Guest Maj Millard Posted May 30, 2014 Posted May 30, 2014 Yes we should all look foward to Andrews video on the subject, I know I am. And I can tell you from previous experience , the low level turn back does not work, things go to shite real fast. The pilot in my case I believe probabily went straight into 'fight' mode, his actions were so deliberate and determined, and he even warned us of what he was about to do. But even though he was a commercial pilot with years of jump-plane ops, he still basically died trying to pull it off. That is why I believe they wrote it up in the crash comic....it was such a classic example of why it doesn't work, regardless of the pilots experience or apparent skills. Our pilot did manage to turn the aircraft through 180 deg , but once that inside wing Stalls..it's all over rover.....Maj....
Dafydd Llewellyn Posted May 30, 2014 Posted May 30, 2014 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. I can only speak of my own experience; I've had aileron flutter, a disconnected elevator, a forced landing, and a desperately marginal situation during an attempted landing for an aerotow retrieve, plus a few others as well as the usual few in driving. None of them triggered either a "freeze" or dirty underpants; so I can only assume that the training I was fortunate enough to receive, and my subsequent experience, led me to keep control of the situation. I've had a student who screamed and grabbed the canopy release & canopy jettison, when the aircraft encountered a mild bump; and one who froze on the wrong rudder pedal in a spin. I know the difference, so please do not tell me it's all the same. I am not denying that looking at the problem through fresh eyes may be valuable; however, if you start with the precept that one should NEVER turn back, and ask the Psych why people do, you will only get half the answer. The other half, is about how to teach people to make a rational choice. Winch cable break training emphasizes the necessity to keep control of the aircraft FIRST; and then assess the situation calmly; and only then act decisively. 1
motzartmerv Posted May 30, 2014 Posted May 30, 2014 The question being asked is not why people turn back. Thats a very narrow view of the problem. The question is, 'how do humans behave when confronted with Immediate, life threatening situations" Immediate as in seconds from disaster. Daffyd, while those things you have experienced would induce the response, the time frame being the biggst and most Blaring problem in an EFATO in a powered aeroplane. A glider with a GR of 30-1? Slightly different, but just as serious. The time frame being the instigating factor in the flight or flight response. Ive had several failures at different stages and levels of seriousness in several types too, the only time i recall the flight or flight response was when I heard a loud bang in a skyfox that was halfway through a loop at about 200 feet. (not as PIC, so please...dont go there) And I would add, anyone person is only one human, your experience is not any sort of baseline to draw any form of " Fact" from. The fact may very well be that only 1 in 10 people are likely to succumb to this issue. What precursors in behaviour or personality type would be something to watch for in a student? Who is likely to handle the problem with no response. These are things that we are trying to answer. And while;e everybody has a story or two to add to the bucket, no individual should assume that the way they behave is the way everyone else will. The study is involving putting as many people into these situations in a lab to see what percentage of us are likely to be overwhelmed by the fight or flight, which doesn't have to have anything to do with aviation. The response is universal and can be duplicated easily in a lab (apparently). The minds being applied to this are much more qualified to comment than I am, some PHD's and several university lecturers who I am sure, reading this would laugh at our attempts to explain the problem.
frank marriott Posted May 30, 2014 Posted May 30, 2014 I wouldn't try to explain in medical / mental terms or analyse it in the details that Andy is doing but the only engine failure (for real) that I have experienced was interesting. Not related to much of the above posts as it was in a twin which is a different ball game but the interesting thing I found was the emergency actions were completed so quickly I found myself wondering what I had forgotten to do, just climbing (all be it very slowly) on reduced power. It seemed to take longer when simulated under instruction. Obviously different decisions in a SE which is all I fly now. 1
storchy neil Posted May 30, 2014 Posted May 30, 2014 at the critical moment of o shxx the majority of pilots want that nice piece of ground that they have just taken of from hence turn back when I hit power wires with nose wheel of my aircraft had I froze I would be dead now situational awareness comes into play witch my instructor installed in to me practice more practice but some people don't have the luxury of owning there own plane or having an ag strip that they can practice at like simulated tail wind landings not to bad different kettle of fish when the fan is not going at all landing I paddock with engine out o shixx there is a fence I did not see just need a couple of feet to clear it couple of degrees of quick flap push nose down all is good hop over fence my instructor pulled the power one day at 2500 ft and said "quote were we going to land unquote" me looking out the front and sides s "quote that paddock up there unquote" with that he claimed the plane as his and landed at a strip I had seen his words to me were " quote planning a head is critical but remembering what you have just past is important to witch would you prefer landing in a paddock or this strip unquote "the mongrel was bloody laughing ok lesson learnt i feel human factors plays a bigger part in our sport than a lot of us give it credit for there are a couple of people that have touched on it but not said so clear and precise decision what are called for he who hesitate is lost as one saying goes some people under stress perform quite well when question on how or what we did or didn't do in that situation mostly answer I did xyz well so and so had the same situation and it was a bad out come we are all different neil
Head in the clouds Posted May 30, 2014 Posted May 30, 2014 ... I wonder at what will come out of a psychological study, unless the psychologists concerned are themselves competent pilots. Please excuse my skepticicsm. .... Im not going to go into it too much now, as im sure id get the usual responses from those who know better, .... At the risk of being put into that category, I'm afraid I'm another of the skeptics about the value of psychologists in this and many other areas. I know a few of them well, having three with family links, and by their own admission in many cases they do little or nothing more than put labels on conditions for ludicrously high fees. When I was in high school we had the usual percentage of unruly and disruptive students. They got the cane more often than the rest of us and left school with final year exam passes and went on into the workforce. These days we have half a million kids with the ADHD label who have never had their bottom smacked because its illegal and would be immoral anyway because they have a mental 'condition'. It's not their fault, it's not the parents fault either, and the vast majority will never complete school, will never get a job and will instead spend their lives living off welfare and crime. In my opinion that's thanks to the psychologists mainly. .... For now, a headsup. Instructors. STOP pulling the power off on upwind. Its this training that is killing people. .... My wife had a mental block about parallel parking because she'd once bumped another car while reversing. Unknown to me at the time, she used to park the car a mile or more from the shopping centre to avoid parallel parking spaces. If I'd followed the thinking above she'd still be carrying the shopping a mile back to the car. Instead I spent a couple of afternoons with her practicing parallel parking over and over until she got it perfect. Now she doesn't give it a second thought. A psychologist would have told me to back off and never mention it for fear of causing my wife stress which might result in her having a crash elsewhere. When I was doing my first spin training I had no trouble when spinning to the left but I got disorientated spinning to the right and couldn't determine which way we were going. Thankfully my instructor didn't follow the advice above or we'd have only practiced spinning to the left. Instead we practiced it to the right time and again until I was familiar enough that I could recognise the direction and instantly react correctly every time. During that I developed an 'instant recognition' method that works well for me - don't worry which way the plane is spinning just press the rudder on the side toward the way the earth is spinning, I find that much easier than thinking about the plane ... And - from the above are we to hope that engines will never actually stop on an upwind leg, or having just flown to windward past a great outlanding place? I don't believe that any particular training could be responsible for killing people, it's more likely lack of sufficient practice at it, to get the manoeuvre right. .... however practise alone is IMHO unlikely to completely compensate for spectator genes..... And this is a very good point. I was reading through the Google books collection of Popular Mechanics magazine somewhere around 1912-14 and there was a great description of the selection and training process for people to join the 'Air Force'. The majority of the article was to do with the numerous factors for which people should be rejected as candidates for flying training. Compare this with the average sport flying school which would only very rarely consider telling someone they're not really suited to 3D travel and might be better staying on terra firma. Students are too hard to get, to go around rejecting them. During his time as CFI a friend of mine did in fact reject two students after numerous hours of training. They were keen as mustard and just kept racking up hours but the CFI couldn't get them to a stage where he considered them safe enough to solo. Both of them went to other schools and were quite quickly sent off solo and got their certificates. Both crashed and have ongoing disabilities as a result, so perhaps some people do have the spectator gene and shouldn't fly. 3 2
motzartmerv Posted May 30, 2014 Posted May 30, 2014 That's ok to be skeptical. People are skeptical about many fields of science, and yet, your iPhone still works, your cat scan machine still works, panadol still gets rid it headaches. That's the thing about, it's true weather you believe in it or not. What value would a psychological study have on the reactions of humans? I'd have to say a dam site more then " well I had a mate once that...." 1
eightyknots Posted May 30, 2014 Author Posted May 30, 2014 That's ok to be skeptical. People are skeptical about many fields of science, and yet, your iPhone still works, your cat scan machine still works, panadol still gets rid it headaches. That's the thing about, it's true weather you believe in it or not.What value would a psychological study have on the reactions of humans? I'd have to say a dam site more then " well I had a mate once that...." PS ... 1 5
facthunter Posted May 30, 2014 Posted May 30, 2014 Some of these "instinctive" or programmed responses are the reason YOU exist. Your ancestors were saved by them till they procreated at least or you wouldn't be here.. Birds evacuate their bowels to lighten (jettison) the load .Nev 1 1
Ultralights Posted May 31, 2014 Posted May 31, 2014 what frame of mind, will a proper, and detailed pre take off briefing about EFATO, put you in before you firewall the throttle.??
storchy neil Posted May 31, 2014 Posted May 31, 2014 what frame of mind, will a proper, and detailed pre take off briefing about EFATO, put you in before you firewall the throttle.?? pre briefing is picture thinking of the moment the what if shxx happened in other words you have to be ahead of your aircraft EFATO does happen will happen neil
Guest Maj Millard Posted May 31, 2014 Posted May 31, 2014 Each strip and scenero are different, wind- no wind, obstacles to clear ?......loaded aircraft or lightly loaded. It is a hard thing to brief ones self prior to pushing the throttle foward, it is very much a fight situation, not a flight situation if you follow. The adrenalin is up ...you want to do it !....however if you just take a few seconds to brief yourself..." Where am I going if it quits ?" On the way out ......I guarantee you one of those options won't be "I'll do a split-arsed turn and come back to the runway !"....more like " positive climb out, and straight over to the old WW2 strip on the other side of the fence if she fails....or slight right turn onto the other strip....or slight left turn and take our chances over there by the old road. According to Andrew just having gone through this simple thought process, helps eliminate the impulse to attempt a risky turn back which often ends tragically. I have been trying to do this prior to power up now for some years, and still often forget, it's another discipline that we as pilots have to install into out pre-takeoff final mental checks. I feel if we an do this it will help eliminate turn backs..........Maj....
Aldo Posted May 31, 2014 Posted May 31, 2014 Sorry if I offended that was not my intent. Andy Sorry from me also I jumped a bit hard there didn't mean to do that, I do understand where you are coming from. Allan
Aldo Posted May 31, 2014 Posted May 31, 2014 Ladies/gents All reaction is related to the prior training you have had and all we are doing here is reacting to a particular situation (that none of us want to be in). Take for instance several sports (which is the most applicable for our discussion), psychology doesn't come into it once the situation has occurred, the psychology side of things is extremely relevant before and up to the event as this relates to how we prepare for the event. With sports such as martial arts, boxing, cricket, football and many others, the people who reach the top practice, practice and practice, the more they practice the more instinctive the reaction is, it is all about muscle & brain memory, all we are doing is manipulating a set of controls to achieve a certain outcome based on a particular set of circumstances (no rocket science involved and don't over complicate it). It is essentially no different from landing with a surprise thrown in and the result will be how you react to the surprise (no different from the bowler, bowling a short pitched delivery when the batsman isn't expecting it). Flying is quite simple when you get down to it, just simple mental, time and distance calculations. The difficulty comes from our own inhibitions and lack of self confidence, be careful though not to be overconfident. The following information should not be taken as fact and should not be tried by low time pilots or at low altitude (less than 2500 AGL). I did this afternoon go and try some different scenarios relating to EFATO and the turn back to the take off location, the aircraft I was using was a Jab 230 (BEW 339 kg, fuel 75 lts and pilot 80 kg) in nil wind conditions. I played with a number of different situations relating to the take off situation after 300 feet i.e. no flap and 70 kts . I found the best recovery for the least amount of altitude lost to the reciprocal track was to not worry about achieving the best glide speed prior to commencing turn back, but to just push the nose forward and commence a very steep balanced descending turn, the best result I achieved was a loss of 300 feet (actually a bit less) at about 70 deg of bank angle (no back pressure on the stick, nose attitude very low), the diameter of the turn was about 0.2 NM or 1200 feet (approximate measurement from my GPS), the one thing that did surprise me was the speed at which I came out of the turn (about 105 kts) this would have to be bled off prior to attempting a landing but the Jab is able to be slipped in all configurations so with full flap this shouldn't be an issue (other aircraft may be different). Notes to be taken into account: You only get one chance - not multiple attempts like I had today I knew when I was going to pull the power Largest altitude loss during testing 900 feet Average altitude loss during testing 500 feet Least altitude loss approx 270 feet There were no loud noises/surprises I would add a minimum of 100 feet because of notes 2 & 6 above I still would not try to turn back if I had not commenced my turn onto crosswind and then only if the conditions were in my favour unless I had absolutely no other options e.g. trees, houses or Toowoomba on 11 If I had a clear field in front of me I would take that option every time below 700 feet. You can't stall an unloaded wing Allan
Dafydd Llewellyn Posted May 31, 2014 Posted May 31, 2014 Each strip and scenero are different, wind- no wind, obstacles to clear ?......loaded aircraft or lightly loaded. It is a hard thing to brief ones self prior to pushing the throttle foward, it is very much a fight situation, not a flight situation if you follow. The adrenalin is up ...you want to do it !....however if you just take a few seconds to brief yourself..." Where am I going if it quits ?" On the way out ......I guarantee you one of those options won't be "I'll do a split-arsed turn and come back to the runway !"....more like " positive climb out, and straight over to the old WW2 strip on the other side of the fence if she fails....or slight right turn onto the other strip....or slight left turn and take our chances over there by the old road.According to Andrew just having gone through this simple thought process, helps eliminate the impulse to attempt a risky turn back which often ends tragically. I have been trying to do this prior to power up now for some years, and still often forget, it's another discipline that we as pilots have to install into out pre-takeoff final mental checks. I feel if we an do this it will help eliminate turn backs..........Maj.... This is a good point, and it brings up something I've been thinking about for a while. One of the requirements for certification of a factory-built aircraft, is the supply of performance data for its flight manual. Now, I know only too well, that about 95% of pilots never look at the performance data in the FM, but it's a resource you might be able to use: By way of illustration, the data required usually includes climb gradient versus weight, pressure altitude and temperature. Assuming you are taking off into wind, the gradient made good over the ground will always exceed the "still air" gradient. Climb gradients are normally expressed as "% gradient" - so a 10% gradient means the aircraft will gain 10 metres in altitude for every 100 metres it travels horizontally. You will also normally find the best glide ratio. A glide ratio of 12:1 means the aircraft descends 1 metre for every 12 metres it travels horizontally, which translates to a gradient of 1/12 = 0.0833 or 8.33%. So long as the climb gradient exceeds the glide gradient, you will be going up in the upwind leg climb, faster than you would descend in a straight downwind glide. The climb gradient reduces with increasing weight, and increasing density altitude, but the glide gradient does not change. Now, go out and measure the height you lose in the "turn back" manoeuvre. (If you assume some drift on the upwind leg, that would comprise the height lost in stabilising the airspeed at 1.5 times the stall speed - remember, you would likely have been climbing at 1.3 times the stall speed, plus the height lost in turning about 210 degrees, followed by a reversed turn of about 30 degrees.) I'm NOT talking about any form of extreme manoeuvre that would put you in danger of spinning; the turn-back manoeuvre should be within the range of normal flying practices, i.e. not more than 60 degrees of bank; and to do that sort of turn, your airspeed MUST be at LEAST 1.5 times the stall speed. Let's assume, for the sake of this discussion, that turns out to be about 250 feet. Add 50% to that, i.e. 375 feet. So, provided your climb gradient exceeds the glide gradient, and you clear any obstructions at the upwind end of the strip at not less than 375 feet, a turn back will be possible. Unless those two criteria are met, a turn back will not be possible on the upwind leg of the circuit. At some density altitude, the climb gradient will be less than the glide gradient, and a turn back on upwind leg should not be attempted. If you know the length of the strip, you should be able to work out how high you would be at the upwind end of it, from the takeoff data and the climb data. Using these principles, it's not at all difficult to work out a safe turn-back criterion. I'd do it for standard sea-level conditions, and for a 30 degree day at, say, 2500 feet, and work out a rule of thumb for extrapolating. Not too difficult to set up on a spreadsheet. There will be a point on the airstrip beyond which it is impossible to stop the aircraft without overrunning the strip end. From that point, to your manoeuvre height - 375 feet in the above example - is a "non-manoeuvring area" - if it quits in that area, pick two trees and aim between them. So, what is so difficult about it? 1
Ultralights Posted May 31, 2014 Posted May 31, 2014 I have been trying to do this prior to power up now for some years, and still often forget, it's another discipline that we as pilots have to install into out pre-takeoff final mental checks. I feel if we an do this it will help eliminate turn backs..........Maj.... every flight now, at the end of completing runups, and before entering the runway, i will say out loud, a pre take off briefing, at bankstown, its a little interesting, "engine failure on runway land straight ahead, failure up to 100ft, land straight ahead in the golf course or the horse racing track, if after, turn 20 deg right and land on Canterbury road. if above 700ft, turn left and return to field land anywhere" get in the habit of saying it every time you fly, and for Instructors, the best way to get a student to remember to do a pre take off brief, get the student to say it out loud, remind them to say if if they forget a few times, from then on, if they forget, cancel the flight right there. most students will not forget after their flight gets canned without even making it onto the runway.. worked for me. 3
Ballpoint 246niner Posted May 31, 2014 Posted May 31, 2014 every flight now, at the end of completing runups, and before entering the runway, i will say out loud, a pre take off briefing, at bankstown, its a little interesting, "engine failure on runway land straight ahead, failure up to 100ft, land straight ahead in the golf course or the horse racing track, if after, turn 20 deg right and land on Canterbury road. if above 700ft, turn left and return to field land anywhere" get in the habit of saying it every time you fly,and for Instructors, the best way to get a student to remember to do a pre take off brief, get the student to say it out loud, remind them to say if if they forget a few times, from then on, if they forget, cancel the flight right there. most students will not forget after their flight gets canned without even making it onto the runway.. worked for me. Sounds a lot like my post No2
turboplanner Posted May 31, 2014 Posted May 31, 2014 Some of these explanations may well be correct, but somewhat impractical to remember when an unexpected crisis occurs. Also there seems to be different view on where an EFATO ends and becomes a forced landing where there is more altitude and time for the logical thought process to kick in. My opinion is that EFATO phase ends at the crosswind turn - so below 500 feet. In that case it contains two factors - very low altitude and with a turnback a high speed downwind arrival. Motz I'm interested in your Physchologist's "Fight or Flight" analysis, and would probably brand a turnback as flight if it wasn't for so many people confusing the mix by actually teaching/recommending a turnback in this short upwind leg. In my speedway experience there was no chance of dual training - a driver had to get out on the track at speeds up to 170 km/hr in close company with about 20 others and not hurt himself or any other so we successfully developed set responses to set scenarios. The one thing we couldn't get out of our heads was to stand on the brakes if there was an incident ahead, and drivers were being killed in the multiple pile ups so we took the brake pedal out and allowed a hand operated master cylinder to the rear wheels. Within a short time the drivers had converted the 25/100 second reaction time from braking to driving out to the side around the incident and the deaths ceased. The Tiger Moth in the earlier video stalls at around 4 to 5 seconds after the engine first dies away. Allow 2 seconds for the pilot to react, and that left 2 to 3 seconds to the stall - he had to respond correctly to keep the aircraft flying in maybe half that time. In my GA and RA training for the EFATO definition above the instructors just drilled into be NOSE DOWN - GLIDE - FIND A SPOT - ANY CLEAR SPOT, and that's what I built into my subconscious. So without any recency training, reminders before takeoff, memorising checklists etc. if the engine falters I'm on the way down with maybe a 30 degree divergence - I may tear the gear off but I'm not going to stall. My hands will be reacting within 25/100 second instead of waiting for the brain to kick in with a command at 2 to 3 seconds - regardless of what bitumen smooth features are behind me. So Motz, I'd be interested in what your phsyciatrist says about programmed actions like this, because they certainly have worked for me in situations where I would otherwise have been injured. Sorry Ultralights, I've taken more than 30 mins to post, but I'd totally agree with your preprogramming method - no brain processing required, 25/100 sec reaction at each point - a world of difference in the outcome. 1 1 1
Dafydd Llewellyn Posted June 1, 2014 Posted June 1, 2014 Did a bit of analysis of a possible turn-back manoeuvre; and what it shows is perhaps a little different to what one might expect: Firstly, if the pilot takes two seconds to decide to turn back, and three seconds to roll-in to the optimum bank angle (which came out to be 44 degrees, for the aircraft I was studying), and the aircraft is travelling at around 70 kts, it travels some 500 feet straight ahead before it develops the full rate of turn. The turn radius came out at around 180 feet; and allowing five seconds to reverse the turn, one needs to commence the reversal after about 210 degrees of turn. The reversal carries the aircraft back towards the runway centreline, and only 30 degrees of turn at perhaps 20 degrees of bank is needed to straighten it out. I've allowed a bit of benefit from drift from the crosswind component. The overall shape of the manoeuvre is shown in the attached document. What the manoeuvre achieves, pretty much, is to bring the aircraft back onto a reciprocal heading to the runway, at about the place where the engine failure occurred, but several hundred feet lower (about 250 feet lower, for the motor-glider I was studying). It does NOT bring it out any closer to the threshold than the point of engine failure. This says two things, to me: Firstly, it confirms what I previously said - you need to clear any obstacles at the threshold by at least the height loss in the turn-back manoeuvre plus 50 feet; and your glide gradient in a straight glide needs to be no steeper than the climb gradient before the engine started to fail. Secondly, this sort of manoeuvre will only work if you are departing from a runway that is sufficiently long that you will have this height in hand at the upwind end of the runway - which probably means about a 1000 metre strip, for a typical lightie. On a short strip, forget it; it also suggests that climbing out to 500 feet on the runway heading is a pretty dumb thing to do, if you're operating on a short bush strip where that is not mandatory; you'd likely be better off starting a gentle turn into any crosswind, from about the point at which landing on the remaining runway is impossible, assuming you're airborne and clear of obstacles. turnback.docx turnback.docx turnback.docx
turboplanner Posted June 1, 2014 Posted June 1, 2014 Dafydd, aside from the 2 seconds of "This shouldn't happen, he's forgotten to wind off his one stage of flap and he isn't flying a motor glider but a J160 or something else which glides like a brick, and he didn't bring your 5 paragraph analysis - there is no real gliding culture in powered flight - too many other things to be concentrating on, too much money needing to be spent just on learning powered flight.
Head in the clouds Posted June 1, 2014 Posted June 1, 2014 Dafydd, aside from the 2 seconds of "This shouldn't happen, he's forgotten to wind off his one stage of flap and he isn't flying a motor glider but a J160 or something else which glides like a brick, and he didn't bring your 5 paragraph analysis - there is no real gliding culture in powered flight - too many other things to be concentrating on, too much money needing to be spent just on learning powered flight. Well, back when there weren't any ridiculous rules against it, I used to spend a lot of time with my engine switched off and gliding and even made some height gains on occasion but if folks aren't going to do that, even idling, then perhaps they should go and get an aerobatic rating (and an appropriate plane of course), then there's no question about the turn-back method with least height loss. Years ago a few of us saw it demonstrated from about 500 ft, I wouldn't try it and I don't recommend it, I think it's only for those very well endowed in the gonads department. It went like this - Engine stops, stick forward while rolling inverted, then pull out of the dive and land. Total height loss less than 200ft. . 1
Dafydd Llewellyn Posted June 1, 2014 Posted June 1, 2014 I was looking at what might form a reasonable basis for a criterion that an experienced pilot might use. Obviously, an inexperienced pilot won't be able to fly sufficiently accurately to achieve either an "optimum turn" or a "zero-G manoeuvre" . I am aware of the concept of getting the aeroplane pointed the opposite way whilst at reduced G so it doesn't stall in the process (but you better have the necessary speed when you try to recover, or it will go into a fully-developed spin faster than you can blink). What I'm seeing is that it won't work unless the strip is long enough that you are well above your "turn-back manoeuvre" height loss figure - however you choose to try that - by the time you reach the upwind end of the runway. Short wings and windmilling propellers and draggy undercarriages all reinforce that conclusion. An instructor could certainly close the throttle and demonstrate the height loss from a balanced 45 degree banked turn of the sort I described, at a safe height, and thus make the point that the terror will most definitely become firmer unless the aircraft is comfortably above that height, as part of the normal forced-landing training. Whether or not that's psychologically a sound notion, I have no idea - but if I were shown that trying to turn back will definitely fail if you have less than X feet in hand as you cross the trees on takeoff, that would certainly deter me from trying it - and X is likely to be at least 250 feet for a motor-glider, and likely around 450 feet for a reasonably clean recreational aircraft, so all in all, it says that it's not something to try on the upwind leg of a normal circuit unless you're operating out of an airfield large enough that you could just about turn crosswind before you reach the boundary fence. Is that worth adding to the training syllabus, or not?
turboplanner Posted June 1, 2014 Posted June 1, 2014 It is in the training syllabus I went through in two GA schools, in simpler form: "Until crosswind if the engine fails, nose down, maintain 70 kts* straight ahead, pick a contact point, quick fuel/mixture/switches, Mayday if you can" That way you are always going to contact the ground flying, so you can flare and evade obstacles, and you will be facing into the wind for minimum ground speed. A Forced Landing was a different sequence where the minimum height it would occur at was above 500 feet. The turn on to crosswind was a Rate 1 turn (15 degrees) The turns on to downwind, Base and Final were Rate 2 turns (30 degrees) This meant that in the circuit area we had a big margin of safety in all turns which took care of the times when we may encounter a buffet, or brain fade/loss of concentration Out of about 200 students/members we only lost one in about a decade and he disappeared over Bass Strait after seeing lights following him. The training for a steep turn was a power increase to 2500 rpm at 30 degrees, increased lookout scans and maximum of 45 degrees, which also provide a safety buffer. I notice RA people frequently using 45 and 60 degree turns, and assume they just haven't been through the culture which allows for a good safety margin. *Cherokee
motzartmerv Posted June 2, 2014 Posted June 2, 2014 Oh FFS.. Tubz..For starters, a RATE of turn is not defined by degrees. Its a a RATE of turn and depends on airspeed. Steep turns at 45 degs are not what I would call steep:). 60 deg's has plenty of "safety margin' built in and is defined in the day vfr syllabus as "a steep turn" and should be demo'd during a licence test. I like the crosswind turn as a cut off point for making a decision though. 1
Russ Posted June 2, 2014 Posted June 2, 2014 Lift off, drift 50+ m to one side of runway! flying parallel , climbing! noise stops, whatever, if a turn back is your decision, your completed 180 is nearer to centre line, rather than way out over rubbish, then having to get back to somewhere near centre line. ( works for me ) Flying a high wing does make position referencing harder, when my wing obscures full vision. ( tight turns ) More experience will rectify that.....I hope. If doing the above is breaking rules......tuff.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now