Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Flight Following' started by Lndwarrior, Jan 7, 2018.
Balloons scare the crap out of me because they tend to fly when the sun is low, and get lost in the ground clutter because they don't move fast enough to stand out.
Maybe that's why they tend to be brightly colored.
According to this NASA article "The Maximum Performance Landing test will determine the best landing technique and the length of runway required to bring the airplane to a stop after passing over a 50 foot obstacle."
I remember a local crop duster who flew a Stearman would always land his plane, climb out, and then pull the cotton stalks and weeds from the landing gear. He was a very skilled pilot who took great pride in his work.
Don't be so hard on yourself. We have all made mistakes.
Must have been some tall shrubs...
Yeah but he was hedge hopping. Like this guy. Reportedly @EvilEagle ...
If there's a bustle in your hedgerow
Don't be alarmed now...
Anyone seen a stairway.....
We want...... a shrubbery!!!
Be Careful and don't tempt fate again.
Is that because she's been trying to get you to trim the shrubs at home for months?
So, are you going to enlighten us about what exactly you were trying to do? What's a max performance landing?
I've specifically avoided this so as not to derail this post from the main point. But here you go:
And yes, I know, that anytime we as pilots try to do anything new in our aircraft that presents a heightened level of risk that we should have a CFI on board. This was my first mistake. I made two more after that. Three total. A perfect accident chain.
It's funny, but I've spent a part of every single day for the past 15 years or more reading internet forums, recurrent training, IFR rating and other education sources with the goal to becoming a safer pilot.
I'm still processing how I let myself go this far down the chain. It is unnerving to a very disturbing level. I am going to talk to a CFI about it because it suggests a serious problem in my ADM.
Derail the post? We were already talking about hot air balloons.
Thanks for the video. I see that most landings are made over grass, bare ground, or water. Good places for you to practice maybe!
Quite the video. The goal of touching down at a chosen spot with minimum airspeed is certainly admirable. The so-called “precision visual approach” is another method to achieve a similar result without using such a low approach speed.
I think you’ve identified one of the main problems with the technique you were practicing. It is obviously unforgiving of either inattention or wind shear of any kind (gusts). Talking with an experienced CFI is a real good idea.
The low approach speed and high angle of attack is indicative to STOL landings... which most people just call 'landings'. If I'm talking to someone in person I might say 'STOL landing' and do the official STOL landing hand signal of a tilted down 'high five' which represents the wing angle.
The Main problem is he doesn't fly a STOL aircraft. Might have STOL capabilities but his aviator picture looks like an RV-12 which has a stall speed higher than my typical 172 STOL approach speed. It also has the power to climb if I remain in the nose high attitude and go all in...
The use of a CFI has been brought up but the problem is it's a niche type of instruction and when I looked 3 years ago I couldn't find anyone. Most responses were 'can't be too different from any other 172'... I ended up working with an old salt for a few flights who taught me the nose high STOL landings and full flap take offs, which would better in non electric flap planes.
The thing is that the approach does not need to be flown below Vso*1.2 to make a spot landing and be at minimum airspeed. If there is an obstacle then from the obstacle down the approach can be at a higher angle of attack or a slip used but prior to that obstacle the approach should be at Vso*1.2 or above. If there is no obstacle then learning to round-out and hit a spot at minimum airspeed is the key to a short landing. The aircraft will behave consistently so it is up to the pilot to learn the behavior and utilize it. There is no reason to expose yourself to the risk of inattention or wind shear above the obstacle in my not so humble opinion.
In other words yes you can chose to fly the approach slower than Vso*1.2. My observation is that such slow speeds are unnecessary prior to obstacle clearance. If there is no obstacle then such a slow speed is not necessary. Touchdown at minimum airspeed does not depend on approach speed.
I agree with you... unless you're landing in a 200 ft long sandbar with a STOL capable plane. At that point it's less about obstacle avoidance and more about the shortest possible roll-out once your wheels hit the exact spot you want them to. I'm speculating that is what the OP was trying to emulate, utilizing the nose high attitude method shown in that video. He could have even been trying dragging it along a bit like they do in STOL contests, which they do because they're scored on hitting a specific line. At such a nose high pitch your ASI isn't going to work... or at least mine doesn't... and it's more about feel and using your throttle to arrest your descent at your desired FPM rate. Your airspeed indicator and method of determining your glideslope becomes your eyes looking out and down... which is why almost all STOL planes have high wings.
Meh, wasn't your day to die. When it is I hope I am not a passenger. Until that day you are indestructible so enjoy the freedom.
ETA: BTW I get the confession thing I have always been one to do the same thing. Did I mention I rolled a Jeep Cherokee on myself this summer when replacing a driveshaft? Like the old Geico commercial used to say, "we all do dumb things."
Yeah, I have landed a few times with leaves and twigs in the landing gear.
It happens during off airport landings and short strips.
I was doing some off airport work in Alaska, then when I was finished I landed at King Salmon to fuel up for the trip home. The line guy got all excited because he thought I was a drug runner. The prop tips were stained green and there was a few remnants left in the landing gear from going through weeds. He ran inside and dragged the manager out to show him the evidence. The manager just laughed and said this guy has been working down by the river hauling fish..!!! Which I had been doing. The landing strip was full of weeds about 2 feet tall.
As hard as it is, I appreciate you sharing this. You have the right attitude. Now, all jokes aside, having an AOA indicator while performing these types of precision landings would certainly be worthwhile, especially in the early stages of learning. It’s certainly easy to get behind the powercurve in this type of environment.
Your analogy to confession is rather ironic to me because I was just talking to a friend about how my role as a CFI sometimes turns into that of a confessor and counsellor -- usually in a strictly flying sense, but not always. Anyway...
Is this "occasion of sin," so to speak, actually necessary? For the average pilot, it is not usually necessary nor reasonable to be stretching the performance limits of an airplane unless there is a real need to do that in the pilot's regular flying. Even when there is, these techniques are often practiced with an instructor at airports that afford plenty of space to do so obstacle-free. With the widespread availability of 2,500+ foot, paved, public use airports in most parts of the country, I'm not sure that actually performing this technique for practice is even necessary. It could be argued that proficiency in short-field techniques is good for emergencies, but a "max performance landing" is the not the same as a minimum performance emergency like an engine failure.
In a similar sense, if I drive a car which can do a 180-degree turning burnout and then go from 0-60 MPH in 6 seconds, is it actually necessary for me to practice doing that? Does it enhance my safety as a driver? Probably not -- even if I completed a risk assessment matrix, the 3 Ps, the IMSAFE, and the other 5 or so acronymous checklists in the FAA Risk Management Handbook. The thing is, it's not just a matter of assessing risk. This is an example of where the theory of ADM is weak. My problem with ADM is that, as presently taught, it assumes a certain action is already intended and works to either support or disprove that intent in the context of risk. A better approach, if you ask me, involves prudence, which allows us to consider the mere necessity of an action before we even intend to perform it. If we disprove the need with sound reason, we eliminate the intent altogether.
Of course, some have tried to flip the above argument around on me and say that something like practicing stall recoveries is unnecessary, so long as pilots keep an airplane well within the envelope. (I get this on at least 50% of the BFRs I conduct.) However that theory counters the numerous studies which consistently point to improper stall recognition and recovery as a main contributing factor to GA accidents. As a result, the BFRs I conduct emphasize both. On the contrary, despite that performance landings are required during training, there seems to be little impact on safety when a pilot foregoes practicing them for the rest of his flying career. Therefore it is not usually necessary for most pilots to routinely practice them, nor has the FAA or NTSB asked CFIs to emphasize performance landings during BFRs.
Hope that helps. This is a bit long and theoretical, but I hope it gives you a different perspective to use in future flying.
Also, I can't help but to once again mention my disdain for pilots who post flying videos on YouTube with a disclaimer stating "This information is not instructional," which is quickly followed with instructional narrations and analysis.
Good grief. . .seriously? You clipped a shrub and are overwhelmed with guilt? Come back when you've hurt someone else. . .you pressed the edge a bit, got close, but no harm done. You aren't evil, or stupid, or too tainted to remain in the company of the righteous. Shrub. Redwood. Scale is relevant.
This sick fascination with uber-safety is getting out of hand; reasonable caution, most of the time, yeah, sure. . .but in-depth missives and hand-wringing over state of mind, ROI on skills to practice, etc. . .
Beat yourself up, as you please, but don't be so arrogant as to consider yourself a real air pirate, or black-hearted scoff-law. Do max-performance landings because they're fun, and eff the practical value.
Guilt has nothing to do with it. Nor is it about hand wringing.
As a recent cancer survivor I have learned how precious and fleeting life is.
My emotional reaction is from the concern that I came so close to killing myself. And that it was a result of a series of errors I made.
To leave my wife and family alone because of a series of poor decisions on my part is not something I ever want to repeat. The damage it would have done to them would have been horrible.
I get that you don't get it. Also not sure where you thought I was being arrogant. I believe the sum total of my posts here suggest the opposite of arrogant.
To suggest that a pilot could have a "sick fascination with safety" is one of the strangest quotes I've ever seen on an aviation board.
Even if you landed on the shrubs I doubt you were anywhere near immanent death. I hit a tree causing enough damage that I had to replace three sections of skin and a chunk of wing spar. I just flew back to the airport and landed. As long as flight control continuity doesn’t become compromised most planes can take quite a bit of damage and not fall from the sky. Yeah you screwed up but I doubt you came as close to dying as you think.
This being POA, he's already getting both...
How did they get that plane to balance on its wing tip? Seems like it would tip over.
Sir, that would be classified. Do you have a need to know?
I vote for flogging!
Well you would think people would have the common sense not to try stuff they see on TV/Internet or the Circus... but they don't. You see this type of stuff everywhere now, not just aviation videos.
Today on the news, they were talking about and showing videos of these idiotic, moronic, retarded kids who were putting laundry detergent pods in their mouths, all in the name of making online videos. I just don't understand it.
What’s the point in stuffing detergent in your mouth??
Ya know, that be a very good question.
You screwed up. And you survived. Not always found in combo meals in aviation.
Quite often for us older types who've been around a while, it's "normalization of deviance"... funny name, serious problem.
Look at every aspect of your flying and see if you're doing literally everything "by the book"... as you learned it back in the early student days. Question ANYTHING you're not doing by the book... as a start.
That usually finds enough examples of things that you've "let slide" that you get a bit of a shock and have a lot more to think about.
For landings, the thought process often goes like this...
This doesn't look right...
Maybe I should go around... Awww, I can fix it...
This looks worse than last time...
I fixed it before... looks like a nice "challenge"...
(Note loss of thought of go-around...)
This is pretty wooley out here... worse than that one time I barely fixed it...
Awww, have fixed this twice before...
(Now not only no go-around thought, but bravado because of two deviant acts prior...)
And the snowball builds up momentum.
Our parents used do that to us with a bar of soap. Maybe powered detergent works quicker to sicken you. Bet they do it once, and once only.
You misquoted me - left out the "uber" before "safety". Wasn't advocating flying inverted under highway bridges; more that I detect a "disproportinate response", a certain extremism creeping into GA over the decades, regarding safety.
If we went a year without a single GA fatality, I'd see that as a bad thing - all accidents are preventable, but some accidents are inevitible, else we aren't stretching. Or even flying. No one wants to die stupid; I, and it's just my opinion, don't think you were that far off the reservation.
"Arrogance" in that you painted yourself as a wicked-bad decsion maker, and a major eff-up; I see what you did as a misdemeanor, not a capital crime - you jay walked; you didn't commit high treason.
Glad you beat cancer - as did my wife recently. So far. I don't want to leave her alone, either. But, we have family, and I have insurance, and I fly single engine land knowing the risks are mild, but the consequences can be extreme. So there is an element of selfishness to my flying. I'm good with that.
Room for all kinds, and not trying to change your mind; just talking on a forum.