First glider solo!

[Hagar]

It's probably different for you as I realise you operate from a hard runway alongside powered aircraft. Bear in mind that we were trained by RAF instructors on a grass airfield used exclusively for basic glider training. The basic & advanced ATC gliding courses were intended as a basis for later training to PPL standard on powered aircraft in the Flying Scholarship scheme. It was a natural progression from gliding to powered flight. The principle of never attempting to turn back to the airfield in an emergency was instilled into us right from the start & remains imprinted on my little brain even now, more than 50 years later. (Turning back is still the cause of countless serious accidents with powered aircraft following engine failure on take-off. A significant number of these occur during simulated engine failures.)

We take off from the hard runway and land on the grass alongside... certainly wouldn't want to turn back towards the asphalt with traffic taking off!

[Brett_Henderson]

Please don't misunderstand me. What I meant was an absolute horror at the thought of engine failure. Enough to cause panic in that situation were it to happen. Far too many people fail to understand that you do not need an engine or a whirling thing up front to remain airborne. An aircraft without an engine is a glider. It might not be a very good glider but the same principles apply. Once that mental block is overcome the situation can be dealt with calmly, instinctively & hopefully with successful results.

LOL.. yeah.. "horror" is a good way to phrase it. Even though you KNOW it's not really happening.. and KNOW the guy with you KNOWS what he's doing.. the very first time your instructor turns the trainer into 7:1 glider.. your brain is all over the place. You're still trying to get a feel for powered flight, and now you have seconds become a glider pilot

[beaky]

The primary argument against it, are logistics. There simply aren't enough gliders, and glider-friendly airports, and tow-planes, and instructors; for every PPL aspirant to fliter through. Of course, that's a "chicken-n-egg" scenario. If it WERE required, there would be many, flourishing soaring schools. So... if the idea ever gained momentum, I'd be fully behind it. Alas, it's just not realistic.

A very good point. I think a compromise would be more emphasis on power-off flying of singles not just as an engine-failure drill, but as part of just learning the basics. But the mentality is that these powerplants are so reliable in general, so why dwell on that? I think that is a cop-out for two reasons: first, engine failures are extremely rare, but if you've been in denial about it and it happens, you will not do very well. Second, there are other scenarios that require you to shut down and get that thing on the ground ASAP.

[Hagar]

[quote]LOL.. yeah.. "horror" is a good way to phrase it. Even though you KNOW it's not really happening.. and KNOW the guy with you KNOWS what he's doing.. the very first time your instructor turns the trainer into 7:1 glider.. your brain is all over the place. You're still trying to get a feel for powered flight, and now you have seconds become a glider pilot

[beaky]

There are always exceptions to any rule but the FAA appears to agree with me that this is not a good idea. I found several articles on the subject including this one. The Impossible Turn (DOCUMENT FAA-P-8740-44 AFO-800-1283)

No doubt about it, in the vast majority of cases, this idea does not work out. Primarily because with most light singles, you don't have a prayer if you are not at least at TPA, and secondly because maneuvering at MCA is not practiced much after the PP is earned.  

Most of these poor souls don't come to grief because they make the turn without putting a wing into a tree, yet still overshoot or drift downwind... invariably they stall in the turn and spin in.  A power plane will need a lot more altitude than a glider to do this, but the basics are the same: 1) nose below the horizon 2) coordinated turn, as steep as the airspeed allows, into the wind  3) slip/flaps/spoilers as needed.

That being said, my personal rule when flying with an engine is that if I am below TPA, I might turn a little this way or that, but going back to the runway is not an option.  I've tried "the impossible turn" at a safe altitude, and while it's surprising what the average Cessna can do, it's not worth it close to the ground. It's a lot easier to do a good job of turning engine-out with minimum alt. loss, and without stalling, when practicing than it is to do it when the fan quits right after takeoff!!    :o

Besides, if there is traffic departing behind you, even if you pull it off- what then?    There's the rub, even if you are really sharp and manage to turn around and get lined up.  At 47N, there is the option of the grass... but there are also good spots just beyond the boundaries that don't involve hairy low-altitude turns or creating a hazard to others. So I wouldn't even consider it. If I have 1000 feet or so (in a 172 or similar), I think I could turn to join the downwind and at least make a 180 to land halfway down the runway, into the wind. But again, there's traffic to consider. They could yield, but it would be risky.

So I agree that in most cases, it's best to head for a place you can see, with as little maneuvering as possible. Those engine-failure scenarios usually work out much better.

[Brett_Henderson]

Of course, it's situational.. and engine failures on departure, ending in other than off-field landings, should be limited to an airport environment in which you are very familiar.

That said.. this is my engine-out scenario; for the airport I fly out of often,,

[Hagar]

You might find this interesting. Engine failure after takeoff (Single Engine) An extract from Airplane Flying Handbook by FAA.

[Brett_Henderson]

Yeah.. that's the test-case scenario you see most often. It really shows how impossible a turn-back can be.

That manuever would never enter my head at most airports.. especially a short runway.

But if you can be at 300agl with still 1000 feet of runway ahead of you... AND have that nice secondary runway to turn back toward, it's quite safe.

Now.. if the failure matched the test-case, i.e failure at 300agl you might even get stopped ON the runway, without changing heading

[beaky]

Yeah.. that's the test-case scenario you see most often. It really shows how impossible a turn-back can be.

That manuever would never enter my head at most airports.. especially a short runway.

But if you can be at 300agl with still 1000 feet of runway ahead of you... AND have that nice secondary runway to turn back toward, it's quite safe.

Hadn't thought of the intersecting-runway scenario... a good point. But boy, you'd better have the altitude, and you'd better not screw up the turn. It's like I said- most of these accidents are from screwing up the turn, usually after hesitating before acting. Has little to do with whether or not they could have made it to a runway or any suitable spot.


[quote]Now.. if the failure matched the test-case, i.e failure at 300agl you might even get stopped ON the runway, without changing heading

[Brett_Henderson]

When I'm bored.. I can take thread-hi-jacking to new levels

[flyboy 28]

Big congrats, Sean. Sorry I'm a few days late on the uptake. If you're looking for some backseat ballast, feel free to let me know.

[beaky]

If you're looking for some backseat ballast, feel free to let me know.

No can do until I get the PP-G (which will be a while; I need 10 solo flights, then I have to rustle up the dough and schedule an examiner, etc.). Besides, I'm enjoying the solitude too much right now.

But JP is working on flying from the backseat (preparing for his CFI-G), and we're all scared to fly with him-  er, I mean, he might be looking for someone for the front seat on any given day.

[EGNX]

Well done!... Nothing beats it!...  8-) I wish I was allowed to do more solo flights!  :-/

[flyboy 28]

[quote]
But JP is working on flying from the backseat (preparing for his CFI-G), and we're all scared to fly with him-