Mooney down, 3 dead Nampa, Id. Impossible turn?

[Rick A]

Mooneys have a chrome moly tube frame that I always felt gave you a stronger cage around you.

Yes, especially during more shallower types of bad arrivals resulting in cartwheels on the runway, and the like. Also seems these non-smoking hole types of crashes in Mooneys don't often result in fire, including stall spin arrivals.

I've owned 3 different Mooneys during the course of 40 years and strongly believe it affords the riders a better than average chance to survive a serious crash as is possible, while still maintaining an acceptable useful load and fuel efficiency. But like any airplane, it must be kept under control for as long as possible.

 

[idahoflier]

I've had a valve stick leaving zero compression on a cylinder in my lancair. It shook the plane so bad the rocker cover beat a hole in the lower cowling. Max rpm I could make dropped to 2200. I was perfectly able to maintain altitude and better than 140 kts however. So apart from pucker factor, it was a non issue.

I have heard loss of compression can be very violent in a 4 cylinder. No damage to the engine mount?

 

[billsgs126]

It is always sad when fellow bird-men (and women) lose their lives in this pursuit that we love.

And nothing I type here takes away from that fact.

But, some of the first things that I was taught a few short years ago when I started my lessons was (1) to expect for the tow rope to break / engine to quit at any time . . . particularly the worst possible time . . . (2) to have already planned out what I was going to do when (not if) that happened . . . (3) that I could never rely upon instrumentation to anticipate a stall . . . to fly on the edge of controllability so that I knew it well . . . (4) to fly until you die . . . and (5) that UFIT was just another way to spell DEATH.

Schweitzers are slow. The one I learned to fly in stalled at 32 mph if the CFI was behind me and 31 if I was alone. Best speed was 38-39-40 mph depending on what you were doing. With a conservative glide ratio of 18:1 that gave a student days and days to make the right choices as he or she learned, and with a 620 / 800 pound gross we weren't packing a ton of kinetic energy.

I soon found that Cubs actually moved faster . . . everything happened at 60 mph . . . and only had a reliable 9:1 glide ratio.

But, as a 14-year old student, off of an officially 2200 ft grass strip (probably 3000 usable), we did 180's back to the reciprocal at or above 200 ft AGL . . . low turns, not over 30 degrees of bank, into the wind. Under 200 meant a 30 degree left onto the grass along side the highway on one side or straight ahead over the wires and into a cornfield on the other. At 500 we could make an abbreviated pattern.

Everybody has to know and understand what they are flying. But I find it so interesting that so few have actually practiced turn-backs, and so many have what seem to me to be arbitrarily high minimums to try.

Worse, the record indicates that too many do not aviate . . . aviate . . . aviate . . . forget those other two.

 

[Rick A]

I have heard loss of compression can be very violent in a 4 cylinder. No damage to the engine mount?

I'd imagine an engine mount can be damaged, but is not nearly as violent or severe an event as the loss of a propeller blade, or a large piece of the blade. That breaks engine mounts, but to the best of my knowledge does not always result in the departure of the engine from the cowling.

A propeller inbalance certainly has the force necessary to initiate a crash sequence (flat spin?) due to the huge weight shift rearward as the engine departs. Severe engine roughness, not so much.

 

[Rick A]

Worse, the record indicates that too many do not aviate . . . aviate . . . aviate . . . forget those other two.

Except the need to NAVIGATE to the best and most survivable spot for the return to earth! Communicate can always be accomplished following a successful landing if there's not time to safely do it on the way down.

 

[billsgs126]

Except the need to NAVIGATE to the best and most survivable spot for the return to earth! Communicate can always be accomplished following a successful landing if there's not time to safely do it on the way down.

Agreed to a point. One should really have planned one's route so that "navigating" means aviating to a predetermined point. Glider pilots probably do this more than pilots of powered craft as there are no second chances.

 

[billsgs126]

I'd imagine an engine mount can be damaged, but is not nearly as violent or severe an event as the loss of a propeller blade, or a large piece of the blade. That breaks engine mounts, but to the best of my knowledge does not always result in the departure of the engine from the cowling.

A propeller inbalance certainly has the force necessary to initiate a crash sequence (flat spin?) due to the huge weight shift rearward as the engine departs. Severe engine roughness, not so much.

I recall a fatal accident some years back where a propeller disintegrated and the resultant vibration tore the engine from its mount resulting in an uncontrollable stall-spin.

 

[brcase]

Then what was it? I don't think you can discern what happened from the ADSB data. From the accident pictures it sure looks like a classic stall/spin to me.

Classic impossible turn is a complete power failure, no argument it was a failure to maintain airspeed resulting in a classic Stall spin?

Not understanding the question? If you're asking what aircraft performance necessitates a crash, if I can't maintain altitude I'm looking for a place to land.

The question is to make you think about different circumstances ahead of time so you aren’t trying to make up a solution when you may only have seconds to make a decision for the best outcome. Correct, the question is very broad and like the impossible turn has many variables, actually more than a full engine failure making a clear cut answer of do I turn back or not something that is difficult just say land/fly straight ahead when it happens. But we can think about how bad does it have to get and what is below us before we conseder turn back.

I can think of a few scenarios where there is basically zero harm in turning safely(maintaining airspeed) turning back.
i.e. flying straight ahead is taking you out over open water or similar flat terrain.
i.e. turning presents no worse terrain than straight ahead

It obviously depends on the circumstances, but 1,000 ft AGL as a general rule. Doesn't the AIM push upwind until 800 ft AGL? And that's under normal operations.

Sure it depends on the circumstances, but when I know I have a problem, I am not going to make my landing/crashing options worse by trying to follow aim recommendations.

 

[FORANE]

I have heard loss of compression can be very violent in a 4 cylinder. No damage to the engine mount?

No

 

[brcase]

I'd imagine an engine mount can be damaged, but is not nearly as violent or severe an event as the loss of a propeller blade, or a large piece of the blade. That breaks engine mounts, but to the best of my knowledge does not always result in the departure of the engine from the cowling.

A propeller inbalance certainly has the force necessary to initiate a crash sequence (flat spin?) due to the huge weight shift rearward as the engine departs. Severe engine roughness, not so much.

Reminds me of a gentleman I used to work for, his Dad operated Ford Tri-motors when he was a kid.

He told me his dad came back one day and my friend was looking at the airplane and realized, Uh, hey Dad what happened to the #3 engine?
Dad replies that a propeller blade broke and before he could shut down the engine it shook loose from the mounts and fell off.

When he told me this I had this vision of a Classified ad.. "Lost one aircraft engine in the vicinity of..."
Next image I had was them standing in someone's living room looking at an engine saying "Sorry, not ours"

Actually, it landing in a plowed field and they ended up retrieving it.

Brian

 

[billsgs126]

The question is to make you think about different circumstances ahead of time so you aren’t trying to make up a solution when you may only have seconds to make a decision for the best outcome. Correct, the question is very broad and like the impossible turn has many variables, actually more than a full engine failure making a clear cut answer of do I turn back or not something that is difficult just say land/fly straight ahead when it happens. But we can think about how bad does it have to get and what is below us before we conseder turn back.

The way I was taught, one looked at each element of the planned flight. We knew our home strip and we used BoogleMaps to access satellite photos of other locations. Below 200 . . . grass southwest of the highway. 200-500 turn into the wind and land on the reciprocal. 500 to estimated bottom means an abbreviated pattern. Can't find a thermal . . . well that's why we plan our route so we can reach those pastures by the stream.

Nowadays I fly over Mishigami and Erielhonan . . . and I have a definite plan on what to do if one or both engine(s) decide to quit on me.

 

[AV8R_87]

Once I did a detailed analysis, and I estimated that a C-172 at max gross weight would need roughly 1400 feet AGL to return safely to a 3500-foot runway in calm conditions.

Your numbers are somewhat different from mine. I did my math for a Cherokee, but that shouldn't result in such a difference. All numbers at max gross, ISA conditions.
You need about 1600 ft of runway to clear a 50ft obstacle.
If dealing with a short runway, you climb at Vx, not Vy. So 75mph, climb at 800-1000 fpm, takes 35 seconds or so to gain 500 ft. You cover about 4000 ft horizontally in the process.
At that point the engine quits.
You initiate a best glide (85mph) 45° bank angle turn back to the runway.
Turn radius will be approx 500 ft in those conditions. It will take about 15 seconds to turn back approx 210°. In those 15 seconds you lost about 210 feet.
You are 5600 ft away from the start point of your take-off. You'll cover another 2600ft with your remaining altitude, not taking into account that you'll float in ground effect and you have some extra energy as you flare and bleed speed.
So, in theory, if the runway is 3000ft long, you'll (barely) make it back from 500ft AGL.

 

[sarangan]

Your numbers are somewhat different from mine. I did my math for a Cherokee, but that shouldn't result in such a difference. All numbers at max gross, ISA conditions.
You need about 1600 ft of runway to clear a 50ft obstacle.
If dealing with a short runway, you climb at Vx, not Vy. So 75mph, climb at 800-1000 fpm, takes 35 seconds or so to gain 500 ft. You cover about 4000 ft horizontally in the process.
At that point the engine quits.
You initiate a best glide (85mph) 45° bank angle turn back to the runway.
Turn radius will be approx 500 ft in those conditions. It will take about 15 seconds to turn back approx 210°. In those 15 seconds you lost about 210 feet.
You are 5600 ft away from the start point of your take-off. You'll cover another 2600ft with your remaining altitude, not taking into account that you'll float in ground effect and you have some extra energy as you flare and bleed speed.
So, in theory, if the runway is 3000ft long, you'll (barely) make it back from 500ft AGL.

Apologies, I meant to say Cessna 182, not 172. However, I don't believe the difference is significant. I've compared my calculations with results from both MS Flight Sim and Redbird, and the agreement was very good. Additionally, please note that I’m assuming a "normal" takeoff, not a best-performance takeoff with an aggressive climb angle as one might do if they knew ahead of time that the engine was going to fail. If you do a best performance takeoff, then my calculations do agree with your numbers somewhat (see details below):

Here are my assumptions:
Weight = 3100lb (max gross)
Ground roll = 2000 ft (best performance is 800 ft, but I am assuming a longer roll to account for the fact that you can't transition from liftoff to 1000 fpm climb instantly. The extra time translates to extra distance.)
Climb speed = 85 knots (best performance is 60 knots, but I am assuming a more leisurely 85 knots)
Climb rate = 1000 fpm (this is close to the published best performance rate)
Reaction time after engine failure = 3 seconds (this is the delay time between engine failure and start of the turn. This is an optimistic number because I am assuming the bank angle is achieved instantly, but in reality it takes a few extra seconds to establish the bank)
Glide speed = 80 knots (POH also recommend 80 knots)
L/D ratio = 11.0 (this is taken from the published best glide angle)
Bank angle = 40-deg (40-50deg seems to be the sweet spot)
Wind = 0
Temperature = ISA
Runway length = 3500 ft


Calculated values:
Climb angle = 6.6 deg
Descent angle = 5.2 deg
Altitude at Departure End of Runway (DER) = 175 ft
Descent rate during wings level = 740 fpm
Descent rate during turn = 960 fpm
Turn radius = 880 ft

Assuming engine fails at 1350 ft:
Distance from DER at engine failure = 10,100 ft
Altitude after 3 second reaction time = 1300 ft
Distance from runway after reaction time = 10,500 ft
Turn required = 190-deg
Altitude at end of turn = 960 ft
Diagonal distance from runway at end of turn = 10,500 ft
Glide time to runway = 78 sec
Glide time available = 78 sec (just barely make the runway)

Assuming engine fails at 600 ft:
Distance from DER at engine failure = 7150 ft
Altitude after 3 second reaction time = 560 ft
Distance from runway after reaction time = 7600 ft
Turn required = 205-deg
Altitude at end of turn = 190 ft
Diagonal distance from runway at end of turn = 4100 ft
Glide time to runway = 30 sec
Glide time available = 15 sec (cannot make the runway)


Assuming a more aggressive climb - same assumptions as before, except:
Ground roll = 1000 ft
Climb speed = 60 knots
Bank angle = 45-deg

Calculated values:
Climb angle = 9.3 deg
Descent angle = 5.2 deg
Altitude at Departure End of Runway (DER) = 410 ft
Descent rate during wings level = 740 fpm
Descent rate during turn = 1150 fpm
Turn radius = 740 ft

Assuming engine fails at 600 ft:
Distance from DER at engine failure = 4650 ft
Altitude after 3 second reaction time = 560 ft
Distance from runway after reaction time = 4950 ft
Turn required = 235-deg
Altitude at end of turn = 130 ft
Diagonal distance from runway at end of turn = 1450 ft
Glide time to runway = 11 sec
Glide time available = 11 sec (just barely make the runway)

 

[Kenny Phillips]

So if you have an engine failure at 1000', you have to just crash into whatever's directly in front of you? That seems like a poor plan.

No. You make a normal landing at the most suitable spot. We had a lower number, BTW, based on the type and speed of airplane.

 

[AV8R_87]

Additionally, please note that I’m assuming a "normal" takeoff, not a best-performance takeoff with an aggressive climb angle as one might do if they knew ahead of time that the engine was going to fail.

I call that setting yourself up for failure.
If you know you don't have a good out if the engine quits, your take-off should be planned accordingly.
Also, 3 second reaction time if climbing at Vy will probably result in a stall. Reaction time and pushing the nose down should happen faster than this.

 

[Ed Haywood]

Also, 3 second reaction time if climbing at Vy will probably result in a stall. Reaction time and pushing the nose down should happen faster than this.

Myth. You don't have to push the nose down. If correctly trimmed, all you have to do is not hold it back.

 

[sarangan]

I call that setting yourself up for failure.
If you know you don't have a good out if the engine quits, your take-off should be planned accordingly.
Also, 3 second reaction time if climbing at Vy will probably result in a stall. Reaction time and pushing the nose down should happen faster than this.

I’m curious - do you perform every takeoff with full power while holding the brakes, then accelerate, rotate abruptly, and climb at Vx? Even on a 5,000-foot runway? Outside of practice scenarios, I’ve rarely seen anyone do that routinely.

Also, per Chapter 18 of the FAA’s AFH, the accepted reaction time after engine failure is about 4 seconds. If you think 3 seconds is too long, then you probably know something that the FAA doesn't. Reaction time itself has nothing to do with a stall - letting go of the controls after an engine failure will generally maintain the same airspeed. A stall occurs only if the pilot reacts incorrectly. Aggressively pushing the nose down is not only unnecessary, it can reinforce the mistaken belief that extreme control inputs are required, which in turn can lead to stalls. It may be natural for pilots to increase their grip on the controls under stressful situations, but this is exactly what we should not do.

 

[AV8R_87]

I’m curious - do you perform every takeoff with full power while holding the brakes, then accelerate, rotate abruptly, and climb at Vx? Even on a 5,000-foot runway? Outside of practice scenarios, I’ve rarely seen anyone do that routinely.

I plan my take-offs at full power at Vy, unless circumstances dictate otherwise.
That way you develop a sense of expected vs real performance.
If a runway is on the short side, then yes, either full brakes and climb at Vx, or use the taxiway to my advantage, entering the runway carrying some speed.

Also, per Chapter 18 of the FAA’s AFM, the accepted reaction time after engine failure is about 4 seconds. If you think 3 seconds is too long, then you probably know something that the FAA doesn't.

Because the vast majority of people don't even think about the possibility and consequences of an engine failure during take-off. So yes, the FAA is right, but for the wrong reasons. When your CFI pulled the engine on you for your simulated engine out, did he let you wait 4 seconds before doing anything?

Reaction time itself has nothing to do with a stall - letting go of the controls after an engine failure will generally maintain the same airspeed.

Myth. You don't have to push the nose down. If correctly trimmed, all you have to do is not hold it back

Trim is the most mis-used control surface during take-off. A lot of people (CFIs as well) confuse neutral trim with take-off trim. End result is people muscling a take-off.

 

[Ed Haywood]

When your CFI pulled the engine on you for your simulated engine out, did he let you wait 4 seconds before doing anything?

That is a good example of training for an event which will happen very differently in real life. When you see your CFI pull the throttle, you know instantly what is occuring.

IRL most losses of power present with ambiguous symptoms. The engine does not just stop. It shows a gradual escalation of bad signs and reduced power before quitting.

I have experienced fuel exhaustion. Your engine does not just quit. It stumbles and surges for 15 to 30 seconds while you say WTF and fumble with controls trying to troubleshoot. All the while moving away from the runway, and losing altitude that you don't notice because you are dicking with the engine and hoping to fix it.

I recommend expecting a 15 second reaction time and loss of several hundred feet before you begin the turn. I also recommend you plan to fly at the wrong airspeed and bank angle, because that's how it goes in real life, and require a 200 foot buffer to roll out and set up to touch down.

Add all that to the math and anything under pattern altitude is very risky. The consequences of a failed turnback are often catastrophic.

 

[sarangan]

Trim is the most mis-used control surface during take-off. A lot of people (CFIs as well) confuse neutral trim with take-off trim. End result is people muscling a take-off.

The main point is that it’s nearly impossible to stall with the trim fully up, even with the engine off. So, when the engine quits, the best action is to set the trim to full up and let the airplane fly itself. This doesn’t mean you should take off with the trim set for emergency speed; it should be set for your normal takeoff speed.

Pushing the nose down (or up) when power fails sets you on a path of muscling your way through, which could lead to a stall. I’ve seen some YouTubers suggest pushing the nose down until you experience negative G's, which, in my opinion, is absolutely idiotic.

 

[flyingron]

My CFIs all emphasized NO TURNS BELOW 1000'AGL but nobody wants to bend the plane in a parking lot or street.

They were wrong then.

Turning back to the runway has a definite minimum altitude, but lesser turns to provide a safe landing is within the possibility at most altitudes. Hell, IFR departures are predicated at turning at 400' AGL.

 

[Lindberg]

No. You make a normal landing at the most suitable spot. We had a lower number, BTW, based on the type and speed of airplane.

The most suitable spot may require turns. And even normal patterns and landings require turns below 1000'. Anyone who regularly does power-off landings would not great turns below 1000'.

 

[moparrob66]

Obviously, slight, gentle turns to avoid obstacles. For the most part, pick a spot as close as practical, ahead of you instead of 90 degrees to the side and definitely not 90-180 back to the runway. I learned how to fly in Santa Rosa, California which was surrounded by vineyards and two lane roads, so "no turns" made sense.

 

[Lindberg]

Obviously, slight, gentle turns to avoid obstacles. For the most part, pick a spot as close as practical, ahead of you instead of 90 degrees to the side and definitely not 90-180 back to the runway. I learned how to fly in Santa Rosa, California which was surrounded by vineyards and two lane roads, so "no turns" made sense.

You said "no turns." Even put it on all caps. So I thought you meant that. Nevertheless, from 1000', you should be able to land in any direction you want. If you're anywhere near a runway, I recommend you land there. In gliders we brief land straight ahead before 200'. But the students know that "straight ahead" includes whatever's in front of the glider and they can make turns as needed.

Hard and fast rules may be good for really green students, but nuance and judgment are critically important to learn.

 

[flyingron]

When my Gopher engine blew I was at 600'. Straight ahead was a nogo. I figured I'd swing it around and put it on the airport access road, but by the time I did that I saw that I could make the runway. At about 150' over the runway, I'm saying "What am I forgeting... oh yeah, GEAR." Fortunately, it comes down fast in the Navion.

 

[AV8R_87]

The main point is that it’s nearly impossible to stall with the trim fully up, even with the engine off. So, when the engine quits, the best action is to set the trim to full up and let the airplane fly itself.

I honestly think you've never flown a plane. No way someone would waste precious seconds faffing with the trim after the engine quit at 500ft agl.

Pushing the nose down (or up) when power fails sets you on a path of muscling your way through, which could lead to a stall.

Read about phugoids. You start nose high on the cycle, and your goal is to get stabilized on best glide asap. You don't push the nose down like an ogre, generating negative Gs, but you need a firm application of nose down to get you to the (already known, if you have trained for it) proper nose down attitude for best glide engine out.

 

[Rick A]

... use the taxiway to my advantage, entering the runway carrying some speed.

Good advice, but maybe for a different reason. I conduct most take-offs by smoothly adding power from edge of the taxiway and continuing adding power on a sweeping turn onto the centerline. Once on the centerline the remaining power is applied while on the move.

Been gigged on Flight Reviews for not beginning the take off roll from a complete stop once lined up. My prop blades are original and approaching 5800 hrs since new. It gets dressed as gingerly as possible. I'd never sit there with brakes on and full power, then release (like a big runway vacuum cleaner). If the runway is that short, shouldn't be there in the first place.

IMO, the above method is less likely to suck up a stone and ding the prop.

Yes, trim is the most mis-used control surface during take-off, and other realms of flight. On take off it may not always be set exactly where the panel indicator says it should be, but adjusted a little up or down depending upon how the plane is loaded.

On climb out when the engine loses power, or completely quits, the nose automatically lowers by itself. Applying back pressure to keep it higher at that time, or any other time before getting close to the ground is the very beginning of a real bad day.

Pitch control forces probably vary with some models of light aircraft during minor airspeed changes, but if the engine quits down low I personally wouldn't be screwing around with the trim. The change in airspeed between rotation and what's set during initial climb establishing Vx or Vy shouldn't create enough pitch forces to worry about during a significant loss of power.

Survival with a low altitude engine failure (down low) demands full attention on finding a place to paste it, and then while maneuvering the plane to get there. If there's any time to think beyond that, crack the door and turn off the master switch. Talking on the radio has proven to be a terrible distraction and a precursor to many stall/spins.

 

[sarangan]

I honestly think you've never flown a plane. No way someone would waste precious seconds faffing with the trim after the engine quit at 500ft agl.

You are not reading what I am saying and resorting to insults. I'll exit this thread here.

 

[StraightnLevel]

Maybe it was an on-course departure, then sputter? Otherwise maybe momentum climb and turn until stall/spin? Im not remotely familiar with Mooneys, but I'd suspect theyre slick enough to maintain some airspeed longer than a 172.

With or without the gear down?

 

[StraightnLevel]

. I can do a 360 in less than 500 ft. For the typical 270 degrees required by the impossible turn, 400 ft is more than enough (in my case).

But, that's in my plane. AOPA (I think) tried a few different planes a while back. I recall Bonanzas and Comanches couldn't safely complete the turn. That's why it's essential to practice the maneuver before you ever attempt it for real.

Yup. Low-speed stalls near the runway are about the only thing that scares me in the Bonanza.

 

[StraightnLevel]

How do you know that???



Yep, because it takes more power to turn and not lose altitude and because I may have a suitable place to put it down whereas the engine could quit while I'm trying to make it back to the airport and now I'm putting it into houses or warehouses...



Who knows? It could have been your scenario above or engine failure, an open door, a screaming child, a hotdog downwind turn, a...

Just to add, I don't think ADSB data can be counted on to provide definitive proof of what happened.

From a recent flight of mine, ADSB shows:

View attachment 143801

This was the real track...

View attachment 143802

Slightly off-topic, but:

What is the accuracy of FlightAware data? I compared today’s flight between Foreflight and FlightAware, and the FF data was really close to what I saw in the cockpit, but the FlightAware data was off enough to be troublesome. Is that data really good for much other than very rough flight plans?

 

[StraightnLevel]

Except the need to NAVIGATE to the best and most survivable spot for the return to earth! Communicate can always be accomplished following a successful landing if there's not time to safely do it on the way down.

The ELT should handle the “communicate” portion, right?

 

[StraightnLevel]

Myth. You don't have to push the nose down. If correctly trimmed, all you have to do is not hold it back.

On takeoff?

As I think through this, I don’t understand how that sort of universal statement makes sense. For a retract, the trim setting you use on takeoff isn’t the same as for level flight, and the dynamics change significantly when you raise the gear.

I have a sense that the worst case would be having a full T/O trim setting, then losing power before re-trimming for cruise climb with stowed gear/flaps. Am I missing something? [Serious question - I know that you have a lot more experience than I do, and I’m trying to understand how you’re thinking about this situation.]

 

[Ed Haywood]

On takeoff?

As I think through this, I don’t understand how that sort of universal statement makes sense. For a retract, the trim setting you use on takeoff isn’t the same as for level flight, and the dynamics change significantly when you raise the gear.

I have a sense that the worst case would be having a full T/O trim setting, then losing power before re-trimming for cruise climb with stowed gear/flaps. Am I missing something? [Serious question - I know that you have a lot more experience than I do, and I’m trying to understand how you’re thinking about this situation.]

Well first off, I doubt I have more experience than you, except maybe in Decathlon aerobatics. I'm just a guy with opinions on the Internet.

Second, you are right, blanket declarations never hold up under all circumstances.

My statement was just a general assertion that an aircraft trimmed to hold a given speed without control pressure will continue to hold that speed in response to a power change, and will change pitch as necessary to do so. If you are trimmed for Vy and you reduce power, your nose will drop on its own to maintain Vy. The notion that you must quickly push forward to avoid a stall is, generally speaking, nonsense.

Now this is Pedants of America, so of course someone will say AHA! The Lake Amphibian will not do that, because the engine pod imparts a moment arm on the pitch axis!

If you doubt what I am saying, try it out. Go up a few thousand feet, trim for Vy hands off, then chop the throttle. I promise you will not stall.

A really good exercise is to fly laps in the pattern trimmed for Vy. You will find you can fly an entire circuit without back pressure, controlling your pitch entirely with power, except for rotation and flare. More power, nose goes up, aircraft climbs. Less power, nose drops, aircraft descends.

Your point about gear is correct. If you change your aircraft configuration, then it is no longer trimmed correctly. Until you trim it correctly.

Some people in this discussion are saying they would not trim for best glide. That's crazy talk.

Anyhow, you asked, so that's how I'm thinking.

 

[billsgs126]

When you see your CFI pull the throttle, you know instantly what is occurring.

A good reason to have the CFI sitting behind you.

 

[Rick A]

The ELT should handle the “communicate” portion, right?

Like I said, only if "it can always be accomplished following a successful landing if there's not time to safely do it on the way down".

Focus on a successful landing rather than blabbing on the radio and hopefully you'll improve your chances of not needing the ELT.

 

[Ed Haywood]

A good reason to have the CFI sitting behind you.

Or maybe a hidden switch to ground the mags?

 

[Rick A]

You don't have to push the nose down. If correctly trimmed, all you have to do is not hold it back.

Correct. The key is not holding back pressure. Down elevator, or neutral. Pulling up? Not unless you're willing to flirt with a stall / spin.

When a conventional light plane is trimmed for lift off or climb, then suffers a complete engine failure, the nose drops. Give it a try... establish a climb at Vy and chop the power, in any configuration. The power loss is the big thing. The trim is the fine-tuning at best.

IMO, your adrenaline will be pumping so hard any adverse pitch pressures won't even be noticed. Nor will you be bothered with setting up the book glide speed. Vy and best glide airspeeds are, in most light planes I've flown so close that trim changes would not be an issue, except maybe when you are slowing down and reducing energy just before the landing.

A few hundred feet or less AGL you better be focused on the flying (airspeed, stick and rudder) and survival. Not numbers, trim, altitudes, calculations or communication. It's a visual thing, and you're on your own.

 

[Flying Keys]

Slightly off-topic, but:

What is the accuracy of FlightAware data? I compared today’s flight between Foreflight and FlightAware, and the FF data was really close to what I saw in the cockpit, but the FlightAware data was off enough to be troublesome. Is that data really good for much other than very rough flight plans?

It depends on if there are ADS-B receivers in the area. There are coverage gaps, especially down low, and sometimes you’re actually seeing mulilateration (MLAT) on Flightaware, which is generally not as accurate as ADS-B.

In general, FA is the last of several resources I’d use, but is sometimes good for when a plane doesn’t have ADS-B but may have been tagged up by ATC, just to get a general idea.

 

[ateamer]

When I did RV transition training in an RV-6A, the CFI pulled power on takeoff at 600 AGL. With a 45 degree banked turn (roll into it quickly - don’t do a normal gentle turn entry, and don’t stop at 30 and then start hunting for a steeper angle - make the turn fairly aggressively), I landed on the runway with room to spare.