Snowbird accident 😢

[photofly]

Yeah... I'm not going to pick and quote bits and pieces for comment from the foregoing, except this one:

I’m sure it could work more often than not for someone practicing it on a regular basis. That will never be the reality for the average pilot flying once in a while.

That is the most relevant comment on this topic. If a pilot is very skilled, and familiar on that particular airplane, that pilot can accomplish much more with the same margin of safety as the new pilot renter can manage on a "normal" flight.

I can't think of an environment better for creating a situation where nobody trains for or maintains any kind of proficiency in this manoeuvre than one where everyone is exhorted not to attempt it because it's too difficult and will result in certain death. Why would anyone want to train for something that they're told will kill them? It's a self-fulfilling prophecy.

[PilotDAR]

I'm all about more training, and maintaining skills! But, considering an EFATO turn back, what is the training material/guidance/process/standard?

I've had to develop my own informal technique just to safely demonstrate, at altitude, the increasing hazard of EFATO during a climb at slower than Vy - no turns involved. Adding a turn to that training really adds a lot of variables. Has any civil training standard included this?

I think that PPL training is already kinda lean in most cases, unless the candidate seeks out additional training. I struggle to imagine a renting student or new pilot seeking enough additional training to become proficient at judging the outcome of a turnback so as to decide to attempt it or not.

When I takeoff, I'm looking ahead as to where I could go, even runway 15 at YKZ. I don't always like what I see ahead, but I'm not looking behind....

[photofly]

Why is so much time spent on the “slow flight” exercise in elementary training? In part because it gives pilots experience of maintaining control of an aeroplane at high angles of attack. I would start by looking at how slow flight is included in the training syllabus.

An EFATO scenario is one application for using a “steep gliding turn in slow flight”. If one can manage a “level-flight powered turn in slow flight” then one can manage a “steep gliding turn in slow flight”.

If viewed and trained initially as a regular manoeuvre just like slow flight then the pilot has the option to deploy it in EFATO situation or not, at their discretion.

[PilotDAR]

I would start by looking at how slow flight is included in the training syllabus.

I think that before that starting point, I would be looking for any airplane flight manual which describes a procedure to turn back following an EFATO. All I have read state to land ahead, making only the minor turns necessary to avoid hazards. As the normal and emergency procedures sections of a flight manual are (TC/FAA) approved, it's hard to argue how to train in conflict with them....

[photofly]

Firstly In a real emergency I’m not the slightest bit bothered about violating any written procedures or rules, including any legal restrictions or recommended procedures in the AFM, if in my opinion as PIC I can better ensure the safety of myself, my passengers and people on the ground by doing so. I may need to justify the decision to do so later, but that’s a different question.

Secondly, there’s no prohibition in any AFM that I’m aware of against conducting “steep gliding turns in slow flight” as a normal manoeuvre.

Adding those two facts together gives me every justification I could possibly need to train for and prepare to use a normal manoeuvre such as a “steep gliding turn in slow flight” whenever and wherever I judge it to be the best course of action in a real emergency, including an EFATO.


Something else I'd include in training: this manoeuvre, when conducted correctly, is "the best the airplane can do". It's a way of reversing (or changing) course making best use of whatever altitude you have. It doesn't guarantee you can land on any particular runway, or even reach any particular point on the ground, even if you can see it. Just like "best glide" speed is taught as the speed that gives you the furthest range the airplane can reach. You can't stretch your glide further than best glide, and you can't turn further than this manoeuvre. You can use this manoeuvre to "change the view" out of the front, and by using it you may be able to change the view to a good one, but you may not.

[PilotDAR]

there’s no prohibition in any AFM that I’m aware of against conducting “steep gliding turns in slow flight” as a normal manoeuvre

I've read one, but agreed, it's uncommon. That one approved flight manual did say in the limitations section that any maneuver not approved in the flight manual, was prohibited - but agreed - unusual.

My discomfort comes in pilots, who may have not gained the skill, and then maintained proficiency in it, suddenly making up a home made procedure during a real emergency, which differs from the flight manual emergency procedure, and thus they have no data to perform it. It's kinda counter to most flight training, in which a defined skill is practiced in accordance with approved information, and then tested against a defined standard.

[photofly]

My discomfort comes in pilots, who may have not gained the skill, and then maintained proficiency in it, suddenly making up a home made procedure during a real emergency, which differs from the flight manual emergency procedure, and thus they have no data to perform it. It's kinda counter to most flight training, in which a defined skill is practiced in accordance with approved information, and then tested against a defined standard.

I 100% agree that a real emergency is NOT the time to be improvising a new procedure at low altitude. I believe that's what leads to the deaths associated with this.

I think information could be approved, and a standard could be defined. The fact that they have not been, means that pilots are left to improvise. Which some do, outside of real emergencies, in order to prepare themselves for something that their flight training has not - hence the theory paper and associated experiments presented earlier. That is a well-intentioned effort to provide some real information. I agree this isn't the most satisfactory situation, but it's where we are. But note that we started in a time when all approved procedures and all approved information had not yet been approved.

Without some practice a pilot cannot know what an airplane is capable of, and what it cannot achieve. If you initiate a turn back "to the runway" thinking that you'll "find out if the plane can be pushed into making it that far" then you are likely to lose control. Just like you would if you tried to glide into a field that was out of reach. But if you have experience of what the plane can actually do - just like you do in a glide at best glide speed (at which we put in countless repeats of practice in training) or in powered slow flight - then you can execute a maximum performance turn, of which you have experience, and which may get you a better place to land.

It’s also possible that if we train pilots in what their plane can actually do instead of leaving them in extremis to imagine that it might be able to do what they’d like it to be able to do - pilots would actually be discouraged from trying to turn back to the runway from which they departed.

[AirFrame]

Dangerous advice for a trainee maneuvering close to the ground……..Don’t watch your airspeed and try to use the stall warning as a minimum speed indicator.

IF your stall warning system is functioning properly, this is actually the *best* advice for someone with limited experience... Keep your eyes out the window, and fly the horn to avoid stall rather than constantly taking your eyes off your flight path to check your airspeed indicator.

A serious AOA instrument is much better than an airspeed indicator when you're flying close to stall and not flying straight and level. One of the systems from FlyOnSpeed would be a great addition to every training aircraft.

[AirFrame]

I think that before that starting point, I would be looking for any airplane flight manual which describes a procedure to turn back following an EFATO. All I have read state to land ahead, making only the minor turns necessary to avoid hazards. As the normal and emergency procedures sections of a flight manual are (TC/FAA) approved, it's hard to argue how to train in conflict with them....

All anyone read before the early 1900's said "man will never fly" too. And before we broke the sound barrier, that "you can't do that because you'll die!"

Eventually we learn differently. And the longer one is set in a course of action, the harder it is to change that course of action due to the generational inertia of the silverbacks fighting you and poo-pooing every attempt to further the art of flying.

[pelmet]

Dangerous advice for a trainee maneuvering close to the ground……..Don’t watch your airspeed and try to use the stall warning as a minimum speed indicator.

IF your stall warning system is functioning properly, this is actually the *best* advice for someone with limited experience... Keep your eyes out the window, and fly the horn to avoid stall rather than constantly taking your eyes off your flight path to check your airspeed indicator.

A serious AOA instrument is much better than an airspeed indicator when you're flying close to stall and not flying straight and level. One of the systems from FlyOnSpeed would be a great addition to every training aircraft.

You do have a good point about the accuracy of a properly functioning stall warning system and the stall indication speeds on the ASI no longer being valid. Like I said earlier, how do you know stall warning is functioning properly. Errors do happen and while an airspeed indicator can also be malfunctioning, I suspect it is more likely to have been fixed.

Bottom line, if one decides to bank significantly when close to the ground, give yourself a good margin over the stall. Even if one is confident that everything is mechanically working, there is still the human error factor. And make sure to reference your ASI.

[PilotDAR]

the generational inertia of the silverbacks fighting you and poo-pooing every attempt to further the art of flying.

Yeah... for the purpose of this discussion, I am a silverback. A part of the silver was the three months I spent in hospital thinking about how the most recent training flight (completely by the book) did not work out well. All that thinking time made me more conservative, not more adventurous. The flight manual procedures are approved based upon lots of testing, and an assessment of margins of safety from average pilot skill. Yes, a very skilled pilot can do better, but there is no measuring stick for that - very skilled pilots are on their own. I've flown with some PPL's who thought they were "very skilled" - they were not. So, the measuring stick for even that is wiggly.

The most scary flight testing I have been required to do was land straight ahead from a [planned] EFATO from 50 feet, in a modified Grand Caravan, at slower than Vy ('cause that was what the test was for). It was terrifying to keep thinking I was about to wreck this plane. I stopped doing the testing, declaring the risk of the testing exceeded the value of a favourable outcome. TC and I reached a compromise that got everyone what they needed. In a Grand Caravan, I was "average skill" [on type], so the testing was fair. Yes, Caravan super pilot could have done better. But, Caravan super pilot was not the next guy who'd be flying it, after I finished the flight testing.

Sure, further the art of flying! Build up your skills, do the testing, and validate the data to an acceptable standard. If you want, get it approved too! I would be delighted if every pilot honed their skills to that point. My experience is that the "average" pilot is not honing their skills to that extent, and is thus, much safer inside the bounds of what has been tested and approved for "average pilot skill".

[airway]

I'm all about more training, and maintaining skills! But, considering an EFATO turn back, what is the training material/guidance/process/standard?

From the CARS:

Flight Training Program Requirements

405.14 Flight training that is conducted using an aeroplane or helicopter shall be conducted in accordance with
the applicable flight instructor guide and flight training
manual or equivalent document and the applicable training manual on human factors.


From the Flight Training Manual:

[PilotDAR]

Thanks for the link Airway...

Off topic, but I particularly enjoyed the part about engine failure in the circuit, and it being highly probable you can forced land back on the [a] runway - my dream circuit! I ranted elsewhere about being nudged out well away from the airport, while conforming to the established circuit.

Speaking as a pilot who has had four forced landings due to power loss (two EFATO's) in 45 years, I really like to get the airplane within gliding distance of the airport, and then try to not stray needlessly further away again while in the circuit!

I sometimes must develop a new procedure, or other data for a flight manual supplement, based upon flight test data I have observed. I can't imagine trying to get approval of a turnback procedure in any GA type I've flown. But, then again, I'm a silverback too, others may, where I could not!

[pelmet]

I'm all about more training, and maintaining skills! But, considering an EFATO turn back, what is the training material/guidance/process/standard?

From the CARS:

Flight Training Program Requirements

405.14 Flight training that is conducted using an aeroplane or helicopter shall be conducted in accordance with
the applicable flight instructor guide and flight training
manual or equivalent document and the applicable training manual on human factors.


From the Flight Training Manual:

It is good information from the training manual about the risks of turning back and should be carefully considered. If one does decide to turn back, you will note that they mention about accidents happening due to not considering airspeed. I agree. The recommendation to keep one's eyes out the window instead of taking moments to monitor airspeed is foolish in my opinion.

[‘Bob’]

Preliminary report out. Looks like an incorrectly assembled oil filter.

https://vancouverisland.ctvnews.ca/inve ... -1.6077786