Personal Minimums Contract

Kinetic energy and crash protection well understood in cars is just as big a deal in GA.

Decelerating from 40 knots to zero in around 10 metres might have a peak G of minus 10 – very survivable with four point harness and a tube frame structure.

The same exercise at 80 knots is very probably fatal. The deceleration time is shorter over the same distance. GA aircraft do not have the structure to dissipate the kinetic energy, especially MEP with fibreglass nose structures – although the Aztruck has a steel tube cage.

A Maule at 25 knots may break a few ribs going through a brick wall, but Jacko’s thesis is not outlandish.

Actually off-airport engine-out landings in GA aircraft are, to me, always surprisingly survivable. It is typically vertical speed not forward speed that kills people. Don’t stall at altitude and fly it to the ground effect and the odds are pretty good unless you run into @Jacko’s wall without being in a Maule.

I am with Jacko thesis as well

70m stopping distance on 50kts forward with wing level should be ok (actually even less if you allow for things to heat or bend), just don’t try to make an off landings too much beautiful that will kill you (trying to make that spot? last minute spot change?), what the CAPS does in your behalf is it makes the landing very ugly, so you can survive it

I don’t think an engine failure bellow 2000ft can be converted in a beautiful landing in VMC let alone in IMC, you can’t even pick anything to chose from, and bellow 300ft you will just land ahead anyway IMC or VMC

Flying with above 2000ft CB would be very restrictive, flying with less than 300ft CB will not give you any chance (but you maybe lucky keeping it just flying straight)

Now long flying above the water and the alps is a different story, it is the “walk” after your survive that landing that make it tough

Jacko would like to stress that it’s not actually his wall, he‘s not at all keen to buy it, and he’s (perhaps uncharacteristically) reluctant to acquire or demonstrate proficiency in the use of such an “arrester wall”.

However, Jacko is convinced that to describe a forced landing in low IMC without CAPS as “certain death” is not only wrong, but perhaps dangerously so – regardless of topography. That mentality (fear of forced landing in an unsuitable place) leads to poor decision-making and possible loss of control while manoeuvring or stretching a glide to a “better” landing site. LOC seems to be GA’s no. 1 killer.

Yes, LOC after an engine failure is highly relevant as most touring aircraft tend to be difficult to manoeuvre at slow speeds (<80kts) without making it 100kts by pushing or dropping wings on high bank angles by pulling, I recall that did make intesting PFL practices trying to do last minute squeeze of a fast touring aircraft (bad habits from gliding but now most of it gone )

So if push comes to shove bellow 1000ft it is going to be one way into wind at 60kts, while we are talking statistics, I think that still give 33% chance between slight left, slight right and keep center, the best odds one can have on what is already a bad day

poor decision-making

So setting higher personal minima is poor decision making while being convinced that an engine failure in a SEP at whatever altitude in IMC (dropping out of clouds at 200ft and a subsequent forced landing) is no problem and is good decision making?

Reality is private piston GA has a bad safety record, and the problem is overwhelmingly found between the pilots‘ ears. I don’t exclude myself from this, hence I set higher personal minima when flying SEPs.

Over the topography I usually find myself, a forced landing in VMC will be challenging enough, gliding down in IMC acquiring visual sight at the last second would be 99% deadly.

With respect, but to talk about engine failure in a sep in imc as almost a non event is foreign to me.

I think he meant restricting landing to suitable areas only (wich is a higher safety minima) may get you in real “death/life” troubles if it is a the cost of more than 15 deg angle of bank and 55kts-65kts speeds (other higher safety minimas)

My opinion surviving a crash in forced landing from bellow 2000ft has most to do with the state of aircraft 2 seconds from impact, wing level and fully heldoff landing at slow speeds on 5 points harness gives you most of the chances, everything else is highly irrelevant, including trees (altough we like to talk about lot of other stuff like making paved runways in training )

Basically, you can do it in two ways:

Fly to a suitable landing place and hope to be at 60ASI &15AOB on impact

OR

Fly at 60ASI &15AOB and hope to be on a suitable area on impact

In the second VMC/IMC is less irrelevant while for the first IMC is highly relevant and so the chance of botching into a high energy landing or stall

Many fatal accident reports are loss-of-control at low height, when the view in a turn, and speed clues, are unfamiliar.
Only New Zealand seems to include low flying in its PPL training.
Are there enough statistics to suggest this solved the problem?