LeSving wrote:
Anyway. The new UL regs in Norway will allow NVFR and VFR on top. The requirement is BRS. Why this requirement? Is it because Rotax engines have a habit of stopping for no reason? or is it because we often fly over terrains looking like the above? I think it’s neither. The reason is that most ULs already have BRS. It’s a low hanging fruit, which by coincident in this circumstance is likely to mitigate the risk (of fatality) almost 100%. It’s more of a 1/99 rule closer to 0/100.
Making them arguably safer than SEP, under the assumption the thing actually works and you don’t land in a fjord or something. Apparently identifying this low hanging fruit took the CAA quite some time.
Maoraigh wrote:
The pics in post 08 look possible if you have the nerve and skill of the girl in the Italian mountain forced landing thread. Up steep slope.
The big difference to the case mentioned in the initial post is that you have visibility. You see where you are going and what you are going to hit, so you can try to aim for what promises the best chances of survival. What strikes me in these pics is the low altitude. Why get into this situation in the first place? Altitude is time, time means a lot more choices.
Ibra wrote:
if you fly NVFR & LIFR one day it will happen if you don’t fly NVFR & LIFR as you are not guaranteed a way out, there are other aircraft that helps mitigating 10^-10 risks from single engine failures but may bring other risks
The key to that is BRS. This makes all the difference in low IFR or NVFR or IFR.
In the initial case I wonder if they would have had better chances with a virtual terrain display which also shows the runway. They got there but went past the runway. I’d have thought that in VMC they would have landed ok, so the real question in my mind is, what if they had a PFD with that kind of terrain imaging? How much would that help in this situation?
Inkognito wrote:
Apparently identifying this low hanging fruit took the CAA quite some time.
Indeed. But the new regulations seems to be well thought through, so perhaps well worth the waiting.
The possible result of deploying a BRS over steep terrain in moderate wind doesn’t appeal to me.
Maoraigh wrote:
The possible result of deploying a BRS over steep terrain in moderate wind doesn’t appeal to me.
The possible result of landing power off over steep terrain in moderate wind doesn’t appeal to me either…
which one gives the better chance of survival has to my knowledge not been tried extensively…
I suspect the image in #8 is actually taken from the other side of the train as it crosses this bridge:
The relevance (!) of this is that I’ve flown that Animas River canyon in the 172. Since the crests top 12,000’ for 30 miles there’s no escape in the event of an engine problem. If it came to it, I’d go for the boulder strewn river bed because you’d be seen – in that forest you could vanish for years.
So would I do it again? Possibly not. But to have done it once …. Wow!
Edited to add ‘Solo’!
Aveling wrote:
So would I do it again? Possibly not. But to have done it once …. Wow!Edited to add ‘Solo’!
Well, my risk analysis approach would instead simply exclude such a route from my routine flying, but would not stop me from the occasional flight with mitigating precautions (ie extra SAR measures, not fresh out of maintenance, in good wx, etc…) and, of course, good knowledge of the route and alternate plans. Entering a canyon not knowing exactly the way out can end up badly, as we have seen before!
Aveling wrote:
So would I do it again? Possibly not
Put a small strip at the river bank there, and you will have something very similar to ENMO where I have my plane 2 1/2 year ago a crash killed one person 150 m from the south threshold. 4 years ago a crash killed two people 150 m from the north threshold (neither had much to do with the actual strip as such). Taking off to the south is into raising terrain with pine forest. Landing from the north is over a ravine which make some interesting winds from time to time.
I guess Norway is one of the last places in Europe where men still are men. But then again, the women are also “men” here, so I’m not sure what that makes us all
As long as the approach does not get this far…
NO BRS
WE DIE LIKE REAL MEN