Grob Forced Landing
Free Man, Not a Number
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Well here of course.
Age: 58
Posts: 307
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gash - I can't believe you actually said a Uni stude has to work hard! It's three years on the beer/wine, cruising to the odd lecture - sure they are all smart people but hard working - hardly.
I'd like someone to pay for my "intensive" flying (or even to get a tax rebate/credit on the money I spend would be nice) Sounds like you took the good options at the tax payers expense but when it started to go pear shaped (eyes) gave up the whole game - not only the career but the degree.
I'd like someone to pay for my "intensive" flying (or even to get a tax rebate/credit on the money I spend would be nice) Sounds like you took the good options at the tax payers expense but when it started to go pear shaped (eyes) gave up the whole game - not only the career but the degree.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,208
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gash i think that you are 50% right as is You want it ,from my observation of uni students the engineering and science students work hard but the arts and trendy subject lot do next to naff all exept make trouble but in both cases they would have had much more time to devote to the flying than i did working 12 hour shifts to pay for it all and of course they dont have to find the cash ......i was doing that for them !.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Down t' south
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A C
No need to be so defensive mate! Some UAS studes have to work harder than others at their degrees- granted. But the flying course is intense in pressure, and don't forget this is the start of their professional training. Most PPL holders gain the license for pleasure flying. UAS studes are expected to fly to the same standards as their full time, salaried, commissioned JEFTS counterparts; so there is bound to be a general difference in UAS/PPL standards...professional v amateur. Although (standards wise) of course, this is a generalisation.
Let's not turn this excellent effort of a trainee pilot saving his/her life and the aircraft into a forum of oneupmanship and slagging each other off!
Regards
No need to be so defensive mate! Some UAS studes have to work harder than others at their degrees- granted. But the flying course is intense in pressure, and don't forget this is the start of their professional training. Most PPL holders gain the license for pleasure flying. UAS studes are expected to fly to the same standards as their full time, salaried, commissioned JEFTS counterparts; so there is bound to be a general difference in UAS/PPL standards...professional v amateur. Although (standards wise) of course, this is a generalisation.
Let's not turn this excellent effort of a trainee pilot saving his/her life and the aircraft into a forum of oneupmanship and slagging each other off!
Regards
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,208
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Al i agree with all you say and the first line of my first post on this subject was to congratulate the pilot on a fine bit of airmanship..........but i have observed from this forum and 25 years in professional aviation that there is a SMALL but very vocal minority of RAF aircrew who think that there are two ways to fly an aircraft "the RAF way and the wrong way" and i had a feeling that this attitude was starting to come out in the posts above.
We should all be open to new ideas to improve flight safety, of late the RAF constant aspect forced landing drill has been the topic of much discusion in civil flying clubs as an example ,but i cant help getting the feeling that this is a one way street when i read that the RAF grob 115 cant fly IFR because all the power for the attitude indications comes form one sorce ,i dont know of a civil IFR training outfit that has made that mistake.
From my own experence i hav yet to meet this attitude from army and navy aircrew and wish to repeat that it is only from a vocal minority in the RAF.
We should all be open to new ideas to improve flight safety, of late the RAF constant aspect forced landing drill has been the topic of much discusion in civil flying clubs as an example ,but i cant help getting the feeling that this is a one way street when i read that the RAF grob 115 cant fly IFR because all the power for the attitude indications comes form one sorce ,i dont know of a civil IFR training outfit that has made that mistake.
From my own experence i hav yet to meet this attitude from army and navy aircrew and wish to repeat that it is only from a vocal minority in the RAF.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: NW England
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The reason the stude was at 500' was due to the fact he was actually completing a PFL pattern from height. From information I heard, he opened the throttle, had no response, so he made the (very) wise decision of putting it into the field he was practicing on.
One possibility could be the RPM lever was not set MAX before the throttle, (RPM set LOW to minimise prop drag on PFLS ie more realistic), however there would still have been a throttle response. The day the incident occured, manifold icing would have been highly unlikely, but as always, can never be completely overruled. I guess we will have to wait until the signal is sent.
Fantastic work by the stude (although he probably has the biggest PIGS you could imagine); many people would have flapped or frozen placed in the same situation.
One possibility could be the RPM lever was not set MAX before the throttle, (RPM set LOW to minimise prop drag on PFLS ie more realistic), however there would still have been a throttle response. The day the incident occured, manifold icing would have been highly unlikely, but as always, can never be completely overruled. I guess we will have to wait until the signal is sent.
Fantastic work by the stude (although he probably has the biggest PIGS you could imagine); many people would have flapped or frozen placed in the same situation.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,208
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would be very interested to know the outcome of the engineering investigation ,as not long ago a lycoming injected engine that i had some dealings with stopped for no reason that the engineering investigation could find ,fortunatly the instructor put the aircraft into a field without a scratch ,as an instructor was in the aircraft i think that it was not finger trouble.
I,m sure that we would all like to know why these things are stopping for no apparent reason.
I,m sure that we would all like to know why these things are stopping for no apparent reason.
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: uk
Posts: 439
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quite interesting comments. 
Having taken your comments on board its hard to work out what the problem is between "Pros" and "mil" guys.
First I would like to say "respect" to the UASC who did a good job in returning to mother earth.
Next I would like to make a few comments on the above postings.
I have had the privi of being instructed by both so therefore my comments are from experience with no bias.
1. The indepth trainig in the mil up to PPL/BCPL is better due to the fact that"19 year old instructor hour building" doesnt have the same experience as an A2.
These are becoming fewer and fewer thankfully.
2. As for the professional Commerical Pilot Training I had both Civi and Ex Mil instructors. The Civi Commercial Instructors were far more practical towards the job than the Mil guys,but the high flying standards were still met.
This all came to light when I started to work for an Airline.
3.As for PFLs with the new regs on JAR,the flight test every 24 months may entail a PFL but for there own safety and comfort they should practice more frequently.
I think both have advantanges but both also have there faults.I dont agree with ex Mil guys being exempt from the commerical exams.
But at the end of the day what the Mil do is a completly different job than flying a public transport Aircraft.
Rdgs K.I.L.
Having taken your comments on board its hard to work out what the problem is between "Pros" and "mil" guys.
First I would like to say "respect" to the UASC who did a good job in returning to mother earth.
Next I would like to make a few comments on the above postings.
I have had the privi of being instructed by both so therefore my comments are from experience with no bias.
1. The indepth trainig in the mil up to PPL/BCPL is better due to the fact that"19 year old instructor hour building" doesnt have the same experience as an A2.
These are becoming fewer and fewer thankfully.
2. As for the professional Commerical Pilot Training I had both Civi and Ex Mil instructors. The Civi Commercial Instructors were far more practical towards the job than the Mil guys,but the high flying standards were still met.
This all came to light when I started to work for an Airline.
3.As for PFLs with the new regs on JAR,the flight test every 24 months may entail a PFL but for there own safety and comfort they should practice more frequently.
I think both have advantanges but both also have there faults.I dont agree with ex Mil guys being exempt from the commerical exams.
But at the end of the day what the Mil do is a completly different job than flying a public transport Aircraft.
Rdgs K.I.L.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 104
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For what its worth at this late stage of bickering, word on the street has it that the lad in question had set up for a PFL and the engine would not respond on the application of power to go around.
Lucky his set up was correct then!!
Ray.
(just found the rest of the thread.... I'll get my coat)
[ 22 July 2001: Message edited by: raytofclimb ]
Lucky his set up was correct then!!
Ray.
(just found the rest of the thread.... I'll get my coat)
[ 22 July 2001: Message edited by: raytofclimb ]
