From: "pwrsport@ix.netcom.com" <pwrsport@ix.netcom.com>
To: Sport_Aircraft@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tue, December 28, 2010 8:17:24 PM
Subject: Re: Light-Sport Aircraft Yahoo group St. Augustine forced landing
I felt the outcome could have been different given the pilots experience and my experience being the first to fly many kit aircraft I have built and for others, a number of those the Rans S-6es. The S-6es is a very capable and maneuverable airplane with a glide ratio over 9 to 1 and needs minium of about 350 ft of runway to land. At close to 1200 ft agl where reported the engine gave out the plane could glide about two miles to touch down. All flights start with the preflight, weather, fuel all the stuff we know about. However given that particular flight, re-built unproven engine test, the pilot needed to know a bit more. Yes Helen he should have known the hight of trees, power lines and the distance from the runway; he should have done the mathematical calculations of the energy remaining after a power loss taking into consideration the glide ratio. He should have know the winds aloft, and if he did he should have had a flight plan taking it all into consideration plus other items and then followed that plan. Would you and your staff not have done this. Had he followed a proper plan the outcome could have been different, and so my original statement. There may have been other considerations unknown to us to preclude a safe landing and in the heat of attempting to start a dead engine, which generally never restart and run, distracted from some plan?
Ed
-----Original Message-----
From: Bill Hobson
Sent: Dec 28, 2010 3:40 PM
To: Sport_Aircraft@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: Light-Sport Aircraft Yahoo group St. Augustine forced landing
Or, perhaps put another way.....There, but for the grace of God, go you or I.----- Original Message -----From: Helen WoodsSent: Tuesday, December 28, 2010 12:54 PMSubject: Re: Light-Sport Aircraft Yahoo group St. Augustine forced landingWhile I agree that it is a fair assumption that ultralight pilots are
used to small fields, we have no idea from the NTSB report whether
anyone could have made it back to the field without hitting the power
lines. Have you been out to that field to check the height and distance
of the lines from the runway and done mathematical calculations of the
energy of the aircraft remaining after partial engine failure taking
into account glide ratio and recorded winds aloft at that time? I'm
guessing not. In which case it is not fair to criticize this pilot who
may have done everything right. We simply don't know.
All that we know for sure is that this is a fellow pilot who had a very,
very bad day. I don't think that it worth criticizing.
Helen
On 12/28/2010 12:30 PM, barnabywalker wrote:
> --- In Sport_Aircraft@yahoogroups.com, Helen Woods<Helen_Woods@...> wrote:
>
>> I take it that you personally know this person and that she/he is not
>> used to flying at small fields? Characterizing anyone who holds an ATP
>> rating as inexperienced and incapable of flying at small airports is no
>> different than characterizing all ultralight pilots as a bunch of
>> untrained red-neck hill-billies who have no real aeronautical knowledge.
>> I supposed when I get my ATP next year you'll say the same of me? Or
>> the many ATPs I have on my staff who now fly and teach in LSAs for a
>> living?
>>
>> Helen
>>
>
> I certainly have never met an Ultralight Pilot who would consider a mile and a half runway, a "small airport". ;-)
>
> And yes, just because someone has a few fancy Letters behind their name, doesn't mean they are a Good Pilot. That ATP would have most likely successfully landed engine-out, if he were an Ultralight Pilot.
>
> A RANS S-6 is a pussycat of an ultralight to fly.
>
> Barnaby
>
>
>
>> On 12/28/2010 11:38 AM, barnabywalker wrote:
>>
>>> Yes, and we shouldn't overlook how Terrified that certificated ATP likely was to have to glide into a "tiny" 8,000 foot, 150 foot wide runway, which had 45 foot trees 2000 feet from the end of the runway. A certificated ATP likely felt crippled having to hit a tiny 150 foot runway North of a highway running parallel to Runway 31, especially without his Go-Around option. Captain Sully was proof that all ATPs shouldn't be deemed qualified unless they know how to control a plane in a glide instead of just driving a motor.
>>>
>>> http://img.airnav.com/aptdiag/w240/03884.gif
>>> http://www.airnav.com/airport/KSGJ
>>>
>>> Ed and Mike were correct in their observation of this Certificated ATP's "skills".
>>>
>>> HAFTA AFTA
>>> Barnaby
>>>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
__._,_.___
No comments:
Post a Comment