Scudrunners

Remember lampchops made that nauseating video recently,
where he tried to attempt the heroic feat of flying a 172 to
Half Moon Bay?  We all barfed when he said, "I could die!!"

[url=http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2016/1 ... -moon-bay/]http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2016/1 ... -moon-bay/[/url]

Well, yesterday two guys from Sacramento tried the same
thing in a 172, and one of them is dead now.

[quote]pilot George Golda:  “I’ve been living here for 35 years.  This is the only crash I’ve ever seen.”[/quote]

Talk around town is that a 10 knot variable tailwind on
final (PDW?) took them down.

I've only given around 1,000 hours of dual on 172's so
I'm no expert, but are they really fire-breathing dragons?!

Or, is Half Moon Bay, at sea level and 5,000 feet of paved
runway, like Tegucigalpa for the Millenials?

Amazing skill is required by mere mortals to operate into 5000 foot level paved runway at sea level.

I have real difficulty relating to some young pilots,
to whom aviation to them isn't about knowledge
or skill, which is what keeps you alive. 

To them, aviation is about preening in costumes
and paperwork, and crashing is a "learning experience".

However, not all Millenials are write-offs:

[youtube][/youtube]

Sammy Mason is a very skilled young man,
because he chooses to be.  Flew his first airshow
at age 16 in a Stearman, bought a Pitts S-1S in
pieces for $12,500, IIRC, and put it together.

If he can do it, so can you.

No excuses.

[quote]His passenger — reported to be his wife — was killed.[/quote]

Looks like he took his wife with him.

Colonel you have my attention and interest. What recommendations do you have to recreational pilots flying 50 hours or less per year? it's tough to keep on top of things when you're a weekend flyer. You try and be conscientious but life happens in between. Any advice would be appreciated. The aircraft I have available locally: C150 and C172.

[quote]recreational pilots flying 50 hours or less per year?[/quote]

The two T's:  tailwheel and types.  No, not
tits.

Get checked out on as many different types
as you can find.  Get a POH/AFM ahead of
time and read up on it's systems, then get
dual on it.

Bonus points if it's a taildragger, but you want
to learn about electrical fuel pumps, complex
fuel systems, constant speed props, fuel injection
and carburetion, turbocharging and supercharging,
and retractable gear - mechanical (what types?),
electrical (what types?) and hydraulic (what types?)

But even if it's not a taildragger, the instructor can
make a difference.  Spend lots of time in the practice
area at 3,000 AGL flying slowly.  Drop a wing, recover,
and continue.  Learn to be happy and in control at
high alpha.

Then, back to the airport.  Work the crosswind
if it's there.  Learn to control your approach
speed - don't approach too fast!

Have your instructor demonstrate a one-wheel
only touch and go landing, and learn to do that,
even with no crosswind.

[youtube][/youtube]

Although it's easier to do it in a taildragger,
you can do it in a nosewheel aircraft, too.

I can't emphasize the importance of flying
different types.  You will learn so much about
systems and stick and rudder.

At 50 hrs/yr I can't recommend acro.  You just
won't get anything out of it, except a very expensive
amusement park ride.  Just be the best straight
and level pilot you can be.

Thanks Colonel, much appreciated. I don't have access to taildragger airplane so I will need to make do with what's available.

BTW, I highly recommend reading these for any weekend warriors here on the board. Some random guy wrote them apparently. 

http://www.pittspecials.com/articles.html

I was doing one wheel touch and goes a couple weeks ago..  Im a bad person though...

I'm gonna go waaaaaaay out on a limb here and suggest that a crash on final is probably unrelated to the runway surface and size.  The other site doesn't like speculation, let's see how it goes here:

I wonder if he leaned the mixture.  The fuel gauges on every Cessna single I've flown have been notoriously craptacular to the point of having to dip my tanks before flight and trusting my watch more than the needle until I landed.  Ignoring the gauges as a habit, sloppy technique would be hidden every time you got away with it (because who checks their fill-up against their planned burn on the last leg?) and it wouldn't be hard to cross that fine line between just barely enough fuel and not quite enough to make it.

Terribly unfortunate accident, but as with most in light airplanes I have no reason to believe it wasn't caused by something dumb.

I've got $10 says he approached from the south, and
when he realized he was really moving with the tailwind,
he decided to overshoot, didn't raise the flaps but raised
the nose and sunk with high drag and high alpha and that's
all she wrote.

Everyone seems to think overshoots are a big deal.  I
know that COPA weighed in a few years back and said
they were illegal, but no one listens to them.