Great Ozzie

I don't know Fr. Bill... maybe some sort of waiver for all that when there's an 'original participant' who currently replies. :Big Grin: No... one example the Bob F. posted. According to the Wiki entry for Air Force One under the paragraph Other presidential aircraft, there has even been a commercial airline flight called Executive One. I never new Nixon flew United.

But that irrelevant to the OP's question... also irrelevant to the OP's question... This would be the kind of information that would answer the OP's question if he is using Navigraph... that the PAINE TWO DP is no longer included. Why I posted the old cycle info... to see if someone could check if that was the case with the newer cycles. Thanks for checking.

Actually... in an older Navigraph I have (Cycle 1210) PAINE TWO shows up there (can be loaded in the B737 FMC).

I find crawling on broken glass a good start. :Just Kidding:

I found a youtube video of how it's actually done...

Haven't heard of this one Craig... I had (have) Navigraph, but haven't bought anything since they changed from the old credit system If you have an ipad, I have seen some apps for that. Probably what I would consider if I had one. For the U.S. I use digital - Terminal Procedures Publication (d-TPP) For everywhere else, I look for what I bought in Navigraph or try to find a pdf download. Scarlet PM Regards...

Got my chores done and the family has abandoned me for the day... hope to be on then.

I actually ordered this a couple days ago from Amazon. I will confess, years ago I was nearly petrified of spins (more accurately, large deviations in pitch from level flight). I was not so comfortable with things like departure stalls... Then I took an Unusual Attitudes course in a DHC-1 Chipmunk. After the first couple of spins... I actually started having a blast spinning. Great Fun! And a great confidence builder. Welcome btw for the links. Very interesting stuff. -Rob

The "pure theory" part of your post had me scratching my head... then I found a paper I had read by David F. Rogers (United States Naval Academy) The Possible 'Impossible' Turn where this "pure theory" is discussed. He also wrote a paper The Penalities of Non-optimal Turnback Maneuvers. Both can be found (google for pdf) and I think are worth reading. So yes... there is the theory... and then there is the actual "practice". For that, here's a good article from Flying Magazine on the practicalities of such a manuever: The Human Factor: Big Push, Improbable Turn I thought you were referring to "pro-spin" yaw forces... which slips / skid would the two big ones for starting the autorotation. Thanks, me too... I always do in these discussions. Part of why find them so valuable.

Using skyvector YOW CYCC I would also do as the sparkie66 suggested... use the Ottawa VOR for VOR1 and set the OBS to 124° Except... When using the Massena VOR for VOR2, I would set that OBS to 46° -- use it as a Radial i.e. with a FROM indication. (explained in a moment) Depart CYOW and fly a heading of 80°. This puts you on roughly a 45° intercept for the YOW 124° Radial. With a FROM indication, the needle will be on the left... as it centers up, intercept the course. Now... you can dial in say, 320° in VOR2. MSS is on the right side of the course... so if you dial in 320° the needle should be on the right, meaning you have not crossed that radial yet (this with a FROM indication). As it centers up, you can set to 330°, it should be on the right... as it centers up, you know you are intersecting that radial. Reason I suggest this... It is fairly easy to see where the 0° radial of MSS intersects your course. If you switch over to the "World Lo" while at skyvector, you can see that the YOW 124° Radial & the intersection of the MSS 0° Radial is very close to ADVIK waypoint... and ADVIK just 9nm from CYCC (according to skyvector). So resetting the VOR2 OBS every 10° (or whatever you wish) early on allows you to track your progress along the route. ADVIK > MSS 04° Radial -- 9nm from CYCC ARVIE > MSS 34° Radial -- 2.6nm from CYCC CYCC > MSS 46° Radial Here's another good link to help understand the VOR http://www.luizmonteiro.com/learning_vor_sim.aspx -Rob

This sounds like a recipe for disaster. The lessons is "To carry out a stall from straight and level flight (and the turn) recovering from a wing drop with minimum altitude loss." The paragraph you quote from in your link is discussing the possibility that flaps were extended at unequal amounts (rigging etc). Quoting your article: The wing that reaches the critical angle first (at about 15 degrees) will stall first, losing lift and causing a roll at the stall. This often happens because of poor pilot technique where the aeroplane is out of balance at the stall, or aileron is being used. (emphasis added) From your link: If the aeroplane is reluctant to drop a wing at the stall, alter the power and flap combination (refer CFI) and relax rudder pressure to simulate the pilot's failure to maintain directional control. Alternatively, a gentle turn may be required (5 degrees angle of bank). There is nothing underhand about these techniques, as permitting the aeroplane to yaw or stall in the turn are possible causes of a wing-drop stall. ---------- From The Airplane Flying Handbook (FAA-H-8083-3B) An airplane will stall during a coordinated steep turn exactly as it does from straight flight, except that the pitching and rolling actions tend to be more sudden. If the airplane is slipping toward the inside of the turn at the time the stall occurs, it tends to roll rapidly toward the outside of the turn as the nose pitches down because the outside wing stalls before the inside wing. If the airplane is skidding toward the outside of the turn, it will have a tendency to roll to the inside of the turn because the inside wing stalls first. If the coordination of the turn at the time of the stall is accurate, the airplane’s nose will pitch away from the pilot just as it does in a straight flight stall, since both wings stall simultaneously. To enter a spin, you must have *both* a stall and a *sufficient* yaw moment. A coordinated turn, by definition, has the yaw canceled out.

It's not as simple as that.

Really, that is irrelevant Tom. This argument of why it seems to be ok (to increase landing rates by keeping an aircraft's speed high to the OM) reminds me of the Challenger accident. NASA's attitude had become a "prove to us why we shouldn't launch". Maintaining a high airspeed to the OM can obviously lead to stabilization problems. Otherwise the NTSB and FSF would not have studied this (high approach airspeed) causing potential problems / accidents. Absolutely not. From a pilot perspective (albeit zero airline pilot hours) I cannot fathom how the PF / IP allowed this to occur. From an accident investigator perspective... what I would be considering would include the ATC instructions. To ignore the operating environment would be negligence on the part of the investigator(s). If we can do something to break a link in the Accident Chain, then why not break that link. I think that is the point Kevin is trying to make. I do not (and I don't believe Kevin either) want to absolve the Asiana crew of their responsibility for this accident.

My point was... ATC is about as regulatory as it gets. ATC in a sense does make the rules. It is very simple. Operating instructions within their jurisdiction is compulsory. Either you follow the instructions, declare an Emergency... or get yourself out of the system (which in certain airspace is not possible). Violation of an ATC instruction is a violation of the FAR(s). Because why add risk to the system? Thing is... it generally works. Like it has been said, "99 times out of a 100" there's not a problem. Just something to gripe about later ("man you saw what that controller did to me???"). But why add an extra layer of complexity & stress? A study by the U.S. National Transportation Safety Board said that maintaining a high airspeed to the outer marker (OM) may prevent capture of the glideslope by the autopilot and may prevent aircraft stabilization at the defined stabilization height. The study concluded that no airspeed restriction should be imposed by air traffic control (ATC) when within three nautical miles (nm) to four nm of the OM, especially in instrument meteorological conditions (IMC). Flight Safety Foundation ALAR Briefing Note 4.2 -- Energy Management (Flight Safety Digest, Aug-Nov 2000)

A slam dunk approach is not always for noise abatement. Could be based on traffic into the airport. Also... as well as the system works, things on both ends (for pilots and controllers) don't always work out as planned (weather, personal problems, mistakes etc.) §91.123 Compliance with ATC clearances and instructions. (a) When an ATC clearance has been obtained, no pilot in command may deviate from that clearance unless an amended clearance is obtained, an emergency exists, or the deviation is in response to a traffic alert and collision avoidance system resolution advisory. However, except in Class A airspace, a pilot may cancel an IFR flight plan if the operation is being conducted in VFR weather conditions. When a pilot is uncertain of an ATC clearance, that pilot shall immediately request clarification from ATC. b. Except in an emergency, no person may operate an aircraft contrary to an ATC instruction in an area in which air traffic control is exercised.

Last week on teamspeak, Ron said something about us all using a PMDG type as long as it started with a "7". Also... he mentioned us all using ASN so we all could share the experience of having the most realistically depicted weather.

I see the NTSB used a quote from the AFH in the pdf link you posted... The FAA’s Airplane Flying Handbook, FAA-H-8083-3A, chapter 8, “Approaches and Landings,” states the following: “Whenever landing conditions are not satisfactory, a go-around is warranted. There are many factors that can contribute to unsatisfactory landing conditions. Situations such as air traffic control [ATC] requirements, unexpected appearance of hazards on the runway, overtaking another airplane, wind shear, wake turbulence, mechanical failure and/or an unstabilized approach are all examples of reasons to discontinue a landing approach and make another approach under more favorable conditions.…The go-around is not strictly an emergency procedure. It is a normal maneuver that may at times be used in an emergency situation.…Although the need to discontinue a landing may arise at any point in the landing process, the most critical go-around will be one started when very close to the ground. Therefore, the earlier a condition that warrants a go-around is recognized, the safer the go-around/rejected landing will be.” A go-around may be directed by ATC or initiated by the pilot. The flight crew does not need permission from ATC to execute the maneuver. Exactly how I view a Go-Around... a normal maneuver. And like any other flight maneuver one might be called upon to use (especially one as common as a Go-Around) the operator needs to be proficient at it. --------------- Oh my... a couple of more things from the Airplane Flying Handbook I can add here: •The flight instructor should emphasize early on (which we do) and the student pilot should be made to understand, that the go-around maneuver is an alternative to any approach and/or landing. •The go-around maneuver is not inherently dangerous in itself. It becomes dangerous only when delayed unduly or executed improperly.

Ah ok... apologies then. But the point remains... seems "The reasons why it is dangerous are stated above by other members" has do with the perception of the maneuver instead of having actually performed one or their purpose -- that they are part and parcel of flying, as KevinAu has explained.

I think the expression we are looking for is, "oh pish-posh!". :biggrin: Your perception from the cabin has absolutely *zero* to do with the reality of whether or not a Go-Around is dangerous. It would be nice if the crew would immediately communicate why they are doing what they are doing to the passengers; I'd imagine tho, that would be the last item on any list. <_< In the course of obtaining one's Instrument ticket, one might be lead to believe that the Go-Around (*not* the Landing) is the normal ending of an Instrument Approach. :P ---------------- “The lack of a go-around decision is the leading risk factor in approach and landing accidents and is the primary cause of runway excursions during landing,” according to speakers at the recent Go-Around Forum in Brussels. AIN online: Safety Forum: Too Few Go-arounds Executed

Leaning on the Ground (AvWeb) By John Schwaner, Sacramento Sky Ranch

Ah... 'a blast from the past'. An opportune time to say thank you for your participation here after the release of FSX, your FSX blog and the work you and ACES put into FSX. Quite literally thousands of hours of enjoyment. Thanks. -Rob O.

Jim, I don't understand why this topic moved and the other thread from a few months ago ("503 Service Unavailable") was left in the Letters to the Editorial Staff of AVSIM forum.

Yesterday, got a 503 in that time frame too. I have to laugh, because, every time I do get a 503, I think of "23-19!" from Monsters Inc. "23-19! 23-19!" :lol:

I don't know about current... saw him on FOX earlier this morning and he did say he was a B-1B pilot.

From the things I have read here... I know!... I know!... :LMAO: “There was a moment,” he recalled. “We both had about five seconds to size each other up. She was wondering about my level of experience. Was I a Cessna driver — or a professional pilot?” Neither! "I was a 'professional PMDG pilot!" :yahoo: