Where a Highway is Heaven..
This report from the ATSB - HERE - kicked off a casual, but interesting far ranging discussion. I thought I'd mention it here only because IMO it is worthy of consideration.
“The pilot’s timely and effective decision-making, likely supported by their experience on the aircraft type and knowledge of its performance capabilities, mitigated the risk of injury and further damage to the aircraft,” ATSB Director Transport Safety Dr Stuart Godley said.
There is some common platitude in that statement; but, in essence it is accurate. Now, engine failure is a rare occurrence; well down the statistical list, but they do happen. The rareness of the event and the lack of actual experience in managing the event tends toward it being a 'Tick & Flick' item in the expensive training regime. Not due to 'slack' training, but due to the rarity of failure, the reliability of the modern engines and the maintenance standards imposed.
Godley - “Although engine failures are relatively rare, they do happen,” Dr Godley concluded. “Given the potential severity of the consequences of an engine failure or power loss in a single‑engine aircraft, such occurrences therefore need to be planned for and managed appropriately.”
What Godley writes is true enough; but it takes you nowhere near a failure and the ground coming at you between 110 - 150 kph. Particularly over rough country; the 'startle factor' plus Adrenalin plus drills plus trying to rectify if possible plus subconscious 'worry' etc.. It is a big job make no mistake; and that smooth paddock may be a lot less appetising up close and committed.
Godley - “This incident demonstrates how the ‘aviate, navigate, communicate’ framework establishes a clear hierarchy of priorities, particularly during emergencies,” he continued. “Acting in the appropriate order of priority improves situational awareness and supports coordinated responses in a dynamic environment.”
Again, as a general statement, this is an acceptable mantra; however, it does not translate to either training or a skill/ confidence builder; not in the real world. Some of the best 'handling' pilots I've seen all had a common thread within their log books - Glider training; and ,or, an instructor like mine who had to teach a powered approach, after every landing being without it for a good while. A glide approach; been a useful tool that one, on occasion. A couple of good things gliding teaches is the 'out landing' : run out of energy, find a paddock, but, it is rare. In a glider you must always be aware and conscious of the air you are working and the terrain below and the need for 'speed' and position and the capability of the air-frame. This awareness, 'feel' and the notion that to run out of height to trade for distance is an essential. Every landing is, essentially, a forced landing, practiced until it becomes routine, second nature. It all produces a pilot with skills attuned to managing without engine assistance.
So, given the reliability of modern engines are these skills essential? Well, that depends don't it. Statistically, probably not; nowhere near a need to mandate it; so it comes down to the 'training' received and practice for the remote possibility. Personally, I was 'lucky' my instructor mixed power off and powered landings before first solo; and, thereafter on Nav's would ask the question 'What if?" A wrong answer or selection of options produced simulated failure and I'd execute the drill until my error was realised; "not going to make it". Power on and something like "watch the wind next time" would be the gentle admonishment, always with a grin and a wink. Valuable - Oh! bet on it, many times now have I nodded a silent thank you, to that man and those who came after him.
Sorry, this became a ramble; but we still loose few in weather and forced landing; situational awareness is skill which needs to be kept and practiced. That is down to the individual, not CASA or the ATSB. Platitudes will not help when the whatsit hit the fan. There, a fool's rambling two bob's worth - all done.
Toot - toot.
This report from the ATSB - HERE - kicked off a casual, but interesting far ranging discussion. I thought I'd mention it here only because IMO it is worthy of consideration.
“The pilot’s timely and effective decision-making, likely supported by their experience on the aircraft type and knowledge of its performance capabilities, mitigated the risk of injury and further damage to the aircraft,” ATSB Director Transport Safety Dr Stuart Godley said.
There is some common platitude in that statement; but, in essence it is accurate. Now, engine failure is a rare occurrence; well down the statistical list, but they do happen. The rareness of the event and the lack of actual experience in managing the event tends toward it being a 'Tick & Flick' item in the expensive training regime. Not due to 'slack' training, but due to the rarity of failure, the reliability of the modern engines and the maintenance standards imposed.
Godley - “Although engine failures are relatively rare, they do happen,” Dr Godley concluded. “Given the potential severity of the consequences of an engine failure or power loss in a single‑engine aircraft, such occurrences therefore need to be planned for and managed appropriately.”
What Godley writes is true enough; but it takes you nowhere near a failure and the ground coming at you between 110 - 150 kph. Particularly over rough country; the 'startle factor' plus Adrenalin plus drills plus trying to rectify if possible plus subconscious 'worry' etc.. It is a big job make no mistake; and that smooth paddock may be a lot less appetising up close and committed.
Godley - “This incident demonstrates how the ‘aviate, navigate, communicate’ framework establishes a clear hierarchy of priorities, particularly during emergencies,” he continued. “Acting in the appropriate order of priority improves situational awareness and supports coordinated responses in a dynamic environment.”
Again, as a general statement, this is an acceptable mantra; however, it does not translate to either training or a skill/ confidence builder; not in the real world. Some of the best 'handling' pilots I've seen all had a common thread within their log books - Glider training; and ,or, an instructor like mine who had to teach a powered approach, after every landing being without it for a good while. A glide approach; been a useful tool that one, on occasion. A couple of good things gliding teaches is the 'out landing' : run out of energy, find a paddock, but, it is rare. In a glider you must always be aware and conscious of the air you are working and the terrain below and the need for 'speed' and position and the capability of the air-frame. This awareness, 'feel' and the notion that to run out of height to trade for distance is an essential. Every landing is, essentially, a forced landing, practiced until it becomes routine, second nature. It all produces a pilot with skills attuned to managing without engine assistance.
So, given the reliability of modern engines are these skills essential? Well, that depends don't it. Statistically, probably not; nowhere near a need to mandate it; so it comes down to the 'training' received and practice for the remote possibility. Personally, I was 'lucky' my instructor mixed power off and powered landings before first solo; and, thereafter on Nav's would ask the question 'What if?" A wrong answer or selection of options produced simulated failure and I'd execute the drill until my error was realised; "not going to make it". Power on and something like "watch the wind next time" would be the gentle admonishment, always with a grin and a wink. Valuable - Oh! bet on it, many times now have I nodded a silent thank you, to that man and those who came after him.
Sorry, this became a ramble; but we still loose few in weather and forced landing; situational awareness is skill which needs to be kept and practiced. That is down to the individual, not CASA or the ATSB. Platitudes will not help when the whatsit hit the fan. There, a fool's rambling two bob's worth - all done.
Toot - toot.