Engine failure after takeoff - turn back?

[AdamFrisch]

Yes, it's the age old dead horse again. But I hadn't seen this footage before. It's a Falke motorglider apparently, and the rwy is almost comically wide, but it shows that it can be done in certain circumstances. I apologise on these total strangers behalf for the dreadful music.

Airplane engine failure during take off and turn back for landing (practice) - YouTube

[mary meagher]

Interesting. But. The Falke is a motor GLIDER, with engine off glide ratio of aprox. 23 to 1. You can travel a long way even with only 23 to 1 glide ratio. The glide ratio of a Cessna 152 is probably less than 10 to 1. Interesting exercise before deciding to turn back after EFAT would be to check exactly how far a perfectly flown l52 would travel engine off (do this at altitude, please! they don't call them planks for no reason....)

Also I suspect they are speaking Russian.....

[subsonicsubic]

I don't like videos such as this.

This is a motor glider. The engine is operating.

This sends the wrong message IMHO.

Land straight ahead (within reason), avoid anything hard and / or expensive and maintain flying speed and therefore control down to the landing / crash.

I used to use an 8:1 glide ratio for the 152...And I think that may have been a tad optimistic:O

Best,

SSS

[Heston]

The only thing wrong with that video is the title and introduction - which both imply that what is shown is what to do in an EFATO in a light aircraft. as a demo of how a motorglider can fly its fine - but that isn't what its presented as. Dangerous stuff.

As others have pointed out
- its a glider
- the engine is running (in a motor glider the glide ratio with engine on tick over can be as good as 30:1)
- its a huge airfield

I would add
- motor gliders have airbrakes so glide can be controlled precisely
- what was the wind doing? there was clearly no danger of running out of runway landing downwind

[Pace]

The other thing to consider is such a turnback requires quite a steep angle of bank and quite a steep rate of descent seeking the extra energy that turn requires.
Also when do you decide to turn back or not engine failure 100 200 300 400 500 etc?

As stated this is a motor glider in some other aircraft the outcome would not be so great!

Pace

[Torque Tonight]

After the Woodvale crash in which an RAF Bulldog being flown by a QFI spun in and crashed attempting a turnback due to an EFATO, the RAF carried out some formal trials to investigate turnbacks. Their teaching had always been not to attempt turnbacks and instead to land within 30 degrees of the centreline.

The trials formally investigated turnback performance with varying wind directions and speeds, and initiation at various heights. Height losses were found to be huge, with more turning required at earlier initiations, hence more height loss when starting closer to the ground. Aggressive turning was found to minimise height loss, but the risk of loss of control, stalling or spinning in the turn was high. There were also many wind height combinations where reaching the runway would not be possible.

The outcome of the trials was as far as I can remember an absolute bottom limit of 800ft in still air for the Bulldog and a recommendation of not attempting it below about 1500ft unless there were no areas in which a forced landing could be made ahead.

These were formal trials, very different to anecdotal opinion that we frequently read on this matter, and very different to a couple of guys making outube videos in a motor glider with an idling engine. There is a long history of people crashing attempting turnbacks and the conventional wisdom was certainly vindicated when put to the test. Moral of the story was don't do it unless trying to land ahead looks fatal.

[mary meagher]

OK, I can't resist it. (After all this crap weather preventing flying, I'm spending too many idle moments on PPruNE)

We have two Faulke motor gliders at our gliding club, used for teaching glider pilots how to choose a landout field, and how to set up a circuit.....this requires the altimeter NOT to be considered, as you would not know exactly the altitude of the field chosen.

One of our senior instructors finally persuaded his lady to come flying with him in the Falke....perfectly safe, he assured her.

So they pushed it out of the hangar, he helped her aboard, strapped her in, reassurance emphasized in the preflight briefing. With a calm masterful air he climbed in the other side, strapped himself in. They taxied to the end of 18, which is a nice long paved bit of runway that gives the falke plenty of room for takeoff; the Falke is a bit of a groundhugger and likes to have a good long run to acquire climbaway.

Engine running just fine, he turned round completely to make sure no traffic to affect them, straightened up, and confidently moved the throttle forward to full power. The Falke left the ground OK, and climbed to about 10 feet before the engine quit completely. Talk about EFATO! Fortunately there was just enough room straight ahead to land and stop before arriving in the clubhouse.....

Seems the last guy who flew it had TURNED OFF THE FUEL! Which is not usually done, and the skirts of his lady had hidden the valve, which is right beside the passenger's seat.....

She was not amused.

[Pace]

Mary

Not many ladies I know would have Skirts that would hide anything :E
Maybe if he had had a younger model he would not have missed the valve but may have got distracted in other ways ??

Pace

[A and C]

I am in compleat agreement with you, I have looked at the turn back performance of the Cessna 152 and the picture is not good.

Having tryed the turn back on a number of occasions the success rate at getting back onto the airfield was well below 50%, it required high angles of bank and a high skill level to successfully execute, also the aircraft arrived with a high ground speed.

The chances of the average PPL holder executing a turn back would be very low with danger of a stall / spin due to the high bank angles or arriving in the undershoot with a high ground speed. Far better to comply with normal practice and look for a landing within 30 degrees of the runway centre line with the wind on the nose reducing the ground speed.

I suspect that the RAF's airfield limitations for the Grob Tutor are based on giving the pilot to turn back option because the limitations are certenly not based on the aircraft flight manual take off and landing performance numbers.

[Tupperware Pilot]

Seems the last guy who flew it had TURNED OFF THE FUEL! Which is not usually done, and the skirts of his lady had hidden the valve, which is right beside the passenger's seat.....


So he did not do his pre-flight check's right then did he..........:ugh: he was lucky!

[BillieBob]

ISTR that more military pilots have been killed while practising turnbacks than have been injured as a result of a real engine failure after take-off.

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

This scenario is also false in that the pilots are EXPECTING the EFATO and know exactly when it is going to happen.

All pilots should be of the mindset to EXPECT the engine to fail (and not just at take off) and be surprised if it doesn't, but life ain't like that.

Reality is that after hundreds, maybe thousands, of take offs where the engine just keeps on going as it should, if one day it subsides into zero power at 200 feet off a short runway there is a period of unacceptance, of 'this isn't happening to me' before Bloggs realises that it bluddy well IS happening. Hopefully, the aeroplane will still be flying so Bloggs can get the nose DOWN (and it will require DOWN! not ...down).

Indeed there was a tragedy a while ago where a PA38 pilot got an EFATO just after t/o and sent out a mayday instead of getting the nose down! He stalled and spun in from very low level with fatal results.

Turning back is a luxury to far for most PPL EFATOs (there are exceptions). Just GET THE NOSE DOWN and FLY THE AEROPLANE to a landing, or a crash if that's the only option. It's a better option by far than spinning in.

[kenparry]

Further to post #6:

I spent many years as an AEF staff pilot,and flew (among others) Bulldog and Tutor. On both those, turnbacks were taught, checked, and approved in principle for qualified pilots. There was a minimum altitude, though I forget the figure. The turn needed about 45 deg bank, AFTER a large nose-down input, and in my opinion was a distinctly marginal manoeuvre. The most obvious way to screw up is to stall in the turn, but there's also the issue of very high groundspeed at touchdown on a windy day which could give you all manner of problems.

In my humble opinion, don't consider it unless going ahead would definitely kill you; and, in that case, consider another runway or not going at all.

[phiggsbroadband]

Hi, I think most glider pilots would cope well with a SEP EFAT as all winch launches are an effective EFAT, when the cable back-releases.

I was told off once by an instructor as I pushed into -ve G as the cable dropped off.. He said we might have caught up the dropping cable! Anyway it got our speed to what was required.

[Richard Westnot]

To any student or inexperianced low time ppl flying a SEP/MEP with EFATO, DO NOT follow what is shown in this video.

Practice it by all means with a competant instructor on board and with sufficient height.

[maxred]

Nose down, best glide speed, pick the field, you are now flying the insurance companies airframe. Land straight ahead:)

[mary meagher]

Maxred, if you have only managed ten feet when the engine goes quiet, yes, straight ahead (brick walls best avoided, go for the shrubbery....) But if you have managed 200 feet or so, with a sudden failure, it is not unreasonable to move 10 degrees to right or left if a more suitable landing site appears.

Gliding training would definitely be more useful than the standard EFAT drill which is never very realistic anyhow. A field landing is usually a non-event in a glider. Cross country glider pilots often get low and have to pick fields, even if a climb away from downwind happens, it is all good practice. Makes the power EFAT too easy, no panic.

But not enough attention is paid to engine loss of power that is less than total.
What would you do about that?

[uberwang]

I think that is Farkashagy airfield just outside of Budapest. The day after I was there a Gilder crashed and pilot was killed after spinning during the turn when the cable broke. That was 8 or 9 years ago now I think. Just over the hill at the end of the runway is Budapest. The poster's name is also a Hungarian name.

[Big Pistons Forever]

Here is a test: Without taking time to think I want you to immediately verbalize the actions for an EFATO on your airplane. DO IT NOW.

I am willing to bet that most readers had a longish pause followed by a few hums and errs.

My PPL students can rattle off the vital actions if challenged with no warning because I make them do it before every takeoff starting from the third lesson. After doing it 50 or 60 times it is burned into their brain. Equally importantly, I make them physically touch the controls starting with firmly pushing the yolk forward while verbalizing "glide attitude" and then touching all the controls in the emergency actions flow. This builds habit and instinctive reactions that will save your life. I also tell my students to fly straight ahead, turning only the minimum amount necessary to avoid major obstacles, if they experience an EFATO below 1000 feet AGL

[172driver]

firmly pushing the yolk forward

omelette, anyone ? suggest we all keep it 'sunny side up' !

;)

[m.Berger]

Get up high, reduce speed to your climb out speed, read the altimeter, chop the power. Turn 180 degrees as quickly as you dare. Read the altimeter.
Yes, at least that much sky. Does it still seem like a good idea?

[Pace]

No even better is to drop the nose build up some speed, pull up and stall turn back to the runway works a treat :ok:

Only Joking !!!!!!!!!!!!!

Straight ahead 30 degrees or even 45 degrees left or right of the nose and above all keep the ship flying

Pace

[Crash one]

No even better is to drop the nose build up some speed, pull up and stall turn back to the runway works a treat http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/thumbs.gif

Only Joking !!!!!!!!!!!!!

Straight ahead 30 degrees or even 45 degrees left or right of the nose and above all keep the ship flying

Pace


Trouble is this subject has been done to death so many times that now you even have to specify that you are "Only Joking !!!!!!!!!" & then include a sensible thing to do just to prove that you are not really silly.:ok:
I think I'll try the wing over turn at 200feet, bound to work. I'm not joking!!

[doubleu-anker]

I am of the opinion, there is a 90% chance of walking away from an EFTO by landing ahead and under CONTROLLED flight!! Stall it, even from say 20 feet and you're probably finished.

Assuming you took off into wind, your ground speed will be relatively low. Try and turn back, and if you stall the a/c in a turn, the g/s will be high, coming to downwind, not to mention the loss of control, with a high vertical speed. That's what kills.

Forget about the aircraft as it can be replaced.

[Pilot DAR]

Yes, this is a "dead horse" subject, but okay, again: Do not attempt turnbacks unless it is in a competent training environment, and after a briefing. I practiced and practiced in my 150, got everything ideal, and was just able to do it from about 400 feet. Zero margin for getting it wrong, or differing circumstances. Hardly a good plan to depend upon. I'm not going to say what worked, 'cause I don't want people trying it. And, I don't practice any more, it's not worth the risk....

I have had two EFATO, both at just over 200 feet. both times I force landed onto a suitable area, and later took off, when the problem was resolved. One was a 70 degree turn onto an abandoned runway, and the other a 90 degree turn from crosswind. That one took every bit of skill, but anything else was a wreck the plane and I situation.

Like a helicopter autorotation entry, you have one to two seconds during the climb out to get the nose down and maintain glide speed. This fact is a very good reason to not climb out at less than glide speed. The plane will climb at a slower speed, but happily the manufacturer has cunninly chosen a climb speed from which a glide can be entered safely. While demonstrating glides from engine failures at 50 feet, in a Grand Caravan at 80 knots rather than 87 (book climb out speed), I came as close as ever to it not working, and that was planned, and straight ahead onto remaining runway.

I have very limited glider experience, so I will leave those valuable comments to the glider pilots here. But, a glider has amazing turnback gliding capabilities compared to a power plane. Don't let a Youtube video lure you into trying turnbacks - don't let anything lure you into trying turnbacks!

[RatherBeFlying]

To qualify for winch launch in a glider you have to practice cable breaks from many different altitudes.

Basic drill: Immediately lower the nose below the horizon as much as it was above the horizon.

Gliders have the advantage of spoilers and being able to fly a mini circuit once too high to land back on the runway. Also on a winch you are airborne and climbing steeply in a very short distance.

[rusty sparrow]

I'm an ex glider pilot and used to fly the Slingsby Swallow (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slingsby_Swallow).

The learned reflex of nose down till flying speed on a cable break can be a life saver when flying high, drag, low inertia aircraft. In a glider you may then have the option of a mini circuit, otherwise take the wise recommendation (Bob Hoover?) to fly it all the way to the crash.

[astir 8]

Rather be flying - you missed the important bit after "Immediately lower the nose etc" during a cable break

It's "Wait for flying speed to be restored"

- during the pushover from the climb angle a glider can lose lots of airspeed and attempting a turn immediately after lowering the nose is asking for a spin. It's what all glider instructors are watching for when teaching cable breaks.

All the above is probably less marked in a light aircraft efato situation as the climb angle is less and the inertia is greater but restoring flying speed is still key to staying alive, not just lowering the nose.

[ChrisA87]

In gliding the very last item on your pre-flight check list is "Eventualities" which covers the cable braking. As has been said you immediately lower the nose, regain flying airspeed, then land ahead if possible. If not you have the option of an abbreviated circuit or even a 180 if conditions allow.

The point is all the above is fresh in your mind because it's the last thing you think of before launching, so you carry out the maneuvers almost sub-consciously.

Still, gliders have vastly superior performance to SEPs and you can have a 3 or 4 minute flight from 1000ft before joining the circuit where as I would think twice about turning back from an EFATO at 1000ft in an SEP!

[212man]

The same old chestnut!

Can it be done - yes
Does it need to be trained for and briefed diligently before take off - yes
Is the reality of a real engine failure vs a practice likely to affect the outcome - yes.

Interesting to see the RAF Woodvale Bulldog references. I was trained there in the late '80s to do turnbacks and it was a precision manoeuvre, towards the crosswind to reduce radius of turn and only used for certain runways that had housing estates or forests ahead of them.

Minimum height to commence was 450 ft and the first 90 degrees of turn was head down on instruments, 45 degrees of bank and pulling to the light buffet at best glide speed. Bear in mind there was no stall warner on the Bulldog as students were taught to feel the different stages of buffet.

The basic premise was not necessarily to land on the reciprocal runway, but to land or force land within the airfield boundary so as to be within the RFFS cover.

I know the boss of LUAS in 1997 was sadly unable to put theory into practice, hence my earlier remark about practice vs reality. However, Rod Newman did get his aircraft back into the perimeter area, rather than into the forest, when his student turned his fuel selector to off so it can work given the right circumstances.

My best friend of that time span into Southport beach and died in the post crash fire, but that is a different story :{

[Crash one]

I'm just a low hour rookie compared to many, but I think all the detailed advice in the world is not going to help in anyone's first actual EFATO. Recent & plenty of practice would be more use.
Everyone says "Get an instructor to do this or that". Well, do that till you have done it as often as he has & there should be less panic at the time.
Just my miserable opinion.
I've never had one, not looking forward to it, although I've practiced (not enough) & know the drill, I hope to Christ I do the right thing.
Lowest cable break I had was <100ft, The glider, K6E, & I both survived.

[BackPacker]

Like others, I have also investigated the best way and minimum altitude loss in case of an EFATO. In a normal SEP, I'm not attempting the turnback at less than 1000' because of that. It simply cannot be done.

And even if you complete the turn perfectly with minimum height loss, you still have the issue that your climb performance before the engine failure has to be better than the "best glide" performance. (So your best climb gradient has to be better than 1:10 if your best glide gradient is 1:10.) Otherwise you'll never be able to end up at or above the "best glide" profile, regardless of the altitude or distance from the field. In a typical flight school SEP, your climb gradient will be better than your glide gradient, but not very much so. And whatever you gained will be thrown away by the turn.

Of course, if you turn crosswind at 500' your chances of making it to the runway are greatly increased. First, because you're not flying away from the field anymore, and second because you've already done half the turn.

Hi, I think most glider pilots would cope well with a SEP EFAT as all winch launches are an effective EFAT, when the cable back-releases.

Mmm. I'm not so sure about that. Yes, they will have ingrained the action of lowering the nose and that's good. But my experience (and I hold both a PPL and a GPL) is that a glider has so much better glide performance that you've got far more time to consider your actions. 300 feet is enough to fly a mini-circuit, and that's actually a relatively leisurely mini-circuit, giving you plenty time to sort out approach speeds, angles and the like, and choose your landing spot.

In a SEP, anything below 1000' requires immediate and decisive action, as you'll be on the ground in less than a minute. So if a glider pilot in that situation lowers the nose and then starts thinking about his actions (instead of acting on an ingrained plan of action) he or she might hash things up just as easily as a SEP pilot.

During my GPL training, when close to first solo, my instructor pulled the winch release at 300', which is the height where you can attempt a mini-circuit instead of landing ahead. As a SEP pilot my reactions were instinctively to lower the nose, and as soon as I was stable I banked for the mini-circuit rather aggressively. A bit tool aggressively for the instructor. He told me to slow down, take my time, and actually pulled the airbrakes so that I lost another 100', "to make things interesting". And indeed, we had plenty time and altitude to complete the circuit and make a nice landing.

Gliders have the advantage of spoilers

Now that I've got both a PPL and a GPL, and looking back at my PPL EFATO/PFL training I think not enough is being taught about energy management. Or more specifically, how to get rid of excess energy if you are too high.

In both EFATO and PFL training (post-PPL) I got told off for removing flaps if I found myself descending too quickly. Even though we were flying inside the green arc, and I just wanted to use the flaps as airbrakes. And I was on a checkflight early last season when the instructor threw me a PFL. I ended up being too high so I dumped all flaps, lowered the nose and started a full rudder sideslip. Got told off again. (Even though my chosen field was on an island and there were no alternatives anymore by that time. I had to make that field or would've gone swimming.)

[A and C]

Used correctly the rudder is a very good vertical speedbrake rather than telling you off the instructor should be teaching the correct way to side slip

[BackPacker]

Well, at that time it felt more like I was teaching him.:E

[cats_five]

To qualify for winch launch in a glider you have to practice cable breaks from many different altitudes.

Basic drill: Immediately lower the nose below the horizon as much as it was above the horizon.

Gliders have the advantage of spoilers and being able to fly a mini circuit once too high to land back on the runway. Also on a winch you are airborne and climbing steeply in a very short distance.

And you have to consider before launching if a recipricol landing would be advisable - more than a knot or two of wind and it isn't.

[Torque Tonight]

As some here have shown it is easy to think of a turnback as simply a 180 degree turn. It will always be more than 180, and the worst case, close in, is nearly 360 degrees of turning ie 270 left then 90 right or vice versa. Think of the height loss to accomplish that, not simply to turn 180 degrees.

Minimum height loss in the turn was achieved with maximum practical angle of bank. Turning increases the stall speed, and the stall speed in a steep turn will most likely be greater than the normal best glide speed You're already low, struggling to make it to anywhere suitable to land, there will be a tendancy to want to stretch the glide and reduce (transiently) rate of descent and yet to make the turn the nose must be stuffed further down, the speed increased and rate of descent increased whilst aleady rapidly closing with the ground. Add in to that a bit of disorientation from looking at ground references when there is a wind component and the stressed pilot may tend to fly slightly out of balance.

All this puts you in prime stall-spin-crash territory which has bitten even the best. Not a nice place to be.

[24Carrot]

For me at least, with my modest skill level, turning back (i.e. 180 degrees to a downwind landing) is a complete non-issue.

Below 500 ft, there is no choice but to go for what I planned, which would be something I had identified pre-takeoff. Noise abatement turns often have the happy side-effect of steering you towards suitable fields, early in the climb out.

After 500 ft, there should be better choices than a turn back, but in a typical circuit it would be a "half-turn" back anyway, as BackPacker said.

After 1000 ft, you don't need to turn back.

Edite to add:
TorqueTonight, our posts crossed. I agree with your 180+ degrees point.

[BackPacker]

Minimum height loss in the turn was achieved with maximum practical angle of bank.

Actually, not quite. Minimum height loss in a stable gliding turn is achieved with exactly a 45-degree bank. Any less than that and you're just wasting the horizontal component of lift, which you need to make the turn. Any more than that and the increased induced drag, combined with the higher stall speed will increase your RoD too much. The best balance is found at 45 degrees. Ghenghis the Engineer has either done the calculations himself, or has a reference for that. I verified this in practice.

Slightly less height loss can be gained by performing a semi-aerobatics wingover-like turn, but this is such a wild maneuver for so little gain that I would not even consider that in real life.

[Torque Tonight]

I'm not sure you're correct there Backpacker. This was the feedback we got after the RAF trials. Having a reduced rate of descent in a gentler turn is no good to you when you're pointing in the wrong direction and extending your ground track with a wider turn. I could probably dig out the old Aero Eng university notes and do the maths but greater minds than mine have worked it out and trialled it before me.

As I alluded to in my previous post, it's not the height loss after a 180 degree turn that matters. Its the height loss to get to the runway that counts. Higher angles of bank will give tighter turns which means fewer track miles and fewer total degrees of turning. Steeper turns increase the risk of loss of control, gentler turns reduce your chance of making it to the runway.

I think we can both agree though that turnbacks are to be avoided.

[maxred]

Used correctly the rudder is a very good vertical speedbrake rather than telling you off the instructor should be teaching the correct way to side slip

Are you seriously advocating a slide slip in an EFATO, in an SEP??? In a turn back.?

Please tell me I have mis interpreted this.

[ChrisA87]

Used correctly the rudder is a very good vertical speedbrake rather than telling you off the instructor should be teaching the correct way to side slip
Are you seriously advocating a slide slip in an EFATO, in an SEP??? In a turn back.?

Please tell me I have mis interpreted this.

You've misinterpreted it :)
They were talking about side slipping during a PFL to lose height.

I echo what BackPacker said about not enough EFATO training in the PPL syllabus, at least when compared to my GPL training.

[BackPacker]

Yep. And to be honest, I would do it in an EFATO situation as well if it would seem like I would overshoot my chosen field. Which obviously is dead ahead or at most 30 degrees off the nose of course.

[maxred]

Great, that's fine if best glide achieved, heading towards desired landing spot, and all under control. No issues at all, and agree. Side slip.

However, correct me if I am wrong, the thread, and others, advocate a turn back. This one started with a Falke, a glider with some power up front. An entirely different proposition to finding yourself in an SEP, at 500 feet, when all goes quite.

The past threads, and some posts in this one, seem to suggest that a turn back to field, is do able. With ample height, ample practice, ample awareness, and ample luck, it might be achievable.

However, my own view is, in general, the turn back is not a suitable option. History appears, in conjunction with the accident reports to confirm that as a manoeuvre, the outcome is seldom positive.

I appreciate we are discussing all of this from the armchair, however, the reality is, that in a real life situation, just getting the aircraft under control, appears to be beyond some pilots.

[212man]

Actually, not quite. Minimum height loss in a stable gliding turn is achieved with exactly a 45-degree bank.

See my earlier post....

[abgd]

I'm intrigued by Pilot_DAR's ability to get a C152 back from 400 feet. When I've tried cutting the power at 60 knots in the climb (at 4000 feet) I took 500 feet just to turn round. I did try a range of bank angles, though wasn't exhaustive. I have no intention of turning back from 400 feet, but would be fascinated to know how you do it?!

I've also wondered why it is that we are discouraged so strongly from taking in the flaps if we've misjudged the angle of descent? Provided we have a decent airspeed, it seems to me the main risk is of overloading the pilot (need to retrim, etc).

[Pilot DAR]

To be honest, it was 25 years ago, before I had the wisdom I have now. I remember practicing all day, while maintaining the most ideal conditions to enter a glide. I recall making the best of the crosswind. A lot of the success of the low altitude entry is the willingness to finish the alignment to the runway turn while in the flare. My 150 has a STOL kit which is a little reassuring with hard maneuvering close to the ground.

Other factors necessary for success have been touched on in this thread, and I proved them to myself that day, though honestly, I have no intention of repeating them for myself, and certainly no intention of promoting them here as a good idea. I've done a lot of things in planes which worked, but probably should not have. I'm getting close to old, so it's time for me to not do dumb things in planes any more, I know better! A turnback is a dumb thing to attempt in an airplane.

[mm_flynn]

I've also wondered why it is that we are discouraged so strongly from taking in the flaps if we've misjudged the angle of descent? Provided we have a decent airspeed, it seems to me the main risk is of overloading the pilot (need to retrim, etc).
The only reason the flaps should be out is because you are 'close' to the ground. It would seem improbable that a stressed pilot close to the ground realising he is undershooting his target would gracefully feed in nose down pitch as he is retracting flaps to accelerate up to his new best glide speed. It seems much more probable that having mis judged the situation in the first place the pilot would then slow down even more as he faffs with the flaps.

Unless you are going to hit a cliff, concrete wall, fuel tank farm, etc. the overwhelming factor in favour of living is to glide in not fall/stall in. Hence, when near the end of the glide, don't faff, keep gliding, tiny turn to avoid big trees, rocks etc.

[24Carrot]

When comparing 4000ft with 400ft, remember that air density comes into this. It might be about 15% lower at 4000ft. And the difference could easily be bigger as you are probably talking about different days in different countries. :)

Assuming that the IAS and so all the forces and accelerations are identical in the two cases, I believe there are two effects:

1) The lower air density implies a higher TAS. The Glide angle should be the same, so your rate of descent should be the same fraction of a higher true airspeed. You come down faster if the air density is lower.

2) The turning acceleration should be the same, but one of the formulae for centripetal acceleration is "omega vee" i.e. Turn Rate times True Airspeed. As the TAS is higher, the turn rate must be lower. You turn more slowly if the air density is lower.

Each effect is proportional to the square root of the density, so in combination the effect is proportional to the density.

Everything else being equal, the difference in your comparison is about 60 ft.

An extreme bank angle, i.e. cramming the turn into just a few seconds, might reduce the difference, but I'm not sure.

[abgd]

Would I also be correct in thinking that an STOL kit would give your 150 a better angle of climb, potentially tighter turns, and therefore getting back to the runway would be a lot easier? I'm still thoroughly impressed, but don't plan any low-level experimentation.

mm_flyn: Thanks for the analysis. I realised that altitude would make some difference, but couldn't be quanitative about this.

[mary meagher]

Even in a glider, it is possible to screw up a low level turn. One of my best friends was landing in a field. Knowlegeable observers saw him, on final approach, bank to avoid a tree. His nose came up as the wing came up, and he SPUN IN from less than 30 feet. He might have survived the impact, but the battery in the glider was on the shelf behind his head.

[horizon flyer]

Some years ago, lost a friend to a low level turn back, in an AA5, stalled in from 100feet. He's memorial bench is in front of the tower at Denham.

I once put a Cardinal in a field from 750ft AGL That was 1.5 miles, 60 seconds, with 100 degree left turn from engine failure and walked away.
Kept the speed up at 90mph and found a couple of fields within glide distance.

A 180 turn burns 500ft, but to get back on a field it generaly needs over 220 so I think 800ft is the minimum from experience.

[Big Pistons Forever]

I once put a Cardinal in a field from 750ft AGL That was 1.5 miles, 60 seconds, with 100 degree left turn from engine failure and walked away.
Kept the speed up at 90mph and found a couple of fields within glide distance.

.

Sounds like a very good job :ok:. What was the cause of the engine failure ?

[horizon flyer]

The sump quick drain plug spun out at 1700 rpm, a high vibration point and dumped all the oil overboard, engines dont last long with out it.

Had smoke come out of the cowling and a little vioce in my head saying dont stall it in on approach. Better to run it the far hedge.

[old,not bold]

Yes, it's the age old dead horse againSure is; here's a heartfelt letter from Flight magazine about 40 years ago. Mind you, it's as true now, perhaps more so, than it was then. By the way, I happen to know that the instructor concerned was the CFI and a very experienced ex-fighter Command pilot.

http://i243.photobucket.com/albums/ff141/picshooter/ImpTurn1_zps4f614bee.png
http://i243.photobucket.com/albums/ff141/picshooter/ImpTurn2_zps1e1d7268.png

[mary meagher]

Ah yes, if only our airfields were surrounded by farmers' fields.....NEVERTHELESS, it is possible to land on a ROOF and survive. I can remember one aircraft perched nicely on a hangar roof.

Once at Wycombe Air Park they accused the light aircraft that had landed on a house quite near the airfield of being a glider tug, thinking that the telephone wire that had served to arrest the arrival was a towrope. Apparently the pilot had a syndrome traced to sunlight flickering through the prop, and passed out at the critical moment. Very very little damage to either house or aircraft, amazing.

[flyinkiwi]

While I consider myself a low timer, I have experienced first hand an EFATO. Mine was the more common partial power loss (left mag went bang) rather than the extremely rare catastrophic failure. My 2c are:



Make sure you get in regular EFATO practice with an experienced instructor. Having training to fall back on saved my life.
Lower that nose, get to best glide speed quickly and fly the plane!
Remain calm and weigh up your options, you have more time that you might think, especially when the adrenaline hits and time slows.
Fly the plane until you come to a standstill!

[Pull what]

Amazing that so many pilots are offering advice without any considering the effect of wind, proof that most have little idea of basic situational awareness.

There is a very big difference between practicing a pre planned turn back from having an EFATO for real-read The Hudson River incident for confirmation.

There is also a big difference in turning back to the runway you took off on to turning back to a suitable alighting area on the airfield. Most pilots have no idea of suitable alighting areas of their local airfield.

There is also a big difference from doing a 180 in a high wing aircraft than in a low wing aircraft.

I can assure you as an experienced instructor that most PPL's do not have the experience or ability to be able to make an immediate 180 turn back at a bank angle of 45 degs(min) without excessive height loss at low level. A manoeuvre like this needs practice and a level of ability that many just do not have and to suggest otherwise is very foolhardy and dangerous.

[Pull what]

NEVERTHELESS, it is possible to land on a ROOF and survive

Its possible to talk sxxt and survive too but that doesn't mean its good recommended practice

[Crash one]

I can remember one aircraft perched nicely on a hangar roof.



So do I!

http://i.imgur.com/rtHI4.jpg?1

[India Four Two]

This topic always generates a lively debate. Like most pilots, I have practiced EFATO many times, but I've only had one for real and ironically that was in a MotorFalke.

The gliding club I was in at the time, had just leased a MotorFalke and the owner was giving me an instructor checkout. We were flying from Innisfail, Alberta - a typical BCATP field with three runways arranged in an equilateral triangle.

It was the end of the day and the owner checked the fuel level, and pronounced "There's enough for one more circuit". Famous last words!

We took off on 22 and during the climbout, the engine failed due to fuel starvation. We were past the airfield boundary at about 500' or so and over a 1000 x 800 m stubble field, which offered an obvious, easy landing.

However, the owner took over, lowered the nose and simultaneously rolled into a steep, left turn, with the intention of landing on the reciprocal runway 04. As we came out of the turn on a heading of about 020, we were south of the centreline and it rapidly became apparent that we weren't going to make it to 04. So there was then a steep, right turn through about 80 degrees, below 200', to land on 10. Wings level in the flare! :eek:

A sharp-eyed club member was already heading over in his car, before we landed, because he thought we were going to crash.

I learned a valuable lesson. Land ahead if you have a choice. :ok:

Why did the owner turn back? Because the MotorFalke was a pain to de-rig and we would have had to lift it over the boundary fence!

PS When I was practicing EFATOs in UAS Chipmunks, the Instructor would call "Fanstop" and the tower would reply "Call climbing away". Unambiguous and could not be confused with a real emergency. What are the calls used at civil airfields these days?

[rapidshot]

I hope it is not given in one of the earlier messages

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

[DeltaV]

As this forum is sub-headed LAA/BMAA/BGA/BPA it seems reasonable to suppose that most people here are not packing out in Lears and Citations but in more prosaic machines. Perhaps then we might improve the odds of making a successful turn-back if, on take off and having established the climb, we turn out sooner rather than later. That's not going to improve the odds in the early stage where landing ahead is probably the only survivable option but having turned out any turn back is now significantly reduced to maybe a 135° followed by a 45°.

[sevenstrokeroll]

IF you are at home field...look around for landing spots...note them...make a map, share the info with others who may have info to share with you.,

note places off straight ahead in case you do turn back and then can't make it. not advocating either choice.

When I first learned to fly, I looked into 3 airfields to train (back in 1975). One had a really good looking girl working the desk...great ham standards...another was cheaper and slightly closer, but the one I chose had a nice golf course nearby where a forced landing would be pretty survivable (FORE).

think...imagination is the key to safe flying

[Pace]

Delta V

At first glance I thought you might be into something especially with a climb out over built up areas where a turn back maybe the only option.

Then I scribbled it out on paper and it is basically a tear drop departure with a turn back onto the inbound of the reciprical runway!

Holding runway heading in the climb out could follow the same pattern in reverse ie coming back to the reciprical runway on the same angle you would take off.
Sadly it will not work :{