Return to reciprocal runway advised in emergency ?
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 492
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm surprised no one has mentioned practice - at safe altitude - in your individual aircraft as a means of determining aircraft performance, response, perspective, glide rate (the real picture, not just theory from the PoH) under various wind and weather conditions.
To my mind this is essential as a pre-requisite to any plans of what you can or cannot do (and at what height).
I've seen turnbacks attempted by very experienced pilots who failed and ended up in hospital or the graveyeard. I've also had a safe altitude failure myself where I was able to complete a tight but calm circuit back to the field. But only because I had practiced and knew what to expect in terms of performance.
To my mind this is essential as a pre-requisite to any plans of what you can or cannot do (and at what height).
I've seen turnbacks attempted by very experienced pilots who failed and ended up in hospital or the graveyeard. I've also had a safe altitude failure myself where I was able to complete a tight but calm circuit back to the field. But only because I had practiced and knew what to expect in terms of performance.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,583
Received 441 Likes
on
233 Posts
I'm surprised no one has mentioned practice
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 433
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm not quite sure what point you were trying to make as it would appear thst you were suggesting that the stalling speed will be affecting by windspeed and direction. My point was that stalling speed relates to airspeed and has nothing to do with groundspeed.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: England
Posts: 102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Airbus girl wrote: "I always take a few minutes to self-brief before take-off. I consider the runway direction/ length, wind, airfield, obstacles, etc. On take-offs I always have a look around so I am familiar with the "land out" fields, should the engine quit. Its much easier to spend a few minutes on the ground considering the options rather than in the air with a dead engine."
Would also recommend GoogleEarth as a great pre-flight resource to research options for EFATO.
E.g. have a look at where you might prefer to steer the aircraft having had EFATO at 400-600ft off Blackbushe or Fairoaks westerly runways. Not obvious even from the comfort of an armchair?
Would also recommend GoogleEarth as a great pre-flight resource to research options for EFATO.
E.g. have a look at where you might prefer to steer the aircraft having had EFATO at 400-600ft off Blackbushe or Fairoaks westerly runways. Not obvious even from the comfort of an armchair?
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Londonish
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
pilotbear - just gently, I'm afraid you're misinformed, and gpn01 - you're not getting his/her point. What you're talking of is the downwind turn myth. It's the subject of many vitriolic discussions (just use search). Smarter people than I can prove it is not so mathematically - it's not intuitive (and I had to be convinced)
Might I quietly suggest that in the interests of topic drift we leave the downwind turn debate out of this thread? Perhaps a different thread, or have a read of previous wars on the subject!
Regarding the turnback - I think most would be somewhat suprised by:
1) how many knots you'll loose pitching from a normal climb angle even if you identify (and accept) the engine failure immediately
2) how much altitude you'll loose in making a 180 turn.
As someone else said, go high, go play. Figure out the numbers for your aeroplane - pulling the throttle to idle should be sufficient for a ballpark figure. But make sure you do verify airspeed well above stall before you start the turn.
Obviously the viable turnback alt will depend hugely on your particular aeroplane - on the right day you can make a complete circuit and land in the same direction as takeoff from 300 ft in a glider, to the other extreme some a/c wouldn't make it from 1500ft overhead - it all depends. Kyprianos Biris - I would suggest that if you need 12-1300ft from abeam the numbers you could make your circuit a bit closer (depending on local traffic regs). General good practise would be to fly a circuit such that you can get to a runway from any point in the circuit.
Going back to the gliders (I fly both), there's a demo they do - spin off a (simulated) winch launch failure:
Pitch for a typical climb angle with speed, as the airspeed drops to winch launch speed, you declare the failure, and commence your pitch down. On reaching a 'normal' glinding attitude, you commence a turn. All of a sudden the world is full of rapidly revolving fields.
Why? Because the wing continues to fly throug the pushover (typically around 0G - fairly aggressive) because it is unloaded. As you level it gets re-loaded and instantly transitions to a mushing stall state, without the usual paraphenalia of progressing towards the stall. Next control you move tips the whole thing into a spin.
Indications are a low airspeed, and an abnormaly rearward stick position for the gliding attitude.
Apologies for the essay
Might I quietly suggest that in the interests of topic drift we leave the downwind turn debate out of this thread? Perhaps a different thread, or have a read of previous wars on the subject!
Regarding the turnback - I think most would be somewhat suprised by:
1) how many knots you'll loose pitching from a normal climb angle even if you identify (and accept) the engine failure immediately
2) how much altitude you'll loose in making a 180 turn.
As someone else said, go high, go play. Figure out the numbers for your aeroplane - pulling the throttle to idle should be sufficient for a ballpark figure. But make sure you do verify airspeed well above stall before you start the turn.
Obviously the viable turnback alt will depend hugely on your particular aeroplane - on the right day you can make a complete circuit and land in the same direction as takeoff from 300 ft in a glider, to the other extreme some a/c wouldn't make it from 1500ft overhead - it all depends. Kyprianos Biris - I would suggest that if you need 12-1300ft from abeam the numbers you could make your circuit a bit closer (depending on local traffic regs). General good practise would be to fly a circuit such that you can get to a runway from any point in the circuit.
Going back to the gliders (I fly both), there's a demo they do - spin off a (simulated) winch launch failure:
Pitch for a typical climb angle with speed, as the airspeed drops to winch launch speed, you declare the failure, and commence your pitch down. On reaching a 'normal' glinding attitude, you commence a turn. All of a sudden the world is full of rapidly revolving fields.
Why? Because the wing continues to fly throug the pushover (typically around 0G - fairly aggressive) because it is unloaded. As you level it gets re-loaded and instantly transitions to a mushing stall state, without the usual paraphenalia of progressing towards the stall. Next control you move tips the whole thing into a spin.
Indications are a low airspeed, and an abnormaly rearward stick position for the gliding attitude.
Apologies for the essay
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 492
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well said Mark.
Apologies for missing the references to practice in previous posts.
On another occasion, practice EFATOs whilst on microlight AFI course, we experienced precisely what Mark describes. Happily, though, we didnt end up in a spin because we "recovered" with wings level and found that the aircraft was still mushing down and losing height very rapidly (i.e. just about stalling). This was from a 350 foot simulated EFATO in an Ikarus C42.
Yes, it slowed down very quickly, as most micros do. Stick forward, seems to be recovering (attitude), speed increasing but not too fast, very weak and mushy control feel, nose down more, still mushing, heck ground coming up, power on and we levelled out about 10 feet off the deck before getting decent control back and climbing away. My AFI instructor then demoed to me the "right" way to do it .... and got exactly the same scenario!
In a true EFATO we would have survived, but probably would have been injured in the heavy touchdown. It would have been debatable whether we could have got enough pitch control to get the nose up for the touchdown before contacting.
There's a good case, unless you really need to, to fly the climbout at a little above Vy in order to buy a bit of airspeed if the donk stops. There's a damn good case not to fly out at Vx as you probably won't get the airspeed and attitude back in time. If you really need to clear that hedge/tree like it shows in the textbook, and it's that tight, why are you considering taking off?
Apologies for missing the references to practice in previous posts.
On another occasion, practice EFATOs whilst on microlight AFI course, we experienced precisely what Mark describes. Happily, though, we didnt end up in a spin because we "recovered" with wings level and found that the aircraft was still mushing down and losing height very rapidly (i.e. just about stalling). This was from a 350 foot simulated EFATO in an Ikarus C42.
Yes, it slowed down very quickly, as most micros do. Stick forward, seems to be recovering (attitude), speed increasing but not too fast, very weak and mushy control feel, nose down more, still mushing, heck ground coming up, power on and we levelled out about 10 feet off the deck before getting decent control back and climbing away. My AFI instructor then demoed to me the "right" way to do it .... and got exactly the same scenario!
In a true EFATO we would have survived, but probably would have been injured in the heavy touchdown. It would have been debatable whether we could have got enough pitch control to get the nose up for the touchdown before contacting.
There's a good case, unless you really need to, to fly the climbout at a little above Vy in order to buy a bit of airspeed if the donk stops. There's a damn good case not to fly out at Vx as you probably won't get the airspeed and attitude back in time. If you really need to clear that hedge/tree like it shows in the textbook, and it's that tight, why are you considering taking off?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Prof Chris Reed wrote
Take a PA28-181 climbing out at the recommended 76kias at normal attitude.
Are you saying that the airspeed will drop from 76 to less than 55 knots (VS1 IIRC) in an instant?
I don't think so.
The effect of the dragging prop disc will be noticeable and the aircraft will pitch down sharply to regain its trimmed speed (which also is best glide), but it won't stop flying, unless mishandled.
The main threat will be the very high RoD and the limited options for forced landing from low altitude.
Gliders and SEPs are different beasts.
Now imagine a far draggier powered a/c in the same situation - I'd guess that at the top of the push over the airspeed might be less than VS (but reduced G so still flying), and maybe 5+ seconds to regain flying speed.
Are you saying that the airspeed will drop from 76 to less than 55 knots (VS1 IIRC) in an instant?
I don't think so.
The effect of the dragging prop disc will be noticeable and the aircraft will pitch down sharply to regain its trimmed speed (which also is best glide), but it won't stop flying, unless mishandled.
The main threat will be the very high RoD and the limited options for forced landing from low altitude.
Gliders and SEPs are different beasts.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 433
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mark has it pretty much right...clearly you were given some good instruction originally about stalling, reduced-G, etc. Rather suspect that the letters KCZ, ECZ and CFA will have appeared in your logbook before you went South!
Join Date: May 2002
Location: In a nice house
Posts: 981
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Its important to have tested out the plane you fly, as to how well it glides. I remember doing a flight test once in an Arrow, where the examiner asked me, when returning to an airport, to cut the power when I was sure we could get in. I told him it would be very late because the aircraft glided like a brick. I told him when I wanted to cut the power and he thought I was mad. So he made me go round again and then he told me where to cut the power. I told him there wasn't a cat in hells chance of making the field. He laughed and took control - and was very surprised when he realised we didn't have cat in hells chance of making the field!!!!! He tried a couple more times and still didn't manage it, at which point he gave me back control!!! I passed I hasten to add. But it just goes to show that a) aircraft don't always glide as well as you think they will and b) experience doesn't count for everything.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Londonish
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Final 3 Greens 76 knots to 55 in an instant - no. In the time it takes you to recognise identify and accept the engine failure AND pitch to a gliding attitude ABSOLUTELY. (and you want about 73 for best glide anyway, assuming MTOW..)
I can't think of a good way to prove it, but whenever you do these things as exercises you're cognitively primed for something to happen - and a specific something at that. You react quickly because you're pre-programmed (and skipping identification of the issue). I'm quite sure that it's possible to go from 76knot climb to a glide without stalling, but don't underestimate the 'oh **** is this really happening' factor. A split second may be all it needs.
And yes, gliders are somewhat different beasts in many ways, but they still fly by the same aerodynamics.
gpn01.. that they might..
I can't think of a good way to prove it, but whenever you do these things as exercises you're cognitively primed for something to happen - and a specific something at that. You react quickly because you're pre-programmed (and skipping identification of the issue). I'm quite sure that it's possible to go from 76knot climb to a glide without stalling, but don't underestimate the 'oh **** is this really happening' factor. A split second may be all it needs.
And yes, gliders are somewhat different beasts in many ways, but they still fly by the same aerodynamics.
gpn01.. that they might..
Last edited by Mark1234; 21st Nov 2008 at 00:08.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Final 3 Greens 76 knots to 55 in an instant - no. In the time it takes you to recognise identify and accept the engine failure AND pitch to a gliding attitude ABSOLUTELY. (and you want about 73 for best glide anyway, assuming MTOW..)
It says 76 in the POH I have here, but whatever.
Light aircraft do obey the laws of aerodyanamics, BUT
1) the pitch angle of a glider on a winch is about 45 degrees, whereas the lightie is about 7
2) the light aircraft is already trimmed for it's best glide speed (which usually coincides with best climb) and will react to the loss of energy (in the form of engine power) and airspeed by seeking to regain it through a pitch down
I'm quite sure that it's possible to go from 76knot climb to a glide without stalling, but don't underestimate the 'oh **** is this really happening' factor. A split second may be all it needs.
It isn't a big deal in a light aircraft - what is a big deal is getting down safely with very limited options and a higher than usual rate of descent.
A well trained PPL will instinctively pitch down) or at least allow the aircraft to) to maintain airspeed.
Perhaps the training standards in Australia are different to the UK where I learned.
but don't underestimate the 'oh **** is this really happening' factor
I believe that your comment might better apply to an engine failure in the cruise, where there is more time and options, that can be squandered by failing to react quickly and implement the checklist vital actions.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Londonish
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Possibly the difference between an a -181 and a -161, don't think we need argue over 3 knots. Forget any differences in training standards, I'm an expat pom in any case..
I personally think you're overstating the differences, but I'm happy to agree to disagree. The glider doesn't have to stall either, it requires prompt and positive action from the pilot, as does the powered a/c (my previous post should probably have been worded 'absolutely possible').
Getting back to the main topic I think we're agreed - nose down and look for something soft! If there's any doubt in your mind about making the turnback, you're too low.... And hey, it's another reason to make glide approaches - that way you're familiar with the glide performance
I personally think you're overstating the differences, but I'm happy to agree to disagree. The glider doesn't have to stall either, it requires prompt and positive action from the pilot, as does the powered a/c (my previous post should probably have been worded 'absolutely possible').
Getting back to the main topic I think we're agreed - nose down and look for something soft! If there's any doubt in your mind about making the turnback, you're too low.... And hey, it's another reason to make glide approaches - that way you're familiar with the glide performance
Guest
Posts: n/a
Mark
I don't think I am overstating the matter, just reacting to statements such as
And also that a glider needs a 45 degree pitch down at the top of the winch in case of cable break - I don't dispute that, but anybody pitching 45 degrees down in a PA28 following EFATO is going to make a big hole in the ground 
My point is that a well trimmed PA28 will regain airspeed before stalling in this situation (particularly as Vy and Vglide are the same figure), so long as the pilot does not hold back pressure - if you think I am overstating this, check it out at a safe altitude. I have.
Of course, a well trained pilot will give the yoke a little push to help.
And we are agreed about securing airspeed and looking for the best possible site (perhaps within 20 degrees either side.)
I would have to be very, very sure of getting back to turnback and realistically that would be likely to be 1,000 feet plus, close to the threshold with a good long runway - and even still I might prefer to land off field.
The other posters recommending keeping options open and making command decisions in context have my vote.
Also, I agree with you about glide approaches, you learn a lot about your aircraft through these, but its not the same as real engine off due (a) some residual thrust and (b) no drag form a windmilling prop - but I don't like practising in the latter configuration!
I don't think I am overstating the matter, just reacting to statements such as
Now imagine a far draggier powered a/c in the same situation - I'd guess that at the top of the push over the airspeed might be less than VS (but reduced G so still flying), and maybe 5+ seconds to regain flying speed.
My point is that a well trimmed PA28 will regain airspeed before stalling in this situation (particularly as Vy and Vglide are the same figure), so long as the pilot does not hold back pressure - if you think I am overstating this, check it out at a safe altitude. I have.
Of course, a well trained pilot will give the yoke a little push to help.
And we are agreed about securing airspeed and looking for the best possible site (perhaps within 20 degrees either side.)
I would have to be very, very sure of getting back to turnback and realistically that would be likely to be 1,000 feet plus, close to the threshold with a good long runway - and even still I might prefer to land off field.
The other posters recommending keeping options open and making command decisions in context have my vote.
Also, I agree with you about glide approaches, you learn a lot about your aircraft through these, but its not the same as real engine off due (a) some residual thrust and (b) no drag form a windmilling prop - but I don't like practising in the latter configuration!
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Suffolk
Posts: 212
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My point was simply that you can only know how fast you will lose airspeed if you try it. The glider example was added to show how fast an extremely efficient airframe will lose energy. A powered a/c "... in the same situation ..", i.e. a steep climb, would lose energy at a frightening rate; lesser climb angle = slower loss of energy. How much slower I have no idea - but nor does anyone unless they've tried it (as I see you have from the preceding post, but of course that's only accurate for the type aircraft you fly I would have thought - would it be true for e.g. an Extra in full climb?).
It is worth noting the point made by Mark1234 and poetpilot about the difference between normal flying attitude and normal airspeed during a pushover. The risk in turning too early is a potential gotcha which is always a surprise to pilots who've never experienced it. Not one to try without an instructor on board.
It is worth noting the point made by Mark1234 and poetpilot about the difference between normal flying attitude and normal airspeed during a pushover. The risk in turning too early is a potential gotcha which is always a surprise to pilots who've never experienced it. Not one to try without an instructor on board.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Scotland
Posts: 489
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why does everyone think that a turnback incorporates a 180° turn? It doesn't, it's 360°. Or near as damn it.
If you turned 180° from your position you will be on a reciprocal heading but North or South of the runway (should the rwy be orientated 09/27). You then have to make a 90° turn to regain the centreline, and a further 90° to turn to final. All this whilst that lovely wind has blown you round the turn, and is now blowing you downwind at a rate of knots.
In light of this I only teach my students to turn back if you have 1 commodity, and that's the height to do it. The height you would lose in the 360° turn will be significant (to maintain airspeed). I teach to pick a landing site within 30° either side the nose, and only extend this to 60° either side should you have no options at 30°.
End of the day it has already been said, you have to make a judgement call, because the engine doesn't know what stage of flight you are at, if its going ot fail it'll fail. You have to deal with the situation presented at the time, and they could all be different
CC
If you turned 180° from your position you will be on a reciprocal heading but North or South of the runway (should the rwy be orientated 09/27). You then have to make a 90° turn to regain the centreline, and a further 90° to turn to final. All this whilst that lovely wind has blown you round the turn, and is now blowing you downwind at a rate of knots.
In light of this I only teach my students to turn back if you have 1 commodity, and that's the height to do it. The height you would lose in the 360° turn will be significant (to maintain airspeed). I teach to pick a landing site within 30° either side the nose, and only extend this to 60° either side should you have no options at 30°.
End of the day it has already been said, you have to make a judgement call, because the engine doesn't know what stage of flight you are at, if its going ot fail it'll fail. You have to deal with the situation presented at the time, and they could all be different
CC
Guest
Posts: n/a
Coffin Corner
I agree with everything you say, apart from the 360.
As Ghengis said earlier, the best thing to do would be to fly a teardrop, so more like a 270 if you do it well, but the height loss would still be huge.
But, that apart, you nail the argument IMHO.
I agree with everything you say, apart from the 360.
As Ghengis said earlier, the best thing to do would be to fly a teardrop, so more like a 270 if you do it well, but the height loss would still be huge.
But, that apart, you nail the argument IMHO.
Guest
Posts: n/a
My point was simply that you can only know how fast you will lose airspeed if you try it.
We also practice glide approaches, in fact when I operated from Fowlmere, I used the glide approach as SOP for various reasons, so we are familiar with the London Common characteristics of our spamcans with minimal thust - clearly no thrust and a windmilling prop reduces performance further.
I was also taught - and used to teach - turnbacks when I flew the Bulldog.
It was an option of last resort, as far as I was concerned, and I would always plan other avenues if they were feasible.
Reaction for the turnback had to be instant and instinctive. Immediate selection of the correct descending steep turn attitude was essential - and the objective was to land on a flat part of the aerodrome, not necessarily the runway. Which could, of course, be occupied..... You had to be above the key height to start a turnback, otherwise it would kill you.
I gave a relatively good student a simulated EFATO at about 200 ft agl once and he started a turnback....for all of 0.25 sec before I took control and re-applied power. We'd recently changed to QNH take-offs and he'd forgotten the elevation, so was lower than he thought. If you need to have instinctive height keys, QNH can kill far more easily than QFE.
On the Hawk I was also taught turnbacks. Because it had such an excellent wing, you would utilise excess energy by turning hard one way, before reversing into a gliding turn on the buffet nibble. It worked fine, but needed practice.
Whereas on the Gnat and Hunter, we had no such option. It was invariably a bang out situation if the engine failed after take-off.
It was an option of last resort, as far as I was concerned, and I would always plan other avenues if they were feasible.
Reaction for the turnback had to be instant and instinctive. Immediate selection of the correct descending steep turn attitude was essential - and the objective was to land on a flat part of the aerodrome, not necessarily the runway. Which could, of course, be occupied..... You had to be above the key height to start a turnback, otherwise it would kill you.
I gave a relatively good student a simulated EFATO at about 200 ft agl once and he started a turnback....for all of 0.25 sec before I took control and re-applied power. We'd recently changed to QNH take-offs and he'd forgotten the elevation, so was lower than he thought. If you need to have instinctive height keys, QNH can kill far more easily than QFE.
On the Hawk I was also taught turnbacks. Because it had such an excellent wing, you would utilise excess energy by turning hard one way, before reversing into a gliding turn on the buffet nibble. It worked fine, but needed practice.
Whereas on the Gnat and Hunter, we had no such option. It was invariably a bang out situation if the engine failed after take-off.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Scotland
Posts: 489
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Final 3 Greens
Agree with you on most occasions, but assume the engine goes bang at 700ft, or even 1,000ft, and the wind at 1000ft is say 25kts, there is no way you will make a teardrop return because by the time you have turned downwind you will have been blown a seriously long way back to the runway (remember doing circuits in strong winds?), also because of a strong headwind and a low groundspeed (& airspeed in the climb) your position at a set height will be closer to the runway than it's imagined, so personally I think you will have to do more of a 360° than a 270° to make the centreline.
Again as we all know all situations are different, in calm winds I agree you can get away with a teardrop, but when the winds are strong you have very little chance
Agree with you on most occasions, but assume the engine goes bang at 700ft, or even 1,000ft, and the wind at 1000ft is say 25kts, there is no way you will make a teardrop return because by the time you have turned downwind you will have been blown a seriously long way back to the runway (remember doing circuits in strong winds?), also because of a strong headwind and a low groundspeed (& airspeed in the climb) your position at a set height will be closer to the runway than it's imagined, so personally I think you will have to do more of a 360° than a 270° to make the centreline.
Again as we all know all situations are different, in calm winds I agree you can get away with a teardrop, but when the winds are strong you have very little chance