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