EFATO - Turn back?
Guest
Posts: n/a
EFATO - Turn back?
Has anybody else seen this web page on turnback manoeuvres?It basically claims that if PPL's are taught the right strategy to fly, they stand a good chance of making a successful turnback following EFATO. OK, we all know that the golden rule, at least in civil pilot training, is never turn back, but..... there are places where landing ahead is a pretty unattractive option (sea, woods, urban etc.). I've tried the turn as recommended on the web site (45 deg bank, ball in middle, close to stall as judged by stall warner) in a C150 (as an upper-air exercise). I typically lose 200 to 250ft for a 210deg heading change, and nothing bad has happened so far. I'm not planning to practice this low down, but if I were faced with a real EFATO at, say, 500ft agl with nowhere nice to land ahead, I think I would be tempted to try my hand.
I'd be interested to hear what you think. Reasoned answers rather than flaming preferred (flameproof pants in the wash
). It would be particularly interesting to hear from anyone who has turned back successfully following a real EFATO. I understand that RAF pilots get taught this method anyway, but the average skill level is obviously higher than in the PPL pilot population.
AD
------------------
If God had meant us to fly he would have given us more money
I'd be interested to hear what you think. Reasoned answers rather than flaming preferred (flameproof pants in the wash
). It would be particularly interesting to hear from anyone who has turned back successfully following a real EFATO. I understand that RAF pilots get taught this method anyway, but the average skill level is obviously higher than in the PPL pilot population.AD
------------------
If God had meant us to fly he would have given us more money
Guest
Posts: n/a
I have not read the report, but have saved it to digest later.
However, I have contributed several times on other forums, on this topic and it is difficult to get reasoned response.
I was taught the turn back technique in the eighties while flying Bulldogs on a UAS ( sorry the UAS!). It was not taught as a matter of routine, but to those more advanced (able?) students whom the instructors felt comfortable teaching it to. The instructors were taught it formally and were tested on it during annual 'trappers' trips.
The first thing to bear in mind is that it is a pre-briefed decision, based on the upwind obstacle situation. It is not a robotic response. As I recall, the brief, if it were decided to include a turnback, would be along the lines of this;
"Engine failure up to 200', land straight ahead. Between 200 and 450', land within 30 degrees of runway heading. Above 450' turn back to the left/right (into any cross-wind)"
The aim is not to necessarily land on the reciprocal runway, but to arrive on the aerodrome, where rescue services are at hand, and ripping the wheels off may be a better option than arriving in the master bedroom of 23 Acacia avenue.
The technique was as follows (I recall)
Immediately lower the nose to maintain 80 KIAS (Vy) and simultaneously roll 45 degrees of bank in the pre-briefed direction.
Do the above using instruments to ensure accuracy, and stay on instruments.
Select inter flap and pull to just nibble the light buffet= max rate of turn for min energy loss.
After 90 degrees of turn, look out to assess likely landing area and concentrate on the landing.
If time permits carry out shut down checks.
Initially the technique was practised at altitude, till perfected, then practised in anger at 450-500'. The lower DA made it easier, which helped.
A student doing this would be very current in aerobatics and spin (full, up to 8 turns) recovery, so would be well up to speed with handling the a/c close to the stall. This was aided by the fact that the stall warner was disabled to teach the student to really feel the true stages of stalling, rather than relying on a pathetic whining somewhat prematurely.
I would not recommend a PPL doing a turnback when confronted by a suprise EFATO and never having practised the technique.
Fortunately, I never had to use it for real, but our CFI had occasion to when a student selected fuel to off in the climb out. He turned back from 350' and landed in some heather resulting in Cat 2 damage. The alternative would have been a forest. QED
[This message has been edited by 212man (edited 05 April 2000).]
However, I have contributed several times on other forums, on this topic and it is difficult to get reasoned response.
I was taught the turn back technique in the eighties while flying Bulldogs on a UAS ( sorry the UAS!). It was not taught as a matter of routine, but to those more advanced (able?) students whom the instructors felt comfortable teaching it to. The instructors were taught it formally and were tested on it during annual 'trappers' trips.
The first thing to bear in mind is that it is a pre-briefed decision, based on the upwind obstacle situation. It is not a robotic response. As I recall, the brief, if it were decided to include a turnback, would be along the lines of this;
"Engine failure up to 200', land straight ahead. Between 200 and 450', land within 30 degrees of runway heading. Above 450' turn back to the left/right (into any cross-wind)"
The aim is not to necessarily land on the reciprocal runway, but to arrive on the aerodrome, where rescue services are at hand, and ripping the wheels off may be a better option than arriving in the master bedroom of 23 Acacia avenue.
The technique was as follows (I recall)
Immediately lower the nose to maintain 80 KIAS (Vy) and simultaneously roll 45 degrees of bank in the pre-briefed direction.
Do the above using instruments to ensure accuracy, and stay on instruments.
Select inter flap and pull to just nibble the light buffet= max rate of turn for min energy loss.
After 90 degrees of turn, look out to assess likely landing area and concentrate on the landing.
If time permits carry out shut down checks.
Initially the technique was practised at altitude, till perfected, then practised in anger at 450-500'. The lower DA made it easier, which helped.
A student doing this would be very current in aerobatics and spin (full, up to 8 turns) recovery, so would be well up to speed with handling the a/c close to the stall. This was aided by the fact that the stall warner was disabled to teach the student to really feel the true stages of stalling, rather than relying on a pathetic whining somewhat prematurely.
I would not recommend a PPL doing a turnback when confronted by a suprise EFATO and never having practised the technique.
Fortunately, I never had to use it for real, but our CFI had occasion to when a student selected fuel to off in the climb out. He turned back from 350' and landed in some heather resulting in Cat 2 damage. The alternative would have been a forest. QED
[This message has been edited by 212man (edited 05 April 2000).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
Practicing with the engine throttled back is one thing, the extra drag of a windmilling prop is another.
Many have tried turnbacks in the past and most of them have almost made it.
Statistically there have been less serious accidents to those who land straight ahead or to one side than those attempting turnbacks. From that point of view, teaching turnbacks to PPLs would be very unwise.
Many have tried turnbacks in the past and most of them have almost made it.
Statistically there have been less serious accidents to those who land straight ahead or to one side than those attempting turnbacks. From that point of view, teaching turnbacks to PPLs would be very unwise.
Guest
Posts: n/a
There is also this report which is worth a read ( www.adventureair.com/pub/asp/8740-44.html )
Try it at a couple of thousand feet and time the glide turn and note the height loss - if nothing else it proves to yourself so that your brain won't let the idea creep in at the time of crisis.
Try it at a couple of thousand feet and time the glide turn and note the height loss - if nothing else it proves to yourself so that your brain won't let the idea creep in at the time of crisis.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Careful guys. This is a very dodgy subject. The RAF are taught it but as stated they tend to be a lot more current than some of us average punters. I have tried the turn back as part of an annual check at height and it worked well. However what the outcome would be if I were to try the same thing lower down with the added stress of a real EFATO doesn't leave much to the imagination. This is a good subject but the land ahead option with a little jinking must be the way ahead. Even our highly trained Air Force have had problems with turn backs.
------------------
------------------
Guest
Posts: n/a
The C.P. where I did my Instructors course found himself with a cracked crankshaft shortly after take off with nothing but a housing estate ahead. He performed a Turn-Back getting it back into the field, albeit not on the runway, with both occupants walking away. He was ex-C.F.S. but has been out for years.
I can see it being a fine line and one I always thought was a definate no-no but my mind has been changed and I will be trying it out at height.
Partly because of above story and partly due to visiting a certain field in Kent today. It wasn't until 800' off R02 did I feel we would stand a chance of clearing the houses and preverbial Primary School!!
I can see it being a fine line and one I always thought was a definate no-no but my mind has been changed and I will be trying it out at height.
Partly because of above story and partly due to visiting a certain field in Kent today. It wasn't until 800' off R02 did I feel we would stand a chance of clearing the houses and preverbial Primary School!!
Guest
Posts: n/a
Nice to see a civilised discussion on the subject for a change.
Ref the "impossible turn" article, I saw it published in PILOT a few years ago, and was intrigued by the figures and diagrams.
Basically whatever the numbers say, it can be done. Forget rate one after a couple of seconds of "what happened there?", it's got to be a very positive response to an anticipated problem. The key is to be prepared and in current practice on the a/c type. It certainly is not to be attempted by Mr '12 hours per year' following an EFATO on climb out one sunday morning whilst chatting to his pax with his thumb up his bum.
It was taught on the JP in the RAF because below about 1000', I think, the ejection seat was outside it's envelope in a glide, and therefore it was the only option.
Common sense should have the final say.
------------------
Another day in paradise
[This message has been edited by 212man (edited 07 April 2000).]
Ref the "impossible turn" article, I saw it published in PILOT a few years ago, and was intrigued by the figures and diagrams.
Basically whatever the numbers say, it can be done. Forget rate one after a couple of seconds of "what happened there?", it's got to be a very positive response to an anticipated problem. The key is to be prepared and in current practice on the a/c type. It certainly is not to be attempted by Mr '12 hours per year' following an EFATO on climb out one sunday morning whilst chatting to his pax with his thumb up his bum.
It was taught on the JP in the RAF because below about 1000', I think, the ejection seat was outside it's envelope in a glide, and therefore it was the only option.
Common sense should have the final say.
------------------
Another day in paradise
[This message has been edited by 212man (edited 07 April 2000).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
Thanks for some useful comments guys. 
The report on Adventureair.com that Gear Up Shut Up refers to is pretty biased in the numbers assumed - the essence of the 45 deg bank turnback is that it has to be flown SLOWLY - i.e. as close to CLmax, and the stall, as you can. You can make the numbers look very unattractive if you assume the pilot will add a fat safety margin on speed. Holding a C150 in a 45 degree gliding turn, with the stall warner sounding gently, typically gives me about 60knots. Also, a starting height of 300ft agl is too low, I certainly would need to be very desperate to try from there! Good point someone made about the extra drag from a windmilling prop in a real EFATO.
It seems to me that the bottom line would be - only turnback if the only alternative is likely to be a life/limb threatening crash. However, in that rare event, the chances of survival must be improved if the pilot knows what the optimum strategy is - the chap who follows his/her untutored instincts and makes a gentle rate 1 turn is doomed.
AD
------------------
If God had meant us to fly he would have given us more money
The report on Adventureair.com that Gear Up Shut Up refers to is pretty biased in the numbers assumed - the essence of the 45 deg bank turnback is that it has to be flown SLOWLY - i.e. as close to CLmax, and the stall, as you can. You can make the numbers look very unattractive if you assume the pilot will add a fat safety margin on speed. Holding a C150 in a 45 degree gliding turn, with the stall warner sounding gently, typically gives me about 60knots. Also, a starting height of 300ft agl is too low, I certainly would need to be very desperate to try from there! Good point someone made about the extra drag from a windmilling prop in a real EFATO.
It seems to me that the bottom line would be - only turnback if the only alternative is likely to be a life/limb threatening crash. However, in that rare event, the chances of survival must be improved if the pilot knows what the optimum strategy is - the chap who follows his/her untutored instincts and makes a gentle rate 1 turn is doomed.
AD
------------------
If God had meant us to fly he would have given us more money
Guest
Posts: n/a
I donīt teach it. I donīt practice it at low level. I was taught it on a UAS. I used to teach it on Motor Gliders. I had a partial engine failure (severe rough running, heavy vibration unable to maintain height, suspect stuck exhaust valves) and naturally the decent field was just dissapearing behind me. In front a busy golf course heavily wooded. I nibbled a turn through 180 degrees and limped back to base and the engine came back to normal operation on me after 30 seconds or so.
My position is that it would be wise for FIīs to be proficient in turnbacks and silently self brief for them. I am spoilt at the moment for fields to pop into but at my last base on one runway in certain conditions it would be turnback or doesnīt bear thinking about...
Nice that there has been no flaming on this one.
WWW
My position is that it would be wise for FIīs to be proficient in turnbacks and silently self brief for them. I am spoilt at the moment for fields to pop into but at my last base on one runway in certain conditions it would be turnback or doesnīt bear thinking about...
Nice that there has been no flaming on this one.
WWW
Guest
Posts: n/a
Point Cook RAAF Base Date circa 1962. Turn-backs practiced as a matter of course in Winjeels and Vampires. I was on subsequent Court of Inquiry when practice turn back from 400 ft resulted in incipient spin and heavy crash landing just inside the airfield fence. Aircraft caught fire on impact. Both instructor and student survived impact but burnt to death because canopy jammed. Fire crews watched helplessly. Circa 1960 now. Vampire crashed short of runway at East Sale following turn back. Unsure whether practice or real engine failure. Either way, both pilots killed on impact.
I disliked teaching turn-backs but it was part of CFS syllabus. As far as I am concerned it was a flashy mascho manoeuvre which was never the subject of measured flight test by a qualified ETPS test pilot. Many times we undershot after practice turn back and had to salvage it with power hurriedly applied. Real bad news with sometimes 15 knot downwind landing.
Fine in theory and maybe handy to have it up your sleeve - but it is a potentially dangerous manoeuvre which is best left to discussions on these pages rather than practicing bleeding. I understand the RAAF CFS still practice the manoeuvre in PC9 and the Royal Flying Doctor Service also do it on proficiency and conversion flying on the PC12. Best of luck to them - but not for this little black duck...
I disliked teaching turn-backs but it was part of CFS syllabus. As far as I am concerned it was a flashy mascho manoeuvre which was never the subject of measured flight test by a qualified ETPS test pilot. Many times we undershot after practice turn back and had to salvage it with power hurriedly applied. Real bad news with sometimes 15 knot downwind landing.
Fine in theory and maybe handy to have it up your sleeve - but it is a potentially dangerous manoeuvre which is best left to discussions on these pages rather than practicing bleeding. I understand the RAAF CFS still practice the manoeuvre in PC9 and the Royal Flying Doctor Service also do it on proficiency and conversion flying on the PC12. Best of luck to them - but not for this little black duck...
Guest
Posts: n/a
It can be done, at sixty degrees of bank, nose low attitude for speed ,at 500 agl not for the uncurrent.Below 500agl it is best to land as slow as the aircraft will fly straight ahead .With a shoulder hareness on you should be able to crawl away,the aircraft will now blong to the insurance company.
Guest
Posts: n/a
2 cents worth from the military QFI stable.
Yes we teach it - but its strictly controlled, briefed and initiated.
Real case, windmilling prop, reaction times, over-controlling due stress, checks and r/t...not to mention the higher rate of descent (even after completing the turn back)
Its a good exercise to extend the cognative and psychomotor skills of students...but lets not forget the aim of an EFATO.
Save life...sod the aircraft.
Play with fire - get fingers burnt!Great thread, hope to see more of this type.
Yes we teach it - but its strictly controlled, briefed and initiated.
Real case, windmilling prop, reaction times, over-controlling due stress, checks and r/t...not to mention the higher rate of descent (even after completing the turn back)
Its a good exercise to extend the cognative and psychomotor skills of students...but lets not forget the aim of an EFATO.
Save life...sod the aircraft.
Play with fire - get fingers burnt!Great thread, hope to see more of this type.
Guest
Posts: n/a
A couple of comments: There are a lot of factors at play, so this is not a manoevre that should be considered by anyone who is not well trained, in practice, and level-headed. The factors are wind speed (no point in turning back if there is a strong headwind, which will turn into a strong tailwind, because 1) there is agreater chance of stall in the turn, 2) more height will be lost in the turn, 3) a landing (or crash) straight ahead will be relatively slow, and 4) the tailwind landing will be fast.)
The next factor is wing loading: the higher the wing loading the more dodgy the manoeuvre - powered gliders are best!
Then there is height: At 2000 ft anyone can make a turn back. You might not make the field, though, and a fast downwind landing short of the field will be bad news, so the factor really is "height and distance".
I reckon if you add all these postings up you end up with a pretty sensible and comprehensive summary of the prospects for a 180 EFATO turn.
Best, maybe, to make the crosswind turn as quickly as you can!
Ho Lee
The next factor is wing loading: the higher the wing loading the more dodgy the manoeuvre - powered gliders are best!
Then there is height: At 2000 ft anyone can make a turn back. You might not make the field, though, and a fast downwind landing short of the field will be bad news, so the factor really is "height and distance".
I reckon if you add all these postings up you end up with a pretty sensible and comprehensive summary of the prospects for a 180 EFATO turn.
Best, maybe, to make the crosswind turn as quickly as you can!
Ho Lee
Guest
Posts: n/a
If the vertical impact is surviveable the horizontal needs to be also.
Consider a light aircraft that would touch down at 55 kts IAS. If there is a 15 kt wind on your unlucky day your "straight ahead" groundspeed will be 40 kts. A landing downwind would give you a groundspeed of 70 kts...I know which I would prefer, V squared and all that.
How often have you practised downwind landings on a runway, let alone elsewhere? Best you are certain of making a successful turn into a clear area for touchdown and the subsequent ground assisted deceleration. A fencepost between the legs will hurt at any speed...
Speaking as an ex-mil QFI previously required to practise these once a month..a turnback may always be considered but in reality it is a "no alternative" manoeuvre only. We were not allowed to fly these to touchdown in the Bulldog (although they were allowed in the Hawk for a "roller" only. Are they still? If not, someone will no doubt have stuffed one up. Didn't this result in a Hawk fatal at Chivenor?). I have flown some for practice that would, for real, no doubt have resulted in my not being in a position to recount the tale due to poor touchdown options...you can't always make the runway, just the airfield.
This is the reason for that old saying "nothing so useless as the runway behind you" and why we were all taught to use the the full length of it for departure.
------------------
Fly safe!
Consider a light aircraft that would touch down at 55 kts IAS. If there is a 15 kt wind on your unlucky day your "straight ahead" groundspeed will be 40 kts. A landing downwind would give you a groundspeed of 70 kts...I know which I would prefer, V squared and all that.
How often have you practised downwind landings on a runway, let alone elsewhere? Best you are certain of making a successful turn into a clear area for touchdown and the subsequent ground assisted deceleration. A fencepost between the legs will hurt at any speed...
Speaking as an ex-mil QFI previously required to practise these once a month..a turnback may always be considered but in reality it is a "no alternative" manoeuvre only. We were not allowed to fly these to touchdown in the Bulldog (although they were allowed in the Hawk for a "roller" only. Are they still? If not, someone will no doubt have stuffed one up. Didn't this result in a Hawk fatal at Chivenor?). I have flown some for practice that would, for real, no doubt have resulted in my not being in a position to recount the tale due to poor touchdown options...you can't always make the runway, just the airfield.
This is the reason for that old saying "nothing so useless as the runway behind you" and why we were all taught to use the the full length of it for departure.
------------------
Fly safe!
Guest
Posts: n/a
Excellent thread folks...and no flaming...nice one....
Lets not forget the fact that as well as all the above you could be turning back into a whole lot of trouble regarding guys commencing their take off rolls / rotations / landings etc, especially at a busy training aerodrome.
Teroc.
Lets not forget the fact that as well as all the above you could be turning back into a whole lot of trouble regarding guys commencing their take off rolls / rotations / landings etc, especially at a busy training aerodrome.
Teroc.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Had one at 300' once, after a full brf prior to T/O. The time it took to discover that the failing was actualy with the A/C as opposed to the student was huge (compared to that avaliable), sub ground idle power for 16 seconds and still I didn't pull the handle. I like to think I would have, but the spool up was audible after about 10secs. The reality is that I'll never know. It's all well and good practising it at 300' far less 3000, the reality is far from similar. Bottom line, SHAR guy after throwing away the sea bird when asked when he decided to eject answered... 12 years ago. It's worth considering, I didn't.
Guest
Posts: n/a
212man's 4th paragraph sums it up as follows:
"It is a pre-briefed decision".
Quite rightly so. When I did my initial multi-engine training and was introduced to the concept of a pre take-off safety brief, one of the first things I remember thinking to myself was: "If it's good enough for two engine aeroplanes, why isn't it good enough for one?" Why is it that no-one takes the time to emphasise the importance (and obvious benefits) of teaching students to conduct a pre take-off safety brief in any aeroplane, irrespective of number of engines?
If a pilot makes the effort to do so, he/she is already streets ahead of the crowd in being better prepared to deal with the worst case scenario if and when it eventually happens. I'm neither endorsing or dismissing the turn-around technique here. But if it is part of the take-off brief, i.e. "Will I or won't I" / "If I will, at what height will I do it" / "If not, what are my landing options ahead of the runway" etc - surely this is a more positive step in dealing with the situation.
"It is a pre-briefed decision".
Quite rightly so. When I did my initial multi-engine training and was introduced to the concept of a pre take-off safety brief, one of the first things I remember thinking to myself was: "If it's good enough for two engine aeroplanes, why isn't it good enough for one?" Why is it that no-one takes the time to emphasise the importance (and obvious benefits) of teaching students to conduct a pre take-off safety brief in any aeroplane, irrespective of number of engines?
If a pilot makes the effort to do so, he/she is already streets ahead of the crowd in being better prepared to deal with the worst case scenario if and when it eventually happens. I'm neither endorsing or dismissing the turn-around technique here. But if it is part of the take-off brief, i.e. "Will I or won't I" / "If I will, at what height will I do it" / "If not, what are my landing options ahead of the runway" etc - surely this is a more positive step in dealing with the situation.
Guest
Posts: n/a
PapaSmurf, Not sure where you are coming from! This was always mentioned (during my time at any rate, up until 1992)in the RAF single-engined pre-takeoff safety brief, jet and piston. Perhaps you weren't flying with the right guys.
------------------
Fly safe!
------------------
Fly safe!