DOCSLIB.ORG

ASES Standardization Manual

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
ASES Standardization Manual ASES Standardization Manual Rainier Flight Service LLC, located at Renton Municipal Airport and is owned and operated as: Rainier Flight Service 800 W Perimeter Rd Renton, WA 98057 © 2013 Rainier Flight Service (v 2.0) Page 1 ASES Standardization Manual 1. Takeoffs And Landings ....................................................................................................... 3 1.1 MANEUVER: Normal Takeoff and Climb.................................................................................. 4 1.2 MANEUVER: Normal Approach and Landing ........................................................................... 5 1.3 MANEUVER: Crosswind Takeoff and Climb ............................................................................. 7 1.4 MANEUVER: Crosswind Approach and Landing ....................................................................... 9 1.5 MANEUVER: Glassy Water Takeoff and Climb ....................................................................... 11 1.6 MANEUVER: Glassy Water Approach and Landing ................................................................. 12 1.7 MANEUVER: Rough Water Takeoff and Climb ....................................................................... 14 1.8 MANEUVER: Rough Water Approach and Landing................................................................. 15 1.9 MANEUVER: Confined Area Takeoff and Climb (Straight and Turning) ................................... 17 1.10 MANEUVER: Confined Area Approach and Landing ............................................................... 19 2. Operating on The Water ................................................................................................... 21 2.1 MANEUVER: Step Taxi ........................................................................................................ 22 2.2 MANEUVER: Sailing ............................................................................................................ 23 2.3 MANEUVER: Anchoring ....................................................................................................... 24 2.4 MANEUVER: Docking and Mooring ....................................................................................... 25 2.5 MANEUVER: Beaching and Ramping .................................................................................... 26 3. Emergency Operations ..................................................................................................... 27 3.1 EMERGENCY PROCEDURE: Emergency Approach and Landing .............................................. 28 3.2 EMERGENCY PROCEDURE: Engine Failure - Flight ................................................................ 29 3.3 EMERGENCY PROCEDURE: Emergency Landing Without Engine Power .................................. 30 3.4 EMERGENCY PROCEDURE: Emergency Decent ..................................................................... 30 3.5 Emergency Equipment and Survival Gear ............................................................................. 31 This manual describes maneuvers and procedures specific to seaplane operations in the Cessna 172. Additional maneuvers to be demonstrated on the Private/Commercial Add-On Rating Exam are found in the ASEL Standardization Manual. © 2013 Rainier Flight Service (v 2.0) Page 2 ASES Standardization Manual 1. Takeoffs and Landings Objective To develop the pilot’s proficiency on takeoffs and landings under a variety of wind and water conditions as well as operating in a confined area. References FAA-H-8083-23: Seaplane, Skiplane and Float/Ski Equipped Helicopter Operations Handbook FAA-H-8083-3A: Airplane Flying Handbook Cessna 172 Pilot’s Operating Handbook Practical Test Standards © 2013 Rainier Flight Service (v 2.0) Page 3 ASES Standardization Manual 1.1 MANEUVER: Normal Takeoff and Climb Objective Safely clear the airplane from the water’s surface, obtain a safe airspeed and establish a best rate of climb. Description The takeoff and initial climb is made directly into the wind during normal water conditions in a non- confined area. Teaching Considerations PAVE Checklist Planning and orientation. o Wind direction and surface condition. o Effect of density altitude. o Appropriate climb airspeed. Calculation and use of takeoff performance data. Common errors as per the Airplane Flying Handbook and the CFI PTS. Aborted takeoff before and after liftoff. Effects of porpoising and corrective action. Importance of completing checklists. Methods for checking for traffic used in a high wing aircraft. Set-up 1. Identify wind direction and velocity. 2. Determine takeoff direction and visual ground reference on far shoreline. 3. 10 degrees flap 4. Ensure water rudders in down position. 5. Clear area with 360° turn. 6. Check safety belts, doors and windows. 7. Announce intentions on appropriate frequency. Execution 1. Retract water rudders. 2. Hold elevator full back while smoothly applying full power. 3. Maintain alignment while accelerating to step. 4. Let airplane fly itself off the surface. 5. Accelerate to Vy. 6. At safe attitude, retract flaps. 7. Trim for climb at Vy. © 2013 Rainier Flight Service (v 2.0) Page 4 ASES Standardization Manual 1.2 MANEUVER: Normal Approach and Landing Objective Safely land the airplane at a minimum speed and proper pitch attitude with no crosswind component. Description The normal approach and landing is made directly into the wind during normal water conditions in a non- confined area. Teaching Considerations Planning and orientation. o Wind direction, speed and surface condition. o Effect of density altitude on landing distance. o Obstructions or hazards. o Landing performance data and limitations. Common errors as per the Airplane Flying Handbook and the CFI PTS. Effect of flaps on approach and landing. Effects of porpoising and corrective action. Timely execution of go-around, if necessary. Importance of completing checklists. © 2013 Rainier Flight Service (v 2.0) Page 5 ASES Standardization Manual Set-up 1. Identify wind direction and velocity. 2. Identify landing area and touchdown point. Execution 1. Downwind: o Altitude 500’-1000’ AGL o Survey landing area for obstructions and surface conditions 2. Abeam Touchdown Point: o Carburetor Heat Check o Reduce power to approximately 1500 rpm o Flaps 10 degrees o Airspeed 80 MPH 3. Base: o Flaps 20 degrees o Airspeed 75 MPH 4. Final: o Set Landing Flaps, 30 degrees recommended o Establish Approach Airspeed at 70 MPH o Trim for Stabilized Approach o Check water surface for obstructions or gusts 5. Short Final: o About 20’ AGL Establish Proper Landing (Step) Attitude o Gradually reduce descent rate to achieve 0 FPM upon contact with water 6. After Touchdown: o Reduce Power Smoothly to Idle o Pitch to maintain step attitude o When airplane falls off step maintain full back elevator o Water Rudders Down o Retract Flaps o Carburetor Heat Off o Power between idle to 900 RPM max © 2013 Rainier Flight Service (v 2.0) Page 6 ASES Standardization Manual 1.3 MANEUVER: Crosswind Takeoff and Climb Objective Safely clear the airplane from the water surface, obtain a safe airspeed and establish best rate of climb. Description The takeoff and initial climb is made with a crosswind component. Teaching Considerations Planning and orientation. o Wind direction and speed, and surface condition. o Effect of density altitude. o Appropriate climb speed. Common errors as per the Airplane Flying Handbook and the CFI PTS. Effects of porpoising and corrective action. Aborted takeoff before and after liftoff. Importance of completing checklists. Methods for checking for traffic used in a high wing aircraft. © 2013 Rainier Flight Service (v 2.0) Page 7 ASES Standardization Manual Set-up 1. Identify wind direction and velocity. 2. Determine takeoff direction and visual ground reference on far shoreline. 3. Flaps set to 10 degrees 4. Ensure water rudders in down position. 5. Clear area with 360 turn. 6. Check safety belts, doors and windows. 7. Announce intentions on appropriate frequency. Execution Option #1 – Delayed Retraction of Water Rudders 1. Deflect ailerons into wind. 2. Hold elevator full back while smoothly applying 2000 RPM. 3. Maintain alignment while accelerating. 4. At 2000 RPM retract water rudders. 5. Smoothly apply full power. 6. Accelerate to step and lift downwind float off first. 7. Let airplane fly itself off water. 8. Accelerate to Vy maintaining crab angle in wind. 9. At safe attitude, retract flaps. 10. Trim for climb at Vy. Option #2 – Controlled Weathervane 1. Angle airplane downwind from takeoff direction. Larger angle for higher wind speed. 2. Retract water rudders. 3. Deflect ailerons into wind. 4. Hold elevator full back while smoothly applying full power. 5. Let the airplane weathervane onto the takeoff course. 6. Accelerate to step using rudder to maintain takeoff course. 7. Lift downwind float off first. 8. Let airplane fly itself off water. 9. Accelerate to Vy maintaining crab angle in wind. 10. At safe attitude, retract flaps. 11. Trim for climb at Vy. © 2013 Rainier Flight Service (v 2.0) Page 8 ASES Standardization Manual 1.4 MANEUVER: Crosswind Approach and Landing Objective Neutralize wind drift and maintain a straight course during the final approach and touchdown. Description The crosswind approach and landing is made with a forward crosswind component during normal water conditions in a non-confined area. Teaching Considerations Planning and orientation. o Wind direction, speed and surface condition. o Effect of density altitude on landing
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Constraints for STOL Operations in South Florida Conurbation Cedric Y
    Constraints for STOL Operations in South Florida Conurbation Cedric Y. Justin June 2021 Based on research previously published: Development of a Methodology for Parametric Analysis of STOL Airpark Geo-Density, Robinson et al. AIAA AVIATION 2018 Door-to-Door Travel Time Comparative Assessment for Conventional Transportation Methods and Short Takeoff and Landing On Demand Mobility Concepts, Wei et al. AIAA AVIATION 2018 Wind and Obstacles Impact on Airpark Placement for STOL-based Sub-Urban Air Mobility, Somers et al., AIAA AVIATION 2019 Optimal Siting of Sub-Urban Air Mobility (sUAM) Ground Architectures using Network Flow Formulation, Venkatesh et al, AIAA AVIATION 2020 Comparative Assessment of STOL-based Sub-Urban Air Mobility Operations in Massachusetts and South Florida, Justin et al. AIAA AVIATION 2020 Current Market Segmentation ? VTOL CTOL CTOL CTOL CTOL Capacity ? 200-400+ pax Twin Aisle Are there 120-210 pax scenarios where Single Aisle an intermediate solution using 50-90 pax STOL vehicles and Regional Aircraft sitting in- Design range below 300 nm Commuters between UAM 9-50 pax Flight time below 1.5 hours Thin-Haul and thin-haul 9 to 50 seat capacity operations exists? 4-9 pax Sub-Urban Missions 50-150 nm Air Mobility 4 to 9 revenue-seats Missions below 50 nm Urban Air Mobility 1-4 pax 1 to 4 revenue-seats 50 nm 300 nm 500 nm 3000 nm 6000+ nm Artwork Credit Uber Design Range 2 Introduction • Population, urbanization, and congestion Atlanta, GA Miami, FL Dallas, TX Los Angeles, CA have increased steadily over the past several decades • Increasing delays damage the environment and substantially impact the economy Driving time: 8 min.
    [Show full text]
  • WATER WINGS Story and Photos by Guy R Maher
    OWNERS’ MANUAL: WATER WINGS Story and Photos by Guy R Maher VWDEOLVKHGRQEDVHOHJ,KDYHWKHÀDSVVHW 7XUQLQJ¿QDOWKHÀDSVDUHORZHUHGWRIXOO EDWGHJUHHVRXWRIDSRVVLEOH7KH DQGWKHSRZHULVVHWWRLQFKHVRIPDQLIROG SURSFRQWUROLVVHWWRKLJK5307XUQLQJ¿QDO SUHVVXUH0DLQWDLQLQJDWRNQRW ,PDNHRQHODVWFKHFNRIWKHODQGLQJJHDU DSSURDFKVSHHGIROORZHGE\DJHQWOHÀDUH DQGFRQ¿UPWKDWLWLVGH¿QLWHO\LQWKH³83´ DQGZHVHWWOHQLFHO\LQWRWKHODNH3RZHU SRVLWLRQ<HV\RXUHDGWKDWFRUUHFWO\7KH immediately to idle and full back pressure on ODQGLQJJHDUPXVWEHLQWKH³8S´SRVLWLRQIRU the control wheel after splashdown yields a ,DPDERXWWRODQGRQZDWHU smooth deceleration of this plane now turned ERDW7KDW¶VZKDW,FDOOIXQ 2828 CessnaCCeessssnana PilotsPililotots AssociationAAssssoociciatatiioon | JulyJJullyy 2018201018 VanFleet’s 172XP is equipped with Wipaire, Inc.’s Wipline 2350 amphibious floats. www.cessna.orgwwwww.w ceesssnan ..orgg 299 VanFleet’s 172XP has a modified engine that increases the horsepower from 195 to 210. 7KHDLUSODQH,¶PÀ\LQJLVDEHDXWLIXOUHGDQGZKLWH 6HYHUDO\HDUVODWHUVKHPRYHGWR*HRUJLDWREHFRPHWKH &HVVQD;3HTXLSSHGZLWKDVHWRI:LSDLUH dietitian for Athens Regional Hospital. At last she was ,QF¶V:LSOLQHDPSKLELRXVÀRDWV7KHRULJLQDO able to pursue her lifelong dream - to obtain her private 7&0,2.HQJLQHKDVDOVREHHQPRGL¿HGXSSLQJ SLORWOLFHQVHLQD&HVVQDLQ&KDQJLQJMREVWR WKHKRUVHSRZHUIURPWR7KHRZQHURIWKLV Ross Abbott as a pharmaceutical representative, getting VSHFLDO;3DIIHFWLRQDWHO\FDOOHGSamanthaLV6XVDQ PDUULHGKDYLQJDFKLOGDQGEX\LQJD&HVVQD VanFleet, owner/operator of VanFleet Aviation based in WREXLOGWLPHNHSWWKLQJVEXV\IRU9DQ)OHHW7KH
    [Show full text]
  • Aviation Investigation Report A04w0114 Upset on Water
    Transportation Safety Board Bureau de la sécurité des transports of Canada du Canada AVIATION INVESTIGATION REPORT A04W0114 UPSET ON WATER LANDING BIG RIVER AIR LTD. CESSNA A185F SEAPLANE C-GVYE TALTSON RIVER (FERGUSON’S CABIN) NORTHWEST TERRITORIES 07 JUNE 2004 The Transportation Safety Board of Canada (TSB) investigated this occurrence for the purpose of advancing transportation safety. It is not the function of the Board to assign fault or determine civil or criminal liability. Aviation Investigation Report Upset on Water Landing Big River Air Ltd. Cessna A185F Seaplane C-GVYE Taltson River (Ferguson’s Cabin) Northwest Territories 07 June 2004 Report Number A04W0114 Summary The Cessna A185F seaplane (registration C-GVYE, serial number 18503778) operated by Big River Air Ltd., departed Four Mile Lake, Alberta, on a visual flight rules flight to the Taltson River, Northwest Territories. The purpose of the flight was to transport three passengers to a site on the river known as Ferguson’s Cabin. At approximately 1700 mountain daylight time, as the aircraft was landing on the water near Ferguson’s Cabin, the left float dug in and the left wing struck the water. The aircraft immediately cartwheeled and came to rest floating inverted in the river, with only the bottoms of the floats visible at the surface. The pilot and the front seat passenger sustained serious injuries; however, they managed to exit the submerged and damaged aircraft through a broken window in the left cabin door. Four fishermen in boats responded to the accident, removed the survivors from the cold water, and transported them to a warm shelter.
    [Show full text]
  • A Conceptual Design of a Short Takeoff and Landing Regional Jet Airliner
    A Conceptual Design of a Short Takeoff and Landing Regional Jet Airliner Andrew S. Hahn 1 NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA, 23681 Most jet airliner conceptual designs adhere to conventional takeoff and landing performance. Given this predominance, takeoff and landing performance has not been critical, since it has not been an active constraint in the design. Given that the demand for air travel is projected to increase dramatically, there is interest in operational concepts, such as Metroplex operations that seek to unload the major hub airports by using underutilized surrounding regional airports, as well as using underutilized runways at the major hub airports. Both of these operations require shorter takeoff and landing performance than is currently available for airliners of approximately 100-passenger capacity. This study examines the issues of modeling performance in this now critical flight regime as well as the impact of progressively reducing takeoff and landing field length requirements on the aircraft’s characteristics. Nomenclature CTOL = conventional takeoff and landing FAA = Federal Aviation Administration FAR = Federal Aviation Regulation RJ = regional jet STOL = short takeoff and landing UCD = three-dimensional Weissinger lifting line aerodynamics program I. Introduction EMAND for air travel over the next fifty to D seventy-five years has been projected to be as high as three times that of today. Given that the major airport hubs are already congested, and that the ability to increase capacity at these airports by building more full- size runways is limited, unconventional solutions are being considered to accommodate the projected increased demand. Two possible solutions being considered are: Metroplex operations, and using existing underutilized runways at the major hub airports.
    [Show full text]
  • Reusable Rocket Upper Stage Development of a Multidisciplinary Design Optimisation Tool to Determine the Feasibility of Upper Stage Reusability L
    Reusable Rocket Upper Stage Development of a Multidisciplinary Design Optimisation Tool to Determine the Feasibility of Upper Stage Reusability L. Pepermans Technische Universiteit Delft Reusable Rocket Upper Stage Development of a Multidisciplinary Design Optimisation Tool to Determine the Feasibility of Upper Stage Reusability by L. Pepermans to obtain the degree of Master of Science at the Delft University of Technology, to be defended publicly on Wednesday October 30, 2019 at 14:30 AM. Student number: 4144538 Project duration: September 1, 2018 – October 30, 2019 Thesis committee: Ir. B.T.C Zandbergen , TU Delft, supervisor Prof. E.K.A Gill, TU Delft Dr.ir. D. Dirkx, TU Delft This thesis is confidential and cannot be made public until October 30, 2019. An electronic version of this thesis is available at http://repository.tudelft.nl/. Cover image: S-IVB upper stage of Skylab 3 mission in orbit [23] Preface Before you lies my thesis to graduate from Delft University of Technology on the feasibility and cost-effectiveness of reusable upper stages. During the accompanying literature study, it was determined that the technology readiness level is sufficiently high for upper stage reusability. However, it was unsure whether a cost-effective system could be build. I have been interested in the field of Entry, Descent, and Landing ever since I joined the Capsule Team of Delft Aerospace Rocket Engineering (DARE). During my time within the team, it split up in the Structures Team and Recovery Team. In September 2016, I became Chief Recovery for the Stratos III student-built sounding rocket. During this time, I realised that there was a lack of fundamental knowledge in aerodynamic decelerators within DARE.
    [Show full text]
  • United States Rocket Research and Development During World War II
    United States Rocket Research and Development During World War II Unidentified U.S. Navy LSM(R) (Landing Ship Medium (Rocket)) launching barrage rockets during a drill late in the Second World War. Image courtesy of the U.S. National Archives and Records Administration. and jet-assisted takeoff (JATO) units for piston-pow- Over the course of the Second World War, rockets ered attack fighters and bombers. Wartime American evolved from scientific and technical curiosities into rocket research evolved along a number of similar and practical weapons with specific battlefield applications. overlapping research trajectories. Both the U.S. Navy The Allied and Axis powers both pursued rocket re- and Army (which included the Army Air Forces) devel- search and development programs during the war. Brit- oped rockets for ground bombardment purposes. The ish and American rocket scientists and engineers (and services also fielded aerial rockets for use by attack their Japanese adversaries) mainly focused their efforts aircraft. The Navy worked on rocket-powered bombs on tactical applications using solid-propellant rockets, for antisubmarine warfare, while the Army developed while the Germans pursued a variety of strategic and the handheld bazooka antitank rocket system. Lastly, tactical development programs primarily centered on both the Army and Navy conducted research into JATO liquid-propellant rockets. German Army researchers units for use with bombers and seaplanes. Throughout led by Wernher von Braun spent much of the war de- the war, however, limited coordination between the veloping the A-4 (more popularly known as the V-2), armed services and federal wartime planning bodies a sophisticated long-range, liquid-fueled rocket that hampered American rocket development efforts and led was employed to bombard London and Rotterdam late to duplicated research and competition amongst pro- in the war.
    [Show full text]
  • 1954 Cessna 180 Seaplane
    1976 Cessna A185F Seaplane N185AS Airspeeds Vs0 41*- 40 degrees flaps Vs1 55 Vx 80 Vy 90 Vfe 120 Va 118 Vno 146 Vne 182 Best Glide 80 *All speeds in Knots Engine Specs Continental IO520 D (Horizontally Opposed, 6 cylinder, Air Cooled) 300 HP @ 2850 RPM Max RPM- 2850 RPM Oil Type: Phillips X/C 20W50 or W100 Aeroshell Max oil Capacity: 12 U.S. Quarts Normal Operations: 9-10 U.S. Quarts Propeller Specs Manufacturer: McCaulley Prop Type: Constant Speed Number Blades: 2 Prop Diameter: 86 Fuel Capacity: 80 U.S. gallons – 40 each wing Usable: 74 U.S. gallons Fuel Burn: 16 Gallons Per Hour (average) Fuel Type: 100/130 Aviation fuel or 100 LL Floats Manufacturer: EDO Model: 582-3430 100% Bouyancy per Float: 3515 lbs. Float Airplane Bouyancy Max Floatation Weight 3430 C185 3515 lbs. 3905 lbs. 460 lbs.* <------------------------------- 21' --------------------------------> * without optional items Back Co Weight and Balance Gross Weight: 3525 lbs. Empty Weight: 2156 lbs. Useful Load: 1369 lbs. Float Storage Lockers: 100 lbs. maximum each side Sample Weight and Balance Weight Arm Moment Empty Airplane 2156.15 40.40 87113.40 Front Seats 400 15500 Rear Seats 0 0 Baggage Area 1 10 2000 Baggage area 2 30 3000 Float Compartments 0 0 Fuel 300 14000 Totals 2896.15 41.99 121613.4 EDO 3430 FAA Regulations Each float must have 4 compartments minimum Each float must support 90% of gross weight (both floats support 180%) Must be able to support the aircraft with two compartments flooded Note: The model number “3430” refers to the buoyancy of each float.
    [Show full text]
  • Garmin Reveals Autoland Feature Rotorcraft Industry Slams Possible by Matt Thurber NYC Helo Ban Page 45
    PUBLICATIONS Vol.50 | No.12 $9.00 DECEMBER 2019 | ainonline.com Flying Short-field landings in the Falcon 8X page 24 Regulations UK Labour calls for bizjet ban page 14 Industry Forecast sees deliveries rise in 2020 page 36 Gratitude for Service Honor flight brings vets to D.C. page 41 Air Transport Lion Air report cites multiple failures page 51 Rotorcraft Garmin reveals Autoland feature Industry slams possible by Matt Thurber NYC helo ban page 45 For the past eight years, Garmin has secretly Mode. The Autoland system is designed to Autoland and how it works, I visited been working on a fascinating new capabil- safely fly an airplane from cruising altitude Garmin’s Olathe, Kansas, headquarters for ity, an autoland function that can rescue an to a suitable runway, then land the airplane, a briefing and demo flight in the M600 with airplane with an incapacitated pilot or save apply brakes, and stop the engine. Autoland flight test pilot and engineer Eric Sargent. a pilot when weather conditions present can even switch on anti-/deicing systems if The project began in 2011 with a Garmin no other safe option. Autoland should soon necessary. engineer testing some algorithms that could receive its first FAA approval, with certifi- Autoland is available for aircraft manu- make an autolanding possible, and in 2014 cation expected shortly in the Piper M600, facturers to incorporate in their airplanes Garmin accomplished a first autolanding in followed by the Cirrus Vision Jet. equipped with Garmin G3000 avionics and a Columbia 400 piston single. In September The Garmin Autoland system is part of autothrottle.
    [Show full text]
  • Critical Soft Landing Technology Issues for Future U. S. Space Missions
    NASA CR-185673 January 1992 Critical Soft Landing Technology Issues for Future U. S. Space Missions J. M. Macha, D.W. Johnson and D. D. McBride Parachute Systems Division Sandia National Laboratories Albuquerque, NM 87185 Prepared for: National Aeronautics and Space Administration Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center Houston, TX 77058 This work was supported by NASA/JSC under Contract No. T-9317R This document has been approved for public release; its distribution is unlimited. Nabonal _ San.diaLaboratories (NA_A-CR-185oTJ) CRITICAL SOFT LANDING N92-26886 TECHNOLGGY ISSUES F_R FUTURE US SPACE MISSIOtwS Final Report (3andia National LlbS.) 26 p G3116 Abstract There has not been a programmatic need for research and development to support parachute-based landing systems since the end of the Apollo missions in the mid-1970s. Now, a number of planned space programs through the year 2020 require advanced landing capabilities for which the experience and technology base does not currently exist. New requirements for landing on land with controllable, gliding decelerators and for more effective impact attenuation devices justify a renewal of the landing technology development effort that existed all through the Mercury, Gemini and Apollo programs. A study has been performed to evaluate the current and projected national capability in landing systems and to identify critical deficiencies in the technology base required to support the Assured Crew Return Vehicle and the Two-Way Manned Transportation System. A technology development program covering eight landing system performance issues is recommended. Acknowledgements In carrying out this study, the authors benefitted greatly from discussions with many personnel of the NASA Johnson Space Center.
    [Show full text]
  • Aircraft Control After Engine Failure on Takeoff
    General AviaƟon FAA Joint Steering CommiƩee Aviaon Safety Training Aid January 2016 Aircraft Control After Engine Failure on Takeoff Studies have shown that startle responses during unexpected situaons such as power‐plant failure during takeoff or inial climb have contributed to loss of control of aircra. By including an appropriate plan of acon in a departure briefing for a power‐plant failure during takeoff or inial climb, you can manage your startle response and maintain aircra control. Considerations for Takeoff Brief Best Practices The briefing given by the pilot‐in‐command As part of pre‐planning and preparaon, (PIC) should be specific for each flight. Avoid consider these in case of a power‐plant failure allowing the checklist to become roune and create during and aer take‐off. Addional training and complacency. pracce — in a safe environment with a flight instructor — can reduce the startle response to an Airport Info: Consider runway condions, traffic acvies, and airspace complexies. unexpected event, such as an actual power‐plant failure, and improve outcomes. Idenfy V Speeds: Airspeeds such as Vy, Vx, Vr and best glide should be considered for current Straight Ahead or Turn Back? Research condions prior to takeoff. indicates a higher probability of survival if you connue straight ahead following an engine Terrain/Obstrucons: Mountains, power‐lines, failure aer take‐off. Turning back actually trees or towers may become obstrucons requires a turn of greater than 180 degrees aer during emergencies; idenfy them prior to taking into account the turning radius. Making a departure. turn at low altudes and airspeeds could create Abort Point: Establish an abort point prior to a scenario for a stall/spin accident.
    [Show full text]
  • Advisory Circular 120-62
    fw 3 Advisory U.S.Department of Transportation Federal Aviation Circular ’ AdminisWation Qlbject: TAKEOFF SAFETY TRAINING AID bte: g/Q/g4 AC No. 120-6.2 Announcement Of Availability Initiatedby: AFS-210 Change; 1 PURPOSE. This advisory circular (AC) announces the availability of a joint industry/Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Takeoff Safety Training Aid to help air carriers and pilots increase safety during the takeoff phase of flight. a. The FAA recommends early consideration of the information contained in the aid and use of the material, as appropriate, for training aircrews. This AC also highlights certain key items, concepts, and definitions that each air carrier or operator should address in their respective operational procedures and crew qualification programs. b This circular applies to Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) Part 121 operators. However, many of the principles, concepts, and procedures described apply to operations under FAR Parts 918 129, and 135 for certain aircraft, and are recommended for use by those operators when applicable. 2 BACKGROUND. Takeoff accidents resulting from improper rejected takeoff (RTO) decisions and procedures are significant contributors to worldwide commercial aviation accident statistics. For those takeoffs that are rejected, and for takeoffs made under certain environmental conditions and with certain system failures, risks could be reduced by a higher level of flightcrew knowledge and by the use of improved procedures. Due to the risks and the accident statistics associated with takeoffs, a joint FAA/industry team studied what actions might be taken to increase takeoff safety. These studies included simulation trials and in-depth analysis of takeoff accidents and incidents.
    [Show full text]
  • Post-Landing Orion Crew Survival in Warm Ocean Areas: a Case Study in Iterative Environmental Design
    Post-Landing Orion Crew Survival in Warm Ocean Areas: A Case Study in Iterative Environmental Design George E. Rains1, Grant C. Bue2, Jerry Pantermuehl1 1ESCG-Jacobs-Svedrup, Houston TX 2NASA Johnson Space Center, Houston TX Copyright © SAE International ABSTRACT varied across different vehicles, programs, and nations, but a common component has always been some capability for crew survival following The Orion crew module (CM) is being an unplanned or off-nominal water landing. designed to perform survivable land and water landings. There are many issues Given the geography of the U.S. manned space associated with post-landing crew survival. program, where all manned launches have taken place eastward over the Atlantic Ocean, it In general, the most challenging of the was inevitable that all of NASA’s early manned realistic Orion landing scenarios from an spacecraft would be capable of performing water environmental control standpoint is the off- landings. Since a water landing capability had nominal water landing. Available power to be provided, in any case, for the first and other consumables will be very limited astronauts to survive possible contingencies following a launch failure, it was expeditious for after landing, and it may not be possible to NASA to make water landing the normal mode provide full environmental control within of operation following a successful mission. the crew cabin for very long after This programmatic logic held true for Mercury, splashdown. Given the bulk and thermal Gemini, and Apollo, and was revised only with insulation characteristics of the crew-worn the advent of the Space Shuttle. The new Orion spacecraft may return to water landing as the pressure suits, landing in a warm tropical normal mode of operation, but with additional ocean area would pose a risk to crew capability for post-landing crew support.
    [Show full text]