Return to reciprocal runway advised in emergency ?
 

There would probably be general agreement that during training we are all taught that in the event of EFATO or similar, at low level, forced landing straight ahead is preferable to trying to return to the runway from which you have just departed.

The latest AAIB report contains a very sad story, which seems to indicate that there may be exceptions

Air Accidents Investigation: Dyn'Aero MCR01 Club, F-PYMD

In particular, where it says

Yes that was an interesting case. Unusual in that the pilot took off with a tailwind.

A reminder (I think it says as much in the report) to think about what you are going to do in the event of an engine failure before taking off. (I haven't been doing that up until now :uhoh:)

That is why its important to think of all your options rather than fixating on one. Spatial awareness is vitally important as well as having the ability to change a plan as the situation itself changes.

Pace

I was once told by an instructor that if taking off from a long runway, try to take off close to the end, that way, if the fan stops and you have reasonable height going back for a tailwind landing is a reasonable option, especially if the said airfield has a built up area with limited or no option for landing straight ahead.
Im not sure if I agree but I do see the point. Of course airfields are all different with their own options and good planning and foresight is common sense.
I never really gave it too much consideration in the past but will look for more options in future.

I seem to remember it's drummed into all RAF pilots at every stage of their training, from basic to advanced training on every type of aircraft: , if it's good enough for them, it's good enough for everyone else.

It is our nature though to question these old sayings and practices. Surely the correct respose depends on circumstances, which will differ with every scenario.
Just because they say so is not always a good enough reason.

I can imagine in the good old days during a scramble the preferance would be land ahead so everyone behind you can get airborne.
I know all the theory about turning back,low airspeed, tailwind etc etc but we must question everything, thats how we gain understanding and sometimes even progress.

Niknak, do you actually fly?

Set in stone rules are sometimes appropriate, but only rarely. In this case turning back may well be appropriate, it all depends on the circumstance.

If you have a high performance machine and a relatively strong headwind, then turning back may well be appropriate. Though I did it in a C150 after the engine started playing up. Oddly enough, the fact I'm posting here and didn't end up in an AAIB report shows that "rules" don't always apply in emergencies.

Sometimes you need to use your brain rather than some rule written for different circumstances.

SOS - no I'm not a qualified pilot, but I've seen enough people try it under many different conditions and a/c types, to convince me that turning back should be the very last option.

There is no such thing as a last resort in an EFATO. You make a decision based on the info you have. Turning back may well be appropriate in a certain case, but by having stupid catch all phrases we could put an element of doubt just where it really isn't needed.

Most of the time turning back isn't appropriate, however, that is absolutely not true in every potential circumstance and that's why phrases such as "never do this or that" should be taken out and beaten to death with sticks.

The other thing that it's drummed into you to do is to consider what you will do if you have an EFATO at a particular stage of the TO. This became incredibly relevant for me recently when faced with a full EFATO at about 100ft. P P and P P P P P.:ok:

I think you can over-analyse such things, esepcially for the average / low hour / low currency PPL.

The "golden rule" of not turning back for an EFATO holds good - engine stops just after takeoff, you need at the forefront of your mind to resist the instinct to return, and just go straight ahead. You have very little time to make a decision, and need max brain power to "fly" the forced landing.

This accident was not one of those, and comes under the heading of more normal emergency without a time critical aspect. Whether you wish to include in a PPL type takeoff brief the "what will I do if I need to return" is up to you - good airmanship, but once when considers one "what if" where do you stop?

In the airline world we have "DODAR" and various other systems for decision making - equivalents are in the PPL syllabus. Maybe, with 20:20 hindsight they were not best employed here, as the AAIB note, but it was an "unusual" circumstance, and the tragic outcome had a few unlucky elements in it :{

Summary: I think it a mistake to question the "do not turn back" rule using this accident as an example - it was a different scenario... IMHO ;)

NoD

The gliding equivalent of EFATO is a tow-rope break or winch launch failure, and this is something we train for extensively. The training has proved very effective over a number of years, with almost all launch failure accidents being due to not following the training.

In simple terms, it is as follows:

A. Before launching, plan for what you will do if the launch fails.

B. If there is a failure:

1. Land ahead on the runway whenever it is possible to do so.

2. Recognise that even if a landing ahead on the runway is not possible, there will be a height (varying with the conditions and the pilot's experience) when the only option is still landing ahead, making the best of a bad thing. DON'T TRY TO TURN. In a powered a/c this will be much higher than in a glider - for example, a tow-rope break at 200 ft with anything of a headwind usually makes a 180 and reciprocal landing possible for an experienced pilot, but not for an early solo pilot.

3. If you are high enough to turn, first put the aircraft in a safe attitude (i.e. lower the nose and attain a normal flying speed), then THINK. Once you have decided what it is safe to do, do it safely (this might include landing ahead, even if a turn is theoretically possible).

Translating this to powered a/c requires you to know how well your a/c glides engine off. If you don't know this, you can't do step 3 safely. In those circumstances, your only option is to land ahead, thus the general advice to do so.

The RAF used to teach turnback, one of the reasons they stopped teaching it is because more ppl were injured practicing (with a good engine) Than needed to attempt it for real.

If most RAF pilots fail even with a good engine, then attempting to do it with no engine should be a last resort.

Of course the best thing to do is PPPPPPP. PLAN for it, self brief before TO then you will have most of the information at hand when it happens.

I have posted this before.

I was chatting with an old bold pilot and the subject of EFATO came up. "It said it must come as a shock when the engine fails". His reply " No I always expect it to fail, in fact it comes as a nice suprise when the damn things stay running".
I suspect he self brifed for engine failure before every TO. He was a Mosquito pilot in WW11 in his early 20s.

On the accident report above it seems like the mistake came on choosing the wrong runway for T/O.
As far as engine out on T/O goes, if below 800ft from rwy elevation best glide and straight ahead, if above 800ft from apt elevation the 180.
Circumstances always dictate though...if there is a long fairway straight ahead and I'm at 900ft then I hope to meke it onto the green!

Not really the wrong runway. From my reading of the AAIB report I took it to mean that pros and cons were considered, and that the slight advantage of a downslope was considered just to outweigh the slight disadvantage of a tailwind.

Problem is, if you automatically choose that same runway for landing back on, those two factors are now both disadvantageous, and the two "slights" added together become a "major".

Not sure I agree with that either.

For example, if Iwas taking off from Ostend on the easterly runway, I'd rather cross the retail park at the upwind end at 1,000 feet, than 100 feet.

If the engine stopped, I could get back on the reciprocal as the runway is 2.8km long, so might not even need to slip, but from 100 feet......

In fact, unless I am missing something here, the above 'advice' sounds pretty mad, unless the instructor was using the word 'end' to mean 'start.'

He definately meant end!!! Thats what puzzled me, I thought getting up there asap with runway ahead of me would be the better option and is what I always try to do now.

Get up as soon as possible and normally drag it in on the numbers is what I practice but thats because I fly into quite a few short strips.

I don't think that's necessarily true. If you're flying a Hawk or fast jet, it's possibly the best advice. If you're flying a Cub or similar with good slow-speed characteristics, I've been in several situations where landing straight ahead was not the best option. Being open to the conditions and geography of the day is a far better bet.

And no disrespect to your intellect, niknak, but if you're not a qualified pilot who has been the only one to make the decision in your flying, then your input is theoretical at best. Flying starts with the theory, but it's the actual practice of it that builds experience, the application of theory. And that's the biggest part of the learning.

Don't think so. As RAF UAS Instructors (Bulldog in my time in the job, which was late 80s to early 90s) we used to practice turnbacks every month, as well as spinning and high rotational spinning. There was a Hawk accident where it all went wrong and I believe the practice on that type was later reviewed. After all, a pilot sitting on an ejection seat has another option.

One further point: Standard thing was to brief actions in the event of an EFATO before every take off. Sometimes it was assessed as worth a turnback, others not. Runway length, wind velocity, surrounds of the airfield in the direction of takeoff were all considered.

Plan your takeoff, fly your plan. If a landing straight ahead is not going to be as good as turning away, plan your takeoff to enable a turn away as soon as pratical after takeoff. If it works perfectly (enough runway length) you will be either able to land back straight ahead and stop, or, by the time you're so high you cannot land ahead, safely turn back. There are many cases where this is not going to be possible though.

At my home runway, landing straight ahead after reaching 200 feet would put me in the least favourable landing area. My takeoffs are always planned with a turn toward the safer landing area once safely airborne. When my engine quit a 300 feet years ago I made it into the field off the end of my runway (a 270 degree turn) with no problem, and no damage. Lots of luck and some credit for a plan, which I quickly implemented.

That said, fly the way you are trained! There are lots of reports to confirm that turning back for a downwind landing is a poor idea. I am not an advocate of 180's when there is a suitable landing area in the straight ahead direction.

Pilot DAR