Don't Snap Roll A Hawker

Boris Badenov said:
I took his point to be that rolling an airplane isn't a big deal. And, at least in my VERY LIMITED EXPERIENCE IN ROLLING AIRPLANES BECAUSE IT'S OFTEN ILLEGAL, ETC ETC, it isn't a big deal. Like, ever. It's a non-event, and it should be for anyone who's even halfway competent at this aviation-appliance-operation gig. I mean I suppose there are probably airplanes that I would think would be genuinely dangerous to roll, but I'm hard-pressed to think of them right now. Maybe them Russian things that go real fast but just sit in ground effect. THAT seems like a bad idea. Almost bad enough to deserve this hilarious losing-of-poop-storm.
Click to expand...
You're dangerous.
 
hook_dupin said:
My background does't mean much here -this is entirely a judgement issue. Frankly, the most notable TPS-grad back-seater is a bat-feces crazy astronaut who drove from Houston to Orlando with a wig, diapers, a pellet gun, and rubber tubing in an attempt to kidnap a jilted lover. It's lonely at the top.
Click to expand...

Put me down for the first beer.
 
SpiceWeasel said:
I am pretty sure he stated that there is no legal precedent. So:

"Give us information."
"No."
"Okay."

You can see my pilot's certificate, but you can't touch or hold it.
Click to expand...
2013+2 and assuming that the Federal government can just waltz into private computers (excluding getting a National Security Letter, that is)...
 
Derg said:
There is no legal precedent requiring I even acknowledge an inquiry unless they have a legal document, and even at that point, I know nothing. Nothing, except my pastrami sandwich was delicious.
Click to expand...

A good pastrami is one of the greatest things in the world....except for a nice MLT, mutton, lettuce and tomato sandwich....when the mutton is nice and lean, and tomato's and ripe. They're so perky. I love that.

Richman
 
Boris Badenov said:
...it isn't a big deal.
Click to expand...

My view is opposite (obviously, right? ...or else we wouldn't be talking about hot tubs and pastrami sandwiches). Rolling an airplane (any type of roll) that was not designed to do so is a huge deal and demonstrates horrible judgement unless done under some very extenuating circumstances. It may be possible to do right, but numerous authority figures (the FAA, the company, large clients, the public, etc) would go to butt-hurt-condition-maximum if they found out that it was intentionally done. The pain a pilot would be in in trying to explain "Boss, I rolled the aircraft because __________" is highly likely to be greater than whatever generated the need to roll the airplane in the first place. I've seen this play out, which is why I'm passionate about it. The individual faced extreme anguish and likely severe financial penalty in the form of lost earnings because an authority figure went ape-dung.
 
There's some technical reasons why it's a bad idea, but I would have to dig up my glasses and velcro shoes to present those. The short version is that control margins and force gradients may be very different in the negative angle-of-attack regime than in the normal one. Most airplanes are not tested in that high-negative AOA area because there isn't a need to do so.
 
hook_dupin said:
There's some technical reasons why it's a bad idea, but I would have to dig up my glasses and velcro shoes to present those. The short version is that control margins and force gradients may be very different in the negative angle-of-attack regime than in the normal one. Most airplanes are not tested in that high-negative AOA area because there isn't a need to do so.
Click to expand...

I'm not disagreeing with that. And in a botched roll that would come into play. But if you keep the airplane with a positive load the whole way around, the airplane would never know the difference.

Edit to add. There is video floating of a Beech1900 on YouTube doing a 4 point roll. I'd imagine if the pilot hadn't kept a positive load on it, the first thing noticed would have been fuel starvation.
 
hook_dupin said:
The individual faced extreme anguish and likely severe financial penalty in the form of lost earnings because an authority figure went ape-dung.
Click to expand...

Oh, if it sounded like I was suggesting that an (or probably any) authority figure would not be unhappy about it, I definitely misrepresented myself. Retracted, retracted, a thousand times retracted!

hook_dupin said:
Most airplanes are not tested in that high-negative AOA area because there isn't a need to do so.
Click to expand...

For my part, I was thinking more of a barrel roll, here. Can't say what the HERETIC WHO SHALL BURN BURN BURN was thinking of.
 
JeppUpdater said:
This reminded me of an old video I hadn't seen in years that I will share for everyone's enjoyment:



Because Africa.
Click to expand...


The 4 point roll was done by the same guys. Let me look for it real quick.

Here it is, towards the end.


I wouldn't exactly go out doing this, and I'm not condoning it, but damn, it's pretty cool, all be it pretty sloppy.
 
Last edited:
This whole discussion comes down to the difference between "can" and "should." Can a pilot execute a roll in a non-aerobatic airplane? Sure. Should a pilot execute a roll in a non-aerobatic airplane? Well...

I recall learning a long time ago that a hallmark of a "professional" is somebody who does the right thing even when nobody is looking.
 
Boris Badenov said:
This would probably be the wrong place to post something from someone who shall remain nameless' (but whose name begins with a "G" and ends with an "ulley") facebook feed, wouldn't it?
Click to expand...
Isn't it bad enough that because you piss and moan about being a captain again, I had to CX my flight home and now have to fly with "that guy". Go ahead, be a guy* I hate you, you guy*. I have pictures, too... :)
 
Last edited:
This thread:

"Derg's gonna get subpoenaed!"

"I don't think so!"

"Yes he is!"

"No he aint"

Rinse… Repeat.

How I got wrapped up in someone doing dingleberryish stuff with airplanes is fully beyond me.
 
DPApilot said:
Isn't it bad enough that because you piss and moan about being a captain again, I had to CX my flight home and now have to fly with "that guy". Go ahead, be a dick. I hate you, you creepy little pale man. I have pictures, too...


:)
Click to expand...
I know that you guys know each other and are just joking around, and probably most of the regular users here know that too, but I also have to keep in mind that there are probably hundreds of people that will read your post and not know the background. Therefore I'm going to ask you not to call someone a dick nor a creepy old man, simply to keep with the general rules of the site.

Makes things much easier the next time I am working with someone that is truly worked up about something (probably inconsequential) and uses that very same phrase.

[/that guy mode]
 
SteveC said:
I know that you guys know each other and are just joking around, and probably most of the regular users here know that too, but I also have to keep in mind that there are probably hundreds of people that will read your post and not know the background. Therefore I'm going to ask you not to call someone a dick nor a creepy old man, simply to keep with the general rules of the site. Makes things much easier the next time I am working with someone that is truly worked up about something (probably inconsequential) and uses that very same phrase. [/that guy mode]
Click to expand...
I understand.

But you're the one who called him a creepy old man, not me!

:)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top