Thanks for your insights again, Colin. I think that will will have to agree to disagree on this one.
If I understand your position, you agree that practicing an engine-out return to the field from 700 AGL on take-off is not more inherently dangerous than practicing engine-out at other points in the pattern, but you assert that the probability of an engine-out situation elsewhere in the pattern is greater and thus justifies the risk of practicing for those situations. Additionally, you put forward that if there is an engine-out at 700 AGL, the pilot will generally be better off performing a straight-ahead landing than performing a return to the field. Finally, you believe that engine-out on take-off can be properly practiced at a safe altitude, especially with expert use of the G1000.
You comments don’t increase my perception of the risk posed by practicing an engine-out situation at 700 AGL on take-off. I continue to believe the the maneuver can be performed reliably and safely. I accept that while the maneuver poses a greater risk than, say, straight and level flight at 5,000 AGL, the experience and preparedness provided by the training offset the relatively small risk.
I disagree that a pilot will “normally” be better off with a straight-ahead landing than attempting to return to the field with engine-out at 700 AGL. I think the disagreement stems from our different expectations of what is “normal”. I fly out of Midway—an commercial airport in the middle of a dense residential area. A straight-ahead landing into anything in the forward 90 degree arc is certainly not safe! When measured against that, “risking” a return to the field from 700 AGL looks very wise. When I’ve asked other pilots, including CFIs and my DPE, about handling an engine-out on take-off out of Midway when a return to the field cannot be accomplished (i.e., a straight-ahead landing in the only option), the advise is always the same: “pick the softest, cheapest thing to crash into”. I won’t risk plowing into a 3 year-old’s bedroom when a return to the field is possible at 700 AGL. Further, even if the worst should occur on my attempted return to the field, proximity to the field will have the advantage of receiving quick response by MDW’s airport emergency personnel.
Also of note is that when I practiced this maneuver, it was night and the only thing in front of me was a large black spot surrounded by lighted stuff I knew I didn’t want to land on. It seems inadvisable to attempt a landing into an unlit area with unknown obstacles when a return to the field is can be made.
I should also note that the DA40 I fly doesn’t have a G1000, so leveraging that isn’t an option. Further, unless the G1000 has synthetic vision capabilities of which I’m not aware, marking the virtual runway end point and heading at 5000 AGL and trying to land on it is very different than actually landing on a runway. I don’t know where I first heard the adage, but I’ll repeat it: “Nothing changes a pilot’s behavior like proximity to the ground.”
Given the above, I maintain that practicing the engine-out at 700 AGL on take-off is not a poor aeronautical decision in a DA40.
Thursday, September 14, 2006
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comments:
October 2006 Flight Training magazine has an article by Jeff Pardo. Two points from it:
1. Accident occurances caused by a power loss are one in every 19,000 departures. Those are accidents for the entire flight, so the rate for power loss on takeoff is a LOT smaller. Most of us little guys are not going to come near 19,000 takeoffs. You are practicing something with more risk than the event itself.
2. "Flight the 'turn back' reflex; it is a proven killer." Again, this is debated with some regularity in flight training magazines and among CFIs. I think it depends a LOT on the pilot's behavior under stress, which isn't necessarily affected by preparation.
Personally, I know that a LOT of CFI knowledge is based on old metal airplanes. The DA40 has a carbon fiber cockpit rated to 27 Gs. That means you would do better than the 172 the CFI has in his head, and even at Midway you could land straight ahead. You won't die. Your passengers won't die. If you aim carefully, no one on the ground will die. Stall, mush, drop onto a warehouse.
A couple survived in their Diamond beind flipped over and slammed into the ground (jet wake, Oakland) from 150' AGL. They walked away. I keep that in mind when I am over inhospitable terrain.
Two things I also keep in mind: One is that the moment that propeller stops spinning it is the insurance company's plane, not mine. My job becomes simply one of getting me and my passengers onto the ground in the softest way possible. The other is what the owner of my flight school said about really bad landings which might bend the plane: "Keep flying it. Fly every piece of it until you have come to a complete stop. Even if you are just sitting in the seat holding the yoke, keep flying."
By all means, keep practicing engine outs at 700 AGL. I know how easy the DA40 is to fly, and I still think it is too risky compared to the skill you are "gaining."
Post a Comment