turboplanner

Obviously being a new trainee pilot, I did think to myself this morning I'm glad I hadn't booked a lesson. I fly from Tyabb where these two set off from and they landed about 5km from my house.The fog was low level and was around from dawn until about 2pm. My question would be, why did Tyabb let a VFR pilot take off in these conditions, as these conditions were across the peninsula. As a VFR pilot why would you take the risk? I am assuming he was a VFR and surely an IFR would have been able to locate the airfield?

As I said, I am a trainee but even my common sense would have suggested cleaning the bird not flying it!

 

Just an opinion...

This thing fouled up at the planning stage - I can't believe they didn't actually drive through the fog to get from Rosebud to Tyabb.

You are quite correct, it definitely was not a day for flying.

IFR is not just "we'll have a stab at the instruments for a while", it involves meticulous planning for minimum safe altitude, alternate landing site and so on, so I think we can safely say they weren't IFR.

They also said they decided to land because they were nearly out of fuel .............just a few Nm from the home base.....

Another salutory lesson for those who insist on only partially filling their tank for the flight time, and never allowing for a runway obstruction, or fog.

As for congratulating them on having the skill to land on a two lane unused freeway - aaaaaargh!

Although (thankfully) I've never had the experience of an unexpected EFATO, I know for absolute certain that my brain turns to mush under stress. During training, we talked about EFATOs at length. Just before entering the runway we discussed exactly what was going to happen and how I should react when the engine went out. 45 seconds later when the CFI pulled the throttle I froze, and we would have stalled straight into the trees if he hadn't been ready for me to do exactly that.I know not to turn back; I visualise myself not turning back; but I have no idea exactly what I'm actually going to until the day when it actually happens. That's what scares me...

We're all a little bit different in our reactions, so it's just a matter of being in a relaxed state and working on this issue.

The relaxed state would be at about 3000' in a climb and have an instructor pull the throttle on you repeatedly, responding by dropping the nose to glide attitude straight ahead, achieving a smooth transition.

You half knew he was going to pull the throttle then, so you would be quite relaxed.

The next step would be to go out for an hour and have him pull the throttle anywhere, any time, repeatedly, intermittantly.

The point here is not to carry through to a simulated forced landing as we usually do, but just to the point of controlled glide straight ahead.

You may even have to do a couple of hours of it, or practice once a month.

The result is likely to be that you will transfer the action to your subconscious as a normal raction, so no freeze, no scary, just immediate action.

If you do that you will know that no matter where the engine failure happens, you will be impacting the ground at glide speed, not stall speed, and that knowledge will be a further relaxant.

Yes, thanks Peter, information we rarely get, and for you a terrible experience - a bit like what Motz went through and is still going through.

You've got it Tomo, it's a blur when you do it, if you have to think or make a decision it's too late.

Bandit and GG, as you get into higher performance different dynamics occur. I recall from that thread that these aircraft have a considerably faster climb and are at considerably more height than the ones we are talking about, and they were talking about commercial pilots and defence force pilots who have exponentially more training etc.

You were a bit quick for me I was responding to Yenn

I take it that you haven't bothered to check on your future then.

Not excusing the decision to go Tubs but having done so, ( in what exact circumstances I do not know) he has realised his situation and done a precautionary landing, which is a lot better than "pressing on". Nev

No-one would do that

So it is among us.

Aeroplane is the British term, Airplane is the American term - they are two different sovereign countries with two different vocabularies.

I work for Americans so if I'm talking to them about fuel I'll use the term gasolene, if we're trying to lighten a truck, I'll be talking about aluminum, and if I'm going to be doing something shortly, I'll tell them I'll do it momentarily.

It's just a matter of learning the differences and only a matter of respect for the country you are in.

We get a lot of American literature, softeware etc, and a lot of people are lazy or didn't receive good schooling.

Interestingly, American is the older language, remaining relatively pure from the early 1600's when the British colonised North America, In those days the British spelt centre as "center" etc.

It was the British who changed the language, influenced by the French etc, and greater mixing in Europe compared to the US citizens who were isolated out in the wilderness pinching squirrels off the Indians.

What a dog's breakfast!

Howard is on the money - see the other thread

Perhaps God parted the fog along their car route from Rosebud to Tyabb Airport, and parted it over the airport, and parted it along the path of the duty runway, but he sure sent plenty

along the 50 km or so I travelled close by, and it's still hanging around.

The whole sorry affair is covered in the ATSB report Nev, from the aircraft being too small for US style wing walks, to the unsuitability of the modifications, creating the type of drag you mention, but you hear the engine stop, and I'm pretty sure the ATSB said that too. I would hope the rudder isn't in the full left position for an instinctive (and incorrect) attempt to turn back.

As it happens I was heading to lunch in Mornington about the same time....because it was such a miserable day with thick fog hanging around all morning.

I would have been within about 500 metres of them when they landed.

They would have to have been imbeciles, because we had been in fog for about 20 km before, and we were in it for another few kilometres and it only started to burn off a couple of hours later.

A race driver/pilot/speedboat driver etc will react to an expected critical issue in 20 to 50 one hundredths of a second. 20 if he's right up to recency, 50 if he's been out of action for a couple of weeks.

That same person, faced with an UNexpected critical will take about two to three seconds to get his head around it, THEN he takes the 20 to 50/100 for corrective action

I've put this crash up before - I count roughly 2 or three seconds between when the engine starts to fail and when the rotation becomes inevitable.

This guy pulled too tight.....and he was a very experienced pilot - that's the point - it's in the reaction.

I think I might take my plane to a few thousand feet, take up a heading, set climb attitude then pull the power and see just how much height I lose trying to 'turn back'. The way Jabiru engines have been performing lately I need to cover all bases.

You can probably, after a few practices manage a nice turn with minimal height loss, but that's VASTLY different from what happens when the engine stops because right after that your heart stops/you freeze/you try to restart the engine/ any one of many things depending on the pysche of the person involved, all things which will lead you to the grave.

You may be in the 1 or 2% lucky ones, but its SUBCONSCIOUS ACTION which provides the reaction fast enough to get a controlled landing situation.

I'm actually stunned at the comments given we've actually lost RA pilots to stalls/spins in the past few months who had more time to get it under control than you would in an EFATO.

Here we go.

I can see why Kevin Walters used the language he did, and why we have some more candidates for Darwin.

It isn't about technique

I seem to remember some Clever Dick suggesting he could do it from 350 feet.

Mardy said he was having trouble getting his head around the principle. Yes ATSB can step in, and they can decide not to bother with a fatal GA accident, as they've done with top rated aerobatic pilots, RAA can assist police......but all that just blurs the picture.

Whilst I agree with the basic theory of 'not to turn back', doesn't it depend on the type of aircraft and the height achieved prior to engine failure. Some planes go up like elevators and are surely high enough by the time they reach the end of the runway to be able to return safely.

From before the first world war some very eminent pilots of undeniable skills have lost their lives instead of some skin - it's a choice thing.

Identity theft is a real and present danger ... I don't use Facebook and other social media and I burn all my receipts. I'm not paranoid; I'm just aware of how much of it is going on today.kaz

CASA is not involved in investigating accidents

The ATSB (Federal Government) investigates GA accidents and their investigations are made public.

The ATSB does not investigate RA accidents; they are investigated by Police.

Hence we have this hypocritical situation where a GA fatality gets a fairly quick Interim report on the ATSB website, and a very detailed final report, but an RA fatality is never heard of again. Sure there is a Coroner's report, but that can go in quite a different direction to an investigation like that of the ATSB which produces useful information on the background and the events of the incident.

Mardy, I've made it clear a number of times. Serious Recreational Aircraft crashes are under the control of the various State and Territory Police. They are the ones with the power to release information for the safety and education of other pilots, and they don't release it.

RAA could kick and squeal all they liked, but it's not getting out of Police files at the present time.

There are certainly details they could share, and don't, for example the "Pilot Notes" are nothing short of pathetic.

However the real problem is that the Police control the investigation and will not release the information because that is not the way their culture works.