X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Sun, 18 May 2008 17:57:32 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from bay0-omc1-s15.bay0.hotmail.com ([65.54.246.87] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.2.3) with ESMTP id 2927714 for lml@lancaironline.net; Sun, 18 May 2008 12:11:20 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=65.54.246.87; envelope-from=lsmith541@msn.com Received: from hotmail.com ([207.46.10.20]) by bay0-omc1-s15.bay0.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Sun, 18 May 2008 09:10:41 -0700 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sun, 18 May 2008 09:10:40 -0700 X-Original-Message-ID: Received: from 75.164.213.78 by BAY121-DAV10.phx.gbl with DAV; Sun, 18 May 2008 16:10:40 +0000 X-Originating-IP: [75.164.213.78] X-Originating-Email: [lsmith541@msn.com] X-Sender: lsmith541@msn.com From: "LEON SMITH" X-Original-To: "LancairList" References: Subject: Re: Turn back to the Airport after engine failure X-Original-Date: Sun, 18 May 2008 09:10:37 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0261_01C8B8C7.095CF9B0" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: MSN 9 X-MimeOLE: Produced By MSN MimeOLE V9.50.0039.1900 Seal-Send-Time: Sun, 18 May 2008 09:10:37 -0700 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 18 May 2008 16:10:40.0407 (UTC) FILETIME=[B7751A70:01C8B901] X-Original-Return-Path: lsmith541@msn.com This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0261_01C8B8C7.095CF9B0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Dom, I believe you are a wise and cautious pilot. I totally agree with you = on this one. Leon Smith Dry Creek Airpark LNCE N63LS ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Dominic V Crain=20 To: lml@lancaironline.net=20 Sent: Saturday, May 17, 2008 6:52 PM Subject: Re: Turn back to the Airport after engine failure 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_0261_01C8B8C7.095CF9B0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Dom,
I believe you are a wise and cautious pilot.  I totally agree = with you=20 on this one.
 
Leon Smith
Dry Creek Airpark
LNCE N63LS
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Saturday, May 17, 2008 = 6:52=20 PM
Subject: Re: Turn back to the = Airport=20 after engine failure

Bill,

If this works for = you, I think=20 that is one aspect. However, there is too much evidence in the = numerous=20 Lancair accident profiles to suggest that a blanket=20 recommendation that a turnback to the airfield at low level after a = complete=20 engine failure is massively unwise. I consider low level to be not = less than=20 500=92. If terrain and or development is an issue, it=92s got to be = higher than=20 500=92. I don=92t want to drop in uninvited.

As much as I = don=92t like to=20 disagree with my fellow listers, I must to do so on this matter, as it = is too=20 important especially for new entry/inexperienced Lancair pilots to = accept without=20 understanding the fact that they are flying so close to the edge in = such a=20 manoeuvre there is NO room for error, pilot induced or not. Such an = error can=20 almost be guaranteed to produce a visit to the = mortician.

To suggest that = timid pilots (=20 I=92m one), can practice this manoeuvre =93without risk=94 is = downright dangerous,=20 especially if you are suggesting this practice at low = level.

The accident = profiles of=20 Lancairs even without an apparent turnback indicate the = stall/spin scenario is extremely high, and to be candid, suggesting = the=20 manoeuvre be a part of normal EFTO briefing is, in my view,=20 folly.

Scott ( Grayhawk) = is correct I=20 believe, in his suggestion that a mindset along the lines he suggested = is=20 vital as to how to deal with any failure after take-off. I believe = however,=20 that the environment aspect shifts from airfield to airfield, and it = is=20 necessary to profile the landscape into the mindset for each one. In = some=20 cases, where houses are snuggled into the fence line, it=92s almost = impossible=20 to know beforehand the best case for the situation, but you can be = sure there=20 will be a street or road under somewhere ahead, with limited lateral=20 manoeuvring to reach it, which has at least some better chance of = forced=20 landing than a low level turnback.

Cheers.

 

Dom

 

VH-CZJ

 

 

------=_NextPart_000_0261_01C8B8C7.095CF9B0--