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

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 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

 

On Jan 2, 2013, at 7:15 AM, "David M. Powell CRFA" <superdmp@sonic.net> wrote:

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