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

[metalman]

Well, unless you go and test your decision height systematically, you won't know, will you?

Very hard to factor in a loss of skill due to stress, and that's what will kill you, having a decision height already chosen alleviates risk, I know I can make the runway from the 1000agl point at either end of down wind, unless it's blowing a gale ( which I won't be flying in anyway) I know I'll make it back in, with so many variables going out and testing different heights means doing it with all the variables of wind, DH, and whatever else you can think of,,,,,that's a lot of testing to come up with several decision heights only to discover when the engine quits that your skills drop by 25% and ,,,,bugger,,,,the trees are coming up fast,,,,,,,or choosing a height that has a big margin for error and variables!!!I know what I'd rather ,

Matty

 

 

[M61A1]

Very hard to factor in a loss of skill due to stress, and that's what will kill you, having a decision height already chosen alleviates risk, I know I can make the runway from the 1000agl point at either end of down wind, unless it's blowing a gale ( which I won't be flying in anyway) I know I'll make it back in, with so many variables going out and testing different heights means doing it with all the variables of wind, DH, and whatever else you can think of,,,,,that's a lot of testing to come up with several decision heights only to discover when the engine quits that your skills drop by 25% and ,,,,bugger,,,,the trees are coming up fast,,,,,,,or choosing a height that has a big margin for error and variables!!!I know what I'd rather ,Matty

I think that what part of this discussion is getting at, is that practice and competency reduce the stress significantly.

 

 

[metalman]

I think that what part of this discussion is getting at, is that practice and competency reduce the stress significantly.

But it doesn't, 2 stoke or jab pilots might become competent in engine failures but if your behind other engines you can practice all you like ,it will be completely different when the prop is sitting dead still in the windscreen, maybe we should be asking all how many total engine stoppages they've had, a partial failure is different ,you can still reduce the descent rate ,but a total seizure is where it very serious, there is no chance for a go around, same as gliding analogies, really pointless for a draggy ultralight, practicing turn backs can get you feeling quite clever but when the fan actually stops if you get it wrong ,,,,,,and pilots have been getting it wrong for over a hundred years, and dying ( and killing pasengers) trying to "save " the aircraft,,,,when a guy with 23000 hours, along with our CFI ( as well as many FI's around the world )with thousands of hours instructing, along with a 100+ years of dead pilots show that turning back is VERY difficult I prefer to go with a plan that has been shown to work, the stakes are high enough as it is without putting the odds in favour of failing,

Matty

 

 

[SDQDI]

I reckon I'm with you on this one Matty. Even if you are going to a safe height with a cfi and switching the engine off and practicing turn backs it still will not replicate the stress levels of doing it at low level, practice does help control stress but unless you are doing it regularly (not once a month a lot more often than that) the real thing will always be different. At the end of the day stuff the planes we are much more important.

 

KISS

 

 

[M61A1]

But it doesn't, 2 stoke or jab pilots might become competent in engine failures but if your behind other engines you can practice all you like ,it will be completely different when the prop is sitting dead still in the windscreen, maybe we should be asking all how many total engine stoppages they've had, a partial failure is different ,you can still reduce the descent rate ,but a total seizure is where it very serious, there is no chance for a go around, same as gliding analogies, really pointless for a draggy ultralight, practicing turn backs can get you feeling quite clever but when the fan actually stops if you get it wrong ,,,,,,and pilots have been getting it wrong for over a hundred years, and dying ( and killing pasengers) trying to "save " the aircraft,,,,when a guy with 23000 hours, along with our CFI ( as well as many FI's around the world )with thousands of hours instructing, along with a 100+ years of dead pilots show that turning back is VERY difficult I prefer to go with a plan that has been shown to work, the stakes are high enough as it is without putting the odds in favour of failing,Matty

I'm going to disagree there....I had engine failures thrown at me so often that it became boring, I thought little of it, until I had one, admittedly not on take off, but in the circuit area. I was surprised myself, inasmuch as it had been well practiced enough, there was no "Oh F*$k" moment, just fly the aircraft without hesitation, and landed uneventfully (not on the strip either). The event had been well rehearsed and the decision had been made weeks/months before the event. I'm not talking about a turnback in particular, but having a viable plan, and decisions made long before the event. Whether you elect to turn back or head in a particular direction, the decision needs to have been made long before you got there and practiced enough to be instinctive. Perhaps others work differently, but this is my experience.

 

 

[turboplanner]

BIG difference M between a forced landing and an EFATO, which is what this thread is about. In an EFATO you have fractions of seconds to react, and Mat is right on the money on being ready for it.

 

 

[M61A1]

BIG difference M between a forced landing and an EFATO, which is what this thread is about. In an EFATO you have fractions of seconds to react, and Mat is right on the money on being ready for it.

The principle remains the same. If you have prepared and practiced for it, you will have increased your odds of survival significantly. EDIT: re-read Matt's post, I'm not advocating practising turn-backs, I'm advocating practising a procedure that you can rely on, which may be turning back or not.

 

 

[metalman]

What we're talking here is turn backs, if I'm on downwind the strip is a goer, but ,let's just say we want to practice turn backs, firstly we can do it at altitude, but that is very different to low level, so maybe we get to the point where we think we can turn back safely,,next we need to practice it down where it matters, that means taking off, then pulling the power ,turning against the circuit ,executing a low level turn and then if, IF you get back to the strip, a downwind landing,,,,,,all this as previously rehearsed in your mind before you even pull the power.

 

My field I would be very limited as to when I could do this, and even more limited as to practicing it, and even if I did it successfully what's to say three months down the track the conditions are the same as when I'd decided that YES I can get back at 500 ft, there is just so much that can go differently ,but now we've got a height in our mind that we consider doable.

 

I was taught turn backs from 500 agl at YHBA ,2000 metres of runway , in a C172 we could've taken off and landed three times, it made a turn back manoeuvre look really easy,,,,,but there's been plenty of people killed in C172's trying it for real .

 

I'm totally agreeable to practice ,all the time, I'm always changing how I fly a circuit( within the regs of course) and giving myself challenges or scenarios ,but there's things that need to put away mentally before you start the engine, I believe this is one of them,

 

Matty

 

 

[M61A1]

What we're talking here is turn backs, if I'm on downwind the strip is a goer, but ,let's just say we want to practice turn backs, firstly we can do it at altitude, but that is very different to low level, so maybe we get to the point where we think we can turn back safely,,next we need to practice it down where it matters, that means taking off, then pulling the power ,turning against the circuit ,executing a low level turn and then if, IF you get back to the strip, a downwind landing,,,,,,all this as previously rehearsed in your mind before you even pull the power.My field I would be very limited as to when I could do this, and even more limited as to practicing it, and even if I did it successfully what's to say three months down the track the conditions are the same as when I'd decided that YES I can get back at 500 ft, there is just so much that can go differently ,but now we've got a height in our mind that we consider doable.

I was taught turn backs from 500 agl at YHBA ,2000 metres of runway , in a C172 we could've taken off and landed three times, it made a turn back manoeuvre look really easy,,,,,but there's been plenty of people killed in C172's trying it for real .

 

I'm totally agreeable to practice ,all the time, I'm always changing how I fly a circuit( within the regs of course) and giving myself challenges or scenarios ,but there's things that need to put away mentally before you start the engine, I believe this is one of them,

 

Matty

Ok, so at your home strip, especially, I'm sure that you would have a plan of action, something you have rehearsed, so that you have prepared mentally and physically for any foreseeable eventuality?? Something that you don't need to think about, because it was decided before you even got in the aircraft?

 

 

[metalman]

Ok, so at your home strip, especially, I'm sure that you would have a plan of action, something you have rehearsed, so that you have prepared mentally and physically for any foreseeable eventuality?? Something that you don't need to think about, because it was decided before you even got in the aircraft?

Yeh already mentioned it, up to 1000agl I land 30deg either side of the nose, at 1000agl ( or downwind ) I turn and land on the runway, this works at every airfield I've been to on the east coast, some slight modifications depending on terrain and conditions but a turn back before 1000agl isn't on the takeoff brief.

The question here is the wrong one, the vibe here is "can I do it?" ,but it should be "should I do it?", the other problem is the calibre of pilots on the internet , they are awesome, accomplished and highly skilled,,,,,sadly I'm not , so I have to use procedures that I hope will help save my sorry a*se if things get nasty, I tend to want to learn from all pilots the living ones are great to sit and listen to ,fly with and absorb their experiance! the dead ones have pretty good lessons as well! I like to learn from them as well,

 

Matty

 

 

[Oscar]

I don't know if this observation from my gliding experience carries through to power aircraft, since I simply don't have the power flying experience to judge, so please take it as a comment intended to perhaps assist the debate and nothing more. If I'm wrong - then again, please debate it in the spirit of the thread.

 

In gliders, one spend a lot of time turning fairly tightly at very close to the stall, in thermals that can be quite rough air. If in a gaggle, you simply can't afford to watch the instruments, you watch the other gliders close to you and rely very much on sensory input, including the aileron load on the stick, the audio output of the vario, the yaw string, the noise of airspeed around the cockpit and a general sense of the steepness of the turn in relation to the horizon. You also tend to develop an ability to sense the difference between flight load pressure on the bum and acceleration pressure from flying in and out of the rising air.

 

I have no idea whether this is a correct description, but for want of a better term, a lot of glider flying (in thermals, at least) becomes a matter of muscle memory: the moment that the ailerons become 'too light', indicating that you have lost the aerodynamic effect of the inner aileron and you're slipping into an incipient spin, invokes a 'kick it straight and ease the stick forward' response without (seemingly, at least) any actual decision-making interruption to your concentration on everything else around you. The more sensitive the glider, the less demand it makes on your consciousness; I've been put in a new type to me ( in that case, a Libelle H201) and found it completely 'at home' within the first 5 minutes of the first thermal.

 

What relevance does this have to EFATO and turn-back? - I'm not sure. However, it seems to me that irrespective of the other decision-making needed (adequate height, current conditions, landing options etc.), if one has the confidence - which can only, surely, be gained from experience - that one can fly the damn thing without having to check the ASI, the T&B for rate etc. and do calculations, one has more 'headspace' for making the other critical decisions. More 'headspace' has to, surely, reduce the 'panic' factor and possibly, at least, allow more opportunity to make calculated responses to the situation. Surely, if you don't HAVE to live within the cockpit, you have more space to assess what's outside the cockpit..

 

The term 'overload' is often used in a derogatory sense, to suggest that an individual doesn't have the capacity to process multiple intellectual inputs - and therefore reach sensible conclusions - adequately. That's unfair: everybody has an 'overload' point. The effect of 'overload' is not dissimilar to the effects of alcohol. Many years ago, Prof. Sid Lovibond did a series of tests of racing drivers vs. average drivers under the influence of alcohol - and found that a racing driver ( i.e. a highly experienced and competent driver) was more adept at reacting appropriately to emergency situations when at .08 intoxication than the average driver when stone cold sober! I believe that a major part of that was a result of the experienced driver concentrating on 'where do I need to be, at what attitude, to not have an accident?' because he/she knew and did not have to even think about what physical inputs were needed to achieve that situation. It's stuff like 'how long on the brakes to reduce speed, then get off them to allow adhesion for swerving, and then how to avoid the scenery'. By comparison, I've seen people who - literally - couldn't walk across a pedestrian crossing while talking on their mobile phones without losing the plot...

 

It seems to me that a successful resolution of an EFATO ends up being able to put the aircraft in the right place to land without catastrophic results (or, if there is no available alternative, to select the option that presents the lowest available risk factor). The less demand on the PIC to devote decision making to maintaining control of the aircraft, the more 'headspace' should be available for calculating the best option to follow.

 

From my very limited experience of power flying, it seems to me that training to recognise straight-ahead stalls is taken as sufficient, whereas it isn't straight-ahead stalls that kill, but turns that develop into spins. Do we have entirely the wrong emphasis in the training requirements?

 

 

[M61A1]

Yeh already mentioned it, up to 1000agl I land 30deg either side of the nose, at 1000agl ( or downwind ) I turn and land on the runway, this works at every airfield I've been to on the east coast, some slight modifications depending on terrain and conditions but a turn back before 1000agl isn't on the takeoff brief.The question here is the wrong one, the vibe here is "can I do it?" ,but it should be "should I do it?", the other problem is the calibre of pilots on the internet , they are awesome, accomplished and highly skilled,,,,,sadly I'm not , so I have to use procedures that I hope will help save my sorry a*se if things get nasty, I tend to want to learn from all pilots the living ones are great to sit and listen to ,fly with and absorb their experiance! the dead ones have pretty good lessons as well! I like to learn from them as well,

Matty

That's all I was trying to suggest, a well rehearsed procedure that will reduce or eliminate a lot of the stress when it happens for real, because you've done it 1000 times before in your mind, and regularly rehearsed it physically as well.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Oscar, I'm the reverse of you. I've only had two flights in a glider, a Blanik.

 

The first one was a cable break. A bang at maybe 100 feet, the pilot put the nose straight down, got it flying and landed straight ahead on the Benalla strip.

 

The second stunned me with the difference in the sensitivity of the rudder and ailerons compared wit a powered aircraft, the ability to sense what was happening by the slipstream noise, which is not available in powered aircraft, the amazingly shallow glide along with left at every thermal, which a Cherokee would just crunch through, and finally the greater control by being able to flick onto what to me was an impossibly short final, turn straight and throw the brakes on which seemed bit like a hand brake turn in a car, then just float along a meter or so above the grass for what seemed as long as we liked.

 

Your reference to "muscle memory" is much the same as my recommendation of practicing until the action becomes subconscious. That's where your reaction can shorten down to hundredths of a second - in normal flying you'll notice in time that you can look down and see your hand just moving on the controls automatically correcting, where, when you were learning to fly and had to think first you wondered if you would ever be able to control the aircraft.

 

As far as applying some of the more complicated sequences you and other gliding people have suggested, the advice may be good but I think there is too much detail to ram into the subconscious of the average powered pilot. Certainly it could be done, but if people aren't spending the time to learn fuel burn and weight calculations, and navigation planning before a they are probably not going to commit the amount of money it takes to be trained on those gliding principles. For example, when I fluffed a few landings in the early unmodified J170 in gusty conditions, I spend $7000.00 bullet proofing myself until I could be sure of touching down at the exact optimum angle. I'd suggest the same training in a glider would have cost a fraction of that.

 

Effectively every landing in a glider is a forced landing, other than you know where the landing is going to be, so all the training is based on that. With a powered aircraft the training covers other aspects, and most pilots will never have an EFATO, or even a forced landing, so it's not seen as such an urgent issue.

 

However in recent years unnecessary spins and stalls into the ground have been on the increase, so we need a simple procedure which will be largely subconscious, and never forgotten regardless of wither the recency status of the pilot is up to scratch.

 

I know right now sitting here that the nose is going down and I am going to take the gear off possibly, but I'm going to hit objects only at about the flare speed.

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

A powered aircraft is just a crude glider, when the engine has quit. The Space Shuttle was landed as a glider, dammit. If you read "Modern Airmanship" (if I remember the title correctly) by Van Sickle, he discusses how to do a forced landing in up to an F-104, by a 270 degree turn from a checkpoint directly over the centre of the airstrip. Every aircraft has a "go/no go" height at the checkpoint - I recall he gave it as 12,000 feet for the F-104. If you do not have the height at that point, you eject. Black or white decision.

 

The point I have been trying - evidently quite unsuccessfully - to make, is that it is possible to set-up a go/no go criterion for something like a turnback. You have to establish the numbers by testing with you own technique in your own aircraft - and as that has to be done with engine idling, not dead, you need to add about 50% to whatever height loss you come up with in your tests. THIS PROVIDES A NO-GO CRITERION, SO YOU DO NOT WASTE TIME DITHERING, OR TRY AN IMPOSSIBLE TURN-BACK. I am NOT advocating a turn-back, it's just one option, and you need to know immediately whether it's a viable option. I am simply trying to get the decision-making process to be rational and fast.

 

One has to set similar decision points for critical flight testing - for example, spin-testing a new type. You set a height at which you stop trying to recover the thing, and pop the spin chute; and another height at which you abandon ship if the spin chute doesn't work. These are things one has to have pre-set in one's mind. A turn-back on EFATO is simply another one of these.

 

The principle is the same no matter what you're flying. Only the numbers are different. Go find out the numbers for your aircraft, and add a healthy safety margin on top of them.

 

Provided you do not take-off downwind, a criterion established in essentially still air will normally be conservative. If there's a crosswind component, and you turn back, the initial turn needs to be into wind.

 

Yes, a glider can do it from a remarkably low altitude; but the principle is the same. You may well find that the turn-back height is above 500 ft - in which case, you won't be trying it before the crosswind turn. That's likely to be the case for most GA aircraft, I suspect. But you won't know that unless you go to height and do a few tests. They won't lure you into turning back; more likely convince you that you have no chance before the downwind turn - but at least GO AND FIND OUT. You might just learn something, for a change.

 

 

[Scotty 1]

KISS

And a big kiss right back at you sweetheart

 

 

[pmccarthy]

This is a really interesting thread and I have learned a lot. I am not good at quick mental arithmetic under pressure, but I think I can tell whether the aeroplane is in a bad configuration (too steep + too slow), or at least know enough to not go there. It is like taking off - in a light aircraft you can tell when the plane wants to fly, you don't have to watch the ASI for a rotate speed. I agree with all the theory but will stick to a 1000 foot minimum for turn back and trust my flying ability to not get into a slow, steep turn that will lead to trouble. This doesn't give an answer for EFATO at some airstrips. For example, a northerly takeoff at Bendigo or Maryborough (Vic) is over an extensive box ironbark forest. Thirty degrees either way doesn't get you out of it. I don't have a plan for this, just need to have a reliable engine. If I can fly Bass Straight I can fly over box ironbark forest for a while, and accept that an engine failure will probably have a bad outcome. I would like to know if anyone has a plan for EFATO over a forest, other than land as slowly as possible and pretend the trees aren't there.

 

 

[eightyknots]

I'm going to disagree there....I had engine failures thrown at me so often that it became boring, I thought little of it, until I had one, admittedly not on take off, but in the circuit area.

Wow, I am having trouble imagining a boring engine failure. In my feeling an engine failure would bring excitement every time!

 

 

[metalman]

This is a really interesting thread and I have learned a lot. I am not good at quick mental arithmetic under pressure, but I think I can tell whether the aeroplane is in a bad configuration (too steep + too slow), or at least know enough to not go there. It is like taking off - in a light aircraft you can tell when the plane wants to fly, you don't have to watch the ASI for a rotate speed. I agree with all the theory but will stick to a 1000 foot minimum for turn back and trust my flying ability to not get into a slow, steep turn that will lead to trouble. This doesn't give an answer for EFATO at some airstrips. For example, a northerly takeoff at Bendigo or Maryborough (Vic) is over an extensive box ironbark forest. Thirty degrees either way doesn't get you out of it. I don't have a plan for this, just need to have a reliable engine. If I can fly Bass Straight I can fly over box ironbark forest for a while, and accept that an engine failure will probably have a bad outcome. I would like to know if anyone has a plan for EFATO over a forest, other than land as slowly as possible and pretend the trees aren't there.

Some things can't be planned for, YHBA your almost over water by the crosswind turn ,so for me I would stretch the turn a bit more than the thirty deg off the nose, tall timber is always a worry , even Coldstream is a bit limited off 17

Matty

 

 

[Oscar]

Turbs:

 

The 'muscle memory' thing is completely outside things like fuel burn and c/g position: no matter what the current c/g, the 'feeling' that the aircraft is slipping into an incipient is the same, it's just happening at a different airspeed. I've been aerotowed out at a too-low speed in a glider with an (inadvertently) an aft of c/g limit situation, it was like trying to control a dodgem car with liquorice between the steering wheel and the front wheels. It's completely a sensory input to the fact that the inside aileron has ceased to add a load to the stick. If I were developing a training sylabus, I'd include the Stolspeed video; (s) of separation (e.g. http://www.stolspeed.com/id/4) and then follow that up with practical demonstrations of it happening. More or less like explaining tyre slip angle, and then taking the learner-driver out onto a skid-pan so they understand the feeling of exceeding best slip angle.

 

I disagree that every landing in a glider is a forced landing; unless you've seriously stuffed-up your planning, it's an arrival at a destination point following a decision. I've had a few 'outlandings' - by design and by circumstance - and my personal limit for decision was 1000 feet AGL and no lift (though I've squirmed out on a thermal on the turn to base..), whereas Ingo Renner's was probably just above 'I can touch the ground, time to give it away'. An EFATO in a conventional lightie is, I imagine, absolutely no decision about the fact that you are going to land somewhere on the ground you can see around you; however it seems to me that the more confidence (with reason!) you have in your ability to get the aircraft to a desired place for a landing, the more options you (may) have.

 

 

[M61A1]

This is a really interesting thread and I have learned a lot. I am not good at quick mental arithmetic under pressure, but I think I can tell whether the aeroplane is in a bad configuration (too steep + too slow), or at least know enough to not go there. It is like taking off - in a light aircraft you can tell when the plane wants to fly, you don't have to watch the ASI for a rotate speed. I agree with all the theory but will stick to a 1000 foot minimum for turn back and trust my flying ability to not get into a slow, steep turn that will lead to trouble. This doesn't give an answer for EFATO at some airstrips. For example, a northerly takeoff at Bendigo or Maryborough (Vic) is over an extensive box ironbark forest. Thirty degrees either way doesn't get you out of it. I don't have a plan for this, just need to have a reliable engine. If I can fly Bass Straight I can fly over box ironbark forest for a while, and accept that an engine failure will probably have a bad outcome. I would like to know if anyone has a plan for EFATO over a forest, other than land as slowly as possible and pretend the trees aren't there.

For the forest bit, I plan to fly away from it as soon as possible. An example is a friend's strip , where taking off to the east will put you over very hostile terrain, if you continue straight ahead. The plan there is:

If there is insufficient altitude to clear his shed to the right, land straight ahead and ground loop before the fence, but after take off, at sufficient altitude to clear the shed (if you have insufficient altitude, at this point, the take off should have been aborted long before, because something is wrong), turn right 90 degrees (over the shed) and over cleared paddocks avoiding treed areas.

 

There is room in the regs for non- standard turns for terrain clearance.

 

 

[motzartmerv]

The issue isnt weather you can get back. From what height you can in what aeroplane, bla bla. People aren't crashing and dieing by coming up short after turning back. They aren't miss judging the heights, or writing wrong numbers on scribble pads or bits of perspex. They are failing to control the aeroplane when the sh!t hits the fan. AND THATS IT..You can all argue about heights and drawing on your ALT etc all day. But this just shows you are failing to grasp the problem.

 

The issue is that people REACT differently. Some react well and quickly. Some react poorly, and some TURN BACK.

 

A forced landing from altitude is nothing like what we are dealing with here and is hardly even worth mentioning in the same chapter.. A forced landing even from cct height does not require split second decisions. From cruise speed (generally) you can sit there fat dumb and happy for quite a while, do nothing, and nothing will happen. You will have time to get over the shock and awe that sets your brain off into flight mode. Then finally after X amount of time, your logic centres fire back up and you can handle the problem.

 

You can plan all day. You can tell yourself im gunna lower the nose etc, and while that certainly helps, there is not much you can do to prepare for how YOU will react if the band stops playing on upwind and your left holding the tin!!

 

Normalising the manoeuvre is the key. Making it such a natural thing to do that its as cognitive as putting on power when you feel slow over the fence.

 

Its all to do with how we are taught. When an instructor pulls power and shocks you, its creates an event horizon in your mind that you cross over into "the danger zone". SH!T the powers off..Now, react!!. Or, OH SH!T I hope he doesn't chop the power on me again.

 

Compare it to stalling. Does your instructor suddenly grab the aircraft off you while your flying around, stall it savagely and sit back and watch what you do?

 

Does he suddenly pull the stick back to the stop when your at 100 ft on final? NO, he doesn't. He briefs you, explains whats going to happen. He demonstrates, and you slowly learn the recovery procedure, then and only then do you go onto more advanced manoeuvres. NEVER does this include a sudden, un announced un prepared STALL.

 

The same thing needs to be applied to EFATO's. We as Instructors need to normalise the procedure as much as possible by useing better training techniques then pulling the pin and saying lower the nose. We can do much better.

 

 

[Oscar]

it is possible to set-up a go/no go criterion for something like a turnback. You have to establish the numbers by testing with you own technique in your own aircraft - and as that has to be done with engine idling, not dead, you need to add about 50% to whatever height loss you come up with in your tests. THIS PROVIDES A NO-GO CRITERION, SO YOU DO NOT WASTE TIME DITHERING, OR TRY AN IMPOSSIBLE TURN-BACK. I am NOT advocating a turn-back, it's just one option, and you need to know immediately whether it's a viable option. I am simply trying to get the decision-making process to be rational and fast.

A thought: if you have the settable pointer on the altimeter idea in place, would the simple action of checking (and setting) where that is placed against the existing take-off situation be an effective aide memoire for EFATO reaction?

 

 

[Oscar]

The issue isnt weather you can get back. From what height you can in what aeroplane, bla bla. People aren't crashing and dieing by coming up short after turning back. They aren't miss judging the heights, or writing wrong numbers on scribble pads or bits of perspex. They are failing to control the aeroplane when the sh!t hits the fan. AND THATS IT..You can all argue about heights and drawing on your ALT etc all day. But this just shows you are failing to grasp the problem.Does your instructor suddenly grab the aircraft off you while your flying around, stall it savagely and sit back and watch what you do?

Does he suddenly pull the stick back to the stop when your at 100 ft on final? NO, he doesn't. He briefs you, explains whats going to happen. He demonstrates, and you slowly learn the recovery procedure, then and only then do you go onto more advanced manoeuvres. NEVER does this include a sudden, un announced un prepared STALL.

 

The same thing needs to be applied to EFATO's. We as Instructors need to normalise the procedure as much as possible by useing better training techniques then pulling the pin and saying lower the nose. We can do much better.

Can't say for power instruction, but for gliding - check flight, just after the FUST (Flaps, U/C, Speed, Trim) on downwind at Polo Flat and about mid-point to the strip - the instructor said 'my aircraft', turned crosswind, retracted the flaps and the u/c, pointed the nose at the centreline of the strip and as we reached about 100 kts and maybe 450 feet AGL said 'your aircraft'. Nobody even commented about it after we landed, that sort of training was SOP in those days.

 

 

[motzartmerv]

Yes? And the point is?

 

 

[motzartmerv]

Again, forced landings are not the issue. 100 kts at 450 ft in a glider? How does that relate to the thread topic? My mum could land a glider from there.