Pt. Cook Fatal Accident ~1990
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Home
Posts: 100
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pt. Cook Fatal Accident ~1990
I finished reading a document written by Steve Eather in which he mentions a RAAF pilot (Mike Birks, Vietnam vet, ex-Canberras) was killed in a aircraft accident at Pt. Cook in about 1990.
A search using google has not found anything on this event. Does anyone have any facts they can share about this accident? Aircraft type, circumstances, etc.
Thanks in advance for any info...
A search using google has not found anything on this event. Does anyone have any facts they can share about this accident? Aircraft type, circumstances, etc.
Thanks in advance for any info...
I left PCK before 1990, but hazily remember hearing about a fatal in a Tiger Moth that crashed near there (something to do with how the slats were set up I think?), and perhaps a Tomahawk at some point as well? Total stabs in the dark here, but may provide some leads.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: AUSTRALIA
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Point Cook 1991 Accident
On 12 December 1991, while instructing a student in a Tiger Moth , Mike experienced an engine failure after take-off resulting in the aircraft crashing. The student survived with minor injuries; however, being in the the front seat, Mike was fatally injured when the engine moved rearwards and the fuel tank ruptured.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The 'student' was a RAAF pilot in a staff job at PCK. I think they sufferred an EFATO and GPCAPT Birks tried to turnback, resulting in a stall. Not a good idea to try a reciprocal turnback in a low performance machine like this one. You need plenty of height and smash to pull this off.
I remember being told, or reading somewhere, that the slats on the Tiger had been fixed in position rather than being allowed to extend or retract as airflow and pressure around the wing dictated (as they apparently should have - I don't know much about the type), which was cited as a contributing factor.
As I said, this is hazy recollection, but I did hear something along those lines.
As I said, this is hazy recollection, but I did hear something along those lines.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Home
Posts: 100
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thankyou JESSIE for the information. I learned to fly at Pt. Cook so it particularly caught my attention, recently, when I read the brief comment in this Vietnam air war account that Mike had died about two decades later in an accident at Pt. Cook.
So ironic to go in such a benign aircraft as a Tiger Moth after the dangers faced on a regular basis flying Canberras in VN.
JESSIE sounds like she knows exactly what she's talking about and it doesn't sound like a practice.
Dostum, if you have the name of the stud would you mind PMing it to me, please?
Was GPCAPT Birks still serving then or retired with that rank?
So ironic to go in such a benign aircraft as a Tiger Moth after the dangers faced on a regular basis flying Canberras in VN.
Pretty sure it was just a practice too
Dostum, if you have the name of the stud would you mind PMing it to me, please?
Was GPCAPT Birks still serving then or retired with that rank?
Grandpa Aerotart
AOTW I fly a Tiger regularly - probably some thing like 30 hrs in the last 6 months - and I can tell you the slats are little more than a stall indicating device when they are unlocked, which is virtually never. Many Tigers have the slats 'disarmed' via the expedient of being screwed down just to save the maintenance/rigging hassle, I assume.
The slats on the Tiger I fly are fully functional and I have played with them enough to realise they are useless and just leave them locked. I have had them pop out assymetrically because the locking device is typical 1920s pommy (somewhat less than utterly effective) half way around a roll/loop etc and you just don't notice from a handling perspective - eventually you look out and see one or the other deployed or the lever out of the full retracted/locked position so you pull it harder and lock the stupid things down again.
Just yesterday I was out doing circuits at YRED and did a number of glide approaches from downwind at 500' (why go higher when no one else is in the circuit) 'on the perch' (abeam the desired touchdown point) and the Tiger requires quite a steep nose low attitude/constant curve onto finals to get in with enough energy to flare and land.
The old joke is when flying a Tiger carry a half brick and if the engine fails;
1/. Throw out brick,
2/. Follow brick,
3/. Land, get out of cockpit quick and run away lest ye be hit on head by said half brick.
I have no knowledge of this accident but a Tiger Moth is one aeroplane that will NEVER get around the corner and back on the runway from an EFATO unless you've taken off into a howling headwind and were still over the runway at 400'. Some aircraft will, depending on a host of factors, but not this one.
This is one BIG reason why I turn left onto crosswind at 200' - 250' when departing - to stay within gliding range and have the aircraft pointed back towards the runway asap - a CASA dude watching me depart one day asked everyone who 'THAT' was after he watched me takeoff and turn early/depart the circuit off a 500' downwind (out of everyone else's way under the school traffic) rather than stooge out over the swamp to 500' in classic flying school fashion and then follow students around a circuit I could NEVER hope to reach the airfield from, let alone the runway, if the engine failed.
Of course everyone feigned ignorance and when I returned my batphone buzzed with SMSs 'warning' me. I was hoping the miscreant was still around so I could explain some facts of life regarding vintage aircraft but no such luck.
The Tiger is a wonderful aircraft but its quite literally WW1 technology - the prototype first flew around 12 years after WW1 ended. The ailerons are just a tad better than wing warping - its very easy to understand why the old girl produced so many pilots with superior airmanship in her heyday. But its not an aeroplane to be dicked around with if an engine fails - follow all the golden rules however, and lets face it those golden rules were invented when the Tigermoth was still the common trainer, and you'll be touching down in the swamp/water/trees/whatever with so little energy to dissipate the likelihood of injury is minimal.
The slats on the Tiger I fly are fully functional and I have played with them enough to realise they are useless and just leave them locked. I have had them pop out assymetrically because the locking device is typical 1920s pommy (somewhat less than utterly effective) half way around a roll/loop etc and you just don't notice from a handling perspective - eventually you look out and see one or the other deployed or the lever out of the full retracted/locked position so you pull it harder and lock the stupid things down again.
Just yesterday I was out doing circuits at YRED and did a number of glide approaches from downwind at 500' (why go higher when no one else is in the circuit) 'on the perch' (abeam the desired touchdown point) and the Tiger requires quite a steep nose low attitude/constant curve onto finals to get in with enough energy to flare and land.
The old joke is when flying a Tiger carry a half brick and if the engine fails;
1/. Throw out brick,
2/. Follow brick,
3/. Land, get out of cockpit quick and run away lest ye be hit on head by said half brick.
I have no knowledge of this accident but a Tiger Moth is one aeroplane that will NEVER get around the corner and back on the runway from an EFATO unless you've taken off into a howling headwind and were still over the runway at 400'. Some aircraft will, depending on a host of factors, but not this one.
This is one BIG reason why I turn left onto crosswind at 200' - 250' when departing - to stay within gliding range and have the aircraft pointed back towards the runway asap - a CASA dude watching me depart one day asked everyone who 'THAT' was after he watched me takeoff and turn early/depart the circuit off a 500' downwind (out of everyone else's way under the school traffic) rather than stooge out over the swamp to 500' in classic flying school fashion and then follow students around a circuit I could NEVER hope to reach the airfield from, let alone the runway, if the engine failed.
Of course everyone feigned ignorance and when I returned my batphone buzzed with SMSs 'warning' me. I was hoping the miscreant was still around so I could explain some facts of life regarding vintage aircraft but no such luck.
The Tiger is a wonderful aircraft but its quite literally WW1 technology - the prototype first flew around 12 years after WW1 ended. The ailerons are just a tad better than wing warping - its very easy to understand why the old girl produced so many pilots with superior airmanship in her heyday. But its not an aeroplane to be dicked around with if an engine fails - follow all the golden rules however, and lets face it those golden rules were invented when the Tigermoth was still the common trainer, and you'll be touching down in the swamp/water/trees/whatever with so little energy to dissipate the likelihood of injury is minimal.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yo Dawg,
I heard the name of the student some time ago, but its escapes me at the moment. I will find out this week. I believe GPCAPT Birks was serving at the time as the Chief of Staff at Training Command.
I heard the name of the student some time ago, but its escapes me at the moment. I will find out this week. I believe GPCAPT Birks was serving at the time as the Chief of Staff at Training Command.
May I suggest you DON'T try and contact the other pilot
It would seem to me obvious that they may not want to discuss it with anyone.
I'm sure you can find a report somewhere on it, but what makes you think anyone would want to be contacted over it?
It would seem to me obvious that they may not want to discuss it with anyone.
I'm sure you can find a report somewhere on it, but what makes you think anyone would want to be contacted over it?
The RAAF Museum Tiger Moth (the one that went in) had its slats permanently locked for nothing more than costs reasons. I flew several hundred hours in the RAAF as QFI on Tigers and the noise of the slats "fluttering" on short field landings plus the wind noise over the bracing wires gave students the indication that the aircraft was uncomfortably close to the stall. Slat lever unlocked was one of the vital checks for landing. I believe that most civilian owned Tiger Moths now have the slats removed to save maintenance costs. Scratch one very useful stall warning indicator.
The RAAF Point Cook fatal accident occured when the CO of the RAAF Museum was checking out another RAAF pilot who was part of the RAAF Museum complement. After a touch and go landing to the south, the Tiger Moth had climbed to about 300 feet when the instructor in the front seat closed the throttle to simulate an engine failure. There was ample space ahead to comfortably complete a forced landing but instead a turn back manoeuvre was attempted. The aircraft entered an incipient spin and crashed. The instructor in the front seat was killed but the RAAF pilot in the rear seat was only slightly hurt. He was wearing a crash helmet and the vizor was smashed when he was thrown against his straps and his face hit the padded coaming.
If the slats had been operating they would have provided a few seconds warning of the impending stall.
For many years since the Fifties, and also when the instructor did his instructors course at Central Flying School at East Sale, it was RAAF training policy to conduct a turn-back manoeuvre following an engine failure on take off, if a landing straight ahead was fraught with terrain difficulties. The turn-back manoeuvre was never taught on Tiger Moths or Wirraways during the war or post war. Then the Vampire dual trainer became part of the instructor course syllabus in the late Fifties. With the advent of Vampire training on pilot courses at Pearce and of course during instructor courses at CFS that provided the new instructors at Pearce, the powers that be introduced turn backs.
Basically, it was found that provided the Vampire reached a minimum of around 220 knots after take off there was enough energy to zoom and turn sharply back towards the departure runway. Ejection seats on those aircraft were not ground-level certified and you needed at least 300 feet to ensure a successful low level ejection.
The fact that you might be landing with a tailwind was not considered a serious event. In retrospect it was a high risk manoeuvre - but instructors at CFS enthusiastically accepted those risks as standard operating procedure. I did many practice turn backs at East Sale and most times I had to apply power to reach the airfield. The problem was that if the engine failed because of an engine seizure, the aircraft gliding characteristics were much worse than if a flame-out had occurred. Inevitably, that led to a false sense of relative security because it was not possible to effectively simulate the flying characteristics of a Vampire with an engine seizure.
The first turn back fatality happened at East Sale when a dual Vampire with two trainee instructors (but both experienced pilots) experienced an engine failure after take off and crashed short of the runway while attempting a turn back. The terrain ahead on take off was flat with fields and it would have been safer to lower the nose and take their chances landing straight ahead wheels down. As it was, both pilots were killed. With the teaching of turn backs, came the real danger of forgetting that a straight ahead landing in most cases is the safer option.
Despite this accident, CFS continued with turn back training on Vampires and in turn this was taught to students at No.1 AFTS at RAAF Base Pearce. However, solo students were not permitted to conduct practice turn backs - which confirmed the high risk nature of the manoeuvre.
CFS then introduced the turn back practice to Winjeels. Sure, it could be done with adequate height, but with the low touch down speed of a Winjeel especially into a headwind the low energy would make a straight ahead landing a safer option than ripping into a limit turn at low altitude to land downwind. The first Winjeel turn back fatality was at Point Cook. The aircraft with an instructor and student, took off on the grass strip to the south-east and at 500 feet the instructor called ATC announcing his intention to conduct a practice engine failure. Soon after, the Winjeel was seen to initiate a nose high steep turn, before entering an incipient spin. It had almost recovered when it crashed back on the airfield and burst into flames. Both pilots were unable to exit and died in the fire. I know - because I was part of the official Court of Inquiry.
Some years earlier at Townsville where I was a QFI on Lincoln aircraft, we used a Winjeel for communication flying. An experienced senior flying instructor arrived to be a flight commander on the squadron. He had been posted from CFS where he was qualified to instruct on Winjeels.
He required a dual check on the squadron Winjeel. We took off on runway 19 and on reaching 300 feet I closed the throttle to simulate engine failure, fully expecting him to lower the nose and land ahead on the ample remaining length of the runway. To my dismay and complete astonishment, he ripped the Winjeel around 180 degrees at 60 degrees angle of bank and landed in the opposite direction we had taken off from. To this day I don't know how he made it. It happened so fast I had no time to take over control and in any case, fighting to take over control would have only exacerbated the situation.
He was a senior ranking officer to me but after we stopped I remonstrated with him saying it was the most dangerous moment of my flying career. He seemed quite unconcerned and said turn backs were taught on Winjeels at Central Flying School as part of instructor training.
So, it is with this background that I have tried to explain the circumstances of the fatal accident to a senior officer at Point Cook in the Tiger Moth when he decided to "test" the competency of his experienced student by setting up a turn back from a very low altitude. Since the very first flying machine got airborne, it has always been considered good airmanship to land straight ahead following an engine failure on take off unless exceptional circumstances dictate otherwise.
The RAAF Point Cook fatal accident occured when the CO of the RAAF Museum was checking out another RAAF pilot who was part of the RAAF Museum complement. After a touch and go landing to the south, the Tiger Moth had climbed to about 300 feet when the instructor in the front seat closed the throttle to simulate an engine failure. There was ample space ahead to comfortably complete a forced landing but instead a turn back manoeuvre was attempted. The aircraft entered an incipient spin and crashed. The instructor in the front seat was killed but the RAAF pilot in the rear seat was only slightly hurt. He was wearing a crash helmet and the vizor was smashed when he was thrown against his straps and his face hit the padded coaming.
If the slats had been operating they would have provided a few seconds warning of the impending stall.
For many years since the Fifties, and also when the instructor did his instructors course at Central Flying School at East Sale, it was RAAF training policy to conduct a turn-back manoeuvre following an engine failure on take off, if a landing straight ahead was fraught with terrain difficulties. The turn-back manoeuvre was never taught on Tiger Moths or Wirraways during the war or post war. Then the Vampire dual trainer became part of the instructor course syllabus in the late Fifties. With the advent of Vampire training on pilot courses at Pearce and of course during instructor courses at CFS that provided the new instructors at Pearce, the powers that be introduced turn backs.
Basically, it was found that provided the Vampire reached a minimum of around 220 knots after take off there was enough energy to zoom and turn sharply back towards the departure runway. Ejection seats on those aircraft were not ground-level certified and you needed at least 300 feet to ensure a successful low level ejection.
The fact that you might be landing with a tailwind was not considered a serious event. In retrospect it was a high risk manoeuvre - but instructors at CFS enthusiastically accepted those risks as standard operating procedure. I did many practice turn backs at East Sale and most times I had to apply power to reach the airfield. The problem was that if the engine failed because of an engine seizure, the aircraft gliding characteristics were much worse than if a flame-out had occurred. Inevitably, that led to a false sense of relative security because it was not possible to effectively simulate the flying characteristics of a Vampire with an engine seizure.
The first turn back fatality happened at East Sale when a dual Vampire with two trainee instructors (but both experienced pilots) experienced an engine failure after take off and crashed short of the runway while attempting a turn back. The terrain ahead on take off was flat with fields and it would have been safer to lower the nose and take their chances landing straight ahead wheels down. As it was, both pilots were killed. With the teaching of turn backs, came the real danger of forgetting that a straight ahead landing in most cases is the safer option.
Despite this accident, CFS continued with turn back training on Vampires and in turn this was taught to students at No.1 AFTS at RAAF Base Pearce. However, solo students were not permitted to conduct practice turn backs - which confirmed the high risk nature of the manoeuvre.
CFS then introduced the turn back practice to Winjeels. Sure, it could be done with adequate height, but with the low touch down speed of a Winjeel especially into a headwind the low energy would make a straight ahead landing a safer option than ripping into a limit turn at low altitude to land downwind. The first Winjeel turn back fatality was at Point Cook. The aircraft with an instructor and student, took off on the grass strip to the south-east and at 500 feet the instructor called ATC announcing his intention to conduct a practice engine failure. Soon after, the Winjeel was seen to initiate a nose high steep turn, before entering an incipient spin. It had almost recovered when it crashed back on the airfield and burst into flames. Both pilots were unable to exit and died in the fire. I know - because I was part of the official Court of Inquiry.
Some years earlier at Townsville where I was a QFI on Lincoln aircraft, we used a Winjeel for communication flying. An experienced senior flying instructor arrived to be a flight commander on the squadron. He had been posted from CFS where he was qualified to instruct on Winjeels.
He required a dual check on the squadron Winjeel. We took off on runway 19 and on reaching 300 feet I closed the throttle to simulate engine failure, fully expecting him to lower the nose and land ahead on the ample remaining length of the runway. To my dismay and complete astonishment, he ripped the Winjeel around 180 degrees at 60 degrees angle of bank and landed in the opposite direction we had taken off from. To this day I don't know how he made it. It happened so fast I had no time to take over control and in any case, fighting to take over control would have only exacerbated the situation.
He was a senior ranking officer to me but after we stopped I remonstrated with him saying it was the most dangerous moment of my flying career. He seemed quite unconcerned and said turn backs were taught on Winjeels at Central Flying School as part of instructor training.
So, it is with this background that I have tried to explain the circumstances of the fatal accident to a senior officer at Point Cook in the Tiger Moth when he decided to "test" the competency of his experienced student by setting up a turn back from a very low altitude. Since the very first flying machine got airborne, it has always been considered good airmanship to land straight ahead following an engine failure on take off unless exceptional circumstances dictate otherwise.
Last edited by Centaurus; 13th Jun 2010 at 15:28.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Home
Posts: 100
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Centuarus... thankyou, that was an interesting and extremely well-written post. Streets ahead of the usual standard here at PPRUNE.
I had the turnback demonstrated to me at 1FTS but was not allowed to perform it myself. From a safe vantage point here on the ground, performing a turnback from 300ft in a Tigermoth is a frightening concept.
Your post is an illustration of many of the positive and not-so-positive aspects of FTS and CFS competencies and initiatives. The B707 accident (which killed two of my contemporaries) is another case in point.
I did not previously know ANY details of the accident which killed GPCAPT Birks. As stated in post 1, after reading an interesting account of air-warfare, my intent was merely to enquire into the nature of the accident which claimed the life of a war-veteran pilot.
Thankyou for all of the replies which have provided accurate information.
Dostum, thanks for that.
Ozbiggles, please calm down; it is not my intention to contact anyone or, indeed, to re-open any can of worms.
Ozbiggles, if you're confused, then re-read the initial post. Having spent time in the RAAF, I was interested to know the details including the stud's name in case it was someone with whom I had crossed paths over the years since.
Please do not try to make it into any more of a drama than that.
I had the turnback demonstrated to me at 1FTS but was not allowed to perform it myself. From a safe vantage point here on the ground, performing a turnback from 300ft in a Tigermoth is a frightening concept.
Your post is an illustration of many of the positive and not-so-positive aspects of FTS and CFS competencies and initiatives. The B707 accident (which killed two of my contemporaries) is another case in point.
I did not previously know ANY details of the accident which killed GPCAPT Birks. As stated in post 1, after reading an interesting account of air-warfare, my intent was merely to enquire into the nature of the accident which claimed the life of a war-veteran pilot.
Thankyou for all of the replies which have provided accurate information.
Dostum, thanks for that.
Ozbiggles, please calm down; it is not my intention to contact anyone or, indeed, to re-open any can of worms.
Ozbiggles, if you're confused, then re-read the initial post. Having spent time in the RAAF, I was interested to know the details including the stud's name in case it was someone with whom I had crossed paths over the years since.
Please do not try to make it into any more of a drama than that.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Victoria
Age: 62
Posts: 984
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Centuarus,
Good post mate.
. Thought so
Recprocal turnbacks were never even mentioned to us as students on the
CT4A at PCK. On the Macchi at 2FTS they were flown for QFI practice only, i.e. not taught or demonstrated to students.
However when I arrived at 2FTS as a PC9 QFI I reckoned (although I wasn't aware of it at the time) the wheel had turned. During sorties with other QFIs (i.e. SCT) it was the "done" thing to simulate an engine failure at ~500FT AGL and to fly a reciprocal turnback. Quite often this involved ~60 degrees AoB and pulling to the light buffet. Bl**dy lunacy, really.
During my second tour there my take-off emergency brief had changed in that I would not attempt a reciprocal turnback below ~ 1,000FT AGL in the event of an engine failure after take-off. The M.B. Mk11 is a pretty good seat
(0 FT/60KT).
However the reciprocal turnback must have a strong allure. Have had a few junior QFIs turn up at Tamworth briefing that they would try it in the CT4B. Not with me they won't!
I don't know Mike Birks and I don't wish to speak ill of the dead, however this accident typifies the attitude of some where ego overcomes common sense.
Good post mate.
the instructor in the front seat closed the throttle to simulate an engine failure
Recprocal turnbacks were never even mentioned to us as students on the
CT4A at PCK. On the Macchi at 2FTS they were flown for QFI practice only, i.e. not taught or demonstrated to students.
However when I arrived at 2FTS as a PC9 QFI I reckoned (although I wasn't aware of it at the time) the wheel had turned. During sorties with other QFIs (i.e. SCT) it was the "done" thing to simulate an engine failure at ~500FT AGL and to fly a reciprocal turnback. Quite often this involved ~60 degrees AoB and pulling to the light buffet. Bl**dy lunacy, really.
During my second tour there my take-off emergency brief had changed in that I would not attempt a reciprocal turnback below ~ 1,000FT AGL in the event of an engine failure after take-off. The M.B. Mk11 is a pretty good seat
(0 FT/60KT).
However the reciprocal turnback must have a strong allure. Have had a few junior QFIs turn up at Tamworth briefing that they would try it in the CT4B. Not with me they won't!
I don't know Mike Birks and I don't wish to speak ill of the dead, however this accident typifies the attitude of some where ego overcomes common sense.
Good thought-provoking stuff, Centaurus and CSD.
Turnbacks can be an option in the pre-takeoff safety brief, but only in some types under some conditions.
It's possible to perform a safe reciprocal turnback in a CT4 from 800 ft or so, but only if there's 10 kt or more blowing you back towards the runway, you get the turn going quickly, very carefully watch your speed, don't pull too hard etc etc...in short, something of a party trick, where you would most probably be far better off to not even attempt it and land ahead into wind.
I bet in the real case I'd waste a good few seconds in dumbfounded disbelief before acting, by which time it would be too late to turn anyway.
The landing speed's low, it's made to land on grass, so unless there's total tiger country ahead a turnback's not sensible.
In the circuit from crosswind - certainly; you're already half-way round the turn and the possibility becomes obvious.
It becomes a trade-off when you talk about higher-performance types, though - when you have more glide potential, combined with the likelihood of rolling or flipping it on landing with fuel and oxy going up, there's certainly a good case to be made for planning to turn back with clear cut-off heights.
I don't think it's unreasonable to consider turnbacks as long as we're realistic about things like our probable reaction time, and the safe gliding turn capability of the aircraft type (things which can be explored at a safe height in the area, for example).
It's good to discuss these things, even though it's sparked off by a sad fatal accident. Respects to the poor bloke in question.
Turnbacks can be an option in the pre-takeoff safety brief, but only in some types under some conditions.
It's possible to perform a safe reciprocal turnback in a CT4 from 800 ft or so, but only if there's 10 kt or more blowing you back towards the runway, you get the turn going quickly, very carefully watch your speed, don't pull too hard etc etc...in short, something of a party trick, where you would most probably be far better off to not even attempt it and land ahead into wind.
I bet in the real case I'd waste a good few seconds in dumbfounded disbelief before acting, by which time it would be too late to turn anyway.
The landing speed's low, it's made to land on grass, so unless there's total tiger country ahead a turnback's not sensible.
In the circuit from crosswind - certainly; you're already half-way round the turn and the possibility becomes obvious.
It becomes a trade-off when you talk about higher-performance types, though - when you have more glide potential, combined with the likelihood of rolling or flipping it on landing with fuel and oxy going up, there's certainly a good case to be made for planning to turn back with clear cut-off heights.
I don't think it's unreasonable to consider turnbacks as long as we're realistic about things like our probable reaction time, and the safe gliding turn capability of the aircraft type (things which can be explored at a safe height in the area, for example).
It's good to discuss these things, even though it's sparked off by a sad fatal accident. Respects to the poor bloke in question.