Leeds Instructor Refresher Seminar or, How to teach someone to suck eggs.

[squeakyunclean]

Nothing new except, "teach your students to turn back after EFATO if above 500ft aal and at a 'large' airfield, one where you will probably be above or near the end of the runway at 500ft aal". The justification is "we do it in the RAF".

Food for thought? (and I don't mean the eggs)

[RVR800]

Its probably the venue i.e. Leeds that
affected them

Rwy 28 for EFATO at 500 feet could send
you into the semi-detatched houses at the
near to the threshold of Rwy 10

If the guy in that HS748 had followed the rule book on EFATOs LUFC would have bought it

Use common sense and judgement
Guidance of wise men etc..

However one needs unambiguous rules for students - and this is a change of heart
for the CAA

Unusual that, the CAA moving goalposts,
very unusual - NOT

[Wee Weasley Welshman]

Turnbacks in civvy-land? I don't believe it. Best not to tell student PPLs I reckon as they might just try it one day.

WWW

[Noggin]

I thought the objective of a FI Seminar was to teach instructors HOW to teach, not WHAT to teach, especially when it comes to controversial subject matter.

Now who ran this Seminar?

[The Flying I]

This advice on 'turn back' wasn't given by a 'guest speaker' from 'Central Flying School' was it? ALL due respect, etc etc, but whenever CFS are invited to talk at civvie meetings, very few in the audience will challenge what they say, because of who they are. Try it next time (with a good valid argument) and notice the surprise in the eyes, and finally recognition of another relevant point of view.
There are differences between their teaching jobs and our civvie ones. Just to quickly name some: They have PRE-selected pupils. Their pupils fly nearly every day, maybe more than once. As well as the instructor having a job to teach, it's the student's JOB to learn at a certain rate (or be 'chopped') - the pupil throwing more money in won't help. CFS is in nicely open airspace, not restricted like the Surrey - Kent belt.
OK, they'll be better pilots than I'll ever be, but it's no good blindly following their advice 100% without applying 'thought' as to whether it is totally relevant or 'good for' civvie aviation.
Thank them for their massive contribution, but "cherry pick" on advice.

[Sleeve Wing]

Re: EFATO.

Suggest a little risky to turnback in the average civvy training aeroplane - just a little slow with rather a disconcerting descent rate at high angles of bank.

Oh, and if the wind's strong enough to get you back to the field, think of the groundspeed and your teeny-weeny runway.

Definitely OK in one of Auntie Liz's super-duper turbos (-prop or -jet), speed-to -height and all that. Done it; all part of the superb training I got.

I usually demonstrate it to show why its not really a good idea for the average club pilot.Far more chance of walking away if one aims somewhere ahead'ish.

After all, surely the idea is to walk away from "the scene".
So you bend the aeroplane, - so its insured.

[squeakyunclean]

The Flying I,
exactly. The chap concerned was EX CFS, if that makes any difference. He was very helpful, gave an excellent presentation, in fact all of the speakers gave excellent presentations, but in some cases the content was lacking. You are right though, when challenged there was a feeling of 'who do you think you are?'
I'm sure that was unintentional but that is how I felt.

By the way, how do you recover from an INCIPIENT spin? according to the CFS chap it is definitely not standard stall recovery. Not sure what he did want though. Muttered something about the use of the throttle.

Noggin,
That's what I thought. Apart from, arguably the best presentation, content and 'style'wise, on the first morning, there was little on HOW to teach. (unless I was asleep)

I did not think the seminar was a complete waste of time but I did not get value for my time and money (nearly £250, 2 days leave, petrol etc.). I have always finished an instructor renewal flight test with a feeling of money and time VERY well spent, and I anticipate using that method to renew in future despite the fact that I could fail!!

ps. I have sent the 'course critique' to ETA with my specific points, this is just a general summary.

[Centaurus]

When I was on an RAAF instructors course at CFS in Australia many years ago, someone decided that turn-backs should be taught in the Winjeels and Vampires. So we practiced them. In the light of experience (4 dead pilots) I now know it was a potentially deadly manoeuvre with absolutely no statistical past evidence that it would save more lives than a forced landing straight ahead.
None of us enjoyed the manoeuvre and many times I was forced to apply power from the "dead" engine to scrape in over the fence. In other words I would have crashed short of the runway fifty percent of the time. It was considered a bit of a macho exercise between student and instructor. Then one windy day, a dual Vampire lost an engine for real on climb out just after take off. He tried a turn back and flicked and spun while pulling G in a steep turn. They crashed just short of the runway and both pilots were killed. If they had elected to land straight ahead when the engine failed they would have probably pulled it off successfully because there were open fields.

A year later, an instructor and student were practicing a turn back from runway 17 at Point Cook over the water.This time in a Winjeel - which looks like a Provost. Half way around the turn the aircraft flicked into an incipient spin at around 400 ft. They had almost recovered when the aircraft hit hard in 3 points just inside the airfield boundary. It burst into flames. Both pilots were burnt to death because the crash crew could not open the canopy.

At the time we were indoctrinated to think that CFS was God and wise in all things aeronautical. Nothing was further from the truth. CFS pilots were nothing special at all. It was the name of CFS that seem to have some mysterious aura of invincibility and anyone associated with that name.

The potential risks involved in practice turn backs far outweigh any training value. As a now retired ex B737 captain I look back on those turn back manoeuvres as sheer folly. But despite the lessons of history, RAAF CFS still practice turn backs this time with PC9's. Even the Royal Flying Doctor Service in Australia practice turn backs in their PC12's. I wondered why, until it turned out that the chief check pilot of the RFDS was ex RAAF CFS.....

[This message has been edited by Centaurus (edited 19 November 2000).]

[ShyTorque]

I think that the real point is being missed here. Make no mistake, the "turn-back" is a last ditch manoeuvre where there is NO alternative. For example, a large wood ahead that you cannot otherwise avoid. I would be surprised if the speaker meant anything other than that.

They were highly relevant to early single engined jet aircraft without an ejection seat or where the ejection seat performance was not good at low speeds, including take-off. A forced landing at the high landing speed of some of these aircraft was a poor prospect in any event (possibly gear up) and the resulting increase in groundspeed was not the overiding factor; touching down in a large open area near the fire truck was more relevant.

In a previous life I was required to teach them; QFIs were required to practice at least one every month. Despite being reasonably competent, sometimes I knew that my practice attempt would have hurt a lot for real! We were not allowed to touch down from this manoeuvre because of the accepted risks. Much emphasis was placed on accurate technique and handling to prevent a spin / flick / crash / burn caused by the increased stalling speed at the required 45 degrees AOB. The absolute minimum speed in the turn for a Bulldog was 80 kts.

Before every take-off we used to include an EFATO brief that went basically along the lines of "If NO suitable area for a forced can be seen within 30 degrees either side of ahead then a turnback MAY be attempted if above the pre-briefed minimum height". The manoeuvre needs to be made into any crosswind.

The disadvantages are that:

1. You might miss the airfield altogether. You need both a high level of skill and judgement to make the reciprocal runway (and luck? I say that because I possessed insufficient of the previous qualities to guarantee the outcome on every occasion).

2. You might hit something hard on the airfield or off it and

3. You are landing downwind. On a light aircraft in a strong wind this will result in a very large increase in groundspeed when compared with that for the into-wind case and a highly relevant equation is:

Potential for injury is directly proportional to V squared

where V=groundspeed.

Lateral thinking gives another alternative. If there is no suitable forced landing area off the upwind end, a possible alternative is to choose another runway, even if it involves a maximum crosswind departure, if a better forced landing area would then become available on the into-wind side).

If you treat the turnback as a very big hammer in your toolbox, are able to practice it often and use it for real only when there is no other alternative, it MIGHT save your neck. There is no guarantee though.

Caveat Emptor.

Yes, I accept that you probably know all this already.

[This message has been edited by ShyTorque (edited 19 November 2000).]

[BEagle]

ETA provide first rate speakers, I'm sure that the theme of the 'turn-back' topic was how the exercise is taught in the RAF, not that it should ever be considered as a standard manoeuvre unless there was no other option. If memory serves, until students had completed sufficient training to be able to go to an instinctive attitude to set up a descending 45° banked turn at about 85 KIAS in the Bulldog when given this engine failure exercise (within the strictly briefed scenario), it wasn't even taught. You had to stuff the control column fairly quickly into the appropriate corner, check that the IAS was being correctly maintained, then fly the turn very carefuly until you were aiming at something more survivable than whatever had been within the usual 30° of straight ahead.

[squeakyunclean]

BEagle,
NO! The presentation, suggestion, call it what you will was most definitely not 'how to', it would have been more useful if that had been the 'theme'.
This will always be a bone of contention, if we start showing students/PPLs this option, more are likely to try it should a real failure occur. Don't forget the average student flys less than one hour a week, the average PPL flys less than 12 hours a YEAR! If they try a turn back, even if they could 'hack it' during training, the skills will be dulled at the very least in the meantime.

YES, the speakers were excellent, but it takes more than a few eloquent speakers with a fancy projector to make a good seminar.

Bye the way, how would you recover from an incipient spin? (keep it simple and no waffle please)


[This message has been edited by squeakyunclean (edited 20 November 2000).]

[Speed Twelve]

Squeakyunclean,

Incipient spin recovery:

Centralise stick and rudder, leave throttle alone. Once you've got sufficient speed on, roll and pull to the nearest horizon.

ST.

[BEagle]

Recognition of the 'incipient spin'? ANY uncommanded roll-rate. Recovery, during NO MORE THAN THE FIRST 360 DEG of autorotation or post-departure gyration, is as stated by Speed 12 above. Of course this can recover the situation very quickly; for example a T67A I once flew would, if provoked to stall in a turn to the left, rapidly roll right in what was in fact an incipient spin. Recovery was, however, effective immediately the controls were centralised.
However, after the first 360 deg of gyration, it is vital to close the throttle, confirm that ailerons are neutral, identify the direction of the spin and apply the spin recovery appropriate to your particular aircraft type.
I also agree that the 'turn back' should NOT be taught or demonstrated to the 'average' PPL holder (or student) for precisely the reasons stated above.

[squeakyunclean]

Thanks chaps.

[Sleeve Wing]

Centaurus,
Hear what you are saying but think your guys must have been damned unlucky.

I reiterate my previous contention that if you have a fairly rapidly-accelerating machine,you have a reasonable chance of getting away with it.
And it doesn't need to be the exact reciprocal runway.
1962. Linton.Vampire.Takeoff on 35(then!).
Threw a couple of turbine blades.Engine fire. Turnback initiated.ATC cleared all traffic and offered any runway. Landed on 11.
Third solo if I remember. Green Recommend.
Sure it was something like that.