Mike, I have absolutely no problem with cranking a plane beyond 30 degrees of bank or pulling Gs during an engine failure scenario. In fact, I teach that it is sometimes necessary to make maneuvers exactly like what you're describing.
But the bottom line remains, in order to make such maneuvers, a plane has to have *energy*. Tgrayson has done an excellent job of explaining why/how maintaining Vy provides maximum total energy to a plane. Maximum total energy = maximum capabilities. That could come in the form of gliding distance, turning radius, time aloft, whatever you want.
Energy does indeed come in many forms. You will trade one for the other. If at Vy, to make a turn to get to where I describe, you have to sacrifice something to get another...in this case you'll sacrifice altitude in order to maintain Vy or above, let you get below Vy and end up making it up elsewhere...as in VVI. You're arguing exactly what I'm trying to argue, you're only seeing from
one direction though, not realizing that equation can be computed from
many different directions.
You keep talking about being flexible. Flexible, flexible, flexible. Procedure versus technique. Fine, I get it! And I agree! I'm very flexible and very aware of procedure versus technique. There is more than one way to skin a cat. But at the end of the day, you can't ignore physics!
Fair on the flexibility....but YOU aren't the one that stated it's not important, tgrayson did. That's why I had to make it clear just what flexibility entailed. Physics is stated above.
It's like saying a twin engine aircraft can have an engine failure during takeoff at less than Vmc and not lose directional control if the pilot uses some special piloting technique. No, it simply doesn't work that way. By definition, physics dictate what will happen. Less than Vmc = loss of directional control.
Exactly, you're making my point that we're talking about the same thing, just from different angles! In the same way as your VMC example above, if you're AT Vy, and you begin any kind of harder than normal maneuvering in order to make a turn happen, for example, the physics you describe will dictate that you will make a sacrifice for it elsewhere! If you get below VMC = loss of directional control; if you get less than Vy = higher sink rate, esp in a turn. We're talking about the same thing!
So it is with the scenarios you've described. If you want performance out of a plane, energy has to be there. Anything other than climbing out at Vy will provide less than max energy, therefore less than max performance, therefore less than max safety.
Again, there's a tradeoff with everything you do, it depends on the situation. I'm AGREEing with you; just adding to that that differing scenarios
may require something different.....there's no one ideal.
Obviously you've had an incident before and gotten away with handling it however you handled it. But as Tgrayson said, the fact that it worked out ok for you doesn't mean it's right.
What works for a 172 does not always translate to every other aircraft. I "got away with it" not because of luck, but because I did what needed to be done and flew the aircraft, not depending
completely on one hard way of doing business, but modifying it to my situation in order to make it work for me. Why is that such a hard concept to understand? Without understanding physics in relation to Vy etc climbs (as you correctly state), there wouldn't have been a foundation there to be able to work off of, in concert with knowing the performance abilities of my aircraft, and a little bit of seat of the pants.
The reason I'm so "inflexible" or however you want to describe it, is because this is an area where there is clearly only one option that achieves the optimum performance. There might be many options that achieve *acceptable* performance (making a safe landing under a given set of conditions), but only one option that achieves *optimum* performance (achieving a safe landing under as many different conditions as possible). Optimum performance is what we train for.
See my exaples above. I can't make it any more clear. One way does not cover all situations. Know the basics of physics yes, but understand how to use that to your advantage when the situation dictates. If you can't understand that, then we'll have to agree to disagree.
It's like when we're training people to fly a twin, we don't call it inflexible to teach them set procedures for lifting off above Vmc, pitching for Vyse in the event of an engine failure, etc. We teach it that way because it's physically proven to be the best way of doing things. Do other ways work? Sure, you don't *have* to fly a twin on one engine at Vyse, but you do if you want to get max performance out of it.
Climbing at Vy in a single after liftoff is no different. Call me inflexible all you want, but it's the best way of operating, period.
On the twin example, I agree. I wouldn't want someone to think that Vyse is the ONLY speed they can fly at all times (I've seen that)...and let me explain on that. Completely agree, lift off above Vmc, pitch to Vyse and climb. What I've seen not taught often enough is:
Once away from the ground safely and climbing, AND if performance allows accelerate past Vyse and get a more stable platform if the airplane will let you and take care of your now remaining engine; don't just sit at Vyse because....ie- sit at the minimum.....just because that's what you've only been taught to do. [Am NOT saying you believe or teach this, btw] Have seen it with a few students who were taught the correct first few steps, but were never taught that there is a "rest of the story" and an appropriate time and place for it....I'm sitting there thinking "good job on the keeping us under control and getting us away from the ground, but why are we at 3000AGL, with 800fpm climb, still at Vyse, with the remaining engine struggling to keep us here at full throttle?" Answer: "uhhh..*confusion*" That's all I'm talking about.
I don't think you guys are seeing that we agree on more than you think.
I've seen friendly fire before, but sheesh!
