Fatal takeoff accidents
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: London
Age: 71
Posts: 339
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fatal takeoff accidents
October's AAIB report makes sad reading. Two fatal accidents and both on takeoff. Another common theme is that both based decisions on incorrect information (in one case wrong airfield information, in the other a sudden change of wind direction). Both were experienced pilots.
For me it brings home the need to take extra care to double check everything when flying near to limits.
For me it brings home the need to take extra care to double check everything when flying near to limits.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 3,218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Double check everything, whether you're flying near the limits, or not.
Remember, you don't go to the limits, they come to you. Keep distance, for safety.
Measure twice, cut once.
Remember, you don't go to the limits, they come to you. Keep distance, for safety.
Measure twice, cut once.
Guest
Posts: n/a
David
From someone with a little more experience than you, but less than others here.
You can always stop before you take off (I'm speaking for practical purposes in SEP.)
If I doesn't quite feel right, reject and then analyse what happened safely on mother earth.
Happy landings.
From someone with a little more experience than you, but less than others here.
You can always stop before you take off (I'm speaking for practical purposes in SEP.)
If I doesn't quite feel right, reject and then analyse what happened safely on mother earth.
Happy landings.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Brighton. UK. (Via Liverpool).
Posts: 5,068
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why don't you tell him how it's done in the airlines...how SAFE things really are?
Go start a thread elswhere if you want to harp on about how safe they are, please dont start anything here.
Email me rather than post back here if you want to discus this further please.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Cheshire
Age: 78
Posts: 506
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
not naming names, but . . . . . .
October's AAIB report
Refers throughout just to "the pilot", and does not mention that this is actually the star of TV's "The Apprentice" whose catch-phrase is "you're fired".
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 683
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JD
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Ask OPS!
Posts: 1,078
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I thought all fatal accidents began with a take-off or attempted take-off! 
Sorry
I'll get me coat!
(And before I get harangued yes I have lost some close friends in accidents but they had the same warped sense of humor/destiny.)
Sorry
I'll get me coat!
(And before I get harangued yes I have lost some close friends in accidents but they had the same warped sense of humor/destiny.)
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: one dot low as usual
Age: 66
Posts: 536
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The CAA actually produce a very interesting document on this topic (Safety Sense Leaflet 07: Aeroplane Performance).
It's daft to try to relate single engine/unclassified aircraft performance to commercial operations. In the public transport multi-engine world, there is always a stop/continue decision to be made (and most company's have SOP's dictating when a stop is always required). In the SE GA world, it's more grey but with a single engine, much of the choice is taken away from you. I know I'd prefer to slide through a hedge at the end of the runway in deceleration than decide that I must continue with some kind of problem with the airworthiness of the plane and run the risk of a later accident from height, at greater speed or under high power settings as I tried to get airborne.
It's daft to try to relate single engine/unclassified aircraft performance to commercial operations. In the public transport multi-engine world, there is always a stop/continue decision to be made (and most company's have SOP's dictating when a stop is always required). In the SE GA world, it's more grey but with a single engine, much of the choice is taken away from you. I know I'd prefer to slide through a hedge at the end of the runway in deceleration than decide that I must continue with some kind of problem with the airworthiness of the plane and run the risk of a later accident from height, at greater speed or under high power settings as I tried to get airborne.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Cheshire
Age: 78
Posts: 506
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I thought all fatal accidents began with a take-off or attempted take-off!
http://www.chirp.co.uk/downloads/GAFB/GAFB33.pdf
in relation to "prop-swinging". Collisions and subsequent fires have also occurred during taxiing.
So serious or fatal accidents can occur before any attempt at all to take off !
Guest
Posts: n/a
Jumbo Driver
Have you ever seen an accelerate-stop distance in a single POH?
Me neither, which is why I used the caveat "for practical purposes."
I'd rather hit the fence at 15mph, than stall in from 50 feet, so I go aliong with Fright Level's view.
This is not really true - now is it ... ? There are cases where the book says you can go but are you really saying that, at rotate, you could ALWAYS stop in the runway remaining?
Me neither, which is why I used the caveat "for practical purposes."
I'd rather hit the fence at 15mph, than stall in from 50 feet, so I go aliong with Fright Level's view.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: one dot low as usual
Age: 66
Posts: 536
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I go aliong with Fright Level's view
Not many people usually do!
Have you ever seen an accelerate-stop distance in a single POH?
I guess you could always add the ground distance for take off and the ground distance for landing. Work it out for a 5kt tailwind at MTOW on a wet runway and you'll have a worst case figure to bear in mind when you operate from shorter strips.
Practise a couple of RTO's but wait until you need new tyres as under max braking you'll need to be using cadence braking to avoid locking up the wheels
Not many people usually do!
Have you ever seen an accelerate-stop distance in a single POH?
I guess you could always add the ground distance for take off and the ground distance for landing. Work it out for a 5kt tailwind at MTOW on a wet runway and you'll have a worst case figure to bear in mind when you operate from shorter strips.
Practise a couple of RTO's but wait until you need new tyres as under max braking you'll need to be using cadence braking to avoid locking up the wheels
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: The Gusto
Posts: 81
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
you'll need to be using cadence braking to avoid locking up the wheels
In cadence braking the wheels are locked in each cycle.
It's one of those things that lots of people talk about, very few understand, and a tiny minority can do.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 3,218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm not sure what's being implied by "cadence braking," though it sounds a lot like one is pumping the brakes. If this is the case, it's poor technique. Nothing is gained and stopping distance is increased. Steady continuous pressure shy of skidding a tire will provide maximum braking. If at any time a brake is locked up or a tire skidded, braking and stopping effectiveness is reduced.
Many of the aircraft flight manuals for light piston powered airplanes don't include detailed information on getting the airplane stopped with an engine failure, but then many of them don't take excessive amounts of runway to get off the ground or get stopped...and in a single engine airplane following an engine failure, you're definitely returning to earth. The entire planet becomes your stopway, because every engine failure will become the same; you're coming back down. With this in mind, one should plan a takeoff in a single engine airplane not just for the purposes of getting stopped on the runway, but getting stopped after the runway, too. Plan your takeoff accordingly.
Many of the aircraft flight manuals for light piston powered airplanes don't include detailed information on getting the airplane stopped with an engine failure, but then many of them don't take excessive amounts of runway to get off the ground or get stopped...and in a single engine airplane following an engine failure, you're definitely returning to earth. The entire planet becomes your stopway, because every engine failure will become the same; you're coming back down. With this in mind, one should plan a takeoff in a single engine airplane not just for the purposes of getting stopped on the runway, but getting stopped after the runway, too. Plan your takeoff accordingly.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 683
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Guest
Posts: n/a
JD
Don't wish to labour the point, but unless it is a very short field, you are likely to be able to stop - I got to 55 knots and stopped easily in a PA28 on a 700m grass strip when I saw wisps of smoke coming from behind the panel and smelled burning.
If it is too short to stop, you have a difficult decision to make - hit the fence with speed decreasing (not nice), or take the problem into the air - if it will go there (maybe not nice at all.)
As SNS3Guppy says, better not to put yourself in that position to start with.
Safe flying
Don't wish to labour the point, but unless it is a very short field, you are likely to be able to stop - I got to 55 knots and stopped easily in a PA28 on a 700m grass strip when I saw wisps of smoke coming from behind the panel and smelled burning.
If it is too short to stop, you have a difficult decision to make - hit the fence with speed decreasing (not nice), or take the problem into the air - if it will go there (maybe not nice at all.)
As SNS3Guppy says, better not to put yourself in that position to start with.
Safe flying
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 683
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry, F3G, then we shall have to differ on this one.
If you were flying a taildragger out of a grass strip - much shorter than your luxurious 700m strip - I can assure you that you would not be so confident of being able to accelerate-stop. Also, if the PA28 you mention was a PA28-140 and you were three-up on a warm day, that might be another case in point for you to consider. In my experience, a rejected take-off at close to lift-off speed in a light aeroplane off a typical grass strip will not always provide the relaxed picture you present in your original response.
Your answer seemed to be addressed to all light aircraft fliers. In that context, I still think it is misleading and incorrect. Substitute "in many cases" for "always" or specify that you are talking about a nice long tarmac runway and I will go along with what you say.
You fly safe, too
JD
If you were flying a taildragger out of a grass strip - much shorter than your luxurious 700m strip - I can assure you that you would not be so confident of being able to accelerate-stop. Also, if the PA28 you mention was a PA28-140 and you were three-up on a warm day, that might be another case in point for you to consider. In my experience, a rejected take-off at close to lift-off speed in a light aeroplane off a typical grass strip will not always provide the relaxed picture you present in your original response.
Your answer seemed to be addressed to all light aircraft fliers. In that context, I still think it is misleading and incorrect. Substitute "in many cases" for "always" or specify that you are talking about a nice long tarmac runway and I will go along with what you say.
You fly safe, too
JD
Moderator
Yes, I held my words, and then BRL supported what I was thinking.
That said, trying to overlay the concept of accellerate stop distance onto a single engine light aircraft is rather pointless. Among the several reasons, is that there is a disclipline during the takeoff of such advanced aircraft, of adhering to certain speeds, at certain elements of the takeoff, and I just don't see light aircraft flown that way. If the proper discliplines used for takeoff in an aircraft for which these advanced techinques were the norm, were used in general aviation, I'd say we'd see an improvement in takeoff safety even before things started going wrong during takeoff. People would just be more aware of what they were doing during takeoff. If the aircraft manufacturers did publish such data, would pilots refer to it anyway? Worse, every operation of an aircraft out of a runway shorter than that published value, would have the insurance company declaring that the published performance data for the aircraft had not been followed, and thus insurance was not valid. If you were to see such data for heavier singles like a Cessna 206/210, or Piper Lance, a lot of commonly used runways would suddenly be off limits. Cessna 210 and 310 have quite similar speeds, and the balanced field length for the 310 I used to fly exceed 5000 feet in some conditions. Would 210 pilots want to be restricted to runways longer than 5000 feet? there'd be an outcry!
I am certainly guilty of flying a scary circuit in a defective aircraft (both single and multi), where aborting the takeoff would have been the much more prudent thing to do. My failing is that my head just was not where it should have been. As long as I was able to climb away, that's what I did. Not always the best idea. Being very scared is a good tool to assure that such circumstances will be given more consideration next time!
The accellerate stop distance (balanced field length value) is predicated on the rather dramatic failure indication (on a left and right multi engined aircraft) provided by a failed engine. It is not there for other failures, which might be much more challenging to recognize, and act upon correctly in the very brief period of time allowed to make the required decision, and take the correct action. Consider the numerous accidents in Cessna 336 and 337 aircraft where the pilot did not recognize the failure of the rear engine during takeoff, and attemped to continue the takeoff. Once you reach Vr or V1 as appropriate, the time required to recognize, decide and act upon an unusual event is very short, and gets much more critical as the takeoff is allowed to continue, with delayed action. In single engined aircraft. engine failure at Vr is an obvious reason to abort (like you had a choice!). What other failures are proposed for the single engine pilot to recongize and act upon at that critical phase of flight? If these skills were on the private pilot skills test, there would be many fewer passes!
The original post's wording could be interpreted to suggest that the pilot in each case did not necessarily operate close to aircraft limits, but perhaps just exceeded his own limits. (though I am not at all familiar with the details of either accident). "Experience" is a relative term, and it does not automatically convey to me the the pilot with the "experience" necessarily has personal skill limits approaching those of the aircraft he is flying. So tell him the balanced field length for every aircraft, will he use the information correctly anyway?
"Good judgement comes from experience, experience comes from poor judgement".
Yes, Measure twice, cut once = Think it through twice, fly it once...
Pilot DAR
That said, trying to overlay the concept of accellerate stop distance onto a single engine light aircraft is rather pointless. Among the several reasons, is that there is a disclipline during the takeoff of such advanced aircraft, of adhering to certain speeds, at certain elements of the takeoff, and I just don't see light aircraft flown that way. If the proper discliplines used for takeoff in an aircraft for which these advanced techinques were the norm, were used in general aviation, I'd say we'd see an improvement in takeoff safety even before things started going wrong during takeoff. People would just be more aware of what they were doing during takeoff. If the aircraft manufacturers did publish such data, would pilots refer to it anyway? Worse, every operation of an aircraft out of a runway shorter than that published value, would have the insurance company declaring that the published performance data for the aircraft had not been followed, and thus insurance was not valid. If you were to see such data for heavier singles like a Cessna 206/210, or Piper Lance, a lot of commonly used runways would suddenly be off limits. Cessna 210 and 310 have quite similar speeds, and the balanced field length for the 310 I used to fly exceed 5000 feet in some conditions. Would 210 pilots want to be restricted to runways longer than 5000 feet? there'd be an outcry!
I am certainly guilty of flying a scary circuit in a defective aircraft (both single and multi), where aborting the takeoff would have been the much more prudent thing to do. My failing is that my head just was not where it should have been. As long as I was able to climb away, that's what I did. Not always the best idea. Being very scared is a good tool to assure that such circumstances will be given more consideration next time!
The accellerate stop distance (balanced field length value) is predicated on the rather dramatic failure indication (on a left and right multi engined aircraft) provided by a failed engine. It is not there for other failures, which might be much more challenging to recognize, and act upon correctly in the very brief period of time allowed to make the required decision, and take the correct action. Consider the numerous accidents in Cessna 336 and 337 aircraft where the pilot did not recognize the failure of the rear engine during takeoff, and attemped to continue the takeoff. Once you reach Vr or V1 as appropriate, the time required to recognize, decide and act upon an unusual event is very short, and gets much more critical as the takeoff is allowed to continue, with delayed action. In single engined aircraft. engine failure at Vr is an obvious reason to abort (like you had a choice!). What other failures are proposed for the single engine pilot to recongize and act upon at that critical phase of flight? If these skills were on the private pilot skills test, there would be many fewer passes!
The original post's wording could be interpreted to suggest that the pilot in each case did not necessarily operate close to aircraft limits, but perhaps just exceeded his own limits. (though I am not at all familiar with the details of either accident). "Experience" is a relative term, and it does not automatically convey to me the the pilot with the "experience" necessarily has personal skill limits approaching those of the aircraft he is flying. So tell him the balanced field length for every aircraft, will he use the information correctly anyway?
"Good judgement comes from experience, experience comes from poor judgement".
Yes, Measure twice, cut once = Think it through twice, fly it once...
Pilot DAR