Eight of my thirteen low level forced landings followed the possible 180 degree turn. Was it luck, crazy good pilot skills, or something else. It was something else. It was energy management, total energy management, as the engine was not running. First, the basic low ground effect takeoff was default. Pitch up, trading airspeed that I needed now for safe altitude that I wasn't going to make anyway, was not default. Excess altitude over any obstruction, trading airspeed I needed for altitude I didn't, was not default. I went to the field at 3' AGL many times. Low altitude orientation and energy management techniques are responsible for many successful forced landings.

Big, big, big disclaimer: I never turned back to the field I was working. It was always a field or levee or road in the near hemisphere. When it happens we need enough energy to maneuver to a survivable landing site in the near hemisphere. Kinetic energy, zoom reserve airspeed, or gravity energy from even a couple hundred feet are there for maneuvering. We aren't going to stay up so trade that altitude for sufficient airspeed energy to safely turn at whatever bank is needed. We are not going to do acrobatics, we don't need to unload the wing, just release the back pressure to stay at 1 g in steeply banked turns. It is not rocket science. We don't need to memorize V speeds. Just don't yank back on the stick.

Because of doing this, I was high and fast requiring full flaps and full rudder to the stop forward slip to make those landing zones. It cannot be cockpit resource managed in six seconds, so default energy management is necessary for energy to be there when needed. Different world. You don't have to stay there. Most of your hours can be safely at altitude. You do have to start there and finish there. All the stall/spin practice in the world is useless there.

contactflying wrote:Eight of my thirteen low level forced landings...

Perhaps talking about some mastery over zoomology as the guiding principal might be missing the forest for the trees. Maybe what should be looked at is how a certain flying technique or maintenance practice may be opposite of what should be taught.

Yes is commendable (and lots of skill needed) to keep one's head and walk away from a crash, but how can thirteen unplanned landings be a teaching point? (other than show one isn't learning from some lesson) What am I missing???

Bigrenna wrote: but how can thirteen unplanned landings be a teaching point? (other than show one isn't learning from some lesson) What am I missing???

I thought the same, but my conclusion was different. Not better, or probably even remotely correct, just different.

Said another way, perhaps learning where to draw the line on what we can really afford to fly is not Contacts strong point.

I wonder if the new kids growing up in his industry who happen to be fortunate enough after playing junior CFI for a couple hundred hours, to step in to an overpowered, modern turbine, marvel, some of which have been know to run for tens of thousands of hours on end, could better convey how to survive a poorly dealt hand? After all, every year even a turbine goes quiet somewhere... been there.

By far and large, in bush flying, crop dusting, anything but an extremely regulated corporate and FAA ran realm, engines go quiet, parts shed, bad juju has happens. As the flying world matures in experience, technology, and regulation, the bad juju is diminishing. Actually I think it's just shifting. That is a good thing I think. Soon enough we can turn it all over to the drones, and just live vicariously through them in the safety of our living room

The Jerry Jaque's and Don Sheldons (you know... the men who we idolize in forums like this while ignoring their own misfortunes) will no longer land on a raging river and float down backwards to save a banged up friend,(because how intelligent is that choice?) mud flats will no longer be pioneered on skiis in oil eating fire breathing hulks, and round engines will cease to drop into the arctic waters when someone chanced ... I enjoy learning from the ones who will humbly admit to strapping in one that wasn't pristine when luck ran out. Still wander around with one pant leg tucked in and one out, and still have a smudge of grease on one ear. AI (the new generation's surrogate intelligence, not impergnating a cow) and computer models be damned. Even if that lesson is who's airplane not to fly

Take care, Rob

I used the " Impossible Turn " to make it safely back to the airport years ago. It was over a populated area in Southern California. I was at 850 AGL when it happened. I have practiced this maneuver since early in my training thanks to a great instructor who felt it valuable to teach. This NAFI presentation given by Brian Schiff is what I am using now for training. I think it is good material to review and practice in our airplanes. I teach out of a couple of airports in the Portland area where knowing this maneuver is important. At my home airport 7S3 it is not needed. It is one of the reasons I keep the airplane at its current location but I also like that there is no tower and a nice family that owns the airport.



As for Zoom reserve discussion. Well - I hate Vx climbs - Vy to a safe altitude and knowing when and where the " Impossible Turn " can be made is something that should be studied. I also think knowing all of the options for forced landings during the critical phases of takeoff should be known before blasting off. Landing straight ahead or with minimal turning is usually the right thing to do but if you fly over densely populated areas this is great option.

Good topic to bring up Jim. Engine failure on takeoff is one of the scariest things that can happen to us.


Josh

Thanks for the comments and criticisms everyone, but I especially want to thank Bigrenna for his criticism about my poor flying technique and my lack of concern for good maintenance practices. His question was, "What am I missing???"

The thing you are missing about concern for good maintenance practices is money. I want those who have little money but are going to do as much flying as possible anyway to understand that such a rock and hard place position is not so uncommon. We just have to understand that we may experience more incidents and accidents. Renting is a better option than owning stuff we can't afford to maintain properly, but most in this position also want to fly as a profession. I have flown regularly since 1966 and recently is the first time I have seen aviation make sense as a career for married folks. Who wouldn't want to fly the best maintained equipment? Most, however, would not fly marginal equipment, especially for low wages. And then there are us. What are you missing? We are going to fly anyway and we will fly whatever we can get.

The thing you are missing about my poor flying technique is where it is poor flying technique. Safe maneuvering flight techniques are not as relevant at an altitude from which we can recover from inadvertent stall. What you are missing about maneuvering flight is that you engage in it every time you takeoff and every time you land. It is a tiny fraction, I expect, of your total flying time. What you are missing is the vast experience I have gained concerning maneuvering flight and the safest techniques for maneuvering flight. Since I cannot get you out on a four day 3500 mile loop around the country at 200' on pipelines anymore, I have only this to offer. But I guarantee it could save your life during that small amount of time you engage in maneuvering flight around the airport. And I care about you and all pilots. Like I have said to MTV, the guy who is much closer to the book on these techniques but values the concept, "we are going to die before many of these young pilots." We have been favored by aviation. We owe something back. I don't want to be right. I just want to help. In arguments with other pilots, not instructors so much, I am usually wrong. Most instructors realize how thay are literally hung out to dry at Vx and Vy as appropriate.

contactflying wrote:... But I guarantee it could save your life during that small amount of time you engage in maneuvering flight around the airport....

I was being rhetorical.

No where did I say that the technique is not valuable... On the contrary; most pilots never come close to having the skill to react quickly and consistently with no time to spare in order to save their lives. Talking about how to react and learning from a one-off event is critically important.

My comment was that you are framing your "lesson" in the context that these events are normal. We should practice "in case," not practice "because." This is how I read your post.

Moreover, you are mischaracterizing my post RE: your flying technique. I know your background and experience.

Maybe Im foolish, but it's my opinion that dismissing good maintenance and or taking risks is not justified by how much money is or isn't in the wallet.

If what you are trying to say is that wanting to fly but being poor somehow justifies skipping proper maintenance or safety, then I'm on the other side of that coin. Trying to draw a line between the survival of a laissez faire approach and a teachable moment may not be the most helpful, other than to illustrate a poor fundamental approach.

...but then again, it's easy to type.

just my .02

Thanks. I have had jobs with excellent maintenance and jobs with unethically poor maintenance both in Ag and in pipeline patrol. In Cambridge, Nebraska I was the only pilot in three of the best maintained Pawnees I ever flew. Jerry Behnke was mechanic of the year in the 50s sometime. I flew a herbicide plane, a poison plane, and a spreader plane and never loaded a load. And for others I flew mostly Pawnees with crooked tails because corroded lower longerons in the rear of the tail were cut out and replaced without a jig. I flew excellently maintained 152s and 172s for one patrol company for $20 an hour when the prop was turning. I also flew for an unethical company in 172s that had mice in fuel tanks, long cracks in exhaust stacks, and unlaced cracks in windscreens for as much money as my wife made teaching high school. That, not the $20, was a lot of money.

Maintenance was not the story some of the time. You forgot to mention how poorly organized I was. One of the thirteen was getting myself shot down the first day in my troop in Vietnam and three were running out of fuel...mostly my fault.

You are correct that we should not project the wrong attitude. It is complicated, however. My wife has never had an accident of any kind. If the sign says stop she stops and if it says go she goes, but she never looks in the eyes of the others at the intersection. She doesn't drive any longer but will probably have to in a few years when I get less able. I'm sorry but her lack of incidents and accidents scares me.

Thank You Contact , Rob .

Contact’s numbers are pretty standard for any of the ag pilot old timers around here. Continental tank engines were being hung on Stearman’s and Cat’s with a high failure rate, and everything else was being assembled from the junk piles of engine shops. It was a different time, things are a little better now.

A big reason I’m self employed is because I don’t feel like crashing someone else’s junk, and if that sounds like I’m casting aspersions, talk to some ag pilots. If they haven’t had an engine quit or something big break, they know someone who has. The third day I flew part time for an operator I had an engine quit, the other pilot had 6 failures in 5 years. With my own plane, I’ve got no issue shutting it down and calling the mechanic, the work will still be there or I can call in some help. When you’re flying for someone else and the ITT has climbed over a week, but you’ve only got 6 weeks to make a living this year, it’s a lot tougher to make that call to shutdown, and many don’t.

Your video was excellent, Josh. I think they covered everything including the four seconds of startle and the wind management issues (downwind first so as to have reduced radius and reduced ground speed on the base to final turn.) It is pretty clear, from their climb angle illustrations, why I never turned back to the field I was spraying. I did have to consider lack of options at several class B airports I flew pipeline across. In really congested areas around airports, there is usually light industrial as well. Using full flaps and the apparent brisk walk rate of closure deceleration, I was prepared to put it down on the roof of one of those buildings all slowed up and ready to squat as Wolfgang puts it. I didn't like the HVAC stuff up there but that is light metal. Anyway, never went there.

Using safe maneuvering flight techniques, landing back on the runway we left is not possible. Near horizon stuff is. And I mean real near. Fortunately we can't see very far. That would be an attractive nuisance. Down drainage, especially in the mountains, often gives more time and options. To the near horizon stuff, we will usually be high and fast requiring full flaps and full side slip. For 170B guys who won't do that for any reason, put it between a couple of trees up at the end of the LZ.

CenterHillAg's numbers are accurate. When I caught a fence and crashed my Pawnee my second season, I told the old operator mechanic from Alaska I needed a job. He said since I had only crashed once I might not have enough experience to fly his airplanes. I flew his CallAir using the auto gas provided in its wing tanks. The O-540 didn't care but the boost pump had to be on or the engine would quit. There was an electric connection problem between the switch and the pump, but each time the engine quit I wiggled it to keep going. When I told him about it he said, "Hit it with a hammer." Check old derelict Pawnees sitting around the airport (most have gone to S. America now) to see if the pitot has been fabricked over. The Stearman I sprayed with had bailing wire between rudder horns and tailwheel. It was a different world.

Concerning Josh's excellent impossible turn video, with enough altitude the impossible turn is possible and with quite a bit more altitude inadvertent stall is survivable. Concerning safe maneuvering flight techniques, maneuvering all the way to landing (or crash) or in other words not stalling, is always possible. With zoom reserve airspeed, no instrument indication of airspeed or altitude is necessary. With potential energy of altitude (200' is adequate) automatically converted to airspeed (just don't pull in turns) no limitation of bank angle is necessary. When low over or under wires or near terrain and obstructions, rudder turns (possible with zoom reserve or potential energy of just a little altitude) may be appropriate. It is a different world requiring different techniques and training. The closeness of the earth makes it different, but then we potentially go there on every takeoff and every landing.

Unfortunately Josh's residential impacted airport situation has become very common. If we evaluate the forced landing possibilities around the airport we are leaving, we should evaluate what climb angle would be more appropriate. I overstate my case I know. I just hate to see so many stall or stall spin fatalities on airport property. There is seldom a need to get up high enough for the fall to kill us that fast...that slow. Startle lag, and with it occasional stall, is far less likely when we demand maneuvering airspeed until safely up high. I understand that fast climb, and with it slow airspeed, may provide enough altitude for return to the airport often enough to make it the safer option in residential impacted situations.

I also am concerned about those using slower airspeed in order to make tighter level turns in the mountains and during low level river running. Energy management turns, using zoom reserve airspeed to climb and that little bit of gained altitude to trade back for airspeed, are a more efficient and therefor generally safer way to accomplish those missions. Without altitude the impossible turn is impossible, but here we need the possible turn. Without airspeed the possible turn is impossible.

contactflying wrote:...with enough altitude the impossible turn is possible...

That’s only part of the equation, it seems to me.

If one reaches the altitude to make the turn possible only at a distance from which one can’t glide back to the runway it’s not very useful.
Which in turn means that one ought to climb as steeply as possible: Vx is called for, no matter whether there is an obstacle to clear or not.

But at Vx there’s no zoom reserve, contact might say, and if the engine goes silent there’s a good chance for a serious problem.
Is that really an inherent danger of a Vx climb?

I don’t think so.

Let me give you an example of another type of “silent climb”, which I have a lot of experience with: the winch launch in a sailplane.
At a typical climb angle of 45º a rope break or power loss of the winch calls for immediate action.
Glider pilots are trained - and practice repeatedly - to be always alert and ready to pitch down instantly when one of those mishaps occurs.
Consequently, (stall-, spin-) accidents due to these causes are very rare indeed.

I think there’s something that can be taken over from the glider pilots.

In order to put one more at ease with a Vx climb and thus increase the chance of making it back to the runway after a possible turn:
Wouldn’t it help to put more emphasis on always being alert and practicing just that scenario to get rid of that “one potato, two potato,…” freeze and avoid a startled, impulsive and (often) wrong reaction?

I am a proponent, 140Eagles, of doing what has worked for us over many iterations. With Vx, we are betting we have the wind situation, organization, extreme life and death skill, and luck each time. I'm not that good or lucky so I have cheated using all available energy management. I have given up the ability to turn back. I have had, with every takeoff and with every engine failure, the likelihood that I would be able to save most and walk away from all. Had I have had to go between houses in dense residential, I would have had the maneuvering airspeed to do so.

Most of my engine failures were in the field spraying or in the turn. The engine failure in the field or just over the obstruction coming out started exactly like a low ground effect takeoff. It followed acceleration to max airspeed in low ground effect and pitch up to just over the obstruction. While having thousands of iterations of turn back to that field with power, racetrack back would take too long and something without obstructions was always available in 90-180 degrees. Mainly we don't want a wing still down over wires or obstruction. We want very steep bank at first so as to be able to arrive back in ground effect wings level. If slower because of being in the turn when it happens, we use potential energy of even just a hundred feet to be able to turn at whatever bank angle necessary to miss stuff. The same would be available but not as safe at Vx at 500' but LZ options would have to be very close. Allowing the nose to go down property as designed at that airspeed would result in a 45 degree pitch down to prevent stall at any steep bank angle. And pulling, loading the wing up, is not how we safely increase turn rate. With the nose down 45 degrees we can safely use the almost to the stop rudder required for coordination at 45 degree bank angle. So most pilots would be safer with a lot more than Vx airspeed to start with. Zoom reserve airspeed is a little altitude wings level which can be traded for engine out airspeed for safe maneuvering.

For those considering the impossible turn, at altitude and Vx pitch attitude try a 45 degree bank angle turn while releasing all back pressure (cruise trim). Notice what the airplane wants to do.

contactflying wrote:For those considering the impossible turn, at altitude and Vx pitch attitude try a 45 degree bank angle turn while releasing all back pressure (cruise trim). Notice what the airplane wants to do.

I understand what 140 is trying to say, and I’m not against the idea of a Vx climb. On a long strip in the city it give 2 possible outs. 1: you are climbing out at Vx and there is a good possibility that in most of our planes we could still land straight ahead if we have an engine failure, or 2: you’re most likely high enough that you pitch down and do a 180 and land back on the strip. In the extremely unlucky scenario that SHTF in that couple hundred foot margin I’m really not nit certain zoom reserve would help much to make a 180. Even in a spray turn we are essentially making the majority of our turn at an airspeed not much higher then a Vx climb, probably slower for most of the turns actually. So the zoom reserve is to climb the 200 feet we need to make the turn, but you burn up time ripping down the runway. If you climb at Vx you’ll already have the altitude in the same time or sooner then a zoom climb, and if the engine is gonna go you’d want more altitude then less.
Long story short, I agree with 140 and training for immediate response rather then the 3 second delay is a major key in successfully making this maneuver work. It has to be second nature. For those of us that do it a thousand times a day in turns it is, and for glider pilots as well.

As far as ag planes go, can’t say I agree that altitude ad a result of Vx climbs is preferable to airspeed. Never flown a glider, but I’m guessing they aren’t taking off at 150% of the factory recommended gross weight like an Ag Cat or many other CAR 8 ag planes. We’re so nose heavy on takeoff with a load that if the engine quits you become a brick with no elevator authority. You can try to dump the load, but even that takes a while if full, and dry product will barely flow out. I’ll never forget the feeling of shoving the stick forward as soon as something felt off, and it hitting the hopper with no resistance. I was 75’ agl and had almost no energy for a flare when I hit the ground, and I was cooking along pretty good until the engine quit. Don’t even worry about 180’s, keep looking ahead, that’s all you’ll have energy for with a load.

The rest of the time I flew round engines I flew like my buddy that walked away from 6 engine failures, ground effect unless you can’t find a way under the obstacle. With a turbine I try to fly closer to the industry recommended altitudes, but I won’t put the nose above the horizon to gain that altitude. I’d rather have the nose low and speed building if things go silent.

At Vx, not even with any startle delay, release back pressure on the stick as you bank to a 45 degree bank angle. Where is the nose going and how much? If this is what the airplane wants to do, what are you going to make it do...safely? We do this with the engine running and when the load is light to return to target 50' upwind from where we left the field without any P turn or teardrop turn for standoff. I don't like to do it that way because it doesn't work with a big load. This is what the cowboy is doing in the "Turn Smart" video. He is doing it correctly, but the old crop duster (most of us) don't want to hang it out like that. Instructors have no choice if they are going to meet Airman Certification Standards. No, they don't have to do the 180 return to target, but they will be just as dead after the startle delay, changeover of manipulator of controls, and slamming the nose down. The huge difference when we spray back and forth rather is that we have no intention of remaining at a Vx pitch attitude but intend to bank and release back pressure at the top of the zoom up. If it quits, we are already moving correctly. We are better when we move. I don't fly big engines, but the rapid pitch up to Vx on go around is a problem as well. Energy management is trading zoom reserve airspeed for altitude and then that altitude for airspeed to prevent stall in the turn. That can be suttle, as in the race track, or fairly abrupt, as in back and forth. But at no time are we attempting to continue climbing at such a steep pitch attitude indefinitely. It is energy management not energy demand.

Dynamic proactive, either fine or in this case rather gross (yo yo) is trading energy not stealing it. Only grifters want to steal. And sometimes they crash and burn.