Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Non-Airline Forums > Private Flying
Reload this Page >

A very bad day - unless?

Wikiposts
Search

Notices
Private Flying The forum for discussion and questions about any form of flying where you are doing it for the sheer pleasure of flight, rather than being paid!

A very bad day - unless?

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 28th January 2005 | 16:18
  #21 (permalink)  
 
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,981
Likes: 0
From: He's on the limb to nowhere
Indeed Cosmos.

OK, for the rest of you, if you don't feel competent enough to do a Vne dive then dive at Vno.

There isn't a decent answer to this question, you are up the creek without a paddle, if it's cloud all the way to the ground you are screwed. If there isn't cloud all the way down you want as much time as possible when you break out. Would you all agree on that?
slim_slag is offline  
Old 28th January 2005 | 17:50
  #22 (permalink)  
Moderator
30 Countries Visited
25 Anniversary
Veteran: Reserves
 
Joined: Feb 2000
Aviation Qualifications: CPL
Posts: 14,480
Likes: 178
From: UK
Q for GtE: Why landing flaps? My thought would want to reduce the possibility of sink, even if I am 5-10kts faster. Maybe one stage of flap?
Two reasons, firstly if the engine has stopped and I am going to hit the ground anyhow it makes little difference to me whether that's in 4 minutes or six. Secondly, land flaps will make the descent angle steeper (thus reducing the risk of hitting a mast) and stall speed as low as it'll go, so my energy when I do finally hit something is as low as possible.

OK, for the rest of you, if you don't feel competent enough to do a Vne dive then dive at Vno.
Again, I'm descending anyhow, why risk loss of control by doing it in anything other than a sensible low speed / lowish sink descent. If I come out of cloud at Vs+5 at 100ft, or at Vno at 100ft, my odds of controlling the ground impact in a reasonably horizontal manner are far better at low speed. This is for the very simple reason that a significant amount of height is lost in changing from a fast dive to horizontal flight.

If I know that I'm going to come out at a reasonable height above the surface, I'd use min.sink, but if I don't, I'll stick with Vs+a_little_bit since that's the best thing to hit the ground at.

G
Genghis the Engineer is offline  
Old 28th January 2005 | 18:16
  #23 (permalink)  

Sub Judice Angel Lovegod
20 Anniversary
 
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 2,460
Likes: 0
From: London
Thank you all for reminding me why I send the children up chimneys and the wife on the streets so that I can afford to operate a twin.
Timothy is offline  
Old 28th January 2005 | 18:27
  #24 (permalink)  
 
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 146
Likes: 0
From: Lymington
I agree with Slow-Rider on this except for one thing,

- Select the book glide speed for forced landing.

- Do not attempt any turns in IMC. Too risky, no available power to fix any errors.

- Do not select gear down or any flap until you actualy see a landing zone.

The extra drag from gear down is huge. Landing wheels-up shouldn't cause any extra risk.
yawningdog is offline  
Old 28th January 2005 | 18:30
  #25 (permalink)  
 
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 3,648
Likes: 2
From: UK
Thank you all for reminding me why I send the children up chimneys and the wife on the streets so that I can afford to operate a twin.
Oh that's how its done! And here was I thinking that it was more efficient to make them pedal...
bookworm is offline  
Old 28th January 2005 | 19:02
  #26 (permalink)  
 
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 811
Likes: 0
From: The Heart
A word of warning about this 'expect the cloud base is...' business. Psychologically your building in a potential overload, ie. when you get to 800 feet and you haven't broken out yet and you don't have a plan for the last bit. Stress, stress, stress!

Also I would suggest that, bearing in mind that you may not be as current on partial panel as you should be, one would perhaps be best served by keeping the workload as load as possible. That it to say continue with the trimmed speed until you are stable in the glide then perhaps slow down gently to min sink and head into wind.

Those two items will put you in the most survivable situation you can hope for in your current circumstances.
Miserlou is offline  
Old 28th January 2005 | 21:22
  #27 (permalink)  

 
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 434
Likes: 0
From: Brighton, UK
Thank you all for reminding me why I send the children up chimneys and the wife on the streets so that I can afford to operate a twin.
Nice one

A word of warning about this 'expect the cloud base is...' business. Psychologically your building in a potential overload, ie. when you get to 800 feet and you haven't broken out yet and you don't have a plan for the last bit. Stress, stress, stress!
Having been there (albeit with an engine) I can vouch for that. Nothing is worse than expecting to break out of cloud and then......... not. The stress levels rise incredibly and can only affect your performance adversely.


Reckon I would go with the Vs +5 option. At least if you do hit something you will have reduced the amount of energy available to cause you damage.
Andy_R is offline  
Old 28th January 2005 | 23:30
  #28 (permalink)  
High Wing Drifter
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Two reasons, firstly if the engine has stopped and I am going to hit the ground anyhow it makes little difference to me whether that's in 4 minutes or six. Secondly, land flaps will make the descent angle steeper (thus reducing the risk of hitting a mast) and stall speed as low as it'll go, so my energy when I do finally hit something is as low as possible.
Thanks for taking the time to explain. I think I understand the effect of flaps. But you mentioned turning and I assumed that you would wish to stay airborn for as long as possible or until you decide its time to descend. My understanding and limited experience is that although landing flaps (i.e. much drag) would reduce your landing speed, they would also reduce the controlability of the aircraft. I think I would always maintain a configuration that would allow me to extend the glide for as long as possible until the point where I think I have a chance. Adding flap (esp with a PA28) is usually easy. Taking it off is invariably won't be. Maybe electric flaps pose problems with this particular scenario.
 
Old 29th January 2005 | 08:40
  #29 (permalink)  
 
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 129
Likes: 0
From: EGHF
Umm.. think I will stick with VFR and keep well away from cloud.

this IMC lark sounds far too risky!
Thumpango is offline  
Old 29th January 2005 | 14:13
  #30 (permalink)  
20 Anniversary
 
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 419
Likes: 4
From: Westward TV
One for the engineers amongst the assembled masses.

Exactly how quickly would the AI and DI start to wind down to give spurious information? Also, as the vacuum pump is linked to the engine, and your prop is windmilling then would this still be driving the pump? and would there enough suction to provide a 'useful' AI and DI.
Just wondering because the initial reaction to anything this serious would be to believe your instruments, which could present even more problems when you do break cloud inverted! Vne or not, not much time to get sunny side up.

Tis a silly thing to do anyway.....
GusHoneybun is offline  
Old 29th January 2005 | 18:09
  #31 (permalink)  
 
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 146
Likes: 0
From: Lymington
I would suggest, if the engine quits, then don't believe anything that requires the engine to be running. That simple. So transfer over to limited panel ASAP, & cover up the AI & DI if poss.
yawningdog is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.