Return to runway after engine failure

[osxuser]

Ok, a poorly executed turn back will kill you. If you are giving someone instruction on them, then give them all the useful knowledge you can. A simple "Don't Turn Back" statement is in all honesty, about the worst thing you can tell an owner. I'd guess about 75 to 80% of owner/pilots will try it anyway with an engine failure at 500'.

This is NOT a procedure for every pilot to go out and try. This is a template for instructors to use to safely instruct students on turnback manuvers. As always, use at your own risk

First off every airplane is different, especially experimentals, there are a few steps to practice this safely that, when followed, will result in a safe procedure for each airplane.

1. Make sure both you and the owner are comfortable with the aircraft's flying characteristics, this means takeoff, landing, stalls, spins, slow flight.
2. Practice accelerated stalls at altitude, first with power, then without, and note what airspeed it stalls at, what the sink rate is, how much altitude is lost with the recovery.
3. Determine best glide speed, and come up with an average gliding distance per 100' altitude lost. Obviously the prop-stopped scenario will add gliding range. If you have a CS prop, you can practice glides (AT ALTITUDE) with the prop in HIGH pitch, this significantly stretches the glide.
4. (optional) Practicing commercial maneuvers in the airplane will help the student develop control and a feel for how the aircraft reacts in constantly changing bank, pitch and airspeed turns. I really like lazy 8s for this.
5. Practice downwind landings, know how much faster than ground looks at touchdown, how much more runway you'll use, etc. If you end up off the end of the runway, you mind as well have landed it off field.
6. Put all this together at altitude to start practicing turn backs.
A. Start with AT LEAST 3000' of altitude below you
B. Take the aircraft into slow flight in the takeoff configuration.
C. Start a Vy climb (if that is your normal climb profile), noting the point that you started.
D. At a minimum of 4000' chop the power (leave the fuel pump on for now...)
E. 3-5 seconds of reaction time.... Then best glide (predetermined)
F. Roll into a 60° (-15°, +0°), and keep the airplane coordinated throughout the roll-in and decent.
G. Roll out 220° from your start heading, then head directly back to your start point.
I. Did you make the point before you hit 3000'? Good, now rinse and repeat, but start the turnback at 3800' AGL, then 3600' until you start to hit the 3000' mark before you get to the point.
7. Now you can put in practice what you've learned in the traffic pattern, on a slow day, with a control tower if possible. Start your turnbacks at 1000' AGL, and work your way down until you wouldn't make it. Then set some personal minimums (100' above my average successful turnback is what I use), and practice the manuver when you get a chance. Also, always go over the options in your mind before takeoff.

If you do your first turnback in an unfamiler aircraft at 500' AGL and don't kill yourself, I would expect that you would probably have an opinion that turnbacks are all unsafe, but with thought, practice and planning, they are a very viable option, and should always be one of the things that run through the head of a pilot before takeoff.

The bad news is, there will always be people that don't practice them and try them, some with sucess, many without. I use my practice in the aircraft I fly as a guide when I turn off my Fuel Pump, and do the initial power reduction. I just practiced again last weekend, at 600' solo I can make the runway in the Cessna, with bags it'd be about 800' to 1000', not because the glide is worse, but because the climb angle suffers.

Also the split-S to final works, but it takes much more altitude than a simple turn-back, MUCH more. Also could depend on the aircraft type, I wouldn't do that in a Cessna at all, and probably not in an RV-9.

 

[hevansrv7a]

Yank and Bank both contribute

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.

A thought experiment..

Case 1: level turn using 45d bank. Result is 1.4 g's.

Case 2: descending spiral through a hole in a broken layer using 45d bank. I contend the g's will be much less than 1.4 but you will still be turning rapidly. I concede you will not turn as fast as with "yank". At 45d the amount of turning force (vector) will equal the lifting force (90d vector). The sink will rate will depend on the difference between the lifting vector and the weight, more or less. The g force experienced will be 1.4 at 45d minus [ the sink vector (to coin a phrase) divided by the weight ]. More or less.

I don't think the aileron roll is a valid test, but if you observe one from directly behind you will see that unless a lot of rudder is used, it will be a spiral - it does try to turn in the directon of the bank.

 

[Ted Johns]

A thought experiment...

I think Newton has already done the experimenting we need.

If you want to accelerate a mass in a new direction, an equal and opposite force will be required. Rate of turn is directly connected to G force. After pitching for best glide, assuming you do not want a uncoordinated turn (allowing the aircraft to fall vertically), the acceleration in the vertical axis is zero. This describes a coordinated turn at a constant descending rate. You still need 1.414G for a 45d turn, or your descent rate increases. That's how I see it.

 

[SteinAir]

Here's a quick question or two I've been pondering for Stephen and Bob...

Both of you are obvious advocates to a turn back. I am not, so now we got that out of the way. Again, I truly respect everyone's opinion, and this is only meant as an honest question.

Both of you have practiced this and proven it's acceptable and doable in the respective airplanes you're using (something other than an RV, if I recall both of you are using something like a 182). My question is when you both are practicing...where are you starting? Not in altitude, but location on the runway or distance from the end of the runway?

The reason I ask is that altitude aside - obvious every plane can be turned back at a certain altitude and in some cases I agree with both of you there are no options. But I wonder if you guys have been testing your altitude verses location over the runway? It's not unusual for most RV's to easily be at 1K' over the numbers at a lot of non-towered airports.

I'm just curious if you've always been waiting until you're well beyond the end of the runway or if you've tried it mid-way down or over the numbers of the runway at the same altitudes you've been using? What do you climb out at in FPM with the Cessna's to compare the location over the physical runway itself?

Truly I'm curious....

Cheers,
Stein

 

[Finley Atherton]

Adding to Stein's question. Eight hundred feet has been mentioned as a min height (depending on the aircraft, pilot etc). Most of my departures are not straight ahead and involve a turn onto the cross wind leg at 500 ft, so 800 ft is likely to be reached on the cross wind leg. What implications does this have for the turn back? For instance it may be better to do an abbreviated curcuit and land in the same direction as the take off rather than landing on the reciprocal runway? Any guidelines here??

Fin
9A

 

[osxuser]

Here's a quick question or two I've been pondering for Stephen and Bob...

Both of you are obvious advocates to a turn back. I am not, so now we got that out of the way. Again, I truly respect everyone's opinion, and this is only meant as an honest question.

I'm not an advocate of the turn back necessarily. I think that it is ALWAYS an option, and even if one doesn't believe in it per se, in the situation of an actual engine failure, you WILL consider it, if fleetingly. If you consider it, you should have practiced it, and KNOW it's either an option or not.

Both of you have practiced this and proven it's acceptable and doable in the respective airplanes you're using (something other than an RV, if I recall both of you are using something like a 182). My question is when you both are practicing...where are you starting? Not in altitude, but location on the runway or distance from the end of the runway?

I make the turn back when I hit the desired altitude. In the Cardinal ('68 C177, O-360 A1A Hartzell CS). Solo, it's actually HARD to get down on the runway, slipping is necessary once lined back up. I could probably make it at 400' solo, but I set my minimum at 600', and thats what I practice.

The reason I ask is that altitude aside - obvious every plane can be turned back at a certain altitude and in some cases I agree with both of you there are no options. But I wonder if you guys have been testing your altitude verses location over the runway? It's not unusual for most RV's to easily be at 1K' over the numbers at a lot of non-towered airports.

Right you are, if you have enough runway to land and stop straight ahead, do so. If not, a 180 may work, if NOT, a 360 back to the runway. If you have soo much altitude that loosing it's a problem, then you have to take that into consideration. I've never had the opportunity to test this in an RV, so I have no input there, other than, there are always options.

I'm just curious if you've always been waiting until you're well beyond the end of the runway or if you've tried it mid-way down or over the numbers of the runway at the same altitudes you've been using? What do you climb out at in FPM with the Cessna's to compare the location over the physical runway itself?

Truly I'm curious....

Cheers,
Stein

My FPM is general 800-1000 solo, fully loaded is 400. If you are 1000' upwind at the end of the runway, hit best glide for a little bit to stretch it out, then turn back at around 800'... those are just guesses on the altitudes. The sink rate of a RV is bound to be higher too.

Adding to Stein's question. Eight hundred feet has been mentioned as a min height (depending on the aircraft, pilot etc). Most of my departures are not straight ahead and involve a turn onto the cross wind leg at 500 ft, so 800 ft is likely to be reached on the cross wind leg. What implications does this have for the turn back? For instance it may be better to do an abbreviated curcuit and land in the same direction as the take off rather than landing on the reciprocal runway? Any guidelines here??

Fin
9A

The implication is that you'll make a turn opposite the direction of your crosswind leg, back to a downwind final, 270°... more time in the turn....

OR

Straight back to the numbers, but won't be lined up with the runway and be forced to make a low altitude turn to align yourself with the landing direction... thats where practicing short approaches can really pay off.

NOTHING about this manuver is easy, in real life the decisions will be made in extremely high stress situations. Practicing the basics will prepare you to make the right decision when the time comes, don't necessarily sweat the details.

I've also done this in Cessna 152 (don't even bother, not enough climb to EVER make the turn back unless it's VERY light...), Cessna 172, Piper PA28R-200. Basically everything that i've flown alot, I set a baseline for.

 

[Doug Rodrigues]

At altitude, learn what the nose down pitch attitude is power off. Burn that angle into your brain cells. You won?t have extra seconds to be looking at your air speed indicator to see what the airspeed is or will be. You have to just shove that nose down NOW to the nose low pitch attitude that you already know will give you the desired glide speed! Also, as you initially roll into that turn, you will probably lose twice the amount of altitude than you expected (but we won?t go there and start another debate) and whatever you do, don?t be skidding or slipping in the turn! As you descend, your only decision left is to decide where you want to touch down when you run out of AGL. Just be aware that every time you do a turn, the rate of descent will increase, and don?t even think about raising that nose pitch up unless you?re ready to flare for touch down. Pick your best spot. Watch out for the invisible wires. If you see two poles, there is probably a wire connecting them.

If you haven?t practiced any of this, then don?t even think of trying a turn-back with less than double the traffic pattern altitude! My personal feeling is that a low time pilot who cannot fly seat-of-the-pants has no business attempting a turn back unless there is a lot of excess altitude to burn off. I think my rule of thumb is too conservative. I should have said 45 to 50 seconds starting from 1,000 ft. AGL, given the element of surprise. Look at the second hand on your watch? Imagine what you?d be doing in that short time period if you actually had an engine failure after takeoff.

 

[Bob Axsom]

Far too Much to read so just an input

If you can get a copy of the premiere edition of Aileron video magazine published in Winter 1986, watching the real world demonstration/test of the subject at Mojave by Rod Machado as the demonstration/test pilot in an "article" entitled "The Impossible Turn" is well worth seeing. Coming out of Dewitt Spain I would consider landing on the levy as an option heading south. I don't remember the hazards to the north but when approaching the finish line from the north in the Memphis 100 last year it didn't seem as congested as the south departure course. The big muddy Mississippi is not too inviting for sure - you may survive impact only to drown if you can get out of the airplane.

Bob Axsom

 

[sjjonesnz]

Having been watching this thread for a bit, the guys that are advocating the turn back seem to have more than just a little bit of experience and have practiced/tried it in a 'controlled manner'.

I (and I'm prob'ly not alone with this) first heard the "don't turn back" from my instructor before my first solo for one very good reason - I would have killed myself. At best I was only just catching up with the aeroplane, let alone having the situational awareness to get over the shock of it actually happening to me, not to mention think about distance to runway, obstacles, wind speed and direction (and the effect they'd have on my turn), a/c height and speed and how to do a max rate turn at low altitude without stalling/spinning in and all those other things that one needs to consider before/when making the turn (if I've missed some then I'm obviously still not experienced enough ).

For me learning aeros was a start towards getting that experience (still don't think I'd give it a go tho') . I learnt how to handle the a/c on the edge of the envelope and am now comfortable doing so, but that's with plenty of height, speed and power to recover.

The action we take when the fan stops is very situational. It depends on our experience, weather, height, speed, and location.

Having said that, no matter what decision one makes when in this situation it must be made with ONLY ONE thing in mind..."what do I need to do to ensure my passengers and I walk away from this?". Yep, we've all got a lot of emotional investment in our 'aluminium girlfriend', and that's an absolutely valid consideration, but if in doubt we must refer to rule #1. Keeping that in mind ensures we can always go home to our real girlfriend and repair/rebuild/build another, it's very hard to do that if you didn't make it.

But then none of this is news to anyone, but still folk get it wrong....

 

[Captain Avgas]

The reason I ask is that altitude aside - obvious every plane can be turned back at a certain altitude and in some cases I agree with both of you there are no options. But I wonder if you guys have been testing your altitude verses location over the runway? It's not unusual for most RV's to easily be at 1K' over the numbers at a lot of non-towered airports.

My 182 has a best climb speed (sea level) of approx 80 kts so when I practice turnbacks (almost always solo) I usually climb out at 90+ kts. This flattens the climb and in my mind simulates a more heavily loaded plane. It also takes me further from the departure end of the runway before I reach the designated altitude.

The strips I tend to practice from are very quiet, uncontrolled, country strips...usually private. You don't want other traffic around when you're coming back to land on the reciprocal runway. The strips I tend to use are also mostly short and I'm usually a substantial distance out from the departure end of the strip before I commence the turnback. How far out...depends on the length of the strip, the decision altitude, and any headwind.

Stein, I seem to recall that on one post you made on this thread you stated that you were not a proponent of the turnback....but you also stated you would probably turn back at 1000 ft (is there a contradiction there?). At any rate, I thought about that a lot. In the end I concluded that you might be better off practicing some turnbacks in your own plane to ascertain the REAL altitude from which it would be practical to do a safe turnback.

The problem with having a conservative "generic" turnback altitude (1000ft in your case) is that the decision height is not based on any real experience. Therefore you cannot be absolutely certain that you cannot safely return from a lesser altitude.

Consequently if the engine quits at 900 ft and the terrain ahead is really REALLY ugly the right side of your brain will say: "You can't make it back from this height.....go straight ahead as planned Stein". But the left side of your brain will say: " Don't be a moron, you're going to DIE if you go ahead....turn back right now Stein....how do you know you can't make it from 900ft....I think you can probably make it easily....turn back right now and make a SAFE LANDING ON THE RUNWAY!!!!".

And therein lies the huge danger of the two voices arguing in your head and there being no known data to support either of them. In a very stressful moment (and facing possible sudden death is sure to be very stressful) how do you know for certain which voice you will listen to when neither has any credibility.

On the other hand if you do a little bit of practice and come up with an altitude that is a true go/no-go decision altitude based on your aircraft's REAL capabilities you will not be having that argument in your brain. Instead you will simply look at the altimeter and it will make the decision for you.

Anyway, that's my theory.

 

[B25Flyer]

I have posted this before, but this thread is so long that I will repeat it, You can't simulate the adreanline rush that occurs when the engine blows up, there is oil on the Windshield, and smoke in the cockpit.

Talk to a police firearms instructor, when the fight or flight response kicks in, blood leaves the arms and legs, fine motor skills are gone, and field of vision narrows.

No doubt about it, those who practice turn backs have a better chance, but if we made it part of the PTS and forced students to train for it, the training accidents would go through the roof. Training at altitude is fine, but fails to simulate the ground rush. The risks of training close to the ground (BTDT just recently) far outweigh the rewards of increasing the chances of surviving the very few times an engine quits after takeoff.

Again I'm repeating here, Certainly if there are no viable options ahead, then turning back might be the only option, but the statistics can't be ignored, turn-backs are often deadly and even when turning back is the only option, it is almost always a poor one.....

So if training at altitude is not representative, and training close to the ground is dangerous. Even with training the manuver is so dynamic that it is impossible to quantify all the variables in the time available, and there is no way to simulate the adreanline's impact on fine motor skills.

And, repeating again, I am not trying to change the minds of those who have decided they are good enough to beat the overwhelming statistical evidence that the turn-back is deadly. But for those who haven't made up their minds, I have experienced a low altitude engine failure and the urge to turn back is strong. It can be done, no argument, but it is beyond the capability of most pilots and the consequences are fatal.

Tailwinds,
Doug Rozendaal

DougR

 

[L.Adamson]

And, repeating again, I am not trying to change the minds of those who have decided they are good enough to beat the overwhelming statistical evidence that the turn-back is deadly. But for those who haven't made up their minds, I have experienced a low altitude engine failure and the urge to turn back is strong. It can be done, no argument, but it is beyond the capability of most pilots and the consequences are fatal.

It must be awful strong....

Here is one of the latest from the NTSB reports. Only 150' or so to play with.

_____________________________________________________________________________________

NTSB Identification: MIA08LA134
14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation
Accident occurred Monday, July 07, 2008 in Hollywood, FL
Aircraft: Lancair IV-P, registration: N488SD
Injuries: 1 Fatal.

This is preliminary information, subject to change, and may contain errors. Any errors in this report will be corrected when the final report has been completed.

On July 07, 2008, at 1755 eastern daylight time, an experimental, Douglas A. Pohl, amateur built, Lancair IV-P, N488SD, crashed after a loss of engine power at the North Perry Airport (HWO), Hollywood, Florida. The pilot was killed and the airplane was destroyed. The flight was operated by a private individual, under the provisions of 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91 as a personal flight. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed and no flight plan was filed.

Witnesses stated to the responding Federal Aviation Administration inspector that they observed the airplane depart from runway 9R. When the airplane was at an estimated altitude of 150 feet above the ground, the engine lost power; one witness stated, it sounded like an 18 wheeler down shifting, another stated, it lost power completely. Immediately following the loss of power, the airplane was observed to make a left turn. It continued the turn increasing the bank angle. The airplane stalled when it reached about 80 degrees of bank. It impacted the ground nose first. The airplane came to rest on a 20 foot tall tennis court fence. A fire ensued moments later, which consumed most of the airplane.

The pilot held a private pilot certificate, with ratings for airplane single engine land, and instrument. He was issued a third-class medical certificate in December of 2006, with a limitation of must wear corrective lenses. He also held a repairman experimental aircraft builder certificate and an inspection certificate for an experimental airplane make Pohl Lancair model IV-P, serial number LIV-008, as of July 09, 2001.

 

[steveKs.]

Instead you will simply look at the altimeter and it will make the decision for you.

Anyway, that's my theory.

Does this mean that if you are at or above your threshold altitude that you will ALWAYS turn back??

I am not sure where Stein places his turn back threshold but I really consider 1000' agl to be a 'glide to a survivable LZ', not a turnback, even if it involves a 180+ degree turn. For instance, on my Com checkride I did a 3 turn dead stick steep spiral to a spot landing and didn't consider any part of the manuver a 'turnback'.

 

[Norman CYYJ]

All of the rhetoric that I have read so far is meaningless. When you have an engine failure it is always at an inopportune time. It will seldom happen at an altitude that you have arbitrarily decided and practiced a turn back to the runway can be achieved. Shove the nose down and fly the plane to the ground.

 

[osxuser]

Exactly my point. But I know where I can't make it. I KNOW that if I loose my engine at 350' out of POC, I'm completely and hopelessly SCREWED, there is NO WHERE to go, I can try to make the shoreline of Puddingstone lake (one of the beaches), but probably wouldn't make it.

I also KNOW that at 600' I can turn back, and by 1000' I have a ton of options for landing.

Just be conscience of where you are, what your options are, and fly the airplane from there. Like i said, I'm not necessarily a proponent of the turn back, I just have preset the parameters that may allow me to make a successful turnback if it seems like the best option. Statistics don't tell the story, the turnbacks aren't successful because they aren't taught correctly or practiced, not because they are inherently any more dangerous than anything else we do close to the ground (A short approach for instance).

 

[Doug Rodrigues]

All of the rhetoric that I have read so far is meaningless. When you have an engine failure it is always at an inopportune time. It will seldom happen at an altitude that you have arbitrarily decided and practiced a turn back to the runway can be achieved. Shove the nose down and fly the plane to the ground.

This is probably the most accurate and to-the-point posting on the subject! Just don?t hit stationary objects such as wires high off the ground, keep your ground speed as slow as possible before touching down, and fly the airplane until it stops. Also, landing on a dirt road or open field is no big deal: It's just another landing. Just think about what you're doing and avoid the obstacles.

 

[Captain Avgas]

No doubt about it, those who practice turn backs have a better chance, but if we made it part of the PTS and forced students to train for it, the training accidents would go through the roof. Training at altitude is fine, but fails to simulate the ground rush. The risks of training close to the ground (BTDT just recently) far outweigh the rewards of increasing the chances of surviving the very few times an engine quits after takeoff.

I think there's a degree of merit in this argument. The chances of experiencing a complete engine failure on take-off ARE extremely remote and there IS some tangible risk involved in practicing a turnback. Is the risk worth the reward...the answer to that depends on whether you ever have an actual engine failure on take-off and the nature of the terrain ahead of you.

In the commercial world of fare paying single engine turbines the current philosophy is that the possible reward DOES warrant the risk.

With the advent of reliable single engine turbines and their acceptance for commercial ops at night and IFR there has been a much overdue review of the turnback strategy. As I have said previously single engine turbine pilots are now properly trained to perform the turnback.

Common sense has always dictated that it is folly to attempt a turnback after engine failure at inadequate altitude.....but equally it now also dictates that it is very poor airmanship to crash a perfectly good aircraft into a row of residential houses when there is plenty of altitude to perform a safe return to the runway.

In terms of private flying I think the discussion falls into the same category as learning spin recovery. People have been arguing about this for years (and will continue to argue). Some say that modern planes are so much more spin resistant that the dangers involved in learning to recover from a spin are greater than the risk of actually inadvertently entering a spin in normal flight.

In the end these issues come down to personal choice and individual circumstances. For instance I would suggest that anyone who performs any type of aerobatic maneouvre in an RV (or any plane for that matter) should first have spin recovery training. Likewise, if a pilot is based at a strip inside a heavily built up or forested area with no realistic off-field landing options it might make more sense to become proficient at turnbacks.

Some pilots are inclined to want to explore the limits and really master their aircraft....others simply want to fly somewhere for a $100 hamburger. It's the reason why some pilots do an aerobatics endorsement and others do not.

The never-turn-back mantra was always aimed at the lowest common denominator of private flying skills. And it thrived on spooky horror stories of horrific turnback crashes that revealed nothing more than that the pilots involved were not properly trained for the manoeuvre they attempted.

 

[elippse]

I would like to see those RV flyers in So. Cal. do a power-off approach at Santa Paula, SZP, PA 600' AGL, 845' MSL, and report on it here. My Lancair 235, fixed-pitch three-blade, does it no-sweat. That's the way I do it all the time. But I would like to know if there is something quite a bit different about the RVs, maybe the low 4.8 AR of the 3,4,6,7,8, that makes it much more difficult. But please be careful!

 

[Captain Avgas]

Does this mean that if you are at or above your threshold altitude that you will ALWAYS turn back??

Yes, the altimeter decides....not me. If the altitude is sufficient for a safe return to the runway and I am proficient why land anywhere else and risk damage and injury. I think that would be poor airmanship. My decision heights are reasonably conservative in my opinion. But the danger in having decision heights that are VERY conservative is that when the crunch comes you might crib on them for the very reason that you KNOW they are VERY conservative. That's what I was alluding to in my post addressed to Stein. I see that as a real potential danger under pressure of a very hostile terrain.

I am not sure where Stein places his turn back threshold but I really consider 1000' agl to be a 'glide to a survivable LZ', not a turnback, even if it involves a 180+ degree turn. For instance, on my Com checkride I did a 3 turn dead stick steep spiral to a spot landing and didn't consider any part of the manuver a 'turnback'.

As I said in a previous post it's simply a matter of semantics to start calling the turnback something else at 1000 ft. If you take off and fly straight ahead and then turn back through 180 degrees to the runway at any height..... it's a turnback (a rose by any other name would smell as sweet).

 

[SteinAir]

My 182............

Stein, I seem to recall that on one post you made on this thread you stated that you were not a proponent of the turnback....but you also stated you would probably turn back at 1000 ft (is there a contradiction there?). At any rate, I thought about that a lot. In the end I concluded that you might be better off practicing some turnbacks in your own plane to ascertain the REAL altitude from which it would be practical to do a safe turnback.

The problem with having a conservative "generic" turnback altitude (1000ft in your case) is that the decision height is not based on any real experience. Therefore you cannot be absolutely certain that you cannot safely return from a lesser altitude.

Anyway, that's my theory.

Hi Bob,

Don't put words in my mouth (or on the screen). I said I wouldn't turn back below 1K', not that I would always do it at that altitude....please at least be accurate when making statements like that.

Anyway, I don't know where you keep getting that I don't practice this...I'm basing my opinion on my experience in my RV (or two or three) and many years of playing in them along with input from highly experience people that I have learned to respect. You're basing your opinion with your experience in your Cessna 182. That's fine, but after all we are discussing RV's here so I continue to submit that those who've been there done that in RV's perhaps have just a little better perspective than those who've not. Not trying to be personal here, just trying to be logical.

I said it before and I'll say it again. I were an RV builder or pilot on this list reading this debate I'd probably listen VERY carefully to people like Doug Rozendaal. I'm not saying your opinion doesn't count, I'm just saying that your reference point is perhaps not as apropos for this discussion as those who are trying to present data from the perspective of having done it in RV's. In regards to me, you've assumed a number of things about me and my experience with RV's.....most are wrong.

I agree with many points you've made and agree that practicing is critical...and we agree that it can be done! We disagree as to the should part, but that's the beauty of this whole thing....we each get to keep our own opinions. We can debate all day long about detailed numbers, "he said/she said" type of stupid posts, but the reality is we simply disagree. I choose to weigh the arguments of people like Doug's more than yours. Doesn't take anything away from you or the fact that you're comfortable doing a turnback in your Cessna. I disagree that you should use a simple "hard ceiling" on your altimeter as the decision maker...but we're not going to change each others minds so let's leave that alone.

Luckily I don't wear my heart on my sleeve, so hopefully we can all still sit down and have a beer at OSH while agreeing that our RV's are just darned superior airplanes. When you get your RV done we'll still no doubt have differing opinions on this subject, but we'll probably agree that the RV a lot of fun! Let's start debating taildraggers next...wouldn't that be fun? How about inverted spins in an RV?

Cheers,
Stein

PS, I pay more attention and practice the engine out scenario more than you probably can imagine. My RV lives on a short, narrow, rough grass strip in the middle of a cornfield with trees and forest off one end. Three VERY experienced people have died on our strip (one in an RV4) and more than one home-built has crashed there. Takeoff over the trees at our runway and you're facing forest intermingled with multiple huge cement smokestacks and a literal mess of scattered cement buildings from the days of the WWII gunpowder plant (Gopher munitions).

 

[SteinAir]

Just be conscience of where you are, what your options are, and fly the airplane from there. Like i said, I'm not necessarily a proponent of the turn back, I just have preset the parameters that may allow me to make a successful turnback if it seems like the best option.

That's an excellent point and and excellent statement that I can agree with.

Statistics don't tell the story, the turnbacks aren't successful because they aren't taught correctly or practiced, not because they are inherently any more dangerous than anything else we do close to the ground (A short approach for instance).

That's not an excellent point and one I can't agree with. Statistics like that in aviation are one of the few things that are almost rock solid and DO tell a story....don't throw those statistics out the window....they are written in blood. Those who forget history are condemned to repeat it. I've run out of fingers and toes to count (aside from getting one hacked off by a propeller) the number of people I know of who thought the same about past statistics and aren't here to discuss it - they've become part of those very statistics.

Just to be sure, the above are only my opinions.

Cheers,
Stein

 

[osxuser]

That's an excellent point and and excellent statement that I can agree with.



That's not an excellent point and one I can't agree with. Statistics like that in aviation are one of the few things that are almost rock solid and DO tell a story....don't throw those statistics out the window....they are written in blood. Those who forget history are condemned to repeat it. I've run out of fingers and toes to count (aside from getting one hacked off by a propeller) the number of people I know of who thought the same about past statistics and aren't here to discuss it - they've become part of those very statistics.

Just to be sure, the above are only my opinions.

Cheers,
Stein

FWIW, I enjoy discussions like this, an for me nothing is personal. I'm not trying to convince people to do one thing or the other, just to present the other side.

That said, for some reason people still practice auto-rotations in helicopters, even though statistically more people die every year practicing them, then in actual engine-out scenarios. If you could say this about the turn-back, I think you'd have a valid point, but I've only heard of one instance myself of someone crashing from a PRACTICE turn back. With that, I think I've given all the imput I can to this thread, so I'll just be on the sidelines before I offend someone

 

[rv6ejguy]

The stats do tell a big story IMO, both in Canada and the US. A huge percentage of turnbacks result in death or injury. You can debate this until the end of time. The turnback can be done above a certain altitude safely if frequently practiced- no doubt.

As one who has had an actual power loss in an RV and knew it was probably coming, practice is helpful but it does not guarantee a good outcome every time when the real thing happens. Better have plenty of altitude margin built in on your go/ no go decision.

RVs are not Cessnas for sure in the steep turn, glide department.

 

[Steve Brown]

You have no Statistics

The stats do tell a big story IMO, both in Canada and the US. A huge percentage of turnbacks result in death or injury. .......

You only have statistics of crashes. Not of safe turn back landings.

This argument can go on endlessly, because those who are against turning back seem to be against doing, practicing, or thinking about it, even in the face of empirical data that says it can be done safely.

Virtually every airplane has an altitude from which it can be safely turned back. That is a fact grounded in physics. Armed with that fact it becomes imperative to know what that altitude is, and to practice doing it.

There are no statistics that indicate the effect of practice on a successful turn back. Statistics are only meaningful in the context that created them.
How many died turning back from an altitude that the airplane was incapable capable of doing? If people are turning back at altitudes for which it is impossible for the airplane to make it, then the problem is that they didn't understand the limitations of the airplane, or they panicked. In either case, the situation would be improved with practice.
How many died turning back at an altitude for which it was reasonably possible to make it? In this case, obviously, practice would improve performance.

If you do manage to convince me that practice won't improve my chances of survival in an emergency, then I will start carrying my 357 in my lap so I can just shoot myself in the head if something goes wrong. Otherwise, I plan to use whatever tools I have at my disposal to stay alive. That includes turning back with enough altitude if necessary.

 

[osxuser]

You only have statistics of crashes. Not of safe turn back landings.

This argument can go on endlessly, because those who are against turning back seem to be against doing, practicing, or thinking about it, even in the face of empirical data that says it can be done safely.

Virtually every airplane has an altitude from which it can be safely turned back. That is a fact grounded in physics. Armed with that fact it becomes imperative to know what that altitude is, and to practice doing it.

There are no statistics that indicate the effect of practice on a successful turn back. Statistics are only meaningful in the context that created them.
How many died turning back from an altitude that the airplane was incapable capable of doing? If people are turning back at altitudes for which it is impossible for the airplane to make it, then the problem is that they didn't understand the limitations of the airplane, or they panicked. In either case, the situation would be improved with practice.
How many died turning back at an altitude for which it was reasonably possible to make it? In this case, obviously, practice would improve performance.

If you do manage to convince me that practice won't improve my chances of survival in an emergency, then I will start carrying my 357 in my lap so I can just shoot myself in the head if something goes wrong. Otherwise, I plan to use whatever tools I have at my disposal to stay alive. That includes turning back with enough altitude if necessary.

Man I wish I could use words like that... I was trying to say what he just said....

 

[Captain Avgas]

Hi Bob, Don't put words in my mouth (or on the screen). I said I wouldn't turn back below 1K', not that I would always do it at that altitude.).

Yep, you are correct. This is what you said: "My mind is pretty much made up at any altitude below 1K'. Above that and I'll take it as it comes" . My fault, I should have gone back to your post to revisit the statement. Sorry about that.

Now don't take this personally Stein (I'm good for the beer), but I'm not that sure that the "I'll take it as it comes" plan is really a plan at all. My personal opinion is that the go/no go decision height needs to be fixed for a specific SEL aircraft much like the V1 take-off decision speed is fixed for a multi-engine aircraft....not discretionary. Under the pressure of a sudden and unexpected engine failure during take-off I don't believe ANY pilot will be capable of making good discretionary decisions within a couple of seconds. That's why V1 is not discretionary. You look at the airspeed indicator and it makes the decision for you as to whether you abort the take-off or continue....no procrastination, no waste of time.

I think that what's currently happening out there with SEL engine failures at take-off is:

a) Some pilots are turning back with insufficient altitude to do so and are subsequently killing or injuring themselves.

b) Some pilots are continuing forward when they have plenty of altitude for a safe return to the strip and are subsequently killing or injuring themselves.

c) Some pilots are becoming so incapacitated by indecision that they are losing valuable time (and altitude) which severely restricts their options.

d) The current irrational hysteria about turnbacks militates against pilots getting proper training and thus prevents them having the knowledge to be able to formulate a proper plan and a safe go/no go decision altitude.

You're basing your opinion with your experience in your Cessna 182. That's fine, but after all we are discussing RV's here so I continue to submit that those who've been there done that in RV's perhaps have just a little better perspective than those who've not. Not trying to be personal here, just trying to be logical.

The type and model of aircraft is irrelevant. What is important is that for every specific aircraft and every level of proficiency there is an appropriate decision altitude for executing a safe turnback. I believe that for Cessna Caravans professional turnback training is done with a decision altitude of 1000ft. If you can turn a Caravan around with a dozen people on board from 1000ft I'm just guessing that it shouldn't be too difficult from that altitude in an RV.

Perhaps you might like to advise us what altitude you believe would be safe for you to turn back in your RV. I'd be interested to know that.

 

[rv6ejguy]

We are working our way up to 1000 feet now from 600 or less- a lot more realistic IMO. We should consider now if someone else is on the runway you are about to land back on in the opposite direction and maybe that 10-20 knot tail wind.

We know how many turn backs have not been successful-Let's take a poll and see how many people we know who have actually lost the engine at 300-1000 feet AGL and landed back on the runway the opposite direction. How about the ones we know who tried it and didn't make it? I know 2 who tried it and both are unfortunately no longer with us. I don't know any who have made it. Perhaps others have different experiences.

 

[osxuser]

We are working our way up to 1000 feet now from 600 or less- a lot more realistic IMO. We should consider now if someone else is on the runway you are about to land back on in the opposite direction and maybe that 10-20 knot tail wind.

We know how many turn backs have not been successful-Let's take a poll and see how many people we know who have actually lost the engine at 300-1000 feet AGL and landed back on the runway the opposite direction. How about the ones we know who tried it and didn't make it? I know 2 who tried it and both are unfortunately no longer with us. I don't know any who have made it. Perhaps others have different experiences.

Or a poll for how many people have crashed practicing them? That seems to be the bigger issue in this thread.

 

[hevansrv7a]

Critique of poor arguments

Again - I'm not trying to take sides here, but to help keep the discussion useful.

1. I've seen a lot of mention of sink rate. I think that sink rate alone is useless data. Glide ratio is much more useful. My sink rate in my 7A is higher than in a C-150 but my glide ratio is, I contend, better; I can get farther from the same altitude if I maintain my best speed.

2. OK, I'm convinced that a bunch of pilots have come to grief by turning back. How many of them would have done any better by not turning back? I fly from an airport (KDET) in the center of Detroit. There are not any good places to go except back towards the airport. In other words, this argument is flawed because it ignores the choices that were available (usually).

3. I've not seen any discussions about turning partway back. However, the best place to go may be 30, 60 or 90 degrees off course. The discussion needs to be more situational.
Using KDET as an example, if the TO is from 15 or 07, then a roughly 90 degree turn puts you on the other runway.

 

[pierre smith]

During my glider training...

....back in '78, we were taught turnbacks in case the tow rope broke and we actually practiced them and IIRC, the decision altitude was either 150 or 250 feet...can't quite remember which but some of you older guys who have Schweizer 232 time can remember.

I've been watching this thread and am going out and practice in my -6A to determine a safe, stick-to altitude.

Regards,

 

[Ron Lee]

Practice can't hurt

The first time I ran my fuel to empty in a tank I was over an airport, high and noticed that as the needle got closer to zero my radius became smaller. I wonder why.

Now that I have done it about six times or so under similar conditions it is hardly stressful at all.

Similarly, if you want to practice a "return to runway after engine out" scenario, practicing should provide valuable experience to make the decision easier if it ever happens. You should be less likely to become mentally incapacitated.

 

[grantcarruthers]

....back in '78, we were taught turnbacks in case the tow rope broke and we actually practiced them and IIRC, the decision altitude was either 150 or 250 feet...can't quite remember which but some of you older guys who have Schweizer 232 time can remember.

I've been watching this thread and am going out and practice in my -6A to determine a safe, stick-to altitude.

Regards,

It was 200 ft at lake elsinore in CA when I trained there. Soloed but never rated.

 

[rv6ejguy]

I don't see a lot of success stories pouring in here yet.

Glide ratio does not have so much to do with this as altitude and speed loss in the steep turn. If you unload in the turn, the altitude loss is substantially more, if you pull G, induced drag goes way up and there is more speed loss and a higher chance of stalling.

I'd also mention that a 180 turn won't do it, you need to probably turn close to 240 degrees to re-align with the runway or do a hook turn (most pilots won't think of that when the engine stops for real).

There is considerable residual thrust on a Lycoming even at an 800 rpm idle speed so an idle simulation is not how it will be for real with no power.

It will be interesting to see what Pierre comes up with here.

 

[SteinAir]

Let's see here. How about people who had an engine failure, "landed" off airport and lived to talk about it. You, Doug, David, Milt, Rick & Greg (both landed on a street). Point here is they are all here talking about it.

We all know there is a LOT longer list of people who aren't here to talk about it. An RV-10 with a "problem" crashes in the middle of many acres of perfectly good field whilst in a turn back to an airport. That's the most recent one I can think of. Dead engines shouldn't make dead people.

I think there is an awful lot of general desire to "make the airport" at all costs whether we're talking about turnbacks or not. I still maintain that there are so many variables to consiuder that a simple altitude is not a good choice as a simply deciding factor. I think people should instead be more focused on being able to control their plane, put it down on a spot they choose and not keep harping about runways. Far too many RV pilots are scared to land on a 30' wide strip that is 1500' long. Shouldn't be an issue, but it is.

I like a lot of the last points Bob made, but I still don't like the "find and altitude that works and make it an automatic turn back" switch. I don't think that is wise in an RV - whether it be 600, 1000, or 2000'. I don't think that any amount of practice at a known airport can simulate the variables of having it happen unexpectedly at an unfamiliar airport. LOTS and LOTS of dead people passed up perfectly good landing spots from thousands of feet in the air trying to make and airport. They knew it "could" be done, so if you can, then should you ALWAYS do it? That's why my decision is not to have an automatic plan that forces me to do something other than the simple mantra I have - FLY the plane, FLY the plane, FLY the plane. No more, no less - FLY the plane - all the way to the ground. Do that and most everyone survives the crash, even in trees, streets, and water. Don't do that and most everyone dies, even on or close to a runway!

We know factually that landing (even on a residential street) under complete control of the airplane NOT stalled gives you better odds at living than attempting to get back to the airport and stalling. I'm telling you, the statistics just don't lie. Many of our bretheren who are/were better pilots than us have either died or survived by being on one side or other of the stats. I think I've seen a lot of peoples attitudes or opinions being formed and changed directly relative to the number of people they know who've tried and failed, verses the guys didn't and lived. The past 10 years of dead RV driver friends and surviving RV driver friends has changed my find from "sure I can" to "sure I shouldn't" - and this after I've shown people repeatedly that I can do a near hammerhead in a short space to turn around....just because I can doesn't mean I should.

Again, using a Caravan or Cessna or 747 is worthless IMHO. We're talking about a light weight, single engine sport plane here - the RV! It doesn't behave like those other planes do - plane and simple! Again, I'm not debating the "can" part, I'm debating the "should" part. We're also not talking about professional pilots who have a sim check every 6 months flying thousands of hours per year. Some of you are, but most of "us" are NOT. We're talking about pilots who typically fly 50hrs per year - big difference in how "we" perform under stress.

I'm off to OSH soon, so ya'll be safe on the way there - stop by and say hi! the good thing you won't have to put up with my ramblings on this for at least an entire week.

Cheers,
Stein

BTW, when you see the Red Super Corsair parked in Aeroshell square with the one white prop blade - guess who flew it there (hint - it's not the owner of the plane)?....when you see the bright yellow "Duggy" DC-3 dropping the jumpers, guess who's flying it? None other than one of our esteemed RV'ers who's been active in this discussion. Keep that in mind when either choosing to accept or discount his theories and opinions. I still like the "FLY the plane, FLY the plane, FLY the plane" - that's my plan and I'm stickin to it!

 

[rv6ejguy]

I agree Stein, good post.

 

[N395V]

Whether or not you can make it in a turnback is multifactorial not just altitude, glide ratio, sink rate etc.

Every takeoff is different depending on airport, wind, temp, gross weight, obstacles, runway length, and surrounding structures, fields, roasds, or lack thereof.

If all of us did due diligence on every takeoff we would, before hand, be familiar with all of these factors and decide ahead of time (before we apply the throttle) if the conditions today, on this takeoff, in this plane, in this configuration are conducive to making a turnback and if so at what altitude.

To be honest with ourselves on many takeoffs most of us roll out on the runway and do not think of the possibility of engine failure, we are in a hurry, anxiuos to get to a pancake breakfeast or whatever.

On most approaches to and landings at a new airport we often do not take the opportunity to look around for suitable landings spots if we get in trouble on the way out

If we have practised and know our plane and are ready for the failure we can make a reasoned decision to turn back or pick another spot that we know is better given the point at which the failure occurs.

In my opinion though the most important factors in determining the outcome are....

1. What you do or do not do in the first 2-3 seconds after the problem occurs
2. Whether or not you fly the airplane to the limits of your skills or or let the plane fly you (fly it as far into the crash as you can)
3. How well you know your plane and whether or not you have prepared for this day (meaning practice)

Of the three number 1 probably has the greatest bearing on outcome.


You cannot spring load yourself for a decision of this or that. Every takeoff is different. You must weigh your options in advance and be able to make a quick decision based on the circumstances (all of them) at the time of failure.

 

[rv6ejguy]

Good post Milt. I see too many pilots simply launch like they have done so many times before. No cockpit briefing and probably no internal head check either before advancing the throttle. They assume all will go well every time.

Guaranteed that most of us mortals would take at least 2-3 seconds to clearly react to an actual power loss and maybe longer.

Checking the terrain and obstacles nearby and noting possible forced landing areas near the runway before takeoff is just good airmanship.

Brief yourself on what you will do if the engine fails- maybe lower nose, boost pump on, select other tank, check mags/ ign and master on- no joy- maintain best glide and look for the best place to set down. Do this before every takeoff.

It's sad to damage a plane that took you 4-5 years to build, a lot more sad for us to read about you here after yet another stall/ spin.

Expect an engine failure on takeoff and you will be a bit more prepared if it ever does happen.

I always feel better once I get to 1000 AGL. If I take off out of a runway with trees or wires nearby, I'll hedge my bets a bit and turn crosswind maybe at 300 feet instead of 500. That puts me closer to the runway if something happens.

About 2 months ago, I was flying with my Dad. He missed throttle friction on the checklist and at about 250 AGL, he took his hand off the throttle. A couple seconds later, the engine lost power. We both got that flushed face feeling when something very bad happens. He lowered the nose and got back on the throttle and we resumed normal flight. It never occurred to me for a couple seconds what had happened and I assumed the worst. I said to my Dad I always keep my hand on the throttle until 1000 AGL. Lesson learned by both of us. He hasn't missed throttle friction on the checklist since and I'll always remember that sinking feeling as it got quiet so close to the ground.

 

[Mel]

....back in '78, we were taught turnbacks in case the tow rope broke and we actually practiced them and IIRC, the decision altitude was either 150 or 250 feet...can't quite remember which but some of you older guys who have Schweizer 232 time can remember.

We always use 200' AGL as the turnaround decision point in the SGS-233.
Of course an RV is not the same.

 

[pierre smith]

Agreed, Mel, but.....

...the fact that turnarounds in gliders are taught but in airplanes they're not. Thinking about it, I suppose it's because there are so few engine failures on takeoff......and probably not many rope breaks either.

It kinda surprised me when my glider instructor briefed me on what we were going to do...a turnaround, real matter-of-factly. I'm leaning more and more to including this facet of flight instruction into my curriculum. What say you?

Regards,

 

[ddurakovich]

...the fact that turnarounds in gliders are taught but in airplanes they're not. Thinking about it, I suppose it's because there are so few engine failures on takeoff......and probably not many rope breaks either.

It kinda surprised me when my glider instructor briefed me on what we were going to do...a turnaround, real matter-of-factly. I'm leaning more and more to including this facet of flight instruction into my curriculum. What say you?

Regards,

Actually, rope breaks are fairly common. Even more common is the tendency for new students getting way too high on initial tow, resulting in either the tow pilot or instructor pulling the plug, rather quickly!.

Practice, practice, practice, and remember, the engine WILL FAIL on every flight! No surprises then

 

[Steve Brown]

Absolutely

.......I'm leaning more and more to including this facet of flight instruction into my curriculum. What say you?

Regards,

I'd say you'll give your students a better chance of survival in an engine out.

 

[N395V]

...the fact that turnarounds in gliders are taught but in airplanes they're not. Thinking about it, I suppose it's because there are so few engine failures on takeoff......and probably not many rope breaks either.

It kinda surprised me when my glider instructor briefed me on what we were going to do...a turnaround, real matter-of-factly. I'm leaning more and more to including this facet of flight instruction into my curriculum. What say you?

Regards,

Pierre,

You should absolutely include it in your training "as one of the options" in the event of engine failure on TO.

But be very thorough in explaining it's pitfalls, the conditions under which it is doable and explain the fact that it is not ALWAYS the best option.

The best thing you can do is teach them judgement and impart to them the ability to remain open minded and to evaluate every situation based upon the information at hand. Above all teach them to be skeptical when the old hangar pilot boldly states "this is how you do it and this is the only way it should be done"

 

[Steve Brown]

Training standards change

When I was working on my private in 1989, and for the next 5 years thereafter, there didn't seem to be a big emphasis on engine out training.

There was engine out training in terms of best glide, line up to land in a field etc, but nothing difficult at all. My primary instructor showed mt a short approach, but didn't really encourage me to practice it. Other instructors I flew with for rental checkouts up though about 1995 didn't seem very interested in engine out training.

I dropped out of flying for 10 years until 2005. When I came back to it, there seemed to be a more serious interest in engine out training, including short approaches with big slips, etc. I found this in several SoCal rental situations.

A couple of years ago my dad started working on his private in another part of the state and there was also a very big emphasis on engine out training.

I realize some of this may be regional, but my point is that the aviation community can wake up and realize the importance of a skill or practice, then do something about it.

The fact that practicing turn backs haven't been on the agenda in the past does not inhibit their inclusion in the future. Also, since this is regularly practiced for glider training, the dire predictions of training fatalities seem quite over stated.

I seem to get very little "training" time in my flying. Busy at work and when I am flying, I'm hot to get somewhere. As I squeeze it in, I'm going to add turn back practice. I'm thinking uncontrolled airport, in a rural area with landing opportunities all around the airport, just in case the motor actually quits.

There is one very important regional aspect to this. That is, engine out landing opportunities besides turn back. My last home port (TOA) in SoCal, I just tried not to look when climbing out. Surviving would be largely luck if the motor quit. My current home port (PAO) is on the edge of the bay with some decent possibilities that might not involve drowning. However, I'm moving across town to RHV, and that airport is buried in homes and shopping centers.

It's very easy to say an engine out should not result in a fatality if you fly out of a rural airport, or one with good landing opportunities, but some of us just don't have that option.

 

[pierre smith]

I did 5 turnbacks today!!

....from 800' initially and progressively down to 250 AGL.

Let me begin this article by telling you guys that I do hundreds of turnarounds at low altitude (<250' ) all day long for my living, so low altitude turnarounds are a way of life for me. You guys can also do this but just be careful and consider your own abilities and err on the side of caution, please.

You can, however, do what Brian and I did today, safely. I decided to start at 800 AGL, so for this series, set my altimeter to Zero, so I didn't have to do any math in flight.

We have a 5000 foot runway and my airplane has a 180 Lyc and a fixed Catto, three blade and glides rather well since it has a lot of pitch with little or no braking. I know how much faster a CS prop slows the airplane down as the blades go to flat pitch following a loss of power, so my results have that caveat: Your airplane has its own charateristics but you still can safely explore them.

I've done a lot of 180 degree approaches from abeam the threshold with idle power so I know my RV will do a gliding 180 easily. On the first attempt, I climbed at my usual 130 MPH and reached 800 AGL about 200-300 yards past the far end of the runway and pulled the power to idle. I then counted one thousand-one, one thousand two to simulate the delay a guy would do when the motor quit unexpectedly, then turn left at about a 50-60 degree bank and let the nose drop to maintain a safe airspeed. It took 270 degrees to turn around and head back to the runway and now I had to do another 90 degree right turn since I was on a short right base. As I turned final, I told Brian over the radio that I was really high and with a 5 knot tailwind I was eating up runway fast. I would have touched down in the last 1000 feet so I went around and returned for a touch and go for turnaround #2.

This time I decided to pull power at 600' and it seemed to go better since I was closer to the ground but also not as far past the runway end as before, so after the left 270 and short right base, I dropped full flaps and turned final, landed half way down the runway and coasted to the far end.

 

[pierre smith]

....cont'd

This time, 400 feet was the goal. I climbed barely past the end of the runway at 125 MPH and pulled the power again and did my left 270 to short right base. This was the best of all 5 turnbacks as I was at a better, lower altitude for base and turned final with full flaps and still landed about half way down the runway.

The next trip was to 300 feet and the same reversal. I still could do a lower altitude but not by much, so I went for 250AGL next time.

As I reached 250, I was barely past the far end of the runway, so I turned more than 270 degrees left and a quick right onto final, lowering full flaps because I was still being pushed by the tailwind. I landed shorter this time and now I don't think that I'd try a turnback any lower. However, this little airplane really surprised me with its good glide though. If I had put it down on the first attempt from 800 feet, I would have run off the end of the runway, down a 200 foot embankment and probably flipped, possibly going into a lake, upside down.

Remember that I was solo with half a load of fuel. Tomorrow, Brian's going up with me and I don't believe it can be done two up at less than 450 or so feet...we'll see. So far, it appears that unless you're fast in lowering the flaps after these turnbacks, going off the far end of the runway is a real concern.

I learned a lot in under a half hour and Brian videotaped all 5 but they are around 160 Megs so it's gonna take a while to upload to Youtube but we will.

Regards,

 

[rv6ejguy]

Thanks Pierre. Nothing like actually doing it. Now I'm thinking that if you took off into a 10-15 knot wind, landing short would not be a concern but going off the end would- especially with a 2500-3000 foot runway.

Plenty of food for thought.

 

[Steve Brown]

Cool

.....
Remember that I was solo with half a load of fuel. Tomorrow, Brian's going up with me and I don't believe it can be done two up at less than 450 or so feet...we'll see. So far, it appears that unless you're fast in lowering the flaps after these turnbacks, going off the far end of the runway is a real concern.
......
Regards,

What bank angel did you use?

 

[gmcjetpilot]

CFI must follow FAR and prepare student for solo

When I was working on my private in 1989, and for the next 5 years thereafter, there didn't seem to be a big emphasis on engine out training.

Well that was you instructor. Before my students do their first solo they will have seen as many as 20 simulated engine failures before solo, on initial take off, in pattern, climb, cruise, initial descent. It was not my idea its part of the FAR's. When I sign their log book and endorse their student certificate I am endorsing they did engine failure procedures from several different phases of flight. Some instructors may do more or less. I did it to competence. I knew I had made my point when I pulled the power back and they with out hesitation did the fly the airplane, navigate and trouble shot. It especially was satisfying when they might make an almost immediate 180 turn to the down wind of the airport we where right over at 3000 agl. The knew where there where.

It's not really an option to teach engine out, its part of pre solo requirements. Pre cross country requires students to pick and execute a (simulated) off field precautionary landing. The idea is to make the loss of power procedures automatic by training no thinking initially.

Airplane into glide attitude....}
Trim for best glide speed......} fly the plane
Start looking for landing spot }

Trouble shoot if possible, switch tank, boost pump-on, mixture rich, mags, primer locked

Prepare for landing, seat belts tight, crack door, fuel / elect off before impact, land as slow as possible with full flaps​

You do it over and over and over. The above first 4 steps should only take 15-20 seconds.

My students expected to have an engine failure and they got in the habit (paranoid) of looking for landing spots while flying. GPS is a great help, but always knowing where you are, like directly over an airport, aka situational aware. Early on students would head out to some landing spot while being over an airport. It happens. It is kind of an awesome responsibility to teach someone to fly. I would just feel devastated of a student made an error which caused an accident, because I didn't teach them something that I should have.

Some light twins I flew with wing tip or aux tanks, I'd run an aux dry sometimes, cruise only of course. Aux was not allowed for takeoff and landing in this plane. I wouldn't do it intentionally but some times a tank might go dry 10 min early, especially if I was using the gas fired cabin heater. I wouldn't go to best glide, trim or look for landing spot. The first thing I did when I heard the engine stubble was switch tanks & hit the boost pump. The engine would recover pretty quickly. I still did not like hearing the engine stop even if I had two of them. So some times the first step might be get the engine running.

I had a flying friend, not a student of mine, but his theory was always fly over roads, and he did, IFR all the way. If you had to fly over water, he would climb to say 8000 feet for a 5-8 mile crossing to assure glide to a road. I can't argue with that. Too much caution? Roads are not always the best thing with cars, signs and power lines.

 

[pierre smith]

Here it is...

What bank angel did you use?

.....around 45-60, Steve. The quick ailerons are wonderful for this.

Ross, I'd have to say that in a 15 knot or better wind, I'd have serious second thoughts about a turnback unless I was at least a quarter mile past the runway end. I should have done really huge S-turns at the end of the runway on the first attempt from 800' like a lot of the European glider schools teach....be high on final and make decreasing width S-turns to eat up excess altitude. This is also a great system to not overshoot a field in the event of a forced, engine out landing. The S-turns can be extravagant in that you can even turn away from the end of the runway if you need to but still be nearly perpendicular to it.

I asked Brian if he did CPR, cause my pulse rate was kinda high at a 250' turnback

More later,

 

[rv6ejguy]

I asked Brian if he did CPR, cause my pulse rate was kinda high at a 250' turnback

An honest man and you do stuff like this for a living.