Engine Failure After Takeoff & Turnback (SEL)

[Colonel Sanders]

On the subject of Flight Instructors not having very good
hands and feet ...

I was doing some training today in a common light single
four seat trainer - doesn't really matter what type - and
at 500 AGL after takeoff I pulled the throttle to idle and
applied full carb heat.

Keeping in mind that by definition, as a class 1 Flight
Instructor I really don't have very good hands and feet,
I immediately let the nose drop to maintain airspeed and
at the same time banked into a 59.9 degree descending turn.

Stall warning light was nicely on. Completed the 210 degree
turn, aimed back at the departure end of the runway and had
lots of altitude to glide back. Was high, in fact.

Piece of cake. Even for a guy that doesn't have very good
hands and feet, compared to the straight and level aces here.

I honestly don't understand why such a simple maneuver is
considered so incredibly difficult and dangerous by so many
people whom are obviously far superior pilots to myself.

There are many difficult things you can do in a cockpit, but
this isn't one of them.

[CpnCrunch]

Do flight instructors in Canada regularly practise EFATOs during the PPL?

[Colonel Sanders]

If you hum a few bars, I can try to play it by ear.

[DanWEC]

I did this on my own accord with a class 1 (One that likely know, Col.) simulated at 3000 ft last week, just for my own fun and curiosity.
Tried it as a failure during a Vy climb, 3 separate times, each using 70kts and a 45 degree bank for the turnback. (The U.S. written thesis on this failure, which I'm pretty sure you would have read, suggests a little higher bank I beleive, but 45 and 70 is easy to remember, key when time is of the essence.)
Each time I lost about 325 feet, but again, that was at 3000 ft. I would expect less at <1000.
What sort of altitude loss did you get with your 59.99999999 degree bank? That seems more ineffecient on first glance, but I'm still learning.
What seems to be the dangerous misuse of the manouver is trying to pull the turn, with too much bank and not enough airspeed. Oopsie.
You can obviously do it with the stall warning going, but other, less experienced pilots have died going just a bit past that- so likely might not be the best method to teach a pilot to use until he is more experienced.

(Uh, btw why did you do a 210 degree turn?)

[Beefitarian]

If you only turn 180 degrees you'll be ready to fly a close downwind leg parallel but beside the runway. Continue the turn and you will be flying toward the runway at a 30 degree angle.

[Masters Off]

And, as for the speed, we'd be looking for the "min-sink speed" which I know is published for gliders, but not for powered aircraft, correct? As we're not looking for the best lift to drag (or best L over D, see best L/D speed). Which gets you the farthest distance, no we're looking to sink the least, hence min-sink. I wish I could remember how that's calculated at this hour.

As for the turn angle, I'm much too tired for that junk.

MO.

[Colonel Sanders]

dangerous misuse of the manouver is trying to pull the turn, with too much bank and not enough airspeed

From the lift equation you can derive the following:

Vs(G) = Vs(1G) x sqrt(G)

Your stall speed at any G is the stall speed at 1G multipled
by the square root of the G that you are pulling. In a level,
co-ordinated 60 degree turn, you will pull +2G so your stall
speed will go up by sqrt(2) or around 40%

Minor detail, which no one ever remembers: this is not a
level turn. In fact, in this turn, I am pulling about +0.5G
because I am not working the wing very hard in the turn.

I am not asking the wing to oppose gravity and maintain
altitude. I am allowing the aircraft to descend, and instead
using the inclined lift vector of the wing to turn the aircraft.

Because of the slow speed, the aircraft turns in a very
tight radius. This is important for several reasons.

Let's get back to my stall speed during a +0.5G turn:

Vs(0.5G) = Vs(1G) x sqrt(0.5)

sqrt(0.5) is of course 0.7, so my stall speed during the
59.9 degree banked turn is only 70% of my +1G Vs -
remember, flaps are up.

This aircraft might have stalled at around 60 mph with
the flaps up (as they were). That means my stall speed
during the turn was 60 x 0.7 = 42 mph.

The 210 degree heading change occurred very rapidly,
with a tight radius and very little loss of altitude.

This is really not very hard to understand, nor is it
very hard to perform. What perplexes me is that I find
it so easy to understand and perform, yet I am continually
crapped upon as a "not very good pilot". I embrace the
the rhetoric that I am "not a very good pilot". Therefore
the straight and level aces that crap upon me ought to
easily do things in airplanes that I cannot dream of - yet
they run in fear from such a simple maneuver.

There's something wrong with the logic above, but I
am having difficulty spotting it.

There are some very difficult things that you can do in
an airplane - at least, in my opinion. I have done many
of them, over and over again.

The turnback is distinctly not one of them. It is a very
simple maneuver to understand and fly. Like an aileron
roll, I can teach it to anyone in any aircraft in 2 minutes.

Yet, this nonsensical aura of the fire-breathing dragon
envelopes it. Sure, you could stall if you mishandled the turn.
You can stall if you mishandle the turn onto final - I see people
trying to kill me all the time, turning final with a bootful of inside
rudder, because their inexperienced instructors told them to
keep the bank down to some ridiculous, arbitrary number (15,
20 or perhaps 29 degrees of bank).

I don't turn an aircraft flat with rudder. That's a tricky maneuver,
best left to the very best sticks at low altitude, like Rob Holland.

I turn an aircraft with bank, by inclining the lift vector, with the
ball in the center, unless I need to lose altitude during the turn,
in which case the ball falls to the inside of the turn - a slipping
turn. The ball never, ever slides to the outside of the turn - that's
what pilots like to do with their skidding, low-bank turn onto final.

PS I know Dave Rogers. We emailed shortly after the development
of his 1991 paper - it was quite a topic on USENET rec.aviation,
before Geoff Peck did the "big spilt". I haven't read his paper in
20 years but IIRC the 45 degree angle suggested is suboptimal
according to his theory. Note my 59.9 degree of bank.

[Colonel Sanders]

For sure you don't want too be accelerating downwards in this manoeuvre

For sure you do. It is very similar to a wingover, which
incidentally is a required manuever on the FAA COMM
flight test - but not in Canada.

Anyways, in a wingover, you perform a climbing turn.
At the apogee you can easily use 90 degrees of bank,
and the ball is in the center, at a very slow speed.

The aircraft is ballistic at the apogee - you aren't asking
the wings to produce any lift to oppose the weight of
the aircraft. This is just as well, considering that you
are at 90 degrees of bank.

After the apogee, in the 2nd half of the maneuver, you
certainly allow the aircraft to accelerate downwards!
That's pretty well the definition of the 2nd half of a ballstic
maneuver.

And that's pretty well what you do in the turnback, too.

I have done thousands of wingovers with 90 degrees of
bank. They are a wonderful "energy-gaining" maneuver
and thus are an essential part of any airshow pilot's bag
of tricks. I spend a lot of time at the top of the wingover
slower than my +1G stall speed, turning the aircraft back
towards the flight line in a very tight radius.

Sound familiar?

I really need to make a youtube video, complete with PGI
and footage from inside and outside the aircraft. This is so
simple to do, I am amazed no one else has done it yet.

Edit -- Not sure what happened to the previous post:

Anyways, here are three words:

UNLOAD THE WING

If you unload the wing, the aircraft is capable of
doing some really neat stuff. Toss a ball up into
the air, and watch it's parabolic arc, and think about
how an aircraft could do that, too. A ball doesn't
have wings, and thus during a parabolic ballistic
maneuver, neither does an airplane

The turnback, as I fly it, is a ballistic maneuver
and does not rely much (if at all) for the wings
to produce lift to oppose gravity. I allow the altitude
to decrease during the turn. Instead, what I do
is unload the wing, with a light G, and incline the
lift vector, and use the wing to turn the aircraft
in a very tight radius.

[photofly]

Why bother pitching down initially, then? Why not pitch straight up, convert your airspeed to height and do a hammerhead to turn around? Or at least go straight into a wingover?

[CpnCrunch]

Not sure if CS is expertly trolling us again or if he really doesn't understand this, but for the benefit of other posters going along with this nonsense who don't realise they're being trolled with this "turnback is easy" meme yet again...

The reason many people kill themselves doing this is because they stall/spin trying to hold the nose up and they don't maintain airspeed. Sure it's obviously possible and quite easy when you know how to do a descending 60-degree turnback when the engine quits if you point the nose down enough. The problem is that in an emergency all of these thoughts go out the window and you're pretty much left with "habits". One of the aims of good flight training should be to instill good habits in the student.

Could it be that flight instructors aren't training this enough? I see lots of practice engine failures from downwind (which is pretty easy in comparison), but have never seen anyone practice them after take off. The instructor guide says "Simulate power failure on overshoot, take-off, in the circuit, etc." so they should be getting done, but I wonder how often.

[Beefitarian]

The problem is that in an emergency all of these thoughts go out the window and you're pretty much left with "habits".

I think this is a bit like what I was thinking this morning.

The colonel has been doing TaiChi in the park for so long that he does not realize how strong his legs are and how he can lower his center of gravity to well below his opponents knees.

When he redirects the guys own energy to flip him like a kernel of corn popping it appears easy.

The instructor guide says "Simulate power failure on overshoot

I don't think I have ever seen or done this. I have a lot of dual with many instructors with the intention at the time of getting a CPL.

[BTyyj]

Dangerous? A 210* 60*bank turn close to stall at <500ft with power off doesn't seem dangerous to me

[iflyforpie]

There is grave danger in what you are preaching CS. Yes... with a normal light aircraft at somewhat less than gross weight with a brisk headwind.... there should be no problem with turning back and landing at a field in 500 feet. I've done it for real. I've done 60 degree turns with the stall warning going off and the ground rushing towards me... the plane isn't going to fall out of the sky as long as you respect stall warnings, keep control inputs smooth, and the aircraft coordinated.

However, it does not apply in all scenarios. On a hot day where DA at my field is between 5000-6000 feet, with no wind, and a 172 fully loaded, I know that I don't have a hope in hell of making it back. I'm more than a mile from the end of the runway by the time I reach 500 feet.... unless you can break the laws of physics, you aren't landing on the runway.

You have the opposite effect if you have a light or powerful aircraft and a strong headwind. My first demonstration of that maneuver (by a person who used to fly for a military aerobatics team if you are wondering about credentials) resulted in an overshoot of a 6000 foot runway. My first attempt resulted in a very flat landing in the last 2000 feet of the runway. There simply aren't always scenarios where you can either land straight ahead, turn around and come back, or do a circuit (at 500 feet in a glide!) to land on the runway you just took off from.

Last week I ferried an old 172 that hadn't flown in 4 years. My EFATO solution was simple... to the north was swamp so I took a slight tail wind to the south. Just off the end of the runway are the CN marshaling yards with a big wide and straight service road. Beyond that I could make the field where the hang gliders land and beyond that I could land back at the airport because I stayed close and gained a bunch of altitude before proceeding enroute.

Unfortunately, very few pilots--even myself when I am flying something with a C of A in force--plan that much for what to do when the engine fails. Either they will do what they did in their training and land straight ahead (bending the airplane but most likely saving their lives) or get pulled back to the field to either make it or not make it.

My regular plan involves my doing my clear the circuit call at 500 feet... if I am within a certain distance, I will entertain the possibility of turning back with options I have in front of me. If I am beyond a certain distance, I am not going back to the airfield.

[Beefitarian]

It bothers me to see people building things in flight paths off the end of runways.

If the first couple of miles after the pavement of every runway was nice flat opened fields... How about healthy grass dog walking parks or feed crops with the round bales either removed right away or placed sufficiently off to the side.

~sigh~

[CpnCrunch]

The instructor guide says "Simulate power failure on overshoot

I don't think I have ever seen or done this. I have a lot of dual with many instructors with the intention at the time of getting a CPL.

Not sure if I have either - and pretty sure I've never done one from downwind - but I learned to fly in the UK. There the PPL flight test just wants to see an engine failure after take-off from a safe height, and a practice forced landing.

When I look at the TC flight test guide for PPL, there doesn't seem to be any mention of practice engine failures at all (apart from the practice forced landing). You just need to demonstrate a normal, soft-field and short-field take-off.

[Beefitarian]

The first time I had the power pulled down wind was during PPL training. I was sure I'd never make the runway so I was heading for the clear area near it.

My instructor said, "I have control." Promptly lowered the nose then landed nicely near the numbers while I sat there looking like this.

[2550]

This is a big hole in the training we get. There seems to be a reluctance to give a student a failure when he doesnt have any nice happy landing options. I had very good training, but still, such a failure was only mentioned once or twice at the very start. Much later, after ppl,cpl, i was getting checked out in a cub....power pulled off at 200", nothing but trees ahead. It took a few of those to get used to the idea of nose down, flaps out, and look for the softest trees rather than holding back pressure while franticly looking for an open place. We re conditioned by our training to think we should be able to reach something nice to land in, the training should teach us how to put the nose down and then pick the best place, whether its a swamp, smaller trees,or a road.

We should also be taught, at some point (cpl maybe)? How and when its possible to do the turnback CS describes. It deffinitley is not possible a lot of the time in comercial aviation. A 206 at gross weight? Nope. A 206 with one pax? You bet. But if anybody wants to have this option they need to practice it and know at what point in any given takeoff it can be done.

Iflyforpie has it right. Everyone that takes off in a single should think where to go if it quits at any stage of the takeoff.

[PilotDAR]

An EFATO turn back might be possible, it might not.

In my capacity as a volunteer fire fighter, I have helped to clean up a dead 23,000 hour pilot who did not succeed his attempt, off [back to] a runway he'd flown from for decades. Unhappily, it was the other end of this same runway I helped to clean up another multi thousand hour pilot friend a decade earlier, who did some equally unwise low altitude maneuvering.

I don't need any more convincing to focus ahead for a place to land.....

[Chuck Ellsworth]

C.S. is describing elementary aircraft handling skills using an engine failure after take off at 500 feet as an example.

Note he used a 59.5 degree angle of bank which is within the normal flight envelope according to the deities in Ottawa who care about your safety and write the rules.

This is not Voodoo folks it is basic airmanship.

Has the industry really gotten this dumb ed down that what C.S. is describing is beyond the ability of a PPL to perform?

The only caution that I would add to this is to practice this maneuver at altitude until you are comfortable performing it....

.....then someday if you should lose an engine after take off and the conditions are such as you know you can turn back you have the option...

...remember at any time during the turn back you can still stop the turn and land straight ahead under control.

[PilotDAR]

at any time during the turn back you can still stop the turn and land straight ahead under control

Yes, as long as your excellent airmanship has kept you from entering a spin!

The chance of a turnback working increases with lots of skilled practice. But, even that practice is risky. This is one of those things which if you ask "can I do this?", the answer is probably that you should not try! Landing just about anywhere, under control, and within your skills, is always better than landing in the perfect convenient spot out - of control!

[Chuck Ellsworth]

These comments I am making are only generic as far as the actual decision to try a turn back on any given take off.

Yes, as long as your excellent airmanship has kept you from entering a spin!

With all due respect if a student is trained properly from the first lesson until the issuance of the PPL, an inadvertent spin entry should not be something to be feared..even under stress.

The chance of a turnback working increases with lots of skilled practice. But, even that practice is risky. This is one of those things which if you ask "can I do this?", the answer is probably that you should not try! Landing just about anywhere, under control, and within your skills, is always better than landing in the perfect convenient spot out - of control!

Very true...

However....

What I am saying is to remain a safe pilot should practice different maneuvers such as a turn back after engine failure at a safe altitude.

A pilot with 100,000 hours of flying repeating the same maneuvers over and over will be limited to only being proficient in the flying he / she does...over and over.

Conversely a pilot who practices flying the airplane at the edge of the airplanes flight envelope at a safe altitude will become a far better pilot than one who does not stay comfortable flying at or near the edge of the flight envelope.

Maybe the answer is not better flight training but better airplanes, get rid of all airplanes presently used in general aviation and have Airbus make new ones that fly only in normal law...then they won't stall or spin.

[Colonel Sanders]

better airplanes

Fred Weick tried that with the Ercoupe - it was
"unspinnable". Don't see many around these days.
I doubt many of the youngsters here have ever
seen one, or even know what it is.

Then Cirrus tried it with the SR20/22. Unspinnable.
BRS parachute. Uber-safe. All that, and it has a far
worse fatal accident rate, as compared to Cessna's.

I'm not sure we can engineer all the skill out of aviation.

In fact, it would appear that the path to Hell is paved
with good intentions.

Back on topic ... the turnback is a simple trick, easily
and quickly mastered. There is a strong bias against
it, and as a result, it is not commonly mastered.

IMHO a DME arc approach without a moving map - just
an OBS and nm readout - takes far more effort to master.

And as far as dangerous? Probably the most dangerous
thing I ever did in a cockpit was to tell one of my ex-wives
that in fact yes, those pants did make her look fat

[PilotDAR]

Airbus make new ones that fly only in normal law...then they won't stall or spin.

You mean the ones that clear acres of French forest per second, or mysteriously plunge into the Atlantic? I'd rather have a plane I can spin if I'm a careless pilot, so being a careful pilot might keep me safe!

[CpnCrunch]

Airbus make new ones that fly only in normal law...then they won't stall or spin.

You mean the ones that clear acres of French forest per second, or mysteriously plunge into the Atlantic? I'd rather have a plane I can spin if I'm a careless pilot, so being a careful pilot might keep me safe!

I think the problem there was that the plane went out of normal law (at least for the Atlantic crash), which confused the pilots. I believe . is saying that if it always stays in normal law you can't stall it.

Cirrus has an optional ESP envelope protection feature which will helps prevent from you stalling, spinning, or doing too-steep turns. You can still override it if you want. Seems like a good idea for those planes, as they seem to have a habit of spinning/stalling into the ground.

[Beefitarian]

The only caution that I would add to this is to practice this maneuver at altitude until you are comfortable performing it...

There it is.

Once again I have got to the point and I'm at peace with it. I was going to fly in November and here I am running out of February.

Next time I get in a plane a nice instructor will be helping me get back to ability to land one of the simplest airplanes safely with a functional engine.

How do you get to Carnegie hall?