Info Needed, John Denver's Accident

Wed Mar 07, 2007 11:35 pm

To answer the right roll question for me at least.

I am not military trained but I have heard that most real fighter pilots always turn left rather then right if they have the opportunity. If I remember correctly the engine torque and other factors help the aircraft roll to the left and hurt the roll to the right.
A larger factor is the leverage you have moving the stick to the left rather then pulling it over to the right.
At 152 pounds that can be a factor for me.
Not having any reason to roll in either direction over the other I always roll to the left. I don't think I ever roll to the right unless someone like Bill suggests so. I seldom take an aircraft up without a roll or two as a minimum. Flew today and the backseater reminded me I hadn't rolled it yet. Truth is I wasn't planning to since he had a quadruple bypass just 2 months ago. Anyway it was to the left.

In the future I plan to decline the roll to the right request.

Wed Mar 07, 2007 11:57 pm

mgeorge is spot-on...rolling to left is preferable (in most planes at least) due to 1) torque/p-factor and 2) leverage with your arm. Just try holding an imaginary stick with your right hand, and pushing it all the way left, and then all the way right. It's much more natural to go left.

Aircraft with "wrong-way" engines (or to most Europeans, "right-way") roll better to the right. For example, a stock Tiger Moth will roll relatively smoothly to the right, but is a real bear to roll left. Same goes with power-on hammerheads - most "American" birds prefer to pivot left, most European birds right.

Thu Mar 08, 2007 12:56 am

DB2 wrote:mgeorge is spot-on...rolling to left is preferable (in most planes at least) due to 1) torque/p-factor and 2) leverage with your arm. Just try holding an imaginary stick with your right hand, and pushing it all the way left, and then all the way right. It's much more natural to go left.

Here's an explanation from the book Sierra Hotel, written by the current USAF Historian and a former F-4 and F-15 pilot (Lucky Anderegg):

Most pilots like to turn left because it is easier to push the stick left than it is to pull it right. Try this yourself. While sitting in a chair, put your right forearm on your right thigh with your fist between your knees as though you were holding a fighter stick. Now hold your right fist firmly in your left hand and push with your right fist to the left against the resistance of your left hand, then reverse it and pull with your right fist to the right. It takes less muscle to push than to pull. That's why, if at all possible, landing patterns, instrument patterns, and gunnery practice patterns are set up around left turns.

Thu Mar 08, 2007 1:10 am

I've heard that it is easier to roll left, but if the engine quits it may take a lot of effort to get the rest of the way around. It may be harder to roll to the right, but if the engine quits the sudden loss of torque will help to carry you the rest of the way around.

Can anyone with real world experience comment?

Thu Mar 08, 2007 9:39 am

a medical is a piece of paper to legally act as PIC, it does not have anything to do with making a plane fly, if he had not crashed no one would have known he was flying without one. Had he changed the fuel valve location, or filled the tanks so he did not have to switch tanks, he would still be around.

Thu Mar 08, 2007 11:20 am

Thanks for the clarification!

Thu Mar 08, 2007 11:30 am

aerovin wrote:If I as a pilot have an accident that is caused by pilot error, I hope my family doesn't sue. Nobody. Nada. How's that?

Fine, as long as you have made arrangements to provide for them adequately and your life insurance policy doesn't contain an exclusion for general aviation accidents (mine has one). I wouldn't consign my family to the welfare system just to help out the aviation industry.

And if your insurance carrier would cover the accident, have you spoken to it about not suing anyone to recover? Let us know how that conversation went.

August

Thu Mar 08, 2007 11:59 am

Somewhere recently, I believe I read or saw a TV ad that at least one life ins co does offer coverage without the pilot exclusion. My family(Dad, brother, sister,) business was life insurance,I worked there one summer, but went into finance. They had a company plane, a Beech piston twin, and my brother was one of trhe two company pilots. I don't know if they offered that ins., the co. was eventually bought out and no longer is under that name. My dad had been through the depression and was a typical conservative Southern Republican. He voted for Nixon, which he finally in later years half admitted might be wrong. Open mindednes was not his best asset. There is one thing I can say for sure; unlike the way so much business is done today; when my Father gave his word, it meant something. One didn't need a team of lawyers to get him to uphold his part.

Thu Mar 08, 2007 1:37 pm

Bill, and others: There is no need to have a policy with an aviation exclusion. Go to www.piclife.com and get a quote. (I have NO interest in the company other than having a policy thru them.)

Thu Mar 08, 2007 2:17 pm

I have no doubt that for a high enough premium it is possible to be insured for anything, and that even Allstate will give you a policy without the pilot exception if you talk to the right person and pony up the dough. Of course, economically it may make more sense to self-insure for this particular contingency, IF you have enough in the bank. My point simply was, one way or the other, let's make sure our wives and children will be able to eat before we "take one for the team" with respect to lawsuits against general aviation. Otherwise our talk is either false bravado or reckless cruelty.

August

Fri Mar 09, 2007 11:27 pm

I think the difference is sueing for the dollars only. If there is an "accident" and no one is at fault or the one at fault is poor and the owner or manufacturer is wealthy, then I believe it is wrong to sue and take the wealth of someone who did nothing other then supply a widget or gadget for an aircraft. There are lots and lots of examples of cases just like this.

I had a bad failure just yesterday and it could of killed me, IFR and the HSI failed just as I turned onto the localizer. If this would of ended differently, then I do not want my family to profit in any way from the guy who fueled the aircraft that allowed me to take off. But the fact of the matter is that if the FBO has the money they will be forced to pay. Or maybe Goodyear because they made the tires AND the brakes, or maybe Garmin because they made the gps. Any way I believe they have nothing to fear from my widow unless her new boyfriend is a fancy lawyer.

There are many more examples of this problem that hurts aviation. Ever try to get a local weld shop to do some work for you. Don't tell them it is for an airplane or they won't do it. Price out an aviation wheel bearing eighty bucks plus, but the same bearing in the same box with the same part number is thirteen bucks.

It worries me every time I hear another story of how much is collected for a real unfortunate accident, from someone who is only at fault because a dumb jury was duped into believing that fuel valve caused a prop to fall off. My only reaction is to not take anyone with me ever again.

On a lighter note a new subject for the forum could be "the best offer for a ride".
I have a bunch of stories on this subject how about Mr. Greenwood?