178 seconds -- the facts about the experiment
Julian Scarfe
into IMC and the "178 seconds" article frequently crops up on rec.aviation.
http://www.aviation.uiuc.edu/institute/research/arl/technical-reports/178Sec
ondstoLive.html
A Google search reveals dozens of pages with variants of the article on.
I was sufficiently intrigued by the experiment described that I contacted
UIUC, which is cited in the article as responsible for the research, since I
couldn't find the paper on the WWW. UIUC's Institute of Aviation staff were
very helpful, and two days later I had a copy of the original research paper
on my desk. Thanks to Mary and Ted there for their helpful and prompt
response.
The following is a summary of some key points of the paper itself, entitled
"180-degree turn experiment" and in UI's Aeronautics Bulletin 11. I have no
axe to grind, and I think the "178 seconds" article does a good job of
communicating the hazards of spatial disorientation. However, some issues
have become clouded by the "chinese whisper" effect, so this is to set the
record straight.
* The research was conducted at University of Illinois Institute of Aviation
in 1954, principally by Jesse Stonecipher, the CFI.
* It was a response to the challenge from AOPA to devise a technique for
non-instrument rated pilots who had flown inadvertently into IMC
* The tests were conducted on a Beech Bonanza C-35 in flight (not a "ground
trainer" as cited in the 178 Seconds article)
* The 20 subjects for the experiment were chosen for being representative of
those pilots who had *no* simulated or actual instrument experience (not
"none since primary training", none at all)
* The Bonanza was chosen specifically *because* it would be difficult to
fly, as the most complex single that a non-IR pilot was likely to fly.
* None of the subjects had soloed a Bonanza. As far as I can tell, only 3
of the subjects had any complex experience at all, with most of them
recording time on Aeronca 7AC, Cessna 140 and Tri-Pacers.
* Most of the subjects had only about 20 hours dual time, presumably the PPL
syllabus in those days. 7 of them had less than 40 hours total.
* The aircraft was made to simulate basic VFR instruments, plus a turn
indicator. The AI, DG and rate of climb indicators were covered for the
entire experiment.
* The first period of the experiment was the famed '178 seconds' test, aimed
at assessing the students' baseline instrument aptitude. The time was
measured between the googles being placed over the students' eyes and an
'incipient dangerous flight condition'. For most cases this was deemed to
be an airspeed of 185 mph or an incipient stall.
* 19 of the 20 went into a 'graveyard spiral'. One pulled the aircraft
into a whip-stall.
* Times ranged from 20 seconds to 480 seconds. The average was indeed 178
seconds
* There then followed 4 periods of instruction in the 180 degree turn
technique (see below) that was the actual subject of the study
* By the end of this training, the subjects had between 1.5 and 3 hours
(mean 2 hours) simulated IF, practising the technique.
* The subjects were again tested by simulating instrument conditions, and
asked to transition from cruise to slow flight, make a 180 degree turn, and
establish a controlled descent. Each subject was tested 3 times.
* Of the 60 trials, 59 were successfully completed. The unsuccessful one
involved the failure to set power to maintain altitude and continued the
descent in a way that violated the success definition. It was considered
that control was not lost, and that if the aircraft had not become visual
below cloud, the impact would have been survivable.
The technique:
Throughout, center the turn needle using the rudder.
1) Hands off the control column
2) Lower the landing gear
3) Reduce power
4) Set trim to a predetermined position for slow flight (95 mph)
5) Adjust prop and power for approx level flight at 95 mph
6) Note the compass heading
7) Turn using the rudder
8) Roll out with appropriate lead or lag
9) Center the turn needle
10) Reduce power for a controlled descent
It was noticed that step 1 was both the most important and the most
difficult psychologically!
The usual deduction from the 178 Seconds article is the rather negative one
that pilots without instrument training are in big trouble if they enter
IMC. I think the message that Stonecipher was trying to convey (and the
result speak for itself!) is much more positive, that a little instument
training can go a long way, even if faced with a partial panel and a complex
aircraft.
Julian Scarfe
jul...@avbrief.com
Gene Seibel
--
Gene Seibel
Confessions of a Pilot - http://pad39a.com/publishing
"Julian Scarfe" <jul...@avbrief.com> wrote in message
news:DYTv9.4763$yG1.3...@newsfep2-win.server.ntli.net...
Michael
> into IMC and the "178 seconds" article frequently crops up on rec.aviation.
It comes up a lot. I'm glad you took the time to do some research.
I'm going to add some comments to amplify some of the point - I see
none to disagree with.
> I was sufficiently intrigued by the experiment described that I contacted
> UIUC, which is cited in the article as responsible for the research, since I
> couldn't find the paper on the WWW.
Unfortunately, what you describe is all too common. The study itself
has to be requested from the research institution, but extremely
misleading articles about the study abound.
> * It was a response to the challenge from AOPA to devise a technique for
> non-instrument rated pilots who had flown inadvertently into IMC
And not to scare people - which is mostly what it's used for these
days. Of course one might argue that the goals have been achieved...
> * The 20 subjects for the experiment were chosen for being representative of
> those pilots who had *no* simulated or actual instrument experience (not
> "none since primary training", none at all)
At that time, instrument flying was not a part of primary training, at
all.
> * The Bonanza was chosen specifically *because* it would be difficult to
> fly, as the most complex single that a non-IR pilot was likely to fly.
And that's as true today as it was then. These days, a Bonanza owner
is almost always instrument rated because of the insurance if nothing
else. It is significantly more demanding on instruments than what the
average private pilot is flying.
The only problem is that the Bo is awfully light on the ailerons, and
is not very roll stable. This makes for a very pleasant airplane to
fly, but it also about guarantees that a non-proficient instrument
pilot will try to roll it over. Thus the need to fly with hands off
the yoke. This does not really apply to the kind of airplane more
commonly flown by a non-IR private pilot.
> * The aircraft was made to simulate basic VFR instruments, plus a turn
> indicator. The AI, DG and rate of climb indicators were covered for the
> entire experiment.
That was a realistic reflection of a common panel on a personal
airplane of the day. Today, few people own an airplane that does not
have the standard six, unless it's an antique/classic or an aerobatic
airplane. In the 1950's, an attitude indicator was an unusual thing
to see in a civil airplane - it would be there if needed for IFR
flight, but would not otherwise be installed.
The TriPacer (arguably the most popular personal airplane of the
1950's - thousands were made in just a few years) was available with
the "Advanced Panel" option, which included the attitude indicator and
heading indicator. The turn and bank were standard.
> * The first period of the experiment was the famed '178 seconds' test, aimed
> at assessing the students' baseline instrument aptitude.
This is information that seems to have gotten lost. All the test
really shows is that low time pilots who have absolutely no training
or experience flying on instruments, who attempt to fly instruments
partial panel in an unfamiliar airplane that is complex and high
performance, will invariably lose control quickly.
What's more, this is a study done at a time when flight simulator
meant Link Trainer - none of these people had ever even played
Microsoft Flight Sim (as most new pilots do today). I suspect that
were the study repeated today, using student pilots who had not yet
received any instrument training, the results might be different.
> * There then followed 4 periods of instruction in the 180 degree turn
> technique (see below) that was the actual subject of the study
>
> * By the end of this training, the subjects had between 1.5 and 3 hours
> (mean 2 hours) simulated IF, practising the technique.
3 hours of simulated instrument flight is now the MINIMUM required to
get the private certificate in the US. I used to believe that number
was arbitrary and excessive - now I see that it is actually based on a
sound scientific study. I'm impressed - I did not expect that much of
our FAA.
> The usual deduction from the 178 Seconds article is the rather negative one
> that pilots without instrument training are in big trouble if they enter
> IMC. I think the message that Stonecipher was trying to convey (and the
> result speak for itself!) is much more positive, that a little instument
> training can go a long way, even if faced with a partial panel and a complex
> aircraft.
Exactly. But while the GA community seems to be ignoring the whole
point of the study, somewhere within the FAA wiser heads have
prevailed. The 'teaching' method still advocated by some - "See that
cloud? Fly into it and you're DEAD!" has fallen by the wayside.
Three hours of emergency instrument training have been added to the
private pilot curriculum. The procedures taught are different, but
they are, IMO, more appropriate to the equipment typically available
today. VFR into IMC accidents have been falling for years.
The only question in my mind - if the study was done in 1954, why did
it take DECADES to add instrument training to the private pilot
curriculum???
Michael
mike regish
shortwinger who swapped his out. Been flying without one so far.
mike regish
Michael wrote:
>
> The TriPacer (arguably the most popular personal airplane of the
> 1950's - thousands were made in just a few years) was available with
> the "Advanced Panel" option, which included the attitude indicator and
> heading indicator. The turn and bank were standard.
>
> Michael
Gene Whitt
Thank you Julian. I have been using the technique for years
in my flight program without knowing the true background.
In my use of it I have made the pilot with limited experience
realize that at some point he may be 'trapped' above a California
fog layer that extends the entire breathe and length of the
Central Valley. This condition happens at least once every year.
Teaching 'handsoff' is pretty basic to the way I teach flying.
'Fingers on'is where I start my students and I try to keep them
unless-handsoff' is used as a attitude/trim check. I have found
the Piper PA-28 an excellent aircraft to go through the descent
process. It seems very possible that a survivable 'crash' could
be possible. Heading into a known wind would slow the ground
speed. The use of rudder would control heading with trim and some
power controlling the descent and airspeed. I have had many
students practice this over the years but have no knowledge of
an actual situation ending with positive results. I do suggest
that in an unknown wind situation that the pilot head south because
of the greater stability of the compass. I usually cover the HI.
In my area the location of power plants cause rising thermals and
valleys usually have 'valleys' in the top of the fog layers. All
of these give potential reference if other forms of orientation
fail.
Gene whitt
Michael
> shortwinger who swapped his out. Been flying without one so far.
It's your plane of course, but why? Are you planning on getting an
instrument rating in it? If not, I would consider it a waste of
weight and space - especially if you plan to install the stock AI
(it's huge). The plane is so stable and draggy that flying without an
AI is no harder than flying with one. The only reason it needs one
for IFR is regulation - otherwise, one electric and one vacuum T&B
would provide plenty of redundancy and arguably an easier crosscheck.
Michael
Roger Halstead
"Gene Whitt" <gwh...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:1372ffa7.02103...@posting.google.com...
> Y'All,
> Thank you Julian. I have been using the technique for years
> in my flight program without knowing the true background.
> In my use of it I have made the pilot with limited experience
> realize that at some point he may be 'trapped' above a California
> fog layer that extends the entire breathe and length of the
> Central Valley. This condition happens at least once every year.
>
> Teaching 'handsoff' is pretty basic to the way I teach flying.
> 'Fingers on'is where I start my students and I try to keep them
> unless-handsoff' is used as a attitude/trim check. I have found
> the Piper PA-28 an excellent aircraft to go through the descent
> process. It seems very possible that a survivable 'crash' could
> be possible.
The PA 28 may have a relatively steep descent, but it'll set right there
rock solid with a fairly slow forward speed and with a bit of power the rate
of descent isn't bad either.
Many years ago (20 some) In the 172 I was taught the power back and ease the
trim to full up with at least partial flaps.
(I no longer remember the flap setting)
>Heading into a known wind would slow the ground speed.
This too I was taught
>The use of rudder would control heading with trim and some power
controlling the descent and airspeed.
It's been so long, that it is hazy now, but I think I was told to pick a
heading, set up a glide, or with slight power and just keep the wings level
> students practice this over the years but have no knowledge of
> an actual situation ending with positive results. I do suggest
> that in an unknown wind situation that the pilot head south because
> of the greater stability of the compass. I usually cover the HI.
> In my area the location of power plants cause rising thermals and
> valleys usually have 'valleys' in the top of the fog layers. All
> of these give potential reference if other forms of orientation
> fail.
>
Here a valley is over a 100 miles long and wide and only a 100 or so feet
deep.
I'd point south if I didn't know the winds around here at that is where all
the large farms are located with it being pretty well wooded to north.
My Deb is pretty difficult to trim hands off, yet at the recurrency training
we had the thing trimmed for steep turns...the 60 degree kind. It went
around three times with less than 10 feet variation. The instructor
emphasized he did not recomend trimming for steep turns like we were doing,
but he wanted to see if the plane was capable of doing it. He said he sees
very few Bos tht can be trimmed hands off in steep turns. It can be
trimmed for steep turns, but is very difficult to trim for hands off in
straight and level flight. Close, but the longest I've been able to leave
the controlls untouched has been about 2 minutes.
However in a descent (as if on final) at 80 with about 14 inches of MP it
will come down rather slowly just keeping the wings level using the TC to
stay straight. IF you can ignore your "seat of the pants" feed back.
One problem is that in the old Debonairs the trim is *very* coarse. Some
where around S# CD 64 they changed the trim to one much easier to handle.
>
One other problem with the Bo is that power off for landing is 90 MPH and
that is a wee bit fast for coming in through the trees and other hard, sharp
stick like things. You might make it at 80, or even 75 MPH if lightly
loaded and a smooth ride, but it will take a fair bit of power of power to
keep the rate of descent from going too high..
That leaves you with the choice of either high forward speed or a high rate
of descent in the Bo. At least with the slow, powered high rate of descent
you can flare if you break out prior to impact. Actually you can slow the
thing down into the 60s if lightly loaded, but it then becomes a handfull to
control and would not be the thing to do for someone not instrument
proficient.
BUT being as this is about trainers both the Cherokee 180 (PA28-180) and the
Cessna 172 behave very well in this situation.
However if I got caught up on top, I'd head for the nearest good weather.
(if I had enough gas to get there and the given that the central part of the
country is flat for many states in pretty much any direction) There is
nothing that says I have to land before the airplane tells me it ain't gonna
fly any more.
--
Roger Halstead (K8RI EN73)
www.rogerhalstead.com
N833R World's oldest Debonair? (S# CD-2)
>
> Gene whitt
mike regish
really need it, but it will be nice to have primarily for night flight.
I have been averse to heading to the west at night because there are
very few lights on the ground. I've also been over water in 3 to 5 miles
vis and during the climbout I have only one reference for down and that
is out my side window. At times when the water is calm and there are no
boats it gets kind of hairy. Considering that weight is not really an
issue for me, the extra ~4 pounds is inconsequential. I can also
participate in the Wings program, not that I couldn't have without it,
but all I have is the one needle and ball and my DG doesn't work. I
could keep it upright with the instruments I have, but I wouldn't want
to have to deal with any unusual attitudes if I got hit with vertigo.
The magnetic compass can be confusing enough without vertigo in certain
situations. Then there's the fact that it will enhance the value of the
plane, though probably not by much. There are a lot of people who have
expressed the feeling that they would be uncomfortable without an AI.
Add to this that I only paid $70 for the AI and DG and it's worth it to
me. Installation shouldn't bee too bad. My A&P is more familiar with the
plane now and has a restoration going on a TP himself.
Then there's the simple factor that it's another neat gizmo to look at.
mike regish
Michael
> really need it, but it will be nice to have primarily for night flight.
> I have been averse to heading to the west at night because there are
> very few lights on the ground. I've also been over water in 3 to 5 miles
> vis and during the climbout I have only one reference for down and that
> is out my side window. At times when the water is calm and there are no
> boats it gets kind of hairy.
Yes, those are all valid reasons for needing basic instrument skills
and equipment for night and marginal VFR flight. I have no issue with
any of that. My issue is with the particular piece of equipment.
> Considering that weight is not really an
> issue for me, the extra ~4 pounds is inconsequential. I can also
> participate in the Wings program, not that I couldn't have without it,
> but all I have is the one needle and ball and my DG doesn't work.
In a TriPacer, I would consider a DG far more useful than an AI.
> Add to this that I only paid $70 for the AI and DG and it's worth it to
> me. Installation shouldn't bee too bad. My A&P is more familiar with the
> plane now and has a restoration going on a TP himself.
You can probably do the installation yourself. Do you have a vacuum
pump? If not I recommend a venturi (they're cheap and simple and
canbe installed on your boot cowl). Is the turn coordinator electric?
If not, the venturi driving it will almost certainly not be able to
handle three gyros.
Most of the labor is in putting the stuff into the panel. Be aware -
the old AI is not a 3 1/8 istrument - it's 3 5/8.
> Then there's the simple factor that it's another neat gizmo to look at.
Can't argue with that...
Michael
highflyer
>
> The only question in my mind - if the study was done in 1954, why did
> it take DECADES to add instrument training to the private pilot
> curriculum???
>
It was added to the private pilot curriculum in 1955! The old pilots
license was modified to include a "blue seal" in the upper left corner.
The "blue seal" indicated that the holder had basic instrument training
before receiving the private pilot certificate. Starting in the mid
fifties, you could not any longer be certified as a "private pilot" in
the US without some instrument training logged. It required
demonstration of the "180 degree turn" on instruments and recovery from
unusual attitudes under the hood. :-)
--
Highflyer
Highflight Aviation Services
highflyer
>
> Teaching 'handsoff' is pretty basic to the way I teach flying.
> 'Fingers on'is where I start my students and I try to keep them
> unless-handsoff' is used as a attitude/trim check. I have found
> the Piper PA-28 an excellent aircraft to go through the descent
> process. It seems very possible that a survivable 'crash' could
> be possible. Heading into a known wind would slow the ground
> speed. The use of rudder would control heading with trim and some
> power controlling the descent and airspeed. I have had many
> students practice this over the years but have no knowledge of
> an actual situation ending with positive results. I do suggest
> that in an unknown wind situation that the pilot head south because
> of the greater stability of the compass. I usually cover the HI.
> In my area the location of power plants cause rising thermals and
> valleys usually have 'valleys' in the top of the fog layers. All
> of these give potential reference if other forms of orientation
> fail.
>
One of my commercial ground school students ran out of gas above a layer
at night in a Cessna 182, many years ago. He was about ten miles south
of Windsor Locks Airport in Springfield, Connecticut. That part of the
valley is known locally as "Tobacco vally" because all of the farms
there grow "shade grown" tobacco for cigar wrappers. All of the fields
have tall poles every few feet to support the cheesecloth canopy they
use to provide the "shade" to the tobacco crop.
When his engine quit, he remembered what I had taught him. He lowered
the flaps, trimmed the airplane for a 65 mph descent and let go of the
yoke. He used rudders to control direction and descended into the
underlying cloud layer. He broke out in the dark at about 300 feet AGL
over mountainside. He continued the descent hands off and struck a
descending forested hillside. It ripped the wings off the airplane and
rolled it into a ball, totalling the aircraft. There were four people
aboard. The only injury was the pilot, who snagged his arm of a jagged
edge of aluminum while exiting the wreckage and get a bad scratch. At
least that one time, in my experience, the technique worked and worked
well. :-)
Orval Fairbairn
wrote:
Actually, it wasn't until about 1961 or 1962. I got my ticket in 1960,
and it didn't have the blue seal yet. We DID have some instrument
training, but mainly just enough to press home the inadvisavility of
getting into clouds.
--
To get random signatures put text files into a folder called "Random Signatures" into your Preferences folder.
mike regish
Michael wrote:
>
> In a TriPacer, I would consider a DG far more useful than an AI.
Me too, but the price was right on the AI. Free. ;-) Especially this AI
as it is the all black style that really doesn't give an instantaneous
clue as to up and down like the modern blue over brown ones.
>
> > Add to this that I only paid $70 for the AI and DG and it's worth it to
> > me. Installation shouldn't bee too bad. My A&P is more familiar with the
> > plane now and has a restoration going on a TP himself.
>
> You can probably do the installation yourself. Do you have a vacuum
> pump? If not I recommend a venturi (they're cheap and simple and
> canbe installed on your boot cowl). Is the turn coordinator electric?
> If not, the venturi driving it will almost certainly not be able to
> handle three gyros.
I have a vacuum pump and my T&B is electric. I also need (or should
install anyway) a vacuum gage, but those are pretty cheap. I'm assuming
I would need to do the installation with my A&P's supervision. I would
do that anyway, but it's required by the regs, no?
>
> Most of the labor is in putting the stuff into the panel. Be aware -
> the old AI is not a 3 1/8 istrument - it's 3 5/8.
I have a hole in the panel already. I'm pretty sure it's the right size.
mike regish
highflyer wrote:
> He was about ten miles south
> of Windsor Locks Airport in Springfield, Connecticut.
Close. That would have been Bradley Airport (don't know if it was always
called that) in Hartford Connecticut (Windsor Locks, CT. actually).
Springfield is in Mass a few miles north of Bradley. Pretty close to
home for me. :-) I really believe that we're the "Springfield" referred
to in the Simpsons.
mike regish
Michael
> license was modified to include a "blue seal" in the upper left corner.
> The "blue seal" indicated that the holder had basic instrument training
> before receiving the private pilot certificate. Starting in the mid
> fifties, you could not any longer be certified as a "private pilot" in
> the US without some instrument training logged. It required
> demonstration of the "180 degree turn" on instruments and recovery from
> unusual attitudes under the hood. :-)
But wait - I know lots of people who got their tickets 30-40 years ago
who claim to have never been under the hood, and could not be because
they flew no-gyro airplanes. Someone doesn't have his story right.
Michael
Michael
>
> Me too, but the price was right on the AI. Free. ;-) Especially this AI
> as it is the all black style that really doesn't give an instantaneous
> clue as to up and down like the modern blue over brown ones.
Actually, those are great AI's. They can be read with greater
accuracy, and they're bulletproof. They need to be overhauled every
so often, but that can be done with very simple tools. If I had room
in the panel of my twin, that's what I would have.
> I have a vacuum pump and my T&B is electric.
Then you're golden.
> I also need (or should
> install anyway) a vacuum gage, but those are pretty cheap.
Especially if you buy one at a fly market. Easy to test - suck on it,
plug the tube with the tip of your tongue, and see if it holds
pressure and if the needle deflects.
> I'm assuming
> I would need to do the installation with my A&P's supervision. I would
> do that anyway, but it's required by the regs, no?
Yes - but it's such a simple process that many A&P's will be happy if
you just spend a few minutes talking about what you plan to do, and
then show them what you did when you are done. It's not the kind of
thing where you can easily make an error that is hard to find later.
Michael
highflyer
>
> highflyer <high...@alt.net> wrote:
>
> >That part of the
> >valley is known locally as "Tobacco vally" because all of the farms
> >there grow "shade grown" tobacco for cigar wrappers. All of the fields
> >have tall poles every few feet to support the cheesecloth canopy they
> >use to provide the "shade" to the tobacco crop.
>
> selected what appeared to be a beautiful flat field, if
> oddly colored. The "field" was the top of the cheesecloth
> canopy. Fortunately, he managed to scrape away and didn't
> get to put his poor field selection skills to the ultimate
> test.
>
Oh, that would have been a NASTY surprise! Make a perfect landing on
top of the cheese cloth only to fall through into a forest of evenly
spaced poles.
That is like my friend here who landed his Stearman on the "grass"
runway at night. He discovered that he had missed the grass and made a
perfect landing on the tassels of a field of ten foot high corn! He
said those tassels looked exactly like grass in the light from his
wingtip strobes. He didn't have a landing light. No one was hurt but
it sure messed up the airplane when it fell into the corn and went over
on its back.
highflyer
Actually he landed at Bradley, low on fuel. It was midnight and there
was no one on the field at Bradley. He forced his three passengers back
in the plane and they took off at night with a low overcast to fly the
few miles north to Windsor Locks at Springfield, Mass. Made it
halfway! There was snow on the ground and that was back in the days of
seriously red dyed 80 octane avgas. The FAA investigator made a big
thing out of the fact that there was NO pink snow! He had even used the
"unuseable" fuel in that 182!
I should be able to remember that Springfield is in Mass. My wife went
to Smith College, and my daughter got he PhD at UMass at Amherst. An
old friend of mine used to run the Connecticut River Seaplane Base in
Springfield. Jake has passed away now. He was a really interesting
character. He preferred to fly nothing but Fairchild 24's on floats!
highflyer
You don't suppose I am off by a decade. It doesn't seem likely, but
then I am also at the third stage of memory loss for an aging male!
The first stage you forget names.
The second stage you forget faces.
The third stage you forget to zip up.
The forth stage you forget to zip down!
I sometimes wonder, can I still be a "depends"able pilot? :-)
RT
Julian Scarfe wrote in message ...
Good post, Julian. (Even if you are a Pom flying a Mooney :-)
Bob Chilcoat
times a night' has a whole new meaning."
--
Bob (Chief Pilot, White Knuckle Airways)
"highflyer" <high...@alt.net> wrote in message
news:3DC927EC...@alt.net...
highflyer
>
> highflyer <high...@alt.net> wrote:
>
> >Oh, that would have been a NASTY surprise! Make a perfect landing on
> >top of the cheese cloth only to fall through into a forest of evenly
> >spaced poles.
>
> from a (IIRC) chicken farm. It was apparently a perfectly
> smooth emerald green color. He thought it looked a bit too
> green when he set up the landing. It wasn't deep, and
> nothing was damaged, but he never did get the smell out.
>
> Todd Pattist
> (Remove DONTSPAMME from address to email reply.)
We had a fellow here who did that once. He was going to a strange grass
strip. He saw an algae covered borrow pit that looked just like a
runway. He landed on it. It was a good landing, but a rather short
rollout and it didn't taxi worth a darn! :-) He still gets ribbed about
it. If an emergency landing strip looks TOO nice, it probably isn't!
:-)
Dennis O'Connor
"highflyer" <high...@alt.net> wrote in message
news:3DC927EC...@alt.net...
Christopher C. Stacy
mike> highflyer wrote:
>> He was about ten miles south
>> of Windsor Locks Airport in Springfield, Connecticut.
mike> Close. That would have been Bradley Airport (don't know if it
mike> was always called that) in Hartford Connecticut (Windsor Locks,
mike> CT. actually). Springfield is in Mass a few miles north of
mike> Bradley. Pretty close to home for me. :-)
mike> I really believe that we're the "Springfield" referred
mike> to in the Simpsons.
The writers make it deliberately ambiguous which Springfield
it is -- they put in overt clues that make it seem like the
town in Massachussetts, or in Virginia near D.C., and several
other places. It's a running gag on the show. D'oh!
StellaStar
>it is -- they put in overt clues that make it seem like the
>town in Massachussetts, or in Virginia near D.C., and several
>other places. It's a running gag on the show. D'oh!
Yup -- sometimes the dialogue will even go "We're in Springfield, Oh...hi,
Flanders!"
For waaaay too much on the topic, see.
http://www.tederick.com/jasper/jo2.html
mike regish
one panel comic in a local free paper called The Valley Advocate. Might
have come from somewhere else first, but I was reading the Simpsons long
before there was ever a show.
Any of you other Springfielders read The Simpsons then?
mike regish
mike regish
mike regish
Captain Marvel
> I can't remember the thread where it recently came up but the subject of VFR
> into IMC and the "178 seconds" article frequently crops up on rec.aviation.
> ondstoLive.html
> A Google search reveals dozens of pages with variants of the article on.
> UIUC, which is cited in the article as responsible for the research, since I
> very helpful, and two days later I had a copy of the original research paper
> on my desk. Thanks to Mary and Ted there for their helpful and prompt
> response.
> The following is a summary of some key points of the paper itself, entitled
> "180-degree turn experiment" and in UI's Aeronautics Bulletin 11. I have no
> axe to grind, and I think the "178 seconds" article does a good job of
> communicating the hazards of spatial disorientation. However, some issues
> have become clouded by the "chinese whisper" effect, so this is to set the
> record straight.
> * The research was conducted at University of Illinois Institute of Aviation
> in 1954, principally by Jesse Stonecipher, the CFI.
> non-instrument rated pilots who had flown inadvertently into IMC
> trainer" as cited in the 178 Seconds article)
> those pilots who had *no* simulated or actual instrument experience (not
> "none since primary training", none at all)
> fly, as the most complex single that a non-IR pilot was likely to fly.
> of the subjects had any complex experience at all, with most of them
> recording time on Aeronca 7AC, Cessna 140 and Tri-Pacers.
> * Most of the subjects had only about 20 hours dual time, presumably the PPL
> syllabus in those days. 7 of them had less than 40 hours total.
> indicator. The AI, DG and rate of climb indicators were covered for the
> entire experiment.
> measured between the googles being placed over the students' eyes and an
> 'incipient dangerous flight condition'. For most cases this was deemed to
> be an airspeed of 185 mph or an incipient stall.
> * 19 of the 20 went into a 'graveyard spiral'. One pulled the aircraft
> into a whip-stall.
> * Times ranged from 20 seconds to 480 seconds. The average was indeed 178
> seconds
> technique (see below) that was the actual subject of the study
> * By the end of this training, the subjects had between 1.5 and 3 hours
> (mean 2 hours) simulated IF, practising the technique.
> asked to transition from cruise to slow flight, make a 180 degree turn, and
> establish a controlled descent. Each subject was tested 3 times.
> * Of the 60 trials, 59 were successfully completed. The unsuccessful one
> involved the failure to set power to maintain altitude and continued the
> descent in a way that violated the success definition. It was considered
> that control was not lost, and that if the aircraft had not become visual
> below cloud, the impact would have been survivable.
> The technique:
> Throughout, center the turn needle using the rudder.
> 1) Hands off the control column
> 2) Lower the landing gear
> 3) Reduce power
> 4) Set trim to a predetermined position for slow flight (95 mph)
> 5) Adjust prop and power for approx level flight at 95 mph
> 6) Note the compass heading
> 7) Turn using the rudder
> 8) Roll out with appropriate lead or lag
> 9) Center the turn needle
> 10) Reduce power for a controlled descent
> It was noticed that step 1 was both the most important and the most
> difficult psychologically!
> that pilots without instrument training are in big trouble if they enter
> IMC. I think the message that Stonecipher was trying to convey (and the
> result speak for itself!) is much more positive, that a little instument
> training can go a long way, even if faced with a partial panel and a complex
> aircraft.
> jul...@avbrief.com
I have found a link to the originally published study.
https://airwork.biz/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/180-Degree-Turn.pdf
Thanks for bringing up this issue. I read in one of the flying publications (Private Pilot, Flying, etc) how misquoted this study has been over the years. The intentions were well meaning to discourage VFR pilots from entering IMC, I personally do not believe instilling fear is the best route to help individuals survive an encounter with IMC.