We don't need no stinking flaps!!!!

[MarcoAviator]

Driving school vs Flying school ...


I learned how to drive in Italy but I am sure that driving schools are not that different here.

Imagine you go to driving school and the instructor tells you:
"Today we are going to learn how to turn on an icy road and how to recover from an ice-induced spin"

Or

"Today we are going to learn cornering and how to turn the car to the limit of the tire's grip"

Or

"Today we are going to practice S turns between cones. You have 1 minute to finish the course and you can't knock any cones off or you fail the test"

Or

"Today we are going to practice jumping, and what kind of obstacles you can jump over, and how fast you need to go in order to jump over an obstacle."

...

You get the idea.

How many people do you think would be able to get a license if the exam required you to demonstrate you can take a turn at high speed without losing control of your car? Or that you can can use the emergency brake to turn tighter with in snowy-icy roads?

What if you were required to understand in deep detail every aspect of your engine, and be able to understand, troubleshoot and recover problems while driving?

What if you were trained to handle safely, loss of brakes? Loss of lights? Loss of steering? And you were trained to drive in a way that would always give you enough margin of error in case of malfunctions?

Not one hell of a lot ... that's my opinion.

What if you were required to repeat the exam EVERY TWO YEARS???

Not only that, but what if you were required to pass a medical examination that requires you to have 20/20, blood pressure under control, no medical history of any importance and good reflexes? And you were required to pass the test every two years?

I think (from what i see on the roads) that probably less than 20% of people would be licensed to drive and I am probably being optimistic.

...

I always like to say that everyone can fly a plane ... but not everyone can fly it safely at all times.

That's what they teach us in flight school: how to handle the plane when things are out of the ordinary.

I think that every time I go up with my instructor I know he will pull the throttle back, keep his hand on it so I can't touch it and squeal in a very high-pitched tone "HELP!! HELP!! We lost the engine!!"

And then he would wait and see what I would do to recover from it.

I can't remember how many times, out of the blue he would tell me to close my eyes and put my head down, and then he would manouver the plane around quickly and roughly to disorient me and put the aiplane in a very crooked position, deeply banked or deeply pitched up or down and then he would tell me to open my eyes and recover. And I usually would stare at nothing but ground, airspeed increasing, engine noise increasing and I should recover from this twisted dive he put me in ... or recover from the opposite: nose up, speed decreasing, stall approaching.

Earlier in my training my instructor thaught me how to land without the rudder ... without the elevator, without the ailerons ... without flaps ... without electrical system AT NIGHT (and that was on Cessnas which have electrical flaps ... so it was a landing with electrical failure AND no flaps ... actually taht was my best landing ... ).

And I am "just" a GA pilot ...

Airline pilots basically go through emergencies far worse than mine and way more often than me. In fact at some point they train on nothing else BUT emergencies (I still have non-emergency things to learn ... and that's where a lot of my time with my instructor is spent).

So there you go ...

That's why when I hear on TV from a serious and concerned-looking reporter that a jet made an emergency landing without flaps, I roll on the floor, laughing like an idiot: no flaps?? NO FLAPS??? Is that the best you can do?

Puh-LLLEEEEEEEEEEEEEZE!!!

We don't need no stinking flaps!!!!
:rotflmao:

[kari]

*whine* Marco! :(

I'll have it known that it took the grand total of three times for me to pass my driving test .. why I failed the first one is anybody's guess ... the second one was something really stupid but really that drunk guy shouldn't have been there ... and the third was by no means easy. I had to parallel park on a hill (how I managed that I have no idea because I can't even parallel park on the flat usually), and I had to read a numberplate from a distance of 20 and a half metres ... and I had to know how to test the brake fluid! Not to mention that stupid hazard warning thing they make us do before we can even have a crack of the whip.

I've driven cars and I've flown planes. Flying planes is easier :)

[Rebecca]

I am going to ask Craig if his instructor made him do those particular things. I think the more such training, the better.

I am starting to suspect that some things I would really WANT my pilot to know are NOT necessarily required in training. What do you think?

For example, I believe training in actual spin recovery is NOT required, although it once WAS. Too dangerous, etc. Wouldn't it be more dangerous NOT to know how to recover from a spin?

:confused:

[aerobat]

Marco said:
Earlier in my training my instructor taught me how to land without the rudder ... without the elevator, without the ailerons ... without flaps ... without electrical system AT NIGHT (and that was on Cessnas which have electrical flaps ... so it was a landing with electrical failure AND no flaps ... actually that was my best landing ... ).

:eek: wow, Marco...you got all those simulated failures thrown at you on the same landing approach? and you lived? :lol:

Actually, I run through a similar list of simulations with my students--not all at the same time, of course, except that the night simulated electrical failures that all my students get do involve no flaps, as well as some resourcefulness in seeing the critical instruments in the pattern. Most people handle it very well, but they are well along by the time they get this. I remember when it was first pulled on me :shocked: , and I was grateful for my rubberized red flashlight that I could hold in my mouth.:blech:

There's no doubt that most people could keep a small airplane right side up in cruise, but there's a lot more to it.

Rebecca, there's been quite a controversy over spin training through the years, though maybe the dust has settled on the 'better to do it' side. I am certainly a believer, as a spin doctor ;) . I have no illusions about whether training in spin recovery will save my butt if I spin turning base to final (and though I'll bet I could recover on downwind in the 152, I would never ever ever let it happen). What I see as its greatest values are the skill it imparts in recovering from a botched power-on stall or a sudden upset at cruise altitude, as well as giving a good dose of the confidence required to remain proficient at stall recognition and recovery. Now that will save lives. The rest of the story is that a lot of CFIs don't like spins, never got over their fear of them, so don't want to teach them, and there's some fuzzy territory regarding parachutes (which I have). And the spin endorsement for the CFI certificate has devolved into something of a joke...though the FAA has begun to respond to the problem. I have given that endorsement many times, and I take my, er, victims up for at least two flights chock full of spins. :nuts:

The original reasons for removal of the spin requirement for the private certificate are complex, and did include some accident stats. Post-WWII, people were spinning ex-military aircraft that should not be spun, often without adequate operating limitations info or W&B info.

There was also concern that students would reach that point in the training syllabus and quit flying rather than face the dreaded spin. Richard Bach (of Jonathan Livingston Seagull fame) has written about this topic in various books, including a story about his own initial fear of spins, and how he busted through that fear and moved to the other side of the wall. :thumbsup:

I have never had anyone quit on me for fear of spins. :angel: :tongue:

Barb

[Rebecca]

Thanks ...

Well, there it is again ... so much to know, so many things that could happen, so much still to be learned in practice. In Inside the Sky, Langeweische the Younger says "Flying defies mastery."

Not comforting.

Yet, it seems a tad paranoid to keep asking Craig "Did you learn x, y and z and how do you feel about your ability to a, b and c, and have you practiced them lately," ad infinitum. Turns out he did NOT practice spin recovery, nor some of the things Marco described.

You do the best you can and make your decisions and then ... go.

I guess life is all about learning, it's just ... I'd like my pilot to be more quantifiably capable. But does that ever happen? When my stepson had brain surgery in '99, it helped that the doc was older and had vast experience, hundreds of these surgeries under his belt. Still, the scalpel could have slipped.

Discussions here lately have really got me almost comfortable with the idea (fact) that guarantees aren't in the offing.

Okay.

[MarcoAviator]

Yet, it seems a tad paranoid to keep asking Craig "Did you learn x, y and z and how do you feel about your ability to a, b and c, and have you practiced them lately," ad infinitum. Turns out he did NOT practice spin recovery, nor some of the things Marco described.


Well ... my instructor(s) were particularly mean ... and (according to them) I am "talented" :rolleyes: ... so one of them introduced me to spins early in my flight training even if it's not mandatory and most student's don't do it.

Most basic emergency training is sufficient and usually repeated over and over and over again (I mean, ask your husband how many times his instructor pulled a "Oh ... we lost the engine" on him ... or how many times he had to do slow flight ... power off stalls, power on stalls? I betcha he did them until he was sick of them ... and that's basic emergency handling training ... not unlike what I was talking about.)

What he went through in training is more than enough and it's a lot all by itself. He's plenty ready (because at the checkride, the FAA examiner will put you through the works. There's no escaping that.)


Discussions here lately have really got me almost comfortable with the idea (fact) that guarantees aren't in the offing.

Okay.

Well ... that's ok. That's were my fear started to dissipate: there are no quarantees ...


PS: what's the difference between a normal pilot and a professional pilot?

A normal pilot is surprised when an emergency happens.
A professional pilot is surprised when it doesn't.

Every pilot should strive to be professional ... even if we are just private pilots.

[EyesSkyward]

Turns out he did NOT practice spin recovery

Yeah, me neither. I know the procedure, but I've never practiced it. That's kind of a shame. Marco's lucky to have instructors that pushed him beyond what the FAA requires.

But, as Barb mentioned, the main thing is learning to recognize the onset of a stall (they don't happen all at once) and knowing how to avoid them.

A spin is simply a really bad stall with some "flopping over to one side" introduced into the mix. You can't spin without stalling. As long as you keep the plane out of a stall, there will be no spin to have to recover from. And if you do stall, as long as you keep the plane level and the controls coordinated, you won't spin it.

That said, there's a famous flight instructor/author (William Kershner) who lives down the road a bit here in Tennessee. He literally (http://www.kershnerflightmanuals.com/) wrote the book on aerobatics, and I think he's still instructing in his "retirement". I've always though it would be cool to get some spin training from him.

- Jeff

[aerobat]

Jeff, if I lived just up the road from Bill Kershner I'd be flying with him for sure; he's the Grand Spinmeister of the Galaxy, and a famous person who--as you probably know--has written a host of witty and wonderful books about flight training as well as many articles about flying. He's a former test pilot, and a character in the classic and most benevolent sense.

I have talked with him on the phone a few times and swapped spin videos with him. I wrote a song for him, actually (and sent the tape to him), based on his account of his first airplane ride as a kid that he published in AOPA Pilot.

He's gettin' up there in years, and had a bout with colon cancer a few years ago, so...go get some spin training with him! You'll love it! :thumbsup: He's the best, and though I hope he'll be around a few more decades, ars longa, vita brevis est.

Speaking of 'long', he likes 21-plus-turn spins. Doing that with him will earn you one of his Non Compos Mentis patches. :lol: He sent me one.:)

Barb

[EyesSkyward]

...and a famous person who--as you probably know--has written a host of witty and wonderful books about flight training

Yup! His Student Pilot's Flight Manual (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0813811538/sr=8-2/qid=1148066556/104-7360810-4364730) was the first "flight training" book I ever bought, and was my constant companion in my student days. :thumbsup:

- Jeff

[Rebecca]

I'm being bothered by the assertions here and on a thread in Ray's forum that flap malfunctions are nothing to be concerned about, and that you can land without flaps just fine. Looking at this photo from the Gallery (by Paula), I think the flaps look pretty critical, considering how they alter the shape and surfaces of the wing when they're in various positions! Is the implication that they are just for finessing? Nice but not critical?

http://takingflight.us/gallery/albums/userpics/10047/normal_737%20Wing%20Landed.jpg (http://javascript<b></b>:;)

[kari]

Hmmm. Let's just say if you landed w/o flaps you'd know about it, but it certainly wouldn't equate to a disaster or anything.

[scaredy_cat]

I think I read somehwere that without them, you'd have to land a lot faster so it would be a much harder landing, and you would need more runway to stop, is that true?

[MarcoAviator]

I think I read somehwere that without them, you'd have to land a lot faster so it would be a much harder landing, and you would need more runway to stop, is that true?

Why would it have to be harder? how hard it is depend on vertical speed and that is controlled by the pilot.

Flaps or no flaps, if the pilot (and the wind) cooperate, the landing is smooth. Flaps or no flaps, the landing could be hard if the pilot plops the plane on the runway or the wind plays a trick on the pilot. Flaps or no flaps.

Yes it would be faster. Like ... anywhere between 10 and 50 mph faster depending on the plane, weight, wind, etc.

Yes it will take a longer runway ... like 6000 feet instead of the usual 4000.

Now, considering that most runways are 10,000 feet long (some are 11, or 12!) how is that any concern, pray tell? :rolleyes:

Granted, if your destination was Trenton NJ, since the longest runway they have is 6000, I wouldn't risk it lest I'd pay a visit to the shopping mall at the end of runway 24. In that case the best course of action would be to divert to Newark, La Guardia, JFK, or Philadelphia since all of them have MANY 10k+ runways.

Again, an annoyance, not an emergency.

[MarcoAviator]

I'm being bothered by the assertions here and on a thread in Ray's forum that flap malfunctions are nothing to be concerned about, and that you can land without flaps just fine. Looking at this photo from the Gallery (by Paula), I think the flaps look pretty critical, considering how they alter the shape and surfaces of the wing when they're in various positions! Is the implication that they are just for finessing? Nice but not critical?



First off ... why do they look critical to you? They look like a redundant expensive bunch of do-ickies to me.

No they are not there for finessing ... they are required for flight. They are necessary but the plane will fly just the same without them ... and it will land just the same without them.

you guys and gals (non-aviation geeks ;) like me) seem to have trouble grasping the concept of "redundancy".

We (pilots) want redundancy because if A fails... we still have B to fly the plane.

Would I fly the plane if A failed but I still had B? Hell no! I am landing immediately.

But the plane is still flying and I can still land it. Why bother and make a big deal out of it then?

Because I want to be safe: I want to fly with both A AND B working. The plane don't need both of them working at the same time in order to fly but I do (and so does the FAA): because I don't take any chances. I want all my systems to work, redundant or not.

PS: if all those funky things on the wing went dead on BOTH wings ... you still have the rudder ... and you can still steer the plane with it.

[spleisher]

Marco,

I see where you are going with this... yes... you COULD fly a plane with no aileron, and yes, you CAN land a plane with no flaps.

But personally, I would stop short of calling flaps and ailerons "redundancies". We're talking about primary flight control surfaces here.

Being completely frank about it, it would be a REALLY BIG DEAL if you were to lose control of, or physically lose flaps or ailerons. Could a plane be landed without flaps or with non-functioning ailerons? Under ideal circumstances, sure. Under less than ideal circumsstances, maybe.

Could the loss of either prove catastrophic? Absolutely. Planes have crashed due to incorrect flap settings at takeoff.

While I understand the desire to allay concerns, I think we need to be realisstic about what we are saying.

For example... there are some BIG caveats surrounding comments like this that I think should not be left out:

PS: if all those funky things on the wing went dead on BOTH wings ... you still have the rudder ... and you can still steer the plane with it.

Not trying to bust your you-know-whats, dude... I think you get what I mean...

[Barb-SAN]

Marco,


But personally, I would stop short of calling flaps and ailerons "redundancies". We're talking about primary flight control surfaces here.

Being completely frank about it, it would be a REALLY BIG DEAL if you were to lose control of, or physically lose flaps or ailerons. Could a plane be landed without flaps or with non-functioning ailerons? Under ideal circumstances, sure. Under less than ideal circumsstances, maybe.

Could the loss of either prove catastrophic? Absolutely. Planes have crashed due to incorrect flap settings at takeoff.

While I understand the desire to allay concerns, I think we need to be realisstic about what we are saying.

For example... there are some BIG caveats surrounding comments like this that I think should not be left out:



...

We've talked about this accident on here before.....

"Airliners.net
Date: 08/16/1987 Location: Romulus, Michigan Airline: NWA Northwest Airlines Aircraft: McDonnell Douglas Super MD-80 (MD-82) Registration: N312RC Fatalities/No. Aboard: 154:155 +2 Details: The aircraft stalled and crashed during takeoff from Metro Airport. A 4-year-old girl was the only survivor. Slats and flaps not extended. Crew's failure to use taxi checklist to ensure flaps and slats were extended. Lack of electrical power to the aircraft takeoff warning system."

One of my neighbors who was a Navy fighter pilot says he ALWAYS looks out the window of the plane and checks the flap settings on take-off (when flying commercially as a PASSENGER!)

[spleisher]

That's kinda one of the things I was getting at.

Marco makes some very good points though. Airplanes are built tough, and the professionals who fly them know their stuff.

An airplane can withstand a lot of failures, including failures in primary flight control surfaces, and still land safely.

That said, flaps ARE important equipment, as are ailerons and every other major control surface.

While a plane could be flown to a safe landing with a major control surface inoperable, I would not be first in line to be the pilot who has to do it ;)

But, if I had to have something go, I would prefer flaps to rudder, aileron, or certainly evelator any day of the week.