It could be argued this goes against everything that pilots are taught at flying schools when learning to fly because of the inherent risks of stalling in the turn at low speed and low altitude. When did that change?
it could be argues that a lot of things taught at flying schools are "sub-optimal" because they were designed to cover ass for sub-optimal students. Or because that is what their instructor taught x 10 generations thereof.
As recently as this morning, John Deakin said to me
"Really bugs me how so many people will very quickly adopt a bad practice and be so reluctant to even try a good practice."
There have been threads on this before, and my "take away" has been to simply KNOW YOUR AEROPLANE and know it well.
In my plane from 500-600 feet I am at risk of running off the far end and into the fence
At 400-500 it is 45 deg turn, best glide, flap as required when sure of the field, and land, brake heavily. In the 300-400 range if light, no problem, if heavy, use the energy to find the best area to land as you will not easily make the runway, but you should make something flat enough on the field.
Could I do this in a 172, probably not, or an Archer, or even a PC12 (I know it will) so even if I know it will, I need to have trained for it.
That is why the RFDS and others teach it. If you can do it from 29,000 feet or 400' the rules are much the same, because the laws of physics do not alter much
It is all about how you manage the event. How you prepare for every takeoff. Expect the failure and be pleasantly surprised when it doesn't.
