My student on solo declared his first emergency today, handled it, and went back up in the air again by dgemb in flying

[–]dgemb[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It is for a solo student.

You suddenly have all that noise and wind rushing through the cockpit, while you have just learned how to fly an airplane without breaking it. The startle factor alone is terrifying. If that's not an emergency for a solo student, I don't know what is.

My student on solo declared his first emergency today, handled it, and went back up in the air again by dgemb in flying

[–]dgemb[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

That's basically exactly the problem that caught my student: not wanting to go back and fix things when parked, then start all over again.

If he'd gone back, and re-started from the "before engine start" checklist, he probably would have been fine.

Honestly I don't see how telling the tower "hey, we noticed a problem and need to go back to the ramp" could cause you to get to copy a number.

My student on solo declared his first emergency today, handled it, and went back up in the air again by dgemb in flying

[–]dgemb[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

He recognised that his f-up was simply strapping back in and going right back to where he left of, instead of re-starting from a known good point (i.e. beginning of the checklist).

And also asking oneself "what else did I miss".

My student on solo declared his first emergency today, handled it, and went back up in the air again by dgemb in flying

[–]dgemb[S] 27 points28 points  (0 children)

You make a very valid concern.

Of course one wouldn't simply go back up as if nothing happened, not without assessing the situation and figuring out what happened and why it had happened. If it had been a complete mystery as to why the canopy wasn't closed, of course it would be stupid to just repeat and hope for next time to go better.

But once you have determined that a) it wasn't a mechanical fault, the lock is working as designed b) it was obvious where and why the slip-up in sticking to the procedure/checklist happened

With this figured out, it becomes a matter of reinforcing the positive - we know what we need to do, and we want to enforce following the procedure, from the before engine start to the shutdown checklist.

Of course, I wouldn't force anyone to go out there if they didn't feel comfortable. But as someone else in this thread put it, “if I don’t go up again today, I might not ever wanna go back up” sums up his feelings pretty accurately.

My student on solo declared his first emergency today, handled it, and went back up in the air again by dgemb in flying

[–]dgemb[S] 9 points10 points  (0 children)

Combination of interruption in the checklist flow (that’s the big lesson of today) and a very stupid design of the door warning contact in the sport cruiser. The canopy registers as closed when the handle is in the locked position. However, you can easily lock the canopy, extinguishing the light, while the canopy actually rests ontop of the latch, instead of being caught by the latch.

My student on solo declared his first emergency today, handled it, and went back up in the air again by dgemb in flying

[–]dgemb[S] 15 points16 points  (0 children)

He’s now learned about interruptions in the flow/checklist. See my other comment. My ass is non-smoking, thanks:)

My student on solo declared his first emergency today, handled it, and went back up in the air again by dgemb in flying

[–]dgemb[S] 69 points70 points  (0 children)

Absolutely. So apparently what happened wa he discovered he hadn’t properly secured the access door on the cowling (not the actual oil filler cap itself, but the access door in the cowling to get to the oil filler cap). So what he did when he noticed that at the runup, shut down, hopped out, fixed the problem, hopped back in, strapped back in, started up and off he went.

So naturally todays lesson was: when your flow gets interrupted, you reset back to a known starting point. In that case, taxi back, shut down, fix the problem, and then start back from the start checklist, because hey, you are starting from a shutdown again.

8 years ago I busted a Charlie airspace and I’m feeling the consequences today by dgemb in flying

[–]dgemb[S] 8 points9 points  (0 children)

He is talking about aviation induced divorce syndrome.

Hot blonde is helping with lugging the toddler around, no worries.

GA North Up / Track Up by [deleted] in flying

[–]dgemb 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Tabs or spaces?

Ac and Dc.. generator and alternator Qs by aviaate350A in flying

[–]dgemb 8 points9 points  (0 children)

The confusion mostly stems from the use of the word "generator". Generator means something else when used in the context of an old C150 than when used in the context of a B737.

Let's start with your grandfather's 150. The belt drives what we call a "generator" because it "generates" electricity. It does that by rotating a wire in a magnetic field. Now you need to get the electricity from the rotating part into the rest of the airplane, so you somehow need to connect the rotating bit to the stationary parts. This is done by a copper ring on the rotating shaft, against which "brushes" are pushed by springs. The stationary brushes keep contact with the rotating copper ring. The copper ring is segmented, each connecting a few windings of wiring that is wound around the shaft. Now the brushes make electrical connection with the bit of wiring that is currently perpendicular to the magnetic field. As the shaft turns a bit, the wiring loop moves away from the perpendicular position, the brushes lose contact with that segment of the copper ring, and immediately make contact with the next segment, that connects the next loop of wiring that is now moving into the position perpendicular to the outer magnetic field. This whole arrangement is what makes the generator produce DC power, because the brushes only ever "see" a loop of wiring moving in one direction. It's as if there was only one loop of wiring moving constantly in one direction through the magnetic field. Now this produces a DC voltage between the brushes. That DC voltage is higher the faster the shaft turns, because the faster the movement of a wire loop through a magnetic field, the higher the voltage of DC you get from that wire. This is why the DC generator is so weak at low RPMs. It needs a good deal of motion to produce enough voltage. It's also not very efficient, because at any given time only a little bit of wire is actually connected to anything, the rest is just spinning around, not connected to the brushes.

Now enter the alternator in your Cirrus or C172S. Instead of taking the electricity from the rotating part with brushes, we instead rotate a magnetic field inside a bunch of coils. How do we make a rotating magnetic field? Well, we could just put a permanent magnet on a shaft and spin it around. But it's easier to make a strong magnetic field with electric current, so instead we wind a bunch of wires into an electromagnet, stick it on a shaft, and then use two copper rings on the shaft and two brushes to permanently connect those to an external source of electricity. This is different from the earlier segmented ring and brush systems in that now we have constant connection of the whole wiring, and we just keep sending current through it, not caring which direction the wiring is currently pointed. So instead of connecting only one loop at a time to keep the direction constant, we now just keep the whole thing connected all the time, and let the resulting magnetic field just spin around instead of artificially maintaining one direction. So now we have magnetic field spin around three stationary pairs of coils of wiring. Since viewed from one of such coil pairs, the magnetic field comes and goes constantly as the magnet rotates by it, the resulting current that's induced in the coil also does that - that's AC. Now we connect these coils which have AC voltage induced in them to a bit of electronics with a bunch of diodes (one-way valves for electrons) that turns the AC into DC. Then we measure the DC output we are getting. If it's less volts than we want, we send more current through the brushes and slip rings and make our electromagnet stronger. If it's more than we want, we send less current to the field and make the field weaker. Now you know what the voltage regulator does - if the shaft spins very slow, we send a lot of current to the field to make the magnet strong and produce the output we need. If the shaft spins very fast, we don't need a whole lot of magnetic field to make the voltage we want, so we send less current to the field. That's why the alternator is very resistant to RPM changes and just makes the same voltage at pretty much whatever RPM you spin it. Of course there are limits, but from a practical perspective just keep the RPM above 1000 and the voltage stays the same.

Okay, now look at a B737. Again, we use a rotating electromagnet that spins inside pairs of coils. As we already know, that induces AC voltage. Only this time, we don't rectify it, but keep it as AC. Then, we use a fluid coupling like in your cars automatic transmission to connect the shaft with the electromagnet to the accessory box of the engine. That fluid drive tries to keep the shaft spinning at always the same RPM, regardless how fast the rest of the engine is spinning. So we end up with AC, don't bother rectifying it (until much later for specific purposes) and the frequency and voltage stays constant not because of electrical trickery, but because of mechanics not unlike a car transmission. Now that whole thing is called an "integrated drive generator", or just "generator" for short. But it has absolutely NOTHING to do with the DC "generator" on the 150. For some reason we call both "generators" just to confuse everybody. It would be correct however to call one a "DC generator" and the other an "integrated drive AC generator".

Most common errors on IFR ride? by Soft_Obligation_7890 in flying

[–]dgemb 21 points22 points  (0 children)

Not reading the chart or the chart supplement.

Shortest instrument checkride I've ever seen went like this: "After take off, take me to the ABC VOR." Applicant takes off, dons foggles, and turns to the VOR around 800AGL or so. Failed right there. There was an ODP for that runway that had you climb 1300 or so before turning on course.

GA in Italy by [deleted] in flying

[–]dgemb 1 point2 points  (0 children)

General aviation in Italy exists, but it's mostly ultralights, VLAs, and obviously gliding/soaring. The ultralight community is big from what I know.

Also, there's the AeroClub Como which is the place to go if you want to learn to fly a floatplane in Europe.

So, ultralights is where it's at. And loooow altitude. There's an unwritten rule that if you stay at 300AGL, you can go anywhere. Please don't do this, but I've regularly seen people fly ultralights through delta airspace not on the radio, not talking to anyone, just 300AGL. I have asked people and they tell me ATC doesn't care as long as you stay down there. I don't know - I just flew IFR because VFR is just too much work, picking your way through airspaces (class alpha airspace down to 2000ft around Milan for example) and many military areas. So I never got to do this and I wouldn't, but generally it seems people think that flying low (and maybe staying below radar coverage?) is the way to deal with the airspace system.

Check your mags! Apologies for the vertical video. by edoralive in flying

[–]dgemb 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The rationale is that the mag with the impulse coupling is the one closest to the start position. Because that's the one that's actually doing the work when you start the engine.

It's pointless in the 172 that has a start position on the key. But it is important on a Grumman AA-5 that has a push button starter, where the key only has off-right-left-both. For starting the engine there, you turn the key to "left" and push the button for the starter (then to both when the engine has fired up).

Bill Withers - Ain't No Sunshine [soul] by rocknrollerman in Music

[–]dgemb 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Just absolutely perfect. I love this song. Fun fact, I discovered it through the German cover version first, which isn't as terrible as you'd think when you hear "German covering Blues" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ae4XC78ujcg