WingFlaps wrote in
:

On Apr 27, 3:31 am, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
WingFlaps wrote
innews:f230e253-83e0-439a-91ef-084d138a1c07
@j33g2000pri.googlegroups.c
om:





On Apr 26, 12:58 pm, Michael Ash wrote:


Actually, though I'm too lazy to go look it up, in your original post
I also got the impression that you were talking about having to
accelerate with the wind.. Much as I hate to agree with the clockwork
****. ( Stefan)


Yes, I was and that was the point. You do have to accelerate and it
does cost some energy -but the cost is not due to the change in ground
speed (I never mentioned the change in ground speed you will note).
What is interesting is how quickly people grabbed the idea
incorrectly, and how willling they were to strut their limited
understanding without giving some careful thought as to what might be
going on.

I feel quite passionate about safety (or rather the avoidable lack
thereof). It is illuminating that a post designed to (re)open minds
to the danger of the turn back on engine failure (the "impossible
turn") by giving some concrete glide numbers should have met such
visceral response (was it was mostly macho and invulnerability errors
in behaviour coming through?). For some reason many pilots here seem
to think an airport is the only safe place to put a plane down. Even
if EFATO landing zones include a school, mall and residential housing
there are always places to put a light plane within 90 degrees of
runway centerline that will allow a proper landing without huge
carnage.

What may be even more critical is how inflated some people think their
ability will be in an actual emergency. I have been in "extreme
danger" with other people so I can speak with some authority on how
people actually behave in life threatening situations.

For some (most?) pilots, when the fan stops there will be several
seconds of disbelief. Then they start to muddle through some checks -
taking more time than they should as they try to make sure they've got
the reason. The practised slick response becomes slowed or not carried
out correcly (e.g. the fuel valve is not turned to another tank or the
boost pump is not selected). Some panic will bite, the pilot knows
he's low and slow, away from the runway and the safety of "home". Even
if the turn might have just have been made by a very slick coordinated
pilot, in the actual event that option moves quickly out of the realm
of possibility. Then the pilot realizes that he's running short on
time and tries to turn tightly for "home" at low airspeed. The (nearly
always) fatal stall spin crash that results is a preventable event if
that turn is not made -so why do so many pilots try it and die? Is it
possible that they have become so conditioned to the idea that the
airport is the only place where a plane can land that no other options
can exist?

Sorry for the long post but here's a final thought: It is well known
that in emergency situations that infantile response patterns can
reappear. Look at how slowly a baby pilot works checks in EFATO (even
if they can rattle the FMI parts off on the ground). I suggest that in
a real emergency the PIC might take just as long... So I suggest that
a way to train EFATO properly might be to look at the height loss in
training and then double it and state that unless you are at least at
twice that altitude don't turn back. Make that decision point a part
of training, much in the same was as you clear forward at 400-500'
after T/O. What do you think of this idea, Dudley too?


I completely agree with your notion that most people will not be able to
handle turning around for exactly the reasons you mentioned. Even if
they take immediate action, the turnaround is hairy for those who cannot
fly right on the edge with 100% accuracy and confidence.

I'm still not sure what you mean when you say the aircraft has to
accelerate. Are you saying that turning downwind will cost more in
acceleration than any other type of turn?


Bertie