AuxBatOn wrote:Hedley,
It's impossible and you'll die. People on AvCanada say so...
I made that argument a while a go and even brought up some calculations to prove my point. People were still saying it was not possible.....
If you never practiced it, sure don't try it. However with some practice, it's easy to make. Set yourself some gates (ie: below XXX ft, straight ahead, above that, 180). The more you practice, the lower you'll be able to make it. It also depends on the conditions of the day (mostly winds) and runway lenght.
No one in this thread said it was impossible .Would you care to hazard a guess how many students,pilots and instructors have died trying?.
The following was pasted from
http://www.aviationmagazine.com
Turning Around
Take
the 180-degree turnback to
the runway as another example. Presume
the engine quits shortly after takeoff. Influenced into believing that
the runway behind is
the best option and that
the ailerons make
the airplane turn,
the pilot immediately banks rapidly and steeply. Sensing
the rising rate of descent and with
the misconception that elevator holds
the airplane up,
the pilot hauls
the stick back. A stall/spin ensues.
A quick look in
the NTSB database for
the one-year period starting with
the Oroville mishap yielded a total of five accidents in which
the narratives state
the flights
included intentional turnbacks following simulated engine failures during
the takeoff phase.
The results: five airplanes wrecked; eight pilots killed; one pilot seriously injured; one pilot with minor injuries.
The four CFIs who were providing instruction in intentional turnbacks: all dead.
The accident not involving an instructor instead involved an FAA inspector conducting a reexamination flight with a private pilot who previously had a landing accident.
The inspector requested demonstration of a
turnaround following a simulated engine out on takeoff.
The inspector survived;
the private pilot, trying to comply with
the inspector’s request, died.
Two of
the narratives also mention successful
turnaround attempts had been made prior to
the accidents. Based on
the reports, at least five
turnaround attempts can be counted, with three successes and two failures.
The failures accounted for two of those killed,
the one serious injury, and
the one minor injury in
the mix of five turnback accidents.
A third narrative described how
the first turnback attempt was aborted (i.e., it failed) in favor of a go-around.
The control tower was then asked for, and granted, a second attempt.
The second try failed too, ending in a stall/spin and two more fatalities.
The combined
turnaround success rate in these three cases was three out of seven, or 43 percent. This is less than
the overall
turnaround success rate measured during
the course of
the simulator turnback study (see page 7).
Interestingly, however, it happens to be
the same rate tallied in
the simulator study during
the first three of
the seven test sorties, where
the exact
turnaround technique was left up to
the test subject’s discretion.
The penalty for failure in a real airplane close to
the ground, of course, is far greater than it is in a simulator.
It’s plenty dangerous to attempt a turnback, even in a supposedly controlled environment close to
the ground, even though
the attempt supposedly can be aborted at any time by leveling
the wings, powering up, and going around.
The danger during a real, surprise emergency is exponentially greater. Aviation educators who continue to promote and teach
the 180-
turnaround as a viable alternative—in
the face of
the data and historically sound advice to
the contrary—put themselves and their students at grave risk. And for what? Maybe to save some metal and fabric?
The problem here is
the extremes: Either you’ll have resounding success, or you’ll die trying. Sadly, far too many have needlessly experienced
the latter.
In subsequent articles, we’ll explore some of
the underlying reasons for these misunderstandings and what we can do about it.
Rich Stowell was designated
the country’s first-ever Master Aerobatic Instructor in 2001 and was
the FAA National CFI of
the Year in 2006. His most recent book is "
The Light Airplane Pilot’s Guide to Stall/Spin Awareness."
Also With This Article
Similarities
To be a man is, precisely, to be responsible.
Antoine de Saint-Exupery
