Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
  • 1
  • 13
  • 14
  • 15
  • 16
  • 17
  • 23
User avatar
By Milty
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1884044
So far in my limited training, I've been taught EFATO at the airfield and also out in open countryside AFTER a PFL. For me, this seems to be a sensible approach.

EFATO at the home airfield is good for experience and has taught me to be looking outside on all take-offs with a bit of thought as to where I might go. I naively thought that it would be the same field you would choose but I'm glad I've been asked to do a few because the picture changes considerably from different heights. Also, one field that was perfect the one week had been inconveniently ploughed the following so I chose another (I blame @TheFarmer and his friends for trying to earn a living without a thought for us GA flyers :lol: ).

I've done two PFL's out in open countryside and on both occasions, I'd guess we were down around the 100ft mark above grass/arable fields only. On climb out, the instructor took the opportunity to pretend we had an EFATO too.
By Rex123
#1884047
I'm not a pilot although a while ago I did think about doing PPL and read quite a lot of the handbooks, so I have a little background knowledge. I've registered here for the sole purpose of posting on this thread.

I've known the pilot a very long time. The last time I met him before the crash was when he took me up in his plane, about a month before, in about a 90 minute flight with a stopover about half way through. It will remain one of my happiest memories. On that day he was absolutely meticulous with planning, calculations, checklists, and following radio instructions given. The stopover was on to a good quality grass strip, not any of those mentioned in the report, and at no point did any of his actions feel unsafe or reckless.

I was impressed how thorough the AAIB report was, although I know for a fact that he had flown significantly more than 2 hours between his test and the crash. Probably by a factor of at least 10. Not sure where that number came from.

I hope that one consolation I can take from his loss is that other pilots will learn from the mistakes he made (and there were many that day, obviously). And maybe, just maybe, that learning might save someone else's life. I've read every post and in the main people here are using the report in that spirit, and I'm grateful for that.

Saying that, making factually unsustainable judgements on his character based on the content of the report does not seem sensible. Apart from being fairly offensive to those that knew him, what are you really saying? This pilot was obviously a reckless, overconfident idiot; I'm not a reckless overconfident idiot therefore it can never happen to me. Seems like a pointless thing to say, when to me it feels like you should be saying: This pilot could have been having a bad day; everyone can have a bad day; what should I do when I'm having a bad day and flying? Feels like that is a more useful learning opportunity.

To those that have said that he was obviously a cocaine addict and that's why he died, I have no words. There is no evidence for that opinion in the report, and why that should be your takeaway from it I have no idea. I'm not going to try to deny he ever took it, but it's frankly an objectively stupid thing to assert when the report explicitly said it would not have affected his actions.

Anyway, been reading every post on this for a couple of days wondering whether to write anything. Not sure whether this was a good idea or not but I've done it now. If that report became compulsory reading for the PPL test I'd honestly be very happy, in the hope it might one day save someone else's life, even if it can't bring him back.
Last edited by Rex123 on Mon Nov 22, 2021 2:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
By flyingearly
#1884055
Milty wrote:So far in my limited training, I've been taught EFATO at the airfield and also out in open countryside AFTER a PFL. For me, this seems to be a sensible approach.

EFATO at the home airfield is good for experience and has taught me to be looking outside on all take-offs with a bit of thought as to where I might go. I naively thought that it would be the same field you would choose but I'm glad I've been asked to do a few because the picture changes considerably from different heights. Also, one field that was perfect the one week had been inconveniently ploughed the following so I chose another (I blame @TheFarmer and his friends for trying to earn a living without a thought for us GA flyers :lol: ).

I've done two PFL's out in open countryside and on both occasions, I'd guess we were down around the 100ft mark above grass/arable fields only. On climb out, the instructor took the opportunity to pretend we had an EFATO too.


Given how infrequently fields tend to move (with a caveat that I know they get ploughed, sowed etc etc etc), I've always wondered why there aren't 'recommended' fields for each airfield at different decision heights and conditions and why instead we are happy for that decision to be made ad hoc, amidst high levels of adrenaline and cortisol.

There can't be that many fields within a 1km radius of the end of a given runway....enough to do a stocktake of them, perhaps even walk them on the ground and see what the conditions are like....I think it's quite a good hypothetical ground school exercise to bring a group of pilots together and ask: imagine you had an engine failure in Position X at height Y with the wind from Z: where would you put it down? I predict that for many places, there would be a reasonable level of overlap between where people choose.

Call me a saddo, but I always look on Google Earth around anywhere I fly and in my head have a pre-planned view of where I'm going to aim for based on EFATO at different heights. On climbout, I always then try to identify those fields and ask if they would have been suitable, or if there are better alternatives, which then updates my mental library. I just don't want to have to trust that I make a reasonable decision under stress; much easier to have A plan, even if it's not the perfect plan, which I can then adapt as necessary.

Nonemoreso than where I currently fly from: I'm worried that there are very few good options for where to put it when departing Northwards, during which you're flying over congested residential areas, which is an entirely different dicscussion.

Separate note, but I seem to remember someone sharing an amazing article a few years back about different types of crops and fields, talking about their suitability for a forced landing, with pictures - can anyone remember the link?
Milty liked this
User avatar
By Rob P
#1884058
http://www.fieldselection.co.uk/

________________________________________________________

Rex123 wrote: in the hope it might one day save someone else's life


The only good thing about the whole sorry affair.

As such, the wider it is disseminated the better. Discussion of the report is inevitable; it's not in any way disrespectful, even if, occasionally one or two of the comments are.

Rob P
JAFO, TrickyWoo liked this
User avatar
By IainD
#1884059
I'm afraid that I have to disagree with you on this Matt. In a low-energy aeroplane there is a world of difference between what looks right at 500' and what becomes reality at 100' once one has descended through the wind gradient.



I agree and regularly do PFLs to a full stop at our home strip with a slippery RV. Its amazing how things can look rosy at 500 feet only to come up a little short or long due to winds, windshear over the trees ,flaps in too early etc.

If you are aiming to the centre of the runway then a fair amount of sideslipping is often needed below 500' especially as our strip is short. Id rather have height and speed to scrub off than be in the sugar beat and this all occurs below 500'

When I did my training we never went below 500' for a PFL and would happily fly away saying 'oh yeah we'd have made that' but that is the most crucial phase for success or failure I've since learnt....or maybe that's just me and my less than adequate sky god credentials :)
User avatar
By PeteSpencer
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1884061
IainD wrote:I agree and regularly do PFLs to a full stop at our home strip with a slippery RV. Its amazing how things can look rosy at 500 feet only to come up a little short or long due to winds, windshear over the trees ,flaps in too early etc.

If you are aiming to the centre of the runway then a fair amount of sideslipping is often needed below 500' especially as our strip is short. Id rather have height and speed to scrub off than be in the sugar beat and this all occurs below 500'


Too right :And the reverse is also true:

I've had a serious brown trouser moment trying to stretch the glide in our one tonne brick and would have been in the crops: :oops: Ignore that stall warner for too long and it'll go to worms..............

Redface time for me: went around and all was sweetness and light at the second attempt
IainD liked this
By Bill McCarthy
#1884064
Practising PFLs on a home airfield is a poor excuse for getting that exercise out of the way - it won’t even raise the pulse much. It’s a whole different story when the time comes to try it at a random point out on a bimble. Perfectly good landing sites can be available but the whole thing goes to pot if landing too fast, too short or too long in.
seanxair, T6Harvard liked this
User avatar
By vintage ATCO
#1884067
AlanM wrote:Quick Question re: Practice EFATOs.

Whilst training, are you allowed to desend below 500ft agl when practicing a PFL on departure? (Assuming you are not on a 10000ft runway…… - so descending away from the airfield)


The UK exemption to the blanket SERA 'not below 500ft' is contained in CAA's ORS4/1496, see para 5.

http://publicapps.caa.co.uk/docs/33/ORS4%20No.1496.pdf
AlanM, Lockhaven liked this
By Bill McCarthy
#1884069
As I see it then - I can fly over open moorland in the back of beyond at 50ft if I chose to do so ?
User avatar
By IainD
#1884072
Bill McCarthy wrote:Practising PFLs on a home airfield is a poor excuse for getting that exercise out of the way - it won’t even raise the pulse much. It’s a whole different story when the time comes to try it at a random point out on a bimble. Perfectly good landing sites can be available but the whole thing goes to pot if landing too fast, too short or too long in.



I will also do PFLs at random when on x countries etc but to no less than 500'.
By Big Dex
#1884075
Pete L wrote:Agreed. Horses generally fine with aircraft they can see but someone did a PFL into our paddock when the horse was in the stable with my wife - thing went mental.


Did you not explain to her the value of keeping your skills honed?
User avatar
By PeteSpencer
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1884077
Bill McCarthy wrote:Practising PFLs on a home airfield is a poor excuse for getting that exercise out of the way - it won’t even raise the pulse much. It’s a whole different story when the time comes to try it at a random point out on a bimble. Perfectly good landing sites can be available but the whole thing goes to pot if landing too fast, too short or too long in.


Agree fully: Have done the odd PFL down to ~ 200ft - fortunately we're spoilt for flat field choice/disused WW2 airfields in E Angular.(I know which of the latter are accessible and which are full of turkeys or HGVs).

And I can stick it on the threshold every (well most :oops: ) times.

But I'm fully aware of the risk of public 999 "I've just seen an aeroplane crash " calls if venturing too low, notwithstanding the 500ft rule. :roll:
By SteveX
#1884078
I honestly don't know what there is to discuss here in terms of pfl. What on earth is the point of PFLing into an airfield?!! Cos of course the engine will only quit when in gliding range of 800m of tarmac right? In fact I wonder now what is the point of glide approaches from downwind in the syllabus..........

Since we can fly down to zero feet then they should be practiced into 'real' fields down to 2-300ft until perfected.
  • 1
  • 13
  • 14
  • 15
  • 16
  • 17
  • 23