What happened to the "impossible turns" thread?

[BackPacker]

It had all the potential for a good discussion, although it would probably overlap a bit (maybe a lot) with the EFATO thread.

You didn't delete it, n5296s, did you?:=

Fortunately I still have it cached here...:E

[The500man]

Threads seem to disappear mysteriously on pprune all the time!

[BackPacker]

Annoying. I spent around 15 minutes writing, checking, editing and re-editing my response. That work was dumped in the bit bucket as well.:mad:

On the other hand, if you write this to someone:

I'd suggest you stick to the simming and leave flying to people who know what they're talking about.

And then you're proven wrong, I can imagine people do not want to have that preserved for eternity.:p

[The500man]

Looking at the EFATO thread, it seems to include discussion on the Rogers report, so it could well be the author realised and deleted his thread. Either that or we got trolled!

[BackPacker]

That was my first thought... That the threads may have been merged. But they're not.

And the angle in this one was different. This one was about someone who practiced an EFATO turn-back in his own aircraft (kudos for that) and found out that 500' was possible using a technique with which he was comfortable.

But in the course of his explanation we found a fundamental flaw in his reasoning and aerodynamic understanding. We tried to correct that but he wouldn't have any of it, apparently.

[abgd]

Hmm... As somebody who only saw the first half of his thread, I'd have been keen to see where the rest of the conversation went if there was a serious flaw in his reasoning.

[Genghis the Engineer]

It was deleted by the originator.

I must admit, as a Pprune regular of lots of years standing, that always annoys the heck out of me. When other people have put a lot of effort into crafting constructive replies to something, and there are no personal attacks on anybody, it strikes me as very poor manners.

Backpacker - I've moved your long and really quite helpful post from the deleted thread into the EFATO thread. You might want to tweak it slightly as it refers to some other posts I've not copied over.

G

[BackPacker]

GtE, will do. Thanks.

[peterh337]

When other people have put a lot of effort into crafting constructive replies to something, and there are no personal attacks on anybody, it strikes me as very poor manners.Usually there are, however, personal attacks, or moves by certain individuals to broaden the debate into areas where the original poster did not intend to go, and those individuals are well aware that the OP does not want to go there (a common reason might be that he doesn't want to identify certain individuals).

On balance, I think the feature of p p r u n e whereby the starter can delete a thread which has been thus hijacked is a good thing.

[chrisN]

GtE, when a thread is deleted, by the Op or by mods (or by any other way, if there is one), does it still reside somewhere you can get at it? If so, for how long?

(No agenda, just interested on the process, if you don’t mind sharing it with us.)

Chris N.

[Genghis the Engineer]

Usually there are, however, personal attacks, or moves by certain individuals to broaden the debate into areas where the original poster did not intend to go, and those individuals are well aware that the OP does not want to go there (a common reason might be that he doesn't want to identify certain individuals).

On balance, I think the feature of p p r u n e whereby the starter can delete a thread which has been thus hijacked is a good thing.

I absolutely agree that there need to be mechanisms for weeding out personal abuse (although I can't say I could see any in the deleted thread), but alternately consider say that somebody spends 2 minutes posting a brief comment, it drifts somewhat, and several other people have spent 20+ minutes each constructing some detailed discussion which people are getting a lot out of. However, the OP decides that these lengthy posts aren't what he wanted to talk about at-all, so deletes the thread.

De facto, he's stolen from those later posters the time they put into posting, constructing discussion which contained stuff they felt was worth saying, and might have created valuable discussion for other people. Even if it was off topic.

So, yes I agree that the feature should exist, but equally don't like the abuse that one or two people have made of it simply because they didn't like thread drift or the fact that some opinions differed from theirs.

G

[n5296s]

Yes, I deleted it. Sue me. Despite Genghis's peeved reply, it seems that the content is retained and therefore nobody has stolen anything.

Actually I was in the middle of writing a long reply about why there is NOT a fundamental misunderstanding of aerodynamics in what I wrote when my browser decided to delete the whole window. At which point I thought, screw it, this thread has been hijacked by a bunch of people who seem to take a perverse pleasure in being patronising just for the sake of it, and seem seriously irony-challenged to boot. So why bother? "Stealing" backpacker's inaccurate and patronising reply gave me a brief moment of pleasure, of which I am not ashamed.

So, just for the record:

-- whether you are climbing or descending does NOT affect the load factor on the wing. Only CHANGES in vertical speed do. If you are in a steady bank at a steady vertical speed, the load factor is sec(angle of bank) and that's all there is to it. People who think otherwise should definitely stick to simming.

-- precisely BECAUSE you can't really fly a bank angle to 1% accuracy, I prefer to have a bit of margin in EITHER the speed I'm flying OR altitude. Since the latter is impossible with this manouver, I went for speed.

-- one of bp's patronising remarks was "clearly you have no experience of aerobatics". I have 120 hours flying acro in the Pitts, with manouvers of all levels up to unlimited. I do know what an accelerated stall is.

My original post was written with the intent of "people often ask questions about this, I went and did it, in case anyone's interested, here's what happened". Unlike others, I wasn't trying to show how smart I am or what a superior pilot I am or what an inferior pilot (or aerodynamicist) everyone else is.

Mods, feel free to ban me - it'll be a while before I'm back.

[Genghis the Engineer]

You won't get banned "n" - I may be a moderator, but I was simply expressing an opinion.

A few people have deleted threads recently, on grounds that personally I didn't agree with. I reserve the right to express an opinion about that (or about aerodynamics!), and that right of-course belongs to everybody else around here too, so long as they're polite and impersonal about it.

G

[BackPacker]

Can't help but noticing that the first patronizing remark was made by you, n, not by anyone else.

[peterh337]

I absolutely agree that there need to be mechanisms for weeding out personal abuse (although I can't say I could see any in the deleted thread), but alternately consider say that somebody spends 2 minutes posting a brief comment, it drifts somewhat, and several other people have spent 20+ minutes each constructing some detailed discussion which people are getting a lot out of. However, the OP decides that these lengthy posts aren't what he wanted to talk about at-all, so deletes the thread.

De facto, he's stolen from those later posters the time they put into posting, constructing discussion which contained stuff they felt was worth saying, and might have created valuable discussion for other people. Even if it was off topic.

I agree, but then there needs to be a dependable mechanism for the "victim" to get the problematic posts deleted, and I don't think there is.

[n5296s]

My remark was not patronising in the least. It was most definitely insulting (assuming the poster was NOT a simmer), but not patronising. The first patronising remark was in the very first reply. I guess on reflection it was more nanny-knows-best than truly patronising, but definitely in that general area.

Actually I remain to be convinced that "Mark1234" is NOT a simmer and a flying wannabe, having taken a look at some of his other posts. But maybe it's just the way he writes.

[BackPacker]

It was most definitely insulting

I was thinking about a long reply, correcting your quote of my post, admitting to some mistakes I wrote in my post, possibly apologizing for a slight patronizing tone in my post and maybe a few other things.

But with an attitude like that, where you apparently deliberately chose to insult people, I don't think it's worth it.

[Cows getting bigger]

I was actually looking forward to the development of the latest "impossible turn" post. To me, there are two distinct considerations.

Firstly, is it possible? This depends on many variables. To quote a few: height, still air range from the runway, length of runway, wind, aircraft capability/performance.

Secondly, and probably equally/more relevant, the reaction of the pilot. I occasionally demonstrate the "impossible turn", showing that, under certain circumstances, it is quite possible. But then I point out that pilots are not perfect and when faced with a real engine failure their performance may well degrade beyond the point of successfully completing a relatively challenging manoeuvre.

Anecdotally, there are a number of fatal accident reports whereby pilots appear to have tried to turn back towards the airfield. I'm not aware of a similar, or indeed greater, number of incident reports indicating successful engine failure turnbacks.

One final point. I would have thought that a pilot with a significant number of hours on an aerobatic aircraft would have graduated beyond using airspeed as an indication of AoA (proximity to stall). Indeed, the reliance on the ASI during steep turns, especially when close to the ground, rather worries me.

[n5296s]

number of incident reports indicating successful engine failure turnbacks.

Why would there be? The incident report would say "aircraft made emergency landing after power failure". There would be no NTSB investigation (or equivalent) so no documentation of the exact circumstances. You might equally say "I've read about accidents that have happened when aircraft are landing, and it must be awfully dangerous because I've never seen any accident reports about successful landings".

My only goal in doing this was to find MY personal minimum in MY plane (I will not be trying this in the Pitts!), and to have experience doing it in a low-stress context so if it ever really happens I won't be thinking "gee, I wonder if this works".

graduated beyond using airspeed as an indication of AoA
What would you suggest using, in a plane that doesn't have an AoA indicator (i.e. 99.99% of them)?

In any case there are much better indications of stall than any of this - though the 182 (mine anyway) has very little buffet, unlike the Pitts. Keeping airspeed way above the theoretical stall speed is just a handy way to avoid the problem. And I can recover a stall in less than 100', but I'd rather not be put to the test at 101' AGL if I can avoid it.

I confess to being baffled by this recurring statement that bank angle does not in itself tell you stall speed, in a steady state. One now-deleted and unmissed post said something about "stall speed could be anywhere from 40-80 knots at 45 degrees of bank" (for an aircraft whose Vs is 50 knots). I'm a pilot, not an aerodynamicist, so it's possible that the greatly oversimplified elementary texts I consult (e.g. Aerodynamics for Naval Aviators) chose to miss out something important, I guess. I'd like to know what it is.

So, let's try this one more time. In a steady bank at a steady horizontal and vertical airspeed, stall speed = sqrt(sec(angle of bank)) * (straight and level stall speed in the same configuration). What is the missing "mystery factor" that makes this not true?

[foxmoth]

What would you suggest using, in a plane that doesn't have an AoA indicator (i.e. 99.99% of them)?

Well, 99% of the aero aircraft I have flown (and I have a bit more than 120 hrs aeros) do have aerodynamic indications that are pretty obvious if you are pulling some G and this I would suggest is what you should be using here.

Another person cheesed off that this thread was pulled after putting effort into a reply!

[Cows getting bigger]

Why the aggression? My only derogatory point was that a pilot with a degree of experience, especially unlimited aeros, should be able to 'feel' the aircraft without looking at the ASI. Adding a few knots to 'avoid the problem' doesn't exactly give me a warm feeling.

PS. Every 182 I have ever flown has most definitely told me it is unhappy when approaching CLmax.

[n5296s]

You guys are just amazing. The comparison with the Cessna Pilots Association, where I posted the same thing, is extremely illuminating - there it has resulted in a friendly discussion rather than the sh1tst0rm of people trying to prove how superior they are which has happened here.

I did this in my TR182. I said so. It is NOT an aerobatic aircraft. I also did not stall it nor get anywhere close. I said that too. The means I used to not stall it, was to calculate the theoretical stall speed, then add a generous margin. Generous enough that the stall warning did not activate, except briefly from time to time. That would be my first indication. The second indication would be mushy controls - and they get VERY mushy on the 182, close to the stall. There is no buffet to speak of. But the 182 (mine away) has a very docile stall if you enter it gently.

As they say, the superior pilot uses his superior judgement to avoid being obliged to use his superior skills. My judgement here was to give myself enough margin above the stall that I wouldn't NEED to be feeling my way at the edge of a stall - which I'm quite capable of doing, thanks very much. Just I'd prefer not to at a couple of hundred feet AGL. I'd prefer to have my personal limit for the turnback be a tad higher so I don't have to do that. (My guess is that flying on the hairy edge of a stall might give you another 50 feet or less - not worth trying).

[n5296s]

Every 182 I have ever flown has most definitely told me it is unhappy when approaching CLmax.
Depends what you mean by "unhappy". You could fly mine all day long just slightly below the indicated stall speed (well, not actually, because the engine would overheat - but the airframe would be fine with it). The controls are very mushy and you have to fly very delicately - but that's what you'd expect. I guess that's a reasonable definition of "unhappy". But it's perfectly doable. Just I'd prefer not to be doing it that close to the ground.

[24Carrot]

I will probably regret joining this thread...

So, let's try this one more time. In a steady bank at a steady horizontal and vertical airspeed, stall speed = sqrt(sec(angle of bank)) * (straight and level stall speed in the same configuration). What is the missing "mystery factor" that makes this not true?

For "angle of bank" above, substitute "angle off the vertical".

The vertical component of Lift has to match the force of Gravity, otherwise you accelerate downwards. If you tilt Lift off the vertical, you have to increase the load factor to avoid a downward acceleration.

Obviously if you bank the aircraft, Lift comes off the vertical and you have to increase the Load Factor. This is because, for practical purposes, the Lift Vector is at right angles to a line going through the wingtips.

With wings level, and a steady rate of descent, the Lift Vector tilts forward off the vertical. This is because the Lift Vector is by definition at right angles to the direction of travel though the air. This requires an increase in the Load factor, to avoid downwards acceleration, for exactly the same reason as the bank did.

If you bank and descend, you have a combination of the effects. An exact formula depends on some tedious definitions (the order in which you rotate things makes a difference), so suffice it to say that in a non-accelerating descending turn, the Load Factor has to increase because of both the bank angle and the descent angle.

[n5296s]

in a non-accelerating descending turn, the Load Factor has to increase because of both the bank angle and the descent angle
I don't think so - though I'd be happy to see why I'm wrong.

If VS is constant - whether zero or 20,000 ft/min - then by definition acceleration is zero and hence net force is zero, i.e. downward force due to gravity (mg) equals upward force due to lift. And hence lift perpendicular to the wing surface = mg/cos(angle of bank).

This ceases to be true as soon as VS isn't constant, of course. During the initial pushover, VS is accelerating downwards, so stall speed is actually lower. Where things go horribly wrong is when the pilot sees the ground approaching too fast and pulls. Now, the lift force increases and AoA may well go beyond the stall point. There are several horrific videos on youtube etc of airshow loops where this happens - the pilot is too low, pulls harder, stalls, and the aircraft pancakes into ground.

(Edited)

OK, I see your point now about the angle of the wings in the pitch plane. It's a valid point but in the noise mathematically. Suppose the aircraft is 5 degrees nose down. cos(5 degrees) is 0.996, i.e. less than a 1% difference. Suppose Vs=50 knots, in a 45 deg banked turn, stall speed is 59.46. With the correction for pitch attitude, it becomes 59.57. Of course there are numerous pilots on here who routinely fly airspeed to within 0.1 knot, I know I will be told, but I'm willing to humbly admit that I can't.

[peterh337]

Constant VS = constant G.

The only way to unload the wings, in a turn or in straight flight, is to accelerate towards the ground.

It's a good technique for doing really tight base to final turns. You just need plenty of air below you ;)

[mm_flynn]

I don't think so - though I'd be happy to see why I'm wrong.

If VS is constant - whether zero or 20,000 ft/min - then by definition acceleration is zero and hence net force is zero, i.e. downward force due to gravity (mg) equals upward force due to lift. And hence lift perpendicular to the wing surface = mg/cos(angle of bank).

The angle of pitch has exactly the same effect as the AoB (if normally quite a lot smaller).

Put your elbow on the desk and hold your hand straight up - this will be the lift vector and the height of your hand will be the vertical component (which must equal the weight of the aircraft if it is not changing vertical velocity).

Now roll your arm left and right and note how the hand is closer to the desk (i.e. reduced vertical component). This works exactly as described in many earlier posts.

Now move your arm forward and back. This is what happens when you change pitch (you can see the reduced vertical component in this as well).

Finally if you rotate the arm and move it for/aft you have even less vertical component.

Normally we ignore this because even a 15 degree deck angle (which is going to be going down at 1600 fpm in a 60 knot turn (giving only 19 seconds to get the turn in from 500 feet) is only going to add 5% or so to the stall speed due to reduced vertical component of lift.

I would suggest in this discussion it can be reasonably ignored as well

[Mark1234]

Possibly futile, but perhaps if I explain what *I* meant further, noting that I specifically mentioned that I did/do not consider EFATO 'steady state':

A few years ago I played with the same problem in the R2160 - the posts may well still be available. Without using too many words, my best results were obtained by simply rolling to a large (60+) bank from the climb and pulling to buffet. Because of the excess bank angle the nose falls. In the course of the turn you go from a decent climb attitude to a best glide attitude and reduce the AOB somewhat to control the pitch. It's anything but steady state in either plane.

Pushing to best glide *then* turning wastes a bunch of energy and distance travelling in the wrong direction. (IMHO)

n5296s: I already admitted in the deleted thread that my initial comments were a little terse. My followup was more explanatory, but interpretation is equally down to the reader - written word lacks nuance; it is often worth clarifying what people mean. Insulting people who disagree or question you isn't generally a winning tactic, but at the end of the day if you wish to consider me a wannabe, your call..

BackPacker: Thanks for the reference :) I may have switched types, but I suspect your flying has outstripped mine these days.

[Big Pistons Forever]

One telling point is missing in the whole "turnback" discussion. Practicing it is just not the same as a real failure because you know the engine is going to fail and the "Oh ****" moment that happens with the unexpected real failure almost invariably results in a slower and initially less than optimal response.

Thus I think there is a danger of unrealistic feeling of attained competence in this manoever. I think it is also important to point out the powerful ground rush you get in a steep banked turn close to the ground. If you are not practiced in low level flying there is an almost irresistible effort to pull back on the stick which is why I think there is a prevalence of stall spin accidents with turnbacks. Practicing turnbacks at altitude is just not the same and again fosters a false confidence.

Secondly regular practice would obviously be required to maintain proficiency. For the average private flyer I think there are better things to practice then a manoever that covers a danger, the EFATO, that spans maybe 2 minutes of every flight. Pilots aren't bending metal on a regular basis because of EFATO's they are loosing control while landing, running off the end of the runway, etc etc. The less sexy but important fundamental skills are of more value practicing IMO.

[n5296s]

My whole point in the original post was a discussion about the technique, and I'm delighted that maybe this is finally turning into such. The theory says that 45 degrees is the best bank angle, but there's no substitute for getting up there and trying it out. If 60 degrees (or any other angle) works best (in some type, for some pilot), it's pointless to argue with that.

For sure the entry is anything but steady state (and btw I don't THINK I said that lowering the nose and turning were sequential, and it's certainly not what I did - 100% agree on that point). But once you've got it set up, it's just a question of holding the bank angle and pitch as accurately as you can, and waiting to get back in line with the runway. It would be kind of boring except it doesn't last very long and the proximity of the ground adds a certain tingle to it.

I'm always happy to be disagreed with and questioned, I expect to learn something from it. (For example, I do confess that I hadn't thought about the impact of pitch attitude on stall speed, tiny though it is). It's being patronised and nanny-knows-best-ed that drives me to irrationality. It's undoubtedly a character defect, but, well, you know, that's the way it is. imho it beats being a sheep.

Anyway, nice to see this turning back into a discussion. This forum has mostly been fairly well-mannered (though Peter would probably disagree) - unlike Rotorheads, which is a snakepit waiting for the unwary to tread - I don't post there any more. Fwiw, here's what I wrote first time around (slightly [edited]):

Very interesting afternoon practising "impossible turns" (engine failure on takeoff) at a very quiet local field (Tracy New Jerusalem, 1Q4). Conclusion: in my plane (TR182) 500' and above works. 500' is a bit of a nailbiter but I made it back easily each time [2 x 500', 1 x 600', 1x 800'].

I used the Rogers technique, from http://jeremy.zawodny.com/flying/turnback.pdf, i.e. 45 degree bank and airspeed as close to stall as you dare. I wasn't feeling very daring though so I flew at 72 knots though the [theoretical] stall speed for my plane in a 45 degree bank is about 61 knots [and I looked for all signs of an incipient stall, just like I always do in slow flight]. There was a very slight wind, about 5 knots, at about 60 degrees to the runway, so the headwind component was about 3 knots. I counted to 2 after pulling the power, holding attitude and heading, to simulate reaction time.

[BackPacker]

The vertical component of Lift has to match the force of Gravity, otherwise you accelerate downwards.

A number of previous posts revolved around this issue: How to reconcile the vertical component of lift with gravity, so that vertical acceleration is zero.

The missing link is not in tweaking the lift vector, but in the fact that there is now a vertical component to the drag vector. And since engine power is reduced (or absent, in the EFATO scenario) this vertical component of drag is not offset with the (downward) vertical component of thrust.

In the very extreme case, for instance a skydiver free-falling at terminal velocity, this is the only force that keeps the skydiver from accelerating vertically. (In other words his vertical speed is constant.)

[peterh337]

This forum has mostly been fairly well-mannered (though Peter would probably disagree)

Would I ?

With very few exceptions, p p r u n e is OK. It is not cliquey, which is a big plus. And it has a good spread of expertise.

[Croqueteer]

:hmm: Apart from an airbus all aircraft have an angle of attack indicator. It is called the control column. If it is further back than a certain aft position the wing is stalled. You can work out that position for your own aircraft.

[abgd]

If it is further back than a certain aft position the wing is stalled.

I believe that may be true for equilibrium flight, but not for the sort of dynamic situations we're talking about, and then only for given CoG and power settings.

I would expect that method to bite you, sooner or later, if you depended on it to do a steep turn at low level. And if it were so reliable, why would aircraft be fitted with stall warning tabs and AoA indicators? It would be much simpler to put a gauge on the control column.

[Pilot DAR]

If it is further back than a certain aft position the wing is stalled. You can work out that position for your own aircraft. ........As long as you account for the possible affects of power, flap position, landing gear position, different undercarriages, C of G position, ground effect, wing contamination, STOL kit, and G load.

I'd rely on the functioning stall warning system of the aircraft, and the skills and "feel" associated with competence and currency in that aircraft type.

[foxmoth]

I did this in my TR182. I said so. It is NOT an aerobatic aircraft

Being an aerobatic aircraft has nothing to do with it - you are not doing aeros, the trouble with flying a set bank angle and speed is that your head is not where it needs to be - outside the aircraft, set the bank angle and speed and try and fly these with your head outside - either the bank angle increases (stall/spin) or the speed reduces (stall/spin) or both, if it goes the other way (bank angle decreases or speed increases) you probably will not get round the turn. fly head inside and you do not see where you are properly in the manouver -not a good idea that near the ground, plus of course the idea is to get to a workable piece of ground, wings level and enough speed to flare, if you are concentrating inside you could well miss this as well! This is why you want head outside, and to be able to pull by feel.

[24Carrot]

n5296s:
OK, I see your point now about the angle of the wings in the pitch plane. It's a valid point but in the noise mathematically.

mm_flynn:
I would suggest in this discussion it can be reasonably ignored as well

If you are comparing scenarios, I would include it, but I agree it is probably not a major feature. FWIW with a "L/D ratio" of 8, and a 60 degree angle of bank, I get a theoretical descent angle of about 14 degrees.


Backpacker, you are of course right, there is a vertical component of drag in a descent. In mitigation, sometimes I only come on pprune every few days, and I had missed the earlier thread completely. Sorry for the missed or repeated points!

[mary meagher]

All levels of expertise welcome in this discussion? OK, here's my thoughts on turning back after engine failure; which I think you are discussing under the title of "the impossible turn".

Rather important to keep up your speed in a low level turn in a tight situation, for all kinds of reasons; probably turbulence near the ground, wind gradient, are problems that are solved by a reasonable increase in speed over normal stalling speed. We practice "engine failure after takeoff" all the time in gliding, only it's called a cable break, or winch launch failure. Half way up the launch comes the "o ****" moment, when at a terrific angle relative to the ground, suddenly the PULL that has lofted your aircraft at a happy flying speed into the relative airflow, QUITS! and you are left hanging there, nose very high indeed!

The routine that follows: LOWER THE NOSE TO THE RECOVERY ATTITUDE. This is rather lower than the normal flying attitude. WAIT for the ASI to INDICATE correct speed to fly a circuit. IF YOU CAN SAFELY LAND AHEAD, LAND AHEAD. If not, turn AWAY FROM WIND, and when you have completed the turn,( at a safe speed but not throwing height away by excessive speed) you will be presented with a selection of IN TO WIND approaches. This can all happen in about 30 seconds, and when you are well experienced with launch failure, 30 seconds feels like all the time in the world.

The lifesaving part of this routine is establishing the PRIMACY of the decision to LAND AHEAD. Always the first choice. I don't want to go into the unhappy history of what happens if that first choice, a safe landing ahead, is ignored for reasons of convenience or a desire to return to base. It really doesn't get practiced properly, in power flying.

I'm sorry, I don't understand anything at all about tweaking lift vectors, constant vertical speed or load factors. But I have had plenty of practice in launch failure, stall recovery, safe low turns, and always having a plan B.

[n5296s]

For what it's worth, or maybe because I'm just a glutton for punishment, I did some follow up experiments on best speed and bank angle. They're posted over on the EFATO thread.

[BackPacker]

The lifesaving part of this routine is establishing the PRIMACY of the decision to LAND AHEAD. Always the first choice. I don't want to go into the unhappy history of what happens if that first choice, a safe landing ahead, is ignored for reasons of convenience or a desire to return to base. It really doesn't get practiced properly, in power flying.

Actually in my gliding training, it was hammered into us to call out "50 meters, safety altitude" and "100 meters, abbreviated circuit" out loud. Loud enough that the instructor in the back could hear it, at least. In the power world you'd do essentially the same thing but call it a departure briefing.

Up to 50 meters your nose-up angle should not exceed about 30-45 degrees because otherwise there's not enough time/energy/altitude to establish a normal final glide/landing attitude if the cable breaks. Only above 50 meters were you allowed to pitch higher than 45 degrees. (60 degrees or so is very common at that stage of the launch.)

Above 100 meters (and due to altimeter lag, in reality it's more like 130 meters at that point) you have sufficient altitude to fly an abbreviated circuit. But what's more: You are probably so well progressed over the length of the field that landing ahead in the gliding field is no longer an option. Even with powerful airbrakes, the descent angle required to make the field is simply not achievable. Of course an outlanding in the next field is still possible but why would you if you have sufficient altitude to return to base?

My first simulated cable break was at 100 meters. I knew that in theory I could make it back to the field with an abbreviated circuit but this was the first time in real life. So I did not dally, dropped the nose immediately while turning straight onto downwind. An immediate pre-planned action like in EFATO training. My instructor had to slow me down and actually had to use the airbrakes on downwind to lose an extra 20-30 meters or so, to make it "interesting" (his words). And even then we still had plenty of altitude to setup a decent final approach.

(Dutch gliding is in metric, for some odd reason.)

[mary meagher]

Backpacker, could you explain what a safety altitude at 50 meters involves? safe for what? the 150 meter abbreviated circuit call, would that be 450 feet? not a lot. If this is a mantra recited before every launch, it will not require any thought or planning. I feel that rigid drill of this sort does not take into consideration the variety of airfields we use. At Lasham, for instance, any cable break is a land ahead, because the field is so big....and it really should be the FIRST CHOICE! If you are programmed to do an abbreviated circuit from 450 feet, is this best practice?
Seems to me that each gliding site will have particular assets and limitations, and the student should explain carefully, before flight, his plan in the event of a launch failure. On a strong headwind day, you can land ahead from almost any height. On a very light wind day, or cross wind, or whatever, the student must be able to adapt and plan for conditions.

Back in the days we winched with piano wire, we were pleased to get a launch to the top without failure, it was a common event. I pulled too hard one time, broke the wire at about 700 feet, which came down like spaghetti all over the winch, and decided to spend the next couple of hours soaring.....anything but return to face the music!

[Pilot DAR]

anything but return to face the music

Mary, what type of music is produced by a tow winch covered in piano wire?

[BackPacker]

Mary, we were taught to use a rather shallow climb attitude (30-45 degrees or so) for the first 50 meter because with a steep nose up attitude you will not be able to recover from a cable break fast enough. After 50 meter you can pull to a very steep nose up.

In reality it's a rather smoother process where initially you let the aircraft accellerate until 130 km/hr or so, and above 50 meter you smoothly pull a bit more, for a target speed of 100-110 km/hr.

Last instructor I had did not bother with it that safety altitude at all, as long as you did not climb too steep initially. He told me I must've been taught by an old school instructor.

[chrisN]

BackPacker, you might like to look at the BGA guidance in “Safe Winch Launching” Feb 2010 edition and other stuff on:


British Gliding Association >> Safety >> Safe Winch Launching (http://www.gliding.co.uk/bgainfo/safety/safewinchlaunching.htm) .

Note particularly: “Ensure that the transition from level flight at take off to the full climb (typically 35º) is controlled, progressive, and lasts at least 5 seconds.”

(The safety initiative of which this is part has succeeded in reducing UK winch launch accidents by a huge percentage.)

Chris N.

[ChrisVJ]

I have real concerns even discussing the "Turn back option."

I have no doubt that a well trained, well practiced pilot can, in some circumstances, turn back for an EFATO. However I also take on board the traps, practice is not the real thing, manoevres close to the ground may seem different to practice at safe height etc.

All three people I have known personally lost to GA aviation accidents were lost to stall/spin at low level and one of them, an experienced guy flying his own plane was an EFATO attempted turn back.

My first instructor was adamant. For EFATO land straght ahead, ploughed field, trees etc, land straight ahead.

In general I approve of all sorts of discussion on Pprune, however this discussion seems full of danger. There may be those who see the discussion and come to consider turning back as a legitimate option 'on the day' though it is either beyond them, beyond their aircraft or beyond their circumstances, even taking the time to think about it may cause unacceptable consequences.

Once upon a time the world was a simpler place. Instructions were clear and we all accepted them. Nowadays it seems there is always someone who promotes another idea and usually thats OK, but for this discussion I have serious reservations.

However that's just my opinion.

[BackPacker]

ChrisN, thanks. The advice in there is consistent with what I've been told.

[oscarisapc]

I too have real doubts about the wisdom of practising turns back after EFATO or of promulgating what an ace pilot has achieved in practice. I am not a hot shot pilot and in the heat of the moment reckon I would be so unnerved by a failure for real that an ability to fly accurately on the edge of the stall would be non existent. Flying at the edge of the stall is not normally the best glide speed and things are going to be worse anyway with the engine stopped for real as opposed to idle. I have practised180 degree turns after a simulated engine failure in the climbing attitude (but at a safe height, not at ground level and using a straight road as a reference) and found I couldn't get round in less than 600 to 700 feet and that didn't allow for the additional S-turn needed to get back on the centre line. The other thing I noticed was that in my plane it takes some time and horizontal distance to get to 700 feet so that even if a turn back was possible vertically, it might well not be possible horizontally and you could fail to reach the runway if it was short. Much better to face the inevitability of an into wind forced landing than a wind behind you forced landing into the airport threshold. And if you know that "EFATO = Lower the nose and Land ahead", you can plan for that as an instinctive drill, so that when the moment happens you don't waste time whilst your brain unfreezes.

Thanks Mary for your comments on cable breaks - I am just about to try my hand at gliding so it is interesting to realise the same issues occur,.

[Genghis the Engineer]

I read what the naysayers above say, and can see where they're coming from.

However, I doubt that many PPLs (particularly those who like thinking hard about their flying, which is probably most on PPrune) will simply launch into a turnback into an emergency, when they've been trained to land "ahead". Not on the basis of what's been posted here.

On the other hand, it's already been demonstrated that some pilots as a result of reading this will go up to a safe altitude, and try flying a simulated turnback manoeuvre to understand and rehearse how it would work,and whether it's a good or stupid idea for them, flying their own aeroplane.

I cannot see any harm in that.

G

[oscarisapc]

ThesaurusLegend: Synonyms Related Words Antonyms
Noun1.naysayer - someone with an aggressively negative attitudeobstructer (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/obstructer), obstructionist (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/obstructionist), obstructor (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/obstructor), resister (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/resister), thwarter (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/thwarter) - someone who systematically obstructs some action that others want to take
technophobe (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/technophobe) - a person who dislikes or avoids new technology
Based on WordNet 3.0, Farlex clipart collection. © 2003-2011 Princeton University, Farlex Inc.

I don't see that folk who are stating "Don't even think about turning back" are naysayers. An awful lot of good, experienced pilots have been caught out by the impossible turn thinking they can just beat it and this recurs every year in the Accident Reports.

[Genghis the Engineer]

I think some people have been aggressively arguing against attempting turnbacks. So, without denegrating them at-all, they are naysaying, with reasonable grounds.

I can't help feel that in most cases a pilot attempting an unpracticed and untrained manoeuvre, may be experienced, they are not "good".

G

[The500man]

I think it's worth putting effort into working out how to make a successful turnback for the times when there is no other reasonable option (particularly if you fly from that type of runway regularly) but if you had a suitable landing site ahead or even to one side why would you turnback?

If the only option was to ditch, would you consider that better than attempting a turnback if you had what you considered to be sufficient altitude for a turnback based on prior practice at altitude?

Out of interest do people that would turnback think they would still have enough spare capacity to make a mayday call? Landing with a tailwind could mean using a lot of runway, and someone else could well have already lined up behind you. Obviously you would have to rely on fast reactions from non-radio aircraft on the ground or on short final.

When you really think about it, is it worth the effort training yourself to turnback? Unless you do fly from a no-other-option-airfield regularly what are the chances you will have an efato somewhere that actually requires a turnback?

[BackPacker]

My personal objective in participating in this discussion, and possibly in future trials as well, is to better understand the mechanics of the maneuver, to get a better understanding of the factors involved, and to get a better qualification of turnback height.

Right now, depending on who you talk to, the "no turnback" height is somewhere between 500' and 1000', without further qualification or any consideration for aircraft performance (MTOW or not), circumstances (Wind, altitude, temperature), runway length/layout or anything.

I know there are aircraft that will not be able to make a successful turnback from 1000' (a fully loaded DA40-TDI for instance), and likewise there may be aircraft that can be turned back at less than 500' in the right circumstances.

If, at the end of this exercise, we end up with a series of graphs, guidelines or something else, that allows you to calculate a realistic turnback height (including a safety margin, and which takes into account reaction times and assumes only moderate pilot technique) for your specific aircraft and circumstances, then I think we've done a good job.

But obviously below that calculated turnback height you can't turn back and still have to land ahead. It's only above that height where you are given the option to turn back, or to land ahead. And "land ahead" might then still be a better option.

When you really think about it, is it worth the effort training yourself to turnback?

Tough question, but probably more or less comparable to the question of whether it's worth the effort of training yourself to do, for instance, short/soft field take-offs and landings.

If you always take off from hard and long runways, maintaining soft/short field skills may not be all that important. And likewise, if you always take off from airfields that offer plenty of land-ahead options, it may not be important to acquire the turnback skills that the eventual procedure may demand.

['India-Mike]

Of course the outcome of Genghis' research might be "don't do it". Research is there to derive negative answers too, and in this case the outcome is not necessarily a toolkit to allow pilots to do it.

Personally I'm not a fan of turnbacks, as a pilot or FI. I'm not really worried about aggressive manoeuvring at low level. It's kinetic energy that bothers me...I'd rather contact the ground without a tailwind. Even a few knots in a SEP is noticeable and can require its own skills, especially tailwheel. I suspect an off-aerodrome crosswind forced landing might produce a better outcome for most pilots than a turnback.

But that's research and without it all is supposition.

[Genghis the Engineer]

That makes a further thought occur to me - ability to land downwind at-all in any given aeroplane should probably be a further aspect of the research question, and downwind landing performance.

Just envisaging *possible* research outcomes they might come out with a series of "success" bands:

Red - You won't succeed
Amber - You'll get it on the runway but almost certainly go through the hedge
Green - You have a good chance of success.

Possibly defined by a combination of aircraft performance, runway length, and wind.

(Or not, I am conjecting - "it's a damned fool idea under most circumstances" is also a valid research outcome, even if I'd not word it quite like that in a paper for Aeronautical Journal.)

G

[foxmoth]

land straght ahead, ploughed field, trees etc, land straight ahead

Ploughed field - OK, trees, maybe, industrial estate - could be OK, but depends on roads, empty car parks etc, same with built up areas - 3:45 as the kids are all arriving home, maybe not such a great idea, same with ditching - calm summers day with loads of boats in sight, maybe OK, rough winters day, maybe not.
There are not many places I would advise a turnback, but if you are flying from one of the few with no realistic options, IMHO it is good to know what you and your aircraft will do - turnback does NOT need to be to the runway by the way - 120 degrees or so might get you to decent fields, but whatever your options, they need preplanning and thinking out ahead of the T.O., and having practised at height you will at least have SOME idea how to go about it without spinning in.

[peterh337]

I don't know why so many people are so clear cut about a turnback being a BAD IDEA always.

I recall one departure from Antwerp. It is "only" 1510m, but I was at nearly 1000ft by the time I crossed the end of the runway (it was quite windy).

I think that the biggest risk in a turnback under those conditions would be to overshoot the whole airport :)

So much depends...

[The500man]

If on the climb-out your engine quits, you would push the nose down and maintain best glide, but aside from that would you attempt a restart? It's fairly quick to select a landing site in your field of view and then move on to a memorised restart drill, and then make a radio call, and then go through a memorised shut down drill before concentrating on actually landing. If you are going to turnback and you make the decision before-hand, surely there isn't the time to do anything other than turnback immediately and forget everything else. If the engine was actually on fire, you'd want to complete the shut down checklist, even if turning back wouldn't you? What about feathering the prop? I wonder how much altitude would be lost while undertaking these tasks.

It would be great if a standard procedure could be developed to give pilots a rough idea on the chances of a successful turnback, and I agree "success" bands would be a very good way to relay that information.

[n5296s]

but if you are flying from one of the few with no realistic options, IMHO it is good to know what you and your aircraft will do
Couldn't have said it better myself. That was certainly MY motivation for understanding this manouevre better and seeing how it works in practice.

As for the "not in front of the children" mindset... where do you stop? What about aerobatics - a frequent source of fatalities among people who decide to try it without instruction or the right aircraft. So should we ban all talk of aerobatics just in case some 50 hour PPL decides to take their PA28 and try to fly a Lomcevak?

This particular thread says "don't try this, don't do this" every third post. That said, there are those of us on here who - while certainly not being "hotshot pilots" (not me anyway) - have enough experience and curiosity to want to know what would happen if this really was the only option, or at least the best one.

You could apply the same thinking to spin training. Arguably many of these sad cases of stall/spin accidents wouldn't happen if people had flown a few spins and weren't thrown into complete panic the first time it happens to them. (Personally I'm a huge advocate of requiring spin training prior to a pilot's first BFR or equivalent). Yet it doesn't happen because it's "too dangerous" (and I probably shouldn't be talking about it in front of the children, whoever they may be).

At the end of the day it's only flying. The airframe doesn't know you're at 200 AGL. And you can always practice at altitude - should in fact, if you're going to do anything. Only when you're VERY comfortable with hairy-edge-of-stall-in-steep-bank flying with a few thousand feet of air under you should you even contemplate doing it closer to the ground.

[Crash one]

Well, I've read the whole thread, very interesting. There is obviously no definitive height that can be applied to all situations/aircraft. To my way of thinking this amounts to how much height is lost for a given radius of turn with no power, in my aircraft, without "losing it". The other thing I would try is how much height do I need for a "circuit" to land into wind. Now, the next thing is, when I do this exercise at the safe altitude of 2000ft+ & wx permitting, I will not under any circumstances hold any of you responsible for whatever outcome. The aircraft is a Piel Emeraude CP301-A, 90hp Continental. It stalls at 40kn with a heavy passenger (ATPL training Captain) just to keep the Nanny state at bay. I have 210hrs total, 120 on type. So perhaps that puts me in the low hours killing zone category, I am 72yrs old in a few days & intend to raise that figure by a factor of 1.3 at least. I suppose I should also say that the strip I fly from has numerous options for land ahead on both ends of the runway, so I am unlikely to need this option.
Whoever said that this "training" is unnecessary unless you might need it is wrong in my opinion, there is always a use for training/practice in whatever form.
The purpose of such an exercise for myself would be to enhance my knowledge of my aircraft's performance as well as mine at the edge of our envelopes, I do not have a POH.
It seems a pity that discussions such as this brings out such a lot of "Don't do this at home" advice. Perhaps this sort of thing should be taught at PPL "close throttle, perform 360 deg turn with height loss of no more than xft", preferably with stall warner blaring, if you have one.
n5296s
I think you are hitting all the nails on the head, keep it up..

[mm_flynn]

At the end of the day it's only flying. The airframe doesn't know you're at 200 AGL.This is quite true, however, a 200 foot error at 200 AGL will be far more noticeable to the airframe than the same error at 1000 AGL!

I am not that convinced on the 'impossible' land ahead options having flown out of just about every one of the fields mentioned. Places like Bembridge or Oban I have always assumed an engine failure at 200 feet would be a ditching - but close to shore and with a very high survival potential. For many of the other fields , there are reasonable patches that a no gear aircraft can slide to a stop within (after all, the gear is almost surely on its way up at this point - Murphy after all ;) ).

A lot of this conversation is aircraft and environment specific. Full up, my Bonanza climbs slo o o w l y and on a straight out departure there is no turn back altitude from a short field (unless I am taking off into a gale), hence I prefer an early turnout which keeps me within range of the field (and with 90 degrees of the turn already done).


I would definitely encourage trying the manoeuvres. I was surprised at how nicely my plane pitches into best glide if I just 'let go' during an engine failure simulation (assuming I have set proper takeoff pitch). Equally, I tried flying turnbacks with a pretty good model of my aircraft in X-Plane and found hitting the runway was very hard, hitting the field from crosswind was pretty easy. Doing the theoretical turn at altitude was quite a bit easier than getting back after the randomly timed failures in the simulation.

Finally, as noted by others, I was also very surprised at how much of an improvement in glide ratio was achieved by going full corse on the prop.

[BabyBear]

This thread has my brain pickled, in a good way of course. Rather than encourage me to turn back in the case of an EFATO it has me terrified to turn back in a glider now.:)

What it has also done is cause me to question how many pilots always, without fail, backtrack to the threshhold to ensure max height is reached at the closest possible point to the field and that the initial turn can be made be made likewise?

BB

[mary meagher]

A very worthwhile discussion! Let me make one more point, applies equally to gliders and power planes: when it is recommended to LAND AHEAD, the British Gliding Association goes on to say "if you can do so safely!"

You DON'T HAVE TO LAND STRAIGHT AHEAD EXACTLY, a slight turn to right or left may present a better option. Early days in your flying, let the instructor do the climb out and you have a look for these possible better options that could sensibly be reached. Even better, spend time looking at Google Earth, and spot useful fields that may come in handy. Remember it is less painful to hit the far hedge than the near one, should the field be short.

But engines may be more likely to fail by degrees rather than all at once with a bang. What would you do in that case?

If I was away from the airfield, and my engine began to sound unhappy, the FIRST THING I would do is select a nearby field, land on it, and then call for help if needed....This order of priorities I have been told is quite wrong.

[Pace]

There is a big difference between armchair discussions and reality. For me the biggest no no is fixating on achieving a landing spot in event of an engine failure.
How many pilots have lost control or hit trees because they have fixated on a landing spot ahead and ignored perfectly good fields left and right because they think they have to land into wind!
Or for that matter been too high and fixating on the landing spot in the field ended up 20kts too fast sailing down the selected field into the trees at the end!
We also talk often about a stabilised approach! How does a turnback classify as a stabilised approach.
The main thing is to keep the ship flying at all cost.
Many here may not yet have been in a bad situation. Those who have will tell you how a real situation is very different from a forum discussion while you sip another glass of wine in front of the computer.
Your best chance of success is as stable an approach as possible which means pegged airspeed and as little to disturb the aircraft profile as possible selecting flap land only when assured of that landing!how does a panic high bank turn achieve that?
All I would add is that on that stabilised approach going for your landing spot monitor other alternatives left and right if your profile goes pear shaped throw it away and continue your stabilised approach to a new landing spot left or right but not behind :E All that will achieve is a messy approach and an even more panicky and disorientated pilot now landing with the worst state of a tailwind thrown into the pot.
Tailwind = Higher speed over the ground into whatever you are going to hit.
High bank =confusion and greater chance of a stall spin.

Pace

[GeeWhizz]

Interesting reading guys.

Maybe a bit late in discussion now but I see turnbacks relatively frequently, perhaps more than some and know the procedure well enough.

The ones that I do see are usually carried out by aircraft that have height (500- 800ft AGL min) and the speed to complete the turning component of the manoeuvre. These aircraft are HPAs and would probably be able to complete a turnback at a lower height but those aren't practiced so I've never seen one.

Would I do it in the clubs 172? Most unlikely, there may be that one time when... Another of aviations great 'ifs'. All credit to those who have their own aeroplanes and have practiced turnbacks and can explain all the theory behind doing them.

Cheers

GW

[foxmoth]

If I was away from the airfield, and my engine began to sound unhappy, the FIRST THING I would do is select a nearby field, land on it, and then call for help if needed....This order of priorities I have been told is quite wrong.

Why? Yes, pick a field, but if it is still running, get/keep what height you can and fly field to field to the nearest airfield, depending of course on how bad it sounds and if it gets worse as you are going.

[Genghis the Engineer]

If I'm away from an airfield and my engine shows signs of misbehaving, the first thing I'll do is climb, the second is fly to the overhead of the nearest alternate. I'll descend only when I can stay in gliding distance of a runway. If the engine stops en-route, then the extra height maximises my options.

G

[n5296s]

If I'm away from an airfield and my engine shows signs of misbehaving, the first thing I'll do is climb, the second is fly to the overhead of the nearest alternate. I'll descend only when I can stay in gliding distance of a runway. If the engine stops en-route, then the extra height maximises my options.
Hear hear! (Or maybe that's here here - I've never been sure). Been there, done exactly that, twice. Once was when (as it turned out) my turbo had been busy reducing its impeller to shards of alumin[i]um, the other a never-explained engine hiccup. In both cases I circled down over the field.

In a plane there's very little the engine can do that is immediately life threatening - falling off, catching fire, or shedding the prop, maybe. Just running a little rough or oddly isn't necessarily a hint that one of those is about to happen, especially if the issue doesn't recur (as it didn't in my two cases). Anything which suggests that any of those catastrophic events might occur is a reason to treat it as though it has stopped and get on the ground asap.

The heli is a different story. Among all those bits whirling around are several which can make the whirling stop. A "chip light" indicating metallic debris in one of the gearboxes is a reason to get on the ground RIGHT NOW.

[chrisN]

For information (it’s nice to get these things right):

American Heritage Dictionary of Idioms:
hear, hear


An expression used to express approval, as in Whenever the senator spoke, he was greeted with cries of "Hear! hear!" This expression was originally Hear him! hear him! and used to call attention to a speaker's words. It gradually came to be used simply as a cheer. [Late 1600s]


[It is the same in British usage.]

Chris N

[Croqueteer]

:ok:in an engine failure situation in the climb, the aircraft can be turned though 180degrees with a ht loss of 200ft. Discuss

[Genghis the Engineer]

:ok:in an engine failure situation in the climb, the aircraft can be turned though 180degrees with a ht loss of 200ft. Discuss

You are ever so slightly late to the party Croqueteer - try reading the rest of this thread.

G

[FullWings]

Something else to factor in is that when it happens for real, it will be unexpected. Doesn't matter how much you practice (unless it's the only flying you do) it'll come as a shock. What unfolds afterwards will, of course, be influenced by your level of preparation. Just don't underestimate the brain-freezing potential of the "I don't believe it!" or "WTF?!?" moment.

I get 4 days a year of emergency training/checking in the sim. I run through a few pertinent scenarios before I take off in the real aeroplane and am known to read the manuals from time to time. Last year, the cockpit filled with smoke/fumes on rotation and my first thought was :confused:, followed shortly by :confused:. Things improved after I put the autopilot in, handed over control, got the oxygen mask on and declared an emergency... Then there was time to think, run the appropriate drills, discuss what was happening, etc. To start with, though, there was what felt like ages but was probably only a few seconds of "this isn't happening!". My partner-in-crime had a similar experience.

I only relate this as these things are hardly ever "textbook". What worked out OK in nice weather with advance planning and a engine that would get you out of trouble if it all went to worms, may not be quite the same if you are already loaded up with weather, ATC and passenger distractions, the engine has thrown a pot but is still running and oil is creeping up the windscreen...

[mary meagher]

whatever happens, it will come as a shock! That's exactly right, Fullwings, and in this discussion, as Ghengis reminds us, is about the "impossible turn"!

In power, practicing that pukertime option always seemed to me not quite exciting enough; the instructor pulls back the power, and says "Now what you gonna do?" And you know very well to lower the nose and say "I am going to land ahead!" whereupon the Instructor fires up the engine, and you carry on with the rest of the lesson.

Which is why I think all you chaps with the mindset of (1) radio emergency!
(2) try to restart engine (3) get back to the airfield if possible, could use some launch failure training at a glider winch site! Because when that cable is gone, your "engine" is really really gone, and you've got to actually deal with what to do next. Is the "impossible turn" an option or not?

After 8 or 10 cable breaks, the trained response is set in the brain, so when it happens for real, you've seen it before and know what to do.

[Genghis the Engineer]

(1) radio emergency! (2) try to restart engine (3) get back to the airfield if possible,

Completely the wrong order in any emergency of-course.

Aviate
Navigate
Communicate

In that order. So (3), then (2), then (1)

Although my (3) would be try and get the aeroplane to something large, flat and landable, if that happens to be an airfield that's a bonus.

G

[The500man]

Shouldn't option 1 always be try to restart the engine unless it is obviously broken? (fire, oil leak, low pressure, high temp etc.) It seems no one wants to think about engine/ prop handling in this thread what with the allure of making an impossible turn.

[Ultra long hauler]

Completely the wrong order in any emergency of-course.

Aviate
Navigate
Communicate


Good point(s)!

The only in-fight emergency I "enjoyed" so far was a sudden nasty noise from the engine at about 1000 feet; still 20 minutes from our destination I opted for the closest airfield (which I was unfamiliar with).
I did not have the presence of mind to climb, as mentioned by Genghis.

I was flying the plane though (aviate), I made my way (navigate) to the nearest airport while my friend (non-pilot) tried to get hold of the "crop dusting boss" on the general frequency to obtain permission to land; (communicate) to no avail.

Upon arrival I did one spin for reconnaissance purposes and I noticed there was a cropduster stuck in the trench next to the runway.
They saw me and the pick-up truck attending the cropduster moved clear which I took us permission…….

Turned out to be a large hole in the Rotax exhaust line! Bummer!!
The friendly team tried to fix it with a weld but after a quick test-flight the same noise appeared; which meant we had to abandon the plane for the night!

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/3820316/Screenshot%202012-01-23%20om%2011.47.33.jpg

Not a very nice thing to do; and a #$%*-ing long drive the next day!!

###Ultra long Hauler###

[foxmoth]

Shouldn't option 1 always be try to restart the engine unless it is obviously broken?

No - first fly the aircraft, otherwise you could stall or hit something nasty while trying the restart, once you have it pointing the right way both vertically and horizontally you can then try a restart if there is something obvious and you have time.

[Genghis the Engineer]

You beat me to it Foxmoth.

Attempt to re-start the engine IF you have time and height to do that and then still execute a safe forced landing if you failed. If that time and height isn't there, leave the engine alone, it has ceased to be your friend.

I was flying the plane though (aviate), I made my way (navigate) to the nearest airport while my friend (non-pilot) tried to get hold of the "crop dusting boss" on the general frequency to obtain permission to land; (communicate) to no avail.

Upon arrival I did one spin for reconnaissance purposes and I noticed there was a cropduster stuck in the trench next to the runway.
They saw me and the pick-up truck attending the cropduster moved clear which I took us permission…….

Turned out to be a large hole in the Rotax exhaust line! Bummer!!
The friendly team tried to fix it with a weld but after a quick test-flight the same noise appeared; which meant we had to abandon the plane for the night!

Sounds like you did exactly the right thing to me - although I'm guessing that you actually did an orbit, not a spin!

G

[The500man]

No - first fly the aircraft, otherwise you could stall or hit something nasty while trying the restart, once you have it pointing the right way both vertically and horizontally you can then try a restart if there is something obvious and you have time.

Flying the aircraft first isn't option 1 as you are already doing it and it isn't optional.

[Genghis the Engineer]

Flying the aircraft first isn't option 1 as you are already doing it and it isn't optional.

I'm willing to bet that most pilots in training, at some point, concentrated on other stuff to the exclusion of flying the aircraft.

I can think of the odd occasion in my training where I was pulled up for this. And rightly so. In my short period as an instructor, I've also seen this - sooner or later - in most PPLs.

G

[foxmoth]

Flying the aircraft first isn't option 1 as you are already doing it and it isn't optional.

WRONG, try instructing, you may be surprised in an EFATO how many STOP flying the aircraft:eek:

[Ultra long hauler]

Sounds like you did exactly the right thing to me - although I'm guessing that you actually did an orbit, not a spin!


Yes. You know what I meant, but "spin" is not the right phraseology in aviation to describe a little detour, I guess!!

Flying the aircraft first isn't option 1 as you are already doing it and it isn't optional.

It´s really just a bit of semantics we´re dealing with here.
Yes, you are in an airplane; yes you operate the controls so technically you are flying. What they REALLY mean by that particular phrase; in my opinion anyway; is "to stay well focussed on your flying--> prevent the plane from stalling, maintain sufficient altitude, check for traffic" etc etc.
Sounds obvious, but an "overloaded" pilot could easily overlook these things in the heat of the moment; I guess.

Remember that restarting the engine could be something as simple as switching the electrical pump on. I think I'm able to fly, pick a field and at the same time turn the fuel pump on (the one I forgot to switch on before takeoff).

Securing a safe landing without an engine is obviously number one, but fuel pump, carb heat and possibly changing fuel tanks can in most types be done within a very short time span without looking inside the cockpit.

I agree that more serious fault finding, involving the brain and eyes should only be done if you have plenty of height/time.

Makes sense…….and each and every pilot will have to make that split-second decision: "how far do I go fault finding?".
I could switch on my 2nd fuel pump and push that button again while I fly; I agree with you…..that takes 2 seconds; BUT…….this all depends where you are at the time!

###Ultra Long Hauler###

[Crash one]

In my opinion the "Impossible turn" scenario pre-suposes that things have gone tits up at a low level, climb attitude, climb speed, therefore there is no time to play around with re-starts, fuel pumps, carb heat, the right pair of sunglasses etc. Isn't it just a case of "Oh ****e, stuff the nose over to keep flying & decide whether the turn can be made or not?
As for "Aviate, Navigate, Comunicate", I think we know that & I don't think Mary was suggesting that we all need reminded, just that SOME are under the impression that if the radio packs up the thing is about to fall out of the sky.Perhaps it should be pointed out that most of us know it will not:ugh: Perhaps after the turn is established there may be time to try something else. Depending on brain capacity which will vary!!

[KMSS]

All the exchange of information and ideas on this is valuable and thought provoking, but maybe the thought experiments and practice at altitude can't quite get one ready for it. In my experience it's one of those things where experience and drills will take over when it actually happens. I used to instruct in gliders and posted previously on this on a previous thread.

I had two actual unplanned events on aerotow, which is more closely related to the power EFATO than a winch tow. Both involved successful returns for a downwind landing. One was a partial power loss of the tow plane and the other was an actual rope break in turbulent conditions. I attributed the successful outcomes to the combination of: a) glider pilots spend a lot of time thermalling in a steep bank near stall speed in turbulent conditions, and so the basic handling skills are actually in the hands, so to speak; b) we actually practiced the low-level event, in which the visual cues of pitch and ground perspective in a steep bank are much different than at altitude and can be disorienting at first; and c) I formed a plan on every takeoff that included wind awareness and terrain, and on takeoff would mentally be running my options at each point until I could make a full traffic pattern.

On some takeoffs I ruled out a return either before takeoff or shortly after liftoff due to wind and turbulence. For example, a straight in approach into a strong wind (very low groundspeed) to a well chosen farmer's field would be safer than a landing on the airport with that strong wind at my back, risking a possible groundloop or over-run. Given that most power pilots never have the opportunity to actually train for "impossible turn," avoiding it may be the best choice from a risk assessment point of view.

Not a question of who's a better pilot; rather just accepting the realities of how one responds in a stressful situation. When the tunnel vision sets in, we usually act in a very experiential way, and if the experience via training isn't actually there, then.....?

[mary meagher]

Intercepted suggests that you might have sufficient time in the event of Engine Failure after Takeoff, to turn on "fuel pump, carb heat, change tanks" WITHOUT LOOKING INSIDE THE COCKPIT??? O my. That does indeed presume a great familiarity with your faltering chariot, to locate the right handle or switch to pull without looking inside the cockpit.

We have often been amused watching a glider on approach when the pilot, realising he is overshooting, raises and lowers the undercarriage, under the impression he is deploying the airbrakes (spoilers).

So our usual recommendation to the student is to look at the knob before you pull it......

which could possibly distract from monitoring attitude, angle, airspeed, all of which are rather important, to say nothing of avoiding any traffic should you actually be trying to land at an airfield.

The advantage of a nicely chosen farmers field is you don't have to worry about the traffic....or the radio, for that matter.

[Crash one]

The advantage of a nicely chosen farmers field is you don't have to worry about the traffic....or the radio, for that matter.

Apart from the sheep!!

[The500man]

I like your comment, since it's always assumed by some that most of us will stall and spin to death if we try to do something sensible, such as restarting the engine.

There seems to be no shortage of people happy to tell us that we can't maintain a glide attitude with level wings or look inside the cockpit for a single second to toggle a switch without dieing. Why discuss turnbacks when we're all so incapable of flying in a straight line?

I was wrong though, because Foxmoth told me so in capital letters! I'm very sorry, option 1 clearly should have been freeze-up, faff with controls and wait for it all to come up in a heap. With this option you also don't need to look inside the cockpit at your airspeed. Job done, cheers. ;)

[foxmoth]

option 1 clearly should have been freeze-up, faff with controls and wait for it all to come up in a heap.

Certainly not what I said:= Just pointing out that that is what a lot of pilots actually do - I see from your profile that you fly a Pitts so presumably you are reasonably experienced and find it fairly natural to fly the aircraft and do other tasks at the same time, but even pilots like yourself STILL need to fly the aircraft first, the fact that you do this naturally and can multitask is great, but the fact is that you DO fly the aircraft as your first priority. Unfortunately others are not that experienced and need to have that more at the front of their thinking:}

[24Carrot]

A chattier version of the Rogers technical paper appears here.
Should You Turnback? (http://www.nar-associates.com/technical-flying/impossible/possible.html)

It includes the line:
Asking other pilots what they would do in this situation yielded as many answers as pilots.

... which this thread would appear to bear out!