Lancair crash at SnF

On 2008-04-24, WingFlaps wrote:
Let's work some real numbers for a 172 at 500'. Say climb was a Vx 59
knots.

Firstly, I don't know anyone who routinely climbs out at Vx - certainly
not at 500'. Secondly, this is 100 feet below the altitude I stated.
IIRC, Vy is for a C172 is in the region of 65 knots - or best glide, and
many pilots accelerate to around 70-75kts at 500 feet to get a better
view forward, since best rate in many parts of the world isn't critical
to maintain once you're above a couple of hundred feet.

pilot carries out some trouble checks say 10s. Calls on the radio =10
s and plans his return.

The sequence is aviate, navigate, communicate. Most pilots I know won't
touch the radio with a problem at low altitude. The pilot I know who did
make the turnback from 600 feet certainly didn't, he just turned back.
However, in his situation it was pretty obvious the engine had lunched
itself so there was no time spent 'debugging' the problem. (For the
record, the only engine stoppage I had on takeoff was at 50 feet - the
decision to land straight ahead was very easy and fast to make).

Note that 20s have probably elapsed. The plane
has already travelled ~0.4 miles and at a 10:1 glide ratio has lost
200' (assuming he did get it to best glide in the first place). Can
he make 2 turns and land back -no way!

If the pilot does that, then yes - no way. However, the pilots I've know
who've had low engine failures have never yakked on the radio, nor have
they spent 10s debugging the problem!

you 35 seconds. 45 seconds lost = 450 feet! Now we add in the energy
losses from having to accelerate with the wind and to glide speed.

You do NOT have to accelerate with the wind! You are a creature of the
air, turning downwind does not involve a loss of airspeed!

I agree that the primary concern is to not stall. However, pilots must
be prepared to make a decision rather than 'default straight ahead' -
the decision, whatever it is, must be made quickly and you must not
stall. And yes, sometimes, turning back to the runway is possible and
this will depend on the situation - altitude and the suitability of
terrain, pilot proficiency etc.

When you're about to push the throttle forwards, you SHOULD have some
kind of a plan if it goes pear shaped. What's the wind doing? Is there a
crosswind? What's the terrain surrounding the airfield like? If you lose
power at point X what is the best course of action, and at point Y what
is the best course of action? The best courses of action (other than 'do
not stall') may not be a fixed prescription.

--
From the sunny Isle of Man.
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.

On Apr 25, 9:31*pm, Dylan Smith wrote:
On 2008-04-24, WingFlaps wrote:

Let's work some real numbers for a 172 at 500'. Say climb was a Vx 59
knots.

Firstly, I don't know anyone who routinely climbs out at Vx - certainly
not at 500'. Secondly, this is 100 feet below the altitude I stated.
IIRC, Vy is for a C172 is in the region of 65 knots - or best glide, and
many pilots accelerate to around 70-75kts at 500 feet to get a better
view forward, since best rate in many parts of the world isn't critical
to maintain once you're above a couple of hundred feet.


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
like to revise what determines Vy? My point was to ilustrate the
impossible turn with some concrete numbers instead of the handwaving
BS that seems pervasive in this topic.

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...

Cheers

.

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.

Dylan Smith wrote:
It depends on conditions at the time, how much altitude
and airspeed you have, and what the terrain is like.

As well as the particular airplane in the situation.

Dylan Smith wrote in
:

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.


Actually, if you're light or have a tailwind, best glide will come at a
lower airspeed. in a manuever this tight you need every trick in the
book at your disposal.

Bertie

"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message
...
Dylan Smith wrote in
:

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.


Actually, if you're light or have a tailwind, best glide will come at a
lower airspeed. in a manuever this tight you need every trick in the
book at your disposal.

Bertie

Only if you fly as lame a you do.

"Maxwell" luv2^fly99@cox.^net wrote in newsdkQj.67984$y05.29472
@newsfe22.lga:


"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message
...
Dylan Smith wrote in
:

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.


Actually, if you're light or have a tailwind, best glide will come at
a
lower airspeed. in a manuever this tight you need every trick in the
book at your disposal.

Bertie

Only if you fly as lame a you do.


Snort!

Yeh, my self image as a pilot hinges on the opinion of someone who
counldn't teach a bird to fly.


Bertie

On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 03:45:41 -0700 (PDT), WingFlaps wrote:

I can see you missed the point entirely.

DickHead:

This is kind of like teasing you, a retarded kid, until he gets so
angry you **** yourself. Sure, in a perverse way, it's funny to watch
you stand there and scream and deny, all red-faced with **** dripping
from your cuffs of your shorts and down your pasty white legs. But,
still, I feel bad for you in a way, too. It's worse than shooting fish
in a barrel, it's just too easy.
--
http://tinyurl.com/ysv7sz

On Apr 27, 5:40*am, I Speak White wrote:
On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 03:45:41 -0700 (PDT), WingFlaps wrote:
I can see you missed the point entirely.

DickHead:

This is kind of like teasing you, a retarded kid, until he gets so
angry you **** yourself. Sure, in a perverse way, it's funny to watch
you stand there and scream and deny, all red-faced with **** dripping
from your cuffs of your shorts and down your pasty white legs. But,
still, I feel bad for you in a way, too. It's worse than shooting fish
in a barrel, it's just too easy.

What a vivid little imagination you have, with just a hint of
pedophilia.

Cheers

On Sat, 26 Apr 2008 10:50:43 -0700 (PDT), WingFlaps wrote:

What a vivid little imagination you have, with just a hint of
pedophilia.

It's not ambiguous no matter how hard you try and wriggle out of your
own imbecility by pretending it is. It's a clear statement of fact that
proves you unequivocally wrong, made by the people you were "citing" in
an attempt to prop up that imbecility.

Sorry about your luck, sucks to be you, have a nice day.

--
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **