EFATO turn back
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Queensland
Posts: 632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Its all BS. engine failure at say 200..... fuel pump, carby heat, check mags, cycle the throttle and oh yes don't forget the mayday call and pax brief, you're down to 150 at best.....wake up you guys, put the thing down straight ahead. You have some chance by a controlled F/L and absolutely no chance if you go in uncontrolled. In these circumstances the stall spin is inviting such an outcome. For you young instructors....pull the throttle very regularly to get the student into the "habit". Make sure you're capable and pull the power at 100, 200, 300 etc Get the guys reactions for the time given!! Believe me it doesn't always go by the text book. For you blokes that do AFR's .....perfect opportunity to get them up to speed. Give them value when doing the revue, you just may save his and the lives of others. I'll always remember one very senior (in experience and age) pilot saying to me "well what would you like me to do now" when I failed his donk at 150'!! 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I did my gfpt at Hervey bay 2000m strip, had the instructor teach me to turn back, he and I could do it quite successfully . problem is, I realized , we had a lot of runway beneath us still at 500ft which sets me up for a big surprise on a shorter strip ,i would never contemplate it below 500 , not I anything I fly part time !
I can't believe people are still defending this.
The only time turn backs are appropriate in a single is in a higher performance turbine, at a company with appropriate SOPs and C&T to back it up - such as RFDS.
It should not be taught, or encouraged in light singles.
Demonstrating it to pilots gives them false confidence that it can be achieved no matter what the varaibles. In reality, the manoeuvre becomes infinitely more dangerous with even small changes in wind, runway length, aircraft weight/takeoff performance, pilot reaction time, pilot ability, and stress of dealing with a real emergency.
I'd much rather take my chances 100% of the time in a straight ahead landing touching down at 50 knots in a tree canopy, than the possible stall/spin/crash/burn scenario of a turn back. Teach a pilot to do it from 1000' on a 1500m runway, I guarantee if it happens at 800' on a 1200m runway, he's going to give it a go (and probably kill himself and passengers in the process).
And whoever decides I'm a fool, I challenge you to one of two things:
a) demonstrate one at 500' in your C172 or PA28... on a 500m runway on a nil wind day (without dying); or
b) explain how you accurately calculate the minimum turn back altitude to elect in your takeoff briefing (let's assume 900m runway, 5 knot headwind, at MTOW).
Chief Pilots who teach this s**t should immediately lose their approvals from CASA.
The only time turn backs are appropriate in a single is in a higher performance turbine, at a company with appropriate SOPs and C&T to back it up - such as RFDS.
It should not be taught, or encouraged in light singles.
Demonstrating it to pilots gives them false confidence that it can be achieved no matter what the varaibles. In reality, the manoeuvre becomes infinitely more dangerous with even small changes in wind, runway length, aircraft weight/takeoff performance, pilot reaction time, pilot ability, and stress of dealing with a real emergency.
I'd much rather take my chances 100% of the time in a straight ahead landing touching down at 50 knots in a tree canopy, than the possible stall/spin/crash/burn scenario of a turn back. Teach a pilot to do it from 1000' on a 1500m runway, I guarantee if it happens at 800' on a 1200m runway, he's going to give it a go (and probably kill himself and passengers in the process).
And whoever decides I'm a fool, I challenge you to one of two things:
a) demonstrate one at 500' in your C172 or PA28... on a 500m runway on a nil wind day (without dying); or
b) explain how you accurately calculate the minimum turn back altitude to elect in your takeoff briefing (let's assume 900m runway, 5 knot headwind, at MTOW).
Chief Pilots who teach this s**t should immediately lose their approvals from CASA.
Bas, if you read further the higher twin fatality rate is contributed to asymetric loss of control. You're unlikely to lose control of a single unless you stall or spin through actions such as a turn back.
Was once told you're better off landing it right way up wings level, than end up upside down due to loss of control. Easy to see which is more survivable.
MilFlyer - glad you deleted your post. No need to bash your competitor like the way you did.
Was once told you're better off landing it right way up wings level, than end up upside down due to loss of control. Easy to see which is more survivable.
MilFlyer - glad you deleted your post. No need to bash your competitor like the way you did.
Drifting,
Yep, love the drift on campaign policy from
"We will win because we make up the best stories about Newman"
to
"OK, we're stuffed, but please don't let them win too badly.....please."
Maybe if they didn't govern so badly.....lesson, Jooliar?
Drift over.
SP has some merit here.
Let's not make this a willy measuring contest with, "I can do it at xxx feet!"
Might as well see how many kilos overweight you can fly with.
It'll all end in tears.
Btw, how many turbine fatalities this year (multi or single)?
Anyone?
Just to prove those stats are the status quo?
Are not American. Thank you.
Yep, love the drift on campaign policy from
"We will win because we make up the best stories about Newman"
to
"OK, we're stuffed, but please don't let them win too badly.....please."
Maybe if they didn't govern so badly.....lesson, Jooliar?
Drift over.
SP has some merit here.
Let's not make this a willy measuring contest with, "I can do it at xxx feet!"
Might as well see how many kilos overweight you can fly with.
It'll all end in tears.
Btw, how many turbine fatalities this year (multi or single)?
Anyone?
Just to prove those stats are the status quo?
Are not American. Thank you.
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Melbourne
Age: 60
Posts: 952
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Agree with Slippery Pete 100%! I can't believe that we're even discussing this.
Well that's just great, PAF, but unless you're in a RAAF aircraft, departing from a RAAF airfield, having gone through RAAF training, and are current in that training then the point you're trying to make is irrelevant to this thread.
DIVOSH!
Fact remains. The RAAF use and teach turn backs in the right circumstances. It's practised, and responsible.
DIVOSH!
Why 500' ? Can I demonstrate at 1000' ?
Why not take one altitude as standard? If you agree there's places where the runway of departure is your only clear landing option you will also agree there is an altitude where even you would go for it.
Try it out at altitude and you will find the sweet spot. For a C172 now that you mention it is 45 deg of bank.
Why not take one altitude as standard? If you agree there's places where the runway of departure is your only clear landing option you will also agree there is an altitude where even you would go for it.
Try it out at altitude and you will find the sweet spot. For a C172 now that you mention it is 45 deg of bank.
Standard? What's standard about a turnback? Especially the pilot. As for suggesting
a) a one size fits all approach
and
b) facts or figures that aren't quoted in the POH;
You will be leaving yourself open for a liability suit if someone stuffs it up.
"Biggles said to do it this way."
"Where is that in the Manual?"
"It's not."
"Oh, is Biggles a test pilot?"
"No."
See where it's going?
I have no problems with getting to know your a/c's abilities (at altitude was an excellent suggestion), but low level turnbacks are DANGEROUS.
Last edited by MakeItHappenCaptain; 31st Mar 2012 at 22:56. Reason: Unqualified statement
I guess the turn around during an Efato at Pearce is also a more serious consideration because if it does turn to worms, you always have the Martin baker letdown option......not many ga pilots have that
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Australia
Age: 51
Posts: 931
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How can you take 1 altitude as standard?
Thats dumb.. Too many variables, or we going to apply some of the yankee rules of thumb here?
Whilst I am not an advocate of turning back, in some cases it might just be a damm good idea, and easily achievable, but that is experience/training etc etc etc.
It seems to me, that people are tunnel visioning to straight ahead or return to the runway, what happened to assessing the departure and constantly reviewing options? No different to on a nav...................
As someone who initially trained on gliders, the options available are often over looked by the power community.
Land ahead? Sh0e whats at 90 degrees? Don't know about you guys, but i'd rather slide into a clear area well over max x-wind and tear the legs off it than hit an imovable obect.
What about other options on the field?. I.e cross strips........the grassed area......when the sh0e hits the fan, who says you need a runway, you just want a clear area to splat onto.
I'll use Essendon Rwy 17 as an example, it quits....is rwy 26 not an option?
Some one mentioned a failure at 800' and a 1200 metre rwy...that situation I'd be looking to head for the cross strip.
A glider pilot is trained slightly differently in their pre-launch (take-off) preparations include a pre-planned action in the event of a launch failure.
As an example, Flying a Pilatus PC-11 with 5 knots on the nose and a 4000' strip, the pre-launch self brief reads.....
In the event of a winch failure, i will lower the nose trim for 55 knots and release remaining cable.
Up to 300' i will then apply full airbrake and land straight ahead.
After 300 and up to 500 i will land in a paddock outside the perimeter fence.
After 500 feet I will turn and fly an abbreviated circuit onto the cross strip
After 800 feet I will fly a modified circuit to return to the runway I departed from.
It isn't perfect, but it gives you a start point, esp when low time. Damm sight easier to teach someone to constantly evaluate their options than it is to teach em a turn back. In flying power today, i don't do the emergency brief to myself like i do in gliders, but during my departure I do constantly evaluate where i am going if the fan stops.
===========================
Twin stats vs single stats.
CROC!!!!!
Do a simple recalculation based on 2 new categories. Training, non training.
You take the training stats out, and the twin is infinately safer...........we all know the most dangerous thing about a twin is assymetric training.
A good single engine friend of mine, who thinks twins are dangerous, loves the saying "the second engine will only carry you to the scene of the accident", he managed to utter it to a guy with 15k+ hours on light twins, his response was gold.... "only if you let it"
Bottoms up!
Jas
Thats dumb.. Too many variables, or we going to apply some of the yankee rules of thumb here?
Whilst I am not an advocate of turning back, in some cases it might just be a damm good idea, and easily achievable, but that is experience/training etc etc etc.
It seems to me, that people are tunnel visioning to straight ahead or return to the runway, what happened to assessing the departure and constantly reviewing options? No different to on a nav...................
As someone who initially trained on gliders, the options available are often over looked by the power community.
Land ahead? Sh0e whats at 90 degrees? Don't know about you guys, but i'd rather slide into a clear area well over max x-wind and tear the legs off it than hit an imovable obect.
What about other options on the field?. I.e cross strips........the grassed area......when the sh0e hits the fan, who says you need a runway, you just want a clear area to splat onto.
I'll use Essendon Rwy 17 as an example, it quits....is rwy 26 not an option?
Some one mentioned a failure at 800' and a 1200 metre rwy...that situation I'd be looking to head for the cross strip.
A glider pilot is trained slightly differently in their pre-launch (take-off) preparations include a pre-planned action in the event of a launch failure.
As an example, Flying a Pilatus PC-11 with 5 knots on the nose and a 4000' strip, the pre-launch self brief reads.....
In the event of a winch failure, i will lower the nose trim for 55 knots and release remaining cable.
Up to 300' i will then apply full airbrake and land straight ahead.
After 300 and up to 500 i will land in a paddock outside the perimeter fence.
After 500 feet I will turn and fly an abbreviated circuit onto the cross strip
After 800 feet I will fly a modified circuit to return to the runway I departed from.
It isn't perfect, but it gives you a start point, esp when low time. Damm sight easier to teach someone to constantly evaluate their options than it is to teach em a turn back. In flying power today, i don't do the emergency brief to myself like i do in gliders, but during my departure I do constantly evaluate where i am going if the fan stops.
===========================
Twin stats vs single stats.
CROC!!!!!
Do a simple recalculation based on 2 new categories. Training, non training.
You take the training stats out, and the twin is infinately safer...........we all know the most dangerous thing about a twin is assymetric training.
A good single engine friend of mine, who thinks twins are dangerous, loves the saying "the second engine will only carry you to the scene of the accident", he managed to utter it to a guy with 15k+ hours on light twins, his response was gold.... "only if you let it"
Bottoms up!
Jas
Grandpa Aerotart
And whoever decides I'm a fool, I challenge you to one of two things:
a) demonstrate one at 500' in your C172 or PA28... on a 500m runway on a nil wind day (without dying);
a) demonstrate one at 500' in your C172 or PA28... on a 500m runway on a nil wind day (without dying);
C172 is what I was taught to do them in - I would want to be a fair bit higher in a Pa28 than a 172.
bearing in mind that the pilot killed at Caboolture was a 747 Captain, ie. experienced, and see what happened?
Saying that a 180 turn back to the departure runway is suicide no matter the circumstances is just plain ignorant.
It depends.
Having said all that I AM NOT AN ADVOCATE of teaching them to inexperienced pilots. I am also not real sure about putting that video up here again - if only because you always worry in the back of your mind that some pilot who is not as skilled as he would like to be will decide that if CC can do it so can he.
I showed Jaba it could be done in HIS aeroplane because he asked me about it and I knew from previous experience flying his RV10 that, given its general gliding characteristics, it was highly likely HIS aircraft could do it quite well....and it can. We simulated a bunch at a safe height first.
We also had a very long conversation centered around the risks involved and the circumstances under which it MIGHT be an acceptable choice.
Last edited by Chimbu chuckles; 31st Mar 2012 at 17:51.
Of course there are a multitude of factors, and things that make it extremely risky for pilots of light (or very light) aircraft is the lack of momentum, and the lack of speed above the stall.
Take for example something like a Jabiru or Skyfox. Climbout at 65 KIAS and have an EFATO. Not only do you have to rapidly lower the nose to the descent attitude (and we all know what that looks like, right folks?) but you will have already lost speed before you got there, and will have to lower the nose even further to gain it back - in this example to a 65kt glide.
Then if you want to do a steep glide turn you have to lower the nose even further due to drag, maintain balance, be aware of the increase in stall speed and look where you are going. Many qualified pilots have difficulty doing these things in a normal powered steep turn.
Now add stress, the 3 second 'Ohfark' delay factor, briefing the pax, checklist items, securing your harness, opening the door etc, and many of us simply don't have the time or capacity.
By all means give it a go if you think it's worth a shot, but be brutally honest and realistic in your self appraisal of your own ability, and the flight envelope of your aircraft.
Take for example something like a Jabiru or Skyfox. Climbout at 65 KIAS and have an EFATO. Not only do you have to rapidly lower the nose to the descent attitude (and we all know what that looks like, right folks?) but you will have already lost speed before you got there, and will have to lower the nose even further to gain it back - in this example to a 65kt glide.
Then if you want to do a steep glide turn you have to lower the nose even further due to drag, maintain balance, be aware of the increase in stall speed and look where you are going. Many qualified pilots have difficulty doing these things in a normal powered steep turn.
Now add stress, the 3 second 'Ohfark' delay factor, briefing the pax, checklist items, securing your harness, opening the door etc, and many of us simply don't have the time or capacity.
By all means give it a go if you think it's worth a shot, but be brutally honest and realistic in your self appraisal of your own ability, and the flight envelope of your aircraft.
Which brings us back to energy and performance.
Energy to gain altitude or maintain a turn. Performance in a glide.
Where you learn has bearing on your attitude. If you learn at Redo with a 2800ft strip and surrounded on three sides by mudflat and or mangrove, you will have a different attitude to an AIRTC cadet that learns in a traumahawk at AMB off an 11000ft strip. EFATO at Redo, [edit]I was taught NEVER to turn back!
EN has enormous potential to return to ANYWHERE on the field after an EFATO, or anywhere in the circuit, similarly MB.....unless you are an "Airline Trainee"
Redo, A PA-18 will be around 400ft at the upwind end of the strip. A C150 will be more like 200ft, equally, a C182. Options? What's the altimeter reading in the RV-10 at Redo, Jaba?
Whatever the altimeter says at the upwind end of the field on climbout dictates if a return to the field after EFATO is possible. In the scenario given by CC in Jaba's RV-10...where are you in relation to the field at 400ft? Below 400ft? Even Jaba is looking for options 45 degrees either side of the wind direction....well, he should be.(EDIT- 400ft...800m strip..video...Duuuu)
Energy to gain altitude or maintain a turn. Performance in a glide.
Where you learn has bearing on your attitude. If you learn at Redo with a 2800ft strip and surrounded on three sides by mudflat and or mangrove, you will have a different attitude to an AIRTC cadet that learns in a traumahawk at AMB off an 11000ft strip. EFATO at Redo, [edit]I was taught NEVER to turn back!
EN has enormous potential to return to ANYWHERE on the field after an EFATO, or anywhere in the circuit, similarly MB.....unless you are an "Airline Trainee"
Redo, A PA-18 will be around 400ft at the upwind end of the strip. A C150 will be more like 200ft, equally, a C182. Options? What's the altimeter reading in the RV-10 at Redo, Jaba?
Whatever the altimeter says at the upwind end of the field on climbout dictates if a return to the field after EFATO is possible. In the scenario given by CC in Jaba's RV-10...where are you in relation to the field at 400ft? Below 400ft? Even Jaba is looking for options 45 degrees either side of the wind direction....well, he should be.(EDIT- 400ft...800m strip..video...Duuuu
)
Last edited by OZBUSDRIVER; 31st Mar 2012 at 22:41.
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
twin is safer, for me
Bas, if you read further the higher twin fatality rate is contributed to asymetric loss of control. You're unlikely to lose control of a single unless you stall or spin through actions such as a turn back.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Mel-burn
Posts: 4,875
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's all fun in theory until you take off into a 10+ knot headwind or crosswind. What makes it far more dangerous is that you may not even know what wind is up there until you are in it.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
It's all fun in theory until you take off into a 10+ knot headwind or crosswind.
Perhaps a 10 knot crosswind from the right helps you get that horse training track to the 10 o'clock.
Part of the things CC and I learned the day we made that video, was that from 500' with a gentle headwind, was we would crash into the fence at the far end of RWY24. So I could slip a bit onve the runway was assured, I could land in the longer grass off the edge of the runway area, I could zig zag a little, but running into the fence at the far end of the strip trumps all the other alternatives by a country mile
Think about this stuff, fly with a capable instructor or mentor and try the performance of your regular type, and Know your aeroplane.
Join Date: May 2011
Location: in the country
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A lot trees around off the end of the runway YCAB. Maybe he thought a turn back gave him some chance versus no chance straight ahead.
I used to hear the turn back speal from new instructors during standardization and proficency checks. Use to ask the same ol' questions about where is in the F.M., day VFR syllabus as well as have you actually done it before. Generally the answer was no to all followed by "that was what my instructor taught" (the brief, not the procedure).
I reckon some of these school are still doing it because no one there has been killed attempting one yet!
So what happens when ol' mate gets his/her licence with this mindset of turning back at 500 or whatever. It might have been fine in C172 or PA28, but ol' mate now flys a Cherokee 6 or some other streamlined anvil!
Does the RAAF still teach turn back? I have heard otherwise with the preferred procedure being zoom-trim-boom!
I used to hear the turn back speal from new instructors during standardization and proficency checks. Use to ask the same ol' questions about where is in the F.M., day VFR syllabus as well as have you actually done it before. Generally the answer was no to all followed by "that was what my instructor taught" (the brief, not the procedure).
I reckon some of these school are still doing it because no one there has been killed attempting one yet!
So what happens when ol' mate gets his/her licence with this mindset of turning back at 500 or whatever. It might have been fine in C172 or PA28, but ol' mate now flys a Cherokee 6 or some other streamlined anvil!
Does the RAAF still teach turn back? I have heard otherwise with the preferred procedure being zoom-trim-boom!
Don't get me wrong Chimbu - I have great respect for you and your background, and what you bring to this forum.
But I just disagree.
Next time, if Jaba has an EFATO from 300' on the same runway, will he be able to resist the temptation to have a go? What if it happens at 400', but the wind gradient is substantially less than what it was when you took your video?
I don't think anyone has said this. In fact, many have said it can and should be done safely under certain conditions - such as the RFDS. What I do believe is that teaching or encouraging it provides false hope to pilots who can not manage the large number of variables involved and when faced with a real emergency, may try to turn back when the numbers just don't add up.
Exactly how much is a "fair bit higher"? 374'? 221'?
Exactly. Those who are likening a light GA single to the RAAF PC9 operation aren't comparing apples with apples.
But I just disagree.
How about an RV10 from 400' back onto an 800m runway? We have video of that.
Saying that a 180 turn back to the departure runway is suicide no matter the circumstances is just plain ignorant.
C172 is what I was taught to do them in - I would want to be a fair bit higher in a Pa28 than a 172.
I guess the turn around during an Efato at Pearce is also a more serious consideration because if it does turn to worms, you always have the Martin baker letdown option......not many ga pilots have that
Those who are likening a light GA single to the RAAF PC9 operation aren't comparing apples with apples.