EFATO turn back
Sorry to revive an old thread.
http://www.pprune.org/dg-p-general-a...-grounded.html
The last few pages above and the frightening video are another fantastic example of where a pilot un-necessarily placed the aircraft in a terribly dangerous situation because of an infatuation with getting the aircraft back to the departure runway environment.
Sure, it wasn't an EFATO. But the power was insufficient to maintain level flight, and the aircraft was not over a built up area.
Rather than use the remaining power to find something with a few degrees from the runway heading, and touch down with control at low speed and full flap (45 knots/85km/hr), he banked the aircraft heavily, close to the ground, with the stall warning blaring for what seemed like a lifetime before landing.
I still can't help but think that landing straight ahead is not pushed enough, and that talking about (and showing videos) of turning back gives young, inexperienced pilots reason to think they can achieve the same thing without training, experience and a high performance airframe.
Another near-disaster because of the temptation to return to the runway.
http://www.pprune.org/dg-p-general-a...-grounded.html
The last few pages above and the frightening video are another fantastic example of where a pilot un-necessarily placed the aircraft in a terribly dangerous situation because of an infatuation with getting the aircraft back to the departure runway environment.
Sure, it wasn't an EFATO. But the power was insufficient to maintain level flight, and the aircraft was not over a built up area.
Rather than use the remaining power to find something with a few degrees from the runway heading, and touch down with control at low speed and full flap (45 knots/85km/hr), he banked the aircraft heavily, close to the ground, with the stall warning blaring for what seemed like a lifetime before landing.
I still can't help but think that landing straight ahead is not pushed enough, and that talking about (and showing videos) of turning back gives young, inexperienced pilots reason to think they can achieve the same thing without training, experience and a high performance airframe.
Another near-disaster because of the temptation to return to the runway.
to find something with a few degrees from the runway heading
unless you've been to the location, and seen the terrain
you simply don't know what you are talking about
and to judge without knowing makes you look a fool.
Play nice, kiddies.
I'm sure we can all see the example only narrowly avoided a fatal accident.
Personally I agree with Pete in that the temptation to turn back can be overwhelming. I would be treating it as the exception, rather than a rule.
He still didn't make the runway and not all landing areas have as much clear space around them. VERY lucky indeed.
I'm sure we can all see the example only narrowly avoided a fatal accident.
Personally I agree with Pete in that the temptation to turn back can be overwhelming. I would be treating it as the exception, rather than a rule.
He still didn't make the runway and not all landing areas have as much clear space around them. VERY lucky indeed.
Pete - the fact remains that that particular pilot made his decisions under those particular circumstances, and recovered the aircraft without damage, without passenger injury and (incidentally) zero recovery costs.
You are made a post judging that particular event, based solely on a rigid "never turn back" philosophy, for a course of action which (at the VERY best) can only equal his result (and, incidentally, cost more in recovery) and in many cases produce a worse result.
You weren't in that cockpit, you don't know how high he was off the end of the runway, what he surface conditions he flew over were like etc etc - and in the end, as I said, any other course of action can only equal (not better) the result he achieved.
I think I stand by my assessment of your comments.
You are made a post judging that particular event, based solely on a rigid "never turn back" philosophy, for a course of action which (at the VERY best) can only equal his result (and, incidentally, cost more in recovery) and in many cases produce a worse result.
You weren't in that cockpit, you don't know how high he was off the end of the runway, what he surface conditions he flew over were like etc etc - and in the end, as I said, any other course of action can only equal (not better) the result he achieved.
I think I stand by my assessment of your comments.
Pete - the fact remains that that particular pilot made his decisions under those particular circumstances, and recovered the aircraft without damage, without passenger injury and (incidentally) zero recovery costs.
You are made a post judging that particular event, based solely on a rigid "never turn back" philosophy, for a course of action which (at the VERY best) can only equal his result (and, incidentally, cost more in recovery) and in many cases produce a worse result.
You weren't in that cockpit, you don't know how high he was off the end of the runway, what he surface conditions he flew over were like etc etc - and in the end, as I said, any other course of action can only equal (not better) the result he achieved.
I'm perplexed by the fact that it appears you are now defending your original attack on me to maintain your pride.
Let's get one thing perfectly clear. We are pilots. Our job is, and always has been, to take the safest option. Every operator and airline I've worked for places safety at the forefront of decision making.
I would have thought that someone with two and half thousand posts on a pilot forum would understand that a safe outcome at the end doesn't necessarily mean it was achieved using the safest method.
Let's pick an example:
Are you saying that his air return was safer than if, for example, he had rejected the takeoff after becoming airborne and re-landed on the runway - running off the end of the runway at 10 knots and burying a couple of tires in the mud?
By your logic, because the aircraft was recoverable and undamaged - his option was safer (ie the end justifies the means). By my logic, the aircraft may have needed a tow and a new nose wheel leg, but while there was minor damage and recovery problems, the safety of the passengers was much more likely to be maintained.
I'm not having a go at the guy personally, because I think CASA have failed him. Somehow he has completed the CASA day VFR syllabus and their CPL test and come out the other side with no appreciation of the danger in flying around for two minutes at zero feet, banked heavily with the stall warning going off. The system and the training have failed here.
As for aircraft recoverability, who gives a ? It's simply not our problem, and it's no different to multi-engine pilots who suffer an engine failure and fly over suitable aerodromes in an attempt to get the aircraft back to home base.
If you want another example of taking the safest action vs. outcome, are you familiar with the Whyalla Airlines PA31 crash? After suffering the first engine failure (over land, and near some suitable aerodromes), the pilot elected to fly out over water in an attempt to get the aircraft to the airline's home base in Whyalla (after being previously chastised for landing away from base previously).
By your logic Checkboard, had he been successful and the aircraft landed safely without damage or recovery costs, he took the best option at the time it occurred. As it turns out, he definitely took the wrong option - because out over water, the second engine cooked in an attempt to reach Whyalla & everyone died.
If you want to continue this discussion on PM Checkboard, please feel free. But please don't try to argue that the ends justifies the means in this case, because it certainly does not.
Pure dumb luck as the end result has no place in encouraging fundamentally poor decision making and TEM.
But the fact remains that based on the situation he found himself in, he took the option which was by far most likely to result in death.
Most of the land he is flying over in the vid looks freshly ploughed to me. I would rather have ridden that aircraft back to the landing this guy made, than have you try and stick it into a freshly ploughed field, frankly.
with no appreciation of the danger in flying around for two minutes at zero feet, banked heavily with the stall warning going off.
Under conditions of very high stress he was using his commander's authority to conduct an emergency manoeuvre to save the lives of the passengers. A manoeuvre which was completely successful. To say the outcome was "Pure dumb luck" is simply incorrect. He didn't close his eyes and waggle the controls randomly (which would be pure luck) - he was carefully flying the aircraft at the edge of its performance (using his emergency authority to do so) and achieved a safe outcome.
I'm perplexed by the fact that it appears you are now defending your original attack on me to maintain your pride.
If you had recognised that you were only spouting a personal opinion (based on the poor knowledge provided "looking thorough the keyhole" of a camera viewfinder) in your original post attacking the poor bloke, I wouldn't have had any problems.
Last edited by Checkboard; 13th Jun 2012 at 10:39.
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: QLD, Australia
Posts: 252
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If anyone wants to try a turn back following an engine failure in a C172, there is now a C172 sim at Noosaville on the Sunshine Coast. Information available here;
flightsimtechtraining.com.au
flightsimtechtraining.com.au
Why not use flightsim or better still, go practise some circuit emergencies in a real 172 with an instructor?
Last edited by MakeItHappenCaptain; 17th Jul 2012 at 09:00.
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: The Shire
Posts: 89
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I really think its all situational.
If I had a fully loaded 206 EFATO under 1000 feet AGL then yes, I will be landing on whatever straight ahead making minimal turns, flap as req.
However taking off the end from a long runway, half empty load engine failure 1000feet, I KNOW I can make it make it back. Nose right down maintain best glide, enter the steep turn flap & feather as req.
Terrain, slope, height, experience, wind, load, runway remaining etc....
So many factors play into whether or not to turn back after an EFATO, there is no 'perfect' answer.
"Access the situation and react correctly."
Anyways, thats my 2c worth
If I had a fully loaded 206 EFATO under 1000 feet AGL then yes, I will be landing on whatever straight ahead making minimal turns, flap as req.
However taking off the end from a long runway, half empty load engine failure 1000feet, I KNOW I can make it make it back. Nose right down maintain best glide, enter the steep turn flap & feather as req.
Terrain, slope, height, experience, wind, load, runway remaining etc....
So many factors play into whether or not to turn back after an EFATO, there is no 'perfect' answer.
"Access the situation and react correctly."
Anyways, thats my 2c worth
Last edited by NzCaptainAndrew; 17th Jul 2012 at 14:19.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,414
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
go practise some circuit emergencies in a real 172 with an instructor?
If you must learn EFATO procedures, try Pete Goodwin at Pilot Macquarie in Tamworth. Over 15 000 hours, a fair bit of it gained in PNG, and knows to the inch where his 182 is in the circuit.
No, don't work for them, did some training with them earlier this year.
No, don't work for them, did some training with them earlier this year.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Enroute from Dagobah to Tatooine...!
Posts: 791
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Go back and study AGK... Single engine piston aeroplane props don't feather - they are either full-fine, full-coarse, or somewhere in between...!
Last edited by Captain Nomad; 18th Jul 2012 at 00:53.
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: QLD, Australia
Posts: 252
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Does your fltsim have 210 degree visuals and the full flight cockpit/flight contols?
The advantage of a sim like the one on the sunshine coast is the instuctor can fail the engine at anytime without the pilot knowing/seeing when the engine has failed and it's a full failure rather than just pulling back to idle. You can also program the winds to make it that much harder.
Read the report on the E120 crash in DN and see CASA wants to people to make use of a sim if one is available. Although it's only a fixed base and uses flightsim for the graphics, the aircraft and flight controls are based on a real 172, in fact the sim is built around a crashed C172 fuselarge.
The advantage of a sim like the one on the sunshine coast is the instuctor can fail the engine at anytime without the pilot knowing/seeing when the engine has failed and it's a full failure rather than just pulling back to idle. You can also program the winds to make it that much harder.
Read the report on the E120 crash in DN and see CASA wants to people to make use of a sim if one is available. Although it's only a fixed base and uses flightsim for the graphics, the aircraft and flight controls are based on a real 172, in fact the sim is built around a crashed C172 fuselarge.
Actually.....yes it does.
Bit of a difference between one engine inoperative training in a multi-engine turbine where Vmca becomes a killer and a C172.
That being said, something with motion would have a bit more value than a synthetic trainer, but I'll still stand by an actual aircraft being more realistic than anything else and pretty sure CASA won't mind.......
Bit of a difference between one engine inoperative training in a multi-engine turbine where Vmca becomes a killer and a C172.
That being said, something with motion would have a bit more value than a synthetic trainer, but I'll still stand by an actual aircraft being more realistic than anything else and pretty sure CASA won't mind.......
Last edited by MakeItHappenCaptain; 18th Jul 2012 at 09:45.