Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 01:06 AM - Re: Re: Maputo (Bill Bow)
2. 06:32 AM - Another Commander Lost (MOEMILLS@aol.com)
3. 10:12 AM - Re: Re: Maputo (MarcioK@aol.com)
4. 12:54 PM - STEC in a 520? (Bruce Campbell)
5. 12:54 PM - STEC in a 520? (Bruce Campbell)
6. 02:45 PM - Nobody Else in the Sky (CloudCraft@aol.com)
7. 03:44 PM - Re: Re: Maputo (css nico)
8. 03:51 PM - Re: Re: Maputo (css nico)
9. 03:53 PM - Re: Re: Maputo (css nico)
10. 03:53 PM - Re: Checklists anyone? (css nico)
11. 04:50 PM - Re: Re: Maputo (Andrew & Bridget Watson)
12. 06:01 PM - Re: STEC in a 520? (Chris Schuermann)
13. 06:55 PM - Re: Nobody Else in the Sky (W J R HAMILTON)
14. 07:15 PM - Re: Nobody Else in the Sky (CloudCraft@aol.com)
15. 07:48 PM - Va, approach speeds, etc. (Kelly Piper)
16. 09:14 PM - Checklists (Barry Hancock)
17. 09:53 PM - Re: Va, approach speeds, etc. (YOURTCFG@aol.com)
18. 10:04 PM - Re: Va, approach speeds, etc. (YOURTCFG@aol.com)
19. 10:08 PM - Re: Va, approach speeds, etc. (W J R HAMILTON)
20. 11:49 PM - Re: Va, approach speeds, etc. (Bruce Campbell)
21. 11:52 PM - Re: Va, approach speeds, etc. (Bruce Campbell)
Message 1
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Commander-List message posted by: "Bill Bow" <bowing74@earthlink.net>
Jambo is hello and goodbye. At least that was my understanding of Swahili.
I didn't mean for this to go on the list I thought it was going straight to
Nico, sorry
bilbo
----- Original Message -----
From: "Andrew & Bridget Watson" <andrew.bridget@shaw.ca>
Subject: Re: Commander-List: Re: Maputo
> --> Commander-List message posted by: Andrew & Bridget Watson
<andrew.bridget@shaw.ca>
>
> > Jambo Bwana,
>
> For that part of the world (Southern Africa) I believe the correct closing
> greeting would be "Shala gahle, Nkosi" (literally "stay well, King").
"Jambo
> Bwana" is a Swahili greeting.
>
> :-)
>
> God bless,
> Andrew.
>
>
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Another Commander Lost |
--> Commander-List message posted by: MOEMILLS@aol.com
Fellow Commander Drivers,
Sadley, it appears that another 680FL (N680WS) was lost on October 8, 2003 in
Harrison, AR with two serious injuries.
NTSB Identification # FTW04A006.
Regards.
Moe
N680RR
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Commander-List message posted by: MarcioK@aol.com
Hi
Anyone from Transafrik ?
If the site will take attachments, here's some photos to reminisce.
Thanks for stirring a couple of good memories
Marcio
Message 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Commander-List message posted by: "Bruce Campbell" <baruch@intelligentflight.com>
I think I heard a short while ago about an STEC autopilot in a 520.
Does that mean they have an STC now for the 520? They didn't used to.
Inquiring Minds Want To Know!
Bruce Campbell
AC52 N4186B
Message 5
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Commander-List message posted by: "Bruce Campbell" <baruch@intelligentflight.com>
I think I heard a short while ago about an STEC autopilot in a 520.
Does that mean they have an STC now for the 520? They didn't used to.
Inquiring Minds Want To Know!
Bruce Campbell
AC52 N4186B
Message 6
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Nobody Else in the Sky |
--> Commander-List message posted by: CloudCraft@aol.com
In a message dated 10/22/03 17:33:13 Pacific Daylight Time,
nico@cybersuperstore.com writes:
> There was (is?) just nobody else in the sky.
The strangest IFR clearance I've ever gotten was from (The Kingdom of) Tonga
-- VaVa'u to Pago Pago.
I called Nadi Control in Fiji on the H.F. for clearance. The controller
answered back, "No known traffic."
Fine, I thought, and asked for clearance from VaVa'u to Pago Pago again and
again the chap said, "No known traffic."
The third cycle of this brought back a very annoyed explanation that I should
have known from ICAO Annex 10. ATC's job is to separate known IFR traffic.
No traffic = no clearance required. I was still required to give position
reports but I could fly any route and altitude I wanted.
Some day I'll tell you about the strangest weather report I've ever gotten
...
Wing Commander Gordon
Message 7
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Commander-List message posted by: "css nico" <nico@cybersuperstore.com>
Sorry, my fault. But the list enjoyed it anyway, no?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bill Bow" <bowing74@earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Commander-List: Re: Maputo
> --> Commander-List message posted by: "Bill Bow" <bowing74@earthlink.net>
>
> Jambo is hello and goodbye. At least that was my understanding of
Swahili.
>
> I didn't mean for this to go on the list I thought it was going straight
to
> Nico, sorry
> bilbo
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Andrew & Bridget Watson" <andrew.bridget@shaw.ca>
> To: <commander-list@matronics.com>
> Subject: Re: Commander-List: Re: Maputo
>
>
> > --> Commander-List message posted by: Andrew & Bridget Watson
> <andrew.bridget@shaw.ca>
> >
> > > Jambo Bwana,
> >
> > For that part of the world (Southern Africa) I believe the correct
closing
> > greeting would be "Shala gahle, Nkosi" (literally "stay well, King").
> "Jambo
> > Bwana" is a Swahili greeting.
> >
> > :-)
> >
> > God bless,
> > Andrew.
> >
> >
>
>
Message 8
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Commander-List message posted by: "css nico" <nico@cybersuperstore.com>
The first time we had dinner at the hotel on Inhaca after about 10 years of
communist rule there, the chef prepared for us quite an extraordinary meal
on open fires outside in the hotel parking lot. The kitchen had been out of
commission for years due to no-maintenance. The variations of fish that were
on the menu was astonishing. Fish-head soup, fish fillet, fish and kelp,
fish and fish, fish tail desert, crab and crab, open crab, surprize crab,
and a lot more that I don't care to remember. But once you get used to the
fish it was OK. Glad we couldn't stay longer than the weekend otherwise I
would have preferred to swim away rather than fly away. Murdered a steak as
soon as we landed back in beef country.
Nico
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bill Bow" <bowing74@earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Commander-List: Re: Maputo
> --> Commander-List message posted by: "Bill Bow" <bowing74@earthlink.net>
>
> We had a piece of a laminated panel on the wing come off. It was about 3
> feet by 8 feet. I said something about they should be able to get it from
> South African Airways and was shocked at their response. I wasn't very
> aware of the politics involved of the day.
>
> I can still remember Christmas dinner at the hotel. I opened the menu.
> There was fish on one side of the menu and pork on the other. I didn't
want
> something looking back at me(the fish) so I ordered the pork. "Oh I'm
sorry
> sir we are out of the pork" the waiter said. That only left the fish.
I'm
> still confused why he gave us the menu. We had no choice.
>
> Jambo Bwana,
> bilbo
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "css nico" <nico@cybersuperstore.com>
> To: "Bill Bow" <bowing74@earthlink.net>
> Subject: Commander-List: Re: Maputo
>
>
> > --> Commander-List message posted by: "css nico"
> <nico@cybersuperstore.com>
> >
> > Well as they say in the classics, don't hold your breath. Africa is not
> much better today, Bill, they are trying to practice western standards in
> business, but as long as they believe that the rest of the world owes them
a
> living, they will take and take and take attributing their misguided
> approach as their right to justice.
> > It's a miracle that your planes stayed aloft to get the job done. I once
> waited at Maputo for taxi clearance and a 737 taxied past (Moz air, of
> course) with a piece of rubber flapping off one of the wheels of the main
> undercarriage. I called the tower to let the pilot know about the
situation
> but the pilot reported that he knew about the tread coming off the one
wheel
> and that it's still OK. He took off with pieces of rubber flying in all
> directions. Glad I sat in my 500 and not in that ship.
> > Thanks
> > Nico
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Bill Bow
> > To: css nico
> > Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2003 5:44 AM
> > Subject: Re: Maputo
> >
> >
> > I spent 30 days flying for Caladonian Airlines Inc. of Beruit, under
> contract to Air Tanzania. We were hired to start service from Dar es
Salem
> to London in a Boeing 720. Instead we were flying troops, who had been in
> Rodesia, from Biera to Maputo. I'm still waiting for my paycheck from
that
> "job"
> >
> > bilbo
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: css nico
> > To: Bill Bow
> > Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2003 7:16 PM
> > Subject: Re: Maputo
> >
> >
> > Yeah, huge prawns and Portuguese beer, I think it was Cocos or
> something. Someone remembers? We started flying in supplies to Inhaca soon
> after 1980.
> > Nico
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Bill Bow
> > To: nico@cybersuperstore.com
> > Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2003 3:02 PM
> > Subject: Maputo
> >
> >
> > Nico,
> >
> > I hadn't heard/seen that name in more than twenty years. I spent
> Christmas 1980 in Maputo. It was certainly a Christmas to remember.
> >
> > Bilbo
> >
> >
>
>
Message 9
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Commander-List message posted by: "css nico" <nico@cybersuperstore.com>
How's your book coming along?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Andrew & Bridget Watson" <andrew.bridget@shaw.ca>
Subject: Re: Commander-List: Re: Maputo
> --> Commander-List message posted by: Andrew & Bridget Watson
<andrew.bridget@shaw.ca>
>
> > Jambo Bwana,
>
> For that part of the world (Southern Africa) I believe the correct closing
> greeting would be "Shala gahle, Nkosi" (literally "stay well, King").
"Jambo
> Bwana" is a Swahili greeting.
>
> :-)
>
> God bless,
> Andrew.
>
>
Message 10
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Checklists anyone? |
--> Commander-List message posted by: "css nico" <nico@cybersuperstore.com>
I don't feel so bad that I have flown (single PIC) for so long without a
check list. Although I remain a convert I will execute my first-order flight
control with drills followed up by a checklist. Does that sound fair?
Nico
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bill Bow" <bowing74@earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Commander-List: Checklists anyone?
> --> Commander-List message posted by: "Bill Bow" <bowing74@earthlink.net>
>
> I think what people are missing in this thread is, priorities. Be it a
> three man crew or solo. For emergencies there are "memory items" and then
> there are checklist items. Memory item are the ones that can kill right
> away. Check list items may kill you later. It isn't one or the other,
but
> a combination that has proven to be the most effective. Memory items when
> the engine fails(throttle, prop, mixture). All the rest can probably wait
> until later.
>
> bilbo
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "css nico" <nico@cybersuperstore.com>
> To: <commander-list@matronics.com>
> Subject: Re: Commander-List: Checklists anyone?
>
>
> > --> Commander-List message posted by: "css nico"
> <nico@cybersuperstore.com>
> >
> > Oh, we are just talking about the practice of checklists versus
memorized
> > drills. Some folks adhere more rigorously to checklists than others. I
was
> a
> > total non-checklist pilot but has since converted, but the extent to
which
> > one ought to follow a checklist is the question. Obviously checklists
are
> > good verifiers, but the pilot should be able to complete all phases of
the
> > flight from memory.
> > Otherwise, sorry, there's no point.
> > Nico
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Robert Sather" <sather@charter.net>
> > To: <commander-list@matronics.com>
> > Subject: Re: Commander-List: Checklists anyone?
> >
> >
> > > --> Commander-List message posted by: "Robert Sather"
> <sather@charter.net>
> > >
> > >
> > > The point being?????
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "css nico" <nico@cybersuperstore.com>
> > > To: <commander-list@matronics.com>
> > > Subject: Re: Commander-List: Checklists anyone?
> > >
> > >
> > > > --> Commander-List message posted by: "css nico"
> > > <nico@cybersuperstore.com>
> > > >
> > > > There are strong arguments for checklists by pros who have been
> > practicing
> > > > their craft safely for a long time and amateurs like me will do good
> to
> > > heed
> > > > their advice. However, checklists appear to be only part of the
story.
> > > > Checklists, yes, but checklists alone, no way. And it is not as if
the
> > > pros
> > > > proposed that checklists are alone the cure for all fingertroubles,
> but
> > > they
> > > > preached to me and folks who would strap a plane to their butts and
> > blast
> > > > off having followed some acronym and scanning the instrument panel
> from
> > > left
> > > > to right touching each instrument and switch in an attempt to remain
> > > within
> > > > the reality realm.
> > > > Thanks
> > > > Nico
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: <YOURTCFG@aol.com>
> > > > To: <commander-list@matronics.com>
> > > > Subject: Re: Commander-List: Checklists anyone?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > --> Commander-List message posted by: YOURTCFG@aol.com
> > > > >
> > > > > In a message dated 10/21/2003 1:05:10 PM Pacific Standard Time,
> > > > > tfisher@commandergroup.bc.ca writes:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Absolutely emergency drills in a single pilot environment have
to
> be
> > > > > > conducted from memory
> > > > >
> > > > > How about a "memory checklist" I use C-I-G-A-R T-I-P. As I ferry
> or
> > > > write
> > > > > about many different airplanes, many (most) don't have a reliable
> > > written
> > > > > checklist. I believe firmly that a memory checklist is essential
to
> > > > safety.
> > > > > Emergencies require it. There are also the items that are not
> > currently
> > > > found on
> > > > > the Commander written checklist, such as turning off the aux hyd
> pump
> > > > after TO
> > > > > or checking the aux fuel valve operation prior to engine start.
> These
> > > > items
> > > > > are not found on the written checklist, but extremely important in
> the
> > > > real
> > > > > world. I have chosen to memorize them. There are certainly
> airplanes
> > > > that are
> > > > > to complex to commit their operation to memory, but Commander is
not
> > one
> > > > of
> > > > > them. Just my thoughts. jb
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
Message 11
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Commander-List message posted by: Andrew & Bridget Watson <andrew.bridget@shaw.ca>
Bilbo, I also thought this was just going to you. I meant this as a gentle
tease, and did not mean the whole list to see it. But because I teased you
in front of everybody, I feel it is only right to apologise in front of
everybody. I hope I didn't offend you, and I'm truly sorry if I did.
Regards,
Andrew.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Andrew & Bridget Watson" <andrew.bridget@shaw.ca>
Subject: Re: Commander-List: Re: Maputo
> --> Commander-List message posted by: Andrew & Bridget Watson
<andrew.bridget@shaw.ca>
>
> > Jambo Bwana,
>
> For that part of the world (Southern Africa) I believe the correct closing
> greeting would be "Shala gahle, Nkosi" (literally "stay well, King").
"Jambo
> Bwana" is a Swahili greeting.
>
> :-)
>
> God bless,
> Andrew.
>
>
Message 12
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: STEC in a 520? |
--> Commander-List message posted by: Chris Schuermann <cschuerm@cox.net>
Bruce Campbell wrote:
> Does that mean they have an STC now for the 520? They didn't used to.
I was kinda curious about that also Bruce. To my knowlege, the only
approved autopilots for the 520 are the Brittian and Lear models. Lear
was still in business as of a few years ago - don't know if they still
are though.
Chris
Message 13
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Nobody Else in the Sky |
--> Commander-List message posted by: W J R HAMILTON <wjrhamilton@optusnet.com.au>
All,
The great thing about uncontrolled airspace ( now ICAO G) is that it is
just that, uncontrolled.
In Wing Commander Gordon's case, the reporting was for SAR, although with
no search and rescue nearer than an RAAF Orion from Edinborough, South
Australia or the RNZAF, I've often pondered whether the SAR watch was no
more than a false sense of security.
For those who have grown up thinking that it's Marconi that keeps aircraft
in the air, and not Bernoulli, or who believe in the acoustic theory of
lift, ie when your lips stop flapping, the aeroplane stops flying, aviating
around the parts of the world ( large parts of it) where nobody want to
know can be a profoundly uncomfortable experience. Personally, I love it.
One one of my last trips to SA ( Melbourne to J'Burg) we were down at about
60S, several hundred miles south of Herd Island,with a beautiful view of
the pack ice, when the F/O ( as it was his sector,) asked me to get "A
clearance to climb", when I enquired as to where that might come from, a
local whale, maybe, he had a very funny look on his face. As I had to
gently explain to him, this was not B-RNAV in western Europe like last
week, or even E off KLAX , like several weeks before, in this case we were
"nowhere'sville", we were even south of the Mauritius FIR boundary, so
there was nobody the slightest bit interested if he climbed, dived, or even
flew around in ever decreasing circles until he flew up himself.
If you want to hear some really funny stories, ask me some time about the
hilariously titled "Brazzaville-Kinshasa Joint Approach Control Agreement".
What one should understand is that the "con" in "control", is the same as
the "con" as in "conman", a trol is an 'orrible mythical beast, now
starring in the Lord of the Rings.
Cheers,
Bill Hamilton.
At 17:44 10/23/03 -0400, you wrote:
>--> Commander-List message posted by: CloudCraft@aol.com
>
>In a message dated 10/22/03 17:33:13 Pacific Daylight Time,
>nico@cybersuperstore.com writes:
>
> > There was (is?) just nobody else in the sky.
>
>The strangest IFR clearance I've ever gotten was from (The Kingdom of) Tonga
>-- VaVa'u to Pago Pago.
>
>I called Nadi Control in Fiji on the H.F. for clearance. The controller
>answered back, "No known traffic."
>
>Fine, I thought, and asked for clearance from VaVa'u to Pago Pago again and
>again the chap said, "No known traffic."
>
>The third cycle of this brought back a very annoyed explanation that I should
>have known from ICAO Annex 10. ATC's job is to separate known IFR traffic.
> No traffic = no clearance required. I was still required to give position
>reports but I could fly any route and altitude I wanted.
>
>Some day I'll tell you about the strangest weather report I've ever gotten
>...
>
>Wing Commander Gordon
>
>
COMMUNICATIONS
CHANGES: All Recipients Please Note.
The new email address for all Glenalmond Group Companies, W.J.R.Hamilton,
Fighter Flights Internet Services and Warbirds.Net is:
<wjrhamilton@optusnet.com.au>
<fighterf@ozemail.com.au> will remain valid for about three months.
All phone numbers remain unchanged, but changes will take place in about
three months, the date will be notified.
Message 14
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Nobody Else in the Sky |
--> Commander-List message posted by: CloudCraft@aol.com
In a message dated 10/23/03 18:56:35 Pacific Daylight Time,
wjrhamilton@optusnet.com.au writes:
> If you want to hear some really funny stories, ask me some time about the
> hilariously titled "Brazzaville-Kinshasa Joint Approach Control Agreement".
>
I can't resist -- let's hear it, Mate!
Wing Commander Gordon
Message 15
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Va, approach speeds, etc. |
--> Commander-List message posted by: "Kelly Piper" <kellyp@air-matrix.com>
I just came upon an interesting point in the commercial PTS concerning
approach speeds (Multi-engine). Our 560A has no published approach
speed and lacking that, the PTS calls for Maximum 1.3 Vso or 78 mph (if
I calculated it right: 60 X 1.3). Our generously appointed flight
manual circa 1955 (all 30 pages or so) states "desired pattern speed 100 mph" with
no other reference to approach speed.
I'm due for a part 135 check-ride next week and I know it will come up:
Why do you fly the approach at 110 (the minimum I feel comfortable with)
when lacking published approach speed the maximum is 78 mph?
I don't know about anyone else, but it seems to me that flying the
approach at 78 mph in the 560 is WAY to slow and if forced to abort the
landing (or loss of an engine) you would come awful close to buying the
farm getting the airspeed back up to Vyse or at least comfortably away
from minimum single engine control speed.
What is the wisdom out there on pattern and approach speeds (in real
life)? I know there are several of you out there with many times my
paltry 150 hours in the Commander that would be willing to "enlighten"
me on this! Also on the same topic (V speeds) - short of calculating it
myself, does anyone have an idea of what Va is for the 560A, (or
similar)?
Thanks!
Kelly Piper
Director Of Operations
AirMatrix
kellyp@Air-Matrix.com
360-435-7343
425-231-3511 (Cell)
Message 16
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Commander-List message posted by: Barry Hancock <radialpower@cox.net>
Gang,
On Wednesday, October 22, 2003, at 11:55 PM, Bill B. wrote:
> I think what people are missing in this thread is, priorities. Be it a
> three man crew or solo. For emergencies there are "memory items" and
> then
> there are checklist items. Memory item are the ones that can kill right
> away. Check list items may kill you later. It isn't one or the other,
> but
> a combination that has proven to be the most effective. Memory items
> when
> the engine fails(throttle, prop, mixture). All the rest can probably
> wait
> until later.
>
> bilbo
I've been following this thread and just wanted to add my two cents now
that my point has been made by someone more qualified than I. I may be
a relative newbie (700TT, 150ME), but I have made it a habit to consult
the pros when it comes to piloting technique. Flying my CJ I have had
the opportunity to fraternize with a bunch of high time military guys
and retired airline pilots. I don't need to elaborate other than to say
what Bilbo is saying here is echoed by EVERY career pilot I've come in
contact with. It would serve all of us well to follow the techniques of
the military and airlines that have learned the hard way what the best
procedures are....
Now back to studying for my SE/ME Comm checkrides....
B
Barry Hancock
Director of Operations
Red Stars, Inc.
949.300.5510
www.allredstar.com
"Communism - Lousy Politics, Great Airplanes"
Message 17
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Va, approach speeds, etc. |
--> Commander-List message posted by: YOURTCFG@aol.com
In a message dated 10/23/2003 7:49:20 PM Pacific Standard Time,
kellyp@air-matrix.com writes:
> I'm due for a part 135 check-ride next week and I know it will come up:
> Why do you fly the approach at 110 (the minimum I feel comfortable with)
> when lacking published approach speed the maximum is 78 mph?
Message 18
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Va, approach speeds, etc. |
--> Commander-List message posted by: YOURTCFG@aol.com
In a message dated 10/23/2003 7:49:20 PM Pacific Standard Time,
kellyp@air-matrix.com writes:
> I'm due for a part 135 check-ride next week and I know it will come up:
> Why do you fly the approach at 110 (the minimum I feel comfortable with)
> when lacking published approach speed the maximum is 78 mph?
>
>
I use 80KTS for all short bodied Commanders. That seems a bit slow at first,
and 100KTS will work OK, but at 80, there is little chance of "letting the
propellers push the engine" Faster speeds will make it difficult to place the
airplane where you want it and you will float a considerable distance.
I am of the belief that there is no such thing as a single engine go
around. You may need to show someone you can do it for a checkride, but after
that, forget it. If the gear is down, land, period. We just last week lost a
Cessna 340 in Scapoose, OR, about 20 miles from here on a SE go-around.
VMCed in. Another airplane pulled in front of him and....... The pilot could
easily have sidestepped to the taxiway or even the area between the runway, but
tried to go around on one.
So being a bit below VYSE on landing is not much of a worry to me, If
one swarms, I will be landing, period. Just my thoughts. jb
PS That way you don't ever need to use the "single engine go- around
checklist" :-)
Message 19
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Va, approach speeds, etc. |
--> Commander-List message posted by: W J R HAMILTON <wjrhamilton@optusnet.com.au>
Kelly,
What I am about to say may help a little, can't provide a reference, so
please be cautious about what I say, but there is a serious disconnect when
it comes to light twins certified to the old CARs or FARs ( ex. for the
commuter amendment) . In general terms, the so called FAA standard requires
maintaining the "blue line" speed until some ill defined "commit point" on
late final, where you now have to get the speed back to a proper 1.3 Vs,
then try and get some power back up so that you are not gliding ( and
rapidly decelerating) across the fence.
Or, put another way, trying to "simulate" the performance of a FAR 25
aircraft compromises 100% of approaches, to cater for the less than
1:200;000 chance of an engine failure at low power settings on approach,
followed by a missed approach. The engine handling required is particularly
bad for supercharged or turbo normalised/supercharged engines, that goes
double if they are geared.
Lunacy, as far as risk management is concerned, and I want my pilots flying
stable approaches, everywhere, every time.
Is it sensible to hazard every approach, for the very unlikely event of a
simultaneous missed approach, and an engine failure on the missed approach.
I don't think so.
What is so silly about this is that it is accepted that in critical
approaches in many FAR25 aircraft, you have a defined commit point, beyond
which you are committed to land. That can be many miles out. The risks of a
missed approach far exceed the risk of continuing the approach. Consider
where you think that should be in a light twin.
For example, B747-400, two engine approach, once the gear is down, it's go
down. A missed approach is not considered a possibility, and the operation
is arranged on that basis. The operation of a light twin should not be
compromised by predicating all approach planning on a simultaneous missed
approach and engine failure. A missed approach, from an approach with an
already failed engine should not even be considered.
Of course, in the safety of the sim, we practice seeing just what we can
do, trading height for speed as we retract the gear, and try and
re-configure so that we can climb away on two ( out of four). I know what I
CAN do with the old 500A, what I would (do) do is far more conservative.
Where does this get you. In my opinion, at some point in the ILS, or on
base/final you should nominate a commit point, any failure beyond that you
will be landing straight ahead. Remember --- landing straight ahead, no
late go arounds. The FAA ( and everybody else's) accident statistics are
compelling, you are more likely to be killed or seriously injured after an
engine failure in a small twin, than in a single ---- but this is not a
reason to fly an unstable approach every time. It is a reason to treat a
light twin as a single at a sensible point in the circuit and approach,
after which you are committed to land.
On my 500A, that's about 1000', because that's when I start bringing the
gently speed back to 1.3 Vs, plus a couple of knots if there are gusts, so
that I am on speed, in the slot, checklist complete at 500'. Your right,
back to around 70 kt or so would make any missed approaches very high risk
affairs. The answer is, you don't, you land ---- hopefully on the runway,
but on the taxiway or the grass if some turkey is blocking the runway.
That's always going to be better than going in after flicking below Vmca,
and leaving a big burnt patch as you only legacy
There are far more aircraft damaged from approaching at excessive speed or
otherwise mishandled approaches, than have ever been damaged as a result of
engine failures in a light twin in normal operations. Far to many people
have been killed in "simulated" failure in a twin that was never designed
to have a certified engine out capability.
Even if this doesn't help your check ride, it is something to think about.
Every thing we do with an aircraft, from the day the designer put pen to
paper, is a risk management exercise.
At least with all the Aero Commander twins, you have wonderful low speed
handling characteristics, as opposed to the character building
characteristics of some aircraft I could name. We also have proper
hydraulic system, pump on each engine, so at least the likelihood of the
gear/flaps coming up during a missed approach with an engine problem is
reasonably high.
I won't wish you luck for the ride, luck should not, and very rarely plays
any part in these matters.
Cheers,
Bill Hamilton
.
At 19:53 10/23/03 -0700, you wrote:
>--> Commander-List message posted by: "Kelly Piper" <kellyp@air-matrix.com>
>
>I just came upon an interesting point in the commercial PTS concerning
>approach speeds (Multi-engine). Our 560A has no published approach
>speed and lacking that, the PTS calls for Maximum 1.3 Vso or 78 mph (if
>I calculated it right: 60 X 1.3). Our generously appointed flight
>manual circa 1955 (all 30 pages or so) states "desired pattern speed 100
>mph" with no other reference to approach speed.
>
>I'm due for a part 135 check-ride next week and I know it will come up:
>Why do you fly the approach at 110 (the minimum I feel comfortable with)
>when lacking published approach speed the maximum is 78 mph?
>
>I don't know about anyone else, but it seems to me that flying the
>approach at 78 mph in the 560 is WAY to slow and if forced to abort the
>landing (or loss of an engine) you would come awful close to buying the
>farm getting the airspeed back up to Vyse or at least comfortably away
>from minimum single engine control speed.
>
>What is the wisdom out there on pattern and approach speeds (in real
>life)? I know there are several of you out there with many times my
>paltry 150 hours in the Commander that would be willing to "enlighten"
>me on this! Also on the same topic (V speeds) - short of calculating it
>myself, does anyone have an idea of what Va is for the 560A, (or
>similar)?
>
>Thanks!
>
>Kelly Piper
>Director Of Operations
>AirMatrix
>kellyp@Air-Matrix.com
>360-435-7343
>425-231-3511 (Cell)
>
>
COMMUNICATIONS
CHANGES: All Recipients Please Note.
The new email address for all Glenalmond Group Companies, W.J.R.Hamilton,
Fighter Flights Internet Services and Warbirds.Net is:
<wjrhamilton@optusnet.com.au>
<fighterf@ozemail.com.au> will remain valid for about three months.
All phone numbers remain unchanged, but changes will take place in about
three months, the date will be notified.
Message 20
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Va, approach speeds, etc. |
--> Commander-List message posted by: "Bruce Campbell" <baruch@intelligentflight.com>
I believe the approach speed should not be less than 5 kt less than Vmc, at
least until landing is assured.
That said, in the 520 the best "over the fence" speed seems to be 80-90 mph.
any more and the plane floats.
Bruce Campbell
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kelly Piper" <kellyp@air-matrix.com>
Subject: Commander-List: Va, approach speeds, etc.
> --> Commander-List message posted by: "Kelly Piper"
<kellyp@air-matrix.com>
>
> I just came upon an interesting point in the commercial PTS concerning
> approach speeds (Multi-engine). Our 560A has no published approach
> speed and lacking that, the PTS calls for Maximum 1.3 Vso or 78 mph (if
> I calculated it right: 60 X 1.3). Our generously appointed flight
> manual circa 1955 (all 30 pages or so) states "desired pattern speed 100
mph" with no other reference to approach speed.
>
> I'm due for a part 135 check-ride next week and I know it will come up:
> Why do you fly the approach at 110 (the minimum I feel comfortable with)
> when lacking published approach speed the maximum is 78 mph?
>
> I don't know about anyone else, but it seems to me that flying the
> approach at 78 mph in the 560 is WAY to slow and if forced to abort the
> landing (or loss of an engine) you would come awful close to buying the
> farm getting the airspeed back up to Vyse or at least comfortably away
> from minimum single engine control speed.
>
> What is the wisdom out there on pattern and approach speeds (in real
> life)? I know there are several of you out there with many times my
> paltry 150 hours in the Commander that would be willing to "enlighten"
> me on this! Also on the same topic (V speeds) - short of calculating it
> myself, does anyone have an idea of what Va is for the 560A, (or
> similar)?
>
> Thanks!
>
> Kelly Piper
> Director Of Operations
> AirMatrix
> kellyp@Air-Matrix.com
> 360-435-7343
> 425-231-3511 (Cell)
>
>
Message 21
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Va, approach speeds, etc. |
--> Commander-List message posted by: "Bruce Campbell" <baruch@intelligentflight.com>
Va on the 520 is about 200 mph. Not likely to exceed that, even in a dive.
Bruce Campbell
AC52 N4186B
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kelly Piper" <kellyp@air-matrix.com>
Subject: Commander-List: Va, approach speeds, etc.
> --> Commander-List message posted by: "Kelly Piper"
<kellyp@air-matrix.com>
>
> I just came upon an interesting point in the commercial PTS concerning
> approach speeds (Multi-engine). Our 560A has no published approach
> speed and lacking that, the PTS calls for Maximum 1.3 Vso or 78 mph (if
> I calculated it right: 60 X 1.3). Our generously appointed flight
> manual circa 1955 (all 30 pages or so) states "desired pattern speed 100
mph" with no other reference to approach speed.
>
> I'm due for a part 135 check-ride next week and I know it will come up:
> Why do you fly the approach at 110 (the minimum I feel comfortable with)
> when lacking published approach speed the maximum is 78 mph?
>
> I don't know about anyone else, but it seems to me that flying the
> approach at 78 mph in the 560 is WAY to slow and if forced to abort the
> landing (or loss of an engine) you would come awful close to buying the
> farm getting the airspeed back up to Vyse or at least comfortably away
> from minimum single engine control speed.
>
> What is the wisdom out there on pattern and approach speeds (in real
> life)? I know there are several of you out there with many times my
> paltry 150 hours in the Commander that would be willing to "enlighten"
> me on this! Also on the same topic (V speeds) - short of calculating it
> myself, does anyone have an idea of what Va is for the 560A, (or
> similar)?
>
> Thanks!
>
> Kelly Piper
> Director Of Operations
> AirMatrix
> kellyp@Air-Matrix.com
> 360-435-7343
> 425-231-3511 (Cell)
>
>
Other Matronics Email List Services
These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.
-- Please support this service by making your Contribution today! --
|