EFATO turn back
EFATO turn back
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?
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?
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. 
Ollie
Ollie
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Queensland
Posts: 632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
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.
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.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Mel-burn
Posts: 4,875
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Owen Stanley's "Real World"
Posts: 88
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The takeoff brief should take into account the conditions.
You name the altitude in your takeoff brief.
If that is your thought, why are you wasting your time and money practicing them?
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).
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: melb
Posts: 2,162
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'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
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
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!
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.
Survival lesson #1, kiddies,
HEIGHT GIVES YOU CHOICES!
Get it ASAP!
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.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Mel-burn
Posts: 4,875
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If that is your thought, why are you wasting your time and money practicing them?
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.
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Owen Stanley's "Real World"
Posts: 88
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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 practiced with regularity at RAAF Pearce.. successfully...
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I rarely fly a single these days (thank God!)
From: General Aviation Safety and the Cirrus SR22 | Cirrus SR22 Blog
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.
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Owen Stanley's "Real World"
Posts: 88
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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...
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...
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 !@#$% factor by delaying action starting the manoeuvre by so many secs etc.
if anyone is interested in it post here and I'll try and find a link to it or make a pdf copy available via email.
You can probably find it on net, I'm sure I kept it for future reference.
It covered many factors including the oh !@#$% 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.
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.
No reason to believe these numbers will be any different for Australia.
Just how many turboprop fatalities have there been this year in Oz, pray tell....
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: melb
Posts: 2,162
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'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
Turn at yr own peril:-)
Wmk2
'MIHC' I agree 1000' is better & 1500' is better still
Turn at yr own peril:-)
Wmk2
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
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....