We have recently posted a couple of posts concerning what to do or not to do should you experience an engine failure right after take-off. However, Blake, the blogger behind the Fly With Blake blog, has just posted a video showing a textbook example of what can and will likely go wrong if you attempt to return to the airport at to low of an altitude after an engine failure immediately after take-off.
Unfortunately, the pilot and his acrobatic partner were both killed in the crash and we should warn you, the video is graphic.
Related posts:
{ 3 comments… read them below or add one }
Wow, just a textbook “impossible turn” accident, but this is a good deal worse than simply not making it back to the field. I wonder what options (if any) existed to land straight ahead.
Oh Jesus. You can see it coming as he goes into that turn. Argh.
I’m not sure this was a *textbook* “impossibly turn”. You only have to review the ATSB safety report to see how Reason’s model conspired against them. [ http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/1994/AAIR/pdf/ASOR199401106.PDF ]. A textbook situation doesn’t apply when the circumstances aren’t textbook themselves. Having said that, it is a good example of what *will* happen to most powered aircraft in such a situation.
“The time between the first engine splutter and the aircraft commencing a left turn was 3.5 seconds. The time between that first splutter and ground impact was 5.8 seconds. If VH-UNA was climbing at 50 kts, the rate of loss of airspeed after an engine power interruption is estimated to be 5 kts per second. The aircraft has a stall speed of approximately 40 kts. Therefore the pilot would have had just two seconds to apply corrective action before the aircraft stalled. There is evidence that the aircraft had on at least one occasion attained only 45 kts, which would allow even less time to react to an unexpected emergency situation.”
Experiments conducted suggest that a pilot will take 5 seconds to react to an unanticipated emergency situation. When the range of available speeds is only 10 or 15 knots in a high drag machine – it means that the preservation of airspeed is essential. The pilot didn’t lower the nose… and then stupidly attempted a high drag turn without the airspeed or altitude required for its success.
In this case, the aerodynamic qualities of the high-drag airframe were aggravated and further degraded by the wing-walker and the walking frame, and the lower airspeed associated with the manoeuvre (and the airspeed’s proximity to the region of reverse command on the back of the drag curve).
I don’t think there are many pilots that would attempt a 180-degree turn from only 150 feet. It could be argued that the decision to turn back from 500 feet is worthy of more coverage since it’s an altitude that could well mean success *or* failure. A turn from 150 feet is just stupid.