Four Case Western Students Killed in 172 Crash

[Bandit_Driver]

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.

I agree to a point but the fact is some of this BS still gets into the system then all bets are off. IMO it has become lets sue everyone and see what sticks approach.

 

[MikeD]

You are spot on, except for this last line. Folks aren't dying turning around and failing to make the field, they are dying when they stall their aircraft. Depending on the field, turning back and coming up short could be okay. At other fields, it could have you dueling with semis on a busy Interstate. I think the lesson should be, whatever your decision, keep flying the plane. Have a plan, keep flying the plane, change your plans when they no longer make sense.

Many of those that die turning back die in their first maneuver, the big turn. Some of those could have make the field or landed short without serious injury.

The point of my line there, which I still believe to be true, is pilots attempting the maneuver when having never seen it or performed it before. THAT is what's killing them: no reference altitude, no proper control throughout, stalling or impacting in a sub-optimal area, or any/all of the above.

My point being, the first time seeing the maneuver, should NOT be during the real emergency. That, will more than likely end up not well.

 

[MikeD]

When practicing this - even at altitude - does it make sense to pad the altitudes a bit more? As I understand it, you still have a tiny bit of thrust from an engine at idle and that the plane drops more quickly when the engine is actually out and the prop isn't turning.

I've never flown with an engine completely out/off, and knowing those differences would be pretty important if they matter.

Pad the altitude how? Are you talking the altitude you practice it at? Or the final altitude loss amount you come up with?

As I said in my previous posts, pad your final solution altitude and round it up by a couple hundred feet. That will account for reaction time, crappy initial technique due to the shock of the situation, etc. Some people use 600', some 800', some 1000'; none of those are wrong, they just all depend on what your particular aircraft can do, and what you've found in experimentation, then a personal pad factor added.

 

[Pilot Fighter]

The point of my line there, which I still believe to be true, is pilots attempting the maneuver when having never seen it or performed it before. THAT is what's killing them: no reference altitude, no proper control throughout, stalling or impacting in a sub-optimal area, or any/all of the above.

My point being, the first time seeing the maneuver, should NOT be during the real emergency. That, will more than likely end up not well.

I am in full agreement, but I think my point is worth making. Folks aren't dying because they needed 800' and thought they could make it at 600', they are dying in the first turn when they have an abundance of altitude. We agree, caused by lack of experience or expertise flying engine-out, close to stall speed. I am nit-picking because attempting to return and failing to reach the field is not necessarily a bad thing if you know the surrounding area might be suitable to put down and there is a chance to make it. If it takes 600' and I have 500', turning back might still be the best option. I might think, "unlikely I'll make it, off-field option isn't bad, keep flying, don't stall, don't push it".

 

[MikeD]

I am in full agreement, but I think my point is worth making. Folks aren't dying because they needed 800' and thought they could make it at 600', they are dying in the first turn when they have an abundance of altitude. We agree, caused by lack of experience or expertise flying engine-out, close to stall speed. I am nit-picking because attempting to return and failing to reach the field is not necessarily a bad thing if you know the surrounding area might be suitable to put down. If it takes 600' and I have 500', turning back might still be the best option. I might think, "unlikely I'll make it, off-field option isn't bad, keep flying, don't stall, don't push it".

I agree with your point, definitely.

Never having seen it, then executing it for the first time come game day, is bad enough.

Now, whether having seen it before and executing it wrong, or never having seen it before and doing it for the first time; I agree that stalling during the maneuver in an attempt to make one particular landing spot or area, will have the same consequence......likely getting the pilot dead. Vice as you point out, a controlled landing in somewhere off-airport where the aircraft is still under control throughout, obstacles and other things nonwithstanding (which are obviously out of the pilots control anyway at that point)

Fully agree with your point, and a great point to keep in the front of the mind: Lose control of the plane, you're likely dead. Maintain control and land somewhere at least reasonably suitable other than the airfield, you have a good chance of walking away.

 

[killbilly]

Pad the altitude how? Are you talking the altitude you practice it at? Or the final altitude loss amount you come up with?

As I said in my previous posts, pad your final solution altitude and round it up by a couple hundred feet. That will account for reaction time, crappy initial technique due to the shock of the situation, etc. Some people use 600', some 800', some 1000'; none of those are wrong, they just all depend on what your particular aircraft can do, and what you've found in experimentation, then a personal pad factor added.

Well, it was sort of answered by the other post (about drag)...I was just thinking that a prop spinning at idle might give you a little more lift/slower descent rate than a totally cut off/stopped prop. Keep in mind I've never flown with the engine totally out before, so I"m coming at this from a lack of experience/ignorance and trying to learn something.

My point was that if your descent rate is increased with a truly stopped motor vs. a prop at idle, then one should be aware of that an factor it in when PRACTICING, because you're generally not going to kill the motor while practicing. At least, I've never flown with anyone who was willing to, though I never asked, either. Assumption on my part.

Does that make sense?

 

[MikeD]

Well, it was sort of answered by the other post (about drag)...I was just thinking that a prop spinning at idle might give you a little more lift/slower descent rate than a totally cut off/stopped prop. Keep in mind I've never flown with the engine totally out before, so I"m coming at this from a lack of experience/ignorance and trying to learn something.

My point was that if your descent rate is increased with a truly stopped motor vs. a prop at idle, then one should be aware of that an factor it in when PRACTICING, because you're generally not going to kill the motor while practicing. At least, I've never flown with anyone who was willing to, though I never asked, either. Assumption on my part.

Does that make sense?

It does, and that's the whole point of a pad. Everything from reaction time to differnences in technique, etc. You pad can be a few hundred feet, 500', whatever you want it to be; though at some point, you're unnecessarily limiting your option anyway by too much of a pad.

Of course you're going to do the practice maneuver at idle power vs shutting the engine down. Likely though in the heat of the moment of the maneuver, unless you're flying it absolutely perfectly and in perfect conditions, the difference in glide performance between an idling engine and an failed one (windmilling or stopped prop) will likely be fairly transparent in the heat of the moment, and something that a few hundred foot pad should sufficiently account for.