Hero or Zero

[Big Pistons Forever]

Re the turnback discussion

A while ago a guy showed me a video. It opens with a 185 sitting at the end of a 1300 ft or so gravel strip. The engine starts and the pilot immediately goes to full power and the airplane rolls about 500 ft and enters a steep climb. At I am guessing 300 ft the engine quits cold. The nose immediately drops as the airplane is rolled into what looks like about a 60 deg bank. There is not enough room to line up so the pilot does a wings level skidding turn and the airplane three points on the runway and rolls to a stop.

The person filming runs up to the airplane and says "Wow that was amazing ! " The pilot responds by saying "Yah that was pretty intense the stall horn was going all the way around but I knew I could make it because I practice it all the time"

So what does the Avcanada brethren think. Hero or Zero ?

[photofly]

It might be helpful to post a link to the video.

[rookiepilot]

Well, can’t advocate a wings level skidding turn, (assuming nose held up) and doubt anyone else would, either

[Big Pistons Forever]

It might be helpful to post a link to the video.

It was on the guys phone so I don’t think it is available to post.

[Inverted2]

Post the video somehow or it never happened.

[Big Pistons Forever]

Post the video somehow or it never happened.

You mean that perfect landing I did on Saturday didn’t happen because nobody videotaped it

That’s harsh

[PilotDAR]

Zero, The fact that something stupid works, does not raise the pilot to hero status. Worse, someone somewhere thinks it was amazing, and given an airplane, might try it, or to try to practice it. If you are confident in your airplane, fly it normally. If you are less confident, use an extra long runway, which points toward a really welcoming looking field!

There are so many stupid things which can be done in airplanes. When I was young and impressionable, "video" was reserved for TV studios, so all of this stupidity did not get a public view. Now, not only do the impressionable pilots see the videos that everyone takes of everyone else, but then some of them go to be the star of someone else's video, and sometimes it does not work.

I helped lift a 22,000 hour pilot friend from his wreck, when he unsuccessfully turned back to his home field. I helped lift another highly experienced friend out of his wreck at the other end of the same runway - which he owned. I'd much rather be having lunch with my friends than wishing they had not been foolish. Each of those friends had a survivable area ahead to land into, and did not choose it.

"Watch this!" and an airplane are usually a poor idea. I have flown all over the world, and think myself so lucky to simply have had the freedom to fly for all these years, where so many people are not free to do many things, including fly. I'm just happy to fly an airplane within its limitations, and following good airmanship! We responsible pilots should be encouraging conservative, responsible flying, not thinking that someone could be a hero for doing what training specifically teaches us to not do!

[Squaretail]

It’s a bit hard to say without seeing the video. The 180/185s lightly loaded (Pilot only as far as we know) are kind of kites. More so if they’re equipped with any of the STOL kits. The big rudder remains effective at really low speeds to where changing direction even in a falling leaf, isn’t hard.

The zero part comes in a lot in why did the engine stop in the first place, which there was a high probability was the pilot’s fault.

Edit: unclear from your initial post BPF, was the engine stoppage on purpose?

[Big Pistons Forever]

Obviously if the engine stopped because the pilot did something stupid that caused the engine to fail then he is a total zero. I also don’t have a full feel for how good the options were for a straight ahead glide due to the limitations of the short video. FWIW it looks like he could have gone straight ahead but the airplane would have definitely been wrecked.

I am more interested in the question of what peoples reactions are to how he chose to maneuver. Obviously there had to be a fairly high level of pilot skill to make this turn back work.

This is not a troll, I have my own feelings on this but am interested in other viewpoints.

[photofly]

Obviously if the engine stopped because the pilot did something stupid that caused the engine to fail then he is a total zero. I also don’t have a full feel for how good the options were for a straight ahead glide due to the limitations of the short video. FWIW it looks like he could have gone straight ahead but the airplane would have definitely been wrecked.

I am more interested in the question of what peoples reactions are to how he chose to maneuver. Obviously there had to be a fairly high level of pilot skill to make this turn back work.

This is not a troll, I have my own feelings on this but am interested in other viewpoints.

It's hard to comment fairly on what actually happened because your interpretation of what you saw and your description is (not unreasonably) likely coloured by your opinions on the subject. If we could see the video, it would be much easier to comment.

However -

60 degrees bank, if it was that (you say 'about') is steeper than what is required to get the best performance in terms of turning without losing altitude. A full turnaround in 300' followed by a successful landing in a 185, even a light one, would be quite some feat. But you give the 300' as a guess. The nose dropping rapidly is likely a good thing: you don't want to keep the nose in a steep climb attitude, without power. A skidding turn doesn't sound like a good idea to me - but again, I'd like to see the video before commenting.

As you say, we don't know whether a safe landing could have been done without turning around.

The statement "I knew I could make it because I practice it all the time" could be interpreted in different ways, as a sober statement of fact, or just bragging, or something in between. If this manoeuvre was indeed practiced regularly by this pilot and he felt it well within his competence to complete it safely when circumstances required, we should not comment adversely. That is, after all, the point of practice, and it worked.

Overall, it's very hard to argue with success. There are a lot of threads here which end badly and the Monday morning quaterbacks (myself included) are quick to state (or at least think) what the pilot should have done differently. In this case there was a good outcome, so ... it's hard to say things should have been done differently.

To be clear, I'm not commenting on the described takeoff procedure, since that isn't what you're asking about.

Also- the fact that this episode was captured on video seems to raise questions in itself. Was it a genuine emergency?

[airway]

[quote=photofly post_id=1210718 time=166135706

Overall, it's very hard to argue with success

. There are a lot of threads here which end badly and the Monday morning quaterbacks (myself included) are quick to state (or at least think) what the pilot should have done differently. In this case there was a good outcome, so ... it's hard to say things should have been done differently.

[/quote]

Exactly. When pilots do something that is not recommended and are successful, they may continue that behaviour without really thinking about the probability of success (normalization of deviation).

You take off successfully with a certain amount of ice on your wing and you might estimate the probability of having a serious issue 1 time out of 25. It's unlikely for any single take off, but during a multi decade career doing this, expect a couple of serious issues if you continue this practice.




.

[JasonE]

Maybe if he chose to do a runup the engine would have quit before he got in the air? I know it's a gravel strip but he could have applied power slowly down the runway for a runup and backtracked before takeoff.

[PilotDAR]

In general, flying certified civil airplanes is extremely well described in approved procedures; mostly the flight manual, and flight training/regulations. A pilot who feels the need to operate outside those procedures, for anything other than a true emergency, or special approved purpose is not a hero. Some of us spend a lot of expensive time, and some risk, applying very well established testing standards to determine and approve safe operating practices and limitations for airplanes - which have a reserve of safety. Why would pilots feel that they can ignore that? Fly the plane the way it is approved, or be a zero.

[photofly]

Overall, it's very hard to argue with success

. There are a lot of threads here which end badly and the Monday morning quaterbacks (myself included) are quick to state (or at least think) what the pilot should have done differently. In this case there was a good outcome, so ... it's hard to say things should have been done differently.

You take off successfully with a certain amount of ice on your wing and you might estimate the probability of having a serious issue 1 time out of 25. It's unlikely for any single take off, but during a multi decade career doing this, expect a couple of serious issues if you continue this practice.
.

That's a false equivalence. Icing is random and unpredictable; you don't know what a "certain" amount of ice is, on any given day. So any positive feedback from successful flying carrying ice is misleading; what you think may be the same amount of ice another day may in fact be more, or otherwise have a different effect on performance, and your previous success is not a valid guide.

In this manoeuvre the positive feedback of successfully completing it is correct appropriate and useful; the pilot entered with enough knowledge of the determining criteria to be able to make a judgement. Success means his or her judgement was correct, which affirms the validity of that judgement. That's appropriate and correct.

A better analogy would be more like me landing in a stiff crosswind; my judgement is that I have the skill to complete the landing safely, and when I do so, my judgement of my ability is correctly affirmed.

Exactly. When pilots do something that is not recommended and are successful, they may continue that behaviour without really thinking about the probability of success (normalization of deviation).

You are modelling this manoeuvre as a stochastic (random) process with an unknown probability of success. That is inappropriate, since the outcome is deterministic: only a combination of pilot ability and initial circumstance dictates the outcome, all of which lie within the scope of the pilot to know. There is nothing random about it.

In this case, the pilot "recommended" the procedure to himself. Whether or not you feel the procedure isn't recommended isn't really the point, because you're not the one writing SOP's for this pilot to adhere to or deviate from.

Flying upside down "isn't recommended" unless you happen to be a pilot working on aerobatics, in which case it is "recommended". So, who's doing the recommending in this case?

[photofly]

? Fly the plane the way it is approved, or be a zero.

Is there anything in the description of the manoeuvre that leads you to believe any operating limitation was exceeded?

[PilotDAR]

Is there anything in the description of the manoeuvre that leads you to believe any operating limitation was exceeded?

Well, I have not watched the video (and choose to not), but from what I have read here, I think it's likely that the POH "Operating Limitations - Maneuvers - Normal Category": "Intended for non aerobatic operations.... Maneuvers incidental to normal flying.... bank is not more than 60 degrees." were exceeded.

And, Emergency Procedures (an approved section of the POH, though not a "limitation"), Engine Failure: "....engine failure after takeoff.... the landing should be planned straight ahead with only small changes in direction to avoid obstructions."

The Flight Manual/POH of a certified civil airplane is approved, and operation in compliance is required by regulation.

Flying upside down "isn't recommended" unless you happen to be a pilot working on aerobatics, in which case it is "recommended". So, who's doing the recommending in this case?

As above, flying upside down is not incidental to normal flying in a normal category plane. It is approved in aerobatic planes. The approved limitations and procedures in the POH/Flight Manual describe these. A pilot must decide for themself if they will abide by the contents of the flight manual - Hero or zero. selecting to abide by some of it, but not all is not hero.

When a pilot chooses to disregard the procedures and limitations for the flight manual, they are beginning to line up Swiss cheese holes. The flight manual is written and approved to provide a margin for error before danger. If you exceed the flight manual, you have entered that margin. Maybe a pilot has confidence that they can perform an unapproved maneuver, and maybe they can... But, the margin may no longer be there for a recovery within limitations with "normal" pilot technique. You allow the airplane to upset, and then pass Vne during the recovery - because you didn't have a G meter, and couldn't figure out how many G's to pull to prevent passing Vne. Or, you wisely did not pass Vne, and pulled too many G's.

And all of that assumes that the ground was not close. A pilot hard maneuvered a Hawker Hurricane a week or so ago, in what I expect was either a botched, or unplanned aerobatic maneuver. He hit a house with the plane. I'm sure the plane was amply able to perform the maneuver safely - with enough altitude.

[photofly]

We don’t have a video, unfortunately, only BPF’s description. He says 60 degrees of bank wasn’t exceeded.

On the hero-or-zero question, is there a box to tick for those of us who don’t like to judge other people and their behaviour? Can I vote for “don’t care to choose either”?

[iflyforpie]

Zero.


I will pick the pilot who has better decision making skills over flying skills, any day.

I got a resume from a guy who bragged that he had an engine failure on takeoff and missed several overhead wires and vehicles to land it on a highway without a scratch……


Maybe he forgot that I was the AME who worked on the aircraft (failure wasn’t a result of any maintenance I did). AFTER I told him that this was a ferry flight, to not operate a specific system on the aircraft, to not put passengers on the plane, and to ensure his company and chief pilot had operational control.. NONE of which he did… …and got fired immediately after for doing so.

[photofly]

Zero.


I will pick the pilot who has better decision making skills over flying skills, any day.

I got a resume from a guy who bragged that he had an engine failure on takeoff and missed several overhead wires and vehicles to land it on a highway without a scratch……


Maybe he forgot that I was the AME who worked on the aircraft (failure wasn’t a result of any maintenance I did). AFTER I told him that this was a ferry flight, to not operate a specific system on the aircraft, to not put passengers on the plane, and to ensure his company and chief pilot had operational control.. NONE of which he did… …and got fired immediately after for doing so.

Did you disable the system, make a journey log entry and placard the aircraft? If the aircraft wasn't airworthy for passengers, did it get flight permit from TC? Did you communicate with the operator's PRM about the work that had been undertaken?

I only ask because, you know, we’re talking about decision-making skills.

[Meatservo]

I think it's been pretty well established by now that free will isn't really a thing; the past doesn't exist and what is going to happen is definitely the thing that's going to happen. If we had maths that were sufficiently sophisticated, we could plot the trajectory of every particle in the universe since the Big Bang, and prove that nothing is random, and that everything that has ever happened, and will ever happen, was determined long ago, basically by ballistics. Randomness is simply an illusion that occurs as a result of our brains and computers being too feeble to observe everything that is happening. At least in the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum theory. Therefore, if you do something, and it all works out in the end and no-one is hurt, then that means what you did was perfectly safe. Obviously it was perfectly safe, because nothing bad happened. Nothing bad happened; you are perfectly safe as a result, and that means you always were perfectly safe. A lot of people are going to ask "what if this had happened?" or "What if that had happened?". Well, it didn't, did it? Therefore what you did was perfectly safe. Because you did it, and now you're perfectly safe. There's no use saying "Well for a while there, things were pretty unsafe". No they weren't. You only thought they were. Well, what you "think" doesn't matter.

Now, if you favour the "multiverse" interpretation, well I guess that's a different matter. In THIS universe, you are a hero. In a different one, maybe not. Maybe in another universe, your manoeuvre failed, and you are dead. But not in this one. In this one, you are (and therefore were pre-destined to be) perfectly safe.

Therefore: "Hero". Well done!