VIDEO: Testing the urge of attempting the Impossible Turn after Engine failure on takeoff

[photofly]

About as comparable as rolls at 3000 feet vs surface level vertical aerobatics.About as comparable as rolls at 3000 feet vs surface level vertical aerobatics.

Well, no. Manoeuvring in the late stages of a forced approach to the runway from circuit altitude and manoeuvring for a forced approach to the runway from 500 agl are both carried at low altitude. Neither is done at 3000 feet.

...
Sure it will...... eventually. By the time it does, vital airspeed will be lost while it continues to climb. Potential energy, it has to come from somewhere and it sure ain’t the engine.

This at least doesn't need to be a matter of opinion, and is something everyone can try it very easily for themselves.

Trim for a Vy or Vx climb at full power. Close the throttle. You will continue to climb for about half a second, as the nose comes rapidly down and you overspeed. You will need to ease back on the yoke almost immediately to prevent significant and excessive loss of altitude.

If anyone doubts this, it is merely necessary to compare the takeoff trim position, typically near the centre of the trim range, and which is (unsurprisingly) close to trim for a full power climb, to the trim position for an optimal glide, which is almost all the way aft.

if you do intend to maintain a 45° bank turn, the yoke will need even more back-pressure to avoid an overspeed and rapid sink.

Land straight ahead... ...and live.

It really depends on circumstances. There are lots of airports and runways where landing straight ahead is great advice, and there are lots of places where attempting landing ahead means certain death - for you, your passengers, and possibly for people on the ground who didn't sign up for the risk.

This is far too complex and risky to be taught.

It's not complex, and need not be risky.

[photofly]

double post

[RedAndWhiteBaron]

What should be: Every time a pilot experiences an EFATO he/she immediately transitions to the correct optimal pitch attitude and then smoothly enters a coordinated steep turn back to the runway, effectively managing the flight path right to touchdown

That's quite a bold statement, considering the danger of a 180° power-off turn from 100' AGL. Did I misunderstand?

I don't know if it's a demanding manoeuvre in a glider, but it's definitely undemanding in a C172.

It's not - the fact that I was flying a glider was inconsequential to my point. The point was that the subsequent, possibly quartering tailwind landing and possible overshoot is something I find is often missed in this debate. Considering the mental load of the manoeuvre, this should also be considered.

It really depends on circumstances. There are lots of airports and runways where landing straight ahead is great advice, and there are lots of places where attempting landing ahead means certain death - for you, your passengers, and possibly for people on the ground who didn't sign up for the risk.

I agree with this. Flying out of CYTZ in February, a straight ahead landing (read: ditching) is certain death. I'll take my chances by the nudie beach, Ward Island, or the Queen's Quay seawall. Now on the other hand, my soaring club's airfield is surrounded by nothing but fields for five miles in every direction, and fifteen miles in every direction but one, with just the odd power line and silo here and there. I'm flying something that could be survivably landed in a swamp. Add to that (and this is specific to gliders) a huge wingspan and there's a very real possibility of groundlooping or cartwheeling in a turnback.

It very much depends on what lies "straight ahead". Mustard field in June, sure... cornfield or just-baled hayfield in August, perhaps not... 1°C water a half mile from shore in February, not so much.

[youhavecontrol]

I think this debate often confuses the results of an un-planned turn-back with a planned one. I don't really understand why there's always so much controversy regarding the turn back to the field. On many aircraft it's possible, and it's even taught and practiced by professional pilots in full motion simulators and used as a procedure during check rides (I had to demonstrate one last week at a simulated altitude, but normally we do it in a level D sim pre-covid) Sure it's not always the safest thing for new pilots to learn, but even a new pilot can have a successful outcome when a plan is carefully laid out before departure.

What's dangerous is simply NOT having a plan and trying a turn back to the field on a whim. Let's not confuse the planned turn-back with the un-planned one! When I depart, I always consider the wind, runway length, performance, obstacles, visibility and whatever other factors are important when laying out the turn-back plan. We brief a cut-off altitude at which a turn will or will not be attempted. In in any case it's never below 600AGL, and often varies around 700-800AGL for our aircraft. The plan is always briefed before take-off and the critical altitude is always acknowledged and the direction of the turn if the engine fails is verbalized. By making these verbal cues, the plan is always in your mind and hopefully comes as an immediate response to a power loss. It works in the sim pretty much every time we've done it.

[RedAndWhiteBaron]

I don't really understand why there's always so much controversy regarding the turn back to the field.

Because it kills pilots. A lot of pilots. Passengers and bystanders who didn't sign up for the risks as well.

What's dangerous is simply NOT having a plan and trying a turn back to the field on a whim. Let's not confuse the planned turn-back with the un-planned one! When I depart, I always consider the wind, runway length, performance, obstacles, visibility and whatever other factors are important when laying out the turn-back plan. We brief a cut-off altitude at which a turn will or will not be attempted. In in any case it's never below 600AGL, and often varies around 700-800AGL for our aircraft. The plan is always briefed before take-off and the critical altitude is always acknowledged and the direction of the turn if the engine fails is verbalized. By making these verbal cues, the plan is always in your mind and hopefully comes as an immediate response to a power loss.

Yes, you are the exception. Although I too verbally announce my turnback altitude in every plane I fly, you are the exception. I hope and pray that the winds and the waves will be on your side. In the gliders I fly, it's 300'. In the trainer I fly, it's 500' (minute hand on the opposite side of the altimeter). But your measure must be the right one?

It works in the sim pretty much every time we've done it.

Ummm... yeah... don't think I need to comment on that...

Did you do a 293° turn? With a low altitude dutch roll?

If you can't (not you specifically, youhavecontrol) figure out why it's necessary, you don't understand the problem.

[photofly]

I’m not sure how many people are killed this way - I don’t think anyone can be. I don’t trust the statistics that are often quoted, either: nobody counts (or even notices) a successful emergency return to the airfield whereas every single off-airfield landing makes the news, gets publicity, is reported to the authorities etc, whether there are injuries or fatalities or not.

[youhavecontrol]

It works in the sim pretty much every time we've done it.

Ummm... yeah... don't think I need to comment on that...

Right. I guess its worth mentioning that it was in a Sim worth over 10 million dollars, which Transport Canada let's me log as actual flight time, and not some gimmicky home set-up. Some professionals consider the turn a viable maneuver more survivable than having your plane ripped apart by the Canadian Shield.

[RedAndWhiteBaron]

Right. I guess its worth mentioning that it was in a Sim worth over 10 million dollars, which Transport Canada let's me log as actual flight time, and not some gimmicky home set-up. Some professionals consider the turn a viable maneuver more survivable than having your plane ripped apart by the Canadian Shield.

Well I did figure it wasn't a gimmicky home setup, but I didn't figure it was a ten figure setup.

Still though, the absence of the fear of impending death will allow you to think much more clearly in a simulator.

(I'm jealous, BTW. I've never had the opportunity to fly a simulator of that calibre.)

[photofly]

The fear of impending death is mitigated by practice. That's why a simulator is helpful.

[Bede]

What hasn't been discussed and should be considered is a 180 landing on an adjacent field. This is truly a 180. A return to the landing runway is actually 360 degrees of turning (180 to turn around, + 90 to get back to the runway + 90 in the other direction to line up with the runway).

[pelmet]

What hasn't been discussed and should be considered is a 180 landing on an adjacent field. This is truly a 180. A return to the landing runway is actually 360 degrees of turning (180 to turn around, + 90 to get back to the runway + 90 in the other direction to line up with the runway).

I think 360 degrees could be considered excessive much of the time, but it is definitely more than 180 degrees.

One can maximize one’s advantage in degrees to turn by making the initial turn into the turnback into any crosswind. Something to review before takeoff, if you have decided you might use this option.

[cncpc]

The fear of impending death is mitigated by practice. That's why a simulator is helpful.

The fear of impending death is a self fulfilling prophecy, as are other fears that are similar and sometimes expressed here.

With respect, Photofly, I disagree that it is mitigated by practice. Sometimes, the shock of being confronted with something different than you have been practicing is very great and can adversely affect performance in the emergency. All of my forced approach practice was in those lovely green fields in the South Practice Area down by White Rock and out in Glen Valley. My first forced approach was on a three mile final to SFO over the Bay. Initially, my performance was substandard and fear of death and worse, the death of my passengers, was very much in the mix.

It is true that practice may well result in you doing the drills better, and that might lead to happier outcomes. On that first one, I did the drills, but the situation still seemed hopeless and until the last 20 seconds, I was not performing well at all, other than I maintained control of the aircraft.

[photofly]

Let me rephrase, then. The performance deficit caused by fear of dying can be mitigated by practice. You’re still scared, but you’ll find the right aircraft attitude for the manoeuvre at hand. I know this from personal experience. People talk about the training “kicking in”, doing “what they were trained to do”, doing the drill etc.

Your performance may have been substandard but it would be unusual if it were more substandard than if you hadn’t practiced what do.

As one text says, in an emergency you will only be half as a good as your last day of recent practice, but if you make your practice really excellent then “half that good” may suffice.

The thrust of the argument against attempting to turn back is that panic is 100% guaranteed to make you stall, spin, and die, out of control. That the sight of the ground rushing up to meet you in a power-off glide will overpower your will and force the yoke back to your chest in an involuntary muscle spasm. I don’t subscribe to that view. (And in any case, if it were true, it would just as much affect a pilot determined on landing ahead come what may.)

Practice will enable you to manage a gliding steep turn without stalling, spinning and dying (that’s all we’re taking about.) Practice will help towards, but not guarantee making the optimal turn, and it won’t guarantee results: you still might not make it back to the field, or runway, as the case may be. But even not making it back to the field is not necessarily worse than putting it down straight ahead, in an urban area.

[airway]

OK, so after all this discussion can we come up with a statement that most of us would agree with?

How's this:

If you have an engine failure after takeoff in a single engine aircraft, do not attempt to return to the departure airport unless you have recently successfully practiced the maneuver in the same or similar type (in flight or full motion simulator) at various different weights/winds/altitudes and runway configurations.

[Squaretail]

I’m not sure how many people are killed this way - I don’t think anyone can be. I don’t trust the statistics that are often quoted, either: nobody counts (or even notices) a successful emergency return to the airfield whereas every single off-airfield landing makes the news, gets publicity, is reported to the authorities etc, whether there are injuries or fatalities or not.

Also of the ones that turn out poorly, we don’t really know if it was indeed an attempted turn back or something other was going on. In the end, it hardly matters.

The big thing I have always found about this exercise is that lots of people talk a big game, but no one practices. So in almost every instance where some one has told me in training how they are going to do this manoeuvre, and I say “show me” they botch it up. All one can really say is learn about energy management with your aircraft, and be on the ball so you can make the split second decision to do it or not do it. As Yoda says, there is no try.

[PilotDAR]

lots of people talk a big game, but no one practices.

My concern also. Added to that is the often overlooked need to arrive to the top of the flare with enough reserve energy to arrest your rate of descent. Whether a glide landing ahead, or "off departure heading", if you stretch the glide beyond your, or the planes limits, the very last moments before ground contact could get very bad. You pull, it stalls, and keeps going down, now, not even wings level. A very experienced friend of mine died doing this at Orillia many years ago, trying to save his amateur built plane, whose engine had quit on climbout over the water. This have been his second EFATO there, where the first put him in the lake (I was there for that one too), so I guess he thought he could make it back. Nope, and it cost him his life, and he missed a house by feet, crashing in the driveway.

Sure, there is an altitude from which a gliding landing on a runway could be made. Sure, you should practice and have an idea what it is. So, practice from safe higher altitudes, and work your way down to where the many variables could change an easy do, to iffy, and you know your limit - in that plane. Then do int all over again for any other pane you fly.

Personally, I find that a gliding landing from a close downwind is easier to judge than from a long straight in final. You can modulate the 180 turn a little to preserve or dump energy as you judge, and do that high enough to be wings level for final approach. But a neat 180 turn to a touchdown site which remains in sight is "normal" compared to the machinations needed to get around, then realigned with the runway centerline.

Of course, a key element is actually landing from the glide. Powering away above the flare cheats you of judging the flare, and the amount of reserve energy you need to carry down with you on short final. Landing straight ahead requires many of those judgements, without adding variables which are not often trained, nor described in the flight manual.

Practice, practice, practice, and like most everything we practice - from a safe altitude....