Lancair crash at SnF

On Apr 24, 5:43*pm, Shirl wrote:
Big John wrote:
AW&ST today had a small article that a Lancair piloted by Gerand
Schkolnk crashed moments after takeoff during the Sun and Fun AirShow.

He was director of Supersonic Technology Programs at Gulfstream.

Anyone have any data on accident other than what AW&ST had?

Big John

A Lancair crashed just moments after takeoff here in Mesa, Arizona,
today, too. Plane was headed for California. There was smoke trailing
from the plane on takeoff and controllers cleared them to turn back
around and land. They tried -- they made the left turn but crashed into
the orange orchard. Three fatalities, all in their late 20s. Sympathies
and prayers to the families.

When will pilots learn to stop trying to do the impossible turn... and
go for a straight ahead landing on soemthing horizontal?

Cheers

On 2008-04-24, WingFlaps wrote:
When will pilots learn to stop trying to do the impossible turn... and
go for a straight ahead landing on soemthing horizontal?

Depends on what you mean by "the impossible turn". If you mean turning back
at 200 AGL, yeah, that one's pretty much impossible. If you mean 600 AGL,
it's pretty much possible in the average aircraft. (Hell, that's pattern
altitude at EFD!) The line lies somewhere in between.
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
Fairmont, MN (FRM) (Yes, that's me!)
AMD Zodiac CH601XLi N55ZC (ordered 17 March, delivery 2 June)

Depends on what you mean by "the impossible turn". If you mean turning back
at 200 AGL, yeah, that one's pretty much impossible. If you mean 600 AGL,
it's pretty much possible in the average aircraft. (Hell, that's pattern
altitude at EFD!) The line lies somewhere in between.
--

It is statements like this that get pilots killed.

Your right in that many aircraft it is possible. But the problem is it
isn't possible for many pilots when the engine quits. It is not a
maneuver that is routinly practiced. Any time a pilot askes me about
It I set up a scenerio to let them try it. I have yet to have a pilot
on their 1st try make it back to the runway from 500 feet. After a
couple attempts they usually can just make it back, Most of the time
we try this in a C-170 or C-172.

Then the question is can they do it at any runway under any wind
conditions and can the differentiate between the ones that they can
and can't do it at.

All to often I see pilots miss the runway when the power fails on
downwind. How in the world you expect these pilots to make it from a
climb at the departure end of the runway.

Brian
CFIIG/ASEL

On 2008-04-24, Brian wrote:
Depends on what you mean by "the impossible turn". If you mean turning back
at 200 AGL, yeah, that one's pretty much impossible. If you mean 600 AGL,
it's pretty much possible in the average aircraft. (Hell, that's pattern
altitude at EFD!) The line lies somewhere in between.
It is statements like this that get pilots killed.

There are lots of true statements that get pilots killed...

Your right in that many aircraft it is possible. But the problem is it
isn't possible for many pilots when the engine quits. It is not a
maneuver that is routinly practiced. Any time a pilot askes me about
It I set up a scenerio to let them try it. I have yet to have a pilot
on their 1st try make it back to the runway from 500 feet. After a
couple attempts they usually can just make it back, Most of the time
we try this in a C-170 or C-172.

I did this on the first attempt in a Warrior with my CFI from 400 AGL. It's
one of the things I intend to try (at altitude) with a factory CFI when I
get the Zodiac.

Then the question is can they do it at any runway under any wind
conditions and can the differentiate between the ones that they can
and can't do it at.

True. You do have to do it precisely, and even then the conditions may
defeat you.

All to often I see pilots miss the runway when the power fails on
downwind. How in the world you expect these pilots to make it from a
climb at the departure end of the runway.

Even if they miss the runway, would they have landed on the flat part of the
airport? It seems to me that would be a better outcome than crashing into an
office park.

Part of the pre-takeoff mental checklist (hell, part of the written one, if
you're making your own) should be a decision about what happens if an engine
is lost on initial climb, and at what altitude the answer changes. This will
be different for every pilot, every aircraft, and every airport (for an
extreme case, consider an airport with an elementary school a mile off the
end of the runway, as opposed to one with nothing but farmland). Once the
decision is made, stick with it unless you have a VERY good reason to
change, and (this one comes from the Kings) don't change your mind more than
once.
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
Fairmont, MN (FRM) (Yes, that's me!)
AMD Zodiac CH601XLi N55ZC (ordered 17 March, delivery 2 June)

Jay Maynard wrote:

I did this on the first attempt in a Warrior with my CFI from 400 AGL.

You're good!

Did you know it was coming? A big part of this is the fast transition
from climb attitude to power-off glide.

On 2008-04-24, B A R R Y wrote:
Jay Maynard wrote:
I did this on the first attempt in a Warrior with my CFI from 400 AGL.
You're good!

No, my CFI was.

Did you know it was coming? A big part of this is the fast transition
from climb attitude to power-off glide.

This is why I succeeded: because I knew it was coming. It was intended as a
demonstration, not as a test of my abilities. He talked me through it.

Afterward, I set my personal decision height at 600 AGL. Below that, in that
aircraft and under those conditions, I don't attempt it. Above that, it's
possible. That's why I plan to do the same with the Zodiac: so I know where
the line is, and have the decision already made before I take off. Too many
lives are lost to indecision; I do not intend mine to be one of them.
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
Fairmont, MN (FRM) (Yes, that's me!)
AMD Zodiac CH601XLi N55ZC (ordered 17 March, delivery 2 June)

Jay Maynard wrote:


Afterward, I set my personal decision height at 600 AGL. Below that, in that
aircraft and under those conditions, I don't attempt it. Above that, it's
possible.

I think personal decision height also depends on several other factors.

- Departing from a 5500 (or longer) ft. runway vs. a 2500-3000. You'll
be closer to the threshold as you glide back to a longer runway, because
you were sill over it as you climbed.

- What's at the end of the runway? A flat and open approach area beats
big trees, power lines, factories, a river dike... Coming up short at
one of my local fields puts you in a sewage pond, _if_ you clear the
river dike, at another, a steel mill with large overhead cranes.

In all probability, I'm going straight ahead, but there are individual
circumstances that could sway that. The factors that might have me
attempt the turn would have to be clear, obvious, and pre-planned.

Brian schrieb:

Your right in that many aircraft it is possible. But the problem is it
isn't possible for many pilots when the engine quits. It is not a
maneuver that is routinly practiced.

Now this problem could be solved.

On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 17:05:06 +0200, Stefan sayeth:

Brian schrieb:

Your right in that many aircraft it is possible. But the problem is it
isn't possible for many pilots when the engine quits. It is not a
maneuver that is routinly practiced.

Now this problem could be solved.

You're suggesting instructors practice engine failures with their
students on takeoff? Oh boy, better hope Dudly doesn't see this...

Buttman schrieb:

You're suggesting instructors practice engine failures with their
students on takeoff? Oh boy, better hope Dudly doesn't see this...

Glider pilots do it routinely.