ekimneirbo
Well-Known Member
Foolhardy or just a Calculated Risk "Have You Asked WHY"
Just pretty much completed a thread on the attributes of the Storch and Slepcev Storch STOL airplanes.
There was a lot of give and take, few potshots, and niether side gave an inch. Let me say right up front
that this is not meant to denigrate anyone. In fact, I would like to say that I have a lot of respect for
both Dan and Head in the Clouds (HITC) contributions. Both provide a lot of good information and HITC
has a very good thread on building a DooMaw. I think we all have aviations best interests at heart, but we
sometimes butt heads on what we think is best or acceptable.
Things happen for a reason. I think that the back and forth nature of the thread probably did more to make
readers aware of the differences between slips/slides and the associated perils than some flying lessons, so the
thread served a purpose...had a reason.
Another thing that "happened for a reason" was the fact that the very next day I picked up an old magazine to
read and the first thing I saw was an article "Have You Asked WHY" ? It was in the October 15 Kitplanes and
and was written by Paul Dye
While my original thought on posting the Storch thread was to point out the attributes of the airplane and elicit
discussion, my comment about the ability to remain easily controllable in a flat turn quickly became the dominant
topic. Warning were issued that it was dangerous at low altitudes. I guess our main difference is over whether flat
turns are ALWAYS dangerous or maybe an acceptable risk for a skilled pilot. I felt that the Storch was an ultra
controllable airplane at slow speeds and since the manufacturer of the airplane needed to demonstrate this ability
to potential buyers, he had to do so at low altitude at air shows. My HBA "friends" strongly disagreed and cited
"acceptable practices" did not allow for such nonsense. All well intended but a polar opposite of my views. There
were two examples of Storch pilots performing the manuever with no problem. An old factory DVD I have of the
Slepcev Storch going thru its paces demonstrates its astonishing manueverability. Let me say this, the best place
to attempt to learn a flat turn is at higher altitudes. The manuever actually serves no purpose at high altitude, but
if ever needed at low altitude, having an airplane that is capable is a big plus. I never was quite able to steer the
thread to the point I wanted to make. The benefit of having a plane capable of performing the skidding turn
without spinning comes at low to very low altitudes. The factory video demonstrates the extreme abilities of
the storch to flit about slightly above ground level where there is no room to bank a wing. This would prove
very advantageous to a pilot gliding in with a dead engine and trying to miss a tree or boulder. It could be
helpful to ranchers trying hunt pests. I'm sure there are many uses for being able to turn near the ground with
little or no wing banking. You really have to watch the factory video to appreciate it. Not all turns have to be
180 degree turns, they can just be instant swerves of 10,20,degrees. It also means that the airplane will be
ultimately stable and not drop a wing if you get too slow while landing. To me, those are the benefits of having
an airplane that can easily perform flat turns.....not just to be an exhibitionist.
Here is where it all correlates.....
In his article "Have You Asked WHY" Mr Dye talks about visiting a
manufacturing facility that makes oil coolers. During the tour he saw the assemblies going together with the
use of Teflon tape. The use of Teflon tape is not considered "accepted practice" and in fact is one of those
things that experienced airplane mechanics warn against. The reason for not using Teflon Tape is because if its
"not done properly" small pieces may become lodged in passageways and reduce or stop the oil flow. Its as
simple as "if you know what you are doing and do it properly" there is no problem. That thought kind of rings
true with everything in aviation. Tom and I have previously had "discussions" on carb icing. Applying carb
heat is the normal accepted practice. I consider a design which requires a pilot to be aware of a problem and
then take steps to correct for it, a poor design...ergo an unnecessary risk invoked on pilots. Its such a common
problem that virtually every pilot has had to deal with it either preventively while landing, or hopefully ahead
of time while flying. The nasty thing about it is that it can sneak up on a pilot because he doesn't realize that
conditions are ripe for it...when everything doesn't seem to be ripe for it. Once the carb ice has caused your
engine to stop, you may be beyond getting it restarted. While Tom and others inform me that the key to avoiding
icing problems is training and experience.....I say the key is to design an intake system that doesn't ice up...ie; a
better design . Virtually every day, some pilot somewhere has to deal with the need for carb heat to complete a
flight.....or go down trying. Many of the pilots who crash or forcibly land are experienced pilots. On the other
hand, Tom (and others) view the flat turn as an unacceptable risk, while I view it as being simply a manuever.
The manuever is no more risky than many other manuevers if done properly...in my opinion. Its odd that in
one scenario he views a problem as being acceptable and I don't, while in another situation we switch sides of
the table. I feel that an airplane with a design that allows it to perform a manuever creates no more risk to the
pilot than flying an airplane that requires extra attention to insure that it doesn't quit running. The point here is
that in both cases we get to decide what we consider a calculated risk... or Foolhardy.
I felt that Paul Dye summed it up very well and I hope some of you will hunt for your Oct Kitplanes and reread it.
Below is a rough edited /shortened version of what Mr Dye said.
The crux of what Mr Dye said was that people often do things by "rote". "You do it this way soldier because it
has always been done this way", showing them a technique we were shown years before.
"This attitude has carried on for decades as techniques were handed down from generation to generation."
"You have to understand WHY before you can understand how to fly farther,faster, (or flat turn) . Without
the WHY, we are stuck in our current place...forever.
The most profound part of the article was the statement "So instead of teaching people how to apply it
correctly and carefully, we simply tell people, "Don't use it! and don't give them the whole picture so they
can understand the risks and make their own decisions. If you apply it properly, its perfectly acceptable--
but you have to know how to do it right." Now Mr Dye was referencing the use of Teflon tape by someone
trained to do it properly, but I think the same philosophy applies to everything in aviation....including
proper use of an airplanes controls or even the application of carb heat. Its up to YOU to decide what is
a calculated risk or just foolhardy.
Just pretty much completed a thread on the attributes of the Storch and Slepcev Storch STOL airplanes.
There was a lot of give and take, few potshots, and niether side gave an inch. Let me say right up front
that this is not meant to denigrate anyone. In fact, I would like to say that I have a lot of respect for
both Dan and Head in the Clouds (HITC) contributions. Both provide a lot of good information and HITC
has a very good thread on building a DooMaw. I think we all have aviations best interests at heart, but we
sometimes butt heads on what we think is best or acceptable.
Things happen for a reason. I think that the back and forth nature of the thread probably did more to make
readers aware of the differences between slips/slides and the associated perils than some flying lessons, so the
thread served a purpose...had a reason.
Another thing that "happened for a reason" was the fact that the very next day I picked up an old magazine to
read and the first thing I saw was an article "Have You Asked WHY" ? It was in the October 15 Kitplanes and
and was written by Paul Dye
While my original thought on posting the Storch thread was to point out the attributes of the airplane and elicit
discussion, my comment about the ability to remain easily controllable in a flat turn quickly became the dominant
topic. Warning were issued that it was dangerous at low altitudes. I guess our main difference is over whether flat
turns are ALWAYS dangerous or maybe an acceptable risk for a skilled pilot. I felt that the Storch was an ultra
controllable airplane at slow speeds and since the manufacturer of the airplane needed to demonstrate this ability
to potential buyers, he had to do so at low altitude at air shows. My HBA "friends" strongly disagreed and cited
"acceptable practices" did not allow for such nonsense. All well intended but a polar opposite of my views. There
were two examples of Storch pilots performing the manuever with no problem. An old factory DVD I have of the
Slepcev Storch going thru its paces demonstrates its astonishing manueverability. Let me say this, the best place
to attempt to learn a flat turn is at higher altitudes. The manuever actually serves no purpose at high altitude, but
if ever needed at low altitude, having an airplane that is capable is a big plus. I never was quite able to steer the
thread to the point I wanted to make. The benefit of having a plane capable of performing the skidding turn
without spinning comes at low to very low altitudes. The factory video demonstrates the extreme abilities of
the storch to flit about slightly above ground level where there is no room to bank a wing. This would prove
very advantageous to a pilot gliding in with a dead engine and trying to miss a tree or boulder. It could be
helpful to ranchers trying hunt pests. I'm sure there are many uses for being able to turn near the ground with
little or no wing banking. You really have to watch the factory video to appreciate it. Not all turns have to be
180 degree turns, they can just be instant swerves of 10,20,degrees. It also means that the airplane will be
ultimately stable and not drop a wing if you get too slow while landing. To me, those are the benefits of having
an airplane that can easily perform flat turns.....not just to be an exhibitionist.
Here is where it all correlates.....
In his article "Have You Asked WHY" Mr Dye talks about visiting a
manufacturing facility that makes oil coolers. During the tour he saw the assemblies going together with the
use of Teflon tape. The use of Teflon tape is not considered "accepted practice" and in fact is one of those
things that experienced airplane mechanics warn against. The reason for not using Teflon Tape is because if its
"not done properly" small pieces may become lodged in passageways and reduce or stop the oil flow. Its as
simple as "if you know what you are doing and do it properly" there is no problem. That thought kind of rings
true with everything in aviation. Tom and I have previously had "discussions" on carb icing. Applying carb
heat is the normal accepted practice. I consider a design which requires a pilot to be aware of a problem and
then take steps to correct for it, a poor design...ergo an unnecessary risk invoked on pilots. Its such a common
problem that virtually every pilot has had to deal with it either preventively while landing, or hopefully ahead
of time while flying. The nasty thing about it is that it can sneak up on a pilot because he doesn't realize that
conditions are ripe for it...when everything doesn't seem to be ripe for it. Once the carb ice has caused your
engine to stop, you may be beyond getting it restarted. While Tom and others inform me that the key to avoiding
icing problems is training and experience.....I say the key is to design an intake system that doesn't ice up...ie; a
better design . Virtually every day, some pilot somewhere has to deal with the need for carb heat to complete a
flight.....or go down trying. Many of the pilots who crash or forcibly land are experienced pilots. On the other
hand, Tom (and others) view the flat turn as an unacceptable risk, while I view it as being simply a manuever.
The manuever is no more risky than many other manuevers if done properly...in my opinion. Its odd that in
one scenario he views a problem as being acceptable and I don't, while in another situation we switch sides of
the table. I feel that an airplane with a design that allows it to perform a manuever creates no more risk to the
pilot than flying an airplane that requires extra attention to insure that it doesn't quit running. The point here is
that in both cases we get to decide what we consider a calculated risk... or Foolhardy.
I felt that Paul Dye summed it up very well and I hope some of you will hunt for your Oct Kitplanes and reread it.
Below is a rough edited /shortened version of what Mr Dye said.
The crux of what Mr Dye said was that people often do things by "rote". "You do it this way soldier because it
has always been done this way", showing them a technique we were shown years before.
"This attitude has carried on for decades as techniques were handed down from generation to generation."
"You have to understand WHY before you can understand how to fly farther,faster, (or flat turn) . Without
the WHY, we are stuck in our current place...forever.
The most profound part of the article was the statement "So instead of teaching people how to apply it
correctly and carefully, we simply tell people, "Don't use it! and don't give them the whole picture so they
can understand the risks and make their own decisions. If you apply it properly, its perfectly acceptable--
but you have to know how to do it right." Now Mr Dye was referencing the use of Teflon tape by someone
trained to do it properly, but I think the same philosophy applies to everything in aviation....including
proper use of an airplanes controls or even the application of carb heat. Its up to YOU to decide what is
a calculated risk or just foolhardy.
Last edited:
