Another Norseman...gone

Topics related to accidents, incidents & over due aircraft should be placed in this forum.

Moderators: sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, lilfssister, North Shore

User avatar
PilotDAR
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 4053
Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2012 6:46 pm
Location: Near CNJ4 Orillia, Ontario

Re: Another Norseman...gone

Post by PilotDAR »

corethatthermal ......
You know didly squat!
Really corethatthermal, you just don't know the flying experience you're talking against here. You're making yourself memorable in the wrong ways.
I am still NOT advocating this procedure....
...Is great, and a promotion of aviation safety.
---------- ADS -----------
 
cncpc
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1632
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2010 10:17 am

Re: Another Norseman...gone

Post by cncpc »

corethatthermal wrote: Fri Jul 19, 2019 3:24 pm
I know what you're talking about. You're talking about getting real slow, with your nose way up in the air and lots of power, and sneaking up on the shoreline as though you were trying to land on a gravel-bar or beach. You figure this is a good way to get as low as possible before "transitioning" somehow to your stable, glassy-water configuration just as you get out over the water.
You know didly squat! I was referring to a round smallish lake that is glassy WITH hills all around ! You need to approach steeply and then transition to glassy technique when you pass the last line of trees. You can approach slower and steeper with the backside and you must transition at treetop height because beyond that , you will not know the height, just the timing at your descent rate. I am still NOT advocating this procedure, I am saying that glassy technique is the safest and i am also saying that backside approaches are SAFE. BUT doing BOTH is in my estimation , a theoretical ideal approach in these conditions IF it can be done perfectly safely.
Don't take this the wrong way, but you're as close enough to an eejit as makes no difference.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Good judgment comes from experience. Experience often comes from bad judgment.
C.W.E.
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1262
Joined: Mon Dec 18, 2017 2:22 pm

Re: Another Norseman...gone

Post by C.W.E. »

Really corethatthermal, you just don't know the flying experience you're talking against here.
Well corethethermal I have been flying sea planes since 1954 and have many, many thousands of hours flying them all over the world.

Ignorant of how to properly fly them I am not, that you can bet on.

I have never ever damaged one, but if I had flown them as you suggest I probably would not have survived.
---------- ADS -----------
 
shimmydampner
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1764
Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2004 3:59 pm

Re: Another Norseman...gone

Post by shimmydampner »

Extolling the virtues of back side approaches.....this guy is definitely aeroancasuperchief.
---------- ADS -----------
 
corethatthermal
Rank 5
Rank 5
Posts: 391
Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2019 7:27 pm

Re: Another Norseman...gone

Post by corethatthermal »

Has anyone in the float world tried backside power approaches to a glassy then transition to front side approach by adding power and be immediately onto the glassy approach profile for your A/C ?
Boy, a lot of folks are either ignorant, can't read or just liars when they say I am advocating or doing this "approach" Read above, I asked a simple question.
but if I had flown them as you suggest
NO, I am not suggesting anything ! AND i have NEVER tried this "compound" approach ( backside to a glassy transition )

Here is another example where the avcanada gurus WILL take my words the wrong way.

I have both practiced and done in real life a powered flare, yes, you heard that from me. As you approach the flare, you add power ( 25-75% ) to cushion the landing , OR transition from the backside to the flare in one move.
For anyone who has landed on a gusty day with large cats paws on the water, they KNOW that there will be days that they must use LOTS of power to flare so they don't bend the plane !! If you thought about it, you would come to realize that you were front side of the curve, then you were on the backside and likely touched down on the front side IF you reduced power a little in the flare.
There is nothing strange or inherently unsafe about a backside approach to a frontside flare landing on a lake.

A glassy water technique takes PRACTICE to be proficient at, in the various scenarios AND trying to practice it in less than glassy conditions is self defeating because of wind gradients, gusts, and the inability to "lock" the pitch control through the approach and ground ( lake) effect.

Many pilots will do a pseudo flare when they should not and inherently dig the keel in and push over to be sucked over on your back.
Other pilots will simply not recognize the condition as glassy or have very little experience at doing it.
Others will choose a descent rate too low and will find they are stuck in ground effect and the pitch down caused by it.
---------- ADS -----------
 
corethatthermal
Rank 5
Rank 5
Posts: 391
Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2019 7:27 pm

Re: Another Norseman...gone

Post by corethatthermal »

With many lakes being large AND having a straight shoreline at some point, Many glassy water approaches and landings are a slight modification of glassy technique where you do come close to the water ( especially with plants in the water) nose high and do a partial glassy technique ( the nose is at the right attitude ( slightly backside on the power curve) and you use power to vary the descent rate until you are comfortable. You MAY be doing a small flare or you may not.

With really good cues, understand this is NOT a true and full glassy water landing!

What i was writing about before was NOT this sort of approach and landing!
---------- ADS -----------
 
corethatthermal
Rank 5
Rank 5
Posts: 391
Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2019 7:27 pm

Re: Another Norseman...gone

Post by corethatthermal »

Laminar I suppose you have inspected any or all of the airplanes I have sold or inspected or signed off? Where is your proof?
As far as criticizing Christianity, Are you a christian or do you know the doctrines of various denominations to be able to speak with some authority?
Maybe when you have an ounce of proof of anything, you can come on here and blow smoke rings up my arse ! :D
IF you think the progression of Canadians and Canada is a wonderful thing, just look around you and look at who you elected.

Do you want a work report of the C-182 to know how much was put into the plane and how thoroughly it was inspected? I was confident enough to fly it back from the Pemberton area at night to Oliver with my family after its third test flight after major inspection and every accessory and cylinder removed/repaired etc. Would you be able to do that with your bicycle? :wink:
---------- ADS -----------
 
laminar
Rank 1
Rank 1
Posts: 48
Joined: Fri May 25, 2018 9:49 am

Re: Another Norseman...gone

Post by laminar »

Fill your boots man. You do you. I’m glad I’m hundreds of km away from you and won’t be dispatched to the site of your demise.
---------- ADS -----------
 
laminar
Rank 1
Rank 1
Posts: 48
Joined: Fri May 25, 2018 9:49 am

Re: Another Norseman...gone

Post by laminar »

corethatthermal wrote: Fri Jul 19, 2019 9:28 pm I was confident enough to fly it back from the Pemberton area at night to Oliver with my family after its third test flight after major inspection and every accessory and cylinder removed/repaired etc. Would you be able to do that with your bicycle? :wink:
Also, if I thought I could do a night flight in BC with my family members on my bicycle I’d probably be related to you
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
PilotDAR
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 4053
Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2012 6:46 pm
Location: Near CNJ4 Orillia, Ontario

Re: Another Norseman...gone

Post by PilotDAR »

There is nothing strange or inherently unsafe about a backside approach to a frontside flare landing on a lake.
Yes, there is!

ALL backside [of the power curve] approaches to any surface are inherently unsafe. They are inherently unsafe because of the simple fact that you are flying on the back side of the power curve, and this means that power is required for sustained flight in that configuration, and more power may be required to flare (arrest your rate of descent). If you loose engine power, or mis use power, a safe landing at all is unlikely, let alone where you planned to touch down.

Core is onto something, because he is acknowledging that it may be necessary to add power to flare and land. This is a possibility for a "too slow" approach power on or off. If you don't have that power available to arrest the descent (the flare), you won't stop going down before you hit the surface. When you are going down toward the surface with an intent to land gently on it, there will be a requirement to trade energy to accelerate the plane upward away from the descent angle to stop going down, and land. In an airplane, that energy will come from one of only two places: airspeed you stored in excess of stall speed (* plus a bit), or engine power. If you don't have engine power available, you're relying on only airspeed in excess of stall speed. *by the way, if the descent angle is steep, stall speed at the mid point of your attempt to flare may be a little more than a 1G stall, because you're pulling a little more than 1G in the flare, you're accelerating the plane upward - pulling G. It's only a tiny amount of G, my experiments show that even for a sharp flare, you're pulling 1.05G, but if you only had 1.1G worth of stored excess energy in speed, and then you pull, you slow down as you pull, and the G goes up a little, they meet, and you stall. When you stall then, you keep going down, and the ground is right there - you're going to hit hard.

This is not about touching down where you planned following an engine failure, this is about simply surviving the touchdown wherever it happens! Yes, on a few occasions I have flown backside approaches in Cessnas to assure that I got into the short runway/lake. In each case, I did it with the understanding that this was a much greater risk landing. Those approaches were always flat, not steep. The flat approach meant that it was only a very slight change to flare and touch down, rather than having to add more power to arrest my descent angle. - the approach was already risk enough!

This is exactly why, following the takeoff of your choice, the plane should be allowed to accelerate to a suitable faster climb speed unless there are obstacles. If flown needlessly slowly in the climb, a sudden engine failure may result in the pilot never achieving a good glide speed, and arriving to the surface with a back side of the power curve speed, and no power to arrest the descent.

So, new pilots, you've read Corethatthermal state that he's not suggesting backside of the power curve approaches, just asking about them. The answer to Core, and all pilots is: NO, don't do it! Fly the speeds and techniques recommended by the aircraft manufacturer.
---------- ADS -----------
 
DHC2eater
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 122
Joined: Fri Dec 03, 2010 11:02 am

Re: Another Norseman...gone

Post by DHC2eater »

I would suggest that Pilotdar's intelligent post be the last on this thread that has drifted so far off course!

I would also suggest that the wheel is round ...has been for centurys...and works well!.....leave it be!

Some of us are much smarter and have way better piloting skills than those that "wrote the book" ....however....if you stick with the proven methods and / or approved procedures as layed out by those authorized .....we stand a much better chance of having a long and uneventful career or recreational aviation experience.

I guess this should be the last post....

Eater ...... :cry:
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
Castorero
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 276
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 12:51 pm

Re: Another Norseman...gone

Post by Castorero »

:rolleyes:
---------- ADS -----------
 
Last edited by Castorero on Sat Jul 20, 2019 8:46 am, edited 1 time in total.
corethatthermal
Rank 5
Rank 5
Posts: 391
Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2019 7:27 pm

Re: Another Norseman...gone

Post by corethatthermal »

ALL backside [of the power curve] approaches to any surface are inherently unsafe. They are inherently unsafe because of the simple fact that you are flying on the back side of the power curve, and this means that power is required for sustained flight in that configuration, and more power may be required to flare (arrest your rate of descent). If you loose engine power, or mis use power, a safe landing at all is unlikely, let alone where you planned to touch down.
How should one define "safe" in aviation? When I take off and fly over mountains with a 40+ year old single engine airplane, many folks would call that INSANE! :lol: I am going to call it accepting a certain level of risk ( risk management )
Teaching someone to land a seaplane has its inherent risks BUT would you ever call it "unsafe" before your unfortunate accident ?
A backside approach is LESS safe than a normal approach. A normal approach that will not guarantee a successful landing on the runway in the event of engine failure at anywhere in the circuit ( this is often the case ) aught to be considered unsafe and perhaps stupid to do, in this conversation

How many here have shut off the engine mid final to prove their theory that they will make the runway on a normal approach profile in a single?
That's right, you would not because you would not make the runway! Flying a high approach where landing on a runway in the event of an engine failure anywhere in the circuit is not even done on test flights by experienced pilots ! :o
---------- ADS -----------
 
corethatthermal
Rank 5
Rank 5
Posts: 391
Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2019 7:27 pm

Re: Another Norseman...gone

Post by corethatthermal »

So, new pilots, you've read Corethatthermal state that he's not suggesting backside of the power curve approaches, just asking about them. The answer to Core, and all pilots is: NO, don't do it! Fly the speeds and techniques recommended by the aircraft manufacturer.
Actually you are not quoting me correctly, I am NOT suggesting doing backside approaches to an immediate transition to a glassy water technique for landing.
The answer to Core, and all pilots is: NO, don't do it! (( Backside approaches)) Fly the speeds and techniques recommended by the aircraft manufacturer
Yes, on a few occasions I have flown backside approaches in Cessnas to assure that I got into the short runway/lake
I am a little confused with the hypocrisy here! You say "NO, don't do it" but on the previous post you say " I have flown backside approaches "

I myself have no issue with backside approaches flown by experienced pilots in appropriate aircraft with good reliable equipment and not done all the time but only when necessity demands and/ or practiced at altitude for training!
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
PilotDAR
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 4053
Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2012 6:46 pm
Location: Near CNJ4 Orillia, Ontario

Re: Another Norseman...gone

Post by PilotDAR »

A normal approach that will not guarantee a successful landing on the runway in the event of engine failure at anywhere in the circuit
I did not suggest that a normal approach would guarantee a successful landing on the runway, just that you would have the reserve of energy stored in the plane to successfully land on the surface - rather than impacting it. No, you might not make the runway, just survive the "landing".
Flying a high approach where landing on a runway in the event of an engine failure anywhere in the circuit is not even done on test flights by experienced pilots ! :o
Ah, yes, some times it is, I certainly have on many occasions. Though, generally a busy airport traffic pattern would not permit this.
I am a little confused with the hypocrisy here! You say "NO, don't do it" but on the previous post you say " I have flown backside approaches "
I said I've flown back side of the power curve approaches in rare occasions onto runways and lakes - not to glassy water!
Actually you are not quoting me correctly, I am NOT suggesting doing backside approaches to an immediate transition to a glassy water technique for landing
'Sounds to me like you did suggest;
I have done MANY glassy water landings and taught many as well ( difficult to teach when it is not glassy )
IF one does a backside approach ( no worries mate, it is calm as hell so no concerns with wind shear induced stall ) you have a lower approach speed at a steeper profile to position yourself for the smaller lake .
You would need to add power to bring yourself to the front side of the power curve to execute the approach but i believe it can be done quite successfully with practice . This approach would alleviate concerns with limited space and make a better pilot out of you as well!
Ultimately, the bluster and self contradictory information presented by corethatthermal should be an indicator to new pilots (the experienced pilots reading this thread are sitting back laughing) that if a procedure cannot be traced to authoritative manufacturer's or trained techniques, it's probably an "avoid", certainly not doing it 'cause you read it on the internet from an anonymous poster. "Watch this" when spoken within the cockpit should be a warning. "Try this" when read on an internet forum should be equally concerning. What you should be expecting to read on an internet pilot forum, is mentoring information, which re-enforces the good practices you have been trained, and provides helpful references to authoritative material.

You'd feel pretty silly explaining to your insurance adjuster that you wrecked your airplane trying something that you read on the internet from an anonymous poster, which had drawn immense criticism from many other anonymous posters - and C.W.E.

In my capacity as the pilot testing an developing necessary changed operating procedures for modified aircraft, I have had to deviate from the established published procedures, develop new ones, assess that they could be trained and accomplished within the standards, and document them. Sometimes I have had to define a procedure where none existed before. All the while, I was trying my best to find ways to keep new procedures as close as possible to standardized procedures. In several cases, I have stated faster speeds for some approaches, having satisfied myself that the aircraft is capable of being flown at an unsafe slow speed on approach, and that should be avoided. I'm much more interested in going home to my family each evening, than "trying" things in airplanes, when there is a suitable procedure already published and appropriate.
---------- ADS -----------
 
corethatthermal
Rank 5
Rank 5
Posts: 391
Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2019 7:27 pm

Re: Another Norseman...gone

Post by corethatthermal »

I did not suggest that a normal approach would guarantee a successful landing on the runway
I did not say that you did suggest lol

just that you would have the reserve of energy stored in the plane to successfully land on the surface - rather than impacting it. No, you might not make the runway, just survive the "landing".
True, however, you may be doing a really nice flare only to ram into a concrete building in the city at 40 miles per hour! This is generally not survivable! What i was getting at is the semantics displayed by various posters or their own hypocrisy when they would say that it is foolish to do a backside approach just because of a possible engine failure when they fly for hours in a single with the possibility of injury or death if their engine fails. ! I flew 2 summers in the rocky mountains looking for fires. There were few landing spots where you could walk away from uninjured and those flights lasted up to 6 hours. Was I foolish or anyone else who took on that job?
So, new pilots, you've read Corethatthermal state that he's not suggesting backside of the power curve approaches, just asking about them. The answer to Core, and all pilots is: NO, don't do it! Fly the speeds and techniques recommended by the aircraft manufacturer.
The above statement has nothing to do with glassy water landings.
I said I've flown back side of the power curve approaches in rare occasions onto runways and lakes - not to glassy water!
Here is your statement, it has nothing to do with an ultimate glassy water landing but the WHOLE post of many paragraphs talk about approaches and energy management , not glassy water landings!
Yes, on a few occasions I have flown backside approaches in Cessnas to assure that I got into the short runway/lake.
You say " don't do it " but then you go on to say that you yourself does the very same thing you say not to do. Trying to modify your statements after the fact by implying that you were referring to a final glassy water landing is disingenuous in the least!

I said this:
IF one does a backside approach ( no worries mate, it is calm as hell so no concerns with wind shear induced stall ) you have a lower approach speed at a steeper profile to position yourself for the smaller lake .
You would need to add power to bring yourself to the front side of the power curve to execute the approach but i believe it can be done quite successfully with practice . This approach would alleviate concerns with limited space and make a better pilot out of you as well!
I made sure to Capitalize IF. In the next sentence, I said "You" Then I said " I believe"

If i said to a young pilot " If you throw yourself off this high mountain cliff, You will most likely, I believe suffer multiple injuries or death. Your jumping from the cliff would cause sadness and make misery for all your friends and family" I am NOT suggesting the young pilot throw him/herself off the cliff. I am simply voicing my opinion of the possible consequences.

Here is a scenario: A backside approach is a safe and stable approach ( not as safe as sitting on your couch watching the Simpsons mind you!) A glassy water approach is a safe and stable approach. IF one were to combine the 2 stable approaches with an unstable transition in between ( At altitude for practice) You are doing roughly the same thing as the approach to a spin (stable) the stall and coordinated use of controls (transition) to enter the spin,(unstable) the spin (stable), the coordinated use of controls (transition) to come out of a spin (unstable ) and finally the recovery (stable) AND we practiced those for decades and no one laughed at us !
In the end, I suppose the wisdom of the day thought the risk was higher than the reward. ( You have to screw up pretty bad to get into a high altitude spin ) BUT no one was laughing at the required training syllabus
---------- ADS -----------
 
C.W.E.
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1262
Joined: Mon Dec 18, 2017 2:22 pm

Re: Another Norseman...gone

Post by C.W.E. »

IF one does a backside approach ( no worries mate, it is calm as hell so no concerns with wind shear induced stall ) you have a lower approach speed at a steeper profile to position yourself for the smaller lake .
You would need to add power to bring yourself to the front side of the power curve to execute the approach but i believe it can be done quite successfully with practice .
I have read some mind boggling suggestions on this site but for sheer stupidity this is a real winner.

Good troll tough core....
---------- ADS -----------
 
corethatthermal
Rank 5
Rank 5
Posts: 391
Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2019 7:27 pm

Re: Another Norseman...gone

Post by corethatthermal »

When the first loop or spin or ( insert whatever) was accomplished, I am sure someone was laughing at that fool and saying it is too risky!
Do aerobatic pilots need to risk their lives? Are they considered fools? does the audience laugh at them?
Who did the first landing on a flatbed truck? How stupid was that?
Have you ever heard of a police officer multitasking BUT you are considered incapable to manage the increased risk properly?
When you are told that "professionals" can do it safely and you cannot, because of training or a piece of paper, do you believe?
When the returning military men and women are hailed as heroes, does that make the act of murder or mass murder acceptable? does it depend on whose side you were killing? Was a certificate all that was necessary?

If I got the required hours and was issued a certificate saying I am qualified to do backside approaches, would I instantly be the professional or have the moral allowance to speak of such lofty and incredibly difficult maneuvers?

Are ALL military pilots and ALL aerobatic pilots not allowed to post on av-canada because they are involved in a higher risk part of aviation and therefore might lead the little ones astray ?

Is it wise to just demonstrate to a 16 yr old how to recover from black ice or loss of control due to slush in a car? Now the child has a sense of false confidence. Would it not be better for the 16 yr old to drive their car on a lake in the winter and practice theirself? But WHO is the fool? The one who is scorned at for driving a car on a lake? or the one who is in intensive care because he/she did not have a practical clue how to drive in a snowstorm?

If you have an elevator cable failure and crash and burn and die, Isn't it a bit too late to blame the ( insert person/company here) . You are dead!. Would it not be wise to Practice Simulated Pitch/Roll and Yaw control failures in a safe manner so that you are prepared for all possibilities? How many do this? Is it ever taught in schools? Do YOU do this for every type of small A/C you fly? Have you practiced engine out 180+ degree returns to airport using an aerobatic procedure to accomplish the task? at altitude of course.
---------- ADS -----------
 
C.W.E.
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1262
Joined: Mon Dec 18, 2017 2:22 pm

Re: Another Norseman...gone

Post by C.W.E. »

Have you practiced engine out 180+ degree returns to airport using an aerobatic procedure to accomplish the task? at altitude of course.
What aerobatic procedure would you suggest?
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
PilotDAR
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 4053
Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2012 6:46 pm
Location: Near CNJ4 Orillia, Ontario

Re: Another Norseman...gone

Post by PilotDAR »

To prevent thread drift, my reply to corethatthermal can be found in the "procedures" thread, where it is more on topic.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Post Reply

Return to “Accidents, Incidents & Overdue Aircraft”