Drop Zone to Centerline in 2 minutes.

Threefingeredjack said:
At this point I think it is obvious we are trying to explain a rainbow to a blind man. There are some who will never go to the edges of the performance capabilities of their machine, and have no base of experience to judge whether doing so is safe, much less possible. But of course this does not prevent them from passing judgement on a topic they are unprepared to experience. :dunno:
Click to expand...

Well put.
 
Threefingeredjack said:
At this point I think it is obvious we are trying to explain a rainbow to a blind man. There are some who will never go to the edges of the performance capabilities of their machine, and have no base of experience to judge whether doing so is safe, much less possible. But of course this does not prevent them from passing judgement on a topic they are unprepared to experience. :dunno:
Click to expand...

Couldn't agree more.
 
Threefingeredjack said:
At this point I think it is obvious we are trying to explain a rainbow to a blind man. There are some who will never go to the edges of the performance capabilities of their machine, and have no base of experience to judge whether doing so is safe, much less possible. But of course this does not prevent them from passing judgement on a topic they are unprepared to experience. :dunno:
Click to expand...

See, to my mind you guys are missing the point. No one questions the stick-and-rudder skill of that pilot. We are not talking about pushing to the edge of the "performance capabilities of the machine". Our complaints are about the pilot's judgment.

I suspect that a lot of us are speaking from the point-of-view of being very familiar with risk; that is, risk is an inherent part of our life and our work. Now you can't get rid of risk. The more audacious you want to be, the bigger the prize, the more risk you have to be willing to take on. I don't judge anyone for going to the extreme edge of risk vs. reward, not least because I don't want anyone judging me.

But you have understand the risk (so you comprehend the full implications of what you're doing) and mitigate it to the largest extent possible. It means that you look at your objective (what is the mission result I want?), understand the inherent risks (a, b, c, . . . ), and mitigate them as far as possible (if we do X then d is neutralized; Y neutralizes f; . . .) You also don't take on unnecessary risk. Why imperil the mission if there's no upside? It just doesn't make any sense.

So when the guy in the video is flying at 100agl over those trees, I ask, "why?" He is opening himself up to all sorts of risks--elevator failure, bird strike, stung by bee in the face, whatever--that probably end up killing him and destroying the airplane. If he were at 1,000agl then he would have a nice margin of error to deal with the problem. If your elevator control fails down at 1,000agl that's probably enough time to recognize it and get on the trim to get you leveled out so you have time to think and work through the problem. If it fails at 100agl you are going to be speeding nose first into the trees. You're dead not because you're an unskilled pilot, but because you had poor judgment.

If there's no reason to expose yourself to those risks, don't do it. There's no upside. If you're a military pilot, for example, avoiding ground fire, air defense, or whatever, obviously there's a huge upside. It's totally worth it. Not only can you fly that way, you probably should. But there has to be a reason.
 
Last edited:
Would be funny if it weren't so damn pathetic.
 
Tommy3 said:
So when the guy in the video is flying at 100agl over those trees, I ask, "why?" He is opening himself up to all sorts of risks--elevator failure, bird strike, stung by bee in the face, whatever--that probably end up killing him and destroying the airplane. If he were at 1,000agl then he would have a nice margin of error to deal with the problem.
Click to expand...

Dude are you serious right now?
 
well, I'm only a few hours in, but I'd say "who cares", not like most of us will ever do anything like this.
 
eman1200 said:
well, I'm only a few hours in, but I'd say "who cares", not like most of us will ever do anything like this.
Click to expand...

Nonsense several peoplehere have done that job. I've ridden down like that a few times and have been passed in freefall by a plane doing that thousands of times. Point is this not unsafe and it isn't some one off stupid human trick. Flying like that happens every day all day long all over the world.
 
bartmc said:
What do you think about crop dusting?
Click to expand...

You'll have to be more specific than that, but did you read the argument I gave above? If so, ask yourself--does mission accomplishment (viz. crop dusting) require low-level, prima facie "reckless" flight? It does. Thus the crop duster is not taking unnecessary risks. The risks are part of the mission profile.

Now, if the crop duster just jumps in his plane without doing a thorough preflight, then he is being reckless. Why? Because there's nothing about crop dusting that precludes thorough preflights.
 
Tommy3 said:
You'll have to be more specific than that, but did you read the argument I gave above? If so, ask yourself--does mission accomplishment (viz. crop dusting) require low-level, prima facie "reckless" flight? It does. Thus the crop duster is not taking unnecessary risks. The risks are part of the mission profile.

Now, if the crop duster just jumps in his plane without doing a thorough preflight, then he is being reckless. Why? Because there's nothing about crop dusting that precludes thorough preflights.
Click to expand...

Then it is settled. All is ok with the flying in the video. Skydiving operations need that profile flown.
 
ClimbnSink said:
Then it is settled. All is ok with the flying in the video. Skydiving operations need that profile flown.
Click to expand...

Pretty much, both operations are about making money, though you can spray a field without a plane if you want. If I own the local meat bombing operation, I'm hiring the guy who can get 2 more loads a day in while saving me 50 bucks a run over the guy doing practice approaches to get back down.
 
Tommy3 said:
Yes. Do you have a sound reply?
Click to expand...

I have soundly replied to you multiple times. It sounds like you worry about meteors hitting your airplane, or aliens, or who the hell knows. Flying low and getting stung by a bee? Are you kidding me? There is more risk taking off than flying low with a huge reserve of extra airspeed to bleed off if something happens. He could make that runway easily, I am sure of it, if he would have lost an engine, or both from where he was hugging the tree tops. As fas as elevator loss, if you can show me a control surface failure where the elevator departs the aircraft, or where control has been severed, and the aircraft and crew survived, I would love to see it. 1,000 feet, 10,000 feet isn't going to matter. Again, you don't really seem to understand how this stuff works. You can't comprehend flying outside of the box, or outside of your own type of flying. Because your instructor probably taught you so when you were a student, which is fantastic, because you shouldn't be doing that as a student. But he's not a student. And that operation is normal for the job he is doing.
 
ClimbnSink said:
Nonsense several peoplehere have done that job. I've ridden down like that a few times and have been passed in freefall by a plane doing that thousands of times. Point is this not unsafe and it isn't some one off stupid human trick. Flying like that happens every day all day long all over the world.
Click to expand...

good for you. I still say, who cares.
 
ClimbnSink said:
Then it is settled. All is ok with the flying in the video. Skydiving operations need that profile flown.
Click to expand...

No, it is not settled. You need one more step to make your argument sound. That is, you must justify why skydiving operations "need that profile flown", why the time cannot be spared for a normal, safer pattern.

I am not familiar with skydiving, so I'll have to defer to you about this (assuming you are familiar with it), but it strikes me as highly unlikely that there is such a urgent need to get the plane back in the air that the two minutes for a normal, safer pattern, cannot be spared.

I do know that military jumps do not have such critical time constraints, and I reason from there, using the the general principle that if there is not a military need then there is not a civilian need. That, however, is just a rule-of-thumb and my inference may not be correct. That said, that the pilot is in such urgent time constraints that he cannot spare a couple minutes in the name of safety just strikes me as obviously wrong.
 
Inverted said:
I have soundly replied to you multiple times. It sounds like you worry about meteors hitting your airplane, or aliens, or who the hell knows. Flying low and getting stung by a bee? Are you kidding me? There is more risk taking off than flying low with a huge reserve of extra airspeed to bleed off if something happens. He could make that runway easily, I am sure of it, if he would have lost an engine, or both from where he was hugging the tree tops. As fas as elevator loss, if you can show me a control surface failure where the elevator departs the aircraft, or where control has been severed, and the aircraft and crew survived, I would love to see it. 1,000 feet, 10,000 feet isn't going to matter. Again, you don't really seem to understand how this stuff works. You can't comprehend flying outside of the box, or outside of your own type of flying. Because your instructor probably taught you so when you were a student, which is fantastic, because you shouldn't be doing that as a student. But he's not a student. And that operation is normal for the job he is doing.
Click to expand...

No, you have not soundly responded. It is evident by what you say here. Of course takeoffs are more dangerous than flying low as he does. But takeoffs are also completely necessary; you can't fly without them. That's the whole point.

Again, you don't seem to understand how this stuff works. When we talk about a control surface failure we are not talking about the elevator literally falling off the airplane. We are talking about the linkage from the elevator to the yoke/stick becoming disconnected. That is an emergency situation, but it need not be a fatal one. If you can recognize what is going on and maintain level flight with trim then you can probably land that aircraft. Such a response is possible at 1,000agl, but it is not possible at 100agl. If the elevator fails down at 100agl then it's all over for you.

The point is that we remove all the risk possible while still accomplishing the mission. Any risk not removed in this way in fact imperils the mission. I'm worried about control surface failures, yeah, bees stinging me, all sorts of hugely unlikely circumstances. I'm mostly worried about the things I can't even reckon. The chance that any one of them, individually, is going to occur in vanishingly small. But you have to aggregate them, and if you fly long enough, one of them is gonna get you. And when that happens if you're flying as prudently as you can, with as large margins of error as are consistent with your objective, then you've put yourself in as good a position as possible to come out alive. That's judgment, that's good piloting.
 
Using your *cough* logic the airlines should do a full teardown/inspection after every flight. No reason for them to add fuel and food, pump the can and takeoff again. No need for the airlines to fly through ice either. Peoplecan just skype or write a letter, they don'tneed to take any of those marginal trips.
 
Tommy3 said:
No, you have not soundly responded. It is evident by what you say here. Of course takeoffs are more dangerous than flying low as he does. But takeoffs are also completely necessary; you can't fly without them. That's the whole point.

Again, you don't seem to understand how this stuff works. When we talk about a control surface failure we are not talking about the elevator literally falling off the airplane. We are talking about the linkage from the elevator to the yoke/stick becoming disconnected. That is an emergency situation, but it need not be a fatal one. If you can recognize what is going on and maintain level flight with trim then you can probably land that aircraft. Such a response is possible at 1,000agl, but it is not possible at 100agl. If the elevator fails down at 100agl then it's all over for you.

The point is that we remove all the risk possible while still accomplishing the mission. Any risk not removed in this way in fact imperils the mission. I'm worried about control surface failures, yeah, bees stinging me, all sorts of hugely unlikely circumstances. I'm mostly worried about the things I can't even reckon. The chance that any one of them, individually, is going to occur in vanishingly small. But you have to aggregate them, and if you fly long enough, one of them is gonna get you. And when that happens if you're flying as prudently as you can, with as large margins of error as are consistent with your objective, then you've put yourself in as good a position as possible to come out alive.
Click to expand...

I am done arguing with you. You know zero about skydive operations. You are incapable of understanding that flying at treetop level, which is what you keep arguing about, is not necessary, but who gives a crap? It is fun, and you seem to also be incapable of understanding that people can fly the way they want, there was nothing illegal nor unsafe. What is unsafe to you, might not be unsafe to others, and that I have repeated to you several times already. Don't sit there and argue with me about a control surface failure being a non event. Have you flown the Do-28? Are you familiar with the elevator, and the type of trim tab installed on the airplane? You have ZERO idea how that plane, nor any plane for that matter, will behave with no controllability of the elevator. The speed, pitch and bank angles, descent rate, and general maneuvering in that video is completely fine, and there is nothing wrong with it. You can argue "what ifs" all day long, it doesn't change the fact that there are more risky endeavors than flying above the treetops.
 
Tommy3 said:
I do know that military jumps do not have such critical time constraints......
Click to expand...

You are quite incorrect. I've been on jumps from an MC-130P flying across 14 time zones where the time constraints were +1 -0 minutes. The military often has critical time constraints....more often than not

Tommy3 said:
.....and I reason from there, using the the general principle that if there is not a military need then there is not a civilian need. That, however, is just a rule-of-thumb and my inference may not be correct.
Click to expand...

Your premise is wrong. Commercial operations have economic components that are not generally transferable from a military mission profile. An extra 2 loads a day may mean the difference between profitability and bankruptcy.

Bee stings are an acceptable risk to these operations, you are certainly free to set your risk tolerance at a different level...

BTW, Google Mike Mullins King Air for some excellent skydiver flying
 
jbarrass said:
You are quite incorrect. I've been on jumps from an MC-130P flying across 14 time zones where the time constraints were +1 -0 minutes. The military often has critical time constraints....more often than not
Click to expand...

Believe me that I know this better than most anyone. But we're not arguing about the timing of dropping the jumpers. We're arguing about the approach and landing. I cannot remember hearing about a single instance when there was a mission reason to, after conducting the drop, skip a normal approach to do what was seen in the video. If I am wrong about that let me know. Of course, you also have the further step to say why commercial operations are subsumed under the same premise.


jbarrass said:
Your premise is wrong. Commercial operations have economic components that are not generally transferable from a military mission profile. An extra 2 loads a day may mean the difference between profitability and bankruptcy.
Click to expand...

So do you assert that that saving of 2 minutes is necessary for the economic component? I'm open to hearing that, but no one has articulated why, which I presume is because there's no reason.

By the way, thanks for giving a rational response. One of the truly depressing things about contemporary American culture is how few people can follow the steps of a simple deductive argument.
 
Inverted said:
I am done arguing with you. You know zero about skydive operations. You are incapable of understanding that flying at treetop level, which is what you keep arguing about, is not necessary, but who gives a crap? It is fun, and you seem to also be incapable of understanding that people can fly the way they want, there was nothing illegal nor unsafe. What is unsafe to you, might not be unsafe to others, and that I have repeated to you several times already. Don't sit there and argue with me about a control surface failure being a non event. Have you flown the Do-28? Are you familiar with the elevator, and the type of trim tab installed on the airplane? You have ZERO idea how that plane, nor any plane for that matter, will behave with no controllability of the elevator. The speed, pitch and bank angles, descent rate, and general maneuvering in that video is completely fine, and there is nothing wrong with it. You can argue "what ifs" all day long, it doesn't change the fact that there are more risky endeavors than flying above the treetops.
Click to expand...

Jesus, man. This is not an argument.

(1) We agree that "people can fly the way they want".
(2) We agree that "there are more risky endeavors than flying above the treetops".

Now, I may be wrong. But I've given an argument for why it's unsafe flying. I'll repeat it once again: Being a safe pilot means not taking unnecessary risk. The pilot in the video is taking an unnecessary risk by flying at 100agl during the approach rather than a standard pattern. This is an unnecessary risk because (1) it is not a risk necessary to accomplish his mission (i.e. there is no commercial impact owing to the two minute delay of a standard approach), and (2) flying at 100agl rather than 1,000agl reduces the safety margin to deal with both predictable and unpredictable negative events (e.g. control surface failure).

Now, that's my argument. To show that it is unsound you must show that either (1) the premises are false, or (2) it is logically invalid (or both). It is not logically invalid, which you can check if you are so inclined. Thus you must show that one or more of the premises is false.

It seems to me that your most effective means to do this is to either:

(1) Demonstrate that the risk taken in the video is not unnecessary. That is, the 2 minutes saved by flying that approach is commercially necessary. I've asked for that repeatedly but no one seems eager to take on that task.

Or

(2) Show that my general methodological risk premise--i.e. taking on unnecessary risks is reckless--is false. That could well be but you need to give an argument. I'm not sure how much clearer I can make this. You can't rely on ad hominem attacks, or irrelevancies ("people can fly how they want"), or non sequitirs ("Don't sit there and argue with me about a control surface failure being a non event"--who would think this is a non-event? Have you read the posts?)

I hope this is helpful.
 
Last edited:
Oh lord, I'll spoon feed it to ya, so open wide cuz here comes the airplane

Lets use some mock jump numbers for XYZ turbine DZ.

Jumps are 13 or 17.9k (5,000fpm decent to a base/final, kinda like the video but a little easier).

12 loads

Lets say half are 17.9, other half 13k, thus average altitude is 15.5


Normal "RESPONSIBLE" weekend warrior rate of decent is 1000-1500fpm, so 1250fpm average.
Time to do a normal pattern .1 (downwind, base, final, etc)

SO,

15500' / 1250fpm = 12.4 min plus the .1 (6min) for the standard issue pattern 18.4min

15500' / 5000fpm = 3.1 min to wheels down plus, 1 minute for decel turn to final / flaps, thats 4.1 min

So you want to burn up 14.3 minutes (or .23hrs) per load.

On the average day of 12 loads thats 171.6 minutes extra (2.8hrs)

Now if the fog doesn't clear until 12 (common on the coast) and it gets dark at 8, we have 8hours to get say, 70 people wavered, paid, harnessed and out the plane.

Now with your sissy ass decent we NOW have 5.2 hours!!

Now lets figure the cost to operate a turbine aircraft unnecessarily for another 2.8hrs each day

You just cut our time to get everyone in the air by 35% and ADDED 2.8 hours on our engine, prop and airframe PER DAY! :goofy:

Hell, just doing a full pattern at .1 extra per load.
That 1.2hrs extra a day, figure the overhaul on that turbine is 250,000, hot sections, cycles, fuel, aircraft cost and interest on load, insurance, etc, NOW calculate the hourly cost, heck just playing the "full pattern game" it'll cost around $1100 per day with 12 loads!!


I'll say it one more time, that type of increase in costs on a turbine 1m+ dollar plane, plus the loss of revenue for wasting daylight, that's the difference between a successful DZ that puts food on peoples tables and another failed aviation business.
 
Last edited:
Yup. Not only do you risk not getting the tandems done, run slow turnarounds and the funjumpers are going somewhere else.
NineThreeKilo said:
Oh lord, I'll spoon feed it to ya, so open wide cuz here comes the airplane

Lets use some mock jump numbers for XYZ turbine DZ.

Jumps are 13 or 17.9k (5,000fpm decent to a base/final, kinda like the video but a little easier).

12 loads

Lets say half are 17.9, other half 13k, thus average altitude is 15.5


Normal "RESPONSIBLE" weekend warrior rate of decent is 1000-1500fpm, so 1250fpm average.
Time to do a normal pattern .1 (downwind, base, final, etc)

SO,

15500' / 1250fpm = 12.4 min plus the .1 (6min) for the standard issue pattern 18.4min

15500' / 5000fpm = 3.1 min to wheels down plus, 1 minute for decel turn to final / flaps, thats 4.1 min

So you want to burn up 14.3 minutes (or .23hrs) per load.

On the average day of 12 loads thats 171.6 minutes extra (2.8hrs)

Now if the fog doesn't clear until 12 (common on the coast) and it gets dark at 8, we have 8hours to get say, 70 people wavered, paid, harnessed and out the plane.

Now with your sissy ass decent we NOW have 5.2 hours!!

Now lets figure the cost to operate a turbine aircraft unnecessarily for another 2.8hrs each day

You just cut our time to get everyone in the air by 35% and ADDED 2.8 hours on our engine, prop and airframe PER DAY! :goofy:

Hell, just doing a full pattern at .1 extra per load.
That 1.2hrs extra a day, figure the overhaul on that turbine is 250,000, hot sections, cycles, fuel, aircraft cost and interest on load, insurance, etc, NOW calculate the hourly cost, heck just playing the "full pattern game" it'll cost around $1100 per day with 12 loads!!


I'll say it one more time, that type of increase in costs on a turbine 1m+ dollar plane, plus the loss of revenue for wasting daylight, that's the difference between a successful DZ that puts food on peoples tables and another failed aviation business.
Click to expand...
 
93K unfortunately your argument is unsound. No one is concerned with the decent. We've beeb talking about the pattern. So you can't adduce any aspects of the decent profile for your conclusion. You have to demonstrate why flying a pattern like that is necessary to accomplish the mission.

But your basic argument may work anyway. If we say that the pilot is saving 2 minutes owing to the pattern in the video and there are 12 loads then he is saving 24 minutes per day. If that savings of 24 minutes is operationally necessary (all you have to do is say, honestly, that it is), then one of my premises is false and my argument is unsound.

It is extremely important to be rational, calm, and not a dick while arguing. Otherwise there is no point; people are just spouting bull**** (which I know is popular these days).
 
Tommy3 said:
93K unfortunately your argument is unsound. No one is concerned with the decent. We've beeb talking about the pattern. So you can't adduce any aspects of the decent profile for your conclusion. You have to demonstrate why flying a pattern like that is necessary to accomplish the mission.

But your basic argument may work anyway. If we say that the pilot is saving 2 minutes owing to the pattern in the video and there are 12 loads then he is saving 24 minutes per day. If that savings of 24 minutes is operationally necessary (all you have to do is say, honestly, that it is), then one of my premises is false and my argument is unsound.

It is extremely important to be rational, calm, and not a dick while arguing. Otherwise there is no point; people are just spouting bull**** (which I know is popular these days).
Click to expand...

I thought a few others (myself included) already said what I just posted just without the numbers (and a full pattern is more like .1)

All that being said, you did make a good point, I could have explained all that without being a dick, my bad.. got a metric ton going on at the airport and think my fuse has been shorter then normal.
 
Last edited:
NineThreeKilo said:
I thought a few others (myself included) already said what I just posted just without the numbers (and a full pattern is more like .1)
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, no, no one has yet made this step, which would be the last one to complete your sound argument. Since I'm not familiar with skydiving operations I can't speak to the necessity of saving the 24 minutes (or whatever). But all you need to do is state that claim clearly and then you have made your argument.


NineThreeKilo said:
All that being said, you did make a good point, I could have explained all that without being a dick, my bad.. got a metric ton going on at the airport and think my fuse has been shorter then normal.
Click to expand...

No problema.
 
They need the 24 minutes that is another load. Full of tandems could be 2 grand worth of profit in that 24 minutes.
 
Funny how we debate endlessly about whether or not this pilot was doing something unduly risky in his Dornier while never mentioning the 12 guys that jumped out of it at 14 thousand feet with nothing but a backpack full of silk.
 
Now that's funny!! Was talking to a coworker today about meat bombs and he assumed that everyone in the AF had to jump out of an airplane. I said hell no not me or anyone I know. We let the army do that.
 
Back in the early 90's there was a year where more skydivers died in plane crashes on the way up, then after jumping out. Often the number is pretty close. On the disengenious front the US parachute ass. doesn't count the aircraft crash on the way to altitude casaulties in their fatality statistics. The soaring society on the other hand counts tow accidents and tow pilots. Doesn't make any difference dead is dead, just different spin.
 
Jumping is safer then many things we do everyday.

You have a main and a FAA rigger packed reserve, you have a AAD which will automatically deploy your reserve below a selected altitude (in case your knocked out or something), if you cut away your main and are too dumb or messed up to pull your reserve you even have a RSL (reserve static line) that will automatically deploy your reserve if you cut your main.

All the materieals and the three ring system is sooo refined at this point, it's not even funny, as long as your are jumping halfway good gear at a halfway good DZ you're set.

Heck, we've trained up a ton of jumpers through AFF (where the student jumps solo and the jump master dives along side giving them hand signals and stabilizing them if necessary). Worse I've seen was a twisted ankle from a gopher hole as the student was walking back after landing lol
 
Tommy3 said:
93K unfortunately your argument is unsound. No one is concerned with the decent. We've beeb talking about the pattern. So you can't adduce any aspects of the decent profile for your conclusion. You have to demonstrate why flying a pattern like that is necessary to accomplish the mission. But your basic argument may work anyway. If we say that the pilot is saving 2 minutes owing to the pattern in the video and there are 12 loads then he is saving 24 minutes per day. If that savings of 24 minutes is operationally necessary (all you have to do is say, honestly, that it is), then one of my premises is false and my argument is unsound.
Click to expand...
Ok I have been trying to stay out of this one, since it was really going no where but from a guy who currently fly a lot of skydivers at one of the biggest DZ in a Caravan, Tommy you are right that there really is no reason to fly like that. While it is true on many levels that time is money and loads take time, I have never had to skim trees or turn final that close to the runway. I will not go so far as to say it is reckless, because I think its quite safe. You do indeed lower your safety margins by a bit. I will not be a prude though and say I or others dont do this for fun and to keep it interesting. I can turn base at 7000 and still make the runway so those telling you that you need to skim trees to save 2min a load is not exactly being truthful with you. IF you are only doing 12 loads a day to 14.k and not hot fueling in between loads then you are not busy and you have plenty of daylight to get in another load if necessary.


Tommy3 said:
It is extremely important to be rational, calm, and not a dick while arguing. Otherwise there is no point; people are just spouting bull**** (which I know is popular these days).
Click to expand...
Agreed.


ClimbnSink said:
They need the 24 minutes that is another load. Full of tandems could be 2 grand worth of profit in that 24 minutes.
Click to expand...
You don't need to fly like that to get another load done, I promise. If you want to...Im not mad at you, but lets call it what it is.
 
Inverted said:
You may need to step outside the world of being a CFI to understand what other people are saying. I assure you, the military is not the only place where precision, low level, high performance flying is required. Pilots are very capable of this. As I have said before, it is hard for the weekend warrior, or the common CFI to understand these things. Talking about it doesn't mean somebody thinks they are invincible, but rather a profesional pilot, who is trained, and good at what they do.
Click to expand...

Better physics skills do not constitute better pilot. I've seen very well trained and capable pilots die from simple errors or silly negligence ..





Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
 
sdflyer said:
Better physics skills do not constitute better pilot. I've seen very well trained and capable pilots die from simple errors or silly negligence ..





Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
Click to expand...


True statement - but poor physics understanding has killed a lot more of them!
 
Tommy3 said:
When that guy's skimming the trees, what if the elevator fails down?
Click to expand...

You've said this several times. What do you mean by "elevator fails down?" Can you describe to me a failure mode in which a properly trimmed airplane's elevator suddenly drops? :dunno:

If the elevator fails at 1,000agl--pattern altitude--that's probably enough time to get on the trim, nose up, get stabilized, and deal with the problem. If it fails nose down at 100agl then you're probably ****ed.
Click to expand...

I would suggest that an elevator failure is almost as likely to be fatal at 1000 AGL as it is at 100. I'd want at least 5000 AGL to recognize, respond, and recover from that one. (Hey, I just made something up. Three R's!)

Like I said, if we find out that the fellow in the video had a sick passenger in the back, then what seems "reckless" becomes immediately prudent and laudable. It's not just about skill. You have to think deeper.
Click to expand...

And I would suggest that if what the pilot in the video did was indeed "reckless" then it's not a maneuver I would perform just because of a sick passenger - Hell, you're just gonna make 'em more sick flying like that! ;) If by "Sick" you mean "having a major medical event like a heart attack" I'm only gonna perform that maneuver if I'm flying directly over Megalopolis Intergalactic Airport where there are likely to be medical personnel and facilities available on or near the airport. If it's a "reckless" maneuver as you assert, then "think deeper" and don't do it unless the plane is on fire.

turbofan said:
Like I said before: if it's just your life and you wrote the check for the plane, then do whatever you want to, bro. If other people are there that don't understand the risk or it's someone else's machine, then don't.
Click to expand...

Ummm... Everyone else already jumped out of the plane, so there's no other people to worry about.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top