Great step-by-step of a real engine failure in IMC.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Cambridge, England, EU
Posts: 3,443
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
if a pilot says "We have a little problem", you can be sure the problem is quite serious
If I have a little problem I say so ... and at least three times I've seen the fire trucks returning to base as I taxy off the runway
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: LKBU
Posts: 435
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Stickandrudderman, while synthetic vision is certainly a great technology, one should be aware of a possible illusion of invulnerability it can create in insufficiently skilled airmen. Also, its usefulness depends on personal habits. Compare it to car navigation: some people prefer 3D / track up mode, some prefer 2D / north up.
Last edited by Ultranomad; 16th Dec 2011 at 19:06.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Sth Bucks UK
Age: 60
Posts: 927
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Inadvertantly losing sight of the ground on finals or in an emergency like the one in the link has the effect of making a pilot feel vulnerable; having SV helps to relieve that feeling of vulnerability and enable continued safe passage.
I did not and would not suggest that it should be used as a primary source of reference!
It's a bit like saying that the BRS is a landing system that pilots might become over-reliant on...........................
I did not and would not suggest that it should be used as a primary source of reference!
It's a bit like saying that the BRS is a landing system that pilots might become over-reliant on...........................
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: London
Posts: 307
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think SV is a great tool for an IMC engine failure in less-than-flat terrain or with lowish ceilings, and with the EGPWS colour overlay might also add to safety in mountaious terrain when VMC.
Other than that, it is probably a matter of taste whether to have it on or off, with one exception:
On an ILS approach, I think it should be OFF. The reason for that is that you have a very tempting synthetic runway to fly to, but you should fly the needles. I found that I need to concentrate more on maintaining a proper scan with SV on - far too easy to be lazy and fly the SV display while kidding yourself that you are flying the ILS.
This is less of an issue with NPAs, where the GPS driven SV position is as accurate as or more accurate than the needles - as long as you make sure you don't bust the step altitudes. And of course on a LPV (WAAS) GPS approach the needles and SV are driven by the same source, so this is a non-issue.
If I had the half million to spend on a new aircraft with G1000, I would get it - but in my 50 or so hours behind G1000s, I always had it off so far.
Other than that, it is probably a matter of taste whether to have it on or off, with one exception:
On an ILS approach, I think it should be OFF. The reason for that is that you have a very tempting synthetic runway to fly to, but you should fly the needles. I found that I need to concentrate more on maintaining a proper scan with SV on - far too easy to be lazy and fly the SV display while kidding yourself that you are flying the ILS.
This is less of an issue with NPAs, where the GPS driven SV position is as accurate as or more accurate than the needles - as long as you make sure you don't bust the step altitudes. And of course on a LPV (WAAS) GPS approach the needles and SV are driven by the same source, so this is a non-issue.
If I had the half million to spend on a new aircraft with G1000, I would get it - but in my 50 or so hours behind G1000s, I always had it off so far.
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Hotels
Posts: 348
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On an ILS approach, I think it should be OFF. The reason for that is that you have a very tempting synthetic runway to fly to, but you should fly the needles. I found that I need to concentrate more on maintaining a proper scan with SV on - far too easy to be lazy and fly the SV display while kidding yourself that you are flying the ILS.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 2,460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The problem is that the database is not all that accurate. It is based on the NASA SRTM synthetic aperture radar database, or at least the reduced-resolution version of it that is released to the great unwashed.
I believe that some players in the aviation business have "enhanced" the data at/around some airports (on expensive implementations of SV) but I don't think that SV is anywhere near good enough to beat a standard 200ft ILS on which you keep the needles below half scale. The standard resolution on the public version is of the order of 200ft. Better in the continental USA (where some of the imagery is amazingly good) and worse in some other places.
A funny observation might be that if SV existed say 50 years ago, the distinction between VFR and IFR would now be moot A PPL might just be a straight "license to fly".
I believe that some players in the aviation business have "enhanced" the data at/around some airports (on expensive implementations of SV) but I don't think that SV is anywhere near good enough to beat a standard 200ft ILS on which you keep the needles below half scale. The standard resolution on the public version is of the order of 200ft. Better in the continental USA (where some of the imagery is amazingly good) and worse in some other places.
A funny observation might be that if SV existed say 50 years ago, the distinction between VFR and IFR would now be moot
A PPL might just be a straight "license to fly".
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Switzerland
Age: 64
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Night Flying - Engine Failure
It happened to me a little more than a year ago. Enginefailure just after getting established on the localizer, but still about 10DME. Was already on initial approach altitude, which logically I could not maintain (single engine plane). Wx was miserable with snow, gusty and low ceiling. But we were just out of the clouds. I knew that straight ahead was elevated terrain. Everything was just black.
I immediately established best glide, informed atc and turned left by about 90°, because I identified lights from streets and villages there. After a few moments two larger villages and a rather straight road between them, with heavy traffic (rush hour) emerged from the dark around. Luckily there was even an urban train parallel and very close to the road driving along. I decided to "land" between the road and the tracks (which were no longer visible), assuming least obstacles and least potential harm to lives on the ground in that area, while still close enough to the road for possible rescuers.
We made it and both my wife and I were able to disembarque the plane on own forces with very minor injuries. The plane was damaged beyond repair.
My comment on earlier articles in this matter: It's ok to look for the light. But don't plan to land into it, unless you can identify enough to ensure safety, primarily for Lives on ground and secondarily Lives on board. With a complete enginefailure at night, possibly in IMC, I believe it is safe to assume occupants on board will not survive. Nevertheless as long as the vehicle is moving PIC is responsible and obliged to minimize all hazards and especially be considerate towards Lives on the ground. Staying calm untill the plane comes to a complete halt is very helpful in handling situations like this. Just remember: there is lots of time to panic after all is over - so just postpone possible panic attacks!
Landing on a street could be a (good) option only if traffic allows (ie. you are definitely able to touch down between to succeeding cars, without endangering oncoming traffic) and no obstacles like crossing bridges or lights or so are visible.
I'm aware that we were extremely lucky in this one and I'm especially thankfull that nobody gut seriously hurt.
I immediately established best glide, informed atc and turned left by about 90°, because I identified lights from streets and villages there. After a few moments two larger villages and a rather straight road between them, with heavy traffic (rush hour) emerged from the dark around. Luckily there was even an urban train parallel and very close to the road driving along. I decided to "land" between the road and the tracks (which were no longer visible), assuming least obstacles and least potential harm to lives on the ground in that area, while still close enough to the road for possible rescuers.
We made it and both my wife and I were able to disembarque the plane on own forces with very minor injuries. The plane was damaged beyond repair.
My comment on earlier articles in this matter: It's ok to look for the light. But don't plan to land into it, unless you can identify enough to ensure safety, primarily for Lives on ground and secondarily Lives on board. With a complete enginefailure at night, possibly in IMC, I believe it is safe to assume occupants on board will not survive. Nevertheless as long as the vehicle is moving PIC is responsible and obliged to minimize all hazards and especially be considerate towards Lives on the ground. Staying calm untill the plane comes to a complete halt is very helpful in handling situations like this. Just remember: there is lots of time to panic after all is over - so just postpone possible panic attacks!
Landing on a street could be a (good) option only if traffic allows (ie. you are definitely able to touch down between to succeeding cars, without endangering oncoming traffic) and no obstacles like crossing bridges or lights or so are visible.
I'm aware that we were extremely lucky in this one and I'm especially thankfull that nobody gut seriously hurt.
This is very similar to an emergency that I had in 2010. This time, instead of IMC, it was a cloudy night and we were over coastal Florida above a swampy area with no lights. Like this case, the engine was still running, but not well enough to stay airborne; we could just "stretch the glide".
There were two airports within range. One was larger, and 13 miles away, but across a wide bay. The other was on the same bit of albeit swampy land that we were over, but unattended; and the pilot controlled lighting wasn't working. It was not near any lighted areas, either, so a real black hole. We made the decision to go for the further field, but it became clear immediately that we were unlikely to make it,
So, the small unlit field it was. We used the KLN94 GPS to draw an OBS line through the airport icon, centered on it, and rotated it to the runway heading. Then, using the GPS on full zoom we flew a DIY instrument approach using the OBS line as a localizer and the altimeter as a glideslope.
The aircraft's landing light picked out the runway centreline at about 10ft. We landed safely.
There were two airports within range. One was larger, and 13 miles away, but across a wide bay. The other was on the same bit of albeit swampy land that we were over, but unattended; and the pilot controlled lighting wasn't working. It was not near any lighted areas, either, so a real black hole. We made the decision to go for the further field, but it became clear immediately that we were unlikely to make it,
So, the small unlit field it was. We used the KLN94 GPS to draw an OBS line through the airport icon, centered on it, and rotated it to the runway heading. Then, using the GPS on full zoom we flew a DIY instrument approach using the OBS line as a localizer and the altimeter as a glideslope.
The aircraft's landing light picked out the runway centreline at about 10ft. We landed safely.
