E F A T O reference thread: quality information only :-)

[eightyknots]

Engine Failure At Take Off

 

OK, I have decided to start this reference thread, following Turbz' suggestion in another thread which had a lot of robust debate, some troll-like actions and contained videos which were, let's say, "somewhat misleading" (a kind description). The second reason is that I wouldn't like the quality contributions from experienced pilots get lost in the murky waters of the other thread.

 

I learned a lot from that thread but I would like to see a collection of quality information from experienced pilots to assist those pilots who are low-time or learning, or perhaps even pilots who have missed out on EFATO training and want to find out the latest consensus.

 

The main reason why this thread has been started is aviation safety: i.e., to save pilots from serious injury or even losing their lives.

 

(feel free to contribute quality information below)

 

 

[Ballpoint 246niner]

The late Mike Valentine, an early mentor of mine in gliding wrote a very good article in the AUF days in the magazine about this very subject. Maybe someone can put their finger on it but a key point I took from it and teach is the reaction/ action phase and the time/ energy airspeed loss even at best rate attitudes. The pre takeoff safety brief will always mark it in the front of your mind but 2-3 seconds reaction at best sheds a lot of safe airspeed .

 

Understanding the turning sink rate equation is equally important in pilots grappling with accepting the impossible turn decision. A point well demonstrated in the associated video but based on a C172.

 

Another area that can't be understood accept in controlled circumstances with a CFI is the reduced elevator and rudder control effectiveness at low airspeeds without the prop slipstream in a typical 3 axis configuration. In our training exercises we don't get to demonstrate this and until you have experienced it for real you won't know -it can be quite a marked difference, and I'm not talking about dead sticks on final when good safe airspeed has been established.(Caution Note: Can only be performed with a CFI in RA aircraft in controlled circumstances)

 

After the initial EFATO lesson intro I brief my students " from this day forth you will always say a pre take off safety brief. Either under your breath if with passengers or out loud with an instructor or to yourself. "if I don't hear one the next thing you will hear is the power being taken from you!! Be warned...

 

This lesson must be constantly reinforced by instructors and mentors within us.

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

In the days I flew trikes I had a 582 seize just as I was turning crosswind. The mistakes I made that day and was fortunate to survive from were that I did not use the full runway to take off, rather chose an intersection departure with about 30% of the runway behind me, had I used all available, potentially I could have landed ahead.

 

The trike was an Edge X with a streak wing. What surprised me was the rapidity that I lost forward momentum, I had very little time to get the nose down and very little time to have long internal debates about what to do...... I ended up landing across the cross strip with very strong tail wind because I didn't have time or altitude to turn fully onto the cross wind runway which was a 180 from where the engine gave up the ghost. I turned early onto cross wind due the intersection departure (ugly places ahead if I kept on runway heading) so had probably from memory maybe 600ft and in that after the shock of the failure I only achieved a 90 degree turn.....

 

Landing was smooth but ugly, but lucky in that the wheat fields were just stubble after harvesting and I landed on the mown ground before the cross strip, roared across the strip and into the stubble and pulled up just short of a barb wire fence...... that huge tail wind did not help at all. No damage to me or the aircraft

 

Had I used the full length of the field I would have either landed ahead, or had proper altitude on cross wind to come up with a better alternate to what I did.

 

I was lucky and was fortunate that my instructor spent ages on dealing with EFATO in training.

 

I was lucky that it was only the 582 that failed and not a 912. Why? well take off in a 582 can be steepish, but in the 912 which IMHO has almost too much power for the aircraft the nose is almost rocket ship profile if people take off with full power. If a similar failure, full revs to instant seize (in retrospect with a minor grab revs sag about 2 seconds before the full seize) had occurred the bleed off of forward momentum would have been even more rapid than it was for me, I wonder if there is enough forward momentum in that flight profile, to allow for the OMG moment and the pitch forward needed while still maintaining flying speed.....Im not saying it isn't recoverable, just that the altitude loss before the appropriate controlled descent profile is established could well be much more than would otherwise be the case...Something to consider if you fly a 912 based trike if your going up at 45+degrees then the pitch over needs to be about 90 degrees to get that controlled profile, if your take off is only 30 degrees then pitchover 15 degrees less to be achieved with dyeing forward momentum and those extra 15 are in the worst possible place to have them.

 

Andy

 

 

[eightyknots]

This video was posted yesterday and illustrates the Impossible Turn really well:

 

 

 

[turboplanner]

This is how quickly a spin can develop when you try to get heading by squeezing the turn:

 

 

 

[turboplanner]

Here's another one. Count the seconds from the engine failure, deduct the first two seconds for the brain stumbling with "This can't be happening, I have to get back down on the strip" - very little time left except for Nose down straight ahead.

 

 

 

[facthunter]

You would really have to know your aircraft's performance PROPERLY..You need a steep(er) turn to optimise the result and special training. Your turn to a reciprocal runway is 180 +30 and then another 30 back to runway alignment, so that's a fair amount of turning to deteriorate your glide performance. In the VID a height 1,000' is decided. Obviously your distance from the aerodrome HAS to be factor as well as the downwind landing which most people have little training in. The height and distance judging becomes much more critical and you will feel as though you are too fast. Your instinct is to turnback, as you have been trained to keep within gliding distance of the runway in the circuit, and landing on the runway is more attractive than an off aerodrome landing. Landing straight ahead (within 30 degrees of runway heading or into wind directly. has a lot of advantages with survivability although some aircraft damage could be expected. Especially with treed or built up areas an appreciation of the problem at preflight briefing would more mentally prepare you to do the correct thing and not the instinctive thing. You must not lose control of the aircraft either. Nev

 

 

[djpacro]

Lots of good guff on this subject at http://www.nar-associates.com/technical-flying/technical_flying.html

 

Subjects include:

 

Should You Turn Back?

 

Discusses the optimal maneuver for a turnback after engine failure during take-off.

 

The Feasibility of Turnback from a Low Altitude Engine Failure During the Takeoff Climb-out Phase by Brent Jett

 

The complete AIAA (American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronutics) paper that discusses a simulator experiment addressing the turnback after engine failure at low altitude (500 feet) during take-off problem (329k pdf file).

 

This experimental work was done as a research project at the United States Naval Academy Aerospace Engineering Department during 1981 while Jett was a Midshipman 1/C. I was the Academic Advisor. Professor Bernard Carson contributed to the theoretical part of the research. (I reset the paper and made one or two minor corrections.)

 

Dave Rogers

 

The Possible `Impossible' Turn

 

This paper discusses the optimal maneuver for a turnback after engine failure during take-off. The paper is quite mathematical. However, any pilot can benefit from the discussion of the results and the graphs. (281k pdf file).

 

Based on an AIAA (American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronutics) Journal of Aircraft paper of the same title (Vol. 32, pp. 392-397, 1995).

 

The Penalties From Using Non-optimal Turnback Parameters

 

This article discusses the penalties from using non-optimal parameters for a turnback maneuver after engine failure during take-off. The article specifically shows the penalties that result from using the climbout speed, bank angle and speed in the turn recommendations in an article by Barry Schiff in the April 2011 issue of AOPA Pilot. (187k pdf file).

 

Analysis of the Video of an Actual Mooney 20C Turnback?

 

Discusses the video of an actual turnback maneuver executed in a Mooney 20C after engine failure at 450-500 ft AGL during take-off.

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

Obviously with one under my belt I can talk about it from my point of view and there are some blunt facts that need to be faced:-

 

1) Im an intelligent human, I have above average IQ and as such would never do something stupid like turn back........what absolute BS!!!!...If you hear this its from someone who hasn't been there done that yet IMHO......All this discussion about "thought process" is crap, you have seconds and most of them are used up dealing with WTF!! You have instinct and survival, understand in advance what they will make you do and instead of trying to counter them....and good luck in succeeding with that minor undertaking if you ant to try!!!.....try and work with them.

 

2) I was well on the way to completing the turn back before I even thought about "should I be doing this"?

 

3) Decisions that are fixed sometimes are our own worst enemy, we often talk in absolutes, make a D and stick to it.....to me that's a sure way of ending up a statistic.....you should be always some time ahead of the aircraft in your control and overall thought process.......identify when something isn't going to work and change tack don't ride it into the ground.... Im guessing the really great pilots are a lot further ahead than I am, can see when things aren't going to work earlier and because of the extra time have more options available to them.

 

4) on my turn back from early crosswind I suppose at some deep survival level I thought at the beginning I could do the 135 degree turn and then final adjustment of heading to set down where I came from, by 90 degrees it was clear to me that wasn't going to be possible, so pick an alternate and run with that one that looks possible from where you are as soon as its clear it isn't going to work.

 

5) those that have survived an EFATo and landed straight ahead I wonder if that was because the WTF moment was long enough in length for them that by the time they were through it and ready to do something there was no alternate but to land ahead......

 

That was one up in a 2 seater, had the second seat been occupied things would have happened faster still and sitting behind they may well have grabbed onto me in desperation.....

 

 

[Ballpoint 246niner]

Obviously with one under my belt I can talk about it from my point of view and there are some blunt facts that need to be faced:-.

 

5) those that have survived an EFATo and landed straight ahead I wonder if that was because the WTF moment was long enough in length for them that by the time they were through it and ready to do something there was no alternate but to land ahead......

 

That was one up in a 2 seater, had the second seat been occupied things would have happened faster still and sitting behind they may well have grabbed onto me in desperation.....

Andy I reckon there's a lot of truth in point 5 . The crux is using those precious few seconds to configure and align the aircraft within the 30 degree splay to maximise survivability is the most important and useful thing you can do. The turn back is like a Russian roulette roll of the gun magazine every second as worsening options are developing in the claw back to see the unattainable picture that is ( mostly) never realised with only the accompanying tragedy as the end game.

 

 

[Guest Maj Millard]

80 Kts,

 

Always a good idea to highlight this area of danger that continues to get people more than it should. The urge to turn around to regain the safety of the runway you just left, is very strong indeed, but must be resisted at low level after an engine failure.

 

It is always better to land ahead, and is the difference between a controlled (slower ) arrival, or the alternative, an uncontrolled usually faster impact arrival, that often proves fatal because of increased impact damage to the aircraft and the higher speed.

 

I am a lucky survivor of a double-fatal 'impossible turn ' attempt in a Cessna 182. The crash was written up in an article in the Australian Aviation Safety digest with graphic photos which I am happy to post here in its entirety if you wish.

 

Myself and a lady survived in the rear seat positions, while the two foward occupants wern't so lucky. Aircraft was pretty much destroyed after a low level turn back attempt.

 

Additionally Andrew Cambell the CFI at Jaspers Brush north of Nowra was intending to produce a video on the subject highlighting the Psychological aspects of the turn back impulse. It appears to have connections to our inbuilt 'fight or flight' reaction when personal danger presents itself...........Maj....

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

Go to a gliding club that uses winch launch, and do the GFA required training for winch-launch cable break. Then relate that to the actual L/D ratio for the aircraft you fly.

 

A typical two-seat training glider can make a "modified circuit" - usually a 135 degree turn, fly out to a close downwind leg spacing to allow a 135 degree turn to a "base" leg, followed by a final turn, from a cable break at about 450 feet AGL; the critical thing is to stabilise the speed BEFORE commencing the first turn, which means the decision height after stabilising the speed, is at about 400 feet. That normally allows the subsequent manoeuvring to be done with a comfortable margin to clear trees etc. If you have less than 400 feet, there will normally be sufficient strip to land straight ahead (remember, gliders have dive brakes). That's with a glider whose L/D ratio is around 26:1 ~ 30:1. GFA sets strip requirements so there is no "non-manoeuvring area"; and it's worth studying the basis on which this is calculated.

 

If your aircraft can only manage, say 12:1, that height would need to be multiplied by 26/12 = 2.17, so the equivalent "decision height" would be around 870 feet. However, the length of a gliding strip used for winch-launching is such that the glider is only about 1/4 of the way along the strip when it reaches 450 feet; whereas a powered aircraft may be past the upwind end of the strip - so the shape of the necessary manoeuvre will be quite different. In effect, a single-engine light aeroplane has a substantial "non-manoeuvring area" . It's not all that difficult to work out what that area is likely to be, for your home strip. The result is likely to be sobering.

 

 

[Ballpoint 246niner]

Spot on David, that's where I started. NMA is a concept foreign to many power pilots.

 

 

[kaz3g]

And remember that a little extra speed when very close to the ground - but above it, not on it - is your friend.

 

Kaz

 

 

[Aldo]

I believe it depends entirely on your training and your understanding of what physics keeps an aeroplane (with or without power) in the air, I practice on a regular basis positions where I can get back to the strip, I also allow (when I'm able) myself to drift downwind after take off thereby reducing the number of degrees required to get back on the reciprocal track.

 

In my 230 if I have 700 feet and I'm on crosswind (and it must be crosswind i.e. wind from in front of you not with the wind behind you in a normal left circuit turn) I can make it back, if I'm not on crosswind don't bother as it is very unlikely that I will make it, but every aeroplane is different.

 

I have been told that 60 deg is the optimum angle of bank for the least loss of altitude for degrees turned in this situation (I haven't tried it) but it would take a brave person to allow the nose to fall away to remain above the stall in that situation, but it makes sense from a mathematical point of view.

 

Andy said

 

"5) those that have survived an EFATo and landed straight ahead I wonder if that was because the WTF moment was long enough in length for them that by the time they were through it and ready to do something there was no alternate but to land ahead....."

 

I don't believe this to be true in all cases and what you are insinuating is that people who land straight ahead are not as aware of what is going on, maybe they are just doing what they have been taught.

 

I have been unlucky enough to have had an engine failure after take off (Comanche 180) with 4 pob and lucky enough for all to survive without injury (aeroplane wasn't that fortunate) I had no thoughts of turning back but this may have been due to the fact that I had only just completed my PPL and 6 out of 10 take offs (with an instructor, back in the time when instructors were 50 years old had 10,000 hrs and knew how to instruct) you had an engine failure it became so ingrained to look 20 deg either side of the nose for somewhere to land, additional to this it was also part of the pre take off checks to determine what we would do in the event of an engine failure in several different scenarios, prior to rotation, just after rotation, after 300 feet and after cleanup. I do this mentally if I'm on my own, if I have passengers I brief them on what I will do should this happen (this tends to make the decision making process faster). Additionally as I fly Cessna's a lot I also brief the other person in the front that if my seat rails fail and I go backwards to grab the control column and push it forward to maintain level flight until I'm in a position to take over.

 

I'm no expert but these are a couple of things that I have learnt over a 25+ years of flying.

 

Allan

 

 

[dodo]

One other GFA practice that might avoid turn-backs is to have a plan of what to do if the engine fails: before this point, the runway ahead, after that to 200', that paddock. Above that, to the right, that paddock...etc.

 

Obviously, GFA clubs fly from fields they know well, and have good alternatives ahead, so it isn't always as easy for us...

 

BUT I think one reason people turn back is it is the one obvious useful landing area.

 

With a plan before take-off, you have better chance of getting better decisions.

 

dodo

 

PS one place I fly from has little postage stamp horse-paddocks all ahead after take-off. I still have no useful plan for that particular scenario until about 500'. There isn't always a good answer!

 

 

[Bernie]

All of my instructors [there were several GA-AUF] pulled the throttle on me at some stage of the day.

 

The worst was first take off one was thinking more of getting the little bugga in the air.

 

But every day it was done even if I had done 6 touch & goes it would happen

 

I think they all watched me for the right [in their minds] time to do it.

 

Was good training for what may [but never] happen.

 

Frightened one CFI in Maryborough Qld when I done one myself [pay back] hehe.

 

Bernie.

 

 

[Head in the clouds]

I believe it depends entirely on your training and your understanding of what physics keeps an aeroplane (with or without power) in the air, I practice on a regular basis positions where I can get back to the strip, I also allow (when I'm able) myself to drift downwind after take off thereby reducing the number of degrees required to get back on the reciprocal track.

Just in case anyone didn't pick up on this, I think it's the single most poignant comment made so far and contains three absolutely golden messages that all should be aware of -

 

It does absolutely depend on your training and your understanding. Many people have never been trained on the turn-back because some schools adopt the position that it is either impossible to do or that it is irresponsible to teach it because it may encourage people to try and they may not judge it correctly. I'm not going to jump for one or other position on that as far as the schools are concerned but certainly if you've never been trained on it then you should never even consider attempting it, probably from any height, because you're unlikely to have been trained on downwind landings.

 

In my school, and others that I worked in, we did train the students in the turn-back, and did it multiple times with each student resulting in their being able to quickly judge from the sight picture, awareness of the wind direction and strength, and familiarity with that particular aircraft's glide performance, (i.e. not from the altimeter at all) whether they could safely manage the turn-back or should select a forced landing site ahead.

 

With frequent practice with idling engine, and practice in all sorts of different wind conditions and with the different aircraft types that you fly, your performance in the 'real event' will be many times better than if the first time you do it is also the 'real event'. So, like most aspects of staying safe when flying, if you haven't practiced it don't try it for the first time when under pressure. But I believe people who weren't trained in it should practice it as part of their advanced flying development, perhaps start by requesting some practice at height with your instructor when you do your next BFR, make the BFR more useful.

 

The third point that Aldo makes is about the CDATO. The Crosswind Drift After Take-Off is a bit controversial as some observers who might not be aware of the purpose consider that it looks a bit sloppy and unprofessional. After all, we're taught to track the runway centreline after take-off aren't we? CDATO may not be appropriate at every airstrip or where there is a lot of traffic in or approaching the circuit, so that needs to be considered when deciding whether to use CDATO, but in my experience CDATO can be performed in the large majority of take-offs and at some airfields, for safety reasons, I will use it regardless of traffic after having broadcast my intention clearly. Those airports are ones where there is nowhere safe to make a landing ahead in case of EFATO, runways cut out of forested areas, those with towns straight ahead etc.

 

In post no. 7 above facthunter said the turnback involves 180+30+30 degrees of turning and that also involves three lots of rolling into and out of turning. I don't quite agree that it's always like that and may depend on the aircraft type - in my experience it's actually even worse than that if turning back from a practice engine failure at a height that is marginal for the turn-back to be performed. In experimentation I found that you would reach a height where it was 'just safe' to turn back at a distance not very far beyond the end of the runway, i.e. a fairly steep sight picture to the reciprocal heading landing point. This would necessitate a 180+60+60 degree turn to make it to a position where you are lined up for a downwind landing, a total of 300 degrees of turning.

 

Now look at the CDATO method. Nearly every take-off has some degree of crosswind, so the first consideration is to ascertain which side you will choose to drift off the centreline during the initial stages of the climb. After lifting off (having broadcast your intention to drift) you allow the aircraft to drift off the centreline downwind i.e. you don't crab down the runway centreline. If the engine quits very soon after take-off you just fly back to the runway and land on it ahead similar to if you hadn't drifted off it - your drift distance will never be so great that you can't glide back to the runway should you need to. If the engine quits later you scan ahead 30 degrees each side and make a landing site selection. So you haven't compromised anything at all.

 

Next you consider your height, wind strength (you are already aware of the wind direction) and aircraft performance, and perhaps you decide to turn back if you're high enough. The chances are that you have already turned the few degrees to face back towards the runway instinctively as soon as the engine first coughed so you're probably now crabbing at, say 10 degrees, towards the runway when you make the decision to turn back. This means you have only 170 degrees to turn to be back on the reciprocal heading and you have two other factors working in your favour which will be very likely to eliminate the need for the extra 60=60 degrees of turning to get lined up. First you were already positioned downwind of the centreline so that gives you a fair bit of room to make the turn without going past the other side of the centreline, and second, all the time you are turning the crosswind is constantly drifting you in the right direction to avoid your crossing the centreline, so by the time you've turned to the runway reciprocal heading you will be lined up for the landing.

 

So - using the CDATO method you reduce your turning requirement from 300 degrees to only a little more than half that amount - about 170 degrees, and since the greatest height loss, by far, is while turning, the method can make an enormous difference in the height required to complete the manoeuvre.

 

 

[motzartmerv]

Additioally Andrew Cambell the CFI at Jaspers Brush north of Nowra was intending to produce a video on the subject highlighting the Psychological aspects of the turn back impulse. It appears to have connections to our inbuilt 'fight or flight' reaction when personal danger presents itself...........Maj....

The video is coming Maj. I have been working closely with the university of Wollongong's psychology dept for about a year now.

 

They have implemented a few "lab' tests and we are producing a paper on the subject.

 

Once the findings are finalized, and we have concrete evidence we will submit it all to the RAA, CASA and the ATSB.

 

One point that has been highlighted so far is that the way we train pilots to deal with it is a massive part of the problem.

 

Im not going to go into it too much now, as im sure id get the usual responses from those who know better, but there is a scientific explanation that indicates these two things:

 

1. We are hard wired to turn back. Theres not much we can do about it in the heat of the moment.

 

2. We are training our pilots to turn back, even though we think we are doing the opposite.

 

The testing and experiments is looking like getting some additional funding aswel, there is talk of the uni purchasing a light aeroplane to rig with testing equipment.

 

I dont know if t will come off, but we have some of the best minds in psychology, in Australia working with us.

 

Clearly there is a problem. And it CAN be overcome.

 

For now, a headsup. Instructors. STOP pulling the power off on upwind. Its this training that is killing people.

 

More to come......

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

..........Andy said

"5) those that have survived an EFATo and landed straight ahead I wonder if that was because the WTF moment was long enough in length for them that by the time they were through it and ready to do something there was no alternate but to land ahead....."

 

I don't believe this to be true in all cases and what you are insinuating is that people who land straight ahead are not as aware of what is going on, maybe they are just doing what they have been taught......

Sorry if I offended that was not my intent.

 

I understand that there will be some who consciously do the right thing, but they seem to be in the minority or are very quiet when they pull it off. I'm equally aware that the time taken between disaster occurring and people being ready to deal with it is very variable in nature, In my case I got on the ground did some maint on the trike, looked for scoring etc on the barrel couldn't see anything, the engine started ran and seemed to produce full power on the ground so I went up again (from the very end of a 1500m runway) , and it failed again, but this time I was ready so the time between occurrence and being in full control was very much reduced 2nd time around allowing me to land ahead and stop about 2/3rds the way down.....

 

I guess the only analogy I can use is the road speed limits, they are set up to deal with the lowest common denominator and if you aren't that or are a better than average driver they are realistically slower than your skill level, but still they are appropriate for some folk. Similarly the time taken for the WTF moment for some people will be significantly longer than others..... I don't see that as being a slight on peoples character, peoples reaction times are what they are, its not like we have any choice as whether as a sportsman we will rise to the level of sports spectator or an Olympic grade sportsman....its what our parents genes give us and how much we practise, however practise alone is IMHO unlikely to completely compensate for spectator genes.....

 

Andy

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

In my personal experience, if you have rehearsed the situation either in your mind or physically, your WTF moment will be greatly reduced. I've had a few such moments, and for me, time slowed down - one seems to go into a "superconductive" mode, or something of the sort, for a few seconds, and things happen in slow motion. I also had this described to me, by a pilot who had to bail out of a glider in a hurry. I suspect this is a consequence of experience and training. I have no idea whether this happens to everybody.

 

I've also observed that students whose instructors have not exposed them to some unexpected events, often "freeze" when they are overloaded. I can't, offhand, think of anything much worse than "freezing" when you're climbing at about 45 degrees nose-up, at around 450 ft AGL, and the winch cable breaks; you HAVE to get the nose down rapidly. So understanding the physics of the situation and reacting fast and appropriately are both training requirements. Recovery from unusual attitudes is potentially useful for this, I would expect.

 

This being the case, I wonder at what will come out of a psychological study, unless the psychologists concerned are themselves competent pilots. Please excuse my skepticicsm.

 

 

[motzartmerv]

Psychologists understand the mechanisms behind the way we behave daffyd. The study involves dozens of people, some pilots some not, but all are humans.

 

The time slowing you speak of is perfectly explained by the underlaying principles and scope of the study.

 

The fight or flight function is what causes the issues, and is a function of the primative brain and bypassed the logic centers of the brain. So we can train, and talk, and teach all we like , it all goes out the window once fight or flight response kicks in.

 

Pulling the power on people to " shock " them actually has the opposite effect. It puts the pilot in " Flight " mode, and not fight mode.

 

I'm not a doctor so forgive my laymans explanations.

 

Freezing on the caltrols is another example of "flight" instead of fight.

 

The first thing out monkey ancestors would do when confronted by a tiger is " freeze" hoping the tiger wouldn't see them.

 

This function is still alive and well in the modern human. And the focus of this study.

 

 

[SDQDI]

Psychologists understand the mechanisms behind the way we behave daffyd. The study involves dozens of people, some pilots some not, but all are humans.The time slowing you speak of is perfectly explained by the underlaying principles and scope of the study.

The fight or flight function is what causes the issues, and is a function of the primative brain and bypassed the logic centers of the brain. So we can train, and talk, and teach all we like , it all goes out the window once fight or flight response kicks in.

 

Pulling the power on people to " shock " them actually has the opposite effect. It puts the pilot in " Flight " mode, and not fight mode.

 

I'm not a doctor so forgive my laymans explanations.

 

Freezing on the caltrols is another example of "flight" instead of fight.

 

The first thing out monkey ancestors would do when confronted by a tiger is " freeze" hoping the tiger wouldn't see them.

 

This function is still alive and well in the modern human. And the focus of this study.

Sorry Merv but I couldn't help but have a laugh when you said 'it puts the pilot in flight mode' I know what you meant in regards to fight or flight but the play on words with flight I found funny:wink:

 

 

[facthunter]

I think it is fight or "fright"...... Fear makes you freeze. I agree some of our training is negative to the desired outcome and have stated so for so long it even puts ME off .. It would be very worthwhile to investigate our "tried and tested" (so we think )methods from that perspective. I have 3 years of tertiary psychology (which is not much) and a lot of human factors, resource management (in a flying environment) training. No funny comments thanks. I wouldn't mind being involved in some way. We started out with AP 1732 RAAF based patter and I'm not sure we have advanced a lot. Nev

 

 

[M61A1]

The Fight or Flight bit is a response when challenged, usually increased heart rate because of the immediate adrenaline shot, some individuals will freeze and tense up for the fight, others instinctively void their bowels an run (flight). With the right training (as Daffyd says), the shock is reduced even goes away once repeated often enough. Physical training, not just mental training can overcome the fight or flight response, to the point where it is instinctive to lower the nose and fly the plane. I've experienced it and I 'm a believer. If your instructor pulls the power in the worst of scenarios and often, you'll be a winner in the long run.