EFATO turn back
Sprucegoose
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Hughes Point, where life is great! Was also resident on page 13, but now I'm lost in Cyberspace....
Age: 59
Posts: 3,485
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Yeah, and lets face it, if a Savannah crashes in a "high speed" dive - its still only walking pace!
Dr
Dr
A bit of STOL envy?
Grandpa Aerotart
As an aside I stumbled over a vid on youtube of a Roulette taking a civilian for a ride during a display and in his brief he nominated 800' as the minimum altitude for a turnback to departure runway - before that it was either stop on the runway or hand the aircraft back to the taxpayers.
Grandpa Aerotart
The mere thought of encapsulating PNG ops within a 'policy' is laughable
My 'plan' depended on the strip as they were all vastly different from one another. Sure a turnback MAY have been an option at a few major coastal airports.
At a few mountain strips you could suffer a complete engine failure charging off the end of the strip - note I did not say 'at X feet above the departure end of a strip' - turn 90 degrees and glide for several nm down into an adjacent valley and force land on another strip, if you were lucky, or onto the flat bottom of that valley, probably into tall Kunai grass. Most you were going into tall timber or the boulder strewn bed of a white water river. In a few cases you could probably suffer an engine failure in an Islander/DHC6-200 and drift down along the valleys and end up on the coastal flats before impacting terrain and land at an airport.
Note too that this applied equally to aircraft like Islanders as well as C185s...within the context of PNG mountain ops an Islander was a single engined aircraft with half its engine on each wing. An Islander on one just glides a bit better than a C185/206.
I made it a habit to study the strip and its immediate surrounds at every strip I went into and have an individual plan to maximise the chance of survival. In some cases that plan would seem outrageously fanciful to readers of PPrune who have never operated in PNG...but it was the ONLY option short of just crossing your arms and trying to maintain your composure as your life ended. Certainly a couple of experiences in PNG had proved to me the correctness of 'fly the aircraft as far as possible into the accident and you may be pleasantly surprised' long before I read similar words attributed to Bob Hoover.
My 'plan' depended on the strip as they were all vastly different from one another. Sure a turnback MAY have been an option at a few major coastal airports.
At a few mountain strips you could suffer a complete engine failure charging off the end of the strip - note I did not say 'at X feet above the departure end of a strip' - turn 90 degrees and glide for several nm down into an adjacent valley and force land on another strip, if you were lucky, or onto the flat bottom of that valley, probably into tall Kunai grass. Most you were going into tall timber or the boulder strewn bed of a white water river. In a few cases you could probably suffer an engine failure in an Islander/DHC6-200 and drift down along the valleys and end up on the coastal flats before impacting terrain and land at an airport.
Note too that this applied equally to aircraft like Islanders as well as C185s...within the context of PNG mountain ops an Islander was a single engined aircraft with half its engine on each wing. An Islander on one just glides a bit better than a C185/206.
I made it a habit to study the strip and its immediate surrounds at every strip I went into and have an individual plan to maximise the chance of survival. In some cases that plan would seem outrageously fanciful to readers of PPrune who have never operated in PNG...but it was the ONLY option short of just crossing your arms and trying to maintain your composure as your life ended. Certainly a couple of experiences in PNG had proved to me the correctness of 'fly the aircraft as far as possible into the accident and you may be pleasantly surprised' long before I read similar words attributed to Bob Hoover.
Last edited by Chimbu chuckles; 3rd Apr 2012 at 06:56.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Victoria
Age: 62
Posts: 984
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Capt. WEJ,
Thanks for that. Interested where you flying the CT4B in 1998. As far as I’m aware the only operators of the –B are BAe in Tamworth (and 3 or 4 in Sale) and in UN Zud.
Couldn’t agree more. Certainly not something you would to try in that aircraft unless you had EVERYTHING working for you. In particular, I would be very wary of pulling to the light buffet in a CT4 close to the ground given that it is very easy to get to the heavy buffet. I have no problem experimenting with type of thing, but I’d be starting at a relatively safe altitude first.
To give some context to my original assertion, consider a junior QFI with a student with 220LB of gas launching from Quirindi on a 30° day experiencing an engine failure at 700FT, i.e. mid-way on the cross wind turn. Given the CT4’s performance in that environment (very common up there too) the aircraft will be a good distance from the runway. I guarantee he aint gonna make it if he tries a 180° turn back.
In my view this is a good case of risk versus reward.
Thanks for that. Interested where you flying the CT4B in 1998. As far as I’m aware the only operators of the –B are BAe in Tamworth (and 3 or 4 in Sale) and in UN Zud.
I am not suggesting that a turn back is an easy, or safe, or even desirable option in all circumstances. But a considered, planned and briefed EFATO turn back exercise is a great way to learn about your airplane improve your own ability. And who knows, one day when everything else is poop, you might just be able to pull that particular tool of your your toolbox and walk away.
To give some context to my original assertion, consider a junior QFI with a student with 220LB of gas launching from Quirindi on a 30° day experiencing an engine failure at 700FT, i.e. mid-way on the cross wind turn. Given the CT4’s performance in that environment (very common up there too) the aircraft will be a good distance from the runway. I guarantee he aint gonna make it if he tries a 180° turn back.
In my view this is a good case of risk versus reward.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Sydney
Age: 43
Posts: 263
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nothing to add to the thread, but I just want to say how much I enjoy these sorts of discussions - mostly in terms of seeing the background, mental approach and reasoning that comes from experience that I as yet don't have.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,414
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
[quoteThe RAAF might endorse the turn back ][/quote]
If they still do then they are fools. The last one was a practice turn back at Point Cook in a Tiger Moth about 15 years ago. The instructor was killed. Another one at Point Cook was a Winjeel in 1969 and both pilots burned to death when the aircraft went into an incipient spin and pranged back on the field. I was on the Court of Inquiry.
Then there was the dual Vampire at RAAF East Sale. A partial engine failure shortly after take off. They turned back and crashed short of the runway. Both pilots killed. Yet in the case of the Vampire they could have forced landed in any one of several large fields straight ahead.
Years ago even the RFDS practiced turn backs in the PC12 (maybe they still do?) and the chief pilot at the time was a former RAAF pilot who thought turn backs were Good Things to practice. Bloody twits.
If they still do then they are fools. The last one was a practice turn back at Point Cook in a Tiger Moth about 15 years ago. The instructor was killed. Another one at Point Cook was a Winjeel in 1969 and both pilots burned to death when the aircraft went into an incipient spin and pranged back on the field. I was on the Court of Inquiry.
Then there was the dual Vampire at RAAF East Sale. A partial engine failure shortly after take off. They turned back and crashed short of the runway. Both pilots killed. Yet in the case of the Vampire they could have forced landed in any one of several large fields straight ahead.
Years ago even the RFDS practiced turn backs in the PC12 (maybe they still do?) and the chief pilot at the time was a former RAAF pilot who thought turn backs were Good Things to practice. Bloody twits.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
And what about the Macchi turn back??? Except there was no inquiry! Now why was that?
I do not believe in blanket statements like you have just made. So let's balance things out and can you talk us through the event above.
I do not believe in blanket statements like you have just made. So let's balance things out and can you talk us through the event above.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Queensland
Posts: 632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Geez the RAAF may very well endorse turn backs.....but they are flying state of the art machinery and the guys are on the pedals every day BUT GA consists mainly of 40+ yr old pieces of crap that lack everything in aerodynamics they held when new. Compare a PC9 to a C150...HUGE difference, 1000' comes up pretty quickly in the former but the poor little 150...well you know as well as i do !! There are so many variables that the risk isn't worth it. Pilot, aircraft, performance, runway, terrain, wind component and reaction time. We're talking EFATO not circuit height +.
This is what i refer to when I say BS. Until it is instilled into pilots heads in GA though training and dicipline that you don't turn back, fatalities will continue. Its either take the punt on a possible chance of survival or the probable chance of killing all on board.
This is what i refer to when I say BS. Until it is instilled into pilots heads in GA though training and dicipline that you don't turn back, fatalities will continue. Its either take the punt on a possible chance of survival or the probable chance of killing all on board.
Last edited by PA39; 4th Apr 2012 at 05:07.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Mel-burn
Posts: 4,875
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My only EFATO to date occurred on an 1000 metre strip at about 20 ft altitude accelerating through 80 knots. There was no option other than to go straight ahead and the end of the runway came up awfully fast. Had I been closer to 50 ft it would have been all over red rover. These 500ft plus heights we are talking are probably a rarity for EFATO.
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Savannah will get off the runway in 50 mtrs if trying, so that leaves a LOT of runway ahead, and a Max angle of climb will see me at circuit height about 2/3 down the length of Wollongongs 16/34. so, with that in mind, engine quit at or below, 500, well, straight ahead and use the remaining runway. as for turning back, well, might have to get the cameras out and try it. but from 1000ft, i would complete a tight circuit.
Join Date: Jun 1996
Location: Check with Ops
Posts: 741
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The RAF/RN use(d) 800' for the Chipmunk, Bulldog and Grob Tutor. We practiced it fairly often, so the technique wasn't a problem but the brief didn't necessarily involve landing back on the runway, just landing back on the airfield, somewhere. It was a very definite stuff the nose down, get to the appropriate speed, 60 degs AoB and pull to the light buffet, all the while monitoring speed, speed, speed. It worked well (despite yet another one of A37575's sweeping statements) but 800' would give some much better options at a lot of airfields, I'm sure. I still keep 'current' with the techniques, as there is one field I fly from where it is worth keeping in mind but the physics definitely don't add up for an out-of-practice pilot, not having proper training and with little appreciation of the performance of his aircraft.
What Pontius said.
As little as five years ago, I was teaching turn backs to QFI students in the PC9.
800' was the standard, however, at some airfields (carnavon IIRC) 500' feet was briefed as it was not a reciprocal turn back. The way we used to fly them was:
Practice!
sh&t, F68K, LOWER NOSE and obtain IAS. Look out the FRONT at the ATTITUDE and HOLD that for the required IAS. Only once that was set, would the TB be commenced.
The biggest problem I saw in possibly many many hundreds of turn backs over five or so years, was when a student LOOKED at the RWY and NOT the ATT. As soon as their head went searching for the RWY, they would invariably pull back on the stick and get into heavy buffet with the nose high... not good!
If at any stage it looked like it wasn't going to work (I think from memory a 'D' was required by 200') then wings level and eject.
The PC9 has two oxy bottles under the seats, right next to the fuel collector tank, so a wheels up forced landing was not recommended.
ATT, IAS, ATT, IAS.
I did not teach a reciprocal TB's in the CT4. If there was a strong wind, a crash ahead left you with a lower GS and a better chance of survival.
The PC9 however, if flown well, would easily get a reciprocal TB in less than about 15 kts. Any more and without the determination to 'push into wind' prior to the turn, most students would overrun the runway after the turn back.
In a civvy Cessna and the like - look out the front and crash ahead visually.
800' was the standard, however, at some airfields (carnavon IIRC) 500' feet was briefed as it was not a reciprocal turn back. The way we used to fly them was:
Practice!
sh&t, F68K, LOWER NOSE and obtain IAS. Look out the FRONT at the ATTITUDE and HOLD that for the required IAS. Only once that was set, would the TB be commenced.
The biggest problem I saw in possibly many many hundreds of turn backs over five or so years, was when a student LOOKED at the RWY and NOT the ATT. As soon as their head went searching for the RWY, they would invariably pull back on the stick and get into heavy buffet with the nose high... not good!
If at any stage it looked like it wasn't going to work (I think from memory a 'D' was required by 200') then wings level and eject.
The PC9 has two oxy bottles under the seats, right next to the fuel collector tank, so a wheels up forced landing was not recommended.
ATT, IAS, ATT, IAS.
I did not teach a reciprocal TB's in the CT4. If there was a strong wind, a crash ahead left you with a lower GS and a better chance of survival.
The PC9 however, if flown well, would easily get a reciprocal TB in less than about 15 kts. Any more and without the determination to 'push into wind' prior to the turn, most students would overrun the runway after the turn back.
In a civvy Cessna and the like - look out the front and crash ahead visually.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
What!!!
You have just made an excellent technical description of your experience in the PC9, and then finish up with A Civvy Cessna....won't work.
That is utter Bull****!!!
It works just the same, unless the RAAF PC9 is something of a physics exemption.
The difference is just the minima. You obviously never spent the time doing them in a C172 to find out where that minima was. Possibly it is 800 feet too, I do not know. But if that is what I flew I would surely find out.
The same rules apply from a tiger moth to a A380, the numbers are different, mut unless Newtons laws have changed there are only two variables, known tested minima, and pilot training.
The minimum height for success is easily found, training is the stumbling block, and ask ourselves why??
Now any of you Top Guns from the ADF want to answer my Macchi question? Have you gone looking for the accident report? He is a tip......there ain't one. Now think about why?
You have just made an excellent technical description of your experience in the PC9, and then finish up with A Civvy Cessna....won't work.
That is utter Bull****!!!
It works just the same, unless the RAAF PC9 is something of a physics exemption.
The difference is just the minima. You obviously never spent the time doing them in a C172 to find out where that minima was. Possibly it is 800 feet too, I do not know. But if that is what I flew I would surely find out.
The same rules apply from a tiger moth to a A380, the numbers are different, mut unless Newtons laws have changed there are only two variables, known tested minima, and pilot training.
The minimum height for success is easily found, training is the stumbling block, and ask ourselves why??
Now any of you Top Guns from the ADF want to answer my Macchi question? Have you gone looking for the accident report? He is a tip......there ain't one. Now think about why?
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Victoria
Age: 62
Posts: 984
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I see this has (predictably) degenerated into a civvy v RAAF bunfight again.
However let's straighten out the "RAAF endorsing turn-backs" thing.
As I have stated on a previous post on this thread, reciprocal turn-backs in a PC9 are not briefed, taught or demonstrated to students. They can be practiced by staff instructors who have to observe various restrictions that are detailed in SOPs. This is NOT done willy-nilly as some here seem to infer.
As for turn-backs in the CT4, they are mostly not normally considered when briefing the actions to be taken given an engine failure after take-off.. I'm not saying it is not possible to fly such a manoeuvre in a CT4. However picture a dual CT4 with 200+ LB of fuel launching from an strip with an average elevation of 1,000FT AMSL on a 30 degree + expereince ing an engine failure on upwind or even cross wind in the circuit trying to turn back: it's not going to end well. Risk v reward.
OK, I'll bite. Care to be more specific?
However let's straighten out the "RAAF endorsing turn-backs" thing.
As I have stated on a previous post on this thread, reciprocal turn-backs in a PC9 are not briefed, taught or demonstrated to students. They can be practiced by staff instructors who have to observe various restrictions that are detailed in SOPs. This is NOT done willy-nilly as some here seem to infer.
As for turn-backs in the CT4, they are mostly not normally considered when briefing the actions to be taken given an engine failure after take-off.. I'm not saying it is not possible to fly such a manoeuvre in a CT4. However picture a dual CT4 with 200+ LB of fuel launching from an strip with an average elevation of 1,000FT AMSL on a 30 degree + expereince ing an engine failure on upwind or even cross wind in the circuit trying to turn back: it's not going to end well. Risk v reward.
And what about the Macchi turn back??? Except there was no inquiry! Now why was that?