Snowbird crash in CYKA

[fleet16b]

I don't think I was clear enough about what I teach. I do not tell my students to never ever turn one degree after the EFATO I tell them not to start the turn back maneuver, i.e. an immediate descending 45 deg banked turn. I tell them to turn enough using a moderate bank angle where that turn will result in avoiding a major obstacle AFTER establishing a straight ahead gliding attitude. So basically go with what what looks the best on what you can see out of the front or side windows ahead of the wing.

If you intend to do a 180 from any of the low altitudes mentioned you must immediately initiate a descending steep turn. I believe that is where the accident started when the turnback results in a smoking hole.

I also wonder after the student finishes turn back training how long will the competency last ? If the pilot has an EFATO the next day they are going to ace it, but what about in 6 months or a year. The penalty for skill fade in this maneuver is particularly harsh. Given the realities of how many hours a GA recreational pilot can realistically fly I standby my contention that there is a lot of other things they could practice that will have more bang for the buck

One of THE best responses I’ve seen on this thread so far. Thank you for posting it
Though some will disagree your comment would also apply to RCAF pilots who in this day and age do not get a lot of flying hours compared those in the past
Looking at the profiles of some of the Snowbird Pilots , it is surprising how low time they are compared to the high time Team Members from decades ago.

[photofly]

I also wonder after the student finishes turn back training how long will the competency last ? If the pilot has an EFATO the next day they are going to ace it, but what about in 6 months or a year. The penalty for skill fade in this maneuver is particularly harsh. Given the realities of how many hours a GA recreational pilot can realistically fly I standby my contention that there is a lot of other things they could practice that will have more bang for the buck

Once again I have to note the circularity of what you're saying which is that this manoeuvre needs practice, so don't practice it.

[photofly]

Looking at the profiles of some of the Snowbird Pilots , it is surprising how low time they are compared to the high time Team Members from decades ago.

Everything was better decades ago. We get it.

[Big Pistons Forever]

I also wonder after the student finishes turn back training how long will the competency last ? If the pilot has an EFATO the next day they are going to ace it, but what about in 6 months or a year. The penalty for skill fade in this maneuver is particularly harsh. Given the realities of how many hours a GA recreational pilot can realistically fly I standby my contention that there is a lot of other things they could practice that will have more bang for the buck

Once again I have to note the circularity of what you're saying which is that this manoeuvre needs practice, so don't practice it.

I never said don’t practice it, I did however provide a bit of nuance to it on an earlier post.

Real flight safety starts with sweating the boring unsexy things like good preflight planning and weather awareness, a good walk around, checklist discipline, making the point of always flying accurately correcting heading and altitude excursion immediately instead of just letting them go, having the ball always centered, being on speed and trimmed for every landing and making every touchdown at a preselected point. If you can honestly say you have all of that nailed than yes ( maybe 5 % of the GA pilots in my experience) go ahead and practice the turn back, if you can't then work on the basics, they are what are going to keep you safe.

So how about explaining exactly how you would expect the average pilot to maintain proficiency in the turn back maneuver and what is your expectation for what constitutes proficient?

[fleet16b]

I also wonder after the student finishes turn back training how long will the competency last ? If the pilot has an EFATO the next day they are going to ace it, but what about in 6 months or a year. The penalty for skill fade in this maneuver is particularly harsh. Given the realities of how many hours a GA recreational pilot can realistically fly I standby my contention that there is a lot of other things they could practice that will have more bang for the buck

Once again I have to note the circularity of what you're saying which is that this manoeuvre needs practice, so don't practice it.

I never said don’t practice it, I did however provide a bit of nuance to it on an earlier post.

Real flight safety starts with sweating the boring unsexy things like good preflight planning and weather awareness, a good walk around, checklist discipline, making the point of always flying accurately correcting heading and altitude excursion immediately instead of just letting them go, having the ball always centered, being on speed and trimmed for every landing and making every touchdown at a preselected point. If you can honestly say you have all of that nailed than yes ( maybe 5 % of the GA pilots in my experience) go ahead and practice the turn back, if you can't then work on the basics, they are what are going to keep you safe.

So how about explaining exactly how you would expect the average pilot to maintain proficiency in the turn back maneuver and what is your expectation for what constitutes proficient?

I interested in hearing the answer to this one

[photofly]

So how about explaining exactly how you would expect the average pilot to maintain proficiency in the turn back maneuver and what is your expectation for what constitutes proficient?

With your permission, I'll ignore the sneer in your tone (perhaps I'm imagining it), and try to present a thoughtful answer.

I don't think maintaining proficiency at this kind of manoeuvre differs very much from any other kind of manoeuvre: occasional practice, and if occasional practice shows a drop in proficiency, then perhaps more training and more frequent practice would be indicated.

Proficiency might be, in a typical light trainer, the ability to reverse course in a gliding steep turn in not more than 300 feet of vertical descent, depending on the performance characteristics of the aircraft, and the ability to bring the aircraft to the correct configuration, attitude and trim to achieve that turn, from any configuration of power, within the prior few seconds.

One can practice this at higher altitude, and then in a more realistic scenario from an altitude of 1000 agl after takeoff, and then 500 agl after takeoff, with appropriate permission from any ATC authority that applies. A low approach to the airport infield followed by climbing away, or to a parallel or crossing runway, will give a good idea of what could have been achieved in a real emergency. It may even be possible, depending on winds and runways, to land on a runway. If it becomes clear that a suitable touchdown spot could not have been achieved, then this is valuable training too, since the pilot will learn that a turn-back from whenever it was initiated, would not have resulted in a safe landing.

Of course if one is not confident of how to do any of this, or one feels that ones ability to control the aircraft risks being compromised, then perhaps some dual instruction with a competent instructor would be the best place to start. Some familiarity with the characteristics of the airplane as it approaches and goes into an accelerated power-off stall (maintaining a 45° banked turn) will be helpful.

Further advice can also be found in TP13747.

If you're willing to discuss specifics of how to achieve better, I'm open for it. If you're merely hoping I'll trail a target for you to take shots at, well, there you go. I don't think there's any magic sauce, if that's what you're looking for.

[Big Pistons Forever]

Photo

I would suggest the exercises you describe only deal with the aircraft handling aspects and miss dealing with the sudden shock of a loss of power at a phase of flight where quick and correct action would be required to successfully accomplish the turnback.

If I had a student who wanted turnback training, and they were part of the 5 % I mentioned in my earlier post I would go to the practice area and as you suggested practice the turn back maneuver as a deliberate handling exercise at altitude. We would then go do 30 minutes of handling drills. Somewhere in those handling drills where the aircraft is in a full power climb I would without warning pull the throttle clap my hands in front of his face and yell EFATO.

A pass would be the airplane in a stable on speed 45 deg banked coordinated descending turn within 5 seconds. The student would get only one chance as you don't get a do over in real life. If the student did not meet the standard and he/she wanted to continue I would schedule a second 30 minute flight where somewhere in the flight I would simulate the EFATO once.

[digits_]

The student would get only one chance as you don't get a do over in real life. If the student did not meet the standard and he/she wanted to continue I would schedule a second 30 minute flight where somewhere in the flight I would simulate the EFATO once.

That's an interesting attitude to have during training. I can understand this during a checkride, but during training?

How do you train the normal forced landings? Do they also get one attempt per flight to do it right? After all, you don't get a do over in real life there either.

What if you have to take control during an attempted landign during a circuit session. Lesson over because you don't get do overs in real life?

It doesn't seem like you would be giving the exercise/training a fair chance.

[photofly]

I have a comment about the shock and surprise thing.

A decent pre-takeoff briefing covers what to do in the event of a power loss at different altitudes, and that briefing should include the minimum altitude at which a turn back will be carried out, and whether that will be the procedure to use on this takeoff on this day, based on a knowledge of the airport surroundings, runway in use, etc. So a turn back should never be a sudden decision, and there’s plenty of opportunity to mentally rehearse it before takeoff. That is not an opportunity that should be passed over.

By definition an EFATO can only occur in the first couple of minutes of a flight and it’s not a lot of mental effort to maintain readiness to implement the self-briefed procedure for that duration on every single flight. Especially since you briefed yourself only a few minutes earlier.

Speaking only for myself I’m hyper sensitive to aircraft performance and my control inputs for the first minutes, anyway - definitely not settling in to the inevitable comfortable feeling of flying by that stage.

Treating shock as distinct from surprise, I don’t think there’s a lot you can do to simulate the shock of an engine failure, and I’m not convinced that clapping in front of my face would work for me as a student if done by any of the many talented instructors from whom I’ve learned. Different instructors, different students, who knows. And after 30 minutes of manoeuvring flight it is no test of readiness for EFATO at all to see if even the most expert and prepared pilot will roll instantly into an EFATO drill; they took off at least 30 minutes prior, so the “ATO” condition of EFATO is not met.

Secondly issues of shock and surprise, and ground rush effects are not exclusive to a decision to manoeuvre the aircraft. Even if you go straight ahead, you still need to make appropriate control inputs to maintain a slow glide, and attempt a landing if a suitable surface is available. Those abilities are equally likely to be impacted (no pun intended) by the urgent and sudden nature of the occurence.

In one sense a turn back to the airfield enables the whole procedure to be completed to a successful stop if a runway is safely reachable, so in that way it’s possible to demonstrate and maintain proficiency all the way to the end of an EFATO scenario than a straight-ahead ditching or crash landing which of course cannot be completed as part of an exercise.

I am reminded of PilotDARs suggestion that forced approach scenarios should be carried out at least sometimes to a full stop landing rather than just climbing away at 500 feet every time. The same could be said for EFATO practice which could then only be done with a course reversal.

[photofly]

double post

[Big Pistons Forever]

Just to be clear for PPL and CPL students the SOP is EFATO below 1000 AGL the SOP is immediate pitch down to establish the attitude which will hold best glide speed and turn only enough to avoid the worst obstacle. I do not teach turn backs to PPL and CPL students. I have never taught the turn back exercise but I suppose could one day if asked. The student would have to have to be a 5 percenter with respect to general handling skills before I would consider it.

The exercise I described is not meant to be a training exercise it is a test. There is no part of the turnback that is a new skill as a pilot flying a tight circuit will be doing a power off descending turn. For a proficient pilot up to a 45 deg bank in the circuit is not unreasonable but it will be a planned and anticipated maneuver. The question is in the very demanding and stressful situation of a low altitude EFATO where immediate and correct action is required and where aircraft margins are reduced can the candidate make the turn safely, yes - no.

Turn backs are 8 times more likely to result in a fatal accident than a straight ahead glide after the EFATO. The majority of the fatal accidents are a result of a stall and spin. I believe that a common scenario starts with the startle response causing the pilot to freeze, since the aircraft is in a nose high climbing attitude the airspeed will immediate start to decrease, if the airplane is then rolled into a steep turn the stall margin will be reduced unless the airplane is unloaded, but the windshield will be full of dirt so the pilot unconsciously pulls back and the airplane stalls and departs from controlled flight, impacting in a steep nose down banked attitude.

Since this is what is happening in actual turn backs I do not see how you can prepare a pilot for this reality without simulating the surprise/shock that will be the first thing that happens. I also feel that unless you have significant experience maneuvering aircraft at low level then it will be difficult to understand the danger of ground rush. I believe that actual practice low altitude EFATO's exceed an acceptable risk-reward relationship so there is IMO no practical way to simulate this aspect of the turn-back. However I would be interested in anyone's experience using a full visual FTD for this maneuver and whether it was considered realistic enough to be useful

At the end of the day I think this boils down to a "what should be" vs "what is"

What should be = every pilot could successfully execute a turnback under all appropriate circumstances

What is = Many examples of pilots attempting a low altitude turn back, losing control of the aircraft and the result accident is fatal

I think I have a reputation as quite a demanding instructor that insist on students attaining and maintaining a high level of aircraft handling proficiency. I am also however, realistic about the reality of how many hours a recreational pilot can fly in a year. Therefore I think there are many other exercises that can be practiced that will hone skills that will help pilots deal with malfunctions or emergencies that are much more likely to occur than a engine failure in the 1 minute that is the 400 to 1000 ft AGL after takeoff climb out block that is the turnback window we are talking about. This is especially true in that there is a proven simple response to a low altitude EFATO, lower the nose to the gliding attitude and glide straight ahead.

Given all of the above I am not saying I think instructors should never train low altitude EFATO's, that is their decision, not mine; I am just saying that I generally won't. However I think instructors need to be clear eyed about the risk vs reward of having the student confident that they could do the maneuver if they had to knowing they won't get a second chance and the penalty for failure can be very high.

[rookiepilot]

Watch your oil temps/ pressure, fuel pressure, cylinder head temps on takeoff. I’m checking those on the roll and initial climb, right from when full power is applied.

I would think it'd be rare to have a sudden failure with zero warning, though not impossible.

The best outcome is not to have a turn back at all, but see an anomaly and stop on the runway.

[Big Pistons Forever]

Watch your oil temps/ pressure, fuel pressure, cylinder head temps on takeoff. I’m checking those on the roll and initial climb.

I would think it'd be rare to have a sudden failure with zero warning, though not impossible.

The best outcome is not to have a turn back at all, but see an anomaly and stop on the runway.

I would also add check that you have required static RPM as soon as you have set full power (fixed pitched props) or field baro MP minus 0.5 in (constant speed props). From what I see a lot of pilots do not do this check.

[digits_]

Turn backs are 8 times more likely to result in a fatal accident than a straight ahead glide after the EFATO.

But what would that statistic look like if we didn't teach any engine failures during a PPL course?

You're comparing statistics from a trained manoeuvre to an untrained manoeuvre.

Something else to consider is that of those people who died during a turn around, might also have died when flying into a mountain or rock straight ahead. Some of them might not have had any choice but attempt the turn.

There are a lot of factors that can skew those results.

[Big Pistons Forever]

Turn backs are 8 times more likely to result in a fatal accident than a straight ahead glide after the EFATO.

But what would that statistic look like if we didn't teach any engine failures during a PPL course?

You're comparing statistics from a trained manoeuvre to an untrained manoeuvre.

Something else to consider is that of those people who died during a turn around, might also have died when flying into a mountain or rock straight ahead. Some of them might not have had any choice but attempt the turn.

There are a lot of factors that can skew those results.

You will always be able to find specific examples of incidents to prove the point either way. All I can say is the accident record suggests that there are many more examples of unsuccessful fatal turnback's where a straight ahead landing would have been possible than the opposite. The fact remains that of the possible range of outcomes from no injuries to fatalities over all EFATO's the ratio of fatalities is much higher in turn backs.

[photofly]

You will always be able to find specific examples of incidents to prove the point either way. All I can say is the accident record suggests that there are many more examples of unsuccessful fatal turnback's where a straight ahead landing would have been possible than the opposite.

I think that's an important point: if there's somewhere flat ahead, then there's no reason for turning back. We're not trying to save the airframe, or anyone's blushes here.

[rookiepilot]

Is there any argument to climb out at VX at a place like CYTZ?

[photofly]

If you’re going to lose power x seconds after takeoff, I’d rather have the extra height from a best rate climb, than be lower and closer from a best-angle climb.

And thw extra 15 knots or so of airspeed will really help in those seconds of deciding what to do - you’ll lose a chunk of extra height getting to a best glide speed from Vx than from Vy. In fact in most airplanes best glide is slower than best climb rate, so if you’re prompt with a pitch adjustment you don’t need to lose any height at all, losing the engine at Vy.

But I haven’t done any sums to prove that that’s the better option.

It might also depend on how much runway a particular type uses on takeoff; if you start your climb at midfield then you have a distance advantage “getting over the fence” on the way back vs an aircraft that breaks ground right at the departure end of the runway.

[cncpc]

You will always be able to find specific examples of incidents to prove the point either way. All I can say is the accident record suggests that there are many more examples of unsuccessful fatal turnback's where a straight ahead landing would have been possible than the opposite.

I think that's an important point: if there's somewhere flat ahead, then there's no reason for turning back. We're not trying to save the airframe, or anyone's blushes here.

This. For sure.

It doesn't need to be flat. In some cases, an upslope may work better. On every takeoff, there is a menu of choices, let's say within 60 degrees either side of extended runway centerline, where a survivable or injury free touchdown may be made. Rather than attempting the turnback, I think I would settle for the options that are in the windscreen. And, know what they were before advancing the throttle for take-off.

[Big Pistons Forever]

If you’re going to lose power x seconds after takeoff, I’d rather have the extra height from a best rate climb, than be lower and closer from a best-angle climb.

And thw extra 15 knots or so of airspeed will really help in those seconds of deciding what to do - you’ll lose a chunk of extra height getting to a best glide speed from Vx than from Vy. In fact in most airplanes best glide is slower than best climb rate, so if you’re prompt with a pitch adjustment you don’t need to lose any height at all, losing the engine at Vy.

But I haven’t done any sums to prove that that’s the better option.

It might also depend on how much runway a particular type uses on takeoff; if you start your climb at midfield then you have a distance advantage “getting over the fence” on the way back vs an aircraft that breaks ground right at the departure end of the runway.

I Agree. I teach Vy to 1000 ft AGL and then transition to cruise climb for the reasons stated above

[rookiepilot]

If you’re going to lose power x seconds after takeoff, I’d rather have the extra height from a best rate climb, than be lower and closer from a best-angle climb.

And thw extra 15 knots or so of airspeed will really help in those seconds of deciding what to do - you’ll lose a chunk of extra height getting to a best glide speed from Vx than from Vy. In fact in most airplanes best glide is slower than best climb rate, so if you’re prompt with a pitch adjustment you don’t need to lose any height at all, losing the engine at Vy.

But I haven’t done any sums to prove that that’s the better option.

It might also depend on how much runway a particular type uses on takeoff; if you start your climb at midfield then you have a distance advantage “getting over the fence” on the way back vs an aircraft that breaks ground right at the departure end of the runway.

I Agree. I teach Vy to 1000 ft AGL and then transition to cruise climb for the reasons stated above

Makes sense.

[PilotDAR]

I Agree. I teach Vy to 1000 ft AGL and then transition to cruise climb for the reasons stated above

Yes, and I have the actual formal flight test data to support that. The most terrifying flight testing I have ever done was simulated engine failures at 50' and slower than Vy, in a Caravan. That was what taught me to get to Vy or better ASAP after liftoff and keep the airspeed for a safety margin in case of an EFATO.

I accept that perhaps fast jets are different, and so be it, but for GA airplanes, Vy. Don't even get me started on those "STOL" competition climbouts to 300' hanging on the prop!!! Idiocy!

[pelmet]

Is there any argument to climb out at VX at a place like CYTZ?

It might be more complicated than we think as to whether Vx is better than Vy. The Vy departure is higher than the Vx departure for a given timeframe. But is it by much higher? The Vx departure will be closer to the airport for a return but at a lower altitude. It could be dependent on aircraft type, loading, winds, runway length, etc.

I have done quite a few departures from one airport that points straight at downtown with poor options for landing in any direction excerpt the runway behind. I do a Vx climb in order to be closer to the airport for a turnaround.

Can I guarantee that I am in a better position to make it than a Vy climb for a given time before engine failure? One might need a computer program with a bunch of variables to know for sure.

I would consider a Vx climb at YTZ. But I can’t prove it is better and may be fooling myself.

[pelmet]

The discussion about ground rush concerns on a turnaround is interesting. I did not experience this.

In fact, the initial part was as much of an instrument maneuver as a visual maneuver.

After the engine failure at 400 feet, look inside at the instruments to target three things during the fairly aggressive pitch down……speed(best glide), bank(45 degrees), and finally a target reciprocal heading(turn into a crosswind).

Of course one does need to look outside to monitor their progress but I suspect some of the stall/spin guys were concentrating too much looking over their shoulder instead of monitoring airspeed.

Definitely an advanced maneuver. I do know one person who did a turnaround in real life after an efato. His landing was successful but was partially on grass and then onto the runway at an angle.

[photofly]

After the engine failure at 400 feet, look inside at the instruments to target three things during the fairly aggressive pitch down……speed(best glide), bank(45 degrees), and finally a target reciprocal heading(turn into a crosswind).

For anyone wondering, the speed at which a best gliding range is achieved in a steep turn is about 22% higher than the speed at which a best gliding range is achieved in a straight line. However the goal in a turn is not beat range but instead “minimum rate of descent per degree of turn”. There’s a mathematical analysis out there that shows the best bank angle is 45 degrees and the best speed for this just above the stalling speed in that turn, which is usually close to the same speed as the traditional “best glide ins a straight line” speed. So targeting that speed that most pilot know for their airplane, is close to optimal. My preference is to learn the pitch attitude at which the stall warning horn begins to sound, and use the on/off of the stall warning horn as an aural angle of attack indicator, as a guide.

A good way to stuff up the manoeuvre is to decide one has to make some particular spot and try to “shrink” the turn to do so. Once you have practice and understand that this fixed turn is the best you get from your aircraft and at what attitude it is achieved it becomes clearer that you do not adjust or improvise the turn according to what you see but make it as Pelmet says almost an instrument manoeuvre (even if conducting it visually). You simply assume the correct attitude, and ride it around until the field comes back into view. For a typical 70-knot 45 degree bank, a 180 takes 11 seconds, if I recall right. And those seconds seem long, until the field comes around in sight.

Once the field is in view in front of you roll out of the turn and finish the approach by lowering flaps and slipping, or not, as you might on any power-off landing.