Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
  • 1
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
User avatar
By Flyin'Dutch'
#1781962
It is surprising how almost every discussion about EFATOs, whereby the conclusion is that landing ahead is probably most of the time the better solution, invariably leads to people trying to find out if they are the exception.

We all diligently learn about Human Factors but somehow also think that we personally are not affected by them.

Suppose that's why advertising keeps on working.

In aviation it can be seen in discussions about navigation, infringements, EC, CFIT and indeed EFATOs.

Humans are funny.
JAFO liked this
User avatar
By Human Factor
#1781973
Next time you do it, after you've pulled the power back at 80kts in the climb, count to three before you react. That will compensate for some "startle and surprise" in the real-world unexpected case and probably give a more realistic outcome.
By Longfinal
#1781991
Kemble Pitts wrote:Thanks for the condescending message longfinal, I'm well aware of the theory. As I asked before, what makes you suggest that the speeds are random? They are not.

I flew the turns avoiding the stall and was simply reporting to the Forum the outcome.


On reflection I suppose it did come across that way for which I apologise. However, in your post you said that you had made a steeply banked turn “(maybe 55-60 deg) keeping 65 KIAS”. You say that 65 is your approach speed - usually 1.3 Vs. You didn’t say why you chose 65kts for the turn and given that it is potentially less than the stall at that AoB it came across to me as a bit random. What was it that made you decide on 65 kts?
User avatar
By Kemble Pitts
#1782002
Thinking about what I did a little more thoughtfully, I entered the turn at about 80 KIAS and then established 65 KIAS at the end, but put the nose down 'sufficiently' in the turn to keep the speed up. Done by feel rather than ASI.

Next time I'll monitor more diligently. It was a late decision to try the turns as I was approaching base and hadn't thought it through too much, just flew by feel. Gliding experience and practising hundreds of fan-stop PFLs will have helped quite a bit here.

The key take-away was that doing it more or less off the cuff gave me a 300' height loss, which didn't seem excessive.

Next time I'll try the 'oh crikey' three seconds, although if I start that at the climb speed of 80 KIAS I suspect I'll be starting the turn before the speed decays to 65 KIAS, so might give a similar result.

Whatever, it is all quite instructive.
rf3flyer liked this
User avatar
By Rob L
#1782003
Human Factor wrote:Next time you do it, after you've pulled the power back at 80kts in the climb, count to three before you react. That will compensate for some "startle and surprise" in the real-world unexpected case and probably give a more realistic outcome.


As in the Sully situation!

I have met (and been served breakfast by) Jeff Skiles, and he said that the "surprise" factor "seemed for ever" but realistically was "about three seconds".
The film debates this quite well.

Rob
User avatar
By flyguy
#1782012
Flyin'Dutch' wrote:It is surprising how almost every discussion about EFATOs, whereby the conclusion is that landing ahead is probably most of the time the better solution, invariably leads to people trying to find out if they are the exception.

Humans are funny.


Spot on FD. Aligns very closely with the supposed 90% of the driving population who assess themselves as 'above average'. :D
G-BLEW, Flyin'Dutch', Rob P liked this
User avatar
By Pete L
#1782022
1800' felt a bit low for experiments of this type. I'd be thinking about 3000' - and I fly something that apparently can only be spun with a heavy weight beyond the aft C of G limit.
User avatar
By Flyin'Dutch'
#1782025
flyguy wrote:
Spot on FD. Aligns very closely with the supposed 90% of the driving population who assess themselves as 'above average'. :D


Cheers.

What 'worries' me a bit is that people who have done this 'at altitude' note that they have lost 300ft in their experiment.

So next time the engine stops, they push for best glide, look at the clock, note 300ft and 'say' to themselves - that will work.

It likely won't.

I would not do a 180 after a competition finish near max chat in a glider at 300ft.

Doing it in a spam can at Vy - no thank you.
JAFO liked this
User avatar
By Human Factor
#1782050
I’m going in the field just off the centreline (more or less). With the gear up and the canopy open (‘cos I can). I stopped owning the aircraft a few seconds ago. I’m going to fly it until I can’t fly it any more. Statistically I’ll probably walk away.

I am not going to turn back unless I’m already turning downwind (maybe, probably not). It depends on the circuit, the wind, the other factor I haven’t thought of...

I’ve tried it in a Yak52 for fun and you have to be fudging close to the airfield.

I’ve had two partial engine failures (in the cruise) in radials. Two things got me back to base in each case - for different failures and in different types . The engine recovered so I didn’t touch the levers again until I selected idle. I didn’t select idle until I knew I could make the airfield. Otherwise, I was going in that field down there, with the gear up and the canopy open (‘cos I can). :wink:
Flyin'Dutch', JAFO, Lefty liked this
User avatar
By MichaelP
#1782080
The visual effects on a pilots’ handling of an aircraft at low level are far different to those at 1,800 feet.

The wind effects; shift and sheer, are noticeable at low levels.

It’s the same old problem... The aerobatic pilot who practices looping at high level, takes careful note of the altimeter, adds a hundred feet or so as a fudge factor, and then does it at a airshow at low level... sees the ground coming up, and adds more pull on the stick to pancake into the ground at high energy.

What you practice at high level is not always what you achieve at low level.
Rob P, Flyin'Dutch' liked this
User avatar
By rf3flyer
#1782083
MichaelP wrote:What you practice at high level is not always what you achieve at low level.
Probably very true, but the sort of 'turn-back trials' that people here have been conducting would be foolhardy at low level.
I am sure that people have been doing these, not to practice a turn-back, but to see for themselves how difficult the manoeuvre would be to pull off in a real emergency and to, perhaps, establish some parameters for dealing with a real EFATO.
Kemble Pitts liked this
By PaulisHome
#1782086
Inspired by this thread, I've been experimenting with a reasonable model of the Mooney on X-plane. I'm also a glider pilot, so well used to launch failure procedures.

Land ahead is what I've been taught. However, where I fly power from, there's a significant portion of the climb out where that would have you landing onto houses.

in a glider, following a launch failure, we lower the nose to a recovery attitude (maybe 30 deg below the horizon if not too close to the ground) and wait for a pre-briefed speed - 55 kts in a typical glider, (80 kts in the Mooney, I think). Then we adopt the normal gliding attitude and make a straight ahead / turn decision, going straight ahead if it's safe to do so.

In the Mooney, with 2000m of tarmac, you reach around 500 feet at the end of the runway. Above 600 feet, a 45 deg balanced turn at 80 kts will get you back onto the airfield with a bit of margin. Below ~250 feet, you would probably be OK straight ahead. It's the in-between bit that's tricky (though where I fly there's a patch of grass off to one side that might be of help).

In gliding, we prebrief 'eventualities' on every launch (what do I do if the launch goes wrong). Thinking this through has led me to include that in my pre-takeoff brief for power as well. In particular having an idea of at what height a turn is feasible is useful.

Paul
Kemble Pitts liked this
  • 1
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10