EFATO
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Amsterdam
Posts: 4,598
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chris, good one. I'll do that at the start.
Mark, unfortunately I do not have a decent camera, and the half-decent (actually, more like quarter-decent) camera I have will be hard to mount properly. Nevertheless, I'm going to see if I can make it work with that one.
Mark, unfortunately I do not have a decent camera, and the half-decent (actually, more like quarter-decent) camera I have will be hard to mount properly. Nevertheless, I'm going to see if I can make it work with that one.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Surrey
Posts: 1,217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Even if flying take-off to landing for a manoeuvre like this, the same applies for data analysis because GPS will flatline on the runway (and given that PEC varies with airspeed and may be affected by ground effect, a pressure altimeter may not, although it'll be close enough to allow analysis if you had airspeed as well).
G
G
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Oop North, UK
Posts: 3,076
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fine you win; a turn back is the only way to deal with an EFATO. Happy now
finding the one exception that will counter any argument.
Last edited by foxmoth; 27th Jan 2012 at 19:28.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Amsterdam
Posts: 4,598
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Okay, trip report. This was, as planned in the Robin R2160. Actual weight was approx. 730kg, vs. an MTOW of 900kg. QNH 1027, OAT zero C @ 3000' which was my "close throttle" height for most tests. OAT on the ground 4 C, dewpoint 3.
From the POH: Vs 63 kt, Vbg 78 kt, Vy 78 kt.
V/S at Vbg, zero AoB, with throttle closed was 800-900 ft/min.
V/S at Vbg, 45 AoB with throttle closed was 1100-1200 ft/min. Stall warner was going off, but no noticeable pre-stall buffet was felt.
V/S at Vbg, zero AoB, with mixture closed was 1000-1100 ft/min.
The sticky tape on the canopy was really useful. It allowed me to set the proper attitude in the subsequent tests immediately.
The difference between throttle closed and mixture closed is between 10 and 20%. So we need to correct all subsequent measurements for that.
All V/S were from the VSI. I did not want to spend a lot of time descending through 2000 feet or more and timing the descent with a stopwatch. Maybe next time.
A couple of surprises here.
- The fuselage angle between Vy (full throttle) and Vbg (closed throttle) is actually only about 40 degrees or so (20 degrees nose up vs. down). Because of this, it really doesn't matter whether you do a zero or half G pushover, or simply let the nose drop all by its own. In all cases (except a and c) I was fully established in a Vbg glide while I dropped through the "close throttle" altitude.
- Holding the nose up as in (a), it took 4 seconds for the stall warner to sound, and 7 seconds for the aircraft to be properly stalled. But even then, I was able to recover to a stable Vbg glide 100' below the "close throttle" altitude.
- Completely releasing the stick (as in (c)) got the aircraft in a huge pitch/speed oscillation. I let the aircraft descend over 1000' but by then it had not yet recovered from the oscillation so I ended that test prematurely.
- Despite Vy being equal to Vbg for this aircraft, there was a *huge* difference in trim. With the R2160 the all-flying tailplane is in the propellor slipstream and that will be the primary reason. I expect this to be different in different aircraft.
I actually used two seconds of "oh ****" recovery time after closing the throttle.
With (f) I was able to consistently complete the maneuver in 450'. At the end I was in a stable Vbg descent, and all I would need to do is flare. That flare obviously takes a few feet. The (limited, see further down) GPS data I have suggested that the 225/45 degrees works quite well to regain the centerline in the no-wind situation. I was too high up to confirm this overhead a line feature though.
(g) and (h) gave me 800' and 700', respectively. I only did this once but the data suggests another confirmation of Rogers.
(i) was also done in 450'.
Both (f) and (i) felt really comfortable. Especially during the 225 degrees turn, there is time to do something else, like issuing a very quick mayday call to make sure the runway is cleared.
This did not make a significant difference. Dropping the nose from Vy climb to Vbg is a very quick process, and so is rolling to 45 bank. I did this test only once and lost 450', just like (f) and (i).
I tried this a number of times. It feels like a very aggressive maneuver which requires very precise aircraft control. I would not be happy doing this for real - it feels like it's too easy to lose control. But it did give better performance: The full maneuver was completed in 400' both times I tried.
The track recording of the GPS turned out to have an interval of approx. 5 seconds. It doesn't really help me with the analysis. I also had a camera installed in the cabin (which was indeed not even half-decent) but unfortunately it was not aligned properly and the instruments are not visible.
To summarize, I was able to complete the turnback consistently in 450', with only moderate technique. Obviously this was a very limited test and that number should be corrected for a number of things:
- I was not able to confirm that I would be able to make the runway. Just that the turnback would be completed in that altitude. Properly reaching the runway might require a further glide and thus further altitude. And obviously all this depends on climb performance anyway: If your climb performance (angle) is less than your best glide performance (angle) you'll never reach the runway even if you were able to turn back without altitude loss.
- I flew all maneuvers with the throttle closed. As my initial tests showed, we need to correct the numbers with approximately 10-20% to compensate for the residual idle thrust.
- All figures still need to be corrected for OAT, altitude, QNH and the fact that I was well under MTOW.
- All figures are specific for the R2160
- All figures are specific for *my* pilot technique. YMMV.
Personal lessons learned:
- You have about 2-3 seconds to recover from the "Oh ****" reaction. It doesn't matter all that much how fast you react and how aggressive you pushover as long as you don't stall. Whatever energy you lose on the way up, is recovered on the way down. (Obviously the longer you dally, the further you end up from the runway.)
- You have to fly the aircraft to the Vbg stable attitude. Just letting the plane sort itself out doesn't work, especially considering the huge trim change.
- Knowing the proper Vbg attitude is very important. The faster you can set this, the earlier you can start the turn and concentrate on other matters. And the Vbg attitude was less nose down than I thought.
- The turnback (225/45 or 45/225 as appropriate, at 45 AoB), with the engine windmilling, will take *at least* 500 feet, and possibly closer to 600-700 feet under the wrong circumstances. You then might need some additional altitude to reach the threshold. For me personally, this means I'm going to keep on using 1000' as minimum turnback altitude, assuming a straight-out departure. (Turning crosswind at 500' obviously greatly improves your chances to make the runway though.)
Note: All the usual caveats apply. Do not change the technique you've been taught just because some anonymous bloke dumped a few numbers plus some mumbo-jumbo in an anonymous internet forum. If you decide to deviate from the technique that's been taught to you by a qualified instructor, you do so at your own risk, and I suggest you first validate your prospective technique yourself. Yada yada.
From the POH: Vs 63 kt, Vbg 78 kt, Vy 78 kt.
(i) From height, establish the aircraft in a Vbg stable, trimmed descent. Mark attitude with some sticky tape on the canopy. Write down/time V/S.
(ii) From height, establish the aircraft in a Vbg stable, trimmed descent at 45 degree bank left and right. Mark attitude again with some sticky tape. Write down/time V/S.
(iii) From height, establish the aircraft in a Vbg stable, trimmed descent with the mixture closed. Write down/time V/S.
(ii) From height, establish the aircraft in a Vbg stable, trimmed descent at 45 degree bank left and right. Mark attitude again with some sticky tape. Write down/time V/S.
(iii) From height, establish the aircraft in a Vbg stable, trimmed descent with the mixture closed. Write down/time V/S.
V/S at Vbg, 45 AoB with throttle closed was 1100-1200 ft/min. Stall warner was going off, but no noticeable pre-stall buffet was felt.
V/S at Vbg, zero AoB, with mixture closed was 1000-1100 ft/min.
The sticky tape on the canopy was really useful. It allowed me to set the proper attitude in the subsequent tests immediately.
The difference between throttle closed and mixture closed is between 10 and 20%. So we need to correct all subsequent measurements for that.
All V/S were from the VSI. I did not want to spend a lot of time descending through 2000 feet or more and timing the descent with a stopwatch. Maybe next time.
All items start from a stable, properly trimmed Vy climb along a line feature, into the wind as far as possible. When passing through a certain safe height (3000' most likely, weather permitting) I'm going to pull the power and:
a. Hold the nose up to see how long it takes for the aircraft to stall. Then recover the stall and see how much time/altitude I lose before in a stable Vbg glide.
b. Hold the stick in the same position, furthermore as in (a).
c. Completely release the stick, let the aircraft sort itself out, furthermore as in (a).
d. Fly the aircraft in a half-G pushover, furthermore as in (a).
e. Fly the aircraft in a ballistic arc (zero G), furthermore as in (a).
a. Hold the nose up to see how long it takes for the aircraft to stall. Then recover the stall and see how much time/altitude I lose before in a stable Vbg glide.
b. Hold the stick in the same position, furthermore as in (a).
c. Completely release the stick, let the aircraft sort itself out, furthermore as in (a).
d. Fly the aircraft in a half-G pushover, furthermore as in (a).
e. Fly the aircraft in a ballistic arc (zero G), furthermore as in (a).
- The fuselage angle between Vy (full throttle) and Vbg (closed throttle) is actually only about 40 degrees or so (20 degrees nose up vs. down). Because of this, it really doesn't matter whether you do a zero or half G pushover, or simply let the nose drop all by its own. In all cases (except a and c) I was fully established in a Vbg glide while I dropped through the "close throttle" altitude.
- Holding the nose up as in (a), it took 4 seconds for the stall warner to sound, and 7 seconds for the aircraft to be properly stalled. But even then, I was able to recover to a stable Vbg glide 100' below the "close throttle" altitude.
- Completely releasing the stick (as in (c)) got the aircraft in a huge pitch/speed oscillation. I let the aircraft descend over 1000' but by then it had not yet recovered from the oscillation so I ended that test prematurely.
- Despite Vy being equal to Vbg for this aircraft, there was a *huge* difference in trim. With the R2160 the all-flying tailplane is in the propellor slipstream and that will be the primary reason. I expect this to be different in different aircraft.
Subsequent tests include one second of "oh ****" time after closing the throttle, then:
f. Establish Vbg according to the best technique from (a)-(e), then turn into the crosswind 225 degrees at 45 degree bank, turn the other way 45 degrees at 45 degree bank.
g. Same as (e) but with 60 degree bank
h. Same as (e) but with 30 degree bank
i. Like (f) but start with a left turn 45 degrees away from the crosswind, then turn 225 degrees into the crosswind (teardrop thus reversed). Altitude lost should be the same as (f), but you never know.
f. Establish Vbg according to the best technique from (a)-(e), then turn into the crosswind 225 degrees at 45 degree bank, turn the other way 45 degrees at 45 degree bank.
g. Same as (e) but with 60 degree bank
h. Same as (e) but with 30 degree bank
i. Like (f) but start with a left turn 45 degrees away from the crosswind, then turn 225 degrees into the crosswind (teardrop thus reversed). Altitude lost should be the same as (f), but you never know.
With (f) I was able to consistently complete the maneuver in 450'. At the end I was in a stable Vbg descent, and all I would need to do is flare. That flare obviously takes a few feet. The (limited, see further down) GPS data I have suggested that the 225/45 degrees works quite well to regain the centerline in the no-wind situation. I was too high up to confirm this overhead a line feature though.
(g) and (h) gave me 800' and 700', respectively. I only did this once but the data suggests another confirmation of Rogers.
(i) was also done in 450'.
Both (f) and (i) felt really comfortable. Especially during the 225 degrees turn, there is time to do something else, like issuing a very quick mayday call to make sure the runway is cleared.
j. Like (f) but this time roll into a 45 degree bank while pushing the nose down (at half or zero G as appropriate), ready to pull as soon as the Vbg attitude has been set.
k. Like (f) but use the Mark1234 technique of immediately rolling to 60 degrees bank, pull to the stall warner while the nose drops, play angle of bank against stall once the nose is at the Vbg attitude.
I will also run an outdoor-type GPS which has track recording
To summarize, I was able to complete the turnback consistently in 450', with only moderate technique. Obviously this was a very limited test and that number should be corrected for a number of things:
- I was not able to confirm that I would be able to make the runway. Just that the turnback would be completed in that altitude. Properly reaching the runway might require a further glide and thus further altitude. And obviously all this depends on climb performance anyway: If your climb performance (angle) is less than your best glide performance (angle) you'll never reach the runway even if you were able to turn back without altitude loss.
- I flew all maneuvers with the throttle closed. As my initial tests showed, we need to correct the numbers with approximately 10-20% to compensate for the residual idle thrust.
- All figures still need to be corrected for OAT, altitude, QNH and the fact that I was well under MTOW.
- All figures are specific for the R2160
- All figures are specific for *my* pilot technique. YMMV.
Personal lessons learned:
- You have about 2-3 seconds to recover from the "Oh ****" reaction. It doesn't matter all that much how fast you react and how aggressive you pushover as long as you don't stall. Whatever energy you lose on the way up, is recovered on the way down. (Obviously the longer you dally, the further you end up from the runway.)
- You have to fly the aircraft to the Vbg stable attitude. Just letting the plane sort itself out doesn't work, especially considering the huge trim change.
- Knowing the proper Vbg attitude is very important. The faster you can set this, the earlier you can start the turn and concentrate on other matters. And the Vbg attitude was less nose down than I thought.
- The turnback (225/45 or 45/225 as appropriate, at 45 AoB), with the engine windmilling, will take *at least* 500 feet, and possibly closer to 600-700 feet under the wrong circumstances. You then might need some additional altitude to reach the threshold. For me personally, this means I'm going to keep on using 1000' as minimum turnback altitude, assuming a straight-out departure. (Turning crosswind at 500' obviously greatly improves your chances to make the runway though.)
Note: All the usual caveats apply. Do not change the technique you've been taught just because some anonymous bloke dumped a few numbers plus some mumbo-jumbo in an anonymous internet forum. If you decide to deviate from the technique that's been taught to you by a qualified instructor, you do so at your own risk, and I suggest you first validate your prospective technique yourself. Yada yada.
Last edited by BackPacker; 30th Jan 2012 at 20:05.
April 12, 2012
A light aircraft that crashed into two houses in Peel Green in Salford, killing the pilot, probably suffered a fuel supply problem, an air accident report revealed.
No-one on the ground was hurt but the Piper PA38's pilot, Ian Daglish, 59, died later in hospital, the report from the Air Accidents Investigation Branch (AAIB) said.
Mr Daglish's 19-year-old passenger Joel McNicholls was seriously hurt in the crash on the morning of July 29 last year.
Leaving Manchester/Barton City Airport, the aircraft suffered an engine stoppage on take-off at about 200ft. It rolled to the left, with the extension roof of the first house most likely being struck by the aircraft's right wing.
The underside of the aircraft then hit the side wall of a neighbouring house, with the wrecked and on-fire aircraft coming to rest in a driveway between the two homes.
The AAIB report said: "The account of the passenger and the findings from the investigation support a fuel supply problem as being the most likely cause of the engine stoppage."
The AAIB went on: "Although other potential causes for the engine stoppage could not be eliminated from the investigation, the most likely cause, based on the available evidence, was that stiffness of the fuel selector valve and wear on the rod connecting it to the selector handle, may have resulted in the valve being in an intermediate position during the take-off.
"This would have reduced the fuel flow to a level too low to sustain continuous engine operation."
The report added: "The suddenness of the engine stopping and the limited time available to react to it probably resulted in the pilot omitting to lower the nose before the aircraft stalled.
"Once the aircraft stalled, it is highly unlikely that he could have recovered the aircraft in the height available." Father-of-two Mr Daglish, from Alderley Edge, Cheshire, was a military historian and wrote a series of books about Second World War battles.
He described himself on his website as a "battlefield mythbuster". Colin Maher, whose home was hit, said at the time that he had run into his garden and saw the plane alight. "I heard a man shout for help and just put a hosepipe on him," Mr Maher told the BBC.
The above was quoted from another post.
Sadly another fatal EFATO crash that started with a departure stall. Theorizing about turnbacks is all fine and dandy but too often the point is moot because the aircraft was allowed to stall when the aircraft lost power. If you are looking for something new to practice on your next local flight establish the aircraft in a Vy climb, in trim, and retard the throttle to idle. The object is to go right to the glide attitude. In other word after the aircraft has stabilized its speed should be right on best glide without you having to make any further adjustments to the attitude. It is harder than it sounds and a good way to build the automatic reactions that will save your life.
A light aircraft that crashed into two houses in Peel Green in Salford, killing the pilot, probably suffered a fuel supply problem, an air accident report revealed.
No-one on the ground was hurt but the Piper PA38's pilot, Ian Daglish, 59, died later in hospital, the report from the Air Accidents Investigation Branch (AAIB) said.
Mr Daglish's 19-year-old passenger Joel McNicholls was seriously hurt in the crash on the morning of July 29 last year.
Leaving Manchester/Barton City Airport, the aircraft suffered an engine stoppage on take-off at about 200ft. It rolled to the left, with the extension roof of the first house most likely being struck by the aircraft's right wing.
The underside of the aircraft then hit the side wall of a neighbouring house, with the wrecked and on-fire aircraft coming to rest in a driveway between the two homes.
The AAIB report said: "The account of the passenger and the findings from the investigation support a fuel supply problem as being the most likely cause of the engine stoppage."
The AAIB went on: "Although other potential causes for the engine stoppage could not be eliminated from the investigation, the most likely cause, based on the available evidence, was that stiffness of the fuel selector valve and wear on the rod connecting it to the selector handle, may have resulted in the valve being in an intermediate position during the take-off.
"This would have reduced the fuel flow to a level too low to sustain continuous engine operation."
The report added: "The suddenness of the engine stopping and the limited time available to react to it probably resulted in the pilot omitting to lower the nose before the aircraft stalled.
"Once the aircraft stalled, it is highly unlikely that he could have recovered the aircraft in the height available." Father-of-two Mr Daglish, from Alderley Edge, Cheshire, was a military historian and wrote a series of books about Second World War battles.
He described himself on his website as a "battlefield mythbuster". Colin Maher, whose home was hit, said at the time that he had run into his garden and saw the plane alight. "I heard a man shout for help and just put a hosepipe on him," Mr Maher told the BBC.
The above was quoted from another post.
Sadly another fatal EFATO crash that started with a departure stall. Theorizing about turnbacks is all fine and dandy but too often the point is moot because the aircraft was allowed to stall when the aircraft lost power. If you are looking for something new to practice on your next local flight establish the aircraft in a Vy climb, in trim, and retard the throttle to idle. The object is to go right to the glide attitude. In other word after the aircraft has stabilized its speed should be right on best glide without you having to make any further adjustments to the attitude. It is harder than it sounds and a good way to build the automatic reactions that will save your life.
Theorizing about turnbacks is all fine and dandy but too often the point is moot because the aircraft was allowed to stall when the aircraft lost power
If, for any reason, an aeroplane is permitted to stall anywhere between about 20ft and 400ft, almost certainly all bets are off, the height loss will probably take the aeroplane into the ground out of control.
This is irrespective of what you are going to try and do next. There just isn't time and height for a pilot who wasn't expecting a stall to recover.
G
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 3,325
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What worries me about the PA38 accident above is that pilot (who I knew, incidentaly) did not lower the nose when the engine failed yet transmitted a mayday and may have (according to the report) also switched off the mags and fuel.
Having suffered a partial engine failure in a Chipmunk at almost the exact same spot as Ian's accident (off 09R at Barton), I know the importance of INSTANT forward stick cannot be over emphasised. All the other stuff (radios, mags, fuel) can wait (especially the radio).
Having suffered a partial engine failure in a Chipmunk at almost the exact same spot as Ian's accident (off 09R at Barton), I know the importance of INSTANT forward stick cannot be over emphasised. All the other stuff (radios, mags, fuel) can wait (especially the radio).
It's very hard to put yourself in the head of somebody who has had an accident and sadly is unable to talk about it.
However, I know that at a few points in my flying career where I've returned to training I've been picked up for following "procedure" (checklists, radio...) in preference to the primacy of controlling the aeroplane. As an instructor I've seen this in other pilots as well.
That *may* perhaps be what happened.
G
However, I know that at a few points in my flying career where I've returned to training I've been picked up for following "procedure" (checklists, radio...) in preference to the primacy of controlling the aeroplane. As an instructor I've seen this in other pilots as well.
That *may* perhaps be what happened.
G
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 3,325
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Agreed we'll never know for sure.
But I think there's a lesson here for pilots and instructors regardless. ALWAYS FLY THE AEROPLANE! If you haven't got the stick and rudder stuff right, nothing else matters. Only when the aeroplane is stable and under control should anything else be even considered. Checklists have their place, but YOU MUST FLY THE AEROPLANE as the number one consideration, regardless of any checklist or procedure. And last of all comes the radio.
The old addage 'aviate, navigate, communicate in that order' was never more true.
But I think there's a lesson here for pilots and instructors regardless. ALWAYS FLY THE AEROPLANE! If you haven't got the stick and rudder stuff right, nothing else matters. Only when the aeroplane is stable and under control should anything else be even considered. Checklists have their place, but YOU MUST FLY THE AEROPLANE as the number one consideration, regardless of any checklist or procedure. And last of all comes the radio.
The old addage 'aviate, navigate, communicate in that order' was never more true.
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: London
Posts: 70
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Couple of questions from a low hours PPL:
A stall during an EFATO when properly trimmed has to be induced by the pilot pulling back, allowing speed to bleed off. From my limited experience flying C172/PA-28, the amount of pulling back to cause such a stall has to be fairly significant and not easily missed. Is it easier to miss this sign than I realise, or does panic simply cause pilots to miss this important warning sign?
As for turning back, what are peoples views on doing so from a crosswind position? Is it worth making a turn onto crosswind even if for you'd otherwise be departing straight out as it keeps you closer to the airfield and if the airfield has crossing runways then a 180 turn could have you lined up nicely on final for an xwind landing?
A stall during an EFATO when properly trimmed has to be induced by the pilot pulling back, allowing speed to bleed off. From my limited experience flying C172/PA-28, the amount of pulling back to cause such a stall has to be fairly significant and not easily missed. Is it easier to miss this sign than I realise, or does panic simply cause pilots to miss this important warning sign?
As for turning back, what are peoples views on doing so from a crosswind position? Is it worth making a turn onto crosswind even if for you'd otherwise be departing straight out as it keeps you closer to the airfield and if the airfield has crossing runways then a 180 turn could have you lined up nicely on final for an xwind landing?
But I think there's a lesson here for pilots and instructors regardless. ALWAYS FLY THE AEROPLANE! If you haven't got the stick and rudder stuff right, nothing else matters. Only when the aeroplane is stable and under control should anything else be even considered. Checklists have their place, but YOU MUST FLY THE AEROPLANE as the number one consideration, regardless of any checklist or procedure. And last of all comes the radio.
The old addage 'aviate, navigate, communicate in that order' was never more true.
*
The old addage 'aviate, navigate, communicate in that order' was never more true.
*
Says it all, really.
A stall during an EFATO when properly trimmed has to be induced by the pilot pulling back, allowing speed to bleed off. From my limited experience flying C172/PA-28, the amount of pulling back to cause such a stall has to be fairly significant and not easily missed. Is it easier to miss this sign than I realise, or does panic simply cause pilots to miss this important warning sign?
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Glasgow
Age: 40
Posts: 642
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As a student (note my lack of experience in what I'm saying below), I've always been taught to push forward on the stick to get the plane into the glide attitude.
You have to remember that when the engine failure happens, you are probably going to be in the climb attitude and trimmed as such. I would be surprised if there are many aircraft which have the same trim settings for climb and glide!
When you practice basic stalls, you normally start from straight and level flight, then reduce the throttle and try to maintain the straight and level attitude. The speed will of course slowly wash off, in such a way you can feel the different stall characteristics of your particular plane. It might be useful to try stalling from the climb attitude (I would talk to an instructor before trying this!) - the stall is likely to be quite different- speed loss will be much quicker. Gravity isn't your friend...
You have to remember that when the engine failure happens, you are probably going to be in the climb attitude and trimmed as such. I would be surprised if there are many aircraft which have the same trim settings for climb and glide!
When you practice basic stalls, you normally start from straight and level flight, then reduce the throttle and try to maintain the straight and level attitude. The speed will of course slowly wash off, in such a way you can feel the different stall characteristics of your particular plane. It might be useful to try stalling from the climb attitude (I would talk to an instructor before trying this!) - the stall is likely to be quite different- speed loss will be much quicker. Gravity isn't your friend...
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Cambridge, England, EU
Posts: 3,443
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
It might be useful to try stalling from the climb attitude
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 3,325
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A stall during an EFATO when properly trimmed has to be induced by the pilot pulling back, allowing speed to bleed off. From my limited experience flying C172/PA-28, the amount of pulling back to cause such a stall has to be fairly significant and not easily missed. Is it easier to miss this sign than I realise, or does panic simply cause pilots to miss this important warning sign?
When the engine fails the aeroplane, unless the pilot does something about it, will remain pitched nose high (not quite as high as before as removal of power will induce pitch reduction in itself), the speed will rapidly bleed off due the nose-up pitch and no power, and within a few seconds (3 in this case of a benign PA38) the stalling angle will be exceeded and the aeroplane will depart controlled flight. All this with no pulling back.
In very light aeroplanes flown to max climb performance the stall will occur pretty much as soon as the engine fails. At Barton about 30 years ago a highly experienced GA instructor, examiner, and B737 training captain (the guy who had meticulously checked me out on the Chipmunk) was climbing at max rate in an Issacs Fury. The engine failed and the Fury stalled and spun immediately. He was seriously injured.
When the engine fails in a climb it is essential to LOWER THE NOSE IMMEDIATELY, and perhaps quite violently, to prevent loss of control.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Earth
Posts: 1,189
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I, as always, find people's carefully planned actions with EFATO's genuinely interesting. There are those who have had one, and those that might, one day.
There is a lot of theory printed above; theory that in the circumstances just won't have the chance to be activated. EFATO's often happen (real ones) at 300 feet or less. There isn't the time to start calculating. By the time you have realised what's happened you have lost 33% of your height already.
A stationary propeller will give an exceptionally poor glide ratio and you can't imagine how poor it is. The silence will scare you. The sound of the yoke rubbing on the panel and the control cables squeaking on their pulleys behind you will make you feel lonely.
You will drop like a brick. Literally. Not like the "idle engined" situation that you practice in your exams or your biennial.
My point is, if you plan too hard, you might end up doing yourself out of time when you need it most. Time that requires you to think about what the air is doing over your airframe, and what you can do to reduce your chances of potentially injurious rapid deceleration on the ground.
Sorry to sound blunt, but when it happens it is completely different to how the theorists describe it to be.
There is a lot of theory printed above; theory that in the circumstances just won't have the chance to be activated. EFATO's often happen (real ones) at 300 feet or less. There isn't the time to start calculating. By the time you have realised what's happened you have lost 33% of your height already.
A stationary propeller will give an exceptionally poor glide ratio and you can't imagine how poor it is. The silence will scare you. The sound of the yoke rubbing on the panel and the control cables squeaking on their pulleys behind you will make you feel lonely.
You will drop like a brick. Literally. Not like the "idle engined" situation that you practice in your exams or your biennial.
My point is, if you plan too hard, you might end up doing yourself out of time when you need it most. Time that requires you to think about what the air is doing over your airframe, and what you can do to reduce your chances of potentially injurious rapid deceleration on the ground.
Sorry to sound blunt, but when it happens it is completely different to how the theorists describe it to be.
Last edited by Monocock; 12th Apr 2012 at 20:39.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 3,325
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When it happened to me it was a shock that it'd happened but I sure didn't have a think before lowering the nose. I lowered the nose while my brain was getting into EFATO gear. Pavlov's dog syndrome - 'X' happens, you do 'Y'. No thinking involved - there ain't time!
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: 23, Railway Cuttings, East Cheam
Age: 68
Posts: 3,115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just a thought from a glider and power jock. In a glider you always trim for glide speed (I know it can't be done that precisely but about half forward on the trim is usually about right) before take off, thus assisiting your aim of not stalling in case of a cable break. This means of course having highish forces on the stick on climb out during a winch launch but they are quite acceptable.
What would be the problem in doing that in a powered a/c, say up to a thousand feet then trim for the climb? Wouldn't it be worth doing? Has anyone tried trimming for glide speed, leaving the trimmer alone then trying a take off?
One thing that gliders prep you for is a launch/take off failure, cable breaks happen far more often than an engine failure. I've just looked in my logbook and I had six launch failures out of the last one hundred, that includes two winch failures/poor winch technique. Unconsciously I'm always expecting a 'launch fail' even in a power a/c.
What would be the problem in doing that in a powered a/c, say up to a thousand feet then trim for the climb? Wouldn't it be worth doing? Has anyone tried trimming for glide speed, leaving the trimmer alone then trying a take off?
One thing that gliders prep you for is a launch/take off failure, cable breaks happen far more often than an engine failure. I've just looked in my logbook and I had six launch failures out of the last one hundred, that includes two winch failures/poor winch technique. Unconsciously I'm always expecting a 'launch fail' even in a power a/c.