Toobuilder said:
...So what I hear you saying (and please correct me if I've missed this), is that given two options to improve the stall/spin problem:

1. Go fly with an instructor, practice, or just do whatever it takes to learn your airplane

or

2. Install and follow an AoA instrument:

You are saying the flying community will be better served with the AoA instrument because learning the "feel" of an airplane is unreliable and/or too hard.

If so, this is indeed a sad commentary about our collective skills
Click to expand...


Aw come on, Michael, do you really have to distort my comments just to make your point?

If you want to offer a rebuttal, base it on what I said, not on something that you are pulling out of thin air.

That, my friend, is indeed a sad commentary about debating skills if it is necessary to resort to those tactics.
 
I have to say that you guys have made me very interested in utilizing my AOA. Previously I described it as just "pretty", however, hearing your passion I think it's much more. I am going to get the audio output from Skyview setup tomorrow and start dialing in the AOA.

As much as I agree with Toolbuilder and that "feel" is an incredibly valuable function of basic flight skill, I also will NOT ignore the supplemental aides to improve awareness and safety.
 
"Objection - Argumentative!" :)

I agree with Sam - this is getting a bit pedantic.

I have been casually reading this thread since it's inception, and to a large part, it appears that everyone is in violent agreement:

1) Stalls in the pattern kill people
2) With high task loading, an RV stall can go unrecognized if you are not trained well
3) AOA indications are a good tool to help let you know where you are relative to the stall
4) ASI's can lie to you if you are holding any "G" on the airplane
5) Training and practice are good!

The funny thing is that the "debate" goes on and on and on...not because anyone really disagrees with these points - it is simply a case of who wants to get the last word in. I have no interest in cutting off true debate or real information, but this one has come full circle at least three times. Got anything new?

(Oh, I have AOA on my GRT - works great, but is completely out of my field of view in the VFR pattern. I like it for setting up a very short landing, but I can't look at it on short final - too far away from the out the window view. I feel that a good AOA indexer must be high and left in the field of view, or have audio output to talk (or sing) to you. )

Paul
 
Sam Buchanan said:
Aw come on, Michael, do you really have to distort my comments just to make your point?

If you want to offer a rebuttal, base it on what I said, not on something that you are pulling out of thin air.

That, my friend, is indeed a sad commentary about debating skills if it is necessary to resort to those tactics.
Click to expand...

I'm looking for clarification Sam... This is not an argument nor any attempt at getting in the last word. This is my attempt at holding a complex discussion about an important subject within the considerable limits of an internet forum. Because I know how easily thoughts get distorted, you will note that I invited you to correct me if I missed your true point: "...and please correct me if I've missed this..."
 
apkp777 said:
As much as I agree with Toolbuilder and that "feel" is an incredibly valuable function of basic flight skill, I also will NOT ignore the supplemental aides to improve awareness and safety.
Click to expand...

I've always heard about "feel"; but if our sight is taken away, is there enough feel to accomplish a succesful landing? I don't think so. Therefor, in my mind, sight is more important than feel or sound. Toolbuilder already made the point that "feel" is worthless in IMC conditions. As I've gone through the FAA's vertigo sim, I certainly believe it.

I bring this up, because within static flight simulations, we use sight and a bit of joystick spring resistance to create a sense of "feel". It's kind of like sitting at a stop light while the vehicle to your side moves slightly ahead. You slam on your brakes, thinking your car is rolling backwards. You swear you feel it, but in reality, you felt nothing. It was only sight that did the trick.

L.Adamson --- RV6A
 
AOA

I've heard that Van is pretty good pilot. But for some reason, he put an AOA indicator on the glareshield of his RV-10. I wonder why?
 
AOA is king

I was fortunate enough to learn to fly AOA in the very aircraft that Doug posted a picture of earlier in the thread. It was probably the most important instrument in the F4, if you needed to make the aircraft perform in combat, cruise and especially in terms of departure awareness. That is why I fitted an ACS pro to my RV7.

For example I know that best cruise for any given weight occurs at 22-24 units in my aircraft, speed varies in ISA from 169 ktas (high weight) to 176 ktas (low weight) this test was carried out over a flight time of 11 hours and 50 minutes. As you may surmise my RV carries a lot of fuel (over 130 usg) The AOA is very useful in this regime but the real reason I fitted it was in anticipation of what happened a few weeks ago.

I have been experimenting with cooling drag losses and rather stupidly gaffer taped a temporary foam ramp in to the cowl outlet to reduce the outlet area, :eek: (For various reasons I am running very cool CHTs) at about 200 feet and 140 kts after takeoff there was a very loud bang associated with lots of vibration.I pulled the power back slowly (vibration decreased a little) and started a turnback MY PRIME FOCUS WAS THE AOA pulling straight to the doughnut for max performance I milked the electric flap to improve the turn and took full flap once a landing on the field was guaranteed. AT NO STAGE IN THE MANOUEVRE DID I LOOK AT THE ASI, I knew that the AOA indicated best performance for any given weight no adding 5 kts because I was heavy; no guessing just flew the green doughnut. Any buffet warning would have been masked by the vibration, in times of stress, aural and feel perceptions are reduced as we become saturated. Get an AOA gauge they are life savers every aircraft should have one, the only reason that they don't is because of tradition.

Stay Safe

Steve
 
L.Adamson said:
...........On the otherhand, there are instuctors who tend to cover up GPS's too. I don't agree with them either. First one that ever does that to me, get's thrown out the door! :D

In the meantime, I'll continue to think highly of pretty AOAs, GPS's, and even my indicated airspeed gauge. I know you didn't call the GPS pretty or a toy, but some have. I have extensive accident databases, which easily prove that some of these new fangled instruments could have been of use.

Just don't cover up my "airspeed indicator"......
I can't imagine a commercial jet pilot landing with out airspeed.......either.

L.Adamson ---- RV6A
Click to expand...

Dear "L." I hope you reconsider your thoughts about covering up various instruments. Especially the airspeed indicator.

Let me relate a story to you: I was attempting to check out a fairly high-time pilot in my North American T-6. His basic air work was abysmal. Airspeed in the climb-outs and descents was +/- 15 kts:eek:, even after repeated cautions and discussions. I was at my wit's end on how to correct the issue, and was on the verge of "letting him go his own way", (a euphamism for stopping the training.)

For some reason, one day I decided to tape over the airspeed indicator before flight. As we taxied out for the next flight, all of a sudden he said: "HEY!, the airspeed indicator is taped over!"

I said: "Yep."

He said: "I can't fly a plane without an airspeed indicator."

I said: "Sure you can. Just look out the window, and fly the plane. I will occasionally tell you your airspeed, and if you get into trouble, I will take the plane. Don't worry."

So, off we went. IMMEDIATE, and vast improvement. Instead of chasing the airspeed, he was (finally) looking at the attitude of the plane, and flying by feel. And instead of +/- 15 knots, he was consistently withing 3 or 4 knots of climb and descent speeds. We flew 3 or 4 sorties like this, and after that, he learned to fly the T-6 well.

I urge you, and everyone for that matter, to go up with an instructor or safety pilot, and try it.

Simulating failure of one or two of the instruments or radios or VOR's or ILS's or GPS's now and then in flight is a very good, and highly recommended teaching technique.

I am certain that I could land my T-6, my RV-6A, the Boeing 7X7's I have flown, and the F-4 and the A-4, without a functioning airspeed indicator. In fact, I have actually done it for real in the F-4 and A-4, and simulated it in all the others.

Try it, you might like it.

Pete Hunt, ATP, CFII, A&P. (SMEL) 16,000+ hours.
 
Arguing with reality

Sam Buchanan said:
The highest level of safety in the RV community will be achieved when all RV pilots display a high degree of airmanship at all times combined with superb judgment and an ample dose of common sense.

But...we will never reach that level of safety...
Click to expand...

Spot on.

I read some time ago a statement that I believe holds true here: When I argue with reality, I lose, 100% of the time.

No doubt we can improve the training, skills, and experience of the population, but it's hard. Tools to help us be better and safer pilots seem to be a good idea. Having a little whisper in your ear that tells you that you are about to become a smoking hole unless you unload the wing could reduce the number of stall-spin accidents. Seems like cheap insurance to me.
 
Ironflight said:
(Oh, I have AOA on my GRT - works great, but is completely out of my field of view in the VFR pattern. I like it for setting up a very short landing, but I can't look at it on short final - too far away from the out the window view. I feel that a good AOA indexer must be high and left in the field of view, or have audio output to talk (or sing) to you. )

Paul
Click to expand...

FWIT, my D10A AOA is located just below the D10A ASI, both of which are to the left and high in the indicator. It takes a micro second to glance at the info and seems to be in just the right place, did not plan it that way, just seemed like a good idea at the time of install and indicator set up. There's not much else to look at in the area being a basic VFR panel, so that helps.

I agree, this thread has been like through a meat grinder and the same thing keeps coming out the other end. It is agreed there is no substitute for basic flying skills. But there's also a need to back up those skills with some common sense and technical data since the human product does indeed screw up now and then.
 
Base to final stalls-BEWARE

L.Adamson said:
Well, there is the flight instructor I've been arguing with for months, who believes that I'm lacking in basic airmanship & flying skills because I refuse to set an OBS before every cross country flight. I say no thanks, and will go with newer GPS technology. I don't even have a NAV eadio.

And he does use the excact terms......."basic airmanship & flying skills"..

IMO, the technology solution of GPS & synthetic vision is a much better route than what we've had with the VOR/radio nav system. I do believe that AOA as well as other systems, can only be beneficial for the future. Afterall, many airman using basic airmanship haven't always done well, when left to their own devices. Accidents happen for many reasons. Warnings can help when attention is diverted for other reasons.

In fact, sadly, I just learned that our local banner towing pilot........didn't make it. His plane crashed about an hour ago. It's just down the road from my house. I live next to the airport. :(

L.Adamson --- RV6A
Click to expand...

BASIC FLYING SKILLS
BASIC FLYING SKILLS
BASIC FLYING SKILLS
KEEP THE BALL CENTERED
(LATELY HAVE NOTICED FROM FAA ACCIDENT REPORTS, SEVERAL RV's
CRASHING ON SHORT FINAL FROM WHAT APPEARS SKIDS/CROSS CONTROL WITHOUT MAINTAINING AIRSPEED/ATTITUDE.)
STALL WARNING DEVICES ARE REQUIRED FOR SAFE FLYING.
 
I think this is an important thread. Stall/Spin accidents represent 9% of GA fatalities. I am going to lay out what I believe is the scenario that leads to the stall spin fatality in the pattern. This can happen to any pilot, with little or a lot of flight time, with or without stall warning devices.

Pilot departs for cross country flight to distant airport. Winds when he left are not the same as arrival. After several hours of flying and slightly fatigued pilot begins to get set up for traffic pattern at arrival airport. There is no weather services on the field and the pilot sees a stiff wind sock showing a left crosswind runway 27. Actual winds are 180 @ 15kts. Pilot enters the left downwind on the 45 for runway 27 and keeps it "tight" as he prefers. A-beam begins his descent, reduces airspeed to 1.3 x's his Vso of 50kts. He's now flying at 65kts.

His "tight" pattern is now really tight as he underestimated the right cross wind on downwind. He begins his base turn, realizes that his ground speed is accelerating and hurries to make his base to final turn. His flight instructors drilled him on a 30 degree max bank angle in the pattern so he knows he shouldn't "crank and bank", but passing the final approach path with 30 degrees of turning still required, sub consciously steps on the left rudder to bring the nose around. The up-wing advances with the rudder input and the low-wing recedes. Resulting in increased lift on the up-wing and decreased on the low. The airplane suddenly increases it's bank angle to 50 degrees without any additional aileron input. Now, due to the bank angle and load factor, the stall speed has increased to approximately 60kts, 5 kts less than his 65 kt IAS. Realizing he is over-banking and still past the final approach path, pilot, while holding too much left rudder, begins to roll to the right with right aileron input. The adverse yaw produced exaggerates the rotation around the vertical axis and the bank angle is increased to near 90 and the lower wing stalls and an incipient spin occurs. Since pilot is 300 ft off the ground, recovery is not possible.

Unfortunately, many pilots and their passengers have been killed this way. It's NOT a function of lack of basic skills or instrumentation. It's about a chain of events that lead only to one outcome.

Again, this is why I preach "over-shoot, don't over-bank".
 
Last edited:
Overshoot

Tony, I agree with you, (overshoot but don't overbank) but your statement is in conflict with the preceeding statement. In my 9700 hours of teaching in airplanes I have come to learn that aircraft accidents during base to final "are a function of basic flying"
I clearly do not believe in "chain of events"
Properly trained pilots predict all flying functions.
Sorry, but I have a great amount of respect for many of your statements.
:)
 
Larry Stokes said:
Tony, I agree with you, (overshoot but don't overbank) but your statement is in conflict with the preceeding statement. In my 9700 hours of teaching in airplanes I have come to learn that aircraft accidents during base to final "are a function of basic flying"
I clearly do not believe in "chain of events"
Properly trained pilots predict all flying functions.
Sorry, but I have a great amount of respect for many of your statements.
:)
Click to expand...

Larry, welcome to VAF!, we need folks with your experience to help all of us. There are lots of "open ears" here and I am one of them.

I do believe basic skills are vital, but when you read the NTSB reports, some of the pilots killed in these sort of accidents have tons of flight time, and you would describe them as having "great flying skills" still this scenario is played out over and over. None of the pilots here or any where that I have talked to, would say "oh, yeah, my flying skills suck!". I think it's more "I'll never happen to me" because "I have great flying skills". My main job is teaching new drivers. I am a broken record with them. "IT CAN HAPPEN TO YOU!". A funeral for one of my students yesterday is testimony to that.

I am not downplaying basic flying skills. As my earlier posts indicate, I focus most of my flight instruction on "attitude airplane flying" which is mostly predicated on "feel". The integrated approach uses some instrument reference and now with AOA indicators, I am going to have to figure out how to use them and how to teach with it.
 
Last edited:
When I say over-shoot, I am not saying that is what you "should" do, but if you blow past final, don't try to recover with the rudder and bank angle. S-turn if necessary or better yet go-around.
 
stall/spin base to final

Tony, I agree with you.
It's all attitude: pilots attitude and airplane's attitude.
I am from the old flight instructors school
I cover instruments
I insist on slow flight and all stalls on a consistant basis with the instruments covered. Integrated instruction is highly important as you well know.
High time pilots that have accidents "forget" basics if not practiced
I for one, will practice in any aircraft I fly reguarly.
I am not ashamed to admit to "rust"
14000 hours and I have never had a inflight accident, a feat I am proud of.
I love grabbing a new instructor to go fly.....we both learn from each other.
I will help any pilot that needs help with basics and usually never charge.
 
This thread has certainly been an eye opener. It is clear that an AoA indicator, much like an attitude indicator or GPS, is added value to even a day, VFR pilot. I think we are in nearly universal agreement there.

Where I see a disconnect however is in the area broadly defined as flying by "feel". Many here have spoken of the benefits of attitude flying, stick force gradient, hearing the air, or my final warning device, the airframe buffet. This level of awareness is almost universally admired, but there SEEMS TO BE sharp disagreement on the average pilot being able to attain this relationship with their airplane. In other words, flying by feel is a valuable, but unrealistic goal.

So, putting aside the AoA instrument discussion for a moment (no "either/or" this time...), I have another question for the members: Do you think intuitive flying (i.e. identification of a stall or uncoordinated condition by "feel", then positive and correct recovery) is an unrealistic goal for the GA community?
 
Thanks

As a low time pilot and in the last six months of my build, I am all ears on this thread. I will have an aoa and keep working my skills. We all make mistakes. The links and experience are much appreciated. Less folded up airplanes would be great.
 
No way! Learning feel starts the second a pilot touches the controls. The instruments (as, aoa or whatever) help calibrate the pilot as the closed loop feedback of the control system. If the cfi begins training with a thought toward teaching the student to simply pay equal attention to how things feel while they develop an integrated instrument scan this will develop naturally and at a quick pace. In keeping with the spirit of the thread the feel of the stick force and stick position are as valuable as any bell or whistle in stall recognition within normal flight parameters such as the approach turn to final. AOA is the best instrument available to keep us continually calibrated when correlating the feel with the performance of the plane as it will not lie to us based on gross weight like A/S does. In fact I would argue aoa will speed the process of learning to feel the plane more quickly because it provides a consistent frame of reference.
 
highly experienced pilots need it too!

When I was building my 7A an RV8 arrived at my airport and I went out to meet and visit with the owner. Turns out to be a HIGHLY experienced RV pilot who has built and flown every RV model there is. He had just installed an AOA indicator for the first time in his 8. He said that when he first flew it it squawked at him on base to final turn. Convinced it wasn't calibrated right he redid the calibration and verified it was correct...5 knots above stall. He then did another pattern in his normal fashion. It sqawked at him again. He landed, did some calculations and realized HE HAD NO IDEA he was shaving it as close as he was in the base to final turn.

He said that the way it snuck up on him was that as he got more and more experience there was a certain "professional satisfaction" in flying tight, controlled patterns and using as little runway as possible.

He said he is convinced that without the AOA eventually he would have nibbled into the margins too far and augered in. He was evangelizing installing AOA for everyone.

Jeremy
 
PCHunt said:
Dear "L." I hope you reconsider your thoughts about covering up various instruments. Especially the airspeed indicator.
Click to expand...

Instructors need to cover up instruments. I just don't like instructors that cover up GPS's in favor of the OBS. I'll care less when all VORs become a fixture of the past..... Some "antique minded" instructors seem to be obsessed with radio nav, and can't get over it.

On the other hand, I've never had an instructor that covered up the GPS. My instrument instructor in the mid-nineties was fascinated with what the Garmin 195 "brick" could do. Back then, it would show the complete approach overlay.

In the meantime, I can safely fly with no airspeed. My ultra speedy RV may break the Class B speed rules...........but then I won't know... :D

L.Adamson --- RV6A
 
jjconstant said:
When I was building my 7A an RV8 arrived at my airport and I went out to meet and visit with the owner. Turns out to be a HIGHLY experienced RV pilot who has built and flown every RV model there is. He had just installed an AOA indicator for the first time in his 8. He said that when he first flew it it squawked at him on base to final turn. Convinced it wasn't calibrated right he redid the calibration and verified it was correct...5 knots above stall. He then did another pattern in his normal fashion. It sqawked at him again. He landed, did some calculations and realized HE HAD NO IDEA he was shaving it as close as he was in the base to final turn.

He said that the way it snuck up on him was that as he got more and more experience there was a certain "professional satisfaction" in flying tight, controlled patterns and using as little runway as possible.

He said he is convinced that without the AOA eventually he would have nibbled into the margins too far and augered in. He was evangelizing installing AOA for everyone.

Jeremy
Click to expand...

The increasing incorporation of digital flight instruments will most likely make the AOA indicator so common and accepted in the next few years that flying without one will be considered similar to relying on pilotage for cross country navigation. ;)

And pilots' skills will be better because of it.
 
Last edited:
Many commercial aircraft today have dynamic airspeed displays. That is, the airspeed tape's display of V_s and V_ne dynamically update to reflect the condition of flight.

When applying load factor, for instance, the bottom of the green arc will increase to a higher value, thereby showing the pilot where the new stall speed (critical AOA) is relative to the current IAS. And the display can be tied to flap position, so the pilot can see directly where the bottom of the white arc is if the flaps are out.

V_ne also dynamically updates to show the lowest applicable limit - it might be IAS or TAS depending on altitude, temp, and calibrated speed. (Q limited or flutter limited)

AOA is also good and useful but over the years I've found the dynamic speed display to be the best, most direct way to go. Surely this capability could be programmed into our PFD's on the market today.

There are many heavy drivers on the board here who use this all the time; thoughts??
 
Sam Buchanan said:
The increasing incorporation of digital flight instruments will most likely make the AOA indicator so common and accepted in the next few years that flying without one will be considered similar to relying on pilotage for cross country navigation. ;)

And pilots' skills will be better because of it.
Click to expand...

Using that analogy, do you think todays pilots who use GPS are more skilled navigators than those of the last generation?

I think more effective, yes... More "skilled" in the art of navigation, not a chance.
 
Toobuilder said:
Using that analogy, do you think todays pilots who use GPS are more skilled navigators than those of the last generation?
Click to expand...

Let'a just say that today's pilots who use GPS are much better informed, than those of the last generation. If I was a passenger, I'd rather fly with the informed pilot, rather than one who was stuck with yesteryears technology, no matter how skilled they are/were. And yes, I have all those accident reports to prove it...

L.Adamson --- RV6A
 
Toobuilder said:
I think more effective, yes... More "skilled" in the art of navigation, not a chance.
Click to expand...

When you think about it, skill is all perception. While an old pilot might have a lot of trouble comprehending today's glass panels. the young computerized generation will take right to it........and do well. So in essence, who's more skilled?

L.Adamson --- RV6A
 
Glass pilots skill level in navigation

No question the glass pilots are more skilled in navigation.
Question is:: are they skilled enough to put it all together with a BZ situation flying the airplane?? Namely base to final???
Base to final I want a stick and ball and stall warning indicator that works.
 
L.Adamson said:
When you think about it, skill is all perception. While an old pilot might have a lot of trouble comprehending today's glass panels. the young computerized generation will take right to it........and do well. So in essence, who's more skilled?

L.Adamson --- RV6A
Click to expand...

I think there is a huge difference in skill between doing time/speed/distance calculations on the fly, factoring in crab angles and wind, vs. simply keeping the little cartoon airplane near the magenta line.

Lindbergh and the successful attack on Yamamoto come to mind as demonstrated examples of incredible navigation skills... GPS is a wonderful thing - revolutionary even, but I suspect that in a generation, we won't even be able to find the corner store without the magic box.

I'll give you that flying is significantly safer because of GPS, but it is at the expense of raw skill. Whether that's a good tradeoff or not is a whole other debate.
 
Last edited:
so

So in the good ole days it took a very highly skilled navigator to just barely know where he was.

And today someone with low skills can know within 50 feet.

Hummmm.

You decide.

I'll take the GPS.
 
Sailors

The Sailors driving our big and very expensive aircraft carriers and cruisers no longer practice celestial nav? Nor is it taught at the Naval Academy as it was 22 years ago when I attended. However, for the money you cant beat a simple single VOR for legal IFR navigation and it doesn't need a database subscription (which can be subject to the frailties of human involvement) so I understand why some would still want and use radio nav. I chose to equip my new plane with only GPS for purely personal reasons.

Honestly, I don't understand this debate about skill at all?? Celestial Nav took a lot of skill and I hated every stinkin second learning and using it. Dead Reckoning takes skill and guess what in my squadron of 11 brand new absolutely state-of-the-art aircraft equipped with stuff from science fiction novels I still require my pilots to practice basic VFR dead reckoning on a recurring basis (at least 2 hours every 60 days) and I make them do it at night on NVGs just to keep it interesting. Why? Because no single source navigation solution will ever be good enough to relay upon 100%. GPS signals are VERY easy to jam, they are subject to outages as are VORs so it makes sense to maintain a level of mastery for as broad a spectrum of the art of navigation as time and money permit. But It also takes an enormous amount of skill to operate the latest GPS equipment and in some respects I suspect even more skill than the VOR ever required (tune, twist and center - pretty easy). Granted the GPS takes a lot of the brain power out of turning a centered needle into usable Situation Awareness (SA) but for me that brain power was expended in setting the system up, displaying it correctly and ensuring it is functioning and sequencing appropriately. Apples and Oranges Different skill sets, all important, none better or worse than the other. Number of brain calories expended for each? Difference is in the noise.

If I can keep the number of Take-offs and landings equal throughout my piloting career I'll be really happy with my skills :)
 
L.Adamson said:
I hadn't heard about this one. But it unfortunately, ties in with the subject.

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20100619X92228&key=1
Click to expand...

Tragic!

I went out and flew the pattern 2 days ago trying to focus on my AOA indicator. I am sorry but in an RV-9 the stall speed is sooo slow that you have to be either suffering from some physical condition (hypoxia, vertigo, etc), completely distracted or have inadequate piloting skills to get it that slow in the pattern. My stall speed is right around 38 kts or 44 mph. That gives me about a 10-12 degree pitch up attitude in level flight in an accelerated stall. I am uncomfortable with level flight in a low power situation. 10 degrees nose up in the pattern would be setting off more internal alarms in my head than any gadget in my panel.

I am making no judgment on the skills of the pilot in the above fatality, that is just tragic. That was a popular airplane as I have seen sites that use it's photo as an example of what they are building.

It does appear to me that he had no stall warning devices. Though I can't be sure. But he did have the Van's pitot tube (literal tube). Unlikely he had AOA. Could have had LRI? Who knows. Still even ground observers thought he appeared to be going very slow.
 
John Clark said:
Here is a very interesting read on the effect of GPS on pilot awareness:

http://automation.arc.nasa.gov/articles/mitigating.pdf

John Clark ATP, CFI
FAA FAAST Team Member
EAA Flight Advisor
RV8 N18U "Sunshine"
KSBA
Click to expand...

Interesting article. It should be made clear that Dead Reckoning and Pilotage are not the same thing. Dead Reckoning is where you learned to use your plotter for wind triangles and your E6B for wind corrections and time, distance and speed.

Pilotage (use of fixed visual references on the ground by means of sight) will NEVER become obsolete as long as we have Pilots in the cockpits (or flightdecks to be P.C.).
 
apkp777 said:
Interesting article. It should be made clear that Dead Reckoning and Pilotage are not the same thing. Dead Reckoning is where you learned to use your plotter for wind triangles and your E6B for wind corrections and time, distance and speed.

Pilotage (use of fixed visual references on the ground by means of sight) will NEVER become obsolete as long as we have Pilots in the cockpits (or flightdecks to be P.C.).
Click to expand...

Tony, your post made me recall a magazine article from long ago where the term "dead reckoning" was argued. I couldn't remember the conclusion of the article, only that there was evidence for the spelling "ded reckoning".

Well, that made me look it up. Here's a pretty exhaustive synopsis of the argument ...

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2053/is-dead-reckoning-short-for-deduced-reckoning

... for anyone with a few minutes to kill and a burning desire to become even more confused. :D
 
John Clark said:
Here is a very interesting read on the effect of GPS on pilot awareness:

http://automation.arc.nasa.gov/articles/mitigating.pdf
Click to expand...

In a way, it's like removing the highways, and telling people to use the sun & stars. On the other hand, I could turn that test around, to get the effect I want.

Here is an example. Our state is dotted with military restricted zones. Some have narrow corridors in between. Many of the mountain ranges out here run in parallel & look the same. Let's say that your navigating by the use of of VOR, and it fails. You might have a heck of a time figuring out where the military zig zag line is as the exact moment. You'll probably be concentrating on the chart so heavily, and trying to find the exact mountain range or landmark, that you'll infringe on the restricted airspace. Soon, you'll be escorted by two F-16s. In this test, you loose! :D But I knew exactly where all boundaries were, within a foot or three. No escorts for me... :)

Or perhaps, you want to visit the Grand Canyon, and fly through one of the four available corridors. Without GPS, your passenger remarks at the beauty of the canyon below. But you, as pilot, don't get to really look........because you're too busy trying to find available landmarks to make sure you're still in the legal airspace. With GPS, just take glances for that magenta line, and see the sights, as well as scanning for other aircraft.

This was all brought to light, when a commercial pilot in his 90's was taken on a mountain flight recently. He remarked that as a passenger, he could finally see some of the panoramic sights, that he'd been missing all those previous years as pilot in command. For him, it was previously all navigation.

IMO, GPS allows us to do a bit of both. We can get too complacent with GPS, and some do. But I combine it with sectionals to even get a better idea of exactly where I am, and what's in the distance to the sides, as well as ahead.

L.Adamson --- RV6A
 
N8RV said:
Tony, your post made me recall a magazine article from long ago where the term "dead reckoning" was argued. I couldn't remember the conclusion of the article, only that there was evidence for the spelling "ded reckoning".

Well, that made me look it up. Here's a pretty exhaustive synopsis of the argument ...

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2053/is-dead-reckoning-short-for-deduced-reckoning

... for anyone with a few minutes to kill and a burning desire to become even more confused. :D
Click to expand...

When I was typing the original reply, I first put "Ded", then changed it to "Dead". Yeah, I can't decide which to use. One thing for sure if I were using "Ded" reckoning to navigate across the Pacific ocean I'd be "Dead" for sure.
 
Just an observation on the stall/spin syndrome. Like a possibly large number of builders, I had spent several non-flying years getting my RV into the air. I was pleased at how quickly it all came back but there was some difficulty judging my base and final (I just recently got my BFR in a C-182 and discovered that I'm too used to the RV and so again had pattern adjustment problems). Much to my own surprise, I discovered that I had no tendency to 'oversteer' with the rudders but when I increased the bank, I would instinctively pitch up instead of adding power. Then I realized that this is the way I was taught turns and not enough training had been done in descending turns, especially steep ones. Coming at a time when I am usually transitioning speeds anyway, this tendency to pull pitch in the turn scared the ---- out of me, even though I keep my pattern and approach speeds fairly high. Needless to say, I've consciously worked on this and feel I have it beat but I wanted to point out this alternative to the 'too much rudder' theory of stall/spin. I remember flat turning as a student and getting yelled at by my instructor, so it's not that I don't think that it's a valid theory. I just think there's more than one way for a pilot to get into a corner of the 'box'.
 
flion said:
Just an observation on the stall/spin syndrome. Like a possibly large number of builders, I had spent several non-flying years getting my RV into the air. I was pleased at how quickly it all came back but there was some difficulty judging my base and final (I just recently got my BFR in a C-182 and discovered that I'm too used to the RV and so again had pattern adjustment problems). Much to my own surprise, I discovered that I had no tendency to 'oversteer' with the rudders but when I increased the bank, I would instinctively pitch up instead of adding power. Then I realized that this is the way I was taught turns and not enough training had been done in descending turns, especially steep ones. Coming at a time when I am usually transitioning speeds anyway, this tendency to pull pitch in the turn scared the ---- out of me, even though I keep my pattern and approach speeds fairly high. Needless to say, I've consciously worked on this and feel I have it beat but I wanted to point out this alternative to the 'too much rudder' theory of stall/spin. I remember flat turning as a student and getting yelled at by my instructor, so it's not that I don't think that it's a valid theory. I just think there's more than one way for a pilot to get into a corner of the 'box'.
Click to expand...

You know how many lament that some pilots "drive" the plane with their feet on the floor? Well maybe their instructors were on to something. :) No rudder, no spin.

Many instructors harp on keeping the ball centered at all times (especially during stalls) so you don't spin. What seems to go unmentioned is that you'll only spin if the ball is off to the side as a result of USING (skidded) rudder, rather than due to LACK OF rudder. So y'all stop using those rudders and trying to keep that ball in the center. :D
 
stall/spins no rudder

Sandifer, I hope to soon put that to test in a RV at sufficient altitude to see what really happens...
It goes against the grain for me
 
Larry Stokes said:
Sandifer, I hope to soon put that to test in a RV at sufficient altitude to see what really happens...
It goes against the grain for me
Click to expand...

If you can get your RV to spin without touching the rudder, a case of beer is on me! :D I had enough trouble getting my RV-3 to enter and maintain a clean spin WITH rudder (during the first rotation, at least). As we all know, using aileron without rudder produces slip, which is much more spin resistant than a skid. In a full-rudder slip, my RV-3 would not even stall properly, much less spin. My Pitts behaves the same...won't spin out of a full slip with full back stick. Can't even get a real stall break.

I remember Rod Machado (of AOPA Pilot...if you're into that rag) getting some heat for what he wrote in one of his articles...to the effect that it's safer not using the rudder at all on the base-to-final turn than using it. I don't recall the article, and I doubt he was actually recommending this practice as good flying technique, but rather making the point that too much rudder is a lot worse than too little.
 
Last edited:
ok, ok, we use a combo of dead reckoning and pilotage with timing between check points based upon GS to help frame our limiting lines from check point to check point. At night on NVGs or even during the day in remote territory comparing a chart to the real world can be very difficult. Using the skills of dead reckoning helps keep you in the ball park when the chart and the world don't match up in your brain... especially when we fly in places we've never been before. Thanks for reminding me of the distinction between the two.
 
CROSS CONTROL STALL BASE/FINAL

Since 4-12-10 there have been 12 RVs crash.
7(seven) were stall/spin base to final.
2 were power failure
1 was a fire
1 was propellor separation
1 was x wind loss of control
6 were rv6 models
1 was a rv10
1 was a rv4
1 rv8
1 rv9
In light of the fact there are 1000s of rvs flying, its not all large nrs.
but, it is sad that pilots forget base piloting in the areas of slowflight, inadvertant cross control stall when flying in a base to final configuration
To me, its concerning, because I have begun to believe RVs for the most part do not have adequate stall warning devices, and with lags in certain electronic instruments they can get into a critical situation fast.Analog stick and ball, AS and AI solve a lot of the problem. There will always be pilots who are distracted no matter how many safety devices are in the airplane.
I am convinced the Van's RV models are a magnificant air machine, but you must fly them all the time.
 
Last edited:
Most of these stall/spin accidents from downwind to base or base to final involve a lack of attention- simple as that. If you want to fly these phases at 60-65 knots, you better be paying attention or you'll get bitten eventually.

My rules below 500 feet until on final are at least 75 knots and no more than 30 degrees of bank unless I have 90 knots+, then I might use 40 degrees. I'm looking at the ASI every 5-10 seconds. I'm never below 65 knots on final until I'm over the button. If you don't break these rules, you'll never have this sort of accident. If the controller asks me to do something I don't consider safe, I just say "unable to comply". No big deal to go around again if I mess up or if my speed is crowding traffic.

People have to get it into their minds that a tight turn at 60-65 knots in a 6 or 7 leaves little margin for error and can turn fatal in an instant. I guarantee if you are taken by surprise, your stall recovery technique will not kick in instantly, in fact it has been shown many times that pilots pull back at low altitude as the ground rushes up to meet them (self preservation instinct more powerful than training).

I continue to wonder why/ how RV pilots get themselves into these situations. If you like to yank and bank, have the speed on to do it safely. Add AOA if you think it will save you. For me, the ASI (with a crosscheck on the GPS on initial climbout) and my "rules" have served me well.

All this discussion is useful I think as it makes us all think a bit more. It might save a few in the future.
 
Last edited:
rv6ejguy said:
My rules below 500 feet until on final are at least 75 knots and no more than 30 degrees of bank unless I have 90 knots+, then I might use 40 degrees. I'm looking at the ASI every 5-10 seconds. I'm never below 65 knots on final until I'm over the button. If you don't break these rules, you'll never have this sort of accident. If the controller asks me to do something I don't consider safe, I just say "unable to comply". No big deal to go around again if I mess up or if my speed is crowding traffic.
Click to expand...

Same here, and I've actually increased my airspeed to 80 knots on final, because the C/S prop can dump airspeed fast enough as it is. In fact, I can start a steep power off descent at 80 kias & still have to watch it, so that airspeed doesn't get much below 65 just above the runway. As airspeed bleeds below 65, I had better be close to the runway. Otherwise, the bottom can fall out of a flare. Some times, I add a bit of power, and sometimes not.

L.Adamson --- RV6A
 
We had a bad situation at our airport Saturday. A banner plane has been stationed here, and pulls banners for advertising quite often during the warmer months. Usually for a local baseball team.

Normally, the pilot would takeoff, and fly the pattern to let out the rope & hook. He would them decend rather quickly to grab the banner off a field adjacent to the runway, then pull up quick to avoid the banner dragging along the ground.

However, during the pullup this time, there was an engine problem, mechanical, or something else. Witnesses said the aircraft appeared to climb slow & drug the banner more than usual.

The pilot released the banner, but being in a climb situation and slow, he ran out of options & altitude. It then spun into the ground and burned.

**** Personally, I don't know of a good answer to get out of this one. It's just a case of having to depend on the engine & plane during that initial pullup*****

L.Adamson
 
You must log in or register to reply here.