RV-8 crash

[Big John]

NTBS prelim report on RV-8 crash at College Place, WA, 1 April.

From prelim data looks like lost power after T/O and tied to make a
180 back to field?

My condolances to family.

Big John
`````````````````````````````````````````````````` ``````````````````````````````````````


NTBS Quote

This is preliminary information, subject to change, and may contain
errors. Any errors in this report will be corrected when the final
report has been completed.

On April 1, 2004, approximately 1138 Pacific standard time, a
Davenport (Van's) RV-8F homebuilt experimental aircraft, N284DM,
registered to and being flown/operated by a commercial pilot sustained
substantial damage during an in-flight collision with terrain
following a loss of power on initial climb at College Place,
Washington. The pilot was fatally injured and there was no post-crash
fire. Visual meteorological conditions existed and no flight plan had
been filed. The flight, which was personal, originated from Martin
Field, College Place, Washington, approximately 1135 and was destined
for Walla Walla, Washington.

A companion pilot, who departed in a separate aircraft immediately
after N284DM, reported that the accident aircraft departed on runway
23 and commenced a climbing right turn. The companion pilot departed
immediately thereafter and during his climbing right turn he passed
the accident aircraft noting that the aircraft was decelerating and
descending back toward Martin Field. Although both pilots were in
radio communication with one another the companion pilot heard no
radio transmissions from the pilot of the accident aircraft following
his departure.

The aircraft impacted flat terrain in a flat attitude between runway
23 and Whitman Drive, which runs parallel to the runway approximately
500 feet north of the field. The wreckage distribution covered
approximately 25-30 feet of ground slide toward the southwest.

[Jeff]

how big is an RV8 - or small ?
he impacted flat terrain and in a flat attitude but still died.

Big John wrote:

> NTBS prelim report on RV-8 crash at College Place, WA, 1 April.
>
> From prelim data looks like lost power after T/O and tied to make a
> 180 back to field?
>
> My condolances to family.
>
> Big John
> `````````````````````````````````````````````````` ``````````````````````````````````````
>
> NTBS Quote
>
> This is preliminary information, subject to change, and may contain
> errors. Any errors in this report will be corrected when the final
> report has been completed.
>
> On April 1, 2004, approximately 1138 Pacific standard time, a
> Davenport (Van's) RV-8F homebuilt experimental aircraft, N284DM,
> registered to and being flown/operated by a commercial pilot sustained
> substantial damage during an in-flight collision with terrain
> following a loss of power on initial climb at College Place,
> Washington. The pilot was fatally injured and there was no post-crash
> fire. Visual meteorological conditions existed and no flight plan had
> been filed. The flight, which was personal, originated from Martin
> Field, College Place, Washington, approximately 1135 and was destined
> for Walla Walla, Washington.
>
> A companion pilot, who departed in a separate aircraft immediately
> after N284DM, reported that the accident aircraft departed on runway
> 23 and commenced a climbing right turn. The companion pilot departed
> immediately thereafter and during his climbing right turn he passed
> the accident aircraft noting that the aircraft was decelerating and
> descending back toward Martin Field. Although both pilots were in
> radio communication with one another the companion pilot heard no
> radio transmissions from the pilot of the accident aircraft following
> his departure.
>
> The aircraft impacted flat terrain in a flat attitude between runway
> 23 and Whitman Drive, which runs parallel to the runway approximately
> 500 feet north of the field. The wreckage distribution covered
> approximately 25-30 feet of ground slide toward the southwest.

[Kyle Boatright]

"Jeff" > wrote in message
...
> how big is an RV8 - or small ?
> he impacted flat terrain and in a flat attitude but still died.
>
> Big John wrote:
>
> > NTBS prelim report on RV-8 crash at College Place, WA, 1 April.
> >
> > From prelim data looks like lost power after T/O and tied to make a
> > 180 back to field?
> >
> > My condolances to family.
> >
> > Big John
> >
`````````````````````````````````````````````````` ``````````````````````````
````````````
> >
> > NTBS Quote
> >
> > This is preliminary information, subject to change, and may contain
> > errors. Any errors in this report will be corrected when the final
> > report has been completed.
> >
> > On April 1, 2004, approximately 1138 Pacific standard time, a
> > Davenport (Van's) RV-8F homebuilt experimental aircraft, N284DM,
> > registered to and being flown/operated by a commercial pilot sustained
> > substantial damage during an in-flight collision with terrain
> > following a loss of power on initial climb at College Place,
> > Washington. The pilot was fatally injured and there was no post-crash
> > fire. Visual meteorological conditions existed and no flight plan had
> > been filed. The flight, which was personal, originated from Martin
> > Field, College Place, Washington, approximately 1135 and was destined
> > for Walla Walla, Washington.
> >
> > A companion pilot, who departed in a separate aircraft immediately
> > after N284DM, reported that the accident aircraft departed on runway
> > 23 and commenced a climbing right turn. The companion pilot departed
> > immediately thereafter and during his climbing right turn he passed
> > the accident aircraft noting that the aircraft was decelerating and
> > descending back toward Martin Field. Although both pilots were in
> > radio communication with one another the companion pilot heard no
> > radio transmissions from the pilot of the accident aircraft following
> > his departure.
> >
> > The aircraft impacted flat terrain in a flat attitude between runway
> > 23 and Whitman Drive, which runs parallel to the runway approximately
> > 500 feet north of the field. The wreckage distribution covered
> > approximately 25-30 feet of ground slide toward the southwest.
>

An RV-8 is a two seater, probably with an O-320 or O-360 and an empty weight
of 1100 pounds or so. The the gross is 1800 lbs. The airframe is aerobatic
and is fairly robust. I think the smoking gun might be the 25-30' ground
slide, which tells me that the airplane was falling, not flying when it hit
the ground. Odds are that the aircraft had either stalled or developed a
very high sink rate before impact. At some point, that isn't survivable.

KB

[Bob Martin]

Jeff > wrote in message >...
> how big is an RV8 - or small ?
> he impacted flat terrain and in a flat attitude but still died.

24' wingspan
21' length
max gross 1800 lb

[Dennis O'Connor]

You absolutely, flatly, cannot turn back and you will die if you try...
Now, I will not go into my usual tirade on this topic, however I expect the
usual suspects to jump all over this with their claims of 'proof' that they
tried it and they succeeded...
Sadly, some will read their garbage, tuck it away into their memory bank,
and for a few the day will come when they lose an engine on climb out and
they will turn back - and die...
denny

"Kyle Boatright" > wrote in Odds are that the
aircraft had either stalled or developed a
> very high sink rate before impact. At some point, that isn't survivable.

[Ryan]

Good point! Just "land" straight ahead - isnt that what you were trained to
do??? It is amazing the number of people who honestly think a 180deg+
turnback is a better idea. Dennis - thanks for putting that out there.

"Dennis O'Connor" > wrote in message
...
> You absolutely, flatly, cannot turn back and you will die if you try...
> Now, I will not go into my usual tirade on this topic, however I expect
the
> usual suspects to jump all over this with their claims of 'proof' that
they
> tried it and they succeeded...
> Sadly, some will read their garbage, tuck it away into their memory bank,
> and for a few the day will come when they lose an engine on climb out and
> they will turn back - and die...
> denny
>
> "Kyle Boatright" > wrote in Odds are that the
> aircraft had either stalled or developed a
> > very high sink rate before impact. At some point, that isn't
survivable.
>
>

[John Galban]

"Dennis O'Connor" > wrote in message >...
> You absolutely, flatly, cannot turn back and you will die if you try...
> Now, I will not go into my usual tirade on this topic, however I expect the
> usual suspects to jump all over this with their claims of 'proof' that they
> tried it and they succeeded...
> Sadly, some will read their garbage, tuck it away into their memory bank,
> and for a few the day will come when they lose an engine on climb out and
> they will turn back - and die...

That's probably because the debate is not that you "absolutely,
flatly, cannot turn back and you will die if you try", it's more a
question of how much altitude you need to have before you are able to
turn back and live.

As a somewhat extreme example: A few years ago I busted an exhaust
header on climbout and had to shut the engine down. I easily turned
back and glided to the runway. I even flew a pattern and slipped a
little on final. Of course, with ~3500 ft. of altitude when I shut
down the engine, I wasn't too worried about dying because I turned
back :-) It's all in the details!

John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

[Newps]

Dennis O'Connor wrote:
> You absolutely, flatly, cannot turn back and you will die if you try...

Idiotic stupid thing to say. You have to find the altitude that you can
make the turn in. In my 182 it is 350 feet to get back to the runway I
took off from, opposite direction. 200 feet to just do a 180 and land
on a parallel runway or taxiway. Add a certain amount for the oh ****
factor and I will turn around unconditionally at 450 feet. Less if I
have another runway or taxiway to come down on.

[BllFs6]

Im' know nothing about flying....

But here is something I do when Im driving around...particularly in bad weather
or heavy traffic....

When coming up to an intersection and the light is green or it doesnt have a
light ....Im literally thinking continously.....can still stop....can still
stop..can still stop. ....nope, cant stop now...... now I am too close or going
too fast, or the road is too slick etc etc or someone is following too
closely....must commit to going through the intesection and/or swerving around
someone....

My mentally declaring a decision point prevents a momentary mental panic should
the light change or a car appear in intersection etc etc.....so that saves some
time as far as reaction time goes.....it also prevents the classic panick and
do nothing response.....and finally it lets me choose the choice most likely to
WORK rather than in panic just choosing in a more random fashion....

Doing that sorta thing in all kinds of driving scenarios has saved me more than
once....and most likely kept me from killing a driver who pulled out of side
road right in front of me at the very last instant....

Sounds like more pilots should figure out their "altitude of no return" and
make a it a point to consciously decide when they have passed that point and a
different emergency response other than "do a 180 quick" is appropriate....

take care

Blll

[BTIZ]

Bull S^&*

"Dennis O'Connor" > wrote in message
...
> You absolutely, flatly, cannot turn back and you will die if you try...
> Now, I will not go into my usual tirade on this topic, however I expect
the
> usual suspects to jump all over this with their claims of 'proof' that
they
> tried it and they succeeded...
> Sadly, some will read their garbage, tuck it away into their memory bank,
> and for a few the day will come when they lose an engine on climb out and
> they will turn back - and die...
> denny
>
> "Kyle Boatright" > wrote in Odds are that the
> aircraft had either stalled or developed a
> > very high sink rate before impact. At some point, that isn't
survivable.
>
>

[mike regish]

Even from 1000 feet?

If you can't make it back to the field from 1000 feet, hang up your ticket.

C'mon. It all depends on your altitude.

mike regish
(Turned back from 200 feet in an ultralight once...and still alive)

"Dennis O'Connor" > wrote in message
...
> You absolutely, flatly, cannot turn back and you will die if you try...
> Now, I will not go into my usual tirade on this topic, however I expect
the
> usual suspects to jump all over this with their claims of 'proof' that
they
> tried it and they succeeded...
> Sadly, some will read their garbage, tuck it away into their memory bank,
> and for a few the day will come when they lose an engine on climb out and
> they will turn back - and die...
> denny
>
> "Kyle Boatright" > wrote in Odds are that the
> aircraft had either stalled or developed a
> > very high sink rate before impact. At some point, that isn't
survivable.
>
>

[mike regish]

What if there's a mountain straight ahead and a nice cornfield off to your
right.

It's a fluid situation and you have to flow with it.

mike regish

"Ryan" <f> wrote in message ...
> Good point! Just "land" straight ahead - isnt that what you were trained
to
> do??? It is amazing the number of people who honestly think a 180deg+
> turnback is a better idea. Dennis - thanks for putting that out there.
>
> "Dennis O'Connor" > wrote in message
> ...
> > You absolutely, flatly, cannot turn back and you will die if you try...
> > Now, I will not go into my usual tirade on this topic, however I expect
> the
> > usual suspects to jump all over this with their claims of 'proof' that
> they
> > tried it and they succeeded...
> > Sadly, some will read their garbage, tuck it away into their memory
bank,
> > and for a few the day will come when they lose an engine on climb out
and
> > they will turn back - and die...
> > denny
> >
> > "Kyle Boatright" > wrote in Odds are that the
> > aircraft had either stalled or developed a
> > > very high sink rate before impact. At some point, that isn't
> survivable.
> >
> >
>
>

[BTIZ]

train turn backs at 200ft in a glider.. it is part of the PTS

BT

> mike regish
> (Turned back from 200 feet in an ultralight once...and still alive)

[Shirley]

"BTIZ" btiznospm2 wrote:
>train turn backs at 200ft in a glider..
>it is part of the PTS

I was just going to say that ... simulated rope break at 200 feet with
turn-back and downwind landing prior to solo. And part of the (glider) training
is to be watching and to call out *200-feet* when we pass it on every tow. Some
instructors even pull the tow release at that altitude if the student fails to
call out 200-feet. Some more experienced pilots can do it in less, but that's
the arbitrary minimum turn-back altitude. You still have to consider, however,
the conditions (wind, etc.) on any particular day ... maybe it wouldn't be wise
to try, even at 200 feet. The Pawnee towplanes have turned back at about that
altitude or little higher and made it back safely...but even knowing it can be
done, I sure wouldn't use that as my personal gauge.

[Jeff]

I have it in my head, If I lose power, I will continue straight ahead and hope
for the best spot. TUrning around seems more risky, depending on altitude and
where the engine quits at.


Dennis O'Connor wrote:

> You absolutely, flatly, cannot turn back and you will die if you try...
> Now, I will not go into my usual tirade on this topic, however I expect the
> usual suspects to jump all over this with their claims of 'proof' that they
> tried it and they succeeded...
> Sadly, some will read their garbage, tuck it away into their memory bank,
> and for a few the day will come when they lose an engine on climb out and
> they will turn back - and die...
> denny
>
> "Kyle Boatright" > wrote in Odds are that the
> aircraft had either stalled or developed a
> > very high sink rate before impact. At some point, that isn't survivable.

[Jeff]

altitude and how far away from the airport you are.
I climb out at 105 kts and at about 700 fpm so there are several factors, one
is how much time elapsed since take off and the other is altitude.

mike regish wrote:

> Even from 1000 feet?
>
> If you can't make it back to the field from 1000 feet, hang up your ticket.
>
> C'mon. It all depends on your altitude.
>
> mike regish
> (Turned back from 200 feet in an ultralight once...and still alive)
>
> "Dennis O'Connor" > wrote in message
> ...
> > You absolutely, flatly, cannot turn back and you will die if you try...
> > Now, I will not go into my usual tirade on this topic, however I expect
> the
> > usual suspects to jump all over this with their claims of 'proof' that
> they
> > tried it and they succeeded...
> > Sadly, some will read their garbage, tuck it away into their memory bank,
> > and for a few the day will come when they lose an engine on climb out and
> > they will turn back - and die...
> > denny
> >
> > "Kyle Boatright" > wrote in Odds are that the
> > aircraft had either stalled or developed a
> > > very high sink rate before impact. At some point, that isn't
> survivable.
> >
> >

[Mike Beede]

In article >, Jeff > wrote:

> I have it in my head, If I lose power, I will continue straight ahead and hope
> for the best spot. TUrning around seems more risky, depending on altitude and
> where the engine quits at.
>
>
> Dennis O'Connor wrote:
>
> > You absolutely, flatly, cannot turn back and you will die if you try...

You should experiement a little to see what your aircraft and technique allow you
to do. I've tried and find 500 feet entirely adequate in a 172. However, it depends
on the wind, the terrain, and what you're operating. For most aircraft there *is* an
altitude above which you can get back to the runway. If you're flying a single-engine
jet or a helicopter, I suspect this isn't true....

I have no idea why Dennis made his flat statement, but I suggest you find out what
you and your aircraft can do safely, then file it away in your bag of tricks. By all
means get an instructor to go with you if you have any concerns about safety.

Mike Beede

[Newps]

Jeff wrote:
> I have it in my head, If I lose power, I will continue straight ahead and hope
> for the best spot. TUrning around seems more risky, depending on altitude and
> where the engine quits at.

It can be risky, it may not be. Go try it in your airplane. In a
Cessna you climb at 70 knots, pull the power, enter a 45 degree bank,
maintain 70 knots and see how much altitude you lose.

[G.R. Patterson III]

BllFs6 wrote:
>
> Sounds like more pilots should figure out their "altitude of no return" and
> make a it a point to consciously decide when they have passed that point and a
> different emergency response other than "do a 180 quick" is appropriate....

Well, you know enough about flying. :-)

You're right, and this has been suggested by other intelligent people, some of whom
know a great deal about flying.

George Patterson
This marriage is off to a shaky start. The groom just asked the band to
play "Your cheatin' heart", and the bride just requested "Don't come home
a'drinkin' with lovin' on your mind".

[Ben Jackson]

In article <hj1dc.209560$1p.2397005@attbi_s54>,
mike regish > wrote:
>What if there's a mountain straight ahead and a nice cornfield off to your
>right.

Then you try to thermal off the upslope winds on the mountain to gain
enough altitude for the 180 degree turn back to the airport...

--
Ben Jackson
>
http://www.ben.com/

[BllFs6]

>What if there's a mountain straight ahead and a nice cornfield off to your
>right.
>
>It's a fluid situation and you have to flow with it.
>

If you aint thought of all the possible contigencies BEFORE HAND and WHAT
should be the response when A, B or C happens and instead "go with the flow"
and hope to make the right snap decision thats poor planning thats gonna bite
you in the you know where someday....

take care

Blll

[BllFs6]

Thanks for the compliment George....

I get the impression some people just dont realise how bad a stall or spin near
the ground ISSSS.....you might as well just drive a car off the top of a ten to
twenty story building....its about as surviable.....

Folks need to go to the online FAA/NTSB accident/incident database...it is EASY
to use and full of good information....

You can read report after report talking about controlled forced landings in
places other than runways and youll read about plenty of survivors and minor
damage.....then read about stalls/spins near the ground.....and you read about
fatality after fatality and totally destroyed aircraft.....

If you wouldnt BET your life that you can do a 180 (or 90 or whatever) in the
plane you in, with the load and weather conditions at the moment and the
altitude your at...you better not do it....because betting you life is WHAT you
are doing....

Another gotcha is trying to go SOOOO slow during your forced landing that you
stall near the ground anyway....in this case a little fast is alot better than
a little stall...

take care

Blll

[Dan Luke]

"Newps" wrote:
> In a Cessna you climb at 70 knots, pull the power, enter a 45 degree
bank,
> maintain 70 knots and see how much altitude you lose.

Why climb out so slow?

I climb at Vx, 83 KIAS, then pitch for 70 at the power cut.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM
(remove pants to reply by email)

[G.R. Patterson III]

Jeff wrote:
>
> I have it in my head, If I lose power, I will continue straight ahead and hope
> for the best spot. TUrning around seems more risky, depending on altitude and
> where the engine quits at.

One thing you can do is to get in the habit of departing at best angle of climb.
Transition to best rate of climb a bit above the altitude at which you could
reasonably expect to be able to return to the field. If the rubber band breaks and
you haven't transitioned to best ROC yet, don't even think about turning around; just
try to hit the cheapest thing around as slowly as possible.

George Patterson
This marriage is off to a shaky start. The groom just asked the band to
play "Your cheatin' heart", and the bride just requested "Don't come home
a'drinkin' with lovin' on your mind".

[ET]

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in
:

>
>
> Jeff wrote:
>>
>> I have it in my head, If I lose power, I will continue straight ahead
>> and hope for the best spot. TUrning around seems more risky,
>> depending on altitude and where the engine quits at.
>
> One thing you can do is to get in the habit of departing at best angle
> of climb. Transition to best rate of climb a bit above the altitude at
> which you could reasonably expect to be able to return to the field.
> If the rubber band breaks and you haven't transitioned to best ROC
> yet, don't even think about turning around; just try to hit the
> cheapest thing around as slowly as possible.
>
> George Patterson
> This marriage is off to a shaky start. The groom just asked the
> band to play "Your cheatin' heart", and the bride just requested
> "Don't come home a'drinkin' with lovin' on your mind".
>

As I've thought more and more about getting my PPL and building a plane,
it's these engine failure on takeoff accidents that bother me the most.

It's been mentioned here that statistically, flying GA is about as
dangerous as driving a motorcycle. Statistics can be misleading, of
course. I used to ride motorcycles, and have done my share of "stupid"
things, but the most danger in riding a motorcycle is more the stupid
actions of other drivers, especially regarding the decreased visibility of
the MC to other drivers. So to increase safety in driving a motorcycle,
you constantly have to imagine your invisible and that every car that has
the potential to intersect your course probably will, and act accordingly
(in other words "ride paranoid")

It seems that a pilot has alot of control over "most" of the risks of dying
in his plane.... fuel exhaustion, flying into IMC, landing in crosswinds
beyond pilot/plane capability... etc., but For awhile I've thought these
were engine failure on takeoff were the most unavoidable accidents, since
it's basically instant failure and can happen at any time in an engines
life. I don't like feeling that there is a risk of dying that careful
planning and/or technique cannot reduce.

As I've done more research (yes I'm sure alot of this will be covered in
PPL training.. but..) I've learned and inferred some things. Obviously,
during takeoff is the time when the engine is under the most stress, that's
why, I assume, a good run-up is done before takeoff, so hopefully if
something is "about to fail" it will fail then and not on climbout.

Your suggestion of best angle of climb, I believe mirrors my recent mental
processes about the takeoff and engine failure risks. I assume that best
"angle" of climb will give the aircraft the best compromise between rate of
climb and engine output/stress?

In thinking about engine choices for my (hopefully) upcoming Sonex project,
this has lead me to lean more toward the (much) more expensive Jabiru 330,
rather then the AeroVee or Jab 220. With more power available, the plane
will climb to above my "no return" altitude quicker, and/or at a lower %
power setting. I have communicated with one Sonex pilot who totaled his
airplane after a prob hub failure (using a GreatPlanes VW setup, a faulty
hub attachment that has since been re-designed) and an attempted turnback
(roled the plane after a wingtip strike... fortunately lived to tell about
it). Very scary stuff....

I was also taught in my first GA plane ride (sr-22) by a CFI to use every
foot of available runway. We pulled onto a 5300 ft runway off the taxiway
that was about 100ft or so from the beginning of the runway and he still
turned, and looped around to use all of that 100 feet. He reasoned to me
that in the event of an issue at takeoff that 100 feet of runway could be
the difference between life and death, even though the sr-22 only needed
less than 1000 feet to takeoff....

I know this is very basic stuff to this group, but in my very short time of
"hanging around" 2 different small airports I have seen many folks jump in
there plane without doing "any" inspection, takeoff with no runup, etc. I
wonder how many of these statistics are a result of these breakdowns of
procedure....?

--
ET >:)


"A common mistake people make when trying to design something
completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete
fools."---- Douglas Adams

[G.R. Patterson III]

ET wrote:
>
> Your suggestion of best angle of climb, I believe mirrors my recent mental
> processes about the takeoff and engine failure risks. I assume that best
> "angle" of climb will give the aircraft the best compromise between rate of
> climb and engine output/stress?

Actually, best angle of climb tends to reduce cooling air to the engine. In some
aircraft, it will produce higher CHTs and, consequently, more engine stress. This, by
the way, is not the case with my aircraft/engine combo. It has two advantages. It
keeps you closer to the airport during climb, so you may have a better shot at
putting the plane down on airport property if things go bad while you're still pretty
low. It also gets you higher by the time you reach those obstacles that most fields
seem to have not far from the end of the runway. It also may reduce the noise level
for people who live near the end of the runway. I've seen this claim in print, but
several people here have argued otherwise.

One certain disadvantage is that best angle of climb airspeed and flap configuration
is rarely the same as that required for best glide. In my aircraft, I will be 13 mph
slower than best glide, and I'll have 24 degrees of flaps in. I feel that, if the
engine quits at, say, 300' AGL, I probably will prefer to have the flaps down to
reduce the speed at touchdown, so all I really have to do is force myself to push the
yoke forward and keep the speed up enough to avoid a steep descent rate. Best glide
speed isn't real important at that altitude, IMO.

George Patterson
This marriage is off to a shaky start. The groom just asked the band to
play "Your cheatin' heart", and the bride just requested "Don't come home
a'drinkin' with lovin' on your mind".

[Newps]

Dan Luke wrote:
> "Newps" wrote:
>
>>In a Cessna you climb at 70 knots, pull the power, enter a 45 degree
>
> bank,
>
>>maintain 70 knots and see how much altitude you lose.
>
>
> Why climb out so slow?

70 kts +- a few knots is best rate in Cessna singles.

[Dan Luke]

"Newps" wrote:
>
> 70 kts +- a few knots is best rate in Cessna singles.

Vy is 84 KIAS at MSL in mine. A quick Google finds Skylane Vy's listed
from 81-90 KIAS.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM
(remove pants to reply by email)

[pacplyer]

Old CFI/ATP/A&P here. If you want to be an old GA pilot, fly
paranoid. Assume mentally that the worst possible **** is going to
happen at the worst time to you, so that when it doesn't you can be
pleasantly surprised and the few times it does you will be so used to
entertaining disaster that it won't really rattle you. Don't fly much
at night in singles at first. It's dumb. When you do; keep a strip
within gliding distance. Not doing runups after the first t/o really
hasn't killed too many people. Most engine failures are on the first
power reduction. Odd's are, the guys you see doing this know/have
built their birds and they're comfortable skipping runups (just like
you do on touch and go's.) But you always run up till about 800hrs.
You need to engrain the same routine habit patterns. Don't fly on
schedules. This, sooner or later will have you pressing bad weather
or near sunset. Listen to war stories. Go flying a lot with friends
who are real experienced. Old guys are really young guys who didn't
get killed by their mistakes. And on the runway turnback issue, this
is PURELY a PIC decision. There's just too many different
environments, aircraft, pilot skill levels, and currency issues to
make absolute rules on. Don't think about it until you've practiced
it some with an instructor. Start high (1000 ft) on the first ones.
Pay attention to the wind before you take off and plan which direction
and altitude you will attempt the 180 on (we call this an "engine out
briefing" in the airlines.) Lastly, remember that you're not going to
live forever, so try to enjoy this general aviation insanity. They're
probably going to outlaw it anyway in about fifty years!

Good Luck,

pacplyer


ET > wrote in message >...
> "G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in
> :
>
> >
> >
> > Jeff wrote:
> >>
> >> I have it in my head, If I lose power, I will continue straight ahead
> >> and hope for the best spot. TUrning around seems more risky,
> >> depending on altitude and where the engine quits at.
> >
> > One thing you can do is to get in the habit of departing at best angle
> > of climb. Transition to best rate of climb a bit above the altitude at
> > which you could reasonably expect to be able to return to the field.
> > If the rubber band breaks and you haven't transitioned to best ROC
> > yet, don't even think about turning around; just try to hit the
> > cheapest thing around as slowly as possible.
> >
> > George Patterson
> > This marriage is off to a shaky start. The groom just asked the
> > band to play "Your cheatin' heart", and the bride just requested
> > "Don't come home a'drinkin' with lovin' on your mind".
> >
>
> As I've thought more and more about getting my PPL and building a plane,
> it's these engine failure on takeoff accidents that bother me the most.
>
> It's been mentioned here that statistically, flying GA is about as
> dangerous as driving a motorcycle. Statistics can be misleading, of
> course. I used to ride motorcycles, and have done my share of "stupid"
> things, but the most danger in riding a motorcycle is more the stupid
> actions of other drivers, especially regarding the decreased visibility of
> the MC to other drivers. So to increase safety in driving a motorcycle,
> you constantly have to imagine your invisible and that every car that has
> the potential to intersect your course probably will, and act accordingly
> (in other words "ride paranoid")
>
> It seems that a pilot has alot of control over "most" of the risks of dying
> in his plane.... fuel exhaustion, flying into IMC, landing in crosswinds
> beyond pilot/plane capability... etc., but For awhile I've thought these
> were engine failure on takeoff were the most unavoidable accidents, since
> it's basically instant failure and can happen at any time in an engines
> life. I don't like feeling that there is a risk of dying that careful
> planning and/or technique cannot reduce.
>
> As I've done more research (yes I'm sure alot of this will be covered in
> PPL training.. but..) I've learned and inferred some things. Obviously,
> during takeoff is the time when the engine is under the most stress, that's
> why, I assume, a good run-up is done before takeoff, so hopefully if
> something is "about to fail" it will fail then and not on climbout.
>
> Your suggestion of best angle of climb, I believe mirrors my recent mental
> processes about the takeoff and engine failure risks. I assume that best
> "angle" of climb will give the aircraft the best compromise between rate of
> climb and engine output/stress?
>
> In thinking about engine choices for my (hopefully) upcoming Sonex project,
> this has lead me to lean more toward the (much) more expensive Jabiru 330,
> rather then the AeroVee or Jab 220. With more power available, the plane
> will climb to above my "no return" altitude quicker, and/or at a lower %
> power setting. I have communicated with one Sonex pilot who totaled his
> airplane after a prob hub failure (using a GreatPlanes VW setup, a faulty
> hub attachment that has since been re-designed) and an attempted turnback
> (roled the plane after a wingtip strike... fortunately lived to tell about
> it). Very scary stuff....
>
> I was also taught in my first GA plane ride (sr-22) by a CFI to use every
> foot of available runway. We pulled onto a 5300 ft runway off the taxiway
> that was about 100ft or so from the beginning of the runway and he still
> turned, and looped around to use all of that 100 feet. He reasoned to me
> that in the event of an issue at takeoff that 100 feet of runway could be
> the difference between life and death, even though the sr-22 only needed
> less than 1000 feet to takeoff....
>
> I know this is very basic stuff to this group, but in my very short time of
> "hanging around" 2 different small airports I have seen many folks jump in
> there plane without doing "any" inspection, takeoff with no runup, etc. I
> wonder how many of these statistics are a result of these breakdowns of
> procedure....?

[Ron Lee]

The only risk free activity is death.

Ron Lee

[Corky Scott]

On Thu, 08 Apr 2004 16:31:40 GMT, ET > wrote:

>As I've thought more and more about getting my PPL and building a plane,
>it's these engine failure on takeoff accidents that bother me the most.
>
>It's been mentioned here that statistically, flying GA is about as
>dangerous as driving a motorcycle. Statistics can be misleading, of
>course. I used to ride motorcycles, and have done my share of "stupid"
>things, but the most danger in riding a motorcycle is more the stupid
>actions of other drivers, especially regarding the decreased visibility of
>the MC to other drivers. So to increase safety in driving a motorcycle,
>you constantly have to imagine your invisible and that every car that has
>the potential to intersect your course probably will, and act accordingly
>(in other words "ride paranoid")
>
>It seems that a pilot has alot of control over "most" of the risks of dying
>in his plane.... fuel exhaustion, flying into IMC, landing in crosswinds
>beyond pilot/plane capability... etc., but For awhile I've thought these
>were engine failure on takeoff were the most unavoidable accidents, since
>it's basically instant failure and can happen at any time in an engines
>life. I don't like feeling that there is a risk of dying that careful
>planning and/or technique cannot reduce.
>
>As I've done more research (yes I'm sure alot of this will be covered in
>PPL training.. but..) I've learned and inferred some things. Obviously,
>during takeoff is the time when the engine is under the most stress, that's
>why, I assume, a good run-up is done before takeoff, so hopefully if
>something is "about to fail" it will fail then and not on climbout.
>
>Your suggestion of best angle of climb, I believe mirrors my recent mental
>processes about the takeoff and engine failure risks. I assume that best
>"angle" of climb will give the aircraft the best compromise between rate of
>climb and engine output/stress?
>
>In thinking about engine choices for my (hopefully) upcoming Sonex project,
>this has lead me to lean more toward the (much) more expensive Jabiru 330,
>rather then the AeroVee or Jab 220. With more power available, the plane
>will climb to above my "no return" altitude quicker, and/or at a lower %
>power setting. I have communicated with one Sonex pilot who totaled his
>airplane after a prob hub failure (using a GreatPlanes VW setup, a faulty
>hub attachment that has since been re-designed) and an attempted turnback
>(roled the plane after a wingtip strike... fortunately lived to tell about
>it). Very scary stuff....
>
>I was also taught in my first GA plane ride (sr-22) by a CFI to use every
>foot of available runway. We pulled onto a 5300 ft runway off the taxiway
>that was about 100ft or so from the beginning of the runway and he still
>turned, and looped around to use all of that 100 feet. He reasoned to me
>that in the event of an issue at takeoff that 100 feet of runway could be
>the difference between life and death, even though the sr-22 only needed
>less than 1000 feet to takeoff....
>
>I know this is very basic stuff to this group, but in my very short time of
>"hanging around" 2 different small airports I have seen many folks jump in
>there plane without doing "any" inspection, takeoff with no runup, etc. I
>wonder how many of these statistics are a result of these breakdowns of
>procedure....?
>
>--
>ET >:)

ET, I also have your concerns, and I'm building a homebuilt airplane.
In addition, I'll be using a non certified auto conversion. Since the
majority of fatal accidents in homebuilts occur during the initial
flight, I am paying particular attention to this detail.

To that end, I intend to run the engine on a test stand I've
fabricated for many hours. I need to test the engine at full power
for at least ten to fifteen minutes a number of times. I also feel I
should document this so that the DAR can see that this testing has
been done. It's surprising to hear of the number of first flights
that occur without extensive ground testing of the engine.

In addition, once the engine is installed in the airplane and all
systems are hooked up as they would be for normal flight, I intend to
further test the engine with the fuselage jacked up in a nose high
attitude to make sure that fuel flow and engine cooling are adaquate
for the climbout.

Further, because I'll be using electronic ignition and I'm trying to
reduce the single point failure mode possiblities, I'm doubling up on
the ignition systems. The distributer has two pickups inside it and
will lead to two completely independent ignition systems. Both will
run simultaneously so that should one fail, the other is already
running. This is what the Nascar racers run in their race cars. Yes
the distributer represents a single point failure in and of itself,
but since the distributer drive is also the oil pump drive, should
that fail the engine is history anyway.

The wiring will conform to aircraft standards. Every external and a
number of internal bolts and nuts have been safety wired, including
the oil pan bolts. The oil filter is safety wired in place. The oil
pump bolts are all safety wired. The intake manifold bolts and the
exhaust manifold bolts are safety wired. Cooling system hose clamps
will be safety wired.

All these things I can control and many are the result of actual
experience. Single electronic ignition systems have failed. Oil
filters have spun off. Carb hold down nuts have backed off. The oil
pickup tube hold down bolts have backed off.

All that has failed in the past has been addressed. That's all I can
do.

The airplane itself is a high wing monoplane with STOL performance. I
decided on that type while flying around the Vermont/New
Hampshire/Maine area. There are precious few flat places to set down
should the engine fail so I decided that I should build an airplane
that can land very slowly, if necessary.

Corky Scott

[Jeff]

My POH calls for climb at 90 kts initially, then at 105 kts at 41"/2550 RPM, once you
have cleared any obstacles. the problem is 90 kts will usually put my temps up near the
red so I try to climb out at least at 105, sometimes 110 if its still nearing the red and
then I reduce power to 33"/2400 for cruise climb once I am at about 1000 ft.

being nicer to the engine will help prevent engine outs I feel.

"G.R. Patterson III" wrote:

> Jeff wrote:
> >
>
>
> One thing you can do is to get in the habit of departing at best angle of climb.
> Transition to best rate of climb a bit above the altitude at which you could
> reasonably expect to be able to return to the field. If the rubber band breaks and
> you haven't transitioned to best ROC yet, don't even think about turning around; just
> try to hit the cheapest thing around as slowly as possible.
>
> George Patterson
> This marriage is off to a shaky start. The groom just asked the band to
> play "Your cheatin' heart", and the bride just requested "Don't come home
> a'drinkin' with lovin' on your mind".

[Colin]

Newps > wrote:

>
>
>Jeff wrote:
>> I have it in my head, If I lose power, I will continue straight ahead and hope
>> for the best spot. TUrning around seems more risky, depending on altitude and
>> where the engine quits at.
>
>It can be risky, it may not be. Go try it in your airplane. In a
>Cessna you climb at 70 knots, pull the power, enter a 45 degree bank,
>maintain 70 knots and see how much altitude you lose.

While you are doing this, try the same 180 degree turn with much
higher bank angle, lower airspeed, and full opposite rudder - yes, a
side slip. The amount of bank will be determined by the ability to
hold the nose up by rudder. Sounds crazy ?
Although the descent rate is much higher, the turn rate is so high due
to the low airspeed and high bank angle that you are actually better
off. But that is not all, you come out of the manoever at landing
speed, whereas attempts to 'fly' the a/c round a tight enough turn
usually result in high airspeed or spin off the turn.

Go practice it.

Colin.
PS. Please don't start that "you can spin off a properly developed
side slip" rubbish.

[Newps]

Colin wrote:

> Newps > wrote:
>
>
>>
>>Jeff wrote:
>>
>>>I have it in my head, If I lose power, I will continue straight ahead and hope
>>>for the best spot. TUrning around seems more risky, depending on altitude and
>>>where the engine quits at.
>>
>>It can be risky, it may not be. Go try it in your airplane. In a
>>Cessna you climb at 70 knots, pull the power, enter a 45 degree bank,
>>maintain 70 knots and see how much altitude you lose.
>
>
> While you are doing this, try the same 180 degree turn with much
> higher bank angle, lower airspeed, and full opposite rudder - yes, a
> side slip. The amount of bank will be determined by the ability to
> hold the nose up by rudder. Sounds crazy ?
> Although the descent rate is much higher, the turn rate is so high due
> to the low airspeed and high bank angle that you are actually better
> off. But that is not all, you come out of the manoever at landing
> speed, whereas attempts to 'fly' the a/c round a tight enough turn
> usually result in high airspeed or spin off the turn.

Well the ideal bank angle is 60 degrees but 45 is a good compromise. In
my 182 I only need 350 feet to turn around and land on the same runway.
Anything less than that and I ain't gonna be slippin' just to get
around. In that case I'll land straight ahead, more or less. I'll be
OK, I got big tires.

[BllFs6]

>I'll be
>OK, I got big tires.
>
>

Man...

it never fails....you always got some guy bragging about the size of his
tires....havent you heard....its not the size of the tires....its how ya use em
:)

take care

Blll