Відео

Thanks, Scott & Kevin for showing us what is on the horizon. 😂.

This is Kevin Price from the Air Force Research Lab who is in this video with Scott. At the upcoming EAA AirVenture I will be giving a daily presentation on this topic for which you can obtain WINGS credit. You can find us in the International Federal Pavilion, Hangar D. Please stop by to talk or to hear the presentation.

Wow, GCAS is impressive, and I could see something similar for GA being a big safety benefit, and not just in ground collision avoidance but in all flight regimes and especially IFR approaches. I'm here in Salem Or. at the home of Garmin Aviation products development division and know some people there, and I might be able to facilitate exploring any interest between Garmin and the military, if the Air Force might be open to helping out with GA related systems?

Does this guy really know what he’s talking about?? I have my doubts

@bombsaway6340 This is Kevin Price who was in the video with Scott. Just wanted to offer a response to your comment. The best and initial focus could/should be on an all envelope return to level flight mode. This could be done in pretty much any aircraft with an autopilot. The hurdle is not that great. Software limits for autopilot engagement need to be removed and servo authority up to at least 2g's (3 would be best) needs to be supported. This would allow a pilot who is in trouble...e.g., inverted 20 degs nose low...to push a button and have the autopilot return the aircraft to level flight. Few if any autopilot systems can do that...but they could. Watch again the Pilot Activated Recovery System (PARS) demo beginning at 24:00 .

Very cool.

Scott, this is a great video! Its only a question of time and this technology will positively affect GA. It may not start out at the same level as the USAF has now, but it will move in that direction. Thanks for taking us along and showing what is saving pilot's lives.

Love to see something like this this for general aviation. Of course, this would only work on very sophisticated aircraft, ones with state of the art autopilots, with the addition of auto throttles. Great video,

Brilliant segment Scott! I'd love to see more Sim content and a push for Sim Development and training, as it's still a much underutilized training and proficiency aid, and relevant and needed today as operational costs are higher than ever and seems to be marginalizing the amount of actual proficiency and training. 20+ years ago ventured into a Simulator development and spent hundreds of hours designing, building and flying simulator prototypes for GA airplanes (IFR-Multi) training, Airline procedural training and Rotorcraft, and that stick time in the Sims was the most cost effective and beneficial, mostly as I could train at levels and in scenarios that pushed beyond what was possible in actual aircraft cost and safety wise. My design and market plan back then was more towards systems affordable at personal and small aviation communities like flying clubs, FBOs and even beneficent pilots and enthusiasts dedicated to inspiring interest in aviation, training and proficiency. My prototype sims used three computer projectors very similar to the GCAS sim here and used walls or screens that could be quickly set-up in a hanger, office or event, and popular with some local pilots and people interested in venturing into aviation. However, I found some CFIs adverse to Simulators who scoffed and denigrated the notion of simulators for training and to inspire more to learn to fly and progress. I suspect that was because they were not for-thinking enough to look at the long term benefit, and only saw simulators as cutting into their revenue stream. When A friend and a long time CFI with more students who did not have time to adequately train a customer who purchased his first airplane from me, and was desperately needing an instrument rating, I let him use my prototype Multi-engine prototype training sim. He spent 30+ hours with his IFR training manuals and a little guidance a local ATP friend astounded his over-loaded CFI when he finally started IFR training in the aircraft. When his CFI learned he had been self-learning in the Sim he dumped him and harshly chastised me for allowing him to use the sim saying simulators made dangerous pilots. I strongly disagreed and tried to argue the point to no avail. While I would agree low-cost, non-motion simulators are not a substitute for actual, real-world, in-aircraft training and practice when used as a adjunct under professional supervision in combination with actual flight time I think most would agree Simulators are invaluable now more than ever. A personal case-in point was in a Helicopter simulator I built using a cyclic and collective form a wrecked Huey. I asked a friend 'Frank', a military rotorcraft CFI helped to fly it as I thought something was wrong with the design and controls and dynamics as I was not able to hover or fly it at all, but straight off Frank flew it perfectly! He said; :This is dammed near like flying a real thing you are just trying to fly it like an airplane", and in about an hour he had me hovering and getting up and down. After about 100hours in that Sim Frank arraigned a flight in an Enstrom F28 with a CFI whom he I had the basics down but did not mention it was in a sim, and on a gusty day with with sweaty palms with a little aid I managed a pick-up, and about an hour of hover, departures, landings and even an auto, after which Frank asked "How'd he do?" the CFI said "pretty good, his hover is about an 8 on a 10 so I'd pass him on that, but he needs to work on Autos and to get familiar with the helicopter" Frank asked "how much time would you say he has?", the CFI said "Oh maybe 20-30 hours?" Frank said "that's the first time he's flown a helicopter!" the CFI though was a joke and said "IMPOSSIBLE!" Frank laughed and confessed "he built a Sim with real controls in his hanger and he taught himself on that". The CFI said "I want to see it, if it's it's that good I'll buy one and keep it busy!"

Great job using your visibility to highlight not only the current Air Force safety technologies but for heightening public awareness about how this might port over to GA.

Fascinating technology. Keeping people alive, in spite of themselves. When you can customize the system to your aircraft by just changing basic settings; max speed, max G preferred clearance, etc, it will be the thing to have.

We have a Husky A1C on Amphibs. It had a MT 3 blade when I bought it. At 400 hours the prop leaked and worped. MT did absolutely for us, and we bought a Trailblazer. MT treated us like shit.

This is a really informative presentation, Scott. Bravo Zulu.

Don't forget the lake! On water landing have a much higher survival rate than trying to get back to a airport. There was a lake right next to that airport. There are a lot of lakes in mountainous terrain.

Excellent, I just subscribed.

Undocking Gemini 8 with a stuck thruster was Pilot Error. Flying your Panther into a wire was Pilot Error. Flying the X-15 out of the flight profile was Pilot Error. Getting your T-33 stuck in a muddy lakebed was Pilot Error. Ejection from the LLTV was an avoidable error. 1202 and 1201 alarms were LM Pilot error. Of the 3 aboard Apollo 11, Armstrong had the LEAST spaceflight experience. Aldrin had an aerospace doctorate. Armstrong had a bachelor's. Collins was a TPS grad. Armstrong never attended any test pilot school (not until the 1970s, AFTER he got back from the Moon). Every other spaceflight commander throughout Mercury, all throughout Gemini, right up until the end of Apollo was a TPS graduate. Not him. One approach to history is to remember it accurately. Not to distort it. Compare: "Ringo isn't the best drummer in the world. He isn't even the best drummer in the Beatles." Arguments could likewise be made that both Aldrin and Collins were better qualified to command Apollo 11, with either of them being the one to take that First Step. Schirra, Stafford, Young, Conrad and Lovell likewise had FAR MORE spaceflight experience than Armstrong. (Let alone others like Gordon and Cernan.) If you set the criteria for the astronaut to do that first landing by selecting the one with the most experience, having made the least near-fatal errors, there were PLENTY ahead of Neil Armstrong. Let's try to maintain clear perspective on why Neil was chosen. It was NOT because he was the most experienced astronaut who had made the fewest errors. Neil Armstrong, the best pilot you ever saw? A strong argument can be made that he was not even in the top half of his astronaut class (behind Young, Conrad, Lovell and Stafford, with McDivitt and Borman likewise having loads more spaceflight experience than him). Nor the best choice within his own crew. Along with having far more spaceflight experience and far more education, Buzz had also shot down two MiGs in Korea. Where Neil flew ground attack, and ejected after flying into an obstacle he failed to see and avoid.

I would turn off the ESP protection and try again in smooth air. I have the same GFC500 with ESP. It is messing with your experiment.

Great video 👍👍

Flying in a B-25 from Las Vegas to the Grand Canyon...who can ask for more!

Interesting video as per usual. I only saw 2 green indicated during the last approach in the video. Please explain. Thanks.

Thank you so much for getting back to me and I will certainly view your video on accelerated stalls. I thought you were very polite with your "imperfect understanding"; I fully accept that and it's always good/vital to have such an understanding made as perfect as possible. I loved your videos on VMC accidents and the physics involved. Really scary stuff and so worthwhile to know.

anyone hear the cause of the engine failure (& smoke) on this one?

As an instructor I'd intentionaly pop a door to give a student that experience, and also leave the non-metal part of the seat belt hanging outside to get that banging distraction. nice post Scott

Please, just keep doing what your doing. Love it! I LEARN SOMETHING with every video; just what you're looking for.

A side note after this accident they needed another vocalist in a hurry and Bobby Vee lived I think in Fargo ND at the time, and was available to stand in for the Moorehead concert. This got him started and launched his career as a vocalist. I used to be a railroad engineer now retired. Locomotives and signaling have also improved substantially since 1959, trains are much safer and use less fuel. Thank you for publishing this informative video.

You're too nice about this.

My experience thermaling some gliders is that at steep banks (say 60) you counter the roll instability with high side rudder. It amazed me at the amount of cross controlling I would have to do. It varies a lot with bank angle.

Now I see it. The concerns about icing ( no flaps) and the runway surface (don't land long) put the big squeeze on. Her worries about those conditions may have overrode her concerns about the stacks. She didn't want to be high.

This is the third flight I know of, that had the flight number 182, that met an unfortunate fate. The others: Pacific Southwest flight 182 in San Diego in 1978 and the bombing of Air India flight 182 over the Atlantic in 1985. Another "bad" flight number ? 191- or some combination of the numbers 1 and 9.😮

See this video I did with an Extra 300L: ua-cam.com/video/a4gRbpSoiLs/v-deo.htmlsi=wdIP6oE3-uNat72E

Scott, I do the initial in my RV 7 at home base. I have done the initial in our CE560 to do exactly what you said, mix with traffic an get set. Works well when needed and the people understand the procedure. Problem is there are pilots that have difficulty with a normal pattern entry. So there is that….

G'day Scott, Well, um...; while I can understand how "Normal" the Overhead-Break may Feel..., For people who have retired from Military Flying....; To be honest, it makes about as much actual "Sense"..., in the Randomly unscheduled and wildly Overcrowded Skies of General Aviation in the USA, Today...; As if some old Bush-Pilot featuring Whiskers growing out of their Earholes showed up at Sydney's Kingsford-Smith International Airport, Expecting to come on down and "Drag the Runway" by flying the length in Ground-Effect, dipping their Mainwheels on the Bitumen to Test if the Surface might be able to Actually take the Weight when eventually touching down..., "Because that's how I Learned to do it, when landing at an unfamiliar Location, Before committing to putting the Aeroplane's Weight onto the Ground... ; And That IS what's advised in the Beaver's Training Manual/Op's Procedures Handbook ; so it definitely isn't illegal...!". It's not Quite The Aeronautical equivalent of Sovereign CitiZen-ism ; But, perhaps, maybe the days when such old-fashioned, "Once Were Warriors..." type Displays of how things Used to be done, Once upon a time..., Would be well-regarded, Have all gone away...; And now instead of being admired for Your ("trademark"...?) Crisp, clean, no-nonsense "Overhead-Breaks"...; You may well find yourself being berated for, "Buggaring-up the Flight-Paths of every other Aircraft within the Circuit, by persistantly insisting on making NON-STANDARD Approaches...; Which Confuzzlicates all the poor silly little Plasticated Norms..., who now constitute the Majority Of Humanity...., and so Therefore whatever they decide is to be "Normalised" is Whatever we will be expected to Fit in with... Because, Confused Norms Trying to fly on Autopilot, and/or Trying to fly Like an Autopilot ; Are wildly Dangerous Norms, because they've been Trained to expect Predictability, Rather than Originality... Welcome to Growing Old, mate... The Thymes They be A' Changeling...! On a happier topic... Regarding the old question of the actual viability of DIFFERENT Ways of attempting the Legendary infamous Turning Of Impossibility... A delightful Englishman has a YT Channel named, "Flying For Fun - Trecanair" And this morning I watched his latest Upload, "Aeronca C3 - The Impossible Turn ?" He Demonstrates how to do it, the Orthodox way, from 300 ft, taking about a minute at minimum Sink-Rate of 350 Ft/Minute and that would never work... But, by poking his Nose down to 45° below the Horizon, & rolling on 45° of Bank...; on-camera he did 180° around the Aximuth in 15 Seconds with maybe 120 ft of Height-Loss... And he repeated the manoeuvre, going both ways. It's what he says he has done In real life, when his Ancient JAP Engine has gone quiet on him on Takeoff. "Nose-DOWN, ROLL in & TURN HARD..., ROLL Out, Pull Out, Line-up, Flare..., & Touch-down...." Or, Words to that effect. Rather than trying to "Conserve Height"..., while gliding, and turning, in a Powered Aeroplane which has suddenly gone silent when climbing away from the Runway... I suspect that, while the actual Heights, Airspeeds, Sink-Rates & Degrees per Second going around the Azimuth Card will vary...; his recipe of a 45° Dive with 45° of Bank will Either Return one to the Runway recently departed... Or Demonstrate the Impossibility of reaching that Goal - and Highlighting the pressing NEED to raise the Nose above the Horizon And Flare before Arriving Short of the Runway - but with Wings level, not stalled, not Spinning, and still Under Control at Impact... I like his thinking... And, what's your Take..., on Leaving Lockable Tailwheels Unlocked, while alighting in Big Old Conventional Taildragging Multi-Engined Hairygoplanes ? As much of a "No-no-NO..!" At least, as it would be, To go Taking off with Full Landing-Flaps Selected ? Perhaps ? That man Dan, Appears to be On a very Bad trajectory.... The Cornfield Inversion was a Walkaway event. The Tree beside the Runway Meant Multiple Fractures & Concussion... Bad Shit Cometh, generally, In dollops of Three, y'see...; So the Next time he may well be Transferred to the Daisy Up-pushing Brigade, It kinda seems, to me... Which is a worry. But the Choices are all His to Make. Such is life, Have a good one... Stay safe. ;-p Ciao !

Very good. thanks

As always...good review. I'm glad he didn't hurt anybody. He failed everybody he put in danger, and made the rest of us look bad.

so, I’m wondering what the difference between this and when you teach others on spins in your aircraft. what about this configuration causes you to have caution? thanks.

Quality!!!

Did this in training in the Navy as a Flight Surgeon, works great in a low wing aircraft but the runway is blocked out by the wing in high wing aircraft such as C182rg I fly now.

An actual engine failure at high altitude above an airport will put the pilot in exactly this position: the need to execute a series of descending 360 turns to enter the downwind leg of the (emergency) landing pattern. Well worth practicing!

It's a great manuever and fun to watch. I once saw a C141 do a 360 overhead at Osan AB, Republic of Korea from the flightline. As a student pilot at the Lowry AFB aero club, my instructor and I called it a day early once when we heard the tower at Buckley AFB (ANGB in 1973) repeat a call with a mass arrival of 25 F100s over the tower VHF channel. We taxied over to the tower and watched the show from there... the 120th TFS was returning from a deployment to Nellis.

At your age you should stick to trucks, sports cars are for kids, and with all the accidents young idiots get into they shouldn't be driving, flying, sports cars either.

Thanks Scott for the discussion and demonstration.

Good video, hope people watch it. I’ve been asked twice this year which (instrument) approach im doing when I call my initial.

I love reading the haters comments

4:03 hahaha Scott my man! “We’re gonna do a shallow turn because we are going so slow.” “Don’t need more than 45º bank here.” 😂 Awesome airmanship. We are lucky to have access to your experience.

This is very informative but, fire your video editor. The music and change of volume is painful to my ears.

Joining upend is a standard common manoeuvre for circuit entry! This procedure should NOT be promoted, you are creating a danger situation as normal pilots would be doing it as taught🤮 If you are that close to landing as in short final mixture should already be rich, a go-around is a busy time so it’s just a confirmation it’s full rich!

I’ve watched the Navy trainers fly this pattern over my house for years. The Blue Angels do it too, one after the other and it’s super cool. Every Sunday evening during the summer the Blues come in from their weekend airshow at high speed over the field and break one at a time out of formation into the landing circle. I never get tired of living under the downwind.

Hmm very interesting method. Might take an instructor with military experience and practice this. That descent rate from high key is a bit much for me though 1000fpm+ 😮

on a paraglider i'll test how fast it penetrates into wind up at altitude so it isnt a surprise on finals.i set up to land near the threshold.ground effect might mean i travel further than up high..paragliders have the benefit of being able to bleed off altitude with brakes or small turns

I agree about the curved approach. Rectangles not useful. I don't agree about cutting into downwind from overhead. It's unexpected in GA and that's not good.