Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 10
User avatar
By G-BLEW
#1777363
I must admit, when Ed Hicks told me of this upcoming feature I kind of winced (it was hidden thanks to Covid-19 inspired home working).

Ed explained that writer, David Joyce, had gone back and analysed 20 years of accident data, and that our soon to be in post safety editor (Steve Ayres), would be casting a careful eye and adding additional comments.

If you haven't read it yet, you can find it here, the feature starts on page 40..

I'm (still) very firmly in the 'land ahead with minimum energy camp', but the piece did make me think, and will change my pre-flight briefing and thinking.

Image
User avatar
By Rob P
#1777364
I was, and possibly still am, a convinced 'land ahead' believer.

But then when it came to it, and what was ahead was a field ploughed crossways to my inevitable direction of plummet, I had a miraculous conversion to 'anything rather than a crossway's ploughed field'.

Rob P
User avatar
By G-BLEW
#1777366
Rob P wrote:I was, and possibly still am, a convinced 'land ahead' believer.

But then when it came to it, and what was ahead was a field ploughed crossways to my inevitable direction of plummet, I had a miraculous conversion to 'anything rather than a crossway's ploughed field'.

Rob P


Wasn't yours land ahead 'ish'?

Ian
User avatar
By Rob P
#1777368
No.

Mine was 'push the stick forward firmly and crank on as much turn as possible' with the objective of landing on the nice smooth grass of the airfield. I'd estimate the nose came around about 100 degrees from the runway heading before I made very firm contact with the ground about 20 metres short of the peri track.

Rob P
User avatar
By Morten
#1777369
Excellent article. It reminded me of viewtopic.php?f=1&t=100799 which grew into a good thread at the time.

I joined the forum more or less as RobP had his NADZ experience - that was also a very good thread ("How to plummet?") As a pre-PPL student it made a suitable impression on me.

Keep up the good work :thumright: (no, that was not an incentive to do any more EFATO...)
Rob P liked this
User avatar
By Rob P
#1777371
Having within the last week abandoned Old Buckenham and returned to Tibenham as our base I must admit I can't help glancing at the vague depression in the ground that marked my contribution to short-field landing technique and shivering a little.

The field beyond is still cultivated crossway too.

Rob P
User avatar
By foxmoth
#1777388
I am also a big believer in land ahead If there is somewhere suitable there are many airfields where this is not the case though, Southampton comes to mind for one, another is Bembridge taking off to the East . If you are taking off from a runway where this applies you need to plan ahead , often with a “below this height I will do x, above that height I will do y” turn back training/practice is also worthwhile - if I do this an important part is to show what is NOT possible!
Rob L, KingJames liked this
User avatar
By foxmoth
#1777390
peter272 wrote:Why don't you try nipping down to your local winch-launching glider site and ask for demonstration of cable breaks at different heights?

A modern glider has rather better engine out performance than most GA aircraft!
Rob P, Sooty25 liked this
User avatar
By Kemble Pitts
#1777392
Interesting bit of research from David, as you'd expect from a retired hospital consultant and accomplished private pilot/builder.
As he points out on several occasions in the article, what the statistics don't show is why some pilots turned back: what were they turning away from? For me that is the 'take-away' thought. Sometimes you just might be faced with a very unpalatable forced landing area ahead.

A few years ago David did some super research into the survival rates following ditchings in UK waters. His conclusions were very different from the 'ditch and you'll be dead in a minute or two' conventional wisdom. Essentially if you survive the 'arrival' you have a very good chance of being rescued.

So, what I do with the information I have yet to decide but, I do take David's offerings with due gravitas. I just might go and try some minimum height-loss turns next time I go flying - hopefully not in the context of a real EFATO.

Bravo to Ian for publishing.
G-BLEW, kanga liked this
User avatar
By Josh
#1777393
Charlie Precourt (who knows a bit about unpowered approaches) wrote a similar analysis of NTSB data, though much more focussed on how to approach the possibility of whether/how to fly a turn back in the type you fly in the EAA magazine recently. I echo your writers concerns about how comprehensive the AAIB data is, but the key lessons are the same:

- Know your aircraft and what it is capable of

- Make your decision/identify your decision point before going flying and remind yourself on takeoff

- Partial engine failures are seductive and very dangerous, as the prospect of getting the aircraft back on the tarmac in one piece can lead you to dispense with any other option

- Whatever you do, fly the aircraft. If you stall/depart, you are likely history
Wide-Body liked this
User avatar
By Rob P
#1777396
Josh wrote:- Whatever you do, fly the aircraft. If you stall/depart, you are likely history


:thumleft:
By riverrock
#1777397
The big difficulty about statistical analysis of this sort of thing, is that fully successful forced landings (as in - no damage to anything) aren't reportable (as acknowledged in the article).
So the stats are based on incidents when there has been some sort of damage. 90% of turn backs could be fully successful with no damage, but if something goes wrong in the other 10% is it more likely to go wrong in a big way (so higher fatality stats). I doubt that the number is anywhere near 90% but I do know of 2 fully successful forced landings around Prestwick - one landing on a beach straight ahead (EFATO), the other landing on a runway (partial failure, then total when downwind, so technically a turn back). They did have to repair the hole in the cowling the cylinder made in one of them but they were not (I understand) reportable to the AAIB so wont be included in those numbers.

We do train (at Prestwick) to land on the cross runway if appropriate, or even land straight back on the same runway (but then not many people have 3km of runway to play with). There are advantages to landing within the airfield boundary. However there is a big difference between a 90deg turn and a turn back.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 10