EFATO
 

Interesting article....
Safe Turnarounds - Plane & Pilot Magazine | PlaneAndPilotMag.com

How often do people here practice EFATO and what views do you have on the advice given in this link?

Also, what should you do, having commenced you TO roll, if you see the previous plane making a U-Turn and heading back to the runway....and you are doing 50kts and at the point of no return...

Update to post:
Thanks for the comments guys...I guess it is best to know your plane, maybe practicing steep turns at altitude without power, so as to determine how to do it (I trained to do steep turns with power) and also to determine height loss.
By the way, for some reason, the post automatically puts the full description of efat o, even though I assume everyone on here knows what it means...
anyway, thanks again for the comments
deepak

An interesting read. A turn around is all well and good for an experienced pilot who knows his aircraft well, however the majority of private pilots are either students in training, where the safest option by far is to land straight ahead and take whats coming, or low hours pilots who do little more than the 12 hours a year to keep their licence.

The issue that isn't discussed in the article is that you would then be landing with a tail wind. So you take off into a nice 10-15kt headwind, the engine goes pop so you turn back and have to somehow get the thing down with 15kts behind you? how many people have trained for this? I've landed in a 7kt tailwind and that was bad enough, I've seen someone attempt to land in a 12kt tailwind, ended up 600 meters into an 800m strip, and just managed a go around at the last second.

If you're very current on type and pretty experienced there's no reason not to attempt this manouver if you think it is the best option at the time, but for the vast majority of people who fly light singles it would either lead to a stall/spin senario, or a duffed up tail wind landing - albeit that saving the aircraft at this point would be your last concern. Really, it depends where you are and what is available off the end of the runway. Most of the strips I have trained from have very suitable landing sites, so turning back would never be a consideration.

Statistically it can be shown that most of those who attempt turn-backs, almost make it. The ones who walk away are those who land ahead. Accident statistics reveal a high proportion of home-builds are involved in turn-back accidents; no doubt the pilot is more concerned about the preservation of his engineering skills than surviving to repair it.

Personally I practice a PFL at-least once per month, although EFATOs a bit less often, mostly because my flying over the last few years has mostly been from quite busy airfields where it tends to get in everybody's way. That probably is a poor excuse and perhaps I should practice them more often.

However, I had reason to test my competence recently when I had a loss of power at about 300ft (not a complete failure) taking off into a 10-15 knot headwind. I am not generally a great fan of turnbacks, but with a strong headwind, combined with a reasonable amount of height to play with, and an aeroplane that I know well (100+ hours on the airframe) I called a pan and elected to turn back.

Despite sideslipping using full rudder and enough aileron to keep me on the centreline, it was clear that I was going to go through the far hedge. This was not a happy thought, but a happier thought was that the engine seemed to be behaving again, so I risked going around (keeping fields in gliding distance at all times I hasten to add) then at the suggestion of a very on the ball controller, turned back into the airfield to land on a disused crosswind runway.

(The wind was westerly, so I took off from a westerly runway, tried unsuccessfully to turn back onto a downwind easterly runway, then ended up turning left to land safely on a southerly runway - safely, albeit about on the aeroplane's crosswind limits).

That actually did make a really useful point to me about runway selection - there is at many airports a third option apart from a field or a turnback: that is a (perhaps disused, but who cares!) crosswind runway, requiring a roughly 270 degree heading change, but in a way that keeps you in gliding distance of the airfield throughout. In my "incident" I think although it all ended well, turning left to land crosswind on the northerly runway would have been a better option. But, prior to that I'd never considered it, and thus never briefed it. I do now!



Incidentally Whopity, I think that you may be partly incorrect in your last post. I've come across a lot of turnbacks where the aircraft was destroyed, but I can't think of any where anybody was killed (badly injured yes, killed no). I'm sure that there have been some fatals, but I think that the vast majority of turnbacks have been survivable, if not pretty.

Had my engine stopped completely, I'd have probably hit the far hedge doing about 20mph. The aeroplane would have been destroyed, but I think I'd have lived.

That said, I do agree with your assertion about homebuilts - it's one of the reasons why I think that few homebuilders are the right people to do the early test flying of their own aeroplanes. (I've had I think five engine failures testing homebuilts, although four of them I was able to re-start in the air, and the fifth I was on short finals so didn't bother. My experience of homebuilts is that if the engine is going to fail, it's generally at low speed/low power, not high power - stall testing, attempted spin entry, or a late approach have accounted for all of mine.)

G

Whilst we never say never,:) I would always land ahead. Genghis, there have been a number of fatalities in the States, where individuals have attempted a turn back. In my type, Beech Bonanza, a number of studies have been undertaken, (weather dependent), and it seems at least 1200 feet is necessary to even attempt the procedure.

In a twin, land ahead. Always.

The issue is that the aircraft turns into a glider, without the characteristics of one, and you are only going down:\

My view is that the insurance company can replace the aeroplane, a bit harder to replace the crew and passengers. I also think that the only reason one would turnback was to save the hull. Not worth it in my view.

As you say, 95% of the time I would land ahead also - I took the view at the time that I was in the 5% ! Given I'm intact, and the aeroplane re-useable (or will be once we've got the engine sorted), I stand by that.

I'm interested in your 1200ft figure for the Bonanza - I spent quite a lot of time "playing" with a Piper Warrior a few years ago, and came up with a figure of about 600ft. The Bonanza is a bit bigger and heavier than the PA28, but I'd not have thought sufficiently so to need to double the height.

G

Let me add to that. What Mr Church is advocating, the training and awareness, is all good. The ability to be confident in the machine you fly, at high angles of bank, and AOA, is superb. However, the basic PPL/NPPL course, UK, that omits even spin training awareness, leaves the majority of pilots (I would assume), without the basic skills set to look at the turn around procedure that is suggested.

Where he is coming from I would guess, is that this may/should be part of PPL training. The issue with this is that potentially a lot of trainees/instructors may not be comfortable with these manouveres at low altitude. It is different in practise higher up, but at 500-1000 feet it is a different story.

Everyone should try it though. Qualified instructor at their side of course. G - Jon Eckelbars - Flying the Beech Bonanza (ref).

There are one or two airfields where landing straight ahead is not a viable option once past the point you cannot land on the runway left (Southampton and bembridge spring to mind and I am sure other people can come up with a few). In this case a turn back should be preplanned and briefed including a look at all options such as a partial turn to land back on the airfield but maybe not all the way round to make the runway. This is a manoeuvre that, if you ARE going to use, needs to have been practised beforehand at height so you know just how fast and how low you need to get the nose and how much bank to use, also how far round you will get in the height available. I normally cover this on the UH Advanced PPL course, but as much to point out how difficult it is as to enable its use

G the E,

one fairly recent fatal after turn back is G-BZVC, google will take you to the AAIB report. There are others but I can't keep all of them in my head.

Rans6.....

I often practice the EFATO from the climb out of the PFL. keeps the student thinking, looking for a suitable landing site quickly and everything flowing on the ball. You should obviously still do some EFATO training at a field you regularly use just so you know your options if it happens for real.

The turnback is very type and pilot specific. At my local airfield I see flexwing pilots regularly practicing this manouevre successfully.

Last week for the first time I saw a fixed wing AC (with instructor on board) practice this. The issue with the larger fixed wing AC is the offset from the runway due to the turn radius.

D.O.

Fair point RTN - as do I, it's EFATOs at home base I'm sloppy about.

I feel a new thread coming on...

G

1. EFATO whether straight ahead or turnback - speed is life. If a turn back with (possibly) 45AoB, add some knots to the normal gliding speed (on the Bulldog with 75 kt glide I'd use 85 for a T/B). In the climb attitude the IAS will wash off really quickly if you don't get the nose down pronto, so: Select the gliding attitude, select yr landing field, select flaps/sideslip/manoeuvre to achive it.

2. Whatever you do should be preplanned and briefed. eg "up to 500' land ahead/L/R. after that t/b L/R etc etc" so it's already in yr head. I used to brief my students that once they'd started the upwind turn they could continue the turn to land on the airfield; before that land into wind on a suitable field.

3. There is no one size fits all to this. It will depend on experience level, currency, training, wind, terrain etc and (as above) the crucial thing is to make these decisions before you apply T/O power.

I suspect that it was this article which was the subject of a very similar thread last fall. I'm happy to see a more reserved not jumping on the bandwagon this time. As said, if well planned, and carefully executed, above a certain not published altitude, it can be done. I practiced it for hours, at a quiet runway with lots of options. The result of all of this practice was my forming the opinion that if for real, I would never consider it below 700 feet in a C 150, and even that, if I had planned my takeoff to accommodate it.

A friend of mine with more that 23000 hours had his homebuilt quit over the water 300 feet up after takeoff. He splashed it, and we got he and the plane back. Last year, different homebuilt, quit in the same place, he turned back, we got neither back.

You can develop a lot of drag really quickly in a turn. While test flying a Caravan with a draggy modification, I was practicing glides from the ideal spot in the downwind, and had trouble making it without adding some power.

My feeling about turn backs is similar to aerobatics, and a few other advanced maneuvers: If you have to ask if you can or should attempt it - you should not.

I have mixed feelings.. I largely agree with PilotDAR, and I also lament how little clue people really have about what their aeroplanes will do to get them out of a fix/how many 'wisdoms' aren't really true, or partially understood: e.g. That stalling in a turn will cause you to spin and die, or the need to increase speed in a turn, which really only is necessary if you're increasing load factor. A turn started at Vy attitude, and ended at best glide attitude isn't quite the same as a flat turn

I really like: .. but would probably add, do ask, do find someone to teach, and do go learn.

Bonanza could be as bad as 1200ft, I guess, for a safe turnback. The RAF include turnback in the pre-takeoff brief, with a specified altitude. I seem to recall (it's been a few years) that the Tutor for example is briefed as 'If the engine fails below 600ft I will land straight ahead. If the engine fails above 600ft I will consider turning back to the airfield to land.'

Note 'consider' i.e. it's a judgment call.

Tim

There is a famous and very detailed analysis of this topic on the web.

A turnback requires certain conditions to be met, and they are best met if

- you identify the engine failure quickly
- you have a long runway
- you have a strong headwind (well, you won't be taking off with a tailwind ;) )
- you do a very sharp turn back (as much G as possible without stalling)
- you turn into wind

To a large degree, the decision whether to turn back, should the engine fail, can be made during the pre takeoff briefing, which a pilot should do even if flying on his own.

"In the event of a total loss of power, below 1000 feet, we will turn back, to the right, 60 degree bank angle".

On most commercial-sized runways (say 1500m+) it should be easy. But of course it depends when the engine fails. If it fails "too late" then you won't make it back to the runway no matter what :)

Bonanza could be as bad as 1200ft, I guess, for a safe turnback.

This was demonstrated as 'doable'.:\

It is all condition dependent, and no two incidents will be the same. But as stated, a whole host of 'ifs' come into the equation.

It has never happened to me, an EFATO, other than practice, and I equate it to an S turn display I used to do in a Chipmunk where I would fly runway length, at 50', full rpm, bank up 45 degrees at runway end, into a wing over, using the aeroplanes energy. I went over at about 450', and realigned, back down, to complete the manouver at the other end. Practised it a lot, however, it was all speed and energy mgt, and I always considered that completing this was akin to a turnback.

Reactions would have to be mighty quick to achieve a result, particulary at levels under 600'

Famous maybe, detailed fairly, correct debateable. I've spent quite a lot of time picking that paper apart - it's a good starting point, but no more than that. To be honest, as somebody who analyses a lot of aeronautical research papers I'd say it's pretty shallow and there's a lot more work that can be done.

G

I tend to skip over the maths in these papers, partly because it is beyond me (I am an engineer :) )partly because it's obvious that the subject does not lend itself to precise analysis, partly because nobody but a programmed autopilot could carry out those maneuvers optimally, but the paper does illustrate the general idea which is that a turnback is possible and indeed under the right circumstances is very easy.

Whereas "everybody" says it will kill you, etc, etc.

The problem is that an EFATO at certain airports will give you no option but to go straight into the side of a building, which given the robustness of the average GA aircraft is a prob99 death. Not to mention the bad press if it is a convent/school/etc; more so if you do it in an N-reg ;)

(Note to the reader - this was originally posted in a different thread which was subsequently deleted by the OP. The mods were kind enough to retrieve it from the bit bucket and post it here, since it has some relevance here too. I later tweaked it a bit to better fit in here. The original context was a post where the author believed that with a bank angle of 45 degrees, the load factor automagically increases to 1.41, and thus the stall speed automagically by 20%.)

In a stable turn (non accelerating, non descending etc) the theory says that the load factor in a 45 degree turn is 1.4. But in the engine off scenario you are by definition not in a stable turn. You will be losing altitude for sure, and possibly bleeding speed as well, intended or not. Furthermore, the load vector angle is getting more and more horizontal, and this only increases when you go beyond the 45 degrees.

The result of that is that you can increase and decrease your load factor (by pulling more or less on the stick) a significant amount, but you will only increase or decrease the vertical component of lift by a tiny amount. With an increased load factor comes a higher stall speed, higher induced drag, but also a tighter turning radius. So pulling to the stall gives you the tightest turn, but also the least amount of time to "get it right". (And pull to the stall when the speed is too high/bank angle is too low will cause the aircraft to climb and thus bleed speed even more quickly.)

Making matters worse, without a lot of aerobatics experience (and the subsequent "feel" for the aircraft near the stall), without a G meter and with your head mostly outside the cockpit (which is a very good idea in those circumstances, don't get me wrong) how are you going to judge the load on your aircraft exactly? So how sure are you that your stall speed is indeed 61 knots? It probably could have been anywhere between 50 and 75.

I have not read that Rogers document intimately, but here's what I would do: Throw the aircraft in a 45-60 degree bank and then pull until the stall warner. Then play the stall warner and bank angle against each other so that I know I'm at the maximum turning rate while inevitably bleeding off the airspeed and the altitude. (In fact bleeding the altitude off in a controlled manner is the way to keep the airspeed up.)

But hey, I've got a lot of experience doing 75-degree banked turns (stable, thus 4G) at a mere 80 knots (sometimes even slower), with the stall warner blaring continuously, and playing the buffet. So playing bank angle against the stall buffet is not all that unusual for me.

Anyway, kudos for actually trying this, learning what your aircraft is capable of and how you actually achieve that performance. You now know you can do it from 500' up. If the EFATO ever happens for real, stick to what you've learned so far. Don't try it below 500' because some anonymous bloke on the internet told you it could possibly be done if you altered your technique. Land straight ahead.

What don't you like in Rogers's paper? (I'm not taking sides one way or the other)

Much the same that the author does to start with - he is quite clear that it's a simplified model leading to a first approximation solution to the problem. He considers one speed margin above the stall, two bank angles and a single aeroplane only - and he hasn't validated his results with any flight test results.

I think if you asked David Rogers, he'd probably agree on all these points. What he did was a very good first stab at a mathematical solution to the problem and demonstrated that the maths, and the historical evidence are broadly consistent - to whit, turnbacks can be possible.

However, it's a real shame in my opinion that 18 years later, that good start by Dr Rogers hasn't been actively followed up and published. Given time, I'd like to have a go at it myself, and may yet do so.

G

That makes sense. I think the key learnings from the maths are that a 45 degree bank is optimal for height loss per unit angle turned, and that there is no optimum speed -- it should be as low as possible. It then becomes a question of practicality and pilot skill.

When I did some simple flight tests at altitude in a Mooney 201 (probably 15 years ago), I remember some insights:

* with a decent aural stall warner, flying the aircraft at the edge of the stall-warner onset is fairly easy -- relax pressure if you hear it

* while the height loss in the turn is fairly low (as Rogers predicts), you come out of the turn at low speed and at high rate of descent -- that requires you to accelerate to make a normal landing, which takes time and height

* in the analysis of where you end up, a lot depends on the difference between climb gradient and glide ratio -- in a powerful aircraft, it's much easier to get back to the airfield, while in a poorer performer (or at higher weights, density altitude), you'll end up beyond the upwind threshold.

I don't read that from the paper - he shows that 45 degrees is better than 35 degrees, but doesn't really explore different speeds, or any other bank angles - so it hasn't got as far as a general case.

Your conclusions from your own testing however Bookworm, are pretty much the same as my conclusions in a PA28-161 and a Thruster TST about half a dozen years ago.

G

Oh, I think he does. At the end of the section "the optimum bank angle" he shows that the rate of height loss per unit angle turned (in the steady state case) is proportional to 1/sin(2*bank), which is minimised at 45 degrees. The only reason he shows 35 degrees is because it's Eckalbar's recommendation.

Of course one could argue that the true optimum comes from a non-steady state turn, but I don't think you'd do much better.

The other massive factor is how much runway you have left when you get airborne - it effectively offsets the glide path 'under' the climb path. For that reason alone I don't think you can come up with a single height for a turnback, even on one aircraft. There's a minimum to make the turn sure, but after that it's a question of circumstances.

I missed that - fair point, although still not validated with any experimental data.

I think that I may feel the need to go and have a play!

G

I am grateful for the replies here. I have a PPL although not flown since I got the licence in June 2010...long story...but hope to restart this year.....

In a strong cross wind, one would have to turn into wind if attempting a return to runway.....thing is, will turning into wind reduce the lost of height in any way (quicker airflow over the wings, providing vital lift)?

Maybe I should know the answer to this but I have been out of the aviation loop recently....apologies in advance....

dkatwa, as soon as your wheels have left the ground, you're flying inside a block of (moving) air. Inside this block, it really doesn't matter which way you turn. Aerodynamically speaking it's all the same.

The turn into the wind is not to add airflow to the wings or something like that, but simply so that when you come out of the turn, you are still very close to the runway, instead of blown away for miles.

Right answer ... Fundamentally wrong logic.

The wind (assuming it is constant) has no effect on the flight dynamics - none!

However, if you draw the basic turn back with no wind (about 270 degrees of turn - 180 back, 45 to track towards the airport, 45 to align with the runway) and then redraw it off setting each position a bit more downwind to reflect the cumulative displacement from the cross wind, you will see the final 45 degrees and then the turn back on course will be substantially reduced. So less turning time and less distance travelled means less height lost.

As an instructor I am hard over on this one. Unless you fly virtually every day and practice this manoever often, a situation that I would argue will never apply, to virtually everyone reading this forum, Then I think one should never attempt a turn back below 1000 feet AGL.

What should be is that every pilot is good enough to a immediately assess the the nature of the emergency, because remember you may only have a partial engine failure (see Gengis post for what a can of worms that can be), then immediately execute a steep low altitude turn at just above stall speed.

What IS however is an accident record where many turnbacks end in fatal crashes. Survivable crashes are ones where you hit the ground wings level in a level flight or nose up attitude. The killer crashes are low altitude stall spins or hitting the ground in a very nose low attitude, precisely what will happen if you screw up the turn back.

I think it is also important to point out that the most important action after an EFATO is to immediately lower the nose to the glide attitude.
An EFATO with the aircraft nose at the Vy attitude will loose airspeed very quickly unless the nose is lowered as soon as the engine fails. I personally know of a fatal accident where the aircraft stalled right after the EFATO because the pilot froze and did not lower the nose in time.

So I teach Vy climb to 1000 AGL as altitude is your friend so you want to get to an altitude where you have options as quickly as possible, and in the event of an engine failure below 1000, it is nose down to the glide and only turning enough to avoid major obstacles.

I also insist that before every takeoff the student reviews the actions for an engine failure during the takeoff and after takeoff including touching the relevant controls. The EFATO portion starts with him/her physically moving the control wheel firmly forward. After doing this brief 30 or 40 times the actions become automatic and that I think is what will save your bacon if you are unfortunate enough to have an EFATO, not some hero pilot split arse low level steep turn.....

Finally one area where the flight school IMO do not place enough emphasis is for an engine failure on the takeoff roll is to immediately fully close the throttle. Again I have personal knowledge of an accident where an airplane was destroyed and the occupants injured because the pilot failed to accomplish this simple action when the engine died on the takeoff roll.

You know BPA, I like to think that I can fly, and I'm starting to get the hang of teaching those aspects of flying that I'm qualified to teach.

I think you've described two things there that I have seldom, possibly never, seen briefed. It took about 10 seconds of reading your post to decide that you've just shared something really really valuable that will now be a permanent fixture in my flying and teaching.

:D Thank you very much. :D

G

Big Pistons: I don't think I would have thought to close the throttle if on the ground. Thanks for that.

Far from feeling qualified to argue, I would humbly ask for a bit of clarification: would the 1000' minimum equally apply to slower planes and to the faster? 't Would seem to me that a slower plane - i.e. with lower stall speeds - could try it from less altitude? AIUI, the 1000' was for the average Cessna or PA28, but perhaps a microlight or LSA could make do with less?

The 1000 foot restriction is meant as a rule of thumb for the typical 2 or 4 place fixed gear light aircraft you would normally find available for rent/training or commonly owned by a PPL.

I have never flown a AULA/LSA/Microlight so I am not qualified to offer advice as to what would be the best course of action for the EFATO emergency in this class of aircraft

Thanks for the kind words. I would like to add as food for thought that I have found that practicing the transition from power in climb to power off glide is a worthwhile exercise. At altitude in the practice area simple establish a normal full power Vy climb and when the aircraft is stabilized smoothly but quickly reduce the power to idle. My experience has been that most pilots are surprised that it can be initially a bit difficult to make a smooth transition to a stable glide attitude because of the trim change caused by the lack of power and the fact that the relatively large nose down pitching motion is required. It only takes a few minutes to demonstrate and like I said I think it is worth practicing every once in a while.

Another point I alluded to but IMO bears emphasizing is that altitude = options. I see a lot of pilots make very shallow climbs immediately after takeoff. This prolongs the exposure to the low altitude EFATO environment and so for that reason the profile I teach, and always fly myself, is Vy to 1000 feet AGL.

Jan, just like Mark1234 mentioned a few posts back, there's no hard and fast rule about this. Sure, you can probably accomplish a 180 degree turnback in 1000' even if you're not applying perfect technique (as long as you bank sufficiently - there is no room for a rate-1 turn or something similar).

But the emergency is not over once you've made the turn. You were climbing out at some angle at Vy from the threshold, now you're still as far away from the threshold as you were when you started the turn, but you lost a few hundred feet and you have no engine power. Is your glide angle sufficient to reach the threshold?

I have seen a Pitts Special climbing away after departure at an angle of 45 degrees. Now the Pitts is reputedly not a good glider, but it should be able to glide at significantly less than 45 degrees nose down. On the other hand, our DA40 with the 135 HP Thielert was normally just able to clear the trees at the far end of a (long) runway, if fully loaded, and would never be able to glide back to the field after a straight out departure. Even if you climbed to 10.000' and then turned, you would not be able to make the runway. (Despite the sailplane heritage, the DA40 still only has a glide angle of 1 in 8, and that's about equal to its climb angle.)

And another factor is how much runway you still have available ahead of you, when you rotate during the take-off. If that is significant then that bit of runway may still be reachable from the glide, whereas your original rotation point may not be reachable.

(And to put a bit of perspective to the debate, and how dependent it is on airplane capabilities and circumstances: In gliding we fly a full (although tight) circuit when the winch cable breaks at 300' or above. Yes, you read that correctly. A full circuit, with four 90 degree turns, to a normal landing in the normal landing area next to the take-off area, from 300 feet. But a winch launch cable break happens by definition *above* the airfield, not beyond the threshold, and any reasonably modern glider will easily beat a 1:30 glide angle.)

It was a nil wind day, I had given the engine a thorough runup and there was nothing suspicious detected. We had just taken off and at about 100' the engine coughed. At 250' it coughed again, and then one of the magneto's failed. The engine cowling started vibrating quite badly so I smoothly reduced power and the shaking stopped at about 75% throttle. Even on one mag and partial throttle the plane was still climbing so I chose to return to the field instead of landing ahead. Had the engine quit at any time during the reversal turn I was well within gliding distance of a runway (thank goodness I was in a 172M and not the Arrow) and in the end I circled and put her down on a crossing runway.

I realize I didn't exactly do things by the book, so please, follow the advice of the vastly more experienced pilots and instructors lurking around rather than me.

I am a bit confused by your comment that "I didn't do everything according to the book". If the aircraft has enough power to maintain level flight or in your case still manage to climb then it by definition has not suffered an "engine failure" and so the "turn back" in the context of this thread does not apply.

Your decision to immediately return to the field and to do so in such away as to maximize your chance of landing back on the runway in case the engine suffered any further loss of power, strikes me as exactly "doing it by the book".

All the heated arguments of exactly what bank angle to use for a turn back and lengthy dissertations on changes in AOA, accelerating vs non accelerating turns, variations in the vertical component of lift etc etc, obscure the fact that what happened to you is a lot more common than the sudden complete engine failure at low altitude and that every partial engine failure will have different consequences and so ultimately making sure you fly the aircraft first and then picking a conservative course of action that will give you options should the situation deteriorate further is the best one can do....but I guess that is not as sexy as discussing hero pilot moves......

As an aside one thing that never seems to get talked about in flight training is knowing the minimum power setting to maintain level flight. In the average Cessna it is around 1900 RPM. In the event of a partial engine failure this is a good number to know. If the power winds back but you are still getting a solid
1900 RPM you will stay in the air, at least for now. Less than that and you had better be planning your forced approach.