Attention Chip Gibbons

[Greg Bockelman]

Hey Chip.

Do you look at the red board much? Take a look at this thread:

http://forums.aopa.org/showthread.php?t=18233&page=13

Specifically post #243. Don't wade through the rest of the crap there. I get the feeling this guy does not know what he is talking about. But I don't know enough about aerobatics to know for sure. I would like for someone with experience in this matter to shut him up if he is wrong.

 

[gibbons]

Greg,

No, I don't go to the red board very much. After reading that thread I remember why.

I'll refrain from commenting on any specific posts on the red board, and I'm not about to insert myself into the discussion over there. I'll be happy to give an opinion about any specific question you might have, and I'm really sorry nobody on the red board ever addressed the initial question about the use of ailerons to pick up a wing in a stall (or if they did I missed it - I may have dozed off a few times).

This much I do know. If you, Ron, Bruce, and Lance all tell me I'm wrong about something then there's a very good chance I'm wrong about it. No matter how smart I think I am or how loud I yell. Wasn't there an instructor over there a long time ago who never understood that?

 

[mikea]

That's the guy who insists there is a loophole in the new "any traffic" no-no in the AIM.

We had a know-it-all on the red board before. He got real quiet once enough of the inevitable bad things happened to him. It took a lot because he did have a ROM brain. He posted a few stories about the early ones he thought were no big deal. He also knew that Ron and Bruce were wrong. He's still there but you wouldn't know it.

 

[Greg Bockelman]

Chip, I understand fully about your not wanting to get involved over there. I don't know enough about inverted aerodynamics to know whether or not someone would actually know what he is talking about or if he is just blowing hot air. And I never intended for you to get involved in that fray.

Anyway, if I can formulate an intelligent question, I will be sure to ask.

 

[flyersfan31]

Oh my, curiosity just got the better of me so I took a peek. I never thought tempers could get so heated over a discussion of spin recovery techniques.

Sigh.

 

[Greg Bockelman]

Oh my, curiosity just got the better of me so I took a peek. I never thought tempers could get so heated over a discussion of spin recovery techniques.

Sigh.

Sorry I brought it up. But I can't seem to let things alone.

 

[Areeda]

Greg,

Good call to ask Chip.

But I think the least of his problems is the accuracy of his position.

There is a blessing and a curse to being young and knowing you have all the information you need.

I hope he realizes it's a fallacy before it's too late.

Jeo

 

[gibbons]

Greg,

Here's what I think he's saying in the post:

If you're flying along S/L you have a positive angle of attack of, say, 9 degrees. So if you are inverted S/L you might think of the angle of attack as a negative number - negative 9 degrees. If so, then...

Rather than a critical angle of attack of 17 degrees, the critical angle of attack would be negative 17 degrees and you would pitch to negative 20 degrees and stall the wing. In that case then...

You must change the angle of attack from negative 20 degrees to negative 17 degrees to break the stall. Moving from -20 to -17 is an increase in numeric value, therefore he claims an increase in angle of attack to break an inverted stall. At least I think that's his argument.

For my part, I think of all angles of attack as positive numbers - push or pull, inverted or right-side-up. Maneuvers are either "inside" or "outside", inverted or upright.

 

[Keith Lane]

That's the guy who insists there is a loophole in the new "any traffic" no-no in the AIM.

We had a know-it-all on the red board before. He got real quiet once enough of the inevitable bad things happened to him. It took a lot because he did have a ROM brain. He posted a few stories about the early ones he thought were no big deal. He also knew that Ron and Bruce were wrong. He's still there but you wouldn't know it.

And there was also HWMNBN

 

[Diana]

Sorry I brought it up. But I can't seem to let things alone.

Greg, I understand. The guy is partially right, and partially wrong. We all hate that some people don't know that. It's tough to try to make HIM see that. I don't think he's worth my time or effort.

 

[Greg Bockelman]

For my part, I think of all angles of attack as positive numbers - push or pull, inverted or right-side-up. Maneuvers are either "inside" or "outside", inverted or upright.

That is how I look at it too.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Wow.

Greg, thanks for the reminder of why I don't go to the red board.

Why does anyone go to the red board? It almost looks to be worse than the old yellow board days.

And, thanks to everyone here for making this such an excellent community.

 

[Diana]

Greg, thanks for the reminder of why I don't go to the red board.

Why does anyone go to the red board? It almost looks to be worse than the old yellow board days.

Let's not characterize the "red board" by one person or one thread. Let's keep an open mind. There are some great discussions there and some wonderful pilots there. And there are a lot of student pilots on the "red board" who benefit from some wise and experienced people. It's not always about what we get from it, but sometimes what we give.

And, btw, is that not where most of us met in the first place?

 

[gprellwitz]

Let's not characterize the "red board" by one person or one thread. Let's keep an open mind. There are some great discussions there and some wonderful pilots there. And there are a lot of student pilots on the "red board" who benefit from some wise and experienced people. It's not always about what we get from it, but sometimes what we give.

And, btw, is that not where most of us met in the first place?

It's where I met you! And then you brought me here (for the Babe's board, IIRC). One thing I like about Red is that there's a greater volume of people there. But that's also a detriment at times. This is where I spend most of my time, and I occasionally pop over there. There are a lot of great people in both locations.

 

[Diana]

It's where I met you! And then you brought me here (for the Babe's board, IIRC). One thing I like about Red is that there's a greater volume of people there. But that's also a detriment at times. This is where I spend most of my time, and I occasionally pop over there. There are a lot of great people in both locations.

Grant, you are a breath of fresh air. You are on the top of my list of people to fly with at Gaston's.

 

[gprellwitz]

Grant, you are a breath of fresh air. You are on the top of my list of people to fly with at Gaston's.

Thanks!

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Let's not characterize the "red board" by one person or one thread. Let's keep an open mind. There are some great discussions there and some wonderful pilots there. And there are a lot of student pilots on the "red board" who benefit from some wise and experienced people. It's not always about what we get from it, but sometimes what we give.

And, btw, is that not where most of us met in the first place?

True, true... But didn't most of us meet on the "yellow board?" I know it's technically the same, but since they've been promoting it, it's almost too much to handle. For me, anyway. Not enough hours in the day. I'd rather be flying.

I do wish we had more students here.

 

[Ed Guthrie]

That is how I look at it too.

The guy quite clearly switched frame of reference; he chose aircraft centric to discuss angle of attack when most (or some) of us prefer earth centric. Interestingly enough, Bruce C.'s claim in another post within that thread that the rudder input for spin recovery is reversed when inverted is correct in an earth centric frame of reference, but most (or some) of us prefer aircraft centric for that particular situation/discussion. In an aircraft centric frame Bruce's statement is false. There is no foul on either count, really, but there sure is a whole lot of anger aimed at the new guy for choosing a less popular reference frame--and the guy even was polite enough to make the reference frame quite clear from the start. By contrast, no one ripped Bruce C. a new navel for his choice of a less popular reference frame, and Bruce C. never made it obvious that he'd made a switch.

The obvious question: Why the dual standard?

BTW, Diana, if you can find a "partially wrong" (technical error) in the piece (post #243) please let me know. I don't mean is there an issue regarding frame of reference choice, obviously there is, but a true aerodynamics technical error. FWIW, I read it very carefully (and, mind you, that means also read it very painfully) and I didn't see a significant aerodynamics error. By "significant" I mean one that lept past my brain's pain receptors--I might have missed a minor nuance what with all my nurons screaming as they were.

 

[bbchien]

The guy quite clearly switched frame of reference; he chose aircraft centric to discuss angle of attack when most (or some) of us prefer earth centric. Interestingly enough, Bruce C.'s claim in another post within that thread that the rudder input for spin recovery is reversed when inverted is correct in an earth centric frame of reference, but most (or some) of us prefer aircraft centric for that particular situation/discussion. In an aircraft centric frame Bruce's statement is false. There is no foul on either count, really, but there sure is a whole lot of anger aimed at the new guy for choosing a less popular reference frame--and the guy even was polite enough to make the reference frame quite clear from the start. By contrast, no one ripped Bruce C. a new navel for his choice of a less popular reference frame, and Bruce C. never made it obvious that he'd made a switch.

The obvious question: Why the dual standard?

BTW, Diana, if you can find a "partially wrong" (technical error) in the piece (post #243) please let me know. I don't mean is there an issue regarding frame of reference choice, obviously there is, but a true aerodynamics technical error. FWIW, I read it very carefully (and, mind you, that means also read it very painfully) and I didn't see a significant aerodynamics error. By "significant" I mean one that lept past my brain's pain receptors--I might have missed a minor nuance what with all my nurons screaming as they were.

Ed, I did switch and he didn't pick up on it. Thus, I conclude he has no idea what he's talking about.

I was in a number of inverted spins in Naval primary training (T34) and got disoriented. The regimen is, when confused, you put in what you think is anti-spin but if it isn't working you put in the reverse. I was disoriented 3/5 times. I did pass.

The problem with GS is that he has never experienced a spin. He's talking out of his left ear.

Unlike GS, some years ago when you had complaints/problems with the CFI community, you did the obvious thing- you became a CFI . Now you know. This young man is sort of like the Larson cartoon with the cow on the sofa- "It's not me, it's everyone else ".

In fact, there are many aircraft, mostly military and heavily wing loaded, in which you put in pro-spin aileron for recovery. The F14 comes to mind. This young man discounts "experience" entirely. When you have experience, as you have discovered in the RIGHT seat, the way you frame the question and perception is completely different.

My contention is that once inverted, the correct input I only have a 60% chance of getting....and the average GA pilot has about 50%- exactly random. Thus the discussion of inverted AOA is a bit of mental...er...mastur_ation. It didn't even occur to GS that you could go inverted. Five posts at at time and complete disregard even for Greg Bockleman....rather reminds me of the E3 I allowed to bust himsefl some 32 years ago. The dual standard is because his posts are full of personal attacks....people who actually help other people are generally held in better regard.

And as for orientation after a snap roll- I would need a couple hours of dual again before I was comfortable with that. In the words of Duane Cole, "find the ground, find the ground, find the ground". I think I am ground centric, that's what I see going by the front window.

 

[mikea]

And there was also HWMNBN

Dat's da guy. I heard rumors about more than one takedowns of his notches. We all knew it was inevitable.

 

[scooter]

I do wish we had more students here.

Dang! I just found this board from a link over on the "Red" board.

Although technically no longer a student (PP as of Aug 06), I'm happy to be the mascot student for this board! (is this the "Blue" board?).

Treat me like a sponge, and I'll soak up everything thrown at me .

To help everyone get started, here are a few aviation things I need to know urgently:

- How to make $1M without working, so that I can afford my aviation habit, and buy a plane.
- How to lose weight and improve health and fitness, without getting off the couch, since I spend so much time reading these forums.
- How to find a hottie that loves aviation and will date a fat couch potato.
- How to become invisible to the DC ADIZ I live in, so as to avoid the nuisance of dealing with it.
- How to get my instrument ticket without spending the time and $.

Thanks for all your help with my learning...
Scooter.

 

[gismo]

Ed, I did switch and he didn't pick up on it. Thus, I conclude he has no idea what he's talking about.

GS seems to be very stubborn WRT frame of reference and/or conventional/accepted labels generally insisting his concepts are "more valid" than others. This more than anything (with the possible exception of a generally abrasive approach to "dicussion") hascontributed to the confusion on that thread.

I was in a number of inverted spins in Naval primary training (T34) and got disoriented. The regimen is, when confused, you put in what you think is anti-spin but if it isn't working you put in the reverse. I was disoriented 3/5 times. I did pass.

FWIW, determining the yaw direction in an inverted spin (inverted spins are something I've only done a handful of times and mostly inadvertantly) never seemed to be as difficult in reality as I expected it to be. All I've had to do is use the rudders to stop the movement of whatever I could see past the nose of the plane, be it clouds or ground. If the stuff out there is moving to the right then I'd step on the right rudder to stop it. This may not work for everyone, but it sure makes sense to me both in theory and in practice. And IMO if you are confused about which rudder to step on, I'd recommend centering the rudder to see if the plane will recover by itself. With the plane upside down there's usually a lot of rudder and vertical stab hanging down well into the clean airflow so it makes sense to me that neutral rudder would be sufficient given enough time (and altitude). It's my opinion that the confusion over the proper recovery from an inverted spin is the opposite from normal aileron/rudder coodination combined with the tendency to apply correction based on bank direction as learned in upright spins. That coupled with the bigger issue of determining whether you are upright or inverted when spinning in a rather nose down attitude plus the generally disorienting issue of simply being in an unfamiliar situation is likely to preclude many pilot from "figuring it out", but if you always step on the rudder on the same side as any objects are moving away from or even more simply, use the rudders to steer at something in front of you, the yaw will be stopped.

Of course you still must unload the wings and my technique there is to just aim for zero vertical force on my body. If I'm pushed into the seat I push on the stick, and if I'm hanging from the belts I pull. Once the plane is flying again you can find the ground, roll upright, and level out.

So Chip (or any other acrobatic pilot), does that make sense?

 

[gismo]

To help everyone get started, here are a few aviation things I need to know urgently:

- How to make $1M without working, so that I can afford my aviation habit, and buy a plane.

Rob a bank or go to Vegas and get lucky.

- How to lose weight and improve health and fitness, without getting off the couch, since I spend so much time reading these forums.

Learn to fly a human powerd aircraft. Or hook a generator to a stationary bicycle and use that to power your computer.

- How to find a hottie that loves aviation and will date a fat couch potato.

Not sure, but chance are you won't find one here (hotties that love couch potatoes).

- How to become invisible to the DC ADIZ I live in, so as to avoid the nuisance of dealing with it.

Move to the midwest.

- How to get my instrument ticket without spending the time and $.

Xerox some other pilot's and change the name.

Thanks for all your help with my learning...
Scooter.

Any time I can help.

 

[gibbons]

So Chip (or any other acrobatic pilot), does that make sense?

Does to me.

As you say... stop the yaw and break the stall. True inverted or upright. I was taught to pay attention to the shoulder I'm spinning into. Upright left hand spin will be spinning into my left shoulder (the blur is going from left to right). Once you figure that out you can step on the opposite rudder. This works inverted or upright. Very much like the technique you use.

All I've had to do is use the rudders to stop the movement of whatever I could see past the nose of the plane, be it clouds or ground. If the stuff out there is moving to the right then I'd step on the right rudder to stop it.

I would only add for those who haven't done much spin recovery that you must be patient. Some airplanes will have a huge amount of energy built up in the spin and it will take a while for the correct rudder input to stop the rotation. I've had more than one student flailing away at the rudders, first one and then the other, trying to make something happen. Give it a couple of turns to react.

 

[Dave Siciliano]

Greg:

You have my admiration. I wouldn't have had your patience. I just don't understand why some of these folks think they are "owed" an explaination! I don't owe them a thing, and anyone flying for a living is probably accumulating his entire experience level or more every year!

Anyway, it was nice of you, Gunny and some others to try and reason with him. Not my bag. One of the reasons I thought about getting my CFI and didn't. The biggest reason was I just don't have the time to do it as well as I would like. But, somewhere in the back of my mind was dealing with Mr. dogma, that knew more than anyone and I would have to fly with him/her.

Flying is fun for me; I have a very demanding full time job that is work; don't want flying to become work.

Good on you!

Best,

Dave

 

[bbchien]

Greg: You have my admiration. I wouldn't have had your patience. I just don't understand why some of these folks think they are "owed" an explaination! I don't owe them a thing, and anyone flying for a living is probably accumulating his entire experience level or more every year!

You have mine as well. But I think the guy in person would be judged hypomanic, given his constant distortion and instant retorts, x5 per go around. I think we all need to stand down. We're not doing him any favors.

 

[SkyHog]

anyone flying for a living is probably accumulating his entire experience level or more every year!

Yep. The youngins don't know squat about aviation. If they disagree with someone with many hours, they are the cancer that ruins aviation.



Just for once, I'd like to see some people with massive experience actually be able to hold it in during a discussion. Seems all the old time pilots do is fall back on their MASSIVE amount of experience when someone with say, 60 hours, might actually be right.

edit: No offense to professional pilots, but how can what you're saying possibly be true? Number of hours, yes, but experience? A professional pilot presses buttons on an autopilot, relies on someone else to make decisions that concern the safety of their flight, and often fly the same routes everyday.

A student or newly minted PPL is out learning new things every time he flies. Flying by hand, learning how the airplane functions. I say there's no comparison.

 

[jesse]

I've found the more experience you get the less you feel the need to try to argue with those that are hopeless. I'd rather fly an airplane over having an arguement with some idiot over the great intraweb. The thing you have to understand about the internet is it's way too hard to ever agree with another person. There are a few people that didn't care for me, nor did I care for them, until I met them in person.

It would be foolish not to listen to the advice of the high time pilots. I'm not saying they are always right (most of the time they are). I'm saying at least listen. You can adapt your technique and procedures to suit yourself.

There are low time and high time pilots out there that hold this attiude that they are perfect. These are the people I just screen out. No reason to argue with them. None of us are anywhere near perfect. We are human. There will always be human error.

I don't participate in the red boards because I think I would never get anything done. This forum takes plenty of my time as it is. There are a few people on this forum that obviously have a lot of experience and skill. If they say something I'm going to listen 99.999% sure they know better than I do. Hell, It's free experience handed to you.. Some of their advice has led me to adapting my procedures. Might save my life some day.

 

[SkyHog]

I agree Jesse, but that doesn't mean I need to see "I have so many hours" thrown out every time there's a disagreement between someone with lots of hours and one without it.

There are a lot of high time pilots that I think know a lot more than myself, but lately, all I've been seeing are a lot of high time pilots that think they are gods gift to aviation because they are high time pilots.

I am a strong believer in respecting elders, but come on now, my nephews and niece have to respect me, that doesn't mean everytime there's a disagreement I say "Well, wait until you're older." Its as frustrating for a kid to hear it as it is for a low-time pilot to hear it. The best way to prove to us (low timers) that we're wrong is to show us with citations or elsewise, not say "Its because you're inexperienced. I have more experience in my little finger than you have in your entire body. Now stop bugging me, kiddo."

edit: That said, I agree that when you meet someone in person, it all goes away. I have nothing but respect for the people I've met in person (save one) so far from here, because they are not quite so overt in their "I know everthing"-ness.

 

[BudRiggs]

A student or newly minted PPL is out learning new things every time he flies.

The same is true of professional pilots. Every flight.

 

[Dave Siciliano]

Nick:

You couldn't have read the thread. People tried all sorts of reason with a guy that is relatively new to aviation: military guys; CFIs, guys that fly more each year than he has in his entire experience. No matter what was said, he knew more.

I find this a lot of places. There are people truly trying to learn, asking probing questions and eager for answers. There are guys that aren't the sharpest knives in the drawer that just "know". They don't need anyone to tell them. Guy has no acro experience and is arguing about inverted stall/spin recovery with guys that teach this stuff and have been for years.

As Jesse said, I usually try. If the other party is just to 'smart' to learn anything, I don't have time for him/her any more. If this ain't fun, I'm on to other things. As I said, I have p l e n t y of work and projects I get paid well to do; don't need someone with no experience and an attitude.

I deal with it with city staff; at some point, I just call the city leader or my attorney--tired of ignorance. I deal with it with contractors: job's done--pay me.


Well, look at all the stuff on the plans that's not complete: Oh, that stuff don't matter.

What about the contract you signed; Oh, that's just legal stuff.

Well the city ain't going to approve it: Oh, they don't know what they're doing.

We don't use this guy again.

Some I can be nice with and explain; some I have to turn over to my 800 pound gorilla (when I can't just ignore them). They cost me a lot of time, aggravation and money.

So, I apply the same standard here, except, I'm here because I want to be--don't need to be. This guy was blunt, confrontational and directly rude to guys that have been places and done things he will probably never have the chance to. They've been there, done it, teach it and written books: don't matter.



I hear ya; I don't just listen to anyone, but can pick up pretty quickly when someone knows what they're talking about. Those folks I listen to.



Best,

Dave

 

[SkyHog]

I gotcha, Dave,

I didn't read the entire thread in question, because that guy was irritating me just as much as he irritating y'all. You just struck a chord with me by throwing the experience card. I tend to be that irritating guy that knows he's right when he's not sometimes. People can prove me wrong, and I accept it then. An example of how a high-timer should deal with irritating pukes like me can be found in the thread where Ron and I disagree on the checkride from the ground thing. He never threw out "Well, in so many hours as an Instructor, I've never seen it, so there." He actually showed an FAA order that did it.

That almost shut me up (except there's a bit more, but this is a different thread). I didn't mean to call you out there, Dave, I'm still just a bit frustrated with being blown off for being inexperienced so often.

 

[bbchien]

Nick, what really irritated me was that after all that, he hasn't ever spun an aircraft. I never occurred to him that you might enter a spin over the top.

I was taught Chips's "which shoulder is it" methodology but I still became disoriented often enough that I learned to use ground reference. But really what happens in the T34 is if your first input was incorrect, you reverse it. Stop the rotation. Not terribly professional but I'm not a professional in inverted spin recovery....though I done it about a dozen times.

It's not the experience thing. It's talking about something like an AUTHORITY on the subject with NO experience.

That being said, if the guy is hypomanic, we're just egging him on. Time to stop; nothing to be gained with a fool.

113 out of nearly 400 posts, including these memorables:

I don't give a hoot for arguments from authority from you or anyone else.

...instructors are not immune from getting very basic information wrong. Talk to Bruce about that.

...you're an idiot who shouldn't be anywhere near an airplane, and certainly shouldn't be instructing anyone.

you're talking out of your a**, here.

Big f******g deal.

Honestly, I don't give a rat's a** what you think

You, sir, are an ignorant and ill-educated lout. Good luck with that.

Everyone needs to stop.

 

[Dave Siciliano]

I gotcha, Dave,

I didn't read the entire thread in question, because that guy was irritating me just as much as he irritating y'all. You just struck a chord with me by throwing the experience card. I tend to be that irritating guy that knows he's right when he's not sometimes. People can prove me wrong, and I accept it then. An example of how a high-timer should deal with irritating pukes like me can be found in the thread where Ron and I disagree on the checkride from the ground thing. He never threw out "Well, in so many hours as an Instructor, I've never seen it, so there." He actually showed an FAA order that did it.

That almost shut me up (except there's a bit more, but this is a different thread). I didn't mean to call you out there, Dave, I'm still just a bit frustrated with being blown off for being inexperienced so often.

Yea, sorry to strike a nerve, didn't mean to. You're not the problem Nick. I see you make a lot of posts where it's clear you are looking things up and trying to improve. I get tired of folks being confrontational with guys dedicating a lot of time to helping folks.

Please don't take me wrong; you are NOTHING like this guy. Questioning is fine; there are many things that are judgmental. There are highly competent folks with low time that really know what they are doing in the area they use. There are high time guys that I wouldn't fly with. There are some folks that may be great aviators that don't have great communication skills. I try to figure out how each approaches things. Whether they are competent and trying to improve. Attitude can be a killer. I've seen it, believe me. I can give you stories of guys overseas that didn't need coaching; some didn't come back where they otherwise might have.

I graduated from Army flight school and got my transition to Cobras in under a year. Got my fixed wing commercial/instrument on my own at night and on weekends. When finished with flight school and Cobra transition, I had as many flying hours as this guy with a complete year fully immersed in training.

Never felt I knew much. Felt I was safe to get out and really learn to fly. I still don't feel like I know a lot. There are places I'm pretty comfortable, but always try to be receptive to a way to improve.

I don't challenge guys like Bruce, Ron, Lance, etc. They teach, spend much more time than me on this; hit the books, fly more or as many hours. I try to learn from them. If there is another manner in which to do it, I may point it out.

The more I learn, the more I know how much I don't know. I feel that keeps me learning and with a positive attitude.

Best,

Dave

 

[Steve]

Arguing with stubborn people is like mud wrestling with a pig. You both get dirty and eventually you realize the pig likes it.

 

[Greg Bockelman]

Arguing with stubborn people is like mud wrestling with a pig. You both get dirty and eventually you realize the pig likes it.

I like it too, up to a point. I have reached that point with Gunslinger.

 

[Scott 'Gunny' Perdue]

GS seems to be very stubborn WRT frame of reference and/or conventional/accepted labels generally insisting his concepts are "more valid" than others. This more than anything (with the possible exception of a generally abrasive approach to "dicussion") hascontributed to the confusion on that thread.

FWIW, determining the yaw direction in an inverted spin (inverted spins are something I've only done a handful of times and mostly inadvertantly) never seemed to be as difficult in reality as I expected it to be. All I've had to do is use the rudders to stop the movement of whatever I could see past the nose of the plane, be it clouds or ground. If the stuff out there is moving to the right then I'd step on the right rudder to stop it. .....

Of course you still must unload the wings and my technique there is to just aim for zero vertical force on my body. If I'm pushed into the seat I push on the stick, and if I'm hanging from the belts I pull. Once the plane is flying again you can find the ground, roll upright, and level out.

So Chip (or any other acrobatic pilot), does that make sense?

Lance-

This is good stuff... it is what I teach for spin recognition and recovery... with a couple of additions. I teach that you look over the nose... never left or right... determine which way the ground is going.... look directly above you if you see blue then you are upright... dark then you are inverted. Breaking the AOA never involves more than light in the seat... e.g. just past nuetral.

One thing I spend a lot of time on is the Beggs-Mueller emergency spin recovery technique... which is check the power in idle, let go of everything, push on the hard rudder... and recover from the dive.

For what it's worth I did in fact point out the aileron/rudder issue to the original poster, before the thread was hijacked by this Gunslinger... and pointed out his errors as well... all seems to be lost in the bandwidth he is consuming.

 

[gismo]

Lance-

This is good stuff... it is what I teach for spin recognition and recovery... with a couple of additions. I teach that you look over the nose... never left or right... determine which way the ground is going.... look directly above you if you see blue then you are upright... dark then you are inverted. Breaking the AOA never involves more than light in the seat... e.g. just past nuetral.

Thanks Scott. And I agree completely with the "over the nose" place to look. You're right about how to visually determine upright from inverted although in some airplanes the view up is somewhat opaque. In my limited experience with this issue, I don't recall finding it difficult to tell if I was hanging from the belts, even with my eyes closed.

One thing I spend a lot of time on is the Beggs-Mueller emergency spin recovery technique... which is check the power in idle, let go of everything, push on the hard rudder... and recover from the dive.

That is something I don't have much experience with at all. I have wondered how well this would work in some of the experimental airplanes I've flown in which have big spades on the control surfaces and very little control pressure. IOW in such a plane would it be difficult to identify the "hard" rudder in an inadvertant spin?

For what it's worth I did in fact point out the aileron/rudder issue to the original poster, before the thread was hijacked by this Gunslinger... and pointed out his errors as well... all seems to be lost in the bandwidth he is consuming.

Does seem quite the waste of bandwidth doesn't it? I have (for the most part) learned that one rarely changes another's opinion via an internet "discussion" involving few authoritative references and many opinions. Heck it's often difficult to sway anyone's thinking about something with a direct reference to an unambiguous FAR. In cases where I feel it's worth the effort (and I have no idea what I base that decision on), I try to never exceed three attempts to get my point across. Things always seem to degenerate after that.

 

[Scott 'Gunny' Perdue]

Lance-

[That is something I don't have much experience with at all. I have wondered how well this would work in some of the experimental airplanes I've flown in which have big spades on the control surfaces and very little control pressure. IOW in such a plane would it be difficult to identify the "hard" rudder in an inadvertant spin?]

Not at all.. the spades dont have much if any influence on the rudder... I teach to raise your hands and pull back your feet,,, and then push on the hard rudder... folks have a problem finding the hard rudder when both feet are on the pedals. I've got some poorly edited video of accelerated spins on my website (my fault... translating them to web sized files... I'll get better.... on the links page)... all the recovieries were done with B-M... watch the ailerons. There are a few airplanes the B-M technique does not work well on.

Regarding internet discussions... there is a point where anything further just doesn't make any sense anymore.

 

[flyersfan31]

Nick, I have to agree with you. As a 200hr pilot, some of the "stupid low time pilot" comments struck a nerve. My first reaction was, wow, so that's how they REALLY feel about guys like me. I guess I'll never measure up.

Be careful with the throwaway nasty comments, my friends. Sometimes stray bullets strike innocent bystanders.

But, in fairness, OH WHAT A THREAD. That guy does have issues, and I could sense the collective hands being thrown up.

I value the experience of the pilots on this board (and the red). Whether I post a question myself, or just lurk, I have learned so much from the experience of others. I appreciate the time people take to answer simple questions for the umpty-umpth time. Believe it or not, I've even learned a bit from other low-timers.

Signed,
Fog-Bound in Philly