Original Posted By: "Phil"
Dad and I plan to make Brodhead- in 2011.- He just got done building a 1950's style teardrop camper, that he built just for Brodhead trips.- Which leaves me the "chore" of flying the piet.- On a side note I just had a guy stop by who is 68, and thinking about building a piet.- A real newcomer, not a pilot, but has woodworking experiance.- He had seen photos online, and we were only 20 miles away so he came to check it out, and see if he thought he could tackle it.- I told him just take it 1 step at a time and do something on it every day and you'll get her done.-Shad Bell- "Unsafe at any speed"=0A=0A=0A ________________________________________________________________________________Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Brodhead flybys
Pietenpol-List: Brodhead flybys
Pietenpol-List: Brodhead flybys
Original Posted By: "Jack Phillips"
Had a great time at the Piet fly-in, but saw one safety issue that I thought shouldbe addressed. The flyby pattern used to be a regular rectangular patternwith downwind south of the airport and flyby passes over the north hangar area,south of the runway and not over it, parallel to and same direction as landingtraffic. This year I saw Pietenpols doing flybys upwind, downwind, and crosswind,and even circling in the flyby pattern. All it would take is for onetime for two guys to not see each other and it would be a bad deal. I wouldsuggest that a standard flyby pattern be enumerated for all participants and maybeposted in various places during the fly-in.Other than that, enjoyed seeing the new and old airplanes, new and old people,and getting the Rudolph Piet back in the air.-Read this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... __________
Had a great time at the Piet fly-in, but saw one safety issue that I thought shouldbe addressed. The flyby pattern used to be a regular rectangular patternwith downwind south of the airport and flyby passes over the north hangar area,south of the runway and not over it, parallel to and same direction as landingtraffic. This year I saw Pietenpols doing flybys upwind, downwind, and crosswind,and even circling in the flyby pattern. All it would take is for onetime for two guys to not see each other and it would be a bad deal. I wouldsuggest that a standard flyby pattern be enumerated for all participants and maybeposted in various places during the fly-in.Other than that, enjoyed seeing the new and old airplanes, new and old people,and getting the Rudolph Piet back in the air.-Read this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... __________
RE: Pietenpol-List: Brodhead flybys
Original Posted By: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
Good point, Rob - particularly because there are few airplanes with worsevisibility in a turn than a Pietenpol.Jack PhillipsNX899JPRaleigh, NC-----Original Message-----
Good point, Rob - particularly because there are few airplanes with worsevisibility in a turn than a Pietenpol.Jack PhillipsNX899JPRaleigh, NC-----Original Message-----
> Pietenpol-List: Brodhead flybys
Original Posted By:> baldeagle27(at)earthlink.net
I agree 100% with Andrew's observations and would like to add one more safety issue that really bothered me . . . propping airplanes! This year=2C I saw every conceivable method used to prop airplanes. Often=2C a pilot would request a bystander to give a prop=2C but it appeared that they did not always know the individual or his experience/capabilities in propping aircraft. I don't want to start yet another debate on the "proper" way to prop an airplane=2C it depends on the engine=2C whether it has impulse couplings=2C etc. There were people standing behind the prop and leaning wayyy into it to prop (I know you know what you are doing -not saying name-=2C but it looked very=2C very dangerous every time you did it)=3B there were people holding onto the very tip of the blade with their fingers slipping off 90% of the time=3B there were the "leg swingers" who throw one leg almost over their head before propping=2C ensuring that they are off-balance and possibly still on one foot with the raised leg in the way when the engine fired (it's a 65 Contintental=2C not a P&W 1340!)=3B and I saw one gentleman who=2C after spinning the prop with no start=2C turned the prop slowly through several blades with both hands WHILE THE IMPULSE COUPLING WAS CLICKING THE WHOLE TIME and the switch still hot! There have been a couple of relatively minor (I'm sure not to the recipients) propping injuries already=2C but it is a matter of time until someone gets seriously injured.To add to Andrew's suggestions=2C I propose that we encourage our group to allow only known individuals to prop their aircraft=2C and possibly add a forum on hand propping to the Saturday lineup=2C out in front of the aircraft with differing engines/setups as demonstrations.Gene Rambo> Subject: Pietenpol-List: Brodhead flybys
I agree 100% with Andrew's observations and would like to add one more safety issue that really bothered me . . . propping airplanes! This year=2C I saw every conceivable method used to prop airplanes. Often=2C a pilot would request a bystander to give a prop=2C but it appeared that they did not always know the individual or his experience/capabilities in propping aircraft. I don't want to start yet another debate on the "proper" way to prop an airplane=2C it depends on the engine=2C whether it has impulse couplings=2C etc. There were people standing behind the prop and leaning wayyy into it to prop (I know you know what you are doing -not saying name-=2C but it looked very=2C very dangerous every time you did it)=3B there were people holding onto the very tip of the blade with their fingers slipping off 90% of the time=3B there were the "leg swingers" who throw one leg almost over their head before propping=2C ensuring that they are off-balance and possibly still on one foot with the raised leg in the way when the engine fired (it's a 65 Contintental=2C not a P&W 1340!)=3B and I saw one gentleman who=2C after spinning the prop with no start=2C turned the prop slowly through several blades with both hands WHILE THE IMPULSE COUPLING WAS CLICKING THE WHOLE TIME and the switch still hot! There have been a couple of relatively minor (I'm sure not to the recipients) propping injuries already=2C but it is a matter of time until someone gets seriously injured.To add to Andrew's suggestions=2C I propose that we encourage our group to allow only known individuals to prop their aircraft=2C and possibly add a forum on hand propping to the Saturday lineup=2C out in front of the aircraft with differing engines/setups as demonstrations.Gene Rambo> Subject: Pietenpol-List: Brodhead flybys
Re: Pietenpol-List: Brodhead flybys
Original Posted By: "Jack Phillips"
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Brodhead flybysMost intelligent and needed post I've seen on this list in a long time.CMC________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Brodhead flybysMost intelligent and needed post I've seen on this list in a long time.CMC________________________________________________________________________________
Pietenpol-List: Re: Brodhead flybys
Original Posted By: AMsafetyC(at)aol.com
Posting the pattern information sure sounds like a good idea... for the pilotsAND spectators. As for hand propping, I'll be honest, I've never done it. Whenwe were up there, my wife jokingly said to me, "hey, Bill needs you to prophis plane." I said, "me?" She said, "no, just kidding, he's got a starter now."I'm glad she was kidding because for a moment I was looking around for oneof the more experienced fellows to help Bill get going. I've watched severalpeople hand prop, and have never seen anyone hurt so far. I'm sure I can learnthe proper technique, but of all the ways I've seen it done, I'm not surewhich methods are right. There was a hand propping demo in the Vintage area at Oshkosh a couple of timesa day, unfortunately I didn't get to see any of them. If a forum is offeredat Brodhead next year, I'd be interested in sitting in.--------Mark ChouinardFinishing up Wings - Working on Center SectionRead this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... __________
Posting the pattern information sure sounds like a good idea... for the pilotsAND spectators. As for hand propping, I'll be honest, I've never done it. Whenwe were up there, my wife jokingly said to me, "hey, Bill needs you to prophis plane." I said, "me?" She said, "no, just kidding, he's got a starter now."I'm glad she was kidding because for a moment I was looking around for oneof the more experienced fellows to help Bill get going. I've watched severalpeople hand prop, and have never seen anyone hurt so far. I'm sure I can learnthe proper technique, but of all the ways I've seen it done, I'm not surewhich methods are right. There was a hand propping demo in the Vintage area at Oshkosh a couple of timesa day, unfortunately I didn't get to see any of them. If a forum is offeredat Brodhead next year, I'd be interested in sitting in.--------Mark ChouinardFinishing up Wings - Working on Center SectionRead this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... __________
Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Brodhead flybys
Original Posted By: "Jack Phillips"
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Brodhead flybysSounds like a good topic for training at next years fly in. The safe procedure in hand propping. It is conceivable that we may all be faced with thatand no experience or knowledge of how to do it safely. It could be a life saver or at least has the potential; of being one.JohnIn a message dated 8/3/2010 1:30:53 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, hangar10(at)cox.net writes:--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "K5YAC" Posting the pattern information sure sounds like a good idea... for the pilots AND spectators. As for hand propping, I'll be honest, I've never doneit. When we were up there, my wife jokingly said to me, "hey, Bill needs you to prop his plane." I said, "me?" She said, "no, just kidding, he's got a starter now." I'm glad she was kidding because for a moment I was looking around for one of the more experienced fellows to help Bill get going. I've watched several people hand prop, and have never seen anyone hurt so far. I'm sure I can learn the proper technique, but of all the ways I've seen it done, I'm not sure which methods are right. There was a hand propping demo in the Vintage area at Oshkosh a couple of times a day, unfortunately I didn't get to see any of them. If a forum is offered at Brodhead next year, I'd be interested in sitting in.--------Mark ChouinardFinishing up Wings - Working on Center SectionRead this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... __________
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Brodhead flybysSounds like a good topic for training at next years fly in. The safe procedure in hand propping. It is conceivable that we may all be faced with thatand no experience or knowledge of how to do it safely. It could be a life saver or at least has the potential; of being one.JohnIn a message dated 8/3/2010 1:30:53 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, hangar10(at)cox.net writes:--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "K5YAC" Posting the pattern information sure sounds like a good idea... for the pilots AND spectators. As for hand propping, I'll be honest, I've never doneit. When we were up there, my wife jokingly said to me, "hey, Bill needs you to prop his plane." I said, "me?" She said, "no, just kidding, he's got a starter now." I'm glad she was kidding because for a moment I was looking around for one of the more experienced fellows to help Bill get going. I've watched several people hand prop, and have never seen anyone hurt so far. I'm sure I can learn the proper technique, but of all the ways I've seen it done, I'm not sure which methods are right. There was a hand propping demo in the Vintage area at Oshkosh a couple of times a day, unfortunately I didn't get to see any of them. If a forum is offered at Brodhead next year, I'd be interested in sitting in.--------Mark ChouinardFinishing up Wings - Working on Center SectionRead this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... __________
RE: Pietenpol-List: Re: Brodhead flybys
Original Posted By: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
My wife took the hand-propping course at OSH a couple of years ago. Shethought it was odd that the course was taught by a bunch of one-armed men.Jack PhillipsNX899JPRaleigh, NC-----Original Message-----
My wife took the hand-propping course at OSH a couple of years ago. Shethought it was odd that the course was taught by a bunch of one-armed men.Jack PhillipsNX899JPRaleigh, NC-----Original Message-----
Pietenpol-List: Re: Brodhead flybys
Original Posted By: "Jack Phillips"
Haaa ha! You are kidding, right? pietflyr(at)bellsouth.net wrote:> My wife took the hand-propping course at OSH a couple of years ago. She> thought it was odd that the course was taught by a bunch of one-armed men.> > Jack Phillips> NX899JP> Raleigh, NC> > ----------Mark ChouinardFinishing up Wings - Working on Center SectionRead this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... __________
Haaa ha! You are kidding, right? pietflyr(at)bellsouth.net wrote:> My wife took the hand-propping course at OSH a couple of years ago. She> thought it was odd that the course was taught by a bunch of one-armed men.> > Jack Phillips> NX899JP> Raleigh, NC> > ----------Mark ChouinardFinishing up Wings - Working on Center SectionRead this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... __________
RE: Pietenpol-List: Re: Brodhead flybys
Original Posted By: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
No - it really was taught by several men, a couple of which only had one armeach. Sort of drives the point home - to the point that she has neverpropped an airplane, even though she has taken the training.Jack PhillipsNX899JPRaleigh, NC-----Original Message-----
No - it really was taught by several men, a couple of which only had one armeach. Sort of drives the point home - to the point that she has neverpropped an airplane, even though she has taken the training.Jack PhillipsNX899JPRaleigh, NC-----Original Message-----
Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Brodhead flybys
Original Posted By: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Brodhead flybysOkay, now ya got me. I was not going to bring this up however since it has I need to comment on the pattern flight. From the ground watching the approaches from several areas on the field, it appeared to me that downwind toshort final was more an arc rather than the squared off pattern we were and still are required to fly, unless given a straight in approach. This may have been from my ground vantage point of perspective but I saw few if any fly a proper pattern. Now that could be because I am not a bean field flyer or my occupational bent or an observation vantage point. But it seems like field safety needs to be retrained or revisited each year as to reiterate good safe pilotage and field operations. We certainly have an ample supply ofqualified instructors and safety people to put together short presentation on all the safety topicsJust a suggestion for next years opening conference, never hurts to be safe and remind everyone of the rules once a year. Everyone enjoys the flyin lets not spoil a great time and wonderful event by one of a catastrophic nature. Just my opinion and observation, I apologize for the rant but I have held off as long as I could. ThanksJohnIn a message dated 8/3/2010 1:52:15 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, pietflyr(at)bellsouth.net writes:--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Jack Phillips" My wife took the hand-propping course at OSH a couple of years ago. Shethought it was odd that the course was taught by a bunch of one-armed men.Jack PhillipsNX899JPRaleigh, NC-----Original Message-----
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Brodhead flybysOkay, now ya got me. I was not going to bring this up however since it has I need to comment on the pattern flight. From the ground watching the approaches from several areas on the field, it appeared to me that downwind toshort final was more an arc rather than the squared off pattern we were and still are required to fly, unless given a straight in approach. This may have been from my ground vantage point of perspective but I saw few if any fly a proper pattern. Now that could be because I am not a bean field flyer or my occupational bent or an observation vantage point. But it seems like field safety needs to be retrained or revisited each year as to reiterate good safe pilotage and field operations. We certainly have an ample supply ofqualified instructors and safety people to put together short presentation on all the safety topicsJust a suggestion for next years opening conference, never hurts to be safe and remind everyone of the rules once a year. Everyone enjoys the flyin lets not spoil a great time and wonderful event by one of a catastrophic nature. Just my opinion and observation, I apologize for the rant but I have held off as long as I could. ThanksJohnIn a message dated 8/3/2010 1:52:15 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, pietflyr(at)bellsouth.net writes:--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Jack Phillips" My wife took the hand-propping course at OSH a couple of years ago. Shethought it was odd that the course was taught by a bunch of one-armed men.Jack PhillipsNX899JPRaleigh, NC-----Original Message-----
Re: Pietenpol-List: Brodhead flybys
Original Posted By: shad bell
Pietenpol-List: Re: Brodhead flybys
Original Posted By: "BYD"
It's kind of funny, although I really like the gear set-up I have I think if Iwere to build another I'd build the wood gear. I like the simplicity and theno toe in or toe out problems. The first 50 or so hours I spent flying mine Ihad a slight toe-in problem. It was enough to make pavement landings prettyexciting. I heated up the bottoms of the "V"s and straightened them out. Pavementlandings are much more manageable now. As far as the strength of the splitgear, I've tested mine out about as much as I think I should, and found itto be plenty strong! I think from now on I'm going to lay off the testing. Of course that ground loop a few years back and the hard landings are part ofwhat we are supposed to do in order to test these ships, right?After getting the chance to fly Allen Rudolph's plane, I'd really like to get aset of 8:50 x 6 tires. I like the look, and really liked the handling. Justmight have to try a skid on mine too. It'd be fun to be able to switch the twotypes of tires whenever the mood strikes.Second thought, if I were to build another, I think I'd build a replica of theAllen Rudolph piet. Only problem is you could never build in all that character.Don EmchNX899DERead this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ___Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Brodhead flybys
It's kind of funny, although I really like the gear set-up I have I think if Iwere to build another I'd build the wood gear. I like the simplicity and theno toe in or toe out problems. The first 50 or so hours I spent flying mine Ihad a slight toe-in problem. It was enough to make pavement landings prettyexciting. I heated up the bottoms of the "V"s and straightened them out. Pavementlandings are much more manageable now. As far as the strength of the splitgear, I've tested mine out about as much as I think I should, and found itto be plenty strong! I think from now on I'm going to lay off the testing. Of course that ground loop a few years back and the hard landings are part ofwhat we are supposed to do in order to test these ships, right?After getting the chance to fly Allen Rudolph's plane, I'd really like to get aset of 8:50 x 6 tires. I like the look, and really liked the handling. Justmight have to try a skid on mine too. It'd be fun to be able to switch the twotypes of tires whenever the mood strikes.Second thought, if I were to build another, I think I'd build a replica of theAllen Rudolph piet. Only problem is you could never build in all that character.Don EmchNX899DERead this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ___Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Brodhead flybys
Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Brodhead flybys
Original Posted By: "TOM STINEMETZE"
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Brodhead flybysBill true enough, it may not be in the FAR however during training at anuncontrolled field and towered the pattern discipline was highly stressed and a requirement when in the pattern you need to be doing it by the numberseverytime. Having never been in or flown a biplane or a Piet my information is greatly limited to the Cessna and Piper aircraft that being the case Iam in all probability not alone in that primary training strived to instill precision flying and predictable pattern operations. Hard to shake old training habits. I suppose I have always subscribed to the idea that integrity means doing the right thing when no one is watching, that goes for patternwork also. I agree with not wanting to fill the air with regulations and rules, Brodhead is a special place and we already have a bunch of rules already,especially since the first charge of PIC is "safety of flight", that being the case, we as the pilot community need to keep that fresh and in mind at all times. Don't need no stinkin rules all we really need are responsible pilots following the rules we already know but may not completely remember. I dont remember them all, all the time and have to rely on the book to get themrefreshed at my age and in my mind a reminder is always good as a proactive measure rather than the accident investigation in the reactive case. Yes I know its the Safety Director in me coming out, its just a bunch easier to startsafe and end safe.Safe in the morning, safe all day long!The sermon is ended thanks be to patience, understanding and practicality. JohnIn a message dated 8/3/2010 11:30:52 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, billsayre(at)ymail.com writes:--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "BYD" Just some thoughts=C3=A2=82=AC=C2John wrote: > "it appeared to me that downwind to short final was more an arc ratherthan the squared off pattern we were and still are required to fly, unless given a straight in approach".In a Biplane, I was taught to fly an arc to landing for visibility reasons. I=C3=A2=82=AC=84=A2ll grant you the Air Camper may not be quite as restricted but unless I=C3=A2=82=AC=84=A2m mistaken at an uncontrolled airfield there is no one to =C3=A2=82=AC=C5=93give=C3=A2=82=AC=C2=9D a straight in approach (clearance?). To nit-pick, there isn=C3=A2=82=AC=84=A2t an FAR =C3=A2=82=AC=C5=93requiring=C3=A2=82=AC=C2=9D a =C3=A2=82=AC=C5=93squared off pattern=C3=A2=82=AC=C2=9D either =C3=A2=82=AC=9C it=C3=A2=82=AC=84=A2s suggested in the AIM (and a good idea IMO) but it is not required.Gene wrote: > "I propose that we encourage our group to allow only known individualsto prop their aircraft, and possibly add a forum on hand propping to theSaturday lineup, out in front of the aircraft with differing engines/setups as demonstrations".Group or no group, I can=C3=A2=82=AC=84=A2t imagine asking just some person to prop my plane. Not only am I clueless whether this bozo knows how to prop a plane, but how is he going to communicate if he wants the ignition on or off. There=C3=A2=82=AC=84=A2s more going on than meets the eye (especially to a non-aviators eye).I like the idea of a forum on hand propping. It doesn=C3=A2=82=AC=84=A2t have to be fancy or formal, but even just sharing amongst ourselves about chocking or tying and techniques we use and letting anyone listen in is great. I hadnever hand-propped a Model-A and since I=C3=A2=82=AC=84=A2m building one I wanted to experience it, so I approached Larry Williams and explained my reasoning and he was kind enough to allow me to prop his Piet. Afterwards I felt silly for asking because it was straightforward but in truth I=C3=A2=82=AC=84=A2m glad I did.I=C3=A2=82=AC=84=A2d hate to see our group fill up with rules and regulations, but I understand the desire for safety. I just start to wonder who will enforce the rules and what will the penalties be if I round off my base to final legwithout being given a straight in approach.Read this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ______Date: Wed, 04 Aug 2010 08:20:24 -0500
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Brodhead flybysBill true enough, it may not be in the FAR however during training at anuncontrolled field and towered the pattern discipline was highly stressed and a requirement when in the pattern you need to be doing it by the numberseverytime. Having never been in or flown a biplane or a Piet my information is greatly limited to the Cessna and Piper aircraft that being the case Iam in all probability not alone in that primary training strived to instill precision flying and predictable pattern operations. Hard to shake old training habits. I suppose I have always subscribed to the idea that integrity means doing the right thing when no one is watching, that goes for patternwork also. I agree with not wanting to fill the air with regulations and rules, Brodhead is a special place and we already have a bunch of rules already,especially since the first charge of PIC is "safety of flight", that being the case, we as the pilot community need to keep that fresh and in mind at all times. Don't need no stinkin rules all we really need are responsible pilots following the rules we already know but may not completely remember. I dont remember them all, all the time and have to rely on the book to get themrefreshed at my age and in my mind a reminder is always good as a proactive measure rather than the accident investigation in the reactive case. Yes I know its the Safety Director in me coming out, its just a bunch easier to startsafe and end safe.Safe in the morning, safe all day long!The sermon is ended thanks be to patience, understanding and practicality. JohnIn a message dated 8/3/2010 11:30:52 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, billsayre(at)ymail.com writes:--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "BYD" Just some thoughts=C3=A2=82=AC=C2John wrote: > "it appeared to me that downwind to short final was more an arc ratherthan the squared off pattern we were and still are required to fly, unless given a straight in approach".In a Biplane, I was taught to fly an arc to landing for visibility reasons. I=C3=A2=82=AC=84=A2ll grant you the Air Camper may not be quite as restricted but unless I=C3=A2=82=AC=84=A2m mistaken at an uncontrolled airfield there is no one to =C3=A2=82=AC=C5=93give=C3=A2=82=AC=C2=9D a straight in approach (clearance?). To nit-pick, there isn=C3=A2=82=AC=84=A2t an FAR =C3=A2=82=AC=C5=93requiring=C3=A2=82=AC=C2=9D a =C3=A2=82=AC=C5=93squared off pattern=C3=A2=82=AC=C2=9D either =C3=A2=82=AC=9C it=C3=A2=82=AC=84=A2s suggested in the AIM (and a good idea IMO) but it is not required.Gene wrote: > "I propose that we encourage our group to allow only known individualsto prop their aircraft, and possibly add a forum on hand propping to theSaturday lineup, out in front of the aircraft with differing engines/setups as demonstrations".Group or no group, I can=C3=A2=82=AC=84=A2t imagine asking just some person to prop my plane. Not only am I clueless whether this bozo knows how to prop a plane, but how is he going to communicate if he wants the ignition on or off. There=C3=A2=82=AC=84=A2s more going on than meets the eye (especially to a non-aviators eye).I like the idea of a forum on hand propping. It doesn=C3=A2=82=AC=84=A2t have to be fancy or formal, but even just sharing amongst ourselves about chocking or tying and techniques we use and letting anyone listen in is great. I hadnever hand-propped a Model-A and since I=C3=A2=82=AC=84=A2m building one I wanted to experience it, so I approached Larry Williams and explained my reasoning and he was kind enough to allow me to prop his Piet. Afterwards I felt silly for asking because it was straightforward but in truth I=C3=A2=82=AC=84=A2m glad I did.I=C3=A2=82=AC=84=A2d hate to see our group fill up with rules and regulations, but I understand the desire for safety. I just start to wonder who will enforce the rules and what will the penalties be if I round off my base to final legwithout being given a straight in approach.Read this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ______Date: Wed, 04 Aug 2010 08:20:24 -0500
Pietenpol-List: Re: Brodhead flybys
Original Posted By: "Baldeagle"
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Brodhead flybys> Cant say I buy Dan's argument that a small pattern is preferred over the 3/4mile big fat pattern hold much creditability in my mind. Either you trust yourengines reliability and performance or you don't fly.There are those who have and those who will. I have had two engine outs and madeit to a runway in both instances. Using your logic, I would no longer fly.> Flying a close in pattern because you may have an engine out is no differentthan the same concern for an engine out on departure or in routeMaybe it was just my training, but I was taught to fly field to field when awayfrom the airport and my instructor even pulled power on me occasionally to seeif I had a field picked out and to see if I could make it.> Again just opinions, it may be something worthy of publication in the news letterprior to the gathering, no big shakes just a reminder to the community forthe safety and sake of all in attendance.That is an excellent recommendation. I dont wish to get hurt and Id have a toughtime living with myself if I caused major injury to someone else, so I dontmind reviewing procedures I just get nervous when people bring up acting likethe police.Read this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ___Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Brodhead flybys
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Brodhead flybys> Cant say I buy Dan's argument that a small pattern is preferred over the 3/4mile big fat pattern hold much creditability in my mind. Either you trust yourengines reliability and performance or you don't fly.There are those who have and those who will. I have had two engine outs and madeit to a runway in both instances. Using your logic, I would no longer fly.> Flying a close in pattern because you may have an engine out is no differentthan the same concern for an engine out on departure or in routeMaybe it was just my training, but I was taught to fly field to field when awayfrom the airport and my instructor even pulled power on me occasionally to seeif I had a field picked out and to see if I could make it.> Again just opinions, it may be something worthy of publication in the news letterprior to the gathering, no big shakes just a reminder to the community forthe safety and sake of all in attendance.That is an excellent recommendation. I dont wish to get hurt and Id have a toughtime living with myself if I caused major injury to someone else, so I dontmind reviewing procedures I just get nervous when people bring up acting likethe police.Read this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ___Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Brodhead flybys
Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Brodhead flybys
Original Posted By: Jim Boyer
Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Brodhead flybys
Original Posted By: Dan Yocum
Sounds like what I saw from the ground Dan! Interestingly enough it was not enoughto change his approach in subsequent landings. I have no idea who it was noram I in a position to admonish anyone it just appeared careless and not wellthought out as far as consideration for other aircraft in the patternJohn------Original Message------
Sounds like what I saw from the ground Dan! Interestingly enough it was not enoughto change his approach in subsequent landings. I have no idea who it was noram I in a position to admonish anyone it just appeared careless and not wellthought out as far as consideration for other aircraft in the patternJohn------Original Message------
Pietenpol-List: Re: Brodhead flybys
Original Posted By: "Jack Phillips"
Having stated that I was taught to fly an arc to landing in a biplane, let me alsosay that in a high-wing especially, I prefer a square turn from base to finalso I can get one last check that someone isnt racing in on a straight-in.I totally agree with having an understanding between pilots on how to approachand fly the pattern and the suggestions here are good (as are the AIM) justshort of creating rules. Also, unlike closing the extra runways, there isnta way to communicate the agreed procedures to a new arrival until after theyreon the ground.Youre totally right John that we should all utilize the commonly accepted procedureswe are all taught somehow I got the feeling we might be headed towardsvigilantism and I was concerned that a C-150 pilot might criticize a Hatz or Pittspilot for flying a little different (or visa-versa).Read this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... __________
Having stated that I was taught to fly an arc to landing in a biplane, let me alsosay that in a high-wing especially, I prefer a square turn from base to finalso I can get one last check that someone isnt racing in on a straight-in.I totally agree with having an understanding between pilots on how to approachand fly the pattern and the suggestions here are good (as are the AIM) justshort of creating rules. Also, unlike closing the extra runways, there isnta way to communicate the agreed procedures to a new arrival until after theyreon the ground.Youre totally right John that we should all utilize the commonly accepted procedureswe are all taught somehow I got the feeling we might be headed towardsvigilantism and I was concerned that a C-150 pilot might criticize a Hatz or Pittspilot for flying a little different (or visa-versa).Read this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... __________
RE: Pietenpol-List: Re: Brodhead flybys
Original Posted By: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
That's the same Taylorcraft that never seemed to get above 300' as it flewover the grounds. I also had him cut me off when I was on final to land on27 - he just cut right in front and never saw me.I'm fine with publishing a few safety rules about flying the pattern atBrodhead. I'll admit, the flying seemed a bit more haphazard this year thanit has in the past. I even saw a few planes land on runway 21, which wasclosed with big yellow X's on each end (apart from Kevin who had alegitimate reason to land straight into the wind).Jack PhillipsNX899JPRaleigh, NC-----Original Message-----
That's the same Taylorcraft that never seemed to get above 300' as it flewover the grounds. I also had him cut me off when I was on final to land on27 - he just cut right in front and never saw me.I'm fine with publishing a few safety rules about flying the pattern atBrodhead. I'll admit, the flying seemed a bit more haphazard this year thanit has in the past. I even saw a few planes land on runway 21, which wasclosed with big yellow X's on each end (apart from Kevin who had alegitimate reason to land straight into the wind).Jack PhillipsNX899JPRaleigh, NC-----Original Message-----
Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Brodhead flybys
Original Posted By: airlion
Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Brodhead flybys
Original Posted By:
I agree John, we don't need more rules but do need to follow those that have servedus all well in the past. I typically arrive at Brodhead in my Tripacer. The pucker factor goes way up whenI get close to Brodhead. Even though I self announce on 122.9, I know thatno one is listening. I have no idea how many planes will be in the pattern andat what altitude and direction they will be traveling. This can get real scaryon hazy days, which is why I elected to drive this year. Rick Schreiber----- Original Message -----
I agree John, we don't need more rules but do need to follow those that have servedus all well in the past. I typically arrive at Brodhead in my Tripacer. The pucker factor goes way up whenI get close to Brodhead. Even though I self announce on 122.9, I know thatno one is listening. I have no idea how many planes will be in the pattern andat what altitude and direction they will be traveling. This can get real scaryon hazy days, which is why I elected to drive this year. Rick Schreiber----- Original Message -----
Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Brodhead flybys
Original Posted By: helspersew(at)aol.com
Pietenpol-List: Re: Brodhead flybys
Original Posted By: "899PM"
Hello everyone. First time poster.Ive been thinking about building (or buying) a Pietenpol and wondered if therewere any other builders here in the Northeast. I'd really like to see a projectand the plans before I commit to anything. I'd also really like to see a completedone and see if how well I fit into one (I'm 6'2" 190).Is there anyone in the New England/New York area that would be willing to showme their project? I'm based in the Boston area.Thanks.JamieRead this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ___Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Brodhead flybys
Hello everyone. First time poster.Ive been thinking about building (or buying) a Pietenpol and wondered if therewere any other builders here in the Northeast. I'd really like to see a projectand the plans before I commit to anything. I'd also really like to see a completedone and see if how well I fit into one (I'm 6'2" 190).Is there anyone in the New England/New York area that would be willing to showme their project? I'm based in the Boston area.Thanks.JamieRead this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ___Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Brodhead flybys
Original Posted By: "Jack Phillips"
Jack,Do you remember what day you saw aircraft landing 3/21? As of late Thursday afternoon21 was still open.--------PAPA MIKERead this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... __________
Jack,Do you remember what day you saw aircraft landing 3/21? As of late Thursday afternoon21 was still open.--------PAPA MIKERead this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... __________
RE: Pietenpol-List: Re: Brodhead flybys
Original Posted By: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
It was Friday afternoon, after kevin's emergency landing, and the X's wereclearly in place.Jack PhillipsNX899JPRaleigh, NC-----Original Message-----
It was Friday afternoon, after kevin's emergency landing, and the X's wereclearly in place.Jack PhillipsNX899JPRaleigh, NC-----Original Message-----
Pietenpol-List: Re: Brodhead flybys
Original Posted By: AMsafetyC(at)aol.com
That's a big OOPS! I wish I had seen it.....I would have gone straight to the pilotand politely asked if he realized that he had landed on a closed runway.We need to police our own ranks or someone will do it for us.--------PAPA MIKERead this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... __________
That's a big OOPS! I wish I had seen it.....I would have gone straight to the pilotand politely asked if he realized that he had landed on a closed runway.We need to police our own ranks or someone will do it for us.--------PAPA MIKERead this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... __________
Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Brodhead flybys
Original Posted By: "Douwe Blumberg"
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Brodhead flybysBill,Minor variations to pattern flying is expected and anticipated based uponseveral factors aircraft configurations, nuiances, wind/weather conditionsand obviously the remote possibility of a declared or implied emergency, all within reason. Cutting in or cutting off aircraft in the pattern is foolishly dangerous and unnecessary, only acceptable only in cases of declared emergency, which everyone in the patter would be aware of assuming the emergency was visually obvious or declared on the radio. Cant say I buy Dan's argument that a small pattern is preferred over the3/4 mile big fat pattern hold much creditability in my mind. Either you trust your engines reliability and performance or you don't fly.Flying a close in pattern because you may have an engine out is no different than the same concern for an engine out on departure or in route, I see little difference in the condition and more in the outcome of the event.The possibility of an engine out is always there to some degree when relying on any piece of machinery, however I cant rationalize flying a tighterpattern on the possibility of that occurring. I would suspect if that's a concern that prevails based upon past performance or other information the flight should not take place. Engine out on departure is a more frightening possibility than on approach, not that anyone wants either.The airplane, I believe is well satisfied and happy to stay on the ground.It is the decision of pilot and responsibility to make certain its worthyof flight on each trip and if concerns are warranted maybe its not such agood day to fly.Again just opinions, it may be something worthy of publication in the news letter prior to the gathering, no big shakes just a reminder to the community for the safety and sake of all in attendance.John In a message dated 8/4/2010 11:50:28 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, billsayre(at)ymail.com writes:--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "BYD" Having stated that I was taught to fly an arc to landing in a biplane, let me also say that in a high-wing especially, I prefer a square turn frombase to final so I can get one last check that someone isn=C3=A2=82=AC=84=A2t racing in on a straight-in. I totally agree with having an understanding between pilots on how to approach and fly the pattern and the suggestions here are good(as are the AIM) =C3=A2=82=AC=9C just short of creating =C3=A2=82=AC=C5=93rules=C3=A2=82=AC=C2=9D. Also, unlike closing the extra runways, there isn=C3=A2=82=AC=84=A2t a way to communicate the agreed procedures to a new arrival until after they=C3=A2=82=AC=84=A2re on the ground.You=C3=A2=82=AC=84=A2re totally right John that we should all utilize the commonly accepted procedures we are all taught =C3=A2=82=AC=9C somehow I got the feeling we might be headed towards vigilantism and I was concerned that a C-150 pilot mightcriticize a Hatz or Pitts pilot for flying a little different (or visa-versa).Read this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... __________
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Brodhead flybysBill,Minor variations to pattern flying is expected and anticipated based uponseveral factors aircraft configurations, nuiances, wind/weather conditionsand obviously the remote possibility of a declared or implied emergency, all within reason. Cutting in or cutting off aircraft in the pattern is foolishly dangerous and unnecessary, only acceptable only in cases of declared emergency, which everyone in the patter would be aware of assuming the emergency was visually obvious or declared on the radio. Cant say I buy Dan's argument that a small pattern is preferred over the3/4 mile big fat pattern hold much creditability in my mind. Either you trust your engines reliability and performance or you don't fly.Flying a close in pattern because you may have an engine out is no different than the same concern for an engine out on departure or in route, I see little difference in the condition and more in the outcome of the event.The possibility of an engine out is always there to some degree when relying on any piece of machinery, however I cant rationalize flying a tighterpattern on the possibility of that occurring. I would suspect if that's a concern that prevails based upon past performance or other information the flight should not take place. Engine out on departure is a more frightening possibility than on approach, not that anyone wants either.The airplane, I believe is well satisfied and happy to stay on the ground.It is the decision of pilot and responsibility to make certain its worthyof flight on each trip and if concerns are warranted maybe its not such agood day to fly.Again just opinions, it may be something worthy of publication in the news letter prior to the gathering, no big shakes just a reminder to the community for the safety and sake of all in attendance.John In a message dated 8/4/2010 11:50:28 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, billsayre(at)ymail.com writes:--> Pietenpol-List message posted by: "BYD" Having stated that I was taught to fly an arc to landing in a biplane, let me also say that in a high-wing especially, I prefer a square turn frombase to final so I can get one last check that someone isn=C3=A2=82=AC=84=A2t racing in on a straight-in. I totally agree with having an understanding between pilots on how to approach and fly the pattern and the suggestions here are good(as are the AIM) =C3=A2=82=AC=9C just short of creating =C3=A2=82=AC=C5=93rules=C3=A2=82=AC=C2=9D. Also, unlike closing the extra runways, there isn=C3=A2=82=AC=84=A2t a way to communicate the agreed procedures to a new arrival until after they=C3=A2=82=AC=84=A2re on the ground.You=C3=A2=82=AC=84=A2re totally right John that we should all utilize the commonly accepted procedures we are all taught =C3=A2=82=AC=9C somehow I got the feeling we might be headed towards vigilantism and I was concerned that a C-150 pilot mightcriticize a Hatz or Pitts pilot for flying a little different (or visa-versa).Read this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... __________
Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Brodhead flybys
Original Posted By: Jeff Boatright
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Brodhead flybysBill,Minor variations to pattern flying is expected and anticipated based upon several factors aircraft configurations, nuiances, wind/weather conditions andobviously the remote possibility of a declared or implied emergency, all within reason. Cutting in or cutting off aircraft in the pattern is foolishly dangerous and unnecessary, only acceptable only in cases of declared emergency, which everyone in the patter would be aware of assuming the emergency was visually obvious or declared on the radio.Cant say I buy Dan's argument that a small pattern is preferred over the 3/4 mile big fat pattern hold much creditability in my mind. Either you trust yourengines reliability and performance or you don't fly.Flying a close in pattern because you may have an engine out is no different than the same concern for an engine out on departure or in route, I see littledifference in the condition and more in the outcome of the event. The possibility of an engine out is always there to some degree when relying on any piece of machinery, however I cant rationalize flying a tighter pattern on the possibility of that occurring. I would suspect if that's a concern that prevails based upon past performance or other information the flight should not take place. Engine out on departure is a more frightening possibility than on approach, not that anyone wants either.The airplane, I believe is well satisfied and happy to stay on the ground. It is the decision of pilot and responsibility to make certain its worthy of flight on each trip and if concerns are warranted maybe its not such a good day to fly.Again just opinions, it may be something worthy of publication in the news letter prior to the gathering, no big shakes just a reminder to the community for the safety and sake of all in attendance.JohnIn a message dated 8/4/2010 11:50:28 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, Having stated that I was taught to fly an arc to landing in a biplane, let me also say that in a high-wing especially, I prefer a square turn from base to final so I can get one last check that someone isn?Tt racing in on a straight-in. I totally agree with having an understanding between pilots on how to approach and fly the pattern and the suggestions here are good (as are the AIM) ?" just short of creating ?orules?. Also, unlike closing the extra runways, there isn?Tt a way to communicate the agreed procedures to a new arrival until after they?Tre on the ground.You?Tre totally right John that we should all utilize the commonly accepted procedures we are all taught ?" somehow I got the feeling we might be headed towards vigilantism and I was concerned that a C-150 pilot might criticize a Hatz or Pitts pilot for flying a little different (or visa-versa).Read this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ______Date: Wed, 4 Aug 2010 15:37:02 -0400
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Brodhead flybysBill,Minor variations to pattern flying is expected and anticipated based upon several factors aircraft configurations, nuiances, wind/weather conditions andobviously the remote possibility of a declared or implied emergency, all within reason. Cutting in or cutting off aircraft in the pattern is foolishly dangerous and unnecessary, only acceptable only in cases of declared emergency, which everyone in the patter would be aware of assuming the emergency was visually obvious or declared on the radio.Cant say I buy Dan's argument that a small pattern is preferred over the 3/4 mile big fat pattern hold much creditability in my mind. Either you trust yourengines reliability and performance or you don't fly.Flying a close in pattern because you may have an engine out is no different than the same concern for an engine out on departure or in route, I see littledifference in the condition and more in the outcome of the event. The possibility of an engine out is always there to some degree when relying on any piece of machinery, however I cant rationalize flying a tighter pattern on the possibility of that occurring. I would suspect if that's a concern that prevails based upon past performance or other information the flight should not take place. Engine out on departure is a more frightening possibility than on approach, not that anyone wants either.The airplane, I believe is well satisfied and happy to stay on the ground. It is the decision of pilot and responsibility to make certain its worthy of flight on each trip and if concerns are warranted maybe its not such a good day to fly.Again just opinions, it may be something worthy of publication in the news letter prior to the gathering, no big shakes just a reminder to the community for the safety and sake of all in attendance.JohnIn a message dated 8/4/2010 11:50:28 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, Having stated that I was taught to fly an arc to landing in a biplane, let me also say that in a high-wing especially, I prefer a square turn from base to final so I can get one last check that someone isn?Tt racing in on a straight-in. I totally agree with having an understanding between pilots on how to approach and fly the pattern and the suggestions here are good (as are the AIM) ?" just short of creating ?orules?. Also, unlike closing the extra runways, there isn?Tt a way to communicate the agreed procedures to a new arrival until after they?Tre on the ground.You?Tre totally right John that we should all utilize the commonly accepted procedures we are all taught ?" somehow I got the feeling we might be headed towards vigilantism and I was concerned that a C-150 pilot might criticize a Hatz or Pitts pilot for flying a little different (or visa-versa).Read this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ______Date: Wed, 4 Aug 2010 15:37:02 -0400
Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Brodhead flybys
Original Posted By: AMsafetyC(at)aol.com
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Brodhead flybysI would like to wade into the pattern size debate. Here in Canada, we teach safeemergency landings from specific points in the pattern to reinforce the ideabehind acceptable pattern size. A circuit by definition is a manouever flownto carry out a landing. This being the case, the safest circuit is one thatwould result in a runway landing from the greatest number of points on the circuitshould engine trouble exist... which does happen. This is also why we foregoraising the landing gear of a non high performance airplane until the endof the runway is reached. This would permit a runway landing on wheels shouldan engine failure occur... Once again, a safer outcome. Finally, we teach route flying in a single engine aircraft to avoid open bodiesof water, high density populations and hazardous terrain because we want to alwaysensure we have options to carry out a safe landing in the event of an enginefailure. >From an airmanship point of view, we need to conform to other faster, slower,wider or tighter traffic in an uncontrolled circuit. In a perfect world, however,I would always fly a pattern that gives me the greatest chance of landingon the runway from an engine failure. I've had two engines fail in 10,000 hours,both on certified aircraft, both in the circuit. I was grateful for my trainingin both occurences and landing safely on the airport from both reinforcedhow I fly and how I teach. Our forum is for experimental airplanes which as we've been reading do have a higherincidence of engine issues. We all recognize that our chosen sport/hobbydoes bring with it potential dangers that we must deal with. A tighter patternon any occasion that it can be safely flown is a great method I support tomake our sport safer. Scott Knowlton Slow builder in Burlington Ontario. -----Original Message-----
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Brodhead flybysI would like to wade into the pattern size debate. Here in Canada, we teach safeemergency landings from specific points in the pattern to reinforce the ideabehind acceptable pattern size. A circuit by definition is a manouever flownto carry out a landing. This being the case, the safest circuit is one thatwould result in a runway landing from the greatest number of points on the circuitshould engine trouble exist... which does happen. This is also why we foregoraising the landing gear of a non high performance airplane until the endof the runway is reached. This would permit a runway landing on wheels shouldan engine failure occur... Once again, a safer outcome. Finally, we teach route flying in a single engine aircraft to avoid open bodiesof water, high density populations and hazardous terrain because we want to alwaysensure we have options to carry out a safe landing in the event of an enginefailure. >From an airmanship point of view, we need to conform to other faster, slower,wider or tighter traffic in an uncontrolled circuit. In a perfect world, however,I would always fly a pattern that gives me the greatest chance of landingon the runway from an engine failure. I've had two engines fail in 10,000 hours,both on certified aircraft, both in the circuit. I was grateful for my trainingin both occurences and landing safely on the airport from both reinforcedhow I fly and how I teach. Our forum is for experimental airplanes which as we've been reading do have a higherincidence of engine issues. We all recognize that our chosen sport/hobbydoes bring with it potential dangers that we must deal with. A tighter patternon any occasion that it can be safely flown is a great method I support tomake our sport safer. Scott Knowlton Slow builder in Burlington Ontario. -----Original Message-----
Pietenpol-List: Re: Brodhead flybys
Original Posted By: Ben Charvet
Don't be discouraged John, I think your concerns are completely legitimate. Amsafetyc wrote:> I guess we are going to stick with what works for us as individual pilots doingthe best we can and let the chips fall where they may. I just hope none ofthem chips fall and hit me!> > John> --------Mark ChouinardFinishing up Wings - Working on Center SectionRead this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ______Date: Wed, 04 Aug 2010 15:51:55 -0400
Don't be discouraged John, I think your concerns are completely legitimate. Amsafetyc wrote:> I guess we are going to stick with what works for us as individual pilots doingthe best we can and let the chips fall where they may. I just hope none ofthem chips fall and hit me!> > John> --------Mark ChouinardFinishing up Wings - Working on Center SectionRead this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ______Date: Wed, 04 Aug 2010 15:51:55 -0400
Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Brodhead flybys
Original Posted By: helspersew(at)aol.com
I don't chime in much either except for questions. But=2C as a spam can driver and former CFI (I'm not offended Dan) I'm a big advocate of "FAA" patterns and proceedures. I taught out of a 2=2C300 x 38ft strip and we taught to pull the power on downwind opposte the numbers and adjust your pattern. Our patterns were tight=2C but they were still rectangular. All landings were full stall or in extreme conditions the slowest practical airspeed. I like to raise the wing to see what's there and by flying a straight final you have a much moe stable approach. That being said=2C most of the time I have is in the Canadian bush flying seaplanes. And=2C yes=2C I fly rectangular patterns. Mostly for the ability to concentrate on the approach and have the aircraft in a stable configuation. Many approaches demanded attention due to terrain avoidence and limited landing space. Departures on the otherhand often anything but standard. As pilots we are taught to always expect the unexpeted. However it's nice when other pilots are doing what you expect. Just my .02. Doug DeverIn beautiful Stow OhioSubject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Brodhead flybysDate: Wed=2C 4 Aug 2010 12:55:10 -0400
I don't chime in much either except for questions. But=2C as a spam can driver and former CFI (I'm not offended Dan) I'm a big advocate of "FAA" patterns and proceedures. I taught out of a 2=2C300 x 38ft strip and we taught to pull the power on downwind opposte the numbers and adjust your pattern. Our patterns were tight=2C but they were still rectangular. All landings were full stall or in extreme conditions the slowest practical airspeed. I like to raise the wing to see what's there and by flying a straight final you have a much moe stable approach. That being said=2C most of the time I have is in the Canadian bush flying seaplanes. And=2C yes=2C I fly rectangular patterns. Mostly for the ability to concentrate on the approach and have the aircraft in a stable configuation. Many approaches demanded attention due to terrain avoidence and limited landing space. Departures on the otherhand often anything but standard. As pilots we are taught to always expect the unexpeted. However it's nice when other pilots are doing what you expect. Just my .02. Doug DeverIn beautiful Stow OhioSubject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Brodhead flybysDate: Wed=2C 4 Aug 2010 12:55:10 -0400
Pietenpol-List: Re: Brodhead flybys
Original Posted By: Jim Markle
> Cant say I buy Dan's argument that a small pattern is preferred over the 3/4mile big fat pattern hold much creditability in my mind. Either you trust yourengines reliability and performance or you don't fly.There are those who have and those who will. I have had two engine outs and madeit to a runway in both instances. Using your logic, I would no longer fly.> Flying a close in pattern because you may have an engine out is no differentthan the same concern for an engine out on departure or in routeMaybe it was just my training, but I was taught to fly field to field when awayfrom the airport and my instructor even pulled power on me occasionally to seeif I had a field picked out and to see if I could make it.> Again just opinions, it may be something worthy of publication in the news letterprior to the gathering, no big shakes just a reminder to the community forthe safety and sake of all in attendance.That is an excellent recommendation. I dont wish to get hurt and Id have a toughtime living with myself if I caused major injury to someone else, so I dontmind reviewing procedures I just get nervous when people bring up acting likethe police.Read this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ______Date: Wed, 4 Aug 2010 17:34:38 -0400 (EDT)
> Cant say I buy Dan's argument that a small pattern is preferred over the 3/4mile big fat pattern hold much creditability in my mind. Either you trust yourengines reliability and performance or you don't fly.There are those who have and those who will. I have had two engine outs and madeit to a runway in both instances. Using your logic, I would no longer fly.> Flying a close in pattern because you may have an engine out is no differentthan the same concern for an engine out on departure or in routeMaybe it was just my training, but I was taught to fly field to field when awayfrom the airport and my instructor even pulled power on me occasionally to seeif I had a field picked out and to see if I could make it.> Again just opinions, it may be something worthy of publication in the news letterprior to the gathering, no big shakes just a reminder to the community forthe safety and sake of all in attendance.That is an excellent recommendation. I dont wish to get hurt and Id have a toughtime living with myself if I caused major injury to someone else, so I dontmind reviewing procedures I just get nervous when people bring up acting likethe police.Read this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ______Date: Wed, 4 Aug 2010 17:34:38 -0400 (EDT)
Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Brodhead flybys
Original Posted By: Ryan Mueller
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Brodhead flybys
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Brodhead flybys
> Pietenpol-List: Re: Brodhead flybys
Original Posted By:> billsayre(at)ymail.com
It looks like this post got hijacked and wayyyy off topic. There is a world of difference between the fly-by pattern and the landing pattern. Andrew King's very legitimate observation was that people doing fly-bys were not following any kind of predictable pattern that is the norm for fly-ins everywhere. I am not a fan of unnecessary rules and regulations=2C but safety is always the first consideration. A request that everyone do their fly-bys in a predictable manner is not an onerous rule. The discussion of the merits of a standard landing pattern is a whole different subject.Gene> Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Brodhead flybys
It looks like this post got hijacked and wayyyy off topic. There is a world of difference between the fly-by pattern and the landing pattern. Andrew King's very legitimate observation was that people doing fly-bys were not following any kind of predictable pattern that is the norm for fly-ins everywhere. I am not a fan of unnecessary rules and regulations=2C but safety is always the first consideration. A request that everyone do their fly-bys in a predictable manner is not an onerous rule. The discussion of the merits of a standard landing pattern is a whole different subject.Gene> Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Brodhead flybys
Pietenpol-List: Re: Brodhead flybys
Original Posted By: Oscar Zuniga
I saw the the landing on Friday, 3/21, When the pilot shut down his engine I walkedup to him and asked if he was aware that the yellow X meant that he was notto land on that runway.His remark was," Is there an active runway available?"I told him we are using 27/09, he than asked where it was. I pointed in directionof a landing Pietenpol.I told him to do the best that he can on departurewhen heading West.Pieti LowellRead this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... __________
I saw the the landing on Friday, 3/21, When the pilot shut down his engine I walkedup to him and asked if he was aware that the yellow X meant that he was notto land on that runway.His remark was," Is there an active runway available?"I told him we are using 27/09, he than asked where it was. I pointed in directionof a landing Pietenpol.I told him to do the best that he can on departurewhen heading West.Pieti LowellRead this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... __________
Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Brodhead flybys
Original Posted By: "BYD"
Acting like police, you got the wrong guy for that one!I have over 35 years of professional career experience dedicated to preservinghuman life as a safety professional and practicing consultant.... Police, nothardly.I can tell you without a doubt or hesitation safety rules come from two sourcesof informationFirst is empirical knowledge gathered through accident investigation. Second is proactive forecast modeling that looks at behavior and situations toidentify potential and real hazards. Like it or not rules are designed to eliminate the acts and propagation of humanstupidity and poor choice selection. 85 percent of all accidents are caused by unsafe acts of people with the remaining14.9999 percent attributable to unsafe conditions that too may be the actionof another. The balance is left to as acts of God. There is a higher than normal probability that following established rules andprocedures will result in a safe and uneventful activity. Not following rulesand proven procedures have a greater probability of ending in disaster. Hold my beer and watch this.... Safety police nope, safety professional, you bet your donkey! Student of humanbehavior, absolutely!JohnDon't care if you archive or not Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry-----Original Message-----
Acting like police, you got the wrong guy for that one!I have over 35 years of professional career experience dedicated to preservinghuman life as a safety professional and practicing consultant.... Police, nothardly.I can tell you without a doubt or hesitation safety rules come from two sourcesof informationFirst is empirical knowledge gathered through accident investigation. Second is proactive forecast modeling that looks at behavior and situations toidentify potential and real hazards. Like it or not rules are designed to eliminate the acts and propagation of humanstupidity and poor choice selection. 85 percent of all accidents are caused by unsafe acts of people with the remaining14.9999 percent attributable to unsafe conditions that too may be the actionof another. The balance is left to as acts of God. There is a higher than normal probability that following established rules andprocedures will result in a safe and uneventful activity. Not following rulesand proven procedures have a greater probability of ending in disaster. Hold my beer and watch this.... Safety police nope, safety professional, you bet your donkey! Student of humanbehavior, absolutely!JohnDon't care if you archive or not Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry-----Original Message-----
Original Posted By: shad bell
As Gene said my reason for starting this thread had little to do with the trafficpattern for landings and take-offs, it was about the flyby pattern, or apparentlack of one. I've been going to Brodhead fly-ins for more than 20 years,and the flyby pattern has always been south of 9/27, a rectangular pattern withdownwind south of the hangars and flybys south of the runway, parallel andsame direction as landing aircraft. Traffic pattern was outside the flyby patternfor 27, and opposite side of the airport for 9. Flybys are not made overthe runway so that it is kept clear for landing and taking off, avoiding confusion.This is still set out for the September antique fly-in, and used to beset out for the Piet fly-in, but somehow that seems to have been lost.Another point, Brodhead during the fly-ins isn't a normal airport and often tryingto fly "your" normal pattern will in fact decrease safety by causing a conflictwith other aircraft. Instead you will have to fly a wider pattern that isout of gliding distance from the airport to provide seperation. Would you ratherland in the corn or have a mid-air?And speaking of making it back to the airport, I saw flybys being made downwindat a height and speed that if the engine quit at the wrong place the Piet would'veended up crashing into the parked aircraft or the campers, not safe in mybook. I always try to make my flybys high enough and/or fast enough so thatif she quits I can get away from the people and planes before getting to theground.Incidentally the idiot in the blue Taylorcraft got a talking to from one of theBrodhead bunch.And no matter how good you think you are at looking for traffic, everybody missesone sometime and the last thing the fly-in needs is a mid-air over the field.I would just like to see the old flyby pattern used to keep things safe.-Read this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ______Date: Wed, 4 Aug 2010 21:22:53 -0700 (PDT)
As Gene said my reason for starting this thread had little to do with the trafficpattern for landings and take-offs, it was about the flyby pattern, or apparentlack of one. I've been going to Brodhead fly-ins for more than 20 years,and the flyby pattern has always been south of 9/27, a rectangular pattern withdownwind south of the hangars and flybys south of the runway, parallel andsame direction as landing aircraft. Traffic pattern was outside the flyby patternfor 27, and opposite side of the airport for 9. Flybys are not made overthe runway so that it is kept clear for landing and taking off, avoiding confusion.This is still set out for the September antique fly-in, and used to beset out for the Piet fly-in, but somehow that seems to have been lost.Another point, Brodhead during the fly-ins isn't a normal airport and often tryingto fly "your" normal pattern will in fact decrease safety by causing a conflictwith other aircraft. Instead you will have to fly a wider pattern that isout of gliding distance from the airport to provide seperation. Would you ratherland in the corn or have a mid-air?And speaking of making it back to the airport, I saw flybys being made downwindat a height and speed that if the engine quit at the wrong place the Piet would'veended up crashing into the parked aircraft or the campers, not safe in mybook. I always try to make my flybys high enough and/or fast enough so thatif she quits I can get away from the people and planes before getting to theground.Incidentally the idiot in the blue Taylorcraft got a talking to from one of theBrodhead bunch.And no matter how good you think you are at looking for traffic, everybody missesone sometime and the last thing the fly-in needs is a mid-air over the field.I would just like to see the old flyby pattern used to keep things safe.-Read this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ______Date: Wed, 4 Aug 2010 21:22:53 -0700 (PDT)
Pietenpol-List: Re: Brodhead flybys
Original Posted By: "BYD"
Hi JamieI'm in Belfast, ME (KBST) and have ribs, tail feathers and fuselage sides doneif you want to drop by. Not much but you can see how they relate to the plans.Dave AldrichRead this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ___Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Brodhead flybys
Hi JamieI'm in Belfast, ME (KBST) and have ribs, tail feathers and fuselage sides doneif you want to drop by. Not much but you can see how they relate to the plans.Dave AldrichRead this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ___Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Brodhead flybys
Pietenpol-List: Re: Builders/Pietenpols in the Northeast?
Original Posted By: "coxwelljon"
In reviewing the original message, this post has indeed been hijacked. My apologiesto the group for my portion of that result.Read this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ___Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Builders/Pietenpols in the Northeast?
In reviewing the original message, this post has indeed been hijacked. My apologiesto the group for my portion of that result.Read this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ___Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Builders/Pietenpols in the Northeast?