C177RG 545PZ Partial Power Turnback
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 11 ноя 2023
- C177RG 545PZ Partial Power Turnback
Impossible Turn or Turnback
• A36 Bonanza Engine Fai...
Engine Failure on takeoff: How do you practice that?
• Engine Failure After T...
B36TC No Good Options:
• Accident Review North...
FlyWire Husky Turnback video:
• Husky Turnback Exercis...
FlyWire Store:
flywire-store.creator-spring.com
Patreon FlyWire:
/ flywire
FlyWire is about exploring flight and the freedom this incredible experience brings us on a personal level. Flying has always captured the imagination and excitement of living life to its fullest. Hi, I'm Scott Perdue. In a former life I flew the F-4 and F-15E, more recently I retired from a major airline. I've written for several aviation magazines over the years, was a consultant for RAND, the USAF, Navy, NASA as well as few others, wrote a military thriller- 'Pale Moon Rising' (still on Kindle). But mostly I like flying, or teaching flying. Some of the most fun I had was with Tom Gresham on a TV show called 'Wings to Adventure". We flew lots of different airplanes all over the country. Now with FlyWire I want to showcase the fun in flying, share the joy and freedom of flight and explore the world with you. Make sure you subscribe if you want to go along for the ride!
#Pilot #Fly #Flying #Fly yourself #aviation #FlyingTraining #LearntoFly #adventure #military aviation #aviationhistory
Website: www.flywire.online
Merch Links: flywire-store.creator-spring.com
My Book: Pale Moon Rising tinyurl.com/5abmxxkh
Twitter: @FlyWireO / flywire.online
Facebook: / flywireonline
![ian - Fit Check (Feat. VonOff1700) [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/sDGWDBg45Dw/mqdefault.jpg)
scott's words that will always be in my ears whenever I get to start flying: "fly the plane", "don't waste energy", "plane's job is to get people back to ground safely", and "insurance bought the plane."
Now it's time to start flying.
...and DON'T turn back!
@@paradoxicalcat7173 A good pilot should never say never. Practice and plan when and how to .
I could not possibly agree more that the REASON for the engine failure is of secondary importance. Unless there is time and opportunity to restore power, the ONLY important thing once power loss occurs is to fly the airplane under control all the way through the end of the landing.
Me too, I used the CAPs last month!
????????? ARE YOU SURE OF THAT?
Welp… as an incident investigator and a pilot Scott may be uninterested in why the engine failed, but the reality is - if we figure out why the engine failed maybe we can improve the engine so that we don’t have to put people’s lives into their own hands. That appears to be a bad idea, especially in GA where nobody has any proficiency. I’m afraid these 90 year old designs are about as safe as they can be though, and maintenance isn’t getting much better as people are slowly priced out of their own airplanes, so I’m not holding my breath.
@@outwiththemam I sure I used the CAPs system? Yes it was quite the ride after the parachute deployed but it worked perfectly
I should clarify a little bit, as I was speaking about the pilot's perspective during the emergency. Afterwards, when accident investigators and safety-minded pilots are looking at the event, we should learn about BOTH the cause of the power loss AND on the piloting technique that should be used in future events.@@alk672
For me, and this reiterates what you talk about, the most important part of the process is to know the options, at different times of take off and climb out, before you even get into the aircraft. Have a well defined plan. They, as you state in this video, practice turn backs so you know your minimum height. Consider everything before you start the engine.
Those SE Cessna gear transition through a high drag profile before fully extended. Great analysis/lesson.
OOhh Yeah. Took me by surprice first flight. Loses 5-6 knots when main gear twist.
You pilots have some gusto. Driving cars for 25 years never lost an engine and no way am I gonna try flying now!
The only way to get a small fortune by buying airplanes is.. By start by investing a big one in.
I couldn’t agree more. I had an IP in Army flight school say it best. “You and the airplane have an agreement to take care of each other. If for any reason the aircraft stops flying it has broken its part of the agreement and that means all bets are off. If it means you have to ball it up and completely destroy it to live than that’s what you do”.
Well said!
Spot on - it doesn't matter WHY the Engine 'fails' - What are you gonna do, Wing-walking and change a Valve? Focus on a good Spot to Land or Crash!
Thank you, excellent dissertation. Many years ago I had a partial engine on take off in my Sonerai. In my experience I wasted some of the brief time available convincing myself that it may not completely stop rather than getting on with executing the forced landing. All things considered I was more lucky than skilful I’d say.
I agree with everything you said. Been flying 38 years. Professionally 24. Keep up the good work!
Another aspect of practicing turnbacks is to do it with someone in the right seat. Doing it solo may be quite different than with the added weight and balance of a passenger.
Scott is one of many who openly challenged AOPA (McSpadden) for the promotion of the concept. Why he was so hell bent on this technique of placing priority on getting back versus surviving, is still a mystery.
99% of turnback fatals occur during the actual turn (high G uncoordinated panic) Richard didn’t stall during the turn because he still had some thrust, how much we will never know.
This fatal is purely an AOPA pressure induced fatal where they ignored all red flags and Richard said GO. Who are they to say no to Thunderbird Ace Richard McSpadden?
Scott’s actual word here that he used is “reckless” and I agree. The AOPA video, the concept, the continuous promotion of it, and the taking into the air of an obviously sick plane.
Richard was in command and flying that plane. Russ was along for the ride. Notice that all the people from AOPA that were there (Richard plus 3) aren’t talking. This is an AOPA fatal.
MacSpadden was confronted with the worst kind of EFATO. And That kind of EFATO i think he didnt know. The Surging Engine kind. The worst kind that can fool you into try to reach fields and suddenly engine quits all AND THEN YOU CANT. Many good pilots have been fooled by Surging Engine EFATO. Then engine quits and they crash short.
I had 5 engine failures on pistons in the 3,000 hours that i flew them in South America cargo i flew in the 1980's. 2 total but they were twins. DC3 and Piper Aztec. I landed them feathered engine spitting oil. The other 3 were partial power. Singles. On take off. Lost one cylinder. There are 2 basic kinds of partial power engine fails (LOTOT). This is for 4 cylinder engines.
1-The Vibration LOTOT, 2-The ENGINE CUTTING OFF IN AND OUT LOTOT.
In the vibration LOTOT you sort of lose the climb only, so if over 500 agl, you can still Turnback or Turnaround airport if know how to before. Dont know ? Dont go there. Good luck crashing outside the airport. Good to lean mixture and SOME carb heat apply after lowering the nose. I was on Cherokee 180 on both and did the downwind leg at 1-200 agl, 2nd at 250 agl. I didnt know how to do turnbacks, so i went to a low downwind leg. Scary as hell downwind leg 200 agl at Vglide with engine vibrating.
In the worst LOTOT or engine cutting off in and out, or engine noises, change tanks and be over say 700 agl before Turnback to opposite or side runway, and dont think about going around the airport, the engine can cut out before you complete the turnaround. = Dont try any turn to airport under 700 agl if engine is cutting out badly. Be a Turnback or a Turnaround maneuver.
Practice LOTOT. At least the engine vibrating "Turnaround" at 1,800 rpm and later on "The Turnback" from 700 up (depends). LOTOT should be required due is 3 times more common than EFATO. LOTOT and EFATO can get you easily if you dont know well. So Ignorance is not the solution. IGNORANCE IS THE PROBLEM.
Scott, I’ve had multiple engine failures the last few years. half of them in Champs and the latest one was at 10,000 feet on the Louisiana Arkansas border in an A36. I agree with every word you spoke in this video.
Thanks John!
MULTIPLE? Are you your own mechanic?
Why "multiple"?
I too have experienced multiple power losses. An aircraft engine is under constant load unlike a car. They do fail more than people know. I have experienced fuel vapor lock, clogged fuel filter, failed magneto, carburetor failure, clogged air filter, fuel tank leak (forced me to land quick), blown piston, faulty ignition switch, etc. Those part failures are not caused by the mechanic.
@@pittss2c601 Better take crochet as a hobby. Or stop putting turbos on old piston engines for a hobby.
Two things you have said, Scott, that I had already verified in ten of thirteen engine failures are that we need to analyze our energy state and we need to land in front of the wing. I have for years argued for airspeed over altitude until cruise climb to usable altitude. My engine failures in piston AG planes and one in the Cardinal were six second deals crop dusting or on the pipeline. I am alive today because I always had zoom reserve airspeed, enough speed to maneuver well. If too slow, and Vy is way too slow, the altitude gained can be traded for airspeed. Best glide airspeed is high altitude orientation. I want more than that for maneuvering flight. As you said, go for that landing zone where the outcome of the maneuver is not in doubt. Go for that makeable LZ in the very near hemisphere in front of the wing. The nice thing about being really low is you can't see LZs too far away.
The major question, the low altitude orientation question, should be, "where did he get all that zoom reserve airspeed?" My default takeoff was the same as ever swath run in the crop field: full power until failure, stay in low ground effect until obstruction forces pitch up, and pitch up only enough to just clear the obstruction. That zoom reserve airspeed is what made every engine failure a nada. Simply land right there and walk away. And if you go now and go just there as this old crop duster says, you will be high and fast requiring full flaps and rudder to the stop forward slip to make the beginning of the LZ.
If low as on most takeoff failures and your default takeoff is not accelerate in low ground effect until cruise airspeed, your energy state is crap. Pitch way down and go for what you can see ahead of the wing. If the basic low ground effect takeoff is default, maneuver as necessary to the best near LZ in front of the wing with the outcome of the maneuvering never in doubt. There is no need to die in a small airplane.
Jimmy, you have an intuitive understanding of physics. I hope others can learn that!
“I already know all of this”--says most listening to this. Well maybe we do and let’s go ahead and hear it again anyway. This is a very well thought out analysis and explanation. I agree with this segment fully. There is a hell of a lot to be learned from this man--just take it all in and think about it -as it really could save any one of us someday.
Thanks JW, I do hope folks listen!
Sad accident. Great video.
I'm a former ASI for NTSB, FAA, and USAF. I also was a designer for Cessna and a CFI with the FAA HQ aeroclub in the CE-177RG.
We'll never know, but I wonder if the owner decided to extend the gear (to save the bird), which increased the drag, and probably caused the fatal impact. My master's thesis at Wichita State dealt with improved GA crashworthiness incidentally.
Incidentally, I have also made an off-airport dead stick landing, (in an Aeronca 7AC). Obviously, the number one rule is don't panic and control the energy as your video so aptly notes. Incidentally, while I was the FAA headquarters "program scientist for human performance," I ran the Aeronautical Decision Making program (as discussed in my "Air Safety Investigators" book.)
Thanks for the sage advice, Alan E. Diehl, PhD, ATP, etc.
Thanks Alan, I appreciate that!
MacSpadden was confronted with the worst kind of EFATO. And That kind of EFATO i think he didnt know. The "Surging Engine" kind or EFATO or LOTOT. The worst kind that can fool you into try to reach fields and suddenly engine quits all AND THEN YOU CAN'T REACH IT. Many good pilots have been fooled by Surging Engine EFATO. Then engine quits and they crash short of the place they though could be reached..
MacSpadden knew power off Turnbacks but not the most difficult partial power Turnback or LOTOT Turnback. And also he was flying with the owner of the cute C177. I bet the owner was the one that popped out that draggy landing gear. That made them sink the 15 feet they went under the airport area. Owners are the ones that do that kind of error.
As always you deliver wise counsel on this topic. Partial engine power is far more dangerous and insidious than a flat out failure, as you are tempted to try to make it to somewhere your energy state dictates cannot be done. I would add that in a partial power loss, you should consider that at any second it may completely fail, so consider the partial loss of engine power a warning that you must perform a forced landing right now. One thing though, which actually makes the story even worse, is that there is a witness who was working at the Mirror Lake Inn, located 1.7 nm just a little west of North from the runway end, who saw the plane pass directly overhead, heading SE with engine sounding ill. This means it was not an impossible turn in the general sense, but it also means the plane passed directly over the golf course on it's way to attempt to make the runway!!! This makes sense because if the climb was to 1000 ft agl, doing say 90 kt, that is about 1.5 or 1.6 minutes after takeoff, say at 600 ft/min climb, so they had to be this 1.6 to even 2 nm north or NNW of the runway when the initial turn to return occurred. Again my point is a witness placed them over the Mirror Lake Inn, which puts the golf course on a direct path between the witness location of the plane and the runway..... surely a fairway would accommodate a wheels up or down landing.....
I had an engine failure after takeoff while bush flying on floats due to failure of cylinder hold down studs. It was running, but vibrating and not making appropriate power even though power was set at 24 square. The only clue that something was holding the engine back internally besides a vibration was the lack of climb performance for the MP/RPM set. I put it down on a convenient lake that was below me. Another thing I discovered through experimentation. If a CS counterweight prop is spinning when power is lost, pulling the prop control to MIN right away will get the blades some or part of the way to full coarse pitch, because engine oil, which is driving blades to fine pitch, is dumped to sump and the counterweights will drive the blades coarse as long as there is decent RPM. In the 180 I would get a drastic reduction in that propeller braking drogue chute effect when doing this, with a significant improvement in glide, and I made it part of my single engine sudden power loss drill. Of course, when practicing it, you have to remember to go back to MAX before restoring power.
Very useful safety/emergency advice. Cheers.
Thank you for sharing. Tough choices can be difficult. Sorry for the loss - Good analysis.
Excellent Scott. Great point about not worrying about the airplane
Excellent Scott.
I have written this before, "you are such a good teacher". We pray we are good students.
🛫📖🇮🇱🛬
Scott,
This dissertation on energy management is the best I've heard and your analysis of all factors involved is so very spot on.👍
Powered airplanes for sure are poor substitutes for a glider,
In Richard's case, and others like it, making energy Management decisions unfortunately are limited usually to one shot.
I thought the world of Richard and respected him greatly for all the contributions and good that he tried to do for aviation in general.
God bless you Scott keep up the good work we all can sense your passion to get the right message out there.
📖🛐🙏
EXcellent Video1 That lesson cannot be repeated too often. Keep up the great work.
Great analysis Gunny!
In a Cardinal or any plane I would really, really have to have things going in my favor before I’d even consider doing a turn back in this situation. I think I’d pick trees. Of course it’s easy for me to say sitting here in my recliner after the fact. The main thing is to fly the airplane in the safest possible way that you can with the cards you’ve been dealt. RIP to the victims and condolences to the family. Great report!
Great info, Gunny! As are your other impossible turn vids.
Awesome as usual!!
Non-pilot aviation enthusiast here. I understand the purpose of Scott's content in terms of focusing on decision making and outcomes rather than root cause. You're not a heretic at all for that, Scott. It's a worthwhile effort and conversation in every accident.
That said, in these comments I see the numerous references to numerous 1st hand engine failure experiences. More and more lately I've begun to wonder why. Is there not anything that could be learned from the progression of development and reliability of current generation automotive ICEs that could be applied to general aviation piston engines? The rate at which these engines fully or partially fail seems on the surface to be exponentially higher than that of the cars and trucks we drive every day without issue - even with thousands upon thousands of hours and miles on them. I've read many of the arguments against big changes - regulatory hurdles, weight and complexity, and on and on. But at what point in GA does it become reasonable on the basis of safety alone to leverage some, any, of the advances made in ICEs?
Well, the first issue is reliability at high power production, you have to compare apples with apples. You state that automotive engines have become very reliable, and they have. But they only operate at less than 30% of power production for long periods, where aviation piston engines operate at 60% or more of rated power for long periods. Given that, the automotive engine does not operate anywhere near the regime of the aviation engine. In reality the aviation engine is doing pretty good. No one talks about automotive engine failures. Rarely is it a life or death issue. Exactly the opposite for aviation engines. The issue os more complicated than you realize.
I fly a Cardinal weekly, and survived a Glasair engine out last year.
I 100% support this message and agree with the general analysis.
I've practiced the turn back in Cubs and Luscombes, but not interested in doing one in a Cardinal.
On a Glassair. Unless over TPA and some power. I learned turnbacks 2 kinds in 1996.
Nicely done. I especially like that you focused on wing loading and practicing the maneuver without trying to actually land. I’ve had 3 engine failures in single engine airplanes. One in a Mooney 231 with a successful turn back. One in a polish made Dromader that lost oil pressure and one in a Thrush with a blown cylinder left me with partial power that increased when I pulled back the throttle to land in a wheat field. All three made it back to the airport…. Just.
I think that you’ve checked all the right boxes.
I had 5 engine failures on pistons in the 3,000 hours that i flew them in South America cargo i flew in the 1980's. 2 total but they were twins. DC3 and Piper Aztec. I landed them feathered engine spitting oil. The other 3 were partial power. Singles. On take off. Lost one cylinder. There are 2 basic kinds of partial power engine fails (LOTOT). This is for 4 cylinder engines.
1-The Vibration LOTOT, 2-The ENGINE CUTTING OFF IN AND OUT LOTOT.
In the vibration LOTOT you sort of lose the climb only, so if over 500 agl, you can still Turnback or Turnaround airport if know how to before. Dont know ? Dont go there. Good luck crashing outside the airport. Good to lean mixture and SOME carb heat apply after lowering the nose. I was on Cherokee 180 on both and did the downwind leg at 1-200 agl, 2nd at 250 agl. I didnt know how to do turnbacks, so i went to a low downwind leg. Scary as hell downwind leg 200 agl at Vglide with engine vibrating.
In the worst LOTOT or engine cutting off in and out, or engine noises, change tanks and be over say 700 agl before Turnback to opposite or side runway, and dont think about going around the airport, the engine can cut out before you complete the turnaround. = Dont try any turn to airport under 700 agl if engine is cutting out badly. Be a Turnback or a Turnaround maneuver.
Practice LOTOT. At least the engine vibrating "Turnaround" at 1,800 rpm and later on "The Turnback" from 700 up (depends). LOTOT should be required due is 3 times more common than EFATO. LOTOT and EFATO can get you easily if you dont know well. So Ignorance is not the solution. IGNORANCE IS THE PROBLEM.
Partial power increases the temptation exponentially to turn back.
That is the problem.
Hard to find the words, just simply incredible video!!❤
Scott - this topic gives me a headache. As appears to have happened here, the day you have an engine problem is the day the aircraft fails to make climb performance necessary to make a success of a turn back from ANY altitude. It's not pure altitude that counts, but climb angle. After altitude loss in the turn, you must still have more altitude than your straight-line glide angle otherwise you're not making it. I will NEVER turn back. Great video. Your frustration is palpable.
Scott, the impossible turn in a 177RG wouldn't be my option 3 miles away from the airport environment. As you say why the engine quitting isn't the issue. It's the decision to RTB when better options were available to perform a safe landing.
My 2 cents... To my way of thinking this is why during takeoff and climb out to employ full power till at least 1,000 AGL with naturally aspirated engines. With single engine piston aircraft, It's a fact... Not if the engine fails but when it fails! Catastrophic engine failure is a no brainer, land the plane safely. Generally, straight ahead is the best option or if you have altitude and energy what's directly beneath can work.
My nickel... Partial engine failure is primarily due to not clearing carburetor ice properly or a stuck valve. The time to employ carburetor heat is before reducing power to land and while at higher RPM in the low green minimum when runup before taking off... I'm suspecting that carburetor icing is suspect in this life loss accident. Condolences... In any case, this aircraft to people on the ground wasn't sounding like it was properly configured for normal takeoff configuration. A pure little airplane aviator would have detected and aborted.
My dime... Carb ice can occur even though weather conditions wouldn't seem favorable for it. It can stick a throttle in a fixed position to the point the cockpit throttle is stuck solid. The Italian military train their pilots to perform their runups at 2,500 RPM and it's documented in the POH before takeoff. Hard to do in a Marchetti because the tires will scoot even though the brakes are locked. The real idea is to make sure you have full power available before takeoff and during climb-out. Partial power takeoff/s & climb-out/s is a/are bad idea/s even though there is plenty of runway to perform one because if the throttle sticks due to carb-ice, odds are the engine will quit while applying carb heat. Power will keep reducing until the carburetor icing clears or builds up till the engine chokes out. To exacerbate the icing a partially opened throttle plate will drop the venturi effect temperature of normal 60~70 Degrees Fahrenheit drop down to an additional 20 degrees Fahrenheit which equates to 90 degrees drop from ambient temperature. That's why the old-time flight instructors demanded full throttle for takeoff and climb out.
My bit... With technology, why haven't we automated older engines to eliminate manual carburetor heat operation? Seems like a simple upgrade that shouldn't cost very much to certify.
My fifty cents... A stuck valve reduces power and fuel consumption increases however facilitates enough power to RTB if the aircraft isn't heavy. My rule is, if the engine isn't performing properly, abort immediately and correct the problem before trying to clear the fence or continuing the mission. Density altitude and carburetor heat training or lack of is probably the major contributing factors to why we're losing many little airplane pilots in 2023. Seems someone would have created a certified onboard DA meter by now, doesn't it?
My six bits.... The simple truth of surviving little airplanes is spotting the off-airport landing spots ahead that are clear enough to get to then focus on the next one on the entire route. I think you will find that even in metroplex cities there are plenty of spots to safely land. Worry about getting the plane out after you safely land.
My dollar... I'm finding that airline pilots aren't good candidates to transition back to little airplane operations. It seems they know it all and have forgotten the basics. The caveat is the commercial airline pilots that have kept current with little airplane operations. Personally, I don't consider little airplanes as GA any longer. They are in a class all of their own.
My dollar 10 cents... Little single engine normally aspirated airplane operations are now in a league of their own. I consider them like a Ford Model T operating on an interstate highway today. You can do it however you better know how to keep it at higher speeds to keep from getting run over from behind and know how to get out of the way of current GA and commercial. I love my relic, but we must upgrade to the best to aviate.
My two bucks and a cup of coffee... Why are we not producing the best little aircraft today and still flying old-school relics? I hate to say it however it's way past time.
Food for thought... updated maps of emergency off airport landing sites for little airplanes might be helpful to the moving map paperless system. Wouldn't that be an NTSB/FAA/Garmin collaborated nightmare? We're experiencing a time where if the pilot/driver is incapacitated the passengers can push the button and the aircraft will squawk that it's in trouble, pick a destination with updated weather and land. However, that's for GA not little airplanes. 🤣🤣🤣
Fantastic analysis, sir.
Great preliminary analysis. Looking forward to the conclusion. As always Scott great sound advice. Keep the blue side up.
Much appreciated
Partial Power makes not only to try do "A Turnback", but also to "Turnaround" the airport, or to that nice field in front, then engine quits before and you hit the trees hard instead.
I'm glad that you are opining on the October AOPA C-177RG accident, and I am glad that you have taken your time to share your opinion with the community. We've been waiting for you to offer your assessment.
Thanks. I needed some actual facts to work with.
Your passion for rejecting a turn back is truly infectious. Even with practice, the outcome will be in question in real time and in real life. We all react differently to emergency scenarios, and until we’ve been there, we don’t truly know how we’re going to handle the situation. You have awakened me to the reality of this dangerous maneuver, and for that I thank you.
I’ve been flying a twin Comanche for 32 years, in which I never even contemplated a turn back maneuver. I would, however, routinely practice simulated power loss with a single-engine climb (above a minimum safe altitude!).
However, I also owned a Great Lakes biplane during the same period, and I practiced numerous times a successful turn back and landing from 400 ft AGL. My actual minimum altitude requirement was mentally set at 500 ft AGL, hopefully to allow for reaction time. Thank goodness I never had to put it to test.
The real problem that developed in my mind was that I thought I was “good enough” to make the same kind of turn back maneuver in any single engine airplane, including a Bonanza, PA24 Comanche, Mooney, or 182. Your video here, along with others floating on the internet, have made me realize how stupid and fatal that could be, because it never occurred to me to consider . Duh……. Not smart at all, and I should know better. Thank you for helping and reminding me, and maybe even keeping me alive to enjoy my grandson! Keep it up.
Thanks! Then my video was a success, glad you watched it!
I had 5 engine failures on pistons in the 3,000 hours that i flew them in South America cargo i flew in the 1980's. 2 total but they were twins. DC3 and Piper Aztec. I landed them feathered engine spitting oil. The other 3 were partial power. Singles. On take off. Lost one cylinder. There are 2 basic kinds of partial power engine fails (LOTOT). This is for 4 cylinder engines.
1-The Vibration LOTOT, 2-The ENGINE CUTTING OFF IN AND OUT LOTOT.
In the vibration LOTOT you sort of lose the climb only, so if over 500 agl, you can still Turnback or Turnaround airport if know how to before. Dont know ? Dont go there. Good luck crashing outside the airport. Good to lean mixture and SOME carb heat apply after lowering the nose. I was on Cherokee 180 on both and did the downwind leg at 1-200 agl, 2nd at 250 agl. I didnt know how to do turnbacks, so i went to a low downwind leg. Scary as hell downwind leg 200 agl at Vglide with engine vibrating.
In the worst LOTOT or engine cutting off in and out, or engine noises, change tanks and be over say 700 agl before Turnback to opposite or side runway, and dont think about going around the airport, the engine can cut out before you complete the turnaround. = Dont try any turn to airport under 700 agl if engine is cutting out badly. Be a Turnback or a Turnaround maneuver.
Practice LOTOT. At least the engine vibrating "Turnaround" at 1,800 rpm and later on "The Turnback" from 700 up (depends). LOTOT should be required due is 3 times more common than EFATO. LOTOT and EFATO can get you easily if you dont know well. So Ignorance is not the solution. IGNORANCE IS THE PROBLEM.
Nice vid, great analysis and advice. I also read the report and had many similar questions. I didn't know either pilot personally but, as a former "Rusty Pilot," McSpadden was the face of the ASI/AOPA for me. Sadly, I agree human factors prevailed in decision making.
correct review of accident.... EXCELLENT !
Well said Scott... again. Too many pilots fail to comprehend the balance of energy required to maintain controlled flight. And an in-flight emergency is not the time to try and figure it out.
Regards as always,
Scott, thank you for sharing. I totally agree with the 2 most important take-aways. #1 If loss of thrust or reduced thrust occur during takeoff and not enough altitude has been gained while in glide range of the airport, put it down at the next safest and reachable place. #2 Trying to avoid damage to the aircraft should never, ever factor more importantly than walking away from the crash. The only thing I feel should have been included was an aerial view showing more context around the airport, along with the flight path. From what I have read, and seen on map views, north of the field there were at least 3 options better than the trees you showed and those roads. Due north off the tip of the runway where they were trying to land, there was a sizable cleared area around the transfer station, a substantially large area of woods, and a very large golf course. From what I have seen of their flight path and the proximity of those areas I mentioned, any one of those would have been better options than the airfield or the trees right at the end of the runway or the streets in that area.
At this point we do not know the flight path with certainty. Only end game.
Hi Scott - Great balanced analysis, as always. Any idea why we can't see/find the ADS-B tracks for this flight? Thanks. @@FlyWirescottperdue
Thanks. The interview with the C210 pilot about a month ago, puts the actual experience of what he found out in the 43 seconds he had between engine out and hitting the trees. Well worth watching.
There is something totally off with that crash. He never mentions being worried about post-crash fire, and his own photos are totally devoid of any sign of fuel even though both wings were destroyed.
great advice
My instructor drummed it into me 'where are you gonna go when the engine quits on take off'. If it's your home field, you should know the answer to that already. If it's a field your visiting, have a look see in the pattern when you arrive or look it up beforehand. At the time, I thought it was a bit extreme but it became second nature for me to have 'get out of that' plans in my mental toolkit.
Well said, Gunny.
Great reiterating of what can happen to a low altitude return to airport. What can influence the decision to return is partial power...there are no margins down low.
Great analysis as always Scott! I was waiting for you to review this accident because it really struck the whole aviation community, and all of your thoughts are pretty similar to mine. Being a relatively new and young pilot but with a lot of experience flying with my dad it truly makes me think a lot about how we have to be prepared to handle a situation like this, because it is serious. A couple of weeks before this accident, my CFI with a student had an engine failure shortly after take off in a Cessna 150, they couldn't make it back to the runway and decided to put it down off field, luckily they got out safe. Typically with heavy and high wing loaded airplanes like the Cessna T210 that I fly with my dad we are not thinking of returning to the runway if we are not above 600AGL or more, even though the glide ratio of a 210 is better than the 150, with such airplane the speed makes the distance to execute the turnback so large, you end up so far away from the runway and at a low altitude that is pretty difficult to say you'd make it. Thanks again for the video! Safe flying for everyone!!!
Thanks Tomas!
It's NOT altitude that gets you back, but climb angle! This is the literally fatal mistake everyone is making with this. Your climb angle must far exceed your glide angle.
@@paradoxicalcat7173 Yes I would agree with you, because a high climb angle means less distance made away from the runway that you’re departing from, cause is a lower forward speed to get more height, but try to do that maneuver with whatever high climb angle you can, and I almost guarantee you that if you are not high enough to execute the turnback you’re not gonna make it, I’m telling you because I tried it, of course every pilot knows or should know the performance of his airplane obviously every airplane has different capabilities. Also I believe in the theory that Mr McSpadden said in one of AOPA’s videos, that the “impossible turn” is possible doing the right thing with the right pilot, flying the right airplane, under the right conditions. But anyway I get it, there’s so many factors involved in it and is such a controversial thing to talk about
So well said.
Dan said if your engine goes partial pover consider it totally lost. Good advice.
And dont turn. Crash in front. A building or a tractor trailer helps you stop quickly.. LOL...
Good report
Amen. It's all about survival...yours, not the plane's. Thanks, Scott.
Absolutely!
I was taught the turn-back by my WWII-era instructor, but only after determining the minimum AGL required for a given airplane, plus buffer, at a safe altitude first. Never had to do it for real. I remember when AOPA did that video doing turn-backs for real... I was quite surprised they would do such a thing, let alone put it out on yt. I remember thinking, "people will die going out to try what they saw on AOPA's yt video."
You are a liar. They didnt put any impossible turnback on that video. And when the Bonanza could not do it (mostly because the wimpy pilot was using wrong Vglide and only 35 degrees of bank) they said not to do them on heavy singles. You can, but over TPA. I leaned them in 1996.
"Mark Baker has replied to your comment"😉@@outwiththem
@@quodsum7912 Not all turbacks are "Impossible". They saved my life.. twice.
well said!
To me it looks like another case of poor judgment and a i can do it attitude. They seem to forget what they preach!!!! Great video
FLY into the crash as far as possible in this case always rear up Thank You
REAR UP... LOL.. YEAH RIGHT..!
It "appears" to be the case FW, I'm sure they could have made it back safely and why they didn't choose other options at the time but really under estimated the amount of drag and energy lost dropping the gear which sealed their fate (unfortunately), great break-down, thank you. :)
So we’ll said Scott - that needs to be emphasized to CFI’s - who may be in a hurry to get to the airlines !
I agree that the landing gear extension is the most telling detail. They were trying to keep the airplane from getting hurt. And it cost them.
Never had an engine failure on takeoff, though I have had one fail at altitude. That's a very different situation. I have practiced engine outs at ABS proficiency clinics, though, and have always been impressed at how much benefit you get by pulling the prop full aft. The airplane surges, it accelerates, you feel the energy added to the account as propeller drag falls away. You mentioned the prop was found buried in the panel. I can only wonder where that Cardinal might have ended up if the pilot flying had pulled his prop back early in the accident sequence, and kept the wheels up until the runway was made.
That is the siren song of a partial power situation.
Scott, you might want to recheck you acceleration statement at 13 minute mark. Vertical accelerations can be very deadly as impacts with a large vertical component (pancaking) can go over the limit with what otherwise would appear to be survivable. There was seminar on seats at Oshkosh about 2005 which included an FAA test with a aircraft with dummies on a cable doing a drop to a pancake hit on pavement. two dummies siting over the spar would not be survivable, but dummies in the backseat would be...albeit with probably some pretty severe spinal compression fractures. Obviously in this case the acceleration was about like hitting a very thick retaining wall head on. It's all about impact angles and what was use able to absorb impact energy. Thanks for you video.
Yes, I have read "The human body is better at surviving g-forces that are perpendicular to the spine." from other sources
When it goes south rule one: It ain't a perfect world. It's irrelevant as to the acceleration plane geometry options You got to deal with the cards your dealt and trust me on this the spine and and more particularly your aorta at the attachment point on your torso has it's limits and military pilots ejecting typically lose 1 inch on their height from the compression damage. Even a successful ejection will most likely lead to compression fractures. It's my understanding the AF has rules on how many punch outs before a medical discharge.
Hi Scott, thank you for highlighting the importance of wing loading in the turnback maneuver. This is something that is almost never mentioned in that discussion, and it's hugely important. Roughly speaking, the altitude loss in the turnback will be proportional to the wing loading, so the Cardinal will need 70-80% more altitude than a Super Cub (or thereabouts)
I do want to challenge a few points in your analysis.
It's not clear this was really a "turnback" accident: the concern with the turnback maneuver is that the aircraft either gets into a stall/spin during the turn, or collides with the ground while still turning and consequently cartwheels. It's not clear either of those things happened. The airplane came up short. It may have been wings-level, then stalled and dropped a wing due to the pilot trying to "flare" over the embankment - a "stretching the glide" accident rather than a "turnback" accident. These experienced pilots might not have tried to "stretch the glide" if it had not been for their realization that they were going to hit a 70-degree slope, which would certainly be unsurvivable. They may have had no option, at that point, but to try.
Certainly, coming up short was fatal. However, they only barely came up short, and to give experienced pilots some credit, during the turnback and even up until very short final they may have thought they had the airport property made. For example, it's possible they encountered a wind gust (e.g., back side of a thermal) that changed the outcome.
When they made the initial right turn back, they turned into a bowl: if they headed toward the runway, they were heading into rising terrain (which, in fact, they hit); everything left of the runway was also rising terrain (I'm not a local, just looking at Google Earth). And, if they kept turning to the right, they were headed into rising terrain, trees, and houses. Once they made that initial right turn, by far their most promising option was the airport: make it and you live; go anywhere else and the odds were poor. If they had realized in time that they were not going to make it, the trees might have been a better option, but they may not have realized that they wouldn't make it, not with enough time.
You highlight the roads that were near the runway. Those roads were not, in my opinion, an option. To get aligned with those roads would have required an additional 90-degree turn to align with them - it would have required an additional "half-turnback"! In any case, looking at those roads, the wider one - Recycle Circle Ln. - is only 27 ft wide, has trees on both sides, has powerlines down at least one side, and has houses down one side. The next road back, Ashwood Way, has houses on both sides and is only 20 ft wide. Going for either of those would have risked the lives of people on the ground. And if they had somehow made that turn to line up with the wider road, they would have been headed into a steep upslope that I don't think they could clear - although not as steep as what they hit. And even clipping a tree or powerline is a very high-risk event: check out the video of the Civil Air Patrol Cessna that caught a power line just short of the runway at Whiteman.
I think they might have made the golf course. I believe it's actually at a higher elevation than the airport and also up an embankment but it might have been a shorter glide and would have required less of a turn. But it may not have been apparent, at the time when they would have had to decide on the golf course, that they weren't going to make the airport.
You mentioned the in-transition gear. Maybe they tried to lower it to save the plane. But maybe they were trying to raise it, to improve the glide. I haven't seen anyone establish which it was. Where was the gear selector?
I think we all realize that the two men in the airplane did what they believed was the best thing to do. They had partial power. The best place to land would be the airport property - on or off the runway. They very, very nearly had enough energy. They made a judgment call, and it was close.
A very long winded way to say " However, they only barely came up short" Nothing you have said in your suppositions mitigates the undeniable fact that the decision was ultimately wrong in the circumstances, hence Scott's reporting is valid.
Ten of my thirteen engine failures were low, six second deals. Say or think all of that in six seconds. Altitude is time and we don't have that until well up. Airspeed, not altitude is life down low and what Scott said about things in front of the wing is that the outcome of the maneuver is never in doubt. I had a SuperCub with an Ag student in the adjoining field before he got the fuel selector, which we had both forgotten, switched. Altitude is time and when low airspeed is life.@@zorbakaput8537
Hi @@zorbakaput8537! Of course, if you wish, we can keep it simple and avoid the long-winded analyses: they crashed, which establishes that the decision to take off was ultimately wrong in the circumstances.
Separately, your comment suggests to me that you feel the need to defend Scott. Perhaps I sounded like I was attacking him; that was not my intention. I was disagreeing with him :-)
@@zorbakaput8537 We don't know if any decision would have been better. Some other decision could have increased the number of victims.
MacSpadden was confronted with the worst kind of EFATO. And That kind of EFATO i think he didnt know. The "Surging Engine" kind or EFATO or LOTOT. The worst kind that can fool you into try to reach fields and suddenly engine quits all AND THEN YOU CAN'T REACH IT. Many good pilots have been fooled by Surging Engine EFATO. Then engine quits and they crash short of the place they though could be reached.. MacSpadden knew power off Turnbacks but not the most difficult partial power Turnback or LOTOT Turnback.
I had 5 engine failures on pistons in the 3,000 hours that i flew them in South America cargo i flew in the 1980's. 2 total but they were twins. DC3 and Piper Aztec. I landed them feathered engine spitting oil. The other 3 were partial power. Singles. On take off. Lost one cylinder. There are 2 basic kinds of partial power engine fails (LOTOT). Power off and partial power only LOTOT. LOTOT means Lost of Thrust on Take Off. Mac Spadden and his bonehead C177 owner didnt know how deceiving those LOTOTs are. They can make you think you will reach the place to land, then engine quit and you crash short of it. Happened a lot.
I fly an experimental. I need at least 800 ft to succeed at a 360 deg (yes…360 deg) turn back (I have practiced this at altitude). I have also marked my altimeter to show the minimum altitude I need AGL at my airport to ensure that I am not tempted to turn back if I have an engine failure on takeoff below this.
I lost power on take off in my old Starduster II biplane at 700 ft. agl. Made a 180 turn and landed perfectly downwind. Any lower would have been impossible.
I agree with most everything you laid out. One note worth mentioning though, is that I'm not sure the roads could be considered viable options. When you zoom in using Google Earth, you can see just how many powerlines are strung across and along most of the roads (which is typical of these areas). Without as much zoom, you can still see a lot of the poles' shadows. I don't think they would have had time or energy to find a suitable gap or figure out a way to fit it in.
Didn’t say they were perfect. Don’t expect, or demand a perfect option. Play the hand that is dealt.
If you have energy, you have to go under the wire... and my experience is that a Cardinal will come to stop in about 500 feet in a belly landing. It's probably survivable in a fairly short space.
Unless high tension transmission lines which are easy to see and go under, the windmilling prop will cut service lines to houses. Attack (pitch down) if you see you are going to hit one. I have cut two with engine running while crop dusting. Trees are probably a better option, but you won't see the service wire until you hit it. We go under wires all the time crop dusting as there is room if no fence or brush below the wire.
A good discussion of the report by Scott, as usual. 👍 My only disagreement, as a Cardinal pilot, is that the pilots added 10deg flaps in the landing attempt. Cardinals Normal takeoff uses 10deg flaps, and I have flown entire patterns in that configuration. Not anything significant to the outcome, but a minor adjustment perhaps.
Disagreement?
@@FlyWirescottperdue you state in your analysis that the pilots added the flaps in their return to landing. I believe that the flaps were used on departure and never taken out. That’s all. I think it further reinforces your point about how little time we have in real life scenarios.
‘ Not anything significant to the outcome ‘ ? Seems to me that if that flap was in the whole way , or even just the return , it explains why they didn’t quite make it . If you are grubbing for altitude any flap is deleterious to performance - even,or especially, glide performance.
I’ve never understood why, if the field is not short or soft or obstacles off the far end , there should be any necessity for any flap . Why ? Because certified a/c are designed to climb and cruise and glide most efficiently, clean . That means better angle of climb , and better rate of climb . Any headwind component will increase the former of course , but not the latter .
The only reason I can think of to use flap in an emergency to avoid a obstacle , as in the case of this vid , is when it will allow a ballooning to an A/S below the bottom of the green arc but still in the white arc to avoid a stall.
@@davidwhite8633 I disagree with your statement. Please understand my comments before posting. Have you flown a C177 before? Having or not having 10deg of flaps would not have given the airplane enough distance to make the runway/field. Result: no significant change in outcome. Same tragedy.
@@advgabe Well, it wasn’t the return distance that mattered so much ; it was the glide angle. They missed clearing that berm by only about 10 - 20’.
With any flap that glide angle is steeper and could easily explain just failing to clear it . Of course we don’t know whether they had flap in or not for the whole return segment, so this is merely hypothesizing about alternatives.
Angle of climb/descent depends on excess thrust [ thrust - drag ] so whatever thrust they did or didn’t have , drag had to be minimized , I.e. zero flap .
it is important to who made the decisions and who was flying, poor Russ getting into the plane with the AOPA alleged expert, who probably was the one in charge, Russ was a nice guy met him a few times great pilot and I did have a 177 at one time not RG though and all the info provided is correct, i would have gone straight and found a field, I have survived a crash once, probably not a second time
nope. On photo missions the owner is the one that want to be seen flying the airplane. Duhh !
I've been thinking lately about my one loss of power on takeoff, many years ago. The 65hp Continental in my recently rebuilt Aeronca Chief quit shortly after lifting off from a 2500 foot dirt and grass strip. It was too late to set back down on the runway, but there was a corn field just across the road. Then the engine kicked back in and gave me a some extra altitude before quitting again. The engine kept doing that. cutting out then cutting back in. There were lots of fields to choose from, but the engine continued to cut in and out, giving me a little more altitude each cycle. I suppose I could have chopped the throttle at any time and just put it down, but as long as I had a field in reach I was able to make a couple of ninety degree turns and flew something like a traffic pattern. I never got up to normal pattern altitude but I was able to nurse it around back to the runway I had taken off from. At no point was the geometry of the situation such that I could have gotten back to the runway going the opposite direction.
After several phone calls to consult about what might have been the cause, I was told to check the fuel hose to the carburetor that had been replaced during the rebuild. Sure enough there was a flap of rubber on the inside of the hose caused by an improperly installed hose fitting. This had acted as an intermittent check valve. I'm guessing that at full rpm the fuel flow was just enough to close the flap and when the rpm reduced, the fuel flow reduced letting the flap spring back opening the "valve". I would later learn about the mandrel tool that is the "right" way to install that type of fitting. The mechanic who did the rebuild must not have had that tool and didn't check to make sure the fitting had not damaged the hose during installation.
I had 5 engine failures on pistons in the 3,000 hours that i flew them in South America cargo i flew in the 1980's. 2 total but they were twins. DC3 and Piper Aztec. I landed them feathered engine spitting oil. The other 3 were partial power. Singles. On take off. Lost one cylinder. There are 2 basic kinds of partial power engine fails (LOTOT). This is for 4 cylinder engines.
1-The Vibration LOTOT, 2-The ENGINE CUTTING OFF IN AND OUT LOTOT.
In the vibration LOTOT you sort of lose the climb only, so if over 500 agl, you can still Turnback or Turnaround airport if know how to before. Dont know ? Dont go there. Good luck crashing outside the airport. Good to lean mixture and SOME carb heat apply after lowering the nose. I was on Cherokee 180 on both and did the downwind leg at 1-200 agl, 2nd at 250 agl. I didnt know how to do turnbacks, so i went to a low downwind leg. Scary as hell downwind leg 200 agl at Vglide with engine vibrating.
In the worst LOTOT or engine cutting off in and out, or engine noises, change tanks and be over say 700 agl before Turnback to opposite or side runway, and dont think about going around the airport, the engine can cut out before you complete the turnaround. = Dont try any turn to airport under 700 agl if engine is cutting out badly. Be a Turnback or a Turnaround maneuver.
Practice LOTOT. At least the engine vibrating "Turnaround" at 1,800 rpm and later on "The Turnback" from 700 up (depends). LOTOT should be required due is 3 times more common than EFATO. LOTOT and EFATO can get you easily if you dont know well. So Ignorance is not the solution. IGNORANCE IS THE PROBLEM.
I had a partial power issue 40 years ago frightening the daylights out of me, turned out the venturi in the carburetor had come lose and partially restricted the fuel flow, thankfully had enough altitude to make a good landing back at the airport, and my goodness I was focussed on planting it on the numbers as didn't have any other options.
Great story. Good on ya!
" I've had serval engineer failures overal" Scott, it time to change your mechanic😂
I too have experienced multiple power losses. An aircraft engine is under constant load unlike a car. They do fail more than people know. I have experienced fuel vapor lock, clogged fuel filter, failed magneto, carburetor failure, clogged air filter, fuel tank leak (forced me to land), blown piston, faulty ignition switch, etc. Those part failures are not caused by the mechanic.
I had 5 engine failures on pistons in the 3,000 hours that i flew them in South America cargo i flew in the 1980's. 2 total but they were twins. DC3 and Piper Aztec. I landed them feathered engine spitting oil. The other 3 were partial power. Singles. On take off. Lost one cylinder. There are 2 basic kinds of partial power engine fails (LOTOT). This is for 4 cylinder engines.
1-The Vibration LOTOT, 2-The ENGINE CUTTING OFF IN AND OUT LOTOT.
In the vibration LOTOT you sort of lose the climb only, so if over 500 agl, you can still Turnback or Turnaround airport if know how to before. Dont know ? Dont go there. Good luck crashing outside the airport. Good to lean mixture and SOME carb heat apply after lowering the nose. I was on Cherokee 180 on both and did the downwind leg at 1-200 agl, 2nd at 250 agl. I didnt know how to do turnbacks, so i went to a low downwind leg. Scary as hell downwind leg 200 agl at Vglide with engine vibrating.
In the worst LOTOT or engine cutting off in and out, or engine noises, change tanks and be over say 700 agl before Turnback to opposite or side runway, and dont think about going around the airport, the engine can cut out before you complete the turnaround. = Dont try any turn to airport under 700 agl if engine is cutting out badly. Be a Turnback or a Turnaround maneuver.
Practice LOTOT. At least the engine vibrating "Turnaround" at 1,800 rpm and later on "The Turnback" from 700 up (depends). LOTOT should be required due is 3 times more common than EFATO. LOTOT and EFATO can get you easily if you dont know well. So Ignorance is not the solution. IGNORANCE IS THE PROBLEM.
It’s disturbing and tragic that most pilots are not trained or aware of the benefits of using the propeller pitch control to significantly extend a glide if this is required. If the energy state was low this could have been improved by using coarse pitch.
Cardinal handbook says land streight ahead.
Something that has stuk with me is, many years ago now, there was an AOPA video with a gal pilot demonstating a turnback to the airport RWY. I mean, she was at I think at least 3,000 ft, and in the practice area, she was NOT actually doing this, she was showing that in a C172, the turn alone took several hundred feet of altitude, and she said she would not consider it at all unless she was at least at 1,000 ft AGL, preferably higher, and of course near enough to the airport. At my home field, (KILG), it's pretty built up all around, but I note the small patches of marshy land that I could set down in if that happened to me, within ~ 20-30 degrees of either side of the nose of the RWY I typically depart from. I'd rather not land at the huge mall or I-95 . It's a Class D airport so the tower could probably get me help in any event, but yeah, I can't really imagine doing a 180...
AOPA last year video had an old lady doing turnbacks from 600 agl with power idle and did it twice. C172. So what video AOPA are you taking about and what runway ?
@@outwiththem Thank you. I didn't see that recent video, this was maybe as long as 10 yrs ago. In that video they were demonstrating from about 3,000 ft in a practice area away from, probably KFDK, how much altitude is lost during the turn and why it is an issue turning back towards a RWY. I'm probably about 600 ft by the time I'm out of pavement from the 4,000 ft RWY I usually depart from, that would seem a bit sketchy to me to make a tight 180...Although the crash would be on or very close to the airport grounds...LOL.
Bank angle is not what stalls the airplane, the pilot pulling back on the stick is necessary. Any turn, from shallow to ninety degree bank angle, can be easily made at 1 g load factor. Simply don't pull back on the stick. You are using the small amount of altitude, potential energy of altitude, to safely turn at whatever bank necessary to make the turn to the better LZ. Practice 1 g steep turns at altitude first. Don't pull back and level the wing before pulling up from the turn to target. No 360s, these are all turns to a target on the ground. Forget tower, these are six second deals.
@@jimmydulin928 Interesting. I shall practice this, thank you!
The insane irony of this incident is that the only thing worse than to stall an airplane is to fly an airplane into a vertical wall. And this was one incident where they didn't stall it.
If you are over trees or rough terrain where you might die landing you would stay in the air. A lot of trees in the area, HW73 but it might have a lot of cars on it, a 90 degree instead of a 180 is a large field that might be a little further than the airport and also might have ended in the trees, there was a small grave yard straight ahead. Probably a lot of problems occur right after takeoff so the choice should not be made on the fly.
This is exactly where my version of the CAPS System would work.
Its not a parachute, but something that will increase glide time by 30-60 seconds or even allow a 1 minute climb after all power loss.
Or 1 minute longer flight path
Can you describe your system? Is it akin to JATO bottles?
my tiny Nickel would be, if you are thinking about a road, consider the possibility of ground casualties... just like with the Mig23 story, a pilot might need to make a suboptimal decision for his survival to avoid collateral losses.
(if it's a small road is one thing, if it's a highway is another...)
Cardinals always have been criminally underpowered, I don't think I'll fly in one unless conditions are perfect and flat. Needed an additional 80 HP to be acceptable.
Is the 1968 Cessna 172 Skyhawk "criminally underpowered" as well?
@@cessna177flyer3 Fly a Pitts Special for 300+ hours and you'll see. Yes, most Cessna's are criminally underpowered.
If a plane GIVES up on you
YOU can give up on the plane
BUT the people on board and on the ground are YOU’RE responsibility
I've always said, don't hurt the airplane and you'll also save yourself and passenger(s). I've experienced numerous power loses in many different aircraft. I lost power on take off in my old Starduster II biplane at 700 ft. agl. Made a 180 turn and landed perfectly downwind. Any lower would have been impossible. I've lost power in many different ultralights, a Robinson R22 helicopter and even in my old Pitts Special S1S. It completely depends on the aircraft, your proficiency, the aircraft load, and the weather conditions.
They almost made it. But someone popped out that draggy landing gear when too low. And they went 15 feet under the airport.
I had 5 engine failures on pistons in the 3,000 hours that i flew them in South America cargo i flew in the 1980's. 2 total but they were twins. DC3 and Piper Aztec. I landed them feathered engine spitting oil. The other 3 were partial power. Singles. On take off. Lost one cylinder. There are 2 basic kinds of partial power engine fails (LOTOT). This is for 4 cylinder engines.
1-The Vibration LOTOT, 2-The ENGINE CUTTING OFF IN AND OUT LOTOT.
In the vibration LOTOT you sort of lose the climb only, so if over 500 agl, you can still Turnback or Turnaround airport if know how to before. Dont know ? Dont go there. Good luck crashing outside the airport. Good to lean mixture and SOME carb heat apply after lowering the nose. I was on Cherokee 180 on both and did the downwind leg at 1-200 agl, 2nd at 250 agl. I didnt know how to do turnbacks, so i went to a low downwind leg. Scary as hell downwind leg 200 agl at Vglide with engine vibrating.
In the worst LOTOT or engine cutting off in and out, or engine noises, change tanks and be over say 700 agl before Turnback to opposite or side runway, and dont think about going around the airport, the engine can cut out before you complete the turnaround. = Dont try any turn to airport under 700 agl if engine is cutting out badly. Be a Turnback or a Turnaround maneuver.
Practice LOTOT. At least the engine vibrating "Turnaround" at 1,800 rpm and later on "The Turnback" from 700 up (depends). LOTOT should be required due is 3 times more common than EFATO. LOTOT and EFATO can get you easily if you dont know well. So Ignorance is not the solution. IGNORANCE IS THE PROBLEM.
@@emergencylowmaneuvering7350 Hi Jay.. Come to think of it, we rather stop posting about our experience on the 4 engine fails on take off,
Most dont care about that, but the opinions and BS of guys WITH NO EXPERIENCE on those maneuvers...but are GOOD TALKERS. Look at your experience and great post.. No likes at all.
But the talkers?, a lot of likes. They like talkers, not doers. F them all. Keep your secrets and LIVE AND LET DIE. They are mostly superficial suckers. Just help your friends not suckers. They love talkers and mild maneuvering. Thanks for saving lives.
😎
Agreed the cause of engine failure is not important for purposes of this accident analysis. However as a Lycoming and Cessna owner I am interested to know. After a few engine failures including one on departure more information is better.
Then watch for the Final Report. Expect it in two years.
Yes will watch, but not holding my breath. Many are still taken aback(me included) this type of fatality can occur with a McSpadden in the airplane - their by the grace of God goes the rest of us. Lycoming squeezes a lot of HP out of their IO-360 on the 177RG so that cam & top end issues can occur. Even more interested to know how the engine was maintained i.e. was there a recent borescope inspection of the cam & top end? Many have not yet adopted routine borescope inspections yet which have become the gold standard for preventative maintenance so reflects on overall quality of maintenance of the airplane. Thanks for your review of this accident. @@FlyWirescottperdue
The question in my mind is how did they manage their energy during the turnback? What speed did they fly? Did they keep the aircraft clean till landing was assured? Did they pop the flaps in an effort to clear the berm or were the flaps out to fly at a slower speed?
How does one judge one's energy state with any degree of certainty? There is a constant that your energy can be measured against and that is the 3 degree glide slope. Even in the case where a glide slope is not available, in years of flying one develops a sense of your approach angle to the runway and one's relative energy state.
Could they have had sufficient engine power to initially make the runway, but as the approach progressed the power continued to deteriorate leaving them short at the last moment? Juan and Dan both suggested that there were better landing options, but were there, if the power was initially judged adequate to make the runway?
You have to be intimately familiar with the picture presnted outside the window. Essentially, you have to be able to do calculus visually and determine your descent rate and impact point looking out the window. It takes a lot of practice, period.
Pre watch comment/ question. Did they fail to push/ maintain air speed?
Naming an agl altitude that you can do a turn back in your husky is risky. Yeah you can do it at sea level, but what about coming out of Boise on a hot day. Other than that I agree completely with your assessment. By definition the "impossible turn" is not able to be successfully done.
How far away from the airport were they when they turned back? I’ve seen one proposed ground track that indicated they got to the lake, turned back, and flew over a golf course before crashing. But your description doesn’t make it clear when and I haven’t read the NTSB report so I’m just comparing 2 YT videos.
Excellent take and video. Really want to see a full AAR-ish analysis with you, Dan, and Juan, with none of you pulling punches and all of you writing minority reports.
The ADSB for the A36 doesn’t support that theory.
@@FlyWirescottperdue That’s the drone datastream I was looking for! (But no ADS-B for the cardinal?)
Great video. Can anyone please elaborate on the comment regarding greater survivability from vertical impact vs. lateral? That surprised me a bit.
Vertical is worse. Like falling on your ass from a third floor. Your spine will compress and you can be paralized or in big pain for decades or life.. Dont Stall it.
@@emergencylowmaneuvering7350that’s what I thought. At 12:57 I think he either misspeaks or I’m misunderstanding what he said.
What would I do ? In light of the GA crash rate and if I lived near a airport I would sell my house and move away. With a lot of airports being housed in where do you go if you haven’t enough altitude to turn back ? What would you do Scott? Land on a street which would probably have power lines crossing it and vehicle traffic or on top of a house ? It’s a hard one.
I live on an airport. I've been doing it for 23 years. I'm not afraid of airplanes or pilots. I said in the video what I thought were viable alternatives, preferably roads, and then trees. Realize this is not landing, it is crashing in a survivable manner.
I always thought that they might have made it if they would have left the gear up. Other than you, I haven't heard others mention it. The last thing they should have done, but only after the have made the runway, is drop the gear, IMHO.
ROTO . . . Fly straight ahead, +/- 10°, in a retractable, LEAVE THE GEAR ALONE, control airplane until it stops! For the life of me, I cannot understand why something that can be replaced is more important than my (and/or passengers lives) is more important! Life cannot be replaced, airplanes can!
Ego.
So we should commend the NTSB for giving this accident priority and special treatment? Doesn’t seem right.
Understand your reasoning for not caring why the engine didn’t develop full power unless there is something you can do about it. One possible theory about the engine hiccup on the ground. Could have been the result of overly aggressive leaning while taxing. Easy to fix of course. Hard to imagine pilots of this skill level would have decided to go fly with an engine that just died while taxing out for an unknown reason. We all wait to see if NTSB can determine the cause for loss of engine power in flight.
Thank you. An excellent analysis. Sadly, in the present GA and government culture I think your video and advice will lack adequate distribution and, even if it reaches some GA pilots, will fall on deaf ears.
If Richard McSpadden couldn't sort things out and get that plane back on the ground, wherever, in one piece, there's not much hope for the vast majority of GA pilots.
The only hope is for the aviation insurance companies to figure out how to put the hammer down HARD on risky pilots and operations. I don't know just how they will do that, but they must.
I dont think MacSpadden was doing that take off and didnt do that turnback on an airplane he didnt fly often. He knew turnbacks on his cub as far as i know. And cardinals are different. The owner flyes the airplane on photo missions, not others. The owner likes to be shown flying his airplane, not show another man flying it. That was a big pilot error to pop the gear when low and slow. That made them get short by 15 feet under the hill to the runway. Owner will do something like that. Also the stabilator showed FULL UP TRIM. Spadden wont do those errrors.
Owners will do those errors. Many other good pilots have been killed by bad pilots PIC. Dont fly with boneheads..
I learned turnbacks in 1996 and taught them to about 9 students i had before i left the school to fly jets..
excellent. i've got 1917 flying manual USA, rule is don't turn back land straight ahead.
I’d love to have a copy of that manual!
I can scan and fwd it to you. I got it from an old AF Col. last name Faulk here in Ft. W. Pg.3 "do not turn close to the ground. if your engine stops close to the ground, land straight ahead."@@FlyWirescottperdue
there are 29 rules and in bold type, this must be the first Gen "bold face," it says "These Rules if Obeyed, Eliminate Most Accidents."
After I read this, I've stored my spurs in my flight bag when I aviate.
They had just done a segment for AOPA exactly on the impossible turn. I think that they tried to extend the landing gear to partially absorb the impact.
That is a silly idea.
@@FlyWirescottperdueeasy to say sitting on a couch. Who are we to judge?
@@FlyWirescottperdueIs Susan’s hypothesis silly, or are you saying that she might be right and the pilot’s decision to do that was silly?
From the ground track that I believe it was Dan Gryder who showed, this doesn’t look like it was an “impossible turn” scenario even though everyone keeps bringing that up. It appears they were quite far from the airport when they decided they needed to return. This seems more like an enroute issue where you decide to try to make it to a nearby runway vs. making an off airport landing. Given the terrain in the Adirondacks, where I have flown several times, going for an airport that appears to be in range seems quite prudent to me. And partial power is much more insidious than a full power failure. The only real error in judgement that I can see given the information available to date, is the decision to lower the gear. I suspect if that hadn’t been done, they’d have made a gear up landing at the top of the plateau and all would have been well. It is easy to be a Monday morning QB.
And they didn’t make it……. Given that I don’t see your point.
@@FlyWirescottperdue The point is this doesn’t appear to be the stereotypical “impossible turn” scenario, yet everyone keeps making that association. At least not if the ground track that Dan Gryder showed is accurate.
@@LTVoyager I have had this same issue and noted it in a couple of places. I feel like we are getting wrapped up in that it feels like the 'impossible turn' is taught as an engine failure on takeoff, ultimately trying to turn around with no power, little airspeed/low energy. Whereas in this case, they completed the takeoff, were joining with another aircraft (with 130 groundspeed), experienced an emergency then made an RTB decision that was either not correct, or not executed well enough. They feel like different things even though the outcome was the same. To me, labeling it as the impossible turn adds a confusing element to a very straightforward concept. But I'm pretty sure I'm in the minority on this.