Re: They call it the impossible turn.

[Mxsmanic]

Dude writes:

> http://flash.aopa.org/asf/pilotstories/impossibleturn/?WT.mc_id=100205epilot&WT.mc_sect=sap

I don't understand the point of the story. It's a really bad idea to do what
he did. Even he admits it. So why is it being featured? It's only going to
encourage other pilots to make the same mistake. "Well, I saw him do it in a
video, I can do that too." It looks like an excuse to show an interesting
video, in the guise of an article about safety, but it creates the dangerous
impression that a pilot can get away with something he's always been warned
against. The pilots most likely to interpret it in this way are also the ones
the least likely to be successful in their attempt to duplicate this feat.

[Dude]

I wonder if he would have made the same decision if he was completely
dead stick. It seemed he still had partial power but not sure how much
if any it was helping him.

Cheers,
Chris

[FlyCherokee]

On Feb 9, 1:58*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Dude writes:
> >http://flash.aopa.org/asf/pilotstories/impossibleturn/?WT.mc_id=10020....
>
> I don't understand the point of the story. It's a really bad idea to do what
> he did. Even he admits it. So why is it being featured? *It's only going to
> encourage other pilots to make the same mistake. "Well, I saw him do it in a
> video, I can do that too." It looks like an excuse to show an interesting
> video, in the guise of an article about safety, but it creates the dangerous
> impression that a pilot can get away with something he's always been warned
> against. The pilots most likely to interpret it in this way are also the ones
> the least likely to be successful in their attempt to duplicate this feat..

I thought the same thing when I saw that story. A really bad example
for the Air Safety Foundation to have selected. I'd like to hear
their rationale. "Don't turn back" is drilled in during training, and
here, they show us that it doesn't look so bad. I think I'll stick
with landing straight ahead, if it ever happens to me.

[Mxsmanic]

Clark writes:

> The point of this type of "training" presentation is to get aviators to think
> about a particular situation, review their training for that situation, and
> perhaps take recurrent training. The outcome of one particular case isn't as
> important as motivating aviators to update their training.

The point of this presentation is to attract viewers. Unfortunately, it will
have exactly the opposite effect of what you suggest. Many of the pilots
seeing the video will leave it with the impression that it is in fact safe to
try to turn back to the airport. They will retain the exception and forget the
rule. The pilots most likely to do this are the same ones who are already
prone to make this mistake themselves. Pilots who know better will not have
their minds changed by the video and will not profit from seeing it, since
they already know how dangerous it is to attempt this type of turn.

Pilots destined to kill themselves notice and retain only what reinforces what
they wish to believe; and they ignore everything else. Pilots destined never
to make this mistake already know of the danger in the maneuver and don't need
to be told how dangerous it is.

[Mxsmanic]

FlyCherokee writes:

> I thought the same thing when I saw that story. A really bad example
> for the Air Safety Foundation to have selected. I'd like to hear
> their rationale.

I'm sure the rationale is to attract people to the site through a voyeuristic
look at a near-tragedy. It is disguised as a warning even though it is
actually an invitation to ignore best practices and expert advice. I'm sure
there are one or more pilots out there who will actually feel free to try
turning now, since they've seen proof that someone has done so and survived.

> "Don't turn back" is drilled in during training, and
> here, they show us that it doesn't look so bad. I think I'll stick
> with landing straight ahead, if it ever happens to me.

That is wise.

[Mxsmanic]

Clark writes:

> I see that you fail to understand the nature of training. Fine. Good luck
> with your attempts to understand avaiation. Perhaps if you'd get some real
> training and real flight experience you'd do a better job of comprehending
> the true nature of training and currency.

This particular case is easy to understand: Do not attempt to turn around and
return to the departure field in the event of total engine failure. It has
nothing to do with me. Thousands of aviation training sources say this very
thing. Do you not agree with it?

[FlyCherokee]

On Feb 9, 7:55*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> FlyCherokee writes:
> > I thought the same thing when I saw that story. *A really bad example
> > for the Air Safety Foundation to have selected. *I'd like to hear
> > their rationale.
>
> I'm sure the rationale is to attract people to the site through a voyeuristic
> look at a near-tragedy. It is disguised as a warning even though it is
> actually an invitation to ignore best practices and expert advice.

I hope not, and I don't think so; that has not been their style in the
past. I'd hate to think ASF has lowered themselves to that level to
attract readers (and donors). I'm quite surprised by that video. I'm
a supporter and contributor to ASF; I feel like emailing them to try
to find out what their objective was.

[Mxsmanic]

Clark writes:

> The actual training which you have never had and clearly don't understand is
> to know when turning back is not an option.

It's the other way around: Training is intended to make it clear that turning
back is not an option by default, not by exception. As a general rule, you
never try to turn around.

> As a side note since you obviously don't understand the entire problem
> presented in the ASF short, the aircraft did not suffer a total power loss.

That's probably why he lived. But many pilots will accidentally or
deliberately overlook that important detail.

[Mxsmanic]

FlyCherokee writes:

> I hope not, and I don't think so; that has not been their style in the
> past. I'd hate to think ASF has lowered themselves to that level to
> attract readers (and donors).

I'm sure their intentions are noble, but everybody has rent to pay.

[Ricky]

On Feb 11, 6:23*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:

> It's the other way around: Training is intended to make it clear that turning
> back is not an option by default, not by exception. As a general rule, you
> never try to turn around.

You are so wrong.
You do not fly, have never had any flight training, and anything that
comes from you should not be taken seriously.

[Robert Moore]

Ricky > wrote
> You are so wrong.
> You do not fly, have never had any flight training, and anything that
> comes from you should not be taken seriously.

NO Ricky....YOU are so wrong...It will probably come as quite shock to
you to find that the FAA will issue a Basic Ground Instructor
Certificate, an Advanced Ground Instructor Certificate, and an
Instrument Instructor Certificate to individuals who have never set foot
in an aircraft. Being a pilot is not a requirement to teach aviation
subjects to prospective pilots.

Robert Moore
PanAm Retired
ATP ASMEL...B-727 B-707 L-188
USN S-2 P-2 P-3
CFI CFII AGI IGI

From The FAR.....

To be eligible for a ground instructor certificate, you must
Be at least 18 years of age.
Be able to read, write, and converse fluently in English.
Exhibit practical and theoretical knowledge by passing the Fundamentals
of Instructing (FOI) and the appropriate ground instructor knowledge
tests.

Ground instructor certificates cover three levels of certification:
Basic ground instructor (BGI) may provide
Ground training in the aeronautical knowledge areas required for a
recreational or private pilot certificate
Ground training required for a recreational or private pilot flight
review
A recommendation for the recreational or private pilot knowledge test
Advanced ground instructor (AGI) may provide:
Ground training in the aeronautical knowledge areas required for any
certificate or rating
Ground training required for any flight review
A recommendation for a knowledge test required for any certificate
Instrument ground instructor (IGI) may provide:
Ground training in the aeronautical knowledge areas required for an
instrument rating to a pilot or instructor certificate
Ground training required for an instrument proficiency check
A recommendation for the instrument rating knowledge test for a pilot or
instructor certificate

[Brian Whatcott]

Ricky wrote:
> On Feb 11, 6:23 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>
>> It's the other way around: Training is intended to make it clear that turning
>> back is not an option by default, not by exception. As a general rule, you
>> never try to turn around.
>
> You are so wrong.
> You do not fly, have never had any flight training, and anything that
> comes from you should not be taken seriously.
>

Be a Good Boy, Ricky, and think twice before trying to put down someone
whose advice in this matter has been a life saver for pilots- and will
again be....


Brian W

[george]

On Feb 12, 4:05*am, Robert Moore > wrote:

> Exhibit practical and theoretical knowledge by passing the Fundamentals
> of Instructing (FOI) and the appropriate ground instructor knowledge
> tests.

Yup
Even though he needs no hours flying he needs to demonstrate that he
understands the practical behind his lectures.
Here (until recently) all our lectures regarding aviation were carried
out by the flight instructor.

[Dave Doe]

In article >,
says...
>
> Mxsmanic > wrote in
> :
>
> > Clark writes:
> >
> >> The actual training which you have never had and clearly don't
> >> understand is to know when turning back is not an option.
> >
> > It's the other way around: Training is intended to make it clear that
> > turning back is not an option by default, not by exception. As a general
> > rule, you never try to turn around.
>
> I'll repeat myself one more time. The training is to know when you can turn
> around. There is almost always some point above which a return to the field
> is possible & probable. That point is different for various aircraft and
> pilot skill levels.
>
> I have been through the training. You have not. Do not attempt to lecture me
> on what the training is or isn't. In simpler terms: you don't know what you
> are typing about.
>
> >
> >> As a side note since you obviously don't understand the entire problem
> >> presented in the ASF short, the aircraft did not suffer a total power
> >> loss.
> >
> > That's probably why he lived. But many pilots will accidentally or
> > deliberately overlook that important detail.
> >
> You are in absolutely no position to speak on what trained pilots may or may
> not do.

Well spoken... typed, that man!

Unfortunately he either can not read, or transfer eye or ear input to
his brain, or his brain is unable to process it.

--
Duncan.

[terry]

On Feb 10, 11:53*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Clark writes:
> > The point of this type of "training" presentation is to get aviators to think
> > about a particular situation, review their training for that situation, and
> > perhaps take recurrent training. The outcome of one particular case isn't as
> > important as motivating aviators to update their training.
>
> The point of this presentation is to attract viewers. Unfortunately, it will
> have exactly the opposite effect of what you suggest. Many of the pilots
> seeing the video will leave it with the impression that it is in fact safe to
> try to turn back to the airport. They will retain the exception and forget the
> rule. The pilots most likely to do this are the same ones who are already
> prone to make this mistake themselves. Pilots who know better will not have
> their minds changed by the video and will not profit from seeing it, since
> they already know how dangerous it is to attempt this type of turn.
>
> Pilots destined to kill themselves notice and retain only what reinforces what
> they wish to believe; and they ignore everything else. Pilots destined never
> to make this mistake already know of the danger in the maneuver and don't need
> to be told how dangerous it is.

What makes you think many pilots seeing the video will think its safe
to do? You obviously didnt and you have never even had any flying
training,

[Mxsmanic]

Clark writes:

> I'll repeat myself one more time. The training is to know when you can turn
> around. There is almost always some point above which a return to the field
> is possible & probable. That point is different for various aircraft and
> pilot skill levels.

If there's a flat spot in front of you and you've lost all power, it's better
to land there than to try to turn around.

[Mxsmanic]

terry writes:

> What makes you think many pilots seeing the video will think its safe
> to do?

I see a number of pilots here who already think it's safe to do. People who
think that way will only be encouraged by the video.

[WayPoint[_3_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> terry writes:
>
>> What makes you think many pilots seeing the video will think its safe
>> to do?
>
> I see a number of pilots here who already think it's safe to do. People
> who
> think that way will only be encouraged by the video.

Not necessarily. And I don't say that it is a safe thing to do.

As you correctly pointed out in another thread - if there's a flat spot in
front of you, then try for that.

At many many airports you don't have that luxury because of rough
vegetation, industrial & residential built up areas.
Turning back is sometimes the only choice that will give you and others the
best opportunity to survive.


Bruce

[Mxsmanic]

WayPoint writes:

> At many many airports you don't have that luxury because of rough
> vegetation, industrial & residential built up areas.
> Turning back is sometimes the only choice that will give you and others the
> best opportunity to survive.

Obviously, if there are only jagged rocks or other unpleasant things in front
of you, then your only option is to try to turn. But many pilots get in
trouble because they don't want to do expensive damage to their airplanes, and
they end up killing themselves in an attempt to save on money or insurance.
The phenomenon is not limited to pilots.

To a certain extent one can rationalize this by thinking that broken bones may
heal but broken airplanes must be fixed or replaced. There is a logic to that,
but the probabilities and other factors are often incorrectly assessed by the
person making the decision. The probability of dying or serious, life-altering
injury is far higher than the pilot is willing to admit. Optimism encourages
him to make a bad decision.

If the area in front of the airplane is truly flat, smooth, and safe, so much
so that there's no harm in landing on it, I wonder how many pilots would still
be tempted to turn around. If you know you can land ahead off the runway with
no damage to the airplane, is there still any reason to turn around?

[george]

On Feb 13, 4:58*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:

> If the area in front of the airplane is truly flat, smooth, and safe, so much
> so that there's no harm in landing on it, I wonder how many pilots would still
> be tempted to turn around. If you know you can land ahead off the runway with
> no damage to the airplane, is there still any reason to turn around?

Why are you obsessed with a part of flight that has no meaning to you?
Just hit Control ALT Delete and walk away.
Leave the real stuff to real pilots.
The good and even great advice that has been handed out in here you
have ignored or turned into a game of semantics.
Go forth and multipy !

[Mxsmanic]

george writes:

> Why are you obsessed with a part of flight that has no meaning to you?

Obviously it has meaning to me, or I would not discuss it. It's important to
be prepared for any eventuality when flying.

[terry]

On Feb 13, 6:40*am, george > wrote:
> On Feb 13, 4:58*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>
> > If the area in front of the airplane is truly flat, smooth, and safe, so much
> > so that there's no harm in landing on it, I wonder how many pilots would still
> > be tempted to turn around. If you know you can land ahead off the runway with
> > no damage to the airplane, is there still any reason to turn around?
>
> Why are you obsessed with a part of flight that has no meaning to you?
> Just hit Control ALT Delete and walk away.
> Leave the real stuff to real pilots.
> The good and even great advice that has been handed out in here you
> have ignored or turned into a game of semantics.
> Go forth and multipy !

Do you really want to encourage him to multiply ?( not that there
would be a snowballs chance in hell of that happening- that would
require him having sex with a human being and you cant do that over a
computer)
Why is he obsessed with something that has no meaning to him.? Do a
google on Aspergers Syndrome.

[[email protected]]

In rec.aviation.piloting Mxsmanic > wrote:
> george writes:
>
>> Why are you obsessed with a part of flight that has no meaning to you?
>
> Obviously it has meaning to me, or I would not discuss it. It's important to
> be prepared for any eventuality when flying.

Yeah to a real pilot in a real airplane, but not to a simmer.

You've already said you avoid things like VFR traffic and NORDO aircraft,
which are very common in real flying, so why the obsession with simulating
the dreaded "impossible turn", which is very rare by comparison in real
flying?


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[terry]

On Feb 13, 6:44*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> george writes:
> > Why are you obsessed with a part of flight that has no meaning to you?
>
> Obviously it has meaning to me, or I would not discuss it. It's important to
> be prepared for any eventuality when flying.

So do you wear a parachute when you are playing simulators? or do you
have a ballistic one attached to your PC?

[terry]

On Feb 13, 2:58*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> WayPoint writes:
> > At many many airports you don't have that luxury because of rough
> > vegetation, industrial & residential built up areas.
> > Turning back is sometimes the only choice that will give you and others the
> > best opportunity to survive.
>
> Obviously, if there are only jagged rocks or other unpleasant things in front
> of you, then your only option is to try to turn. But many pilots get in
> trouble because they don't want to do expensive damage to their airplanes, and
> they end up killing themselves in an attempt to save on money or insurance.
> The phenomenon is not limited to pilots.
>
> To a certain extent one can rationalize this by thinking that broken bones may
> heal but broken airplanes must be fixed or replaced. There is a logic to that,
> but the probabilities and other factors are often incorrectly assessed by the
> person making the decision. The probability of dying or serious, life-altering
> injury is far higher than the pilot is willing to admit. Optimism encourages
> him to make a bad decision.
>
> If the area in front of the airplane is truly flat, smooth, and safe, so much
> so that there's no harm in landing on it, I wonder how many pilots would still
> be tempted to turn around. If you know you can land ahead off the runway with
> no damage to the airplane, is there still any reason to turn around?

Can you tell that an area in front of you is truly flat smooth and
safe from 500 feet altitude? If you can, can you also explain why
real pilots are taught to do precautionary search and landing passes
at 100 feet, if they need to make an emergency landing but still have
the power/time to do so?

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> Yeah to a real pilot in a real airplane, but not to a simmer.

Simmers generally have the same priorities. That's what simulation is all
about.

> You've already said you avoid things like VFR traffic and NORDO aircraft,
> which are very common in real flying ...

Not over LAX. I like to fly in Class A, B, C, or D airspace, and NORDO
aircraft are scarce there for obvious reasons. I do fly in other airspaces,
but often at such out-of-the-way airports that there's nobody else around.

> ... so why the obsession with simulating
> the dreaded "impossible turn", which is very rare by comparison in real
> flying?

I don't simulate this turn. I rarely practice engine-out procedures, and even
if I did, the impossible turn is such a stellar example of poor judgment that
I'd not likely be tempted to try it.

[Mxsmanic]

terry writes:

> So do you wear a parachute when you are playing simulators?

No more so than I would in real life.

[Dave Doe]

In article >,
says...
>
> george writes:
>
> > Why are you obsessed with a part of flight that has no meaning to you?
>
> Obviously it has meaning to me, or I would not discuss it. It's important to
> be prepared for any eventuality when flying.

Why? You don't *listen* to anyone 'round here!

--
Duncan.

[Mxsmanic]

terry writes:

> Can you tell that an area in front of you is truly flat smooth and
> safe from 500 feet altitude?

You can get a pretty good idea, and if it's reasonably close to flat and
smooth, it's still a better choice than trying to turn around.

> If you can, can you also explain why
> real pilots are taught to do precautionary search and landing passes
> at 100 feet, if they need to make an emergency landing but still have
> the power/time to do so?

If they don't have the power to turn around, they definitely don't have the
power to make any precautionary passes at 100 feet.

[terry]

On Feb 13, 7:33*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> terry writes:
> > Can you tell that an area in front of you is truly flat smooth and
> > safe from 500 feet altitude?
>
> You can get a pretty good idea,

How good an idea? How well does MS Flight simulator simulate what
ground detail a pilot would see from 500 feet looking over the nose of
the aircraft? We know you have never flown an aircraft, but have you
ever even been a passenger in the front seat of an aircraft and
experienced the view from 500 feet? And how long do you think you
would have from 500 feet with no power to make a judgement of whether
that peice of seemingly flat smooth safe land is really that? and what
would you do when you get to 400 feet and suddenly discover there is a
power line slap bang across the approach path or a bunch of kids
playing chase? you have no idea.

[Dave Doe]

In article >,
says...
>
> terry writes:
>
> > Can you tell that an area in front of you is truly flat smooth and
> > safe from 500 feet altitude?
>
> You can get a pretty good idea, and if it's reasonably close to flat and
> smooth, it's still a better choice than trying to turn around.
>
> > If you can, can you also explain why
> > real pilots are taught to do precautionary search and landing passes
> > at 100 feet, if they need to make an emergency landing but still have
> > the power/time to do so?
>
> If they don't have the power to turn around, they definitely don't have the
> power to make any precautionary passes at 100 feet.

There you go again - just NOT LISTENING. Read what he said (he's
probably talking about a situation with poor visibility (but it could be
any other dire situation) that a pilot deems it's time to set down.
Nothing wrong with the plane!).

--
Duncan.

[Mxsmanic]

Dave Doe writes:

> Why? You don't *listen* to anyone 'round here!

I listen, but I'm not a sycophant.

[Mxsmanic]

terry writes:

> How good an idea?

Good enough to justify continuing forwards.

> How well does MS Flight simulator simulate what
> ground detail a pilot would see from 500 feet looking over the nose of
> the aircraft?

It depends on the graphic settings and the scenery used. In some cases it
simulates just about every rock and bush, in other cases it's just a vague
group of hills.

> We know you have never flown an aircraft, but have you
> ever even been a passenger in the front seat of an aircraft and
> experienced the view from 500 feet?

Not in person, but I've seen videos.

> And how long do you think you would have from 500 feet with no
> power to make a judgement of whether that peice of seemingly
> flat smooth safe land is really that?

Not very long, depending on a number of factors. If you don't have time to
figure it out, you point at whatever looks safest. You still don't turn,
unless you are certain that whatever is ahead will kill you.

> ... and what would you do when you get to 400 feet and suddenly
> discover there is a power line slap bang across the approach
> path or a bunch of kids playing chase? you have no idea.

Virtually no one does. People in situations like that don't usually live to
talk about it.

[Mxsmanic]

Dave Doe writes:

> There you go again - just NOT LISTENING. Read what he said (he's
> probably talking about a situation with poor visibility (but it could be
> any other dire situation) that a pilot deems it's time to set down.
> Nothing wrong with the plane!).

Then it is also unrelated to the impossible turn.

[Dave Doe]

In article >,
says...
>
> Dave Doe writes:
>
> > Why? You don't *listen* to anyone 'round here!
>
> I listen, but I'm not a sycophant.

I think that's fairly obvious!

--
Duncan.

[george]

On Feb 13, 9:19*am, terry > wrote:
> On Feb 13, 6:44*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>
> > george writes:
> > > Why are you obsessed with a part of flight that has no meaning to you?

> > Obviously it has meaning to me, or I would not discuss it. It's important to
> > be prepared for any eventuality when flying.
>
> So do you wear a parachute when you are playing simulators? or do you
> have a ballistic one attached to your PC?

:-)

[[email protected]]

In rec.aviation.piloting Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
>
>> Yeah to a real pilot in a real airplane, but not to a simmer.
>
> Simmers generally have the same priorities. That's what simulation is all
> about.

Delusional.

>> You've already said you avoid things like VFR traffic and NORDO aircraft,
>> which are very common in real flying ...
>
> Not over LAX. I like to fly in Class A, B, C, or D airspace, and NORDO
> aircraft are scarce there for obvious reasons. I do fly in other airspaces,
> but often at such out-of-the-way airports that there's nobody else around.

If you are less than 10,000 feet, LAX is surrounded by places with lots
of VFR and NORDO traffic in the real world.

The "out-of-the-way airports" are where, in the real world, you are most
likely to find NORDO traffic.

>> ... so why the obsession with simulating
>> the dreaded "impossible turn", which is very rare by comparison in real
>> flying?
>
> I don't simulate this turn. I rarely practice engine-out procedures, and even
> if I did, the impossible turn is such a stellar example of poor judgment that
> I'd not likely be tempted to try it.

So why do you seem so obsesed with it?


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Morgans[_2_]]

"terry" > wrote

> you have no idea.

Of course he doesn't. But you know that, as does everyone responding to his
posts.

Why bother? He will not learn. He will not admit he is wrong. Anyone
reading this tread already knows he is an idiot, and will not try anything
or believe anything he has said.

Simply put, there is nothing left to be said.

Gang, let's end it with this dope, before more good people see what nut
cases are here, and never come back.
--
Jim in NC

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> The "out-of-the-way airports" are where, in the real world, you are most
> likely to find NORDO traffic.

That depends on the airport. Many tiny airports have only a handful of
operations a day.

[george]

On Feb 13, 8:50*am, terry > wrote:
> On Feb 13, 6:40*am, george > wrote:
>
> > On Feb 13, 4:58*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>
> > > If the area in front of the airplane is truly flat, smooth, and safe, so much
> > > so that there's no harm in landing on it, I wonder how many pilots would still
> > > be tempted to turn around. If you know you can land ahead off the runway with
> > > no damage to the airplane, is there still any reason to turn around?
>
> > Why are you obsessed with a part of flight that has no meaning to you?
> > Just hit Control ALT Delete and walk away.
> > Leave the real stuff to real pilots.
> > The good and even great advice that has been handed out in here you
> > have ignored or turned into a game of semantics.
> > Go forth and multipy !
>
> Do you really want to encourage him to multiply ?( not that there
> would be a snowballs chance in hell of that happening- that would
> require him having sex with a human being and you cant do that over a
> computer)
> Why is he obsessed with something that has no meaning to him.? *Do a
> google on Aspergers Syndrome.

My comment "go forth and multiply" is a nice way to tell him to get
F----. !

[[email protected]]

In rec.aviation.piloting Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
>
>> The "out-of-the-way airports" are where, in the real world, you are most
>> likely to find NORDO traffic.
>
> That depends on the airport. Many tiny airports have only a handful of
> operations a day.

Non sequitur.



--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Stl Mongo]

On 2/12/2010 2:48 PM, terry wrote:
> On Feb 13, 7:33 am, > wrote:
>> terry writes:
>>> Can you tell that an area in front of you is truly flat smooth and
>>> safe from 500 feet altitude?
>>
>> You can get a pretty good idea,
>
> How good an idea? How well does MS Flight simulator simulate what
> ground detail a pilot would see from 500 feet looking over the nose of
> the aircraft? We know you have never flown an aircraft, but have you
> ever even been a passenger in the front seat of an aircraft and
> experienced the view from 500 feet? And how long do you think you
> would have from 500 feet with no power to make a judgement of whether
> that peice of seemingly flat smooth safe land is really that? and what
> would you do when you get to 400 feet and suddenly discover there is a
> power line slap bang across the approach path or a bunch of kids
> playing chase? you have no idea.

I've been using MS Flight sim since version 4, and I can honestly
say that every time I have had to make an emergency landing during the
takeoff phase of flight the ground in front of me has been simulated to
be perfectly flat and smooth, and i am now able to discern this from
altitudes well over 500 feet, even close to 1600 meters, go figure.

By the way, i have flown a real ac, and from 500 ft, do you really think
you could turn around and land on the rw? Not likely.

[Stl Mongo]

On 2/12/2010 3:25 PM, Mxsmanic wrote:
> terry writes:
>
>> How good an idea?
>
> Good enough to justify continuing forwards.
>
>> How well does MS Flight simulator simulate what
>> ground detail a pilot would see from 500 feet looking over the nose of
>> the aircraft?
>
> It depends on the graphic settings and the scenery used. In some cases it
> simulates just about every rock and bush, in other cases it's just a vague
> group of hills.
>
>> We know you have never flown an aircraft, but have you
>> ever even been a passenger in the front seat of an aircraft and
>> experienced the view from 500 feet?
>
> Not in person, but I've seen videos.
>
>> And how long do you think you would have from 500 feet with no
>> power to make a judgement of whether that peice of seemingly
>> flat smooth safe land is really that?
>
> Not very long, depending on a number of factors. If you don't have time to
> figure it out, you point at whatever looks safest. You still don't turn,
> unless you are certain that whatever is ahead will kill you.
>
>> ... and what would you do when you get to 400 feet and suddenly
>> discover there is a power line slap bang across the approach
>> path or a bunch of kids playing chase? you have no idea.
>
> Virtually no one does. People in situations like that don't usually live to
> talk about it.


gotta call bull**** on this on MX... it doesn't even come close to
"simulates just about every rock and bush"

[terry]

On Feb 13, 10:23*am, george > wrote:
> On Feb 13, 8:50*am, terry > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 13, 6:40*am, george > wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 13, 4:58*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>
> > > > If the area in front of the airplane is truly flat, smooth, and safe, so much
> > > > so that there's no harm in landing on it, I wonder how many pilots would still
> > > > be tempted to turn around. If you know you can land ahead off the runway with
> > > > no damage to the airplane, is there still any reason to turn around?
>
> > > Why are you obsessed with a part of flight that has no meaning to you?
> > > Just hit Control ALT Delete and walk away.
> > > Leave the real stuff to real pilots.
> > > The good and even great advice that has been handed out in here you
> > > have ignored or turned into a game of semantics.
> > > Go forth and multipy !
>
> > Do you really want to encourage him to multiply ?( not that there
> > would be a snowballs chance in hell of that happening- that would
> > require him having sex with a human being and you cant do that over a
> > computer)
> > Why is he obsessed with something that has no meaning to him.? *Do a
> > google on Aspergers Syndrome.
>
> My comment "go forth and multiply" is a nice way to tell him to get
> F----. !- Hide quoted text -
>
I know that George, and so do all the other pilots here, but Msx wont,
one of the more obvious symtoms of Aspergers Syndrome is the inability
to understand anything other than its literal meaning. He prolly
still wondering why you want him to walk forwards and practice his
times tables.

[Dave Doe]

In article >,
says...
>
> Dave Doe writes:
>
> > There you go again - just NOT LISTENING. Read what he said (he's
> > probably talking about a situation with poor visibility (but it could be
> > any other dire situation) that a pilot deems it's time to set down.
> > Nothing wrong with the plane!).
>
> Then it is also unrelated to the impossible turn.

The entire post? No. I note you've sniped it.

--
Duncan.

[terry]

On Feb 13, 7:33*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> terry writes:
> > Can you tell that an area in front of you is truly flat smooth and
> > safe from 500 feet altitude?
>
> You can get a pretty good idea, and if it's reasonably close to flat and
> smooth, it's still a better choice than trying to turn around.
>
> > If you can, can you also explain why
> > real pilots are taught to do precautionary search and landing passes
> > at 100 feet, if they need to make an emergency landing but still have
> > the power/time to do so?
>
> If they don't have the power to turn around, they definitely don't have the
> power to make any precautionary passes at 100 feet.

My point was that we do passes at 100 feet if we can because at
higher altitudes you cannot be sure the surface is suitable or safe.
To suggest
that a pilot might be making the decision to turn back just because he
is worried about damaging his airplane is nonsense.
A pilot knows with almost certainly that the runway is suitable and
safe to land on, if he can make it thus the temptation to turn back is
strong.
The focus should not be on whether you turn or not , it should be on
maintaining appropriate airspeed at all times until touchdown

[terry]

On Feb 13, 8:25*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> terry writes:
> > How good an idea?
>
> Good enough to justify continuing forwards.
>
> > How well does MS Flight simulator simulate what
> > ground detail a pilot would see from 500 feet looking over the nose of
> > the aircraft?
>
> It depends on the graphic settings and the scenery used. In some cases it
> simulates just about every rock and bush, in other cases it's just a vague
> group of hills.
>
> > We know you have never flown an aircraft, but have you
> > ever even been a passenger in the front seat of an aircraft and
> > experienced the view from 500 feet?
>
> Not in person, but I've seen videos.
>
> > And how long do you think you would have from 500 feet with no
> > power to make a judgement of whether that peice of seemingly
> > flat smooth safe land is really that?
>
> Not very long, depending on a number of factors. If you don't have time to
> figure it out, you point at whatever looks safest. You still don't turn,
> unless you are certain that whatever is ahead will kill you.
>
> > ... and what would you do when you get to 400 feet and suddenly
> > discover there is a power line slap bang across the approach
> > path or a bunch of kids playing chase? *you have no idea.
>
> Virtually no one does. People in situations like that don't usually live to
> talk about it.

garbage

[terry]

On Feb 13, 8:25*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> terry writes:
> > How good an idea?
>
> Good enough to justify continuing forwards.
>
> > How well does MS Flight simulator simulate what
> > ground detail a pilot would see from 500 feet looking over the nose of
> > the aircraft?
>
> It depends on the graphic settings and the scenery used. In some cases it
> simulates just about every rock and bush, in other cases it's just a vague
> group of hills.
>
> > We know you have never flown an aircraft, but have you
> > ever even been a passenger in the front seat of an aircraft and
> > experienced the view from 500 feet?
>
> Not in person, but I've seen videos.
>
> > And how long do you think you would have from 500 feet with no
> > power to make a judgement of whether that peice of seemingly
> > flat smooth safe land is really that?
>
> Not very long, depending on a number of factors. If you don't have time to
> figure it out, you point at whatever looks safest. You still don't turn,
> unless you are certain that whatever is ahead will kill you.
>
> > ... and what would you do when you get to 400 feet and suddenly
> > discover there is a power line slap bang across the approach
> > path or a bunch of kids playing chase? *you have no idea.
>
> Virtually no one does. People in situations like that don't usually live to
> talk about it.

garbage

[Mxsmanic]

terry writes:

> My point was that we do passes at 100 feet if we can because at
> higher altitudes you cannot be sure the surface is suitable or safe.

If your only engine fails on takeoff, doing passes at 100 feet is not an
option.

> To suggest
> that a pilot might be making the decision to turn back just because he
> is worried about damaging his airplane is nonsense.

It's a very common reason for trying to turn around. In fact, it motivates
many poor decisions. People tend to assume that they'll survive, and then
worry about the cost of damage to the airplane.

> A pilot knows with almost certainly that the runway is suitable and
> safe to land on, if he can make it thus the temptation to turn back is
> strong.

The problem is that he may believe that he can make it, but he can't.

> The focus should not be on whether you turn or not , it should be on
> maintaining appropriate airspeed at all times until touchdown

Turning is a great way to ensure that you lose the appropriate airspeed.

[Mxsmanic]

Stl Mongo writes:

> gotta call bull**** on this on MX... it doesn't even come close to
> "simulates just about every rock and bush"

As I've said, it depends on what scenery you have installed.

[Mxsmanic]

Clark writes:

> That response would have surprised my instructor on my first stage check when
> he pulled power on me just after we had flown over an airport.

Losing power while overflying an airport isn't the same as losing power just
after takeoff.

> Yes, I turned it around and landed it - didn't even bend anything either!
>
> It's all about situational awareness, particular circumstances, and training.

The particular circumstances in which you can safely turn around after a total
power loss on takeoff are very rare, irrespective of situational awareness or
training.

[george]

On Feb 14, 3:07*am, Clark > wrote:

> That response would have surprised my instructor on my first stage check when
> he pulled power on me just after we had flown over an airport. Yes, I turned
> it around and landed it - didn't even bend anything either!
>
> It's all about situational awareness, particular circumstances, and training.
>

I did a couple of hours in gliders as -every- landing is a forced
landing and it does wonders to your circuit planning.
For the engine failure on takeoff my main airfield was next to a golf
course one end and a park at the other.
The other had harbour at one end and Straits at the other.
The airstrip I used to fly into was a one way ag strip with a long
line of hills in front and no flat ground either port or starboard.
The prospect of an engine failure made me preplan as to what my
actions would be under which circumstances.
Then I got on with flying the aeroplane.

[Peter Dohm]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Clark writes:
>
>> That response would have surprised my instructor on my first stage check
>> when
>> he pulled power on me just after we had flown over an airport.
>
> Losing power while overflying an airport isn't the same as losing power
> just
> after takeoff.
>
>> Yes, I turned it around and landed it - didn't even bend anything either!
>>
>> It's all about situational awareness, particular circumstances, and
>> training.
>
> The particular circumstances in which you can safely turn around after a
> total
> power loss on takeoff are very rare, irrespective of situational awareness
> or
> training.

Not rare at all, they are very common--if you are proficient.

[Peter Dohm]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Stl Mongo writes:
>
>> gotta call bull**** on this on MX... it doesn't even come close to
>> "simulates just about every rock and bush"
>
> As I've said, it depends on what scenery you have installed.

That is truly the ultimate proof that you have never seen the real scenery;
but intuitively understand that your simulations would never be quite the
same if you ever experienced reality.

[Peter Dohm]

"Stl Mongo" > wrote in message
...
> On 2/12/2010 2:48 PM, terry wrote:
>> On Feb 13, 7:33 am, > wrote:
>>> terry writes:
>>>> Can you tell that an area in front of you is truly flat smooth and
>>>> safe from 500 feet altitude?
>>>
>>> You can get a pretty good idea,
>>
>> How good an idea? How well does MS Flight simulator simulate what
>> ground detail a pilot would see from 500 feet looking over the nose of
>> the aircraft? We know you have never flown an aircraft, but have you
>> ever even been a passenger in the front seat of an aircraft and
>> experienced the view from 500 feet? And how long do you think you
>> would have from 500 feet with no power to make a judgement of whether
>> that peice of seemingly flat smooth safe land is really that? and what
>> would you do when you get to 400 feet and suddenly discover there is a
>> power line slap bang across the approach path or a bunch of kids
>> playing chase? you have no idea.
>
> I've been using MS Flight sim since version 4, and I can honestly
> say that every time I have had to make an emergency landing during the
> takeoff phase of flight the ground in front of me has been simulated to be
> perfectly flat and smooth, and i am now able to discern this from
> altitudes well over 500 feet, even close to 1600 meters, go figure.
>
> By the way, i have flown a real ac, and from 500 ft, do you really think
> you could turn around and land on the rw? Not likely.

The only times that I tried, the biggest problem was too much
altitude--different types of real aircraft are different.

[Peter Dohm]

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> "terry" > wrote
>
>> you have no idea.
>
> Of course he doesn't. But you know that, as does everyone responding to
> his posts.
>
> Why bother? He will not learn. He will not admit he is wrong. Anyone
> reading this tread already knows he is an idiot, and will not try anything
> or believe anything he has said.
>
> Simply put, there is nothing left to be said.
>
> Gang, let's end it with this dope, before more good people see what nut
> cases are here, and never come back.
> --
> Jim in NC
>
You are right, of course, and I'll resist any further temptation!

Peter

[Mxsmanic]

Peter Dohm writes:

> Not rare at all, they are very common--if you are proficient.

Examples?

[Mxsmanic]

Peter Dohm writes:

> That is truly the ultimate proof that you have never seen the real scenery ...

For some locations, I have scenery that is essentially identical to the real
thing. Usually it's around airports, since highly detailed scenery for the
entire world would require a massive database (and would be very costly to
obtain, even if that amount of data were available). Most major airports are
available as highly-detailed add-on scenery.

> ... but intuitively understand that your simulations would never
> be quite the same if you ever experienced reality.

I have experienced reality, since I've already been in a plane, like many
people. Given the compromises that the sim entails, I'm surprised that it
resembles reality so much. I can even fly by pilotage in the sim, with default
scenery.

[John Smith]

Am 14.02.10 00:55, schrieb Mxsmanic:
> Peter Dohm writes:
>
>> Not rare at all, they are very common--if you are proficient.
>
> Examples?

Does a 180° from 400 feet with an Antonov An-2 count?

http://www.bfu.admin.ch/common/pdf/1826_e.pdf

In this case, there was unfortunately deep snow which caused a rollover
after the successful touchdown, but nobody was hurt, so I'd call the
manoevre successful.

[Mxsmanic]

John Smith writes:

> Does a 180° from 400 feet with an Antonov An-2 count?
>
> http://www.bfu.admin.ch/common/pdf/1826_e.pdf
>
> In this case, there was unfortunately deep snow which caused a rollover
> after the successful touchdown, but nobody was hurt, so I'd call the
> manoevre successful.

Is this a common landing?

[Jim Logajan]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> The particular circumstances in which you can safely turn around after
> a total power loss on takeoff are very rare, irrespective of
> situational awareness or training.

The above is incorrect.

Demonstration of unpowered 180 degree turnback to the takeoff airfield from
altitudes as low as 200 ft was required of my fixed wing student pilot
training curriculum. I've done it in a real aircraft.

My experience was not rare, either. All the CFIs I've flown with have done
it.

[Robert Moore]

Jim Logajan wrote
> Demonstration of unpowered 180 degree turnback to the takeoff airfield
> from altitudes as low as 200 ft was required of my fixed wing student
> pilot training curriculum. I've done it in a real aircraft.
> My experience was not rare, either. All the CFIs I've flown with have
> done it.

Sure.....in a Sailplane with a 30:1 glide ratio,
Sure-as-hell not in a Cessna or Piper with a 9:1 glide.

Bob Moore
ATP CFIing since 1970

[Mxsmanic]

Jim Logajan writes:

> Demonstration of unpowered 180 degree turnback to the takeoff airfield from
> altitudes as low as 200 ft was required of my fixed wing student pilot
> training curriculum. I've done it in a real aircraft.

What kind of real aircraft?

[Mxsmanic]

Clark writes:

> There is a point past which a return to the airport is probable.

Yes, and there's a point before which a return to the airport is a form of
suicide.

> A pilot has to know that point and the only way to do so is to
> train and be aware.

Then many pilots must not be training enough, because they misjudge that point
all the time.

[Jim Logajan]

Robert Moore > wrote:
> Jim Logajan wrote
>> Demonstration of unpowered 180 degree turnback to the takeoff airfield
>> from altitudes as low as 200 ft was required of my fixed wing student
>> pilot training curriculum. I've done it in a real aircraft.
>> My experience was not rare, either. All the CFIs I've flown with have
>> done it.
>
> Sure.....in a Sailplane with a 30:1 glide ratio,

Sure - you understood what I was talking about, but clearly Mxsmanic had no
clue or he wouldn't have made the sweeping claim he did.

As an aside, it is possible with an SGS 2-33A (the trainer our club has,)
which has a best glide ratio of only about 22:1.

> Sure-as-hell not in a Cessna or Piper with a 9:1 glide.

Indeed - but Mxsmanic's opinion (presented as fact) was that circumstances
where you can safely perform unpowered turnbacks are "very rare" - which of
course isn't true in the sweeping way he put it.

As an interesting aside, I notice that some newer "glass" airplanes have
surprisingly high glide ratios (like the Arion Lightning with a L/D ratio
of 17:1) not to mention all motor gliders (though there would normally be
no need to practice low altitude "rope break" turnbacks for them!)

[Dave Doe]

In article >,
says...
>
> Clark writes:
>
> > There is a point past which a return to the airport is probable.
>
> Yes, and there's a point before which a return to the airport is a form of
> suicide.
>
> > A pilot has to know that point and the only way to do so is to
> > train and be aware.
>
> Then many pilots must not be training enough, because they misjudge that point
> all the time.

Presumably you have some good evidence to backup your outrageous claim -
namely some good statistics showing successful vs unsuccessful FLWOP on
t/o.

--
Duncan.

[Mxsmanic]

Jim Logajan writes:

> Sure - you understood what I was talking about, but clearly Mxsmanic had no
> clue or he wouldn't have made the sweeping claim he did.

The topic of the thread concerns the high risk of attempting to return to an
airport after losing all power after takeoff. It's hard to see how this would
be applicable to gliders, since they do not take off and they are not powered.

> As an aside, it is possible with an SGS 2-33A (the trainer our club has,)
> which has a best glide ratio of only about 22:1.

What's on the checklist for total power failure during a climb after takeoff
for this aircraft?

> Indeed - but Mxsmanic's opinion (presented as fact) was that circumstances
> where you can safely perform unpowered turnbacks are "very rare" - which of
> course isn't true in the sweeping way he put it.

They are indeed very rare with any aircraft that fits the category covered by
the topic, namely, powered fixed-wing aircraft. Gliders, helicopters, hot-air
balloons, and blimps are not in that category.

[Mxsmanic]

Dave Doe writes:

> Presumably you have some good evidence to backup your outrageous claim -
> namely some good statistics showing successful vs unsuccessful FLWOP on
> t/o.

If you don't believe me, you don't have to do as I suggest.

[Dave Doe]

In article >,
says...
> Clark writes:
>
> > There is a point past which a return to the airport is probable.
>
> Yes, and there's a point before which a return to the airport is a form of
> suicide.
>
> > A pilot has to know that point and the only way to do so is to
> > train and be aware.
>
> Then many pilots must not be training enough, because they misjudge that point
> all the time.

>
> Dave Doe writes:
>
> > Presumably you have some good evidence to backup your outrageous claim -
> > namely some good statistics showing successful vs unsuccessful FLWOP on
> > t/o.
>
> If you don't believe me, you don't have to do as I suggest.

I'm asking you to back up your claim, as without any evidence, it's just
your opinion. I'd say most readers don't value that very much.

--
Duncan.

[Mxsmanic]

Dave Doe writes:

> I'm asking you to back up your claim, as without any evidence, it's just
> your opinion. I'd say most readers don't value that very much.

I suggest that you and other readers do research rather than listen to me
alone. It's the only safe way to learn things. I am fully confident that if
you do research among reputable and reliable sources, you'll find that my
opinion agrees with them. However, you should not take my word for it--you
should verify for yourself.

I know the sources will agree with me because I got my position from those
same sources. I stand on the shoulders of giants, as the saying goes.

[Dave Doe]

In article >,
says...
>
> Dave Doe writes:
>
> > I'm asking you to back up your claim, as without any evidence, it's just
> > your opinion. I'd say most readers don't value that very much.
>
> I suggest that you and other readers do research rather than listen to me
> alone. It's the only safe way to learn things. I am fully confident that if
> you do research among reputable and reliable sources, you'll find that my
> opinion agrees with them. However, you should not take my word for it--you
> should verify for yourself.
>
> I know the sources will agree with me because I got my position from those
> same sources. I stand on the shoulders of giants, as the saying goes.

Well you'll be pleased to learn that I do considerable research on the
internet. However I'm in no position to be able to research your
sources, as I do not know what sources you are using and my sucess rate
at mind-reading works out at a percentage equal to pure co-incidence.

So I would be grateful, though I do not intend to ask a forth time, if
you could state your sources. I think that would be much easier, as you
already know what your sources are. Then I can examine them (and verify
for myself, your claim that
"
Then many pilots must not be training enough, because they misjudge that
point all the time.
"

is correct, or incorrect).

--
Duncan.

[Mxsmanic]

Dave Doe writes:

> Well you'll be pleased to learn that I do considerable research on the
> internet.

Good.

> However I'm in no position to be able to research your
> sources, as I do not know what sources you are using and my sucess rate
> at mind-reading works out at a percentage equal to pure co-incidence.

One doesn't research _sources_, one researches _assertions_, looking for
independent corroboration among sources that one trusts. But you already know
that ... since you do considerable research on the Internet.

[Dave Doe]

In article >,
says...
>
> Dave Doe writes:
>
> > Well you'll be pleased to learn that I do considerable research on the
> > internet.
>
> Good.
>
> > However I'm in no position to be able to research your
> > sources, as I do not know what sources you are using and my sucess rate
> > at mind-reading works out at a percentage equal to pure co-incidence.
>
> One doesn't research _sources_, one researches _assertions_, looking for
> independent corroboration among sources that one trusts. But you already know
> that ... since you do considerable research on the Internet.

As I thought. You're just a troll. Goodbye.

--
Duncan.

[[email protected]]

In rec.aviation.piloting Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Jim Logajan writes:
>
>> Sure - you understood what I was talking about, but clearly Mxsmanic had no
>> clue or he wouldn't have made the sweeping claim he did.
>
> The topic of the thread concerns the high risk of attempting to return to an
> airport after losing all power after takeoff. It's hard to see how this would
> be applicable to gliders, since they do not take off and they are not powered.

They certainly do take off, or how would they get into the air?

And they are powered by an engine at the end of a rope.



--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[george]

On Feb 15, 12:36*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:

> The topic of the thread concerns the high risk of attempting to return to an
> airport after losing all power after takeoff. It's hard to see how this would
> be applicable to gliders, since they do not take off and they are not powered.

Winch rope breaks - aerotow rope breaks.
I'm amused at the claim that gliders do not 'takeoff' and there's now
a number of powered gliders out there..
Mixedups research stops at the GA gate

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> They certainly do take off, or how would they get into the air?

By being towed there.

> And they are powered by an engine at the end of a rope.

See above.

[Mxsmanic]

george writes:

> Winch rope breaks - aerotow rope breaks.

Even then, it's not quite the same as being in a powered airplane. A glider is
designed to fly without power; a powered aircraft is not.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
>
>> They certainly do take off, or how would they get into the air?
>
> By being towed there.

A take off is a take off.


>> And they are powered by an engine at the end of a rope.
>
> See above.

So by your logic if the engine at the end of the rope quites, there is
no problem because it isn't directly bolted to the glider?



--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

In rec.aviation.piloting Mxsmanic > wrote:
> george writes:
>
>> Winch rope breaks - aerotow rope breaks.
>
> Even then, it's not quite the same as being in a powered airplane. A glider is
> designed to fly without power; a powered aircraft is not.

Yep, powered aircraft stop flying and just flutter willy-nilly to the ground
without power.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Crash Lander[_4_]]

Mxsmanic wrote:

> george writes:
>
> > Winch rope breaks - aerotow rope breaks.
>
> Even then, it's not quite the same as being in a powered airplane. A
> glider is designed to fly without power; a powered aircraft is not.

The gliders power is provided by another a/c initially, and then it's
switched to natural power in the form of gravity.
If a "normally" poowered a/c was not designed to fly without power, it
would drop like a stone when the engine is cut.
It is not the engine that makes the a/c fly. It is the wings. The
engine simply pulls the a/c through the air, as does gravity/inertia in
the case of a glider.
The only difference is that a glider is usually much lighter, and the
wings longer. The glide ration, due to these differences is different
to a powered a/c. The principles are the same.
If a powered a/c loses power on take off, it lacks sufficient forward
motion and altitude to maintain flight. When a glider loses power (it's
tow plane), on take off, it lacks sufficient forward motion and altitude
to maintain flight.
Same same.
Crash Lander
--

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> A take off is a take off.

So why is someone with only a license to fly an airplane not allowed to take
off in a helicopter?

> So by your logic if the engine at the end of the rope quites, there is
> no problem because it isn't directly bolted to the glider?

There is no engine at the end of the rope; there's another aircraft at the end
of the rope.

The recovery technique for a glider is different from that for a powered
airplane. It's as simple as that. For powered airplanes, trying to turn around
and go back to the airport after a total power loss on takeoff is a really,
really bad idea.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
>
>> A take off is a take off.
>
> So why is someone with only a license to fly an airplane not allowed to take
> off in a helicopter?

Non sequitur.

Your claim was that gliders don't take off.

Obviously they do.

>> So by your logic if the engine at the end of the rope quites, there is
>> no problem because it isn't directly bolted to the glider?
>
> There is no engine at the end of the rope; there's another aircraft at the end
> of the rope.
>
> The recovery technique for a glider is different from that for a powered
> airplane. It's as simple as that.

OK, let's analyze both situations:

In a powered aircraft, the engine fails, you establish best glide and
look for a place to land.

In a glider, the tow engine fails, you release the tow rope, establish best
glide and look for a place to land.

Yep, totally different.



--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[george]

On Feb 15, 9:30*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
> > A take off is a take off.
>
> So why is someone with only a license to fly an airplane not allowed to take
> off in a helicopter?

Because you have to learn to fly a helicopter and get a rating to fly
a helicopter.

> > So by your logic if the engine at the end of the rope quites, there is
> > no problem because it isn't directly bolted to the glider?
>
> There is no engine at the end of the rope; there's another aircraft at the end
> of the rope.


He's never heard of winch launches, Bungee launches or motorised
sailplanes..

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> Mxsmanic > wrote:
> > writes:
> >
> >> A take off is a take off.
> >
> > So why is someone with only a license to fly an airplane not allowed to take
> > off in a helicopter?
>
> Non sequitur.

On the contrary, it illustrates the fact that a takeoff is not a takeoff. A
takeoff in a helicopter is very different from that in an airplane, which is
one reason why a license to fly the latter is not a license to fly the former.

> In a powered aircraft, the engine fails, you establish best glide and
> look for a place to land.
>
> In a glider, the tow engine fails, you release the tow rope, establish best
> glide and look for a place to land.
>
> Yep, totally different.

Look at the best glide performance for the two aircraft and you'll see why.

I'm not familiar with best practices for glides, but I'd expect an attempt to
turn around to be a bad idea for them as well. It's certainly a bad idea for
a powered airplane.

[Mxsmanic]

george writes:

> Because you have to learn to fly a helicopter and get a rating to fly
> a helicopter.

But if a takeoff were a takeoff, that wouldn't be true.

[Mxsmanic]

Crash Lander writes:

> If a "normally" poowered a/c was not designed to fly without power, it
> would drop like a stone when the engine is cut.

Why? The same aerodynamics that help it to fly with power help it to glide
without power.

> The only difference is that a glider is usually much lighter, and the
> wings longer. The glide ration, due to these differences is different
> to a powered a/c. The principles are the same.

The difference in glide ratio is pretty important.

I imagine that trying to turn around in a glider isn't particularly smart,
either, just as it is extremely unwise in a powered airplane. But I don't know
much about gliders.

> If a powered a/c loses power on take off, it lacks sufficient forward
> motion and altitude to maintain flight. When a glider loses power (it's
> tow plane), on take off, it lacks sufficient forward motion and altitude
> to maintain flight.
> Same same.

In that case, the glider pilot should behave like the pilot of the powered
aircraft, and look for a place to land ahead of him, instead of trying to turn
around.

[John Smith]

> I imagine that trying to turn around in a glider isn't particularly smart,
> either,

It's SOP in gliders and regularly trained.

> In that case, the glider pilot should behave like the pilot of the powered
> aircraft, and look for a place to land ahead of him, instead of trying to turn
> around.

BS.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
>
>> Mxsmanic > wrote:
>> > writes:
>> >
>> >> A take off is a take off.
>> >
>> > So why is someone with only a license to fly an airplane not allowed to take
>> > off in a helicopter?
>>
>> Non sequitur.
>
> On the contrary, it illustrates the fact that a takeoff is not a takeoff. A
> takeoff in a helicopter is very different from that in an airplane, which is
> one reason why a license to fly the latter is not a license to fly the former.

Babbling nonsense:

"Takeoff is the phase of flight in which an aircraft goes through a
transition from moving along the ground (taxiing) to flying in the air,
usually starting on a runway."


>> In a powered aircraft, the engine fails, you establish best glide and
>> look for a place to land.
>>
>> In a glider, the tow engine fails, you release the tow rope, establish best
>> glide and look for a place to land.
>>
>> Yep, totally different.
>
> Look at the best glide performance for the two aircraft and you'll see why.

Your statement was the recovery action was different when in fact, other
than having to release the tow rope, it is identical.

The recovery ACTIONS taken have nothing to do with relative glide performance.

Whatever the aircraft is, and whatever the best glide speed is, that is the
first action, i.e. establish best glide speed.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> george writes:
>
>> Because you have to learn to fly a helicopter and get a rating to fly
>> a helicopter.
>
> But if a takeoff were a takeoff, that wouldn't be true.

So what is you definition of the word "takeoff".

For the sane world it is "the phase of flight in which an aircraft goes
through a transition from moving along the ground (taxiing) to flying in
the air, usually starting on a runway."

A takeoff is a takeoff by any sort of aircraft and it doesn't matter to
the definition of the word whether the aircraft is an airplane, helicopter,
blimp, balloon, or rocket.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Jim Logajan]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> I'm not familiar with best practices for glides,

Indeed.

> but I'd expect an
> attempt to turn around to be a bad idea for them as well.

You admit your opinion is uninformed, yet you post it anyway. When
uninformed, the rational thing to do is to either ask what the best
practices are or research them, not invent assertions and then draw
conclusions from said assertions.

For those interested, here is an interesting sampling of videos of low
altitude 180 degree returns to the takeoff airfield:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BMTqOkmn2Oo
(Note the 200 ft callout at :16 and the oblique angle approach beginning
at :38.)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g7VPC-whu0U
(Same oblique angle appears beginning at 1:46.)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MHcgextOUlg
(Pretty straightforward.)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yAeuGRnnN6I
("Where is he!? Hello!?")

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y8FP_MIB7gw
(Real rope break during winch launch - OK, this is really an abbreviated
360 circuit and not a 180 turnback.)

> It's certainly a bad idea for a powered airplane.

Elsewhere you wrote "I suggest that you and other readers do research
rather than listen to me...." to which I would heartily agree.

[Dave Doe]

In article >,
says...
>
> Mxsmanic > wrote in
> :
>
> >
> > Then many pilots must not be training enough, because they misjudge that
> > point all the time.
> >
> You'll have to prove that assertation. Your claim is not near enough.

You'll note I've asked him four times. Clearly, he can not.

Agreeing with 'Copter6' - treating him as a troll and ignoring all
future posts from him.

--
Duncan.

[Brian Whatcott]

Dave Doe wrote:
>
>>> Then many pilots must not be training enough, because they misjudge that
>>> point all the time.
>>>
>> You'll have to prove that assertion. Your claim is not near enough.
>
> You'll note I've asked him four times. Clearly, he can not.
>
> Agreeing with 'Copter6' - treating him as a troll and ignoring all
> future posts from him.
>

Hmmm...folks who need to ask for proof that people misjudge their
capability of making the airport on a departure engine failure have not
been watching the fatality stats...

Brian W

[Mxsmanic]

Clark writes:

> You'll have to prove that assertation. Your claim is not near enough.

Not near enough for what? I suggest that the curious reader do his own
research; I hardly expect him to just take me at my word.

[Mxsmanic]

Jim Logajan writes:

> You admit your opinion is uninformed, yet you post it anyway.

If uninformed opinions were forbidden in cyberspace, you'd hear only the
crickets.

> When uninformed, the rational thing to do is to either ask what the best
> practices are or research them, not invent assertions and then draw
> conclusions from said assertions.

When off topic, the rational thing to do is to return to the topic.

The topic here is attempting to turn back to the airport after a total engine
failure on take-off in a powered airplane.

[Dallas]

On Sun, 14 Feb 2010 20:02:38 -0000, wrote:

> Yep, powered aircraft stop flying and just flutter willy-nilly to the ground
> without power.

Only half true.

Apparently you haven't seen any of the movies about airplanes loosing
power. They tend to start rattling violently the instant the engine stops.
Then they take on a whistling sound like a bomb being dropped. Hanging on
to the yoke becomes impossible as it takes on a violent forward and
backward motion. All control is lost and the aircraft plows into the
ground then bounces back into the air several times while all external
appendages are ripped off. The good news is that they never catch on fire
and everyone onboard lives to become survivalists for the next 2 hours.


--
Dallas

[Dave Doe]

In article >, betwys1
@sbcglobal.net says...
>
> Dave Doe wrote:
> >
> >>> Then many pilots must not be training enough, because they misjudge that
> >>> point all the time.
> >>>
> >> You'll have to prove that assertion. Your claim is not near enough.
> >
> > You'll note I've asked him four times. Clearly, he can not.
> >
> > Agreeing with 'Copter6' - treating him as a troll and ignoring all
> > future posts from him.
> >
>
> Hmmm...folks who need to ask for proof that people misjudge their
> capability of making the airport on a departure engine failure have not
> been watching the fatality stats...

Well... *what are they*? The fatality stats are easy. How about the
non-fatals - the sucess stories.

Cos that's what I'm asking for: the FLWOP on t/o stats - sucessful vs
non-sucessful.

--
Duncan.

[John Smith]

On 15.02.10 09:36 Dave Doe wrote:
>> Hmmm...folks who need to ask for proof that people misjudge their
>> capability of making the airport on a departure engine failure have not
>> been watching the fatality stats...
>
> Well... *what are they*? The fatality stats are easy. How about the
> non-fatals - the sucess stories.
>
> Cos that's what I'm asking for: the FLWOP on t/o stats - sucessful vs
> non-sucessful.

Well... MX is a troll, but he is right when he concludes that the
average pilot is too poorly trained to make a safe 180 after an engine
failure. The accidents are obvious.

If you claim that there have been as many successful 180, then it's up
to *you* to prove that.

It's always fascinating that people are so focused on MX being a troll
that they even refuse to accept his statements when he claims something
that is actually true. I hope your judgement as a pilot is better.

[Dave Doe]

In article >,
says...
>
> On 15.02.10 09:36 Dave Doe wrote:
> >> Hmmm...folks who need to ask for proof that people misjudge their
> >> capability of making the airport on a departure engine failure have not
> >> been watching the fatality stats...
> >
> > Well... *what are they*? The fatality stats are easy. How about the
> > non-fatals - the sucess stories.
> >
> > Cos that's what I'm asking for: the FLWOP on t/o stats - sucessful vs
> > non-sucessful.
>
> Well... MX is a troll, but he is right when he concludes that the
> average pilot is too poorly trained to make a safe 180 after an engine
> failure. The accidents are obvious.
>
> If you claim that there have been as many successful 180, then it's up
> to *you* to prove that.
>
> It's always fascinating that people are so focused on MX being a troll
> that they even refuse to accept his statements when he claims something
> that is actually true. I hope your judgement as a pilot is better.

Please read a bit more carefully! (though I do note the thread has
changed a bit)...

"
Cos that's what I'm asking for: the FLWOP on t/o stats - sucessful vs
non-sucessful.
"

I assume, as I'm sure most would, that most sucessful FLWOP on T/O are
ahead of the RWY (ie no turning back to the field). But regardless of
that, I also believe that the majority of FLWOP on T/O are sucessful
ones.


--
Duncan.

[Mxsmanic]

Dave Doe writes:

> Well... *what are they*? The fatality stats are easy. How about the
> non-fatals - the sucess stories.

What about them? They are vastly outnumbered by incidents that result in
fatalities. When something is fatal most of the time, it is best avoided.

[[email protected]]

In rec.aviation.piloting Dallas > wrote:
> On Sun, 14 Feb 2010 20:02:38 -0000, wrote:
>
>> Yep, powered aircraft stop flying and just flutter willy-nilly to the ground
>> without power.
>
> Only half true.
>
> Apparently you haven't seen any of the movies about airplanes loosing
> power. They tend to start rattling violently the instant the engine stops.
> Then they take on a whistling sound like a bomb being dropped. Hanging on
> to the yoke becomes impossible as it takes on a violent forward and
> backward motion. All control is lost and the aircraft plows into the
> ground then bounces back into the air several times while all external
> appendages are ripped off. The good news is that they never catch on fire
> and everyone onboard lives to become survivalists for the next 2 hours.
>

Better than that, on a recent TV adventure show:

A fire breaks out in the cargo hold which also leaves a big hole in the
fuselage.

The hero has to roll the airliner inverted to blow out the fire because "the
wind is blowing faster on the top of the airplane than the bottom".


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Jim Logajan]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Dave Doe writes:
>
>> Well... *what are they*? The fatality stats are easy. How about the
>> non-fatals - the sucess stories.
>
> What about them? They are vastly outnumbered by incidents that result in
> fatalities. When something is fatal most of the time, it is best avoided.

The above assertion is an invention without foundation and is contradictive
of existing statistics. In 2006, of 153 fixed wing GA accidents whose
causal chain began during the takeoff phase of flight, 16 resulted in
fatalities (~10%) [Ref 1, figure 9]. Of the 160 fixed wing GA accidents
attributed to pilot error during takeoff or climb, 31 resulted in
fatalities (~19%) [Ref 1, figure 2].

[1] 2007 Nall Report, AOPA Air Safety Foundation Publication.
http://www.aopa.org/asf/publications/nall.html

[Jim Logajan]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Jim Logajan writes:
>
>> You admit your opinion is uninformed, yet you post it anyway.
>
> If uninformed opinions were forbidden in cyberspace, you'd hear only
> the crickets.

The chirp of crickets over uninformed opinion would be better for everyone,
were it possible. But I'm sorry to read that you are being forbidden from
posting your uninformed opinions as if they were fact. When did this take
effect and is there any recourse?

>> When uninformed, the rational thing to do is to either ask what the
>> best practices are or research them, not invent assertions and then
>> draw conclusions from said assertions.
>
> When off topic, the rational thing to do is to return to the topic.

Agreed. When an airplane loses power it is a glider and the rational topic
to discuss is how to fly gliders, not powered airplanes since the latter
are not applicable once the engine loses power.

> The topic here is attempting to turn back to the airport after a total
> engine failure on take-off in a powered airplane.

So is it your claim that an airplane that suffers engine failure does not
become a glider and should not be flown as such? If so, what do you think
it becomes and how should it be flown? Hopefully you aren't forbidden from
posting your uninformed opinion and can answer these questions!

[Dallas]

On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 17:10:00 -0000, wrote:

> The hero has to roll the airliner inverted to blow out the fire because "the
> wind is blowing faster on the top of the airplane than the bottom".

Well of course silly.. don't you remember that from first day ground
school? It's one the axioms of the Bernoulli principle.

OMG, did I just see that on HBO? Was that "Turbulence" with the flight
attendant landing the airplane?


--
Dallas

[[email protected]]

Dallas > wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 17:10:00 -0000, wrote:
>
>> The hero has to roll the airliner inverted to blow out the fire because "the
>> wind is blowing faster on the top of the airplane than the bottom".
>
> Well of course silly.. don't you remember that from first day ground
> school? It's one the axioms of the Bernoulli principle.
>
> OMG, did I just see that on HBO? Was that "Turbulence" with the flight
> attendant landing the airplane?

It was in a series called "Human Target".

After the hero got the airplane inverted, the "flight computer" locked up
and wouldn't let him return to normal flight, so he had to climb into
the equipment compartment (unpressurized, at altitude, no oxygen) and
have the handy, on-board nerd reboot the computer.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Mxsmanic]

Jim Logajan writes:

> The above assertion is an invention without foundation and is contradictive
> of existing statistics. In 2006, of 153 fixed wing GA accidents whose
> causal chain began during the takeoff phase of flight, 16 resulted in
> fatalities (~10%) [Ref 1, figure 9]. Of the 160 fixed wing GA accidents
> attributed to pilot error during takeoff or climb, 31 resulted in
> fatalities (~19%) [Ref 1, figure 2].
>
> [1] 2007 Nall Report, AOPA Air Safety Foundation Publication.
> http://www.aopa.org/asf/publications/nall.html

Since a successful return to the airport does not cause an accident, where are
the statistics on the success stories for comparison?

[Flaps_50!]

On Feb 16, 11:25*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Jim Logajan writes:
> > The above assertion is an invention without foundation and is contradictive
> > of existing statistics. In 2006, of 153 fixed wing GA accidents whose
> > causal chain began during the takeoff phase of flight, 16 resulted in
> > fatalities (~10%) [Ref 1, figure 9]. Of the 160 fixed wing GA accidents
> > attributed to pilot error during takeoff or climb, 31 resulted in
> > fatalities (~19%) [Ref 1, figure 2].
>
> > [1] 2007 Nall Report, AOPA Air Safety Foundation Publication.
> >http://www.aopa.org/asf/publications/nall.html
>
> Since a successful return to the airport does not cause an accident, where are
> the statistics on the success stories for comparison?

In the absence of appropriate data, perhaps this analysis is useful:

http://www.nar-associates.com/technical-flying/impossible/possible.html

In summary, I'd say it is unlikely that at 200' you could make a turn
back in a typical powered GA aircraft. More height and training help
but in the vid in question I see two obvious errors, first he did not
think to use the diagonal runway which could be reached more easily
(=lack of pre-planning) and second he did not perform the optimal
turn. What is sobering is the failure of the pilots to make the
maneuver successfully -even when briefed.

Hope this helps reduce the 'noise'.

Cheers

[Crash Lander[_5_]]

John Smith wrote:

> Well... MX is a troll, but he is right when he concludes that the
> average pilot is too poorly trained to make a safe 180 after an
> engine failure. The accidents are obvious.

I'm not convinced it's a case of being too poorly trained to make the
180 safely. I'd suggest that the best trained pilots would have a good
chance of dying if they attempted a 180 after a power failure on take
off.
I'm more inclined to believe that it's a case of the a/c not being
capable of making it back, no matter what the pilot's skill level.
Having said that, a well trained pilot would not attempt the 180 in the
first place, but that's not what you were suggesting.
Crash Lander

--

[Crash Lander[_5_]]

Mxsmanic wrote:

> What about them? They are vastly outnumbered by incidents that result
> in fatalities.

Can you back that up with facts and figures? I suggest you claim this
purely because it's the fatals that you hear about every time. You
don't always hear about the ones that aren't fatal.
Crash Lander

--

[Jim Logajan]

"Flaps_50!" > wrote:
> In the absence of appropriate data, perhaps this analysis is useful:
>
> http://www.nar-associates.com/technical-flying/impossible/possible.html

A very useful article - thanks for pointing it out.

[Dallas]

On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 21:59:12 -0000, wrote:

> "flight computer" locked up
> and wouldn't let him return to normal flight, so he had to climb into
> the equipment compartment (unpressurized, at altitude, no oxygen) and
> have the handy, on-board nerd reboot the computer.

I guess he didn't see that big red button on the unit that reads "reboot"?

"Turbulence" was equally moronic... With a psychopathic killer onboard and
a profound lack of self esteem, the flight attendant is inexplicably able
to operate the FMC and bring the pilot-less 747 to a safe landing.


--
Dallas

[Mxsmanic]

Crash Lander writes:

> Can you back that up with facts and figures? I suggest you claim this
> purely because it's the fatals that you hear about every time. You
> don't always hear about the ones that aren't fatal.

I prefer to err on the side of caution.

[John Smith]

> I'm not convinced it's a case of being too poorly trained to make the
> 180 safely. I'd suggest that the best trained pilots would have a good
> chance of dying if they attempted a 180 after a power failure on take
> off.
> I'm more inclined to believe that it's a case of the a/c not being
> capable of making it back, no matter what the pilot's skill level.
> Having said that, a well trained pilot would not attempt the 180 in the
> first place, but that's not what you were suggesting.

Of course, the judgement when a 180 is possible and when not is a
crucial point in that training. Actually, this is what glider pilots
train all the time.

[terry]

On Feb 16, 7:49*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Crash Lander writes:
> > Can you back that up with facts and figures? I suggest you claim this
> > purely because it's the fatals that you hear about every time. You
> > don't always hear about the ones that aren't fatal.
>
> I prefer to err on the side of caution.

Thats very wise and good airmanship Anthony. As much as you annoy
the hell out of us, we dont want to see you in the news, having
crashed your PC into a Paris apartment block in a flaming fireball,
ala Concorde.

[Dave Doe]

In article >,
says...
>
> Mxsmanic wrote:
>
> > What about them? They are vastly outnumbered by incidents that result
> > in fatalities.
>
> Can you back that up with facts and figures? I suggest you claim this
> purely because it's the fatals that you hear about every time. You
> don't always hear about the ones that aren't fatal.
> Crash Lander

I've asked him several times but he just comes back with the usual MX
pretensious rhetoric. I strongly disagreed with his assertion that

"
Then many pilots must not be training enough, because they misjudge that
point all the time.
"

I disagree and think most (real) pilots do as we are trained to do - and
land ahead.

Me? (300hrs) - I wouldn't even consider turning back - unless I was up
around circuit altitude. If I was pressed for a figure, OK, 700' AGL
(C172P). (Of course, there are many variables - but mainly the field
itself, and what's off and to the side of each end)

--
Duncan.

[Ricky]

On Feb 11, 9:05*am, Robert Moore > wrote:
> Ricky > wrote
>
> > You are so wrong.
> > You do not fly, have never had any flight training, and anything that
> > comes from you should not be taken seriously.
>
> NO Ricky....YOU are so wrong...

I am very aware of the ground instructor reqirements, so, that was
actually not a shock as you presumed.
Perhaps you are not familiar with Mxsmanic, one who often pushes his
off-kilter knowlege of aviation on rrc in a manner as one who should
be taken seriously. His only experience is behind a pc-based
simulator, and when told he is wrong he plants his feet in the ground,
goes off topic, or simply will not respond to wisdom or correction.
Actually, he is sometimes correct due to the ability to Google just
about anything. My point is that a pilot, or prospective pilot, should
not take what he says with any amount of seriousness.

Ricky

[Ricky]

On Feb 16, 2:49*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:

> I prefer to err on the side of caution.

You have no need to "err"...ever. You fly a computer. You have no need
for "caution" as if you knew what that is anyway, which you never will
because you will not get off your office chair & get into a real
airplane.

Ricky