EFATO, to turn or not to turn.

[First_Principal]

I was going to post this 'reply' to the thread here (http://www.pprune.org/private-flying/363118-light-aircraft-down-fenland.html) regarding David Mickleburgh's tragic accident and the subsequent posts regarding EFATO's but in the end I felt that while there's a time and place for thread drift and comment on accidents this wasn't it. However the issues raised are important, terribly so, especially when I see several posters commenting on using Microsoft to test the ability to turn a machine back following an EFATO... so here's a separate thread for some hopefully robust discussion on the topic, if you need the context for my intitial post please see the thread I reference above from which the following quote was obtained:

I've never used FSX but I have tried EFATO with a Cessna 172 on FS2004

A friend of mine had a partial EFATO in a C-172 at around 400ft agl and managed a 180 to return back to a runway with a tailwind. He landed long & was lucky it was a 1500m runway, stopped just short of the ditch at the end.

I mention this because it was a real occurence, not a simulated one. I'd also note that he had a lot of experience on the machine at the time and was very current - it's not something to automatically consider as ok should it happen to you!

Obviously the conditions were conducive to him succeeding in his turn on this occasion and yet, tragically, they were not for David on Saturday. Two people appear to have made what one presumes to be a similar choice under similar duress and possibly similar conditions yet one has paid the ultimate price.

I recall someone asking an associate of my friend later why he had turned back when he taught people not to do that. He answered, more or less, 'do what I say not what I do' and intimated that the decision to turn or not was related to experience. He expected that the person asking [who was a student] would land straight ahead, as taught, under any circumstance and not even consider anything else. He was also saying that with a great deal more experience a different option may be exercised.

So I think that it's clear to me that the theoretical height at which an aeroplane may turn back and land under certain conditions could be very different to the height at which the pilot may successfully do that very thing. Without a doubt there's an element of luck as well as risk in these things but if a risk is to be taken, particularly in such a thing as this, then in must be such a well calculated risk as to be almost a certainty - the difference perhaps in thinking one can make it vs knowing you can. Even in the case of knowing one can make it things can still go wrong, as possibly happened to David, but it's still way better than thinking 'maybe' for I'll warrant the chances to be much lower in the latter case.

In the end then while hopefully many of us could be sure of making a runway if we had an EFATO at say 1500' agl the answer is likely to be different at say 700' and very different at 400'. Equally what works on one day may well not on another if the conditions won't allow it. Both of these variables (height and conditions) are something we would consider according to our experience (another variable), all three of which would produce an outcome. The trick is to ensure that the outcome is as our experience dictates it should be. Thus I feel the turn-back height varies according to the day and enormously between individuals so no one height is the magic number but it would seem the magic default perhaps is to land straight ahead, or within say 30 deg of that...

What say you?

FP.

[Genghis the Engineer]

Search for threads on "turnback", there's been a lot of technical discussion here and on the flight test forum over a number of years.

G

[Fuji Abound]

Dont look for the “one rule for all”. You won’t find it. The guy flying regularly that practices turn backs and knows the characteristics of his aircraft may safely achieve a turn back from 400 feet, whereas another pilot in the same situation will kill himself.

The majority of pilots I would hazard do not practice turn backs. Of those that don’t, a significant percentage don’t fly frequently, and of those, a further percentage are not familiar with the type they are flying (a new club aircraft, new to a flying group etc .. .. ..). Time is not on your side when you have an engine failure at 400 feet. To have any chance of a turn back working out you need to be on the ball.

Therefore, the best you will get is “one rule for most”. If you fall into the “most” camp don’t even bother thinking about a turn back at less than 700 feet – land straight ahead or within 30 degrees of straight ahead. Between 700 feet and 1,000 feet a turn back becomes increasingly more attractive depending on what is ahead!

Debate the subtleties as you will and as has been done many times before, but don’t expect to find a rule for everyone, you wont, in fact don’t even expect the same rule to apply to every aircraft – just make sure you know which camp you are in and don’t forget a stall or spin will almost certainly kill you, but, strangely, going through a hedge or two or even running into a brick wall more than likely will not.

And if you have to ask which camp you are in, almost certainly apply the one rule for most. If you find yourself thinking at 700 feet, can I turn back - dont. If you find yourself doing mental calcualtions at 700 feet - continue the calcualtions whilst flying straight ahead. If you are wondering whether you will get away with it, wonder after you have landed in the best field in front of you. If you are thinking you dont want to right off the aircraft, just remember you definitely will if you spin or stall.

[Rod1]

Aviation Forums for pilots - from FLYER Magazine (http://forums.flyer.co.uk/viewtopic.php?t=52748&start=0)

[Fuji Abound]

I have just read all 8 pages of that - now totally bored. People must have something better to do. :)

[Rod1]

It was the idea of another 8 pages which I was trying to avoid!

Rod1

[Captain Smithy]

I just read the first part of that forum discussion before giving up, also out of tedium. It's funny how everyone seems to become an expert whenever there's been an accident.

Smithy

[pulse1]

I think it is just worth saying that, in the two EFATO fatal accidents I have been close to, it wasn't a case of getting back to the airfield, it is a case of flying the aircraft at the correct speed while turning. Both of the ones I have seen stalled during the turnback. They could probably have both made it if they had flown at the correct airspeed.

[Big Pistons Forever]

Before you can start the turn back (or the straight ahead glide) you have to transition from the full power climb attitude to an attitude that will give you best glide speed. This is harder than it sounds and if you are climbing out at Yx than the airplane will lose speed very quickly if the nose is not lowered aggressively. I encourage my student to set up a shedule of personal recurrent training and the transition from takeoff initial climb to glide is one of the manoevers I recommend they include in their exercises. I also advocate the no turn back below 700 ft AGL SOP.

[fireflybob]

Both of the ones I have seen stalled during the turnback. They could probably have both made it if they had flown at the correct airspeed.

And that is probably the crux of the issue but you have to bear in mind that when the engine fails you are under some pressure. Also have you been trained and practised turnbacks? Highly unlikely unless you are in the military where they do so but they lay down a minimum height for initiation of same. On the other hand you will (I hope) have been trained in EFATO (to go straight ahead +/- 30 degrees or so subject to wind) during PPL training. So why try something you have not been trained to do? It's not worth the risk! Countless pilots have come to grief attempting this maneuver.

My father was a veteran flyer (instructed during the war) and was still flying when he was 81 and did many instructor courses and tests and was vehemently opposed to turn backs and I recall him sticking to his guns when a young CFS checker tried to tell him otherwise! I think my dad was right!

Ideally you should be surprised when the engine does not fail rather than when it does! As has been said previously one should do homework on the areas on the immediate climbout after take off so you know where to go if the engine fails. If there is nowhere to go then maybe you shouldn't be taking off on that runway.

[fin100]

I had a check ride at Marathon Florida – the instructor pulled the power at 500 ft – asked where are you going to go? – land ahead in the sea was the response. Wrong answer, Turn back was the retort and stuff the nose down. It turned out fine in a 172 and it was a very steep turn but with plenty of speed. The reason for this was a week before a chap had killed himself landing in the sea. The important lesson was to keep the speed up and keep the aircraft under control. A hard landing that breaks the undercarriage off or runs into the far hedge should be survivable, stalling and spinning is not a good idea. There are times when there is nowhere to go with a efto -20 at Southampton is one. Know your aircrafts limitations and practice manoeuvres that could save your life.

[belowradar]

Practice the turn back manouver with an instructor and when the airfield is not busy. Work out a minimum height for your aircraft in average conditions (but make a note of strong winds etc and modify brief accordingly).

Brief this height as an option prior to departure but only turn back if above this briefed height and no options exist ahead or to the sides.

Generally you will require a fairly steep bank angle e.g. 45degrees

remember to make good use of any cross runways as required.

Hope that you never need to do it !

[Fuji Abound]

The reason for this was a week before a chap had killed himself landing in the sea.


I wonder why?

[Piper.Classique]

IMHO it all depends on being current, practice, and the right weather. Most ppls don't fly the same aeroplane often enough to do a turnback. I can whip the cub (150 hp) and the rans coyote (100 hp) round from 600 feet back onto our single 740m runway in most wind conditions, if I have flown a sensible climb out path, and get either of them back on to my take-off runway from anywhere on the downwind, base leg or final in any wind. They both have a good climb performance, which is a big help, keeps me close to the landable bits on climb out.
BUT I fly these two A/C a lot, I practise engine failures at all points of the flight, I regularly stall and spin the cub, and stall the rans, and I fly tight circuits as a routine. I don't do low flat approaches, I do fly gliders (and the tug), and I have been doing it for a fairish time. I don't think this is something for a low time pilot to try on their own! Also please remember when you talk about glider winch launch failures that when they do happen the glider is overhead the runway, not somewhere off the end of it. That makes a big difference to your options.

What height would I accept? The height I practice at. Supposing I recognised the problem fast enough, and didn't sit there thinking "this can't be happening". I wouldn't know how I might react, I've never had a real efato, though I have had plenty of cable breaks.

Speed bleeds off fast with the flaps down, the nose up, and the engine quiet. So, keep the aircraft flying, concentrate on flying, stuff the radio, concentrate on flying. Fly the turns with the ball in the middle, bank properly, don't try to boot it round on the rudder. That's hard to do with the ground close to the wingtip if you normally fly sloppy turns. Oh, and did I mention fly the aircraft?

[Rod1]

If you cannot be bothers to read the 8 pages on flyer then read this;

DON’T STALL.

Rod1

[pulse1]

Work out a minimum height for your aircraft in average conditions (but make a note of strong winds etc and modify brief accordingly).



But please do not forget that you usually practice EFATO with the engine ticking over. A stationary propellor makes a hell of a difference. Add at least 300' for that.

[Pilot DAR]

As interesting as these discussion topics continue to be, and I think of the flying in snow question, the zero G questions, the aerobatic questions, the short runway questions, and the similar themes. The base line answer seems to always be the same: Yes, the pilot with the experience and recent practice, in the right plane, in conditions which are well understood, and planned for, can safely do it, many other pilots cannot. It is difficult to give a fair answer some of these questions here. (speaking personally) I, have little idea who I am answering. Would I demonstrate these less common flying techniques, to an eager pilot passenger? Very likely "Yes". (One PPRuNer shreaked with delight) Would I advise someone whose skill is completely unknown to me, and whom I will never meet, to attempt these things under circumstances not known by me? Very certainly "NEVER", but that does not mean it can't be done safely.

Know this: A new rental pilot, flying once a month, will never have the opportunity to accumulate the amount of recent flying skill required to safely execute such manuevers, and should never attempt to practice unsupervised. Do what your training tells you, land straight ahead, in a safe area. If you screw up turning back the consequences are much worse, than screwing up landing straight ahead. Landing straight ahead allows you the full glide time to plan the best landing and prepare, without the distraction of executing a turn as well.

I once successfully turned back after an engine failure, it took every bit of 3500 hours on type experience, and the recent practice I had done.

Discussion is welcomed, but be aware, that some of us who know the real answer to some questions, based upon our experience, are not going to give the detailed "go ahead" instructions here, to later hear that someone got hurt trying what we said that we could do. Sorry if it sounds like "do as I say, not as I do", but there is an overshadowing moral responsibility to help our fellow pilots be safe first, and adventurous after that!

Pilot DAR

[Piper.Classique]

A stationary propellor makes a hell of a difference. Add at least 300' for that.
No, I don't find that to be the case. In fact, there is less drag prop stopped, even if not feathered, than when the prop is windmilling. I have done a fair bit of flying with a stopped prop, in motor gliders admittedly, but I think it carries across.

Know this: A new rental pilot, flying once a month, will never have the opportunity to accumulate the amount of recent flying skill required to safely execute such manuevers, and should never attempt to practice unsupervised. Do what your training tells you, land straight ahead, in a safe area. If you screw up turning back the consequences are much worse, than screwing up landing straight ahead. Landing straight ahead allows you the full glide time to plan the best landing and prepare, without the distraction of executing a turn as well.

Absolutely!

[BackPacker]

A stationary propellor makes a hell of a difference. Add at least 300' for that.
No, I don't find that to be the case. In fact, there is less drag prop stopped, even if not feathered, than when the prop is windmilling. I have done a fair bit of flying with a stopped prop, in motor gliders admittedly, but I think it carries across.


I've done some experimenting with this and I found that to get a fixed-pitch prop actually stopped in-flight you need to fly slower than Vs. Otherwise, with the engine at lean-cutoff (not at idle) the prop will just keep on windmilling. The worst configuration from a drag point of view.

This was in an R2160 (Lycoming O-320-D2A, Sensenich 72" dia, 64" pitch), but I'm not sure other light aircraft with fixed pitch props will behave much differently. So in an EFATO situation, unless there's something catastrophically wrong with the engine, assume the worst case: a windmilling prop. And I would agree that that would probably add about 300' in altitude loss vs. an idling engine in a 180 degree turn.

[Rod1]

“No, I don't find that to be the case. In fact, there is less drag prop stopped, even if not feathered, than when the prop is windmilling. I have done a fair bit of flying with a stopped prop, in motor gliders admittedly, but I think it carries across.”

I think it depends on the aircraft. In a motor glider, with long wings and a relatively small prop you are defiantly correct. On the Nipper, with short chunky wings and the prop stopped horizontally I can categorically say you will fall out of the sky much faster!

Rod1

[pulse1]

The point is not whether the prop is stopped or not. It is that the drag from a prop which is still being driven by an idling engine, as in a practice, is a lot less than the drag from a prop/engine which is being driven by the airflow, as in the real thing.

[TurboJ]

This thread is uinbelievable.

As an instructor I would never advocate turning back below circuit height; land straight ahead or within 30-45deg of runway centre line; Hence I get all my students to brief before departure; Normal procedures, departure route, emergency procedures, who is gonna fly the aircraft, where you intend to put it down, rotate speed, climb out speed, glide speed.....trying to turn back is, IMHO the craziest option

Simple fact is that your airspeed is gonna keep you alive; if you start increasing your stall speed by putting on medium to large angles of bank you are going to spin it into the ground;

This was demonstrated by a fairly recent accident at Biggin Hill where the 'examiner' instructor tried to turn back and his stall speed was calculated to be above his glide speed;

I accept some airports don't give you many options and the climb out is over densely populated areas but hey thats the risk of flying single engine.

If the CAA read some of these posts they would be having kittens.

[aseanaero]

Climb to 3,000 or 4,000 ft in the training area put the aircraft into climb attittude and speed and then pull the mixture , you won't get a 180 deg turn with 400ft , forget the arguements about being at a higher altitude affecting the outcome. You'll lose nearly 100ft while get the nose down and start a turn.

Then add in the fact that in a real engine failure you may be in denial for a second that the engine has failed.

Agree with TurboJ , 30 or 60 deg yes , 180 degrees no way from 400 ft

[TurboJ]

Aseanaero - You put it far better than me !!!

The other point that is not mentioned here is the partial engine failure; Is it going to fail, has it failed, whats it doing?

The engine is still going, but its coughing and spluttering and its sort of loosing power then regaining it again.....what do you do?

Personally, I would climb straight ahead; if its not gonna climb, its going into a field;

Again, the temptation is to turn back; IMHO the craziest option is to turn back; climb away, get the altitude, do the checks; any turn is max 15deg AoB;

[S-Works]

Not to mention that it is not a 180 degree turn it is more like 250 degree. 180 degrees only has you pointing the opposite way, not back at the runway.

I tried to say this on flyer and there followed pages of armchair experts telling us how you could calculate critical speeds and make a turn back etc.

As an Instructor I agree with TurboJ and will continue to teach the same.

[Captain Smithy]

Congratulations to TurboJ for by far the most sensible post on this thread so far (Post #22). Most of the rest - mince.

Smithy.

[aseanaero]

The engine is still going, but its coughing and spluttering and its sort of loosing power then regaining it again.....what do you do?

I had this happen in a single engine Piper Arrow that we were recovering after a valve failure from a remote airstrip in South Australia. We flew up with an engineer changed the cylinder head assembly and did some run ups and eveything seemed ok for the ferry back to base.

On take off at about 300 ft the whole aircraft started shuddering violently with severe loss of power but still able to hold altitude but not climb , straight ahead landing would of written the aircraft off as it was a small rocky valley so I flew a 300 ft circuit but prepared to put the aircraft down straight ahead at anytime

I got the aircraft and myself down in one piece and the culprit turned out to be a pea sized piece of metal from the previous failure that must have been hiding in the intake manifold and had flattened the spark plug electrodes in the offending cylinder, the ground run ups didnt dislodge it but full power and bouncing down the dirt runway did.

So the answer is depends ... I still had power so I rolled the dice but if I had totally lost power it was into the valley and probably gone home in an ambulance but not to turn back.

[Pilot DAR]

This is an important theme, correctly handled:

On take off at about 300 ft the whole aircraft started shuddering violently with severe loss of power but still able to hold altitude but not climb , straight ahead landing would of written the aircraft off as it was a small rocky valley so I flew a 300 ft circuit but prepared to put the aircraft down straight ahead at anytime


These symptoms accurately describe a "stuck valve" which is reasonably common (yes, even on low time engines). When things start shaking up front, it's very important to actually determine has the engine actually stopped developing power entirely, or is it just running rough, and shaking like heck?

"stuck valves" take several forms, but as the pilot, all you need to know is that you have either 25% (4 cyl) or 17% (6 cyl) less power, but the engine is still devoping the rest of the power. The shaking is just because the power is no longer balanced. If the valve stuck open, you have some maintenace in the engine's immediate future, but you're still flying. If it stuck closed, something expensive is now bent, but the engine is still developing power - for a while. (a spark plug blowing out, has a similar effect)

Valves seem to stick a few hundred feet up just after the first takeoff of the day. I suppose that's when the heat of the power being developed finally has it's effect on all of those moving parts. Just because the engine is shaking, don't just abandon remaining airborne! Try and fly! (Okay, if you have a perfect runway right ahead of you, you should land on it, otherwise don't just force land for no good reason!) I've known several aircraft which were carelessly and injuriously crashed, when the only problem was a 17% loss in power and some shaking. All certified aircraft, which are being properly flown, will climb at least somewhat, on 83% power.

At the risk of being resoundingly slagged again, I will suggest that when conditions are suitable and safe, pilots practice a full takeoff and climb with 75% power (knowing that you can go to full power at any time during the practice). You will be surprised how well most aircraft will get airborne doing this, and you'll have a sense of how your aircraft will fly if you do have a partial power loss one day.

If the engine is developing some power, make the best use of it, don't let the shaking bother you, the plane can take it. (It's a "pan" not a "mayday"!) I've climbed away on partial power, to return for a safe landing many more times than I have had a complete engine failure, and force landed. I have been very lucky in never having damaged an aircraft in any of my four forced landings, or landing into a place from which a takeoff later was not possible.

Pilot DAR

[Rod1]

Pilot DAR

Good post (but as I made 3 of the first 22 I am probably talking mince)

Rod1

[BackPacker]

don't let the shaking bother you, the plane can take it.

In such a situation my main worry would be that the engine would tear itself off its engine mount. Is there a formal certification requirement or something that would require the mount to be strong enough for an unbalanced engine running on all minus one cylinders, either through a stuck valve or blown-out spark plug, at full throttle?

On a lighter note, I can confirm from experience that a first-generation Alfa Romeo 145, with the flat-four 1.4 engine and two distribution belts, can continue running on two cylinders when one of the distribution belts breaks. Lots of shaking and a maximum of 60 km/h, but it got me to a garage. (The same garage who was responsible for installing the distribution belt wrongly in the first place, leading to its failure after only 16.000 km.)

[aseanaero]

All certified aircraft, which are being properly flown, will climb at least somewhat

Not that day , 1,350 ft field elevation and 40 plus degrees Celsius :ok:

[belowradar]

if you start increasing your stall speed by putting on medium to large angles of bank you are going to spin it into the ground;


Some more "mince" to add to the pie - The above is a popular misconception

You are in a descending turn (not maintaining straight and level) so your stall speed increase is not the same as if you were trying to maintain level flight.

I fly with many students who have a fear of banking when descending base to final - they are always happy to discover that you can bank at 45degrees or even 60 degrees quite safely if you want to, (not so when climbing obviously).

[S-Works]

You are in a descending turn (not maintaining straight and level) so your stall speed increase is not the same as if you were trying to maintain level flight.

Indeed but when you are already very close to the ground such as in an EFATO you don't really have the space to be able to put the nose down to gain the airspeed required to compensate for the angle of bank without a massive height loss.

Hence we get in a situation where the natural instinct is to try and make the bank angle without losing height, this is where we get the stall and spin. The evidence is quite clearly out there that shows this is the case. Just read the AIB reports of the stall and spin incidents.

[shortstripper]

Actually, it's more likely that you'll be frightened to bank steeply as the ground appears to be rushing up. You then realise you're not going to get around, and feed in more and more rudder without thinking ..................... Oh dear!

SS

[Fuji Abound]

Bose

Here and on Flyer most of you are missing the point.

If you fly an aircraft and fly aerobatics and are flying 100s of hours a year including some low level stuff there is a very good chance you know exactly what the aircraft will and will not do. You are very comfortable with high angles of bank and the required control inputs. When I was flying aeros most weeks I reckon I would have known exactly where and when I could turn back.

If you know you dont need to be reading this thread or thinking about the question.

I would hazard that the vast majority of pilots do not fall into this category for the reasons I gave earlier. I would even go as far as to say IF they completed the turn back successfully the result of a 20 knot tail wind might in itself result in a less than pretty outcome.

The collected wisdom of so many does not come cheap, and it would be surprising if it were wrong. Be very sure of what you are doing if you turn back, if you find yourself hesitating, I wouldnt hesitate a moment longer - land straight ahead.

I recall quite some while ago a pilot landing a twin literally through the roof of a house into a back yard barely large enough in which to swing a cat. All he did was maintain control - he barely suffered a scratch, ok, he was lucky BUT it is interesting if you read the accident reports how many aircraft that land straight ahead and under control achieve a satisfactory outcome. The outcome of a stall and spin is very rarely satisfactory.

(Mind you so far as the lot on Flyer is concerned I recall the arm chair experts wanting to fly their twins around the country on one engine after the other had failed - do I recall you might have been one of them Bose? It is a great idea, but I will pass on both turning back and flying on one engine if I started out with two if you dont mind, thank you :))

[S-Works]

Well as we are mentioning your Gatwick debacle I think you will find that I was not advocating 'flying around the country on one engine' but rather that I would not have shut Gatwick down and chosen one of the other more suitable options like Redhill or Biggin Hill...... :p:p:p

If you also take the time to read my comments on EFATO I quite clearly make the point that we are not talking about high hour aerobatic sky gods like yourself, we are talking about average joe in a spamcan who probably only fly's 20-30 hours a year. I am quite sure there are many sky gods who can quite easily do a turn back in there hot ships. But do I think the average PPL is capable of doing so? Nope, I think that trying it is likely to get them killed. I have a little instructional time under my belt and watching people at the 2 year instructional flight is enough to convince me that average joe will end up in a smoking pile attempting a low level turn back. I am pretty sure the AIB stats back it up as well.

[Final 3 Greens]

I had this happen in a single engine Piper Arrow

Yep, never felt safe in the single, always prefered the Twin Arrow myself.

[Fuji Abound]

Bose


If you also take the time to read my comments on EFATO


Are you having a really bad day? I was COMPLETELY agreeing with you (for once :)).


but rather that I would not have shut Gatwick down and chosen one of the other more suitable options like Redhill or Biggin Hill


.. .. .. this is part of the problem on Flyer and a trap, if set, all to easy to fall into. We judge the actions of others based on our own perception, often without knowing the circumstances. Some of those Sky Gods advocating a turn back might do so safetly but they are applying their own skill set to others, or to circumstances of which they have no knowledge. :) :)

[bjornhall]

In such a situation my main worry would be that the engine would tear itself off its engine mount. Is there a formal certification requirement or something that would require the mount to be strong enough for an unbalanced engine running on all minus one cylinders, either through a stuck valve or blown-out spark plug, at full throttle?

There's an interesting question, isn't it? Considering quite a few people these days consider non-CofA aircraft the way to go...

[Piper.Classique]

The point is not whether the prop is stopped or not. It is that the drag from a prop which is still being driven by an idling engine, as in a practice, is a lot less than the drag from a prop/engine which is being driven by the airflow, as in the real thing.

Well yes, of course.......That is why we stop the prop to soar:)
So, the point is at least partially whether the prop is stopped, is it not? Because some engine failures the prop will windmill, and some it won't. So that is another thing to factor in to the calculations, as is the rate of climb, the glide angle, the wind, the type of circuit you are flying, the length of runway, what lies ahead, how current you are, how much oil there is on the windscreen, what cross runways are available, and probably how well you slept last night. I am not saying to turn back or go in straight ahead, I am saying that there is no one size fits all answer.

[S-Works]

Bugger.......... Now I am at a loss for words.


Bose

Quote:
If you also take the time to read my comments on EFATO
Are you having a really bad day? I was COMPLETELY agreeing with you (for once ).

Quote:
but rather that I would not have shut Gatwick down and chosen one of the other more suitable options like Redhill or Biggin Hill
.. .. .. this is part of the problem on Flyer and a trap, if set, all to easy to fall into. We judge the actions of others based on our own perception, often without knowing the circumstances. Some of those Sky Gods advocating a turn back might do so safetly but they are applying their own skill set to others, or to circumstances of which they have no knowledge.

[Miserlou]

Just a note to agree with the misconception of high bank angle/rate of descent issue.

I was taught MINIMUM 30 degrees bank on final turn in a glider. Reason? You don't stall off high bank angle turns because this requires that you pull harder on the stick. What you get is a high rate of descent as it slips in to the descent and the recovery from this is to reduce the bank angle.

The turn back is of course a high workload manoeuvre and I don't seem to remember having seen what I believe was an RAF procedure. Nose down, 45 degrees bank, pull to the buffet.
The reason for the success of this method is that the height loss is lower because of the reduced length of time in the turn.

It is possible to stay very current on 20 hours a year. But not by flying straight and level.

[Gertrude the Wombat]

I can confirm from experience that a first-generation Alfa Romeo 145, with the flat-four 1.4 engine and two distribution belts, can continue running on two cylinders
Moggie Thou could run on one and a half cylinders.

[TurboJ]

if you start increasing your stall speed by putting on medium to large angles of bank you are going to spin it into the ground;

There is no misconception; forgive me if I misunderstand the issue; if your engine has failed and you have a climb speed of 75kts, you then need to get the nose down to maintain your glide speed which is still going to be in the region of 75kts. If you then wack on 65+deg AOB to facilitate a huge 180deg+ turn back to the runway your stall speed is going to increase; to avoid stalling a wing, you need to put the nose further down to increase your speed, but the problem is that you've run out of airspace cos the engine failed at 500ft ?? Misconception???

Hence my point is that the temptation is then to raise the nose which reduces the airspeed which then brings the actual airspeed and the stall speed together resulting in a spin and loss of control close to the ground.

Its your airspeed that will keep you alive !!!

Also - taken from the AAIB website which it states is contained in many aircraft POH and flight training manuals:

‘At low altitudes with a
failed engine, turns should not be attempted,
except for slight and gentle deviations to avoid
obstacles. A controlled crash landing straight
ahead is preferable to risking a stall which
could result in an uncontrolled roll and crash
out of a turn.’

[Mark1234]

OK, first up, IN NO WAY AM I ADVOCATING THE TURNBACK.

Just so we're clear :) However, as far as I am concerned, there are a couple of 'misconceptions' in the statement "if you start increasing your stall speed by putting on medium to large angles of bank you are going to spin it into the ground"

1) A stall in a turn does not necessarily equal a spin - not if the aircraft is properly balanced.
2) let's take a warrior - Vs (clean) 50 kts, Best climb 79, Best glide 73: 60 degree bank, 2g, Vs goes up by 1.4 multiplier - i.e. 70kts. Uncomfortably close, but not actually above the glide speed.

That said, I'm nitpicking the statement rather than the sentiment. Sorry! As has been said many times - if in doubt - don't.

I'm no sky god, but I firmly believe the turnback will most likely kill you, especially if you're not intimately familiar with throwing the plane around, and it's performance in those attitudes. The issue is really the height you will need to make that turn - whether you hit the ground as a result of a spin or in a major turn is probably largely irrelevant to the outcome. The cause is not having enough room for the turn.

[Final 3 Greens]

At what height does the definition of 'EFATO' cease to apply and the definition of a 'forced landing without power' kick in?

Because I believe that there is a concensus on the thread that the majority of pilots would better landing straight ahead +/-30 degrees after EFATO.

Bob Hoover level skilled people and those trained to do so (with capable kit) excepted.

And assuming that straight ahead/ +- 30 degrees did not in itself involve a higher probability of disaster than turning back.

So what's the definition? 800', 1000'? or is it type specific?

[belowradar]

turboj - Suggest you go fly it (at a safe height ) and see what height your aircraft needs for a turnback with 45 degrees of bank and maintaining glide speed.

Practice it for novelty factor if you like but please understand that if in balance and sufficiently high you are not going to drop out of the sky just because you crank into a large bank. Just lower the nose promptly to maintain safe airspeed and then turn using a decent bank.

If you are an instructor you should get your head around this so that you are able to inform your students. I agree that this is not for low time pilots who don't practice it and also if options exist ahead then not needed.

Bit of a cultural element to this as UK has always mandated NEVER turn back (one size fits all) whereas other countries advise to practice for those situations where straight ahead is not an option (and height is sufficient).

[mm_flynn]

It is worth remembering that several of the recent EFATO fatalities appear to have high time pilots that would probably have felt they were intimately familiar with their aircraft operation.

The accident stats in the UK provide a pretty clear picture of who dies. In the last CAA decade summary of fatal accidents there were 8 accidents which could reasonably be counted as EFATO and 4 of enroute engine failure.


All of the EFATO accidents appear to involve aircraft returning to the departure field
6 of the EFATO accidents involved the pilot loosing control and stall/spinning in
1 was unlucky and rolled over on landing
1 didn't make the field and clipped a tree on the way into a field and rolled over
0 involved a pilots in a controlled crash landing 'straight ahead'

Either everyone turns back (so there were no people who tried and failed straight ahead), or these were all cases where the straight ahead option was poor (which from the commentary doesn't appear to be true), or turning back introduces a substantial risk of dying. This doesn't mean it is impossible, or in some cases it isn't appropriate.

[First_Principal]

TurboJ & aseanaero you may recall that in the first post on this thread I noted:

"A friend of mine had a partial EFATO in a C-172 at around 400ft agl and managed a 180 to return back to a runway with a tailwind. He landed long & was lucky it was a 1500m runway, stopped just short of the ditch at the end."

Since the guy is still around it obviously worked for him at 400' or so, also it was a partial (my recollection is that he more or less had nothing much above idle speed but I'll check on that) and he made the decision not to carry on straight ahead as perhaps you would have done. Definately horses for courses but landing it straight ahead in this place could have been a lot more messy I would think whereas in other situations it may not have been so bad.

Some time after this happened I took my 'plane up with a [pilot] friend and we tried some mock-EFATO's at around 3kft to see how we'd get on in a similar situation. It did show it was possible but I'm not so sure I'd have made the same choice all the same, at least not at the time. Mind you as I stripped the motor on the offending 172 & discovered the problem I suspect that, being quite familiar with engines, I may have realised the nature of the failure & carried it on a little longer. It brings me to another worthwhile point that in most cases, despite the noises/shaking, if it's still turning then firewall the throttle if need be to stretch things a little further - it's already broken and it could just make the difference getting into somewhere.

bose-x I'm fairly sure it was a 180 in this case as there were two parallel runways at this location but I agree a simple 180 won't get you back in line & it'll take more time/height to do so. Another good point as in my mock EFATO's I didn't line up exactly back on the same point - in a number of the fields I use there are parallel options, if not a formed runway then otherwise reasonable ground to land on, again something to keep in mind perhaps.

I recall one of the things that did concern me originally and was the catalyst for this thread was the use of MS flight sim to emulate this problem and make an assessment based on that. It most certainly does have it's place in training but I'd be horrified if in the event of a real thing someone thought 'well I did it in FS2004 so this should work'...

Finally I trust this additional mince doesn't give the good Captain too much indigestion but F3Greens I'd have to say the 4-engine Arrow is even more fun :E.

FP.

[TurboJ]

That said, I'm nitpicking the statement rather than the sentiment

Its no problem - on face value I can understand why the statement is not entirely correct. No, you're not going to fall out of the sky with a large AoB, so long as the airspeed is sufficient which prevents a wing stall.

Just lower the nose promptly to maintain safe airspeed and then turn using a decent bank.


Which I believe is what I stated in one of my earlier posts ??

to avoid stalling a wing, you need to put the nose further down to increase your speed, but the problem is that you've run out of airspace cos the engine failed at 500ft ??

If you are an instructor you should get your head around this so that you are able to inform your students.

I have 'got my head' round this thank you very much and well aware of the risk involved in trying to execute a turnback with no engine at low level. Maybe you should read my posts in full and get your head around them :ugh:

let's take a warrior - Vs (clean) 50 kts, Best climb 79, Best glide 73: 60 degree bank, 2g, Vs goes up by 1.4 multiplier - i.e. 70kts. Uncomfortably close, but not actually above the glide speed.

What you have to understand and perhaps get your head round is simply the fact that a glide speed of 73kts and stall speed of 70kts, an inexperienced, low hours PPL who flies five months of the year will have great difficulty executing a high AoB turn at 400ft above the ground with the engine failed; hence all the flight manuals, POHs and AAIB advice is to land straight ahead; anything else is a death sentence as has unfortunately been so frequently demonstrated;

[Captain Smithy]

No problem FP, no indigestion here :E

I have been taught the +/-30 degrees in front method, which is what I'd rather stick to. I don't think it's the right time to go attempting things outwith the scope of or against that of what we have been taught when the power suddenly dies at 300 feet in the climb. I'd rather stick to what I've been taught and trust that I will walk away to see another day.

It's what my instructors taught me, and also seems to be backed up by the AAIB, so I'd rather trust that information than trying something I've never done before. Sneer if you like but I'd rather follow tried and trusted advice from people who know what they're talking about. No offence intended to those who disagree but that's what I think.

Smithy.

[belowradar]

Turno j

anything else is a death sentence as has unfortunately been so frequently demonstrated

strongly suggest that you go fly and see what you can do. Then you may have another option if the situation ever arises. Knowledge and currency is always better than rigid dogma.

Base your decision on options available on the day. This can only be based on knowledge of your aircraft, the weather, airfield and skill levels.

[TurboJ]

Belowradar: Its 'TurboJ' by the way:

I'm going to brief what I'm going to do in the event of an engine failure even before I've left the ground, taking into account all the available options in the climb out area.

What I'm also going to do is operate the aircraft according to my training, the experience of other pilots, advice from the AAIB and in accordance with the aircraft operating handbook;

What I'm not going to do is try and wing it by flying the aircraft dangerously close to the stalling speed on the advice of a ppruner, contrary to my training, the POH, experience etc etc...........turning back IMHO is not a viable option....

Regards.......'TurboJ'

[BabyBear]

Reading through this thread has me thinking it may be sound advice, before going flying, for pilots to agree between themselves what action will be taken in the event of an EFATO. Whether it's the local guy, the one with more experience, or the one in the left hand seat.

With the strength of feeling on both sides I can envisage pilots with opposing views having an additional issue to sort out. Who knows maybe such disagreements have occurred and contributed to the outcome?

I certainly would not appreciate having to convince someone, one way or the other, that I was right after the donkey had quit!

[deltahotel]

There's a sort of parallel thread on Tech log concerning the 'impossible turn' which overlaps this thread. My view:

It's not impossible at all BUT (there's always a but)........

Need:
to have practised it
to get nose down and speed up
to turn into xwind if poss
to have pre planned/pre briefd
to have clear parameters eg "above x' i will turn back l/r"
to know that achieving the runway is good but not vital - flat green airfield is good
to know that fields ahead are probably better
to only do it for real if there is no other option

On the Bulldog never served at an airfield where it was necessary. Camp at Woodvale was interesting. Lee on Solent - the 90deg turn for the beach better than the water. For the students, keep it simple eg "once yr half way round the upwind turn you may continue the turn to the a/f"

too many people have been hurt in turnbacks, inc a good mate at woodvale some yrs back.

just my thoughts - hope it helps the debate

DH

[bjornhall]

At what height does the definition of 'EFATO' cease to apply and the definition of a 'forced landing without power' kick in?

That is an interesting question! Is there indeed an altitude where that happens?

Let's recall the 'standard' engine out forced landing: It places us in a position of flying downwind at best glide speed at 1,000 ft, with our designated landing point straight out to our left or right, and with the engine failure checklist actioned. Of course, we know what reality does to the best laid out plans... There will be adaptions to fit the actual situation; maybe we didn't have time to action all the checklist, maybe we are at 800 or 1,200 ft, or maybe the landing will have to be with a quartering tailwind, and so on.

But contrast that with the 'engine failure shortly after, but not quite at, take off' scenario: We're at, say, 800 ft, with the intended point of landing directly behind us, and we haven't actioned a thing. That is far from an adaption of the standard engine out landing scenario; it is a totally different situation.

So in my view, there are not two, but three 'stages'. First there is EFATO, where everything is quite clear (land straight ahead). Number three, starting at about 1,500 ft or so, is a standard engine out forced landing, where everything is also quite clear (we practice that all the time). The second stage is what I'd call an 'emergency landing'; we are too low to make a standard forced landing, but we might be able to do something slightly more creative than to land straight ahead no matter what.

Rather than to make the 'emergency landing', as defined above, a totally improvised-on-the-spot affair, I have some rules of thumb I intend to follow. At 300 ft I'll be wings level, at best glide speed, and my landing site is what lies directly ahead of me. To get to that point, I will use best glide speed at no more than 30 degrees of bank. At 300 ft, if I'm already configured (full flaps, most likely), I'll action the forced landing check list; otherwise, I'll configure for landing, but I will not try to do both from 300 ft.

So my landing site from the 'emergency landing' situation will be the best spot I can reach using a 30 degree bank rolling out at no more than 300 ft. That is unlikely to be my departure airport. I think that will maximize my chances of actually executing a forced landing, rather than just arriving at the accident site.

Let's discuss this again when I have at least 250 hours in my book; then I might be adding a carefully considered and rehearsed turn-back option as a fourth tool in my tool box. Not sooner.

And if the above reasoning remains purely theoretical, nobody will be more pleased than me! :ok:

[TurboJ]

Babybear

At our club there are lots of pilots who go flying together - briefing should be an integral part of the planning phase; it doesn't have to be formal, just a discussion about all the options and workload.

TJ

[BabyBear]

TurboJ,

I agree it makes sense, however whilst the flight plan may well be discussed in detail I think it is easy to overlook the EFATO scenario. Given it's life threatening nature it's not inconceivable it could result in a fight over who had control!

Anyone care to acknowledge it as something that has not been discussed when going flying with fellow pilots?

BB

[bjornhall]

2) let's take a warrior - Vs (clean) 50 kts, Best climb 79, Best glide 73: 60 degree bank, 2g, Vs goes up by 1.4 multiplier - i.e. 70kts. Uncomfortably close, but not actually above the glide speed.

Ooooh... That could be dangerous. :ooh: The stall speed most pilots can quote for their aircraft is in KIAS. But the airspeed indicator in most light aircraft underread dramatically at speeds well below final approach speed. Not a problem, until you try to use KIAS stall speed to compute stall margins!

The Warrior clean Vs at MTOW is 56 KCAS. At 45 deg bank it is 67 KCAS, which is 63 KIAS. At 60 deg bank it would be 79 KCAS, which is 77 KIAS. Best glide at 73 KIAS is 75 KCAS.

In other words, if you are at best glide speed in a fully loaded Warrior and try to make a coordinated turn with a 60 degree bank, you will stall.

Caveat: I used the Cadet POH for my calculations, since I don't have a Warrior POH. But I believe the numbers are identical.

In the C172S I usually fly it gets even scarier. Best glide is 68 KIAS, and clean stall is 48 KIAS, which to the pilot who only knows KIAS would seem to indicate a healthy maneuvering margin. But in calibrated values, best glide is about 68 KCAS, while stall speed is 53 KCAS at wings level, 63 KCAS at 45 degrees and 75 KCAS at 60 degrees. At 45 degrees it is way too close, and if you'd try for 60 at low alt you'd barely have time to say "But I read it on the internet!".

No way I'd go anywhere near 45 degrees at best glide speed! I aim for 30 degrees, and the rest is my stay alive margin.

[First_Principal]

TJ & BB Quite agree with you on that, standard cockpit drill here with 2-pilot ops is to brief actions in the event of engine failure although it's usually much more to do with failure just before or just after t/o in a twin. Whether one extends that drill to EFATO's depends on how much time you have judging by this thread :}

Capt, yep, 300ft I'd probably do the same as you but every 100' higher gives me more options and so I find a good robust discussion such as this invaluable to see what others would do. Incidentally I may well take the piss but sneering is not part of the makeup :)

bjornhall you indirectly raise a good point with the checklist thing, certainly not somethign you'd typically be messing around with at 300' but this is where experience of motors and/or flying experience kicks in. If you are a higher-time pilot then typically more of your actions are automatic and require less thinking, so you could have more 'processing time' available to devote to the things that require thought such as swapping fuel tanks, fuel pump, ignition etc whilst still landing the thing. Equally and perhaps more importantly in some cases a good understanding of engines will most certainly help - if it went bang rather loudly & you'd got oil on the 'screen then let's just concentrate on the landing, however did it die slowly like a fuel-out thing or was it intermittent like an ignition thing? Is it simply making noises and/or shaking with reduced power? All of these things give further options that could well be enough to save the day if we're quick enough and our actions are automatic enough. Most certainly the latter is one I can't stress enough, if you've got partial power, and you need it to make a field or whatever then use it don't baby it, this isn't an endurance test!

FP.

[TurboJ]

Bjornhall - I couldn't have put it better myself - being away from my POH I don't have the figures to hand - I rest my case :cool:

[belowradar]

Bjornhall - stall speed figures in the warrior POH are quoted for different bank angles in a LEVEL turn. Don't care what you do but please get your facts straight.

There are a lot of posts on this forum from the "adamently incorrect" - these incorrect facts are then pushed down the throats of others

As for briefing there is only one PIC in a warrior and they should brief the departure and state their intentions, they should be clear about what they will do and stick to it.

I know that you disagree with my view but it is very clear that you can turn in a warrior (your example) at a speed above stall (well above if you wish) without stalling or spinning and that you will loose some height height X .

It would be nice to know what an average day height x might be and to consider this if taking off at an airport where there are no options on the straight out departure.

Your blinkered viewpoint is not very logical, are you seriously saying that if at 900feet on departure and over a built up area you would not consider a return to the airport area ?

[deltahotel]

What is important is that whatever you choose to do (dictated by ac, wind, terrain, experience etc) is pre planned and pre briefed. Should this ever happen for real you can't expect to cuff it. eg at my nice flat lincs military a/f immediately after t/o, use the remaining r/w; once that's past whatever is in the forward segment of my windscreen into wind; once half way round the upwind turn, continue the turn to the a/f. If there are two pilots on board, no-one should be in any doubt who will do what - if this ever happens for real there will be no time for discussion!

1. select the gliding attitude aggressively
2. select somewhere to land
3. select flaps as appropriate
4. anything else (cks, r/t etc) is a bonus

just some more thoughts!

dh

[Mark1234]

bjornhall As it was me who posted:
2) let's take a warrior - Vs (clean) 50 kts, Best climb 79, Best glide 73: 60 degree bank, 2g, Vs goes up by 1.4 multiplier - i.e. 70kts. Uncomfortably close, but not actually above the glide speed.Good point regarding the CAS - I learned something.

CAS or IAS, I'd allow some extra knots in the turn. No one in their right mind would fly 60degrees at best glide - flying bare knots from the stall is hideously inefficient - best glide is calculated for a 1g loading, once you depart from wings level the speed changes (upwards) anyway. Merely pointing out it's not quite as unfeasible as some people seem to think.

So I stand by my point - irrespective of whether the turnback is a good idea or not (I firmly believe not except in rare circumstances), turning at low speed does not automatically end in a spin, nor does a high angle of bank end in a spin. I'm railing against the "if you exceed 30deg of bank you'll spin and die" brigade more than anything.

However, to add fuel to the fire - 2 recent departures, same aircraft, same runway.
1) MTOW/43deg/nill wind - ROC pitiful. Book said yes, but them trees seemed awful close - and my ROC was a lot less than a gliding ROD.
2) 1POB/10deg/10kts - nearly 1000fpm, crossed the upwind boundary at somewhere close to 600agl.

2 very very different propositions had there been a hiccup.

[bjornhall]

CAS or IAS, I'd allow some extra knots in the turn. No one in their right mind would fly 60degrees at best glide - flying bare knots from the stall is hideously inefficient - best glide is calculated for a 1g loading, once you depart from wings level the speed changes (upwards) anyway. Merely pointing out it's not quite as unfeasible as some people seem to think.

Makes good sense! For me it's not so much about whether it's possible, but whether it could be successfully executed and how to determine whether or not it is a good idea in a given set of circumstances... Tricky!

[Captain Smithy]

I would regard deciding what to do in the event of EFATO and considering where you will perhaps land is part and parcel of normal preflight planning.

[TurboJ]

‘At low altitudes with a failed engine, turns should not be attempted,
except for slight and gentle deviations to avoid obstacles. A controlled crash landing straight ahead is preferable to risking a stall which could result in an uncontrolled roll and crash out of a turn.’


I'm railing against the "if you exceed 30deg of bank you'll spin and die" brigade more than anything.


If you don't put the nose down to maintain the airspeed then yes its a high possbility. Having flown with PPL holders who vary in skill and ability I have yet to see a PPL holder come back to flying after months away and with a practise EFATO expeditiously get the nose down to maintain the airspeed. If they then start applying large angles of bank without due respect to the airspeed, which many of them do, then they are asking for trouble.

What I also find amazing are the numbers of people who leave the comfort of an instructor sat in the RHS who then go off and start making rules of their own against the huge amount of evidence to the contrary;

[Rod1]

Lots of very experienced aviators on this thread, so perhaps we can clear up a point which may be confusing the debate. Having just spoken to an instructor, the CAA defines an EFATO as the engine stopping soon after takeoff. The question is what is “soon” in this context? I would assume the first 30sec? What do others think?

Rod1

[Fuji Abound]

Failure before completing the cross wind turn, or if leaving the circuit, failure below 1,000 feet.

If the circuit is 800 feet, you have completed the cross wind turn and are in level flight making the runway might be a realistic option.

If you are leaving the circuit but still in the climb passing 1,000 feet an immediate pitch down will still be required followed by recovery to the field if possible. At 1,000 feet I would have thought most pilots would have the time and ability to consider this as an option.

Height and speed are your friends. If you are climbing at 85, you want more height than if you are level at 110.

I dont think time has anything to do with it. Height and level flight are the key. If you climb away, level and maintain 600 feet for some reason, it doesnt matter how much or little time has passed it might just as well be in EFATO. Look ahead and to the side and land where ever is suitable, dont worry what is behind you! :)

[belowradar]

What I also find amazing are the numbers of people who leave the comfort of an instructor sat in the RHS who then go off and start making rules of their own against the huge amount of evidence to the contrary

Not too amazing if the instructor has an inflexible attitude and does not apply common sense. Making rules of their own sounds to me like judgement and airmanship, just what we need.

Fuji Abound thanks for your common sense input to this debate !

[2hotwot]

One of the things I believe has been missed is the snap decision which a pilot makes when an EFATO is identified. I has to be the right one, whether to land ahead or turn back. It is getting this right or wrong, which will dictate the outcome of the event, when the aircraft comes back to earth.
Sadly I believe that many people will make the decision based upon their relationship with the aeroplane.
Military and commercial flyers will perhaps be better at balancing a decision between sacrificing the aircraft and saving the occupants. That may apply to club pilots too (unless they have signed up to a big excess). However, make the pilot a private owner who is not only paying for the aeroplane, but also dearly loves it and there is a far greater chance that the decision will be biased towards saving the aircraft (based upon getting it back to the runway or their maintenance facility) rather than making a truely rational assessment of the situation.
I would be interested to hear from others whether they think that their relationship with their flying machine could colour their decision making capability in such a situation?

[Fuji Abound]

One of the things I believe has been missed is the snap decision which a pilot makes when an EFATO is identified. I has to be the right one, whether to land ahead or turn back. It is getting this right or wrong, which will dictate the outcome of the event, when the aircraft comes back to earth.


No, I dont think it has been missed.

As I said, if you hesitate whether or not to turn back, if there is any doubt in your mind, dont.

It is only complicated if you make it complicated.

[TurboJ]

Not too amazing if the instructor has an inflexible attitude and does not apply common sense.

Can you tell me where the common sense is in attempting to turn back to the runway with a failed engine at 400ft AGL ?

SOPs, flying order books, AAIB reports, PPL syllabi, FIC examiners, the CAA...the list goes on....in my experience, all advocate landing straight ahead or within 30-45deg of runway centre line with a failed engine.

Do these documents and regulatory authorities all lack the same common sense and inflexible attitude?

Maybe its your inflexible attitude that can't see a safer option that is advocated by so many other organisations?

I have yet to see an FTOs PPL syllabus teach its students to try turning back at 400ft AGL ? Many of them state not to turn back below 1000ft AGL or the equivalent on the QNH. Maybe they are inflexible and are not using their common sense too??

2hot - maybe there is a commercial cost saving behind turning back or landing straight ahead if you are the owner of the aircraft. Maybe this is the last thing that is going through your mind when the engine fails; you would have thought that insurance would cover the damage??

[belowradar]

TURBOJ

Can you tell me where the common sense is in attempting to turn back to the runway with a failed engine at 400ft AGL ?

Rest assured I will get my point over to you eventually, if you look at my last post I suggested that at 800 or 900 feet it may be an option that should be considered if there are no options straight ahead (normally pretty unlikely but worth knowing in advance).

Why are you so entrenched in your viewpoint on this subject? why can't you see the plain logic of what I am suggesting?

Not all readers of this forum are students in fact many are competent pilots. Dare I suggest that you seem to hold a very rigid and illogical position on this.

[Final 3 Greens]

Turbo J

EFATO 400'

Firstly, may I state that as a PPL with a few hundred hours TT, I would land ahead +/- 30 degrees, unless this mandated a clearly higher probability of death than turning back. I'd also hope that I'd be smart enough not to knowlingly get into a position where landing ahead would be more dangerous than turning back.

Having said that, on the subject of instruction, just as pilots have differing skills experience and currency, so do instructors.

If the instructor makes the point as lucidly as you do, then why would any one doubt the advice? I think you are spot on for the typical PPL.

However, if an instructor simply says don't do it becuase I say so (or because I don't appear to know why, but the book says so), then I can understand why doubt creeps in.

Over the years, I've had some fab instructors who taught me a lot and some poor ones.

But on three occasions, I've witnessed the safety of the aircraft threatened by instructor's actions or suggestions.

Ergo, the quality of the instruction directly impacts the thinking action of the student.

But as I said before, you make your case convincingly - if you would contribute to the debate about at what stage an EFATO becomes a forced landing without power, then I would value that, especially as it is likely to have a number of variables to consider.

[S-Works]

Why are you so entrenched in your viewpoint on this subject? why can't you see the plain logic of what I am suggesting?

I think because the plain logic you are trying to put over is not quite so plain. Everyone has agreed that in exceptional circumstances it may be possible however the vast majority of the time it will end on disaster. The evidence out there supports this. The view of the regulator supports this. When we first become Instructors it is a subject done to death and so the training we are given and then give supports this.

Not all readers of this forum are students in fact many are competent pilots. Dare I suggest that you seem to hold a very rigid and illogical position on this.

You are quite correct many of them are. I would consider myself a pretty competent pilot, however I would think twice about a turn back. I only have to look at the endless line of people who turn up for the two year instructional flight and mess up the EFATO drills, and the PFL's to realise that 99.9% of people will kill themselves in a low level turn back attempt.

Therefore as professional pilots and Instructors we have a duty of care to try and make people understand that it is an unwise manoeuvre and the likelihood of disaster is extremely high.

It is fine for the armchair experts to pontificate on how it may be done and how they have done it after stetting up at 3000ft and practiced. It is a VERY different situation when it happens for real, low level and everything suddenly goes quiet. The shock time alone eats up time and height.

Rest assured I will get my point over to you eventually

You have got your point over perfectly. Now listen when those who do this for a living tell you why it is an unwise manoeuvre.

[Fuji Abound]

Bugger.......... Now I am at a loss for words.


I have a horrible feeling you will get your own back. :)

[dynamite dean]

Land straight ahead eevrytime ...howvever a few years back one instructor was discussing this and he reckoned he had done it (simulated) 500agl in the climb out then executed a 45 degree decending steep turn back the other way in a c150 I have to say it worked he is still with us but its stuff for hero's
not me your regular guy - his tip was you just have to have the courage!:E

[TurboJ]

Belowtheradar


Rest assured I will get my point over to you eventually,

Rest assured you won't. I accept your point of view and I am willing to listen and discuss other ideas and suggestions but please accept that turning back is frought with danger and there is a vast amount of literature available which supports this; (Feels like I'm repeating myself now to somebody who is not listening !) :ugh::ugh::ugh:

I have taught at large FTOs and their SOPs are there for a reason. Flying Order Books specifically state, "When the donkey quits land straight ahead; Do not attempt turn backs to the reciprocal runway below 1000ft AGL" If I taught what you advocate I would have been having tea and biscuits with my P45 on the table.

Bose-x - Great post -

if you would contribute to the debate about at what stage an EFATO becomes a forced landing without power, then I would value that, especially as it is likely to have a number of variables to consider.

I can't find anything written down specifically that gives a definition of an EFATO suffice to say its after take off ! Where the take off ends is to be honest a subjective one - In a jet for example, take off performance ends at 1500ft. - You could say it becomes a forced landing when the engine quits ??

I've looked at how PFLs are taught. One noteable feature is that I teach my students to be approximately, ball park figure, 1000-1500ft AGL at the end of the downwind to base leg; So on take off if the engine quits and you can make it to approximately 1000ft a 90deg turn onto a base leg sets you up for a forced landing without power ??

Off course its all approximate and relevant to the airfield you are at; for example a 90deg turn could put you downwind for another runway at the same field; If you are climbing over a built up area I would climb at Vx with flap to get as high as possible quickly, but watch that speed if you get a loss of power !!

Like in every walk of life there are good and bad instructors; there are also excellent instructors who have bad days; on some days everything can work against you and getting airbourne is an achievement in itself.

In my limited experience its always good to impart knowledge with some form of reason why; apart from I told you so; pointing out the documentary evidence to a student whether it be the FOB, Ops Manual, POH, AICs etc etc..gives the student the confidence that the instructor is not talking BS !!

If an instructor has made you uncomfortable with his aircraft handling skills then maybe it should be taken up with the CFI !!

[Final 3 Greens]

Turbo J

Thanks - your comments are what I expected and pretty much in line with my thinking, but nice to hear that I am not missing anything.

If an instructor has made you uncomfortable with his aircraft handling skills then maybe it should be taken up with the CFI !!

Actually, nothing to do with handling skills, rather decision making, e.g. in one case, 'don't check the carb heat before take off', after a full stop landing and long taxi, with 20 degree OAT and 75% humidity. When I mentioned carb ice, he told me it only occurs in winter :ugh:

Did talk to the CFI, but mainly to share the European knowledge on carb ice and the guys thanked me for the reference to the CAA document (this was inanother country.)

[Gertrude the Wombat]

within 30-45deg of runway centre line
From above the end of 23 at Cambridge it's a 90 degree turn to make the common. Instructors teach this as preferable to going straight ahead into the houses. But by that point you should be at 500'.

[belowradar]

OK Guys I am pleased that I have got my point across and Bose X I am also a full time instructor who flies for a living.

I don't see any more point in trying to convince you that in some circumstances it might be your only option.

Good luck and hope that you never have to find out

[S-Works]

I don't see any more point in trying to convince you that in some circumstances it might be your only option.

You mean die if you do, die if you don't?

[belowradar]

Bose X - very dramatic comment

The thing that surprises me the most with this debate is how inflexible some pilots are when it comes to looking objectively at possible options in a rational and unemotional way.

Anyway enough energy wasted already on this subject

[TurboJ]

and Bose X I am also a full time instructor who flies for a living.


belowradar - with some of your comments I am shocked that you reveal you are an instructor

1. So how do you teach EFATOs?
2. At what point do you advocate turning back to the field?
3. Does your FOB advocate you can turn back?
4. Does your FTO know you teach/advocate turning back to the field after an engine failure?
5. Do you teach the dangers of turning back to your students with statistical evidence of the likely outcome?
6. On your last instructor checkride did you explain to your FIC that is how you teach EFATOs and what was his/her reaction?

TJ

[Cricket23]

Interesting debate going on here. It would also be interesting to hear from anybody who has actually had an EFATO and what they did, how long it took them to react etc. However, I guess they would have posted already.

For what it's worth, when I was learning my instructor told me about an EFATO that he had had in an Auster at Shoreham. He didn't fancy getting wet, so turned back and lived to tell the tale. However, he is a pretty special pilot, and what he teaches his students is to land straight ahead +/- 30 degrees.

He does this on the basis that whilst you might get away with turning back, the chances are (and stats suggest) that you won't.

Regards,

Cricket23

[Black Jake]

Here's a thought for those at FTOs or flying clubs, or even syndicates at farm strips, for a practical way to (possibly?) improve the chances of a successful outcome should the elastic band driving the prop go twang. Put aside for a moment the theoretical (and it appears from some comments on here, the dogmatic), "land ahead" or "land within +/- 30 degrees" or even "in the right circumstances a turnback is possible."

In this age of digital cameras, how about taking a picture from about 500 feet agl of the view left, ahead and right (about a 90 degree panorama) from the end of each and every runway at your airfield. Paste the pictures on a notice board somewhere prominent and before flight stand in front of the pictures and, armed with factors such as the wind velocity, cloud base, aircraft performance calculations etc, decide what your best options are should the worst happen. For example, if there are suitable fields 40 degrees to the right, the wind is coming from the right, and all other sectors offer inhospitable terrain, one would be somewhat remiss to discount them.

Obviously this option may not be available when visiting other airfields - unless of course the locals have done similar. In which case the visitor can self brief his/her EFATO options for departure whilst settling the landing fees/booking out.

BJ

[belowradar]

Turbo - j

belowradar - with some of your comments I am shocked that you reveal you are an instructor

1. So how do you teach EFATOs? Same as everybody else don't turn back unless you have no options straight ahead and you have gained sufficient height to return to the airport environment (where there are crash facilities)
2. At what point do you advocate turning back to the field?Not normally but if you know that there are no options ahead then turning back may be an option if you have gained a minimum height (depending on weather, aircraft and proficiency)
3. Does your FOB advocate you can turn back? I am CFI so I advise students to plan well in advance, assess all likely eventualities and plan for them, to not abandon any possibility of a good outcome (i.e. assess ALL possible options and pick the best one)
4. Does your FTO know you teach/advocate turning back to the field after an engine failure?YES I am the CFI
5. Do you teach the dangers of turning back to your students with statistical evidence of the likely outcome? YES of course
6. On your last instructor checkride did you explain to your FIC that is how you teach EFATOs and what was his/her reaction? On my last proficiency check my instructor encouraged me to fly a return to runway after engine failure and to determine what height I would need to achieve before turning back. I decided on 800 feet given the aircraft and wind and we had lots of height left so needed to slip (it was a powerful turbine single). Yes it focused my mind on the ground in the turn as well as maintaining safe speed and balance but it was do-able and in rare instances it might just save your neck.

I don't buy the practice of teaching a dumbed down version of actions to students / pilots - this only leads to "Do as I say - Not as I do"

Effective problem solving = Plan ahead - assess all possible solutions to a problem - implement the best solution - monitor and review actions as necessary

I have never advocated not landing straight ahead - I agree that it is normally the best thing to do but I never say NEVER turn back

[S-Works]

I have never advocated not landing straight ahead - I agree that it is normally the best thing to do but I never say NEVER turn back

In which case it is you that has become dogmatic in the pursuit of pedantry.

Therefore as professional pilots and Instructors we have a duty of care to try and make people understand that it is an unwise manoeuvre and the likelihood of disaster is extremely high.

Others, myself included have agreed that it may be possible to turn back, by turn back we are talking about the attempt to land back on the aircraft behind you not trying to find a suitable place straight ahead or within a small turn arc. There are indeed sky gods who will make light work of such a manoeuvre. But as I have said many times in this thread, the average spam can driver is not a sky god.

Teaching it as a standard manoeuvre is wrong. The stats prove this and so the attitude of the establishment towards it has created the strong recommendation that you should never turn back for good reason.

Now if you think that you can do it and that you can train all your students to do it safely then I am truly impressed, you are a better pilot and Instructor than me. Please PM me your contact details as I am happy to take Instruction from a person as experienced as you who can teach me everything I need to know to survive a turn back.

As food for thought, the pilot I watched die on Saturday (that kicked this thread off), was he a sky god or was he thinking that he had exceptional circumstances and a turn back was appropriate, or did he maybe just think that it was an aircraft that he designed and built and knew like a second skin and it was his home airfield so he would be fine trying a turn back? We will never know, but it is another to add to the statistics that support the generally accepted advice that a turn back is likely to get you killed.

If we have Instructors sowing the seeds in pilots minds that a turn back might work in the right circumstances. Where do we draw the line at what might not work? There are to many variables for us as Instructors to teach. The 'establishment' understands they are aiming at Joe average and as such gives us guidelines to work in. Instructors trying to buck against the establishment because they think they know better undermines the system.

[bookworm]

Teaching it as a standard manoeuvre is wrong. The stats prove this ...

I'd be very surprised if that were the case, and invite you to cite these "stats". While it may be possible to find statistics that demonstrate that the success of the turnback as an untaught manoeuvre is low, the turnback has not been systematically included in the PPL syllabus for a very long time. Thus I don't think you can claim anything about the merits or otherwise of teaching it on the basis of statistics.

[S-Works]

Come on bookworm you are the king of stats. Take a look at the aib reports on fatalities of turn back attempts.

Are you telling me you condone it?

[Fuji Abound]

In the same vein neither has the recovery from a full power climb - although a required part of the FAA FT and two yearly renewal.

Is it the case that rather liking spining the justification is that the benefits don’t justify the rewards or is it the case some instructors are not capable of training the student in these manoeuvres competently.

Bookworm makes a good point - if low level recovery and turn back was a taught and practicised manoeuver undoubtedly pilots would stand a better chance of success.

[bjornhall]

Bookworm makes a good point - if low level recovery and turn back was a taught and practicised manoeuver undoubtedly pilots would stand a better chance of success.

But I'm convinced they would stand an even better chance if they neither train for it, nor attempt it.

Since the discussion has headed off towards flight training: Let's recall that the end result of the PPL training is a 45 - 70 hour baby-pilot, just barely able to keep him/herself alive unsupervised while they really learn to fly. To try to include turn backs in the PPL syllabus makes about as much as sense as teaching lomcevaks, and our chance of mastering it in a real emergency is about as high.

For an experienced and well trained pilot, I agree it might be the best option in some situations, and of course it can be completed successfully. Just like Cat III landings in a B744 can be completed successfully. But let's leave it to the professionals and the very experienced. Myself, I'd rather make sure I don't operate (at least not routinely) in places where a turn back is the only survivable option.

[Islander2]

Teaching it as a standard manoeuvre is wrong. The stats prove this and so the attitude of the establishment towards it has created the strong recommendation that you should never turn back for good reason.bose-x, it proved impossible to have a civilised debate with you on this subject elsewhere, and I've no intention of putting myself once again on the receiving end of a whole lot more misrepresentation of my position accompanied by personal abuse.

However, I would suggest you reconsider your observation above. Firstly, as bookworm has correctly observed, the stats tell you nothing of the sort. More importantly, if the stats tell you anything at all, it's that the UK approach to this problem has been notably unsuccessful in preventing people from turning back following an EFATO at low level.

I have argued extensively before, and still passionately believe, that this has something to do with the approach itself. Since we are taught that there is only one possible course of action, it follows there is no point in thinking about EFATO ahead of take-off. Accordingly, almost every pilot I ever fly with doesn't undertake a pre-take-off brief for action in the event of an EFATO, nor is such pre-take-off EFATO self-brief taught by the flying training establishment. And it is my contention, strongly held, that it is this very lack of immediate prior consideration that causes people to disregard their training and succumb to the more-natural instinct to turn back.

The glider fraternity does it differently, and with apparently greater success. Since cable breaks are a frequent occurence, all UK glider pilots are taught to undertake a pre-lauch brief where they consider the actions they will follow should the cable break (i.e. EFATO) after take-off. And they brief for potentially different action dependant on the height at which the failure occurs. If it happens below xxx feet, they will land ahead; if it happens between xxx and yyy feet, they will turn back and land in the opposite direction; if it happens above yyy feet, they will fly some kind of circuit and land sort of in the launch direction.

My argument is that the fixed-wing community would be better served by following glider practice. This means that, for the type we fly, we should:

a) acknowledge that the generally-accepted best AoB for the turn is around 45deg;

b) think long and hard about what would be an appropriate speed in the turn; do not just think you'd use 'best glide speed', but do completely disregard the suicidal nonsense from Rogers about flying at 5% above the 45deg AoB stall speed; personally I recommend 1.3x the 45deg AoB stall speed, which gives a decent safety margin over the stall albeit for some loss of turn back performance; in the absence of a carefully calculated speed, Vy is a generally a good number to aim for; in my A36 Bonanza, that means 100KIAS (although I actually use two numbers ... a low weight and a height weight figure);

c) go and experiment at safe altitudes, using the numbers from a and b above, to see what altitude-loss you seem to incur in completing, say, a 230deg turn in one direction followed by a 50 deg turn in the other; take note of, indeed be surprised by, how large a figure this is; in my Bonanza, it's 700-800ft; acknowledge that an actual failure is likely still to be followed by some kind of WTF moment, despite our pre-take-off brief, so add a margin; accordingly, in the Bonanza, I have established 1,000 ft as the height below which I will not contemplate turning back;

c) just before every take-off, spare some time (10secs is all that's required) for an EFATO self-brief; consider the wind direction and surrounding terrain, contemplate that any turn-back is best made by turning into the wind unless obstruction considerations dictate otherwise; say to yourself: "should the engine fail below xxxft altitude, I will land straight ahead +/- 30deg ... above xxxft altitude I will consider turning back with a left (right) turn using 45deg AoB and yyKIAS as target figures."

If this approach were to be widely adopted, I believe the EFATO fatality statistics in the UK would be measurably improved. Others are entitled to disagree, but logical arguments would be preferable to mindless mantra.

Doubtless this is the point where bose-x will be back with sky-god or armchair expert accusations, but I am not and never have advocated turning back from an EFATO at low height (I think my own personal minima of 1,000 ft in the Bonanza underscores that), although that hasn't stopped the suggestion from being made. As it happens, I can find few if any people here or on the Flyer Forum thread that have advocated doing so!

[S-Works]

We are arguing semantics here Islander. It was not me that gave you anyt abuse on Flyer either for the record. It was rather Ian suggested that you were hammering home the point a little needlessly.

I simply maintain that while I am sure that a turn back is possible, for the average joe spam can driver it is unwise.

I am getting into no further debate with you on this Chris. I personally think you are wrong advocating it, you think you are right. That is not going to change. Fortunately you are not teaching so this will remain an armchair debate.

[Islander2]

It was not me that gave you anyt abuse on Flyer either for the record.Well, for the record, I view being referred to as a prat, a sky god and an armchair expert as abuse. And it wasn't Ian that used those terms.

Fortunately you are not teaching so this will remain an armchair debate.There you go again. Why, bose-x, do you find it utterly impossible to engage in debate without constant attempts to put the other person down. It does you no favours at all. I don't think you'll find a convincing argument to support the notion that only instructors can have a valid point of view on this topic!

[Islander2]

Across the 30+ years I've been flying, EFATO turn back with fatal consequence has been a regular occurrence ... mmflynn's earlier statistic of 8 in 10 years seems, from recollection, quite possibly representative of earlier periods.

Accordingly, despite the flight training syllabus having constantly hammered home 'don't turn back from low height' throughout that period, people frequently still do.

bose-x, your contribution as to how to reduce these unnecessary fatalities seems to be: simply to keep hammering home 'don't turn back from low height'; in other words more of the same.

I'm suggesting a change is needed, the principal part of which is to start teaching an EFATO pre-take-off self-brief. But there again, I'm not an instructor, so :oh:

[S-Works]

Well, for the record, I view being referred to as a prat, a sky god and an armchair expert as abuse. And it wasn't Ian that used those terms.

I apologised for calling you a prat over there and will do so again here publicly.

I'm suggesting a change is needed, the principal part of which is to start teaching an EFATO pre-take-off self-brief. But there again, I'm not an instructor, so

It is my understanding that those who are experts in instructional technique have reviewed this subject many times and the over riding opinion has been that it is inadvisable to make a turn back after an EFATO. Your not turning back unless above 1000ft in my mind is not an EFATO, it is a failure at circuit height and if you could not make a turn and land back on the airfield after such a filure it is a poor show. When I fly the Chippy I rarely get ABOVE 1000ft.....

If the donkey quits at a couple of hundred feet then it becomes a different discussion. The problem we are having with this argument is where does an EFATO become a failure at circuit height?


bose-x, your contribution as to how to reduce these unnecessary fatalities seems to be: simply to keep hammering home 'don't turn back from low height'; in other words more of the same.

Yes it is, my professional liability insurance does not allow me to appoint myself a greater authority than the teaching establishment. You are free to do so, if you manage to convince them of your argument then I will adapt accordingly.

[what next]

Hello!

...simply to keep hammering home 'don't turn back from low height';

No. No more "hammering" and "drills", no more trained apes and pre-programmed robots in the cockpit, please! As you said yourself, it dosen't help.

We must train them to become pilots. The main skill of a pilot is not to hold on to his stick and throttle while following a line on his map, but to be able to assess a situation quickly, to draw an accurate conclusion from it, to decide upon the course of action and to stick with that decision. Google for "Sullenberger" if you don't know what I mean.

Giving the students rules as guidelines to base their decisions on or to bias the direction in which their decision should point is a good thing. Based on experience, the rule "don't turn back" will be a good basis for a decision in most of the cases. But not in all cases (anybody ever been to Berlin Tempelhof (R.I.P.) - any turn with less than ninety degrees would have meant certain death there!). And therefore "hammering in" a rule like "don't ever turn back!" is wrong. Terribly wrong. Becuause rules and drills are only good if they _always_ work.

The way to do it and the way to teach it is very simple and as old as aviation itself: Teach them do do a proper departure briefing (as does every professional flight crew) before every flight, specific to that flight. Taking into account the runway, the aerodrome, the weather, the performance of the aeroplane and all other relevant factors.

Once in the air, it is too late to decide upon the course of action in case of an emergency in the early stages of the take-off. The decision must have been taken and briefed _before_ even lining up on the runway. Like "Islander2" described for the case of a possible cable-break when which-launching gliders (we did exactly the same thing when I flew gliders 30 years ago!).

Another thing that is important to teach and to train is to actually plan for an EFATO before _every_ departure. Take off every time, as if an engine faliure is a normal occurrence. Don't ever accept intersection takeoffs on runways that have obstacles behind them. Use every metre awailable, perform a static-thrust short-field takeoff, climb at best-angle-of-climb speed, so that you will be at a comfortable height with as many options as possible when you cross the airfield boundary. (To hell with possible noise complaints - this is _your_ life and not theirs, and emergency vehicles make a lot of noise too!). Find out how much altitude _your_ aeroplane loses in a tight 180-degree turn (or 270 followed by 90 if you need to land opposite on your takeoff runway). Add this figure to your field elevation (plus some safety margin) and you get your "gate" altitude below which turning back is impossible by the laws of physics. Include this figure in your departure briefing ("In case of engine malfunction below xyzt feet, we _have_ to go straight, in case of engine malfunction above xyzt feet, we _try_ to land straight ahead, if no suitable landing area is apparent, we also have the option to turn back"). Do this before every flight - let your student do this before every flight - and none of you will ever crash because of an engine failure.
And all this by understanding and logic and not through dumb "hammering" and "drills".

Happy landings,
Max

[S-Works]

t not in all cases (anybody ever been to Berlin Tempelhof (R.I.P.) - any turn with less than ninety degrees would have meant certain death there!). And therefore "hammering in" a rule like "don't ever turn back!" is wrong. Terribly wrong. Becuause rules and drills are only good if they _always_ work.

We are talking about the TURN BACK after an EFATO. That is the turn with the sole intention of trying to land back on the runway that you have just departed from........

Anyway, I am done arguing on this subject as I think we are arguing for arguing sake.

[Islander2]

Teach them do do a proper departure briefing (as does every professional flight crew) before every flight, specific to that flight.Yep, what next, that's the main change I'm advocating. I believe the gliding community has already established its worth for saving lives following an EFATO.

climb at best-angle-of-climb speedBut I don't agree with you there, unless obstacle clearance is an issue. Departures should generally be undertaken at Vy. A Vx climb means the nose is way up and, given the potential for a 'denial period' following engine failure, it significantly increases the chance of a stall and potential spin (the primary event we're trying to safeguard against). Furthermore, to quote John Eckalbar (from Flying High Performance Singles and Twins), who is a hugely experienced instructor in the American Bonanza Society's Bonanza and Baron Pilot Proficiency Programs and who has given more than a passing thought to this subject: "It is true that Vx would keep you closer to your starting point on the runway and give you a more favourable angle back to the runway, but until you are high enough to maneuvre back, the angle back is irrelevant. So get altitude as quickly as you can."

[Islander2]

As a final observation for those that are keen to take something away from this, bose-x said:

Your not turning back unless above 1000ft in my mind is not an EFATO, it is a failure at circuit height and if you could not make a turn and land back on the airfield after such a filure it is a poor show. He made a similar observation on Flyer Forum regarding an engine failure at 800ft, and even suggested that in those circumstances a circuit could be completed to land on the departure runway in the take-off direction! This is a particularly dangerous suggestion, IMHO, for some types (certainly my Bonanza, but I would have thought also the PA46 he sometimes flies), and is rather ironic given that a handful of posts back bose-x repeats the allegation that it is me who is advocating turn-backs, and it is him that is against them! :bored:

So bose-x's position, and I would be absolutely delighted if he would contradict me with a clear, factual rebuttal, is that :

a) turning back after an EFATO (which, by his definition, is at low height) is a no-no;

b) if you cannot turn and land back on the airfield from an engine failure at 1,000 ft (or, apparently, 800 ft) it's a poor show; and

c) between these two ... i.e. what maximum height constitutes an EFATO, and what happens if the engine failure occurs after that and before circuit height? ...ah, well there's the rub.

My answer to c) is to study the stall speeds in the POH at 45deg AoB, determine a safety speed for the maneuvre, go experiment at a safe altitude and establish some operating procedures for your aeroplane, skill and comfort level, and then brief the alternatives before every take-off.

bose-x's answer is ... well, apparently he doesn't have one. On Flyer Forum, my query is said to be 'pedantic'. Here, apparently we're 'arguing semantics' or 'arguing for arguments sake'.

So I leave it you to decide what options are open to you should you be sufficiently unfortunate to experience an engine failure on climb out above an unspecified low height (prior to which it is apparently an 'EFATO' and where nobody, as far as I can tell, is disputing that you should land pretty well straight ahead) but before an unspecified higher height (at or below circuit height which is apparently not an 'EFATO' and should, or perhaps should not, be dealt with the same as an engine failure en route).

[S-Works]

c) between these two ... i.e. what maximum height constitutes an EFATO, and what happens if the engine failure occurs after that and before circuit height? ...ah, well there's th rub.

That is indeed the rub Chris. You really have taken me not agreeing with you very personally..... We are arguing at semantics here so that you can attempt to brow beat those that don't agree with you into agreeing. By the way that was the reason Ian told you to drop it.....

An EFATO is the failure of an engine immediately after take off, for most spam cans 800-1000ft is not immediately it is usually a minute of two into the flight. At 1000ft I am already down wind or continuing the climb into the overhead, having made the turn cross wind at 500ft and down wind at 800-1000ft. If the engine then quits at that point it, I am ALREADY pointing back at the airfield and it becomes a glide approach.

An EFATO that occurs immediately after take off gives you no height, no momentum and no thinking time. This is the reason why we teach to land straight ahead. In the Lance of the Donkey quits on the climb out, the only place you are going is straight down in front of you. The Malibu is the same.

You have worked out all of those fancy numbers for your bonanaza and I applaud you. I sincerely hope you never have to test for REAL if you got them right. In the meantime I will continue to teach the way I was taught and as recommended by the regulator in this country. As I said before I am not wise enough or clever enough to think I know better than the people who taught me to teach.

immediately |iˈmēdē-itlē|
adverb
1 at once; instantly : I called immediately for an ambulance.
2 without any intervening time or space : she was sitting immediately behind me.
• in direct or very close relation : they would be the states most immediately affected by any such action.
conjunction chiefly Brit.
as soon as : let me know immediately she arrives.

[belowradar]

Since the discussion has headed off towards flight training: Let's recall that the end result of the PPL training is a 45 - 70 hour baby-pilot, just barely able to keep him/herself alive unsupervised while they really learn to fly

Now the above comment is very enlightening !

Now if you think that you can do it and that you can train all your students to do it safely then I am truly impressed, you are a better pilot and Instructor than me. Please PM me your contact details as I am happy to take Instruction from a person as experienced as you who can teach me everything I need to know to survive a turn back

I do not train my PPL's to be "baby pilots", I believe that a newly licensed pilot should be very sharp and knowledgeable. As an examiner I do not think that the student pilot sitting next to me is incompetent before the check flight begins !

Bose X I would love to teach you how to turn back but I am certainly no SKY GOD

It is great to see some balance at long last in this debate - Islander 2 and what next great posts ! I flew gliders as well (post ppl) and learned to cope with rope break's at 200 feet agl and still made the field which I believe was fantastic training in emergency procedures.

Brief your options prior to departure and then stick to them if problems occur. Also listen to others view points and think about them, you might just learn something new.

I understand that Bose X and others have fixed views on this subject and that is fine, I am pleased that another viewpoint has received a fair hearing and I hope that some of the advice is adopted and included in departure briefs. CAVEAT - Once practiced with an instructor who knows how to teach the manouver safely !

[IO540]

Who here is actually a real JAA PPL (legally capable ab initio) instructor?

[what next]

Who here is actually a real JAA PPL (legally capable ab initio) instructor?

Not that it matters much, but I am (FI PPL-IR(A); FI CPL-IR(A); CRI SEP; CRI MEP).

And regarding the Vx vs. Vy climb above: When I wrote "best angle" I had my Berlin Tempelhof example in mind. There, you really wanted to cross the upwind end of the runway with every foot of height that you could possibly get. Zero options for a forced landing for the next ten miles once you were outside the airfield boundary... Mind you, they had flying schools there! But they were certainly not hammering the "don't ever turn back"-dogma into their students...

Greetings, Max

[old,not bold]

From the Flight Archive, 1973, Letters.....

The Impossible Turn
SIR,—Mr Bramson is right (Flight, August 9), his figures
impeccable, and many accidents prove it. The same lesson
was hammered home to me by my instructor at the club
where I learned to fly, in much the same way.
On what was going to be the final dual circuit before I
went solo, the engine failed at about 300ft just as we
crossed the upwind threshold in an Auster. As a result of
the instruction I have mentioned I immediately lowered the
nose and started to glide more or less straight forward to
the best available landing area, which had been pointed
out on previous circuits, and to almost certain disaster
from the obstructions on it. A shout of "I have control", a
120° diving turn, and a safe touchdown on the grass across
and slightly downwind. Some time later the full implications
of the incident came home to me.
I therefore read Mr Bramson's article with interest. I
believe that to be so dogmatic on this subject may well be
the cause of as much injury and loss of life as the turning
back Mr Bramson is trying to eliminate. I believe that no
pilot faced with a choice of landing ahead into what appears
to be certain disaster or attempting to turn back will
select the former course. This being so, surely he should
be taught to do it properly while at the same time being
taught that it is a last-ditch measure fraught with danger.
Many of the arguments made in the article are not
against the manoeuvre per se, but against the manoeuvre
because most pilots will fail to maintain flying speed while
carrying it out. If it is taught and practised from an early
stage this need not be so.
Most of the danger inherent in turning back derives
from arriving at the upwind threshold, or the point short
of it from where a straight-ahead landing on the runway
is no longer possible, with insufficient height. Yet how often
does one see a single-engined aircraft taking off from an
intersection? Too often, particularly if we are going to be
dogmatic about landing straight ahead when all goes quiet.
I would doubt Mr Bramson's assumption that a 180° turn
is required to achieve a safe landing area. At some airfields,
notably private strips and places like Elstree, maybe so,
but generally a 120° or 160° turn is all that will be needed
to put the aircraft down on the open and relatively obstruction-
free area that usually surrounds a runway. This, of
381
course, is from the position the aircraft is likely to be in
at the low height which makes the turn dangerous.
Two factors in the problem have changed since the rule
was found to be the only acceptable one. First, whereas
some years ago it was a reasonable assumption that a
training airfield would be in open farm country with obstruction-
free surroundings, this is no longer so. A pilot is
more likely to be faced with a housing estate, a factory, a
playground or a similarly unusable landing area. Secondly,
modern light aircraft arrive at the upwind threshold at a
greater height than their forbears. These factors combine
to make it necessary to review the dogma.


That letter was right, and vilified at the time.........

How many flying schools teach that in a single engine aircraft, ALL the available runway MUST be used? Not many. Engines are sooo reliable these days, aren't they? What's the point?


Ah well,

[Lister Noble]

Where I was taught to fly,about three years ago,we were told to use all the runway,always.
I still do, with the tailwheel almost against the ditch on the threshold,as has been said,the strip is not much use behind you.
I do this both taking off and landing ,it's not a long strip and I want to give myself as much help as possible in the chance of something going wrong.
Lister

[what next]

Hello!

How many flying schools teach that in a single engine aircraft, ALL the available runway MUST be used?

Generally, we do it (didn't I write "don't accept intersection takeoffs" above?). One problem is, that our homebase (STR) does not encourage full-length takeoffs with aeroplanes below 5,7 tons, which forces us to take an intersection most of the time. Of course as pilot in command you could insist on the full runway, but this could cause lengthy delays for everybody. On the other hand, we (still) have plenty of suitable fields for a forced landing so that an intersection takeoff is notg really a safety issue.

Greetings, Max

[old,not bold]

..our homebase (STR) does not encourage full-length takeoffs with aeroplanes below 5,7 tons, which forces us to take an intersection most of the time. Of course as pilot in command you could insist on the full runway, but this could cause lengthy delays for everybody.......we (still) have plenty of suitable fields for a forced landing so that an intersection takeoff is not really a safety issue.



Hmmmm........so when an engine does fail on a student with 2 solo hours, and the forced landing that follows isn't quite as textbook as it could be, and the student ends up dead, (hit a tree at one end or another of the suitable field, maybe) I wonder how all that will sound when you give evidence about the reason the student used the intersection instead of taking the full length, to a Coroner's Court?

That aside, the real point of the ancient letter above was that students should be taught to operate so that if the engine stops before they can turn back they have enough room to land ahead, and that if it stops after that point they know and have practised how to turn back.

It would follow that the must be able to calculate, for every take-off, the precise height AAL at and above which they can turn back, and moreover should do this sum as a matter of routine. They should know which way to turn and for how many degrees. But above all they must know and practise the immediate, steep, diving turn needed.

[Piper.Classique]

Who here is actually a real JAA PPL (legally capable ab initio) instructor?

Well, if you think it is only instructors who have a valid view on this, maybe we should move the thread?


As it happens I was an FI when living in UK, I now fly group A for my personal pleasure, and am current on Piper super cub, DR400, and MS893. I hold a french microlight instructors rating for three axis, and am current on the Rans Coyote tailwheel version, and the Sinus ditto. I own a standard libelle, on which I am current, although my french and english glider instructors ratings are now lapsed. I also fly hot air balloons and am a student on "paramoteur". I am a tug pilot on the cub and rallye. It is two years since my last freefall parachute jump.

Right, now that we have got that out of the way, and yes I can supply licence numbers, can I make my point please?

One size does not fit all. As I mentioned earlier, it will depend not only on what is ahead of you but also on (in no paricular order)
Rate of climb
Wind speed and direction
Pilot's experience and recency
type of circuit flown
Runways and off runway but on the airfield available landing areas
Reaction time after the motor fails
Type of failure
Gliding performance of the aircraft
Manouverability of the aircraft
and probably what you had for breakfast

What the best option may be after an engine failure in the initial climb out.

So far many posters have made valid points spoiled by a personal antagonism manifested by name calling worthy of a primary school playground. One of the most useful posts, which actually contained a helpful and sensible practical suggestion has been firmly ignored (photographs of available fields on the climb out)

Please, people, can we all read other people's posts without flying to an instant rebuttal? I know who I will and won't be visiting should I need to take a check ride. The instructors who slag off other posters are at the top of my ignore list for sure. Those who give a reasoned argument without name calling, whether I agree with them or not, seem the most likely to train competent PPLs, who can actually engage brain before action.

A final thought......

Practice makes perfect, so instead of continuing to read this thread and see my blood pressure increase to the point where I fail my next medical, I am off to get the cub out and go flying

[IO540]

I would turn back from c. 800ft or more if ahead was a built up area. It's no use crashing into a house, is it? Or a forest - unless you get really lucky that will wreck the plane; witness some recent fatal crashes into forests where the site pictures were published (e.g. N403HP).

I also do not understand the comment about using the whole runway. Surely, one has an pre-established value for Vr according to loading. One rotates at Vr, climbs at Vx for obstacle clearance, continues at Vy, and transitions to a all-3-fwd "cruise climb" to limit the CHTs. The actual value for Vr depends on how keen one is to get off the ground. If departing from 500m (the absolute TB20 min is c. 400m at MTOW, ISA etc) then I will do a max-perf takeoff where I rotate at c. 65kt, stall warner going off etc. Elsewhere, I lift off at a more leisurely 75kt. But whole runway? No way. After 75kt I would have to force the thing to stay on the runway, which is totally pointless.

Also, as already pointed out, a 180 back to the runway is rarely necessary. A 130-160 is likely to take you back to within the airport perimeter which is perfectly good enough and if you don't break anything it is 100% as good as landing on the runway itself.

[Piper.Classique]

I also do not understand the comment about using the whole runway
Unless I am missing something here, I think the poster meant "start at the beginning of the runway, so that when you get to the end, you will have some depth under you":ok:

[Lister Noble]

Thank you Piper Classique.:ok:
That is exactly what I meant.
I don't fly down the whole length of the runway and then decide to climb:ugh:
Lister

[007helicopter]

One of the most useful posts, which actually contained a helpful and sensible practical suggestion has been firmly ignored (photographs of available fields on the climb out)



Followed this thread and totally agree with PC,s point here and took a close look at my home base EGTO Rochester on Google Earth, while it confirm limited options on most departures it certainly helped pin point a few options

[Lurking123]

I wouldn't disagree. But my granny taught me to look for suitable fields at all stages of VFR flight, not just climbout.:)

[what next]

Hmmmm........so when an engine does fail on a student with 2 solo hours, and the forced landing that follows isn't quite as textbook as it could be, and the student ends up dead, (hit a tree at one end or another of the suitable field, maybe) I wonder how all that will sound when you give evidence about the reason the student used the intersection instead of taking the full length, to a Coroner's Court?

Let's hope it never happens. But there will not be much of a court case anyway, because

a) they must prove that he would have survived if he had used the whole length of the runway and
b) they must prove that the flying school told him to make an intersection takeoff and
c) it would be a case of XYZ vs. the federal republic of germay because the dispaced threshold for light aircraft is an officially approved thing and published in the AIP and on the approach plates.

But point c) does not take away the responsability from the pilot himself: If he is uneasy with the intersection takeoff (for density altitude, performance, wind or other reasons) then he must make sure that he gets more runway.

The most important thing is that every student is made aware of these considerations at the earliest possible stage of his practical training. Then a debate like the one we have here would be totally unnecessary...

Greetings, Max

[007helicopter]

I wouldn't disagree. But my granny taught me to look for suitable fields at all stages of VFR flight, not just climbout


True but the thread is about EFATO and it has certainly focussed my mind of the options during this phase of flight and to make it part of my own pre departure planning which if I am completely honest has hardly been a consideration previously in fix wing. For some reason I have allways thought about it much more during rotary flying.

[Lurking123]

As someone who previously dabbled with helicopters, I can say that the helicopter pilot is far more aware of his immediate surroundings expecting the engine failure at all times. Maybe this is something that should be encouraged in fixed wing flying.

[Barcli]

IO540 wrote " Who here is actually a real JAA PPL (legally capable ab initio) instructor? " :D

hang on aminute ..... someone is missing from this discussion all of a sudden ? :ooh:

nerve / touch

[belowradar]

Barcli - Just in case it is yours truly that you refer to, happy to report that I am a fully paid up member of the JAR PPL instructor fraternity and Examiner to boot !:)

[Lurking123]

Nah, Barcli is just trying to stir things up (again) with his expensive headset mate.

JAA CPL FI and some other stuff (in case anyone one was really interested):ugh:

[Lurking123]

F3G, I think we are saying the same thing. 'Looking for fields' is probably not the right terminology, maybe 'expect the engine to fail' is better. As you say, the important bit is to have an option/plan before something goes wrong. Personally, I always go through a pre-departure brief (even when flying solo).

[Final 3 Greens]

Lurking 123

Fair enough, I'll delete the prior post.

[Lurking123]

No need, it was my fault for being vague. One thing I am learning about instructing (the ink is still quite moist) is that vagueness is no good with students. :bored:

[Final 3 Greens]

One thing I am learning about instructing (the ink is still quite moist) is that vagueness is no good with students.

My day job involves some instructional design/facilitation (amongst other things), so I'd say inexperienced people need clear guidelines, e.g. 300' EFATO, land ahead, Bose-X has made this point powerfully.

Later on, it's a different matter, when judgment becomes more important.

To some extent, we've seen that on this thread, although the statistics for turning back do make grim reading.

However for private pilots, post PPL, there isn't really a clear framework for developing that judgment, compared to the way the airline industry operates.

Having been fortunate to experience some airline standard training in a sim, one can see why their safety record is so good, the art of judgment is developed/maintained in ahighly effective way.

[Pilot DAR]

A recent reminder that attempting an unplanned turnback after an engine failure after takeoff, is a horribly bad idea.

A friend made such an attempt a few days back, instead of heading into the lake. As of this morning, that attempt was fatal.

This is the second fatal turn back attempt in Ontario in the last month or so.

Plan your forced approach ahead, not behind...