You have been told - by kevin walters

[Gnarly Gnu]

Found the video I was looking for which demonstrates clearly the height lost in gliding turns at different bank angles 15deg - 60deg, for that aircraft. It is on the SoCal Aerobatic Club website, can't embed here. Note their demonstrations were all with additional height added for safety unlike the videos above.

 

Update: Also good info from AOPA here.

 

 

[David Isaac]

All done at 500ft ... nothing below ... what dos that say loud and clear ...

 

 

[Gnarly Gnu]

All done at 500ft ... nothing below ... what dos that say loud and clear ...

That it is not something to do below 500 feet AGL.

 

 

[nong]

 

At least Kevin practices what he preaches. This is not a turn back attempt. EFATO training gone wrong at Forest Hill (Wagga) in April sixty two. Instructor Niel Whybrow and student Kevin Walters walked away.

 

Jim G, maybe Kev could give you the full story over a beer one day.

 

This shot shows the flight path with the runway threshold beyond the tree.. They flew straight into the tree then took out the telephone lines and landed on the railway with a neat one-eighty spin.

 

The tree is still there.

 

 

[poteroo]

Found the video I was looking for which demonstrates clearly the height lost in gliding turns at different bank angles 15deg - 60deg, for that aircraft. It is on the SoCal Aerobatic Club website, can't embed here. Note their demonstrations were all with additional height added for safety unlike the videos above.Update: Also good info from AOPA here.

These 'experiments' fail to allow for the 'ground rush' effect which happens to the average pilot. And it's compounded if they need to make some turns L or R to miss obstacles. When asked to make high aob, low level, descending turns with lots of obstacles in view, a high proportion of pilots will load up the wing by pulling the turn hard without keeping the nose down. This reaction has to be overcome for successful manoeuvring at low level even - with power available. It requires training with a well qualified low level instructor. It helps most pilots a lot to learn how to manage turns at low level with power available - then onto low level power loss situations. From there, the 'conventional' EFATO will be much less daunting.

 

Heed the message from Kevin.

 

happy days,

 

 

[davebutler]

Well 6 pages on and I think Ole Kev has done what he set out to do, make us sit up, take notice and most of all THINK. Yes he can have the tact of a Pitbull and he is not everybodies cup of tea but having spend a number of hours with him he does practice what he preaches and he can most certainly fly and do so safely, you do not spend a life as an Ag pilot and live to tell the tale by NOT being safe. It is this that he teaches his students as well as how to fly. I was at his place when this topic was discussed after a recent accident and I can confirm it was written out of frustration. I have read and seen the videos on these pages and from an instructors point of view you can not teach that it is possible with A/C "A" but not with A/C "B", you must teach a sure fire technique for any A/C and that is "In the event of an engine failure after take off we will land straight ahead".(The Psalm according to St Kev).

 

I believe some of these videos, the 1 of the C182 in particular, does little to help as I am convinced that the engine was not at idle and was done at 500ft. Some student will see this and push his luck. Thes types of videos can do more harm than good.

 

Bottom line I suppose is landing straight ahead has been taught for years and the stats prove that it works.

 

My 2c

 

 

[turboplanner]

Thes types of videos can do more harm than good.

The poster of them is going to be taking full responsibility for anyone who doesn't make it.

 

 

[fly_tornado]

Since when did we become adults incapable of making our own decisions and need to live in a world of censorship? One thing that sh1ts me about Australians is that we are a bunch of "nanny staters"

 

 

[turboplanner]

Well at least two dead RA pilots in recent turn back accidents would be only too pleased to see their nannys again.

 

 

[davebutler]

I am by no means suggesting that we censor these videos, I was just making a statement. Pilots were making this mistake long before Youtube. Even if you did ban or censor them I do not believe it would help, as f_t said " you can't ban stupidity".

 

 

[dutchroll]

Since when did we become adults incapable of making our own decisions and need to live in a world of censorship? One thing that sh1ts me about Australians is that we are a bunch of "nanny staters"

What sh*ts me most about not only we Australians, but also humans around the world in general, is that it's the year 2012 and far too many of us repeatedly end up proving beyond any doubt that we are not capable of making sensible decisions or well-reasoned risk analysis - even when all the information we require to do so is already there.

 

 

[eightyknots]

Found the video I was looking for which demonstrates clearly the height lost in gliding turns at different bank angles 15deg - 60deg, for that aircraft. It is on the SoCal Aerobatic Club website, can't embed here. Note their demonstrations were all with additional height added for safety unlike the videos above.Update: Also good info from AOPA here.

QUOTES FROM THIS INSTRUCTIVE WEBSITE VIDEO:

 

"

 

15 degree bank, descends 600 ft/min, and loses 870 ft in altitude in a 360 degree turn

 

30 degree bank, descends 650 ft/min, and loses 450 ft in altitude in a 360 degree turn

 

45 degree bank, descends 900 ft/min, and loses 390 ft in altitude in a 360 degree turn

 

60 degree bank, descends 1,50 ft/min, and loses 350 ft in altitude in a 360 degree turn (with occasional stall buffeting)

 

ANALYSIS:

 

This experimentation shows that shallow bank angles are not effective in reducing altitude loss in turn-arounds.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

Although it is counter-intuitive to some, increased aerodynamic efficiency at shallow bank angles is more than offset by the additional time consumed in shallow turns."

 

This video is basically teaching: if anyone was to attempt the 'impossible turn' it would be from an acceptable height and at a steeper bank angle, e.g. 45 degrees.

 

EDIT: ...but if you look at Jim's advice in the post just below this one, it seems that a 180 degree arc (90 degrees to either side of the runway) is much safer. There is only one life and it's not worth the risk losing it.

 

 

[mAgNeToDrOp]

As a low hour pilot this thread has got me thinking more about this again so it can only be a good thing. It's even got me researching more about it. I came across this post by Jim Davis on the Avcom forum discussing the same topic. with Jim Davis being quite well known and repected for his opinion by many I thought i would share. I hope he doesn't mind me posting here.

 

"OK let me have one last try.

 

I consider myself to be reasonably experienced, I also consider myself a thinking pilot. I have spent much of my life teaching pilots not to do it. And yet when the chips were down one night I found myself throwing the aircraft into the impossible turn.

 

What I am saying is that in that moment of disbelief and panic your thinking goes out of the window. My instincts took over from my logic. Of course I knew that I could never get back to the runway from 3 or 400 ft and yet I tried it and was only rescued from my stupidity by the engine recovering. If it hadn't I would not be writing these words - I would have been planted long ago.

 

Now I am going to look at it from another angle. Let's take a figure - say 800 ft. You know from experience that you can just make it back on to the runway from 800 ft over the upwind threshold. So if you are at 750 ft you are going to die. What percentage of the time do you find yourself over the upwind threshold at 800 ft or above in a light single? Shall we say a generous 5%. Although I think you could sit at Rand watching takeoffs for a very long time without seeing such a takeoff.

 

OK now lets try to combine these two bits of information. If there has to be a rule for all takeoffs, the safest one would be land within a sensible arc ahead. NEVER try to turn back.

 

Your argument says why should competent, thinking pilots have to abide by a rule if they can, on 5% of the cases, think and fly their way safely round such a rule?

 

My answer is that competent and thinking pilots stop being competent and thinking when faced with the overriding panic that goes with knowing your life expectancy is measured in seconds and depends entirely on your actions during those seconds.

 

Now I must introduce one more factor. We have to take another guess. What are your chances of survival if you limit your choice of landing places to a 180 degree arc (90 degrees either side of straight ahead). OK this is a big guess because if you only operate out of Rand your chances are very different to only operating out of say Kimberley. But let's put a figure to an "average" field, if there is such a thing, and call it 70% survival. I think it's actually far greater, but let's settle for 70%. It is just a gut feel I have from knowing many pilots (including myself) who have walked away unscathed from EFATO. In fact I know of only one who landed ahead and did not survive.

 

Now lets try to remember how many cases we know of where otherwise competent pilots killed themselves by spinning in from the "impossible turn". Plenty.

 

And lets try to remember how many cases we know of where pilots have saved their lives by landing back on the runway. I don't know of any.

 

So I have to ask, if your son was learning to fly, and you wanted to give him a stay-alive rule to last him for the first 1000 hours (until he became a competent and thinking pilot) what rule would you give him?

 

Perhaps I can put if more graphically. Let's have someone chatting to you on the phone while watching your son take off. "There he goes, climbing away... oh, shit the engine has failed... " Would you like the next words to be "... he's trying to turn round. or "...he's put the nose down and is landing straight ahead."?

 

If it is a top aerobatic pilot who has climbed to 1500 ft in his Extra his chances of turning round are good.

 

But I am looking at this whole thing from an instructor's perspective. I know what I have to teach 95% of pilots 95% of the time.

 

And I have to give the following quick reminder to the other 5% - the thinking pilots - you probably stop being a thinking pilot when it actually happens to you.

 

I have nothing further to contribute to this discussion - that has exhausted my experience (4 EFATOs in singles) and my thoughts on this subject.

 

Jim"

 

Link to the thread: http://www.avcom.co.za/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=69920&start=30

 

 

[eightyknots]

...

OK now lets try to combine these two bits of information. If there has to be a rule for all takeoffs, the safest one would be land within a sensible arc ahead. NEVER try to turn back.

 

Your argument says why should competent, thinking pilots have to abide by a rule if they can, on 5% of the cases, think and fly their way safely round such a rule?

 

My answer is that competent and thinking pilots stop being competent and thinking when faced with the overriding panic that goes with knowing your life expectancy is measured in seconds and depends entirely on your actions during those seconds.

 

...

 

Now I must introduce one more factor. We have to take another guess. What are your chances of survival if you limit your choice of landing places to a 180 degree arc (90 degrees either side of straight ahead). OK this is a big guess because if you only operate out of Rand your chances are very different to only operating out of say Kimberley. But let's put a figure to an "average" field, if there is such a thing, and call it 70% survival. I think it's actually far greater, but let's settle for 70%. It is just a gut feel I have from knowing many pilots (including myself) who have walked away unscathed from EFATO. In fact I know of only one who landed ahead and did not survive.

 

Now lets try to remember how many cases we know of where otherwise competent pilots killed themselves by spinning in from the "impossible turn". Plenty.

 

And lets try to remember how many cases we know of where pilots have saved their lives by landing back on the runway. I don't know of any.

 

...

 

I have nothing further to contribute to this discussion - that has exhausted my experience (4 EFATOs in singles) and my thoughts on this subject.

Great WORDS OF WISDOM from Jim.

 

Thanks MaGnEtOdRoP for posting!!

 

 

[fly_tornado]

The key here is: How many schools actively teach power off steep turns? I am guessing none, hence the large number of turnaround accidents that end in a stall, due to people trying shallow turns.

 

 

[poteroo]

QUOTES FROM THIS INSTRUCTIVE WEBSITE VIDEO:"

15 degree bank, descends 600 ft/min, and loses 870 ft in altitude in a 360 degree turn

 

30 degree bank, descends 650 ft/min, and loses 450 ft in altitude in a 360 degree turn

 

45 degree bank, descends 900 ft/min, and loses 390 ft in altitude in a 360 degree turn

 

60 degree bank, descends 1,50 ft/min, and loses 350 ft in altitude in a 360 degree turn (with occasional stall buffeting)

 

ANALYSIS:

 

This experimentation shows that shallow bank angles are not effective in reducing altitude loss in turn-arounds.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

Although it is counter-intuitive to some, increased aerodynamic efficiency at shallow bank angles is more than offset by the additional time consumed in shallow turns."

 

This video is basically teaching: if anyone was to attempt the 'impossible turn' it would be from an acceptable height and at a steeper bank angle, e.g. 45 degrees.

 

EDIT: ...but if you look at Jim's advice in the post just below this one, it seems that a 180 degree arc (90 degrees to either side of the runway) is much safer. There is only one life and it's not worth the risk losing it.

Question: The numbers you quote are for a 360 turn ? So, in a turnback you will lose half that? Or, do we assume that you really turn more than 180 - perhaps 270 deg - which means the height loss is 3/4 of the number quoted?

 

happy days,

 

 

[Gnarly Gnu]

The key here is: How many schools actively teach power off steep turns?

Yes this is important ignoring any EFATO implications. Seems most just teach power on steep banked 360 turns, not sure if this is terribly relevant in real life but it does cover the RaAus Ops manual steep turns requirement.

 

 

[Bandit12]

What sh*ts me most about not only we Australians, but also humans around the world in general, is that it's the year 2012 and far too many of us repeatedly end up proving beyond any doubt that we are not capable of making sensible decisions or well-reasoned risk analysis - even when all the information we require to do so is already there.

Now this is an interesting argument my friend. If we presume that all we need is the information, then we would have no problems with obesity (could lose a few kios myself) or smoking (luckily I never went down that path). Just knowing better is no guarantee to a reduction in risk taking behaviour. After all, it won't happen to me, will it? Surely not. Learning vicariously through others mistakes only goes so far.

 

 

[Bandit12]

... at no stage has anyone said that Kevin is not a great and experienced instructor.

Not even I suggested he wasn't an experienced instructor - in honesty, I have never heard of him before. But instructional experience aside, I will disagree with his methods of motivating people, and I suspect that while he has successfully vented his frustration, most of the good instructors who already teach the right thing will continue to do so; the ones that teach the wrong thing will disagree and continue to do so; and those aviators that were taught correctly but chose to contemplate, prepare and practice a turn back will continue to do so because name calling and emotional blackmail doesn't work.

You don't see it working for smokers. You don't see it working for gamblers. You don't see it working for hoons in cars. It won't work with aviation either.

 

 

[facthunter]

You must use a large bank angle. Every test done comes to this conclusion. The TIME in the turn and not the ROD is what determies the height loss. Jim Davis is right though....

 

You shouldn't do them.

 

What if you CAN manage one? Can you get it right every time. The height cannot be used simply, either. You might have reached 800 feet but be so far away from the runway that you will not reach it, or you might reach 800 feet before reaching the far end and when you turn around not have enough runway to pull up on . You're generally going to be landing with a tailwind, which you don't practice very often, and you may stall the plane because it feels to be going fast, and it is, but not because of a high airspeed.. The steep gliding turn has to be performed precisely and quickly. If you are going to gamble be able to afford to lose. You are running a big risk going for a turn back. The statistics prove it and just because somebody said it can be done, or has done it,.that doesn't mean that you will pull it off. Nev

 

 

[facthunter]

I reckon people will do it (Instinctively) in some cases whatever way they are trained/taught. You have to believe as an instructor, that some of the good advice will sink in, but listening to what turn-back people have said and Jim Davis as well "they don't know why they did it". When a pilot especially an inexperienced one crashes the question will always be there How was he/she taught? The instructor MUST know that he covered the subject fully and that the important minimum skills were passed on . How anybody reacts under pressure will only really become known when an actual situation happens. GOOD training will cover in a lot of situations . Nev

 

 

[M61A1]

The key here is: How many schools actively teach power off steep turns? I am guessing none, hence the large number of turnaround accidents that end in a stall, due to people trying shallow turns.

Having done some training with Kev, I know that he does (teach low level, power off, high bank angle stuff), I've been through it myself.

 

 

[Mick]

The key here is: How many schools actively teach power off steep turns? I am guessing none, hence the large number of turnaround accidents that end in a stall, due to people trying shallow turns.

I was taught power off steep turns as part of an S turn profile to loose height if required on a forced landing.

 

But also taught never turn back in EFATO.

 

.

 

 

[M61A1]

I reckon people will do it (Instinctively) in some cases whatever way they are trained/taught. You have to believe as an instructor, that some of the good advice will sink in, but listening to what turn-back people have said and Jim Davis as well "they don't know why they did it". When a pilot especially an inexperienced one crashes the question will always be there How was he/she taught? The instructor MUST know that he covered the subject fully and that the important minimum skills were passed on . How anybody reacts under pressure will only really become known when an actual situation happens. GOOD training will cover in a lot of situations . Nev

I agree completely, in particular with regard to training until it becomes instinctive. Just being told, will not do that. How many videos can you find of people stalling while holding the stick back in their gut because their instincts are telling them the get away from the ground, instead of maintain your airspeed? Whatever your emergency procedures are, they need to be regularly rehearsed, and not just saying it to yourself, but actually carried out.

 

 

[Wayne T Mathews]

Not even I suggested he wasn't an experienced instructor - in honesty, I have never heard of him before.....

Good afternoon Shane,

 

I hadn't heard of Kevin either before he was recommended to me as an instructor trainer. And Kev and I had gone to the same school, the RAAF School of Technical Training (RSTT), when we were lads (admittedly, Kev was seven years ahead of me).

 

Now I'm not a head shrinker, but I did have to learn a bit about, and then teach defences to the hijack phenomena, "Stockholme Syndrome", when I was carrying out the "Safety" training and annual refresher courses that I used to run for the flight deck and cabin crews when I was in Air Nauru. I'll put it to you as a Psych (I think that's what you said you are in an earlier post, didn't you?) that perhaps Kev is unconciously employing a "Stockholme Style" of instructional technique occasionally? For I can assure you, that so long as he can see his students are listening and progressing, Kev truly does have the patience of Job and is a real nice bloke. But when you don't listen to him, and/or you try to tell him you know better than him and then can't defend your claim... Ho boy... That experience is not pleasant... Kevin will not suffer fools. And he will not apologise for not suffering fools... And I for one, despite its political incorrectness, will defend Kev's right to do that. It is my opinion that if I can't handle being told I'm being a "D#ckh#ad", then I can either 1/ not be one, or 2/ not go near Kev Walters.