X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Tue, 15 May 2012 10:09:10 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from imr-ma04.mx.aol.com ([64.12.206.42] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.4.5) with ESMTP id 5542324 for lml@lancaironline.net; Mon, 14 May 2012 16:52:09 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=64.12.206.42; envelope-from=vtailjeff@aol.com Received: from mtaomg-mb03.r1000.mx.aol.com (mtaomg-mb03.r1000.mx.aol.com [172.29.41.74]) by imr-ma04.mx.aol.com (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id q4EKpQTk006264 for ; Mon, 14 May 2012 16:51:26 -0400 Received: from core-mnb001c.r1000.mail.aol.com (core-mnb001.r1000.mail.aol.com [172.29.106.129]) by mtaomg-mb03.r1000.mx.aol.com (OMAG/Core Interface) with ESMTP id 15EC2E000086 for ; Mon, 14 May 2012 16:51:26 -0400 (EDT) References: X-Original-To: lml@lancaironline.net Subject: Re: [LML] Re: lmCrossed Control Stall - REVIEWED In-Reply-To: X-MB-Message-Source: WebUI MIME-Version: 1.0 From: vtailjeff@aol.com X-MB-Message-Type: User Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--------MB_8CF002A768A0FCA_159C_8AD31_webmail-stg-m05.sysops.aol.com" X-Mailer: AOL Webmail 36081-STANDARD Received: from 75.56.140.159 by webmail-stg-m05.sysops.aol.com (64.12.222.104) with HTTP (WebMailUI); Mon, 14 May 2012 16:51:25 -0400 X-Original-Message-Id: <8CF002A76854D00-159C-2246D@webmail-stg-m05.sysops.aol.com> X-Originating-IP: [75.56.140.159] X-Original-Date: Mon, 14 May 2012 16:51:26 -0400 (EDT) x-aol-global-disposition: G X-AOL-SCOLL-SCORE: 0:2:423222688:93952408 X-AOL-SCOLL-URL_COUNT: 0 x-aol-sid: 3039ac1d294a4fb1704e413a This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ----------MB_8CF002A768A0FCA_159C_8AD31_webmail-stg-m05.sysops.aol.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" what is the problem? -----Original Message----- From: Don Karich To: lml Sent: Mon, May 14, 2012 2:07 pm Subject: [LML] Re: lmCrossed Control Stall - REVIEWED 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 w= rote: Morning Gary, I guess my main concern was simply to attribute an accident f= rom a grainy video to a finite control input is probably not sound "cause o= f crash" assessment technique. There is simply too many variables here to = finitly say what caused this crash. I'm certainly not rejecting the possibi= lity, 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 v= ideo in the past of similar approaches where due to camera angle it looks v= ery missaligned but in reality is probably much less so. I noticed the smok= e did not drift so there was limited wind on the field at least in the vert= ical range shown by the camera, this would lead me to think a tailwind turn= was not likely a contribution to the crash.=20 =20 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 tha= t 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.. se= eing them for what they are becoming is the name of the game in accident av= oidance but it doesn't always stop us from getting there, I've scared the c= rap out of myself a couple times and was just lucky enough to live through = and learn from it. =20 Btw, I'm w/ you on the rounded base/final turn, it makes for a smoother app= roach/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.=20 =20 Best Regards =20 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-con= trolled stall. However, the part of the explanation that speculates that h= e 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 c= ross-control theory. Regardless, it doesn't make sense to me to reject a l= ikely explanation just because it could be something else. And anyway, ove= r 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" woul= d be purely delusional. Safe flying, Gary Casey =20 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 a= t that point in his flight or how you see this in the video?I've read elsew= here that this particular event occurred on a Maint flight after some serio= us work on the plane (possibly there was a loss of power on one engine duri= ng the flight). I fly (corporately) a VERY similar a/c and I've NEVER 'horsed' it around wi= th rudder with the exception of simulated single engine overshoot training,= the abrupt movement felt in the planes rear seats is would be very uncomfo= rtable due to the yaw. I agree that cross controlling would not be a good thing while flying in th= is stage of flight but I see no way to chalk this crash in the video up to = this application of controls. Fwiw Jarrett Johnson =20 ----------MB_8CF002A768A0FCA_159C_8AD31_webmail-stg-m05.sysops.aol.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" what is the problem?


= -----Original Message-----
From: Don Karich <donkarich@gmail.com>
To: lml <lml@lancaironline.net>
Sent: Mon, May 14, 2012 2:07 pm
Subject: [LML] Re: lmCrossed Control Stall - REVIEWED

The problem wit= h a rounded turn from downwind to final is this is your last chance to visu= ally clear the traffic possibly on final

On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 10:44 AM, Jarrett Johnson = <hjjohnson@sask= tel.net> wrote:
Morning Gary, I guess my main concern was simply to attribute an accid= ent from a grainy video to a finite control input is probably not sound "ca= use of crash" assessment technique.  There is simply too many variable= s here to finitly say what caused this crash. I'm certainly not rejecting t= he possibility, but I wouldn't limit it to that possibility either. Th= e misalignment of the a/c with it's direction of flight is certainly i= nteresting but does not eliminate a single engine [right failed]/ VMCA= possibility, I've seen video in the past of similar approaches where due t= o camera angle it looks very missaligned but in reality is probably much le= ss so. I noticed the smoke did not drift so there was limited wind on the f= ield 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 train= ing, I'm no 'mind boggling' pilot, nor would I like to project th= at 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 though= t 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 t= o live through and learn from it.
 
Btw, I'm w/ you on the rounded base/final turn, it makes for a smoothe= r 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 fina= l. 
 
Best Regards
 
Jarrett Johnson
235/320-- 55% [and holding]

On Sun, 13 May 2012 18:51:25 -0400, Gary Casey <casey.gary@yahoo.com> wrote:
I'm not sure, but I tend to believe the original explanation of a cros= s-controlled stall.  However, the part of the explanation that specula= tes that he is going "too fast" doesn't go with the stall theory.  Cou= ld it have been an engine failure/Vmc stall?  I suppose, but looking a= t 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 somethi= ng else.  And anyway, over the years I've found myself rounding t= he base leg into a continuous turn as a preventive measure against inadvert= ently 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 certa= inly 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 rud= der 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 arou= nd with rudder with the exception of simulated single engine overshoot trai= ning, the abrupt movement felt in the planes rear seats is would be very un= comfortable 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




 


 ----------MB_8CF002A768A0FCA_159C_8AD31_webmail-stg-m05.sysops.aol.com--