As a person interested in flying a plane soon, that is interesting. Every single comment I saw was saying that the reason it totaled the plane was because he didn't push forward and drop the nose down to prevent a stall. You are the first to say that it's a good thing he did just what he did. Can you explain why? It seems counter-intuitive.
Every single comment I saw was saying that the reason it totaled the plane was because he didn't push forward and drop the nose down to prevent a stall.
You are correct.
The plane was totaled because when the motor quit, the student pilot continued to hold the yoke aft, and caused a stall. There should have been adequate altitude to land the plane after the engine failure, had the correct emergency procedure been used. Apparently the instructor, sitting in the rear, could not overpower the student to get the nose down.
The Quicksilver GT 500 is unique in that it can be certificated as a primary category aircraft, and used for flight training. Or you can build and register it E-AB.
I initially saw these videos about a year ago. I took Rainbow Aviation's 16hr inspection course, and am on their email list.
Okay, I thought so.. I really want to make sure I don't make a mistake like that. But I've never been put under that kind of pressure before. It's one thing to be a keyboard pilot and another to actually subject yourself to that. I hope when my moment comes, I keep my head on and react appropriately.
The plane was totaled because when the motor quit, the student pilot continued to hold the yoke aft, and caused a stall. There should have been adequate altitude to land the plane after the engine failure, had the correct emergency procedure been used. .... Apparently the instructor, sitting in the rear, could not overpower the student to get the nose down
First, yet another concise and informative engineering youtube vid - thanks for the link! This thumbs-up was just about worth this post.
What about the instructor? Even allowing for 'shock' after the arrival his words indicated that he did not understand what had just happened and kept saying so. [edit - was it the instrucor or the student?] Did the instructor try to make any control input?
I made a similar disastrous arrival but my engine was running well and at full power. No need to go into *boring* detail except that I remember being faced with two options: nose down or hold the nose up.
I held the nose up and got hurt. The Minimax was totalled.
If I'd let the nose down to gain airspeed when as low above the grass as I was there was a risk I could have nosed in, with a massive deceleration as the aircraft stopped. Instead I held back and trusted in the limited parachute effect to pancake it down and not go in like a dart. It was partly conscious (learned response) and partly instinct (bad response) but I am still here to say that the engine stripdown and analysis video was well worth watching.
quite a bit of difference in engine out at altitude and engine out while climbing. I believe in a more gentle climb if I can just for this reason. Airspeed is KING.
As a person interested in flying a plane soon, that is interesting. Every single comment I saw was saying that the reason it totaled the plane was because he didn't push forward and drop the nose down to prevent a stall. You are the first to say that it's a good thing he did just what he did. Can you explain why? It seems counter-intuitive.
I was writing about the students action subsequent to the stall. Response to a stall at 50 foot AGL is not the same as one at 500 foot AGL or rather should not be.The elevator can not be used similiarly in the two situations because of the proximity to the ground in the former. As for responding to an engine failure you have to know first what has happened.I am saying this because of the instructer asking " What happened". I apologize if I caused any confusion by my statement as stick forward is the correct response to engine failure but keeping an eye on the ground also. PUFF has put it very well by saying to keeping your nose at a very shallow angle during INITIAL climb.
At altitude I am sure you can stand your max on its tail as your Kawasaki has a very healthy sound but I wont recommend it as the max is restricted to 30 degree excursions in pitch!
I think that maintaining about 60mph in all flight regimes is not a bad idea. These ultralights have very little inertia and slow down very quickly with loss of power. I have seen a lot of videos on u-tub lately that show max climb on take off and it is scary to see pilots showing of max angle of climb right after lift off. Betting your butt on Rotax or Hirth is not the swiftest idea. Some of the angles of climb produced by the engines being used today look to be so steep that an engine out would produce a situation that is unrecoverable ( just my 2 cents). It is fun to wow the spectators but at what expense?
If it flies, floats or fornicates.... rent it! Flight Leader
Posts: 181
Time Online: 3 days 18 hours 44 minutes
Its generally accepted in very low mass aircraft that the climb angle at full power will be the same in reverse during an EFATO as a general rule. Add a second or so thinking time and there's not much time to sort anything out.
Despite the low altitude in the video, firstly you can hear the engine failing for 2 or 3 seconds so the instructor should have already been pushing. In my opinion there was sufficient height to gain some glide speed and to at least level out for landing rather than nosing in fully stalled.
Logged
It is fun to wow the spectators but at what expense? 
