Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 01:03 AM - Re: Cirrus & journalists (Mickey Coggins)
2. 04:22 AM - Re: Training and judgement (glen matejcek)
3. 05:02 AM - Rudder Strength (Hopperdhh@AOL.COM)
4. 05:36 AM - Re: Rudder Strength (Jim Sears)
5. 05:46 AM - Re: catto 3-blade prop (Dave/Deb)
6. 06:04 AM - Re: Re: N>Y. Cirruss Accident question (bill shook)
7. 07:16 AM - Re: Re: N>Y. Cirruss Accident question (Bob Collins)
8. 07:27 AM - Re: catto 3-blade prop (Paul Folbrecht)
9. 07:28 AM - Re: Cirrus & journalists (Bob Collins)
10. 08:06 AM - RV's: Difficult to Fly? Nonsense !! (Jerry2DT@aol.com)
11. 08:37 AM - Re: RV's: Difficult to Fly? Nonsense !! (Bob Collins)
12. 08:42 AM - Re: Cirrus & journalists (Mickey Coggins)
13. 08:57 AM - Re: RV7a v. Legacy FG v. Glassair SII FT (go_lancair)
14. 09:16 AM - Re: RV's: Difficult to Fly? Nonsense !! (Ed Anderson)
15. 09:37 AM - Re: RV's: Difficult to Fly? Nonsense !! (Bob Collins)
16. 09:49 AM - Re: RV's: Difficult to Fly? Nonsense !! (Tedd McHenry)
17. 09:53 AM - Re: Re: RV7a v. Legacy FG v. Glassair SII FT (Jerry Springer)
18. 09:55 AM - Re: Cirrus & journalists (Bob Collins)
19. 10:07 AM - Landing Float was RV's: Difficult to Fly? Nonsense !! (Ed Anderson)
20. 12:17 PM - Cirrus & journalists (JOHN STARN)
21. 12:35 PM - Re: Cirrus & journalists (Bob Collins)
22. 01:09 PM - Re: Cirrus & journalists (Charlie England)
23. 01:19 PM - RV-7 For Sale (jrlewismail-rv@yahoo.com)
24. 01:37 PM - Re: Cirrus & journalists (JOHN STARN)
25. 02:28 PM - Re: N>Y. Cirruss Accident question (linn Walters)
26. 02:50 PM - Re: N>Y. Cirruss Accident question (Bob Collins)
27. 02:53 PM - Re: N>Y. Cirruss Accident question (Ron Lee)
28. 03:18 PM - Re: Cirrus & journalists (JOHN STARN)
29. 03:48 PM - Re: N>Y. Cirruss Accident question (Chuck Jensen)
30. 03:49 PM - Re: N>Y. Cirruss Accident question (Jeffery J. Morgan)
31. 04:19 PM - Re: N>Y. Cirruss Accident question (David Maib)
32. 04:36 PM - Re: N>Y. Cirruss Accident question (Chuck Jensen)
33. 06:24 PM - Re: Cirrus & journalists (Mark Grieve)
34. 07:51 PM - Re: Cirrus & journalists (JOHN STARN)
35. 08:47 PM - Re: Cirrus & journalists (Bob Collins)
36. 09:18 PM - Re: RV's: Difficult to Fly? Nonsense !! (Dave Nellis)
37. 10:18 PM - Re: Cirrus & journalists (JOHN STARN)
38. 10:26 PM - Re: N>Y. Cirruss Accident question (Jeffery J. Morgan)
Message 1
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Cirrus & journalists |
--> RV-List message posted by: Mickey Coggins <mick-matronics@rv8.ch>
> ... Extra, Extra TV show comes on with photos about " Celeb Pilots "
> who bought the farm, like Denver, Kennedy, Ricky Nelson !!!! wow, what a
> loss..and what that has to do with the New York thing beats me....so a
> baseball guy becomes a statistic of Darwin's Law....gee....why so little
> said about his pax who also left a wife and child ?
I think many people have the illusion that the news media is some kind
of public service, or that they have some kind of standard to uphold.
They don't. TV news is a trick to try to get you to watch the
commercials - nothing more. If people don't watch, they go out of
business, so they put on stuff that they think a lot of people will
watch - nothing more, nothing less.
--
Mickey Coggins
http://www.rv8.ch/
#82007 finishing
do not archive
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: | RE: Training and judgement |
--> RV-List message posted by: "glen matejcek" <aerobubba@earthlink.net>
Hi Rob-
First, my commentary on the 'hierarchy' of pilots was intended as more of a
philosophical observation than a purely technical one. If one chooses to
look down their nose at folks with lesser ratings and experience, they are
likely to find themselves staring straight up the nostrils of the fellow
with more ratings and experience.
Second, I can't comment on the state of affairs north of the border, but
here in the States my comment is also precisely correct on a technical
basis. Although my commentary was about pilots and not certificates, and
"Private' is a certificate and "instrument' is a rating, you must have the
former before acquiring the latter. Further, the latter requires much more
knowledge, training, and skill to acquire. As to the privileges accorded
the various certificates, a US sport pilot can not fly a C-172. Nor can he
fly at night. A private pilot can do both (simultaneously!), and without
an instrument rating. I believe our northern brethren must have the
instrument rating to fly at night at all. Also, both the Sport and
Recreational Pilot certificates in the US carry many limitations that do
not apply to Private pilots. These include passenger, operations,
airspace, weather, altitude, and border crossing limitations. Some of
those limits can be mitigated with further training.
Well, I'm sure there are RV'ers all around the planet rolling their eyes
right about now, so I'll yield soapbox.
Pax-
> From: "Rob Prior (rv7)" <rv7@b4.ca>
> Subject: Re: RV-List: Training and judgement
>
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Rob Prior (rv7)" <rv7@b4.ca>
>
> On 5:42:15 2006-10-13 "glen matejcek" <aerobubba@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > > As far as i'm concerned, all the RPP and
> > > Sport Pilot permits do is "dumb down" the priviledge of getting a
> > > pilot's license. It may get more people in the air, but it looks
> > > more and more like the tradeoff is less capable pilots.
> >
> > Well, that's true. And a private is a dumbed down / less capable
> > instrument pilot, is a dumbed down / less capable commercial pilot,
> > is a dumbed down / less capable ATP.
>
> Not quite. An instrument pilot is a private pilot who has learned
specific
> additional skills to fly into additional conditions. He's not required to
> have any flying abilities or precision any greater than a private pilot.
A
> Commercial pilot, on the other hand, has learned to fly to a higher
> standard, and i'll grant you that point. Carrying passengers for hire
> probably does require greater precision than someone out for fun. But the
> standards for the Recreational/Sport Pilot and the PP aren't really any
> different, other than the number of hours necessary to get your license.
>
> Furthermore, (in Canada, anyway) a Recreational Pilot can fly the same
> plane that a Private Pilot can, provided he only carries one passenger.
> There may be an upper weight limit that i'm not aware of as well, i'm not
> that knowledgeable about the permit. But I do know that an RPP can fly a
> Cessna 172 just like a PP can, as long as there is only one passenger.
>
> So the only difference between an RPP and a PP (or SP and PP, in the US)
> really, is how heavy an airplane you can fly. There are just too many
> other things that vary between airplane types, and the RPP/PP division
> doesn't address them. It's just an artificial division, to make an
> artificially cheapened license.
>
> And let's not even get into the discussion about pilots who are dropping
> their PP in favour of a RPP or SPP because it means they don't have to get
> a full medical that would invalidate their PP.
>
> -Rob
> Do Not Archive
>
glen matejcek
aerobubba@earthlink.net
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 |
|
The recent ground loop by Senator Inhofe caused me to post this. I read
that his ground loop was caused by some kind of failure of the rudder.
Hopefully, someone will update us on how the rudder failed.
Occasionally, I find that before I buckle the harness in my -7A, I find
myself sitting on a belt or the crotch strap. I have caught myself using the
rudder pedals to raise myself in the seat in able to get them out from under me.
This places extreme tension on the rudder cables and the rudder horn which
I think could eventually lead to failure of the rudder.
Just a thought.
Dan Hopper
RV-7A
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: Rudder Strength |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Jim Sears" <jmsears@adelphia.net>
>> The recent ground loop by Senator Inhofe caused me to post this. I read
>> that his ground loop was caused by some kind of failure of the rudder.
>> Hopefully, someone will update us on how the rudder failed.
Occasionally, I find that before I buckle the harness in my -7A, I find
myself sitting on a belt or the crotch strap. I have caught myself using
the rudder pedals to raise myself in the seat in able to get them out from
under me. This places extreme tension on the rudder cables and the rudder
horn which I think could eventually lead to failure of the rudder.<<
Dan is correct. In fact, this practice may be why there is a service
bulletin on the rudder stirrups. They're not designed to manage the weight
we place on them when we use them in a manner other than what they were
designed for. I've been careful to only use mine for controlling the
rudder; and, I'm happy to say that I've seen no cracks in my old style
rudder pedals. Hopefully, my old style nose gear will remain crack free, as
well. :-)
Jim Sears in KY
RV-6A N198JS (Scooter)
do not archive
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: catto 3-blade prop |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Dave/Deb" <davwol@svtv.com>
Ordered my Catto prop in Jan, said I did not need it till June. Craig is a
nice guy he said June would be fine. Still have not gotton it.
Dave Wolles
finishing 9A
----- Original Message -----
From: "sarg314" <sarg314@comcast.net>
Sent: Friday, October 13, 2006 10:30 PM
Subject: Re: RV-List: catto 3-blade prop
> --> RV-List message posted by: sarg314 <sarg314@comcast.net>
>
> Jeff:
> I placed the order in mid March. He specified a June delivery, which I
> did not believe at the time. I expected to get it in august or september.
> I actually got it on Oct. 12. Craig knew that my project wasn't stopped
> waiting for the prop. He gives priority to those who are in more
> immediate need. I can't really argue with that. I got mine in plenty of
> time. He seems to know his stuff and was always happy to talk to me when
> I called up. I can't wait to see what this thing will really do.
>
> Jeff Orear wrote:
>
>> Just curious Tom.....How long did it take for you get your prop after you
>> ordered it??
>>
>> And yes, it does fly as good as it looks. I have an O320 with a 3 blade
>> Catto. Just took some dual with a CFI that has RV time and he commented
>> on how smooth the engine runs.
>>
>> You're gonna love that prop.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Jeff Orear
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "sarg314" <sarg314@comcast.net>
>> To: <rv-list@matronics.com>
>> Sent: Friday, October 13, 2006 9:40 PM
>> Subject: RV-List: catto 3-blade prop
>>
>>
>>> --> RV-List message posted by: sarg314 <sarg314@comcast.net>
>>>
>>> I just received a Catto 3 blade for my IO360. I just had to post a note
>>> to say it is a beautiful piece of work. If it flies half as good as it
>>> looks, I'll have a real hot rod on my hands.
>>
>>
> --
> Tom Sargent, RV-6A
>
>
>
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: | Re: N>Y. Cirruss Accident question |
--> RV-List message posted by: bill shook <billshook2000@yahoo.com>
> Last point: My kid, who got his driver's license last year, recently bought a
> motorcycle. I found out the other day he was zipping down the road at 85. The
fact
> that the machine will go 85 and provide absolutely no protection isn't an indictment
> of the machine. The fact some bonehead will go 85 down the road with no protection
--
> and break the law in the process -- speaks volumes about the bonehead doing
so.
But you son does have protection on his motorcycle. Judgement. I bought my first
street bike at 17. A 750 interceptor. Odds are a bike like that kills a new rider
as
fast as he can get it into gear, but judgement is what has taken me through that
and
several other much faster road rockets without an incident in the 20 years that
followed. 200k miles and counting..skin all in tact. Judgement is what will get
your
son by. That same judgement is what makes or breaks a pilot. It is not that your
son
can or does do 85 mph..it is where and under what circumstances he does so.
Judgement...and that comes with experience. Trust in how you raised him, pray
for a
little luck along the way and let the boy live....50 years from now the experiences
of
which is all he will have.
Bill
__________________________________________________
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: N>Y. Cirruss Accident question |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Bob Collins" <bcollinsrv7a@comcast.net>
> But you son does have protection on his motorcycle.
> Judgement.
That's precisely my point, of course and underscores my point regarding
training. One of the reasons kids do what kids do is because kids don't
know any better. The highest accident rate in the county is among teenage
drivers. Very little judgment, of course, and judgment comes from
experience. But BOY, have you ever been in a car driven by a 15 year old kid
for the first time? Man, they drive slow and they're careful. They're not
partiuclarly good. But they're careful.
It's theauto version of time in type, imho.
Judgement comes from experience. Once he realizes how stupid driving at 85
is, I presume he'll slow down. I hope so, anyway.
Do not archive
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: catto 3-blade prop |
--> RV-List message posted by: Paul Folbrecht <paul.folbrecht@veribox.net>
I ordered mine well over a year ago ($700 deposit). Every couple
months I inquire about it, he asks "do you _need_ it now?", I reply,
honestly, "no", and am asked to wait a bit longer.
This has been Ok with me. I believe if I had an engine and did need
that prop, he'd get it to me.
On Oct 14, 2006, at 7:45 AM, Dave/Deb wrote:
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Dave/Deb" <davwol@svtv.com>
>
> Ordered my Catto prop in Jan, said I did not need it till June.
> Craig is a nice guy he said June would be fine. Still have not
> gotton it.
>
> Dave Wolles
> finishing 9A
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "sarg314" <sarg314@comcast.net>
> To: <rv-list@matronics.com>
> Sent: Friday, October 13, 2006 10:30 PM
> Subject: Re: RV-List: catto 3-blade prop
>
>
>> --> RV-List message posted by: sarg314 <sarg314@comcast.net>
>>
>> Jeff:
>> I placed the order in mid March. He specified a June delivery,
>> which I did not believe at the time. I expected to get it in
>> august or september. I actually got it on Oct. 12. Craig knew
>> that my project wasn't stopped waiting for the prop. He gives
>> priority to those who are in more immediate need. I can't really
>> argue with that. I got mine in plenty of time. He seems to know
>> his stuff and was always happy to talk to me when I called up. I
>> can't wait to see what this thing will really do.
>>
>> Jeff Orear wrote:
>>
>>> Just curious Tom.....How long did it take for you get your prop
>>> after you ordered it??
>>>
>>> And yes, it does fly as good as it looks. I have an O320 with a
>>> 3 blade Catto. Just took some dual with a CFI that has RV time
>>> and he commented on how smooth the engine runs.
>>>
>>> You're gonna love that prop.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Jeff Orear
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "sarg314" <sarg314@comcast.net>
>>> To: <rv-list@matronics.com>
>>> Sent: Friday, October 13, 2006 9:40 PM
>>> Subject: RV-List: catto 3-blade prop
>>>
>>>
>>>> --> RV-List message posted by: sarg314 <sarg314@comcast.net>
>>>>
>>>> I just received a Catto 3 blade for my IO360. I just had to
>>>> post a note to say it is a beautiful piece of work. If it flies
>>>> half as good as it looks, I'll have a real hot rod on my hands.
>>>
>>>
>> --
>> Tom Sargent, RV-6A
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
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 |
|
| Subject: | Cirrus & journalists |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Bob Collins" <bcollinsrv7a@comcast.net>
> I think many people have the illusion that the news media is
> some kind
> of public service, or that they have some kind of standard to uphold.
> They don't. TV news is a trick to try to get you to watch the
> commercials - nothing more. If people don't watch, they go out of
> business, so they put on stuff that they think a lot of people will
> watch - nothing more, nothing less.
You've cmbined so many generalities here, Mickey. News media and TV news are
not necessarily the same thing. I agree that TV is pretty ratings based
stuff. I just saw a study that the average amount of time in a newscast
spent on election year issues is 35 seconds. Not good especially in an,
ummm, election year. To the etent they're in the business to make money,
you're right, they're not a public service. They want to make money. Same as
we all do, I guess, but it's illogical for anyone to expect any0one even
here on this board to stop making money to perform some public service for
me.
There used to be a requirement and regulation about news in the electronic
media but that went away in our efforts to deregulate. Good or bad? You
decide.
However there's more to the "news media" than TV news and it's there I
disagree with the sweeping generalization. There are thousands of good
journalists out there who go to work every day to write a factual and
complete story. Sometimes they succeed, sometimes they fail but almost
always they have a sense of duty to tell a story on behalf of the reader.
I missed by kid's 4th birthday (working halfway across the country) and my
20th anniversary (Wellstone crash) for no other reason than to tell the
story. I didn't make any more money from it, my employer didn't make any
more money from it. In fact, my employer didn't even tell me to do it. I'll
certainly hold my work on the Wellstone story (I think the nav beacon was
involved in the disorientation because the FAA/NTSB testing after the flight
showed abnormalities. The government made the pilots fly it until it didn't,
for one thing) up against idiots like Prof. James Fetzer any day)
There are a LOT of journalists with a sense of purpose and mission to
telling the story right. Heck, I ripped my editors and reporters (some of
whom are not senior to me) for ignoring half the stuff I told them Thursday
about where to go on the Cirrus story (Cirrus is based in this state). That
didn't go over well and if I end up losing my job for rocking the boat --
always a possibility -- it's not because I stand to gain personally, but
because I think we do have a duty to report things accurately and fairly.
Does everyone in the business? I'd say not. But are there a ton who do?
Acidentally.
BTW, one of them was Daniel Pearl, who I knew from my time in the Berkshires
when he covered small city government in North Adams. He always had a sense
of duty to the story. It got him killed.
Do not archive.
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: | RV's: Difficult to Fly? Nonsense !! |
Bob,
With due respect, and I mean that, this brings up one of my pet peeves about
the reputation that RV's seem to have. I don't know how many times I've
heard how difficult they are to fly. I'd like to start a thread here and have
folks weigh in on the subject.
To me, it boils down to a few. They are very fast, so one must be even more
vigilant to stay ahead of the plane, watch for traffic, but just like a
Bonanza or 210 in this regard.
On the short wing RV's it's imperative to mind your speed in the pattern.
Too slow and it's a brick. We've lost a number on that turn to final. The -a
models seem to have a tendency to bend the nose gear, so land on the mains, true
for any trike.
That's about it from my perspective with about 200+hrs. of RV time. I tend
to regard the talk about how difficult they are to fly as urban legend or
OWT's. I took 4 hours with Mike Seager and 3 with a seasoned RV pilot, and that
was it. I was happily surprised that our -6a wasn't the handful as I was told
to expect. (by non-RV pilots of course).
So, Bob and others, take heart. They really are not the skitterish hot rod
portrayed in some circles...
My .05 as usual,
Jerry Cochran
Subject: RV-List: Re: Cirrus - OT
From: "Bob Collins" <bcollinsrv7a@comcast.net>
--> RV-List message posted by: "Bob Collins" <bcollinsrv7a@comcast.net>
Indeed, the accident in New York -- and the Cirrus accidents -- reminds me
that
low-time Warrior/Cessna 172 pilots who are building RVs, need to spend a LOT
of time..... a LOT of time ... in transition training.
Always makes me pause and think, "Am I *really* going to be able to fly this
thing
safely."
--------
Bob Collins
St. Paul, Minn.
RV Builder's Hotline (free!)
http://home.comcast.net/~rvnewsletter/
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 |
|
| Subject: | RV's: Difficult to Fly? Nonsense !! |
I've never said RVs are harder to fly. I don't know. I've ridden in one
once.
But I'm in the Richard L. Collins camp. The machine isn't the issue for
me.
It's the driver. when I talk about how *I* consider the New York
accident to
re-examine whether *I'm* a good enough pilot to pilot an RV, that isn't
saying anything about the RV. It's saying something about *me.* Can I
keep
ahead of the plane? How much training will it take? I don't know, but I
take as 100% gospel, the reports of RV drivers about what a good plane
it
is. If only some of you would drop down and give me some stick time I'd
know
for sure. (vbg)
I'm not scared of flying an RV. I'm merely evaluating my present
proficiency as a pilot. Obviously, YMMV and I sure hope it does. (g)
Bob
Do not archive
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Jerry2DT@aol.com
Sent: Saturday, October 14, 2006 10:05 AM
Subject: RV-List: RV's: Difficult to Fly? Nonsense !!
Bob,
With due respect, and I mean that, this brings up one of my pet peeves
about
the reputation that RV's seem to have. I don't know how many times I've
heard how difficult they are to fly. I'd like to start a thread here and
have folks weigh in on the subject.
To me, it boils down to a few. They are very fast, so one must be even
more
vigilant to stay ahead of the plane, watch for traffic, but just like a
Bonanza or 210 in this regard.
On the short wing RV's it's imperative to mind your speed in the
pattern.
Too slow and it's a brick. We've lost a number on that turn to final.
The -a
models seem to have a tendency to bend the nose gear, so land on the
mains,
true for any trike.
That's about it from my perspective with about 200+hrs. of RV time. I
tend
to regard the talk about how difficult they are to fly as urban legend
or
OWT's. I took 4 hours with Mike Seager and 3 with a seasoned RV pilot,
and
that was it. I was happily surprised that our -6a wasn't the handful as
I
was told to expect. (by non-RV pilots of course).
So, Bob and others, take heart. They really are not the skitterish hot
rod
portrayed in some circles...
My .05 as usual,
Jerry Cochran
Subject: RV-List: Re: Cirrus - OT
From: "Bob Collins" <bcollinsrv7a@comcast.net>
--> RV-List message posted by: "Bob Collins" <bcollinsrv7a@comcast.net>
Indeed, the accident in New York -- and the Cirrus accidents -- reminds
me
that
low-time Warrior/Cessna 172 pilots who are building RVs, need to spend a
LOT
of time..... a LOT of time ... in transition training.
Always makes me pause and think, "Am I *really* going to be able to fly
this
thing
safely."
--------
Bob Collins
St. Paul, Minn.
RV Builder's Hotline (free!)
http://home.comcast.net/~rvnewsletter/
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: Cirrus & journalists |
--> RV-List message posted by: Mickey Coggins <mick-matronics@rv8.ch>
Bob Collins wrote:
> However there's more to the "news media" than TV news and it's there I
> disagree with the sweeping generalization. There are thousands of good
> journalists out there who go to work every day to write a factual and
> complete story. Sometimes they succeed, sometimes they fail but almost
> always they have a sense of duty to tell a story on behalf of the reader.
I agree 100%. The news people that I know are all trying to do the best
job they can with the resources they are given. I in no way intended to
disparage any of these committed, hard working people.
My point was that "news" is a business, and with very few exceptions,
the goal is to make money, not to inform people. We should not rely
exclusively on corporate news organizations for our information, or we
won't be well informed.
--
Mickey Coggins
http://www.rv8.ch/
#82007 finishing
do not archive
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: RV7a v. Legacy FG v. Glassair SII FT |
--> RV-List message posted by: "go_lancair" <glenn.long@gmail.com>
I knew that kind of comment would draw the naysayers out from behind the trees.
I would like to hear from the guy that posted the original question. By now he
confused and bewildered, but I agree with the earlier statement of "whatever
floats your boat", then just fly it. I am lucky engh to spend a lot of my time
in the air and not talking about it on the ground. My principle goal is to take
advantage of the newer composite technology enjoy the added speed and comfort
it provides.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=67762#67762
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: RV's: Difficult to Fly? Nonsense !! |
I have to agree with Jerry. While certainly not recommended, I made my
first flight in my RV-6A without any RV flight time. I attempted to
check out in a Grumman but none readily available (without joining a
club). So I got approx 20 hours in a Cherokee Warrior before the first
flight.
I had an oil temp issue which cause me to abort my planned flight of 5
trips around the pattern and decided to land after first circuit. The
landing was a grease job (I'm told the tires didn't chirp - yes, I did
have a "crash" crew stationed off each end of the runway) - amazing what
concentration will do.
In any case, as I taxied back in, I recall thinking - I didn't even have
to think about flying the airplane, it was so honest and behaved to
control movement as expected. Responsive but not twitchy at all. I
recalled thinking that a Cessna 150 was much harder to get a good
landing in and I have not changed my mind at 350 hours in the RV.
As someone already mentioned, heavily loaded and on a high density
altitude day, you can get an excessive rate of descent if you don't mind
your airspeed on final - and it doesn't have the wing area to give you a
nice flair if sinking fast and slow on airspeed.
It did take a bit of time to get use of trying to slow it down for
pattern entry {:>).
You can kill yourself in any airframe (J3 cub included) if you get
behind the airplane, don't know your aircraft's limitations and most
importantly don't know your own limitations and get into a bad
situation.
Ed
Ed Anderson
Rv-6A N494BW Rotary Powered
Matthews, NC
eanderson@carolina.rr.com
http://members.cox.net/rogersda/rotary/configs.htm#N494BW
http://www.dmack.net/mazda/index.html
Ed
----- Original Message -----
From: Jerry2DT@aol.com
To: rv-list@matronics.com
Sent: Saturday, October 14, 2006 11:04 AM
Subject: RV-List: RV's: Difficult to Fly? Nonsense !!
Bob,
With due respect, and I mean that, this brings up one of my pet peeves
about the reputation that RV's seem to have. I don't know how many times
I've heard how difficult they are to fly. I'd like to start a thread
here and have folks weigh in on the subject.
To me, it boils down to a few. They are very fast, so one must be even
more vigilant to stay ahead of the plane, watch for traffic, but just
like a Bonanza or 210 in this regard.
On the short wing RV's it's imperative to mind your speed in the
pattern. Too slow and it's a brick. We've lost a number on that turn to
final. The -a models seem to have a tendency to bend the nose gear, so
land on the mains, true for any trike.
That's about it from my perspective with about 200+hrs. of RV time. I
tend to regard the talk about how difficult they are to fly as urban
legend or OWT's. I took 4 hours with Mike Seager and 3 with a seasoned
RV pilot, and that was it. I was happily surprised that our -6a wasn't
the handful as I was told to expect. (by non-RV pilots of course).
So, Bob and others, take heart. They really are not the skitterish hot
rod portrayed in some circles...
My .05 as usual,
Jerry Cochran
Subject: RV-List: Re: Cirrus - OT
From: "Bob Collins" <bcollinsrv7a@comcast.net>
--> RV-List message posted by: "Bob Collins"
<bcollinsrv7a@comcast.net>
Indeed, the accident in New York -- and the Cirrus accidents --
reminds me that
low-time Warrior/Cessna 172 pilots who are building RVs, need to spend
a LOT
of time..... a LOT of time ... in transition training.
Always makes me pause and think, "Am I *really* going to be able to
fly this thing
safely."
--------
Bob Collins
St. Paul, Minn.
RV Builder's Hotline (free!)
http://home.comcast.net/~rvnewsletter/
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: | RV's: Difficult to Fly? Nonsense !! |
// So I got approx 20 hours in a Cherokee Warrior before the first
flight.
That reminds me of a question I was thinking about asking driving home
the
other night (before I got distracted by the Cirrus accident). When I
transitioned from a high wing (172) to the low wing (Warrior), I had
difficulty -- and still do sometimes -- judging the "ground effect"
properly. in the Warrior. I've never seen this evaluated in RV
discussions
but can anyone who's flown in both compare the ground effect
characteristics
of the two raft?
Bob
Do not archive
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: RV's: Difficult to Fly? Nonsense !! |
--> RV-List message posted by: Tedd McHenry <tedd@vansairforce.org>
Jerry:
> I'd like to start a thread here and have folks weigh in on the subject.
I'll take you up on that.
I think the myth that RVs are difficult to fly is a little like the taildragger
myth in that pilots who have little or no experience with both types fret about
them while pilots who regularly fly them can't understand what the big deal is.
But the RV myth differs in that, while a pilot new to taildraggers does have to
learn a couple of new things to fly them, someone transitioning from, say, a
C-172 to an RV doesn't have to learn anything new. It's possible that he'll
have to be a bit more careful to do the things he should be doing in his Cessna
(but might have got lax about). But he doesn't have to learn anything new.
I suspect another factor leading to the RV myth is that so many private pilots
have a background in a handful of airplanes that are designed to handle a
certain way (C-150/172, Cherokee), and RVs handle differently. I checked out
in a C-172 long after I started flying RVs, and I found it much more difficult
to learn than the RV. So I suspect it's the CHANGE that people find difficult,
not the airplane. But, as a result of demographics, that change is far more
likely to be Cessna-to-RV than the other way around.
Finally, there's the effect of manoeuvrability. Any vehicle that has quicker
transient response and more sensitive controls is EASIER than a
lower-performance vehicle once you've adjusted to it. But it's also HARDER to
go up the performance chain than to stay where you are (or go down).
---
Tedd McHenry
Surrey, BC, Canada
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: RV7a v. Legacy FG v. Glassair SII FT |
--> RV-List message posted by: Jerry Springer <jsflyrv@verizon.net>
go_lancair wrote:
>--> RV-List message posted by: "go_lancair" <glenn.long@gmail.com>
>
>I knew that kind of comment would draw the naysayers out from behind the trees.
I would like to hear from the guy that posted the original question. By now
he confused and bewildered,
>
I think you may be the one confused here!!!
>but I agree with the earlier statement of "whatever floats your boat", then just
fly it. I am lucky engh to spend a lot of my time in the air and not talking
about it on the ground. My principle goal is to take advantage of the newer
composite technology enjoy the added speed and comfort it provides.
>
>
>
As I said before if you want to go fast and look pretty, great build
your Lancair. If you want to have fun build a RV.
do not archive
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: | Cirrus & journalists |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Bob Collins" <bcollinsrv7a@comcast.net>
>
> My point was that "news" is a business, and with very few exceptions,
> the goal is to make money, not to inform people. We should not rely
> exclusively on corporate news organizations for our
> information, or we
> won't be well informed.
>
My defense notwithstanding, there is a factor in newsroom that I think is
often at play. Arrogance. For example, in the case I was talking about, I
actually had two editors and a reporter in a meeting with me yesterday after
I raised concerns about this story
(http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2006/10/12/cirrusreacts/).
At one point, I actually had three people who've never even been in a small
plane... Let alone flown one, or even kept up to speed on aviation issues,
lecturing me on piloting and matters of transition training etc.
THAT is the dirty little secret -- that's not that much of a secret -- in
the nation's newsrooms: the only perspetive from which knowledgd can be
assessed is from the reporter and editor's knowledge. The public, or any
other editor or reporter, be damned.
There's pushback on this with the introduction of "public insight
journalism" (http://minnesota.publicradio.org/publicinsightjournalism/),
which guys like Jeff Jarvis and Dan Gilmore have championed, but it's doomed
to failure until newsrooms are disinfected of this arrogance and I don't see
that happening.
At the same time, you've got guys like Phil Boyer who's style of leadership
is a "circle the wagons" approach, creating an us vs. them mentality (I call
this the "Don Cherry method of managing. He was an old Boston Bruins coach I
liked). You've got the arrogance of newsrooms that does essentially the same
thing. And then there's the folks in the middle who find the only thing they
can do is choose one or the other, because there's no infrastruture in place
(i.e. mindset) to get the two sides together.
I often talk about the need for pilots to be educators, rather than mockers
and it is usually met witih derision as folks choose what camp to get into.
Of course it didn't help yesterday that Richard L. Collins apparently told
one of our reporters that there was no correlation between pilots who
quickly transition to a Cirrus being involved in an accident, and any othr
pilot.
I don't remember his past writings say that, but then when I wen thome last
night, there was a new issue of Flying Magazine and Collins wrote, "One
other note on accident reports. Our son, Richard, is also a student of
aviation. He has been looking at the correlation between accidnts and the
length of time the pilot has owned the airplane. Quite frequently, the
airplane and the pilot have just gotten together."
Of course, Collins has made no secret of his dislike for the media, so it's
entirely possible that by suggesting one thing on Thurday to a reporter, and
writing another thing to pilots on Friday, he was just blowing off the
reporter. But on the one hand, you can't legitimately complain that the
media doesn't know what it's doing, and then ignore the opportunities to
help, or -- at worst -- deliberately tell them something that contradicts
yourself.
In many caes, the reporter is in a bind between people who say two things.
And we know, for instance, that there is no conclusive proof to make a
defnitive statement about, in this case, low time pilots flying Cirrus.
There is only the anecdotal. So if you wished to write about the issue (and
I probably will in the next RV Builder's Hotline), you might have Mac
McLellan saying -- as he did -- that a Cirrus SR20 is a fine training
aricraft (which it may well be), and Phil Greenspun who says, "Cirrus has
marketed its airplanes to generic rich guys (i.e., nonpilots) with ads in
generic rich guy magazines, a strategy that Beech, Cessna, and Piper pursued
in the 1970s but gave up when airplanes went out of mass production and
yuppies decided that flying themselves around was too dangerous. Cirrus's
advertising stresses the enhanced safety provided by the airframe parachute
and the computer screens showing the airplane's position relative to
airports, mountains, weather, etc. The combination of novice pilots and a
fast airplane has resulted in a mournful accident record that is reflected
in high insurance rates and recurrent training requirements similar to what
you'd find on a twin-engine plane or pressurized single."
The problem journalists make is they think they have to choose one or the
other, and then make the story about that conclusion.
On stories like this, their REAL job is just to present the various and
diverse arguments to you, and let it be your problem to decide.
There are days I'd love to get out of the business. Thursday and Friday were
the most recent two.
If I only knew how to do something else.
Bob
Do not archive
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: | Landing Float was RV's: Difficult to Fly? Nonsense !! |
MessageBob, here is my subjective viewpoint.
If you are a bit high on airspeed when flaring, the RV will seem to
float forever down the runway. However, if you are a bit low on
airspeed, it will thump on the ground pretty quickly. So airspeed
control is a bit more critical (in my opinion) to get that just-right
landing in an RV. .
I too had flown only high wing aircraft before my 20 hours in a Warrior
prepping for my RV, so I understand what you are encountering.
Ed
----- Original Message -----
From: Bob Collins
To: rv-list@matronics.com
Sent: Saturday, October 14, 2006 12:36 PM
Subject: RE: RV-List: RV's: Difficult to Fly? Nonsense !!
// So I got approx 20 hours in a Cherokee Warrior before the first
flight.
That reminds me of a question I was thinking about asking driving home
the other night (before I got distracted by the Cirrus accident). When I
transitioned from a high wing (172) to the low wing (Warrior), I had
difficulty -- and still do sometimes -- judging the "ground effect"
properly. in the Warrior. I've never seen this evaluated in RV
discussions but can anyone who's flown in both compare the ground effect
characteristics of the two raft?
Bob
Do not archive
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: | Cirrus & journalists |
--> RV-List message posted by: "JOHN STARN" <jhstarn@verizon.net>
I have listened to the news reports and am amazed how many times I heard
that the "engineS were running" or the "propellerS" have been located & are
being sent for further examination. There were not multiple engines or
propellers but on the third day after the accident I again saw an info babe
babbling on about something to which she has no knowledge or understanding.
Passing on misinformation from a misinformed source. Do Not Archive these
soapbox ravings. KABONG
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bob Collins" <bcollinsrv7a@comcast.net>
Sent: Saturday, October 14, 2006 9:54 AM
Subject: RE: RV-List: Cirrus & journalists
,
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: | Cirrus & journalists |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Bob Collins" <bcollinsrv7a@comcast.net>
I heard the 'engines' thing too. But you know where it came from?. The NTSB
briefer on Thursday night. I was watching it and I couldn't believe it when
she said it. She also referred to finding two propellors. Presumably she
meant to say propellor blades.
The day the Joe Mauer won the batting title ahead of Derek Jeter (GEE tur),
I heard the local blow-dry refer to him as Derek Jetter. So it's not just
airplanes. (g)
Do not archive.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of JOHN STARN
Sent: Saturday, October 14, 2006 2:16 PM
Subject: RV-List: Cirrus & journalists
--> RV-List message posted by: "JOHN STARN" <jhstarn@verizon.net>
I have listened to the news reports and am amazed how many times I heard
that the "engineS were running" or the "propellerS" have been located & are
being sent for further examination. There were not multiple engines or
propellers but on the third day after the accident I again saw an info babe
babbling on about something to which she has no knowledge or understanding.
Passing on misinformation from a misinformed source. Do Not Archive these
soapbox ravings. KABONG
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bob Collins" <bcollinsrv7a@comcast.net>
Sent: Saturday, October 14, 2006 9:54 AM
Subject: RE: RV-List: Cirrus & journalists
,
Message 22
| 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: Cirrus & journalists |
--> RV-List message posted by: Charlie England <ceengland@bellsouth.net>
JOHN STARN wrote:
> --> RV-List message posted by: "JOHN STARN" <jhstarn@verizon.net>
>
> I have listened to the news reports and am amazed how many times I
> heard that the "engineS were running" or the "propellerS" have been
> located & are being sent for further examination. There were not
> multiple engines or propellers but on the third day after the accident
> I again saw an info babe babbling on about something to which she has
> no knowledge or understanding. Passing on misinformation from a
> misinformed source. Do Not Archive these soapbox ravings. KABONG
I saw the segment. If I heard the intro correctly, she was the
spokesperson for the NTSB. She sounded like she was reading 'scene of
the accident' boilerplate copy. Note that the rest of the statement was
'I will now take any of your questions.'
Don't be surprised if the final report says something like, 'Cause of
accident: Pilot failed to maintain control after the left aileron
departed the a/c.'
Charlie
Message 23
| 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 |
|
I am selling my RV-7 due to a divorce settlement. The specifics are listed
below. I will gladly answer any questions anyone may have. I bought this
kit new in Dec 2002 and have almost completed it. This is a Quick Build RV-
7 taildragger with a slider canopy. It includes ALL Van's kits parts (emp,
fuse, wing, and finish) as well as much more. The cowl is for a standard 1
50-180 hp Lyc. I do not have an engine, accessories, or prop.=0A=0AInfo on
my plane:=0ARV-7 w/ slider = QB complete with all kit parts=0ABuild Stat
us: Ready for engine/prop (eng and prop not included) / panel / canopy ins
tall=0AEquipment / Avionics: (Will permit IFR flight with 3 times redundan
cy!)=0A- Fuel tank flop tubes for inverted flight=0A- Strobes=0A- 2 axis Au
to-Pilot W/ Vertical Speed Hold & GPS Track (servos installed)=0A- Blue Mou
ntain Avionics EFIS=0A- RMI Engine Monitor=0A- RMI Encoder w/independent co
mpass system=0A- Dynon EFIS=0A- Dual Pitot static systems=0A- Landing light
=0A- Taxi Light=0A- Electric Aileron and Elevator Trim=0A- Custom stick gri
ps enable trim, auto-pilot, and nav control=0A- Electric Flaps=0A- EMI Fuel
Monitor System=0A- Wingtip comm./nav antennas=0A- Sitting on a custom buil
t 20 ft flatbed trailer=0A- Top aviation grade wiring installed=0A=0AI am a
professional pilot (USAF) and was building this for myself. The build qua
lity is EXCELLENT.=0AOver $60K invested (not including any build time). I
will sell for $45K cash (no trades or notes). =0AInterested persons may co
ntact me directly at the following email: jrlewismail-rv@yahoo.com
Message 24
| 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: Cirrus & journalists |
--> RV-List message posted by: "JOHN STARN" <jhstarn@verizon.net>
Yep. Just 'cause you have a title from the NTSB & look good on TV does not
mean you know "Jack.....t" about airplanes and/or flying. Take a look at the
"pilots" we've had as the head of the FAA for the past two decades. NADA.
Do Not Archive. KABONG
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bob Collins" <bcollinsrv7a@comcast.net>
> I heard the 'engines' thing too. But you know where it came from?. The
> NTSB
> briefer on Thursday night. I was watching it and I couldn't believe it
> when
> she said it. She also referred to finding two propellors. Presumably she
> meant to say propellor blades.
Message 25
| 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: N>Y. Cirruss Accident question |
--> RV-List message posted by: linn Walters <pitts_pilot@bellsouth.net>
bertrv6@highstream.net wrote:
>--> RV-List message posted by: bertrv6@highstream.net
>
>
>Hi:
>
>No to add more on this, but would like to hear other comments, as to
>why two people make such mistake...Pilot error...
>
snip
>But I digress,, why they didn't turn right or request climb..
>
My thoughts exactly. It appears that there was no attempt to avoid the
building (from what I'm hearing). I'm of the opinion they didn't know
the building was there .... because they both had their heads in the
cockpit fiddling with something, such as the GPS or something. This
whole accident just doesn't make sense, but not many of them do. It's a
real shame because the rest of us will bear the brunt of regulations
(already they've raised the floor of the VFR corridor, squeezing more
aircraft into a tighter space) as a result of public outcry.
>Cirrus can fly very well at 100 MPH no?
>
I'm not sure, but any airplane has a speed range and doesn't have to be
flown at full throttle. WE can operate the airplane according to our
skills.
>It is a shames this things happen....but if the Big boys make mistakes...
>with same consequences..
>
>just my thoughts.
>
Good ones, too.
Linn
do not archive
>
>Bert
>
>
Message 26
| 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: | N>Y. Cirruss Accident question |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Bob Collins" <bcollinsrv7a@comcast.net>
The URL I posted yesterday from the Cirrus driver/cfi showed a wind blowing
from the East at a fairly good clip. And he says they made their turn
downwind which would've made a turn in a 2,000 foot corridor more difficult
-- he says. The NTSB says they lost 200 feet in the turn. Was that in
recognition that the stall speed was increasing as the turn tightened? Tune
in in about 2 years.
Do not archive
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of linn Walters
Sent: Saturday, October 14, 2006 4:29 PM
Subject: Re: RV-List: N>Y. Cirruss Accident question
--> RV-List message posted by: linn Walters <pitts_pilot@bellsouth.net>
bertrv6@highstream.net wrote:
>--> RV-List message posted by: bertrv6@highstream.net
>
>
>Hi:
>
>No to add more on this, but would like to hear other comments, as to
>why two people make such mistake...Pilot error...
>
Message 27
| 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: N>Y. Cirruss Accident question |
--> RV-List message posted by: Ron Lee <ronlee@pcisys.net>
> It's a real shame because the rest of us will bear the brunt of
> regulations (already they've raised the floor of the VFR corridor,
> squeezing more aircraft into a tighter space) as a result of public outcry.
My reading of the message/NOTAM on this is that you have to talk to ATC
(Laguardia) beyond a certain
point in that area. Hardly a big deal.
Ron Lee
Message 28
| 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: Cirrus & journalists |
--> RV-List message posted by: "JOHN STARN" <jhstarn@verizon.net>
, 'Cause of accident: Pilot failed to maintain control after the left
aileron
> departed the a/c.'
>
> Charlie
And the NTSB spokesperson will answer the reporters question.
"What is a left aileron ?"
"I think it's the control thingie that left".
Do Not Archive KABONG
Message 29
| 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: | N>Y. Cirruss Accident question |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Chuck Jensen" <cjensen@dts9000.com>
We are often critical of the FAA for being a political organization that
attempts to address technical issues. In this case, that may well be
what they did...they acted like a political animal by throwing a bone to
the public while technically doing next to nothing (that being the
requirement to talk to ATC--not that big a deal). Given the hue and
cry, perhaps the FAA did just enough to salve the angry hordes while
minimizing the actual harm and restrictions to GA.
Yes, yes, it's understood that it won't do anything to prevent future
stupid pilot tricks (may they rest in peace), but the public doesn't
know that, however, as long as they are satisfied, we're should be
satisfied. Now, if da Mayor (Daly) and other political blowhards start
trying to erect TFRs over all the major cities...then 'Houston, we have
a problem.'
Chuck Jensen
Do Not Archive
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ron Lee
> Sent: Saturday, October 14, 2006 5:53 PM
> To: rv-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: RV-List: N>Y. Cirruss Accident question
>
>
> --> RV-List message posted by: Ron Lee <ronlee@pcisys.net>
>
>
> > It's a real shame because the rest of us will bear the brunt of
> > regulations (already they've raised the floor of the VFR corridor,
> > squeezing more aircraft into a tighter space) as a result
> of public outcry.
>
> My reading of the message/NOTAM on this is that you have to
> talk to ATC
> (Laguardia) beyond a certain
> point in that area. Hardly a big deal.
>
> Ron Lee
>
>
>
>
>
>
Message 30
| 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: | N>Y. Cirruss Accident question |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Jeffery J. Morgan" <jmorgan@compnetconcepts.com>
The problem itself, isn't the actual result of the NOTAM, but rather the
way it came to be. The whole thing is not a result of any reasonable
cause. It is strictly because of the public outcry. This is exactly
what we as pilots and aviation professionals need to stop.
It is a slippery slope that we are straddling here. If you look at the
notams in effect over Disney properties for example and ask yourself
what purpose/role they fill, what do you see? Clearly the limits of
distance and height are not enough to stop anyone that is bent on
breaking the rules, but enough to satisfy the public that something was
done. Same applies for the Stadium TFR's that come up.
In the end, all it did was allow those entities to control the
advertising above their properties. Nothing else was accomplished by
them, nor is there any justification for them. Technical violations will
be plenty, but safety and reason are no where in the picture.
So, if we as a group agree that this isn't a big deal, then we are
agreeing that is it okay to let others take away our freedoms one piece
at a time for reasons that aren't justifiable. If there is a reason,
beyond public outcry, and it will enhance safety, then I am willing to
agree. However, when it is not based on something that is tangible or
reasonable, then I have to not just go along, even if it isn't a big
deal.
I personally have been appalled at what folks are willing to give up in
the USA. Since the 9/11 attacks, slowly all rights that for hundreds of
years people have fought and died over, we are willing to slowly give up
and agree it is okay to do that "in the name of security". Though the
intent is to be benevolent in nature, it is ripe for abuse of power. I
think that there have been specific things taking place that show how it
can be taken away. It is simple enough to say that the government has
the right to spy on terrorists, but not on us citizens. However we have
seen that all comes down to a definition by someone other than us and
what they decide goes.
Remember the pilot insecurity rule? The TSA has the right to revoke
your license, without disclosing why (under the guise of national
security) for any person and/or reason. They don't need to disclose what
evidence they had, nor was there an appeal process. Again it was
suggested that normal folks need not worry, but what if you ended up on
the wrong side of that because of a misspelling, glitch in system, or
common name, you have no recourse! Folks agreed to it when it was for
terrorists, but never though it would apply to them. When it did, they
had no recourse! As much as it is easy to say it doesn't apply to me,
it will eventually. The idea that is it not a big deal is what will
erode away the capacity we have as pilots. Once they do away with us,
the public will turn on the next easy group. I would suggest that we
need to not be so easy going about it, and fight and demand an
reasonable explanation about it all. It is time to stop being the
scapegoat for folks irrational understanding of our world. Bob Collins
is right on the money when he suggests that we educate folks about what
it is we do. Now more than ever or my children will likely not be able
to enjoy the world of aviation as we do today and less that of my
grandparents...
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ron Lee
Sent: Saturday, October 14, 2006 4:53 PM
Subject: Re: RV-List: N>Y. Cirruss Accident question
--> RV-List message posted by: Ron Lee <ronlee@pcisys.net>
> It's a real shame because the rest of us will bear the brunt of
> regulations (already they've raised the floor of the VFR corridor,
> squeezing more aircraft into a tighter space) as a result of public
outcry.
My reading of the message/NOTAM on this is that you have to talk to ATC
(Laguardia) beyond a certain
point in that area. Hardly a big deal.
Ron Lee
Message 31
| 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: N>Y. Cirruss Accident question |
--> RV-List message posted by: David Maib <dmaib@mac.com>
Jeff,
I will vote for you if you ever decide to run for office! ;-)
David Maib
do not archive
On Oct 14, 2006, at 5:48 PM, Jeffery J. Morgan wrote:
--> RV-List message posted by: "Jeffery J. Morgan"
<jmorgan@compnetconcepts.com>
The problem itself, isn't the actual result of the NOTAM, but rather the
way it came to be. The whole thing is not a result of any reasonable
cause. It is strictly because of the public outcry. This is exactly
what we as pilots and aviation professionals need to stop.
It is a slippery slope that we are straddling here. If you look at the
notams in effect over Disney properties for example and ask yourself
what purpose/role they fill, what do you see? Clearly the limits of
distance and height are not enough to stop anyone that is bent on
breaking the rules, but enough to satisfy the public that something was
done. Same applies for the Stadium TFR's that come up.
In the end, all it did was allow those entities to control the
advertising above their properties. Nothing else was accomplished by
them, nor is there any justification for them. Technical violations will
be plenty, but safety and reason are no where in the picture.
So, if we as a group agree that this isn't a big deal, then we are
agreeing that is it okay to let others take away our freedoms one piece
at a time for reasons that aren't justifiable. If there is a reason,
beyond public outcry, and it will enhance safety, then I am willing to
agree. However, when it is not based on something that is tangible or
reasonable, then I have to not just go along, even if it isn't a big
deal.
I personally have been appalled at what folks are willing to give up in
the USA. Since the 9/11 attacks, slowly all rights that for hundreds of
years people have fought and died over, we are willing to slowly give up
and agree it is okay to do that "in the name of security". Though the
intent is to be benevolent in nature, it is ripe for abuse of power. I
think that there have been specific things taking place that show how it
can be taken away. It is simple enough to say that the government has
the right to spy on terrorists, but not on us citizens. However we have
seen that all comes down to a definition by someone other than us and
what they decide goes.
Remember the pilot insecurity rule? The TSA has the right to revoke
your license, without disclosing why (under the guise of national
security) for any person and/or reason. They don't need to disclose what
evidence they had, nor was there an appeal process. Again it was
suggested that normal folks need not worry, but what if you ended up on
the wrong side of that because of a misspelling, glitch in system, or
common name, you have no recourse! Folks agreed to it when it was for
terrorists, but never though it would apply to them. When it did, they
had no recourse! As much as it is easy to say it doesn't apply to me,
it will eventually. The idea that is it not a big deal is what will
erode away the capacity we have as pilots. Once they do away with us,
the public will turn on the next easy group. I would suggest that we
need to not be so easy going about it, and fight and demand an
reasonable explanation about it all. It is time to stop being the
scapegoat for folks irrational understanding of our world. Bob Collins
is right on the money when he suggests that we educate folks about what
it is we do. Now more than ever or my children will likely not be able
to enjoy the world of aviation as we do today and less that of my
grandparents...
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ron Lee
Sent: Saturday, October 14, 2006 4:53 PM
Subject: Re: RV-List: N>Y. Cirruss Accident question
--> RV-List message posted by: Ron Lee <ronlee@pcisys.net>
> It's a real shame because the rest of us will bear the brunt of
> regulations (already they've raised the floor of the VFR corridor,
> squeezing more aircraft into a tighter space) as a result of public
outcry.
My reading of the message/NOTAM on this is that you have to talk to ATC
(Laguardia) beyond a certain
point in that area. Hardly a big deal.
Ron Lee
Message 32
| 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: | N>Y. Cirruss Accident question |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Chuck Jensen" <cjensen@dts9000.com>
Jeffery,
I share your concern about the erosion of rights, but what terrifies me
is the concept of unfettered rights and freedom. What makes a society
work is compromise, something that has been notably scarce in the
political arena in the last 10-15 years. It is compromise that allows
an overlaps of conflicting rights to be resolved. The push and shove of
compromise allows stakeholders to each win a little but no one to lose
everything. In the immediate instance, if I ever decide to fly the East
River, which I doubt, I would rather have to contact ATC and be able to
fly it then to be prohibited from doing so under all circumstances. The
restriction may do little for safety, but it does much to salve the
public outcry--is this too great a compromise to enter into to retain
the right to fly the river? A purest would feel its too great a price,
a realist would say it is the price to pay.
Finally, lest we confuse rights with privilege, we should remind
ourselves that flying is a privilege granted by the majority since it
has been determined, when controlled by rules and regulations, to be of
minimal harm to the commonweal. We live in a great country because (for
the most part) most activities are permitted unless they are shown to be
harmful and detrimental to individuals, groups or society as a whole.
In many other countries, the starting point is everything is prohibited
unless by birth or gun, one gains the power to do it.
So, with good fortune and elections, may the exercise of our rights and
privileges not be encumbered any more than absolutely necessary to not
infringe on the peace and tranquility of others. Self-restraint in
exercising our rights and privileges as well as education and lively
support for the preservation of the same is our best defense against
creeping rights, privilege and liberty erosion.
Chuck Jensen
Do Not Archive
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
> Jeffery J. Morgan
> Sent: Saturday, October 14, 2006 6:48 PM
> To: rv-list@matronics.com
> Subject: RE: RV-List: N>Y. Cirruss Accident question
>
>
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Jeffery J. Morgan"
> --> <jmorgan@compnetconcepts.com>
>
> The problem itself, isn't the actual result of the NOTAM, but
> rather the way it came to be. The whole thing is not a
> result of any reasonable cause. It is strictly because of the
> public outcry. This is exactly what we as pilots and
> aviation professionals need to stop.
>
> It is a slippery slope that we are straddling here. If you
> look at the notams in effect over Disney properties for
> example and ask yourself what purpose/role they fill, what do
> you see? Clearly the limits of distance and height are not
> enough to stop anyone that is bent on breaking the rules, but
> enough to satisfy the public that something was done. Same
> applies for the Stadium TFR's that come up.
>
> In the end, all it did was allow those entities to control
> the advertising above their properties. Nothing else was
> accomplished by them, nor is there any justification for
> them. Technical violations will be plenty, but safety and
> reason are no where in the picture.
>
> So, if we as a group agree that this isn't a big deal, then
> we are agreeing that is it okay to let others take away our
> freedoms one piece at a time for reasons that aren't
> justifiable. If there is a reason, beyond public outcry, and
> it will enhance safety, then I am willing to agree. However,
> when it is not based on something that is tangible or
> reasonable, then I have to not just go along, even if it
> isn't a big deal.
>
> I personally have been appalled at what folks are willing to
> give up in the USA. Since the 9/11 attacks, slowly all rights
> that for hundreds of years people have fought and died over,
> we are willing to slowly give up and agree it is okay to do
> that "in the name of security". Though the intent is to be
> benevolent in nature, it is ripe for abuse of power. I think
> that there have been specific things taking place that show
> how it can be taken away. It is simple enough to say that
> the government has the right to spy on terrorists, but not on
> us citizens. However we have seen that all comes down to a
> definition by someone other than us and what they decide goes.
>
> Remember the pilot insecurity rule? The TSA has the right to
> revoke your license, without disclosing why (under the guise
> of national
> security) for any person and/or reason. They don't need to
> disclose what evidence they had, nor was there an appeal
> process. Again it was suggested that normal folks need not
> worry, but what if you ended up on the wrong side of that
> because of a misspelling, glitch in system, or common name,
> you have no recourse! Folks agreed to it when it was for
> terrorists, but never though it would apply to them. When it
> did, they had no recourse! As much as it is easy to say it
> doesn't apply to me, it will eventually. The idea that is it
> not a big deal is what will erode away the capacity we have
> as pilots. Once they do away with us, the public will turn
> on the next easy group. I would suggest that we need to not
> be so easy going about it, and fight and demand an reasonable
> explanation about it all. It is time to stop being the
> scapegoat for folks irrational understanding of our world.
> Bob Collins is right on the money when he suggests that we
> educate folks about what it is we do. Now more than ever or
> my children will likely not be able to enjoy the world of
> aviation as we do today and less that of my grandparents...
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ron Lee
> Sent: Saturday, October 14, 2006 4:53 PM
> To: rv-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: RV-List: N>Y. Cirruss Accident question
>
> --> RV-List message posted by: Ron Lee <ronlee@pcisys.net>
>
>
> > It's a real shame because the rest of us will bear the brunt of
> > regulations (already they've raised the floor of the VFR corridor,
> > squeezing more aircraft into a tighter space) as a result of public
> outcry.
>
> My reading of the message/NOTAM on this is that you have to
> talk to ATC
> (Laguardia) beyond a certain
> point in that area. Hardly a big deal.
>
> Ron Lee
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Message 33
| 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: Cirrus & journalists |
--> RV-List message posted by: Mark Grieve <mark@macomb.com>
Ever notice that news reports covering something you know a lot about
always contain glaring errors? Could one conclude that ALL news reports
contain errors as well?
I noticed the plural engine and propeller business too. Last I knew
Cirrus wasn't making a twin. Also, they the data and cockpit voice
recorder were not installed on this plane.
mg
JOHN STARN wrote:
> --> RV-List message posted by: "JOHN STARN" <jhstarn@verizon.net>
>
> I have listened to the news reports and am amazed how many times I heard
> that the "engineS were running" or the "propellerS" have been located &
> are being sent for further examination. There were not multiple engines
> or propellers but on the third day after the accident I again saw an
> info babe babbling on about something to which she has no knowledge or
> understanding. Passing on misinformation from a misinformed source. Do
> Not Archive these soapbox ravings. KABONG
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bob Collins" <bcollinsrv7a@comcast.net>
> To: <rv-list@matronics.com>
> Sent: Saturday, October 14, 2006 9:54 AM
> Subject: RE: RV-List: Cirrus & journalists
>
>
> ,
>
>
>
>
>
--
Message 34
| 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: Cirrus & journalists |
--> RV-List message posted by: "JOHN STARN" <jhstarn@verizon.net>
Having been Det. Sgt. for Fontana PD & it's "spokesman" I can tell you very
little of what I told the news media EVER can out the same way it went in.
Call it "journalistic license", embellishment, outright fabrications or
bald-faced lies if it spices up their story it gets included. During a
homicide investigation, "NO, YOU DON'T NEED TO KNOW" was the best way handle
the press.
Side bar...Mark are you related to the late GREAT Floyd Grieve ?, FBO, CFI
out of Flabob. ? ? KABONG Do Not Archive
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark Grieve" <mark@macomb.com>
Sent: Saturday, October 14, 2006 6:23 PM
Subject: Re: RV-List: Cirrus & journalists
> --> RV-List message posted by: Mark Grieve <mark@macomb.com>
>
> Ever notice that news reports covering something you know a lot about
> always contain glaring errors? Could one conclude that ALL news reports
> contain errors as well?
Message 35
| 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: | Cirrus & journalists |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Bob Collins" <bcollinsrv7a@comcast.net>
Ouch. Where's the list to post allegations about dirty cops? Generalizations
-- like the one I just made -- are usually inaccurate; an irony in a thread
that's about the need for accuracy. Perhaps we should keep the door open,
just a crack, that while we criticize news people who don't know about
aviation... There are also aviators who don't really know that much about
the news business.
BTW, I looked up the pedigree of the NTSB "spokeswoman" we were talking
about earlier. It turns out she wasn't a spokeswoman, she's a board member.
She doesn't have a pilots license and specializes in child safety
restraints, or something like that. Has a Class 2 bus and truck license and
took a class to learn how to drive a motorcycle.
The last NTSB board member with an engineering or aviation background quit
in 2005. Stupidly -- but predictably -- the board of 5 has to be split
according to political party. So there's 3 Republicans and 2 Democrats.
Deborah Hersman is the Democrat. The law that created NTSB says, "At least
three members shall be appointed on the basis of technical qualification,
professional standing, and demonstrated knowledge in accident
reconstruction, safety engineering, human factors, transportation safety, or
transportation regulation." So why aren't there any? Because the current
president, and the pols that pull the strings -- both Dems and Republicans
-- didn't feel like adhering to the statute.
Oh, and I tracked down a couple of complaints against journalists in the way
the story was reported the other night. Oddly enough, one of the people
criticized -- the CNN dude -- is a pilot... And owner of a Cirrus S20. I
don't know what to make of that.
Anyway, the circle-the-wagons mentality is going to kill general aviation.
As long as one thinks of the other as the enemy.
All of these problems are opportunities. If people own a plane, and haven't
called someone at the local rag and offered to take 'em up for a ride and
explain how GA works, those folks are part of the problem, AND part of the
solution.
Every time there's a crash, the results are predictable. The media screws it
up, the bulletin boards are rife with "journalists are stupid morons"
messages, and nothing changes. GA airports are still closing, and airspace
is getting more restricted.
One of these days, we aviators have got to recognize our responsibility to
change the tone and change the results.
Otherwise, see you back here after the next crash.
Do not archive
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of JOHN STARN
Sent: Saturday, October 14, 2006 9:49 PM
Subject: Re: RV-List: Cirrus & journalists
--> RV-List message posted by: "JOHN STARN" <jhstarn@verizon.net>
Having been Det. Sgt. for Fontana PD & it's "spokesman" I can tell you very
little of what I told the news media EVER can out the same way it went in.
Call it "journalistic license", embellishment, outright fabrications or
bald-faced lies if it spices up their story it gets included. During a
homicide investigation, "NO, YOU DON'T NEED TO KNOW" was the best way handle
the press.
Side bar...Mark are you related to the late GREAT Floyd Grieve ?, FBO, CFI
out of Flabob. ? ? KABONG Do Not Archive
Message 36
| 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: | RV's: Difficult to Fly? Nonsense !! |
--> RV-List message posted by: Dave Nellis <truflite@yahoo.com>
Bob,
I I did my PPL training in a Cherokee 140, 2-180s, and
an Archer II. Shortly after receiving my PPL, I
joined a flying club with 5 Cessnas. The difference
between the two makes is substantial.
First of all, Piper and Cessna each use a different
airfoils. Piper is more of a symmetrical airfoil
where Cessna uses a more flat bottom airfoil. The
biggest difference I noticed is that when removing
power in the Pipers, the nose would begin to fall off
immediately and would occilate to a stable flightpath
within two cycles of occilation. When the nose would
fall the aircraft would gain very little speed before
stabilizing. The Cessnas, on the other hand would
occilate five or six times before stabilizing. When
power is pulled back, the nose would fall off with a
slight delay and then would fall off well beyond what
you would expect. This would cause a large increase
in airspeed and then the occilations. The occilations
could be avoided by adding a little back pressure to
the stick and then slowly removing the the back
pressure allowing the aircraft to stabilize. Once
stabilized, the Cessnas would ride like on rails,
just like the Pipers.
Second, on landing and flair, the Pipers were not as
forgiving as the Cessnas should you be a bit high on
flair. I thought I was going to punch the mains
through the wings once with my instructor on board.
Quite embarassing. The stall is quick due to the
airfoil shape. Flairs are done almost touching the
runway. As for ground effect, the symmetrical airfoil
does ride ground effect but not as long as the
Cessnas. Careful application of back pressure will
raise the nose nicely and the aircraft will settle
with just a little chirp of the mains. I made one
landing in training so slick, I was waiting for the
mains to chirp and the nose wheel settled onto the
runway. I was down and did not know it. One of the
few attaboys I ever got from that instructor.
Flairs and landings in the Cessnas are little
different in my experience. The flat(ter) bottom
airfoil will still generate lift at higher angles of
attack. Hence, a higher flair angle is not needed
and if applied will balloon you up more so than the
Pipers. That is not to say you should three point a
Cessna trike gear or that a Piper will not balloon, on
the contrary. The Cessnas seem to generate a lot of
ground effect. I have landed a 172 holding it off the
runway about one foot with full flaps and have touched
down with the airspeed indicator not able to read the
airspeed. Not easy to do. My instructor told me to
practice this occassionally. If you have a blown
tire, this would be the way to bring it in safely and
touching down with minimum speed. I never thought
about having to make a landing like that, but I know
how to do it.
My home field is in the middle of a commercial area of
town so losing an engine on final is not an option one
would want to encounter. I fly final at 80 knots till
over the fence and then pull power. Ride the ground
effect and touch down. If all goes well, I can
leisurely pull off the runway in about 2000 feet with
minimum braking only because there are very few
taxiways available. Better to go further than heat up
the brakes.
I hope this gives some insight into the diffences
regarding ground effect. By the way, I needed about
5 hours transition time into the Cessnas because of
the different traits involved in landing. Humbling to
say the least but an education worth having.
Fly safe,
Dave Nellis
--- Bob Collins <bcollinsrv7a@comcast.net> wrote:
> // So I got approx 20 hours in a Cherokee Warrior
> before the first flight.
>
>
> That reminds me of a question I was thinking about
> asking driving home the
> other night (before I got distracted by the Cirrus
> accident). When I
> transitioned from a high wing (172) to the low wing
> (Warrior), I had
> difficulty -- and still do sometimes -- judging the
> "ground effect"
> properly. in the Warrior. I've never seen this
> evaluated in RV discussions
> but can anyone who's flown in both compare the
> ground effect characteristics
> of the two raft?
>
> Bob
>
> Do not archive
>
__________________________________________________
Message 37
| 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: Cirrus & journalists |
--> RV-List message posted by: "JOHN STARN" <jhstarn@verizon.net>
Do Not Archive.
> Ouch. Where's the list to post allegations about dirty cops? .<
'round these here parts it's called the Daily (de)Press(ed) & the Los
Angeles Times.
> BTW, I looked up the pedigree of the NTSB "spokeswoman" we were talking
> about earlier. It turns out she wasn't a spokeswoman, she's a board
> member.
> She doesn't have a pilots license and specializes in child safety
> restraints, or something like that. Has a Class 2 bus and truck license
> and took a class to learn how to drive a motorcycle.
>
> The law that created NTSB says, "At least
> three members shall be appointed on the basis of technical qualification,
> professional standing, and demonstrated knowledge in accident
> reconstruction, safety engineering, human factors, transportation safety,
> or transportation regulation."
Dang I knew there was a job out there alook'en fer me.
BA in Criminal Justice, 11 POST (Peace Officers Standards & Training)
certificates, help build an HRII, EAA tech counselor, flying since 1963,
investigated too many TC's to count, been "riding" motorcycles since 1959
(dirt & touring) had a class 3 driver license for 15 years. 20 years as a
licensed contractor and hold a teaching certificate and boy am I
opinionated. ALL IN JEST GUYS.......but all the above is true too.
KABONG (GBA & GWB)
Message 38
| 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: | N>Y. Cirruss Accident question |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Jeffery J. Morgan" <jmorgan@compnetconcepts.com>
Chuck,
While I agree with the idea of compromise, and don't want to sound
against it, I have to ask, where was the compromise in what Daley asks
for in Chicago, Walt got for Disney, and many others like them? If
there was a discussion and consensus, which I stated earlier, and the
decision was that it was for the good of all, I am okay with it.
However, too often, there is a closed door discussion and decision that
has no consensus. ADIZ is the largest in my mind. Can you factor that
into your argument? What was the consensus there?
I truly would like to understand, and have tried, but reason and logic
have escaped those places, which is too often becoming the norm. I
don't try to come off as a one sided person, and am truly open, as I
tried to express by stating if it was good for the common good, I can
understand the sacrifice. After all, that is what we ask the military
to do. However if there is no reasonable explanation, how can you agree
to say it is better than nothing? If the folks ahead of me did that, we
wouldn't be flying, driving, learning, etc... Where do you draw the
acceptable line?
Jeff
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Chuck Jensen
Sent: Saturday, October 14, 2006 6:37 PM
Subject: RE: RV-List: N>Y. Cirruss Accident question
--> RV-List message posted by: "Chuck Jensen" <cjensen@dts9000.com>
Jeffery,
I share your concern about the erosion of rights, but what terrifies me
is the concept of unfettered rights and freedom. What makes a society
work is compromise, something that has been notably scarce in the
political arena in the last 10-15 years. It is compromise that allows
an overlaps of conflicting rights to be resolved. The push and shove of
compromise allows stakeholders to each win a little but no one to lose
everything. In the immediate instance, if I ever decide to fly the East
River, which I doubt, I would rather have to contact ATC and be able to
fly it then to be prohibited from doing so under all circumstances. The
restriction may do little for safety, but it does much to salve the
public outcry--is this too great a compromise to enter into to retain
the right to fly the river? A purest would feel its too great a price,
a realist would say it is the price to pay.
Finally, lest we confuse rights with privilege, we should remind
ourselves that flying is a privilege granted by the majority since it
has been determined, when controlled by rules and regulations, to be of
minimal harm to the commonweal. We live in a great country because (for
the most part) most activities are permitted unless they are shown to be
harmful and detrimental to individuals, groups or society as a whole.
In many other countries, the starting point is everything is prohibited
unless by birth or gun, one gains the power to do it.
So, with good fortune and elections, may the exercise of our rights and
privileges not be encumbered any more than absolutely necessary to not
infringe on the peace and tranquility of others. Self-restraint in
exercising our rights and privileges as well as education and lively
support for the preservation of the same is our best defense against
creeping rights, privilege and liberty erosion.
Chuck Jensen
Do Not Archive
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jeffery J.
> Morgan
> Sent: Saturday, October 14, 2006 6:48 PM
> To: rv-list@matronics.com
> Subject: RE: RV-List: N>Y. Cirruss Accident question
>
>
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Jeffery J. Morgan"
> --> <jmorgan@compnetconcepts.com>
>
> The problem itself, isn't the actual result of the NOTAM, but rather
> the way it came to be. The whole thing is not a result of any
> reasonable cause. It is strictly because of the public outcry. This
> is exactly what we as pilots and aviation professionals need to stop.
>
> It is a slippery slope that we are straddling here. If you look at the
> notams in effect over Disney properties for example and ask yourself
> what purpose/role they fill, what do you see? Clearly the limits of
> distance and height are not enough to stop anyone that is bent on
> breaking the rules, but enough to satisfy the public that something
> was done. Same applies for the Stadium TFR's that come up.
>
> In the end, all it did was allow those entities to control the
> advertising above their properties. Nothing else was accomplished by
> them, nor is there any justification for them. Technical violations
> will be plenty, but safety and reason are no where in the picture.
>
> So, if we as a group agree that this isn't a big deal, then we are
> agreeing that is it okay to let others take away our freedoms one
> piece at a time for reasons that aren't justifiable. If there is a
> reason, beyond public outcry, and it will enhance safety, then I am
> willing to agree. However, when it is not based on something that is
> tangible or reasonable, then I have to not just go along, even if it
> isn't a big deal.
>
> I personally have been appalled at what folks are willing to give up
> in the USA. Since the 9/11 attacks, slowly all rights that for
> hundreds of years people have fought and died over, we are willing to
> slowly give up and agree it is okay to do that "in the name of
> security". Though the intent is to be benevolent in nature, it is ripe
> for abuse of power. I think that there have been specific things
> taking place that show how it can be taken away. It is simple enough
> to say that the government has the right to spy on terrorists, but not
> on us citizens. However we have seen that all comes down to a
> definition by someone other than us and what they decide goes.
>
> Remember the pilot insecurity rule? The TSA has the right to revoke
> your license, without disclosing why (under the guise of national
> security) for any person and/or reason. They don't need to disclose
> what evidence they had, nor was there an appeal process. Again it was
> suggested that normal folks need not worry, but what if you ended up
> on the wrong side of that because of a misspelling, glitch in system,
> or common name, you have no recourse! Folks agreed to it when it was
> for terrorists, but never though it would apply to them. When it did,
> they had no recourse! As much as it is easy to say it doesn't apply
> to me, it will eventually. The idea that is it not a big deal is what
> will erode away the capacity we have as pilots. Once they do away
> with us, the public will turn on the next easy group. I would suggest
> that we need to not be so easy going about it, and fight and demand an
> reasonable explanation about it all. It is time to stop being the
> scapegoat for folks irrational understanding of our world.
> Bob Collins is right on the money when he suggests that we educate
> folks about what it is we do. Now more than ever or my children will
> likely not be able to enjoy the world of aviation as we do today and
> less that of my grandparents...
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ron Lee
> Sent: Saturday, October 14, 2006 4:53 PM
> To: rv-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: RV-List: N>Y. Cirruss Accident question
>
> --> RV-List message posted by: Ron Lee <ronlee@pcisys.net>
>
>
> > It's a real shame because the rest of us will bear the brunt of
> > regulations (already they've raised the floor of the VFR corridor,
> > squeezing more aircraft into a tighter space) as a result of public
> outcry.
>
> My reading of the message/NOTAM on this is that you have to talk to
> ATC
> (Laguardia) beyond a certain
> point in that area. Hardly a big deal.
>
> Ron Lee
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
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! --
|