You have been told - by kevin walters

[Tomo]

Reading in the RA mag "Sport Pilot" in the letters to the editor I came across something that I just wanted to make sure gets out there. Kevin doesn't mince words and what he says I feel needs to be echoed over and over.

 

I hope you don't mind me posting what you said here Kevin!

 

Below is written by CFI Kevin Walters:

 

I was once told that we should not speak ill of the dead. So we won't.

But we will speak ill of the living whose intention is to turn back after an engine failure on take-off. Let's be clear on the definition and not confuse it with a forced landing, where you have logical choices, as per your training. Previous articles on this subject have covered the more technical aspects of the stupidity of turning back to the field, so I will not cover them again. Obviously they have not had the desired effect in stopping pea brains from attempting this fatal manoeuvre.

 

The time for political correctness and courtesy is over. Let's take the gloves off. Read the newspaper. "Experienced pilot killed when his engine failed on take-off attempting to turn back to the field". (Experienced? He's dead). "A pilot was killed in a light aircraft today when he attempted to turn back after his engine failed on take-off. He was known to be an accomplished pilot of great experience".

 

If pilots of great experience and accomplishment cannot successfully carry out this manoeuvre, what makes the rest of us think we can do it? Definitely arrogance and stupidity. I repeat, if you attempt to turn back after an EFATO, you are a halfwit. You don't care about your family and what they have to go through. 100% of pilots who turn back after an EFATO are killed. Does this tell you something? Instructors, are you teaching your students , before they open the throttle on take-off, to say out loud "if the engine fails on take-off, land straight ahead?" If you aren't, you could be open to litigation involving duty of care. What about "Go straight ahead to the hospital, turn back to the morgue" because that's where you'll be. Let's be very clear. If you turn back you'll be a fool and you'll be dead.

 

Without apology

 

- Kevin Walters, CFI

Good stuff I reckon.

 

 

[motzartmerv]

Yes Tomo. I read that letter. While i agree with the sentiments in principle, I dont agree with kevins delivery of the message.

 

First of all, insulting people (pee brain, halfwitt) etc is not going to help. Some turn back fatalities have involved highly experienced and accomplished pilots. The urge to turn back after EFATO is overwhelming, and is not a reflection of the size of a pilots brain. It is however a reflection on his training if he does attempt it. The Urge has to be trained OUT of the mind of pilots...And that is OUR job.. That is HIS job.

 

The insults should be directed at poor, apathetic instruction. Just as much as holding off in the flair needs to be 'trained' into pilots, so does overcoming the urge to turnback. If pilots are still doing it, then this is nothing short of INSTRUCTOR FAILURE.

 

Pre takeoff safety brief while is incredibly important, is not enough 'training'.

 

The maneuver must be practiced and practiced add norsiam. Not only lowering the nose and pointing at a paddock, but demonstrations of "actually attempting' to turn back must be given, to show the fallibility of the turn.

 

 

[Deskpilot]

Whilst I agree with the basic theory of 'not to turn back', doesn't it depend on the type of aircraft and the height achieved prior to engine failure. Some planes go up like elevators and are surely high enough by the time they reach the end of the runway to be able to return safely.

 

 

[Chrism]

Yep Tomo.

 

I think Kevin was featured in a Flying Mag article a few years ago and he was equally forthright (on other issues). The real test would be that when an EFATO happens, would I do what I know I should and land ahead on the road/paddock/in the bush, or would I panic and turn back?

 

 

[motzartmerv]

And here-in lies the problem Doug. The common misconception is that the problem relates to "making it back to the field". Making it back depends on several factors and from a training point of view is irrelevant. You simply dont have time to some up the factors and variables.

 

It is the TURN that kills. Not the glide back coming up short. Performing a steep descending, gliding turn, with the shock and suddenness of change, right on the verge of the stall is what is killing people.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Whilst I agree with the basic theory of 'not to turn back', doesn't it depend on the type of aircraft and the height achieved prior to engine failure. Some planes go up like elevators and are surely high enough by the time they reach the end of the runway to be able to return safely.

I've seen a number of discussions where posters suggest they can do it in aircraft X, even one where the poster worked out all the heights and glide ratios. Trouble is, when it happens for real, for a moment you can't believe it, but by then your subconscious will have kicked in and have removed all those fatal ideas; as Motz says, there isn't time, and it's not the glide, but the turn that does it.

 

From before the first world war some very eminent pilots of undeniable skills have lost their lives instead of some skin - it's a choice thing.

 

 

[kgwilson]

It really depends on when an EFATO turns into an EFIF. To my mind I'd want about 1000 feet AGL before I thought about landing in any other direction other than in front of me.

 

 

[turboplanner]

I seem to remember some Clever Dick suggesting he could do it from 350 feet.

 

 

[HeadInTheClouds]

It can be done in a Foxbat at 500 feet with a bit of wind blowing to. This was demonstrated to me by my instructor who has many thousands of hours and was extremely familiar with the flight characteristics of the Foxbat. Would I ever try this? No. Never. Not ever. Should anyone else ever try it unless they were in a similar position of thousands of hours experience and many hours on the type? Absolutely not. Land straight ahead damn it.

 

 

[J170 Owner]

I think the article was poorly written, very unprofessional.

 

 

[Gnarly Gnu]

Whilst I agree with the basic theory of 'not to turn back', doesn't it depend on the type of aircraft and the height achieved prior to engine failure.

My thoughts when I read this too. Whilst I agree with Kevin's overall point it is dependant on factors such as height of course. I was shown a steep teardrop manoeuvre for this situation during training, this helps to see how much height is lost & therefore at what height this can safely be done in that particular aircraft allowing for a margin of course. This could be a lifesaver also with an EFATO in rough country but sounds like Kevin probably wouldn't be keen on teaching this.

 

 

[winsor68]

It can be done in a Foxbat at 500 feet with a bit of wind blowing to. This was demonstrated to me by my instructor who has many thousands of hours and was extremely familiar with the flight characteristics of the Foxbat. Would I ever try this? No. Never. Not ever. Should anyone else ever try it unless they were in a similar position of thousands of hours experience and many hours on the type? Absolutely not. Land straight ahead damn it.

Here is the problem in my opinion... Seems that a "demonstration" of the fatal turn in a simulated situation is common with some instructors... Sadly it is these same "thousands of hours" pilots who are very well represented in the fatality figures.

I suggest a re-reading of the thread is in order for anyone who, like me I admit, has had this same demonstration by an Instructor.

 

 

[fly_tornado]

I thought it was called the "impossible turn"

 

 

[facthunter]

It's a question of what happens if you don't make it, or more likely lose control in the turn?

 

Landing straight ahead . There is nothing wrong with turning say 30-40 degrees for a more suitable spot and especially if there is a crosswind for the take-off , you are better turning into the wind, than turning downwind as you will touch down/impact objects slower if you are in to wind.

 

You should assess the conditions at the end of the aerodrome BEFORE the takeoff and have a plan for the engine failure at the critical time, and of course it might only be a partial failure or worse a fire, where getting it on the ground is a priority and getting assistance might come into it too.

 

Remember you can always rebuild/replace a damaged plane but not if you are not around to do it. Life is more important than property. Nev

 

 

[Guest Maj Millard]

Even if you did get it around, you are now coming in downwind with low airspeed, not a good situation to be in. The choice really is , A controlled crash, with airspeed control all the way, and a good flare at the end, ...or an uncontrolled crash , with zero airspeed control after stalling the inboard wing, at low altitude !..........I do like Kevins anaology of "straight ahead to the hospital, or turn back to the morgue !".......................................................Maj...

 

 

[motzartmerv]

Yes, and I hope he doesnt mind if I use it from now on..:)

 

Maj, you would know better than most, what happens when its attempted. Can i prod you for a story?

 

 

[Bandit12]

I was once told that we should not speak ill of the dead. So we won't.

But we will speak ill of the living whose intention is to turn back after an engine failure on take-off. Let's be clear on the definition and not confuse it with a forced landing, where you have logical choices, as per your training. Previous articles on this subject have covered the more technical aspects of the stupidity of turning back to the field, so I will not cover them again. Obviously they have not had the desired effect in stopping pea brains from attempting this fatal manoeuvre.

 

The time for political correctness and courtesy is over. Let's take the gloves off. Read the newspaper. "Experienced pilot killed when his engine failed on take-off attempting to turn back to the field". (Experienced? He's dead). "A pilot was killed in a light aircraft today when he attempted to turn back after his engine failed on take-off. He was known to be an accomplished pilot of great experience".

 

If pilots of great experience and accomplishment cannot successfully carry out this manoeuvre, what makes the rest of us think we can do it? Definitely arrogance and stupidity. I repeat, if you attempt to turn back after an EFATO, you are a halfwit. You don't care about your family and what they have to go through. 100% of pilots who turn back after an EFATO are killed. Does this tell you something? Instructors, are you teaching your students , before they open the throttle on take-off, to say out loud "if the engine fails on take-off, land straight ahead?" If you aren't, you could be open to litigation involving duty of care. What about "Go straight ahead to the hospital, turn back to the morgue" because that's where you'll be. Let's be very clear. If you turn back you'll be a fool and you'll be dead.

 

Without apology

 

- Kevin Walters, CFI

I don't like his language at all. Too confrontational, too derogatory, too much name calling. If I won't be swayed because of a sound, scientific argument backed up with excellent practical examples, what makes him think that I will be swayed by being called stupid, arrogant, pea brain, and halfwit? Honestly, some people would do better by shutting their mouths (or word processors) and let others try to put a constructive approach to improving practices and training. And finally - "you don't care about your family and what they have to go through"...??? Lets just put something out there - emotional blackmail is NEVER an effective and positive manipulator of behaviour. I am far more likely to discount any good points he has for all of the drivel that comes with it.

 

Because I know that he wouldn't be swayed by my more tempered argument, I'll just go out and call the man an unthinking moron and primitive bully who shouldn't be encouraged to present such crap in public.

 

For the record, I don't support turning back. Some may do it and make it. Many do it and don't make it. So regardless of the mechanics, the odds aren't in your favour if you turn back. But I won't support rubbish like what was written by the unapologetic Kevin Walters, CFI, as helpful either.

 

 

[winsor68]

Any Psychologists would be having a field day reading some of the stuttering and feigned "I am personally insulted" replies here... IMO they say more about the posters poor attitude than Kevin Walters CFI's.

 

 

[Bandit12]

Was that for me Win? If so, to answer your first point, I am, and your second point - I don't feel insulted. But I do feel that the author knows very little about motivating people or encouraging change. Now if someone like Motzartmerv or Facthunter were to write an article on the same topic and submit it, I feel that it would have an entirely different tone, wouldn't offend anyone with childish name calling or emotional blackmail, and would have a much better chance at getting through to people. Both of those gentlemen have more than enough credibility, experience, knowledge and style to do well what this bloke has failed at.

 

 

[Wayne T Mathews]

Kevin trained me to be an RA Aus pilot instructor. Believe me, I know from first hand experience that he can be as subtle and soothing as a train wreck at times. As Tomo said, the man doesn't mince words. Having said that though: in my experience, so long as I listened to what he was telling me, and tried to do what he showed and told me to do, the man had the patience of Job.

 

One of the points Kev really stresses, is that RA Aus pilots should always know where we are going to land if our engine quits. To do that, he trains us to always be selecting another emerg landing site before the one we're using now is out of range.

 

With this technique firmly in our mind, it's easy to plan in the event of an engine failure after take off, to land straight ahead within 30 degrees of the centreline, with the wings level, until such time as another emerg landing site is selected. Kevin trains his students to verbalise this plan prior to rolling, because verbalising our plan reduces the odds of an engine failure on take off causing us to panic and attempt an impossible turn.

 

 

[JimG]

Yeap, I'm a low time Instructor working for Kev most weekends and he absolutely does practice what he preaches , so needless to say that I get a dose of this kind of thing most weekends as well. I wouldn't have it any other way and that is why I drive 2 hrs there and 2 home again, sure i get paid a little for time spent briefing and flying but that rarely cover the fuel for the round trip. My motivation is totally focused on earning the experience and mental toughness from him to do just that in a real engine out, lower the nose and land ahead etc, and also I figure if keep flying two strokes or jabs long enough I'll be joining the group of pilots who've had to do it.

 

Sometimes he does come across as subtle as a sledge hammer but being a lifetime AG pilot (retired now) and seeing many people over the years come unstuck has lead him to be so uncompromising in keys issues like this. Teaching people to fly safely and survive whatever their goals are in aviation is his real agenda.

 

I wasn't surprised to see his 'one liner' near the end of it as he has many that he uses all the time. Another favourite of mine is when a student learning is using rudder to try to hurry the turn, the saying is 'your not flying in balance, do you want to spin,crash,burn,die' or 'if you think that is inconvenient,think about how inconvenient a funeral would be for your family'

 

of course these are always just before or after a thorough explanation of the situation.

 

And yes, I'm never left wondering if my performance as a pilot or instructor are good , bad or otherwise..............

 

Cheers

 

JimG

 

 

[Neil_S]

Hi guys,

 

For well-presented, factual, objective discussion on this sort of topic, backed up with data and evidence, I would recommend the Webinars on the EAA web site. If you are not a member of EAA I would highly recommend you join, if only for the excellent monthly magazine.

 

However, the webinars are available for ages after delivery, and are usually about 45 minutes of slide presentation (most with online surveys answered by the online audience present at the time), and at the end the presenters take a selection of questions from the audience for about another 30 minutes.

 

The presenters are usually well-respected members of the US aviation community, and include appropriate statistical info and/or scientific formulae in most cases.

 

I distinctly remember one about EFATO and the argument about a controlled crash in a 30 degree arc ahead being so much more survivable than an attempt to turn back. The figures wrt the impact the seat belts are designed to take, and the "aim the fuselage between any trees so the wings get ripped off" argument also. I find this type of presentation to be a very effective approach to education, rather than a more confrontational one.

 

My two cents,

 

Neil

 

 

[turboplanner]

Here we go.

 

I can see why Kevin Walters used the language he did, and why we have some more candidates for Darwin.

 

It isn't about technique

 

 

[J170 Owner]

I think I might take my plane to a few thousand feet, take up a heading, set climb attitude then pull the power and see just how much height I lose trying to 'turn back'. The way Jabiru engines have been performing lately I need to cover all bases.

 

 

[Bandit12]

I can't see why the author had to use the language he did. And somehow despite Darwin's theories, we manage to have people continue to do the wrong thing generation after generation despite taking themselves out of the gene pool in an often spectacular fashion.

 

It isn't about technique. It is about training and culture. But it takes a lot more than someone to point a finger and say "halfwit" to bring about any positive change.