4 hurt in plane crash near Brampton-Caledon Airport

[Slick Goodlin]

I don't recall the little flat fours having much spool-up time, how far behind the ball do you have to be for that to become a problem?

[Colonel]

I only have around 1000 hours in 172, but ....

It is incredibly forgiving of errors in airspeed.  You can be
such a knob and do such horrible things in a 172 with that
long, tapered wing that would kill you in a Piper Cherokee
which does not recover from being slowed down, with it's
Hershey Bar wing.  Back side of the power curve must
be respected.

But you can approach at 172 at 150 mph (I have, at YYZ). 

You can approach at 172 at 50 mph (I have many many times
at CYRP), and made the first turnoff on RWY 10 - look at the
airport diagram.

This is one of the problems with the 172.  It has had all
of the bad habits taken out of it, that it allows truly horrible
pilot skills to be tolerated during flight training.

But that doesn't matter any more, because people don't
give a shit about knowledge and skill, just paper from TC. 

Accidents are [i]learning experiences[/i], to talk about at your
airline interview.

[pdw]

[quote author=Slick Goodlin link=topic=7548.msg21048#msg21048 date=1512654182]how far behind the ball do you have to be for that to become a problem?[/quote]


Well ..I think [i]slow[/i] in that context means instantly ... and ([i]let me see .. one .. two .. thr)[/i] yes .. [b]three[/b] dimensions to that aspect ..  [b]1: [/b]attitude is flat but at edge of stall  so can't increase the pitch ... [b]2: [/b]altitude is low so can't purposefully decrease pitch at all  ... and [b]3: [/b]the few little rpms old nellie has left wont make much difference once you've arrived at [i]SLOW. [/i]These are fairly easy to understand I know ...

[i][ .. there might be a fourth, but I've seen / been-educated enough times ...  usually not so much an issue where spoolup time is fine  ..like you said there  .. but I'll still have to check it out some more (something the training article I referred to in the previous post had also touched on) ... wx-stuff .. you know ...][/i]

[i]O K ..  take-it-away Colonel .. [/i][i] (show us something with power where it doesn't matter) [/i] ;)

[Colonel]

[img width=373 height=500]http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_wbkqP5BB-TM/T ... cf18a1.jpg[/img]

[John Swallow]

The high alpha pass is fraught with danger... You're betting on power (A/B) to fly out of it.

If one A/B doesn't light, you have a yaw problem; if you unplug burners, you handle the yaw problem but I don't know whether or not you can fly out on mil power...

Pretty fast reaction on the handles...  Yikes.

[Colonel]

Yeah, he put on quite a show at Lethbridge.  I'm glad
they didn't make me fly after him - that would have
been a hard act to follow.

[pdw]

That was oringinal, to bring that one up. I studied it quite a bit back when it happened... it was about 5 seconds from where it started going wrong until  bailout.[quote author=John Swallow link=topic=7548.msg21057#msg21057 date=1512693460]You're betting on power (A/B) to fly out of it. [/quote]

Report says happened during a practise run.

There was some pilot input in the report, some of what's involved with the maneuvre to keep straight. The pilot doesn't talk about a breakdown at all in there, leaving that part entirely up to the narrative's spin (as if none of his business). But what's also in there is his description of some sort of expected shift of the surface component while on the SW heading .. it came in from NE ... [i]says it right in there "he'd been watching for it". [/i]Then the barely inflated chute wouldn't collapse so the "the wind dragged him" .. he says (interview / global news article a year later) .. "fortunately away from the fire".

The collapse of the manuevre was toward NE (the right), same way as the right course correction needed for that rogue NE crosswind component during the vulnerable phase of that alpha, .. and the narrative has that .. about his watching out the side windows very closely for the correct show positioning while nosehigh. That tells the watchful reader point-blank there was already tendency for tilt to the right from this pilots point of view ... well before a tardy-AFB problem of the right engine becomes the story (which I do believe in part because apparently it does happen .. but really not because were told there to believe it).

I think its just like the [i]SLOWING[/i], you know ..the tendency to begin tilting up to that tipping point (of no return) creeps up real slowly at first via a few escaping seconds.. and then GOTCHA .. you suddenly can't overcome it. I like to challenge these things at least a little bit ... so it's just a little harder for masterminds to introduce a [i]baffling [/i]magic bullet theory when something a little bit [i]unexplainable [/i]comes along ...

... like a little bit of decreased performance. It's there, something close to 70V150 in this Brampton 08 approach (YTZ/YYZ/Elora wx records); by transitioning that type of component in the last 500ft when flat (like described earlier) bleeds IAS down faster in fewer seconds esp when heavier and if at-all reducing power at any point in trying to aim for touchdown early .. esp onto a shorter runway.

[Colonel]

Two comments

1) PDW may not always be correct (who is?) but goddamnit,
he's [i]genuine[/i] which is rare in this age of phony #Fakenews

2) A broken clock is always right, twice a day.  Many people
at TC are not even right once a day.

[John Swallow]

When one burner doesn't light in a high drag situation such as that, you are screwed five ways to breakfast.  Headwind, tailwind, crosswind, no wind,  or shearing wind. 

Screwed.