Homebuilt Amphib @ Nanaimo.

Topics related to accidents, incidents & over due aircraft should be placed in this forum.

Moderators: North Shore, sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, lilfssister

Post Reply
North Shore
Rank Moderator
Rank Moderator
Posts: 5621
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 3:47 pm
Location: Straight outta Dundarave...

Homebuilt Amphib @ Nanaimo.

Post by North Shore »

Sad. A beautiful day out here yesterday...
http://www.vancouversun.com/news/dead+a ... story.html
---------- ADS -----------
 
Say, what's that mountain goat doing up here in the mist?
Happiness is V1 at Thompson!
Ass, Licence, Job. In that order.
CpnCrunch
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 4147
Joined: Mon Feb 08, 2010 9:38 am

Re: Homebuilt Amphib @ Nanaimo.

Post by CpnCrunch »

More info here:

http://www.timescolonist.com/opinion/tw ... -1.1262949

Sounds like perhaps they had an engine failure at about 300ft and stalled/spun while trying to turn back.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Last edited by CpnCrunch on Sat Aug 02, 2014 9:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Big Pistons Forever
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 5927
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2004 7:17 pm
Location: West Coast

Re: Homebuilt Amphib @ Nanaimo.

Post by Big Pistons Forever »

CpnCrunch wrote:

Sounds like they had an engine failure at about 300ft and stalled/spun while trying to turn back.
I personally knew (note the past tense) two pilots who died in a turn back stall/spin after an engine failure after takeoff. One was an 25 K hour x RCAF fighter pilot, bush, airline pilot.......
---------- ADS -----------
 
ahramin
Rank Moderator
Rank Moderator
Posts: 6317
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2004 5:21 pm
Location: Vancouver

Re: Homebuilt Amphib @ Nanaimo.

Post by ahramin »

Elfi I neglected to get your contact info when I ran into you at CAE this spring. I have no words to say how sorry I am for your loss. I'm in Nanaimo right now, if there is anything I can do for you or your family please pm me.
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
Colonel Sanders
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 7512
Joined: Sun Jun 14, 2009 5:17 pm
Location: Over Macho Grande

Re: Homebuilt Amphib @ Nanaimo.

Post by Colonel Sanders »

two pilots who died in a turn back stall/spin after an engine failure after takeoff
The thing is, airplanes can't read your licence
or your logbook.

Pilots are amazingly contemptuous of low-altitude
aerobatics, which I might point out is terribly
unforgiving of mistakes.

No less than Douglas Bader, hero fighter pilot
of the Battle of Britain, lost his legs when he
tried to do the simplest aerobatic maneuver
there is down low (a roll). He crashed.

A C172, for example, will do a beautiful
surface-level inside loop, without exceeding
any limitation in the Utility category. Very
few pilots in Canada have the skill to do that,
regardless of their licence or logbook.

Why pilots try to teach themselves low-altitude
aerobatics on the spur of the moment is somewhat
mystifying to me. Straight and level hours
are nearly completely useless in this regard.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Flyboy757
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 128
Joined: Sun Jan 21, 2007 5:32 pm
Location: Shuswap area of BC

Re: Homebuilt Amphib @ Nanaimo.

Post by Flyboy757 »

Colonel Sanders wrote:" Why pilots try to teach themselves low-altitude
aerobatics on the spur of the moment is somewhat
mystifying to me. Straight and level hours
are nearly completely useless in this regard."

Colonel...in the 2 newspaper articles above I see no mention of "Low level aeros". They "apparently" had an engine failure at low level, 300 ft mentioned, and tried to turn back! Foolish, deadly mistake. I was taught and taught...strait ahead and look for a place to land.
I knew Gerald Thom. We had been talking 2 weeks earlier about this plane. On the day of the accident they were just building time, made a rookie mistake and paid for it with their lives...nothing more..............

Let`s let Transport do their job. Low level aeros...not the pilot I knew.
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
Cat Driver
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 18921
Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 8:31 pm

Re: Homebuilt Amphib @ Nanaimo.

Post by Cat Driver »

I talked to someone at the airport about what happened and from eyewitness reports they were down wind when it quit.

It was not a turn back attempt.

It would appear that the engine quit and they stalled and spun in.

These accidents are just to sad to understand.
Let`s let Transport do their job.
What exactly will T.C. do?
---------- ADS -----------
 
The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no


After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
User avatar
AirFrame
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2610
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2009 10:27 pm
Location: Sidney, BC
Contact:

Re: Homebuilt Amphib @ Nanaimo.

Post by AirFrame »

Flyboy757 wrote:Let`s let the Transportation Safety Board do their job. Low level aeros...not the pilot I knew.
There, fixed that for you.

I think the Colonel was referring to people who have an engine failure on takeoff, and try to get back to the airport using manoeuvres that are borderline aerobatic. Up until the post above it sounded like an engine failure on climbout. If it was really on downwind, it makes less sense to me why they would't make the field. I look forward to the TSB's findings.
---------- ADS -----------
 
helione
Rank 1
Rank 1
Posts: 27
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2012 7:18 am

Re: Homebuilt Amphib @ Nanaimo.

Post by helione »

I had a engine failure on a test flight years ago in a Commanche during takeoff, I turned back from whatever altitude I had, what saved me was pure luck .....my knees were shaking so bad after I landed I had to hold on to the door......I remember thinking of just saving the plane and no thought of anything else.....
---------- ADS -----------
 
CFR
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 784
Joined: Mon Jul 12, 2010 6:51 pm
Location: CYAV

Re: Homebuilt Amphib @ Nanaimo.

Post by CFR »

helione wrote:... I remember thinking of just saving the plane and no thought of anything else.....

While I have not had an opportunity to test my resolve, I have always told myself that I don't care about the plane, I want to save myself and those on board. Insurance will cover the plane.
Hopefully I'll never find out what I do in an actual event.
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
oldtimer
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2296
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 7:04 pm
Location: Calgary

Re: Homebuilt Amphib @ Nanaimo.

Post by oldtimer »

About a gazillion years ago at a flight instructors refresher school we tried a turn around at a safe altitude and from a climbing attitude it required about 500 feet to get turned around but that was only half the fun as we now had to get lined up with the runway which required 2 90's to line up with the runway. The most altitude lost was transitioning from a climb to glide. From what I have read, the PC 12 is one of the few airplanes that will climb steeper than it will glide so ask a PC 12 driver how much altitude is required to beat a hasty retreat to the runway. In our experience, the greatest altitude lost was in a steep turn. A turn close to stall yeilded the best results.
---------- ADS -----------
 
The average pilot, despite the somewhat swaggering exterior, is very much capable of such feelings as love, affection, intimacy and caring.
These feelings just don't involve anyone else.
User avatar
AirFrame
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2610
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2009 10:27 pm
Location: Sidney, BC
Contact:

Re: Homebuilt Amphib @ Nanaimo.

Post by AirFrame »

People always think of it as a 180 degree turn, but any way you draw it, you'll need 360 degrees of turning to get your airplane aligned with the runway on a reciprocal heading. Not saying it shouldn't be a skill you keep in your back pocket, but have realistic expectations as to what's required, and what's possible.
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
Cat Driver
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 18921
Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 8:31 pm

Re: Homebuilt Amphib @ Nanaimo.

Post by Cat Driver »

but any way you draw it, you'll need 360 degrees of turning to get your airplane aligned with the runway on a reciprocal heading.
Can you draw that for me?

I just can't seem to come up with 360 degrees of turn to get it back on the runway after an engine failure after take off.
---------- ADS -----------
 
The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no


After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
iflyforpie
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 8133
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 12:25 pm
Location: Winterfell...

Re: Homebuilt Amphib @ Nanaimo.

Post by iflyforpie »

One way to draw it is 360 degrees. 180 to turn back, 90 to turn to intercept the now offset centerline, another 90 to line back up with the reciprocal runway.

Why anyone would do it this way, I have no idea. Make the first turn as tight as possible--disregarding bank angle and altitude loss, but maintaining airspeed and respecting stall warnings--and the last turn is fairly small.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Geez did I say that....? Or just think it....?
User avatar
AirFrame
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2610
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2009 10:27 pm
Location: Sidney, BC
Contact:

Re: Homebuilt Amphib @ Nanaimo.

Post by AirFrame »

Cat Driver wrote:
but any way you draw it, you'll need 360 degrees of turning to get your airplane aligned with the runway on a reciprocal heading.
Can you draw that for me?
I just can't seem to come up with 360 degrees of turn to get it back on the runway after an engine failure after take off.
I should clarify that this applies to turns *close* to the airport, ie. in an immediate emergency after takeoff, and to the typical departure which is generally along the runway centerline. 180 degrees of turning from that point will only get you parallel to the runway and offset by the diameter of your turn... How you resolve that offset will take the rest of the turning. If you first turn 45 degrees off runway heading (say to the right), and then 270 degrees around (to the left), you'll need 45 degrees (to the right) to line up with the runway again.

You can reduce the turning needed by always diverting your departure leg... I tend to let myself drift downwind on climbout, so in an engine failure it's a turn into the wind to go back (if that makes sense at the time). And if you're farther from the airport you can get turned and re-aligned with less turning as the center of your turn gets farther from the airport.

But in general, keep in mind that the first time you try it, you'll likely overshoot your turn back. And you won't be as calm and collected as you would be on a regular flight. So if you keep the "360 degrees" in mind, you'll likely have margin for error.
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
Redneck_pilot86
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1330
Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2005 12:47 pm
Location: between 60 and 70

Re: Homebuilt Amphib @ Nanaimo.

Post by Redneck_pilot86 »

No disrespect to the deceased here. I realize my following comment does not apply to this incident.
AirFrame wrote:
Cat Driver wrote:
but any way you draw it, you'll need 360 degrees of turning to get your airplane aligned with the runway on a reciprocal heading.
Can you draw that for me?
I just can't seem to come up with 360 degrees of turn to get it back on the runway after an engine failure after take off.
I should clarify that this applies to turns *close* to the airport, ie. in an immediate emergency after takeoff, and to the typical departure which is generally along the runway centerline. 180 degrees of turning from that point will only get you parallel to the runway and offset by the diameter of your turn... How you resolve that offset will take the rest of the turning. If you first turn 45 degrees off runway heading (say to the right), and then 270 degrees around (to the left), you'll need 45 degrees (to the right) to line up with the runway again.

You can reduce the turning needed by always diverting your departure leg... I tend to let myself drift downwind on climbout, so in an engine failure it's a turn into the wind to go back (if that makes sense at the time). And if you're farther from the airport you can get turned and re-aligned with less turning as the center of your turn gets farther from the airport.

But in general, keep in mind that the first time you try it, you'll likely overshoot your turn back. And you won't be as calm and collected as you would be on a regular flight. So if you keep the "360 degrees" in mind, you'll likely have margin for error.
Any person experiencing an engine failure on departure who then attempts to make a 270 degree turn one way followed by a 90 degree turn the other way to get lined up with the runway deserves to crash. This is just moronic. Turn back to the runway. You don't need it to be a pretty circuit, you need it to be surviveable. It doesn't matter if you land on centerline, it doesnt matter if you land lined up with the runway, it doesn't matter if you land at the threshold, just get the wheels on the ground at some speed faster than a stall and keep driving it till it stops moving. You can continue your turn after the wheels have touched down safely, believe it or not the rudder continues to work.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mk33A-yXa34
---------- ADS -----------
 
The only three things a wingman should ever say: 1. "Two's up" 2. "You're on fire" 3. "I'll take the fat one"
GyvAir
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1810
Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2012 7:09 pm

Re: Homebuilt Amphib @ Nanaimo.

Post by GyvAir »

I've watched one successful turnback to the runway take place. From the ground, I'd say the pilot executed one extremely tight 220°-ish turn in which he used up most of his scarce altitude, a bit of relatively straight line flying and another 10-20° turn to line up a bit just before planting it on the runway. As the Colonel put it though, he was executing low-level dead stick aerobatics well beyond the capabilities of most pilots. I have no doubt that a less experienced pilot in that particular situation would have spun it in trying the same thing. I don't remember how high he was when he turned back, but I do recall him making a very emphatic a do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do speech afterwards, i.e. no turn backs - land straight ahead.
---------- ADS -----------
 
CpnCrunch
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 4147
Joined: Mon Feb 08, 2010 9:38 am

Re: Homebuilt Amphib @ Nanaimo.

Post by CpnCrunch »

Would a good compromise be to do gentle (30-40 degree) turns and land in the infield? I tried from 300ft AGL in X-Plane and you can very easily do a 180 and land parallel to the runway at 70 knots and using 30 degree turns. You can land on the runway if you try hard, but it's a lot tougher.
oldtimer wrote:From what I have read, the PC 12 is one of the few airplanes that will climb steeper than it will glide
A Piper Archer with 2 people aboard will climb at about 1000fpm at 70 knots and glide at 500fpm at 70 knots IIRC. Not sure what the climb performance is like at max gross. I imagine a 180hp early model 172 or a 182 are about the same if you only have 2 people in them.
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
Colonel Sanders
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 7512
Joined: Sun Jun 14, 2009 5:17 pm
Location: Over Macho Grande

Re: Homebuilt Amphib @ Nanaimo.

Post by Colonel Sanders »

At the risk of being accused of being "arrogant"
(which is even worse than being Politically
Incorrect, I am told here) ...

Please don't try to teach yourselves the turnback,
people.

Either get competent instruction (and stay
proficient), or don't do it.

If you can execute a surface level inside loop
in your non-aerobatic light aircraft, without
exceeding any limitations of it's normal or
utility category, feel free to ignore me. You
easily have enough skill to do the turnback.

99.999% of the pilots in Canada simply haven't
put the effort into developing the skill required
to safely fly the turnback - and to know when
it is helpful (probably more important).

I would wager that Pete Mcleod could effortlessly
fly a turnback, but he flies Red Bull. Perhaps he
has more skill?
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
oldtimer
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2296
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 7:04 pm
Location: Calgary

Re: Homebuilt Amphib @ Nanaimo.

Post by oldtimer »

Here is what I recall from many years ago with a plain jane Cessna 172. The task was from a climb at altitude, record the number of degrees one could turn loosing 1000 feet in a power off glide. Most pilots could do a normal rate one turn at a slower than normal glaide speed and complete slightly more than a 180 degree turn leaving enough room to be able to maneuver onto the runway. Those that tried a high bank angle steep turn never made a complete 180 turn before loosing 1000 feet of altitude.
If one goes to USA FAR 23/CARS 523 for a Normal Category single engine airplane, it is a requirement that Vso, the slowest possible speed the airplane can be controlled, has to be 61 Knots or less at maximum gross weight. The idea is that if one is faced with the worst, an off airport landing should be survivable. This was a big problem when the Swiss designed the PC 12 and Cessna designed the Caravan. There are many cases where single engine airplanes have been dumped in the most inhospitable places one can imagine and the accidents were survivable. When the original Cessna 172 was first produced the recommended (unofficially) procedure for both a forced landing (at night or open water) or for a non instrument trained pilot caught above or in cloud was to select power to idle, full flaps, full nose up trim and simply keep the wings level until the last piece stopped moving. To aid with an off airport landing at night in the larger Cessna 180/182 and Cessna 195's, 3 flares were mounted in the fuselage to illuminate the landing area. I think it was more of a search and rescue thingee. Just head for the big forest fire. If I had my druthers, I think I would have a much better chance of survival in a controlled off airport landing at the slowest speed possible. If it happened at night, turn on the landing lights to see where you are landing but if the landing area is very rough and inhospitable, turn the landing light off. That is what I think.
---------- ADS -----------
 
The average pilot, despite the somewhat swaggering exterior, is very much capable of such feelings as love, affection, intimacy and caring.
These feelings just don't involve anyone else.
User avatar
AirFrame
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2610
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2009 10:27 pm
Location: Sidney, BC
Contact:

Re: Homebuilt Amphib @ Nanaimo.

Post by AirFrame »

Redneck_pilot86 wrote:Any person experiencing an engine failure on departure who then attempts to make a 270 degree turn one way followed by a 90 degree turn the other way to get lined up with the runway deserves to crash. This is just moronic. Turn back to the runway. You don't need it to be a pretty circuit, you need it to be surviveable. It doesn't matter if you land on centerline, it doesnt matter if you land lined up with the runway, it doesn't matter if you land at the threshold, just get the wheels on the ground at some speed faster than a stall and keep driving it till it stops moving. You can continue your turn after the wheels have touched down safely, believe it or not the rudder continues to work.
Very true. However, anyone who thinks they can get back to the airport with only a 180 degree turn is kidding themselves, and while they may not deserve to crash, will most certainly do so.

A 180 degree turn, as I pointed out, will only place you parallel to the runway and offset by the diameter of your turning radius. Any guesses as to how far off the runway centerline you'll be? You're right that you don't need to get back to the centerline, but ideally you would get back to the runway. And you'll be hundreds of feet offset from the runway, if not 1000' offset, when you complete that 180 degree turn.

You're making a giant "U" in the sky, when what you want is a giant teardrop. How close to the runway you are when the engine quits will decide how much turning you have to do to get back. If it quits over the threshold, you'll need about 300 degrees or more of total turning to get back on the ground. If you're 5 miles out, it'll be closer to 200 degrees of turning.

Here's another good article on the topic, for those who aren't content to think that they just can't learn this because they aren't the Colonel:
http://www.nar-associates.com/technical ... screen.pdf
---------- ADS -----------
 
CpnCrunch
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 4147
Joined: Mon Feb 08, 2010 9:38 am

Re: Homebuilt Amphib @ Nanaimo.

Post by CpnCrunch »

AirFrame wrote: A 180 degree turn, as I pointed out, will only place you parallel to the runway and offset by the diameter of your turning radius. Any guesses as to how far off the runway centerline you'll be? You're right that you don't need to get back to the centerline, but ideally you would get back to the runway. And you'll be hundreds of feet offset from the runway, if not 1000' offset, when you complete that 180 degree turn.
If we're talking about Nanaimo, then a slightly more than 180 degree turn will work very well. There is a massive amount of grass there (and the Air Cadets' 182 lands on the grass), so if you just do a gentle turn to point yourself towards the airfield (maybe 220 degrees turn) you'll probably have an uneventful landing on the grass. Probably a much better option than putting it down on the golf course and then getting the third degree on avcanada when you kill a golfer.
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
AirFrame
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2610
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2009 10:27 pm
Location: Sidney, BC
Contact:

Re: Homebuilt Amphib @ Nanaimo.

Post by AirFrame »

oldtimer wrote:To aid with an off airport landing at night in the larger Cessna 180/182 and Cessna 195's, 3 flares were mounted in the fuselage to illuminate the landing area.
These were probably only useful in a planned landing or during a forced approach with lots of excess altitude to work with. The 190 had them under the wing, and they were set to fire horizontally perpendicular to the fuselage. So you'd need to fly perpendicular to your landing path first to fire a flare towards your landing site. Otherwise, they were exiting the airplane directly away from you and immediately disappearing behind you... Not much use unless you're just hoping someone will see it and come help you after you crash... And a 190 is not a plane i'd be wanting to crash in... Not a lot of space between you and that engine. :(
---------- ADS -----------
 
Post Reply

Return to “Accidents, Incidents & Overdue Aircraft”