A Fatal Accident - Would you do better?

A great article in Avweb today, check it out.

A Fatal Accident - Would you do Better?

That is a good one!

Great post. I really don't think flying "accidents" are much different than everyday ones. I'm not suggesting that you spend your life in a state of panic but many people are caught unaware in the "chain of events"...a chain that needs to be broken to live. Recognition of the chain is the first step...the second is the speed with which you need to react. Are you impulsive? Does muscle memory take over? Do you have the ability to make a rational decision at that point? The military trains combat players to force the muscle memory which in turn slows down the event somewhat and allows one to think...sometimes. The aircraft training we encourage now is too broad...it should focus on the things that cause most fatalities...airspeed, off field straight ahead landings (stop turning around!) inadvertent IFR panic, running out of gas, etc.

Chronic Unease

Maybe we should expect it and thus develop what I've always thought of as a consciousness or awareness of survival.
Amen

I have worked in the chemical manufacture business for 25 yrs.
At one point I called it the "the land of the quick and the dead" with
no guarantee to anyone they would be going home when their shift
was over.
As in flying, people were our biggest problem and once we realized
exactly what was needed, the brain training kicked in big time.
One course everyone takes is taught by a retired airline pilot and is
called "Collaborative Skills". The use of checklists, communications,
and indepth review of past major air crashes shows how the chain of
bad decisions links together and the final outcome.
We just finished a year at my site, 650 people...working with some of
the most explosive gases known to man, without a single OSHA recordable.
The big thing we expect everyone to have is "Chronic Unease" and to
always before doing any task ask..."What's the worst that can happen?"
It changed our business and our people's safety.
I don't do anything anymore, work...drive..fly..fish..work at home, without
asking myself...."What's the worst that could happen?"

One of the things I like about flying in a club environment - and our specific club - is the focus on safety. One of our instructors is particularly focused on asking students "what could happen on this flight" and making them talk through their responses to different situations.

Would I have done better? I hope so, but only because of training, not any inherent piloting skill. If you practice engine failures (or PT3s), you're more likely to survive than if you don't; YMMV.

TODR

THIS! I can't fathom why more companies don't do that. All industrial accidents are like airline accidents, there' more than one factor and all are preventable. OSHA should spend more time encouraging training like you're talking about, instead of useless safety quizzes or whatever.

Bayou Bert said:

Maybe we should expect it and thus develop what I've always thought of as a consciousness or awareness of survival.
Amen

I have worked in the chemical manufacture business for 25 yrs.
At one point I called it the "the land of the quick and the dead" with
no guarantee to anyone they would be going home when their shift
was over.
As in flying, people were our biggest problem and once we realized
exactly what was needed, the brain training kicked in big time.
One course everyone takes is taught by a retired airline pilot and is
called "Collaborative Skills". The use of checklists, communications,
and indepth review of past major air crashes shows how the chain of
bad decisions links together and the final outcome.
We just finished a year at my site, 650 people...working with some of
the most explosive gases known to man, without a single OSHA recordable.
The big thing we expect everyone to have is "Chronic Unease" and to
always before doing any task ask..."What's the worst that can happen?"
It changed our business and our people's safety.
I don't do anything anymore, work...drive..fly..fish..work at home, without
asking myself...."What's the worst that could happen?"

Click to expand...

gtmule said:

THIS! I can't fathom why more companies don't do that. All industrial accidents are like airline accidents, there' more than one factor and all are preventable. OSHA should spend more time encouraging training like you're talking about, instead of useless safety quizzes or whatever.

Click to expand...

They do. Its called Process Safety Management (PSM). Its been a requirement for the chemical industry (and other process industries) since the mid 90s. We are required to (among other things) determine the hazards in a process and take steps to mitigate them.

I disagree with you that all accidents are preventable. We can reduce the frequency of many types of accidents to where they occur rarely (e.g., 1 per 10,000 years of operation, terms that the nuclear industry sometimes thinks in) and also mitigate their impacts, but I don't think we can prevent them, except but not doing anything. The same is true in aviation - we cannot prevent all accidents, but we can reduce their frequency and impact through improved design, awareness and training.

TODR

Peterk said:

The aircraft training we encourage now is too broad...it should focus on the things that cause most fatalities...airspeed, off field straight ahead landings (stop turning around!) inadvertent IFR panic, running out of gas, etc.

Click to expand...

I am going to put my flame-suit on and say TURN-BACKS DON"T WORK.

I have read in these forums about people practicing at higher levels and saying in can be done in 400' or whatever. Makes my skin crawl. This is being pre-warned and without the stress of a sudden, unexpected engine failure.

In a balanced 60deg turn, the stall speed is increased by 40%. Imagine the extra stress, over-banking a bit and pulling. At 3g, your stall speed goes from 50kts to 85. Couple this with the fact that most climb speeds are little more than glide speeds and the shear effect as you rapidly turn out of what is probably a headwind to a tailwind......You are looking over your shoulder for the field rather than at the airspeed. Result - Disaster.

If you have completed the crosswind turn or have at least 1000' then it may be feasible. Otherwise, a controlled flop at 45kts into the top of some trees is much more likely to be survivable. The insurance will replace the aircraft.

paul330 said:

I am going to put my flame-suit on and say TURN-BACKS DON"T WORK.
...
I have read in these forums about people practicing at higher levels and saying in can be done in 400' or whatever. Makes my skin crawl.
....
If you have completed the crosswind turn or have at least 1000' then it may be feasible. Otherwise, a controlled flop at 45kts into the top of some trees is much more likely to be survivable. The insurance will replace the aircraft.

Click to expand...

This is why we establish personal minimums, right? You should establish your own minimums for ceilings, wind, icing, fuel, etc. and yes, altitude at which you will attempt landing downwind or from an abbreviated pattern.

If your minimum for a engine-out return to runway is 1,000 agl, great, you know your minimums. Others (me included) have, through practice, established lower minimums for landing downwind and an abbreviated pattern for their airplanes and skill and comfort level. What works for me in the CT probably won't work for someone in a -8. As the saying goes, YMMV.

TODR

I told you I needed my flame-suit.....

I notice, Doug, you conveniently edited out everything I said about it being unexpected, stall speeds, wind shear.......... I also didn't say anything about my minimums for trying - I simply quoted some figures where it MIGHT be considered feasible.

Everyone who dies trying a turn-back thinks they can do it or or they wouldn't try in the first place. Did they set personal minima and practice? Don't know. Clearly this will improve your chances and I'm not saying it can't be done but rather that the height and speed one needs is probably considerably more than one thinks. With an engine failure after TO, the first thought should be with picking a landing area ahead, not with turning back.

Just my opinion, though, but what do I know? Just 40 year's experience, 16000+ hours, ex-military F4 pilot and instructor, civil IRE/TRE........ And "Never turn back with an engine failure" was the first lesson, never forgotten.

I just get this niggling feeling that there is almost some sort of macho competition about who can do a turn-back from the lowest altitude. Just off to re-inforce my flame suit........ Seriously, this is only meant to be a safety discussion and swapping of opinion and not a personal attack on anyone. So please take it in the vein it is intended.

Paul,

It completely depends what you are flying. In a glider on aerotow at many sites the instruction is to always turn back after a rope break above 300ft. But gliders have long wings and the drag doesn't go up much in a turn, and glider pilots are taught to be competent in turning tightly at low level to cope with launch failures. That's probably not the case for RVs or many RV pilots. Its a case of applying a dispassionate analysis of your skills, the situation you might find yourself in and the available options before you get in the situation. Would you like to crash in hostile countryside off the end of the runway or back on the airfield? At my home field I know what I would do each runway as I have already made a plan. At a strange field where I hadn't been before below 800', for me I think your advice is sound.

Pete

Let's get back to the basics of this thread - could we have done better than crash on - what looks like - a mishandled turn-back. Two ways to do better. Land ahead successfully or fly a competent turn-back.

Practice all you like at higher levels but when it comes to the day at (say) 800' you have an engine failure and decide to turn back. A second or 2 of disbelief and "what the %^&* is going on", get the nose down - now what? Decide to turn back because you have practiced it and you "know" you can do it in 500'. If it's going to work, you need 60deg of bank. Nose needs to go lower to keep the airspeed. Wow! All of a sudden, the windscreen is filled with ground and you are only half way round the turn - more bank, lower nose attitude, closer to the ground than you have ever seen. Adrenalin kicks in. Pull a bit more - stall, flick, spin, crash, burn, die. Remember, at 3g 50kts stall speed becomes 85. I'm just saying..........

Or, pick a landing area ahead. Worst case, flop it in at 45kts. If you have a decent harness, you are probably going to survive unless you run into something really solid. I accept there is always going to be the odd airfield where a landing ahead is not feasible in which case all that practice you have put in could possibly save your life. But I reckon that the odds are 90% in your favour to pick a field ahead.

My 2p worth - English!

penguin said:

Paul,

It completely depends what you are flying. In a glider on aerotow at many sites the instruction is to always turn back after a rope break above 300ft. But gliders have long wings and the drag doesn't go up much in a turn, and glider pilots are taught to be competent in turning tightly at low level to cope with launch failures. That's probably not the case for RVs or many RV pilots.

Pete

Click to expand...

Hmmm. I was thinking exactly this when I started reading this thread....except, I was thinking the opposite. I was a glider pilot/instructor for many years, and have had to do a few emergency turns backs in my day....some of which were probably a bit too close for comfort. I have to 'untrain' my muscle memory from this immediate turn back response at low altitude. It would probably kill me.

Let's all remember folks - this is an RV forum, not a glider forum. The "rules" (both human and aerodynamic) are very different between the two, and trying to import experience from one to the other could very well confuse the issue to the point where those honestly searching for answers (and not just beating their chest) could eventually try something beyond their skill level.

We have a responsibility to be, well...responsible, especially for what we espouse to others.

Sure - turn-backs CAN be done successfully (and a century of empirical evidence says they are very often screwed up), but if you screw them up, you will die. If you land/crash straight ahead, you will most certainly live. Risk/reward - as simple as that.

Ironflight said:

Let's all remember folks - this is an RV forum, not a glider forum. The "rules" (both human and aerodynamic) are very different between the two, and trying to import experience from one to the other could very well confuse the issue to the point where those honestly searching for answers (and not just beating their chest) could eventually try something beyond their skill level...

Click to expand...

Well said, but even among RVs there is a huge delta in glide performance. A turn back attempt in a "heavy" -6 would be a lot more hazardous than the same attempt in a lightweight -9.

I will agree with the running sentiment that an unexpected engine failure is NOT the time to brush the rust off your stick and rudder skills.

The enemy is us.
The data and history of the 180 turnback is long and deep. The threads here are also long and deep.

You need only read responses to threads right here in this forum to see that the enemy is us. A pilot will do one, report a successful landing, and there will be 20 people with atta boys and black slapping pats on the back. The successful outcome of a decision does not in anyway mean in was a good one. In fact much of the time the opposite is true. We should spend a lot more time analyzing the decisions from successful outcomes then not. The dead people are easy to analyze.
We have all looked back at moments in our flying career where we made a really dumb decision that got us in a bad place. Those too are easy to analyze.
But how about the decision that did not lead to bad places or any issue at all? You might find that you were one mistake from dead, even though absolutely nothing happened. Even though you may not have noticed anything at all. We do this analysis a lot on our team.

A simple statement: Just because you had a successful outcome does not have any bearing what so ever on the judgement of the decision that led to the outcome.

This is a risk reward game. More often than not we think we are better than that guy. 'My skill is more current', or etc. In the heat of the moment of a low level 180 turn back, its not. Your just another Joe bag of donuts pilot in a tough place. Your betting your life and the life of your passengers. Choose really good, really good odds. And if you have a successful outcome, please dont think for a moment that you made the right decision. Be honest with yourself. Be honest with your pilot friend who may have lived, but made bad judgement. If you can not get you or your friends to change fundamentally how they think, they will do exactly the same thing the next time, where the odds may catch up with them.

paul330 said:

I told you I needed my flame-suit.....

I notice, Doug, you conveniently edited out everything I said about it being unexpected, stall speeds, wind shear.......... I also didn't say anything about my minimums for trying - I simply quoted some figures where it MIGHT be considered feasible.

Everyone who dies trying a turn-back thinks they can do it or or they wouldn't try in the first place. Did they set personal minima and practice? Don't know. Clearly this will improve your chances and I'm not saying it can't be done but rather that the height and speed one needs is probably considerably more than one thinks. With an engine failure after TO, the first thought should be with picking a landing area ahead, not with turning back.

Just my opinion, though, but what do I know? Just 40 year's experience, 16000+ hours, ex-military F4 pilot and instructor, civil IRE/TRE........ And "Never turn back with an engine failure" was the first lesson, never forgotten.

I just get this niggling feeling that there is almost some sort of macho competition about who can do a turn-back from the lowest altitude. Just off to re-inforce my flame suit........ Seriously, this is only meant to be a safety discussion and swapping of opinion and not a personal attack on anyone. So please take it in the vein it is intended.

Click to expand...

I won't edit my quotes to your responses any more; I consider it proper internet etiquette to trim down quotes to only the parts one is responding to. My bad if you feel this was sneaky, but the desire is to reduce verbosity.

The quoted post says that the turn back can be done, but your first one says "TURN-BACKS DON"T WORK". When you make a blanket statement that something can't, shouldn't be done without any qualifiers, something that some people routinely practice and do, yeah, you might need the flame suit. Sounds like you have a ton of experience and have flown some cool aircraft, but telling me I can't so something that I routinely do? It would be like me saying that formation flying doesn't work.

My point is that the 180 or abbreviated pattern can work, but you had better know what you're in for - practice it, know your decision height, and think about what can happen on this very flight. It doesn't matter if you're flying a -8, -12, F4, 747. If the rule is to never do it in a F4, great. I've flown in a -12 simulating a 180 return, and it handled it from about 600 ft to a 5000ft field easily; so do other LSA. The problem was actually making sure you have enough slip in not overrun the runway. I suspect the -9 is similar; any data points?

This isn't about being macho, at least not on my part. Its about making good choices, its about safety. For years, I was based at ADS, where there are no good places to land straight ahead after engine failure when departing 15, maybe a few from 33. But if you can safely do a 180, why would you risk lives on the ground? I'd rather land on the grass of the over-run area or adjacent the runway at ADS than come down on a crowded intersection or a house in Addison.

And again, let me emphasize that if you have identified the 180 as one of your options, make sure you understand what you're getting into, and practice, practice, practice, preferably with a CFI. If you're not comfortable, don't do it. As many have noted, its dumb to try your first 180 return-to-runway when the engine quits, or even your second or third.

TODR

the_other_dougreeves said:

And again, let me emphasize that if you have identified the 180 as one of your options, make sure you understand what you're getting into, and practice, practice, practice, preferably with a CFI. If you're not comfortable, don't do it. As many have noted, its dumb to try your first 180 return-to-runway when the engine quits, or even your second or third.

Click to expand...

Glide performance will be different with the engine failed than it is with the engine running at idle. Do you do your practice with the engine off, or would the time the engine fails be the first time you've seen how the aircraft glides with engine off? If you practice with engine off, how do you ensure you won't need a bit of power to recover from a botched attempt?

Every time I read these threads it reminds me of Rainman....I'm an excellent driver.....

The thing about engine failures is that they can happen at any time and usually not when it is convenient. Just fly the plane and don't ever worry about wrecking it, if you do you will be wrecked.

After another turnback thread last year or the year before I went out and tried it. I was several thousand feet AGL as best as I can recall. The exact results are vague but I would guess that it took me at least a thousand feet. I have not tried it since.

What I gathered from that exercise was that I was perhaps far too cautious: Keeping the bank angle no more than 45 degrees but at higher than minimum airspeed.

Kahuna said:

A simple statement: Just because you had a successful outcome does not have any bearing what so ever on the judgement of the decision that led to the outcome.

Click to expand...

Interesting...What metric do you use to decide if a decision, at a particular moment, under a specific set of circumstances was a good one?

Making firm statements about ALWAYS landing straight ahead are as irresponsible as saying ALWAYS turn-back.

The decision to turn-back can be undone provide you don't lose control. when it isn't working, roll wings level and land straight ahead. Straight ahead is where the nose is pointing at the time and probably isn't any worse a choice than sticking your head in the sand and landing straight off the runway.

Just like any other maneuver such as take-off, landing, a loop, whatever, if you don't know how to do it and are not proficient it will kill you.

Of course the stats are bad for the turn-back..everybody is afraid to practice them and all the hype about being a BAD decision prevents pilots from even learning to do it correctly in the first place. I'd venture the stats on take-off accidents would be really bad too if a pilot was not trained how to do one correctly.

Anyway to each his own. If my engine quits on take-off and I plow it in trying to turn back please feel free to blast my bad decision on this forum but if I land back successfully you can be darn sure I'll think it was a great decision and I'll let those 20 other pilots know about it.

OUT

My personal minimums mean nothing, except to me. I understand that. If I am still on a runway heading, I'm not high enough. It would take a REALLY compelling reason for me to turn; I'm into the wind (or nearly so) and my aircraft is totally in control. A good way to start an emergency, if you ask me. I fly a 9A, and I believe I could do a return at 400'. That is about the altitude where I turn crosswind here. If I am on crosswind, I plan on an into-the-wind landing back on the runway. I have had three engine-outs (back in my U/L days) and the first one scared me to death, but I got it down. The second was easier, and the third was from high altitude (maybe 3000') and didn't even raise my blood pressure. There is no way to practice engine out response! A true engine out will shake you up, IMHO. Have a plan, and stick to it.

Bob

Known/Unknown

The mind does funny things in that "flight or fight" moment. Instead of thinking in terms of risk/reward, in fact it can instead play known/unknown. For instance: if I land straight ahead I know I will get hurt and I know the plane will most likely be destroyed. It is unknown (to me) if a turn back will be a success (no pain/no destruction) or not. To intentionally pick certain pain is not a natural decision. Straight ahead has to become muscle memory...not a choice. To practice this technique at high altitudes only confuses the issue and wastes time rationalizing the wrong choice.

videobobk said:

I fly a 9A, and I believe I could do a return at 400'. That is about the altitude where I turn crosswind here. If I am on crosswind, I plan on an into-the-wind landing back on the runway.

Click to expand...

Bob, do I understand you correctly that once on crosswind you can go far enough on a downwind of some sort to land on the same runway that you departed from...and in the same take-off direction (into the wind)?

How many of you have actually experienced an engine failure on take off. If you haven't then all you are doing is blowing smoke of you your -/:;(.

People need to find the video of a Mooney (?) that apparently lost power and was video'd making a turn....possibly (not confirmed to my knowledge) back to the runway. It did not end well.

Ron Lee said:

People need to find the video of a Mooney (?) that apparently lost power and was video'd making a turn....possibly (not confirmed to my knowledge) back to the runway. It did not end well.

Click to expand...

I've actually spun in to total destruction several times, perhaps more..... from the 180+ back to the runway.

Okay, it was R/C (radio control). Some were quarter scales, and most had higher wing loadings, which didn't glide well. One thing for sure, is that when it does go, it goes fast, and nothing from then on, that you can do about it. So don't even think, you're going to stretch those extra few yards, if your running out of airspeed.

Kevin Horton said:

Glide performance will be different with the engine failed than it is with the engine running at idle. Do you do your practice with the engine off, or would the time the engine fails be the first time you've seen how the aircraft glides with engine off? If you practice with engine off, how do you ensure you won't need a bit of power to recover from a botched attempt?

Click to expand...

Excellent point. In the airplane, I do not stop the engine when practicing turnbacks - it removes too much safety margin for me. I have friends who fly the same airplane as I do, and they have reported little difference in the airplane's performance when shutting off the engine in a simulated 180. The 912 typically starts in 1-2 blades, but I'm not going to try it.

My big problem when I started trying the 180 was getting rid of the altitude - I was climbing at Vx to about 500 agl, then Vy - the airplane climbs so steeply and is so slippery, I was in danger of running out of runway on the return. So, I changed my normal takeoff routine and climb out at Vy now; this makes the turn-back much easier. I still have to slip the airplane to make it back from around 600 agl. So I'm not worried if the glide ratio changes a little.

TODR

Another factor to consider... The performance will vary between each of these conditions:

1. Engine running normally at idle with propellor turning
2. Engine ingesting a valve or throwing a blown cylinder around with propellor turning
3. Engine off but propellor turning and moving all the pistons around
4. Crankshaft failed and propellor windmilling freely independent of the engine
5. Engine seized and propellor not turning at all

Assuming a fixed pitch prop, 4 will have the highest drag. 5 will have the lowest.

In light of Van's recent comments concerning the NTSB eyeball on EAB safety, I would be curious what Mike Seager and other RV transition trainers teach concerning take-off engine out. Has anyone taken Mike's training and remember his comments?

I personally don't teach turnbacks, although I have practised many in my -6A down to 250' AGL...it was close, with a steep right turn at about 50' to re-align with the runway.


Remember, however, turnbacks are how I make my living...the caveat..under power...hundreds a day.

I do recommend, and let the last gent do a 180 degree approach from downwind, in my -10 last week...successfully too... a great job and I recommend that all of you practise them...no power from abeam the numbers on downwind. This, for a forced landing practise, if you ever need it.

Best,

pierre smith said:

no power from abeam the numbers on downwind. This, for a forced landing practise, if you ever need it...

Click to expand...

That's a normal pattern for many of us.

Mindset and Familiarity

With several hundred hours in my 8KCAB I just recently had two relevant revelations by 1) soloing from the back seat and 2) flying a friend's Citabria. Back seat forward visibility is comparatively very poor, which might have contributed to a delay or aversion to landing upwind in the subject accident if the CFI was thought to be PIC. Secondly, the Citabria's NACA 4412, 33.5 ft wing is noticeably different in performance than my NACA 1412, 32ft wing. Lift-wise, the 8KCAB is a comparative dog low and slow and compensates only with hp. They are different animals despite looking nearly identical. Lesson learned: know your equipment. Along those lines, I enjoy aerobatics and as a result have an intimate familiarity with routinely handling my 8KCAB nearer the envelope edges than I suspect most straight-and-level-hate-stalls pilots have with their steeds. This has to be part of the decision-making process.

paul330 said:

I told you I needed my flame-suit.....


Just my opinion, though, but what do I know? Just 40 year's experience, 16000+ hours, ex-military F4 pilot and instructor, civil IRE/TRE........ And "Never turn back with an engine failure" was the first lesson, never forgotten. .

Click to expand...

According to numerous retired F4 friends, the Phantom was little more than a flying barn door below 250kts, incapable of much beyond minimal manuevering. I can easily see why you would crash straight ahead and not turn back and why that training would influence your reasoning.

WSBuilder said:

According to numerous retired F4 friends, the Phantom was little more than a flying barn door below 250kts, incapable of much beyond minimal manuevering. I can easily see why you would crash straight ahead and not turn back and why that training would influence your reasoning.

Click to expand...

A long, long time ago whilst I was young, agile of mind and body, and flying the F-86L, it was not turn back, not land straight ahead, it was eject - the sooner the better. A crash landing was generally not survivable in that machine, wonderful as it otherwise was some 55 years ago.

The afore mentioned NTSB accident report reflects more, at least to me, over confidence than common sense. To crash and burn in such an airplane makes not sense whatever. Students may do it, but not CFI's, or so it should be.

I don't like the thought of fire in an airplane - in the air or on the ground. To turn back after take off is not on my repertoire of tricks to survive an emergency situation. I won't practice it and I won't do it, period. But I do look for a place to fly-crash-land on every take off and during the flight. The most tense part of any flight for me is to an airport that requires flying over houses with no place to land - and there are plenty such airports.

To answer the question "would you do better?", I don't know. You never know what your brain will tell you when the engine quits, but having come through 2 engine out off field landings since taking up experimental flying, the brain seems disposed to fly the airplane and see what happens. So far so good. I've been lucky and maybe very cautious too. They go hand in hand.

WSBuilder said:

According to numerous retired F4 friends, the Phantom was little more than a flying barn door below 250kts, incapable of much beyond minimal manuevering. I can easily see why you would crash straight ahead and not turn back and why that training would influence your reasoning.

Click to expand...

Sorry, you misunderstand. My quote of experience was just a bit of self-glorification and trying to show I wasn't just someone with no idea, speaking through his $%&*. Of course you wouldn't try and turn back an F4!

The "never turn back" advice I received was on my elementary SEP training...... almost 40 years ago, good grief

Ron Lee said:

Bob, do I understand you correctly that once on crosswind you can go far enough on a downwind of some sort to land on the same runway that you departed from...and in the same take-off direction (into the wind)?

Click to expand...

Yes, that is what I mean. At least at my home airport, I have some runway ahead of me when I turn crosswind. It is a 5000' runway. From crosswind, with a 180, I would be back in line with a cross runway, but should have altitude to do another 90. (Decision time there.) This assumes I have completed my 90 to crosswind and by then should be at about 500' AGL. I try to get some altitude pretty quickly, not starting anything like a cruise climb until above 500'. At another field, it might be different, and on shorter fields, it would be straight ahead.

Bob

Bush Pilot Mentality

I suspect the fear of landing anywhere other than a bonifide, long and hard runway terrifies many pilots and fuels the desperate attempt to turn back. I am amazed at the reaction of many who learned and base on "big" airports when I suggest they fly over to my 2800' grass homebase. They act like it's the Congo. In my foolish youth I would land my C140 on sandbars in the middle of the Brazos River with literally inches to spare. Being comfortable off-airport opens up options and reduces fear. While not advocating my indescretions, I would suggest all pilots find an accommodating short grass strip and get comfortable with the idea you really can land these things in small places.

WSBuilder said:

While not advocating my indescretions, I would suggest all pilots find an accommodating short grass strip and get comfortable with the idea you really can land these things in small places.

Click to expand...

Not with my RV-6A!

I remember Lesson #1 with my instructor:
Instructor: Where are you going to go if the engine quits? The widest open area you can find! Why do you want the widest open area you can find for an e-landing? BECAUSE YOU SUCK AT IT!

WSBuilder said:

......, I would suggest all pilots find an accommodating short grass strip and get comfortable with the idea you really can land these things in small places.

Click to expand...

I agree wholeheartedly....the airplanes are very capable and I've been in to a 2,000 turf runway with my -10. Our EAA "Pea Patch" is 2700' and twice what you need for any RV. Work your approach speed down in increments and find the lowest speed that will allow you to arrest the sink in your flare. These little airplanes will surprise you

Best,

Ok, I am beginning to have a good feeling again - people advocating to get to know what your airplane can really do and practice doing it. Just do it safely.

TODR

A few ideas....

Interesting discussion - always is. Herewith a few - what I would describe as "positive" things --that might warrant consideration:

1- Don't dismiss a turn-back out-of-hand. Try a few at altitude and then make an informed decision. If you don't scare yourself into not proceeding (which is possible), then determine what sort of altitude you might need, to accomplish the maneuver in a what I'd like to call - "a calm manner." Something you would have confidence in performing successfully, despite the adrenaline rush that might want to overwhelm your senses in the event of a real event.

2- If you decide that you can perform the maneuver successfully, then determine your altitude loss doing it "your way." Your way might not be my way, or anyone else's way. It might not take the airplane to the limits as in the AIAA paper, so "your altitude" represents your limits. For example, maybe high bank angles might not be acceptable to you personally - then make your turn using more modest turn rates - say 30 degrees. Now you've got "your altitude."

3- With your altitude in hand, you now have a Plan of Action.

4- Brief for every take-off. Even if you're flying solo. It's something I worked with repeatedly with many air carrier crews during many years flying in that environment.

"In the event of an engine failure before V1, we will abort the take-off. In the event of an engine failure after V1, we will continue the take-off.
Call positive rate-of-climb and I will call for Gear Up."

and so forth.......

Some crews did this, some didn't. Some perfunctorily called out "Standard Briefing." I didn't like that. I like to hear the words. More than that rote comment- like an apology, - I liked when they "said it with meaning." In the early days of jet transports, there were quite a few accidents due to runway over-runs after RTO's (Refused Take Offs.) Sometimes, overruns due to high, hot landings. Usually, the accident investigation proved that the airplane could have been safely stopped. In fact, the manufacturer had demonstrated it, during their certification process. Line pilots criticized those figures mightily, often stating thaat the Test Pilots KNEW they were going to simulate an engine failure, etc - so, of course, they did well. My answer was simple - YOU'RE as good as those test pilots - if you MENTALLY anticipate the event as you begin each and every take-off run. Then - YOU - won't be surprised at all. EXPECT that engine failure! After the decision point is passed, you can relax a bit and re-clock your mental state. BUT - the main thing is - you won't be surprised.

The same goes for us. We can have a Briefing - even better if it's spoken aloud - even when we're solo:

"If the engine quits below 1000 ft, I will find a landing place 45 dgerees left or right of my take-off heading (or 60 degrees, or 90 degrees.). If the engine fails at 1000 ft or more above field elevation, I will turn back using my personal criteria. Using my above determined criteria. I think I'll make it. I KNOW I'll make it. I have confidence.

5- Study your home field. Study the fields you're going too. But especially, your home field. After all, that's where you're going to depart from - a lot. Google Maps or Bing. I study those satellite pictures - a lot. Then - I drive out there and drive around. I've look at the area off the ends of each runway. Left and right. In my drives - I look for power poles, overhead wires, road signs. I imagine trying to land on that stretch of highway - or wherever. I rule out some places. I keep my findings in my mind. When I do my per-departure Briefing - I remember those places. I write them down on a chart.

6- Don't make Intersection take-offs. They are one of the three missing elements - altitude above you, fuel you've burned, and -------- runway behind you. Take my home field - Bremerton, Washington. The runway is 6000 ft long. In my R-12, if I take-off from the end, and climb at 65 kts, I should be passing through 1000 ft about the end of the runway, and well within the airport's property foot-print. I can turn back! Now, the RV-12 doesn't need much of a take-off run. An intersection take-off half-way down the runway would be a piece of cake. But! Then, --- I will only be 500 ft AGL when I pass the end of the runway. I will reach 1000 ft way beyond the airport boundary. I've thus voluntarily eliminated one of my safety factors.. Bad decision. I like good odds.

We might not be Professionals - but we can ACT Professional. We can BE Professional.

Bob Bogash
N737G

Sorry - Left out Number 7 -

7- Approach and land with Idle Power. This might be easier on some airplanes and engines than others. Last summer, I took my biennial refresher training in a Cherokee. It has a step-down power and airspeed approach, as you go Downwind-Base-Final. In general, you didn't pull off all the power until the runway was assured.

Later, I spent three days training with Mike Seager on the RV-12. The RV-12 makes an Idle Power approach. Pull the power to Idle when abeam the touchdown point and then trim the airplane for a stable approach speed as you add flaps. I made 43 landings with Mike. I believe on only two or three did I have to add power on Final. All of those cases were more a matter of just "nudging" on a very little bit to better hit the touchdown spot. None were big blasts to avoid a major landing short.

I liked this scheme - a lot. I found I could stabilize the approach very well just by trimming to the desired airspeed - in fact, Mike wanted me to show him my hands as we got close to the Base to Final turn, to prove the airplane was well stabilized on the numbers. What I was making, of course, was a semi-deadstick approach and landing EVERY TIME! While recognizing that the Idling engine was, in-fact, providing some thrust as opposed to a real deadstick approach and landing, nevertheless, I felt it was a big confidence builder.

If you should be fortunate enough to find yourself sans engine over a suitable landing spot (say an airfield), your approach and landing should be just like ALL your landings, and hence pretty sweat-free.

Bob Bogash
N737G