Sender: <marv@lancaironline.net>
To:  lml@lancaironline.net
Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2014 14:24:52 -0500
Message-ID: <redirect-6704903@logan.com>
Received-SPF: pass
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=216.33.127.81; envelope-from=troneill@charter.net
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1085)
Subject: Re: [LML] Re: LOBO eNews -- January 2014
From: Terrence O'Neill <troneill@charter.net>
In-Reply-To: <list-6704508@logan.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
References: <list-6704508@logan.com>

Kevin,
Yes, I agree.  He pulled his wing up into a stall-angle -- because he =
did not have or did not use an AOA -angle of attack indicator.

An AOA indicator PRIMARILY shows a pilot -- instantly, eye-to-hand -- =
how close he himself is pitching his wing -- to its stall angle.
Speed has nothing to do with that; a wing stalls at an ANGLE.

The FAA is STILL not requiring training using AOAs -- fifty (50) years =
after the US Navy put them on every carrier-based aircraft.
What was the result of using AOAs on landings by the excellent Navy =
pilots' accident rate?
It cut landing accidents fifty (50) percent in the very first year!
Unintentional stalls cause about a quarter to a third of all general =
aviation fatalities every year.
The FAA is a stubborn, slow learner, imho.
It is so sad to lose the wonderful pilots and their friends and =
families, and their beautiful flying machines .. needlessly.

Terrence O'Neill
4 yeas a Navy pilot.
I designed, built and flight tested and major-modified and flight tested =
six original aircraft, using my own-design of a simple AOA vane... so I =
could SEE how close I was flying my wings to their fixed stall AOA.
Have published magazine articles ranting on the same need for 50 years =
... but  pilots seem to be locked into thinking programmed by their =
first FAA-dictated flight training.


On Jan 27, 2014, at 10:44 AM, Kevin Stallard wrote:

> Hi Bill,
>=20
> If I may respectfully (emphasis on respectfully) disagree.
>=20
> It wasn't .the controller that put the plane in a bank and pulled up.  =
 Was the controller confusing?   Yep, no doubt.   I have to honestly say =
that as soon as I heard 'no' and something about extending the downwind, =
I would have had the inclination of  turning left as well.  =20
>=20
> I would say that part of the confusion was from the pilot not =
following directions in the first place.  If he had been on downwind as =
the controller was expecting him too...what would have happened?  Who =
knows...
>=20
> In any case,  the final analysis is that the pilot did something with =
his airplane that caused it to spin. =20
>=20
> Real sad.....
>=20
> Kevin
>=20
>=20
> ________________________________________
> From: Lancair Mailing List [lml@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of Bill =
Bradburry [bbradburry@bellsouth.net]
> Sent: Monday, January 27, 2014 8:11 AM
> To: lml@lancaironline.net
> Subject: [LML] Re: LOBO eNews -- January 2014
>=20
> The lesson here is who is going to be at fault when an accident =
occurs.  The controller cleared the Cirrus to land.  He didn=92t clear =
him number two after the other Cirrus.  He also cleared him to land =
long, so it was perfectly logical for the pilot to turn base =
immediately.  Sure, he would probably have lived if he had turned right =
and landed long and the other Cirrus had landed on the numbers, but he =
didn=92t have the other plane in sight and didn=92t know where he was so =
he tried to climb and turn away from the airport and in his panic, did =
so too aggressively.
>=20
> The controller was the total cause of the accident but everything in =
the piece turns it back to the pilot.
>=20
> Just keep in mind that your pilot license is in the hands of the =
controller, but your LIFE is in YOUR hands!
>=20
> Bill
>=20
>=20
> --
> For archives and unsub =
http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/lml/List.html