X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2013 16:08:19 -0500 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from nm22-vm1.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com ([98.138.90.252] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 6.0.1) with ESMTPS id 5999545 for lml@lancaironline.net; Mon, 07 Jan 2013 13:50:03 -0500 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=98.138.90.252; envelope-from=randylsnarr@yahoo.com Received: from [98.138.90.52] by nm22.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 07 Jan 2013 18:49:30 -0000 Received: from [98.138.89.235] by tm5.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 07 Jan 2013 18:49:30 -0000 Received: from [127.0.0.1] by smtp120-mob.biz.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 07 Jan 2013 18:49:30 -0000 X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 839420.29764.bm@smtp120-mob.biz.mail.ne1.yahoo.com X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 X-YMail-OSG: G4rLMK8VM1l2JToeQGOsgKxqCCxS1e2yoQ6xceCoxyoZOcs 6FYsLhQ5NuWi7icGQ4Hr1xKKJxn9fPSeMMH6SX.Z5zGn3RGOKWvbkG9skaoQ a85TRYYMCAzdoiBiX4mR5nqEDDn_cg2ltgQBLKVFJkCWRQknJUWf40NBn9V8 .CHJWoJ.gI_.L34DobUNjMQqIqIY4LBvXTHxZPxpxKjqWnOz2CBtSu6S1MJ7 7PlhMz.tQ5GmrhG5WPwNORXCZYKDozWTKP2PyZaHywFgmNnSSTc9Jp7t5Ngb ArcIptkhnKecPuAnQFjYX1TYnPZJeQ5fOkpPbGg43pgiMyoTH8nvBLj5nN3z zboWWE2xZjpIUe0YYyvtRCswt.97eppf211an80sZhJgiYhjWeCCPFrzzJep 3pnrZmCkcMEd_eJdxGKoYp2KNdZzT4uUK1engJK74UweJvNpIbNC9HLCvOCT 5b6foEyOJyA53hfE.iAKdpzjFZf1xBNjhEDiSt03T2LPfpPXTVl1opyXXpFl xF8rJIhIQ3oKVyzUbDGK496u1IJ89Bktfaf.eBfitqqeFCx8- X-Yahoo-SMTP: tg4YEXeswBAq79ZTs5A79J5zDY9lAVNV Received: from [192.168.1.107] (randylsnarr@76.8.220.20 with xymcookie) by smtp120-mob.biz.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with SMTP; 07 Jan 2013 10:49:30 -0800 PST References: In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-A551E433-D9DC-4492-8E55-9A6584F739E2 X-Original-Message-Id: <91791121-CE9D-47D5-82DE-D23DEC9938CE@yahoo.com> X-Original-Cc: "lml@lancaironline.net" X-Mailer: iPad Mail (9A334) From: Randylsnarr Subject: Re: [LML] Re: stalls X-Original-Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2013 11:49:29 -0700 X-Original-To: Lancair Mailing List --Apple-Mail-A551E433-D9DC-4492-8E55-9A6584F739E2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii I am ready for a new fresh topic like header tank vs no header tank... Randy Snarr Sent from my iPad On Jan 7, 2013, at 11:26 AM, "Wolfgang" wrote: > The bad part about this "stall" discussion is that most people want to sta= y away from stalls all together. - - - That's ridiculous ! > If you want to call yourself a proficient pilot, you must be able to react= to most any circumstance, intended or not. > The only way to get to that point is training in all parts of the envelope= . Saying that the only time you will likely get to a stall is in the approac= h and then you don't have enough altitude for recovery is a foolish response= . Not training for certain circumstances because you're not "comfortable" in= said circumstances is courting disaster. > =20 > The Lancair is high performance and as such, stall characteristics have su= ffered. The stall comes on fast and with little warning. Learn to recognize i= t and train how to handle it. > =20 > . . . But those flight characteristics can be tamed without loss of perfor= mance. Stall strips would be the easiest way to increase the impending stall= warning time. Why they aren't more prevalent, I don't know. > =20 > Wolfgang > =20 > =20 > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Todd Long > To: lml@lancaironline.net > Sent: Sunday, January 06, 2013 10:19 AM > Subject: Re: [LML] Re: stalls >=20 > I agree that testing and systems calibration needs to be done for stall te= sting on new airframes. And new pilots need to learn approach to stalls and r= ecovery.=20 > The only thing I take issue with is where some people advocate everyone go= out and regularly practice full stalls and recovery. These are high perform= ance aircraft that are not and will never perform like certified airframes. M= ost got into the IV for the high speed. There were trade offs to get that. N= ot necessarily unsafe trade offs. But ones that mean it can not be treated l= ike a bonanza. We don't go fly swept wing jets like they were a bonanza. If y= ou are unwilling to realize that in the world of aircraft they are not all t= reated the same go back to certified slower planes. Se of us have spent our c= areers in high performance planes and know there are different operating and= training rules. Know what the plane will do but don't push it over the edge= thinking it will behave nicely.=20 >=20 > Typing and grammar errors courtesy of Siri and the iPhone. >=20 > On Jan 6, 2013, at 7:34, "Jarrett Johnson" wrote: >=20 >> Todd, I think we are of a similar mindset when it comes to corporate or b= usiness [charter?] aviation. >> =20 >> My point is/was simply this. All certified types of planes are tested t= o aerdynamic stall. They are validated to be recoverable from stall, the app= ropriate stall warning systems are installed and calibrated accordingly. Th= en the pilots who fly them day to day are taught [in type] slow flight, appr= oach to stall [identification of impending stall] and recovery. In my experi= ance, most flight departments train in this at least annually if not more re= gularly [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. >> =20 >> I'm not advocating stalling a Citation X or similar aircraft, however whe= n 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 wh= o have the skills to do so, maybe testing apparatus should be used as well; i= e-spin chute system]. This means [in my opinion] we should TEST the airframe= s the same way the test pilots have tested the Citation X's or Hawker-700/80= 0/1000 or G-IV or 650 or whatever... they've ALL been tested [well, other th= an a large part of the Lancair fleet]. Once testing is complete and the sta= ll warning devices are calibrated then it's practicing approach to stalls on= ly.. the aircraft doesn't need to be stalled again, granted there is no aero= dynamic alterations ever completed. If there is [such as your Hawker experia= nce] then the a/c needs to have the stall warning devices calibrated again w= hich would require additional stall testing. >> =20 >> 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) ai= rcraft. 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 ai= rframe to have it done to the same degree [in my opinion]. Thats not to say t= hat the 'taming/tuning' will be the same on every airframe but it IS possibl= e. >> =20 >> I see a large gap between the way the 'rest of the aviation world' and th= e 'Lancair world' views this segment of flight and flight testing [and conti= nual training]. To me it's as plain as day but... then maybe I see things fr= om a angle that most others don't.. I dunno. =20 >> =20 >> 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] warn= ing systems on it. I will do these tests on mine before ANYONE else fly's in= it with me. >> =20 >> At the end of the day, thats all I CAN do. >> =20 >> Fwiw >> Jarrett Johnson >> =20 >> 235/320 -55% [and holding] >>=20 >>=20 >> On Sat, 05 Jan 2013 11:19:59 -0500, Todd Long wrote= : >> I have type ratings in jets which I currently fly and turboprops. In nei= ther do we teach stalls. Approach to stalls yes. Completely different animal= s. We teach approach to stall recognition. AOA and shaker get your attentio= n and just power out. Back in the hawkers when we removed and replaced TKS l= eading panel edges we had to go do full stalls past the stick shaker. One ti= me we did end up on our back, continued the roll around to upright. Only spe= cially 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 discont= inued in the reference was V1 cuts. We only do these in the sim now. There w= ere a number of accidents doing these in training. >> I have 8000+ hours and have never unintentionally stalled any aircraft no= r even got close. In high performance airplanes the pilot needs to fly by t= he numbers not the seat of the pants. This goes for jets, turbo props and d= efinitely the lancair IV series. I have 3000+ hours in a Ce-750 Citation X a= s PIC and have no idea how it handles in a full stall. Using some people's l= ogic I'm just too scared and shouldn't be flying it. Really? In fortunatel= y I do know how the Hawker 1000 can stall in some situations and don't want t= o go there again. And that was fully certified. If you can't fly without uni= ntentionally stalling stay on the ground. I don't need my insurance going an= y higher from stupid accidents.=20 >>=20 >> Sent from my iPad >>=20 >> On Jan 4, 2013, at 13:01, "Jarrett Johnson" wrote= : >>=20 >>> 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 i= n past discussions but have tried to stay in the bleachers this time and obs= erve the discussion. A couple clarifications that I see [keep in mind I'm Ca= nadian and our rules are 'slightly' different, but not by much] and some-mor= e 'opinion' to add to the mix: >>> =20 >>> 1-It was mentioned that pilots of twin engine planes don't do stall trai= ning,which [in Canada] is false, I do approach to stall training every year w= hile training and flight testing for my PPC on the C425XP that I fly [for wo= rk]. 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 co= uple 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 getti= ng your private license, including w/ an instructor and solo spins and has t= o 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 cur= riculum, including a complete shutdown and restart of the engine [I've got p= ic's of my training, prop feathered and hanging out in the breeze] and an ap= proach AND landing needs to be demonstrated [one engine in-op] and signed of= f 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 ac= cident due to single engine ops [in Canada]. >>> 4-The thought that Jets aren't tested in slow flight [and slower] is fal= se as well, all of these jets are fully tested before being signed off an 'r= eleased' for production. All pilots in training then fly these maneuvers whi= le doing type training [in simulators which duplicate the tested results]. I= f you think that once you get your Airline Transport License your done w/ st= all/approach to stall training for the rest of your flying career, your mist= aken. >>> =20 >>> I don't think anyone on the list advocating stall testing these planes, i= s 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 they needed]. >>> =20 >>> 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 a= t 260-280+knts yet land at less than 90knts, heck they call it a STOL airpla= ne in some publications!] or the C425 I fly, [Cruise at 285knts, land at les= s than 100 and stalls as viciously as .. well.. it ain't vicious at all], Ma= libu, Meridian, TBM.. there are lots of higher performance aircraft out ther= e that fly well in all corners of the envelope, it just so happens that Lanc= air's mandate was speed at all costs and the limited nature of the R&D progr= am to clean these issues up were not pushed as far as they maybe could have b= een, at least if they had people would have a better "jumping off point" to t= ame the stalls of their individual aircraft. Couple this with the small vari= ances plane to plane due to building tolerances, ever increasing gross weigh= ts and you get a plane w/ potentially a nasty stall. That isn't to say that i= t'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= duty to at least test to the stall and know how it behaves before I convinc= e someone else to come for a ride. I'd rather kill myself in the testing tha= n 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 m= other or father etc etc. I want my family to enjoy what I've built but I cou= ldn't feel good/safe about it if I didn't fully vet it and test those [poten= tially] 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 nightmare= s..] >>> =20 >>> In my opinion, if your going to take other innocent individuals for a 'r= ide' 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 [n= ot nesc a deep stall and not intentionally to spin it but at least know wher= e it 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 the= se planes are assigned a 20hr[min] to 40hr test period, what else is there t= o 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= just 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 f= ar 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... ] >>> =20 >>> Jarrett Johnson >>> 235/320 55% [and currently holding] >>> =20 >>>=20 >>>=20 >>> On Fri, 04 Jan 2013 10:09:03 -0500, Gary Casey wr= ote: >>> I don't know if there is a single right or wrong answer to this controve= rsy, but here are a couple of observations: >>> Years ago, twin engine training required demonstration of low-altitude e= ngine-out proficiency. That requirement was dropped and the overall safety i= mproved. Years ago, spin demonstrations were required and then dropped - sa= fety improved. Another observation: All that have sided with stall trainin= g 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" w= rote: >>>> 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 j= ust don't think it's worth the risk. On take-off, I stay in ground effect fo= r the half second it takes to make it into the green after wheels up; on lan= ding, I approach well above stall for my flap configuration, and let the spe= ed bleed off only a few feet above the threshold. During normal flight, I do= n't even get near a typical slow flight speed. Too many variables in a home b= uilt 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; p= ossible extra wait in the tail area (water retention after heavy rain). >>>=20 >>>=20 >>>=20 >>> =20 >>>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >> www.innovention-tech.com >>=20 --Apple-Mail-A551E433-D9DC-4492-8E55-9A6584F739E2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8
I am ready for a new fresh= topic like header tank vs no header tank...

Randy S= narr

Sent from my iPad

On Jan 7, 2013, at 11:26 A= M, "Wolfgang" <Wolfgang@MiCom.net> wrote:

The bad part about this "stall" di= scussion is=20 that most people want to stay away from stalls all together. - - - That's ridiculous !
If you want to call yourself a proficie= nt pilot,=20 you must be able to react to most any circumstance, intended or=20 not.
The only way to get to that point is tr= aining in=20 all parts of the envelope. Saying that the only time you will likely get to a= =20 stall is in the approach and then you don't have enough altitude for recover= y is=20 a foolish response. Not training for certain circumstances because you're no= t=20 "comfortable" in said circumstances is courting disaster.
 
The Lancair is high performance and as s= uch, stall=20 characteristics have suffered. The stall comes on fast and with little warni= ng.=20 Learn to recognize it and train how to handle it.
 
. . . But those flight characteristics c= an be tamed=20 without loss of performance. Stall strips would be the easiest way to increa= se=20 the impending stall warning time. Why they aren't more prevalent, I don't=20= know.
 
Wolfgang
 
 
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Sunday, January 06, 2013 10:1= 9=20 AM
Subject: Re: [LML] Re: stalls
=

I agree that testing and systems calibration needs to be done for sta= ll=20 testing on new airframes. And new pilots need to learn approach to stalls a= nd=20 recovery. 
The only thing I take issue with is where some people advocate everyo= ne=20 go out and regularly practice full stalls and recovery. These are high=20 performance aircraft that are not and will never perform like certified=20= airframes. Most got into the IV for the high speed. There were trade offs t= o=20 get that. Not necessarily unsafe trade offs. But ones that mean it can not= be=20 treated like a bonanza. We don't go fly swept wing jets like they were a=20= bonanza. If you are unwilling to realize that in the world of aircraft the= y=20 are not all treated the same go back to certified slower planes. Se of us h= ave=20 spent our careers in high performance planes and know there are different=20= operating and training rules. Know what the plane will do but don't push i= t=20 over the edge thinking it will behave nicely. 

Typing and grammar errors courtesy of Siri and the iPhone.

On Jan 6, 2013, at 7:34, "Jarrett Johnson" <hjjohnson@sasktel.net>=20 wrote:

Todd, I think we are of a similar mindset when it comes to corporate o= r=20 business [charter?] aviation.

 

My point is/was simply this.   All certified types of plane= s=20 are tested to aerdynamic stall. They are validated to be recoverabl= e=20 from stall, the appropriate stall warning systems are installed and=20 calibrated accordingly.  Then the pilots who fly them day to day ar= e=20 taught [in type] slow flight, approach to stall [identification of impen= ding=20 stall] and recovery. In my experiance, most flight departments train in t= his=20 at least annually if not more regularly [I know some of you jet drivers g= o=20 to sim courses every 6 months, in my case it's either sim or in-plane=20= training annually]. Btw, V1 cuts aren't practiced on this side of the bo= rder=20 either, I've done all of mine 'in-sim' as well.

 

I'm not advocating stalling a Citation X or similar aircraft, however= =20 when we fly our Lancairs for the first time, we are the test pilots. [if we=20 don't want to properly test fly them, then maybe test pilots should be h= ired=20 who have the skills to do so, maybe testing apparatus should be used as=20= well; ie-spin chute system]. This means [in my opinion] we should TEST t= he=20 airframes the same way the test pilots have tested the Citation X's or=20= Hawker-700/800/1000 or G-IV or 650 or whatever... they've ALL been teste= d=20 [well, other than a large part of the Lancair fleet].  Once testing= is=20 complete and the stall warning devices are calibrated then it's practici= ng=20 approach to stalls only.. the aircraft doesn't need to be stalled again,= =20 granted there is no aerodynamic alterations ever completed. If there is=20= [such as your Hawker experiance] then the a/c needs to have the stall=20= warning devices calibrated again which would require additional stall=20= testing.

 

The predominant mindset with many Lancair drivers/owners is.. don't s= tall=20 test and don't train for it [in type]. Yet people wonder why there is su= ch a=20 large gap between the statistic's of business aviation and GA flying and= or=20 why Lancairs have the worst record of pretty much any other type of (GA)= =20 aircraft. Some owners HAVE taken the time to tame the stalls o= n=20 their Lancairs. If a select few can do it then it's 'possible'= for=20 every single Lancair airframe to have it done to the same degree [i= n my=20 opinion]. Thats not to say that the 'taming/tuning' will be the same on=20= every airframe but it IS possible.

 

I see a large gap between the way the 'rest of the aviation world' an= d=20 the 'Lancair world' views this segment of flight and flight testing [and= =20 continual training]. To me it's as plain as day but... then maybe I see=20= 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=20 experimental A/c] unless I know it's been stall tested and has= the=20 proper [calibrated] warning systems on it. I will do these tests on mine= =20 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.= =20  In neither do we teach stalls. Approach to stalls yes. Completel= y=20 different animals.  We teach approach to stall recognition. AOA a= nd=20 shaker get your attention and just power out. Back in the hawkers when= we=20 removed and replaced TKS leading panel edges we had to go do full stal= ls=20 past the stick shaker. One time we did end up on our back, continued t= he=20 roll around to upright. Only specially trained PICs were authorized to= do=20 these tests.  I was the lowely SIC at the time. I believe the low= =20 altitude single engine ops that were discontinued in the reference was= V1=20 cuts. We only do these in the sim now. There were a number of accident= s=20 doing these in training.
I have 8000+ hours and have never unintentionally stalled any=20 aircraft nor even got close.  In high performance airplanes the p= ilot=20 needs to fly by the numbers not the seat of the pants.  This goes= for=20 jets, turbo props and definitely the lancair IV series. I have 3000+ h= ours=20 in a Ce-750 Citation X as PIC and have no idea how it handles in a ful= l=20 stall. Using some people's logic I'm just too scared and shouldn't be=20= flying it.  Really?  In fortunately I do know how the Hawker= =20 1000 can stall in some situations and don't want to go there again. An= d=20 that was fully certified. If you can't fly without unintentionally=20 stalling stay on the ground. I don't need my insurance going any highe= r=20 from  stupid accidents. 

Sent from my iPad

On Jan 4, 2013, at 13:01, "Jarrett Johnson" <hjjohnson@sasktel.net>=20 wrote:

This certainly isn't a new discussion and like Gary has mentioned= ,=20 there is no single silver bullet to answer it. I've been in the thic= k of=20 things in past discussions but have tried to stay in the bleachers t= his=20 time and observe the discussion. A couple clarifications that I see=20= [keep in mind I'm Canadian and our rules are 'slightly' different, b= ut=20 not by much] and some-more 'opinion' to add to the mix:

 

1-It was mentioned that pilots of twin engine planes don't d= o=20 stall training,which [in Canada] is false, I do approach to stall=20= training every year while training and flight testing for my PPC on t= he=20 C425XP that I fly [for work]. Stall recovery is great... bring it up= to=20 max torque and hold the pitch angle.. it immediately transitions fro= m=20 many hundreds fpm of decent to a couple thousand fpm of climb..= a=20 really interesting experience compared to the same thing in a single= =20 [push, power, recover].

2-In Canada spin demonstrations AND training is a required step i= n=20 getting your private license, including w/ an instructor and so= lo=20 spins and has to be demonstrated on the flight test. I can't remembe= r=20 the last time I heard of a spin training accident [in Canada], it's b= een=20 many years.

3-In Canada low alt single engine ops are part of the multi train= ing=20 curriculum, including a complete shutdown and restart of the en= gine=20 [I've got pic's of my training, prop feathered and hanging out in th= e=20 breeze] and an approach AND landing needs to be demonstrated [one en= gine=20 in-op] and signed off as completed before you'll get your ride=20= approval to take your flight test. Again, I can't remember the last t= ime=20 I heard of a twin engine training accident due to single engine ops [= in=20 Canada].

4-The thought that Jets aren't tested in slow flight [and=20= slower] is false as well, all of these jets are fully tested before=20= being signed off an 'released' for production. All pilots in trainin= g=20 then fly these maneuvers while doing type training [in simulators wh= ich=20 duplicate the tested results]. If you think that once you get your=20= Airline Transport License your done w/ stall/approach to=20 stall training for the rest of your flying career, your=20 mistaken.

 

I don't think anyone on the list advocating stall=20 testing these planes, is saying these planes need to be "d= eep=20 stalled". However, approach to stall and recovery at the first sign o= f=20 stall is, in my opinion, valuable training/testing of a new airframe= .=20 Unfortunately, while everyone avoids the stall side of the envelope,= =20 this doesn't mean the plane can't or won't [at some point] get to th= at=20 flight condition. To think otherwise is [again my opinion] 'Titanic=20= like' thinking [when they calculated how many life boats and vests t= hey=20 needed].

 

The 'blanket perspective' that high performance aircraf= t=20 are not safe in the slow speed corner of the envelope is false, look= at=20 the PC-12 [Cruise at 260-280+knts yet land at less than 90knts, heck= =20 they call it a STOL airplane in some publications!] or the C425 I fl= y,=20 [Cruise at 285knts, land at less than 100 and stalls as viciously=20= as .. well.. it ain't vicious at all], Malibu, Meridian, TBM..=20= there are lots of higher performance aircraft out there that fly wel= l in=20 all corners of the envelope, it just so happens that Lancair's manda= te=20 was speed at all costs and the limited nature of the R&D program= to=20 clean these issues up were not pushed as far as they=20= maybe could have been, at least if they had people would have a bett= er=20 "jumping off point" to tame the stalls of their individual aircraft.= =20 Couple this with the small variances plane to plane due to building=20= tolerances, ever increasing gross weights and you get a plane w/=20 potentially a nasty stall. That isn't to say that it's not 'tameable= ' or=20 correctable should it have more 'teeth' than expected.

 

I guess if I'm going to fly w/ anyone else in my Lancair, I see i= t as=20 my duty to at least test to the stall and know how it behaves before= I=20 convince someone else to come for a ride. I'd rather kill myself in t= he=20 testing than possibly myself and my 5yr old son or 3yr old daughter=20= [both of which have been 'biten' by the bug and LOVE flying w/ me in= the=20 425] or my wife or my mother or father etc etc. I want my famil= y to=20 enjoy what I've built but I couldn't feel good/safe about it if I=20= didn't fully vet it and test those [potentially] darker corners= of=20 the envelope. I couldn't imagine how I'd feel if I'd had an=20 'incident' which snowballs into loss of life etc.[of course after 'l= oss=20 of life' I'm not 'thinking or feeling' anything but that ride=20= down to 0 from 10,000ft while being out of control... I'm=20= pretty sure I'd be thinking, esp w/ a family member along for the=20= ride..  that's the stuff of nightmares..<shutter>]

 

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

 

If on the other hand your not going to fly anyone else in your pl= ane=20 but just go out and enjoy it yourself, then have at er' in any way y= ou=20 see fit.

 

I will be 'approach to stall' testing my plane, Heck I might even= go=20 as far as to build a spin chute system for it and I'll be doing= it=20 w/ a personal chute on as well [I've survived skydives a couple=20 times] that is, when-ever it gets done... [geez it's been=20= '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>=20 wrote:

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



 





www.innovention-tech.= com


= --Apple-Mail-A551E433-D9DC-4492-8E55-9A6584F739E2--