Fatal GA accident cockpit video

[elaw]

Evan,

Have you ever considered joining the UK's Civil Aviation Authority? I've heard it said that that entire organization considers itself a failure every time an airplane leaves the ground.

Somewhat more seriously, I'd like to know how you'd address this scenario:
1) There is a rule in place (by some regulatory authority) that when going around, you must maintain runway heading until (some condition like altitude, airspeed, or clearing the field)

2) There is a rule in place (by physics) that if you try to turn while your airspeed (yes technically AoA but in this context airspeed works) is marginal, the plane can stall and crash.

3) Late in the process of making an approach, when you're just about to touch down, the airplane stalls and one wing drops. You recover from the stall, but the dropped wing has caused you to turn about 80 degrees off runway heading... you are now heading toward some trees at very low airspeed.

So... do you follow rule #1 and try to turn back to runway heading, risking a stall and a crash, or do you follow rule #2 and continue straight toward the trees, carefully trying to gain altitude so you don't hit them?

[Gabriel]

And how does that make you feel? Do you think a few rules are a bad idea? Or is chaos part of the fun?

No, actually I think that some rules are good ideas. But not too many, especially in non-commercial operations where you are not trying to save the general public.

In particular, your "no turns below 400' AGL" is questionable. Not only that it's not necessary. What if by 400ft they are flying too slow and make a too large bank and they stall spin crash burn die?

You can'r regulate basic airmanship and common sense.

I meant the initial bank leaving the runway heading.

Me too.

I meant a return to the runway heading, away from the trees. Obviously that doesn't happen.

Me too. They clearly start (and hold for a few seconds) a right turn that was conductive to head back to the runway and away from the trees. Why they changed their mind later, I have no idea.

I think that's what things like MSA area about (what, the mountain is not enough to convince them? See: CFIT).

Of course, the fact that the MSA applies only in IFR is a minor detail.

Maybe I just have a lower opinion of the 'general' in general aviation, but I think that opinion is justified by videos like this one. I don't like rules of thumb because some people are all thumbs. And some people will always need convincing.

I keep that the turn was not intentional. But if it was, if they wanted to recklessly trim the trees, do you think that a reg would have stopped them?

When did a reg stop a scud running?

And some people are wise enough to leave themselves room for error. My reg would be based on Gabriel's common sense.

You can't and shouldn't impose my risk/comfort threshold to the world.

It's quite logical that commercial aviation has more regulations, as do truck/buses over cars, and restaurants over home kitchens.

Did you know that experimental airplanes are not FAR23-cetrified? Did you know that there are far more accidents (proportionally) in the experimental segment than in any other? Let's ban experimental planes and request FAR-23 for anything that flies? If not, why would you let a person take increase risks but letting him fly an experimental airplane but not banking 10° at 300ft AGL with 1.5 Vs?

[guamainiac]

There would never be a Bob Hoover and think about this if you go to any air show, what proposed regulations would do? Actually not an issue because air shows would be history.

[Evan]

So... do you follow rule #1 and try to turn back to runway heading, risking a stall and a crash, or do you follow rule #2 and continue straight toward the trees, carefully trying to gain altitude so you don't hit them?

Rule#1 if you can, Rule#2 if you can't. As I keep trying to point out, a regulation does not trump survival skills. It's just a rule of thumb, set to law. You strive to comply and if you violate it (and live), you will have to explain why.

From what I'm seeing here, they had opportunity to bank right and fly parallel to the trees and they didn't. Maybe they couldn't, but neither I nor Gabriel can divine the reason for that. And if they could, they should have been required to.

The reason I would like to see more regulation regarding the airspace within an airfield is because it is closely SHARED airspace. Certainly you can take your experimental a/c up and do whatever your heart desires once you are clear of the field (assuming the rest of us can see you and stay the hell away). There are regs that protect you from yourself, which I am not too interested in (being a big fan or Darwinism) and there are laws that protect the rest of us from you which I'd like to see more of.

All I'm suggesting here is a go-around reg that says you must maintain wings-level runway heading and climb to a minimum safe altitude beyond the runway before manuevering. What that altitude is I don't know but I'm sure an expert commission could find the right number.

I think the reason people resist regs so much is because they believe they are a slippery slope. From what I'm learning about VFR, that has certainly not been the case so far.

[ATLcrew]

All I'm suggesting here is a go-around reg that says you must maintain wings-level runway heading and climb to a minimum safe altitude beyond the runway before manuevering. What that altitude is I don't know but I'm sure an expert commission could find the right number.

Your faith in expert commissions is endearing.

[Evan]

Your faith in expert commissions is endearing.

Do you have a problem with the FAA ATL? I do, but only when they neglect to regulate or to enforce their own regulations. When they do get around to making rules, I think they know what they're doing and I don't take that for granted. Go to Zambibia or Wackastan or some other Category 2 nightmare and you might appreciate the lifepreserving wisdom of those commissions. You've gotta put your faith somewhere, right? If I have to decide between some guy named Rick with a homebuilt and nothing but Redbull in his orbital cortex or a panel of FAA experts, hmmm....

Or should I simply refer you to the many Gabrielesque lectures on stall and the stunning number of licensed pilots (including line-pilots, apparently) who still don't get the basics of it? If you simply can't resist flying directly into the treeline or pulling up relentlessly or incipiently spinning it in, fine, be my guest, but just don't do it near my regional flight departure runway or over my neighborhood.

Anyway, I'm not going to beat this dead horse any longer here. I get it. Apparently everyone feels that it's best to have less rules in a lower-skill environment.

[ATLcrew]

Do you have a problem with the FAA ATL? I do, but only when they neglect to regulate or to enforce their own regulations. When they do get around to making rules, I think they know what their doing and I don't take that for granted...

I'm sure they appreciate the vote of confidence.

[3WE]

Evan...

8 words:

...You can't regulate basic airmanship and common sense...

It's the truth.

Gabriel is a wise man
(Along with being a verbose Aeroengineer)

[Gabriel]

Turning below 400' after take off is not always dangerous.
Or, at least, sometimes not doing so is even more dangerous.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1vSM49-U3ZM

"Terrain" "Woop woop - pull up" and all...

I loved this comment:

surreal moment when you look out the window and see you are flying BELOW a Buddhist temple while your computer is barking "Terrain, Terrain!"

And I thought that the approaches to that airport were spectacular:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YsZqN-uEgQU

[brianw999]

All flown by that well known Asian pilot "Ho Lee Shit !"

[guamainiac]

My money is still on vodka or pivo. (original crash)

[3WE]

My money is still on vodka or pivo. (original crash)

Concur

Gabe: Loved the takeoff video...but shouldn't there be some written regulations prescribing that that takeoff would allow a turn before 400 feet...the YouTube title does call it "One of the most dangerous takeoffs in the world"...heck, maybe it should be banned!

[brianw999]

But surely, if you ban that takeoff you'll be approving a crash ?