turboplanner

I think it's Turbo......

" where's that smell of possum skin coming from?"

that is true about the collision side of things for sure.i havent heard of any jab 160s falling apart but am interested in looking up bad incidents of the brs ,knowledge is good to have,and of course engine out on any aircraft doesnt mean an immediate pull the cord response.

That brought up about 30 reports, and in the first fatal the aircraft was fitted with a BRS but it hadn't been armed. I think they said it wouldn't have made any difference, but I've certainly read a number of reports where the BRS hadn't been armed or was found to be permanently wired in safe position.

That in turn reminded me of a few more accidents with visitors, spectators, maintenance staff etc who set off the BRS unintentionally.

There were other cases I recall where the aircraft was not positioned to allow the BRS to work.

If after searching the NTSB database as above you switch the "Aircraft" field to All you'll pick up Cirrus accidents and other production aitcraft

bexrbetter, firstly can I ask the source of the graph you posted and also do you contend that NASA's graph is incorrect and if so what would be the explanation for that, are they deliberately misleading us or are they shoddy scientists? (as must be nearly all of the worlds scientific organisations) http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence

CSIRO do their own analysis and also cross check information from the world's scientists.

The key issue for coastal communities is water temperature, and there's a graph on that n the series.

There's also a lot of explanatory information

http://www.csiro.au/Outcomes/Climate/Understanding/State-of-the-Climate-2012.aspx

".....the sherry at the meetins and gettn our coffee and keepn quiet like we say, youze are gunna be sleepn peacefully beneath the waves by 2 am, and what's more yer little mate with the Sergeant Pepper's Band gold brain on his shoulders will be used for a................................"

My neighbour is the scientist who coined the name "Greenhouse Effect" in the 1970's and he was one of the early members of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change so the name was around prior to around 2000. Global warming may have been the later name to make it simpler. He was well out of the extremist era, and is a good sounding board when the screaming debates start from time to time.

....Mario Condobolin and Magic Montpelier.

Magic was immediately seen as a plant by the Underbelly gang, and ......

It was blatantly political; macroeconomics is a very complex subject, but for example government legislation has worked in the emissions area on vehicles (industry generally is badly lagging.

We were doing very nicely with an education process until the Intergovernmental Panel was infiltrated by extremists who put out false figures, and we were on the right track with for example the Victorian Government's Department of Primary Industries advising fruit growers how to change varieties as the soil progressively dried out in parts of Victoria.

We were also on the right track by legislating for lower emissions which hit CO2 production with needle precision, and led to billions of dollars being spent on research in for example motor vehicles, where the people who used them paid for the research over time.

But to hit a slab of industry with a blunt tax and then rather cutely suggest they knew who would be affected and give them money was just plain dumb, especially when Australia has so little impact on the big picture.

... after seeing Captain's photo he has just made an appointment with a specialist to have some lumps removed from his chest.

"They are about as useless as a sore arse on a boundary rider" he said, but Madge................

What's wrong with ass?

We have a current alarming temperature increase cycle of about a hundred years cycle, so you can disregard the yearly temperature swings, but if you calculate a moving average for the last 150 years you should see an upward trend.

At the same time we are cycling into another ice age in about 15,000 years time.

"you can eat %$#@#$% cake!" which shocked.......

I hope he can talk some sense into Greater Shepparton Council which currently seems hell-bent on building in the aerodrome here until it can no longer operate. Kaz

There's an old saying - behaviour rewarded is behaviour repeated, and it would be nice to see him getting some thanks for his interest.

I've seen Gordon sitting with a stack of A4 paper about 200 mm high about 9:30 at night and he had to read every piece and make comments for the parliamentary sitting the next day, so I know how hard he works, and we are getting regular support in Victoria which helps make a difference when a Council decides it might sell off its airfield asset.

Gordon is Assistant Treasurer, so we've got a supporter right up there in the budget area.

What's the "G" loading specified for restraint points? About 20? Nev

"............so melodious?"

"That's because I've got him by the..........................................." but there was a choking sound as Endo was quickly silenced by Epau, and ....

It is, very sad, and it hasn't been for lack of trying in a number of areas, with some fascinating activities and some big risks in the early days.

When a Council seems determined to sell of its assets it seems the only way to counter this is to involve the State Government.

On the other hand I was disappointed today after posting a story from Victoria's Gordon Rich-Phillips, Assistant Treasurer, Minister for Technology, Minister for the Aviation Industry about upgrading an airfield in Victoria to see the story drop like a rock without a comment.

What do you want?

Here's an extract from "Stick and Rudder" by Wolfgang Langewiesche published in 1944 and renewed by him in 1972 and still one of the defining books of aircraft handling.

“Obviously it would be unsound to attempt to mininmize the seriousness of a forced landing when it does come, but it is important to point out that we often go a whole year without a fatality in the type of forced landing that the average pilot would regard as typical – a fatality growing out of a landing on rough terrain, with resulting overturning, ground looping, and that sort of thing – or from collisions with objects during the approach.

“What the pilot does not realize is that usually in a whole year’s crop of fatal accidents following a motor failure every one of the airplanes was found with the nose in the ground, tail in the air, spun in.

“That can only mean that the greatest hazard following motor failure is a loss of control of the airplane growing out of the pilots misusing the controls in attempting to maneuver excessively and abruptly.

“An airplane can spin only with the pilots help.

“Pilots who sustain a motor failure should instantly regard their then major risk as spinning the airplane.

“And they should realize that these spins are almost always out of turns – tight and quickly entered ones made in an effort either to get back to the take-off field or to get into position for an emergency landing in a random field.

“Actually, then, the real hazard following a motor failure is not the forced landing but the spin.

“When there isn’t any spin, airplanes are landed throughout the year in incredibly small places are unbelievably damaged in nose-overs, ground loops, and collisions without fatal injury to the occupants.”

From “The Killing Zone, How and Why Pilots die” by Paul A. Craig

“An engine failure on takeoff may be the pilot’s greatest challenge.

“The pilot’s immediate action will be the difference between life and death.

“If you get airborne over the runway and the engine gives you any trouble, your best solution is to reduce power and land straight ahead on the remaining runway. This is why we leave retractable gear down while there is any runway or clear zone ahead.

“The toughest problem exists between a point after the runway has passed behind and before enough altitude has been gained to turn around to the runway.

“More altitude will be lost in a gliding turn-around than in a straight-ahead glide. This fact makes the 180 degree turn at low altitude very hazardous. IN fact such a turn would actually be greater than 180 degrees.

“The turn back to the same runway as the takeoff would be more of a teardrop shape with an initial 210 degree turn followed by at least a 30 degree turn in the opposite direction to line up with the runway.

“The attempt to turn around and get back to the runway after an immediate engine failure has been termed the “impossible turn”

“Review the “Aerodynamic of a Turn” in Chapter 4 and you will understand that a turn places additional load on the airplane and raises the stall speed.

“In the instant that an engine failure occurs on takeoff, the pilot must remember that a turn back to the runway from a low altitude may be physically impossible.

The author then goes on to compare two incidents: one where the engine lost power crossing the end of the runway, the pilot spent time radioing that he had an engine failure, he was observed at 200 feet in a steep left bank and then the nose and left wing dropped and it went in nose first killing the pilot.

In the second incident when the engine failure occurred the pilot attempted a straight ahead landing and the worst case happened – the aircraft hit power lines, the empennage separated and remained entangled in the lines, the fuselage landed at the base of the surrounding trees and burned. The CFO rated pilot and student pilot were not injured.

.....and they paused in amazement as they looked out the window and saw the blessed vision of St Madge the Silent.

"He's rising!" one of the hippie groupies said

"He's got no................................."

We're very lucky to have Gordon, a GA pilot, in the Victorian Parliament.

http://www.rich-phillips.com.au/MediaCentre/PortfolioPressReleases/Aviation/tabid/102/ID/1239/160000-Nhill-Aerodrome-upgrade-ready-for-action.aspx

That's pretty standard for a circuit, I'd be surprised if anyone is teaching different, what is worrying is you may not have been taught to do STEEP turns, depending on the type you can end up in a spiral if your not propery trained, going by some of your posts lately I'd suggest you get with an instructor before you get into trouble, ask them to show you the relation between turning and increasing stall speed and you will see how much margin you actually have .Matty

My first steep turn was in a Chipmunk, and it was ninety degrees because I was imitating another pilot who'd been showing off to me. The instructor just let it fall into the spin for a few rotations and that was a good lesson as anyone knows who has spun a Chipmunk

I have dropped into a Spiral Dive from 60 degrees in a J170 with an instructor and it's easy, so saying there's plenty of margin is BS

I have been trained in steep turns, steep descending turns, and stall turns among other things.

And maybe I'm not wording my posts simply enough but the relationship between turning and increasing stall speeds was the very reason I raised the subject.

OK I give up, Yenn I actually look at the thingys which say 15 and 30. and stick out at what looks like 15 and 30 degrees

So the turn onto crosswind is 15 degrees and the turns on to Downwind, Base and Final are at 30 degrees, and you will have a very comfortable safety margin for a lapse or mistake.

I'd be taking notice of Facthunters 18 Nm or so to get away from the hail stones, but you ask an interesting question and I've never seen a distance quoted.

Oh FFS..Tubz..For starters, a RATE of turn is not defined by degrees. Its a a RATE of turn and depends on airspeed.

Steep turns at 45 degs are not what I would call steep:). 60 deg's has plenty of "safety margin' built in and is defined in the day vfr syllabus as "a steep turn" and should be demo'd during a licence test.

 

I like the crosswind turn as a cut off point for making a decision though.

Rate 1 and Rate 2 were descriptions used at the time, they were not definitions, and even the government tester would ask for a Rate 2 turn.

A steep turn is defined in the day vfr syllabus as 45 to 60 degrees. You may not call 45 degrees steep and you may use 60 degrees, but it's right out at the edge of the syllabus and was not taught for PPL in aircraft which had a much higher degree of dynamic stability design than many of the aircraft we see in RA today. There was a simpler transition to recovery techniques and even basic aerobatics, certainly if you wanted it because there were usually three or four Aerobats on line.

Given the number of people dropping out of the sky just because the engine fails today, I'd be leaning towards a bigger margin of safety; Rate 2 turns still allow you to fly the tightest circuits in the average group if you want to.

It is in the training syllabus I went through in two GA schools, in simpler form: "Until crosswind if the engine fails, nose down, maintain 70 kts* straight ahead, pick a contact point, quick fuel/mixture/switches, Mayday if you can"

That way you are always going to contact the ground flying, so you can flare and evade obstacles, and you will be facing into the wind for minimum ground speed.

A Forced Landing was a different sequence where the minimum height it would occur at was above 500 feet.

The turn on to crosswind was a Rate 1 turn (15 degrees)

The turns on to downwind, Base and Final were Rate 2 turns (30 degrees)

This meant that in the circuit area we had a big margin of safety in all turns which took care of the times when we may encounter a buffet, or brain fade/loss of concentration

Out of about 200 students/members we only lost one in about a decade and he disappeared over Bass Strait after seeing lights following him.

The training for a steep turn was a power increase to 2500 rpm at 30 degrees, increased lookout scans and maximum of 45 degrees, which also provide a safety buffer.

I notice RA people frequently using 45 and 60 degree turns, and assume they just haven't been through the culture which allows for a good safety margin.

*Cherokee