EFATO turn back

[Aimpoint]

I don't know the full story about what happened at YCAB yesterday, however, to avoid that thread turning in to one that starts a debate about EFATO techniques, I thought I'd start a new thread.

A couple of years ago I nearly spat my beer our while I listened to an experienced ATO explain to a group of impressionable students about what he'd do following an engine failure after take off. Despite his flying school teaching to land straight ahead if the failure happens below 500ft, he said he could achieve it from a much lower level.

It leaves me wondering two things. First, why do people continue to crash attempting to turn back low level? Secondly, why do experienced pilots think they know best, and as such try to convince newbies without the necessary skills, when a history of events written in blood demonstrates this is a poor option?

[allthecoolnamesarego]

I think there is already a thread on this subject. Can't find it, perhaps the mods know?

[Ollie Onion]

Turn back after EFATO is certainly possible if the pilot in question is suitably equipped with training and skill. I know some military 'test pilot' types practice this maneouvre. Problem is that 99% of the rest of us are not 'test pilots' and the chances of us killing ourselves trying this turn are significantly higher than the tried and true dropping the nose and landing straight ahead. :sad:

Ollie :{:{

[PA39]

Training and experience. It is an easy temptation to turn back to what is perceived as safe ground. ONLY repetitive training and practice will instil the mindset to not turn back. Engine failure at low level is indeed an extremely perilous situation. Sometimes circumstances are such that it just isn't going to end favourably. EFATO into scrub country greatly reduces the chance of survival. I have my heart in my mouth every time I take off in certain topography. My heart felt sympathy goes out to this bloke and his grieving family. :sad

[Jabawocky]

At YCAB today there is some doubt about it being classic EFATO and may have been at a greater height and distance but still did not make it back.

As PA39 says, practise and experience. I know I will be doing more, in fact just did a bunch of glide approaches in an aircraft that is not mine.

And there in lies the task, know your aeroplane and be more cautious with ones you don't know.

Mine will do turn backs at an amazing level when others from the same manufacturer need much more.

[Pass-A-Frozzo]

If practiced, and briefed.. what's the issue?

[VH-XXX]

Practiced it many many times.... But probably would be unlikely to do it in practice (for real). FAR too many variables. Problem with demonstrating it to a student is that they will always consider the practice altitude to be the future reference point regardless of the conditions and that can only end badly.

[Pass-A-Frozzo]

The takeoff brief should take into account the conditions.

:ok:

You name the altitude in your takeoff brief.

Practiced it many many times.... But probably would be unlikely to do it in practice (for real).

If that is your thought, why are you wasting your time and money practicing them?

[Wally Mk2]

'jaba'(& the rest of you lot who knew the guy) I'm sorry to hear of yr friend who has left way too early, life is very fragile for us all:-)
As for turning back after T/off? Well most know that's dangerous territory as there are so many variables. IF & I say IF yr of the type that would consider a turn back then a thorough personal brief prior to pushing up the power is needed for every take off.

I learnt out of EN surrounded by houses & infrastructure so a turn back was always considered but there where requirements that where briefed prior.
Blw 500 ft never!Remember you need to do more than a simple 180 deg turn to get back onto the dep rwy,(if that's yr aim) that req's more maneuvering & loss of height.
Headwind greater than 15 kts land straight ahead. You know in a typical Cessna single lighty you could almost get the touch down speed to around 25+kts in any decent wind,now would or should be very survivable. Turn around & now you have something like 60 kts touchdown in a decent tail wind with the possibility of going off field anyway & that's assuming you got the wings level & the ROD reduced prior to impact.
Always use full rwy length where possible, the little bit of extra gas used taxing full length was worth itI reckon,gave you options.
Climb at best rate 'till 500 ft then ease off a little.
All these factors was something that I was taught to consider when I was as green as a blade of grass.

I rarely fly a single these days (thank God!) but would still seriously give myself a turn back brief at a particular airfield.
I wonder how many guys/gals actually think about a turn back prior to launching? Very few I'd say as it's rare to have an EFATO these days anyway meaning we get complacent.


Wmk2

[SpyderPig]

Didn't chimbu chuck video his experiments on turn backs last time this was discussed on here?

[MakeItHappenCaptain]

Wally, good start, but personally I don't let up on Vy until at least 1000' AGL.

Survival lesson #1, kiddies,

HEIGHT GIVES YOU CHOICES!

Get it ASAP!:ok:

Even in a caravan (12:1 glide ratio), one company's SOP is not to be done below 700' AGL and only then if is has been practised on a monthly basis with C&T.

Frozo,
Even if briefed, the "Oh Sheet" factor can introduce an unacceptable delay into the pilot's decision to turn back. Then there's the tendancy to load up the wing during the turn (increasing stall speed) or to raise the nose inadvertently to reach the runway (mistakenly, stall again), both of which have a nasty consequence at the low level this is being done at.:(

[VH-XXX]

If that is your thought, why are you wasting your time and money practicing them?

It's only avgas and fills in the day.

Too many variables, if you've tried it more than once you would understand. Runway length, wind, crosswind, takeoff weight... Working all that out before takeoff would be near impossible.

[Pass-A-Frozzo]

Too many variables, if you've tried it more than once you would understand. Runway length, wind, crosswind, takeoff weight... Working all that out before takeoff would be near impossible.

It's not...

It's practiced with regularity at RAAF Pearce.. successfully...

[baswell]

I rarely fly a single these days (thank God!)
Hate to break it to you, but if that twin is a piston, you are thoroughly kidding yourself:

http://sr22.files.wordpress.com/2007/10/gaaccidentsbytype.png?w=500

From: General Aviation Safety and the Cirrus SR22 | Cirrus SR22 Blog (http://sr22.wordpress.com/2007/10/24/general-aviation-safety-and-the-cirrus-sr22/)

Most surprising to me is that turboprop (singles and multi?) seem to have a (marginally) higher fatality rate than piston singles.

No reason to believe these numbers will be any different for Australia.

[Pass-A-Frozzo]

Bas,

A bit of a silly stat.

For example, how many hours are spent in training, with an instructor etc in singles vs Multi's? How many PAX are usually held in a multi vs a single? i.e. a single pax aircraft accident with no fatalities vs a 12 pax accident where one dies? How do you account for control factors???

Hate to break it to you...

:rolleyes:

[aussie027]

US AOPA mag published a very good article on this and the way to practice a technique to achieve a safe turn back a few mo ago.
You can probably find it on net, I'm sure I kept it for future reference.
It covered many factors including the oh !@#$% factor by delaying action starting the manoeuvre by so many secs etc.
if anyone is interested in it post here and I'll try and find a link to it or make a pdf copy available via email. :ok:

[MakeItHappenCaptain]

Most surprising to me is that turboprop (singles and multi?) seem to have a (marginally) higher fatality rate than piston singles.

No reason to believe these numbers will be any different for Australia.

Oh re...he...he...heally???:cool:

Just how many turboprop fatalities have there been this year in Oz, pray tell....

[Wally Mk2]

'bas' I didn't want to get in to the single V twin debate on this thread,that's been done to death in here & those that know me know that twin is safer, for me,but that's just my slant on things regardless of how the stats add up. I've said it a zillion times it's personal choice,twin for me(where possible):)

'MIHC' I agree 1000' is better & 1500' is better still:ok:

Turn at yr own peril:-)



Wmk2

[baswell]

How many PAX are usually held in a multi vs a single? i.e. a single pax aircraft accident with no fatalities vs a 12 pax accident where one dies?
Which 12 seater piston twin flying GA would that be? :rolleyes:

If you have a problem with the "fatalities per 100,000 hours" statistic, I suggest you take it up the FAA, NTSB, CASA, ATSB, EASA, etc...

Even if the average occupancy of light GA twins is double that of singles (which is highly doubtful) then the fatality rate is at best still barely better than singles.

Just how many turboprop fatalities have there been this year in Oz, pray tell....
No point in praying, I am an atheist. If you must know, the comment was more regarding the single vs. twins. That said: just because we have not had an accident this year doesn't say much. Maybe there are relatively so few light GA turbines being flown here and that is the reason we don't have one every year. Doesn't mean the statistical probability of it happening is any less.

[VH-XXX]

The RAAF might endorse the turn back but remember that would usually be on a 1500 metre or more runway. Try it on 500-1000 metres and things are very different.

[PA39]

Its all BS. engine failure at say 200..... fuel pump, carby heat, check mags, cycle the throttle and oh yes don't forget the mayday call and pax brief, you're down to 150 at best.....wake up you guys, put the thing down straight ahead. You have some chance by a controlled F/L and absolutely no chance if you go in uncontrolled. In these circumstances the stall spin is inviting such an outcome. For you young instructors....pull the throttle very regularly to get the student into the "habit". Make sure you're capable and pull the power at 100, 200, 300 etc Get the guys reactions for the time given!! Believe me it doesn't always go by the text book. For you blokes that do AFR's .....perfect opportunity to get them up to speed. Give them value when doing the revue, you just may save his and the lives of others. I'll always remember one very senior (in experience and age) pilot saying to me "well what would you like me to do now" when I failed his donk at 150'!! :ugh::ugh:

[metalman2]

I did my gfpt at Hervey bay 2000m strip, had the instructor teach me to turn back, he and I could do it quite successfully . problem is, I realized , we had a lot of runway beneath us still at 500ft which sets me up for a big surprise on a shorter strip ,i would never contemplate it below 500 , not I anything I fly part time !

[Slippery_Pete]

I can't believe people are still defending this.

The only time turn backs are appropriate in a single is in a higher performance turbine, at a company with appropriate SOPs and C&T to back it up - such as RFDS.

It should not be taught, or encouraged in light singles.

Demonstrating it to pilots gives them false confidence that it can be achieved no matter what the varaibles. In reality, the manoeuvre becomes infinitely more dangerous with even small changes in wind, runway length, aircraft weight/takeoff performance, pilot reaction time, pilot ability, and stress of dealing with a real emergency.

I'd much rather take my chances 100% of the time in a straight ahead landing touching down at 50 knots in a tree canopy, than the possible stall/spin/crash/burn scenario of a turn back. Teach a pilot to do it from 1000' on a 1500m runway, I guarantee if it happens at 800' on a 1200m runway, he's going to give it a go (and probably kill himself and passengers in the process).

And whoever decides I'm a fool, I challenge you to one of two things:
a) demonstrate one at 500' in your C172 or PA28... on a 500m runway on a nil wind day (without dying); or
b) explain how you accurately calculate the minimum turn back altitude to elect in your takeoff briefing (let's assume 900m runway, 5 knot headwind, at MTOW).

Chief Pilots who teach this s**t should immediately lose their approvals from CASA.

[Aimpoint]

Bas, if you read further the higher twin fatality rate is contributed to asymetric loss of control. You're unlikely to lose control of a single unless you stall or spin through actions such as a turn back.

Was once told you're better off landing it right way up wings level, than end up upside down due to loss of control. Easy to see which is more survivable.

MilFlyer - glad you deleted your post. No need to bash your competitor like the way you did. :=

[MakeItHappenCaptain]

Drifting,
Yep, love the drift on campaign policy from
"We will win because we make up the best stories about Newman"
to
"OK, we're stuffed, but please don't let them win too badly.....please."
Maybe if they didn't govern so badly.....lesson, Jooliar?
Drift over.

SP has some merit here.
Let's not make this a willy measuring contest with, "I can do it at xxx feet!":=
Might as well see how many kilos overweight you can fly with.:ugh:
It'll all end in tears.:{

Btw, how many turbine fatalities this year (multi or single)?
Anyone?
Just to prove those stats are the status quo?

Are not American. Thank you.:cool:

[Di_Vosh]

Agree with Slippery Pete 100%! I can't believe that we're even discussing this.

Fact remains. The RAAF use and teach turn backs in the right circumstances. It's practised, and responsible.

Well that's just great, PAF, but unless you're in a RAAF aircraft, departing from a RAAF airfield, having gone through RAAF training, and are current in that training then the point you're trying to make is irrelevant to this thread.

DIVOSH!

[Radix]

............

[MakeItHappenCaptain]

Why 500' ? Can I demonstrate at 1000' ?

Why not take one altitude as standard? If you agree there's places where the runway of departure is your only clear landing option you will also agree there is an altitude where even you would go for it.

Try it out at altitude and you will find the sweet spot. For a C172 now that you mention it is 45 deg of bank.

The 500' nomination would suggest that if it can't be done at this height, bash it into their heads not to attempt a turn back until x-wind.:E

Standard? What's standard about a turnback? Especially the pilot. As for suggesting
a) a one size fits all approach
and
b) facts or figures that aren't quoted in the POH;
You will be leaving yourself open for a liability suit if someone stuffs it up.

"Biggles said to do it this way."
"Where is that in the Manual?"
"It's not."
"Oh, is Biggles a test pilot?"
"No."

See where it's going?

I have no problems with getting to know your a/c's abilities (at altitude was an excellent suggestion), but low level turnbacks are DANGEROUS.

[Turkeyslapper]

I guess the turn around during an Efato at Pearce is also a more serious consideration because if it does turn to worms, you always have the Martin baker letdown option......not many ga pilots have that;)

[jas24zzk]

How can you take 1 altitude as standard?

Thats dumb.. Too many variables, or we going to apply some of the yankee rules of thumb here? :ugh:

Whilst I am not an advocate of turning back, in some cases it might just be a damm good idea, and easily achievable, but that is experience/training etc etc etc.

It seems to me, that people are tunnel visioning to straight ahead or return to the runway, what happened to assessing the departure and constantly reviewing options? No different to on a nav...................

As someone who initially trained on gliders, the options available are often over looked by the power community.
Land ahead? Sh0e whats at 90 degrees? Don't know about you guys, but i'd rather slide into a clear area well over max x-wind and tear the legs off it than hit an imovable obect.

What about other options on the field?. I.e cross strips........the grassed area......when the sh0e hits the fan, who says you need a runway, you just want a clear area to splat onto.

I'll use Essendon Rwy 17 as an example, it quits....is rwy 26 not an option?
Some one mentioned a failure at 800' and a 1200 metre rwy...that situation I'd be looking to head for the cross strip.

A glider pilot is trained slightly differently in their pre-launch (take-off) preparations include a pre-planned action in the event of a launch failure.
As an example, Flying a Pilatus PC-11 with 5 knots on the nose and a 4000' strip, the pre-launch self brief reads.....

In the event of a winch failure, i will lower the nose trim for 55 knots and release remaining cable.
Up to 300' i will then apply full airbrake and land straight ahead.
After 300 and up to 500 i will land in a paddock outside the perimeter fence.
After 500 feet I will turn and fly an abbreviated circuit onto the cross strip
After 800 feet I will fly a modified circuit to return to the runway I departed from.


It isn't perfect, but it gives you a start point, esp when low time. Damm sight easier to teach someone to constantly evaluate their options than it is to teach em a turn back. In flying power today, i don't do the emergency brief to myself like i do in gliders, but during my departure I do constantly evaluate where i am going if the fan stops.
===========================

Twin stats vs single stats.
CROC!!!!!

Do a simple recalculation based on 2 new categories. Training, non training.

You take the training stats out, and the twin is infinately safer...........we all know the most dangerous thing about a twin is assymetric training.


A good single engine friend of mine, who thinks twins are dangerous, loves the saying "the second engine will only carry you to the scene of the accident", he managed to utter it to a guy with 15k+ hours on light twins, his response was gold.... "only if you let it"


Bottoms up!


Jas

[Much Ado]

I fail to see how political leaning is a factor in EFATO:mad::ugh:

[Chimbu chuckles]

And whoever decides I'm a fool, I challenge you to one of two things:
a) demonstrate one at 500' in your C172 or PA28... on a 500m runway on a nil wind day (without dying);

How about an RV10 from 400' back onto an 800m runway? We have video of that.:ok:

C172 is what I was taught to do them in - I would want to be a fair bit higher in a Pa28 than a 172.

bearing in mind that the pilot killed at Caboolture was a 747 Captain, ie. experienced, and see what happened?

We have no evidence yet as to exactly what he was trying to do. The fact he was a 744 Captain indicates only his experience in a Boeing which has ZERO relevance to a LSA type. He may have been very skilled and current in LSA as well, or not - I don't know. He was a very nice fella.

Saying that a 180 turn back to the departure runway is suicide no matter the circumstances is just plain ignorant.

It depends.

Having said all that I AM NOT AN ADVOCATE of teaching them to inexperienced pilots. I am also not real sure about putting that video up here again - if only because you always worry in the back of your mind that some pilot who is not as skilled as he would like to be will decide that if CC can do it so can he.

I showed Jaba it could be done in HIS aeroplane because he asked me about it and I knew from previous experience flying his RV10 that, given its general gliding characteristics, it was highly likely HIS aircraft could do it quite well....and it can. We simulated a bunch at a safe height first.

We also had a very long conversation centered around the risks involved and the circumstances under which it MIGHT be an acceptable choice.

[Runaway Gun]

Of course there are a multitude of factors, and things that make it extremely risky for pilots of light (or very light) aircraft is the lack of momentum, and the lack of speed above the stall.

Take for example something like a Jabiru or Skyfox. Climbout at 65 KIAS and have an EFATO. Not only do you have to rapidly lower the nose to the descent attitude (and we all know what that looks like, right folks?) but you will have already lost speed before you got there, and will have to lower the nose even further to gain it back - in this example to a 65kt glide.

Then if you want to do a steep glide turn you have to lower the nose even further due to drag, maintain balance, be aware of the increase in stall speed and look where you are going. Many qualified pilots have difficulty doing these things in a normal powered steep turn.

Now add stress, the 3 second 'Ohfark' delay factor, briefing the pax, checklist items, securing your harness, opening the door etc, and many of us simply don't have the time or capacity.

By all means give it a go if you think it's worth a shot, but be brutally honest and realistic in your self appraisal of your own ability, and the flight envelope of your aircraft.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Which brings us back to energy and performance.

Energy to gain altitude or maintain a turn. Performance in a glide.

Where you learn has bearing on your attitude. If you learn at Redo with a 2800ft strip and surrounded on three sides by mudflat and or mangrove, you will have a different attitude to an AIRTC cadet that learns in a traumahawk at AMB off an 11000ft strip. EFATO at Redo, [edit]I was taught NEVER to turn back!

EN has enormous potential to return to ANYWHERE on the field after an EFATO, or anywhere in the circuit, similarly MB.....unless you are an "Airline Trainee":E

Redo, A PA-18 will be around 400ft at the upwind end of the strip. A C150 will be more like 200ft, equally, a C182. Options? What's the altimeter reading in the RV-10 at Redo, Jaba?

Whatever the altimeter says at the upwind end of the field on climbout dictates if a return to the field after EFATO is possible. In the scenario given by CC in Jaba's RV-10...where are you in relation to the field at 400ft? Below 400ft? Even Jaba is looking for options 45 degrees either side of the wind direction....well, he should be.(EDIT- 400ft...800m strip..video...Duuuu:ugh:)

[baswell]

twin is safer, for me
The stats are general, and I can certainly imagine some operations/situations where a twin is safer. If you are flying in one of those situations, good on ya! :)

Bas, if you read further the higher twin fatality rate is contributed to asymetric loss of control. You're unlikely to lose control of a single unless you stall or spin through actions such as a turn back.
Also: less wing, doesn't fly so good. Heavier and higher stall speed means more energy when you hit the ground and of course, the one that makes the above worse: twice as likely to have an engine failure!

[VH-XXX]

It's all fun in theory until you take off into a 10+ knot headwind or crosswind. What makes it far more dangerous is that you may not even know what wind is up there until you are in it.

[Jabawocky]

It's all fun in theory until you take off into a 10+ knot headwind or crosswind.

Head/tail or crosswind, makes no difference. YOU need to adjust for what you have on the day. A 10 knot headwind might not allow you to make that turf farm off the end of the runway if your failure is at 200' and not 300' ;)

Perhaps a 10 knot crosswind from the right helps you get that horse training track to the 10 o'clock.

Part of the things CC and I learned the day we made that video, was that from 500' with a gentle headwind, was we would crash into the fence at the far end of RWY24. So I could slip a bit onve the runway was assured, I could land in the longer grass off the edge of the runway area, I could zig zag a little, but running into the fence at the far end of the strip trumps all the other alternatives by a country mile :D

Think about this stuff, fly with a capable instructor or mentor and try the performance of your regular type, and Know your aeroplane.:ok:

[VH-XXX]

Again Jabba you have highlighted the large number of variables involved here.

[in-cog-nito]

A lot trees around off the end of the runway YCAB. Maybe he thought a turn back gave him some chance versus no chance straight ahead.

I used to hear the turn back speal from new instructors during standardization and proficency checks. Use to ask the same ol' questions about where is in the F.M., day VFR syllabus as well as have you actually done it before. Generally the answer was no to all followed by "that was what my instructor taught" (the brief, not the procedure).

I reckon some of these school are still doing it because no one there has been killed attempting one yet!

So what happens when ol' mate gets his/her licence with this mindset of turning back at 500 or whatever. It might have been fine in C172 or PA28, but ol' mate now flys a Cherokee 6 or some other streamlined anvil!

Does the RAAF still teach turn back? I have heard otherwise with the preferred procedure being zoom-trim-boom!

[Slippery_Pete]

Don't get me wrong Chimbu - I have great respect for you and your background, and what you bring to this forum.

But I just disagree.


How about an RV10 from 400' back onto an 800m runway? We have video of that.http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/thumbs.gif



Next time, if Jaba has an EFATO from 300' on the same runway, will he be able to resist the temptation to have a go? What if it happens at 400', but the wind gradient is substantially less than what it was when you took your video?


Saying that a 180 turn back to the departure runway is suicide no matter the circumstances is just plain ignorant.


I don't think anyone has said this. In fact, many have said it can and should be done safely under certain conditions - such as the RFDS. What I do believe is that teaching or encouraging it provides false hope to pilots who can not manage the large number of variables involved and when faced with a real emergency, may try to turn back when the numbers just don't add up.

C172 is what I was taught to do them in - I would want to be a fair bit higher in a Pa28 than a 172.


Exactly how much is a "fair bit higher"? 374'? 221'? :E


I guess the turn around during an Efato at Pearce is also a more serious consideration because if it does turn to worms, you always have the Martin baker letdown option......not many ga pilots have thathttp://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/wink2.gif


Exactly. :ok: Those who are likening a light GA single to the RAAF PC9 operation aren't comparing apples with apples.

[T28D]

I wonder why the USAF teach , land straight ahead gear up for EFATO immediately after T/O single non bang seat aircraft up to and below 1000 AGL provided a straight ahead on rwy remaining is not available ?

It is in their training manuals

In any event the object of the exercise once it all goes quiet it the preservation of life of all concerned.

The aircraft belongs to the Insurer the pilot and pax hopefully walk away wiser folk on the day.

[LeadSled]

Bas,
You don't understand the "Australian Way", do you.

You keep letting facts get in the way.

Don't you realise that, when the facts clash with you misconceptions, miseducation, and mistraining, covered by a thin veneer of racial prejudice about anything that comes out of US (or anywhere else but Australia, really) you should ignore the facts --- .

Given an "average" pilot, in the event of an engine failure, you stand a greater chance of being involved in a fatal accident if the failure is in a light twin.

Likewise, an attempted turnback in a single has a greater probability of a fatal outcome than continuing straight ahead.

There are numerous studies on this subject.

As T-28D says, the USAF have a clear approach, all about risk minimization. And isn't that the deciding factor, risk minimization.

There is no doubt, under ideal circumstances, a turnback is possible, I've done it myself at YSBK ---- but the situation was ideal, including an aeroplane that had me at almost 1000 ft crossing the western boundary. The laws of physics are not subject to concessions or variations.

But, the fact remains, the accident record is clear, except in exceptional circumstances, continue straight ahead --- .

Tootle pip!!

[wateroff]

Reference the original post and the impressionable students...

I think you will find the discussion 'over a beer' was more to give the prospect of winning a no win scenario - if there are no more options - ie A one way strip or Tiger Country Departure. I would rather know ALL options available to me should the need arise. Our school used to teach the no turn below 500', (inside +/- 30) however demonstrations and discussions of other options are a necessary learning tool. It leads to better SA, the fact is 99% of the time the better option and decision will be in the direction of flight - but ............. .Specific Aerodrome departure briefs are a must, a rote recited spiel of a piece of paper or wannabe QRH is more dangerous.

2c

Ta

[T28D]

Bottom line is it is all about staying alive and protecting those with you and those on the ground in your proposed flight path.

Hero's don't turn back, they look after all involved, you can get another Airplane, you can't replace people.

Risk mitigation, you should practice it in every thing you do, it becomes a way of thinking that will save your tush.

[The Green Goblin]

Who needs to turn back when you can auto!!

Auto is all well and good when you have altitude. Dead mans curve is a bitch. Give me fixed wings any day.

You wouldn't be able to call yourself a public servant after such an event :)

[Captain Sand Dune]

They don't at BFTS... Which is conducted in SE pistons.
A 180° turn back in a CT4 may be practiced on instructors course at Sale. The only real training benefit of this is to show the trainee QFI that trying to turn back during an EFATO in a CT4 will get you killed. This manoeuvre can also be practised by staff QFIs only at Tamworth but rarely is for reasons which are hopefully obvious.
It's practiced with regularity at RAAF Pearce.. successfully...

Well that's just great, PAF, but unless you're in a RAAF aircraft, departing from a RAAF airfield, having gone through RAAF training, and are current in that training then the point you're trying to make is irrelevant to this thread.

I guess the turn around during an EFATO at Pearce is also a more serious consideration because if it does turn to worms, you always have the Martin baker letdown option......not many ga pilots have that
180° turn backs are possible in a PC9 dependant on a variety of factors mentioned by previous posters. The aircraft will glide fairly well if the prop is promptly feathered. However they are not briefed, demonstrated or taught to students. They are only practised by staff QFIs who must abide by various restrictions.
Those who are likening a light GA single to the RAAF PC9 operation aren't comparing apples with apples.
Well said.

[Chimbu chuckles]

But I just disagree.

That awesome - no other way I know of to have a intellectually stimulating conversation where we both might learn something:ok:


Next time, if Jaba has an EFATO from 300' on the same runway, will he be able to resist the temptation to have a go? What if it happens at 400', but the wind gradient is substantially less than what it was when you took your video?

There is just no way I will even attempt to encapsulate wide ranging conversations over many hours and multiple occasions in a Pprune post.


What I do believe is that teaching or encouraging it provides false hope to pilots who can not manage the large number of variables involved and when faced with a real emergency, may try to turn back when the numbers just don't add up.

I think we can agree on that - hence I stated in my last post that I am not an advocate of showing every low time pilot how to do it. Having said that there are not THAT many variables that you need to juggle AFTER the engine has failed.


Exactly how much is a "fair bit higher"? 374'? 221'?

I wouldn't even attempt to answer that question because I have not flown a Pa28 enough in the last 20 years to KNOW. In the very few hours I have flown in a mates UK based PA28 in the last several years, had I suffered a EFATO I would have landed straight ahead because 1/. PA28s glide like aerodynamically efficient manhole covers 2/. I can't think of a single little grass airfield in SE UK I have operated into/out of that didn't have better options (farmland) straight ahead 3/. I have not EVER practiced a turn back in a PA28 because I didn't think, based on normal glide approaches I have done in them, that the aeroplane lent itself to them.

I am reasonably certain that, in all the cases I know of personally, the difference between successful turnbacks (including a real one I did) and unsuccessful turnbacks, was the successful ones were done by people who had practiced them in the aircraft type concerned and thus absolutely KNEW the parameters required, were comfortable in their ability to fly it and, in my case at least, it was a better option than straight ahead into tall timber/houses etc.

The unsuccessful ones were, I think, spontaneous.

I will ask the person I know who nearly died trying one. The other people I know are dead, were non pilot passengers - and the individual concerned was apparently a pretty indifferent pilot, from what his instructors told me.

I have personal knowledge of 4 - two successful and two where people died in one and nearly died in the other. 'Experience' in terms of any metric you care to use seems to have been irrelevant. One that worked perfectly was the instructor that taught them to me - massively experienced individual. The other was me and at the time I had about 250TT. The breakdown of the two that went horribly wrong is very similar.

Don't take that to indicate I think the whole deal is a coin toss - I don't.

[BPA]

Back in the late 80's/ early 90's when I was both a student and an instructor at YSBK, anything below 1000' look for some to and 45 degrees left or right of the nose, so of 11 you will use the land just inside the airport or the playing fields between the airport or the trotting track. Of 29 you would go for the golf course.

1000' or more a turn back to the airport (not just the departure runway) was the option. So rather than trying to aim for the departure runway landing across or adjust to a runway was a far better option. Of runway 11 you could then aim for the 29 run-up bays or the old 23 runway (which were the wide taxiways between the runways) or of 29 the grass areas near the 36 or 18 thresholds.

[Jabawocky]

Slippery Pete,

The exercise we practised and then executed proved one thing. It proved what the MINIMUM was.

Some of you guys get all bent out of shape over only half the story :ugh:.

T28D has mentioned the USAF talk about a minimum of 1000' and for the equipment concerned that is probably a MINIMUM requirement to execute with some buffer margins.

Now think about this all for a bit more. Lets say my MINIMUM after doing tests is actually 500' does that mean I would not do say a 90 degree turn at 400' if that is where a good option is. I would be rightly pissed off at myself if there was a perfectly good turf farm at 90 or even 120 degrees that I could make easily and I went straight ahead into houses or forrestry just becuase you guys said so.

I have said this countless times, and I am sure CC is sick of it too, but KNOW YOUR AEROPLANE and do some practise. I do from time to time, traffic permitting try to emulate CC and his perfect energy management trick of flying a crosswind join, full circuit and landing in the TDZ without adding thrust. It is quite fun!

After initial training, it does not mean you have learnt it all and that is all you should stick to ya know!;)

[NOSIGN]

The AOPA link that Aussie027 was (probably) referring to

AOPA Online: Engine Out! (http://www.aopa.org/members/files/pilot/2002/engine0207.html)

[Chimbu chuckles]

NOSIGN thanks for finding that - its about the best ever explanation I have read and covers ALMOST everything...while showing quite well that the 'variables' aren't the endless list you see some suggesting. Did someone on this thread REALLY say you'd be checking your harness during an EFATO?

ALMOST?

Yes, I am constantly surprised when these articles either skip over or ignore flap in the turn to lower Vs.

When I was taught the 'turn back' my instructor would randomly close the throttle on climb and the 'memory items' were.

1/. Do nothing while saying "Oh fck, Oh fck, Oh fck, Oh fck" (just more fun than counting "1 thousand, 2 thousand and 3 thous...")

2/. Lower the nose and slap down full flap.

3/. Roll into a 60 degree bank and 'help' the aeroplane around the corner. Remember those electric flaps are grinding their way out the entire way around the turn...which as the article suggests is about 10 seconds. You were not hauling back on the stick...the AoB was high but the wing loading wasn't. You are NOT trying to do a level steep turn, you WANT to lose height - so the well known 'Vs increases by X% at Y AoB' is not valid.

4/. When around the corner use flaps and prop pitch, if you have it, to modify your glide profile.

The above works great in a C152/172/182.

WITH PRACTICE I could,

1/. Get around the corner - say through 200 degrees of turn - in about 150' (C152), around 200-250' (C182) and in a C172 somewhere in between. I actually managed it in about 80' in a C152 once - musta been in a thermal or something:ok:

2/. I could fly it smoothly and accurately - PRACTICE is the key - NO ONE can do it spontaneously.

The above is of NO USE in a Pa28, Cherokee 6, C210, Bonanza etc etc.

Or Jaba's RV10.

Where did the 'legend' of the 'impossible turn' come from?

Yesterday I was chatting to my father and this subject came up because he is retired QF and I thought he may have known the chap at YCAB.

"Oh when I was learning to fly it was ABSOLUTELY drummed into us NEVER turn back ALWAYS pick somewhere +/- 30 degrees and land"

And his instructors were absolutely 100% correct.

My Dad learned to fly on Tiger Moths, Percival Prentice and Harvard in the RAF in 1950.

In those aeroplanes it REALLY is the 'impossible turn'. The Tiger Moth glides like a house brick and the Harvard is not much better with a wicked stall to boot.

Where did virtually all the Instructors, the people who wrote the text books and syllabi, in the early post WW2 years, and ALL the DCA Examiners of Airmen of the 50s, 60s and 70s learn to fly?

In the RAAF on Tiger Moths and Harvards.

Dad has been utterly convinced of the veracity of the impossible turn meme for 62 years. When I pointed out/reminded him about the Tiger/Harvard, and that modern trainers have had most of the bite designed out of them, he replied "Actually you're right...when I was converting onto Vampires one of my class mates had an engine failure after takeoff and made it back to the runway easily and was commended for his flying"

Clearly that Vampire student was a critical thinker. I don't know but I would bet folding money he had thought about it and practiced at a safe altitude. In the time frame this happened Vampire's had no ejection seats and two seaters, if they existed at all other than on a drawing board, were yet to be put in squadron service so NO dual. They sat you in the aircraft and a bunch of erks hung off the tail to show the nascent Vampire ace what the landing attitude looked like (they were straight off Harvards and Spitfires - nose draggers were a mystery) and away they went.:eek:

I think that had the military pilots of WW2 learned to fly in C152s the legend of the impossible turn would never have been born - we might have lost the war however.

As Jaba pointed out tonight on skype it has become like the LOP debate.

LOP will burn valves!!! No it won't....yes my instructor/a LAME told me X years ago...but now we have engine monitors and balanced injectors?...LOP WILL BURN VALVES!!!!! :ugh:

After much thought I am going to post a link to the vid - only because I am convinced many posters don't even know what a turn back looks like (its not a ragged edge, hairy piece of stunt flying its a smooth, precise and gentle manouver) and all they have to go on is what was drummed into them.

Its starts off with the last bit of one of those glide approaches that Jaba mentioned...they're fun.:ok:

Then we did a turn back from 500' and then one from 400'. You will see the 3-4 second hesitation while I was saying "Oh fck, oh fck"

Any prop RPM variation you see is me 'managing' drag with the prop lever to fine tune my approach...or in the case of the turn back from 500' madly trying to get down before I ran out of airfield.:}

uvTUW28JnpY

[Capt W E Johns]

CSD: A 180° turn back in a CT4 may be practiced on instructors course at Sale. The only real training benefit of this is to show the trainee QFI that trying to turn back during an EFATO in a CT4 will get you killed.
I'm calling you out on that one mate. I've done a bunch, both in the -B and -E variants. Both airplanes can fairly comfortably get back on the ground from throttle idle above 500'AGL. From a brakes release takeoff in a 10 knot headwind, the -E is limited by overrunning the runway threshold when you turn back, and therefore you are better landing straight ahead. The -B, with its slower rate of climb, didn't have the same problem.
Caveat: this is in a planned, briefed scenario. Given the inevitable three-second "WTF"? delay, I'd suggest a current and competent pilot should consider a turnback from 700' AGL and above as one of his options.

[Jabawocky]

Capt Johns,

Do you think over running the end of the runway, on the ground, all intact is a worse option than taking your chances on ground outside the airfield? Over run at say 20 knots vs scrub or an industrial estate at 60?

Unless you have a golf course or turf farm of course.:ok:

[aussie027]

Nosign,
That is one of Barry's older articles.
I see he mentions much of what is in the article below.

The one I was referring to was April 2011issue, found here--

Technique: Unconventional Wisdom (http://www.aopa.org/members/files/pilot/2011/april/technique.html)

I think this clearly states the method considered and how to practice it and the essential criteria for attempting to use it should the need ever arise.
Note the warnings given as well,..... carefully!!
As a few have suggested this may only be a safe option for an experienced pilot who is well trained, practiced and knows his aircraft capabilities very well.
Not for ab initio students, novices etc.

Perhaps this type of methodology is used by RFDS for eg in their PC12s?? Anyone know??

If not it may be worth their consideration, a pro organization such as that only flying 1 SE type should be able to work out the required numbers as stated in the article and train for it accordingly.

[rutan around]

Something I've always wondered about - how much if any difference does it make to the glide of single engine aircraft when the engine is producing zero power, ie fuel or mixture off. Fairly frequently I operate out of short strips. I always have my LAME set the idle at the lowest allowable revs. The difference between a low idle and a higher setting is quite noticeable in the distance needed to stop. On a few occasions I have even turned one magneto off after touch down, to shorten the ground roll. I guess my question to Jabba and others who have experimented with turn-backs is: Have you experimented (at a decent height of course) to compare the descent rate between an idling engine and a dead engine?
Cheers, RA

[VH-XXX]

Excellent point Rutan.

In most cases there is less drag on an "off" engine than an idling one. I've noticed that on a number of occasions. You'll notice this if you have to do an engine-off landing ;).

I would go as far as to suggest that a number of engine failure out-landings have gone bad because the pilot has over-shot the landing area by under-estimating his gliding range.

[Aimpoint]

Wouldn't there be more drag from a wingmilling prop than a stopped one? The problem is the prop at idle (if set to a higher RPM setting) might create a small amount of thrust.

If the strip is that short that you've got to play with the switches you probably shouldn't be landing in there anyway. Probably more important things to be concentrating on.

[Runaway Gun]

Yes Chimbu, if I was about to touch down in trees or run through a fence or highway, I would definitely be pulling my harness another notch tighter.

Added: One company I worked for ditched a Cessna into the sea. Being the dodgy Cessna seatbelt design, the shoulder strap slipped off the piddly buckle before or during the impact, leaving only the lap strap restraining pilot. Head slammed into the panel. He later died in the arms of the other crewmember whilst in the water. Sometimes that harness just can't be tight enough when forced landing.

[T28D]

A constant speed prop creates more drag disked up in fine than it does full coarse, and a fixed pitch creates more drag turning at idle than it does stopped.

[Ozgrade3]

I just tried an experiment. Both myself and my student tried a turnback at a safe altitude. He lost 700ft.

I was able to get round on the 3rd try with 400ft loss, rolling hard into 60 deg steep turn, but still IAS came down from 74 to 63 kts even with significant forward pressure to keep the wings unloaded, rolled bast the 180 deg by 30 for 5 seconds then back to the 180 deg mark.

C172SP at 3000 pressure height. Smooth air.

Someone who was un prepared for the power loss would lose even more alt. As well it takes considerable skill to set the exactl attitude during the turn, so the average weekend warrior would have no hope of getting it right.

My best was 400 ft height loss and I am doing this stuff day in day out.

[Chimbu chuckles]

Well done.

Did you try with flaps? I am half guessing your reference to 'pushing' to unload indicated you were, to some extent, 'ballooning' around the turn due flaps extending?

If not try with flaps - don't 'push' to unload just don't haul back hard enough to stall. I would suggest if you could have measured the forces on the stick you were not actually 'pushing', even though it felt like it compared to the amount of pull you're used to in a normal steep turn.

When I was learning this manouver 30 years ago we used to, purely for fun, see how hard we could pull around the turn. We got to the point we were in light buffet the whole way around...it resulted in some impressively small numbers. There is NO practical application of that method in my view - but as a pure handling exercise it had merit - and, most importantly, was great fun.

At the end of the lesson did your student have a bigger smile than usual and say something like "Thanks heaps, that was awesome" :ok:

Runaway Gun.

Those clip on 'sash' harnesses are indeed not great.:ugh: That is why I pulled them out of my Bo and have '4 point' inertia reels that mount in the roof to install when the time comes in the restoration.

I am just too used to 4 point inertia reel harnesses. If I was going into trees in the Tiger Moth I would indeed be hauling down on the tensioners - I had a think about where they were anchored and that point is well below my shoulders. Compressed spine - Not good :sad:

[Ozgrade3]

Yeah it was done with 10 deg flaps as per out company SOP's. Was a totally unscientific experiment at the spur of the moment when we had 0.1 left in a lesson.

There is a video somewhere where they do it quite sucessfully at different configurations and AOB. The least height loss (from memory) was somewhere around 70 deg AoB and pulling hard all the way back to about 5 kts above the stall. They reasoned that it was imposible to stall in the first half of the turn. I'll see if I can dig it up.

If i can work efficiently (will be a first for me)and get some time up my sleve, I'll try to do it again and video the results and post up here. Safe to say, its not easy, even after a few thousand hrs of Abinitio instucting. So for a amateur who doesnt fly much, wings level, max 30 deg either side of the nose as per the take-off safety brief. Works for me too cause I'm no Bob Hoover.

Interestingly, this thread started a discussion in the office. Its seems most instructors have never heared of the minimum sink speed, just a few knots above the stall, its not listed in the C172 POH.

Edit- Chimbu, I just watched your video, and yes, I do agree that the turnback is possible, but you have to have perfect attitude control and really know what you are doing. A badly handled turn at low altitude opens up a can of worms, certainly something a low timer/ low currency pilot shuld not attempt.

[Jabawocky]

Ozgrade

Was a totally unscientific experiment at the spur of the moment when we had 0.1 left in a lesson.


When CC reads this I think I know what he will be thinking :eek: :=

That video we lovingly prepared, was not spur of the moment.

I do not consider myself a Bob Hoover either, far from it. I would love to have the skill and talent CC has lost/forgotten, let alone what he has left. I do have a very high grade of flying friends, aerobatic performers with low level waivers etc. and many airline guys. I am a mere morsal of plankton in the food chain, but I am happy to pull 45 deg AOB if I have to at low level.

This is not something for the guy about to sit his GFPT, but heck....when you do PPL training, and a bit of steep turn training, what are you actually doing that for? To make them scared of "steep turns" over 25 degrees? I know that is not what you think, but it seems this is not what gets produced.

45 degrees AOB should not be a problem.

Nothing more to say here other than refer all Chimbu Chucks posts. And remember depending on the equipment in use, you need to set minimums.

[Arnold E]

Where is the link to the video of Chimbu demonstrating that in the 10, I have not seen it, but would like to:ok:

[Chimbu chuckles]

Back a page.

[Arnold E]

Ta, going blind in my old age.

[Captain Sand Dune]

I'm calling you out on that one mate.
Fair cop, I wouldn’t expect anything less around here!!
I am interested in your experience with the CT4/B. In particular:

• Given you were above 700FT AGL, were you turning crosswind or still upwind?
• What average AoB did you achieve?
• What IAS were you targeting?
• Flaps up or at ½?
• Were you 1 or 2 POB, and what was your fuel load?
• What airfield/s were you practicing at?

[The Green Goblin]

Quote:
Give me fixed wings any day.
Your choice chops, I'll take my zero forward speed, zero vertical speed engine out touchdown any day....

Quote:
You wouldn't be able to call yourself a public servant after such an event
Showing your lack of education again...

You didn't get to choose.

After all, (and from several PMs) you bombed out of 2FTS after looking for fast jets and were given the black hawk bone.

Keep telling yourself how great it is, maybe go to the rotorheads forum and post it there. At least someone will believe you.

If you keep posting your nonsense, expect to lose your tail rotor and go into a spin :cool:

[BPA]

Just watched the video on CC post.

Question, why was the first practice engine out in a single, followed by a turn back done over a built up area? You can see the houses of Central Lakes in the video.

[Jabawocky]

BPA

Are you trying to pick fights? :=

The first bit you are referring to is a straight forward glide approach in the circuit. There are about 160 of these per day flown there. So do you think this was anything unusual? :ugh:

The procedure did not involve mixture cuts or anything stupid.

As for the rest of the exercise it was conducted on a Sunday afternoon over the Caboolture rubbish tip.

If this is just a simple bad guess at the situation you are forgiven :ok: and if you are just trying to muck rake.....you will have to sharpen up your act a heap :=

Now focus on the real topic will ya!;)

[BPA]

Not trying to pick fights, just a question that's all. I can see the tip in the rest of the video.

Just read my copy of the RAAF CT4A manual from 1989 and nothing in there about turn backs.

[jas24zzk]

Hmm,
2 comments.

1)You mention, rolling hard into a 60deg aob and pulling hard. Watch the video on the preceding page. Chimbu flies it smoothly, not agressively. Hard to tell 100% but it doesn't appear he exceeds 45 deg AOB at any time. Everything he does is smooth, which minimises his energy loss.

2) If you must play with this, don't do it with a student. Choose a safety pilot that doesn't look up to you as a student would....i.e a person competant and confident enough to call an end to the exercise before safety is compromised.

=======================================================

One thing to be noted from the video, is Chimbu is clearly never in a hurry to achieve the runway centreline. On the lower attempt, he doesn't make it until he crosses the fence. Very nicely executed.

Cheers
Jas

[Capt W E Johns]

Fair cop, I wouldn’t expect anything less around here!!
I am interested in your experience with the CT4/B. In particular:

• Given you were above 700FT AGL, were you turning crosswind or still upwind?
• What average AoB did you achieve?
• What IAS were you targeting?
• Flaps up or at ½?
• Were you 1 or 2 POB, and what was your fuel load?
• What airfield/s were you practicing at? Hi CSD, to answer those in order, and without being facetious (these are my best recollections of the -B in 1998):


We flew an oval circuit, commencing the x-wind turn at 500 AGL. The 700' figure you mention is a number I suggested as giving sufficient reaction time to execute a turnback, even with a straight upwind leg. A <strong>planned and briefed</strong> EFATO was workable from 500' still on centreline. Anything after that turn was commenced is gravy.
AOB? Dunno, didn't look at the AI. Light buffet, manoeuvre looking out the window. AOB depends on the wind really - a good stiff crosswind does wonders for that last turn to line up with the runway (provided your first turn is away from the crosswind)
IAS 85kts
Clean until approaching the flare
Can't really remember, but those profiles were generally solo with 2/3 gas or more
A nice wide 6500' blacktop! On a quiet and calm wind day we could request turnbacks time after time, effectively flying dumbells to the duty runway and then its reciprocal. Golden hours, hugely valuable training and practice.

Now please don't take this wrong - I am not suggesting that a turnback is an easy, or safe, or even desirable option in all circumstances. But a considered, planned and briefed EFATO turnback exercise is a great way to learn about your airplane improve your own ability. And who knows, one day when everything else is poop, you might just be able to pull that particular tool of your your toolbox and walk away.


Safe flying.

[framer]

at the spur of the moment when we had 0.1 left in a lesson.



If you can resist the urge to do things "spur of the moment" you will live longer, or at the very least save yourself some embarrasment. That is a lesson that has been learnt many many times, by many many people, over the years.

[Ozgrade3]

Just for some clarity.

"Rolling hard " into the turn was more of an expression, my roll rate was similar to Chimbu's video.

Not quite spur of the moment, we had briefed on the sequence prior to the flight, and it was my 7th session of UA's in the last 3 days. Just on this flight we ended up with the time to spare.

[Jabawocky]

Jas :ok: good post and well observed.

The topic of AOB is an interesting one. 60 degrees will yield a better result, simple as that in theory.

In practise though depending on vision and ability to keep a light buffet in a coordinated turn a 45 is possibly a better compromise. We chose to fly 45, perhaps the master thought the student would struggle with more:E

What we needs is for Ultralights to strap his camera on the Savvy and see what it can do, if nothing else but to prove it all depends on the equipment you fly.

KNOW YOUR AEROPLANE :ok:

[VH-XXX]

What we needs is for Ultralights to strap his camera on the Savvy and see what it can do

I heard he's waiting on parts from the USA for his 100 hourly so that won't be happening for a bit!

[Ultralights]

Sadly still waiting on parts, so no flying to Temora this weekend, as for the EFATO, i havnt tried it in the Savvy yet, but i tend to stick to the rule of straight ahead, i would rather be in control and wings level. or turn back if on crosswind depending on winds etc. but not try to make the runway, the airport grounds in general are smooth enough.

The Savannah will get off the runway in 50 mtrs if trying, so that leaves a LOT of runway ahead, and a Max angle of climb will see me at circuit height about 2/3 down the length of Wollongongs 16/34. so, with that in mind, engine quit at or below, 500, well, straight ahead and use the remaining runway. as for turning back, well, might have to get the cameras out and try it. but from 1000ft, i would complete a tight circuit.

now, jus hope those bushes arrive..

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

The Savannah will get off the runway in 50 mtrs if trying, so that leaves a LOT of runway ahead, and a Max angle of climb will see me at circuit height about 2/3 down the length of Wollongongs 16/34. so, with that in mind, engine quit at or below, 500, well, straight ahead and use the remaining runway. as for turning back, well, might have to get the cameras out and try it. but from 1000ft, i would complete a tight circuit. Yeah, and lets face it, if a Savannah crashes in a "high speed" dive - its still only walking pace!

Dr

[baswell]

In practise though depending on vision and ability to keep a light buffet in a coordinated turn a 45 is possibly a better compromise.
Not all aircraft buffet real well, so that may not be the best indicator.

Although I haven't done one recently, the point of showing a descending turn stall while training is the SportStar was that the only real indication of a stall would be the altimeter unwinding real quick. Unload the wings and it's flying again. No buffet I can remember.

Time to give it another go...

[Howard Hughes]

Yeah, and lets face it, if a Savannah crashes in a "high speed" dive - its still only walking pace!

Dr
:D

A bit of STOL envy?:}

[Jabawocky]

:D

A bit of STOL envy?http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/badteeth.gif



HH,

Actually at the moment just Aeroplane envy :E



I did think though that Forkie was back to his good form :D

[Chimbu chuckles]

As an aside I stumbled over a vid on youtube of a Roulette taking a civilian for a ride during a display and in his brief he nominated 800' as the minimum altitude for a turnback to departure runway - before that it was either stop on the runway or hand the aircraft back to the taxpayers.

[Skywagon1915]

CC, of interest ... what was the T/O brief for PNG ?

[Chimbu chuckles]

The mere thought of encapsulating PNG ops within a 'policy' is laughable:ok:

My 'plan' depended on the strip as they were all vastly different from one another. Sure a turnback MAY have been an option at a few major coastal airports.

At a few mountain strips you could suffer a complete engine failure charging off the end of the strip - note I did not say 'at X feet above the departure end of a strip' - turn 90 degrees and glide for several nm down into an adjacent valley and force land on another strip, if you were lucky, or onto the flat bottom of that valley, probably into tall Kunai grass. Most you were going into tall timber or the boulder strewn bed of a white water river. In a few cases you could probably suffer an engine failure in an Islander/DHC6-200 and drift down along the valleys and end up on the coastal flats before impacting terrain and land at an airport.

Note too that this applied equally to aircraft like Islanders as well as C185s...within the context of PNG mountain ops an Islander was a single engined aircraft with half its engine on each wing. An Islander on one just glides a bit better than a C185/206.:}

I made it a habit to study the strip and its immediate surrounds at every strip I went into and have an individual plan to maximise the chance of survival. In some cases that plan would seem outrageously fanciful to readers of PPrune who have never operated in PNG...but it was the ONLY option short of just crossing your arms and trying to maintain your composure as your life ended. Certainly a couple of experiences in PNG had proved to me the correctness of 'fly the aircraft as far as possible into the accident and you may be pleasantly surprised' long before I read similar words attributed to Bob Hoover.

[djpil]

Some interesting info online here
Prof Rogers (http://www.nar-associates.com/technical-flying/technical_flying.html)
including report of a simulator study and video if a real engine failure with a turn back.

[Captain Sand Dune]

Capt. WEJ,
Thanks for that. Interested where you flying the CT4B in 1998. As far as I’m aware the only operators of the –B are BAe in Tamworth (and 3 or 4 in Sale) and in UN Zud.
I am not suggesting that a turn back is an easy, or safe, or even desirable option in all circumstances. But a considered, planned and briefed EFATO turn back exercise is a great way to learn about your airplane improve your own ability. And who knows, one day when everything else is poop, you might just be able to pull that particular tool of your your toolbox and walk away.
Couldn’t agree more. Certainly not something you would to try in that aircraft unless you had EVERYTHING working for you. In particular, I would be very wary of pulling to the light buffet in a CT4 close to the ground given that it is very easy to get to the heavy buffet. I have no problem experimenting with type of thing, but I’d be starting at a relatively safe altitude first.
To give some context to my original assertion, consider a junior QFI with a student with 220LB of gas launching from Quirindi on a 30° day experiencing an engine failure at 700FT, i.e. mid-way on the cross wind turn. Given the CT4’s performance in that environment (very common up there too) the aircraft will be a good distance from the runway. I guarantee he aint gonna make it if he tries a 180° turn back.
In my view this is a good case of risk versus reward.

[SgtBundy]

Nothing to add to the thread, but I just want to say how much I enjoy these sorts of discussions - mostly in terms of seeing the background, mental approach and reasoning that comes from experience that I as yet don't have. :ok:

[A37575]

If they still do then they are fools. The last one was a practice turn back at Point Cook in a Tiger Moth about 15 years ago. The instructor was killed. Another one at Point Cook was a Winjeel in 1969 and both pilots burned to death when the aircraft went into an incipient spin and pranged back on the field. I was on the Court of Inquiry.
Then there was the dual Vampire at RAAF East Sale. A partial engine failure shortly after take off. They turned back and crashed short of the runway. Both pilots killed. Yet in the case of the Vampire they could have forced landed in any one of several large fields straight ahead.

Years ago even the RFDS practiced turn backs in the PC12 (maybe they still do?) and the chief pilot at the time was a former RAAF pilot who thought turn backs were Good Things to practice. Bloody twits.:ugh:

[Jabawocky]

And what about the Macchi turn back??? Except there was no inquiry! Now why was that?;)

I do not believe in blanket statements like you have just made. So let's balance things out and can you talk us through the event above.

[PA39]

Geez the RAAF may very well endorse turn backs.....but they are flying state of the art machinery and the guys are on the pedals every day BUT GA consists mainly of 40+ yr old pieces of crap that lack everything in aerodynamics they held when new. Compare a PC9 to a C150...HUGE difference, 1000' comes up pretty quickly in the former but the poor little 150...well you know as well as i do !! There are so many variables that the risk isn't worth it. Pilot, aircraft, performance, runway, terrain, wind component and reaction time. We're talking EFATO not circuit height +.

This is what i refer to when I say BS. Until it is instilled into pilots heads in GA though training and dicipline that you don't turn back, fatalities will continue. Its either take the punt on a possible chance of survival or the probable chance of killing all on board. :uhoh:

[VH-XXX]

My only EFATO to date occurred on an 1000 metre strip at about 20 ft altitude accelerating through 80 knots. There was no option other than to go straight ahead and the end of the runway came up awfully fast. Had I been closer to 50 ft it would have been all over red rover. These 500ft plus heights we are talking are probably a rarity for EFATO.

[metalman2]

The Savannah will get off the runway in 50 mtrs if trying, so that leaves a LOT of runway ahead, and a Max angle of climb will see me at circuit height about 2/3 down the length of Wollongongs 16/34. so, with that in mind, engine quit at or below, 500, well, straight ahead and use the remaining runway. as for turning back, well, might have to get the cameras out and try it. but from 1000ft, i would complete a tight circuit.
Did a checkride in a fairly new Savannah recently, had to do an engine failure simulation on downwind, sort of thought I'd cocked it up , but by the time i'd got onto a short final had to slip to get it on the numbers, they do slooooww really well, and the best angle climb is completely ridiculous ,almost laying on your back , very different aircraft!

[compressor stall]

It's a while now but the RFDS turn back height minimum altitude was 800 feet IIRC.

[Pontius]

The RAF/RN use(d) 800' for the Chipmunk, Bulldog and Grob Tutor. We practiced it fairly often, so the technique wasn't a problem but the brief didn't necessarily involve landing back on the runway, just landing back on the airfield, somewhere. It was a very definite stuff the nose down, get to the appropriate speed, 60 degs AoB and pull to the light buffet, all the while monitoring speed, speed, speed. It worked well (despite yet another one of A37575's sweeping statements) but 800' would give some much better options at a lot of airfields, I'm sure. I still keep 'current' with the techniques, as there is one field I fly from where it is worth keeping in mind but the physics definitely don't add up for an out-of-practice pilot, not having proper training and with little appreciation of the performance of his aircraft.

[allthecoolnamesarego]

As little as five years ago, I was teaching turn backs to QFI students in the PC9.
800' was the standard, however, at some airfields (carnavon IIRC) 500' feet was briefed as it was not a reciprocal turn back. The way we used to fly them was:
Practice!
sh&t, F68K, LOWER NOSE and obtain IAS. Look out the FRONT at the ATTITUDE and HOLD that for the required IAS. Only once that was set, would the TB be commenced.
The biggest problem I saw in possibly many many hundreds of turn backs over five or so years, was when a student LOOKED at the RWY and NOT the ATT. As soon as their head went searching for the RWY, they would invariably pull back on the stick and get into heavy buffet with the nose high... not good!
If at any stage it looked like it wasn't going to work (I think from memory a 'D' was required by 200') then wings level and eject.
The PC9 has two oxy bottles under the seats, right next to the fuel collector tank, so a wheels up forced landing was not recommended.
ATT, IAS, ATT, IAS.
I did not teach a reciprocal TB's in the CT4. If there was a strong wind, a crash ahead left you with a lower GS and a better chance of survival.
The PC9 however, if flown well, would easily get a reciprocal TB in less than about 15 kts. Any more and without the determination to 'push into wind' prior to the turn, most students would overrun the runway after the turn back.
In a civvy Cessna and the like - look out the front and crash ahead visually.

[Jabawocky]

What!!!

You have just made an excellent technical description of your experience in the PC9, and then finish up with A Civvy Cessna....won't work.

That is utter Bull****!!!

It works just the same, unless the RAAF PC9 is something of a physics exemption.

The difference is just the minima. You obviously never spent the time doing them in a C172 to find out where that minima was. Possibly it is 800 feet too, I do not know. But if that is what I flew I would surely find out.

The same rules apply from a tiger moth to a A380, the numbers are different, mut unless Newtons laws have changed there are only two variables, known tested minima, and pilot training.

The minimum height for success is easily found, training is the stumbling block, and ask ourselves why??


Now any of you Top Guns from the ADF want to answer my Macchi question? Have you gone looking for the accident report? He is a tip......there ain't one. Now think about why?

[Howard Hughes]

The Macchi made it...:E

[Captain Sand Dune]

I see this has (predictably) degenerated into a civvy v RAAF bunfight again.
However let's straighten out the "RAAF endorsing turn-backs" thing.
As I have stated on a previous post on this thread, reciprocal turn-backs in a PC9 are not briefed, taught or demonstrated to students. They can be practiced by staff instructors who have to observe various restrictions that are detailed in SOPs. This is NOT done willy-nilly as some here seem to infer.
As for turn-backs in the CT4, they are mostly not normally considered when briefing the actions to be taken given an engine failure after take-off.. I'm not saying it is not possible to fly such a manoeuvre in a CT4. However picture a dual CT4 with 200+ LB of fuel launching from an strip with an average elevation of 1,000FT AMSL on a 30 degree + expereince ing an engine failure on upwind or even cross wind in the circuit trying to turn back: it's not going to end well. Risk v reward.
And what about the Macchi turn back??? Except there was no inquiry! Now why was that? OK, I'll bite. Care to be more specific?

[desmotronic]

Capt SD,
I assumed he meant that no crash therefore no inquiry.

[Jabawocky]

CSD
I see this has (predictably) degenerated into a civvy v RAAF bunfight again.

No no no, others may want that but not me, however, when a PC9 guy says we can do it we train for it we have a height to do it from etc, and then says No way in a Civvy Cessna, well that just is the beginning of the Civvy v RAAF bunfight again. So peace man!:ok:

So I am happy to stop it in its tracks from my comments about the Top guns, but the attitude mentioned above kind of deserved the cheeky post I thought. Sorry for offending others.

allthecoolnamesarego had just finished off a well detailed and excellent post with a dumbfounding comment. In a civvy Cessna and the like - look out the front and crash ahead visually.
What that just says is us RAAFies are good for it but not a VH tailer, so hence the TG comment. But no bunfights required.

As for the Macchi story, some will know it very well indeed, others, most will not because despite someone wanting to punch out, common sense prevailed because one pilot KNEW his aeroplane and KNEW he could do it and he KNEW all would end well. So despite the accepted norm of the time, he made the right call.

The problem is we are not training pilots properly, heck I am the first to tell you I feel my initial training was not enough. Thanks to a few Civvy and Military friends I have learned way more than I ever knew.

This is not unlike the LOP debate. FACTS....DATA...EDUCATION....trumps everything, including all the BS that gets posted here, in the GA flying schools, aeroclub bars etc etc.

Facts, Data and education, and education includes practise. and to prove my point, read the rest of allthecoolnamesarego's post as that is exactly what he talks about. Same thing works in the civvy world too! :ok:


Pontius said;
The RAF/RN use(d) 800' for the Chipmunk, Bulldog and Grob Tutor. We practiced it fairly often, so the technique wasn't a problem but the brief didn't necessarily involve landing back on the runway, just landing back on the airfield, somewhere. It was a very definite stuff the nose down, get to the appropriate speed, 60 degs AoB and pull to the light buffet, all the while monitoring speed, speed, speed. It worked well (despite yet another one of A37575's sweeping statements) but 800' would give some much better options at a lot of airfields, I'm sure. I still keep 'current' with the techniques, as there is one field I fly from where it is worth keeping in mind but the physics definitely don't add up for an out-of-practice pilot, not having proper training and with little appreciation of the performance of his aircraft.



What Pontius said.
As little as five years ago, I was teaching turn backs to QFI students in the PC9.
800' was the standard, however, at some airfields (carnavon IIRC) 500' feet was briefed as it was not a reciprocal turn back. The way we used to fly them was:
Practice!
sh&t, F68K, LOWER NOSE and obtain IAS. Look out the FRONT at the ATTITUDE and HOLD that for the required IAS. Only once that was set, would the TB be commenced.
The biggest problem I saw in possibly many many hundreds of turn backs over five or so years, was when a student LOOKED at the RWY and NOT the ATT. As soon as their head went searching for the RWY, they would invariably pull back on the stick and get into heavy buffet with the nose high... not good!
If at any stage it looked like it wasn't going to work (I think from memory a 'D' was required by 200') then wings level and eject.
The PC9 has two oxy bottles under the seats, right next to the fuel collector tank, so a wheels up forced landing was not recommended.
ATT, IAS, ATT, IAS.
I did not teach a reciprocal TB's in the CT4. If there was a strong wind, a crash ahead left you with a lower GS and a better chance of survival.
The PC9 however, if flown well, would easily get a reciprocal TB in less than about 15 kts. Any more and without the determination to 'push into wind' prior to the turn, most students would overrun the runway after the turn back.

[Joker89]

Jaba

I believe a lot of the turn back potential in the pc9 comes from climbing out at 180 and gliding at 120. This gives plenty of excess energy to get the aeroplane around the turn. Do piston Cessna's have the same potential?

[compressor stall]

It's all about risk Jabba.

Yes, it can be done in any aircraft given enough height compared to performance. But it takes practice and practice is time and money.

If we have endless time and money we'd make people have endorsements for every single engine aircraft they fly and the training would cover this and every other emergency contingency.

The civvy world generally doesn't do the training as the risk/reward - and likely performance - are not worth it. What's the likelihood of EFATO happening vs the time spend keeping current and the risk of doing it when not current.

It would seem that the RAAF has made similar risk analyses - QFIs do it but students don't.

Now you have made your own analysis and decided to acquire the training and prioritise the procedure in your personal risk mitigation and invested a such. But not everyone is in a position to do it - and if we were mandated to do it, the training costs of GA would be prohibitive.

Where do you stop in your opinion that training is inadequate? VFR in to IFR is a huge risk - arguably higher than EFATO. Should all VFR pilots have a SEIFR rating at a minimum?

[Captain Sand Dune]

What that just says is us RAAFies are good for it but not a VH tailer, so hence the TG comment. But no bunfights required. Jaba mate with all due respect, I think you're being a little thin skinned.
As for the Macchi story, some will know it very well indeed, others, most will not because despite someone wanting to punch out, common sense prevailed because one pilot KNEW his aeroplane and KNEW he could do it and he KNEW all would end well. So despite the accepted norm of the time, he made the right call. You still haven't given us much to go on! How about a date.
However I agree with what you're getting at. If it's the incident I think it was, the aircraft was dual (i.e. studly in front, "Sir" in back). I'm assuming the instructor in question had practiced this maneouvre within the rules as they were at the time until he was happy with it, i.e. he KNEW his aircraft and (more importantly!) he KNEW he could handle it.
Read my last post again. OK for staff to practice it, bit don't teach it to students. That hasn't changed much. Remember the students are going to fly bigger and better things than a PC9, in particular aircraft with more than one engine. The only single engined operational type in the RAAF is the FAC PC9. Why go to all the effort and heartache of teaching students reciprocal turn-backs in an aircraft with an ejection seat. It's that risk v reward thing again.
Having said that, they will be trained to cope with that type of thing in the
PC9 when they do instructors course.
I did not teach a reciprocal TB's in the CT4. If there was a strong wind, a crash ahead left you with a lower GS and a better chance of survival.
The PC9 however, if flown well, would easily get a reciprocal TB in less than about 15 kts. Any more and without the determination to 'push into wind' prior to the turn, most students would overrun the runway after the turn back. I'm happy to demonstrate them to other staff in a CT4, if only to show them that the chances of them pulling one off in a heavy CT4 at Tamworth on a hot day are not good. Again, know your aircraft.

[allthecoolnamesarego]

Captain Sand Dune, I’m with Jaba here – peace☺

My comments were in no way meant to turn this into a RAAF vs Civvy thing, I have seen both good and bad in BOTH systems. I’m sorry if my comments came across that way.

What I was saying, possibly not as clearly as I should have, was that in the CT4 I would ‘look ahead and crash visually’. There are a number of reasons for this, not the least being that the Parrot does not have an ejection seat.

To clarify the PC9 comments. The PC9 has a lower wing loading than the CT4 and as such is more manoeuvrable. The thought process in the PC9 was below nominated TB height, I would EJECT no matter what. Above the nominated height, I would CONSIDER a TB. If everything looked good I would attempt a TB. In the PC9, almost throughout the entire TB manoeuvre, I had the option to eject. I was not committed to completing the TB. Even if I screwed the turn and entered an incipient spin, I’m confident the seat would work (agreed a HIGHLY COMPRIMISED ejection) but my point is, I had options. TB looks good, hold off on ejection, still looking good, hold off on ejection, still looking good – ejection no longer needed – land. Conversely, TB looking average – wings level EJECT.

The PC9 also had much better energy than the parrot. An EFATO at 800’ usually meant you were relatively close to the strip, had the ‘luxury’ of being able to lower the nose and assess glide potential quickly, then commence the TB. This meant you occasionally had to push into wind for a second or two in order not to cramp yourself.

The CT4 on the other hand, has a relatively high wing loading, and its climb performance, as mentioned in other posts, is poor. By the time (hot day, full fuel, two pilots) you got to say 800’ (in light winds and prior to a xwind turn) you were further away from the strip. The parrot descends pretty quickly and during turns, the nose needs to be lowered a lot in order to maintain 80kts. If you are a reasonable distance from the strip, and you had not stalled during the turn (my earlier comments about students looking for the strip and not at the ATT are even more relevant here) then the next result was to land short, or the tendency was to stretch the glide – not good.

In a strong wind, a TB would leave you running off the departure end of the strip with a high ground speed. A crash ahead could reduce your GS to 60kts or less (wind dependant) and give you a much more survivable crash.
I have done TB’s in the Parrot, usually above 1000’ (which in most cases means you are on down wind), and it is more of a ‘tight cct’ than a TB.

I fly ‘civvy’ lighties now, and brief that below 1000’ (airfield/wind/etc dependent) I will ‘look ahead and crash visually’

Without the luxury of an ejection seat, in most cases, in my opinion, a crash ahead is the best option.

:ok:

[flighthappens]

Jaba - as you say mate - its just physics, and some aircraft have better performance than others...

So consider this...

CT4B climbs at 400fpm in summer at (from memory) 90kts. Therefore 700-800ft = 2 minutes = 3NM. You tell me if you think anyone can turn a parrot through 180 degrees and then glide 3NM from 800ft. I havent flown a light civvy for ages but I imagine that in general for many types their performance is not that much better...

FACT - some aircraft will not have the climb / glide performance to perform a turnback from runway heading, even with chuck yeager or bob hoover on the stick

PC9 Climbs at between 2000-4000fpm depending on type of climb. Obviously you are going to be closer to the field, have more potential energy and a better glide ratio a turnback is going to be far more achievable.

Its not an "attitude by top guns" and its not an "exemption from the laws of physics" its actually professional pilots knowing their aircraft...

[sheppey]

I was taught turn backs in Vampires at CFS. Bloody good fun and very macho like practice dog fights in the training area. Most times we needed a touch of power to just get over the fence. Which rather compromised the macho bit but no one ever knew if you were solo at the time.

Several thousands of flying hours later - and may I say with more rat cunning and wisdom under the belt - I look back and think how utterly stupid and potentially dangerous the turn back policy was. If nothing else though, I learned it was much safer (I think risk mitigation is the appropriate latest buzz-word) to land ahead into the wind just like RAAF pilots were taught during the war in Tiger Moth days at Point Cook, Archerfield and Uranquinty.

[Jabawocky]

Exactly.......it's professional pilots knowing their aircraft.

Professional can be an RAA pilot, professional by attitude and practice, or an airline or ADF pilot.:ok:

Joker89. You are a clever guy, ;) the Cessna does not have 180 knots unless it's wings are peeled off, but it is all about a set of tested numbers, minima if you like. Think about ts for any of your aeroplanes, at a given height/speed or above it's a go, less and you are anywhere from the turn back to +/- 30.

KNOW YOUR AEROPLANE..... IF YOU DO NOT, YOUR OPTIOS ARE LESS.

CSD...... I think you know the story.:ok:

Plenty more where that came from.


I am glad that the last three posts, while debating this topic properly are now all agreeing with my favorite saying.....KNOW YOUR AEROPLANE, otherwise you are limited to the limited training stuff.

I am not saying this to boost a cyber ego.....it is what I learned through finding my own training was lacking this stuff, just like engine management you get toughs zip, I just ope it inspires others to wake up and take a professional approach to their GA flying. Because if you don't do it, nobody will do it for you, so long as you meet the MINIMUM grade you pass.

[Chimbu chuckles]

Like I said when Jaba first asked me about this 2+ years ago - some aeroplanes are good at it and some not so. I thought Jaba's aeroplane would fall into the former category as it has an exceptional wing and performance off the ground/initial climb. In fact I have caught myself several times looking at Jaba's RV10 and wondering how it performs as it does...its an amazing glider but the wing doesn't look much different to the 'hershey bar' wings on early PA28s.

Its got me fcked quite frankly:confused:

If you are flying an aeroplane that lends itself to the maneuver and fly a LOT (Jaba), and are always looking for another excuse, any fcking excuse - to be off the ground learning new stuff and practicing (Jaba again) then its a useful arrow to have in the quiver.

But he does tend to towards the zealot on some threads - no, really!:ok:

[Joker89]

Just trying to illustrate the point that a PC9 is nothing like a piston.

[Captain Sand Dune]

Just trying to illustrate the point that a PC9 is nothing like a piston.
Yup! The Parrot has push-rods and bellcranks controlling the engine rather then them black box thingies with their unpredictable and temperamental wiggly amps.

[Joker89]

Yeah yeah, I think we all know I meant performance wise.

[Cobra]

Straight ahead to the Hospital

Turn back for the Cemetery:{

[BPA]

Knowing your aircraft also means knowing what the flight manual or approved POH says you should do following an engine failure after takeoff. Should you survive the turn back following an engine failure and there is no procedure in the Flight Manual or POH and you damage the aircraft, damage other property or someone gets hurt the insurance companies legal team will have a field day with you and CASA will also have a chat to you about why you should keep your license.

All the single piston engine Cessna manuals say land straight ahead, all the PA28 manuals say make only shallow turns to avoid obstacles, all the Tecnam manuals say land straight ahead with small changes in directioonly not more than 45 degrees left or right of the nose and the CT4A says the pilot is committed to landing in the vicinity immediately to the front or side of the aircraft.

So far the only aircraft I've found that has a procedure for a turn back is the Sportstar (LSA) and is only to be done above 400'. Based on the take off performance of the LSA, I'm sure a few more may also have a turn back procedure.

So unless the Flight Manual or POH approves the turn back or your operations manual approves it (RFDS PC12) then your own your own from a legal and CASA standpoint.

[MakeItHappenCaptain]

Manufacturers won't tell you to do nything that could leave them open to a liability action.

[BPA]

And that's why you have to follow what's in their manual otherwise you will be held liable. Talk to those who have been involved in accidents or incidents (when there was damage) and they will tell you just how hard the lawyers are if the manufacturers procedures weren't followed.

[kellykelpie]

Jaba - it's fine for you to say know your airplane, but think about the vast majority of private pilots. Not everyone can fly as often as you do. Even at a very high level of proficiency, mistakes still happen when turning (e.g Red Bull air racing). The safest strategy is straight ahead (from very low level) - this is certainly the case for pilots that know their aircraft as well as I do when I take the wife and kids up (not that often).

Bas makes a valid point that I've always had in the back of my mind (when tempted to hire a twin) - while the accident rate is lower in twins, the fatality rate is higher due to the higher forward speed at accident or loss of control (training, proficiency and competency of those that don't fly as often).

[MakeItHappenCaptain]

BPA,
not an encouragement to do otherwise, but one might also consider they are playing it safe for their own protection?
A caravan, for example is more than capable when conducting a turn back from (conservatively) 700', yet the manual still states
Altitude and airspeed are seldom sufficient to execute a 180° gliding turn necessary to return to the runway.

[SW3]

Has as many variables as any flight... Tried it many times during instructor training, granted knowing it was coming, but to see what was achievable in a popular trainer. Below 500ft would have usually resulted in hitting the fence before the runway, higher had more chance of course. It's not only a 180 degree turn either, closer to 270. With that in mind it's easy to lose 1,000ft in a descending turn without trying too hard.
When it goes bang, fly to the situation handed to you and take the safest course of action that doesn't end up a smoking hole off the end of the runway.

[Ultralights]

Last week in the a Robin with Red Baron, we managed a simulated turnback turnback and lost 300ft. but only after the lesson on G stalling and rolling G. next time ill try to get the video to work.

[Checkboard]

Has anyone posted this simple look at the turn:

Should You Turnback? (http://www.nar-associates.com/technical-flying/impossible/possible.html)

... which is a precis of this .pdf, also by the good Doctor:

http://jeremy.zawodny.com/flying/turnback.pdf

[LeadSled]

Talk to those who have been involved in accidents or incidents (when there was damage) and they will tell you just how hard the lawyers are if the manufacturers procedures weren't followed.

Folks,
Interestingly, there is an interesting decision about a crash, where the PIC did not follow the manufacturer's manual "recommendations" .
The pilot was sued for the damages to the aircraft.

The case went all the way through to the NSW Court of Appeal, a three man bench found for the pilot, on the basis of the power of the pilot in command as the final authority on the operation of the aircraft, overrode the manufacturer's manual.

Markeyhttp://www.austlii.edu.au/images/dispright.png (http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/nsw/NSWCA/2002/221.html?stem=0&synonyms=0&query=title%28Markey%20%29#disp2) v Wansey & Ors [2002] NSWCA 221 (11 July 2002)

This is really quite an important, but little known judgement, that has quite widespread application.


Tootle pip

[Frank Arouet]

The Pilot in Command has absolute authority. (full stop).

There is no democracy on the flight deck, be it a C172 or A380.

However perhaps somebody can set me free of something I was brought up to believe in this vein. That is if a PIC declares a MERCY FLIGHT he is immune from existing rules and regulations for his/her inted flight?

Or perhaps an Air traffic Controller actually "controlls" the flight?

[aroa]

My understanding is that while an ATC can give you a "clear to land", it has no meaning in the sense that the PIC must see that it IS clear to land and just not take his word for it.
If the PIC hits something, its his/her fault for not seeing the way wasnt clear.
What are the legal and moral obligations of the ATC ? He/she is supposed to do their job "properly" but the ULTIMATE responsibility rests with the PIC.

I can remember in years gone by when one got a call during the flight... from an ATC stating that they considered the conditions unsuitable for VFR..wotcha gunna do ??? My consideration from the elevated viewpoint was that I had a better assessment of the actual wx from where I was sitting.
And as PIC, who's handling the cat?? And whose ultimate responsibility for the safe conduct of the flight is it??
Thankfully that method of remote control didnt last long, because PIC means what it says.

Nevertheless ATC notwithstanding there are lots of "control" freaks around.
:eek:

[Checkboard]

A mercy flight is a flight which it is know will break some rule or regulation before the flight even begins - however this is justified in order to save life. The pilot still commands.

Up until the mid-80s, Australia (uniquely) had a legal system in which Air Traffic Control exercised "Operational Control" over flights. That meant they could legally direct the pilot to fly to a destination, based on their understanding of (for example) the aircraft's declared fuel state.

It would go something like:

"Lufthansa 23, say your fuel state."
"8000kg, Lufthansa 23"
"Lufthansa 23, Melbourne is experiencing thunderstorms, you have insufficient for possible holding, and are directed to divert to Sydney."

[werbil]

Aora,

At Hammo one day, heavy showers had cleared and can see half way to destination and radar shows clear the rest of the way clear so decide to head off. I requested taxi clearance and provided intentions and was advised airspace closed to VFR - what are your intentions?

At the runway holding point looking at where I'm going and thinking buggar - if I don't get out in this break I could end up spending the night here.

A couple of seconds later comes the moment of inspiration followed by the radio call - 'Request Special VFR'.

It was that easy - and so was the flight as for that matter. From memory it did close back in later.

[kellykelpie]

The Pilot in Command has absolute authority. (full stop).

Don't forget the "substitution test" which is used in Just Culture and also by the legal system. If the PIC makes a decision which is not one that a normal, substituted PIC, would make they may be more culpable.

Am interested in anyone with experience with the substitution test.

[Kharon]

CB - Has anyone posted this simple look at the turn:

Thank you for the link, well worth the time taken to read it; just about says it all.:Dhttp://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/thumbs.gif

[Up-into-the-air]

Maybe someone should forward this to casa and ATSB??

May have been useful for the analysis of PA30 at Camden and the Darwin Brazillia - perhaps should be mandatory reading for all pilots and certainly useful for multi IF renewals!!

[mjbow2]

Leadsled,

I sent you a PM. Im not sure you have yours turned on.

mjbow2

[GCS16]

Turning back RAAF style (in an ejector seat aircraft) is not about landing the thing. It is about deciding where you will leave the crater and how many beers you will have to buy for joining the caterpillar club.

[Captain Sand Dune]

Turning back RAAF style (in an ejector seat aircraft) is not about landing the thing. It is about deciding where you will leave the crater and how many beers you will have to buy for joining the caterpillar club.
If the turn-back isn't working you'd be mad not to!

[baswell]

Finally took some time to try it in the SportStar.

Stable climb at max rate, pull throttle, push hard forward, think for a few seconds, hard turn (>45 degrees) pull to load up the wings a bit. (more so with flaps)

250 ft. without flaps and 200ft with flaps to turn more than 180 degrees. (85KG below max gross, so I would expect a bit more sink when fully loaded.)

[Rudder]

There was an instructor at Essendon in the 70's and early 80's that advocated this procedure. He is no longer with us as he never made it having to actually doing it in anger one day. Better to crash in control at the point of your choosing ( even limited choice) rather than out of it. It is far too complicated to be doing in the heat of the moment.

[baswell]

There are many variables. The rule we're taught is: "don't attempt it at less than 1000 AGL".

Am I going to do this it 300 ft because I know the aircraft can do it? Hell no!

Will I turn back at 800 feet (in this particular aircraft) when the alternative is densely built up suburb? **** yeah! :ok:

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

I do not have a date for this DH-82A EFATO accident in the Hunter Valley - but it is most graphic - and tragic.
The nose drop following the attempted turn - initially with rudder it would seem - is heart stopping.
Not for 'sensitive' viewers......
Tragic Airplane Accident - Biplane Loses Power on T.O. - YouTube

VERY Sad....However, we can all look at this and learn.....now.

[baswell]

However, we can all look at this and learn.....now.
"Don't try to turn back a Tiger Moth from 150 feet, especially when fitted with human speed brake"...

http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/1994/AAIR/pdf/ASOR199401106.PDF

[Chimbu chuckles]

Xfso both the people killed in that accident were friends of mine - that crash has as much relevance to this subject as the AF447 accident.

[Ultralights]

Better to crash in control at the point of your choosing ( even limited choice) rather than out of it. It is far too complicated to be doing in the heat of the moment.

just last weekend.

how to handle EFATO properly.
http://www.aircraftpilots.com/attachments/efat-jabiru-j160-jaspers-brush-jpg.17398/

[Up-into-the-air]

From the annex to the NRM:

Question is: Does this mean casa will stop the EFATO nonsense??

COMMENT 3.2

One respondent suggests that it is a mistake to remove all non-normal training from the aircraft to simulators only. The respondent believes that there remains a place in aircraft for non-normal training.

CASA Response

As demonstrated by recent fatal accidents and other serious incidents, this approach would continue to place the lives of pilots and passengers at risk. As a result CASA is firmly of the view that where a qualified STD is available, this should be used for all training and checking activities and non-normal exercises. The rule does not prohibit additional, normal, exercises from being conducted in an aircraft.

[Radix]

.............

[Slippery_Pete]

Sorry to revive an old thread.

http://www.pprune.org/dg-p-general-aviation-questions/457141-merged-alligator-airways-grounded.html

The last few pages above and the frightening video are another fantastic example of where a pilot un-necessarily placed the aircraft in a terribly dangerous situation because of an infatuation with getting the aircraft back to the departure runway environment.

Sure, it wasn't an EFATO. But the power was insufficient to maintain level flight, and the aircraft was not over a built up area.

Rather than use the remaining power to find something with a few degrees from the runway heading, and touch down with control at low speed and full flap (45 knots/85km/hr), he banked the aircraft heavily, close to the ground, with the stall warning blaring for what seemed like a lifetime before landing.

I still can't help but think that landing straight ahead is not pushed enough, and that talking about (and showing videos) of turning back gives young, inexperienced pilots reason to think they can achieve the same thing without training, experience and a high performance airframe.

Another near-disaster because of the temptation to return to the runway.

[Checkboard]

to find something with a few degrees from the runway heading
.. unless you've been to the location, and seen the terrain, you simply don't know what you are talking about, and to judge without knowing makes you look a fool.

[Slippery_Pete]

unless you've been to the location, and seen the terrain


How's about at least thousand hours out of there, including base checking a bunch of pilots from that very runway. :D


you simply don't know what you are talking about


Well I disagree. Also did a handful of twin ops out of there and some ME base checking from the RHS. I knew exactly where every landing site off the end of each runway was (and I last time travelled through, this didn't appear to have changed in the last 15-20 years).

and to judge without knowing makes you look a fool.

Seeing as I DO know, it would seem you have infact done this exact same thing you accused me of.:ugh:

[MakeItHappenCaptain]

Play nice, kiddies.

I'm sure we can all see the example only narrowly avoided a fatal accident.

Personally I agree with Pete in that the temptation to turn back can be overwhelming. I would be treating it as the exception, rather than a rule.
He still didn't make the runway and not all landing areas have as much clear space around them. VERY lucky indeed.:hmm:

[Checkboard]

Pete - the fact remains that that particular pilot made his decisions under those particular circumstances, and recovered the aircraft without damage, without passenger injury and (incidentally) zero recovery costs.

You are made a post judging that particular event, based solely on a rigid "never turn back" philosophy, for a course of action which (at the VERY best) can only equal his result (and, incidentally, cost more in recovery) and in many cases produce a worse result.

You weren't in that cockpit, you don't know how high he was off the end of the runway, what he surface conditions he flew over were like etc etc - and in the end, as I said, any other course of action can only equal (not better) the result he achieved.

I think I stand by my assessment of your comments.

[Slippery_Pete]

Pete - the fact remains that that particular pilot made his decisions under those particular circumstances, and recovered the aircraft without damage, without passenger injury and (incidentally) zero recovery costs.


Correct. None of that is false. But the fact remains that based on the situation he found himself in, he took the option which was by far most likely to result in death.

You are made a post judging that particular event, based solely on a rigid "never turn back" philosophy, for a course of action which (at the VERY best) can only equal his result (and, incidentally, cost more in recovery) and in many cases produce a worse result.


Yes I made a judgement on that event. I do not have a blanket "never turn back" philosophy as you imply - this indicates to me that you have failed to read carefully my previous posts since the discussion was started.

You weren't in that cockpit, you don't know how high he was off the end of the runway, what he surface conditions he flew over were like etc etc - and in the end, as I said, any other course of action can only equal (not better) the result he achieved.


Correct, I wasn't in the cockpit. But I do know how high he was - you can plainly see it in the video. I know INTIMATELY what the surface conditions are like due to previous experience - essentially rural land. I don't believe placing the aircraft so close to a stall/spin/crash/burn/die scenario was a good result, despite the fact that you do.

I'm perplexed by the fact that it appears you are now defending your original attack on me to maintain your pride.

Let's get one thing perfectly clear. We are pilots. Our job is, and always has been, to take the safest option. Every operator and airline I've worked for places safety at the forefront of decision making.

I would have thought that someone with two and half thousand posts on a pilot forum would understand that a safe outcome at the end doesn't necessarily mean it was achieved using the safest method.

Let's pick an example:
Are you saying that his air return was safer than if, for example, he had rejected the takeoff after becoming airborne and re-landed on the runway - running off the end of the runway at 10 knots and burying a couple of tires in the mud?

By your logic, because the aircraft was recoverable and undamaged - his option was safer (ie the end justifies the means). By my logic, the aircraft may have needed a tow and a new nose wheel leg, but while there was minor damage and recovery problems, the safety of the passengers was much more likely to be maintained.

I'm not having a go at the guy personally, because I think CASA have failed him. Somehow he has completed the CASA day VFR syllabus and their CPL test and come out the other side with no appreciation of the danger in flying around for two minutes at zero feet, banked heavily with the stall warning going off. The system and the training have failed here.

As for aircraft recoverability, who gives a :mad:? It's simply not our problem, and it's no different to multi-engine pilots who suffer an engine failure and fly over suitable aerodromes in an attempt to get the aircraft back to home base.

If you want another example of taking the safest action vs. outcome, are you familiar with the Whyalla Airlines PA31 crash? After suffering the first engine failure (over land, and near some suitable aerodromes), the pilot elected to fly out over water in an attempt to get the aircraft to the airline's home base in Whyalla (after being previously chastised for landing away from base previously).

By your logic Checkboard, had he been successful and the aircraft landed safely without damage or recovery costs, he took the best option at the time it occurred. As it turns out, he definitely took the wrong option - because out over water, the second engine cooked in an attempt to reach Whyalla & everyone died.

If you want to continue this discussion on PM Checkboard, please feel free. But please don't try to argue that the ends justifies the means in this case, because it certainly does not.

Pure dumb luck as the end result has no place in encouraging fundamentally poor decision making and TEM.

[Checkboard]

But the fact remains that based on the situation he found himself in, he took the option which was by far most likely to result in death.
See, here's the problem - you state this as an absolute fact and it simply isn't. It is your opinion. Your opinion based on insufficient knowledge, at that.

Most of the land he is flying over in the vid looks freshly ploughed to me. I would rather have ridden that aircraft back to the landing this guy made, than have you try and stick it into a freshly ploughed field, frankly.

with no appreciation of the danger in flying around for two minutes at zero feet, banked heavily with the stall warning going off.
I am certain he fully appreciated the danger - I am certain that he was in fact pretty terrified. It's not like this was a video of a bit of "low flying for fun".

Under conditions of very high stress he was using his commander's authority to conduct an emergency manoeuvre to save the lives of the passengers. A manoeuvre which was completely successful. To say the outcome was "Pure dumb luck" is simply incorrect. He didn't close his eyes and waggle the controls randomly (which would be pure luck) - he was carefully flying the aircraft at the edge of its performance (using his emergency authority to do so) and achieved a safe outcome.

I'm perplexed by the fact that it appears you are now defending your original attack on me to maintain your pride.
I'm not defending an attack on you - I am pointing out the errors in your attack on another pilot. (In other words, "You started it - nyaa nyaa na nyaa nyaa." :p)

If you had recognised that you were only spouting a personal opinion (based on the poor knowledge provided "looking thorough the keyhole" of a camera viewfinder) in your original post attacking the poor bloke, I wouldn't have had any problems.

[F111]

If anyone wants to try a turn back following an engine failure in a C172, there is now a C172 sim at Noosaville on the Sunshine Coast. Information available here;

flightsimtechtraining.com.au (http://www.flightsimtechtraining.com.au)

[MakeItHappenCaptain]

Why not use flightsim or better still, go practise some circuit emergencies in a real 172 with an instructor?:cool:

[NzCaptainAndrew]

I really think its all situational.

If I had a fully loaded 206 EFATO under 1000 feet AGL then yes, I will be landing on whatever straight ahead making minimal turns, flap as req.

However taking off the end from a long runway, half empty load engine failure 1000feet, I KNOW I can make it make it back. Nose right down maintain best glide, enter the steep turn flap & feather as req.

Terrain, slope, height, experience, wind, load, runway remaining etc....
So many factors play into whether or not to turn back after an EFATO, there is no 'perfect' answer.

"Access the situation and react correctly."

Anyways, thats my 2c worth :ok:

[A37575]

go practise some circuit emergencies in a real 172 with an instructor?

Ask the instructor if you can check his log book first. He may be a new grade 3 with SFA experience at circuit emergencies:ooh:

[UnderneathTheRadar]

& feather as req

Probably not recommended in a 206......

UTR

[outnabout]

If you must learn EFATO procedures, try Pete Goodwin at Pilot Macquarie in Tamworth. Over 15 000 hours, a fair bit of it gained in PNG, and knows to the inch where his 182 is in the circuit.

No, don't work for them, did some training with them earlier this year.

[NzCaptainAndrew]

Whys that UTR?:confused::confused:

[Captain Nomad]

Go back and study AGK... Single engine piston aeroplane props don't feather - they are either full-fine, full-coarse, or somewhere in between...!

[F111]

Does your fltsim have 210 degree visuals and the full flight cockpit/flight contols?
The advantage of a sim like the one on the sunshine coast is the instuctor can fail the engine at anytime without the pilot knowing/seeing when the engine has failed and it's a full failure rather than just pulling back to idle. You can also program the winds to make it that much harder.

Read the report on the E120 crash in DN and see CASA wants to people to make use of a sim if one is available. Although it's only a fixed base and uses flightsim for the graphics, the aircraft and flight controls are based on a real 172, in fact the sim is built around a crashed C172 fuselarge.

[MakeItHappenCaptain]

Actually.....yes it does.

Bit of a difference between one engine inoperative training in a multi-engine turbine where Vmca becomes a killer and a C172.:rolleyes:

That being said, something with motion would have a bit more value than a synthetic trainer, but I'll still stand by an actual aircraft being more realistic than anything else and pretty sure CASA won't mind.......:cool: