Engine failure after takeoff - turn back?
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: southern England
Age: 66
Posts: 139
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Get up high, reduce speed to your climb out speed, read the altimeter, chop the power. Turn 180 degrees as quickly as you dare. Read the altimeter.
Yes, at least that much sky. Does it still seem like a good idea?
Yes, at least that much sky. Does it still seem like a good idea?
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No even better is to drop the nose build up some speed, pull up and stall turn back to the runway works a treat 
Only Joking !!!!!!!!!!!!!
Straight ahead 30 degrees or even 45 degrees left or right of the nose and above all keep the ship flying
Pace
Only Joking !!!!!!!!!!!!!
Straight ahead 30 degrees or even 45 degrees left or right of the nose and above all keep the ship flying
Pace
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Scotland
Age: 84
Posts: 1,434
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No even better is to drop the nose build up some speed, pull up and stall turn back to the runway works a treat 
Only Joking !!!!!!!!!!!!!
Straight ahead 30 degrees or even 45 degrees left or right of the nose and above all keep the ship flying
Pace
Only Joking !!!!!!!!!!!!!
Straight ahead 30 degrees or even 45 degrees left or right of the nose and above all keep the ship flying
Pace
I think I'll try the wing over turn at 200feet, bound to work. I'm not joking!!
Join Date: May 2002
Location: dubai
Posts: 942
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am of the opinion, there is a 90% chance of walking away from an EFTO by landing ahead and under CONTROLLED flight!! Stall it, even from say 20 feet and you're probably finished.
Assuming you took off into wind, your ground speed will be relatively low. Try and turn back, and if you stall the a/c in a turn, the g/s will be high, coming to downwind, not to mention the loss of control, with a high vertical speed. That's what kills.
Forget about the aircraft as it can be replaced.
Assuming you took off into wind, your ground speed will be relatively low. Try and turn back, and if you stall the a/c in a turn, the g/s will be high, coming to downwind, not to mention the loss of control, with a high vertical speed. That's what kills.
Forget about the aircraft as it can be replaced.
Moderator
Yes, this is a "dead horse" subject, but okay, again: Do not attempt turnbacks unless it is in a competent training environment, and after a briefing. I practiced and practiced in my 150, got everything ideal, and was just able to do it from about 400 feet. Zero margin for getting it wrong, or differing circumstances. Hardly a good plan to depend upon. I'm not going to say what worked, 'cause I don't want people trying it. And, I don't practice any more, it's not worth the risk....
I have had two EFATO, both at just over 200 feet. both times I force landed onto a suitable area, and later took off, when the problem was resolved. One was a 70 degree turn onto an abandoned runway, and the other a 90 degree turn from crosswind. That one took every bit of skill, but anything else was a wreck the plane and I situation.
Like a helicopter autorotation entry, you have one to two seconds during the climb out to get the nose down and maintain glide speed. This fact is a very good reason to not climb out at less than glide speed. The plane will climb at a slower speed, but happily the manufacturer has cunninly chosen a climb speed from which a glide can be entered safely. While demonstrating glides from engine failures at 50 feet, in a Grand Caravan at 80 knots rather than 87 (book climb out speed), I came as close as ever to it not working, and that was planned, and straight ahead onto remaining runway.
I have very limited glider experience, so I will leave those valuable comments to the glider pilots here. But, a glider has amazing turnback gliding capabilities compared to a power plane. Don't let a Youtube video lure you into trying turnbacks - don't let anything lure you into trying turnbacks!
I have had two EFATO, both at just over 200 feet. both times I force landed onto a suitable area, and later took off, when the problem was resolved. One was a 70 degree turn onto an abandoned runway, and the other a 90 degree turn from crosswind. That one took every bit of skill, but anything else was a wreck the plane and I situation.
Like a helicopter autorotation entry, you have one to two seconds during the climb out to get the nose down and maintain glide speed. This fact is a very good reason to not climb out at less than glide speed. The plane will climb at a slower speed, but happily the manufacturer has cunninly chosen a climb speed from which a glide can be entered safely. While demonstrating glides from engine failures at 50 feet, in a Grand Caravan at 80 knots rather than 87 (book climb out speed), I came as close as ever to it not working, and that was planned, and straight ahead onto remaining runway.
I have very limited glider experience, so I will leave those valuable comments to the glider pilots here. But, a glider has amazing turnback gliding capabilities compared to a power plane. Don't let a Youtube video lure you into trying turnbacks - don't let anything lure you into trying turnbacks!
To qualify for winch launch in a glider you have to practice cable breaks from many different altitudes.
Basic drill: Immediately lower the nose below the horizon as much as it was above the horizon.
Gliders have the advantage of spoilers and being able to fly a mini circuit once too high to land back on the runway. Also on a winch you are airborne and climbing steeply in a very short distance.
Basic drill: Immediately lower the nose below the horizon as much as it was above the horizon.
Gliders have the advantage of spoilers and being able to fly a mini circuit once too high to land back on the runway. Also on a winch you are airborne and climbing steeply in a very short distance.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Suffolk
Age: 70
Posts: 283
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm an ex glider pilot and used to fly the Slingsby Swallow.
The learned reflex of nose down till flying speed on a cable break can be a life saver when flying high, drag, low inertia aircraft. In a glider you may then have the option of a mini circuit, otherwise take the wise recommendation (Bob Hoover?) to fly it all the way to the crash.
The learned reflex of nose down till flying speed on a cable break can be a life saver when flying high, drag, low inertia aircraft. In a glider you may then have the option of a mini circuit, otherwise take the wise recommendation (Bob Hoover?) to fly it all the way to the crash.
Last edited by rusty sparrow; 25th Jan 2013 at 08:52.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Inverness-shire
Posts: 577
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rather be flying - you missed the important bit after "Immediately lower the nose etc" during a cable break
It's "Wait for flying speed to be restored"
- during the pushover from the climb angle a glider can lose lots of airspeed and attempting a turn immediately after lowering the nose is asking for a spin. It's what all glider instructors are watching for when teaching cable breaks.
All the above is probably less marked in a light aircraft efato situation as the climb angle is less and the inertia is greater but restoring flying speed is still key to staying alive, not just lowering the nose.
It's "Wait for flying speed to be restored"
- during the pushover from the climb angle a glider can lose lots of airspeed and attempting a turn immediately after lowering the nose is asking for a spin. It's what all glider instructors are watching for when teaching cable breaks.
All the above is probably less marked in a light aircraft efato situation as the climb angle is less and the inertia is greater but restoring flying speed is still key to staying alive, not just lowering the nose.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Sussex, UK
Age: 37
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In gliding the very last item on your pre-flight check list is "Eventualities" which covers the cable braking. As has been said you immediately lower the nose, regain flying airspeed, then land ahead if possible. If not you have the option of an abbreviated circuit or even a 180 if conditions allow.
The point is all the above is fresh in your mind because it's the last thing you think of before launching, so you carry out the maneuvers almost sub-consciously.
Still, gliders have vastly superior performance to SEPs and you can have a 3 or 4 minute flight from 1000ft before joining the circuit where as I would think twice about turning back from an EFATO at 1000ft in an SEP!
The point is all the above is fresh in your mind because it's the last thing you think of before launching, so you carry out the maneuvers almost sub-consciously.
Still, gliders have vastly superior performance to SEPs and you can have a 3 or 4 minute flight from 1000ft before joining the circuit where as I would think twice about turning back from an EFATO at 1000ft in an SEP!
The same old chestnut!
Can it be done - yes
Does it need to be trained for and briefed diligently before take off - yes
Is the reality of a real engine failure vs a practice likely to affect the outcome - yes.
Interesting to see the RAF Woodvale Bulldog references. I was trained there in the late '80s to do turnbacks and it was a precision manoeuvre, towards the crosswind to reduce radius of turn and only used for certain runways that had housing estates or forests ahead of them.
Minimum height to commence was 450 ft and the first 90 degrees of turn was head down on instruments, 45 degrees of bank and pulling to the light buffet at best glide speed. Bear in mind there was no stall warner on the Bulldog as students were taught to feel the different stages of buffet.
The basic premise was not necessarily to land on the reciprocal runway, but to land or force land within the airfield boundary so as to be within the RFFS cover.
I know the boss of LUAS in 1997 was sadly unable to put theory into practice, hence my earlier remark about practice vs reality. However, Rod Newman did get his aircraft back into the perimeter area, rather than into the forest, when his student turned his fuel selector to off so it can work given the right circumstances.
My best friend of that time span into Southport beach and died in the post crash fire, but that is a different story
Can it be done - yes
Does it need to be trained for and briefed diligently before take off - yes
Is the reality of a real engine failure vs a practice likely to affect the outcome - yes.
Interesting to see the RAF Woodvale Bulldog references. I was trained there in the late '80s to do turnbacks and it was a precision manoeuvre, towards the crosswind to reduce radius of turn and only used for certain runways that had housing estates or forests ahead of them.
Minimum height to commence was 450 ft and the first 90 degrees of turn was head down on instruments, 45 degrees of bank and pulling to the light buffet at best glide speed. Bear in mind there was no stall warner on the Bulldog as students were taught to feel the different stages of buffet.
The basic premise was not necessarily to land on the reciprocal runway, but to land or force land within the airfield boundary so as to be within the RFFS cover.
I know the boss of LUAS in 1997 was sadly unable to put theory into practice, hence my earlier remark about practice vs reality. However, Rod Newman did get his aircraft back into the perimeter area, rather than into the forest, when his student turned his fuel selector to off so it can work given the right circumstances.
My best friend of that time span into Southport beach and died in the post crash fire, but that is a different story
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Scotland
Age: 84
Posts: 1,434
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm just a low hour rookie compared to many, but I think all the detailed advice in the world is not going to help in anyone's first actual EFATO. Recent & plenty of practice would be more use.
Everyone says "Get an instructor to do this or that". Well, do that till you have done it as often as he has & there should be less panic at the time.
Just my miserable opinion.
I've never had one, not looking forward to it, although I've practiced (not enough) & know the drill, I hope to Christ I do the right thing.
Lowest cable break I had was <100ft, The glider, K6E, & I both survived.
Everyone says "Get an instructor to do this or that". Well, do that till you have done it as often as he has & there should be less panic at the time.
Just my miserable opinion.
I've never had one, not looking forward to it, although I've practiced (not enough) & know the drill, I hope to Christ I do the right thing.
Lowest cable break I had was <100ft, The glider, K6E, & I both survived.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Amsterdam
Posts: 4,598
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Like others, I have also investigated the best way and minimum altitude loss in case of an EFATO. In a normal SEP, I'm not attempting the turnback at less than 1000' because of that. It simply cannot be done.
And even if you complete the turn perfectly with minimum height loss, you still have the issue that your climb performance before the engine failure has to be better than the "best glide" performance. (So your best climb gradient has to be better than 1:10 if your best glide gradient is 1:10.) Otherwise you'll never be able to end up at or above the "best glide" profile, regardless of the altitude or distance from the field. In a typical flight school SEP, your climb gradient will be better than your glide gradient, but not very much so. And whatever you gained will be thrown away by the turn.
Of course, if you turn crosswind at 500' your chances of making it to the runway are greatly increased. First, because you're not flying away from the field anymore, and second because you've already done half the turn.
Mmm. I'm not so sure about that. Yes, they will have ingrained the action of lowering the nose and that's good. But my experience (and I hold both a PPL and a GPL) is that a glider has so much better glide performance that you've got far more time to consider your actions. 300 feet is enough to fly a mini-circuit, and that's actually a relatively leisurely mini-circuit, giving you plenty time to sort out approach speeds, angles and the like, and choose your landing spot.
In a SEP, anything below 1000' requires immediate and decisive action, as you'll be on the ground in less than a minute. So if a glider pilot in that situation lowers the nose and then starts thinking about his actions (instead of acting on an ingrained plan of action) he or she might hash things up just as easily as a SEP pilot.
During my GPL training, when close to first solo, my instructor pulled the winch release at 300', which is the height where you can attempt a mini-circuit instead of landing ahead. As a SEP pilot my reactions were instinctively to lower the nose, and as soon as I was stable I banked for the mini-circuit rather aggressively. A bit tool aggressively for the instructor. He told me to slow down, take my time, and actually pulled the airbrakes so that I lost another 100', "to make things interesting". And indeed, we had plenty time and altitude to complete the circuit and make a nice landing.
Now that I've got both a PPL and a GPL, and looking back at my PPL EFATO/PFL training I think not enough is being taught about energy management. Or more specifically, how to get rid of excess energy if you are too high.
In both EFATO and PFL training (post-PPL) I got told off for removing flaps if I found myself descending too quickly. Even though we were flying inside the green arc, and I just wanted to use the flaps as airbrakes. And I was on a checkflight early last season when the instructor threw me a PFL. I ended up being too high so I dumped all flaps, lowered the nose and started a full rudder sideslip. Got told off again. (Even though my chosen field was on an island and there were no alternatives anymore by that time. I had to make that field or would've gone swimming.)
And even if you complete the turn perfectly with minimum height loss, you still have the issue that your climb performance before the engine failure has to be better than the "best glide" performance. (So your best climb gradient has to be better than 1:10 if your best glide gradient is 1:10.) Otherwise you'll never be able to end up at or above the "best glide" profile, regardless of the altitude or distance from the field. In a typical flight school SEP, your climb gradient will be better than your glide gradient, but not very much so. And whatever you gained will be thrown away by the turn.
Of course, if you turn crosswind at 500' your chances of making it to the runway are greatly increased. First, because you're not flying away from the field anymore, and second because you've already done half the turn.
Hi, I think most glider pilots would cope well with a SEP EFAT as all winch launches are an effective EFAT, when the cable back-releases.
In a SEP, anything below 1000' requires immediate and decisive action, as you'll be on the ground in less than a minute. So if a glider pilot in that situation lowers the nose and then starts thinking about his actions (instead of acting on an ingrained plan of action) he or she might hash things up just as easily as a SEP pilot.
During my GPL training, when close to first solo, my instructor pulled the winch release at 300', which is the height where you can attempt a mini-circuit instead of landing ahead. As a SEP pilot my reactions were instinctively to lower the nose, and as soon as I was stable I banked for the mini-circuit rather aggressively. A bit tool aggressively for the instructor. He told me to slow down, take my time, and actually pulled the airbrakes so that I lost another 100', "to make things interesting". And indeed, we had plenty time and altitude to complete the circuit and make a nice landing.
Gliders have the advantage of spoilers
In both EFATO and PFL training (post-PPL) I got told off for removing flaps if I found myself descending too quickly. Even though we were flying inside the green arc, and I just wanted to use the flaps as airbrakes. And I was on a checkflight early last season when the instructor threw me a PFL. I ended up being too high so I dumped all flaps, lowered the nose and started a full rudder sideslip. Got told off again. (Even though my chosen field was on an island and there were no alternatives anymore by that time. I had to make that field or would've gone swimming.)
Last edited by BackPacker; 25th Jan 2013 at 11:43.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Backpacker
Used correctly the rudder is a very good vertical speedbrake rather than telling you off the instructor should be teaching the correct way to side slip
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1,464
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To qualify for winch launch in a glider you have to practice cable breaks from many different altitudes.
Basic drill: Immediately lower the nose below the horizon as much as it was above the horizon.
Gliders have the advantage of spoilers and being able to fly a mini circuit once too high to land back on the runway. Also on a winch you are airborne and climbing steeply in a very short distance.
Basic drill: Immediately lower the nose below the horizon as much as it was above the horizon.
Gliders have the advantage of spoilers and being able to fly a mini circuit once too high to land back on the runway. Also on a winch you are airborne and climbing steeply in a very short distance.
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 816
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As some here have shown it is easy to think of a turnback as simply a 180 degree turn. It will always be more than 180, and the worst case, close in, is nearly 360 degrees of turning ie 270 left then 90 right or vice versa. Think of the height loss to accomplish that, not simply to turn 180 degrees.
Minimum height loss in the turn was achieved with maximum practical angle of bank. Turning increases the stall speed, and the stall speed in a steep turn will most likely be greater than the normal best glide speed You're already low, struggling to make it to anywhere suitable to land, there will be a tendancy to want to stretch the glide and reduce (transiently) rate of descent and yet to make the turn the nose must be stuffed further down, the speed increased and rate of descent increased whilst aleady rapidly closing with the ground. Add in to that a bit of disorientation from looking at ground references when there is a wind component and the stressed pilot may tend to fly slightly out of balance.
All this puts you in prime stall-spin-crash territory which has bitten even the best. Not a nice place to be.
Minimum height loss in the turn was achieved with maximum practical angle of bank. Turning increases the stall speed, and the stall speed in a steep turn will most likely be greater than the normal best glide speed You're already low, struggling to make it to anywhere suitable to land, there will be a tendancy to want to stretch the glide and reduce (transiently) rate of descent and yet to make the turn the nose must be stuffed further down, the speed increased and rate of descent increased whilst aleady rapidly closing with the ground. Add in to that a bit of disorientation from looking at ground references when there is a wind component and the stressed pilot may tend to fly slightly out of balance.
All this puts you in prime stall-spin-crash territory which has bitten even the best. Not a nice place to be.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: London UK
Posts: 517
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For me at least, with my modest skill level, turning back (i.e. 180 degrees to a downwind landing) is a complete non-issue.
Below 500 ft, there is no choice but to go for what I planned, which would be something I had identified pre-takeoff. Noise abatement turns often have the happy side-effect of steering you towards suitable fields, early in the climb out.
After 500 ft, there should be better choices than a turn back, but in a typical circuit it would be a "half-turn" back anyway, as BackPacker said.
After 1000 ft, you don't need to turn back.
Edite to add:
TorqueTonight, our posts crossed. I agree with your 180+ degrees point.
Below 500 ft, there is no choice but to go for what I planned, which would be something I had identified pre-takeoff. Noise abatement turns often have the happy side-effect of steering you towards suitable fields, early in the climb out.
After 500 ft, there should be better choices than a turn back, but in a typical circuit it would be a "half-turn" back anyway, as BackPacker said.
After 1000 ft, you don't need to turn back.
Edite to add:
TorqueTonight, our posts crossed. I agree with your 180+ degrees point.
Last edited by 24Carrot; 25th Jan 2013 at 15:34.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Amsterdam
Posts: 4,598
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Minimum height loss in the turn was achieved with maximum practical angle of bank.
Slightly less height loss can be gained by performing a semi-aerobatics wingover-like turn, but this is such a wild maneuver for so little gain that I would not even consider that in real life.
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 816
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm not sure you're correct there Backpacker. This was the feedback we got after the RAF trials. Having a reduced rate of descent in a gentler turn is no good to you when you're pointing in the wrong direction and extending your ground track with a wider turn. I could probably dig out the old Aero Eng university notes and do the maths but greater minds than mine have worked it out and trialled it before me.
As I alluded to in my previous post, it's not the height loss after a 180 degree turn that matters. Its the height loss to get to the runway that counts. Higher angles of bank will give tighter turns which means fewer track miles and fewer total degrees of turning. Steeper turns increase the risk of loss of control, gentler turns reduce your chance of making it to the runway.
I think we can both agree though that turnbacks are to be avoided.
As I alluded to in my previous post, it's not the height loss after a 180 degree turn that matters. Its the height loss to get to the runway that counts. Higher angles of bank will give tighter turns which means fewer track miles and fewer total degrees of turning. Steeper turns increase the risk of loss of control, gentler turns reduce your chance of making it to the runway.
I think we can both agree though that turnbacks are to be avoided.
Last edited by Torque Tonight; 25th Jan 2013 at 16:35.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: GLASGOW
Posts: 1,289
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Used correctly the rudder is a very good vertical speedbrake rather than telling you off the instructor should be teaching the correct way to side slip
Please tell me I have mis interpreted this.