You have been told - by kevin walters

[Guest Howard Hughes]

That said, there still isn't anything to support that any civvie pilot should make a turn back.

PC12 pilots are trained to return after reaching an altitude of approximately 7-800 feet, this can then be achieved up to cruise altitude. This is however an aircraft specific manouvere and should not be applied to other types.

With regard to use of rudder in turns at low level, I'd love to hear from some Ag pilots, or other experienced low level pilots on the issue. It has been a very long time since I did any low level training, but fairly sure it included skidding and sliding turns at appropriate moments. Once again it all comes down to training and currency.

 

 

[Kyle Communications]

Some people on here will know what I mean....

 

rudder rudder rudder....aileron will kill you

 

Mark

 

 

[Guest Maj Millard]

Motz, Well I can say I was in an aircraft that unsuccesfully attempted "the impossible turn" , at low altitude, and crashed spectactulary after stalling the inboard wing. Consiquently, of the four onboard that day, only two survived. Can't really recommend trying it at all really !.....................................................Maj...

 

 

[Tomo]

The thing is, there has been a few fatal crashes lately that was the result in turn back, crash, die scenarios... guess what, all from high time experienced pilots. As Motz said when something such as the engine stopping happens, your ability drops significantly! I had an engine failure about two years ago on take off, was only about 10ft off the ground and still had runway in front so just put it down and came to a screeching halt just in time! I couldn't really recall what I had even done during that stoppage period, once on the ground I noticed I'd pulled throttle to idle and landed the aircraft and applied brake. The point I'm trying to make is, when something happens your head turns to glue, so it needs to be totally second nature to do the things you need to do.

 

An engine failure at height you have a minute or two to gather your thoughts, near the ground you have seconds.

 

Turning back will work when you're at 100% as it's just a low flying manoeuvre... chuck a mushed brain into the party and you are pretty much asking for trouble.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Bandit and GG, as you get into higher performance different dynamics occur. I recall from that thread that these aircraft have a considerably faster climb and are at considerably more height than the ones we are talking about, and they were talking about commercial pilots and defence force pilots who have exponentially more training etc.

 

 

[turboplanner]

You've got it Tomo, it's a blur when you do it, if you have to think or make a decision it's too late.

 

 

[Bandit12]

Bandit and GG, as you get into higher performance different dynamics occur. I recall from that thread that these aircraft have a considerably faster climb and are at considerably more height than the ones we are talking about, and they were talking about commercial pilots and defence force pilots who have exponentially more training etc.

That's what I said Turbs - it is interesting to understand the discussion from others who may be trained to do it, and the different situations in which they do. It helps to understand why we don't.

 

 

[Guest Maj Millard]

Did an hour and a half with the daughter late today. It's been a few months since we had flown, so I gave her the full passenger briefing treatment, plus involved her in the preflight, and refueling, step-by-step.

 

Probabily because of reading this post earlier today, I also briefed her specifically on what we would be doing, and not doing, if we lost it after take-off, from the particular runway we used. I even pointed out the old wartime strip just across the fence, after take-off, as the likely place for us to end up. We had a spectactular, and very relaxing flight which is always nice....................................................................Maj...

 

 

[motzartmerv]

Lads... Does the word inertia ring a bell? A 747 ( I'm told) will continue to climb for another 500-1000 ft after all throttles are pulled. A 10 tonne fighter carrying 150 + knots of forward speed is not comparable to 500 kilo acft doing 60 kts. F=ma. Pulling power ( or loosing it) in a low inertia acft increases the angle of attack almost instantly. And so the loading on the wing. Chuck her into a steep turn and come back on the stick to keel the nose up and you increase that loading even more. Now your asking too much from the wing, angle of attack goes rapidly past the critical angle and your cactus.

 

 

[Ballpoint 246niner]

Kevin probably shares the frustration of many instructors, we teach time and time again the no turn back under 500' for the plethora of examples over time as he illustrates, but in the heat of the emergency pilots continue to try it, or extend glides or so on...

 

When we see things happen that WE KNOW are not taught, yes we feel we have failed, but not for the want of discipline, practice or enforcement, but because the reality never stuck. Experience is a very hard instructor- much harder than Kev, or any other worthwhile trainer, and as another good friend says- "pilots don't find new ways to kill themselves". All pilots need to constantly remain vigilent to the reality it might happen- best reinforced by the pre takoff safety brief- so it's in the forefront of your mind.( as per Wayne's comment).

 

 

[djpacro]

A series of excellent technical articles online on this subject - go to http://www.nar-associates.com/technical-flying/technical_flying.html down the bottom to enter the site then near the bottom of the next page.

 

The most interesting is "The Feasibility of Turnback from a Low Altitude Engine Failure During the Takeoff Climb-out Phase" by Brent Jett.

 

A study in a flight simulator with 28 pilots of varying experience initially unaware what the exercise was going to be. 15% 0f the pilots ignored their standard procedures and attempted to turn back from an engine failure at 500 ft. 2/3 of the turnbacks were unsuccessful i.e. stall spin crash die.

 

100% of the straight ahead landings were successful.

 

Later in the study they were all told to attempt a turnback - more than half were unsuccessful - that is when they knew what would happen in advance.

 

Those simple statistics have convinced me - I am confident that I could demonstrate one successfully in an aeroplane of my choice that I am familiar with but I wouldn't bet my life that I would survive a turnback in a real emergency at low altitude.

 

Plus there is a video of an actual engine failure and successful turnback - with some analysis and discussion.

 

 

[Wayne T Mathews]

Wayne you would agree that there must be some height where a 180 deg or 270 deg gliding turn is going to be safely doable? Also I believe for single engine turbine aircraft CASA have a CAO which requires an EF turnback manuever be taught, so I suggest impossible is not the right word. In most cases not advisable, certainly but this would depend on the height, conditions and alternatives right?

Hmmm, I'm trying to think of a case/reason where/why I'd do a 270 deg turn after engine failure....

 

Seriously, of course there are heights where a turnback is doable. I just don't think we should be teaching it within say the first two minutes after takeoff. Which for most of our equipment, translates to something around 1,000' AGL. Not exactly "After Take Off" anymore is it? I mean to say, 2 minutes after take off, most of us have, or are about to turn onto downwind. And it's reasonable to expect that most of us could carry out a FLWOP from there with something less than about a 130 deg turn back onto the runway. Having said that, we're still going to aviate, navigate, comunicate. We're going to set glide attitude, choose where we'll land, turn towards it, and then we're going to do our emerg C/L in the minute or so we've got while we're going there.

 

Bottom line? When contact with the ground is inevitable, land straight ahead with the wings level...

 

It is true there are high performance aircraft out there like the turbines that can be operated far more aggresively than is normal for us. However, I'm unaware of any of them being on our register at this time, so I'll leave discussing them for another day.

 

 

[Bandit12]

I've seen it referred to as a 270 degree turn because if you are trying to reverse heading, a 180 turn will have you tracking in the opposite direction and parallel to the runway some distance. So the reference to turning back further to intersect, followed by a second turn back to the runway. So probably approaching 270 degrees turned in total by the time you add it up. Hardly feasible in most of the aircraft I fly. The Alpha for example glides like a brick and I wouldn't expect to be able to change headings more than 15 degrees either way below 500 AGL.

 

 

[fly_tornado]

make of this what you will

 

 

 

[motzartmerv]

Good pilot killing video is what I make of it.. Good job..

 

 

[terryc]

I enjoyed this thread. I just read it all. It interests me that in all pre take off briefs I've heard, they include will land straight ahead or 30 degrees either side unless above a set hieght then I might attempt a turn back. Why if that is so wrong don't we say,

 

In the event of an engine failure I will prepare for a controlled crash. Attempting to land straight ahead or no more than 30 degrees either way In this case the turn back is not mentioned only to say don't do it at another part of our training. Turn backs occur because their mentioned in our take off briefs, don't mention it and it won't happen. Call all landings after the engine stops as controlled crashes then the problem will go away. What do others think, I know some will say it couldn't be that simple but I think it is.

 

 

[pudestcon]

One of the definitions of 'useless' in an aviation sense has been stated as " the runway behind you". We would do well to remember this when in an EFATO situation, because the runway behind you, can't help you. Don't turn back, please.

 

Pud

 

 

[JimG]

We never say 'turn back' in any of our pre take off checks, or any other brief for that mater.

 

The last check before opening the throttle is to say out loud ' engine fails on take off we land straight ahead', that's it then go. We keep it simple, during our training we are taught that their may be the need to turn slightly left or right to a more open area and that is discussed before we enter the runway.

 

So once we are at height it then becomes a forced landing without power where there are likely to be more options in accordance with our training and the runway may be option say if we're in the downwind leg.

 

Just know your surroundings and take the out landing.

 

JimG

 

 

[sfGnome]

Although (thankfully) I've never had the experience of an unexpected EFATO, I know for absolute certain that my brain turns to mush under stress. During training, we talked about EFATOs at length. Just before entering the runway we discussed exactly what was going to happen and how I should react when the engine went out. 45 seconds later when the CFI pulled the throttle I froze, and we would have stalled straight into the trees if he hadn't been ready for me to do exactly that.

 

I know not to turn back; I visualise myself not turning back; but I have no idea exactly what I'm actually going to until the day when it actually happens. That's what scares me...

 

 

[fly_tornado]

another one. made me grab my seat a few times

 

 

 

[pudestcon]

I said the 'F' word on the 3rd turn back at 6minutes 40 seconds. 45 degree angle of bank and the stall warning bleeting madly - not for this little black duck I can tell you.

 

Pud

 

 

[Gnarly Gnu]

Yeah rather dodgy with the stall warning going like that, personally I would be much more aggressive with getting the nose down. I want to make it clear to anyone reading my earlier comments if you haven't practised this manoeuvre definitely don't try it in a real EFATO situation, far too risky then.

 

 

[Mick]

I think that alot of us are missing the point that Kev is trying make. Some of you refer to more subtle or polite ways than Kev's to reinforce not to make the impossible turn. Kev's point is that despite these less blunt ways of putting it, people still try it. Kev's blunt attitude is put across because other methods are not stopping it, hence something else must be tried. At the very least Kev has got us all talking and thinking about what we will do. If this saves just one accident no-one can say what Kev has done is wrong.

 

I have flown with Kev a few times and I could not help but be impressed by his skill and feel for an aircraft that he had not flown before. Wayne I sure know what you are saying about Kev really knowing what a rudder is about.

 

Further on ythe subject of EFATO, I was once having a discussion with an instructor about EFATO and the instructor's response was "If I think a student can handle it, I give them a couple, but if I think it will upset the student I don't do it." This attitude left me dumbfounded and angry. I argued that the ones who he thought might be upset were the ones who needed the training the most but he couldn't see my point.

 

.

 

 

[Wayne T Mathews]

Good pilot killing video is what I make of it.. Good job..

Hear hear...

 

 

[king_daniels]

Practicing the impossible turn Cessna 182 (a total irresponsible clip)

 

This was a good clip of what you should never do, you have to remember the clip above was in a controlled environment with a perfectly good motor going. I would have like to have seen him cut the motor as the plane was just going over the end of the runway, and try to get back, it can never be done. As they say, 'whatever you do, do not try this at home', take the controlled environment and the running motor out of the equation and you will end up with a different storey.

 

Daniel