"There we were:"
Down to 2000 ft, cloud covered high ground ahead, heavy rain on the left, storms behind, the terrain to the right tiger country: time to put the aircraft down and wait. Or, if you prefer - a glider retrieval from a paddock somewhere. Whatever; there is a need to land on something other than a prepared surface. Much to consider, many variables, many risks and not a lot of time for navel contemplation.
There are several ways of approaching the 'problem' - for me, it's still a subliminal 'habit' as taught from day one, looking for viable spots to put down into - should the whatsit hit the windmill - unexpected like. But, I digress; the topic is the difference between precautionary search, strip inspection and a forced landing. As may be seen in the Middle Beach event; a routine strip inspection very quickly became a forced landing.
We still, despite the science and technology available, to this very day don't know why a simple, robust piston engine failed. It can only be one of four possibilities; to wit a seizure or component failure; air, spark or fuel. ATSB still have NDI and gave up. Strike one.
The engine failed in what is probably (mathematically) the worst possible place - there was nowhere 'safe' to go. It begs the question - why was the aircraft ever allowed to progress so far into a 'dead end' - 'in the unlikely event of' etc. Should the OM have had a detailed procedure - and a travel limit - specified for the 'dead zone'? IMO yes it should. Should the aircraft have always been in a position to effect a forced landing? Again, yes. So, where is the radical; who's to bless and who's to blame? Equal shares I'd reckon. Yes, there should have been a location briefing - you know the type of thing - "landing to the North blah, blah' etc. Yes, the CASA inspector should have picked up the 'familiarity' and 'loose' procedure, perhaps suggesting a rethink of the existing 'normalised deviance' and even gone so far as to suggest alternative methods. CASA did accept the operation 'as writ' without demure...
But Gods forbid CASA ever recommended to following load of Bollocks; and yet, they do. The blind leading the unspeakable along dangerous pathways - without any thought bar fooling the world into believing its 'safe'.
"CASA advised that many flying training organisations have adopted the guidance provided by the Aviation Theory Centre, a publisher of commonly-used flight training manuals in Australia. This guidance included the following for carrying out a safe approach and landing at an unfamiliar field with engine power available:"
A classic example of Ass-U Me - never assume that full power will be available - always expect the worst - and mutter the right words to the gods of chance (and fate for - good measure)..
• conduct a first inspection at 500 ft AGL circuit height, slightly to the right of the landing area (to check for obstacles on approach and departure and general condition of the landing surface).
Deceptive wording; easy to confuse. From the left side of the cockpit - strip on the right? Bullshit - in a 'standard' light aircraft - the LEFT wing-tip placed of the selected paddock area will provide adequate spacing for a 'normal' short field landing - also if the turns are made to the left (as usual) the need to learn a seldom practised right hand approach and associated errors is eliminated. From 500 feet, on a dull day not too much of the essential detail can be observed; you have now wasted vital time when conditions are 'pressing' - on the 'wrong side' of the paddock.
• conduct a second inspection at 200 ft, climb back to 500 ft before turning and conducting a 500 ft circuit (for a closer examination of the landing surface and other hazards)
So, now we allow what, 30 seconds - to descend another 30 to realign and then, return to 500 feet two minutes later? WTD - Raining pick handles - 200 feet nerves tingling, power on and -'bang' - engine fails. What now I wonder, royally ducked is the right answer.
• a third inspection at 50 ft, climb back to 500 ft before turning and conducting a 500 ft circuit (if required for a closer inspection of the landing surface)
So, we make it back to 500' (another minute gone) get sorted out (another minute) then make a descent of 450 feet (tick tock) do a low pass at 50 feet (tick tock) then apply power and climb back to 500'. 50 feet - power on - bang - engine fails - what now? See the above and multiply by five. You are now dead - forced landing, in climb configuration, 20 knots above full flap slowest landing speed. So this all becomes ever so slightly esoteric, risible and pointless.
• conduct the inspections with some flap extended (to provide a slower speed and other advantages, such as a smaller turn radius and better view from the cockpit due to a higher nose attitude).
Spot on (not) - you can see to the side Ok. but that ain't where you're going, is it? The whole point of any 'inspection' is to get a look at the bloody surface ahead - the bit you want to land on; this to avoid the short stump or part covered log; or the left behind iron fencing stakes which can really spoil your day.
But what in seven Hell's does any of this 'theoretical' hogwash have to do with routine beach landings? Not much - IMO.
“I cannot here withhold the statement that optimism, where it is not merely the thoughtless talk of those who harbor nothing but words under their shallow foreheads, seems to me to be not merely an absurd, but also a really wicked, way of thinking, a bitter mockery of the most unspeakable sufferings of mankind.”
Or, blind 'em with science then baffle 'em with Bullshit.
Selah.
Down to 2000 ft, cloud covered high ground ahead, heavy rain on the left, storms behind, the terrain to the right tiger country: time to put the aircraft down and wait. Or, if you prefer - a glider retrieval from a paddock somewhere. Whatever; there is a need to land on something other than a prepared surface. Much to consider, many variables, many risks and not a lot of time for navel contemplation.
There are several ways of approaching the 'problem' - for me, it's still a subliminal 'habit' as taught from day one, looking for viable spots to put down into - should the whatsit hit the windmill - unexpected like. But, I digress; the topic is the difference between precautionary search, strip inspection and a forced landing. As may be seen in the Middle Beach event; a routine strip inspection very quickly became a forced landing.
We still, despite the science and technology available, to this very day don't know why a simple, robust piston engine failed. It can only be one of four possibilities; to wit a seizure or component failure; air, spark or fuel. ATSB still have NDI and gave up. Strike one.
The engine failed in what is probably (mathematically) the worst possible place - there was nowhere 'safe' to go. It begs the question - why was the aircraft ever allowed to progress so far into a 'dead end' - 'in the unlikely event of' etc. Should the OM have had a detailed procedure - and a travel limit - specified for the 'dead zone'? IMO yes it should. Should the aircraft have always been in a position to effect a forced landing? Again, yes. So, where is the radical; who's to bless and who's to blame? Equal shares I'd reckon. Yes, there should have been a location briefing - you know the type of thing - "landing to the North blah, blah' etc. Yes, the CASA inspector should have picked up the 'familiarity' and 'loose' procedure, perhaps suggesting a rethink of the existing 'normalised deviance' and even gone so far as to suggest alternative methods. CASA did accept the operation 'as writ' without demure...
But Gods forbid CASA ever recommended to following load of Bollocks; and yet, they do. The blind leading the unspeakable along dangerous pathways - without any thought bar fooling the world into believing its 'safe'.
"CASA advised that many flying training organisations have adopted the guidance provided by the Aviation Theory Centre, a publisher of commonly-used flight training manuals in Australia. This guidance included the following for carrying out a safe approach and landing at an unfamiliar field with engine power available:"
A classic example of Ass-U Me - never assume that full power will be available - always expect the worst - and mutter the right words to the gods of chance (and fate for - good measure)..
• conduct a first inspection at 500 ft AGL circuit height, slightly to the right of the landing area (to check for obstacles on approach and departure and general condition of the landing surface).
Deceptive wording; easy to confuse. From the left side of the cockpit - strip on the right? Bullshit - in a 'standard' light aircraft - the LEFT wing-tip placed of the selected paddock area will provide adequate spacing for a 'normal' short field landing - also if the turns are made to the left (as usual) the need to learn a seldom practised right hand approach and associated errors is eliminated. From 500 feet, on a dull day not too much of the essential detail can be observed; you have now wasted vital time when conditions are 'pressing' - on the 'wrong side' of the paddock.
• conduct a second inspection at 200 ft, climb back to 500 ft before turning and conducting a 500 ft circuit (for a closer examination of the landing surface and other hazards)
So, now we allow what, 30 seconds - to descend another 30 to realign and then, return to 500 feet two minutes later? WTD - Raining pick handles - 200 feet nerves tingling, power on and -'bang' - engine fails. What now I wonder, royally ducked is the right answer.
• a third inspection at 50 ft, climb back to 500 ft before turning and conducting a 500 ft circuit (if required for a closer inspection of the landing surface)
So, we make it back to 500' (another minute gone) get sorted out (another minute) then make a descent of 450 feet (tick tock) do a low pass at 50 feet (tick tock) then apply power and climb back to 500'. 50 feet - power on - bang - engine fails - what now? See the above and multiply by five. You are now dead - forced landing, in climb configuration, 20 knots above full flap slowest landing speed. So this all becomes ever so slightly esoteric, risible and pointless.
• conduct the inspections with some flap extended (to provide a slower speed and other advantages, such as a smaller turn radius and better view from the cockpit due to a higher nose attitude).
Spot on (not) - you can see to the side Ok. but that ain't where you're going, is it? The whole point of any 'inspection' is to get a look at the bloody surface ahead - the bit you want to land on; this to avoid the short stump or part covered log; or the left behind iron fencing stakes which can really spoil your day.
But what in seven Hell's does any of this 'theoretical' hogwash have to do with routine beach landings? Not much - IMO.
“I cannot here withhold the statement that optimism, where it is not merely the thoughtless talk of those who harbor nothing but words under their shallow foreheads, seems to me to be not merely an absurd, but also a really wicked, way of thinking, a bitter mockery of the most unspeakable sufferings of mankind.”
Or, blind 'em with science then baffle 'em with Bullshit.
Selah.