Pattern Madness

Panew said:
a friend just spent $7,000 to annual his SR22.
Click to expand...

Nit picking alert: I doubt the annual inspection was $7,000. More likely your friend spent that money doing maintenance/repairs inconjunction with the annual inspection.
 
Panew said:
a friend just spent $7,000 to annual his SR22.

you could save a bundle with experimentals.

ps. Actually the label "experimental" is a misnomer. With today's design and kit completeness, there is nothing experimental about experimentals. You use the same engine, same (or better) avionics, same sheet metal... the only difference is the weight of your wallet.
Click to expand...

Bob Noel said:
Nit picking alert: I doubt the annual inspection was $7,000. More likely your friend spent that money doing maintenance/repairs inconjunction with the annual inspection.
Click to expand...

Yes, that is correct. To bring the plane up to standard during annual, that's what he had to spent. I did not think that was misleading, nor would anybody would assume otherwise (other than a nitpicker).
 
dmccormack said:
...but my encounter was with an RV so I posted about that encounter. I wonder if all the VAF folks would have run over here to defend Champ drivers if that had been the offending party?
Click to expand...

Of course not, but the 'Fearless Aeronca Aviators' members might have if you had referred to "these blasted", "wannabe" Champ drivers over this incident.
 
Dan,

I don't fly an RV, don't know what an overhead break is (looked at youtube, still don't know exactly what it is) but you are starting to come off as someone with a chip on their shoulder.

"Fishbelly" ?

"..radio contact with the RV -- Suprise!"

I'm disappointed in your continued attempts to incite rather than educate. It is just as bad as an RV'er that has their head in the sand about inappropriate actions by a few coloring the whole.

Tim


dmccormack said:
FishBelly is really hung up on this, isn't he? :rolleyes2:

Polemics are fun for a bit, but now it's merely tedious.

How's this for plain English?

Are Overhead breaks "legal?" Usually.

Are Overhead breaks "smart?" It depends. When the pattern is congested with a mix of skills, speeds, and types, a straight-in may not be safe, either. Sometimes it's better to just fly out a bit, visually assess positions, and join gracefully, on a 45 or perhaps midfield. The AIM is advisory, but good sense, graciousness, patience, and cooperation saves a whole lot of regulation reading.

My initial post should not have mentioned Overhead breaks as that maneuver was not the cause of this particular near-miss.

However I mentioned overhead breaks because there seems to be a connection between pilots who feel fine doing impromptu, mid-field aerobatics, or unfamiliar maneuvers in the pattern without coordinating with -- or at least considering -- others.

This is not merely an RV issue, but my encounter was with an RV so I posted about that encounter. I wonder if all the VAF folks would have run over here to defend Champ drivers if that had been the offending party?

I agree with those who say it's the same practicing approaches on a VFR day -- usually we're turned over far enough out to use common phrases everyone can understand, not just IR pilots.

When I do power-off 180s I announce, "Local traffic, Chief 1234, abeam the numbers, practicing power-off landing, will be turning continuous 180 to landing, Local traffic" even with no one in the pattern. I'll usually avoid this sort of practice when the pattern is busy just to be considerate.

I've read the response thread over at the VAF board, and, as expected, about 1 third are reasoned calls for civility and decorum, a third are bandwagon, and a third are inciters.

Too bad. I might have had a distorted view of RV owner-pilots before. That distorted view may be more correct than I ever imagined.

Sorry to those third who are like the rest of us -- interested in fostering all of aviation -- but there seems to be a core of rabid types who aren't doing your cause much good.


FWIW, I tried to establish radio contact with the RV -- Surprise! No response.
Click to expand...
 
RoscoeT said:
Of course not, but the 'Fearless Aeronca Aviators' members might have if you had referred to "these blasted", "wannabe" Champ drivers over this incident.
Click to expand...


As a member of the FAA (Aeronca one), I doubt it. Most know there's a whole range of folks flying different machines.
 
dmccormack said:
...

My initial post should not have mentioned Overhead breaks as that maneuver was not the cause of this particular near-miss.

However I mentioned overhead breaks because there seems to be a connection between pilots who feel fine doing impromptu, mid-field aerobatics, or unfamiliar maneuvers in the pattern without coordinating with -- or at least considering -- others.


....
Click to expand...

I don't know if you are confused? or frustrated?
 
dmccormack said:
As a member of the FAA (Aeronca one), I doubt it. Most know there's a whole range of folks flying different machines.
Click to expand...

Amazing...you would have been well-served to display this logic in your original post.

dmccormack said:
This is not merely an RV issue, but my encounter was with an RV so I posted about that encounter. I wonder if all the VAF folks would have run over here to defend Champ drivers if that had been the offending party?
Click to expand...

Not making a lot of sense...again. You unfairly typecast them, and then question their motives for defending their type that you malign? Do you not think you would hear from Bonanza pilots if in your original post you substituted "RV" with "Bonanza", or "Cirrus", or whatever else?
 
Last edited:
dmccormack said:
FishBelly is really hung up on this, isn't he? :rolleyes2:
Click to expand...

You really are a child, arn't you? How old do you have to be mentally to go out of your way to make fun of a username?? This isn't the playground of your elementary grade school. You can't refrain from name calling in a "civil" discussion. Get over yourself. Your name calling is hilarious.

It's also hilarious that the only documented FAR having been broken in this scenario was by yourself. :D

I'll say this as nicely as I can and with a smile on my face, get bent, McCormack. ;)


dmccormack said:
My initial post should not have mentioned Overhead breaks as that maneuver was not the cause of this particular near-miss
Click to expand...

Ahh, now it makes sense. You were describing something other than an overhead break yet complaining about RV pilots doing dangerous overhead breaks. Makes total sense.

This simply reaffirms your own personal issues with Van's pilots. I too fly an Aeronca and a Champ. You'd have no idea I was an RV driver in person until you started trashing them, like you are here.

I'll ask again, just for curiosities sake, what's your total time? Me thinks you're the wannabe.
 
Last edited:
EdFred said:
Lots of legal things aren't necessarily safe. And lots of safe things aren't necessarily legal.
Click to expand...

Absolutely correct!

It means one other important thing.. it really doesn't matter if you don't like it. You can fly whatever pattern you like, won't bother me a bit. If I can see you, I promise even if you tried you couldn't kill me so I don't worry about your pattern.
 
Ken Kopp said:
Absolutely correct!

It means one other important thing.. it really doesn't matter if you don't like it. You can fly whatever pattern you like, won't bother me a bit. If I can see you, I promise even if you tried you couldn't kill me so I don't worry about your pattern.
Click to expand...

You'd never see me. ;)
 
Dan and others,

The incident should have been used as an important learning tool instead of the rant that was surely voiced in the cockpit as on this board.

A pilots job is to be vigilant for traffic and extra vigilant near the airport. Things like this happen all the time. The more experience one gets the more exposure one has.

We can try and fool ourselves into thinking we are safer in the air than on the ground, but it is just not true. This is a dangerous hobby we have and our job is to keep the risks to a minimum.

But remember, there will always be risks. If you do not want to accept them you should not be flying.

George, RV8, first post

PS: A pilots most important job is risk management.
 
Probably correct since I'd already be tying my plane down on the ramp by the time you got within visual range :)

so you have some intel:

2z5nath.jpg


Come on now..these airplanes are fun! But so are C152s and all the others. I've been lucky enough to log over 70 different aircraft in my log book and never once did I think any of them were not fun. Even flying a blimp was fun and honestly one of the hardest to land (wind sucks!). I love the 152 because it is so stable it is easy to relax and just enjoy the view without having to work very hard - which is a great compliment for any airplane.

5zfixd.jpg
 
Last edited:
Ken Kopp said:
Probably correct since I'd already be tying my plane down on the ramp by the time you got within visual range :)
Click to expand...

Next thing you know RV guys will be hated for "getting to the crew car first!"
 
Still picking up new members. Any of you guys like to talk politics, sign up for SZ. :D
 
Ken Kopp said:
Probably correct since I'd already be tying my plane down on the ramp by the time you got within visual range :)
Click to expand...

Nah, you'd stop to refuel, and I'd still be waiting for you to arrive. :D
 
Anthony said:
Nothing lasts forever. Yours will melt in the hot sun. I know you always wanted "drooped wing tips". :D
Click to expand...

No, that's because the plane I build would fly so fast the friction from the air would cause the metal to fatigue.
 
EdFred said:
Nah, you'd stop to refuel, and I'd still be waiting for you to arrive. :D
Click to expand...

You need to check the range on an RV-8 again. :) My 6 can go from Alabama to OSH. One stop, only due to my butt-ability. :)
 
BellyUpFish said:
You need to check the range on an RV-8 again. :) My 6 can go from Alabama to OSH. One stop, only due to my butt-ability. :)
Click to expand...

1000nm in the Comanche. I've done MI to SRQ with no stops and still another hour in the tanks.
 
Anthony said:
No, they're reserved for the Grumman Air force.



:D
Click to expand...


Rumor has it, Mr. Van himself loved the looks of the Grumman and made the 6.. Not sure if it's true but there's so much bravo sierra floating around this thread, what does a little more hurt.
 
Av8er said:
Dan and others,

The incident should have been used as an important learning tool instead of the rant that was surely voiced in the cockpit as on this board.

A pilots job is to be vigilant for traffic and extra vigilant near the airport. Things like this happen all the time. The more experience one gets the more exposure one has.

We can try and fool ourselves into thinking we are safer in the air than on the ground, but it is just not true. This is a dangerous hobby we have and our job is to keep the risks to a minimum.

But remember, there will always be risks. If you do not want to accept them you should not be flying.

George, RV8, first post

PS: A pilots most important job is risk management.
Click to expand...

George,

Welcome to PoA.

There was no rant in the cockpit -- merely an expression of surprise of an airplane heading straight at us at our altitude opposite our left downwind and a recommendation to always be looking outside since you never know who else is out there and what they may be doing.

I did not run to look for the airplane immediately after landing as I was with a student, and we had to shut down, tie down, and debrief -- I take my time with the debrief and the near mid-air wasn't a focus. He's new to flying and impressionable, and so I kept my feelings to myself there.

I did share my frustrations with my virtual pilot friends here on PoA, only a few of whom I have had the pleasure to meet met in person (even Ed and Michael, who has a very nice Cherokee ;)).

I've probably taxied or walked past some of the same RV folks that have posted here at a couple of airports I used to frequent. I never interacted with them much, though, as I was usually in an A36, a 172, a 205, a Musketeer, a Chief, or a 182, and there just wasn't a whole lot of cross talk (even though the Turbo Barron owner, the Pitts owners, and the Saratoga and C180 owners would congregate and hangar fly).

Somewhere among these dozens of pages I've said that it was wrong to impugn all RV owners. I had an encounter with one that was almost deadly and for some reason that sort of thing annoys me.

I agree with you that the key lesson is the keep eyes open, and be ready for anything, because you must fly defensively. I've had my share of near-misses and they are never fun, and only one was away from the pattern (while in and out of IMC -- controller said he didn't see him either).

Again, welcome to PoA -- it's an interesting, eclectic, thoughtful group that does pretty good job at self regulation (I'm ignoring the Spin Zone). Usually we're pretty good at providing point-counterpoint without resorting to name calling.

Anyway, with that I'm done with this thread -- I've said all I need to say and will participate in other, more interesting threads -- like the one about checklists and flows.
 
Last edited:
dmccormack said:
Usually we're pretty god at providing point-counterpoint without resorting to name calling.
Click to expand...

I think the rest of your counterparts here at PoA have done a pretty good job of it. You sir, have failed miserably.
 
Ken Kopp said:
at what cruise TAS?
Click to expand...

I plan for 150, but I am very draggy, and plan on fixing that this annual and change that to 160. And I can take FOUR FBO hotties with me. ;) Yes, I have 3 seat belts in the back seat.
 
so at 150KTAS it takes you approx 6.6 hours to fly 1000nm.

My RV8 cruises at 175KTAS at 8000 ft PA burning 8.5 GPH. It would take me 5.7 hours to complete the same 1000nm trip - .9hrs faster than you. I hold 42 usable gal of gas. leaving required reserve I can fly 761nm before needing a fuel stop. If I take a whopping 50 minutes to get fuel and relaunch (takes me less than 30) I'll still be at the 1000nm destination in time to conduct an OB while you are on the 45 for DW and beat you to the FBO.

Now the reality is if you have 3 FBO hotties in your plane you'll actually have to stop for them to pee every 2 hours and to eat at the 4 hour mark, so no way you are going to win this race. Sorry. :)
 
Ken Kopp said:
so at 150KTAS it takes you approx 6.6 hours to fly 1000nm.

My RV8 cruises at 175KTAS at 8000 ft PA burning 8.5 GPH. It would take me 5.7 hours to complete the same 1000nm trip - .9hrs faster than you. I hold 42 usable gal of gas. leaving required reserve I can fly 761nm before needing a fuel stop. If I take a whopping 50 minutes to get fuel and relaunch (takes me less than 30) I'll still be at the 1000nm destination in time to conduct an OB while you are on the 45 for DW and beat you to the FBO.

Now the reality is if you have 3 FBO hotties in your plane you'll actually have to stop for them to pee every 2 hours and to eat at the 4 hour mark, so no way you are going to win this race. Sorry. :)
Click to expand...

I had a slight tailwind and did 923nm in 5.7 so 162kgs. Now it's only a 0.7 difference with you getting the same tailwind. It always seems to take me an hour whenever I make a ground stop. I probably won't do that again, but 800nm I would. Who said anything about me being able to get the hotties to go willingly? That's what the chloroform is for - no pee breaks.
 
EdFred said:
I plan for 150, but I am very draggy, and plan on fixing that this annual and change that to 160. And I can take FOUR FBO hotties with me. ;) Yes, I have 3 seat belts in the back seat.
Click to expand...

What is it you fly?
 
EdFred said:
A very roomy Comanche 250.
Click to expand...

Cool. The only thing I'd change about my -6 is the seat count and well, I'd go tandem instead of side by, but the wife wanted to be able to look at me when we talked. :)

Unfortunately plans are like boats. You REALLY need more than one. You need your bass boat, your ski boat, your houseboat. :)

I'm fortunate enough to be able to use a few different birds if/when I need to take folks with me.
 
BellyUpFish said:
I think the rest of your counterparts here at PoA have done a pretty good job of it. You sir, have failed miserably.
Click to expand...

Dude, he's not going to say sorry and give you a hug! Give it up.
Besides there may be many more folks on PoA who harbor personal biases that offend you. Its probably worthwhile to let them go. You'll live a happier life.
 
Ken Kopp said:
Now the reality is if you have 3 FBO hotties in your plane you'll actually have to stop for them to pee every 2 hours and to eat at the 4 hour mark, so no way you are going to win this race. Sorry. :)
Click to expand...

This discussion between you and Ed reminds me of a joke.

It starts out with and old bull and a young bull standing on a hill overlooking the herd of cows...
 
jesse said:
A C150 has a 9:1 glide ratio. That gives you 9000 ft of glide, assuming no winds. 1.5 miles is 7,920 feet. You don't have much margin left with only 9000 ft of glide to maneuver in a way that can get you into a position to land, but it can be done.
Click to expand...
First, unless you're talking statute miles, 1.5 miles is over 9100 feet straight line to the runway. Add in turn radius to go from downwind heading to runway heading and getting lined up with the runway and the path from 1.5 miles abeam including going far enough downwind to make the turn back outside the threshold is way beyond 9000 feet. If you're more than about 3/4 mile abeam in a C-150, a textbook 180 power-off approach is well-nigh impossible.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top