EFATO turn back
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 768
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wonder why the USAF teach , land straight ahead gear up for EFATO immediately after T/O single non bang seat aircraft up to and below 1000 AGL provided a straight ahead on rwy remaining is not available ?
It is in their training manuals
In any event the object of the exercise once it all goes quiet it the preservation of life of all concerned.
The aircraft belongs to the Insurer the pilot and pax hopefully walk away wiser folk on the day.
It is in their training manuals
In any event the object of the exercise once it all goes quiet it the preservation of life of all concerned.
The aircraft belongs to the Insurer the pilot and pax hopefully walk away wiser folk on the day.
Bas,
You don't understand the "Australian Way", do you.
You keep letting facts get in the way.
Don't you realise that, when the facts clash with you misconceptions, miseducation, and mistraining, covered by a thin veneer of racial prejudice about anything that comes out of US (or anywhere else but Australia, really) you should ignore the facts --- .
Given an "average" pilot, in the event of an engine failure, you stand a greater chance of being involved in a fatal accident if the failure is in a light twin.
Likewise, an attempted turnback in a single has a greater probability of a fatal outcome than continuing straight ahead.
There are numerous studies on this subject.
As T-28D says, the USAF have a clear approach, all about risk minimization. And isn't that the deciding factor, risk minimization.
There is no doubt, under ideal circumstances, a turnback is possible, I've done it myself at YSBK ---- but the situation was ideal, including an aeroplane that had me at almost 1000 ft crossing the western boundary. The laws of physics are not subject to concessions or variations.
But, the fact remains, the accident record is clear, except in exceptional circumstances, continue straight ahead --- .
Tootle pip!!
You don't understand the "Australian Way", do you.
You keep letting facts get in the way.
Don't you realise that, when the facts clash with you misconceptions, miseducation, and mistraining, covered by a thin veneer of racial prejudice about anything that comes out of US (or anywhere else but Australia, really) you should ignore the facts --- .
Given an "average" pilot, in the event of an engine failure, you stand a greater chance of being involved in a fatal accident if the failure is in a light twin.
Likewise, an attempted turnback in a single has a greater probability of a fatal outcome than continuing straight ahead.
There are numerous studies on this subject.
As T-28D says, the USAF have a clear approach, all about risk minimization. And isn't that the deciding factor, risk minimization.
There is no doubt, under ideal circumstances, a turnback is possible, I've done it myself at YSBK ---- but the situation was ideal, including an aeroplane that had me at almost 1000 ft crossing the western boundary. The laws of physics are not subject to concessions or variations.
But, the fact remains, the accident record is clear, except in exceptional circumstances, continue straight ahead --- .
Tootle pip!!
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Oz
Posts: 126
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Options ?
Reference the original post and the impressionable students...
I think you will find the discussion 'over a beer' was more to give the prospect of winning a no win scenario - if there are no more options - ie A one way strip or Tiger Country Departure. I would rather know ALL options available to me should the need arise. Our school used to teach the no turn below 500', (inside +/- 30) however demonstrations and discussions of other options are a necessary learning tool. It leads to better SA, the fact is 99% of the time the better option and decision will be in the direction of flight - but ............. .Specific Aerodrome departure briefs are a must, a rote recited spiel of a piece of paper or wannabe QRH is more dangerous.
2c
Ta
I think you will find the discussion 'over a beer' was more to give the prospect of winning a no win scenario - if there are no more options - ie A one way strip or Tiger Country Departure. I would rather know ALL options available to me should the need arise. Our school used to teach the no turn below 500', (inside +/- 30) however demonstrations and discussions of other options are a necessary learning tool. It leads to better SA, the fact is 99% of the time the better option and decision will be in the direction of flight - but ............. .Specific Aerodrome departure briefs are a must, a rote recited spiel of a piece of paper or wannabe QRH is more dangerous.
2c
Ta
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 768
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bottom line is it is all about staying alive and protecting those with you and those on the ground in your proposed flight path.
Hero's don't turn back, they look after all involved, you can get another Airplane, you can't replace people.
Risk mitigation, you should practice it in every thing you do, it becomes a way of thinking that will save your tush.
Hero's don't turn back, they look after all involved, you can get another Airplane, you can't replace people.
Risk mitigation, you should practice it in every thing you do, it becomes a way of thinking that will save your tush.
Who needs to turn back when you can auto!!
You wouldn't be able to call yourself a public servant after such an event
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Victoria
Age: 62
Posts: 984
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They don't at BFTS... Which is conducted in SE pistons.
It's practiced with regularity at RAAF Pearce.. successfully...
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.
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
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.
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.
Grandpa Aerotart
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?
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'?
I am reasonably certain that, in all the cases I know of personally, the difference between successful turnbacks (including a real one I did) and unsuccessful turnbacks, was the successful ones were done by people who had practiced them in the aircraft type concerned and thus absolutely KNEW the parameters required, were comfortable in their ability to fly it and, in my case at least, it was a better option than straight ahead into tall timber/houses etc.
The unsuccessful ones were, I think, spontaneous.
I will ask the person I know who nearly died trying one. The other people I know are dead, were non pilot passengers - and the individual concerned was apparently a pretty indifferent pilot, from what his instructors told me.
I have personal knowledge of 4 - two successful and two where people died in one and nearly died in the other. 'Experience' in terms of any metric you care to use seems to have been irrelevant. One that worked perfectly was the instructor that taught them to me - massively experienced individual. The other was me and at the time I had about 250TT. The breakdown of the two that went horribly wrong is very similar.
Don't take that to indicate I think the whole deal is a coin toss - I don't.
Last edited by Chimbu chuckles; 1st Apr 2012 at 09:22.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 622
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Back in the late 80's/ early 90's when I was both a student and an instructor at YSBK, anything below 1000' look for some to and 45 degrees left or right of the nose, so of 11 you will use the land just inside the airport or the playing fields between the airport or the trotting track. Of 29 you would go for the golf course.
1000' or more a turn back to the airport (not just the departure runway) was the option. So rather than trying to aim for the departure runway landing across or adjust to a runway was a far better option. Of runway 11 you could then aim for the 29 run-up bays or the old 23 runway (which were the wide taxiways between the runways) or of 29 the grass areas near the 36 or 18 thresholds.
1000' or more a turn back to the airport (not just the departure runway) was the option. So rather than trying to aim for the departure runway landing across or adjust to a runway was a far better option. Of runway 11 you could then aim for the 29 run-up bays or the old 23 runway (which were the wide taxiways between the runways) or of 29 the grass areas near the 36 or 18 thresholds.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Slippery Pete,
The exercise we practised and then executed proved one thing. It proved what the MINIMUM was.
Some of you guys get all bent out of shape over only half the story
.
T28D has mentioned the USAF talk about a minimum of 1000' and for the equipment concerned that is probably a MINIMUM requirement to execute with some buffer margins.
Now think about this all for a bit more. Lets say my MINIMUM after doing tests is actually 500' does that mean I would not do say a 90 degree turn at 400' if that is where a good option is. I would be rightly pissed off at myself if there was a perfectly good turf farm at 90 or even 120 degrees that I could make easily and I went straight ahead into houses or forrestry just becuase you guys said so.
I have said this countless times, and I am sure CC is sick of it too, but KNOW YOUR AEROPLANE and do some practise. I do from time to time, traffic permitting try to emulate CC and his perfect energy management trick of flying a crosswind join, full circuit and landing in the TDZ without adding thrust. It is quite fun!
After initial training, it does not mean you have learnt it all and that is all you should stick to ya know!
The exercise we practised and then executed proved one thing. It proved what the MINIMUM was.
Some of you guys get all bent out of shape over only half the story
.T28D has mentioned the USAF talk about a minimum of 1000' and for the equipment concerned that is probably a MINIMUM requirement to execute with some buffer margins.
Now think about this all for a bit more. Lets say my MINIMUM after doing tests is actually 500' does that mean I would not do say a 90 degree turn at 400' if that is where a good option is. I would be rightly pissed off at myself if there was a perfectly good turf farm at 90 or even 120 degrees that I could make easily and I went straight ahead into houses or forrestry just becuase you guys said so.
I have said this countless times, and I am sure CC is sick of it too, but KNOW YOUR AEROPLANE and do some practise. I do from time to time, traffic permitting try to emulate CC and his perfect energy management trick of flying a crosswind join, full circuit and landing in the TDZ without adding thrust. It is quite fun!
After initial training, it does not mean you have learnt it all and that is all you should stick to ya know!
Grandpa Aerotart
NOSIGN thanks for finding that - its about the best ever explanation I have read and covers ALMOST everything...while showing quite well that the 'variables' aren't the endless list you see some suggesting. Did someone on this thread REALLY say you'd be checking your harness during an EFATO?
ALMOST?
Yes, I am constantly surprised when these articles either skip over or ignore flap in the turn to lower Vs.
When I was taught the 'turn back' my instructor would randomly close the throttle on climb and the 'memory items' were.
1/. Do nothing while saying "Oh fck, Oh fck, Oh fck, Oh fck" (just more fun than counting "1 thousand, 2 thousand and 3 thous...")
2/. Lower the nose and slap down full flap.
3/. Roll into a 60 degree bank and 'help' the aeroplane around the corner. Remember those electric flaps are grinding their way out the entire way around the turn...which as the article suggests is about 10 seconds. You were not hauling back on the stick...the AoB was high but the wing loading wasn't. You are NOT trying to do a level steep turn, you WANT to lose height - so the well known 'Vs increases by X% at Y AoB' is not valid.
4/. When around the corner use flaps and prop pitch, if you have it, to modify your glide profile.
The above works great in a C152/172/182.
WITH PRACTICE I could,
1/. Get around the corner - say through 200 degrees of turn - in about 150' (C152), around 200-250' (C182) and in a C172 somewhere in between. I actually managed it in about 80' in a C152 once - musta been in a thermal or something
2/. I could fly it smoothly and accurately - PRACTICE is the key - NO ONE can do it spontaneously.
The above is of NO USE in a Pa28, Cherokee 6, C210, Bonanza etc etc.
Or Jaba's RV10.
Where did the 'legend' of the 'impossible turn' come from?
Yesterday I was chatting to my father and this subject came up because he is retired QF and I thought he may have known the chap at YCAB.
"Oh when I was learning to fly it was ABSOLUTELY drummed into us NEVER turn back ALWAYS pick somewhere +/- 30 degrees and land"
And his instructors were absolutely 100% correct.
My Dad learned to fly on Tiger Moths, Percival Prentice and Harvard in the RAF in 1950.
In those aeroplanes it REALLY is the 'impossible turn'. The Tiger Moth glides like a house brick and the Harvard is not much better with a wicked stall to boot.
Where did virtually all the Instructors, the people who wrote the text books and syllabi, in the early post WW2 years, and ALL the DCA Examiners of Airmen of the 50s, 60s and 70s learn to fly?
In the RAAF on Tiger Moths and Harvards.
Dad has been utterly convinced of the veracity of the impossible turn meme for 62 years. When I pointed out/reminded him about the Tiger/Harvard, and that modern trainers have had most of the bite designed out of them, he replied "Actually you're right...when I was converting onto Vampires one of my class mates had an engine failure after takeoff and made it back to the runway easily and was commended for his flying"
Clearly that Vampire student was a critical thinker. I don't know but I would bet folding money he had thought about it and practiced at a safe altitude. In the time frame this happened Vampire's had no ejection seats and two seaters, if they existed at all other than on a drawing board, were yet to be put in squadron service so NO dual. They sat you in the aircraft and a bunch of erks hung off the tail to show the nascent Vampire ace what the landing attitude looked like (they were straight off Harvards and Spitfires - nose draggers were a mystery) and away they went.
I think that had the military pilots of WW2 learned to fly in C152s the legend of the impossible turn would never have been born - we might have lost the war however.
As Jaba pointed out tonight on skype it has become like the LOP debate.
LOP will burn valves!!! No it won't....yes my instructor/a LAME told me X years ago...but now we have engine monitors and balanced injectors?...LOP WILL BURN VALVES!!!!!
After much thought I am going to post a link to the vid - only because I am convinced many posters don't even know what a turn back looks like (its not a ragged edge, hairy piece of stunt flying its a smooth, precise and gentle manouver) and all they have to go on is what was drummed into them.
Its starts off with the last bit of one of those glide approaches that Jaba mentioned...they're fun.
Then we did a turn back from 500' and then one from 400'. You will see the 3-4 second hesitation while I was saying "Oh fck, oh fck"
Any prop RPM variation you see is me 'managing' drag with the prop lever to fine tune my approach...or in the case of the turn back from 500' madly trying to get down before I ran out of airfield.
ALMOST?
Yes, I am constantly surprised when these articles either skip over or ignore flap in the turn to lower Vs.
When I was taught the 'turn back' my instructor would randomly close the throttle on climb and the 'memory items' were.
1/. Do nothing while saying "Oh fck, Oh fck, Oh fck, Oh fck" (just more fun than counting "1 thousand, 2 thousand and 3 thous...")
2/. Lower the nose and slap down full flap.
3/. Roll into a 60 degree bank and 'help' the aeroplane around the corner. Remember those electric flaps are grinding their way out the entire way around the turn...which as the article suggests is about 10 seconds. You were not hauling back on the stick...the AoB was high but the wing loading wasn't. You are NOT trying to do a level steep turn, you WANT to lose height - so the well known 'Vs increases by X% at Y AoB' is not valid.
4/. When around the corner use flaps and prop pitch, if you have it, to modify your glide profile.
The above works great in a C152/172/182.
WITH PRACTICE I could,
1/. Get around the corner - say through 200 degrees of turn - in about 150' (C152), around 200-250' (C182) and in a C172 somewhere in between. I actually managed it in about 80' in a C152 once - musta been in a thermal or something
2/. I could fly it smoothly and accurately - PRACTICE is the key - NO ONE can do it spontaneously.
The above is of NO USE in a Pa28, Cherokee 6, C210, Bonanza etc etc.
Or Jaba's RV10.
Where did the 'legend' of the 'impossible turn' come from?
Yesterday I was chatting to my father and this subject came up because he is retired QF and I thought he may have known the chap at YCAB.
"Oh when I was learning to fly it was ABSOLUTELY drummed into us NEVER turn back ALWAYS pick somewhere +/- 30 degrees and land"
And his instructors were absolutely 100% correct.
My Dad learned to fly on Tiger Moths, Percival Prentice and Harvard in the RAF in 1950.
In those aeroplanes it REALLY is the 'impossible turn'. The Tiger Moth glides like a house brick and the Harvard is not much better with a wicked stall to boot.
Where did virtually all the Instructors, the people who wrote the text books and syllabi, in the early post WW2 years, and ALL the DCA Examiners of Airmen of the 50s, 60s and 70s learn to fly?
In the RAAF on Tiger Moths and Harvards.
Dad has been utterly convinced of the veracity of the impossible turn meme for 62 years. When I pointed out/reminded him about the Tiger/Harvard, and that modern trainers have had most of the bite designed out of them, he replied "Actually you're right...when I was converting onto Vampires one of my class mates had an engine failure after takeoff and made it back to the runway easily and was commended for his flying"
Clearly that Vampire student was a critical thinker. I don't know but I would bet folding money he had thought about it and practiced at a safe altitude. In the time frame this happened Vampire's had no ejection seats and two seaters, if they existed at all other than on a drawing board, were yet to be put in squadron service so NO dual. They sat you in the aircraft and a bunch of erks hung off the tail to show the nascent Vampire ace what the landing attitude looked like (they were straight off Harvards and Spitfires - nose draggers were a mystery) and away they went.
I think that had the military pilots of WW2 learned to fly in C152s the legend of the impossible turn would never have been born - we might have lost the war however.
As Jaba pointed out tonight on skype it has become like the LOP debate.
LOP will burn valves!!! No it won't....yes my instructor/a LAME told me X years ago...but now we have engine monitors and balanced injectors?...LOP WILL BURN VALVES!!!!!
After much thought I am going to post a link to the vid - only because I am convinced many posters don't even know what a turn back looks like (its not a ragged edge, hairy piece of stunt flying its a smooth, precise and gentle manouver) and all they have to go on is what was drummed into them.
Its starts off with the last bit of one of those glide approaches that Jaba mentioned...they're fun.
Then we did a turn back from 500' and then one from 400'. You will see the 3-4 second hesitation while I was saying "Oh fck, oh fck"
Any prop RPM variation you see is me 'managing' drag with the prop lever to fine tune my approach...or in the case of the turn back from 500' madly trying to get down before I ran out of airfield.
Last edited by Chimbu chuckles; 1st Apr 2012 at 18:35.
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: South of the border
Age: 53
Posts: 82
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CT4 Turnbacks
CSD:
I'm calling you out on that one mate. I've done a bunch, both in the -B and -E variants. Both airplanes can fairly comfortably get back on the ground from throttle idle above 500'AGL. From a brakes release takeoff in a 10 knot headwind, the -E is limited by overrunning the runway threshold when you turn back, and therefore you are better landing straight ahead. The -B, with its slower rate of climb, didn't have the same problem.
Caveat: this is in a planned, briefed scenario. Given the inevitable three-second "WTF"? delay, I'd suggest a current and competent pilot should consider a turnback from 700' AGL and above as one of his options.
A 180° turn back in a CT4 may be practiced on instructors course at Sale. The only real training benefit of this is to show the trainee QFI that trying to turn back during an EFATO in a CT4 will get you killed.
Caveat: this is in a planned, briefed scenario. Given the inevitable three-second "WTF"? delay, I'd suggest a current and competent pilot should consider a turnback from 700' AGL and above as one of his options.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Capt Johns,
Do you think over running the end of the runway, on the ground, all intact is a worse option than taking your chances on ground outside the airfield? Over run at say 20 knots vs scrub or an industrial estate at 60?
Unless you have a golf course or turf farm of course.
Do you think over running the end of the runway, on the ground, all intact is a worse option than taking your chances on ground outside the airfield? Over run at say 20 knots vs scrub or an industrial estate at 60?
Unless you have a golf course or turf farm of course.
Nosign,
That is one of Barry's older articles.
I see he mentions much of what is in the article below.
The one I was referring to was April 2011issue, found here--
Technique: Unconventional Wisdom
I think this clearly states the method considered and how to practice it and the essential criteria for attempting to use it should the need ever arise.
Note the warnings given as well,..... carefully!!
As a few have suggested this may only be a safe option for an experienced pilot who is well trained, practiced and knows his aircraft capabilities very well.
Not for ab initio students, novices etc.
Perhaps this type of methodology is used by RFDS for eg in their PC12s?? Anyone know??
If not it may be worth their consideration, a pro organization such as that only flying 1 SE type should be able to work out the required numbers as stated in the article and train for it accordingly.
That is one of Barry's older articles.
I see he mentions much of what is in the article below.
The one I was referring to was April 2011issue, found here--
Technique: Unconventional Wisdom
I think this clearly states the method considered and how to practice it and the essential criteria for attempting to use it should the need ever arise.
Note the warnings given as well,..... carefully!!
As a few have suggested this may only be a safe option for an experienced pilot who is well trained, practiced and knows his aircraft capabilities very well.
Not for ab initio students, novices etc.
Perhaps this type of methodology is used by RFDS for eg in their PC12s?? Anyone know??
If not it may be worth their consideration, a pro organization such as that only flying 1 SE type should be able to work out the required numbers as stated in the article and train for it accordingly.
Last edited by aussie027; 1st Apr 2012 at 19:48.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Queensland
Posts: 686
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Something I've always wondered about - how much if any difference does it make to the glide of single engine aircraft when the engine is producing zero power, ie fuel or mixture off. Fairly frequently I operate out of short strips. I always have my LAME set the idle at the lowest allowable revs. The difference between a low idle and a higher setting is quite noticeable in the distance needed to stop. On a few occasions I have even turned one magneto off after touch down, to shorten the ground roll. I guess my question to Jabba and others who have experimented with turn-backs is: Have you experimented (at a decent height of course) to compare the descent rate between an idling engine and a dead engine?
Cheers, RA
Cheers, RA
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Mel-burn
Posts: 4,875
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Excellent point Rutan.
In most cases there is less drag on an "off" engine than an idling one. I've noticed that on a number of occasions. You'll notice this if you have to do an engine-off landing.
I would go as far as to suggest that a number of engine failure out-landings have gone bad because the pilot has over-shot the landing area by under-estimating his gliding range.
In most cases there is less drag on an "off" engine than an idling one. I've noticed that on a number of occasions. You'll notice this if you have to do an engine-off landing
.I would go as far as to suggest that a number of engine failure out-landings have gone bad because the pilot has over-shot the landing area by under-estimating his gliding range.
Wouldn't there be more drag from a wingmilling prop than a stopped one? The problem is the prop at idle (if set to a higher RPM setting) might create a small amount of thrust.
If the strip is that short that you've got to play with the switches you probably shouldn't be landing in there anyway. Probably more important things to be concentrating on.
If the strip is that short that you've got to play with the switches you probably shouldn't be landing in there anyway. Probably more important things to be concentrating on.
Yes Chimbu, if I was about to touch down in trees or run through a fence or highway, I would definitely be pulling my harness another notch tighter.
Added: One company I worked for ditched a Cessna into the sea. Being the dodgy Cessna seatbelt design, the shoulder strap slipped off the piddly buckle before or during the impact, leaving only the lap strap restraining pilot. Head slammed into the panel. He later died in the arms of the other crewmember whilst in the water. Sometimes that harness just can't be tight enough when forced landing.
Added: One company I worked for ditched a Cessna into the sea. Being the dodgy Cessna seatbelt design, the shoulder strap slipped off the piddly buckle before or during the impact, leaving only the lap strap restraining pilot. Head slammed into the panel. He later died in the arms of the other crewmember whilst in the water. Sometimes that harness just can't be tight enough when forced landing.
Last edited by Runaway Gun; 2nd Apr 2012 at 00:52. Reason: More to add
I just tried an experiment. Both myself and my student tried a turnback at a safe altitude. He lost 700ft.
I was able to get round on the 3rd try with 400ft loss, rolling hard into 60 deg steep turn, but still IAS came down from 74 to 63 kts even with significant forward pressure to keep the wings unloaded, rolled bast the 180 deg by 30 for 5 seconds then back to the 180 deg mark.
C172SP at 3000 pressure height. Smooth air.
Someone who was un prepared for the power loss would lose even more alt. As well it takes considerable skill to set the exactl attitude during the turn, so the average weekend warrior would have no hope of getting it right.
My best was 400 ft height loss and I am doing this stuff day in day out.
I was able to get round on the 3rd try with 400ft loss, rolling hard into 60 deg steep turn, but still IAS came down from 74 to 63 kts even with significant forward pressure to keep the wings unloaded, rolled bast the 180 deg by 30 for 5 seconds then back to the 180 deg mark.
C172SP at 3000 pressure height. Smooth air.
Someone who was un prepared for the power loss would lose even more alt. As well it takes considerable skill to set the exactl attitude during the turn, so the average weekend warrior would have no hope of getting it right.
My best was 400 ft height loss and I am doing this stuff day in day out.