Lancair crash at SnF
On 2008-04-25, WingFlaps wrote:
On Apr 25, 9:31*pm, Dylan Smith wrote:
IIRC, Vy is for a C172 is in the region of 65 knots - or best glide, and
I can see you missed the point entirely. By the way, Vy is never at
best glide (it is above that ~69knots in a 172) -perhaps you would
I never said it was best glide. I said Vy for a C172 is *in the region
of 65 knots* (I don't actually remember what it is off the top of my
head, it's been 5 years since I flew a C172, but I do remember Vy being
close to 65 knots). I do, however, remember that for an 'N' model C172,
65 knots was best glide and Vy was close to that number. (In
fact a brief internet search shows it to be 70 knots, so if the pilot
recognises an engine failure promptly, should not have to dive to regain
airspeed as your scenario stated. In reality, your 'concrete numbers'
are just as much handwaving: how many pilots seriously climb out to 600
feet at Vx? How many pilots would seriously spend 10 seconds doing
nothing but talking on the radio when the engine has quit cold - instead
of looking for a suitable landing site and navigating towards said
site?)
Good luck on your first engine failure during climb out, if you turn
back I hope you make it. but you'll have a better chance going
straight ahead...
Actually, I did go straight ahead but with 4000 feet of runway
remaining and a slow aircraft (C140), it wasn't exactly the hardest
aviation decision I've had to make.
If it happens again, I'll do what I think is prudent at the time. That
might be straight ahead, it might be turn to some amount, and it might
even be return to the airfield. I can't say at this point, and I won't
be able to say unless it actually happens - just like one of our glider
pilots did when the rope really did break at 200 feet: owing to the
strong tailwind that he would have had on a downwind landing, he elected
to land in a field instead, even though the turn itself was eminently
possible and he could have made it to the runway.
My friend who did have his engine lunch itself had the choice of a built
up area, a busy beach full of people, or the airfield. He was at about
600 feet in a C150. If I had been in the same situation as him, I'd have
done the same - try to get back on airfield property because it was the
only thing flat not covered in people that was within range. I can not
fault his decision. (He did better than airfield property, he did get it
onto the runway).
What I'm trying to say in a long winded way is that there are no
prescriptive solutions. "Always land straight ahead" isn't always the
right decision, nor is the decision to turn back even if you really can
make the runway safely (in the glider example, the prospect of
groundlooping into a barbed wire fence when the glider got below wind
speed on the ground was a deciding factor to land in a field rather than
on the runway). It depends on conditions at the time, how much altitude
and airspeed you have, and what the terrain is like.
--
From the sunny Isle of Man.
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
|