Sender: <marv@lancaironline.net> (Marvin Kaye)
To: lml
Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2002 03:23:13 -0400
Message-ID: <redirect-1293991@logan.com>
From: Sky2high@aol.com
Subject: Stalls, Spins and other Whirlygigs
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Fellow aviators, pundits, test pilots, etc.

To me, you are all correct, if not right too.  Each person must evaluate 
their approach to life's risks from their own base of life's experiences.  
Myself, I'm just an observer and correlator of seemingly unconnected, 
irrelevant and often useless information.  

I have made enough errors in flying to know the temptations of the bad angel 
have led to great saves by the good angel.  Some would say the good angel is 
fortified by "luck", others might say the path to a successful outcome is 
short circuited by having prepared oneself for the peculiar interferences in 
the smooth flow of life by the bad angel.  For example, if I am faced with a 
home intruder threatening the life of my family, would I shoot to kill?  
After much thought and consideration, the answer was yes.  Thus, should the 
situation arise, I don't have to work thru the moral, legal, etc, thoughts, I 
can act.  Another example is that on turning base to final and finding myself 
sufficiently off the centerline, I will go around to outfox the bad angel on 
advice of the good one instead of tightening the turn.  Another, when 
descending to land and hearing the tic-tic of prop tips, pull the power and 
complete the landing, only the money devil is the winner.  Notice that none 
of these actions require live practice.

In the old days, when people actually practiced stalls and spins and were 
dying doing so, planes were different.  Generally, cruise speeds and approach 
to land speeds were close together and flyers had trouble recognizing the 
subtle difference between slow and too slow.  Furthermore, these planes were 
underpowered.  The stalls that killed were (and still are) those done close 
to the ground - either on takeoff or during landing maneuvers (unless you 
were practicing stalls in a Tomahawk). 

Today, the planes we fly are high performance - a tradeoff we make instead of 
the stability and stall resistant characteristics of those more recently 
designed under the rules of part XXIII (whatever!).  Generally, our planes 
have the power to pull out of the pre-stall buffet - learn to recognize it.  
Slicker than snot, they can accelerate incredibly in a dive.  Made by type-A 
individuals, they all differ, wing extentions, outboard fuel bays unequally 
feeding the engine and stressing spars, accessories and occupants that 
stretch the CG envelope (you do practice your departure stalls fully loaded 
with fuel, passengers and baggage, don't you?), etc.  

Maybe tis better practice slow speed flight (to see how uncomfortable it is) 
so that your next trip to OSH will turn out better than the Glasair that fell 
out of the sky S-turning on final.  Better yet, take advantage of "modern" 
instrumentation, such as AOA, and fly comfortably close to the edge of the 
envelope without slipping out of it. Get a feel for slow flight, don't stall 
because it is usually too late.

BTW, ATP's out there - a question.  Do you practice stalls in an airliner?  I 
know, I know, the passengers just don't like it.

Just my opinion, fly whatever way makes you safe.

Scott Krueger
LNC2 - N92EX