Originally Posted by Sean
...when you relate that to single engine emergency turn backs, I become a little confused to be honest. The way I see it, if the airplane gets damaged then the passengers will most likely be damaged. Also, if the passengers make it without any injury, usually that means that the airplane is in good condition as well. Therefore, both priorities (with safety as the main one of course, always) should lead to the same decision.
I appreciate your confusion. The paradigm of 'save the equipment' versus 'save the people' is more easily observed in multi-engine operations. But, it certainly exists in single engine operations as well.
Consider this: Assuming your departure runway does not point straight out at a large body of water or the urban area of a city, any pilot of average skill could probably successfully carry out a precautionary (off-airport) landing within ±45° of runway heading if they suffered an engine failure in a single at an altitude close to what you think would be the minimum acceptable 'turn-back' altitude. The plane might get a little scuffed up (mud and dirt in the wheels, maybe even a few corn cobs in the air intake), and the consequences of the off-airport landing would be a nuisance (all the work involved in repatriating the aircraft), but it is highly unlikely anyone would be hurt. It's also highly unlikely that the damage to the aircraft would be any more than cosmetic.
On the other hand, turning back and landing at the airport requires considerable knowledge, skill, and mental preparation. Sure, the opportunity exists to avoid all that commotion and embarrassment arising from the off-airport landing... but then again, the risk exists that if even a small error in judgment is made, or something unexpected arises (like the aircraft in the process of taking off from the still-active runway), the consequences could be much more severe than those that come with just landing straight ahead in a cornfield. It's very much a risk-reward issue: You might get the bigger reward (landing back at the airport following a successful low-altitude 180° turn), but you also accept the bigger risk (it might not go as well as you plan).
"Conventional Wisdom" - which is another way of characterizing "first principles", or what elementary school kids call "peer pressure" - suggests that if you turn back to the airport and land on the departure runway after the low-altitude engine failure, hey, you're a hero, you are a skilled pilot, you are to be admired for snatching victory from the jaws of defeat. That same CW also suggests that if you carry out a precautionary landing straight ahead in someone's cornfield, you are a wuss, you wimped out, you didn't try to grab the brass ring.
However - do the math yourself (or, look at the historical records): For every 10 precautionary landings made straight ahead, how many people get hurt? For every 10 low altitude turnbacks, how many people get hurt? Although I don't have the facts and figures at my fingertips, I would venture a guess that very few of the precautionary landings ever result in an injury, but
any form of error made during a low altitude turnback has a very high probability of resulting in an injury... because the consequences of the error will be more severe (a low altitude stall, or hitting an obstruction, etc.).
Michael