|
I think a part of the problem, as in the case of the Geraldton West Australian Legacy, is unnecessary manoeuvring at low level when an event occurs such as the canopy opening.
I have been at fault myself when an unexpected event occurred, and with hindsight would have conducted the flight differently, and safer.
The different aspect in the case of say the canopy opening, would be to climb straight ahead and put some vertical manoeuvring space in place.
Dominic V. Crain
domcrain@tpg.com.au
Phone 03-94161881
Mobile 0412-359320
On 7 May 2014, at 2:39, Wolfgang <Wolfgang@MiCom.net> wrote:
> Based on the report from the Australian ATSB, it appears that the aircraft was still controlable up to the point of hitting the curb
> on the intended landing surface. Only then did things turn really bad.
>
> Wolfgang
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Kevin Stallard" <kevin@arilabs.net>
> Sent: Monday, May 05, 2014 5:08 PM
> Subject: RE: [LML] Re: P-38's and Legacy Canopys
>
>
> Hi John,
>
> There are two kinds of data we're talking about here. Accident statistical data and aerodynamic aircraft performance data. I'm
> after the later.
>
> I'm looking for flight data, controllability, stability, etc when the canopy is open. Just because the canopy opened prior to a
> crash doesn't make it the fault of the canopy.
>
> Sure it may have scared the pants off the pilot, but the question is: Is the airplane flyable with the canopy opened? We need
> real, measurable controllability data. If the canopy doesn't inhibit the airplanes ability to fly when it is opened, then we
> shouldn't be blaming the airplane.
>
> Sure warning lights and such are helpful, but if the airplane can be shown to fly reasonably well with the canopy open don't you
> think that the solution to this statistical anomaly would be to include a canopy open event during training? Show the pilot how to
> turn a canopy open event into a non-event?
>
> That's what I want to be able to do....I think that is a more sure way to keep me safe.
>
> Thanks
> Kevin
|
|