Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Avgas
the price should not be a nose gear collapse which is what happened at the Avalon Airshow.
|
If this occurred on a properly maintained / paved runway, then I would contend that there are other extenuating circumstances that haven't been provided, that could possibly provide an explanation.
It is unreasonable to lump every single failed nose gear accident that has occurred on RV's into the same group and state that if only the nose gear was designed as it should have been, that none of those accidents would have occurred.
It is basically saying that anything designed correctly should not be able to be broken by any user. Taking that position is just plain wrong.
You have not provide any info other than an accident ended with a failed nose gear that occurred during take-off in an A model RV. That in itself does not mean that the fault is with the design of the airplane.
Now if this accident occurred on a dirt / grass runway, the fact that a large percentage of pilots use poor technique for every take-off is also not a reason to cast blame on the airplane.
I have a serious question.
If an airplane should be able to survive any level of technique (in some instances maybe "abuse" would be more appropriate), why do you suppose there is so much emphases on training pilots to use soft field take-off and landing techniques (at least it is a standard here in the U.S., so I assume elsewhere as well)
The answer is - Because the nose gear on a tricycle geared airplane takes the most abuse and is probably the most vulnerable component on the airplane to damage by the typical user.
If the contentions that are often made were true (most pilots fly the same... nose gear stuck to the runway, properly designed airplanes can always tolerate what ever techniques the average pilot uses, etc.), then why would the people that have been in charge of developing and evolving the training curriculum's have every added soft field take-off and landing techniques to the syllabus?
And by the way, the proper definition of a soft field runway surface is not a muddy farm meadow out behind the barn where your airplane will be covered with mud after landing or taking off.
It is any surface that is not
hard (meaning concrete or asphalt).
Why?
Because the surface condition of any soft field runway has a high chance of having issues today, that weren't there yesterday.
One thing we can agree on is that a large percentage of the pilot community has obviously forgotten at least some of the basic fundamentals they were taught while training to be a pilot.
Hopefully discussions like these will cause us all to do some self evaluation on a regular basis and look to improve in areas that we might be deficient.
A personal tool I use is to ask my self...
Is there anything (piloting skill, knowledge, etc.) that I can think of that if I needed to perform it for an examiner on the next flight I make as pilot(meaning not going out and doing some advanced practicing or study prep.), that I couldn't do it to well beyond the minimum standard I had to meet when I because a pilot.
When we pass an examination for any rating we have shown that we at least meet the minimum requirements.
Anyone that has been flying for quite a while should be able to easily exceed all of those minimums.
If there is something that they think they probably couldn't, that would be a very good thing to personally challenge yourself with improving on.
Remember... many of the skills we are taught are things that are not going to be used on a regular basis.
Soft field take-offs and landings are a good example.... emergency forced landings are another.
Often times when we need to utilize those skills, we aren't provided the opportunity to practice for a while before we execute them.
Linear Mode
