X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Sat, 17 May 2008 21:52:24 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from mail9.tpgi.com.au ([203.12.160.104] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.2.3) with ESMTPS id 2925541 for lml@lancaironline.net; Fri, 16 May 2008 18:45:38 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=203.12.160.104; envelope-from=domcrain@tpg.com.au X-TPG-Antivirus: Passed Received: from CRAIN (60-241-193-89.static.tpgi.com.au [60.241.193.89]) by mail9.tpgi.com.au (envelope-from domcrain@tpg.com.au) (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id m4GMin4Z027025 for ; Sat, 17 May 2008 08:44:51 +1000 From: "Dominic V Crain" X-Original-To: "'Lancair Mailing List'" Subject: Re: Turn back to the Airport after engine failure X-Original-Date: Sat, 17 May 2008 08:44:18 +1000 X-Original-Message-ID: <003b01c8b7a6$61d803e0$0201a8c0@CRAIN> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_003C_01C8B7FA.338413E0" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.6838 Importance: Normal Thread-Index: Aci3geMrUOjYxIeySjWwMP+zhx2PqgAH5hQg In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_003C_01C8B7FA.338413E0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Bill, If this works for you, I think that is one aspect. However, there is too much evidence in the numerous Lancair accident profiles to suggest that = a blanket recommendation that a turnback to the airfield at low level = after a complete engine failure is massively unwise. I consider low level to be = not less than 500'. If terrain and or development is an issue, it's got to = be higher than 500'. I don't want to drop in uninvited. As much as I don't like to disagree with my fellow listers, I must to do = so on this matter, as it is too important especially for new entry/inexperienced Lancair pilots to accept without understanding the = fact that they are flying so close to the edge in such a manoeuvre there is = NO room for error, pilot induced or not. Such an error can almost be = guaranteed to produce a visit to the mortician. To suggest that timid pilots ( I'm one), can practice this manoeuvre "without risk" is downright dangerous, especially if you are suggesting = this practice at low level. The accident profiles of Lancairs even without an apparent turnback = indicate the stall/spin scenario is extremely high, and to be candid, suggesting = the manoeuvre be a part of normal EFTO briefing is, in my view, folly. Scott ( Grayhawk) is correct I believe, in his suggestion that a mindset along the lines he suggested is vital as to how to deal with any failure after take-off. I believe however, that the environment aspect shifts = from airfield to airfield, and it is necessary to profile the landscape into = the mindset for each one. In some cases, where houses are snuggled into the fence line, it's almost impossible to know beforehand the best case for = the situation, but you can be sure there will be a street or road under somewhere ahead, with limited lateral manoeuvring to reach it, which has = at least some better chance of forced landing than a low level turnback. Cheers. =20 Dom =20 VH-CZJ =20 =20 ------=_NextPart_000_003C_01C8B7FA.338413E0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Bill,

If this works for = you, I think that is one aspect. However, there is too much evidence in the numerous = Lancair accident profiles = to suggest that a blanket recommendation that a turnback to the airfield at low = level after a complete engine failure is massively unwise. I consider low = level to be not less than 500’. If terrain and or development is an issue, = it’s got to be higher than 500’. I don’t want to drop in = uninvited.

As much as I = don’t like to disagree with my fellow listers, I must to do so on this matter, as it = is too important especially for new entry/inexperienced Lancair pilots to accept = without understanding the fact that they are flying so close to the edge in such = a manoeuvre there is NO room for error, pilot induced or not. Such an error can = almost be guaranteed to produce a visit to the mortician.

To suggest that timid = pilots ( I’m one), can practice this manoeuvre “without risk” is = downright dangerous, especially if you are suggesting this practice at low = level.

The accident profiles = of Lancairs even without an = apparent turnback indicate the stall/spin scenario is extremely high, and to be = candid, suggesting the manoeuvre be a part of normal EFTO briefing is, in my view, = folly.

Scott ( Grayhawk) is = correct I believe, in his suggestion that a mindset along the lines he suggested = is vital as to how to deal with any failure after take-off. I believe however, = that the environment aspect shifts from airfield to airfield, and it is necessary = to profile the landscape into the mindset for each one. In some cases, = where houses are snuggled into the fence line, it’s almost impossible to = know beforehand the best case for the situation, but you can be sure there = will be a street or road under somewhere ahead, with limited lateral manoeuvring = to reach it, which has at least some better chance of forced landing than a low = level turnback.

Cheers.

 

Dom

 

VH-CZJ

 

 

------=_NextPart_000_003C_01C8B7FA.338413E0--