Three recent takeoff accidents.

[PJB]

What details are lacking?

 

[Vance]

What details are lacking?

In my opinion there a lot of words lacking for that to be a question that can be answered Phil Bennett.

 

[chrisk]

But you still haven't answered what questionable means to you or what creates that concern in practice. Whilst I would agree with you that take offs are optional and the general theory [to answer your other point tbh about techniques I'm sure mine isn't a million miles away from yours so I can cut/paste your view if it makes you feel happier?] BUT where we do seem to be differing [or at least you fail to answer a point asked of you several times] is that you claim the POH take off numbers are academic :-



So I ask again in your flight planning what do you use?

Here for example is our UK AAIB view on a failed take off:-

https://assets.publishing.service.g...d08864/Rotorsport_UK_Cavalon_G-GERN_11-17.pdf



So here when the airfield length was :-



So in this I'd have discussed with the student the merits of attempting to fly from a 495m airstrip when the TODR was going to be 714m.....

Abort points in this case are academic.

As you disregard the POH please illuminate what metric you use to avoid the mud of the Medway.

Hi Phil
This is a really good example of where gyroplane performance data tends to be lacking, and Autogyro has better than average performance data. Specifically for this case:

• The performance data does not mention ground roll
• The performance data does not mention compensation for wind
• The perfornance data does not mention compensation for weight

That said, the obvious answer for a student is no-go, as we don't know the ground roll distance, or what is after the runway. As for the runway length for a student to perform this take off I'd probably call anything less than 150% of the calculated TODR questionable and a no-go.

Now lets try to do the same with the ELA mentioned earlier in this thread. A quick reading of the performance section of the POH indicates a take off roll of 70 to 100 meters at max take off weight, depending on engine. It gives no data for temperature compensation. One could use a Koch chart (https://www.takeofflanding.com/) and presumably find take off distance was increased by ~21%. Meaning the take off roll would be ~121 meters (or less with the 914 engine). If the area after the runway is unobstructed (freshly plowed field with no fence), the runway length seems adequate. If there is an obstruction at the end of the runway, the POH doesn't allow for a calculation. What is one to do? The conservative answer is not to take off. But the problem is this would be true for a 2000 meter runway too. --The POH simply doesn't provide the data. The reality is people use their experience. And if they are not 100% certain, they should clearly stack the odds in their favor. Wait an hour or two for it to cool down. Have the passenger meet you at a longer air field. And in extreme cases, wait for a strong head wind.

My point is: The performance data of most gyroplanes doesn't let you make a very precise calculation. Specifically in the Autogyro above, I feel confident that I could easily take off from that runway if I had a 20 knot headwind and was solo. --Yet the provided data suggests its not possible.

 

[PJB]

Hey Chris - yeah totally agree with your view and the points made and to my point in post 5 - whatever datum your using to get airborne [reference to the POH or some self created data from testing perhaps] - as you say people use their experience.

As it might relate to the AG crash the poor planning as it relates to the take off distance available is only meaningful if he knows what is required. Seldom do you ever read of an intelligent exchange about what the accident pilot expected his take off distance to be and how that expectation was acquired.

However you might also reasonably conclude that all of that academic had he not landed in this unplanned field. The final report says:-

The pilot reported that while inflight, his electronic tablet he was utilizing for navigation failed. The pilot decided to land to a field in a private ranch and troubleshoot the electronic tablet. After troubleshooting the tablet, the pilot departed from the field to the northwest.

But what it doesn't illuminate is that the solution [colour which is given in the docket] was for the pilot to pull up the electronic nav aid on his mobile phone, give it to his wife with the intention for her to talk him through the nav element for the balance of the flight.

Others take issue with me for concluding that because apparently "all of the links in the accident chain are addressed in the FAA practical test standards". Yet it happened and so for speaking frankly about the same makes you a bad man. In the UK we spend quite a lot of energy teaching navigation from paper charts and the carriage of an up to date paper chart as back up if you use an electronic device as your primary navigation.

 

[Vance]

FAA lost procedures.

The approved FAA answer is the five Cs for: Confess, Conserve, Climb, Communicate, and Comply.

Confessing is admitting to yourself that you have become lost. Many pilots have failed to do this, wandered around using precious fuel, and only worsened the situation when they could have taken positive proactive steps to recover. Once you have admitted to yourself (and your passengers) you are lost it becomes easier to lose the façade and focus on finding out where you are.

Conserving fuel becomes the first proactive task in a lost procedure. A good rule-of-thumb is to throttle back to a power setting that will give you the best glide speed and allow you to maintain altitude.

Climbing a few more thousands of feet while in a gentle turn (15-20 degrees of bank) may allow you to gain a better perspective of features on the ground. It will also give you better communication and navigation range. If you see a city, airport, highway, river, lake, etc. Try to identify them on your sectional.

Communicate with an ARTCC (air route traffic control center) or approach control. If you are a student pilot advise them of that fact. They will assign you a discrete transponder code and be able to quickly locate you.

If you can’t raise a ARTCC or approach control, make a call on 121.5 MHz. Comply with directions provided by ARTCC, Approach Control or a FSS.

They can get you back on a course to a nearby airport where you can land and refuel.

 

[Vance]

However you might also reasonably conclude that all of that academic had he not landed in this unplanned field. The final report says:-

The pilot reported that while inflight, his electronic tablet he was utilizing for navigation failed. The pilot decided to land to a field in a private ranch and troubleshoot the electronic tablet. After troubleshooting the tablet, the pilot departed from the field to the northwest.

But what it doesn't illuminate is that the solution [colour which is given in the docket] was for the pilot to pull up the electronic nav aid on his mobile phone, give it to his wife with the intention for her to talk him through the nav element for the balance of the flight.

Others take issue with me for concluding that because apparently "all of the links in the accident chain are addressed in the FAA practical test standards". Yet it happened and so for speaking frankly about the same makes you a bad man. In the UK we spend quite a lot of energy teaching navigation from paper charts and the carriage of an up to date paper chart as back up if you use an electronic device as your primary navigation.

What you are quoting is from the NTSB preliminary report Phil Bennett.
It appears to me the final report has not yet been issued.

 

[Mike G]

Phil
I don't always understand which point Vance is trying to make but your "banter" often leaves me even more confused.
Perhaps you could say it slower.

Mike G

 

[PJB]

What you are quoting is from the NTSB preliminary report Phil Bennett.
It appears to me the final report has not yet been issued.

Negative.

Final report:- https://data.ntsb.gov/carol-repgen/api/Aviation/ReportMain/GenerateNewestReport/100420/pdf
Docket:- https://data.ntsb.gov/Docket?ProjectID=100420

Phil
I don't always understand which point Vance is trying to make but your "banter" often leaves me even more confused.
Perhaps you could say it slower.

Yes fair although as you can see from the above there is a great deal of "I say again"....

We probably all agree that training and the desire to learn doesn't end with the practical test. Be lucky. Out.

 

[Vance]

Negative.

Final report:- https://data.ntsb.gov/carol-repgen/api/Aviation/ReportMain/GenerateNewestReport/100420/pdf
Docket:- https://data.ntsb.gov/Docket?ProjectID=100420

We probably all agree that training and the desire to learn doesn't end with the practical test. Be lucky. Out.

I stand corrected Phil Bennett.

That same statement was in the preliminary report and I had not looked it up lately as the NTSB has changed their search scheme and I have not mastered the new system.

We probably do agree that learning about flying well should be an ongoing process Phil Bennett.

It is my observation that after some pilots have taken the proficiency check ride the learning stops and they soon accept lower and lower standards for proficiency.

 

[chrisk]

I have a hard time faulting a pilot for a precautionary landing when he needs to sort things out. In the first accident, the pilot was near Class B and was likely trying to avoid the mode C veil. Further the landing phase is not where he had the accident. That said, he had some really good landmarks (two very large lakes, and the destination on the banks of one) and it was a clear day with 40 miles to the destination. It should not have been challenging to navigate to his destination. The area also should have plenty open roads and fields which would be suitable for an off field landing (and take off).--But he only had 200 hours as a pilot.

I am also reminded of when I was learning to fly 30 years ago before the days of gps. I was doing a long solo over non-descript terrain. My time ran out for a checkpoint, but I never spotted the landmark. I pulled the paper chart out, but nothing made sense. I tried tuning in a VOR, but I didn't really know what I was doing. I circled for a few times and spotted a field. I joined the pattern with no radio, since I didn't know the frequency. I landed and read the name of the field off of the FBO sign. I was about 5 miles off course due to a Directional Gyro with horrible precession. --Many years later, and with a lot more experience, I would have easily been able to figure out where I was and what corrective action to take. But that is experience.

 

[DavePA11]

I also got lost on my second solo, and mistakenly flew lower to identify landmarks rather than climbing higher. Never got lost after that experience. Probably had around 20 hours or so. I tell all my friends who are learning to fly on what to do if they get lost, but now a days every pilot has portable gps to help which is great!

 

[Tyger]

So many folks, even in automobiles, have come to rely so completely on their GPS they they are absolutely lost the minute it stops working, or if it is giving them bad directions (e.g. it's saying to drive over a recently closed bridge).
I have a young friend (not a pilot) who cheerfully admits he has no idea how to use a paper map. A landmark? What's that?

I was sitting on a bench outside the Eagles Mere (PA) Automobile Museum one day, looking at the local sectional (having just flown in). A man walked by and laughingly said to his children, "Hey kids, look, there's a guy using a paper map!" He got a little quieter when I showed him it wasn't actually a road map, haha.

Eagles Mere Auto Museum

The ultimate collection of cars, trucks, and automobile memorabilia from the 1950s and 1960s.

www.eaglesmereautomuseum.com

Eagles Mere Air Museum. One of Pennsylvania’s finest attractions.

A flying collection at Eagles Mere Air Museum.

www.eaglesmereairmuseum.org

 

[Tyger]

I also got lost on my second solo, and mistakenly flew lower to identify landmarks rather than climbing higher. Never got lost after that experience. Probably had around 20 hours or so. I tell all my friends who are learning to fly on what to do if they get lost, but now a days every pilot has portable gps to help which is great!

If you are flying over a town, it can be useful to fly low enough to read the writing on the local HS football field...

 

[JETLAG03]

Not long after I gained my freedom to fly solo I was en route for a 40km flight to a nearby airfield, I had done the route only once prior, this time alone without and without gps, I knew the landmarks from the ground and knew the direction, however, for only a few moments at 1000'amsl I gazed around at the splendor of the countryside and then realised I had lost mental track of where I was. I climbed to 2000' and circled until I recognised a landmark, then continued on my route. Those seconds "lost" remain burned into my memory.

edited (twice) thank you @Tyger

 

[DavePA11]

Tyger - I live in the Rocky Mountains, and Google maps works great with cell service at the starting point, but if you have to change course for whatever reason when you drive deeper into the mountains and then don’t have cell service which is very common the Google maps can’t provide any directions.

Happened to me many times, and then I drive around looking for spot with cell service to get updated directions. Or start up Foreflight. The old Garmins have the maps in local memory which is nice.

 

[Vance]

If you are flying over a town, it can be useful to fly low enough to read the writing on the local HS football field...

The high school stadium near the Santa Maria Public Airport says Righetti High School on the field.

There is no name on the water tower in Nipomo.

I do better climbing when I am lost because it looks more like the chart.

I learned this early on flying to Lompoc (LPC). I was so busy looking for emergency landing zones that I lost the airport. I climbed a little and discovered that Wal-Mart was blocking my view of the runway and hangars.

Climbing revealed the airport and resolved my dilemma.

 

[Tyger]

When high schools have actual stadiums, and Walmarts blot out runway views... you're probably in California.