Bo down Pembroke Pines, FL

MooneyDriver78 said:
Mooney best glide speed is not close to stall speed. Is there any planes where the stall horn would be going off when at best glide?
Click to expand...

No. I'm sure even the most disciplined pilots probably fly best glide until they get "real low", then trade airspeed to hold altitude above trees, power lines, etc. Eventually, you have to put the nose back down or you'll stall the thing. The temptation, I'm sure, is "If I can just clear this last (tree, power line, house, etc), I'll dump the nose and we'll get through this intact.
 
MooneyDriver78 said:
Mooney best glide speed is not close to stall speed. Is there any planes where the stall horn would be going off when at best glide?
Click to expand...
I can't imagine. Getting up close to the stall has a lot of parasitic drag. You'd need a honking tailwind to even that out.
 
Alas, last report is that the boy in the SUV has passed away.
 
Sad for all that died. Having an engine failure immediately after takeoff is so different than having one fail inflight. Briefing yourself before departing helps, but you won’t know how challenging it will be until it really happens.
 
PaulS said:
Damn, so close
Click to expand...


Thanks for sharing this. Looks(street view) like there are many power lines in the direction they were flying just prior to the crash. If he was trying to land on that road that is awful and maybe explains why they were spinning at high speed. Just an extra element of bad luck. RIP
 
That Trade A Plane advertisement came down fast. I looked at it earlier and also noticed the limited time on the engine and the foreign registration number on the panel. Many ads brag about low time engines, but then you notice how many was years ago an overhaul was done.
 
Ugh, that's absolutely horrible for all involved. RIP. I can only hope that I'm never put in a situation like that.
 
Short runway too. 3241', and maybe another 800' to the fence. Bo pilots, at what altitude would you usually be about 4K feet from the start of your roll?

This may be a situation where a certain phase of that departure is unrecoverable in some planes. Any thoughts on flying Vy all the way to pattern altitude to maximize lateral space?

Certainly makes me appreciate the miles of cow pastures and strawberry fields surrounding my home base. Honestly, that's just a terrible place for an airfield, even if it was there first.
 
So before every take off brief engine failure.
In this situation what would you brief?
180 to 28L will require a decent amount of altitude.
Hollywood blvd?
Straight ahead down 9th St?
Someone said turnpike but do you have the energy to get there?
 
Seems like very little analysis and a lot of ranting in Gryder’s video. Does not seem like the sort of person who is comfortable with uncertainty of knowledge and conclusions.

I agree the pilot should have had a different and better plan.

OTOH, this whole turn back debate continues ad infinitum precisely because the real answer is “it depends” on a lot of factors. I suspect there may be some truth in generally discouraging the turn back given that people need to know what they are doing and have explicitly thought about altitudes and there is a strong natural desire to want to try and save the aircraft.
 
Oh man. SO close to making it back onto the airport property and having it be a non-event... :(
 
You can hear the plane hit something just prior to its appearance in frame. Tree? Power line? Who knows.
 
MFE said:
You can hear the plane hit something just prior to its appearance in frame. Tree? Power line? Who knows.
Click to expand...

It hit the palm tree right before the road for sure. You can see it move. Crazy sad.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro
 
Peter Anderson said:
It hit the palm tree right before the road for sure. You can see it move. Crazy sad.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro
Click to expand...

I think it was already at a steep bank angle before brushing the palm trees. If you look at the street view, I think it's unfortunate, they have very elevated power lines right over that area especially from the direction he was coming from. I guess the investigation will easily show if he hit them. Either way does not change the horrible outcome. RIP.
 
tex_an said:
So before every take off brief engine failure.
In this situation what would you brief?
180 to 28L will require a decent amount of altitude.
Hollywood blvd?
Straight ahead down 9th St?
Someone said turnpike but do you have the energy to get there?
Click to expand...

Honestly, I think the best option regardless of altitude is to focus on climbing at Vy and upon engine out immediately lower nose and make an aggressive turn back to the field. Don't worry about runway, as this airport occupies enough area to get down in any direction. Just get back to the "square" and land with a horizontal component and wings level.

I know, many will say an aggressive turn may result in a spin to the dirt. Practice it. I routinely make steep turns downwind-base and base-final with power off just to keep it fresh. Watch airspeed and keep everything coordinated.
 
It looks like it hit overhead wires and went out of control, why do the FAA allow overhead wires under approach and departure paths? He might have made it back to the field if it did not hit anything.
 
KeepWatch said:
upon engine out immediately lower nose and make an aggressive turn back to the field.
Click to expand...
It may work for some, but statistically, we’ve seen this maneuver kill more pilots than we can count. This is bad advice and I would not be suggesting this to anyone.
 
tex_an said:
So before every take off brief engine failure.
In this situation what would you brief?
180 to 28L will require a decent amount of altitude.
Hollywood blvd?
Straight ahead down 9th St?
Someone said turnpike but do you have the energy to get there?
Click to expand...
Below anything close to 1000ft, straight ahead down 9th is probably what I'd plan. No power lines but its narrow with lots of trees so probably wouldn't be pretty. But better to try to fly it between the trees than stall/spin into whatever spot you happen to run out of speed over IMO.
 
RyanB said:
It may work for some, but statistically, we’ve seen this maneuver kill more pilots than we can count. This is bad advice and I would not be suggesting this to anyone.
Click to expand...

The key is virtually no one will “immediately” lower the nose. In the several seconds it takes to recognize and react to a sudden power failure, airspeed is dropping precipitously and by the time you honk it over to turn back a stall may already be imminent. Not a great idea for most pilots, no matter how often they’ve practiced it.
 
PPC1052 said:
Jerry, is that you?
Click to expand...

LOL, Jerry does crazy things for the sake of it. My scenario was based on lack of good options without doing something that admittedly is risky. When I say practicing steep turns, I'm talking about 50-60 deg. Standard rate turns don't get it when you need to get turned around in a timely manner. Keep up the speed and don't scare anybody.
 
Maybe it is bad advice for some, but I was just speaking for myself. I fly aerobatics, perform spins frequently, have solid stick and rudder coordination, and routinely practice slow flight maneuvering (at altitude; not Jerry Style). I'll reiterate that I think the engine out scenario goes a lot different depending on whether or not the pilot (me) is actively ready on every takeoff for an engine out. If I'm not ready, then the ability to turn back goes away quickly. The delay in getting the nose down gets longer, and at that point the situation would need to be evaluated on the spot. Have a plan.
 
Having BTDT from 300’ and survived I will tell you it happens fast, unbelievably fast. Having a plan in place is the only chance one has, it saved me and my bride. Sadly catching a tree or wire means all bets are off and it’s out of our control.

My heart breaks for those lost, and the friends and families left to make sense of it all.
 
Last edited:
PeterNSteinmetz said:
Seems like very little analysis and a lot of ranting in Gryder’s video. Does not seem like the sort of person who is comfortable with uncertainty of knowledge and conclusions.

I agree the pilot should have had a different and better plan.

OTOH, this whole turn back debate continues ad infinitum precisely because the real answer is “it depends” on a lot of factors. I suspect there may be some truth in generally discouraging the turn back given that people need to know what they are doing and have explicitly thought about altitudes and there is a strong natural desire to want to try and save the aircraft.
Click to expand...

Gryder's analysis and reasoning for not doing the impossible turn has been covered in other videos by him, overall his reasoning is pretty sound IMO, but it is certainly a controversial subject. He also covers in other videos the reasons that pilots kill themselves and how he thinks we can do better, it's pretty compelling stuff. He's a showman, and some won't like him, he resorts to schtick sometimes, when he really doesn't need to. Some might enjoy that part, if not, just forward through it.

The bottom line is that most of we pilots think we are better sticks than we really are and it shows in the stats from these crashes. Losing a pilot and passenger is tragic, but losing a young kid and maiming his mother on the ground as they were minding their own business carrying on with their lives is beyond tragic. It is obviously very bad for general aviation.

In this situation, an engine out at low altitude during a climb, in this situation we need to be conservative in our actions, meaning get the airplane on the ground in the safest possible manner.

As soon as the engine in a single engine plane misbehaves to the point of power loss, the pilot should not even consider trying to save the airplane, but should focus on solely getting the airplane on the ground with no injuries to the occupants, and especially to innocents on the ground.

For me, I fly a plane with a chute, before I go, I recite the altitude where it is safe to pull. Below that altitude I'll find a place to put it down, within 20 or so degrees either side of the nose. From 600 to 2000 agl, that chute gets pulled immediately if the engine is gone. Above 2,000 agl I'll try to find a place to land, if nothing is doable, chute.

If the engine is still producing enough power to get at least level flight, I'm running it, I don't care if it sounds like bricks in a cement mixer, if it's making power, I'll turn toward an airport, maintain altitude or climb if it can, and get on the ground. Screw the airplane and engine, they can be replaced.

We all need to do better, Gryder's point is that this stuff starts and really ends with training. Working through this stuff, in a chair on your own, in the air and in the air with an instructor before it happens. A flight with an instructor every 2 years isn't enough.
 
FastEddieB said:
The key is virtually no one will “immediately” lower the nose. In the several seconds it takes to recognize and react to a sudden power failure, airspeed is dropping precipitously and by the time you honk it over to turn back a stall may already be imminent. Not a great idea for most pilots, no matter how often they’ve practiced it.
Click to expand...

When I was with my CFI, we did a practice engine out procedure. But we did it at altitude at a decent cruise speed. The first step is to pitch for best glide, so my reaction was to push the nose down. But that was the wrong thing to do because I was already well above best glide. If anything, I should have pitched up to slow down to best glide (and gain altitude). He noted that my reaction was what most people's reaction was-- to push the nose down. Now, that is completely different from loss of power while taking off, when you are at a steep pitch attitude and and low airspeed. Just something for folks to think about when practicing. What is correct at cruise altitude and speed is not correct on take off.
 
PPC1052 said:
When I was with my CFI, we did a practice engine out procedure. But we did it at altitude at a decent cruise speed. The first step is to pitch for best glide, so my reaction was to push the nose down. But that was the wrong thing to do because I was already well above best glide. If anything, I should have pitched up to slow down to best glide (and gain altitude). He noted that my reaction was what most people's reaction was-- to push the nose down. Now, that is completely different from loss of power while taking off, when you are at a steep pitch attitude and and low airspeed. Just something for folks to think about when practicing. What is correct at cruise altitude and speed is not correct on take off.
Click to expand...
Well, ya, that’s two different phases of flight. I would certainly hope most pilots would realize that.
 
PaulS said:
A flight with an instructor every 2 years isn't enough.
Click to expand...

You could require a flight check every six months and accidents like this will still happen. We're human, we make mistakes. We're human, we panic. You can't train away fear, panic, denial, etc. Some will rise to the occasion and unfortunately some will not...

Edit: I'm also in no way implying that this accident pilot did the wrong thing. I wasn't there. For all I know his actions prevented the crash into multiple houses. Who knows? That's why we wait for investigations...
 
Last edited:
idahoflier said:
You could require a flight check every six months and accidents like this will still happen. We're human, we make mistakes. We're human, we panic. You can't train away fear, panic, denial, etc. Some will rise to the occasion and unfortunately some will not...
Click to expand...
Actually, you can largely train away those reactions, but it takes immense effort (far more than most people are willing to invest in), and it's not guaranteed.
 
idahoflier said:
You could require a flight check every six months and accidents like this will still happen. We're human, we make mistakes. We're human, we panic. You can't train away fear, panic, denial, etc. Some will rise to the occasion and unfortunately some will not...

Edit: I'm also in no way implying that this accident pilot did the wrong thing. I wasn't there. For all I know his actions prevented the crash into multiple houses. Who knows? That's why we wait for investigations...
Click to expand...

I am in no way advocating requiring anything, especially mandatory 6 month check rides. But realistically we should all (or most of us) be training more than we do.

While the goal should be preventing all accidents, we need to be realistic and understand things still go wrong, equipment fails, pilots may react inappropriately or make the wrong decision, these aren't easy issues. But training like Gryder and others suggest can certainly put a dent in the negative statistics and save lives. That should be the goal, get better as a community, this isn't an all or nothing proposition.

Watch Gryder's videos, he goes thru many cases in his videos, and he points out in some what he claims are obvious pilot mis-reactions to common failures, where the pilot and others pay with their lives. We pilots need to fix this and do better, not just think we are better than the next guy, or our government overlords will step in and just muddle things up.

The NTSB will take at least 2 years to come out with a report on this accident, and Gryder's point that they will come to the wrong, or more accurately incomplete conclusion is correct. They will say something like "failure to maintain adequate airspeed and altitude", no kidding, but that is the result not the cause.
 
Salty said:
Actually, you can largely train away those reactions, but it takes immense effort (far more than most people are willing to invest in), and it's not guaranteed.
Click to expand...

LOL! Riiight... ;-)
 
Salty said:
Actually, you can largely train away those reactions, but it takes immense effort (far more than most people are willing to invest in), and it's not guaranteed.
Click to expand...

My instructor taught me that one of the hardest things I would ever do is look at the ground coming at me and push the stick forward. He was right. But in an emergency ... it worked!
 
PaulS...

I have watched Gryder's videos I just don't agree with a lot of his conclusions. You state training like Gryder suggests will take put a dent in accident statistics and save lives, but where is your proof that is the case? Gryder tries to use the airline airline training and accident statistics to prove his views. However, that's not even close to being a fair comparison to GA. Airlines fly aircraft with at least two pilots in aircraft that are at least an order of magnitude greater in performance and capability than GA aircraft.

I think everyone that feels they need more training should get it, there is nothing wrong with that. I take exception with blanket statements like "A flight with an instructor every 2 years isn't enough". The accident databases are full of facepalming accidents where pilots do things in direct conflict with the training they received.

Edit: One last thought. You and Gryder are taking a position that had the pilot not attempted "the impossible turn" the outcome would have been different. That's true as far as the heartbreaking death of the child, but I don't see how you can say the pilot, passenger or potentially others on the ground would have been spared.
 
Last edited:
idahoflier said:
PaulS...

I have watched Gryder's videos I just don't agree with a lot of his conclusions. You state training like Gryder suggests will take put a dent in accident statistics and save lives, but where is your proof that is the case? Gryder tries to use the airline airline training and accident statistics to prove his views. However, that's not even close to being a fair comparison to GA. Airlines fly aircraft with at least two pilots in aircraft that are at least an order of magnitude greater in performance and capability than GA aircraft.

I think everyone that feels they need more training should get it, there is nothing wrong with that. I take exception with blanket statements like "A flight with an instructor every 2 years isn't enough". The accident databases are full of facepalming accidents where pilots do things in direct conflict with the training they received.

Edit: One last thought. You and Gryder are taking a position that had the pilot not attempted "the impossible turn" the outcome would have been different. That's true as far as the heartbreaking death of the child, but I don't see how you can say the pilot, passenger or potentially others on the ground would have been spared.
Click to expand...

You keep focusing on this pilot, I'm trying to look at the bigger picture and it's not as good as it could or should be. Do I blame this pilot? No, he did what he thought he should do to survive. The problem is what he did, did not work. That is fair game for discussion and should be discussed. Was it an impossible turn? Sure looks like one, but maybe not.

I couldn't care less how many times you choose to fly with an instructor, but I will tell you that I fly with an instructor at least every 6 months and each time I learn something new, I identify areas where I need to do some work and end up a better pilot for it. YMMV

You state that you don't agree with Gryder's conclusions, which is fine. But I have a problem with you asking for proof that Gryden's ideas will work. How is that logical? Should we not try something different because it hasn't been tried before therefore we can't prove it works? I'm having trouble with that concept.

The thing is, there is some proof. Cirrus is a perfect example. When Cirrus first started selling their cutting edge, enhanced safety airplanes, or what ever they called them, their safety record was dismal. The fatal accident rate exceeded that of other legacy single engine aircraft by a large margin. The airplanes were looked at and there is nothing intrinsically wrong with them. They found that pilots were the issue. Pilots were mishandling these aircraft and paying the ultimate price. They were making big smoking holes in the ground when they could've pulled the chute. Some apparently were doing this because other pilots were saying pulling the chute was not manly or some dumb crap like that.

So what did Cirrus do? They developed an industry leading training program that among other things, trained pilots that it is a bad idea to attempt the impossible turn, especially when you have a parachute that will save you. But even if you are below the altitude for a chute pull, you should land straight ahead, with a small turn if necessary to get to a good spot. That's part of what they teach, there is much more to the program and now the Cirrus safety record is one of the best in the industry.

The thing is, what Gryder, and others, are suggesting has been done by Cirrus, and it has worked. So if you are looking for proof, look there.
 
Salty said:
Actually, you can largely train away those reactions, but it takes immense effort (far more than most people are willing to invest in), and it's not guaranteed.
Click to expand...

idahoflier said:
LOL! Riiight... ;-)
Click to expand...

If you had any experience in industrial safety training in high risk environments you'd know why @Salty is correct...;)
 
Ed Haywood said:
Short runway too. 3241', and maybe another 800' to the fence. Bo pilots, at what altitude would you usually be about 4K feet from the start of your roll?

This may be a situation where a certain phase of that departure is unrecoverable in some planes. Any thoughts on flying Vy all the way to pattern altitude to maximize lateral space?

Certainly makes me appreciate the miles of cow pastures and strawberry fields surrounding my home base. Honestly, that's just a terrible place for an airfield, even if it was there first.
Click to expand...
Short runway? 3200' is a short paved runway now? Ok, but only accounting for the houses all round.

And why not fly Vx to maximize altitude and minimize distance from the runway when having to try to impossible turn? It would mean a harder push over to maintain airspeed, but also keeps you higher and closer to the runway.

I always questioned why we don't have an aspect of training that includes climbing out at a trim setting that allows for hands off the yoke. If trimmed for Vy (or VX) and hands off the yoke (or very very lightly), in the case of power failure, the airplane would hold Vy and not stall (please correct this is wrong). Kind of like how navy pilots have to keep their hands off the controls when launching off a carrier, you can't trust the pilot to do the right thing. Would this not get the nose down and back to flying speed and allow the pilot do do their 2-3 seconds of dumb brain freeze without causing any issues?
 
PaulS said:
Gryder's point is that this stuff starts and really ends with training. Working through this stuff, in a chair on your own, in the air and in the air with an instructor before it happens. A flight with an instructor every 2 years isn't enough.
Click to expand...

I agree with the analysis basically. I just think Gryder comes across as being more certain of things than he should be. This is usually a sign of actually fairly limited knowledge. Maybe it is just showmanship in his case - don’t know.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top