Spitfire bent at Biggin.
"From the point of personal preservation, the idea is to risk assess whether it's better to attempt a downwind, or partially downwind landing near the fire engine, or possibly a better landing away from it..."
That's a REALLY good point Shy - and to continue in a similar vein, (and I'll admit that my thinking has been coloured after having witnessed two fatal accidents when the pilot decided to turn back,) if you decide to go straight ahead and get it wrong; well IMHO as long as you're strapped in, hit wings level at minimum flying speed and into wind and (to quote Bob Hoover) "fly it as far into the crash as possible" and are prepared to sacrifice the aircraft by, for example, deliberately aiming at a gate and thus missing a wall - you really do have a good chance of surviving in most straight-wing single engine aircraft.
Conversely, if you decide to turnback and get it wrong you'll almost certainly die.
NOTE this isn't an observation on the accident to the Spitfire that started this thread. I believe Dan to be an exceptional pilot (we've never met) and am sure that he would've chosen the best option.
That's a REALLY good point Shy - and to continue in a similar vein, (and I'll admit that my thinking has been coloured after having witnessed two fatal accidents when the pilot decided to turn back,) if you decide to go straight ahead and get it wrong; well IMHO as long as you're strapped in, hit wings level at minimum flying speed and into wind and (to quote Bob Hoover) "fly it as far into the crash as possible" and are prepared to sacrifice the aircraft by, for example, deliberately aiming at a gate and thus missing a wall - you really do have a good chance of surviving in most straight-wing single engine aircraft.
Conversely, if you decide to turnback and get it wrong you'll almost certainly die.
NOTE this isn't an observation on the accident to the Spitfire that started this thread. I believe Dan to be an exceptional pilot (we've never met) and am sure that he would've chosen the best option.
Think drag
Not a comment on this accident or Dan's decision, however, just in case folks are tempted to put a turn-back in their 'repertoire' a word of caution.. please think carefully about doing turnbacks in GA piston aircraft.. Unless you actually stop the engine I believe any practice turnback training is unrealistic and may lead to false expectations in a real failure. There can be significantly more drag from a windmilling prop than from a prop being driven by an engine at idle. If you have a fixed pitch prop there is not a lot you can do in the real situation, if its a VP prop you could try to reduce the RPM which will reduce drag a little. If the prop is stopped (ie engine is siezed) you are probably best off, but will still glide more steeply than if it were driven by an idling engine.. Add 'startle factor' and the fact that most GA aircraft are not equipped with AoA indication nor are pilots trained to understand its significance, then the chances of pulling off a successful turnback following an EFATO are slim..
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Torquay UK
Age: 95
Posts: 163
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
windmills
Wind milling props produce oodles of drag! (think what an autogyro can do)
They also wreck the airflow over the tail.
Rule of thumb- keep straight on take offs and landings.
Or clean trousers please.
They also wreck the airflow over the tail.
Rule of thumb- keep straight on take offs and landings.
Or clean trousers please.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From the previous 2 posts about prop drag I would expect the PF to stuff the nose down, assess the glide angle & height and make a decision. Every situation is different. It is not a one size fits all. Much depends, as has been said, on height, a/c & experience.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: nowhere
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That has to be one of the most foolish policies I have ever seen. I can see a policy of no turnarounds having logic but to mandate a straight ahead landing when 30 degrees to the right could be a field versus apartment buildings is dangerous.
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
impressive contributions have been made regarding turnbacks and technique
but the slipping turn has not been mentioned as such ?
iirc Brian Lecomber recommended this as giving the least height loss
my impression is that steep slipping top-rudder turns in the circuit were normal pre WW2
in the USA there's tight 700' circuits
in the Pitts 50deg bank letting the stick forward to maintain AoA seemed to get the job done
especially turning final
my instructor was ex Air Corps ie an 'old school' glide approach type
the plane is made (via its power/trim characteristics) to do the job if given a chance
but the slipping turn has not been mentioned as such ?
iirc Brian Lecomber recommended this as giving the least height loss
my impression is that steep slipping top-rudder turns in the circuit were normal pre WW2
in the USA there's tight 700' circuits
in the Pitts 50deg bank letting the stick forward to maintain AoA seemed to get the job done
especially turning final
my instructor was ex Air Corps ie an 'old school' glide approach type
the plane is made (via its power/trim characteristics) to do the job if given a chance
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Santa Rosa, CA, USA
Age: 71
Posts: 169
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Update on the cause
When the initial report is an accident happened because "the engine lost power" I'm always interested in exactly what caused the engine failure. From AAIB Bulletin: 3/2016 G-BRRA:
The aircraft took off from Runway 29 at Biggin Hill Airport. The pilot retracted the landing gear and reduced power to 2,400 rpm and +4 boost but, one or two seconds later, he heard the engine ‘cough’. This caused him some concern, so he turned the aircraft back towards the airfield, intending to climb overhead to investigate before proceeding en-route. A few seconds later, the engine lost power and the pilot could see flames coming from the right-hand exhaust pipes....
A limited examination of the engine after the accident suggested that a cylinder in the right bank had a broken inlet valve spring with a penetration of the associated induction flame trap.
The aircraft took off from Runway 29 at Biggin Hill Airport. The pilot retracted the landing gear and reduced power to 2,400 rpm and +4 boost but, one or two seconds later, he heard the engine ‘cough’. This caused him some concern, so he turned the aircraft back towards the airfield, intending to climb overhead to investigate before proceeding en-route. A few seconds later, the engine lost power and the pilot could see flames coming from the right-hand exhaust pipes....
A limited examination of the engine after the accident suggested that a cylinder in the right bank had a broken inlet valve spring with a penetration of the associated induction flame trap.
