gliding back to your departure airport

On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 01:52:18 GMT, Tom Pappano wrote
in Message-Id: :

Front seat guys were seriously banged up, but they also were not wearing
seat belts. Three rear seat pax, also unbelted, received minor injuries.

Life may be "like a box of chocolates for some folks," but the laws of
physics are seldom broken. :-)

Anyone who doesn't faithfully use lap and shoulder belts, is a damn
fool.

David Megginson wrote:
Confirm this with someone who knows better, but from what I've heard,
you need only about 20 ft of deceleration to have a chance of
surviving a landing in a Cherokee/172/Musketeer-class aircraft. That
suggests that setting down in a developed area (an unoccupied part,
preferably) might be survivable.

Tom Pappano wrote:
I would think, in a "172" or similar class airplane, if you have your
seatbelts and shoulder harnesses on, flaps down, minimum controllable
airspeed, and *maintain control*, you should be able to land on (or
into) almost anything and survive with minor injury. I know of two
landings on top of houses that were both "walk aways".

I've heard this too. And it makes sense to me. And I would shoot for
trees if that were the best option and I had time and altitude to pick
the spot. The problem with the area surrounding PDK is that it is so
densely developed one would be hard pressed, especially in a low
altitude emergency situation, to pick an appropriate and unoccupied place.

I personally would not deliberatly shoot for a house; can't tell who's
inside.

The biggest issue for me around PDK is powerlines. There are multiple
multilane roads on three sides of PDK, but even if they weren't *always*
occupied by heavy traffic, they are criss-crossed with power lines every
few hundred feet. Snag a powerline, and you've lost control, at the
very least.

Take a look at www.terraserver.com; search for Lat: 33.873596938 and
Lon: -84.30184815. All the trees you see surrounding the airport are in
someone's (tiny) yard, except for a stretch just off the end of 27 (the
least used runway). There's a golf course off west, but if you can
glide to that, you're high enough to get back to the airport; plus it's
at 90 degrees to the main runways anyway.

Like I said, I figure in this particular place, the best way to increase
my chances of survival is get as much altitude within the shortest
distance as possible.

--
David Hill
david at hillREMOVETHISfamily.org
Sautee-Nacoochee, GA, USA

filters, they're not just for coffee anymore
The following needn't bother to reply, you are filtered:
Juan E Jimenez, Barnyard BOb, Larry Smith, John Nada

True on all counts...

BT

"dennis" wrote in message
k.net...
The glider has a couple of things going for it. Power planes are seldom
over
12:1 glide ratio and it is achieved at a higher speed than the glider.
This means that the power plane covers about half the THEORETICAL glide
distance of the glider. Said loudly.

The speed ratio between the wind and the aircraft is a factor. A given
wind
speed will be a higher percentage of the glider's best glide speed and
will
result in a greater advantage to it's L/D downwind compared to a power
plane
with the same wind. The wind also works to advantage for the glider's on
tow
part by decreasing the distance that it covers on climb, compared to a
power
plane at typical climb speeds.

Finally, for some ancient and illogical reason, power plane standard
procedure
is to stay on center line of the runway for climbout. It's considered bad
form
to put yourself in a safer position for a turn back to the field. The
exception is an IFR departure. They typically maintain runway heading.
Lots
of luck making a turn back under IFR.

You subtract reaction time, reconfiguration time, screw around trying to
get
the thing to run, and it is very, very unlikely that a power plane will
get
back to the runway at any time during their climb out. Unless it is a long
runway and you started from the end.




In article afjlb.63635$La.24804@fed1read02, "BTIZ"
wrote:
Most gliders can do this and the pilots train to that standard..

Departure problems below 200ft AGL, tow plane power problems.. rope
breaks
or tow hook failures.. and the idea is to land straight ahead as quickly
as
possible and get stopped.

Above 200ft AGL (which most glider/tow combinations can get to about
3000ft
after start of take off roll), if the rope breaks, tow plane says.. GET
OFF!!.. the glider pilot can pitch down for airspeed and begin a turn
back
to the departure runway.. land opposite the direction of take off and
have
enough energy to roll back to the starting point.

A nice tow pilot will allow the tow to "Drift down wind the cross wind"
on
climb out, so if something does happen the glider can turn into the wind
when returning to the runway.. turning away from the wind can push the
glider to far away (tailwind on base) and make returning to the runway
more
difficult.

This maneuver is part of the practical test standards, though most DE's
will
wait until 300ft or higher and most CFIGs will review the procedure on
BFRs.

Our "Training glider" has a L/d of 23-1. Schweizer 2-33.

BT

"Harold" wrote in message
. ..
If a small single engine plane can out-climb its engine-out glide ratio
from
take off through the top of climb point, wouldn't it follow that it can
always theoretically make it back to the departure airport in the event
of
engine failure ? Assuming straight out departure, no wind, and the
altitude
loss in the 180 turnback is offset by the runway portion you didn't
use.
If
my best glide is 85 KTAS and it loses 700 fpm at that speed, shouldn't
I
be
guaranteed I can make it back if I climb at 84 KTAS and 701 fpm ?

Harold wrote:

If a small single engine plane can out-climb its engine-out glide ratio from
take off through the top of climb point, wouldn't it follow that it can
always theoretically make it back to the departure airport in the event of
engine failure ?

Sure, except that you have to get turned around first. There is always some
altitude below which you will not be able to return to the airport. This tends
to be between 600 and 900' AGL in a typical powered aircraft.

George Patterson
To a pilot, altitude is like money - it is possible that having too much
could prove embarassing, but having too little is always fatal.

George.. where do you get all these neat quotes for your sig line

BT

"G.R. Patterson III" wrote in message
...


Harold wrote:

If a small single engine plane can out-climb its engine-out glide ratio
from
take off through the top of climb point, wouldn't it follow that it can
always theoretically make it back to the departure airport in the event
of
engine failure ?

Sure, except that you have to get turned around first. There is always
some
altitude below which you will not be able to return to the airport. This
tends
to be between 600 and 900' AGL in a typical powered aircraft.

George Patterson
To a pilot, altitude is like money - it is possible that having too
much
could prove embarassing, but having too little is always fatal.

BTIZ wrote:

George.. where do you get all these neat quotes for your sig line

This particular one comes from "To War in a Stringbag", by Commander Lamb, RN.
IIRC, he was relating an incident early in the war in which he was scud-running
in Scotland.

When I run into something in my reading that I like, I change my sig file for
a while. When I get tired of it, I'll change it to one of my favorites, such
as this one.

George Patterson
To a pilot, altitude is like money - it is possible that having too much
could prove embarassing, but having too little is always fatal.

"Harold" wrote:

If a small single engine plane can out-climb its engine-out glide ratio from
take off through the top of climb point, wouldn't it follow that it can
always theoretically make it back to the departure airport in the event of
engine failure ? Assuming straight out departure, no wind, and the altitude
loss in the 180 turnback is offset by the runway portion you didn't use.
I'm not clear what you mean by that.
If
my best glide is 85 KTAS and it loses 700 fpm at that speed, shouldn't I be
guaranteed I can make it back if I climb at 84 KTAS and 701 fpm ?

If by your statement above, you mean that the runway is long enough
that if you can't turn back, you can land straight ahead, then of
course your statement is trivially true. If not, how can you turn back
from 10'?
--
Alex
Make the obvious change in the return address to reply by email.

If by your statement above, you mean that the runway is long enough
that if you can't turn back, you can land straight ahead, then of
course your statement is trivially true. If not, how can you turn back
from 10'?


Do it the way the Space Shuttle does it (theoretically). If they have an
abort between liftoff and 4 min 20 sec (I think), they are supposed to
execute an RTLS abort (Return to Launch Site). Problem is that no matter
what the situation is, they can't do squat until the SRB's are off the
stack. Once those puppies are lit, your in for a 2 minute ride whether you
want one or not.

After the SRB's seperate, the shuttle is supposed to fly around with just
the External Tank attached for long enough to burn up fuel and then they cut
the engines (if there are any burning) and drop the tank, then glide safely
home (again...theoretically). After the 4:20, I guess they file a missed
approach and are diverted.....to SPAIN!!!!

I truly hope that it is never required, but I've always wondered if this
thing would actually work. We all know that the Shuttle has a glide ratio
somewhere between my Ford Ranger and a brick 0, so it would be interesting
to see how this thing would actually play out.

I don't think this procedure is ever going to make it into our C150 POH's.
But who knows. 100 years ago, we weren't supposed to be able to fly either.
Hrmmm. "Introducing the all new 2067 Model Cessna 150, complete with your
choice of Wheel Pants or JATO packs....."


Jeff

wow...sorry, way off topic........More on RTLS if you ca

http://makeashorterlink.com/?G2B044B46

Not unless you are planning to glide straight ahead. You will lose a lot of
altitude in the turn.

Mike
MU-2


"Harold" wrote in message
...
If a small single engine plane can out-climb its engine-out glide ratio
from
take off through the top of climb point, wouldn't it follow that it can
always theoretically make it back to the departure airport in the event of
engine failure ? Assuming straight out departure, no wind, and the
altitude
loss in the 180 turnback is offset by the runway portion you didn't use.
If
my best glide is 85 KTAS and it loses 700 fpm at that speed, shouldn't I
be
guaranteed I can make it back if I climb at 84 KTAS and 701 fpm ?

"Harold" wrote in message .. .
If a small single engine plane can out-climb its engine-out glide ratio from
take off through the top of climb point, wouldn't it follow that it can
always theoretically make it back to the departure airport in the event of
engine failure ? Assuming straight out departure, no wind, and the altitude
loss in the 180 turnback is offset by the runway portion you didn't use. If
my best glide is 85 KTAS and it loses 700 fpm at that speed, shouldn't I be
guaranteed I can make it back if I climb at 84 KTAS and 701 fpm ?

I have a close friend who was an experienced pilot (IFR rating - 6
years of flying - owned his own plane) and had engine failure on
takeoff and did not make it back to the airport. He was practicing a
short field take off which probably didn't help the situation but
impacted terrain about 1/4 mile short of the runway (he hit power
lines that were right next to this airport). Anyway, he died of
injuries from the crash. The wing sheared during the impact dumping
fuel into the cockpit and started a bad fire but fortunately death
occurred upon impact.

Reports placed him at about 700 ft of altitude when engine failure
occurred but it could have been lower than this value.