The next thing that could kill you

B

BCTAv8r

Well-Known Member
In Canadian astronaut Chris Hadfield's book, An Astrounaut's Guide to Life on Earth, he talks about always identifying the next thing that could kill you, and thinking though potential issues before the fact. As a student pilot, one of my greatest fears is an engine failure on takeoff, especially considering the limited options I would have for an off-field landing at my airport. That being said, would you do your flight training out of a field with little options for a successful engine out landing? Flying out of Boca Raton, FL, the conflict I have is that although I am told to brief what I would do during an engine out landing on takeoff, in reality, if we were to have an engine out failure on takeoff, we would have almost no options on takeoff. I have a hard time thinking through something like that when the likely outcome is that I would die. How do you guys deal with something like that?
 
BCTAv8r said:
In Canadian astronaut Chris Hadfield's book, An Astrounaut's Guide to Life on Earth, he talks about always identifying the next thing that could kill you, and thinking though potential issues before the fact. As a student pilot, one of my greatest fears is an engine failure on takeoff, especially considering the limited options I would have for an off-field landing at my airport. That being said, would you do your flight training out of a field with little options for a successful engine out landing? Flying out of Boca Raton, FL, the conflict I have is that although I am told to brief what I would do during an engine out landing on takeoff, in reality, if we were to have an engine out failure on takeoff, we would have almost no options on takeoff. I have a hard time thinking through something like that when the likely outcome is that I would die. How do you guys deal with something like that?
Click to expand...
If I was in a light single taking off out of Boca I would land straight ahead in the wooded area as a few airplanes have. To the South, mall parking lot or the golf course. I had a partial engine failure out of Boca in a 152, my eyes immediately found several areas to land if needed.
 
Thanks, Mike. I didn't start this thread specifically for myself, but to discuss, for those who are still flight training or flying out of fields without too many options for an engine out landing, how do you deal with that? Do you go on Google Maps and look at all the potential options for landing in case it does happen, or do you just hope it doesn't happen and wait to deal with it if it does? I fly out of Boca, but there are several other airports I fly to that are almost worse in regards to engine out landing options, so I know there are others on here who deal with that.
 
BCTAv8r said:
In Canadian astronaut Chris Hadfield's book, An Astrounaut's Guide to Life on Earth, he talks about always identifying the next thing that could kill you, and thinking though potential issues before the fact. As a student pilot, one of my greatest fears is an engine failure on takeoff, especially considering the limited options I would have for an off-field landing at my airport. That being said, would you do your flight training out of a field with little options for a successful engine out landing? Flying out of Boca Raton, FL, the conflict I have is that although I am told to brief what I would do during an engine out landing on takeoff, in reality, if we were to have an engine out failure on takeoff, we would have almost no options on takeoff. I have a hard time thinking through something like that when the likely outcome is that I would die. How do you guys deal with something like that?
Click to expand...

Another fatal crash at Caldwell Essex County NJ today. Pilot flying his Cessna 210 had a mechanical issue and tried to make it back to the airport. Witnesses described a steep dive into the ground. Based on the runway and location of the crash, it looks like he attempted the impossible turn. Departing runway 22, you don't have many options when you are low. I think I would go straight and aim for that Mountain Ridge golf course and hope to pull a Harrison Ford....
 
That's one of my biggest concerns taking off in a little puddle jumper.

But on the other hand, they are so well maintained, the likelyness is probably slim.

Unless you foul the plugs before takeoff by leaving the mixture too rich. Saw a video where this happened. Really scary.
 
Turbolag said:
That's one of my biggest concerns taking off in a little puddle jumper.

But on the other hand, they are so well maintained, the likelyness is probably slim.

Unless you foul the plugs before takeoff by leaving the mixture too rich. Saw a video where this happened. Really scary.
Click to expand...

I had that happen to me coming out of KSUX flying survey. Not a fun experience that's for sure.
 
When I was flying traffic in KLIT, it was always low-level over congested areas. For the first few months, I kept a good life jacket in the right seat and planned to go into the river in case of engine loss.
After a while, you'll find and remember the good-looking "Just in case" sites in your area. Take an old sectional and mark them on it, that'll help you remember where they are on the sectional you use during flight.
And remember, don't reject a site just because it's short or rough and the plane may get bent, you're looking for survivability here.
If you have to sacrifice the plane to survive the landing, then by God do so. Your goal is to fill out the accident report personally.
 
Roger Roger said:
Only thing that'll kill you in this business is hittin stuff. Don't hit stuff and you'll stay alive.
Click to expand...

The FAA's "see and avoid" mantra :rolleyes:

I think we can all agree these midairs are happening because pilots aren't seeing the other airplane. Now we can continue blaming dead pilots each and every single time for "failure to see and avoid." Or.... we can say, you know what? It is entirely unrealistic to expect a pilot to be able to scan 360 degrees of sky around him, in time to pick up the unperceivable target, which once perceivable usually gives only a 5-15 second window to respond to avoid a midair.
 
Suppose 2 aircraft are approaching at 90 degree angles. He's to my 9'0clock. He scans at his 9'oclock sector, then 10'oclock, then 11'oclock then straight ahead..... I scan ahead, then scan the 1 oclock sector, then the 2'oclock, then 3'oclock, and then bam, collision from my 9'oclock. I'd be dead, but I was looking. How realistic was it to expect me to find that one fleck at the 9'0clock position in time to avoid a collision? In this case, both pilots were following by the book procedures scanning traffic visually, and the collision would still happen.
 
Cherokee_Cruiser said:
I think we can all agree these midairs are happening because pilots aren't seeing the other airplane. .
Click to expand...

But are they looking? Or are they heads down inside fiddling with whatever new whiz-bang gizmo is on the panel or attached to it?

Obviously someone didn't see someone in time, perhaps even both (no way to know that yet regards the San Diego accident today).

The question that needs to be answered, is why. And this latest accident appears to have been in the airport pattern environment, where traffic is suspected and should be known with an operating control tower, with dissimilar aircraft, and with known pieces of airspace to look at and expect traffic.

Point is, there is FAR more to this accident than "they didn't see one another". Lets get these questions answered before the pitch forks come out from the internets-finest ad-hoc NTSB investigators.
 
Last edited:
MikeD said:
But are they looking? Or are they heads down inside fiddling with whatever new whiz-bang gizmo is on the panel or attached to it?

Obviously someone didn't see someone in time, perhaps even both (no way to know that yet).

The question that needs to be answered, is why. And this appears to have been in the airport pattern environment, where traffic is suspected and should be known with an operating control tower, with dissimilar aircraft, and with known pieces of airspace to look at and expect traffic.

Point is, there is FAR more to this accident than "they didn't see one another". Lets get these questions answered before the pitch forks come out from the internets-finest ad-hoc NTSB investigators.
Click to expand...
Whenever I fly a jet I have to constantly remind myself of this when going into smallyer airports. We're almost always in radar contact, but my greatest fear is that hard to see GA airplane with a white paint job and no transponder, or the guy who flys around with the transponder turned off.
 
Cherokee_Cruiser said:
Another fatal crash at Caldwell Essex County NJ today. Pilot flying his Cessna 210 had a mechanical issue and tried to make it back to the airport. Witnesses described a steep dive into the ground. Based on the runway and location of the crash, it looks like he attempted the impossible turn. Departing runway 22, you don't have many options when you are low. I think I would go straight and aim for that Mountain Ridge golf course and hope to pull a Harrison Ford....
Click to expand...

I flew with the instructor in that crash. I was going to open a new thread, but might as well ask here about turning back in the event of the engine failure. The Impossible Turn is the maybe turn only if you practiced it and briefed it before. There are a few good videos on youtube of guys turning back in as low as 450ft. Every Aircraft is different, so you have to find a target altitude that works. Even then you have to practice this maneuver and have a target altitude that you will do the turn back. Keep in mind that weight and Density Altitude effects the turn back. Since many weekend warriors are rusty and don't practice this stuff, it's more often better to land straight ahead. Practice and Briefing the takeoff is key. There are some things you just can't control. If the Engine fails at 200ft your only option is to land straight ahead. Accept that and crash as nicely as you can.



.
 
jspeed87 said:
I flew with the instructor in that crash. I was going to open a new thread, but might as well ask here about turning back in the event of the engine failure. The Impossible Turn is the maybe turn only if you practiced it and briefed it before. There are a few good videos on youtube of guys turning back in as low as 450ft. Every Aircraft is different, so you have to find a target altitude that works. Even then you have to practice this maneuver and have a target altitude that you will do the turn back. Keep in mind that weight and Density Altitude effects the turn back. Since many weekend warriors are rusty and don't practice this stuff, it's more often better to land straight ahead. Practice and Briefing the takeoff is key. There are some things you just can't control. If the Engine fails at 200ft your only option is to land straight ahead. Accept that and crash as nicely as you can.



.
Click to expand...




Disagree. No amounts of practice will prepare you for the real thing when that thing does quit and you're going down. Invariably, through the turn, with a hurt rate pumping and breathing rate increased, looking back towards the runway or otherwise eyes out, pilots have time and time again continued to tighten the bank and pull back, dropping airspeed and then entering a stall/spin. In a practice, you know it's coming, you're relaxed, know exactly when it will quit, when you'll turn, etc.
 
MikeD said:
But are they looking? Or are they heads down inside fiddling with whatever new whiz-bang gizmo is on the panel or attached to it?

Obviously someone didn't see someone in time, perhaps even both (no way to know that yet regards the San Diego accident today).

The question that needs to be answered, is why. And this latest accident appears to have been in the airport pattern environment, where traffic is suspected and should be known with an operating control tower, with dissimilar aircraft, and with known pieces of airspace to look at and expect traffic.

Point is, there is FAR more to this accident than "they didn't see one another". Lets get these questions answered before the pitch forks come out from the internets-finest ad-hoc NTSB investigators.
Click to expand...

I can't accept that every case is a guy heads down in a gizmo. It's fair to say no one intentionally goes to hit another aircraft midair. In this case, a jet crew and a Cessna 172 failed to see each other in time to prevent a collision.

In the airline world, we had these issues with GA traffic. PSA at San Diego, Aeromexico at LAX Cerritos, many passengers died, and we finally said enough is enough, that at jet speeds we're too fast to reasonably pick up and react to traffic, and so we must have TCAS. Since then, airliner midairs have decreased tremendously.

Notable exception to the 2002 Uberlingen midair in which one Russian crew followed ATC and not his TCAS, ICAO then clarified to always follow TCAS first. And the Legacy/GOL midair in Brazil, the Legacy transponder was inadvertently off.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top