@@johncholmes643 How do you know what the problem was, the description say nothing about bad parts? I could be wrong but think it's unlikely he got bad parts twice. Also you realise that most people online do not speak english as a first language? You can crap on my grammer and spelling if you want but i speak 4 language and probably forgot more languages (2) than you speak.
Neatly executed! It reminded me of when I was a student pilot and my instructor was going to show me how to deal with EFATO. So, we were climbing out of a pretty built-up area, not at all like the fields in this video, when the instructor said something like, "Cut the engine". To my little mind, if that's what he said, that's what he meant, so I did. He reacted with aplomb, telling me to leave everything, re-started the engine and began to climb out again. When we were safe, he apologised, saying, "I should have said, 'simulate'!" I guess I had been pretty dumb, but he took the blame. I'm just glad I'm still here to tell the story!
This was your instructors mistake. When I was training for my Commercial Pilot Licence, my instructors would always say "practice" when they set the throttle to idle for a simulated engine failure. Clear communication is imperative, what happened to you could've had disastrous consequences.
@@martinh88 yes, and he realised it, but I was being pretty dumb! Anyway, I flew happily for a few years with only one near disaster (apart from the EFATO episode). I'd landed on a country strip, but it was the wrong one (I'm in South Africa, remember). My passengers and I re-boarded the craft and I held the brakes on full throttle to beat the short runway. Just as I released the brakes, a gentleman came trotting across my path on his horse! Anyway, no harm done. My second attempt succeeded, but on the hot, low pressure day, I virtually had to fly in the valley because I couldn't gain altitude.
@@XB10001 - he definitely chose the correct approach. Some would have been tempted to go straight back to the field, but they most likely would have ended up in the trees had they done so. This pilot chose correctly and chose the approach between the two lines of trees. A longer route back to the field but one that allowed the luxury of ditching cleanly if you couldn't clear the trees. Obviously the better choice in the end 😉
@@jim2lane He didn't have the altitude for a turnaround. I asked the pilot in a different post. That's not the issue. However, there are other areas that seem more inviting for landing out than that particular field. At least at first glance ... and from the comfort of my home.
On the other hand ....... A laconic 'Meh, Engine failed again' is *way better* than a worried call of 'engine failure engine failure' and worse again prefixed with Mayday or Pan suggesting someone is either not feeling on top of their game or is having to warn others to stay out of their dwindling air space.
@@alienxyt That's not the meaning of the "impossible turn". It would be the altitude needed for a return to the runway you took off from. A lot of aviation accidents are stall spins trying to return to the airport with not enough energy or altitude to make it. Knowing the altitude for the maneuver with a little extra added for prop drag and human factors is a very good practice.
@@PilotCooking the problem is everyone *thinks* they know the altitude required. They dont. Thats why they crash. Thats why we recommend finding a landing zone ahead of you. If you start convincing people they have a shot at a return home then everyone will try it and most will fail.
VERY SMART MOVE NOT TRYING FOR THAT FULL BACK HEADING TO THE AIRPORT. So tempting but way too risky. Snag those tree tops and it would be a stall, tumble fall wreck. An even more suitable / safer alternative was that big field 90 degrees of runway heading you were on. That’s a nice airport you have there. It offers more convenient emergency landing spots than any I’ve seen. Good job gettin her and yourself down in one piece.
I don't fly but that landing was amazing with no engine, Quick thinking, expertise and a cool head looks like it got you down safely. Great to watch and glad you are ok.
@@kenhurley4441 yes tbats my point. You can get a negative ground speed in lots of aircraft with low stall speeds very easily. Winds aloft are no joke. My first fllight instructor showed me the same thing yours did way but i was in a 172
Nice piloting. Excellent decision to dive to build up airspeed so you could flare for landing after the hedge instead of potentially pancaking in if you maintained the slope.
Why not straight ahead? In a word `powerlines.` It doesn`t show up on the video but ahead and at right angles to the runway heading are five lines of power cables, a railway and a solar farm (not ideal) to say the least. Also the ground slopes down, so the published departure is alway to do a 90 right turn on take off as it gives more options, which paid off on the day. Very valid question though betwys 1,
This would make an excellent instructional video, Stu! I suggest you sell it to flying schools - as a demonstration of skill and a cool head! Really well done.
not meaning to be rude but many instructors would say NEVER turn back toward the runway and try and land into the wind (which was straight on).....but hey what do i know, i'm only a beginner so im probably wrong.
@@TheReddkatt READ the pilot's reply to reddogchi (above) - Its actually a well thought through plan. You are correct that 'Other things being equal it is far the best option to land straight ahead & into wind'. In reality things are often not that equal - Which is why GASCO is plugging the key 'Threat & Error Management' approach .... Which at this point works out as '*Before you take off, know* your abort point not to take off if power's flagging and know where you will go if your engine decides to take the morning off after take off'. It genuinely helps to vocalise it - talk it through to yourself ..... OK people will think you're mumbling nut job but it much enhances your prospect of being a *long lived* mumbling nut job. You know the acronym ........... PPPPPPPP ! Prepared with a plug & play solution is *good* !
@@thephilpott2194 the 2 strokes were never meant to be certified, they are primarily used in ultralights and experimental class of aircraft, 2 strokes have gotten a bad rap because people just do not truly understand the operating characteristics of them, I have taken flyers from my local field up with me to explain and show them how egts can be exceeded under certain situations, I've had to explain that to my flight instructor because he hadn't really flown behind 2 strokes hardly at all.
Good job Looking on the bright as I’m sure you are, you must be aces at emergency no-power landings by now. Take that with you always and may you never need to use it mate!
I know it's counter intuitive but when you've kinked to the side after take off (which is a good thing) then turning the other way naturally aligns you with the runway and there would be no trees. It's a good standard procedure to kink slightly to the side and climb fairly steeply such that a glide return is always possible. As much as 10-20km out. With a good glide ratio plane it could be 100km out which is a pretty strong safety reach to have. You could do a simulated repeat video.
The Shadow can land on a cricket pitch and almost at a standstill in a strong headwind. However if you watch again, just as he turns final for that field you will see the field where he took off from with the buildings. This means he was landing with a tailwind which means his groundspeed will be a lot higher. You would never get away with that in a proper light aircraft, it would be ahead only.
Hi RJ M, you are right it does sound like a cold seize, but the coolant was up to temp. and this was the third flight of the day, I have investigated inside the cylinders with a borescope for any evidence of seizures but they look great with the cross hatching in the walls. There have been a few `red herrings,` but I don`t want to state 100% that we have found the issue until proving flights have been done. Unfortunately we are in lock down and I cann`t get fly. So there will be a follow up video once the issue has been solve. Thanks for your comment, appreciate the advice.
The joy of Rotax two-cycle engines. Happened to me twice with a 582, same exact sound. Lack of lubrication. Happens at the first power reduction after takeoff. All it takes is an air bubble in the oil injection system. After that I ran exclusively pre-mixed fuel. Finally got rid of it, swore I’d never fly behind a Rotax again.
@@davidwebb4731 - I can't remember, if I ever knew, this was a long time ago, probably about 1993 or 1994. When I landed safely and pulled the cowl, I could see air bubbles in the clear line going to the injector on the seized cylinder. If I ever figured out why they were there, I don't remember now. You are right of course, proper knowledge might have prevented it.
HI JIm, thanks for your comments it is appreciated. The oil system has been carefully examined since the incidents and found to be working fine. This has been one of the issues we cannot duplicate the failure on the ground. Even if the aircraft is tilted over as in a right turn, runs like a dream. Up to this point it had run (since new) 24 hours without issue. The cylinders have been examined and there is no evidence of a seizure. We have a couple of `red herrings,` but now hope we have found the issue but cannot get to fly and prove it as we are in lock down. So in due course there will be a follow up video explaining all the work done to the engine and the (hopefully) successful outcome. Stu
@@davidwebb4731 HI David, thanks for taking the time for your in depth comments, it is refreshing to have comments from someone who clearly knows what they are talking about. We have tried all that you have suggested and it runs beautifully on the ground. We have some other tests to do but cannot move due to, `lockdown,` in Wales. The day will come and I will message to update, you as I really appreciate your input. Stu.
@@johncunningham4820 hi John, if you look at my channel and see "Engine failure on take off pilots eye view, follow up" you'll a video about 7minuutes long, as you sound like a pilot it might be of interest. Thanks for comments
@@MALPAS29 . Thanks Stuart . Just one of Lifes little annoyances . Bad Magneto and a Problem with Assembly of the Carburettor as well . Backside kicking time . So it was Fuel starvation , technically , hence the Noise at Shutdown that I wondered might be seizure . Not a Pilot . Just done LOTS of small and large engines over the years . Rotax Engines comes with a Great Reputation , but they are NOT as bulletproof as the Maker would prefer .
The Shadow (name of the aircraft) has been around for 39yrs and is one of the Safest aircraft ever built, and the only one fatality, appears to have been a heart attack prior to impact.
180 degree turns back to the airport after the engine fails is a risky maneuver. Reference the ntsb fatality report of a Grumman American in Patterson, Louisiana. Engine stalled after takeoff. There was a sufficient place to land maintaining heading on an unpaved airport service road. The pilot chose to make a 180 degree turn back to the runway. He stalled the aircraft, nose in the dirt. While the Grumman is a different aircraft than this one, the risk is still the same. Nothing was gained in this video beyond a more convenient walk back to the airport. Glad it was a successful landing in this case.👍😎
Helidude, you make a valid point about, "180 degree turn back," being a risky. Before you make statements ' like nothing was gained in this video beyond a more convenient walk back'...why don`t you do some research or ask me? You could look a VFR guides for the airfield and see there are seven power lines at right angle to the runway heading, the advised procedure is to turn right on take off on runway 18 to be parallel to these, also the ground slopes away meaning the landing is more difficult and longer roll out, especially as my glide ratio is 1 in 13, so landing uphill was a major advantage. I was the pilot in command, I was saving my life, in 40 years of aviation I have had four engine failures and never put a scratch on an aircraft yet, as I know my aircraft and practice deadstick landings, the walk home is never a consideration.
Sound advice, been there already, had a scope in and a good look around, beautiful cross hatching on the cylinder walls, on evidence of any damage. Appreciate the suggestion all the same
@@MALPAS29 I know as a pilot you must be sober, studious and serious, but....the temptation to take the unit back to the supplier and throw it at him must be lurking in the grey matter.
@@MALPAS29 c’mon man, a bore inspection won’t show the problem. You’ve galled the skirt and ring lands and it will seize hot till you pull the pistons and get proper clearances.
The last thing on your check list before take off in a glider , is " E " , E, is for eventualities . E. G . At what height can I do a 180 and return to the field ? What fields can I land on the are 45 degrees from my take off ? If the wind is less then 10 knots . Can I turn around and do a down wind landing.
Really appreciate your comment, thanks for taking the time to share it. I must admit I now say to myself on every take off, "Today the engine is going to fail." Then plan accordingly.........it`s a nice surprise when it doesn`t fail😆
45 sec: "Andy....; I have engine failure again....I am going in the field"......... // = you do like the thrill of outlandings...; do you ? // If the answer is "NO" = fix the engine first before restart...... // greetings
I know your pain. I have had countless engine failures in both Lycoming four-stroke aircraft engines and a few with two-stroke Rotax engines. Try gliding in a Pitts Special aerobatic biplane. It's blind and fast with small wheels. You have to land it on a road.
@@FINfinFINfinFINfin I did although I still loving flying and I am very skilled at it. Most aircraft run their engines consistently at 80%-100%. They do fail more often than people know.
this happened to myself and my pilot dad. We managed to do a full square and juuuust make it back on the runway again. My dad had never been more spooked before in his whole life and he was an aussie aerobatics champ.
