Good one. It doesn't seem like two years since your last solo flight.

I'm surprised you landed downwind after that open canopy drill. Turning back was strictly verboten in my day. Of course, the gliders I trained on had open cockpits but we did cable break drills which sound very similar.

Hagar wrote on Jul 27^th, 2009 at 2:47am:

No, you have it mixed up... two different drills.

The open canopy was done at over 2500 AGL... but the real-life hazard is that it may not be latched right, in which case it will open just as you leave runway on tow, if not sooner. The idea is to stay on the stick and just close it when able... a the drill is to familiarize you with doing that. I flew around with it open for a while, even banking a little, then closed it.

The turnaround thing is done only if you have at least 200 ft AGL when the rope breaks or whatever... any lower, and you have to find a decent spot to land ahead with a minimum of banking. This is why it's good practice to call out "200!" as you pass that altitude on tow. Reminds you that you should be thinking about this eventuality before launch and during the tow.

It' rare, but it happens... rope breaks, hook on glide or towplane comes loose, accidental release, emergency release (if the towplane has a problem, the pilot will get rid of you, sometimes without warning). Demonstrating the ability to deal with suddenly being off tow during climbout is a requirement for the PP-glider.

Yesterday I did it from 400 ft. after a simulated rope break (done because I'd forgotten to call  "200"), but I've done it with no trouble from 200.  The key is to get the nose down immediately, then make the turn into the wind. Get those things right, and the rest is gravy, even on our short-ish grass runway.

Quote:


That's the key 

Mobius wrote on Jul 27^th, 2009 at 6:04pm:

Try it, and you'll see you're just shivering with  excitement.   

Hagar wrote on Jul 27^th, 2009 at 7:43pm:


Interesting. I suppose with winds beyond a certain point, it would be very foolish, but that is the accepted standard here, as far as I know. But we rarely fly if it's blowing above 10 knots, because it's rarely straight down the runway. Never had any difficulty controlling the approach with a light wind behind me- in fact, it helps alleviate the usual change associated with the "wind gradient".
 At our field, at least, there's a tendency to have the rug yanked out from under you as you come over the trees, when landing into the wind.

EDIT: I had a look at that old post, and it reminds me now of what first popped into my head when flying with  the canopy open: The T21. It must be very nice to fly in that open cockpit (in warm weather). The 2-33 has a nice eyeball vent in the panel (fed by the hole in the nose, via a duct), but it really only cools a few square inches of whatever you point it at. Got me thinking it would be fun to figure out a way to remove the canopy and mount a little windscreen on the 2-33... but I don't think it would be "kosher".   I'll just have to settle for opening the "bubble" now and then when I'm roasting in the sun up there.

Quote:


Even as a pilot who has never even sat in a glider; I can see where my training would have been, "better" had I spent my first, several, airborne hours with no engine. All those subtle, little things that you never un-learn, would be more fundamentally sound.

The primary argument against it, are logistics. There simply aren't enough gliders, and glider-friendly airports, and tow-planes, and instructors; for every PPL aspirant to fliter through. Of course, that's a "chicken-n-egg" scenario. If it WERE required, there would be many, flourishing soaring schools. So... if the idea ever gained momentum, I'd be fully behind it. Alas, it's just not realistic.

As for a fear of engine failure, "even" from pilots with several hours ? Yeah.. one less thing to be ever-aware of, could help a new pilot concentrate on flying... BUT, with a counter-productive flip-side; that he'd not had that contingency long-since drilled into his sub-conscious (i.e. stuff never un-learned). I've found that the more I fly, the more I, "fear" engine failure. It's not a debilitaing thing.. it's just that more flying, means more time spent running that scenario through your head...every takeoff.. everty tank-change, every pattern entry. Not to mention that by the time you reach 1000hours, you'll have experienced some sort of engine issue.. or met a pilot who has had engine failure and survived it.. or have known a pilot who did not.  

If you think about it.. soaring is a lot like sky-diving. They both require help from an engined airplane.. and with good equipment, proper training, and sound judgment... you're safer in the glider (or under the chute), than you were in your car, on the way there  

I have no data for soaring.. but I do remember a survey that showed an inverse relationship between flying experience, and willingness to sky-dive  

Quote:


If you takeoff from a runway as short as 4000', in a C172 on a cool day.. you won't be far past the departure-end when you reach pattern altitude    A turn-back to the runway (especially in an urban area), is the proper choice ..

beaky wrote on Jul 28^th, 2009 at 9:06am:

There are always exceptions to any rule but the FAA appears to agree with me that this is not a good idea. I found several articles on the subject including this one. The Impossible Turn (DOCUMENT FAA-P-8740-44 AFO-800-1283)

Quote:

Modern training gliders are very advanced - & very expensive. I still think there might be a place for the good old flying brick.

Quote:

You're right. I hadn't noticed that.

Brett_Henderson wrote on Jul 28^th, 2009 at 8:03am:


A very good point. I think a compromise would be more emphasis on power-off flying of singles not just as an engine-failure drill, but as part of just learning the basics. But the mentality is that these powerplants are so reliable in general, so why dwell on that? I think that is a cop-out for two reasons: first, engine failures are extremely rare, but if you've been in denial about it and it happens, you will not do very well. Second, there are other scenarios that require you to shut down and get that thing on the ground ASAP.


 That reminds me of a gliding drill that I never heard of in powered training: the "benign spiral". This is done if things really go south, especially if you are suddenly incapacitated. While you can, you just apply full "up" trim (with no power in the case of a power plane), coax it into a shallow turn at Vbg or thereabouts, and try to relax. Needless to say, the "arrival", even in a glider, could be quite nasty, but sometimes you have to stop fighting. Even though I am definitely in the "fly the SOB into the crash" camp, that maneuver was illuminating.

Although it seems very passive, it is still a command decision, and in the event you've taken a bird in the face, or you are becoming overcome by a medical problem, smoke or hypoxia, or you've been sucked into a storm cell, it can be a very wise one, compared to trying to fly assertively when you are not able to do so. You won't exceed Vne, you won't get upside-down, and you won't stall/spin. I guess it could even be a option for VFR pilots who blunder into IMC and realize they cannot keep it together on the gauges alone (or IFR pilots who are suddenly faced with less tools than they can safely use). Definitely a last-ditch maneuver, but it might very well be better than "soldiering on" in some case, despite the uncertainty of where you will touch down.


But looking back, my instructors did have me do a fair number of power-off full-stop landings- this is enough to prepare you for the more common problem (power loss).  The real problem, as with stalls, etc. is that most PPs give that stuff up after their training.  Not much can be done about that, except to stress it more during flight reviews. My reviews so far focused a lot more on rules, regs, and nav than on envelope-stretching or emergencies.  I think reviewing CFIs really should get pilots out of their comfort zone as part of a review.
 Most useful (but fun) review I had so far was  in the Champ, as part of the tailwheel training... I had to really fly that thing conscientiously, nothing "rote" about it. And I will probably bundle my next review (due this September) with the PP- Glider check ride... that will also be very useful, I think. I'll be more at home (although it might not be in 94H at my home field), but it won't be "another BFR, ho hum".

Quote:


Yes indeed... as time goes on, we don't fear it more so much as expect it more. Personally, I like to think the stats "reset" for each flight, but that nagging thought ("My number's coming up") still creeps in from time to time. When it does, that's the best time to run through your emergency checklists, or make that next landing a power-off.

Quote:


LOL- yeah, I know a lot of pilots who have zero interest in "jumping out of a perfectly good airplane". I'd still like to try it eventually, even though there is a more "helpless' aspect to it... you have your primary and a reserve, and that's it. I would imagine it's more likely that both will fail somehow than a wing will come off your airplane or glider (the only thing that would leave you totally helpless).  
But even skydiving accidents are rare, and they occur generally for the same basic reasons as any aviation accidents. So why dwell on it?

As it turns out, my glider instructor is also an experienced (but inactive) skydiver- I will probably seek guidance from him if and when I decide to get into that down the road.

Hagar wrote on Jul 28^th, 2009 at 9:37am:


No doubt about it, in the vast majority of cases, this idea does not work out. Primarily because with most light singles, you don't have a prayer if you are not at least at TPA, and secondly because maneuvering at MCA is not practiced much after the PP is earned.   

Most of these poor souls don't come to grief because they make the turn without putting a wing into a tree, yet still overshoot or drift downwind... invariably they stall in the turn and spin in.  A power plane will need a lot more altitude than a glider to do this, but the basics are the same: 1) nose below the horizon 2) coordinated turn, as steep as the airspeed allows, into the wind  3) slip/flaps/spoilers as needed.

That being said, my personal rule when flying with an engine is that if I am below TPA, I might turn a little this way or that, but going back to the runway is not an option.  I've tried "the impossible turn" at a safe altitude, and while it's surprising what the average Cessna can do, it's not worth it close to the ground. It's a lot easier to do a good job of turning engine-out with minimum alt. loss, and without stalling, when practicing than it is to do it when the fan quits right after takeoff!!   

Besides, if there is traffic departing behind you, even if you pull it off- what then?     There's the rub, even if you are really sharp and manage to turn around and get lined up.  At 47N, there is the option of the grass... but there are also good spots just beyond the boundaries that don't involve hairy low-altitude turns or creating a hazard to others. So I wouldn't even consider it. If I have 1000 feet or so (in a 172 or similar), I think I could turn to join the downwind and at least make a 180 to land halfway down the runway, into the wind. But again, there's traffic to consider. They could yield, but it would be risky.

So I agree that in most cases, it's best to head for a place you can see, with as little maneuvering as possible. Those engine-failure scenarios usually work out much better.

You might find this interesting. Engine failure after takeoff (Single Engine) An extract from Airplane Flying Handbook by FAA.

Brett_Henderson wrote on Jul 28^th, 2009 at 12:21pm:




Hadn't thought of the intersecting-runway scenario... a good point. But boy, you'd better have the altitude, and you'd better not screw up the turn. It's like I said- most of these accidents are from screwing up the turn, usually after hesitating before acting. Has little to do with whether or not they could have made it to a runway or any suitable spot.


Quote:

Right... runway length, wind, and aircraft type make a difference.
At KSDM, on the 8000-foot runway, with a Champ you could take off and land several times, and I once aborted from about 200 AGL (stuck pitot cover) on the 3100-foot runway and landed with room to spare.

Big congrats, Sean. Sorry I'm a few days late on the uptake. If you're looking for some backseat ballast, feel free to let me know.

Well done!... Nothing beats it!...  I wish I was allowed to do more solo flights!