Sport Pilot Talk

Warmi wrote:Frankly, we don't really know if this was a vapor lock type of issue - she just mentioned that but I could imagine it would be very hard to diagnose why the engine was going out in just a few seconds when it is actually happening so who knows ...

That is true. This was the second instance of engine issues on 2 different SportCruisers that warm, March day in Addison. Could it have been bad fuel, possibly. Time will tell when we can read the final NTSB report. Right now we are all just speculating on the words from the pilot.

TimTaylor wrote:It might be hard to convince yourself to pull the parachute when you're over a huge paved runway.

Very true, I was thinking more along the lines of being able to pull it while proceeding ahead rather than trying to make the "impossible" turn, which in this case did not work out well. There are quite a few unknowns so anything is/was possible, time and an NTSB report should shed some light on it. As for the vapor lock comment, the pilot was an experienced CFI, and was also familiar with the aircraft type, as stated below, a similar model had issues earlier in the day. I'd be inclined to believe the experienced pilot with first hand knowledge until other facts come out....

It's hard to say what we would do in this situation. I THINK I would attempt a steep turn back toward the runway while keeping the ball centered and airspeed up. When near the ground, level the wings and land WHERE EVER.

The issue of turning back to the runway got me thinking about this. At some point during climb-out, we reach a point where it's too late to land straight ahead on the runway. Sometime after that, we reach an altitude where making a 180 becomes possible. However, after a 180, you are not lined up with the runway, you are on the down-wind leg side of the runway. (I guess that depends on which way you turn).

I'm wondering if take-off procedures should be revised such that we make a 45 degree turn toward the upwind leg side of the runway when a straight ahead landing on the runway is no longer possible. Shortly after that, we would make another 45 degree turn back toward the runway such that we are now climbing out parallel to the runway, but on the upwind leg side.

If we did this maneuver, were we to lose an engine and choose to make a 180 back to the runway, we would be lined up with the runway, not off to the side of it. The risk of this would be climbing into an aircraft entering the pattern on the upwind leg.

TimTaylor wrote:The issue of turning back to the runway got me thinking about this. At some point during climb-out, we reach a point where it's too late to land straight ahead on the runway. Sometime after that, we reach an altitude where making a 180 becomes possible. However, after a 180, you are not lined up with the runway, you are on the down-wind leg side of the runway.

Wouldn't your direction of turn determine whether you are on the upwind or downwind side of the runway?

3Dreaming wrote:

TimTaylor wrote:The issue of turning back to the runway got me thinking about this. At some point during climb-out, we reach a point where it's too late to land straight ahead on the runway. Sometime after that, we reach an altitude where making a 180 becomes possible. However, after a 180, you are not lined up with the runway, you are on the down-wind leg side of the runway.

Wouldn't your direction of turn determine whether you are on the upwind or downwind side of the runway?

Yes. You didn't see that I added that. If this were to become a standard procedure, we would want to turn toward the upwind leg so as not to climb into the face of traffic on downwind leg. Then, if we had engine failure, we would be turning back toward the runway from the upwind leg side.

Using current procedures, my tendency would probably be to make a 180 to the left if I'm in the left seat, or 180 to the right if I'm in the right seat. In reality, you should probably make the 180 into the wind to stay closer to the runway.

Sorry, not sure when you changed it, but you hadn't added that yet when I read and quoted your post.

For the glider rating, wind direction is one of the things you check on your pre launch checklist. If you have a rope break with enough altitude that can safely make a 180° and return for landing you are taught to make the turn into the wind for better alignment. It also uses up less space, keeping you closer to the runway.

3Dreaming wrote:Sorry, not sure when you changed it, but you hadn't added that yet when I read and quoted your post.

For the glider rating, wind direction is one of the things you check on your pre launch checklist. If you have a rope break with enough altitude that can safely make a 180° and return for landing you are taught to make the turn into the wind for better alignment. It also uses up less space, keeping you closer to the runway.

Yes, for sure.

Another thing we are forgetting is that when you run out of available runway to land straight ahead you need to be thinking about still flying straight ahead or +/- 30° is either direction but still almost straight ahead for a place to land. Resist the urge to do the impossible unless you KNOW you have sufficient altitude. Pick a road, field, parking lot or anything else because although it may be a rough landing it may save your life. Most all impossible turns end in death. These two girls were very, very lucky and survived.

One thing I learned in a webinar recently is to become familiar with your surroundings and have a plan before you even taxi on to the runway. Know without a doubt where you are going if the engine quits. We all know our home airports very well and know where the empty fields, roads, parking lots and other suitable landing areas are. What about that unfamiliar airport you just flew to for breakfast? I pay more attention now to the airport surroundings when I'm flying in. I have also downloaded Google Earth on my phone so I can get familiar with my surroundings at UNFAMILIAR airports. I can pull up a satellite image of the airport I'm at and see what's off the end of the runway I'm about to depart from.

For me, knowing this gives me a bit more piece of mind of where I'm going in the event of an emergency. I'm only attempting the impossible at or above 700' AGL, other than than it's straight ahead for me. I'll take my chances with that light pole or mailbox or even a car because the alternative of a nose dive into mother earth is far worse. I can buy a new plane but you only get one ride on this merry-go-round of life.

It just depends on what's ahead, what your altitude is, and what the runway environment is. Regardless, avoid a stall, spin. My LSA checkout CFI was killed giving a flight review in a Commander when they tried to make it back to an intersecting runway and hit power lines. They crashed into an embankment beside the runway and burst into flames.

Another thing we are forgetting is that when you run out of available runway to land straight ahead you need to be thinking about still flying straight ahead or +/- 30° is either direction but still almost straight ahead for a place to land. Resist the urge to do the impossible unless you KNOW you have sufficient altitude. Pick a road, field, parking lot or anything else because although it may be a rough landing it may save your life. Most all impossible turns end in death. These two girls were very, very lucky and survived.

Landing straight ahead really isn't a safe option at KADS. I live in the area and have flown in there a few times. The airport is the middle of a dense business/industrial/entertainment area of Dallas. Lot's of powerlines. The only street option when taking off to the south would be Beltline which would've required 70 degree turn onto one of the busiest arteries in North Dallas. Inwood loosely runs N/S but is treelined and maybe 25' wide in that area so is not an option. The pilot made the right choice, although we'll let the NTSB figure out how well she executed given the circumstance.

I also don't know if my emergency gives me permission to put bystanders at risk -- such as landing on a busy road. Tough ethical choice.

I do agree that a pilot should always have 3 point plan on every take-off:

1) Engine out below XY feet and land straight ahead on the runway
2) Engine out above XY feet but below minimum altitude for a safe turn back to the runway environment
3) Engine out at or above minimu altitude

TimTaylor wrote:It just depends on what's ahead, what your altitude is, and what the runway environment is. Regardless, avoid a stall, spin. My LSA checkout CFI was killed giving a flight review in a Commander when they tried to make it back to an intersecting runway and hit power lines. They crashed into an embankment beside the runway and burst into flames.

Exactly, had they tried to land somewhere out in front of them they’d probably still be alive today. I’m sure all they were thinking about is getting back to the runway and never had time to look for power lines.

This is why I stated my personal minimum is 700 feet. Anything below that I gonna fight the urge to turn around and land somewhere out in front of me regardless of what’s out there. I’ll take my chances before I stall and spin into the ground attempting the impossible at too low of an altitude. Everyone has their own comfort level and personal minimums and these are mine.

You have no idea what they were thinking. There was no where to land. They didn't have any other choice. He was a highly skilled and experienced pilot and made the best possible decision. Unfortunately, it just didn't work out. And, until it happens to you, you have no idea what you will do. You just think you do.

TimTaylor wrote:You have no idea what they were thinking. There was no where to land. They didn't have any other choice. He was a highly skilled and experienced pilot and made the best possible decision. Unfortunately, it just didn't work out. And, until it happens to you, you have no idea what you will do. You just think you do.

At least I have a plan and I'm armed with some knowledge of my surroundings. None of us know what we'd do until we are put on the spot. But going into the situation blind is not the best option either.

And for the record, the pilot was a female. And I dont agree that SHE made the best possible decision but once again that's my opinion. If she had time to do what appears to me from the video, a 360, then she had plenty of time to land. We can all play armchair CFI here but until we can read the final report we are all offering up our best guess.

My response to you was based on your response that my LSA checkout CFI would be alive today if only he had not turned back toward the airport. You have no knowledge of the actual situation that took the lives of two people.