When the CFI steps in

[dtuuri]

It's about time you let someone critique you the way you dish it out. It might give you a little perspective on how wrong you can be. Or it might give the newbie pilots both of us are so concerned about a vision for who's advice they can ignore moving forward.

My advice is really for you folks telling inexperienced pilots they can't spin into eternity by slipping on final. That's not a responsible thing to say, since it doesn't include all the variables that pain you to consider. Is it "dishing it out" to ask where you get this stuff? I don't think so. Perhaps that Cirrus pilot was under the impression a slip back to the runway couldn't hurt him because he read it here.

Yes, I know I can instruct without being PIC, but instructing in that capacity hasn't interested me yet.

dtuuri

 

[Henning]

My advice is really for you folks telling inexperienced pilots they can't spin into eternity by slipping on final. That's not a responsible thing to say, since it doesn't include all the variables that pain you to consider. Is it "dishing it out" to ask where you get this stuff? I don't think so. Perhaps that Cirrus pilot was under the impression a slip back to the runway couldn't hurt him because he read it here.

Yes, I know I can instruct without being PIC, but instructing in that capacity hasn't interested me yet.

dtuuri

No one said it besides you, it has been said you can't accidentally just tuck into a spin, it takes an effort, and being completely oblivious to what the airplane is doing.

 

[mkosmo]

After reading this thread, I'm inclined to comment that slips are great... so long as you don't accidentally convert them in to a snap roll

 

[dtuuri]

After reading this thread, I'm inclined to comment that slips are great... so long as you don't accidentally convert them in to a snap roll

dtuuri

 

[retailguy]

My advice is really for you folks telling inexperienced pilots they can't spin into eternity by slipping on final. That's not a responsible thing to say, since it doesn't include all the variables that pain you to consider. Is it "dishing it out" to ask where you get this stuff? I don't think so. Perhaps that Cirrus pilot was under the impression a slip back to the runway couldn't hurt him because he read it here.

Yes, I know I can instruct without being PIC, but instructing in that capacity hasn't interested me yet.

dtuuri

Hilarious. You're the guy who blasts these rooms constantly about how "you" think all of us should fly. And you're asking ME where I get this stuff? I think that's the single biggest question all of us have for you. Where exactly do you make this stuff up, at?

I ran your suggestion for entering a traffic pattern past my CFII during my BFR a few months back. I even showed him your diagram explaining it. He shrugged his shoulders, laughed, handed it back to me and told me that it was the internet and "I got the value I paid for".

If you went up in a 172 and tried to slip into a spin, you'd understand what we're all talking about. I, personally, don't believe you could do it, but if you could, you'd have to ignore so many warnings to stop what you were doing, you'd almost deserve to die. As morbid as that sounds, slipping into a spin, as you showed in your video just is not going to happen that way, in a 172 turning base to final, or anywhere else for that matter. Without a doubt, you could stall your way into a spin, but you're not going to do that either in a slip from base to final, without other mitigating factors being present.

Finally, I wasn't talking about "instructing" in your current condition, I was talking about flying with a buddy. Go up in someone's 172, try what you're maintaining will happen, record it for us, and show us. I experienced exactly what Jesse showed, and what others have described, and it doesn't look ANYTHING like what you're maintaining would happen.

 

[dtuuri]

You're the guy who blasts these rooms constantly about how "you" think all of us should fly. And you're asking ME where I get this stuff? I think that's the single biggest question all of us have for you. Where exactly do you make this stuff up, at?

I never "blast" anybody, just mildly return their fire. Your posts are littered with attacks right from the first one. Same with Clark.

I ran your suggestion for entering a traffic pattern past my CFII during my BFR a few months back. I even showed him your diagram explaining it. He shrugged his shoulders, laughed, handed it back to me and told me that it was the internet and "I got the value I paid for".

IIRC, you operate out of a non-standard field where cutting across the center of the airport at TPA is required and is SOP. Not so most other places. If he wants to come in here and debate the issue, the water's warm.

... slipping into a spin, as you showed in your video just is not going to happen that way, in a 172 turning base to final, or anywhere else for that matter. Without a doubt, you could stall your way into a spin, but you're not going to do that either in a slip from base to final, without other mitigating factors being present.

You saw it, yet you deny it. Do you think if the right wing was low it wouldn't have happened? What I doubt you've ever seen is how a variety of low-time pilots can react when the plane does something they weren't expecting, like stalling in an aerodynamic sideslip. It isn't pretty sometimes. I had a private applicant on the eve of entering the USAF for flight training get into a spin in a C-152 during the stall demonstration phase of the test. He twisted the ailerons to the stop and froze up in panic when that didn't work. If it can happen there it can happen on final or anywhere. Maybe not to you or Clark, but I'm not talking about you guys. The plane is capable of it and some folks will manage to do it. Don't tell those kind of people the plane can't spin from a slip.

Finally, I wasn't talking about "instructing" in your current condition, I was talking about flying with a buddy. Go up in someone's 172, try what you're maintaining will happen, record it for us, and show us. I experienced exactly what Jesse showed, and what others have described, and it doesn't look ANYTHING like what you're maintaining would happen.

I've got more important things on my agenda now than go out and repeat things I've done a thousand times just for you. Better that everybody else go out there and find out what their airplane can do while safely at altitude, preferably with a CFI.

dtuuri

 

[Clark1961]

I never "blast" anybody, just mildly return their fire. Your posts are littered with attacks right from the first one. Same with Clark.

Maybe it is past time to think about why you elicit such responses? Hmmmm?

I'll spell it out for you, arrogance combined with inaccuracy will never result in respect.

 

[retailguy]

I never "blast" anybody, just mildly return their fire. Your posts are littered with attacks right from the first one. Same with Clark.

What I find really hilarious is the only thing Clark and I agree on is you. That's it. Maybe you should ask yourself why? (Yes it really is that starkly obvious.)

Regarding the rest of your post, a long time ago I understood that you are incapable of admitting that you're wrong, and would argue to the death in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

It couldn't take 15 minutes out of your day the next time you head to lunch to prove all of us wrong. But you can't be bothered, or, perhaps you know what would happen, and then you'd have to admit that you were incorrect in what you said...

Best of luck...

 

[dtuuri]

Maybe it is past time to think about why you elicit such responses? Hmmmm?

I'll spell it out for you, arrogance combined with inaccuracy will never result in respect.

I'll not say publicly how I've sized you up other than to say it doesn't pay to try to be nice to you.

What I find really hilarious is the only thing Clark and I agree on is you. That's it. Maybe you should ask yourself why? (Yes it really is that starkly obvious.)

Regarding the rest of your post, a long time ago I understood that you are incapable of admitting that you're wrong, and would argue to the death in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

It couldn't take 15 minutes out of your day the next time you head to lunch to prove all of us wrong. But you can't be bothered, or, perhaps you know what would happen, and then you'd have to admit that you were incorrect in what you said...

Best of luck...

I'm quite able to admit being wrong, it doesn't bother me at all. So where exactly do you think I am wrong when I said a plane can enter a spin if stalled during a slip? To me it's a pretty elementary fact that it can, indeed, and BruceAir's video proved it. Then I linked to a 172 entering a spin easy as pie from straight and level. If you don't think it would do that if banked (like the Cirrus did) and I do, why am I the one who's wrong and needs to film it? Who's got more instructing hours? More total hours? Stalled more different types of airplanes? Taught more students? Given more flight tests? You or me?

You shoot the footage and post it here. Tape a yaw string to the cowl to indicate the airflow like I used to do.

dtuuri

 

[Everskyward]

I ran your suggestion for entering a traffic pattern past my CFII during my BFR a few months back. I even showed him your diagram explaining it. He shrugged his shoulders, laughed, handed it back to me and told me that it was the internet and "I got the value I paid for".

And I've circled into Aspen at least a couple times since that lengthy thread, using right traffic for 33, as per the A/FD and the instructions from tower...

But I've given up arguing with him. Watching this thread has been interesting, though.

 

[denverpilot]

I'll not say publicly how I've sized you up other than to say it doesn't pay to try to be nice to you.

Clark never asked you to be nice to him. He suggested you're being arrogant and inaccurate, two significantly different behaviors.

I've had beers and such with Clark. He's pretty mellow. Doesn't suffer fools much, though. He probably wonders why I just smile and nod at them. He tends to let them string out enough rope to hang themselves with and then asks them whatever questions that will let them tie their own noose.

As far as "sizing him up", he's a tall dude and pretty well proportioned for his size.

If he and Kent get into a wrestling match, I think we'll want to move the furniture back or something is going to get broken.

Anyway... now that we've covered that no one cares what you two think about each other... Back to spins in Cessnas!

You keep wandering off into anecdotes about other airframes than the 172, and the assertion by those you're arguing with has been about that airframe, after your assertion that it'll do things it just won't without forcing it to.

You got caught trying to state the 172 does something it typically doesn't --without a massive kinetic effort on the part of the pilot -- and a significant mash of power at the right time to force the issue. Power off, it just isn't going to do anything particularly interesting in a slip. In a skid, it will, but it'll be all sorts of obvious that it isn't flying happily prior to the event.

The yaw string on a powered aircraft one was a good one. That doesn't work all that well. BTDT, got the t-shirt. Works really well in the glider, though.

(I got more of a chuckle out of the insinuation that no one reading the manna from on high had ever done it but you, though... that was just precious. Is there a shortage of masking tape and yarn somewhere near you that keeps folks from doing it unless they're an instructor? I gotta know. If so, there's a business opportunity there!)

Other airframes? Sure. Only trainer that spins better than a 152 is a 150, and like you said, it still needs a moron holding full control deflection to make it happen at anything faster than yawn-speed. But it will go over sooner and rotate faster than a Skyhawk. You switched to it for your "my student locked the controls over fully and bad things happened" story. To which the assembled masses here would say, "Duh."

If we're not going to stick to the words written and wander the topic all over the place, here's your Cessna spin Trivia for the day.

How many spin turns in a 150 until the engine quits, and why does it happen and why is it so consistent?

 

[denverpilot]

And I've circled into Aspen at least a couple times since that lengthy thread, using right traffic for 33, as per the A/FD and the instructions from tower...



But I've given up arguing with him. Watching this thread has been interesting, though.

Ooh. A pattern entry argument about KASE? I must have missed that thread. Sounds like delicious internet fodder and probably somewhere well beyond retarded on the intelligence spectrum, at the same time!

Especially considering what you just mentioned, that it's a controlled airport and you're going to do what the tower tells you to... Haha. We just wandered back into "duh"-land... And someone here was arguing about it? I may have to go hunt for that thread now.

 

[dtuuri]

And I've circled into Aspen at least a couple times since that lengthy thread, using right traffic for 33, as per the A/FD and the instructions from tower...

Well, hail, hail the gang's all here!

In the interest of enlightening lurkers unfamiliar with that thread, IIRC, I was passing on local, sage wisdom from an experienced mountain pilot I hired at ASE to show me the best way to make a go-around from a rejected landing on rwy 15. The advice was to bear to the right, bite off maneuvering room as you slide upward along Buttermilk and finally make left traffic for 15. As for making right traffic for 33, I posted a picture from somebody's deck overlooking the runway at about the key position--you'd swear it was taken from an airplane turning base. That's one reason why standard procedure is to land on 15 even with a tailwind (and of course the runway gradient).

But I've given up arguing with him.

I feel like a spurned lover.
https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=jones+race+is+on

dtuuri

 

[dtuuri]

How many spin turns in a 150 until the engine quits, and why does it happen and why is it so consistent?

Not for at least 12 in my experience, but I'd hazard a guess centrifugal force or low static air pressure above the tank fuel is the culprit.

dtuuri

 

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

BTDT, a lot. Here's what it looks like:

View attachment 40776
​

"When we stomp it up we go and around."

Then there's this belated slip attempt that went i

Full right rudder in an attempt to exit the incipient spin entered when in a high load (17 degree AOA) steep (60 degrees) turn.

No slip here.

 

[dtuuri]

Full right rudder in an attempt to exit the incipient spin entered when in a high load (17 degree AOA) steep (60 degrees) turn.

No slip here.

No, no. Just because the Cirrus was banked doesn't mean he was turning. In fact, he was on runway heading, to the side of it, and was trying to side-slip over to the runway at about 200' AGL. Yes, the AoA of the left wing was above the stalling angle, but due to dihedral the right wing also had lost lift--hence the plane wasn't rolling to the left, despite left aileron, and the pilot didn't recognize how precarious his situation. Adding right rudder spoiled the airflow on the right wing (fuselage interference) triggering a stall and loss of lift in excess of the left wing's causing a rapid roll over the top, exacerbated by the lowered aileron on the right wing.

dtuuri

 

[Everskyward]

No, no. Just because the Cirrus was banked doesn't mean he was turning. In fact, he was on runway heading, to the side of it, and was trying to side-slip over to the runway at about 200' AGL. Yes, the AoA of the left wing was above the stalling angle, but due to dihedral the right wing also had lost lift--hence the plane wasn't rolling to the left, despite left aileron, and the pilot didn't recognize how precarious his situation. Adding right rudder spoiled the airflow on the right wing (fuselage interference) triggering a stall and loss of lift in excess of the left wing's causing a rapid roll over the top, exacerbated by the lowered aileron on the right wing.



dtuuri

Did you watch the video re-creation of the FDR data and listen to the explanation? I would invite others to do so if the are curious. Nowhere is the word "slip" mentioned nor is one shown.

 

[dmspilot]

No, no. Just because the Cirrus was banked doesn't mean he was turning. In fact, he was on runway heading, to the side of it, and was trying to side-slip over to the runway at about 200' AGL. Yes, the AoA of the left wing was above the stalling angle, but due to dihedral the right wing also had lost lift--hence the plane wasn't rolling to the left, despite left aileron, and the pilot didn't recognize how precarious his situation. Adding right rudder spoiled the airflow on the right wing (fuselage interference) triggering a stall and loss of lift in excess of the left wing's causing a rapid roll over the top, exacerbated by the lowered aileron on the right wing.

dtuuri

Not only are you grasping at straws by even bringing this accident into the picture but you are also stating the facts completely incorrectly. For example:

the plane wasn't rolling to the left, despite left aileron

Within one second, the left bank increased from 53º to 60º, and then "left rolling and yawing rates" increased and the bank reached 80º left.

 

[dtuuri]

Not only are you grasping at straws by even bringing this accident into the picture but you are also stating the facts completely incorrectly. For example:



Within one second, the left bank increased from 53º to 60º, and then "left rolling and yawing rates" increased and the bank reached 80º left.

Well, after watching the video again I'll concede the Cirrus wasn't parallel with the runway as I had thought, so maybe it wasn't as good of an example as I thought. HOWEVER, the NTSB report was rife with speculation, using "if" and "may" often regarding the pilot's actions. The definition of a snap roll is a spin in a horizontal plane, so by definition the result was a spin, since the plane hit the ground. A spin caused by the same action a different pilot "may" have used if trying to sideslip toward the runway while very close to the stall. Here's the main point of the NTSB report, IMO:

" The reversal in yaw acceleration at 17:13:10 preceded the reversal in roll acceleration slightly. Hence, the initiating event of the roll and yaw reversals seems to have been the sudden yaw acceleration to the right. Such acceleration might have been provided by an abrupt and large right rudder input. In fact, the sudden application of a large rudder input during an accelerated stall is a well-known method of entering a snap roll. The circumstances of the sudden roll and yaw reversal to the right during the final moments of the accident flight appear similar to those of a snap-roll maneuver. It is possible that the pilots, faced with the increased roll rate to the left due to the stall of the left wing, input right rudder along with right aileron in an attempt to recover to wings-level, resulting in the snap-roll to the right. Once inverted, there was insufficient altitude to recover before impact with the ground."​

Note that the application of right rudder unstalled the left wing (see full narrative) and simultaneously stalled the hitherto unstalled right wing--similar to entering a slip near the critical AoA.

dtuuri

 

[jesse]

Who the hell has enough spare time to climb a C150 high enough to do a 12 turn spin?

 

[Everskyward]

Well, hail, hail the gang's all here!

In the interest of enlightening lurkers unfamiliar with that thread, IIRC, I was passing on local, sage wisdom from an experienced mountain pilot I hired at ASE to show me the best way to make a go-around from a rejected landing on rwy 15. The advice was to bear to the right, bite off maneuvering room as you slide upward along Buttermilk and finally make left traffic for 15. As for making right traffic for 33, I posted a picture from somebody's deck overlooking the runway at about the key position--you'd swear it was taken from an airplane turning base. That's one reason why standard procedure is to land on 15 even with a tailwind (and of course the runway gradient).

Obviously the "standard" procedure is to land on 15 even with a tailwind component but some airplanes have a limitation on maximum tailwind component (ours is 10 knots) so the alternate procedure is to circle to 33 using right traffic. This is published in the A/FD and part of the instructions given by tower. You can elect not to do it but that is the way most airplane do it when circling, contrary to the advice for left traffic you received from someone else.

 

[MAKG1]

Obviously the "standard" procedure is to land on 15 even with a tailwind component but some airplanes have a limitation on maximum tailwind component (ours is 10 knots) so the alternate procedure is to circle to 33 using right traffic. This is published in the A/FD and part of the instructions given by tower. You can elect not to do it but that is the way most airplane do it when circling, contrary to the advice for left traffic you received from someone else.

Am I missing something?

I thought KASE had circle-to-land minimums even on the IFR LOC approach, for spam cans (Cats A, B, C). The only "NA" note is for night landing.

Are we talking about airliners here? Even a turboprop should be able to land using Cat C minimums.

 

[Everskyward]

Am I missing something?

I think you are. There are circle to land minimums. But the circle should be to the east (right traffic for 33) rather than the west (left traffic) as dtuuri advises.

 

[narchee]

I think you are. There are circle to land minimums. But the circle should be to the east (right traffic for 33) rather than the west (left traffic) as dtuuri advises.

Surely he does not advise that? Left traffic for 33 at KASE is impossible and why would anyone even attempt to do such a stupid action? Almost all my landings at KASE have been right traffic to 33. I won't land with a tailwind and there is no reason to at KASE if you're not flying a jet.

 

[mark.staggs]

Who the hell has enough spare time to climb a C150 high enough to do a 12 turn spin?

I think technically a 152:

http://www.aceaerobaticschool.com/spins/

 

[retailguy]

I'm quite able to admit being wrong, it doesn't bother me at all.

This has not been my experience in reading what you post here. Nor is it likely the other participants in this thread, or they wouldn't be responding to you in the manner that they are. Maybe you should search for the reasons for that?

So where exactly do you think I am wrong when I said a plane can enter a spin if stalled during a slip? To me it's a pretty elementary fact that it can, indeed, and BruceAir's video proved it. Then I linked to a 172 entering a spin easy as pie from straight and level. If you don't think it would do that if banked (like the Cirrus did) and I do, why am I the one who's wrong and needs to film it?

We've been through this ad nauseum, and I'm not going down this path again. What I experienced is exactly what Jesse posted. It's exactly what Henning posted. If a pilot ignored the obvious prolonged warnings that a 172 would give, then they are not prepared to fly ANY plane. What you are describing simply will not happen without a multitude of additional factors, and the likelihood of them all happening simultaneously is almost ZERO.

Who's got more instructing hours? More total hours? Stalled more different types of airplanes? Taught more students? Given more flight tests? You or me?

And here is the root of the problem. The most dangerous pilot in the sky is the one who is so experienced he is not teachable.

I will fly with almost anyone, EXCEPT that pilot. That pilot is YOU. You are no longer teachable. Everything you post comes from a perspective of superiority.

In the fabled pattern entry thread, you went so far as to claim that the A/FD got it 'wrong'. It was staggeringly brash, conceited and so asinine I couldn't believe that you'd say it out loud.

It seems to escape your understanding that it really doesn't matter how pilots enter a traffic pattern as long as everyone does it the same way, and everyone knows EXACTLY what the other pilot will do. That's one of the purposes of the A/FD, telling people what you should do, and what others will be doing.

It is one of the things that make YOU dangerous. You are "doing it your way" and not the way everyone else does. You are the guy that everyone else in the pattern says - "What the F... is this idiot doing"?

You shoot the footage and post it here. Tape a yaw string to the cowl to indicate the airflow like I used to do.

dtuuri

My footage has already been posted. Everytime I have slipped a 172 it has looked exactly as Jesse has shown. I stand behind that video as a perfect example of what will happen to any qualified 172 pilot in a slip, whether that pilot has your experience, or he's on his 2nd day after his check ride.

Another video won't make that point any more clear than it is.

All your whole response was is a "duck n dodge". I really wish you could step outside your body and thought process and read this thread through other eyes. You would be amazed by how we are viewing the crap you are spewing.

 

[retailguy]

And I've circled into Aspen at least a couple times since that lengthy thread, using right traffic for 33, as per the A/FD and the instructions from tower...

But I've given up arguing with him. Watching this thread has been interesting, though.

I appreciate knowing that I'm not the only one.

There are bunch of people here who understand what they're doing at a level that I could only hope for. I learn so much from reading what people like you have to say.

Never been to Aspen yet, but will one day. And when I go there, I will do what you say, and not what dtuuri has to say. I'm more likely to live through the experience and then make friends when I get into the FBO.

 

[dtuuri]

Surely he does not advise that? Left traffic for 33 at KASE is impossible and why would anyone even attempt to do such a stupid action?

You are right, I don't advise that for runway 33. I advise it for runway 15. Actually a local expert advised ME that and I believe him after actually doing it with him in a 182, especially for a jet. Making a rejected landing down low you want to make the most of the lateral space available for your upcoming left-hand course reversal and exit of the area. By veering right as you climb, you can widen the maneuvering room as much as possible by hugging the terrain closely as you climb and as much as the hillside allows.
EDIT: Furthermore, the reason you need to go around is likely to be for departing traffic and the tower will tell the departure to turn right and for you to climb out right of the runway 15 centerline.

Everskyward is describing her experience of breaking off an approach at a much higher altitude, say circling minimums which are higher than TPA, and making right traffic for the opposite runway.

dtuuri

 

[Everskyward]

You are right, I don't advise that for runway 33. I advise it for runway 15. Actually a local expert advied ME that and I believe him after actually doing it with him in a 182, especially for a jet. Making a rejected landing down low you want to make the most of the lateral space available for your upcoming left-hand course reversal and exit of the area. By veering right as you climb, you can widen the maneuvering room as much as possible by hugging the terrain closely as you climb and as much as the hillside allows.

Everskyward is describing her experience of breaking off an approach at a much higher altitude, say circling minimums which are higher than TPA, and making right traffic for the opposite runway.

dtuuri

So we finally agree on this part, but what of that picture you posted which you said indicated that it was impossible to make right traffic to 33 without ending up in someone's yard?

 

[dtuuri]

So we finally agree on this part, but what of that picture you posted which you said indicated that it was impossible to make right traffic to 33 without ending up in someone's yard?

You understood me back then too. Here's the picture: http://www.pilotsofamerica.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1615423&postcount=126.

As you can see, I was using it to support the reason you need to maximize your maneuvering room before turning toward the camera on a go-around.

dtuuri

 

[Everskyward]

As you can see, I was using it to support the reason you need to maximize your maneuvering room before turning toward the camera on a go-around.

Even in this thread you were using the picture to support your position not to do right traffic to 33. But you are shifting your position again to make yourself sound like you were correct and agreeing with me all along.

As for making right traffic for 33, I posted a picture from somebody's deck overlooking the runway at about the key position--you'd swear it was taken from an airplane turning base.

 

[dtuuri]

Even in this thread you were using the picture to support your position not to do right traffic to 33.

That quote of mine was in reply to this one of yours in this thread:

And I've circled into Aspen at least a couple times since that lengthy thread, using right traffic for 33, as per the A/FD and the instructions from tower...

My quote supports the reasons such approaches there are relatively rare or as aterpster says, "all but prohibited in jets." Anything to tar me unfairly...

I also said this in the earlier thread:

If any pilot, professional or otherwise, intends to make right traffic for 33 that would be the prudent place to let down. But we've been talking about climbing from below MDA on a straight-in to rwy 15.

Seems I've been pretty consistent.

dtuuri

 

[Everskyward]

That quote of mine was in reply to this one of yours in this thread:

​

My quote supports the reasons such approaches there are relatively rare or as aterpster says, "all but prohibited in jets." Anything to tar me unfairly...

I also said this in the earlier thread:

​

Seems I've been pretty consistent.

dtuuri

Right traffic to 33 is not "all but prohibited in jets". I think Narchee said in this thread that he or she also circles to 33.

But whatever. You do what you want to do there. As I said earlier, you argue just to argue and many people know that.

 

[dtuuri]

As I said earlier, you argue just to argue and many people know that.

It the nature of my reason for being here. When you only jump in to correct mistaken notions people hold, you ruffle feathers. It's a tough job, but somebody has to do it. I'm willing to bet Retailguy is thinking some things over he wouldn't have otherwise and is better off for it.

As for you, if the tower tells you to go-around at about 500' AGL on final for runway 15 at ASE and to fly right of centerline to avoid a departing Gulfstream, are you going to do it? If there's a strong westerly wind are you going to use the space over Buttermilk as you climb out... or waste it?

dtuuri

 

[Everskyward]

It the nature of my reason for being here. When you only jump in to correct mistaken notions people hold, you ruffle feathers. It's a tough job, but somebody has to do it. I'm willing to bet Retailguy is thinking some things over he wouldn't have otherwise and is better off for it.

As for you, if the tower tells you to go-around at about 500' AGL on final for runway 15 at ASE and to fly right of centerline to avoid a departing Gulfstream, are you going to do it? If there's a strong westerly wind are you going to use the space over Buttermilk as you climb out... or waste it?

dtuuri

Not playing tonight...

 

[txflyer]

Fourty degree flaps are such a pleasure.

I don't like slipping the wagon, it feels unstable. Too much airplane to be slipping. The forces are strong and it feels like it puts a lot of stress on things.

Now a cub I'd slip every time just for fun.

 

[Clark1961]

It the nature of my reason for being here. When you only jump in to correct mistaken notions people hold, you ruffle feathers. It's a tough job, but somebody has to do it.

 

[Henning]

Who the hell has enough spare time to climb a C150 high enough to do a 12 turn spin?

They lose under 500' a turn IIRC, and then another in the recovery after stopped.

 

[retailguy]

I'm willing to bet Retailguy is thinking some things over he wouldn't have otherwise and is better off for it.

dtuuri

Ummm. NO. I stand behind what I've said in this thread, and I've analyzed you correctly. You are incapable of admitting fault and incapable of being taught anything about flying from anybody.

 

[Skip Miller]

I slip my Cherokee all the time, don't know how one can fly an airplane without doing so.

Try it in a no-pedal Ercoupe!