• Welcome aboard HomebuiltAirplanes.com, your destination for connecting with a thriving community of more than 10,000 active members, all passionate about home-built aviation. Dive into our comprehensive repository of knowledge, exchange technical insights, arrange get-togethers, and trade aircrafts/parts with like-minded enthusiasts. Unearth a wide-ranging collection of general and kit plane aviation subjects, enriched with engaging imagery, in-depth technical manuals, and rare archives.

    For a nominal fee of $99.99/year or $12.99/month, you can immerse yourself in this dynamic community and unparalleled treasure-trove of aviation knowledge.

    Embark on your journey now!

    Click Here to Become a Premium Member and Experience Homebuilt Airplanes to the Fullest!

The “impossible” turn and the “startle effect”

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

BJC

Well-Known Member
Supporting Member
Joined
Oct 7, 2013
Messages
18,227
Location
97FL, Florida, USA
Starting a new thread to discuss the “startle effect” mentioned by TX, and related issues, including the “impossible turn.”

There are lots of things that could, perhaps, should be different about “standard” takeoff procedures. For starters, why wait to be startled? Why not expect an engine loss of power or total failure on every takeoff? Easy to do; simply focus on the task at hand.

By altering the flight path, the usable runway ahead can be increased by not flying the centerline. Flying at about a 20 degree angle to the CL keeps traffic relative confined, but, when flown to the down wind side allows for landing ahead by first pitching up to (approximately) minimum sink speed, applying full flaps, and using a maximum slip to get down to the remaining runway with minimum forward speed and forward flight distance. It also allows for a turn-back into the wind once adequate altitude and speed have been attained. It does take practice, but that can be fun. The down side is that actual practice on an airport excites people who strictly adhere to the oft-taught “crash straight ahead” theory.

By knowing the surrounding terrain, the cross wind turn can be placed to optimize emergency landing options. Last fall I visited I19, and departed on runway 7 with a planned departure to the SSW. No other traffic was in the area. The terrain beyond the departure end looked very inhospitable, but a nice road that crosses near the end of the runway would have been an option. I was near gross weight, so a turn back would have been more difficult. We took off, turned more than the standard 90 degrees to follow the road, turned less than 90 degrees to downwind, then departed to the SSW. We had good landing options at all points in the vacinity of the airport. A more “standard” pattern would have put us over some bad terrain.

At my home airport, 97FL, my crosswind turns and initial power reductions are positioned not by pattern altitude, but by my position relative to open areas where an emergency landing would be most likely survivable.

I understand the guidance to student pilots to land straight ahead; they are far from the experience and skill level necessary to do anything differently. But why does the skill and judgement development stop there?

Please share your thoughts, techniques, and experiences on these subjects.


BJC
 
Back
Top