Best bank angle for a engine failure turnback

[waterdog]

I think this discussion and the information contained in the pages is incredible valuable to think about. As I have been reading through something struck me, wouldn't we be safer to always fly part of a circuit. Hear me out.

If on departure you turned crosswind at 500 agl, ( engine failure prior to this turn you are committed to 30 degrees either side), after your crosswind turn as you are climbing up to circuit altitude to join downwind and lets call this time the grey area, between 500' and 1000' agl, this is where your reaction to an engine failure will depend on your experience level and the type of aircraft, but, the runway environment is now 90 degrees off wing and a much more likely successful outcome.

Once you are established on the downwind you are in a good position and altitude if something should happen or you can depart at the end of the downwind leg and head off.

This sounds a lot safer then drifting off of centre line and keeps you well positioned if something should happen. I think it also helps to eliminate decision time should something happen, which in a low altitude engine failure is critical.

Thoughts?

[photofly]

Let’s put a firm collective boot through the concept that if you’re flying circuits you have to - or even should - climb to 500’ agl or any other fixed and immutable height before turning crosswind.

[Cat Driver]

Exactly, when you can start the crosswind turn is determined by having enough height to make sure the wing does not drag on the ground.

[photofly]

lol

[pelmet]

https://www.atsb.gov.au/media/5772366/a ... -final.pdf

Looks like this guy saved the day with a turnback from 500 feet. A good diagram in the report shows it very clearly. As I said earlier, you don't necessarily have to land on the runway. This guy went onto the taxiway.

[photofly]

There’s a curious comment at the bottom of page 2 that’s says piston powered aircraft don’t have the same ability to turn back as this (turbine powered) one. Does anyone know what that’s about?

Additionally there’s a link to an interesting report on partial power loss after takeoff:
https://www.atsb.gov.au/media/4115270/a ... 55_no3.pdf

Somewhere buried in that report is the statement that the bank angle to achieve best rate of turn per height lost, is 45 degrees.

[AirFrame]

There’s a curious comment at the bottom of page 2 that’s says piston powered aircraft don’t have the same ability to turn back as this (turbine powered) one. Does anyone know what that’s about?

My guess would be the increased glide distance with a stopped, fully-feathered prop... And the rapidity with which you could get the prop fully feathered. You can stretch the glide in a piston airplane if you can stop the prop, but that is harder to do and wastes time when you've already got limited altitude to work with.

[Creston]

Let’s put a firm collective boot through the concept that if you’re flying circuits you have to - or even should - climb to 500’ agl or any other fixed and immutable height before turning crosswind.

True for PPL ?
It seems for commercial multicrew operations TC prefers:
https://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/civilaviation/ ... 0-1470.htm