Todd, I think we are of a similar
mindset when it comes to corporate or business [charter?] aviation.
My point is/was simply this. All certified types of planes are
tested to aerdynamic stall. They are validated to be recoverable from
stall, the appropriate stall warning systems are installed and calibrated
accordingly. Then the pilots who fly them day to day are taught [in type]
slow flight, approach to stall [identification of impending stall] and recovery.
In my experiance, most flight departments train in this at least annually if not
more regularly [I know some of you jet drivers go to sim courses every 6 months,
in my case it's either sim or in-plane training annually]. Btw, V1 cuts aren't
practiced on this side of the border either, I've done all of mine 'in-sim' as
well.
I'm not advocating stalling a Citation X or similar aircraft, however when we
fly our Lancairs for the first time, we
are the test pilots. [if we don't want to properly test fly them, then
maybe test pilots should be hired who have the skills to do so, maybe testing
apparatus should be used as well; ie-spin chute system]. This means [in my
opinion] we should TEST the airframes the same way the test pilots have tested
the Citation X's or Hawker-700/800/1000 or G-IV or 650 or whatever... they've
ALL been tested [well, other than a large part of the Lancair fleet]. Once
testing is complete and the stall warning devices are calibrated then it's
practicing approach to stalls only.. the aircraft doesn't need to be stalled
again, granted there is no aerodynamic alterations ever completed. If there is
[such as your Hawker experiance] then the a/c needs to have the stall warning
devices calibrated again which would require additional stall testing.
The predominant mindset with many Lancair drivers/owners is.. don't stall
test and don't train for it [in type]. Yet people wonder why there is such a
large gap between the statistic's of business aviation and GA flying and or why
Lancairs have the worst record of pretty much any other type of (GA)
aircraft. Some owners HAVE taken the time to tame the stalls on their
Lancairs. If a select few can do it then it's 'possible' for every
single Lancair airframe to have it done to the same degree [in my opinion].
Thats not to say that the 'taming/tuning' will be the same on every airframe but
it IS possible.
I see a large gap between the way the 'rest of the aviation world' and the
'Lancair world' views this segment of flight and flight testing [and continual
training]. To me it's as plain as day but... then maybe I see things from a
angle that most others don't.. I dunno.
All I DO know is I won't fly in someone's Lancair [or any
experimental A/c] unless I know it's been stall tested and has the
proper [calibrated] warning systems on it. I will do these tests on mine before
ANYONE else fly's in it with me.
At the end of the day, thats all I CAN do.
Fwiw
Jarrett Johnson
235/320 -55% [and holding]
On Sat, 05 Jan 2013 11:19:59 -0500, Todd Long
<toddlong1@gmail.com> wrote:
I have type ratings in jets which I currently fly and turboprops. In
neither do we teach stalls. Approach to stalls yes. Completely different
animals. We teach approach to stall recognition. AOA and shaker get your
attention and just power out. Back in the hawkers when we removed and replaced
TKS leading panel edges we had to go do full stalls past the stick shaker. One
time we did end up on our back, continued the roll around to upright. Only
specially trained PICs were authorized to do these tests. I was the lowely
SIC at the 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
even got close. In high performance 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 series. 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 and shouldn't be flying it. Really? In
fortunately I do 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
unintentionally stalling stay on the ground. I don't need my insurance going any
higher from stupid accidents.
Sent from my iPad
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 the 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 not 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 year
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 pitch
angle.. it immediately transitions from many hundreds fpm of decent to a
couple thousand fpm of climb.. a really interesting experience compared to the
same 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
be 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
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 an
approach AND landing needs to be demonstrated [one engine in-op] and signed
off as completed before you'll get your ride approval to take your flight test.
Again, I can't remember the last time I heard of a twin engine training accident
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 while
doing type training [in simulators which duplicate the tested results]. If you
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
mistaken.
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 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 some
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 they
needed].
The 'blanket perspective' that high performance aircraft are not
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 STOL
airplane in some publications!] or the C425 I fly, [Cruise at 285knts, land at
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 out
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 they
maybe could have been, at least if they had people would have a better "jumping
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 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.
I guess if I'm going to fly w/ anyone else in my Lancair, I see it as my duty
to at least test to the stall and know how it behaves before I convince someone
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 'biten'
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 feel
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 of
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 'ride'
in the plane at a later date, then it should be tested at both ends of the
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 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 these
planes are assigned a 20hr[min] to 40hr test period, what else is there to do
for 40hrs in the prescribed 40nm test zone?
If on the other hand your not going to fly anyone else in your plane but just
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 far
as to build a spin chute system for it and I'll be doing it w/ a personal
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>
wrote:
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 sided
with stall training have warned about keeping coordinated (ball in the
center). I doubt that ANY inadvertent stall is accompanied by a centered
ball. I haven't stalled my ES.
Gary Casey
I have
made the decision prior to 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 into the green after wheels up; on landing, I approach well
above stall for my flap configuration, and let the speed bleed off only a few
feet above the threshold. 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 tank 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).
www.innovention-tech.com
|