Turnback

[Shiny Side Up]

..

[Cat Driver]

Changes to flight training can't be applied unless we can do it uniformly, so we need a standard that people also have to meet from this excersise.

What I was alluding to is this can be practiced at the same altitude as spins for example.

Note that I asked if you teach engine failures in an established steep turn which I trust you teach at a safe altitude.

The turn back exercise conducted at a safe altitude ( say 2500 feet above ground. ) is not black magic nor is it difficult, in fact it really does not require a change in TC's training standards.

Jeses I wish they didn't require people to go through the FTU OC fiasco because I just might start another flight school.

[Bushav8er]

Two things:

1) Just wondering, could this manoeuvre be considered 'aerobatic'?
2) I think it can be trained from a safe altitude. It really just comes down to executing a 180 (give or take) with power off and minimal altitude loss. Start at 3000. Make the 'deck' at 2000 and 'do it'. What is your altitude once around? 'Deck' now at 2500' - you make it? Nibble away at it until you find the minimum for the AC type and become comfortable and proficient .

For training, I don't think you could do this from take off and return because if it does go bad you're pooched. The exercise can be safely demonstrated 'simulated'.

Jeses I wish they didn't require people to go through the FTU OC fiasco because I just might start another flight school.

You bank it and I'll handle the paper work. We won't tell 'them' you're involved until you're 'hired' as a qualified instructor, as long as a non-instructor can do some flying too

[Hedley]

could this manoeuvre be considered 'aerobatic'?

That depends. CAR 101.01(1) defines:

"aerobatic manoeuvre" - means a manoeuvre where a change in the attitude of an aircraft results in a bank angle greater than 60 degrees, an abnormal attitude or an abnormal acceleration not incidental to normal flying

You may note that I used 59.9 degrees of bank in my initial posting, so that isn't aerobatic. Is there an abnormal (pitch down) attitude? Well, here's where it gets subjective. Some people might say yes, some people might say no. All you do is lower the nose in the descending steep turn, to maintain 80 mph. Is there an abnormal acceleration? Probably not - the G loading is light, co-ordinated and positive the entire time.

Does the maneuver have an unusual sight picture out the windscreen? Subjectively, perhaps, for some people, because of the combined altitude, bank and pitch angles. Does that make it aerobatic? Probably not, according to the definition above, which does NOT mention visuals.

Quite seriously, if anyone is interested in this, give me a holler and stop by CYSH. We'll do some blackboard work and talk about the theory, then we can so some turnbacks in one of the club 172's. You won't believe how incredibly simple it is. It makes me feel really bad that someone can actually kill themselves, doing something this simple and easy in an airplane.

A turnback is actually far easier than single-pilot IFR with no auto-pilot, which can stress me out when ATC switches approaches at the last minute at an unfamiliar airport.

[Hedley]

I am trying to think of what would make the turnback easier for people. You know, something tangible.

And one thing that I haven't communicated clearly so far, is the importance of angle of attack.

United States Navy pilot have it right - they have AOA indicators, and that's what they fly on approach to a carrier, regardless of their weight. They really don't care what their airspeed is.

Similarly, the wing really doesn't care what the airspeed is. It cares what the angle of attack is. It's really too bad we don't have equivalent AOA indicators in our light aircraft.

Some (virtuoso) pilots instinctively understand AOA and can operate an aircraft at very high angles of attack, without stalling it, despite changing attitudes and airspeeds. They can really work the wing, and get all there is, out of it. It's fantastic to watch them at work.

Other pilots don't understand AOA, can't feel it, and are frightened by operating at high AOA because they know that they will accidentally and roughly exceed the stalling AOA, and bad stuff follows. Even if they don't verbalize it.

I might be wrong, but me, Aux, ., Adam and BPF are all quite comfortable operating at sustained high AOA, and as a result we don't fear the turnback.

[Big Pistons Forever]

A turn back practiced at altitude IMO is negative training because it is impossible to simulate the ground rush you experience at low altitudes nose low attitudes with steep bank. For someone not used to and expecting it, there will be an almost irresistible temptation to increase back pressure. I think this is the major reason why so many turn backs end up in a Stall/Spin/Death scenario.

[Big Pistons Forever]

deleted double post

[Shiny Side Up]

..

[Bushav8er]

A turn back practiced at altitude IMO is negative training because it is impossible to simulate the ground rush you experience at low altitudes nose low attitudes with steep bank. For someone not used to and expecting it, there will be an almost irresistible temptation to increase back pressure. I think this is the major reason why so many turn backs end up in a Stall/Spin/Death scenario.

True enough but they have to start somewhere and why not start up high, successfully getting the manoeuvre right and then moving downstairs? Part of any training process is building student confidence. If you start by showing them the ground, it may just be where they steer. If they start high, get it right, know they can do it, then are introduced to the actual 'from the ground' manoeuvre I think the whole process would move smoother - "Tell, show, have do, review".

[Cat Driver]

I have this in my Cub project.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DCerL8ljRwk

I have the AOA probe installed in the wing and the vertical led light indicator is in the panel beside the ASI.

I have not touched the project since Pene got sick, but am planning on finishing it come spring.

An AOA indicator is far superior to an A.S. indicator and the led lights are super bright.

As I recall the cost was around $1200.00.

[Big Pistons Forever]

A turn back practiced at altitude IMO is negative training because it is impossible to simulate the ground rush you experience at low altitudes nose low attitudes with steep bank. For someone not used to and expecting it, there will be an almost irresistible temptation to increase back pressure. I think this is the major reason why so many turn backs end up in a Stall/Spin/Death scenario.

True enough but they have to start somewhere and why not start up high, successfully getting the manoeuvre right and then moving downstairs? Part of any training process is building student confidence. If you start by showing them the ground, it may just be where they steer. If they start high, get it right, know they can do it, then are introduced to the actual 'from the ground' manoeuvre I think the whole process would move smoother - "Tell, show, have do, review".

If you are proposing instructors actually pull the throttle at 500 AGL so the student can attempt a turnback than I object in the most strenuous possible terms.

As I have posted before 80 % of engine failures are directly caused by the actions or inactions of the pilot. The way to deal with EFATO's at 500 ft AGL is not in to deliberately create dangerous a dangerous situation by practicing low level turn backs; it is to get serious in training about preventing the engine failure in the first place by teaching and by instructor personal example, demonstrating those mundane PDM airmanship issues, like

-If you are an owner having your aircraft properly maintained and if you are a renter refusing to fly junk
-doing a proper walk around,
-draining the tanks
-Doing a proper runup (not as a rote exercise but actually making the effort to learn what the engine is telling you when you are doing all the checks)
-having checklist discipline so that the right fuel tank is selected and the fuel pump is on
-checking the correct static RPM and T & P's early in the takeoff run to endure the engine is healthy and making full power while you are still in the low speed abort speed.

The last sucessful turn back I am personally aware of was a guy who had the engine in his C 172 die at around 500 AGL. He made it back to the runway with what I was told was actually a pretty nicely flown turn back and landing on the runway. After the aircraft was towed back to the shop and the 1/2 liter of water was drrained out of the tank the engine ran just fine. I do not care how well the turnback was flown......this guy was STUPID

The accident record is clear. The least likely possibility for an engine failure is when a properly maintained engine, fed with sufficient uncontaminated gas, showing no signs of distress after a full runup, cleared of any carb ice, and generating full power on takeoff .....just up and stops.

BPF's bottom line. Whether I have the skills to do a turn back or not is immaterial. I teach straight ahead until 1000 ft AGL, and have not and will not teach turnbacks if asked.

[Cat Driver]

It is really interesting to read how far apart some of the instructors here are on how and what to teach in airplanes.

I have had some engine failures including two just after take off and I can assure you the cause had nothing to do with how I managed the engines or any other mechanical part of the airplane.

By the way now that I am up to my nuts in the flight training forum again, when I was learning to fly by reference to instruments for flying under IFR rules my instructor made me learn to land in zero zero visibility.....guess what....three times during my career I actually had to land that way...

Once in a white out in the Arctic.

Once in ice fog on one engine in a DC3.

And once in a sand storm in the Sahara desert.

[Beefitarian]

Wow someone snuck a 1/2 litre of water into that guy's tank after he did his walk around?

[Hedley]

It's easy to get fooled. You drain, you see no bubbles. Because it was all water!

[Beefitarian]

Why wasn't it blue?

[Hedley]

100LL isn't very blue. You have to hold it up to white paint sometimes, depending upon the light, to see the blue tinge.

[Beefitarian]

Like the strut beside the drain valve thing on his 172? Also it tastes different and doesn't flare when you do the Gene Simmons™ breath of fire. That is part of your walk around right?

[Bushav8er]

A turn back practiced at altitude IMO is negative training because it is impossible to simulate the ground rush you experience at low altitudes nose low attitudes with steep bank. For someone not used to and expecting it, there will be an almost irresistible temptation to increase back pressure. I think this is the major reason why so many turn backs end up in a Stall/Spin/Death scenario.

True enough but they have to start somewhere and why not start up high, successfully getting the manoeuvre right and then moving downstairs? Part of any training process is building student confidence. If you start by showing them the ground, it may just be where they steer. If they start high, get it right, know they can do it, then are introduced to the actual 'from the ground' manoeuvre I think the whole process would move smoother - "Tell, show, have do, review".

If you are proposing instructors actually pull the throttle at 500 AGL so the student can attempt a turnback than I object in the most strenuous possible terms.

As I have posted before 80 % of engine failures are directly caused by the actions or inactions of the pilot. The way to deal with EFATO's at 500 ft AGL is not in to deliberately create dangerous a dangerous situation by practicing low level turn backs; it is to get serious in training about preventing the engine failure in the first place by teaching and by instructor personal example, demonstrating those mundane PDM airmanship issues, like

-If you are an owner having your aircraft properly maintained and if you are a renter refusing to fly junk
-doing a proper walk around,
-draining the tanks
-Doing a proper runup (not as a rote exercise but actually making the effort to learn what the engine is telling you when you are doing all the checks)
-having checklist discipline so that the right fuel tank is selected and the fuel pump is on
-checking the correct static RPM and T & P's early in the takeoff run to endure the engine is healthy and making full power while you are still in the low speed abort speed.

The last sucessful turn back I am personally aware of was a guy who had the engine in his C 172 die at around 500 AGL. He made it back to the runway with what I was told was actually a pretty nicely flown turn back and landing on the runway. After the aircraft was towed back to the shop and the 1/2 liter of water was drrained out of the tank the engine ran just fine. I do not care how well the turnback was flown......this guy was STUPID

The accident record is clear. The least likely possibility for an engine failure is when a properly maintained engine, fed with sufficient uncontaminated gas, showing no signs of distress after a full runup, cleared of any carb ice, and generating full power on takeoff .....just up and stops.

BPF's bottom line. Whether I have the skills to do a turn back or not is immaterial. I teach straight ahead until 1000 ft AGL, and have not and will not teach turnbacks if asked.

I suggested training at altitude and working down. I agree with you but sometimes sh*t happens as Cat points out. What were you suggesting in your post I quoted? Start at 500 and fly it from there? Disregard, I see your answer in the previous post.

Interesting story and with video of the actual event, seems you have to log in but for safety material its free -
http://flash.aopa.org/asf/pilotstories/impossibleturn/

Or you can just see the video below (thanks Beef)
VVVV

[Beefitarian]

Does it look like this?

[Cat Driver]

I agree with you but sometimes sh*t happens as Cat points out.

Exactly:::

Training in a controlled environment such as at a safe altitude or in a simulator is not only safe but teaches people how to perform a given exercise.

What possible downside is there to knowledge and the inner feeling that yes I can do this if I am ever in a position to need the skill?

Or is ignorance now an accepted means of assuring safety?

[Beefitarian]

What does everyone think about this concept?

[square]

Of course it can be done. It's been done. But the fact is that it isn't part of the flight training syllabus. People don't know how to do it and so they're just told not to and yeah, that makes sense to me.

But I think the question of whether or not people should do a turnback in a light piston is the wrong place to start. The question is, should it be part of the syllabus? If people were trained how to do it then they can make their own decisions based on everything it depends on.

Now, considering the folks flying single-engine pistons are mostly on the low-end of the experience scale, there's a good chance this would be their first emergency.. not a great time to try aerobatics. And yeah I think most of the time this happens there'd probably be a great piece of real estate right ahead to make it to. Even if there's an airport fence in the middle of it. So there's lot of great reasons to land straight ahead.

But the only reason for NOT teaching how to do this is that instructors don't want the student to think about doing it. But imagine you're taking off at an airport in the middle of nowhere, and it's pitch black out. No lights, no visible roads. I'd still know there's an airport behind me, even though nobody's told me! And it's an AIRPORT. I'd definitely think about going back. Same goes for some airports in the mountains where there's nothing but rocks and trees. I'd think well, I can hit the trees way over ahead of me, or make it to the airport or maybe make it to the trees by the airport. Still trees right? So it's pretty hard for me to believe that turnback training would cause me to make a worse decision about something I'm already thinking about doing, because I'm already thinking about doing it. If you get me .

If there's a time and place for it, show people how to do it and they'll better understand the time and place for it.

[gaamin]

It is really interesting to read how far apart some of the instructors here are on how and what to teach in airplanes.

Teaching for the license or teaching beyond the syllabus to make the best pilot someone wants to be...
Many pilots-to-be only see their flight training as a necessary evil to legally fly, just harder than the driving license; some approach it like they would approach motorbike riding.
Many want to just be done as cheap as possible and as easy as possible to get a job flying a jet, many of these are fresh out of being mothered through high school.
Few have the curiosity and will to aim higher than "good enough". And very few schools can turn down students.
So far, only one of my students has tried to do a "wheelie" on a cross-wind touch-and-go (only one wheel touches the ground throughout) after I demo'd it and offered them to try. On the plus side, most of them have been happy to go practice 10-15KT crosswind landings, landing under the hood, spiraling in a glide in an updraft.

Should we teach skills beyond the training and flight test requirements to people who want to learn? Yes. Making things fun will get more people to want to try out new things.

Should we tell a maneuver is impossible (when it is not) to people who are not capable of doing such a maneuver? No. Tell them the truth, and also the truth about their skills, and offer them the instruction they need. If they don't want instruction, get them to prove their skills with you on board to prevent a disaster. Perhaps after that they'll reconsider your offer. Perhaps not.

Cat, would you share that technique for landing in zero-zero visibility? I would expect there is a low rate of sink involved, a lot of runway length and width, and/or possibly multiple low passes at decreasing altitudes.
If you do, please in another thread. Thread offsprings (such as the "tailwheel" ones) are good.

[Hedley]

should it be part of the syllabus?

I guess I don't think that's as interesting a question as others here might wonder, because I have no intention whatsoever to teaching to the bare minimum. For example, it is an eccentricity of mine that I refuse to teach ab initio on nosewheel - tailwheel only. For 99% of new pilots in Canada, tailwheel is something bizarre and exotic. Not for mine. I will freely admit that this is a character flaw of mine.

I also teach basic aerobatics and formation to new pilots. Again, for 99% of new civilian pilots in Canada, aerobatics and formation is something bizarre and exotic. Not for mine. Being upside down, or near another airplane, is a normal part of aviation, at least where I come from.

I realize that the above may represent heresy to people, and may be against your religion. Burn the witch, I know. Lord knows I've heard that before. Not everyone in Canada may want to be a student of mine. That's ok with me. I don't want everyone in Canada to be my students. Just a few, hand-picked ones. And they're not going to have any problem with a one-wheel landing in a gusty 15 knot direct crosswind. Or other maneuvers of similar difficulty.

[trey kule]

Caution...Digression to follow

One of the challanges I see, to having a decent discussion, is that people tend to take extreme positions and then castigate anyone who disagrees. Possibly I did not interpret it correctly but when I read someone calling everyone who disagrees with them "experts", I find that a bit condescending and offensive. I would never do that to a pilot who I am training, and I have to wonder why an experienced instructor would make comments like that when they are trying to make a point.

In 1966, when I was a 16 year old air cadet, we were on a gliding course. Another cadet on one of his first few solo flights was being winched up. And by winched, I mean hauled up.
There was a small snap causing everyone to look up. The tow rope had broken. The glider being very nose up stalled almost immediately, and the instructors on the ground (who co- incidently, all but one of them were ex-luftwaffe fighter pilots) groaned. The student made an excellent stall recovery, and then with about two hundred miles of flat Alberta farmland in front of him, turned back. It didnt work out to well and I witnessed my first aircraft accident.
I never forgot that lesson, and perhaps it has prejudiced me. I dont fly single engine very much anymore so the lesson is a but mute to me.
For this type of emergency, I dont think any immediate action response should be so imprinted that it takes place of analyzing and thinking through the most appropriate way to safely get the plane on the ground.
One of the things I have witnessed over the years is too many new young pilots dont really have the basic flying skills but have been trained in every sort of emergency procedure, and if given the choice, being what they are will try the most complicated one available.
Witness the accidents from new young pilots trying to land with full flaps in a Beaver...on every landing until one didnt work out. Or land in places they had no business trying to land in the first place.
As someone else mentined. It is not about the skill required. It is about the mindset if a real emergency arises. Some pilots are cool as cucumbers. Others go to pieces.

You know, it just occured to me that a lot of the issue here may be calling it an impossible turn..that is not true, and it possibly makes those who want to do them feel a bit superior....super pilots..Impossible turn..no biggie. Why dont we just call it a turnback and eliminate the word impossible. Might take some of the perceived ego out of it.

Just a thought