Rob wrote:

NineThreeKilo wrote: Perhaps for those of us flying floats for personal use, maybe holding one self to 135 spec with a “checkride” every 6mo would be a good idea.

Perhaps the reason for the fatals are people trying to make up their own procedures, like the limited power nonsense


A go around should be simple procedure, some stick and rudder sure, it should be so baked into one’s mind and be practically mental autopilot, hair trigger locked n’ loaded every landing. Mind space wise its like those western where the guy has his hand over his pistol rearing to draw, but it out case that’s the TOGA button, it’s a easier and faster call to go around than land.


With work we’d do go rounds from IAPs, visual water, simulated engine fail to a g/a etc, as a training Capt and later Dir of Training being able to do a go around from any configuration was required to even make it to our second in command development program.

In the wild, landing on a busy body of water that we did, I’d wager all our pilots did a real go around once a month or so, those were 208Bs.

Man I wish I had a cool title or two, some t-prop experience, maybe even a float ticket to boot

Maybe then I'd have a grasp on what's so hard about making an airplane that was flying, just milliseconds ago, do it again? The reason for the fatals is a simple lack of the ability to understand a wing, coupled with a knee jerk reaction. A glider can make a go around, not only without a TOGA, but without the whole dang engine....


Take care, Rob

Oh edge lord

You were the same dude that was like “F the POH”? And limited G/A power??

Maybe I misread

Sorry dude, but every single 135 would fire you for your limited power BS, and you would unsat every 135 checkride, in the 121 world you’d fail off of those as well

Maybe in your ag stuff you’d get away with it, but that’s youre flying just hou, if you crash it’s just you, when you are held to a higher standard this shit does not pass

NineThreeKilo wrote:…Sorry dude, but…

This is why BCP is a shell of its former self.

Rob has contributed so much wisdom over the decade plus years he’s been kicking around. I just hope all of this noise doesn’t keep driving people away.

Alrighty then ...

First and foremost Big r et al, my apologies for my part in sending this thread to an uncomfortable place. I guess I figured if we were ok calling each other silly, I'd be silly for a moment. Misplaced humor I guess

'93K, Every time you try to reduce anything I've offered, by saluting your accomplishments, it's at an assumption that mine do not exist. I'm so comfortable in my own skin, that I'm ok with that, but it's not lending your argument any credence.

For the record, I have not advocated clipping wings or handcuffing power. I teach to learn how much it takes to make stuff happen, and doing exactly that. You can always do more, if that pleases you. Pushing the lever or knob is a simple linear movement. You may find yourself against the wall and wishing to push it more?

This is not airliners.net, or how to pass your first ride at Bethel, it's a forum about how to extract the most fun in the safest manner while navigating the backcountry. I'd submit that being infinitely in tune with your craft would lend itself to that far more so than simply shoving controls into corners, although I reserve the right to do so when that is what is truly needed.

I actually understand that when utilizing a bird such as a Grand Caravan, or a PC12, you are trying to illustrate that you have transcended a skill level and knowledge that gives you more insight than the average boondocker, I also understand from a mechanical standpoint that you are conveniently overlooking the fact that even in those higher horsepower complicated systems, the vast majority of departures are done with some sort of limiting factor, be it temp, torque, noise or other requirements. The more complex the systems, the more likely that power control is automated, and the more the pilot thinks he's giving it all she'll make., when the reality is they'll always make more. But even in the simpler analog turbines, unless your engine is sick, you are holding to a (red) line, not a throw in the lever or knob... Or you're shelling out an engine. None of this relates to our little flat four's, sixes, or eights (usually). So I say why not learn that engine? Why not learn that wing? Do this stuff long enough, and you will need to know how much margin you have left, but that's tough to learn when you have a control at a stop.

In the end, you're right. Anything I've offered in this thread would be a failure of a check ride in a commercial application........ and of course there is no such thing as too dead, so if you find squirrel hunting requires a .454 Casull to lend you any satisfaction, by all means man, make'r dead. This morning I'm eradicating pesky ground squirrels with my grandson and his mighty .22, neither of us feels 'limited'

Take care, Rob

NineThreeKilo wrote:

Rob wrote:

NineThreeKilo wrote:Oh edge lord

You were the same dude that was like “F the POH”? And limited G/A power??

Maybe I misread

Sorry dude, but every single 135 would fire you for your limited power BS, and you would unsat every 135 checkride, in the 121 world you’d fail off of those as well

Maybe in your ag stuff you’d get away with it, but that’s youre flying just hou, if you crash it’s just you, when you are held to a higher standard this shit does not pass

93K….its probably time for you to look yourself in the mirror and ask yourself if your contributions to this forum are valuable, or if you’re simply stroking your own ego. Referring to someone that you don’t personally know as “dude” is generally considered disrespectful, why go there. Maybe, as an alternative, say “sir.” As for partial power Go Arounds in the “professional” world, your conclusions indicate that you’re actually not the subject matter expert that you seem to imply. There is considerable reference to your “work job” as a basis for your opinions. While this is valuable, in my opinion, it is always appropriate to consider that there might actually be a different viewpoint from someone that is even more knowledgeable than yourself on a particular subject. It works for me, try it. Be humble, be nice.
Regards, Mike

mpm: +1 Well said.

I have found this thread/topic both entertaining and educational. It's also been interesting how frequently the discussion has diverged from the topic at hand....the Cessna 185. But, that's pretty typical of discussions in general, and mostly okay.

The fact is that, at least in general aviation, there is typically more than one way to "safely" accomplish a lot of things. I have been a CFI for a few years, and the 185 is an airplane that I worked for years. When I'm working with someone in a 185 or any other airplane, my first concern is to decide whether what they're doing is "safe". And, I use parenthesese there for a reason: My version of "safe" may not precisely align with your version of "safe".
I try to demonstrate the methods I've found to be successful. But, my final statement is always: "I've shown you a technique, all I ask is that you evaluate that technique for yourself. If you like it, it's now your technique. If you don't like it, or prefer another safe technique, have at it."

There are pilots who are quicker, stronger, and no doubt smarter than me. Their techniques may vary, and those techniques may not work for me. That works both ways.

So, read all the stuff written here, preferably find a flight instructor who's experienced in the beast, fly with them, and try out the various procedures offered here. If you are already checked out in the 185, try a few different things in your flying it, and see if you like them.

But, with EVERY technique/suggestion/method you try out in an airplane, THINK about all aspects of that gig first, and if it sounds safe, give it a try.

The 185 is a very special airplane in many ways. I loved flying them, and was always amazed at what the type is capable of. So, pick your technique, and enjoy the ride.

Well said, Mike.

I learned a long time ago that the world is small—especially the world of aviation. You won’t believe this: I saw the plane and met the guy—the pilot you told me about yesterday—twelve years ago at the airport. Time is flying.

Well, that plane is a 185, and its owner/pilot is Dave Younkin. It was the first time a Skywagon showed up in my life, up close and personal.

And when it did, I was working at NCAR—the National Center for Atmospheric Research—in Boulder, Colorado, where we studied how thunderstorm clouds become lightning generators using a heavily instrumented, heavy glider. It was a real high DA (density altitude) operation out of Jeffco (Rocky Mountain Metropolitan Airport, BJC), and neither a Super Cub nor the Pawnee of the nearby Soaring Society of Boulder would have met our requirements.

Dave Younkin had worked for NCAR before and was our first choice. He and his mighty 185 were expensive, but they fully lived up to expectations—towing the “Explorer” up to (and into) the towering cumulus clouds.

I’ve posted one of these photos already some time ago, but I think it fits in here as well.

8700/7193 S2E2--NCAR-