E F A T O reference thread: quality information only :-)

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

It is in the training syllabus I went through in two GA schools, in simpler form: "Until crosswind if the engine fails, nose down, maintain 70 kts* straight ahead, pick a contact point, quick fuel/mixture/switches, Mayday if you can"That way you are always going to contact the ground flying, so you can flare and evade obstacles, and you will be facing into the wind for minimum ground speed.

A Forced Landing was a different sequence where the minimum height it would occur at was above 500 feet.

 

The turn on to crosswind was a Rate 1 turn (15 degrees)

 

The turns on to downwind, Base and Final were Rate 2 turns (30 degrees)

 

This meant that in the circuit area we had a big margin of safety in all turns which took care of the times when we may encounter a buffet, or brain fade/loss of concentration

 

Out of about 200 students/members we only lost one in about a decade and he disappeared over Bass Strait after seeing lights following him.

 

The training for a steep turn was a power increase to 2500 rpm at 30 degrees, increased lookout scans and maximum of 45 degrees, which also provide a safety buffer.

 

I notice RA people frequently using 45 and 60 degree turns, and assume they just haven't been through the culture which allows for a good safety margin.

 

*Cherokee

What you describe is what I was taught, too - but generally from about 100 to 150 feet (and with risk of scaring somebody's chooks). What I am describing is quite different; for a start, you DON'T do it at low level - you could do it from 500 feet, in a designated low flying area, and break off at 100 feet, saying, "There, you see it takes over 400 feet" - or whatever. It's a demonstration of how much height is actually required, i.e. more than the student expected; and that is NOT in the syllabus, to my understanding. This is not something to bring in at early solo stage; but I suggest pilot training isn't complete without something of this sort.

For your interest, here's what my spreadsheet showed on height loss Vs bank angle. The bottom curve is at sea level; the top one at 8000 ft density altitude. Note that the turn is not the dominating factor in the height loss; the loss on the initial roll-in and the turn reversal is about equal to the loss in the actual turn itself. This is for a glider having about 23:1 glide ratio at 60 KCAS; but the relativities will be similar for most aircraft.

 

 

 

[M61A1]

what frame of mind, will a proper, and detailed pre take off briefing about EFATO, put you in before you firewall the throttle.??pre briefing is picture thinking of the moment the what if shxx happened in other words you have to be ahead of your aircraft EFATO does happen will happen neil

The briefing itself will achieve bugger all, the proper sequence needs to be practiced. I can recall several situations where pilots have carried out exactly what was practiced , unfortunately, they had practiced only touching the switch or control, not operating it as per their checklist.

 

 

[facthunter]

If you accept drifting downwind after lift off (which is quite contentious, and you won't be doing it in airlines) you lose the ability to dump it back on the runway straight ahead on initial climb. If you are of the opinion that the runway behind you is no use and full length, (no intersection) departures are the thing, then you wouldn't drift off centreline till the runway was no further use to you either, to be consistent.

 

Not maintaining extended runway centreline is considered bad flying and I was always taught to attempt to do it to pretty close tolerances as part of flying a good standard circuit.

 

I believe a STEEP turn is 60 degrees or more, but what is a "normal" bank angle? I would say 15 for climbing and 30 normally seems to be accepted on other occasions.

 

The smaller the turn radius the quicker you stop going where you don't want to be and start to go somewhere else which you have DECIDED (for better or worse) is desired.

 

Steep turns may REQUIRE the nose be lowered even with full power to keep the airspeed at a safe level. With NO engine you will have the nose lowered for normal glide and IF you are to do a steep turn is may have to be VERY MUCH lowered, particularly with a plane that has a poor L/D ratio, but they can be safely done with practice.

 

Legally it might be considered an aerobatic manoeuver, so that is something to take into account and you are loading up the airframe and may exceed some limitations , with some particular aircraft. Again do this in an appropriate plane and with a competent instructor.

 

Steep gliding turns were part of the PPL syllabus pre solo. They should be taught in conjunction with Spirals and recovery techniques.

 

IF you are certain you will NEVER get into one don't bother to learn this , otherwise do it. Nev

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

Well, I thought I was writing in English, but judging by the responses on this thread, maybe not.

 

The aircraft I'll be flying is a motorglider of fairly modest performance. My preparation for an EFATO will be, to have determined the height loss in the turn-back manoeuvre that I have described, on a hot day at altitude. I'll put a disc of thin perspex on the face of the altimeter, held on with a dab of glycerine, with a reference marker on it. Part of the pre-takeoff check will be to set the reference marker to a height equal to the runway altitude, plus the height loss in the EFATO turn, plus the estimated height of any trees , power lines etc that would have to be cleared when gliding back in, plus 50 feet. If the altimeter does not reach the reference mark as I climb out over the obstacles, I will know that I cannot make a turn-back until after the crosswind turn.

 

The rest of you can do as you damn well please, but that's my way of tackling the issue.

 

 

[M61A1]

Well, I thought I was writing in English, but judging by the responses on this thread, maybe not. The aircraft I'll be flying is a motorglider of fairly modest performance. My preparation for an EFATO will be, to have determined the height loss in the turn-back manoeuvre that I have described, on a hot day at altitude. I'll put a disc of thin perspex on the face of the altimeter, held on with a dab of glycerine, with a reference marker on it. Part of the pre-takeoff check will be to set the reference marker to a height equal to the runway altitude, plus the height loss in the EFATO turn, plus the estimated height of any trees , power lines etc that would have to be cleared when gliding back in, plus 50 feet. If the altimeter does not reach the reference mark as I climb out over the obstacles, I will know that I cannot make a turn-back until after the crosswind turn.

 

The rest of you can do as you damn well please, but that's my way of tackling the issue.

A china graph pencil may work well for this, easy to mark, easy to stow, easy to clean off.

[motzartmerv]

Doesnt take long does it. Started out good, and as usual, turns to sh!t..

 

 

[paulh]

It was drilled into me during training NO thought of turn back at all unless already turned to crosswind and 700ft agl - we did practice turn backs with this criteria in training all ok but what did cause me consternation was how much runway got eaten up when downwind and how much faster the ground speed was, lots of side slipping required and heavy braking to stop before the imaginary fence line (for the purpose of practice only, was actually a safe length of runway available) - it was discussed of course beforehand but nothing like the actual experience to really make you aware.

 

Perhaps this aspect could be expounded on in training, for many ultralights the length of runway ahead even if very short may be better than the length of runway behind , especially if the wind is a bit strong.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Oh FFS..Tubz..For starters, a RATE of turn is not defined by degrees. Its a a RATE of turn and depends on airspeed.

Steep turns at 45 degs are not what I would call steep:). 60 deg's has plenty of "safety margin' built in and is defined in the day vfr syllabus as "a steep turn" and should be demo'd during a licence test.

 

I like the crosswind turn as a cut off point for making a decision though.

Funny you would use FFS on me when Ispecifically said I was referring to a formal training syllabus.

 

Rate 1 and Rate 2 were descriptions used at the time, they were not definitions, and even the government tester would ask for a Rate 2 turn.

 

A steep turn is defined in the day vfr syllabus as 45 to 60 degrees. You may not call 45 degrees steep and you may use 60 degrees, but it's right out at the edge of the syllabus and was not taught for PPL in aircraft which had a much higher degree of dynamic stability design than many of the aircraft we see in RA today. There was a simpler transition to recovery techniques and even basic aerobatics, certainly if you wanted it because there were usually three or four Aerobats on line.

 

Given the number of people dropping out of the sky just because the engine fails today, I'd be leaning towards a bigger margin of safety; Rate 2 turns still allow you to fly the tightest circuits in the average group if you want to.

 

 

[Yenn]

We should be talking about 1 minute turns or 2 minute turns, rather than rate 1 or 2. Those turns are defined and marked on the T&B instrument if you have one. If you don't have the instrument for a standard turn just try for 3deg per second angle of bank about 17deg for 100knots.

 

 

[facthunter]

Not trying to be contentious , but "Rate" turns are pretty much an Instrument Flight Rules procedure thing. Bank angle is a more universal (if simplistic) concept and easier related to increase of dynamic loads and hence stall speed variation. The first Gyro instrument I would have in a plane is a rate turn needle, though, because you CAN fly IFR on it. Nev

 

 

[turboplanner]

OK I give up, Yenn I actually look at the thingys which say 15 and 30. and stick out at what looks like 15 and 30 degrees

 

So the turn onto crosswind is 15 degrees and the turns on to Downwind, Base and Final are at 30 degrees, and you will have a very comfortable safety margin for a lapse or mistake.

 

 

[motzartmerv]

Yes, hence my confusion why it would be included in any sort of patter in VFR turns onto crosswind etc.

 

Im aware what the syllabus says tubz,:) I fail to see the point in dynamic stability, and how it relates to a pilot being tested "IAW with syllabus"?

 

Just to add to your 'concerns" I also teach stalls at 60 deg AOB. IAW with the syllabus and the POH.

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

A china graph pencil may work well for this, easy to mark, easy to stow, easy to clean off.

Have you not met the glycerine trick? If you need to put some sort of adjustable index onto an instrument that does not have a turnable bezel ring, a disc of thin Perspex will stay on the face for years if attached by a bit of glycerine; the glycerine fills the space between the two and gives perfect vision through the combination. Used to be a common trick for putting a speed-to-fly ring onto a variometer. You can turn it with a finger, and it will stay where you leave it.

 

 

[rgmwa]

A steep turn is defined in the day vfr syllabus as 45 to 60 degrees. You may not call 45 degrees steep and you may use 60 degrees, but it's right out at the edge of the syllabus and was not taught for PPL in aircraft which had a much higher degree of dynamic stability design than many of the aircraft we see in RA today.

I was taught 45 and 60 deg steep turns as part of my PPL training, and was tested on both.

 

rgmwa

 

 

[M61A1]

Have you not met the glycerine trick? If you need to put some sort of adjustable index onto an instrument that does not have a turnable bezel ring, a disc of thin Perspex will stay on the face for years if attached by a bit of glycerine; the glycerine fills the space between the two and gives perfect vision through the combination. Used to be a common trick for putting a speed-to-fly ring onto a variometer. You can turn it with a finger, and it will stay where you leave it.

Not heard of it, It just sounded like a lot of effort when I could just use a chinagraph pencil. Even Mirage pilots used them to write stuff on the canopy, like call signs and frequencies.

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

Not heard of it, It just sounded like a lot of effort when I could just use a chinagraph pencil. Even Mirage pilots used them to write stuff on the canopy, like call signs and frequencies.

Either way would do it. However, if people wanted a simple gadget to make the pilot conscious of the turn-back height-loss issue, then one could put two marks on the perspex disc, spaced apart by a suitable margin to cover a typical turn-back manoeuvre plus, say, 100 feet - and just turn the disc to align the lower mark with the altimeter large needle as part of the pre-take off check. One could add "not above" and the density altitude at which the zero-flap climb gradient equalled the best glide gradient. The chinagraph pencil way does have the advantage of requiring the pilot to think about it, I suppose.

This thread asked for constructive suggestions as to how to improve the turn-back accident rate; making the pilot conscious of the physics of the situation and giving him a simple go/noGo criterion would seem to me more constructive than arguing about the definition of a steep turn. There seems to be an underlying misapprehension that the steeper the turn one can make in a turn-back manoeuvre, the better. This is incorrect; there's a trade-off between how long it takes to fly the turn, and the rate of height loss due to the increased induced drag. RAA aircraft are certificated for "normal category" flight manoeuvres, which include turns up to 60 degrees angle of bank. In a 60 degree turn, the load factor is 2.0, so the speed needs to be not less than 1.5 times the stall speed.

 

Now, the minimum drag speed (at which the parasite and induced components of drag are equal) is usually less than 1.5 times stall speed, so the induced drag may contribute perhaps 40% of the total drag, in level flight. However, the induced drag increases in proportion to the square of the load factor, so in this case, the rate of sink would increase by (0.6 + 0.4n^2), where n = load factor, compared to level flight. At 60 degrees bank, that gives 2.2 times the level-flight rate of sink. Therefore, there is an optimum angle of bank in order to turn back with the minimum loss of height. It works out at 44 degrees for the case I analysed, but as it depends solely on the bank angle and how much above the speed for minimum drag one has to fly, that's not going to vary much from one aircraft type to another, and so the optimum bank angle isn't going to vary much from one aircraft to another.

 

This is hardly rocket science; all you need to know is what the minimum drag speed is in a level glide, and even the average flight instructor should then be able to work out what the optimum bank angle is for that aircraft.

 

 

[metalman]

OK I give up, Yenn I actually look at the thingys which say 15 and 30. and stick out at what looks like 15 and 30 degreesSo the turn onto crosswind is 15 degrees and the turns on to Downwind, Base and Final are at 30 degrees, and you will have a very comfortable safety margin for a lapse or mistake.

That's pretty standard for a circuit, I'd be surprised if anyone is teaching different, what is worrying is you may not have been taught to do STEEP turns, depending on the type you can end up in a spiral if your not propery trained, going by some of your posts lately I'd suggest you get with an instructor before you get into trouble, ask them to show you the relation between turning and increasing stall speed and you will see how much margin you actually have .

Matty

 

 

[motzartmerv]

Daffyd, the load factor is not 2 in a 60 deg angle of bank DECENDing turn. Only a level turn. :) just sayin.

 

If we are going to be constructive, we need to be accurate hey?

 

 

[turboplanner]

That's pretty standard for a circuit, I'd be surprised if anyone is teaching different, what is worrying is you may not have been taught to do STEEP turns, depending on the type you can end up in a spiral if your not propery trained, going by some of your posts lately I'd suggest you get with an instructor before you get into trouble, ask them to show you the relation between turning and increasing stall speed and you will see how much margin you actually have .Matty

When you read the posts on here it's obvious that people ARE teaching different, and that's why I posted.

 

My first steep turn was in a Chipmunk, and it was ninety degrees because I was imitating another pilot who'd been showing off to me. The instructor just let it fall into the spin for a few rotations and that was a good lesson as anyone knows who has spun a Chipmunk

 

I have dropped into a Spiral Dive from 60 degrees in a J170 with an instructor and it's easy, so saying there's plenty of margin is BS

 

I have been trained in steep turns, steep descending turns, and stall turns among other things.

 

And maybe I'm not wording my posts simply enough but the relationship between turning and increasing stall speeds was the very reason I raised the subject.

 

 

[aro]

The relationship between angle of bank and stall speed is drummed into us, and we are repeatedly told not to bank too steeply to maintain a margin.

 

It would be interesting to know however, how many stall/spin accidents were caused by too much bank, and how many by too little bank. Keeping a shallow angle of bank, a bit of back pressure to avoid losing height and a bit of rudder because you feel like the turn is too slow is a bad combination.

 

 

[Bandit12]

At the risk of being put into that category, I'm afraid I'm another of the skeptics about the value of psychologists in this and many other areas. I know a few of them well, having three with family links, and by their own admission in many cases they do little or nothing more than put labels on conditions for ludicrously high fees.When I was in high school we had the usual percentage of unruly and disruptive students. They got the cane more often than the rest of us and left school with final year exam passes and went on into the workforce. These days we have half a million kids with the ADHD label who have never had their bottom smacked because its illegal and would be immoral anyway because they have a mental 'condition'. It's not their fault, it's not the parents fault either, and the vast majority will never complete school, will never get a job and will instead spend their lives living off welfare and crime. In my opinion that's thanks to the psychologists mainly.

 

My wife had a mental block about parallel parking because she'd once bumped another car while reversing. Unknown to me at the time, she used to park the car a mile or more from the shopping centre to avoid parallel parking spaces. If I'd followed the thinking above she'd still be carrying the shopping a mile back to the car. Instead I spent a couple of afternoons with her practicing parallel parking over and over until she got it perfect. Now she doesn't give it a second thought. A psychologist would have told me to back off and never mention it for fear of causing my wife stress which might result in her having a crash elsewhere.

HITC - I love reading your flying stories, and have enjoyed immensely your technical discussions too. However I feel it would be too much to let these comments go unchallenged. Firstly, the science of assessment has advanced much quicker than the science of treatment in psychology, hence many psychologists are better at diagnosis than treatment. That is where the science is at the moment, but does not take away the fact that there is a considerable body of research to support the efficacy of the treatments that we have. There are always going to be those that hand out labels for large figures as you say, but that says more to their competence as an individual than to the profession. Note that most of us have seen or heard of poor flying instructors as well.

 

Secondly, there is an epidemic of ADHD diagnoses, and in probably about 9 out of 10 times it is a misdiagnosis. But let's not forget where it starts usually. Teacher says to parent "Little Johnny seems to be having trouble paying attention, maybe you should get him assessed for ADHD". and then the parent heads off in a panic to the GP, sometimes then to a psychologist, other times to a psychiatrist or paediatrician. If they head to a psychiatrist, there is a fair chance that they will undertake minimal assessment and prescribe stimulants. If they head to a psychologist, there is a good chance that they will get one of your before mentioned hopeless ones unless they live in one of the capital cities, when they might get to see a proper specialist. If they can afford the 6 hours spent assessing a kid, they might find that they had a specific learning difficulty, or one of about 20 other conditions that explains inattentiveness. But they aren't going to get that sort of investigation from a GP, and likely not from most medical specialists who are even more expensive and don't have the time. Since 2005 there has been a 5 fold increase in the number of kids in Australia prescribed Ritalin, and psychologists aren't able to prescribe. So it is a bit rich to say that it is "thanks to the psychologists mainly". And this isn't even touching the problem of people in society now, both parents and kids, who are desperate to blame someone or something else, and will doctor shop until they find someone who will sign off on their belief.

 

Thirdly, your story regarding your wife's difficulty with parking is clearly flavoured by your belief (not knowledge) of how psychologists work. Seriously, you think that psychologists are that crippled by the fear of a parking bungle trauma? Good heavens, let's hope that psychologists never have to see someone with a big problem like an eating disorder. We couldn't talk about that either for fear of the client beating themselves about the head with a banana from the stress! As I said, I love your flying stories and always enjoy the depth of knowledge and experience that you bring into a flying discussion, but you need to bring more than hearsay and personal bias if you want to rubbish a profession in which some people have committed just as much time and energy on perfecting as you did in your profession.

 

For the naysayers who question the value of psychological research into aviation, I challenge you to answer this. What good (on a broad scale) is talking about it on a forum doing? And if the industry and pilots continue to do the same as they are currently, how do you expect anything to change? If the psychologists and researchers come out with nothing useful, the chances are that nothing will be any worse. Motzartmerv, I look forward to reading the research and am glad that you are involved to keep them grounded. Better that researchers work with industry than be left to run away by themselves......!!!

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

Daffyd, the load factor is not 2 in a 60 deg angle of bank DECENDing turn. Only a level turn. :) just sayin.If we are going to be constructive, we need to be accurate hey?

If you want to be precise about it, the load factor is 2 in a balanced (i.e. no slip or skid) 60 degree turn, whether it's climbing, level, or descending. However, I agree that one can turn the aircraft via a variety of other manoeuvres - even a stall turn if you have sufficient speed in hand - that involve a lower load factor whilst you are actually turning; but they all involve a recovery that DOES require an increased load factor; in a sense, they simply postpone the increased load factor. They're all aerobatic manoeuvres, however, and can easily exceed the flight envelope of a recreational aircraft. Since it turns out that the optimum bank angle is less than 60 degrees, the turn-back manoeuvre I described is well within the flight envelope, and also within the normal pilot capability of an RAA pilot.

The cable-break situation in gliding is relevant to this discussion, I believe, because it does NOT require any extreme flying whatsoever; once you have the nose down and the speed back to what it should be, the rest of it is ordinary flying requiring no special skills. However, if you make the mistake of racking the glider into a turn as soon as the nose is down but before the speed is back up, all seems to go well until you come to try to roll out of the turn - at which point you discover that the glider is actually in a fully developed spin; the result is almost inevitably fatal. So hasty or fancy flying is the LAST thing anybody should be teaching. The KISS principle applies, with a vengeance.

 

 

[BlurE]

Firstly this is not coming from experience - I have far, far too little to suggest that.

 

But I have been thinking about this a lot and wonder about a very simple 3 step technique.

 

1. Quickly get the nose down until your attitude visual looks like a final approach.

 

2. Trim full back - do not move the elevator from this position.

 

(Not forward. Not backward. Not at all)

 

3. Do what ever turns are going to get you to the best landing option at this attitude.

 

The logic for each point is as follows.

 

1 Obviously from a climb attitude we need to regain or at least maintain speed somewhere near best glide which is probably around where you were at Vx – Vy. But without power this will take a significant change in pitch. This is basic stuff. But the point is - without looking at your laggy ASI - pitch down until it looks like your approach attitude – something everyone even a low time student should recognise. This will be close to what you need.

 

2. I believe there is some reg which prevents any trim condition that allows a stall - so this is safe. Importantly, full back trim can be set without looking. On power systems they cut out automatically. Full back trim will give you an attitude for “near to” best glide. Necessarily best glide at less than MTOW, not necessarily best glide for wind penetration but the best glide you have time to set at only a few hundred feet AGL. Even you you don't get to full back trim. keep that "final approach" attitude

 

3. Now you can focus on manoeuvring - safely. Just make turns - as steep as you need - but no pitch changes. Provided you don’t pull back any further you can’t stall. If you can’t stall you can’t enter a spin- no matter how messy you footwork is. The attitude set is going to give you the best practical and safe use of the energy you have. Because without power that’s all you have.

 

The last thing to do flare to minimise contact angle and speed. But I think this is instinctive enough. This should be the only point you pull back.

 

At no time in this process did you look down at your airspeed, altitude or anything else. Your eyes and mind were always outside flying the plane.

 

Alright - I have put it out there - fire away...

 

 

[motzartmerv]

Ok daffyd, I will remember that. Keep the speed up and I won't stall. Got it. Thank you.

 

 

[motzartmerv]

Bandit send me your email addey and ill send you what we have so far.

 

Cheers mate