Return to reciprocal runway advised in emergency ?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: long left base EGCC
Posts: 100
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Return to reciprocal runway advised in emergency ?
There would probably be general agreement that during training we are all taught that in the event of EFATO or similar, at low level, forced landing straight ahead is preferable to trying to return to the runway from which you have just departed.
The latest AAIB report contains a very sad story, which seems to indicate that there may be exceptions
Air Accidents Investigation: Dyn'Aero MCR01 Club, F-PYMD
In particular, where it says
The latest AAIB report contains a very sad story, which seems to indicate that there may be exceptions
Air Accidents Investigation: Dyn'Aero MCR01 Club, F-PYMD
In particular, where it says
The conditions for landing all favoured Runway 14, but the pilot instead used Runway 32. The reason for this is likely to be that, because he had taken off from Runway 32, without time for thinking he chose to use the same runway. If he had been able to consider the circumstances for longer it is probable that he would have chosen to use Runway 14, into wind and upslope.
. . . . . . . .It is possible that were a pilot to give consideration to the most suitable runway for a return, before taking off, the problem of the reduced time available for deciding upon the best course of action in the event of an emergency could be mitigated. It is hoped that publicising the circumstances of this accident may help to remind pilots that a runway suitable for a departure may not always be the best runway for a return to land
. . . . . . . .It is possible that were a pilot to give consideration to the most suitable runway for a return, before taking off, the problem of the reduced time available for deciding upon the best course of action in the event of an emergency could be mitigated. It is hoped that publicising the circumstances of this accident may help to remind pilots that a runway suitable for a departure may not always be the best runway for a return to land
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: London
Age: 71
Posts: 339
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes that was an interesting case. Unusual in that the pilot took off with a tailwind.
A reminder (I think it says as much in the report) to think about what you are going to do in the event of an engine failure before taking off. (I haven't been doing that up until now
)
A reminder (I think it says as much in the report) to think about what you are going to do in the event of an engine failure before taking off. (I haven't been doing that up until now
)
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That is why its important to think of all your options rather than fixating on one. Spatial awareness is vitally important as well as having the ability to change a plan as the situation itself changes.
Pace
Pace
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: scotland
Posts: 207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was once told by an instructor that if taking off from a long runway, try to take off close to the end, that way, if the fan stops and you have reasonable height going back for a tailwind landing is a reasonable option, especially if the said airfield has a built up area with limited or no option for landing straight ahead.
Im not sure if I agree but I do see the point. Of course airfields are all different with their own options and good planning and foresight is common sense.
I never really gave it too much consideration in the past but will look for more options in future.
Im not sure if I agree but I do see the point. Of course airfields are all different with their own options and good planning and foresight is common sense.
I never really gave it too much consideration in the past but will look for more options in future.
niknak
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,335
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I seem to remember it's drummed into all RAF pilots at every stage of their training, from basic to advanced training on every type of aircraft:
, if it's good enough for them, it's good enough for everyone else.
Never turn back
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: scotland
Posts: 207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is our nature though to question these old sayings and practices. Surely the correct respose depends on circumstances, which will differ with every scenario.
Just because they say so is not always a good enough reason.
I can imagine in the good old days during a scramble the preferance would be land ahead so everyone behind you can get airborne.
I know all the theory about turning back,low airspeed, tailwind etc etc but we must question everything, thats how we gain understanding and sometimes even progress.
Just because they say so is not always a good enough reason.
I can imagine in the good old days during a scramble the preferance would be land ahead so everyone behind you can get airborne.
I know all the theory about turning back,low airspeed, tailwind etc etc but we must question everything, thats how we gain understanding and sometimes even progress.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: U.K.
Age: 46
Posts: 3,112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Niknak, do you actually fly?
Set in stone rules are sometimes appropriate, but only rarely. In this case turning back may well be appropriate, it all depends on the circumstance.
If you have a high performance machine and a relatively strong headwind, then turning back may well be appropriate. Though I did it in a C150 after the engine started playing up. Oddly enough, the fact I'm posting here and didn't end up in an AAIB report shows that "rules" don't always apply in emergencies.
Sometimes you need to use your brain rather than some rule written for different circumstances.
Set in stone rules are sometimes appropriate, but only rarely. In this case turning back may well be appropriate, it all depends on the circumstance.
If you have a high performance machine and a relatively strong headwind, then turning back may well be appropriate. Though I did it in a C150 after the engine started playing up. Oddly enough, the fact I'm posting here and didn't end up in an AAIB report shows that "rules" don't always apply in emergencies.
Sometimes you need to use your brain rather than some rule written for different circumstances.
niknak
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,335
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SOS - no I'm not a qualified pilot, but I've seen enough people try it under many different conditions and a/c types, to convince me that turning back should be the very last option.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: U.K.
Age: 46
Posts: 3,112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is no such thing as a last resort in an EFATO. You make a decision based on the info you have. Turning back may well be appropriate in a certain case, but by having stupid catch all phrases we could put an element of doubt just where it really isn't needed.
Most of the time turning back isn't appropriate, however, that is absolutely not true in every potential circumstance and that's why phrases such as "never do this or that" should be taken out and beaten to death with sticks.
Most of the time turning back isn't appropriate, however, that is absolutely not true in every potential circumstance and that's why phrases such as "never do this or that" should be taken out and beaten to death with sticks.
The other thing that it's drummed into you to do is to consider what you will do if you have an EFATO at a particular stage of the TO. This became incredibly relevant for me recently when faced with a full EFATO at about 100ft. P P and P P P P P.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think you can over-analyse such things, esepcially for the average / low hour / low currency PPL.
The "golden rule" of not turning back for an EFATO holds good - engine stops just after takeoff, you need at the forefront of your mind to resist the instinct to return, and just go straight ahead. You have very little time to make a decision, and need max brain power to "fly" the forced landing.
This accident was not one of those, and comes under the heading of more normal emergency without a time critical aspect. Whether you wish to include in a PPL type takeoff brief the "what will I do if I need to return" is up to you - good airmanship, but once when considers one "what if" where do you stop?
In the airline world we have "DODAR" and various other systems for decision making - equivalents are in the PPL syllabus. Maybe, with 20:20 hindsight they were not best employed here, as the AAIB note, but it was an "unusual" circumstance, and the tragic outcome had a few unlucky elements in it
Summary: I think it a mistake to question the "do not turn back" rule using this accident as an example - it was a different scenario... IMHO
NoD
The "golden rule" of not turning back for an EFATO holds good - engine stops just after takeoff, you need at the forefront of your mind to resist the instinct to return, and just go straight ahead. You have very little time to make a decision, and need max brain power to "fly" the forced landing.
This accident was not one of those, and comes under the heading of more normal emergency without a time critical aspect. Whether you wish to include in a PPL type takeoff brief the "what will I do if I need to return" is up to you - good airmanship, but once when considers one "what if" where do you stop?
In the airline world we have "DODAR" and various other systems for decision making - equivalents are in the PPL syllabus. Maybe, with 20:20 hindsight they were not best employed here, as the AAIB note, but it was an "unusual" circumstance, and the tragic outcome had a few unlucky elements in it
Summary: I think it a mistake to question the "do not turn back" rule using this accident as an example - it was a different scenario... IMHO
NoD
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Suffolk
Posts: 212
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The gliding equivalent of EFATO is a tow-rope break or winch launch failure, and this is something we train for extensively. The training has proved very effective over a number of years, with almost all launch failure accidents being due to not following the training.
In simple terms, it is as follows:
A. Before launching, plan for what you will do if the launch fails.
B. If there is a failure:
1. Land ahead on the runway whenever it is possible to do so.
2. Recognise that even if a landing ahead on the runway is not possible, there will be a height (varying with the conditions and the pilot's experience) when the only option is still landing ahead, making the best of a bad thing. DON'T TRY TO TURN. In a powered a/c this will be much higher than in a glider - for example, a tow-rope break at 200 ft with anything of a headwind usually makes a 180 and reciprocal landing possible for an experienced pilot, but not for an early solo pilot.
3. If you are high enough to turn, first put the aircraft in a safe attitude (i.e. lower the nose and attain a normal flying speed), then THINK. Once you have decided what it is safe to do, do it safely (this might include landing ahead, even if a turn is theoretically possible).
Translating this to powered a/c requires you to know how well your a/c glides engine off. If you don't know this, you can't do step 3 safely. In those circumstances, your only option is to land ahead, thus the general advice to do so.
In simple terms, it is as follows:
A. Before launching, plan for what you will do if the launch fails.
B. If there is a failure:
1. Land ahead on the runway whenever it is possible to do so.
2. Recognise that even if a landing ahead on the runway is not possible, there will be a height (varying with the conditions and the pilot's experience) when the only option is still landing ahead, making the best of a bad thing. DON'T TRY TO TURN. In a powered a/c this will be much higher than in a glider - for example, a tow-rope break at 200 ft with anything of a headwind usually makes a 180 and reciprocal landing possible for an experienced pilot, but not for an early solo pilot.
3. If you are high enough to turn, first put the aircraft in a safe attitude (i.e. lower the nose and attain a normal flying speed), then THINK. Once you have decided what it is safe to do, do it safely (this might include landing ahead, even if a turn is theoretically possible).
Translating this to powered a/c requires you to know how well your a/c glides engine off. If you don't know this, you can't do step 3 safely. In those circumstances, your only option is to land ahead, thus the general advice to do so.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Oxfordshire
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The RAF used to teach turnback, one of the reasons they stopped teaching it is because more ppl were injured practicing (with a good engine) Than needed to attempt it for real.
If most RAF pilots fail even with a good engine, then attempting to do it with no engine should be a last resort.
Of course the best thing to do is PPPPPPP. PLAN for it, self brief before TO then you will have most of the information at hand when it happens.
I have posted this before.
I was chatting with an old bold pilot and the subject of EFATO came up. "It said it must come as a shock when the engine fails". His reply " No I always expect it to fail, in fact it comes as a nice suprise when the damn things stay running".
I suspect he self brifed for engine failure before every TO. He was a Mosquito pilot in WW11 in his early 20s.
If most RAF pilots fail even with a good engine, then attempting to do it with no engine should be a last resort.
Of course the best thing to do is PPPPPPP. PLAN for it, self brief before TO then you will have most of the information at hand when it happens.
I have posted this before.
I was chatting with an old bold pilot and the subject of EFATO came up. "It said it must come as a shock when the engine fails". His reply " No I always expect it to fail, in fact it comes as a nice suprise when the damn things stay running".
I suspect he self brifed for engine failure before every TO. He was a Mosquito pilot in WW11 in his early 20s.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: KBOS
Posts: 57
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On the accident report above it seems like the mistake came on choosing the wrong runway for T/O.
As far as engine out on T/O goes, if below 800ft from rwy elevation best glide and straight ahead, if above 800ft from apt elevation the 180.
Circumstances always dictate though...if there is a long fairway straight ahead and I'm at 900ft then I hope to meke it onto the green!
As far as engine out on T/O goes, if below 800ft from rwy elevation best glide and straight ahead, if above 800ft from apt elevation the 180.
Circumstances always dictate though...if there is a long fairway straight ahead and I'm at 900ft then I hope to meke it onto the green!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: long left base EGCC
Posts: 100
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the mistake came on choosing the wrong runway for T/O
Problem is, if you automatically choose that same runway for landing back on, those two factors are now both disadvantageous, and the two "slights" added together become a "major".
Guest
Posts: n/a
I was once told by an instructor that if taking off from a long runway, try to take off close to the end, that way, if the fan stops and you have reasonable height going back for a tailwind landing is a reasonable option, especially if the said airfield has a built up area with limited or no option for landing straight ahead.
For example, if Iwas taking off from Ostend on the easterly runway, I'd rather cross the retail park at the upwind end at 1,000 feet, than 100 feet.
If the engine stopped, I could get back on the reciprocal as the runway is 2.8km long, so might not even need to slip, but from 100 feet......
In fact, unless I am missing something here, the above 'advice' sounds pretty mad, unless the instructor was using the word 'end' to mean 'start.'
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: scotland
Posts: 207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
He definately meant end!!! Thats what puzzled me, I thought getting up there asap with runway ahead of me would be the better option and is what I always try to do now.
Get up as soon as possible and normally drag it in on the numbers is what I practice but thats because I fly into quite a few short strips.
Get up as soon as possible and normally drag it in on the numbers is what I practice but thats because I fly into quite a few short strips.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Massachusetts Bay Colony
Age: 57
Posts: 476
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I seem to remember it's drummed into all RAF pilots at every stage of their training, from basic to advanced training on every type of aircraft:
Quote:
Never turn back
, if it's good enough for them, it's good enough for everyone else.
Quote:
Never turn back
, if it's good enough for them, it's good enough for everyone else.
And no disrespect to your intellect, niknak, but if you're not a qualified pilot who has been the only one to make the decision in your flying, then your input is theoretical at best. Flying starts with the theory, but it's the actual practice of it that builds experience, the application of theory. And that's the biggest part of the learning.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,574
Received 422 Likes
on
222 Posts
I seem to remember it's drummed into all RAF pilots at every stage of their training, from basic to advanced training on every type of aircraft:
Quote:
Never turn back
, if it's good enough for them, it's good enough for everyone else.
Quote:
Never turn back
, if it's good enough for them, it's good enough for everyone else.
One further point: Standard thing was to brief actions in the event of an EFATO before every take off. Sometimes it was assessed as worth a turnback, others not. Runway length, wind velocity, surrounds of the airfield in the direction of takeoff were all considered.
Moderator
Plan your takeoff, fly your plan. If a landing straight ahead is not going to be as good as turning away, plan your takeoff to enable a turn away as soon as pratical after takeoff. If it works perfectly (enough runway length) you will be either able to land back straight ahead and stop, or, by the time you're so high you cannot land ahead, safely turn back. There are many cases where this is not going to be possible though.
At my home runway, landing straight ahead after reaching 200 feet would put me in the least favourable landing area. My takeoffs are always planned with a turn toward the safer landing area once safely airborne. When my engine quit a 300 feet years ago I made it into the field off the end of my runway (a 270 degree turn) with no problem, and no damage. Lots of luck and some credit for a plan, which I quickly implemented.
That said, fly the way you are trained! There are lots of reports to confirm that turning back for a downwind landing is a poor idea. I am not an advocate of 180's when there is a suitable landing area in the straight ahead direction.
Pilot DAR
At my home runway, landing straight ahead after reaching 200 feet would put me in the least favourable landing area. My takeoffs are always planned with a turn toward the safer landing area once safely airborne. When my engine quit a 300 feet years ago I made it into the field off the end of my runway (a 270 degree turn) with no problem, and no damage. Lots of luck and some credit for a plan, which I quickly implemented.
That said, fly the way you are trained! There are lots of reports to confirm that turning back for a downwind landing is a poor idea. I am not an advocate of 180's when there is a suitable landing area in the straight ahead direction.
Pilot DAR