Fly Another
Quote: As an aside, I initially found EOLs easier than normal landings!
Exactly. it is not hard to do - until it goes wrong.
The problem is that when it goes wrong it goes wrong very badly, very quickly and very unpredicatably, One of the aircraft lost at my school was being flown by a 10,000+ hour instructor. I know the student wasn't flying as it was a demonstration EOL in a trial lesson! I bet it put the prospective pilot off. Another was being flown by a CAA examiner (So I was told) when the tail was chopped. This would seem to indicate that experience and currency is not a guarantee of success. Both you and I could rattle them off as students. Not because we were good. Because we were not unlucky. In the last year, I have done one auto to the ground and that was during my LPC because I was asked to. No problem. I still don't practice them. Had I not done them as a student, would I still be able to do them? Of course, as proved by pilots who don't do them as students in lots of places in the world.
My theory on the whole issue is:
In the scenario of a real failure a student who has practiced getting the aircraft to the hover is likely to survive and may or may not wreck the aircraft. The aircraft is not important. As engine failure is pretty rare, this will not be a common occurence. If no aircraft are lost in training there will be fewer crashes and hence less overall risk to pilots and machines.
I think auto to the hover practice is vital. To the ground is unnecessary risk.
I think that this is the position of the RAF. Can anyone confirm?
Perhaps someone with too much time could dredge through NTSB and AAIB reports and compare number of aircraft/lives lost though engine failure with numbers due to practices gone wrong. I'm sure the statistics are there.
edited to add that I can't spell either.
Last edited by Gaseous; 24th Mar 2004 at 20:04.