josjonkers Posted May 3, 2015 Report Share Posted May 3, 2015 http://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/wiki.php?id=175889 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FastEddieB Posted May 3, 2015 Report Share Posted May 3, 2015 WHEW! Great outcome. That "cage" seems to hold up pretty darn well! As usual, would be edifying to know what caused the engine stoppage in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlyingMonkey Posted May 3, 2015 Report Share Posted May 3, 2015 250ft is right in the "danger zone" for a return to the runway. The pilot was smart to take the grass and not try to milk it all the way to the runway. It turned out well, so no criticism here...but from the information I see I probably would have pulled the chute. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Cesnalis Posted May 3, 2015 Report Share Posted May 3, 2015 Interesting choice to turn back at 250' when there good options in every direction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbigs Posted May 3, 2015 Report Share Posted May 3, 2015 http://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/wiki.php?id=175889 another impossible turn it appears... 250 ft is not even close to enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Cesnalis Posted May 3, 2015 Report Share Posted May 3, 2015 another impossible turn it appears... 250 ft is not even close to enough. He made it back to the field's safety strip, that's more than close that's a success. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Cesnalis Posted May 3, 2015 Report Share Posted May 3, 2015 I love it when idiots criticize other pilots. The grass he landed on may very well have been the best possible surface other than the runway. If you weren't there, flying the airplane, your opinions are meaningless. I don't see where anyone criticized the pilot. I do see where you call one of us an idiot though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Cesnalis Posted May 3, 2015 Report Share Posted May 3, 2015 I guess you didn't see this or don't see it as being critical of the pilots decision to turn back. The statement is clearly critical of 250 ft but is silent on the pilot's decision. As I pointed out the decision led to a successful return. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Cesnalis Posted May 3, 2015 Report Share Posted May 3, 2015 It's real easy to get on the internet and post nonsense and trash about other people. Look at this guy, for instance. http://gbigsangle.blogspot.com/ You condemn trashing people on the internet but you are the one calling someone and idiot. You are doing what you are condemning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CT4ME Posted May 3, 2015 Report Share Posted May 3, 2015 Good outcome... if the nose wheel hadn't caught something, it might have not even been a reportable event. 'May not have had a 'chute as it was a CT2K in Europe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sandpiper Posted May 3, 2015 Report Share Posted May 3, 2015 There is a good picture of the plane (intact) in the link at the bottom of the accident report. I do not see the BRS warning decal on the side like my CTSW has so I will surmise that it had no BRS. I can do a return to the runway, with room to spare, from 400' AGL so the CT2K, with longer wings(?) probably is capable of this turn. Regardless, he knew when to quit. He did not lose control of the aircraft. Good job! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Cesnalis Posted May 3, 2015 Report Share Posted May 3, 2015 It is remarkable that we seem to have a 250' AGL successful impossible turn where the conservative recommended minimum remains as high as 1,000' AGL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FastEddieB Posted May 3, 2015 Report Share Posted May 3, 2015 Regardless, he knew when to quit. He did not lose control of the aircraft. Good job! Small points... 1) Best to never "quit". Fly as far into the crash as you possibly can. 2) Unless he meant to end up inverted, he kinda did lose control at some point! NOT criticizing. Good outcome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sandpiper Posted May 3, 2015 Report Share Posted May 3, 2015 By "quit" I meant he knew when to quit trying for the runway and, instead, make a controlled landing where he did and while he still had a flying airplane. I agree that you don't quit flying the aircraft until all motion has stopped. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FastEddieB Posted May 3, 2015 Report Share Posted May 3, 2015 Understood. And to CharlieTango's point, best not to tease too much meaning out of isolated incidents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Top Cat Posted May 3, 2015 Report Share Posted May 3, 2015 another impossible turn it appears... 250 ft is not even close to enough. Not 'impossible' because the pilot obviously did it. Landing 'off airport/off runway' is always an unknown…and further damage can ensue, including a turn-over. For you, perhaps 250' is a personal limitation and that's okay. In this case the pilot made his decision and flew the airplane to a safe result for him. Perhaps if this had happened at pattern altitude this pilot may have been able to touchdown on the runway there are many variables and there is usually no clear cut one size fits all solution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N89WD Posted May 3, 2015 Report Share Posted May 3, 2015 Awesome outcome and like Fast Eddie pointed out even though it appears there isn't a straight piece of airframe left the "cage" did it's job. Great lil machines. No comment on the maneuver. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbigs Posted May 3, 2015 Report Share Posted May 3, 2015 Not 'impossible' because the pilot obviously did it. Landing 'off airport/off runway' is always an unknown…and further damage can ensue, including a turn-over. For you, perhaps 250' is a personal limitation and that's okay. In this case the pilot made his decision and flew the airplane to a safe result for him. Perhaps if this had happened at pattern altitude this pilot may have been able to touchdown on the runway there are many variables and there is usually no clear cut one size fits all solution. My point is strictly about the altitude and the turn and the result. The reason these threads are important, IMHO is because this can happen to any of us and what we do will be based on our pre-assumptions over what is possible. My personal minimum for the turn is half pattern altitude on a near field altitude density day with less than 10kts headwind. Lower I will be pulling the chute and looking for a spot ahead or to the side. I judge my own limited skills in this way, others may be able and or be thinking to do it differently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug G. Posted May 3, 2015 Report Share Posted May 3, 2015 2) Unless he meant to end up inverted, he kinda did lose control at some point! NOT criticizing. Good outcome. Once the nose wheel digs in this is usually the result. (Even with a CTLSi.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Cesnalis Posted May 3, 2015 Report Share Posted May 3, 2015 I am surprised by the number of CTs that land in rough terrain and nose over. I wonder if there is a 'fly it on' technique used by most CT pilots that contributes to this. I usually land with full aft stick and then hold it causing my nose wheel to sometimes spend a lot of roll-out time in the air. The other extreme that has been advocated here is to use forward pressure after the mains contact to achieve positive steering via the nose gear. Given that most CT pilots seem to prefer flying it on and that most rough terrain landings seem to nose over I wonder if its a technique thing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug G. Posted May 3, 2015 Report Share Posted May 3, 2015 I don't think it takes much speed. If the terrain is very soft, or rutted, or a small ditch for the nose wheel to separate from the plane, then the nose gear support and prop dig in. All the weight is forward and they go over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Lee Posted May 3, 2015 Report Share Posted May 3, 2015 Nose wheel attachment area is the weak point. If it meets too much resistance it buckles under and if you still have enough energy left then it's going over as the front digs in. The good thing is this dissipates energy by going over and rarely seriously injures the pilot. Small front wheels are more prone to this since they fit into ruts and holes better than the larger front tires. That said not a large difference between the two. Think of it as an "E" ticket Disney ride. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anticept Posted May 3, 2015 Report Share Posted May 3, 2015 The whole nose wheel forks themselves are not very strong. Mine is down right now because a student ballooned and tried to stick the landing, ballooned again, and stalled in nose first. The fork broke away and it skid a couple hundred feet on a stub. If it was on grass, it would have been totalled because I know it would have flipped over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlyingMonkey Posted May 5, 2015 Report Share Posted May 5, 2015 I don't think it takes much speed. If the terrain is very soft, or rutted, or a small ditch for the nose wheel to separate from the plane, then the nose gear support and prop dig in. All the weight is forward and they go over. Also if you land in soft, high grass as in the picture there is also more drag that will "pull" the nose down on touchdown. You'd need a lot of aft stick very quickly to hold the nose wheel off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FastEddieB Posted May 5, 2015 Report Share Posted May 5, 2015 Best to keep in mind that poor decisions often have good outcomes... ...not because of the decision, but in spite of the decision. So one can praise the outcome - and in this case I do - yet still critique the decisions leading to that outcome. And let me further opine that if and when things get quiet at 250', there's precious little time for any effective decision making. At best we'll tend to act reflexively, falling back on our training, or lack thereof, and only later deconstruct how we "decided" to do this or that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.