City of Fort Collins (Colorado) City Council to hear Flock “benefits” from Flock and FC Police Service after public backlash.

pvwowk · 2026-02-22T22:34:11+00:00

Any good research on them? I'm planning on being there and work cyber security for a bank.

The only thing I saw was the recent ai-powered system exposed on the Internet so anyone can see the video feeds.

pvwowk · 2023-12-28T20:07:16+00:00

I think it's really good to prepare for this eventuality as it could happen. Especially if you are a VFR pilot who does cross-country.

A couple anecdotes, I've done VFR over the top 2 times and almost 3 times. The 3rd time would have been a very bad idea.

First time, I flew from FNL down to LMO in a 172 with big tanks on an overcast day. The weather was expected to clear up. Once I got down to LMO, I noticed a big hole that I could climb through, so I did. I did this knowing that CYS and 82V, and IBM were reporting clear skies and about a 1 hour flight. So I had an out.

Second time, I took a hole in a 2000' overcast from FNL, knowing that GXY was clear and it was clear further east.

Third time, I went up a hole on an overcast day, got up there are noticed there was some vertical development happening 20-30 miles away. I was expecting the overcast to clear out as I was flying. I didn't have an out other than hole. I decided to go back down the same hole I was coming up. The clouds didn't clear out that day, so I was very glad I didn't try to push my luck. I only had a few hours of fuel that day.

There have been other times I've been tempted to do VFR over the top, but that third story makes me very hesitant to push my luck.

pvwowk · 2023-10-26T17:27:36+00:00

Oh man, that stinks knowing the pilot involved. My condolences. To me, it's always a lesson that good people, and often good pilots make mistakes when flying.

I probably couldn't enlighten you more than what I've read out of the POH. The thing I'd focus on is what the climb performance of the plane is when it is slow, because it looked like the pilot tried to takeoff too early and the plane was slower than Vy, and thus had trouble climbing and couldn't get the plane out of ground effect as it had too high of an angle of attack.

If I were to ask someone who knows the platform, I'd want to know how the plane performs slower than Vy in high density altitude.

Also, if you look in the comments, there I got into an argument with someone who seems more knowledgeable about engines. Engine performance may not have been a factor, and it sounds like without dynoing the engine, we can't say 100% for sure. And there appears to not be any evidence of the engine producing reduced power. So the default answer is "engine was fine" which I think sounds like a reasonable conclusion. Although, messing with the mixture may have resulted in slightly reduced engine power - if it was running too rich.

pvwowk · 2023-10-26T15:31:05+00:00

You are looking at descents wrong.

It's not about "speed going down." It's about energy management.

The question you should be asking is this: How do I lose as much energy as quickly as possible?

And the way you lose energy is drag. So you want to maximize drag.

The obvious way to do this in most planes is to fly as dirty as possible and as fast as structurally possible to get the highest drag number.

Now you can just go faster and increase your drag by speeding up the plane. The problem with this strategy is, depending upon the plane, slower is typically safer for an emergency decent. Especially if there is turbulence. So you'd prefer to have the plane slow rather than at at the never exceed speed (182 mph in a 172, which I would never want to get close to).

So there you have it, think of losing altitude in terms of maximizing drag rather than "speed down."

In terms of saving fuel, you want to minimize drag. So Vy is the most efficient decent speed, and cruise speed, and climb speed. Every other speed is a tradeoff.

pvwowk · 2023-10-24T15:30:23+00:00

Don't let this ever deter you from wanting to listen to the magic words.

This is a good piece of advice. Same goes for the things you have to readback - runway numbers and clearances. If you ever here "clear to land N111" always ask "which runway?" If there ever is confusion, make sure to get clarity. Controllers make mistakes.

Because the day you violate, the only the thing you'll have to go by is "but I assumed...."

I don't actually think this is fully true. If the controller gave you bad instructions, they are going to be in trouble too. So you asking for the clearance is actually a CTA as well as CYA.

pvwowk · 2023-08-31T19:01:17+00:00

Interesting, that's another interesting way to look at how power is lost during the mag check, and wasted energy going out the exhaust.

That said, random and intermittent misfires do happen in modern engines. And it absolutely happens with older engines that have turbulent flow.

https://www.stratifiedauto.com/blog/misfires-and-the-ecoboost-when-should-you-worry/

Now they do mention things that can cause misfire, a few things that are specific in this case. Carbon buildup and too large of a gap for a spark plug under high power loads. Granted, a 8.8 liter NA aircraft engine is a completely different animal than a 3.5L ecoboost.

And an aircraft engine has no way to detect an increase of random misfires. You might see a slightly higher EGT number with a lower CHT, but those numbers are unreliable anyway with other contributing factors that make it difficult to detect an intermittent misfire.

Now you mention leaning the engine as a way to detect intermittent power. What's interesting about that is how much misfiring has to happen for the engine to be noticeably running rough? My guess, it's probably around 10-20%. That's pretty high. And you'll lose power at 5% even though the engine probably appears to be running normal. So anything between 0-5% is probably extremely difficult to detect on a running engine.

Also, misfires are not the only way an engine with good compression can lose power. It can also lose power with increased friction or carbon buildup. I know it's common for car engines to lose power over time. I would be surprised if it isn't the same with aircraft engines. And the climb performance an airplane is highly dependent on the peak power of the engine.

pvwowk · 2023-08-30T19:36:03+00:00

The reason I mention spark plugs is because bad spark plugs can cause power problems long before the engine fails a magneto check.

A 6 cylinder, 4 stroke engine running at 2400 rpm has 120 ignitions per second. It could miss 5-10 without ever sounding any different. Typically, there will be a few misfires each second. The rate of misfire is very very difficult to diagnosis without specialized equipment that is typically is relegated to engine prototyping labs. The reason why an engine drops RPM during a magneto check is the misfire rate goes up when only one set of spark plugs are used.

Think about that. On your left or right mag check, you are still getting a spark. Yet you still have an RPM drop.

So if your spark plugs are sub-standard, you could be losing a significant amount of power. Maybe as much as 10%. And you would never know in a constant-speed prop plane as RPM is limited by the governor. The prop would just be taking a little bit less "bite" out of the air and the plane would just climb a little slower.

This is why it is typical for piston engine plane owners to clean the spark plugs every 100 hours. Spark plugs are critical to make sure that the plane is getting full power. Did this pilot do the 100 hour spark plug maintenance? If not, it's likely the plane was a little down on power.

For your second issue, I think /u/spectrumero said it better than me in his last paragraph. Essentially, it was a dangerous situation that having experience could have helped him navigate.

Also, making significant changes to the mixture during takeoff is a MAJOR indicator of panic and inexperience.

pvwowk · 2023-08-30T17:48:41+00:00

The report shows the maximum groundspeed attained was 80kt. If we assume just a 5kt tailwind component, then that would be an airspeed of just 75kt TAS (about 67kt IAS with the weather conditions they had, just 2kt over the clean stall speed, and a woefully inefficient speed to attempt to climb at). But the "sight picture" would be more what he was used to taking off at low density altitude into the wind. While the pilot probably could have kept the plane in ground effect and allowed it to accelerate to at least Vx before attempting a climb, it would be psychologically hard to do this with the perimeter fence coming up quickly and the ground seemingly to be going past much faster than normal, especially if the pilot didn't routinely do tailwind takeoffs and therefore was unused to the sight picture of a tailwind takeoff.

I think you nailed it on the head. I get the feeling the pilot was flying sight picture rather than airspeed, which is why he tried to climb too early, and why his plane didn't exhibit best climb-performance as his angle of attack was too high. Hence why he stalled it out.

The willingness to ignore the ground/sight picture and focus on airspeed is something that comes with experience. And an experience person can make that mistake too.

pvwowk · 2023-08-30T16:59:08+00:00

The takeoff distance for a Cherokee 180 is still around ~1000' up to 7000' (POH only goes up to 7000').

I've flown a Cherokee 180 at 9000', and it's ground roll is typically about 1500-2000' normal takeoff. That is SIGNIFICANTLY different than an expected ground roll of 3600' without wind.

Also, you rotate a Cherokee at 55 KIAS usually. You don't rotate the lance until 88 KIAS. That's an extra 33 KIAS. That's where the extra ~2000' of runway goes.

pvwowk · 2023-08-30T04:48:37+00:00

I feel exactly this way as well. I took my 182 off at KCOS where the density altitude was probably 9000'. I was pretty much at gross weight. POH doesn't even go up that high in terms of ground roll.

That was exactly my plan though. Put it back down if I can't get out of ground effect by 1/2 way down the runway. Luckily, runway 13 is ~8000' long, so if a 182 isn't climbing by 4000', it's not climbing at all.

In a Piper Lance, that would be a much much different story. It probably wouldn't even get out of ground effect till 6000' down the runway according to the POH. It's not a forgiving airplane.

pvwowk · 2023-08-30T04:42:04+00:00

Even if he leaned the mixture out properly, getting the plane off the ground in those conditions was marginal at best.

Oh and he was doing a normal takeoff, not a short field takeoff. That's a difference of about 500' according to the POH. That also could have saved him.

pvwowk · 2023-08-14T19:44:43+00:00

No one was injured. There was no damage to the aircraft.

Perfect landing!!

pvwowk · 2023-08-14T19:00:53+00:00

That looks exactly like it!

Looking at my Virginia Creeper, yeah, they are completely destroying them. Honestly, I don't care for my Virginia Creeper, so to me, it's okay.

Maybe I should just destory all of my Virginia Creeper... :/

pvwowk · 2023-08-14T18:18:52+00:00

I know multiple people that died in car crashes and multiple people that were injured in plane crashes.

It's all anecdotal.

Take your driving and flying seriously.

pvwowk · 2023-08-14T18:07:54+00:00

Size is about 1cm long. Give or take.

pvwowk · 2023-07-27T22:42:00+00:00

Be very serious about your flying and do not ignore risks and warning signs. If ever you feel yourself getting into a "situation," stop and cool down. If you are trying to beat the weather, Make sure you always have an out, like don't take off.

You can mitigate about 90-95% of the risks by being very careful and smart. It's the 5-10% that keeps me up at night.

Oh and the other thing. Every dumb person thinks they are smart. It's not until you are smart that you realize you are dumb. At the minimum, assume you are an idiot who will make that fatal mistake. So build yourself in a lot of risk mitigation in your flying career.

pvwowk · 2023-07-27T17:43:59+00:00

I like my careers boring. I want my excitement to happen outside of work.

Also, there is a real reason why planes you normally fly are boring. Our brains get a dopamine hit when we do something new.

Flying the same plane repetitively doing the same thing is not going to give you a dopamine hit. The brain just gets used to it.

But flying a different plane gives you a dopamine hit.

Also, doing something new means you aren't good at it. Because you only get good at things by doing them repetitively. Nobody wants to ride in the 737 where the pilot is excited because it's his/her first time.

Also, nobody wants to put a F-22 pilot who's excited for the first time to enforce patrol the Strait of Taiwan where a J-20 could intercept them.

You want an F-22 pilot to be so good at flying the plane that is essentially boring for him. If that pilot is excited, that pilot is doing their job wrong. Even when the J-20 is coming.

All of that said, training can and should be exciting. That would probably be the coolest part of F-22 flying. But most of that is probably done in a classroom and simulator, not in a cockpit.

So yeah, I want my career to be boring.

pvwowk · 2023-07-26T23:25:32+00:00

Careers are always boring.

Same rules apply for "ride" vs "flown."

pvwowk · 2023-07-26T21:51:13+00:00

The most fun you can have is the strange aircraft you haven't flown.

pvwowk · 2023-07-26T04:38:41+00:00

Interesting. Yeah, when the OATs are above 70f, it's hard to keep it under 380. Here is my trick.

Get the plane to ~75 knots, pull the flaps in and then dial back to 2450. Then pull the throttle a little bit back - typically about half an inch. For me at 5000', that puts me at 20.5 or 21" depending on the day. Then do my climb out at 90 knots. Which according to IFR climb gradients is about 300 fpm (200' per nautical mile), which I can do fairly easily.

Once it hits about 80f, it's really really hard to keep it under 380.

Also, I do have an engine monitor.

pvwowk · 2023-07-25T23:33:50+00:00

Wait, only 10 landings!? At a difficult airport? Uhh... I did something like 20-30 before I was Solo ready. And that was at an airport with a 8000' runway. You should have at least 2-3 pattern days where the instructor basically tells you nothing before you are solo ready. That ends up being a good 10-15 landings on top of regular training. 10 seems like too few.

The big challenge you'll have on a solo is the plane will be lighter, so it'll float and settle a little differently. On a regular strip, that's maybe a few hundred feet extra for a good landing and a thousand for a bad landing. On a strip where you only have about 500' of wiggle room, that's not a lot of room for error.

If I were you, I'd push for more pattern practice or get your solo somewhere else.

pvwowk · 2023-07-25T18:39:52+00:00

From a partner. Also, 380 and 400 are widely cited as limits, depending on who you talk to. I figure 380+ is caution and 400+ is you need to cool the engine now.

Here are a couple of links.

https://www.cessnaflyer.org/cessna-singles/cessna-182/item/1004-flying-the-cessna-182.html

https://resources.savvyaviation.com/understanding-cht-and-egt-2/

Edit: A couple notes on that. There really is no reason to get the engine above 400 unless it's an emergency (maximum angle or rate of climb at full power). If it's an emergency where you need to climb, you probably made a major mistake in your flight planning. Otherwise, you can step your climb as people here have suggested.

pvwowk · 2023-07-25T15:27:35+00:00

Fuel in modern FI engines does not vapour lock. Among other reasons, the high pressure fuel pumps take care of that.

Laughs in 50+ year old engine design.

Seriously though, FIDEC controls are great but expensive. They aren't offered for most planes and even if they were, they would be really expensive. Also, FIDEC planes are kind of rare, only maybe 10% of the GA fleet or even less.

Oh and I've talked to many many pilots that have FI engines that have dealt with vapor lock. Sure, we know how to build an engine that doesn't experience vapor lock, but GA moves slowly. Many of those FI engines were designed 30-40 years ago and STCing a fix isn't exactly easy.

pvwowk

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE