I knew they should have backtracked

Topics related to accidents, incidents & over due aircraft should be placed in this forum.

Moderators: ahramin, sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, lilfssister, North Shore

Post Reply
Message
Author
pelmet
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2761
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 2:48 pm

I knew they should have backtracked

#1 Post by pelmet » Mon Oct 23, 2017 2:32 pm

Admittedly, I haven't always done a full backtrack on a fairly long runway with a small airplane but a partial backtrack may be worth consideration after entering the runway at an intersection. It may not be necessary to do a full backtrack but if you give yourself enough runway length that you can do a 180 degree turn comfortably while still having decent room ahead of yourself to land straight ahead, your options may be better than this little guy gave himself.

Ask yourself, did you backtrack on your last flight where you entered at an intersection.

"C-FCZG, a privately operated Cessna 120 aircraft, was performing circuits from Abbotsford, BC with a student pilot and an instructor on board. During the initial climb after a takeoff from Runway 07, the engine (Teledyne Continental C-85-12F) lost power. Since the aircraft had only approximately 25% of the runway remaining at about 150 feet AGL, the instructor took over control, determined there was insufficient runway remaining and elected to perform a 180° turn. The aircraft landed hard on Taxiway C, the left landing gear wheel separated and the aircraft swerved around. Both occupants egressed without injury, however the aircraft was substantially damaged."
---------- ADS -----------

User avatar
xsbank
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 5653
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2004 4:00 pm
Location: "The Coast"

Re: I knew they should have backtracked

#2 Post by xsbank » Mon Oct 23, 2017 3:25 pm

Yes, backtrack. But the instructor pooched it by not landing straight ahead. There is one lucky sob.

These stupid accidents have been happening since Orville. Lots of people have been killed doing the same stupid thing. Why would you do the same stupid thing that killed so many others? This “instructor” should be selling cars.
---------- ADS -----------
"What's it doing now?"
"Fly low and slow and throttle back in the turns."

Donald
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1979
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:34 am
Location: Canada

Re: I knew they should have backtracked

#3 Post by Donald » Mon Oct 23, 2017 4:53 pm

Hedley would've made it.

The instructor only crashed because he was wearing 4 bars and isn't an engineer.
---------- ADS -----------

Zaibatsu
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 130
Joined: Sat Sep 17, 2016 8:37 am

Re: I knew they should have backtracked

#4 Post by Zaibatsu » Mon Oct 23, 2017 10:52 pm

Donald wrote:Hedley would've made it.

The instructor only crashed because he was wearing 4 bars and isn't an engineer.
That would be a sight. Just because your grandfather flew in WWI doesn’t make a plane that glides less than 10:1 able to do a 180 in 150 feet. Ground is flat all around YXX, zero reason to turn.
---------- ADS -----------

A346Dude
Rank 2
Rank 2
Posts: 67
Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2013 12:22 pm

Re: I knew they should have backtracked

#5 Post by A346Dude » Tue Oct 24, 2017 7:50 am

Intersection departures are the norm at many airports across Canada. If it’s safe to depart a 2500’ strip, I’m not buying that it’s unsafe to depart halfway down an 8000’ runway. The mistake was the low level 180, not the intersection departure.
---------- ADS -----------

J31
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 914
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2004 7:21 am

Re: I knew they should have backtracked

#6 Post by J31 » Tue Oct 24, 2017 9:41 am

Why are we talking about intersection takeoffs? These guys we doing circuits on a 8000 foot runway!?

While I am not condoning a 180 degree turn at low altitude you might consider they were looking at off the end of runway 07 Abbotsford.

A 14' by 100 ' blast fence, a chain link fence, a road with lots off traffic, rows of 6 foot grape vines

http://wwwapps.tc.gc.ca/Saf-Sec-Sur/2/C ... d2017P1867


The CADORS Report:

Number:2017P1867

Occurrence Summary

Date Entered:2017-10-04

Narrative:
A privately-registered Cessna 120 from Vancouver, BC (CZBB) to Abbotsford, BC (CYXX) was in Circuit Runway 07 doing full length roll outs and short right hand circuits. On departure near Threshold 25, the Cessna 120 lost their engine and did a low level 180 back and crashed on Taxiway C near Threshold Runway 25, outside of the tower sight lines.
Occurrence Summary

Date Entered:2017-10-23

Narrative:
UPDATE: TSB Report#A17P0145: a privately operated Cessna 120 aircraft, was performing circuits from Abbotsford, BC with a student pilot and an instructor on board. During the initial climb after a takeoff from Runway 07, the engine (Teledyne Continental C-85-12F) lost power. Since the aircraft had only approximately 25% of the runway remaining at about 150 feet AGL, the instructor took over control, determined there was insufficient runway remaining and elected to perform a 180° turn. The aircraft landed hard on Taxiway C, the left landing gear wheel separated and the aircraft swerved around. Both occupants egressed without injury, however the aircraft was substantially damaged.
---------- ADS -----------

anofly
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 126
Joined: Wed Aug 19, 2015 6:46 am

Re: I knew they should have backtracked

#7 Post by anofly » Tue Oct 24, 2017 1:42 pm

The point is not that the aircraft cannot take off in 2500 feet. The point is given two runways , one 2500 feet with trees and bush at say 3000 feet, and one 8000 feet plus another say 500 feet, clear before trees and bush, what one would you choose? What one would you choose for an engine failure or other calamity at the 50 to 500 foot altitude mark? In the case of backtracking , you get a choice....
---------- ADS -----------

RatherBeFlying
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 527
Joined: Sat Sep 17, 2005 9:27 am
Location: Toronto

Re: I knew they should have backtracked

#8 Post by RatherBeFlying » Tue Oct 24, 2017 8:40 pm

At 150' just aim for the softest spot. Glider folk do practice rope breaks at 300' and can make a 180 just fine. Have done a few myself. The problem in a glider is that a strong tailwind can take you quite a ways down the runway.

The instructor has demonstrated what happens attempting a 180 from 150' in a 150. I saw something similar happen to a glider when the pilot wanted to adjust the rudder pedals at 50', but pulled the release knob instead.
---------- ADS -----------

Chris M
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 263
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 8:41 am
Location: Toronto

Re: I knew they should have backtracked

#9 Post by Chris M » Wed Oct 25, 2017 3:57 am

A346Dude wrote:Intersection departures are the norm at many airports across Canada. If it’s safe to depart a 2500’ strip, I’m not buying that it’s unsafe to depart halfway down an 8000’ runway. The mistake was the low level 180, not the intersection departure.
My home airport is 7000' with a midpoint taxiway and I always do a full backtrack in the 172. Reason being is that off one end is Home Depot, the 401, and Yorkdale Mall. Off the other is lots of small buildings. If the engine conks on climb out my options are straight ahead on available runway, 180, or hit things. Using the whole runway gives me the best set of options possible. Plus in the winter it gives the engine more time to warm up.
---------- ADS -----------

User avatar
AirFrame
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1608
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2009 10:27 pm
Location: Sidney, BC
Contact:

Re: I knew they should have backtracked

#10 Post by AirFrame » Wed Oct 25, 2017 6:48 am

anofly wrote:The point is not that the aircraft cannot take off in 2500 feet. The point is given two runways , one 2500 feet with trees and bush at say 3000 feet, and one 8000 feet plus another say 500 feet, clear before trees and bush, what one would you choose? What one would you choose for an engine failure or other calamity at the 50 to 500 foot altitude mark? In the case of backtracking , you get a choice....
The choice is obvious in that case, but none of that applies to the original story. They were doing touch-and-goes on a long runway, and practising maintaining control during the rollout by rolling out longer than normal. Not really any different than doing touch-and-goes from a 2500' runway with minimal ground time. You've still used up a good portion of the runway with your landing, before you add power to go around.
---------- ADS -----------

pelmet
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2761
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 2:48 pm

Re: I knew they should have backtracked

#11 Post by pelmet » Wed Oct 25, 2017 3:28 pm

AirFrame wrote: The choice is obvious in that case, but none of that applies to the original story. They were doing touch-and-goes on a long runway, and practising maintaining control during the rollout by rolling out longer than normal. Not really any different than doing touch-and-goes from a 2500' runway with minimal ground time. You've still used up a good portion of the runway with your landing, before you add power to go around.
You have brought up a good point that I did not notice in my initial post post but which should be addressed. The report says that they were doing circuits. That may be touch and go's or stop and goes. If it was a touch and go, it would have been quite far down the runway for this aircraft type. If a stop and go, one does have the backtrack option. Regardless of this incident, the point still stands as to why pilots are not backtracking at all on runways in single engine aircraft where it would make a significant difference if there was an engine failure soon after liftoff.

Example...6000' foot runway, C172, no traffic on final, 3000 feet remaining at the intersection.
---------- ADS -----------

User avatar
Cat Driver
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 18818
Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 8:31 pm

Re: I knew they should have backtracked

#12 Post by Cat Driver » Fri Oct 27, 2017 5:32 pm

They were doing touch-and-goes on a long runway, and practising maintaining control during the roll out by rolling out longer than normal. Not really any different than doing touch-and-goes from a 2500' runway with minimal ground time.
I don't have that problem during check outs on light tail wheel airplanes.

Before they do any circuits they first have to be competent and comfortable in the ground handling of the airplane.

And that involves slow and high speed runs down the runway with the tail in the air full stop, taxi back and repeat until they can control it on the ground.

Then they get to fly it to become competent and comfortable on take offs and landings both wheel landings and three point landings.
---------- ADS -----------
The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no


After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.

Post Reply

Return to “Accidents, Incidents & Overdue Aircraft”