Many Army innovations and solutions to problems start in the suggestion box. Often troops just develop a technique or solution as a workaround a problem. Brush rakes to bust through hedge rows in Normandy and lanyard slung mini-guns on Loaches are examples. Every Army school I attended in the 60s and 70s included "Lessons learned in Vietnam." Those were bottom up rather than top down information flow and systemic changes. As a teacher, I have always been open to suggestion. On the Navajo Reservation I assigned student squad leaders to help me teach large classes. I have taught safe maneuvering flight techniques from ever angle I could imagine and encourage you all to chime in with those and other techniques. Top down techniques from ACS and the Air Safety Institution have reduced incidents and accidents but not fatalities. AQP type recurrent training that Jaun and Dan have suggested is a good idea using accident analysis in place of expensive computerized flight simulators. We have airline pilots, crop dusters, low altitude airplane and helicopter operators, bush, and other professionals who also fly backcountry. They represent a lot of bottom up experience to draw from. I appreciate comments and criticism from all of you.

Between my Junior and Senior year at Southwest Missouri State, I was in the Army's test of using Tactical Officers rather than Drill Sergeants for Reserve Officers basic training. As an officer I appreciate what Drill Sergeants do for the Army. I have tremendous respect, however, for Major Voke who was my training company's Tactical Officer. The cadets from military families always answered his questions, "No excuse Sir." Major Voke would explain, "I didn't ask for a confession. I want to know why you chose to do what you did." We pilots, like Army officers, need to know why we chose to do what we do. We need to learn from poor training and poor performance as well as from good training and good performance. As PIC we have to analyse every technique and choose wisely. There may be valuable techniques involved in survival instinct as simple as down drainage egress. What we did in an incident or accident is valuable experience. Would a startle response survey find more survivors who pulled or who pushed on the yoke? Some of you, like me, did not climb, confess, and comply. And yet we survived. We need to know those lessons learned off the book as well.

What should Backcountrypilot's recurrent training look like? What techniques lead to survival, even amongst incident and accident? How could we improve the ACS based flight review? How can startle, ground rush, distraction, and poor energy management be mitigated? What are "stick and rudder skills?" "What I Learned about Flying from That" was good judgement training, but did we miss good survival technique gems? We all start with the school solution. But has doubling down on that in flight review mitigated fatalities? Can we break the cycle of good pilots losing their lives doing what they were school trained and flight review trained to do? Let's try.

https://youtu.be/6nCl237-EdA I got the flying video from North Carolina. You guys who really know this video stuff are really good. we obviously had problems.

With Jeff I was emphasizing the practical value of the energy management turn to safely turn to a target rather than the 90s soyAnarchisto did with the Cub or even the 180s CTOF did with the Champ. I only ask pilots to do what they are comfortable with. The pitch down and ground rush in the bottom of very steep energy management turns can make some uncomfortable and I don't want to do that. And in N.C. there were no crop borders and section roads to gauge degree of turn. With Jeff, as with everyone, I call out the point where the rate of closure appears to get faster than a brisk walk. Jeff did a good job here. He certainly wasn't landing at 60 mph and we can see that he decelerated to prevent the apparent rate of closure to increase to faster than an apparent brisk walk.

Good job Jeff. I appreciate it very much. And many thanks to Dan for getting it to me. We are still working on the large seminar file on Southern's computer. Dan will try to get it onto youtube.

I have come to the conclusion that individuals coming by Aurora Missouri or groups having me out for seminars and clinics are easier that getting professional youtube video. Call me 417-830-0638, email me [email protected], or pm me here. Don't wait too long. My last back surgery helped with pain, but my right leg has been continuously fuzzy for a year and goes completely to sleep at night until I get up and walk a bit. Like a lot of the airplanes I owned or flew, I am tired but not all used up.

Thanks for the video. Nice to actually view the rudder pedal action. It would be nice to have narration of exactly what the pilot is doing when the controls are not visible in the video. Something like: “On takeoff wheels about 3 ft. above runway; Now leveling the wing using opposite rudder; Touchdown point is xxx and am trying to close on it at a brisk walk; Oops, new touchdown point… etc.


Got my glider add-on rating and have an idea to improve spot landings in a powered plane. One is the picking a spot on the windshield to judge motion in the windshield to assess whether one is too high (overshoot) or too low (undershoot). In a glider you only get one chance and you really don’t have much time for the aforementioned technique. In a Schweitzer 2-33, there is a spot in the windshield/canopy that doesn’t move up or down. That’s where you will touch down. Better learn to ID the windshield spot and move this spot onto the intended landing point. Much more direct and intuitive. (In a powered plane, you would mainly do this with throttle and/or slips.) You can find the magic spot by sweeping up with your eyes from the bottom and down from the top — noticing a stationary spot/area. Takes some practice but worthwhile.. Probably some experienced pilots automatically do this subconsciously. I will try it in my 182 when it gets out of its forever maintenance cycle and advise.

Best,

Tommy

Duplicate post deleted. Sorry

Good to hear from you Tommy. Yes, there are lots of visual cues and even optical illusions like apparent rate change when closer that, when learned, are actually more accurate than airspeed and certainly heads up. Because of where I worked, I did not use the high and steep approach angle as much. I have found it to work very well with both apparent rate of closure and with keeping the spot on the windscreen for that steep angle down that you have mentioned here. Yes, we can use throttle to adjust that spot the same as glider pilots use the spoilers. Again, good to hear from you. I was worried. Keep them coming.

After just over the trees on takeoff, Jeff is using up 10 mph of zoom reserve airspeed to get to 300' still with 90 mph. As you can see in this area, there is not a lot of horizontal space available. He can get back with engine failure because he has a little altitude and especially because he has zoom reserve airspeed (not just Vy.) Without engine is not tremendously different that with engine, however, when we have the law of the roller coaster working for us. With engine we would use the 300' of vertical space available to maintain zoom reserve and to be able to maneuver as necessary and to not stall because the nose is down and we are not bleeding airspeed. We would turn a bit more steeply at first while allowing the nose to go down as it wished (no back pressure). We would use rudder all the way around because the target (runway) is important enough to keep turning toward it. We don't neutralize bank until we have the well down nose on target. So without engine, we are using the zoom reserve developed and gravity to do the same thing.

The P turn or teardrop entry to final that Gump had to use in the Bonanza in his impossible turn demonstration is not as necessary in lighter and slower airplanes, but laying off downwind a bit is good practice for the real thing. Enough relative wind to make the wing work well throughout the maneuver (zoom reserve) is what we need and of course is very different in heavy and fast airplanes. The physics is exactly the same, however. Three seconds at Vy pitch attitude and then pulling a lot of gs to get a faster rate of turn is not going to get it in any airplane. Stalling from 500' AGL halfway down the runway is still likely fatal. This Highlander is probably capable of that, but what would that prove? Yes, the practiced and proficient pilot who knows he is going to go to idle can do the razor's edge thing. He can't hang there three seconds at Vy pitch attitude in a startle engine failure, however.

The spot on the windscreen staying on the desired landing spot that Tommy mentions drives the glide angle and is maintained with variable power. We have to be slow enough, sinking first (elevator deceleration) for that to work or we will quickly drive the spot down the windscreen as we overfly the spot. Keeping the apparent rate of closure at the apparent brisk walk by deceleration is necessary to get all slowed up and ready to squat. Keeping airspeed high until roundout, which is unnecessary if we decelerate, leads almost surely to a bounce when runway length is limited. We have to remember the V-speed they don't tell us about. The speed at which the wing will quit flying in low ground effect.

Gunny, not Gump in the impossible turn video. I am still as senile as ever.

The advantage of Tommy's throttle control windscreen spot to touchdown on desired spot on the airport or using the apparent rate of closure to decelerate in ground effect onto the desired spot is that we avoid the dangerous late go around decision.

If we use the normal round out and hold off technique, at what point do we reject go around and just land and perhaps overrun the departure end? The better question, in my opinion, is why go there in the first place. If we fail to manage the windscreen spot or fail to prevent increase in apparent rate of closure, that would be a safe go around decision point. Or if lots of runway remains as with normal length airports, simply round out and hold off. There is no safe reason to put the desired touchdown spot one thousand feet down the runway in normal training size single engine airplanes. Even the soft field technique can be started in ground effect on the approach end and get down slowly and softly before one thousand feet down the runway.

Contact,

It would be interesting to see some of the inflatable Red Bull air race type of pylons set up and have you teach rudder turns in a real environment where the risk of inadvertent contact with the obstacle was reduced to a manageable level.

Might also be able to include horizontal obstacles of a similar material that simulated under the power lines, etc.


UpNorth

Those pylons look expensive. A way I teach rudder turns in low ground effect is to fly full power in low ground effect down one side of a runway and rudder turn to cross the runway to the other side and then rudder turn to cross back to the original side. The rudder turn around an object, say telephone pole on the right side of desired swath, in the field spraying is full left rudder followed by full right rudder followed by enough left rudder to continue on the same swath beyond the pole. Those rudder turns to spray closely around a pole would be much more aggressive than the practice rudder turns down the runway. They are easier, more efficient, and safer than reducing power, pulling up over the pole, and going back to full power in the dive beyond the pole.

Rob or CenterHill AG or somebody probably has a video of a rudder turn to miss an obstruction in the field. I will try the down runway practice one on my Android Phone over at 2H2 in the 172, but someone will have to coach me on how to move that picture from my phone to here. Moving the airplane around with rudder while in ground effect is simple and safe. Crop dusters do that on dogleg spray strips as well to avoid coming in over obstructions or going out over obstructions. In the video here of Jeff in his Highlander, he is using rudder only on short final to slide over onto the grass to the right of the runway to save wear on his big bald tires. Why do those big tires have to be so bald?

We say rudder turn to describe this technique. Actually it is a cross controlled turn. We have to use right aileron with left rudder to keep the wing out of the dirt and left aileron with right rudder to again keep the wing out of the dirt. The drag issue is compensated by being in as low ground effect as we are comfortable with. High ground effect or even out of ground effect rudder turns are certainly doable. They are less energy efficient, however. In ground effect the energy loss is negligible.

Anyway, jump in if you can help with video anyone. I will work on this if not.

The power change to stay in good spray distance over the pole mentioned above was interesting in the old days with piston engines with floats in the carb. In the negative g dive beyond the pole with throttle back to full, the engine quits momentarily. It always starts again as soon as we level off in the field beyond the pole, wire we can't go under, or pivot across the swath path. The turboprops now are much faster in the field and the materials like "drop zone," etc. are much better to get the spray droplets heavy and going down quickly into the field. So no need for pulling power before and the negative gs beyond the obstruction in the field.

I don’t have any videos of rudder turns, I haven’t embraced the moving picture technology yet. Moving from side to side of the runway sounds like as good of a way to practice as any though, and if a loaded ag plane dragging along can do the technique, a small plane at full power can do it no problem. One of the strips I work off of is a crosswind strip, with REA wires on the upwind and REA plus 70 ft poles with big wires straight ahead. The only way to come out heavily loaded is to get it in ground effect asap, and then rudder turn to downwind and ride along until the plane wants to ease over the treeline 1/4 mile away. It sounds and looks highly unorthodox, but is well within the planes capabilities.

As far as learning to go under the wires, unless you have a real need to learn it for your working environment, just don’t do it. I think you’d be better off learning to judge your sight picture when flying inches off the ground and use that training in an emergency to go under a wire, rather than learning what you can fit under. They’re starting to run fiber optic lines underneath power lines on the tall poles low enough a plane can barely squeeze under them, and unless you’re looking for them they’re easy to miss. There’s very few places I can still fit under the wires anymore. I had a bad crash a few years ago hitting some large wires, I only survived because of the strength of an Ag Cat’s fuselage. I wouldn’t have been so lucky in a people plane.

One of Kiman's pilots, Plane Cents Aviation, hit the two big ground top wires on a high transmission line near Aurora Missouri. He survived because the Thrush was strong. Yes, turboprops are too fast and too tall to go under the little lines nowdays. That transmission line was in a much too small field for a turbo Thrush. We have lots of small irregular shaped fields here. Pawnee stuff but nobody uses Pawnees now. Ground rigs are getting better too, which helps.

My dentist, with whom I golf Fridays, brought his ten year old. He was looking up and topping the ball. As I explained that he had to think he would keep his head down throughout the swing, I thought of Dutch rolls. No, we don't keep our head down. We look up following the ball. We just have to make ourselves think we will keep our head down. No, we don't cross controls during Dutch rolls. We just have to tell ourselves to lead rudder or we will actually lead aileron.

Teaching golf or flying is not rocket science. We don't have to be math or physics correct in our explanations of how to move the controls. We owe it to our students to tell them what will actually help them to put the airplane on like a wet suit. The airplane must become a part of them. If the math or physics solution gets in the way of the most efficient and safe solution like allowing the airplane to do what it wants to do to make pitch up or turns safe, we need to get beyond school solutions.

Oh, if you think coordination and do not lead rudder in 45 degree bank Dutch rolls you will adverse yaw the wrong way first and screw it up. Lead rudder. And if you golf, you have to make believe you will keep your head down. We are humans, not robots.

It drives me crazy that smart designers make the airplane safely incapable of stalling itself yet the manufacturer won't put a neutral trim white line on the trim knob. Who cares about climb trim. Safe pilots and airplanes know continuous climbing, rather than using the law of the roller coaster, is not safe.

What would be the better suggestion for the Cirrus SR-20 fatal stall accident in Conway, Arkansas Jun 18, 2021: better preflight, better takeoff performance evaluation and reject response, or better stick and rudder skills to enable flying without an airspeed indicator? Jaun Browne suggested GA AQP procedures during initial training for all three. I concur.

The recent midair in southern California begs the suggestion to train all pilots, including student pilots, to learn how to use the designed dynamic neutral stability of the airplane to make emergency extreme banked 1g turns simply by not pulling back on the yoke creating load factor gs. The unloaded wing cannot stall and therefore 90 degree banked turns, when needed, can safely be made. Thousands and thousands of feet of vertical space available have been rejected in midair and stall fatalities.

Many years ago I had a potential midair similar to the one in California. I was instructing from the back seat of a Taylorcraft L-2 that had no electrical system or radio. I teach lifting the away from the airport wing several times on base to check for straight in traffic. My student didn't tip enough to catch a twin on collision course with us. When he turned final I saw the twin. I took the controls and fully deflected both aileron and rudder until I was in a 120 degree bank away from the twin. Why didn't the airplane stall? Because I released all back pressure on the stick. The unloaded wing cannot stall at any bank angle.

This knowledge of what the airplane wants to do and this technique of allowing the nose to go down naturally and use the vertical space available might only save a pilots life a time or two in a lifetime in aviation. Actually learning to release a bit of back pressure in all turns, other than when on instruments, could actually lead to this knowledge and technique saving our lives even more often.

The student had ROW for landing. The 340 pilot should have relented. Period.

In slow airplanes I never wanted a fast airplane behind me on final. Landing in slow piston Ag planes with no radio at uncontrolled fields convinced me that being legally right didn't matter. In low wing, chances of seeing a fast airplane on a long final are much better when making final at a slight angle to the centerline. Later in 172s on the pipeline, I learned that airplanes higher than me almost never saw me in the ground clutter. Yes, the 340 pilot should have relented. The pilots who couldn't see me down low were at least concerned. Actually, it was so disruptive I quit making radio calls at uncontrolled fields since I always gave way to all traffic anyway. Except for those on ten mile finals, I could see everyone with a gray or blue sky background.