Sign-in / Sign-up
Your question

Grounded for life by insurance?

Tags:
  • Microsoft
  • Video Games
Last response: in PC Gaming
September 3, 2005 9:12:23 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

I had lunch on Wednesday with a young pilot, (already a CFI) and the subject
of the Cirrus CAPS (parachute system) came up.

He told us of a recent instance of a pilot who just took off and his
ailerons failed and he was saved by popping the chute. It seems he just got
the airplane back from the mechanics who forgot to secure the pins in the
aileron linkages.

His final comment was, "He'll never fly again." We asked why and he replied
that he could never get insurance again. He was pretty firm on this.

I wanted to asked real pilots if this is really correct - You crash your
airplane. It is proven to be someone else's fault. The insurance companies
don't care and your lifetime of learning to fly goes into the trash can?

Dallas

More about : grounded life insurance

Anonymous
September 3, 2005 12:24:00 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

On Sat, 03 Sep 2005 05:12:23 GMT, Dallas wrote:

> I had lunch on Wednesday with a young pilot, (already a CFI) and the subject
> of the Cirrus CAPS (parachute system) came up.
>
> He told us of a recent instance of a pilot who just took off and his
> ailerons failed and he was saved by popping the chute. It seems he just got
> the airplane back from the mechanics who forgot to secure the pins in the
> aileron linkages.
>
> His final comment was, "He'll never fly again." We asked why and he replied
> that he could never get insurance again. He was pretty firm on this.
>
> I wanted to asked real pilots if this is really correct - You crash your
> airplane. It is proven to be someone else's fault. The insurance companies
> don't care and your lifetime of learning to fly goes into the trash can?

I can't imagine that being true, since I've seen plenty of air disaster
stories on tv and the web, and in some of those stories the surviving
pilots, if they were mentally up to it, were returned to active duty when
they were ready.

--

Marcel (SAG-21)
(You've got clearance, Clarence. Roger, Roger. What's our vector, Victor?)
Anonymous
September 3, 2005 1:27:04 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

"Dallas" <Cybnorm@spam_me_not.Hotmail.Com> wrote in message
news:XgaSe.7018$z2.763@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>I had lunch on Wednesday with a young pilot, (already a CFI) and the
>subject
> of the Cirrus CAPS (parachute system) came up.
>
> He told us of a recent instance of a pilot who just took off and his
> ailerons failed and he was saved by popping the chute. It seems he just
> got
> the airplane back from the mechanics who forgot to secure the pins in the
> aileron linkages.
>
> His final comment was, "He'll never fly again." We asked why and he
> replied
> that he could never get insurance again. He was pretty firm on this.
>
> I wanted to asked real pilots if this is really correct - You crash your
> airplane. It is proven to be someone else's fault. The insurance
> companies
> don't care and your lifetime of learning to fly goes into the trash can?
>
> Dallas
>
>

Interesting one. Did he, and can he show, that he did a 'full and free'
control check. i.e. did more than just stir the stick, actually observed
the correct movement of the control surfaces. That would usually involve an
observer as you can't see the surfaces from the cockpit. That observer will
be able to confirm that the check was successful.

I used to fly gliders, which of course can be de-rigged for transport. Even
if they were hangered overnight we always did an observed surface check,
including someone holding on to the surface to provide resistance in case
some one had put the cable in but not the securing pin.

The assumption was that someone might have done some maintenance over night
that we weren't aware of, or in one case partially de-rigged a wing to allow
him to push his glider under the wing to the back of the hanger and not
re-rigged it correctly.

Anyway, back to the original point. If the pilot knew that the plane had
been away for maintenance and hadn't done a full surface check then I think
the insurance company will take a very dim view
Related resources
September 3, 2005 2:53:53 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

Looks like each post has touched on three different types of insurance.
Life, Accident and Health insurance on the pilot, Physical damage insurance
on the aircraft and Liability insurance to cover pilot's negligence. About
which of these three coverages was the original post intended, Dallas?


"Beech45Whiskey" <pjricc@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:zequujgzd1o5.dlg@ID-259643.user.individual.net...
> Beech45Whiskey <pjricc@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Whether the pilot wanted to pay that much determines whether he will be
>> grounded.
>
> Additionally: With regards to accidents and insurance only, a pilot could
> always go back to renting from an FBO if insurance premiums were too
> expensive, too. As long as he/she passes a checkride with an instructor
> for the aircraft on the rental line, he could fly.
>
> FBOs that offer rental aircraft have their own insurance on the aircraft.
> A rental pilot is not required to have rental aircraft insurance, but it
> is
> an extremely good idea (the FBOs insurance protects the FBO, not the pilot
> in the event of liability, etc.)
>
> --
> Peter
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet
> News==----
> http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+
> Newsgroups
> ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption
> =----
Anonymous
September 3, 2005 3:19:44 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

The fault was his, not the mechanics. The aileron pin check before flight is
the pilot's responsibility. Failure to check the pins present and installed
correctly was a PIC failure. NOTHING relieves the PIC of the responsibility
for the readiness of the aircraft for flight before flight.
If a mechanic leaves something off the airplane, it is indeed a failure by
the mechanic, but the airplane doesn't fly until the PIC says it's ready to
fly, and that means checking what the mechanic did for accuracy.
In this case, the PIC failure was particularly complete, as ANY airplane
coming out of maintenance should be suspect, and an even MORE thorough
preflight is indicated.
It's a tough world out there in the real world. This kind of failure can get
people killed. As a flight safety issue it's notable that it was avoidable
by the following of existing basic preflight procedure that wasn't
accomplished by the pilot in command of the aircraft.
In the aviation world, it's different than in the normal everyday world.
Your mechanic screws up your car and causes an accident....you sue him. Your
mechanic screws up your airplane and you take off without finding something
that would have been clearly visible during a maintenance checkout....YOU
are responsible.
Dudley

"Dallas" <Cybnorm@spam_me_not.Hotmail.Com> wrote in message
news:XgaSe.7018$z2.763@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>I had lunch on Wednesday with a young pilot, (already a CFI) and the
>subject
> of the Cirrus CAPS (parachute system) came up.
>
> He told us of a recent instance of a pilot who just took off and his
> ailerons failed and he was saved by popping the chute. It seems he just
> got
> the airplane back from the mechanics who forgot to secure the pins in the
> aileron linkages.
>
> His final comment was, "He'll never fly again." We asked why and he
> replied
> that he could never get insurance again. He was pretty firm on this.
>
> I wanted to asked real pilots if this is really correct - You crash your
> airplane. It is proven to be someone else's fault. The insurance
> companies
> don't care and your lifetime of learning to fly goes into the trash can?
>
> Dallas
>
>
Anonymous
September 3, 2005 5:55:39 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

"Dudley Henriques" <dhenriques@noware .net> wrote in message
news:kFfSe.6367$FW1.4633@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> Your mechanic screws up your car and causes an accident....you sue him.
> Your mechanic screws up your airplane and you take off without finding
> something that would have been clearly visible during a maintenance
> checkout....YOU are responsible.

In the UK if a mechanic screws up your car and causes an accident you don't
have to sue him . He and his employer would be prosecuted by the
authorities.

Iain
September 3, 2005 5:55:40 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

In the USA, Iain, that is a Civil matter and not a Criminal matter. Police
authorities have no jurisdiction in civil matters, here. Therefore, it
will be between you and the negligent mechanic, and the burden of proving
the mechanic is negligent, is on you.



"Iain Smith" <iainsmith.rugby@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:D fca0q$793$1@nwrdmz03.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
>
> "Dudley Henriques" <dhenriques@noware .net> wrote in message
> news:kFfSe.6367$FW1.4633@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>> Your mechanic screws up your car and causes an accident....you sue him.
>> Your mechanic screws up your airplane and you take off without finding
>> something that would have been clearly visible during a maintenance
>> checkout....YOU are responsible.
>
> In the UK if a mechanic screws up your car and causes an accident you
> don't have to sue him . He and his employer would be prosecuted by the
> authorities.
>
> Iain
>
Anonymous
September 3, 2005 7:57:09 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

On Sat, 3 Sep 2005 09:01:05 -0400, Beech45Whiskey <pjricc@gmail.com>
wrote:

>Beech45Whiskey <pjricc@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Whether the pilot wanted to pay that much determines whether he will be
>> grounded.
>
>Additionally: With regards to accidents and insurance only, a pilot could
>always go back to renting from an FBO if insurance premiums were too
>expensive, too. As long as he/she passes a checkride with an instructor
>for the aircraft on the rental line, he could fly.
>
>FBOs that offer rental aircraft have their own insurance on the aircraft.
>A rental pilot is not required to have rental aircraft insurance, but it is
>an extremely good idea (the FBOs insurance protects the FBO, not the pilot
>in the event of liability, etc.)


That is not quite true. If you rent and aircraft from an FBO and trash
it, you pay for it. It will almost always be the pilots fault anyway,
failure to maintain aircraft control,directional control, etc.....
Anyone that fly's without renters insurance better have a big saving
account he or she can tap.....

Bob
Anonymous
September 3, 2005 7:59:27 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

And the bottom line is that if the crash is caused it is something
that should have been checked on the pre-flight, it's the pilots
fault. The only time I am nervous flying is on a brand new out of
the factory aircraft or one that had just come out of maintenance.

Bob




On Sat, 3 Sep 2005 10:59:30 -0400, "DANNY" <drmckee@bigfoot.com>
wrote:

>In the USA, Iain, that is a Civil matter and not a Criminal matter. Police
>authorities have no jurisdiction in civil matters, here. Therefore, it
>will be between you and the negligent mechanic, and the burden of proving
>the mechanic is negligent, is on you.
>
>
>
>"Iain Smith" <iainsmith.rugby@btinternet.com> wrote in message
>news:D fca0q$793$1@nwrdmz03.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
>>
>> "Dudley Henriques" <dhenriques@noware .net> wrote in message
>> news:kFfSe.6367$FW1.4633@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>>> Your mechanic screws up your car and causes an accident....you sue him.
>>> Your mechanic screws up your airplane and you take off without finding
>>> something that would have been clearly visible during a maintenance
>>> checkout....YOU are responsible.
>>
>> In the UK if a mechanic screws up your car and causes an accident you
>> don't have to sue him . He and his employer would be prosecuted by the
>> authorities.
>>
>> Iain
>>
>
September 3, 2005 11:40:52 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

"Dudley Henriques"
> The fault was his, not the mechanics. The aileron pin check before flight
is
> the pilot's responsibility.

It took me an hour but I tracked down the incident:

Lionel Morrison - Addison Airport, Dallas - Monarch Air completed an aileron
trim service bulletin on the Cirrus.
Morrison took off and experienced a massive loss of control. He then
noticed the left aileron was hanging by ONE hinge point. It sounds like it
happened in flight?

And it looks like the kid was wrong about never getting affordable
insurance, another article said:

"Since then, Morrison has acquired another Cirrus and Cirrus has acquired a
unique promotional aid."

http://www.aero-news.net/news/sport.cfm?ContentBlockID=...



Dallas
Anonymous
September 3, 2005 11:56:00 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

"Dallas" <Cybnorm@spam_me_not.Hotmail.Com> wrote in message
news:8%mSe.4748$4P5.2556@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> "Dudley Henriques"
>> The fault was his, not the mechanics. The aileron pin check before flight
> is
>> the pilot's responsibility.
>
> It took me an hour but I tracked down the incident:
>
> Lionel Morrison - Addison Airport, Dallas - Monarch Air completed an
> aileron
> trim service bulletin on the Cirrus.
> Morrison took off and experienced a massive loss of control. He then
> noticed the left aileron was hanging by ONE hinge point. It sounds like
> it
> happened in flight?

He could have lost the pin in flight, but most likely it was missing and
should have been caught in the preflight. On the J3 Cub for example, the
pins extend out just long enough to accept a hole and cotter pin which is
split and surrounds the pin on both sides. There is generally no stress on
these safety cotters and they rarely fail in flight. If the maintenance on
the accident aircraft involved the control surfaces being removed and
replaced before the pilot's preflight on the day of the accident; it's a
fair bet the probable cause would reflect pilot error.
Dudley
September 4, 2005 1:53:25 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

"Beech45Whiskey" <
> Now, regarding the Cirrus, I have read that when comparing similarly
> equipped aircraft (the C182 versus the SR-20), insurance premiums are
> significantly more expensive for the Cirrus regardless of pilot history.

I'm also beginning to understand that among the established pilot community,
they don't like the airplane. The kid I had lunch with said Cirrus "fit and
finish" was substandard and also mentioned the high insurance rates. I read
another comment about the SR-20's stall characteristics being deadly.

Dallas
Anonymous
September 4, 2005 5:58:46 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

On Sat, 3 Sep 2005 12:54:10 -0400, Beech45Whiskey <pjricc@gmail.com>
wrote:

>Capt Bob <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>> That is not quite true. If you rent and aircraft from an FBO and trash
>> it, you pay for it.
>
>Um, no. In the US, the FBO's insurance will pay for any damage to the
>aircraft or pay out the total hull value in the event of the aircraft being
>written off. However, what you might be alludig to the *chance* that the
>insurance company may go after the rental pilot to recover the payout.
>This does not always happen, though.
>

That is not true. Two friends of mine owned FBO's and they both told
me that they don't stress this to their customers for fear they won't
rent , but if you break it, you fix it. Just like smashing up a rental
car without the extra insurance coverage. Call Avemco and ask them ,
why don't you.


Bob
Anonymous
September 4, 2005 8:06:40 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

That's interesting Danny. Here, any accident resulting in death or injury
will be investigated by police specialist accident investigators. If they
believe that the mechanic's work was in any way responsible then a
prosecution could well follow.

Iain

"DANNY" <drmckee@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:mTiSe.543$tc7.226@fe03.lga...
> In the USA, Iain, that is a Civil matter and not a Criminal matter.
> Police authorities have no jurisdiction in civil matters, here.
> Therefore, it will be between you and the negligent mechanic, and the
> burden of proving the mechanic is negligent, is on you.
Anonymous
September 5, 2005 12:58:13 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

On Sat, 03 Sep 2005 21:53:25 GMT, Dallas wrote:

> I'm also beginning to understand that among the established pilot community,
> they don't like the airplane. The kid I had lunch with said Cirrus "fit and
> finish" was substandard and also mentioned the high insurance rates. I read
> another comment about the SR-20's stall characteristics being deadly.

That's just pure, unadulterated rubbish! Such silly statements are
probably spawned by fits of jealously.

A stall in any Cirrus SR20 or SR22 is a total non-event. The nose will
gently drop and the a/c will simply start flying again... ;) 

Bill
September 5, 2005 2:53:25 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

Well that works here as well. Any evidence of criminal negligence would be
fully investigated. Criminal prosecution by the State could follow if
warranted, as well as a civil action by the injured party or his survivors.


"Iain Smith" <iainsmith.rugby@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:D ff62g$hp8$1@nwrdmz01.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
> That's interesting Danny. Here, any accident resulting in death or injury
> will be investigated by police specialist accident investigators. If they
> believe that the mechanic's work was in any way responsible then a
> prosecution could well follow.
>
> Iain
>
> "DANNY" <drmckee@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
> news:mTiSe.543$tc7.226@fe03.lga...
>> In the USA, Iain, that is a Civil matter and not a Criminal matter.
>> Police authorities have no jurisdiction in civil matters, here.
>> Therefore, it will be between you and the negligent mechanic, and the
>> burden of proving the mechanic is negligent, is on you.
>
>
Anonymous
September 5, 2005 9:19:19 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

Bill Leaming wrote:
> On Sat, 03 Sep 2005 21:53:25 GMT, Dallas wrote:
>
>
>>I'm also beginning to understand that among the established pilot community,
>>they don't like the airplane. The kid I had lunch with said Cirrus "fit and
>>finish" was substandard and also mentioned the high insurance rates. I read
>>another comment about the SR-20's stall characteristics being deadly.
>
>
> That's just pure, unadulterated rubbish! Such silly statements are
> probably spawned by fits of jealously.
>
> A stall in any Cirrus SR20 or SR22 is a total non-event. The nose will
> gently drop and the a/c will simply start flying again... ;) 
>
> Bill

If I may add to this Bill, that this is how to really damage a decent
aircraft, by starting RUMORS like that.

A stall in any aircraft can be deadly if not handled properly.

Harry
Anonymous
September 5, 2005 3:52:48 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 05:19:19 -0400, phrgflyer wrote:

>> A stall in any Cirrus SR20 or SR22 is a total non-event. The nose will
>> gently drop and the a/c will simply start flying again... ;) 
> If I may add to this Bill, that this is how to really damage a decent
> aircraft, by starting RUMORS like that.
>
> A stall in any aircraft can be deadly if not handled properly.

I'm not sure to which comment you are referring as a RUMOR, but one of
Cirrus' own claims is that they deliberately engineered the airframe, and
more particularly their unique, NASA designed airfoil to MAKE stalls a
"non-event" while at altitude.

Because of the unique, laminar airfoil, it is also nearly impossible to
deliberately induce spin in the Cirrus... ;) 

Bill
Anonymous
September 6, 2005 7:37:12 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

On Mon, 5 Sep 2005 13:06:10 -0400, Beech45Whiskey wrote:

> Bill Leaming <n4gix@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> Because of the unique, laminar airfoil, it is also nearly impossible to
>> deliberately induce spin in the Cirrus... ;) 
>
> Impossible? Tell the wives of these two pilots that:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/9s6lq

Note: *NEARLY* impossible. You have to really try HARD to be a total
screwup to get a Cirrus in a spin...

Bill
Anonymous
September 6, 2005 8:29:03 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

On Tue, 6 Sep 2005 17:07:32 -0400, Beech45Whiskey wrote:

> Well, in fairness to these two pilots, one can make the conclusion from the
> very detailed radar data provided in the accident report that they were
> simply practicing stall recoveries in their newly delivered Cirrus when,
> during one such recovery, they entered a secondary stall into a spin.
>
> Sadly, this accident will forever remain a mystery.

Yes, there are many questions that will remain unanswered...

I was somewhat shocked at the description of their somewhat agressive use
of the throttle control during the touch-and-goes though...

There is a very interesting and informative video that was taken at Oshkosh
this year, where the chief test pilot showed how the laminar flow wings
would allow for 60º+ bank angles without danger of inducing a spin.

There is also a video (available at the BRS website, showing a CAPS
deployment during a deliberately induced spin, which proves it IS possible,
but the test pilot had to really try HARD to achieve that condition...

Bill
Anonymous
September 6, 2005 8:29:04 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

"Bill Leaming" <n4gix@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:15p5g1gykab0w$.bviz43evejto$.dlg@40tude.net...
> On Tue, 6 Sep 2005 17:07:32 -0400, Beech45Whiskey wrote:
>
>> Well, in fairness to these two pilots, one can make the conclusion from
>> the
>> very detailed radar data provided in the accident report that they were
>> simply practicing stall recoveries in their newly delivered Cirrus when,
>> during one such recovery, they entered a secondary stall into a spin.
>>
>> Sadly, this accident will forever remain a mystery.
>
> Yes, there are many questions that will remain unanswered...
>
> I was somewhat shocked at the description of their somewhat agressive use
> of the throttle control during the touch-and-goes though...
>
> There is a very interesting and informative video that was taken at
> Oshkosh
> this year, where the chief test pilot showed how the laminar flow wings
> would allow for 60º+ bank angles without danger of inducing a spin.

Bank angle has nothing to do with stalls or spins!

Stalls happen when you exceed the critical angle of attack ... and spins
come from flying in an uncoordinated manner whilst stalling.

I've done turning stalls at 20 and 30 degrees of bank and if the ball is
centered, then all you have to do to recover at the stall break is shove the
nose down (relative to the lift vector...) I've also discovered that if you
stall wings level with the ball displaced, very interesting things can
happen...whoops!

You can even be at 90 degrees of bank and not exceed the critical AOA (if
you have the shove like the BAs and T-Birds do with their max performance /
min radius turns...)

> There is also a video (available at the BRS website, showing a CAPS
> deployment during a deliberately induced spin, which proves it IS
> possible,
> but the test pilot had to really try HARD to achieve that condition...

Cirrus was certified with the CAPS because they could not (or would not)
prove to the satisfaction of the FAA that a spin was recoverable.

I'm not saying that a spin in a Cirrus is un-recoverable, but I am saying
that the FAA was not satisfied with Cirrus until they demonstrated the CAPS
was reliable as an alternative.

Jay Beckman
PP-ASEL
Chandler, AZ
Anonymous
September 6, 2005 10:27:53 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

"Beech45Whiskey" <pjricc@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:175eboyxfakhd.dlg@ID-259643.user.individual.net...
> Jay Beckman <jnsbeckman@cox.net> wrote:
>
>> I've also discovered that if you
>> stall wings level with the ball displaced, very interesting things can
>> happen...whoops!
>
> Ain't that the truth! One time during power-on stall practice during my
> PPL student days, the C172SP I was flying fell off to the right, as if it
> were about to enter into a spin. Not having any spin training (just spin
> avoidance discussions), my heart went into my mouth. Fortunately without
> much delay, I responded by stomping on left rudder, which immediately
> returned the aircraft to a level, slightly nose-down attitude.
>
> After a slow, level flight to allow my heart rate to return to normal, I
> decided that I had enough for that day and sheepishly returned to the
> airport.
>
>
>
> --
> Peter

Haven't scared myself that bad (yet) post checkride ...

I did meet Mr. Incipient Spin during my student days and did the same
thing...strong opposite rudder brought the low wing up right quick and
eventually my heart rate returned to near normal.

Jay B
Anonymous
September 7, 2005 2:36:17 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

"Jay Beckman" <jnsbeckman@cox.net> wrote in message
news:umrTe.180665$E95.88277@fed1read01...
>
> "Beech45Whiskey" <pjricc@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:175eboyxfakhd.dlg@ID-259643.user.individual.net...
>> Jay Beckman <jnsbeckman@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>>> I've also discovered that if you
>>> stall wings level with the ball displaced, very interesting things can
>>> happen...whoops!
>>
>> Ain't that the truth! One time during power-on stall practice during my
>> PPL student days, the C172SP I was flying fell off to the right, as if it
>> were about to enter into a spin. Not having any spin training (just spin
>> avoidance discussions), my heart went into my mouth. Fortunately without
>> much delay, I responded by stomping on left rudder, which immediately
>> returned the aircraft to a level, slightly nose-down attitude.
>>
>> After a slow, level flight to allow my heart rate to return to normal, I
>> decided that I had enough for that day and sheepishly returned to the
>> airport.
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Peter
>
> Haven't scared myself that bad (yet) post checkride ...
>
> I did meet Mr. Incipient Spin during my student days and did the same
> thing...strong opposite rudder brought the low wing up right quick and
> eventually my heart rate returned to near normal.
>
> Jay B
For an inexperienced/non-aerobatic pilot in a 172, one of the best
techniques upon entering unusual flight regimes is to grab each ankle with
the corresponding hand and put it back against the seat. This will give the
much more sensible airplane the opportunity to straighten itself out without
hamfisted interference.

Of course, this assumes you have the foresight to screw up at a reasonable
altitude.......

Bob McKellar
Anonymous
September 7, 2005 3:21:05 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

"Bob McKellar" <bob@coastcomp.com> wrote in message
news:5Y2dnaZMmps_z4PeRVn-qQ@comcast.com...
>
> "Jay Beckman" <jnsbeckman@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:umrTe.180665$E95.88277@fed1read01...
>>
>> "Beech45Whiskey" <pjricc@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:175eboyxfakhd.dlg@ID-259643.user.individual.net...
>>> Jay Beckman <jnsbeckman@cox.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I've also discovered that if you
>>>> stall wings level with the ball displaced, very interesting things can
>>>> happen...whoops!
>>>
>>> Ain't that the truth! One time during power-on stall practice during my
>>> PPL student days, the C172SP I was flying fell off to the right, as if
>>> it
>>> were about to enter into a spin. Not having any spin training (just
>>> spin
>>> avoidance discussions), my heart went into my mouth. Fortunately
>>> without
>>> much delay, I responded by stomping on left rudder, which immediately
>>> returned the aircraft to a level, slightly nose-down attitude.
>>>
>>> After a slow, level flight to allow my heart rate to return to normal, I
>>> decided that I had enough for that day and sheepishly returned to the
>>> airport.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Peter
>>
>> Haven't scared myself that bad (yet) post checkride ...
>>
>> I did meet Mr. Incipient Spin during my student days and did the same
>> thing...strong opposite rudder brought the low wing up right quick and
>> eventually my heart rate returned to near normal.
>>
>> Jay B
> For an inexperienced/non-aerobatic pilot in a 172, one of the best
> techniques upon entering unusual flight regimes is to grab each ankle with
> the corresponding hand and put it back against the seat. This will give
> the much more sensible airplane the opportunity to straighten itself out
> without hamfisted interference.
>
> Of course, this assumes you have the foresight to screw up at a reasonable
> altitude.......
>
> Bob McKellar


Of course the 172 is forgiving enough to make most of the recovery itself,
but the point of the lesson that day was to stay proactive on the rudders
and to use the rudder to lift the low wing.

Jay B
September 7, 2005 6:33:18 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

On Tue, 6 Sep 2005 14:55:59 -0700, "Jay Beckman" <jnsbeckman@cox.net>
wrote:

>"Bill Leaming" <n4gix@comcast.net> wrote in message
>news:15p5g1gykab0w$.bviz43evejto$.dlg@40tude.net...
>> On Tue, 6 Sep 2005 17:07:32 -0400, Beech45Whiskey wrote:
>>

<snip>
>>
>> I was somewhat shocked at the description of their somewhat agressive use
>> of the throttle control during the touch-and-goes though...
>>

I think what you are seeing is an example of the fixed gear mentality.
By that I mean pilots and students moving up see the SR22 as another
fixed gear airplane, but it has the characteristics of a high
performance retract. IOW it behaves just like a Bonanza or other high
performance retract with the exception of not having to lower the
gear. It is a *slippery* airplane and its speed requires the pilot
think much farther ahead. Couple those two together and it's a real
hand full for a Cessna or Cherokee driver. Still, pilots keep thinking
of it in the same light as a fast 180 rather than a Bonanza and it has
higher wing loading than a Bo.

>> There is a very interesting and informative video that was taken at
>> Oshkosh
>> this year, where the chief test pilot showed how the laminar flow wings
>> would allow for 60º+ bank angles without danger of inducing a spin.
>
>Bank angle has nothing to do with stalls or spins!

It depends on how far the ball is out<:-)) but I do agree that
regardless of bank if the turn is coordinated it should make no
difference. I practice accelerated stalls in the Deb at 60 degrees
while pulling 2 Gs. Release the back pressure when the stall breaks
and it'll go right back to flying. OTOH even a half a ball width out
can take the boredom out of practice.

>
>Stalls happen when you exceed the critical angle of attack ... and spins
>come from flying in an uncoordinated manner whilst stalling.

NOTE and Disclaimer: This is not a "how to" and should not be
attempted IRL without an instructor in an approved aircraft. Get the
nose up a little bit and when it stalls shove in the rudder. That in
general will give an almost instant spin *entry* (or snap roll) Spin
entries are not the same as a fully developed and stabilized spin.

>
>I've done turning stalls at 20 and 30 degrees of bank and if the ball is

These would be a form of accelerated stall.
I practice them at 60 degrees of bank. OTOH when I learned steep turns
they were done at 60 degrees instead of 45 back then.

>centered, then all you have to do to recover at the stall break is shove the
>nose down (relative to the lift vector...) I've also discovered that if you

This depends on the airplane. In high performance it's *usually* not
a good idea to *shove* the nose down. Rather you just release the back
pressure and particularly so when doing accelerated stalls.

I took the Deb out one day with an instructor who wanted to see how it
flew. I had previously explained that although it flew great and was
quite predictable it was not at all forgiving and particularly so in
approach stalls with gear and flaps down. The stall recovery was not
done by releasing the back pressure, but rather by bringing the yoke
forward. All of the flight gear in the back seat ended up on the
glare shield.

In the 150s, 172s, Cherokees, and even Bonanzas I've flown, releasing
the back pressure was enough to initiate a stall recovery from a
coordinated condition. Turning, accelerated stalls that were not
coordinated merely required pointing the plane in the direction it
wanted to go. Now that *might* end up in an unusual attitude
depending on whether slipping or skidding.

>stall wings level with the ball displaced, very interesting things can
>happen...whoops!

You should try that when doing lazy eights.

>
>You can even be at 90 degrees of bank and not exceed the critical AOA (if
>you have the shove like the BAs and T-Birds do with their max performance /
>min radius turns...)
>
>> There is also a video (available at the BRS website, showing a CAPS
>> deployment during a deliberately induced spin, which proves it IS
>> possible,
>> but the test pilot had to really try HARD to achieve that condition...

From what I've been told it can be spun intentionally, or accidentally
without great effort and will recover in a normal application of
controls, BUT as the plane is not certified for *intentional* spins
I'd not want to try to prove it one way or another. However I've
heard several instructors say they had to do recoveries and they were
no big deal.

>
>Cirrus was certified with the CAPS because they could not (or would not)
>prove to the satisfaction of the FAA that a spin was recoverable.

It was neither. They *chose* not to do spin testing as they (and the
FAA) figured the BRS was sufficient.

Spins are normally a rather benign event. Flat, inverted, or
accelerated spins are animals of a different color.

>
>I'm not saying that a spin in a Cirrus is un-recoverable, but I am saying
>that the FAA was not satisfied with Cirrus until they demonstrated the CAPS
>was reliable as an alternative.

It's my understanding It was, or is not a case of either. The Cirrus
recovers fine with the normal application of controls for spin
recovery. The FAA was satisfied with the BRS and Cirrus chose not to
certify the plane for spins.

The F-33 Bonanza is not certified for spins, but the F-33C is. They
are identical aerodynamically and can be loaded to the same CG.
The 33C is aerobatic and has some strengthening, but other wise the
F-33 could do spins and recover in the same manner as the F-33C.

OTOH I'd take the Columbia 350 or 400 over the SR-22 any day of the
week.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com
>
>Jay Beckman
>PP-ASEL
>Chandler, AZ
>
Anonymous
September 7, 2005 6:33:19 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

"Roger" <Delete-Invallid.stuff.groups@tm.net> wrote in message
news:D 00th1phj1g6iggitt79btui0ajd4kg2ir@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 6 Sep 2005 14:55:59 -0700, "Jay Beckman" <jnsbeckman@cox.net>
> wrote:
>
>>"Bill Leaming" <n4gix@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>news:15p5g1gykab0w$.bviz43evejto$.dlg@40tude.net...
>>> On Tue, 6 Sep 2005 17:07:32 -0400, Beech45Whiskey wrote:
>>>
>
> <snip>
>>>
>>> I was somewhat shocked at the description of their somewhat agressive
>>> use
>>> of the throttle control during the touch-and-goes though...
>>>
>
> I think what you are seeing is an example of the fixed gear mentality.
> By that I mean pilots and students moving up see the SR22 as another
> fixed gear airplane, but it has the characteristics of a high
> performance retract. IOW it behaves just like a Bonanza or other high
> performance retract with the exception of not having to lower the
> gear. It is a *slippery* airplane and its speed requires the pilot
> think much farther ahead. Couple those two together and it's a real
> hand full for a Cessna or Cherokee driver. Still, pilots keep thinking
> of it in the same light as a fast 180 rather than a Bonanza and it has
> higher wing loading than a Bo.
>

Good points Roger...

>>> There is a very interesting and informative video that was taken at
>>> Oshkosh
>>> this year, where the chief test pilot showed how the laminar flow wings
>>> would allow for 60º+ bank angles without danger of inducing a spin.
>>
>>Bank angle has nothing to do with stalls or spins!
>
> It depends on how far the ball is out<:-)) but I do agree that
> regardless of bank if the turn is coordinated it should make no
> difference. I practice accelerated stalls in the Deb at 60 degrees
> while pulling 2 Gs. Release the back pressure when the stall breaks
> and it'll go right back to flying. OTOH even a half a ball width out
> can take the boredom out of practice.
>
>>
>>Stalls happen when you exceed the critical angle of attack ... and spins
>>come from flying in an uncoordinated manner whilst stalling.
>
> NOTE and Disclaimer: This is not a "how to" and should not be
> attempted IRL without an instructor in an approved aircraft. Get the
> nose up a little bit and when it stalls shove in the rudder. That in
> general will give an almost instant spin *entry* (or snap roll) Spin
> entries are not the same as a fully developed and stabilized spin.
>
>>
>>I've done turning stalls at 20 and 30 degrees of bank and if the ball is
>
> These would be a form of accelerated stall.
> I practice them at 60 degrees of bank. OTOH when I learned steep turns
> they were done at 60 degrees instead of 45 back then.
>
>>centered, then all you have to do to recover at the stall break is shove
>>the
>>nose down (relative to the lift vector...) I've also discovered that if
>>you
>
> This depends on the airplane. In high performance it's *usually* not
> a good idea to *shove* the nose down. Rather you just release the back
> pressure and particularly so when doing accelerated stalls.
>

Poor description on my part. I mentioned the part about "Lift Vector" in
order to try and be clear that I did not mean make the nose go toward Mother
Earth (hehe, go ahead...add some bottom rudder...Wheeee!!) but rather push
(lower) the nose around the pitch axis only.

> I took the Deb out one day with an instructor who wanted to see how it
> flew. I had previously explained that although it flew great and was
> quite predictable it was not at all forgiving and particularly so in
> approach stalls with gear and flaps down. The stall recovery was not
> done by releasing the back pressure, but rather by bringing the yoke
> forward. All of the flight gear in the back seat ended up on the
> glare shield.
>
> In the 150s, 172s, Cherokees, and even Bonanzas I've flown, releasing
> the back pressure was enough to initiate a stall recovery from a
> coordinated condition. Turning, accelerated stalls that were not
> coordinated merely required pointing the plane in the direction it
> wanted to go. Now that *might* end up in an unusual attitude
> depending on whether slipping or skidding.

(See my added note above...all 100% correct on your part.)

>>stall wings level with the ball displaced, very interesting things can
>>happen...whoops!
>
> You should try that when doing lazy eights.

Not up on my Commercial Maneuvers...where's the "Bear Trap" as it regards
Lazy 8's?

>>
>>You can even be at 90 degrees of bank and not exceed the critical AOA (if
>>you have the shove like the BAs and T-Birds do with their max performance
>>/
>>min radius turns...)
>>
>>> There is also a video (available at the BRS website, showing a CAPS
>>> deployment during a deliberately induced spin, which proves it IS
>>> possible,
>>> but the test pilot had to really try HARD to achieve that condition...
>
> From what I've been told it can be spun intentionally, or accidentally
> without great effort and will recover in a normal application of
> controls, BUT as the plane is not certified for *intentional* spins
> I'd not want to try to prove it one way or another. However I've
> heard several instructors say they had to do recoveries and they were
> no big deal.
>
>>
>>Cirrus was certified with the CAPS because they could not (or would not)
>>prove to the satisfaction of the FAA that a spin was recoverable.
>
> It was neither. They *chose* not to do spin testing as they (and the
> FAA) figured the BRS was sufficient.
>

Gotcha...

> Spins are normally a rather benign event. Flat, inverted, or
> accelerated spins are animals of a different color.
>
>>
>>I'm not saying that a spin in a Cirrus is un-recoverable, but I am saying
>>that the FAA was not satisfied with Cirrus until they demonstrated the
>>CAPS
>>was reliable as an alternative.
>
> It's my understanding It was, or is not a case of either. The Cirrus
> recovers fine with the normal application of controls for spin
> recovery. The FAA was satisfied with the BRS and Cirrus chose not to
> certify the plane for spins.

So, if there is no spin certification, does that mean there is no "official"
spin recovery technique (even if the usual mantra will work?) Is there a
spin recovery procedure listed in the POH?

> The F-33 Bonanza is not certified for spins, but the F-33C is. They
> are identical aerodynamically and can be loaded to the same CG.
> The 33C is aerobatic and has some strengthening, but other wise the
> F-33 could do spins and recover in the same manner as the F-33C.
>

Does this mean that the "C" model has a CG envelope with a utility range
that the standard F-33 does not have?

> OTOH I'd take the Columbia 350 or 400 over the SR-22 any day of the
> week.

Why so?

Jay B
September 7, 2005 6:36:59 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

On Tue, 6 Sep 2005 18:27:53 -0700, "Jay Beckman" <jnsbeckman@cox.net>
wrote:

>
>"Beech45Whiskey" <pjricc@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:175eboyxfakhd.dlg@ID-259643.user.individual.net...
>> Jay Beckman <jnsbeckman@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>>> I've also discovered that if you
>>> stall wings level with the ball displaced, very interesting things can
>>> happen...whoops!
>>
>> Ain't that the truth! One time during power-on stall practice during my
>> PPL student days, the C172SP I was flying fell off to the right, as if it
>> were about to enter into a spin. Not having any spin training (just spin
>> avoidance discussions), my heart went into my mouth. Fortunately without
>> much delay, I responded by stomping on left rudder, which immediately
>> returned the aircraft to a level, slightly nose-down attitude.

With power on, departure stalls, I do not even bother with the ball as
we get close to the stall. I use my peripheral vision to keep the
wings level with the horizon.

If you try to keep the ball centered in such a situation in the Deb
you are almost guaranteed to end up inverted.

>>
>> After a slow, level flight to allow my heart rate to return to normal, I
>> decided that I had enough for that day and sheepishly returned to the
>> airport.
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Peter
>
>Haven't scared myself that bad (yet) post checkride ...
>
>I did meet Mr. Incipient Spin during my student days and did the same
>thing...strong opposite rudder brought the low wing up right quick and
>eventually my heart rate returned to near normal.

This really should be *sufficient* rudder as too much can result in a
snap roll and that will really add excitement to your day. <:-))

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

>
>Jay B
>
September 7, 2005 9:11:30 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

"Jay Beckman"
> Cirrus was certified with the CAPS because they could not (or would not)
> prove to the satisfaction of the FAA that a spin was recoverable.

Using the chute mean totaling the aircraft as it lands with a force of being
dropped 10 feet.

I wonder if that fact was on the minds of the Cirrus pilots that crashed?
"Gee... I don't wanna wreak my new airplane."

Dallas
Anonymous
September 8, 2005 3:28:07 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

Getting back to the original post (as copied below)... My observations:

1) I didn't see any posts by anyone that has preflighted, let alone
flown, a Cirrus aircraft. Anyone (sorry Dudley) that says that the pilot
should've caught "this" (whatever that may be) in the preflight doesn't
*necessarily* know this particular airplane. Some airplanes are more
willing than others to have Critical Bits to be pre-flighted - the
others require a bit of "faith" unless the would-be PIC is willing to
partially disassemble the aircraft prior to aviating. The Cirri are a
little more buttoned up than other single-engine aircraft that I'm
familiar with (C172, PA28, etc.). I attribute this to the Cirrus's
design trying to be as aerodynamically efficient as is possible given
the various constraints the airplane is working under. Anyway, there are
some linkages/mechanical bits/etc. here and there that are not
verifiable in a pre-flight of the Cirrus without using tools to remove
inspection panels (or more).

(side note) From what I've seen, this issue of "observability" gets
worse as the airplane gets more capable/expensive (I'm recalling being
shown the preflight of a Pilatus PC-12 - there's not a whole lot you can
verify standing on the ground and walking around the airplane).

I have no idea whether the unfortunate pilot of the Cirrus in question
could've seen the missing pin or whatever it was (assuming it was
missing prior to the flight!) but as often happens, I'm seeing a lot of
Monday morning quarterbacking on this accident... Particularly
interesting given that this is a *simulation* newsgroup 8^) .

Dave Blevins

P.S. regarding rental aircraft, and the renter's responsibility for
paying up when he prangs something or balls it up - it really depends on
the flying club/FBO and more particularly, to the insurance policy that
they have. I have belonged to three FBOs/clubs in my vast six years
history of flying 8^) , and each seems to have slightly different levels
of exposure to the renter. What is important is to understand the term
"subrogation" and how willing the insuring company is to take that step
after an incident or accident. The club that I flew a rental SR20 out of
for a while boasts that except for cases of gross pilot negligence (and
admittedly that can be a subjective thing), their insurance company will
not "go after" the rental pilot for more money once the deductible is
paid. I have heard nothing from member pilots (the club runs a fairly
unmoderated on-line bulletin board) that would indicate anything else.

P.P.S. COPA, the Cirrus Owners and Pilots Association, has a non-members
forum that free. Anyone that is seriously interested in the Cirrus
airplanes should give it a look:

http://www.cirruspilots.org/cgi-bin/wwwthreads/postlist...

On Sat, 03 Sep 2005 05:12:23 GMT, "Dallas"
<Cybnorm@spam_me_not.Hotmail.Com> wrote:

>I had lunch on Wednesday with a young pilot, (already a CFI) and the subject
>of the Cirrus CAPS (parachute system) came up.
>
>He told us of a recent instance of a pilot who just took off and his
>ailerons failed and he was saved by popping the chute. It seems he just got
>the airplane back from the mechanics who forgot to secure the pins in the
>aileron linkages.
>
>His final comment was, "He'll never fly again." We asked why and he replied
>that he could never get insurance again. He was pretty firm on this.
>
>I wanted to asked real pilots if this is really correct - You crash your
>airplane. It is proven to be someone else's fault. The insurance companies
>don't care and your lifetime of learning to fly goes into the trash can?
>
>Dallas
>
Anonymous
September 8, 2005 5:07:32 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

You should read threads a bit better before answering them please,
especially if you use my name in your answer.
My comments on preflight did NOT pertain to the Cirrus accident at all, but
rather to the initial poster's recount of another accident involving the
loss of an aileron.
Aileron pins on light GA aircraft are indeed part of the preflight check and
taking off with one missing would indeed be a PIC failure. In the accident
mentioned, the aircraft had just come out of maintenance, which makes the
PICK failure even more pronounced.
As for the Cirrus' CAPS system, I have no idea what components are
accessible for preflight inspection, and knowing that, would not have
commented on this aircraft unless I did.
Dudley Henriques

<blave@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:18kvh1li7jpu6f2ej6mhfp2dm8eb9kpupq@4ax.com...
> Getting back to the original post (as copied below)... My observations:
>
> 1) I didn't see any posts by anyone that has preflighted, let alone
> flown, a Cirrus aircraft. Anyone (sorry Dudley) that says that the pilot
> should've caught "this" (whatever that may be) in the preflight doesn't
> *necessarily* know this particular airplane. Some airplanes are more
> willing than others to have Critical Bits to be pre-flighted - the
> others require a bit of "faith" unless the would-be PIC is willing to
> partially disassemble the aircraft prior to aviating. The Cirri are a
> little more buttoned up than other single-engine aircraft that I'm
> familiar with (C172, PA28, etc.). I attribute this to the Cirrus's
> design trying to be as aerodynamically efficient as is possible given
> the various constraints the airplane is working under. Anyway, there are
> some linkages/mechanical bits/etc. here and there that are not
> verifiable in a pre-flight of the Cirrus without using tools to remove
> inspection panels (or more).
>
> (side note) From what I've seen, this issue of "observability" gets
> worse as the airplane gets more capable/expensive (I'm recalling being
> shown the preflight of a Pilatus PC-12 - there's not a whole lot you can
> verify standing on the ground and walking around the airplane).
>
> I have no idea whether the unfortunate pilot of the Cirrus in question
> could've seen the missing pin or whatever it was (assuming it was
> missing prior to the flight!) but as often happens, I'm seeing a lot of
> Monday morning quarterbacking on this accident... Particularly
> interesting given that this is a *simulation* newsgroup 8^) .
>
> Dave Blevins
>
> P.S. regarding rental aircraft, and the renter's responsibility for
> paying up when he prangs something or balls it up - it really depends on
> the flying club/FBO and more particularly, to the insurance policy that
> they have. I have belonged to three FBOs/clubs in my vast six years
> history of flying 8^) , and each seems to have slightly different levels
> of exposure to the renter. What is important is to understand the term
> "subrogation" and how willing the insuring company is to take that step
> after an incident or accident. The club that I flew a rental SR20 out of
> for a while boasts that except for cases of gross pilot negligence (and
> admittedly that can be a subjective thing), their insurance company will
> not "go after" the rental pilot for more money once the deductible is
> paid. I have heard nothing from member pilots (the club runs a fairly
> unmoderated on-line bulletin board) that would indicate anything else.
>
> P.P.S. COPA, the Cirrus Owners and Pilots Association, has a non-members
> forum that free. Anyone that is seriously interested in the Cirrus
> airplanes should give it a look:
>
> http://www.cirruspilots.org/cgi-bin/wwwthreads/postlist...
>
> On Sat, 03 Sep 2005 05:12:23 GMT, "Dallas"
> <Cybnorm@spam_me_not.Hotmail.Com> wrote:
>
>>I had lunch on Wednesday with a young pilot, (already a CFI) and the
>>subject
>>of the Cirrus CAPS (parachute system) came up.
>>
>>He told us of a recent instance of a pilot who just took off and his
>>ailerons failed and he was saved by popping the chute. It seems he just
>>got
>>the airplane back from the mechanics who forgot to secure the pins in the
>>aileron linkages.
>>
>>His final comment was, "He'll never fly again." We asked why and he
>>replied
>>that he could never get insurance again. He was pretty firm on this.
>>
>>I wanted to asked real pilots if this is really correct - You crash your
>>airplane. It is proven to be someone else's fault. The insurance
>>companies
>>don't care and your lifetime of learning to fly goes into the trash can?
>>
>>Dallas
>>
Anonymous
September 8, 2005 5:30:29 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

I should specify that the initial poster was discussing a Cirrus accident,
but NOT the accident involving the CAPS system, which is the second Cirrus
accident mentioned in the thread.
What you did was read my response to the first accident (involving the
aileron pin) and then proceed to "inform me" by referencing my name and
placing me in the second accident scenario (involving preflight and the CAPS
system).
Also, I'm interested along with Pete in your reference to this being a "sim
group". Some of us here have just a wee bit of actual experience flying
these "iddy biddy widdle airpwanes" you know. Some of actually have flown
some of those "gweat BIG ones too".....and some of those...."weal fast wons"
as well.
Sorry I have to go. My mother's calling me. I've been playing with my
simulator game too long this morning. I think she wants me to put my teddy
bears away. :-)))
All the best to you,
Dudley Henriques



<blave@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:18kvh1li7jpu6f2ej6mhfp2dm8eb9kpupq@4ax.com...
> Getting back to the original post (as copied below)... My observations:
>
> 1) I didn't see any posts by anyone that has preflighted, let alone
> flown, a Cirrus aircraft. Anyone (sorry Dudley) that says that the pilot
> should've caught "this" (whatever that may be) in the preflight doesn't
> *necessarily* know this particular airplane. Some airplanes are more
> willing than others to have Critical Bits to be pre-flighted - the
> others require a bit of "faith" unless the would-be PIC is willing to
> partially disassemble the aircraft prior to aviating. The Cirri are a
> little more buttoned up than other single-engine aircraft that I'm
> familiar with (C172, PA28, etc.). I attribute this to the Cirrus's
> design trying to be as aerodynamically efficient as is possible given
> the various constraints the airplane is working under. Anyway, there are
> some linkages/mechanical bits/etc. here and there that are not
> verifiable in a pre-flight of the Cirrus without using tools to remove
> inspection panels (or more).
>
> (side note) From what I've seen, this issue of "observability" gets
> worse as the airplane gets more capable/expensive (I'm recalling being
> shown the preflight of a Pilatus PC-12 - there's not a whole lot you can
> verify standing on the ground and walking around the airplane).
>
> I have no idea whether the unfortunate pilot of the Cirrus in question
> could've seen the missing pin or whatever it was (assuming it was
> missing prior to the flight!) but as often happens, I'm seeing a lot of
> Monday morning quarterbacking on this accident... Particularly
> interesting given that this is a *simulation* newsgroup 8^) .
>
> Dave Blevins
>
> P.S. regarding rental aircraft, and the renter's responsibility for
> paying up when he prangs something or balls it up - it really depends on
> the flying club/FBO and more particularly, to the insurance policy that
> they have. I have belonged to three FBOs/clubs in my vast six years
> history of flying 8^) , and each seems to have slightly different levels
> of exposure to the renter. What is important is to understand the term
> "subrogation" and how willing the insuring company is to take that step
> after an incident or accident. The club that I flew a rental SR20 out of
> for a while boasts that except for cases of gross pilot negligence (and
> admittedly that can be a subjective thing), their insurance company will
> not "go after" the rental pilot for more money once the deductible is
> paid. I have heard nothing from member pilots (the club runs a fairly
> unmoderated on-line bulletin board) that would indicate anything else.
>
> P.P.S. COPA, the Cirrus Owners and Pilots Association, has a non-members
> forum that free. Anyone that is seriously interested in the Cirrus
> airplanes should give it a look:
>
> http://www.cirruspilots.org/cgi-bin/wwwthreads/postlist...
>
> On Sat, 03 Sep 2005 05:12:23 GMT, "Dallas"
> <Cybnorm@spam_me_not.Hotmail.Com> wrote:
>
>>I had lunch on Wednesday with a young pilot, (already a CFI) and the
>>subject
>>of the Cirrus CAPS (parachute system) came up.
>>
>>He told us of a recent instance of a pilot who just took off and his
>>ailerons failed and he was saved by popping the chute. It seems he just
>>got
>>the airplane back from the mechanics who forgot to secure the pins in the
>>aileron linkages.
>>
>>His final comment was, "He'll never fly again." We asked why and he
>>replied
>>that he could never get insurance again. He was pretty firm on this.
>>
>>I wanted to asked real pilots if this is really correct - You crash your
>>airplane. It is proven to be someone else's fault. The insurance
>>companies
>>don't care and your lifetime of learning to fly goes into the trash can?
>>
>>Dallas
>>
September 8, 2005 5:30:30 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

Dudley Henriques wrote:
> Some of us here have just a wee bit of actual
> experience flying these "iddy biddy widdle airpwanes" you know. Some
> of actually have flown some of those "gweat BIG ones too".....and
> some of those...."weal fast wons" as well.


WOW!! Weally and chewly?? <G>
Anonymous
September 8, 2005 7:02:17 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

On Thu, 08 Sep 2005 13:30:29 GMT, "Dudley Henriques"
<dhenriques@noware .net> wrote:

>I should specify that the initial poster was discussing a Cirrus accident,
>but NOT the accident involving the CAPS system, which is the second Cirrus
>accident mentioned in the thread.
>What you did was read my response to the first accident (involving the
>aileron pin) and then proceed to "inform me" by referencing my name and
>placing me in the second accident scenario (involving preflight and the CAPS
>system).
>Also, I'm interested along with Pete in your reference to this being a "sim
>group". Some of us here have just a wee bit of actual experience flying
>these "iddy biddy widdle airpwanes" you know. Some of actually have flown
>some of those "gweat BIG ones too".....and some of those...."weal fast wons"
>as well.
>Sorry I have to go. My mother's calling me. I've been playing with my
>simulator game too long this morning. I think she wants me to put my teddy
>bears away. :-)))
>All the best to you,
>Dudley Henriques
>
>

LOL


:) 









>
><blave@nospam.com> wrote in message
>news:18kvh1li7jpu6f2ej6mhfp2dm8eb9kpupq@4ax.com...
>> Getting back to the original post (as copied below)... My observations:
>>
>> 1) I didn't see any posts by anyone that has preflighted, let alone
>> flown, a Cirrus aircraft. Anyone (sorry Dudley) that says that the pilot
>> should've caught "this" (whatever that may be) in the preflight doesn't
>> *necessarily* know this particular airplane. Some airplanes are more
>> willing than others to have Critical Bits to be pre-flighted - the
>> others require a bit of "faith" unless the would-be PIC is willing to
>> partially disassemble the aircraft prior to aviating. The Cirri are a
>> little more buttoned up than other single-engine aircraft that I'm
>> familiar with (C172, PA28, etc.). I attribute this to the Cirrus's
>> design trying to be as aerodynamically efficient as is possible given
>> the various constraints the airplane is working under. Anyway, there are
>> some linkages/mechanical bits/etc. here and there that are not
>> verifiable in a pre-flight of the Cirrus without using tools to remove
>> inspection panels (or more).
>>
>> (side note) From what I've seen, this issue of "observability" gets
>> worse as the airplane gets more capable/expensive (I'm recalling being
>> shown the preflight of a Pilatus PC-12 - there's not a whole lot you can
>> verify standing on the ground and walking around the airplane).
>>
>> I have no idea whether the unfortunate pilot of the Cirrus in question
>> could've seen the missing pin or whatever it was (assuming it was
>> missing prior to the flight!) but as often happens, I'm seeing a lot of
>> Monday morning quarterbacking on this accident... Particularly
>> interesting given that this is a *simulation* newsgroup 8^) .
>>
>> Dave Blevins
>>
>> P.S. regarding rental aircraft, and the renter's responsibility for
>> paying up when he prangs something or balls it up - it really depends on
>> the flying club/FBO and more particularly, to the insurance policy that
>> they have. I have belonged to three FBOs/clubs in my vast six years
>> history of flying 8^) , and each seems to have slightly different levels
>> of exposure to the renter. What is important is to understand the term
>> "subrogation" and how willing the insuring company is to take that step
>> after an incident or accident. The club that I flew a rental SR20 out of
>> for a while boasts that except for cases of gross pilot negligence (and
>> admittedly that can be a subjective thing), their insurance company will
>> not "go after" the rental pilot for more money once the deductible is
>> paid. I have heard nothing from member pilots (the club runs a fairly
>> unmoderated on-line bulletin board) that would indicate anything else.
>>
>> P.P.S. COPA, the Cirrus Owners and Pilots Association, has a non-members
>> forum that free. Anyone that is seriously interested in the Cirrus
>> airplanes should give it a look:
>>
>> http://www.cirruspilots.org/cgi-bin/wwwthreads/postlist...
>>
>> On Sat, 03 Sep 2005 05:12:23 GMT, "Dallas"
>> <Cybnorm@spam_me_not.Hotmail.Com> wrote:
>>
>>>I had lunch on Wednesday with a young pilot, (already a CFI) and the
>>>subject
>>>of the Cirrus CAPS (parachute system) came up.
>>>
>>>He told us of a recent instance of a pilot who just took off and his
>>>ailerons failed and he was saved by popping the chute. It seems he just
>>>got
>>>the airplane back from the mechanics who forgot to secure the pins in the
>>>aileron linkages.
>>>
>>>His final comment was, "He'll never fly again." We asked why and he
>>>replied
>>>that he could never get insurance again. He was pretty firm on this.
>>>
>>>I wanted to asked real pilots if this is really correct - You crash your
>>>airplane. It is proven to be someone else's fault. The insurance
>>>companies
>>>don't care and your lifetime of learning to fly goes into the trash can?
>>>
>>>Dallas
>>>
>
Anonymous
September 8, 2005 9:00:58 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

On Tue, 6 Sep 2005 14:55:59 -0700, Jay Beckman wrote:

>> There is a very interesting and informative video that was taken at
>> Oshkosh
>> this year, where the chief test pilot showed how the laminar flow wings
>> would allow for 60º+ bank angles without danger of inducing a spin.
>
> Bank angle has nothing to do with stalls or spins!
>
> Stalls happen when you exceed the critical angle of attack ... and spins
> come from flying in an uncoordinated manner whilst stalling.

I think that is a bit of an "overstatement," Jay. Stalling while at such
an un-typical attitude is surely more problematic than stalling while wings
are level... ;) 

Bill
Anonymous
September 8, 2005 9:20:32 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

"CRaSH" <sorry@aint-here.spam.com> wrote in message
news:b1_Te.205206$E95.184862@fed1read01...
> Dudley Henriques wrote:
>> Some of us here have just a wee bit of actual
>> experience flying these "iddy biddy widdle airpwanes" you know. Some
>> of actually have flown some of those "gweat BIG ones too".....and
>> some of those...."weal fast wons" as well.
>
>
> WOW!! Weally and chewly?? <G>

Cwoss my heart an hope to die!! :-))

D
Anonymous
September 8, 2005 9:34:31 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 17:11:30 GMT, Dallas wrote:

> Using the chute mean totaling the aircraft as it lands with a force of being
> dropped 10 feet.
>
> I wonder if that fact was on the minds of the Cirrus pilots that crashed?
> "Gee... I don't wanna wreak my new airplane."

Most likely they were thinking, "Thank God I have a parachute!"

Bill
September 9, 2005 2:16:43 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

On Thu, 08 Sep 2005 13:30:29 GMT, "Dudley Henriques"
<dhenriques@noware .net> wrote:

>I should specify that the initial poster was discussing a Cirrus accident,
>but NOT the accident involving the CAPS system, which is the second Cirrus
>accident mentioned in the thread.
>What you did was read my response to the first accident (involving the
>aileron pin) and then proceed to "inform me" by referencing my name and
>placing me in the second accident scenario (involving preflight and the CAPS
>system).
>Also, I'm interested along with Pete in your reference to this being a "sim
>group". Some of us here have just a wee bit of actual experience flying
>these "iddy biddy widdle airpwanes" you know. Some of actually have flown
>some of those "gweat BIG ones too".....and some of those...."weal fast wons"
>as well.

You mean you've actually gotten in one of those things... ALONE?

Speaking of which, doing some short field landings today and I may
have to have the W&B recalculated. I must have shook every bit of
loose dirt, grease, and even paint off the old girl. At least I
didn't have to worry about "float". <:-)) And yes, about half the
airport bums within 30 miles were watching. Paid $2.99/Gal for 40
gallons of 100 LL though.

One of the problems with flying high performance is besides the
airplane being faster so is the fuel flow. OTOH I'm not feeding one
of those big radials, a Merlin, or Rolls.

>Sorry I have to go. My mother's calling me. I've been playing with my
>simulator game too long this morning. I think she wants me to put my teddy

Man, although I still miss her greatly I hope mine isn't calling as
she's been gone nigh onto 15 years.

Yup, time to put the toys away and ... well... never mind.

I'm not in my second child hood, the first has been too much fun. If
you don't believe me, just ask my first wife.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com
>bears away. :-)))
>All the best to you,
>Dudley Henriques
>
>
>
><blave@nospam.com> wrote in message
>news:18kvh1li7jpu6f2ej6mhfp2dm8eb9kpupq@4ax.com...
>> Getting back to the original post (as copied below)... My observations:
>>
>> 1) I didn't see any posts by anyone that has preflighted, let alone
>> flown, a Cirrus aircraft. Anyone (sorry Dudley) that says that the pilot
>> should've caught "this" (whatever that may be) in the preflight doesn't
>> *necessarily* know this particular airplane. Some airplanes are more
>> willing than others to have Critical Bits to be pre-flighted - the
>> others require a bit of "faith" unless the would-be PIC is willing to
>> partially disassemble the aircraft prior to aviating. The Cirri are a
>> little more buttoned up than other single-engine aircraft that I'm
>> familiar with (C172, PA28, etc.). I attribute this to the Cirrus's
>> design trying to be as aerodynamically efficient as is possible given
>> the various constraints the airplane is working under. Anyway, there are
>> some linkages/mechanical bits/etc. here and there that are not
>> verifiable in a pre-flight of the Cirrus without using tools to remove
>> inspection panels (or more).
>>
>> (side note) From what I've seen, this issue of "observability" gets
>> worse as the airplane gets more capable/expensive (I'm recalling being
>> shown the preflight of a Pilatus PC-12 - there's not a whole lot you can
>> verify standing on the ground and walking around the airplane).
>>
>> I have no idea whether the unfortunate pilot of the Cirrus in question
>> could've seen the missing pin or whatever it was (assuming it was
>> missing prior to the flight!) but as often happens, I'm seeing a lot of
>> Monday morning quarterbacking on this accident... Particularly
>> interesting given that this is a *simulation* newsgroup 8^) .
>>
>> Dave Blevins
>>
>> P.S. regarding rental aircraft, and the renter's responsibility for
>> paying up when he prangs something or balls it up - it really depends on
>> the flying club/FBO and more particularly, to the insurance policy that
>> they have. I have belonged to three FBOs/clubs in my vast six years
>> history of flying 8^) , and each seems to have slightly different levels
>> of exposure to the renter. What is important is to understand the term
>> "subrogation" and how willing the insuring company is to take that step
>> after an incident or accident. The club that I flew a rental SR20 out of
>> for a while boasts that except for cases of gross pilot negligence (and
>> admittedly that can be a subjective thing), their insurance company will
>> not "go after" the rental pilot for more money once the deductible is
>> paid. I have heard nothing from member pilots (the club runs a fairly
>> unmoderated on-line bulletin board) that would indicate anything else.
>>
>> P.P.S. COPA, the Cirrus Owners and Pilots Association, has a non-members
>> forum that free. Anyone that is seriously interested in the Cirrus
>> airplanes should give it a look:
>>
>> http://www.cirruspilots.org/cgi-bin/wwwthreads/postlist...
>>
>> On Sat, 03 Sep 2005 05:12:23 GMT, "Dallas"
>> <Cybnorm@spam_me_not.Hotmail.Com> wrote:
>>
>>>I had lunch on Wednesday with a young pilot, (already a CFI) and the
>>>subject
>>>of the Cirrus CAPS (parachute system) came up.
>>>
>>>He told us of a recent instance of a pilot who just took off and his
>>>ailerons failed and he was saved by popping the chute. It seems he just
>>>got
>>>the airplane back from the mechanics who forgot to secure the pins in the
>>>aileron linkages.
>>>
>>>His final comment was, "He'll never fly again." We asked why and he
>>>replied
>>>that he could never get insurance again. He was pretty firm on this.
>>>
>>>I wanted to asked real pilots if this is really correct - You crash your
>>>airplane. It is proven to be someone else's fault. The insurance
>>>companies
>>>don't care and your lifetime of learning to fly goes into the trash can?
>>>
>>>Dallas
>>>
>
September 9, 2005 2:28:39 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

On Thu, 8 Sep 2005 17:00:58 -0400, Bill Leaming <n4gix@comcast.net>
wrote:

>On Tue, 6 Sep 2005 14:55:59 -0700, Jay Beckman wrote:
>
>>> There is a very interesting and informative video that was taken at
>>> Oshkosh
>>> this year, where the chief test pilot showed how the laminar flow wings
>>> would allow for 60º+ bank angles without danger of inducing a spin.

Each wing with laminar flow is designed for a specific speed which of
course varies between make and model.

>>
>> Bank angle has nothing to do with stalls or spins!
>>
>> Stalls happen when you exceed the critical angle of attack ... and spins
>> come from flying in an uncoordinated manner whilst stalling.
>
>I think that is a bit of an "overstatement," Jay. Stalling while at such
>an un-typical attitude is surely more problematic than stalling while wings
>are level... ;) 

I can only speak for myself, but...
I've had three unintentional stalls in my years of flying. All were in
a wings level attitude . One was while cruising at 5500 (In the Deb)
and the other two were on final (one in a Cessna 150 for 24 and the
other in a Cherokee 180 for 06). Stalling that close tot he ground
can certainly raise your sense of awareness. OTOH so does being
driven down into the seat and finding yourself looking straight ahead
at the ground from 5500 feet.

A pilot *may* be more likely to screw up at the steeper bank angles as
opposed to wings level. A coordinated stall at 60 degrees is little
different than one wings level (if the pilot knows what he/she is
doing and the controls are coordinated (ball in the center))
) <:-))

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com
>
>Bill
Anonymous
September 9, 2005 7:15:17 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

"Roger" <Delete-Invallid.stuff.groups@tm.net> wrote in message
news:p er1i1pr06hsdpj0ru72l4kjcslqpjons3@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 08 Sep 2005 13:30:29 GMT, "Dudley Henriques"
> <dhenriques@noware .net> wrote:
>
>>I should specify that the initial poster was discussing a Cirrus accident,
>>but NOT the accident involving the CAPS system, which is the second Cirrus
>>accident mentioned in the thread.
>>What you did was read my response to the first accident (involving the
>>aileron pin) and then proceed to "inform me" by referencing my name and
>>placing me in the second accident scenario (involving preflight and the
>>CAPS
>>system).
>>Also, I'm interested along with Pete in your reference to this being a
>>"sim
>>group". Some of us here have just a wee bit of actual experience flying
>>these "iddy biddy widdle airpwanes" you know. Some of actually have flown
>>some of those "gweat BIG ones too".....and some of those...."weal fast
>>wons"
>>as well.
>
> You mean you've actually gotten in one of those things... ALONE?

Yes, and if I did it tomorrow, I'd probably scare the living daylights out
of myself!! :-)
>
> Speaking of which, doing some short field landings today and I may
> have to have the W&B recalculated. I must have shook every bit of
> loose dirt, grease, and even paint off the old girl. At least I
> didn't have to worry about "float". <:-)) And yes, about half the
> airport bums within 30 miles were watching. Paid $2.99/Gal for 40
> gallons of 100 LL though.

The old behind the curve, I can make this one in the first fifty feet if I
don't panic, screw the gear, it's strong as hell, VSI dosen't register this
high a sink rate short field Deb approach huh???
:-))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
>
> One of the problems with flying high performance is besides the
> airplane being faster so is the fuel flow. OTOH I'm not feeding one
> of those big radials, a Merlin, or Rolls.

Let's see now, the 51 was full at 90 in each main. If you can find 130
octane at................................... :-)))))))))))


>
>>Sorry I have to go. My mother's calling me. I've been playing with my
>>simulator game too long this morning. I think she wants me to put my teddy
>
> Man, although I still miss her greatly I hope mine isn't calling as
> she's been gone nigh onto 15 years.
>
> Yup, time to put the toys away and ... well... never mind.
>
> I'm not in my second child hood, the first has been too much fun. If
> you don't believe me, just ask my first wife.

Yes, and now you have a wife, an airplane, an airplane in the garage, and a
cat! PROGRESS!!!!! :-)))
Dudley
September 9, 2005 7:15:18 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 03:15:17 GMT, "Dudley Henriques"
<dhenriques@noware .net> wrote:

>
>"Roger" <Delete-Invallid.stuff.groups@tm.net> wrote in message
>news:p er1i1pr06hsdpj0ru72l4kjcslqpjons3@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 08 Sep 2005 13:30:29 GMT, "Dudley Henriques"
>> <dhenriques@noware .net> wrote:
>>
>>>I should specify that the initial poster was discussing a Cirrus accident,
>>>but NOT the accident involving the CAPS system, which is the second Cirrus
>>>accident mentioned in the thread.
>>>What you did was read my response to the first accident (involving the
>>>aileron pin) and then proceed to "inform me" by referencing my name and
>>>placing me in the second accident scenario (involving preflight and the
>>>CAPS
>>>system).
>>>Also, I'm interested along with Pete in your reference to this being a
>>>"sim
>>>group". Some of us here have just a wee bit of actual experience flying
>>>these "iddy biddy widdle airpwanes" you know. Some of actually have flown
>>>some of those "gweat BIG ones too".....and some of those...."weal fast
>>>wons"
>>>as well.
>>
>> You mean you've actually gotten in one of those things... ALONE?
>
>Yes, and if I did it tomorrow, I'd probably scare the living daylights out
>of myself!! :-)
>>
>> Speaking of which, doing some short field landings today and I may
>> have to have the W&B recalculated. I must have shook every bit of
>> loose dirt, grease, and even paint off the old girl. At least I
>> didn't have to worry about "float". <:-)) And yes, about half the
>> airport bums within 30 miles were watching. Paid $2.99/Gal for 40
>> gallons of 100 LL though.
>
>The old behind the curve, I can make this one in the first fifty feet if I

Almost did.

>don't panic, screw the gear, it's strong as hell, VSI dosen't register this

It is.

>high a sink rate short field Deb approach huh???

It only goes to 2000 fpm.

>:-))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
>>
>> One of the problems with flying high performance is besides the
>> airplane being faster so is the fuel flow. OTOH I'm not feeding one
>> of those big radials, a Merlin, or Rolls.
>
>Let's see now, the 51 was full at 90 in each main. If you can find 130
>octane at................................... :-)))))))))))

Shucks, I can only get a 100 in everything and it takes 6 tanks to do
it. Talk about fuel management and aileron trim.

>
>
>>
>>>Sorry I have to go. My mother's calling me. I've been playing with my
>>>simulator game too long this morning. I think she wants me to put my teddy
>>
>> Man, although I still miss her greatly I hope mine isn't calling as
>> she's been gone nigh onto 15 years.
>>
>> Yup, time to put the toys away and ... well... never mind.
>>
>> I'm not in my second child hood, the first has been too much fun. If
>> you don't believe me, just ask my first wife.
>
>Yes, and now you have a wife, an airplane, an airplane in the garage, and a

Actually that's a bunch of airplane parts out in the shop that are
*beginning* to look like an airplane (Just about ready to close
the elevator)

>cat! PROGRESS!!!!! :-)))

And I don't have to sleep with one eye open any more. Well, except for
that 16# cat whos been known to land on inconvenient spots and he has
ALL of his CLAWS.

I abruptly woke the other night to find him happily washing the bottom
of my foot with that rough tongue. Darn near sent me through the
headboard. GAWD but that tickled.

For those who have never met Streak, he runs 40" toes to toes when
stretched out, weighs 16#, chases dogs, and has caused my wife to
raise the bird feeders as high as she can get them. I've seen the big
bird feeder (with the base over 6 feet off the ground) swinging back
and fourth... When I looked out there he was hanging on with both
front feet.

OTOH we've never had a mouse problem since he moved in.
If it moves, he'll attack. Just don't tease him with your big toe.
He does bring me home fresh meals, but he eats the best parts himself.

Roger

>Dudley
>
Roger
Anonymous
September 9, 2005 8:09:20 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

"Roger" <Delete-Invallid.stuff.groups@tm.net> wrote in message
news:a512i1163pnl657ftdc15d5hsungnvq4e0@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 03:15:17 GMT, "Dudley Henriques"
> <dhenriques@noware .net> wrote:

> OTOH we've never had a mouse problem since he moved in.
> If it moves, he'll attack. Just don't tease him with your big toe.
> He does bring me home fresh meals, but he eats the best parts himself.

I told you didn't I, about teaching Chairman Meow to play Chess; that he
wasn't so damn smart cause I could still beat him two games out of three!!

>
> Roger
>
>>Dudley
>>
> Roger

Dudley

(sounds like the dialog from "Airplane" :-)
Anonymous
September 9, 2005 6:23:36 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

Hi Rodger,

<Snip> ".....One of the problems with flying high performance is besides
the airplane being faster so is the fuel flow. OTOH I'm not feeding one
of those big radials, a Merlin, or Rolls....."

http://www.channel4.com/community/showcards/S/Spitfire_...

An extract from the above:

"Richard595 : Pete. Do the government supply any monies for the
upkeep/maintenance of old war birds

Pete Kynsey : The RAF do operate some Spitfires and Hurricanes as part of
the Battle of Britain memorial flight but no help is given at all to
civilian owned aeroplanes like Carolyn's. The running cost of a Spitfire is
between two and three thousand pounds an hour and the owner has to find that
from somewhere."

Ouch!! :-)) Worth it, though!! :-))

Although, I imagine that includes ALL the estimated costs.....

By way of explanation, the ABC is currently running a Series called
"Spitfire Ace", on Thursday nights, here in Brisbane, and I ended up at the
above website while trying to establish if there was a Video or DVD.

There isn't - just a book. :-(

Regards,
John Ward


"Roger" <Delete-Invallid.stuff.groups@tm.net> wrote in message
news:p er1i1pr06hsdpj0ru72l4kjcslqpjons3@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 08 Sep 2005 13:30:29 GMT, "Dudley Henriques"
> <dhenriques@noware .net> wrote:
>
>>I should specify that the initial poster was discussing a Cirrus accident,
>>but NOT the accident involving the CAPS system, which is the second Cirrus
>>accident mentioned in the thread.
>>What you did was read my response to the first accident (involving the
>>aileron pin) and then proceed to "inform me" by referencing my name and
>>placing me in the second accident scenario (involving preflight and the
>>CAPS
>>system).
>>Also, I'm interested along with Pete in your reference to this being a
>>"sim
>>group". Some of us here have just a wee bit of actual experience flying
>>these "iddy biddy widdle airpwanes" you know. Some of actually have flown
>>some of those "gweat BIG ones too".....and some of those...."weal fast
>>wons"
>>as well.
>
> You mean you've actually gotten in one of those things... ALONE?
>
> Speaking of which, doing some short field landings today and I may
> have to have the W&B recalculated. I must have shook every bit of
> loose dirt, grease, and even paint off the old girl. At least I
> didn't have to worry about "float". <:-)) And yes, about half the
> airport bums within 30 miles were watching. Paid $2.99/Gal for 40
> gallons of 100 LL though.
>
> One of the problems with flying high performance is besides the
> airplane being faster so is the fuel flow. OTOH I'm not feeding one
> of those big radials, a Merlin, or Rolls.
>
>>Sorry I have to go. My mother's calling me. I've been playing with my
>>simulator game too long this morning. I think she wants me to put my teddy
>
> Man, although I still miss her greatly I hope mine isn't calling as
> she's been gone nigh onto 15 years.
>
> Yup, time to put the toys away and ... well... never mind.
>
> I'm not in my second child hood, the first has been too much fun. If
> you don't believe me, just ask my first wife.
>
> Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
> (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
> www.rogerhalstead.com
>>bears away. :-)))
>>All the best to you,
>>Dudley Henriques
>>
>>
>>
>><blave@nospam.com> wrote in message
>>news:18kvh1li7jpu6f2ej6mhfp2dm8eb9kpupq@4ax.com...
>>> Getting back to the original post (as copied below)... My observations:
>>>
>>> 1) I didn't see any posts by anyone that has preflighted, let alone
>>> flown, a Cirrus aircraft. Anyone (sorry Dudley) that says that the pilot
>>> should've caught "this" (whatever that may be) in the preflight doesn't
>>> *necessarily* know this particular airplane. Some airplanes are more
>>> willing than others to have Critical Bits to be pre-flighted - the
>>> others require a bit of "faith" unless the would-be PIC is willing to
>>> partially disassemble the aircraft prior to aviating. The Cirri are a
>>> little more buttoned up than other single-engine aircraft that I'm
>>> familiar with (C172, PA28, etc.). I attribute this to the Cirrus's
>>> design trying to be as aerodynamically efficient as is possible given
>>> the various constraints the airplane is working under. Anyway, there are
>>> some linkages/mechanical bits/etc. here and there that are not
>>> verifiable in a pre-flight of the Cirrus without using tools to remove
>>> inspection panels (or more).
>>>
>>> (side note) From what I've seen, this issue of "observability" gets
>>> worse as the airplane gets more capable/expensive (I'm recalling being
>>> shown the preflight of a Pilatus PC-12 - there's not a whole lot you can
>>> verify standing on the ground and walking around the airplane).
>>>
>>> I have no idea whether the unfortunate pilot of the Cirrus in question
>>> could've seen the missing pin or whatever it was (assuming it was
>>> missing prior to the flight!) but as often happens, I'm seeing a lot of
>>> Monday morning quarterbacking on this accident... Particularly
>>> interesting given that this is a *simulation* newsgroup 8^) .
>>>
>>> Dave Blevins
>>>
>>> P.S. regarding rental aircraft, and the renter's responsibility for
>>> paying up when he prangs something or balls it up - it really depends on
>>> the flying club/FBO and more particularly, to the insurance policy that
>>> they have. I have belonged to three FBOs/clubs in my vast six years
>>> history of flying 8^) , and each seems to have slightly different levels
>>> of exposure to the renter. What is important is to understand the term
>>> "subrogation" and how willing the insuring company is to take that step
>>> after an incident or accident. The club that I flew a rental SR20 out of
>>> for a while boasts that except for cases of gross pilot negligence (and
>>> admittedly that can be a subjective thing), their insurance company will
>>> not "go after" the rental pilot for more money once the deductible is
>>> paid. I have heard nothing from member pilots (the club runs a fairly
>>> unmoderated on-line bulletin board) that would indicate anything else.
>>>
>>> P.P.S. COPA, the Cirrus Owners and Pilots Association, has a non-members
>>> forum that free. Anyone that is seriously interested in the Cirrus
>>> airplanes should give it a look:
>>>
>>> http://www.cirruspilots.org/cgi-bin/wwwthreads/postlist...
>>>
>>> On Sat, 03 Sep 2005 05:12:23 GMT, "Dallas"
>>> <Cybnorm@spam_me_not.Hotmail.Com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>I had lunch on Wednesday with a young pilot, (already a CFI) and the
>>>>subject
>>>>of the Cirrus CAPS (parachute system) came up.
>>>>
>>>>He told us of a recent instance of a pilot who just took off and his
>>>>ailerons failed and he was saved by popping the chute. It seems he just
>>>>got
>>>>the airplane back from the mechanics who forgot to secure the pins in
>>>>the
>>>>aileron linkages.
>>>>
>>>>His final comment was, "He'll never fly again." We asked why and he
>>>>replied
>>>>that he could never get insurance again. He was pretty firm on this.
>>>>
>>>>I wanted to asked real pilots if this is really correct - You crash
>>>>your
>>>>airplane. It is proven to be someone else's fault. The insurance
>>>>companies
>>>>don't care and your lifetime of learning to fly goes into the trash can?
>>>>
>>>>Dallas
>>>>
>>