Well, of all the...

[david]

...daft things to print.

In this months Pilot magazine, "how airbrained are you?" the question, about
retractable gear planes "can you raise the gear on the ground?"has the
wonderful answer "No. But you might be able to lower the fuselage".

I ask you. If there was a statement more likely to cause someone to try it,
just to see, I cannot think of it.

This is quite close to my heart. Well, mine and a certain Beech Duchess of
long ago! ;o(


Well done , Pilot. Not.
David

[Mike Lindsay]

Post by david
...daft things to print.
In this months Pilot magazine, "how airbrained are you?" the question, about
retractable gear planes "can you raise the gear on the ground?"has the
wonderful answer "No. But you might be able to lower the fuselage".
I ask you. If there was a statement more likely to cause someone to try it,
just to see, I cannot think of it.
This is quite close to my heart. Well, mine and a certain Beech Duchess of
long ago! ;o(
Well done , Pilot. Not.
David

Then there's the old saw about the two sorts of pilots, one sort
has landed wheels up and the other sort have that experience to come.

Chap I know has done that 5 times. He doesn't fly now.
Fortunately the planes didn't have props. Or engines come that.

[Mike Causer]

Post by Mike Lindsay
Then there's the old saw about the two sorts of pilots, one sort
has landed wheels up and the other sort have that experience to come.

Three sorts? Those who get a picture of the result on the front of a
magazine. (See Sailplane & Gliding when their columnist "Platypus" did
it ;-)


Mike

[Peter]

Post by david
...daft things to print.
In this months Pilot magazine, "how airbrained are you?" the question, about
retractable gear planes "can you raise the gear on the ground?"has the
wonderful answer "No. But you might be able to lower the fuselage".
I ask you. If there was a statement more likely to cause someone to try it,
just to see, I cannot think of it.
This is quite close to my heart. Well, mine and a certain Beech Duchess of
long ago! ;o(
Well done , Pilot. Not.
David

Sadly the UK aviation mags will print just about anything! I now get
the U.S. Flying magazine - a much better much more modern publication
and is actually cheaper.

On nearly all retractables aeroplanes you cannot do anything with the
gear when on the ground, because squat switches prevent it.

The switches can be faulty or, when taxiing with the gear switch UP, a
bump is enough to momentarily operate the squat switch and enable the
gear to collapse.

I also strongly disagree with the often printed statement that a gear
up landing is only a matter of time. Obviously I hope to never have to
eat my words :) but on mine (TB20) I would have to

a) forget to lower the gear, and
b) fail to notice that the aircraft is flying much too fast on the
"glideslope", and
c) forget to set the flaps to the landing position (which sets off a
horn if the gear is not also down then), and
d) be landing with enough power to not trigger the other interlock
which gives out a warning if the throttle is below a certain position
(about 15" MP at sea level) with the gear still up

c) is a trap for pilots who like to land with less flap, and d) is
possible if landing into a strong headwind.

[Andy R]

Post by Peter

Post by david
...daft things to print.
In this months Pilot magazine, "how airbrained are you?" the question, about
retractable gear planes "can you raise the gear on the ground?"has the
wonderful answer "No. But you might be able to lower the fuselage".
I ask you. If there was a statement more likely to cause someone to try it,
just to see, I cannot think of it.
This is quite close to my heart. Well, mine and a certain Beech Duchess of
long ago! ;o(
Well done , Pilot. Not.
David

Sadly the UK aviation mags will print just about anything! I now get
the U.S. Flying magazine - a much better much more modern publication
and is actually cheaper.
On nearly all retractables aeroplanes you cannot do anything with the
gear when on the ground, because squat switches prevent it.
The switches can be faulty or, when taxiing with the gear switch UP, a
bump is enough to momentarily operate the squat switch and enable the
gear to collapse.
I also strongly disagree with the often printed statement that a gear
up landing is only a matter of time. Obviously I hope to never have to
eat my words :) but on mine (TB20) I would have to
a) forget to lower the gear, and
b) fail to notice that the aircraft is flying much too fast on the
"glideslope", and
c) forget to set the flaps to the landing position (which sets off a
horn if the gear is not also down then), and
d) be landing with enough power to not trigger the other interlock
which gives out a warning if the throttle is below a certain position
(about 15" MP at sea level) with the gear still up
c) is a trap for pilots who like to land with less flap, and d) is
possible if landing into a strong headwind.

A company I used to work for operated turboprops to an airfield virtually at
the foot of a mountain. Consequently the MSA was high flying over the
mountains until virtually overhead the field then a long procedure allowed a
sensible rate of descent. The aircraft allowed you to cancel the gear
warning horn if you'd selected flap or cancel it if the torque went below a
certain limit, it wouldn't however allow you to cancel the horn with full
flap and low power.

On a clear day, keen to get down quickly without flying the procedure, one
of the guys, unable to stop the horn with the flaps down and throttles at
idle, pulled the circuit breaker to stop the noise. You can guess the rest.

Has your TB20 got a c/b for the warning horn :-)?

Rgds

Andy R

[Peter]

Post by Andy R
Has your TB20 got a c/b for the warning horn :-)?

Not seen one; would have to refer to the wiring diagrams if there is
some way to do it. One would probably disconnect a few other things
too.

[david]

Post by Peter
I also strongly disagree with the often printed statement that a gear
up landing is only a matter of time.

Well, so do I. Proper checks ought to prevent it everytime---reds, blues
and greens on finals ?

My 'incident' happened on the ground engines off, the machine nhad just been
in for maintenance (big alarm bells should have rung, have done ever
since!), I hit the master switch and got an ear full of horn. Instinctively
I thought it was the stall warner so looked out of the screen only to see
the ground coming up! I made a hit for the master agin and managed to stop
the mains retracting, though the nose was on the deck. The subsequent walk
of shame stung badly!!

David

[Peter]

Post by david
My 'incident' happened on the ground engines off, the machine nhad just been
in for maintenance (big alarm bells should have rung, have done ever
since!), I hit the master switch and got an ear full of horn. Instinctively
I thought it was the stall warner so looked out of the screen only to see
the ground coming up! I made a hit for the master agin and managed to stop
the mains retracting, though the nose was on the deck. The subsequent walk
of shame stung badly!!

What aeroplane type was that on?

[david]

Beech Duch.

D

Post by Peter

Post by david
My 'incident' happened on the ground engines off, the machine nhad just been
in for maintenance (big alarm bells should have rung, have done ever
since!), I hit the master switch and got an ear full of horn.
Instinctively
I thought it was the stall warner so looked out of the screen only to see
the ground coming up! I made a hit for the master agin and managed to stop
the mains retracting, though the nose was on the deck. The subsequent walk
of shame stung badly!!

What aeroplane type was that on?

[Neil G]

On Mon, 22 May 2006 18:08:27 +0100, "david"

Post by david
...daft things to print.
In this months Pilot magazine, "how airbrained are you?" the question, about
retractable gear planes "can you raise the gear on the ground?"has the
wonderful answer "No. But you might be able to lower the fuselage".
I ask you. If there was a statement more likely to cause someone to try it,
just to see, I cannot think of it.
This is quite close to my heart. Well, mine and a certain Beech Duchess of
long ago! ;o(
Well done , Pilot. Not.
David

What Pilot needs is a) a decent editor and b) Nick Bloom out of the
picture.

[Peter]

Post by Neil G
What Pilot needs is a) a decent editor and b) Nick Bloom out of the
picture.

Actually I strongly suspect that a large % of the readership of the UK
mags are people who don't fly, perhaps long-expired PPLs, and plane
spotters. The amount of useless information in them might be there
through incompetence but that's not very likely IMHO.

[me]

Couldn't agree more. His arrival trashed what was a very readable magazine.
It's now the print equivalent of Sky TV.

E

Post by Neil G
On Mon, 22 May 2006 18:08:27 +0100, "david"

Post by david
...daft things to print.
In this months Pilot magazine, "how airbrained are you?" the question, about
retractable gear planes "can you raise the gear on the ground?"has the
wonderful answer "No. But you might be able to lower the fuselage".
I ask you. If there was a statement more likely to cause someone to try it,
just to see, I cannot think of it.
This is quite close to my heart. Well, mine and a certain Beech Duchess of
long ago! ;o(
Well done , Pilot. Not.
David

What Pilot needs is a) a decent editor and b) Nick Bloom out of the
picture.

[Jonathan Lowe]

Post by me
Couldn't agree more. His arrival trashed what was a very readable magazine.
It's now the print equivalent of Sky TV.

Good thing that I didn't take out a yearly sub then if it's that bad.

[Chris]

Post by Mike Causer

Post by me
Couldn't agree more. His arrival trashed what was a very readable

magazine.

Post by me
It's now the print equivalent of Sky TV.

Good thing that I didn't take out a yearly sub then if it's that bad.

But then all the aviation magazines are the same. The quality of writing is
poor and if the base material is poor then the editor has not much to work
with. Pretty reflective of the UK GA scene.

[Peter]

Post by Chris
But then all the aviation magazines are the same. The quality of writing is
poor and if the base material is poor then the editor has not much to work
with. Pretty reflective of the UK GA scene.

I have often wondered why all the UK mags print such rubbish. On the
face of it, they are merely reflecting the decrepit state of the UK
self fly hire GA scene, but wouldn't one think that people might like
to hope to be doing better things one day? Look how much more modern
and informative the American mags are.

2003 onwards, I wrote up some of my longer VFR trips, at
peter2000.co.uk. This was done to help other pilots go places, not for
magazine publication. However, after a lot of people told me they
found it very useful and that I should submit it to a mag, I wrote to
the UK ones. All turned it down, saying (variously) that they are
inundated with material and can afford to be choosy. Flyer wrote "we
are sent far more ... pieces than we could ever publish, and can thus
afford to be picky!"

After a while, a Polish aviation mag somehow picked up the stuff and
is serialising the whole lot, and they seem very happy with it,
apparently (as far as I can make out Polish, using my decrepit Czech)
unedited. I also sent them the original pics, plus a load more, in max
resolution on a CD. No charge :) I should imagine they are happy
partly because I have recently discovered that the UK mags pay around
£1000 for an article covering several pages. This suggests that the
regular contributors to the UK mags (the same names we see everywhere
we go and everywhere we look) must be earning around the low five
figures a year from their writings - not bad, and would pay for an
awful lot of flying!

So I don't think the UK mags are short of submissions. They just
happen to prefer to print short and sweet articles, with pretty pics,
largely devoid of detail enabling someone to learn from it.

I have no idea of the readership profile, but if the majority just
happened to be a mixture of expired PPLs and plane spotters that would
certainly account for the material that does get published.

I suspect this is not far off, given that the great majority of new
PPLs expire before the first renewal. Around 3k new PPLs are issued
each year (used to be a lot more 5-10 years ago) but the population
around airfields remains reasonably constant. (The CAA does not
publish the total # of valid PPLs). There must be vast numbers of ex
PPL holders. Based on 3k dropping out each year, average new holder
age of 40, average life expectancy of 80, we are looking at 90,000
expired PPLs :)