Crash at CYKZ May 25 2010

[albertdesalvo]

I don't get it. Doesn't every flight school in the world teach landing straight ahead? In spite of this, haven't many people killed themselves trying to turn back? Here's Hedley trying to reinforce the training by warning you that the odds of successful completion of the turn aren't good, and he's getting called arrogant. I don't see it that way at all, he's just trying to get people to follow their training.... land the GD thing straight ahead. Most of the people who've ignored that advice are dead. You can't go from a 200 hour wonder to Bob Hoover in the blink of an eye. Look straight ahead and aim for a soft spot, and you just might live to tell the tale.

[AEROBAT]

I just tried the "impossible turn" about 2 hours ago. It was in my son's homebuilt an Avid flyer. It was a bit of an eye opener. The first time I took off from the end of the runway, the winds were very light, and I was at 500' before I was half way down the strip so of course that would not be much of a test. I went around and when at 500' passing the button at climb speed I cut the engine. I had to slip a bit after turning 180 degrees to land at least half way down the runway.

To sum it up I would have to say it really matters what you are driving before you would consider it to be "impossible". I remember many years ago getting checked out to fly a Mooney. The check pilot had thousands of hours in a Mooney and he told me to chop the power at 1000', circuit height abeam the numbers and see if we would make the strip. I thought no big deal and left the gear up and flaps up until short final. We just made it! We were fairly light as well.

Anyway, it would be a good idea to try it with whatever you are flying just to get a feel for what the machine will actually do. I still believe in most cases landing straight ahead is by far the best option.

[Gogona]

land the GD thing straight ahead. Most of the people who've ignored that advice are dead.

Ignored?

That's just easy to say. Easy to learn, easy to hammer into your head.
But who can predict your ACTUAL behaviour in the same situation? Nobody!

I remember my husband's reaction in the car accident we were involved in. He overspeeded, skidded and collided with another car. All three passengers were calm and cold, cause this impact was not really strong, but he got in panic instantly, right after he had realized, that he is out of control.
I was deeply disappointed listening to his squeal, so now I don't want to see him in aviation, especially knowing, that he is afraid of turbulence and "strange engine noise". But! I forbid myself to think, that I'm something better than he is. I can't promise, that I'll stay cool and land safely. Nobody knows, again...

We can just believe, that we'll be OK and 'll do our best. But nothing more.

[AEROBAT]

One has to ask why did you marry him if he is such a wuss?

[flyinthebug]

I don't get it. Doesn't every flight school in the world teach landing straight ahead? In spite of this, haven't many people killed themselves trying to turn back? Here's Hedley trying to reinforce the training by warning you that the odds of successful completion of the turn aren't good, and he's getting called arrogant. I don't see it that way at all, he's just trying to get people to follow their training.... land the GD thing straight ahead. Most of the people who've ignored that advice are dead. You can't go from a 200 hour wonder to Bob Hoover in the blink of an eye. Look straight ahead and aim for a soft spot, and you just might live to tell the tale.

albertdesalvo... If you read my earlier posts, that was my advice too! My point was simply, you dont need to be so freakin arrogant about how good you are, and make yourself feel superior to others by belittling our level of knowledge on this type of situation. Hedley offers sound advice and his level of experience is far beyond mine and many others like me. I just feel that he could use a bit of tact and diplomacy when offering his advice.. so others take him seriously, rather then just blowing off his words because of his attached arrogance. AMM is right however, and this is not the thread to discuss this any further.

back to this thread..as Hedley and others have pointed out, the "impossible turn" is infact possible. When I had my engine failure and subsequent crash.. I thought about trying the impossible turn at 330 ft in a -2..Im alive because I resisted the temptation. Ill say again, if you have an engine failure after take off, please, do NOT try to turn back..as Hedley said (and hes right) you wont make it! Just drive it in and you might get lucky like I did. (if 22 broken bones is lucky..at least im still here)

Fly safe all.

[Hedley]

Sigh. Once more, with feeling, aimed squarely at the 200 hour wonders:

Please don't try the turnback unless you have received specialized training and have experience in that particular maneuver, because you will likely kill yourself and any unfortunate pax who happen to be aboard

What is this thread about, again? Oh yeah, a cirrus fatally crashed attempting the turnback.

My apologies for bruising any egos, but I'm not going to back down from this position.

[Gogona]

One has to ask why did you marry him if he is such a wuss?

Sorry, it's a stupid question.
He is not a wuss, absolutely. I just gave an example, how unexpectedly and dramatically people change in critical situation. Just watch the context.

[CpnCrunch]

I just tried the "impossible turn" about 2 hours ago. It was in my son's homebuilt an Avid flyer. It was a bit of an eye opener. The first time I took off from the end of the runway, the winds were very light, and I was at 500' before I was half way down the strip so of course that would not be much of a test. I went around and when at 500' passing the button at climb speed I cut the engine. I had to slip a bit after turning 180 degrees to land at least half way down the runway.

To sum it up I would have to say it really matters what you are driving before you would consider it to be "impossible". I remember many years ago getting checked out to fly a Mooney. The check pilot had thousands of hours in a Mooney and he told me to chop the power at 1000', circuit height abeam the numbers and see if we would make the strip. I thought no big deal and left the gear up and flaps up until short final. We just made it! We were fairly light as well.

Anyway, it would be a good idea to try it with whatever you are flying just to get a feel for what the machine will actually do. I still believe in most cases landing straight ahead is by far the best option.

I'm guessing in both cases you reduced throttle to idle rather than actually switching off the engine, right? (After all, it would be pretty dumb to switch off a perfectly good engine, just to do a test!) If that is the case, you need to bear in mind that unless you have a feathering prop you will get much more drag from a windmilling prop than you will when the engine is idling. A cessna 172 has an engine-off glide ratio of 9:1, but you can get about 12:1 with the engine idling!

[mag check]

I'm guessing in both cases you reduced throttle to idle rather than actually switching off the engine, right? (After all, it would be pretty dumb to switch off a perfectly good engine, just to do a test!) If that is the case, you need to bear in mind that unless you have a feathering prop you will get much more drag from a windmilling prop than you will when the engine is idling. A cessna 172 has an engine-off glide ratio of 9:1, but you can get about 12:1 with the engine idling!

Also keep in mind that if you can stop the prop, you will likely get somewhere closer to the 12:1.
It takes a lot of hp to turn that engine over, and any reduction in drag improves the glide.

[Hedley]

if you can stop the prop

You don't have time to do that, during the turnback.

Stopping the prop does make a tremendous difference to the glide, though. Again, if you don't know what you're doing, don't do it, because you're likely going to hurt yourself.

Pop Quiz: what effect does stopping the prop have on the published best distance glide speed in the POH?

[mag check]

if you can stop the prop

You don't have time to do that, during the turnback.

Stopping the prop does make a tremendous difference to the glide, though. Again, if you don't know what you're doing, don't do it, because you're likely going to hurt yourself.

Pop Quiz: what effect does stopping the prop have on the published best distance glide speed in the POH?

Correct, no time on the turnback, unless you are lucky/unlucky enough to throw a rod.
I suspect that published speeds could be adjusted to account for the loss of drag, but significant gains will be seen using the published figures. Perhaps not maximum, but certainly much better than book.

[mashowski]

Sigh. Once more, with feeling, aimed squarely at the 200 hour wonders:

Please don't try the turnback unless you have received specialized training and have experience in that particular maneuver, because you will likely kill yourself and any unfortunate pax who happen to be aboard

When I was flying with D over at CYBW for my commercial, she was pulling the power on me at 500' feet AGL during forced approach practice. We also did other various and sundry training manouevres at low altitude.
We need more instructors like her, so that CPL's don't need specialized training after they get their license.
Good point Hedley, but I think the CPL should be more demanding, and not just a warmed over re-hash of the PPL with a bunch of instrument work. (which I did find to be enjoyable and worth the effort)
Larry

[Shiny Side Up]

When I was flying with D over at CYBW for my commercial,

That, um, answers a lot of questions actually...

But on topic, such training isn't something that shows up only at the commercial level. What to do when the engine stops making power (or at least making all its power) is something that starts getting worked on with pilots right from the very start. Before any student goes by themselves (first solo) they should be reasonably well versed in this area. I'd actually like to find out some numbers on when people have crashes in the take off, climb out segment of the flight due to loss of power what groups of pilots are making turn backs and what groups are crashing straight ahead as well as which ones of those people are surviving. Personally I'm not convinced that its during the learning phase that a pilot is going through that this idea is being picked up.

Most notably in my experience is who the idea usually pops up in. Guys who own their own airplanes are almost without fail the guys who I find are convinced that they can make a turn back to the runway. People seem to know when they rent the airplanes, they're considerably more willing to sacrifice the airplane if it means saving their own skins. This mentality changes though when they own the aircraft, they're a lot more likely to make an attempt to save the airplane, even if it puts themselves at a greater risk of turning it into a fatal accident.

This is also coupled with the fact that people who own their own aircraft, oddly enough, less likely to practice with their airplane manuvers which they see as "being hard" on their airplane. If they do practice these things they often do it in an incorrect manner, once again in an effort to be easy on the machine, but instill in themselves the wrong way to do something. I very distictly remember once with an owner pilot where if he was by himself he would have piled us in, I took it from him and he squealed "but my engine!" I said back to him "BUT THOSE TREES!"

Sigh. Once more, with feeling, aimed squarely at the 200 hour wonders:

If you want to end people crashing airplanes in to things, and stuff, you got to sing loud.

[Gogona]

At 4am you'd probably get away with it. At 4pm, I don't like your chances. If that's the best option, I'd hate to consider the worst one.

Just 407 hwy usually is free of high traffic. I use it often, and dare assert, that 12-1 pm is the best "forced landings" time period. 4 pm is OK too. 407's pavement is not such good, but obviously better, than roofs.

And what do you, guys, think about this story – viewtopic.php?f=54&t=65304? It was a perfect decision, whatever you say here, isn't it?

[Gogona]

Update on pilot and passenger . . .

http://www.thekathrynreport.com/2010/05 ... crash.html

Jeeeesus Christ... I recognized her! I seen Nancy few times in CZBA and last time I met her on Aviation Expo 2010. Both of them were there, I saw them leaving Hamilton on their own plane...

[mashowski]

When I was flying with D over at CYBW for my commercial,


That, um, answers a lot of questions actually...

About what?

[JordanRHughes]

News sites are reporting it as a Cessna.

http://www.cp24.com all inclusive resorts

Is that really a Cirrus tail in that picture, or a Cessna?

Thanks for the link...

[mst01]

I very distictly remember once with an owner pilot where if he was by himself he would have piled us in, I took it from him and he squealed "but my engine!" I said back to him "BUT THOSE TREES!"

What happened ?

Wild guess :

Climb out / departure, he reduced power so as not be "over-square" :/ ?

Mike

[Shiny Side Up]

Wild guess :

Climb out / departure, he reduced power so as not be "over-square" :/ ?

Mike

Close, an overshoot after he made a bad approach. While worrying about being "over-square" as you put it, he failed to realise we were still descending as he was staring at the guages inching up the throttle. With all the flaps out heading towards rising terrain it was a little tight for my liking. Worse the additional problem cropped up when the flaps failed to retract.

[mst01]

This might be of interest to your pilot friend :
http://www.pprune.org/tech-log/278891-o ... -rule.html

There are some fantastic articles in the Lycoming Flyer reprints that are available for sale or to view on the web at the Lycoming site.

They do have a short article that might be of interest for your queries, regardless of engine types:

An Explanation Of Power Setting
A letter received here at the factory asked a question we have heard quite often:
"Is it a fact, or is it fiction, that engines with constant speed props should not use power settings where inches of mercury exceed RPM in hundreds? I am referring of course to non-turbocharged engines in general ."
The answer to this question is easily found in cruise power charts of the airframe Pilot's Operating Handbook. Whatever the combinations of RPM and MP listed in the charts_they have been flight tested and approved by the airframe and powerplant engineers. Therefore, if there are power settings such as 2100 RPM and 24" MP in the power chart, they are approved for use.
The confusion over so-called "squared" power settings(i. e. 2400 x 24" MP), appears to have been a carry-over from some models of the old radial engines which were vulnerable to excessive bearing wear where a MP higher than "squared" was used. More pressure on the bearings with the higher than "squared" MP was the cause of their problem. However, changes in design, metals, and lubricants permit changes in operation in the more modern flat opposed powerplants.
Let's look at the power charts in a couple of the Pilot's Operating Handbooks of two different aircraft manufacturers, but where both are using the four cylinder 200 HP Lycoming engine.
Cessna's Model 177 RAG, using the Lycoming IO-360A1B6D, in the cruise range at 6,000 feet, lists a cruise power setting range at that altitude of anywhere from 2100 RPM to 2500 RPM with variations all the way from 18" MP to 24"MP. They list a recommended power setting for 66% power at 2100 RPM at 24" MP.
The Piper Arrow, powered by the Lycoming IO-360 series engine, lists the following cruise power settings at 6,000 feet in their chart at 65% power at full throttle (about 23" MP) x 2100 RPM.
Altitude 2100 RPM 2400 RPM
SL 25.9 MP 22.9 MP
1,000 25.6 MP 22.7 MP
2,000 25.4 MP 22.5 MP
3,000 25.1 MP 22.2 MP
4,000 24.8 MP 22.0 MP
5,000 F.T. MP 21.7 MP
6,000 F.T. MP 21.5 MP
After studying the power chart, the pilot would undoubtedly then ask what combination of RPM and MP would be best to use at cruise. We recommend the pilot try the various combinations offered by the power chart over afire-minute period when flying in smooth air, and use the listed RPM and MP combination which gave the least vibration and the lowest noise level.
In addition to the quieter and smoother consideration, lower RPM means lower friction hp. This reduced loss of horsepower due to friction also translates to slightly improved fuel economy.
The Pilot's Operating Handbook is the basic reference for the pilot as this subject illustrates.

Another great reference for everything Lycoming and Continental is the Skyranch engineering manual.

Wild guess :

Climb out / departure, he reduced power so as not be "over-square" :/ ?

Mike

Close, an overshoot after he made a bad approach. While worrying about being "over-square" as you put it, he failed to realise we were still descending as he was staring at the guages inching up the throttle. With all the flaps out heading towards rising terrain it was a little tight for my liking. Worse the additional problem cropped up when the flaps failed to retract.

[AUGER9]

TSB Report
http://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports-repor ... 0o0101.asp

Findings as to Causes and Contributing Factors

- The number 3 cylinder head failed in fatigue and separated from the cylinder during takeoff, resulting in reduced power from the engine.

- While manoeuvring, the aircraft stalled and entered a spin at an altitude from which recovery was impossible.