• If You Are Having Trouble Logging In with Your Old Username and Password, Please use this Forgot Your Password link to get re-established.
  • Hey! Be sure to login or register!

Oops, darn it...

RVBottomly said:
.......That's a pretty big door. .....
Click to expand...

Some of these regs are written very vaguely,
for example FAR 91.119 "minimum safe altitudes":
"over congested areas" vs "over other than congested areas".
No one I've asked have ever been able to properly define a "congested area".
IMHO it is wherever the FAA inspector wanting to violate you says it is.
 
hotrod180 said:
No one I've asked have ever been able to properly define a "congested area".
IMHO it is wherever the FAA inspector wanting to violate you says it is.
Click to expand...

There has been some court findings that defined any road as a "congested area". It stemmed from a pilot practicing an ER approach to a road, and the sheriff wrecking his car while getting out of the way.

sj
 
SJ said:
There has been some court findings that defined any road as a "congested area". It stemmed from a pilot practicing an ER approach to a road, and the sheriff wrecking his car while getting out of the way.

sj
Click to expand...


A quick search shows some scary legal opinions from the FAA on the definition. It is pretty much left up to the inspector or agency that wants to "violate" you. I saw one court finding where they put a number of 25 people in a 10 acre area. There is no hard definition I could find, only opinions...
 
This brings up a question in my mind of which rules am I suppose to know, understand and follow? It seems to me like if a state, or county makes up a rule that is in conflict with FAR 91, then a court would rule in favor of part 91 as having a higher authority than the local law. Finding the pilot guilty twice for the same act, even for a stupid act, does not seem holy and righteous in the eyes of the constitution to me. The cut/paste from FAR 91 seems to tump local law.

§91.101 Applicability.

This subpart prescribes flight rules governing the operation of aircraft within the United States and within 12 nautical miles from the coast of the United States.
 
Other opinions/interpretations:

https://pilot-protection-services.aopa.org/news/2016/january/15/congested-area
https://www.faa.gov/about/office_or...010/Simmons - (2010) Legal Interpretation.pdf

I used to fly and track fish with implanted radio transmitters from a float plane, occasionally over a river that ran through town at less than 1000' AGL. The signal strength was weak and dictated the lower flight. At that time in the Last Century the FAA's interpretation was as long as I remained over the water we were ok. There was definite city congestion within 2000' laterally plus the river adjoined a military base. I notified and got an opinion before each flight from them plus air traffic controllers.

Gary
 
bcone1381 said:
This brings up a question in my mind of which rules am I suppose to know, understand and follow? It seems to me like if a state, or county makes up a rule that is in conflict with FAR 91, then a court would rule in favor of part 91 as having a higher authority than the local law. Finding the pilot guilty twice for the same act, even for a stupid act, does not seem holy and righteous in the eyes of the constitution to me. The cut/paste from FAR 91 seems to tump local law.

§91.101 Applicability.

This subpart prescribes flight rules governing the operation of aircraft within the United States and within 12 nautical miles from the coast of the United States.
Click to expand...

That's a good and maybe complicated question. Federal regs preempt state law with regard to aviation safety. We know that federal regs do not preempt zoning laws, state drug laws, etc. Here it looks like the law is more directed to aviation safety rather than traditional criminal activity and might be invalid.

I can't answer the question off-hand, but if I were tasked with defending this guy, that is the first place I'd look.
 
Speedo said:
Is there any chance of getting copies of both sections? I’m sure they would be good food for thought, whether picking up a Cub or a jet.
Click to expand...

I created a post-maintenance checklist in ForeFlight a couple yrs ago after attending a Mike Busch seminar on the topic. Glad to share it if I can figure out how to export it from ForeFlight.


Sent from my iPhone using SuperCub.Org mobile app
 

Anyone want to comment on this one? Interesting how the tail bounced up a little with what looked like an Acme shock-stinger. Too bad! Props to you guys that compete! Braver than I.
 
In YouTube click HD mode then select playback speed - like half or less. Watch that tail spring kick back up and help the braking action. He had full up elevator the whole ground trip but little airspeed. Interesting fences on the outboard flaps and wing tips. I did this once too in a Cub with locked up overheated left brake. Learning is expensive.

Gary
 
Nothing appeared to be damaged. It’s a GA Sensenich prop. No resin fractures. Not even a scratch. The prop had to have flexed a huge amount. Really lucky.

He had some of the best steep approaches of the competition taking full advantage of his acmes.
 
It's a challenge to react quick......when the tail goes up so should elevator and power - easy to say but hard to do plus leg weight on brakes makes it even tougher

Gary
 
BC12D-4-85 said:
It's a challenge to react quick......when the tail goes up so should elevator and power - easy to say but hard to do plus leg weight on brakes makes it even tougher

Gary
Click to expand...

So, would the best course of action been to keep full stick back and goose the power, to get more airflow over the upwardly deflected horizontal stab to push the tail back down before he nosed over?
 
BC12D-4-85 said:
It's a challenge to react quick......when the tail goes up so should elevator and power - easy to say but hard to do

Gary
Click to expand...

I completely agree. I always thought "Why would anyone go up on the nose? The pilot has all day to blow the tail down." Nobody, and I mean nobody realizes how quick this comes at you until you have done it. A recovery from this situation would need to be practiced untill 2nd nature. Not sure how that would be accomplished without shelling out the dough for several engine teardowns though.
 
No kidding! I guess one acquires a sixth sense for when it's decelerating too much - get on the power and off the brakes. Stick pulled back to the spine, of course.
 
I've "practiced" it on skis when heavy surface drag in deep snow can raise the tail. Not the same situation I agree as the rear safety cables limit nose down behavior. But a pre-landing prep might include an "if the tail comes up on this baby then this up elevator/power crap is next". With an aft CG load it's an unlikely situation unless major obstructions are present on a rough strip. Not the case here in a contest.

Flaps can blank and reduce elevator authority in my experience. Dump them quick on landing as they no longer offer any benefit. I used to hit the flap lever in a C-185 when braking heavily with my right elbow to do that. It quickly flops forward. Cubs would take some extra effort.

Gary
 
I am not a big fan of the bigger shocked tail springs because they hurt AOA on takeoff, but, in this case the problem was all pilot induced. People think that because you are slow it is harder to get on the nose. This is not true!! It is very easy to put a cub on its nose from a standstill, The plane looked like it was trimmed nose up for close to landing speed (Had a few turns left ) I do more but what he had was fine and more would most likely not changed the outcome. The trick is when you get that slow you can only lock one wheel at a time. I was able to do what he did on skis! Harder to do but it can be done. I just go done with 3 back to back weekends of STOL comps, We have been lucky this year and no issues to date. My hat is off to anyone that is willing to come out and push the edge knowing your every mistake can be reposted everyday for the next 20 years!!!!
DENNY
 
I love watching these competitions....I think they are good for GA....The desire to place well sometimes puts a little pressure on the pilot and possible causes a slightly higher risk of a noseover I guess.....your mind is telling you to stop as short as possible further delaying a possible recovery when things strat to happen. I'm not a big competitor so I'll sit back and watch.....some impressive talent out there on these things, It can help hone skills.....or (sadly) cause a teardown of a good motor.
 
I don't think the tail bounced up as much as it was the braking action and perhaps the tail getting even lighter by the low ground speed at that point, the tail wind gust perhaps and the full up elevator giving said wind access to the underside of the tail and making it lighter/raising it.
 
The wind was pretty much out of the west. Joe was landing to the N. If there was a temporary shift to a quartering tail wind it was minimal. The sponsor feathers exaggerate it.

If you play the game long enough, stuff will happen. It’s always nice to have a cause and effect with things to make it easier to rationalize. Joe needed less brake and a heavier tail. Joe’s smart. I bet he’s made mental notes that will get used next time.
 
Looks like he almost had a little too much help there towards the end. I've found, at least on the RANS S-7S, that the same person who put it on the nose to start with can safely lower it without causing further damage.
 
courierguy said:
Looks like he almost had a little too much help there towards the end. I've found, at least on the RANS S-7S, that the same person who put it on the nose to start with can safely lower it without causing further damage.
Click to expand...
When ever there is a crowd of airplane people about, they all want to get in on the act to help. Some in their zeal to help can actually do some unintentional damage.
 
Has anyone ever considered "Pilot Error", that he just stood on the brakes too hard for too long.
When you are at speed you can use the brakes to decelerate rather hard, BUT as you slow down and have reducing airflow over the tail, you have to modulate the brakes since they over power the ability of the tail to keep an acceptable attitude.

Sure a blast of throttle might allow the elevator some additional authority BUT the addition of thrust negates what the brakes are being used for not to mention that thrust is up high and it alone- will bring the craft over on it's nose.

If anyone understands motion dynamics and how aerodynamic forces are at play you will realize with a conventional gear aircraft backing off the brake as the aircraft slows down is a normal and mandatory procedure due to reducing influence of airflow over the craft.

If the pilot can not recognize the pitch change induced by over use of the brakes, there is little chance a hit of throttle would do him well since that will more than likely only bring the aircraft onto it's nose.

There are reasons why some people win while most others loose. And some loose big time.
 
Blowing the tail down works. Flying skis in wet or deep snow it just part of a normal landing. If it didn't work you would never be able to do a WOT run up. I agree about the error part though. Not throwing stones, I have done my own boo boos.

Glenn
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Alex Clark
I wonder what the deal is with this J-5 ?
Replies
1
Views
1K
Dough Head
Dough Head
rcsimpson
A real "Bush" plane?
Replies
4
Views
2K
Alex Clark
Alex Clark
G
Wonder if a Cub was the sling load?
Replies
11
Views
3K
mvivion
mvivion
FlipFlop
You'all be careful out there, ya hear?...
23 24 25
Replies
740
Views
252K
aktango58
aktango58
Ruidoso Ron
Lost a great friend yesterday.
Replies
13
Views
4K
Carbon Cub Chick
Carbon Cub Chick
Back
Top