Speedbump,

Can't argue with any of that. I think we're splitting hairs here, though, in our interpretation of each other's posts.

My point was simply that circling flight involves more variables ALL THE TIME, than does flying a figure eight or a racetrack. So, again the point I was trying to make was that you can reduce the collection of variables you have to manage better by using one of those techniques.

On the other hand, there will indeed be times when the only way to look at something on the ground is in a circle. Just, as you point out, there are times it would be best to head home. My point wasn't that you should NEVER circle to look at something on the ground, but rather that it may not be the best or safest technique, depending on the circumstances.

The suggestion that a very experienced, highly skilled, and well trained pilot is less subject to these sorts of accidents in circling flight is belied by a look at the accident statistics. The folks who are having most of these accidents are NOT low time, inexperienced pilots. It's impossible to deterimine what the skill levels were in these cases, but I can tell you in a couple cases where I knew the pilot, that their skills and experience were very good.

Nonetheless, they experienced a loss of control at low level, and died as a consequence.

I can introduce you to a very experienced (and well known) pilot who got into one of these things, and by the grace of God survived, though his back was broken. He will tell you unequivocally that he encountered his own wake, and was not able, in a confined area, to fly out of it. His story is very interesting. He feels that several things contributed to his accident, one of which was cool, calm nice flying conditions--Just the sort of conditions that might cause any pilot to relax a bit, or perhaps push it just a bit more than they might in bumpy or windy conditions.

I doubt that any experienced pilot would argue that reducing the workload in a risky situation is a bad thing. That's all I'm talking about doing.

Supercubber,

Good point on the location of the stall vane. I think this is something that a lot of folks miss--the stall horn does not, by definition, sound prior to every stall event. Fortunately, I can't hear most of em any more anyway, so I've learned not to rely on them .

MTV

Yeah, you're right we're splitting hairs here. Even sharp folks can have a bad moment. Thanks for an interesting thread.

This WAS a good read. I think I'll link it to the front page.

Zane,

Do with this thread what you will. I've helped bury friends because they didn't manage this risk well and drove a perfectly healthy aircraft into the ground, perishing in the process.

The more we can get people to think about these things, and to understand just a little more about basic aerodynamics, the less likely they are to make a smoking hole somewhere.

If there is anything I hope to do in life, it would be to, in some small way, help to prevent someone else from departing us that way.

Low level flight is a demanding environment. Easy to enter, seemingly easy to navigate. Often a comfortable companion. Yet sometimes a very costly enterprise, when we find that we've lured ourselves into a place from where recovery is unlikely.

Fly safe,

MTV

mtv wrote:I can introduce you to a very experienced (and well known) pilot who got into one of these things...He will tell you unequivocally that he encountered his own wake, and was not able, in a confined area, to fly out of it. His story is very interesting.
Good point on the location of the stall vane. I think this is something that a lot of folks miss--the stall horn does not, by definition, sound prior to every stall event.
MTV

I'd love to hear all of the particulars relating to this unfortunate pilot's situation.
I've never seen this much in-depth explanation of the hazards of low level maneuvering - and when I think of all of the low-level maneuvering I've done, alone, and with passengers, and all that I will do in the future, this makes me really want to have ALL the information on this. Thanks so much, Berk

I just want to take a moment to re-emphasize the importance of familiarizing yourself with your particular planes extremely low speed, and post stall handling characteristics. Go get some dual, and try slipping, skidding, and steep banking stalls. I am a huge fan of spin and upset recovery training. It might make you sick, but you'll be a better pilot for it. Most properly rigged GA planes I've flown are very predictable and, are in fact, quite hard to spin. Obviously some are easier than others, Cubs and Citabrias in particular, but you should know what your plane is likely to do.

speedbump wrote:Obviously some are easier than others, Cubs and Citabrias in particular, but you should know what your plane is likely to do.

Think your right about everything but the part about Citabrias and Cubs being easier to spin. Since these aircraft see many more hours flying the edge of the envelope doing the dirty work down low, it only stands to reason that they would be involved in more incidents of this nature.

In fact the Super Cub flies so well and stable that it gives a pilot a false sense of confidence that they can do anything with it, to the point they end up flying beyond their ability and getting into trouble. When your flying slow and you feel the ailerons effectiveness fall off, it is a wakeup call telling you to get busy on the pedals and ease off on the stick.

I didn't mean it as an insult that Cubs and Citabrias are easy to spin. What I was comparing them to were the likes of Cessna 150s, Pacers, Musketeers, etc.. planes that are spinnable, but that require some technique to enter and remain in a spin. In comparison, the Cub and Citabria will happily break left or right, and stay in a reasonable spin if the controls are held in place
I like the fact that those two planes haven't been dumbed down to the point where they are so stable that they loose maneuverability. Both the Cub and Citabria slip beautifully because they have sufficient control authority. Many planes don't, and I think that's a shame.

A little off-topic, maybe, but I've seen several references (but not here) about if you're gonna do any mountain flying, you should bone up on your slow flight. By "slow flight", most people (including myself) mean flight at minimum controllable airspeed, hanging on the prop with the stall horn blaring. MCA is NOT what I would recommend for maneuvering in the mountains, where it's high, possibly hot, and you're possibly heavy. Encountering a downdraft or rotor while you're dragging around on the backside of the power curve is a good recipe for disaster, IMHO.
"Slower than normal" or "slower than cruise" or "maneuvering speed" might be a better description.

Eric

I like "traffic pattern speed" or "loitering speed" which (for most of us) is around 70-80 mph. Enough cushion to maneuver comfortably above stall speed, but slow enough to give a nice tight radius of turn without incurring much bank angle.

M

Eric,
Good point, I was talking about slow flight to prepare a person for the landing phase. I agree that speed is a good thing while maneuvering.
If you guys like geek stuff get a book called "Aerodynamics for Naval Aviators," or one of Bill Kershners books like "The Advanced Pilots Flight Manual." There's a great chart in both those books that relates turn radius to bank angle. It's interesting to note that if you fly at MCA and turn as sharply as possible without stalling,( shallow bank) versus flying at VA and banking to pull the limit load (3.8g) the turn radii are within a few feet of each other. Food for thought.

Oh boy, out comes the geek in me...

Is that like two points on a parabolic curve where all the speeds between Va and MCA produce a smaller radius of turn at the max bank angle? What speed gives the smallest raduis of turn at the max load factor/bank angle?

Calculus. Calculus holds the answer methinks. I can't remember any of that stuff. That's why I drive a bus for a living.

M

I remember once reading a recommendation for doing a "canyon 180" by going full speed and cranking it over to about 75 degrees of bank, the writer said that was the way to get the smallest possible turn radius. No thanks-- a shallow (30 degree max) climbing turn at pattern speed with some flaps seems waaay better to me....

Eric

For those of you who have taken the commercial checkride you will remember demonstrating chandelles which are a maximum performance climbing 180 degree turn.

They are fun to do and if you haven't tried them you should find an instructor to teach you how.

The shortest turning radius can be acheived with a well coordinated wing-over or crop dusting turn neither of which I would reccommend for newbies and again something you should learn with a Certified Flight Instructor.

I wouldn't necessarily agree that the chandelle as described in the PTS is a "maximum performance" maneuver. However, it is a technique for demonstrating "mastery of the airplane" and a good building block for greater things though.

Unfortunately most (NOT ALL!) CFIs for hire in the world know less about the type of maximum performance maneuvers discussed on this website than a lot of the existing contributors (CFIs or not). The MAF group, from what I have read, are top notch. You have to look hard to find a CFI who knows what he is talking about and is not afraid to teach the "good stuff".

M

punkin170b wrote:You have to look hard to find a CFI who knows what he is talking about and is not afraid to teach the "good stuff".
M

In this day and age, liability is the reason. It is very obvious from some of the responses on this site that there are some very inexperienced pilots here as well as the seasoned guys. I'm sure there are veterans here that are hesitant in posting technique, methods etc. for the same reason some CFI's are reluctant to demonstrate the "good stuff".

Supercubber wrote:

punkin170b wrote:You have to look hard to find a CFI who knows what he is talking about and is not afraid to teach the "good stuff".
M

In this day and age, liability is the reason. It is very obvious from some of the responses on this site that there are some very inexperienced pilots here as well as the seasoned guys. I'm sure there are veterans here that are hesitant in posting technique, methods etc. for the same reason some CFI's are reluctant to demonstrate the "good stuff".

Talk freely, you enjoy as much anonymity here as you want, unless you put your N-number in your signature. Us "inexperienced" guys are better off for this discussion, and any bullshit or questionable responses are dimed out pretty quickly by those who do know. That's the beauty of an open forum. I thought I was fairly knowledgeable, having done an emergency maneuvers/aerobatics course and plenty of spinning, but one oz of rusty BS comes out (stalled skid vs slip) and everyone jumps in to correct. I love it! It sucks to be a newbie but particpation in this forum I think is always a good thing.

Amen.

Aviation has so many facets. I have some experience but certainly do not feel I am an "expert" in back country ops. Most of the time in my logbook is FAR 121 time, and this is a very different mindset than back country flying. Most guys I work with can't believe I still fly GA, much less land on anything but asphalt. Most don't even know what a dutch roll is!

Back country flying keeps me honest and always learning. As Eric said, there is always "more than one correct way to do things". I love to hear different opinions and go and try things I haven't done or even thought of before.

As for instructing, I too am cautious "teaching" many of the things we do in the back country. It requires the right student with the right mindset, and I have to be comfortable enough with what I am trying to teach to be able to confidently pass it along. Flying the back country is all about risk management...

This is my second post to this site and I want to commend you all on well thought out and polite responses!!!

One point that has not been discussed that I feel is real important in the moose spotting is unnoticed obstructions IE the old cottonwood snag that sticks up twenty feet higher than the rest of the trees and is nearly invisible.

I fly figure 8sa and racetracks sometimes but mostly I look for an open lane in the timber and make a straight drop down and pass with the moosey on the passenger side for my spotter to ogle and then glide right past him with minimum power so I don't scare the hell out of him. Then apply power and climb straight out in the aforementioned clear lane. If I need another pass I will gain maneuvering room and make a 180 or if their is no open lane a 360 and make another pass. I will rarely make more than one pass as it will move the critter off. If spotting bear they will spook and run at 800 feet or more so I don't do much with them.

Shane

One last thing I would add to this post, is the importance of knowing what the wind or breeze is doing when flying low a bit above stall speed.

A slight breeze of only 5 knots can mess you up pretty bad if your not allowing for it in your turns and compensating with power. Becoming distracted and making a downwind turn without a power adjustment can put you in the dirt as quick as anything else.

Guess that's why I'm constantly looking for natural wind indicators...ripples on ponds, dust on dirt roads, smoke off chimneys, the direction a horse is standing etc.