X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Mon, 14 May 2012 15:07:33 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from mail-gg0-f180.google.com ([209.85.161.180] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.4.5) with ESMTPS id 5542009 for lml@lancaironline.net; Mon, 14 May 2012 14:08:53 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=209.85.161.180; envelope-from=donkarich@gmail.com Received: by ggnf1 with SMTP id f1so3008140ggn.25 for ; Mon, 14 May 2012 11:08:16 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.50.185.233 with SMTP id ff9mr4819254igc.57.1337018896269; Mon, 14 May 2012 11:08:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.42.130.3 with HTTP; Mon, 14 May 2012 11:08:16 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: X-Original-Date: Mon, 14 May 2012 11:08:16 -0700 X-Original-Message-ID: Subject: Re: [LML] Re: lmCrossed Control Stall - REVIEWED From: Don Karich X-Original-To: Lancair Mailing List Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=14dae934085b5ec16c04c002f84c --14dae934085b5ec16c04c002f84c Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 The problem with a rounded turn from downwind to final is this is your last chance to visually clear the traffic possibly on final On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 10:44 AM, Jarrett Johnson wrote: > Morning Gary, I guess my main concern was simply to attribute an accident > from a grainy video to a finite control input is probably not sound "cause > of crash" assessment technique. There is simply too many variables here to > finitly say what caused this crash. I'm certainly not rejecting the > possibility, but I wouldn't limit it to that possibility either. The > misalignment of the a/c with it's direction of flight is certainly > interesting but does not eliminate a single engine [right failed]/ VMCA > possibility, I've seen video in the past of similar approaches where due to > camera angle it looks very missaligned but in reality is probably much less > so. I noticed the smoke did not drift so there was limited wind on the > field at least in the vertical range shown by the camera, this would lead > me to think a tailwind turn was not likely a contribution to the crash. > > > > Something else I'd like to mention... I did not intent to project the " > I'm so good" personna. Although I've some reasonable experiance and > training, I'm no 'mind boggling' pilot, nor would I like to project that I > am [if that was the case, ie; interpereted from my prior comments]. In the > end we're all human and we can get into senarios where we never thought > we'd get.. seeing them for what they are becoming is the name of the game > in accident avoidance but it doesn't always stop us from getting there, > I've scared the crap out of myself a couple times and was just lucky enough > to live through and learn from it. > > > > Btw, I'm w/ you on the rounded base/final turn, it makes for a smoother > approach/landing and I find one can spot the possible overshoot much > earlier [and adjust] in the larger turn vs a short/tight turn to final. > > > > Best Regards > > > > Jarrett Johnson > > 235/320-- 55% [and holding] > > On Sun, 13 May 2012 18:51:25 -0400, Gary Casey > wrote: > > I'm not sure, but I tend to believe the original explanation of a > cross-controlled stall. However, the part of the explanation that > speculates that he is going "too fast" doesn't go with the stall theory. > Could it have been an engine failure/Vmc stall? I suppose, but looking at > the plane visibly going sideways while pointing right at the camera leads > me to believe the cross-control theory. Regardless, it doesn't make sense > to me to reject a likely explanation just because it could be something > else. And anyway, over the years I've found myself rounding the base leg > into a continuous turn as a preventive measure against inadvertently > tightening the turn to final. At least in my case, to say "I'll never do > that because I'm so good" would be purely delusional. > Safe flying, > Gary Casey > > From Jarrett > Alan I'm curious how you can tell so much from this video? It is certainly > a possible explanation but so is a Vmca excursion? Or possible a stall due > to aileron application only. I find it curious that he applied any rudder > at that point in his flight or how you see this in the video?I've read > elsewhere that this particular event occurred on a Maint flight after some > serious work on the plane (possibly there was a loss of power on one engine > during the flight). > > I fly (corporately) a VERY similar a/c and I've NEVER 'horsed' it around > with rudder with the exception of simulated single engine overshoot > training, the abrupt movement felt in the planes rear seats is would be > very uncomfortable due to the yaw. > > I agree that cross controlling would not be a good thing while flying in > this stage of flight but I see no way to chalk this crash in the video up > to this application of controls. > > Fwiw > Jarrett Johnson > > > > > > > > > --14dae934085b5ec16c04c002f84c Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable The problem with a rounded turn from downwind to final is this is your last= chance to visually clear the traffic possibly on final

On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 10:44 AM, Jarrett Johnso= n <hjjohnson@sasktel.net> wrote:

Morning Gary, I guess my main concern was simply to attribute an acciden= t from a grainy video to a finite control input is probably not sound "= ;cause of crash" assessment technique.=A0 There is simply too many var= iables here to finitly say what caused this crash. I'm certainly not re= jecting the possibility, but I wouldn't limit it to that possibility ei= ther.=A0The misalignment of the a/c with it's direction of flight=A0is = certainly interesting but does=A0not eliminate a single engine [right faile= d]/ VMCA possibility, I've seen video in the past of similar approaches= where due to camera angle it looks very missaligned but in reality is prob= ably much less so. I noticed the smoke did not drift so there was limited w= ind on the field at least in the vertical range shown by the camera, this w= ould lead me to think a tailwind turn was not likely a contribution to the = crash.=A0

=A0

Something else I'd like to mention... I did not intent to project th= e " I'm so good" personna. Although I've some reasonable = experiance and training, I'm no=A0'mind boggling'=A0pilot, nor = would I like to project that I am [if that was the case, ie; interpereted f= rom my prior comments]. In the end we're all human and we can get into = senarios where we never thought we'd get.. seeing them for what they ar= e becoming is the name of the game in accident avoidance but it doesn't= always stop us from getting there, I've scared the crap out of myself = a couple times and was just lucky enough to live through and learn from it.=

=A0

Btw, I'm w/ you on the rounded base/final turn, it makes for a smoot= her approach/landing and I find one can spot the=A0possible overshoot much = earlier [and adjust]=A0in the larger turn vs a short/tight turn to final.= =A0

=A0

Best Regards

=A0

Jarrett Johnson

235/320-- 55% [and holding]

On Sun, 13 May 2012 18:51:25 -0400, G= ary Casey <cas= ey.gary@yahoo.com> wrote:

I'm not sure, but I tend to believe the original explanation of a = cross-controlled stall.=A0 However, the part of the explanation that specul= ates that he is going "too fast" doesn't go with the stall th= eory.=A0 Could it have been an engine failure/Vmc stall?=A0 I suppose, but = looking at the plane visibly going sideways while pointing right at the cam= era leads me to believe the cross-control theory.=A0 Regardless, it doesn&#= 39;t make sense to me to reject a likely explanation just because it could = be something else.=A0 And anyway, over the years I've found myself=A0ro= unding the base leg into a continuous turn as a preventive measure against = inadvertently tightening the turn to final.=A0 At least in my case, to say = "I'll never do that because I'm so good" would be purely = delusional.
Safe flying,
Gary Casey
=A0
From Jarrett
Alan I'm curious how you can tell so much from this video? It is c= ertainly a possible explanation but so is a Vmca excursion? Or possible a s= tall due to aileron application only. I find it curious that he applied any= rudder at that point in his flight or how you see this in the video?I'= ve read elsewhere that this particular event occurred on a Maint flight aft= er some serious work on the plane (possibly there was a loss of power on on= e engine during the flight).

I fly (corporately) a VERY similar a/c and I've NEVER 'horsed&= #39; it around with rudder with the exception of simulated single engine ov= ershoot training, the abrupt movement felt in the planes rear seats is woul= d be very uncomfortable due to the yaw.

I agree that cross controlling would not be a good thing while flying = in this stage of flight but I see no way to chalk this crash in the video u= p to this application of controls.

Fwiw
Jarrett Johnson





=A0



--14dae934085b5ec16c04c002f84c--