PA32 down out of PDK

[Fearless Tower]

I'm interested in this discussion, but I wonder if we just accept that there is a zone where our options are limited to a "best we can do" return to Earth.

You have to. You cannot eliminate every risk. You can mitigate, but some residual risk will always remain.

Even a policy of 'climbing in the pattern to 4500' is not going to eliminate the risk if the failure or issue occurs early in the initial climb.

 

[Turbo69bird]

I'm new to GA so this may be a silly question, but couldn't/shouldn't there be some sort of emergency landing areas designated to every airport in a congested location such as this? Sort of like the emergency truck ramps on steep mountain roads. And have those areas defined on the sectional. I guess nobody would want to give up(or pay for) any land for such a use. (and there may not be a logical location to place such a thing).

It would certainly be nice to have, but think about all the different runways, all the different airports it's just not practical.

Most airports, locals have a planned area to try to go for straight out if needed, but if your not a local you probably wouldn't know where the best option would be. ( best bet is to call the manager ahead and ask) then hope you can make it.

we all need to be honest with ourselves that this type of thing is always the possible outcome of a flight. I tell passengers every time I fly, your welcome to come but there's always a possibility of an engine failure or some other issue. I like my passengers to know this is an airplane , not a roller coaster, it's not connected to anything, and things can go badly.
(It certainly redudpces my passenger load).

It would be nice if it could be made 100% safe but that's just not practical either.

My heart especially goes out to the families of these people.

We all sign on for the ride but the families are just bystanders who end up living with our decisions to fly.

 

[exncsurfer]

Two points:

1) Every takeoff and climb out is different, even with the same airplane. You aren't always in the same place at similar points in a flight to take advantage of a "designated" emergency landing.

2) Where are you going to put 2000+ feet of open space to land an airplane in a dense urban environment? That's pretty much another airport, and then you have to refer back to point #1.

Good points, thanks for the response. I was thinking more of a 300-400' crash zone, designed to spread the deceleration over an area. Least worst option sort of thing. Anyway that still takes you back to point 1.

I like RudyP's line of thinking, with the BRS. That is a more practical solution to this problem.

 

[kyleb]

So one thing thrown out that I agree with is climbing in the pattern. My CFI had me do that. Climb to 4500 then depart.

How do you handle this at a towered field?

I simply ask the tower if I can perform a climbing circuit, then depart on course.

 

[Fearless Tower]

It would certainly be nice to have, but think about all the different runways, all the different airports it's just not practical.

Most airports, locals have a planned area to try to go for straight out if needed, but if your not a local you probably wouldn't know where the best option would be. ( best bet is to call the manager ahead and ask) then hope you can make it.

we all need to be honest with ourselves that this type of thing is always the possible outcome of a flight. I tell passengers every time I fly, your welcome to come but there's always a possibility of an engine failure or some other issue. I like my passengers to know this is an airplane , not a roller coaster, it's not connected to anything, and things can go badly.
(It certainly redudpces my passenger load).

It would be nice if it could be made 100% safe but that's just not practical either.

My heart especially goes out to the families of these people.

We all sign on for the ride but the families are just bystanders who end up living with our decisions to fly.

When you get in a car, do you tell your passengers that at any time, some drunk driver could run a red light and kill you all?

 

[Jaybird180]

It would certainly be nice to have, but think about all the different runways, all the different airports it's just not practical.

Most airports, locals have a planned area to try to go for straight out if needed, but if your not a local you probably wouldn't know where the best option would be. ( best bet is to call the manager ahead and ask) then hope you can make it.

With the development going on at my local strip, things are changing quickly enough that it would probably be a good idea for me to sit right-seat and just spot some possible areas once in awhile to get them firmly in-mind.

 

[German guy]

So one thing thrown out that I agree with is climbing in the pattern. [...]

I have to admit that I never really though about this. As our new home base is however embedded in an urban setting, with pretty much no place to put her down in an case of an engine failure, it seems like a smart idea to first gain some altitude in the pattern, before departing the vicinity of the airfield.

Please excuse my ignorance, but what would be the best way to climb in the pattern, assuming I want to depart in the direction of the runway? Fly the entire pattern: Take off --> crosswind --> downwind --> base --> 'runway'? What should I announce on the radio, so that other pilots understand what I am doing?

This is what this would look like at our airfield:

 

[FastEddieB]

Just "Climbing in the pattern" would suffice, with appropriate calls until well above pattern altitude, then proceed on course.

 

[Checkout_my_Six]

Bugsmasher 1-2-3-Yankee turning cross wind runway xx....Buggsey climbing downwind. By my downwind turn I'd be above pattern altitude and prolly say nothing and complete my climbing 360 and off I'd go.

I have to admit that I never really though about this. As our new home base is however embedded in an urban setting, with pretty much no place to put her down in an case of an engine failure, it seems like a smart idea to first gain some altitude in the pattern, before departing the vicinity of the airfield.

Please excuse my ignorance, but what would be the best way to climb in the pattern, assuming I want to depart in the direction of the runway? Fly the entire pattern: Take off --> crosswind --> downwind --> base --> 'runway'? What should I announce on the radio, so that other pilots understand what I am doing?

This is what this would look like at our airfield:

 

[bflynn]

Is it practical to do this on every climbout? No.

What am I missing? If it's a towered field, why can't I circle over the pattern while climbing, at least to an altitude where I get some options when I depart? When is it not practical?

Is it wasteful of time and fuel? Sure, but not that much fuel. You're going to climb anyway, so the amount of extra fuel you use is what it takes to fly at cruise from the airport to that point your have been at with a straight climb out. What's that, maybe $10?

 

[Jaybird180]

Bugsmasher 1-2-3-Yankee turning cross wind runway xx....Buggsey climbing downwind. By my downwind turn I'd be above pattern altitude and prolly say nothing and complete my climbing 360 and off I'd go.

I seem to recall another thread where that was verboten.

 

[Jaybird180]

What am I missing? If it's a towered field, why can't I circle over the pattern while climbing, at least to an altitude where I get some options when I depart? When is it not practical?

Is it wasteful of time and fuel? Sure, but not that much fuel. You're going to climb anyway, so the amount of extra fuel you use is what it takes to fly at cruise from the airport to that point your have been at with a straight climb out. What's that, maybe $10?

Maybe less. But face it, our engines are likely more reliable than aviators of yore and I'm sure they thought of that. Why is it not standard practice today? There that word, "practical" again.

 

[Hank S]

I seem to recall another thread where that was verboten.

How so? When departing on 26 with destination to the east, I just call crosswind turn, then call downwind turn and departing the pattern to the east. Unless loaded heavy, I'm at pattern altitude before the downwind turn anyway. Did it this way all the time.

 

[Fearless Tower]

When is it not practical?

When there is one runway and a whole line of departures waiting behind you that the tower has to sequence.

Even more impractical when departing IFR in similar circumstances.

But let's just say that you are insistent because 'safety is worth the wait!' and tower lets you sit at the hold short line for 30 min while letting all the other traffic depart, just so they can make room for your demands to circle in the pattern and then when you finally depart, your engine dies under 500' AGL......what are you gonna do then, hmmm? You are going to do your best to put it down wherever you can and hopefully avoid killing any bystanders on the ground like the guy in the PA32.

If you want to do anything in life outside of a padded cell, you need to accept that there is risk in everything in life.

Maintain your aircraft the best you can. Maintain your proficiency and when the crap hits the fan do your best to keep your cool and maintain control of the aircraft. When your number is up, its up and hopefully it isn't a cancellation.

 

[ahkahn]

I have to admit that I never really though about this. As our new home base is however embedded in an urban setting, with pretty much no place to put her down in an case of an engine failure, it seems like a smart idea to first gain some altitude in the pattern, before departing the vicinity of the airfield.

Please excuse my ignorance, but what would be the best way to climb in the pattern, assuming I want to depart in the direction of the runway? Fly the entire pattern: Take off --> crosswind --> downwind --> base --> 'runway'? What should I announce on the radio, so that other pilots understand what I am doing?

This is what this would look like at our airfield:

Hey Oliver- quick shoutout - I have a branch of my business in Livonia and fly in/out of Mettetal quite a bit. Nice little postage stamp!

 

[Flocker]

Anyone know what the turn around (back to the runway) altitude is in a PA-32?

 

[steingar]

While aware of the issue I don't actively worry about it overmuch. Aircraft engines exhibit legendary reliability, it isn't all that likely mine is going to fail out of the blue. If it does and I'm below 500 feet I'm headed straight ahead into whatever's there. I hope whatever is nice and soft, but if not, well when your number is up it's up. Higher and I'll think about it. I just don't think it's worth getting steamed about.

 

[Code90]

This is one of those things that happens occasionally and we just hope we are not associated with it. I have known the pilot of this plane for a few years. A great guy. I flew in this plane with him about a year ago and talked about buying it from him. With two other gents, I bought an identical '77 Lance instead.

We all hope to hear how this happened. The report can't come fast enough. We want the family to know and we want to know so that we can protect ourselves and our families.
Talking with a mutual friend this past weekend who also has a '77 Lance, we surmised a powerplant issue (mechanical or fuel) at the exact wrong time and place. If he had full fuel with the passengers and luggage, he was close to max weight. We have seem more carried though in the same plane. It would be hard to have the CG out. You can get too far forward with two on board and full fuel as someone mentioned. It's very hard to get too far aft.

In the end, we mourn for the family. We still go back out and fly. It's what we love to do and it's how we "live" life. It's how we choose to experience life and it's what Greg did. We do everything we can to make sure we are safe (even more so when our family is in the plane). We pray for the family and pray that we are never associated with another one of these event.

 

[Mike5250]

So one thing thrown out that I agree with is climbing in the pattern. My CFI had me do that. Climb to 4500 then depart.

How do you handle this at a towered field?

I've thought about doing that at island airports.... At our home airport I often fly the pattern and depart after downwind.

 

[Norman]

Oliver,

I worked at Mettetal in the nineties. Don't know what's going on there since Kitze retired but Airnav shows no services.

That said, you are correct in that there are absolutely no options should you have a problem on takeoff. Either Joy Rd traffic or one of the buildings is likely to get you. Living in Novi, I would think New Hudson would be a better choice for you. They at least have some services and there is a bit more room for error than at 1D2.

 

[N801BH]

Anyone know what the turn around (back to the runway) altitude is in a PA-32?

I am guessing this poor guy never got higher then maybe 100 AGL.... If that...

 

[Fearless Tower]

Anyone know what the turn around (back to the runway) altitude is in a PA-32?

Never tried it, but based off of doing power off 180s in PA32s, I would say you need at least 800' to make a successful turn back. They drop like a brick with no power.

 

[Fearless Tower]

I am guessing this poor guy never got higher then maybe 100 AGL.... If that...

Maybe a little higher, but I'd be surprised if he made it above 500 AGL.

 

[Scott@KTYR]

Engine failure on a second leg of a trip can happen.
It happened to a local guy recently on a $100 burger trip.
http://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/Four-Injured-In-Small-Plane-Crash-Near-Lake-Texoma-297941491.html

 

[johnxreid]

I'm not sure I see climbing in the pattern at a busy airport like PDK providing much of a safety factor. A few thoughts to consider:

1. PDK is the 2nd busiest in the state, so it's not going to be practical with the traffic, some being vectored midfield. Also complicating things is the Class B step down that begins just south of the field depending on your direction of departure. Tower starts to sound like a cattle auction when things get busy.

2. As pointed out earlier, its likely the Lance never made it to 500'--so a crosswind turn in a planned pattern climb wouldn't have started yet.

3. 3L/R are the in use most of the time--otherwise its going to be 21L/R. The best scenario is to return to 16/34 respectively which doesn't require a full course reversal, if you've made 700 - 1000' in smaller bugsmashers--otherwise you're going straight ahead.

And that's all if you're lucky enough to have a definitive engine failure (no power) to make your options more clear at the point of failure. I'd guess the pilot spent a small amount of critical time thinking he might have some power to work with and trying to stabilize or see if he could maneuver to set down in 285.

End of day, the options just aren't there below 500 - 1000' and this is the type of failure we pilots hope we never encounter. I truly do hope something learnable is discovered in the investigation.

 

[weirdjim]

End of day, the options just aren't there below 500 - 1000' and this is the type of failure we pilots hope we never encounter.

Irregardless of the reason, fuel or mechanical failure, when you've got a mile of runway left in front of you, the engine instruments are telling you something is wrong, what thought process says to keep the sucker in the air when at the very worst you belly it in onto runway concrete before the gear comes down all the way? What part of the learning process did we fail to convey?

Of the senses, sight of instruments says bad, sound of engine says bad, feel of controls says bad, nothing says good but we plow on anyway. Somewhere along the line a flight instructor(s) ought to be thinking about this.

Jim

 

[N801BH]

Irregardless of the reason, fuel or mechanical failure, when you've got a mile of runway left in front of you, the engine instruments are telling you something is wrong, what thought process says to keep the sucker in the air when at the very worst you belly it in onto runway concrete before the gear comes down all the way? What part of the learning process did we fail to convey?

Jim

That is my thoughts exactly...

 

[johnxreid]

...what thought process says to keep the sucker in the air when at the very worst you belly it in onto runway concrete before the gear comes down all the way?

Denial. When/if my time comes to be tested... I hope I'm strong enough to fully and immediately grasp the situation I'm in. It's something I'll be thinking about a lot.

 

[dans2992]

Denial. When/if my time comes to be tested... I hope I'm strong enough to fully and immediately grasp the situation I'm in. It's something I'll be thinking about a lot.

It's _way_ easier to sit here and pick apart that decision at our leisure than it is to make that call in the cockpit.

 

[weirdjim]

It's _way_ easier to sit here and pick apart that decision at our leisure than it is to make that call in the cockpit.

You will carefully note that I didn't say a word about making the call, but where did WE fail in not providing serious training on how to make that call when the time comes. WE. As in we instructors.


Jim


.

 

[German guy]

Hey Oliver- quick shoutout - I have a branch of my business in Livonia and fly in/out of Mettetal quite a bit. Nice little postage stamp!

Let me know when you get here, we could kick tires or grab a bite...

Oliver,

I worked at Mettetal in the nineties. Don't know what's going on there since Kitze retired but Airnav shows no services.

That said, you are correct in that there are absolutely no options should you have a problem on takeoff. Either Joy Rd traffic or one of the buildings is likely to get you. Living in Novi, I would think New Hudson would be a better choice for you. They at least have some services and there is a bit more room for error than at 1D2.

New Hudson is indeed about 5 minutes closer. We are however members of the EAA Chapter 113, which is based at Mettetal, there also seems to be a lot more going on than at New Hudson . The airport is also great to practice crosswind landings, with its 18 / 36 runway.
Mettetal actually has services: A nice little terminal building with restrooms and a gas station at which they sell 100ll, I also heard rumors that Mogas will soon be added.

Tomorrow, I am planning to take two colleagues up, what brings the plane within about 150 pounds of the gross weight. The resulting climb rate will only be at around 400 feet / min. I will therefore try the suggestion to first gain some altitude in the pattern, before flying over hostile terrain.

 

[Norman]

Worse comes to worst there are the CSX tracks..... and prayer.

 

[dans2992]

You will carefully note that I didn't say a word about making the call, but where did WE fail in not providing serious training on how to make that call when the time comes. WE. As in we instructors.


Jim


.

True. There is an expensive flip side to making that call incorrectly however.

I was in a flying club that had someone make "that call" as they were taking off in our 182. Fully loaded, family on board, high DA.

The plane was not climbing/performing "as expected" and he brought it back down on the remaining runway causing a prop strike, wrinkled rear skin and other damage totaling almost $70k.

The insurance adjuster was amazed that nobody was injured/killed given the damage. No "issue" was ever found and let me tell you, there was a lot of second guessing this person's decision to put it back down.

There are definitely pros/cons!

 

[FastEddieB]

Denial.

Also task fixation.

The task is to take off.

99.999% of takeoffs have been successful. And that's what the pilot locks onto.

I believe it's often not a "decision" at all - more a reflex. But I agree that good initial and recurrent training could only help.

 

[pbramlett]

True. There is an expensive flip side to making that call incorrectly however.

I was in a flying club that had someone make "that call" as they were taking off in our 182. Fully loaded, family on board, high DA.

The plane was not climbing/performing "as expected" and he brought it back down on the remaining runway causing a prop strike, wrinkled rear skin and other damage totaling almost $70k.

The insurance adjuster was amazed that nobody was injured/killed given the damage. No "issue" was ever found and let me tell you, there was a lot of second guessing this person's decision to put it back down.

There are definitely pros/cons!

His family lived. He made the right decision to set it down. Now the only decision to make is what color will the next 182 be. That and which CFI to get some dual from on w/b.

 

[N801BH]

His family lived. He made the right decision. Now the only decision to make is what color will the next 182 be.

Exactly......

 

[ahkahn]

Irregardless of the reason, fuel or mechanical failure, when you've got a mile of runway left in front of you, the engine instruments are telling you something is wrong, what thought process says to keep the sucker in the air when at the very worst you belly it in onto runway concrete before the gear comes down all the way? What part of the learning process did we fail to convey?

Of the senses, sight of instruments says bad, sound of engine says bad, feel of controls says bad, nothing says good but we plow on anyway. Somewhere along the line a flight instructor(s) ought to be thinking about this.

Jim

Silly. I suppose you never thought about engine problems occurring after rotation?

My process is to check engine instruments quickly upon airspeed alive, then proceed with the rotation and climbout. There is a throttle-back after initial climbout, back to 25/2500, and then a continued climbout. The Lance actually redlines upon full throttle, but you don't want to keep it there very long. Perhaps something on his blew?

 

[Fearless Tower]

You will carefully note that I didn't say a word about making the call, but where did WE fail in not providing serious training on how to make that call when the time comes. WE. As in we instructors.


Jim


.

I think part of the issue is that for single engine airplanes many CFI's don't spend much time on this area because the FAA really doesn't put much emphasis on Rejected Takeoff or Loss of Thrust on Takeoff (LOTOT). You won't find it in the ASEL PTS. Consequently flight schools that teach to the test probably don't give it much thought.

I think the twin folks have an advantage here in that they at least get the training and awareness of rejected takeoffs. Not saying twin pilots are safer, they obviously screw up too, but I know I have a much healthier and deliberate thought process about what to do if something is not right early in the takeoff because of my ME training.

 

[kyleb]

Also task fixation.

The task is to take off.

99.999% of takeoffs have been successful. And that's what the pilot locks onto.

I believe it's often not a "decision" at all - more a reflex. But I agree that good initial and recurrent training could only help.

BTDT. Noticed the RV accelerating slower than normal, and instead of terminating the takeoff, I went into troubleshooting mode and found that someone (me) hadn't set the mag switches back to "both" at the end of run-up.

Flipped the switch and everything was fine, but if it had been a real problem, I'd have been accelerating deeper into the problem. Just dumb reflexes and poor decision making on my part.

 

[FastEddieB]

My most recent was a post-maintenance flight with a mechanic in the back of my Sky Arrow. Unbeknownst to me, he had accidentally applied full nose down trim while hitting the wrong button on the stick trying to transmit.

Definitely felt the plane was really hard to rotate. The only reasonable response would have been to abort and sort it out. Plenty of runway to do so.

But the locked-in mindset was to take off, and we did. Poor decision, but again, it did not even feel like a real decision. The goal of a takeoff is to get in the air, and I damn well got in the air!

Then there was the time I died in a Cirrus*, never even considering the chute. I had a task - recover from a spin - and once fixated on that task my fate was sealed.

Maybe there are pilots that never screw up like this, but I'd suspect they're rare. Fortunately, things usually work out regardless.


*Fortunately for me, a Cirrus simulator.