You have been told - by kevin walters

[motzartmerv]

Yes kiwi. Good point. :)

 

 

[facthunter]

You don't do many tight climbing turns unless you have a heap of power. your descending turns can be tighter as you use your height.( potential energy to keep or increase airspeed) If you tighten a climbing turn you stop climbing.

 

In a very nice aircraft with good controls you will notice that in a descending turn you will have to hold a bit of aileron into the turn. As pointed out above by Kiwi,. the plane must be balanced ( ball in centre)

 

In a climbing turn the angle of attack variation effect may be masked by the effects of the propeller, but it's still there, in which case there is a need to hold aileron out of the turn. Small amount. Nev

 

 

[RetiredRacer]

Well 6 pages on and I think Ole Kev has done what he set out to do, make us sit up, take notice and most of all THINK. Yes he can have the tact of a Pitbull and he is not everybodies cup of tea but having spend a number of hours with him he does practice what he preaches and he can most certainly fly and do so safely, you do not spend a life as an Ag pilot and live to tell the tale by NOT being safe. It is this that he teaches his students as well as how to fly. I was at his place when this topic was discussed after a recent accident and I can confirm it was written out of frustration. I have read and seen the videos on these pages and from an instructors point of view you can not teach that it is possible with A/C "A" but not with A/C "B", you must teach a sure fire technique for any A/C and that is "In the event of an engine failure after take off we will land straight ahead".(The Psalm according to St Kev).I believe some of these videos, the 1 of the C182 in particular, does little to help as I am convinced that the engine was not at idle and was done at 500ft. Some student will see this and push his luck. Thes types of videos can do more harm than good.

 

Bottom line I suppose is landing straight ahead has been taught for years and the stats prove that it works.

 

My 2c

Like Dave, JimG and Wayne etc, I was trained by Kev. Lesson four I think it is "circuits", was my first taste of EFATO, and you were told to put it down in a paddock . And just about every take off after that you could expect to have the throttle shut down on you ANYTIME.

 

Kev's training was put into practice for me on the FIRST FLIGHT of our self built RV9a. On climb out the engine started to go off. It seemed to be deteriorating quickly to the point where I was expecting it to expire anytime. Turning back was not given a thought, I was too busy checking paddocks that I believed I could get into as well as trying to rectify the problem and coax the aircraft to a higher altitude. I can tell you, it was a very wide shallow turn onto downwind, while I was still checking paddocks that I could get into. It wasn't till late downwind that I considered the airfield that I had just left as an option.

 

Bob Dennis

 

 

[motzartmerv]

Great stuff...

 

 

[kiwicrusader]

Here you are guys.

 

A video showing and describing alot of what we are talking about at this point of the conversation, i.e stalling in turns.

 

I fear some of this information may inspire some of you to try these techniques. If others think that too, please let me know and i will remove the link ASAP.

 

Bare in mind this is training provided for already highly trained pilots anyway. Do not try this stuff yourself without an appropriate instructor. Obviously the aircraft isn't relative to many of us but the principles of flight are.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xwrfEsCiltc

 

 

[JimG]

Thanks Kiwicrusader, I think that video has some really good advise. I'll be saving the link and studying it further for sure.

 

cheers

 

JimG

 

 

[sfGnome]

Discussions in this thread have, amongst other things, centred on the likelihood of stalling if attempting an EFATO turn back. Clearly, if you are to not stall, then you have to keep the nose down in order to maintain the required angle of attack.

 

I had a little play around today (at 3,000 ft rather than 300!), not to see how quickly I could make the turn and/or how little height I could lose, but simply to get a pilot's eye view of a steep, no-power turn with sufficient airspeed to have no chance of stalling. I chose 45 deg bank because the ATSB state* that "the bank angle for best turn rate for height lost ... is 45deg". Theoretically, I could have used a speed of <50 kt**, but remember that I wanted "no chance" of stalling (even at 3000ft), so I kept it up in the high 60s.

 

What did I find? Well, the manoeuvre itself was easy enough to achieve, but I felt like I was pointing straight down. Not a problem at 3,000 ft, but it doesn't take much imagination to think of the overwhelming desire to pull back on the stick when that all-too-solid earth is just in front of your face.

 

A worthwhile exercise indeed. Now I'm even more convinced. Straight ahead it is.

 

*ATSB Safety report - Managing partial power loss after takeoff in single engine aircraft, AR-2010-055

 

** P2002 POH, idle power, no flaps, 45 deg bank.

 

 

[Louis Moore]

Discussions in this thread have, amongst other things, centred on the likelihood of stalling if attempting an EFATO turn back. Clearly, if you are to not stall, then you have to keep the nose down in order to maintain the required angle of attack.I had a little play around today (at 3,000 ft rather than 300!), not to see how quickly I could make the turn and/or how little height I could lose, but simply to get a pilot's eye view of a steep, no-power turn with sufficient airspeed to have no chance of stalling. I chose 45 deg bank because the ATSB state* that "the bank angle for best turn rate for height lost ... is 45deg". Theoretically, I could have used a speed of <50 kt**, but remember that I wanted "no chance" of stalling (even at 3000ft), so I kept it up in the high 60s.

 

What did I find? Well, the manoeuvre itself was easy enough to achieve, but I felt like I was pointing straight down. Not a problem at 3,000 ft, but it doesn't take much imagination to think of the overwhelming desire to pull back on the stick when that all-too-solid earth is just in front of your face.

 

A worthwhile exercise indeed. Now I'm even more convinced. Straight ahead it is.

 

*ATSB Safety report - Managing partial power loss after takeoff in single engine aircraft, AR-2010-055

 

** P2002 POH, idle power, no flaps, 45 deg bank.

Great idea Gnome

 

 

[eightyknots]

What did I find? Well, the manoeuvre itself was easy enough to achieve, but I felt like I was pointing straight down. Not a problem at 3,000 ft, but it doesn't take much imagination to think of the overwhelming desire to pull back on the stick when that all-too-solid earth is just in front of your face.

A worthwhile exercise indeed. Now I'm even more convinced. Straight ahead it is.

Thanks for telling us about this exercise.

 

It looks overwhelmingly like the correct approach to an EFATO problem is in order of preference/safety (1) straight ahead, or (2) 90 degrees either side of straight ahead depending on altitude. Turn-arounds are not a valid/safe option.

 

 

[eightyknots]

I should add that this thread has been very worthwhile reading and I have been impressed by the many contributions made by a number of pilots of different backgrounds/experience levels. The principal focus has been on safety and saving lives ...and informing low-time/student pilots like myself what's best in the circumstances. My thanks to all who have written on this thread.

 

I, for one, have been very convinced about what to do should I be faced with EFATO in future.

 

 

[turboplanner]

or (2) 90 degrees either side of straight ahead depending on altitude.

Not sure where you got 90 degrees from, normally the advice is 30 degrees, sometimes 45.

 

I got 30 degrees turn in one, heading for the paddock just missed a B Double going along the highway and still got bawled at for not keeping the nose down. So there's not muh clearnce to play around with.

 

Engine failure after takeoff is much lower than a forced landing in the circuit, that's where a lot of confusion is coming in.

 

 

[facthunter]

That's true Turbz. A comment on the drifter at 45 degrees bank. To get a high speed on a drifter without power on requires a very nose down attitude, so to maximise the efficiency you should only use the speed necessary to give you stall margin. You are correct to err on the high side, but familiarity with stick stall position should keep you safe if you practice it. Nev

 

 

[eightyknots]

Not sure where you got 90 degrees from, normally the advice is 30 degrees, sometimes 45.I got 30 degrees turn in one, heading for the paddock just missed a B Double going along the highway and still got bawled at for not keeping the nose down. So there's not muh clearnce to play around with.

 

Engine failure after takeoff is much lower than a forced landing in the circuit, that's where a lot of confusion is coming in.

The 90 degrees either side advice was from Jim: see post #113 for the full story.

 

 

[facthunter]

It would be "up to" 90 surely. The wind direction should be a factor as well as obstacles. Downwind landings are not desireable. If your aircraft has a really slow stall speed into wind gives a good groundspeed possibility , though if you are amongst buildings/trees you would need extra margin of speed to maintain control associated with mechanical turbulence.. Maintaining control to contact is the aim . Nev

 

 

[eightyknots]

It would be "up to" 90 surely. The wind direction should be a factor as well as obstacles. Downwind landings are not desireable. If your aircraft has a really slow stall speed into wind gives a good groundspeed possibility , though if you are amongst buildings/trees you would need extra margin of speed to maintain control associated with mechanical turbulence.. Maintaining control to contact is the aim . Nev

After reading these ten pages and nearly 200 posts, I am 100% convinced that landing after an EFATO is the best option. However, Jim (post #113) opined that up to 90 degrees either side of the centreline was acceptable.

 

Nev, I am happy to be advised that a narrower deviation either side of the centreline is better because I felt that a 90 degree bank into a downwind situation is not advisabe either. Perhaps the rule-of-thumb should be modified slightly to something like this:

 

"EFATO landings should be straight ahead in the first instance OR (only if landing straight ahead is likely to lead to probable loss of life) up to 45 degrees either side of the centreline but less if turning into downwind direction."

 

 

[facthunter]

Yeah that's fine. I am trying to remember the briefing. It is something like "land straight ahead only turning to avoid major obstacles". This was the basic concept that has been refined a little over the years. The thing with this is that you should evaluate the takeoff situation prior to opening the throttle. You should be familiar with the areas that you are flying over, and pretty much have a plan.. How many of us do this? Where it is fully built up, you are going to have to eyeball it and good luck to you, because you will need it . I frankly would not like to operate out of places like that, on single engined aircraft..( Unless they are Turbo props.)..Nev

 

 

[sfGnome]

A comment on the drifter at 45 degrees bank. To get a high speed on a drifter without power on requires a very nose down attitude, so to maximise the efficiency you should only use the speed necessary to give you stall margin. You are correct to err on the high side, but familiarity with stick stall position should keep you safe if you practice it. Nev

Thanks for the comment, Nev, and more than happy to agree. One minor clarification that doesn't really impact the conversation at all - it was a Tecnam P2002, not a drifter, but the concept is still just as valid.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Now I am going to look at it from another angle. Let's take a figure - say 800 ft. You know from experience that you can just make it back on to the runway from 800 ft over the upwind threshold. So if you are at 750 ft you are going to die. What percentage of the time do you find yourself over the upwind threshold at 800 ft or above in a light single? Shall we say a generous 5%.

Now I must introduce one more factor. We have to take another guess. What are your chances of survival if you limit your choice of landing places to a 180 degree arc (90 degrees either side of straight ahead). OK this is a big guess because if you only operate out of Rand your chances are very different to only operating out of say Kimberley. But let's put a figure to an "average" field, if there is such a thing, and call it 70% survival.

Eightyknots quoted Jim Davis, but Jim Davis was talking about an altitude of 750 feet.

 

Put 90 degrees into your EFATO reaction subconscious and you could kill yourself at lower altitude.

 

I would consider this just about out of true EFATO territory, almost a crosswind failure, and I would agree with Facthunter that you don't want to go trying to land in a rough paddock with trees, stumps and fences at downwind groundspeed which will be above your already 120 km/hr or so touchdown speed.

 

Working on a 65 kt approach speed and 15 kt wind, you would be landing at 92 km/hr straight ahead, 148 km/hr downwind, and 120 km/hr (normal zero wind speed) crosswind

 

This has the potential of being a very good learning thread.

 

Moderators, I'd like to see the thread name change to EFATO - You have been told by Kevin Walters, and the fake videos deleted, (we now know they were not EFATO's, and could kill someone who copied them).

 

That way in a year's time someone can search for EFATO and get a result, rather than skip past "you have been told"

 

 

[Gnarly Gnu]

Can you perhaps start another thread to list what you would like censored or deleted and what you consider fake etc? They way you could cover all the various threads that cause concern.

 

 

[turboplanner]

N

 

 

[eightyknots]

Eightyknots quoted Jim Davis, but Jim Davis was talking about an altitude of 750 feet.Put 90 degrees into your EFATO reaction subconscious and you could kill yourself at lower altitude.

 

I would consider this just about out of true EFATO territory, almost a crosswind failure, and I would agree with Facthunter that you don't want to go trying to land in a rough paddock with trees, stumps and fences at downwind groundspeed which will be above your already 120 km/hr or so touchdown speed.

 

Working on a 65 kt approach speed and 15 kt wind, you would be landing at 92 km/hr straight ahead, 148 km/hr downwind, and 120 km/hr (normal zero wind speed) crosswind

 

This has the potential of being a very good learning thread.

 

Moderators, I'd like to see the thread name change to EFATO - You have been told by Kevin Walters, and the fake videos deleted, (we now know they were not EFATO's, and could kill someone who copied them).

 

That way in a year's time someone can search for EFATO and get a result, rather than skip past "you have been told"

Turbz, I think someone (you?) should start an EFATO thread which should commence with the good bits from this thread. I'm not into censorship and bans, etc, because readers of this thread will be able to discern the good from the not-so-good if they are diligent enough to read it properly. I have found it very instructive and part of that has been the debate on various aspects of EFATO on this thread. If the Cessna videos were removed from this thread (along with all the warnings that came after it), then anyone finding this video elsewhere may not be informed of the wrong contents. One example was that it was pretty obvious to me that the engine was not at full idle: this gives the whole exercise a false impression which could be misleading and even fatal.

 

I do like your idea for starting an EFATO thread though (rather than trying to tamper with this thread). Hopefully it won't run out to ten pages and 200 posts so that it could be a "reference tool" for beginning/low time pilots. If someone does this, there should be a reference on this thread to the new one.

 

 

[eightyknots]

For further QUALITY information about EFATO please refer to the new THREAD at this location on the FORUM:

 

http://www.recreationalflying.com/threads/e-f-a-t-o-reference-thread-quality-information-only.40773/

 

 

[turboplanner]

I just asked for the heading to be changed to add the word EFATO at the beginning, and for the fake EFATO videos top be moderated out. Can't see people being too excited about starting it all over again. When threads are split we usually lose the lot.

 

 

[eightyknots]

I just asked for the heading to be changed to add the word EFATO at the beginning, and for the fake EFATO videos top be moderated out. Can't see people being too excited about starting it all over again. When threads are split we usually lose the lot.

I would not be happy about the unhelpful videos being removed because all the following commentary then loses its usefulness/becomes irrelevant. Perhaps I should just copy and paste the good commentary on this thread in the new EFATO thread? I know this is subjective but may be I should paste in the bits I personally found useful.

 

I'll probably being doing a future recreational aviation pilot a big favour if they're doing a search on EFATO and then they only get the better quality information without the cr@p, trOll-like commentary and irresponsible videos that has filled up this thread.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Agree with you about the loss of continuity, hadn't thought of that.

 

Sounds like a good idea.

 

The aim is to build up readily available good quality reference material