[img width=500 height=250][/img]
Top Gate, Top Gate, Top Gate.
Pulled through into a download looping vertical
maneuver without enough altitude, and incidentally
too much airspeed.
Exactly the same error as the four-bar over in
England in the Hunter at Shoreham.
How many times does the same mistake have to
be made?
I know I'm a stupid fucking pilot and a complete
moron with no qualifications, skill, knowledge or
experience, and a BAD PERSON to boot. I get
that, ok?
But why is a fucking idiot like me keep pointing
out such basic errors by the superstars?!
Top Gate, Top Gate, Top Gate.
If you fly acro at the surface, missing your top
gate is like not landing on the runway, and landing
beside it instead. Worse, in fact.
Anyone remember the time the F-16 missed his
top gate by 1000 feet in Colorado?
[youtube][/youtube]
Top Gate, Top Gate, Top Gate.
As an airshow performer, you don't like to be
scheduled after this. Hard act to follow, I
don't care how much smoke and flares you have.
[img width=500 height=325]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... irshow.jpg[/img]
Top Gate
-
Colonel
- Posts: 3450
- Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2015 10:31 am
[img width=500 height=58][/img]
Arlo Speer and his gang of fools in Tower C
must be so proud of their legacy! They are
convinced that touching a cloud in flight is
worse than a violent, fatal impact with the
ground.
I sort of see where they are coming from,
though. Any time a TC Inspector enters
cloud on an IFR flight plan, generally at
least one CADORs needs to be filed for
the loss of control resulting in a failure
to comply with the clearance.
And since TC Inspectors are the hottest
sticks in town, if they can't fly straight
and level near a cloud, then absolutely
no one is capable of flying acro near one.
Arlo Speer and his gang of fools in Tower C
must be so proud of their legacy! They are
convinced that touching a cloud in flight is
worse than a violent, fatal impact with the
ground.
I sort of see where they are coming from,
though. Any time a TC Inspector enters
cloud on an IFR flight plan, generally at
least one CADORs needs to be filed for
the loss of control resulting in a failure
to comply with the clearance.
And since TC Inspectors are the hottest
sticks in town, if they can't fly straight
and level near a cloud, then absolutely
no one is capable of flying acro near one.
-
Fendermandan
- Posts: 113
- Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2015 11:54 pm
Seems something stupid possesses at the worst moment, when fatigue sets in. In the non acro world, reading crash reports seems that after the second missed low vis instrument approach the 3rd attempt at the same runway is fatal for GA.
-
Rookie Pilot
- Posts: 404
- Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2015 1:44 am
[quote author=Fendermandan link=topic=5145.msg13198#msg13198 date=1482128371]
Seems something stupid possesses at the worst moment, when fatigue sets in. In the non acro world, reading crash reports seems that after the second missed low vis instrument approach the 3rd attempt at the same runway is fatal for GA.
[/quote]
Fatigue is hugely underrated as a major factor in GA SP accidents, but it's real, let me tell you.
Doing a SE piston, 400 NM flight through clouds, rain, turbulence, mutiple frequency changes, re routes, altitude changes, navigation and position reports, watching the temp to ensure no icing, concluding with a descent to an RNAV approach to an airport (up north Ontario) without any AWOS, current weather data -- no one there, that sucks -- ends up being a circling approach to minimums, single runway with a crosswind -- thankfully daytime -- yeah it's tiring.
I can see its tempting to take shortcuts, only discipline prevents it. [font=verdana]No one would see you, there's no one within 50 miles! (Up North). I'm sure it happens. [/font]
[font=verdana]No one can teach you these things on a 30 minute hood flight too. Have to build up to it and gain experience, and decide IN ADVANCE to immediately head to the alternate if the weather goes down.[/font]
So I get it, and some accidents the pilot ran out of mental focus gas. Gotta always have reserves -- fuel, alternates with better weather or facilities, and some personal energy in the tank.
SP Ifr has legitmate questions. My personal health and stamina standards are always higher for it, than a short VFR hop. It's different.
Seems something stupid possesses at the worst moment, when fatigue sets in. In the non acro world, reading crash reports seems that after the second missed low vis instrument approach the 3rd attempt at the same runway is fatal for GA.
[/quote]
Fatigue is hugely underrated as a major factor in GA SP accidents, but it's real, let me tell you.
Doing a SE piston, 400 NM flight through clouds, rain, turbulence, mutiple frequency changes, re routes, altitude changes, navigation and position reports, watching the temp to ensure no icing, concluding with a descent to an RNAV approach to an airport (up north Ontario) without any AWOS, current weather data -- no one there, that sucks -- ends up being a circling approach to minimums, single runway with a crosswind -- thankfully daytime -- yeah it's tiring.
I can see its tempting to take shortcuts, only discipline prevents it. [font=verdana]No one would see you, there's no one within 50 miles! (Up North). I'm sure it happens. [/font]
[font=verdana]No one can teach you these things on a 30 minute hood flight too. Have to build up to it and gain experience, and decide IN ADVANCE to immediately head to the alternate if the weather goes down.[/font]
So I get it, and some accidents the pilot ran out of mental focus gas. Gotta always have reserves -- fuel, alternates with better weather or facilities, and some personal energy in the tank.
SP Ifr has legitmate questions. My personal health and stamina standards are always higher for it, than a short VFR hop. It's different.
-
pdw
- Posts: 62
- Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2016 10:00 am
[quote] and incidentally too much airspeed [/quote]
Bear with me as I try to get my head around verifying that interesting factual ... while having considered some revealing 'post' wx checks around these VFR areas where these types have happened. Actual speed relative to "IAS" [i]might be a flaw[/i] in a pilots perceived-safe visual downline arc (anticipated) [i]as per the pilot's calculation from other experiences ... [/i]vs his/her actual arc required for ground clearance (bottom gate) which on that day becomes quite different (although perhaps not by all that much) than the normal experience. I believe here a recent WW2/AC tragedy in Coldlake this past summer may become a useful study (not sure yet) . . . once the report is out.
It's obvious that the accurately-positioned top gate location is very important for a showpilot to achieve in order to have best viewing for the show audience below and having "topgate topgate topgate" for safe execution. The airspeed it seems HAS been higher in some of these (Hunter included there ) if to have "correct aim" to be 'right on' with his/her show-positioning. In some of these accidents ... it so happens (wx hist) while encountering more headwind on the upline to that chosen topgate co-ordinate (which is then much a LOWER speed in ground reference) means the downline tailwind (esp if increasing near surface/wx hist) then required an increased ground speed in following thru with the resulting arc (but GS is not yet enough at first and AS gets SLOWER than GS out of the topgate) .... so a tightening arc leads into to much G's . (So is less "air" [i]range[/i] available between the topgate and the ground which they can't see while setting it up ?).
So yeah, it looks like some range goes missing in some of those arcs, and then with the extra G's in pulling level to escape ground contact just brings stall AOA that much sooner even if the high speed was achieved. There the pilot is suddenly at the realization there's a limitation in shortening the widenening arc now required to avoid stall despite heightening speed that looks [i]almost [/i]adequate[i]. Some videos where's it's close .. it does look like not enough turnup (earthward when inverted) early-enough into those downlines... as if responsiveness was lagging somehow, or left just a bit too late. So [/i]IMO there's some kind of deception in there, seeing this type of miscalculation keeps catching some pretty good heads off guard at their calculated topgates with an unrelenting frequency.
Bear with me as I try to get my head around verifying that interesting factual ... while having considered some revealing 'post' wx checks around these VFR areas where these types have happened. Actual speed relative to "IAS" [i]might be a flaw[/i] in a pilots perceived-safe visual downline arc (anticipated) [i]as per the pilot's calculation from other experiences ... [/i]vs his/her actual arc required for ground clearance (bottom gate) which on that day becomes quite different (although perhaps not by all that much) than the normal experience. I believe here a recent WW2/AC tragedy in Coldlake this past summer may become a useful study (not sure yet) . . . once the report is out.
It's obvious that the accurately-positioned top gate location is very important for a showpilot to achieve in order to have best viewing for the show audience below and having "topgate topgate topgate" for safe execution. The airspeed it seems HAS been higher in some of these (Hunter included there ) if to have "correct aim" to be 'right on' with his/her show-positioning. In some of these accidents ... it so happens (wx hist) while encountering more headwind on the upline to that chosen topgate co-ordinate (which is then much a LOWER speed in ground reference) means the downline tailwind (esp if increasing near surface/wx hist) then required an increased ground speed in following thru with the resulting arc (but GS is not yet enough at first and AS gets SLOWER than GS out of the topgate) .... so a tightening arc leads into to much G's . (So is less "air" [i]range[/i] available between the topgate and the ground which they can't see while setting it up ?).
So yeah, it looks like some range goes missing in some of those arcs, and then with the extra G's in pulling level to escape ground contact just brings stall AOA that much sooner even if the high speed was achieved. There the pilot is suddenly at the realization there's a limitation in shortening the widenening arc now required to avoid stall despite heightening speed that looks [i]almost [/i]adequate[i]. Some videos where's it's close .. it does look like not enough turnup (earthward when inverted) early-enough into those downlines... as if responsiveness was lagging somehow, or left just a bit too late. So [/i]IMO there's some kind of deception in there, seeing this type of miscalculation keeps catching some pretty good heads off guard at their calculated topgates with an unrelenting frequency.
-
JW Scud
- Posts: 252
- Joined: Sun Aug 14, 2016 12:44 am
http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/38 ... -tennessee
Forgot to deactivate the burners? That will screw up any top gate at a low altitude I would think.
Forgot to deactivate the burners? That will screw up any top gate at a low altitude I would think.
-
- Similar Topics
- Replies
- Views
- Last post
-
- 1 Replies
- 1603 Views
-
Last post by Colonel
-
- 5 Replies
- 1726 Views
-
Last post by Colonel
-
- 9 Replies
- 13174 Views
-
Last post by David MacRay
