CSD
I see this has (predictably) degenerated into a civvy v RAAF bunfight again.
No no no, others may want that but not me, however, when a PC9 guy says we can do it we train for it we have a height to do it from etc, and then says No way in a Civvy Cessna, well that just is the beginning of the Civvy v RAAF bunfight again. So peace man!
So I am happy to stop it in its tracks from my comments about the Top guns, but the attitude mentioned above kind of deserved the cheeky post I thought. Sorry for offending others.
allthecoolnamesarego had just finished off a well detailed and excellent post with a dumbfounding comment.
In a civvy Cessna and the like - look out the front and crash ahead visually.
What that just says is us RAAFies are good for it but not a VH tailer, so hence the TG comment. But no bunfights required.
As for the Macchi story, some will know it very well indeed, others, most will not because despite someone wanting to punch out, common sense prevailed because one pilot KNEW his aeroplane and KNEW he could do it and he KNEW all would end well. So despite the accepted norm of the time, he made the right call.
The problem is we are not training pilots properly, heck I am the first to tell you I feel my initial training was not enough. Thanks to a few Civvy and Military friends I have learned way more than I ever knew.
This is not unlike the LOP debate. FACTS....DATA...EDUCATION....trumps everything, including all the BS that gets posted here, in the GA flying schools, aeroclub bars etc etc.
Facts, Data and education, and education includes practise. and to prove my point, read the rest of
allthecoolnamesarego's post as that is exactly what he talks about. Same thing works in the civvy world too!
Pontius said;
The RAF/RN use(d) 800' for the Chipmunk, Bulldog and Grob Tutor. We practiced it fairly often, so the technique wasn't a problem but the brief didn't necessarily involve landing back on the runway, just landing back on the airfield, somewhere. It was a very definite stuff the nose down, get to the appropriate speed, 60 degs AoB and pull to the light buffet, all the while monitoring speed, speed, speed. It worked well (despite yet another one of A37575's sweeping statements) but 800' would give some much better options at a lot of airfields, I'm sure. I still keep 'current' with the techniques, as there is one field I fly from where it is worth keeping in mind but the physics definitely don't add up for an out-of-practice pilot, not having proper training and with little appreciation of the performance of his aircraft.
What Pontius said.
As little as five years ago, I was teaching turn backs to QFI students in the PC9.
800' was the standard, however, at some airfields (carnavon IIRC) 500' feet was briefed as it was not a reciprocal turn back. The way we used to fly them was:
Practice!
sh&t, F68K, LOWER NOSE and obtain IAS. Look out the FRONT at the ATTITUDE and HOLD that for the required IAS. Only once that was set, would the TB be commenced.
The biggest problem I saw in possibly many many hundreds of turn backs over five or so years, was when a student LOOKED at the RWY and NOT the ATT. As soon as their head went searching for the RWY, they would invariably pull back on the stick and get into heavy buffet with the nose high... not good!
If at any stage it looked like it wasn't going to work (I think from memory a 'D' was required by 200') then wings level and eject.
The PC9 has two oxy bottles under the seats, right next to the fuel collector tank, so a wheels up forced landing was not recommended.
ATT, IAS, ATT, IAS.
I did not teach a reciprocal TB's in the CT4. If there was a strong wind, a crash ahead left you with a lower GS and a better chance of survival.
The PC9 however, if flown well, would easily get a reciprocal TB in less than about 15 kts. Any more and without the determination to 'push into wind' prior to the turn, most students would overrun the runway after the turn back.