Corn Field or Bean Field

[cncpc]

The airplane does not conform to it's type design, therefore the C of A is not valid.

That interpretation got shot down in flames by the TATC not long ago, in a case against EVAS Air that TC lost. The tribunal said TC was talking a load of bunkum and the government wasn’t free to invent its own definition of “type design” to the contrary of the very narrow one in the CARs.

The TATC said damage could be a matter of safety and invalidate the flight authority that way but damage had nothing to do with the design, per se.

I don’t think they could get a conviction on that basis, now.

I found a link to the case you were talking about:
https://decisions.tatc.gc.ca/tatc/tatc/ ... ocument.do

That is a very, very, interesting case. I will be making a new thread in General regarding an absurd court finding in Calgary last month in which all of this is in play, and in which the law, in respect of small carrier aircraft leasing, is significantly changed.The decision results in certain potential financial time bombs facing lessees of small 702/703 aircraft with the lease being solely based on the short form "Transport Canada" lease that is submitted to register a leased aircraft to a commercial lessee.

I made my comment in this thread somewhat facetiously. I have a very knowledgeable acquaintance with TC and TSB credentials, and he told me that in theory, an aircraft no longer meets its type design the moment something first adheres to its surface, or chips from it, after it leaves the production line. He acknowledges that the practical meaning is much different, and the focus is on safe to fly, which means all inspections are within time, all time lifed products are within their lives, and any defects logged are either deferred or rectified.

[photofly]

I made my comment in this thread somewhat facetiously. I have a very knowledgeable acquaintance with TC and TSB credentials, and he told me that in theory, an aircraft no longer meets its type design the moment something first adheres to its surface, or chips from it, after it leaves the production line.

You can tell him that the quasi-judicial tribunal charged with interpreting the regulations says he's completely wrong.


The one thing I don't understand about that case is why EVAS pursued it (abeit that I'm very glad they did.) They must have spent ten or twenty times more on legal fees than they saved by having the $5k fine cancelled. Does anyone have a contact there and want to pm me?

[cncpc]

I made my comment in this thread somewhat facetiously. I have a very knowledgeable acquaintance with TC and TSB credentials, and he told me that in theory, an aircraft no longer meets its type design the moment something first adheres to its surface, or chips from it, after it leaves the production line.

You can tell him that the quasi-judicial tribunal charged with interpreting the regulations says he's completely wrong.

The one thing I don't understand about that case is why EVAS pursued it (abeit that I'm very glad they did.) They must have spent ten or twenty times more on legal fees than they saved by having the $5k fine cancelled. Does anyone have a contact there and want to pm me?

His point was that the only meaningful component of the phrase defining airworthiness as "safe for flight and in conformity with the type design" is ..."safe for flight". That is because very few buggers know WTF "in conformity with the type design" means and focusing on that will be like trying to pick up mercury with a fork. My friend's view is exactly that of the quasi-judicial tribunal. I am sure he was referring to the worst type of TC inspector. The example he used was if the paint was scratched while it was parked on the manufacturer's ramp. His point was that it is possible that some dweeb could consider a paint scratch as non conformity. The countervailing wisdom might be expressed as "...there's a difference between scratching your ass and ripping it to shreds". The good TC inspectors, and most of them are, know what is safe and what isn't.

I commend EVAS for standing up to this. Perhaps consider their legal costs as an investment that leads to future profits that come from not having to deal with horseshit like this in the future. The industry should be grateful, because the ruling they obtained benefits the entire industry by making it less susceptible to the Inspector Clouseaus of Transport.

[digits_]

One of the more colorful characters running a 703 op around here claims he always fights whatever finding or or enforcement action TC comes up with, even if they are right. That way "the bastards will think twice before bothering me again".

They didn't shut him down yet.

Maybe EVAS subscribed to the same philosophy? Saving on pilot salaries might give you more budget to spend on the legal department...

[cncpc]

Getting back to the main topic, my answer is "Who cares?". Unless you think your duty is to perfectly preserve the aircraft for immediate resale, instead of to minimize or eliminate harm to your passengers and yourself, don't be trying to stretch a deadstick glide over a corn field to a bean field, or the other way around if you see some merit with the corn stalks.

If you lose power, and it is not possible to find a "regular" landing site, you will survive if you can find a reasonably lengthy (100-200 meters) opening which is flat(ish) and does not have anything that will bring you to a complete stop within a foot or two of your touchdown. In this case, we have arrived at either a corn field or a bean field. If you really think at that point which it is that is important, I take it you're not really aware of what goes on in a crash sequence. It's all about touching down under control at minimum flying speed and it doesn't matter beans whether its corn or not or hay or a big cannabis field, or along the shore of some body of water.

In this case, we have a field. Glide there, and land like you usually do. Buy some new fucking tires if the corn stalks cut them, for Christ's sakes.

[Big Pistons Forever]

Y'all are some pretty good amateur farmers!

In an emergency off-strip landing (engine failure?) I'd be happy with a long enough field without obstacles or power lines running through it.
Then, I'd worry about getting my own ass down safely, closely followed by my pax (if any.)
Last thing I'd worry about is the type of salad I might have to survive on while waiting for the rescuers to arrive!

Damage? Isn't that the insurance company's headache?

Exactly. When the engine fails the insurance company just bought the airplane and what it looks like after it stops moving is entirely irrelevant. The only thing that matters is that there are no injuries to the airplane occupants. Ignore all the stupid FTU mnemonics and just point the airplane at an area that is close, has clear approaches, and is flattish with no big obstacles.

A 60 kt to stop steady 9 Gee de-acceleration takes less than 25 feet, which is about the length of your average SEP.

The number 1 determinant of a forced landing with no injuries is airplane attitude when it hits. If it is wings level and slightly nose high under control you will almost certainly survive as long as you have even a few feet to de-accelerate. The killer accidents are when the airplane hits in a very nose low steeply banked attitude, like when they are so busy trying to figure out what crops are in the field they don’t pay enough attention to aircraft control…..

[pelmet]

Getting back to the main topic, my answer is "Who cares?". Unless you think your duty is to perfectly preserve the aircraft for immediate resale, instead of to minimize or eliminate harm to your passengers and yourself, don't be trying to stretch a deadstick glide over a corn field to a bean field, or the other way around if you see some merit with the corn stalks.

If you lose power, and it is not possible to find a "regular" landing site, you will survive if you can find a reasonably lengthy (100-200 meters) opening which is flat(ish) and does not have anything that will bring you to a complete stop within a foot or two of your touchdown. In this case, we have arrived at either a corn field or a bean field. If you really think at that point which it is that is important, I take it you're not really aware of what goes on in a crash sequence. It's all about touching down under control at minimum flying speed and it doesn't matter beans whether its corn or not or hay or a big cannabis field, or along the shore of some body of water.

In this case, we have a field. Glide there, and land like you usually do. Buy some new fucking tires if the corn stalks cut them, for Christ's sakes.

Not sure if you are trying to sound tough or present some sort of tough guy image in your post, but it does not come across as a very useful response to a quote that discusses the possibility of flipping over and an option that may prevent it(if one happens to believe this could be the result).

So…..yes, I care and I do have some awareness of what goes on on a plane crash.

That being said, the endless scroll of damaged aircraft that appears when one googles plane flips in field shows all kinds of surfaces. But who knows how much more likely this is with flattened tires.

[cncpc]

Not sure if you are trying to sound tough or present some sort of tough guy image in your post, but it does not come across as a very useful response to a quote that discusses the possibility of flipping over and an option that may prevent it(if one happens to believe this could be the result).

That being said, the endless scroll of damaged aircraft that appears when one googles plane flips in field shows all kinds of surfaces. But who knows how much more likely this is with flattened tires.

I expect you are the only one that read my post who characterized it as "sounding tough". It may have sounded "tough" to you, as you seem to be someone who sees any response as an attack if it does not confirm your view. My post was directed at young pilots who might be misled into thinking that the only decision making they need to do when the engine quits is to decide whether something green is a bean field or a corn field. They've had an engine failure, they're not looking for a picnic site with ready food sources. They need a place which is reachable and which offers the probability of a staged deceleration and avoids maximum g forces on the ground, particularly the first force of deceleration.

You'd have them worrying about whether they flatten a tire.

You make a lot of good posts, Pelmet. I read them all. In the context of a situation where you actually have a bean field beside a corn field below you when the engine quits, it may be good advice. However, in the broader perspective, a pilot has far more important things to worry about in a forced approach than the plant species where she or he plans to make the touchdown if all goes well.

[pelmet]

Not sure if you are trying to sound tough or present some sort of tough guy image in your post, but it does not come across as a very useful response to a quote that discusses the possibility of flipping over and an option that may prevent it(if one happens to believe this could be the result).

That being said, the endless scroll of damaged aircraft that appears when one googles plane flips in field shows all kinds of surfaces. But who knows how much more likely this is with flattened tires.

I expect you are the only one that read my post who characterized it as "sounding tough". It may have sounded "tough" to you, as you seem to be someone who sees any response as an attack if it does not confirm your view. My post was directed at young pilots who might be misled into thinking that the only decision making they need to do when the engine quits is to decide whether something green is a bean field or a corn field. They've had an engine failure, they're not looking for a picnic site with ready food sources. They need a place which is reachable and which offers the probability of a staged deceleration and avoids maximum g forces on the ground, particularly the first force of deceleration.

You'd have them worrying about whether they flatten a tire.

You make a lot of good posts, Pelmet. I read them all. In the context of a situation where you actually have a bean field beside a corn field below you when the engine quits, it may be good advice. However, in the broader perspective, a pilot has far more important things to worry about in a forced approach than the plant species where she or he plans to make the touchdown if all goes well.

Thanks,

Keep in mind that the most of the original post was not necessarily advice on my part although I did think that a bean field is in general...preferable. As you can see, there was something I read and found quite interesting and had not thought about before. That is why I decided to post it in this forum for some feedback. I also found the brief mention in the original quote about how flattened tires could make a flip over more likely to be interesting and had not considered that either.

I definitely am interested in opinions about this.

We should also keep in mind that flipovers to begin with are obviously concerning but are hugely concerning for aircraft where the pilot has to open the canopy to get out, especially certain types of bubble canopies that open outward. Which means that what may be a good field for some aircraft may be a dangerous choice for other types of aircraft and one may want to make mental note of that prior to departure.

[cncpc]

Not sure if you are trying to sound tough or present some sort of tough guy image in your post, but it does not come across as a very useful response to a quote that discusses the possibility of flipping over and an option that may prevent it(if one happens to believe this could be the result).

That being said, the endless scroll of damaged aircraft that appears when one googles plane flips in field shows all kinds of surfaces. But who knows how much more likely this is with flattened tires.

I expect you are the only one that read my post who characterized it as "sounding tough". It may have sounded "tough" to you, as you seem to be someone who sees any response as an attack if it does not confirm your view. My post was directed at young pilots who might be misled into thinking that the only decision making they need to do when the engine quits is to decide whether something green is a bean field or a corn field. They've had an engine failure, they're not looking for a picnic site with ready food sources. They need a place which is reachable and which offers the probability of a staged deceleration and avoids maximum g forces on the ground, particularly the first force of deceleration.

You'd have them worrying about whether they flatten a tire.

You make a lot of good posts, Pelmet. I read them all. In the context of a situation where you actually have a bean field beside a corn field below you when the engine quits, it may be good advice. However, in the broader perspective, a pilot has far more important things to worry about in a forced approach than the plant species where she or he plans to make the touchdown if all goes well.

Thanks,

Keep in mind that the most of the original post was not necessarily advice on my part although I did think that a bean field is in general...preferable. As you can see, there was something I read and found quite interesting and had not thought about before. That is why I decided to post it in this forum for some feedback. I also found the brief mention in the original quote about how flattened tires could make a flip over more likely to be interesting and had not considered that either.

I definitely am interested in opinions about this.

We should also keep in mind that flipovers to begin with are obviously concerning but are hugely concerning for aircraft where the pilot has to open the canopy to get out, especially certain types of bubble canopies that open outward. Which means that what may be a good field for some aircraft may be a dangerous choice for other types of aircraft and one may want to make mental note of that prior to departure.

Well said. I particularly take your point about post crash egress for some types.

I'm glad we're not crossways about this.

[digits_]

make mental note of that prior to departure.

How do you suggest one does this? Contact farmers in the area to see what crops they planted? Can't use google earth, because that info is years out of date.

Drive the whole route and look for suitable fields every 2 miles?

[cncpc]

Exactly. When the engine fails the insurance company just bought the airplane and what it looks like after it stops moving is entirely irrelevant. The only thing that matters is that there are no injuries to the airplane occupants. Ignore all the stupid FTU mnemonics and just point the airplane at an area that is close, has clear approaches, and is flattish with no big obstacles.

A 60 kt to stop steady 9 Gee de-acceleration takes less than 25 feet, which is about the length of your average SEP.

The number 1 determinant of a forced landing with no injuries is airplane attitude when it hits. If it is wings level and slightly nose high under control you will almost certainly survive as long as you have even a few feet to de-accelerate. The killer accidents are when the airplane hits in a very nose low steeply banked attitude, like when they are so busy trying to figure out what crops are in the field they don’t pay enough attention to aircraft control…..

Three of the most worthwhile paragraphs ever written in this place.

The boldfaced could be word for word from what my ex TSB friend told me based on his experience.

60 kts presumes airspeed readout and no wind. Add 20 knots of headwind, and the risk reduces even more. Getting into wind is very important.

[OtherRedBaron]

make mental note of that prior to departure.

How do you suggest one does this? Contact farmers in the area to see what crops they planted? Can't use google earth, because that info is years out of date.

Drive the whole route and look for suitable fields every 2 miles?

I believe he was referring to how the canopy opens, not making a mental note of every crop planted along your intended route.

As for which field to land in, I've only recently begun cross country accreditation in my soaring flying. The general wisdom is corn fields over bean fields. Beans may seem less deadly at first, but they have a way of wrapping themselves around every surface on the aircraft. One generally lands at a high angle of attack on a field. So, your tail is low. This can catch your tail and nose you over in a bean field - whereas, in a cornfield, it's more likely to simply take the tail off. Worse for the aircraft, but generally more survivable for you.

If they've been cut, though, I never considered your point. Those stalks are quite thick. They very well could rip through your airframe - and by extension, you. A lot also depends on whether you're flying a high or low wing, or a T or V tail. One mnemonic often taught is "land in dirt, don't get hurt". Something I don't think you're considering, pelmet, is whether or not you can tell what a crop once was, after it's been harvested. I don't think that's reasonable to assume. A cornfield and a beanfield will look very much alike from 2000', after they've been cut. So personally, my thinking would be to land on a "brown" field first, followed by a yellow field (wheat), and then a green field (corn / (soy)beans).

Generally though, a field landing in a glider is a very, very different animal than is is for a powered plane. With a propeller, you've got something to tear the crop in front of you to shreds (if you leave the engine on, which isn't necessarily a good idea), and a glider also won't catch fire with you trapped inside it, so total destruction of the aircraft is much more survivable in a glider than something with an engine.

[pelmet]

make mental note of that prior to departure.

How do you suggest one does this? Contact farmers in the area to see what crops they planted? Can't use google earth, because that info is years out of date.

Drive the whole route and look for suitable fields every 2 miles?

I do have a simpler method. Make a mental note(or be aware) of your type of egress prior to departure. If a canopy is involved, especially an outward opening type, remind yourself(or be aware) to an even greater extent, to take the likelihood of a flipover into consideration for field selection, if doing an off airport landing. Right now is a lot of muddy ground....not good although still a good chance of surviving for an extended period of time after a flipover. Really bad potential if marshland/shallow water and the canopy can't be opened. A willingness to land in any 'flattish' area could increase your risk significantly, depending on aircraft type.

[digits_]

make mental note of that prior to departure.

How do you suggest one does this? Contact farmers in the area to see what crops they planted? Can't use google earth, because that info is years out of date.

Drive the whole route and look for suitable fields every 2 miles?

I do have a simpler method. Make a mental note(or be aware) of your type of egress prior to departure. If a canopy is involved, especially an outward opening type, remind yourself(or be aware) to an even greater extent, to take the likelihood of a flipover into consideration for field selection, if doing an off airport landing. Right now is a lot of muddy ground....not good although still a good chance of surviving for an extended period of time after a flipover. Really bad potential if marshland/shallow water and the canopy can't be opened. A willingness to land in any 'flattish' area could increase your risk significantly, depending on aircraft type.

Would anybody ever look at 2 fields, and go "hmm that left one has a higher chance of flipping over, but I don't have a canopy, so I don't care if I flip over, so I'm going for it"?

Making a mental note implies that your decisions at some point in the future will be influenced by it. I can't imagine a situation where it would matter. It's one of those things that sound like a good idea, but will have zero practical effect.

Unless you would select a different airplane alltogether for your flight, but that's not what you were hinting at.

[PilotDAR]

I definitely consider my flying path in terms of forced landing opportunities based upon what I'm flying. Though it will be more "big picture" based upon the aircraft type, than trying to select a landing area based upon my guess as to the crop. Of course I'll aim for what appears to be an obstruction free harder surface of suitable length - so far, so good at that! There are certainly areas I will overfly in my amphibian which I would be very apprehensive to overfly in a fixed gear wheel plane at all.

With a fixed gear landplane, it's pretty difficult to assure that you won't flip it during forced landing, so having your egress plan and risk threshold settled in your mind before the flight is the better way. If that means you choose to follow a highway, then do that....

[pelmet]

How do you suggest one does this? Contact farmers in the area to see what crops they planted? Can't use google earth, because that info is years out of date.

Drive the whole route and look for suitable fields every 2 miles?

I do have a simpler method. Make a mental note(or be aware) of your type of egress prior to departure. If a canopy is involved, especially an outward opening type, remind yourself(or be aware) to an even greater extent, to take the likelihood of a flipover into consideration for field selection, if doing an off airport landing. Right now is a lot of muddy ground....not good although still a good chance of surviving for an extended period of time after a flipover. Really bad potential if marshland/shallow water and the canopy can't be opened. A willingness to land in any 'flattish' area could increase your risk significantly, depending on aircraft type.

Would anybody ever look at 2 fields, and go "hmm that left one has a higher chance of flipping over, but I don't have a canopy, so I don't care if I flip over, so I'm going for it"?

It can be interesting how looking at the same question but with a different thought process can change the whole outlook. The thought process would be.......I have a canopy and therefore do care if I flip over even more so than in other aircraft types. Based on PilotDAR's response, I suspect the answer to your question is.......yes, someone might very well look at two different fields, but think the options through in a much more reasoned manner.

Making a mental note implies that your decisions at some point in the future will be influenced by it. I can't imagine a situation where it would matter. It's one of those things that sound like a good idea, but will have zero practical effect.

The intent of the mental note is to influence future decisions. If flying an RV, one might choose a particular road with likely wire crossings instead of a muddy, wet field in the spring. If flying a C172, one might not after weighing the both unfavorable options.

Of course, it is your decision to not make a mental note of certain egress concerns. I am quite sure that there are other pilots that like to do so. In the end, the overall odds are that you will not be faced with an engine out/precautionary landing scenario so your lack of consideration will likely not matter.