Engine Failure After Takeoff & Turnback (SEL)

[Chuck Ellsworth]

I believe . is saying that if it always stays in normal law you can't stall it.

Yes.

[Colonel Sanders]

How do you get to Carnegie hall?

You inherit (or steal) a really nice musical instrument.

Did I get that right?

Reminds me of the fancy new Ducati's I see parked
with 2 inch wide chicken strips on the rear tire!

PS Flew twice on Saturday, once on Sunday - it was
brutally cold - and twice on Monday in three very
different types of aircraft.



Few people would see a decrease in their pilot skill
if they flew more.

[Beefitarian]

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.

There will probably always be someone trying.
http://www.iconaircraft.com/news/behind ... ogram.html

[PilotDAR]

Ercoupe - it was
"unspinnable"

Back when I was young, it took me hours to figure out how to get an Ercoupe into a spin. I was pleased to sort of get it in, but I could not hold it there! They're oddly okay to fly, but I was never quite sure if I was flying it, or it was taking me where I wanted to go...

[Colonel Sanders]

The reason I dearly love motorcycles (crotch rockets),
aviation (specifically low altitude aerobatics) and embedded
software is that it instantly separates the honest craftsmen
from the blowhard, posing phonies (whom are painfully punished).

http://www.et6.net/uploads/valentino-ro ... alunya.jpg

[Beefitarian]

He should probably do that on ice to keep from scuffing the sidewalls.

[Big Pistons Forever]

I vowed I would not post on Avcanada any more, but this is one issue I think needs a dissenting opinion in order to provide balance.

First it is important to distinguish between the very 2 different points that are being discussed.

1) Can a turnback be performed from 500 ft AGL in your average SEL ?

2) Should You try to turn back after an EFATO ?

As the Colonel points out the answer to question 1 is indistputably yes. The answer question 2 is much more nuanced. If you regularly perform low level " performance" flying like aerobatics, ag flying, firebombing, etc and are current In the aircraft you are flying then I would suggest that it is entirely reasonable to fly a turnback.

Similarly if you are a 100 hr PPL who only flies 10 hrs of year, I think the universal consensus is trying
a low altitude turn back is a really really bad idea.

Inbetween these 2 extremes is where most everybody lives. So the question that matters is not should CS do a turn back, it is should You do a turnback.

Only you can make that decision.

FWIW this is what I tell my students. " if your engine fails or catches fire below 1000 feet AGL, the First and most important thing you do is immediately pitch down to the glide attitude and then fly straight ahead turning only enough to avoid major obstacles. If you have allready turned crosswind then turn to and aim at the nearest flat section of the airport grounds."

A few additional points to think about.

1) if the engine fails the insurance company just bought the airplane. The main advantage of a turnback is the ability to land on the runway you just left and thus eliminate the possibility of damaging the aircraft. IMO this is an irrelevant consideration as the only thing that matters is not hurting anybody in the airplane, not the condition of the airframe when it comes to a stop.

2) 80% of all engine failures are caused by the actions or inactions of the pilot. The best way to deal with an engine failure is to not have it fail in the first place. So before you practice turnbacks can you honestly say you are doing everything possible to make sure you have reduced/eliminated everything within you control that could cause the engin to fail.

3) A sudden and total engine failure with no warning is the least likely scenario. It is much more likely that either the engine will give some advance notice that it will fail or that you will experience a partial engine failure with some usable power still being available. So before you practice the power off turnback have you practiced the far more likely partial power fail scenario first?

4) The low altitude danger zone represents at most 2 minutes of every flight. If you are going to have to deal with a total engine failure it is much more likely to occur during cruise flight. So before you practice power off turnbacks can you honestly say you are totally proficient in the more likely scenario of a cruise flight power loss scenario?

5) if you have an accident the accident report summaries strongly suggest it will likely be he result of a loss of control during landing. So before practicing turnbacks can you honestly say you are totally proficient in takeoffs and landings such that no matter what the conditions you won't bend any metal .

Turnbacks IMO feed the "hero pilot" fantasy we all want to believe in. There I was nose high close to the ground when the perfectly running engine failed . I then expertly racked the airplane around in a steep turn and landed back on the runway with no damage to the aircraft

So the bottom line from my POV is pretty simple. You can practice to be that hero pilot in a situation that almost never happens, or you can practice to avoid all those mundane unsexy totally avoidable accidents that we read about pretty much every week, a bent aircraft sitting next to the runway after a loss of control or a bent aircraft sitting in a field after a fuel exhaustion/mismanagement, carb ice, or miss used mixture pilot caused engine failure..

[Chuck Ellsworth]

When I learned to fly in 1953 Sandy A MacDonalds book from The Ground Up was our textbook.

In the opening comments he described two types of pilots Captain Cautious and Flatspin Fumble.

I always strived " not " to be Flatspin Fumble and spent my whole career learning what not to do.

There is a belief among pilots that experience is the benchmark of a safe skilled pilot.....sure I agree.

However experience repeating the same exercises over and over is nowhere near as valuable as experience combined with ongoing training in advanced maneuvers and learning to fly more complex aircraft.

I try not to describe aircraft maneuvering here on this internet site because I am a firm believer in getting one on one training in an actual aircraft.

Remember you will never ever reach perfection, you can only try and achieve it.

Engine failures are events one hopes never happen, but occasionally they do.

One of the secrets of survival is plan ahead and look ahead of your aircraft with the possibility that ten seconds from now the engine will quit.

I have had several engine failures during my career, none of them were caused by something I had done wrong they were mechanical malfunctions, a few were really sudden and a total unrecoverable loss of power.

So here is my bottom line on this subject.

Try and get as much training as you can afford on an ongoing basis..and research who you get trained by.

[Colonel Sanders]

BPF: nice to see you again!

if you are a 100 hr PPL who only flies 10 hrs of year, I think the universal consensus is trying
a low altitude turn back is a really really bad idea.

Hard to argue with that. However I might point out that you
are tackling a far more complicated subject - psychology -
than I was (aviation).

Many people maintain that the turnback in a single is flatly
"impossible". This rankles me - you might as well claim that
2 + 2 = 5 ... but it surely does not.

The turnback in a single is aerodynamically quite possible,
and in fact is very simple and easy to perform. It's not a
whole lot more complicated than turning final. Both can
kill you, of course.

It ought to be blindingly obvious that as soon as you have
attained 100 mph or 100 feet, if something goes wrong, it's
going to hurt quite painfully and likely permanently.

I firmly believe that safety comes from knowledge and skill -
not the lack thereof, which seems to be the case with the
turnback. "Don't learn anything about it!" seems to be the
bottom line for it.

Back to your point, which I understand to be that an "average"
pilot should not attempt this. Well, I don't think any pilot should
attempt anything that they have not received training on, which
also includes:

1) flying at night
2) flying in cloud
3) flying over the mountains
4) flying tailwheel
5) flying floats

The list is endless. And you can receive training for all of the above,
so that you can become qualified/proficient at them.

But the turnback is a funny duck. No one will perform one, no
one will learn anything about it, no one will give training on it, etc.
I consider it a ridiculous, sacred cow. Right up there with flicker
vertigo.

I am merely curious why the turnback is so ostracized. It's
really not very hard to perform. It's pretty boring, actually.

I really need to make another youtube video.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

But the turnback is a funny duck. No one will perform one, no
one will learn anything about it, no one will give training on it, etc.
I consider it a ridiculous, sacred cow. Right up there with flicker
vertigo.

I'm with you on this subject......

...but I could be lonely for both of us in this group.

[Colonel Sanders]

It's the whole "sacred cowness" about the turnback
that puzzles me. Time for a little story.


Imagine no one had ever flown an aircraft in cloud
before. Death and danger, all the wise pilots would
tell you, lurks within. Many have tried and all have
died.

Well, yes, I might respond, but with the proper
equipment and training, flying in cloud can actually
safely be done.

Heresy! Blasphemy! The pilot establishment replies.
It should not be attempted! Nothing should be learned
about it!


Now replace "flying in cloud" above with "turnback".

I really don't understand your sacred cow. I'm going
to fly in cloud, and I'm going to turnback. I can only
apologize if that makes someone feel bad.

[iflyforpie]

Flying in cloud and doing surface aerobatics have their strict rules and limits. We have IFR ratings, IFR certified aircraft, safe altitudes and protected airspace for flying in cloud. We have aerobatic aircraft, aerobatic training, and things like top gate for doing loops (and there exhausts my knowledge of aerobatics).

What are your limits for doing a turn back CS and .? If you don't have one or don't know... then you guys are slaughtering the sacred cow. You'd never send a student off into cloud without giving them every possible consideration before doing so.

When I was trained in the turn back, I was never given a limit. I lived through my first real turnback and vowed to find out as much as I could about it and as I said before, there are times when the laws of physics will preclude you making it back to the airfield.


You are departing Leadville Colorado on a hot summer day, DA is 12,000 feet and you are in a 180 with two people, half tanks, and baggage. Climb rate is 400 feet per minute and climb speed is 80 knots true, crossing the end of the runway at 30 feet. Would you be able to turn back to the field after achieving 500 feet?

PS: The glide ratio of a 180 is optimally about 11:1... after you've turned around.

[Colonel Sanders]

departing Leadville Colorado on a hot summer day, DA is 12,000 feet and you are in a 180

I think that might be a violation of FAR part 91.13

PS Almost 20 years ago, I delivered a C185 to Salida,
Colorado, at the south end of the valley (Leadville is
at the north end). Beautiful place:

[Chuck Ellsworth]

Ifly, there is no one size fits all for attempting a turnback to an airport because there are so many variables.....especially what aircraft you are flying at the time.

However a few months ago I was flying an ASK 21 and the school taught no turn backs under 200 feet, above 200 feet you turned back to the runway.

I think we are all agreeing that with proper training and under ideal circumstances a turn back to the airport can be safely done.

[Colonel Sanders]

What are your limits for doing a turn back CS

That's a very odd question.

The turnback is actually two distinct phases:

1) heading change of 210 degrees in a descending steep
minimum radius turn into the direction of any crosswind, and

2) glide back to departure end of runway

The two phases have little to do with each other. Amazingly
people struggle with #1. I suppose some people struggle with
tying their shoe laces, too.

I presume phase #2 is what you are trying to trip me up on.
Obviously, many aircraft glide steeper than they climb, which
can make it difficult to successfully execute phase #2. This
is not very hard to understand.

If you have a powerful aircraft that climbs steeply, or you have
a long runway, or if you have a good wind down the runway,
all of these things will contribute to being able to make the
departure end of the runway during phase #2.

If you have an underperforming aircraft that climbs shallowly,
or you have a short runway, or if you have no headwind down
the runway, all of these things will contribute to NOT being
able to make the departure end of the runway during phase #2.

2+2=4 ... not 5.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

Harare has a nice long runway for turn backs...it is over 15000 feet usable.

[white_knuckle_flyer]

I feel like the colonel is sending mixed messages. Especially when given this earlier engine failure thread :

http://www.avcanada.ca/forums2/viewtopi ... 79&t=85180

From that thread, I'm hearing "Don't even think about flying a plane like this. You can not do it !"

Then on this thread I'm hearing "Instructors should teach ppl's to perform this maneuvre...it's really not that hard."



I'm confused. Should I learn / practise how and when to do a turnback or is it the food of the gods ???

[Big Pistons Forever]

I am very demanding of my students on the subject of always striving to fly the aircraft accurately and precisely and the necessity to know and be able to execute the emergency procedures applicable to their aircraft.

With respect to the EFATO I expect them to review the immediate action drills for the emergency just before every takeoff. This includes physically moving the wheel/stick forward as they verbalize the intent to glide straight ahead and then touch the appropriate controls to shut down the fuel/mixture/ignition/electrical systems.

To be clear I do not believe that teaching a turn back after an EFATO improves the likely hood of a successful outcome over teaching a straight ahead glide enough to overcome the dangers of getting this manoever wrong. Part of the reason I have adopted this strategy was the result of a study of EFATO accidents in the USA. The conclusion of this study of accidents over many years was that turnbacks were 8 times more likely to result in fatalities over those EFATO's where the pilot landed straight ahead.

However at the end of the day it is up to every pilot and instructor to decide what they are going to do in the unlikely event of a total engine failure right after takeoff. My only personal contribution to this debate is that I will not teach the turn back manoever to any low time and/or non aerobatically trained student. In any case those pilots that are IMO truly competent to do a turnback don't need my instruction as they have enough skill and knowledge to practice it themselves.

My words, like those of any other poster, have no more or less value then what you assign to them. My only request is that what ever you decide to do in the case of an EFATO it is done after a sober contemplation of the risks and rewards of each possible course of action and is part of a greater deliberate program of training and practice to address all the possible "bad things" that can happen to you, not just the sexy emergencies.

[PilotDAR]

An internet forum is like talking loudly at the food court in the mall. You never know who is listening, or what they will do with what they hear. In the old days, (well for me anyway), on the scuzzy weather days, we'd sit around and talk flying in the clubhouse. But you knew who was there listening, and you could tailor what you said to cater to the audience.

I very much view forums as a place where I'm going to watch what I say. I have the luxury of saying here "do as I say, not as I do" 'cause you're not seeing what I do! (happily, you're not reading about it either!).

There are a lot of things I have done, and continue to do, which are within my skill set, which I will not write here - for fear that some very low experience pilot might read and try. When I was very new to flying on my own, I thought it was really cool how the F4U Corsairs on Baa Baa Black Sheep would roll out of formation into a dive to attack the meatballs. I tried it in a 172. It does not work well in a 172, and I figured that out with the plane pointed down, somewhat upside down, and the airspeed rapidly rising. I did not pass any limits, but I sure began to realize that some planes don't do some things well, and trying is a bad idea.

So yes, I have done turnbacks for practice, and found "my" limits - but I'm not going to tell you what they are. Then I had to do it for real in the 150, and it worked. Glad I practiced!

But, no newbie readers here are going to leave these pages thinking that I have told them to do something in conflict with what the Flight Manual says to do, or the basics of commonly accepted training. So I'm not disagreeing with CS that turnbacks are possible. But I do not seek to perpetuate the unattainable skygod image either, by widening the gap between "regular" pilots and super pilots. I write here 'cause I'm trying to draw pilots together in a mentoring way! I would like to think that all pilots aspire to be appropriately (to the aircraft type and environment) competent. If you want to practice beyond that, excellent, as you do, you'll learn extra skills, and be even safer. You'll learn to make your own determinations, and not have to ask if you can do it - you'll know. If I take a newbie flying in a plane I own, I might show them a few things that they do not normally see done - just to expand their horizons a bit. But I'm not going to describe them here!

So yes, there's a double standard. For me, there always will be, on a public forum, where anyone could be reading.....

[Colonel Sanders]

mixed messages

That's a good point. A fresh PPL, perhaps slightly on
the left hand side of the bell curve, that won't take on
a 10 knot crosswind, probably doesn't have the skills
to safely perform a descending steep turn (turnback),
trading off altitude to maintain airspeed.

However, a CPL with over 1000TT and a season (or two)
of jumper dumping or float flying or maybe a class 2 instructor
should be a little sharper. A descending steep turn should be
within his ability. Maybe you think I'm on crack on this one,
but I recall a jumper dumper pilot video recently where a 182
engine died at very low altitude and he turned and landed
and made it look easy:

unattainable skygod image

Now we come to the crux of the matter. I really, really
think that a descending steep turn can be performed by
pilots who are not "skygods" - and frankly without requiring
much training.

You would be surprised how trivial an aileron roll, a wingover,
and a descending steep turn are - when taught by someone
experienced in them.

Tex Johnston effortlessly rolled the 367-80 (B707 prototype)
at the Seattle Hydroplane races. Twice. At 1500 feet.

You probably think that Tex Johnston was a "skygod", but
he was just a guy that did a lot of stick & rudder tailwheel
flying before he became Boeing's Chief Test Pilot. Bob Hoover
IMHO is a real "skygod" but he also had lots of stick & rudder
tailwheel flying before he went onto jet fighters. You might
think I am a "skygod" but that's nonsense - I just did a lot
of stick & rudder tailwheel flying before I started flying jets.

Spot the pattern? Go out and do some stick & rudder
tailwheel flying. And don't confuse someone who has merely
done a lot of it with a real "skygod" like Bob Hoover or Rob Holland.

[Colonel Sanders]

a jumper dumper pilot video recently where a 182
engine died at very low altitude and he turned and landed

A little focus. Watch the video a couple of times. Skip
over the crap to 1:10. Note within the time interval of
a few tenths of a second, the pilot

1) realized what was going on
2) considered his options
3) made a decision
4) implemented his choice

Note the stall warning horn on during the entire descending
turn. Very nicely flown.

Anyways, this pilot thought very quickly - he had no time to
spare - and make the right choice, and instantly implemented
a perfectly-flown solution. Measure the time interval between
when the engine died and the turnback began.

Many pilots don't think that quickly. Some of them freeze at
the controls, Bambi-like. At the risk of upsetting people's
tummies, this activity has an awful lot in common with riding
motorcycles very quickly on unfamiliar roads with blind turns.

A wise person would never perform this activity, but then again,
they would never get practice at evaluating situations and
making the correct decisions - over and over again - within
a tenth (or two) of a second.

There's an awful lot of hypocrisy here - do as I say, not as I do -
which I don't like much.

A fast OODA loop is what separates the winners and the losers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OODA_loop

[PilotDAR]

There's an awful lot of hypocrisy here - do as I say, not as I do -

Perhaps better expressed: "Do as I say, because I don't know you, or your capabilities, and what I say is conservatively safe. You can do what I do, if I can show you, and satisfy myself you actually can do it safely".

And, for the flight simmers on here, go for it! Tell us how you make out!

[Colonel Sanders]

flight simmers

Not sure anyone cares, but this maneuver is harder
in a sim because it doesn't fly anything like the real
thing - you can't feel the G, for example. Engine and
wind sound are phony. You can't feel the yaw.

A turnback is not really an IFR procedure, which is what
a sim is good for.

[Colonel Sanders]

I'm sure the four-bars here will scoff at the idea
of using an OODA loop while operating an airplane,
or on a very fast motorcycle.

Here's a video from a couple years ago, resurrected
from the videos/pictures forum:



Did that pilot have a fast enough OODA loop?

Was he trained properly? www.pittspecials.com/articles/MultiTakeoff.htm

[dr.aero]

The "impossible" turn is completely possible and safe. I think it should be taught to students. If a student is able to perform a spin entry and recovery, why can't a student perform a turnback after a simulated engine failure? Both involve memorized procedures that need to be practiced. There is no difference other than it being a different flying maneuver.

To put a little perspective in this, all glider pilots are required to be able to perform this maneuver. If there is a rope break at low altitude while you're getting towed up, you are able to return the glider safely to the ground by performing this maneuver. Here is a video of it: https://vimeo.com/41211504

Notice that the first thing they do after the 'engine failure' is PUSH! That MUST be the first thing you do when you get an engine failure in that position. I'd bet that in about 95% of these "impossible turn" crashes, the first thing the pilot did was not push, or if they did push it was insufficient.

Before every takeoff you should have a plan of action for an engine failure at any point. If you've planned to do a turnback in the event of an engine failure, the success rate of the maneuver will improve exponentially. You will look at the statistics that say that the turnback has a higher chance of killing you. If I may be so bold as to hypothesize, it's because the pilots either didn't have a plan for an engine failure on departure, hadn't practiced the turnback, never heard of a turnback and just did the maneuver based on their instincts to land at the airport, and/or some other reasons. Just like performing any other maneuver, or flying a floatplane, or a tailwheel, or flying aerobatics - if you're properly trained for it, don't be afraid to use those skills to your advantage. Having the turnback in your pocket as one of your skills might come in handy one day - just the same as being able to recover from a spin or stall.

Here are a few links I got from David Roger's site with regard to this turn. Great reading material for all pilots who either are for or against the turnback.

http://www.nar-associates.com/technical ... sible.html
http://www.nar-associates.com/technical ... screen.pdf
http://www.nar-associates.com/technical ... screen.pdf
http://www.nar-associates.com/technical ... screen.pdf
http://www.nar-associates.com/technical ... dation.htm

A couple quotes from the articles:

"Using this approach a long time colleague Professor Bernard `Bud' Carson developed a theoretical solution for a decelerating descending turn that showed that a bank angle of 45 degrees at stall velocity is the optimal turnback maneuver. Why 45 degrees at stall velocity? Simplistically, 45 degrees, because here equal amounts of the lift are being used to support the aircraft against the pull of gravity and to turn the aircraft. At stall velocity, because the lower the velocity the smaller the turn radius and consequently the less time spent in the turn. Coincidentally, the smaller turn radius keeps you closer to the field and turns you around faster. After completion of the turn the aircraft is accelerated to best glide speed by lowering the nose."

"The data also showed that the theoretical optimum bank of 45 degrees with coordinated rudder does indeed turn the aircraft 180 degrees with the least loss of altitude. However, the study also shows that 30 degrees of bank with coordinated rudder produces only slightly inferior results with a much higher safety factor."