EFATO turn back

[Radix]

.............

[Slippery_Pete]

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.

[Checkboard]

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.

[Slippery_Pete]

unless you've been to the location, and seen the terrain

How's about at least thousand hours out of there, including base checking a bunch of pilots from that very runway.

you simply don't know what you are talking about

Well I disagree. Also did a handful of twin ops out of there and some ME base checking from the RHS. I knew exactly where every landing site off the end of each runway was (and I last time travelled through, this didn't appear to have changed in the last 15-20 years).

and to judge without knowing makes you look a fool.

Seeing as I DO know, it would seem you have infact done this exact same thing you accused me of.

[MakeItHappenCaptain]

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.

[Checkboard]

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.

[Slippery_Pete]

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.

Correct. None of that is false. 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.

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.

Yes I made a judgement on that event. I do not have a blanket "never turn back" philosophy as you imply - this indicates to me that you have failed to read carefully my previous posts since the discussion was started.

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.

Correct, I wasn't in the cockpit. But I do know how high he was - you can plainly see it in the video. I know INTIMATELY what the surface conditions are like due to previous experience - essentially rural land. I don't believe placing the aircraft so close to a stall/spin/crash/burn/die scenario was a good result, despite the fact that you do.

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.

[Checkboard]

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.

See, here's the problem - you state this as an absolute fact and it simply isn't. It is your opinion. Your opinion based on insufficient knowledge, at that.

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.

I am certain he fully appreciated the danger - I am certain that he was in fact pretty terrified. It's not like this was a video of a bit of "low flying for fun".

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.

I'm not defending an attack on you - I am pointing out the errors in your attack on another pilot. (In other words, "You started it - nyaa nyaa na nyaa nyaa." )

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.

[F111]

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

[MakeItHappenCaptain]

Why not use flightsim or better still, go practise some circuit emergencies in a real 172 with an instructor?

[NzCaptainAndrew]

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

[A37575]

go practise some circuit emergencies in a real 172 with an instructor?

Ask the instructor if you can check his log book first. He may be a new grade 3 with SFA experience at circuit emergencies

[UnderneathTheRadar]

& feather as req

Probably not recommended in a 206......

UTR

[outnabout]

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.

[NzCaptainAndrew]

Whys that UTR?

[Captain Nomad]

Go back and study AGK... Single engine piston aeroplane props don't feather - they are either full-fine, full-coarse, or somewhere in between...!

[F111]

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.

[MakeItHappenCaptain]

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.......