An Almost Base-Final Turn Accident

jesse said:
To a degree. I see some pretty terrible pilots during flight reviews.....
Click to expand...
This is pretty validating coming from a recent CFI. I've said this for a LONG time.

Whether or not the OP falls in this category or not, isn't the point. He just got a little better :)
 
redtail said:
Nate how did you fix it? Did you steepen the bank and let the nose drop? What was your bank angle? Just curious
Click to expand...

Hmm. Well, I overshot the turn and didn't try to square it off, for one thing. ;)

That option isn't really mentioned in the thread much, but with no parallel runway to worry about, I guess you would say I was "patient". The turn will take as long as it takes. I made it tighter by banking a bit more but not a lot. Certainly not much more than 30 degrees but yes, more.

Obviously you can't play this overshoot game with a busy parallel runway or traffic on the "wrong" side of the airport.

Continued the turn past 90 and put the airplane back where it was supposed to be via about a 45 degree "intercept" then a brisk but not particularly "over"-banked turn back the other way to line up.

Basically rolled straight from a left bank of about 30 degrees to a similar right bank just before centerline -- timed to roll out in the correct location the "second" time. Goofing it once will get your attention enough that you don't want to overshoot on the other side when correcting. You've now given yourself your 100% attention. ;)

All turns made decending but not "pulling" trying to maintain altitude. And descending faster than usual but not falling out of the sky.

To keep speeds reasonable, I usually let it fly the already trimmed speed with ever so slight back pressure to slow the rate the nose falls (Cessnas porpoise if no elevator control input is made during the turn, but it's slight, not yanking the yoke back into your gut.) Was not trying to pitch it up. Just "hold what you have" and trading vertical lift for horizontal lift.

Airspeed was 75 knots at the start of the turn which is plenty of margin in my aircraft for even a pretty healthy pull but you can't maintain it. You're sloughing off airspeed for turn radius and a big draggy brick 182 won't hold airspeed doing that for long without power. Add power and from practice at altitude you know it'll do it all day at MCA.

I think the best training for this is in a glider in a thermal. Bank quick and to a significant bank angle and pull to slow to your target airspeed, and then see if VSI is showing that you managed to stay in the rising column of air.

When you missed it, you have to unload the turn pretty quick and speed back up to go find the lift again.

It doesn't take long to feel the loading in your butt and correlate the sensation to how fast the airspeed is coming off the ASI. It's like correlating engine sounds to acceleration in a vehicle. There's sound cues, butt pressure cues, and visual cues that work together.

You don't really even need to look inside at the airspeed indicator or just quick glances at first. You're looking for how fast the needle is moving (or not), and how far from turn-entry speed, not so much what the exact number is at first.

I originally wanted to land long, so the extra maneuvering and energy loss put me right for the numbers.

I added a touch of power to reach the landing-long spot after I was wings-level.

"Stabilized" approach, yes. But "very late". Wings level and lined up was therefore, fairly low. But not "butt puckeringly" so.

Approach path was question-mark shaped.

Thinking about how one might try to "truly fix it", it would have taken probably 60 degrees of bank to "square off" that base to final turn and a whole handful of power and a healthy pull, while still letting the nose fall toward earth (mostly left in this case...) to keep the speed up.

You have that voice in your head reminding you that if you're pulling, the airplane is trying to climb. Climb from straight and level is straight up. Climb in a turn is partially around the corner.

Wouldn't have been worth it in this particular scenario, but the option was there... if not for it basically being semi-aerobatic maneuvers in the pattern, which would have signaled a need (to me anyway) to go around.

Too wild is an indication you are already way behind the airplane. Time for a "do-over" at that point.

So in this case, I had time to tell Karen I overshot and hear her laugh and say, "Haven't done that in a while, huh?" as she chuckled at me banking "aggressively-enough" to put the airplane back on glide path, all coordinated and no feeling of extra G load in the cockpit butt indicators.
 
Last edited:
I can't remember the last time I flew a "Square Pattern". First off, I fly my downwind close enough that squaring up a base leg would require excess loading in the turns so I could straighten before final, then I'd have to bank and yank onto final. It doesn't make a lot of sense when your downwind is close enough that there is no new traffic on final that you need to look for (the reason for leveling the wings on base). I just make a constant turn to final if I am on a downwind leg.
 
Henning said:
I can't remember the last time I flew a "Square Pattern". First off, I fly my downwind close enough that squaring up a base leg would require excess loading in the turns so I could straighten before final, then I'd have to bank and yank onto final. It doesn't make a lot of sense when your downwind is close enough that there is no new traffic on final that you need to look for (the reason for leveling the wings on base). I just make a constant turn to final if I am on a downwind leg.
Click to expand...



:cheers: woo hoo!
 
jesse said:
Let me make this simple. This is how you die:
- You realize you are going to overshoot final.
Click to expand...
And you feel you have to do something about it.

That's the problem. You do something risky for the sake of style points.

So what if you do a button hook turn. Or your final is off by a few degrees. The airplane doesn't care. You have the entire length of the final to fix things up - what's the rush.

Oh, and yes, stall speed goes up with PULL not with bank. I've been at 90 degrees of bank, ball in the center, airspeed plunging towards the bottom of the scale, and not stalled. Why? No pull. Let the airplane float over the top of a wingover at near zero G. Of course, we were not maintaining a constant altitude (or constant rate of change of altitude).

Roll does not change the angle of attack of the wing (except momentarily). Pitch does change the angle of attack.
 
For an inexperienced pilot who finds himself in this situation I wouldn't advocate anything except a go-around.

It's great for us to have it explained that it's not the banking that increases stall speed, but rather it's the loading. Awesome information, really (I'm not being sarcastic here). But the best thing you can advocate for a pilot is that if things aren't right, don't try to force it...just set yourself up to do it again...correctly.

(man, I hope I don't set myself up as being holier-than-though because I've been guilty of overshooting base-to-final myself on more than one occasion)
 
Gerhardt said:
For an inexperienced pilot who finds himself in this situation I wouldn't advocate anything except a go-around.

It's great for us to have it explained that it's not the banking that increases stall speed, but rather it's the loading. Awesome information, really (I'm not being sarcastic here). But the best thing you can advocate for a pilot is that if things aren't right, don't try to force it...just set yourself up to do it again...correctly.

(man, I hope I don't set myself up as being holier-than-though because I've been guilty of overshooting base-to-final myself on more than one occasion)
Click to expand...

Base to final turn for most people is far enough away from the runway that if you overshoot some it's no big deal to just continue turning at a normal rate and point it at the threshold, not a big deal unless you have 2 close parallel runways with heavy traffic. There is nothing that says you have to be perfectly lined up with the runway on final, you just want to be on the runway when you land. The plane will line up just the same at 10'agl as 1000.
 
Henning said:
There is nothing that says you have to be perfectly lined up with the runway on final, you just want to be on the runway when you land. The plane will line up just the same at 10'agl as 1000.
Click to expand...

Tell that to the "Stabilized Approach" mafia... they'll be along shortly...
 
jesse said:
If he came to me -- I'd cover up his attitude indicator, DG, airspeed indicator, and altimeter...and we'd master the pattern just like that.
Click to expand...

But he still didn't file a flight plan.......:D

Best advice yet!!! Between my PPL and IR, with the CFII friend who became my IR instructor, we took the plane out, daytime, and covered EVERY instrument on the panel except the mag compass. He asked me to state my airspeed and altitude on various segments of flying approaches, landings and take offs in the pattern, for over an hour. He also told me that I was limited to looking 3 times at my relative position to the runway in the pattern. Me and the bird got a much better understanding of each other after that, it's a lesson I will never forget...why do it? For a number of reasons, and one may be because at night, if your electrical system craps out and you have no panel lighting, you gotta be able to do this.
 
DutchessFlier said:
But he still didn't file a flight plan.......:D

Best advice yet!!! Between my PPL and IR, with the CFII friend who became my IR instructor, we took the plane out, daytime, and covered EVERY instrument on the panel except the mag compass. He asked me to state my airspeed and altitude on various segments of flying approaches, landings and take offs in the pattern, for over an hour. He also told me that I was limited to looking 3 times at my relative position to the runway in the pattern. Me and the bird got a much better understanding of each other after that, it's a lesson I will never forget...why do it? For a number of reasons, and one may be because at night, if your electrical system craps out and you have no panel lighting, you gotta be able to do this.
Click to expand...

Do you want to 'be able to do it' or would you rather be 'comfortable with the situation'? It's all a matter of exposure. No reason you cant just turn off all the panel lights on a night flight. You'll be amazed at how much more you see after 15-20 minutes of real monochrome dark. Even a bright full moon may deteriorate your full night vision capability.
 
The obvious is to be able to do it and comfortable with the situation...you have to be able to do it first, then develop the comfort level over time and with practice, that's a no brainer.

I don't know how bright your panel lights are at night, mine are pretty well low level and most of the time I fly with red only at night. But, like I always say, WTH do I know...
 
DutchessFlier said:
The obvious is to be able to do it and comfortable with the situation...you have to be able to do it first, then develop the comfort level over time and with practice, that's a no brainer.

I don't know how bright your panel lights are at night, mine are pretty well low level and most of the time I fly with red only at night. But, like I always say, WTH do I know...
Click to expand...


You will be amazed at how much difference just the lowest level of light makes in disrupting your maximum night vision capacity. If everything doesn't have a blue-violet cast to the scene you aren't there. If you can differentiate color, you're not even close.
 
Last edited:
As a color printer back in the days of dark rooms and enlargers I can tell you, anything beyond an ultra low level monochrome 'color safe' safelight, it deteriorates some, and when you come from a full dark film area, that light that you had to look real hard to make out outlines when you were working in it is now a bright room with shadows on the same meager light source.

Any light beyond exposing negatives would destroy the ability to see in that light and even doing that made the place a dim hard to see edges environment in short order.
 
Henning said:
You will be amazed at how much difference just the lowest level of light makes in disrupting your maximum night vision capacity. If everything doesn't have a blue-violet cast to the scene you aren't there. If you can differentiate color, you're not even close.
Click to expand...

Interesting thought....I am also seeing more cockpit items with directed greenish-yellow light (like pens and very small LEDs) that seem to not impact night work...I will go out and fly totally dark (on purpose) and see how it impacts my night vision.
 
I did LOTS of night ops (before NVGs were ubiquitous) and the Army's Mantra was "we own the night."

30 minute security halts, 45 minutes before move out, yada, yada, yada.

It's all fine when your eyes are under 40.

After that, bring a flashlight.
 
jesse said:
If he came to me -- I'd cover up his attitude indicator, DG, airspeed indicator, and altimeter...and we'd master the pattern just like that.
Click to expand...
Isn't it backwards for night VFR, when one actually needs the instruments to fight illusions? I'm sure it would do a lot for the basic airmanship, but perhaps not for the situation described in the opening post.
 
zaitcev said:
Isn't it backwards for night VFR, when one actually needs the instruments to fight illusions? I'm sure it would do a lot for the basic airmanship, but perhaps not for the situation described in the opening post.
Click to expand...
The issue described was from lack of basic airmanship. Illusions are only illusions if you let them be. He completed ignored the basics like the relationship of pitch and power, sight picture, etc. With practice you'll know your airspeed by simply hearing the engine and seeing your pitch. I don't spend much of any time looking at the instruments instructing vfr in the airplanes I know well. Everything I need to know I can see out the window and hear with my ears.
 
Last edited:
jesse said:
The issue described was from lack of basic airmanship. Illusions are only illusions if you let them be. He completed ignored the basics like the relationship of pitch and power, sight picture, etc. With practice you'll know your airspeed by simply hearing the engine and seeing your pitch. I don't spend much of any time looking at the instruments instructing vfr in the airplanes I know well. Everything I need to know I can see out the window and hear with my ears.
Click to expand...

This is a perfect recipe for getting killed on a dark night. Maybe not on a clear night with a full moon, but on an overcast night with few lights on the ground, those illusions will kill you unless you have some instrument training to counter them. It's little different than entering a cloud during the day and thinking that your seat of the pants "basic airmanship" will keep you safe.
 
Last edited:
Witmo said:
This is a perfect recipe for getting killed on a dark night. Maybe not on a clear night with a full moon, but on an overcast night with few lights on the ground, those illusions will kill you unless you have some instrument training to counter them. It's little different than entering a cloud during the day and thinking that your seat of the pants "basic airmanship" will keep you safe.
Click to expand...
If it is night and VFR and you can see the lights of the runway there is no reason you can't land on it without instruments. Period. I'm not saying everyone should rip their panels out, I'm saying there is a lot of information one can use to get themselves down to the runway and in this case it seems he didn't use any of him, nor did he use the instruments.

How do you improve your ability to detect all of the small details? How do you see and notice things you've never noticed before? You force yourself to pay attention to those things. Something I focus on heavily in training. I want someone to be able to fly by instruments, by visual, by their ears, by the feel, by the tiny detail available in every instrument that many people just gloss over.

You don't need to be instrument rated to understand the illusions of the night. Even with an instrument student, before I sign them off for a checkride, I'll make them fly under the hoods for hours. Then I'll dump them into an approach that becomes increasingly difficult with failure after failure with them finally breaking out at circling minimums with their panel failed. It's as hard as it gets, the transition from instruments to visual is tough.
 
Last edited:
jesse said:
If it is night and VFR and you can see the lights of the runway there is no reason you can't land on it without instruments. Period. I'm not saying everyone should rip their panels out, I'm saying there is a lot of information one can use to get themselves down to the runway and in this case it seems he didn't use any of him, nor did he use the instruments.

How do you improve your ability to detect all of the small details? How do you see and notice things you've never noticed before? You force yourself to pay attention to those things. Something I focus on heavily in training. I want someone to be able to fly by instruments, by visual, by their ears, by the feel, by the tiny detail available in every instrument that many people just gloss over.

You don't need to be instrument rated to understand the illusions of the night. Even with an instrument student, before I sign them off for a checkride, I'll make them fly under the hoods for hours. Then I'll dump them into an approach that becomes increasingly difficult with failure after failure with them finally breaking out at circling minimums with their panel failed. It's as hard as it gets, the transition from instruments to visual is tough.
Click to expand...

A note on this:

A few months ago, I had a classic black hole takeoff. I assessed beforehand whether or not I was good to do this. I was (and am) instrument rated and current, familiar with the aircraft, and the aircraft was well-equipped with avionics.

As Jesse says, I used -everything- I learned to do this. I listened to the sound of the engine as I rolled down the runway; I verified the healthy sounds with a quick glance at the engine indicators; I lifted off at the ideal airspeed; I set a pitch for Vy which I verified using my avionics, because there were NO visual references; and I flew away, adhering to the SOPs for this aircraft.

Now. Having said this, I would never have recommended this departure for a non-IR pilot.
 
spiderweb said:
A note on this:

A few months ago, I had a classic black hole takeoff. I assessed beforehand whether or not I was good to do this. I was (and am) instrument rated and current, familiar with the aircraft, and the aircraft was well-equipped with avionics.

As Jesse says, I used -everything- I learned to do this. I listened to the sound of the engine as I rolled down the runway; I verified the healthy sounds with a quick glance at the engine indicators; I lifted off at the ideal airspeed; I set a pitch for Vy which I verified using my avionics, because there were NO visual references; and I flew away, adhering to the SOPs for this aircraft.

Now. Having said this, I would never have recommended this departure for a non-IR pilot.
Click to expand...

That was my approach leaving or arriving at KVVS -- not many lights west or southwest of the airport.
 
spiderweb said:
A note on this:

A few months ago, I had a classic black hole takeoff. I assessed beforehand whether or not I was good to do this. I was (and am) instrument rated and current, familiar with the aircraft, and the aircraft was well-equipped with avionics.

As Jesse says, I used -everything- I learned to do this. I listened to the sound of the engine as I rolled down the runway; I verified the healthy sounds with a quick glance at the engine indicators; I lifted off at the ideal airspeed; I set a pitch for Vy which I verified using my avionics, because there were NO visual references; and I flew away, adhering to the SOPs for this aircraft.

Now. Having said this, I would never have recommended this departure for a non-IR pilot.
Click to expand...

But Jesse isn't saying this. He said "If it is night and VFR and you can see the lights of the runway there is no reason you can't land on it without instruments. Period."

You obviously believe that on some nights, reference to the instruments is necessary and that relying strictly on outside visual cues and other senses, are not enough. I've experienced just about every sensory illusion there is and if not for training that made me verify by reference to instruments my condition of flight, I'd have been a statistic. It's easy to become complacent if all your night flying is done at the same level, well lit airfield. Let's hope the first time Jesse experiences a marginally lit, sloping runway, on a dark night, he does more than rely on outside visual cues and the seat of his pants.
 
Witmo said:
But Jesse isn't saying this. He said "If it is night and VFR and you can see the lights of the runway there is no reason you can't land on it without instruments. Period.".
Click to expand...
That would be an accurate statement, once you see the runway, there is no longer a need for any instrument.
 
http://www.skybrary.aero/index.php/Night_Visual_Approaches


"While man-made obstacles in the vicinity of an airport such as buildings or towers are normally lit during the hours of darkness, natural obstacles such as hills or trees are not. As a consequence, unless there is exceptional illumination such as a full moon on new snow, natural obstacles will be largely invisible to the pilot during a night visual approach. Without due care, this factor greatly increases the potential of a CFIT accident. In fact, numerous CFIT accidents have occurred during visual approaches during hours of darkness.
A visual illusion known as "black hole effect" is another inherent risk of night visual approaches. Black hole conditions exist on dark nights (usually with no moon or starlight), when there are no ground lights between your aircraft and the runway threshold. The black hole illusion, sometimes called the featureless terrain illusion, fools pilots into thinking they are higher than they actually are, causing them to fly dangerously low approaches. Perception scientists disagree as to the exact cause of this illusion and probably no single theory fully explains the phenomenon as there are many factors involved. The most extensive study was conducted by Boeing researchers after a series of airline black hole accidents in the 1960’s. Using a flight simulator, experienced Boeing instructor pilots (with more than 10,000 hours each) conducted entirely visual approaches to runways in black hole conditions. The result was that without the aid of altimeter or glide slope information, most pilots flew excessively low approaches and crashed into terrain short of the runway."
 
Henning said:
If I have visual contact with the runway, what instrument do I need?
Click to expand...

I can not stress how important it is for new pilots (and old) to develop a habit of alternating between looking at the runway and the instruments at night. Back and forth.

Same with breaking out on an instrument approach. Runway in sight, back to gauges, then back outside again. Back and forth.

Why??

If you get disoriented, or you lose sight of the runway AFTER having it in sight, you don't have to waste precious time "going back to the gauges" after having your head outside. You are already there.

Same at night. Runway, gauges, runway,gauges.

I used to do a lot of circles, at night, at minimums. If I ended up back in the slop, I already knew what the panel looked like and I could start the miss.

Remember doing unusual attitudes under the hood?? When you opened your eyes it took you a second or two to read and interpret the panel.

By alternating back and forth, you never "leave" the panel.

Read Tim's Boeing black hole article above. Case in point.

Also, back to the approach part of this. When you pick up the lights at 200 and a half, go back and forth and it will keep you for doing what everybody wants to do. Drop low below the GS because you always look high in Wx.

Not all approaches have VASI's. Plus, you may not even see them.

Another tip. When practicing ILS's, fly a couple under the hood PAST DH. That's where you get really good. (Of course, brief your SP before hand..lol)
 
Witmo said:
But Jesse isn't saying this. He said "If it is night and VFR and you can see the lights of the runway there is no reason you can't land on it without instruments. Period."

You obviously believe that on some nights, reference to the instruments is necessary and that relying strictly on outside visual cues and other senses, are not enough. I've experienced just about every sensory illusion there is and if not for training that made me verify by reference to instruments my condition of flight, I'd have been a statistic. It's easy to become complacent if all your night flying is done at the same level, well lit airfield. Let's hope the first time Jesse experiences a marginally lit, sloping runway, on a dark night, he does more than rely on outside visual cues and the seat of his pants.
Click to expand...

I sure wasn't saying what you're saying. I said I used EVERYTHING at my disposal. And I'm saying it again, now.

Not only Jesse, but any pilot with half a brain ought to use all tools at his or her disposal.
 
In fact, Jesse -was- saying this. Here is a direct quote: "I want someone to be able to fly by instruments, by visual, by their ears, by the feel, by the tiny detail available in every instrument that many people just gloss over."

And I said that I use everything at my disposal.

We are speaking the same language.
 
Old Thread: Hello . There have been no replies in this thread for 365 days.
Content in this thread may no longer be relevant.
Perhaps it would be better to start a new thread instead.
Back
Top