AOPAs Richard McSpadden accident, fatal

[guywhoflies]

I don't know about pulling that crap in IMC, but it IS a fine technique to use at an airport a few thousand feet above pattern altitude.

Nah. Just descending safely and efficiently. I reckon in this day and age, the FAA actually finally denoted a spin as an aerobatic maneuver, eh? 91.307(c) and so whatnot? And, all y'all are the ones continuously screeching 'bout BIG Gub'mint, and so forth?!? LOL.

FLY yer plane. Or... you know, don't. I'm really starting not to care anymore.

These days, I'm kinda thinkin' we all might do well to wear a parachute on our drives home from the airport.

I don't think that anyone would consider a spin from "a few thousand feet above pattern altitude" could be deemed "[safe]", irrespective of your claim of "[efficiency]".

Not sure what 91.307(c) has to do with your argument, but you may want to look at 91.303 to get a better understanding of how the FAA views spins.

I really have no idea what you mean by

And, all y'all are the ones continuously screeching 'bout BIG Gub'mint, and so forth?!?

but you can review my post history and see I generally avoid political talk except to correct misinformation.

Anyway, I didn't want to spend this much time and so many words on a discussion I care little about so...


...good day, sir.

 

[ChasenSFO]

I don’t think yeeting back on the stick and trying to turn with rudder is a recipe for success

LOL not at the same time. Yeeting just to get the speed for a minimum radius turn, then rudder along with dipping the wings to start a turn that you bank into while diving...obviously you dont' want to spin into the ground for instadeath . When I get to above the stall speed, I then shove the nose down and the rest of the maneuver is flown in a smoothly but positively controlled dive and roll back to the runway. The bank helps kill speed, so you don't need to get ALL the way to min radius turn speed, you want to hit that while starting the turn so you still have energy to turn. Maybe I didn't explain it well via text, but I'm alive right so obviously I didn't do what you are thinking LOL. Its honestly a lot of fun when it isn't life or death.

MSFS has very realistic physics like X-Plane has for years before it, so it makes a good GA training tool compared to all the older Mircosoft sims and Prepar3D. Obviously, its more jerky trying to fly a sim than real life, but this is basically what I was doing between 400-500ft AGL in 75-80kt climbs. Dump the flaps once slowing into the white arc for lift to float you along. This is the current wx with lights winds out of the West, as per usual at that airport. Obviously you need to get pretty low to get enough energy, so this would not be a good thing to practice at urban airfields lol.

Agree with the professor, slow quickly, lots of bank and don't waste time. Most importantly, turn into the wind.

Yes I left that important part out, he did say turn into the wind if possible. I practiced it 3-4 times two separate times at the same airport. One time was near calm winds, the other time was a 6kt x-wind which was a quartering tailwind coming back. It never felt like I was putting the aircraft in danger, but I had no obstructions with the airport surrounded by rural fields and of course I had my hand on the throttle as a working engine could quickly fix things if I were to be short. 172s have a good glide ratio though, I'll bet had I tried this in the Grumman Tiger I used to fly or a Hershey Bar wing Piper, it would have been more difficult. One of these times was during a checkout, I don't fly with CFIs much so I try and do weird stuff when I have one that I'd like to practice.

But like I said in my first post, I would ONLY try this if I thought it was better then landing somewhere more straight ahead that would give myself more time to set up for. If there is an open field between your 9 and 3 O'clock, that is going to be a better option than hoping you nail some maneuver with no power to get yourself out of it. Almost every airport I regularly operate out of has places to put it down making a turn at low altitude a bad option. But, sometimes what lies ahead is no bueno. So I think GA pilots should be exposed to this, even if only to reinforce their fears in such a maneuver lol.

 

[Rocketman99]

Amazing how long it takes to get that hint for some... @Rocketman99 ?

So I should probably turn, eh?

 

[ahw01]

I recently heard an aerobatics guy tell a story of an instructor friend of his who got trapped above the overcast layer in some aerobatics aircraft without an AI (maybe an Extra?). Anyways, he says the instructor, running out of options, put the plane into a spin - because a spin is a coordinated maneuver that would get him below the bases where he could come out of it. Thought that was kinda neat.

A spin is not a co-ordinated maneuver

 

[Murdoughnut]

A spin is not a co-ordinated maneuver

Sorry, I meant to say "stable" maneuver

 

[inigo88]

You guys are talking about min radius turns, but i dont think you know what that means.

Sorry, I do know what it means and you’re right, I’m talking about the “minimum radius turn” in the proverbial general aviation sense. It could probably be called “Minimum Radius Turn*** “ with the footnote:

“*** At a constant energy state using a target airspeed / bank angle combination as taught by my your GA instructor because your airplane lacks AOA indication and by the way it’s still not min radius because they train for the lowest common denominator so they’re going to slightly undercook the bank angle / load factor to pad some margin against accelerated stall.”

The sailplane community is really into total energy systems and thinking about your potential vs kinetic energy state (“did that climb I just made truly increase my total energy state or did I just trade some of my kinetic energy for potential energy by bleeding off some airspeed?”) so for the airport turn back scenario they are interested in minimizing turn radius while not bleeding anymore energy than required to maintain approach speed because you plan to roll out of your turn on final approach. (Gliders also have a minimum sink speed that’s below your best L/D speed used for thermalling, and there might be an argument to be made for slowing to that but you would end up speeding up again on final to best glide so it’s probably a wash.)

Backcountry GA pilots are also interested in minimizing their turn radius in the “trapped in a box canyon” scenario, which is described in this thread again as something akin to a level turn at minimum controllable airspeed:

Minimum Radius Turns - Backcountry Pilot

Since it's snowing out and I can't fly, I thought this new topic could generate some heat How do you make a 180 degree turn with the shortest radius in a level flight situation? How do you do it in a canyon? How do you make a 180 with NO latera…

backcountrypilot.org

I think the glider rope break version is the most analogous to the impossible turn scenario though because you’re simultaneously trying to conserve your kinetic energy state for best glide (best L/D), minimize altitude loss and minimize turn radius by turning into a headwind (if possible). So it becomes an optimization problem tracking those multiple variables rather than a true min radius turn in the fighter community where you’re radius fighting somebody.

Long story short it’s the same term, different meaning as used by different aviation communities, and you guys are more technically correct. But if you sat a GA pilot down and explained what it takes to achieve min turn radius in a fighter I think they would agree that they don’t actually want to one-circle fight their way back to the airport if their engine fails.

 

[Kingairer]

Stories like this make Cirrus and the BRS is the correct answer as un macho pilot as that is.

 

[MikeD]

Stories like this make Cirrus and the BRS is the correct answer as un macho pilot as that is.

There is indeed a time and place for items such as a BRS.

 

[drunkenbeagle]

I think the glider rope break version is the most analogous to the impossible turn scenario though because you’re simultaneously trying to conserve your kinetic energy state for best glide (best L/D), minimize altitude loss and minimize turn radius by turning into a headwind (if possible). So it becomes an optimization problem tracking those multiple variables rather than a true min radius turn in the fighter community where you’re radius fighting somebody.

While it is a similar scenario, the glider has much more performance margin. We don't slow below a normal approach speed in the turn. The glider is also likely to have plenty of altitude after the turn, and has dive brakes to bleed that off. The FAA's glider flying handbook has plenty of detail on the maneuver for anyone that's curious. The wind is important enough that it is briefed along with the direction of the turn to make on every takeoff.

 

[drunkenbeagle]

Yes I left that important part out, he did say turn into the wind if possible. I practiced it 3-4 times two separate times at the same airport. One time was near calm winds, the other time was a 6kt x-wind which was a quartering tailwind coming back. It never felt like I was putting the aircraft in danger, but I had no obstructions with the airport surrounded by rural fields and of course I had my hand on the throttle as a working engine could quickly fix things if I were to be short. 172s have a good glide ratio though, I'll bet had I tried this in the Grumman Tiger I used to fly or a Hershey Bar wing Piper, it would have been more difficult.

Keep in mind, with an actually dead engine (as opposed to an idling one), the windmilling prop is going to introduce even more drag. So this demo isn't exactly realistic without shutting down the engine. Unless you are Bob Hoover, I don't suggest trying it anywhere near the ground.

 

[Beep]

Consider me just underlining everything you said. People get killed trying to do fighter **** in not fighter planes. There is a physicist or aerodynamicist answer to this question, but it is based on assumptions of data that you dont have in these planes. And real fighter aircraft dont really have an accelerated stall......at worst, they wallow a little bit before pointing at the ground and resuming aviation.

Doing this in your average GA single that not only has no AOA indicator, and no thrust, but it is being done right after you’ve bled off damn near all of your energy so close to the ground sounds like a bad plan.

 

[Cherokee_Cruiser]

Pretty much. A lot of my co-workers fly GA on the side, including a very good friend of mine. I respect everyone’s desire to do that, but I decided awhile ago I’m sticking with sportscars and mountain bikes for my hobbies.

Agreed. I wouldn’t fly GA and haven’t since 2011 when I got my ATP in a Seneca while at my regional. Far too many airline pilots have died in GA. It’s just not the same as 121. You have to maintain GA currency, and we just don’t get enough time (IMO) outside 121 to keep a comfortable level of GA flying.

Young United pilot - who would have been #1 for like 6-7 yrs, bought a Bonanza in spring. Later that year, dead at Telluride. Years ago a Spirit CA built his own plane, took it up for a ride, crashed and died. Retired AA 777 pilot, re-po his GA plane from PSP to SoCal, hits terrain and dies. There’s just way too many examples.


My point is, for me at least, with a FULL time 121 job I wouldn’t have the time on the days off to get comfortable level of GA flying to call it “safe.”

 

[killbilly]

I went out and did a shakedown flight on the RV today before flying her down to the broker. And I don't wanna talk about that part in much detail right now because it makes me sad.

On the flight, I decided to play with some impossible turn scenarios. Set myself a hard deck of 2500' MSL, slowed to about 60 KIAS, then went full-power, "rotated", climbed about 500' then chopped power, gave myself a 3-potato 'startle factor' count, and tried it out. I picked 500' arbitrarily just to see what was possible.

Short version: made the 180 every time, but would not have made a 360.

Longer version:

I could *easily* make the 180 with room to spare and a couple hundred feet to get back down on a downwind landing if I had to, and if I'd had more time, I would have stepped up the climbs a little more to see where the lowest was that I could get away with...I expect, with practice, about 800' AGL would be do-able, but I'm not sure.

But....the more sobering realization....

I don't fly GA enough to stay *really* proficient, and so, reluctantly, I realized that everything I'd suspect was probably true, and it was time to let her go and flew it on to the broker with that knowledge intact.

 

[ChasenSFO]

Keep in mind, with an actually dead engine (as opposed to an idling one), the windmilling prop is going to introduce even more drag. So this demo isn't exactly realistic without shutting down the engine. Unless you are Bob Hoover, I don't suggest trying it anywhere near the ground.

Absolutely. I would most definitely not try that with no engine unless I thought the safest place to not die or kill anyone else was behind me (runway, field, road ect) and I had enough altitude to do that but not enough to glide to a safe place from my 9 to 3 o'clock. Any strong headwind on departure, obstacles by the runway/landing spot, traffic departing behind ect and it wouldn't be safe at all to try. Highly doubt I could do it in a real power loss under 500 feet and react in time to not crash short of the runway. It's fun to practice it though.

On a side note, the same way working at airports hasn't made me want to go planespotting any less, I highly doubt I won't want to fly GA when I'm flying full time and I'm surprised that it seems the majority of pilots seem to hang it up once they are full time 121/91/135. It's hard to picture the highly regulated and controlled world of professional flying as giving pilots the same fix of throwing friends in a light piston and aimlessly flying around a pretty place in nice weather. Especially once you make enough money with enough time off to easily do it. Because I am so poor, I often flew just enough to keep my 90 day currency for many years. Flightsim using VATSIM at least kept my head in the game enough that I never felt uncomfortable behind the yoke. Different strokes for different folks.

 

[Apophis]

There is indeed a time and place for items such as a BRS.

I’ve got 1300 hours in the SR-22 and I was really glad to have it as an option. Minimum deployment height was 500 AGL on the Gen 2/3/5s we had, so there’s still a small window where it’s not available after takeoff but it certainly increases peace of mind in a lot of situations.

 

[MikeD]

I’ve got 1300 hours in the SR-22 and I was really glad to have it as an option. Minimum deployment height was 500 AGL on the Gen 2/3/5s we had, so there’s still a small window where it’s not available after takeoff but it certainly increases peace of mind in a lot of situations.

Absolutely. As much flak as the BRS gets, it’s not warranted. It’s merely another tool in the safety box, and has to be utilized in the correct conditions where it can be most effective. It’s not a tool to replace good flying ability, nor should it be intended to be. And like any safety device, it has its limitations and isn’t a magic solution for all situations. Combined with good airmanship and decision making, it’s a nice addition to the safety bag of tricks.

 

[Kingairer]

I’ve got 1300 hours in the SR-22 and I was really glad to have it as an option. Minimum deployment height was 500 AGL on the Gen 2/3/5s we had, so there’s still a small window where it’s not available after takeoff but it certainly increases peace of mind in a lot of situations.

Ive never flown one, but as I understand, 500 feet is the min altitude for full deployment, but lower altitude deployment would still arrest descent rate to a certain degree. A local flight school as the BRS system in a C172 which is pretty cool but of course hammers the useful load to the point where its truly a 2 seater. Id love to have that BRS system for a doomsday scenario, like engine quitting at worst possible time, some sort of structural problem or improper flight control rigging after an annual, etc...

 

[drunkenbeagle]

Any strong headwind on departure, obstacles by the runway/landing spot, traffic departing behind ect and it wouldn't be safe at all to try.

Headwind can really only help you out - you'll either have more runway in front of you, or at least be closer to the airport. Crosswinds are what can burn you. Assuming a 180 turn on the upwind leg - if you turn into a 20kt x-wind aloft at 65kts descending back to the airport, you are now only moving at 45kts away from the centerline in the first half of the turn, with the wind blowing you back towards the runway when you straighten out. Turning with the wind at your back will have you moving away from the centerline at 85kts instead, and then being blown away from the centerline that you are already further away from.

 

[ChasenSFO]

Headwind can really only help you out - you'll either have more runway in front of you, or at least be closer to the airport. Crosswinds are what can burn you. Assuming a 180 turn on the upwind leg - if you turn into a 20kt x-wind aloft at 65kts descending back to the airport, you are now only moving at 45kts away from the centerline in the first half of the turn, with the wind blowing you back towards the runway when you straighten out. Turning with the wind at your back will have you moving away from the centerline at 85kts instead, and then being blown away from the centerline that you are already further away from.

I meant a headwind down the departure end in a hypothetical engine failure below 1000 feet, which would of course become a tailwind as you come around the turn. Though I hadn't thought about it, I guess a strong headwind could still be a good scenario as like you said, you'll be closer to the runway at the altitude the engine fails. As long as you don't lose all that energy hitting the tailwind and not make it.

 

[Beaker]

As long as you don't lose all that energy hitting the tailwind and not make it.

You are moving with the airmass, and which way you happen to be pointing does not affect your energy state with respect to it. Assuming there is no wind shear, turning from a headwind to a tailwind component would not alter altitude or airspeed of the airplane (everything else being equal). The tailwind would just extend your range getting back to the runway.