Engine failure after takeoff - turn back?

[ChrisA87]

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
Are you seriously advocating a slide slip in an EFATO, in an SEP??? In a turn back.?

Please tell me I have mis interpreted this.

You've misinterpreted it
They were talking about side slipping during a PFL to lose height.

I echo what BackPacker said about not enough EFATO training in the PPL syllabus, at least when compared to my GPL training.

[BackPacker]

Yep. And to be honest, I would do it in an EFATO situation as well if it would seem like I would overshoot my chosen field. Which obviously is dead ahead or at most 30 degrees off the nose of course.

[maxred]

Great, that's fine if best glide achieved, heading towards desired landing spot, and all under control. No issues at all, and agree. Side slip.

However, correct me if I am wrong, the thread, and others, advocate a turn back. This one started with a Falke, a glider with some power up front. An entirely different proposition to finding yourself in an SEP, at 500 feet, when all goes quite.

The past threads, and some posts in this one, seem to suggest that a turn back to field, is do able. With ample height, ample practice, ample awareness, and ample luck, it might be achievable.

However, my own view is, in general, the turn back is not a suitable option. History appears, in conjunction with the accident reports to confirm that as a manoeuvre, the outcome is seldom positive.

I appreciate we are discussing all of this from the armchair, however, the reality is, that in a real life situation, just getting the aircraft under control, appears to be beyond some pilots.

[212man]

Actually, not quite. Minimum height loss in a stable gliding turn is achieved with exactly a 45-degree bank.

See my earlier post....

[abgd]

I'm intrigued by Pilot_DAR's ability to get a C152 back from 400 feet. When I've tried cutting the power at 60 knots in the climb (at 4000 feet) I took 500 feet just to turn round. I did try a range of bank angles, though wasn't exhaustive. I have no intention of turning back from 400 feet, but would be fascinated to know how you do it?!

I've also wondered why it is that we are discouraged so strongly from taking in the flaps if we've misjudged the angle of descent? Provided we have a decent airspeed, it seems to me the main risk is of overloading the pilot (need to retrim, etc).

[Pilot DAR]

To be honest, it was 25 years ago, before I had the wisdom I have now. I remember practicing all day, while maintaining the most ideal conditions to enter a glide. I recall making the best of the crosswind. A lot of the success of the low altitude entry is the willingness to finish the alignment to the runway turn while in the flare. My 150 has a STOL kit which is a little reassuring with hard maneuvering close to the ground.

Other factors necessary for success have been touched on in this thread, and I proved them to myself that day, though honestly, I have no intention of repeating them for myself, and certainly no intention of promoting them here as a good idea. I've done a lot of things in planes which worked, but probably should not have. I'm getting close to old, so it's time for me to not do dumb things in planes any more, I know better! A turnback is a dumb thing to attempt in an airplane.

[mm_flynn]

Originally Posted by abgd

I've also wondered why it is that we are discouraged so strongly from taking in the flaps if we've misjudged the angle of descent? Provided we have a decent airspeed, it seems to me the main risk is of overloading the pilot (need to retrim, etc).

The only reason the flaps should be out is because you are 'close' to the ground. It would seem improbable that a stressed pilot close to the ground realising he is undershooting his target would gracefully feed in nose down pitch as he is retracting flaps to accelerate up to his new best glide speed. It seems much more probable that having mis judged the situation in the first place the pilot would then slow down even more as he faffs with the flaps.

Unless you are going to hit a cliff, concrete wall, fuel tank farm, etc. the overwhelming factor in favour of living is to glide in not fall/stall in. Hence, when near the end of the glide, don't faff, keep gliding, tiny turn to avoid big trees, rocks etc.

[24Carrot]

When comparing 4000ft with 400ft, remember that air density comes into this. It might be about 15% lower at 4000ft. And the difference could easily be bigger as you are probably talking about different days in different countries.

Assuming that the IAS and so all the forces and accelerations are identical in the two cases, I believe there are two effects:

1) The lower air density implies a higher TAS. The Glide angle should be the same, so your rate of descent should be the same fraction of a higher true airspeed. You come down faster if the air density is lower.

2) The turning acceleration should be the same, but one of the formulae for centripetal acceleration is "omega vee" i.e. Turn Rate times True Airspeed. As the TAS is higher, the turn rate must be lower. You turn more slowly if the air density is lower.

Each effect is proportional to the square root of the density, so in combination the effect is proportional to the density.

Everything else being equal, the difference in your comparison is about 60 ft.

An extreme bank angle, i.e. cramming the turn into just a few seconds, might reduce the difference, but I'm not sure.

[abgd]

Would I also be correct in thinking that an STOL kit would give your 150 a better angle of climb, potentially tighter turns, and therefore getting back to the runway would be a lot easier? I'm still thoroughly impressed, but don't plan any low-level experimentation.

mm_flyn: Thanks for the analysis. I realised that altitude would make some difference, but couldn't be quanitative about this.

[mary meagher]

Even in a glider, it is possible to screw up a low level turn. One of my best friends was landing in a field. Knowlegeable observers saw him, on final approach, bank to avoid a tree. His nose came up as the wing came up, and he SPUN IN from less than 30 feet. He might have survived the impact, but the battery in the glider was on the shelf behind his head.

[horizon flyer]

Some years ago, lost a friend to a low level turn back, in an AA5, stalled in from 100feet. He's memorial bench is in front of the tower at Denham.

I once put a Cardinal in a field from 750ft AGL That was 1.5 miles, 60 seconds, with 100 degree left turn from engine failure and walked away.
Kept the speed up at 90mph and found a couple of fields within glide distance.

A 180 turn burns 500ft, but to get back on a field it generaly needs over 220 so I think 800ft is the minimum from experience.

[Big Pistons Forever]

Originally Posted by horizon flyer

I once put a Cardinal in a field from 750ft AGL That was 1.5 miles, 60 seconds, with 100 degree left turn from engine failure and walked away.
Kept the speed up at 90mph and found a couple of fields within glide distance.

.

Sounds like a very good job . What was the cause of the engine failure ?

[horizon flyer]

The sump quick drain plug spun out at 1700 rpm, a high vibration point and dumped all the oil overboard, engines dont last long with out it.

Had smoke come out of the cowling and a little vioce in my head saying dont stall it in on approach. Better to run it the far hedge.

[old,not bold]

Yes, it's the age old dead horse again

Sure is; here's a heartfelt letter from Flight magazine about 40 years ago. Mind you, it's as true now, perhaps more so, than it was then. By the way, I happen to know that the instructor concerned was the CFI and a very experienced ex-fighter Command pilot.

[mary meagher]

Ah yes, if only our airfields were surrounded by farmers' fields.....NEVERTHELESS, it is possible to land on a ROOF and survive. I can remember one aircraft perched nicely on a hangar roof.

Once at Wycombe Air Park they accused the light aircraft that had landed on a house quite near the airfield of being a glider tug, thinking that the telephone wire that had served to arrest the arrival was a towrope. Apparently the pilot had a syndrome traced to sunlight flickering through the prop, and passed out at the critical moment. Very very little damage to either house or aircraft, amazing.

[flyinkiwi]

While I consider myself a low timer, I have experienced first hand an EFATO. Mine was the more common partial power loss (left mag went bang) rather than the extremely rare catastrophic failure. My 2c are:

1. Make sure you get in regular EFATO practice with an experienced instructor. Having training to fall back on saved my life.
2. Lower that nose, get to best glide speed quickly and fly the plane!
3. Remain calm and weigh up your options, you have more time that you might think, especially when the adrenaline hits and time slows.
4. Fly the plane until you come to a standstill!

[Pull what]

Amazing that so many pilots are offering advice without any considering the effect of wind, proof that most have little idea of basic situational awareness.

There is a very big difference between practicing a pre planned turn back from having an EFATO for real-read The Hudson River incident for confirmation.

There is also a big difference in turning back to the runway you took off on to turning back to a suitable alighting area on the airfield. Most pilots have no idea of suitable alighting areas of their local airfield.

There is also a big difference from doing a 180 in a high wing aircraft than in a low wing aircraft.

I can assure you as an experienced instructor that most PPL's do not have the experience or ability to be able to make an immediate 180 turn back at a bank angle of 45 degs(min) without excessive height loss at low level. A manoeuvre like this needs practice and a level of ability that many just do not have and to suggest otherwise is very foolhardy and dangerous.

[Pull what]

NEVERTHELESS, it is possible to land on a ROOF and survive

Its possible to talk sxxt and survive too but that doesn't mean its good recommended practice

[Crash one]

I can remember one aircraft perched nicely on a hangar roof.

So do I!

[India Four Two]

This topic always generates a lively debate. Like most pilots, I have practiced EFATO many times, but I've only had one for real and ironically that was in a MotorFalke.

The gliding club I was in at the time, had just leased a MotorFalke and the owner was giving me an instructor checkout. We were flying from Innisfail, Alberta - a typical BCATP field with three runways arranged in an equilateral triangle.

It was the end of the day and the owner checked the fuel level, and pronounced "There's enough for one more circuit". Famous last words!

We took off on 22 and during the climbout, the engine failed due to fuel starvation. We were past the airfield boundary at about 500' or so and over a 1000 x 800 m stubble field, which offered an obvious, easy landing.

However, the owner took over, lowered the nose and simultaneously rolled into a steep, left turn, with the intention of landing on the reciprocal runway 04. As we came out of the turn on a heading of about 020, we were south of the centreline and it rapidly became apparent that we weren't going to make it to 04. So there was then a steep, right turn through about 80 degrees, below 200', to land on 10. Wings level in the flare!

A sharp-eyed club member was already heading over in his car, before we landed, because he thought we were going to crash.

I learned a valuable lesson. Land ahead if you have a choice.

Why did the owner turn back? Because the MotorFalke was a pain to de-rig and we would have had to lift it over the boundary fence!

PS When I was practicing EFATOs in UAS Chipmunks, the Instructor would call "Fanstop" and the tower would reply "Call climbing away". Unambiguous and could not be confused with a real emergency. What are the calls used at civil airfields these days?