X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Sun, 31 Aug 2008 07:50:11 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from misav03.sasknet.sk.ca ([142.165.20.164] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.2.6) with ESMTP id 3100722 for lml@lancaironline.net; Fri, 29 Aug 2008 23:14:12 -0400 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=142.165.20.164; envelope-from=hjjohnson@sasktel.net Received: from bgmpomr1.sasknet.sk.ca ([142.165.72.22]) by misav03 with InterScan Messaging Security Suite; Fri, 29 Aug 2008 21:13:35 -0600 Received: from sasktel.net ([192.168.234.97]) by bgmpomr1.sasknet.sk.ca (SaskTel eMessaging Service) with ESMTP id <0K6E001A68YNF730@bgmpomr1.sasknet.sk.ca> for lml@lancaironline.net; Fri, 29 Aug 2008 21:13:35 -0600 (CST) Received: from [192.168.234.24] (Forwarded-For: [216.197.252.246]) by cgmail1.sasknet.sk.ca (mshttpd); Fri, 29 Aug 2008 21:13:35 -0600 X-Original-Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2008 21:13:35 -0600 From: H & J Johnson Subject: Re: [LML] Re: ....thoughts on accidents "Flying slow is not for the uninformed, and maybe not for most" X-Original-To: Lancair Mailing List X-Original-Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Sun Java(tm) System Messenger Express 6.1 HotFix 0.20 (built Feb 27 2006) Content-type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-language: en Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Content-disposition: inline X-Accept-Language: en Priority: normal

Ted, I think you and I are on the same wave length. At the end of the day, my only wish is that everyone can know their airframe and how it behaves at all flight speeds and configurations. However, at the end of the day all I can do is my part to be the best I can. The only way I'll get there and stay there.. is to practice.

So be it. [besides, it's flying w/ a purpose.. even if your not going anywhere :-) ]

Best regards

Jarrett Johnson

> Jarret, thanks for stating exactly what I was thinking, but worded far
> better than I am capable of doing. I'll have to put my asbestos
> suit on,
> too.
>
> The one Lancair flight I had was most enjoyable. In it, a power
> off stall
> was demonstrated for me. It was a non-event, because the pilot
> knew what to
> expect and how to handle it. In any airplane I fly, I want to have
> that same
> level of comfort. Sure, when I first started learning to fly I wasn't
> comfortable with doing stalls when I went up solo. At this point, I'm
> perfectly comfortable doing them in the planes I fly. I just
> started flying
> a new (to me) plane that's hotter than what I'm used to, and as
> part of my
> training in it, I need to get comfortable with doing stalls in it.
> We'll go
> do that next time I go up with my instructor. While I don't expect
> to get
> fully comfortable with the plane in one session, I do expect to
> get fully
> comfortable with it over the course of more practice. That is the
> expectation I have for myself regardless of what I'm flying.
>
> I am in agreement that one ought to be proficient with slow flight and
> understand where the aircraft stalls. Know how it feels and where
> it will
> stall. Really, it should be a non-event in practice, which will
> hopefullymake it a non-event should it ever actually happen. I
> know too many pilots
> who, even as they are training to become CFIs, have never
> practiced a full
> stall, just approach to stalls. Some DPEs have scolded friends of
> mine for
> doing full stalls on checkrides, saying it should only be
> approach. To me,
> this is insane. If you've never done a full one in training, you
> are that
> much more likely to do it wrong in real life, and thus more likey
> to have a
> problem when it happens. If the airplane is more challenging, to
> me the
> logic is that you need to become more proficient. If you really
> can't handle
> it, my question is why are you flying the plane without an
> instructor to
> help you get more proficient?
>
> Yep, I race my car, and I know exactly what it's capable of. It's
> saved me
> on more than one occasion. Knowing what my plane will do I am sure
> will one
> day save me, too.
>
> -Ted
> Currently flying a Mooney M20F, Lancair 360 on the wish list
>
>
> On 8/28/08, H & J Johnson <hjjohnson@sasktel.net> wrote:
> >
> > I've read this discussion w/ interest and because I have [as
> of yet] no
> > lancair time, I've kept quiet. I am a professional pilot,
> however I'm far
> > from the experiance level that many of you are. I fly a 414 for
> hire so I am
> > used to pressurized, reasonable speed, heavier airframe and
> reasonable> approach speeds. When it comes to slow flight, I'm an
> advocate of training.
> > I've spun C-150's many many times, primarily because in Canada
> it's part of
> > the training syllabus. It's a required training exercise which
> must be
> > demonstrated as well as learned and practiced w/ and w/out an
> instructor on
> > board. [it's been long enough that I can't remember if it's a
> flight test
> > item or not].
> >
> > One comment which was passed on to me once was, " you can
> *sometimes* go
> > faster, but you can *ALWAYS* go slower". I don't think anyone
> here is
> > saying "go flying around on the razers edge for hours at a time
> & make sure
> > your right over the trees" but rather know your airplane, it's
> low speed
> > limitations. In the course of day to day flight's we don't ever
> plan to have
> > emergancy's or inflight problems but they do occur and we do
> need to train
> > and practice for them. There are many situations where knowing
> how close you
> > are to a stall is VERY important. The short list that comes to
> mind [and I'm
> > missing 99% of this list I'm sure];
> >
> > 1-Partial power loss- You are having trouble maintaining
> altitude, your
> > over terrain on which you cannot land, trying to stretch those
> last few
> > miles from the airframe.. Typically we should be slowing to a
> speed which
> > meets Max range in a situation like this.. how close is that to
> your stall?
> > Maybe you just need to suck it up over that last set of trees,
> are you going
> > to stall if you lose more speed?
> >
> > 2- Short final missed approach, like others mentioned runway
> incursion or
> > possible birds, skydiver [smaller airports] or glider, anything
> gets into
> > your path on short final and requires an abrupt pitch change,
> evasion> manouver. It'd probably never happen to 99% of us.. but
> it could, are you
> > ready if it does?
> >
> > 3- Structural issue.. you hit a bird, or whatever and feel that
> the best
> > way to lighten the structural load on the airplane is to slow
> down.. REALLY
> > slow down.. how slow would you go? Certainly not to the edge of
> stall.. and
> > maybe the impact is such that if you slow to much you might lose
> control> authority [roll control 'say'] but if you don't know how
> your airframe
> > behaves at 1.3x and are scared to slow that much, are you
> really doing
> > everything you can to slow the airplane down and minimize
> structural load
> > due to speed?
> >
> > 4- Failed gear extension. Wanna make a slow pass for the tower
> to have a
> > look, I'd be wanting to go as slow as I feel is safe.. make sure
> they have
> > lots of time to look at it.. doesn't mean I'd be right at the
> stall.. but
> > the slower I go.. the more chance they have to see what's what.
> >
> > I'm sure there are many many more.
> >
> > When the day arrives and we get our 320 airborne I plan to know
> how to
> > learn how to fly it in the green arc and know how it behaves
> anywhere in the
> > green arc. That's not to say that I plan to spin it but I do
> plan to stall
> > it, and understand how it behaves at the bottom end of the arc.
> And, if need
> > be work to tame the stall to a point where it is controlable and
> > predictable, and yes.. to do this may cause a hair raising trip
> or two. I
> > will be doing it w/ a parachute, and while I'm not a huge fan of
> > jumping, I've jumped a few times before & I will be prepared. Is
> this> testing going to be at tree top level.. hardly.. is it
> manditory, yes. Can
> > it be accomplished with a reasonable degree of safety, YES.
> >
> > I think often this type of testing during the manditory 25 is
> more of a 'ok
> > we're slowing.. there's the buffet... add power.. ok.. we know
> it will
> > stall.. next item" and leave it at that.. it's my opinion that
> this is a
> > poor form of flight testing. Often these a/c are built w/ the
> intent to get
> > flying and going places and the testing phase is just an annoying
> > nuisnace standing between me and where I want to go w/ my a/c.
> The first
> > 5-10 hrs are spent doing the nesc checks for sign off and there-
> after it's
> > just burning gas around the local airport until I can get my 25
> in and get
> > outta'here..
> >
> > In the 414 we shoot approaches at 110-120knt depending on load
> and the
> > airport, however I have done approaches into short strips w/ a
> lighter load
> > at 90, it wasn't terribly comfortable but it was doable, because
> I knew from
> > training that the airframe would fly at those speeds. A
> extreme example is
> > Bob Hoover. He could fly the pants off a Shrike and it wasn't
> because he
> > flew it fast, when he did his engine out routine he was using
> the airframe
> > to either limit [fast and slow]. He was able to do this because
> he knew what
> > it could and could not do. I'm not saying we need to go to these
> extremes> [Bob had tight margines to play w/ when he did his
> routine and practiced
> > it] but we should be comfortable knowing our airplane in its
> normal flight
> > envelope, from either extreme of that envelope. If we are scared
> to fly to
> > either end of that envelope then either we have to much airplane
> or we need
> > more training/testing to be comfortable in our plane. Spin/stall
> training> and slow flight is not dangerous when approached from
> the right perspective
> > [and in the case of spin training, completed in the right
> aircraft]. Don't
> > spin your Lancair, but if your scared to stall it "..'cause
> it'll kill ya.."
> > then there is REALLY something wrong w/ the airframe and I
> wouldn't fly in
> > it period.. not until that issue is addressed and fixed. GA
> aircraft [and I
> > mean traveling a/c, not aerobatic] should no be that unpredictable,
> > regardless whether it's an Experimental or not.
> >
> > Ok.. I've said my piece.. Asbestos suite on..
> >
> > Jarrett Johnson
> >
> > 235/320 55% [zero Lnc Hrs]
> >
>