Return to reciprocal runway advised in emergency ?

[C172 Hawk XP]

There would probably be general agreement that during training we are all taught that in the event of EFATO or similar, at low level, forced landing straight ahead is preferable to trying to return to the runway from which you have just departed.

The latest AAIB report contains a very sad story, which seems to indicate that there may be exceptions

Air Accidents Investigation: Dyn'Aero MCR01 Club, F-PYMD (http://www.aaib.gov.uk/publications/bulletins/november_2008/dyn_aero_mcr01_club__f_pymd.cfm)

In particular, where it says


The conditions for landing all favoured Runway 14, but the pilot instead used Runway 32. The reason for this is likely to be that, because he had taken off from Runway 32, without time for thinking he chose to use the same runway. If he had been able to consider the circumstances for longer it is probable that he would have chosen to use Runway 14, into wind and upslope.
. . . . . . . .It is possible that were a pilot to give consideration to the most suitable runway for a return, before taking off, the problem of the reduced time available for deciding upon the best course of action in the event of an emergency could be mitigated. It is hoped that publicising the circumstances of this accident may help to remind pilots that a runway suitable for a departure may not always be the best runway for a return to land

[DavidHoul52]

Yes that was an interesting case. Unusual in that the pilot took off with a tailwind.

A reminder (I think it says as much in the report) to think about what you are going to do in the event of an engine failure before taking off. (I haven't been doing that up until now :uhoh:)

[Pace]

That is why its important to think of all your options rather than fixating on one. Spatial awareness is vitally important as well as having the ability to change a plan as the situation itself changes.

Pace

[tuscan]

I was once told by an instructor that if taking off from a long runway, try to take off close to the end, that way, if the fan stops and you have reasonable height going back for a tailwind landing is a reasonable option, especially if the said airfield has a built up area with limited or no option for landing straight ahead.
Im not sure if I agree but I do see the point. Of course airfields are all different with their own options and good planning and foresight is common sense.
I never really gave it too much consideration in the past but will look for more options in future.

[niknak]

I seem to remember it's drummed into all RAF pilots at every stage of their training, from basic to advanced training on every type of aircraft: Never turn back, if it's good enough for them, it's good enough for everyone else.

[tuscan]

It is our nature though to question these old sayings and practices. Surely the correct respose depends on circumstances, which will differ with every scenario.
Just because they say so is not always a good enough reason.

I can imagine in the good old days during a scramble the preferance would be land ahead so everyone behind you can get airborne.
I know all the theory about turning back,low airspeed, tailwind etc etc but we must question everything, thats how we gain understanding and sometimes even progress.

[Say again s l o w l y]

Niknak, do you actually fly?

Set in stone rules are sometimes appropriate, but only rarely. In this case turning back may well be appropriate, it all depends on the circumstance.

If you have a high performance machine and a relatively strong headwind, then turning back may well be appropriate. Though I did it in a C150 after the engine started playing up. Oddly enough, the fact I'm posting here and didn't end up in an AAIB report shows that "rules" don't always apply in emergencies.

Sometimes you need to use your brain rather than some rule written for different circumstances.

[niknak]

SOS - no I'm not a qualified pilot, but I've seen enough people try it under many different conditions and a/c types, to convince me that turning back should be the very last option.

[Say again s l o w l y]

There is no such thing as a last resort in an EFATO. You make a decision based on the info you have. Turning back may well be appropriate in a certain case, but by having stupid catch all phrases we could put an element of doubt just where it really isn't needed.

Most of the time turning back isn't appropriate, however, that is absolutely not true in every potential circumstance and that's why phrases such as "never do this or that" should be taken out and beaten to death with sticks.

[whowhenwhy]

The other thing that it's drummed into you to do is to consider what you will do if you have an EFATO at a particular stage of the TO. This became incredibly relevant for me recently when faced with a full EFATO at about 100ft. P P and P P P P P.:ok:

[NigelOnDraft]

I think you can over-analyse such things, esepcially for the average / low hour / low currency PPL.

The "golden rule" of not turning back for an EFATO holds good - engine stops just after takeoff, you need at the forefront of your mind to resist the instinct to return, and just go straight ahead. You have very little time to make a decision, and need max brain power to "fly" the forced landing.

This accident was not one of those, and comes under the heading of more normal emergency without a time critical aspect. Whether you wish to include in a PPL type takeoff brief the "what will I do if I need to return" is up to you - good airmanship, but once when considers one "what if" where do you stop?

In the airline world we have "DODAR" and various other systems for decision making - equivalents are in the PPL syllabus. Maybe, with 20:20 hindsight they were not best employed here, as the AAIB note, but it was an "unusual" circumstance, and the tragic outcome had a few unlucky elements in it :{

Summary: I think it a mistake to question the "do not turn back" rule using this accident as an example - it was a different scenario... IMHO ;)

NoD

[ProfChrisReed]

The gliding equivalent of EFATO is a tow-rope break or winch launch failure, and this is something we train for extensively. The training has proved very effective over a number of years, with almost all launch failure accidents being due to not following the training.

In simple terms, it is as follows:

A. Before launching, plan for what you will do if the launch fails.

B. If there is a failure:

1. Land ahead on the runway whenever it is possible to do so.

2. Recognise that even if a landing ahead on the runway is not possible, there will be a height (varying with the conditions and the pilot's experience) when the only option is still landing ahead, making the best of a bad thing. DON'T TRY TO TURN. In a powered a/c this will be much higher than in a glider - for example, a tow-rope break at 200 ft with anything of a headwind usually makes a 180 and reciprocal landing possible for an experienced pilot, but not for an early solo pilot.

3. If you are high enough to turn, first put the aircraft in a safe attitude (i.e. lower the nose and attain a normal flying speed), then THINK. Once you have decided what it is safe to do, do it safely (this might include landing ahead, even if a turn is theoretically possible).

Translating this to powered a/c requires you to know how well your a/c glides engine off. If you don't know this, you can't do step 3 safely. In those circumstances, your only option is to land ahead, thus the general advice to do so.

[Karl Bamforth]

The RAF used to teach turnback, one of the reasons they stopped teaching it is because more ppl were injured practicing (with a good engine) Than needed to attempt it for real.

If most RAF pilots fail even with a good engine, then attempting to do it with no engine should be a last resort.

Of course the best thing to do is PPPPPPP. PLAN for it, self brief before TO then you will have most of the information at hand when it happens.

I have posted this before.

I was chatting with an old bold pilot and the subject of EFATO came up. "It said it must come as a shock when the engine fails". His reply " No I always expect it to fail, in fact it comes as a nice suprise when the damn things stay running".
I suspect he self brifed for engine failure before every TO. He was a Mosquito pilot in WW11 in his early 20s.

[UncleNobby]

On the accident report above it seems like the mistake came on choosing the wrong runway for T/O.
As far as engine out on T/O goes, if below 800ft from rwy elevation best glide and straight ahead, if above 800ft from apt elevation the 180.
Circumstances always dictate though...if there is a long fairway straight ahead and I'm at 900ft then I hope to meke it onto the green!

[C172 Hawk XP]

the mistake came on choosing the wrong runway for T/O

Not really the wrong runway. From my reading of the AAIB report I took it to mean that pros and cons were considered, and that the slight advantage of a downslope was considered just to outweigh the slight disadvantage of a tailwind.

Problem is, if you automatically choose that same runway for landing back on, those two factors are now both disadvantageous, and the two "slights" added together become a "major".

[Final 3 Greens]

I was once told by an instructor that if taking off from a long runway, try to take off close to the end, that way, if the fan stops and you have reasonable height going back for a tailwind landing is a reasonable option, especially if the said airfield has a built up area with limited or no option for landing straight ahead.

Not sure I agree with that either.

For example, if Iwas taking off from Ostend on the easterly runway, I'd rather cross the retail park at the upwind end at 1,000 feet, than 100 feet.

If the engine stopped, I could get back on the reciprocal as the runway is 2.8km long, so might not even need to slip, but from 100 feet......

In fact, unless I am missing something here, the above 'advice' sounds pretty mad, unless the instructor was using the word 'end' to mean 'start.'

[tuscan]

He definately meant end!!! Thats what puzzled me, I thought getting up there asap with runway ahead of me would be the better option and is what I always try to do now.

Get up as soon as possible and normally drag it in on the numbers is what I practice but thats because I fly into quite a few short strips.

[Pitts2112]

I seem to remember it's drummed into all RAF pilots at every stage of their training, from basic to advanced training on every type of aircraft:
Quote:
Never turn back
, if it's good enough for them, it's good enough for everyone else.


I don't think that's necessarily true. If you're flying a Hawk or fast jet, it's possibly the best advice. If you're flying a Cub or similar with good slow-speed characteristics, I've been in several situations where landing straight ahead was not the best option. Being open to the conditions and geography of the day is a far better bet.

And no disrespect to your intellect, niknak, but if you're not a qualified pilot who has been the only one to make the decision in your flying, then your input is theoretical at best. Flying starts with the theory, but it's the actual practice of it that builds experience, the application of theory. And that's the biggest part of the learning.

[ShyTorque]

I seem to remember it's drummed into all RAF pilots at every stage of their training, from basic to advanced training on every type of aircraft:
Quote:
Never turn back
, if it's good enough for them, it's good enough for everyone else.

Don't think so. As RAF UAS Instructors (Bulldog in my time in the job, which was late 80s to early 90s) we used to practice turnbacks every month, as well as spinning and high rotational spinning. There was a Hawk accident where it all went wrong and I believe the practice on that type was later reviewed. After all, a pilot sitting on an ejection seat has another option.

One further point: Standard thing was to brief actions in the event of an EFATO before every take off. Sometimes it was assessed as worth a turnback, others not. Runway length, wind velocity, surrounds of the airfield in the direction of takeoff were all considered.

[Pilot DAR]

Plan your takeoff, fly your plan. If a landing straight ahead is not going to be as good as turning away, plan your takeoff to enable a turn away as soon as pratical after takeoff. If it works perfectly (enough runway length) you will be either able to land back straight ahead and stop, or, by the time you're so high you cannot land ahead, safely turn back. There are many cases where this is not going to be possible though.

At my home runway, landing straight ahead after reaching 200 feet would put me in the least favourable landing area. My takeoffs are always planned with a turn toward the safer landing area once safely airborne. When my engine quit a 300 feet years ago I made it into the field off the end of my runway (a 270 degree turn) with no problem, and no damage. Lots of luck and some credit for a plan, which I quickly implemented.

That said, fly the way you are trained! There are lots of reports to confirm that turning back for a downwind landing is a poor idea. I am not an advocate of 180's when there is a suitable landing area in the straight ahead direction.

Pilot DAR

[Malcolm G O Payne]

Shy Torque. In my RAF days onT33s in Canada we were taught to do a 90 degreees one way and then a 270 the other back onto the runway in use. Having said that I only ever taught straight ahead or up to 45 degres of turn in my later days.

[172driver]

While I think the 'never turn back' rule works well for training, in real life the decision depends on a lot of factors: altitude, speed, complete or partial loss of power, type of a/c, most suitable terrain, etc. In the case of both of my 'home' runways (one a big int'l airport, the other a small field), the best landing sites are definitely not straight ahead. There's also one other aspect to consider - according to some statistics compiled by the FAA, some 80-90% of EFATOs happen at the first change in power settings to the engine. So, at least statistically, not touching the power and/or prop lever until, say 1000 AGL (that's what I use as my personal level), should help.

On a different note, I find this advice

I was once told by an instructor that if taking off from a long runway, try to take off close to the end

completely mad! :ugh: There's nothing as useless as the runway behind you and on a proper long one you might actually be able to land back straight ahead if it all goes quiet up front right after t/o.

[Kyprianos Biris]

I have a simple rule for turnbacks.

If I pass 600~800 ft AGL on the upwind/crosswind leg I will try it depending on percentage of power lost and strength of downwind. Anything less than 500ft I'll consider it EFATO (look straight ahead for emergency landing)

Also I always keep in mind where the crosswind (if any) is coming from so that in case something go's wrong I'll turn towards wind to minimize the turn radius towards the runway.

In cases where the departure/pattern crosswind leg is downwind for the wind blowing that day I
A) try to delay a bit the 500ft turn (to gain height up to 700~800)
or
B) cheat the pattern (my ground track) off a bit towards to the direction of the wind blowing

... so that I can make it (glide) back to the downwind runway in case of turnback.

Choice of A) or B) depend on local topology like populated areas, terrain etc.

In the aircraft I fly (TB20) with gear retracted on downwind, abeam the touch down point I need 1200~1300ft AGL to glide to it.

[Genghis the Engineer]

I've researched this a bit over the years, and also did the ADR analysis as a young boffin on a Hawk which the RAF lost following a practice turnback.


It's clearly not a desirable thing to do, but it is noticeable that of all the people who have flown turnbacks, virtually none have ever been killed. On the other hand, virtually none ever got to use the same aeroplane again either!

To make it work, you clearly want to start right at the beginning end (not far end) of the runway. It's not going to work at-all unless you have a fair bit of height available and good visibility to see exactly where you've come from and where you're going.

After that, generally the approach that works is to turn one way first using maximum available roll rate, then fairly rapidly the other way (creating a "teardrop", turning right on the buffet all the way, at a reasonable speed and bank angle.

In still air, from an average runway, my experience (from experiments at a safe height) is that a typical light aircraft, with a very sharp pilot, might just get away with it from around 600ft, a slow microlight about half that, a fast jet 1-3 times that depending upon speed and stall margin at take-off. A good stiff headwind helps.


And with all of this knowledge, would I brief and attempt it? Almost certainly not - I can think of very few scenarios where I'd actually attempt the take-off, and landing ahead isn't a better option. Put another way, if landing ahead isn't a viable option, why am I attempting the take-off?

I understand that this manoeuvre is still taught to, and regularly practiced by UAS QFIs but primarily, I suspect, as an excuse to give them interesting flying and keep their handling skills sharp, than as a realistic emergency drill.

Finally echoing what PilotDAR said - plan it, brief it, execute it. Any pilot failing to brief appropriate emergency actions before take-off, or to stick to his brief in an emergency, is one I'd not care to be sharing an aeroplane with.

G

[gsora]

As a previous post mentioned, glider pilots do train for power failure on launch, in the preflight check mnemonic a last item `E `for Eventualities is included i.e. what do we do in the event, I am a gliding inst and tug pilot and as a tuggy I also add eventualities to my pre takeoff checks.

I think a little pre-planning might save you one day. worth a thought?

[CMDR114]

When I learnt to fly back in the seventies we we were taught never turn back, in fact it was known as the "Pilot Trap".

[C172 Hawk XP]

When I learnt to fly back in the seventies we we were taught never turn back

Exactly ! The very point I made when I started this thread !

But nevertheless very interesting indeed to hear the various different viewpoints and ideas which have been expressed. The really important thing seems to be the preparedness for whatever may happen, bearing in mind all the personal, aircraft, and geographical factors.

[astir 8]

What hasn't been mentioned is AIRSPEED. The pre take-off self briefing for launch failure with a glider winch launch goes.

"In the event of a launch failure I will lower the nose"

(Winch launched gliders are climbing at about 45 degrees nose up so achieving about a 30 degree nose down attitude takes a fairly significant control input)

"I will wait until an airspeed of xx has been reached" xx normally being the approach speed for the day which depends on glider type & windspeed and is well above normal stalling speed.

The accent here on waiting is that just because you have lowered the nose does not mean that you instantaneously have safe manoevring speed. Stalling speed during the pushover will be significantly below normal and any aircraft takes a noticeable amount of time to gain airspeed after lowering the nose.

"I will assess whether I can land safely straight ahead"

"If yes I will do so"

"If I am too high I will turn left/right" and reassess" - the turn is normally away from the airfield so as to open up the whole field for landing options and the options to be reassessed are a crosswind/downwind or limited circuit approach

And if a pupil doesn't run through that lot as part of the cockpit checks the instructor will almost certainly give him a "cable break" just as a reminder.

Note the stress however on not trying any form of turn until you've got the airspeed to do it safely. You'd have to be pretty far off the deck in a lot of powered aircraft!

[RatherBeFlying]

On my Spring Check a year and a bit ago, we were using 36 and had a good crosswind from the left; so, I told the checker that on a rope break above 300' I would turn right and land on 03 as the x-wind would set me up nicely.

Up we go and I'm calling out every 100' and pointing out potential landing spots; at my 300' call, the fiend in back pops the release; so, nose down, wait for 55 kt, turn, and start working the spoilers.

Turnbacks from 300' in a glider with 30:1 glide ratio are pretty straightforward. With your average piston single with 10:1 glide ratio, I'd want 900'.

Now there are courageous operators who do practise rope breaks and turnbacks from 200' in Schweitzer 2-33s -- not much margin there, nor would there be in a piston single at 600'. From that height everything has to be done just right.

[Final 3 Greens]

Astir8

Light aircraft are differnt to gliders.

Your comments in your last sentence don't make sense for most aeroplane pilots, as we'd be climbing away at VS x 1.3 or a similar figure pretty quickly after lift off.

[ShyTorque]

I quote from my RAF CFS lesson plan (for the Bulldog, just dug it out from under it's dusty cover):

TURNBACK
Lower nose to 80 kt attitude
Smooth and positive 45 degrees AOB
Level wings on reciprocal
Flap A/R
Min height 350' agl

I have practiced from 350' (we didn't practice the landing, we only ever went around from a low position to avoid the risk of aircraft damage) and I certainly wouldn't want to attempt it any lower. By that I mean physically and positively beginning the manoeuvre, not thinking about it, or having a look. There were some practices where I said to myself "that would have hurt for real".

I would stress that the RAF taught the turnback as a last-ditch technique for where there is no alternative forced landing area upwind or crosswind and it's certainly not for the indecisive or ham fisted. Someone mentioned flying on the buffet. I wouldn't do that, a flick from 45 degrees AOB close to the ground would be irrecoverable. The 80 kts mandated for the Bulldog kept us just out of the buffet.

Once the surface wind picks up, the more likely I would be to discount the turnback option altogether.

I would advise anyone not taught turnbacks, or not in current practice on the aircraft type in question not to attempt it. Sometimes it might be better just to depart from an alternative runway in the first place, if there is a choice. Although you might land on the airfield near the fire engine, it could well be a hard, fast landing and possibly not on the runway. After all, who deliberately and regularly practices downwind approaches and /or landings?

[ProfChrisReed]

Final 3 greens wrote:

Your comments in your last sentence don't make sense for most aeroplane pilots, as we'd be climbing away at VS x 1.3 or a similar figure pretty quickly after lift off.I think you would be surprised. A winch launching glider is normally climbing at more than VS x 1.3. If the launch fails, the pilot needs to push over immediately to around 45 degrees nose down, and it may take an appreciable time (2-3 seconds or more) for the airspeed to regain VS x 1.3. A delay of only a few seconds, if launch speed is VS x 1.5 or less, is likely to lead to a stall, though the climbing attitude is probably steeper than most powered a/c..

Now imagine a far draggier powered a/c in the same situation - I'd guess that at the top of the push over the airspeed might be less than VS (but reduced G so still flying), and maybe 5+ seconds to regain flying speed.

The only way to know for sure would be to try this for real (at height, obviously!). Adopt normal climb, stop engine (noting altitude as you do so), push over, pull out when flying speed is regained (again noting altitude). Add a margin to allow for slowed reactions if it happens for real.

The point is that I wouldn't rely on inertia to help you out for long in a climbing attitude if the engine stops, whatever your starting airspeed.

[Airbus Girl]

This is an interesting thread, but I am surprised no-one has talked about WHY turnbacks at low level are not taught/ recommended and I am also surprised that a number of people have alluded to the fact they don't do a pre take-off emergency brief (even if just for themselves).

I always take a few minutes to self-brief before take-off. I consider the runway direction/ length, wind, airfield, obstacles, etc. On take-offs I always have a look around so I am familiar with the "land out" fields, should the engine quit. Its much easier to spend a few minutes on the ground considering the options rather than in the air with a dead engine.

Part of the consideration is the turn back scenario. There is a base height, below which I won't turn back. This height will depend on various factors, including the wind.

On take-off the main reason turn backs at low level are not taught is that it is very easy to stall it and/or spin in. People make a shallow turn back, because the ground is near, and/or try to stretch the glide to reach the airfield and this often ends in an aircraft spinning in. Or people at very low level make a tight turn and hit the ground with the wing tip.

If you land straight ahead then you are in full control, you have flying speed and can influence where you land and how. Always consider an area within 30 degrees either side of the nose, aim for it then just keep the airspeed under control. You can then apply S turns, side slips, etc. as required. A controlled landing followed by running into a hedge or something is not gonna be great, but is survivable. A stretched glide where you stall and spin is probably not going to be.

Which is why the height before turn back thing is so dependent on aircraft type, conditions on the day, etc.

Someone said that why brief before take off because there are many things that could happen. Yes, that is true, but the only one that needs a quick decision is the engine quitting or a serious fire.

In my day job I fly an aircraft with 2 engines. If one quits it still flys. Yet we always always do a full emergency brief. This includes the initial actions if the engine quits, and consideration of which direction we are going if it happens (usually straight ahead, but could mean an emergency turn if there are obstacles straight ahead), and also we consider whether we would go and hold (and where) to sort out the problem, or if its a dire emergency (say engine fire) then we consider our options. If the wind is calm, or we take off with a tailwind then that could mean a 180 turn and land back, once we have sufficient height, or it could mean an abbreviated circuit. Alternatively, if the weather isn't great then we decide on an alternative landing airport that is nearby should we not be able to get back into the take off airport due to the weather.

All of these considerations are exactly the same considerations for light aircraft. The only difference is that there is usually only one engine!!

It might seem dull to brief before every flight but on the one time you need it, you will be glad you did it.

[pilotbear]

Excellent reply Airbus Girl, :ok:was wondering if any one was going to say that.
One other item in addition is that you will be more than likely going from a headwind situation to a tailwind one and it will take a significant pitch down to maintain any airspeed, (which could mean a loss of 20kts and more so to maintain it in a 30deg bank) which at low altitude is going to be hard to have the courage to do as most peoples instinct is to keep away from the ground as you stated.
I often fly a Cirrus for recreation and it glides like a brick, so EFATO would be very entertaining to deal with especially out of Elstree:eek:
Totally agree with the briefing suggestion, like you we do it as a matter of course and when something happens you just get on with it.

[Lister Noble]

Sorry ,I'm confused.
You are doing say 60 knots airspeed with a 20 knot headwind,turn about and fly downwind.
You surely still have 60 knots airspeed?
The groundspeed will vary by 40 knots but not airspeed.
Lister

[pilotbear]

Firstly you will have a high G/S on approach and touchdown which is going to reduce thinking time and probably hurt a lot more.
However, my point here is the need for instant momentum. The second you lose the thrust you will decelerate your G/S.

If order to have a 50 kt IAS in a 10 kt headwind your G/S is 40 kts.

In order to have an IAS of 50 kt with a 10 kt tailwind you would need a 60 kt g/s. Where are you going to get that momentum from?

If your stall speed is 45kt you will have a problem unless you accelerate your G/S.

G/S + W/S = IAS so 40+10=50 but with tailwind 40 + (-10) =30

so you need a G/S of 60kt to fly.

Where are you going to get that increase in momentum in a few seconds with a drag inducing windmilling prop in a 30deg bank turn.....only by pointing AT the ground, who is really going to do that?

An 'aircraft' will fly at zero G/S with a strong enough headwind, I have done it in a C150. However, if that wind suddenly drops to zero or a tailwind it will fall out of the sky. That is why you add a gust factor to the approach speed.

During the turn there is a point where you lose the benefit of yr 10kt H/W with the same or a decreasing G/S. You then (relative to G/S and direction) get wind from behind the wing (with an increasing stall speed power off/ banked attitude etc). But you still have to maintain the G/S IAS differential that keeps you flying.
Yes you will have some G/S increase due to the tailwind but that is not flowing over the wing enough is it until you have a groundspeed as in the example of 60kts.

My point is that you have a continuous acceleration in a turn from upwind to downwind which can only be achieved with a 'pitch steep' descending turn.


Best to land ahead

I would be interested in a discussion about this as there are apparently very different opinions.

[possel]

I used to fly from a "challenging" 600yd strip, as a member of a group which I joined with a brand new PPL, 47 hours total. I remember my first take-off from the strip with a fellow member (ex-RAF, almost 10,000hrs as QFI) who was checking me out.

Me: "In event of engine failure, you have control!"

[gpn01]

If your stall speed is 45kt you will have a problem unless you accelerate your G/S.

G/S + W/S = IAS so 40+10=50 but with tailwind 40 + (-10) =30

so you need a G/S of 60kt to fly.



Whilst airborne, groundspeed is irrelevant. Aerodynamics work irrespective of what the ground is doing (unless you collide with it).

I think that turning back on yourself is discouraged because it generally requires a high level of skill and judgement to execute such a manouver safely, particularly when under stress. When discussing launch-failure eventualities (I'm a glider pilot) the option to do a 180 in the event of a problem is always considered. That's where looking at things like windspeed, directrion, other traffic, etc. before you take off helps as you can assess and discount options and come up with a plan that you can execute WHEN a failure happens (and I always assume that it will).

[strake]

I was reading this thread yesterday and was reminded of a chapter in Alan "Bunny" Bansom's book, Be a Better Pilot, called "The Impossible Turn".
I looked at it last night and it's worth a read if you can get hold of a copy. His view was almost no matter what is ahead/to either side of you on take-off in a light aircraft, take it everytime over trying to turn back unless you are over 700ft. He supports this with various diagrams and equations which appear to show that it is indeed an impossible turn.

[doubleu-anker]

Depends how high you are of course.

LAND AHEAD!! Only slight turns to avoid obstructions, that is the golden rule for us average pilots.

You will have a 90% chance of survival if you land "under control", I.E. flying and not stalled. Think of the increase in stall speed to pull off a 180 deg turn not to mention the extra rate of decent. If you have taken off into wind, which one would hope, think of the increase in G/S even as a percentage, on landing, trying to land on a reciprocal heading from a T/O as been mentioned previously. Have you ever seen a bird attempt to land downwind? No. So there is your answer.

Even if you loose the wings etc., on deceleration, it will help to absorb the impact forces. Just like a break fall in sport. The a/c will most likely be totalled but you will probably survive. The a/c can be replaced.

If you are in a turn and stall or dig a wing, you are dead, period.

I cannot speak for the Saturn V rocket but I have flown some high performance a/c and always pre briefed myself, "LAND AHEAD" within reason but never think about turning back.

I am talking powered flight here, as I have never flown a glider I am not qualified to comment.

[pilotbear]

gpn01- you missed the point really

[poetpilot]

I'm surprised no one has mentioned practice - at safe altitude - in your individual aircraft as a means of determining aircraft performance, response, perspective, glide rate (the real picture, not just theory from the PoH) under various wind and weather conditions.

To my mind this is essential as a pre-requisite to any plans of what you can or cannot do (and at what height).

I've seen turnbacks attempted by very experienced pilots who failed and ended up in hospital or the graveyeard. I've also had a safe altitude failure myself where I was able to complete a tight but calm circuit back to the field. But only because I had practiced and knew what to expect in terms of performance.

[ShyTorque]

I'm surprised no one has mentioned practice

But I did, twice in post #19 and at least four times in post #31. :ugh:

[gpn01]

gpn01- you missed the point really

I'm not quite sure what point you were trying to make as it would appear thst you were suggesting that the stalling speed will be affecting by windspeed and direction. My point was that stalling speed relates to airspeed and has nothing to do with groundspeed.

[execExpress]

Airbus girl wrote: "I always take a few minutes to self-brief before take-off. I consider the runway direction/ length, wind, airfield, obstacles, etc. On take-offs I always have a look around so I am familiar with the "land out" fields, should the engine quit. Its much easier to spend a few minutes on the ground considering the options rather than in the air with a dead engine."

Would also recommend GoogleEarth as a great pre-flight resource to research options for EFATO.

E.g. have a look at where you might prefer to steer the aircraft having had EFATO at 400-600ft off Blackbushe or Fairoaks westerly runways. Not obvious even from the comfort of an armchair?

[Mark1234]

pilotbear - just gently, I'm afraid you're misinformed, and gpn01 - you're not getting his/her point. What you're talking of is the downwind turn myth. It's the subject of many vitriolic discussions (just use search). Smarter people than I can prove it is not so mathematically - it's not intuitive (and I had to be convinced)

Might I quietly suggest that in the interests of topic drift we leave the downwind turn debate out of this thread? Perhaps a different thread, or have a read of previous wars on the subject!

Regarding the turnback - I think most would be somewhat suprised by:
1) how many knots you'll loose pitching from a normal climb angle even if you identify (and accept) the engine failure immediately
2) how much altitude you'll loose in making a 180 turn.

As someone else said, go high, go play. Figure out the numbers for your aeroplane - pulling the throttle to idle should be sufficient for a ballpark figure. But make sure you do verify airspeed well above stall before you start the turn.

Obviously the viable turnback alt will depend hugely on your particular aeroplane - on the right day you can make a complete circuit and land in the same direction as takeoff from 300 ft in a glider, to the other extreme some a/c wouldn't make it from 1500ft overhead - it all depends. Kyprianos Biris - I would suggest that if you need 12-1300ft from abeam the numbers you could make your circuit a bit closer (depending on local traffic regs). General good practise would be to fly a circuit such that you can get to a runway from any point in the circuit.

Going back to the gliders (I fly both), there's a demo they do - spin off a (simulated) winch launch failure:
Pitch for a typical climb angle with speed, as the airspeed drops to winch launch speed, you declare the failure, and commence your pitch down. On reaching a 'normal' glinding attitude, you commence a turn. All of a sudden the world is full of rapidly revolving fields.

Why? Because the wing continues to fly throug the pushover (typically around 0G - fairly aggressive) because it is unloaded. As you level it gets re-loaded and instantly transitions to a mushing stall state, without the usual paraphenalia of progressing towards the stall. Next control you move tips the whole thing into a spin.

Indications are a low airspeed, and an abnormaly rearward stick position for the gliding attitude.

Apologies for the essay :)

[poetpilot]

Well said Mark.

Apologies for missing the references to practice in previous posts.

On another occasion, practice EFATOs whilst on microlight AFI course, we experienced precisely what Mark describes. Happily, though, we didnt end up in a spin because we "recovered" with wings level and found that the aircraft was still mushing down and losing height very rapidly (i.e. just about stalling). This was from a 350 foot simulated EFATO in an Ikarus C42.

Yes, it slowed down very quickly, as most micros do. Stick forward, seems to be recovering (attitude), speed increasing but not too fast, very weak and mushy control feel, nose down more, still mushing, heck ground coming up, power on and we levelled out about 10 feet off the deck before getting decent control back and climbing away. My AFI instructor then demoed to me the "right" way to do it .... and got exactly the same scenario!

In a true EFATO we would have survived, but probably would have been injured in the heavy touchdown. It would have been debatable whether we could have got enough pitch control to get the nose up for the touchdown before contacting.

There's a good case, unless you really need to, to fly the climbout at a little above Vy in order to buy a bit of airspeed if the donk stops. There's a damn good case not to fly out at Vx as you probably won't get the airspeed and attitude back in time. If you really need to clear that hedge/tree like it shows in the textbook, and it's that tight, why are you considering taking off?

[Final 3 Greens]

Prof Chris Reed wrote

Now imagine a far draggier powered a/c in the same situation - I'd guess that at the top of the push over the airspeed might be less than VS (but reduced G so still flying), and maybe 5+ seconds to regain flying speed.

Take a PA28-181 climbing out at the recommended 76kias at normal attitude.

Are you saying that the airspeed will drop from 76 to less than 55 knots (VS1 IIRC) in an instant?

I don't think so.

The effect of the dragging prop disc will be noticeable and the aircraft will pitch down sharply to regain its trimmed speed (which also is best glide), but it won't stop flying, unless mishandled.

The main threat will be the very high RoD and the limited options for forced landing from low altitude.

Gliders and SEPs are different beasts.

[gpn01]

Mark has it pretty much right...clearly you were given some good instruction originally about stalling, reduced-G, etc. Rather suspect that the letters KCZ, ECZ and CFA will have appeared in your logbook before you went South!

[Airbus Girl]

Its important to have tested out the plane you fly, as to how well it glides. I remember doing a flight test once in an Arrow, where the examiner asked me, when returning to an airport, to cut the power when I was sure we could get in. I told him it would be very late because the aircraft glided like a brick. I told him when I wanted to cut the power and he thought I was mad. So he made me go round again and then he told me where to cut the power. I told him there wasn't a cat in hells chance of making the field. He laughed and took control - and was very surprised when he realised we didn't have cat in hells chance of making the field!!!!! He tried a couple more times and still didn't manage it, at which point he gave me back control!!! I passed I hasten to add. But it just goes to show that a) aircraft don't always glide as well as you think they will and b) experience doesn't count for everything.

[Mark1234]

Final 3 Greens 76 knots to 55 in an instant - no. In the time it takes you to recognise identify and accept the engine failure AND pitch to a gliding attitude ABSOLUTELY. (and you want about 73 for best glide anyway, assuming MTOW..)

I can't think of a good way to prove it, but whenever you do these things as exercises you're cognitively primed for something to happen - and a specific something at that. You react quickly because you're pre-programmed (and skipping identification of the issue). I'm quite sure that it's possible to go from 76knot climb to a glide without stalling, but don't underestimate the 'oh **** is this really happening' factor. A split second may be all it needs.

And yes, gliders are somewhat different beasts in many ways, but they still fly by the same aerodynamics.

gpn01.. that they might.. :E

[Final 3 Greens]

Final 3 Greens 76 knots to 55 in an instant - no. In the time it takes you to recognise identify and accept the engine failure AND pitch to a gliding attitude ABSOLUTELY. (and you want about 73 for best glide anyway, assuming MTOW..)

Mark

It says 76 in the POH I have here, but whatever.

Light aircraft do obey the laws of aerodyanamics, BUT

1) the pitch angle of a glider on a winch is about 45 degrees, whereas the lightie is about 7

2) the light aircraft is already trimmed for it's best glide speed (which usually coincides with best climb) and will react to the loss of energy (in the form of engine power) and airspeed by seeking to regain it through a pitch down

I'm quite sure that it's possible to go from 76knot climb to a glide without stalling, but don't underestimate the 'oh **** is this really happening' factor. A split second may be all it needs.

Yes it is possible to go from 76knot climb to a glide without stalling. it is required for a PPL to demonstrate how to do this during training in the UK.

It isn't a big deal in a light aircraft - what is a big deal is getting down safely with very limited options and a higher than usual rate of descent.

A well trained PPL will instinctively pitch down) or at least allow the aircraft to) to maintain airspeed.

Perhaps the training standards in Australia are different to the UK where I learned.

but don't underestimate the 'oh **** is this really happening' factor

In an EFATO there isn't much time to think, which is why the UK training regime includes training to maintain airspeed and land ahead. This instinctive reaction, if trained properly, is safe, which takes us full circle back to the thread subject, which is really about at what stage do you transition from EFATO thinking to forced landing thinking.

I believe that your comment might better apply to an engine failure in the cruise, where there is more time and options, that can be squandered by failing to react quickly and implement the checklist vital actions.

[Mark1234]

Possibly the difference between an a -181 and a -161, don't think we need argue over 3 knots. Forget any differences in training standards, I'm an expat pom in any case..

I personally think you're overstating the differences, but I'm happy to agree to disagree. The glider doesn't have to stall either, it requires prompt and positive action from the pilot, as does the powered a/c (my previous post should probably have been worded 'absolutely possible').

Getting back to the main topic I think we're agreed - nose down and look for something soft! If there's any doubt in your mind about making the turnback, you're too low.... And hey, it's another reason to make glide approaches - that way you're familiar with the glide performance :E

[Final 3 Greens]

Mark

I don't think I am overstating the matter, just reacting to statements such as

Now imagine a far draggier powered a/c in the same situation - I'd guess that at the top of the push over the airspeed might be less than VS (but reduced G so still flying), and maybe 5+ seconds to regain flying speed.

And also that a glider needs a 45 degree pitch down at the top of the winch in case of cable break - I don't dispute that, but anybody pitching 45 degrees down in a PA28 following EFATO is going to make a big hole in the ground :}

My point is that a well trimmed PA28 will regain airspeed before stalling in this situation (particularly as Vy and Vglide are the same figure), so long as the pilot does not hold back pressure - if you think I am overstating this, check it out at a safe altitude. I have.

Of course, a well trained pilot will give the yoke a little push to help.

And we are agreed about securing airspeed and looking for the best possible site (perhaps within 20 degrees either side.)

I would have to be very, very sure of getting back to turnback and realistically that would be likely to be 1,000 feet plus, close to the threshold with a good long runway - and even still I might prefer to land off field.

The other posters recommending keeping options open and making command decisions in context have my vote.

Also, I agree with you about glide approaches, you learn a lot about your aircraft through these, but its not the same as real engine off due (a) some residual thrust and (b) no drag form a windmilling prop - but I don't like practising in the latter configuration!

[ProfChrisReed]

My point was simply that you can only know how fast you will lose airspeed if you try it. The glider example was added to show how fast an extremely efficient airframe will lose energy. A powered a/c "... in the same situation ..", i.e. a steep climb, would lose energy at a frightening rate; lesser climb angle = slower loss of energy. How much slower I have no idea - but nor does anyone unless they've tried it (as I see you have from the preceding post, but of course that's only accurate for the type aircraft you fly I would have thought - would it be true for e.g. an Extra in full climb?).

It is worth noting the point made by Mark1234 and poetpilot about the difference between normal flying attitude and normal airspeed during a pushover. The risk in turning too early is a potential gotcha which is always a surprise to pilots who've never experienced it. Not one to try without an instructor on board.

[Coffin Corner]

Why does everyone think that a turnback incorporates a 180° turn? It doesn't, it's 360°. Or near as damn it.
If you turned 180° from your position you will be on a reciprocal heading but North or South of the runway (should the rwy be orientated 09/27). You then have to make a 90° turn to regain the centreline, and a further 90° to turn to final. All this whilst that lovely wind has blown you round the turn, and is now blowing you downwind at a rate of knots.
In light of this I only teach my students to turn back if you have 1 commodity, and that's the height to do it. The height you would lose in the 360° turn will be significant (to maintain airspeed). I teach to pick a landing site within 30° either side the nose, and only extend this to 60° either side should you have no options at 30°.
End of the day it has already been said, you have to make a judgement call, because the engine doesn't know what stage of flight you are at, if its going ot fail it'll fail. You have to deal with the situation presented at the time, and they could all be different

CC

[Final 3 Greens]

Coffin Corner

I agree with everything you say, apart from the 360.

As Ghengis said earlier, the best thing to do would be to fly a teardrop, so more like a 270 if you do it well, but the height loss would still be huge.

But, that apart, you nail the argument IMHO.

[Final 3 Greens]

My point was simply that you can only know how fast you will lose airspeed if you try it.

Dear Prof., the point is that we do know as we train for it during the PPL and, if we have any sense, we practice post PPL.

We also practice glide approaches, in fact when I operated from Fowlmere, I used the glide approach as SOP for various reasons, so we are familiar with the London Common characteristics of our spamcans with minimal thust - clearly no thrust and a windmilling prop reduces performance further.

[BEagle]

I was also taught - and used to teach - turnbacks when I flew the Bulldog.

It was an option of last resort, as far as I was concerned, and I would always plan other avenues if they were feasible.

Reaction for the turnback had to be instant and instinctive. Immediate selection of the correct descending steep turn attitude was essential - and the objective was to land on a flat part of the aerodrome, not necessarily the runway. Which could, of course, be occupied..... You had to be above the key height to start a turnback, otherwise it would kill you.

I gave a relatively good student a simulated EFATO at about 200 ft agl once and he started a turnback....for all of 0.25 sec before I took control and re-applied power. We'd recently changed to QNH take-offs and he'd forgotten the elevation, so was lower than he thought. If you need to have instinctive height keys, QNH can kill far more easily than QFE.

On the Hawk I was also taught turnbacks. Because it had such an excellent wing, you would utilise excess energy by turning hard one way, before reversing into a gliding turn on the buffet nibble. It worked fine, but needed practice.

Whereas on the Gnat and Hunter, we had no such option. It was invariably a bang out situation if the engine failed after take-off.

[Coffin Corner]

Final 3 Greens

Agree with you on most occasions, but assume the engine goes bang at 700ft, or even 1,000ft, and the wind at 1000ft is say 25kts, there is no way you will make a teardrop return because by the time you have turned downwind you will have been blown a seriously long way back to the runway (remember doing circuits in strong winds?), also because of a strong headwind and a low groundspeed (& airspeed in the climb) your position at a set height will be closer to the runway than it's imagined, so personally I think you will have to do more of a 360° than a 270° to make the centreline.
Again as we all know all situations are different, in calm winds I agree you can get away with a teardrop, but when the winds are strong you have very little chance :ok:

[Final 3 Greens]

CC

Fair point.

If the wind was that strong, that would be another reason to consider landing ahead if feasible - VSo = 49knots - 25 = 24 knots touchdown speed - much less energy to lose (or absorb if the aircraft hits something.)

As you say, it's all about judgment on the day.

[ShyTorque]

A 360 turn back onto finals isn't the turnback as I was taught because it's a glide circuit!

A turnback, as Beagle agrees, is a landing on the airfield but not necessarily on the same runway as the one you departed from.

I would much rather land back into wind and if any option was available to do so, I would take it. A turnback is for situations when the other options look very poor.

Left hand circuit at Dundee, anyone?

[Coffin Corner]

All very well ShyTorque if your airport has multiple runways, unfortunately in alot of scenarios this isn't the case.

I just did a little experiment using RANT XL

http://i69.photobucket.com/albums/i48/Deano777/fsscr047.jpg

All tracks show an aircraft climbing at 75kts, and had the engine failure 1 minute 5 seconds after the upwind end of the runway.

Yellow line wind = 270/25
Red line wind = 270/05
Cyan line wind = 090/05

As we can see any kind of headwind really blows you round the turn. Would I turn back in any of these situations? No way.

Final 3 Greens, I totally agree, landing ahead with a 25kt headwind is more favourable, but I have known (as I'm sure we all have) the wind at circuit height to be considerably stronger than the surface wind.
End of the day you just have to make the best of a very bad situation, and if that means putting the plane on top some trees then so be it :\

[ShyTorque]

CC,

But what's the obsession with making a runway? The aim is to make the best of a bad job and get back to the airfield because there's nowhere else to go. If you land into wind you won't have the benefit of a runway either. We didn't have the benefit of a computer to simulate engine failure so we used to practice turnbacks for real; as I said, every month, as a requirement. We didn't fly them like automatons, we used to see different wind conditions, obviously including crosswinds from each side. As I said in a previous post, some attempts would have been more successful than others. In some conditions on some runways I would brief that a turnback wasn't a viable option. But what to do if your only available runway took you over the sea in the dark?

[Coffin Corner]

No obsession ShyTorque, re-read the thread title, this is all about returning to the reciprocal runway is it not? I am merely discussing what was asked.

Making an arbitrary turn back in the hope that you land "somewhere near the airfield" to me is not an option either.
Personally my options would be this, Engine fails, maintain flying speed, pick a landing site within 30°, if there isn't one pick one within 60°, if there isn't one look 90°. If, and only if I had the height I'd think about turning back. If there still isn't one the I'll plough it on top of whatever is going to give me the softest landing, if that's a tree great, if it's someone's rooftop then great.
I Don't think you can use the "But what to do if your only available runway took you over the sea in the dark? as an analogy because I think that's a pretty obvious answer :ok:

[ShyTorque]

Making an arbitrary turn back in the hope that you land "somewhere near the airfield" to me is not an option either.

Obviously that's entirely your choice.

It was, however, as both I and Beagle have mentioned, an RAF requirement that their QFIs regularly practiced doing so. It was NEVER an arbitrary turn, btw. Perhaps no point in discussing it further, but I would ask: How many times have you actually carried out a practice turnback?

[Coffin Corner]

ShyTorque

Don't get defensive fella, it's a discussion isn't it? & a healthy one at that :ok:

I think it's great to practice it, and if you've had the opportunity to do so then great. To answer your question - never, because the airfield I instruct from is rather busy and it isn't allowed, I'd love to try it though.

The good thing about these discussions is that there is no right or wrong answer, not only is the situation a variable, but the pilot also :ok:

[gpn01]

In gliding circles launch failures are regularly practiced and are used as part of currency checking/evaluating preparedeness for first solo. One of the options on practice aerotow launch failure will be to engineer a situation that'll require either a turn towards a landing area somewhere on the airfield or a landing on the recipricol of the takeoff direction. I think (might have changed) that in the USA part of the standard FAA (Gliding) test is a launch failure which requires a 180 back to land.

[ShyTorque]

CC, No, not defensive, but it's pointless to discuss further a manoeuvre that I and many others routinely practiced, when you claim it won't work.

Yet you say you have never flown the manoeuvre yourself because the airfield you instruct from is too busy. You have only ever flown from just one airfield?

Enjoy the further discussion. :)

[ExSp33db1rd]

I agree with everything you say, apart from the 360.

Coffin Corner said : 180 + 90 + 90

When I learned to navigate that added up to 360.

But then of course the World has changed a little in the last 50 yrs.

Blame Bill Gates.

The only thing to really remember is : Fly The Aeroplane. Right down to the ground, don't get distracted from this one fact, and remember that a glider pilot ALWAYS makes a power off forced landing, and they usually survive.

The only time I have had to make that decision is when the power failed as I tried to correct a downdraft on a glide approach to a short runway in a flapless aeroplane, so all Lifelines used up, couldn't ask the audience, couldn't ring a friend ( OK, I could have set it up better, hindsight is great ) the only choice was between two trees to the field beyond, so decided that it would be best to be lowest and slowest when the wings were torn off, so got down to thistle height just above the stall, actually got through OK and landed. Learned a lot, again, basically the engine will stop at the worst possible moment, and Fly The Aeroplane.

( always come in higher now, and with a trickle of power to encourage the engine !!! ) My sideslips are immaculate.

Cheers.

[Final 3 Greens]

Exsp33b1rd

Coffin Corner said : 180 + 90 + 90

When I learned to navigate that added up to 360.

What part of

As Ghengis said earlier, the best thing to do would be to fly a teardrop, so more like a 270 if you do it well

did you have trouble understanding?

You do know what a "teardrop" is, oh sorry, that would be George flying the entry to the hold at Birdseed then.

[Final 3 Greens]

ShyTorque

The aim is to make the best of a bad job and get back to the airfield because there's nowhere else to go.

Out of interest, did you ever fly in Malta?

The terrain is challenging to say the least, rocky, gullies, hills, no fields as such.

SOP for the Bulldogs of the AFM (Armed Forces of Malta) is to try and ditch in the event of engine failure over the islands.

I think a turnback to Luqa/downwind touchdown would be definitely worth considering, as the grassed areas around the runway or even a taxiway would increase the survival potential enormously compared to landing off airfield.

In that circumstance, a strong headwind would help to position the aircaft back over the field.

[MadamBreakneck]

Given that pretty decent flight simulators are widely available these days (even in educational institutions), I'm surprised there isn't a thesis published somewhere identifying the factors and issues.

Surely the "don't turn back" rule is initially intended to give low hours pilots (low hours in type, I mean) or low currency (in type) pilots a simple rule to follow with a decent chance of success in a very stressful situation.

We've all heard of people who've been badly hurt in a failed turn-back attempt. I've never heard of the equivalent in a land-ahead - though maybe I've not been listening hard enough.

Finally, and then I'll crawl back in my hole I promise, shouldn't glider pilots smugly comparing their every-day landings with a light aircraft forced landing really be considering for comparison a sudden and unexpected failure of theairbrakes to jammed full open? That's a much more reasonable comparison and I wonder how they'd cope :(

MB

[Genghis the Engineer]

Given that pretty decent flight simulators are widely available these days (even in educational institutions), I'm surprised there isn't a thesis published somewhere identifying the factors and issues.

Surely the "don't turn back" rule is initially intended to give low hours pilots (low hours in type, I mean) or low currency (in type) pilots a simple rule to follow with a decent chance of success in a very stressful situation.

We've all heard of people who've been badly hurt in a failed turn-back attempt. I've never heard of the equivalent in a land-ahead - though maybe I've not been listening hard enough.

Finally, and then I'll crawl back in my hole I promise, shouldn't glider pilots smugly comparing their every-day landings with a light aircraft forced landing really be considering for comparison a sudden and unexpected failure of theairbrakes to jammed full open? That's a much more reasonable comparison and I wonder how they'd cope :(

MB

Hi MB. There's a reasonable first stab at the flight mechanics in a paper here (http://jeremy.zawodny.com/flying/turnback.pdf) but I can't say it impressed me as being more than a first stab and the lack of any FT data in the paper weakens it substantially.

I've been trying for years to pull together a bit of a research project on this - I think in about a year I might finally have pulled together the right people and resources and manage to publish it circa 2010.

G

[ShyTorque]

We've all heard of people who've been badly hurt in a failed turn-back attempt. I've never heard of the equivalent in a land-ahead - though maybe I've not been listening hard enough.

If you'd been listening in 1977 you might have remembered the RN EFTS Bulldog in that force landed on the north Yorkshire moors following engine failure during a navex. I flew over it shortly afterwards in a Jet Provost. The aircraft looked intact but the occupants, a QFI and his student, were both killed.

October 1992. I lost a very close friend at Queen's UAS, NI (he was the squadron boss and very experienced on type). Failed engine in his Bulldog, landed out in a farmer's field. Killed outright on impact with a stone wall hidden inside a hedge. Female student very seriously injured.

[belowradar]

I appreciate that most are warned not to turn back due to the fact that they are low hours and flying low performance aircraft however....


If you are flying a single turbine aircraft with an excess of power on departure and a very high rate of climb (so much so that you need to throttle back) then your problem could well be too much height to loose after 180 degree turnback.

As long as you stay proficient at the manouver and brief the min height for turnback in the event of power failure at the specific airport and after determining wind etc then can't see a problem.

Would need to be sure that there are no good options for a straight ahead landing though:ok:

[ExSp33db1rd]

did you have trouble understanding?


Final 3 Greens - Why not ask Coffin Corner ? - he was the one that said 180 + 90 + 90, not me. I only did the maths, meanwhile I'll try to teach my microlight students to survive, not to bother with trying to do a maths exam in a rattling steel cabinet.

Don't bother, I'm outta here.

[Pilot DAR]

Somewhere in here I posted to "plan the flight and fly the plan". Today it was worth the effort!

I took off for a flight test of a recently repaired autopilot, in a Lake Amphibian. Wind 180 @ 7kt, so I used runway 18, full 6000 foot length. 200 feet up, and the gear had just retracted, the loud bang and clatter up and behind me, and the shaking engine pylon, told me this was going to be a very short flight. Pullng the power off helped. A quick teardrop (flying, not from eyes), gear and flap selected down really fast, and I was pointed back at runway 36, fast but nice touchdown halfway down the runway. I found I still had power to taxi, and the engine was now smooth again. When I parked, and got out, the reason was clear. The cowl latch had broken it's lock, and released, allowing the half cowl to open, and flop all over the place. Everyone was quite pleased that it did not rip off, and go out through a quite new propeller! It's amazing how much the flopping cowl made the whole pylon shake!

The farthest I got from the button of runway 18 was about 7000 feet, beyond that was miles of unwelcoming forest in all directions. I've aborted two other takeoffs from this airport, and should have aborted a third. The two aborts were just relands, on the same runway, so they don't really count. How glad I am that I keep planning for a failure. It would appear that I have not had my last!

Prepare for the unexpected!

Pilot DAR

[Gertrude the Wombat]

full 6000 foot length. 200 feet up, and the gear had just retracted
... so you'd still got plenty of the runway ahead of you, so why the requirement to turn back, why not just land ahead on the remaining runway?? - what am I missing here??

[ShyTorque]

Didn't he say he'd used the full length of the runway? :)

[Romeo India Xray]

I always used to tell students that their engine was going to fail on THIS departure. I used to get a plan of action from them with various step heights/gates e.g. "If I am sufficiently low and their is sufficient runway ahead then I will land ahead, if I am too high to land back onto this runway then I will take the grass to the right, above that I will take the large field to the north of the field and land downwind (there were not many good land ahead options) etc"

I had my first power loss at about 200' on climbout on an early solo flight as a student (at the time I thought it was a total power loss). It is amazing how quickly you can think in circumstances like this. After nailing the speed I elected to try to turn through 270 degrees and land on a disused runway (triangular runway layout). I knew I would have insufficient height to do more than 180 degrees of the turn, but hoped I would have rudder authority to kick enough of the rest off in the flare, to touch down closely enough aligned to keep the thing on the hard stuff. My only options ahead were green, made of wood and rose to 30' or so. During the turn I had carb heat on, mags checked, prayers said. Engine recovered (I now suspect it was carb ice). Went on to fly a normal cct keeping VERY close to the runway. Taxied back and the instructor declined my invitation to retire to the bar, insted sending me straight back out for more ccts. Best thing he could have done. :D

Now when I fly GA, it is mostly a 182 from an airfield with a single 1600m runway and huge 1600m triangular field next to it, as well as a taxiway with two 800m straight segments. EFAT from here and I will certainly turn. Land ahead involves some cranes from RW 14 and some industrial units from RW32. Before each flight I brief myself to land back on if able, turn through 90 degrees, 180 or to fly a full abridged cct with a mid runway touchdown as necessary.

RIX

P.s. out of interest, how many of you are truly comfortable with slipping, should the best option be too close with too much height in hand? I practice slipping to touchdown even in the 182.

[First_Principal]

Taxied back and the instructor declined my invitation to retire to the bar, insted sending me straight back out for more ccts. Best thing he could have done

Not in the same a/c I trust!? If I had a student come back & report an engine failure, partial or otherwise, I'm damned sure I wouldn't be sending them straight back without thoroughly investigating the problem :=

P.

[liam548]

I always used to tell students that their engine was going to fail on THIS departure. I used to get a plan of action from them with various step heights/gates e.g. "If I am sufficiently low and their is sufficient runway ahead then I will land ahead, if I am too high to land back onto this runway then I will take the grass to the right, above that I will take the large field to the north of the field and land downwind (there were not many good land ahead options) etc"

I had my first power loss at about 200' on climbout on an early solo flight as a student (at the time I thought it was a total power loss). It is amazing how quickly you can think in circumstances like this. After nailing the speed I elected to try to turn through 270 degrees and land on a disused runway (triangular runway layout). I knew I would have insufficient height to do more than 180 degrees of the turn, but hoped I would have rudder authority to kick enough of the rest off in the flare, to touch down closely enough aligned to keep the thing on the hard stuff. My only options ahead were green, made of wood and rose to 30' or so. During the turn I had carb heat on, mags checked, prayers said. Engine recovered (I now suspect it was carb ice). Went on to fly a normal cct keeping VERY close to the runway. Taxied back and the instructor declined my invitation to retire to the bar, insted sending me straight back out for more ccts. Best thing he could have done. :D

Now when I fly GA, it is mostly a 182 from an airfield with a single 1600m runway and huge 1600m triangular field next to it, as well as a taxiway with two 800m straight segments. EFAT from here and I will certainly turn. Land ahead involves some cranes from RW 14 and some industrial units from RW32. Before each flight I brief myself to land back on if able, turn through 90 degrees, 180 or to fly a full abridged cct with a mid runway touchdown as necessary.

RIX

P.s. out of interest, how many of you are truly comfortable with slipping, should the best option be too close with too much height in hand? I practice slipping to touchdown even in the 182.


I am going to ask for some practice slipping in thre PA28 i am learning in on my next lesson. I have had two instructors do it while I am watching but think it is a very useful and I want to be good at it!

[Pilot DAR]

... so you'd still got plenty of the runway ahead of you, so why the requirement to turn back, why not just land ahead on the remaining runway?? - what am I missing here??

Perhaps I should have elablorated... I used the whole 6000 feet for takeoff, because it is wise, particularly on a maintenance test flight. with about 5000 feet used up behind me, at 200' gently climbing, came the first signs of trouble. As the speed increased, the thumping continued, so I used up a few hundred feet of distance diagnosing (as best I could). I knew that if I were forced to land ahead, it would be in the trees - and the engine was still running, so no call for such a drastic decision yet. It was time to turn back. Then the thumping got much worse (cowl opened all the way, but I did not know that yet). The flopping cowl acted like a huge trim tab for the engine pylon, so it was twisting rythmically, and I could really feel it. I know the engine is held on well, but I still don't like the feeling of them wiggling back and forth!

Maybe I'd broken a pylon brace? I did not know. Time to pull the power off, and get on the ground quickly. By now, I was halfway 'round the turn back, having told the controller, and not forgetting to lower the gear. Once most of the way back to a downwind final, with most of the 6000 still available in front of me, and the power at idle, flaps down, slow down, and the thumping diminsihed. then I relaxed a little, and did a landing of which I could be quite proud!

Slipping is well worth the practice. I could have had to slip, and would have (Lake Amphibs slip amazingly well) but it worked out just fine without. I good slip can really help save your engine from shock cooling when flying in cold weather, by allowing you to carry power down the descent, thus reducing the chances of cracking cylinders, or creating the conditions when the engine will not come back to life at the bottom.

I was test flying a Citabria on wheel skis yesterday. It was -17C, and I had to go up high to do stalls in it. I slipped it all the way back down with power, full flaps, and a low airspeed, and the CHT only dropped a little through the descent.

Always learning and practising!

Pilot DAR

[Romeo India Xray]

Not in the same a/c I trust!?

No, different AC. There were techies on site who checked it over and it was back in service within the hour (I trained for my PPL in one of those American factories). Looking back I suspect it was carb ice, but anyway thats all in the past and I learnt a bit about EFATO and turning back from it. :)


liam548

Good to hear! It is something of an art, slipping to a touchdown, so I would not recommend this in your early days (except for as a crosswind technique if it is this technique you have been taught instead of crabbing, or with the instructor there). Get as much practice at altitude, and then you will find that you can use slipping as a tool on final. Being infinately variable it allows you to have much more precise control over your descent rate (which you can build to very high), and I find it much more rewarding.

Be warned though that a lot of AC (not sure about the PA28 but I know in the 172P for sure), slipping with PAX in the back is prohibeted. Check your POH. Also be sure to ask your instructor what magin you should use for airspeed. Most ASIs will not read correctly in a slip.

RIX

[Pilot DAR]

Be warned though that a lot of AC (not sure about the PA28 but I know in the 172P for sure), slipping with PAX in the back is prohibeted. Check your POH. Also be sure to ask your instructor what magin you should use for airspeed. Most ASIs will not read correctly in a slip.

I'm not sure about the 172P, but I know that most 172's, and some other Cessnas are placarded "avoid slips with flaps extended". I doubt that the occupancy of the back seat is a factor in slip handling. The reason for the caution (not prohibition) of slips is that the pitch control can get a little less authoritative than normal, due to the wake off a flap crossing the tail, and blanketing it to some degree. The aircraft is still fine to fly, just not quite the same. As long as you are ready for it, there's no problem.

The unfortunate element of placards is that the are required to use few words (space limitations). So the detail of what is intended is often not included, just the bare bones instruction. The flight manual, on the other hand, can go into great detail, but is much less frequnetly read than placards.

Like many things in flying, slips can certainly be conducted in degrees of intensity. So with just you and the instructor, and a briefing, try just a little bit of a slip, and see how it feels. Slips in GA aircraft can be a very useful way to precisely control a descent, and reduce damaging effects on the engine. If you are able to land on an icy surface, with great care, you can slip one wheel right onto the surface in some aircraft. It's a satisfying feeling of control.

Pilot DAR

[Romeo India Xray]

You may well be right. The last time I flew a 172 for which I had access to the POH was in about 2002/3 ("P" varient). I was checking out on it and intended to take a backseat passenger on the checkflight, so I read up and seem to remember something about slipping with rear seat passengers being prohibeted.

With regard to the slipping with flap you are quite right. I had been at a little too much of the red yesterday when I wrote that. I was thinking in the context of making a forced landing and having the flaps extended with PAX in the back.


liam548

My advice to you under any circumstances is to get hold of a copy of the POH and read it. Don't just read it though, become comfortable with it. It will impress your instructor if you are ahead of the game because you know the limitations from the POH. More importantly, if you are comfortable with the POH then you will not be afraid to do the mass and balance calculations that so many PA28 drivers seem to ignore (just read the accident reports), you will know the V speeds for every circumstance and you will have a much better understanding of your aircraft. I would also recommed asking an engineer if you can shadow him/her for a day while working on your type of aircraft. I learnt more about what an aircraft really is from working a day or two a week in an engineering base.

RIX