Matronics Email Lists :: View topic - Minimum altitude to return to airport

Matronics Email Lists
Web Forum Interface to the Matronics Email Lists

Get Email Distribution Too! FAQ Search Memberlist Usergroups Register

Profile Log in to check your private messages Log in

Minimum altitude to return to airport
Goto page 1, 2 Next

Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> RV-List

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author Message

luckymacy(at)comcast.net
Guest

Posted: Sat Mar 04, 2006 6:05 pm Post subject: Minimum altitude to return to airport

OK.  Remember a couple of weeks or so ago the discussion we had on the 'net about the min altitude/airspeed to return to the runway?

OK.  Today during my RV transition training with Jan Bussell, he showed my why his turn from runway heading to crosswind typically begins when he's 400' AGL.  During a typical 120 mph climbout after a touch and go, at 400' he cut the throttle, banked exactly 60 degrees and turned back to the runway carefully ensuring the airspeed never got below 80 mph.  It turned on a dime and by the time we leveled out we'd lost maybe 100' at most.  We easily made the runway with lots of options for flaps and slips if we had a short runway and needed to land on the numbers.



He agreed adding this type of testing at altitude for each plane was a great idea and really like the Barry Schieff video demo of this.



So anyway, here's a real world datapoint.  I highly recommend Jan.  http://www.safeair1.com/RVTT/JB_Aframe.htm 

He's got a great, relaxed way of explaining RV techniques and I can't imagine a first flight without the type of instruction he gives. Pretty thorough EAA transition training syllabus he uses.



Lucky



OK. Remember a couple of weeks or so ago the discussion we had on the 'net about the min altitude/airspeed to return to the runway?





OK. Today during my RV transition training with Jan Bussell, he showed my why his turn from runway heading to crosswind typicallybegins when he's 400' AGL. During a typical 120 mph climboutafter a touch and go, at 400' he cut the throttle, banked exactly 60 degrees and turned back to the runway carefully ensuring the airspeed never got below 80 mph. It turned on a dime and by the time we leveled out we'd lost maybe 100' at most. We easily made the runway with lots of options for flaps and slips if we had a short runway and needed to land on the numbers.



He agreed adding this type of testing at altitude for each plane was a great idea and really like the Barry Schieff video demo of this.



So anyway, here'sa real world datapoint. I highly recommend Jan. http://www.safeair1.com/RVTT/JB_Aframe.htm





He's got a great, relaxed way of explaining RV techniques and I can't imagine a first flight without the type of instruction he gives.Pretty thorough EAA transition training syllabus he uses.



Lucky

jsflyrv

Joined: 03 Jan 2006
Posts: 22

Posted: Sat Mar 04, 2006 7:00 pm Post subject: Minimum altitude to return to airport

lucky wrote:



 	  Quote: 	
		  



OK.  Remember a couple of weeks or so ago the discussion we had on the 'net about the min altitude/airspeed to return to the runway?

OK.  Today during my RV transition training with Jan Bussell, he showed my why his turn from runway heading to crosswind typically begins when he's 400' AGL.  During a typical 120 mph climbout after a touch and go, at 400' he cut the throttle, banked exactly 60 degrees and turned back to the runway carefully ensuring the airspeed never got below 80 mph.  It turned on a dime and by the time we leveled out we'd lost maybe 100' at most.  We easily made the runway with lots of options for flaps and slips if we had a short runway and needed to land on the numbers.



He agreed adding this type of testing at altitude for each plane was a great idea and really like the Barry Schieff video demo of this.



So anyway, here's a real world datapoint.  I highly recommend Jan.  http://www.safeair1.com/RVTT/JB_Aframe.htm 

He's got a great, relaxed way of explaining RV techniques and I can't imagine a first flight without the type of instruction he gives. Pretty thorough EAA transition training syllabus he uses.



Lucky

He agreed adding this type of testing at altitude for each plane was a great idea and really like the Barry Schieff video demo of this.



So anyway, here'sa real world datapoint. I highly recommend Jan. http://www.safeair1.com/RVTT/JB_Aframe.htm





He's got a great, relaxed way of explaining RV techniques and I can't imagine a first flight without the type of instruction he gives.Pretty thorough EAA transition training syllabus he uses.



Lucky



  



Sounds great on paper and is great that you can do it while expecting it 
	


to happen. The down side to that theory is that at many controlled 

airports you cannot

just start turning xwind 400 ft because of conflict with other 

controlled traffic. At many airport you cannot start a turn at 400 ft 

because of noise abatement procedures.

I have had the experience as others here have had and it WILL take you a 

few seconds to grasp what the problem is and how to solve it. At 400 ft 

you are losing

valuable time and airspeed. I can whip my RV-6 around on a dime too if I 

am planning on it.



Not telling anyone to try it or not try it just giving an opinion that 

is a valuable as what you pay for it. 



Jerry

do not archive

john(at)fureychrysler.com
Guest

Posted: Sat Mar 04, 2006 7:00 pm Post subject: Minimum altitude to return to airport

Please be very careful. As an instructor for a specific make of aircraft we

taught the "turn back" maneuver for many years. Essentially the same thing

you did only it took about 1000'agl and 60~70 degrees of bank. It was pretty

neat as long as it was done perfectly but it can get REAL ugly.

Unfortunately an experienced instructor and his client died a couple of

years ago, they had performed it successfully several times earlier that

day. It was immediately removed from the training curriculum, the grief and

the law suits are still ongoing.



John

jeffpoint

Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 72
Location: MKE

Posted: Sat Mar 04, 2006 9:56 pm Post subject: Minimum altitude to return to airport

Exactly.  I did some of testing on this during flight testing, and 

practice it once in a while.  My drill is to chop throttle, wait four 

seconds with hands in lap, then take action.  I think this is a 

realistic figure for the brain lag.  I came up with 400 feet as the 

minimum altitude to even think about a 180.  YMMV, but try it for 

yourself, and practice.



Jeff Point

RV6

Milwaukee



Jerry Springer wrote:



 	  Quote: 	
		  few seconds to grasp what the problem is and how to solve it. At 400 ft 

you are losing

valuable time and airspeed. I can whip my RV-6 around on a dime too if I 

am planning on it.

_________________
Jeff Point
RV-6
Milwaukee WI

khorton01(at)rogers.com
Guest

Posted: Sun Mar 05, 2006 8:00 am Post subject: Minimum altitude to return to airport

On 4 Mar 2006, at 21:01, lucky wrote:



 	  Quote: 	
		   



 OK.  Remember a couple of weeks or so ago the discussion we had on  

 the 'net about the min altitude/airspeed to return to the runway?

 OK.  Today during my RV transition training with Jan Bussell, he  

 showed my why his turn from runway heading to crosswind typically  

 begins when he's 400' AGL.  During a typical 120 mph climbout after  

 a touch and go, at 400' he cut the throttle, banked exactly 60  

 degrees and turned back to the runway carefully ensuring the  

 airspeed never got below 80 mph.  It turned on a dime and by the  

 time we leveled out we'd lost maybe 100' at most.  We easily made  

 the runway with lots of options for flaps and slips if we had a  

 short runway and needed to land on the numbers.



 He agreed adding this type of testing at altitude for each plane  

 was a great idea and really like the Barry Schieff video demo of this.



 So anyway, here's a real world datapoint.  I highly recommend Jan.   

 http://www.safeair1.com/RVTT/JB_Aframe.htm

 He's got a great, relaxed way of explaining RV techniques and I  

 can't imagine a first flight without the type of instruction he  

 gives. Pretty thorough EAA transition training syllabus he uses.


	


There is a huge difference between doing a practice turn back when  

you were already mentally prepared for it, and doing one when the  

engine failure has caught you by surprise.  If the engine fails the  

adrenaline will be pumping, and it will be very easy to pull a bit  

harder than you would in practice.  If you do a stall/spin because  

you pulled too hard, you will die.  If you just put the aircraft down  

straight ahead, there is good chance of survival in many places.   

Granted, there are some runways where the story is different.



Low altitude turn backs are very high stakes poker.  If it works, you  

get the aircraft on the runway with no damage.  If it doesn't work  

you are dead.    Putting the aircraft down straight ahead probably  

will damage the aircraft, and maybe the occupants too.  But you have  

a very good chance of survival.



Kevin Horton         RV-8 (finishing kit)

Ottawa, Canada

http://www.kilohotel.com/rv8

aerobubba(at)earthlink.ne
Guest

Posted: Sun Mar 05, 2006 8:39 am Post subject: Minimum altitude to return to airport

Hi All-



IIRC, some years back some research was done on this very topic.  One of

the results was that it took an average of about 5 seconds for the 'what

the heck' factor to pass and for people to start to take positive

corrective action.  Another result was the mathematical determination that

45 degrees of bank was the most efficient for degrees of heading change per

altitude lost.



In the glider world, this scenario is not only considered, it's a standard

test item on the practical tests.  The key elements were to assume a rope

break on every take off, to have specific plan for each take off, and to

have predetermined altitude hacks for different procedures.  



For example,  the standard plan for a 180 involved always turning into the

crosswind.  That way, at the completion of the turn you were more closely

aligned with the rwy CL than if you had made the turn downwind.  Also, a

rope break below 100 would necessitate landing essentially straight ahead. 

 	  Quote: 	
		  From 100 to 200 ft AGL would allow for up to 90 deg of turn to miss

obstacles.  200 to 400 ft AGL would allow for a 180 and downwind landing on
	


the departure rwy.  400 AGL or greater would allow for an abbreviated

landing pattern to an upwind landing on the departure rwy.  (Any student

failing to call out the altitude hacks on initial climb were treated to a

premature termination of the tow and a 180 back to the field...)  A 180

would be flown at 45 degrees of bank and at best glide speed plus 20% to

compensate for the bank angle.  



Being the,  ahhh, curious lot that we were, some folks endeavored to

determine what altitude would be needed to perform the 180 turn back to the

field in a draggy, long-winged Citabria towplane.  IIRC, that number was

400' AGL.  



Having thought about (and practiced) this scenario in advance will surely

increase the likelihood of survival for any poor soul that encounters it.



WRT controlled airports other traffic, we need to remember that even though

controllers issue clearances and we tend to take them as orders, they are

actually there to help us and to ensure public safety.  Their directives DO

NOT supercede our emergency authority and responsibilities as PIC.  If you

have an emergency, you have the right of way.  Period.  The fact that you

haven't had the opportunity to key the mike and share the news with the

outside world DOES NOT mean you can't do whatever you need to in order to

meet the requirements of the emergency.  If a 180 back to the take off

runway, a parallel taxiway, the infield, or whatever is better than

crashing in a parking lot or neighborhood, so be it.  You have a

responsibility to yourself, your pax, AND to the hapless folks walking down

the sidewalk....  



Glen Matejcek

aerobubba(at)earthlink.net

lifeofreiley2003(at)yahoo
Guest

Posted: Sun Mar 05, 2006 9:07 am Post subject: Minimum altitude to return to airport

Never ever turn back on takeoff in a short wing RV. Pick your spot and put it down in the safest place you can find. A 180 turn in itself will cost you a lot with an engine out. I would focus on the forward approach.

   

  Darrell



Kevin Horton <khorton01(at)rogers.com> wrote:

  



On 4 Mar 2006, at 21:01, lucky wrote:



 	  Quote: 	
		   



 OK. Remember a couple of weeks or so ago the discussion we had on 

 the 'net about the min altitude/airspeed to return to the runway?

 OK. Today during my RV transition training with Jan Bussell, he 

 showed my why his turn from runway heading to crosswind typically 

 begins when he's 400' AGL. During a typical 120 mph climbout after 

 a touch and go, at 400' he cut the throttle, banked exactly 60 

 degrees and turned back to the runway carefully ensuring the 

 airspeed never got below 80 mph. It turned on a dime and by the 

 time we leveled out we'd lost maybe 100' at most. We easily made 

 the runway with lots of options for flaps and slips if we had a 

 short runway and needed to land on the numbers.



 He agreed adding this type of testing at altitude for each plane 

 was a great idea and really like the Barry Schieff video demo of this.



 So anyway, here's a real world datapoint. I highly recommend Jan. 

 http://www.safeair1.com/RVTT/JB_Aframe.htm

 He's got a great, relaxed way of explaining RV techniques and I 

 can't imagine a first flight without the type of instruction he 

 gives. Pretty thorough EAA transition training syllabus he uses.


	


There is a huge difference between doing a practice turn back when 

you were already mentally prepared for it, and doing one when the 

engine failure has caught you by surprise. If the engine fails the 

adrenaline will be pumping, and it will be very easy to pull a bit 

harder than you would in practice. If you do a stall/spin because 

you pulled too hard, you will die. If you just put the aircraft down 

straight ahead, there is good chance of survival in many places. 

Granted, there are some runways where the story is different.



Low altitude turn backs are very high stakes poker. If it works, you 

get the aircraft on the runway with no damage. If it doesn't work 

you are dead. Putting the aircraft down straight ahead probably 

will damage the aircraft, and maybe the occupants too. But you have 

a very good chance of survival.



Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit)

Ottawa, Canada

http://www.kilohotel.com/rv8





		

---------------------------------

Bring photos to life! New PhotoMail  makes sharing a breeze.

tedd(at)vansairforce.org
Guest

Posted: Sun Mar 05, 2006 9:30 am Post subject: Minimum altitude to return to airport

 	  Quote: 	
		   Low altitude turn backs are very high stakes poker.


	


Yes, and let's not forget traffic.  A pilot I knew turned back to the depature

runway after an engine failure only to discover that there was a nine-plane

Snowbirds formation on the take-off roll.  It did work out okay for everyone,

in the end, once the jets had scattered to the grass on both sides of the

runway.



Tedd McHenry

Surrey, BC, Canada

luckymacy(at)comcast.net
Guest

Posted: Sun Mar 05, 2006 11:25 am Post subject: Minimum altitude to return to airport

The point wasn't to read more emails from folks who have never done this practice in an RV and just rehashed their previous soapboxes.  It was to update the list with a real tried RV datapoint.  It doesn't mean it will work for each pilot/plane combo every time but it does demonstrate that it CAN be done and BETTER yet it actually showed a bank amount and min airspeed amount and altitude loss amount.  Real RV data beats soapbox.

Practice it up way up high, be honest with yourself and if there is a good place to land ahead then you probably should consider it first.  If not, and the flight envelop meets what you practiced for yourself, it IS an option, period.

Lucky

-------------- Original message -------------- 

From: Kevin Horton <khorton01(at)rogers.com> 

 	  Quote: 	

 On 4 Mar 2006, at 21:01, lucky wrote: 

 > 

 > 

 > OK. Remember a couple of weeks or so ago the discussion we had on 

 > the 'net about the min altitude/airspeed to return to the runway? 

 > OK. Today during my RV transition training with Jan Bussell, he 

 > showed my why his turn from runway heading to crosswind typically 

 > begins when he's 400' AGL. During a typical 120 mph climbout after 

 > a touch and go, at 400' he cut the throttle, banked exactly 60 

 > degrees and turned back to the runway carefully ensuring the 

 > airspeed never got below 80 mph. It turned on a dime and by the 

 > time we leveled out we'd lost maybe 100' at most. We easily made 

 > the runway with lots of options for flaps and slips if we had a 

 > short runway and needed to land on the numbers. 

 > 

 > He agreed adding this type of testing at altitude for each plane 

 > was a great idea and really like the Barry Schieff video demo of this. 

 > 

 > So anyway, here's a real world datapoint. I highly recommend Jan. 

 > http://www.safeair1.com/RVTT/JB_Aframe.htm 

 > He's got a great, relaxed way of explaining RV techniques and I 

 > can't imagine a first flight without the type of instruction he 

 > gives. Pretty thorough EAA transition training syllabus he uses. 

 There is a huge difference between doing a practice turn back when 

 you were already mentally prepared for it, and doing one when the 

 engine failure has caught you by surprise. If the engine fails the 

 adrenaline will be pumping, and it will be very easy to pull a bit 

 harder than you would in practice. If you do a stall/spin because 

 you pulled too hard, you will die. If you just put the aircraft down 

 straight ahead, there is good chance of survival in many places. 

 Granted, there are some runways where the story is different. 

 Low altitude turn backs are very high stakes poker. If it works, you 

 get the aircraft on the runway with no damage. If it doesn't work 

 you are dead. Putting the aircraft down straight ahead probably 

 will damage the aircraft, and maybe the occupants too. But you have 

 a very good chance of survival. 

 Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit) 

 Ottawa, Canada 

 http://www.kilohotel.com/rv8 

The point wasn't to read more emails from folks who have never done this practice in an RV and just rehashed their previous soapboxes. It was to update the list with a real tried RV datapoint. It doesn't mean it will work for each pilot/plane combo every timebut it does demonstrate that it CAN be done and BETTER yet it actually showed a bank amount and min airspeed amount and altitude loss amount. Real RV data beats soapbox.

Practice it up way up high, be honest with yourself and if there is a good place to land ahead then you probably should consider it first. If not, and the flight envelop meets what you practiced for yourself, it IS an option, period.

Lucky

-------------- Original message -------------- 

From: Kevin Horton khorton01(at)rogers.com 

 -- RV-List message posted by: Kevin Horton <KHORTON01(at)ROGERS.COM>

 On 4 Mar 2006, at 21:01, lucky wrote: 

  -- RV-List message posted by: luckymacy(at)comcast.net (lucky) 

  OK. Remember a couple of weeks or so ago the discussion we had on 

  the 'net about the min altitude/airspeed to return to the runway? 

  OK. Today during my RV transition training with Jan Bussell, he 

  showed my why his turn from runway heading to crosswind typically 

  begins when he's 400' AGL. During a typical 120 mph climbout after 

  a touch and go, at 400' he cut the throttle, banked exactly 60 

  degrees and turned back to the runway carefully ensuring the 

  airspeed never got below 80 mph. It turned on a dime and by the 

  time we leveled out we'd lost maybe 100' at most. We easily made 

  the runway with lots of options for flaps and slips if we had a 

  short runway and needed to land on the numbers. 

  He agreed adding this type of testing at altitude for each plane 

  was a great idea and really like the Barry Schieff video demo of this. 

  So anyway, here's a real world datapoint. I highly recommend Jan. 

  http://www.safeair1.com/RVTT/JB_Aframe.htm 

  He's got a great, relaxed way of explaining RV techniques and I 

  can't imagine a first flight without the type of instruction he 

  gives. Pretty thorough EAA transition training syllabus he uses. 

 There is a huge difference between doing a practice turn back when 

 you were already mentally prepared for it, and 

 doing one when the 

 engine failure has caught you by surprise. If the engine fails the 

 adrenaline will be pumping, and it will be very easy to pull a bit 

 harder than you would in practice. If you do a stall/spin because 

 you pulled too hard, you will die. If you just put the aircraft down 

 straight ahead, there is good chance of survival in many places. 

 Granted, there are some runways where the story is different. 

 Low altitude turn backs are very high stakes poker. If it works, you 

 get the aircraft on the runway with no damage. If it doesn't work 

 you are dead. Putting the aircraft down straight ahead probably 

 will damage the aircraft, and maybe the occupants too. But you have 

 a very good chance of survival. 

 Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit) 

 Ottawa, Canada 

 http://www.kilohotel.com/rv8

rhdudley(at)att.net
Guest

Posted: Sun Mar 05, 2006 12:27 pm Post subject: Minimum altitude to return to airport

Hi Lucky,

In my earlier training (many years ago), I too learned the "don't turn 

back" mantra.

I did my transition training with the same instructor you mention. One 

of the demonstrations he put me through was the same as you describe. It 

also convinced me that turnback was feasible in an RV-6/A. The altitude 

was well under 500 feet on takeoff. Actually,  barely past the upwind 

end of the 4000 ft runway. He pulled the throttle. My reaction was to 

make a turn to the crossing runway which looked possible to me at the 

time. But, he insisted "turn back turn back" repeatedly until I made a 

180+ turn. I had ample remaining altitude to play with flaps and slips 

to easily make the reciprocal of the takeoff runway.

I, too would not recommend that anyone try it without first determining, 

at altitude, how much altitude is lost in that turnaround and convincing 

themselves that it was feasible.

I, too would highly recommend that flight instructor for anyone who 

wants transition training in a -6 or -6A. My first flight in my -6A a 

couple of weeks later was almost a  non-event and felt right all the way.

Regards,

Richard Dudley

lucky wrote:

 	  Quote: 	

The point wasn't to read more emails from folks who have never done this practice in an RV and just rehashed their previous soapboxes.  It was to update the list with a real tried RV datapoint.  It doesn't mean it will work for each pilot/plane combo every time but it does demonstrate that it CAN be done and BETTER yet it actually showed a bank amount and min airspeed amount and altitude loss amount.  Real RV data beats soapbox.

Practice it up way up high, be honest with yourself and if there is a good place to land ahead then you probably should consider it first.  If not, and the flight envelop meets what you practiced for yourself, it IS an option, period.

Lucky

-------------- Original message -------------- 

From: Kevin Horton <khorton01(at)rogers.com> 

>

>

>On 4 Mar 2006, at 21:01, lucky wrote: 

>

>    

>

>>

>>

>>OK. Remember a couple of weeks or so ago the discussion we had on 

>>the 'net about the min altitude/airspeed to return to the runway? 

>>OK. Today during my RV transition training with Jan Bussell, he 

>>showed my why his turn from runway heading to crosswind typically 

>>begins when he's 400' AGL. During a typical 120 mph climbout after 

>>a touch and go, at 400' he cut the throttle, banked exactly 60 

>>degrees and turned back to the runway carefully ensuring the 

>>airspeed never got below 80 mph. It turned on a dime and by the 

>>time we leveled out we'd lost maybe 100' at most. We easily made 

>>the runway with lots of options for flaps and slips if we had a 

>>short runway and needed to land on the numbers. 

>>

>>He agreed adding this type of testing at altitude for each plane 

>>was a great idea and really like the Barry Schieff video demo of this. 

>>

>>So anyway, here's a real world datapoint. I highly recommend Jan. 

>>http://www.safeair1.com/RVTT/JB_Aframe.htm 

>>He's got a great, relaxed way of explaining RV techniques and I 

>>can't imagine a first flight without the type of instruction he 

>>gives. Pretty thorough EAA transition training syllabus he uses. 

>>      

>>

>There is a huge difference between doing a practice turn back when 

>you were already mentally prepared for it, and doing one when the 

>engine failure has caught you by surprise. If the engine fails the 

>adrenaline will be pumping, and it will be very easy to pull a bit 

>harder than you would in practice. If you do a stall/spin because 

>you pulled too hard, you will die. If you just put the aircraft down 

>straight ahead, there is good chance of survival in many places. 

>Granted, there are some runways where the story is different. 

>

>Low altitude turn backs are very high stakes poker. If it works, you 

>get the aircraft on the runway with no damage. If it doesn't work 

>you are dead. Putting the aircraft down straight ahead probably 

>will damage the aircraft, and maybe the occupants too. But you have 

>a very good chance of survival. 

>

>Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit) 

>Ottawa, Canada 

>http://www.kilohotel.com/rv8 

>

>

>    

>

The point wasn't to read more emails from folks who have never done this practice in an RV and just rehashed their previous soapboxes. It was to update the list with a real tried RV datapoint. It doesn't mean it will work for each pilot/plane combo every timebut it does demonstrate that it CAN be done and BETTER yet it actually showed a bank amount and min airspeed amount and altitude loss amount. Real RV data beats soapbox.

Practice it up way up high, be honest with yourself and if there is a good place to land ahead then you probably should consider it first. If not, and the flight envelop meets what you practiced for yourself, it IS an option, period.

Lucky

-------------- Original message -------------- 

From: Kevin Horton khorton01(at)rogers.com 

 -- RV-List message posted by: Kevin Horton <KHORTON01(at)ROGERS.COM>

 On 4 Mar 2006, at 21:01, lucky wrote: 

  -- RV-List message posted by: luckymacy(at)comcast.net (lucky) 

  OK. Remember a couple of weeks or so ago the discussion we had on 

  the 'net about the min altitude/airspeed to return to the runway? 

  OK. Today during my RV transition training with Jan Bussell, he 

  showed my why his turn from runway heading to crosswind typically 

  begins when he's 400' AGL. During a typical 120 mph climbout after 

  a touch and go, at 400' he cut the throttle, banked exactly 60 

  degrees and turned back to the runway carefully ensuring the 

  airspeed never got below 80 mph. It turned on a dime and by the 

  time we leveled out we'd lost maybe 100' at most. We easily made 

  the runway with lots of options for flaps and slips if we had a 

  short runway and needed to land on the numbers. 

  He agreed adding this type of testing at altitude for each plane 

  was a great idea and really like the Barry Schieff video demo of this. 

  So anyway, here's a real world datapoint. I highly recommend Jan. 

  http://www.safeair1.com/RVTT/JB_Aframe.htm 

  He's got a great, relaxed way of explaining RV techniques and I 

  can't imagine a first flight without the type of instruction he 

  gives. Pretty thorough EAA transition training syllabus he uses. 

 There is a huge difference between doing a practice turn back when 

 you were already mentally prepared for it, and 

 doing one when the 

 engine failure has caught you by surprise. If the engine fails the 

 adrenaline will be pumping, and it will be very easy to pull a bit 

 harder than you would in practice. If you do a stall/spin because 

 you pulled too hard, you will die. If you just put the aircraft down 

 straight ahead, there is good chance of survival in many places. 

 Granted, there are some runways where the story is different. 

 Low altitude turn backs are very high stakes poker. If it works, you 

 get the aircraft on the runway with no damage. If it doesn't work 

 you are dead. Putting the aircraft down straight ahead probably 

 will damage the aircraft, and maybe the occupants too. But you have 

 a very good chance of survival. 

 Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit) 

 Ottawa, Canada 

 http://www.kilohotel.com/rv8

gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com
Guest

Posted: Sun Mar 05, 2006 1:22 pm Post subject: Minimum altitude to return to airport

I had a saying when I taught CFI candidate's: 

   

  -Don't simulate an emergency with a REAL emergency. 



  -OR- 



  -Don't make a practice emergency into a real one!

  

I agree with the following comments: 

  

 	  Quote: 	
		  posted by: Jerry Springer <jsflyrv(at)comcast.net>

Sounds great on paper and is great that you can do it while expecting 

it to happen. The down side to that theory is that at many controlled 

airports you cannot just start turning xwind 400 ft because of conflict 

with other controlled traffic.

  
	


 	  Quote: 	
		  "posted by: "John Furey" <john(at)fureychrysler.com>

Please be very careful. As an instructor for a specific make of 

aircraft we taught the "turn back" maneuver for many years. "

   
	


  

If you are going to practice have some altitude safety margin, 

say 1000/1500 agl to the practice. 400 agl is LOW for return to 

airport, and everything has to be right. Remember the instructor 

knows its coming and knows he has power; this help in both  

reaction time and psychologically (less stress). The swimming 

in glue syndrome occurs for the first few seconds after the engine 

quits for almost every pilot caught by surprise.

  

Now for the practical:

  

Real world reaction time?

What about winds? 

Density altitude? 

Gross weight?

Obstacles? 

Terrain?

  

What about the runway length? 

  

If you takeoff climb quickly on a short runway, return to same, landing 

opposite, may put you past the end of the runway? If the runway is 

long enough, head winds, straight ahead may better? MY POINT?

  

ONE SIZE DOES NOT FIT ALL

EVERY DAY, AIRPORT, CONDITION IS DIFFERNT.

  

Having a operating rules of thumb or committed memory item for an 

emergency is important. EVERY TAKE OFF brief yourself out 

loud or to yourself; IN CASE OF AN ENGINE FAILURE BELOW X 

I will do THIS, above X, I'll attempt to return to this runway (or a 

parallel or crossing runway). Every flight airline pilots discuss the 

engine failure scenario in detail before EVERY takeoff. It varies every 

time, but there is no question of what to do. Your mind set prepares 

you to expect something, since it crossed your mind just before T/O.

   

   

  If you look at FAR part 61.87 it stated what pre-solo requirements 

are for a STUDENT pilot. Among the requirement's are:

  

-Approaches to a landing area with simulated engine malfunctions



-Simulated emergency procedures, including simulated power-off 

landings and simulated power failure during departures.

  

Don't make a practice emergency into a real one!

  

I suggest routine practice POWER OFF approaches abeam 

the numbers. This will help your power off glide skill and is not 

as spectacular or with as much risk. Remember if you have a 

Carb. beware of Carb ice and take proper precautions if the 

conditions are conducive. Clear the engine to make sure power 

is available for a go-around if needed; keep the engine warm.

   

   

  Power off appraches is good practice. Chance is an engine failure 

is not going to happen right at 400 or 1000 agl on takeoff. Chances 

are after engine failure you are going to make a power off approach 

for outside the pattern to an off field location. Granted the 400agl 

senerio is critcal and has value to consider, don't get to foucused on 

one thing, be ready for it anytime.

  

 

  Cheers George CFI (inst/me) ATP



			

---------------------------------

 Use Photomail to share photos without annoying attachments.

wjoke(at)shaw.ca
Guest

Posted: Sun Mar 05, 2006 2:30 pm Post subject: Minimum altitude to return to airport

Data points are good but let's make sure that they are data points that 

are applicable in a real (not simulated) situation..

There can be a significant difference in the gliding/descent performance 

of a light aircraft with the power set at idle but still generating 

power and the same aircraft with a genuine "no power being produced" 

engine failure but prop windmilling due fuel exhaustion or whatever. (As 

a further complication, there have also been lots of debates in the past 

about prop stopped vs. prop windmilling gliding performance.)

Years ago I used to instruct primary flying students on Beech 

Musketeers. The usual practice engine failure involved adding 2/3 of the 

available flap to add drag to provide gliding performance more 

representative of the actual emergency situation. This was based on a 

bunch of actual flight tests flown with a dead engine to touchdown. I 

use 1/2 flap in my RV-6A when practicing engine failures to attempt the 

same sort of thing, but I have not done the serious flight testing to 

satisfy myself that this is a valid simulation.

Any one have some data points about real  (not simulated) 180 deg turn 

to touchdown gliding performance?

Jim Oke

RV-6A

Wpg., MB

lucky wrote:

 	  Quote: 	

The point wasn't to read more emails from folks who have never done this practice in an RV and just rehashed their previous soapboxes.  It was to update the list with a real tried RV datapoint.  It doesn't mean it will work for each pilot/plane combo every time but it does demonstrate that it CAN be done and BETTER yet it actually showed a bank amount and min airspeed amount and altitude loss amount.  Real RV data beats soapbox.

Practice it up way up high, be honest with yourself and if there is a good place to land ahead then you probably should consider it first.  If not, and the flight envelop meets what you practiced for yourself, it IS an option, period.

Lucky

-------------- Original message -------------- 

From: Kevin Horton <khorton01(at)rogers.com> 

>

>

>On 4 Mar 2006, at 21:01, lucky wrote: 

>

>    

>

>>

>>

>>OK. Remember a couple of weeks or so ago the discussion we had on 

>>the 'net about the min altitude/airspeed to return to the runway? 

>>OK. Today during my RV transition training with Jan Bussell, he 

>>showed my why his turn from runway heading to crosswind typically 

>>begins when he's 400' AGL. During a typical 120 mph climbout after 

>>a touch and go, at 400' he cut the throttle, banked exactly 60 

>>degrees and turned back to the runway carefully ensuring the 

>>airspeed never got below 80 mph. It turned on a dime and by the 

>>time we leveled out we'd lost maybe 100' at most. We easily made 

>>the runway with lots of options for flaps and slips if we had a 

>>short runway and needed to land on the numbers. 

>>

>>He agreed adding this type of testing at altitude for each plane 

>>was a great idea and really like the Barry Schieff video demo of this. 

>>

>>So anyway, here's a real world datapoint. I highly recommend Jan. 

>>http://www.safeair1.com/RVTT/JB_Aframe.htm 

>>He's got a great, relaxed way of explaining RV techniques and I 

>>can't imagine a first flight without the type of instruction he 

>>gives. Pretty thorough EAA transition training syllabus he uses. 

>>      

>>

>There is a huge difference between doing a practice turn back when 

>you were already mentally prepared for it, and doing one when the 

>engine failure has caught you by surprise. If the engine fails the 

>adrenaline will be pumping, and it will be very easy to pull a bit 

>harder than you would in practice. If you do a stall/spin because 

>you pulled too hard, you will die. If you just put the aircraft down 

>straight ahead, there is good chance of survival in many places. 

>Granted, there are some runways where the story is different. 

>

>Low altitude turn backs are very high stakes poker. If it works, you 

>get the aircraft on the runway with no damage. If it doesn't work 

>you are dead. Putting the aircraft down straight ahead probably 

>will damage the aircraft, and maybe the occupants too. But you have 

>a very good chance of survival. 

>

>Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit) 

>Ottawa, Canada 

>http://www.kilohotel.com/rv8 

>

>

>    

>

The point wasn't to read more emails from folks who have never done this practice in an RV and just rehashed their previous soapboxes. It was to update the list with a real tried RV datapoint. It doesn't mean it will work for each pilot/plane combo every timebut it does demonstrate that it CAN be done and BETTER yet it actually showed a bank amount and min airspeed amount and altitude loss amount. Real RV data beats soapbox.

Practice it up way up high, be honest with yourself and if there is a good place to land ahead then you probably should consider it first. If not, and the flight envelop meets what you practiced for yourself, it IS an option, period.

Lucky

-------------- Original message -------------- 

From: Kevin Horton khorton01(at)rogers.com 

 -- RV-List message posted by: Kevin Horton <KHORTON01(at)ROGERS.COM>

 On 4 Mar 2006, at 21:01, lucky wrote: 

  -- RV-List message posted by: luckymacy(at)comcast.net (lucky) 

  OK. Remember a couple of weeks or so ago the discussion we had on 

  the 'net about the min altitude/airspeed to return to the runway? 

  OK. Today during my RV transition training with Jan Bussell, he 

  showed my why his turn from runway heading to crosswind typically 

  begins when he's 400' AGL. During a typical 120 mph climbout after 

  a touch and go, at 400' he cut the throttle, banked exactly 60 

  degrees and turned back to the runway carefully ensuring the 

  airspeed never got below 80 mph. It turned on a dime and by the 

  time we leveled out we'd lost maybe 100' at most. We easily made 

  the runway with lots of options for flaps and slips if we had a 

  short runway and needed to land on the numbers. 

  He agreed adding this type of testing at altitude for each plane 

  was a great idea and really like the Barry Schieff video demo of this. 

  So anyway, here's a real world datapoint. I highly recommend Jan. 

  http://www.safeair1.com/RVTT/JB_Aframe.htm 

  He's got a great, relaxed way of explaining RV techniques and I 

  can't imagine a first flight without the type of instruction he 

  gives. Pretty thorough EAA transition training syllabus he uses. 

 There is a huge difference between doing a practice turn back when 

 you were already mentally prepared for it, and 

 doing one when the 

 engine failure has caught you by surprise. If the engine fails the 

 adrenaline will be pumping, and it will be very easy to pull a bit 

 harder than you would in practice. If you do a stall/spin because 

 you pulled too hard, you will die. If you just put the aircraft down 

 straight ahead, there is good chance of survival in many places. 

 Granted, there are some runways where the story is different. 

 Low altitude turn backs are very high stakes poker. If it works, you 

 get the aircraft on the runway with no damage. If it doesn't work 

 you are dead. Putting the aircraft down straight ahead probably 

 will damage the aircraft, and maybe the occupants too. But you have 

 a very good chance of survival. 

 Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit) 

 Ottawa, Canada 

 http://www.kilohotel.com/rv8

jsflyrv

Joined: 03 Jan 2006
Posts: 22

Posted: Sun Mar 05, 2006 5:11 pm Post subject: Minimum altitude to return to airport

lucky wrote:



 	  Quote: 	
		  



The point wasn't to read more emails from folks who have never done this practice in an RV and just rehashed their previous soapboxes.  It was to update the list with a real tried RV datapoint.  It doesn't mean it will work for each pilot/plane combo every time but it does demonstrate that it CAN be done and BETTER yet it actually showed a bank amount and min airspeed amount and altitude loss amount.  Real RV data beats soapbox.



Lucky I was not rehashing previous soapbox stuff, I to am a flight 
	


instructor and have a few hours in an RV. The point being made here is you

were doing a controlled test. In real life I would not turn back from 

400 ft. What if your engine quit at 350 ft would you make it? When the 

engine

quits and you get over the Oh s**t factor and then decide if you are 

high enough or not you probably will not have time or altitude to make the

turn safely. In real life turn backs have killed many pilots that could 

have made a safe off field landing. My theory has always been once the 

engine quits

I will do whatever it takes to save my butt and my passengers if I have 

one aboard. The airplane at the moment of engine failure becomes a pile 

of junk for all I care

as long as we survive. To many people try to save the aircraft. An 

example is a Mooney pilot had an engine problem few weeks ago close to 

Van's home airport

he had miles of open fields to land on but tried  to make Sunset airport 

and ended up in a orchard dead instead of just picking a suitable off 

field landing spot.



do not archive



Jerry

luckymacy(at)comcast.net
Guest

Posted: Sun Mar 05, 2006 6:39 pm Post subject: Minimum altitude to return to airport

It's a rehash.  We all know it's risky and we all know in most cases you'd be better off  landing in that near mythically perfect field that's almost always mythically conveniently located right off the end of almost all airports in the world.

Nobody ever takes off having to fly out over open water http://www.airnav.com/airport/KMCD

and nobody ever has to take off right over the dense city http://www.airnav.com/airport/KVNY

yep, there's just no reason to ever want to kill yourself turning back when you can sometimes just as easily kill yourself going straight ahead....

No kidding it's risky but it IS and option.  Pre plan your engine out scenario before every take off.  When I do my run up I have my left kneepadturned to my engine out checklist and reference it before each days first takeoff and mentally prepare for it.  Short of the airplane coming apart in the air or fire in the air, it's on my short list of things that really suck in an airplane.  I check the areas around the airport when I'm going into for the first time to make a mental note for when I have to take off.  With my defensive mindset before each take off, I won't be the deer in the headlights pilot.  I don't crank up the ipod as I roll out on the active and get lost in the moment.  I too have seen a few fatal airplane accidents  and some that somehow the people survived and I don't forget them...

I think if you don't even half a plan by know the possibilities of your airplane, you are not being as "professional" about flying as you should be.  But that's just my opinion. 

Regardless, Jan pulled power back at 400' AGL, rolled in 60 degrees of bank, kept one eye on the airspeed while making a firm pull, rolled with 300 feet to spare and over 80 mph of airspeed, and gladed at his best glide speed of 97 mph back to the airport no problem.

Lucky

-------------- Original message -------------- 

From: Jerry Springer <jsflyrv(at)comcast.net> 

 	  Quote: 	

 lucky wrote: 

 >

 > 

 >The point wasn't to read more emails from folks who have never done this 

 practice in an RV and just rehashed their previous soapboxes. It was to update 

 the list with a real tried RV datapoint. It doesn't mean it will work for each 

 pilot/plane combo every time but it does demonstrate that it CAN be done and 

 BETTER yet it actually showed a bank amount and min airspeed amount and altitude 

 loss amount. Real RV data beats soapbox. 

 > 

 Lucky I was not rehashing previous soapbox stuff, I to am a flight 

 instructor and have a few hours in an RV. The point being made here is you 

 were doing a controlled test. In real life I would not turn back from 

 400 ft. What if your engine quit at 350 ft would you make it? When the 

 engine 

 quits and you get over the Oh s**t factor and then decide if you are 

 high enough or not you probably will not have time or altitude to make the 

 turn safely. In real life turn backs have killed many pilots that could 

 have made a safe off field landing. My theory has always been once the 

 engine quits 

 I will do whatever it takes to save my butt and my passengers if I have 

 one aboard. The airplane at the moment of engine failure becomes a pile 

 of junk for all I care 

 as long as we survive. To many people try to save the aircraft. An 

 example is a Mooney pilot had an engine problem few weeks ago close to 

 Van's home airport 

 he had miles of open fields to land on but tried to make Sunset airport 

 and ended up in a orchard dead instead of just picking a suitable off 

 field landing spot. 

 do not archive 

 Jerry 

It's a rehash. We all know it's risky and we all know in most cases you'd be better off landing in that near mythically perfect field that's almost always mythically conveniently located right off the end of almost all airports in the world.

Nobody ever takes off having to fly out over open water http://www.airnav.com/airport/KMCD

and nobody ever has to take off right over the dense city http://www.airnav.com/airport/KVNY

yep, there's just no reason to ever want to kill yourself turning back when you can sometimesjust as easily kill yourselfgoing straight ahead....

No kidding it's risky but it IS and option. Pre plan your engine out scenario before every take off. When I do my run up I have my left kneepadturned to my engine out checklist and reference it before each days first takeoff and mentally prepare for it. Short of the airplane coming apart in the air or fire in the air, it's on my short list of things that really suck in an airplane. I check the areas around the airport when I'm going into for the first time to make a mental note for whenI have to take off. With my defensive mindset before each take off, I won't be the deer in the headlights pilot. I don't crank up the ipod as I roll out on the active and get lost in the moment. I too have seen a few fatal airplane accidents and some that somehow the people survived and I don't forget them...

I think if you don't even half a plan by know the possibilities of your airplane, you are not being as "professional" about flying as you should be. But that's just my opinion.

Regardless, Jan pulled power back at 400' AGL, rolled in 60 degrees of bank, kept one eye on the airspeed while making a firm pull, rolled with 300 feet to spare and over 80 mph of airspeed, and gladed at his best glide speed of 97 mph back to the airport no problem.

Lucky

-------------- Original message -------------- 

From: Jerry Springer jsflyrv(at)comcast.net 

 -- RV-List message posted by: Jerry Springer <JSFLYRV(at)COMCAST.NET>

 lucky wrote: 

 -- RV-List message posted by: luckymacy(at)comcast.net (lucky) 

 The point wasn't to read more emails from folks who have never done this 

 practice in an RV and just rehashed their previous soapboxes. It was to update 

 the list with a real tried RV datapoint. It doesn't mean it will work for each 

 pilot/plane combo every time but it does demonstrate that it CAN be done and 

 BETTER yet it actually showed a bank amount and min airspeed amount and altitude 

 loss amount. Real RV data beats soapbox. 

 Lucky I was not rehashing previous soapbox stuff, I to am a flight 

 i

 nstructor and have a few hours in an RV. The point being made here is you 

 were doing a controlled test. In real life I would not turn back from 

 400 ft. What if your engine quit at 350 ft would you make it? When the 

 engine 

 quits and you get over the Oh s**t factor and then decide if you are 

 high enough or not you probably will not have time or altitude to make the 

 turn safely. In real life turn backs have killed many pilots that could 

 have made a safe off field landing. My theory has always been once the 

 engine quits 

 I will do whatever it takes to save my butt and my passengers if I have 

 one aboard. The airplane at the moment of engine failure becomes a pile 

 of junk for all I care 

 as long as we survive. To many people try to save the aircraft. An 

 example is a Mooney pilot had an engine problem few weeks ago close to 

 Van's home airport 

 he had m

 iles of open fields to land on but tried to make Sunset airport 

 and ended up in a orchard dead instead of just picking a suitable off 

 field landing spot. 

 do not archive 

 Jerry 

 ======================================

walter(at)tondu.com
Guest

Posted: Sun Mar 05, 2006 7:07 pm Post subject: Minimum altitude to return to airport

On 03/06  2:38, lucky wrote:



 > Nobody ever takes off having to fly out over open water http://www.airnav.com/airport/KMCD



This was always scary in a C150   And the long XC was frightening.



http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/0602/00754AD.PDF



-- 

Walter Tondu

http://www.rv7-a.com

Flying!

rv8a2001(at)yahoo.com
Guest

Posted: Sun Mar 05, 2006 7:43 pm Post subject: Minimum altitude to return to airport

With all this talk going on, I looked at my altimeter today while departing the airport and realized, wait, the safe number is XXX AGL! Now in a emergency situation will you be able to remember the airport altitude and subtract it from your altimeter?

   

  



Walter Tondu <walter(at)tondu.com> wrote:

  



On 03/06 2:38, lucky wrote:



 	  Quote: 	
		   Nobody ever takes off having to fly out over open water http://www.airnav.com/airport/KMCD


	


This was always scary in a C150  And the long XC was frightening.



http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/0602/00754AD.PDF



-- 

Walter Tondu

http://www.rv7-a.com

Flying!



Scott Bilinski

RV-8a

cell 858-395-5094

		

---------------------------------

Bring photos to life! New PhotoMail  makes sharing a breeze.

rv8ch

Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 250
Location: Switzerland

Posted: Mon Mar 06, 2006 12:12 am Post subject: Minimum altitude to return to airport

 	  Quote: 	
		   Regardless, Jan pulled power back at 400' AGL, rolled in 60 degrees

 of bank, kept one eye on the airspeed while making a firm pull,

 rolled with 300 feet to spare and over 80 mph of airspeed, and gladed

 at his best glide speed of 97 mph back to the airport no problem.


	


Just curious - does this aircraft have an AOA indicator?



-- 

Mickey Coggins

http://www.rv8.ch/

#82007 finishing

do not archive

_________________
Mickey Coggins
http://www.rv8.ch/

luckymacy(at)comcast.net
Guest

Posted: Mon Mar 06, 2006 2:52 am Post subject: Minimum altitude to return to airport

no



-------------- Original message -------------- 

From: Mickey Coggins <mick-matronics(at)rv8.ch> 



 	  Quote: 	
		   

 

 > Regardless, Jan pulled power back at 400' AGL, rolled in 60 degrees 

 > of bank, kept one eye on the airspeed while making a firm pull, 

 > rolled with 300 feet to spare and over 80 mph of airspeed, and gladed 

 > at his best glide speed of 97 mph back to the airport no problem. 

 

 Just curious - does this aircraft have an AOA indicator? 

 

 -- 

 Mickey Coggins 

 http://www.rv8.ch/ 

 #82007 finishing 

 

 

 do not archive 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


	


no



-------------- Original message -------------- 

From: Mickey Coggins mick-matronics(at)rv8.ch 



 -- RV-List message posted by: Mickey Coggins <MICK-MATRONICS(at)RV8.CH>

 

  Regardless, Jan pulled power back at 400' AGL, rolled in 60 degrees 

  of bank, kept one eye on the airspeed while making a firm pull, 

  rolled with 300 feet to spare and over 80 mph of airspeed, and gladed 

  at his best glide speed of 97 mph back to the airport no problem. 

 

 Just curious - does this aircraft have an AOA indicator? 

 

 -- 

 Mickey Coggins 

 http://www.rv8.ch/ 

 #82007 finishing 

 

 

 do not archive 

 

 

 

 nics List Features Navigator to browse

luckymacy(at)comcast.net
Guest

Posted: Mon Mar 06, 2006 3:25 am Post subject: Minimum altitude to return to airport

I hope your kidding.  I was instructed to fly defensively and scout around the airport for possible off field landing areas and NON landing areas.  I suggest you know the airport runway elevation before you even get into the cockpit, know what the density altitude is roughly (and it's affects on performance).  You should also know what the airports particular rules might be for TOs and Landings and know what their recommended pattern altitudes are, etc.   If you want to put turning back and live to tell about it your repertoire then up the level of pre-flight awareness and always review the Rough engine or Engine Out Right After Takeoff in  your checklist and calculate before TO what that minimum return to airport airspeed and altitude is going to be before taking the active.  Write it down if it helps to remember better.  Know where the empty field or wide road is before taking off.  Know where the high obstical is before taking off.  Whatever.  Go up to 3000 or 4000 AGL and

  practice it. The plane can do it easy.  You just have to know the plane. Yes, we fly RVs for fun but you still have to think a step or two ahead of yourself.  Still have to be ready for when bad things happen.



Perhaps some who may not practice anymore but just go out and fly "nominally" everyday go spend an hour or two with Jan and have him demo all the different possible stall combos, take off and landing types and return to field types with him.  He's pretty thorough and competent and he has both a RV6 and a 6A.



For all you pilots that love running your tanks dry, you can do a combo test WAY up high over an airport area to eliminate the idle prop speed.  Rick Caldwell told me Saturday that in his 6 he did a test were he ran a tank dry and verified that at the windmilling speed he was at he was able to change the pitch of his Harzell prop enough to be somewhat effective.  I wouldn't have thought so but now mentally I know it *might* work if I still have oil pressure so it's something else in an emergency that with time I might get some neurons holding that info to fire off and get me to try it to help sink rates.



Lucky

-------------- Original message -------------- 

From: scott bilinski <rv8a2001(at)yahoo.com> 



 	  Quote: 	
		   

 

 With all this talk going on, I looked at my altimeter today while departing the 

 airport and realized, wait, the safe number is XXX AGL! Now in a emergency 

 situation will you be able to remember the airport altitude and subtract it from 

 your altimeter? 

 

 

 

 Walter Tondu wrote: 

 

 

 On 03/06 2:38, lucky wrote: 

 

 > Nobody ever takes off having to fly out over open water 

 http://www.airnav.com/airport/KMCD 

 

 This was always scary in a C150  And the long XC was frightening. 

 

 http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/0602/00754AD.PDF 

 

 -- 

 Walter Tondu 

 http://www.rv7-a.com 

 Flying! 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 Scott Bilinski 

 RV-8a 

 cell 858-395-5094 

 

 --------------------------------- 

 Bring photos to life! New PhotoMail makes sharing a breeze. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


	


I hope your kidding. I was instructed to fly defensively and scout around the airport for possible off field landing areas and NON landing areas. I suggest you know the airport runway elevation before you even get into the cockpit, know what the density altitude is roughly (and it's affects on performance). You should also know what the airports particular rules might be for TOs and Landings and know what their recommended pattern altitudes are, etc.If you want to put turning back and live to tell about it your repertoire then up the level of pre-flight awareness andalwaysreview the Rough engine or Engine Out Right AfterTakeoff in your checklist and calculatebefore TO what that minimum return to airport airspeed and altitude is going to be before taking the active. Write it down if it helps to remember better. Know where the empty field or wide road is before taking off. Know where the hi

 gh obstical is before taking off. Whatever. Go up to 3000 or 4000 AGL and practice it.The plane can do it easy. You just have to know the plane. Yes, we fly RVs for fun but you still have to think a step or two ahead of yourself. Still have to be ready for when bad things happen.



Perhaps some who may not practice anymore but just go out and fly "nominally" everyday go spend an hour or two with Jan and have him demo all the different possible stall combos, take off and landing types and return to field types with him. He's pretty thorough and competent and he has both a RV6 and a 6A.



For all youpilots that love running your tanks dry, you can do a combo test WAY up high over an airport area to eliminate the idle prop speed. Rick Caldwell told me Saturday that in his 6 he did a test were he ran a tank dry and verified that at the windmilling speed he was at he was able to change the pitch of his Harzell prop enough to be somewhat effective. I wouldn't have thought so but now mentally I know it *might* work if I still have oil pressureso it's something else in an emergency that with time I might get some neurons holding that info to fire off and get me to try it to help sink rates.



Lucky

-------------- Original message -------------- 

From: scott bilinski rv8a2001(at)yahoo.com 



 -- RV-List message posted by: scott bilinski <RV8A2001(at)YAHOO.COM>

 

 With all this talk going on, I looked at my altimeter today while departing the 

 airport and realized, wait, the safe number is XXX AGL! Now in a emergency 

 situation will you be able to remember the airport altitude and subtract it from 

 your altimeter? 

 

 

 

 Walter Tondu <WALTER(at)TONDU.COM>wrote: 

 -- RV-List message posted by: Walter Tondu 

 

 On 03/06 2:38, lucky wrote: 

 

  Nobody ever takes off having to fly out over open water 

 http://www.airnav.com/airport/KMCD 

 

 This was always scary in a C150  And the long XC was frightening. 

 

 http://204.108.4.16/d

 -tpp/0602/00754AD.PDF 

 

 -- 

 Walter Tondu 

 http://www.rv7-a.com 

 Flying! 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 Scott Bilinski 

 RV-8a 

 cell 858-395-5094 

 

 --------------------------------- 

 Bring photos to life! New PhotoMail makes sharing a breeze. 

 

 

 

  Contribution Web Site -

aerobubba(at)earthlink.ne
Guest

Posted: Mon Mar 06, 2006 5:36 am Post subject: Minimum altitude to return to airport

Hi Scott-

 

 	  Quote: 	
		  With all this talk going on, I looked at my altimeter today while

departing the
	


 	  Quote: 	
		  airport and realized, wait, the safe number is XXX AGL! Now in a emergency

situation
	


 	  Quote: 	
		  will you be able to remember the airport altitude and subtract it from

your altimeter?

 
	


I for one couldn't reliably do that.  That's why we do the math prior to

crossing the hold short line, whether calculating turn back altitudes for

single / no engine aircraft, or calculating the acceleration altitude in a

multi engine jet.  It's all part of having a plan for every take off,

including having identified available options prior to needing them.  



Something that can help a person's mind set and preparedness is to assume

that:  every take off roll will end in an abort;  every lift off will

result in an engine failure;  and every approach will result in a go

around.  In the unlikely event one of these does occur, you will be

prepared.  If it doesn't, you will be pleasantly surprised.

 

Remember, good luck is where preparation meets opportunity!



Glen Matejcek

aerobubba(at)earthlink.net

Display posts from previous:

	Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> RV-List	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page 1, 2 Next
Page 1 of 2

Jump to:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum