Needless steep climbouts

[photofly]

I was thinking about some numbers in the shower this morning. Suppose you have an airplane that needs a steady 70Kts in the descent to make a successful power-off landing. Suppose further that in this plane you climb after takeoff at 50Kts.

To accelerate from 50kts to 70kts power-off will take a minimum of 130 feet of altitude. More, depending on how quickly you react, and what you do, if the fan up front goes quiet. If you have a power failure in that first 130 feet you're 100% going to bend something, break something, or hurt someone, depending.

If you climb out at 60kts, it will take you a minimum of 70 feet of altitude to accelerate from 60 to 70.

[shaynemarshallporath]

Steep climb-outs after a simulated TO can be practised at 2000 feet AAE and why not throw in a failed engine at anytime during the practice ( obviously, IAW the appropriate conditions and in a progressive manner ) Lake A/C owners may be the best ones to learn at altitude.

[PilotDAR]

There it was again yesterday, as I held short to cross 04-22, a 172 doing touch and goes on 04. Landing okay, then peeling it off, and climbing away at a needlessly steep angle/slow speed I would be surprised to find they were flying as fast as Vx! The pilot did a couple o these while I taxied in and secured the plane. Then later, while we met in the board room to discuss our flying, overlooking the runway, the 172 pilot was at it again for many more. The other pilots in the board room were as unimpressed as I, while watching. The super steep climb for the first 100-200 feet up put the occupants at a huge risk, had the engine quit. Risk with zero benefit - there was no obstacle to clear - it's a runway at a certified airport!

I worry that this was one instructor, with two different students, (a), putting them both at needless risk during training, and (b), teaching the student(s) that this is an acceptable thing to do, even when not necessary. Okay, teach ONE, to demonstrate how it is done, and why, accompanied by an explanation of the training risk, then do normal climbouts, at least Vy. Slow flight, and Vx flying can also (well, only) be practiced safely at altitude.

The last few days, I've been flying someone else's plane, and I fly it as though I own it. If the Chief Pilot saw me doing in the company plane, what I saw that 172 doing, I would be banished, and sent down the road unpaid! This student(s) will have some unlearning to do, I hope they get the more safe instruction!

[digits_]

There it was again yesterday, as I held short to cross 04-22, a 172 doing touch and goes on 04. Landing okay, then peeling it off, and climbing away at a needlessly steep angle/slow speed I would be surprised to find they were flying as fast as Vx! The pilot did a couple o these while I taxied in and secured the plane. Then later, while we met in the board room to discuss our flying, overlooking the runway, the 172 pilot was at it again for many more. The other pilots in the board room were as unimpressed as I, while watching. The super steep climb for the first 100-200 feet up put the occupants at a huge risk, had the engine quit. Risk with zero benefit - there was no obstacle to clear - it's a runway at a certified airport!

I worry that this was one instructor, with two different students, (a), putting them both at needless risk during training, and (b), teaching the student(s) that this is an acceptable thing to do, even when not necessary. Okay, teach ONE, to demonstrate how it is done, and why, accompanied by an explanation of the training risk, then do normal climbouts, at least Vy. Slow flight, and Vx flying can also (well, only) be practiced safely at altitude.

The last few days, I've been flying someone else's plane, and I fly it as though I own it. If the Chief Pilot saw me doing in the company plane, what I saw that 172 doing, I would be banished, and sent down the road unpaid! This student(s) will have some unlearning to do, I hope they get the more safe instruction!

Sounds like the instructor was doing simulated soft field short field takeoffs with simulated obstacles according to POH procedures. Can you fault him for that?

I've been asked to demonstrate that procedure during an FI renewal, I've been asked to perform the procedure during my CPL checkride, and at least some of my students have been asked to fly it on their checkrides.

A random 172 POH online: https://wayman.edu/files/Cessna-172N-POH.pdf
Page labelled 4-15, top of the page.
Climb with flaps 10 at 55kts IAS. Well below the suggested 60 or 65kts IAS engine out airspeed. Vx at sea level is 59 KIAS. The POH tells you to fly at a speed below Vx for this particular procedure.

I understand the point you are trying to make, but if examiners are asking students and instructors to demonstrate the procedure, what can an instructor do? Say no and have the student fail the checkride?

[photofly]

There’s no flight test requirement in Canada for a field that is both soft, and obstructed and/or short. Obstructed fields benefitting from a steep climb: no flaps, in an old 172.

As a data point, the aircraft should accelerate to a more normal climb speed as soon as the (simulated) obstacle is cleared. Flight test standards are to use a 50’ obstacle, which is about a wingspan and a half. So if preparing for flight test you don’t need to remain slow for very long at all.

PilotDAR didn’t report if the flaps were extended at takeoff, or whether the aircraft appeared to level off around 50’ while the flaps were retracted and the airplane accelerated to a normal climb profile. Were they, and did it?

[PilotDAR]

Yes, I accept that possibly the same plane was being repeatedly steep climbed on two different training flights to demonstrate a maneuver which is described in the flight manual. And I don't know the standard that the examiner would expect to see for altitude increase during the maneuver. So, I have some open mindedness here. But, When I have demonstrated a maneuver during an examination, or design flight test, which had a higher than normal risk, I discussed risk mitigation. For a steep climb short takeoff, I would discuss the altitude gain expected (the height of the obstacle), and then climb to that altitude, lower the nose an accelerate. I would avoid continuing the steep climb several hundred feet.

To me, a steep, slow climb following takeoff has risk exceeding that of slow flight at very low altitude. Certainly slow flight must be a demonstrated skill, but it can be demonstrated at altitude, as could a Vx climb. Yes, there are times there is a training, or operational need to take a risk well above normal. I hope that prior to flying that training element, the two pilots are discussing it, or the solo pilot is mentally reviewing it.

During my helicopter training, I was told to practice confined area landings, which include a very slow approach and departure over an obstacle. I discussed with my instructor my concern that if the engine even burped at that point, I'd be making a ball out of their very expensive helicopter. His response was: "that's just the risk we take...". "We take? I'm not paying for your helicopter if the engine farts and I'm low and slow!!"

Sometimes we must take risks, they should be acknowledged/discussed, and mitigated as much as possible. IMO, a slow climb to 150-200 feet following takeoff is probably not great risk mitigation.

Add for Photofly's comment: For the pass in front of me, I saw that the landing was with minimum if any flaps extended, and the flaps appeared to be retracted for the steep climb. The 172 was climbed slowly many wingspans in height, certainly more than two.

[Big Pistons Forever]

resulted in a stable glide before the altitude had descended even back to 3000'.

Which is half the objective. Did the airplane, as flown to establish that glide, have enough reserve energy (speed) to be flared prior to 3000 feet, to arrest the rate of descent at 3000 feet momentarily?

This is why I have never been satisfied with a practice forced approach, when the instructor calls for addition of power, and an overshoot at 100 feet up on final, the candidate would not really know if a successful forced landing could have been accomplished. Yes, the plane is gliding, but if you were slow, you might have pulled, or flared early, and run out of energy before landing. A part of this is how precise your flare is. If you do it really well, you can do it later and lower, and thus not need so much speed reserve. But the configuration of the plane (different from others) could really affect how it slows and can be flared. Even changing from a thin blade two blade prop, to a wide blade three blade can make a vital difference! Following my change to a three blade MT, my amphibian glided very differently, and I had to develop new techniques and skills - in the plane I knew well from having 500 hours in it on the two blade Hartzell.

The purpose of the practice forced approach is to train pilots on how to survive an engine failure. Avoiding damaging the aircraft should not be a consideration with any forced approach. The only consideration is avoiding injury to the occupants of the airplane. I would go so far to argue that low touch down speeds can be desirable in confined landing areas as it reduces the forward energy of the aircraft even if the hit is hard. The key issue is to not stall the airplane as it is the wing down/nose down attitude that kills. The accident record clearly shows that as long as the airplane hits the ground in a wings level and level or better still slightly nose up pitch attitude the possibility of injury is quite low even with high descent rates.

The challenge in flight training is IMO the lack of understanding of managing risk in situations where the aircraft is deliberately put in a position where a normal recovery to a glide is not possible. The short field over an obstacle take off exercise is a perfect example of this. For PPL's this exercise IMO should only be practiced as part of a dual lesson and then only after a discussion of where and what the dangers are. It is especially important that the transition to normal climb be promptly initiated after the "obstacle" is cleared which would normally be around 100 ft AGL. Like Pilot DAR I routinely see very steep climb outs to silly high altitudes.

As an aside when I taught the short and soft field exercises 80 % of the brief was PDM. Starting with asking the question "is it a good idea to go into or out of this field under these conditions ?" Then we talk about how we are going to depart the area. In the mountains getting over the trees at the end of the strip may be the least of your problems. Climbing over the ridge or getting out of the valley many be the real challenge.

Finally an airplane at a local school was destroyed on a engine fail after takeoff exercise (AKA the "double touch) The throttle was closed at about 75 ft but at a lower than normal airspeed. The airplane had no energy to flare and hit so hard all 3 gear legs were permanently bent, the firewall caved in, there was a huge wrinkle behind the cabin and the bottom of the wing dished down from the deformation of the fuel tanks. The good news was nobody was hurt, but this was a totally avoidable accident. I would suggest there was no understanding of the low speed low altitude environment on the part of the isntructor.......

[PilotDAR]

More Youtube videos of these foolish and needless steep climbouts, in the guise of "STOL" demonstration. And imagine the offense taken when I comment that it's not a good idea. Some people want to normalize this deviant type of flying... Perhaps so they can try it themsleves, and think it's okay, 'cause they saw others doing it on Youtube. Nope, it's still a bad idea, even if someone's smiling on Youtube about it!

[airway]

Here's some info from the Flight Instructor Guide:

EXERCISE 16
95
TAKE-OFF
Objective
To teach:
(1) How to get the aircraft safely airborne under various conditions of surface, wind and
runway length.
(2) The need to make meaningful decisions as to what type of take-off should be used under
existing conditions.
Motivation
As required.
Essential Background Knowledge
(1) Using the Pilot Operating Handbook explain recommended techniques for a normal
take-off.
Additional take-off considerations for:
(a) Cross-wind. Refer to chart on cross-wind limitations;
(b) Minimum Ground Run. Refer to Pilot Operating Handbook;
Examples:
(i) short fields without obstacles;
(ii) short fields with obstacles;
(iii) soft fields;
(iv) rough fields;
(v) hard surfaces.
(c) Wind shear.

(3) Short field obstacle clearance take-off (hard surface):
(a) Complete the pre-take-off check, and position the aircraft to ensure maximum
take-off distance available;
(b) Demonstrate application of power and use of brakes, and maintain attitude for
minimum aerodynamic drag on take-off run — lift off at recommended speed;
(c) Demonstrate flight technique for acceleration to best angle of climb speed after
lift-off (if applicable — according to type) and emphasize precautions necessary due
to ground effect.

From the PPL Flight Test guide:

B.1 Short-Field Takeoff
Aim
To safely take off from a short field and clear an obstacle, using the correct procedure and technique for the actual or simulated wind conditions, runway length and obstacles to be cleared, and assess the possibility of further conditions such as wind shear and wake turbulence.

Description
For the purpose of this exercise, the examiner will specify simulated conditions, such as available runway length and obstacles to be cleared for the short-field takeoff. The candidate is expected to use the maximum performance takeoff technique recommended in the POH / AFM for the aeroplane type used.

Performance Criteria
Assessment will be based on the candidate’s proficiency to:

review passenger safety (Example; seat belt secure, door locked);
complete appropriate checklists;
respect ATC clearances and instructions;
specify a GO/NO GO decision point to the examiner;
position the flight controls and configure the aeroplane for the actual or simulated conditions;
check for traffic and taxi into position for maximum utilization of available take-off distance;
advance the throttle smoothly to take-off power while holding brakes;
confirm static take-off power has been achieved;
maintain directional control during the take-off roll;
rotate at the recommended airspeed;
establish the pitch attitude for the recommended obstacle clearance airspeed, and maintain that speed (+10/–5 knots) until any actual or simulated obstacle is cleared or until reaching 50 feet AGL ;
retract the landing gear (where applicable) at a safe height;
retract flaps (where applicable) at a safe height and above the minimum recommended flap retraction speed;
maintain take-off power to a safe height, then, where applicable, set climb power (±0.5” MP , ±50 RPM );
maintain directional control and apply drift correction in the climb;
complete appropriate checks.
Note: The accuracy of lateral positioning on the runway during takeoffs and landings will be assessed in accordance with the following criteria:

4 - The fuselage remains over the centerline of the runway/landing surface;
3 – The wing remains over the centerline of the runway/landing surface;
2 – The aeroplane is at or drifts to a position where the centerline of the runway/landing surface is beyond the wing tip;
1 – The aeroplane’s longitudinal axis is at or drifts to more than halfway from the centerline of the runway/landing surface towards the edge of the pavement/prepared surface.

So for the flight test, the Candidate must know how to to do a short field T/O (from a firm surface) with an obstacle (may be higher than 50'), and they must follow the POH procedure.

The 172 POH says (at sea level):
Flap 10
56 Knots until obstacle is cleared then accelerate to normal climb speed (75 Knots) and retract flaps.

Vx (flaps 0) is 60. I assume that Vx flap 10 is 56.
For an engine failure immediately after T/O with flap 10, the POH says accelerate to 60kts and land.
Vs flap 10 is about 50.