The agency also cautioned that since the planes are built by amateurs, there can be differences in performance, including at what speed they might stall.
Since "stall" to normal people means the engine stopped, the majority of the readers will just assume that homebuilt planes have to fly a little faster so their engines don't quit.
It's appears relevant to this story because his engine did stop.
Why aerodynamic stall speed has anything to do with this event is beyond me.
Has anyone read the FAA "Safety Warning?" The linked article is a product of the news media writing about something the FAA published. We have all witnessed what the media can do to an aviation story. I would like to read the original document before passing judgement.
John Clark ATP, CFI
FAA FAAST Team Member
EAA Flight Advisor
RV8 N18U "Sunshine"
KSBA
That's a rather harsh statement. You try landing your RV with oil obscuring your forward visibility someday. I hope you make out as safely as this pilot did. That he was able to get the plane down without *more* damage to people and/or property is pretty amazing in itself.I don't think we want to point any fingers at the FAA. They are not the idiot who took out the jogger.
That's a rather harsh statement. You try landing your RV with oil obscuring your forward visibility someday. I hope you make out as safely as this pilot did. That he was able to get the plane down without *more* damage to people and/or property is pretty amazing in itself.
Stall speed is one of the main reasons I dont have an SX-300. (there is of course $$$) The landing gear is an issue too, and then there is that little issue of no tolerance for ice, but basically, I am not interested in a S/E airplane with a stall speed in the 70kt range. Turbine or Piston.
As I see it the EVO Rocket is near the end of the S/E design limits for me... A turbo and go high, would be about the only way to speed it up....
Tailwinds,
Doug Rozendaal
As I mentioned in the piece I wrote, a plane doesn't have *A* stall speed. To me, THAT'S the primary gaffe the article made and it's the one that we often make, too.
An RV-9 may have a 44 knot stall speed, but only in one configuration and only in certain conditions. On a given day, it -- and any other airplane -- may have any number of stall speeds.
When I read about plane's stalling, it is very seldom in the configuration that most people cite when indicating their planes stall speed.
My guess is most people ONLY know the stall speed of their plane in level flight, full flaps, calm weather, in landing configuration, standard temperature, one passenger. That alone is a mistake we all have the power to change immediately.
A pretty damning statement considering you don't know the full circumstances.I don't think we want to point any fingers at the FAA. They are not the idiot who took out the jogger.
So Captain Al Haynes and his crew shouldn't get a pat on the back because they killed 111 people when UAL232 lost the hydraulics? Or what about the crew of that 767 that ditched after running out of fuel enroute to Australia a few years ago?apkp777 said:I hardly would consider that pilot a hero. Sorry, he should have put it in the drink, I suspect he wanted to save the plane. That's my opinion. I am sure the lancair pilot had his hands full, and if it's true, though I hadn't heard that before, that he had obscured fwd visibility, he did a good job landing the plane. Unfortunately, he failed to prevent the loss of life. He's not getting a pat on the back from me.
I...
One of the interesting aspects of this, however, is that the EAA and AOPA's Air Safety Foundation were on opposite sides of the issue in the article. I've been a financial supporter of ASF for a number of years but I doubt I'll continue.
For someone who may have learned to fly in an aircraft that stalls at 40kts then hops in a homebuilt that stalls at >61kts with perhaps minimal training and inadequate discovery of the flight characteristics of their aircraft can mean disaster.
A pretty damning statement considering you don't know the full circumstances.
If it came to landing on a beach (that I may or may not be able to see clearly) or putting the airplane down in the water risking both my and my passengers life, I'm going the beach, and if there's a few people scattered about on it, I'll take my chances. Self-preservation is a powerful motivator and I don't pretend I'd not try to save myself (and the KRviatrix too)...And that's even assuming he knew the bloke was there and hit him. If he didn't, I think your comments are way out of line.
So Captain Al Haynes and his crew shouldn't get a pat on the back because they killed 111 people when UAL232 lost the hydraulics? Or what about the crew of that 767 that ditched after running out of fuel enroute to Australia a few years ago?
If it came down to one life lost to save a likely two or more, I wouldn't hesitate, and neither should you. Unfortunately, it is simple mathematics in play, and something the doo-gooders need to realise too, although that is for another topic...
The important thing is that the illusion of action has been created without doing anything, and a solution has been recommended to a problem that never actually occurred. Isn't that the function of government?