We do not have an aft galley - our plane has the Sierra interior with a 3-person bench (well one must be a small child but it's belted) in the rear and 2-place divan behind the copilot. The rear bench is shifted back quite a bit from stock and it REALLY opens on the club area - legroom is fantastic. There is still room behind the bench for luggage but the lav moves to the seat opposite the door. Yes, it is emergencies only as everyone will be in your business if you have to use it. But a 501 is typically only a 3-hour bird so have not had an issue. We've only used it once on the way back from KSAV fighting insane headwinds. Had to pull the power back and it took like 4 hours. But it was just our family and it was dark so all was fine. Plus our plane is a family truckster so everyone on board is a friend or family (and I tell everyone before they board that if you use the potty then you are emptying it). Plus if you do use the potty it so nice just bringing it straight out the door instead of from the back of the cabin.

We have the refreshment center behind the pilot and we use the heck out of the 4 drawers and the little tabletop. The bottom right holds my Garmin manuals and spares like bulbs, static wicks, etc. The others we use for the Smelleze, trash bags (we leave the upper left one empty with an open trash bag and that is the trash can for the flight), snacks, bottles of water, etc. Even the sliding door where the coffee pot used to go holds our paper towels. Behind the tabletop are the little squares to hold the liquor bottle, we use that space to hold charging cables and other loose stuff. Our headset cases go in the overhead cabinet. The little drawer that was meant to hold coffee stirrers, cream, and sugar we use to hold little things like Tylenol/Advil packets and such.

It could certainly be redesigned to be more efficient with space (for example the spring-loaded cup dispenser is a waste) but if we took it out I have no idea where all that stuff would go. I understand in the 560 there is a small cabinet behind the copilot that could work for that but I don't have that cabinet.

He started yelling the moment the stall broke. The poor PF didn't have time to react.

Yeah, the whole purpose of having the AOA indicate a stall before the aerodynamic stall is for little things like the stick shaker to work. Still, that Citation wing is about as benign as you'll get in a jet. Rightseater just freaked out. It probably had to do with the fact that he wasn't paying attention.

I use the Reliance Double Duty bags to line the honey bucket on the PC12 (Pennman tip). Makes it super trivial. Just grab the bag and toss it, stick in another one.

I use the Reliance Double Duty bags to line the honey bucket on the PC12 (Pennman tip). Makes it super trivial. Just grab the bag and toss it, stick in another one.

The video is just not quite high enough resolution to be sure, but it looks like FL380?

High altitude aerodynamics are different than one might expect. Even though the indicated airspeed is low, the true airspeed can be high and that leads to a higher tendency to get detached flow over the wing.

See this article:

https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news ... s-critical

"Surprisingly, high-altitude stalls occur at a significantly lower angle of attack than many once believed, thereby providing a much narrower maneuvering margin. The stall occurs at a lower angle of attack because of the altered dynamics of airflow at higher Mach numbers and compressibility effects."

They reached about 0.8 AOA and the stall broke without shaker. I don't find that particular unreasonable given the high altitude.

The AOA system might, in fact, be perfectly calibrated when operated at lower altitudes, where you really want it to be, so it should be checked there.

The MM procedure tests the system in the altitude range of 10,000 to 17,500 feet. The flight test is done in level flight at 0.6 AOA and the indication is adjusted to hit target airspeeds, not done to take it to stall since that is subjective and not precise. Things get sloppy near AOA 1.0, basically, so you can't use the stall as a reference. You have to know the airplane weight very precisely and to have it near the forward CG limit.

I don't know of any flight test that matches this video, doing full stall at very high altitude. Feels stupid. Recovery at those altitudes can take a huge amount of altitude and it is super easy to end up in secondary stalls and/or high bank angles. Trying to pick up a wing with aileron can get you into some serious situations. I imagine their expectation was to take it to shaker and recover, not full stall, and they got surprised when it stalled first.

Mike C.

The video is just not quite high enough resolution to be sure, but it looks like FL380?

High altitude aerodynamics are different than one might expect. Even though the indicated airspeed is low, the true airspeed can be high and that leads to a higher tendency to get detached flow over the wing.

See this article:

https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news ... s-critical

"Surprisingly, high-altitude stalls occur at a significantly lower angle of attack than many once believed, thereby providing a much narrower maneuvering margin. The stall occurs at a lower angle of attack because of the altered dynamics of airflow at higher Mach numbers and compressibility effects."

They reached about 0.8 AOA and the stall broke without shaker. I don't find that particular unreasonable given the high altitude.

The AOA system might, in fact, be perfectly calibrated when operated at lower altitudes, where you really want it to be, so it should be checked there.

The MM procedure tests the system in the altitude range of 10,000 to 17,500 feet. The flight test is done in level flight at 0.6 AOA and the indication is adjusted to hit target airspeeds, not done to take it to stall since that is subjective and not precise. Things get sloppy near AOA 1.0, basically, so you can't use the stall as a reference. You have to know the airplane weight very precisely and to have it near the forward CG limit.

I don't know of any flight test that matches this video, doing full stall at very high altitude. Feels stupid. Recovery at those altitudes can take a huge amount of altitude and it is super easy to end up in secondary stalls and/or high bank angles. Trying to pick up a wing with aileron can get you into some serious situations. I imagine their expectation was to take it to shaker and recover, not full stall, and they got surprised when it stalled first.

Mike C.

I use the Reliance Double Duty bags to line the honey bucket on the PC12 (Pennman tip). Makes it super trivial. Just grab the bag and toss it, stick in another one.

I did not watch the video but this is another reason to do in-aircraft training. You get to learn how YOUR aircraft behaves in a variety of scenarios and address any issues. If they had done this in training they would have learned that the AoA was inaccurate and gotten it fixed.

I know that my AoA reliably reads at the top of the red at stall in both cruise and landing configurations. At 5,000' anyway.

I got to do a full stall series with a “certified stall Learjet pilot” in my younger years. My taildragger experience trumped his certifications in the -31a. This all came about when a duck ran into our leading edge on final into KLIT.

I did not watch the video but this is another reason to do in-aircraft training. You get to learn how YOUR aircraft behaves in a variety of scenarios and address any issues. If they had done this in training they would have learned that the AoA was inaccurate and gotten it fixed.

I know that my AoA reliably reads at the top of the red at stall in both cruise and landing configurations. At 5,000' anyway.

The video is just not quite high enough resolution to be sure, but it looks like FL380?

High altitude aerodynamics are different than one might expect. Even though the indicated airspeed is low, the true airspeed can be high and that leads to a higher tendency to get detached flow over the wing.

See this article:

https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news ... s-critical

"Surprisingly, high-altitude stalls occur at a significantly lower angle of attack than many once believed, thereby providing a much narrower maneuvering margin. The stall occurs at a lower angle of attack because of the altered dynamics of airflow at higher Mach numbers and compressibility effects."

They reached about 0.8 AOA and the stall broke without shaker. I don't find that particular unreasonable given the high altitude.

The AOA system might, in fact, be perfectly calibrated when operated at lower altitudes, where you really want it to be, so it should be checked there.

The MM procedure tests the system in the altitude range of 10,000 to 17,500 feet. The flight test is done in level flight at 0.6 AOA and the indication is adjusted to hit target airspeeds, not done to take it to stall since that is subjective and not precise. Things get sloppy near AOA 1.0, basically, so you can't use the stall as a reference. You have to know the airplane weight very precisely and to have it near the forward CG limit.

I don't know of any flight test that matches this video, doing full stall at very high altitude. Feels stupid. Recovery at those altitudes can take a huge amount of altitude and it is super easy to end up in secondary stalls and/or high bank angles. Trying to pick up a wing with aileron can get you into some serious situations. I imagine their expectation was to take it to shaker and recover, not full stall, and they got surprised when it stalled first.

Mike C.

I can't imagine how the FAA would certify the system in that condition. What's the point of mandating a shaker that only works under some conditions. I've been through a lot of initial and recurrent training on airplanes that require a stick shaker and absolutely none of them ever mentioned the possibility of encountering the aerodynamic stall before the shaker.

I can't imagine how the FAA would certify the system in that condition. What's the point of mandating a shaker that only works under some conditions. I've been through a lot of initial and recurrent training on airplanes that require a stick shaker and absolutely none of them ever mentioned the possibility of encountering the aerodynamic stall before the shaker.

Sorry - didn't realize that. I did say that I didn't watch the video!

I find the 501 stall characteristics to be extremely benign. 560 may be slightly worse - that extra speed has to come from somewhere.

And yet Rightseat still acted like he was caught by surprise and freaked right out.

Oh, and I seriously doubt that data gathering is part of the Cessna approved method of calibrating the AOA.