Jump to content

Impossible Turn Testing


FlyingMonkey

Recommended Posts

However, the chute isn't a free pass. If I land in trees I can survive the parachute drop and die from the fall from the tree tops. What about being over canyons, mountains etc? I can survive the pull and die as the wreckage slides down into the deep canyon below. If the object is to survive then is a blanket statement 'pull the chute' the right thing at THAT time?

 

Wow, kinda like déjà vu all over again!

 

I made much the same argument about 12 years ago when I first got on the Cirrus forum.

 

My nightmare scenarios were being under CAPS and being helplessly blown into power transformers and frying. Or being carried safely onto an interstate, only to be squashed like a bug by a semi.

 

While these are plausible scenarios, as are yours, if you look at the Cirrus CAPS pulls to date, and there are a lot, they are simply not happening. CAPS pulled within design limits has never resulted in a fatality. That growing body of data has influenced my thinking on the matter - a CAPS/BRS pull is very, very close to 100% survivable.

 

Landing a Light Sport under control and into the wind at about 40k will also usually be survivable. But right now, the overall odds are favoring the 'chute.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 258
  • Created
  • Last Reply

There is a "right way," but it's different depending on the situation.  Landing among a bunch of large buildings would not be my first choice in most situations.  If you lose an engine at 1000 agl over the departure end of a 5000 foot runway with a 10 knot headwind and can't land an LSA on the 5000 foot runway, you need to stop flying.

 

 

I would have no problem landing the airplane back on the runway under those conditions, so I guess I can keep flying. What I did say is if you lose the engine at that point above the departure end of the runway trying to make a 180° course reversal and land downwind on the runway is a poor choice in my opinion, for the reasons I explained. If you don't understand what I am saying, then I hope you don't have an engine failure in that position.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow, kinda like déjà vu all over again!

 

I made much the same argument about 12 years ago when I first got on the Cirrus forum.

 

My nightmare scenarios were being under CAPS and being helplessly blown into power transformers and frying. Or being carried safely onto an interstate, only to be squashed like a bug by a semi.

 

While these are plausible scenarios, as are yours, if you look at the Cirrus CAPS pulls to date, and there are a lot, they are simply not happening. CAPS pulled within design limits has never resulted in a fatality. That growing body of data has influenced my thinking on the matter - a CAPS/BRS pull is very, very close to 100% survivable.

 

Landing a Light Sport under control and into the wind at about 40k will also usually be survivable. But right now, the overall odds are favoring the 'chute.

Eddie, I agree with your post.

 

  I'm not dissing chutes or their addition to safety. What I AM saying is that a carte blanche pull at any time isn't a guaranteed walk away and that there is a reason to consider what happens after the chute pull. 

  That said I don't have a chute and never have. If I DID then I certainly would think about what happens at the end of the chute descent….alligators, swamp, sea, canyon…and nudist colony (it could happen).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What Tom mentioned earlier is something that I always thought was smart, if you are at sufficient altitude.  Just fly a normal pattern!  Make a gentle 180 to a close-in downwind, and fly along it as long as you can or until you get to a normal base.  If you start running out of altitude, turn your 180 direct to final and use whatever runway you have.  

 

This of course requires a fair amount of altitude when the engine quits to get it done, but it avoids both having to make 270° or turns to align with the runway, and the downwind landing issue.  I think in the CT this would be high on my list of choices if I had sufficient altitude...I'd probably want 800AGL or so.  With a chute equipped airplane you can always pull if it doesn't work out and land on or near the airport property.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Eddie, I agree with your post.

 

  I'm not dissing chutes or their addition to safety. What I AM saying is that a carte blanche pull at any time isn't a guaranteed walk away and that there is a reason to consider what happens after the chute pull. 

  That said I don't have a chute and never have. If I DID then I certainly would think about what happens at the end of the chute descent….alligators, swamp, sea, canyon…and nudist colony (it could happen).

 

Agreed.  My idea for an engine out is to fly the airplane as long as I can, even after I decide to use the chute, to guide the airplane to 500ft or so and make sure I know where I am going to come down.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not even close.  Some other aircraft that have had ballistic chutes installed:

That is just airplanes, and not a complete list.  I left out trikes, parasails, and gyros.

 

The FD and Cirrus come STANDARD with their chutes, not after market added-on.  FD and Cirrus are the clear market leaders and top sellers in their respective niches.  FD for SLSA and Cirrus for 4-seat GA.

 

It remains true, that the chute decision is unique to these two aircrafts (since you CANNOT buy one without the chute).  Pipistrel also has a from scratch chute design, but who owns one?  Anyone on this board?

 

In any case, I am the guy that has made the case for the chute (night, water, mid-air, mountains).  Most still don't get the unique and necessary requirement to have one on board.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand exactly what you are saying and agree under certain circumstances.  I gave the above example and you responded as you did.  Either you ignored what I said or didn't understand what I said or are saying NEVER turn back.

 

This is what you said in response to the above example:

 

"Those types of conditions and the one you describe in your LSA on a 5000 foot runway are the ones that will get you into a different kind of trouble. If you make the 180° turn, which is more like 270° to get lined back up on the runway and get past the stall spin trap now you will likely be high and fast overshooting the runway."

 

Face it Tom, you are going to disagree with anything I say.  That's why I say you are acting like an ass.  In my opinion, in the example I gave it would be a "no brainer" to turn around and land rather than crash among a bunch of large buildings.  The second example would be a "no brainer" to land straight ahead.

 

I got strange letters flashing in my mind when I read this post, they were C....T......L.....S...............................i!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's interesting that many posters use the phrase 'when the engine QUITS' as their take-off scenario.

 

Of course when a Rotax stops, it stops. A sudden, complete failure is certainly one scenario. However, surely partial failures, gradual failures, impending failures are more likely, and also more likely to lead to the pilot troubleshooting and running a checklist. For example, a partial power loss could lead to a certain false sense of security whereby the pilot takes the airplane farther and ends up compounding the problem into something more serious than the dreaded turn-back. What if there's a partial loss of power followed by a recovery for a couple of minutes followed now by a total loss?

 

  What about a bird strike causing a partial failure and a windshield full of guts? Or a full power loss after such a bird strike?

 

 There are some options that a pilot might not include for a particular take-off and a turn back may be one of them. On another day and another runway it might be the best option and the safest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand exactly what you are saying and agree under certain circumstances.  I gave the above example and you responded as you did.  Either you ignored what I said or didn't understand what I said or are saying NEVER turn back.

 

This is what you said in response to the above example:

 

"Those types of conditions and the one you describe in your LSA on a 5000 foot runway are the ones that will get you into a different kind of trouble. If you make the 180° turn, which is more like 270° to get lined back up on the runway and get past the stall spin trap now you will likely be high and fast overshooting the runway."

 

Face it Tom, you are going to disagree with anything I say.  That's why I say you are acting like an ass.  In my opinion, in the example I gave it would be a "no brainer" to turn around and land rather than crash among a bunch of large buildings.  The second example would be a "no brainer" to land straight ahead.

 

First off thank you fro removing the ***hole remark when you edited the post. There is no need to use language like that just because I have a different opinion than you do.

 

I understand what you said perfectly. I also agree that crashing into the buildings is not a good option. I am not saying a turn back is not an option, just that trying it from the geographical position above the end of the runway as you describe is in my opinion a poor choice. I think a 360° turn and landing back on the same runway with a headwind from that position and altitude would be a better choice under the circumstances. If you were a ways beyond the end of the runway then the turn around would be a better choice.

 

I don't always disagree with you, in fact in the above paragraph I agreed with something you said. I guess the times I have posted that I agree with something you said fell on deaf ears. If it will make you feel better I can start posting a "I agree" anytime I see something you posted that I agree with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can't figure out why you bank your CT 'much more' than your 172 - ?  

 

For the 1st 5 minutes I flew my CT like a 172 and then the check out pilot suggested that I be much more aggressive to minimize the time that my vision is blocked when doing 30* turns in the pattern.  I'm pretty sure my CTSW has a much faster roll rate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my example, you would probably not have time to make a 360 degree turn.  Also, the 10 knot wind would push you about 1000 feet down a 5000 foot runway and that is if you made no attempt to compensate for the wind during your 180 degree turn (225 - 45).  I'm sure most pilots could land an LSA within the remaining 4000 feet and that would be a better option than making a 360 degree turn (if you even could) and landing on 1000 feet.  I said 10 knot wind, not 30 or 40 knots.

 

I don't care if you agree with me or not.  It's how you disagree than I take exception to.

 

EDIT:

 

I agree a 360 would work in some situations given enough altitude and headwind.  However, it is just another form of turning back to the runway instead of landing straight ahead.  It could easily be the best options in some situations.

Back when I was learning to fly we often did overhead power off 360 degree appraoches. I have done these in Cesnna 150's and 172's, Piper Warriors, and several other aircraft. It is quite easy to make a 360 turn to landing from 1000 feet without having to rollout wings level just above the ground. The fact that you have a 10 knot wind to push you back down the runway is just a added bunus. Unless you are flying an extremely draggy LSA then making the 360 shouldn't be a problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The people that have posted personal attacks and 4 letter words need to delete them by tomorrow and get a handle on your comments and anger or the admins start suspensions without any remorse.

 

Enough said because this has been said before. Admins are done with this behavior. If you can't get a handle on your anger or be civil responding to a post then move on to another post or another forum !!!!

 

 

Don't blame your suspension on anyone else, but yourself.

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

This was posted so everyone could read it and we had hoped take it to heart, but it looks like some failed at that task.

 

http://ctflier.com/index.php?/topic/2995-zero-tolerance-for-unrestrained-forum-etiquette/

 

 

I'm going to be very blunt because public warnings and PM warnings have done no good. We are all adults not children that have no control.

 

Because of 4-5 posters the admin's are now going to take a ZERO TOLERANCE for any more personal snide snarky remarks directed at a person or overtly criticizing other peoples aircraft choices. 

 

The forum is a fun place to be UNTIL 4-5 people which are usually high post members just can't engage the clutch between the brain and fingers. The admins get complaints about one person then the other 4-5 make unrestrained snarky remarks about that person then other people complain about those people.

 

It comes to an end today. If the 1-4 people (I'm sure they know who they are) make our forum not a fun place then harsher action will be taken to make it that way again.

 

So starting tomorrow any more attacks will not get any more PM warnings and it will be a 1 week suspension for the first offense, the second offense is 2 weeks, the third three weeks and there won't be a fourth. 

If you only have 1-2 post on our forum then a single warning may be issued.

 

We used to never have this problem for many years so I hope this goes away because it should never have started.

 

If you can't restrain yourself then Pilots of America forum has a free for all section where anything goes.

 

p.s.

People may post something that may be incorrect. This is the way of all forums, not everything is correct. The reason we have our forum is to educate everyone and share experiences. If you see an incorrect post then rebut it in an adult manner.

 

 

If you have heartburn about this post just remember it wasn't anyone, but those few that got us here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That should help things, but please don't let it kill things!

Up-front debate, disagreement and argument test ideas one against the other and it's both entertaining to read and highly educational.  I love it.

So please, let's not stop wrangling over issues - if we do, hardly anyone will comment.

 

Things only go astray when someone takes personal exception to how people argue and then launch personal attacks - that's what has to stop.  

 

But let's not stop the lively debate - it's brilliant.

 

(This is the only forum I've ever been a member of and I really enjoy it - thanks to everyone.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Folks need to remember too, that an internet forum is a very imperfect communications medium.  A person's writing rarely matches up with what's in their head, and it is easily misinterpreted.  I bet 90% of arguments that blow up into flame fests are simple miscommunications* that would not have occurred if the two people were face to face using the exact same words, but with the intended tone and facial cues.  That is the whole origin story of emoticons! 

 

* Burgers notwithstanding.   ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with admin.

Here is what most all would say and Andy just said it:

 

"Folks need to remember too, that an internet forum is a very imperfect communications medium.  A person's writing rarely matches up with what's in their head, and it is easily misinterpreted."

 

Knowing this and admitting it just drives home a point.  I doubt there is anyone who doesn't really know this by now if they are on any forum or Facebook.

 

Personal attacks, name calling and 4 letter words have no place in solving a problem or sharing your personal experiences or education of others on a specific subject  on our forum.

 

Many of the debates and wrangling here have no one answer and many times there is more than one solution, but because we are all affected by our experiences or lack of we sometimes believe ours is the only answer, but that in itself doesn't make the next guy wrong. We must realize that there may be more than one answer even if you can't see it or have never experienced it. Being able to make a 180 degree landing from 400'-500' may seem dangerous to some and easy to do for others, but neither party is wrong.

 

It is their personal choice.  Respect the others choice because you want others to respect your choices.

 

 

p.s.

Sport Pilot forum has its issues and people have been ask to leave for the vary same things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Controlling the way people communicate on this board, aspiring to the 'no complaints' standard is like herding cats.  Your efforts have been ineffective for the most part over the last couple of years.

 

I would respond to complainers by saying that efforts have not been effective and you will instead allow people to communicate freely.  End of problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

p.s.

Sport Pilot forum has its issues and people have been ask to leave for the vary same things.

Management has a lot to do with this. Management should have stepped in privately to the persons involved at the first instance of personal attacks, vulgarity, profanity and other displays that detract from discussion.

 

Management should either delete or edit posts that do not meet the rules of conduct. Management put up with this trash talk for days and then jumps on the entire membership. It's like when the nun's punish the whole class because of a few cut-ups.

 

My experience with Sport Pilot forum is different - the last time I checked in, well over a year ago, it was run by a person who did not permit any dissenting view, no matter how politely put or how well backed up with solid references. Discussion is the reason we are here.

 

I find myself increasingly going to other forums and reading them selectively. Pilots of America has some characters but it has a couple of people who are very knowledgeable in a few areas. AOPA is the same. Vans Air Force is very good on a number of topics, and they are much more likely to politely discuss alternatives on Rotax engines than you'll find in other places, including this one. Rotax Owners group - I used to check in there often but now mainly use them for their references, which I still take with a big dose of salt because they are unwilling to be open about who they are and what their relationship with Rotax is.

 

What I'm saying is there is a big world of internet out there and while I've not found any of it to be perfect, many sites have much to offer if one is a little patient and willing to pass on the facetious.

 

In most forums, I scan the subject lines and read maybe 10% of the base messages if that. It's getting so on this forum I don't read every thread or message anymore.

 

Having said all that, I do believe there are times when a member is so disruptive that s/he needs to be evicted and we have one. Not that I see him very often, as I have him in my twit filter.

 

One of the basic problems with discussing a topic on an internet forum is that some people will hold a firm position and preach it as being right for everyone. Sometimes their position is supported by general consensus. But, sometimes the other position has validity. Such is the case with the turn-back. In a case such as this, it seems like no one is willing to say "you do your thing and I'll do mine". No, the fear on one side is that some newby will come into the forum and decide they can do a turnback at XX feet and kill themselves. The fear on the other side is someone will crash straight ahead when when they could have safely turned back. No one says they have to have the last word, but no one is willing to let anyone else have it, either.

 

I am a current moderator on another site and have been an internet moderator since 1990. I have learned one thing - bad talk drives out good. I've seen several forums destroyed because competent, well meaning people are driven out by the nay-sayers, those who simply can't quite until no voice is heard but their own. I'd much rather kill a forum by banning those kind of people than let them kill it by driving off the good ones.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...