They call it the impossible turn.

Dave Doe writes:

Well... *what are they*? The fatality stats are easy. How about the
non-fatals - the sucess stories.

What about them? They are vastly outnumbered by incidents that result in
fatalities. When something is fatal most of the time, it is best avoided.

Mxsmanic wrote:
Dave Doe writes:

Well... *what are they*? The fatality stats are easy. How about the
non-fatals - the sucess stories.

What about them? They are vastly outnumbered by incidents that result in
fatalities. When something is fatal most of the time, it is best avoided.

The above assertion is an invention without foundation and is contradictive
of existing statistics. In 2006, of 153 fixed wing GA accidents whose
causal chain began during the takeoff phase of flight, 16 resulted in
fatalities (~10%) [Ref 1, figure 9]. Of the 160 fixed wing GA accidents
attributed to pilot error during takeoff or climb, 31 resulted in
fatalities (~19%) [Ref 1, figure 2].

[1] 2007 Nall Report, AOPA Air Safety Foundation Publication.
http://www.aopa.org/asf/publications/nall.html

Jim Logajan writes:

The above assertion is an invention without foundation and is contradictive
of existing statistics. In 2006, of 153 fixed wing GA accidents whose
causal chain began during the takeoff phase of flight, 16 resulted in
fatalities (~10%) [Ref 1, figure 9]. Of the 160 fixed wing GA accidents
attributed to pilot error during takeoff or climb, 31 resulted in
fatalities (~19%) [Ref 1, figure 2].

[1] 2007 Nall Report, AOPA Air Safety Foundation Publication.
http://www.aopa.org/asf/publications/nall.html

Since a successful return to the airport does not cause an accident, where are
the statistics on the success stories for comparison?

On Feb 16, 11:25*am, Mxsmanic wrote:
Jim Logajan writes:
The above assertion is an invention without foundation and is contradictive
of existing statistics. In 2006, of 153 fixed wing GA accidents whose
causal chain began during the takeoff phase of flight, 16 resulted in
fatalities (~10%) [Ref 1, figure 9]. Of the 160 fixed wing GA accidents
attributed to pilot error during takeoff or climb, 31 resulted in
fatalities (~19%) [Ref 1, figure 2].

[1] 2007 Nall Report, AOPA Air Safety Foundation Publication.
http://www.aopa.org/asf/publications/nall.html

Since a successful return to the airport does not cause an accident, where are
the statistics on the success stories for comparison?

In the absence of appropriate data, perhaps this analysis is useful:

http://www.nar-associates.com/techni.../possible.html

In summary, I'd say it is unlikely that at 200' you could make a turn
back in a typical powered GA aircraft. More height and training help
but in the vid in question I see two obvious errors, first he did not
think to use the diagonal runway which could be reached more easily
(=lack of pre-planning) and second he did not perform the optimal
turn. What is sobering is the failure of the pilots to make the
maneuver successfully -even when briefed.

Hope this helps reduce the 'noise'.

Cheers

"Flaps_50!" wrote:
In the absence of appropriate data, perhaps this analysis is useful:

http://www.nar-associates.com/techni.../possible.html

A very useful article - thanks for pointing it out.

Mxsmanic wrote:

What about them? They are vastly outnumbered by incidents that result
in fatalities.

Can you back that up with facts and figures? I suggest you claim this
purely because it's the fatals that you hear about every time. You
don't always hear about the ones that aren't fatal.
Crash Lander

--

Crash Lander writes:

Can you back that up with facts and figures? I suggest you claim this
purely because it's the fatals that you hear about every time. You
don't always hear about the ones that aren't fatal.

I prefer to err on the side of caution.

On Feb 16, 7:49*pm, Mxsmanic wrote:
Crash Lander writes:
Can you back that up with facts and figures? I suggest you claim this
purely because it's the fatals that you hear about every time. You
don't always hear about the ones that aren't fatal.

I prefer to err on the side of caution.

Thats very wise and good airmanship Anthony. As much as you annoy
the hell out of us, we dont want to see you in the news, having
crashed your PC into a Paris apartment block in a flaming fireball,
ala Concorde.

On Feb 16, 2:49*am, Mxsmanic wrote:

I prefer to err on the side of caution.

You have no need to "err"...ever. You fly a computer. You have no need
for "caution" as if you knew what that is anyway, which you never will
because you will not get off your office chair & get into a real
airplane.

Ricky

In article ,
says...

Mxsmanic wrote:

What about them? They are vastly outnumbered by incidents that result
in fatalities.

Can you back that up with facts and figures? I suggest you claim this
purely because it's the fatals that you hear about every time. You
don't always hear about the ones that aren't fatal.
Crash Lander

I've asked him several times but he just comes back with the usual MX
pretensious rhetoric. I strongly disagreed with his assertion that

"
Then many pilots must not be training enough, because they misjudge that
point all the time.
"

I disagree and think most (real) pilots do as we are trained to do - and
land ahead.

Me? (300hrs) - I wouldn't even consider turning back - unless I was up
around circuit altitude. If I was pressed for a figure, OK, 700' AGL
(C172P). (Of course, there are many variables - but mainly the field
itself, and what's off and to the side of each end)

--
Duncan.