Re: We can do better!++Paul


JMasal@...
 

Okey dokey, Paul, thanks for setting me straight. Sometimes I get confused by real life. Here is how my thinking got haywire.We were all trained in how to adjust our flight path to "make the airport" if we had an engine out/mechanical/fuel emergency at pattern altitude or higher in proximity to the airport. So I'm thinking that since we were trained and practiced, landing short would be a judgement error.
Cases in point:
one day a Q guy and wife were coming to Livermore in a Cessna 150. He ran out of fuel on short final, hit the overrun, bounced onto the runway and had to be pushed off onto a taxiway by several guys. The NTSB would call this landed short: fuel exhaustion. Since he passed up an open gas station on his route and took a risk I would call this BAD JUDGEMENT. This could easily have been a really bad accident... but ehere is a God.
Another day a beautiful Q200 had a mechanical at altitude in close proximity to an airport. The aircraft ended up in a pile, the occupants in ICU. It is thought even by the pilot that he had plenty of altitude to make the field, but he didnt. The NTSB would call this landed short: mechanical. I would call this BAD JUDGEMENT.
I secretly think that other short landings, if investigated more closely, would reveal bad judgement. But that's just me. So I hope you will understand how real life has caused my confused statistical thinking.
And I hope you will not castigate me too harshly (I hate to be castigated!!)

Jim

-----Original Message-----
From: Paul S <wypaul2001@...>
To: Q-LIST <Q-LIST@...>
Sent: Mon, Oct 10, 2011 5:49 am
Subject: [Q-LIST] Re: We can do better!++Paul




Ok Jim here are some facts that support my case. These were obtained from the NTSB by doing a search on that database using the search criteria "landing short".

Of the 13 listed accidents 10 were listed as mechanical failure, 2 can be attributed to pilot error and one runway conditions on a private airstrip which I will give you as pilot error. This works out to 76.92% of these accidents were caused by mechanical/fuel issues.
I realise that this one search is not the gospel but these are the facts for this search.

Here is a link to the results of the search if you care to check for yourself.

http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/index.aspx

--- In Q-LIST@..., JMasal@... wrote:



Can you point me to any statistics which reveal that most short landings are due to fuel or mechanical issues? I need to change my thinking on this subject.

j.


-----Original Message-----
From: Paul S <wypaul2001@...>
To: Q-LIST <Q-LIST@...>
Sent: Sun, Oct 9, 2011 12:14 pm
Subject: [Q-LIST] Re: We can do better!++




I think that is a great idea Lynn, one problem with the AC's is that they are very broad and long.
Paul

--- In Q-LIST@..., "L.J. French" <LJFrench@> wrote:

Paul - this has been updated since I saw it years ago. There is some good and relevant info in here. I like the flow chart. Maybe something that could be customized for our Quickies.

LJ

Short & simple from my mobile

On Oct 9, 2011, at 11:32 AM, "Paul S" <wypaul2001@> wrote:




I have added a folder (Flight Testing Files) and file to the files section which contains FAA AC 90-109
(http://f1.grp.yahoofs.com/v1/AMWRTiCRAtejlJjiuSRlil8rm697zu1TV_j_NumXx6xaigyepRjkwtMwaOXlWMm3FQMTA3uzf9OQgaF5wqL50Yk9lYWIbk91/Flight%20Testing%20Files/AC90-109.pdf

I had hoped that there would be an option to allow others to add files to the folder as is possible with photos but it does not appear to be the case. So if anyone would like to add files to this folder contact me with a link and I will be happy to add them.

It will be a while before we have more details as to what caused the crash and with that said, landing/crashing short of the runway is usually caused by mechanical/fuel issues. One issue that is unique to plastic airplanes is the fuel filter being clogged by glass particles from the tank. No matter how clean you think the tank is, there will likely be enough material loosen up during flight testing to plug up the fuel filters (you do have more than one I hope). I recommend changing the fuel filters after the first flight and every 3 hrs for the first ten hours for a total of four times in the first ten hours of testing. This may be excessive but it is darn cheap insurance IMHO.

Paul

--- In Q-LIST@..., "jcrain2@" <jcrain2@> wrote:

That is a great question Jim! I think the 6000' runway plus flying up over the airport and staying there until all of the slow flight characteristics are mastered is a must along with all of the things Lynn posted. We still don't know what happened to Jerry's flight so until that bit of info comes out we won't know what we can do to take that out of the equation.Hey can I be your friend Jerry Marstall? Doh, wait already am!Bruce

---------- Original Message ----------
From: "L.J. French" <LJFrench@>
To: "Q-LIST@..." <Q-LIST@...>
Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] We can do better!++
Date: Sun, 9 Oct 2011 05:02:24 -0500


Jim,
Good question. When I get my normal PC going again I am going to forward the agenda that i used for my first few flights Since the beginning of time, the first flight landings have always been the most problematic. So my focus was to do enough airwork to setup a good landing. Things like knowing your aircrafts slow speed characteristics, pitch-buck tendencies, trim setup, aircraft setup that establishes the proper descent rate, etc. My first flight agenda called for a minimum of three simulated approaches before final landing. More if that's what was needed to get approach and round out right. The caveat here is that on first flights, the engine cooling / performance may not allow you to do as much airwork / landing setup as you would like.
Not saying my approach to all of this is the right way, but is simply one persons methodology.

Regards,
LJ French

Short & simple from my mobile

On Oct 8, 2011, at 8:24 PM, JMasal@ wrote:


When testing a new plane/pilot combination should you be focusing on the landing phase or touch and go's
or should you be doing your basic airwork???

j.



-----Original Message-----
From: jcrain2 <jcrain2@>
To: Q-LIST <Q-LIST@...>
Sent: Sat, Oct 8, 2011 7:00 pm
Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] We can do better!




Since we don't know what happened yet to Jerry's flight it would be interesting to know if it was actually pilot error or something came loose in flight or engine out. Jerry had already landed several times with some amount of success.
One of the points I want to make in the test flights at first is this....you need at least a 6000' runway (longer would be better). With that length you could have an engine out and still make the runway. Unless you are trying to fly a long downwind and "drag her in" to give you time to set up. My attitude is the Q should be set up every flight for an emergency landing "spiral down" from the "Perch". We won't know for awhile what happened to Jerry Brinkerhoff but Jerry Marstall's advice comes from lots of military experience and I have called him for advice when I needed help.
My 2 cents worth
Bruce Crain

__________________________________________________________
Penny Stock Jumping 3000%
Sign up to the #1 voted penny stock newsletter for free today!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/4e90e40a368238d0715st05vuc






[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



------------------------------------

Quickie Builders Association WEB site
http://www.quickiebuilders.org

Yahoo! Groups Links


__________________________________________________________
Penny Stock Jumping 3000%
Sign up to the #1 voted penny stock newsletter for free today!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/4e919f73adf698f0c17st05vuc

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



------------------------------------

Quickie Builders Association WEB site
http://www.quickiebuilders.org

Yahoo! Groups Links








[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]






[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Join main@Q-List.groups.io to automatically receive all group messages.