Comments on: Engine failure and incipient spin video http://www.golfhotelwhiskey.com/engine-failure-and-incipient-spin-video/ The free online magazine and airport guide for pilots Sat, 04 Feb 2012 18:33:50 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: David Walker http://www.golfhotelwhiskey.com/engine-failure-and-incipient-spin-video/comment-page-1/#comment-3457 David Walker Tue, 09 Aug 2011 07:45:17 +0000 http://www.golfhotelwhiskey.com/engine-failure-and-incipient-spin-video/#comment-3457 I met this pilot and wing-walker and knew them from Gil Layts flying school at Archerfield. They were both happy go lucky people, just the kind you'd find looking after sick kids. It was sickening and tragic to see this had happened - all we can do is try to learn from it. Training and re-training is #1 folks; we can never listen to a gut instinct. This is the first time I have known the (accident) pilots hours on Tiger Moths and total hours. You wouldn't have expected that such an accident would happen to someone that familiar with Moths; but when is an accident ever expected? In the ensuing years after 94 I trained on taildraggers myself, gaining both AUF and civil (VH) tail dragger instruction qualifications. In the AUF part, I was shown and trained that, depending on aircraft type, it is possible to turn back to field. In the practices, we practised EFATO at about 200 - 300 feet (in am AUF - read "lighter than VH" aircraft) on climb out leg and very beginning of crosswind and made every landing back at field successfully. It became a lesson in learning at what point, in a certain weight (and type) of plane, can a return to field be considered; something that VH training had not given me - too much fear of what is considered "imminent" in VH. We made returns to land downwind, returns including a figure of eight to land into wind and more. After that I was confident that I could make a correct decision in any aircraft (that I could fly) about possibility of reacquiring the field after takeoff. Most times in VH aircraft you would * not even think * about it before crosswind. Pounds lighter and in an aircraft that has ailerons that fly at even 5 kts, you have a different ball game. In a Skyfox (kitfox) your stall warning is the airframe, you can feel the shudder on the airframe behind you. With that sort of plane you are very connected with the dynamics of the aircraft flight, and can make more marginal (kts wise) decisions. PLEASE NOTE: I am NOT recommending returns to field at low height in VH planes, just the opposite. Know your plane, practice your recoveries. I met this pilot and wing-walker and knew them from Gil Layts flying school at Archerfield. They were both happy go lucky people, just the kind you’d find looking after sick kids. It was sickening and tragic to see this had happened – all we can do is try to learn from it. Training and re-training is #1 folks; we can never listen to a gut instinct. This is the first time I have known the (accident) pilots hours on Tiger Moths and total hours. You wouldn’t have expected that such an accident would happen to someone that familiar with Moths; but when is an accident ever expected? In the ensuing years after 94 I trained on taildraggers myself, gaining both AUF and civil (VH) tail dragger instruction qualifications. In the AUF part, I was shown and trained that, depending on aircraft type, it is possible to turn back to field.
In the practices, we practised EFATO at about 200 – 300 feet (in am AUF – read “lighter than VH” aircraft) on climb out leg and very beginning of crosswind and made every landing back at field successfully. It became a lesson in learning at what point, in a certain weight (and type) of plane, can a return to field be considered; something that VH training had not given me – too much fear of what is considered “imminent” in VH. We made returns to land downwind, returns including a figure of eight to land into wind and more. After that I was confident that I could make a correct decision in any aircraft (that I could fly) about possibility of reacquiring the field after takeoff. Most times in VH aircraft you would * not even think * about it before crosswind. Pounds lighter and in an aircraft that has ailerons that fly at even 5 kts, you have a different ball game. In a Skyfox (kitfox) your stall warning is the airframe, you can feel the shudder on the airframe behind you. With that sort of plane you are very connected with the dynamics of the aircraft flight, and can make more marginal (kts wise) decisions. PLEASE NOTE: I am NOT recommending returns to field at low height in VH planes, just the opposite. Know your plane, practice your recoveries.

]]> By: Marty http://www.golfhotelwhiskey.com/engine-failure-and-incipient-spin-video/comment-page-1/#comment-1176 Marty Sat, 09 Jan 2010 00:53:48 +0000 http://www.golfhotelwhiskey.com/engine-failure-and-incipient-spin-video/#comment-1176 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. 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.

]]> By: Sylvia http://www.golfhotelwhiskey.com/engine-failure-and-incipient-spin-video/comment-page-1/#comment-1175 Sylvia Fri, 08 Jan 2010 17:37:24 +0000 http://www.golfhotelwhiskey.com/engine-failure-and-incipient-spin-video/#comment-1175 Oh Jesus. You can see it coming as he goes into that turn. Argh. Oh Jesus. You can see it coming as he goes into that turn. Argh.

]]> By: Patrick Flannigan http://www.golfhotelwhiskey.com/engine-failure-and-incipient-spin-video/comment-page-1/#comment-1169 Patrick Flannigan Thu, 07 Jan 2010 21:49:33 +0000 http://www.golfhotelwhiskey.com/engine-failure-and-incipient-spin-video/#comment-1169 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. 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.

]]>