Return to runway after engine failure

[Steve Brown]

That's my turn rule as well

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........

I don't make turns until 500 agl. I believe I can make the turn back to runway heading at this altitude, but this is something I need to try.

I did some glide testing recently and from 500', assuming I can nail 75KIAS, I've got 42 seconds and almost a mile. Obviously the turn is going to eat into that, but my gut is that I've got enough room.

One thing I am concerned about in my airplane, is not overshooting the runway on turnback. My home airport is relatively short, often with healthy wind, and my airplane glides like crazy.

Up till now I have assumed that I will land straight ahead or with minimal turn. Depending on specifics, that may not be the best answer.

This thread is very thought provoking.

 

[the_other_dougreeves]

FYI. Another article referred to it as a Comp 4. We have no idea what he was trying to do, other than turn after the engine quit.

Pilot in fatal crash enjoyed 'rush' of flying
Gwendolyn Richards and Kristen Odland, Calgary Herald
Published: Wednesday, June 11, 2008

Family members mourning an experienced pilot who died Monday are searching for answers about why he was at the controls of the experimental plane.

"He liked to fly high-performance airplanes. It is like an adrenalin rush, like the ultimate roller-coaster," he said.

Steve had been up in the air with his father many times, ever since he was a baby.

"When I was three and four, he used to take me flying so I would go for a nap," he said.

Most recently, Carlesimo had been flying a Glasair Turbine Super IIS -- the only one in North America -- which he had outfitted with a jet prop engine.

He had been working on that plane for five years, Steve said, but wouldn't take his family up in it.

"He wanted to make sure the airplane was safe before anybody flew with him," Steve said.

He had not built the plane involved in the deadly crash Monday, which was an experimental aircraft manufactured by Florida-based Aero Comp and assembled by Innovative Wings Inc., a company based out of the Springbank Airport.

Monday was its first flight.

Steve said the family is awaiting the end of the investigation, which they hope will answer some of their questions about the fatal flight.

"We didn't know he was going to fly this airplane," Steve said, adding he is unsure who owned the craft, but he understood it was a basic plane capable of short landings and takeoffs.

The plane had gained only a few hundred metres after taking off around 10 a.m. before reporting an emergency to the tower.

Carlesimo tried to bank right, but moments later the plane crashed east of the runway, according to airport authorities.

Carlesimo -- the sole occupant of the plane -- died of his injuries.

Steve said the family is awaiting the end of the investigation.

"We didn't know he was going to fly this airplane," Steve said, adding he is unsure who owned the craft, but he understood it was a basic plane capable of short landings and takeoffs.

"He had discussed it with his wife. She told him not to do it," Steve said.

This is the latest in a string of local crashes involving kit planes -- and the second to crash at Springbank Airport.

Last October, two people escaped injury after the homemade RV-6A they were flying crashed upon landing at the Springbank Airport.

Two months before that, two people were hurt when their amateur-built plane made a crash landing after a power failure in the four-year-old aircraft, shortly after takeoff from Springbank.

Amateur-built planes, or kit planes, have gained popularity in recent years. One local pilot said studies show they are just as safe as commercial aircraft.

"The challenge sometimes is the public perception -- there's no outcry when tragedy happens on a lake in a boat, or say we . . . should prevent people from taking boats out," said Paul Gregory, of the local chapter of the Experimental Aircraft Association.

 

[B25Flyer]

I really am trying to stop, but I just can't let statements like this go unanswered.

Steve Brown,

Your post answers your question. First you say, " I believe I can make it from 500... but I have to try......" Then you say, "Assuming I can hold 75 knots"

Two responses, you have mentally prepared yourself to bet your life on a manuver you haven't tried. and secondly, How can you practice in a scenario that simulates the stress and degraded pilot performance you will have when it actually happens? I have not tried it in a 172, but I am pretty sure, 500 feet would be extemely marginal with perfect pilot performance. Impossible in a real emergency

Have you ever been on fire? I have. You will not fly well. Have you ever had a real engine failure? I have. You will not fly well. If the left engine explodes outside your cockpit window and then starts burning on a twin beech IFR at night, just try to ignore it and fly the airplane while you are cleaning up the emergency checklist. I would have hated to see the radar track..... Just keeping the wings level was incredibly difficult. Yes the fire went out, but the adrenaline hung around long after I landed. I had lactic acid cramping so bad in my legs I could barely walk for a day.

Does training make it better? you bet, but in this scenario setting a number based on high altitude practice, or even low altitude practice and then adding a small buffer to it, and then betting your life on your ability to fly to that performance level, in the real emergency is, sorry Avgas, but that is irrational.

Avgas calls my passion about this irrational emotion..... Evidently he doesn't have as many dead friends as I do. I have many, and I am passionate about not losing any more.

Call that irrational if you like.....

DougR

 

[jtrusso]

Which airport?

My home airport is relatively short, often with healthy wind, and my airplane glides like crazy.

Steve, which airport are you flying out of? Seeing that you're from San Pedro and you say the runway is short I'm guessing Compton?

I've always asked myself what I would do it I lost the engine on take off coming out of Torrance or Compton, not a lot of good options there for the straight ahead landing.

 

[jrvssgl]

CTV's original story said there was a witness who watched him try to return. Also this pilot was experienced.

I agree with some that turnbacks could be executed safely, with the right pilot who has practiced the manouver in his airplane. However some maybe not. Now that being said everyone should have a plan in their mind about what they are going to do if the situation arises because when it happens you do not have time to think about it. There is no right or no wrong. If you can get back to the ground without breaking your bones or killing yourself -- you have done it right. It is that simple.

Oh and one question for Avgas. Has there not been crashes where experienced and proficient pilots have had accidents?

I believe there is saying about Old Bold pilots.

 

[Captain Avgas]

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...

Cheers,
Stein

Stein, I do suspect your mind is already made up.

Below approx 500 ft on take-off there is no chance of a successful turnback manouevre (gliders excepted). Above 1000 ft it is not (by Doug's own definition) a turnback manouevre per se. Therefore the window of "opportunity" to perform a turnback manoeuvre is only 500 to 1000 ft. So in reality the possibility that one might ever need to perform this manouevre for real is extremely, extremely remote. In an RV it would require an engine failure in virtually a 20 second time bracket within a total flight.

So it is not surprising that I have not experienced an engine failure in that very small time bracket (and hopefully I never will).

So does that make my comments worthless or invalid. Likewise does it make Doug's comments worthless (I'm sure Doug probably hasn't lost an engine in a single between 500 and 1000 ft on take-off either).

On the other hand while I may have never needed to perform a turnback I've practiced them for years and I'm living proof that they can be practiced safely. To be honest I really can't see what all the fuss is about. It's not like doing a snap roll.

My recommendation to you Stein is to go out one day and practice a couple of turnbacks from a conservative altitude. At the very least you'll be honing your flying skills. THEN you can form your OWN opinion as to whether a turnback might be worthwhile adopting in a real emergency based on how comfortable you feel.

It is always on the cards that if your engine does quit on take-off you might be facing an impossible situation (like darkness). That extra arrow you have in your quiver might just be your last life-line. You don't have to use it...but if you decide to then it's better that you've had a bit of practice beforehand.

You know it's easy to say: "I'm just going to land straight ahead regardless of what's there". But I suspect that a lot of pilots who swear that's what they'll do change their mind at the very last minute when they look out in front of them and see a totally hostile terrain and realise that they are facing very serious injuries at best and possibly death. But without prior practice their chances of success are not that good.

People have made big mileage out of the dangers of low level ground speed illusion. For me the turnback is basically an instrument manouevre so there is in reality no problem at all with any speed illusions. I use a speed/bank combination that will keep me well above the stall and monitor the AH and IAS to maintain the numbers. In the Archer I use 45 to 50 degrees bank and 80 knots in the turn slowing to best glide when I'm wings level. That works for me in the Archer. It will be different for different aircraft of course.

And Dougie, I didn't ever say you were irrational. I don't think that. I was specifically referring to the post that claimed that "80% of pilots died in turnbacks". I thought that was pretty clear. Anyway I liked your story about the engine on fire...real dark and stormy night stuff.

 

[SteinAir]

Bob you are correct in the fact that my mind is pretty much made up at aln altitude below 1K'. Above that and I'll take it as it comes - I can't imagine any amount of practicing that would possibly cover every future scenario. Having built, flown and practiced in a bunch of RV's (C/S powered, 320, 360, 4's, 6's, 8's, etc..) they all react differently. Naturally I wouldn't be stupid enough to claim that every single time I would land straight ahead, but I can tell you unless I'm darned high, I won't be turning back (at least I hope I won't succomb to the urge to do so). I would of course look for something appropriate within easy reach. This was a rather long/rambling post, but I've whittled it down to make some specific points.

You of course do make some valid points that I concede are worthwhile (not worthless). Very proficient pilots (and I mean VERY) may have a chance in the right scenario. That being said, I think that we (most all of us) reading this forum are no where close to that skill level and proficiency so even debating is bothers me a little - most of us just aren't good enough to pull it off and live to talk about it.

I'm not all that spectacular of an RV pilot at all, but I do know the limit of both myself and my plane. I fly off of a narrow and somewhat short grass strip with trees on the end. I normally fly very tight power off slipping approaches with steep banks so I'm pretty intimately aware of what my plane does in a glide after thousans of landings in it. I'm used to being upside down in my RV. I'm used to it pointing straight at the ground. I know what my RV does in a spin both right side up and also inverted. I know what my RV does flying along inverted in a climb or a descent. I'm pretty comfortable in my airplane in almost any attitude, I'm comfortable with it close to the ground, etc..

I would offer you the same advice - go out and practice it in your C/S powered RV....I have - have you? I'm sure you have many more flight hours than me, but how many in an RV? I don't know how many landings I have in RV's for sure (low/slow), but it's in the thousands not hundreds. How many do you have in an RV? Again, nothing personal here, just trying to keep everything relevant to both the topic at hand and specifically the airplane at hand. My flight skill and experience are rather nill compared to many others in this group when it comes to RV's, but this is after all an "RV" group.

In the end what I'm saying is that I KNOW how my RV acts power off, as does Doug. We've both flown a lot of RV's (him WAYYY more than me) and the fact of the matter is it's NO ARCHER - "plane" and simple. What I've been trying to allude to in a politically polite way is that you can practice turnbacks ad-nauseum in your Archer and prove it can be done from a certain altitude in certain conditions at a certain point at a certain altitude with a certain preparation, but for goodness sakes, don't lead people to believe the same can be done in the same time span at the same altitude with a typical RV. Maybe "sometimes" it can. Can it be done all the time? I'll sit with Doug at the airport with another case of beer and watch.

Hopefully we can all sit down at OSH and have a beer - I don't take this stuff too personally, just passionately! Obviously you are passtionate about it as well, and as I've said your position has given us a lot of good information as well. I happen not to agree with some of it, but again we both are entitled to our opinions.

Have a great week, happy flying/building, debating and BE SAFE.

Cheers,
Stein

 

[grantcarruthers]

Hey Stein, nice post and I get everything you're saying and respect it all. Quite reasonable.

One last post and then I'm done, I can tell Doug is getting winded too.

My only true conviction in this is that everyone should do a few simple and reasonable training maneuvers at least once a year. You should get comfortable with stalls in the turn (30, 45, 60 is your choice, I don't think there's enough performance difference to really push hard for one over the other). You should get comfortable with them so you don't have to fly too fast for fear of the stall and sacrifice too much efficiency. Secondly, practice the turn at least at altitude and factor in a healthy 50% buffer if you decide to contemplate the return turn. If you decide that the return turn is an option for you continue the training at lower altitudes to ensure your comfortable with that face full of real estate that makes the real deal a pilot performance issue as Doug correctly states.

I think many pilots will join you in the camp of "not for me" and that's wonderful. I think everyone needs to decide what altitude they can 100% make it from if for nothing else than to make sure that they're not tempted when the straight ahead option really stinks. I'm afraid too many people won't go get the experience necessary to make an educated decision and then when faced with a marginal altitude and NO real straight ahead options will try to make the turn in spite of its doomed nature.

So in closing (I swear), go find out what altitude you can make it from, with a big safety buffer thrown in for performance factors, so if nothing else you are NEVER tempted to try when you should know it's impossible. That's what kills people like the guy in Calgary. He may have had a face full of trees and no where to put it. If he had trained and preflight briefed an altitude where he could make the turn he might have had an easier time accepting the trees and then making the best of that crash instead of saying "maybe". "Maybe" kills, training saves.

And DougR, I get your concern over performance under pressure. I do not think I am a superior pilot just a decent one, 50th percentile but no God (I mean come on, I fly a taildragger, doesn't that move us up a tick or two anyone for a thread war within a thread war). Anyway, I have made the turn under pressure as stated earlier in the thread. In a glider at the beginning of that training. I wasn't rated, hadn't even done the maneuver in training yet. Had to do it under pressure, at minimum altitude, and without expecting it to happen before hand. Why did I make it. Because I had mentally prepared for it and trained for it (even though the training was on the ground and from a book). Being prepared mentally is the key. It is obtainable. You must expect the engine to quit and be pleasantly surprised when it doesn't.

Cheers all and fly safe

 

[jrs14855]

Bob Hoover-Mr. Energy Management. What Hoover actually did with the Shrike was to feather both engines at Vne/crowd center, 20' agl, do a loop, a four point roll and a 180 turn to landing. Airport layout permitting the announcer would be standing on a taxiway with his hand outstreched and Hoover would stop the Shrike with the nose touching the announcers hand.

 

[n5lp]

Bob Hoover-Mr. Energy Management. What Hoover actually did with the Shrike was to feather both engines at Vne/crowd center, 20' agl, do a loop, a four point roll and a 180 turn to landing. Airport layout permitting the announcer would be standing on a taxiway with his hand outstreched and Hoover would stop the Shrike with the nose touching the announcers hand.

That's pretty good, but just think what Bob could have done had he been as good as the FAA inspector thought he ought to be!

 

[Captain Avgas]

What I've been trying to allude to in a politically polite way is that you can practice turnbacks ad-nauseum in your Archer and prove it can be done from a certain altitude in certain conditions at a certain point at a certain altitude with a certain preparation, but for goodness sakes, don't lead people to believe the same can be done in the same time span at the same altitude with a typical RV.
Stein

It's very frustrating when posters attribute you with statements you clearly did not make. This is specifically what I said in Post #111:

In the Archer I use 45 to 50 degrees bank and 80 knots in the turn slowing to best glide when I'm wings level. That works for me in the Archer. It will be different for different aircraft of course.

In other words I have been at PAINS to point out that numbers gleaned from one aircraft cannot necessarily be transferred to another. It's just so obvious.

I've also pointed out in MANY of my posts that pilots need to ascertain their own decision height for their own aircraft. How many times do I need to say it.

However, that said, I maintain that there is in fact an appropriate decision height for every type of plane and for every level of pilot proficiency. And the key to giving yourself the best chance of survival if the worst should happen is to KNOW what that decision height is and STICK TO IT. And that will involve a bit of practice.

The problem is that instructors have been teaching students that you NEVER EVER turnback under ANY CIRCUMSTANCES. In fact they often say don't diverge more than 30 degrees either side of the nose.

When I stated in an earlier post that that advice was patently illogical at 1000 ft or over people came back and said that it was "not a turnback at 1000 ft...it's a return to the airstrip from cruise". Excuse me.....my instructor never said anything about there being a magic line at 1000 ft.

The truth is that if you take-off and continue to climb out on runway heading....ANY MANOEUVRE WITH NO POWER THAT BRINGS YOU BACK TO THE DEPARTURE END OF THE RUNWAY IS A TURNBACK MANOUEVRE, REGARDLESS OF ALTITUDE. To claim otherwise is just playing with semantics. The plane doesn't know if it's at 500 ft or 1500 ft. Given the wrong inputs it will stall and spin quite happily at either altitude. Given the wrong inputs it will not bring you the required distance back to the strip.

So the magic 1000 ft line was in reality nothing more than a contrivance by the NEVER EVER advocates who realised under pressure of logical debate that there comes an altitude where the NEVER EVER mantra starts to leak water. In other words they conveniently solved their dilema by moving the goal posts and introducing the "1000 ft rule" which allows the turnback by calling it some other name. But at least we were making some headway.

Unfortunately none of the pilots I know who swear blind that you MUST go straight ahead under all circumstances have ever heard of the 1000 ft rule.

So what do we have here. Is 1000 ft now the generic line in the sand. Is this the altitude that can accomodate the lowest common denominator in piloting skills. Please tell me so that I can pass the information on to all my friends who are currently committed to a one way ticket....come what may (as their instructors have ordained).

Personally I think the truth is that there is no line...or more correctly the line is determined by each pilot in his particular plane by way of practice (and by adopting some reasonable buffer on top of that to allow for adverse conditons and stage fright).

The beauty of practice and having a firm decision height is that it removes the need for equivocation and hesitation under horrible pressure. You simply look at the altimeter and the decision is made for you. So you can get on with flying the plane accordingly. Pilots without a plan or a decision height are grossly disadvantaged if for no other reason than they lose precious time.

Sure I can bring my Archer back from 600 ft consistently...but I cannot do it if I lose just 10 seconds. That's the catch. In the turnback decisiveness is just as important as skills.

A very experienced pilot I know killed himself not long back as result of an engine failure in a single on take-off over a very densely built up residential area in a major city. Absolutely nowhere to land but with virtually 800 ft up his sleeve. Witnesses reported that after the engine quit he banked slightly to the right and straightened up. Then he made a 90 degree turn and headed straight for some distance. Then he made another turn and headed for the airport but stalled trying to stretch out the glide. There was nothing but disaster ahead for him when the engine quit and he had the altitude to get back.....but he eventually ran out of height because he left the turnback until too late.

People said it was just another turnback fatality...but it wasn't the turnback that killed him.....it was indecisiveness.

 

[Nomex Maximus]

The voice of inexperience chimes in...

OK you all have heard from the highly experienced pilots, now its time to hear from a low time pilot.

Fascinating thread. Many good ideas. And a turnback maneuver below about 1000 feet AGL is definitely not for me.

If I understand correctly people here are advocating a steep turn without power to get pointed back at the runway as quickly as possible. Some thoughts - I am at best an average pilot though I would like to think differently. I do practice steep turns regularily, but I have never done it with the power off. Since I am not spin trained I would think trying that even at altitude would be a bad idea without an spin-experienced instructor. I do practice power off 180 degree landings regularily - but starting from pattern altitude. Of the past ~10 attempts, I botched one.

I am not the type to panic in the face of death. If anything, I tend to under-react, tend to not take the situation as seriously as I should. I am basing this observation of how I have reacted to dangerous situations as a police officer and also some brief moments of excitement as a pilot.

So there I would be at 600 feet AGL and the engine quits. I think any delay is going to be from making sure that the engine really quit and that I really can't do anything about it and in choosing my landing spot. I think that is going to take more like six or seven seconds. I would then need to trim for glide and make a steep power off turn while at the same time keeping coordinated, so as to not stall and kill myself and also not run out of altitude. I think the odds of me doing that successfully are slim. Even trying to train to do it - I think the risks of training to do it would greatly outweigh the benefits.

For me, a better plan of action would be to have decided before flight what I am going to do if the engine quits and stick to that plan. And there are airports in my local area that don't seem to provide any good options for an engine out on takeoff. I tend to avoid such places.

Again, this is the opinion of a low time pilot. If you can safely pull this maneuver off and save yourself, great. I doubt that it would work for me regardless of how much experience I get.

--NM

 

[lucky]

Nomex,
I'd suggest getting training from Jan Bussel in Florida. [email protected] 863-467-9354

He'll demo engine out returns for you from an actual climb out on TO and discuss where, when, how, why, etc you'd want to consider them. I've had the training and it was a real eye opener. With training and practice you will have some idea on what you and your plane can do together and safely make you own judgements on this issue. The "it" doesn't have to be landing all the way back, lined up perfectly, on the same runway you took off from. Many airports have lots of usable landing space, including other runways and taxiways, you can use if the situation calls for it. Every pilot already knows piloting can be a dangerous business and the advice not to turn back is appropriate under most situations but not 100% regardless of all the pining you are reading to the contrary. It's amazing how many people I've met that claim they've had to land engine out. I know a pretty well to do Moonie owner who bought an new plane (still has it). He babied the engine in flight and it was meticulously maintained. He did lots of research and had things regurlary inspected "ahead of schedule" and sometimes replaced early in anticipation of anything he ever heard of going 'bad over time" and wouldn't you know it, he had an engine out on a cross country when both mags failed simultaneously (Dual mag A1B6D model Lycoming). When I first heard this story about half the folks in his hangar brought out their forced landing stories. I have heard of a couple of successful return to field stories after take off first hand. One plane (an L-19, Champ, or something old timer like that) did end up upside when he finally rolled into something but by then because the initial impact and rollout occurred on the flat airport instead of the W. Virgina mountain covered with huge trees he survived w/o a scratch. If I recall, his scenario started out with the engine running very poorly right after take off on climbout but he thought he could do a pattern and land it but while starting to turn back it quit all together. That initial judgement to turn back because he thought he could milk the engine might have saved his life as opposed to landing in big trees with a cloth covered plane. I get the impression that there's a fair amount of successfull engine out landings that you just don't hear about because they land at an airport and that's just not newsworthy beyond the small airport community when that occurs. At my airport, when it happens, no one would probably even know since it's non-towered and a lot of those old planes aren't radio equipped in the first place. So spouting statistics to prove one point in a discussion like this isn't bulletproof. One of my buddies had a 'famous in this area' RV engine out landing off the airport caused by a suspect low pressure fuel pump Van's sells. These things really do happen and to both certified and experimental planes so the advise to take flying seriously and go over your rough engine or engine out on TO options just prior to actually taking off is a major step in the right direction to survival including knowing something about the area surrounding the airport. My last put is, get training from an experienced, capable RV instructor that can help you safely explore the flight envelope of the RV including slow, minimal altitude loss turns, proper airspeed maintenance during glides and the use of flaps in glides, learning to slip your RV into off-field spots and simulated engine out landings, downwind landings and stall recoveries from a variety of scenarios. Jan concentrates on that well and would be willing to tailor a program for anyone.

 

[Steve Brown]

What?

I really am trying to stop, but I just can't let statements like this go unanswered.

Steve Brown,

Your post answers your question. First you say, " I believe I can make it from 500... but I have to try......" Then you say, "Assuming I can hold 75 knots"

Two responses, you have mentally prepared yourself to bet your life on a manuver you haven't tried. and secondly, How can you practice in a scenario that simulates the stress and degraded pilot performance you will have when it actually happens? I have not tried it in a 172, but I am pretty sure, 500 feet would be extemely marginal with perfect pilot performance. Impossible in a real emergency

Have you ever been on fire? I have. You will not fly well. Have you ever had a real engine failure? I have. You will not fly well. If the left engine explodes outside your cockpit window and then starts burning on a twin beech IFR at night, just try to ignore it and fly the airplane while you are cleaning up the emergency checklist. I would have hated to see the radar track..... Just keeping the wings level was incredibly difficult. Yes the fire went out, but the adrenaline hung around long after I landed. I had lactic acid cramping so bad in my legs I could barely walk for a day.

Does training make it better? you bet, but in this scenario setting a number based on high altitude practice, or even low altitude practice and then adding a small buffer to it, and then betting your life on your ability to fly to that performance level, in the real emergency is, sorry Avgas, but that is irrational.

Avgas calls my passion about this irrational emotion..... Evidently he doesn't have as many dead friends as I do. I have many, and I am passionate about not losing any more.

Call that irrational if you like.....

DougR

DougR,

You didn't do a very good job of actually reading and comprehending my post.

I clearly stated my assumption has always been to land straight ahead. "trying" a turn back from 500' means trying it under control conditions. I think that sort of practice is the foundation of training for emergencies.

So, the only thing I have mentally prepared myself for is to go flying and recheck the validity, actually the limits, of my previous straight ahead assumption.

Also, I'm not flying a 172, I'm flying an RV9A. I'm not sure how the glide ratio of a 172 is going to effect mine??????????

I'm also not talking about being on fire or have my non-existent left engine explode. I'm glade you have survived these things, but those experiences do not have anything to do with whether or not I can make a turn back from 500' in my airplane.

As far as "betting your life on your ability to fly to that performance level", that is something we all do every time we fly. We bet our lives on our flying ability. In an emergency, that ability may need to be pushed to the limit to survive.

Dogmatic approaches to safety are just not safe. Its healthy to question and overturn orthodoxy when it can be demonstrated to be incorrect. If during practice in my airplane I can turn back and make the runway from 500', then an orthodoxy which demands that I not do that is simply incorrect. Likewise, your contrary opinions about it, or experiences in other situations are simply not relevant.

In that case I will change my assumptions about handling an engine out after takeoff.

Also, OBVIOUSLY, I'll check the basic assumptions and try the technique at altitude first.

 

[Steve Brown]

I Moved

Steve, which airport are you flying out of? Seeing that you're from San Pedro and you say the runway is short I'm guessing Compton?

I've always asked myself what I would do it I lost the engine on take off coming out of Torrance or Compton, not a lot of good options there for the straight ahead landing.

I live in Alviso now and fly out of Palo Alto. I updated my profile just now.

PAO is under 2500'. No challenge in normal flight, but with a 15-20 kt (tail) wind (not uncommon), my biggest problem on turn back might be an overrun. I don't know, I've just got to check it out.

I used to fly out of Torrance and I agree the straight ahead option are bleak.

 

[the_other_dougreeves]

PAO is under 2500'. No challenge in normal flight, but with a 15-20 kt (tail) wind (not uncommon), my biggest problem on turn back might be an overrun. I don't know, I've just got to check it out.

The voice of my primary instructor filled my head when I read that. Although in a different context, she often said "It's better to go off the end at 15 knots than into a house at 60".

Her point was to aim for the mid-point of a field rather than the beginning on an off-airport landing since there's no way to recover if you're short. However, it makes sense here too - I'd rather overshoot at the airport and hit a fence at 15kt than take my chances that I'm going to hit a house/car/school/strip mall at touchdown speed.

TODR

 

[clarkefarm]

Loopy idea for EFATO

I have only had one dead stick landing and it was from 8500' and 8 Nm out to sea so just a little bit different.
One idea that I have been unable to get out of my head is the thought of rolling inverted, slowing to 60 Kts or so (RV-9A) and pulling into the second half of a loop to emerge with plenty of speed and the reciprocal runway lined up.
Hopefully, someone will be able to tell me why this would not work before I go out and do bad things to the a/c trying to find out for myself.

Interesting thread though. Makes you wonder whether you should be doing procedure turns on all take-offs, except perhaps busy strips.

 

[pierre smith]

.....what a novel idea!!

...a split ess, 3-4 G pull and an airspeed near 200......... HMMM? In a non- aerobatic airplane.

Good luck,

 

[the_other_dougreeves]

I have only had one dead stick landing and it was from 8500' and 8 Nm out to sea so just a little bit different.

So ... did you land straight ahead or do the 180?

TODR

 

[Mel]

NO WAY...

One idea that I have been unable to get out of my head is the thought of rolling inverted, slowing to 60 Kts or so (RV-9A) and pulling into the second half of a loop to emerge with plenty of speed and the reciprocal runway lined up.

...would I ever try a "split-S" from this kind of altitude, even in an aerobatic airplane unless I had a low level aerobatic waiver and a lot of professional air-shows under my belt!

 

[rv6ejguy]

I'm sorry to say we lost a good friend a few days ago during a test flight takeoff in an experimental (non RV). It appears he tried to turn back to the crossing runway after an engine stoppage and got into a stall/spin. He was a fantastic guy with a major passion for airplanes and flying.

Please people, train lots for this scenario and keep the speed up right to the flare.

 

[Captain Avgas]

Nightmares

One idea that I have been unable to get out of my head is the thought of rolling inverted, slowing to 60 Kts or so (RV-9A) and pulling into the second half of a loop to emerge with plenty of speed and the reciprocal runway lined up.

A low level Split S turnback....my God, B25Flyer (Dougie) will be having nightmares after reading that suggestion. I certainly am.

No way Jose.

 

[SteinAir]

A low level Split S turnback....my God, B25Flyer (Dougie) will be having nightmares after reading that suggestion. I certainly am.

No way Jose.

Hey Look....It's something we all agree on!! Who'd have thought we'd ever see the day. Oh well, I guess it is Friday the 13th after all.

Cheers,
Stein

BTW, Doug does have a low level waiver in RV's, and I'm betting he'd not be too crazy about the idea either!

 

[N395V]

After reading this thread I have decided that should I lose an engine on takeoff I am going to do what I need to do to get down alive given the circumstances of the moment. Which is exactly what I planned to do before the thread.

 

[Steve Brown]

Turnback Numbers say 500 AGL works

I worked up a spread sheet to see what altitudes it is at least theoretically possible to make a turn back.

Results were encouraging. Apparently I can't post attachments, so I'll just post some results. I would like to post the attachment so someone can sanity check the math

It seems the bottom line is that for runways of greater than about 2100 feet, if I can make the turn and get realigned with the runway, I can make the runway. At least in my airplane.

My assumptions:
-1000 foot takeoff roll
-climbing 1000fpm @ 80KIAS
-Glide speed 75KIAS
-Decision Time 3 seconds
-0 wind
-Turn is 225 degrees one direction, short straight line, then 45 degrees the other. All turns at 45 degree bank angle
-Altitude lost during turn is 335 feet
-Time to turn 21.5 seconds
-Turning radius 486 feet (be sure not to hit anything)

At my home port (PAO), according to my sheet, I've got 600 feet (gliding distance) to spare from a 500 AGL turn back.

That is no wind. Wind improves the numbers.

Remains to be seen if I can do it reliably from 500. Even if I can't do it well from 500, 600 will be much easier. Most runways I use are significantly longer, adding even more to the margin.

Having an option besides straight ahead from altitudes above 500-to-600 feet would be nice.

 

[lucky]

Steve, did you try using 60 degree bank for comparison? If not, can you repeat? You might lose closer to 200 hundred feet and make the turn in 2/3rds the time. How much nose down pitch would you say you are using during the turn?

lucky

 

[Steve Brown]

60 degress is better - on paper

Steve, did you try using 60 degree bank for comparison? If not, can you repeat? You might lose closer to 200 hundred feet and make the turn in 2/3rds the time. How much nose down pitch would you say you are using during the turn?

lucky

I checked 60 degrees and it leaves more margin for glide. The turn takes 12.4 seconds and altitude lost in turn decreases to 273 feet. This increases the margin at 500 AGL to 1300+ glide feet and makes it "possible" down to 317 AGL.

(FYI: On the sheet I increased sink rate during the turn as a direct function of the G forces. I think this is correct)

Using 60 degree bank with 75 KIAS, however, there is only 4 kt margin over accelerated stall. I believe (subject to challenge) that trying to solve this by unloading the wings for the turn will adversely effect the sink rate. If so then you are basically stuck with sink rate of the 2 G turn.

Another angle is to increase the airspeed for the turn. This may give optimum results, since at heavy loading best glide would be expected to increase.

There may be a sweep spot allowing an airspeed, say 80 KIAS for example, that gives more margin for the turn load factor, without buggering up the straight ahead glide ratio too much. Personally I would rule out using two airspeeds because of the additional complexity.

Including the "me" factor, I decided to limit the turn to 45 degree bank. I don't mind steep turns, but with all the stresses of this situation and the ground rushing at me, my confidence in 45 degrees is a lot higher.

Few things:
-I really would like to get this sheet sanity checked. I may have made an error. The huge difference in turning time between 45 and 60 degrees gives me concern.
-It is uses decent math, but is not rigorous. For example, I used climb and glide KIAS directly rather than using them as a vector sum and back calculating for forward speed. This will tend to be more relevant on climb than decent, so it is probably on the safe side.
-Assuming I haven't made an error on the sheet, there is still some fudge room. My airplane can break ground in less than 1000' and climb at over 1000 FPM. Also, the day without any wind is rare.

 

[David-aviator]

I worked up a spread sheet to see what altitudes it is at least theoretically possible to make a turn back.

Results were encouraging. Apparently I can't post attachments, so I'll just post some results. I would like to post the attachment so someone can sanity check the math

It seems the bottom line is that for runways of greater than about 2100 feet, if I can make the turn and get realigned with the runway, I can make the runway. At least in my airplane.

My assumptions:
-1000 foot takeoff roll
-climbing 1000fpm @ 80KIAS
-Glide speed 75KIAS
-Decision Time 3 seconds
-0 wind
-Turn is 225 degrees one direction, short straight line, then 45 degrees the other. All turns at 45 degree bank angle
-Altitude lost during turn is 335 feet
-Time to turn 21.5 seconds
-Turning radius 486 feet (be sure not to hit anything)

At my home port (PAO), according to my sheet, I've got 600 feet (gliding distance) to spare from a 500 AGL turn back.

That is no wind. Wind improves the numbers.

Remains to be seen if I can do it reliably from 500. Even if I can't do it well from 500, 600 will be much easier. Most runways I use are significantly longer, adding even more to the margin.

Having an option besides straight ahead from altitudes above 500-to-600 feet would be nice.

Steve,
The sink rate during the turn back will be more than 1000 fpm - you won't make it.

I had an engine failure at about 1000' AGL that stopped the prop. The airplane slowed down from about 120 KIAS to 90 quick and after making a 270 degree turn for a dirt road it was all over. It seemed like less than a minute although I did not time it. It was a shock standing next to the wreck so soon after sitting there fat, dumb and happy looking at fall colors.

Nothing written in this thread has changed my mind about turning back - I won't do it.

 

[clarkefarm]

Maybe I need to drop the flaps

You sure about those numbers Pierre ? 3 or 4 G would be coming round pretty fast from a 100 fps entry.

If you are right, 200 kts on pulling out sounds like fun (although at least it would make getting the stick back into the stall position a bit of an effort).

I can tell you that it is possible to wipe off speed by flying the aircraft onto the ground with the brakes on - if you really have to. When I had my bit of excitement I was a bit constrained by having to dive through a hole in the cloud about a mile abeam the runway and commit to a shortish final due to the hills (and probably also a bit of anxiety about making the field). Anyway I managed to cross the threshold of a seriously downhill strip at 50-100' and 110 Kts which is not brilliant in a 9A. At least there was plenty of length and the last bit flattened out so didn't even have to ground loop.

Maybe I will try the idea in an S2A first. It was The Blue Max wasn't it that gave us the line "never turn back".

Rupert

 

[Steve Brown]

You are confirming my estimate

Steve,
The sink rate during the turn back will be more than 1000 fpm - you won't make it.

I had an engine failure at about 1000' AGL that stopped the prop. The airplane slowed down from about 120 KIAS to 90 quick and after making a 270 degree turn for a dirt road it was all over. I......

The differing outcomes are likely due to airspeed, bank angle, and the differences between a 7 and a 9.

My calcualted sink rate in the turn is 933 FPM. Even bringing it up to 1000 FPM will only increase the sink in the turn by 24 feet. It's within the margin of pilot error.

Also, my glide testing showed a significant increase in sink rate just from 75 kias to 80. I didn't try higher, because I was obviously past best glide already. On top of that we're flying different airplanes. The 9 will glide better than the 7.

My gut is that the plane can do it, but the pilot is going to need some practice.

I think the proof is in the pudding. I've got to go out and try to fly a return and see how it works. Rather than start at altitude, I may just start at an airport @1000-to-1200 AGL, then start working my way down as I get a feel for it.

There is no doubt a turn back can be done. The only question is with this particular plane/pilot combo, how low can it be done.

I'm not reaching any final conclusions until I give this a reality check in the airplane. I just wanted to find out if I was in the ballpark on paper first.

 

[Kevin Horton]

I checked 60 degrees and it leaves more margin for glide. The turn takes 12.4 seconds and altitude lost in turn decreases to 273 feet. This increases the margin at 500 AGL to 1300+ glide feet and makes it "possible" down to 317 AGL.

If you increase the bank angle in a stablized turn, but keep the same speed, the angle of attack will vary, which will change the lift/drag ratio (and hence the glide ratio). And, as you noted, the margin to stall will decrease, which increases the risk of stall, spin, crash, burn, die.

I'd be very suspicious of any calculated turn back performance that wasn't validated by actual flight test altitude, with the flight test including representative time delay for pilot reaction, and mixture at ICO to remove idle thrust from the equation. Of course this test should be done within easy gliding range of a suitable airfield. There is a chance this test will terminate in an actual engine-out landing, but anyone who thinks they have what it takes to perform a low altitude turn-back manoeuvre should be fully capable of handling an engine-out from altitude.

 

[Steve Brown]

It can be done

Today I had my wife with me so I tried this from a few thousand feet (that's my story and I'm sticking to it). My airspeed control was good, bank angle control not so good. Coordination not so good.

Still I made the full turn and was lined up on the "runway" after loosing only 400'

I would say there is a lot of room for improvement, but unlikely I will achieve the theoretical number of 335 feet.

Also, I didn't allow for reaction time.

This was strictly a test to see if the airplane can be turned around with respectable altitude loss. It can.

More practice and testing needed.

 

[B25Flyer]

Just when you all thought it was safe to look in the safety column again.......

I have a "new" story on this subject that is too important not to share.

I had a Rocket owner come for an initial checkout. This was a multi-thousand hour pilot with lots of T/W time, and he took to the Rocket like a duck to water. We flew about 4 flights and on the last morning we sat down and had about an hour long chat about preparing for the first flight on his new airplane.

I talked about how important it is to know the terrain around the airport. (strange airport, builder assist) I talked about how many airplanes have small problems on first flights and how people focus on the small problem instead of flying the airplane and get hurt. But mostly we talked about how it is imperative that the pilot be mentally prepared to sacrifice the airplane to save his skin if he had a problem. This included the Don't turn back sermon.

The head was moving in the correct direction and he was listening and I thought he understood the concepts so we finished up and climbed in the airplane for his last flight with me.

At 500 feet AGL I pulled the throttle and guess what? He turned back hard. I was watching the airspeed very closely and fueled by what I had read in this thread, I thought I would just sit back see what happened. I was cocky and i did not think he could get me in over my head.

He was flying smoothly and frankly I thought he had a chance of pulling it off when in the blink of an eye, at about 150 degrees of turn in a 75 degree bank at 85 kias and 350 feet off the ground. The bottom wing stalled and we were instantly at 135 degrees of bank. The deceleration was smooth but quick and he pulled right through the buffet. The EVO has much better stall warning than the RV wing airplanes we got only a burble before the bottom wing unhooked. I don't know if we would have survived in an airplane with RV wing. It has a much cleaner break.

I unloaded the airplane, cobbed the power and rolled out and we recovered at around 200 feet. I was prepared, and was spring loaded to react, but I was also surprised. It did not feel like we were pulling that many Gs and the nose was waaayyyyy below the horizon..

The trainee was caught totally off guard and we agreed, he would have killed himself if he had been alone.

Good judgement comes from experience and experience comes from bad judgement....... As a result of his bad judgement to turn back, and my bad judgement to let him, both he and I had an experience, we both now have better judgement.

Unfortunately, no one else will have that experience with me because I will stop the manuver much sooner, and everyone else will have to take my word for it.

In 30 years and thousands of hours it was one of the closest I have came to buying the farm....... I don't ever need to see that manuver again......... You think I was militant about don't turn back before, you ain't seen nothin' yet.

Yes it can be done, but this guy was a very sharp pilot and he **** near killed both of us.

Don't turn back!

Doug R
Henceforth, if anybody turns more than 90 degrees off runway heading, it will be "I have the airplane."

 

[Geico266]

Doug R, What is amazing to me is you were expecting it and ready to react. Us Sunday warriors wouldn't stand a chance trying to figure out what we forgot to look at on take off. Straight ahead for me.

Thanks,............ I was just about ready to go to bed, but now after reading your story I won't be able to sleep for an hour or two.

 

[rv8ch]

wow

...

I have a "new" story on this subject that is too important not to share.
...

Wow - the hairs on the back of my neck stood up on end when I read this story. Although I've always been trained to land straight ahead, and brief this before every takeoff, reinforcement like this never hurts.

Thanks for sharing it, Doug.

 

[pierre smith]

Yep....thanks

...for the reminder, Doug. Kindly check your PM's.

Regards,

 

[elippse]

The differing outcomes are likely due to airspeed, bank angle, and the differences between a 7 and a 9.

My calcualted sink rate in the turn is 933 FPM. Even bringing it up to 1000 FPM will only increase the sink in the turn by 24 feet. It's within the margin of pilot error.

Also, my glide testing showed a significant increase in sink rate just from 75 kias to 80. I didn't try higher, because I was obviously past best glide already. On top of that we're flying different airplanes. The 9 will glide better than the 7.

My gut is that the plane can do it, but the pilot is going to need some practice.

I think the proof is in the pudding. I've got to go out and try to fly a return and see how it works. Rather than start at altitude, I may just start at an airport @1000-to-1200 AGL, then start working my way down as I get a feel for it.

There is no doubt a turn back can be done. The only question is with this particular plane/pilot combo, how low can it be done.

I'm not reaching any final conclusions until I give this a reality check in the airplane. I just wanted to find out if I was in the ballpark on paper first.

Should you turn back, or continue straight ahead? Should you attempt a loop in your plane without any aerobatic training? If you have trained to do a turn back under realistic conditions, do it! If you haven't, don't! But please; try some power-off landings at your airport, or at a near-by airport with a lower pattern altitude, and find out how your plane performs. I totally disagree with the recent training that has you using 1500 rpm during the complete landing event until near touchdown. I see these pilots doing cross-country patterns in which if their engine quit on downwind near base, they would never make it to the airport!

 

[L.Adamson]

I totally disagree with the recent training that has you using 1500 rpm during the complete landing event until near touchdown. I see these pilots doing cross-country patterns in which if their engine quit on downwind near base, they would never make it to the airport!

Being realistic, what has a better chance of quitting? An engine pulled back to 1500 rpm, or an engine pulled back to idle?

Off hand, and with no googling of statistics to back me up, I'd say idle.

IMO, if we're that worried about the engine quiting, then don't fly the plane to start with.

---It's just that I DO live right under the downwind to base turn of the pattern.---

L.Adamson

 

[Low n Slow]

Being realistic, what has a better chance of quitting? An engine pulled back to 1500 rpm, or an engine pulled back to idle?

Off hand, and with no googling of statistics to back me up, I'd say idle.

IMO, if we're that worried about the engine quiting, then don't fly the plane to start with.

---It's just that I DO live right under the downwind to base turn of the pattern.---

L.Adamson

I disagree, if we’re not that worried about the engine quiting, then why all the time spent talking about and practicing forced landings?

For me it’s the reason why, if I have a choice, I’ll fly a route that keeps me within gliding distance of suitable terrain and/or civilization.

It’s the reason why I’ll make my initial climb out between Vx and Vy.

It’s the reason that while in cruise, I’ll be looking for signs of the wind direction and keeping it in the back of my mind.

It’s the reason why I don’t fly over large bodies of water.

It’s the reason that while in cruise, I’ll be picking out fields and stretches of road that I could land on if I needed to.

It’s the reason that for any given maneuver (cruising, stall practice, aerobatics, approach for landing, etc.) I’ll choose an altitude that affords some options in the unlikely event of an engine failure.

Why would I do all that only to throw it out the window by flying 747 patterns at my destination?

If we’re not that worried about the engine quiting, why has this thread generated over 9,400 views?

IMO, if we're not that worried about the engine quiting, then don't fly the plane to start with.

 

[L.Adamson]

If we?re not that worried about the engine quiting, why has this thread generated over 9,400 views?

This thread is about turning back with an engine failure on takeoff. I read the NTSB reports three times a week. Over the years, I've noted that there are FAR more accidents involving engine failure at takeoff, than descending in the landing pattern. And a lot of what appears to be "turn back" accidents.

However, that's possibly because everyone is flying the pattern within landing distance; make it down safely, and it isn't reported.---

IMO, it's to each his own, when it comes to tight patterns or another block out. Same goes for never using power in a landing, to always using it. Planes are different and pilots get quite religious when it comes to their own preferences.

Other than that, I haven't flown over a large body of water in at least a week, and the mountains did seem to have a few dirt roads here and there...........seriously!

L.Adamson

 

[captainron]

I'd like to know how many "Engine failures after takeoff" were self inflicted by doing something dumb like making big power changes or RPM changes at just a few hundred feet right after takeoff. Or, turning an electric boost pump off to "save it". Did your instructor tell you that as soon as possible, you HAVE to pull the throttle back to 25" and the prop back to 2500 RPM? Why not just enjoy the elevator-like climb up to a safe altitude before deciding that you just HAVE to mess with something? If you're climbing at 2000 FPM, how long (in seconds) will your engine be developing full power before you reach 1000' AGL?

 

[dmaib]

I guess we have to be optimists if we even fly a single engine airplane!

 

[Doug Rodrigues]

Rule of thumb...simplified.

I think a good general rule of thumb for the average pilot should be: "If you are taking off in a fully loaded RV and have a total engine failure at 1000 ft. AGL, you're going to be on the ground in 60 seconds or less, and even faster if you spin in." That very general "rule" should about cover it. .

 

[Steve Brown]

You can't prove it doesn't work by doing it wrong

.......500 feet AGL I pulled the throttle ......75 degree bank at 85 kias ........

Don't turn back!

Doug R
Henceforth, if anybody turns more than 90 degrees off runway heading, it will be "I have the airplane."

I'm baffled as to why you think this crazy flying maneuver proves that turn backs can't be done?????????

You didn't drop a wing because he turned back, it was because he forced an accelerated stall with that horrendous bank angle.

Limit the bank angel to 45 degrees and make the turn back from adequate altitude.

In my airplane that's 500 feet. Frankly I doubt I could pull it off from 500 under pressure. Maybe 600. If I don't make it its my poor flying not the airplane. Anyway, knowing it is possible to make the turn back from 500' will allow me many other less difficult options.

I don't know what the safe turn back altitude is in a rocket, but I suspect a lot higher than 500'.


As far as NTSB statistics, I don't think they will include successful turn backs because there is no accident to report to the NTSB

 

[Captain Avgas]

I'm baffled as to why you think this crazy flying maneuver proves that turn backs can't be done?????????

You didn't drop a wing because he turned back, it was because he forced an accelerated stall with that horrendous bank angle.

Steve, you've proven to be a voice of reason on this thread.

Meanwhile, a couple of days ago I flew to an out of the way strip and practiced a few turnbacks in my trusty 182. I always like to complete the turnback with a landing to a full stop on the reciprocal runway.

The wind was 5 knots at 30 degrees off runway heading.

I hadn't practiced the maneouvre for the best part of 6 months so I started with a climb to 1000ft agl. On the first one I turned to the right and on the second I turned to the left. I always pull the power and wait for 3 full seconds before commencing the turn to simulate a bit of procrastination.

On the third and fourth turnbacks I did them at 800ft (one right and one left). My technique never varies in the 182....constant 80 kts and 45 to 50 degrees bank. Tons of margin. For me, it's an instrument manouevre. I stress AS ALWAYS that these figures are for my 182 and are not advocated for other pilots in other planes.

It's quite interesting how much difference even a small amount of cross wind makes. Certainly turning into any wind is most advantageous. Of course that means that a decision on which way the pilot will turn in a real world engine-out situation needs to be made on the ground before they firewall the throttle.

Even at 800 ft I found that I needed to throw out a fair bit of flap to prevent overshooting the reciprocal runway.

In reality turning back from 800 ft in a 182 is a piece of cake (my ACTUAL decision height is 700 ft in the 182)..... if it's properly practiced and done according to the numbers. Where it becomes life threatening is when a pilot who has NEVER practiced one and has zero experience decides to try it for the first time when the engine actually quits (or when some zealous instructor who doesn't teach the manoeuvre pulls the power at 500ft on climb-out).

The problem is (and people need to think about this) that many pilots who swear they'll never turn back (and subsequently NEVER practice the manoeuvre) actually make the decision to turn back regardless on the spur of the moment when they look ahead and see that only death or very serious injury awaits in that direction. THAT'S when it gets really dodgy. As they say, failing to follow the plan is planning to fail.

So for all of those pilots who say "I'll NEVER turn back", the question is whether they will REALLY go through with that policy when ahead of them there is nothing but rocky canyons and ravines...or it's a night departure over solid industrial estates. Then the decision becomes more interesting. Even a solid built-up residential area might easily provoke a panic reaction.

In other words I would propose that the turnback fatalities do not comprise of pilots who were proficient in performing turnbacks....they consist instead of pilots who planned to go ahead but changed their mind at the last moment when the stark reality of their plight dawned on them.

Pilots who are practiced in the turnback maneouvre hold all the trump cards. They know exactly what altitude is safe for the turnback...and if they are not at that altitude they know immediately that they must proceed ahead to whatever fate holds for them. They also know what do do to keep the aircraft flying. And they are under CONSIDERABLY less stress because they are prepared for the event. And finally they do not need to procrastinate and waste precious seconds and therefore precious altitude in making their final decision.

 

[gmcjetpilot]

Options

If you don't practice it and think about it, you will not likely be successful at in an emergency with minimum altitude.

- What about wind? (may end up overshooting the runway)
- A "one-eighty" is a 225 degree + 45 degree turn at least
- Obstacles around to the side of the runway (tall trees)
- 60 degree bank is about 2G's and increased stall 41%
- Every runway, condition is different
- Set a personal min that will be a NO GO on the turn back

There are so many variables, but you better decide for each runway and condition (temp, winds, weight, runway length, obstacles, landing options off field, crossing runways) what you'll do before you take-off and at what altitude. You sound plan it and say it to yourself or out loud, "In the event of and engine failure below X I'll do XYZ, above X I'll do this........")

The problem is no matter how steely eyed you are, when that engine stops your eyes will widen and another part of your body will pucker. That could be 3 seconds of nose up, no power and airspeed bleeding off. Even a Pro ready will take seconds to react. If you practice knowing and reacting immediately you are kidding yourself.

To difference in nose up full power Vy climb and nose low engine out glide is pretty drastic. Practice it at safe altitude, a lot. Practice no power landing from the abeam point to touch down (but use power if there is any doubt, watch sink).

Lowering the nose and taking what's in front or 30-60 degrees either side is not a bad "base-line" option, unless its a bad option.

The worst option is banking, developing huge load factor & sink, increasing stall speed and/or actually stalling.

What about lowering the nose and gliding straight ahead and using that time to restart (check tank, pump, mixture, ign), verses making super star Joe Top Gun low level engine out steep turns.

Your engine at idle is making more thrust than a true engine out.

Some times we take-off from 6,000-10,000 foot runways, so straight is landing back on the runway. Remember how to do a FULL FWD SLIP? Practice it lately?

The fact is there's an envelope, where if your engine quits, you're GOING TO LAND in the weeds (depending on many factors). There is no guarantee you can safely get back to the runway. Flying has risk, Doha!

 

[hevansrv7a]

Quibble only - no advocacy

...
- 60 degree bank is about 2G's and increased stall 41%
...
Your engine at idle is making more thrust than a true engine out.
...

I am not arguing either side, just trying to help get the facts agreed upon.

If you are gliding and moving towards best glide speed, then a 60 degree bank involves much less than 2.0 G's. How much less depends on how much it's not a level turn. I've practiced a 45+ turn at idle power while descending and there was no noticeable extra pull. Subjectively.

In those practice sessions in my 7A with my instructor on board we were able to simulate the complete turn-back in around 400'. In my C-150 it was 300' using 60 degrees.

In my experience with a Moni motor glider, the glide was actually better with a stopped prop than at idle. A lot better. I suspect that this depends on the individual aircraft's idle setting and choice of prop and in the case of CS props, whether it's fine or coarse.

 

[jrs14855]

GIMLI GLIDER

Tomorrow is the 25th anniversary of the Air Canada Boeing 767 that sucessfully deadsticked onto an abandoned airport after running out of fuel. The airplane has recently been retired to Mohave. Michael Church in a column in Pacific Flyer and Lauren Paine(RV8 builder pilot) in June Sport Aviation have both written on turnbacks. Both very interesting articles.

 

[Canadian_JOY]

JRS has made a very important point here that's worth us focusing on for a moment. The pilot of the "Gimli Glider" received his ab initio pilot training as a Royal Canadian Air Cadet, and that training (and his first license) was in a glider. In an interview following the Gimli Glider incident he stated that without having had glider training he doubted the 767 would have successfully landed at Gimli. On this point he was pretty adamant, as was his co-pilot when asked the same question.

On a personal note... Way back when I was doing my PPL training and had perhaps 3 hours of solo time I had an engine failure on short final in a C-150. I had been attempting to add a small increment of power to overcome higher-than-expected sink when the prop stopped dead. Instinctively I stuffed the nose down, built up airspeed and got the airplane down into ground effect, then traded airspeed for glide distance while the wing was able to more efficiently make that tradeoff thanks to the close proximity to the ground. I made the runway, barely. Had I not obtained my glider pilot license before doing my PPL I am 100% certain that I would have landed short, with an unknown but certainly less positive outcome.

I guess all of the above preamble is really my way of saying to folks that flying a powered airplane is a great way to get around and enjoy the country, but flying a glider is a fantastic way to learn how to fly and can be of immeasureable benefit in an engine-out situation. I don't know of anybody who's ever regretted learning to fly gliders, but I do know of quite a few who owe their lives to the instincts learned through flying gliders.

Why not take a bit of time (and very enjoyable time I might add) to earn your glider rating, and have that extra knowlege to fall back on in case the big fan up front stops turning?

 

[Ted Johns]

Quibble for the Quibble

I am not arguing either side, just trying to help get the facts agreed upon.

If you are gliding and moving towards best glide speed, then a 60 degree bank involves much less than 2.0 G's. How much less depends on how much it's not a level turn. I've practiced a 45+ turn at idle power while descending and there was no noticeable extra pull. Subjectively.

How quickly one wants to turn determines the amount of G's pulled. How many G's pulled determines how much you need to point the nose down to keep from stalling. Sure, you can roll 60d or even 90d without pulling G's. But we aren't trying to do an aileron roll, we are trying to get back to the airport.
I assume that when experts say 45d to 60d turns are the best deal, they mean pulling 1.5 to 2 G's in the turn back.