When is analytical just anal?

[Soleair]

Quite so, Yenn - it is the banking that gets you round the corner, not the turning of the handlebars.

 

But if you weld the handlebars in the straight ahead position your turns will be much larger radius, and I wouldn't suggest you try it on a public road. . .

 

Try this experiment to verify countersteering. While riding straight ahead & upright, hold your left hand flat & vertical on the aft face of the handlebar. Now push it gently forward, & see which way the bike starts to turn. Since your hand was flat, you could only have steered to the right, and yet - which way did the bike start to turn?

 

Bruce

 

 

[Oscar]

For a motorcycle: for normal riding, (not the weaving, which we normally do to warm up the tyres first thing away from a cold start), you use counter-steering to drop the bike into the turn and throttle to hold the angle of lean which dictates the radius of the turn. It becomes absolutely learned-muscle-response very quickly. If you are Casey Stoner, then you can use excess power to steer by exceeding the slip angle of the rear tyre ( he can two-wheel slide a motoGp bike at 260 kph, but the 99.99% rest of us are mere human beings and most of us wish to remain that way, rather than become thin red smears on the bitumen).

 

 

 

[Litespeed]

Casey is the super hero of motorcycles.

 

Cant find the footage but that guy can appear to defy physics.

 

Real racers slide their knee, Casey can slide on his elbow!

 

 

[Oscar]

(Disclaimer: I do not have sufficient experience in power flying to offer any useful opinion, but I gained a bit of experience in gliders).

 

The relevance of initiating and holding a turn on a motorcycle is not all that far removed from entering and holding a tight turn in a thermal in a glider ( though obviously the control inputs are very different.)

 

In a car - for 'normal' driving, not racing where you are juggling the limits of adhesion by playing power and steering input to achieve a balance between the rear and front end trajectories - a turn is a matter of turning the steering wheel to establish a rate of horizontal acceleration from the straight-ahead state to ensure that the trajectory of the car matches the road.

 

On a motorcycle, you have to make a sequence of control inputs to corner. The first of those is the 'out-turn', to cause the motorcycle to lean and initiate the turn (and no, when you are typically less than one-third of the total mass of the mechanism, it is NOT sufficient to lean inwards to get the bike to lean). The second, is the application of throttle to hold the bike at the desired angle of lean to circumscribe the arc required. The third, is a combination of easing the (slight) pressure on the handlebars (effectively - 'in-turning' ) and adding more throttle to return the motorcycle to vertical and thus ceasing to turn.

 

Most motorcyclists love riding 'twisties': winding roads where one is playing these inputs incessantly and the motorcycle is almost never vertical, just always leaned and transitioning. Just speed and acceleration is boring: any mug can buy a motorcycle for $25K that will blow a $350K Turbo Porsche off up to about 250 kph, just by twisting their right wrist. But every corner is different, and getting it all right for each corner is a visceral thrill, and every corner requires judgement of all of the control inputs mentioned above..

 

Thermalling: where you fly in tight circles at speeds rarely far above the stall - and often in close company with other gliders.

 

When you hit the edge of a thermal, the uprushing air kicks you outwards, lifts the wing that is in the uprushing air. So: first reaction, is you need to initiate a turn to get you into the column of rising air. Lots of aileron, plenty of rudder to counter adverse yaw. Depending on the speed you have in hand, either a slight push forward on the stick to counter the drag of the high deflections of ailerons and rudder, OR a pull back so you don't fly out of the thermal through inertia.

 

Any experienced glider pilot has a rough idea of the average diameter for best lift of a thermal, and will initially 'settle' into a turn of the appropriate rate - ailerons neutral, rudder neutral, rate of turn controlled by elevator with minuscule inputs of railroader and rudder to keep the turn balanced. Then you need to centre the thermal so you get the best possible rate of ascent throughout each circle, which you do MOSTLY by adjusting the rate of turn by elevator control, with rudder (first) and aileron (second) inputs to keep the turn balanced. You are then flying very close to the conditions for initiation of an incipient spin, so dancing all three control inputs is essential - even moreso if you are trying to climb out of a prolonged sink situation at 1,000 feet.

 

The similarities to the control adjustments needed on a motorcycle when executing a close-to-the-limit adhesion turn on a corner with subtly varying camber, ripples in the bitumen and the occasional pothole to be negotiated, is really remarkably cogent.

 

 

[facthunter]

Riding hands off is done by weight transfer and steering trail. Weld the steering and you need a pole like people on a wire. It's simply balancing, and you will never turn. Of course you don't have time to be thinking of all this when you are going riding or flying as it has become second nature by the time you are competent.

 

I don't think it is instinctive to land on one wheel when you have a crosswind. Where the geometry of the aircraft permits it, it's an effective technique which you can learn and understand the advantages of. It's also pretty handy if one undercarriage leg doesn't extend.

 

Oscar there are similarities with both but apart from leaning in turns I wouldn't want to take the analogy too far , with bikes and planes. There is a minimum speed for planes in any situation and there is a maximum speed for a bike in a corner, but they are not related very much. I do believe it is at it's best when you feel you are one with the machine, and can sense what it's doing. (when it's at it's limit).Nev

 

 

[frank marriott]

If you are using right rudder to start a left turn.......I'll pass thank you.

 

I've been riding m/cycles and bicycles since primary school and didn't know I couldn't ride. (Probably don't know how to fly either but been getting away with that for 36years also)

 

 

[facthunter]

Sorry I don't get the rudder comment. When you roll into the turn you use aileron to do that, causing aileron drag on the wing with most lift ie the outer one,(RH for a left turn situation). The ball is going to drop to the left side (skid) so left rudder apply? to centre it. Once in the turn the stick is near centre when maintaining the turn so less rudder needed? Nev

 

 

[Oscar]

Um, Frank, no: I didn't say you out turn on rudder. I think we all understand the necessity for (in-turn) rudder to counter adverse yaw from strong aileron deflections.

 

 

[facthunter]

I think Frank was intimating if we suggested right rudder to start a left turn, as in a bike, he would let that pass. I thought I might have doubled up on my last medication, trying to figure it out. Nev

 

 

[old man emu]

Hmmm. Getting back to topic.

 

I had a thought this morning while mowing my grass.

 

Do fire fighters carry out a risk assessment relevant to each fire they attend before they roll out the hoses and start squirting water?

 

OME

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

...I had a thought this morning while mowing my grass...

...who needs TM? Doing boring, repetitious tasks like mowing is the best time to solve the world's problems and come up with great new inventions.

 

...Do fire fighters carry out a risk assessment relevant to each fire they attend before they roll out the hoses and start squirting water?

OME

Rescue personnel are supposed to conduct a risk assessment before every operation. When that includes filling in bloody forms I give the game away!

 

 

[old man emu]

Victim: "Help! I'm hanging from this cliff face, holding on to the roots of a shrub, hoping they won't give way resulting in my plummeting to my death on the rocks below!"

 

Rescue Worker: "Don't worry - I'm coming to the top of the cliff now."

 

WH&S Inspector: "Before you go near the edge of the cliff, fill out this multi-page risk assessment. Forward the original to WH&S; the duplicate is to be filed at your usual workplace, and you keep the triplicate for three years."

 

Rescue Worker: "But the victim is weakening, and is likely to fall before I do this paperwork."

 

WH&S Inspector: "Rules is rules."

 

Victim: "AHHhhhhhhhhhh! (Dull thud)

 

Rescue Worker: "Don't bother - it's too late now."

 

WH&S Inspector: "Yahoo! Another life saved by WH&S rules."

 

Rescue Worker: "Life saved???? He's dead!"

 

WH&S Inspector: "But you are not. Our goal is to prevent workplace death and injury, and we've done it here today."

 

Rescue Worker: "Well, we had better go recover the body."

 

WH&S Inspector: "Before you go near the edge of the cliff, fill out this multi-page risk assessment. Forward the original to WH&S; the duplicate is to be filed at your usual workplace, and you keep the triplicate for three years."

 

OME

 

 

[Oscar]

OME: I can only state what I know as a member of the RFS, but yes, there are several points for RFS members before they start squirting water ( and, since these are humans doing it, it is NOT infallible).

 

The first - for any major bushfire situation - is the briefing session at the assembly point before 'the wagons roll': latest weather forecast, current flame conditions, fuel load information, comms. information, general strategy and disposition of resources. Recording of information about every crew member going out: what unit etc. If that's undertaken by RFS crews exclusively, it takes maybe 30 minutes; if the incident is under the control of Sparks and Wildfires, then it can take an hour or more, but let's not go there..

 

Then there is the 'at the scene' assessment undertaken by the incident controller / senior Captain plus each unit chief. The 'line to defend' is established according to the terrain, wind, fuel load and most especially, the availability of a line of retreat. Specific roles assigned to each unit, lines of retreat, local water resource locations. You don't start unrolling hoses until the truck is set for 'evacuation'. Generally, units operate in loose pairs, so that an equipment failure on one unit can be covered by another unit ( though I will admit, that that is not 100% when one tanker has to leave to re-fill while another is still operational - but local conditions are generally closely observed: If it's dicey, both units pull back.).

 

Incident controller evaluates when to rest individual units according to the conditions. At the end of a 'shift' - which is supposed to be no more than eight hours but I've been on the ground for 12 and more, for several days on end - the 'shift' returns to the assembly point for a de-brief. Those photos you see of RFS/CFA etc. crews asleep in their grimy gear beside the trucks: that is at the end of a 'shift', and while they are resting, the incident controllers are assessing the de-briefing information, updating the weather, refining the ongoing strategy.

 

I belong to a unit at the bottom edge of the Blue Mountains National Park: 'Paling Yards' - which is on the Taralga - Oberon road. As it happens, we are the unit most frequently tasked with protecting Bindook, and I've been there at least four times (plus one going past to attend a fire near Yerranderie!) - once as part of a 10-plus tankers shift - the 2001 'Black Christmas' fires, three times as a solo unit - but we KNOW Bindook... (and we damn well know some bastard was deliberately lighting fires there.)

 

Shortly after the 2001 fires, our unit conducted a risk assessment for every property in our area of responsibility - where the owners (some of whom were absolutely negative to hazard reduction work) were advised that if they did NOT co-operate with both the risk assessment AND agree to undertake at least minimum hazard reduction to ensure we could get to and protect their house etc., we WOULD NOT enter their property. You might think that Draconian: some of the properties have drives only passable in a serious - not faux - 4wd, and we needed to know things like combustible/explosive fuels stored on site etc.

 

I don't believe RFS personnel are 'pussies'; try being on a Category 1 tanker with 3-4,000 litres of water, being dragged up a hill by a heavy dozer because the hill is too steep for tyre traction even on a 6 x 4, having to spray the edge of the track as you go to keep the fire front from blistering the paint on the Cat. 1. Forget the wankers with six spotlights on the roof of their Hilux with the lifted suspension, tanker bush driving is bloody serious business and we had to pass rigorous tests to get a 'bush driver' endorsement. We have anywhere from one other to six other people in the vehicle to consider and our FIRST responsibility is to ensure their safety. The 'cowboys' - which includes drivers of either gender - don't get allowed control.

 

I could probably spend another hour typing on the risk assessment undertaken for structural, vehicle etc. fire situations, including dealing with air-bag-equipped vehicles, HAZMAT notified vehicles, electric-power vehicles, propane and other explosive tanked fuel response strategy, live high-voltage wires etc.

 

The thing is: with proper training, much of this assessment is done extremely quickly, and most people might not notice. EVERYBODY is trained to at least some degree before they are let out on a fire ground, so communication can be very fast indeed. One person shouting 'power line' and pointing, is enough to alert the rest of the team to a danger.

 

If we in aviation operate safely, it's not much different. We expect - for instance - that calling 'Clear Prop' alerts anybody who ought to be allowed onto the apron, to get the f$$k clear. It is 'risk assessment' before starting the engine.

 

But humans are humans... About my second lesson in power flying with Trevor Bange, I did the pre-start checks, called 'Clear Prop', and was reaching for the starter button when he said: 'STOP'. He required me to unlock the door, open the door, lean out, call 'Clear Prop' in a very loud voice, then close and lock the door before going anywhere near the starter. He explained that several years previously, a student had called 'Clear prop' and hit the starter - and a very surprised head appeared over the top of the cowl, very damn close to the prop as it fired into life. The NUMPTY had been squatting down and looking at the noseleg tyre ( for why, I do not know).

 

Risk Assessment does not eliminate risk per se. What it does do, is provide information on which humans can base decisions to undertake lesser (or greater) exposure to risk. Some humans apparently don't get their synapses working even WITH useful information: for them., the Darwin Awards beckon.

 

 

[Guest Howard Hughes]

When is analytical just anal?

 

Most of the time!

 

 

 

 

[Nightmare]

My 2 cents worth: I think knowing the procedures and the so called right ways, prepares you for aviation until you get the feel for it and understand it. It gives you that foundation so that you know what the norm is so that you can fly safely. More importantly, why you are flying safely. So hopefully, if you are about to make a bad decision, you have the knowledge and the experience to know why it is a bad decision so you can counter it. You don't get that without instruction, procedures and practice, in my opinion. Being analytical goes hand in hand with flying, isn't it part of "Airmanship"?

 

 

[old man emu]

Oscar,

 

Thanks for your very informative post. I suppose I'm relying on my experiences from before the days of OH&S and its progeny WH&S.

 

I was in now way trying to deny the courage and devotion to duty of all Emergency workers.

 

OME

 

 

[Oscar]

OME - not in ANY way suggesting you were criticising RFS, SES etc. people.

 

When we first came to live at Hill Top in 1965, a fire in the Burragorang was 'all hands to the McLeod tools and backpacks, down the hill, go for it' The lady who ran the local phone exchange ( yes, we had wind-up phones here in 1965, through to about 1970) was the de-facto 'incident controller', the locals got instantly onto baking scones and cakes and making infinite depth urns of hot tea... In the 1968 fires, we nearly lost the place here: it came to within about 500 metres when the wind reversed and bought rain. I have some stories about that fire - but not germaine to this thread.

 

The point I am trying to make is: - yes, there is serious attention paid to risk assessment before emergency crews are sent in - normally, at least. It isn't always 'perfect', but it's vastly better than it was even 30 years ago.

 

 

[Oscar]

Good Grief - talk about timing! : says it all way better than me: http://www.canberratimes.com.au/victoria/hero-firefighters-speaks-volumes-about-society-rather-than-the-firefighters-themselves-20160110-gm2s3e.html

 

 

[recflyer]

there is lots of discussion, on this site and in magazines, about techniques for flying, crosswind landings, engine failures and so on. I wonder how much of the theory is really applied in practice. How many pilots are thinking about techniques and how many just fly the plane?When we ride a push bike or a motorbike or drive a car, we don't think about technique, we just drive. It comes automatically from experience and we do it without really thinking. I find that I fly the same way. I can't really explain my technique for cross wind landings, I just do them. I find that the aircraft always lines up straight when I round out, as if there is no cross wind at ground level. I must be doing something right but would be hard pressed to explain what it is. I just fly the plane. And at take off, there is a speed where the plane starts flying, I don't really need to look at the ASI.

 

Thank Dog I have never had an EFATO but I think I would just fly the plane as circumstances allowed. I don't THINK I would do something silly, but will never know til it happens.

 

So how much of the endless analysis that we read is helpful? Is it only helpful to beginners? Are there two types of pilots? Perhaps there are the anal ones, who have all the performance charts in their heads, and the bike riders who just balance and go. I am sure that test pilots and fighter pilots need to be the anal type, but are they are rare breed? Which type ar you?

Hi. A very interesting question definitely worth pondering.

 

I think being a perfectionist definately would help in certain aspects of aviation.

 

I think the endless analysis and arguament over minor points in aviation (although valuable from a lessons learnt and technical point of view) can serve to be a deterrent to new pilots.

 

I would also put the point forward that not all pilots need to be perfectionists or 'anal' as you put it to stay alive in aviation although it certainly helps to reduce some of the risks. Unfortunately luck regardless of skill is still a huge factor as there is so much we can't control.

 

The above being said being a perfectionist is an excellent trait for a student and would set you up for success.

 

 

[Jabiru7252]

Quote : "When we first came to live at Hill Top in 1965, a fire in the Burragorang was 'all hands to the McLeod tools and backpacks, down the hill, go for it' The lady who ran the local phone exchange ( yes, we had wind-up phones here in 1965, through to about 1970) was the de-facto 'incident controller', the locals got instantly onto baking scones and cakes and making infinite depth urns of hot tea... In the 1968 fires, we nearly lost the place here: it came to within about 500 metres when the wind reversed and bought rain. I have some stories about that fire - but not germaine to this thread. : End Quote.

 

 

Arrh yes, These were the days when men were made of steel and ships were made of wood and small furry creatures from Alpha Centauri were real small furry creatures from Alpha Centauri.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[ct-8003-ms]

There was research done some years ago with driver training. They took two groups of novices. One was put into a classroom environment while the other was put directly into vehicles in a flat paddock and told to drive. The first group took an average (if I remember correctly) of about 12 hours to learn to drive while the second took two. In other words, practical experience is absolutely critical to learning. It makes sense of the theory which is cumbersome and convoluted in aviation. Interesting that some medical schools also inverted their courses so that the early years were more focussed on clinical work with more of the theoretical occurring in later years.

 

 

[facthunter]

Can I look forward to your flying school using your conclusions doing a better job than the current approach? It's not theory OR practical. One or the other? It's both intertwined and related to where you are at.. It should be explanation, demonstration, practice and assessment/debrief. The problem with the theory in aviation is it's not clear and there are some errors, but without enough knowledge of what you are doing , the outcome will be fairly predictable in aviation as ignorance doesn't go well with getting airborne. Your luck is unlikely to hold out long enough to enable you to learn without guidance and a proper programme of learning. You won't even know what you don't know. Nev

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

Right on, CT. Often the best training is to get in (under supervision) and do it.

 

Inefficiency creeps in as soon as any field of human endeavour becomes a meal ticket. When academics got control of training, many teachers and nurses spent months in theory before seeing anything of the practical side of their chosen career. Lots more Uni staff, but is the training any better?

 

 

[pmccarthy]

My first job was as an underground mine surveyor. I was on a Cadetship so just worked as a chainman and surveyor while I did subjects. I reckon 90% of what I learned in three years was on the job. Mates who did apprenticeships said the same, they learned on the job and most of tech was a waste of time.

 

 

[ct-8003-ms]

I agree completely - I wasn't trying to say one method was better than the other. What I believe though, is that the theoretical process is more readily absorbed along with the experiential. My problem with my own training the quagmire of jargon and acronyms that got in the way of learning. What I remember most clearly was realising what a lot of the information about during circuit training. For instance, it's probably a lot easier for a novice to understand the prop reaction on take-off through the use of stick and rudder. There's a reaction to be countered ... the explanation then seems to me to be a relatively simple matter.