Garfly

Like you, Don, I have a soft spot for Russia, but maybe a different one, more like the Russia of this vlogger, Vlad Vexler.

Apart from the techno/historical insights, what strikes me about this booklet is the elegance of the language they used back then.

However heedless he is to cost?

So, Vladimir Vladimirovich has been working to a rational plan, after all. ;- )

Okay, let's drop your "30 degree bank" issue then. Maybe Turbo's response to that was on the money. Nobody disagrees on the NOT having a normal horizon thing but you can have a normal horizon in a canyon and in a mega-city and still be in trouble (with bank angle and minimum radius).

Nev, I'd have guessed you'd have "liked" rather than "cautioned" that video because, as I saw it, it goes right to your "30 degree bank angle" point. Maybe I've misunderstood you. Anyway, in the video, Miller discusses that 'Cory Liddell' turn-radius accident in New York City (04:57) thus: "They had plenty of altitude, they could have rolled into a more aggressive bank and allowed the horizontal component of lift to pull the airplane away from the building ... the only thing I can think is that perhaps they were not comfortable with that type of manoeuvre" So the message is: being able (mentally and otherwise) to operate "on the edge" when needed is a life preserving skill. There are times when excessive timidity is what needs to be cautioned.

It's on the edge because it's an emergency manoeuvre. Jason Miller is suggesting that it's a skill all pilots should have in their tool-kit. The big difference with the V-shaped valley (as he demonstrates) is that you don't have room beneath you so you can't reduce the load factor by descending into the turn so you're limited to a level turn which means to a shallow bank angle. (Which is where we came in, right?)

And in this new Jason Miller video, the same issue is addressed but he also discusses the unloaded-wing factor in a descending turn which allows for a higher bank angle (in a canyon when you have enough air beneath you).

The same issue gets covered in the "Don't Pull Back" video: "Typically, a skidded turn happens because a pilot needs to turn quickly and he is operating under the erroneous and dangerous notion that adding more rudder than is necessary to maintain coordination will make a tighter turn. For instance, if there was a strong tailwind on the base leg at the base to final turn, the pilot may find himself overshooting the runway. In this situation a go-around is always the best choice, but if you must make a tight turn, perhaps to avoid an obstacle, then increasing bank angle while using just enough rudder to maintain coordination is much better than skidding your turn. This is because the airplane is much less likely to stall to begin with, and if it does stall, then it will not spin, so recovery can be effected immediately, with minimal loss of altitude, simply by getting the control yoke forward." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UJQsAxB7E4Q&t=907s

As I read it, Nev's 30 degrees max bank angle is the one discussed here (as example): https://www.reddit.com/r/flying/comments/jx5zzb/c172s_base_to_final_maximum_bank_angle/ C172S — Base to Final: Maximum bank angle? kelleytom ·2 yr. ago ... the common advice is to limit bank angles to 30 degrees in the pattern. This is probably good practice. But technically, it is MORE important to always remain COORDINATED in your turns (rudder keeping the ball centered). You will see there is a lot of discussion on pilot bulletin boards about a situation where a pilot turns base to final in too shallow of a turn, but then tries to correct with adding inside rudder in an attempt to line up with the runway. THIS is a setup for an unrecoverable spin, and especially if you are going too slow. I believe the best practice is to limit turns to 30 degrees but insist on keeping turns coordinated, AND maintaining the correct minimum speed considering the impact of a 30 Degree turn on stall speeds (keeping a wide margin above that stall speed). My 2 cents. DeluxeBurger01 ·2 yr. ago CFII Just a fun fact: According to "Aerodynamics for Naval aviators" published in '65, there isn't a noticeable increase in stall speed until you exceed 30 degrees of bank. This would explain why 30 degrees is often taught.

As far as the film goes, I think PenName's point was that it seems bizarre to kick-off with the 'locked-up controls' story given that it's such a special LOC-at-take-off case; more NOC-at-take-off (as in no control). It seemed like the various talking heads felt themselves forced into waffle mode, scratching around to fill their time with useful, on-point LOCATO stuff. And yet, airspeed, per se, as has been said, hardly gets a mention. I was also surprised that loss of control at Go-Around was not canvassed. It may well be covered in a later chapter (Landing?) but it could easily have gotten a guernsey here, since a go-around is, after all, for most intents and purposes, a take-off.

PenName said: "Point taken about the second point. Stuck controls after they have checked free and full movement though? I take the point that leaving the control lock in kills people. That is defs true." I'd agree that "Locked up Controls" doesn't quite fit the "Loss of Control" category. Typically, in the former, the pilot's the victim and in the latter, typically the problem.

They are. Refer CASA's Flight Instructor Manual. True, and I like it much better than "My aeroplane" and "Your aeroplane". (Except where the two pilots happen to be co-owners of the aircraft concerned. ;- )

But it's not as if RAAus is clueless as to all the actually good LOC resources "available anywhere in the world". In fact they did a great job of (cheaply) curating a bunch of them in this excellent Safety Month piece two years back called "Just DON'T Pull Back": https://www.raa.asn.au/our-organisation/safety/nationalsafetymonth/week-4/just-dont-pull-back/ Given the title, they could also have included this one (which we've watched and discussed here many times). THIS is what effective air-safety communication looks like:

Yeah, that bit gets covered in the next paragraph: "So now let’s say you actually managed to do the big push. The nose is very low but the airplane is still flying with at least a small margin above stall speed. If you were really low when the engine failed (up to about 300 feet), there is no question about what comes next. The airplane is descending rapidly and the ground is coming up equally fast, so the only option available is a slight turn if necessary to avoid any serious objects directly ahead of you, followed by a pull just before hitting the ground to flare or at least try to cushion the force of the impact. While the landing gear may be damaged or even collapse, the odds are that you and your passengers will have few if any injuries." https://www.flyingmag.com/technique-proficiency-human-factor-big-push-improbable-turn/

Regarding EFATO, at least, I'd be surprised to see anyone contradicting your assertion that the Big Push is what's needed. There's a fire-hose of advice online along these lines. For example, this Pilot Proficiency column in Flying Mag (US) from Jan 2011: https://www.flyingmag.com/technique-proficiency-human-factor-big-push-improbable-turn/ Excerpt: "What is required almost immediately after the engine fails while in the initial climb, let’s say between 50 feet and wherever you reduce the pitch attitude to cruise climb, is a surprisingly forceful push forward on the controls to an even more surprisingly nose-low attitude in order to keep the airplane flying. In an airplane with high drag, such as a biplane, you may need to push hard enough to feel light in the seat. Even in a low-drag, streamlined airplane, the push required will be close to that. At altitude a push like this would feel very strange, but would not be that scary or difficult to accomplish. However, following an engine failure on takeoff, you are not at altitude; you are only a few hundred feet above the ground. You would have to overcome every cell in your brain screaming at you to hold the wheel back to stop the descent. Many pilots have given in to that desperate plea, resulting in an almost immediate stall/spin following the engine failure."

By the way, the pub that used to be across the road from the Taree airport (mentioned on the map) is now closed. But there is cabin accommodation available at the Dawson River Tourist Park just 500 metres away (and 98 mogas at the adjacent servo). A McDonalds is a 1km hike further on but it's only a 5km cab ride into Taree town, anyway.

Yes, your map is a fantastic resource. So I suppose your new category (on-field, cheap and cheerful) is meant to be an added layer in another colour.

This recent Flight Chops vid throws some interesting light on, among other things, the art of test flying. It also demonstrates how cross-checking (high) Oil temps against (normal) CHTs - on false assumptions - can dangerously mislead. Incredibly, the team had two red-line oil temp emergencies in the same series of tests; one a false alarm and one all too true.

JG, would it make sense to widen the criteria to include on-field (or nearby) accommodation that you need to pay for (Tumut, for example)? I agree that a basic space for free (or near) is the better option. But sometimes you might be willing to pay Motel rates for a night if, otherwise, it makes your trip work better.

And Goats!

I don't quite understand what bad practice you're tilting at here, Nev. If nothing else, GPS GoTo pointers (and their much maligned magenta lines) do, at least, keep you firmly on a given "magnetic TRACK". (For a start, satellites don't give a damn about your local winds, nor your heading.) Sure, in the olden days your night-before planning was all you had, to come up with a heading to keep you to a track magnetic. But as a method, it called for lots of faith in forecast winds, your old whiskey compass and your ability to read a map etc. But hey, it usually worked out and for sure was/is great sport ... precisely because it was/is difficult. But since GPS, if holding a magnetic track is the main game then no amount of 'planning' comes close to following that 'JUST GoTo' boogey man. Obviously there's more to the art of flight planning than that. But, with the help of EFBs etc. I'd say it's practised better and safer today than ever. Good flight planning and magenta lines are hardly categorical opposites. BTW, I believe we're supposed to track hemispherically above 3,000' now.

In the video, Juan Browne talks about the typical pilot error of ruddering the nose around, hoping to increase turn rate in tight situations. But I don't think he's saying, for sure, that that's what happened here, though he seems to come close.

https://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=20221027-0 https://fireaviation.com/2022/10/27/air-tanker-crash-in-italy-kills-two/