Four Case Western Students Killed in 172 Crash

[Cherokee_Cruiser]

180 back to the runway.

Not impossible at all.

Know when they can be done, and when they can't be done; have that preplanned and in your head prior to takeoff for the particular airplane you're flying.

Teaching its impossible, is removing a potential tool from one's toolbox needlessly that could potentially come in handy.

I should re-word it to teaching it as improbable to your successful return to terra firma if attempted below 700-800'. And at night time in pitch black? Forget it. Like the Phoneix East at DAB and this one at Cuyahoga, I'd teach going straight at minimum speed with full flaps and force land on whatever is down there (not someone's house/car which are usually lit at night). That outcome can't be any worse than what happened in both these cases. If controlled airspeed all the way down with minimum sink rate when striking ground/trees, there could easily have been at least a couple survivors.

 

[Oxman]

"Rightfully so"?

If there was questionable mx and no club profeciency checkout and a malfunction... I taught there years ago.

 

[MikeD]

I should re-word it to teaching it as improbable to your successful return to terra firma if attempted below 700-800'. And at night time in pitch black? Forget it. Like the Phoneix East at DAB and this one at Cuyahoga, I'd teach going straight at minimum speed with full flaps and force land on whatever is down there (not someone's house/car which are usually lit at night). That outcome can't be any worse than what happened in both these cases. If controlled airspeed all the way down with minimum sink rate when striking ground/trees, there could easily have been at least a couple survivors.

Applying some numbers to it and even demo'ing it as altitude like some have mentioned as well as you here, is the way to do it. What I hate seeing are CFIs who just flat out say "its impossible, don't do it ever.", without any kind of "why" or any kind of quantification. Those are the CFIs who are either not experienced enough, or are going by what's been handed down to them and they also don't know the when/where of it, or are too lazy or unsure of their own abilities to teach it. Teaching it as a viable option when within proper parameters that are known to work, and are briefed beforehand and/or reviewed prior to takeoff keeps this option a viable tool in the toolbox. Is it a tool that can be used often? Not really. But throwing away a tool or not teaching one to use a tool, when they encounter a situation where that tool is either appropriate or is the only one available, is a disservice being done by instructors in alot of places I see.

Know when it can be done, know when it can't be done. Execute appropriately.

 

[Cherokee_Cruiser]

Applying some numbers to it and even demo'ing it as altitude like some have mentioned as well as you here, is the way to do it. What I hate seeing are CFIs who just flat out say "its impossible, don't do it ever.", without any kind of "why" or any kind of quantification. Those are the CFIs who are either not experienced enough, or are going by what's been handed down to them and they also don't know the when/where of it, or are too lazy or unsure of their own abilities to teach it. Teaching it as a viable option when within proper parameters that are known to work, and are briefed beforehand and/or reviewed prior to takeoff keeps this option a viable tool in the toolbox. Is it a tool that can be used often? Not really. But throwing away a tool or not teaching one to use a tool, when they encounter a situation where that tool is either appropriate or is the only one available, is a disservice being done by instructors in alot of places I see.

Know when it can be done, know when it can't be done. Execute appropriately.

True I suppose, but when nearly ever case of recent "Tower we have an engine problem, need to return!" ends up being a smoking hole on the attempted turn back, then CFIs are doing something wrong.

 

[T/O w/FSII]

True I suppose, but when nearly ever case of recent "Tower we have an engine problem, need to return!" ends up being a smoking hole on the attempted turn back, then CFIs are doing something wrong.

You're probably not hearing about successful on airport forced landings in GA.

I'd rather crash into the fence on airport property and have airport CFR be on scene (at my home airport at least, which is in the middle of a busy crowded urban area with lots of CFR units.) then to go down on a busy street taking out who knows how many innocent civilians with non aviation trained rescue with long response times. Just saying.

 

[Cherokee_Cruiser]

You're probably not hearing about successful on airport forced landings in GA.

I'd rather crash into the fence on airport property and have airport CFR be on scene (at my home airport at least, which is in the middle of a busy crowded urban area with lots of CFR units.) then to go down on a busy street taking out who knows how many innocent civilians with non aviation trained rescue with long response times. Just saying.

Most GA airports don't have CFR. And of course, I wouldn't recommend a busy street as a place of landing. If that beach accident has taught us anything, it's to think not just of your life but the lives of innocent people on the ground. You decided to fly that day and knew you could have engine failure. They decided to walk outside and have a reasonable expectation to not be killed by a crashing airplane.

 

[MikeD]

True I suppose, but when nearly ever case of recent "Tower we have an engine problem, need to return!" ends up being a smoking hole on the attempted turn back, then CFIs are doing something wrong.

They are doing something wrong. They're not teaching, IF the pilot involved was unaware of when it would work and when it wouldn't.

Conversely, if the pilot was aware or taught, and still attempted it without sufficient altitude due to whatever factors causing him to make the decision, then that's on the pilot.

Like you yourself said, as have others, the turn-back option only begins at a certain altitude AGL and above. Lower than that, that option doesn't exist as a viable one, only the 9 o'clock to 3 o'clock option does. And when even lower altitude, maybe only the 11 o'clock to 1 o'clock option does.

Pilots have to know where those option windows are, and execute accordingly. The first part is on the CFI, the second part is on the pilot himself.

 

[Old Pete]

To me it's about situational awareness. Not knowing, or acknowledging that for many ga aircraft, it is a viable alternative limits your options.

As far as statistics, I'm sure they rarely record the successful ones. At an airport where I used to instruct, there were three aircraft that had engine failures on take off in about a year to a year and a half. 2 went straight ahead and 1 turned back. The 2 that went straight ahead were killed. The one that turned back survived. The one that successfully turned back never filled out any FAA or NTSB reports or made the 6 o'clock news.

 

[Bernoulli Fan]

Applying some numbers to it and even demo'ing it as altitude like some have mentioned as well as you here, is the way to do it.

Back in my CFI days I demoed this to a couple students at 700' because I thought it was a good education. When the boss found out about it, he forbade me to teach it any more.

 

[Bernoulli Fan]

If there was questionable mx and no club profeciency checkout and a malfunction... I taught there years ago.

Ahh, I see. Well, I'm in no way supporting cheap maintenance procedures, but I would like to think the lawsuits could wait until maintenance procedures were actually found to have been causal.

 

[KKochan]

Yeah I certainly think there is a time and a place for a turn back.

Civilian pilot training isn't like the military. Pilots aren't selected for their abilities. Any dummy can get a civil license if they try enough.

I don't think fresh pilots should be taught to turn back at any altitude. I wouldn't go as far as prohibiting it, if there's an incident at altitude where there is enough time to think about the situation, turning back would be fine for a low time/inexperienced pilot. I just think that putting the thought of turning back to the airport leads to incidents like this. They feel like the airport is "safe" and spin it in trying to get back to safety.

 

[MikeD]

Back in my CFI days I demoed this to a couple students at 700' because I thought it was a good education. When the boss found out about it, he forbade me to teach it any more.

And that's a whole different can of worms. In that case, it's not on you. The school is trying to cover their own butt.

 

[tomokc]

What I haven't heard anywhere is the mention of the golf course across the street. Had they stayed straight on departure and not turn they could have landed there.

You missed my post #51: "I just looked at the airport & crash location on Google Earth, and they apparently took off to the NE on RWY 06, 5,102' x 100'. A golf course is under the immediate flight path. If I flew out of that airport I'd know that, and it would become my dead engine primary landing objective. Why didn't he go for it? Perhaps because his engine was sick - not dead - and he though he could make a 180 to the airport. Perhaps because it was dark (sunset at 8:08, takeoff at 10:00) and he knew that he couldn't see the trees on the golf course."

Not sure I would have tried for the golf course because of lighting & trees. One would think than an Ohio golf course would have plenty of large trees.

 

[tomokc]

Let the lawsuits begin. (Rightfully so). A friend close to it said the parents even filed one against the university as hazing just in case. The lack of procedures on the flying club mgt will come out now.

I don't know any more than the next guy at this point, but I don't understand the "spray & pray" mentality when it comes to litigation. For purposes of securing documents & records, I can see suing the aircraft owner, operator, flying club, mechanic and perhaps the FBO (fuel), but why the university? What does hazing have to do with anything?

 

[Cherokee_Cruiser]

I don't know any more than the next guy at this point, but I don't understand the "spray & pray" mentality when it comes to litigation. For purposes of securing documents & records, I can see suing the aircraft owner, operator, flying club, mechanic and perhaps the FBO (fuel), but why the university? What does hazing have to do with anything?

Cause that's where the big money is. Lawyers always go after the big money. You can bet Boeing will be sued for the MH17 shootdown.

 

[dustoff17]

Wow............I hate our tort laws!

Before you make a statement like that why don't you wait and see of this even goes to trial. You can file a lawsuit and claim some outrageous things. In the end most do not even see the light of day in the courtroom.

Regardless of how THIS particular case turns out, I've seen enough ridiculous law suits (esp in aviation) to state, with NO reservation, "I hate our tort laws!"

I agree that most don't see a courtroom. And it's not because they're stupid; it's because MOST of these ridiculous suits are settled OUT of court just so the defendants won't have to spend as much money fighting them. To hell with merit or the loss of a loved one, it's about the money....IMHO....

 

[ComplexHiAv8r]

If there was questionable mx and no club profeciency checkout and a malfunction... I taught there years ago.

Lol. Yea ask me about 405SP sometime off line.

 

[killbilly]

Applying some numbers to it and even demo'ing it as altitude like some have mentioned as well as you here, is the way to do it. What I hate seeing are CFIs who just flat out say "its impossible, don't do it ever.", without any kind of "why" or any kind of quantification. Those are the CFIs who are either not experienced enough, or are going by what's been handed down to them and they also don't know the when/where of it, or are too lazy or unsure of their own abilities to teach it. Teaching it as a viable option when within proper parameters that are known to work, and are briefed beforehand and/or reviewed prior to takeoff keeps this option a viable tool in the toolbox. Is it a tool that can be used often? Not really. But throwing away a tool or not teaching one to use a tool, when they encounter a situation where that tool is either appropriate or is the only one available, is a disservice being done by instructors in alot of places I see.

Know when it can be done, know when it can't be done. Execute appropriately.

I'm a low-time-but-not-fresh PPL - 145TT. I fly sub-200hp piston-powered singles right now. No CFI I have ever worked with has even mentioned the idea that the Impossible Turn was only Improbable.

I would like to know when it can and can't be done, and how to execute appropriately.

Is there a set of guidelines or rules of thumb published anywhere about when to try and when not to try the Improbable Turn? Or do I just have to find a CFI willing to try it out with me?

I'm not being flippant at all, Mike - I'd really like to learn this, but it doesn't seem to be a well-understood aspect of flight training.

 

[tomokc]

I'm a low-time-but-not-fresh PPL - 145TT. I fly sub-200hp piston-powered singles right now. No CFI I have ever worked with has even mentioned the idea that the Impossible Turn was only Improbable.

I would like to know when it can and can't be done, and how to execute appropriately.

Is there a set of guidelines or rules of thumb published anywhere about when to try and when not to try the Improbable Turn? Or do I just have to find a CFI willing to try it out with me?

I'm not being flippant at all, Mike - I'd really like to learn this, but it doesn't seem to be a well-understood aspect of flight training.

You don't need a CFI if you do it above a reasonable altitude, say 3,000 AGL in a low-elevation practice area. I live at 1,300' AGL, so that's 4,500' MSL, and provides ample altitude for a recovery. Don't forget your weight when you do this - you might be practicing solo, but the accident aircraft here was most likely at gross weight.

 

[MikeD]

I'm a low-time-but-not-fresh PPL - 145TT. I fly sub-200hp piston-powered singles right now. No CFI I have ever worked with has even mentioned the idea that the Impossible Turn was only Improbable.

I would like to know when it can and can't be done, and how to execute appropriately.

Is there a set of guidelines or rules of thumb published anywhere about when to try and when not to try the Improbable Turn? Or do I just have to find a CFI willing to try it out with me?

I'm not being flippant at all, Mike - I'd really like to learn this, but it doesn't seem to be a well-understood aspect of flight training.

Its going to differ by aircraft. The best way to find out what your plane does is to go do it, at altitude. Not too high an altitude, but a couple thousand feet. Pick a point out such as long a road or something straight, or two points 180 degrees apart. Establish a full power climb just like on takeoff. Run the throttle back to idle at a reference altitude simulating an engine failure, and start a 180 degree turn while slowing to or maintaining best glide speed (probably 65 for you, depending on aircraft). Pitch for that speed through the turn and upon completing the turn, note the altitude loss. Try the same with feeding in about 10 degrees of flaps in the turn, see what that gets you. Try it to the left and to the right, and see what that gets you. Once you know how to fly the turn (understand the "flying the airplane" part), then work at running your engine failure flow to attempt a restart, seeing if you can do that too.

The altitude loss you find after a few attempts, average it out and add a few hundred feet for a "pad" to compensate for the actions occuring on a real emergency. Then you have an idea what you and your airplane can do. And you have a reference now. NOW you will know, prior to takeoff, when you're capable of turning around successfully, and when not. You will know, "below X altitude, don't even waste a brain byte considering it. Above X altitude, I know I can do it."