Another MU2 down...

[enigma]

Ok, I see where you are getting at. I will try to get my point across without typing too much.

On a light twin banking into the good engine will increase performance.

This is ABSOLUTELY INCORRECT. Please go find a good aero text, or do the math yourself. I'm short of time this morning and will attempt to get back on later, ...in the mean time: bank into the good engine does NOT increase performance. It does increase controllability up to a point, but does so at the expense of performance.

enigma

 

[ACT700]

Like I said before, I am not trying to insult Paul, Sam, or anyone else who paid the ultimate price.


BUT: Honestly, I am lost. I do not know who is who, skyking is Paul, whr...something is somebody else, it seems the whole family is on this board, and using different usernames all the time.

That's your problem. I will call whomever I want to call whatever I want to call them!
I would never, however, call a deceased comrade anything, out of respect.

You are all turds; big f.cking turds!!! Because if you had any f.cking common sense and respect for Paul, you would have retired his username.

So don't jump at me, you f,cking pi$$ants, because you are mad at the world for letting the MU2 fly.

You want to grieve, go to church.

Like TIGV said, you all are idiots, and on top of that , you are all insulting the people who worked with these guys.

Newsflash: You are not the only one's grieveing.

This is my last comment in this thread, because this has turned into a loose-loose pi$$ing contest with a bunch of nimwits.

 

[five-alive]

This is ABSOLUTELY INCORRECT. Please go find a good aero text, or do the math yourself. I'm short of time this morning and will attempt to get back on later, ...in the mean time: bank into the good engine does NOT increase performance. It does increase controllability up to a point, but does so at the expense of performance.

enigma

I would submit that without banking, the rudder force is pulling you through the air sideways, and thats a lot of drag. You need the horizontal component of lift to balance the rudder force (rudder moment offsets asym thrust). Get rid of that drag and performance increases, even though you need a little more lift.

 

[johnpeace]

FAR 91.3
a) The pilot in command of an aircraft is directly responsible for,
and is the final authority as to, the operation of that aircraft.

C'mon, this is what AvBug is saying (I think) and is so basic it goes all the way back to the pre-solo written 'test'.

PIC means you carry the ultimate responsibility for the safety of the flight. Planes crash. Who is ultimately responsible? The PIC. Why does the plane crashing somehow remove the PIC's responsibility for the flight? Some planes are harder to fly than others, more prone to certain types of failures than others, have a greater history of accidents than others. So what. The PIC is responsible for flights in those planes too.

Yes, it sucks losing loved ones. Blaming crashes on airplanes (or weather, or ATC, or airports, or anything else) does nothing to preserve their honor or dignity though.

Too bad you guys have to live under this stupid burden that your fallen loved ones are only worthy of your honor and respect if they lived and flew error free. Nobody does that.

The best we can hope to do is to fully own our responsibilities, and that's what we do everytime we climb into our cockpits.

 

[Peanut gallery]

There you go

You have addressed the issue.

 

[FN FAL]

You are all turds; big f.cking turds!!! Because if you had any f.cking common sense and respect for Paul, you would have retired his username.

So don't jump at me, you f,cking pi$$ants, because you are mad at the world for letting the MU2 fly.

You want to grieve, go to church.

This is my last comment in this thread, because this has turned into a loose-loose pi$$ing contest with a bunch of nimwits.

"whoop whoop...hysteria alert...whoop whoop"

 

[avbug]

What planet are you from Avbug? The NTSB reports are full of accidents that have probable causes that are not the pilot. Go peddle your "Holier than thou" trash somewhere else. Better yet, put on "The High and Mighty" - it is right up your alley.

I firmly maintain that the pilot in command is ultimately responsible and the final authority for the safe outcome of the flight, bar nothing...and you see this as holier than thou? By what possible twisted perversion of logic might one arrive at such a conclusion, barring mental defect on your part?

This planet, thanks, and I've never seen the high and the mighty, nor read the book.

Perhaps you're not familiar with the regulation. It reads:

Part 91 – General Operating and Flight Rules

§ 91.3 Responsibility and authority of the pilot in command.
(a) The pilot in command of an aircraft is directly responsible for, and is the final authority as to, the operation of that aircraft.

Now, you don't seem too observant, but you might have noticed that it doesn't say "The pilot in command of an aircraft is directly responsible for, and is the final authority as to, the operation of that aircraft unless there's a thunderstorm in the area," or "The pilot in command of an aircraft is directly responsible for, and is the final authority as to, the operation of that aircraft unless the pilot has knowingly accepted a flight in an aircraft that's too difficult for him." Go figure. Why do you suppose the regulation doesn't say that?

The regulation states as much. Any operations manual reiterates this in spades. But if I restate it, stipulating that the pilot takes responsibility, which is not my opinion but truth, it's somehow holier than thou. Your logic is truly mindshattering, kiddo.

Too bad you guys have to live under this stupid burden that your fallen loved ones are only worthy of your honor and respect if they lived and flew error free. Nobody does that.

This is exactly true. As stated before, remember them for how they lived, now how they died. The most any of can hope to have said of us is that we died doing our best. It's all anyone can ask.

And how the hell can you accept responsibility for a thunderstorm? Unless your name is Storm and you're a memeber of the X-Men? Stop talking crap. Thunderstorm=not man-made=uncontrollable. Basic meteorology.

Oueee, that's one's a toughie. Lesee, how does one accept responsibility for thunderstorm avoidance? How about by flying around them, or refusing to fly when they pose a threat? You're not a pilot, are you? How can a pilot take responsibility for dealing with weather, and the outcome of flying through it? Because it's the pilot's job, and any pilot who isn't prepared for that is in no wise competent to perform his job. Period. It's a basic component of any flight training program at the most elementary level, not to mention any flying job...dealing with weather. Fly into weather, you have yourself to blame. Period. Nothing holier than thou about that, and one doesn't need to be a cartoon character to understand and apply basic meteorological judgement.

Avbug here is an example. S*** happens. Pilot handled it, but still ended up in the weeds with a lot of damage. Just luck no one died. It was not his fault! THE AIRPLANE FAILED. POOR DESIGN.

Doesn't change the fact that the pilot is still responsible. Do you land on impossibly short iced fields in the hopes that the brakes and t/r's work, or do you plan ahead and leave yourself an out? Who forced that pilot to land on a contaminated runway, and had he planned on having adequate performance available if he didn't have reverse thrust? Evidently not. Am I saying he's to blame? No, and I don't care. But if he or anyone else points the finger at the airplane, instead of taking some personal responsibility, they are mistaken. Certainly the NTSB noted the failed part, and certainly it was addressed by "mandatory" service bulletins...but the fact remains that the manufacturer didn't land the airplane there. The pilot did.

Pilots blame things on poor maintenance...but few pilots seem to appreciate that a mechanic can't return an aircraft to service. Only a pilot can. A mechanic can approve it for return to service, but only the pilot returns it to service by flying it. Pilot responsibility, final responsibility. Always. Not opinion. Not holier than though. Not the statements of the god of this forum. Merely the truth.

A poor carpenter blames his tools. The tools may break, but it's the carpenter who takes responsibility, always, for his work, and who is responsible for getting the job done weather the tool breaks or not. You're probably not familiar with the title of an older excellent publication, "Fly the biggest piece home." This comes from an era when people knew that life happens, and one deals with it. A lesson apparently not carried over today, judging from the myopic responses to this thread.

As for my responses being out of touch with this forum, or the woefully idiotic assertions that I have made myself the god of flightinfo...those are your words folks, not mine. I offer statements which are truth, regulation, and the standard of the industry throughout the world...reiterating nothing more than the facts. With respect to the target aircraft in question, you may note that virtually everyone (with a couple of exceptions) who does have experience with the aircraft has agreed with my commentary from the beginning. The dissention and panic posts come from those with no experience or a foot to stand upon. That speaks volumes of it's own accord.

Lots of posts here, some profane, some vulgar, some insulting, several threatening. I have done none of these (despite one notable attempt and struggle with the censor), and have called for an end to speculation, supported the law that the pilot is the final authority and responsible for the safe outcome of the flight, and suggested without reservation that one should look no farther than one's self instead of incriminating the airplane...yet I'm labled by the inexperienced and uninformed as the self-proclaimed "god" of flightinfo. Again, your words, not mine...I made no such assertion,but only conservative statements based in fact and truth.

Once more, if you can't accept that, then as they say, get our of the kitchen. You don't belong. Your intolerance is self-incrimination.

 

[KigAir]

AvBug is absolutely correct. I remember reading a story about how Captain Al Hayes burst into tears upon learning how many deaths there were in the Sioux City, Iowa. His tears were not for how many deaths the aircraft caused but for how many lives he couldn't save.

It would have been easy for him to blame the aircraft and with good reason. But he didn't.

 

[semperfido]

Avbug,
Glad I don't work for you buddy. Too many shades of grey out there. Doubt you play very well in the sandbox we call a cockpit. Nothing wrong with taking resposibility for one's own action, but you are extreme. I am not disputing the reg you quoted- just your attitude!

 

[WNRHD17]

You are all turds; big f.cking turds!!! Because if you had any f.cking common sense and respect for Paul, you would have retired his username.

You want to grieve, go to church.

Like TIGV said, you all are idiots, and on top of that , you are all insulting the people who worked with these guys.

Newsflash: You are not the only one's grieveing.

This is my last comment in this thread, because this has turned into a loose-loose pi$$ing contest with a bunch of nimwits.

Nimwits? Hmm...well, let me see here, you did NOT know Paul, and let's talk about common sense and respect....the reason we didn't retire his username is because he's living on, in a sense, through his user name which my dad is using, a-hole. You obviously have no respect for Paul, or for his family because you are insulting us by calling us the ones who are being disrespectful. You have no idea the kind of impact Paul had on so many people and what a complete void he left behind. You were not at his funeral. By the way, we don't go to church to grieve. Newsflash: no one said we are the only ones grieving. Newsflash #2: have you read other threads on this forum? QUite a few are pi$$ing contests with nimwits. This is nothing new. Why is there a need for the NTSB investigating crashes if it's always the pilot's fault? Why spend the money? If you know all the answers, how come we're paying people to tell us? And why isn't the probable cause of some crashes always listed as pilot error? If you had any more common sense you'd realize that turd is a really funny sounding word and this is exactly the kind of response Paul would be giggling at were he still alive....when you take a step back and read some of the posts on this thread it's very humorous. I'm picturing television preachers behind their lecturns telling everyone what is right.