---------------------------------------------------------- AeroElectric-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Thu 06/15/06: 6 ---------------------------------------------------------- Today's Message Index: ---------------------- 1. 12:44 AM - Re: [SPAM] Re: Re: IFR Requirements (required vs. good to have) (Brinker) 2. 12:44 AM - Re: Re: IFR Requirements (required vs. good to have) (Brinker) 3. 07:08 AM - Re: IFR Requirements (required vs. good ) () 4. 07:09 AM - Re: Airspeed and ATP (Robert L. Nuckolls, III) 5. 08:24 AM - Re: Re: IFR Requirements (required vs. good to have) (Jim Pleasants) 6. 10:22 AM - test (Larry L. Tompkins, P.E.) ________________________________ Message 1 _____________________________________ Time: 12:44:51 AM PST US From: "Brinker" Subject: Re: [SPAM] Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: IFR Requirements (required vs. good to have) --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Brinker" Very interesting that you equate the similator to real time. I have never flown a faa approved similator and have wondered about it's ability to do so. Thanks for the acknowlgment of experience. Randy ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert Sultzbach" Sent: Wednesday, June 14, 2006 8:34 PM Subject: RE: [SPAM] Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: IFR Requirements (required vs. good to have) > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Robert Sultzbach > > > Hi Charlie, How's it going? I think the reason light > twins are so dangerous is the very slim performance > margin afforded by the power of the remaining engine. > Twin engine jets are a whole different animal. I also > agree that pilot proficiency is a huge factor in the > light twin fatality rate. Professional pilots train > all the time for V1 cuts and other types of engine > outs. They are challenging and I'll bet just about > every pilot goons one in the simulator now and again > but for the most part they become a known quantity. I > have landed twice at airports with one engine running > and one dead on the wing/tail and I never claimed to > be Lindbergh. Both times the training was invaluable > and the real deal was a nonevent. It really was just > like the simulator! If pilots in nonprofessional (not > forced to undergo recurrent training)environments > don't train for engine outs, they become very > dangerous when an engine fails. It has been > documented that some pilots cannot get back to an > airport with an enroute engine failure. I believe > that is due to lack of practice. How well would you > land if you never did it until you had to? Safe > flying, Bob Sultzbach > > P.S. Are you going to Oshkosh this year? > > __________________________________________________ > > > ________________________________ Message 2 _____________________________________ Time: 12:44:51 AM PST US From: "Brinker" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: IFR Requirements (required vs. good to have) --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Brinker" Tim I'm up late and can't sleep so thought I'd answer some emails. You did'nt hurt my feelings at all. Thanks for the heads-up on airspeed. > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Tim Olson > > Oooops, sorry. I probably misread something and didn't put it > together right. I'd say it's Monday, but it ain't. :) > Glad everythings cool. Sorry A-E list. > > Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying > do not archive > ________________________________ Message 3 _____________________________________ Time: 07:08:17 AM PST US From: Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: IFR Requirements (required vs. good ) Hey guys I never said multi-engine is better. With "modern" electric architecture you can achieve system redundancy on parity of a twin. The only redundancy you can't achieve in a single is thrust redundancy. The old joke is don't worry we are flying in a twin. If one engine quits the other will take us to the scene of the accident. My point is there is only so much you can do. A lighting strike can take out the entire glass panel. I was agreeing with the Glasair guy that a mechanical back up for attitude (of different power source/type) is a good idea. However vacume is a poor alternate and we are stuck really with all electric. Jets still use air power. We have three kinds of hydraulic pumps, mechanically driven, electrical and pneumatic. Basically the same pump but with three types of power sources to drive them. My prop falling off comment was philosophical in nature about single pilot IFR. Having flown both single pilot part 135, middle of the night in mountainous terrain and part 121 and corporate w/ two pilot plus flt crews, the weak link is the single pilot, but this is a different topic. My point is all the fancy avionics may not prevent you from killing yourself. The comments about flying partial panel with a T&B or TC is great but as a CFI/CFII/MEI I can tell you many people do not do much partial panel. Statistics post vacume pump failure is really bad. Also a HOT HOMEBUILT fish-tailing thru the sky with the T&B wagging its tail in real IMC is a hand full. I know I survived a partial panel in a RV-4. It was not like flying a C-172 partial panel. An autopilot for single pilot Ops in a hot plane with little roll stability should be a must. Just be careful up there and to repeat what was mentioned training and currency is key and lack thereof is more likely to kill you than not having dual battiers and alternators. George M. ATP/CFI/CFII/MEI >From: "Olen Goodwin" > >You can take the statistics wherever you want to go, but if I'm on top >or in the clouds in a well maintained twin and lose one engine, I'll have >a much better chance of getting down intact than any single losing one >engine on earth, no matter how well equipped. >From: Kelly McMullen > >Multi-engine GA flights have just as many fatals as singles, and more >from mechanicals. Simple arithmetic...more than two times as many >devices to fail, more complacency on maintenance because there are >two, and more difficult to fly on one than the single on none. __________________________________________________ ________________________________ Message 4 _____________________________________ Time: 07:09:28 AM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Airspeed and ATP --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" At 10:09 AM 6/14/2006 -0400, you wrote: >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Fergus Kyle" > >Hello, > Taken in order, two points: >(1) "From: "richard titsworth" >Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: IFR Requirements (required vs. good to >have) >One small pet peeve of mine - the 196 shows GROUND SPEED (not airspeed). A >simple point - but add some tailwind and/or density altitude and the >differences can be disastrous - especially in an emergency when mental >workload is high. Do yourself a favor and repeat it ten times so you don't >forget. It shows ground speed not IAS." Yeah, GPS is for global issues, i.e. navigation. The sensing and display of air flow over wings and controls is for aviating and gps receivers are remarkably ignorant of airflow. >........Amen to that - AND that goes for confusing 'heading' for 'track made >good' as well. This is an excellent example of the pollution of meaning when two mini-cultures come together. The roots of many features in aviation come from the marine world where the supporting medium and external forces acting on the vehicle were currents within fluids - water and air instead of just air. In both boats and airplanes the vehicle's path is seldom defined by the direction in which the vehicle is pointed, hence a need to separate heading (pointing) course (direction of travel) and track (path over the surface of the earth). When the folks building GPS receivers for the world market really began to take off, the vast majority of their customers were going to be operating over a non-fluid surface were course and heading were tied together due to lack of drift. The general public was more likely to understand and latch on to a word like 'heading' (that's where I want to go) as opposed to 'course' (what . . . are we playing golf?) so the three digits that quantified direction of travel got labeled heading. Where they really blew it was when they described the course vector to your next way point as "bearing". Our water-borne brothers defined bearing as a vector referenced from heading. I.e., a change in heading from 30 degrees to 75 degrees was to point the vehicle at some location with a bearing of 45 degrees to the right of present heading. This says nothing about course since a change of heading by 45 degrees may not result in a course change of 45 degrees. The drift equation may calculate a course change other than 45 degrees when heading, wind and currents were considered together. >(2) I see some increasing use of the term 'ATP' to perhaps designate the >usefulness of advice from an airline pilot. That is a topic ripe for >fisticuffs since two of them stalled and killed themselves in a trainer I >helped build. Most "ATPs" will admit that their airline experience is great >for weather, communications and international trade, but useless in >operating little one-seaters in the countryside. I think we would all be >surprised at the number of ATPs reading this, so advice is as you find it, >not how it's presented. You betcha! And it happens in every venue when the scale, complexity and environment spread over a wide range of missions. Rules-of-the-road, operating techniques and skills for operating a VW on a trip to the store for bread are widely separated from those governing the movement of a large piece of machinery over the highways on a 50- wheeled tractor-trailer. The physics for both situations are identical . . . simple-ideas that are inviolate. But the manner in which they are stacked produces systems where the drivers of each would need intensive re-orientation should their respective skills and experience be limited to only one of the situations. Even when a driver has extensive skill and experience in both, there's a little re-training event that happens when making a transition from one vehicle to the other. For example, I'm always taken with the change of focus and profound changes of environment as I pull onto the highway from the airport after having just spent hours concentrating on the operation of the airplane. Bob . . . ________________________________ Message 5 _____________________________________ Time: 08:24:04 AM PST US From: "Jim Pleasants" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: IFR Requirements (required vs. good to have) --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Jim Pleasants" Amen, brother! I might add: pay attention to your (airplane's) attitude in the pattern, and in the flare. You will quickly learn that you don't even need to look at an airspeed indicator. do not archive ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim Olson" Sent: Wednesday, June 14, 2006 2:32 PM Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: IFR Requirements (required vs. good to have) > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Tim Olson > > I had the same problem when training. I was so focused on keeping above > stall speed that I flew all approaches at 80 kts. > > I can assure you that it's FAR better to just become good at airspeed > control, and know your proper approach speed. Landings become much > better, and MUCH safer, when done within 5 mph of the proper speed. > I nearly ballooned and porpoised into tragedy while flying a hot > approach once, years ago. > > As far as GPS not reading airspeed....why and how could it ever.... > unless you have it hooked to a pitot system. The only airspeed > indicators you should consider are pitot connected ones, and if you're > that paranoid still, then buy an AOA indicator. > > Again though, keeping an extra 20mph on final might just some day > get you seriously hurt, so I'd avoid that and find a better way. > > Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying > do not archive -- ________________________________ Message 6 _____________________________________ Time: 10:22:30 AM PST US From: "Larry L. Tompkins, P.E." Subject: AeroElectric-List: test