You have been told - by kevin walters

[Wayne T Mathews]

I don't like his language at all. Too confrontational, too derogatory, too much name calling... I am far more likely to discount any good points he has for all of the drivel that comes with it...Because I know that he wouldn't be swayed by my more tempered argument, I'll just go out and call the man an unthinking moron and primitive bully who shouldn't be encouraged to present such crap in public.

 

For the record, I don't support turning back. Some may do it and make it. Many do it and don't make it. So regardless of the mechanics, the odds aren't in your favour if you turn back. But I won't support rubbish like what was written by the unapologetic Kevin Walters, CFI, as helpful either.

Wow!!! Your comments Shane, were posted while I was mucking around with my previous post half done, and I didn't see them until after I'd posted mine.

 

For a bloke who says he doesn't like confrontational, derogative, name calling language, you sure know how to use it.

 

Forgive me for saying this, but in my opinion, people who live in glass houses, Shane, really shouldn't throw stones...

 

 

[facthunter]

There will always be variation in style from one instructor to another. Some students respond to one and not another. Walter's style is probably effective with a lot of pilots because it's a fairly" Heavy" no nonsense black and white approach to this subject. (This is right That is wrong). I personally wouldn't use the exact terms etc that are used here. but I support the intent, and if it works then that is something good The recflying syllabus is not such that you can go into great depths with a lot of maths and theory with everybody. It doesn't allow a lot of hours to cover it all either. Nor should you dumb it down to a set of numbers and simplistic rules for everything. I say this in an overall sense because when you understand something it stays with you, longer and you execute it better.

 

I would like to see all recpilots have a high degree of confidence in getting the plane out of trouble in unusual attitudes and be able to do steep descending turns etc competently, quickly and safely. and recover from a spiral very quickly and handle gusty conditions well, and control airspeed positively

 

I support any effective way of impressing on pilots that turning back to the runway is a BAD idea . Pilots who have done it and crashed ( and survived, but don't count on it) have been unable to explain WHY they did it because they had always been told not to do it.

 

I am inclined to think that the continual emphasis on being able to glide to the aerodrome and land from anywhere in the circuit is in the back of their minds, is a factor and takes over when the engine stops.in some cases. Nev

 

 

[Bandit12]

Ah Wayne....someone who saw the irony in my post! I wondered whether anyone would comment, and in a sense, hoped that someone would because it sort of confirms my point. Use that sort of language and your argument falls apart, no matter how well intended it is.

 

All credit to you for calling me on it Wayne, and no forgiveness needed. This CFI obviously has friends here, and my comments really should have stayed factual rather than personal. If those points caused offence, then my sincerest apologies. As for the rest of my thoughts about his style, I will continue to stand by them.

 

 

[turboplanner]

I think I might take my plane to a few thousand feet, take up a heading, set climb attitude then pull the power and see just how much height I lose trying to 'turn back'. The way Jabiru engines have been performing lately I need to cover all bases.

I'd suggest that idea was precisely why he got so fired up. As I just said IT'S NOT ABOUT ************ TECHNIQUE.

 

You can probably, after a few practices manage a nice turn with minimal height loss, but that's VASTLY different from what happens when the engine stops because right after that your heart stops/you freeze/you try to restart the engine/ any one of many things depending on the pysche of the person involved, all things which will lead you to the grave.

 

You may be in the 1 or 2% lucky ones, but its SUBCONSCIOUS ACTION which provides the reaction fast enough to get a controlled landing situation.

 

I'm actually stunned at the comments given we've actually lost RA pilots to stalls/spins in the past few months who had more time to get it under control than you would in an EFATO.

 

 

[turboplanner]

A race driver/pilot/speedboat driver etc will react to an expected critical issue in 20 to 50 one hundredths of a second. 20 if he's right up to recency, 50 if he's been out of action for a couple of weeks.

 

That same person, faced with an UNexpected critical will take about two to three seconds to get his head around it, THEN he takes the 20 to 50/100 for corrective action

 

I've put this crash up before - I count roughly 2 or three seconds between when the engine starts to fail and when the rotation becomes inevitable.

 

This guy pulled too tight.....and he was a very experienced pilot - that's the point - it's in the reaction.

 

 

 

[Bandit12]

I have watched that video so many times over the years Turbs.....it is a very sobering reminder not to turn back.

 

 

[facthunter]

There was probably a control failure with that accident. You will notice the rudder is full left position. Suggested rudder bell crank failure (RHS.). The DH 82 is not a suitable plane for wing "walking" as the drag centre is too high and it is near imposible to get enough pitch authority from the elevators to get the nose down when the engine stops.. I don't think they were ever used again after that incident.. Nev

 

 

[turboplanner]

The whole sorry affair is covered in the ATSB report Nev, from the aircraft being too small for US style wing walks, to the unsuitability of the modifications, creating the type of drag you mention, but you hear the engine stop, and I'm pretty sure the ATSB said that too. I would hope the rudder isn't in the full left position for an instinctive (and incorrect) attempt to turn back.

 

 

[motzartmerv]

I can understand Kevin's frustrations. His letter seemed to me to be written by an instructor at the end of his witts. I can fully appreciate where he's coming from. As instructors, the mind boggles as to why we keep seeing this sort of thing. And as Tubz said, its not only in EFATO situations, its failures from altitude aswel. But this is where my view is different fron Kevins. We can't point fingers at the dead pilots. Almost all the fatalities ive seen this year have a training/learning outcome message. More to the point, a lack of it.

 

If this sort of fatality is becoming the norm, then instructors need to look at THEMSELV'S.

 

A while ago a lighty stalled and spun into the water near sydney, killing one and almost killing the PAX.

 

I was dumbfounded as to how this could happen, when out over the water, with no terrain to avoid, no powerlines to dodge, no paddocks to line up on. How on earth can a pilot stall and spin in this situation.

 

I sat down with my instructors and we discussed at length what could have happend, but more importantly, what WE were going to do to make sure it NEVER happend to any of our students.. Either while training, or in the years to come when they are off 'learning' with a certificate (like we all are)

 

Sure, the pressure of the 'real life' situation is going to degrade performance. There is no getting around that. Thats why I have the idea that if we train the 'instinct' into pilots, the skill of flying the plane cognitively in these types of situations, then there is still room for the performance degredation. The guy may forget the call format, or do a check in the wrong order or not do it all all, or select a crap field, all possible when performance is down. BUT, if his instinct to keep the plane flying, gliding, pointing in the right direction and to ignore all secondary concerns is built in during training AND tested and assessed properly, then his chance of survival is markedly improved. There is ROOM for his performance drop.

 

Thats why IMHO its crucial that we are all overtrained in this area. We should have our 'practice' forced landing procedure at 120% of the minimum standard so a huge performance loss can still be survived. If on test day your ok, maybe 70-80% of the standard required and your instructor says "yea your PFL's were a bit rough, you should practice some more. Here's your certificate" where is the room for the performance shortfall then. After 6 months your retention of the skills will drop significantly. Now your down to 40-50% of the standard required. Then 2 weeks before your BFR your fan stops. By now your baseline skill level has dropped to a poofteenth of what it was when you got your certificate, now take out some more performance due to shock and stress, and your almost down to ZERO, and you end up loosing control low to the ground/ water. And we end up discussing it in a thread such as this.

 

My point is, culture. Instructing culture is just as falible as piloting. We instructors need to look at ourselves when anomalies like this show up, NOT at the dead pilots.

 

 

[facthunter]

No-one would do that especially a pilot with the ability of that chap. The finding was contested but the result you read is the official one. Keep looking at the picture and you will probably agree.. A had a lot of facts on this one. It's not something I've just invented. Horrible outcome. The tiger will not just slipstream the rudder if you take the feet off the pedals. It will skid and roll as that plane did . It would have been losing airspeed rapidly too as you can't get the nose down because of the drag of the walker.Nev

 

 

[fly_tornado]

did they get CASA approval to go wing walking?

 

 

[facthunter]

It was being done over a period of time and I have no reason to believe that it was done WITHOUT approval. IF it was that would be in the report. It's easy to blame a dead pilot. Nev

 

 

[turboplanner]

No-one would do that

Just taking that pilot out of the equation, I only recently read a discussion among experienced pilots about doing just that - using the rudder to turn like you do in a boat.

So it is among us.

 

 

[Gnarly Gnu]

I think I might take my plane to a few thousand feet, take up a heading, set climb attitude then pull the power and see just how much height I lose trying to 'turn back'.

This is the correct way to practise emergency manoeuvres. I believe such techniques are important and potentially very useful when there is enough height and ahead isn't a survivable option, but clearly not for beginners & should be with instructor initially. There is technical info available from folks who have studied and practised this, 45 deg bank seems to result in the least height lost. Goes without saying I put nose sharp down first & be prepared for spin recovery (practising at height obviously). I'll see if I can find the link if it doesn't blow too many fuses.

 

 

[facthunter]

Tubs, Well they won't be among us for long. Most tricycle U/C pilots I see only use the rudder pedals for turning while taxiing. Nev

 

 

[Yenn]

Kevin did manage to get your attention and I think that was his intention. He has plenty of experience and has no doubt seen several demonstrations of stupidity in his time. You may not like his approach, but it works far better than political correctness.

 

as a coincidence I practiced the impossible turn yesterday. Climbed traight ahead to 700' in a good 15 kt headwind, chopped the power and tried to get back to the strip, gave it away at about 300', when it was apparent that I maybe could just sneak in but would be halfway down the strip with a GS of about 65kts. and it is a downhill strip. If I had been a little bit higher and it was the only option it may have worked ending up with me wrapped around the fence or in the creek.

 

I do quite a bit of emergency training and so far have not had to use much of it, but it is good to know what is possible. If I had been using the opposite direction strip things would be very different, there is nowhere straight ahead to land, so the impossible turn would be more attractive.

 

 

[motzartmerv]

there is nowhere straight ahead to land, so the impossible turn would be more attractive.

And there it is... The reason so many are dead... While you agree with kevins methods in political incorrectness, you fail to hear the message.

 

 

[facthunter]

Well clearly an "impossible" turn would not be possible. Nev

 

 

[Pilot Pete]

To sum it all up, wether you agree with the way the message was presented or not, your attention was drawn to the message itself.

 

Kevin certainly gave us all a wake up call.Thanks for caring enough to talk to us

 

 

[M61A1]

Any Psychologists would be having a field day reading some of the stuttering and feigned "I am personally insulted" replies here... IMO they say more about the posters poor attitude than Kevin Walters CFI's.

I personally agree, people are far too worried about walking on eggshells. In the short while I've been part of this forum, I've seen a few instances where the discussion has been around pulling up poor behaviour (both deliberate and unintentional), perhaps more people would be alive today, if someone had told them that their foolish behaviour was foolish.

 

 

[Wayne T Mathews]

...... I do quite a bit of emergency training and so far have not had to use much of it, but it is good to know what is possible. If I had been using the opposite direction strip things would be very different, there is nowhere straight ahead to land, so the impossible turn would be more attractive.

Yenn, please, listen to what we're saying, "DO NOT TURN BACK!" The impossible turn is never attractive because it doesn't work. That's why we call it the impossible turn. It doesn't work...

 

You have said, "If I had been using the opposite direction strip things would be very different, there is nowhere straight ahead to land," And that's wrong! It would not be even slightly different, and there IS ALWAYS somewhere straight ahead to land. It may well be between the trees, but it is far better to"Go straight ahead to the hospital," than to "turn back to the morgue."

 

 

[Guest Howard Hughes]

Most tricycle U/C pilots I see only use the rudder pedals for turning while taxiing. Nev

I resemble that remark, I flew for about ten years before I realised the aircraft even had a rudder!

Straight ahead (relatively) and in control is the only way to go!

 

 

[Bandit12]

For those that might enjoy reading the debate, it has been discussed over at pprune a couple of times....

 

http://www.pprune.org/dg-p-general-aviation-questions/481400-efato-turn-back.html

 

If nothing else, there are some interesting points made by serving RAAF pilots where it is apparently still taught at some levels and for some specific airfields. That said, there still isn't anything to support that any civvie pilot should make a turn back. Certainly I have never been shown one in training, never practiced one and was certainly trained never to attempt it under any circumstances.

 

 

[Gnarly Gnu]

Wayne you would agree that there must be some height where a 180 deg or 270 deg gliding turn is going to be safely doable? Also I believe for single engine turbine aircraft CASA have a CAO which requires an EF turnback manuever be taught, so I suggest impossible is not the right word. In most cases not advisable, certainly but this would depend on the height, conditions and alternatives right?

 

 

[Wayne T Mathews]

I resemble that remark, I flew for about ten years before I realised the aircraft even had a rudder!

In my case, I thought I knew what the rudder was for. I had hundreds of hours in the Cub for Krisake... But then I met Kev Walters...