Rogers' Paper
We are dissuaded from turning back following EFATO because experience has shown this all too often ends with stall/spin fatalities.
Am I alone in thinking that, in advising this maneuver be flown using a 45deg banked turn at 5% above the stalling speed, Rogers must therefore be completely barking?
Whilst some pilots may remain calm and collected following an actual EFATO, thereby fitting the profile of the simulator test group that supported the feasibility of his recommendation, I suspect the vast majority would exhibit varying levels of panic and be unlikely to fly with a very high degree of precision. Is it a terribly good idea, then, for pilots to be taught to turn back flying a profile where, using numbers appropriate to Rogers' Bonanza example, a stall would follow from them getting the speed low by 4 kts or from overbanking by 5deg?
I do believe that a turn back plan is good to have in mind ... but one where the numbers are based on Eckalbar's 45deg bank at 1.3x Vs45deg (which Rogers rubbishes as "from the popular aviation press" and "demonstrably incorrect") strikes me as infinitely preferably to the truly dangerous approach proposed by Rogers!