Another Norseman...gone
Moderators: sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, lilfssister, North Shore
-
- Rank 4
- Posts: 284
- Joined: Wed Apr 09, 2008 7:10 pm
Re: Another Norseman...gone
Unfortunately my fly-in lakes were small, like in very, no choice. I know some of the comments were made by pilots here that would not attempt to land in most of my lakes. That's fine when you don't have to. I wanted to make a living and did so for more years than most on this site offering their advice. No accidents but oh a lot of experience in 1/2 a century. Small lakes with hills and trees all around. The wind was my biggest challenge and cancelled many afternoon flights that were then done just before dark. Most to carry out of one of the lakes, with my Beaver, was 3 with gear and zilch for fuel. My suggestion for creating a ripple does work but I didn't use it. I went home many times because I didn't like the wind. It's a different world out there. Just thought I would add something interesting to this thread.
I'm sure there aren't many airline types out there that can put a Cub down on a strip 300 ft., or less, so I'm thinking small lakes are similar.
Have at it all you small lake gurus because I'm still learning. I'm not suggesting how I do it either because IMHO there is too much advice on this site for beginners from all the "experts".
I'm sure there aren't many airline types out there that can put a Cub down on a strip 300 ft., or less, so I'm thinking small lakes are similar.
Have at it all you small lake gurus because I'm still learning. I'm not suggesting how I do it either because IMHO there is too much advice on this site for beginners from all the "experts".
Re: Another Norseman...gone
This quote by corethethermal says far more about him/her than any of us who pointed out just how potentially dangerous his/her glassy water procedures are.For those who are ignorant , in glassy water conditions,
Re: Another Norseman...gone
What's wrong with flying over a lake at 15 ft to make ripples? If it makes your life easier, why not? Could be useful on bigger lakes as well, depending on your comfort and skill level.DHC2eater wrote: ↑Wed Jul 17, 2019 8:56 pmHoly Shit......Like Forest Gump's mother said....'Stupid is what stupid does'ruddersup? wrote: ↑Wed Jul 17, 2019 4:46 pm Gentlemen,
Corethatthermal has twigged my memory. We were in this discussion years back and I said there was a way to make the small round glassy water lake more manageable. There is no time to set up a normal glassy water landing. Can't do the 250-300ft/min decent. Make a low pass, not 5 ft low but about 15 ft and then go around. The pass will get air movement and you should get a slight ripple on the water to land. Still use all your senses and, of course, attitude is vital.
If the landing surface is that small/challenging then maybe one shouldn't be there!
45 years in the industry and I've never heard of this kind of shit......what happened to throwing out a life jacket to make ripples!!, tongue in Cheek!
Eater
It's certainly safer than corethatthermal's proposed technique...
As an AvCanada discussion grows longer:
-the probability of 'entitlement' being mentioned, approaches 1
-one will be accused of using bad airmanship
-the probability of 'entitlement' being mentioned, approaches 1
-one will be accused of using bad airmanship
Re: Another Norseman...gone
How do you safely fly that close to glassy water?What's wrong with flying over a lake at 15 ft to make ripples?
-
- Rank (9)
- Posts: 1764
- Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2004 3:59 pm
Re: Another Norseman...gone
Really? How much PIC float experience is this derived from? I'm not saying this technique is without any merit. I've actually seen it work. Once. But the window in which it's useful is very, very small.
Re: Another Norseman...gone
By not looking at the glassy water but by looking at the shoreline/bush/trees?
As an AvCanada discussion grows longer:
-the probability of 'entitlement' being mentioned, approaches 1
-one will be accused of using bad airmanship
-the probability of 'entitlement' being mentioned, approaches 1
-one will be accused of using bad airmanship
Re: Another Norseman...gone
What is your point exactly? You have seen it work but don't agree it works?shimmydampner wrote: ↑Thu Jul 18, 2019 7:40 pmReally? How much PIC float experience is this derived from? I'm not saying this technique is without any merit. I've actually seen it work. Once. But the window in which it's useful is very, very small.
As an AvCanada discussion grows longer:
-the probability of 'entitlement' being mentioned, approaches 1
-one will be accused of using bad airmanship
-the probability of 'entitlement' being mentioned, approaches 1
-one will be accused of using bad airmanship
-
- Rank (9)
- Posts: 1764
- Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2004 3:59 pm
Re: Another Norseman...gone
I've seen it work by fluke, however I don't think it's something that could be considered a very useful method, otherwise it would already be common practice. And I'm not sure I'd call purposely flying low over a glassy water surface with no intention of landing, "safer". But maybe I'm wrong, what do I know. In all my years of float flying, I just stuck to the tried and true methods for glassy water.
Re: Another Norseman...gone
If your not good enough to land on glassy water because you cant tell how high our are, then you are certainly not good enough to zoom back and forth over it trying to make ripples.
-
- Rank 5
- Posts: 391
- Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2019 7:27 pm
Re: Another Norseman...gone
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.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.
Re: Another Norseman...gone
Really corethatthermal, you just don't know the flying experience you're talking against here. You're making yourself memorable in the wrong ways.corethatthermal ......
You know didly squat!
...Is great, and a promotion of aviation safety.I am still NOT advocating this procedure....
Re: Another Norseman...gone
Don't take this the wrong way, but you're as close enough to an eejit as makes no difference.corethatthermal wrote: ↑Fri Jul 19, 2019 3:24 pmYou 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.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.
Good judgment comes from experience. Experience often comes from bad judgment.
Re: Another Norseman...gone
Well corethethermal I have been flying sea planes since 1954 and have many, many thousands of hours flying them all over the world.Really corethatthermal, you just don't know the flying experience you're talking against here.
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.
-
- Rank (9)
- Posts: 1764
- Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2004 3:59 pm
Re: Another Norseman...gone
Extolling the virtues of back side approaches.....this guy is definitely aeroancasuperchief.
-
- Rank 5
- Posts: 391
- Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2019 7:27 pm
Re: Another Norseman...gone
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.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 ?
NO, I am not suggesting anything ! AND i have NEVER tried this "compound" approach ( backside to a glassy transition )but if I had flown them as you suggest
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.
-
- Rank 5
- Posts: 391
- Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2019 7:27 pm
Re: Another Norseman...gone
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!
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!
-
- Rank 5
- Posts: 391
- Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2019 7:27 pm
Re: Another Norseman...gone
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 !
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?
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 !
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?
Re: Another Norseman...gone
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.
Re: Another Norseman...gone
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 youcorethatthermal 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?
Re: Another Norseman...gone
Yes, there is!There is nothing strange or inherently unsafe about a backside approach to a frontside flare landing on a lake.
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.