Hard lesson

EdFred said:
Exceeding VA doesn't equate to automatic structural damage.
Click to expand...

It might if you encounter turbulence above Va -- turbulence that nearly always exists at the bases and below of CU in the summertime.

My rule (primacy and all) is to expect turbulence --especially in the summertime -- as you descend from above to below a layer, and not exceed Va in case it exists. If it doesn't be happy.
 
dmccormack said:
It might if you encounter turbulence above Va -- turbulence that nearly always exists at the bases and below of CU in the summertime.

My rule (primacy and all) is to expect turbulence --especially in the summertime -- as you descend from above to below a layer, and not exceed Va in case it exists. If it doesn't be happy.
Click to expand...

It *might*, but probably won't. You still gotta pull over 4g's
 
Last edited:
dmccormack said:
...and so the smart thing to do is not dive through the clouds somewhere in the yellow arc and instead maintain a speed at or below Va, n'est pas?
Click to expand...

You have to consider all the conditions, and still gotta exceed the magic number. And it's not often that you're going to exceed 3.8 (plus another 25%) Gs coming down through a hole. The air in the hole is more than likely descending air, and not rising air, so the chances of a major lift pushing you past 4G+ is diminished. And coming through a stratus, yeah, I'm not concerned with VA
 
EdFred said:
You have to consider all the conditions, and still gotta exceed the magic number. And it's not often that you're going to exceed 3.8 (plus another 25%) Gs coming down through a hole. The air in the hole is more than likely descending air, and not rising air, so the chances of a major lift pushing you past 4G+ is diminished. And coming through a stratus, yeah, I'm not concerned with VA
Click to expand...

Stratus? Not a problem....

CU? It's a bit of a crap shoot. A "hole" may be rapidly closing (which these were) which portends unstable air -- even if the hole is smooth, usually it's bumpy below the CU base layer.

My concern for this student on this flight was for him to think about what he was doing -- and diving towards the hole at an excessive speed was not really "thinking."

Questiong his airspeed made him think about the stresses about to be imposed on the 55 year old airframe -- stresses compounded by high speed, light weight, and turbulent air.

I'd do it exactly the same way again, but would be more than happy to discuss all the implications of turbulence and Va on the ground.
 
dmccormack said:
My concern for this student on this flight was for him to think about what he was doing -- and diving towards the hole at an excessive speed was not really "thinking."

Questiong his airspeed made him think about the stresses about to be imposed on the 55 year old airframe -- stresses compounded by high speed, light weight, and turbulent air.

I'd do it exactly the same way again, but would be more than happy to discuss all the implications of turbulence and Va on the ground.
Click to expand...

Not only potential turbulence, but what's just past that hole you're about to punch through? TV tower? Terrain? That would be a good reason to keep things at Va, in case you need to make a quick evasive manuver.


Trapper John
 
Trapper John said:
Not only potential turbulence, but what's just past that hole you're about to punch through? TV tower? Terrain? That would be a good reason to keep things at Va, in case you need to make a quick evasive manuver.


Trapper John
Click to expand...

That I didn't think about -- we knew the bases were at least 2000' AGL (listened to nearby AWOS), but that's a good point.

Thanks -- I'll add that to the data hopper.

:yes:
 
EdFred said:
You have to consider all the conditions, and still gotta exceed the magic number. And it's not often that you're going to exceed 3.8 (plus another 25%) Gs coming down through a hole. The air in the hole is more than likely descending air, and not rising air, so the chances of a major lift pushing you past 4G+ is diminished. And coming through a stratus, yeah, I'm not concerned with VA
Click to expand...

Assume'n the plane knows not to "fold" below 4g's.:D I'm not sure I trust my plane for those kinda conditions. I'll push the envelope w/my underware and wife, not my wings.:rofl: And I've found the limit w/one.:rolleyes2::rofl::rofl::rofl:
 
BigAL said:
Assume'n the plane knows not to "fold" below 4g's.:D I'm not sure I trust my plane for those kinda conditions. I'll push the envelope w/my underware and wife, not my wings.:rofl: And I've found the limit w/one.:rolleyes2::rofl::rofl::rofl:
Click to expand...

If I don't trust my plane to handle 3.8/4.4G, I don't know if I would ever fly in it.
 
EdFred said:
If I don't trust my plane to handle 3.8/4.4G, I don't know if I would ever fly in it.
Click to expand...

It sounds like alot for my '65 ercoupe.:dunno: Why push it if you don't have too? I'm a rookie, but I haven't felt near that many g's yet, maybe two. But then again, maybe it's more than I think.:dunno: I guess I don't want to find the limits of the plane....just mine.:D

Go ahead, call me Nancy.:D
 
dmccormack said:
It might if you encounter turbulence above Va -- turbulence that nearly always exists at the bases and below of CU in the summertime.

My rule (primacy and all) is to expect turbulence --especially in the summertime -- as you descend from above to below a layer, and not exceed Va in case it exists. If it doesn't be happy.
Click to expand...
It is going to take a hell of a bump to rip your wings off because you're a bit above Va. Like, you are in a thunderstorm bump, and in that case all bets are off.

If you encounter enough turbulence to honestly believe you need to be below Va you *will not be able* to read your airspeed indicator. Hopefully you'll be able to get your hand on the throttle to reduce power and then try to stay in a semi-level attitude. Va has a use -- and is worth respecting during aerobatics. Being overly worried about it because of the chance of turbulence demonstrates a lack of knowledge of the airplanes capabilities.

When it comes to getting down a hole in the clouds, I agree with you, it's much better to do slow. Not because I'm afraid of a little road bump ripping my wings off but because it's much easier to circle in a small hole at slow speeds.
 
Last edited:
BigAL said:
It sounds like alot for my '65 ercoupe.:dunno: Why push it if you don't have too? I'm a rookie, but I haven't felt near that many g's yet, maybe two. But then again, maybe it's more than I think.:dunno: I guess I don't want to find the limits of the plane....just mine.:D

Go ahead, call me Nancy.:D
Click to expand...


I'm not going to call you a Nancy, I am just going to say there is a lot of 'bad' information that gets passed down from CFIs because they got that same bad info from their CFIs and have never bothered to really look deeper into it.
 
jesse said:
It is going to take a hell of a bump to rip your wings off because you're a bit above Va. Like, you are in a thunderstorm bump, and in that case all bets are off.

If you encounter enough turbulence to honestly believe you need to be below Va you *will not be able* to read your airspeed indicator. Hopefully you'll be able to get your hand on the throttle to reduce power and then try to stay in a semi-level attitude.
Click to expand...

Consider the context -- flying down though a hole in rapidly building CU to enter unstable air beneath.

It's very easy for an inexperienced pilot in a hurry to forget airspeed, and be in the yellow arc as he dives for the last opening in the clouds.

In this particular case, as soon as we were even with the base of the CU layer, it was 20 degree wing dip, hard slam bumps for a while.

Va doesn't assure much (even if I take the time to calculate Va for my current weight). It's a guide -- slow down, reduce the potential energy conflict, and reduce the stress on the airframe, engine mounts, and yourself.
 
Last edited:
EdFred said:
I'm not going to call you a Nancy, I am just going to say there is a lot of 'bad' information that gets passed down from CFIs because they got that same bad info from their CFIs and have never bothered to really look deeper into it.
Click to expand...


Oh good grief. You made an assertion, it's been addressed, and yet you lump this discussion in the same class as "Don't slip on final or you die."
 
dmccormack said:
Oh good grief. You made an assertion, it's been addressed, and yet you lump this discussion in the same class as "Don't slip on final or you die."
Click to expand...

I never said anything about a slip on final. And you might be able to address it with your student on the ground, but not someone on the board like Snaggletooth who is just starting out, might read your post and go, "Oh, a CFI said I can never fly above VA in a descent or my wings will come off!" Now the rest of us are stuck trying to unteach that.
 
EdFred said:
I never said anything about a slip on final. And you might be able to address it with your student on the ground, but not someone on the board like Snaggletooth who is just starting out, might read your post and go, "Oh, a CFI said I can never fly above VA in a descent or my wings will come off!" Now the rest of us are stuck trying to unteach that.
Click to expand...

Kinda like unteaching "stall speed increases with bank"???
 
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe said:
Kinda like unteaching "stall speed increases with bank"???
Click to expand...
....in level flight.

Generally when I bank really steep, I have no interest in maintaining level flight, and am doing it for the sole purpose of losing altitude while changing direction.
 
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe said:
Kinda like unteaching "stall speed increases with bank"???
Click to expand...

A stall can accur at any airspeed. :D

Edit: And Jesse is on the spot. Load factor also doesn't increase with just bank, just with bank in level flight. I can be in a 1G 60º bank - provided I am not attempting to maintain altitude.
 
EdFred said:
I never said anything about a slip on final. And you might be able to address it with your student on the ground, but not someone on the board like Snaggletooth who is just starting out, might read your post and go, "Oh, a CFI said I can never fly above VA in a descent or my wings will come off!" Now the rest of us are stuck trying to unteach that.
Click to expand...


No, you're not stuck with anything.

Any reasonably intelligent pilot candidate can read this thread without hazard to his/her piloting career.
 
dmccormack said:
No, you're not stuck with anything.

Any reasonably intelligent pilot candidate can read this thread without hazard to his/her piloting career.
Click to expand...

Based on things I've heard directly from CFIs, I wouldn't bet my tickets on that. There's a whole lotta dumb out in the world.
 
Ed's right on this one. I run into this a lot, where people will make a generalization and say that's the rule, rather than actually teaching the reasons behind the generalization.

I can agree with keeping it below the yellow arc due to turbulence, and I can agree with wanting to descend through the cloud slow. I can't agree with teaching a method like that, though. Then the rest of us have to unteach those things.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Ed's right on this one. I run into this a lot, where people will make a generalization and say that's the rule, rather than actually teaching the reasons behind the generalization.

I can agree with keeping it below the yellow arc due to turbulence, and I can agree with wanting to descend through the cloud slow. I can't agree with teaching a method like that, though. Then the rest of us have to unteach those things.
Click to expand...

You say you agree with keeping it "below the yellow arc due to turbulence" and agree with "wanting to descend through the cloud slow."

I was more specific in my initial post, where you'll read I suggested the student should reconsider flying into turbulence far faster than Va -- especially through rapidly closing holes in cumulus when you don't know how much turbulence you will encounter.

Given the age of most GA aircraft, I'll continue to teach caution when mixing high speeds and turbulence.

Fell free to teach whatever you want, but don't imply I'm teaching lessons that need to be "untaught," because that's pure nonsense.
 
dmccormack said:
You say you agree with keeping it "below the yellow arc due to turbulence" and agree with "wanting to descend through the cloud slow."

I was more specific in my initial post, where you'll read I suggested the student should reconsider flying into turbulence far faster than Va -- especially through rapidly closing holes in cumulus when you don't know how much turbulence you will encounter.

Given the age of most GA aircraft, I'll continue to teach caution when mixing high speeds and turbulence.

Fell free to teach whatever you want, but don't imply I'm teaching lessons that need to be "untaught," because that's pure nonsense.
Click to expand...

Teaching caution is fine, but if you haven't gone in depth with your student on WHY, (and not just a regurgitated because Va is blah blah blah) yeah, there is unteaching that needs to be done.
 
EdFred said:
Teaching caution is fine, but if you haven't gone in depth with your student on WHY, (and not just a regurgitated because Va is blah blah blah) yeah, there is unteaching that needs to be done.
Click to expand...

This is my issue. You're not teaching caution and the why behind it, it's just a rote procedure (at least based on the description). Rote learning = lowest level of learning.
 
Last edited:
EdFred said:
Teaching caution is fine, but if you haven't gone in depth with your student on WHY, (and not just a regurgitated because Va is blah blah blah) yeah, there is unteaching that needs to be done.
Click to expand...

You're being intentionally confrontational because your initial response to this thread was turned on its head and you've been trying to save face since.

You're trying to create an issue where there was none. The student is a Private Pilot, we've discussed Va, and he is aware of the principle. As I mentioned in the narrative, he was diving for a hole in the clouds and not considering the implications of high speed on the structure of the airplane if he encountered turbulence (which is nearly inevitable at the base of summer cumulus -- though not guaranteed).

Va is a fine discussion to have on the ground. In this case I was able to remind a new pilot that stresses placed on older airframe can be mitigated by reducing speed. I will do the exact same thing next time I'm in the same situation.
 
I still stand by my exceeding-Va-will-rip-your-wings-off is not a good reinforcement.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top