there was an accident....

[bbb]

There was an accident today, and a fellow died needlessly.

There will be lots of speculation about "why" the accident happened, "what" caused the accident, "who" could have prevented some of the lead-ups to the accident, "how" did it end up like this, "when" should someone done/said something, "where" would the person be if he'd done something differently today, or yesterday.

At the end of it all, the simplest thing that could have happened today, that would have resulted in possibly a bent aircraft, but most importantly, a still-living pilot, was the one thing your instructor (should) be pounding into your head every single time you are about to take off- AIRSPEED IS LIFE, (followed closely by altitude). FLY THE BLOODY AIRCRAFT! NOSE DOWN-MAINTAIN A FLYING SPEED! No drastic turns, find somewhere in your IMMEDIATE field of vision, and land the aircraft.

Please, please, please - all of you up-and-coming pilots, and all of you instructors - a single -engine aircraft failure after take-off - lower the nose to at least best glide, and land straight ahead!

We see at least one of these entirely preventable tragedies a year. Yes, the aircraft is likely to suffer damage if you aren't landing on a runway (grass, gravel, pavement, whatever..). But airplanes can be repaired. Airplanes are replaceable. People aren't.

Experienced pilots fall prey to "turn-back-itis" too. Make it such a part of your mental state, that the decision is automatic if the time comes.

End of Rant.

[CelBatrin]

Where was this?

[Hedley]

Is this another Billy Mays thread?

[Brewguy]

It was in Waterloo:
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/0906 ... lane_crash

I saw another thread on this earlier today too.

[Big Pistons Forever]

I include a demonstration of an sudden engine cut with the airplane climbing at Vx (at a safe altitude of course). It is a powerfull lesson on why the nose must be immediately and forcefully lowered to the glide attitude as the airspeed decays very rapidly with a stall and potential spin waiting for anyone who doesn't take charge of the situation and fly the airplane.
I also have all my PPL students provide a short takeoff brief which includes the statement they will land straight ahead, only manoevering for hazards directly in the flight path, if below 1000ft AGL.

[Hedley]

I guess this would be one of those "dumbing down"
topics. Even the pilot with an ATP flying the dash 8
into buffalo last winter didn't know what to do when
he slowed his airplane down too much, and it stalled.

[bbb]

I was hoping more for a slap-in-the-face wake-up call, or un-dumbing down of aviators. I specifically posted the topic here, instead of in the general section (i see there's a thread about the accident there now too), in hopes that even 1 student, and LOTS more instructors, would be reminded of the basics, and start practicing them.
Suspect you too feel that the quality of instruction has taken a nose-dive in the last 10-15yrs. Transport sure as shit doesn't give a rats ass about it, talked to them till blue in the face. So perhaps its up to the folks who've been around a while to try and un-dumb the current generation of instructors, who might then un-dumb the students and future instructors.
Lots of stuff before this accident played a part, but the one thing that would have likely prevented the fatality wasn't done, and for sure it was the simplest thing of the whole chain.
Anyway, a crappy day all around, and i'm sick and tired of this kind of thing happening, and sick and tired of hearing lots of tc-speak, super-duper "advanced" flight training, teaching kids a huge long briefing before departure, all of this extraneous stuff, and glossing over the basics that will keep them alive. Hearing/seeing time after time that there is no respect for low/slow operations (among other things). its as if the newer folks believe "aviation is safe" to the point of not realizing how close we operate to the edge, and not having been taught to respect the laws of physics.

[_dwj_]

When I did my PPL at Stapleford (England) about 10 years ago, my instructor would regularly chop the throttle after takeoff (at a safe height), and if I didn't immediately push the nose down my instructor either did it for me or yelled at me to do it. By the time I got my PPL I had "nose down, 70kts, choose a place to land" drilled into my skull in the event of engine failure after takeoff.

In subsequent ratings and checkouts I don't remember ever doing an EFATO (although perhaps I'm just not remembering).

I'm not an instructor, but I agree with the original poster that this really needs to be drilled into students, and the only way is to practice it many times so that it becomes instinct. Is this not how it's always done when training students for the PPL? Or do some instructors just treat is as a lesson to be done once?

[Brewguy]

Well bbb, I think your opening post (or "rant") was well intentioned and all... but I don't think it so much a matter of people not being taught this; but rather once someone has done their ab initio training, most fall into a certain level of complaicancy. The basics are quickly forgotten (or at least get 'rusty'). Really, apart from say aerobatics types, who really has a good handle on energy management?

personally, I think all pilots should do a stint in gliders, and have to experience a few low level rope breaks. The basics are the same, but the slower speeds and lower rate of descent give a little more time to think / react in a training environment. Better still, do some glider winch launches, where every take-off is a cable break waiting to happen. I think someone who has had that experience would have a better automatic reaction when crossing back over into a powered aircraft, and would have a better understanding of the energy management aspects too.

And of course, some aerobatic training is always a benefit too.

[iflyforpie]

A rope break is basically EFATO in a glider. But a glider can make it back at 400 feet where most power planes can't. I think that it would be setting the pilot up for the wrong reaction.

Energy management can easily be taught in power aircraft. Challenge yourself next time to not touch the throttle from approach to landing--save for closing it on short final. Remember too that gliders have spoilers which can change the glide ratio from a typical 40:1 to less than 7:1 or anywhere in between pretty much instantaneously; making energy management in them much simpler than it might be.

[Hedley]

But a glider can make it back at 400 feet where most power planes can't

Please don't confuse what the airframe is capable of, with what
the pilot is capable of.

Would you recommend that a student pilot fly an IFR-equipped 172
through cloud? Of course not. The airframe is perfectly capable of it,
but the student pilot is not.

Similarly, a 172 is easily capable of turning back at 400 AGL - I have
demonstrated it for real, many times - but like flying in cloud, a steep
descending turn near the ground is not a maneuver that you should
attempt without training and recent practice.

I'm not sure anybody cares any more - see "dumbing down" - but changing
heading 210 degrees (180 degrees doesn't do it) is simple. What can
be hard is making the threshold of the other end of the runway, because
most aircraft glide with power off with a steeper angle than they climb
with power on.

Re-read the above paragragh. Twice.

So, unless you have a long runway, some wind on the nose, or climbed
out at Vx, it is questionable whether or not you can actually glide back
to the runway, if in fact you can successfully change heading 210 degrees
without power without stalling or spinning, which is considered a herculean
feat these days

P.S. Which direction you turn back is a determined by the crosswind.
Most pilots are so bad at stick and rudder flying that they are only
capable of left turns, and start to panic if they have to turn right, but
if the wind is from the right, you turn right, to minimize the radius of
the turnback.

Anyways, please don't confuse what the airframe is capable of,
with what the pilot is capable of. 99.999% of the pilots in Canada
are limited by their own (fairly pitiful) piloting skills, not airframe
limitation. If you don't believe me, watch Tex Johnston or Bob Hoover
fly sometime, and you will be humbled by your substandard stick and
rudder skills. But that doesn't matter as long as you wear a white
shirt with gold bars on the shoulders, right?

[iflyforpie]

Similarly, a 172 is easily capable of turning back at 400 AGL - I have demonstrated it for real, many times

Maybe lightly loaded--I have too. My 206 made it back to the field (real engine failure) at around the same height (rope break height) with just me on board. Not something I would do with a full load.



And you are right, it is not something that is necessarily airframe limited. I was taught and have practiced this maneuver over and over. Still I set myself a hard altitude of 500 feet for the turn back and will set it higher if there are other unfavorable conditions. But I've got 18 fairways one way and 36 the other at my home airport, so I have options.

[Brewguy]

Well, I guess one advantage I see with using gliding for teaching this; is that in the world of gliding / soaring, landing out is not all that uncommon, and certainly isn't the end of the world.

Of course with simulated rope / cable breaks in training, you want to end up back on a runway to save the time & effort of recovering the aircraft. However, I've seen a number of actual breaks where making the airport wouldn't have been a very good idea.

Get-home-itis is so ingrained in most pilots, they'll risk killing themselves rather than land off field. Stick them in a glider and let them experience landing in a farmers field, golf course, etc. Or heck, even on an 'unimproved' area of an airport; then when that real life emergency happens in their powered aircraft, the thought of landing straight ahead (even if that doesn't happen to be on a runway) isn't so foreign.

Its the same concept as teaching emergency / unusual attitude training in an aerobatic aircraft. Let someone have that experience in a safe environment.

[Geko]

I have no problem accepting advice from the senior posters on this forum some of whom hopefully are actually pilots.

However, Is there a function on the forum that will enable me to get the gems out of Hedleys posts without feeling personally insulted? I read them, feel like I could be a better pilot but then it's like I was just curb stomped for no reason.

I guess it's just the price of admission....

[Hedley]

1) Everything that I write here is worth precisely what you paid me for it.

2) Don't confuse learning with ego gratification. Rarely do both occur at the same time.

3) Nobody likes the messenger of bad news. Usually they are shot.

4) After a while, you realize life isn't a popularity contest, so #3 doesn't matter.

5) I respect stick & rudder skill, which can be defined as being able to do
a half-roll to the inverted on takeoff in an aircraft type that you have
never flown before (see Bob Hoover's autobiography, "Forever Flying")

[Geko]

1) Everything that I write here is worth precisely what you paid me for it.

I'd hope to be smacked on the back of the head for doing something stupid while paying a flight instructor to 'instruct' me but I guess I still believe in friendly advice.

5) I respect stick & rudder skill, which can be defined as being able to do
a half-roll to the inverted on takeoff in an aircraft type that you have
never flown before (see Bob Hoover's autobiography, "Forever Flying")

Well at least you've reminded me of what I should expect of people on an internet forum.

[Brewguy]

...but I guess I still believe in friendly advice.

Two of the most important skills to learn in many aviation circles are satire and black humour. This is a great place to learn both; and there are many skilled masters to learn from.

[nookie201]

But a glider can make it back at 400 feet where most power planes can't

Anyways, please don't confuse what the airframe is capable of,
with what the pilot is capable of. 99.999% of the pilots in Canada
are limited by their own (fairly pitiful) piloting skills, not airframe
limitation.

Please share the secret, where is the training better Hedley.?

-G

[Hedley]

I received all of my aerobatic training in the USA.

On the east coast, I might recommend:

Rob Holland, incredible airshow pilot (Aerial Advantage)
Mike Goulian, airshow pilot (Executive Flyers)
Bill Finigan, airshow pilot / Pitts spin master
Dean Koontz, airshow pilot (Decathlon master)
Freddy Canabas, airshow pilot (he can fly aerobatics in ANYTHING)

On the west coast, I might recommend:

Rich Perkins & Dick Rihn at Attitude Aviation, Livermore CA (SF)
Sean Tucker's Tutima Academy
Mike Church in LA

Fly with as many of these guys as you can. They
each have forgotten more about stick & rudder
than you will ever know.

[SAR_YQQ]

I wish I knew how to drive my car really fast it reverse, spin the wheel and then slam it into forward gear and accelerate away - just like they do in the movies. Does this make me a sub-standard drive with poor driving skills?

Aerobatics does not make a better pilot - just like stunt driving does not make a better driving. If you have the time, energy and time to spend doing something over and over, you will eventually get really good at it.

I would argue that the 99.9% of us pilots represent reality and the norm when it comes to flying. Rolling an aircraft inverted at 400'AGL into inverted flight might be really cool, once, but what use is it really? Will it help you fly that approach down to IFR minimums?

[Brewguy]

Aircraft operate in a 3 dimensional environment; if you've only ever seen 45 degrees of pitch and 90 degrees of bank, you've never seen or experienced a large portion of the positions an aircraft can get itself into (even inadvertently). Aerobatics is not 'stunt' flying, so your stunt driving analogy is way off. A better analogy is that taking some aerobatic training is the equivalent to taking a defensive driving course.

If the first 'unusual attitude' you've experienced is an actual emergency, it may well catch you off guard and delay your recovery actions; and sometimes every second counts in an emergency. EMT training uses aerobatics to safely put you into (and get you out of) those unusual attitudes, so that when it happens in real life its not an entirely foreign experience to you.

How many student pilots were nervous about doing their first spin? Probably got the heart racing a bit too, eh? So what if you never did one in training, only read about it and then experience it first hand one day by accident? Think that's a good idea, or do you think it would have been better to experience it a few times in a safe, controlled / training environment?

And for the record, I don't think anyone would suggest that basic aerobatic / EMT training is the same as learning to be a competition aerobatics guy or airshow pilot; and it certainly isn't done at low altitude (WTF did you get your 400' AGL comment from?).

If you can't understand that, then I don't know what to say... if you're scared of experiencing what an aircraft is capable of doing, perhaps aviation isn't for you.

[Hedley]

I'm not sure anyone here has ever heard of a Boeing 737, but
it had a nasty problem where if the hydraulic rudder actuator
was shock-cooled (eg during a descent) sometimes it would
reverse.

This resulted in more than one 737 upside down. Some of
the crews could handle it, and recovered. Some of the crews
couldn't handle it, and they and their pax are all quite dead now.

If you had a chance to talk to the dead crews and pax, what
do you think their opinion would be about unusual attitude
training for airline pilots?

Hey, if you think that nothing bad will ever happen when
you are PIC, why bother with any emergency training?

Engines never fail, right?

[North Shore]

Hedley:

Dean Koontz, airshow pilot (Decathlon master)

is that the author Dean Koontz?

[Hedley]

Brain fart:

Greg Koontz is the Decathlon airshow pilot & aerobatic instructor:

http://www.gkairshows.com/gkairshows/fltraining2.htm

The interesting thing is that if he was Canadian, he
would be "banned for life" by Transport Canada from
aerobatics and airshows.

But oddly enough, in the USA, he is a very respected
airshow pilot, ICAS ACE, and aerobatic instructor.

Isn't that peculiar how that works?

[Shiny Side Up]

I'm not sure anyone here has ever heard of a Boeing 737, but
it had a nasty problem where if the hydraulic rudder actuator
was shock-cooled (eg during a descent) sometimes it would
reverse.

This resulted in more than one 737 upside down. Some of
the crews could handle it, and recovered. Some of the crews
couldn't handle it, and they and their pax are all quite dead now.

Someone was watching Mayday on the Discovery Channel.

Should be noted that none of the examples they gave actually "handled" the problem, some survived mostly due to the mechanism righting itself before they hit the ground. Your point still stands Hed, but bad example to use. While many pilots can cope with an unusual attitude, few figure out a control reversal in time.