RV-8 crash

What if there's a mountain straight ahead and a nice cornfield off to your
right.

It's a fluid situation and you have to flow with it.


If you aint thought of all the possible contigencies BEFORE HAND and WHAT
should be the response when A, B or C happens and instead "go with the flow"
and hope to make the right snap decision thats poor planning thats gonna bite
you in the you know where someday....

take care

Blll

Thanks for the compliment George....

I get the impression some people just dont realise how bad a stall or spin near
the ground ISSSS.....you might as well just drive a car off the top of a ten to
twenty story building....its about as surviable.....

Folks need to go to the online FAA/NTSB accident/incident database...it is EASY
to use and full of good information....

You can read report after report talking about controlled forced landings in
places other than runways and youll read about plenty of survivors and minor
damage.....then read about stalls/spins near the ground.....and you read about
fatality after fatality and totally destroyed aircraft.....

If you wouldnt BET your life that you can do a 180 (or 90 or whatever) in the
plane you in, with the load and weather conditions at the moment and the
altitude your at...you better not do it....because betting you life is WHAT you
are doing....

Another gotcha is trying to go SOOOO slow during your forced landing that you
stall near the ground anyway....in this case a little fast is alot better than
a little stall...

take care

Blll

"Newps" wrote:
In a Cessna you climb at 70 knots, pull the power, enter a 45 degree
bank,
maintain 70 knots and see how much altitude you lose.

Why climb out so slow?

I climb at Vx, 83 KIAS, then pitch for 70 at the power cut.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM
(remove pants to reply by email)

Jeff wrote:

I have it in my head, If I lose power, I will continue straight ahead and hope
for the best spot. TUrning around seems more risky, depending on altitude and
where the engine quits at.

One thing you can do is to get in the habit of departing at best angle of climb.
Transition to best rate of climb a bit above the altitude at which you could
reasonably expect to be able to return to the field. If the rubber band breaks and
you haven't transitioned to best ROC yet, don't even think about turning around; just
try to hit the cheapest thing around as slowly as possible.

George Patterson
This marriage is off to a shaky start. The groom just asked the band to
play "Your cheatin' heart", and the bride just requested "Don't come home
a'drinkin' with lovin' on your mind".

"G.R. Patterson III" wrote in
:



Jeff wrote:

I have it in my head, If I lose power, I will continue straight ahead
and hope for the best spot. TUrning around seems more risky,
depending on altitude and where the engine quits at.

One thing you can do is to get in the habit of departing at best angle
of climb. Transition to best rate of climb a bit above the altitude at
which you could reasonably expect to be able to return to the field.
If the rubber band breaks and you haven't transitioned to best ROC
yet, don't even think about turning around; just try to hit the
cheapest thing around as slowly as possible.

George Patterson
This marriage is off to a shaky start. The groom just asked the
band to play "Your cheatin' heart", and the bride just requested
"Don't come home a'drinkin' with lovin' on your mind".


As I've thought more and more about getting my PPL and building a plane,
it's these engine failure on takeoff accidents that bother me the most.

It's been mentioned here that statistically, flying GA is about as
dangerous as driving a motorcycle. Statistics can be misleading, of
course. I used to ride motorcycles, and have done my share of "stupid"
things, but the most danger in riding a motorcycle is more the stupid
actions of other drivers, especially regarding the decreased visibility of
the MC to other drivers. So to increase safety in driving a motorcycle,
you constantly have to imagine your invisible and that every car that has
the potential to intersect your course probably will, and act accordingly
(in other words "ride paranoid")

It seems that a pilot has alot of control over "most" of the risks of dying
in his plane.... fuel exhaustion, flying into IMC, landing in crosswinds
beyond pilot/plane capability... etc., but For awhile I've thought these
were engine failure on takeoff were the most unavoidable accidents, since
it's basically instant failure and can happen at any time in an engines
life. I don't like feeling that there is a risk of dying that careful
planning and/or technique cannot reduce.

As I've done more research (yes I'm sure alot of this will be covered in
PPL training.. but..) I've learned and inferred some things. Obviously,
during takeoff is the time when the engine is under the most stress, that's
why, I assume, a good run-up is done before takeoff, so hopefully if
something is "about to fail" it will fail then and not on climbout.

Your suggestion of best angle of climb, I believe mirrors my recent mental
processes about the takeoff and engine failure risks. I assume that best
"angle" of climb will give the aircraft the best compromise between rate of
climb and engine output/stress?

In thinking about engine choices for my (hopefully) upcoming Sonex project,
this has lead me to lean more toward the (much) more expensive Jabiru 330,
rather then the AeroVee or Jab 220. With more power available, the plane
will climb to above my "no return" altitude quicker, and/or at a lower %
power setting. I have communicated with one Sonex pilot who totaled his
airplane after a prob hub failure (using a GreatPlanes VW setup, a faulty
hub attachment that has since been re-designed) and an attempted turnback
(roled the plane after a wingtip strike... fortunately lived to tell about
it). Very scary stuff....

I was also taught in my first GA plane ride (sr-22) by a CFI to use every
foot of available runway. We pulled onto a 5300 ft runway off the taxiway
that was about 100ft or so from the beginning of the runway and he still
turned, and looped around to use all of that 100 feet. He reasoned to me
that in the event of an issue at takeoff that 100 feet of runway could be
the difference between life and death, even though the sr-22 only needed
less than 1000 feet to takeoff....

I know this is very basic stuff to this group, but in my very short time of
"hanging around" 2 different small airports I have seen many folks jump in
there plane without doing "any" inspection, takeoff with no runup, etc. I
wonder how many of these statistics are a result of these breakdowns of
procedure....?

--
ET


"A common mistake people make when trying to design something
completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete
fools."---- Douglas Adams

ET wrote:

Your suggestion of best angle of climb, I believe mirrors my recent mental
processes about the takeoff and engine failure risks. I assume that best
"angle" of climb will give the aircraft the best compromise between rate of
climb and engine output/stress?

Actually, best angle of climb tends to reduce cooling air to the engine. In some
aircraft, it will produce higher CHTs and, consequently, more engine stress. This, by
the way, is not the case with my aircraft/engine combo. It has two advantages. It
keeps you closer to the airport during climb, so you may have a better shot at
putting the plane down on airport property if things go bad while you're still pretty
low. It also gets you higher by the time you reach those obstacles that most fields
seem to have not far from the end of the runway. It also may reduce the noise level
for people who live near the end of the runway. I've seen this claim in print, but
several people here have argued otherwise.

One certain disadvantage is that best angle of climb airspeed and flap configuration
is rarely the same as that required for best glide. In my aircraft, I will be 13 mph
slower than best glide, and I'll have 24 degrees of flaps in. I feel that, if the
engine quits at, say, 300' AGL, I probably will prefer to have the flaps down to
reduce the speed at touchdown, so all I really have to do is force myself to push the
yoke forward and keep the speed up enough to avoid a steep descent rate. Best glide
speed isn't real important at that altitude, IMO.

George Patterson
This marriage is off to a shaky start. The groom just asked the band to
play "Your cheatin' heart", and the bride just requested "Don't come home
a'drinkin' with lovin' on your mind".

Dan Luke wrote:
"Newps" wrote:

In a Cessna you climb at 70 knots, pull the power, enter a 45 degree

bank,

maintain 70 knots and see how much altitude you lose.


Why climb out so slow?

70 kts +- a few knots is best rate in Cessna singles.

"Newps" wrote:

70 kts +- a few knots is best rate in Cessna singles.

Vy is 84 KIAS at MSL in mine. A quick Google finds Skylane Vy's listed
from 81-90 KIAS.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM
(remove pants to reply by email)

Old CFI/ATP/A&P here. If you want to be an old GA pilot, fly
paranoid. Assume mentally that the worst possible **** is going to
happen at the worst time to you, so that when it doesn't you can be
pleasantly surprised and the few times it does you will be so used to
entertaining disaster that it won't really rattle you. Don't fly much
at night in singles at first. It's dumb. When you do; keep a strip
within gliding distance. Not doing runups after the first t/o really
hasn't killed too many people. Most engine failures are on the first
power reduction. Odd's are, the guys you see doing this know/have
built their birds and they're comfortable skipping runups (just like
you do on touch and go's.) But you always run up till about 800hrs.
You need to engrain the same routine habit patterns. Don't fly on
schedules. This, sooner or later will have you pressing bad weather
or near sunset. Listen to war stories. Go flying a lot with friends
who are real experienced. Old guys are really young guys who didn't
get killed by their mistakes. And on the runway turnback issue, this
is PURELY a PIC decision. There's just too many different
environments, aircraft, pilot skill levels, and currency issues to
make absolute rules on. Don't think about it until you've practiced
it some with an instructor. Start high (1000 ft) on the first ones.
Pay attention to the wind before you take off and plan which direction
and altitude you will attempt the 180 on (we call this an "engine out
briefing" in the airlines.) Lastly, remember that you're not going to
live forever, so try to enjoy this general aviation insanity. They're
probably going to outlaw it anyway in about fifty years!

Good Luck,

pacplyer


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



Jeff wrote:

I have it in my head, If I lose power, I will continue straight ahead
and hope for the best spot. TUrning around seems more risky,
depending on altitude and where the engine quits at.

One thing you can do is to get in the habit of departing at best angle
of climb. Transition to best rate of climb a bit above the altitude at
which you could reasonably expect to be able to return to the field.
If the rubber band breaks and you haven't transitioned to best ROC
yet, don't even think about turning around; just try to hit the
cheapest thing around as slowly as possible.

George Patterson
This marriage is off to a shaky start. The groom just asked the
band to play "Your cheatin' heart", and the bride just requested
"Don't come home a'drinkin' with lovin' on your mind".


As I've thought more and more about getting my PPL and building a plane,
it's these engine failure on takeoff accidents that bother me the most.

It's been mentioned here that statistically, flying GA is about as
dangerous as driving a motorcycle. Statistics can be misleading, of
course. I used to ride motorcycles, and have done my share of "stupid"
things, but the most danger in riding a motorcycle is more the stupid
actions of other drivers, especially regarding the decreased visibility of
the MC to other drivers. So to increase safety in driving a motorcycle,
you constantly have to imagine your invisible and that every car that has
the potential to intersect your course probably will, and act accordingly
(in other words "ride paranoid")

It seems that a pilot has alot of control over "most" of the risks of dying
in his plane.... fuel exhaustion, flying into IMC, landing in crosswinds
beyond pilot/plane capability... etc., but For awhile I've thought these
were engine failure on takeoff were the most unavoidable accidents, since
it's basically instant failure and can happen at any time in an engines
life. I don't like feeling that there is a risk of dying that careful
planning and/or technique cannot reduce.

As I've done more research (yes I'm sure alot of this will be covered in
PPL training.. but..) I've learned and inferred some things. Obviously,
during takeoff is the time when the engine is under the most stress, that's
why, I assume, a good run-up is done before takeoff, so hopefully if
something is "about to fail" it will fail then and not on climbout.

Your suggestion of best angle of climb, I believe mirrors my recent mental
processes about the takeoff and engine failure risks. I assume that best
"angle" of climb will give the aircraft the best compromise between rate of
climb and engine output/stress?

In thinking about engine choices for my (hopefully) upcoming Sonex project,
this has lead me to lean more toward the (much) more expensive Jabiru 330,
rather then the AeroVee or Jab 220. With more power available, the plane
will climb to above my "no return" altitude quicker, and/or at a lower %
power setting. I have communicated with one Sonex pilot who totaled his
airplane after a prob hub failure (using a GreatPlanes VW setup, a faulty
hub attachment that has since been re-designed) and an attempted turnback
(roled the plane after a wingtip strike... fortunately lived to tell about
it). Very scary stuff....

I was also taught in my first GA plane ride (sr-22) by a CFI to use every
foot of available runway. We pulled onto a 5300 ft runway off the taxiway
that was about 100ft or so from the beginning of the runway and he still
turned, and looped around to use all of that 100 feet. He reasoned to me
that in the event of an issue at takeoff that 100 feet of runway could be
the difference between life and death, even though the sr-22 only needed
less than 1000 feet to takeoff....

I know this is very basic stuff to this group, but in my very short time of
"hanging around" 2 different small airports I have seen many folks jump in
there plane without doing "any" inspection, takeoff with no runup, etc. I
wonder how many of these statistics are a result of these breakdowns of
procedure....?

The only risk free activity is death.

Ron Lee