Grumman Mallard accelerated stall

[thinwing]

After looking at the video..I wonder if during steep turn he unported and lost an engine....

[MB65E]

It's super hard to tell, but there was one angle taken from the right   Side of the airplane where the guy is filming. It looks like the right prop slows a bit as he enters the turn. 

Can't tell, I always thought a seaplane engine failure would be fairly benign.  Especially with 2 engines.  

-Matt

[thinwing]

No I've flown in a Mallard...you don't want to lose an engine low and slow...

[Alain B]

2 hours ago, MB65E said:

It's super hard to tell, but there was one angle taken from the right   Side of the airplane where the guy is filming. It looks like the right prop slows a bit as he enters the turn. 

Can't tell, I always thought a seaplane engine failure would be fairly benign.  Especially with 2 engines.  

-Matt

At the bank angle and approach speed he was flying , this low , loosing the critical engine while he was already banked to the left is  a no-win situation . 

[jlunseth]

Pardon me while I climb up on my soapbox.  And let me warn you that some of you guys aren't going to like what I have to say.

There are alot of dumb things in flight training, most of them are small and not of much consequence.  The "tight to the runway" thing is butt ugly stupid and a killer, and needs to be eradicated.  The excuse for teaching it is that the "engine might quit and you need to be able to make it to the runway."  Bull chips.  You did a full power takeoff and climb, you flew from Minneapolis to Denver, the engine did not quit in those regimes of flight when it is most prone to, and now, in low power operations with the descent helping the engine, it is going to suddenly quit just because it sees the runway and gets nervous?  Of all the regimes of flight, the one where the engine is least likely to fail is at low power in the pattern, and especially when descending when the engine gets help from prop.

There are two reasons why "tight to the runway" is taught.  One, some school's planes are notoriously poorly maintained, and are abused.  Their engines can quit no matter where in flight you are.  So CFI's who teach at such schools and want to stay alive, stay over the airport as much as possible.  Two, we train for Power Off 180's, it is a useful maneuver, and you can't make a Power Off 180 if you are at pattern altitude and distant from the runway.  So to do the training, and to be ready if the CFI decides to pull the power in the pattern, you need to stay in close.  

But training is not real life.  And flying in the way we do for the sake of training exercises on a regular basis is not a safe way to fly.    

What kills in landing is tight turns. Just like that Grumman. What drives tight turns is being too close to the runway.  And then maybe finding that the crosswind is driving you past final a little bit, so you are tempted to turn a little tighter and use the rudder to align the nose with the runway....and there you go.

"Tight to the runway" training kills pilots.  Period.  In a Mooney you should never be closer to the runway than a mile, except on short final.  If you do the math - and I did it and published it on this forum a few years back - if you are at 90 kts., you cannot make standard rate turns in the pattern and get on final.  It has nothing to do with how great a pilot you are, it is immutable physics, just like stall speed, a stall will happen at that speed in that configuration whether you are me or Chuck Yaeger (sorry Chuck) or have a CFI in the right seat or are by yourself.  

So if your CFI insists that you fly with the runway tucked under your left wing, day in and day out and not just when you are training for specific maneuvers, use the right seat eject button.  The worst of it is, this is hard wired into the FAA's training methodology, and they all do it.  

Wanna die?  Do what they say.

[201er]

43 minutes ago, jlunseth said:

The "tight to the runway" thing is butt ugly stupid and a killer, and needs to be eradicated.

What kills in landing is tight turns.

Wrong. What kills is stalls, exceeding critical angle of attack. If you maintain sufficient angle of attack (not airspeed), you can't stall. If you don't stall, you don't make a burning hole in the ground. If you have sufficient angle of attack throughout a turn, you can turn as steep as you want and you can't stall.

What kills is that people aren't taught properly how to make steep turns in the pattern. They are taught a lameassed cop out of "well, just don't turn steep in the pattern" and then they go up and practice 2g steep turns in the practice area where you have to pull back hard to maintain altitude. Nobody teaches how to make a descending steep turn without pulling back, in fact dropping the nose to unload the wing and maintain constant angle of attack. This ought to be second nature. Forget teaching people how to stall. The best thing you can do is teach them how not to stall by always maintaining sufficient angle of attack.

As for tight patterns at flight schools, I think you are wrong as well. They are flying traffic patterns day in and day out. Back to back patterns and touch and goes. If or when the engine quits or runs out of gas on a flight school plane, you can bet it will be in the pattern! So while your reasoning may apply to a cross country Mooney, it isn't the same for the flight school plane and CFI that are doing the same thing for thousands of hours. Most students will never see it. But sooner or later the flight school plane or one of the CFIs will.

I wish flight schools would teach proper technique for flying tight patterns. Instead I see loads of 747 sized patterns in 152s. It is ridiculous when they fly such a huge pattern that it forces me, in the faster plane, to think the pattern is huge. The pattern needs to be scaled accordingly to the plane and speed. So if it's 2x too big for me, it's 3-4x too big for the plane they are flying. A 747 pilot told me he flies a tighter pattern than what some of those schools are teaching in Cessnas.

Edited February 10, 2017 by 201er

[aviatoreb]

Related thing to mention - if you ever do have your engine quite in flight near a runway - then if you can't make the runway (without heroic maneuvers that will cause a stall and/or spin) then most airports have a decent grassy area around it and touching down somewhere within the fence is likely to be a much better than in the trees - or a house - or stall/spin option.

[jlunseth]

8 hours ago, 201er said:

Wrong. What kills is stalls, exceeding critical angle of attack. If you maintain sufficient angle of attack (not airspeed), you can't stall. If you don't stall, you don't make a burning hole in the ground. If you have sufficient angle of attack throughout a turn, you can turn as steep as you want and you can't stall.

What kills is that people aren't taught properly how to make steep turns in the pattern. They are taught a lameassed cop out of "well, just don't turn steep in the pattern" and then they go up and practice 2g steep turns in the practice area where you have to pull back hard to maintain altitude.

If you want to be technical, sure, it is the stall that kills.  When the pilot is dead and buried along with the passengers, it does not make a big bunch of difference what the math was though, or what the AOA was, or how many gadgets there were on the panel.  I completely disagree with the idea that steep turns of any kind should be taught or conducted in or anywhere near the pattern.  Go out and get 3,000 feet under you and do all the steep turns you want, ascending, descending, or whatever you wish to do.  But not in the pattern.  Whether it is lameassed or not, that is the answer.

Because what kills is not whether you know how to do one or not, or are a great pilot or not.  You and I could go out and do ten right now if you like.  What kills is putting yourself in that attitude, and then suffering momentary inattention.  Oh, there's a bird, pull up, oh, the passenger next to you asked a question, where was I now, oh, how close is that Bonanza on the parallel final.  Sure, you can do 10,000 of those steep turns in the pattern.  It is the one in ten thousand where you stop paying attention for 1.5 seconds that will kill you, and you can't do number 10,001.  Actually, if you look at the Nall statistics, it is probably more like one in a million, but it will happen.

Go take a very good look at the Nall statistics.  What you will find is that in general aviation, pilots - poor pilots, average pilots, great pilots, PPL's, Commercials, and ATP's - kill themselves in low altitude maneuvering many times more than with engine outs or anything else.  So play the statistics and stay alive.  Don't fly tight to the runway, don't put yourself in a position where you need to be a great pilot to make the landing.  Just be boring. 

[201er]

You previously stated that sooner or later people steepen up a base to final turn or try to make it with the rudder. If they disregarded airspeed and paid attention to AOA instead, the steepness of the turn (and even the poor rudder coordination) would not have been dangerous because the airplane would not be stalled. Airspeed flying is the culprit.

Your idea of avoiding steep turns does not do anything to survive the root problem. At ANY amount of bank, AOA should be maintained. If you always fly this way, then no amount of steepness or light distraction should interfere.

The problem is that pilots aren't properly taught how to turn steep. They make you go up high and do high speed, level steep turns. What use are these? You never actually need to turn steep level, enroute, at altitude. Where you may need to turn steep is down low, in the pattern, or sightseeing, and this is where people do it all wrong. They get so caught up with not losing altitude by pulling back that it stalls and they lose all the altitude at once. If you fly properly, maintaining constant AOA with changing bank, you are free to bank as steep as you like and not stall. Your idea of "just tell people not to turn steep in the pattern" has been done since the dawn of aviation and clearly hasn't solved the problem.

Edited February 11, 2017 by 201er

[Guest]

Use whatever method keeps you from crashing so we will be spared discussing your untimely passing here.

Clarence

[Danb]

Many pilots when performing steep turns or any turns for that matter don't keep the ball centered, skidding to a terrible conclusion, when practicing or any flying to many guys I've flown with don't stay in coordinated flight, it's hard to bite my tongue. I asked a buddy of mine, we were practicing approachs and I casually asked about stepping on the ball, I got a confused look, 2000+ hour pilot at that.

[Cyril Gibb]

2 hours ago, 201er said:

 Where you may need to turn steep is down low, in the pattern, or sightseeing... 

Nobody "needs" to turn steep down low, unless you're vying for a Darwin award. 

[Hank]

1 hour ago, Cyril Gibb said:

Nobody "needs" to turn steep down low, unless you're vying for a Darwin award. 

That's right. If you get that far off track, push in the throttle, raise the gear and try it again, paying better attention the next time.

[mike20papa]

My 2 cents ...  the relationship between bank angle and vertical component of lift are often misunderstood or disregarded.  We get preached to about bank angle and stall speed, bank angle and turn rate, but understanding the simple geometry of the disappearing vertical component that keeps your ass in the air when you bank the wing over to near vertical should scare the Bejesus out of a rational human being.  Add to it the centripetal force of a tight turn and you soon end up with ZERO vertical component.  I admit ..those high bank slow turns are pretty, but sometimes not for long!?

[thinwing]

Had this happened in calif...I would have asked...was he trying to avoid overflying houses due to noise abatement...doesn't sound like Australia,but who knows

 

[Tom]

On 2/11/2017 at 3:10 AM, 201er said:

The problem is that pilots aren't properly taught how to turn steep.

With respect, the entire argument is analogous to the "VMC roll-overs occur because pilots aren't properly taught how to perform single-engine go-arounds."  How many deaths did it take to realize that the treatment was worse than the disease?

I have no immediate evidence to support this, but I strongly suspect that more pilots die from botching tight patterns than from flying/botching 747 patterns.  More plainly, one is more likely to spin in because of an imprecise tight pattern than die than doing an engine-out straight ahead somewhere on a 747-sized downwind-base-final.

Do you disagree?  I not asking about what a proficient pilot should be able to do.  I'm asking about reality.

...and if a 152 guy wants to fly a 747 pattern to make himself feel safe for himself and his passengers, any proficient single-engine pilot ought to have the skills (and minimal patience) required to accommodate him.

[mike_elliott]

On ‎1‎/‎30‎/‎2017 at 10:56 AM, Bob_Belville said:

Bennett, I installed my CYA at the top of the panel, above the ASI an Aspen. (I NEVER look at the Whiskey Compass - the CYA would be invisible to me there.)

I assume you verified the CYA didn't affect the compass.

The one I have on the Aspen is about the same size as your display Bob, only right next to the ASI tape just a couple inches lower and to the right. As you say, very easy to see there, one place to glance when not looking outside for both info. The aspen AOA has 2 pointers, one for flaps up one for flaps down as it is calibrated for both conditions, which is a nice feature vs the other AOA's. One thing it doesn't have, but I really don't miss, is bitchin betty yelling "stall Stall STALL"

[ArtVandelay]

One thing it doesn't have, but I really don't miss, is bitchin betty yelling "stall Stall STALL"

Why is that a bad thing, it's not like you are going to hear it except when landing?
I think an AOA without audible alerts is useless. I bet most stall accidents occur when the pilot is looking outside, usually at the runway they are trying to make.

[mike_elliott]

1 minute ago, teejayevans said:

Why is that a bad thing, it's not like you are going to hear it except when landing?
I think an AOA without audible alerts is useless. I bet most stall accidents occur when the pilot is looking outside, usually at the runway they are trying to make.

Like I said TJ, I really don't miss it. A lot of people here say it is important, however. ut cuique sua

[Bob_Belville]

My AOA (CYA100) has a flying vane, I don't think it needs to know about flaps, BICBW. It has a aural alarm which I wired through the audio panel (odd looking DME) so that it gets through to my fancy ENC headset. The alarm sounds at the bottom of the 9 light tower. A second benefit of using the AP is that on the ground where a tail wind can set off the alarm I can turn off the audio.

[mike_elliott]

33 minutes ago, Bob_Belville said:

My AOA (CYA100) has a flying vane, I don't think it needs to know about flaps, BICBW

When you calibrated the CYA, it was calibrated for the configuration the plane was in, (flaps down most likely) but not for flaps up, which will be a different stall speed(s) at different weights. Flaps down is correct to nail the slowest possible speeds for landing safely. I personally use mine more for best rate of climb

[Bob_Belville]

6 minutes ago, mike_elliott said:

When you calibrated the CYA, it was calibrated for the configuration the plane was in, (flaps down most likely) but not for flaps up, which will be a different stall speed(s) at different weights. Flaps down is correct to nail the slowest possible speeds for landing safely. I personally use mine more for best rate of climb

Mike, I don't know if you've flown with the CYA100. Calibration is simpler than any other AOA I know about. There are 9 lights, 3 green on top, 3 yellow in the middle, and 3 red on the bottom of the stack. To calibrate requires hitting the "set" button twice. The first time is while climbing "clean" at Approx. Vy. This will define the top light and any angle of attack lower than that angle will show as top light. The second "set" is with the plane in landing mode, full flaps, gear down. hit "set" at the stall buffet which will be the maximum angle of attack the wing can be in without stalling. Calibration done.

Yes, stall speed (IAS) will vary with bank angle, weight, and wing chord (flaps), but you really don't care - the angle of attack at stall will be the same and that's what the flying wing of the CYA is "seeing". ISTM that all the pilot has to do is use the light stack to 1) stay safely about stall AOA and 2) to safely slow the plane for landing by choosing to fly to  a lower light in the stack. 

[mike_elliott]

7 minutes ago, Bob_Belville said:

Mike, I don't know if you've flown with the CYA100. Calibration is simpler than any other AOA I know about. There are 9 lights, 3 green on top, 3 yellow in the middle, and 3 red on the bottom of the stack. To calibrate requires hitting the "set" button twice. The first time is while climbing "clean" at Approx. Vy. This will define the top light and any angle of attack lower than that angle will show as top light. The second "set" is with the plane in landing mode, full flaps, gear down. hit "set" at the stall buffet which will be the maximum angle of attack the wing can be in without stalling. Calibration done.

Yes, stall speed (IAS) will vary with bank angle, weight, and wing chord (flaps), but you really don't care - the angle of attack at stall will be the same and that's what the flying wing of the CYA is "seeing". ISTM that all the pilot has to do is use the light stack to 1) stay safely about stall AOA and 2) to safely slow the plane for landing by choosing to fly to  a lower light in the stack. 

Per flying Phil, it does matter if the AOA doesn't take flap and gear position into account when calibrated. Go to the 3 min mark here. Phil wouldn't BS us now, would he Bob?

 

[Bob_Belville]

5 minutes ago, mike_elliott said:

Per flying Phil, it does matter if the AOA doesn't take flap and gear position into account when calibrated. Go to the 3 min mark here. Phil wouldn't BS us now, would he Bob?

 

Mike, I don't suppose he is talking about the CYA when he takes his shot at the competition.

Perhaps we have a more technically astute MSer who can advise whether the Mooney flaps, which lower the ias @ stall are in fact permitting a higher AOA which the Aspen video implies or if the greater lift from a different chord allows a lower speed at the same AOA. I never took and aeronautical engineering class and my last physics class in engineering school in 1962 and Einstein had not bumped Newton from the textbooks yet.

[Deb]

From: https://www.beechtalk.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=21&t=115110&p=1538416&hilit=Flap#p1538416

"A wing stalls at a lower angle of attack with flaps, so it should be calibrated with flaps DOWN. Why warn at a safe AoA?

(...)

Disclaimer: I make and sell the FAA approved CYA-100, a TRUE angle of attack indicating system..."

Note: This was posted by Rip Quinby (maker of Bob's CYA-100) on Beechtalk.