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

Plane crash near Basingstoke UK

Private Flying LAA/BMAA/BGA/BPA The sheer pleasure of flight.

Plane crash near Basingstoke UK

Old 9th Jan 2015, 00:11
  #81 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: 23, Railway Cuttings, East Cheam
Age: 63
Posts: 3,121
Amen to that.
thing is offline  
Old 9th Jan 2015, 05:03
  #82 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 6,000
A&E
I was not talking about PFLs in the event of an engine failure onto any piece of suitable landing area within gliding range but powered controlled landings when your best option is to get the aircraft safely on the ground for whatever reason!
It's more of a mindset traing that such a possibility exists

Pace
Pace is offline  
Old 9th Jan 2015, 07:08
  #83 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Chissay en Touraine, France.
Posts: 36
I was taught both power on and power off 'practises' both in basic training and re-validations, and executed same myself from time to time, down to 500' rule. Over land and water.
Thus it was always something that, in emergency or sudden extreme weather, would have been a comfortable option.
Maybe I was just lucky with my flying school and examiner, but I assumed everyone got this training and check.
ChissayLuke is offline  
Old 9th Jan 2015, 09:53
  #84 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Enzed
Posts: 2,216
A&E
I was not talking about PFLs in the event of an engine failure onto any piece of suitable landing area within gliding range but powered controlled landings when your best option is to get the aircraft safely on the ground for whatever reason!
It's more of a mindset traing that such a possibility exists

Pace
Exactly what A & C said.
If you learn to fly with me you will practice forced landings with power and as long as we are not going to infringe the 500ft rule the aircraft will get close enough to the ground that the student will be in no doubt a landing would be sucsessful.
27/09 is offline  
Old 9th Jan 2015, 11:12
  #85 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 6,000
ok my apologies )) I misread what A E said but hats off to him for taking that approach as many just teach PFLs rather than considering off airfield landings as a serious consideration if you get into a mess and i appreciate and so should others that an off airfield landing itself poses risks especially when carried out in poor visibility and low clouds

pace

Last edited by Pace; 9th Jan 2015 at 11:33.
Pace is offline  
Old 9th Jan 2015, 11:29
  #86 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Uxbridge
Posts: 623
Pace

Precautionary landing is definitely still part of the syllabus, at least in the UK.


It must be taught and is tested on the initial skill test. It's Exercise 17.
MrAverage is offline  
Old 9th Jan 2015, 14:49
  #87 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: North England
Posts: 448
Precautionary landing is definitely still part of the syllabus, at least in the UK.
I'm quite surprised that there's any experienced pilots in the UK who are not aware of that?!

Anyway onwards and upwards!

I think the problem with private pilots is that they don't appreciate the difference between 'risk' and 'consequence'.

How many times have I heard pilots say in the clubhouse: 'there's no greater chance of an engine failure at night or over the sea than there is flying over land in daylight - the risk is the same' - and they base their decision-making on that.

Yes, risk might be the same but consequences are totally different. Ask yourself if 'Forced Landing at Night' or 'Ditching' form a part of the PPL Syllabus or Night Rating training. Obviously not.

When airline flying there is no situation that is not/cannot be trained for. No commercial pilot ever goes flying thinking there might be a situation could be faced that cannot be overcome. Helped in this are options created by aircraft design, training or operational considerations.

Not so the private pilot flying a SEP.

Comparison between the training and operational environment of the average twin-engined jet flying public transport operations to that of the private pilot flying a SEP shows that there are few options available in comparison - and as PACE alluded to above - often none.

Advanced flying training not only gives you more options for flying, but more options in an emergency - but not that many more in a SEP and even the most experienced pilot will find no more options available when flying over the sea or at night in a single than a relavatively inexperienced day-tripper.

Morale of the tale: it's often the consequences which should be considered rather than the perceived risk.

I always took my wife and child flying in good VMC by day. Never over water or at night. Not particularly because of the perceived risk, but always because of the potential consequences.
SpannerInTheWerks is offline  
Old 9th Jan 2015, 16:05
  #88 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 6,000
I'm quite surprised that there's any experienced pilots in the UK who are not aware of that?!
Spannerinthewerks

As it is 30 years ago that I learnt to fly sorry if I cannot remember details of what was involved I obviously remember the PFLs and maybe there were precautionary landings but certainly not to the extent of PFLs and this is the real point I was making.
In gliding controlled landings off airfield are part of the course to such an extent that they are part of the mindset of the glider pilot.

A precautionary landing under power is really little different to any other landing under power albeit a slow short field approach where the big differenceEs comes into determining wind,landing area length , surface quality, slope, obstructions visible and invisible, visibility cloud base and so many other factors to a standard landing that you could almost put a great chunk of training over to that alone.

A quick 30 minutes with the instructor and at 500 feet ok go around is hardly in depth training but going through then motions to sign off precautionary landings! PLs should be taught to an extent that they become a mindset alternative for a pilot in trouble. The fact that they hardly register with me from 30 years back means they were jumbled in with PFLs just to sign off that they had been done
Now if I was a current instructor who did not know you would be justified in your comment but I am not

Pace

Last edited by Pace; 9th Jan 2015 at 19:01.
Pace is offline  
Old 9th Jan 2015, 16:35
  #89 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 7,255
When airline flying there is no situation that is not/cannot be trained for.
Really? Seems to have been rather a lot of airliners in the drink over the last few years........

Speaking as a Commercial Pilot, I am pretty sure that we have not trained for every eventuality we just try and envisage failures and train for them.

When private flying, I am quite happy to fly my single Engine Cessna at night, under IFR and across water. We assess the risk individually, if we don't like the risk then we don't take it and I am not going to knock anyone for having a different level of risk assessment to me.

Apart from wearing Nome and a Bone dome in a spam can, which I think is just plain daft....
S-Works is offline  
Old 9th Jan 2015, 16:54
  #90 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central London
Age: 37
Posts: 311
Yes, risk might be the same but consequences are totally different. Ask yourself if 'Forced Landing at Night' or 'Ditching' form a part of the PPL Syllabus or Night Rating training. Obviously not.
Actually on my PPL I was given some instruction around ditching e.g. ditch near ships if possible (although not directly ahead of them) and land parallel with the wave crests rather than against them. Not sure if it's officially in the syllabus or just a helpful instructor.

Rather different from my night rating where I was told in the event of an engine failure to "switch your landing light on at 50 feet. If don't like what you can see switch it off again."
taxistaxing is offline  
Old 9th Jan 2015, 19:12
  #91 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 644
Originally Posted by SpannerInTheWerks View Post
I think the problem with private pilots is that they don't appreciate the difference between 'risk' and 'consequence'.
Well, just so long as they don't exaggerate and over-generalise, eh?
hoodie is offline  
Old 9th Jan 2015, 19:39
  #92 (permalink)  

Avoid imitations
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 12,499
Precautionary landing is definitely still part of the syllabus, at least in the UK.
I'm quite surprised that there's any experienced pilots in the UK who are not aware of that?!
I learned to fly SEP 42 years ago and I remember it well enough even though I haven't flown any fixed wing for a decade. Maybe it depends how you were taught and how much it was emphasised at the time.

I also recall how the Cessna 150 with the old type of flap switch (3 position, centre loaded paddle switch) could craftily fully retract its flaps if you let go of the switch from the spring loaded "down" position. The centre detent was worn, so the the switch paddle could flick from "down" to "fully retract", rather than remaining at the centre "neutral" position.

The one I was flying did this to me as I came in over the hedge at Ipswich Airport for a practice short field landing. I'd selected full flap and let go of the switch, whereupon the flaps began to retract fully. I didn't realise what was happening and landed very short, probably the shortest "short field" landing I ever did. The aircraft stalled just over the hedge and I only just cleared it.
ShyTorque is online now  
Old 9th Jan 2015, 21:47
  #93 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Glens o' Angus by way of LA
Age: 56
Posts: 1,974
Practicing a precautionary landing in a field during PPL training involves getting it set up and down to 500 feet over a hastily selected pasture then if you are reasonably lined up and the instructor believes you would make it, then its power back in and onto the next exercise. The problem after training and receiving a license a lot of pilots who get in over there head with weather push on till its too late instead of actually putting it down when things get a bit hairy. I have the good fortune of flying a taildragger in a rural area and bump in and out of random fields just for fun which made me realise any Cessna or Piper spamcan would get down safe for the pilot (and in most cases for the plane) in a moderately flat 700ft field whether its grass, cropped or just cultivated. I think some folks get into a mentality that the only place to land a aircraft when things are going South is at a towered airfield and will go to extraordinary lengths when in trouble to find that. When I have found myself in these situations a few times I just say bollox to this I am setting this down till things get better. It should not be considered a last option but one of your first. The aircraft rental outfit, insurance company and anyone else who objects can go whistle dixie if they don't like it, I,m looking after No1
piperboy84 is offline  
Old 10th Jan 2015, 00:09
  #94 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,180
Piperboy

As I said above provided that the aproach is going well and we will not break the 500 ft rule the training will continue until a sucssesful landing is beyond doubt in the mind of the student.

This means that the student gets close enough to the field to know exactly what surface he/she has selected.

50 ft is the sort of height above the ground that you can expect a good aproach to be aborted.

Training that is not realistic is worthless.
A and C is offline  
Old 10th Jan 2015, 03:23
  #95 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Enzed
Posts: 2,216
Spanner
I always took my wife and child flying in good VMC by day. Never over water or at night. Not particularly because of the perceived risk, but always because of the potential consequences.
Where I fly there is a terrific lot of countryside where you'd be far better off if you could ditch the aircraft. Miles and miles of countryside with steep hillsides razor back ridges and a sharp V valley floor. Nowhere for a forced landing. Your only option is to stall it onto a ridge or onto the tree tops.

You'd do bugger all flying over here if you were to apply your "Gold" standard of "consequence" assessment.

I can think of only one fatality over this countryside due engine failure, scores of weather related fatalities though. That tells you where the real risks and consequences are.
27/09 is offline  
Old 10th Jan 2015, 09:12
  #96 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Surrey
Posts: 4
I am a virgin poster and low hour ppl, so feel I am accepting a fair amount of risk posting here!! But anyhow here we go….

When we fly we all accept an inherent level of risk. The level of risk associated with any given situation or set of prevailing circumstances is massively influenced by our experience, training, natural skill level, the vehicle we are flying in and its equipment. For example, the level of risk accepted by a high hours professional pilot flying in adverse weather or over hostile terrain is going to be far less than for a bloke like me – an amateur, low hours ppl.

Given all this, the level of risk we are prepared to accept ultimately comes down to personal judgement. So, if we have accepted a reasonable level of risk, go flying and nonetheless something bad happens – eg professional pilot forced to deploy a chute on a cirrus only to end up in an electricity sub station – then that is bad luck. If on the other hand we accept a high level of risk - eg inexperienced pilot in a poorly equipped aircraft hitting the ground whilst flying over mountainous terrain in bad weather – then that us poor judgement.

In the case of this recent tragic accident, the metars and tafs certainly paint a very bleak set of weather conditions. On the face of it, it is hard to see that the pilot accepted a reasonable level of risk when he decided to fly. Whether bad luck or bad judgement, he and his passengers paid a very high price for this decision. All our thoughts have got to be with family and friends of those on board.
Zsilotski is offline  
Old 10th Jan 2015, 10:12
  #97 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Oxford, UK
Posts: 1,548
Anyone learning to fly, power or glider, when doing the exercise entitled Emergency Field Landing, would profit from going to a gliding club and flying IN A MOTOR GLIDER with an instructor who is qualified to teach the exercise called CHOOSING A FIELD. Power instructors make a dash at this, but not in a very expert way. The glider pilot who intends to fly cross country MUST be able to choose a field, so this motor glider training intended to teach field landings is the very best and most intense. And it usually costs a lot less than a power lesson.

Go on, guys, when is the last time you SERIOUSLY looked at fields? low down?
mary meagher is offline  
Old 10th Jan 2015, 10:23
  #98 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Here
Posts: 1,812
Cool

When choosing your location for practices, consider the consequences should the practice become reality (engine cut or rough running on re-application of throttle for example).


Doing a PFL over water does not strike me as too great a plan...


Fly safe, fly further, even fly over oceans! Sam.
Sam Rutherford is offline  
Old 10th Jan 2015, 11:20
  #99 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,180
Sam

That is exactly why only the good aproaches go down to 50ft so if the engine quits it becomes a good landing.

It is all about giving the student the confidence to put an serviceable aircraft into a field when circumstance has painted him into a corner.

When the engine quits a pilot has no decision to make, the aircraft is going to land what ever the pilot does, in the case of bad weather, onset of night or fuel running low it is the pilot who has to make a "command decision" to land, pilots lacking in confidence in their skills to do so are much more likely to seek another way out of the situation and press on.

Unfortunately the numbers are not in favour of those who press on.

This is why I feel it is my duty to make the training as realistic as posable while keeping it safe.

Those who stop every forced landing practice at 500 ft AGL are doing their students a great dis-service, from that height no student is ever going to be 100% confident that he/she could have turned the approach into a good landing.

Unrealistic training is just turning AVGAS into noise.
A and C is offline  
Old 10th Jan 2015, 11:30
  #100 (permalink)  

Avoid imitations
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 12,499
Agreed, Sam. When I instructed on SEP, I wouldn't let a student get low over a ploughed field during PFLs in case the engine didn't pick up. My judgement of risk was that a landing in a ploughed field greatly increased the risk of the aircraft flipping nose over on its back. In a low winged aircraft with a rearwards sliding canopy that would mean you won't get out unassisted. If spilled fuel ignited, you're done.

I didn't like the thought of dying for the sake of practicing for a situation that might never happen.
ShyTorque is online now  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.