Turnback

[Hedley]

I have to think 80% or more pilots shouldn't attempt a turnback

I have to think 80% or more pilots shouldn't attempt flying in cloud - without training.

Flying a 172 in cloud can kill you. Lots of people do it, though - after some training.

Anyone? Bueller?

I think the reasoning here is that no one should receive any training about something that might kill them. Ok, I agree with that position. All flight training should therefore cease immediately.

[trey kule]

To Cat first of all.

Perhaps you could let others state an opinion with taking it as a criticism of yourself. That simply does not lead to good discussions.

Hedley is frustrated. I can tell when he refuses to acknowledge that no one is stating the turnaround can not be done as long as the conditions when it happens allow for it.
But I think some really wise people here have pointed out the stats when it happens for real.

Perhaps, the question that should be discussed is whether a less experienced pilot can be trained to react quickly in a real emergency, and assess the situation and take the best course of action. Someone already posted regarding the psychological factors, and someone else about experience and currency. Something along the lines of possible...but practable.

[Cat Driver]

To Cat first of all.

Perhaps you could let others state an opinion with taking it as a criticism of yourself. That simply does not lead to good discussions.

I was only asking mike53 a simple question so I know where I stand in his opinion.....which will govern how or if I respond to any of his further posts.

There was and is nothing any more complex in my question.

[Cat Driver]

I am in this discussion because I believe it needs to be discussed and examined to find better solutions to how or where to land in an emergency other than straight ahead or a turn back to the runway...

....there is a lot that can be examined in this exercise and maybe some different attitudes will come out of such a discussion other than strict adherence to one or two choices.

I am still waiting for an answer to this simple question.

How long does it take to teach a student to safely perform this maneuver?

[Beefitarian]

Accidently deleted during an editing error.

[AuxBatOn]

I think I getting up to speed on this.
When it really happens we have to check to see that we have 500 feet (for example

Actually, you should make that decision before take off and make a mental note when you pass the magic altitude, that way, there is no doubt in your mind. Everything else is stick and rudder. Keep the ball centered, bank and pull lightly. Just like I verbalise the relevant speeds (100 kts, and abort speed) during my take off roll (even though I am all by myself). It creates a flag in my head as to what to do if something happens past that stage of the take off.

I don't say to attempt a turn around if you get an engine faillure and you never did it before, however, practice it a few times in different conditions, make some mental references to which you can fall back when you prep for take off. That way, you can come up with a safe altitude for a turnback everytime. Easy.

[Beefitarian]

I am in this discussion because I believe it needs to be discussed and examined to find better solutions to how or where to land in an emergency other than straight ahead or a turn back to the runway...

....there is a lot that can be examined in this exercise and maybe some different attitudes will come out of such a discussion other than strict adherence to one or two choices.

I might not share this with every instructor but I'm of the opinion you're still flying the plane if you're actually in control of it and it has not touched down yet.

[trey kule]

Actually auxbat, that is what I was referring to when I mentioned doing a take off briefing in your head. Reviewing not only critical altitude, but critical altitude with consideration for wind, runway length, weight temp etc.
But how many of the best of the best have forgotten to switch from kts. to Mach?

[Big Pistons Forever]

I don't say to attempt a turn around if you get an engine faillure and you never did it before, however, practice it a few times in different conditions, make some mental references to which you can fall back when you prep for take off. That way, you can come up with a safe altitude for a turnback everytime. Easy.

For something like every 500 qualified pilot training applicants to the CF One will ultimately make it as a CF18 pilot. What you find "easy" is IMO not readily transferable to your average recreational General Aviation PPL or 200 hr CPL.

My significant experience as an Instructor has led me to believe that your statement that anybody who practiced the turnback a few times and made the appropriate mental references; could then expect to successfully manage the turnback after a sudden unexpected real engine failure...... is simply not realistic

[Bushav8er]

the PC12 which IS capable of the manoeuvre

I have no doubt!

Let me try to explain this. Let's say you went to a website where people
said that stairs were dangerous, and if you tried to run up (or down) a set
of stairs, you would surely die, because it is IMPOSSIBLE and people had
DIED TRYING.

What would your response be?

My response would be, if there is a purpose to run the stairs, I'd try it.

It took some tries in the '12' (sim) but in the end it was successful and I have no doubt that it could be done if needed. I believe it can be done in any aircraft if altitude wasn't a factor; ie. not less than the rate of descent, power off for example.

[Hedley]

There is this thing called a glider. It is towed into the air by using a rope to pull it. Sometimes the rope breaks. Sometimes the rope breaks at low altitude. As a result, low-time glider pilots are experts at the turnback:

http://www.glider.org/SafetyCorner/TowP ... eBreak.htm

Towing and the Simulated or Actual Rope Break

A rope break is one of those things that must always be in the back of our mind on each tow, both from the tow pilot’s viewpoint and the glider pilot’s viewpoint. From a glider pilot’s point of view, while on tow, he should be asking himself the questions: “Where do I go from here if the rope breaks now?” “What do I have available, a field ahead, a clearing to my right?” “Which way is best to turn?” The objective is to be close enough to land right back at the glider field. I choose the words “right back” because we use the initials RB to indicate Rope Break on our day sheet or flight log. One person decided it should signify “Right Back”—because the glider turns around and comes right back.

When to expect these simulated rope break drills? As a tow pilot, expect the simulated rope break during specific training situations. Our instructors like to give a simulated rope break at an altitude of 200 to 300 feet. This is the “right back” scenario. The glider can turn around and land back at the field given an altitude of approximately 200 feet.

A simulated rope break is a must before a student’s first solo.

Now, does anyone here see a parallel between the rope breaking in a glider, and the engine failing in a powered aircraft?

I refuse to believe that every glider pilots is Bob Hoover re-incarnated, because Bob isn't dead yet.

The difference between a glider pilot and a power pilot is the training they have received as a result of the attitude of the respective pilot community.

You do NOT need to have 10,000 hours and be the "Ace of the Base" to do a turnback. Like a crosswind landing, with some training and practise, you can do it.

I think I know how those Australian researchers felt, when they discovered that ulcers were caused by bacteria in the stomach.

Argue for your limitations, and sure enough, they are yours -- Richard Bach

[Bushav8er]

Not sure if your glider analogy is accurate as they have a glide ratio about 3 times higher than powered aircraft, but I get your point.

[mike53]

There is this thing called a glider. It is towed into the air by using a rope to pull it. Sometimes the rope breaks. Sometimes the rope breaks at low altitude. As a result, low-time glider pilots are experts at the turnback:

http://www.glider.org/SafetyCorner/TowP ... eBreak.htm

Towing and the Simulated or Actual Rope Break

A rope break is one of those things that must always be in the back of our mind on each tow, both from the tow pilot’s viewpoint and the glider pilot’s viewpoint. From a glider pilot’s point of view, while on tow, he should be asking himself the questions: “Where do I go from here if the rope breaks now?” “What do I have available, a field ahead, a clearing to my right?” “Which way is best to turn?” The objective is to be close enough to land right back at the glider field. I choose the words “right back” because we use the initials RB to indicate Rope Break on our day sheet or flight log. One person decided it should signify “Right Back”—because the glider turns around and comes right back.

When to expect these simulated rope break drills? As a tow pilot, expect the simulated rope break during specific training situations. Our instructors like to give a simulated rope break at an altitude of 200 to 300 feet. This is the “right back” scenario. The glider can turn around and land back at the field given an altitude of approximately 200 feet.

A simulated rope break is a must before a student’s first solo.

Now, does anyone here see a parallel between the rope breaking in a glider, and the engine failing in a powered aircraft?

I refuse to believe that every glider pilots is Bob Hoover re-incarnated, because Bob isn't dead yet.

The difference between a glider pilot and a power pilot is the training they have received as a result of the attitude of the respective pilot community.

You do NOT need to have 10,000 hours and be the "Ace of the Base" to do a turnback. Like a crosswind landing, with some training and practise, you can do it.

I think I know how those Australian researchers felt, when they discovered that ulcers were caused by bacteria in the stomach.

Argue for your limitations, and sure enough, they are yours -- Richard Bach

For the last time nobody here is arguing with you that it can't be done with the appropriate training.We get it ! What your dissenters are arguing is that your average joe IS NOT getting any training in turn-backs and never will.It is not part of TC syllabus and I doubt very much it will find it's way in there any time soon unless it were done at altitude, and for you to come on here and tell the world how bloody easy it is will only encourage the untrained to try it if and when they have an engine failure on takeoff. Your average 25 hr per year pilot will die,you understand that I hope.
Your comparison of glider pilots to power pilots is a poor comparison at best. The attitude of there pilot community has nothing to do with why they train turn-backs.A glider pilot spends countless hours turning in steep circles to gain altitude in a thermal.It's what they do else they don't stay up for long. After they get their license ,guess what,they continue to do steep turns ad-infinitum.They are also very adept at not hearing an engine.
A power pilot might spend a total of 30 min doing steep turns and then after licensing probably never again.Doing steep turns is inherent in gliding ,and a 20 min exersise at altitude, in training for a power license.So,[Now, does anyone here see a parallel between the rope breaking in a glider, and the engine failing in a powered aircraft?]Yes but thats where the simalarity ends in the real world.
The chances of your average pilot going into his FBO and getting actual training at 500ft turn-backs is nil to none.
By the way this was not written to you personally but to the pilots out there who foolishly might consider trying to turnback at 500ft after an engine failure .Hugs and kisses.

[Cat Driver]

For the last time nobody here is arguing with you that it can't be done with the appropriate training.We get it ! What your dissenters are arguing is that your average joe IS NOT getting any training in turn-backs and never will.It is not part of TC syllabus and I doubt very much it will find it's way in there any time soon

unless it were done at altitude.

So how long should it take to teach a safe turn back at altitude in a small trainer such as the Cessna 150/172?

[Bushav8er]

I think I getting up to speed on this.
When it really happens we have to check to see that we have 500 feet (for example

Actually, you should make that decision before take off and make a mental note when you pass the magic altitude, that way, there is no doubt in your mind. Everything else is stick and rudder. Keep the ball centered, bank and pull lightly. Just like I verbalise the relevant speeds (100 kts, and abort speed) during my take off roll (even though I am all by myself). It creates a flag in my head as to what to do if something happens past that stage of the take off.

I don't say to attempt a turn around if you get an engine faillure and you never did it before, however, practice it a few times in different conditions, make some mental references to which you can fall back when you prep for take off. That way, you can come up with a safe altitude for a turnback everytime. Easy.

That's the way we did it/briefed it, on climb out we'd call that 'magic' number (400') - before that its land straight ahead allowing for obstacle manoeuvring; at/above that - return to field.

[Aviatard]

So how long should it take to teach a safe turn back at altitude in a small trainer such as the Cessna 150/172?

And the answer is?
[supply your own drum roll]

[Hedley]

According to the experts here, the turnback simply cannot be learned in a powered aircraft. The level of difficulty of the maneuver is so great, it cannot be safely accomplished by 99.999999999999999% of pilots.

According to the experts here, who have no first-hand knowledge of the maneuver.

[Adam Oke]

I'd like to bring some input about the glider analogy as a glider and a powered fixed wing aircraft, less the engine, are the same thing. As a glider instructor, but I've done numerous 200' turn backs with students. Heck, talking about power planes, last year I did a 250' turn back with a full load during ag training. Talk about pushing yourself to the limit. I certainly learned a lot though!

But first, I'll ask -- What are the dangers associated with the turn back?

I am not ignorant to the dangers. I am trying to figure out what everyones main area of concern is here. Everyone is stating that it is dangerous and kills people, but no one is really giving insight as to why or how it is dangerous.

[Shiny Side Up]

..

[Beefitarian]

Grrrrr, Hedley, look what you made me do.

I promise if it gains popularity it's going to lead to more dead guys than well trained ones.

What a gross exaggeration. For that I'm embarassed.

I think it's likely much easier to do than some may think. The problem is that unlike a lot of flight training and flying for that matter the margin for error is very small and in most cases the terrain is hard and unforgiving. For those reasons I think the risk in a lot of cases is far too high for most pilots.

I have two entries in my log book with a person I actually regret paying for 3.1 hours to ride in the airplane with me. Then again this discussion makes me miss a few instructors that moved on to other jobs.

Consider how often people do something like not making the threshold with a fully functioning engine doing short field landings. Really, the guy didn't think, "Maybe I need to add a little power here before the wheels hit this fence."?

But first, I'll ask -- What are the dangers associated with the turn back?

I have to think, getting so caught up in trying to prove you can do it even if you can tell you missed that you continue until you crash, or your instructor inadvertadly helps you crash by trying to take control while you're still making imputs which together cause a crash.
1 - Stall too close to the surface to recover from.
2 - Wing drop causing a loss of altitude resulting in contact with the surface.
3 - Obstruction strike, getting too close to an object that's in the unintended flight path as you're trying to fly back to the runway near it.

[Hedley]

I really don't understand the purpose of this thread

No problem. Bacteria can't live in stomach acid, either. Everybody knows that, and anyone who says differently is clearly an idiot.

No one cares, but IMHO the turnback is easier than landing a light trainer in a gusting 15 knot direct crosswind, and I insist upon competence in the latter from my student pilots. I know that Walmart FTU's limit their students to 5 knot crosswinds "for safety", but I'm not in the business of churning out hamburger by the ton.

The same arguments against the turnback can be make about making the turn to final from base, but people do that every day without killing themselves.

Religion can really be quite nauseating at times. I can only apologize if my facts make your religion look bad.

[Shiny Side Up]

..

[Adam Oke]

I have to think, getting so caught up in trying to prove you can do it even if you can tell you missed that you continue until you crash, or your instructor inadvertently helps you crash by trying to take control while you're still making inputs which together cause a crash.
1 - Stall too close to the surface to recover from.
2 - Wing drop causing a loss of altitude resulting in contact with the surface.
3 - Obstruction strike, getting too close to an object that's in the unintended flight path as you're trying to fly back to the runway near it.

You and I both know that if you pull the engine at altitude, these things won't happen when making a 180 degree turn.

If you pull the engine, the aircraft is still going to fly. You are not in danger of stalling. Hedley pointed that out with the Vg diagram even. These factors are influence by something else, in my opinion.

Unintended flight into terrain is the end result if you get caught out, sure, but that is apparent with or without an engine. The aircraft is a glider when you pull the engine. Physics still apply, it is not going to fall out of the sky.

I would venture to guess that the dangerous factors in the equation is poor recognition of or little exposure to illusions, and illusions created by drift in low altitude scenarios. For me this was taught since day one. To relate to powered flight, this concept really was put to use when I started ag training doing low level, downwind, steep turns with a full load and that was with and engine running.

My glider students get this drilled into their mind since day one. Continually giving them exposure to slip, skids, and illusions both at high and low level altitude. Having said that, they also know how to use their feet on those nifty foot rests.

Another big factor that I think should be included in the dangerous category is little exposure to judging glide path. It blows me away that these simple glider applications are not taught more in depth for powered flight. To think that most are down bet and determined on the best L/D is the be all end all to get from point A to B is absurd.

So BANG rope breaks (or in this case the fan stops). First things first. Fly the plane. How? I train my students to reduce the angle of attack immediately. I do this training at altitude, and in simulated rope break scenarios. At altitude, we practice slow flight, then BANG, lower the nose. This takes care of the stall issue.

Exposure to illusions takes care of the coordination and wing drop issue.

Next is the big part. Judgment of glide path. Before you even think about making the turn, you must think about your altitude. Sure, that is a given. I think what is equally important is position. These two go hand in hand. 500 ft over the threshold is a hell of a difference in comparison to 500ft and 1 miles out.

I really think that some glider training would benefit anyone regardless of your experience level. Then again, the above I just described is stick and rudder intertwined with decision making.

My 0.02

[Beefitarian]

Here's something I found interesting. I read this,

I would venture to guess that the dangerous factors in the equation is poor recognition of or little exposure to illusions, and illusions created by drift in low altitude scenarios.

then I thought, "That's an excercise."

I peeked in my log book and noted it's number 20. Then I looked for it in my log during training. I only have it in there once, during PPL training somewhere around 50 hours. I have an obscene amount of dual. I'm sure there's been some exposure occuring during other things like forced approaches but I had not been intentionally shown the actual exercise much.

You and I both know that if you pull the engine at altitude, these things won't happen when making a 180 degree turn.

I think that comes back to the fact that you won't instinctively do something you know is wrong, like pulling up when you catch a glimpse of the surface that seems way too close. Wouldn't it be the flying equivalent to flinching?

[Cat Driver]

Interesting thread.

Slowly some good points are being discussed.

Assuming " ALL " initial training for emergencies such a turn back after an engine failure, as long as the training is conducted at a safe altitude what is the problem?

Do you teach an engine failure in an established steep turn?