Sometimes the turnback is too successful

[pelmet]

Frequently, one hears about the idea that one should never attempt a 180 degree turnback to the airport after an engine failure as it will most likely be fatal. It certainly has its risks and the likelihood of success can vary based on a lot of factors including aircraft type, weight, height above the airport, wind, etc. And frequently, there are good landing spots within 90 degrees of straight ahead which are reasonable landing areas. But frequently that is not the case.

I practiced the 180 turn a few years ago with an experienced instructor on a SkyCatcher initiating the simulated failure at 400 AAE and it worked out well. He claimed most types can do it although I wouldn't want to try it in some draggy biplanes or high performance types.

I did hear about a plane at a school I was renting from that had a failure after takeoff a few years ago and did the turnback but ended up too high and then went off the other end of the runway(not good as it has a big dropoff). Recently, I read about another accident recently that had some similarities which got me searching the net where I found the flight school one and this second one that involved an RV-8 flown by an experienced airshow pilot. In the second case, not only was he too high after turning back but he then tried a second 180 degree turn to land on the original runway, which might be pushing your luck.

So, what if you are too high. I would suggest max sideslip as you would be amazed how quickly you can lose altitude doing that. Even if deciding to land straight ahead on the remaining runway which is rapidly disappearing, it may really help to enter that giant sideslip and get down as quickly as possible. Be ready to do a big sideslip(unless you are in a occasional aircraft like a C170B where control can be lost doing that).

https://app.ntsb.gov/pdfgenerator/Repor ... m&IType=LA

https://app.ntsb.gov/pdfgenerator/Repor ... y&IType=FA

[photofly]

Whatever mnoeuvre you’re planning to do, make sure you’ve practiced it ahead of time. 500agl with no power isn’t the time to be experimenting to find out what the plane you’re flying is capable of.

[pelmet]

Whatever mnoeuvre you’re planning to do, make sure you’ve practiced it ahead of time. 500agl with no power isn’t the time to be experimenting to find out what the plane you’re flying is capable of.

Thanks for the good advice.

Here is an actual video of a an engine failure/turnback from about 500 feet AAE.....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t6v45p9liIc

[Big Pistons Forever]

Training for the turn back is IMO opinion is negative training for 2 reasons

1) when training you know the failure is coming. The shock factor should not be under estimated especially while you are coming to grips with the idea that something bad has happened. During those 3 to 5 seconds the aircraft is nose up and decelerating, not where you want to be before cranking in a bunch of bank. The shock value is further exacerbated by the fact that unless you have mentally briefed a turn back there is going to be time required to decide which way you turn

2) unless you have lots of experience working at low level and high bank angles you will almost certainly experience ground rush which will cause you to unconsciously pull back on the wheel setting up the usually fatal stall spin. Actually practicing a low altitude turn back IMO requires an unacceptably high level of risk for a training accident

What should be: Every pilot will have continuously practiced the stick and rudder skills required to nail the pitch and bank required for the turn back and will have considered the vital actions for the low altitude turn back before every takeoff

What is: The accident statistics show a turn back is 8 times more likely to result in a fatal accident

Finally I think it is important to point out that the accident statistics show that up to 80% of engine failures are caused by the actions or inactions of the pilot. So my challenge to you is did you do everything possible to reduce the possibility of an engine failure before the takeoff of your last flight? I bet if you thought about it there was probably something that got missed

[2R]

Side slip is a great drag exercise , the crew of the Gimli glider used side slip to lose altitude .

It can be fun to demonstrate the amount of drag available using all the rudder , and pushing the nose down to keep a flying airspeeed .
Almost as much fun as a full flaps drag demo almost

[photofly]

In all emergency training, the trainee knows what is coming. This applies to engine failure in the circuit, forced approach training, spin recovery training, and airline sim training too. You train for unexpected situations by learning to expect them. Do you imagine that a candidate for a multi-engine rating is unaware the examiner will close the throttle on one engine during the ride? The correct response to a sudden power loss in a single engine aircraft during the post-takeoff phase is considerably easier to master.

You absolutely should mentally brief a minimum altitude to commence and in which direction to turn, on every takeoff. It is part of the pre-takeoff briefing.

Engine failure immediately after takeoff drill is sufficiently common in other jurisdictions to have its own radio procedure in CAP413:

E16F473C-DED7-4C55-A621-2F303D5913AF.jpeg (136.28 KiB) Viewed 1492 times

I should very much like to see this phraseology introduced into Canada.

Low level manoeuvring can and should be experienced as part of forced approach and engine failure in the circuit training.

Student pilots need both to recognize the limits of their skill but also to recognize that careful practice and drill will enable them to expand those limits. It’s not acceptable to treat student pilots as simpletons otherwise they will never progress beyond those limits.

Perhaps I’m lucky but I fly from an airport where an engine failure after takeoff on one runway followed by an immediate return to landing (or at least to a low-and-over from which a downwind landing could be achieved if required) on an adjacent runway is an easily achievable exercise needing only moderate skill. I see no reason why it should not be taught. Doing it for real is a much preferable option to ditching and risking drowning.

[Big Pistons Forever]

The accident record is clear. If you fly straight ahead after an EFATO and crash wings level, in a level flight attitude in control you will almost certainly live, even if you are hitting a house, bridge, fence, wall, trees, etc etc. If you lose control in the turn back you will hit very nose down and steeply banked and you will almost certainly die.

This is reality as shown by the accident record. Personally I think the whole turn back is really about the hero pilot myth that every pilot unconsciously wants to believe. There I was when boom the engine failed at 400 ft and I expertly bent the airplane around and landed on the runway with no damage to the airplane, wow everyone will say what a great pilot I was.

When the engine fails the insurance company just bought the airplane. As the pilot your only responsibility is to protect the lives of you and your passengers. There is no scenario IMO where a turn back with the intention of landing back on the runway poses the least risk to you or your passengers. I am not saying do not ever turn but the turn should be only enough to point the airplane at something significantly better than what is straight ahead and should be stopped at at least 100ft AGL so that an optimal flight path to crash with is established

Finally when I was a full time instructor my school made renter pilots go do an annual check ride with the forced approach exercise as mandatory. In 4 years only 1 renter pilot I checked out aced the forced approach with near perfect bank and airspeed control and a flight path perfect for the declared touchdown point. At least half flew the forced approach so badly I had to intervene to prevent dangerously low airspeed and/or the approach would have missed the field. I do not see how the turn back would have ended well for almost all these pilots

We can argue why this is and how it should be fixed but this does not change the fact that this is the reality and for that reason I feel very strongly that it is wrong to advocate for the turn back maneuver rather than emphasizing the importance of immediately lowering the nose if there is a loss of power after takeoff and to concentrate on attaining and maintaining control of the aircraft while setting the glide pitch attitude while flying straight ahead turning only the minimum amount if that will avoid major obstacles

[photofly]

I don’t think it’s about saving the plane. I’m quite happy to rip the wings off colliding with trees, or putting it into the sand bunker on the seventh fairway, because, as you say, the insurance company just bought the wreck. But I don’t swim too well, particularly with the water temperature close to zero for most of the year, and Lake Ontario is quite a big target to avoid with only a minor turn.

I can’t say I fancy the chances of not killing a third party putting it down in an urban environment which is what a lot of runways have straight ahead. I don’t know how you can prepare for steering between houses, or avoiding cars, and frankly if you’re prepared to plough it in to that kind of area, you might as well try to head back to the runway. If you kill only yourself and your passengers, well, At least you kept the public out of it.

Of course, if you have green fields and open spaces ahead, then there’s no benefit to turning back other than to avoid minor damage to the plane, which isn’t worth the risk, in my opinion.

One of the things I like about flying is the requirement for each pilot to be responsible for their own proficiency and their own choices. More training, not less, is the best way towards the right choices.

[rookiepilot]

Video is of a mooney. Few glide that well.

[GoinVertical]

It's important that everyone remembers that a 180 turnback is a lot more than 180 degrees worth of turn, in order to line back up with the departure runway.

Unless you have practiced over and over again in the aircraft you're flying, it's recipe for disaster. As a poster pointed out above, it's really hard to keep your subconscious mind from pulling back and loading up those wings when you are low level. AoA in the cockpit would help a lot with this.

Also important thing to remember if you do try for the "impossible turn" (don't, unless you know your aircraft and have practiced it over and over again) is to not commit to the runway until you're lined up and its in front of you. If it doesn't look like you'll make it, level the wings, and continue straight ahead.

Anyone that owns a piston aircraft should invest in a good multi-cylinder engine monitor, and learn how to interpret it. Not many engine failures are a complete surprise if you are able to properly monitor all parameters.

If you are someone that regularly flies a single engine aircraft, go get your glider licence. A lot of fun, you will definitely learn some things, and improve your hands and feet.

Finally, instructors of pilots that will be spending a lot of time flying single engine aircraft, do your best to make the engine out exercises a surprise. A real surprise. Going out to practice steep turns? Simulated engine failure in the climb out through 2000'. Cross country flight? Pull it somewhere in the middle while you're chowing down on a ham sandwich. The greater the factor of surprise, the better. Your student may thank you some day.

[photofly]

It's important that everyone remembers that a 180 turnback is a lot more than 180 degrees worth of turn, in order to line back up with the departure runway.

This is very true. But you don’t have to land on the same, or even any, runway surface. Airport infield is usually flat, and long. A touchdown anywhere flat followed by a ground roll that ends in a ditch, or in contact with a fence, or an antenna, or tree or any other obstacle once the ground speed is reduced is likely to provide an acceptable outcome. Without endangering the public.

In many airport environs, the only piece of flat ground for quite some distance after departure is immediately behind you on takeoff. There is always *some* altitude at which even the most inept pilot could successfully reach it, and there is always some altitude at which no pilot could. I find the mantra of "don't ever consider turning more than 30° to left or right" to be too inflexible.

[pelmet]

It's important that everyone remembers that a 180 turnback is a lot more than 180 degrees worth of turn, in order to line back up with the departure runway.

This is very true. But you don’t have to land on the same, or even any, runway surface. Airport infield is usually flat, and long. A touchdown anywhere flat followed by a ground roll that ends in a ditch, or in contact with a fence, or an antenna, or tree or any other obstacle once the ground speed is reduced is likely to provide an acceptable outcome. Without endangering the public.

In many airport environs, the only piece of flat ground for quite some distance after departure is immediately behind you on takeoff. There is always *some* altitude at which even the most inept pilot could successfully reach it, and there is always some altitude at which no pilot could. I find the mantra of "don't ever consider turning more than 30° to left or right" to be too inflexible.

This is exactly correct. It is nice to say never turn around but that is foolish. What is reasonable is to realize that each situation is different based on a multitude of factors such as runway length, type of aircraft, weight, wind, pilot experience, etc. This blind idea that one must always land almost straight ahead is ridiculous. It assumes that the landing area straight ahead is reasonable(or it intentionally ignores that it is frequently not reasonable). If there are good landing areas straight ahead, it is a logical thing to consider. But there are all kinds of departures where the landing area straight ahead(or within 45° to be reasonable) is a near 100% guarantee of a very, very damaging landing, while the airport behind them may represent a large flat area with, for example, only a 120 degree turn is required and can be done with a turn into wind which helps.

And there are other situations where the aircraft type easily allows a turnback based on the situation(aircraft type, wind of the day, etc.). It is one of those things where a pilot should do some sort of an analysis based on their particular situation.

Personally, I think that whenever one comes across the idea of....you must always do it this way and never consider anything else, to be suspicious and do your own analysis. It may turn out to be correct but maybe not. Heading into dense city or freezing water may not provide the optimum outcome. Landing straight ahead in a field may be more optimal. Do your own analysis. Understand the increased risk of turns, practice with an experienced pilot. The turnback definitely increases risk of stall but in some situations, it decreases other risks significantly. Aviation is about balancing risks.

Video is of a mooney. Few glide that well.

A good point and something to be considered. I have flown the Mooney(Super 21 and MSE) and the Bonanza(F33 and V35). The first type glides much better than the second. And there are other types with much worse drag characteristics.

[Big Pistons Forever]

I fly gliders and our club SOP is 250 AGL is a gate altitude. Below 250 AGL you sidestep to the runway and land straight ahead on what's left of the runway or past the end of the runway. Above 250 AGL you turn back and land downwind on the runway. Above 700 ft AGL you turn cross wind for an abbreviated circuit. The glider has more than 4 times the glide performance of a typical Cessna Piper so 250 AGL would be 1000 ft AGL for one of those which is coincidentally what I told my PPL students.

Personally I treat it like V1. Things are happening very fast and so a pre-programmed action is best. There is lots of human factors research on how fast pilots actually react to an unexpected catastrophic event.

[photofly]

I fly gliders and our club SOP is 250 AGL ... The glider has more than 4 times the glide performance of a typical Cessna Piper so 250 AGL would be 1000 ft AGL for one of those which is coincidentally what I told my PPL students.

Personally I treat it like V1. Things are happening very fast and so a pre-programmed action is best. There is lots of human factors research on how fast pilots actually react to an unexpected catastrophic event.

I'm sorry, I just don't believe you.

I am in no doubt whatsoever that if you took off in a C172 and the engine quit at 950 agl - nearly two minutes after takeoff, and nearly at circuit altitude, you would not, yourself, land straight ahead regardless, nor would you expect a student to do so.

Now if you want to talk about that decision at 500agl, 600agl, 700agl, 800agl, let's talk. But waiting to 1000agl is madness.

[rookiepilot]

In light winds...pick / request the right runway.

Big, big difference off CYKZ 33 vs 15.....as one example....google earth it. (used to be even more extreme)

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Toron ... 79.3695644

[Big Pistons Forever]

One of the things I like about flying is the requirement for each pilot to be responsible for their own proficiency and their own choices. More training, not less, is the best way towards the right choices.

I am in total agreement more training not less is what is needed. However if you look at the accident record in general most accidents are running of the end of the runway, busted nose wheels from a too fast approach and PIO, losing control in across wind, etc. The number one cause of fatal accidents is loss of control at low altitude, mostly a stall/spin after a departure from controlled flight while maneuvering for landing or takeoff.

Before training for the turnback a portion of the flight where the window of vulnerability is only about a minute and EFATO's are actually not that common, I would suggest training should concentrate on the foundation stick and rudder skills where the lack of those skills contributes to the majority of bent metal. Getting those skills tuned up will stop a lot more accidents than turn back training.

There is however one specific exercise I did with all my students. I set them up at altitude in the practice area in a Vx climb when the aircraft is stabilized I smoothly but pull the throttle to idle. The point of the exercise is to show how quickly the airspeed bleeds off and how quick you must be to positively pitch down as well as the fact the has to initially go well below the best glide attitude to regain best glide speed.

Even if you want to do a turn back this the first action you must take and it must be automatic.

Finally I will reiterate I think practicing turn backs at altitude is negative training because you don't get the ground rush illusion and it is difficult to achieve surprise and practicing at a low altitude creates an unacceptable level of risk of a training accident.

[photofly]

Before training for the turnback a portion of the flight where the window of vulnerability is only about a minute and EFATO's are actually not that common, I would suggest training should concentrate on the foundation stick and rudder skills where the lack of those skills contributes to the majority of bent metal. Getting those skills tuned up will stop a lot more accidents than turn back training.

If EFATO scenarios are common enough to be worth discussing, then they are common enough to be worth training for.

Nor does training for A preclude training for B. Accurate manoeuvring under a variety of different power conditions, including setting up a gliding turn at close to but above stalling speed for the load factor, *is* a foundational stick and rudder skill. High alpha is where the skill is required, and where the practice should be got.

Straight and level flight does not build stick-and-rudder skills. Keeping the ball in the middle and keeping wing flying, during tight turns, is about as stick-and-rudder as you can get.

Finally I will reiterate I think practicing turn backs at altitude is negative training because you don't get the ground rush illusion

Respectfully, I disagree. Practice forced approaches to a full-stop landing from the circuit generate exactly this, and under similar if not identical circumstances to an EFATO.

it is difficult to achieve surprise

We are discussing training and not simulation. The entire flight training industry is (correctly) built on the fact that surprise *during* training is simply not required for the training to be effective in a real surprise situation.

[Big Pistons Forever]

I fly gliders and our club SOP is 250 AGL ... The glider has more than 4 times the glide performance of a typical Cessna Piper so 250 AGL would be 1000 ft AGL for one of those which is coincidentally what I told my PPL students.

Personally I treat it like V1. Things are happening very fast and so a pre-programmed action is best. There is lots of human factors research on how fast pilots actually react to an unexpected catastrophic event.

I'm sorry, I just don't believe you.

I am in no doubt whatsoever that if you took off in a C172 and the engine quit at 950 agl - nearly two minutes after takeoff, and nearly at circuit altitude, you would not, yourself, land straight ahead regardless, nor would you expect a student to do so.

Now if you want to talk about that decision at 500agl, 600agl, 700agl, 800agl, let's talk. But waiting to 1000agl is madness.

I do not say only fly straight ahead I said do not have as your default option a turn back below 1000ft. In many cases you would have already turned crosswind so a further 90 degrees turn would get you back the airport environment a parallel runway or even the runway. If you departed straight out you are now high enough to have options straight ahead or to the side and since you briefed the departure you should know where the best place to go is. For low experienced pilots I strongly believe have some clear and unambiguous decision points is helpful when the unexpected bad thing happens.

But we are back to my original argument what should be ( every pilot should be able to fly a turn back ) vs what is (The fatal accident rate is 8 times higher for a turn back vs not turning back after the EFATO).

Yes you can find places where straight ahead will probably be fatal but almost any crash is survivable if the airplane is level and under control when it hits something. Lose control in the turn back and and you will almost certainly die, that is a fact.

I look at low level turn backs like backside of the power curve approaches. Yes you can do them and yes they work but there is no margin for error.

[photofly]

There should be no "default" option; each airport is different, and the benefit of a proper pre-takeoff briefing is to avoid indecision in the air. Therefore if done properly the pre-takeoff briefing is the planning for the turn-back.

Of course if you've no idea how your airplane handles in that manoeuvre because you've never practiced it at altitude, then you will not have the flexibility to plan for it, even if your airport environment makes it appropriate.

I think my first comment in this thread was along the lines of, if you haven't practiced it ahead of time, don't try to make it up on the occasion where you need it.

[Big Pistons Forever]

Finally I will reiterate I think practicing turn backs at altitude is negative training because you don't get the ground rush illusion

Respectfully, I disagree. Practice forced approaches to a full-stop landing from the circuit generate exactly this, and under similar if not identical circumstances to an EFATO.

it is difficult to achieve surprise

We are discussing training and not simulation. The entire flight training industry is (correctly) built on the fact that surprise *during* training is simply not required for the training to be effective in a real surprise situation.
[/quote]

Guess we will have to agree to disagree on this. I used to fly a birddog aircraft in support of aerial fire suppression. You spend a lot of time at 200 ft AGL and 45 degrees of bank and other aggressive maneuvering at low level. Unless you have done it I don't think you can fully appreciate the issue of ground rush.

With respect to the issue of the effect of surprise I would recommend that you look up some of the human factors research on this issue