Van's Air Force
Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.
Return to runway after engine failure
- Thread starter L'Avion
- Start date
Hey, I'm just the guinea pig you're looking for. I'm not a pilot yet, haven't even started practical flight training (some book study though). But I do have a block of mass on top of my shoulders, so a couple of thoughts/questions stepping out of the trees to see the forest.
First, I don't think Captain Avgas should be haranged for what appears to me to be a very logical, methodical approach. His points seem very reasonable. Know your limits, get proficient in a safe environment and watch your limits expand. I didn't see anywhere where he suggested that the "average" pilot should attempt such a real-life manuever without plenty of simulated proficiency under their belt. What I hear him saying is challenging those "average" pilots to continue to develop their airmanship while in a safe environment so they know what their limitations really are. What could be wrong with that? I also hear him saying, "rather than just spew calculations and opinions on a forum, go out and prove it to yourself at altitude (safe environment)". Just like every aircraft has it's operating envelope so does each pilot. The good news is that, while the aircrafts envelope remains fixed, the pilot's envelope can be expanded with experience and proficiency. We never stop being a student, right?
As an aspiring pilot someday, it is valuable to me to read these debates in order to have a well rounded education. It is important for me to see both sides of the arguement as it enriches my database of knowledge (brain). Trust me, as a student I am not tainted by this "online flight instruction". I'm not going to run off and attempt something I read off of some forum on the internet. I'm going to prove it to myself via real life flying ONLY after adequate proficiency in many other prerequisites and ONLY after executing to a plan (with contingencies) in my head many times beforehand.
But let me pose a question to Captain Avgas or anyone else. You had a couple of examples to try at 3000' agl or 1000' agl. Depending on many different factors (obviously) at 3000' agl or 1000' agl, do you have enough glide capability to cover the horizontal from that high up? Let me rephrase. Captain Avgas, you countered the debate with "are you telling me that you wouldn't make a return attempt if you were at 3000' agl?" My question is: is there an altitude beyond which you won't have the horizontal distance to cover the loss in that altitude? Really, the question seems to be related to your climb angle like others have said. Heavily loaded, high density altitude your climb angle is gonna be pretty shallow so your 600' rule isn't going work, especially on a short runway. So do you have a different turn back altitude for different loading/performance combinations?
Good stuff guys/gals. This is what forums are for, but real-life proof is what really counts.
"Pounder"
First, I don't think Captain Avgas should be haranged for what appears to me to be a very logical, methodical approach. His points seem very reasonable. Know your limits, get proficient in a safe environment and watch your limits expand. I didn't see anywhere where he suggested that the "average" pilot should attempt such a real-life manuever without plenty of simulated proficiency under their belt. What I hear him saying is challenging those "average" pilots to continue to develop their airmanship while in a safe environment so they know what their limitations really are. What could be wrong with that? I also hear him saying, "rather than just spew calculations and opinions on a forum, go out and prove it to yourself at altitude (safe environment)". Just like every aircraft has it's operating envelope so does each pilot. The good news is that, while the aircrafts envelope remains fixed, the pilot's envelope can be expanded with experience and proficiency. We never stop being a student, right?
As an aspiring pilot someday, it is valuable to me to read these debates in order to have a well rounded education. It is important for me to see both sides of the arguement as it enriches my database of knowledge (brain). Trust me, as a student I am not tainted by this "online flight instruction". I'm not going to run off and attempt something I read off of some forum on the internet. I'm going to prove it to myself via real life flying ONLY after adequate proficiency in many other prerequisites and ONLY after executing to a plan (with contingencies) in my head many times beforehand.
But let me pose a question to Captain Avgas or anyone else. You had a couple of examples to try at 3000' agl or 1000' agl. Depending on many different factors (obviously) at 3000' agl or 1000' agl, do you have enough glide capability to cover the horizontal from that high up? Let me rephrase. Captain Avgas, you countered the debate with "are you telling me that you wouldn't make a return attempt if you were at 3000' agl?" My question is: is there an altitude beyond which you won't have the horizontal distance to cover the loss in that altitude? Really, the question seems to be related to your climb angle like others have said. Heavily loaded, high density altitude your climb angle is gonna be pretty shallow so your 600' rule isn't going work, especially on a short runway. So do you have a different turn back altitude for different loading/performance combinations?
Good stuff guys/gals. This is what forums are for, but real-life proof is what really counts.
"Pounder"
Like so many others, this is a great thread! For one thing, it is going to get me out there testing and improving my technique.
Things I know about my airplane: it does lose less altitude per degree of turn with steeper bank angles. Airspeed isn't all that difficult to maintain. Things I know about me: I need more practice. I can maintain airspeed in a true engine-out situation (been there, done that X2.) I will do some altitude work and then move lower.
Now, do we all need to practice forced landings? This past Sunday a Caravan lost power at 7000' near here. He dumped his jumpers at 5000' near his home field. He made the 3400' runway, but ran off and flipped 200 yards past the end, totaling the plane. Probable transmission failure. Thankfully he was unhurt.
I would like to know how many engine out landings he had practiced in that plane. True, I DON'T know all the facts and am not making any judgments. Okay, maybe a few. It does point out that it can happen, even in high dollar certificated aircraft. Big loss if a little practice would have saved the plane.
On a lighter note, I never will forget my first simulated cable break in a sailplane. The instructor forgot he had called for the break and had his lunch spread out on his lap in the rear seat. When the winch operator cut the power, I slammed the stick as instructed (winch launched sailplanes climb out at very high angles.) I will never forget all the cold cuts and lettuce raining down from the canopy when I leveled out! The instructor was pleased nonetheless.
Bob Kelly
Things I know about my airplane: it does lose less altitude per degree of turn with steeper bank angles. Airspeed isn't all that difficult to maintain. Things I know about me: I need more practice. I can maintain airspeed in a true engine-out situation (been there, done that X2.) I will do some altitude work and then move lower.
Now, do we all need to practice forced landings? This past Sunday a Caravan lost power at 7000' near here. He dumped his jumpers at 5000' near his home field. He made the 3400' runway, but ran off and flipped 200 yards past the end, totaling the plane. Probable transmission failure. Thankfully he was unhurt.
I would like to know how many engine out landings he had practiced in that plane. True, I DON'T know all the facts and am not making any judgments. Okay, maybe a few. It does point out that it can happen, even in high dollar certificated aircraft. Big loss if a little practice would have saved the plane.
On a lighter note, I never will forget my first simulated cable break in a sailplane. The instructor forgot he had called for the break and had his lunch spread out on his lap in the rear seat. When the winch operator cut the power, I slammed the stick as instructed (winch launched sailplanes climb out at very high angles.) I will never forget all the cold cuts and lettuce raining down from the canopy when I leveled out! The instructor was pleased nonetheless.
Bob Kelly
I think I understand what you're trying to say....but I still disagree with you, partially.
I don't believe this to be true...the aircraft is never equalizing "with the new direction of the mass of air". Once you are airborn you are moving with that mass of air, the airplane doesn't know which direction the wind is blowing. The direction of wind is relative to the ground. Imagine a ballon flying along in a stiff wind. To the observor on the ground the ballon is flying by as the wind blows past you. In the basket of the balloon the wind is calm because the balloon is moving with the mass of air. There is no change in airspeed when turning downwind caused by turning from a head wind to a tailwind.
I disagree with this sentecne...the aircraft is indeed being carreid inside a total mass of moving air the second the wheels leave the ground...it has to. There is nothing to stop the airplane from moving with the air once the wheels leave the ground, you've lost the friction. Again I refer to the balloon example. It won't fly away while tethered to the ground, but once you cut the line off it goes.
I completely agree with this statement. By turning downwind your groundspeed will increase which will change your relationship relative to the point you're trying to land as you turn around. This is why we practice turns around a point when learning to fly...the track of the plane through the air and the track of the plane over the ground are not the same when the wind is blowing.
If you allow the nose to drop during the turn then the load factor on the plane should not increase, but I believe you will be giving up altitude to make this happen. In the end I agree with what you are saying, you have to drop the nose to make the turn and not stall and this will make the ground come up at you faster.
I am very much enjoying this discussion and once again being here on VAF is helping me to become a better pilot. Hopefully I can get out the airport this weekend and practice some simulated engine outs in the pattern. One of these days I'll work up the courage to bring along a CFI and pull that red knob all the way back.
I don't believe this to be true...the aircraft is never equalizing "with the new direction of the mass of air". Once you are airborn you are moving with that mass of air, the airplane doesn't know which direction the wind is blowing. The direction of wind is relative to the ground. Imagine a ballon flying along in a stiff wind. To the observor on the ground the ballon is flying by as the wind blows past you. In the basket of the balloon the wind is calm because the balloon is moving with the mass of air. There is no change in airspeed when turning downwind caused by turning from a head wind to a tailwind.
I disagree with this sentecne...the aircraft is indeed being carreid inside a total mass of moving air the second the wheels leave the ground...it has to. There is nothing to stop the airplane from moving with the air once the wheels leave the ground, you've lost the friction. Again I refer to the balloon example. It won't fly away while tethered to the ground, but once you cut the line off it goes.
I completely agree with this statement. By turning downwind your groundspeed will increase which will change your relationship relative to the point you're trying to land as you turn around. This is why we practice turns around a point when learning to fly...the track of the plane through the air and the track of the plane over the ground are not the same when the wind is blowing.
If you allow the nose to drop during the turn then the load factor on the plane should not increase, but I believe you will be giving up altitude to make this happen. In the end I agree with what you are saying, you have to drop the nose to make the turn and not stall and this will make the ground come up at you faster.
I am very much enjoying this discussion and once again being here on VAF is helping me to become a better pilot. Hopefully I can get out the airport this weekend and practice some simulated engine outs in the pattern. One of these days I'll work up the courage to bring along a CFI and pull that red knob all the way back.
I should expand. Truthfully, if your climbout angle is shallow enough there is no altitude sufficient enough to bring you back home.
grantcarruthers
Well Known Member
Good question and it's partially covered in the paper linked earlier. The ~172's came up slightly short of the runway from the 500 foot turn around from a 3000 ft strip. couple hundred feet I believe. Better to make the airfield perimeter than the subdivision if those are your choices. We all really need to evaluate our choices prior to power up on take off. Only one of 4 takeoff directions at my home field would I liklely hope to make the turn to return. 2 offer intersecting runways that are going to be easy to make after a 90 degree turn or less, the 3rd has a great empty field for 3-4k feet after departure end and the 4th stinks.
Thoughts. RV's climb better so unless you climb out shallow you'll likely have greater altitude than lateral distance to cover at least compared to the 172's in the research paper. I usually climb out shallow so I may not make it back depending on conditions and timing. If I can't make it back I have other choices. If I didn't I'd sure plan on climbing steeper to gain alt before leaving the airport environment.
To the naysayers, the answer is practice. And if you're not willing to practice then you shouldn't fly. If you won't practice but continue to fly, good luck and set high limits. At least crash into the wind.
Went and did steep power off turns this morning. All I can say is it takes a lot of effort to stall in a power off 60 degree bank. I got it to burble but way past 1 G. Go practice, please. It's fun and good for you. If you want to fly to the lowest common denominator and set limits based on the typical GA spam can "driver", it's real easy and you probably should.
Ok, so I can't give it up.
Let me be clear, I am not and don't want to be percieved as haranging AvGas or anyone else. We are having a disagreement, albeit from my perspective a passionate one. Big Difference. Actually I am not really trying to convince him, I want to make sure the readers who may have doubts have a good understanding of the other side of this discussion. I appreaciate that he is forcing me to refine my arguments and highlight the errors in his premise.
I read Dr Rogers essay and I agree with his science, but it, and AvGas's empirical data, ignores two important aspect of this. The first is the FACT that highly experienced seemingly good pilots routinely get killed doing this. Rather than ask why that happens they take the typical pilot reaction to most accident reports, "That guy screwed up here, I won't do that, therefore, I don't have a problem."
A much better question is, if a good pilot with lots of experience can get caught, why should I think that I won't get caught too.
The turbine thing entriged me so I went searching the NTSB reports. There are two examples that I could find, one in a Caravan and one in a PC-12. Both turned back and both are dead. There are several engine failures that did not result in fatalities.
Searching the Caravan list, nearly all the accidents in Caravans are engine failures, followed closely by icing encounters. The good news is most engine failures are not fatal. This supports my premise of landing straight ahead at the slowest possible speed. Several were engine failures after take off, but the only one where it was clear it was a turn back was an IMC departure with an engine failure at 1000 feet.
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20071212X01932&key=1
The PC-12 was a training accident where an engine failure after T/O was simulated and both pilot and instructor were killed in a botched landing. It was unclear whether it stalled in or they just blew the landing, but dead is dead.
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20060706X00882&key=1
The second issue that neither AvGas nor Dr Rogers explore is the Pilot pressure vs. performance. Dr Jerry Berlin is a shrink that developed much of the airline CRM that airlines use today. He is a great guy and a wonderfully entertaining speaker. He has probably done more work on the psycology of a pilot than any other scientist. (talk about scary stuff)
Dr. Berlin says, and has data to support, that as you put pressure on a pilot their performance increases, to a point. When it drops, it drops straight down. Fine motor skill is gone, tunnel vision sets in and the pilot can barely perform the simplest tasks.
I have listened to Dr Berlin's speak at the Bombardier/Learjet safety standown and twice at the National Warbird Operators Conference. Another great speaker on aviation safety is Rogers Smith. He is a test pilot and he talks about the "normalization of deviance." That means if you do something that is dangerous or stupid enough times it becomes normal, that does not mean it is safe.
My pal Patty (gratitous name dropping acknowledged) can consistently fly upside down and cut a ribbon 15 feet from the ground. Just because she does it every weekend and is pretty calm about it, it is still dangerous. She has used the normalization of deviance to move herself to the left on the pressure performance chart so she can consistently operate at peak performance in that regime. To accomplish this as safely as possible, she performs every weekend and regularly practices close to the ground.
Let's compare a turn back after a REAL engine failure with an inverted ribbon cut. It can be done, no argument, but there is a huge difference, Patty looked at the layout and knows all the parameters when she begins the run and she is mentally prepared for it. NO body can know and assess all the parameters of a turnback from a marginal altitude and make the decision and then consistently perform. Every one would start from a different altitude at a different weight with a different head/crosswind. The similarity here is Patty knows all the parameters and decides if the winds, terrain and other factors will work standing on the ground and she can adjust many of them before she takes off. The pilot in the engine failure after take off gets a bucket full of data dumped in their lap with no time to analyze it. Huge difference.
Just because you have practiced 6 months ago, or worst of all, you read somewhere on the internet, that you can successfully turn back from an engine failure, does not allow you to ignore the real world data that indicates good, well trained pilots routinely try it and SSCBD (Stall Spin Crash Burn Die) Most who go straight get cuts and scrapes and sell their airplane to the insurance company.
If the altitude is available to turn back, assess the situation, decide if it will work, and then if it won't turn back into the wind and land, I can buy it, but that is really an engine failure from a cruise altitude, not after take off. We are talking about altitudes of 1500 AGL in an RV and 3000 feet in a P-51 or more to do that.
Here is what it boils down to, airplanes that arrive at the earth, under control, with the wings level, and at the slowest possible speed, almost always have survivors on board.
Sorry that I could not hang it up, but I can't resist the challenge to clarify my position........ Thanks for the opportunity.
Tailwinds,
DougR
Let me be clear, I am not and don't want to be percieved as haranging AvGas or anyone else. We are having a disagreement, albeit from my perspective a passionate one. Big Difference. Actually I am not really trying to convince him, I want to make sure the readers who may have doubts have a good understanding of the other side of this discussion. I appreaciate that he is forcing me to refine my arguments and highlight the errors in his premise.
I read Dr Rogers essay and I agree with his science, but it, and AvGas's empirical data, ignores two important aspect of this. The first is the FACT that highly experienced seemingly good pilots routinely get killed doing this. Rather than ask why that happens they take the typical pilot reaction to most accident reports, "That guy screwed up here, I won't do that, therefore, I don't have a problem."
A much better question is, if a good pilot with lots of experience can get caught, why should I think that I won't get caught too.
The turbine thing entriged me so I went searching the NTSB reports. There are two examples that I could find, one in a Caravan and one in a PC-12. Both turned back and both are dead. There are several engine failures that did not result in fatalities.
Searching the Caravan list, nearly all the accidents in Caravans are engine failures, followed closely by icing encounters. The good news is most engine failures are not fatal. This supports my premise of landing straight ahead at the slowest possible speed. Several were engine failures after take off, but the only one where it was clear it was a turn back was an IMC departure with an engine failure at 1000 feet.
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20071212X01932&key=1
The PC-12 was a training accident where an engine failure after T/O was simulated and both pilot and instructor were killed in a botched landing. It was unclear whether it stalled in or they just blew the landing, but dead is dead.
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20060706X00882&key=1
The second issue that neither AvGas nor Dr Rogers explore is the Pilot pressure vs. performance. Dr Jerry Berlin is a shrink that developed much of the airline CRM that airlines use today. He is a great guy and a wonderfully entertaining speaker. He has probably done more work on the psycology of a pilot than any other scientist. (talk about scary stuff)
Dr. Berlin says, and has data to support, that as you put pressure on a pilot their performance increases, to a point. When it drops, it drops straight down. Fine motor skill is gone, tunnel vision sets in and the pilot can barely perform the simplest tasks.
I have listened to Dr Berlin's speak at the Bombardier/Learjet safety standown and twice at the National Warbird Operators Conference. Another great speaker on aviation safety is Rogers Smith. He is a test pilot and he talks about the "normalization of deviance." That means if you do something that is dangerous or stupid enough times it becomes normal, that does not mean it is safe.
My pal Patty (gratitous name dropping acknowledged) can consistently fly upside down and cut a ribbon 15 feet from the ground. Just because she does it every weekend and is pretty calm about it, it is still dangerous. She has used the normalization of deviance to move herself to the left on the pressure performance chart so she can consistently operate at peak performance in that regime. To accomplish this as safely as possible, she performs every weekend and regularly practices close to the ground.
Let's compare a turn back after a REAL engine failure with an inverted ribbon cut. It can be done, no argument, but there is a huge difference, Patty looked at the layout and knows all the parameters when she begins the run and she is mentally prepared for it. NO body can know and assess all the parameters of a turnback from a marginal altitude and make the decision and then consistently perform. Every one would start from a different altitude at a different weight with a different head/crosswind. The similarity here is Patty knows all the parameters and decides if the winds, terrain and other factors will work standing on the ground and she can adjust many of them before she takes off. The pilot in the engine failure after take off gets a bucket full of data dumped in their lap with no time to analyze it. Huge difference.
Just because you have practiced 6 months ago, or worst of all, you read somewhere on the internet, that you can successfully turn back from an engine failure, does not allow you to ignore the real world data that indicates good, well trained pilots routinely try it and SSCBD (Stall Spin Crash Burn Die) Most who go straight get cuts and scrapes and sell their airplane to the insurance company.
If the altitude is available to turn back, assess the situation, decide if it will work, and then if it won't turn back into the wind and land, I can buy it, but that is really an engine failure from a cruise altitude, not after take off. We are talking about altitudes of 1500 AGL in an RV and 3000 feet in a P-51 or more to do that.
Here is what it boils down to, airplanes that arrive at the earth, under control, with the wings level, and at the slowest possible speed, almost always have survivors on board.
Sorry that I could not hang it up, but I can't resist the challenge to clarify my position........ Thanks for the opportunity.
Tailwinds,
DougR
Last edited:
Everyone should do this!!! Engine out practice in the pattern. Everyone should practice pulling the power to idle and putting on 1/2 flaps and landing on the fixed distance markers without going short!!!!!
As for the red knob, I don't recommend pulling that back close to the ground, but I have done it in my Rocket abeam the numbers and landed with it back.
It is not the same as idle by any measure, but the important skill is the ability to percieve energy state as increasing or decreasing and use speed, turn radius flaps and slip to make the spot is the point. If you have that skill you can adapt it to the higher sink rate when the fire is out.
Another element of this is anticipating the change in wind with heading and altitude change and having some reserve energy in the bank until the spot ont he runway is made, and then being able to get rid of that energy. Touching the runway 20 kts too fast to make the spot is cheating. Better than floating, but cheating just the same.
Come to MCW and we can do it all you want.
Tailwinds,
DougR
In case no body noticed, it is a slow day at work, and the WX is not fit to go flying
Finley Atherton
Well Known Member
Keepup (posts 54 and 57) raised the issue about climb angle. I would be interested in opinions on this issue. For the first 50 hours or so most of my climb outs from the runway were relatively steep, it was neat to feel the excellent T/O and climb performance and put on an impressive show for the passenger and observers on the ground. I have calmed down a bit and now tend to climb out at a more leisurely angle by letting the airspeed build up first. Should I revert back to the initial steep climb out till I get to a safe altitude where a turn back could be accomplished?
Fin
9A
Fin
9A
hevansrv7a
Well Known Member
Prop type is an issue
I have flown a -6 with CS prop and my 7A with FP. It's a big difference. My FP prop is pitched for best cruise at 8500' which results in an inability to get max power at first on TO. I find that my best angle of climb and my best rate of climb speeds are very close. That's not the case with CS prop for obvious reasons. The issue is the need for RPM's to get power for climb. I find I can climb better if I let the speed build up first. What's your experience? BTW - the GRT flight path marker allows you to directly fly the best angle of climb for any given day and conditions. All of this is important in trying to answer your question.
Finley Atherton
Well Known Member
I suspect there is no "one answer fits all" here. I have a C/S prop and if I climb at best angle at sea level at solo weight it might be possible that I would over-run the runway during the landing after the turn back. Maybe the flatter, faster climb would allow more runway available after the turn back? Then again, if the runway was long, then a steep climb may allow the option of landing straight ahead on the runway or possibly even doing a 360 and also landing on the runway in the same direction as take off.
I think I will have to do some flight tests at various climb angles and weights and apply the data against different runway lenths.fin
9A
Last edited:
Captain Avgas
Well Known Member
This is an excellent question...and I was waiting for some astute person to raise it.
Unfortunately there is no definitive one-size-fits-all generic answer....too many variables. However I would point out that after I started practicing turnback maneouvres I changed my take-off modus operandi as follows:
a) I never do intersection departures any more.
b) I always adopt best rate-of-climb speed and full power for at least the first 1000'.
c) Before application of power I consciously note which direction the cross wind (if any) is coming from and confirm to myself which way I will be turning in the event of power loss.
The answer is to practice the maneouvre in a specific aircraft and formulate your own strategy. You will eventually come up with the right take-off technique and altitude decision height formula to bring you back safely in your particular aircraft.
The manoeuvre would obviously be very well suited to an RV because of their fabulous climb performance.
I sometimes find, particularly if there's a stiff headwind, that my danger is NOT falling short of the runway on return, but overshooting. However I console myself that if I ever had to run through a fence at the far end of the strip at low speed it would be a relatively benign experience compared to landing in a congested residential area.
One of the absolute keys to success in the turnback is to act immediately. Messing around trying to fix the problem as you keep hurtling ahead will ensure that you do not make it back. Sitting there in disbelief and doing nothing for 10 seconds or more will achieve the same effect. You need to practice the manouevre so that it becomes programmed into your brain....just like any engine failure scenario.
As you practice the turnback you will also discover another very interesting phenomenon.....you need MASSIVE and IMMEDIATE forward stick as soon as the power quits. The loss of speed when the engine dies on steep climb-out is staggering....get that nose down fast and recoup some speed to start the turn.
On another tangent. I also practice engine failures immediately after rotation (pulling power after the wheels have left the ground). You need a relatively long runway for this manouevre but it is also a VERY revealing experience and great for improving skills. It's always good to practice these things before you need to use them in a real world power loss situation. If you practice you know what to expect and that in itself will reduce the stress considerably and enable a more timely and appropriate response.
Last edited:
L'Avion
Well Known Member
Thanks to all for your thoughts
Eric Hoffer (the Longshoreman Philosopher) wrote a short book (The Ordeal of Change) on man's resistance to change, which may apply to many of our opinions expressed in this thread, to wit: that most of us will hold to previously held opinions and continue to defend them in light of facts that would obviously disprove them; this writer is not immune from such.
The greater problem for us all is how shall we find the truth, despite our previously held opinions, some of which me be right, and some of which may need revising.
How do we proceed from strongly held opinion(s) to verifiable fact, in the interest of all our safety?
Best to all who have offered their opinions, facts, and suggestions for our survival in an engine failure after takeoff.
Barney
...onward to continued discussion.......
Eric Hoffer (the Longshoreman Philosopher) wrote a short book (The Ordeal of Change) on man's resistance to change, which may apply to many of our opinions expressed in this thread, to wit: that most of us will hold to previously held opinions and continue to defend them in light of facts that would obviously disprove them; this writer is not immune from such.
The greater problem for us all is how shall we find the truth, despite our previously held opinions, some of which me be right, and some of which may need revising.
How do we proceed from strongly held opinion(s) to verifiable fact, in the interest of all our safety?
Best to all who have offered their opinions, facts, and suggestions for our survival in an engine failure after takeoff.
Barney
...onward to continued discussion.......
ddurakovich
Well Known Member
grantcarruthers
Well Known Member
Me either.
My biggest problem with your argument is twofold.
1, in all the failed "impossible turn" fatalities you site there is absolutely no evidence that a suitable landing site was available straight ahead. May have been a perfect one but unfortunately the reports are frequently incomplete and we shouldn't assume there was. The pilots were obviously motivated to try so I'd guess they lacked options more than anything. There are undisputably failure altitudes at many airports where there are no options. In this case I agree that crashing into the wind is the best option.
2, you are so adament that you should never attempt the "return turn" that I'm afraid people might take your advice and lose a valuable option. Go out and practice, set reasonable limits and follow them.
It boils down to practicing slow flight, stalls, and turning stalls. I do this nearly weekly and at least monthly when doing my light acro goofing around. I'm not Patty but I work in a high stress 100% performance required world and am comfortable with my ability to perform under pressure. With this in mind my standard for attempting the turn is much lower than what it would be for the average GA pilot. I in no way want people to set their standard based on my experience and my risk management standards. I just want everyone to come up with parameters based on their proficiency and experience.
grantcarruthers
Well Known Member
Excellent point, recent reading about airforce pilots said something to the effect that they are to do a zero G pushover until assured of adequate airspeed and attitude to maintain that airspeed.
You can't stall at zero G and worst case you turn a little potential energy (alt)into kinetic energy (speed) if you overdo it slightly. Beats underdoing it and stalling.
Here're some equations that will give a close approximation to your glide rate-of-descent and turn radius. Obviously, these don't take into account propeller thrust or drag.
Q=rhoxV^2 / 2; L=W / cos(BA); CF=Wxtan(BA); CL=L / Q Aw; CDI=CL^2 / pixARxO
rho=2.377E-3, V=22xIASmph / 15, W=flight weight, BA=bank angle, AR=span^2 / Aw,
O=Oswald efficiency factor.
At best L/D, CDIxAw=Ap
for an RV-6, span=23, Aw=110 sq.ft., O=0.81, Ap=2.2 sq. ft.
solve: CL=sq.rt.(2.2xpixARxO / Aw); Q=L / CLxAw; V=sq.rt.(2xQ / rho); ROD=4.4xQx60 / Aw; rad=WxV^2 / 32.2xCF.
Try these out for your plane's characteristics at different bank angles and weights. You might also see how the ROD and radius would be at the minimum descent rate which is at 76% of the V for best L/D at a given bank angle.
Q=rhoxV^2 / 2; L=W / cos(BA); CF=Wxtan(BA); CL=L / Q Aw; CDI=CL^2 / pixARxO
rho=2.377E-3, V=22xIASmph / 15, W=flight weight, BA=bank angle, AR=span^2 / Aw,
O=Oswald efficiency factor.
At best L/D, CDIxAw=Ap
for an RV-6, span=23, Aw=110 sq.ft., O=0.81, Ap=2.2 sq. ft.
solve: CL=sq.rt.(2.2xpixARxO / Aw); Q=L / CLxAw; V=sq.rt.(2xQ / rho); ROD=4.4xQx60 / Aw; rad=WxV^2 / 32.2xCF.
Try these out for your plane's characteristics at different bank angles and weights. You might also see how the ROD and radius would be at the minimum descent rate which is at 76% of the V for best L/D at a given bank angle.
Last edited:
scsmith
Well Known Member
please see my basic aero post on general discussion
Hi All,
First I'd like to say that this has been a really excellent thread with a lot of good arguments and opinions provided, respectfully without degrading as many forums tend to.
In addition to building an RV-8 and being a high-time sailplane pilot, I am a NASA research engineer with a PhD in applied aerodynamics.
So, I decided to see if I could clarify a few aerodynamics and flight mechanics issues relevant to this discussion, but posted on general discussion so others could also learn from it. Please see that 3-part thread. Hope it helps shed light.
What would be an interesting thing to know, for unsuccessful attempts at return to airport, is whether it was unsuccessful because of departure from controlled flight, or because the airplane hit the ground before it got turned back.
I suspect most of them are departures from controlled flight - stall/spin. These are the events that can be fixed with training. Yes, you better get that nose down NOW, bank fairly steep, add more speed, fly coordinated.
For the ones that just don't make it all the way around - well, that means they started too low. But, as I mentioned at the end of my aero thread, a partial turn-back may still leave you with added options - might get you onto airport property, or better fields than straight ahead.
Anyway, I hope some find the aero thread enlightening.
Steve.
RV-8QB FWF
Hi All,
First I'd like to say that this has been a really excellent thread with a lot of good arguments and opinions provided, respectfully without degrading as many forums tend to.
In addition to building an RV-8 and being a high-time sailplane pilot, I am a NASA research engineer with a PhD in applied aerodynamics.
So, I decided to see if I could clarify a few aerodynamics and flight mechanics issues relevant to this discussion, but posted on general discussion so others could also learn from it. Please see that 3-part thread. Hope it helps shed light.
What would be an interesting thing to know, for unsuccessful attempts at return to airport, is whether it was unsuccessful because of departure from controlled flight, or because the airplane hit the ground before it got turned back.
I suspect most of them are departures from controlled flight - stall/spin. These are the events that can be fixed with training. Yes, you better get that nose down NOW, bank fairly steep, add more speed, fly coordinated.
For the ones that just don't make it all the way around - well, that means they started too low. But, as I mentioned at the end of my aero thread, a partial turn-back may still leave you with added options - might get you onto airport property, or better fields than straight ahead.
Anyway, I hope some find the aero thread enlightening.
Steve.
RV-8QB FWF
Doug Rodrigues
Active Member
More thoughts...
Ditto to the last post. Being sloppy in coordination in the turn can invite a spin. Someone new to flying very low AGL can have their senses confused with the ground rush illusion. For those few pilots who don?t rehearse what they?ll do when that heavily loaded plane is in a rate of descent faster than they?ve ever experienced before, the natural reaction of pulling back on the stick to slow the rate of descent will be the last control input they?ll do! You guys had better carefully think out what you're going to do before taking off. Especially be aware of exactly which direction a strong wind is blowing from, and what possible landing areas there may be into the wind, if that's where you want to go.
As a rule of thumb, that stick shouldn't be pulled back to slow down the plane until you are about to flare for a landing. Assuming that you haven't developed lead feet and stall/spun because of all of the excitement, the only control you will have is to be at a safe spot on the ground at the moment you run out of altitude. I believe Bob Hoover calls that "Energy Management." It applies to all sailplane pilots too, but your RV won't be as forgiving. What is the glide ratio of a grossed out RV with a dead engine? What would be the glide angle in a no wind condition? What would the rate of descent be? Has anyone figured that out? It may surprise you. With these factors in mind, from 800 feet, how long will it take you to be on the ground, whether you're ready to touch down or not? How about 400 feet? Combine all of the other factors of density altitude, wind direction, wind speed, pilot's flying ability and reaction time...there cannot be any one rule regarding this subject. Good luck.
Ditto to the last post. Being sloppy in coordination in the turn can invite a spin. Someone new to flying very low AGL can have their senses confused with the ground rush illusion. For those few pilots who don?t rehearse what they?ll do when that heavily loaded plane is in a rate of descent faster than they?ve ever experienced before, the natural reaction of pulling back on the stick to slow the rate of descent will be the last control input they?ll do! You guys had better carefully think out what you're going to do before taking off. Especially be aware of exactly which direction a strong wind is blowing from, and what possible landing areas there may be into the wind, if that's where you want to go.
As a rule of thumb, that stick shouldn't be pulled back to slow down the plane until you are about to flare for a landing. Assuming that you haven't developed lead feet and stall/spun because of all of the excitement, the only control you will have is to be at a safe spot on the ground at the moment you run out of altitude. I believe Bob Hoover calls that "Energy Management." It applies to all sailplane pilots too, but your RV won't be as forgiving. What is the glide ratio of a grossed out RV with a dead engine? What would be the glide angle in a no wind condition? What would the rate of descent be? Has anyone figured that out? It may surprise you. With these factors in mind, from 800 feet, how long will it take you to be on the ground, whether you're ready to touch down or not? How about 400 feet? Combine all of the other factors of density altitude, wind direction, wind speed, pilot's flying ability and reaction time...there cannot be any one rule regarding this subject. Good luck.
Last edited:
Captain Avgas
Well Known Member
Sailing off the edge of the earth.
For thousands of years people believed that the earth was flat and that if you sailed too far and arrived at the edge you would fall off. And despite the fact that each year hundreds of ships returned, the flat earth prophets pointed to the few that did not and said: "We warned them".
And many mariners who were fixated on the few failures rather than the successes were duly impressed with the knowledge of the flat earth prophets and subsequently vowed never to venture too far in their ships. And for good measure, and in good conscience, they also warned others of the terrible danger.
But there were probably a number of astute observers who couldn't help but notice that the seafarers who did not return were generally those with the lowest levels of maritime skills.
Today we understand that warnings about sailing off the edge of the earth probably served no more purpose than to stress out our entrepid ancient mariner....and that what would have been considerably more beneficial to his prospects for survival would have been some better instructions in seamanship and basic navigation.
The fact that pilots kill themselves doing turnbacks is not an indictment of the maneouvre....it is an indictment of a flying training system that provides zero instruction in performing the maneouvre safely (outside of the very sensible gliding fraternity of course).
Sure, a number of pilots have killed themselves attempting a turnback on engine failure..but I'll bet London to a brick that NONE of them had ANY experience or proficiency in the manouevre. In other words their first attempt was their last.
In that regard it is probably no different from a pilot needing to recover from a real and unexpected spin when he has had no spin recovery training. These things are extremely difficult to deal with from pure theory when the ground is looming large.
For thousands of years people believed that the earth was flat and that if you sailed too far and arrived at the edge you would fall off. And despite the fact that each year hundreds of ships returned, the flat earth prophets pointed to the few that did not and said: "We warned them".
And many mariners who were fixated on the few failures rather than the successes were duly impressed with the knowledge of the flat earth prophets and subsequently vowed never to venture too far in their ships. And for good measure, and in good conscience, they also warned others of the terrible danger.
But there were probably a number of astute observers who couldn't help but notice that the seafarers who did not return were generally those with the lowest levels of maritime skills.
Today we understand that warnings about sailing off the edge of the earth probably served no more purpose than to stress out our entrepid ancient mariner....and that what would have been considerably more beneficial to his prospects for survival would have been some better instructions in seamanship and basic navigation.
The fact that pilots kill themselves doing turnbacks is not an indictment of the maneouvre....it is an indictment of a flying training system that provides zero instruction in performing the maneouvre safely (outside of the very sensible gliding fraternity of course).
Sure, a number of pilots have killed themselves attempting a turnback on engine failure..but I'll bet London to a brick that NONE of them had ANY experience or proficiency in the manouevre. In other words their first attempt was their last.
In that regard it is probably no different from a pilot needing to recover from a real and unexpected spin when he has had no spin recovery training. These things are extremely difficult to deal with from pure theory when the ground is looming large.
Last edited:
pierre smith
Well Known Member
Bob makes a very good point..
....that I take to heart. The very next time I fly my RV, I'll take it upon myself to practice turnbacks at altitude and begin teaching them as well.
BTW, I have a coarsely pitched three bladed Catto and have a wonderful glide ratio...around 11:1 but the last two C/S equipped-7A's I flew (one yesterday) have a lousy glide when the power is pulled and the blades go flat....man do they brake hard and lose speed fast. So if you're in a C/S equipped plane, you'll be surprised at the rapid deceleration and glide degradation too. One had a two-bladed Sensy , the other a three bladed MT.
Regards,
....that I take to heart. The very next time I fly my RV, I'll take it upon myself to practice turnbacks at altitude and begin teaching them as well.
BTW, I have a coarsely pitched three bladed Catto and have a wonderful glide ratio...around 11:1 but the last two C/S equipped-7A's I flew (one yesterday) have a lousy glide when the power is pulled and the blades go flat....man do they brake hard and lose speed fast. So if you're in a C/S equipped plane, you'll be surprised at the rapid deceleration and glide degradation too. One had a two-bladed Sensy , the other a three bladed MT.
Regards,
David-aviator
Well Known Member
Hey Bob,
According to wikipedia, the oldest society on the planet is the Flat Earth Society. Three thousand believers can't all be wrong.
What you say about training and proficiency is true but the reality of it is the system can not carry the cost in money and lives. Like spin training, the training accident rate exceeds the benefits. Stall recognition and preventing the spin makes more sense - some airplanes simply can not be spun safely anyhow. Turning back to the runway is theoretically a sound procedure. It is knowing when and when not to do it that gets pilots in trouble. And to be spun up on the procedure requires much practice so as to recognize when and when not to do it. To complicate the matter there is a big grey area between practicing it at altitude and experiencing it for real at 600'.
You make it sound simple. It isn't.
All,
I have never argured that it is technically possible, with enough training and skill. I appreciate all the math and engineering that has been proposed here, but this is not an aerodynamic problem, it is a human factors problem.
Those who support this have not acknowledged or responded to the pilot pressure performance curve. That is not a theory, that is science just like aerodynamics.
The training and skill level of the pilot population is pretty much terrible. One hour of flight training every two years, Give me a break. If anyone is going to propose the turnback as a possibility, it has to be after an extensive initial and regular recurrent training program. Go sell that to your local tower operator.
The danger of this discussion is what happens people see a post from some folks with lots of letters behind their names that says it can be done. Based on that, what I will call internet flight instruction, they sit at the hangar cafe and say they can turn back after take off, and tuck that away. (that happens at my airport) These are the same folks who are afraid to climb to altitude over the airport and pull the mixture, or turn off the mag switch.
I fly with these folks and give them BFRs. I have pulled the mixture on them, and they are so over-loaded they can barely manitain Vg within 10 knots and comprehend the rate of descent number I am trying to teach them.
These folks have zero chance of successfully completing a turn back from an eng failure afer t/o and the ntsb stats bear that out.
Could this be taught? You bet, but at what level? It is certainly beyond private pilot standards, most private pilots struggle with the engine failure abeam the touchdown point in the pattern.
This as an ATP level task. I don't know how it would be tested, but that could be resolved, but there would be lots of examiners who would rebel.... And lets be honest, most pilots don't fly at the ATP Level.
I wanted to explore the turbine turn back as well. I looked in the accident stats and found two fatals one in a Caravan and one in a PC-12. My guess is the turbine turnback is driven more by the marketing department than the safety department. People who spend multi-millions on a single screw airplane need an answer to the "whattya gonna do when it quits" question.
With that said, anyone flying turbines should have higher experience and recurrent training, and yet they still did the SSCBD (Stall Spin Crash Burn Die) on a turnback. If annual simulator recurrent trainng won't do it, what would the initial and recurrent requirements be???
As to the flat earth society, the science of the day supported the flat earth, it was when science encorporated all the information that it was concluded that the earth was round.
The science of the mechanics of a turnback are part of the total equation, but it is impossible to ignore the science of the human factors. Including the the human factors tips the science to support the alternative (lower the nose and land into the wind at a point ahead of the wings) as the default choice.
Tailwinds,
DougR
I have never argured that it is technically possible, with enough training and skill. I appreciate all the math and engineering that has been proposed here, but this is not an aerodynamic problem, it is a human factors problem.
Those who support this have not acknowledged or responded to the pilot pressure performance curve. That is not a theory, that is science just like aerodynamics.
The training and skill level of the pilot population is pretty much terrible. One hour of flight training every two years, Give me a break. If anyone is going to propose the turnback as a possibility, it has to be after an extensive initial and regular recurrent training program. Go sell that to your local tower operator.
The danger of this discussion is what happens people see a post from some folks with lots of letters behind their names that says it can be done. Based on that, what I will call internet flight instruction, they sit at the hangar cafe and say they can turn back after take off, and tuck that away. (that happens at my airport) These are the same folks who are afraid to climb to altitude over the airport and pull the mixture, or turn off the mag switch.
I fly with these folks and give them BFRs. I have pulled the mixture on them, and they are so over-loaded they can barely manitain Vg within 10 knots and comprehend the rate of descent number I am trying to teach them.
These folks have zero chance of successfully completing a turn back from an eng failure afer t/o and the ntsb stats bear that out.
Could this be taught? You bet, but at what level? It is certainly beyond private pilot standards, most private pilots struggle with the engine failure abeam the touchdown point in the pattern.
This as an ATP level task. I don't know how it would be tested, but that could be resolved, but there would be lots of examiners who would rebel.... And lets be honest, most pilots don't fly at the ATP Level.
I wanted to explore the turbine turn back as well. I looked in the accident stats and found two fatals one in a Caravan and one in a PC-12. My guess is the turbine turnback is driven more by the marketing department than the safety department. People who spend multi-millions on a single screw airplane need an answer to the "whattya gonna do when it quits" question.
With that said, anyone flying turbines should have higher experience and recurrent training, and yet they still did the SSCBD (Stall Spin Crash Burn Die) on a turnback. If annual simulator recurrent trainng won't do it, what would the initial and recurrent requirements be???
As to the flat earth society, the science of the day supported the flat earth, it was when science encorporated all the information that it was concluded that the earth was round.
The science of the mechanics of a turnback are part of the total equation, but it is impossible to ignore the science of the human factors. Including the the human factors tips the science to support the alternative (lower the nose and land into the wind at a point ahead of the wings) as the default choice.
Tailwinds,
DougR
Last edited:
I thought it was interesting that a Canadian safety board study indicated that you were eight times more likely to die in a turnback crash than crashing straight ahead.
Another factor would be in the less busy forward upwind option you would likely have more thinking capacity to remember that fuel selector you forgot to turn on or boost pump switch still in the off position.
The compounded kinetic energy in a downwind glide is also a very significant factor.
..A few additional things to consider.. I doubt that anyone is saying "always or never".
Another factor would be in the less busy forward upwind option you would likely have more thinking capacity to remember that fuel selector you forgot to turn on or boost pump switch still in the off position.
The compounded kinetic energy in a downwind glide is also a very significant factor.
..A few additional things to consider.. I doubt that anyone is saying "always or never".
Last edited:
grantcarruthers
Well Known Member
Doug, where did you find the info on the caravan and PC-12? What search criteria did you use to find them?
One interesting point from the Rogers article we haven't really hit on is that a 30 degree bank was almost as effective in their turnback study. It certainly would be safer for the average/deplorable GA pilot.
I really don't see where it would take that much training in addition to the slow flight we all SHOULD be capable of and practicing at a minimum of every BFR (which I agree is inadequate but were talking the minimum not ideal). I really think the stall and slow flight training should all be done in turning flight rather than straight ahead, would be much more applicable and useful. Next BFR make the student do a 180 at idle and 1.1Vs
I trully get your point that the average GA pilot is not capable of this at low altitude. I'd like to think that the VAF fraternity, whom we're specifically speaking to, is above average and if they're willing to read 9 pages of this thread they'll probably go practice with a little encouragement and then set reasonable limits. I'd like to people to elevate their skills not settle for mediocrity as I unfortunately feel you are arguing. If the sail plane community can get it right then why shouldn't we expect the same of the SEL GA's.
One interesting point from the Rogers article we haven't really hit on is that a 30 degree bank was almost as effective in their turnback study. It certainly would be safer for the average/deplorable GA pilot.
I really don't see where it would take that much training in addition to the slow flight we all SHOULD be capable of and practicing at a minimum of every BFR (which I agree is inadequate but were talking the minimum not ideal). I really think the stall and slow flight training should all be done in turning flight rather than straight ahead, would be much more applicable and useful. Next BFR make the student do a 180 at idle and 1.1Vs
I trully get your point that the average GA pilot is not capable of this at low altitude. I'd like to think that the VAF fraternity, whom we're specifically speaking to, is above average and if they're willing to read 9 pages of this thread they'll probably go practice with a little encouragement and then set reasonable limits. I'd like to people to elevate their skills not settle for mediocrity as I unfortunately feel you are arguing. If the sail plane community can get it right then why shouldn't we expect the same of the SEL GA's.
Grant,
I searched Cessna 208, PC-12, and socata TBM it did not take long to read them all back to 1987 when the Caravan arrived and took my B-18 route. I found it interesting how many Caravan engine failures I found, it is clearly the #1 cause of Caravan accidents, but most of them were not fatal...... Another point that supports the wings level, under control into the wind.
Based on what I found in that quick research, Twin & Turbine readers can anticipate a story about engine failures in S/E turbines soon
With regard to your comments about the skill level of the RV crowd, That is textbook pilot stuff. Rationalization. We are control freaks and rather than acknowledge there is danger in this business, we rationalize it using several methods. This particular method is, "Because I fly an RV alot, and read the VAF forums, I am better than the average spam can driver, and therefore if the engine quits after t/o I am good enough to turn back and so this flying game is not dangerous to me."
A much better solution is to acknowledge that flying is dangerous. It is. Sorry that is a fact. Flying homebuilt airplanes is more dangerous than store-bought airplanes. It is, that is a fact. Flying formation is dangerous. It is. I do all those things, plus I have a low level aerobatics card, and I fly Warbirds which is really dangerous.
I give a Warbird safety statistics talk at the National Warbird Operators Conf. every year. I do lots of research on Warbird safety. Here are some factoids. Being a Commercial pilot is the 1st second or third higest fatality rate of any career in America. (US Bureau of Labor statistics) Most commercial pilots are airline pilots and they have essentially NO fatalities. So that effectively doubles the accident rate of non-airline commercial pilots. They have higher experience and should have lots of recency of experience plus most have regular checkrides and reccurrent training. Inspite of that being a commercial pilot is still one of the deadlest careers in America.
It is ok to BS your wife or your friends about how safe flying is... But be honest when you look in the mirror. We all have used that line about the most dangerous part of flying is the drive to the airport, It is absolute BS. John and Martha King call it "The Big Lie." Unless you are riding on a scheduled commercial airline, flying is much more dangerous than driving.
I have no illusions about the fact that I live a high risk aviation lifestyle. I choose to accept that risk because I believe the rewards that I get out weigh the risks. I also understand that while I have extrordinary experience, my skills are not nearly as extrordinary as my experience.
I look for every option to drive the risk out of my flying. Step one is having an honest understanding of my skills.
Lets look at a risk mitigation exercise. If the engine quits in a P-51 and I try to put in on a road, and I am successful, I have saved $300,000 minimum over landing gear up in a field. If I end up in the ditch upside down, it will cost $800 to $1 million to fix and I am dead. (there is no hull insurance BTW)
I am pretty sure I am not good enough to put a Mustang on a road 10 times out of 10. Does that mean I should practice landing a P-51 on Roads??? How can I simulate the visibility of a road that is less than 25 feet wide. Can I land a P-51 on the centerline and keep it on center. You bet. Can I do it with oil on the W/S and no visibility? Am I willing to bet my life on it? **** no.....
Let's look at the turn back in the same light. The PhDs have deternined that in certain cases it can be done, and I have not argued that, what I have argued from the outset is there is no safe way to simulate it that includes the degredation in pilot performance that comes from moving the pilot too far to the right on the pressure/performance curve.
I recently did a piece for King Air Magazine about Sim Com. Talk to the instructors there. They will tell you that most pilots are not nearly as good as they think they are.
Rationalizing the danger of an engine failure after take off by telling yourself you can turn back is just that. Rationalization. Spending training time working on power off spot landings so you can park it on the spot power off is a much better use of time and effort. Until that skill is ABSOLUTELY MASTERED, I mean on the spot, on the airspeed, everytime, with the power back, talking about a training for a turnback is crazy.
Again, I fly with pilots all the time and very few of them can do a deadstick 180 from downwind to the spot and hit it, much less be at the correct airspeed...... I mean, 10 out of 10 times from a surprise failure. That is the skill we need to work on here.
And Steve, You are correct about the kinetic energy, the higher the stall speed of the airplane, the less the effect of this, but in an RV it is a huge factor.
Tailwinds,
Doug
BTW, I appreciate the fact that people have enjoyed this, and honestly I am not trying to change the minds those who are as adamant as I am on the other side. My target audience is the undecided. Most of the salient points have been made, and this thread is very close to outliving it's usefulness..... Unless somebody comes up with a comment that I just can't let slide, It has been fun, but I am about done.....
I searched Cessna 208, PC-12, and socata TBM it did not take long to read them all back to 1987 when the Caravan arrived and took my B-18 route. I found it interesting how many Caravan engine failures I found, it is clearly the #1 cause of Caravan accidents, but most of them were not fatal...... Another point that supports the wings level, under control into the wind.
Based on what I found in that quick research, Twin & Turbine readers can anticipate a story about engine failures in S/E turbines soon
With regard to your comments about the skill level of the RV crowd, That is textbook pilot stuff. Rationalization. We are control freaks and rather than acknowledge there is danger in this business, we rationalize it using several methods. This particular method is, "Because I fly an RV alot, and read the VAF forums, I am better than the average spam can driver, and therefore if the engine quits after t/o I am good enough to turn back and so this flying game is not dangerous to me."
A much better solution is to acknowledge that flying is dangerous. It is. Sorry that is a fact. Flying homebuilt airplanes is more dangerous than store-bought airplanes. It is, that is a fact. Flying formation is dangerous. It is. I do all those things, plus I have a low level aerobatics card, and I fly Warbirds which is really dangerous.
I give a Warbird safety statistics talk at the National Warbird Operators Conf. every year. I do lots of research on Warbird safety. Here are some factoids. Being a Commercial pilot is the 1st second or third higest fatality rate of any career in America. (US Bureau of Labor statistics) Most commercial pilots are airline pilots and they have essentially NO fatalities. So that effectively doubles the accident rate of non-airline commercial pilots. They have higher experience and should have lots of recency of experience plus most have regular checkrides and reccurrent training. Inspite of that being a commercial pilot is still one of the deadlest careers in America.
It is ok to BS your wife or your friends about how safe flying is... But be honest when you look in the mirror. We all have used that line about the most dangerous part of flying is the drive to the airport, It is absolute BS. John and Martha King call it "The Big Lie." Unless you are riding on a scheduled commercial airline, flying is much more dangerous than driving.
I have no illusions about the fact that I live a high risk aviation lifestyle. I choose to accept that risk because I believe the rewards that I get out weigh the risks. I also understand that while I have extrordinary experience, my skills are not nearly as extrordinary as my experience.
I look for every option to drive the risk out of my flying. Step one is having an honest understanding of my skills.
Lets look at a risk mitigation exercise. If the engine quits in a P-51 and I try to put in on a road, and I am successful, I have saved $300,000 minimum over landing gear up in a field. If I end up in the ditch upside down, it will cost $800 to $1 million to fix and I am dead. (there is no hull insurance BTW)
I am pretty sure I am not good enough to put a Mustang on a road 10 times out of 10. Does that mean I should practice landing a P-51 on Roads??? How can I simulate the visibility of a road that is less than 25 feet wide. Can I land a P-51 on the centerline and keep it on center. You bet. Can I do it with oil on the W/S and no visibility? Am I willing to bet my life on it? **** no.....
Let's look at the turn back in the same light. The PhDs have deternined that in certain cases it can be done, and I have not argued that, what I have argued from the outset is there is no safe way to simulate it that includes the degredation in pilot performance that comes from moving the pilot too far to the right on the pressure/performance curve.
I recently did a piece for King Air Magazine about Sim Com. Talk to the instructors there. They will tell you that most pilots are not nearly as good as they think they are.
Rationalizing the danger of an engine failure after take off by telling yourself you can turn back is just that. Rationalization. Spending training time working on power off spot landings so you can park it on the spot power off is a much better use of time and effort. Until that skill is ABSOLUTELY MASTERED, I mean on the spot, on the airspeed, everytime, with the power back, talking about a training for a turnback is crazy.
Again, I fly with pilots all the time and very few of them can do a deadstick 180 from downwind to the spot and hit it, much less be at the correct airspeed...... I mean, 10 out of 10 times from a surprise failure. That is the skill we need to work on here.
And Steve, You are correct about the kinetic energy, the higher the stall speed of the airplane, the less the effect of this, but in an RV it is a huge factor.
Tailwinds,
Doug
BTW, I appreciate the fact that people have enjoyed this, and honestly I am not trying to change the minds those who are as adamant as I am on the other side. My target audience is the undecided. Most of the salient points have been made, and this thread is very close to outliving it's usefulness..... Unless somebody comes up with a comment that I just can't let slide, It has been fun, but I am about done.....
Last edited:
Stephen Lindberg
Well Known Member
Like a buttered safe
I have seen one of these. A CFI and student were shooting landings in an Arrow III. The engine quit just past the departure end of the runway due to fuel starvation, probably about 400 agl. The CFI took over, started a steep right turn and hit the ground after about 135 degrees of turn. He later told me that the ground came up surprisingly fast. He was just barely able to get the wings level before he hit, and in fact the right wing dug in and spun the airplane around. The student was unhurt, but the CFI suffered a mild concussion, a broken right ankle, and a broken right wrist. They would have been better off landing straight ahead in this instance. They did not stall/spin, they just ran out of altitude, and quickly, too.
I have seen one of these. A CFI and student were shooting landings in an Arrow III. The engine quit just past the departure end of the runway due to fuel starvation, probably about 400 agl. The CFI took over, started a steep right turn and hit the ground after about 135 degrees of turn. He later told me that the ground came up surprisingly fast. He was just barely able to get the wings level before he hit, and in fact the right wing dug in and spun the airplane around. The student was unhurt, but the CFI suffered a mild concussion, a broken right ankle, and a broken right wrist. They would have been better off landing straight ahead in this instance. They did not stall/spin, they just ran out of altitude, and quickly, too.
grantcarruthers
Well Known Member
See Bob, I knew I could win you over and get you to say that there is a level of proficiency where the turnback is reasonable!!
Cheers
Now everybody go fly and get better at it, whatever it is for you.
Most summer mornings will find me low level in a Supercub checking a dozen pastures spread out over 40 miles. I 'swath' the pasture and semi wingover to reverse direction. When I began using airplanes to check momma cows I was a bit taken aback when I came out of the wingover low level pointed at the ground...the compulsion was to pull, of course this was with the fan still turning to keep me cool. I imagine crop dusters also experience this initially.
Yesterday, coming back from lunch in the RV I simulated turnbacks at altitude. Good exercise but not the same.
I then practiced taking off the runway and pulling the power at 700'. I never made it back. At 800' I did make the runway. I don't recommend practicing turnbacks at low altitude, the learning curve is just sometimes too steep. You are very nose low to maintain airspeed and in the power off steep bank, dropping like a rock with a windscreen full of real estate.
I had a 18 knot wind and on the turnbacks I made, I was 'truckin'. Besides watching the ground come up at a alarming rate you get the downwind turn air speed illusion with a healthy wind.
When you get to the altitude I would be comfortable with a turnback it really wouldn't be a what I consider a turnback any more but simply glide back to the airport. My threshold for trying to make the runway would be 1000' with a relatively calm wind.
Even then, my focus would be surviving, not making the runway.
Yesterday, coming back from lunch in the RV I simulated turnbacks at altitude. Good exercise but not the same.
I then practiced taking off the runway and pulling the power at 700'. I never made it back. At 800' I did make the runway. I don't recommend practicing turnbacks at low altitude, the learning curve is just sometimes too steep. You are very nose low to maintain airspeed and in the power off steep bank, dropping like a rock with a windscreen full of real estate.
I had a 18 knot wind and on the turnbacks I made, I was 'truckin'. Besides watching the ground come up at a alarming rate you get the downwind turn air speed illusion with a healthy wind.
When you get to the altitude I would be comfortable with a turnback it really wouldn't be a what I consider a turnback any more but simply glide back to the airport. My threshold for trying to make the runway would be 1000' with a relatively calm wind.
Even then, my focus would be surviving, not making the runway.
Last edited:
captainron
Well Known Member
Hi Pierre, One of first things we were taught in the T-28 in case of engine failure was to pull the prop lever immediately into high pitch (low RPM) to extend the glide. I had never heard this discussed or taught before on any other complex single with a non-feathering prop. It does work, and maybe it's time to look at this technique here in regards to this discussion on making it back to the airport.
Regards
Captain Avgas
Well Known Member
The politix of turnback
I think it would be constructive if we took this opportunity to look at the historical politix of the "turnback" in order to gain an insight into why this particular manoeuvre has become the subject of such frenzied and extreme opposition.
Even opponents reluctantly tend to agree that proper training could render the maneouvre a useful tool.
So we might begin by asking why is it that so few pilots (virtually nil private pilots) have received any turnback training. A previous poster suggested it was because the flying training system could not afford it financially. I doubt that. It could be included in any one of a number of advanced training courses...but it is not.
And the REASON it is not taught is simply because virtually non of the current stable of instructors are themselves proficient in the manoeuvre. And surprise surprise it is exactly the instructor who has no training or experience in the turnback manouevre who invariably is the most vocal opponent.
To comprehend why this is the case we need to understand that historically flight schools have drawn their instructors from a pool of students anxious to increase their hours on their way to (hopefully) flying heavier metal. Or alternatively the schools have often employed retired or retrenched commercial pilots in the twilight of their careers. At any rate most instructors are therefore either going to, or coming from, a career flying multi-engine aircraft.
And with multi engine there is NO turnback manouevre because it does not form part of the modus operandi of multi engine failure operations.
That simple fact has resulted in the turnback manouevre becoming an orphan in the GA instructing fraternity....unloved and highly ostracised by those who have no need, respect, or understanding of it.
The start of the awakening however came as a consequence of the increasing reliability of aviation turbine engines. This resulted relatively recently in a decision by the FAA to permit passengers to be carried for hire or reward in single turbine aircraft under both IFR and at night. And that sole fact resulted in the regulator taking a serious look at the turnback manouevre for the first time.
The conclusion was that it did not make sense to crash a plane load of people into a suburban street when there was plenty of altitude to execute a safe return.
The result was a total endorsement of the turnback manouevre for single engine turbine aircraft and the encouragment of appropriate training. And this has resulted in most major flight training centres now teaching the turnback manoeuvre when training flight crews for aircraft such as the Caravan and PC12.
Changes come very slowly to general aviation....but things ARE changing.
I think it would be constructive if we took this opportunity to look at the historical politix of the "turnback" in order to gain an insight into why this particular manoeuvre has become the subject of such frenzied and extreme opposition.
Even opponents reluctantly tend to agree that proper training could render the maneouvre a useful tool.
So we might begin by asking why is it that so few pilots (virtually nil private pilots) have received any turnback training. A previous poster suggested it was because the flying training system could not afford it financially. I doubt that. It could be included in any one of a number of advanced training courses...but it is not.
And the REASON it is not taught is simply because virtually non of the current stable of instructors are themselves proficient in the manoeuvre. And surprise surprise it is exactly the instructor who has no training or experience in the turnback manouevre who invariably is the most vocal opponent.
To comprehend why this is the case we need to understand that historically flight schools have drawn their instructors from a pool of students anxious to increase their hours on their way to (hopefully) flying heavier metal. Or alternatively the schools have often employed retired or retrenched commercial pilots in the twilight of their careers. At any rate most instructors are therefore either going to, or coming from, a career flying multi-engine aircraft.
And with multi engine there is NO turnback manouevre because it does not form part of the modus operandi of multi engine failure operations.
That simple fact has resulted in the turnback manouevre becoming an orphan in the GA instructing fraternity....unloved and highly ostracised by those who have no need, respect, or understanding of it.
The start of the awakening however came as a consequence of the increasing reliability of aviation turbine engines. This resulted relatively recently in a decision by the FAA to permit passengers to be carried for hire or reward in single turbine aircraft under both IFR and at night. And that sole fact resulted in the regulator taking a serious look at the turnback manouevre for the first time.
The conclusion was that it did not make sense to crash a plane load of people into a suburban street when there was plenty of altitude to execute a safe return.
The result was a total endorsement of the turnback manouevre for single engine turbine aircraft and the encouragment of appropriate training. And this has resulted in most major flight training centres now teaching the turnback manoeuvre when training flight crews for aircraft such as the Caravan and PC12.
Changes come very slowly to general aviation....but things ARE changing.
Last edited:
When I was a student at Culmerville airport north of Pittsburgh, Pa., a small grass field, my instructor, Art Hamilton, would often pull the power on takeoff. If it happened at low altitude, less than 300' or 400', I would point the J-3's nose straight ahead into the wheat field across the road. He often pulled the power just after making the crosswind turn at 500' AGL. When he did this, I would land on the crosswind runway with much slipping. Teaching then was so much different than today. Once you pulled power opposite the approach-end of the runway, you were required to manage your approach such that you would land in the first 300' of the runway; anything more was considered a bad approach! I still do that to this day, much to the distress of any check pilot. When the wind is less than 20 knots, I still try to have the stick in the pit of my stomach when I touch down. My instructor here on the west coast told me I couldn't slip a 172 with full flaps; it isn't allowed. However I read the 172 manual, and all it said was that your tail surfaces may not be as effective with a slip at 45 deg. flaps, so I had to teach my instructor how to do it!
pierre smith
Well Known Member
My boss did it too......
....in his P-51 but I'm not sure whether a Sensy or MT will stay in coarse pitch with little or no oil pressure. Will they?
Regards,
....in his P-51 but I'm not sure whether a Sensy or MT will stay in coarse pitch with little or no oil pressure. Will they?
Regards,
captainron
Well Known Member
If the engine is turning (windmilling), what have you lost? In the T-28, you've lost nothing but thrust. Oil pressure is still good, assuming the failure is not oil quantity related, hydraulic, electrical and pneumatic systems are still fine. As long as the engine hasn't seized, it will keep windmilling at any virtually any airspeed. Since it's not a feathering propeller, the standard procedure is to get it as close as possible to "feather" position by yanking it into the Low RPM position.
The T-28 is no glider, but using this procedure will allow you to increase your glide distance somewhat.
The T-28 is no glider, but using this procedure will allow you to increase your glide distance somewhat.
"Feathering" the prop should be part of any complex checkout and this is a perfect example of one of the many failures in the training process. AvGas and I have no disagreement on that.
How well it works depends on how fast the airplane is, how strong the prop gov is, if the engine has oil pressure, and the condition of transfer collar on the front main bearing. What typically happens is the complex checkout is in an Arrow where it make little difference and when the pilot gets checked out in a Bonanza where it makes a huge difference everyone assumes they already know about it, and it gets missed.
I was flying with an airshow pilot who is older than me, (read really old) and flies M/E turbines for a living. We were doing deadstick overheads in a Warbird and no one had ever taught him that trick. (Assume nothing...)
My Rocket has an aerobatic MT and it fails to High pitch so a oil pressure failure will automatically feather it.
In some airplanes, like the Mustang, it can increase glide performance by 50%.
Not to beat a dead horse, but if you are in the turnback camp, and you practice wtih the prop back and it fails to go to low pitch, (you won't know that until after you have committed to the turn) you just bought yourself a downwind off airport landing at best, and a SSCBD at worst.
This is just one more of the many unknowable variables that have to be mixed in with the knowable variables, to make the decision in a split second under intense pressure.
But then I would be beating a dead horse, wouldn't I?
Tailwinds,
DougR
Sorry can't quit....
BTW, Ron, calling a T-28 "no glider" is very kind. A T-28 falls like a greased anvil. It makes a Tri-Pacer seem like a high performance sailplane.
How well it works depends on how fast the airplane is, how strong the prop gov is, if the engine has oil pressure, and the condition of transfer collar on the front main bearing. What typically happens is the complex checkout is in an Arrow where it make little difference and when the pilot gets checked out in a Bonanza where it makes a huge difference everyone assumes they already know about it, and it gets missed.
I was flying with an airshow pilot who is older than me, (read really old) and flies M/E turbines for a living. We were doing deadstick overheads in a Warbird and no one had ever taught him that trick. (Assume nothing...)
My Rocket has an aerobatic MT and it fails to High pitch so a oil pressure failure will automatically feather it.
In some airplanes, like the Mustang, it can increase glide performance by 50%.
Not to beat a dead horse,
but if you are in the turnback camp, and you practice wtih the prop back and it fails to go to low pitch, (you won't know that until after you have committed to the turn) you just bought yourself a downwind off airport landing at best, and a SSCBD at worst.This is just one more of the many unknowable variables that have to be mixed in with the knowable variables, to make the decision in a split second under intense pressure.
But then I would be beating a dead horse, wouldn't I?
Tailwinds,
DougR
Sorry can't quit....
BTW, Ron, calling a T-28 "no glider" is very kind. A T-28 falls like a greased anvil. It makes a Tri-Pacer seem like a high performance sailplane.
Last edited:
AlexPeterson
Well Known Member
Doug, you made my day. This description communicates the point well! This thread needed a little levity! thanks
Captain Avgas
Well Known Member
It's been an informative thread.
Dougie, you've made more comebacks than Sugar Ray Leonard
And I for one am happy that you have. I think it's been a very informative and civilized thread, particularly considering the explosive nature of the topic. I must admit I've learnt a few things and I suspect you probably have as well.
Probably what we've both learnt is that it is not a black and white issue and that a turnback may make sense in some circumstances, but not in others. And we both agree that it is perilous to attempt the manoeuvre from low altitudes in a real engine-out scenario without prior practice.
I would refer readers to the considered comments on the subject in the Airplane Flying Handbook (Document FAA-H-8083-3A) which is an excellent publication produced by the FAA. Chapter 16 deals with Emergency Procedures and section 16-5 deals specifically with Engine Failure after Take-off (single engine). It says:
Concerning the subject of turning back to the runway
following an engine failure on takeoff, the pilot should
determine the minimum altitude an attempt of such a
maneuver should be made in a particular airplane.
Experimentation at a safe altitude should give the pilot
an approximation of height lost in a descending 180°
turn at idle power. By adding a safety factor of about
25 percent, the pilot should arrive at a practical decision
height. The ability to make a 180° turn does not
necessarily mean that the departure runway can be
reached in a power-off glide; this depends on the wind,
the distance traveled during the climb, the height
reached, and the glide distance of the airplane without
power. The pilot should also remember that a turn back
to the departure runway may in fact require more than
a 180° change in direction.
Personally I don't think you can get really proficient at the manouevre in a practical sense without practicing it from low altitude and actually returning to land. But that's just my opinion.
I suppose the question could be raised as to whether the benefits of practicing a turnback might be outweighed by the danger involved in the actual practicing. It's a similar question that gets raised when people discuss spin recovery training. Some people want to master these things and some people simply don't want to go anywhere near the edge.
In the final analysis I would imagine that practicing the turnback manouevre from low altitude would be an absolute piece of cake for any-one with an aerobatic endorsement (which I have) but might be a bit too challenging for some-one flying nothing more than 25 hours of $100 hamburger flights per year. As Steve Edwards duly noted....if you're doing it properly you'll get "a windscreen full of real estate". And that's quite true.
At any rate I certainly recommend that anyone who wants to practice the manouvre should start at altitude and work down to stay within personal comfort levels.
Dougie, you've made more comebacks than Sugar Ray Leonard
And I for one am happy that you have. I think it's been a very informative and civilized thread, particularly considering the explosive nature of the topic. I must admit I've learnt a few things and I suspect you probably have as well.
Probably what we've both learnt is that it is not a black and white issue and that a turnback may make sense in some circumstances, but not in others. And we both agree that it is perilous to attempt the manoeuvre from low altitudes in a real engine-out scenario without prior practice.
I would refer readers to the considered comments on the subject in the Airplane Flying Handbook (Document FAA-H-8083-3A) which is an excellent publication produced by the FAA. Chapter 16 deals with Emergency Procedures and section 16-5 deals specifically with Engine Failure after Take-off (single engine). It says:
Concerning the subject of turning back to the runway
following an engine failure on takeoff, the pilot should
determine the minimum altitude an attempt of such a
maneuver should be made in a particular airplane.
Experimentation at a safe altitude should give the pilot
an approximation of height lost in a descending 180°
turn at idle power. By adding a safety factor of about
25 percent, the pilot should arrive at a practical decision
height. The ability to make a 180° turn does not
necessarily mean that the departure runway can be
reached in a power-off glide; this depends on the wind,
the distance traveled during the climb, the height
reached, and the glide distance of the airplane without
power. The pilot should also remember that a turn back
to the departure runway may in fact require more than
a 180° change in direction.
Personally I don't think you can get really proficient at the manouevre in a practical sense without practicing it from low altitude and actually returning to land. But that's just my opinion.
I suppose the question could be raised as to whether the benefits of practicing a turnback might be outweighed by the danger involved in the actual practicing. It's a similar question that gets raised when people discuss spin recovery training. Some people want to master these things and some people simply don't want to go anywhere near the edge.
In the final analysis I would imagine that practicing the turnback manouevre from low altitude would be an absolute piece of cake for any-one with an aerobatic endorsement (which I have) but might be a bit too challenging for some-one flying nothing more than 25 hours of $100 hamburger flights per year. As Steve Edwards duly noted....if you're doing it properly you'll get "a windscreen full of real estate". And that's quite true.
At any rate I certainly recommend that anyone who wants to practice the manouvre should start at altitude and work down to stay within personal comfort levels.
Last edited:
Avgas,
Here comes another punch.....
Anyone who has a low altitude aerobatic endorsement, (I do in the P-51 T-6 RV & Rocket) is not looking for the answer to this question on the internet. An a pilot who is accustomed to finishing a loop close to the ground has a much greater chance of success. (it is still a huge risk)
The problem is, the people who aren't current doing acro close to the ground have a high probablility of getting ground rush and SSCBD. The statistics bear this out.
Here is what happens, Pilots read that the good guys can do it, but you can't, (pilots don't like that) then they say, "it can be done, therefore, if my life depended on it, I can do it." They are correct, their life does depend on it. When it happens they reach back in the recesses of their mind, remember they read it can be done, turn back, and boom, SSCBD.
Remember these are the same folks who are afraid to pull the mixture back at altitude. I repeat, most of us pilots are not nearly as good as we think.
With regard to training, how much training and recurrent training does it take keep current at low altitude aerobatics. Biennial training is not going to keep a pilot at that level. As an Aerobatic performer, in addition to performing regularly, I have to be evaluated every year.
It is just not a reasonable expectation to expect the pilot masses to acheive, much less maintain low altitude aerobatic competency. And even then low altitude acro is predicated on a known routine from know altitudes and energy states.
Early on it was said this is a personal decision. That is true, My personal decision is, even as a low altitude aerobatic performer, if there are any survivable choices ahead, that will be my choice unless I am high enough to turn back, and access the situation, and turn again so I can crash into the wind at the slowest possible speed. That number is at least 1000+ AGL in an RV or low performance airplane, and 3000+ in a P-51. I call that an emergency landing from cruise, not a turnback.
Therefore I maintain strongly, that the default reaction must be lower the nose and pick a spot, into the wind, ahead of the wings.
Tailwinds,
Dougie.....
Here comes another punch.....
Anyone who has a low altitude aerobatic endorsement, (I do in the P-51 T-6 RV & Rocket) is not looking for the answer to this question on the internet. An a pilot who is accustomed to finishing a loop close to the ground has a much greater chance of success. (it is still a huge risk)
The problem is, the people who aren't current doing acro close to the ground have a high probablility of getting ground rush and SSCBD. The statistics bear this out.
Here is what happens, Pilots read that the good guys can do it, but you can't, (pilots don't like that) then they say, "it can be done, therefore, if my life depended on it, I can do it." They are correct, their life does depend on it. When it happens they reach back in the recesses of their mind, remember they read it can be done, turn back, and boom, SSCBD.
Remember these are the same folks who are afraid to pull the mixture back at altitude. I repeat, most of us pilots are not nearly as good as we think.
With regard to training, how much training and recurrent training does it take keep current at low altitude aerobatics. Biennial training is not going to keep a pilot at that level. As an Aerobatic performer, in addition to performing regularly, I have to be evaluated every year.
It is just not a reasonable expectation to expect the pilot masses to acheive, much less maintain low altitude aerobatic competency. And even then low altitude acro is predicated on a known routine from know altitudes and energy states.
Early on it was said this is a personal decision. That is true, My personal decision is, even as a low altitude aerobatic performer, if there are any survivable choices ahead, that will be my choice unless I am high enough to turn back, and access the situation, and turn again so I can crash into the wind at the slowest possible speed. That number is at least 1000+ AGL in an RV or low performance airplane, and 3000+ in a P-51. I call that an emergency landing from cruise, not a turnback.
Therefore I maintain strongly, that the default reaction must be lower the nose and pick a spot, into the wind, ahead of the wings.
Tailwinds,
Dougie.....
Last edited:
Avgas,,,,,,
You disappoint me......
You were a little selective in your quoting the FAA book. I got to thinking about it, and I could not believe that the FAA was promoting turnbacks, so I looked it up.
Good reading, I have not read this new book, I got my instructor rating out of the old Red Book and Blue Book. This new 4 color version is quite nice and has some great stuff in it.
The "WHOLE" Chapter can be found here:
http://www.faa.gov/library/manuals/aircraft/airplane_handbook/media/faa-h-8083-3a-7of7.pdf
For those not willing to read the "WHOLE" chapter, the preamble to the paragraph that Avgas selectively chose says this:
"....it is usually unadviseable to attempt to turn back to the field from where the takeoff was made."
It then continues with several reasons why a turnback is a bad idea. I have beaten most of them to death here....
The is also some really good and talks about landing off airport and in the trees etc.... Highly recommended reading.
It also addresses some of the science of the psychology of the event, which pilots hate..... but can't be ignored.....
I think I'll go back and read the "whole" thing. Good review. Here is the link to all of it.
http://www.faa.gov/library/manuals/aircraft/airplane_handbook/
Tailwinds,
Dougie......
You disappoint me......
You were a little selective in your quoting the FAA book. I got to thinking about it, and I could not believe that the FAA was promoting turnbacks, so I looked it up.
Good reading, I have not read this new book, I got my instructor rating out of the old Red Book and Blue Book. This new 4 color version is quite nice and has some great stuff in it.
The "WHOLE" Chapter can be found here:
http://www.faa.gov/library/manuals/aircraft/airplane_handbook/media/faa-h-8083-3a-7of7.pdf
For those not willing to read the "WHOLE" chapter, the preamble to the paragraph that Avgas selectively chose says this:
"....it is usually unadviseable to attempt to turn back to the field from where the takeoff was made."
It then continues with several reasons why a turnback is a bad idea. I have beaten most of them to death here....
The is also some really good and talks about landing off airport and in the trees etc.... Highly recommended reading.
It also addresses some of the science of the psychology of the event, which pilots hate..... but can't be ignored.....
I think I'll go back and read the "whole" thing. Good review. Here is the link to all of it.
http://www.faa.gov/library/manuals/aircraft/airplane_handbook/
Tailwinds,
Dougie......
Michael Seager
Active Member
forget turning back
I agree with Doug on this one. I have given 10000 hours of dual in the RVs and would never consider trying to turn back. Id rather live than try to save an airplane. Enough said!!!!! Mike
I agree with Doug on this one. I have given 10000 hours of dual in the RVs and would never consider trying to turn back. Id rather live than try to save an airplane. Enough said!!!!! Mike
I've got a quick question....
Is there ANYONE participating in this discussion who has actually had an engine out in an RV (or equally performing airplane) on takeoff, done a turn back and is here to talk about it? I'm not talking about "practicing" or "you know you can do it", but people who have been there and done that? I'm truly curious!
We know there are people participating in this discussion who have had engine outs on takeoff in RV's and other higher performance planes, landed and are here talking about it.
Just curious. We can hash theory around all day long, but I'm interested in the rubber/road.
AvGas/Bob...what plane have you had a failure in on takeoff and turned back? Not practiced, but done? We already know Doug's situation...so I'm curious about Bob's real life experience. Again, trying to be objective here, but if a bystander is trying to weight the arguments and decide which side to take, perhaps they should know the actual experiences of the two sides...
No flames intended. Just taking a different look at the discussion here.
Cheers,
Stein
Is there ANYONE participating in this discussion who has actually had an engine out in an RV (or equally performing airplane) on takeoff, done a turn back and is here to talk about it? I'm not talking about "practicing" or "you know you can do it", but people who have been there and done that? I'm truly curious!
We know there are people participating in this discussion who have had engine outs on takeoff in RV's and other higher performance planes, landed and are here talking about it.
Just curious. We can hash theory around all day long, but I'm interested in the rubber/road.
AvGas/Bob...what plane have you had a failure in on takeoff and turned back? Not practiced, but done? We already know Doug's situation...so I'm curious about Bob's real life experience. Again, trying to be objective here, but if a bystander is trying to weight the arguments and decide which side to take, perhaps they should know the actual experiences of the two sides...
No flames intended. Just taking a different look at the discussion here.
Cheers,
Stein
MauiLvrs
Well Known Member
Someone tried that at KLVK last year.... They are not here to talk about it.
Turn back???
You must be kidding...Engine failure on take off... land straight ahead!
L.Adamson
Well Known Member
This one ended up about 300' to the side of my house. The pilot suffered some serious leg injuries. There are some soccer fields straight out from the departure end of the runway, that might have been a better alternative. However, only the 180 degree part of the turn was made before ground (top of building) contact; which is about a block to the side of the runway.
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20001220X45452&key=1
L.Adamson -- RV6A
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20001220X45452&key=1
L.Adamson -- RV6A
Many years ago, the Pitts S1S was the most popular airplane for competition aerobatics. In that era, the majority these airplanes did not have an electrical system. At a contest where the aerobatic area was over a mostly wooded area I witnessed the following: Pitts S1S, no starter, engine quit during a tailslide,VERY low, prop stopped. Base leg was direct to the center of a runway approximately 4000' long. The rollout from the 90 degree turn and the flare occurred at the same time. Incredibly, on his next flight the same pilot did the same thing again. Why was this sucessful? The pilot was very used to looking at the ground going straight down at well under 1000', he didn't panic and he flew the airplane instead of letting it fly him. My belief is that Patty "Who" and her colleagues who fly airshows and or compete at the Unlimited level are very capable of turning back 100% of the time with an engine failure on takeoff, without loosing control. For the rest of the world, the results are likely to be stall/spin /crash. Another factor that hasn't been discussed enough, is the almost overwhelming desire to "save the airplane" The builder pilot in his/her brand new homebuilt simply cannot mentally cope with sacrificing the airplane.
L.Adamson
Well Known Member
On the way home one day, I seen an aircraft do a mighty quick and sharp 180 from downwind to final in the width of our 4- lane road next to the runway. It kind of blew my mind, before I could tell exactly what it was; but then it was one of the "Red Baron pizza" Super Stearmans.
I'm quite sure that a standard run of the mill Cessna or Piper wouldn't have fared as well; and that probably applies to RV's too.
Without doubt, the design of the aircraft has much to do with what's possible.
L.Adamson
Interesting post
I can still hear my instructor's voice sitting beside me in a C172 - "If you don't have 500 AGL, do not turn back". I still use that to this day. I also wait until I am 500 AGL before turning crosswind.
Here is one thought that all should consider. When taking off, always try to take off in the direction of the least offensive terrain. For instance, at M16, runway 30 has a LOT of fields straight away. Runway 12 has a LOT of trees. As long as the winds are too bad, I'm heading out on 30. This is especially important to me when it's IFR or marginal VFR and the ceiling is low.
I can still hear my instructor's voice sitting beside me in a C172 - "If you don't have 500 AGL, do not turn back". I still use that to this day. I also wait until I am 500 AGL before turning crosswind.
Here is one thought that all should consider. When taking off, always try to take off in the direction of the least offensive terrain. For instance, at M16, runway 30 has a LOT of fields straight away. Runway 12 has a LOT of trees. As long as the winds are too bad, I'm heading out on 30. This is especially important to me when it's IFR or marginal VFR and the ceiling is low.
the_other_dougreeves
Well Known Member
Yes, indeed. Gliders and their 200ft DH have been discussed at length (well, gliders designed without engines - when the fan stops, everything is a glider, even Air Canada 767s at Gimli). A -9 will be different from a -8, a Cirrus different from a Cub, etc.
Perhaps the best advice is that the pilot should practice specific engine-out maneuvers in their airplane and formulate their own limits. Don't forget that Bob Hoover routinely did the engine-out return-to-runway maneuver after shutting down both engines during a high-speed low pass ... in a Shrike.
TODR
Another life.. just Yesterday. Sounds like a turnback.
Pilot killed in plane crash
Posted at Monday, June 9, 2008 2:53 PM
Officials remain at the scene of a fatal plane crash at the Springbank Airport.
The accident happened around 10 a.m. on Monday.
Emergency crews from the M.D. of Rocky View rushed to the airport, which is 10 km west of Calgary just off the Trans-Canada Highway.
The pilot, who was the only one in the aircraft, was declared dead at the scene.
Officials say the airplane had just taken off from the airport when the pilot declared an emergency.
?It seems a very noisy engine to me and it was in high revs and it just cut out and he was 200-300 feet up when he tried to turn around and come back,? says Jack Garrett, a witness to the crash.
The plane crashed in a gully between the airport taxiway and the main runway.
CTV has learned the plane is a custom-built aircraft and the victim was an experienced pilot. The plane was reportedly on its maiden voyage.
This is the second home-built airplane to crash at the Springbank Airport in the past year. In the previous crash, no one was seriously injured.
The Transportation Safety Board is on its way to the airport to begin its investigation.
Pilot killed in plane crash
Posted at Monday, June 9, 2008 2:53 PM
Officials remain at the scene of a fatal plane crash at the Springbank Airport.
The accident happened around 10 a.m. on Monday.
Emergency crews from the M.D. of Rocky View rushed to the airport, which is 10 km west of Calgary just off the Trans-Canada Highway.
The pilot, who was the only one in the aircraft, was declared dead at the scene.
Officials say the airplane had just taken off from the airport when the pilot declared an emergency.
?It seems a very noisy engine to me and it was in high revs and it just cut out and he was 200-300 feet up when he tried to turn around and come back,? says Jack Garrett, a witness to the crash.
The plane crashed in a gully between the airport taxiway and the main runway.
CTV has learned the plane is a custom-built aircraft and the victim was an experienced pilot. The plane was reportedly on its maiden voyage.
This is the second home-built airplane to crash at the Springbank Airport in the past year. In the previous crash, no one was seriously injured.
The Transportation Safety Board is on its way to the airport to begin its investigation.
Last edited:
Captain Avgas
Well Known Member
Firstly, there is nothing to suggest that the Springbank crash was the result of a turnback manoeuvre. Secondly, unless you can provide the source of the above statistic (80% of pilots die doing turnbacks) then we will have to put this statement down to totally irresponsible scaremongering.
Truly, I've never experienced a topic in aviation that draws out so much irrational emotion.
The aviation community doesn't think that all pilots who perform aerobatics are crazy simply because an occasional pilot with absolutely no aerobatic training corkscrews himself into the ground. Of course pilots kill themselves doing turnbacks, but they do it for exactly the same reason.....no training, no experience, no proficiency. We EXPECT pilots who engage in relatively high risk flying activities without proper training to crash more frequently. Why should it be any different for turnbacks.
So the question is not whether those pilots who turn back have a statistically higher fatality rate than those who proceed ahead. The REAL question is: Do pilots who are PROFICIENT in the turnback manouevre (those who have a designated decision height based on experience) have a higher fatality rate doing a turnback than those who proceed ahead. And the answer is: Maybe not.
Truly, I've never experienced a topic in aviation that draws out so much irrational emotion.
Bob,
I don't see the irrational emotion in this thread. Opinions have been expressed very calmly and rationally. Some opinions have been stated more confidently than others.....
Some differences of opinion between us 'pilot types' descend into name calling and measuring contests. I see little of that here...Iam proud of us!
I think your opinion is right for you. It's a matter of thresholds. My threshold for turning back is high enough I don't even consider it a turnback. Call it lack of skill or knowing my limitations, whatever. You are confident that you can safely make turnback at 600', I can't.
Your council to go out and practice at a safe altitude and work your way down as comfortable is great advice. I agree.
I think (hope) you consider the turnback to just be another arrow in your quiver under the right conditions.
all in all i think this has been a pretty good thread
steve
Bob,
I don't see the irrational emotion in this thread. Opinions have been expressed very calmly and rationally. Some opinions have been stated more confidently than others.....
Some differences of opinion between us 'pilot types' descend into name calling and measuring contests. I see little of that here...Iam proud of us!
I think your opinion is right for you. It's a matter of thresholds. My threshold for turning back is high enough I don't even consider it a turnback. Call it lack of skill or knowing my limitations, whatever. You are confident that you can safely make turnback at 600', I can't.
Your council to go out and practice at a safe altitude and work your way down as comfortable is great advice. I agree.
I think (hope) you consider the turnback to just be another arrow in your quiver under the right conditions.
all in all i think this has been a pretty good thread
steve
