The Aviation Thread

[KathyLauren]

@Donica, that's a scary story.  I never had to do a true dead-stick landing.

One time, I was climbing out from a touch and go when a small bird came very close to the jet engine intake and I heard a simultaneous thump.  Thinking it might have gone into the engine, I decided to land ASAP, but there wasn't enough runway ahead to set it back down.  Since I could see that the engine hadn't yet quit, I did a climbing turn to downwind, watching the EGT all the way. 

From the downwind "low key" position, everything was by the book, I reduced power and extended the speed brakes to simulate an engine out (since by then I could tell that it was probably fine), put the gear down, and did a regular forced-landing pattern.

It turned out that the bird missed, and the thump I heard was the landing gear doors closing.  There was quite a pucker factor on the climbing turn, though, wondering if the engine was going to quit.  If it had, I would have had to make a gliding turn away from buildings and then eject.

[Donica]

Most definitely Katie. If that engine had of flown out of the plane, we would of just been along for the leaf falling ride.

Wow Kathy! Oh no!! Not on upwind. I think I would of had to change my shorts after that thump. I'm glad everything  worked out Ok.

Hugs,
Donica.

[KatieP]

There is that old flying adage that engines make strange noises at the worst times. I have flown over the Rockies or the Sierra Nevada dozens of times, and I never heard as many engine anomalies in 1000 hours of flying that plane as when over the mountains.

One of those times, flying from Anaconda, MT to Renton, WA, somewhere in ID with only mountains around, the engine started sputtering like it was running out of gas. Oh boy. When my heart started back up, I immediately started a turn towards that flat area just behind me. Doing the quick scan of the panel, I then realized I had lost track of time in the peaceful flying and had forgotten to switch fuel tanks. Oooops.


I know this thread is not titled, "Stupid things we have done in an airplane" but I know if it were, it would be quite a long thread just with my own posts... 

[KathyLauren]

I know this thread is not titled, "Stupid things we have done in an airplane" but I know if it were, it would be quite a long thread just with my own posts... 

Hey, the FAA or Transport Canada are not allowed to read this thread, so exciting stories are ok, with no judgement.

There was the time I flew through a thunderstorm.  We had nowhere else to go: the only available alternate was on the other side of the storm.  The turbulence was +3G and -1G.  We were in hail for about 10 seconds, and it damaged the speed brakes and the tail.  There was too much ice coating the nose for the hail to damage it!

[steph2.0]

Donica, I would think the weight and balance could be thrown off enough to make a plane quite difficult to land, even at an airport. VERY lucky!

I had a friend who built a "VolksPlane" with a VW engine. He had engine failures TWICE, and each time he replaced the engine with another used/rebuilt VW engine. I told him he should have learned from the first failure. Apparently the third engine lasted well enough, and he eventually sold the plane.

His story has always made me think that even though Continental/Lycoming technology was designed in the '30s, it has stood the test of time. Were I to build an airplane, a small Lycoming would probably be a preference, even though Rotax seems to have the Very Light and Sport plane markets sewn up. But Rotax sort of bothers me because of the gear boxes required, and having to add oil to the fuel like a motorcycle. Sometimes new-fangled technology is not as reliable as the old-fangled stuff...

I have mixed feelings about car engine conversions. The VW was the default engine for years, considering it's a flat four and looks like an airplane engine. Some of them can be made fairly reliable, but even though they were designed by Porsche, they were built for cheap cars. I have a friend whose business is VW conversions - even half VWs for very light stuff, and he has a good reputation. But since max RPM is 3300 in that configuration, and they're usually direct drive, you're limited in prop size so the tip speed doesn't go supersonic. Usually 68" is the largest you can go.

Other car conversions are really taking off, so to speak. Viking uses Honda Fit engines, and you can imagine how reliable those are. The least dependable part of it all is the PRU (Prop Reduction Unit), and they're getting that figured out pretty well. The only problem with those is Honda won't sell box engines, so they have to take them out of rear-ended cars and rebuild them.

Another company is Aeromomentum, which adds a reduction to Suzuki 4-cylinder box engines. I don't know what a Viking engine costs, but an Aeromomentum is $8600. Both are modern electronic ignition and fuel injection, and both have good reputations.

Rotax. For light sport they're the default choice. The Rotax 900 series are four strokes, and while they have gearboxes, they don't need oil mixed with the gas. Only the two strokes mix the oil, and they have injectors nowadays if you choose to use them. The gearboxes on the 900s use the same oil as the engine, so maintenance is easy. The newer ones have dog clutches so prop strikes don't damage the engine, and with composite props might not even damage a blade. You should avoid 100LL though, since that  will leave lead deposits in the gearbox which have to be cleaned out every 600 hours. Otherwise I think the TBO is at 2200 hours now, and they make it there with no problem. The best fuel for the 80hp is 87 octane non-ethanol mogas, and the 100hp 93 octane. The engine is actually okay with up to 10% ethanol if the rest of the fuel system is up to it.

I ran Rotax two strokes for over 20 years, and they can be very reliable if they're tuned correctly. The downside is the 300 hour TBO and the relatively high fuel usage for the horsepower.

I could go on and on. Oops, I already have! I'll stop now...

Stephanie

[Donica]

I recently responded to a rather humorous post by Stephanie in her "The Stephanie Chronicles" thread and it brought back a few more memories of the good old flying days.

I sure you all remember this. Part of our training to become a pilot required a few hours of night flights. During one of those flights, my instructor reached over and pulled back the throttle and sad "Bang! Your engine just quit! What do you do?". Well, as you all already know, I replied "First you fly the plane, set the elevator trim for best glide speed, call a mayday and repeatedly update you position to the nearest contact and after all attempts to restart the engine have failed, you shut off all the tanks and look for a safe place to land".

She replied, "Ok. What if all the lights you see are too far away to make a safe landing?". I was at a loss for an answer as I didn't recall any thing else I could possibly do. She then replied "After exhausting all possible ways to get out of trouble, you point the plane in the direction of the darkest area on the ground. Turn on your landing lights. If you don't like what you see, or can't see anything, turn off the landing lights. Cross your arms over your chest and wait. If you can relax, you stand a better chance surviving an impact."

I assume she also meant to keep the wings level too? When I asked why I should do such a horrible thing, she replied "It is better to end up in some field or mountain side instead of landing on someone's head."

This has always been in the back of my mine and it still bothers me to this day. Is that a legitimate answer to this scenario. I mean I wouldn't want to land on someone's head but I wouldn't be able to just not keep trying to get out of trouble. I would at least keep the landing lights on and continue looking for a dirt road or something. What did your instructors tell you to do?

[Dena]

I am not a flyer but I have part of the answer. You are a glider but a pretty poor one. At some point in time you need to commit to a location and you will have few other options that you can make with your current glide slope. Altering your plans might put a wing in the ground or cause a hard landing, both which aren't desirable. Pick your landing spot carefully and early then prepare for the landing. Last minute changes aren't a good idea unless it's really clear that their is a better alternative.

[KathyLauren]

She replied, "Ok. What if all the lights you see are too far away to make a safe landing?". I was at a loss for an answer as I didn't recall any thing else I could possibly do. She then replied "After exhausting all possible ways to get out of trouble, you point the plane in the direction of the darkest area on the ground. Turn on your landing lights. If you don't like what you see, or can't see anything, turn off the landing lights. Cross your arms over your chest and wait. If you can relax, you stand a better chance surviving an impact."

I assume she also meant to keep the wings level too? When I asked why I should do such a horrible thing, she replied "It is better to end up in some field or mountain side instead of landing on someone's head."

This has always been in the back of my mine and it still bothers me to this day. Is that a legitimate answer to this scenario. I mean I wouldn't want to land on someone's head but I wouldn't be able to just not keep trying to get out of trouble. I would at least keep the landing lights on and continue looking for a dirt road or something. What did your instructors tell you to do?

Well what my instructor told me was a bit different.  If you can't glide to a lighted runway, do your pre-ejection checklist.  If you have a copilot, tell them three times to eject.  Then pull your own ejection handle.   

Your landing light isn't going to be any help finding a safe spot to land.  The Tutor jet had two very powerful halogen landing lights, and they were only good below 200' and within half a mile.  Way too late to change your mind about where you are going to hit.

Your instructor's advice was sound, more or less.  You have trimmed the aircraft to glide itself.  You can't choose where you will land, bcause you can't see, so you are going to crash.  You are setting yourself up to survive the crash as best you can.  The only thing I would change is that I would leave the landing light on.  It is possible that, in the last few moments, you might see a beautiful, flat field in front of you.  Implausible, but possible.  With the lights on, you might be able to flare and pull off a miraculous night deadstick landing.

[Jayne01]

It's a long standing joke in the aviation world, if you are going down at night, turn our lights on and if you don't like what you see then turn them off. It's along the same lines as the only time you can have too much fuel on board is if you are on fire.

Jayne

[Chloe]

The turbulence was +3G and -1G.

          lol We had just wheels up at night out of Port of Spain and there was a huge thunderstorm directly ahead. Father was check-riding right seat saying NOTHING until it was obvious left seat's decision to go left/right was "not to decide at all"! If he grabs stick or orders direction change it's *automatic fail* so instead dad turns to me and says "grab front of jumpseat with both hands crossed" and lol right thru the middle weeeee ggggooooo!

Couldn't 'ave been more than 1000' altitude surely pax thought we're all gonna die!

[KathyLauren]

          lol We had just wheels up at night out of Port of Spain and there was a huge thunderstorm directly ahead. Father was check-riding right seat saying NOTHING until it was obvious left seat's decision to go left/right was "not to decide at all"! If he grabs stick or orders direction change it's *automatic fail* so instead dad turns to me and says "grab front of jumpseat with both hands crossed" and lol right thru the middle weeeee ggggooooo!

Couldn't 'ave been more than 1000' altitude surely pax thought we're all gonna die!

Eeep!

After my experience with thunderstorm penetration (I was a student at the time), I never went through one again.  I did get close to some others, though.

One time, we were flying from Calgary to Moose Jaw.  There was a line of thunderstorms along the Alberta-Saskatchewan border, with no visible gaps.  Being cautious, I asked ATC if they were painting them on radar.  Nope, radar doesn't go that far, either from Calgary or Regina.  I asked for PIREPs on the tops, and then asked to go to a higher altitude.  I'd have gone to 41,000', the service ceiling of the aircraft if I had to.  No, sorry, Air Canada has the next higher altitude, so we can't climb.

Can't go around; can't go over.  So it's either under or turn back.  Turning back meant delaying a day, and that was frowned on, so I guesstimated the bases and asked for 7000'.  Power to idle, speed brakes out and we dived from 35,000' to 7,000' in the space of just a few miles, with the canopy fogging up.

We ended up about 1000' below the cloud bases (I had guessed right), and could see the rain showers to avoid the worst ones.  All's well...

[steph2.0]

Yikes! 28,000 fpm or better!? No wonder you fogged up!

[KatieP]

OOOOOOhhhhhh... Thunderstorm stories...

Like KathyLauren, I have had only 1 such encounter. On my "long cross-country" trying to get the instrument rating, we were supposed to go RAL --> SMX --> (Rialto) --> RAL. Before we left, we did all the standard pre-flight work, and of course there were no reports or forecasts for convective activity within 1000 miles. Just lots of puffy white whip cream to blast in and out of. The first leg was exactly that, and was some of the most beautiful times ever. Huge cloud grand canyons. At SMX we did the drop and load (drop the coffee from RAL and load more coffee from SMX), and got back in the plane to head to Rialto. Once in the LA basin, it was solid IFR, at one point near ONT, in the space of about 5 seconds, we went from light turbulence to severe turbulence, and hail all over the plane. It was so loud that we could not hear any radio, and could only hear each other by screaming into the other's ear. As the hail lessened, in the space of about 30 seconds, the C172 was instantly covered in ice, and we were descending in spite of the full power. About 1000 feet later, and a few minutes, we popped out into the clear. And not 15 seconds after that, we hear on the radio, "Attention all aircraft, Sigmet Sierra is now in place for convective activity..." My instructor said to me, "No sh*t" which was the only time in several years of flying with him that I heard him use such language. His next words to me were, "OK. Now you been in a thunderstorm. After such good learning, don't do that again..." I have followed his guidance on that for 25 years... (Yes, we did have a longer conversation on the ground that we probably should have re-checked the weather in SMX. That said, likely it would not have shown problems...)


Katie

[Donica]

Yikes! 28,000 fpm or better!? No wonder you fogged up!

Ya Wow! I know those cockpits are supposed to be pressurized but with the canopy fogging up, how did your ears and sinuses do? I almost blew out my sinuses just dropping down from 14000 to 1200. Not quit as fast as you did Kathy, but still  .

[Donica]

Wow Katie! I couldn't even imagine what that must of sounded like. I'm glad that 172 didn't get torn up. I've flown through raid and I thought that was load. They aren't much more protection than a beer can. We do sometimes get dime size hail in SoCal.

[KathyLauren]

Ya Wow! I know those cockpits are supposed to be pressurized but with the canopy fogging up, how did your ears and sinuses do? I almost blew out my sinuses just dropping down from 14000 to 1200. Not quit as fast as you did Kathy, but still  .

Yes, the cockpit was pressurized to about a 10,000' differential.  At 35,000' our cockpit pressure would have been about 25,000'.  So going from 25,000' to 7,000' pressure, yes, our ears did some serious popping. 

The defogging system would handle any normal windshield/canopy fogging, but with that rapid temperature change and the engine at idle, there just wasn't enough air to do the job.  It cleared fairly quickly once we levelled off.

[Donica]

What's your favorite GA aircraft?

My favorite is the Cessna 310.



My favorite WWII aircraft is a toss-up between the F7F Tigercat and the Goodyear F2G Super Corsair.



My favorite modern fighter. F-22 Raptor of maybe the F-18 Hornet. They both have that attitude  .

[KathyLauren]

I absolutely understand about the water tower. As a pilot, water towers are always the way to know what town you're over.

On the Canadian prairies, it was grain elevators, back when they still had such things.  The two main elevator operators in the training area were the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool, and the United Grain Growers, identified on their elevators by big logos that read "POOL" or "UGG", respectively.  Elevators also had the name of the town or whistle-stop painted on them.

So a young student pilot out of Moose Jaw on a solo navigation mission manages to get himself lost.  Understandable, because, although you can see forever on the prairies, it all looks the same!  He calls School Operations on the radio and asks the duty instructor what he should do.  The response comes back: "Find a grain elevator, fly down low past it and read the name of the town, then you'll know where you are."

A few minutes later, the student calls up Operations again.  "I know that I am at Pool, but I can't find it on the map!" 

[Kylo]

There are few things I am afraid of, but being 41,000 ft up in the atmosphere is one of them.

Unfortunately I also very much like planes, as feats of human engineering. It's an odd combination.

[Chloe]

. . . . 41,000 ft up in the atmosphere is one of them.

What? You got a problem being stuck in a recycled beer can hurtling along at 500 knots?

Which would you find most scary? Careening onto a thin, short strip runway or blasting to get into the air in the first place?