Skåning
Well-Known Member
Was there a min speed window for deployment?
AOPAs Richard McSpadden accident, fatal
- Thread starter MikeD
- Start date
FlyingAccountant
Well-Known Member
I remember the day of my first intro flight, we had an AA guy die in his personal AT6 after the engine failed on takeoff at the same airport(FFZ).
If I’m ever fortunate enough to make it to the big leagues, I don’t see myself ever going back to G/A. I’ve personally known one too many people who did everything right and still rolled snake eyes.
Apophis
Resident Iconoclast
Nope, the system was activated by a red handle overhead. It uses a solid fuel rocket to pull the parachute assembly out and deploy the harness.
There was a maximum deployment speed of 140 KIAS for the Gen 2/3 Cirri and I think 150 or 155 for the Gen 5.
There was an accident that occurred in pretty severe icing conditions over the Sierra Nevada a few years ago where the pilot attempted to deploy
the BRS near Vne with catastrophic results.
Kingairer
'Tiger Team' Member
Yes, those all it close to home when someone has a similar, or greater, experience level does in one of these things. Had another one day picking up twin after annual with something rigged backwards and crashed shortly after takeoff. Y’all gonna make me turn of trade a plane.
ArcherII
Well-Known Member
A 30kt headwind take off (quite usual where I live), almost negates a return below 800ft AGL if the runway length is below 6,000ft (which it's the case here). Especially for a lesser trained pilot, if you commit for a 180, you will run out of runway pretty quickly and with 80+ kts GS. With 800ft you could try a 360, but it will be really tight, especially if you are fairly low on energy at the start (Vy - best case) and in climb attitude, and your reaction is lightning quick.
Depending on how strong the headwind is, in our outfit we set a minimum no-return altitude AGL. For 30kt headwind, less than 1,000ft AGL we limit our options to what we see on the windshield (there's a nice dry lagoon ahead)., and we lower it to 700-800ft if the wind is below 15kt.
First of all, thanks for mentioning gliders, and that glider pilots, unlike much of the powered community, actually understand what makes airfoils work (or not work). It's my humble opinion (and that of Cato the Elder) that flying gliders should be a mandatory prerequisite for flying powered aircraft.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.
The min radius turn is part of the USFS Air Attack "check ride". Usually, the criterion used for P/F on that maneuver is not how well the applicant pulled it off, but rather, "did you get so box-fubar that you had to use that maneuver?" Also, the examiners generally don't like it when the applicant pulls to the stutter/shaker. If the applicant demonstrates impeccable coordination during that kind of pull, however, the examiner may let it pass - and be impressed.
I'm not sure what comprises high standing these days... in aviation or anywhere else. Based on my observations of our current culture, I assume it's the number of "friends" one has on FaceTwat, or the number of subscribers one has on one's "YouInstaToot" channel, or the number of one's self-as-product placements on cable "news" outlets. To bastardize Andy, "in the future, we will all be our own PR agents for 15 minutes."
I've already beat the dead horse of what the heck "experience" means, so I'll avoid beating that horse again.
Last edited:
drunkenbeagle
Gang Member
As a Glider CFI, my somewhat informed opinion is that there isn't much in common between airplanes and gliders. They are different categories. They don't fly the same. Maybe time in gliders might make you better at briefing GA takeoffs, or paying attention to the wind, or flying at the edge with a lot of bank -- but that's about it. I don't think flying them will magically save you in an emergency. Sadly, there are plenty of glider accidents too. It's possible to make a turn back to an airport - if you have briefed it, are flying something that can do it, have practiced it, and have conditions that allow it, and can do a 45 degree bank close to the ground at the edge of a stall. This ain't most people, including me.
Did some poking around online yesterday, this was the best advice I could find.
killbilly
Vocals, Lyrics, Triangle, Washboard, Kittens
High-standing = well-accomplished/credentialed pilot with a very broad experience base who not only spent a lot of time working to advocate aviation safety, but was able to walk the same walk he talked.
“Current Culture” didn’t have anything to do with McSpadden.
Wow! "They don't fly the same."
Could you please explain how they "fly" differently??
Pretty please?? ??
Maybe wings work differently when no engines are attached to the flying machine... IDK??
Who knows... maybe even squawked as the windless wings balked??? Like an Auk who left an outline drawn in chalk?
Last edited:
Bob Ridpath
Pit Bull love
So, no aeronautical engineer here, but I'd note - despite all of them having wings - that the Cherokee 140 in which I first soloed, the Cessna 150 which followed, and the Cessna 172 (most recent but years ago) all have very different flying characteristics and glide speeds, at least as nearly as I recall.
At the very least, the weight of the engine upfront and the drag of a prop produces, it seems, a different dynamic when it ceases to function.
Is not the wing of a glider designed to sustain lift without power, and therefore being at least subtilely different and with different handling requirements/ability from that of an airplane designed to produce lift or lose it) with an engine?
drunkenbeagle
Gang Member
He already said it better than I could.
They ain't the same thing. They don't fly the same way.
What you are saying is not incorrect. It is probably the typical understanding of a lot of pilots.
But it is far from complete or comprehensive enough, IMHO.
At some superficial level, all types of fixed-wing aircraft work slightly differently - some very differently. Mostly, that's a function of built-in stability characteristics of the overall aircraft, wing plan, wing shape, control surface size, power-loading, etc.
At a much more profound level, and despite any specifics of make or model, all fixed-wing aircraft work in precisely the same way. They all work according to precisely the same aerodynamic principles. Therefore, ultimately, they are all controlled (or not) according to those same aerodynamic principles. Furthermore, regardless of shape, size, or any other characteristics of A/C design, the aerodynamic principles that make airplanes work ALL require energy inputs, and therefore the management of whatever those energy inputs may be.
Glider, competition glider, 152, 747, space shuttle, piper cub... the pilot MUST be able to fly the aircraft in all phases of flight based on the pilot's intellectual understanding of the aircraft systems and their energy states and energy needs. But, that's not really good enough. That "understanding" isn't just for passing a test and moving on. That "understanding" must have been ingested and internalized so deeply as to have become intuitive to the pilot... almost instinctive.
As to energy management, for the same reasons mentioned above, ALL fixed wing aircraft - engines or no - require a deep (ideally, an intuitive) sense and application of energy management during all phases of flight, but particularly the "critical" phases. Energy may come from different sources, but whatever its source, it must still be managed precisely and judiciously.
As to "sustain[ed] lift without power"... Well, there we venture into the realm of perpetual motion. No aircraft can indefinitely sustain lift without an energy input. The energy may come from heat transformed into upward flowing kinetic energy (thermal updraft) or from kinetic energy deflected upward (orographic updraft), or from the conversion of dinosaur hay into the chemical energy stored in hydrocarbon chemical bonds, and then into heat and the kinetic energy created by a motor, but it MUST come from somewhere. No aircraft can fly forever unless the energy-input source lasts forever. And no pilot can fly forever - or, usually, even for a short time - if he doesn't understand the basic aerodynamics of airfoil relationships and how to manage the energy which powers those airfoils.
Lastly, let me leave you with this - EVERY powered, fixed-wing aircraft is ALSO a glider if it is flown correctly. Maybe not a very efficient glider, but a glider nevertheless. When the engines of a powered fixed-wing aircraft stop turning, pilots MUST understand that. It's precisely when the engines stop turning that a pilot's deepest, most intuitive understanding of airplane control and energy management become MOST critical.
To return to the origin of this thread digression... I hope this wee exegesis suffices to support my previously stated humble opinion that a prerequiste of becoming a powered pilot should be to become a glider pilot. That's where all the basic learning is easiest to ingest and most profoundly digested. At the end of the day, a pilot's basic job is simply to be a competent, practical translator of energy into lift - of physics into control of whatever aircraft he's flying.
Last edited:
Uh, yeah... do you take it that I have any argument with advice to not attempt an impossible turn ???
Richard McSpadden was the head of the AOPA divisional organization that produced the following video (and lots of other educational resources) supporting the proposition that it is best to land straight ahead. That was kind of my point regarding "irony" in an earlier post, eh?
That said, McS was sitting right seat in the accident that killed him, so, even if the investigation eventually determines the cause of that accident, any assignment of culpability on his part would likely be completely speculative, and will likely never be proven definitively. Unless, of course, it is shown that he was serving in an instructional capacity, in which case...???
Last edited:
knot4u
Repeat Offender
I can't imagine a world where I was allowed to get my ticket without spin training, we did it enough that it was not disconcerting, it was as common as a turn around a point. My instructor not only drilled into my head how to avoid a spin he also forced me to become comfortable with them so I wouldn't be surprised. Although I was "prepared" to take advantage of a sucker hole I doubt I would've done it. Whoever did that was very brave.
trafficinsight
Well-Known Member
Kind of a problem with that is that a 172 almost refuses to stay in one for any length of time and then you're just in a dive.
For lots of pilots who are weak in spin recovery techniques, the best spin recovery technique is simply to take yer feet off the rudder pedals and yer hands off the stick/yoke.
Then again, as @knot4u indicated, the real point of spin training is not to go do spins. Rather, it is to get comfortable with spins. To understand them. To not fear them. To avoid them at all costs when close to the ground.
Depends on the aircraft. A few I can think of and have personally experienced, will happily remain in whatever portion of the spin that the pilot left it in, with no attempts at self recovery, but not getting worse either.
knot4u
Repeat Offender
Are you saying a 172 is "spin proof"? I never tried it but I think you're wrong, otherwise we'd never have heard of a 172 that spun into the ground. So those airplanes just stalled and didn't recover in time?
Similar threads
