EFATO, to turn or not to turn.
Thread Starter
EFATO, to turn or not to turn.
I was going to post this 'reply' to the thread here regarding David Mickleburgh's tragic accident and the subsequent posts regarding EFATO's but in the end I felt that while there's a time and place for thread drift and comment on accidents this wasn't it. However the issues raised are important, terribly so, especially when I see several posters commenting on using Microsoft to test the ability to turn a machine back following an EFATO... so here's a separate thread for some hopefully robust discussion on the topic, if you need the context for my intitial post please see the thread I reference above from which the following quote was obtained:
A friend of mine had a partial EFATO in a C-172 at around 400ft agl and managed a 180 to return back to a runway with a tailwind. He landed long & was lucky it was a 1500m runway, stopped just short of the ditch at the end.
I mention this because it was a real occurence, not a simulated one. I'd also note that he had a lot of experience on the machine at the time and was very current - it's not something to automatically consider as ok should it happen to you!
Obviously the conditions were conducive to him succeeding in his turn on this occasion and yet, tragically, they were not for David on Saturday. Two people appear to have made what one presumes to be a similar choice under similar duress and possibly similar conditions yet one has paid the ultimate price.
I recall someone asking an associate of my friend later why he had turned back when he taught people not to do that. He answered, more or less, 'do what I say not what I do' and intimated that the decision to turn or not was related to experience. He expected that the person asking [who was a student] would land straight ahead, as taught, under any circumstance and not even consider anything else. He was also saying that with a great deal more experience a different option may be exercised.
So I think that it's clear to me that the theoretical height at which an aeroplane may turn back and land under certain conditions could be very different to the height at which the pilot may successfully do that very thing. Without a doubt there's an element of luck as well as risk in these things but if a risk is to be taken, particularly in such a thing as this, then in must be such a well calculated risk as to be almost a certainty - the difference perhaps in thinking one can make it vs knowing you can. Even in the case of knowing one can make it things can still go wrong, as possibly happened to David, but it's still way better than thinking 'maybe' for I'll warrant the chances to be much lower in the latter case.
In the end then while hopefully many of us could be sure of making a runway if we had an EFATO at say 1500' agl the answer is likely to be different at say 700' and very different at 400'. Equally what works on one day may well not on another if the conditions won't allow it. Both of these variables (height and conditions) are something we would consider according to our experience (another variable), all three of which would produce an outcome. The trick is to ensure that the outcome is as our experience dictates it should be. Thus I feel the turn-back height varies according to the day and enormously between individuals so no one height is the magic number but it would seem the magic default perhaps is to land straight ahead, or within say 30 deg of that...
What say you?
FP.
I've never used FSX but I have tried EFATO with a Cessna 172 on FS2004
I mention this because it was a real occurence, not a simulated one. I'd also note that he had a lot of experience on the machine at the time and was very current - it's not something to automatically consider as ok should it happen to you!
Obviously the conditions were conducive to him succeeding in his turn on this occasion and yet, tragically, they were not for David on Saturday. Two people appear to have made what one presumes to be a similar choice under similar duress and possibly similar conditions yet one has paid the ultimate price.
I recall someone asking an associate of my friend later why he had turned back when he taught people not to do that. He answered, more or less, 'do what I say not what I do' and intimated that the decision to turn or not was related to experience. He expected that the person asking [who was a student] would land straight ahead, as taught, under any circumstance and not even consider anything else. He was also saying that with a great deal more experience a different option may be exercised.
So I think that it's clear to me that the theoretical height at which an aeroplane may turn back and land under certain conditions could be very different to the height at which the pilot may successfully do that very thing. Without a doubt there's an element of luck as well as risk in these things but if a risk is to be taken, particularly in such a thing as this, then in must be such a well calculated risk as to be almost a certainty - the difference perhaps in thinking one can make it vs knowing you can. Even in the case of knowing one can make it things can still go wrong, as possibly happened to David, but it's still way better than thinking 'maybe' for I'll warrant the chances to be much lower in the latter case.
In the end then while hopefully many of us could be sure of making a runway if we had an EFATO at say 1500' agl the answer is likely to be different at say 700' and very different at 400'. Equally what works on one day may well not on another if the conditions won't allow it. Both of these variables (height and conditions) are something we would consider according to our experience (another variable), all three of which would produce an outcome. The trick is to ensure that the outcome is as our experience dictates it should be. Thus I feel the turn-back height varies according to the day and enormously between individuals so no one height is the magic number but it would seem the magic default perhaps is to land straight ahead, or within say 30 deg of that...
What say you?
FP.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dont look for the “one rule for all”. You won’t find it. The guy flying regularly that practices turn backs and knows the characteristics of his aircraft may safely achieve a turn back from 400 feet, whereas another pilot in the same situation will kill himself.
The majority of pilots I would hazard do not practice turn backs. Of those that don’t, a significant percentage don’t fly frequently, and of those, a further percentage are not familiar with the type they are flying (a new club aircraft, new to a flying group etc .. .. ..). Time is not on your side when you have an engine failure at 400 feet. To have any chance of a turn back working out you need to be on the ball.
Therefore, the best you will get is “one rule for most”. If you fall into the “most” camp don’t even bother thinking about a turn back at less than 700 feet – land straight ahead or within 30 degrees of straight ahead. Between 700 feet and 1,000 feet a turn back becomes increasingly more attractive depending on what is ahead!
Debate the subtleties as you will and as has been done many times before, but don’t expect to find a rule for everyone, you wont, in fact don’t even expect the same rule to apply to every aircraft – just make sure you know which camp you are in and don’t forget a stall or spin will almost certainly kill you, but, strangely, going through a hedge or two or even running into a brick wall more than likely will not.
And if you have to ask which camp you are in, almost certainly apply the one rule for most. If you find yourself thinking at 700 feet, can I turn back - dont. If you find yourself doing mental calcualtions at 700 feet - continue the calcualtions whilst flying straight ahead. If you are wondering whether you will get away with it, wonder after you have landed in the best field in front of you. If you are thinking you dont want to right off the aircraft, just remember you definitely will if you spin or stall.
The majority of pilots I would hazard do not practice turn backs. Of those that don’t, a significant percentage don’t fly frequently, and of those, a further percentage are not familiar with the type they are flying (a new club aircraft, new to a flying group etc .. .. ..). Time is not on your side when you have an engine failure at 400 feet. To have any chance of a turn back working out you need to be on the ball.
Therefore, the best you will get is “one rule for most”. If you fall into the “most” camp don’t even bother thinking about a turn back at less than 700 feet – land straight ahead or within 30 degrees of straight ahead. Between 700 feet and 1,000 feet a turn back becomes increasingly more attractive depending on what is ahead!
Debate the subtleties as you will and as has been done many times before, but don’t expect to find a rule for everyone, you wont, in fact don’t even expect the same rule to apply to every aircraft – just make sure you know which camp you are in and don’t forget a stall or spin will almost certainly kill you, but, strangely, going through a hedge or two or even running into a brick wall more than likely will not.
And if you have to ask which camp you are in, almost certainly apply the one rule for most. If you find yourself thinking at 700 feet, can I turn back - dont. If you find yourself doing mental calcualtions at 700 feet - continue the calcualtions whilst flying straight ahead. If you are wondering whether you will get away with it, wonder after you have landed in the best field in front of you. If you are thinking you dont want to right off the aircraft, just remember you definitely will if you spin or stall.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Midlands
Posts: 2,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: .
Age: 37
Posts: 649
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I just read the first part of that forum discussion before giving up, also out of tedium. It's funny how everyone seems to become an expert whenever there's been an accident.
Smithy
Smithy
I think it is just worth saying that, in the two EFATO fatal accidents I have been close to, it wasn't a case of getting back to the airfield, it is a case of flying the aircraft at the correct speed while turning. Both of the ones I have seen stalled during the turnback. They could probably have both made it if they had flown at the correct airspeed.
Before you can start the turn back (or the straight ahead glide) you have to transition from the full power climb attitude to an attitude that will give you best glide speed. This is harder than it sounds and if you are climbing out at Yx than the airplane will lose speed very quickly if the nose is not lowered aggressively. I encourage my student to set up a shedule of personal recurrent training and the transition from takeoff initial climb to glide is one of the manoevers I recommend they include in their exercises. I also advocate the no turn back below 700 ft AGL SOP.
Both of the ones I have seen stalled during the turnback. They could probably have both made it if they had flown at the correct airspeed.
My father was a veteran flyer (instructed during the war) and was still flying when he was 81 and did many instructor courses and tests and was vehemently opposed to turn backs and I recall him sticking to his guns when a young CFS checker tried to tell him otherwise! I think my dad was right!
Ideally you should be surprised when the engine does not fail rather than when it does! As has been said previously one should do homework on the areas on the immediate climbout after take off so you know where to go if the engine fails. If there is nowhere to go then maybe you shouldn't be taking off on that runway.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I had a check ride at Marathon Florida – the instructor pulled the power at 500 ft – asked where are you going to go? – land ahead in the sea was the response. Wrong answer, Turn back was the retort and stuff the nose down. It turned out fine in a 172 and it was a very steep turn but with plenty of speed. The reason for this was a week before a chap had killed himself landing in the sea. The important lesson was to keep the speed up and keep the aircraft under control. A hard landing that breaks the undercarriage off or runs into the far hedge should be survivable, stalling and spinning is not a good idea. There are times when there is nowhere to go with a efto -20 at Southampton is one. Know your aircrafts limitations and practice manoeuvres that could save your life.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Europe
Posts: 537
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Practice the turn back manouver with an instructor and when the airfield is not busy. Work out a minimum height for your aircraft in average conditions (but make a note of strong winds etc and modify brief accordingly).
Brief this height as an option prior to departure but only turn back if above this briefed height and no options exist ahead or to the sides.
Generally you will require a fairly steep bank angle e.g. 45degrees
remember to make good use of any cross runways as required.
Hope that you never need to do it !
Brief this height as an option prior to departure but only turn back if above this briefed height and no options exist ahead or to the sides.
Generally you will require a fairly steep bank angle e.g. 45degrees
remember to make good use of any cross runways as required.
Hope that you never need to do it !
IMHO it all depends on being current, practice, and the right weather. Most ppls don't fly the same aeroplane often enough to do a turnback. I can whip the cub (150 hp) and the rans coyote (100 hp) round from 600 feet back onto our single 740m runway in most wind conditions, if I have flown a sensible climb out path, and get either of them back on to my take-off runway from anywhere on the downwind, base leg or final in any wind. They both have a good climb performance, which is a big help, keeps me close to the landable bits on climb out.
BUT I fly these two A/C a lot, I practise engine failures at all points of the flight, I regularly stall and spin the cub, and stall the rans, and I fly tight circuits as a routine. I don't do low flat approaches, I do fly gliders (and the tug), and I have been doing it for a fairish time. I don't think this is something for a low time pilot to try on their own! Also please remember when you talk about glider winch launch failures that when they do happen the glider is overhead the runway, not somewhere off the end of it. That makes a big difference to your options.
What height would I accept? The height I practice at. Supposing I recognised the problem fast enough, and didn't sit there thinking "this can't be happening". I wouldn't know how I might react, I've never had a real efato, though I have had plenty of cable breaks.
Speed bleeds off fast with the flaps down, the nose up, and the engine quiet. So, keep the aircraft flying, concentrate on flying, stuff the radio, concentrate on flying. Fly the turns with the ball in the middle, bank properly, don't try to boot it round on the rudder. That's hard to do with the ground close to the wingtip if you normally fly sloppy turns. Oh, and did I mention fly the aircraft?
BUT I fly these two A/C a lot, I practise engine failures at all points of the flight, I regularly stall and spin the cub, and stall the rans, and I fly tight circuits as a routine. I don't do low flat approaches, I do fly gliders (and the tug), and I have been doing it for a fairish time. I don't think this is something for a low time pilot to try on their own! Also please remember when you talk about glider winch launch failures that when they do happen the glider is overhead the runway, not somewhere off the end of it. That makes a big difference to your options.
What height would I accept? The height I practice at. Supposing I recognised the problem fast enough, and didn't sit there thinking "this can't be happening". I wouldn't know how I might react, I've never had a real efato, though I have had plenty of cable breaks.
Speed bleeds off fast with the flaps down, the nose up, and the engine quiet. So, keep the aircraft flying, concentrate on flying, stuff the radio, concentrate on flying. Fly the turns with the ball in the middle, bank properly, don't try to boot it round on the rudder. That's hard to do with the ground close to the wingtip if you normally fly sloppy turns. Oh, and did I mention fly the aircraft?
Work out a minimum height for your aircraft in average conditions (but make a note of strong winds etc and modify brief accordingly).
Moderator
As interesting as these discussion topics continue to be, and I think of the flying in snow question, the zero G questions, the aerobatic questions, the short runway questions, and the similar themes. The base line answer seems to always be the same: Yes, the pilot with the experience and recent practice, in the right plane, in conditions which are well understood, and planned for, can safely do it, many other pilots cannot. It is difficult to give a fair answer some of these questions here. (speaking personally) I, have little idea who I am answering. Would I demonstrate these less common flying techniques, to an eager pilot passenger? Very likely "Yes". (One PPRuNer shreaked with delight) Would I advise someone whose skill is completely unknown to me, and whom I will never meet, to attempt these things under circumstances not known by me? Very certainly "NEVER", but that does not mean it can't be done safely.
Know this: A new rental pilot, flying once a month, will never have the opportunity to accumulate the amount of recent flying skill required to safely execute such manuevers, and should never attempt to practice unsupervised. Do what your training tells you, land straight ahead, in a safe area. If you screw up turning back the consequences are much worse, than screwing up landing straight ahead. Landing straight ahead allows you the full glide time to plan the best landing and prepare, without the distraction of executing a turn as well.
I once successfully turned back after an engine failure, it took every bit of 3500 hours on type experience, and the recent practice I had done.
Discussion is welcomed, but be aware, that some of us who know the real answer to some questions, based upon our experience, are not going to give the detailed "go ahead" instructions here, to later hear that someone got hurt trying what we said that we could do. Sorry if it sounds like "do as I say, not as I do", but there is an overshadowing moral responsibility to help our fellow pilots be safe first, and adventurous after that!
Pilot DAR
Know this: A new rental pilot, flying once a month, will never have the opportunity to accumulate the amount of recent flying skill required to safely execute such manuevers, and should never attempt to practice unsupervised. Do what your training tells you, land straight ahead, in a safe area. If you screw up turning back the consequences are much worse, than screwing up landing straight ahead. Landing straight ahead allows you the full glide time to plan the best landing and prepare, without the distraction of executing a turn as well.
I once successfully turned back after an engine failure, it took every bit of 3500 hours on type experience, and the recent practice I had done.
Discussion is welcomed, but be aware, that some of us who know the real answer to some questions, based upon our experience, are not going to give the detailed "go ahead" instructions here, to later hear that someone got hurt trying what we said that we could do. Sorry if it sounds like "do as I say, not as I do", but there is an overshadowing moral responsibility to help our fellow pilots be safe first, and adventurous after that!
Pilot DAR
A stationary propellor makes a hell of a difference. Add at least 300' for that.
Know this: A new rental pilot, flying once a month, will never have the opportunity to accumulate the amount of recent flying skill required to safely execute such manuevers, and should never attempt to practice unsupervised. Do what your training tells you, land straight ahead, in a safe area. If you screw up turning back the consequences are much worse, than screwing up landing straight ahead. Landing straight ahead allows you the full glide time to plan the best landing and prepare, without the distraction of executing a turn as well.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Amsterdam
Posts: 4,598
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A stationary propellor makes a hell of a difference. Add at least 300' for that.
This was in an R2160 (Lycoming O-320-D2A, Sensenich 72" dia, 64" pitch), but I'm not sure other light aircraft with fixed pitch props will behave much differently. So in an EFATO situation, unless there's something catastrophically wrong with the engine, assume the worst case: a windmilling prop. And I would agree that that would probably add about 300' in altitude loss vs. an idling engine in a 180 degree turn.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Midlands
Posts: 2,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
“No, I don't find that to be the case. In fact, there is less drag prop stopped, even if not feathered, than when the prop is windmilling. I have done a fair bit of flying with a stopped prop, in motor gliders admittedly, but I think it carries across.”
I think it depends on the aircraft. In a motor glider, with long wings and a relatively small prop you are defiantly correct. On the Nipper, with short chunky wings and the prop stopped horizontally I can categorically say you will fall out of the sky much faster!
Rod1
I think it depends on the aircraft. In a motor glider, with long wings and a relatively small prop you are defiantly correct. On the Nipper, with short chunky wings and the prop stopped horizontally I can categorically say you will fall out of the sky much faster!
Rod1