Garfly

PenName said: "Point taken about the second point. Stuck controls after they have checked free and full movement though? I take the point that leaving the control lock in kills people. That is defs true." I'd agree that "Locked up Controls" doesn't quite fit the "Loss of Control" category. Typically, in the former, the pilot's the victim and in the latter, typically the problem.

They are. Refer CASA's Flight Instructor Manual. True, and I like it much better than "My aeroplane" and "Your aeroplane". (Except where the two pilots happen to be co-owners of the aircraft concerned. ;- )

But it's not as if RAAus is clueless as to all the actually good LOC resources "available anywhere in the world". In fact they did a great job of (cheaply) curating a bunch of them in this excellent Safety Month piece two years back called "Just DON'T Pull Back": https://www.raa.asn.au/our-organisation/safety/nationalsafetymonth/week-4/just-dont-pull-back/ Given the title, they could also have included this one (which we've watched and discussed here many times). THIS is what effective air-safety communication looks like:

Yeah, that bit gets covered in the next paragraph: "So now let’s say you actually managed to do the big push. The nose is very low but the airplane is still flying with at least a small margin above stall speed. If you were really low when the engine failed (up to about 300 feet), there is no question about what comes next. The airplane is descending rapidly and the ground is coming up equally fast, so the only option available is a slight turn if necessary to avoid any serious objects directly ahead of you, followed by a pull just before hitting the ground to flare or at least try to cushion the force of the impact. While the landing gear may be damaged or even collapse, the odds are that you and your passengers will have few if any injuries." https://www.flyingmag.com/technique-proficiency-human-factor-big-push-improbable-turn/

Regarding EFATO, at least, I'd be surprised to see anyone contradicting your assertion that the Big Push is what's needed. There's a fire-hose of advice online along these lines. For example, this Pilot Proficiency column in Flying Mag (US) from Jan 2011: https://www.flyingmag.com/technique-proficiency-human-factor-big-push-improbable-turn/ Excerpt: "What is required almost immediately after the engine fails while in the initial climb, let’s say between 50 feet and wherever you reduce the pitch attitude to cruise climb, is a surprisingly forceful push forward on the controls to an even more surprisingly nose-low attitude in order to keep the airplane flying. In an airplane with high drag, such as a biplane, you may need to push hard enough to feel light in the seat. Even in a low-drag, streamlined airplane, the push required will be close to that. At altitude a push like this would feel very strange, but would not be that scary or difficult to accomplish. However, following an engine failure on takeoff, you are not at altitude; you are only a few hundred feet above the ground. You would have to overcome every cell in your brain screaming at you to hold the wheel back to stop the descent. Many pilots have given in to that desperate plea, resulting in an almost immediate stall/spin following the engine failure."

By the way, the pub that used to be across the road from the Taree airport (mentioned on the map) is now closed. But there is cabin accommodation available at the Dawson River Tourist Park just 500 metres away (and 98 mogas at the adjacent servo). A McDonalds is a 1km hike further on but it's only a 5km cab ride into Taree town, anyway.

Yes, your map is a fantastic resource. So I suppose your new category (on-field, cheap and cheerful) is meant to be an added layer in another colour.

This recent Flight Chops vid throws some interesting light on, among other things, the art of test flying. It also demonstrates how cross-checking (high) Oil temps against (normal) CHTs - on false assumptions - can dangerously mislead. Incredibly, the team had two red-line oil temp emergencies in the same series of tests; one a false alarm and one all too true.

JG, would it make sense to widen the criteria to include on-field (or nearby) accommodation that you need to pay for (Tumut, for example)? I agree that a basic space for free (or near) is the better option. But sometimes you might be willing to pay Motel rates for a night if, otherwise, it makes your trip work better.

And Goats!

I don't quite understand what bad practice you're tilting at here, Nev. If nothing else, GPS GoTo pointers (and their much maligned magenta lines) do, at least, keep you firmly on a given "magnetic TRACK". (For a start, satellites don't give a damn about your local winds, nor your heading.) Sure, in the olden days your night-before planning was all you had, to come up with a heading to keep you to a track magnetic. But as a method, it called for lots of faith in forecast winds, your old whiskey compass and your ability to read a map etc. But hey, it usually worked out and for sure was/is great sport ... precisely because it was/is difficult. But since GPS, if holding a magnetic track is the main game then no amount of 'planning' comes close to following that 'JUST GoTo' boogey man. Obviously there's more to the art of flight planning than that. But, with the help of EFBs etc. I'd say it's practised better and safer today than ever. Good flight planning and magenta lines are hardly categorical opposites. BTW, I believe we're supposed to track hemispherically above 3,000' now.

In the video, Juan Browne talks about the typical pilot error of ruddering the nose around, hoping to increase turn rate in tight situations. But I don't think he's saying, for sure, that that's what happened here, though he seems to come close.

https://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=20221027-0 https://fireaviation.com/2022/10/27/air-tanker-crash-in-italy-kills-two/

Looks like our Thruster88 might have been barking up the right tree!

Today's update:

Yeah, and as they say in this BEA (ATSB French style) video the slower a chopper is moving the more dangerous its wake. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iHqN7PQraMs&t=4s

Here's Jason Miller on the same incident:

Here is the re-posting of the original video by Blancolirio:

FAA Emergency AD: https://drs.faa.gov/browse/excelExternalWindow/DRSDOCID139391948320221005002535.0001 EXCERPT [click for full rez] : FAA Under Scrutiny for Timing of DHC-3 AD Transport Canada issued a similar airworthiness directive more than four years ago. https://www.flyingmag.com/faa-under-scrutiny-for-timing-of-dhc-3-ad/

Sorry, it must have been taken down for some reason. It was a regular Blancolirio video. It will probably re-emerge. Here is Kathryn's Report of the same incident: http://www.kathrynsreport.com/2022/09/de-havilland-canada-dhc-3t-turbine.html And here is one pertinent comment from the Blancolirio video: Mark P 2 hours ago Good video! As a young design engineer working at a major aircraft manufacturer, I had a friend ( older and more experience than me) who was in charge of the flutter model wind tunnel testing of the YC-15. One day he stopped by my desk and suggested I follow him to go watch a video of one of their tests. As I watched the video, they incrementally increased the wind speed while sending the horizontal stabilizer a "pulse" (literally pull a string that was attached to it) simulating a gust or other similar disturbance. Finally at one critical speed, the tail failed almost instantly. I couldn't actually see the flutter because it happened so quickly. When he re-ran the video in slow motion, we saw the pulse deflect the stab upward, and then it cycled down and up for about 2 or 3 diverging cycles, and then failed completely. Absolutely NO chance for pilot intervention. The results of this test had already resulted in design changes to stiffen the tail, so the first vehicle rolled out with the stronger tail already in place. That moment was one that will remain in memory and it gave me great respect for flutter for the remainder of my 43 year design career.

If you still have no luck, the OzRwys Support team is very helpful and quick to respond. [email protected]

PenName, you're jousting with a straw-man who's not there. Mark is saying no such thing. Anyway, on the subject of experts disagreeing on circuit etiquette and "airmanship" take a look at this recent hard-talk between two prominent YT instructors in the US - Dan Gryder and Jason Miller. The relevant bit is from 07:00 to 36:00.

This is from a 2016 issue of Plane and Pilot: Top 10 Rules Of Thumb Piloting an aircraft requires decision and precision. Quick references to the basics can make both easier. https://www.planeandpilotmag.com/article/top-10-rules-of-thumb/#:~:text=If you haven't heard,an abort is in order.