A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Piloting
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

They call it the impossible turn.



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #101  
Old February 15th 10, 08:00 PM posted to alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim,rec.aviation.piloting
Jim Logajan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,958
Default They call it the impossible turn.

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
  #102  
Old February 15th 10, 08:27 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
Jim Logajan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,958
Default They call it the impossible turn.

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!
  #105  
Old February 15th 10, 11:25 PM posted to alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim,rec.aviation.piloting
Mxsmanic
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,169
Default They call it the impossible turn.

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?
  #106  
Old February 16th 10, 12:17 AM posted to alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim,rec.aviation.piloting
Flaps_50!
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 117
Default They call it the impossible turn.

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/techni.../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
  #107  
Old February 16th 10, 02:28 AM posted to alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim,rec.aviation.piloting
Crash Lander[_5_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2
Default They call it the impossible turn.

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

--

  #108  
Old February 16th 10, 02:30 AM posted to alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim,rec.aviation.piloting
Crash Lander[_5_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2
Default They call it the impossible turn.

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

--

  #109  
Old February 16th 10, 02:35 AM posted to alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim,rec.aviation.piloting
Jim Logajan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,958
Default They call it the impossible turn.

"Flaps_50!" wrote:
In the absence of appropriate data, perhaps this analysis is useful:

http://www.nar-associates.com/techni.../possible.html


A very useful article - thanks for pointing it out.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Did the impossible in my glider last night!!! Bruno Soaring 4 October 25th 09 03:53 PM
Another impossible turn? More_Flaps Piloting 4 August 24th 08 01:38 PM
Myth: 1 G barrel rolls are impossible. Jim Logajan Piloting 244 June 22nd 07 04:33 AM
Impossible to ditch in a field (almost) mindenpilot Piloting 29 December 12th 04 12:45 AM
bush: impossible to be AWOL (do vets give a sh!t) B2431 Military Aviation 7 September 8th 04 04:20 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:42 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.