Warehouse crash Fullerton Airport,CA 1-2-2025

[kyleb]

I agree they are rarely installed, but my point is that more experimental builders should install them.

Think about the 10K RV's. To install a BRS, you're presumably going to need A) somewhere to mount the rocket, complete with a blow-through panel. B) A fireproof well for the rocket. C) You're gonna have to find a way to mount a harness to the aircraft, which (I presume) will be at least 4 cables routed to the main and aft spars. And D) you're gonna have to route those cables on the exterior of the aircraft, entailing gnarly looking fiberglass scabs to cover them. Once you're done, you'll still have a theoretically fine, but untested parachute system which robs you of 100 pounds of useful load and makes the airplane ugly because of the external cable routing. The process needs to begin with designing all of that into the aircraft from inception, IMO.

 

[Jim K]

I agree they are rarely installed, but my point is that more experimental builders should install them.

BRS Whole Aircraft Parachute for Van's RV-10 - KITPLANES

BRS Aerospace has developed a whole aircraft parachute rescue system on Van’s RV-10 homebuilt aircraft. The company is accepting orders for the system, which is priced at $25,990, plus shipping. The BRS ballistic powered parachute system can be retrofitted on flying aircraft or incorporated...

www.kitplanes.com

Also, $26,000 and the external cable routing looks like ass

Much easier said than done. Works great on ultralights where you just bolt it to the frame.

 

[MountainDude]

Think about the 10K RV's. To install a BRS, you're presumably going to need A) somewhere to mount the rocket, complete with a blow-through panel. B) A fireproof well for the rocket. C) You're gonna have to find a way to mount a harness to the aircraft, which (I presume) will be at least 4 cables routed to the main and aft spars. And D) you're gonna have to route those cables on the exterior of the aircraft, entailing gnarly looking fiberglass scabs to cover them. Once you're done, you'll still have a theoretically fine, but untested parachute system which robs you of 100 pounds of useful load and makes the airplane ugly because of the external cable routing. The process needs to begin with designing all of that into the aircraft from inception, IMO.

I agree it's not easy and Van's should have designed the plane that way, but we cannot go back in time.
It's doable, and adds extra insurance for the precious cargo.

 

[MountainDude]

BRS Whole Aircraft Parachute for Van's RV-10 - KITPLANES

BRS Aerospace has developed a whole aircraft parachute rescue system on Van’s RV-10 homebuilt aircraft. The company is accepting orders for the system, which is priced at $25,990, plus shipping. The BRS ballistic powered parachute system can be retrofitted on flying aircraft or incorporated...

www.kitplanes.com

Also, $26,000 and the external cable routing looks like ass

Much easier said than done. Works great on ultralights where you just bolt it to the frame.

The moment you need it, you would not think about the cost or how it looks.

 

[Racerx]

I agree it's not easy and Van's should have designed the plane that way, but we cannot go back in time.
It's doable, and adds extra insurance for the precious cargo.

To be fair, this was a third party company that retrofitted their product to a popular kit years after the kit was introduced. Not sure what vans was supposed to do.

 

[Flying Keys]

Sure would like to hear the views on this.

I did this in a PA-28R when I was training for my complex endorsement. It definitely made a significant difference - you could feel the drag change and a noticeable difference in glide angle.

I’m not sure if that would be detrimental to the engine, but under idle, I kind of doubt it.

 

[3393RP]

In my analyses, I don't think I've seen any experimental amateur-built aircraft accidents where a ballistic chute was involved. This may be because the NTSB may not consider a successful chute activation as an accident. May also reflect a very low installation rate in EABs.

My personal bet is on the latter. Never met an EAB owner who installed one.

Ron Wanttaja

Sorry, I was referring to ". . . (given that experimentals have a higher accident rate)."

Meaning compared to certificated single engine airplanes.

 

[wanttaja]

Sorry, I was referring to ". . . (given that experimentals have a higher accident rate)."

Meaning compared to certificated single engine airplanes.

My analysis does show Experimental Amateur-Built aircraft as having a higher accident rate than certificated airplanes.

I compare homebuilt accidents to a "Control Group" consisting of a combination of Cessna 172 and 210 accidents (to get a mix including high-performance aircraft. I compute the "Fleet Accident Rate" for each year, which is the number of accidents divided by the number of registered examples

As you can see, the EABs do tend to have a higher accident rate.

Note that this plot doesn't incorporate the actual flight time of the aircraft. The FAA General Aviation Survey says that the average single-engine 4+ seat recip aircraft fly about 110 hours a year, while the average homebuilt flies about 50.4 hours a year. So if you're computing it based on accidents per 100,000 flight hours, the homebuilts end up even worse.

Some mitigating factors. First, the fleet size for the above plot includes only those airplanes in the registry that are licensed as EAB. There are ~6,000 airplanes in the registry with homebuilt-like names that are NOT included in the fleet-rate computation. So the homebuilt fleet size is actually about 20% larger.

Second, about 3% of new homebuilts have accidents within their test period. If you leave these planes out, the rate improves.

Third...well, there's that annual hour estimate from the FAA survey. For the production-type aircraft, less than 50% of their hours is flown for recreation. Vs. about 94% for homebuilt hours. This means homebuilt operations are being compared primarily with business and commercial operations. Not really a fair comparison.


What the hour estimate says that if a person owns a Cessna 172, they'll fly an average of 110 hours per year...but if they sell it and get an RV-10, they fly less than half that.

The FAA survey doesn't break down the average annual hours for any specific aircraft type, but I do make a really broad estimate based on the accident data. My average is actually very close to what the FAA comes up with...I get 50 hours, vs. the FAA's 50.4. For instance, I estimate that RV-8s and -10s fly about 80 hours a year.

Homebuilt airplanes are built, maintained, flown, and often designed by amateurs. Of COURSE we're going to have a higher accident rate.....

Ron Wanttaja

 

[3393RP]

My analysis does show Experimental Amateur-Built aircraft as having a higher accident rate than certificated airplanes.

I compare homebuilt accidents to a "Control Group" consisting of a combination of Cessna 172 and 210 accidents (to get a mix including high-performance aircraft. I compute the "Fleet Accident Rate" for each year, which is the number of accidents divided by the number of registered examples
View attachment 136796
As you can see, the EABs do tend to have a higher accident rate.

Note that this plot doesn't incorporate the actual flight time of the aircraft. The FAA General Aviation Survey says that the average single-engine 4+ seat recip aircraft fly about 110 hours a year, while the average homebuilt flies about 50.4 hours a year. So if you're computing it based on accidents per 100,000 flight hours, the homebuilts end up even worse.

Some mitigating factors. First, the fleet size for the above plot includes only those airplanes in the registry that are licensed as EAB. There are ~6,000 airplanes in the registry with homebuilt-like names that are NOT included in the fleet-rate computation. So the homebuilt fleet size is actually about 20% larger.

Second, about 3% of new homebuilts have accidents within their test period. If you leave these planes out, the rate improves.

Third...well, there's that annual hour estimate from the FAA survey. For the production-type aircraft, less than 50% of their hours is flown for recreation. Vs. about 94% for homebuilt hours. This means homebuilt operations are being compared primarily with business and commercial operations. Not really a fair comparison.

View attachment 136797
What the hour estimate says that if a person owns a Cessna 172, they'll fly an average of 110 hours per year...but if they sell it and get an RV-10, they fly less than half that.

The FAA survey doesn't break down the average annual hours for any specific aircraft type, but I do make a really broad estimate based on the accident data. My average is actually very close to what the FAA comes up with...I get 50 hours, vs. the FAA's 50.4. For instance, I estimate that RV-8s and -10s fly about 80 hours a year.

Homebuilt airplanes are built, maintained, flown, and often designed by amateurs. Of COURSE we're going to have a higher accident rate.....

Ron Wanttaja

Thanks for providing the information.

Your observations suggest the accident rates between the two groups might not be much different, and that's what I remembered from a previous post of yours.

An analysis of rates for solely personal use by both groups would be interesting.

 

[brcase]

That's not generally true. A windmilling prop does indeed generate drag, but it isn't as easy as equating to a flat plate of the prop diameter. It's affected by the amount of torque generated (RPM versus how hard it is to turn the the engine). If the crank broke, the thing would spin like a pinwheel and not hardly generate any drag at all. In a controllable pitch prop, you can feel a drag decrease just by moving to course pi

 

[Dana]

In my analyses, I don't think I've seen any experimental amateur-built aircraft accidents where a ballistic chute was involved. This may be because the NTSB may not consider a successful chute activation as an accident. May also reflect a very low installation rate in EABs.

My personal bet is on the latter. Never met an EAB owner who installed one.

I've seen quite a few. There's one on the Murphy Rebel that shares my hangar, and I think one of the local Kitfoxes has one, too. Lots of ultralights and ultralightish 2 seaters have them; I've flown two 2-place Quicksilvers that had them.

 

[texasclouds]

From the hole in roof looks like a stall spin?
"Fly the aircraft as far into the crash as possible "
Keep drumming this into my son. Let it stall and your just a SMOKING HOLE.

Edited above

 

[texasclouds]

I did this in a PA-28R when I was training for my complex endorsement. It definitely made a significant difference - you could feel the drag change and a noticeable difference in glide angle.

I’m not sure if that would be detrimental to the engine, but under idle, I kind of doubt it.

It can’t see any harm to the engine when practicing, but you do need to ensure you set it to fine pitch for a go around. Leaving it at coarse pitch would be like trying to go uphill in 5th gear in your 1996 Tacoma. Lots of noise and shaking but no results.

 

[kmacht]

I agree they are rarely installed, but my point is that more experimental builders should install them.

It’s not that easy. Most experimental are not designed structurally to support a ballistic parachute and adding one will either significantly change the structure of the aircraft beyond what it was designed and tested to or the chute itself becomes a risk of entangling the aircraft or occupants when deployed. I look at this hard when building my sonex and even ignoring the cost it just wasn’t possible to adapt a chute to the airframe safely.

 

[Warmi]

My analysis does show Experimental Amateur-Built aircraft as having a higher accident rate than certificated airplanes.

I compare homebuilt accidents to a "Control Group" consisting of a combination of Cessna 172 and 210 accidents (to get a mix including high-performance aircraft. I compute the "Fleet Accident Rate" for each year, which is the number of accidents divided by the number of registered examples
View attachment 136796
As you can see, the EABs do tend to have a higher accident rate.

Note that this plot doesn't incorporate the actual flight time of the aircraft. The FAA General Aviation Survey says that the average single-engine 4+ seat recip aircraft fly about 110 hours a year, while the average homebuilt flies about 50.4 hours a year. So if you're computing it based on accidents per 100,000 flight hours, the homebuilts end up even worse.

Some mitigating factors. First, the fleet size for the above plot includes only those airplanes in the registry that are licensed as EAB. There are ~6,000 airplanes in the registry with homebuilt-like names that are NOT included in the fleet-rate computation. So the homebuilt fleet size is actually about 20% larger.

Second, about 3% of new homebuilts have accidents within their test period. If you leave these planes out, the rate improves.

Third...well, there's that annual hour estimate from the FAA survey. For the production-type aircraft, less than 50% of their hours is flown for recreation. Vs. about 94% for homebuilt hours. This means homebuilt operations are being compared primarily with business and commercial operations. Not really a fair comparison.

View attachment 136797
What the hour estimate says that if a person owns a Cessna 172, they'll fly an average of 110 hours per year...but if they sell it and get an RV-10, they fly less than half that.

The FAA survey doesn't break down the average annual hours for any specific aircraft type, but I do make a really broad estimate based on the accident data. My average is actually very close to what the FAA comes up with...I get 50 hours, vs. the FAA's 50.4. For instance, I estimate that RV-8s and -10s fly about 80 hours a year.

Homebuilt airplanes are built, maintained, flown, and often designed by amateurs. Of COURSE we're going to have a higher accident rate.....

Ron Wanttaja

I am not sure if this is comparing apples to apples - we would have to know how many of these accidents are plane vs pilot related given that most EABs are basically hot-rod planes, at least as compared to a 172 …

 

[JackL-3J]

In all my years of flying I have learned that I am not an exceptional pilot.

You don't have to be.

You need to know how to avoid distraction, how to prioritize, how to remain calm, how to make fast, well reasoned decisions with limited information, and how to apply basic math and physics.

Personally, I learned almost all of that from playing sports.

Any airplane will have an ideal glide ratio at any given weight, configuration, and set of environmental conditions. The laws of physics cannot be bent.

Non-expiramentals have published or generally accepted glide ratios and airspeeds, but really, everyone should do some sort of flight testing to determine the actual numbers and sight pictures for the actual aircraft being flown.

Making the best POSSIBLE choice isn't always what we instinctively want to do. But, attempting the impossible doesn't work. Controlled flight to impact is more survivable than uncontrolled.

 

[ahmad]

I have flown out of FUL several times and fly in SoCal every few months. It is dense and populated. there's almost nothing out there for an emergency landing. you better have your stuff together and prepared with a plan on what to do and where to go at all times. I don't know all the details but imo this guy panicked and lost focus. from his tracks it appears that he could have made it back to rwy 6 had he been decisive and committed. looks like he tried to do a normal pattern entry under abnormal circumstances.

I hope I never experience something like this but if I do my call would be Mayday RV is coming back and I am turn right for the numbers if I have the altitude.

I feel bad for his daughter and family.

 

[SebIp]

Beeline for airport is how I was taught. And hammered in when I tried to do the neat base to final, realize I would end up in the grass, went for the go around and the trim was all the way back and almost stalled it 50 foot above ground.

Speaking of that I should get some PFL and force approaches in. Been a while.

 

[Warmi]

I have flown out of FUL several times and fly in SoCal every few months. It is dense and populated. there's almost nothing out there for an emergency landing. you better have your stuff together and prepared with a plan on what to do and where to go at all times. I don't know all the details but imo this guy panicked and lost focus. from his tracks it appears that he could have made it back to rwy 6 had he been decisive and committed. looks like he tried to do a normal pattern entry under abnormal circumstances.

I hope I never experience something like this but if I do my call would be Mayday RV is coming back and I am turn right for the numbers if I have the altitude.

I feel bad for his daughter and family.

It is frankly odd that Van does not offer BRS as an option since this is the type of technology that is best tested and incorporated at the design ( factory) level rather than being retrofitted by individual builders in an ad hoc manner.
It was designed exactly for situations like the one you described where sometimes your only option is to basically pray that nothing happens.
One would expect an EAB company to be on the cutting edge of new technologies ( the experimental part ) but I remember reading somewhere that when asked about why no BRS option, somebody at Vans allegedly replied that they build planes for “real pilots” - I have no way to verify this quite and it maybe somebody posted some ******** and it never happened but the general point still holds.

 

[Jim K]

It is frankly odd that Van does not offer BRS as an option since this is the type of technology that is best tested and incorporated at the design ( factory) level rather than being retrofitted by individual builders in an ad hoc manner.
It was designed exactly for situations like the one you described where sometimes your only option is to basically pray that nothing happens.
One would expect an EAB company to be on the cutting edge of new technologies ( the experimental part ) but I remember reading somewhere that when asked about why no BRS option, somebody at Vans allegedly replied that they build planes for “real pilots” - I have no way to verify this quite and it maybe somebody posted some ******** and it never happened but the general point still holds.

I would venture that if builders demanded it, they would offer it.

There are no-win situations, but they are rare. The incident we're discussing here should've ended with a landing on RW 6; he had PLENTY of energy. Even a midfield 24 would've worked. When he tried to fly a normal pattern he removed his last option. I'd argue adding power-off 180's to the private curriculum would be a more useful solution. It would certainly cost and weigh a lot less.

 

[wanttaja]

I am not sure if this is comparing apples to apples - we would have to know how many of these accidents are plane vs pilot related given that most EABs are basically hot-rod planes, at least as compared to a 172 …

The most common type of homebuilt is the RV, of course, which some might describe as a "hot rod," but most carry the same sort of engines as 172s. But the second most-common types are Zenairs, which don't really fit the moniker, nor do Kitfoxes, the third-place contender. Then come Lancairs (fits the adjective) but then the RANS (which doesn't).

In 2023, the most-common type of new homebuilt was the RV, of course, but the Carbon Cub came in second. Again, not a hot-rod.

Comparing accident rates between homebuilts and production airplanes is a bit awkward for a couple of reasons. First, homebuilt pilots involved in accidents typically have more flight experience. The median total flight time for pilots who have accidents flying homebuilts is about 1000 hours (1998-2022), while the pilots in the Control Group I use (172s and 210s) had a third of that. 172 pilots alone were around 250 hours.

When I started doing these analyses 25 years ago, I was curious whether homebuilts generally have less favorable handling qualities and whether that was contributing to accidents. Haven't found a smoking gun, yet. More than half of homebuilt accidents involve tailwheel airplanes. The rate of Pilot Miscontrol accidents (e.g., stick-and-rudder errors) is slightly higher (43%) vs. the trigear aircraft (38%). And, of course, there aren't many taildraggers in my Control Group.

The bigger factor, though, is engines. All of the Control Group use type-certified engines, while more than half of the homebuilts in accidents are using non-certified engines. About a third of all homebuilt accidents begin with a loss of engine power (sometimes due to pilot action), while the Control Group is about half that.

One advantage of my Control Group is that the total number of 172s and 210s is about the same as the total number of homebuilts. This lets me compare the groups directly, without the misdirection that percentages sometimes imply. This chart compares the two by raw numbers, not percentages:

Again, homebuilts come out better in the pilot categories, mostly because the pilots have more experience. The Control Group wins the mechanical-related categories, to a large extent because of the fully-certified engines.

Finally, let me address one aspect of my accident analysis. About five years ago, I did an in-depth study of Vans Aircraft accidents. The RV-10 hasn't yet met my criteria for inclusion (50+ accidents), but the fleet accident rate came out very favorable.

The RV-7, 8, and 9 came out with the lowest Fleet Accident rate of the homebuilts I looked at. Note that these rates are actually BELOW the rate for the entire GA fleet.

The full study can be found at:

Homebuilt Accidents: Focus on Van’s - KITPLANES

The RV series has an excellent safety record.

www.kitplanes.com

Ron Wanttaja

 

[Racerx]

I would venture that if builders demanded it, they would offer it.

There are no-win situations, but they are rare. The incident we're discussing here should've ended with a landing on RW 6; he had PLENTY of energy. Even a midfield 24 would've worked. When he tried to fly a normal pattern he removed his last option. I'd argue adding power-off 180's to the private curriculum would be a more useful solution. It would certainly cost and weigh a lot less.

Power off 180's and downwind landings should be part of primary training

 

[Racerx]

The most common type of homebuilt is the RV, of course, which some might describe as a "hot rod," but most carry the same sort of engines as 172s. But the second most-common types are Zenairs, which don't really fit the moniker, nor do Kitfoxes, the third-place contender. Then come Lancairs (fits the adjective) but then the RANS (which doesn't).

In 2023, the most-common type of new homebuilt was the RV, of course, but the Carbon Cub came in second. Again, not a hot-rod.

Comparing accident rates between homebuilts and production airplanes is a bit awkward for a couple of reasons. First, homebuilt pilots involved in accidents typically have more flight experience. The median total flight time for pilots who have accidents flying homebuilts is about 1000 hours (1998-2022), while the pilots in the Control Group I use (172s and 210s) had a third of that. 172 pilots alone were around 250 hours.

When I started doing these analyses 25 years ago, I was curious whether homebuilts generally have less favorable handling qualities and whether that was contributing to accidents. Haven't found a smoking gun, yet. More than half of homebuilt accidents involve tailwheel airplanes. The rate of Pilot Miscontrol accidents (e.g., stick-and-rudder errors) is slightly higher (43%) vs. the trigear aircraft (38%). And, of course, there aren't many taildraggers in my Control Group.

The bigger factor, though, is engines. All of the Control Group use type-certified engines, while more than half of the homebuilts in accidents are using non-certified engines. About a third of all homebuilt accidents begin with a loss of engine power (sometimes due to pilot action), while the Control Group is about half that.

One advantage of my Control Group is that the total number of 172s and 210s is about the same as the total number of homebuilts. This lets me compare the groups directly, without the misdirection that percentages sometimes imply. This chart compares the two by raw numbers, not percentages:
View attachment 136810
Again, homebuilts come out better in the pilot categories, mostly because the pilots have more experience. The Control Group wins the mechanical-related categories, to a large extent because of the fully-certified engines.

Finally, let me address one aspect of my accident analysis. About five years ago, I did an in-depth study of Vans Aircraft accidents. The RV-10 hasn't yet met my criteria for inclusion (50+ accidents), but the fleet accident rate came out very favorable.
View attachment 136811
The RV-7, 8, and 9 came out with the lowest Fleet Accident rate of the homebuilts I looked at. Note that these rates are actually BELOW the rate for the entire GA fleet.

The full study can be found at:

Homebuilt Accidents: Focus on Van’s - KITPLANES

The RV series has an excellent safety record.

www.kitplanes.com

Ron Wanttaja

Absolutely fascinating!

 

[Kinder]

The most common type of homebuilt is the RV, of course, which some might describe as a "hot rod," but most carry the same sort of engines as 172s. But the second most-common types are Zenairs, which don't really fit the moniker, nor do Kitfoxes, the third-place contender. Then come Lancairs (fits the adjective) but then the RANS (which doesn't).

In 2023, the most-common type of new homebuilt was the RV, of course, but the Carbon Cub came in second. Again, not a hot-rod.

Comparing accident rates between homebuilts and production airplanes is a bit awkward for a couple of reasons. First, homebuilt pilots involved in accidents typically have more flight experience. The median total flight time for pilots who have accidents flying homebuilts is about 1000 hours (1998-2022), while the pilots in the Control Group I use (172s and 210s) had a third of that. 172 pilots alone were around 250 hours.

When I started doing these analyses 25 years ago, I was curious whether homebuilts generally have less favorable handling qualities and whether that was contributing to accidents. Haven't found a smoking gun, yet. More than half of homebuilt accidents involve tailwheel airplanes. The rate of Pilot Miscontrol accidents (e.g., stick-and-rudder errors) is slightly higher (43%) vs. the trigear aircraft (38%). And, of course, there aren't many taildraggers in my Control Group.

The bigger factor, though, is engines. All of the Control Group use type-certified engines, while more than half of the homebuilts in accidents are using non-certified engines. About a third of all homebuilt accidents begin with a loss of engine power (sometimes due to pilot action), while the Control Group is about half that.

One advantage of my Control Group is that the total number of 172s and 210s is about the same as the total number of homebuilts. This lets me compare the groups directly, without the misdirection that percentages sometimes imply. This chart compares the two by raw numbers, not percentages:
View attachment 136810
Again, homebuilts come out better in the pilot categories, mostly because the pilots have more experience. The Control Group wins the mechanical-related categories, to a large extent because of the fully-certified engines.

Finally, let me address one aspect of my accident analysis. About five years ago, I did an in-depth study of Vans Aircraft accidents. The RV-10 hasn't yet met my criteria for inclusion (50+ accidents), but the fleet accident rate came out very favorable.
View attachment 136811
The RV-7, 8, and 9 came out with the lowest Fleet Accident rate of the homebuilts I looked at. Note that these rates are actually BELOW the rate for the entire GA fleet.

The full study can be found at:

Homebuilt Accidents: Focus on Van’s - KITPLANES

The RV series has an excellent safety record.

www.kitplanes.com

Ron Wanttaja

Now show us when most of the homebuilt accidents occurred. That would be in the first 50 hours of time when the aircraft is in the testing phase. If you remove those the accident rate is vastly lower!

 

[Gilbert Buettner]

I'd argue adding power-off 180's to the private curriculum would be a more useful solution.

Power off 180's and downwind landings should be part of primary training

We have that in the private pilot syllabus where I have instructed the last 14 years.

 

[mryan75]

The track:
View attachment 136766

... and the LiveATC (takeoff clx at 6:20) -- warning: very sad to listen to.

Looks like to me he could have easily made 6. Easy for me to say though.

 

[DesertNomad]

Power off 180's and downwind landings should be part of primary training

All my primary students experience this training.

 

[JackL-3J]

. . . . Comparing accident rates between homebuilts and production airplanes is a bit awkward for a couple of reasons . . ..

The take-away seems clear to me. Fly something so unique that you are in a cohort of one and you will never be a statistic.

 

[Flyxaos]

I don't know how relevant this is to the accident. But since the discussion is somewhat about BRS. My Glasair Sportsman has one. The system was developed with the factory and BRS for the install.

I sometimes lament the CG difference/issue it causes, but, I won't take it out. The plane still has amazing useful and cargo carrying ability.

The previous owner, also a Cirrus driver, had it installed 5 years ago or so.

I doubt I will ever use it and more than likely if I have an issue, I will land. But for wife's and my peace of mind, night, IFR, as well as mountains around here, it is nice to have that last and final option.

 

[Iflydogs]

Looks like to me he could have easily made 6. Easy for me to say though.

At last something POA agrees upon. Everyone could have made 6. Easy.

 

[Hang 4]

Can someone explain the difference between a "simulated engine out" I did on downwind in my PP training and a "power off 180"? On my 6th or so flight, my instructor pulled the throttle to idle on downwind and said "your engine just died, land the plane". We did this on a regular basis and I still do that once a month or so. I know the power off 180 is part of the commercial ACS, trying understand what's special about that vs what my instructor did.

 

[mryan75]

At last something POA agrees upon. Everyone could have made 6. Easy.

I think you can reasonably say by looking at the track that if he had gone for 6 instead of continuing on the downwind he could have easily made it given the fact that he made it onto base for 24 before going in.

 

[455 Bravo Uniform]

trying understand what's special about that vs what my instructor did

The commercial maneuver requires hitting your pre-selected spot or no more than 200 ft beyond it, and on a checkride it’s a failure if you come up short or go beyond 200.

 

[Jim K]

Can someone explain the difference between a "simulated engine out" I did on downwind in my PP training and a "power off 180"? On my 6th or so flight, my instructor pulled the throttle to idle on downwind and said "your engine just died, land the plane". We did this on a regular basis and I still do that once a month or so. I know the power off 180 is part of the commercial ACS, trying understand what's special about that vs what my instructor did.

That's basically it, and all a PP really needs. Commercial standard, as 455 said, is a spot landing. Relatively easy in a trainer, incrementally harder in higher performance A/C.

I was introduced to it during private, but probably not as much as I needed. Sounds like you got some excellent training. It was eye opening the first time I tried it in the Lance. Really needs to be practiced in any new type. Also important to know that the airplane will perform worse if the engine is really making zero power.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

That's not generally true. A windmilling prop does indeed generate drag, but it isn't as easy as equating to a flat plate of the prop diameter. It's affected by the amount of torque generated (RPM versus how hard it is to turn the the engine). If the crank broke, the thing would spin like a pinwheel and not hardly generate any drag at all. In a controllable pitch prop, you can feel a drag decrease just by moving to course pitch.

The coarse pitch thing is one of the things I plan to test, when I get a round tuit.

The windmilling prop may not be exactly the same as a flat plate, but if it's still attached to rotating mass in an engine with compression it's likely a reasonable estimate.

In my analyses, I don't think I've seen any experimental amateur-built aircraft accidents where a ballistic chute was involved. This may be because the NTSB may not consider a successful chute activation as an accident. May also reflect a very low installation rate in EABs.

My personal bet is on the latter. Never met an EAB owner who installed one.

I swear I've seen YouTube videos with experimental BRS saves, but when I went to the BRS site I found it's down for maintenance right now, and looking on archive.org for the most recent snapshots it appears that they no longer maintain the list of all of the saves that they once had.

The best, most recent thing I can find is that as of January 2023 there had been 466 total lives saved, of which CAPS accounted for 243 lives in 121 aircraft. (Today that number is 132 aircraft saved with 269 survivors.) So, Cirrus is only 52% of the total saves. I would imagine that there are plenty of E-ABs that have them, though certainly not the majority.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Is there any downside to the engine in practicing this at best-glide? Idling the engine and pulling the prop all the way back.

I don't think so, as long as you push it forward before you increase power. I'm also not sure how much of a difference it'll make at idle, now that I'm thinking about it. I want to say that I think the RPM went down when I tried it at idle, but now I'm wondering how idle would be enough to get it off the flat-pitch stops.

 

[bflynn]

I agree they are rarely installed, but my point is that more experimental builders should install them.

But would they be used? A BRS effectively writes off the airplane. They are required in a Cirrus for it to be certified because of stall characteristics, they not intended as the first out. A pilot will otherwise do what they are taught, fly the airplane, especially one they put years of effort into building.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

But would they be used? A BRS effectively writes off the airplane.

Definitely something to consider. It took a long time and a lot of factory training before Cirrus pilots started to pull the red handle even when it was warranted.

They are required in a Cirrus for it to be certified because of stall characteristics

Not true, but an oft-repeated old wives' tale. The FAA didn't require them to perform the full spin series during certification as they applied for and were given a waiver based on the fact that it had the chute in an attempt to save some money on the flight test program. However, EASA gave them no breaks so they had to perform the full spin series anyway. A Cirrus *can* recover from a spin conventionally, but as they didn't demonstrate that to the FAA, the (US) POH says to pull the chute.

 

[Bell206]

But would they be used? A BRS effectively writes off the airplane.

Not really. There have been a number of Cirrus repaired and returned to service after a CAPS deployment.

 

[Salty]

I would venture that if builders demanded it, they would offer it.

not sure what would lead you to that conclusion. You give them a lot more credit than I do. Seems more like a you’ll get what we give you and you’ll like it situation to me.