EFATO, to turn or not to turn.

[Gertrude the Wombat]

within 30-45deg of runway centre line

From above the end of 23 at Cambridge it's a 90 degree turn to make the common. Instructors teach this as preferable to going straight ahead into the houses. But by that point you should be at 500'.

[belowradar]

OK Guys I am pleased that I have got my point across and Bose X I am also a full time instructor who flies for a living.

I don't see any more point in trying to convince you that in some circumstances it might be your only option.

Good luck and hope that you never have to find out

[S-Works]

I don't see any more point in trying to convince you that in some circumstances it might be your only option.

You mean die if you do, die if you don't?

[belowradar]

Bose X - very dramatic comment

The thing that surprises me the most with this debate is how inflexible some pilots are when it comes to looking objectively at possible options in a rational and unemotional way.

Anyway enough energy wasted already on this subject

[TurboJ]

and Bose X I am also a full time instructor who flies for a living.

belowradar - with some of your comments I am shocked that you reveal you are an instructor

1. So how do you teach EFATOs?
2. At what point do you advocate turning back to the field?
3. Does your FOB advocate you can turn back?
4. Does your FTO know you teach/advocate turning back to the field after an engine failure?
5. Do you teach the dangers of turning back to your students with statistical evidence of the likely outcome?
6. On your last instructor checkride did you explain to your FIC that is how you teach EFATOs and what was his/her reaction?

TJ

[Cricket23]

Interesting debate going on here. It would also be interesting to hear from anybody who has actually had an EFATO and what they did, how long it took them to react etc. However, I guess they would have posted already.

For what it's worth, when I was learning my instructor told me about an EFATO that he had had in an Auster at Shoreham. He didn't fancy getting wet, so turned back and lived to tell the tale. However, he is a pretty special pilot, and what he teaches his students is to land straight ahead +/- 30 degrees.

He does this on the basis that whilst you might get away with turning back, the chances are (and stats suggest) that you won't.

Regards,

Cricket23

[Black Jake]

Here's a thought for those at FTOs or flying clubs, or even syndicates at farm strips, for a practical way to (possibly?) improve the chances of a successful outcome should the elastic band driving the prop go twang. Put aside for a moment the theoretical (and it appears from some comments on here, the dogmatic), "land ahead" or "land within +/- 30 degrees" or even "in the right circumstances a turnback is possible."

In this age of digital cameras, how about taking a picture from about 500 feet agl of the view left, ahead and right (about a 90 degree panorama) from the end of each and every runway at your airfield. Paste the pictures on a notice board somewhere prominent and before flight stand in front of the pictures and, armed with factors such as the wind velocity, cloud base, aircraft performance calculations etc, decide what your best options are should the worst happen. For example, if there are suitable fields 40 degrees to the right, the wind is coming from the right, and all other sectors offer inhospitable terrain, one would be somewhat remiss to discount them.

Obviously this option may not be available when visiting other airfields - unless of course the locals have done similar. In which case the visitor can self brief his/her EFATO options for departure whilst settling the landing fees/booking out.

BJ

[belowradar]

Turbo - j

belowradar - with some of your comments I am shocked that you reveal you are an instructor

1. So how do you teach EFATOs? Same as everybody else don't turn back unless you have no options straight ahead and you have gained sufficient height to return to the airport environment (where there are crash facilities)
2. At what point do you advocate turning back to the field?Not normally but if you know that there are no options ahead then turning back may be an option if you have gained a minimum height (depending on weather, aircraft and proficiency)
3. Does your FOB advocate you can turn back? I am CFI so I advise students to plan well in advance, assess all likely eventualities and plan for them, to not abandon any possibility of a good outcome (i.e. assess ALL possible options and pick the best one)
4. Does your FTO know you teach/advocate turning back to the field after an engine failure?YES I am the CFI
5. Do you teach the dangers of turning back to your students with statistical evidence of the likely outcome? YES of course
6. On your last instructor checkride did you explain to your FIC that is how you teach EFATOs and what was his/her reaction? On my last proficiency check my instructor encouraged me to fly a return to runway after engine failure and to determine what height I would need to achieve before turning back. I decided on 800 feet given the aircraft and wind and we had lots of height left so needed to slip (it was a powerful turbine single). Yes it focused my mind on the ground in the turn as well as maintaining safe speed and balance but it was do-able and in rare instances it might just save your neck.

I don't buy the practice of teaching a dumbed down version of actions to students / pilots - this only leads to "Do as I say - Not as I do"

Effective problem solving = Plan ahead - assess all possible solutions to a problem - implement the best solution - monitor and review actions as necessary

I have never advocated not landing straight ahead - I agree that it is normally the best thing to do but I never say NEVER turn back

[S-Works]

I have never advocated not landing straight ahead - I agree that it is normally the best thing to do but I never say NEVER turn back

In which case it is you that has become dogmatic in the pursuit of pedantry.

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.

Others, myself included have agreed that it may be possible to turn back, by turn back we are talking about the attempt to land back on the aircraft behind you not trying to find a suitable place straight ahead or within a small turn arc. There are indeed sky gods who will make light work of such a manoeuvre. But as I have said many times in this thread, the average spam can driver is not a sky god.

Teaching it as a standard manoeuvre is wrong. The stats prove this and so the attitude of the establishment towards it has created the strong recommendation that you should never turn back for good reason.

Now if you think that you can do it and that you can train all your students to do it safely then I am truly impressed, you are a better pilot and Instructor than me. Please PM me your contact details as I am happy to take Instruction from a person as experienced as you who can teach me everything I need to know to survive a turn back.

As food for thought, the pilot I watched die on Saturday (that kicked this thread off), was he a sky god or was he thinking that he had exceptional circumstances and a turn back was appropriate, or did he maybe just think that it was an aircraft that he designed and built and knew like a second skin and it was his home airfield so he would be fine trying a turn back? We will never know, but it is another to add to the statistics that support the generally accepted advice that a turn back is likely to get you killed.

If we have Instructors sowing the seeds in pilots minds that a turn back might work in the right circumstances. Where do we draw the line at what might not work? There are to many variables for us as Instructors to teach. The 'establishment' understands they are aiming at Joe average and as such gives us guidelines to work in. Instructors trying to buck against the establishment because they think they know better undermines the system.

[bookworm]

Teaching it as a standard manoeuvre is wrong. The stats prove this ...

I'd be very surprised if that were the case, and invite you to cite these "stats". While it may be possible to find statistics that demonstrate that the success of the turnback as an untaught manoeuvre is low, the turnback has not been systematically included in the PPL syllabus for a very long time. Thus I don't think you can claim anything about the merits or otherwise of teaching it on the basis of statistics.

[S-Works]

Come on bookworm you are the king of stats. Take a look at the aib reports on fatalities of turn back attempts.

Are you telling me you condone it?

[Fuji Abound]

In the same vein neither has the recovery from a full power climb - although a required part of the FAA FT and two yearly renewal.

Is it the case that rather liking spining the justification is that the benefits don’t justify the rewards or is it the case some instructors are not capable of training the student in these manoeuvres competently.

Bookworm makes a good point - if low level recovery and turn back was a taught and practicised manoeuver undoubtedly pilots would stand a better chance of success.

[bjornhall]

Bookworm makes a good point - if low level recovery and turn back was a taught and practicised manoeuver undoubtedly pilots would stand a better chance of success.

But I'm convinced they would stand an even better chance if they neither train for it, nor attempt it.

Since the discussion has headed off towards flight training: Let's recall that the end result of the PPL training is a 45 - 70 hour baby-pilot, just barely able to keep him/herself alive unsupervised while they really learn to fly. To try to include turn backs in the PPL syllabus makes about as much as sense as teaching lomcevaks, and our chance of mastering it in a real emergency is about as high.

For an experienced and well trained pilot, I agree it might be the best option in some situations, and of course it can be completed successfully. Just like Cat III landings in a B744 can be completed successfully. But let's leave it to the professionals and the very experienced. Myself, I'd rather make sure I don't operate (at least not routinely) in places where a turn back is the only survivable option.

[Islander2]

Teaching it as a standard manoeuvre is wrong. The stats prove this and so the attitude of the establishment towards it has created the strong recommendation that you should never turn back for good reason.

bose-x, it proved impossible to have a civilised debate with you on this subject elsewhere, and I've no intention of putting myself once again on the receiving end of a whole lot more misrepresentation of my position accompanied by personal abuse.

However, I would suggest you reconsider your observation above. Firstly, as bookworm has correctly observed, the stats tell you nothing of the sort. More importantly, if the stats tell you anything at all, it's that the UK approach to this problem has been notably unsuccessful in preventing people from turning back following an EFATO at low level.

I have argued extensively before, and still passionately believe, that this has something to do with the approach itself. Since we are taught that there is only one possible course of action, it follows there is no point in thinking about EFATO ahead of take-off. Accordingly, almost every pilot I ever fly with doesn't undertake a pre-take-off brief for action in the event of an EFATO, nor is such pre-take-off EFATO self-brief taught by the flying training establishment. And it is my contention, strongly held, that it is this very lack of immediate prior consideration that causes people to disregard their training and succumb to the more-natural instinct to turn back.

The glider fraternity does it differently, and with apparently greater success. Since cable breaks are a frequent occurence, all UK glider pilots are taught to undertake a pre-lauch brief where they consider the actions they will follow should the cable break (i.e. EFATO) after take-off. And they brief for potentially different action dependant on the height at which the failure occurs. If it happens below xxx feet, they will land ahead; if it happens between xxx and yyy feet, they will turn back and land in the opposite direction; if it happens above yyy feet, they will fly some kind of circuit and land sort of in the launch direction.

My argument is that the fixed-wing community would be better served by following glider practice. This means that, for the type we fly, we should:

a) acknowledge that the generally-accepted best AoB for the turn is around 45deg;

b) think long and hard about what would be an appropriate speed in the turn; do not just think you'd use 'best glide speed', but do completely disregard the suicidal nonsense from Rogers about flying at 5% above the 45deg AoB stall speed; personally I recommend 1.3x the 45deg AoB stall speed, which gives a decent safety margin over the stall albeit for some loss of turn back performance; in the absence of a carefully calculated speed, Vy is a generally a good number to aim for; in my A36 Bonanza, that means 100KIAS (although I actually use two numbers ... a low weight and a height weight figure);

c) go and experiment at safe altitudes, using the numbers from a and b above, to see what altitude-loss you seem to incur in completing, say, a 230deg turn in one direction followed by a 50 deg turn in the other; take note of, indeed be surprised by, how large a figure this is; in my Bonanza, it's 700-800ft; acknowledge that an actual failure is likely still to be followed by some kind of WTF moment, despite our pre-take-off brief, so add a margin; accordingly, in the Bonanza, I have established 1,000 ft as the height below which I will not contemplate turning back;

c) just before every take-off, spare some time (10secs is all that's required) for an EFATO self-brief; consider the wind direction and surrounding terrain, contemplate that any turn-back is best made by turning into the wind unless obstruction considerations dictate otherwise; say to yourself: "should the engine fail below xxxft altitude, I will land straight ahead +/- 30deg ... above xxxft altitude I will consider turning back with a left (right) turn using 45deg AoB and yyKIAS as target figures."

If this approach were to be widely adopted, I believe the EFATO fatality statistics in the UK would be measurably improved. Others are entitled to disagree, but logical arguments would be preferable to mindless mantra.

Doubtless this is the point where bose-x will be back with sky-god or armchair expert accusations, but I am not and never have advocated turning back from an EFATO at low height (I think my own personal minima of 1,000 ft in the Bonanza underscores that), although that hasn't stopped the suggestion from being made. As it happens, I can find few if any people here or on the Flyer Forum thread that have advocated doing so!

[S-Works]

We are arguing semantics here Islander. It was not me that gave you anyt abuse on Flyer either for the record. It was rather Ian suggested that you were hammering home the point a little needlessly.

I simply maintain that while I am sure that a turn back is possible, for the average joe spam can driver it is unwise.

I am getting into no further debate with you on this Chris. I personally think you are wrong advocating it, you think you are right. That is not going to change. Fortunately you are not teaching so this will remain an armchair debate.

[Islander2]

It was not me that gave you anyt abuse on Flyer either for the record.

Well, for the record, I view being referred to as a prat, a sky god and an armchair expert as abuse. And it wasn't Ian that used those terms.

Fortunately you are not teaching so this will remain an armchair debate.

There you go again. Why, bose-x, do you find it utterly impossible to engage in debate without constant attempts to put the other person down. It does you no favours at all. I don't think you'll find a convincing argument to support the notion that only instructors can have a valid point of view on this topic!

[Islander2]

Across the 30+ years I've been flying, EFATO turn back with fatal consequence has been a regular occurrence ... mmflynn's earlier statistic of 8 in 10 years seems, from recollection, quite possibly representative of earlier periods.

Accordingly, despite the flight training syllabus having constantly hammered home 'don't turn back from low height' throughout that period, people frequently still do.

bose-x, your contribution as to how to reduce these unnecessary fatalities seems to be: simply to keep hammering home 'don't turn back from low height'; in other words more of the same.

I'm suggesting a change is needed, the principal part of which is to start teaching an EFATO pre-take-off self-brief. But there again, I'm not an instructor, so

[S-Works]

Well, for the record, I view being referred to as a prat, a sky god and an armchair expert as abuse. And it wasn't Ian that used those terms.

I apologised for calling you a prat over there and will do so again here publicly.

I'm suggesting a change is needed, the principal part of which is to start teaching an EFATO pre-take-off self-brief. But there again, I'm not an instructor, so

It is my understanding that those who are experts in instructional technique have reviewed this subject many times and the over riding opinion has been that it is inadvisable to make a turn back after an EFATO. Your not turning back unless above 1000ft in my mind is not an EFATO, it is a failure at circuit height and if you could not make a turn and land back on the airfield after such a filure it is a poor show. When I fly the Chippy I rarely get ABOVE 1000ft.....

If the donkey quits at a couple of hundred feet then it becomes a different discussion. The problem we are having with this argument is where does an EFATO become a failure at circuit height?

bose-x, your contribution as to how to reduce these unnecessary fatalities seems to be: simply to keep hammering home 'don't turn back from low height'; in other words more of the same.

Yes it is, my professional liability insurance does not allow me to appoint myself a greater authority than the teaching establishment. You are free to do so, if you manage to convince them of your argument then I will adapt accordingly.

[what next]

Hello!

...simply to keep hammering home 'don't turn back from low height';

No. No more "hammering" and "drills", no more trained apes and pre-programmed robots in the cockpit, please! As you said yourself, it dosen't help.

We must train them to become pilots. The main skill of a pilot is not to hold on to his stick and throttle while following a line on his map, but to be able to assess a situation quickly, to draw an accurate conclusion from it, to decide upon the course of action and to stick with that decision. Google for "Sullenberger" if you don't know what I mean.

Giving the students rules as guidelines to base their decisions on or to bias the direction in which their decision should point is a good thing. Based on experience, the rule "don't turn back" will be a good basis for a decision in most of the cases. But not in all cases (anybody ever been to Berlin Tempelhof (R.I.P.) - any turn with less than ninety degrees would have meant certain death there!). And therefore "hammering in" a rule like "don't ever turn back!" is wrong. Terribly wrong. Becuause rules and drills are only good if they _always_ work.

The way to do it and the way to teach it is very simple and as old as aviation itself: Teach them do do a proper departure briefing (as does every professional flight crew) before every flight, specific to that flight. Taking into account the runway, the aerodrome, the weather, the performance of the aeroplane and all other relevant factors.

Once in the air, it is too late to decide upon the course of action in case of an emergency in the early stages of the take-off. The decision must have been taken and briefed _before_ even lining up on the runway. Like "Islander2" described for the case of a possible cable-break when which-launching gliders (we did exactly the same thing when I flew gliders 30 years ago!).

Another thing that is important to teach and to train is to actually plan for an EFATO before _every_ departure. Take off every time, as if an engine faliure is a normal occurrence. Don't ever accept intersection takeoffs on runways that have obstacles behind them. Use every metre awailable, perform a static-thrust short-field takeoff, climb at best-angle-of-climb speed, so that you will be at a comfortable height with as many options as possible when you cross the airfield boundary. (To hell with possible noise complaints - this is _your_ life and not theirs, and emergency vehicles make a lot of noise too!). Find out how much altitude _your_ aeroplane loses in a tight 180-degree turn (or 270 followed by 90 if you need to land opposite on your takeoff runway). Add this figure to your field elevation (plus some safety margin) and you get your "gate" altitude below which turning back is impossible by the laws of physics. Include this figure in your departure briefing ("In case of engine malfunction below xyzt feet, we _have_ to go straight, in case of engine malfunction above xyzt feet, we _try_ to land straight ahead, if no suitable landing area is apparent, we also have the option to turn back"). Do this before every flight - let your student do this before every flight - and none of you will ever crash because of an engine failure.
And all this by understanding and logic and not through dumb "hammering" and "drills".

Happy landings,
Max

[S-Works]

t not in all cases (anybody ever been to Berlin Tempelhof (R.I.P.) - any turn with less than ninety degrees would have meant certain death there!). And therefore "hammering in" a rule like "don't ever turn back!" is wrong. Terribly wrong. Becuause rules and drills are only good if they _always_ work.

We are talking about the TURN BACK after an EFATO. That is the turn with the sole intention of trying to land back on the runway that you have just departed from........

Anyway, I am done arguing on this subject as I think we are arguing for arguing sake.