Turning back after takeoff

[172driver]

Came across this very interesting video in the DownUnder section of PPrune. Sort of refutes pretty much all common wisdom about turnbacks after EFATO.

Aerobatics in California (http://www.aerobats.com/turn-arounds.html)

Thoughts?

[IO540]

Google on

rodgers "the impossible turn"

for the theory.

e.g. here (http://williams.best.vwh.net/turnback_seminar_Oct_2008.pdf)

Yes a turnback is clearly possible. It needs a steep bank, yoke back to the onset of stall, and no delay :)

A long runway and a strong wind can make it very easy, as does height.

A lot of people have been killed doing this; I wonder how many of them tried it in truly impossible conditions and how many were simply afraid to use a steep turn.

[172driver]

IO, that much is known. What I found interesting in this video is the conclusion they come to, which favours a steep or very steep turn.

Not suggesting to try it, though (other than at altitude, of course).

[ShyTorque]

Sounds like this was done with the engine still running at idle.

IIRC RAF procedure (for the Bulldog turnback) was 45 degrees AOB. Minimum gliding speed increased to 80 kts IAS, no less.

[AdamFrisch]

But as we all know a steep turn gets your load factor up. This increases stall speed. And this is where it unravels most of the time, as the instinct is to keep pulling up to get back to that field with inevitable results: spin and stall.

If you can keep a cool head and not let the stall come up and bite you, then I'm sure it's doable.

This is also the reason one should carry a bit more speed until established on the final. I know, most of us do, but surprisingly many are doing 20-30 degree banks at very close to straight and level stall speeds. This has the potential to bite one day when you have to do a last minute aversive maneuver. A stall in a turn is not that bad at 3000ft. At 500ft it can be deadly.

[Rod1]

Glider pilots are thought to have a plan. You sit at the launch point and decide at what height range you will land ahead, orbit or fly a circuit (however abbreviated). The advantage of this is it takes the “think time” out of the equation. On my turnback I was already at 60deg of bank by the time my brain fully caught up with the problem, but I got it back down ok, just…

The important thing is to not even attempt it unless you have a clear plan, in advance of any issue which might arise in the air.

Rod1

[IO540]

What I found interesting in this video is the conclusion they come to, which favours a steep or very steep turn.

Indeed; Rodgers proves this.

[gpn01]

Glider pilots are thought to have a plan. You sit at the launch point and decide at what height range you will land ahead, orbit or fly a circuit (however abbreviated). The advantage of this is it takes the “think time” out of the equation. On my turnback I was already at 60deg of bank by the time my brain fully caught up with the problem, but I got it back down ok, just…

Rod1

"In the event of a lauch failure, I will set the attitude of the glider to give me my pre-declared approach speed of xxkts whilst releasing the rope/cable. Wait. Check I have the correct approach speed. Then make a decision. If it is safe to turn back, do so. If not select somewhere ahead" is the way I do it.

I don't set height ranges because (a) on a winch the altimeter lags and (b) on an aerotow, I could be at 400' but five miles from the airfield.

Agree with the idea though. Have a plan. When you have a launch failure.....execute the plan. And review. Definitely saves several seconds of "oh, what's happening?, I wonder if I should....err, h'mmm..."

[Big Pistons Forever]

There was a study done in the US about turnback versus straight ahead in the event of an EFATO. The conclusion of the study was pilots who turned back had approximately an 8 times higher fatal accident rate than those who just landed straight ahead. I think this is one of those things were you have to be careful when extrapolating what should be possible vs what actually happens when a real world no notice EFATO emergency occurs. It is absolutely possible to make the turn back, but the sad fact is many who have tried it have died in the attempt.

[djpil]

Go to Prof Rogers (http://www.nar-associates.com/technical-flying/technical_flying.html)then enter the website for:The Feasibility of Turnback from a Low Altitude Engine Failure During the Takeoff Climb-out Phase by Brent Jett
The complete AIAA (American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronutics) paper that discusses a simulator experiment addressing the turnback after engine failure at low altitude (500 feet) during take-off problem (329k pdf file).

This experimental work was done as a research project at the United States Naval Academy Aerospace Engineering Department during 1981 while Jett was a Midshipman 1/C. I was the Academic Advisor. Professor Bernard Carson contributed to the theoretical part of the research. (I reset the paper and made one or two minor corrections.)
Dave Rogers

[englishal]

But as we all know a steep turn gets your load factor up
But ONLY (and this is a common misconception amongst many new pilots) if you load up the wings, for example by maintaining altitude. If you accept a loss of altitude you can turn at 90 degrees AOB and be unstalled. lazy 8's prove this, I have done lazy 8's with virtually zero showing on the ASI, steep AoB and yet not been stalled.....

[DERG]

Even Svetlana Kapanina would want at least a 1000 feet before considering the turn back. You fly runway heading, aviate navigate then communicate. 30 years since I drove a 172 but the "no turn back" is one of the few things I remember.

[Cows getting bigger]

I think it is possible as long as the pilot is fully conversant with the aircraft he/she is flying, notably recognising the onset of a stall. A good reason to have an AoA gauge.

For most of us mere mortals, I think the land ahead option is by far the better choice providing there is somewhere half decent for a forced landing.

[Whopity]

But as we all know a steep turn gets your load factor upNot if you maintain 1G!

[kevmusic]

Sadly, I can't keep the Tiger Moth with wing-walker video out of my head as I read this thread............:(

[bingofuel]

Surely the deciding factor is how quickly you gain height on departure, and how well your aircraft glides in a turn (Rof D). The bottom line is you need altitude to do a descending gliding 180deg + turn, so if you have a rate of climb that is significantly greater than your rate of descent in the gliding turn you should be okay. Unfortunately few spam cans have a particularily good rate of climb.

[KMSS]

I used to instruct in gliders. Besides having a plan, as was mentioned earlier, glider pilots have the advantage of actually training and practicing the maneuver, which most power pilots don't. It takes some practice to get comfortable with a coordinated steep turn close to the ground, with good speed control. And don't forget it's more than a simple 180 -- the first turn back is actually more than 180 degrees, followed by rolling the other way into a very quick alignment with the runway. When I had an actual rope break, the training kicked in as planned. It's harder to quantify the factors influencing the decision -- a strong headwind on takeoff can make the return trickier, since you'll have a strong quartering wind in the turn and a tailwind on the subsequent landing. Combined with the steeper climb angle in a headwind, you can actually end up too high when you roll out of the turn. I once almost created an over-run situation in training by pulling the release too early in a strong wind. Pilot proficiency, turbulence, and traffic awareness are also factors affecting the decision. If someone behind you has started rolling for takeoff then it won't be fun for either of you if you make that 180. Just because you CAN return doesn't mean you always should. It was just as important to have a straight-ahead option as part of the briefing before takeoff.

[maxred]

My view is to never, ever attempt a turn back. Land straight ahead. John Eckelbar, Flying The Beech Bonaza states that every pilot should learn his airplanes minimum safe turnback altitude and never to try a turnback below that altitude.

He advocates that if high enough, turn at 45 degrees bank at a speed comforably above (30%) the stall speed. That should equal Vy.

However, again, lots of factors - wind, weight, rate of climb, terrain etc. Too many factors - land ahead:eek:

[Lister Noble]

I have looked many times and can't think why he did that.
Who knows what we would do,but I reckon I would just plonk it down more or less dead ahead.

[Rod1]

“My view is to never, ever attempt a turn back. Land straight ahead.”

If I had done that I would almost certainly be dead, so as I (and the aircraft) survived and it is a manoeuvre I had done many times in my gliding, I will continue to keep all options open and hope to continue to choose wisely.

Rod1

[Big Pistons Forever]

The best way to deal with an EFATO is to not have the engine fail in the first place. Sounds facile but it is not as around 80% of all light aircraft engine failures are directly caused by the actions or inactions of the pilot.

Many pilots have deliberately commenced a takeoff when they knew there was something wrong with the engine but hoped it would quote "clear up on its own" or "was manageable" or " wasn't detected in the abbreviated/skipped runup"

If you have an EFATO after one of the above situations or because you rushed the checks so you you were selected on the empty tank, or the tank was full of water because you didn't bother to drain it etc etc ...then I would suggest that the fact that you bent the aircraft around for the most perfect turnback ever flown still doesn't change the fact that you were stupid.

Rather than practice turnbacks I would suggest that making a genuine commitment to always carefully and completely doing the mundane unsexy
preflight checks would have a far greater impact on reducing your chance of an EFATO accident.

Just a sec..don't reply yet.... I am still adjusting my flack jacket:8

[Tarq57]

There was a bit of a test done in NZ some years back, to demonstrate how dodgy turning back was likely to be, I think CAA (the peeps in CAA who put out the flight safety magazine) organised it.

It involved taking 3 or 4 different types of typical trainer, climbing, simulating an EFATO but at 2000 or thereabouts, and measuring exactly how much altitude was lost at the completion of the turn. This was done a number of times, with competent pilots who knew exactly what was going on.

Turns out the PA38 needs a minimum of 800ft just to complete the turn.
The PA28 a similar amount.
The 172 a bit less, about 600 IIRC.
The 152 could do it in just under 400.

Those were the average height losses just to make a 180 commencing at throttle closed, without subsequent manoeuvring.

The consensus of the article was that unless you are at least 1000AGL (except in the 152) a turn back should not even be considered, and at or just above 1000 you better know exactly what you're doing.

[172driver]

Sounds facile but it is not as around 80% of all light aircraft engine failures are directly caused by the actions or inactions of the pilot.

No need for flak jacket, BigPistons!

There's another thing you can do (or not do) to avoid an EFATO - don't touch the engine controls until at a safe height. There's an FAA study out there, don't have the link, unfortunately, that found that a huge proportion of EFATOs occur on the first change in power settings. So leave the donk alone and do its thing for a little while!

[BackPacker]

Surely the deciding factor is how quickly you gain height on departure, and how well your aircraft glides in a turn (Rof D). The bottom line is you need altitude to do a descending gliding 180deg + turn, so if you have a rate of climb that is significantly greater than your rate of descent in the gliding turn you should be okay. Unfortunately few spam cans have a particularily good rate of climb.

I agree. If you have a mediocre climb rate and your climb angle is less than your glide angle, you can make an instantaneous turn but still not be able to glide home. Especially since these types of aircraft typically need the whole runway.

In addition to this, you still need altitude to spare to actually make the turn (and I agree that steep turns with a pull to the stall warner are the best here) and a little altitude to align yourself with the runway on short final.

So it really depends on your airframe what the safe turnback height is. And you have to be comfortable manoeuvring against the stall.

Talking about which - does anybody know of any research about doing a wingover instead of a coordinated turn? In a wingover you're essentially ballistic for a second or two, and *all the lift* is used to turn the aircraft around. So it may well be the quickest way of executing the turn, with the lowest height loss. And the additional advantage of a quick turn like this is that you end up aligned with the runway, so you don't need additional height to setup your final approach. (I'm not going to discuss the obvious perils of doing wingovers for those who haven't done them.)

The whole glider example is moot, as far as I'm concerned. Gliders have such a fantastic glide angle (1:25 seems to be the minimum these days) that they can be anywhere near the field, pointing in any direction, at 300 feet and still fly a comfortable circuit. My first simulated launch cable break was done at 300' and not even halfway down the runway. My instructor had told me that 300' was the altitude where I could turn back to complete a circuit, otherwise I'd have to land straight ahead. So I immediately setup a nose-down attitude and threw the glider in a steep turn to join downwind ASAP, with a view of turning to final a few seconds later. My instructor had to slow me down and actually pull the airbrakes for a second or so, otherwise it would be "too easy" (his words).

A glider on winch launch climbs with an average climb angle of about 45 degrees, and descends with a glide ratio of 1:25 or better (that's 2.3 degrees or better). Big difference.

[SkyHawk-N]

I suppose it's stating the obvious but it also depends on the lay of the land where you are taking off from. My home airport has obstructions all around in the form of trees, sand dunes, pylons, hangars, etc, so the only option is to try and land ahead. Other airports may have nice flat fields around so the option of attempting a turn-back is more feasible. I seem to prefer the no-turn-back option as it focuses the mind and removes any doubt about where the accident will take place (for my home airport this will be a golf course or a river, depending on which way the wind is blowing).

[Rod1]

“The best way to deal with an EFATO (Engine Failure After Take-Off) is to not have the engine fail in the first place. Sounds facile but it is not as around 80% of all light aircraft engine failures are directly caused by the actions or inactions of the pilot.”

This is very true! Many pilots seem to mentally commit themselves to flying before checking the aircraft. The level of pre flight check also tends to be quite poor. However, even if you are a genius with mechanical contrivances, it is still best to assume it will fail and have your plan ready. My EFATO was caused by crank failure on a nearly new engine (28 hours from rebuild with new crank etc). There was zero warning before the failure.

“The whole glider example is moot, as far as I'm concerned.”

I would defiantly have failed my turnback if I had not done gliding first. Having to chant out my plan before every solo check and being capable of looking out of the window to quickly judge the glide were vital. The single seat aerobatic machine I was flying had a glide angle of 4.5 / 1, which is marginally better than a brick. The only dry land I was ever going to get to was behind me. I would not turnback if there was a viable alternative, but sometimes you are in the wrong place when the engine stops.

Rod1

[24Carrot]

Talking about which - does anybody know of any research about doing a wingover instead of a coordinated turn? In a wingover you're essentially ballistic for a second or two, and *all the lift* is used to turn the aircraft around. So it may well be the quickest way of executing the turn, with the lowest height loss. And the additional advantage of a quick turn like this is that you end up aligned with the runway, so you don't need additional height to setup your final approach. (I'm not going to discuss the obvious perils of doing wingovers for those who haven't done them.)
I've never done a wingover, but I would make the point, (which also applies to those 1G banked turns), that unless you feel a full 1G Downwards, in addition to the G of your turn, you will be accelerating downwards, and will have to pull some heavy G near the ground to reverse that acceleration before 'contact'.

In the video they clearly pull more G as they bank more steeply. Apart from the obvious stall horn, you can tell from the rate of descent. RoD measures rate of loss of potential energy, which equals drag times speed (65KIAS), and drag is weight x G / LD ratio. LD ratio won't be the same in each scenario, but close enough, I think.

[Pace]

Interesting talk. Fixation on getting to any point behind or in front is risky.
Far better to be prepared to change direction pref within 45 degrees left or right if the picture is wrong.
Going back is usually a mistake but that calculation also depends on the winds and runway length. If you have a 20-30 kt headwind maybe you wont make your touchdown point ahead but would get back?
Obviously not a good idea if back onto a short runway with 20 kts extra speed.
Is it better to take the extra 20kts on the nose for a slow touchdown?
Decisions decisions ? Lateral thinking? What you do have to watch is fixation! I must get there when it's obvious your not.
Left or right there maybe perfect touchdown zones and very rarely behind but not for the inexperienced.

Pace

[KMSS]

“The whole glider example is moot, as far as I'm concerned.”

Well, you ARE flying a glider after an engine failure...

It's true that a high glide ratio helps but as Rod1 states from experience, glide ratio is nice but not necessary. Some glider pilots do screw up the maneuver, too. The main point of bringing gliders into the discussion is to point out that regular briefing and training for the failure on takeoff increases your chances of doing it successfully.

When I eventually flew power planes I took with me the handling skills I'd learned in gliders as well as the habit on takeoff of constantly judging glide angles to my landable options. The angles are changing constantly with altitude, speed, and wind condition, but that's what becomes ingrained when flying gliders. It struck me in powered flight training how little emphasis was placed on constantly assessing options for engine failure on takeoff (even straight ahead or slightly off course choices) - most seemed to be mesmerized into complacency by that roar from up front. But in my years of mostly aero-tow gliding, the instances of tow plane power issues outnumbered true "rope breaks," so I could see no reason to neglect that aspect of powered flight training. Of course winch tows are another ball of wax.

At the bottom of it all, what counts is situational awareness, judgment of glide angles, and a frank assessment of YOUR ability to make steep, coordinated, speed-controlled turns close to the ground in the airplane you're flying when it happens. The visual cues of tight turns close to the ground are much different than at altitude, especially when you factor in wind drift, and can be disorienting. I once saw a report on this and its contribution to low level stall/spin accidents, but I won't be able to find it. In that instant after EFATO, you have to very precisely fly the plane in an unfamiliar environment with the "raw data" of pitch, bank angle, airspeed, glide angle, and control pressures. You might say, "of course you always do," but anyone who's been an instructor or flown with a lot of people will acknowledge there are big differences in the range of plane handling skills under stress (or not). Knowing what you and your airplane can actually do in that instant is the main thing.

[BackPacker]

I've never done a wingover, but I would make the point, (which also applies to those 1G banked turns), that unless you feel a full 1G Downwards, in addition to the G of your turn, you will be accelerating downwards, and will have to pull some heavy G near the ground to reverse that acceleration before 'contact'.

Absolutely true. That's why, in a normal (non-EFATO) scenario, a wingover starts with a pull-up (equal to about 2-3 G I'd say) and then becomes essentially ballistic in the vertical. At the end of the wingover you are wings level again and need another pull-up (again 2-3 G or so) to get the nose up. (Technically it's more a rather smooth maneuver where you pull up while rolling into the turn, and pull out while rolling out of the turn. But you get the idea.)

But the thing is, if you do it properly there's not a large net loss of energy. Your exit altitude and speed is equal to your entry altitude and speed. You've just reversed course 180 degrees in minimal amount of time/distance. Of course, this is the situation where you have (cruise or full) power on. But gliders can do the same too, and their loss of energy is just slightly more than if they were flying straight and slightly descending. That energy loss, of course, comes from the initial pull-up and final pull-out and the associated induced drag.

[Mark1234]

For whatever it's worth, I played with this in the alpha/robin a couple of years ago. From a Vy climb, the least height loss was achieved by: Immediately rolling into a very large bank angle and pulling to buffet (no lowering of the nose). Overbank relative to the pull and allow the nose to drop of it's own volition. As the speed reduces to best glide, reduce the bank angle and reduce the pull slightly to remain at buffet and complete the turn coming out somewhere near the required nose down angle for the glide. That resulted in around 500ft height loss.

Still, that's a somewhat academic figure, *where* you are is far more important, as has been noted!

[24Carrot]

Backpacker, I can't fault your theory.
If it goes wrong though, you are diving at the ground, already feeling very heavy, already pulling back hard on the yoke, trying to find that window between stall and crash.:eek:

I like the idea of the Glider plan. The best environment for making the turnback decision is sitting down on the ground, looking at a map, before you take off!:ok:

[KMSS]

"I like the idea of the Glider plan. The best environment for making the turnback decision is sitting down on the ground, looking at a map, before you take off!"


A map will help only a bit. A next step is to start looking at what you think are landable fields during takeoff around your home airfield, and then drive around and look them over. Note the crops, topography, approach obstructions like trees and WIRES. Visualize the approach in your mind. Imagine taking the "least unfavorable alternative," i.e., better to put the airplane down into high brush or small trees rather than stall/spin into an unsurvivable crash. Think through how to start a ground loop to try to avoid over-running a field boundary. If you fly a retractable, work it out whether you'll actually have the time to re-extend the gear or if a belly landing onto sod is the best option. The moment of failure is easier to deal with if you've done your cost/pain/survival/pride analysis before hand!

Another good exercise is to take an afternoon now and then in different wind conditions and practice power-off approaches and landings to different chosen spots on your runway, with lots of emphasis on the visual approach angles. Try different flap settings -- one well respected opinion is to use only minimum required flaps until the landing spot is absolutely ensured. It's tricky to decrease the flap setting on glide (another thread is running on that topic). Of course idle power is not quite "engine failed" but it's obviously the safe way to practice! Granted this is all at your home field, but the skills start to generalize and you'll begin to recognize landable spots anywhere and know if you can actually get to them.

These skills and planning exercises may be more useful than the question of how to do a wing-over at low altitude...

[Big Pistons Forever]

“The best way to deal with an EFATO (Engine Failure After Take-Off) is to not have the engine fail in the first place. Sounds facile but it is not as around 80% of all light aircraft engine failures are directly caused by the actions or inactions of the pilot.”

This is very true! Many pilots seem to mentally commit themselves to flying before checking the aircraft. The level of pre flight check also tends to be quite poor. However, even if you are a genius with mechanical contrivances, it is still best to assume it will fail and have your plan ready. My EFATO was caused by crank failure on a nearly new engine (28 hours from rebuild with new crank etc). There was zero warning before the failure.



Good job on successfully managing a very difficult situation :ok:. However what you experienced was the rarest kind of engine failure. Looking at the accident statistics the least common scenario for an engine failure was when a properly maintained engine which had sufficient uncontaminated fuel completed a normal runup and developed full smooth power with normal engine gauge indications...and then just stopped with no warning. Most engine failures are caused by insufficient/contaminated/mis-selected fuel or carb ice and are therefore completely preventable.

I find it ironic that all the flight school engine failure drills practice the event (a total engine failure without any warning) that almost never happens. I think it is also important to note that for every total engine failure my guess is there are two partial engine failures. So you need to also think about what you would want to do if the engine is still producing some horsepower but not enough to sustain level flight.

Finally another poster made a very good point about the real world challenge of pitching the nose from the climb attitude to the glide attitude. This is worth practicing the next time you go flying. From a safe altitude simply establish the aircraft in a Vx climb. When the airspeed is stabilized at the Vx value.. Smoothly but fairly quickly pull the throttle to idle. I think you will surprised at how quickly the airspeed drops and how firm you need to be to pitch the nose over to the glide attitude. This is IMO a very useful exercise because it applies to any EFATO scenario. Regardless of whether you go straight ahead, turn a bit or do the full turnback you still have to first establish the glide attitude.

[RatherBeFlying]

Wingovers require surplus energy to do the pullup -- something that's lacking in an EFATO.

There is what could be called the descending wingover where you simply unload and bank near vertical; then reload the wings as you level. If the ground gets in the way, you can end it all in a cartwheel.

Here in Canada, glider pilots are trained to return to the field from 300' from an aerotow rope break. The drill is first drop the nose and look for your approach airspeed. Once you have that and sufficient altitude, then you can bank to 45 degrees and turn back.

Talk has it that the Air Cadets practice turnbacks from 200' in 2-33s with a 22:1 glide ratio.

I know of an incident where a pilot confused the rudder pedal adjust toggle with the tow release and had to turn back to an intersecting runway from about 100' -- the pilots walked away, but the elevator had to be replaced and the repair bill came to some $50,000:ouch:

Flying power, I'd want to have turned crosswind before even thinking of a turnback.

[Croqueteer]

:eek:Tarq57, all the aircraft you mentioned can be turned back from an engine failure in the climb with a ht loss of no more than 200ft'. Try it.

[BackPacker]

Wingovers require surplus energy to do the pullup -- something that's lacking in an EFATO (Engine Failure After Take-Off).

I think you're right. Even though you are already pointing up, and Vy is maybe some 20 knots over your stall speed, there's simply not enough energy to fly ballistic for the time it takes to roll to 90 degrees, pull the aircraft around 180 degrees, roll to the horizontal and then pull out of the dive.

Really feel the control pressure it takes to push the nose over to a safe gliding speed.

The aircraft is (hopefully) trimmed for about Vy but Vy isn't all that far away from from Vbg, so it's more or less trimmed for Vbg already, and thus will achieve Vbg all on its own if you simply let it. Although you might want to play the control column a bit to dampen out the oscillations.

But if you feel you have to physically push the nose over with a lot of force on the control column, you might be inducing additional drag from trying to fly a less-than-ballistic, less-than-1G flight path. Drag that you could put to good use if you simply let the aircraft float up a bit, roll into a bank associated with a steep turn and then simply let the nose drop of its own accord until you reach the pitch attitude associated with Vbg.

In that respect I think Mark1234s technique sounds the best. You simply trade your speed and pitch attitude (inertia) against the induced drag from the steepest turn you can manage, until you hit the speed and pitch attitude that's associated with best glide. But to do that you've got to be very comfortable with the aircraft, particularly the roll rate and stall warning signs at various speeds, and not be afraid of steep turns.

Our R2160 is currently down for maintenance but I'm going to give it a try next time.

[Pace]

You have 360 degrees of direction to choose from and X amount of track distance till you come in contact with terra firma at best glide speed.

The problem is the pilot has to eyeball his engine out approach to touchdown.
Straight ahead is his easiest option.

Anthing 90 degrees left or right is ok with 45 degrees comfortable.

Anything behind becomes trickier not just because the good old track distance tend to get extended somewhat in the turn but also by the times you are visual the other way (ie you have made your 180 the old brain has to set about doing things like recalibrating a new glidepath back to a new touch down point not to say anything about what you have done with the speed and descent rate in your steep turn?
Bet you you loose sight of the airfield anyway after the turn has confused you and end up dumping it in a field but now with a hefty tailwind?

Why do you want to go back? The thought of landing in lush grass and avoiding a few fourlegged friends? even going back you might time it brilliantly just in time to meet some poor sod on his takeoff roll and have to avoid him rather than the four legged friends?

Remember too that you will now have a tailwind landing. Maybe you want to wave at your admiring group of friends outside the clubhouse as you vanish through the hedge at the other end? You may even be able to demonstrate a low level stall and spin to entertain them more?

You have 180 degrees to play with surely you can find some sunday afternoon cricket pitch? Think of all the laughs you will get seeing them all scatter as you approach :E You may even get afternoon tea for free.

Straight ahead 45 degrees left or right works best or 90 degrees if you must.
You could always do a Hoover,dive, pull up into a loop then roll level into a glide approach to a touchdown that would impress the admiring group of friends outside the clubhouse :{
Try a bit of extra speed in ground effect works a treat for extending things a bit ;) (hint)

Pace

[Bob F]

Interesting EAA article on turning back:

EAA - EAA Experimenter - From the Editor - The Impossible Turn Revisited (http://www.eaa.org/experimenter/articles/2011-01_editorial.asp)

[Miserlou]

Mark1234 makes the most important point. High bank angle but not high load factor.
High bank angles result in high rates of descent as the nose drops of its own accord. But it doesn't spin.

When I was but a student glider pilot many moons ago, the MINIMUM bank angle for final turn was 30 degrees.

[Final 3 Greens]

Two things struck me from watching the videos of the simulated turnbacks

1 - the speed the DI spun at at 45/60 degrees - the trade off between the high rate of descent and tearing round the teardrop turn was clear

2 - the requirement to be able to fly accurately and confidently

[Pilot DAR]

I did a turn back from 400 feet on crosswind once in my 150. I made it onto the field, but not the runway. No damage - but lucky lucky lucky.

Last summer a friend with 23,000 flying hours tried it from 300 feet in a amature built. He died a few days later from his injuries. His alternative was the lake ahead (into which he had splashed before), but splash is still better than dying!

[FlyingKiwi_73]

There a re two options for the main RWY at my airfeild, HILL and VINEYARDS Things with wire and loads of posts think hundreds of fences spaced 2 meters apart and a meter high.

EFATO here is very uncomfortable, i have in my head the two places i would try and put it down but none of them is appealing. I am equally too scared of turning back. I like to climb to 1000ft before switching off the pum :-)

On the end of one of the short runways however is a hospital, very handy!

[Pitts2112]

I've never HAD to do it, but I have practiced it a few times when I'm certain I'm the only one in the circuit.

Two things impressed me:

1. C152, during initial PPL training, Golden Turn exercise with my instructor. With an engine failure above 800 feet and a USAF runway underneath, we were able to make it back onto the runway without too much problem. I don't remember the wind conditions but I don't think it was more than about 10kts. We were making steep turns and not hanging about in the exercise.

2. Wind, climb rate, and runway length are HUGE factors. To whit, practiced the Golden Turn in a 95 hp Super Cub on a 2,000 ft runway with a decent headwind. I climbed at such a steep angle that, had I to turn back, there was no way I was going to make the runway - I was going to overshoot and end up in the field on the arrival end. I had climbed, routinely, to such an altitude because of both the aircraft's performance and the headwind, that the altitude and headwind became liabilities and there was no way I was going to be able to descend quickly enough to put it back on the runway without significant maneuvering.

My learning point from all this - it's a very complex question, the answer to which can vary enormously from day to day, location to location, and aircraft to aircraft.

[Mark1234]

Why go back? Because, if the circumstances allow it, it offers a known good landing surface, aircraft savvy people, and possibly some emergency services; not to mention a lack of power lines and other such obstructions. Personally I wouldn't be worrying about the runway, any bit of clear space would do.

However, for whatever my opinion is worth, as I said earlier I don't really advocate turning back. The 'Golden Rule' is golden for a reason - that's not to say there aren't exceptions, but in flying I'm a big proponent of the KISS principle.