What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

The impossible turn.

kjelle69

Active Member
The correct mental preparation , (if the engine fails at take off), is to fly the plane straight forward with only small corrections in the general course and try to land safely. But IF the situation is a little bit more on the positive side?

If you have enough altitude you obviously must have the opportonity to turn around. In order to improve the possibility to succeed turning around it must be possible to take advantage of the wind direction and make sure your vector places the plane in a good position above the field.

Look on the attached image, isn't option number three better if you have a long enough runway and can gain altitude fast, like the RV's generally do.


view
 
Last edited:
Sort of. MY OPINION AT THE MOMENT IS...Depends on how long the runway is, how strong the wind is, obstacles in the airport vicinity to name a few. As long as there is a possibility to land on the runway directly ahead, I would think that you should remain directly above it. After that runway has passed, I may choose to drift to the right (option 3) once useful runway is gone (downwind, and assuming this does not add any other risks or remove any potential off airport landing sites) so that the power off turn would be into wind maximizing airspeed over the wing while turning and minimizing the radius of the turn over the ground.

Whatever method you choose, have a firm decision altitude number in your head before beginning the takeoff role below which, it's straight ahead. Practice at altitude. Remember that when practicing at altitude with the engine at idle, your performance will be better than with engine completely shut down and under duress. So add something to your practice numbers.

My opinions only. NOT a CFI. Be safe but do practice.

Bevan
 
Actually the impossible turn is possible, with proper training and above some minimum altitude. Now this minimum altitude changes on every takeoff but you should have a good idea of what it is prior to taking off. If you don't have a good idea of what that minimum altitude is for that particular takeoff, don't even try it.

My 2 cents.

:cool:
 
Last edited:
Impossible turn?

Does not seem to be impossible in an RV. 500' Agl.(my personal target) Best glide speed, or 100
MPh by default, climb out straight, turn into the wind, climb or keep the nose down to 100mph and turn as steep as needed. No G's being pulled in this descending turn. I have a suction cup altitude bug on my altimeter. It's part of my check list to add 500' to field elevation. You won't have time for calculations.
I've practiced multiple times. I will still land straight ahead if there is open space. I will turn back if the risk exists of injuring others. 500' is my min.

I know this is a heated debate and some may not like my comments.
It's worked for me. I want the option.
 
Last edited:
KNOW YOUR AEROPLANE

1. Know YOUR aeroplane, not all RV's do this the same.
The RV9 mentioned above compared to an RV6 would be vastly different. My -10 will do it from 400' and we have a small margin. From 500' if executed properly we risk running off the far end of the runway.

2. You must focus on airspeed and a 45 degree turn, flying just off the buffet.

3. You must do this for real and do it the first few times at altitude using a hard deck, then do it starting at a height a few hundred higher. Work up to the lower altitudes. CAUTION: Do this ONLY with a suitable instructor, and I mean suitable?an Ag instructor, aerobatic (low level endorsed) or something similar as the rush close to the ground is not to be taken lightly.

4. Be prepared to take anything within reach, you may not make a turn back but a 90 degree turn may be the best option and within reach, be primed to push for airspeed initially and bank to 45 degrees, then pull to just on the onset of buffeter slightly less.

5. KNOW YOUR AEROPLANE

6. This is not for beginners or the untrained. Low level ops is serious business.
 
I say this every time - everyone who died doing the turn-back THOUGHT they could do it.....they all considered themselves to be superior pilots.

If you land straight ahead, you'll most likely survive with minor or no injuries.

If you turn back and screw it up, you (and your trusting passengers) will die - period.

The percentage that make it is small, the percentage that die is large.

So the question you have to ask yourself is...do you feel lucky?

Practice all you want - unless you have experienced a real emergency, you don't know how you'll react.
 
My -10 will do it from 400' and we have a small margin. From 500' if executed properly we risk running off the far end of the runway.
How much difference did you find in the altitude required with mixture pulled to ICO, vs the altitude required with the engine running at idle?
 
I say this every time - everyone who died doing the turn-back THOUGHT they could do it.....they all considered themselves to be superior pilots.

If you land straight ahead, you'll most likely survive with minor or no injuries.

If you turn back and screw it up, you (and your trusting passengers) will die - period.

The percentage that make it is small, the percentage that die is large.

So the question you have to ask yourself is...do you feel lucky?

Practice all you want - unless you have experienced a real emergency, you don't know how you'll react.

Paul, I couldn't have said it better if I spent a week working on it, and I would have pushed the like button if there was one....

Regardless of how passionate anyone is about their beliefs on this subject, I hope they will consider ever word of this post in regards to what they believe.
 
?

Paul, Kevin, what does one do when landing
straight requires you land in a populated, congested
area?

Personally, if practiced in knowing ones airplane and altitude limits, turning back
may be a "luckier" option than landing in someone's back yard,
school yard, or a crowded parking lot.

I'm not saying landing straight in wouldn't be a safer
option. If open space is available.
 
While the accident rate (per hours flown) for amateur built is reportedly still higher (as I recall) than certified singles, I would tend to surmise that our RV's, with their exceptional takeoff performance, "can" get us to a safe altitude relative quickly, and while remaining closer to the airport of departure until that safe altitude is reached. With practice, discipline and possibly technology (AOA), we "should" have a better chance of a successful return to the runway than other sub-categories of single engine aircraft. No question the desire to return is strong. This is all theory of course. Paul describes the standard tried and true, but not always possible.

Perhaps the reason that the desire to return to runway is so strong (perhaps stronger than in the past) is because, there is ever more builtup areas encroaching on airports limiting our options, some airplanes becoming faster requiring improved runways for safe operations, and in the case of amateur built, there is a strong sentimental connection to the safety of our aircraft.

Therefore, each of us and each takeoff scenario can benefit from a pre-determined plan of action based on many factors.

Bevan
 
Paul, Kevin, what does one do when landing
straight requires you land in a populated, congested
area?

This might sound flip until you think about it - but how about picking a different runway - or even different airport?

Flying safely is about always giving yourself options. If you have no choice, you are along for the ride. Good risk management starts long before you start the engine, or are sitting at the end of the runway. If you have a single engine, it can fail - what are you going to do? The time to manage that risk is before you are committed to a bad option.

Yes - there are airports I won't go in to - and runways I won't use. I don't consider the turn back to be an option in powered aircraft because the record is so abysmally bad. I also don't buy lottery tickets, and even though I live in Nevada, I haven't set foot in a casino in years.

If I am pattern altitude, a loss of power is just a power-off landing - but initial climb is not a place to mess around.
 
I found this, seems to be a good document regarding the issue:

http://www.gofir.com/aviation_accident_prevention_program/docs/pdf/single_engine_failure.pdf

So, if pattern altitude is reached, say 500-1000 ft gnd, I really think that turning around is an option. I have tried this at 5000 ft and it seems that I loose about 500 ft in a controlled turn, (Engine at idle). Now to furthermore improve the situation if the altitude is as high as say, 1000 ft, which of the options in the attached picture ( in the first post) would you choose? Is number three the best option?
 
Kevin, I do not recall the exact numbers, but the deal breaker is not ICO anyway, it is pulling the prop right back. And that is mandatory as part of the sequence. (Again, for anyone thinking about this do it at altitude and learn what actually happens). A fixed pitch prop is another matter, you will need to test that to determine the prop speed that equals the airspeed without assisting.

While I think of it, how many folk fly gliders and what teachings are there about rope breaks etc. They do turn backs all the time. They do it at my field with traffic all over the place. And they do it from very low altitudes. But before someone jumps up and down and says they are gliders etc etc. think about it. We are all gliders just with different glide ratio's and best glide speeds.

Think about this?.we should all be treating each take off like a glider pilot, expecting the rope to break at the worst times plus or minus a bit, and then be delighted when it does not.


Paul,
I really do have immense respect for folk with far greater stick and rudder skills than I do, I have never met you or guys like Doung Rozendahl but I have friends in your skill set, and this is where I have learned so much.

I agree, the statistics show a high number (not all) who do it and stuff up do not survive, but I will bet you (and I bet I have spent far less or equal on gambling than you :) ) that those who died had never actually trained for what they ultimately screwed up. How many Shuttle landings were screwed up first time in the sim, and how many on the runway and why?

The secret here is knowing what you can and can't do. The problem is some think they can do it and can't and they populate the statistics, so you are always in a far better situation knowing you can't make it and not doing so. You said it yourself if you are at pattern altitude you will, is that because you know or just assume? OK so you will, but do you know that is enough from upwind as different from end of down wind? Perhaps that is quite achievable for your plane, but what if it isn't and you are wrong because you don't know. Unless you do it you will never know. You will be further from the field for a start, but maybe not depending on winds. So many variables, yet there are so many options available if you fly the aeroplane all the way into the crash and know what you can make and what you can't, and this could change all the way through the emergency landing, even if landing straight ahead.

One more point, you mention
Practice all you want - unless you have experienced a real emergency, you don't know how you'll react.
This applies equally to straight ahead landings. People have screwed these up too when they should not have and them and their pax have died. Is that OK though?

Know your aeroplane. Be trained and prepared to not just accept only dead ahead, when a survivable off field landing at 90 degrees might be the best option.

This is always dragged back to landing on the departure runway, these discussions should actually be about knowing what you can do and being able to do it.

A 74 year old motor racing friend, ex QF B747 check and trainer and GA fanatic once said to me?."if you only think you can, you can't. You have to know you can." That applies to flying, emergency landings, racing cars, brain surgery?.or flying space shuttles. This topic is the same. And the warning here is this, if you think you can?you can't. You have to know.
 
Paul, Kevin, what does one do when landing
straight requires you land in a populated, congested
area?

Personally, if practiced in knowing ones airplane and altitude limits, turning back
may be a "luckier" option than landing in someone's back yard,
school yard, or a crowded parking lot.

I'm not saying landing straight in wouldn't be a safer
option. If open space is available.

If there isn?t enough altitude to safely turn, you land on a street.

Turn back practice you?ve done with idle doesn?t tell you much about how the glide performance will be with engine failed, nor what the pilot performace will be when this a big surprise. Your time delay and overall performance will be much, much worse than during practice when you knew the event was coming.

There is nothing wrong with turning after an engine failure, if altitude permits, but don?t get fixated on a turn all the way back to the runway. Be prepared to stop turning and land straight ahead once you get to low altitude.

Even landing on the airfield, but off runway is likely better than a landing off airport. Anyone on the airport who saw the event will be able to get to you much quicker if you are on the airport than on the other side of the fence.

But, keep in mind that landing into wind gives the slowest groundspeed at touchdown, and the kinetic energy to disappate after impact goes up with the square of the groundspeed. Even a five kt wind will give difference in kinetic energy into wind vs downwind of 40% or more.
 
My 2 cents

Not wanting to re-teach some basic flying theories to anyone but having done in excess of 2000 hours of instruction in single engine airplanes, here are a few things to ponder about attempting to turn back after an engine failure.

First, I completely agree with Paul Dye, unless you have 800-1000 ft AGL, your chances of success will be very slim, in spite of being very tempting to do...!!!

I have demonstrated this multiple times to students at low altitude after take-off.

- At 400-500 ft AGL, if straight ahead if not too good, a 45?- 60? or up to 90? turn might be an option to miss buildings, water or other unfriendly stuff.

- If the engine failure is total, two main things happen that are different from practicing with an idling engine: your sink rate will be greater and with no idling propeller, you have a lot less wash on the tail, meaning a less reactive stick and rudder.
Surprise, surprise when time comes to flare...

- Wind: don't forget this guy...
With light to nil wind, you will travel further from the runway. and no tail wind to "push" you closer to the runway.
With stronger winds, ok you'll be closer to runway's end in the climb, but downwind this 10-15 knot tail wind will have you eat up runway like crazy if you make it.

- "the turn": It will not be a 180? turn. When that 180 is done, well you're not lined up with the runway... Another 25 to 40? might be necessary, meaning more time (that you don't have) and yet another turn the other way to align with the runway. The more the wind, the more you have to turn...
That's a lot more turning that what's normally thought, encouraging steeper bank angles with all the risks that brings along.

Then the "slip": when turning towards the runway, the wind will push you towards the runway right? At low altitude, this will induce a visual effect letting you think that you're slipping inwards, prompting some extra rudder in the turn.
And the stronger the wind, the greater this visual effect will be.
At low speed, this is a call to induce a stall on the inboard wing resulting in a spin...

Try to always climb at best rate until your at least at pattern altitude.

So take this for what it's worth. Just advice and things to think about when preparing to take off...
 
While I think of it, how many folk fly gliders and what teachings are there about rope breaks etc. They do turn backs all the time. They do it at my field with traffic all over the place. And they do it from very low altitudes. But before someone jumps up and down and says they are gliders etc etc. think about it. We are all gliders just with different glide ratio's and best glide speeds.

Think about this?.we should all be treating each take off like a glider pilot, expecting the rope to break at the worst times plus or minus a bit, and then be delighted when it does not.

The glider guys have a couple of big advantages over us:
  1. Their glide performance after a rope break is exactly the same as the glide performance on every other landing. With our aircraft, the glide performance after engine failure is worse than anything we ever see during normal flight.
  2. Gliders have much lower stall speed, so even if they screw it up they're more likely to survive the accident.
 
Practice practice practice

Practice all you want - unless you have experienced a real emergency, you don't know how you'll react.

I have to take an exception to Paul's comment, which I referenced above. Paul's comment is accurate unless you are trained properly.

How you react during an emergency IS a product of your training.

The entire point of training is to build muscle memory so that when the *!$% hits the fan your response will be programmed into your being.

Under stress the sympathetic portion of your (our) nervous system takes over and puts your (our) ability to process information and think rationally on hold. A flight or flight response is activated and unless you have muscle memory properly programmed ahead of time, the "deer in the headlights" response takes over.

In order to properly program muscle memory it takes 3 to 5 thousand repetitions of an activity, and then it takes frequent practice to maintain that memory programming.

That is why in aviation there are checklists, procedures, and things that must be committed to rote memory - it helps program our muscle memory so we can properly react in an emergency.

So the point of my comment is that proper training and frequent practice can and do make a difference. How you react in an emergency situation depends on your training.
 
Having had an engine failure, I found the experience is similar to what I'm called to do on the job as a firefighter. You are faced with an immediate critical problem and you have to make rapid effective decisions and intervene to create the best possible outcome. I say best possible outcome because many times it's not the ideal ending where everyone goes home without loss or injury. As stated in a previous post, training will carry you through. The real trick is keeping your head in the game and determining rapidly if the reality of the event is as severe as the perception you have of it. When you know what you are faced with, then you make the decisions based on the level of training you have received. If you are well trained, those decisions will more often lead to the best possible outcome.

Oh yeah, there's some luck involved in the whole thing to. :)
 
I have to take an exception to Paul's comment, which I referenced above. Paul's comment is accurate unless you are trained properly.

How you react during an emergency IS a product of your training.

I concur with J.
There's a sort of mantra common in the F-16 community: Never pass up a perfectly good opportunity to practice an SFO...a simulated flame-out approach. F-16s suffer the same limitation common among RVs: They have only one engine. Thus, Viper pilots practice SFOs on nearly every sortie. Executing an SFO becomes nearly Pavlovian, which has significantly increased the percentage of successful recoveries among the very few F-16 engine failure events that occur. That's the same reason we hammer down on Boldface/CAPs and Memory Items procedures. I still remember the F-4 Boldfaces, like the Abort procedure (Throttles-Idle, Chute-Deploy, Hook-Down). Practice practice practice!

I agree with Ironflight in that, if at all possible, the pilot's statistical chances of survival are far better if you can land straight ahead. As for me, I give myself at least 1000'AGL before I even consider turning back to the runway. If I'm at my home drome, I try to practice this (with the pattern empty of course). If I'm cross country, I talk to the FBO first to discover their known engine-out landing spots, doing a little preflight study for landing areas around the runway and prebuilding my plan. Google Earth's satellite view is awesome for this, but remember that the photo may show a nice green field: Today, that field may be plowed and unlandable.

Above all, if I think I can make the turn...I can't make the turn. If I'm not positive, well, I'm landing straight ahead.
 
Last edited:
I won't take exception to JPalease's comments at all - if you make this (or anything) the focus of thousands of repetitions, and you can do it realistically, then yes - any maneuver, no matter how challenging, can be mastered, by at least a percentage of the population. I spent an entire career (like many of you) practicing emergencies - and not just once in awhile - multiple times a week. It was my profesion, and that kind of training works - absolutely!

But the average private pilot reading here is not going to get that kind of constant, recurrent training. He might go out and practice this once or twice with an experienced, encouraging pilot who will end the session saying "good job - see, it can be done!" See where I am leading with this?

There are lots of experienced pilots here on the forums who have already made their decision - based on years and years of flying - on what they will do in these cases. The vast majority, however, are pilots who fly less than 100 hours per year and have less than 500 hours in their logbook - and will (statistically) never log more than that. That is the audience that the experienced folks need to be talking to.

We lost a neighbor a couple of months ago in a BD-4 - stalled on the base to final turn, did two full turns before hitting the desert floor. The airplane was about a foot and a half tall sitting out there. He had 15,000 hours, was a professional pilot. What happened? We have no idea - but I doubt it was intentional.

There are so many variables in this game that it is doubtful that, in the real emergency, conditions will be the same as in practice - and small variations will have a lot to do with success or failure - which is probably why the failure rate is so high.

Practice is great - but do we really want to be encouraging the inexperienced to go play with a task that is KNOWN to be a killer?
 
I had my Cherokee o-320 eat an exhaust valve just after take off, full fuel (50gls) with 2 souls on board. I would guess I was 400-500 ft when it happened and yes in being a Cherokee I was well past the end of the runway. I remember the first thought I had was "that's not getting better" as the engine was shaking violently. I immediately pulled the throttle to idle and had my second thought "this is the day I die". Yikes, that will get your attention! Then I heard the voice of my flight instructor "you lost your engine, what are you going to do?" Unravelling from the fetal position I realized I needed to continue to fly the plane. All of this took about 2 seconds. I knew about landing "straight ahead or within 30 degrees of the nose" so that was my plan. A left turn to an open area and into the wind. As I continued my 30 degree bank or so, past my 30 degree left turn I kept finding better places to land. It started with trees straight ahead. A corn field 30 degrees to the left. A road 90 degrees to the left, hangar roads 150 degrees to the left and my departure runway by the time I reached 180. As the plane rolled to a stop and I stopped shaking, I pushed the plane off the runway and called my flight instructor to thank him for "beating me up" with emergency training. Would I do a 180 again?, don't know, maybe. My plan would be to land straight ahead and continue to fly the plane. Making adjustments to improve my situation continuously.

Here's my beef. As a flight instructor, I have see many pilots who have terrible "attitude" flying skills. They fly constantly looking inside at their instruments and you'd think every approach was an instrument approach. With that technique I'd guess you may not fair to well in an "impossible turn" situation. It would be wise to start practicing pattern work without once looking inside, if you would even consider the impossible turn. Especially practice Power-Off 180's and Power-Off 270's. You have to know the glide path your airplane takes to the runway and the pitch attitude for safe speed and the drag control intuitively. It has to be part of your DNA. This way when the blank it's the fan, you know instantly where your glider will take you.

Take another pilot along, preferably an instructor and just practice gliding from every point in and out of the traffic pattern. Practice adding and removing flaps to make "spot landings". Make your only "fail" criteria if you at any point raise the nose above the horizon.

One of the things I struggle with sometimes is cruising at high altitudes (above 10k) without supplemental oxygen. The -9 does so well up there it's hard to resist. And yes, I always end up hypoxic. Which one of the by products is you loose half your flying skills when it comes time to land if you don't descend early to re-oxygenate. I ALWAYS rely on my basic attitude flying skills to get me to the runway safely.

Take the time to read Chapter 3 of the FAA's Airplane Flying Handbook. Here's an excerpt "ATTITUDE FLYING -In contact (VFR) flying, flying by attitude means visually establishing the airplane’s attitude with reference to the natural horizon. ATTITUDE + POWER = PERFORMANCE
 
Last edited:
...But the average private pilot reading here is not going to get that kind of constant, recurrent training.

...Practice is great - but do we really want to be encouraging the inexperienced to go play with a task that is KNOWN to be a killer?

Paul,
You're right. And when you're right, you're right. And you, Sir, are right.
 
The impossible turn

I agree 100% with Paul unless you have pattern altitude don't try it!!!!!! Too many hours in the right seat. Mike
 
Training

I fly out of an airport in an RV-3 surrounded by water,
three out of the four runways. KOQU. The fourth
Is no bargain in straight out landing. If I loose an engine
On climb out, a straight out landing guarantees
A water landing or landing into a congested area.

I have paid for training in this maneuver. I was taught
At 100 mph glide speed and a min of 500 agl, I could turn
back with height and speed to spare. Yes the engine was at idle, but
Also 100mph is far above published glide speeds for an RV, and goes along way to not spin in a coordinated descending steep turn.

Let's say this happens at my home airport. At 500' I try to get around,
Focusing on airspeed, making sure I don't stall the plane. I may or may not get all the way around. What are my options if I don't get around? Land in the
water. Turning around does not secure that I don't get my feet wet but does substantially increase my odds of not.

The key here is not killing yourself in the turn! Putting the nose
down to gain airspeed at 500' in a steep bank takes a bit
Of getting use to and I would have never done it without instruction. Once the initial turn is made, your leveling off the wings, maintaining airspeed and looking for a place to land, hopefully back on the friendly side of the fence.

I do very much respect the advice of the experienced pilots
On this forum. I am merely sharing my experience with training, which was worth all the money!
 
Great thread, I think there is no "one size fits all answer" though because of all the variables and skill sets of the folks involved in this discussion.

Regarding gliders: as a baby pilot I had the cable snap at a very low altitude on my very first solo in my life. We were taught to land straight ahead and that is exactly what I did. Was I ever a fan of those 10 kts on the nose!

Regarding turning back:

1. I've had numerous engine failures on multiengine aircraft (fixed and rotary wing) and I will add that an aircraft flies and sounds different with an engine actually out vs feathered. Things will seem quite unfamiliar the first time;
2. Tail wind landings can be a challenge, they too need to be practiced when you can overshoot;and
3. Practicing a maneuver like this and doing it are two very different things. I'd bet a beer (even an American one:D) that you wouldn't hear that guy taxing out onto the button of the runway that you just departed. Won't he, be surprised;

This forum is awesome, but the audience is such a wide swath of pilots. I'm not taking one side or the other, just wanted to add a bit of my experience that may help someone else reading about this and contemplating "trying it out". Heck if I loose all my thrust between 500'-1000' I know what I would do... but that's just between me and what my SA is telling me.
 
Last edited:
In a sense, these debates are kind of frustrating and not very helpful, as too often the debate boils down to two supposedly stark choices--try a 180 or land straight head, as if there aren't multiple other possibilities. As Tony, a CFI, notes above, the decision may be somewhere in between and the decision may sometimes need to be made incrementally. What's in front of you may have a lot to do with what your decision is. Your altitude above the ground at time of engine failure may have a lot to do with what your decision is. Whether or not you have intersecting runways may have a lot to do with what your decision is.

Thus, given that we don't live in a black and white, either-or, world, before I push the throttle in to take off, I try to:
a. Visually confirm from which direction the wind is blowing and how strong it is.
b. Know beforehand what my options are off the departure end of the runway.
c. Decide what my minimum turnaround altitude is--if I haven't obtained it, then I'm going to try to land as much as possible straight ahead and, if possible, into the wind.

Perhaps the most useful result of these debates is that they remind me I need to ask myself these questions every time before I take off.
 
A test procedure

We had an interesting exercise at the Naval Test Pilot School that was used to develop the data for helicopter height-velocity diagrams. We would bring the helo to a nominal height (~500?) at zero airspeed and chop the throttle while holding the collective fixed. You waited 3 seconds then aggressively lowered the collective and recovered the aircraft via an auto-rotation maneuver. You progressively lowered the height until you concluded that any lower altitude was unsafe. You can?t take all the bias out of this drill because you (a) know the engine is going to fail (hence the 3 second WTF delay), and (b) as the test goes on your skill level gets higher.

In my RV 8 testing I wanted to develop an altitude curve for 180 degree, L/R 90 and L/R 45. My intention is to determine the altitudes and condition myself to dump the nose at the first sign of an anomaly thus beating the 3 second delay. As you can imagine 3 seconds with engine out at initial climb really sucks up a lot of energy.

If I ever finish the test I?ll post the results.
 
Runway you won't use...

Hi Paul,

I would be interested in knowing a couple of runways you won't go out of because of the limited options. I'd love to bring them up on google maps. It would be instructive for a low time pilot like myself. I'd compare it to the runways at my home field.

Thanks,
Michael-
 
From my transition trainer

Hi Al

The folks at Van's have the concern, and a proper one, that an inexperienced pilot will not execute the turn correctly. If you understand the aerodynamics involved and have the pilot skills and discipline to maintain the speed, there is nothing dangerous at all about the manuver. This has been the discussion of a couple of articles in the AOPA Pilot magazine, the impossible turn was the title of one article and the author shared my views. I always caution pilots to practice the manuver at altitude and to count to 5 after pulling the power to simulate the suprise factor that would be involved in a real loss of power situation. Power losses are seldom instantaneous, which gives the alert pilot time to make the decision on whether this is a good option or not.

A stopped prop produces less drag than a windmilling prop, so a stopped engine would allow a better glide ratio. The key to the success of the manuver is to lose the altitude while in the turn in order to maintain the airspeed, once the turn is complete the glide ratio improves dramatically.

I will plan to demonstrate this manuver as long as I am giving transition training. I have one documented case of a client saving his plane due to this training and no documented evidence that anyone who had the training ever got in trouble practicing or actually having to execute the maneuver.

Jan
 
A stopped prop produces less drag than a windmilling prop, so a stopped engine would allow a better glide ratio.

There is no guarantee that the prop will stop turning, as there are many different reasons why an engine can fail. If it is windmilling, the drag is higher than if the engine is running at idle. Try it at altitude sometime.
 
I've had one engine failure after takeoff and one partial power failure.

The engine failure I ruled out a turn back instantly and made a 90 left to ditch in a river alongside some boats.

The power loss, was at night, pitch black in the desert. I opted to make the turn back and if the engine quit in the turn my plan was to roll wings level and land straight ahead with whatever God gave me.

You have GOT to have your head straight and you testes screwed on tight to make the turn back. If you don't have pattern altitude your desicions window is about as long as it takes to lower the nose, and you're committed.

I'm not going to make blanket statements about whether to make the turn or not, but Pauls analysis is spot on. Practice all you want, but if it happens odds are its not going to be under any set of circumstances you've practiced. If you have to crash straight ahead under control, you have the advantage in these airplanes of being slow enough, under control that the odds are you'll survive and that's all that matters.


Heres a good video and the analysis of a buddy of mine that received an air medal for making the turn back.

http://youtu.be/CdkGEVpYvMQ

Raw footage:
http://youtu.be/mqmYxgZ7Mm8
 
Last edited:
Frequently missing from these discussions is that altitude doesn't mean a thing without also having distance (of the path through the air) to touchdown point. I.e., angle of climb out preceding the engine failure is a very important variable. 1000' after a climb out at 500 fpm in an RV isn't going to work for getting back, unless the runway was very, very long.

When I practice engine outs, I often will pull the throttle to idle abeam in downwind, about a half mile from touchdown point (a bit closer than most airport traffic flies). Lots of variables here, obviously, but a constant turn at about a quarter mile radius will consume about 1000' altitude at about 95 kias. If I do an overhead approach, pulling the power directly above TD point, it will take about 2000' of altitude. This allows me to make fairly gradual turns, nothing heroic. It works out to about a 30-35 degree bank throughout. When I roll out on "final" at about 100' agl, I pull the nose up enough to slow to 80k or so, put in full flaps, and slip if need be.

It is very easy to overestimate the distance one can glide - these things are not great gliders! I try to continuously visualize where my "possible" landing zone is relative to my view out the side. I frequently glance at the airspeed indicator during these training flights, but it's the only thing that needs to be looked at inside.

I do these at airports, so that I can always take them to a landing. No other good way to "score" them!
 
Alex?good point, and the reason why I hate seeing folk do Vx climbs. Vz is actually a better option as you gain height with efficiency and have the extra kinetic energy at your disposal to make it back.

PD, I do agree, the average guy may not be the ideal candidate, but if we assume average is in the idle, what about all the above average?

And we know 80% think they are in the top 20% ;)
 
Turn back

As I have posted before, Sunrise Aviation teaches turnback to students because there is almost no place to go at John Wayne(SNA) if the engine quits on takeoff. You can find their video online. From an aircraft testing standpoint, one way to increase the chance of success is to offset to the downwind side in the event of a crosswind, or to the side that is optimal with no crosswind. Normally this would be to the right when seated on the left in a side by side. This enables one to constantly evaluate position in relation to the runway and shortens the required flightpath in the event of a turnback. In other words, by offsetting, the turn becomes close to a true 180, instead of more than 180 followed by a second turn to line up with the runway.
Regarding landing in a city street, I will take the turnback any time. I lost two friends who tried to land in a city street. They got the airplane on the ground under control but hit a vehicle and the airplane burned.
 
As I have posted before, Sunrise Aviation teaches turnback to students because there is almost no place to go at John Wayne(SNA) if the engine quits on takeoff. You can find their video online. From an aircraft testing standpoint, one way to increase the chance of success is to offset to the downwind side in the event of a crosswind, or to the side that is optimal with no crosswind. Normally this would be to the right when seated on the left in a side by side. This enables one to constantly evaluate position in relation to the runway and shortens the required flightpath in the event of a turnback. In other words, by offsetting, the turn becomes close to a true 180, instead of more than 180 followed by a second turn to line up with the runway.
Regarding landing in a city street, I will take the turnback any time. I lost two friends who tried to land in a city street. They got the airplane on the ground under control but hit a vehicle and the airplane burned.
That makes a lot of sense at KSNA, since you jog 15 degrees left anyway from 19L, and a right turn usually offers a headwind component. You've also got the adjacent 19R to land "backward" on....one hopes your Mayday call will alert the Southwest airliner on takeoff roll. Options are a lot more limited in urban areas.
 
One thing you can not simulate is your reactions to the emergency. I have had 2 emergency situations that ended OK with off airport landings. The thing I did not expect was the fear and near panic along with a huge adrenalin rush. It made thinking and reacting almost impossible. Controlling my self was the biggest problem. Both times I kept pulling back on the stick even though I was too slow. It was something that just happened that I had to fight. Simulating an engine out with your instructor next to you does very little to prepare you for the real thing. Not saying don't practice emergency maneuvers just don't get over confident on what you can do when the #$%^ hit the fan.

Brian
20hdinfield-6815.jpg
 
Last edited:
The impossible turn

Human physical and mental preperation, we try to give instruction in
Worst case problems, problem is your body is going to fight you,
You will get a big dump of adrenilin, your body pulls blood from your
Hands and extremities to protect your core, you loose fine motor skills
The hands turn into clubs, and you get tunnel vision,

Ever wonder why police officers only score 20 percent in a real life and death
Encounter, when on the range they shoot in the upper 90s

I remember an old rvator where Dick had done the math that a crash at 50 mph was 70 percent more survivable than one at 60 and in the impossible turn
It is not a 180 it's at least 270 with two turns and downwind.

See an old post on this subject by B25,flyer
 
jrs14855, what you describe is exactly the situation i wanted to rise for discussion in the original post (option 3 in the attached image).
Thanks to all of you with knowledge and real life experience, this became a very interesting and valuable thread to read.
 
the turn back to the runway has killed a lot of people but also a lot have made it. whether or not you turn back is a decision you make at that time. in my mind an informed decision is always better.
last bfr my instructor taught me to always make a crosswind turn after takeoff at 500'agl. if i lost power before the turn it was a no brainer to land straight ahead. after the turn it was possible to make the runway. we practiced it a few times and i am glad to know it works under good conditions.
 
Check list amendment

I am amending my pre- departure/ run-up check list
from what I have learned from this thread!

Adding a highlighted bold section titled: Exit Plan
1.Set altitude bug: Add 100' to my original 500' agl altitude bug for the
Oh ****, glued mind factor. 500' was doable with an instructor.
In the plane with a planned maneuver.
2. Cross wind direction:Left or right turn out at 600'?
3. Google Earth: My Iphone is on my panel. Check out Google Earth
For beyond departing runway visual information.
4. What's the Plan: Below 600' where do I go?
At 600 or above is there a safe area ahead?
 
Last edited:
jrs14855, what you describe is exactly the situation i wanted to rise for discussion in the original post (option 3 in the attached image).
Thanks to all of you with knowledge and real life experience, this became a very interesting and valuable thread to read.

So now, depending on the traffic pattern, you're climbing against traffic on the downwind. I don't know about your RV but I can be above most pattern altitudes within a few seconds, and most trainers are still climbing to attain pattern altitude on the downwind.
 
I say this every time - everyone who died doing the turn-back THOUGHT they could do it.....they all considered themselves to be superior pilots.

If you land straight ahead, you'll most likely survive with minor or no injuries.

If you turn back and screw it up, you (and your trusting passengers) will die - period.

The percentage that make it is small, the percentage that die is large.

So the question you have to ask yourself is...do you feel lucky?

Practice all you want - unless you have experienced a real emergency, you don't know how you'll react.

Could not agree more, the only caveated to this, would be if straight ahead has the likely hood of producing the same danger/injury. There many airports as such, perhaps my home airport PVF.
 
.....It is not a 180 it's at least 270 with two turns and downwind.
Maybe, but not good unless you've very high and need to burn energy. I practice them with an aggressive 225-deg then a moderate 45-deg turn to target touchdown midway down the runway. I'd rather run off the end of a runway at 30 than land on unimproved ground at 60.

Of course this all depends on winds, runway lengths, other runways & taxiways available, loading, DA, light conditions, pilot, etc. A man's got to know his limitations.
 
Last edited:
Turnback

So now, depending on the traffic pattern, you're climbing against traffic on the downwind. I don't know about your RV but I can be above most pattern altitudes within a few seconds, and most trainers are still climbing to attain pattern altitude on the downwind.

Two different scenarios:
Early phase one where there will be no other traffic.
All other situations, offset will be just enough to see the runway, no conflict with downwind traffic.
 
OK, first off, I do not fly aerobatics other than with my R/C models.

But, I wonder if anyone out there has any input about how an RV will act in a hammerhead turn???

When flying R/C stuff, I will either split S or pull up into a hammerhead if the engine fails on takeoff. Both maneuvers work better than a 180 turn to get back to the runway in my experience.

Obviously the RV will not perform exactly like the R/C---------but ?????????

This adds another factor to the mix------low level acro, but anyone out there ever played around-----at SAFE altitude----- with this to see what the plane will do???

rc-stall-turn.gif
 
This thread prompted me to take a closer look at the airport where I intend to keep my plane, KCNO (Chino, CA). No need for a turnback here, with all the open fields. The plowed rows are perpendicular to Runway 26R, so noseover would be likely, but a 90-degree turn would put you parallel; also several smaller roads in line with runway. It'd be worth scouting around to see where telephone/power lines are routed here.

I plan on getting current and taking transition training at Chino, so I'll really know the airport.

https://www.google.com/maps/@33.9743308,-117.6566917,4915m/data=!3m1!1e3

Perhaps stating the obvious here, but if you do have an off-airport landing, make sure you lessen your chance of injury/death with:

1) decent capacity fire extinguisher mounted in a very accessible place
2) 5-point harnesses, cinched snugly
3) minimal sharp protrusions/brackets beneath panel
4) canopy breaker (fire extinguisher?)
5) thickly padded edge of glare shield...we've all seen the facial lacerations without one
 
Last edited:
The impossible simulation.

OK, first off, I do not fly aerobatics other than with my R/C models.

But, I wonder if anyone out there has any input about how an RV will act in a hammerhead turn???

When flying R/C stuff, I will either split S or pull up into a hammerhead if the engine fails on takeoff. Both maneuvers work better than a 180 turn to get back to the runway in my experience.

Obviously the RV will not perform exactly like the R/C---------but ?????????

This adds another factor to the mix------low level acro, but anyone out there ever played around-----at SAFE altitude----- with this to see what the plane will do???

rc-stall-turn.gif

At take off you have NO excess airspeed and NO reserve energy. Almost a 100% guarantee of a Darwin award for this.

Practice with the power cut is not even close to a connecting rod projecting through the cowl, or fuel starvation and on and on. If the engine quits, flying air speed must be maintained to the ground or you will likely die. The easiest way to do this below 500 ft is mostly straight ahead but not into the ILS fence.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top