172 wire strike Duncan BC
Moderators: sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, lilfssister, North Shore
Re: 172 wire strike Duncan BC
You need less room for a touch and go than a regular takeoff.
However to do a touch and go in less room than a regular takeoff you also have to a) have great technique, so as to touchdown right at the threshold and depart immediately, and b) even more importantly, great judgement so that you abort before the "touch" in situations where a) hasn't been achieved and the "go" would cause problems.
However to do a touch and go in less room than a regular takeoff you also have to a) have great technique, so as to touchdown right at the threshold and depart immediately, and b) even more importantly, great judgement so that you abort before the "touch" in situations where a) hasn't been achieved and the "go" would cause problems.
DId you hear the one about the jurisprudence fetishist? He got off on a technicality.
Re: 172 wire strike Duncan BC
Also, with electric flaps you need to wait for them to go up to 10 degrees, which will take a few hundred feet at least.
Re: 172 wire strike Duncan BC
There's nothing stopping you from doing a touch and go with 10 degrees of flap. Or no flap at all.CpnCrunch wrote:Also, with electric flaps you need to wait for them to go up to 10 degrees, which will take a few hundred feet at least.
There's also nothing stopping you from doing the go with 20 degrees of flap. (I have definitely been flown around the entire circuit in a 172 with flaps at 40 degrees because someone forgot to put them up).
Also raising the flaps from 20 to 10 degrees takes no more than two seconds, during which time a 172 at a ground speed of 50 knots has travelled about 170 feet.
If you fly into the trees merely because you're waiting for the flaps to come up, I think you may need to readjust your priorities.
DId you hear the one about the jurisprudence fetishist? He got off on a technicality.
Re: 172 wire strike Duncan BC
There's nothing stopping you doing any of that, but flight schools want you to use 30 degrees for a short field landing as per the POH, and they will want you to take off with 10 degrees, as per the POH. So if you touch down 600 ft down the runway and you're a bit slow with the flaps it could be 500ft remaining. What speed are you going, and do you have time to stop if you change your mind about the touch+go? What if there's a 5kt tailwind (quite often the windsocks point in different directions)? Also bear in mind the 0.5% upslope.photofly wrote: There's nothing stopping you from doing a touch and go with 10 degrees of flap. Or no flap at all.
There's also nothing stopping you from doing the go with 20 degrees of flap. (I can't count the number of times I've been flown around the entire circuit in a 172 with flaps at 40 degrees because someone forgot to put them up).
Also raising the flaps from 20 to 10 degrees takes no more than two seconds, during which time a 172 at a ground speed of 50 knots has travelled about 170 feet.
If you fly into the trees merely because you're waiting for the flaps to come up, I think you may need to readjust your priorities.
Re: 172 wire strike Duncan BC
Mostly, in my experience, what flight schools really want is that you bring the aircraft and occupants back safely. YMMV. Following the recommended procedures in the POH is often a pathway to achieving that end. Adherence to the POH is not an end in itself.CpnCrunch wrote:
There's nothing stopping you doing any of that, but flight schools want you to use 30 degrees for a short field landing as per the POH, and they will want you to take off with 10 degrees, as per the POH.
See my previous post about having the judgement to abort the manoeuvre early, and if you're going to touch down too far along the runway for a safe departure, abort the manoeuvre. There's no one with a gun to your head forcing you to land. Not at any flight school I've trained at, anyway.So if you touch down 600 ft down the runway
It's up to the pilot not to be slow with the flaps. It's up to the pilot to do lots of things correctly, all in a sensible order. There are lots of operational errors that will end up with you in the trees. Don't make those errors. Simple, isn't it?and you're a bit slow with the flaps
As stated earlier, it's important to abort the manoeuvre before the touchdown, if you don't have room for the departure. That was my point about judgement being even more important than skill. There are lots of situations in flying where you can fly yourself into a situation from which safe recovery is impossible. This is just one example. It's part of piloting to avoid getting into those situations, either by heroic skill, or more simply, by changing your mind before it's too late.it could be 500ft remaining. What speed are you going, and do you have time to stop if you change your mind about the touch+go?
Indeed, what if? What is your point?What if there's a 5kt tailwind (quite often the windsocks point in different directions)? Also bear in mind the 0.5% upslope.
DId you hear the one about the jurisprudence fetishist? He got off on a technicality.
Re: 172 wire strike Duncan BC
My point is you can't always know for sure before touchdown whether you can safely take off again. Sure, you could say if not down by 200ft go around. However most pilots will land longer than that, so what number do you pick? It's really down to risk tolerance, as is the decision to do a full stop vs touch+go in the first place.photofly wrote:What is your point?
Re: 172 wire strike Duncan BC
I don't think I've read any statement on this website with which I disagree more strongly.CpnCrunch wrote:My point is you can't always know for sure before touchdown whether you can safely take off again.photofly wrote:What is your point?
If you're planning a touch-and-go, there's no way it should be a lottery as to whether you survive. If you don't know for sure abort the manoeuvre.
DId you hear the one about the jurisprudence fetishist? He got off on a technicality.
Re: 172 wire strike Duncan BC
Yes, of course. Nobody deliberately plans to have a bad day.photofly wrote: If you're planning a touch-and-go, there's no way it should be a lottery as to whether you survive. If you don't know for sure abort the manoeuvre.
- Cat Driver
- Top Poster
- Posts: 18921
- Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 8:31 pm
Re: 172 wire strike Duncan BC
It is not magic, it is no more than basic flight training as pointed out above..As stated earlier, it's important to abort the manoeuvre before the touchdown, if you don't have room for the departure. That was my point about judgement being even more important than skill. There are lots of situations in flying where you can fly yourself into a situation from which safe recovery is impossible. This is just one example. It's part of piloting to avoid getting into those situations, either by heroic skill, or more simply, by changing your mind before it's too late.
If you can not touch down on the first couple of hundred feet of runway go get some more training because you should not be instructing.
If you can not figure out you are high and long and you must abandon the approach and landing and go around you should not get more training...you should quit flying before you kill someone.
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.
After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
Re: 172 wire strike Duncan BC
Moved discussion to new thread.
Last edited by CpnCrunch on Fri Mar 10, 2017 10:46 am, edited 1 time in total.
- Gear Jerker
- Rank 4
- Posts: 248
- Joined: Tue Sep 27, 2011 12:48 am
Re: 172 wire strike Duncan BC
Guys, have some respect. She's been instructing out of Victoria and using the Duncan airport for training for over 10 years. I don't know exactly what happened, but it's not as though she/they don't know what abort points are when it comes to a short field landing/takeoff. It is a tragic accident. Sh!t happens. Why don't you flap your wallets instead of your mouths and help out a fellow aviator in need.
Look, it's f***in Patrick Swayze and Reveen!
-
- Rank 3
- Posts: 140
- Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2009 2:33 pm
- Location: YYZ
Re: 172 wire strike Duncan BC
Beat me to it.Gear Jerker wrote:Guys, have some respect. She's been instructing out of Victoria and using the Duncan airport for training for over 10 years. I don't know exactly what happened, but it's not as though she/they don't know what abort points are when it comes to a short field landing/takeoff. It is a tragic accident. Sh!t happens. Why don't you flap your wallets instead of your mouths and help out a fellow aviator in need.
Can you find another place, guys?
Re: 172 wire strike Duncan BC
Do you find this more respectful?
It's a tragic accident, couldn't have been prevented, shit happens. Nothing to consider, nothing to learn.
Certainly nobody could have made a mistake. In fact planes fly into trees every day. That's what insurance is for.
I'm sure the duo had a lot of experience at that airfield, and knew all about abort points. Maybe the rest of us need reminding though. Now seems as a good an opportunity as any.
It's a tragic accident, couldn't have been prevented, shit happens. Nothing to consider, nothing to learn.
Certainly nobody could have made a mistake. In fact planes fly into trees every day. That's what insurance is for.
I'm sure the duo had a lot of experience at that airfield, and knew all about abort points. Maybe the rest of us need reminding though. Now seems as a good an opportunity as any.
DId you hear the one about the jurisprudence fetishist? He got off on a technicality.
- Cat Driver
- Top Poster
- Posts: 18921
- Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 8:31 pm
Re: 172 wire strike Duncan BC
If I suspect there may be a downdraft just before a runway caused by a steep drop off in front of the runway there is no way in hell I would be dragging it in low with power.
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.
After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
Re: 172 wire strike Duncan BC
Took a very long time for the incident report to come out, Not sure why.....
"C-GZXB, a Cessna 172S aircraft operated by Victoria Flying Club, departed from Victoria Intl, BC (CYYJ) with an instructor and student pilot on board, to conduct a day visual flight rules training flight. About 1 ½ hours into the flight, an approach was made to Runway 31 at Duncan, BC (CAM3) to conduct a short-field landing. At about 1311 Pacific Standard Time, the aircraft touched down approximately one third of the runway beyond the threshold and a balked landing was attempted. The aircraft struck trees and then a power line off the north end of Runway 31 and came to rest upside down under the power lines, about 500 feet from the departure end of the runway. The instructor sustained serious injuries, while the student received minor injuries. The aircraft was substantially damaged, and the emergency locator transmitter activated. There was no fire."
"C-GZXB, a Cessna 172S aircraft operated by Victoria Flying Club, departed from Victoria Intl, BC (CYYJ) with an instructor and student pilot on board, to conduct a day visual flight rules training flight. About 1 ½ hours into the flight, an approach was made to Runway 31 at Duncan, BC (CAM3) to conduct a short-field landing. At about 1311 Pacific Standard Time, the aircraft touched down approximately one third of the runway beyond the threshold and a balked landing was attempted. The aircraft struck trees and then a power line off the north end of Runway 31 and came to rest upside down under the power lines, about 500 feet from the departure end of the runway. The instructor sustained serious injuries, while the student received minor injuries. The aircraft was substantially damaged, and the emergency locator transmitter activated. There was no fire."
Re: 172 wire strike Duncan BC
Not really any new info, and still doesn't explain why they hadn't achieved flying speed. The only possibility I can think of is some screwup with the flaps.
Re: 172 wire strike Duncan BC
Flaps could cause a problem if they were not retracted, or if retracted quickly at a low speed. Both unkowns. As well, the report states they touched down 1/3 down the runway, but it doesn't say how much runway was left when they initiated the go-around.CpnCrunch wrote:Not really any new info, and still doesn't explain why they hadn't achieved flying speed. The only possibility I can think of is some screwup with the flaps.
Last edited by pelmet on Mon Aug 07, 2017 6:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.
- Cat Driver
- Top Poster
- Posts: 18921
- Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 8:31 pm
Re: 172 wire strike Duncan BC
2/3 's.
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.
After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
Re: 172 wire strike Duncan BC
You're right...they could have tried to stop, realised they weren't going to be able to, then initiated a go-around at low speed.pelmet wrote: Flaps could cause a problem if they were not retracted, or if retracted quickly at a low speed. Both inkowns. As well, the report states they touched down 1/3 down the runway, but it doesn't say how much runway was left when they initiated the go-around.
Re: 172 wire strike Duncan BC
Quite ironic that I read this article posted below just today. While it is not specifically targeted at light aircraft, it is something to think about. There is no reason a short field practice can't be done on a long runway. It is good experience to eventually land on an actual short runway but there is little room for screwing around. Best to make the go-around before touchdown on a short runway like this. It is good go-around practice and you can just try again. There are times when you just have to plan in advance that there will be no screwing around if things don't go well. If you decide to go-around after having attempted to stop....all bets are off, especially if there are obstacles at the end of the runway.CpnCrunch wrote:You're right...they could have tried to stop, realised they weren't going to be able to, then initiated a go-around at low speed.pelmet wrote: Flaps could cause a problem if they were not retracted, or if retracted quickly at a low speed. Both inkowns. As well, the report states they touched down 1/3 down the runway, but it doesn't say how much runway was left when they initiated the go-around.
"FAA Recommends Committed-to-stop Point for Landings
The FAA has released Information for Operators (InFO) 17009 to remind crews of turbine-powered aircraft of the importance in establishing a point during landing where a go-around or rejected landing procedure will not be initiated, and the only option will be bringing the aircraft to a stop. This recommendation stems from a July 2008 fatal accident in which a Hawker 800A crashed while attempting a go-around more than 17 seconds after touchdown on 5,500-foot Runway 30 at Minnesota’s Owatonna Degner Regional Airport.
While the FAA has investigated the potential benefits and risks associated with incorporating a committed-to-stop point in the aircraft flight manual, the agency said operational factors are too numerous and varied to establish a single committed-to-stop point. Thus, it believes that operators are in the best position to make this determination for their operation and type aircraft.
“Operators who establish committed-to-stop points would eliminate ambiguity for pilots making decisions during time-critical events,” the FAA said. The agency recommends that operators establish SOPs for flight crews to determine a point after touchdown where a go-around will not be initiated. This could be accomplished by any single procedure or combination of procedures, such as deploying reversers or lift-dump, spoilers or speed brakes and committing to stop below a certain airspeed and/or runway distance remaining."
https://content.govdelivery.com/attachm ... O17009.pdf