Page 4 of 4

Re: CAA advice on avoiding Loss Of Control incidents in the circuit - your views?

PostPosted:Thu Jul 09, 2020 12:33 pm
by Genghis the Engineer
skydriller wrote:
Genghis the Engineer wrote: it's been being shoved down all our throats for 10+ years


Not mine it hasnt or I wouldnt have brought it up. But then Im in France...

Regards, SD..


Quite surprising, as a quick web search shows a bunch of EASA (and FAA and CASA) material dated around 2013 pushing the context (so perhaps my original post should have said 6+ years). You'd have thought this was picked up in recurrent training in France, the way it has in the UK, USA and other places.

G

Re: CAA advice on avoiding Loss Of Control incidents in the circuit - your views?

PostPosted:Thu Jul 09, 2020 4:33 pm
by Wide-Body
The first Threat error modules were being written in 1994. It went external about 4 or 5 years later. GTE you can chat to the author when you see her next :wink:

Re: CAA advice on avoiding Loss Of Control incidents in the circuit - your views?

PostPosted:Thu Jul 09, 2020 5:34 pm
by jrp
"The biggest issue with TEM is experienced people mouthing off around flying clubs about it being rubbish and undermining the whole culture."

At last a grown up talking sense. Thank you.

Re: CAA advice on avoiding Loss Of Control incidents in the circuit - your views?

PostPosted:Thu Jul 09, 2020 6:47 pm
by ChrisRowland
ak7274 wrote:A Defined Minimum Manouvering Speed has been suggested by some experts across the pond.
A minimum of 1.404 X the clean stall speed allows for controllable flight at bank angles up to 30°.
They suggest marking the ASI.

How is the 1.404 figure derived? it's close to sqrt(2) which is 1.414.

I can get values around 1.4 but they don't justify the additional 0.004.

Re: CAA advice on avoiding Loss Of Control incidents in the circuit - your views?

PostPosted:Thu Jul 09, 2020 7:00 pm
by Human Factor
Wide-Body wrote:If you think TEM is pointless, you have just found the primary T.


Complacency is a threat but we don’t need to worry about that. :wink:

Re: CAA advice on avoiding Loss Of Control incidents in the circuit - your views?

PostPosted:Thu Jul 09, 2020 7:15 pm
by skydriller
jrp wrote:"The biggest issue with TEM is experienced people mouthing off around flying clubs about it being rubbish and undermining the whole culture."

At last a grown up talking sense. Thank you.


Is anyone here saying its rubbish or stupid? I had not heard the expression before but guessed (rightly) that it is what most of us actually do anyway when we go flying... Calling something a fancy name using complicated words doesnt make it better, and quite frankly smacks (as usual) of applying (or over applying) CAT proceedures to GA...

I for one was interested to read the list of TEM topics that was posted earlier in the thread, because Im always open to learning something new, but when you actually decipher the "HR speak" as @Rob P amusingly noted, Im happy to say I am doing this anyway.

Doesnt hurt to be reminded though.

Regards, SD..

Re: CAA advice on avoiding Loss Of Control incidents in the circuit - your views?

PostPosted:Thu Jul 09, 2020 8:03 pm
by ak7274
ChrisRowland wrote:
ak7274 wrote:A Defined Minimum Manouvering Speed has been suggested by some experts across the pond.
A minimum of 1.404 X the clean stall speed allows for controllable flight at bank angles up to 30°.
They suggest marking the ASI.

How is the 1.404 figure derived? it's close to sqrt(2) which is 1.414.

I can get values around 1.4 but they don't justify the additional 0.004.



Re: CAA advice on avoiding Loss Of Control incidents in the circuit - your views?

PostPosted:Thu Jul 09, 2020 9:52 pm
by QSD
TEM was being promulgated when I did my FI training in 2010.

I was made to do a long brief on the subject at my first revalidation in 2013. Not my favourite subject.

Re: CAA advice on avoiding Loss Of Control incidents in the circuit - your views?

PostPosted:Sat Jul 11, 2020 2:07 pm
by ChrisRowland
ak7274 wrote:
ChrisRowland wrote:
ak7274 wrote:A Defined Minimum Manouvering Speed has been suggested by some experts across the pond.
A minimum of 1.404 X the clean stall speed allows for controllable flight at bank angles up to 30°.
They suggest marking the ASI.

How is the 1.404 figure derived? it's close to sqrt(2) which is 1.414.

I can get values around 1.4 but they don't justify the additional 0.004.



Providing noting but a link to a 25 minute video is deliberately unhelpful.

Re: CAA advice on avoiding Loss Of Control incidents in the circuit - your views?

PostPosted:Sat Jul 11, 2020 5:00 pm
by patowalker
Genghis the Engineer wrote:Quite surprising, as a quick web search shows a bunch of EASA (and FAA and CASA) material dated around 2013 pushing the context (so perhaps my original post should have said 6+ years). You'd have thought this was picked up in recurrent training in France, the way it has in the UK, USA and other places.
G


It had been picked up in France by 2013, as you would expect.
http://pilotage.e-monsite.com/medias/fi ... e-5-v2.pdf

Re: CAA advice on avoiding Loss Of Control incidents in the circuit - your views?

PostPosted:Sat Jul 11, 2020 5:09 pm
by ak7274
ChrisRowland wrote:
ak7274 wrote:
ChrisRowland wrote:How is the 1.404 figure derived? it's close to sqrt(2) which is 1.414.

I can get values around 1.4 but they don't justify the additional 0.004.



Providing noting but a link to a 25 minute video is deliberately unhelpful.


Google Defined Minimum Manouvering Speed. That may not help either.

Re: CAA advice on avoiding Loss Of Control incidents in the circuit - your views?

PostPosted:Mon Jul 13, 2020 12:33 pm
by flyguy
Confess that I find a 'Minimum Manouvering Speed' exactly as helpful as a Vs1g speed - a very well defined (1.404x!!) number that is merely a guideline to flying the aircraft.

Aircraft can stall at a huge variety of speeds but only at (and beyond) one angle of attack. Getting pilots to fully appreciate how the relative airflow is impacting the chord line of the wing is far more useful.