What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

Safety Discussion #1: Stall/Spin at Low Altitude

C

Chris Hill

Well Known Member
I offer this as a part of a weekly series to prompt discussion about specific flight regimes where anyone interested can read and learn from someone else?s misjudgment and the advice and experience of others who participate in the forum.

When you read these accidents and provide input in the thread, please take the perspective that simply not flying or not performing the maneuver is NOT an acceptable solution. Instead, take the perspective that the pilot was definitely going to choose to fly in whatever manner that lead to the crash or accident. In this way, we can provide methods to perform the same maneuver in a safe manner or with risk mitigated through knowledge/prior planning.

That being said, please read the following accident report from the NTSB: NTSB Accident Report

Summary: Two experienced pilots were completing and instructional flight when they stalled and crashed while turning at low altitude in the traffic pattern.

I?ll start the discussion with a look at flight physics. A review of the effect of bank angle on level turn stall speeds?For an RV that stalls at 55 mph in level flight, the stall speed increases by 7% at 30 degrees of bank (Vstall 60 mph), by 40% at 60 degrees of bank (Vstall 80 mph), by 71% at 70 degrees of bank (Vstall 95 mph). If you are slow in the pattern, say 75 mph, and attempt to use a steep bank to correct an overshooting final turn, you are flirting with a dangerous flight regime. Depending on how your RV flies, you may get little to no warning that you are rapidly approaching stall. For example, my RV-8 only gives me about 5mph stall warning with buffet. Banking it up quickly and pulling it around could send me into an accelerated stall before I had time to react. Low to the ground, it would probably be fatal.

I will leave the opening post at that. I hope some instructors will talk about distractions in the cockpit, whether instructing or flying with friends, and how to reduce/prevent those distractions, especially during critical phases of flight such as takeoff/landing.

Hopefully participation here will remind people about this safety topic and keep it ready in the back of their minds when they find themselves in a similar situation.
 
The accident report was interesting but its obvious like most NTSB reports for GA accidents little effort went into the report. It looks like they did some phone interviews and a third party inspected the airframe. Not much of a investigation. I suspect however in this case the probably got the result correct.
On the subject of stall accidents keep in mind that stall speed does not actually vary with angle of bank. It varies with G force relative to airspeed which in the end translates to angle of attack. The posted correlations of stall speed to bank angle are based on a level turn which requires increasing G with bank angle to maintain level flight.
This brings into the discussion stall warning. I know there are many posts on the forum that state the RV is so easy to fly that no stall warning is required and a competent pilot should not need it. I believe the opposite. Stall warning is not just a good safety tool its a critical safety tool. A AOA based stall warning with both a visual component and aural alert I personally think should be required equipment on every RV. Its a backup for when things start to go really bad. Regardless of your level of experience things happen. Your on final on a gusty wind day. The aircraft in front of you is flying slower then you thought. You attempt to square your turn to final. At that moment you get a traffic alert from onboard systems or you see a aircraft inbound visually that is not where you expected. Your wrapping up the turn and trying to correlate the traffic that popped up when you get a 10 knot loss of airspeed with the gusty winds. Lots of moving parts to this scenario but a good AOA based stall warning will break the chain of events and perhaps save a life. "Angle Angle Push Push" could be your best friend at that moment!

George
 
Not trying to derail anything here, but just want to point out the fact that all of us learned about the whole bank angle/stall speed/AOA relationship in ground school. ALL of us. We also were shown this effect during flight training, and had to demonstrate accelerated stalls during our checkride. ALL of us.

So of the people here who need a refresher (probably most of us), how many are going to actually going to knock the rust off this very basic maneuver on their next flight, and how many are going to do nothing more than "discuss" the issue in this thread?

...and more importantly, how many of the "discussion only" types will as a result of this discussion add one more line item to their "personal minimums" list restricting the activity and think they are now "safer"?
 
Last edited:
Toobuilder said:
Not trying to derail anything here, but just want to point out the fact that all of us learned about the whole bank angle/stall speed/AOA relationship in ground school. ALL of us. We also were shown this effect during flight training, and had to demonstrate accelerated stalls during our checkride. ALL of us.
Click to expand...

Absolutely and anyone who is not thinking about this below 500 feet EVERY time they fly should maybe hang up the spurs. This is one of the most important and basic things you learn early on so you don't kill yourself in an airplane. My rule is not less than 75 knots until I am on final and never use more than 45 degrees of bank below 500 feet unless I happen to have over 100 knots on the ASI.

I can't believe how many accidents have involved wracking planes around at low speeds and low altitudes on the turn to final. No excuse for this sort of accident.
 
I have asked passengers including pilots to stop talking/distracting during these critical phases of flight, I also Practice base to final stalls regularly and know exactly what is possible right to the edge and if I where to go past the edge turning final at 500? it would be correctable for me in my airplane, knowing what the limits are and what happens when there exceeded and how to recover the stall by instinct before it develops will save your skin. I practice a lot, all I need is to be left alone to fly the airplane, if someone is attempting to distract me I will shut them right down no problem.

AOA or stall warning devices, I don?t have them, I don?t find them necessary in my airplane but would never discourage anyone from having them.
 
It seems to me that there is the oft repeated "shoulda known better" slogan with the implication the author knows better, and then there is the "equip your way out of the threat" school of thought. Mack Johnston was sitting front seat in the 8 that smacked flat on base to final a couple of years ago at Truckee, and a fine pilot indeed with gobs of 1011 and lesser time. I recall vividly drinking one of his fine beers around a pot belly stove, and he said "Give me the numbers, and I can fly it.". I mention this because I am half the pilot he was, so it can happen to me. I think Russ is on to it: from a human factor POV, it really is where you choose to focus your attention: airspeed seems adequate to me, but it needs watching for absolute and rate, always, when near the ground. Waiting for the bleat of a warning device seems to have given up half the issue: if you are warned, you already have an issue that needs immediate attention, and then you need to perceive and react, properly, and that begs the question: what were you doing before the bleat? And if it caught you by surprise, now that you are in the middle of a nasty change of events, will to now spring to the correct perception and reaction having doped off? I have my doubts that will work out well in some cases, anyway. I have no particular wisdom, but my rule is 1.3 stall until the numbers...that is 54-55 KIAS in my plane, and I usually am 56-57 KIAS at that point anyway (yes, I float for 3-4 seconds, but, ****, these planes land short anyway.....). FYI: I stalled inadvertently once maybe 500-600 agl many years ago while doping off and enjoying the rapture of flying on a gorgeous autumn afternoon on final to our local wy 1 above Martini and Prati...dropped the left wing, I pushed and powered..no trouble, but the inadvertence was alarming....hope I go another 1000 or 2 hours before that happens again! MTCents J
 
About Chris Hills' note: just a point about accelerated stalls: top rudder in my plane makes the plane sit up flat though out of power at the speeds I use (I don't snap over 100 KIAS any more since I want my plane to outlast me). Dunno about yours....I can skid my way into stalled wingover (I like to do these as a snap entry...it is not a full snap since you start with 30-45 degrees of bank, but pretty cool and violent if you like that sort of thing)...a fatal at low altitude unless you go all the way round......but coordinated, pretty benign outcome, and if you have top rudder, the plane just sits there for a second after coming up wings level....if you come up with power pretty quick, just fly away. Of course, if you keep top rudder and back stick in, you keep going over, but I am assuming from this discussion we are talking about safety, and not aerobatics.
 
Good stuff to think about. I personally fly in statute miles, because the Cessnas and other slow airplanes I started on had them on the outside of the dial, and by chance so does my -6. I have set knots as the default on my D10A in an attempt to wean myself off statute numbers though.

In miles, I have been targeting no lower than 80 until on final, and then slowly decreasing to 70-75 depending on whether I want a wheel landing (faster) or a three-pointer (slower). I've caught myself drifting above and below the magic numbers before, and corrected with power and lowered nose to increase speed, but I've never had any indications of imminent stall.

To be fair, I haven't explored the slow turn to final at altitude in this RV... to see how slow it can go or what happens in that last few seconds before it all goes pear-shaped. The last time I did that was during my checkout in a different -6.

Something to try the next time i'm up solo. :)
 
Rob: It seems to me that one of the bugaboos of us experimental guys is the calibration issue: one man's 70 statute IAS maybe another's 60 KIAS maybe another's 52 KIAS...who knows unless we are talking CAS? With the admixture of instruments, pitot/static and frankly wishful thinking to support arguments, the discussions are sometimes not fruitful. On the other hand, we can talk about ratios without getting into the calibration issues. 1.3 according to Kirschner, Langewische and at least my experience is a good place to start....but, you have to know stall dirty to derive. I am about 41-42 KIAS stall dirty, so I can derive 55 KIAS over the numbers. MTCents J
 
Effect of cross winds when low

One possibly contributing factor here is the effect of cross winds. With a left pattern to runway 28 at Truckee, and normal afternoon winds from the WSW, this gives you a tail wind on base leg. The first issue with that is that you will tend to overshoot on your turn to final, and require a steeper bank angle to correct/recover back to runway centerline. The other, sometimes more important issue when you are close to the ground is that the ground drift will upset your visual perception of what a coordinated turn looks like, and it may make you make a skidding turn.

The first step to coping with these additional factors safely is to recognize them and mentally prepare/compensate for them. To do this, you do need to be paying attention! Anytime there is any significant cross wind, I really dial up my pattern planning and energy management.

Whenever possible, I choose to fly a pattern with a headwind component on base leg. I have even requested such from towers. They can't always accommodate, of course, there are often other factors that dictate which side of the airport the pattern is on. But whenever possible to do it, it is a good hedge.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Another effect of wind over rough terrain

One more possibly contributing factor - wind gradient.

When the wind blows over rough terrain, it builds up a thicker 'boundary layer' than you might get in other places. Descending into the boundary layer extracts energy, which either increases your sink rate, or reduces your speed. Sage brush is a pretty good generator of wind gradient.

So, if you are lower than usual as you turn final, you will notice more sink rate as the wind gradient robs you of energy. it is dangerous to react to this by bringing the nose up. The opposite response is called for, plus some more power.

Again, it is a factor that you can assess and be aware of and ready for, if you are thinking about it.

I'm mentioning the kinds of factors here that I can see biting someone who is very experienced, and may be relaxed and confident, and so perhaps not really dialing up the attention to less familiar circumstances. Add to that the possibility of some instructional conversation, and I suppose really we don't even know who had the stick at the time--although by the time of turn to final, I hope the guy with the stick has rudder pedals.
 
scsmith said:
tail wind on base leg. The first issue with that is that you will tend to overshoot on your turn to final, and require a steeper bank angle to correct/recover back to runway centerline.
Click to expand...

I think the rectangular pattern is a contributing factor. I have a personal preference for NOT squaring off the base to final transition but rather a large radius gradual turn starting early into the base. Final overshoot is pretty much a non issue even with a tailwind.

I'm not military and have never been trained in the overhead or other circular approaches but I have wondered whether they were actually safer from the particular aspect of G induced stalls from final overshoot.
 
When we do our basic training quite a bit of time is spent on stalls. In Canada we also do basic spin recovery training as well. However we do not do base to final stall training. All of the stall training that I remember was at an almost ridiculously high nose attitude. I think it would be fair to say that we are programmed to avoid ridiculous high, low speed, nose attitudes. This is not what happens in the base to final turn stall. Our nose is low on the horizon, we are descending, power off, and in the back of our mind, our training, tells us we are ok because our nose is down. Nothing bad can happen.
As has been mentioned previously in this thread, a crosswind, with a bit of inside rudder correction and the stage has been set. Distractions, and the "need" to fly a perfect straight in approach, as per our training, ultimately gets many good pilots every year.
Another point that I would like to raise is pilot age. I am 58 and have been flying for 30 years. Although I fly a lot and have taking upgrade training in the last few years, I am not as good a pilot as I was twenty years ago. There, I said it, I am not as good as I used to be. My mind does not work as fast, my reflexes are not as quick, I do not see as well, and I am more easily distracted. All of those negatives are somewhat balanced with less risk taking, more experience and hopefully more wisdom. However, bottom line is that I need to be even more careful as time goes on. I would suspect that the average age of this group is probably not too far off of 50. For the most part one has to be middle aged to afford this hobby.
Base to final stall training is something that you should practice. Hire someone good, go high and see what it actually feels like.


As a side note: With my "modern" panel I miss the great big old ball that I used to have in all of my airplanes. Although you can stall a plane with the ball in the middle you are not as likely to drop a wing. It was something that I always looked at. This little artificial ball just does not get my old fart attention.
 
One thing people often forget (or never learned), is the fact that maneuvering flight is a game of angles, more than anything else. It's a geometry problem more than a velocity issue. It is possible to use 90 degrees of bank on the base/final turn at normal pattern speed and not exceed the critical AOA - as long as you have the altitude to make it work. But if you only practice floating around the pattern at the same stabilized 3 degree glide slope like an airliner, you may not have the intuition to use that very valuable "out". In this case, you will lock yourself into an artificial set of rules like "airspeed minimums" and "angle of bank limits". These are good rules of thumb if everything is going fine on landing at the pankake breakfast, but can be a huge disservice when things don't go as planned. Many of the people who crash turning final had plenty of room to recover, but did not realize it. This is as tragic (and dare I say it stupid) as a fuel starved forced landing because you failed to switch tanks to the one that contained fuel.

I'd encourage everyone to get a few mistakes high and practice your pattern work with varying angles of bank and push it right to the buffet and beyond (just like when we were students, remember?). With practice, the "feel" and "sound" will become added reference tools and your correct recovery will become ingrained in muscle memory, not some foggy theory you discussed on the Internet once.
 
Last edited:
Toobuilder said:
Not trying to derail anything here, but just want to point out the fact that all of us learned about the whole bank angle/stall speed/AOA relationship in ground school. ALL of us. We also were shown this effect during flight training, and had to demonstrate accelerated stalls during our checkride. ALL of us.
Click to expand...

Be careful with this statement. Here is a different perspective, I am one of the newer pilots, having gone through flight training about 5 yrs ago, and I can tell you that not only did my instructor gloss right over AOA in our discussions but I have also noticed that most textbooks (including Jeppesen) on the subject do also.

There is plenty of discussion about how bank angle increases stall speed...but they leave out the very important fact as someone already mentioned in this thread. Bank angle has NOTHING to do with stall speed...its AOA and only AOA (and related G-loading). Its much easier and a more conservative approach to show a student pilot this handy chart showing how stall speed increases with bank angle (but leave out the AOA detail...only if altitude is maintained and AOA consequently increases). If we want to to truly be aviators and not airplane drivers...shouldnt we understand the "details". I didnt really fully grasp this concept until reading "Stick and Rudder" after my training was complete, which is still an amazing book even though it was written so long ago.

I personally feel like we have dumbed down our training in this modern age...it seems much more important to teach new pilots how to navigate complex airspaces and talk on the radio than to discuss the details of EXACTLY how and why an airplane stalls and keep us from falling out of the sky. I would bet most new pilots today wouldnt be able to answer that question properly if asked....the AOA discussion is a "hole" in our current training curriculum. Or for that matter, ask a new pilot exactly what happens as we approach the 'base-to-final' stall....they know it should be avoided, but not the aerodynamic nuances involved, which I argue are important.

Just my take...I'm still learning, and I enjoy discussions like this.
 
RV7Ron said:
... Here is a different perspective, I am one of the newer pilots, having gone through flight training about 5 yrs ago, and I can tell you that not only did my instructor gloss right over AOA in our discussions but I have also noticed that most textbooks (including Jeppesen) on the subject do also...
Click to expand...

If this is true, then our target for improving safety is crystal clear. The Private Pilot syllabus is woefully inadequate and only getting worse. We have to fix that, because an internet discussion forum is no substitute for basic airmanship training.

I suspect that if is what ground school and flight training has become, then we are screwed as a community.
 
Toobuilder said:
One thing people often forget (or never learned), is the fact that maneuvering flight is a game of angles, more than anything else. It's a geometry problem more than a velocity issue. It is possible to use 90 degrees of bank on the bash/final turn and not exceed the critical AOA - as long as you have the altitude to make it work. But if you only practice floating around the pattern at the same stabilized 3 degree glide slope like an airliner, you may not have the intuition to use that very valuable "out". In this case, you will lock yourself into an artificial set of rules like "airspeed minimums" and "angle of bank limits". These are good rules of thumb if everything is going fine on landing at the pankake breakfast, but can be a huge disservice when things don't go as planned. Many of the people who crash turning final had plenty of room to recover, but did not realize it. This is as tragic (and dare I say it stupid) as a fuel starved forced landing because you failed to switch tanks to the one that contained fuel.
Click to expand...

I can't agree with what you say here. Have solid rules and procedures to follow and DON"T BREAK THEM and you won't have an accident like this plain and simple. When things don't go as planned, swallow your pride and go around. No big deal, I've done it numerous times. I don't care what anyone thinks if I go around. It is pilots who fly around nonchalantly, maybe having more pride and less sense and not thinking about the most basic, important piloting skills who have accidents like this. How do pilots "forget" this stuff? You shouldn't be flying if you forgot this, you are dangerous.

Really is it so hard to have a sterile cockpit below 500 feet, watch the ASI, bank angles and G? If it is, complacency has set in and complacency is the biggest killer of experienced pilots.

In an RV, if the nose is below the horizon in stabilized flight and you are have 75 knots on the ASI and not pulling G, you simply cannot stall in the first place, regardless of bank angle. G is the big thing here. If you are having to wrack the airplane around at slow speeds with a bunch of G turning final, you probably messed up big time.

I do agree that pilots should practice accelerated stalls and recovery at altitude.

I also like to not only self evaluate my performance after each flight but also critique each other when I fly with another pilot. I believe the US Navy saw very high value in this a couple years ago, launching a pilot program, realizing that most pilots actually knew where they could improve the last flight if they were asked to. They were evaluating non-traditional methods to reduce their accident rates.

I think civilian pilots can take some lessons from the military. They have some good ideas IMO. Their world is built upon a more thorough analysis of accidents, stats and implementing procedures to address what commonly goes wrong. But with any procedures, those are only as good as the pilot following them. Hence my original statement where you will find most pilots involved in accidents, broke safe procedure, starting the chain of events leading up to the accident. Almost without exception when it came to piloting or weather related causes.
 
I love this video as it speaks volumes toward preventing this type of accident.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f_Fh2iB7Ozc

You must listen to the audio to see what I am talking about...the key point is around 00:1:10....thanks for the training Don!

My first trip to Osh last year I sat out on the flight line watching arrivals to 27. I was amazed as I sat there watching plane after plane get slow in the base to final turn with their nose high up in the air. Kinda shocks me that there are not more stall spin accidents at Osh.
 
Last edited:
rv6ejguy said:
I can't agree with what you say here. Have solid rules and procedures to follow and DON"T BREAK THEM and you won't have an accident like this plain and simple. When things don't go as planned, swallow your pride and go around...
Click to expand...

For things we can control, yes, but often times we have no choice when it comes to breaking our own standard proceedures. I normally fly a 500 AGL pattern with a power off 180 approach abeam the end of the runway. However, that does not preclude me from being able to stretch to an extended pattern behind the "puppy mill" flight school Barron on a 5 mile final at 70% power... Standards are a valuable tool in your tool box, and the go around is another. But these are TWO examples of tools availabe - they should not be the ONLY.

Being able to speed up, slow down, tighten or go wide at will -adapt to conditions - is what makes us aviatiors, and not simply machine operators.
 
Last edited:
We all hate the bomber patterns that seem to be the norm around here with the training aircraft and the flight schools. However, insuring the aircraft is stabilized high on final is not a bad skill set to learn.
Many of us fly tight patterns and tend to do a base to final arcing turn. This puts us at greater risk of an overshoot at low altitudes. That risk get's compounded with a cross wind as mentioned. An overshoot on base to final down low is a dangerous position to be in. Go around.
 
Good habits from an instructor ...

My original flight instructor drilled into me the danger resident in the base to final turn ...especially if you get complacent. Besides a major focus on airspeed, his rule was to keep all turns in the pattern at standard rate or less. He hammered on me anytime I had more bank than that in the pattern. Today that's my guideline for pattern work. If, on occasion, I'm a bit steeper than std rate, I automatically have "intracranial alarm bells". Yes, it's conservative, but it conserves my longevity too. :D
 
Rupester said:
My original flight instructor drilled into me the danger resident in the base to final turn ...especially if you get complacent. Besides a major focus on airspeed, his rule was to keep all turns in the pattern at standard rate or less. He hammered on me anytime I had more bank than that in the pattern. Today that's my guideline for pattern work...
Click to expand...

That's a good, conservative approach to teach a student.

...but now that you have more experience and a much better understanding of the physics of flight, are you satisfied with this skillset as a final, end all solution? If so, then you have not taken the "license to learn" mantra to heart.

It should be the goal of every pilot to expand his limitations as skill and equipment dictates. For example, all of us were issued "crosswind limits" as solo students, right? These were pretty conservative considering our equipment and skill level. With added experience and more capable equipment, we don't still cling to these same limits today, do we?

How is that any different than adding to your "skills toolbox" when in the pattern? Is your ONLY alternative to go around when things don't go exactly as planned?

Once again, "license to learn" should mean more than internet discussion.
 
Toobuilder said:
That's a good, conservative approach to teach a student.

...but now that you have more experience and a much better understanding of the physics of flight, are you satisfied with this skillset as a final, end all solution? If so, then you have not taken the "license to learn" mantra to heart.

It should be the goal of every pilot to expand his limitations as skill and equipment dictates. For example, all of us were issued "crosswind limits" as solo students, right? These were pretty conservative considering our equipment and skill level. With added experience and more capable equipment, we don't still cling to these same limits today, do we?

How is that any different than adding to your "skills toolbox" when in the pattern? Is your ONLY alternative to go around when things don't go exactly as planned?

Once again, "license to learn" should mean more than internet discussion.
Click to expand...

I won't disagree with you but none of that comes without associated risk. The more advanced your technique, the more you take on, the greater risk you take. Terry has a strategy to help mitigate his risks. I can not find a scenerio where Terry's strategy puts him in danger.
A low overshoot is a dangerous postion to be in regardless of your skill set. The accident that started this thread is proof enough of that.
 
stall turning base to final

Rule to never break.............if things aren't going well on approach to landing, push the money knob forward and go around!!!!!!
 
PLease understand ..

... I didn't say that today I fly every turn in every pattern at standard rate or less. But that original guideline makes me VERY alert and watching airspeed closely when I'm steepening a pattern turn. To me, that's what safe practices are about.
 
Jonjay, Rupester, Dewaston, right on the money. Alarm bells should be going off as you said when it does not look right.

With the mountains close by here, we get very strong winds (35 to 60 knots) sometimes at about 500 to 1000 feet AGL when it can be almost calm at runway level. It has caught me out a couple times turning final as I descended close in ( I hate bomber patterns too). I went around and compensated the 2nd time, gave the tower a PIREP. No biggie.

Flying the same safe, proven approach is why the military and airlines have way better safety records than GA. Have fun by all means in your RV at a safe altitude. In close proximity to the ground, play it safe and do the same thing every time. The military has the stats to show that hard maneuvering close to the ground gives little margin for error so they approach training in this regime very carefully with plenty of briefings, go, no go rules etc.

I know if I have altitude, I can increase bank angle, lower the nose and unload the wing a bit up to a point but it is safer to just around when you've really messed it up.
 
Rupester said:
My original flight instructor drilled into me the danger resident in the base to final turn ...especially if you get complacent. Besides a major focus on airspeed, his rule was to keep all turns in the pattern at standard rate or less. He hammered on me anytime I had more bank than that in the pattern. Today that's my guideline for pattern work. If, on occasion, I'm a bit steeper than std rate, I automatically have "intracranial alarm bells". Yes, it's conservative, but it conserves my longevity too. :D
Click to expand...
I also find this to be helpful. There's always the gut reaction, if I see I'm overshooting the final turn, to steepen the bank angle. I have to remind myself once in a while -- I don't have to make a tighter turn, I just need to stay in the turn a little longer. OK, so I make a little S-turn on final. If it's too ugly, go around - either way, try to judge it better next time.

But I don't know nuthin', I'm still under a hundred hours.
 
Another issue that can come into play in this specific incident is Density Altitude.

Truckee at that time of year in the afternoon could easily see a DA of over 9000 ft at pattern altitude.

We are taught to look out of the window and judge speeds by aircraft attitude, but sometimes a good hard look at the ASI pays off in some situations.

Truckee is also a good soaring site - my wife liked it because it's the only one we went to that had trees - so throw in some thermals, a slow airspeed due to DA and altered visual clues, and possible causes of this accident can be seen.
 
Brantel said:
My first trip to Osh last year I sat out on the flight line watching arrivals to 27. I was amazed as I sat their watching plane after plane get slow in the base to final turn with their nose high up in the air. Kinda shocks me that their are not more stall spin accidents at Osh.
Click to expand...

Not to mention most are heavily loaded with a rear CG. Things feel a LOT different from the usual flight around the patch. I was checking A/S, oh, about every two seconds!
 
rv6ejguy said:
... Alarm bells should be going off as you said when it does not look right...
Click to expand...

Absolutely agree. But what looks "right" to a student vs. someone like Bob Hoover is often vastly different - yet both can be performed with the same relative level of safety. For example, I'd say that someone like Sean Tucker can fly inverted under a freeway overpass with AT LEAST the same relative safety as many student pilots flying a conventional pattern. I know who I'd rather take my non pilot wife flying, that's for sure! At any rate, who is more likely to kill themselves on a mundane stall/spin on final? And what is the difference? It's SKILL, not "personal limits"

It should be our goal to add skill vs. contract into the fetal position, hiding under the same "personal minimums" we had as students. Even military and airline "standards" are just that - standards, NOT absolutes. When things go wrong and those standards are impossible, the pilot is expected to overcome - and that is possible only by having the skill to do so. Remember Colgan Air?

I'm not advocating wild, reckless flying - but I am suggesting a careful, measured approach to advancing our personal minimums. After all, the bigger our envelope, the easier it is to stay away from the edges. And we all know that the edge is dangerous

Those who set restrictive limits and never venture further are much closer to the edge than I am...

...I choose safety! :D
 
Last edited:
Osh a good/bad example

fl-mike said:
Not to mention most are heavily loaded with a rear CG. Things feel a LOT different from the usual flight around the patch. I was checking A/S, oh, about every two seconds!
Click to expand...

I think of this every year, when I contemplate one day flying into OSH.
They are asking a lot of 100-hour guys, fried after a long cross-country, to fly slower than usual, tight trailing traffic queues, and then spot land.... way down a runway, ( or real short) without anything resembling a stabilized approach.

srue, when I'm in the pattern, i can fly a lazy -'s- turn approach if I misjudge on final, but who REALLY thinks about going around at OSH ( or any other fly-in where a lot seems to be relying on completing the landing )
 
They don't mind you going around at Osh. Happens often actually from what I saw. They would much rather you go around than to push a situation where something gets bent.

I saw a lot of folks that were trying way to hard to keep from going around and a few of them bent their airplane....
 
again

I say again, no matter where you are landing (home airport or Osh), if things are not going as planned, push the loud knob forward and go around. Anytime more back pressure on the stick is required to maintain your normal flight pattern for landing, push the throttle in to add some power. To turn tighter than normal from base to final and not add power to compensate for the extra load on the wing is just not wise flying.
 
It is not all the complicated....

....stall/spin accidents happen because pilots lack due diligence in monitoring airspeed and/or attitude.

Part of surviving flight is maintaining an awareness of airspeed and attitude at all times. Any lapse of this awareness can be most unforgiving - especially turning final in the traffic pattern. That is where your poor flying habits can kill you and your passenger.

So how do you develop this important aspect of flight?

Always have an airspeed target in mind for whatever the phase of flight and fly it. Never be without a target speed, no matter what the mission.

Ridiculous you say - well, that is a typical general aviation pilot response.

The accident numbers speak for themselves. Stall/spin accidents happen to part 91 general aviation pilots flying light airplanes, they do not happen to pilots flying under part 121. Part 121 pilots do not practice stall/spin recovery, never have, but they do know how to fly heading, altitude, and airspeed. It is mandatory or they would not be there.

Stall/spin accidents will continue (as they have since aviation was invented) because pilots are not capable of, or concerned, about flying professionally.

This sounds old and crotchety I know, but the subject is old and not humorous. It keeps happening over and over, and for the same reasons. OK, enough, I yield the preaching stump to someone else.
 
Last edited:
I think there are many good points here like checking the ASI every 2 seconds and I cross check the GPS to make sure the ASI didn't just take a dump.

David hits it on the head I think. Many GA pilots just don't or won't use a professional approach to flying like airline or military pilots do, they just light the fire and go with little or no consistency to detail, risk assessment or flying by the numbers.

Expand your personal envelope at altitude since I'm pretty sure there are not too many Sean Tuckers here. The day VFR world is a lot different from night/ IFR ops where many of the airline stall accidents like Colgan and Air France happen. The airlines at least realized after these two that they needed to address stall training and reaction more and that stick shakers and software limits couldn't protect against all foreseeable pilot responses.
 
...Expand your personal envelope at altitude....
Click to expand...

Spoken as if continuous improvement of our skills is "optional" (well, some think it is), or "unsafe"...

Does everyone here equate "skill" with hours in a logbook? Does droning along doing the same thing over and over prove anything? Is anyone impressed with a 30,000 hour ATP who only touches the flight controls for taxi on each trans-Atlantic flight?

An example: I routinely land on a short, narrow, often windswept runway that many pilots won't consider. Are those pilots "safer" than me because of this "personal limitation"? Does the acquisition of this "added" skill (to land on a challenging runway), hurt or hurt me when I land on a typical 5000x100?

...since I'm pretty sure there are not too many Sean Tuckers here...
Click to expand...

Sean Tucker has more drive than most, that's all. He's not a Superhero.

I read that Sean Tucker was terrified of stalls when learning to fly, so pursued aerobatics to overcome that limitation. In any case, he was not born an aerobatic superstar, he learned the skills required. So to think anyone here can't shoot for measured improvement in their skills because we're "not Sean Tucker" is a serious cop out. You could be if you wanted it.

And while I do like the idea of personal minimums, I firmly believe they evolve as you pursue skills and experience. If any of us are satisfied with setting limits and calling it "good enough", that is also a cop out.


Anyway,

This thread has gone down a familiar and expected road: Analyze our current skill set long enough to justify it as "safe" in our own minds, then label the people who actually work at improving their flying skills as "reckless" or "unprofessional".

In other words, Lots of talk, no action.
 
Last edited:
Okay, I'll say it. One of the above posts is just plain wrong. Even a very highly skilled aerobatic pilot cannot fly inverted under a freeway overpass with less risk than a typical student pilot in the pattern. High skill can change a high risk into an acceptable risk, but not into low risk (statistically student flying is one of the safest of GA activities). I think too many forget the old saying, "The superior pilot never needs to demonstrate his superior skill, because of his superior judgement." Or is it that "there are no old, bold pilots"?
I understand that pushing the limits in turns, flying non standard patterns, low flying, aerobatics, etc., are what makes flying appealing for some. But let's not pretend that these are without risk, no matter how skilled the pilot.
 
BobTurner said:
I understand that pushing the limits in turns, flying non standard patterns, low flying, aerobatics, etc., are what makes flying appealing for some. But let's not pretend that these are without risk, no matter how skilled the pilot.
Click to expand...

The poster you are disagreeing with is not suggesting "pushing the limits"- that is, physical limits. He is suggesting honing skills to stay within the physical limits, even under stress and challenging situations. One way to do that is to gradually push personal limits, in a managed way under safe conditions.

It is interesting for me to hear lots of emphasis on the go-around. I learned to fly in gliders, and there is no go-around. If it's not right, you fix it, and you stay with it. So that habit carries into my power flying. On one hand, that practice has improved my range of situations that I can cope with. On the other, because it just doesn't occur to me to go around, I am lacking an important tool for when things just get really bad. Its not a complete lack, I've made 2 go-arounds on my own decision (meaning not because a CFI told me to) but it probably should be a more accessible tool for me.
 
... High skill can change a high risk into an acceptable risk, but not into low risk (statistically student flying is one of the safest of GA activities).
Click to expand...

...Only shown to make a point, not a literal example. The point remains that skill plays a HUGE role in the outcome of an event where the primary variable is skill. Flying under an overpass is skill based activity - so is formation, landing a taildragger in a crosswind, and making the base-final turn, etc, etc.
 
scsmith said:
The poster you are disagreeing with is not suggesting "pushing the limits"- that is, physical limits. He is suggesting honing skills to stay within the physical limits, even under stress and challenging situations. One way to do that is to gradually push personal limits, in a managed way under safe conditions...
Click to expand...

Spot on. Thanks for getting my point Steve.

It’s true that I pay more attention to the laws of physics than the laws of man, and some label me "unprofessional" for it. So be it.
 
OK, 5 pages and it seems to boil down to this:

When a pilot is presented with a challenging situation, overall aviation safety is BEST served by:

A) Avoiding the situation

OR

B) Acquiring the skills required to overcome the situation


My stance is clearly ?B?, but it seems there are a lot of pilots who choose ?A?.
 
Toobuilder said:
OK, 5 pages and it seems to boil down to this:

When a pilot is presented with a challenging situation, overall aviation safety is BEST served by:

A) Avoiding the situation

OR

B) Acquiring the skills required to overcome the situation

.....
Click to expand...

Only if the pilot can recognize the challenging situation as it happens...:(
 
Last edited:
JonJay said:
18k hour, Transport Pilot, CFI, didn't.
Click to expand...

So that seems to be more important than (A) or (B)...:)

The question in this specific instance may be "what signs were not identified that made it a hazardous situation"?

I still say DA might have been a factor...
 
i respectfully disagree. If the question is, as posed, "aviation safety is best served by..." then the correct answer is having the skills needed to deal with it as best as possible but, nevertheless, if there is a choice, choosing (A).
The real issue is that always choosing A detracts from aviation's usefulness (too many canceled flights) and/or fun. We all chose B from time to time. The real issue is how realistic is my risk assessment when I do chose B? In a previous post I complained about an example of poor risk assessment.
BTW, I think GA would be doing okay if we could just eliminate the really no-brainer accidents, like CFIT.
I also think we might learn something if accident survivors would speak up, describe their thought processes, etc. That would certainly reduce rampant speculation. But they seldom do. I don't know if that is because of embarassment, fear of the FAA or a lawsuit or insurance company, or what.
 
Not sure I follow, Bob....

If faced with a landing on a short, narrow runway that is outside your demonstrated skill level, you have the choice to chalk that one up to your personal minumums list and never land there (A - Avoidance); or work on your skills until you master short narrow runways (B - overcome).

Clearly, the short term answer is to go with A, but the long term (aviation safety best served by...) is certainly to go with B. More skills is better than less skills. However, this thread seems to favor "A" as the permanent solution, apparently because gaining more skill is in itself "risky" somehow.

What is your take?
 
Last edited:
I guess I was not clear. If everyone, including very skilled pilots, always chose A then that would improve the safety statistics. That was the question posed. But, as I said, always choosing A means you would never land on that short runway, because even skilled pilots will once in a while have an accident there, just as in the case in the first post. In one way or another we all chose B some of the time. The issue is to not fool ourselves that it is perfectly safe (that is impossible) but rather to do a good and realistic risk assessment. Stating that there is less risk in flying inverted under an underpass, even with an excellent pilot, is less risky than pattern work by a typical student pilot is an example of poor risk assessment. It just is not true. So why do we feel that way? Do we over value our personal skills? I think these are the questions each person has to carefully ask themself.
 
Toobuilder said:
Clearly, the short term answer is to go with A, but the long term (aviation safety best served by...) is certainly to go with B. More skills is better than less skills.
Click to expand...

Absolutely. I personally don't know a pilot who would disagree with that.

Toobuilder said:
However, this thread seems to favor "A" as the permanent solution, apparently because gaining more skill is in itself "risky" somehow.
Click to expand...
That's an interpretation (or polarization?) of this discussion that I can't begin to understand. The idea of "permanent" lesser skills is not supported here that I can see.
 
Add Judgement

Toobuilder said:
...... overall aviation safety is BEST served by:

A) Avoiding the situation

OR

B) Acquiring the skills required to overcome the situation
Click to expand...

I believe "Skill" coupled with appropriate "Judgement" provides the magic formula. If I am low, slow, and have overshot final appropriate judgement says "I have the skill to fix this" and I do, or "I don't have the skill to fix this" and I go around. Inappropriate judgement says "I have the skill to fix this" and I stall and spin in.

Of course the truly skillful ones never find themselves inadvertently low, slow, and having overshot final - thus they avoid that situation. They may, however, deliberately place themselves there, for any number of reasons, and would have the skills to easily extricate themselves.

It is clear to me that added skills provide a person with more options. An example - in the past few months I have been practicing agressive sideslips, including turning while slipping, adding a skill I did not previously have. A couple days ago I simulated an engine failure on downwind. I turned way too early and was too high, obvious from the base leg. A few months ago I would have gone around. However in this instance I just did an agressive turning slip through final and performed a good landing. Didn't even have to think about it.

I believe overconfidence kills way more of us than underconfidence. If we could find an objective way to have us pilots truly understand our skill level it would go a long way to helping us exercise better judgement.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top