Thinking Aloft

Food for thought

Thursday, July 8th, 2010

Food for thought:

* An altitude for a safe turn back to the runway will vary for different aircraft and in different wind conditions.

*Turning low to the ground is very disorienting.

*A decision should be made before take-off about where to land if the engine fails.

*As you approach an unfamiliar airport, notice where you might land with an engine failure when you depart later.

*Know what the no-wind pivotal altitude is for your plane

*On every flight, know what pivotal altitude will be for your climb out before you depart.

*Avoid turns below pivotal altitude!

Tags: Emergencies, Safety, Training Tips
Posted in Emergencies, Safety, Training Tips | 19 Comments »

What happens right after the engine quits on upwind?

Wednesday, May 19th, 2010

When the engine quits in a single engine aircraft, it generally takes at least 4 seconds for the pilot to recognize that the engine has failed. It then takes more precious seconds to drop the nose, and trim for best glide (generally 1.3 x stall speed). It is difficult for the pilot to drop the nose as far below the horizon as he must in order to ensure flying speed. The pitch change from nose up for climb to nose down to regain lost airspeed is substantial. No one wants to point the nose at the ground when the ground seems to be fast rising up to meet him. By the time the pilot has set up best glide, one hundred feet of altitude or more can be lost before the pilot decides his next move.

Let’s say that he decides to turn back to the runway. He is anxious to get the plane turned and headed toward the runway. One of two things generally happens at this point: he makes a very steep turn thereby increasing his stall speed significantly, or he is afraid to make a steep bank turn, but in his attempt to get the plane back to the runway, he skids the nose around with the rudder. Since he is ground shy at this point, he may have let his airspeed decay. A skid plus a stall equals a spin, guaranteed!

Most pilots are not used to flying near the ground, especially in turning flight. Making turns near the ground can be very disorienting. If the pilot had a headwind on take-off, during the turn back he finds himself drifting sideways towards the runway near the ground. This also leads him to try to hurry the turn thus presenting another invitation for a skid.

When the pilot makes his turn back to the runway he is probably thinking that he will need a 180 degree turn to line himself up with the runway. If he makes a 180 degree turn he will reverse his heading but due to drift and the turn radius of his aircraft, he will not be lined up with the runway. Soon he realizes that not only will he have to make at least a 240 degree turn, but he will have to turn back 45 degrees or more to align the aircraft with the runway after he has completed the 240 degree turn. The turn he must make to regain the runway resembles a teardrop with an additional turn for realignment near the runway. The realization that he has a lot further to turn than he thought is another element in his hurry to complete the turn.

There is another important factor to consider in a low altitude turn – pivotal altitude. This is important because a turn below pivotal altitude will almost guarantee a skid if the pilot does not have considerable experience making turns low to the ground. Turning below pivotal altitude low to the ground will almost assuredly induce confusion, and coupled with an engine-out emergency, this can easily overwhelm even experienced pilots.

© Ann Elsbach

In the next blog we will review pivotal altitude and some of its uses (besides passing commercial checkrides).

Posted in Emergencies | 3 Comments »

Next installment of to return or not to return

Thursday, May 13th, 2010

Fortunately, most of us have an internal recording of our instructor’s voice saying, “If the engine quits on take-off, land straight ahead!” The question is, “Why?” Why is it dangerous to attempt a return to the runway after an engine failure on take-off? Is there an altitude high enough to warrant a try? If so, how do you determine that altitude? Or, should we decide that we will never turn back for a landing, no matter what altitude we have gained, and no matter what lies ahead? Let’s start with some statistics.

According to the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) records for a nine year period – mid-1998 to mid-2007, 148 flights ended in fatalities or with seriously injured people after engine failure on take-off. Based on the NTSB’s accident briefs, I have broken these accidents into three categories: Accidents where pilots attempted to land straight ahead, those where pilots tried to turn back to the runway, and those where pilots were unable to keep the airplane flying shortly after loss of power. Remember that the NTSB keeps records only for accidents; therefore the following statistics do not include those incidents where there was minor damage and no fatalities, or where pilots made it to a landing site without incident.

In single engine aircrft, there were 43 flights where pilots attempted to turn back for a landing. In those flights, 58 people died and 18 survived, some seriously injured. In 50 flights where pilots lost control of their planes shortly after the loss of power, 77 died and 10 survived. There were also 12 flights where pilots attempted to land straight ahead, sometimes from very low altitudes. In those 12 flights, 18 people perished and 12 made it through.

In twin engine aircraft there were 17 flights where pilots attempted to turn back for a landing. Twenty-seven people lost their lives and 12 were injured in those flights, most seriously. In 22 flights where the pilot could not keep the aircraft flying after losing power in one engine, 34 people died and 6 survived. During 4 flights where the pilot tried to land straight ahead, there were 11 fatalities and 1 survivor.

These are frightening statistics!

It appears that our chances to survive an attempted turn back to the runway are very slim. The fact  that there were  more accidents recorded where the pilot tried to return to the runway than for those where a straight ahead landing was attempted leads me to think that more pilots heeded their instructors’ voices. They landed straight ahead successfully and therefore there were no fatalities for the NTSB to record.

Why are pilots often unable to return to the runway safely after an engine failure on take-off? First, many non-commercial pilots do not expect an engine to fail. When it happens they are not ready: they may not have already chosen a place to land and they are in denial. “This can’t be happening!” There is usually a substantial delay in their response. Once they acknowledge the situation, they have a strong desire to return to something familiar, the runway. Even though they can hear their instructor’s voice internally telling them to land straight ahead, the terrain ahead isn’t as appealing as a runway. Even when there is a big, open field directly ahead, many pilots have tried to return to the “safety” of the runway – usually unsuccessfully.

© Ann Elsbach

Our next installment will include a “blow-by-blow” account of how the pilot starts to get  into trouble when he attempts a return for landing. Later in the article we will discuss the process more in depth.

If you are finding this article interesting, or perhaps provocative, please make comments below. The more we think about safety issues in flying the more ready we will be to handle any emergencies that we may encounter.

Posted in Emergencies | No Comments »

More About engine failure after take-off

Saturday, May 8th, 2010

A year ago I wrote a magazine article about engine failure after take-off. Flying magazines sent me ‘no thanks’ letters, some saying that they were only publishing in-house material due to monetary woes. No surprise there!

My plan is to share that article with you now. I will post it in segments hopefully encouraging responses from the aviation community. My goal is to get us all thinking about the many factors involved in returning for landing. As always, my interest is in promoting safety in aviation.

ENGINE FAILURE ON TAKE-OFF

TO RETURN OR NOT TO RETURN

THAT IS THE QUESTION

“The airplane was totalled but the maneuver was successful.” That’s what the instructor said after he crashed the plane while demonstrating an emergency return for landing after a simulated engine failure.

The instructor in the previous scenario felt that he had covered all the bases. He had checked the wind and he had “approximately 600 feet” before he pulled the power. He successfully set up the best glide and proceeded outbound on a 45 degree angle from the runway. He was careful not to skid the turn back toward the runway. He was aware of having a tailwind on approach and monitored his airspeed. His plan had been to do a low approach and then initiate a go-around. As he began to arrest his descent and add power for the go-around, the bottom fell out. “The lift just completely disappeared.” The aircraft stalled and dropped in about 10-15 feet. The plane wound up in a ditch facing the opposite direction from the approach heading.

If an instructor with more than 1,000 hours of instruction given can have this type of accident, what does it say about the chances for a safe return for the rest of us? In the FAA Safety Pamphlet P8740-44, called “The Impossible Turn,” the opening line is “Turning back is the worst possible action when the power plant fails during climbing out in a single.”

Okay, I’ll pause the article here to give you all an opportunity to comment. What do you think about this accident? What happened? What could have/should have been done differently? I’ll continue with the article in my next blog. Thumbs up!

© Ann Elsbach

Posted in Emergencies | 2 Comments »

Welcome to Thinking Aloft with Ann

Thursday, May 6th, 2010

I have been flying for 37 years and a flight instructor for 34. I have spent a lot of time instructing in small tailwheel training aircraft. I also have K-12 teaching experience in other subjects.

I love to teach and I love to fly! My interest is in training the safest pilots possible. Safety comes first. The question is, how does one achieve that goal? I have looked long and hard at that question and have come to realize that there are many aspects of pilot training that are generally not well understood or adequately covered. I am writing a book that I hope will help both instructors and students to better understand, or in the case of instructors better teach, these subjects.

Some of the topics I intend to address in the book are:

• how to assess the learning mode of the student and to use that information to facilitate student learning
• how to evaluate a student’s judgment and how to improve it
• how to instill an awareness of safe procedures and policies that will remain ingrained in the student through his flying career
• tips and tricks for making maneuvers easier to learn; how to teach good airmanship
• tailwheel operations
• how to deal with a fear of flying

I want to blog to get the aviation community’s  feedback, suggestions and ideas. I believe that the more we think about these issues the safer our operations will be.

Okay, let’s open with one area I think is under-represented in most training manuals: When should a pilot turn back to a runway from upwind after an engine failure? Is there an altitude where it is okay or should a pilot never do it?  What do you all think?

Tags: aviation safety, engine failure after take-off, flight instruction, tailwheel training
Posted in Emergencies | 3 Comments »