EFATO turn back
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
CSD
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.
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!
I see this has (predictably) degenerated into a civvy v RAAF bunfight again.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Jaba
I believe a lot of the turn back potential in the pc9 comes from climbing out at 180 and gliding at 120. This gives plenty of excess energy to get the aeroplane around the turn. Do piston Cessna's have the same potential?
I believe a lot of the turn back potential in the pc9 comes from climbing out at 180 and gliding at 120. This gives plenty of excess energy to get the aeroplane around the turn. Do piston Cessna's have the same potential?
It's all about risk Jabba.
Yes, it can be done in any aircraft given enough height compared to performance. But it takes practice and practice is time and money.
If we have endless time and money we'd make people have endorsements for every single engine aircraft they fly and the training would cover this and every other emergency contingency.
The civvy world generally doesn't do the training as the risk/reward - and likely performance - are not worth it. What's the likelihood of EFATO happening vs the time spend keeping current and the risk of doing it when not current.
It would seem that the RAAF has made similar risk analyses - QFIs do it but students don't.
Now you have made your own analysis and decided to acquire the training and prioritise the procedure in your personal risk mitigation and invested a such. But not everyone is in a position to do it - and if we were mandated to do it, the training costs of GA would be prohibitive.
Where do you stop in your opinion that training is inadequate? VFR in to IFR is a huge risk - arguably higher than EFATO. Should all VFR pilots have a SEIFR rating at a minimum?
Yes, it can be done in any aircraft given enough height compared to performance. But it takes practice and practice is time and money.
If we have endless time and money we'd make people have endorsements for every single engine aircraft they fly and the training would cover this and every other emergency contingency.
The civvy world generally doesn't do the training as the risk/reward - and likely performance - are not worth it. What's the likelihood of EFATO happening vs the time spend keeping current and the risk of doing it when not current.
It would seem that the RAAF has made similar risk analyses - QFIs do it but students don't.
Now you have made your own analysis and decided to acquire the training and prioritise the procedure in your personal risk mitigation and invested a such. But not everyone is in a position to do it - and if we were mandated to do it, the training costs of GA would be prohibitive.
Where do you stop in your opinion that training is inadequate? VFR in to IFR is a huge risk - arguably higher than EFATO. Should all VFR pilots have a SEIFR rating at a minimum?
Last edited by compressor stall; 5th Apr 2012 at 04:07.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Victoria
Age: 62
Posts: 984
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
However I agree with what you're getting at. If it's the incident I think it was, the aircraft was dual (i.e. studly in front, "Sir" in back). I'm assuming the instructor in question had practiced this maneouvre within the rules as they were at the time until he was happy with it, i.e. he KNEW his aircraft and (more importantly!) he KNEW he could handle it.
Read my last post again. OK for staff to practice it, bit don't teach it to students. That hasn't changed much. Remember the students are going to fly bigger and better things than a PC9, in particular aircraft with more than one engine. The only single engined operational type in the RAAF is the FAC PC9. Why go to all the effort and heartache of teaching students reciprocal turn-backs in an aircraft with an ejection seat. It's that risk v reward thing again.
Having said that, they will be trained to cope with that type of thing in the
PC9 when they do instructors course.
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.
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.
Captain Sand Dune, I’m with Jaba here – peace☺
My comments were in no way meant to turn this into a RAAF vs Civvy thing, I have seen both good and bad in BOTH systems. I’m sorry if my comments came across that way.
What I was saying, possibly not as clearly as I should have, was that in the CT4 I would ‘look ahead and crash visually’. There are a number of reasons for this, not the least being that the Parrot does not have an ejection seat.
To clarify the PC9 comments. The PC9 has a lower wing loading than the CT4 and as such is more manoeuvrable. The thought process in the PC9 was below nominated TB height, I would EJECT no matter what. Above the nominated height, I would CONSIDER a TB. If everything looked good I would attempt a TB. In the PC9, almost throughout the entire TB manoeuvre, I had the option to eject. I was not committed to completing the TB. Even if I screwed the turn and entered an incipient spin, I’m confident the seat would work (agreed a HIGHLY COMPRIMISED ejection) but my point is, I had options. TB looks good, hold off on ejection, still looking good, hold off on ejection, still looking good – ejection no longer needed – land. Conversely, TB looking average – wings level EJECT.
The PC9 also had much better energy than the parrot. An EFATO at 800’ usually meant you were relatively close to the strip, had the ‘luxury’ of being able to lower the nose and assess glide potential quickly, then commence the TB. This meant you occasionally had to push into wind for a second or two in order not to cramp yourself.
The CT4 on the other hand, has a relatively high wing loading, and its climb performance, as mentioned in other posts, is poor. By the time (hot day, full fuel, two pilots) you got to say 800’ (in light winds and prior to a xwind turn) you were further away from the strip. The parrot descends pretty quickly and during turns, the nose needs to be lowered a lot in order to maintain 80kts. If you are a reasonable distance from the strip, and you had not stalled during the turn (my earlier comments about students looking for the strip and not at the ATT are even more relevant here) then the next result was to land short, or the tendency was to stretch the glide – not good.
In a strong wind, a TB would leave you running off the departure end of the strip with a high ground speed. A crash ahead could reduce your GS to 60kts or less (wind dependant) and give you a much more survivable crash.
I have done TB’s in the Parrot, usually above 1000’ (which in most cases means you are on down wind), and it is more of a ‘tight cct’ than a TB.
I fly ‘civvy’ lighties now, and brief that below 1000’ (airfield/wind/etc dependent) I will ‘look ahead and crash visually’
Without the luxury of an ejection seat, in most cases, in my opinion, a crash ahead is the best option.
My comments were in no way meant to turn this into a RAAF vs Civvy thing, I have seen both good and bad in BOTH systems. I’m sorry if my comments came across that way.
What I was saying, possibly not as clearly as I should have, was that in the CT4 I would ‘look ahead and crash visually’. There are a number of reasons for this, not the least being that the Parrot does not have an ejection seat.
To clarify the PC9 comments. The PC9 has a lower wing loading than the CT4 and as such is more manoeuvrable. The thought process in the PC9 was below nominated TB height, I would EJECT no matter what. Above the nominated height, I would CONSIDER a TB. If everything looked good I would attempt a TB. In the PC9, almost throughout the entire TB manoeuvre, I had the option to eject. I was not committed to completing the TB. Even if I screwed the turn and entered an incipient spin, I’m confident the seat would work (agreed a HIGHLY COMPRIMISED ejection) but my point is, I had options. TB looks good, hold off on ejection, still looking good, hold off on ejection, still looking good – ejection no longer needed – land. Conversely, TB looking average – wings level EJECT.
The PC9 also had much better energy than the parrot. An EFATO at 800’ usually meant you were relatively close to the strip, had the ‘luxury’ of being able to lower the nose and assess glide potential quickly, then commence the TB. This meant you occasionally had to push into wind for a second or two in order not to cramp yourself.
The CT4 on the other hand, has a relatively high wing loading, and its climb performance, as mentioned in other posts, is poor. By the time (hot day, full fuel, two pilots) you got to say 800’ (in light winds and prior to a xwind turn) you were further away from the strip. The parrot descends pretty quickly and during turns, the nose needs to be lowered a lot in order to maintain 80kts. If you are a reasonable distance from the strip, and you had not stalled during the turn (my earlier comments about students looking for the strip and not at the ATT are even more relevant here) then the next result was to land short, or the tendency was to stretch the glide – not good.
In a strong wind, a TB would leave you running off the departure end of the strip with a high ground speed. A crash ahead could reduce your GS to 60kts or less (wind dependant) and give you a much more survivable crash.
I have done TB’s in the Parrot, usually above 1000’ (which in most cases means you are on down wind), and it is more of a ‘tight cct’ than a TB.
I fly ‘civvy’ lighties now, and brief that below 1000’ (airfield/wind/etc dependent) I will ‘look ahead and crash visually’
Without the luxury of an ejection seat, in most cases, in my opinion, a crash ahead is the best option.
Last edited by allthecoolnamesarego; 5th Apr 2012 at 19:11.
Jaba - as you say mate - its just physics, and some aircraft have better performance than others...
So consider this...
CT4B climbs at 400fpm in summer at (from memory) 90kts. Therefore 700-800ft = 2 minutes = 3NM. You tell me if you think anyone can turn a parrot through 180 degrees and then glide 3NM from 800ft. I havent flown a light civvy for ages but I imagine that in general for many types their performance is not that much better...
FACT - some aircraft will not have the climb / glide performance to perform a turnback from runway heading, even with chuck yeager or bob hoover on the stick
PC9 Climbs at between 2000-4000fpm depending on type of climb. Obviously you are going to be closer to the field, have more potential energy and a better glide ratio a turnback is going to be far more achievable.
Its not an "attitude by top guns" and its not an "exemption from the laws of physics" its actually professional pilots knowing their aircraft...
So consider this...
CT4B climbs at 400fpm in summer at (from memory) 90kts. Therefore 700-800ft = 2 minutes = 3NM. You tell me if you think anyone can turn a parrot through 180 degrees and then glide 3NM from 800ft. I havent flown a light civvy for ages but I imagine that in general for many types their performance is not that much better...
FACT - some aircraft will not have the climb / glide performance to perform a turnback from runway heading, even with chuck yeager or bob hoover on the stick
PC9 Climbs at between 2000-4000fpm depending on type of climb. Obviously you are going to be closer to the field, have more potential energy and a better glide ratio a turnback is going to be far more achievable.
Its not an "attitude by top guns" and its not an "exemption from the laws of physics" its actually professional pilots knowing their aircraft...
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Australia
Posts: 423
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was taught turn backs in Vampires at CFS. Bloody good fun and very macho like practice dog fights in the training area. Most times we needed a touch of power to just get over the fence. Which rather compromised the macho bit but no one ever knew if you were solo at the time.
Several thousands of flying hours later - and may I say with more rat cunning and wisdom under the belt - I look back and think how utterly stupid and potentially dangerous the turn back policy was. If nothing else though, I learned it was much safer (I think risk mitigation is the appropriate latest buzz-word) to land ahead into the wind just like RAAF pilots were taught during the war in Tiger Moth days at Point Cook, Archerfield and Uranquinty.
Several thousands of flying hours later - and may I say with more rat cunning and wisdom under the belt - I look back and think how utterly stupid and potentially dangerous the turn back policy was. If nothing else though, I learned it was much safer (I think risk mitigation is the appropriate latest buzz-word) to land ahead into the wind just like RAAF pilots were taught during the war in Tiger Moth days at Point Cook, Archerfield and Uranquinty.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Exactly.......it's professional pilots knowing their aircraft.
Professional can be an RAA pilot, professional by attitude and practice, or an airline or ADF pilot.
Joker89. You are a clever guy,
the Cessna does not have 180 knots unless it's wings are peeled off, but it is all about a set of tested numbers, minima if you like. Think about ts for any of your aeroplanes, at a given height/speed or above it's a go, less and you are anywhere from the turn back to +/- 30.
KNOW YOUR AEROPLANE..... IF YOU DO NOT, YOUR OPTIOS ARE LESS.
CSD...... I think you know the story.
Plenty more where that came from.
I am glad that the last three posts, while debating this topic properly are now all agreeing with my favorite saying.....KNOW YOUR AEROPLANE, otherwise you are limited to the limited training stuff.
I am not saying this to boost a cyber ego.....it is what I learned through finding my own training was lacking this stuff, just like engine management you get toughs zip, I just ope it inspires others to wake up and take a professional approach to their GA flying. Because if you don't do it, nobody will do it for you, so long as you meet the MINIMUM grade you pass.
Professional can be an RAA pilot, professional by attitude and practice, or an airline or ADF pilot.
Joker89. You are a clever guy,
the Cessna does not have 180 knots unless it's wings are peeled off, but it is all about a set of tested numbers, minima if you like. Think about ts for any of your aeroplanes, at a given height/speed or above it's a go, less and you are anywhere from the turn back to +/- 30.KNOW YOUR AEROPLANE..... IF YOU DO NOT, YOUR OPTIOS ARE LESS.
CSD...... I think you know the story.
Plenty more where that came from.
I am glad that the last three posts, while debating this topic properly are now all agreeing with my favorite saying.....KNOW YOUR AEROPLANE, otherwise you are limited to the limited training stuff.
I am not saying this to boost a cyber ego.....it is what I learned through finding my own training was lacking this stuff, just like engine management you get toughs zip, I just ope it inspires others to wake up and take a professional approach to their GA flying. Because if you don't do it, nobody will do it for you, so long as you meet the MINIMUM grade you pass.
Grandpa Aerotart
Like I said when Jaba first asked me about this 2+ years ago - some aeroplanes are good at it and some not so. I thought Jaba's aeroplane would fall into the former category as it has an exceptional wing and performance off the ground/initial climb. In fact I have caught myself several times looking at Jaba's RV10 and wondering how it performs as it does...its an amazing glider but the wing doesn't look much different to the 'hershey bar' wings on early PA28s.
Its got me fcked quite frankly
If you are flying an aeroplane that lends itself to the maneuver and fly a LOT (Jaba), and are always looking for another excuse, any fcking excuse - to be off the ground learning new stuff and practicing (Jaba again) then its a useful arrow to have in the quiver.
But he does tend to towards the zealot on some threads - no, really!
Its got me fcked quite frankly
If you are flying an aeroplane that lends itself to the maneuver and fly a LOT (Jaba), and are always looking for another excuse, any fcking excuse - to be off the ground learning new stuff and practicing (Jaba again) then its a useful arrow to have in the quiver.
But he does tend to towards the zealot on some threads - no, really!
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Victoria
Age: 62
Posts: 984
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just trying to illustrate the point that a PC9 is nothing like a piston.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 622
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What does the Flight Manual or POH say?
Knowing your aircraft also means knowing what the flight manual or approved POH says you should do following an engine failure after takeoff. Should you survive the turn back following an engine failure and there is no procedure in the Flight Manual or POH and you damage the aircraft, damage other property or someone gets hurt the insurance companies legal team will have a field day with you and CASA will also have a chat to you about why you should keep your license.
All the single piston engine Cessna manuals say land straight ahead, all the PA28 manuals say make only shallow turns to avoid obstacles, all the Tecnam manuals say land straight ahead with small changes in directioonly not more than 45 degrees left or right of the nose and the CT4A says the pilot is committed to landing in the vicinity immediately to the front or side of the aircraft.
So far the only aircraft I've found that has a procedure for a turn back is the Sportstar (LSA) and is only to be done above 400'. Based on the take off performance of the LSA, I'm sure a few more may also have a turn back procedure.
So unless the Flight Manual or POH approves the turn back or your operations manual approves it (RFDS PC12) then your own your own from a legal and CASA standpoint.
All the single piston engine Cessna manuals say land straight ahead, all the PA28 manuals say make only shallow turns to avoid obstacles, all the Tecnam manuals say land straight ahead with small changes in directioonly not more than 45 degrees left or right of the nose and the CT4A says the pilot is committed to landing in the vicinity immediately to the front or side of the aircraft.
So far the only aircraft I've found that has a procedure for a turn back is the Sportstar (LSA) and is only to be done above 400'. Based on the take off performance of the LSA, I'm sure a few more may also have a turn back procedure.
So unless the Flight Manual or POH approves the turn back or your operations manual approves it (RFDS PC12) then your own your own from a legal and CASA standpoint.
Manufacturers won't tell you to do nything that could leave them open to a liability action.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 622
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And that's why you have to follow what's in their manual otherwise you will be held liable. Talk to those who have been involved in accidents or incidents (when there was damage) and they will tell you just how hard the lawyers are if the manufacturers procedures weren't followed.
Jaba - it's fine for you to say know your airplane, but think about the vast majority of private pilots. Not everyone can fly as often as you do. Even at a very high level of proficiency, mistakes still happen when turning (e.g Red Bull air racing). The safest strategy is straight ahead (from very low level) - this is certainly the case for pilots that know their aircraft as well as I do when I take the wife and kids up (not that often).
Bas makes a valid point that I've always had in the back of my mind (when tempted to hire a twin) - while the accident rate is lower in twins, the fatality rate is higher due to the higher forward speed at accident or loss of control (training, proficiency and competency of those that don't fly as often).
Bas makes a valid point that I've always had in the back of my mind (when tempted to hire a twin) - while the accident rate is lower in twins, the fatality rate is higher due to the higher forward speed at accident or loss of control (training, proficiency and competency of those that don't fly as often).
BPA,
not an encouragement to do otherwise, but one might also consider they are playing it safe for their own protection?
A caravan, for example is more than capable when conducting a turn back from (conservatively) 700', yet the manual still states
not an encouragement to do otherwise, but one might also consider they are playing it safe for their own protection?
A caravan, for example is more than capable when conducting a turn back from (conservatively) 700', yet the manual still states
Altitude and airspeed are seldom sufficient to execute a 180° gliding turn necessary to return to the runway.
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Has as many variables as any flight... Tried it many times during instructor training, granted knowing it was coming, but to see what was achievable in a popular trainer. Below 500ft would have usually resulted in hitting the fence before the runway, higher had more chance of course. It's not only a 180 degree turn either, closer to 270. With that in mind it's easy to lose 1,000ft in a descending turn without trying too hard.
When it goes bang, fly to the situation handed to you and take the safest course of action that doesn't end up a smoking hole off the end of the runway.
When it goes bang, fly to the situation handed to you and take the safest course of action that doesn't end up a smoking hole off the end of the runway.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Sydney NSW Australia
Posts: 3,051
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Last week in the a Robin with Red Baron, we managed a simulated turnback turnback and lost 300ft. but only after the lesson on G stalling and rolling G. next time ill try to get the video to work.