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

[motzartmerv]

One of the biggest challenges of a reasonably busy pilot (instructor) is to ward off complacency. Its very very easy to slip into it when you have done this sequence, this flight, this aeroplane 1000 times before. It takes constant, relentless focus and I personally have had to battle against it a lot, and recognise the symptoms in others.

 

 

[David Isaac]

Which is why none of us should object to a thorough flight review every two years. In fact we should expect it and not be precious about our (lack) of ability.

 

Hell at the moment I am absolutely NOT current and would not be comfortable about flying without at least a check flight. Could I fly without one ... absolutely ... is it my preference to have a check ... absolutely.

 

In fact I am currently investigating a complete review of subjects that I studied and passed more than 30 years ago ... why? ... because so much has changed.

 

 

[motzartmerv]

True that!!

 

 

[David Isaac]

Hey Motz, PM me your contact details please.

 

 

[M61A1]

Knowing what is happening and what you are doing, can't be overstated in Aviation. You can't dumb it down without risks. Nev

I've worked with plenty that like to over complicate things as well. I think that carries similar risks.

[facthunter]

Turbs, it might seem as if directed at RPT but they do two checks a year in the sim and usually a few fill ins, so there is plenty of opportunity to "stuff it up" if you are stale on the study. . Being two person crew, If someone is not good it will show to others you share the office with.

 

It was general knowledge that applicants for airlines, with more than 1500 hours showed little extra advantage for the time above roughly that figure. for initial entry in the right hand seat and had sometimes developed a "one man band " attitude and let a few bad habits creep in to the way they approached the task. No rule applies to everybody so the statements are general.

 

I prefer to instruct as it ensures I keep myself up to date thoroughly, when I'm actively flying. If you have a break, it's a whole study programme to be current, and I would like a workout with a very competent instructor to a standard at least as good as "normal".. Judging the landing flare is a small part of the whole picture, which many see as "the test of skill which it isn't. A controlled safe landing is the minimum. An experienced instructor will know if your flying is safe in less than one hour but you may need a little more revision than that. ( Another stuck post gone stale). Here t'is Nev

 

 

[AVOCET]

I thought of myself as a competent 1500 hr pilot before my prang .

 

that was aug 2011,

 

since then I've done aprox 50 hrs .

 

at the moment I'm not flying until I've done some recency training .

 

nothing like a bad prang to zap your mojo !

 

mike

 

 

[facthunter]

Avocet, It may well reduce your confidence ( having a prang). I would see that as perfectly normal. You probably would not even need to prang it. Just muck something up big time. You have to have enough confidence to give your best, or you are compromised too.. You have to get that confidence back.

 

M61 making it overcomplicated is pretty inexcusable. Some may lay it on to impress the student how much they know, which again is not good technique. In the teaching/learning process there should be checks to ensure the information is absorbed and understood. You shouldn't proceed to the next stage till it is. Once there is UNDERSTANDING it gets easier, not more difficult. Remembering formulae that don't make a lot of sense should be avoided unless strictly necessary and doing things by numbers is inferior to being more aware of where the plane is and what it has going for it. (situational awareness) Like I'm HIGH and also FAST. Another I'm too far from the aerodrome to glide there and resist lifting the nose ( although that may help if there is a strong tailwind). Another ... Or... On take-off.. Do I have a flat tyre or dragging brake or is the crosswind stronger than I thought?. Nev

 

 

[metalman]

Flying with a mate who's around the 23000 hour mark the other week really got me thinking, his preflight ,pre take off briefing, downwind checks were all precise ,no short cuts ,no feeling of "let's just fly it" , it really made me look at my own behaviour to see if I'd allowed slackness to creep in,

 

Matty

 

 

[eightyknots]

I thought of myself as a competent 1500 hr pilot before my prang .that was aug 2011,

since then I've done aprox 50 hrs .

 

at the moment I'm not flying until I've done some recency training .

 

nothing like a bad prang to zap your mojo !

 

mike

Hi Avocet, was your 2011 prang a result of EFATO?

 

 

[turboplanner]

While this is entertaining it also gives us a good look at reaction times, from those people who reacted subconsciously, in some cases just leaning or turning slightly to one where the pedestrian hasn't responded and is standing still in the same position after the accident is all over. http://www.utrend.tv/v/lucky-people/

 

 

[Head in the clouds]

I don't think this excellent Paul Bertorelli Avweb video ever got posted during the discussion. It's only a few minutes long and worth watching because Paul always looks at both sides of the equation. In this one he pretty much agrees with what several people said, the turn-back is not an impossible turn at all but certainly not recommended if it hasn't been well practiced -

 

 

 

[M61A1]

Some very good advice there.

 

 

[facthunter]

Always worth a watch. A Cub is a good fun plane.. Nev

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

I don't think this excellent Paul Bertorelli Avweb video ever got posted during the discussion. It's only a few minutes long and worth watching because Paul always looks at both sides of the equation. In this one he pretty much agrees with what several people said, the turn-back is not an impossible turn at all but certainly not recommended if it hasn't been well practiced -

 

Well, thanks for that - that's it in a nutshell, isn't it? The point about wind effect is a good one; however not really a problem in a glider, because of its dive brakes. Needs to be taken into account in anything that does not have an equivalent means of shedding the excess height.

 

 

[facthunter]

A lot of people would be put of by the apparent high (ground) speed, Needs to be demonstrated to be appreciated and If it is fairly high(tailwind) the stopping may be a bit tricky especially with a tailwheel plane where the elevators must be full forward (down) when you are nearly stopped which is the way you taxy in a strong tailwind (as you all know). Directional control is much harder too... Nev

 

 

[turboplanner]

It was an example based on one specific set of circumstances with one type of aircraft and even they were honest enough to add in a corrector.

 

A little bit like the Victorian TAC Ad where a girl on a bike illegally enters an intersection and is hit by a car travelling at 65 km/hr

 

The suggestion was that:

 

She would only have been seriously injured because the car at 65 km/hr would have taken 50 metres to stop at 65 km/hr

 

If the driver had "wiped off 5" she would have only been touched, and uninjured at the stopping distance of 45 metres.

 

However:

 

(a) They said nothing about her illegal action

 

(b) If she had ridden out when the car was just 5 metres later it also would have just touched her at 65 km/hr

 

© If it had been travelling at 170 km/hr it would have passed the intersection before the girl rode out, and

 

(d) If it had been a current model light commercial van travelling at 100 km/hr it would have stopped three metres short of her at 3.5 tonnes GVM!

 

People who come up with these academic turn back scenarios never seem to be able to grasp the complexities of moving dynamics, explain how a series of complex decisions can be made by each and every pilot who may well be in a state of shock, and on this thread I don't recall any responsible discussion on the additional momentum of powered aircraft when people suggest landing 1/3 down the runway which may well be on private property, and with a length only slightly longer than the aircraft's minimum performance (as we see regularly in discussions on building runways), particularly with what is now the majority of RA aircraft which are slippery, heavy, and have small brakes. And that's without a tailwind component.

 

 

[facthunter]

The Cub vid is a bit more honest than the other advert you describe. For the time it runs it gets a good part of the essential message across pretty well. HE could easily have sideslipped that plane but didn't to point out something he wished to.

 

Hitting the far fence a at 20 kms is better than the near one at flying groundspeed with a tailwind, is the reason for the later touchdown point. My point is that EVEN IF the turn can be made there are other problems that without correct training are most likely to NOT be well executed. This should be a factor in your decision. too. The possibilities of a serious crash are high if the judgement is out when you turn back. Nev

 

 

[M61A1]

I think that the biggest point of that video was that you should go out and practice these exercises, then you will have some idea about what you are capable of doing, the other was that you should have planned what you course of action will before you have left the ground.

 

 

[M61A1]

It was an example based on one specific set of circumstances with one type of aircraft and even they were honest enough to add in a corrector.A little bit like the Victorian TAC Ad where a girl on a bike illegally enters an intersection and is hit by a car travelling at 65 km/hr

 

The suggestion was that:

 

She would only have been seriously injured because the car at 65 km/hr would have taken 50 metres to stop at 65 km/hr

 

If the driver had "wiped off 5" she would have only been touched, and uninjured at the stopping distance of 45 metres.

 

However:

 

(a) They said nothing about her illegal action

 

(b) If she had ridden out when the car was just 5 metres later it also would have just touched her at 65 km/hr

 

© If it had been travelling at 170 km/hr it would have passed the intersection before the girl rode out, and

 

(d) If it had been a current model light commercial van travelling at 100 km/hr it would have stopped three metres short of her at 3.5 tonnes GVM!

 

People who come up with these academic turn back scenarios never seem to be able to grasp the complexities of moving dynamics, explain how a series of complex decisions can be made by each and every pilot who may well be in a state of shock, and on this thread I don't recall any responsible discussion on the additional momentum of powered aircraft when people suggest landing 1/3 down the runway which may well be on private property, and with a length only slightly longer than the aircraft's minimum performance (as we see regularly in discussions on building runways), particularly with what is now the majority of RA aircraft which are slippery, heavy, and have small brakes. And that's without a tailwind component.

Agreed, these road safety videos are crap. There is one doing the rounds where a driver fails to give way at a T intersection, with the premise being that if the oncoming driver was going slower he would have time to stop. 1. Why isn't the focus on following right of way protocols?and 2. Why do we have an unhealthy focus on stopping distances, when 90% of the time a collision could be avoided by steering around?