Spitfire bent at Biggin.
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Santa Rosa, CA, USA
Age: 71
Posts: 169
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, sometimes you don't have a choice of good or bad, sometimes it's between bad or worse. I'm always interested in the details. It looks like he took off on Rwy 11, made a left 180 turn and came down just north of the Alouette Flying Club, on the east side of the airport. Go to Google Maps and search for "Alouette Flying Club, Biggin Hill, United Kingdom", then select Earth view to see the situation. A forced landing off the end of Rwy 11 looks bad, a lot of forest and small fields bordered by trees, and according to locals, he was only airborne for ~90 seconds. Now zoom in on Rwy 11 for a treat- a Spitfire is turning onto it from a taxiway on the west end.
If I may be permitted a little thread creep here, there has been a few comments on this thread regarding turnbacks. We do not know whether or not Dan attempted a turnback or whether such a manoeuvre was an appropriate action following the failure that he suffered. Therefore, none of what I have written below is a comment on the recent Spitfire accident. However, it is a timely reminder for all of us who fly single engine aircraft of some considerations for potentially attempting such a manoeuvre.
At the dawn of aviation, "Never turn back" was a mantra and for a very good reason. Early aeroplanes had low power and high drag. Therefore, climb gradient was less than glide ratio and so if runway heading was maintained after take-off the aircraft would, following a total loss of power, never be able to glide back to the take-off airfield (unless it had turned off runway heading).
High performance aircraft, such as the Spitfire, accelerate to climb speed quickly and then have a climb gradient that is greater than the glide ratio. Therefore (and again assuming that runway heading is maintained) a height/speed combination will relatively quickly be reached which is high enough above the return-to-airfield glide profile to allow a turn to be made to point at and glide towards the airfield then fly positioning turns to align with the reciprocal of the take-off runway with sufficient height to lower the gear and flaps to make a controlled touchdown; that is a turnback. To use the Tucano as an example (an aircraft with similar but slightly less power:weight ratio than the Spitfire), from 150 KIAS and 500 ft a turnback can be made to the reciprocal of the take-off runway. At Linton-on-Ouse, which has a cross runway with a mid-point intersection, it is possible to turn back to the cross runway from 130 KIAS and 500 ft. However, making a successful landing from such a manoeuvre is not guaranteed and at least in the Tucano you have the option to eject if you judge (by 300 ft) that you are not going to land safely on the runway. If you do not have an ejection seat, such as in the Spitfire, you are committed to an off-runway landing, hopefully within the airfield boundary, but for which you really want the gear to be up as per an off-airfield forced landing.
The actual turnback manoeuvre should normally be a hard turn into wind. This is because one of the main factors in order to achieve a successful landing is minimising the lateral separation from the runway centreline. The problem now is that the nose needs to be lowered significantly in order to maintain manoeuvring glide speed and one of the biggest risks is losing speed and stalling. I believe that this is the main reason that such manoeuvres have never been taught to students undergoing flying training. If the take-off roll has been very short and the initial climb out steep, the required manoeuvre is a turn downwind through approximately a 45 deg heading change then a reversal to dumbbell back to the runway. Up to a point, the greater the crosswind component the greater the chance of a successful turnback because it helps to minimise the lateral displacement from the runway centreline during the turn. There are parallels to these manoeuvres with cable-break procedures for gliding winch launches.
Having said all of the above, once you turn off runway heading after take-off you just have to apply judgement as per any engine failure. But next time you fly and plan a straight climb from take-off, it is worth thinking about what height and speed you need in order to fly a turnback and which way you will turn.
At the dawn of aviation, "Never turn back" was a mantra and for a very good reason. Early aeroplanes had low power and high drag. Therefore, climb gradient was less than glide ratio and so if runway heading was maintained after take-off the aircraft would, following a total loss of power, never be able to glide back to the take-off airfield (unless it had turned off runway heading).
High performance aircraft, such as the Spitfire, accelerate to climb speed quickly and then have a climb gradient that is greater than the glide ratio. Therefore (and again assuming that runway heading is maintained) a height/speed combination will relatively quickly be reached which is high enough above the return-to-airfield glide profile to allow a turn to be made to point at and glide towards the airfield then fly positioning turns to align with the reciprocal of the take-off runway with sufficient height to lower the gear and flaps to make a controlled touchdown; that is a turnback. To use the Tucano as an example (an aircraft with similar but slightly less power:weight ratio than the Spitfire), from 150 KIAS and 500 ft a turnback can be made to the reciprocal of the take-off runway. At Linton-on-Ouse, which has a cross runway with a mid-point intersection, it is possible to turn back to the cross runway from 130 KIAS and 500 ft. However, making a successful landing from such a manoeuvre is not guaranteed and at least in the Tucano you have the option to eject if you judge (by 300 ft) that you are not going to land safely on the runway. If you do not have an ejection seat, such as in the Spitfire, you are committed to an off-runway landing, hopefully within the airfield boundary, but for which you really want the gear to be up as per an off-airfield forced landing.
The actual turnback manoeuvre should normally be a hard turn into wind. This is because one of the main factors in order to achieve a successful landing is minimising the lateral separation from the runway centreline. The problem now is that the nose needs to be lowered significantly in order to maintain manoeuvring glide speed and one of the biggest risks is losing speed and stalling. I believe that this is the main reason that such manoeuvres have never been taught to students undergoing flying training. If the take-off roll has been very short and the initial climb out steep, the required manoeuvre is a turn downwind through approximately a 45 deg heading change then a reversal to dumbbell back to the runway. Up to a point, the greater the crosswind component the greater the chance of a successful turnback because it helps to minimise the lateral displacement from the runway centreline during the turn. There are parallels to these manoeuvres with cable-break procedures for gliding winch launches.
Having said all of the above, once you turn off runway heading after take-off you just have to apply judgement as per any engine failure. But next time you fly and plan a straight climb from take-off, it is worth thinking about what height and speed you need in order to fly a turnback and which way you will turn.
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Paris
Age: 60
Posts: 101
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@Roninmission:
Absolutely. My first thought when I heard of this was that the problem must have been serious and urgent.
Even as an amateur flyer my first assumption was that they don't just let anybody fly those machines.
I hope that the pilot is doing well. It's also weirdly interesting that they'll have to do a modern style accident analysis on such an old machine.
Looking at pilot Dan Griffith's resume I'd think twice before second guessing his decision making!
Even as an amateur flyer my first assumption was that they don't just let anybody fly those machines.
I hope that the pilot is doing well. It's also weirdly interesting that they'll have to do a modern style accident analysis on such an old machine.
One fine day in the 1960s, I was taking off for my final check ride with the CFI, Les Phillips, before going solo at Sleap in an Auster Autocrat. (This was a club requirement, and a very good idea.)
At 400' or so, just crossing the boundary, the engine stopped. Before I had even realised that it wasn't Les chopping the power as a training exercise/test, and while I was still pushing the nose down without turning, he shouted "I have control", did a diving 180 turn without losing any airspeed, rolled out and touched down on the grass, downwind. (I then did my first solo, 10 minutes later, in the other club Autocrat.)
Landing anywhere in the "approved" area straight ahead would almost certainly have killed us both, as it usually will ever since airfields are no longer placed in open countryside.
He was an ex-RAF pilot and instructor, and I believe flew Spifires during WWII.
Ever since then I have preached the gospel that the mantra "Land straight ahead" should have been replaced decades ago by teaching ab initio pilots when and how to turn back after an engine failure on takeoff in a single.
The word "When" is important; part of the lesson is calculating a minimum height for the 180 diving turn, and knowing not to attempt the manouevre below that height. Given that, the manouevre should be taught and practised.
So I'm with Lomcevak.
Stand by for incoming!
At 400' or so, just crossing the boundary, the engine stopped. Before I had even realised that it wasn't Les chopping the power as a training exercise/test, and while I was still pushing the nose down without turning, he shouted "I have control", did a diving 180 turn without losing any airspeed, rolled out and touched down on the grass, downwind. (I then did my first solo, 10 minutes later, in the other club Autocrat.)
Landing anywhere in the "approved" area straight ahead would almost certainly have killed us both, as it usually will ever since airfields are no longer placed in open countryside.
He was an ex-RAF pilot and instructor, and I believe flew Spifires during WWII.
Ever since then I have preached the gospel that the mantra "Land straight ahead" should have been replaced decades ago by teaching ab initio pilots when and how to turn back after an engine failure on takeoff in a single.
The word "When" is important; part of the lesson is calculating a minimum height for the 180 diving turn, and knowing not to attempt the manouevre below that height. Given that, the manouevre should be taught and practised.
So I'm with Lomcevak.
Stand by for incoming!
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Cyprus
Age: 76
Posts: 270
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One thing I have practised is the turn back after T/0 with an engine failure, do it at various heights until you are confident of the height needed I concur with all said, but I have found a steep turn back with extra speed is best, initially the ground looks close but once the turn is complete you can trade A/S for distance
I believe most ab initios forget the stalling speed goes up dramatically with a steep turn, hence they stall.
I believe most ab initios forget the stalling speed goes up dramatically with a steep turn, hence they stall.
Do a Hover - it avoids G
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Chichester West Sussex UK
Age: 91
Posts: 2,206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not surprisingly it would be hard to find a better general brief than LOMCEVAC’s on the issue of turnbacks.
But if I may I would like to add some other food for thought.
I know it is stating the obvious but there are two very important specific issues that are relevant to any actual EFATO:
The pilot
The aircraft type
The pilot issues are all about experience and currency. Does the pilot realise how very very quickly and hard you need to shove the nose down and roll on the bank before you pull? Is the manoeuvre regularly practiced? Is the pilot good at doing very tight turns without stalling?
Is the aircraft type one that has a benign stall in a turn where it just gently drops the outside wing, or one where it rolls violently into the turn?
Finally don’t forget that if you start a turnback then realise it will fail, you can always change your mind and land what serves as straight ahead at that point.
But if I may I would like to add some other food for thought.
I know it is stating the obvious but there are two very important specific issues that are relevant to any actual EFATO:
The pilot
The aircraft type
The pilot issues are all about experience and currency. Does the pilot realise how very very quickly and hard you need to shove the nose down and roll on the bank before you pull? Is the manoeuvre regularly practiced? Is the pilot good at doing very tight turns without stalling?
Is the aircraft type one that has a benign stall in a turn where it just gently drops the outside wing, or one where it rolls violently into the turn?
Finally don’t forget that if you start a turnback then realise it will fail, you can always change your mind and land what serves as straight ahead at that point.
Psychophysiological entity
Has anyone tried pulling the nose up while kicking the rudder and applying full flap?
You may not believe it, but it's a serious question.
You may not believe it, but it's a serious question.
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Not far from a big Lake
Age: 81
Posts: 1,454
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Has anyone tried pulling the nose up while kicking the rudder and applying full flap?
You may not believe it, but it's a serious question.
You may not believe it, but it's a serious question.
Can you explain further?
Psychophysiological entity
It was a claim made in the early 60. A DC3. Loooong time to get flaps and I don't recall where the wheels were.
In those days one could practice all sorts of things and I did get some way with replicating this scenario. I hasten to add I had a very comfortable simulated height above touchdown.
However, I've often wondered, if all was lost and there Vicarages, schools and hospitals ahead, just what one might pull out of the bag if say, you had 400' plus.
Some of the guys that had flown through the war showed me things that I wouldn't have believed possible. My requests to have a bash we usually denied . . . but not always.
In those days one could practice all sorts of things and I did get some way with replicating this scenario. I hasten to add I had a very comfortable simulated height above touchdown.
However, I've often wondered, if all was lost and there Vicarages, schools and hospitals ahead, just what one might pull out of the bag if say, you had 400' plus.
Some of the guys that had flown through the war showed me things that I wouldn't have believed possible. My requests to have a bash we usually denied . . . but not always.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,186
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote: The pilot issues are all about experience and currency. Does the pilot realise how very very quickly and hard you need to shove the nose down and roll on the bank before you pull? Is the manoeuvre regularly practiced? Is the pilot good at doing very tight turns without stalling?
Is the aircraft type one that has a benign stall in a turn where it just gently drops the outside wing, or one where it rolls violently into the turn? Unquote.
............................................................ ............................................................ ............................................................ ........................
I was the investigator of a fatal practice turn back of a RAAF Winjeel (both occupants survived the crash but died in the fire). A few years later at the same airfield the same thing happened this time to a Tiger Moth with same fatal results. Another time I studied the investigation into a RAAF dual Vampire turn back attempt with real engine failure; Both pilots killed when they landed well short and hit a ditch. The take off direction was over wide open fields and into wind. Both pilots had earlier been taught turn backs on a Vampire instructor course. One of those pilots made the snap (and fatal) decision to try a turn back when the engine failed, no doubt influenced by several practice turn backs with the engine operating normally, a few days earlier.
Another time I was a QFI testing a senior officer in a Winjeel and gave him a simulated engine failure after airborne on an 8000 ft runway. He was also a QFI on type and I expected him to simply lower the nose and land straight ahead with several thousand feet of runway available.
Instead from 500 ft he lowered the nose and whipped into the steepest reverse turn I have ever seen while I watched horrified and helpless to stop him landing brilliantly back the way we came.
So three fatal crashes during turn backs and one very close call, utterly convinced me that landing straight ahead is by far statistically the safest decision. Besides the lower energy of touch down impact into wind and good forward vision to avoid obstacles, people sometimes forget that in a steep 180 or 270 reversal turn at low speed bordering on the stall, forward and side vision is seriously compromised, especially in a high wing Cessna type trainer and the flaps are down.
Is the aircraft type one that has a benign stall in a turn where it just gently drops the outside wing, or one where it rolls violently into the turn? Unquote.
............................................................ ............................................................ ............................................................ ........................
I was the investigator of a fatal practice turn back of a RAAF Winjeel (both occupants survived the crash but died in the fire). A few years later at the same airfield the same thing happened this time to a Tiger Moth with same fatal results. Another time I studied the investigation into a RAAF dual Vampire turn back attempt with real engine failure; Both pilots killed when they landed well short and hit a ditch. The take off direction was over wide open fields and into wind. Both pilots had earlier been taught turn backs on a Vampire instructor course. One of those pilots made the snap (and fatal) decision to try a turn back when the engine failed, no doubt influenced by several practice turn backs with the engine operating normally, a few days earlier.
Another time I was a QFI testing a senior officer in a Winjeel and gave him a simulated engine failure after airborne on an 8000 ft runway. He was also a QFI on type and I expected him to simply lower the nose and land straight ahead with several thousand feet of runway available.
Instead from 500 ft he lowered the nose and whipped into the steepest reverse turn I have ever seen while I watched horrified and helpless to stop him landing brilliantly back the way we came.
So three fatal crashes during turn backs and one very close call, utterly convinced me that landing straight ahead is by far statistically the safest decision. Besides the lower energy of touch down impact into wind and good forward vision to avoid obstacles, people sometimes forget that in a steep 180 or 270 reversal turn at low speed bordering on the stall, forward and side vision is seriously compromised, especially in a high wing Cessna type trainer and the flaps are down.
Last edited by Tee Emm; 7th Aug 2015 at 12:00.
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Not far from a big Lake
Age: 81
Posts: 1,454
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For the weekend flyers who may be tempted to turn back, let this horrible example help form your turnback decision.
https://youtu.be/DFWMBT1zDlI
For those of you who are completely on top of your game, carry on.
https://youtu.be/DFWMBT1zDlI
For those of you who are completely on top of your game, carry on.
I'd a share in a Jungmann, the only biplane I've flown, and I thought the high drag and glide ratio worryingly poor. It's good to see those with experience publicising the differences on here.
Great flick performance which itself gives food for thought.
Great flick performance which itself gives food for thought.
JF,
Very valid extra points, thanks. In the Tucano I always select mid flap as soon as I commence the manoeuvre so that the stick shaker is active and I then have tactile stall warning. And experience and practise are fundamental as you say.
I am fairly sure that, just like practise asymmetric flying in the Canberra, there have been far more accidents caused by practising turnbacks than there have been real EFATOs with a successful outcome as a result of mitigation by practise. It is all a judgement call based on overall experience, experience on type, recency and aircraft type characteristics. Personally, I do not practise turnbacks in aircraft such as the Spitfire because big piston engines do not like sudden power reductions from take-off power to idle, and with the big radials you cannot do that without causing serious damage to the engine due to underboosting. However, I have been very fortunate in having the opportunity over many years to practise (and teach) turnbacks in the Tucano that, I hope, will stand me in good stead if, God forbid, I have a real EFATO in one of the warbird types.
And I will re-iterate that a controlled turn as soon as feasible after take-off such that you can see the airfield and are reducing the rate at which you are travelling away from the airfield will, if the engine then fails, significantly improve your chances on carrying out a successful forced landing on the airfield if you have the energy to do so.
If I am flying an airtest with an unproven powerplant I (and most other warbird pilots that I know) always plan to fly a climbing turn back through the overhead and perhaps fly an orbit overhead before continuing away from the airfield - just in case!
Very valid extra points, thanks. In the Tucano I always select mid flap as soon as I commence the manoeuvre so that the stick shaker is active and I then have tactile stall warning. And experience and practise are fundamental as you say.
I am fairly sure that, just like practise asymmetric flying in the Canberra, there have been far more accidents caused by practising turnbacks than there have been real EFATOs with a successful outcome as a result of mitigation by practise. It is all a judgement call based on overall experience, experience on type, recency and aircraft type characteristics. Personally, I do not practise turnbacks in aircraft such as the Spitfire because big piston engines do not like sudden power reductions from take-off power to idle, and with the big radials you cannot do that without causing serious damage to the engine due to underboosting. However, I have been very fortunate in having the opportunity over many years to practise (and teach) turnbacks in the Tucano that, I hope, will stand me in good stead if, God forbid, I have a real EFATO in one of the warbird types.
And I will re-iterate that a controlled turn as soon as feasible after take-off such that you can see the airfield and are reducing the rate at which you are travelling away from the airfield will, if the engine then fails, significantly improve your chances on carrying out a successful forced landing on the airfield if you have the energy to do so.
If I am flying an airtest with an unproven powerplant I (and most other warbird pilots that I know) always plan to fly a climbing turn back through the overhead and perhaps fly an orbit overhead before continuing away from the airfield - just in case!
Psychophysiological entity
I suppose for me, the thought of being as vertical as possible and kicking the tail over comes from being taught by a crop-spraying-VC, retired-Wing Commander. 'It's a good plane to crash in', he said . . . more than once.
At astonishing weights, he'd pull the thing so near the vertical that there was not much difference. When pointing down again, it seemed as though the next track was a matter of choice. The point being, there was no wing loading until he pulled out. So, the question has to be, Is it better to use up one's energy pulling out of the dive, or pulling g in a 180-ish turn?
Hence the flaps. The DC3 for example, felt like it had released a drag chute and was hanging on it. With no loading, the flaps went down quickly, but with a double engine failure . . .
There's a horrible sequel to the Tiger crashes. Said instructor, who was becoming a friend, purchased a specialist crop-spraying aircraft from Spain. He flicked in a died very soon after.
At astonishing weights, he'd pull the thing so near the vertical that there was not much difference. When pointing down again, it seemed as though the next track was a matter of choice. The point being, there was no wing loading until he pulled out. So, the question has to be, Is it better to use up one's energy pulling out of the dive, or pulling g in a 180-ish turn?
Hence the flaps. The DC3 for example, felt like it had released a drag chute and was hanging on it. With no loading, the flaps went down quickly, but with a double engine failure . . .
There's a horrible sequel to the Tiger crashes. Said instructor, who was becoming a friend, purchased a specialist crop-spraying aircraft from Spain. He flicked in a died very soon after.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,573
Received 422 Likes
on
222 Posts
In a previous life as an RAF QFI we were required to carry out practice turnbacks at least once a month.
Turnbacks most certainly shouldn't be the first choice of action, unless there is no other safe option.
We used to pre-brief every departure regarding actions in the event of engine failure. We considered landing into wind as the first option, unless this wasn't safe (i.e. congested area ahead, or unsuitable for other reasons, wind velocity, altitude already gained?).
So, turnbacks do need practice until the actual flying technique becomes second nature (notice I said second...) and due consideration/pre-briefed "in the event of"...
From the point of personal preservation, the idea is to risk assess whether it's better to attempt a downwind, or partially downwind landing near the fire engine, or possibly a better landing away from it...
Turnbacks most certainly shouldn't be the first choice of action, unless there is no other safe option.
We used to pre-brief every departure regarding actions in the event of engine failure. We considered landing into wind as the first option, unless this wasn't safe (i.e. congested area ahead, or unsuitable for other reasons, wind velocity, altitude already gained?).
So, turnbacks do need practice until the actual flying technique becomes second nature (notice I said second...) and due consideration/pre-briefed "in the event of"...
From the point of personal preservation, the idea is to risk assess whether it's better to attempt a downwind, or partially downwind landing near the fire engine, or possibly a better landing away from it...