Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Ed Cesnalis

I'm off to Fast Eddie land

Recommended Posts

CT - Going the way Eddie went isn't a good way to go.

 

Sure, there'll always be someone somewhere who will get offended at straight-talking people (like you) and the reverse is also true - there'll be times when we get ticked off too.  As the good Lord said, 'offences must come'.

 

However, don't let offence stop you from speaking, because then you've lost and in this case, so has everyone else.

 

In my view you are among the top four or five contributors, especially because you are willing to question conventional wisdom and to defend your view.   That makes everyone look again at what they hold to be true, and that can only be a good thing.

 

I'm assuming your intended exit is over the current space exploration post, and if that's so, permit me to suggest that the issue is not one of political correctness versus freedom to speak your mind.   Rather it's a simple one of submission - the moderators want to keep NASA out of it, and all we have to do is respect that.   

 

So, in summing up, what I'm really saying is, Please don't leave!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CT...if you are still listening.  It was you and Fast Eddie's constant reminders about landing at the slowest possible speed that reminded me to work on my landings with 30 degree flaps.  

 

Someone on the forum suggested that people should not more degrees of flaps when landing than they have hours in the airplane.  Which I agree with from my experience.  But, that also does suggest that one should continue to learn new things as they gain that experience.  And you and Fast Eddie's reminders helped me do that.  

 

I rather suspect that there is little that we agree on politically.  However, should you not return, I will miss your aviation contributions to this forum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IrishAl, frfly172, Sandpiper, Tony & Rose, Doug and 2FlyAgain,

 

Thanks for the request to stay and post. Let me tell you why I don't think it will work, there are 2 reasons.

 

  • This site has a 10  year genesis as John and Tony can atest. Roger Fane, Roger Heller and me got it going.  Roger Heller took control and imposed censorship early on.  There was also a struggle and Roger Lee couldn't speak freely so this site replaced the original and one Roger replaced the other.  We just learned that posts don't have to be offensive to result in complaints and yet those posts have been stopped.  I know I don't say and post offensive things but I assume I am the source of countless complaints and I can no longer speak freely here.  An objective look reveals that left leaning posts are fine, Roger himself said today that the recent election caused heartache across the USA yet when I post that NASA will now return to Space and Aeronautics I am now deleted. I'm sure the left sees this as how it should be but I have no inclination to operate in such an enviroment  by keeping my mouth shut.  Roger gave an explanation today how the snowflakes only have to be triggered (my words) for the content to be unacceptable.  Many of you know me well enough to know I can't do that, just not in my nature.
  • Landing Flaps -  This subject without my or Eddies input has evolved from practices that were dangerous to our airplanes to ones that endanger our lives.  I've always like and admired John Hurst (sp?) and have been grateful for his input going way back. I bring him up because he brought up the concept of blaming crashes on flaps. Something to the effect of when there is a landing crash they ask the pilot why he was using 15 not zero or neg six and his answer was because he always uses 15.  My concern here is that flaps don't cause crashes, they can't and when we learn to fear them for this reason landings in winds are surely going to trend to no flaps and negative flaps.  Negative flaps (in windy conditions - doesn't mean min speed) get landings up into kinetic (kinetic + power really) energy levels that will surely lead to fatalities.  Flaps don't cause crashes and fast landings don't prevent them.  The 2nd half of that statement debunked the fly it on landings 10 years ago and has never been argued away, its just ignored.  When landing any airplane in crosswinds that include gusts the pilot has to make correct inputs and decisions to avoid a mishap. Landing without flaps doesn't change that and it doesn't eliminate or even diminish the real risk.  Whether you land at minimum speed or high speed at some point the airplane must maximize its vulnerability to the gusts.  This vulnerability occurs at or near minimum flying speed where you can't necessarily counter the gust with control inputs. If you get bit in this vulnerable zone and a mishap occurs you have committed an error in judgement.  You shouldn't have landed.  Landing fast can't fix this, you don't get to pick the timing of the gusts once you're committed and the chances of getting bit on rollout when negatively accelerating through the vulnerable zone are the same as getting bit closer to touch down in a minimum speed landing with flaps.  Conclusion: you fast landers (neg six for winds) postpone your vulnerability when you think you are diminishing it or eliminating it.  Your reward is excess kinetic energy when you do crash and now up in neg six for wind territory your increasing the likelihood of serious injuries and fatalities to both you and your passenger as well as those on the ground.

So my post above has value and should be said but after all these years I would prefer to leave than be deleted and my logic trending towards minimum speed landings with flaps is now so outnumbered that ist now like pissin into the wind. Guess the consensus wins and I'll find another outlet for my need to contribute.

 

Look me up if you land in Mammoth, might be fun to do some sight seeing in formation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Ed,

 

Not sure what NASA has to do with flaps and speed on landing? I'm not sure why if landing with full flaps and at stall puts it in a minority position why that would make any difference? There is always (usually) to skin a cat, just some people have preferences..  Like I always say it's Chevy's and Ford's. You may like one, but not the other, but they both get you to where you're going. 

 

I hope you and Erin had a nice Thanksgiving. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Roger,

 

Thanksgiving in a ski resort is all about snow.  We have the snow now but just a little too late.  Hope you and Lynn are doing well.

 

---------------------

 

I honestly wonder Roger if you have ever actually read the words I write and considered their meaning.  For the sake of this thread NASA has nothing to do with flaps.  2 reasons for quitting, isn't that obvious?  

 

1 is censorship / NASA and 2 is being the lone voice on landing with flaps.  

 

These 2 reasons are not really related.

 

Ford vs Chevy doesn't work here either.  Both have similar risks of survival.  

 

Understand that this argument has evolved bit by bit till now its the flaps fault that the pilot crashed and the same pilot is asked why he didn't use neg six.  The pilot should face that he used incorrect input and or bad judgment not that he selected a very reasonable flap setting and crashed because of it.  

 

I'm saying the community is asking for a needless fatality by perpetuating this faulty thinking.  An aspiring CT pilot could easily come away from other thread committed to landing with negative flaps when the wind blows. Neg six does not reduce risk of crashing, you cannot make your plane not vulnerable in a landing sequence you can only postpone that vulnerability but neg six does increase kinetic energy and gets the pilot more at risk of a fatality.

 

That is now way / no how a ford vs chevy argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And there are people who agree with that last statement, including myself. I seldom use full flaps because I have not spent a much time with them, but it is a goal.

I haven't quit this board because of deleted posts and criticisms from the admin. I appreciate difference of opinion, but the site felt like it had become more of a political one at times than about CTs. I appreciate what the admins have done because it is now even handed and not being constantly stirred.

Having said that, if you are determined to leave, it has been good to have your flying expertise on the forum and I wish you well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have been following this site since it started,I find it very interesting following the different opinions in landing and flying a ct. my liberty has some of the same traits as the cts.,as a matter of fact I would have purchased a ctls ,if I could fly light IFR ,in IMC conditions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand CTs points...the first regarding the NASA thread which became political because NASA became political and that was the point of the thread.   Aviation is not immune to politics.  Need more proof just look at how the 3rd Class Medical evolved or devolved dependent on your viewpoint.  And the turmoil over the Santa Monica Airport (KSMO).

 

His second point is regarding his well known advocacy for the full flap landing.  Both were not without argument and sometimes passioned disagreement.

 

Most of the aviation boards allow politics to enter in to the various conversations as long as they don't get nasty.  This one has decided to bar any discussion that is not "specifically related to LSA and Rotax"

 

But like the other aviation boards there are people commenting who get their feelings hurt and are unable to have an adult disagreement in the open.  So be it....and I believe that is the essence of CTs first point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...

 

But like the other aviation boards there are people commenting who get their feelings hurt and are unable to have an adult disagreement in the open.  So be it....and I believe that is the essence of CTs first point.

 

That's close. The issue is, that those who get their feelings hurt, even when no offense was offered, prevail. 

 

I was not censored for being offensive I was censored for touching a subject without a left slant.  That is what the snowflakes have accomplished, subjects are now taboo, that is of course unless there is a left slant.  I refer again to today's comment by Roger that the election caused heartache across the USA, he can say that freely.  What I said is tantamount to 'the election caused jubilation across the USA'.  I couldn't say that without censor because of a right slant.

 

This board reflects the USA today.  The left needs to have the right silenced or removed to free speech zones.  Discussion is banned in favor of protecting snowflakes from triggers.  This situation is completely and utterly insane but it is where we are as a country and a CT community.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"2 is being the lone voice on landing with flaps"

 

Nothing wrong with being different. I get accused of that all the time. It doesn't bother me because it works for me. Just because you may be in the minority here on flaps and stalls doesn't mean it doesn't work for you. If it works leave it alone, but some others may not have that skill set (which is most, especially while learning) and may not be the optimal choice for many. I think this came to a head because we were trying to advise a new pilot to a CT. Learning to land in steps and getting proficient at each I think might stave off a crunched landing gear over learning an experienced pilot in the CT with full flaps and stall speed. I think that may being throwing him in the deep end too soon. He has plenty of time to get there. being in a rush with a CT has cost a number of crunched gear legs.

 

This is what I have always said. There are many ways to land. Pick one and learn. Then when you are proficient there LEARN THEM ALL. Having a full mental toolbox is far better than only a one tool pilot.

 

Since we have gone from over 150+ complaints down to just two it looks like it's best we stick closer to our regular flying discussions and away fro any politically charged banter.

 

Happy and positive in the face of adversity is a sign of strength.  :) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SkyCatcherPilot, on 26 Nov 2016 - 03:30 AM, said:snapback.png

Agreed.  Anything that cast dispersion on someone's political or religious beliefs should not be allowed if you don't want to create a **** storm.

 

I think there's a lot of truth in what CT is saying.  

 

The post above (from 'Can we talk about NASA') may seem reasonable at first glance, but when you actually consider what's being said, he's really saying 'Nobody is allowed to say anything contrary to my opinion, because you'll hurt my feelings and I'm going to create a big fight that everyone will hate'.  Effectively, he's calling for an end to expressing any opinion that might offend.  

 

Most people don't want to live in such a sterile world, and that's why excessive censorship always kills things.

 

In the NASA debate, there was little to nothing that amounted to personal attacks in CT's posts - he cited opinions and arguments and referenceable sources.   And as far as I could see, he won all the arguments.

 

Sure, he might be touchy, but I have to say it was others who dragged things down to trading personal insults. 

 

In my mind, that's intolerable.

 

Censors should curb those who bite lumps out of other people, but they should also consider silencing whingers who cry foul all the time and want to throw a wet blanket on any spirited debate because it's too honest and frank for them.

 

In the long run, they're the most dangerous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No way am I going to Fast Eddie Island.  He's a vegetarian, and there will be no meat for dinner there.

 

Eddie haunts COPA and POA....he now advocates Mogas and defends the BRS chute...I remember his arguments against Mogas.  The chute is gaining acceptance now even among the naysaying old Cessna 172 drivers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You mean a good steak dinner might push Charlie Tango to a 15 degree landing?  B)  Sorry, but in all seriousness I really have enjoyed the debate about landing and flying our CT's and I will be sorry to see the debates stop.  We all learn and try new things when we see different ideas presented in a positive, spirited and constructive manner.  I also happened to really enjoy the NASA debates, just stop taking things so seriously.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guys, I'm essentially a guest here nowadays, but I've seen this before on the previous website. It turned in to an absolute nightmare in which nobody even posted threads any more. The website shut down and a group here started this one for LSA's and related questions. Please don't let this forum go down the same path! It was a very sad deal for everybody with the passing of the website owner a few years later. In other words, why can't everybody just get along and follow the rules?!? Essentially, we are all guests of the website/server owners

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CT Flier is one site on the internet.  Its owners want it to be focused on FD aircraft and closely related topics.  Taxes, Muslims, and "snowflakes" are not actually related to FD aircraft.

 

This has nothing to do with free speech nor efforts to prevent anybody from having their say.  We are all free to post on lots of sites where political discussion is welcome.  We are all free to start our own web sites where we can make up any rules we want.  Suggesting that the administrators of CT Flier are somehow diminishing anybody's rights to speech or engaging in censorship is without basis.  They are limiting the permissible topics on this site, which they own.

 

If I were to tell the Wall Street Journal or the New York Times that they have to publish my opinions or otherwise they are limiting my speech rights, I am pretty sure that they would find my claim very amusing and then simply ignore me.  If I wanted to publish an article on ways to land a CTsw in The Economist and the publisher refused, is that "censorship"?  Why is this any different?

 

FWIW, my routine landings are with 30 degrees of flaps (2006 CTsw).  I often fly 200-250 pounds below gross.  At that weight, I try to be around 50 kts on short final.  If gusty and/or with strong crosswinds, I will land with 15 degrees of flaps.  I increase my speeds by half of the gust factor no matter what the flap setting.  If flying near gross, I will land a little faster.   

 

I have about 800 hours of CT time and thousands of landings.  I used to land with 15 degree of flaps and I used to land faster.  I found that I would float down the runway or balloon with the slightest back pressure on the controls.  For me, slowing down a bit gave me more control over my landings.  I also use a lot less runway than I did when landing faster.  

 

Note that my airplane may not be the same as yours (differences in rigging, indicated airspeed, etc).  My experience is not meant to be any form of flight instruction and is presented for your information, only.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CT Flier is one site on the internet.  Its owners want it to be focused on FD aircraft and closely related topics.  Taxes, Muslims, and "snowflakes" are not actually related to FD aircraft.

 

This has nothing to do with free speech nor efforts to prevent anybody from having their say.  We are all free to post on lots of sites where political discussion is welcome.  We are all free to start our own web sites where we can make up any rules we want.  Suggesting that the administrators of CT Flier are somehow diminishing anybody's rights to speech or engaging in censorship is without basis.  They are limiting the permissible topics on this site, which they own.

 

If I were to tell the Wall Street Journal or the New York Times that they have to publish my opinions or otherwise they are limiting my speech rights, I am pretty sure that they would find my claim very amusing and then simply ignore me.  If I wanted to publish an article on ways to land a CTsw in The Economist and the publisher refused, is that "censorship"?  Why is this any different?

 

 

CT  is pointing out that narrowing the board to LSA/Rotax only cuts off potentially useful discussion rooted in the larger Aviation world.   Sure the board owners and the owners of the New York Times can restrict subject and content, he wasn't arguing with that...but doing so may also limit readership and reduce useful information.  Losing CT's and FastEddies' participation seems to be a casualty of the policy so far, but time will tell if either of them come back and find a way to contribute in the future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CT, I'll keep the flame going for "flap landings" if you leave but there's not many on the forum and it will sure be lonely around here without our "spokesman".  Just looked at my log book.  Started flying in 2010 and now have 2,500 landings in a CTSW.  That's about 350 landings each year.  About 90% have been with 40 flaps.  Hope I don't jinx myself for bringing this up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×