Fernando wrote:
I went back to Duxford today and took the family for
a flight. It felt good to see the resident GA community and staff supporting each other, and offering themselves to take the right seat on other pilots’ planes.
Very nice to read that! And good on you for going flying in the aftermath of this tragedy.
This discussion is actually a very good refresher of same basics. Thank you all for sharing your views and experiences.
@Peter Those participating on COPA aren’t affected. COPA is a place where this problem doesn’t exist, to the contrary, actually. The people there are great and I am amazed at the wealth and humbleness encountered there.
It’s also not always and only the “suppliers” that are bad. It takes some understanding on the receiving end too.
It also has nothing to do with Cirrus due to being Cirrus. It’s only because they are the only OEM selling a worthwhile number of planes.
Highly relevant podcast: https://youtu.be/dYjt0Bz7hgQ?si=0eYdtkNSCT6iCveV
Especially since it also talks about a Cirrus accident exactly like this one. I mean it’s eerie how similar it is:
https://youtu.be/dYjt0Bz7hgQ?si=BETXaPQ1BqOkygXu&t=346 (with time stamp to the relevant part only)
https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2024/report/ao-2023-011
Snoopy wrote:
Langewiesche:Calling it “elevator” killed a lot of pilots. “Flipper” would be better, to de-emphasize the ingrained perceived relation of pitch up to go up. Power is what makes a plane go up. The elevator just orients the plane along an axis. As we sadly see so often, an airplane can very rapidly go down fully pitched up.
Well… Langewiesche had half a point only. You need both power and pitch to climb. No amount of power will make the aircraft climb if you pitch down!
On a go around you apply power and pitch simultaneously! How rapidly you increase the pitch depends on the situation. In a low energy situation such as during the flare you need to increase pitch gradually and carefully to ensure that you maintain enough airspeed. In high energy situation such as at the decision height of an IFR approach you need to rapidly increase pitch to get the aircraft climbing. (In a SEP you will fly faster than Vy on the final of an instrument approach.)
Airborne_Again wrote:
No amount of power will make the aircraft climb if you pitch down!
Incorrect. In the situation of behind the power curve, i.e. the so called region of reverse command, you actually have to pitch down to climb after applying full power. Let me repeat, you must pitch down to climb at full power.
This was a go around post bounce after the flare, probably close to stalling speed and likely behind the power curve.
hazek wrote:
Incorrect. In the situation of behind the power curve, i.e. the so called region of reverse command, you actually have to pitch down to climb after applying full power. Let me repeat, you must pitch down to climb at full power.
By “pitch down”, I didn’t mean the action of reducing the pitch, I meant the aircraft’s attitude relative to the horizon. Sorry for not being clear.
Yes, me too.
gallois wrote:
“point the nose where you want to land and use power to keep ground speed.” I like this method better, if the aircraft allows for it, because you can not stall as angle of attack will be small if not negative.
Sorry to nitpick, but the angle of attack during descent is not small or negative. If it was eg zero you’d be on a ballistic trajectory fast accelerating towards the ground. Your angle of attack is actually higher than during the cruise. Since you’re travelling downwards, the relative airflow is upwards so it still forms a positive angle against the wing.
Having said that I think this method is useful particularly if you need lots of precision for your glideslope (such as during an instrument approach). But it doesn’t keep you further away from the stall (unless you’re flying a faster approach, but then you’ll float during the flare). In reality you’ve got to use both power and pitch to achieve the desired change in any event.
Also if you want to climb from a low airspeed and you’re not adding power you could find yourself closer to stall especially if your airplane is travelling downwards (pitch is not the same as the angle of attack). You’re on the opposite side of the power curve during approach/landing so when you pitch up you actually increase the equilibrium descent rate (you will gain some altitude temporarily).
Langewiesche had half a point only. You need both power and pitch to climb. No amount of power will make the aircraft climb if you pitch down!
Nitpicking. I summarized 100 pages in a few words mostly related to energy state vs. flight control consequences.
The point is that pulling back on the yoke isn’t enough to go up.
I’m sorry but i have to disagree with @172driver statement of why a go around anyway.
I would even classify it as a dangerous attitude.
I can agree with that a bounce doesn’t necessarily mean a go around but for me it would always be the safest option.
1st there is a reason for the bounce, another approach can set you up more stabilized for the landing.
2nd you have to think very quick to recover from a bounce on the same landing attempt. You are close to the ground, in an unfamiliar attitude doing an unfamiliar recovery from a manoeuvre you didn’t expect to happen. The go around gives you back the familiarity what you have on every landing and gives you some time to catch your breath.
I remember an episode of ice pilots where Joe was mad at one of his captains for going around and that scene pissed me off.
I have had an colleague or instructor who said every approach is a go around and only if nothing goes wrong you are lucky you can land.
