Go-around after engine failure in light twin
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Vancouver Island
Posts: 2,517
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flight Safety:
By posting this tragic accident it will hopefully reinforce the need for pilots to show currency through ongoing check rides.
The cost of recurrent training pales when we see the cost of this accident.
Cat Driver:
By posting this tragic accident it will hopefully reinforce the need for pilots to show currency through ongoing check rides.
The cost of recurrent training pales when we see the cost of this accident.
Cat Driver:
s/e apps.
A Verry Happy New Year To You All
ffto
Haven`t written you out at all-yet,
remember- if it ain`t broke - don`t fix it!
if it is broke- don`t try to fix it in flight(unless you are an engineer ,and can do so!)
Why fly around for an hour trying to unfeather a prop?you could have probably flown to an airfield,found an engineer and fixed the problem and flown home in that time!
Why did you suspect it had iced -up? were you in icing conditions with the engine shut -down?
As I said earlier ,you may have compounded the problem by playing about trying to fix it in flight, and may have ended up with a prop unfeathered,windmilling, poss. overspeeding,and found yourself in a bigger can of worms than you thought possible. You had also wasted an hours flying,and you may have found that ,perhaps a little short on fuel ,you then had a gear problem,etc,etc. As you were on finals ,some fool decided to walk across the runway to hug a tree ,perhaps, and you had to go around,-- below committal height-- wind -milling prop, etc etc!
I could ,of course thow in a few more " gotcha`s", but I HOPE the threads have given you, and possibly a few inexperienced twin pilots a few thoughts for the New Year..
Capt Airprox
On your first post you are in favour of declaring an emergency,as it will probably minimise ATC,etc, and allow a low-time pilot breathing space to sort it all out without duress ,and with probable assistance-- couldn`t agree more!!
Because ,if you don`t declare an emergency ,you may get cut up,and may have to go-around, and may possibly screw it up!
So, if you are instructing, I presume the a/c is PT,what is the accel/stop distance rqd. for a Seneca,on your strip at mtow/rtow?
Why do you want students to get " low and slow" on apps? Even s/e apps should be flown to a nominal 3 deg G/p,at the correct app,speed and configuration; anything else can lead to a lot of trouble.-- or are you an old ex-Meteor/Canberra QFI ?
Syc
ffto
Haven`t written you out at all-yet,
remember- if it ain`t broke - don`t fix it!
if it is broke- don`t try to fix it in flight(unless you are an engineer ,and can do so!)
Why fly around for an hour trying to unfeather a prop?you could have probably flown to an airfield,found an engineer and fixed the problem and flown home in that time!
Why did you suspect it had iced -up? were you in icing conditions with the engine shut -down?
As I said earlier ,you may have compounded the problem by playing about trying to fix it in flight, and may have ended up with a prop unfeathered,windmilling, poss. overspeeding,and found yourself in a bigger can of worms than you thought possible. You had also wasted an hours flying,and you may have found that ,perhaps a little short on fuel ,you then had a gear problem,etc,etc. As you were on finals ,some fool decided to walk across the runway to hug a tree ,perhaps, and you had to go around,-- below committal height-- wind -milling prop, etc etc!
I could ,of course thow in a few more " gotcha`s", but I HOPE the threads have given you, and possibly a few inexperienced twin pilots a few thoughts for the New Year..
Capt Airprox
On your first post you are in favour of declaring an emergency,as it will probably minimise ATC,etc, and allow a low-time pilot breathing space to sort it all out without duress ,and with probable assistance-- couldn`t agree more!!
Because ,if you don`t declare an emergency ,you may get cut up,and may have to go-around, and may possibly screw it up!
So, if you are instructing, I presume the a/c is PT,what is the accel/stop distance rqd. for a Seneca,on your strip at mtow/rtow?
Why do you want students to get " low and slow" on apps? Even s/e apps should be flown to a nominal 3 deg G/p,at the correct app,speed and configuration; anything else can lead to a lot of trouble.-- or are you an old ex-Meteor/Canberra QFI ?
Syc
Sub Judice Angel Lovegod
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: London
Posts: 2,456
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A and C
Maybe the 80% is an average, I don't know. The point is to know what your own aircraft will do. To my shame I don't know what the Aztec will do at full power and blue line on two engines (because I normally climb at 25/25 and 130kt, which gives about 1,200fpm with 2 POB and full fuel). As a matter of interest I will try next time it's convenient.
Incidentally, my personal rule is that if I have an engine failure on takeoff with the gear down, I am going down regardless. The red lever is there for adjusting the flaps on the ground and nothing else!
I leave the gear down to a point where I can no longer land back, then raise it, that point being the decision point for continuing. I will adjust the point I raise the gear depending upon runway length, the state of the terrain after the end of the runway and the met conditions. I also adjust rotate speed and climb speed depending on conditions - rotate and climb fast to favour continuing, rotate slow and climb steeply (blue line) to favour landing back.
On landing, if I had lost the left I would continue to land regardless; let's face it, I wouldn't have started the approach if a landing were not possible. The decision what to do if I had lost the right would be more marginal, but I would probably still bust minima and land.
I think the trick is to find a runway where (with a full mayday, incidentally) you can be 99% certain to land but I am confident that I could walk away from a landing in zero/zero, even if the aircraft were damaged. I was trained to do this as part of my IR by Dai Heather-Hayes.
Maybe the 80% is an average, I don't know. The point is to know what your own aircraft will do. To my shame I don't know what the Aztec will do at full power and blue line on two engines (because I normally climb at 25/25 and 130kt, which gives about 1,200fpm with 2 POB and full fuel). As a matter of interest I will try next time it's convenient.
Incidentally, my personal rule is that if I have an engine failure on takeoff with the gear down, I am going down regardless. The red lever is there for adjusting the flaps on the ground and nothing else!
I leave the gear down to a point where I can no longer land back, then raise it, that point being the decision point for continuing. I will adjust the point I raise the gear depending upon runway length, the state of the terrain after the end of the runway and the met conditions. I also adjust rotate speed and climb speed depending on conditions - rotate and climb fast to favour continuing, rotate slow and climb steeply (blue line) to favour landing back.
On landing, if I had lost the left I would continue to land regardless; let's face it, I wouldn't have started the approach if a landing were not possible. The decision what to do if I had lost the right would be more marginal, but I would probably still bust minima and land.
I think the trick is to find a runway where (with a full mayday, incidentally) you can be 99% certain to land but I am confident that I could walk away from a landing in zero/zero, even if the aircraft were damaged. I was trained to do this as part of my IR by Dai Heather-Hayes.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 301
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chuck, I couldn't agree more. At least JAR has started something worthwhile and thats the yearly Prof Check on a Multi Rated Pilot. It was about time. When teaching multi to PPL's I always ram home the need to start approaching flying twins in a very professional and considered manner. More so than the days of your PPL initial.
Sycamore,
Regarding ASDA/EMDA. At Rtow which it isn't normally then it would be the full length of the strip.
If it was max well depends. But here is were we delve into dodgy ground. If you use the published CAA approved take-off performance figures one cannot operate a Seneca out of such a strip. Simply because there is no approved perf data for using the short field technique with 25 degrees of flap.
Piper have produced charts for these configurations but were never formally added to the Piper Approved Manual. So if operating to Public Transport Pax Carrying etc then it is illegal. But my understanding is as it is Aerial Work, we can operate to Non Public Transport rules, despite the aircraft having mandatory Public Transport CofA!
Therefore using 25 degrees at max weight and wet grass with calm winds on a warm day it is legal according to Pipers Handbook. Yes it is tight, when an engine fails. That is why the takeoff brief is quite explicit. One has to be aware of the fact that rotation happens below Vmca. Therefore students/pilots are taught that one should close both throttles land back on and prepare for slow impact with fence etc or into farmers field as is the case of a single engined aircraft. ALso until blue line and 300 feet is achieved after T/o, a forced landing with the good engine is required. This also involves a shallow turn to avoid housing.
Remember, some Senecas are certainly classified as Perf E - They will force land in any event. That is why we also use the Perf E take-off perfomance check of noting that 80% of unstick speed is achieved in 40% of TODR. I may be incorrect here as it might be TORR. I would need to check in our ops manual as I can't remember off hand now! Haven't flown it for a couple of months, and don't teach often enough to have it all lodged in the brain! And I can't be bothered to work it out logically whilst typing! It was a heavy night last night!
Regarding the low and slow bit. What I meant was that pilots are taught to fly the single engined approach to the same aspect (angle) as a twin approach and obviously not below blue line until commited. Ie 3 degrees/91 knots. But students tend to feel when underpressure that this is low and slow, so consequently end up high and fast! I was trying to put in words what I believe the student often believes, not what they are taught.
As to the Canberra/Meteor QFI bit. Well as much as I was taught by an ex RAF pilot of similar type experience, I was never alive when they flew operationally! No offence taken
Sycamore,
Regarding ASDA/EMDA. At Rtow which it isn't normally then it would be the full length of the strip.
If it was max well depends. But here is were we delve into dodgy ground. If you use the published CAA approved take-off performance figures one cannot operate a Seneca out of such a strip. Simply because there is no approved perf data for using the short field technique with 25 degrees of flap.
Piper have produced charts for these configurations but were never formally added to the Piper Approved Manual. So if operating to Public Transport Pax Carrying etc then it is illegal. But my understanding is as it is Aerial Work, we can operate to Non Public Transport rules, despite the aircraft having mandatory Public Transport CofA!
Therefore using 25 degrees at max weight and wet grass with calm winds on a warm day it is legal according to Pipers Handbook. Yes it is tight, when an engine fails. That is why the takeoff brief is quite explicit. One has to be aware of the fact that rotation happens below Vmca. Therefore students/pilots are taught that one should close both throttles land back on and prepare for slow impact with fence etc or into farmers field as is the case of a single engined aircraft. ALso until blue line and 300 feet is achieved after T/o, a forced landing with the good engine is required. This also involves a shallow turn to avoid housing.
Remember, some Senecas are certainly classified as Perf E - They will force land in any event. That is why we also use the Perf E take-off perfomance check of noting that 80% of unstick speed is achieved in 40% of TODR. I may be incorrect here as it might be TORR. I would need to check in our ops manual as I can't remember off hand now! Haven't flown it for a couple of months, and don't teach often enough to have it all lodged in the brain! And I can't be bothered to work it out logically whilst typing! It was a heavy night last night!
Regarding the low and slow bit. What I meant was that pilots are taught to fly the single engined approach to the same aspect (angle) as a twin approach and obviously not below blue line until commited. Ie 3 degrees/91 knots. But students tend to feel when underpressure that this is low and slow, so consequently end up high and fast! I was trying to put in words what I believe the student often believes, not what they are taught.
As to the Canberra/Meteor QFI bit. Well as much as I was taught by an ex RAF pilot of similar type experience, I was never alive when they flew operationally! No offence taken
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: London
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WCollins,
Regarding your engine-out performance, how did you evaluate the power setting for simulating engine-out on that day, and what was it, please?
Your remarks about retracting the gear late in your Aztec are way off the mark. The technique you describe has benefits for single-engined aircraft, but you're being unnecessarily pessimistic in your aircraft.
Flight Safety,
Speculation such as yours seldon achieves anything more than upset of those close to the deceased and injured. How much training in air safety investigation has your wife had?
Regarding your engine-out performance, how did you evaluate the power setting for simulating engine-out on that day, and what was it, please?
Your remarks about retracting the gear late in your Aztec are way off the mark. The technique you describe has benefits for single-engined aircraft, but you're being unnecessarily pessimistic in your aircraft.
Flight Safety,
Speculation such as yours seldon achieves anything more than upset of those close to the deceased and injured. How much training in air safety investigation has your wife had?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Dallas, TX USA
Posts: 739
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rumbo, I appreciate your comments. I was torn about whether to post the personal information at all, but in this case decided to anyway.
I can only think of one logical reason to post such information, and that is the influence a strongly motivated passenger can have over a pilot's decision making, during a critical moment in a flight.
I recall the Gulfstream G-III crash at Aspen in March 2001, when a charter customer sitting in the cockpit, pressed the pilot into attempting a landing in very bad weather, when his judgement should have told him otherwise. The pilot was pressured by the charter customer into a must land "press-on-itis" that got all aboard killed, when the pilot continued the approach below the MDH and still didn't have the runway in site, and when all other indications were telling him that a legal safe landing was a low probability in the prevailing conditions.
All I know is that the decision of the Seneca pilot to attempt a go-around at 5ft altitude, when all other indications should have been telling him that a safe landing was very to extremely likely, is baffling to say the least. Again, I'm still torn about whether to leave the personal information in the post or to delete it, however it might be possible that he was influenced by a passenger to attempt the go-around.
I've noticed that undue influence by a passenger, that causes a pilot to make a bad decision leading to an accident, is rare, but is a factor in a certain number of accidents. In the end as we all know, the accident investigators are in the absolute best position to make a determination as to the probable cause of this accident. However we're all here just trying to learn something from this tragic accident, and like the investigators, we learn by looking at it from a variety of different angles.
I can only think of one logical reason to post such information, and that is the influence a strongly motivated passenger can have over a pilot's decision making, during a critical moment in a flight.
I recall the Gulfstream G-III crash at Aspen in March 2001, when a charter customer sitting in the cockpit, pressed the pilot into attempting a landing in very bad weather, when his judgement should have told him otherwise. The pilot was pressured by the charter customer into a must land "press-on-itis" that got all aboard killed, when the pilot continued the approach below the MDH and still didn't have the runway in site, and when all other indications were telling him that a legal safe landing was a low probability in the prevailing conditions.
All I know is that the decision of the Seneca pilot to attempt a go-around at 5ft altitude, when all other indications should have been telling him that a safe landing was very to extremely likely, is baffling to say the least. Again, I'm still torn about whether to leave the personal information in the post or to delete it, however it might be possible that he was influenced by a passenger to attempt the go-around.
I've noticed that undue influence by a passenger, that causes a pilot to make a bad decision leading to an accident, is rare, but is a factor in a certain number of accidents. In the end as we all know, the accident investigators are in the absolute best position to make a determination as to the probable cause of this accident. However we're all here just trying to learn something from this tragic accident, and like the investigators, we learn by looking at it from a variety of different angles.
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: europe
Posts: 546
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If nothing else has been gained from this thread, there must be a caveat to anybody thinking of aquiring a twin for the added safety a real twin can give over a single.
This caveat is that a thorough understanding of what exactly a given aircraft offers in the way of performance is the primarliy important factor to be considered.
Few pilots want to know what a marginal aircraft might do in the hands of a test pilot operating out of a high level short strip he has used for the last 'n' years when he is considering parting with real dollops of cash..
This caveat is that a thorough understanding of what exactly a given aircraft offers in the way of performance is the primarliy important factor to be considered.
Few pilots want to know what a marginal aircraft might do in the hands of a test pilot operating out of a high level short strip he has used for the last 'n' years when he is considering parting with real dollops of cash..
Sub Judice Angel Lovegod
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: London
Posts: 2,456
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rumbo
I usually add about three inches to the MP at throttle back, which is probably a little pessimistic.
I can't go along with my conservative position on leaving the gear down as being "way off the mark".
Firstly remember that I only have one hydraulic pump, so, as A and C pointed out, I am stuffed if I lose that engine and want to land back.
Secondly, I would like to remind you of the tragic C404 accident at Glasgow, where a top-hole pilot took the decision to continue rather than force land, with disastrous consequences (8 dead, 3 injured).
Thirdly, I refer you to the article in the current "Pilot" by the guy who decided to land back in a Perf A a/c (748 IIRC) at Stansted.
Landing back is not for whimps, is is a valuable option in our armoury, and is made much easier if you leave the gear down 'til you can't use it no more.
If you consider leaving the gear down "pessimistic" then I am honoured. I am a pessimistic pilot, and that pessimism has kept me alive through the 32 years I have been flying
I usually add about three inches to the MP at throttle back, which is probably a little pessimistic.
I can't go along with my conservative position on leaving the gear down as being "way off the mark".
Firstly remember that I only have one hydraulic pump, so, as A and C pointed out, I am stuffed if I lose that engine and want to land back.
Secondly, I would like to remind you of the tragic C404 accident at Glasgow, where a top-hole pilot took the decision to continue rather than force land, with disastrous consequences (8 dead, 3 injured).
Thirdly, I refer you to the article in the current "Pilot" by the guy who decided to land back in a Perf A a/c (748 IIRC) at Stansted.
Landing back is not for whimps, is is a valuable option in our armoury, and is made much easier if you leave the gear down 'til you can't use it no more.
If you consider leaving the gear down "pessimistic" then I am honoured. I am a pessimistic pilot, and that pessimism has kept me alive through the 32 years I have been flying
Moderator
If the book doesn't give you much to go on, a useful way to determine an approximate zero thrust setting for the conditions is
(a) feather the engine and trim out for the desired speed
(b) restart and adjust the "failed" engine until the same flight handling and performance is achieved at the same density height.
(c) do this for a few test points and you have your zero thrust schedule nailed.
Needless to say, this exercise needs to be done on a nice day with no turbulence ...
(a) feather the engine and trim out for the desired speed
(b) restart and adjust the "failed" engine until the same flight handling and performance is achieved at the same density height.
(c) do this for a few test points and you have your zero thrust schedule nailed.
Needless to say, this exercise needs to be done on a nice day with no turbulence ...
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FLIGHT SAFETY
Please leave the posts just as they are I think that it is a good insight into what MIGHT have been the reason for the pilot attempting the impossable.
W COLLINS
Like me you have a very pessimistic view of light twin SE performance.
With regard to the BAe 748 land back at Stansted some years back I was able to talk to the captain of that aircraft ( i was flying another RR dart powerd type at the time and wanted to know why it failed) Performance was not an issue in this case , the fire was ! and the "land back" would have left the aircraft with no further damage had there not been a drainage ditch just off the end of the runway.
This was a superb piece of airmanship and undoubtidly saved the lives of all aboard as the fire would soon have destroyed the wing.
This also leaves me to speculate if the air france Concorde would have been better to have landed stright ahead in a field after all it was in the same performance situation as a light twin ,50% of its power missing and too much drag , with the landing gear stuck down.
This is of course sbject for discussion and not a critisisum of the crew involved i doubt that I would have done any thing different as the "land back " option is one that is not at the top of your mind in a perf A aircraft.
Please leave the posts just as they are I think that it is a good insight into what MIGHT have been the reason for the pilot attempting the impossable.
W COLLINS
Like me you have a very pessimistic view of light twin SE performance.
With regard to the BAe 748 land back at Stansted some years back I was able to talk to the captain of that aircraft ( i was flying another RR dart powerd type at the time and wanted to know why it failed) Performance was not an issue in this case , the fire was ! and the "land back" would have left the aircraft with no further damage had there not been a drainage ditch just off the end of the runway.
This was a superb piece of airmanship and undoubtidly saved the lives of all aboard as the fire would soon have destroyed the wing.
This also leaves me to speculate if the air france Concorde would have been better to have landed stright ahead in a field after all it was in the same performance situation as a light twin ,50% of its power missing and too much drag , with the landing gear stuck down.
This is of course sbject for discussion and not a critisisum of the crew involved i doubt that I would have done any thing different as the "land back " option is one that is not at the top of your mind in a perf A aircraft.
Sub Judice Angel Lovegod
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: London
Posts: 2,456
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A and C
With regard to the BAe 748 land back at Stansted some years back I was able to talk to the captain of that aircraft ( i was flying another RR dart powerd type at the time and wanted to know why it failed) Performance was not an issue in this case , the fire was ! and the "land back" would have left the aircraft with no further damage had there not been a drainage ditch just off the end of the runway.
Absolutely true in this case (from my reading of the article in "Pilot") but I don't think that in any way devalues my argument.
There are many potential reasons for wanting to land back quickly, regardless of performance (I personally have had smoke in the cockpit (x2), total electrical failure at night and severe vibration on rotate, but these are only examples) and if you are taking off from a long runway (I typically use IFR fields) it is simply good sense to leave the odds in your favour by leaving the wheels down.
If I cannot reasonably expect to land back (fog, water, town, mountain, cliff for example) I whip the gear up very quickly.
With regard to the BAe 748 land back at Stansted some years back I was able to talk to the captain of that aircraft ( i was flying another RR dart powerd type at the time and wanted to know why it failed) Performance was not an issue in this case , the fire was ! and the "land back" would have left the aircraft with no further damage had there not been a drainage ditch just off the end of the runway.
Absolutely true in this case (from my reading of the article in "Pilot") but I don't think that in any way devalues my argument.
There are many potential reasons for wanting to land back quickly, regardless of performance (I personally have had smoke in the cockpit (x2), total electrical failure at night and severe vibration on rotate, but these are only examples) and if you are taking off from a long runway (I typically use IFR fields) it is simply good sense to leave the odds in your favour by leaving the wheels down.
If I cannot reasonably expect to land back (fog, water, town, mountain, cliff for example) I whip the gear up very quickly.
Last edited by Timothy; 2nd Jan 2003 at 15:42.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
w collins
I was not trying to de-value your comments just pointing out that aircraft preformance may not be the only reason for a land back , and that even in a perf A aircraft a land back may be the best option.
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: London
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Very disappointing. Lots of utter rubbish now being talked here by people who haven't done their homework.
Re the 748, a serious fire does not present the commander with the problems that a straightforward loss of thrust does. (He was lucky to get away with it, by the way, though I also agree that they did a sterling job of preserving life. I simply wouldn't travel on a Budgie, nor would my employer ask me to).
WCollins, your method of setting zero thrust is as far off the mark as your thoughts on retracting the gear late. Statistically, the loss of engine versus loss of hydraulic pump case is at about 10powerminus11 and thus irrelevant.
The most power and height and the least drag will save your bacon. You'll achieve that by taking the gear up on positive rate being achieved.
John Tullamarine,
Thanks for injecting some logic - you're spot on, as usual, with the caveat that you need to plot the values graphically, assess for atmosphere, and extrapolate. I expect you knew that and left it our with regard to the 'target audience'.
Broad-brush arguments about 'landing back' in 'a Perf A aircraft' are balderdash too. How do you think I would get by, landing back in my Boeing? An only-just-perf-A-when-they-built-it-turboprop and a 60ton plus jet are two very different aircraft.
Sad, really, as there had been some (not a lot, but some) good discussion until the last crop.
And now I'll have to ask Senora de Pista for my tablets and scotch...
Re the 748, a serious fire does not present the commander with the problems that a straightforward loss of thrust does. (He was lucky to get away with it, by the way, though I also agree that they did a sterling job of preserving life. I simply wouldn't travel on a Budgie, nor would my employer ask me to).
WCollins, your method of setting zero thrust is as far off the mark as your thoughts on retracting the gear late. Statistically, the loss of engine versus loss of hydraulic pump case is at about 10powerminus11 and thus irrelevant.
The most power and height and the least drag will save your bacon. You'll achieve that by taking the gear up on positive rate being achieved.
John Tullamarine,
Thanks for injecting some logic - you're spot on, as usual, with the caveat that you need to plot the values graphically, assess for atmosphere, and extrapolate. I expect you knew that and left it our with regard to the 'target audience'.
Broad-brush arguments about 'landing back' in 'a Perf A aircraft' are balderdash too. How do you think I would get by, landing back in my Boeing? An only-just-perf-A-when-they-built-it-turboprop and a 60ton plus jet are two very different aircraft.
Sad, really, as there had been some (not a lot, but some) good discussion until the last crop.
And now I'll have to ask Senora de Pista for my tablets and scotch...
Sub Judice Angel Lovegod
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: London
Posts: 2,456
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rumbo
Shame this had to get abusive...that really is a way of wrecking a decent thread.
I trust that you don't influence anyone to try and keep flying when they should put it back down.
Shame this had to get abusive...that really is a way of wrecking a decent thread.
I trust that you don't influence anyone to try and keep flying when they should put it back down.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Vancouver Island
Posts: 2,517
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
John and Rumbo:
Exactly, I sometimes wonder how such important subjects as aerodynamics and aircraft performance limitations get so skewed by voodoo theorys that result in incorrect procedures being used in flying these things.
Maybe , just maybe these discussions here will benefit some of our slightly confused colleauges.
PS.
John:
Now that I have been granted CASA approval for issuing type ratings to Australian pilots I have an even better chance of visiting your country. Not to mention I really want to fly HARS Super Connie...
Cat Driver:
The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no.
Exactly, I sometimes wonder how such important subjects as aerodynamics and aircraft performance limitations get so skewed by voodoo theorys that result in incorrect procedures being used in flying these things.
Maybe , just maybe these discussions here will benefit some of our slightly confused colleauges.
PS.
John:
Now that I have been granted CASA approval for issuing type ratings to Australian pilots I have an even better chance of visiting your country.
Not to mention I really want to fly HARS Super Connie... Cat Driver:
The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no.
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: London
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AirProx,
Because they're old and often a bit knackered. No offense to those who do, but I did my bit in FK27s a while ago and have no desire to repeat the historic flight experience.
And sorry, but what do you mean by my 'type experience'? how come you know so much about it?
WCollins,
Not abusive, just a statement of fact.
I can understand you're a bit sore, but God forbid anyone takes too much note of your ideas. I'm sorry, but they're wrong, and part of being a good aviator is accepting when you're wrong. Another part is saying 'you're wrong' to someone who is wrong, and backing it up with sound info.
Your ideas about retracting gear are wrong, your method of calculating zero thrust power settings, your critique of the 748 accident, your criticism of a dead professional pilot (God Rest His Soul), your remarks about your hydraulic pump, and that dreadful story about your amazing Aztec, all demonstrate that you don't know what you're talking about.
Rumbo
Because they're old and often a bit knackered. No offense to those who do, but I did my bit in FK27s a while ago and have no desire to repeat the historic flight experience.
And sorry, but what do you mean by my 'type experience'? how come you know so much about it?
WCollins,
Not abusive, just a statement of fact.
I can understand you're a bit sore, but God forbid anyone takes too much note of your ideas. I'm sorry, but they're wrong, and part of being a good aviator is accepting when you're wrong. Another part is saying 'you're wrong' to someone who is wrong, and backing it up with sound info.
Your ideas about retracting gear are wrong, your method of calculating zero thrust power settings, your critique of the 748 accident, your criticism of a dead professional pilot (God Rest His Soul), your remarks about your hydraulic pump, and that dreadful story about your amazing Aztec, all demonstrate that you don't know what you're talking about.
Rumbo
s/e g/a in light twins
So , Rumbo,
Now we`ve all had our wrists slapped( except John), for all sorts of " RUBBISH, BALDERDASH,POPPYCOCK,etc etc;
Next time you are in the sim.; give yourself a Fire , on rotate ,; it doesn`t go out, so you fire all the shots and it still doesn`t go out------What are you going to do?
PA--" Dont worry folks, this is your Captain speaking; we are in a Perf A aircraft and we will carry on as normal, as my employer would think I`m a Prat if I tried to get this Boeing back on the ground safely, without harming you "
Even if your employer is the well-known Australian Cultural Attache, Sir Les Patterson, who is known to spit -it-out (literally), and is having an affair with Dame Edna), I`m sure he`d be willing to send you on a CRM course , so you could at least be seen to drop off your perch ,occasionally
Now we`ve all had our wrists slapped( except John), for all sorts of " RUBBISH, BALDERDASH,POPPYCOCK,etc etc;
Next time you are in the sim.; give yourself a Fire , on rotate ,; it doesn`t go out, so you fire all the shots and it still doesn`t go out------What are you going to do?
PA--" Dont worry folks, this is your Captain speaking; we are in a Perf A aircraft and we will carry on as normal, as my employer would think I`m a Prat if I tried to get this Boeing back on the ground safely, without harming you "
Even if your employer is the well-known Australian Cultural Attache, Sir Les Patterson, who is known to spit -it-out (literally), and is having an affair with Dame Edna), I`m sure he`d be willing to send you on a CRM course , so you could at least be seen to drop off your perch ,occasionally
Moderator
Chuck,
Do let me know when you are heading down under and we can schedule a beer or ten .... if I am in country ... otherwise we shall have to meet up in neutral territory somewhere out in the pond ..
Do let me know when you are heading down under and we can schedule a beer or ten .... if I am in country ... otherwise we shall have to meet up in neutral territory somewhere out in the pond ..
Last edited by john_tullamarine; 3rd Jan 2003 at 06:50.
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: London
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sycamore,
No, we fly a VERY abbreviated circuit or dumb-bell and land. This is, in fact, a VERY good exercise to give, especially on command courses. It provides an excellent way of upping the workload and the succssful outcome depends upon a very high standard of CRM and decision-making. Again, I cannot say clearly enough that such catastrophic fires are extremely rare, largely because the potential for them has been designed out of the aircraft by means of mounting the engines well away from anything nasty and putting lots of isolation valves in. That's why Departure Alternates are allowed to be so far away. If I tried to re-land, I would write the aircraft off and probably all the people in it. Once again, I make the distinction between small turboprops and their bigger jet-powered brethren. Once again, I would remark that events at the end of the probability scale, such as really big engine fires, are so improbable as to be worth excluding from any reasoned and informed debate.
John,
I am sorry if anyone took my tone out of hand. I shan't bother the Private Flying forum any more because (a) I don't feel that there is much top be gained from uninformed debate like this and (b) I don't think any of us do ourselves or the industry a favour by allowing that which is clearly wrong or bad advice to stand unchallenged. I've been flying and instructing long enough and on enough types of aircraft to see the damage that 'bar room chat' on technical matters can do, especially when it's taken in by those insufficiently able to analyse it and see its faults. I think my remark (a longh way above) about 'a little knowledge' may have been prescient.
I didn't say anything here which I wouldn't have said in a meeting of Training Captains or managers. People are used to my challenging style, and I get on very well with colleagues! Now, I sense that I'm not welcome here, so I wish all you private flyers well and bid you adieu.
No, we fly a VERY abbreviated circuit or dumb-bell and land. This is, in fact, a VERY good exercise to give, especially on command courses. It provides an excellent way of upping the workload and the succssful outcome depends upon a very high standard of CRM and decision-making. Again, I cannot say clearly enough that such catastrophic fires are extremely rare, largely because the potential for them has been designed out of the aircraft by means of mounting the engines well away from anything nasty and putting lots of isolation valves in. That's why Departure Alternates are allowed to be so far away. If I tried to re-land, I would write the aircraft off and probably all the people in it. Once again, I make the distinction between small turboprops and their bigger jet-powered brethren. Once again, I would remark that events at the end of the probability scale, such as really big engine fires, are so improbable as to be worth excluding from any reasoned and informed debate.
John,
I am sorry if anyone took my tone out of hand. I shan't bother the Private Flying forum any more because (a) I don't feel that there is much top be gained from uninformed debate like this and (b) I don't think any of us do ourselves or the industry a favour by allowing that which is clearly wrong or bad advice to stand unchallenged. I've been flying and instructing long enough and on enough types of aircraft to see the damage that 'bar room chat' on technical matters can do, especially when it's taken in by those insufficiently able to analyse it and see its faults. I think my remark (a longh way above) about 'a little knowledge' may have been prescient.
I didn't say anything here which I wouldn't have said in a meeting of Training Captains or managers. People are used to my challenging style, and I get on very well with colleagues! Now, I sense that I'm not welcome here, so I wish all you private flyers well and bid you adieu.