Handling engine failures at night
Some of my pilot friends say that if I am flying at night and experience an engine failure, I should head for the darkest area I can find if there's no airport nearby. Another pilot friend says she would head toward lights. Which option would you choose?
Thanks!
A.I.
Greetings A.I.:
Heading toward the dark area during an engine failure at night is really winging it. It's an option whose survival chances rank between nil and none. This choice is based, I think, on the idea that darkness means nothing is there except a vast, unoccupied area awaiting your arrival. This is not a good assumption, especially in these days of energy conservation. Lots of very large, very solid objects are not lit at night.
Your friend's idea about heading toward the lights is a much brighter idea. I suggest that you plan night routes that remain within gliding distance of a series of airports that have runway lighting. If this doesn't spin your prop, then at least follow major roads at night, just in case your prop stops spinning. Sure, you may have to go out of your way when following roads, but at least you'll have the possibility of a BLS (Buick Lighting System) to help illuminate the road runway if your engine quits. You'll also have the added advantage of being found quickly, should you need medical assistance.
The light option gives you a better chance of survival if your engine goes kaput at night. It's your choice. Choose wisely, see the light, and don't be lured by the dark side.
Speeds in the pattern
Dear Rod:
I'm training in a Cessna 172SP. I recently purchased a video on takeoffs and landings that used a Cessna 172 for the demonstration. The instructor suggests that the airplane should be flown at 1.5 VSO on downwind, 1.4 VSO on base, and 1.3 VSO on final.
When I fly, my instructor has me at 85 knots on downwind, 80 on the turn to base, 75 on base, 70 on the turn to final, and 65 the rest of the way in. If I calculate 1.5 times the 172's VSO (44 kt dirty) I don't get anywhere near the downwind speed of 85 kt. I flew with another instructor who insisted that the entire pattern be flown at 70 kt. It seems as though every instructor has a different speed to use for different parts of the pattern. What speeds should I use?
Thank you,
No Name Please
Greetings NNP:
The short answer is: Use the speeds your instructor du jour recommends. Now, here's the longer answer.
First, there's no regulation requiring that small general aviation airplanes fly the pattern at any specific speed. As you grow more proficient, the speeds you use will vary somewhat based on traffic, your comfort level, quirks of a particular airframe, and a number of other factors. The "proper" final approach speed in a more-or-less normal pattern would not serve you well if you'd just flown a downwind greatly extended by heavy traffic.
There are certainly speed recommendations for pilots to consider, and they're a good starting point. The speeds given in your video certainly jive with what the FAA recommends, and these are certainly reasonable speeds to use, too (unless the airplane's pilot's operating handbook [POH] suggests otherwise-so make sure you know the Tao of POH). Using a speed of 30 percent above stall (1.3 VSO) in calm air is a good speed for final approach, too. This speed reduces your chances of floating during the landing flare.
On the other hand, it doesn't seem reasonable to fly the entire pattern at one speed (70 kt). This may be inconveniently slow for the downwind leg, and a tad fast for the final approach. It may also be excessively challenging for a student pilot to have an additional speed requirement for the turn to base leg (i.e., 80 kt in your example) and for the turn to final (70 kt in your example). Using five different speeds to fly a pattern might unintentionally train your attention on the airspeed needle in lieu of looking for traffic and holding a specific attitude.
Nevertheless, I don't want to override your primary instructor's rule here. He or she is the ticket to your ticket. Do what he or she wants until you get your certificate. Then you can experiment with other techniques to see which works best for you.
Fear-inducing flights
Dear Rod:
I have a confession about fear (for the record, I'm an ATP-rated pilot). About six months ago I took a job flying cargo in Cessna 210s in Tornado Alley. I flew a scheduled route from St. Louis, Missouri, to Little Rock, Arkansas, back to St. Louis, and then Des Moines, Iowa, and then finally back to St. Louis. The Cessnas had no weather radar, no Stormscope, no DME, and no autopilot.
It did not take long for me to become really afraid each time a cold front moved through my route with the potential of severe thunderstorms with tops to 65,000 feet. I must have flown through four or five Level 3 or 4 storms. In each case I was sure I would not make it to the other side.
On one particular day, I had an engine failure on takeoff in a twin, an attitude indicator failure, and a door open in flight that caused all the pitot-static instruments to fluctuate wildly because of pressure changes in the cabin. When I switched on alternate air, all the pitot-static instruments went to zero, thanks to an improperly installed valve. This probably would not have been so bad except I had just taken off with one mile of visibility and a 100-foot overcast. When I finally launched in my fourth airplane of the morning I ending up dodging Level 3 thunderstorms for two hours. So what did I do? I gave two weeks' notice.
I have more than 3,000 hours of flight time, a CFI/MEI/ATP certificate, and I am afraid to fly when there are thunderstorms forecast. I am also afraid of icing. A good friend was killed that way.
Is the reality of an aviation career simply, "If the pilots gets time and experience without killing himself, we will hire him"? Or, is it time to find another career?
Sincerely,
Ken
Greetings Ken:
No, it's not time to find another career. No doubt, flying is still for you, but certainly not the way you've been doing it.
Let me ask you a simple question. Why in the world would you do what no-no! -airline pilot in his or her right mind would do? Specifically, I mean that no airline pilot would ever intentionally fly through a thunderstorm, nor fly in icing conditions that exceed the capabilities of the airplane (as is the case with your 210, I'm sure).
Please listen up. There is never-never!-any reason for you to fly through a thunderstorm! One of those things can chew you up, spit you out, and stomp your empennage flat. That's why I'm afraid of thunderstorms and icing, too! I learned about these things the hard way. As a young instrument-rated pilot I thought ATC would (could) keep me out of these things in my small, non-Stormscope/radar-equipped airplane.
Nothing-nothing!-could be further from the truth. Even in today's modern ATC system, a controller cannot offer you any predictable protection against flying into thunderstorms. There's only one thing that will keep you out of thunderstorms as an IFR pilot in an under-equipped airplane: your eyes.
That's why I don't fly solid IFR in an underequipped airplane when thunderstorms are present unless I can avoid these storms visually. Often, this means getting on top of the clouds (when possible) or on top of any haze layer and operating in visual meteorological conditions (VMC) to avoid the buildups. To fly solid IFR when thunderstorms are present goes beyond foolishness. It's insane. Dangerous, too.
Regarding flying for a living, well, unless you're a cargo pilot flying a small airplane in Tornado Alley, there are few jobs that will ever put you in a position where you might feel compelled (for whatever reason) to fly IFR in thunderstorms and icing conditions. You quit, which was obviously the best decision for you.
Is it necessary for a pilot to have experience at flying in thunderstorms and dangerous icing conditions to be considered qualified to fly an airliner? The experience you obtain from flying in thunderstorms and icing teaches you one thing: Stay out of thunderstorms and icing. Ironically, once you have this experience, you regret having it. Its only useful purpose is to teach you not to use the information you've learned ever again!
There is no reason for any pilot to directly experience these weather thrillers. That's why we read books. They teach us how to avoid these things before someone names an impact crater after us.
Rod Machado is a flight instructor, author, educator, and speaker. A pilot for 32 years and a CFI for 28, he has flown more than 8,000 hours and owns a Beech A36 Bonanza. Visit his Web site.
Related Articles
