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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#101
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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! |
#103
|
|||
|
|||
They call it the impossible turn.
|
#104
|
|||
|
|||
They call it the impossible turn.
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. |
#105
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#110
|
|||
|
|||
They call it the impossible turn.
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Did the impossible in my glider last night!!! | Bruno | Soaring | 4 | October 25th 09 02:53 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 11th 04 11:45 PM |
bush: impossible to be AWOL (do vets give a sh!t) | B2431 | Military Aviation | 7 | September 8th 04 04:20 PM |