EFATO, to turn or not to turn.
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 537
Likes: 0
From: Europe
Bjornhall - stall speed figures in the warrior POH are quoted for different bank angles in a LEVEL turn. Don't care what you do but please get your facts straight.
There are a lot of posts on this forum from the "adamently incorrect" - these incorrect facts are then pushed down the throats of others
As for briefing there is only one PIC in a warrior and they should brief the departure and state their intentions, they should be clear about what they will do and stick to it.
I know that you disagree with my view but it is very clear that you can turn in a warrior (your example) at a speed above stall (well above if you wish) without stalling or spinning and that you will loose some height height X .
It would be nice to know what an average day height x might be and to consider this if taking off at an airport where there are no options on the straight out departure.
Your blinkered viewpoint is not very logical, are you seriously saying that if at 900feet on departure and over a built up area you would not consider a return to the airport area ?
There are a lot of posts on this forum from the "adamently incorrect" - these incorrect facts are then pushed down the throats of others
As for briefing there is only one PIC in a warrior and they should brief the departure and state their intentions, they should be clear about what they will do and stick to it.
I know that you disagree with my view but it is very clear that you can turn in a warrior (your example) at a speed above stall (well above if you wish) without stalling or spinning and that you will loose some height height X .
It would be nice to know what an average day height x might be and to consider this if taking off at an airport where there are no options on the straight out departure.
Your blinkered viewpoint is not very logical, are you seriously saying that if at 900feet on departure and over a built up area you would not consider a return to the airport area ?
Joined: Dec 1999
Posts: 1,174
Likes: 123
From: uk
What is important is that whatever you choose to do (dictated by ac, wind, terrain, experience etc) is pre planned and pre briefed. Should this ever happen for real you can't expect to cuff it. eg at my nice flat lincs military a/f immediately after t/o, use the remaining r/w; once that's past whatever is in the forward segment of my windscreen into wind; once half way round the upwind turn, continue the turn to the a/f. If there are two pilots on board, no-one should be in any doubt who will do what - if this ever happens for real there will be no time for discussion!
1. select the gliding attitude aggressively
2. select somewhere to land
3. select flaps as appropriate
4. anything else (cks, r/t etc) is a bonus
just some more thoughts!
dh
1. select the gliding attitude aggressively
2. select somewhere to land
3. select flaps as appropriate
4. anything else (cks, r/t etc) is a bonus
just some more thoughts!
dh
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
From: Londonish
bjornhall As it was me who posted:
Good point regarding the CAS - I learned something.
CAS or IAS, I'd allow some extra knots in the turn. No one in their right mind would fly 60degrees at best glide - flying bare knots from the stall is hideously inefficient - best glide is calculated for a 1g loading, once you depart from wings level the speed changes (upwards) anyway. Merely pointing out it's not quite as unfeasible as some people seem to think.
So I stand by my point - irrespective of whether the turnback is a good idea or not (I firmly believe not except in rare circumstances), turning at low speed does not automatically end in a spin, nor does a high angle of bank end in a spin. I'm railing against the "if you exceed 30deg of bank you'll spin and die" brigade more than anything.
However, to add fuel to the fire - 2 recent departures, same aircraft, same runway.
1) MTOW/43deg/nill wind - ROC pitiful. Book said yes, but them trees seemed awful close - and my ROC was a lot less than a gliding ROD.
2) 1POB/10deg/10kts - nearly 1000fpm, crossed the upwind boundary at somewhere close to 600agl.
2 very very different propositions had there been a hiccup.
2) let's take a warrior - Vs (clean) 50 kts, Best climb 79, Best glide 73: 60 degree bank, 2g, Vs goes up by 1.4 multiplier - i.e. 70kts. Uncomfortably close, but not actually above the glide speed.
CAS or IAS, I'd allow some extra knots in the turn. No one in their right mind would fly 60degrees at best glide - flying bare knots from the stall is hideously inefficient - best glide is calculated for a 1g loading, once you depart from wings level the speed changes (upwards) anyway. Merely pointing out it's not quite as unfeasible as some people seem to think.
So I stand by my point - irrespective of whether the turnback is a good idea or not (I firmly believe not except in rare circumstances), turning at low speed does not automatically end in a spin, nor does a high angle of bank end in a spin. I'm railing against the "if you exceed 30deg of bank you'll spin and die" brigade more than anything.
However, to add fuel to the fire - 2 recent departures, same aircraft, same runway.
1) MTOW/43deg/nill wind - ROC pitiful. Book said yes, but them trees seemed awful close - and my ROC was a lot less than a gliding ROD.
2) 1POB/10deg/10kts - nearly 1000fpm, crossed the upwind boundary at somewhere close to 600agl.
2 very very different propositions had there been a hiccup.
Last edited by Mark1234; 26th February 2009 at 04:50. Reason: allowing for airfield elevation.
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 420
Likes: 0
From: Right here
CAS or IAS, I'd allow some extra knots in the turn. No one in their right mind would fly 60degrees at best glide - flying bare knots from the stall is hideously inefficient - best glide is calculated for a 1g loading, once you depart from wings level the speed changes (upwards) anyway. Merely pointing out it's not quite as unfeasible as some people seem to think.
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 285
Likes: 0
From: UK
‘At low altitudes with a failed engine, turns should not be attempted,
except for slight and gentle deviations to avoid obstacles. A controlled crash landing straight ahead is preferable to risking a stall which could result in an uncontrolled roll and crash out of a turn.’
except for slight and gentle deviations to avoid obstacles. A controlled crash landing straight ahead is preferable to risking a stall which could result in an uncontrolled roll and crash out of a turn.’
I'm railing against the "if you exceed 30deg of bank you'll spin and die" brigade more than anything.
What I also find amazing are the numbers of people who leave the comfort of an instructor sat in the RHS who then go off and start making rules of their own against the huge amount of evidence to the contrary;
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 2,359
Likes: 0
From: Midlands
Lots of very experienced aviators on this thread, so perhaps we can clear up a point which may be confusing the debate. Having just spoken to an instructor, the CAA defines an EFATO as the engine stopping soon after takeoff. The question is what is “soon” in this context? I would assume the first 30sec? What do others think?
Rod1
Rod1
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
From: UK
Failure before completing the cross wind turn, or if leaving the circuit, failure below 1,000 feet.
If the circuit is 800 feet, you have completed the cross wind turn and are in level flight making the runway might be a realistic option.
If you are leaving the circuit but still in the climb passing 1,000 feet an immediate pitch down will still be required followed by recovery to the field if possible. At 1,000 feet I would have thought most pilots would have the time and ability to consider this as an option.
Height and speed are your friends. If you are climbing at 85, you want more height than if you are level at 110.
I dont think time has anything to do with it. Height and level flight are the key. If you climb away, level and maintain 600 feet for some reason, it doesnt matter how much or little time has passed it might just as well be in EFATO. Look ahead and to the side and land where ever is suitable, dont worry what is behind you!
If the circuit is 800 feet, you have completed the cross wind turn and are in level flight making the runway might be a realistic option.
If you are leaving the circuit but still in the climb passing 1,000 feet an immediate pitch down will still be required followed by recovery to the field if possible. At 1,000 feet I would have thought most pilots would have the time and ability to consider this as an option.
Height and speed are your friends. If you are climbing at 85, you want more height than if you are level at 110.
I dont think time has anything to do with it. Height and level flight are the key. If you climb away, level and maintain 600 feet for some reason, it doesnt matter how much or little time has passed it might just as well be in EFATO. Look ahead and to the side and land where ever is suitable, dont worry what is behind you!
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 537
Likes: 0
From: Europe
What I also find amazing are the numbers of people who leave the comfort of an instructor sat in the RHS who then go off and start making rules of their own against the huge amount of evidence to the contrary
Not too amazing if the instructor has an inflexible attitude and does not apply common sense. Making rules of their own sounds to me like judgement and airmanship, just what we need.
Fuji Abound thanks for your common sense input to this debate !
Not too amazing if the instructor has an inflexible attitude and does not apply common sense. Making rules of their own sounds to me like judgement and airmanship, just what we need.
Fuji Abound thanks for your common sense input to this debate !
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 70
Likes: 1
From: Kernow
One of the things I believe has been missed is the snap decision which a pilot makes when an EFATO is identified. I has to be the right one, whether to land ahead or turn back. It is getting this right or wrong, which will dictate the outcome of the event, when the aircraft comes back to earth.
Sadly I believe that many people will make the decision based upon their relationship with the aeroplane.
Military and commercial flyers will perhaps be better at balancing a decision between sacrificing the aircraft and saving the occupants. That may apply to club pilots too (unless they have signed up to a big excess). However, make the pilot a private owner who is not only paying for the aeroplane, but also dearly loves it and there is a far greater chance that the decision will be biased towards saving the aircraft (based upon getting it back to the runway or their maintenance facility) rather than making a truely rational assessment of the situation.
I would be interested to hear from others whether they think that their relationship with their flying machine could colour their decision making capability in such a situation?
Sadly I believe that many people will make the decision based upon their relationship with the aeroplane.
Military and commercial flyers will perhaps be better at balancing a decision between sacrificing the aircraft and saving the occupants. That may apply to club pilots too (unless they have signed up to a big excess). However, make the pilot a private owner who is not only paying for the aeroplane, but also dearly loves it and there is a far greater chance that the decision will be biased towards saving the aircraft (based upon getting it back to the runway or their maintenance facility) rather than making a truely rational assessment of the situation.
I would be interested to hear from others whether they think that their relationship with their flying machine could colour their decision making capability in such a situation?
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
From: UK
One of the things I believe has been missed is the snap decision which a pilot makes when an EFATO is identified. I has to be the right one, whether to land ahead or turn back. It is getting this right or wrong, which will dictate the outcome of the event, when the aircraft comes back to earth.
As I said, if you hesitate whether or not to turn back, if there is any doubt in your mind, dont.
It is only complicated if you make it complicated.
Last edited by Fuji Abound; 26th February 2009 at 22:28.
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 285
Likes: 0
From: UK
Not too amazing if the instructor has an inflexible attitude and does not apply common sense.
SOPs, flying order books, AAIB reports, PPL syllabi, FIC examiners, the CAA...the list goes on....in my experience, all advocate landing straight ahead or within 30-45deg of runway centre line with a failed engine.
Do these documents and regulatory authorities all lack the same common sense and inflexible attitude?
Maybe its your inflexible attitude that can't see a safer option that is advocated by so many other organisations?
I have yet to see an FTOs PPL syllabus teach its students to try turning back at 400ft AGL ? Many of them state not to turn back below 1000ft AGL or the equivalent on the QNH. Maybe they are inflexible and are not using their common sense too??
2hot - maybe there is a commercial cost saving behind turning back or landing straight ahead if you are the owner of the aircraft. Maybe this is the last thing that is going through your mind when the engine fails; you would have thought that insurance would cover the damage??
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 537
Likes: 0
From: Europe
TURBOJ
Can you tell me where the common sense is in attempting to turn back to the runway with a failed engine at 400ft AGL ?
Rest assured I will get my point over to you eventually, if you look at my last post I suggested that at 800 or 900 feet it may be an option that should be considered if there are no options straight ahead (normally pretty unlikely but worth knowing in advance).
Why are you so entrenched in your viewpoint on this subject? why can't you see the plain logic of what I am suggesting?
Not all readers of this forum are students in fact many are competent pilots. Dare I suggest that you seem to hold a very rigid and illogical position on this.
Can you tell me where the common sense is in attempting to turn back to the runway with a failed engine at 400ft AGL ?
Rest assured I will get my point over to you eventually, if you look at my last post I suggested that at 800 or 900 feet it may be an option that should be considered if there are no options straight ahead (normally pretty unlikely but worth knowing in advance).
Why are you so entrenched in your viewpoint on this subject? why can't you see the plain logic of what I am suggesting?
Not all readers of this forum are students in fact many are competent pilots. Dare I suggest that you seem to hold a very rigid and illogical position on this.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Turbo J
EFATO 400'
Firstly, may I state that as a PPL with a few hundred hours TT, I would land ahead +/- 30 degrees, unless this mandated a clearly higher probability of death than turning back. I'd also hope that I'd be smart enough not to knowlingly get into a position where landing ahead would be more dangerous than turning back.
Having said that, on the subject of instruction, just as pilots have differing skills experience and currency, so do instructors.
If the instructor makes the point as lucidly as you do, then why would any one doubt the advice? I think you are spot on for the typical PPL.
However, if an instructor simply says don't do it becuase I say so (or because I don't appear to know why, but the book says so), then I can understand why doubt creeps in.
Over the years, I've had some fab instructors who taught me a lot and some poor ones.
But on three occasions, I've witnessed the safety of the aircraft threatened by instructor's actions or suggestions.
Ergo, the quality of the instruction directly impacts the thinking action of the student.
But as I said before, you make your case convincingly - if you would contribute to the debate about at what stage an EFATO becomes a forced landing without power, then I would value that, especially as it is likely to have a number of variables to consider.
EFATO 400'
Firstly, may I state that as a PPL with a few hundred hours TT, I would land ahead +/- 30 degrees, unless this mandated a clearly higher probability of death than turning back. I'd also hope that I'd be smart enough not to knowlingly get into a position where landing ahead would be more dangerous than turning back.
Having said that, on the subject of instruction, just as pilots have differing skills experience and currency, so do instructors.
If the instructor makes the point as lucidly as you do, then why would any one doubt the advice? I think you are spot on for the typical PPL.
However, if an instructor simply says don't do it becuase I say so (or because I don't appear to know why, but the book says so), then I can understand why doubt creeps in.
Over the years, I've had some fab instructors who taught me a lot and some poor ones.
But on three occasions, I've witnessed the safety of the aircraft threatened by instructor's actions or suggestions.
Ergo, the quality of the instruction directly impacts the thinking action of the student.
But as I said before, you make your case convincingly - if you would contribute to the debate about at what stage an EFATO becomes a forced landing without power, then I would value that, especially as it is likely to have a number of variables to consider.
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
From: UK,Twighlight Zone
Why are you so entrenched in your viewpoint on this subject? why can't you see the plain logic of what I am suggesting?
Not all readers of this forum are students in fact many are competent pilots. Dare I suggest that you seem to hold a very rigid and illogical position on this.
Therefore as professional pilots and Instructors we have a duty of care to try and make people understand that it is an unwise manoeuvre and the likelihood of disaster is extremely high.
It is fine for the armchair experts to pontificate on how it may be done and how they have done it after stetting up at 3000ft and practiced. It is a VERY different situation when it happens for real, low level and everything suddenly goes quiet. The shock time alone eats up time and height.
Rest assured I will get my point over to you eventually
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 326
Likes: 1
From: UK mainly
Land straight ahead eevrytime ...howvever a few years back one instructor was discussing this and he reckoned he had done it (simulated) 500agl in the climb out then executed a 45 degree decending steep turn back the other way in a c150 I have to say it worked he is still with us but its stuff for hero's
not me your regular guy - his tip was you just have to have the courage!
not me your regular guy - his tip was you just have to have the courage!
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 285
Likes: 0
From: UK
Belowtheradar
Rest assured you won't. I accept your point of view and I am willing to listen and discuss other ideas and suggestions but please accept that turning back is frought with danger and there is a vast amount of literature available which supports this; (Feels like I'm repeating myself now to somebody who is not listening !) 
I have taught at large FTOs and their SOPs are there for a reason. Flying Order Books specifically state, "When the donkey quits land straight ahead; Do not attempt turn backs to the reciprocal runway below 1000ft AGL" If I taught what you advocate I would have been having tea and biscuits with my P45 on the table.
Bose-x - Great post -
I can't find anything written down specifically that gives a definition of an EFATO suffice to say its after take off ! Where the take off ends is to be honest a subjective one - In a jet for example, take off performance ends at 1500ft. - You could say it becomes a forced landing when the engine quits ??
I've looked at how PFLs are taught. One noteable feature is that I teach my students to be approximately, ball park figure, 1000-1500ft AGL at the end of the downwind to base leg; So on take off if the engine quits and you can make it to approximately 1000ft a 90deg turn onto a base leg sets you up for a forced landing without power ??
Off course its all approximate and relevant to the airfield you are at; for example a 90deg turn could put you downwind for another runway at the same field; If you are climbing over a built up area I would climb at Vx with flap to get as high as possible quickly, but watch that speed if you get a loss of power !!
Like in every walk of life there are good and bad instructors; there are also excellent instructors who have bad days; on some days everything can work against you and getting airbourne is an achievement in itself.
In my limited experience its always good to impart knowledge with some form of reason why; apart from I told you so; pointing out the documentary evidence to a student whether it be the FOB, Ops Manual, POH, AICs etc etc..gives the student the confidence that the instructor is not talking BS !!
If an instructor has made you uncomfortable with his aircraft handling skills then maybe it should be taken up with the CFI !!
Rest assured I will get my point over to you eventually,
I have taught at large FTOs and their SOPs are there for a reason. Flying Order Books specifically state, "When the donkey quits land straight ahead; Do not attempt turn backs to the reciprocal runway below 1000ft AGL" If I taught what you advocate I would have been having tea and biscuits with my P45 on the table.
Bose-x - Great post -
if you would contribute to the debate about at what stage an EFATO becomes a forced landing without power, then I would value that, especially as it is likely to have a number of variables to consider.
I've looked at how PFLs are taught. One noteable feature is that I teach my students to be approximately, ball park figure, 1000-1500ft AGL at the end of the downwind to base leg; So on take off if the engine quits and you can make it to approximately 1000ft a 90deg turn onto a base leg sets you up for a forced landing without power ??
Off course its all approximate and relevant to the airfield you are at; for example a 90deg turn could put you downwind for another runway at the same field; If you are climbing over a built up area I would climb at Vx with flap to get as high as possible quickly, but watch that speed if you get a loss of power !!
Like in every walk of life there are good and bad instructors; there are also excellent instructors who have bad days; on some days everything can work against you and getting airbourne is an achievement in itself.
In my limited experience its always good to impart knowledge with some form of reason why; apart from I told you so; pointing out the documentary evidence to a student whether it be the FOB, Ops Manual, POH, AICs etc etc..gives the student the confidence that the instructor is not talking BS !!
If an instructor has made you uncomfortable with his aircraft handling skills then maybe it should be taken up with the CFI !!
Guest
Posts: n/a
Turbo J
Thanks - your comments are what I expected and pretty much in line with my thinking, but nice to hear that I am not missing anything.
Actually, nothing to do with handling skills, rather decision making, e.g. in one case, 'don't check the carb heat before take off', after a full stop landing and long taxi, with 20 degree OAT and 75% humidity. When I mentioned carb ice, he told me it only occurs in winter
Did talk to the CFI, but mainly to share the European knowledge on carb ice and the guys thanked me for the reference to the CAA document (this was inanother country.)
Thanks - your comments are what I expected and pretty much in line with my thinking, but nice to hear that I am not missing anything.
If an instructor has made you uncomfortable with his aircraft handling skills then maybe it should be taken up with the CFI !!
Did talk to the CFI, but mainly to share the European knowledge on carb ice and the guys thanked me for the reference to the CAA document (this was inanother country.)
Last edited by Final 3 Greens; 27th February 2009 at 11:07.