SailNet Community banner
  • SailNet is a forum community dedicated to Sailing enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about sailing, modifications, classifieds, troubleshooting, repairs, reviews, maintenance, and more!
21 - 40 of 41 Posts
If a lesser experienced pilot got the plane out of control due to loss of orientation it must be doubly harder for the other pilot to take over, orientate himself, then orientate the aircraft. Wouldn't it?
This has already been answered well by a couple pilots here with more experience than myself, but I figured I'd chime in. "Recovery from unusual attitudes" is an integral part of flight training, both in VFR and IFR training. I do not have an IFR certification yet, but am working towards it. EVERY flight, my instructor directs me to close my eyes, take my hands and feet off the controls, and lean either far forward or far backwards. While I'm in that state, he puts the airplane through a myriad of maneuvers that trigger sensations that makes it feel like the plane is climbing, diving, banking, upside down... with your eyes closed, it could be doing anything. After a period of time (20 seconds to a minute), he directs me, "OK, open your eyes and recover." This is "under the hood," meaning I can't see anything but the instruments once I open my eyes. At that point, you take in the information presented to you by the instruments and act upon it. As long as you stay calm, recovery is pretty much a "by the book" procedure, and there's procedures for any unusual attitude. I don't have any problem with this exercise, and actually enjoy it. The lad's father had way more experience than I do, and WAS IFR rated and experienced.

In my opinion, based on my training, no.. it wouldn't be doubly hard if someone else got the plane into an unusual attitude. If anything, I think it might be easier because you wouldn't have been the one to mistakenly place it there in the first place; you wouldn't know what went wrong, only what WAS wrong, so you'd just fix it instead of slowly having been fooled into a bad situation by physical sensations.

I recognize that my experiences with IFR unusual attitudes have been in very controlled situations with a 20,000 plus hour flight instructor. If the kaka hit the rotating blades, I didn't know it was coming, and I was alone, I still think I could deal with it, but I would most likely be pretty dang scared. That's one of many reasons I'm pursuing not only the IFR rating, but serious proficiency. As with the standard VFR PPL, the real learning starts once you HAVE the rating/certification.

Thanks for the question, Mark.

Best wishes,

Barry
 
  • Like
Reactions: MarkofSeaLife
My best evil trick was running the trim full up or down while doing the unusual attitudes :D
Trim runaway is a real thing too and can be quite serious. For one example, most large jets have a lot more trim range than elevator range, i.e you cannot overcome bad trim with brute force.
 
My best evil trick was running the trim full up or down while doing the unusual attitudes :D
Trim runaway is a real thing too and can be quite serious. For one example, most large jets have a lot more trim range than elevator range, i.e you cannot overcome bad trim with brute force.
My CFI used to do that too, then cover up the attitude indicator and make me recover with partial panel :(
 
My CFI used to do that too, then cover up the attitude indicator and make me recover with partial panel :(
Mine makes me recover using only my teeth and a moistened finger stuck out the window blindfolded... :laugher

In all seriousness, putting the aircraft way out of trim was one of the first things he ever did to me... and he still does it. I'd love to fly with both of you folks some day. Partial panel recovery is something I haven't done enough to feel comfortable with yet. On the flip side of the trim issue, he has had me fly the airplane simulating loss of yoke control; just rudder and trim. Comforting to know that that's perfectly doable too!

Best to ya... and still praying for the family.

Barry
 
Lot of pilot/sailor on this board. We've all failed an intelligence test, we found a way to spend too much money on 2 crazy pursuits;)
Yes, it always surprises me... but there are surprising similarities.. all the instruemnts are the same, or at least familier to a sailor, except for the up and downy, round and roundy one.

Even I have done it... ;)
 

Attachments

So I guess next we will stop recording the youngest to climb Everest, the youngest to drive in Nascar, the youngest to go into space, the youngest to ride the Tour de France, the youngest to enluist and go to Afghanistan ( one year older than this 17 year old). Life is risks and danger. Not putting the youngest in the record books wont stop people from doing it...thats absurd.

Stop being abunch of nannys and passing judgement on others who have the right to make their own decisons and then making judgements about them. As long as it doesnt endanger you....whats you beef
 
  • Like
Reactions: smurphny
So I guess next we will stop recording the youngest to climb Everest, the youngest to drive in Nascar, the youngest to go into space, the youngest to ride the Tour de France, the youngest to enluist and go to Afghanistan ( one year older than this 17 year old). Life is risks and danger. Not putting the youngest in the record books wont stop people from doing it...thats absurd.

Stop being abunch of nannys and passing judgement on others
Everest has banned such bull after a 9 year old was slated to climb Mt Everest after a 13 year old did it. The Chinese initiated the ban from their side and the Nepalise followed suit. (Which is about the only time I have seen the Chinese lead with something intelligent! And good on them for doing it)

The Chinese also banned 'oldest' records by banning all old geezers from stumblin up on their Zimmer Frames.
 

Attachments

So I guess next we will stop recording the youngest to climb Everest, the youngest to drive in Nascar, the youngest to go into space, the youngest to ride the Tour de France, the youngest to enluist and go to Afghanistan ( one year older than this 17 year old). Life is risks and danger. Not putting the youngest in the record books wont stop people from doing it...thats absurd.

Stop being abunch of nannys and passing judgement on others who have the right to make their own decisons and then making judgements about them. As long as it doesnt endanger you....whats you beef
While it is very sad when one of these young people dies, it is also encouraging that there are still a few who pursue things other than the newest mind-sapping electronic gadget and who aspire to do something not confined to a cubicle. Young people are much more capable than most folks imagine. The "record setting" element, I would guess, is not at all the reason for them getting involved in flying, sailing, rock climbing, skiing, etc.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tomandchris
Just read thru this post and it's obvious there are some pilots with experience on this board. I too am a pilot with commercial/instrument privileges and have quite a bit of time in the A36 Bonanza. For the flights they were taking I'm sure they had "ferry" fuel tanks that add alot of extra fuel and weight to the aircraft for them to cover the long distances that are required between land in the Pacific. Not to get too much into it but the A36 has some interesting Center of Gravity issues that have to be dealt with as the fuel is burned; not dangerous but you need to be mindful of it. The aircraft went down shortly after takeoff. With the extra weight the aircraft had I'm sure the climb was anemic and they weren't much more than several thousand feet above the water. If they experienced a vacuum failure and didn't recognize it almost immediately then they were doomed. The Bonanza is "a slippery" airframe and can gain a great deal of speed with nose pointed down. At a few thousand feet they could have impacted the water in a matter of seconds. Vacuum failures at night low to the ground is very very serious business.
 
My best evil trick was running the trim full up or down while doing the unusual attitudes :D
Trim runaway is a real thing too and can be quite serious. For one example, most large jets have a lot more trim range than elevator range, i.e you cannot overcome bad trim with brute force.
I seem to remember an airliner crash some years ago (think it was an Airbus?) that was (eventually) directly attributed to a trim control failure.
 
The organization that keeps track of sailing records eliminated the 'youngest' category a few years ago so if people are doing it there is no formal recognition. Having said that, we crossed paths with Laura Dekker in the South Pacific and she was a very competent, responsible sailor.
Very cool! I loved the movie about her circumnavigation, "Maidentrip".
 
As some of you experienced pilots have mentioned, the crash was probably fuel weight related. Note the flight was going from American Samoa to Hawaii (over 2,200 miles) and this was so far the longest leg of the trip. The plane would have been loaded with fuel probably higher than ever before- and they had just taken off then crashed.

Here is Matt's web site:
About | Limitless Horizons

And itnerary:
Itinerary | Limitless Horizons

Ok I am mistaken, Matt did finish the flight:
Matt Guthmiller, 19, Is Youngest Person to Fly Solo Around World

Looks to have had the same plane model and route as the crashed plane flown by Haris Suleman.
RIP Haris

From:
http://www.dawn.com/news/1121709

Haris Suleman's plane didn't show distress: witness
By AP
Published 3 days ago‹ ›

File Photo AP
PAGO PAGO (United States): A man who saw the plane flown by Haris Suleman seconds before it crashed and killed the boy and his father during an around-the-world flight attempt said the aircraft was flying low but didn't show any obvious signs of distress before diving into the ocean off American Samoa.

Bert Thompson of Matuu, American Samoa, said on Thursday he saw no fire, explosions or emergency lighting on the plane carrying 17-year-old Haris Suleman and his father, 58-year-old Pakistani-born Babar Suleman.

"It just went down, dived into the ocean," said Mr Thompson, who saw the plane while sitting at a bus stop in his shoreline village. Haris Suleman's body was recovered shortly after Tuesday's crash. Crews were still searching for his father.

Mr Thompson said he didn't see the plane hit the water because it was too far offshore and too dark, with no moon in the sky. Anguished family members and friends pleaded for more resources on Thursday in hopes of finding Babar Suleman. "Time is of the essence," family friend Azher Khan said at a news conference outside the family's home. "Babar is a fighter, and I know that he's over there clinging to hope, hoping that someone will come for rescue."

Haris Suleman knew risks of around-the-world journey: family

The US Coast Guard said on Thursday it had found wreckage from the plane, which crashed shortly after taking off from Pago Pago, American Samoa.

A pilot spotted sections of the plane's fuselage and other aircraft components on Wednesday night, spokesman Gene Maestas said, and ships later recovered some of that debris.

Divers searching for Babar Suleman went to the last known location of the plane's distress signal but found the 100-metre water too deep, said American Samoa Homeland Security Department Director Iuniasolua Savusa.

"It's beyond their capabilities at this point," the director said. "So right now, we are doing all we can to deploy methods we have on island."

That includes casting a net to the bottom of the ocean and dragging it to see if it captures any wreckage.

Haris Suleman had hoped to set the record for the fastest circumnavigation around the world in a single-engine airplane with the youngest pilot in command. His journey was also a fund-raiser to help build schools in Pakistan. Babar Suleman had long dreamed of flying around the world. The Sulemans left the United States on June 19 and had been expected to arrive back on Saturday.

Family and friends defended the father-son team and their mission, saying they had known the dangers when they set out and had trained for them.

Published in Dawn, July 26th, 2014
 
What is vacuum failure?
I don't know, but it sucks... (rim shot)...

Sorry, bad joke. Most smallish planes, including my Cherokee, have a suction pump that creates a vacuum in a couple lines that feed the HI (Heading Indicator) and AI (Attitude Indicator). That vacuum enables these gauges to operate. If the vacuum system fails, you can still fly the airplane, but you are reduced to "partial panel," meaning you are left with the remaining operable gauges, which include the altimeter (how high you are), airspeed indicator (how fast you are going relative to the windspeed.. the aviation allegory to apparent wind in sailing), and VSI (Vertical Speed Indicator, which tells you your rate of ascent or descent, with a considerable bit of lag) which are all ram and/or static air pressure-driven instruments, your TC (Turn Coordinator) which tells you, overly-simplified, your rate of turn, i.e., how many degrees of turn you'll complete in a given amount of time, which is typically an electric instrument, and your compass. As you know from sailing, there are compass errors you need to account for. The compass errors in aircraft are much more pronounced.

A vacuum failure makes you rely on instruments with more lag than others, and whose reading require more interpretation to determine the "attitude" (orientation) of the aircraft than the two main vacuum-driven instruments (Attitude Indicator and Heading Indicator). The aircraft is still eminently flyable, but requires a great deal more concentration and a calm mind. Being able to so do, in my opinion, is one of the fundamental goals of IFR instruction.

This is an over-simplified, not entirely accurate layman's description of the systems involved.. I hope it helps.

Best to all,

Barry
 
To add to this: All IFR airplanes have redundant instruments run from seperate power sources. In a typical light airplane those sources are the vacuum pump and electrical system. If the vacuum pump fails flying gets much harder because the 'best" instruments are the vacuum ones and you have to know they failed. Bigger dollar and newer airplanes frequently use all electrical instruments with seperate emergency batteries. I used to fly an airpane with two engines and two alternators that split everything between left and right busses with a bus tie breaker I could open so that half my equipment would keep going unless I had a double electrical failure.
 
The loss of suction would also cause the autopilot to fail, if they have the KFC-200 that is normal in that era A36, which takes input from the AI.

That said, I'd be surprised if they took that trip without a standby vac. That's pretty essential IFR safety equipment.
 
21 - 40 of 41 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top