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

[Head in the clouds]

I wasn't suggesting anyone should be practicing EFATOs on their own, Motz said his students were freezing, so I say they haven't yet been practiced enough. Once they have been, they'll be like M61A1 and Dazza (who learnt with us) and Ausadvance, all of whom couldn't give a rats what you want to throw at them forever more. Once you're bulletproof, you're bulletproof. An F1 driver doesn't have to keep going back to recurrent training ...

 

Edit - This was in response to nomad and SD

 

 

[motzartmerv]

When did I say my students froze in an EFATO HIC? The only student of mine that suffered an efato landed straight ahead with no problems..Bullet proof? I would never be so arrogant to suggest this, but well trained,yes.

 

 

[Head in the clouds]

OK Motz, I think we should just agree to disagree. From my point of view I think you're giving too much credence to 'nothing can be done unless we study the psych aspects'.

 

Regardless of that massive list of stuff you now take into account, we just got on with teaching people until they understood what they needed to know to stay alive. Haven't lost one yet and it's over twenty years since I was teaching regularly.

 

 

[SDQDI]

I wasn't suggesting anyone should be practicing EFATOs on their own, Motz said his students were freezing, so I say they haven't yet been practiced enough. Once they have been, they'll be like M61A1 and Dazza (who learnt with us) and Ausadvance, all of whom couldn't give a rats what you want to throw at them forever more. Once you're bulletproof, you're bulletproof. An F1 driver doesn't have to keep going back to recurrent training ...Edit - This was in response to nomad and SD

Well I certainly hope I never think of myself as bulletproof. That sounds like the most dangerous attitude I have heard in a while and to be dismissive of recurrent training also doesn't seem to be overly smart:wink:

 

 

[motzartmerv]

Yea no problems HIC. Again, I never said that. Im happy to agree to disagree, just dont put words in my mouth mate. Believe it or not, science, technology, teaching methods, knowledge progresses. Just because it was right 20 years ago, dont mean much these days. Learning science as a field of study was only just being born around that time and has hence taught us much about how humans learn. But.. Thats not what we are talking about here...oh wait.......

 

 

[Head in the clouds]

When did I say my students froze in an EFATO

Erm - maybe it's one of those where I misunderstood you but wasn't that exactly what you said 10 posts ago? Sorry, post numbers aren't shown on mobile.

 

 

[motzartmerv]

Oh, i see. Because I said Ive seen it, that automatically meant it was a student of mine.. If you have legitimate point please make it, dont fish around and write poems and sonnets and fairy tales HIC. Ive given you the respect you deserve.

 

 

[Head in the clouds]

Everyone's twisting words aren't they? I'm sure those I mentioned would be the last to consider themselves bulletproof but that's how I see them, and how they probably are, they're very competent!

 

 

[motzartmerv]

So was Pipp Borman.

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

No, Borman's accident is not relevant to this discussion. I don't think we should distress his relatives by discussing it.

 

I have a question, though; why so much emphasis on fear? Is there some school of thought that says instructors should be teaching their students to fear their aircraft?

 

An aircraft is simply a tool. So is a bicycle, or a motor car, or a tractor, or an adze. Use any of them wrongly, and they can injure or kill you. But they do not attempt to do so of their own volition; it is always due to human error. One needs to understand them and respect their characteristics and limitations; and they all take some skill to use correctly. And practice, to maintain that skill.

 

If you teach people to fear them, you cripple their ability to use them correctly. If you instil a fear of an EFATO turn, you practically guarantee that the person concerned will muck it up. Some people fear spinning; it's a fear of the unknown. Spinning, in an aircraft cleared for that manoeuvre, is not something to fear; it's something to understand and get used to.

 

If the student is terrified of some manoeuvre, there's something desperately wrong with the instruction he's been given. And something bordering on criminal.

 

 

[facthunter]

An engine failure on initial climb in a single can hardly be something to be relaxed about no matter how many actuals and simulated ones you have done, UNLESS there is a clear patch ahead like unused runway. or something equivalent.. It's a critical situation by definition and may have no chance of avoiding damage or injury, except by sheer luck.

 

A lot of the thought music in training has emphasised the value of being able to glide to the runway when in the circuit. It follows therefore that a pilot may be inclined to attempt to turn back when being able to assure that will be done safely is not likely. Despite emphasis being on maintaining control and GENERALLY landing more or less ahead is stressed. Many turn back acknowledging that they were amazed as to WHY they did something they were constantly told not to do.. Landing amongst trees or houses hasn't been practiced, and that is what often confronts someone taking off from some aerodromes. Nor has downwind landings or low level gliding with manoeuvring required down to ground level. Nev

 

 

[skeptic36]

the human body undergoes a massive massive change.:

 

• Inhibition of erection
   
   
  

 

 

.

Holy crap! How long does that last?

 

 

[facthunter]

It can be for the rest of your life if you are unlucky. Nev

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

The point you are missing, is that if you choose to take off in a single on a runway that has potentially lethal lack of options for an EFATO, you are doing this knowingly. You don't have to. So it behoves you to consider your possible courses of action, and plan accordingly. No, I did not suggest that it's something to be relaxed about; but equally it's not going to help the situation if you freeze or do something stupid. We all face this sort of thing from time to time; I have a very short strip from which to operate our Blanik - so I've gone to the trouble of preparing an emergency strip in the only available location, somewhat downhill and to one side, and my takeoff plan involves moving towards the emergency strip at about the point at which a landing ahead is no longer possible. It's sensible to make the best of the situation, which requires that you remain in control. So fear is NOT your friend.

 

 

[facthunter]

Adrenalin can wake you up if you are fatigued. Re the poor aerodromes .. I would not operate on a regular basis out of many of them. It is like a game of Russian roulette. I also maintain engines as good as possible, and do other similar things to reduce KNOWN hazards. I still believe in not flying over places I can't land on in aircraft that are not particularly reliable. Nev

 

 

[motzartmerv]

Omg. Now I'm a criminal for teaching fear.. Oh dear o dear.. Here's me thinking its a natural emotion hard wired into every human being.

 

Pips death while tragic is a perfect example that there no such thing as a bullet proof pilot. If ever there was one that such a label could be applied I'm sure pip would have been a contender.

 

My point which in sure daffyd u don't miss, just chose to ignore so you could push you wagon again, was that nobody is bullet proof. And any instructor that makes such statements is kidding himself .

 

I've provided sound reasoning behind my arguments, and can speak from some degree Of personal experience as can others who have differing views. That's what makes discussion great hey?

 

My position remains unchanged.

 

I believe dealing with the shock is the key to surviving an efato.

 

 

[storchy neil]

If the student is terrified of some manoeuvre, there's something desperately wrong with the instruction he's been given. And something bordering on criminal. yes

 

sorry mortz but I know off a person that wont fly because an idiot instructor scared him shitles

 

at shepp I was practicing EFATO nil wind on 18 plane had 30 lts fuel plus me at 68 kl take of on 18 at 500 ft pull of power it was straight ahead at that height in to paddock

 

at 1000 ft could safely get back on to cross strip

 

after an hour of practice at getting on to the cross strip now this bloke that was watching me do this said "quote not bad but what happens when you are two on board extra weight neil unquote "

 

so I got two jerry can of water 50 kg and strapped them in to pass seat and 60 lts fuel full tanks at 500 ft still straight in to paddock at 1000 ft fence at end of cross strip was inviting me

 

now with extra weight I needed 1100 ft at the same point after an hour of this practice I put the plane away

 

while I was practicing I was also doing side slips and landing very short

 

now these three pilots at shepp tore strips of me for practicing EFATO so was I wrong for doing this I feel I was not

 

now I do no what the feeling of the o sxxx moment and what some are saying about some freezing had I froze and not flown the plane when I hit power wires

 

now I believe you have to take into account the best glide speed for the aircraft you are in and how many ft you will lose when the fan stops neil

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

Adrenalin can wake you up if you are fatigued. Re the poor aerodromes .. I would not operate on a regular basis out of many of them. It is like a game of Russian roulette. I also maintain engines as good as possible, and do other similar things to reduce KNOWN hazards. I still believe in not flying over places I can't land on in aircraft that are not particularly reliable. Nev

I could not agree more. However, if you know what height you need over the upwind threshold to be able to safely turn back, that gives you a criterion for choosing which airfields you prefer to use, doesn't it? That's just another aspect of reducing the known hazards. Simply flying a single-engine aircraft could be argued to be, to a degree, Russian Roulette; especially when you have to negotiate something like the Sydney Northern Lane. So is driving, and thousands of other things that we do. There's a level below which one cannot reduce the risk; but it seems to me that a good understanding of the risks, puts one in a better position to either avoid them or cope with the unavoidable ones. I've done a certain amount of hazardous flight-test work; but I was not blind to the hazards, and I did what I could to minimise them - I built my own spin recovery parachute system, for example, after a lot of study on the subject and I installed it myself and packed the chute myself. I made sure my personal parachute was serviceable before I undertook that sort of flying. I made sure the door was jettisonable. I did the spin testing over a patch of ground that was suitable for parachute landing; and I had an observer on the ground. So I tend to analyse the situation, and make some effort to prepare for it. Just accepting that it's something to be terrified of, seems to me to be a negative approach. If you plan for a situation, it becomes merely annoying - but not necessarily a cause of incapacitating fear. I believe I could cope with the annoyance of having to put the aeroplane between two trees, without it robbing me of the skill necessary to do so.

One of the causes of EFATO accidents has always been taking off with the fuel turned off; in my view, it should be impossible to reach the starter button unless the fuel has been turned on. Another is vapour lock, especially after a series of landings; fuel systems need to be designed to prevent that, and a lot of the ones I see in homebuilt aircraft do not meet that criterion. Another is the form of fuel-injection system that causes a rich-cut if the boost pump is on during takeoff - which is built in to some certificated aircraft, which I avoid flying. A lot of aircraft have empennage designs that will cause blanketing of the vertical tail in a spin. These are all unnecessary hazards. They are something you can fix or avoid, rather than being frightened of. I avoid aircraft with lousy glide performance, by choice.

 

I consider this thread has been most useful, because what I am seeing as a result of it, is that almost all single-engine aircraft have a "non-manoeuvring area" from shortly after lift-off to past the crosswind turn. That means, there really should be a clearway beyond the strip, unless the strip itself is sufficiently long that the aircraft can have adequate height as it crosses the upwind threshold. This is nothing new, but a way of quantifying it was lacking, and we're fumbling our way towards defining what might constitute "adequate height". Clear paddocks adjoining the strip are good - but windscreens on single-engine aircraft, that are vulnerable to penetration by wire fences, are another unnecessary hazard. Oscar is planning to put five-point harness in his Jabiru - that's the right way to look at it, in my books.

 

 

[Oscar]

For a well-described, real-life description of an EFATO and the pilot's response in a situation where there was no 'best option', only a 'least worst' one available, this is worth a read:

 

http://www.casa.gov.au/fsa/2002/jan/14-17.pdf As it happens, it is the prime motivator of my wish to have better restraint in my own (almost identical model) Jab., as I assume that one day I may be forced to select the 'softest spot' for the crash and I'd like to have the feeling of 'this is going to be ugly' rather than 'oh, sh1t, I'm definitely going to die'.

 

Wedderburn is quite heavily used, and with the ever-reducing availability of airports in the Sydney area, likely to become more so. The local terrain can't be changed or cleared, and as Campbelltown continues to expand, the requirement to turn crosswind from a 35 takeoff early will only get stronger. To me, it looks like a prime location for having a very clear turn-back option point in which one can have confidence established before lining up.

 

I believe that the phrase 'in which one can have confidence' means, in this case, a combination of confidence that the 'numbers' are correct AND that one can execute the manouever required competently. There's a great deal of information on this thread about both of these aspects that doesn't need repetition.

 

 

[Head in the clouds]

Just to clear up a bit of misunderstanding, Motz responded to one of my posts as follows -

 

HIC. I think ive discovered the route of our diss agreement. I dont believe an EFATO is the same as any other upper air engine failure.

But I hadn't said anything about "upper air", what I actually said was -

 

.... an EFATO is just another engine failure at low level ....

i.e. I wasn't saying that an EFATO was the same as any other engine failure, I was saying that it was the same as any other low level engine failure.

 

My reason for bringing that up at the time was that I think some considerable amount of effort should be put into teaching at least some of the low-level syllabus as a part of basic flight training. Before anybody gets upset I'm not saying that it isn't already, no doubt it already is, and in which case the matter of engine failure at low level must be one of the subjects.

 

Consider the following extract from CAO 95.10 -

 

5 General conditions

 

The exemptions given by subsection 3, in relation to an aeroplane, are subject to the following general conditions:

 

 

 

.................

 

 

 

© the aeroplane must not be used for any purpose other than:

 

 

 

(i) the personal carriage of the pilot; or

 

 

 

(ii) the aerial inspection, conducted as a private operation, of stock, fencing or farm or pastoral equipment that is located on land owned by, or under the control of, the pilot or a member or members of the pilot’s immediate family;

 

 

 

Note Conduct as a private operation means that no remuneration must be received by the pilot of the aircraft or the owner (subregulation 2 (7) of CAR 1988).

 

Note that this means that anyone on the land can buy a 95.10 machine, get a pilot certificate and use the machine quite legally for aerial spotting. Aerial spotting isn't mustering but I'm sure that doesn't stop people who aren't in the public eye. Those same people are probably required to have a low level endorsement which means having the appropriate training but unless the school they train with knows that they plan to use the plane on the land they are unlikely to ever know that they should, or even can, get low level training. For some ridiculous, and to me totally mysterious, reason the RAAus choose to keep valuable low level training in a locked cupboard unless people fight to get it. As I see it that's like refusing people advanced driver training unless they insist that they want to drive hard on the road.

 

Further - although it doesn't specifically say so in 95.55, there is nothing preventing people getting an LSA and using it for private operations on their land, similar to the above. With stock use clearly permitted for 95.10 I think it'd be a hard call on anyone trying to prevent the same for similarly privately owned and operated 95.55. And in fact we know that there are numerous former 95.25 aircraft and 95.55 aircraft out there doing just that, and so they should be.

 

If the schools take into consideration that anyone they train might at some stage use these aircraft for low level operations then it's my view that a part of their training should concentrate on low level operations, the basics at least - ground related flight, wind effects causing illusions, wind gradients, physical hazards (wires etc) and engine failures - because response to engine failure at low level may need to be quite different from the typical response at upper level and must, at least, include lowering the nose as an instantaneous reflex, not something to be considered after a few seconds of surprise-induced pause. AND, when operating low level (as any take-off is, whether 'on the land' or not) the pilot needs to be able to consider which landing options are better than others rather than being taught to blindly crash into what might be the only hazards in the area, the cluster of trees that occupy the 30* each side of straight ahead.

 

 

[facthunter]

The least worst course of action, (although grammatically wrong ) isn't a bad concept. By not doing the full training in this area , we are depriving people of doing the best available action successfully. It wasn't done in GA either and one could argue, there is more need to fly ultralight planes well as they are not as civilised or forgiving as the more developed GA planes. The slower mandated stall speed is not a lot of help, either, if the plane is not controlled when it hits something. Nev

 

 

[turboplanner]

Four people have been killed in Victoria where the least worst action would have been to close the inadequate "airfields" where there was no chance for any pilot with an EFATO because of thick forest.

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

Four people have been killed in Victoria where the least worst action would have been to close the inadequate "airfields" where there was no chance for any pilot with an EFATO because of thick forest.

And just what do you propose should be done about that, in the context of this thread? One cannot legislate against stupidity, unfortunately. Or perhaps, fortunately, or the population would be greatly reduced, one suspects.

 

 

[facthunter]

That's another aspect of it, but in aviation the PIC calls the shots and gets the blame when it comes unstuck. In this he/she assumes the master of the vessel role and I would not like to see THAT changed. Suppliers of facilities , equipment, parts , fire and accident support, planners regulators etc have their role too. Nev

 

 

[turboplanner]

And just what do you propose should be done about that, in the context of this thread? One cannot legislate against stupidity, unfortunately. Or perhaps, fortunately, or the population would be greatly reduced, one suspects.

I would park the aircraft Dafydd.