Flying safer and avoiding the avoidable accident!

[farri]

"I know both the induviduals in this accident and as sad as it is, it was pilot error on all counts, even if the machine is found to of had a fault (like engine failure), you still have to see where you are putting down,IMO end of story". Alf Jessup.

 

Alf, Sugested that I start a new thread on this topic, so here it is!

 

That statement has given me reason to say this!...I`ve got more than a couple of thousand hours flying "Ultralights" of various makes and models. I instructed for 12 years. I`ve had enough engine failures and walked away without a scratch or breaking the AC to know what I`m talking about! Though what I`m going to say has nothing to do with trying to fly in the dark, it has potentially the same end result.

 

When I was instructing I realy drove home the point of always flying within gliding distance of a safe landing area and to be continuously saying, " If the engine stops right now, that`s where I`m going to land". I`ve always flown this way, it has saved me every time and I always will fly this way and whenever I get the chance, I tell other pilots to do the same!

 

Why is it that with all the emphasis being placed on safety and accidents that shouldn`t occur and are preventable, there isn`t more emphasis being put on flying within gliding distance of a safe landing area, at all times?

 

Over the weekend, I took a guys girlfriend for her first flight in an Ultralight aircraft ( The Drifter). I explained to them that if done properly the Drifter is a very safe AC to fly but that it isn`t a toy and they kill for real ( The exact words I use when trying to drive the point home ). The guy then proceeded to tell me how a guy he knew, flying in an Ultralight, had an engine failure, no where to go but into the trees, crashed heavily and lost both legs.

 

How many such accidents have there been?... I don`t know the exact number but I do know that there have been many and they all could have been avoided, had there been a safe place to land and the pilot capable of landing the AC!

 

Frank.

 

 

[shafs64]

Would i be right in saying that weather causes more accidents?

 

 

[alf jessup]

Would i be right in saying that weather causes more accidents?

Shafs64,

 

I would tend to disagree with that, I would say pilots cause more accidents like flying into inclement weather, doing beat ups, poor descision making, poor judgement, poor maintenance ect, ect, ect, without a pilot the plane is going nowhere.

 

It is like cars crashes, cars don't crash people make them and flying is no different.

 

Guns don't kill people people kill people.

 

Am I making any sense or is it just me that thinks like this.

 

Alf

 

 

[Scooby]

Absolutly Frank, it's the way i have been taught and since gaining my pilot certificate, the way i fly! Allways have a suitable landing area within gliding distance if the engine goes quiet. Change the heading if your going over bush. I'd rather put a bit more time on my flight and be flying over possible landing areas than come unstuck. An engine failure should not be a "panic moment", but a moment that you are in control and have it planned out ahead of time. I often just go for a local flight on my own and practice PFL's.

 

Good thread Frank, Cheers.

 

 

[farri]

Would i be right in saying that weather causes more accidents?

You may well be right, but does that mean to say that the accidents that occur because there is nowhere to land safely, if the engine stops, are irrelevant?

 

Frank.

 

 

[Bandit12]

Shafs64,I would tend to disagree with that, I would say pilots cause more accidents like flying into inclement weather, doing beat ups, poor descision making, poor judgement, poor maintenance ect, ect, ect, without a pilot the plane is going nowhere.

 

It is like cars crashes, cars don't crash people make them and flying is no different.

 

Guns don't kill people people kill people.

 

Am I making any sense or is it just me that thinks like this.

 

Alf

I'm with you Alf - for every weather accident, there was a pilot who chose to fly into that situation first. Someone who evaluated the weather conditions, their own skills and the aircraft's abilities, and went ahead. Or did none of those, and went ahead anyway.

 

These days we are pretty good with things like maintenance, appropriate technical skills (ie the physical act of piloting) and currency, but we have a long way to go to crack the "human factor" to further reduce our accident rate. But then, few people can claim that they aren't aware of the health risks of smoking, and yet despite all efforts, smoking is alive and well today. You can legislate, train and prepare for everything, but it all comes down to choice, and sometimes even the best of us will choose wrongly.

 

 

[alf jessup]

Ok Frank,

 

I am not perfect in my flying no one is, I did a couple of silly things early on in my flying that made me feel awfully sick in the tummy after the event. (poor decisions on my behalf)

 

I learn from that and have a whole different attitude to my flying.

 

I consider myself now as now a much better pilot than i was but still strive to be better each and every flight i undertake.

 

I fly a lot like you do in the sense of having an option to land most times (sometimes you can't), sometimes i take a calculated risk when I fly over the great divide from West Sale to Porepunkah, as there are not a lot of landing options I track the valleys to minamize the time I spend over the tiger and always at a height that gives me max time to look for an option if the trusty rotax decideds it has had enough, I always let someone know my intended track and eta and always call on my arrival and my departure times. (This is a calculated risk I am comfortable with that others might not be)

 

I have had people say to me I am mad, I ask these people if they have ever flown over there and the answer is always NO, I reply to them that maybe instead of having a go at me maybe poke their noses up into the hills and actually have a look as there are far more options up there than they might think.

 

I practice engine off landings quite often in my trike also stalls, short field landings and anything else that may help me in the event of the engine stopping.

 

I was with a fellow pilot the other day that was making in my view poor judgment into a short strip in a aircraft that was looking to me going pear shaped and if continued on we would have definetly ended up through the fence, I let him go to the point where I said go around as he seemed to me fixated on landing come hell or high water.

 

I think the key to safer flying is to firstly know your machines capabilities, secondly know your capabilities and you comfort level (that could be around the wrong way for some) and practice, practice and practice what you were shown in your training as there is hundreds of pilots out there I bet haven't done a stall recovery since they finished there training let alone a simulated forced landing.

 

My feeling is if you fly with knowing how you and your aircraft will react if an emergency does exist you have a far better chance of surviving it.

 

Alf

 

 

[turboplanner]

I've given it a couple of hours to think over Frank, while I was welding the petrol tank.

 

I came up with about 12 deceased over the past couple of years or so, who would still be alive today if they followed that simple but very effective piece of advice you've given.

 

That's a pretty stunning result - multiply that by five to ten and that's 60 to 120 family members who would not be in trauma today.

 

I realised that I accidentally practised exactly that when caught by a low cloud barrier over the Western District of Victoria. While the flight remained legal, I was pretty scared about the impenetrable "ceiling" over my head and started to look around for a precautionary landing site. There was a landing strip of all things straight ahead and I was pointing into a strong head wind. As I approached that I looked for another paddock, and there was one ahead. They were everywhere, and if I'd had an engine failure that day from the low cruise height, I would have made it in with no injury and probably no aircraft damage. And shortly after I started the paddock hop, with security of landing in every one, my stress levels dropped way down again, and there was no problem making the difficult navigating and tracking decisions back into the City traffic.

 

Shags, I think weather related is about a third of fatalities and most happen in Australia in about a third of the year, mostly on the East Coast where the cloud formations can be hard to predict. I've tried to get threads going from time to time on how you can actually tell when to do a 180, and while some good information comes up, clearly none of us can clearly explain a safe way to avoid trouble.

 

One major advance was moving away from just minimum vertical cloud/ground separation for VFR (min 500' below cloud/min 500' agl) to horizontal distance separation where

 

even at the minimum distance you get several minutes to slow the aircraft down and make a careful turn.

 

Combine a "pre-decided" action for cloud/fog/mist and Frank's idea, and I think you would be a much safer pilot.

 

 

[Louis Moore]

Awesome thread guys, good on Farri for starting it up.

 

On a purely technical note Shafs64 is correct. The most common cause of all fatal aircraft accidents is controlled flight into terrain and this is nearly always due to inclement weather or night (and hills being put in the wrong spot!). On the un-technical side I agree with others are saying, does it really matter what caused the accident, as each cause surely is a valid topic for exploration?

 

Now I am not going against the grain but figure I would be the voice of a pilot who sits on the other side of the engine failure coin. I do not fly around the tiger country nor do I divert for thick bush land. I used to live in Merimbula and when I got my PPL would happily go direct to Mansfield which would take me over some our countries highest hills. I never felt like I was making a bad choice as a pilot in doing so, merely using my aircraft to achieve the purpose in which it does do extremely well.

 

I agree with everyone about keeping in mind suitable landing spots over the course of your track. I'm always casting to my mind and eyes to the appropriate course of action should things go pear shaped. It is comforting to know you have a plan ready to go should the big fan stop, especially when you are over terrain that is going to prove to be a challenge if you need to put down.

 

All the same, I draw the line on the map and fly direct from a to b in most cases (When I don't it is normally because of something interesting to look at, not due to terrain!). To be honest I do not feel this technique makes me any less safety conscious or any more of a dangerous pilot. Would be interested to know if others out there find this a less than safety conscious approach to flying?

 

Surely it should be possible if your prepared to put an aircraft down, relatively safely in the harshest of terrain?

 

 

[alf jessup]

Awesome thread guys, good on Farri for starting it up.On a purely technical note Shafs64 is correct. The most common cause of all fatal aircraft accidents is controlled flight into terrain and this is nearly always due to inclement weather or night (and hills being put in the wrong spot!). On the un-technical side I agree with others are saying, does it really matter what caused the accident, as each cause surely is a valid topic for exploration?

 

Now I am not going against the grain but figure I would be the voice of a pilot who sits on the other side of the engine failure coin. I do not fly around the tiger country nor do I divert for thick bush land. I used to live in Merimbula and when I got my PPL would happily go direct to Mansfield which would take me over some our countries highest hills. I never felt like I was making a bad choice as a pilot in doing so, merely using my aircraft to achieve the purpose in which it does do extremely well.

 

I agree with everyone about keeping in mind suitable landing spots over the course of your track. I'm always casting to my mind and eyes to the appropriate course of action should things go pear shaped. It is comforting to know you have a plan ready to go should the big fan stop, especially when you are over terrain that is going to prove to be a challenge if you need to put down.

 

All the same, I draw the line on the map and fly direct from a to b in most cases (When I don't it is normally because of something interesting to look at, not due to terrain!). To be honest I do not feel this technique makes me any less safety conscious or any more of a dangerous pilot. Would be interested to know if others out there find this a less than safety conscious approach to flying?

 

Surely it should be possible if your prepared to put an aircraft down, relatively safely in the harshest of terrain?

Correct Louis,

 

It is a calculated risk your prepared to take and you are comfortable with it as I am with the trike, the difference between you and I is your much faster getting over the points of no option either way, mind you I have flown direct in the Tecnam and the Foxbat also and have never felt uncomfortable about it.

 

We all have different levels of comfort, some don't like bumps, I don't mind them, we are all different and will a lot of times have different opinions, thats what is so great about being human it would be very boring if we were all the same.

 

Alf

 

 

[turboplanner]

Louis, I don't think this technique was ever taught in GA, other than "steer between two trees to rip the wings off and wash off energy" from instructors who had never done it.

 

Where the mountain ash grows 30 metre high and are about 10 metres apart you aren't going to get much of a glide in, but it would be interesting on your next flight to see how far apart those little patches of green valley, bush strips etc are.

 

 

[facthunter]

Don't fly over something you can't land on. I was given that advice early in my ultralight career. Not always possible, if you want to go over certain areas, but careful planning will reduce it to a minimum. It's then a calculated risk.

 

Weather factors. YOU can elect to stay on the ground, do a 180 or a precautionary landing, most times. Pressing on, when out of daylight or Visability is stacking the odds against you. You should only gamble when you can afford to lose.

 

Running out of fuel..... Happens a lot these days. Hard to believe really because attention to fuel management is a basic priority of aviation. Some even run out of fuel in the circuit.!!!!The best plane ever built still needs fuel in the tanks to go anywhere.

 

. If you are not sure about something that is important, check it again. Better to look/sound a bit silly, than prove that you are.

 

The culture of safety is an ATTITUDE of mind that you will develop if you think it is important.. If you don't, you won't. Nev

 

 

[shafs64]

When i started to learn to fly in GA I always took note of the dying to get there posters. And what concerns me is profit over safety with the thin profit margins that school operate on.

 

 

[alf jessup]

Don't fly over something you can't land on. I was given that advice early in my ultralight career. Not always possible, if you want to go over certain areas, but careful planning will reduce it to a minimum. It's then a calculated risk.Weather factors. YOU can elect to stay on the ground, do a 180 or a precautionary landing, most times. Pressing on, when out of daylight or Visability is stacking the odds against you. You should only gamble when you can afford to lose.

Running out of fuel..... Happens a lot these days. Hard to believe really because attention to fuel management is a basic priority of aviation. Some even run out of fuel in the circuit.!!!!The best plane ever built still needs fuel in the tanks to go anywhere.

 

. If you are not sure about something that is important, check it again. Better to look/sound a bit silly, than prove that you are.

 

The culture of safety is an ATTITUDE of mind that you will develop if you think it is important.. If you don't, you won't. Nev

Well written Nev,

 

Some very valid points in that.

 

Alf

 

 

[Bandit12]

On a purely technical note Shafs64 is correct. The most common cause of all fatal aircraft accidents is controlled flight into terrain and this is nearly always due to inclement weather or night

This is a little like suggesting that all deaths are related to heart failure - no matter what happens, at the end the heart stops beating and there is death. Not a very useful approach, as what really counts was what led the heart to stop beating.

 

You can teach techniques (like scanning for possible forced landing areas) but it is a little harder to teach attitude. And one of the overwhelming attitudes that we all have to face is the "it won't happen to me" thought. Because even though it just happened at Temora - today, tomorrow or very soon - somewhere in Australia there will be a pilot who decides to take off for a short flight home just on last light, perhaps without the appropriate skills, qualifications or aircraft to do it in, thinking to themselves "It's okay, it won't happen to me; they just pushed too far; I have done it before; their luck ran out" etc etc. And they will probably get away with it. And do it again. And again.

 

I would predict that far more accidents are due to attitude and decision making than any other factor in aviation.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Shafs, always remember that YOU are the customer. Sure the schools have a tough job paying wages and making a profit, but so does a saw mill and they have to pay for servicing and putting guards on their saws.

 

If an Instructor wants to take you up in a non-airworthy aircraft, or starts cutting safety corners, walk. Don't ever blame them because you didn't just walk away. There are some great, and safe, instructors who are the ones who deserve to make a living.

 

 

[Louis Moore]

I find this a really interesting topic and a fascinating concept. Hope lots reply as I am keen to find out the different points of view on this one!

 

Alf I used to fly a cherokee six out of Punka, and have to say when it comes to terrain I think it would be about the cosiest place I know, really it is impossible to get in our out without heading over some bumps! Still some of the best country to fly over and I bet you sit there in a trike with a huge smile on your face as all the stunning country slips past below. I never opted for the ovens or other vallies, I tracked direct over the bluff (the low but in buffalo). In fact because of doing so I never attempted to go up the valleys in times of crappy weather, because I did not know them at all. Would almost argue that this made me safer as statistically I am far more likely (Especially in that twisted little world of low clouds and valleys that is the ovens!) to run into a hill trying to slip on through than I am going to suffer an engine failure over the top of it all. Even in the six, which would be about the second worst aircraft in the world to do a forced landing in (first being a 747!) due to the fact you FFFFAAAALLLLLLLLLL like a greased brick and hit damned hard when the engine stops, I still did it with out really worrying. Should I change this?

 

Shafs64 I sort of agree with the profit margins, but still I think flying over tiger country in some ways in an inevitable part of flying, and learning to navigate and prepare to crash into should be part of flying, shouldn't it?

 

Turboplanner, I was taught to try and pancake it into the tree tops if the cover is thick enough, if not go for a ridge as there tends to be more open space, or valley floors. But what are the thoughts on this, if you engine goes kaput in the middle of the tigers what do people recommend as the best approach for dumping the aircraft onto the turf? Farri you sound like you've been flying a long time, any thoughts on the best procedure for putting down in such a situation?

 

Funny thing is, I get nervous flying into Moorabin, Bankstown and other highly populated areas (Even Toowoomba) because I look around and think, hell there really is basically no where to put this thing down that is even semi soft!!!! Those football fields look REALLY small and there are power lines and roof tops EVERYWHERE! Yet the hills don't tend to scare me all that much, am I alone this thought?

 

p.s. should ad I am talking about weather here, I would fly strictly VFR over these hills for safety, pushing into tiger country, through valleys and low clouds is an entirely different topic to suffering an engine failure in unpredictable terrain, at least in my opinion.

 

 

[Louis Moore]

This is a little like suggesting that all deaths are related to heart failure - no matter what happens, at the end the heart stops beating and there is death. Not a very useful approach, as what really counts was what led the heart to stop beating.You can teach techniques (like scanning for possible forced landing areas) but it is a little harder to teach attitude. And one of the overwhelming attitudes that we all have to face is the "it won't happen to me" thought. Because even though it just happened at Temora - today, tomorrow or very soon - somewhere in Australia there will be a pilot who decides to take off for a short flight home just on last light, perhaps without the appropriate skills, qualifications or aircraft to do it in, thinking to themselves "It's okay, it won't happen to me; they just pushed too far; I have done it before; their luck ran out" etc etc. And they will probably get away with it. And do it again. And again.

 

I would predict that far more accidents are due to attitude and decision making than any other factor in aviation.

Hey Bandit hope you do not mind me quoting you. Simply doing this post to clarify the meaning of CFIT (Controlled Flight Into Terrain).

 

It is a little different to your heart failure scenario (I think anyway!) and I am only meaning to clarify on a very technical level in case other pilots on here are looking into other accidents from a point of education. Think in those cases it is a fairly important thing to keep in mind, in the long run it will only bring home the point your making about attitudes and accidents.

 

CFIT means a fully serviceable aircraft that was functioning as recommended and expected at the time of contact with ground i.e. in most cases the pilot did not know the ground was there and flew straight into it.

 

It is highly different from UFIT (uncontrolled flight into terrain) which encompasses things like structurel failure, engine failure and any other issue where the aircraft, rather inevitably hits the ground due to factors outside the pilot lossing his ability to control it! Engine failures, fuel starvation and other things are not considered CFIT! Doing aeros VFR and loosing control and spinning into the ground is also not CFIT (although cases where in IMC, the pilot losses control and hits the grouns seems to be tagged as CFIT, go figure!)

 

CFIT is nearly always an attitude issue and in most cases would have been avoided if the pilot did not "push on" yet it still accounts for most aircraft accidents around the world!

 

 

[kgwilson]

Most of my flying in GA light aircraft C172 & 182, PA28-181 was in NZ where there is bugger all nice flat clear land around and to get from 1 place to the other more often than not meant flying over some pretty inhospitable terrain. I was always taught to look for possible landing areas and have always done so. It never deterred me from flying by the most direct route and I didn't feel that I was an unsafe pilot. I always filed a flight plan or SARwatch, flew in CTA whenever possible & requested radar coverage when flying over water even when outside CTA. If I'd always flown where there is somewhere to land if it goes quiet I would have missed out on some of the finest scenery in the world and wouldn't even have been able to go to many places.

 

 

[facthunter]

I did specifically mention my ULTRALIGHT career kgw, but it still applies to single engined GA as well. I do not fly directly over inhospitable terrain if a small dog leg improves my chances. I also spiral climb out of remote areas surrounded by heavily wooded country, to achieve a safer height, before proceeding on track. If I have a fuel selection uncertainty I circle over an area where I can land if it goes pear shaped, etc. Tall timber country is not a place to go down into. I would rate your chances of survival at about 10%, in some of Victoria's High Country.. To a large extent, you make your own luck in aviation. The better you do it , the luckier you become. Nev

 

 

[farri]

Surely it should be possible if your prepared to put an aircraft down, relatively safely in the harshest of terrain?

What type of aircraft is being flown?....How harsh is the harshest terain?....How skillful is the pilot?

 

A while back, an RAA CFI who I know was in a Lightwing with a student on board and they had an engine failure! Not a problem because a strip he sometimes used was within gliding distance. He did a pretty good landing but a bit too far down the strip. Someone had dumped a couple of loads of dirt and the grass had grown over them. He couldn`t stop the AC, hit the mound of dirt, AC ended upside down and he ended up in hospital..Not sure about the student.

 

I read an article that was writen in an American Ultralight magazine and it stated that whenever flying an Ultralight over timbered country a long rope should always be carried so that in the event of an engine failure the aircraft could be put down on top of a tree and the rope would be needed to get down from the tree!...I wonder if whoever gave that advice tried it out first?

 

Frank.

 

 

[shafs64]

I was in the US a few years ago and noticed that a lot of there sport aircraft had BRS chutes. And yet you don't see that many here.

 

 

[Bandit12]

Hey Bandit hope you do not mind me quoting you. Simply doing this post to clarify the meaning of CFIT (Controlled Flight Into Terrain).

Never a concern qith a quoted post Louis. And the joy of written language is that we don't always get across what we meant to. I understand quite well what you mean by CFIT (and the other examples you gave). But to me, these are the results at the end of a chain of decisions made by the PIC, sometimes in response to things like weather. My point was that regardless of the exact details of the sudden and unplanned stop, an individual made the decisions to bring it to that situation. In the early days of aviating we may have been able to apportion much more of the blame to the aircraft themselves, or the maintenance, or the weather conditions. But these days with those variables much better controlled for, the lion's share of the responsibility for accidents will rest with the pilot.

 

 

[farri]

My first engine failure was in the days when we were restricted to 500` AGL and a stupid mistake that I made, but it still put me down and could have ended tragically!

 

The aircraft that I`d built had a fuel tank out on each wing strut and the fuel line from each tank had it`s own tap. The taps were placed on my left hand side, beside the seat, where they then flowed into one line, to the engine. One tank would always drain faster than the other so I would put my hand down, turn off the tank with less fuel until both tanks were even,then turn the tap back on.

 

This day particular day, I`d turned the tap off and when the tanks were even I put my hand down, turned the tap and thought no more about it. After a while, without warning, the engine stoped! my first reaction was of total shock and I couldn`t believe what had just happened, I quickly got my myself under control and landed in one of our local cane farmers paddocks only to find that I`d turned the wrong tap! I turned off the one that was on instead of turning on the one that was off.

 

It was about an hour before end of daylight so I had the farmer take me home. I went back the next day and flew it home.

 

Frank.

 

 

[FlyingVizsla]

The old Crash Comics were fantastic for the real life stories. We left them lying around the smoko table for pilots (and students) to read and learn from other's mistakes. People who could empathise with the writers picked up on the concepts without having to go through the risk of experiencing the problems themselves. The writers conveyed the terror of having the cloud, valley, night, fuel starvation, closing in on them and ended with a "I'll never do that again" moral.

 

I also knew a man who never did learn. He diced with disaster so many times he considered he was charmed (naturally lucky, never happen to him). He had been taught correctly, but chose to do things unconventionally. He wouldn't plan or get weather, relying instead on drift, or follow roads in the rough direction. He told everyone his stories - how he was running out of fuel, and daylight, lost in the outback, when he saw an airstrip - the family told him he was 100Nm off track, gave him a roast dinner, bed, fuel and directions while he regaled them his flying exploits. How he flew a defective aircraft to save freighting it. How he took off for one airstrip but ended up at another. Beat up his hangar, lost his door, got gear wrapped round the tail, etc.

 

I flew with him when he got lost and had to land and ask for directions and again when he exhausted one tank "to see how long it would last" and then couldn't reach the selector, when he kept playing with the Johnson bar on take off and we porpoised up the strip, close to the stall, so frightened his passenger that she wouldn't get in another plane ... and the list goes on.

 

What happened to him? Countless people tried to reason with him to no avail. I flew with him, especially if he had a passenger, to get him out of trouble, until I realised it wasn't going to improve anything. CASA looked like they would rescind his licence but relented and issued him with one restricted geographically, outside controlled airspace and within a confined radius of his base so he could continue his business. I was the last person to see him alive. He was heading out with a passenger (an old friend) and I pointed out he was still choked, I also told him he was leaving too late to get to his destination, but he left anyway and did a quick beat up of our hangar. No night licence or night flying experience ... ended up a CFIT 20km from the runway end killing himself and his best mate. You can read about him on the ATSB site under VH-TCN. The report is only the tip of the iceberg. He was heading to another destination to overnight, but changed tack and headed direct despite nightfall and no moon.

 

What more could we have done? CASA could have taken his licence off him and he would have continued to fly, he had access to aircraft as part of his business and those he owned, he wouldn't listen to anyone - friends, family, CASA inspectors, instructors, fellow pilots. Council staff tried to stop him flying but he simply moved to landing at the back of his house in an ultralight and using my call sign when going to town.

 

Some battles we never win. But WE can learn from it.

 

Sue