|
-
POSTING RULES

-
Donate yearly (please).
-
Advertise in here!
-
Today's Posts
|
Insert Pics
|

01-07-2010, 08:05 PM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Mojave
Posts: 4,652
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ironflight
I'm sorry Mike, but we are going to have to agree to disagree on this - one of the most important parts of my jobs is training my people to make and use better judgment on a continuing basis. Improvement in judgment is measurable and verifiable. It comes with experience as well as mentoring.
I will not argue that airplane handling skills aren't important - they are, and need to be improved as well. But if you are convinced that you can never learn better judgment, then you are selling yourself short. The limits that you push do not have to be physical - they can be mental as well.
Paul
|
I think you can teach people to identify and evaluate risk, but cannot ensure they use that information. "You can lead a horse to water..." and all that. I think that decision making is very closely related to common sense, and if you have a syllabus that can improve that, the world could sure use it! Further, if the response to a risk scenario is always to limit their experience to it, that is not helpful either. For instance, some people HATE stalls, so they avoid it except for when forced to perform them on a BFR. So by heeding some of the advice in this thread (and current FAA training), one might conclude the proper corrective action is to make sure you don't ever stall. My opinion is exactly the opposite - do stalls until the slightest tickle of the stick is burned into your brain; do them until you can recover without even thinking about it. At this point, stalls, even very close to the ground, are far less dangerous. Of course, with such an advanced understanding of stalls, they are far less likely to develop in the first place. Such an understanding allows maximum performance of the airplane while still retaining a significant margin of safety. Contrast this with the often used "just go faster" method. In this case, who is exercising better judgment?
Judgment is very important, no doubt, but so is expanding your comfort zone in the airplane.
__________________
WARNING! Incorrect design and/or fabrication of aircraft and/or components may result in injury or death. Information presented in this post is based on my own experience - Reader has sole responsibility for determining accuracy or suitability for use.
Michael Robinson
______________
Harmon Rocket II -SDS EFI
RV-8 - SDS CPI
1940 Taylorcraft BL-65
1984 L39C
|

01-07-2010, 08:11 PM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Eastern, PA
Posts: 828
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil
|
Not to diminish the loss of 18 souls, but to put this in context, 19 people died in construction accidents in Manhatten, NY last year.
|

01-07-2010, 09:33 PM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: na
Posts: 1,457
|
|
Paul has it right on. In my 25 years of Naval Aviation the vast majority of mishap reports list as 'a' primary casual factor some form of failure of judgement of the Aircraft Commander, PIC or entire crew. What we've learned is that an awful lot of mishaps occur with some of our most skilled aviators at the controls because their judgement didn't match their skill (at the time) and they couldn't recognize the delta. You could be the absolute best stick in the business and still end up a lawn dart if your judgement is out to lunch, however; if your judgement is keen and your skill is mediocre your chances of survival are much, much better. One of our biggest killers and I believe for GA pilots as well is COMPLACENCY which everyone of us capable of falling victim too.
Our mishap rates have steadily declined over the past 20 years through aggressive mentoring, Crew Resource Management (CRM) training, and more recently (10 years) Operational Risk Management (ORM) training on a recurring basis for all Naval Aviators and aircrewman. We cannot fly without risk - this is a given. We can however discipline ourselves to follow a process for assessing risk, and implementing controls and decisions to minimize those risks. Through this process our judgement will in fact become more focused, reasoned and responsive - especially when it is time critical in flight. It is however difficult to develop better judgement in a vacuum - some form of feedback is required to ensure the pilot is moving forward and not backward in their progress. Its easier for me in my squadron cause I set policy, hold STANDARDIZATION boards, conduct flight reviews and spot check my aviators whenever I want to. For GA pilots, and I said this in another thread, we need to police ourselves and each other better and not be hesitant to call the guy in the hangar next to us out on the carpet when we see him/her do something really stupid.
Our ORM process is divided into a set of 4 principles and a 5 step process.
The principles are:
1. Accept no unnecessary risk (why fly under the bridge when flying over it gets me to the same place)
2. Accept risk ONLY when the benefit outweighs the cost (do I really need to launch from the ship at 0300 in dense fog and 30 ft seas just to meet some arbitrary monthly flight hour requirement?)
3. Make risk decisions at the appropriate level (who gets to decide todays mission is worth the loss of the crew and airplane?)
4. Mitigate most risk through proper planning (route planning, weather diverts, fuel management, terrain considerations, enemy capabilities, my currency and proficiency, personal distractions, aircraft performance, etc..)
so before we fly we define our mission, inventory our equipment, discuss our human factors issues, and assess the environment (terrain, weather, threats, etc..) then we look at the principles above and ensure we can accept the mission within those principles. Once we decide we can, we follow these steps to ensure we've managed the associated risk:
1. Identify the hazards (Enemy action, weather, MidAir, CFIT, Runway Incursions, etc)
2. Assess the Risk (each hazard is categorized by its probability and severity - hi/med/lo)
3. Make Risk Decisions (apply the 4 principles to each risk - any violations of principles requires a change of mission profile/time/crew or other factor)
4. Implement controls (wait till daytime, file IFR, increase weather minimums, set altitude minimums for route, increase weapons stand-off ranges etc..)
5. Supervise the process during the flight.
This seems like a complicated and lengthy process but it really isn't when you practice it. We do this during a mission brief in about 10 minutes and in real time during flight in about 30 seconds. There is no reason why any of us can't use this process when flying GA. I do. Its simple, effective and it will when used EVERY flight help you develop better and more instinctive good judgement..I PROMISE YOU!
FWIW
Ken
|

01-07-2010, 10:08 PM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Dallas, TX (ADS)
Posts: 2,180
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toobuilder
So by heeding some of the advice in this thread (and current FAA training), one might conclude the proper corrective action is to make sure you don't ever stall. My opinion is exactly the opposite - do stalls until the slightest tickle of the stick is burned into your brain; do them until you can recover without even thinking about it. ....
Judgment is very important, no doubt, but so is expanding your comfort zone in the airplane.
|
I agree completely. Every primary flight student should get lots of training in stalls, spins, and unusual attitude recovery. BFRs and/or annual flight reviews should cover most if not all of these. Stall recognition and recovery should be second nature.
Spins, in particular, should be practiced frequently. Instructors and students should brief on spin recovery before every flight where stalls are to be conducted, and instructors should occasionally consider putting in pro-spin controls at or near one of the stalls and then having the student recover (chutes are not required by the FARs for spin training). There's nothing like the surprise of having the aircraft spin without yourself putting in the pro-spin inputs.
Unusual attitude recovery is similarly useful. How many of us practice it annually? Eyes closed, head down, hands off the stick, instructor takes the airplane until the student is told "recover". It's very disorienting when you think that you're fairly level and instead when you look up, there's nothing but sky visible.
I suppose my focus on spins is because of my work towards my CFI-G. Gliders spend a LOT of time very near stall speed and in 30-45 deg banks and spin training is a major focus. However, any aircraft in the pattern is set up for the dreaded stall/spin problem.
TODR
__________________
Doug "The Other Doug Reeves" Reeves
CTSW N621CT - SOLD but not forgotten
Home Bases LBX, BZN
|

01-08-2010, 08:11 AM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Chesterfield, Missouri
Posts: 4,514
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by the_other_dougreeves
I agree completely. Every primary flight student should get lots of training in stalls, spins, and unusual attitude recovery. BFRs and/or annual flight reviews should cover most if not all of these. Stall recognition and recovery should be second nature.
Spins, in particular, should be practiced frequently. Instructors and students should brief on spin recovery before every flight where stalls are to be conducted, and instructors should occasionally consider putting in pro-spin controls at or near one of the stalls and then having the student recover (chutes are not required by the FARs for spin training). There's nothing like the surprise of having the aircraft spin without yourself putting in the pro-spin inputs.
Unusual attitude recovery is similarly useful. How many of us practice it annually? Eyes closed, head down, hands off the stick, instructor takes the airplane until the student is told "recover". It's very disorienting when you think that you're fairly level and instead when you look up, there's nothing but sky visible.
I suppose my focus on spins is because of my work towards my CFI-G. Gliders spend a LOT of time very near stall speed and in 30-45 deg banks and spin training is a major focus. However, any aircraft in the pattern is set up for the dreaded stall/spin problem.
TODR
|
The emphasis has to be on stall recognition, recovery, and avoidance. There is no such thing as spin recovery in the traffic pattern.
__________________
RV-12 Build Helper
RV-7A...Sold #70374
The RV-8...Sold #83261
I'm in, dues paid 2019 This place is worth it!
|

01-08-2010, 08:17 AM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Battleground
Posts: 4,348
|
|
Most stall spin accidents happen at low altitude....
Quote:
Originally Posted by the_other_dougreeves
I agree completely. Every primary flight student should get lots of training in stalls, spins, and unusual attitude recovery. BFRs and/or annual flight reviews should cover most if not all of these. Stall recognition and recovery should be second nature.
Spins, in particular, should be practiced frequently. Instructors and students should brief on spin recovery before every flight where stalls are to be conducted, and instructors should occasionally consider putting in pro-spin controls at or near one of the stalls and then having the student recover (chutes are not required by the FARs for spin training). There's nothing like the surprise of having the aircraft spin without yourself putting in the pro-spin inputs.
Unusual attitude recovery is similarly useful. How many of us practice it annually? Eyes closed, head down, hands off the stick, instructor takes the airplane until the student is told "recover". It's very disorienting when you think that you're fairly level and instead when you look up, there's nothing but sky visible.
I suppose my focus on spins is because of my work towards my CFI-G. Gliders spend a LOT of time very near stall speed and in 30-45 deg banks and spin training is a major focus. However, any aircraft in the pattern is set up for the dreaded stall/spin problem.
TODR
|
All the spin training in the world wont help you if you stall/spin on base to final, where most of the deadly accidents have occured. Your in the ground before you can recover. Recognizing the onset of a stall is where I focus my training.
I spun my 6 in phase I. It is shocking how fast you loose altitude.
It is not recommended for the 6 and I do not practice them in that airplane. I do practice stalls all the time.
It takes a lot to spin an RV, almost a purposeful effort. You have to be really slow, cross controlled, and out of your head to do it, but it seems to still happen. I would suggest that if you have allowed yourself to get that slow in that kind of attitude, you have other training issues.
__________________
Smart People do Stupid things all the time. I know, I've seen me do'em.
RV6 - Builder/Flying
Bucker Jungmann
Fiat G.46 -(restoration in progress, if I have enough life left in me)
RV1 - Proud Pilot.
|

01-08-2010, 09:18 AM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Mojave
Posts: 4,652
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by RV8R999
Our ORM process is divided into a set of 4 principles and a 5 step process.
The principles are:
1. Accept no unnecessary risk (why fly under the bridge when flying over it gets me to the same place)
2. Accept risk ONLY when the benefit outweighs the cost (do I really need to launch from the ship at 0300 in dense fog and 30 ft seas just to meet some arbitrary monthly flight hour requirement?)
3. Make risk decisions at the appropriate level (who gets to decide todays mission is worth the loss of the crew and airplane?)
4. Mitigate most risk through proper planning (route planning, weather diverts, fuel management, terrain considerations, enemy capabilities, my currency and proficiency, personal distractions, aircraft performance, etc..)
so before we fly we define our mission, inventory our equipment, discuss our human factors issues, and assess the environment (terrain, weather, threats, etc..) then we look at the principles above and ensure we can accept the mission within those principles. Once we decide we can, we follow these steps to ensure we've managed the associated risk:
1. Identify the hazards (Enemy action, weather, MidAir, CFIT, Runway Incursions, etc)
2. Assess the Risk (each hazard is categorized by its probability and severity - hi/med/lo)
3. Make Risk Decisions (apply the 4 principles to each risk - any violations of principles requires a change of mission profile/time/crew or other factor)
4. Implement controls (wait till daytime, file IFR, increase weather minimums, set altitude minimums for route, increase weapons stand-off ranges etc..)
5. Supervise the process during the flight.
Ken
|
Ken, please don't take my response as argumentative, but the mission of a military aviator is far different than most of us GA types. For instance, your #1 principle - "Accept no unnecessary risk " is what this thread is all about. Unfortunately, with no "mission", the only appropriate action is in fact inaction. Crosswind component too risky for your personal limits? ...avoid them. Talking on the radio causes task saturation? don't go to towered airports. etc.
Very few of us have a compelling reason to fly, so the strict application of the "4 principles and 5 steps" as described above will direct the GA pilot to curl up into the fetal position and stay in bed.
I guess my main problem with this thread (and flight training in general) is the true lack of emphasis on really bonding with the airplane. My opinion in this matter is formed from personal experience. While I'm still a very new pilot, I have progressed a tremendous amount since my experience with my Hiperbipe. To say the airplane challenged my skills at first would be the understatement of the year. It was (is) a very unforgiving airplane if mishandled and my senses were so far insulated from what the airplane was telling me, I might as well have been flying in a full body cast. However, after 200+ hours the machine is now a part of me. I know how fast I'm going just by feel, I "hear" the airplane yelling at me just as it's about to stall, and the hairs on my neck start to tingle when the wheels are just about to touch the runway... In short, the airplane is essentially hard wired into my senses. This relationship is in sharp contrast to earlier on in our time together, when I almost sold the airplane because it was "too risky" for me to fly. So, bucking much of the wisdom found throughout this thread, I steeled myself to master this evil airplane - no matter what - and did. Now I'm as comfortable upside down as right side up. I'm comfortable making base to final turn at more than 60 degrees of bank, and if wind shear or wake turbulence rolls me on my back right above the threshold, I know I won't instinctively "pull" to recover. My skill set with this airplane is broad enough to handle many surprises - perhaps not all, but I easily handle things today that would have killed me 200 hours ago. Stick and rudder skills are to thank for that. Decision making skills are not to be diminished, but the only way to avoid the unknown events of flying is to stay on the ground... For the rest of us that fly, we better have good stick and rudder skills when the unknown slaps us in the face.
My hope is that in a response to a thread like this, people go fly more challenging missions, not less. We need to find out where the "real" limits are, because the world does not revolve around the artificial limits we set for ourselves.
__________________
WARNING! Incorrect design and/or fabrication of aircraft and/or components may result in injury or death. Information presented in this post is based on my own experience - Reader has sole responsibility for determining accuracy or suitability for use.
Michael Robinson
______________
Harmon Rocket II -SDS EFI
RV-8 - SDS CPI
1940 Taylorcraft BL-65
1984 L39C
Last edited by Toobuilder : 01-08-2010 at 09:53 AM.
|

01-08-2010, 09:21 AM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 358
|
|
There is merit to stall awareness/avoidance and spin training.
One of the flaws in our stall training is in practice we approach the stall with a very slow reduction in airspeed. What we seldom, if at all, practice is getting slow and then giving a tug to unhook the airplane. This is an entirely different entry, and depending on the airplane it can have little or no warning.
The 23012 wing on the RVs has never been noted for its great stall characteristics. The Corsair when thru lots of design work to get the airfoil to provide adequate stall warning for a yank and bank fighter.
Some T-6s are very prone to this phenomenon. The slightest stick movement going over the top of a loop, when a little slow and they will snap instantly....
The spin training will involve more aggressive entries that give a better idea how an airplane reacts to a tug from a pilot startled by a bird or some wake turbulence in the base to final turn.
So as Steve Gustafson of the Aeroshell teams says in his southern drawl... "Just be real nice to it and don't pi$$ it off."
Tailwinds,
Doug Rozendaal
|

01-08-2010, 09:49 AM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Mojave
Posts: 4,652
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by JonJay
All the spin training in the world wont help you if you stall/spin on base to final, where most of the deadly accidents have occured. Your in the ground before you can recover...
|
This is a generally accepted, safe statement... But not entirely true. Many factors contribute to a safe recovery from this situation. How high are you? Is it a full turn? half, quarter? What type of airplane?
I was up cutting toilet paper rolls once and pulled so hard in a left turn (had to get the "kill") that the airplane snap rolled 180 degrees to the right - it went from a vertical bank left to right in the blink of an eye. However, I unloaded the wing and stomped on the rudder halfway through and got it stopped in an instant. This was in essence a "base to final" stall scenario. Though I was nice and high when this happened, there was no noticeable altitude loss.
Avoiding the base-final stall/spin through proper stick and rudder skills is what we strive for, no doubt, and it deserves a healthy amount of respect. However, it is not always a death sentence if one knows how to handle an airplane. After all, Sean Tucker performs low altitude stall/spin maneuvers all the time... And it isn't the waiver issued by the FAA that makes it safe - it's stick and rudder skills.
__________________
WARNING! Incorrect design and/or fabrication of aircraft and/or components may result in injury or death. Information presented in this post is based on my own experience - Reader has sole responsibility for determining accuracy or suitability for use.
Michael Robinson
______________
Harmon Rocket II -SDS EFI
RV-8 - SDS CPI
1940 Taylorcraft BL-65
1984 L39C
|

01-08-2010, 09:58 AM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Chesterfield, Missouri
Posts: 4,514
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by RV8R999
Paul has it right on. In my 25 years of Naval Aviation the vast majority of mishap reports list as 'a' primary casual factor some form of failure of judgement of the Aircraft Commander, PIC or entire crew. What we've learned is that an awful lot of mishaps occur with some of our most skilled aviators at the controls because their judgement didn't match their skill (at the time) and they couldn't recognize the delta. You could be the absolute best stick in the business and still end up a lawn dart if your judgement is out to lunch, however; if your judgement is keen and your skill is mediocre your chances of survival are much, much better. One of our biggest killers and I believe for GA pilots as well is COMPLACENCY which everyone of us capable of falling victim too.
Our mishap rates have steadily declined over the past 20 years.....
FWIW
Ken
|
Interesting post, Ken. It wasn't always like that in the Navy or Air Force.
A very good friend resigned from the Navy over safety issues in the '60's. He was an A4 pilot with a couple cruise experiences and the accident rate in that airplane was very bad. To quote regarding the design of the A4 -
"The Skyhawk was designed by Douglas Aircraft's Ed Heinemann in response to a U.S. Navy call for a jet-powered attack aircraft to replace the older AD Skyraider.[1] Heinemann opted for a design that would minimize its size, weight, and complexity. The result was an aircraft that weighed only half of the Navy's weight specification. It had a wing so compact that it did not need to be folded for carrier stowage. The diminutive Skyhawk soon received the nicknames "Scooter", "Kiddiecar", "Bantam Bomber", "Tinker Toy Bomber", and, on account of its nimble performance, "Heinemann's Hot-Rod"."
The airplane was so light, it did not have a battery. If the alternator failed at night, the flight was over and that's exactly what happened to his commander during a night launch, the carrier ran over him and that was it. Was the A4 fleet ever grounded because it was not designed to be a night fighter - I don't think so.
The point here being, there was a time when decision making for the pilot was out of his hands. You were along for the ride like everyone else. Same was true in the USAF. It was very difficult to get anyone's attention above the local level because upper level policy and design matters were like in concrete. The KC-135 water wagon lost more thrust with a loss of water injection on one side than if an engine failed, but no one wanted to discuss the matter notwithstanding that the electric water pumps failed more often that did an engine.
What does that have to do with the subject of RV safety? Not much, actually, except to show that looking to the military for guidance has its limitations. It was my experience the mission always took precedence over safety. During peace time, safety was on the surface but when the shooting starts, the mission comes first even to the extend of one way missions. Crews and aircraft were expendable when Russia was the enemy.
I maintain the focus here has to be on basic flying skills because so many guys do not fly enough to stay proficient. ADM is important, no question, but we do not have the luxury of class room training as do military and airline operations. I dare say, unless the pilot is a current CFI or a professional in the military or commercial transportation, he does not know much about ADM. How could he with the cost and time constraints of training for the typical new pilot?
When I do a BFR with anyone the emphasis is on basic flying skills. There simply isn't enough time to get into ADM at the expense of passing up an opportunity to work on flying the airplane safely.
__________________
RV-12 Build Helper
RV-7A...Sold #70374
The RV-8...Sold #83261
I'm in, dues paid 2019 This place is worth it!
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:27 AM.
|