AND training is a required step in getting= your private license, including w/ an instructor and solo spins and has to b= e demonstrated on the flight test. I can't remember the last time I heard of= a spin training accident [in Canada], it's been many years. > 3-In Canada low alt single engine ops are part of the multi training curri= culum, including a complete shutdown and restart of the engine [I've got pic= 's of my training, prop feathered and hanging out in the breeze] and an appr= oach AND landing needs to be demonstrated [one engine in-op] and signed off a= s completed before you'll get your ride approval to take your flight test. A= gain, I can't remember the last time I heard of a twin engine training accid= ent due to single engine ops [in Canada]. > 4-The thought that Jets aren't tested in slow flight [and slower] is false= as well, all of these jets are fully tested before being signed off an 'rel= eased' for production. All pilots in training then fly these maneuvers while= doing type training [in simulators which duplicate the tested results]. If y= ou think that once you get your Airline Transport License your done w/ stall= /approach to stall training for the rest of your flying career, your mistake= n. > =20 > I don't think anyone on the list advocating stall testing these planes, is= saying these planes need to be "deep stalled". However, approach to stall a= nd recovery at the first sign of stall is, in my opinion, valuable training/= testing of a new airframe. Unfortunately, while everyone avoids the stall si= de of the envelope, this doesn't mean the plane can't or won't [at some poin= t] get to that flight condition. To think otherwise is [again my opinion] 'T= itanic like' thinking [when they calculated how many life boats and vests th= ey needed]. > =20 > The 'blanket perspective' that high performance aircraft are not safe in t= he slow speed corner of the envelope is false, look at the PC-12 [Cruise at 2= 60-280+knts yet land at less than 90knts, heck they call it a STOL airplane i= n some publications!] or the C425 I fly, [Cruise at 285knts, land at less th= an 100 and stalls as viciously as .. well.. it ain't vicious at all], Malibu= , Meridian, TBM.. there are lots of higher performance aircraft out there th= at fly well in all corners of the envelope, it just so happens that Lancair'= s mandate was speed at all costs and the limited nature of the R&D program t= o clean these issues up were not pushed as far as they maybe could have been= , at least if they had people would have a better "jumping off point" to tam= e the stalls of their individual aircraft. Couple this with the small varian= ces plane to plane due to building tolerances, ever increasing gross weights= and you get a plane w/ potentially a nasty stall. That isn't to say that it= 's not 'tameable' or correctable should it have more 'teeth' than expected. > =20 > I guess if I'm going to fly w/ anyone else in my Lancair, I see it as my d= uty to at least test to the stall and know how it behaves before I convince s= omeone else to come for a ride. I'd rather kill myself in the testing than p= ossibly myself and my 5yr old son or 3yr old daughter [both of which have be= en 'biten' by the bug and LOVE flying w/ me in the 425] or my wife or my mot= her or father etc etc. I want my family to enjoy what I've built but I could= n't feel good/safe about it if I didn't fully vet it and test those [potenti= ally] darker corners of the envelope. I couldn't imagine how I'd feel if I'd= had an 'incident' which snowballs into loss of life etc.[of course after 'l= oss of life' I'm not 'thinking or feeling' anything but that ride down to 0 f= rom 10,000ft while being out of control... I'm pretty sure I'd be thinking, e= sp w/ a family member along for the ride.. that's the stuff of nightmares..= ] > =20 > In my opinion, if your going to take other innocent individuals for a 'rid= e' in the plane at a later date, then it should be tested at both ends of th= e envelope prior to their experience. At least tested to the stall point [no= t nesc a deep stall and not intentionally to spin it but at least know where= it stalls and how it recovers etc] and to Vne [plus the required margin] to= ensure there is no flutter at that end of the spectrum either. Most of thes= e planes are assigned a 20hr[min] to 40hr test period, what else is there to= do for 40hrs in the prescribed 40nm test zone? > =20 > If on the other hand your not going to fly anyone else in your plane but j= ust go out and enjoy it yourself, then have at er' in any way you see fit. > =20 > I will be 'approach to stall' testing my plane, Heck I might even go as fa= r as to build a spin chute system for it and I'll be doing it w/ a personal c= hute on as well [I've survived skydives a couple times] that is, when-ever i= t gets done... [geez it's been 'in-progress' for years.. sigh... ] > =20 > Jarrett Johnson > 235/320 55% [and currently holding] > =20 >=20 >=20 > On Fri, 04 Jan 2013 10:09:03 -0500, Gary Casey wrot= e: > I don't know if there is a single right or wrong answer to this controvers= y, but here are a couple of observations: > Years ago, twin engine training required demonstration of low-altitude eng= ine-out proficiency. That requirement was dropped and the overall safety im= proved. Years ago, spin demonstrations were required and then dropped - saf= ety improved. Another observation: All that have sided with stall training= have warned about keeping coordinated (ball in the center). I doubt that A= NY inadvertent stall is accompanied by a centered ball. I haven't stalled m= y ES. > Gary Casey > =20 > On Jan 2, 2013, at 7:15 AM, "David M. Powell CRFA" wr= ote: >> I have made the decision prior to purchasing to avoid stalls altogether i= n my 360. After reading the stall and stall spin accident information, I jus= t don't think it's worth the risk. On take-off, I stay in ground effect for t= he half second it takes to make it into the green after wheels up; on landin= g, I approach well above stall for my flap configuration, and let the speed b= leed off only a few feet above the threshold. During normal flight, I don't e= ven get near a typical slow flight speed. Too many variables in a home built= airplane with no precise envelope, a header tank that is PROBABLY where I t= hink it is, but could be off by 30 or 40 pounds if the gauge is stuck; possi= ble extra wait in the tail area (water retention after heavy rain). >=20 >=20 >=20 > =20 >=20 --Apple-Mail-663FA942-15AD-4252-92E1-CBE81BAB15CC Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8
I have type ratings in jet= s which I currently fly and turboprops.  In neither do we teach stalls.= Approach to stalls yes. Completely different animals.  We teach approa= ch to stall recognition. AOA and shaker get your attention and just power ou= t. Back in the hawkers when we removed and replaced TKS leading panel edges w= e had to go do full stalls past the stick shaker. One time we did end up on o= ur back, continued the roll around to upright. Only specially trained PICs w= ere authorized to do these tests.  I was the lowely SIC at the time. I b= elieve the low altitude single engine ops that were discontinued in the refe= rence was V1 cuts. We only do these in the sim now. There were a number of a= ccidents doing these in training.
I have 8000+ hours and have neve= r unintentionally stalled any aircraft nor even got close.  In high per= formance airplanes the pilot needs to fly by the numbers not the seat of the= pants.  This goes for jets, turbo props and definitely the lancair IV s= eries. I have 3000+ hours in a Ce-750 Citation X as PIC and have no idea how= it handles in a full stall. Using some people's logic I'm just too scared a= nd shouldn't be flying it.  Really?  In fortunately I do know how t= he Hawker 1000 can stall in some situations and don't want to go there again= . And that was fully certified. If you can't fly without unintentionally sta= lling stay on the ground. I don't need my insurance going any higher from &n= bsp;stupid accidents. 

Sent from my iPad

On Jan 4,= 2013, at 13:01, "Jarrett Johnson" <hjjohnson@sasktel.net> wrote:

This certainly= isn't a new discussion and like Gary has mentioned, there is no single silver bullet to answer it. I= 've been in the thick of things in past discussions but have tried to stay in th= e bleachers this time and observe the discussion. A couple clarifications that= I see [keep in mind I'm Canadian and our rules are 'slightly' different, but n= ot by much] and some-more 'opinion' to add to the mix:

 

1-It was mentioned that pilots of twin engine planes don't do stall training,which [in Canada] is false, I do approach to stall training every y= ear while training and flight testing for my PPC on the C425XP that I fly [for work]. Stall recovery is great... bring it up to max torque and hold the pit= ch angle.. it immediately transitions from many hundreds fpm of decent to a= couple thousand fpm of climb.. a really interesting experience compared to t= he same thing in a single [push, power, recover].

2-In Canada spin demonstrations AND training is a required step in gettin= g your private license, including w/ an instructor and solo spins and has= to be demonstrated on the flight test. I can't remember the last time I heard o= f a spin training accident [in Canada], it's been many years.

3-In Canada low alt single engine ops are part of the multi training curriculum, including a complete shutdown and restart of the engine [I'= ve got pic's of my training, prop feathered and hanging out in the breeze] and a= n approach AND landing needs to be demonstrated [one engine in-op] and si= gned off as completed before you'll get your ride approval to take your flight te= st.=20 Again, I can't remember the last time I heard of a twin engine training acci= dent due to single engine ops [in Canada].

4-The thought that Jets aren't tested in slow flight [and slower] is= false as well, all of these jets are fully tested before being signed off an= 'released' for production. All pilots in training then fly these maneuvers w= hile doing type training [in simulators which duplicate the tested results]. If y= ou think that once you get your Airline Transport License your done w/ stall/approach to stall training for the rest of your flying career, yo= ur mistaken.

 

I don't think anyone on the list advocating stall testing these= planes, is saying these planes need to be "deep stalled". However, appr= oach to stall and recovery at the first sign of stall is, in my opinion, valuable= training/testing of a new airframe. Unfortunately, while everyone avoids the= stall side of the envelope, this doesn't mean the plane can't or won't [at s= ome point] get to that flight condition. To think otherwise is [again my opinion= ] 'Titanic like' thinking [when they calculated how many life boats and vests t= hey needed].

 

The 'blanket perspective' that high performance aircraft are no= t safe in the slow speed corner of the envelope is false, look at the PC-12 [Cruise at 260-280+knts yet land at less than 90knts, heck they call it a ST= OL airplane in some publications!] or the C425 I fly, [Cruise at 285knts, land a= t less than 100 and stalls as viciously as .. well.. it ain't vicious at all], Malibu, Meridian, TBM.. there are lots of higher performance aircraft o= ut there that fly well in all corners of the envelope, it just so happens that Lancair's mandate was speed at all costs and the limited nature of the R&= ;D program to clean these issues up were not pushed as far as th= ey maybe could have been, at least if they had people would have a better "jump= ing off point" to tame the stalls of their individual aircraft. Couple this with= the small variances plane to plane due to building tolerances, ever increasing g= ross weights and you get a plane w/ potentially a nasty stall. That isn't to say t= hat it's not 'tameable' or correctable should it have more 'teeth' than expected.

 

I guess if I'm going to fly w/ anyone else in my Lancair, I see it as my d= uty to at least test to the stall and know how it behaves before I convince some= one else to come for a ride. I'd rather kill myself in the testing than possibly= myself and my 5yr old son or 3yr old daughter [both of which have been 'bite= n' by the bug and LOVE flying w/ me in the 425] or my wife or my mother or= father etc etc. I want my family to enjoy what I've built but I couldn't fee= l good/safe about it if I didn't fully vet it and test those [potentially= ] darker corners of the envelope. I couldn't imagine how I'd feel if I'd = had an 'incident' which snowballs into loss of life etc.[of course after 'loss o= f life' I'm not 'thinking or feeling' anything but that ride down to= 0 from 10,000ft while being out of control... I'm pretty sure I'd be thinking, esp w/ a family member along for the ride..  that's the stuff= of nightmares..<shutter>]

 

In my opinion, if your going to take other innocent individuals for a 'ri= de' in the plane at a later date, then it should be tested at both ends of t= he envelope prior to their experience. At least tested to the stall point [= not nesc a deep stall and not intentionally to spin it but at least know where i= t stalls and how it recovers etc] and to Vne [plus the required margin] t= o ensure there is no flutter at that end of the spectrum either. Most of these= planes are assigned a 20hr[min] to 40hr test period, what else is there to d= o for 40hrs in the prescribed 40nm test zone?

 

If on the other hand your not going to fly anyone else in your plane but j= ust go out and enjoy it yourself, then have at er' in any way you see fit.

 

I will be 'approach to stall' testing my plane, Heck I might even go as f= ar as to build a spin chute system for it and I'll be doing it w/ a person= al chute on as well [I've survived skydives a couple times] that is, when-ever it gets done... [geez it's been 'in-progress' for years.. sigh... ]

 

Jarrett Johnson

235/320 55% [and currently holding]

 



On Fri, 04 Jan 2013 10:09:03 -0500, Gary Casey <casey.gary@yahoo.com> wro= te:

I don't know if there is a single right or wrong answer to this controversy, but here are a couple of observations:
Years ago, twin engine training required demonstration of low-altitude engine-out proficiency.  That requirement was dropped and the overall safety improved.  Years ago, spin demonstrations were required and then= dropped - safety improved.  Another observation:  All that have si= ded with stall training have warned about keeping coordinated (ball in the center).  I doubt that ANY inadvertent stall is accompanied by a center= ed ball.  I haven't stalled my ES.
Gary Casey
 
On Jan 2, 2013, at 7:15 AM, "David M. Powell CRFA= " <superdmp@so= nic.net> wrote:
I have made the decision prior t= o purchasing to avoid stalls altogether in my 360. After reading the stall and= stall spin accident information, I just don't think it's worth the risk. On take-off, I stay in ground effect for the half second it takes to make it in= to the green after wheels up; on landing, I approach well above stall for my fl= ap configuration, and let the speed bleed off only a few feet above the thresho= ld.=20 During normal flight, I don't even get near a typical slow flight speed. Too= many variables in a home built airplane with no precise envelope, a header t= ank that is PROBABLY where I think it is, but could be off by 30 or 40 pounds if= the gauge is stuck; possible extra wait in the tail area (water retention after heavy rain).
=



 


= --Apple-Mail-663FA942-15AD-4252-92E1-CBE81BAB15CC--