Engine quit late downwind at Bankstown 6/6/09
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Oz
Posts: 186
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And the thinking enunciated by Cloud Basher - that if you get away with it, it is automatically OK - is why people try to do stupid things and end up dead. Good luck with that.
It is that very last part of the glide where it is incredibly critical to keep the aircraft flying, and not be tempted to raise that nose - yet so many get it wrong trying to stretch the glide or turn too steeply.
I agree 100% with this statement, as I am sure would every other aviator. i was always taught to fly the aircraft ALL the way to the ground. What I don't agree with is your next part as he did level his wings, he did land the aircraft, it may have been harder than normal, but he did it and it worked.
Maybe it could have been done better, the fact of this is that WE DO NOT KNOW!!!!!!! We weren't there, we weren't in the pilots seat and we are basing all our ideas on a couple of radio calls and five seconds of footage.
The FACTS are:
1. He and his pax survived.
3. He made the airfield area (if not the runway but it was a "suitable" landing area, much moreso than any other options surrounding Bankstown)
2. The aircraft is (probably) reuseable.
We can play what-ifs all day saying he is lucky he didn't catch a wingtip, he is lucky he stalled it so close to the ground etc etc, all I am saying is give the guy the benefit of the doubt due to the fact that he made it in one piece!
I am all for learning from this but we can do this in a positive way without assumptions, not in the negative way that seems to infect so many on this forum.
Over here, a guy recently had high oil temps and pressures in a twin with smoke coming from the engine. (I previously posted a pic of the pot here when the engineers had removed it from the engine). He was 8 miles from an airport and as the engine was still making partial power he elected to use everything in that engine in order to make the field. He made it, the engine is stuffed but he, his student and the aircraft are all safe and in one piece. We debriefed this and I would have shut the engine down and secured it in this instance, however he chose not to for a number of reasons all of them valid to him! During the debrief some people said they would do the same as him, others said they would have shut it down. The point is, at the end of the debrief, he was patted on the back with a job well done. I learnt a lot out of it, and so did he and his student as well as the instructors at the school and the other pilots in attendance. Whilst some may disagree with his descision to keep it running, no-one was nasty about it as are people here, there was no mention of luck, and everyopne went away thinking, 1. Glad it wasn't me, 2. I have some more tools in my tool box now if a similar situation occurs. People here appear all high and mighty and say this and that and appear to have closed minds and don't want to learn, they would rather throw rocks. Very sad indeed.
If we are to play what-ifs do it in a way that doesn't drag this pilot into a hypothetical saying "he is lucky, he stuffed it completely, I could have done it oh-so-much-better" when the facts PROVE different and you have NOTHING to back up how you would have handled it any better. YOU (and me!) may have put it into a child care centre and killed 15 0-4 year olds! We simply don't know.
I guess it also comes down to the type of people that are attracted to aviation. Most are type A personalities, control freaks. We are always the best pilots, we can always do it better than the next guy. All I am asking is perhaps we can all learn a lot out of this, perhaps it could have been done better.
Gelkichi, rather than phrasing this like you did:
That is the reason that so many here are being critical. I don't think anyone is trying to tear him a new one, but it is a pretty good example of how NOT to manage the last part of a forced landing, and people need to recognise that and learn from it.
This guy was VERY lucky. Great job of getting it there, but had the wing dropped a second earlier, or god forbid, the other way, it would have been very messy - and for no good reason.
Use of the flaps at the right moment may have helped, also.
Once again, a great outcome, but not a video to show people as an example of how it should be done.
This guy was VERY lucky. Great job of getting it there, but had the wing dropped a second earlier, or god forbid, the other way, it would have been very messy - and for no good reason.
Use of the flaps at the right moment may have helped, also.
Once again, a great outcome, but not a video to show people as an example of how it should be done.
"In a simliar situation you have the choice of flaps in order to provide a slower approach speed, but remember they shorten your glide distance, causing your touchdown point the be closer to you than your previous non-flap touchdown point. You need to way this up in your mind (in an instant!) It may cause you to put it down in the areas before the runway which may have a fence you might need to go through but you will achieve a more controlled landing (the area before the fence is I believe clear for 100 or so metres IIRC), This may be a valid option to ensure absolute positive control of the aircraft right to touchdown, however you then accept the damage that will result to the airframe due to the chain link boundary fence. This may cause other issues, but needs to be in your thought process. Also you don't necessarily need to land on a runway as was shown by this pilot. You could land directly across the runways or in whatever direction (preferably into wind) that will allow you to get on the ground, don't be a sucker for thinking you have to land in the same direction as the runway or you absolutely have to land into wind.
The pilot in this case appeared to stall the aircraft immediately before touchdown. In this instance it worked as he had levelled the wings and the distance above the ground was such that a wingdrop, even if it did occur would not have resulted in an issue because he was only a couple of feet off the ground. Your decision to make as the PIC, whether to accept maybe going through a fence and the damage that may result to you and your passenger or the possible risk of a stall just before landing. If you stall it too far above the ground and a wing drops your wing could dig in and the aircraft cartwheel. If this happens you are definitely a passenger and at the mercy of the crashworthiness of the aircraft you are flying. Always fly the aircraft onto the ground. The pilot in this instance from the five seconds of video we have, appears to have used every bit of energy available to him so he arrived with the minimum amount of energy. This shoudl always be a goal, especially where the landing area is small! It obviously worked and he survived. Whatever happens we need to unsure that we touchdown wings level, preferably with little sideslip as that can also cause a cartwheel.
Great job to the pilot, glad you walked away, tailwinds and blue skies to you".
This to me is much more valuable, much more positive and gives points for pilots to ponder over and discuss, rather than saying he was lucky, he was hopeless pilot, his descision making was flawed, etc.
What I find really amusing is that if there was no video of this incident poeple would have nothing but praise for this pilot for safely putting down his aircraft, surviving and not putting anyone else on the ground in danger. Instead we must now second guess his every move and descision. He was successful, take what you want from the video, I myself take away from this that in this instance he did the main things right, touched down wings level, with absolute minimum airspeed on a suitable area. It wasn't pretty but he walked away.
Cheers
CB
or would it be better to recognise that you couldn't get back to the airport safely and put it down somewhere less convenient?
CB
I am not as PC as you, nor am I as good at sugar coating things.
I am also not attacking the pilot himself, but rather, those who seem to be making it out to be some kind of chuck yeager-ish demonstration of skill.
No matter how many times I watch that video I cannot see that he rolled the wings level as you suggest. The wing just happened to drop, due to the stall, in the right direction.
Flaps: Always use full flaps! Even if you have to wait until the last couple of seconds, when your inertia will mean that you're in the flare before the extra drag spoils your glide. Know how lowering the flaps will affect your aircraft in such circumstances.
FACT is that he broke several of the 'rules' of forced landings, just in that few seconds the aircraft is on video.
Do I think I could do better? Possibly, but without being in that situation, as you say, we will never know. Would I be just as critical of my own performance, ABSOLUTELY.
I am not as PC as you, nor am I as good at sugar coating things.
I am also not attacking the pilot himself, but rather, those who seem to be making it out to be some kind of chuck yeager-ish demonstration of skill.
No matter how many times I watch that video I cannot see that he rolled the wings level as you suggest. The wing just happened to drop, due to the stall, in the right direction.
Flaps: Always use full flaps! Even if you have to wait until the last couple of seconds, when your inertia will mean that you're in the flare before the extra drag spoils your glide. Know how lowering the flaps will affect your aircraft in such circumstances.
FACT is that he broke several of the 'rules' of forced landings, just in that few seconds the aircraft is on video.
Do I think I could do better? Possibly, but without being in that situation, as you say, we will never know. Would I be just as critical of my own performance, ABSOLUTELY.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: back of the crew bus
Posts: 1,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
perhaps this guy is much better than a lot here and was a good enough pilot to be able to get the most out of his aircraft and the energy avialable to him
perhaps his skill level is well above that of a lot of us out there purporting to be pilots. Perhaps, he was as skillful as CAPT Sully. Perhaps he could give Bob Hoover a run for his money
the difference is my assumptions are assuming the cup is half full, not half empty
Your attitude is the reason why GA has the safety record that it does, mine is the reason that airlines (in the western world, anyway) have the safety record that they do. Honest and dispassionate appraisals obviously bother you, but they are the only way safety ever improves.
And before you interpret the above as a personal attack on you, it isn't. It is my growing lack of patience with the common PPRuNe practice of praising any pilot that gets away with anything and automatically assuming that they can have done wrong.
glekichi said it well, and like him I would be the first to be critical of my own performance after an incident - in fact, in the airline environment there would be an extensive debriefing following any emergency and it wouldn't be predicated on the feelings of the pilot. That's how you improve safety...
Oh... and by the way - please indicate where anybody has said this guy was a useless pilot or not skilled or any of the other pejorative terms you used. We aren't talking about that.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Darwin, Australia
Age: 53
Posts: 424
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
3 Posts
My $0.02 cents:
The pilot told the tower near the end that he didn't think he was going to make it - this tells me that his original plan did not work as he intended.
IMHO the number one priority in an aircraft incident is to select the option which gives the greatest possibility of protecting peoples lives if the plan doesn't work perfectly. If this means you select the 'conservative' option where you plan to seriously damage the aircraft in the process it is a far better option than choosing to taking a 50% chance of an undamaged aircraft with a 50% chance of everyone being killed.
I don't think anyone involved in this discussion suggests the pilot had any energy left in the bank when he 'landed'. If the actual performance achieved was any less for any reason whatsoever it is quite likely that the occupants of the aircraft would have been seriously injured or possibly killed.
From a simplistic outcome based assessment the pilot passed as everyone walked away from the aircraft.
From a risk based perspective I'm sure that even the pilot will agree that there were numerous things that could have been differently to increase the probability of a 'walk away' outcome. The only way to improve as pilots is by evaluating what could have been done better, otherwise we commit ourselves to mediocrity.
werbil
PS remoak
The pilot told the tower near the end that he didn't think he was going to make it - this tells me that his original plan did not work as he intended.
IMHO the number one priority in an aircraft incident is to select the option which gives the greatest possibility of protecting peoples lives if the plan doesn't work perfectly. If this means you select the 'conservative' option where you plan to seriously damage the aircraft in the process it is a far better option than choosing to taking a 50% chance of an undamaged aircraft with a 50% chance of everyone being killed.
I don't think anyone involved in this discussion suggests the pilot had any energy left in the bank when he 'landed'. If the actual performance achieved was any less for any reason whatsoever it is quite likely that the occupants of the aircraft would have been seriously injured or possibly killed.
From a simplistic outcome based assessment the pilot passed as everyone walked away from the aircraft.
From a risk based perspective I'm sure that even the pilot will agree that there were numerous things that could have been differently to increase the probability of a 'walk away' outcome. The only way to improve as pilots is by evaluating what could have been done better, otherwise we commit ourselves to mediocrity.
werbil
PS remoak
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Oz
Posts: 186
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
remoak,
I guess in your airline safety debriefs, you immediately say “X would have been a better way of doing this and Joe Bloggs airline pilot was very lucky", BEFORE all the facts are known? No I didn't think so. You wait for all possible facts to come in, you go through it with other knowledgeable people, you disect THE FACTS, you don't make assumptions and you come out with lessons learned modify training, brief other pilots, put it out out the world if need be etc. What you DON'T do is exactly what you have done here, that is make assumptions based on 5 seconds of footage and then state the pilot was lucky. Luck may have been involved, but we are only assuming this.
The pilot may be of the skill of CAPT Sully and Bob Hoover or he may be the worlds worst GA pilot who let go of the controls on downwind and the landomatic Cherokee pretty much landed itself! My point is we don't know, so to say luck is involved is wrong at this point in time. I am sure if the pilot is a good pilot then he will be going over this in his mind, debriefing himself and working out how he could have done it better.
Cutting through all the crap, I think you and me are actually saying pretty much the same thing. I agree his actions should be teased apart, I agree that we can all learn something from this. I just dont' agree with doing it on a public board without anything more than 5 seconds of footage. If you must do this then my suggestion on how to do it in my previous post may be a better way of doing things. Maybe not...
BTW I have also been invoved in the investigation of two aircraft crashes and nothing gets my goat more than people Monday morning quarterbacking the pilot/s before all the facts are known. Thus my rather "heart on the sleeve" response to this I guess.
It is my growing lack of inpatience with the common PPRuNe practice of dismissing a pilots actions as luck or (insert a pergorative term here), anything but pilot skill regardless of the outcome without knowing the facts, that even got me to post on this thread (and the thread about the Police pilots). Have a look at the threads on the Air France flight for further proof!
re my attitude: What I do in my day job is irrelevant, other than to say we brief, analyse, debrief and make changes, brief, analyse, debrief and so on it goes until we are as perfect as a human can be at our jobs. We have some of the strictest safety protocols we possibly can or else we and those affected turn to pink mist. Believe me when I say that egos and personalities are left at the door and everything is laid naked, disected in minutae until we come up with continually better ways of achieving our goals. We do this every day. So it is not just airline pilots who go through this process and have this attitude. So please do not tell me what my attitude is.
I also agree with gekichi, I would also be the first to analyse and if necessary constructively criticise my own actions. I am sure nearly every pilot would after these circumstances and all good pilots would as a matter of course do it after every flight. I don't agree with his blanket statement saying ALWAYS use full flaps.
You are right, it was my interpretation of what people had said that came up with "perjorative" terms, but I am sure more than one person reading this thread has had the same interpretation of what was being said.
And other than the attitude thing, I haven’t taken anything you have said as a personal attack.
Cheers
CB
I guess in your airline safety debriefs, you immediately say “X would have been a better way of doing this and Joe Bloggs airline pilot was very lucky", BEFORE all the facts are known? No I didn't think so. You wait for all possible facts to come in, you go through it with other knowledgeable people, you disect THE FACTS, you don't make assumptions and you come out with lessons learned modify training, brief other pilots, put it out out the world if need be etc. What you DON'T do is exactly what you have done here, that is make assumptions based on 5 seconds of footage and then state the pilot was lucky. Luck may have been involved, but we are only assuming this.
The pilot may be of the skill of CAPT Sully and Bob Hoover or he may be the worlds worst GA pilot who let go of the controls on downwind and the landomatic Cherokee pretty much landed itself! My point is we don't know, so to say luck is involved is wrong at this point in time. I am sure if the pilot is a good pilot then he will be going over this in his mind, debriefing himself and working out how he could have done it better.
Cutting through all the crap, I think you and me are actually saying pretty much the same thing. I agree his actions should be teased apart, I agree that we can all learn something from this. I just dont' agree with doing it on a public board without anything more than 5 seconds of footage. If you must do this then my suggestion on how to do it in my previous post may be a better way of doing things. Maybe not...
BTW I have also been invoved in the investigation of two aircraft crashes and nothing gets my goat more than people Monday morning quarterbacking the pilot/s before all the facts are known. Thus my rather "heart on the sleeve" response to this I guess.
It is my growing lack of inpatience with the common PPRuNe practice of dismissing a pilots actions as luck or (insert a pergorative term here), anything but pilot skill regardless of the outcome without knowing the facts, that even got me to post on this thread (and the thread about the Police pilots). Have a look at the threads on the Air France flight for further proof!
re my attitude: What I do in my day job is irrelevant, other than to say we brief, analyse, debrief and make changes, brief, analyse, debrief and so on it goes until we are as perfect as a human can be at our jobs. We have some of the strictest safety protocols we possibly can or else we and those affected turn to pink mist. Believe me when I say that egos and personalities are left at the door and everything is laid naked, disected in minutae until we come up with continually better ways of achieving our goals. We do this every day. So it is not just airline pilots who go through this process and have this attitude. So please do not tell me what my attitude is.
I also agree with gekichi, I would also be the first to analyse and if necessary constructively criticise my own actions. I am sure nearly every pilot would after these circumstances and all good pilots would as a matter of course do it after every flight. I don't agree with his blanket statement saying ALWAYS use full flaps.
You are right, it was my interpretation of what people had said that came up with "perjorative" terms, but I am sure more than one person reading this thread has had the same interpretation of what was being said.
And other than the attitude thing, I haven’t taken anything you have said as a personal attack.
Cheers
CB
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Oz
Posts: 186
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Werbil
My point exactly. It may very well be choices made earlier that drove the outcome of the landing and no one including Chuck Yeager may have been able to do better than the pilot did. We simply don't know. Perhaps he could have turned towards the field earlier (perhaps he already did?), perhaps he could have traded speed for height (perhaps he already did), perhaps he could have restrated the engine (perhaps he tried), perhaps he could have used flaps (perhaps he tried and they jammed?), perhaps he took 10 or 15 seconds before his brain accepted the power loss, during which time he lost speed and altitude (perhaps he responded immediately).
My point is we simply do not know, so perhaps the end was a lucky outcome as remoke says, due to a whole heap of holes in the swiss cheese lining up and the pilot not connecting the dots and making the right decisions. Or perhaps he acted as good as anyone possible could and the outcome was as good as anyone would have achieved under the circumstances.
I think we all agree here we need to learn from it so as you say we are not stuck with mediocrity, but lets base it on facts not assumptions. Thats all I am saying.
Cheers
CB
My point exactly. It may very well be choices made earlier that drove the outcome of the landing and no one including Chuck Yeager may have been able to do better than the pilot did. We simply don't know. Perhaps he could have turned towards the field earlier (perhaps he already did?), perhaps he could have traded speed for height (perhaps he already did), perhaps he could have restrated the engine (perhaps he tried), perhaps he could have used flaps (perhaps he tried and they jammed?), perhaps he took 10 or 15 seconds before his brain accepted the power loss, during which time he lost speed and altitude (perhaps he responded immediately).
My point is we simply do not know, so perhaps the end was a lucky outcome as remoke says, due to a whole heap of holes in the swiss cheese lining up and the pilot not connecting the dots and making the right decisions. Or perhaps he acted as good as anyone possible could and the outcome was as good as anyone would have achieved under the circumstances.
I think we all agree here we need to learn from it so as you say we are not stuck with mediocrity, but lets base it on facts not assumptions. Thats all I am saying.
Cheers
CB
Join Date: May 2009
Location: In a caravan
Posts: 179
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
no stall far as i can see
whilst I can understand both CB's & remoak's point of view (their essentally saying the same thing, just a little more passion from CB's end)
I have to say from watching that video irrespective of how he arrived at that point in the 5 seconds of video I think there was a fair bit of luck considering the a/c was stalled & in a wing drop, how ever he & his pax walked away so a good out come but I hope the pilot is questioning himself & looking for ways to improve as we all should after a incident like that. Video is a great training aid if he gets a copy of that vid might help him with his recollection of the event
DJ,
If it was a stall from 15 ft with a wing drop where is the high rate of descent, where is the nose drop, why is the nose gear still intact, why no cartwheel, how did he roll wings level prior to touch down.
If it was a stall from 15 ft with a wing drop where is the high rate of descent, where is the nose drop, why is the nose gear still intact, why no cartwheel, how did he roll wings level prior to touch down.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Sydney NSW Australia
Posts: 3,051
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
for those making comment on the options, and have no idea of the surrondings at YSBK...
well, here are your options....
all this to the north of the field.
all this while on downwind for 29 as was the case on that fateful day (departed 11 in this shot, but same track, just reversed when inbound to 29)
and your options on base for 29. this is where our cherokee pilot was approaching from, but substantially lower. his landing site is just to the left of this shot before the threshold of the closest runway.
as you can see. plenty of options... where would you go?
as i said before, he did a fantastic job just to make the field.
well, here are your options....
all this to the north of the field.
all this while on downwind for 29 as was the case on that fateful day (departed 11 in this shot, but same track, just reversed when inbound to 29)
and your options on base for 29. this is where our cherokee pilot was approaching from, but substantially lower. his landing site is just to the left of this shot before the threshold of the closest runway.
as you can see. plenty of options... where would you go?
as i said before, he did a fantastic job just to make the field.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: turn L @ Taupo, just past the Niagra Falls...
Posts: 596
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I reckon perhaps you are reading a bit too much into some of the comments Cloud Basher and others. I've not seen any comments that could be construed as "tearing the bloke a new one" or anything of the like. For the record, I believe any pilot should be justifiably proud of the outcome -no injuries, minimal damage, everyone walked away from it... but whether you like it or not, Monday-morning quarterbacking is what pilots do. Or have you never read a crash/incident report and wondered how you might go in the same situation, or read something and thought to yourself "********..."? Tell me you haven't, I'll show you someone deluding themselves.
What is being questioned here, is the process by which the outcome was achieved. I'd lay my bottom dollar on that aircraft being fully stalled throught the final turn, with the subsequent arrival being decided by the fates. Now, I haven't spent the time watching the clip(s) again but a couple of questions for you: How long from his 1st indication of trouble to the arrival? Using say 70KIAS as his speed, what distance would he have covered in that time-period? Given the 1500' circuit-height documented here by others and the time-elapsed, what was his ROD roughly during that period? Based on those figures can you extrapolate what the performance achieved was like for the aircraft? How does it all stack-up now? I'm genuinely interested! Does anyone know if he turned immediately towards a suitable approach from the 1st sign of trouble?
To reiterate: this is not intended as a crucifiction of someone that achieved an enviable result, but as a learning process -something we can all take valuable lessons away from.
And yes, I have been tested, once. A C-172 onto NZRC (on Google Earth at S46 53 57.05 E168 06 19.48) more years ago now than I care to remember. When I reduced power for the approach at 1000' around Horseshoe Bay, I lost all power due a carb assembly that had worked loose. Conserved height, made the runway and landed after crossing the threshold clean at about 100AGL -not usual practice for that strip. I definitely wasn't fond of the landing short alternative though, so flap stayed in until I was certain. My CP witnessed the event from the ground & was there to chew on my arse for a crap approach -until I mentioned it was FLWOP from quite a ways out.
And desmotronic, like you, I too am amazed that none of the things you mentioned happened -but for a very different reason.
What is being questioned here, is the process by which the outcome was achieved. I'd lay my bottom dollar on that aircraft being fully stalled throught the final turn, with the subsequent arrival being decided by the fates. Now, I haven't spent the time watching the clip(s) again but a couple of questions for you: How long from his 1st indication of trouble to the arrival? Using say 70KIAS as his speed, what distance would he have covered in that time-period? Given the 1500' circuit-height documented here by others and the time-elapsed, what was his ROD roughly during that period? Based on those figures can you extrapolate what the performance achieved was like for the aircraft? How does it all stack-up now? I'm genuinely interested! Does anyone know if he turned immediately towards a suitable approach from the 1st sign of trouble?
To reiterate: this is not intended as a crucifiction of someone that achieved an enviable result, but as a learning process -something we can all take valuable lessons away from.
And yes, I have been tested, once. A C-172 onto NZRC (on Google Earth at S46 53 57.05 E168 06 19.48) more years ago now than I care to remember. When I reduced power for the approach at 1000' around Horseshoe Bay, I lost all power due a carb assembly that had worked loose. Conserved height, made the runway and landed after crossing the threshold clean at about 100AGL -not usual practice for that strip. I definitely wasn't fond of the landing short alternative though, so flap stayed in until I was certain. My CP witnessed the event from the ground & was there to chew on my arse for a crap approach -until I mentioned it was FLWOP from quite a ways out.
And desmotronic, like you, I too am amazed that none of the things you mentioned happened -but for a very different reason.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: back of the crew bus
Posts: 1,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cloud Basher
Actually, no. It doesn't go like that at all.
Normally, after an incident that didn't result in an injury but is still notifiable (say a three-engine landing for example), the pilots would be stood down and rushed off to HQ for an interview with the Chief Pilot or Fleet Manager. They would ask a couple of simple questions, like "Did you follow SOPs" and "were there any special circumstances". If the incident was handled in a routine manner, there would normally be a couple of questions like "can you think of anything you could have done better" and "In the light of your experience, do you think we need to change the SOPs?", and that would be it. Back to work with you.
If there was a suspicion that SOPs had not been followed or that there had been a breakdown in cockpit procedure, the FDR and CVR would be pulled.
The point here is that it isn't brain surgery. In this case, the video and the radio conversations tell you 95% of what you need to know. The physical facts are obvious, the only thing we don't know is what the decision-making process of the pilot was. Whatever it was, it doesn't alter the fact that he arrived in the way that he did (ie basically out of control). Whether you consider that to be a good thing or not, I'll leave to you.
Ultralights
Kind of hard to tell from the photos, but looking at Google Earth I can see a few (better) options.
The point a few of are getting at is that the making the field in an out-of-control fashion, versus landing in a more controlled fashion off the airport, is not a fantastic job at all. It is simply testing the limits of luck.
RadioSaigon
As you can see, not everybody wants to learn!
I guess in your airline safety debriefs, you immediately say “X would have been a better way of doing this and Joe Bloggs airline pilot was very lucky", BEFORE all the facts are known? No I didn't think so. You wait for all possible facts to come in, you go through it with other knowledgeable people, you disect THE FACTS, you don't make assumptions and you come out with lessons learned modify training, brief other pilots, put it out out the world if need be etc. What you DON'T do is exactly what you have done here, that is make assumptions based on 5 seconds of footage and then state the pilot was lucky. Luck may have been involved, but we are only assuming this.
Normally, after an incident that didn't result in an injury but is still notifiable (say a three-engine landing for example), the pilots would be stood down and rushed off to HQ for an interview with the Chief Pilot or Fleet Manager. They would ask a couple of simple questions, like "Did you follow SOPs" and "were there any special circumstances". If the incident was handled in a routine manner, there would normally be a couple of questions like "can you think of anything you could have done better" and "In the light of your experience, do you think we need to change the SOPs?", and that would be it. Back to work with you.
If there was a suspicion that SOPs had not been followed or that there had been a breakdown in cockpit procedure, the FDR and CVR would be pulled.
The point here is that it isn't brain surgery. In this case, the video and the radio conversations tell you 95% of what you need to know. The physical facts are obvious, the only thing we don't know is what the decision-making process of the pilot was. Whatever it was, it doesn't alter the fact that he arrived in the way that he did (ie basically out of control). Whether you consider that to be a good thing or not, I'll leave to you.
Ultralights
Kind of hard to tell from the photos, but looking at Google Earth I can see a few (better) options.
he did a fantastic job just to make the field.
RadioSaigon
As you can see, not everybody wants to learn!
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Oz
Posts: 186
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
remoak,
actually what I said was almost exactly what you say you do, you just gave what I called the "knowledgeable people" a name, that of the CP or Fleet manager and gave the notifying of other pilots/the world a term of changing SOP's. I was just keeping it general.
So we do agree!
You are right, it isn't rocket surgery. As someone who obviously hasn't done much if any flying out of Bankstown, you really are showing your ignorance of the options when you make statements about using google earth to find suitable landing spots. Every pilot I know who flies out of Bankstown knows EXACTLY where the options are and already has a plan of exactly where they are going to go if a power failure/fire/whatever happens at any point in the circuit, lets call it a personal SOP if you like. He may not have had this and it may have been luck. If this is the case he would be one of the pilots who simply sticks his head in the sand and says "it won't happen to me". But I do believe it is a bit more than luck the he survived. Maybe not much, but a bit...
Anyway here is the crux of this whole issue - Guess what, even if what you say is 100% correct and he put himself in a position where he had no control of the aircraft for the last 50 feet, it was an uncontrolled crash that just happened to be 100% luck that he and his pax walked away, it was still an awesome job, because - knowing the options - it was the most survivable area in which to try and get to, even if there was a risk of an uncontrolled landing. To try and go anywhere else within gliding distance would mean he would put others at risk on the ground, those being factory workers or houses that contain families, or car drivers etc. Therefore he had NOTHING to lose by trying to make the field.
He was either:
1. Going to crash into houses or factories anywhere but the field, thus the chances of survival being slim but the chances of injuring someone else on the ground being great; or
2. He was going to try and make the field, which if he didn't would result in option 1 above, so no difference, but if he did make it, even in an uncontrolled manner, at least it only put him and his pax at risk and not others on the ground.
So yeah, I concede to you that he may have been lucky, but perhaps, just perhaps this guy made the right decision and did not put anyone except himself and his pax in danger due to his actions. Just perhaps, because as we both have said we have no idea of his actions previous, or his actual position, or what other things he took into account in deciding to try and make his "basically uncontrolled" landing at Bankstown.
Anyway I thank you for the discussion, it has been enlightening and it did make me think even more about options at YSBK. You will be happy to know I have even looked at my own "personal YSBK operations SOP's" with a fresh set of eyes, I need to go for another few circuits at YSBK in order to confirm a couple of changes in my courses-of-action and what I believe are a couple of extra options that I had not previously considered. But this is just me and I will be discussing all of these with other pilots who operate out of YSBK on my return in a couple of weeks. Thus my "knowledgeable" people, to see if the SOP's do indeed changing or my original SOP's were better.
Guess it comes back to aviation being all about decisions, and I guess one of the things that attracts me to aviation is that you get immediate feedback on the validity of those decisions. No long wait to know if you are right or wrong.
Cheers
CB
actually what I said was almost exactly what you say you do, you just gave what I called the "knowledgeable people" a name, that of the CP or Fleet manager and gave the notifying of other pilots/the world a term of changing SOP's. I was just keeping it general.
So we do agree!
You are right, it isn't rocket surgery
. As someone who obviously hasn't done much if any flying out of Bankstown, you really are showing your ignorance of the options when you make statements about using google earth to find suitable landing spots. Every pilot I know who flies out of Bankstown knows EXACTLY where the options are and already has a plan of exactly where they are going to go if a power failure/fire/whatever happens at any point in the circuit, lets call it a personal SOP if you like. He may not have had this and it may have been luck. If this is the case he would be one of the pilots who simply sticks his head in the sand and says "it won't happen to me". But I do believe it is a bit more than luck the he survived. Maybe not much, but a bit...Anyway here is the crux of this whole issue - Guess what, even if what you say is 100% correct and he put himself in a position where he had no control of the aircraft for the last 50 feet, it was an uncontrolled crash that just happened to be 100% luck that he and his pax walked away, it was still an awesome job, because - knowing the options - it was the most survivable area in which to try and get to, even if there was a risk of an uncontrolled landing. To try and go anywhere else within gliding distance would mean he would put others at risk on the ground, those being factory workers or houses that contain families, or car drivers etc. Therefore he had NOTHING to lose by trying to make the field.
He was either:
1. Going to crash into houses or factories anywhere but the field, thus the chances of survival being slim but the chances of injuring someone else on the ground being great; or
2. He was going to try and make the field, which if he didn't would result in option 1 above, so no difference, but if he did make it, even in an uncontrolled manner, at least it only put him and his pax at risk and not others on the ground.
So yeah, I concede to you that he may have been lucky, but perhaps, just perhaps this guy made the right decision and did not put anyone except himself and his pax in danger due to his actions. Just perhaps, because as we both have said we have no idea of his actions previous, or his actual position, or what other things he took into account in deciding to try and make his "basically uncontrolled" landing at Bankstown.
Anyway I thank you for the discussion, it has been enlightening and it did make me think even more about options at YSBK. You will be happy to know I have even looked at my own "personal YSBK operations SOP's" with a fresh set of eyes, I need to go for another few circuits at YSBK in order to confirm a couple of changes in my courses-of-action and what I believe are a couple of extra options that I had not previously considered. But this is just me and I will be discussing all of these with other pilots who operate out of YSBK on my return in a couple of weeks. Thus my "knowledgeable" people, to see if the SOP's do indeed changing or my original SOP's were better.
Guess it comes back to aviation being all about decisions, and I guess one of the things that attracts me to aviation is that you get immediate feedback on the validity of those decisions. No long wait to know if you are right or wrong.
Cheers
CB
Guest
Posts: n/a
If it was a stall from 15 ft with a wing drop where is the high rate of descent, where is the nose drop, why is the nose gear still intact, why no cartwheel, how did he roll wings level prior to touch down.
If you can't see that this is a stall, you'd be well advised for the safety of your passengers, the people sharing the skies with you, not to mention your own, to seek some training. 
Honestly, I'm not trying to put you down or anything, but there's clearly a deficiency in your training somewhere, and it'll bit you in the @ss sooner or later if you don't address it!
What may be getting you is that this stall is happening so close to the ground and just before the aeroplane 'lands' that it looks like it's supposed to happen.
Pause the video at 1:22 and look at the angle of attack of the outer wing. Reckon it's above the 18 or so degrees stalling angle to the oncoming airflow? I'd say that's a pretty safe assumption.
What follows is exactly what a stalled aeroplane would do:
- Extremely rapid roll to the side of the stalled outer wing -- very unlikely this roll rate would be pilot input. If he'd been a few feet higher at the point where the wheels touch the ground, the aeroplane would have had more time to roll longitudinally (i.e. further wing drop) and the wing would have gone in the ground, with the obvious consequences
- nose drop resulting in the dust-splashing 'landing' -- again if he'd been a few feet higher at that point, the aeroplane would have had more time to roll laterally (i.e. more nose down movement before hitting the ground) and would have arrived on the nose wheel with more force, most likely breaking it. Look closely at that arrival moment, the main wheel have a split second on the ground (thereby absorbing some of the energy and being able to straighten the aeroplane out somewhat) before the remaining energy goes onto the nose wheel resulting in a pronounced 'nodding''; the pilot was more than lucky it held! Mind you, it's now toast and will need replacement, I think that's another fair assumption
- after the wheels are on the ground, there are the beginnings of a cartwheel, again it's more likely it's remaining energy dissipating than deliberate pilot input
After entering that steep angle of bank so close to the ground, the pilot had very little to do with the outcome as the effectiveness of the controls would have been severely impaired, and this methinks is where the main lesson would be to take away from this:
If you bank an aeroplane that steeply without power so close to the ground, you're tempting fate.
Unnecessarily too, because without that last bank (starting 1:21), he would have been over more or less level ground and could have washed off any remaining energy in a flare and landed the thing in control.
Was the pilot very lucky that the events unfolded the way they did? If you still doubt this after the above explanation, show the video to a senior instructor and have a chat about it. If I was wrong in my analysis, I'd love to hear about it too.
..and to some of the others here -- you know who you are -- if people are supposed to learn from this (and it's clear from the responses there's a need for it!), stop w@nking on about how to best analyse an incident and actually start doing it
Last edited by PlankBlender; 23rd Jun 2009 at 00:41.
Do I think I could do better? Possibly, but without being in that situation, as you say, we will never know. Would I be just as critical of my own performance, ABSOLUTELY.
Back to your flock of sheep mate
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Oz
Posts: 186
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Plankbender, Fair points, I'll now analyse what few facts we have!
Your analysis and explanation are spot on as far as I am concerned from what we can see.
You did mix up your lateral and longitudinal rolls and axies, (an aircraft rolls laterally around its longitudinal axis and it pitches longitudinally about its lateral axis) but I am just being a dick pointing this out!
You can see the stall begin just as the aircraft starts to roll. You can also notice the fully deflected stabilator from that point. Looking more and more at this now I can see where you guys are coming from and indeed the actual last part of the landing does look as though he was very lucky. The roll to wings level does appear to stop or at least the roll rate slow as the nose reaches its highest pitchup point and wings come level, but this probably has more to do with ground effect than any pilot inputs. We can see the stabilator but not the aileron position.
Yes I do agree with you guys he was lucky, and I also agree with ultralights (and know from my experience) that the field is the only real option there, so good job getting it to the airfield environement and lucky to end up on its undercarriage.
Plankbender, What you say about rolling wings level earlier and landing across the runway direction is a very good point. It is definitely a suitable flat area so in a similar situation a better decision may have been to land across the runway direction somewhat meaning, as you say, you have enough energy left to achieve a normal flare and touchdown, maintaining full control of the aircraft and not stalling it in those last 10 or so feet. Thus relying less on luck!
Ok so I will now hop back in my box, tail between legs and let everyone here go back to their regular viewing. And I'll try and stop getting all emotional when we start disecting aircraft incidents and accidents.
Cheers
CB
Your analysis and explanation are spot on as far as I am concerned from what we can see.
You did mix up your lateral and longitudinal rolls and axies, (an aircraft rolls laterally around its longitudinal axis and it pitches longitudinally about its lateral axis
) but I am just being a dick pointing this out!You can see the stall begin just as the aircraft starts to roll. You can also notice the fully deflected stabilator from that point. Looking more and more at this now I can see where you guys are coming from and indeed the actual last part of the landing does look as though he was very lucky. The roll to wings level does appear to stop or at least the roll rate slow as the nose reaches its highest pitchup point and wings come level, but this probably has more to do with ground effect than any pilot inputs. We can see the stabilator but not the aileron position.
Yes I do agree with you guys he was lucky, and I also agree with ultralights (and know from my experience) that the field is the only real option there, so good job getting it to the airfield environement and lucky to end up on its undercarriage.
Plankbender, What you say about rolling wings level earlier and landing across the runway direction is a very good point. It is definitely a suitable flat area so in a similar situation a better decision may have been to land across the runway direction somewhat meaning, as you say, you have enough energy left to achieve a normal flare and touchdown, maintaining full control of the aircraft and not stalling it in those last 10 or so feet. Thus relying less on luck!
Ok so I will now hop back in my box, tail between legs and let everyone here go back to their regular viewing. And I'll try and stop getting all emotional when we start disecting aircraft incidents and accidents.
Cheers
CB
Guest
Posts: n/a
You did mix up your lateral and longitudinal rolls and axies, (an aircraft rolls laterally around its longitudinal axis and it pitches longitudinally about its lateral axis)
) but should have been clearer and said 'roll around the longitudinal axis' for the wing drop and 'roll around the lateral axis' for the nose drop.Just revising for my CPL aerodynamics exam on Thursday, so this is applied theory at its best