Subject: Re: Light-Sport Aircraft Yahoo group St. Augustine forced landing
I think the pilot screwed up because he was flying an unproven aircraft (probably back in Phase-I after an engine being re-installed) and did not do proper conservative planning taking into account that the engine install may not be 100%, which it never is the first time (or that's what you've got to assume).
In short most pilots acting as test pilots would not go far enough away from the runway (keep a tight pattern) to have any doubt or chance about not being able to make the runway back after reaching a rather cozy altitude of 1200 feet.
The worst part of having an engine out would have been during initial climbout if the runway was shorter but in this case the runway was quite long and he was past the most dangerous point of having an engine out (somewhere near mid field at initial climbout) and was at 1200 feet.
The lesson is to have a conservative plan of possible scenarios if you are going to act as a test pilot. This particular pilot who may be quite capable otherwise probably does not have too much experience being a test pilot is my educated -guess-. Thankfully he will be ok. Plane can always be fixed.
Abid
--- In Sport_Aircraft@yahoogroups.com, b d <gpabruce@...> wrote:
>
> One may have to forget the rules and fly the plane. Problem is in a large
> airport people tend to stick to the rules until it's too late. Maybe they
> are too fucused on making that 8000 ft runway because that's what's always
> done there, no deviation, even though they have the ability to put it down
> in an empty parking lot. They may not want to see themselves on the nightly
> news . . oops they got on the news anyway. Their mistake!
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 5:17 PM, pwrsport@... <
> pwrsport@...> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > I felt the outcome could have been different given the pilots experience
> > and my experience being the first to fly many kit aircraft I have built and
> > for others, a number of those the Rans S-6es. The S-6es is a very capable
> > and maneuverable airplane with a glide ratio over 9 to 1 and needs minium of
> > about 350 ft of runway to land. At close to 1200 ft agl where reported the
> > engine gave out the plane could glide about two miles to touch down. All
> > flights start with the preflight, weather, fuel all the stuff we know
> > about. However given that particular flight, re-built unproven engine test,
> > the pilot needed to know a bit more. Yes Helen he should have known the
> > hight of trees, power lines and the distance from the runway; he should have
> > done the mathematical calculations of the energy remaining after a power
> > loss taking into consideration the glide ratio. He should have know the
> > winds aloft, and if he did he should have had a flight plan taking it
> > all into consideration plus other items and then followed that plan. Would
> > you and your staff not have done this. Had he followed a proper plan the
> > outcome could have been different, and so my original statement. There may
> > have been other considerations unknown to us to preclude a safe landing and
> > in the heat of attempting to start a dead engine, which generally never
> > restart and run, distracted from some plan?
> >
> >
> >
> > Ed
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Bill Hobson
> > Sent: Dec 28, 2010 3:40 PM
> > To: Sport_Aircraft@yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: Re: Light-Sport Aircraft Yahoo group St. Augustine forced landing
> >
> >
> >
> > Or, perhaps put another way.....There, but for the grace of God, go you
> > or I.
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > *From:* Helen Woods <Helen_Woods@...>
> > *To:* Sport_Aircraft@yahoogroups.com
> > *Sent:* Tuesday, December 28, 2010 12:54 PM
> > *Subject:* Re: Light-Sport Aircraft Yahoo group St. Augustine forced
> > landing
> >
> >
> >
> > While I agree that it is a fair assumption that ultralight pilots are
> > used to small fields, we have no idea from the NTSB report whether
> > anyone could have made it back to the field without hitting the power
> > lines. Have you been out to that field to check the height and distance
> > of the lines from the runway and done mathematical calculations of the
> > energy of the aircraft remaining after partial engine failure taking
> > into account glide ratio and recorded winds aloft at that time? I'm
> > guessing not. In which case it is not fair to criticize this pilot who
> > may have done everything right. We simply don't know.
> >
> > All that we know for sure is that this is a fellow pilot who had a very,
> > very bad day. I don't think that it worth criticizing.
> >
> > Helen
> >
> > On 12/28/2010 12:30 PM, barnabywalker wrote:
> > > --- In Sport_Aircraft@yahoogroups.com <Sport_Aircraft%40yahoogroups.com>,
> > Helen Woods<Helen_Woods@> wrote:
> > >
> > >> I take it that you personally know this person and that she/he is not
> > >> used to flying at small fields? Characterizing anyone who holds an ATP
> > >> rating as inexperienced and incapable of flying at small airports is no
> > >> different than characterizing all ultralight pilots as a bunch of
> > >> untrained red-neck hill-billies who have no real aeronautical knowledge.
> > >> I supposed when I get my ATP next year you'll say the same of me? Or
> > >> the many ATPs I have on my staff who now fly and teach in LSAs for a
> > >> living?
> > >>
> > >> Helen
> > >>
> > >
> > > I certainly have never met an Ultralight Pilot who would consider a mile
> > and a half runway, a "small airport". ;-)
> > >
> > > And yes, just because someone has a few fancy Letters behind their name,
> > doesn't mean they are a Good Pilot. That ATP would have most likely
> > successfully landed engine-out, if he were an Ultralight Pilot.
> > >
> > > A RANS S-6 is a pussycat of an ultralight to fly.
> > >
> > > Barnaby
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >> On 12/28/2010 11:38 AM, barnabywalker wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> Yes, and we shouldn't overlook how Terrified that certificated ATP
> > likely was to have to glide into a "tiny" 8,000 foot, 150 foot wide runway,
> > which had 45 foot trees 2000 feet from the end of the runway. A certificated
> > ATP likely felt crippled having to hit a tiny 150 foot runway North of a
> > highway running parallel to Runway 31, especially without his Go-Around
> > option. Captain Sully was proof that all ATPs shouldn't be deemed qualified
> > unless they know how to control a plane in a glide instead of just driving a
> > motor.
> > >>>
> > >>> http://img.airnav.com/aptdiag/w240/03884.gif
> > >>> http://www.airnav.com/airport/KSGJ
> > >>>
> > >>> Ed and Mike were correct in their observation of this Certificated
> > ATP's "skills".
> > >>>
> > >>> HAFTA AFTA
> > >>> Barnaby
> > >>>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
__._,_.___
No comments:
Post a Comment