Very well handled, in terms of recovery at a critical moment. Instinct is often to pull the nose up, when you need to immediately unload the wing and push down. And you reacted quickly too, when fractions of seconds count, or else a sudden ending. What's most interesting to me is how a very experienced and very current pilot got distracted here, as the Piper got in your way, and made you go out of your "routine". By focusing on the Piper, and trying to salvage the approach, your speed was allowed to steadily bleed-off, to the point of stall. This and other kinds of approach/landing segment distractions are very common in aircraft accidents. Angle of Attack indicators are being more popular and available now for GA aircraft. Something to think about.
Thank you very much for sharing. One thing is reading about required landing speed but actually seeing it makes much more expression. It is also good to see an very experienced pilot correct the situation. It's no shame to go around.
Stomach...in...mouth. Thanks for putting the vid and commentary up for the community. A great lesson on recovery. It was also an example of questionable tower traffic management. Hindsight 20/20 and all, on a busy final it's really much harder to say 'unable'. It requires extra neuron cycles.
Hi jaunty17 long time since I saw a video from you, maybe I missed one or two, glad you did the right thing and lived to tell the tale. Thanks for the upload and the lesson.
Another interesting video. What is so important, is the ability to decide to go around, before things get out of hand. I have seen pilots freeze on the controls rather than go around. Like everything, it is a process. 1 decide. 2 power up. 3 start climbing. 4 gear up. 5 flaps up. 6 Only then, talk to ATC. Easy to say and write but of course, in the real world, we have many issues clouding our judgement. Better then to say to yourself, this approach WILL end in a go around, for which I am ready, but, I will land if there is no reason not to.
That had to be stressful, but a learning experience as well. You fly long enough these things happen. I can remember one night I was shooting an approach on a VFR night (I do that very often to help with Sit. Awareness) and at the intermediate fix before turning in bound slightly there is another airpot straight ahead. (See RNAV 20 Appch for 4O4 Fix ZUTEM). Well I went straight ahead and when I thought my GNS and Foreflight was acting up I realized I was headed to the wrong airport. Lesson Learned.
Thank you for the video. Definitely a learning experience. One question I have is why did the envelope protection/ESP in the -VI not kick in and prevent you from losing so much airspeed?
There is no "envelop protection" function on the GFC700 autopilot. For example, if one (mistakenly) uses the vertical speed setting in climb, the AP will climb you right into a stall. That's why you use flight-level change for climbing and vertical speed for descent. Similarly, if you choose too great a vertical speed in descent and don't pull back on the throttle, the AP will gladly accelerate above Vne. It's not an Airbus. And, in this particular case, on short final, the AP was not engaged anyway. There is certainly no function that would take over in that profile and prevent the pilot from stalling out.
Hi, thanks a lot for sharing all your videos, but I need further explanation about this one. At 4:52 there is a white lozenge that appear on the 1st screen of the G1000. I was wondering what does that mean ? I'm afraid that the explanation came later on the video, isn't a plane detected by the system on the path ? At 5:31 in final, the lozenge is right in the middle of the screen. At 6:03, when the stall is about to happen, it seems that I see a plane on the runway around the middle of it. And at 6:19, after the go-around, I clearly see a plane on the runway. It seems weird to me that you are in final and in short final with a plane on the runway without noticing it ? by the G1000 or more likely by the radio information... Is my understanding of the situation is good ? If not can you just give me some clue about the white lozenge on the G1000 ? thanks a lot.
Yes, I tried to explain this in the video, but by the time the "lozenge" shows up (TAS warning of traffic) I already knew the PA28 was there because the tower had told me. So that was no surprise. The lozenge stays because the TAS system still sees the traffic, on final right in front of me. It was however a question how fast he would get off the runway, until finally it became obvious I would have to go around. It's a shame I didn't have the ATC dialogue recorded on this video, or all this would have been clearer.
My Bad ! I didn't remember that point at first view, and I was too much concerned about what I see rather than the explanation, during all the next views. Sure, the ATC dialog is a very nice thing in the other videos, bad for me it's wasn't on this one... I will pay more attention to your explanation next time! Thanks a lot for your time for this quick answer, and continue to share, it's a mine of information for every pilot...
+jaunty17 +a320homecockpit I can answer that. The wings were not yet experiencing the onset of the stall, there was still sufficient airspeed and the angle of attack was low due to the descent, hence no stall warning. So what caused the wobbling then, if not an impending stall? The combination of wake vortex from the landing PA-28, and the low speed of the DA-42. I saw a couple of wake vortex incidents before and there is a striking familiarity as DA-42 flies throught "the washing machine" of the wake rotor. The PA-28 is slighly below 1 tons MTOW, the DA-42 is about 1.7 tons MTOW, so normally no big deal. Yet the separation is so little between them and the low speed gives lower roll stability and aileron authority than usual, so all conditions are set for the the "gut wrenching" feeling when the ailerons are hardly able to compensate for the uncommanded rolls. Had the wings been near stalling already, the left wing would have definitely stalled @5:58, aircraft rolling left, stick full right. The result would have been a spin developing to the left, with no altitude to recover. Nevertheless, the moral of the story is the same and the video is extremely valuable! Getting suprised by the closeness of #1 for landing, and getting focused on slowing down led to getting into an unwanted part of the envelope, where the roll authority was too lttle to compensate for the wake wortex. The immediate actions were also correct, nose down for speed, power and go around. The prevention is also the same: if things don't look good, it's better taking action already then, rather than hoping that somehow they get sorted out. It's very dangerous to "get behind" the airplane, but the risk is there, especially when the pilot is tired, long flight, turbulence, complex airspace and whatnot. I definitely learnt from this.
great explanation and soo true... sometimes we think about avoiding one thing (here stall, because off low speed) that we forget about other things (here the wake vortex) Even small planes have this... good lesson for all of us pilots ...
Paul Kram A number of commenters identify this key question: how did I let myself do something I normally wouldn't. Two outside factors were at play. 1) the plane was, at 97% of MLM, far heavier that it usually is; and 2) the situation of suddenly being so close to the landing traffic ahead of me. The heavy plane meant I didn't have the same margins I am used to. My "I should have..." take away from this is that I should have just chosen to go around (or maybe done a circuit) right away when I realized how close the landing traffic was. Instead I waited for the tower to initiate the go around. I was monitoring and aware of what was happening with my airspeed the whole time, but made the wrong call. I needed to make a decision, take the initiative, and not wait for the tower.
Yes that is what the AFM says. But why does it say that? Because in a normal go-around you want to make sure you are climbing away from the runway/ground before you put your gear up. For example, it includes the case where you have touched down and need to take off again. In this case, I was in the air with a low-speed/beginning stall, and then the most important thing is to reduce drag while keeping lift. Putting flaps up first in that situation, without reducing drag by retracting gear, would have been the wrong thing to do. You cannot blindly let the AFM tell you what to do, just like you cannot wait for the tower to tell you what to do.
jaunty17 Also, if you consider the emergency checklist for engine out on take off, a much more similar situation to the one I was in (low power, low speed, close to the ground), the order is 1) throttle 2) gear up 3) flaps up on positive rate.
jaunty17 my understanding, and I almost certain its correct, is that the landing flaps adds MORE drag than the actual gear. That said, you would want to eliminate your biggest drag on go-around which in this case is the landing flaps. The approach flaps arent as bad in terms of total drag. Please what are your thoughts?
Yes, the flaps to add drag, possibly more than the gear, but the flaps also add lift, which the gear do not. When you are on the verge of stalling, the last thing you want to do is remove lift. Retracting the gear lessens drag without losing lift.
Agreed. The take off configuration is different than landing. You'd never have landing flaps. So in your situation the correct procedure if in a stall you'd want to full power, pitch down, remove the landing flaps, positive rate , gear up , approach flaps up.
Do you think a Vortex Generator would it help retarding the wobble?. I think you did what it had to be done. from the video (a small portion of the real data) it seems that even if you could held control at a slower speed you did not had enough time to land before the other traffic exited the runway
Развлечения
Very well handled, in terms of recovery at a critical moment. Instinct is often to pull the nose up, when you need to immediately unload the wing and push down. And you reacted quickly too, when fractions of seconds count, or else a sudden ending.
What's most interesting to me is how a very experienced and very current pilot got distracted here, as the Piper got in your way, and made you go out of your "routine". By focusing on the Piper, and trying to salvage the approach, your speed was allowed to steadily bleed-off, to the point of stall. This and other kinds of approach/landing segment distractions are very common in aircraft accidents.
Angle of Attack indicators are being more popular and available now for GA aircraft. Something to think about.
Thank you very much for sharing. One thing is reading about required landing speed but actually seeing it makes much more expression. It is also good to see an very experienced pilot correct the situation. It's no shame to go around.
Stomach...in...mouth. Thanks for putting the vid and commentary up for the community. A great lesson on recovery. It was also an example of questionable tower traffic management. Hindsight 20/20 and all, on a busy final it's really much harder to say 'unable'. It requires extra neuron cycles.
Thanks for sharing this. That was a close call. Well done for recovering, and for being honest enough to share it.
Hi jaunty17 long time since I saw a video from you, maybe I missed one or two, glad you did the right thing and lived to tell the tale. Thanks for the upload and the lesson.
thank you for this great video!
Thanks for sharing this video! I'll show it my students.
That is very interesting! Great Video!
Another interesting video. What is so important, is the ability to decide to go around, before things get out of hand. I have seen pilots freeze on the controls rather than go around. Like everything, it is a process. 1 decide. 2 power up. 3 start climbing. 4 gear up. 5 flaps up. 6 Only then, talk to ATC. Easy to say and write but of course, in the real world, we have many issues clouding our judgement. Better then to say to yourself, this approach WILL end in a go around, for which I am ready, but, I will land if there is no reason not to.
Good video, great lesson.
Great video! Speed on base/final is definitely something to be aware of as it's easy to focus too much on the runway.
That had to be stressful, but a learning experience as well. You fly long enough these things happen. I can remember one night I was shooting an approach on a VFR night (I do that very often to help with Sit. Awareness) and at the intermediate fix before turning in bound slightly there is another airpot straight ahead. (See RNAV 20 Appch for 4O4 Fix ZUTEM). Well I went straight ahead and when I thought my GNS and Foreflight was acting up I realized I was headed to the wrong airport. Lesson Learned.
That's why Angle of Attack indicator would be more suited for a landing. You can stall at any airspeed.
Very interesting video, thank you for sharing. Any idea why the stall warner didn't sound?
Very instructive. Hope you post a link on DAN. I bet it will get a discussion going.
Welp? That will tighten the ol' colon...
Geez lol
Thank you for the video. Definitely a learning experience. One question I have is why did the envelope protection/ESP in the -VI not kick in and prevent you from losing so much airspeed?
There is no "envelop protection" function on the GFC700 autopilot. For example, if one (mistakenly) uses the vertical speed setting in climb, the AP will climb you right into a stall. That's why you use flight-level change for climbing and vertical speed for descent. Similarly, if you choose too great a vertical speed in descent and don't pull back on the throttle, the AP will gladly accelerate above Vne. It's not an Airbus. And, in this particular case, on short final, the AP was not engaged anyway. There is certainly no function that would take over in that profile and prevent the pilot from stalling out.
bonjour, y a t’il des vols sur l'année 2021? good afernoon are they flight in 2021?
Hi, thanks a lot for sharing all your videos, but I need further explanation about this one.
At 4:52 there is a white lozenge that appear on the 1st screen of the G1000. I was wondering what does that mean ? I'm afraid that the explanation came later on the video, isn't a plane detected by the system on the path ?
At 5:31 in final, the lozenge is right in the middle of the screen.
At 6:03, when the stall is about to happen, it seems that I see a plane on the runway around the middle of it.
And at 6:19, after the go-around, I clearly see a plane on the runway.
It seems weird to me that you are in final and in short final with a plane on the runway without noticing it ? by the G1000 or more likely by the radio information...
Is my understanding of the situation is good ? If not can you just give me some clue about the white lozenge on the G1000 ?
thanks a lot.
Yes, I tried to explain this in the video, but by the time the "lozenge" shows up (TAS warning of traffic) I already knew the PA28 was there because the tower had told me. So that was no surprise. The lozenge stays because the TAS system still sees the traffic, on final right in front of me. It was however a question how fast he would get off the runway, until finally it became obvious I would have to go around. It's a shame I didn't have the ATC dialogue recorded on this video, or all this would have been clearer.
My Bad ! I didn't remember that point at first view, and I was too much concerned about what I see rather than the explanation, during all the next views.
Sure, the ATC dialog is a very nice thing in the other videos, bad for me it's wasn't on this one... I will pay more attention to your explanation next time!
Thanks a lot for your time for this quick answer, and continue to share, it's a mine of information for every pilot...
indeed a great lesson, speed is all, speed makes us fly... but i wonder how come no stall horn warned about this
earlier?
+a320homecockpit Good question, but I can't answer it.
+jaunty17 +a320homecockpit I can answer that. The wings were not yet experiencing the onset of the stall, there was still sufficient airspeed and the angle of attack was low due to the descent, hence no stall warning. So what caused the wobbling then, if not an impending stall? The combination of wake vortex from the landing PA-28, and the low speed of the DA-42. I saw a couple of wake vortex incidents before and there is a striking familiarity as DA-42 flies throught "the washing machine" of the wake rotor. The PA-28 is slighly below 1 tons MTOW, the DA-42 is about 1.7 tons MTOW, so normally no big deal. Yet the separation is so little between them and the low speed gives lower roll stability and aileron authority than usual, so all conditions are set for the the "gut wrenching" feeling when the ailerons are hardly able to compensate for the uncommanded rolls. Had the wings been near stalling already, the left wing would have definitely stalled @5:58, aircraft rolling left, stick full right. The result would have been a spin developing to the left, with no altitude to recover.
Nevertheless, the moral of the story is the same and the video is extremely valuable! Getting suprised by the closeness of #1 for landing, and getting focused on slowing down led to getting into an unwanted part of the envelope, where the roll authority was too lttle to compensate for the wake wortex. The immediate actions were also correct, nose down for speed, power and go around. The prevention is also the same: if things don't look good, it's better taking action already then, rather than hoping that somehow they get sorted out. It's very dangerous to "get behind" the airplane, but the risk is there, especially when the pilot is tired, long flight, turbulence, complex airspace and whatnot. I definitely learnt from this.
great explanation and soo true... sometimes we think about avoiding one thing (here stall, because off low speed) that we forget about other things (here the wake vortex) Even small planes have this... good lesson for all of us pilots ...
What distracted you from monitoring and maintaining airspeed?
Paul Kram A number of commenters identify this key question: how did I let myself do something I normally wouldn't. Two outside factors were at play. 1) the plane was, at 97% of MLM, far heavier that it usually is; and 2) the situation of suddenly being so close to the landing traffic ahead of me. The heavy plane meant I didn't have the same margins I am used to. My "I should have..." take away from this is that I should have just chosen to go around (or maybe done a circuit) right away when I realized how close the landing traffic was. Instead I waited for the tower to initiate the go around. I was monitoring and aware of what was happening with my airspeed the whole time, but made the wrong call. I needed to make a decision, take the initiative, and not wait for the tower.
awesome video. I also agree with Scho, the da42 that I fly require Flaps Gear Flaps on go around not Gear FLaps FLaps.
Yes that is what the AFM says. But why does it say that? Because in a normal go-around you want to make sure you are climbing away from the runway/ground before you put your gear up. For example, it includes the case where you have touched down and need to take off again. In this case, I was in the air with a low-speed/beginning stall, and then the most important thing is to reduce drag while keeping lift. Putting flaps up first in that situation, without reducing drag by retracting gear, would have been the wrong thing to do. You cannot blindly let the AFM tell you what to do, just like you cannot wait for the tower to tell you what to do.
jaunty17 Also, if you consider the emergency checklist for engine out on take off, a much more similar situation to the one I was in (low power, low speed, close to the ground), the order is 1) throttle 2) gear up 3) flaps up on positive rate.
jaunty17 my understanding, and I almost certain its correct, is that the landing flaps adds MORE drag than the actual gear. That said, you would want to eliminate your biggest drag on go-around which in this case is the landing flaps. The approach flaps arent as bad in terms of total drag. Please what are your thoughts?
Yes, the flaps to add drag, possibly more than the gear, but the flaps also add lift, which the gear do not. When you are on the verge of stalling, the last thing you want to do is remove lift. Retracting the gear lessens drag without losing lift.
Agreed. The take off configuration is different than landing. You'd never have landing flaps. So in your situation the correct procedure if in a stall you'd want to full power, pitch down, remove the landing flaps, positive rate , gear up , approach flaps up.
when plane goes somewhere on its own ,, use your feet ,,, you made the stall worse by correcting to the right
Do you think a Vortex Generator would it help retarding the wobble?. I think you did what it had to be done. from the video (a small portion of the real data) it seems that even if you could held control at a slower speed you did not had enough time to land before the other traffic exited the runway
Roberto j Mateu The 42-VI has small vortex generators near the wing root as standard, which may help explain its docile stall behaviour.