Engine quit late downwind at Bankstown 6/6/09

[Critical Reynolds No]

Sorry if a repost but I did a search before hand.
YouTube - Forced landing Bankstown 6June09 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nbqg_GdG3Js&ap=%2526fmt%3D18)

and

YouTube - Bankstown forced landing (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=--WgXzt6ceE&feature=related)

"Blimey, he's gonna stall, he's gonna stall".

[Ultralights]

that looked a lot worse from where i saw it, in the runup bay of 29R.
good to see both exited and walked away with no obvious injuries.

[rioncentu]

Great work.

What's the chance of having 2 camera rolling for th same incident??

[KrispyKreme]

Wow, well done to the pilot:ok: .. i have to ask..but has this tape been sent to the ATSB ? i assume it has :ok:

[Jabawocky]

What's the chance of having 2 camera rolling for th same incident??

You would think pretty slim, but these days the chances are getting better!

That was as close to disaster as you ever want to get!:uhoh:

Kept his cool though. Well done!

[flog]

Don't forget to turn the master off...

[Merlins Magic]

WOW...Thats amazing. Did you see the setup in that Bonza.:D

[airman1]

Nice work to all involved! Where is the DR he will be drooling over the bonza setup for sure:E:E

[glekichi]

Is it just me, or did he actually wing-drop stall onto the grass? :suspect:

[flog]

Is it just me, or did he actually wing-drop stall onto the grass?

He was just applying 3-pointer short field taildragger techniques.

[Joker 10]

If everyone in GAAP did nice tight circuits not wide B747 circuits this would not even rate a mention the runway would be in glide distance from mid downwind as it should be.

[Dave Incognito]

Regardless of your circuit size, a normal powered 3 degree approach is going to mean you are beyond gliding distance of the black stuff at some stage...

[PlankBlender]

Can anyone who knows the locality try to shed light on what the pilot seems to attempt in the seconds before the rather sudden arrival?

I'm a bit puzzled by the angle of bank so close to the ground :eek: Where is the trying to turn, towards the taxiway just behind the waiting Bo?

[GAFA]

Great job, looks like he come close to the sports fields at Condell Park High School.

[das Uber Soldat]

Can anyone who knows the locality try to shed light on what the pilot seems to attempt in the seconds before the rather sudden arrival?

I'm a bit puzzled by the angle of bank so close to the ground http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/eek.gif Where is the trying to turn, towards the taxiway just behind the waiting Bo?He had to fly between the toll hanger and the hanger next to it. He was literally below the level of the buildings and flying between them, hence the HTT guy thinking he wasn't going to make it. The angle of bank was to turn right towards the clear area of the undershoot for 29. If he had straight lined it, he would have hit the fence and the road / poles etc behind it.

A hell of a job in my books. :)

[Ultralights]

If everyone in GAAP did nice tight circuits not wide B747 circuits this would not even rate a mention the runway would be in glide distance from mid downwind as it should be.

i have been roasted a few time by CFI's for teaching, try to make every approach a glide approach. once the power is back to slow down on mid downwind, the throttle shouldn't be touched again until you need it to taxi. unless of course the student is going for CPL and higher.. then ill teach the 3 deg approach.

its how i was taught all those yrs ago, and its saved my arse once. and i teach it to my students. fortunately the CFI now approves of my technique.

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

Where is the DR he will be drooling over the bonza setup for surehttp://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/evil.gifhttp://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/evil.gif

Nooooooooo!

The Dr has seen both the downtime and the bill when one of those big TVs goes blank!

But when I win Lotto ..............

[Mr. Hat]

Well done fella.

[VH-XXX]

You'd expect the engine failure from the Skyfox operating there with the sewing machine up front, not a good old Lycoming. Great video from the chopper, makes me want to do a conversion. Good idea with the camera setup in the chopper, not a bad idea for all lessons if the student bothers to watch it afterwards.

[b_sta]

i have been roasted a few time by CFI's for teaching, try to make every approach a glide approach. once the power is back to slow down on mid downwind, the throttle shouldn't be touched again until you need it to taxi. unless of course the student is going for CPL and higher.. then ill teach the 3 deg approach.

its how i was taught all those yrs ago, and its saved my arse once. and i teach it to my students. fortunately the CFI now approves of my technique.

Yep, I agree. If that had been the case here, the only worry would have been coming in too high over the runway, rather than whether he'd make it at all. Nevertheless, the plane and the passengers came out in one piece, so that's the important thing and a job well done.

[Ultralights]

Fortunately the cherokee made the field, so he wasn't too far out.. and everything ended well, but this morning, 3 aircraft in the circuit, not too busy, but 2 aircraft were well, reprimanded by the tower for breaching the Sydney zone to the east!! not a bad effort i thought! turning base 4 miles from the strip! first time i have even been Number 3, then asked to turn base from mid downwind and be placed Number 1.

[b_sta]

Sure you're not mistaken? They might've been on final for 16L at Mascot :E

[jamsquat]

Freight dog,
3nm to the east of Tyabb puts you out over westernport bay!!! All circuits at tyabb are all out to the east but far enough to avoid the township for the downwind leg. The school there teaches the students to use the greenbelts/clearings for crosswind, base legs and the dams to the north and the Steelmill buildings to the south as turning points. These are approx 1.5nm from the strip centreline. Downwind at tyabb presents you with multiple clear paddocks to put the plane down in if a glide approach was not possible. Hardly compares with GAAP's like YSBK and YMMB where the only option is a glide to the airport or land on a factory roof.

JS

[wishiwasupthere]

The school there teaches the students to use the greenbelts/clearings for crosswind, base legs and the dams to the north and the Steelmill buildings to the south as turning points.

Slightly off subject, but I've always thought its poor form to teach where to turn in the circuit based on ground features. Isn't it better to use a 'picture' of what the runway looks like at the different turn points to judge when to turn. Those ground features that students are taught aren't going to be much help when operating from a different airfield.

[jamsquat]

I agree with you "WIWUT" that it doesn't help when using other airfields. Unfortunately at Tyabb there is a "fly neighbourly aggreement"in place to try and appease the locals who are forever complaining about aircraft flying over there homes. Even though the airport was there long before the buildup of homes this is a kind of compromise and is only suggested not enforced.
Sorry for the thread drift.

JS

[remoak]

Wow, well done to the pilot

It looks to me like a desperate attempt to get back to the field at all costs, resulting in a moderately steep turn after which the aircraft had no airpseed or inertia left and just flopped onto the ground.

I suppose some would see that as a good result, however he was indeed incredibly lucky not to cartwheel it, and judging by the way it flopped onto the ground, very lucky not to stall/spin before he got there.

So you can say a lot of things about this video, but not that it was a demonstration of skill. It was a nearly out-of-control arrival and the pilot was very, very lucky.

Having said that, I don't know the area so maybe it was the best choice in the circumstances...

I'll just go and put my nomex flight suit on... righto, flame away... :E

[glekichi]

Isn't it better to use a 'picture' of what the runway looks like at the different turn points to judge when to turn.

Yes and no.

Differing widths and lengths between runways will have even a moderately experienced pilot (including myself) fooled at times. Although, the more exposure to this earlier on the better. Still, I don't think there is anything wrong with using known points for a turn when learning what a high, normal, and low approach look like for a given field.

It's also very easy to say all circuits should be flown within gliding distance, and, without a doubt, this should be used whenever practical. But, there are times when it just ain't the case.

The only issue I see here is the airspeed (or, more importantly, energy) management and steep(ish) turn close to the ground.

Regardless, it was an EXCELLENT outcome!

[das Uber Soldat]

remoak: I tend to agree in the sense that he never should have been so far away on downwind that making the field would be an issue at all, especially considering that he would have been near 1500 ft when it quit in the first place. Maybe this will teach a few of the muppets at the airport to stop doing scenic flights of the GAAP boundary when they're supposed to be doing circuits.

However, I think there is room to appreciate a good effort even when you put yourself in the situation through your own poor performance/decision making. Gimly (sp?) glider being an example. He did Ok to fly in between buildings, make a low level turn and impact the ground in a level and nose up attitude.

[Horatio Leafblower]

You'd expect the engine failure from the Skyfox operating there with the sewing machine up front, not a good old Lycoming.

Not suggesting for a second that the following statement applies in this case... but a Lycoming, Rotax, Conty, P&W or a RR will all go quiet if the fuel is contaminated with excess air....

Did anyone happen to look in the fuel tanks after the prang?

Regardless, points to the pilot for pulling his nuts out of the fire :ok:

[RadioSaigon]

It looks to me like a desperate attempt to get back to the field at all costs, resulting in a moderately steep turn after which the aircraft had no airpseed or inertia left and just flopped onto the ground.

Concur. This bloke was very nearly a victim of the strange proclivity apparent to be flying 747 circuits in a bug-smasher.

Are students no longer taught how to fly a proper visual circuit??? Reference to ground turning-points should only be used in the ab-initio stages IMO to assist the student in developing the sight-picture references they will use in future. What about managing and using the energy inherent in their airframe during the approach? Is that a skill no longer taught???

A couple of years ago, I was SLF on a C-402 flight from Yandicoogina - Newman, operated by a couple of loose units representing a well known WA operator. I started a timer abm the piano-keys on a very wide downwind -where I would have started my approach, but closer in- and it was 4 minutes with flap & gear out before we turned base!!! I was interested to see what it would be because I had frequently seen aircraft disappearing out of sight from the downwind on approach... that flight concluded with the aircraft dragged to the threshold by lots of power in what I assume they thought was a "stabilised" approach, right on the back of L/D curve. If they'd lost a mill anywhere on that approach, VMCA departure would probably have been the immediate consequence.

From what I've seen, that sort of thing appears to be the norm these days. I shudder to think how these "pilots" would manage in a real power-loss incident. They would simply have no idea of how to judge their approach, manage their energy -or get where they're going.

This guy was lucky. No more and no less.

[Extra260]

I don't know about bankstown, but at YSCB students are taught the correct distances for a circuit, both in briefings and in the circuit. The trouble is you rarely actually get to complete a "normal" circuit.. ATC sends us off to woop woop very often. I'm often left praying I don't have to a do a forced landing on an office roof or someone's back yard.

260.

[Mr Whippy]

Before canning the guy, you experts might have considered that you have no idea about the circumstances that lead to him ending up where he did.

They walked away - a good outcome in my book.:ok:

[remoak]

you experts might have considered that you have no idea about the circumstances that lead to him ending up where he did.

Already admitted that, but let me ask you a question. Is it better to try and stretch it to get back to the airport, and arrive with only just enough energy left to stall it on to the ground - having been very fortunate to avoid cartwheeling and possibly a stall/spin; or would it be better to recognise that you couldn't get back to the airport safely and put it down somewhere less convenient?

Sully (Hudson River A320 guy) made a far better decision. The Bankstown guy was just very lucky.

It does concern me a little that we applaud such decision making as correct on the basis that "he walked away from it". Kinda reminds me of Evil Knievel...

Kinda makes me wonder about the level of instruction over there in the West Island too. Over here in Godzone, it is normally taught that if you aren't absolutely sure that you can comfortably make the field, you put it down somewhere else while you still have enough energy and control to land safely. This guy had already said that he didn't think he could make it back, if I heard the recording correctly, so you have to wonder why he continued.

Maybe one of the locals could shed some light on whether there are any possible alternative landing venues at Bankstown in this situation?

[das Uber Soldat]

Maybe one of the locals could shed some light on whether there are any possible alternative landing venues at Bankstown in this situation?

None really.

For the most part I don't think its fair to say that everyone is being taught to fly ridiculous circuits. The regs state fairly clearly 1/2 - 3/4 of a mile, most instructors I know try to keep somewhere in that vicinity. To have an engine failure and not be able to comfortably make it back to the field, even in a stiff northerly is completely unacceptable.

There isnt a school in YSBK that I know of that actively asks its instructors to fly large circuits to extort more money out of students. Usually when someone is flying an enormous circuit, its a gIII instructor who is at their limit monitoring the student and the aircraft and has lost S.A. Something that happens fairly regularly i'm afraid. That or its a northerly blowing.

[Ultralights]

unfortunately when arriving for 29R or Centre, once your on downwind there is really nowhere to go safely in the event of a failure. downwind for 29 R is started at 1500ft and apart from the golf courses to the west of the field, under the approach for 11, the only other option i keep in my mind is a direct turn towards the field and aim to land across all 3 strips, or what remains of the old 18/36 strip.

if you dont make any of those options, you will be landing on a roof, or tearing the plane apart on powerlines as you aim for a narrow backstreet.

[Cloud Basher]

Rant On.

I love the Monday morning quarterbacks here who are tearing this poor guy apart, who just happened to make a successful forced landing and he and his one or two pax walked away from it.

Yeah all you Chuck Yeagers and Bob Hoovers may have done a better job, but the people are safe. Some on here have a go at this guy and then admit they have never even flown from Bankstown! You say that he should have put it in a more suitable area and don't know the surrounding. Perhaps short of the runway WAS the most suitable area.

Instead of ripping this guy a new one for surviving a forced landing and successfully and safely getting out and maybe the aircraft is even useable again (I don't know I can't tell from the vid), how about a little praise for a job well done and give the guy a break

Yeah there may have been some Luck involved, but the fact he walked away from it and the aircraft is upright is a hell of a lot more that luck. I love it how some people here base their huge knowledge of this incident on two crappy videos on the internet. You should all be ashamed to call yourself fellow aviators with the way you have treated this guy here. Yep I am sure everyone of you would have been able to put this down on a factory roof, or suburban street missing all people, cars, power poles, schools etc and then walked away with the aircraft being largely intact. Good job all you knockers. I wish I was as good as you blokes, a lot of whom have never even been tested in a real situation like this I am sure.

I was always taught you can't argue with success and if this isn't the epitome of a successful forced landing then I don't know what is. It may not have been pretty but last time I looked you son't get points for pretty in a real forced landing.

Rant off. I return you to your regular cr&p tearing someone else a new As&#ole

CB

P.S. Wouldn't know the pilot from a bar of soap in case anyone was thinking it might be me (bit hard as I am in the States at the moment!) or a friend of mine.

[blueloo]

Completely agree with Cloud Basher

He made it, safely. It wasn't pretty, but he made it.

[Mr Whippy]

Already admitted that, but let me ask you a question. Is it better to try and stretch it to get back to the airport, and arrive with only just enough energy left to stall it on to the ground - having been very fortunate to avoid cartwheeling and possibly a stall/spin; or would it be better to recognise that you couldn't get back to the airport safely and put it down somewhere less convenient?

Sully (Hudson River A320 guy) made a far better decision. The Bankstown guy was just very lucky.

You admit you have no idea but you're still making assumptions?:mad:

[glekichi]

It is that very last part of the glide where it is incredibly critical to keep the aircraft flying, and not be tempted to raise that nose - yet so many get it wrong trying to stretch the glide or turn too steeply.

That is the reason that so many here are being critical. I don't think anyone is trying to tear him a new one, but it is a pretty good example of how NOT to manage the last part of a forced landing, and people need to recognise that and learn from it.

This guy was VERY lucky. Great job of getting it there, but had the wing dropped a second earlier, or god forbid, the other way, it would have been very messy - and for no good reason.

Use of the flaps at the right moment may have helped, also.

Once again, a great outcome, but not a video to show people as an example of how it should be done.

[remoak]

You admit you have no idea but you're still making assumptions?No, I was asking a question. That is what is normally meant by a sentence that includes the phrase "let me ask you a question".

And the thinking enunciated by Cloud Basher - that if you get away with it, it is automatically OK - is why people try to do stupid things and end up dead. Good luck with that.

[Cloud Basher]

And the thinking enunciated by Cloud Basher - that if you get away with it, it is automatically OK - is why people try to do stupid things and end up dead. Good luck with that.

Well actually the thinking by Cloudbasher was that perhaps this guy is much better than a lot here and was a good enough pilot to be able to get the most out of his aircraft and the energy avialable to him, in order to make the only suitable landing spot within cooee of Bankstown. The fact the aircraft had bugger all energy left at the end means he used EVERYTHING available to him in order to survive, and the FACT remains he DID survive, so perhaps his skill level is well above that of a lot of us out there purporting to be pilots. Perhaps, he was as skillful as CAPT Sully. Perhaps he could give Bob Hoover a run for his money. All of this is assumption, except the difference is my assumptions are assuming the cup is half full, not half empty. I prefer to take positive lesson out of something like this. Do we not want to arrive with the absolute minimum amount of energy if we have a forced landing? In this case isn't this close to textbook? Not perfect mind you, as can be seen by the drop from about five feet, but he still had enough airflow over the wings to level them prior to touchdown, so he used everything he had to to get to his intended landing spot safely. Bravo Zulu.

It is that very last part of the glide where it is incredibly critical to keep the aircraft flying, and not be tempted to raise that nose - yet so many get it wrong trying to stretch the glide or turn too steeply.

glekichi,
I agree 100% with this statement, as I am sure would every other aviator. i was always taught to fly the aircraft ALL the way to the ground. What I don't agree with is your next part as he did level his wings, he did land the aircraft, it may have been harder than normal, but he did it and it worked.

Maybe it could have been done better, the fact of this is that WE DO NOT KNOW!!!!!!! We weren't there, we weren't in the pilots seat and we are basing all our ideas on a couple of radio calls and five seconds of footage.

The FACTS are:
1. He and his pax survived.
3. He made the airfield area (if not the runway but it was a "suitable" landing area, much moreso than any other options surrounding Bankstown)
2. The aircraft is (probably) reuseable.

We can play what-ifs all day saying he is lucky he didn't catch a wingtip, he is lucky he stalled it so close to the ground etc etc, all I am saying is give the guy the benefit of the doubt due to the fact that he made it in one piece!

I am all for learning from this but we can do this in a positive way without assumptions, not in the negative way that seems to infect so many on this forum.

Over here, a guy recently had high oil temps and pressures in a twin with smoke coming from the engine. (I previously posted a pic of the pot here when the engineers had removed it from the engine). He was 8 miles from an airport and as the engine was still making partial power he elected to use everything in that engine in order to make the field. He made it, the engine is stuffed but he, his student and the aircraft are all safe and in one piece. We debriefed this and I would have shut the engine down and secured it in this instance, however he chose not to for a number of reasons all of them valid to him! During the debrief some people said they would do the same as him, others said they would have shut it down. The point is, at the end of the debrief, he was patted on the back with a job well done. I learnt a lot out of it, and so did he and his student as well as the instructors at the school and the other pilots in attendance. Whilst some may disagree with his descision to keep it running, no-one was nasty about it as are people here, there was no mention of luck, and everyopne went away thinking, 1. Glad it wasn't me, 2. I have some more tools in my tool box now if a similar situation occurs. People here appear all high and mighty and say this and that and appear to have closed minds and don't want to learn, they would rather throw rocks. Very sad indeed.

If we are to play what-ifs do it in a way that doesn't drag this pilot into a hypothetical saying "he is lucky, he stuffed it completely, I could have done it oh-so-much-better" when the facts PROVE different and you have NOTHING to back up how you would have handled it any better. YOU (and me!) may have put it into a child care centre and killed 15 0-4 year olds! We simply don't know.

I guess it also comes down to the type of people that are attracted to aviation. Most are type A personalities, control freaks. We are always the best pilots, we can always do it better than the next guy. All I am asking is perhaps we can all learn a lot out of this, perhaps it could have been done better.

Gelkichi, rather than phrasing this like you did:
That is the reason that so many here are being critical. I don't think anyone is trying to tear him a new one, but it is a pretty good example of how NOT to manage the last part of a forced landing, and people need to recognise that and learn from it.

This guy was VERY lucky. Great job of getting it there, but had the wing dropped a second earlier, or god forbid, the other way, it would have been very messy - and for no good reason.

Use of the flaps at the right moment may have helped, also.

Once again, a great outcome, but not a video to show people as an example of how it should be done.

Perhaps we could say somethign along the lines of:
"In a simliar situation you have the choice of flaps in order to provide a slower approach speed, but remember they shorten your glide distance, causing your touchdown point the be closer to you than your previous non-flap touchdown point. You need to way this up in your mind (in an instant!) It may cause you to put it down in the areas before the runway which may have a fence you might need to go through but you will achieve a more controlled landing (the area before the fence is I believe clear for 100 or so metres IIRC), This may be a valid option to ensure absolute positive control of the aircraft right to touchdown, however you then accept the damage that will result to the airframe due to the chain link boundary fence. This may cause other issues, but needs to be in your thought process. Also you don't necessarily need to land on a runway as was shown by this pilot. You could land directly across the runways or in whatever direction (preferably into wind) that will allow you to get on the ground, don't be a sucker for thinking you have to land in the same direction as the runway or you absolutely have to land into wind.

The pilot in this case appeared to stall the aircraft immediately before touchdown. In this instance it worked as he had levelled the wings and the distance above the ground was such that a wingdrop, even if it did occur would not have resulted in an issue because he was only a couple of feet off the ground. Your decision to make as the PIC, whether to accept maybe going through a fence and the damage that may result to you and your passenger or the possible risk of a stall just before landing. If you stall it too far above the ground and a wing drops your wing could dig in and the aircraft cartwheel. If this happens you are definitely a passenger and at the mercy of the crashworthiness of the aircraft you are flying. Always fly the aircraft onto the ground. The pilot in this instance from the five seconds of video we have, appears to have used every bit of energy available to him so he arrived with the minimum amount of energy. This shoudl always be a goal, especially where the landing area is small! It obviously worked and he survived. Whatever happens we need to unsure that we touchdown wings level, preferably with little sideslip as that can also cause a cartwheel.

Great job to the pilot, glad you walked away, tailwinds and blue skies to you".

This to me is much more valuable, much more positive and gives points for pilots to ponder over and discuss, rather than saying he was lucky, he was hopeless pilot, his descision making was flawed, etc.

What I find really amusing is that if there was no video of this incident poeple would have nothing but praise for this pilot for safely putting down his aircraft, surviving and not putting anyone else on the ground in danger. Instead we must now second guess his every move and descision. He was successful, take what you want from the video, I myself take away from this that in this instance he did the main things right, touched down wings level, with absolute minimum airspeed on a suitable area. It wasn't pretty but he walked away.

Cheers
CB

[Atlas Shrugged]

or would it be better to recognise that you couldn't get back to the airport safely and put it down somewhere less convenient?


EVERYWHERE around Bankstown is less convienient.

[glekichi]

CB

I am not as PC as you, nor am I as good at sugar coating things.

I am also not attacking the pilot himself, but rather, those who seem to be making it out to be some kind of chuck yeager-ish demonstration of skill.

No matter how many times I watch that video I cannot see that he rolled the wings level as you suggest. The wing just happened to drop, due to the stall, in the right direction.

Flaps: Always use full flaps! Even if you have to wait until the last couple of seconds, when your inertia will mean that you're in the flare before the extra drag spoils your glide. Know how lowering the flaps will affect your aircraft in such circumstances.

FACT is that he broke several of the 'rules' of forced landings, just in that few seconds the aircraft is on video.

Do I think I could do better? Possibly, but without being in that situation, as you say, we will never know. Would I be just as critical of my own performance, ABSOLUTELY.

[remoak]

perhaps this guy is much better than a lot here and was a good enough pilot to be able to get the most out of his aircraft and the energy avialable to himOr perhaps he was desperate to get back to the field and hadn't really thought through whether it was possible to do so with any margin at all (which is completely understandable). He didn't "get the most out of his aircraft and the energy available to him" as he was essentially out of control when he hit the ground.

perhaps his skill level is well above that of a lot of us out there purporting to be pilots. Perhaps, he was as skillful as CAPT Sully. Perhaps he could give Bob Hoover a run for his moneyOr perhaps he made bad decisions and was lucky enough to get away with it. Perhaps he will now think that he can get away with everything, and perhaps others will look at his example and think they can get away with pretty much anything as well. Just perhaps.

the difference is my assumptions are assuming the cup is half full, not half emptyIt has nothing to do with optimism or pessimism. However, your attitude reflects common GA thinking, mine reflects typical airline safety department thinking. You think that because the guy lived he is automatically right, whereas I think he was incredibly lucky and that his actions should be teased apart and analysed to find out what (if anything) he did wrong. That way, we all learn something. Anybody with half a brain can see that it is not personal, it is not an attack, it is just a balanced appraisal of what actually happened and why. It also acknowledges that nobody is immune from making mistakes, and that humility and professionalism beat "onya mate!" every time and twice on Sundays.

Your attitude is the reason why GA has the safety record that it does, mine is the reason that airlines (in the western world, anyway) have the safety record that they do. Honest and dispassionate appraisals obviously bother you, but they are the only way safety ever improves.

And before you interpret the above as a personal attack on you, it isn't. It is my growing lack of patience with the common PPRuNe practice of praising any pilot that gets away with anything and automatically assuming that they can have done wrong.

glekichi said it well, and like him I would be the first to be critical of my own performance after an incident - in fact, in the airline environment there would be an extensive debriefing following any emergency and it wouldn't be predicated on the feelings of the pilot. That's how you improve safety...

Oh... and by the way - please indicate where anybody has said this guy was a useless pilot or not skilled or any of the other pejorative terms you used. We aren't talking about that.

[werbil]

My $0.02 cents:

The pilot told the tower near the end that he didn't think he was going to make it - this tells me that his original plan did not work as he intended.

IMHO the number one priority in an aircraft incident is to select the option which gives the greatest possibility of protecting peoples lives if the plan doesn't work perfectly. If this means you select the 'conservative' option where you plan to seriously damage the aircraft in the process it is a far better option than choosing to taking a 50% chance of an undamaged aircraft with a 50% chance of everyone being killed.

I don't think anyone involved in this discussion suggests the pilot had any energy left in the bank when he 'landed'. If the actual performance achieved was any less for any reason whatsoever it is quite likely that the occupants of the aircraft would have been seriously injured or possibly killed.

From a simplistic outcome based assessment the pilot passed as everyone walked away from the aircraft.

From a risk based perspective I'm sure that even the pilot will agree that there were numerous things that could have been differently to increase the probability of a 'walk away' outcome. The only way to improve as pilots is by evaluating what could have been done better, otherwise we commit ourselves to mediocrity.

werbil

PS remoak :ok:

[Cloud Basher]

remoak,

I guess in your airline safety debriefs, you immediately say “X would have been a better way of doing this and Joe Bloggs airline pilot was very lucky", BEFORE all the facts are known? No I didn't think so. You wait for all possible facts to come in, you go through it with other knowledgeable people, you disect THE FACTS, you don't make assumptions and you come out with lessons learned modify training, brief other pilots, put it out out the world if need be etc. What you DON'T do is exactly what you have done here, that is make assumptions based on 5 seconds of footage and then state the pilot was lucky. Luck may have been involved, but we are only assuming this.

The pilot may be of the skill of CAPT Sully and Bob Hoover or he may be the worlds worst GA pilot who let go of the controls on downwind and the landomatic Cherokee pretty much landed itself! My point is we don't know, so to say luck is involved is wrong at this point in time. I am sure if the pilot is a good pilot then he will be going over this in his mind, debriefing himself and working out how he could have done it better.
Cutting through all the crap, I think you and me are actually saying pretty much the same thing. I agree his actions should be teased apart, I agree that we can all learn something from this. I just dont' agree with doing it on a public board without anything more than 5 seconds of footage. If you must do this then my suggestion on how to do it in my previous post may be a better way of doing things. Maybe not...

BTW I have also been invoved in the investigation of two aircraft crashes and nothing gets my goat more than people Monday morning quarterbacking the pilot/s before all the facts are known. Thus my rather "heart on the sleeve" response to this I guess.
It is my growing lack of inpatience with the common PPRuNe practice of dismissing a pilots actions as luck or (insert a pergorative term here), anything but pilot skill regardless of the outcome without knowing the facts, that even got me to post on this thread (and the thread about the Police pilots). Have a look at the threads on the Air France flight for further proof!
re my attitude: What I do in my day job is irrelevant, other than to say we brief, analyse, debrief and make changes, brief, analyse, debrief and so on it goes until we are as perfect as a human can be at our jobs. We have some of the strictest safety protocols we possibly can or else we and those affected turn to pink mist. Believe me when I say that egos and personalities are left at the door and everything is laid naked, disected in minutae until we come up with continually better ways of achieving our goals. We do this every day. So it is not just airline pilots who go through this process and have this attitude. So please do not tell me what my attitude is.
I also agree with gekichi, I would also be the first to analyse and if necessary constructively criticise my own actions. I am sure nearly every pilot would after these circumstances and all good pilots would as a matter of course do it after every flight. I don't agree with his blanket statement saying ALWAYS use full flaps.

You are right, it was my interpretation of what people had said that came up with "perjorative" terms, but I am sure more than one person reading this thread has had the same interpretation of what was being said.

And other than the attitude thing, I haven’t taken anything you have said as a personal attack.


Cheers
CB

[Cloud Basher]

Werbil
My point exactly. It may very well be choices made earlier that drove the outcome of the landing and no one including Chuck Yeager may have been able to do better than the pilot did. We simply don't know. Perhaps he could have turned towards the field earlier (perhaps he already did?), perhaps he could have traded speed for height (perhaps he already did), perhaps he could have restrated the engine (perhaps he tried), perhaps he could have used flaps (perhaps he tried and they jammed?), perhaps he took 10 or 15 seconds before his brain accepted the power loss, during which time he lost speed and altitude (perhaps he responded immediately).

My point is we simply do not know, so perhaps the end was a lucky outcome as remoke says, due to a whole heap of holes in the swiss cheese lining up and the pilot not connecting the dots and making the right decisions. Or perhaps he acted as good as anyone possible could and the outcome was as good as anyone would have achieved under the circumstances.

I think we all agree here we need to learn from it so as you say we are not stuck with mediocrity, but lets base it on facts not assumptions. Thats all I am saying.

Cheers
CB

[desmotronic]

geez tough crowd in here... i reckon he did a good job, no stall far as i can see

[D-J]

no stall far as i can see

no question that it was a fully stalled landing from about 10-15ft....

whilst I can understand both CB's & remoak's point of view (their essentally saying the same thing, just a little more passion from CB's end)
I have to say from watching that video irrespective of how he arrived at that point in the 5 seconds of video I think there was a fair bit of luck considering the a/c was stalled & in a wing drop, how ever he & his pax walked away so a good out come but I hope the pilot is questioning himself & looking for ways to improve as we all should after a incident like that. Video is a great training aid if he gets a copy of that vid might help him with his recollection of the event

[Matt-YSBK]

That missed the home of my duchess by meters. Next time aim for toll they have enough money allready.

[desmotronic]

DJ,


If it was a stall from 15 ft with a wing drop where is the high rate of descent, where is the nose drop, why is the nose gear still intact, why no cartwheel, how did he roll wings level prior to touch down. :rolleyes:

[Ultralights]

for those making comment on the options, and have no idea of the surrondings at YSBK...

well, here are your options....

http://pamuva1.smugmug.com/photos/570611540_rncok-M.jpg
all this to the north of the field.

http://pamuva1.smugmug.com/photos/570612623_a2q9x-M.jpg
all this while on downwind for 29 as was the case on that fateful day (departed 11 in this shot, but same track, just reversed when inbound to 29)

http://pamuva1.smugmug.com/photos/570612118_vjW4k-M.jpg
and your options on base for 29. this is where our cherokee pilot was approaching from, but substantially lower. his landing site is just to the left of this shot before the threshold of the closest runway.

as you can see. plenty of options... where would you go?

as i said before, he did a fantastic job just to make the field.

[RadioSaigon]

I reckon perhaps you are reading a bit too much into some of the comments Cloud Basher and others. I've not seen any comments that could be construed as "tearing the bloke a new one" or anything of the like. For the record, I believe any pilot should be justifiably proud of the outcome -no injuries, minimal damage, everyone walked away from it... but whether you like it or not, Monday-morning quarterbacking is what pilots do. Or have you never read a crash/incident report and wondered how you might go in the same situation, or read something and thought to yourself "********..."? Tell me you haven't, I'll show you someone deluding themselves.

What is being questioned here, is the process by which the outcome was achieved. I'd lay my bottom dollar on that aircraft being fully stalled throught the final turn, with the subsequent arrival being decided by the fates. Now, I haven't spent the time watching the clip(s) again but a couple of questions for you: How long from his 1st indication of trouble to the arrival? Using say 70KIAS as his speed, what distance would he have covered in that time-period? Given the 1500' circuit-height documented here by others and the time-elapsed, what was his ROD roughly during that period? Based on those figures can you extrapolate what the performance achieved was like for the aircraft? How does it all stack-up now? I'm genuinely interested! Does anyone know if he turned immediately towards a suitable approach from the 1st sign of trouble?

To reiterate: this is not intended as a crucifiction of someone that achieved an enviable result, but as a learning process -something we can all take valuable lessons away from.

And yes, I have been tested, once. A C-172 onto NZRC (on Google Earth at S46 53 57.05 E168 06 19.48) more years ago now than I care to remember. When I reduced power for the approach at 1000' around Horseshoe Bay, I lost all power due a carb assembly that had worked loose. Conserved height, made the runway and landed after crossing the threshold clean at about 100AGL -not usual practice for that strip. I definitely wasn't fond of the landing short alternative though, so flap stayed in until I was certain. My CP witnessed the event from the ground & was there to chew on my arse for a crap approach -until I mentioned it was FLWOP from quite a ways out.

And desmotronic, like you, I too am amazed that none of the things you mentioned happened -but for a very different reason.

[desmotronic]

Radiosaigon,
jeez you go on about a load of codswallop!

Wot ultralight said.. well done that man!

[remoak]

Cloud Basher

I guess in your airline safety debriefs, you immediately say “X would have been a better way of doing this and Joe Bloggs airline pilot was very lucky", BEFORE all the facts are known? No I didn't think so. You wait for all possible facts to come in, you go through it with other knowledgeable people, you disect THE FACTS, you don't make assumptions and you come out with lessons learned modify training, brief other pilots, put it out out the world if need be etc. What you DON'T do is exactly what you have done here, that is make assumptions based on 5 seconds of footage and then state the pilot was lucky. Luck may have been involved, but we are only assuming this.

Actually, no. It doesn't go like that at all.

Normally, after an incident that didn't result in an injury but is still notifiable (say a three-engine landing for example), the pilots would be stood down and rushed off to HQ for an interview with the Chief Pilot or Fleet Manager. They would ask a couple of simple questions, like "Did you follow SOPs" and "were there any special circumstances". If the incident was handled in a routine manner, there would normally be a couple of questions like "can you think of anything you could have done better" and "In the light of your experience, do you think we need to change the SOPs?", and that would be it. Back to work with you.

If there was a suspicion that SOPs had not been followed or that there had been a breakdown in cockpit procedure, the FDR and CVR would be pulled.

The point here is that it isn't brain surgery. In this case, the video and the radio conversations tell you 95% of what you need to know. The physical facts are obvious, the only thing we don't know is what the decision-making process of the pilot was. Whatever it was, it doesn't alter the fact that he arrived in the way that he did (ie basically out of control). Whether you consider that to be a good thing or not, I'll leave to you.

Ultralights

Kind of hard to tell from the photos, but looking at Google Earth I can see a few (better) options.

he did a fantastic job just to make the field.

The point a few of are getting at is that the making the field in an out-of-control fashion, versus landing in a more controlled fashion off the airport, is not a fantastic job at all. It is simply testing the limits of luck.

RadioSaigon

As you can see, not everybody wants to learn!

[Cloud Basher]

remoak,
actually what I said was almost exactly what you say you do, you just gave what I called the "knowledgeable people" a name, that of the CP or Fleet manager and gave the notifying of other pilots/the world a term of changing SOP's. I was just keeping it general.

So we do agree!

You are right, it isn't rocket surgery:ok:. As someone who obviously hasn't done much if any flying out of Bankstown, you really are showing your ignorance of the options when you make statements about using google earth to find suitable landing spots. Every pilot I know who flies out of Bankstown knows EXACTLY where the options are and already has a plan of exactly where they are going to go if a power failure/fire/whatever happens at any point in the circuit, lets call it a personal SOP if you like. He may not have had this and it may have been luck. If this is the case he would be one of the pilots who simply sticks his head in the sand and says "it won't happen to me". But I do believe it is a bit more than luck the he survived. Maybe not much, but a bit...:oh:

Anyway here is the crux of this whole issue - Guess what, even if what you say is 100% correct and he put himself in a position where he had no control of the aircraft for the last 50 feet, it was an uncontrolled crash that just happened to be 100% luck that he and his pax walked away, it was still an awesome job, because - knowing the options - it was the most survivable area in which to try and get to, even if there was a risk of an uncontrolled landing. To try and go anywhere else within gliding distance would mean he would put others at risk on the ground, those being factory workers or houses that contain families, or car drivers etc. Therefore he had NOTHING to lose by trying to make the field.

He was either:
1. Going to crash into houses or factories anywhere but the field, thus the chances of survival being slim but the chances of injuring someone else on the ground being great; or
2. He was going to try and make the field, which if he didn't would result in option 1 above, so no difference, but if he did make it, even in an uncontrolled manner, at least it only put him and his pax at risk and not others on the ground.

So yeah, I concede to you that he may have been lucky, but perhaps, just perhaps this guy made the right decision and did not put anyone except himself and his pax in danger due to his actions. Just perhaps, because as we both have said we have no idea of his actions previous, or his actual position, or what other things he took into account in deciding to try and make his "basically uncontrolled" landing at Bankstown.

Anyway I thank you for the discussion, it has been enlightening and it did make me think even more about options at YSBK. You will be happy to know I have even looked at my own "personal YSBK operations SOP's" with a fresh set of eyes, I need to go for another few circuits at YSBK in order to confirm a couple of changes in my courses-of-action and what I believe are a couple of extra options that I had not previously considered. But this is just me and I will be discussing all of these with other pilots who operate out of YSBK on my return in a couple of weeks. Thus my "knowledgeable" people, to see if the SOP's do indeed changing or my original SOP's were better.

Guess it comes back to aviation being all about decisions, and I guess one of the things that attracts me to aviation is that you get immediate feedback on the validity of those decisions. No long wait to know if you are right or wrong.

Cheers
CB

[PlankBlender]

If it was a stall from 15 ft with a wing drop where is the high rate of descent, where is the nose drop, why is the nose gear still intact, why no cartwheel, how did he roll wings level prior to touch down.

desmotronic, you're kidding right? :eek: If you can't see that this is a stall, you'd be well advised for the safety of your passengers, the people sharing the skies with you, not to mention your own, to seek some training. :ooh:

Honestly, I'm not trying to put you down or anything, but there's clearly a deficiency in your training somewhere, and it'll bit you in the @ss sooner or later if you don't address it!

What may be getting you is that this stall is happening so close to the ground and just before the aeroplane 'lands' that it looks like it's supposed to happen.

Pause the video at 1:22 and look at the angle of attack of the outer wing. Reckon it's above the 18 or so degrees stalling angle to the oncoming airflow? I'd say that's a pretty safe assumption.

What follows is exactly what a stalled aeroplane would do:


Extremely rapid roll to the side of the stalled outer wing -- very unlikely this roll rate would be pilot input. If he'd been a few feet higher at the point where the wheels touch the ground, the aeroplane would have had more time to roll longitudinally (i.e. further wing drop) and the wing would have gone in the ground, with the obvious consequences :eek:
nose drop resulting in the dust-splashing 'landing' -- again if he'd been a few feet higher at that point, the aeroplane would have had more time to roll laterally (i.e. more nose down movement before hitting the ground) and would have arrived on the nose wheel with more force, most likely breaking it. Look closely at that arrival moment, the main wheel have a split second on the ground (thereby absorbing some of the energy and being able to straighten the aeroplane out somewhat) before the remaining energy goes onto the nose wheel resulting in a pronounced 'nodding''; the pilot was more than lucky it held! Mind you, it's now toast and will need replacement, I think that's another fair assumption :eek:
after the wheels are on the ground, there are the beginnings of a cartwheel, again it's more likely it's remaining energy dissipating than deliberate pilot input


After entering that steep angle of bank so close to the ground, the pilot had very little to do with the outcome as the effectiveness of the controls would have been severely impaired, and this methinks is where the main lesson would be to take away from this:

If you bank an aeroplane that steeply without power so close to the ground, you're tempting fate.

Unnecessarily too, because without that last bank (starting 1:21), he would have been over more or less level ground and could have washed off any remaining energy in a flare and landed the thing in control.

Was the pilot very lucky that the events unfolded the way they did? If you still doubt this after the above explanation, show the video to a senior instructor and have a chat about it. If I was wrong in my analysis, I'd love to hear about it too.

..and to some of the others here -- you know who you are -- if people are supposed to learn from this (and it's clear from the responses there's a need for it!), stop w@nking on about how to best analyse an incident and actually start doing it:ugh:

[The Green Goblin]

Do I think I could do better? Possibly, but without being in that situation, as you say, we will never know. Would I be just as critical of my own performance, ABSOLUTELY.

:yuk:

Back to your flock of sheep mate :mad:

[Cloud Basher]

Plankbender, Fair points, I'll now analyse what few facts we have!

Your analysis and explanation are spot on as far as I am concerned from what we can see.

You did mix up your lateral and longitudinal rolls and axies, (an aircraft rolls laterally around its longitudinal axis and it pitches longitudinally about its lateral axis:ok:) but I am just being a dick pointing this out!:p

You can see the stall begin just as the aircraft starts to roll. You can also notice the fully deflected stabilator from that point. Looking more and more at this now I can see where you guys are coming from and indeed the actual last part of the landing does look as though he was very lucky. The roll to wings level does appear to stop or at least the roll rate slow as the nose reaches its highest pitchup point and wings come level, but this probably has more to do with ground effect than any pilot inputs. We can see the stabilator but not the aileron position.

Yes I do agree with you guys he was lucky, and I also agree with ultralights (and know from my experience) that the field is the only real option there, so good job getting it to the airfield environement and lucky to end up on its undercarriage.

Plankbender, What you say about rolling wings level earlier and landing across the runway direction is a very good point. It is definitely a suitable flat area so in a similar situation a better decision may have been to land across the runway direction somewhat meaning, as you say, you have enough energy left to achieve a normal flare and touchdown, maintaining full control of the aircraft and not stalling it in those last 10 or so feet. Thus relying less on luck!

Ok so I will now hop back in my box, tail between legs and let everyone here go back to their regular viewing. And I'll try and stop getting all emotional when we start disecting aircraft incidents and accidents.:E

Cheers
CB

[PlankBlender]

You did mix up your lateral and longitudinal rolls and axies, (an aircraft rolls laterally around its longitudinal axis and it pitches longitudinally about its lateral axis)

Cloud Basher, I got the axes right (at least in my head I think :}) but should have been clearer and said 'roll around the longitudinal axis' for the wing drop and 'roll around the lateral axis' for the nose drop.

Just revising for my CPL aerodynamics exam on Thursday, so this is applied theory at its best :ok:

[nick2007]

Remoak is a stirrer. Leave him alone.

My 2c worth -
Better that the pilot potentially crash and burn on the airfield at Bankstown (or surrounding open space) than into someone's house in Condell Park.

The areas north and east of bankstown a/p are quite hilly and developed. No chances there.

[The Green Goblin]

Just revising for my CPL aerodynamics exam on Thursday, so this is applied theory at its best

The blind leading the blind :ugh:

Honestly, I'm not trying to put you down or anything, but there's clearly a deficiency in your training somewhere, and it'll bit you in the @ss sooner or later if you don't address it!

How can you point out deficiencies in another pilots training when you are yet to finish your own? Not only that but a CPL is a licence to get out there and learn, so a bare CPL does not mean you are a commercial pilot by any stretch of the imagination.

If you bank an aeroplane that steeply without power so close to the ground, you're tempting fate.

Unnecessarily too, because without that last bank (starting 1:21), he would have been over more or less level ground and could have washed off any remaining energy in a flare and landed the thing in control.

Yep would have been nice to land the thing under control straight into a fence.........:D

..and to some of the others here -- you know who you are -- if people are supposed to learn from this (and it's clear from the responses there's a need for it!), stop w@nking on about how to best analyse an incident and actually start doing it

From someone who has yet to demonstrate a PFL for the issue of a CPL and who will probably need a second shot too.

It might look like a dramatic display of a forced landing and hell I would not want to be in the same situation myself, but sometimes you must play the hand you've been dealt and make the best of a bad situation.

GG

[Joker 10]

One of the easiest things in the world is an unqualified opinion on an aviation incident after the fact.

We can all learn from every incident, often as not the gritty bits are difficult to deal with because the incident claims victims and we all have emotion to cope with on top of the lessons that arise.

In this case we are at least not faced with ruling out difficult emotion, everyone involved is still with us.

The PIC was faced with a classic dilemma, where do I go???, and a very small time frame in which to perform the analysis.

So did he make errors of judgement ?? in fine detail analysis no doubt he did, in the big picture where everyone walked away from the incident No he didn't, and no one on the ground was involved.

There are real positive lessons in this, probably the most profound is the PIC has walked up to look disaster in the face and come away with a good result, he will carry that lesson for all his aviation career and be better for it.

[PlankBlender]

Hey Goblin, you know nothing about me, so keep the accusations down :ouch::ugh: :yuk: I might 'only' hold a PPL but happen to have a multiple of the aeronautical experience necessary for CPL issue, not everyone needs or aspires for the next license with minimum hours :ugh::ugh:

desmotronic purpotes to be an ATPL in his profile and if he can't tell a stall when it hits him in the face he does indeed require some training, give me an ATO that disagrees with that and I'll think about it again, otherwise crawl back to wherever you came from :mad:! Proficiency in recognising a stall is prerequisite for issue of a PPL, so I think I'm in the green saying there's a deficiency in his training!!! :mad: Let me make it more precise for you, there's a deficiency in his basic training!!

How can you point out deficiencies in another pilots training when you are yet to finish your own?

There there, and here I was under the impression that learning as a pilot never stopped? Where would you in your apparent infinite wisdom put the 'end' of the training of a pilot? ATPL? ATPL with 10,000 hours of experience? ATPL and competitive aerobatics champion? :mad::mad::=

Yep would have been nice to land the thing under control straight into a fence.........

Look at the video properly before you shoot your mouth off again, when he increased the bank he had level ground ahead of him, he was trying to turn for some strange reason, a hugely dangerous thing to do!

:ouch::ugh:

[desmotronic]

PB,
settle petal.

Fact is hes not even 15 ft off the ground when he enters the frame at 1.20, touch down is 1.23, sure it stalls in the flare at about 2 feet. If he'd got some flap out it would have been a greaser.

good luck with the cpl and thanks for yr expert opinion.

[The Green Goblin]

Hey Goblin, you know nothing about me, so keep the accusations down I might 'only' hold a PPL but happen to have a multiple of the aeronautical experience necessary for CPL issue

Yet you still don't have one:p

Look at the video properly before you shoot your mouth off again, when he increased the bank he had level ground ahead of him, he was trying to turn for some strange reason, a hugely dangerous thing to do!

You'd also remember from your lessons on slow flight that the controls are less responsive with reduced airflow. From my armchair it looks like he rolled a little more than he anticipated due to the lag in control responsiveness. You will also know that if you raise the nose you will increase the drag decrease the airspeed and indirectly increase the ROD (The lighties still teach power for ROD and Attitude for AS) I'm sure you would have had a few heavy landings in your training doing exactly what the fella in this clip did. Combine that with soft wet grass and instead of bouncing, it absorbed the impact and nosed over. If this were on the runway (assuming a normal powered approach) the aircraft would have bounced requiring full power immediately and a go around, else it would have been a prop strike and bent fire wall. If you watch circuits or instruct you will see far worse than this every hour.

If this was a stall it would have impacted the ground in a pitch down attitude and been a far worse outcome for the pilot involved.

Also another thing/factor to think about is the pilot neglecting to use flaps, resulting in a higher nose attitude for the approach vis able to us short final. Then when the pilot has gone for the touch down he has looked for the attitude he is used to with flap resulting in a 3 pointer.

desmotronic purpotes to be an ATPL in his profile and if he can't tell a stall when it hits him in the face he does indeed require some training, give me an ATO that disagrees with that and I'll think about it again, otherwise crawl back to wherever you came from

A typical Gen Y tantrum, I'm sure that desmotronic knows what a stall looks like, just not here and I tend to agree. 18 degrees is not the angle I taught for a stalling angle either but rather exceeding 15 :) (based on a 152)

Let me make it more precise for you, there's a deficiency in his basic training!!

Speaking of which how about you get back to yours :E

[PlankBlender]

desmotronic, you really don't know your stalls::=

sure it stalls in the flare at about 2 feet.

The stall is fully developed by the time the wing starts to drop (early parts of 1:22), at which time he's more than a wing span away from the ground, a helluva lot more than 2 feet!!

The aircraft would have begun to stall as soon as he put it into the, again, very dangerous low steep bank (1:21), and the stall horn -- which in the Warrior is on the left wing which happens to be the high wing here in the right hand turn, with the greater AoA and therefore closer to the stall -- would have been blaring for several seconds before the wing drop.

Said stall warning should be an immediate cue in the absence of power to counteract the impending stall. The pilot in this case obviously didn't heed that warning or tried and failed to be effective again sluggish controls so close to the stall. It actually seems the aircraft pretty much lands itself because the timing of the stall, roll, and nose drop just happen to fit the height over the ground when it all happens :\ so kudos to the Piper engineers for designing such a resilient and docile airframe! :ok:

Also, where do you see a flare? He banks, it stalls/rolls/drops, he's on the ground. No flare whatsoever. :\

Admittedly, the pilot didn't have a whole lot of time to play with here, but this discussion surely shows that the dissection of a mishap can teach a lot of things, including aerodynamical basics and what to do (and what not to do) if you find yourselves in a pickle!

Again, as an ATPL with (potential) responsibility for the travelling public, I urge you to revisit some of the basics! I just hope you never have to try to remember how to recognise a stall or incipient spin or the relevant recovery in a hurry, it might end in :{ :eek:

I'll settle when you tell me you won't take unsuspecting passengers or try to teach others to fly until you know your basics :mad::=:ugh::hmm::mad::mad::eek::ouch:

[PlankBlender]

Yet you still don't have one

And I haven't had the need for one and haven't sought one, and now that I do, I'll get it, we're not talking rocket surgery here :}. Not sure what you're insinuating, but I won't be drawn into a d!ck measuring contest :=

A typical Gen Y tantrum

Wrong generation, wrong assumptions! :=

what a stall looks like, just not here and I tend to agree.

Care to elaborate, we might learn something after all?! :p Where do you differ from my explanation of the stall and ensuing 'landing'?

If this was a stall it would have impacted the ground in a pitch down attitude

So you're implying since the aircraft isn't stalled he somehow managed to flick the left wing down at that roll rate at the last second despite reduced effectiveness of controls? :hmm:

And the nose doing down before he touches the ground isn't pitch down enough for you? :=:ugh:

18 degrees is not the angle I taught for a stalling angle either but rather exceeding 15 (based on a 152)

Mr. Tait actually stipulates 'just over 20 degrees' as stalling AoA for a C152, and uses 18 degrees continually as the representative stalling AoA for your typical lightie, of course noting that it specific to the airframe and a bit academic anyway as realistically, we're talking stall speeds for different configurations, weights, and load factors.

Good point on why the turn when entering the field of view might have been steeper than possibly planned, a potential explanation and something we all can learn from! :D;):}

Speaking of which how about you get back to yours

Absolutely, this is just for some entertainment in the breaks :}:E

[desmotronic]

like i said thanks for yr expert opinion.:zzz:

[The Green Goblin]

Again, as an ATPL with (potential) responsibility for the travelling public, I urge you to revisit some of the basics! I just hope you never have to try to remember how to recognise a stall or incipient spin or the relevant recovery in a hurry, it might end in

I'll settle when you tell me you won't take unsuspecting passengers or try to teach others to fly until you know your basics

Someone needs to bend that plank over your bum mate :ugh:

[PlankBlender]

Running out of arguments here, chaps? Ah well, back to the book, more interesting anyway :} I think we might have exhausted this discussion :rolleyes:

[The Green Goblin]

You have just become to laborious I'm afraid :ok:

[PlankBlender]

yup, I sometimes have that effect on people when I want to know stuff and figure out whether I'm right or wrong.. just disappointing that a lot of people rather tune out than have a lively discussion.. a feature of Gen Y I hear, also affects some ageing Baby Boomers :E

[glekichi]

Back to your flock of sheep mate

How very mature of you GG.
:D

We were all having a heated, yet civilised debate about the video until you came along.

You have added nothing to this discussion whatsoever, other than your childish bickering.

[Atlas Shrugged]

Look you people....it's painfully simple.

Lose the donk in a single, put the fecker down as soon as possible in the LEAST worst place.

He chose the LEAST WORST PLACE, he put it down and he flew it all the way into the "crash".

Just land, don't bull****!

To borrow a BN CEN ATCO's phrase "NCD. Good outcome."

[BPH63]

plankbender - your comments in the analysis of the video have been most useful - thanks. It would have been a sad reflection on aviation in this country if the forced landing had gone uncritiqued.

[The Green Goblin]

We were all having a heated, yet civilised debate about the video until you came along.

What? Implying you could have done a better job? :yuk:

baaaaaaaaaaaaaa :E

[The Green Goblin]

plankbender - your comments in the analysis of the video have been most useful - thanks. It would have been a sad reflection on aviation in this country if the forced landing had gone uncritiqued.

If you're going to log in with another user name plank bender at least be less obvious!

Being critiqued is something a flying instructor does with a student after a lesson along with positive comments on what the student is doing well. It is not something a Student Commercial Pilot does to another aviator who has successfully conducted a forced landing for real, and lived to tell the tale.

Congratulations Mr Cherokee!

[Runaway Gun]

Hey, a big thumbs up for the pilot who lived through this event, saving all on board. Please note that the following is NOT a criticism of your flying. I'm very happy for you. :ok:

Hopefully this amplifies a need for pilots to practise more PFL's. And after flying with a civilian pilot recently I was shocked by his lack of training and currency in stalls, steep turns, recovery from the resulting Unusual Attitudes, PFL's and the like, and my offer to get him up to speed was gratefully accepted. And I'm not criticising him, but the system in general that accepts this. During the resulting flights, he constantly advised me that he had 'never seen' this or that, only did 'one of those' about two years earlier, and wasn't sure if 'this' was even allowed. He even clarified with the CFI before we went flying, who confirmed that there was no reason we should even attempt stalling during a gliding turn. I mean, crikey - THAT's when it's most likely to bite ya! Consequently, said pilot's skills improved drastically in only a few short hours, with some new skills to boot.

If you suspect that you are also skills deficit, then please go out, find an instructor with some hands and feet skills, and brush up on these aspects. It might not only save your bacon, but also your pax's, and those on the ground underneath your flight path...

[PlankBlender]

Well, Martin, thanks for your positive post, it's always a pleasure to see balanced analysis and wisdom from senior members of the industry -- surely they're lining up to call your good self their mentor! :ooh:

Anyway, I won't be drawn into a seniority p!ssing match, I've proved in my first career and certainly don't need to justify to you that I can hold my own when it comes to analysis of facts and theories, so I'll just keep stating my opinion as is my want here and exchanging with people who actually have something to contribute to the discussion more than a pathetic attempt to pull rank :ugh:

One thing you might consider in your world of hours and bigger better kero burning toys is that not everyone is in this game to progress as fast as possible to the business end of a widebody to be stuck in jet leg land for the next thirty years, there are those of us who have travelled the world in a former life and are very content with flying hands-on, not always over the weather, and within a few time zones so we can enjoy life and our later years without bodies shot from abuse......

GG, I can assure you I only maintain one user name here. :=

[flywatcher]

After looking through five pages of mostly utter rubbish from entirely unqualified persons, let me ask a couple of minor questions.
1. How many of you have actually done a forced landing for real, in a real live aircraft, any type or model, apart from Microsoft Flight Simulator and had a succesful outcome?
2. How many of you actually have a licence of some sort and have flown in the real world?
3. If you have flown in the real world and managed to land an aircraft without power, in a confined space, with very few options, put up your hand.
4. Otherwise, why don't you give the pilot his due, he had a big problem, he landed, he and his wife walked away, and all your stupid carping about possible angle of attack and angle of bank, as you judge it from a five second video is just a complete ego trip. Go back to your toys children.

[remoak]

(puts hand up)

3 in lighties (all successful), if you count out-landings in gliders, around 180.

All of the 3 involviing powered light aircraft worked, but they weren't perfect and all could have been improved upon (as we determined later in the bar).

[Cloud Basher]

1 in a lighty about 10 years ago. Had a rather catastophic failure, piston punched through cylinder/engine case (I have a pre-digital age photo of it somewhere, will see if I can find it) However I was already on final and engine was at idle. I have always sought old (and sometimes bold!) pilots for my instructors and I was doing a nice tight circuit and a nice glide approach with the engine at idle, so I just dead sticked it in with no real change in attitude, aimpoint or airspeed. However it was the very first time I had seen a prop stopped in flight, that was different!

So unlike others here and the subject of this thread I was not tested at all.

Never did get to find out what caused it as I left the area shortly afterwards and the school I hired the aircraft from closed down (maybe this had something to do with it?).

Cheers
CB

[j3pipercub]

I'm with flywatcher,

Touch wood, I have never had an Engine failure.

Well done, GOOD landing...

Plank Bender, just a word of advice, small industry this flyin stuff, probably much smaller than the one you were previously in. Not advisable to insult people the way that you did, (ie get some more training for your pax sake), people who may in future be able to help you up the ladder, or piss on you from above. How you behave will determine how wet you get...

j3

[PlankBlender]

j3, not sure why you thought that was an insult, I am genuinely concerned about a fellow aviator and in no way wanted to have this understood as a personal attack. If indeed it should have come across that way I apologise unreservedly!

I think we all have a collective responsibility, no matter what our position, seniority, or level of experience, to make the skies the safest place we can.

Would I speak up in a similar way (of course trying my best not to be insulting or putting anyone down, especially in front of others) if I worked with someone who I thought had a lack of understanding in some area that could compromise his ability to react correctly in an emergency? Absolutely. Do I think that anyone just shutting up about or otherwise ignoring a safety related matter should have their head examined? You bet! Remember, that someone could be compromising your own safety down the road, and you might just close that particular hole in the cheese by having a chat..

Tony Kern put this very succinctly in the CASA Error Management Roadshow that is currently going through the country, and one of the videos he used sticks in my mind: The very touching story of the wife of the B52 Fairchild crash co-pilot Mark McGeehan recounting how her husband had tried to convince his superiors that captain Holland was being unsafe in his flying of the B52. The investigation into Holland's flying was underway at the time of the crash, and the co-pilot was so concerned that he had ordered members of his team not to fly with this captain, and had taken it upon himself to be in the RHS, and on that fateful day McGeehan's wife and his young sons watched in horror as Holland stalled the machine in a steep turn close to the ground, killing all on board. Nuff said!

[VH-XXX]

I can see the links you are drawing now. You thought the Cherokee was a bit like that B52 :rolleyes: Easy mistake to make I guess.

[PlankBlender]

Here's a link for you, XXX: Holland with all his knowledge and experience may have just gotten a little complacent about how well he really understood and applied the basics of how and when an aerofoil stalls. Sound familiar? I sense a similar attitude in some of the postings here, and hell I certainly know very little compared to some of the posters here in some areas, but does that mean I shouldn't speak up and try to further my and everyone else's knowledge by having a spirited discussion? You tell me!

[BPH63]

I am not Plankbender and (as far as I am aware) all I know about him is what he posts on this forum. My use of the term "critique" is appropriate.

Is making a "sharp turn" (as the person in the video states and what we observe) that close to the ground in a glide approach what we are taught by our instructors in a forced landing? What are the exceptions to not being wings level that close to impact? If the aircraft was wings level at the start of that video and landed straight ahead what would it have hit?

[Atlas Shrugged]

could compromise his ability to react correctly in an emergency?

Ok, please tell us exactly how he did not react correctly.

Here's what we can establish from the video footage and the radio transmissions:

1. Aircraft lost power
2. Aircraft made a SUCCESSFUL landing on the field
3. Occupants walked away with no injury or injury to anyone else.

That's all. Nothing else.

I'll ask again - how EXACTLY did he not react correctly?

Whether it "looked pretty", whether anyone else would have done it differently or whether anyone else could have done it better is not the issue neither is whether it stalled or could have sustained damage. He put the aircraft sucessfully back on the ground in the least worst place.
Please, tell me exactly how you would have achieved a "BETTER outcome"

[PlankBlender]

Atlas, you're quoting me out of context, the comment about speaking up when one sees something pertaining to safety was a general one, note the earlier part of the sentence you quote saying 'if I worked with someone'.

However, I agree with you that the outcome here was certainly a good one, which is ultimately what matters for the pilot in question.

In how far said pilot's actions just before the sudden arrival on the deck contributed to that outcome is a different matter, however, and therein lies the merit of this discussion.

We're trying to learn from the events, dissect the video evidence and draw conclusions as to what happened and how it might have been possible to have better control over the outcome.

Would it have been preferable not to bank the aircraft steeply close to the ground, not to stall it, and fly it in a controlled manner to the ground? I certainly think so.

Was the pilot extraordinarily lucky that the stall happened exactly where it did and the wing and nose drops planted the wheels on the ground when and where they did? Again, I am convinced.

Does the video evidence suggest strongly that the aircraft was out of control for the last few seconds of its flight? Unless someone shows me convincingly that my analysis of the video is fundamentally flawed, I stand by that opinion.

And can we learn from this that it would have been vastly preferable not to enter said steep bank and just fly it level to the slowest safe speed, flare, and set it down on the level ground that was ahead of the aircraft before the bank (unless there's something ahead before the bank we've missed or cannot see in the video)? Again, I am totally convinced, and I haven't heard anything in this thread making a good case otherwise.

Don't get me wrong, I am not saying I would have been quicker in my thinking or would have made a better decision or better control inputs in those very short last few seconds of that flight, but I think that a few of those reading this thread, me certainly included, will take away something that just might come in handy should the fan noise ever stop on one of us!

[Barkly1992]

Plank Bender

Give it a break.

Trying to draw conclusions from pictures and/or videos is fraught with risks. Angles can be exaggerated - speeds deceptive - and what you think you see may not be what actually is happening.

Very good result. Leave it up to the pilot to decide what he could have done differently (not necessarily better.)

[The Green Goblin]

PB,

The guy was not even stalled, he just had a high sink rate due to being low and slow after the turn (which wasn't even steep, more than likely less than 30 degree AOB, a steep turn by my definition is exceeding 45) with the resulting hard landing from a high sink rate.

If he had of raised the nose, yeah it would have stalled but from my comfy chair he just had a high sink rate as he ran out of energy extending the glide.

Remember this is the Professional Pilot Rumour Network, in order to obtain that distinction you must earn money for your vocation. After earning money and making plenty of mistakes over the years you learn from those mistakes and can apply what was learnt when in that situation again. This is called experience and to answer your question about when a Pilot finishes his training, it's not a number or a benchmark, even crossing a magical line in the sand, but rather when you have significant experience in various areas of aviation, from GA to Airlines, meat bombing, to floats, ag to water bombing flight instructing to a FIO - and in your case you have none.

If you ever want to work as a commercial pilot you had better pull that attitude into check real quick or else you'll be chewed up and spat out in your first GA company.

[j3pipercub]

Plank,

You are drawing a very very long bow comparing the B52 crash the was a result of deliberate, consistent dangerous flying and guys that have been flying commercially for 2000 hours and who you think don't know the definition of a stall.

Holland was not complacent, he was a rogue, dangerous pilot. Knowledge base and complacency had nothing to do with it. Holland repeatedly and on a regular basis exceeded the aircraft limitations, this is evidenced in previous flights prior to the accident flight, the formation photo shoot with the A-10's over the ridge was a prime example. How you then compare this attitude to Commercial pilots and even the accident pilot defies belief. You say you apologise and then draw comparisons like this??

Concerned about a fellow aviators safety??? No, I'm sorry Plank, until you get your CPL and a few commercial hours under your belt, just worry about the safety of the other weekend warriors, ok.

Just reading your post in a previous thread regarding overloading. If you were to step on board my aircraft and question my W&B, I'd tell you where to go, and thats back in the terminal. We used to have guys like you all the time in my old job, "The C208 is just like a PA-28, only a little big bigger" they'd say "I brought my headset, can I sit upfront?" And then they criticise you on your landing in 30 knots of cross onto 600m at MLW, telling you how your technique needs work. Criticism is a good thing, but in order to give it, you have to have some experience in what you are talking about, practical experience, not theoretical.

You have a lot to learn Plank.

Atlas, I agree whole-heartedly

j3

[Atlas Shrugged]

PlankBlender,

You would be well served to spend a day or so reading some of the enlightening posts by Chimbu Chuckles who has probably forgotten more about aviation than you or I or anyone else on these boards combined will ever know. He has given some fascinating details of one or two of his emergency situations, one of which from memory of a similar incident although with some power lines thrown into the mix as well.

Then, come back and tell us what you would have done in exactly the same situation.

Not what you think he would have done, or could have done differently, what YOU would have done, sparing us the armchair analysis.

[PlankBlender]

GG, if you explain to me for example the rapid left roll just before the landing I'll consider taking your experience seriously, otherwise you're just like Martin trying to pull rank as you've run out of arguments.

And BTW, professional is an attitude, commercial is a license class that allows you to fly for reward.

[The Green Goblin]

GG, if you explain to me for example the rapid left roll just before the landing I'll consider taking your experience seriously, otherwise you're just like Martin trying to pull rank as you've run out of arguments.

Sit back and watch a lighty come in mate, you'll see the wings picking up and dropping all the way down final, wind gusts, thermals, over correction by the pilot, excessive aileron use rather than rudder - list goes on. Yes a stall can drop a wing but not very violently in a clean nil flap situation, you would more than likely get a slight nose drop that is easily corrected by increasing AS. With the millions of variables that could explain the wing "dropping" a tad you can't call it a "fully developed stall" by even the most remote stretch of the imagination. Whats your issue with rank? you're going to get a rude shock when you fly under a captain thats for sure. Perhaps when you're an SO you'll be tapping the Captain on the shoulder to offer him some friendly advice on improving his stick and rudder?

And BTW, professional is an attitude, commercial is a license class that allows you to fly for reward.

Thats something a Flight Instructor will tell you, professional in my book means you get paid! There are plenty of cowboys out there, they still get paid :)

[Atlas Shrugged]

should the fan noise ever stop on one of us

This has happened to a lot of us in here, some on more than one occasion.

You, I suspect, are yet to learn what happens and most importantly just how YOU will react.

All of the theory and YouTube videos in the world will not be anywhere near enough to save your arse.

Mate, this isn't virtual reality. You can't rewind it, and start again. It is real and it kills people. It is inherently insane; dashing about in an aluminium tube a few miles above the surface of the earth at 400kts. Never take it for granted and never think you've got it sorted because just when you do, it WILL bite you on the arse.

[remoak]

a steep turn by my definition is exceeding 45)

It is defined by everybody else as exceeding 30 degrees.

The guy was not even stalled... he just had a high sink rate as he ran out of energy extending the glide.

Yeah... that's called a stall... :rolleyes:

Yes a stall can drop a wing but not very violently in a clean nil flap situation, you would more than likely get a slight nose drop that is easily corrected by increasing AS

I'm not sure whether that is a complete misunderstanding of what a stall is, or just really bad technique... please explain how you correct a "nose drop" by increasing airspeed... :ugh:

PlankBender

Don't waste your time mate. I can see you mean well but arguing with some on here is just not worth the use of your brain cells. If it helps at all, you'd be more than welcome on my flight deck, at least you are thinking and you are demonstrating a far more professional approach to safety than some of the allegedly professional pilots you are arguing with. Your best bet is to avoid, throughout your training, the idiotic "they made it so nothing else matters" rationale on display here - a classic GA attitude. Some people just don't want to learn.

[The Green Goblin]

Quote:
a steep turn by my definition is exceeding 45)
It is defined by everybody else as exceeding 30 degrees.

And by the CASA definition in the day VFR syllabus 45-60

Although we call bank angle to the PF anything over 30 degrees which is where you may have got that from.

Quote:
The guy was not even stalled... he just had a high sink rate as he ran out of energy extending the glide.
Yeah... that's called a stall...

So when you hear "sink rate" in that lovely american accent, it really should be saying "stall" right?

You can have a high sink rate without being in a stalled condition, I'm sure you have been there many times before along with myself :p

Quote:
Yes a stall can drop a wing but not very violently in a clean nil flap situation, you would more than likely get a slight nose drop that is easily corrected by increasing AS
I'm not sure whether that is a complete misunderstanding of what a stall is, or just really bad technique... please explain how you correct a "nose drop" by increasing airspeed...

Power off stall recovery: "ease forward", "airspeed increasing", "raise the nose", passing the horizon "full power" and "regain lost height".

If you're in a glide and have the height, lowering the nose will of course suffice!

Back to the crew bus matey, you're holding up the skipper :ok:

[remoak]

Although we call bank angle to the PF anything over 30 degrees which is where you may have got that from.We do too, but no, I got that figure from the NZ CAA Instructors Handbook :ok:

So when you hear "sink rate" in that lovely american accent, it really should be saying "stall" right?

You can have a high sink rate without being in a stalled condition, I'm sure you have been there many times before along with myselfSure, but in that case you haven't run out of energy. When the stick shaker goes off, THEN you have run out of energy and need to apply more coal to the boilers... :E Unless of course you are in turbulence/microburst/windshear...

Power off stall recovery: "ease forward", "airspeed increasing", "raise the nose", passing the horizon "full power" and "regain lost height".

If you're in a glide and have the height, lowering the nose will of course suffice!Exactly... first action is to reduce angle of attack. Airspeed comes after that.

Back to the crew bus matey, you're holding up the skipper :ok:I AM the skipper! :)

[Ultralights]

he just had a high sink rate as he ran out of energy extending the glide.
Yeah... that's called a stall...


if you cant tell the difference between a Stall, and a high sink rate, then i suggest you go back and get a better instructor, read the BAK Book again, or get out of an aircraft altogether..:rolleyes:

[The Green Goblin]

Quote:
So when you hear "sink rate" in that lovely american accent, it really should be saying "stall" right?

You can have a high sink rate without being in a stalled condition, I'm sure you have been there many times before along with myself
Sure, but in that case you haven't run out of energy. When the stick shaker goes off, THEN you have run out of energy and need to apply more coal to the boilers... Unless of course you are in turbulence/microburst/windshear...

The stick shaker does not mean you are stalled, it means there is an impending stall if you don't do something fast or you let the angle of attack increase. You will also get a stick pusher if you allow it to get worse hopefully waking you up before the eventual stall.

Quote:
Although we call bank angle to the PF anything over 30 degrees which is where you may have got that from.
We do too, but no, I got that figure from the NZ CAA Instructors Handbook

I always thought you lot were as soft as Nannas scones :)

Quote:
Back to the crew bus matey, you're holding up the skipper
I AM the skipper!

You weren't that Jitstar Captain having trouble with his terrain mode on the wx radar were you?? :p

[remoak]

Ultralights

if you cant tell the difference between a Stall, and a high sink rate, then i suggest you go back and get a better instructor, read the BAK Book again, or get out of an aircraft altogether.

What is it, bozo night here on PPRuNe? The point is the phrase "ran out of energy", which is when you no longer have enough speed or inertia to maintain your AoA below the critical angle. If you have energy, you aren't stalled but might be in a high sink rate. If you have run out of energy, you are stalled. Or don't they teach you that in ultralight school? it's pretty obvious who needs a better instructor.

The GG

The stick shaker does not mean you are stalled

No, I didn't say it did, I said it indicates that you have run out of energy. A stall is a (slightly) later consequence of that.

A stick push indicates that you have reached the critical angle and are either stalled or nanoseconds away, and removes the decision from you hands, so you will never get to the "eventual stall". Not sure why all the horns wouldn't wake you up, but there you go...

I always thought you lot were as soft as Nannas scones

That's coz we aren't all descended from criminals...:E

You weren't that Jitstar Captain having trouble with his terrain mode on the wx radar were you??

Gawd no, you wouldn't find me flying for that sorry excuse for an airline! :p

[The Green Goblin]

If you have energy, you aren't stalled but might be in a high sink rate. If you have run out of energy, you are stalled. Or don't they teach you that in ultralight school? it's pretty obvious who needs a better instructor.

Heard of a Dynamic stall?

Energy hasn't really got anything to do with a stall, a stall is simply an AOA issue, exceed the critical angle and you will stall.

I think you are like many Pilots who think of a stall as an Airspeed problem rather than it's true nature. This is partly due to being taught stall recovery in a low airspeed configuration. Any time you exceed the critical angle of your aerofoil fast or slow you will stall.

A stick push indicates that you have reached the critical angle and are either stalled or nanoseconds away, and removes the decision from you hands, so you will never get to the "eventual stall". Not sure why all the horns wouldn't wake you up, but there you go...

You can quite happily fly along with the stick shaker going bazerk, it does not mean you will stall, it just means that if you increase the AOA any further you will. Quite often the stick shaker will activate on a go around.

Quote:
You weren't that Jitstar Captain having trouble with his terrain mode on the wx radar were you??
Gawd no, you wouldn't find me flying for that sorry excuse for an airline!

I thought all you kiwis wanted a piece of Jitstar pie! 500 applicants, thats just about everybody left in the whole country isn't it?

The rest are here on the mainland :E

[remoak]

Heard of a Dynamic stall?

Yes I have, and we even teach accelerated stalls in the sim, but as it isn't relevant to the Bankstown incident I couldn't be arsed to write a treatise on the various different types of stalls.

Energy hasn't really got anything to do with a stall, a stall is simply an AOA issue, exceed the critical angle and you will stall.


OK then... why is the AOA increasing? Couldn't have anything to do with decreasing energy and the need to increase the AoA to maintain altitude, could it?

You can quite happily fly along with the stick shaker going bazerk, it does not mean you will stall, it just means that if you increase the AOA any further you will.

It depends on the aircraft you fly, and how much you want to experience a stick push. On the one I fly, if one ADC senses a Stall Identification Angle, you get the stick shaker and the push is armed. It is not far at all from that position to a stick push. Of course you can fly in stick shaker all day if you want, but it isn't smart. You can also fly a Cherokee in stall buffet all day as well if you really want to.

Quite often the stick shaker will activate on a go around.

Not if you fly it accurately it won't. Only happens if you are too aggressive raising the nose.

I thought all you kiwis wanted a piece of Jitstar pie! 500 applicants, thats just about everybody left in the whole country isn't it

Just leaves more sheep for the rest of us... :ok:

[ZK-NSN]

I thought all you kiwis wanted a piece of Jitstar pie!

The old jetstar crap and cheese pie*













*Note: cheese will cost the purchaser an additional $6 if booked via the internet, $12 at checkin. cheese may not be available on all or any flights. Sauce $15. 300% surcharge may (we really mean will) apply.

[RadioSaigon]

Bravo ZK-NSN :}

[remoak]

Lucky Jetstar isn't like Ryanair, where they would charge same as J* for the pie but then charge you again to use the dunny when said cheese pie gives you an urgent desire visit the little room...

[Balthazar_777]

Umm, this is all a bit tedious, BUT,

A stall is not always a low energy state. It is when the critical angle is exceeded. Thats about it really.

There's been a lot of crap in these last couple of pages.

I must admit, i thought the guy sounded proficient and calm on the radio and everyone survived the landing. Even the aeroplane. Unfortunately, when i had my engine failure at Bankstown, many years ago, the aircraft was a write-off.:\

[remoak]

A stall is not always a low energy state. It is when the critical angle is exceeded. Thats about it really.

I think if you had bothered to read the last few posts, you would see that we all agree on that... :rolleyes:

[haughtney1]

God..there are way to many non-experts on here...

To me it looks simple, the guy got VERY VERY lucky in the last stages of the incident.
He put himself in a position to make the field, but managed to stall very close to the ground..with a fortunate outcome.

Have only had the pleasure of a partial failure in a lightie (A Pawnee) whilst towing a glider.

[Ultralights]

i had written a reply, but ahhh fcukit. its really not worth it.. :hmm: people usually pay me for my flying and advice.

[The Green Goblin]

Quote:
OK then... why is the AOA increasing? Couldn't have anything to do with decreasing energy and the need to increase the AoA to maintain altitude, could

We produce lift 3 ways, Airspeed, AOA and camber. If we loose airspeed we need to produce the same amount of lift as we did when we were going faster, So we increase the AOA to produce the same amount of lift, or increase the camber such as lowering a stage of flap, or we could lower the nose and increase the airspeed to produce more lift, or increase the power to increase the airspeed.

If we don't do one of these 3 things we will not produce enough lift and begin to descend. We will not stall unless we exceed the critical angle of attack which usually happens if we increase the angle of attack to the point of the stall trying to maintain altitude in this scenario.

So i'll say it again the stall has nothing to do with the decreasing energy.

Quote:
I thought all you kiwis wanted a piece of Jitstar pie! 500 applicants, thats just about everybody left in the whole country isn't it
Just leaves more sheep for the rest of us...

Good to see they at least taught you a sense of humour :)

[The Green Goblin]

i had written a reply, but ahhh fcukit. its really not worth it.. people usually pay me for my flying and advice.

And thats why you are a pro :E

Anyway isn't it about time Chimbu Chuckles jumped on this thread, gave a detailed explanation and set everyone straight? :ok:

[remoak]

i had written a reply, but ahhh fcukit. its really not worth it.. http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/yeees.gif people usually pay me for my flying and advice.

Ah so you wrote a reply, deleted it, and then wrote another to tell us that writing the first one wasn't worth it? As the Kiwi beer ad goes... yeah, right... :rolleyes:

Can't imagine anyone paying you for the crap you have come up with so far, but, you know, a fool and his money are easily parted, so maybe it's true... maybe... but you would really be better off manning up and admitting your error.:D

GG

OK well you say potato, I say the other thing. In the context of the incident we are talking about, you yourself said "from my comfy chair he just had a high sink rate as he ran out of energy extending the glide", so you clearly agree that he was running out of energy. The point on which we differ is whether he stalled or whether he somehow developed a high sink rate for some other reason. As there is no evidence that I can see that there is any reason for a high sink rate to develop, I'm going to go for the stall scenario as it seems a lot more likely. Neither of us are ever going to to know for sure. The main point is that he did run out of energy (and control) before he flopped it on.

Good to see they at least taught you a sense of humour

You have to have a sense of humour when explaining aviation to Ozmates, otherwise you go mad... :}

[Cloud Basher]

Everything has two types of energy, potential and kinetic.

Potential in an aircraft's case is altitude and fuel in tanks. If the engine is not running as in this case then it is just altitude. Kinetic is airspeed.

Now we all agree on the ONLY thing that governs a stall is AoA. AoA has absolutely NOTHING to do with energy. An example. In the Pitts special I pole around the sky from time to time with symmetrical airfoils, on a perfect upline (if I could ever get one!) I can have 1kt of airpeed and still not not be stalled as AoA is zero, but I have very very little energy.

Now there is only ONE thing that governs AoA and that is stick (and thus elevator) position. It is known as the Stall Stick position. Regardless of airspeed the Stall stick position is exactly the same at a given CofG position. We can see in the last bit of the video that the elevator is fully up position (or very very close to it) so that alone tells you that the aircraft is stalled. The speed of the aircraft is irrelevant. Now please do not confuse the stall stick position with the amount of forced needed by the pilot to get to the stall stick position at different airspeeds, (ie very little as slow airspeeds - rising to damn near impossible at higher airspeeds) or to get there with different trim settings. I am not talking about pressure required, I am talking about the physical position of the control column and thus elevator.

And if anyone doubts this then jump into an aerobatic aircraft (just to be safer) and find the stall stick position in a nice 1G flight, then go to this position in ANY flight regime and the aircraft will again be stalled! Note an aircraft has two stall stick positions, a positive and a negative stall stick position, but with the Cherokee we won't worry about the negative stall stick position. (BTW please don't try this above Va as you might just exceed the design limits of the aircraft structure:=.)

So the ONLY way the cherokee could not be stalled at this apparent slow speed (and we all seem to agree that it "flops" onto the ground and so has very little energy - read airspeed) would be if the stabilator was not fully deflected and the stick forward of the stall stick position. As it is fully deflected then the aircraft has to be stalled.

I reckon that during most pilots ab-initio training, we have all "dropped in" a landing from 5 or so feet (maybe even higher) and this appears to happen here, you can see that the tail and MLG touch at the same time and then due to the deceleration on the gound, inertia causes the nose to come down rather smartly!

Cheers
CB

[The Green Goblin]

OK well you say potato, I say the other thing. In the context of the incident we are talking about, you yourself said "from my comfy chair he just had a high sink rate as he ran out of energy extending the glide", so you clearly agree that he was running out of energy. The point on which we differ is whether he stalled or whether he somehow developed a high sink rate for some other reason. As there is no evidence that I can see that there is any reason for a high sink rate to develop, I'm going to go for the stall scenario as it seems a lot more likely. Neither of us are ever going to to know for sure. The main point is that he did run out of energy (and control) before he flopped it on.

Running out of energy extending the glide basically means he ran out of altitude, as the force of gravity pulling the aircraft down the slope provides the forward airspeed. Run out of Altitude and you run out of airspeed ie energy. The actual aeroplane has plenty of potential energy, if the engine started it could climb away, if there miracualously was a giant cliff he could continue to glide.

In terms of what we see he exchanges Airspeed for angle of attack trying to stretch the glide and gets the cherokee on the back of the drag curve. Due to the increased drag and increased lift in this configuration he develops a high sink rate and bangs it on the ground.

Cloud Basher

You're on the money, the only thing I don't agree with is the aeroplane being stalled, if he raised the nose anymore then I believe he could have very easily. Don't forget he did not have any flap lowered and as such can have a much higher nose attitude without the subsequent stall.

Quote:
Good to see they at least taught you a sense of humour
You have to have a sense of humour when explaining:p aviation to Ozmates, otherwise you go mad...

Back at you fella

[Atlas Shrugged]

Everyone's a fecking genius when it comes to an aircraft incident, aren't they.

:ugh::ugh:

[The Green Goblin]

Everyone's a fecking genius when it comes to an aircraft incident, aren't they.

I'm spewing I got dragged into it, but once you pop you can't stop!

[Cloud Basher]

GG,
Too true! :ugh::ugh::ugh:

Cheers
CB:p

[Ultralights]

but you would really be better off manning up and admitting your error.

My error? what error? all i recall saying is that if you can't tell the difference between a stall and high sink rate, then your training/study should be improved. :ugh:

a stall is a function of AOA, and can be identified in the aircraft by stick position.. it has nothing to do with sink rate. or anything else.

as for my deleted post, i realised i had written a pretty detailed explanation on stalls, to the point where i thought it was almost a briefing, something that, as a professional, i get paid for. :=

[redleader78]

Stalling hmmm :rolleyes: My memory always remembered it as a relationship to a reynolds number of the apparent flow. But maybe my memory is falling. Don't have my copy of andersons on me but I vaguely remember seeing Coefficient of Lift vs aoa graphs that vary depending on the reynolds number of the flow. Mind you that i know is predominadetly a sizing issue but does take into account the energy of the flow. It did change the point that the aerofoil stalled.

hmmmm As einstein says things are just all relative. Is light a particle or wave. Depends on the reference frame. I think the reference frame is in this situation who cares whether the pilot stalled it, had a high sink rate, out come was positive and yes probably even may choose other things if in the same situation. The real lesson here is I think just continue to fly the aircraft all the way to the ground. Even in a stall or high sink rate the pilot continued to fly the plane to the ground. It might not have looked pretty but was accurate in achieving the ultimate goal. Survival!!! So maybe individuals who label criticism here that is not constructive I would suggest stick to your navel and wonder how the fluff gets their :8

[b_sta]

But have you really flown it to the ground if you've stalled it above the ground and flopped it on? Bit of an oxymoron isn't it?

[remoak]

My memory always remembered it as a relationship to a reynolds number of the apparent flowSort of...

Reynolds Number simply refers to the scale speed regime used when testing the airfoil in a wind tunnel (ie proportionality). Interestingly, the calculation of the Reynolds Number also brings up the issue of inertia, another factor ignored in the discussion so far (as it relates to energy, critical angles and stalling).

If you get into that stuff, you soon realise that most of the explanations of stalling given here are simplistic in the extreme.

For example, my notes on aerodynamics show that a stall is defined as the point at which Cl starts to decrease, in other words being on the "back" of the drag curve is to be technically stalled. That would imply that a high RoD caused by being at a high AoA at low airspeed (ie low energy) is simply a stall without the associated symptoms that pilots are taught to watch for.

It is also true that the critical AoA varies with differences in aerofoil thickness (with the same camber), and the symmetry of the airfoil (symmetrical airfoils having a lower critical AoA), and so on.

So yes our friend in Bankstown was technically stalled, not that this is the point of the discussion...

Everyone's a fecking genius when it comes to an aircraft incident, aren't theyBeats being a fecking moron... :rolleyes:

But no, you are right, we shouldn't discuss this stuff. Heaven forbid that anyone might actually learn something... can't have that, can we... after all, the only thing that really matters is whether the guy walked away from it, right??? :rolleyes:

[Barkly1992]

remoak

You will learn something from this by speaking to the pilot and listening - not showing off that you know the formula for the coefficient of lift or some other complex mathematical application.

These types of incidents are human factor events not entirely mechanical. I know we can't change the laws of physics but we can change the way in which we apply them during a high stress situation.

[glekichi]

With ya so far on this one remoak, except

in other words being on the "back" of the drag curve is to be technically stalled

Drag might increase dramatically beyond Cl max, but 'back of the drag curve' refers to the situation where a decrease of speed results in an increase in drag (for S+L flight), does it not?

Thus, in the case of a glide, the 'back of the drag curve' is anywhere slower than the best glide speed, I would have thought.

The video is a near perfect demonstration of this, and how it leads to a stall. :E

[remoak]

Barkly1992

You really are grumpy, aren't you?I obviously can't speak to the pilot, much as I would like to. And I never mentioned any formulae at all. We were discussing stalling, and since most of what was said was barely accurate, it is worth being a little more precise with our terms.

Speaking of which...

glekichi

Thus, in the case of a glide, the 'back of the drag curve' is anywhere slower than the best glide speed, I would have thought.Quite right. I was having a grey moment! :O

It also raises the question of whether the pilot was stretching the glide to get to the field, which it would appear he clearly was.

[redleader78]

remoak thanks for reminding of all that stuff.. I think you got my point and thanks for saying it an elegant and concise way.

B_sta you still have some form of control in a developed stall.. Otherwise how do you recover when you practice stalls? I stand by my statement the lesson is continue to fly the aircraft all the way to the ground. Whether the pilot flopped it on or not. There was an amount of control that allowed them to survive. Like i said would the pilot take something out of this flight yes. Could i have done a better job.. Don't know.. as I don't know the condition of the aircraft. I would hope I would survive from my efforts. Who cares whether it wasn't a greaser that the romanian judge scores a 9 point 5 and the small minded individual scores a 3. The lesson is as i think more about this. Is be mindful of the energy in the glide at all times. Control it through what ever might happen.

[The Green Goblin]

BUMP

Thought I'd bring it back up for a laugh :D:D:D:D:D

Onya Planky, some of the best stuff I've read on here ;)

[rockapetransport]

Thanks for that, needed a good chuckle.

Planky's probably got a J* Cadetship by now... Ill be calling in sick that day.:ugh: