Slow flying

[kaz3g]

Relfy said: Over the past two years there have been 4 serious crashes out here in SW QLD involving aircraft flying low and slow.

 

Mustering is an extremely demanding pastime. Constant awareness of airspeed, angle of attack, angle of bank, flap settings and a whole heap of other things including what's on the ground are survival necessities.

 

I flew as observor for my mustering pilot for a couple of seasons and it was pretty breath-taking stuff. We used both a C150 and a C172 (preferred). The cattle were extremely wild and it sometimes took a lot of work to get them out of river beds or from beneath the trees and starting to run. Some of the older bullocks would go cranky, lie down and refuse to move. while the younger ones wanted to eat you alive.

 

As I said in a previous post, a very close friend died doing it and left a wife and four young sons behind. It was a hot day; too hot to be doing what he attempted. He was too low while too slow. And he would perhaps have made it if it wasn't for the big ghost gum. The prop is still imbedded in the fork about 30' feet up.

 

He did it while focusing on the possible loss of some unbranded stock across the adjacent boundary fence instead of on the job at hand. He did it despite being warned of the consequences of just such a set of conditions by another pastoralist who had also mustered and been frightened in the same C150A. It stalled in a steep left bank and flicked over the right wing. And it took about 4 seconds to kill him

 

Two of his boys were on motorbikes on the ground and saw it happen in 1982.

 

kaz

 

 

[Yenn]

It seems that several people posting here think slow, means low. I wa ssuggesting that we try slow flight to see what it feels like. Not low flight, but while low flight seems to be on the agenda, the main thing I learnt when I did the training years ago was to keep the ball centred. When you are flying low, you can see what the wind is doing to your flight path, so that with the wind coming from inside your turn you get the picture that you are skidding when you are not and vice versa. You must watch that ball or you will end up uncoordinated, which if you are slow is a recipe for disaster.

 

 

[Mazda]

Personally I think there is not enough emphasis on the initial training in slow flight and stalling. Exploring slow flight and recovery. Stalling clean, power off, power on, flap, approach, go around, turning, level, climbing, descending, accelerated. Recognising yaw. Wing drop recovery/incipient spin recovery. Stall stick position, holding it beyond the stall stick position, keeping straight with rudder. Getting comfortable being in stalled flight, and with the recovery.

 

Understanding the theory of factors affecting the stall. Load factor and what it means. Recognising situations which may lead to a stall. Preferably spin recognition and recovery, but that must be done in GA.

 

I've flown with commercial pilots who were only trained in stalling with a couple of demos and recovery as soon as there were symptoms. These people have never even been demonstrated the more advanced stalls, but that isn't good enough.

 

If you haven't been shown this sort of flying, go up with an instructor who can show you. Once you have been shown, do practise every now and then, but keep sufficient height under you.

 

I agree with Motz that not going below 1.5 stall speed in the circuit is counterproductive. What is wrong with the published figures that are used for P charts? What about when doing a short field approach? I can even think of one aircraft with an approach speed 20 knots below the 'normal' stall speed but it is a pretty specialised type and power must be kept above 87% during the approach on that one.

 

 

[farri]

Hey Yen,I understand now,that`s cause you`re going so damn fast all the time you don`t get to enjoy the scenery.

When I was racing,I came off motorbikes faster than I can put the Drifter down.

 

Frank.

[Relfy]

What an important topic and isn't it great to see so much info sharing and ideas from experienced pilots. That's the beauty of this site and to everyone who has contribued so far with the numerous detailed accounts and observations, awesome work. :thumb_up:

 

 

[Guest davidh10]

...As for P charts, the sad thing is that an awful lot of RAA pilots do not know what they are, and some GA pilots have forgotten how to use them. I am not even sure how much short field technique is taught in the RAA syllabus today when there seems to be a very large proponent of glide approach emphasised. ...David

I recall that someone in another thread said that many manufacturers of light aircraft (qualifying for RAA registration) do not produce "P Charts" for the aircraft. Certainly there is none for Airbourne models. My aircraft's "Pilot Manual" contains only flight envelope limitations:-

 

• Max manoeuvring load factor +4G (negative load factors prohibited).
   
   
  
• Max manoeuvring speed 70kn.
   
   
  
• Max bank angle 60 degrees.
   
   
  
• Stall speed at MTOW 35kn.
   
   
  
• "Approximately 2/3 of maximum take off power is considered comfortable for a minimum weight take off."
   
   
  
• Maximum ambient operating temperature 47 degrees.
   
   
  
• Maximum cross wind 12kn.
   
   
  
• Maximum wind strength 20kn.
   
   
  
• Maximum pitch angle 45 degrees (up or down).
   
   
  
• Best Glide 50kn.
   
   
  
• Takeoff safety speed 49kn
   
   
  
• Stalled spiral dives are prohibited. This situation can occur if the aircraft is held in a stall and a large roll rate is allowed to develop.
   
   
  

 

 

As you can see, these are just statistics and without actually experiencing the aircraft behaviour under different loadings, conditions and manoeuvres, these are just numbers.

 

There's no mention of the operating ceiling although I've been told that overseas, a trike has flown at FL230 and a Southern Microlight Club newsletter shows a photo taken of Mt Kosiosko from 11,000'. There's also no mention in the manual of the changed landing / takeoff distances or other effects of density altitude.

 

I'm happy to say that my RAA training did include stalls (powered and unpowered) as well as steep turns (balanced, ascending and descending) as well as low level steep "S turns" on glide approach to lose altitude. I was taught to do powered approaches except when simulating engine failure. Stalls in the 912 are relatively benign, but I can attest that if you hold it into a stall, it becomes unstable and will start to roll. Obviously at that point, you recover it to level flight before it approaches an incipient spiral dive. In steep turns in a strong gusty wind, it will tend to want to continue to increase the angle of bank and requires control input to counter the tendency.

 

Landing technique also included short field as well as down-wind take offs and landings. One lesson was devoted to cross-wind landings with 20G25kn wind on the ground at 35 degrees to the runway, and 40kn at circuit height (9 landings in an hour). This was just the conditions on the day which lent themselves to cross-wind landing training in strong gusty wind. I should note that the instructor did say that while it was safe, you would not normally fly in these conditions; That the conditions were going to be quite challenging and it was my decision as to whether we flew or not. I had sore arm muscles the next day.

 

So while I hear and read of people feeling RAA training wasn't adequate, I certainly don't feel that way. It was a good and thorough grounding from which to progress.

 

 

[poteroo]

In response to Davids' post #36 - the content of the GA low level training course, (NB, it's not a rating or endorsement), varies with flight schools. Each AOC controlled GA flight school is required to have their low level course in the Operations Manual and that's where you look for details. Of course, extra sequences get added, and a few less relevant ones get sidelined in the actual training. I vary the course slightly to provide more relevance according to what the pilot intends to 'do' with the training.

 

The basis of what CASA expects is in CAO 29.10 - but the course needs lots more than what's listed there. The minimum 5 hrs low level training roughly equates to the 1st 5 hrs of an ag rating. I've always trained down to 150 ft in terms of incipient stall recoveries, but don't let it get to much further than that, if the student isn't flying well in balance. Everyone is different, and it takes some time to 'settle' at LL, but I've found that those who handle it best are relaxed pilots - who fly the aircraft 'fingertip' and can keep their eyes 'outside' while their feet and hands work in co-ordination.

 

For the aspiring - don't even think of LL flight until you can fly your aircraft accurately, balanced and smoothly over a range of speeds, through every manoeuvre - without taking your eyes off the horizon. Once you get lower than 300ft or so, the 'workload' increases significantly, and you have to fly intuitively while thinking ahead.

 

Over the last 25 years I've done about 100 low levels in GA - but so far....not a single one in RAA. I think that might be telling us that there's really not much reason for RAA pilots to be down low, and that the LL endorsement - while broadening the RAA pilots' training options, isn't really a necessity and maybe it's going to be a white elephant?

 

happy days,

 

 

[Guest Crezzi]

a trike has flown at FL230[/url]

Its also been done more recently by RMH who towed a gang-glider to 25,000ft. A none standard trike though - the ones Simon Baker used were mostly standard & I think they still hold the record for taking off at from the highest altitude.

 

Sorry - back to topic

 

John

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

Dan,When we flew those types in the 1980s we were not allowed over 300'. Not to mention the Scout barely got there and it was seriously underpowered. Any breeze and you had serious control limitations. You could not fly a Scout unless you were a skinny bastard which we all were back in the 80s .

So the original 95-10 types,

 

Not above 300' agl,

 

Not over any public road

 

Other serious limitations

 

So you were REQUIRED to fly low then, but the machines later than the Scout had large control surfaces were single surface wings and flew very slow 30 knots and typically stalled below 20 knots. So they were low slow and safe in the early 80s.

 

You cannot say that of the modern double surface wing type of today so now we are not allowed below 500' agl without a low level endorsement which is appropriate given the different performance of typical double surface wings.

 

David

Dave is pretty well right with his comment here.

Seems to be some confusion with just what is 'SLOW'

 

The original 'minimums' were designed to fly at slow speeds but still required the same skills and knowledge to fly them at the lower end IE near their stall speeds as the higher performance aircraft that are around today.

 

Flying a Scout or other similar type at their 'slow' speeds at low altitude was not and is still not dangerous. What is dangerous is not knowing how any type of aircraft handles near it's stall speed. results can be the same. loss of control!

 

I saw a fatal accident occur at Airventure 08 when a KR2 was following a slower aircraft coming in to land they were gaining on the slower aircraft so they slowed up and began to start a series of S turns getting slower and widening their S turns to try and keep some seperation, unfortunatly the pilot of this slippery beast had not explored the aircrafts handeling capabilities at speeds near the stall and lost it and the aircraft flicked around and went in.

 

It does not matter what the stall speed is it is. Or the altitude you are flying at. What is important is knowing just how far it can slow up and maintain it's controllability.

 

A competent pilot will explore the aircrafts low speed handleing capabilities at a safe altitude so if they find them selves in a situation like the KR2 they will know whether they can continue the approach or execute a go around.

 

Don't try and tell me that the old minimums should not fly around at low hights. they were designed to fly at these hights. If people were pranging them it was because they did not know how to fly them. they were not crashing because they were flown at low speeds. 'Performance envelope' is the phrase.

 

Ozzie

 

 

[farri]

I saw a fatal accident occur at Airventure 08 when a KR2 was following a slower aircraft coming in to land they were gaining on the slower aircraft so they slowed up and began to start a series of S turns getting slower and widening their S turns to try and keep some seperation, Ozzie

S turns on final approach are not in themselves dangerous,they are manuevers I do regularly,I enjoy them and use them to loose excess height,which I prefer to have,for safety reason,when doing dead stick landings.

 

S turns on final approach are a good way to loose height,it is the way they are done that makes them dangerous and in Ozzies example,they were done incorrectly, the speed needs to be correctly maintained and the turns need to come ever closer to the centre line,not further appart as the AC is descending, if further appart,steeper turns will be required to bring the AC back to the centre line.

 

Frank.

 

 

[facthunter]

True..But...

 

The speed reduction is the problem. The 'S' turns just increase the distance flown so you can lose time (increase separation) that way. The distraction factor would not be ruled out here. Whatever you do, FLY YOUR aeroplane. You have also got to keep the other aircraft in view or the great uncertainty starts." Where is he now?" Not good. You can't park your plane and have a look around. Nev

 

 

[Guest davidh10]

...The 'S' turns just increase the distance flown so you can lose time (increase separation) that way. ...

While that may be the objective in the case of trying to stay behind a slower aircraft, used in the way Farri has indicated, you are doing steep turns so the vertical lift vector is reduced and you lose altitude more quickly.

 

Two different purposes. In the latter case you aren't trying to slow down, but to maintain a safe airspeed for the increased wing loading and imminent landing. The problem is in the former case the objective potentially clashes with the technique in bringing the wing loser to a stall, or as in the accident, into a stall.

 

 

[farri]

In any case,regardles of the purprpose for the manuever being used,the principals will never change.

 

Understand your skill limit....understand your aircraft and it`s limits.....understand the objective of the manuever being peformed and it`s limits..... Most importantly,always fly the AC and keep it flying,at all times.

 

Frank.

 

Ps, No matter what,If the AC has crashed,it was done incorrectly.