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

[SDQDI]

I gotta agree with Merv we are all talking of muscle memory well I think you will find that a lot of those that have tried and failed the impossible turn have more than 1 or 2 hundred hours quiet a few of them have thousands of hours plenty of time to develop muscle memory but they still lose control of the plane if that's not a wake up to the lot of us then we are thicker than pine sap in the winter time!!

 

 

[facthunter]

I find the losing control a bit worrying. The statistics are there. I happens FREQUENTLY. Turning onto final from a base with downwind , overshooting the runway centreline and trying to pull the plane around too sharply.

 

Why ? I don't know I haven't done it and no one I've flown with has done it, but uncoordinated turns ( Slips or skids) and getting too slow would have to be the issue. Training must be the answer. Perhaps some who fly don't have what it takes. We tend to assume everybody can do it. I know a few who shouldn't and some have given up. Some keep flying when they should give it up. Some should have never taken it up. Nev

 

 

[dazza 38]

People have died because they have picked a spot eg- the runway behind them in a EFATO and simply forgot to fly the aeroplane because they were too busy focusing on making the runway or paddock. Focus on flying the aircraft and not on trying to make it back to the runway or landing spot. What happens is peeps stretch the glide if they are are coming up short of their aim point.

 

 

[planesmaker]

After reading this thread I thought it best to find out just how much height is lost in a turn back (210' plus 30') in my J400. At 3500 over the strip with one notch of flap at 70kts I pulled the power waited just a bit and pulled it into about 45' bank turn. The result in a lightly loaded condition was 500 ft. I think it's a reasonable policy to make no turn backs before turning crosswind( not talking gliders). After turning crosswind then there is a much smaller angle to turn through though a good paddock if available could still be the better alternative. If climbing straight ahead then I would consider 1000' to be a minimum before considering turning back. It really is a matter of repeated training to reinforce this response in pilots.

 

Even at 1000' a pilot can come undone by stalling it in the turn under the stress of the situation.

 

After a local fellow was involved in a fatal seemingly stall/spin accident I took the local RAAus instructor flying just to try and get the jab to do something nasty. We tried all sorts of stalls, power on power off,flaps, full flaps , turning stalls, crossed control stalls. We really tried to get it to bite. All I can say is thank you Rod Stiff for making a very safe airframe. We were both duly impressed with the handling of the Jab.

 

I know that this thread is about EFATO however I would like to suggest the stall/spin turning onto final is a very close relative which also needs addressing. Tom

 

 

[Head in the clouds]

... I took the local RAAus instructor flying just to try and get the jab to do something nasty. We tried all sorts of stalls, power on power off,flaps, full flaps , turning stalls, crossed control stalls. We really tried to get it to bite. All I can say is thank you Rod Stiff for making a very safe airframe. We were both duly impressed with the handling of the Jab ........ I know that this thread is about EFATO however I would like to suggest the stall/spin turning onto final is a very close relative which also needs addressing ....

I think that people need to understand that ALL aeroplanes can and will bite if you bring all the wrong factors together at the same time. And the Jabiru is no different, I've demonstrated it a couple of times to a friend who was getting a bit sloppy in his turns.

 

In my opinion it's this kind of 'kind handling' statement that Cirrus used to promote the SR22 that was actually responsible for sloppy pilots buying them because they believed they could pretty much do anything with them and the airframe design was 'so advanced' and so 'anti-spin' that you couldn't hurt yourself. I think they now have the highest circuit stall-spin incident record of all in the USA don't they?

 

I don't want to hijack the EFATO thread but I agree that there can never be too much effort put into preventing the final turn stall/spin so, although it's been discussed numerous times before, and at the risk of invoking the OP's wrath ...

 

When you took your local instructor and failed to make the Jabiru bite I'd suggest you didn't replicate the skidded turn onto final. If you get the chance to try again be sure you're ready for what happens if you don't correct it immediately, i.e. it will flip onto it's back in a blink. If you're ready for it you can correct it the moment it begins but it'll give you enough of a fright to be able to recognise the condition in the future.

 

The usual way the skidded turn onto final kills people is that they're lower than they should be so are either slow or nose high, or both, and it's a day when they happen to have a tailwind on the base leg. They turn onto final using the usual sight picture but the tailwind pushes them beyond the runway centreline. Because they're low they resist banking as much as they should to tighten the turn, instead using lots of 'bottom' rudder which seems to help, at least, to point the nose where they'd like to be facing. The extra rudder makes the aircraft tend to bank more but that doesn't feel nice close to the ground so they hold off bank with opposite (top) aileron. Due to the now uncoordinated turn the drag goes way up resulting in the aircraft descending, so they raise the nose even further. The inside wing will stall first due to its aileron being down, making its angle of attack higher than the outside wing's AoA. At the moment the inside wing starts to drop due to the loss of lift as it stalls, the pilot adds more 'top' aileron to pick the wing up but it just deepens the stall and the plane flips inverted and begins to spin.

 

People frequently confuse skids and slips but they are fundamentally different, a skid is pro-spin and a slip is anti-spin. Neither will cause anything nasty unless you stall while doing them. The problem comes about from the influences that fool people into getting into a skid and stalling at the same time - the botched turn onto final brings all the bad aspects of the stalled skid together at the same time.

 

The easiest way to envisage the difference between the skid and the slip is that in the slip you have 'top rudder' and in the skid you have 'bottom rudder'. Slips are usually deliberate so you are aware of the need to keep the nose down, and tending to do so anyway because you are usually using the slip to lose height without gaining speed. The skid is usually inadvertent and comes about from a reluctance to use a high bank angle when a tighter turn is needed.

 

If you want to feel the skidded spin entry without hurting yourself take an instructor and go up high, make a low power, low speed turn with a shallow bank angle and a high nose angle, just as if turning onto final from a too low position and having overshot the runway centreline. If you're turning left, add left rudder to 'tighten' the turn but don't let the bank angle increase, use right aileron to prevent it from increasing. Keep increasing the 'tightness' by adding left rudder and adding more right aileron and keep the left bank angle at about 15-20 degrees. If you keep the nose high it will stall the inside wing in due course and that wing will start to drop - be ready, it can be very quick. If you try to pick the wing up with more aileron you'll spin but if you go with the wing drop i.e. add left aileron, the nose will drop and you'll fly away from it. That's how quick you can save the situation if you do stuff up but then use the correct remedial action, but even then you will lose 200ft or so.

 

To avoid getting into the final turn stall/spin scenario in the first place make sure you're high on base leg rather than too low (this means a high sight-picture, so if it's a long final you need to be higher AGL than if it's a short final - it's all about the sight-picture height rather than the height AGL). If you're high you won't have a high nose angle on the final turn because you're trying to get down (so you won't stall) and even if you're overshooting you're unlikely to resist a higher bank angle to tighten the turn because higher bank angles don't feel bad when the nose is down. If you develop a habit of being too high on base/final you'll never hit the approach fence and then why not go on and become an expert at slipping which is immensely useful for getting into tight spots and especially so in event of forced landings.

 

 

[Bandit12]

One of the other issues is the visual perspective at lower levels. A balanced tight descending turn at 3000' AGL is much more "normal" than the same turn at 300' AGL. A couple of years ago I was doing a little refresher aerobatics training and the instructor decided it was time to mix it up with a bit of lower level. I was feeling pretty competent with a personal minimum of 3500' AGL but at 1000' AGL the adrenaline really started to flow and everything screamed "TOO LOW!" inside for a moment while. I can imagine how easy it would be to be overwhelmed unless there was opportunity to practice at real heights, under more real conditions.

 

 

[facthunter]

IF you haven't done recent low level you will probably use unbalanced rudder for a while at low level with windy conditions. The illusion of skidding or slipping is very strong and you correct for something that is not happening. Nev

 

 

[Head in the clouds]

A turn-back on EFATO is simply another one of these. The principle is the same no matter what you're flying. Only the numbers are different. Go find out the numbers for your aircraft, and add a healthy safety margin on top of them. ........

 

........ You may well find that the turn-back height is above 500 ft - in which case, you won't be trying it before the crosswind turn. That's likely to be the case for most GA aircraft, I suspect. But you won't know that unless you go to height and do a few tests. They won't lure you into turning back; more likely convince you that you have no chance before the downwind turn - but at least GO AND FIND OUT.

Funnily enough that's just what I did yesterday.

 

I took fellow forumite Duncan (rtfm - who's building his F1 Razorback) for a fly in a Foxbat and during that we did a couple of poorly simulated turn-backs at height and made rotten quality videos of it for everyone's general amusement.

 

I turned through 200 degrees in a single turn the first time and 210 degrees with a 30 degree turn reversal the second time, though if one used the crosswind drift method (CDATO described earlier this thread) you'd need to do less turning than that. I didn't use any flap because it seems most folks retract them at around 300ft and so the assumption is that most wouldn't have any flap on if they were considering turning back. Target speed for climb, best glide and approach in the Foxbat are all 54kts ish.

 

We had 3/4 fuel aboard, 155kg of pilot + pax and no bags, so were around 70-80kg under MTOW.

 

I slowed the aircraft to the climb speed but wasn't actually climbing, to avoid instrument lag in the altimeter providing a falsely optimistic result. Then put it into the climb attitude as I pulled the power to idle, before lowering the nose, to reasonably simulate actually being in a climb at the time of power loss.

 

The results were consistent, we lost 250-300ft each time by the time we were re-aligned on a reciprocal course and at approach speed and attitude.

 

Using Dafydd's pre-established decision point method, which I think is very valid, you would want to have 300ft + 50% = 450ft + obstacle clearance height (none at our airfield but say 50ft) = 500ft. So in those loading conditions, and in a Foxbat you'd want 500ft before considering the turn-back and that's at the crosswind turn point. The distance travelled to make the turn was very small - I used about 45 degree bank angle - so I don't feel that you'd need that much height exactly at the end of the runway but not too far past it. This being because, having played around with a few direction reversals before the filmed ones, the quickest and safest-feeling turn was by allowing the nose to drop in a slight spiral which resulted in increased speed which would be used as speed/height to get back to the runway threshold, particularly keeping in mind that would be a downwind leg with wind-gradient benefit rather than the usual wind gradient penalty when landing into wind.

 

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

OK, good - we're getting some results: Taking the basic figures:

 

Foxbat - 1.5 x 300 +50 = 500 ft.

 

Jabiru J 400 - 500 x 1.5 +50 = 800 ft

 

Blanik motorglider (analysis only) - 250 x 1.5 + 50 = 425 ft.

 

Remember, these are the heights necessary AS YOU CROSS THE UPWIND BOUNDARY FENCE. If you have this height at the upwind boundary of the airstrip and the climb is at a steeper angle than the best glide angle up to the point of engine failure, then a turn-back before the crosswind turn is potentially feasible. The picture that is emerging is, obviously, that the circumstances in which this will be so are few.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Did you two allow two to three seconds for a genuine "what's happening" surprise? or someone who decides to follow his forced landing procedure instead of EFATO?

 

 

[Head in the clouds]

Did you two allow two to three seconds for a genuine "what's happening" surprise? or someone who decides to follow his forced landing procedure instead of EFATO?

Ermmm - what? If you are climbing in a Foxbat at 54kts and the engine quits and you do nothing for a full 3 seconds in a genuine EFATO you're as good as dead anyway.

 

I don't know what schools are teaching these days but I very much doubt it's any different from what we used to teach and that is the nose goes down at the first hint of anything to do with the engine malfunctioning - a la Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy - you know the glasses that turn black at the first hint of danger.

 

We'd never let a student solo unless their first reaction every time, within about 0.2 seconds, was to get the nose down.

 

So the answer is no, but I did hesitate more than I would expect even a novice pilot to, about 0.5 second to 1 second.

 

 

[motzartmerv]

Can any one of you clever blokes show me a stat, or a crash report indicating where a pilot has turned back, came up short and been killed?

 

 

[motzartmerv]

Any evidence at all that there is a "pilot not making it back due to insufficient height " problem.

 

 

[motzartmerv]

Wake up and smell the coffee guys...

 

 

[Head in the clouds]

I don't think you're attitude is really called for. There is a problem and it has to do with lack of height causing fear and that fear resulting in people mismanaging the turn itself. Plenty of stats to support that. I think we've all noted that you don't want people to turn back at all and want to eliminate that thought from their first response, that's an opinion that you're entitled to, and others are entitled to theirs. The blanket removal of all turn back procedure training that you're proposing is not supported in other flight training curricula presently.

 

I could have even provided your requested stat report too, except the pilot wasn't killed and there wasn't a report, he walked away and burnt the wreck in the days when AUF weren't interested in crashes being reported.

 

Perhaps you'd like to enlighten us to what you see the problem as being, apart from the fact that we don't all agree with you?

 

EDIT - OK, you said the following earlier - "The issue is that people REACT differently. Some react well and quickly. Some react poorly, and some TURN BACK", which was rather confusingly worded which is why I didn't get what you're meaning was, I still don't actually.

 

So - some react well and quickly - they put the nose down and choose a landing or crash place ahead - which it is to be, is determined by the quality of the surface ahead?

 

Some react poorly - what do they do?

 

Some TURN BACK - from your other posts I imagine that's not good in your book? It's worse than the ones who react poorly? What height are they turning back from that makes it worse than poor? You see - the 'clever ones' among us are trying to establish when poor becomes not so poor and when it might actually become the right thing to do, making it 'reacting well'.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Ermmm - what? If you are climbing in a Foxbat at 54kts and the engine quits and you do nothing for a full 3 seconds in a genuine EFATO you're as good as dead anyway.

That's why I advocate straight ahead; you have a better survival chance. RACV at one stage had a test rig simulating a car brake and accelerator pedal, and a dash light. The operator would flick the light and the machine measured the time taken to touch the brake pedal. The average driver time was 0.5 of a second. That's when he was primed there was a light coming.

 

We'd never let a student solo unless their first reaction every time, within about 0.2 seconds, was to get the nose down.

That's just a fraction outside the reaction time for a Formula One driver, but if they can stay under half a second that's great

However, again the person doing the test knew it was coming, if not from a prior briefing, then from an expectation knowing the Instructor's habits.

 

So the answer is no, but I did hesitate more than I would expect even a novice pilot to, about 0.5 second to 1 second.

It's the unexpected event which takes the time from a fraction of a second to several seconds. You may have just had lunch, had never even had the slightest miss in an engine before, but this time there's a bang and a heap of smoke and you have to transfer from reflexes to brain analysis. I've known some people to take maybe five seconds and are still trying to process what's happening.

That two or three second margin which is required would probably put your test heights up with what those of us who advocate straight ahead are saying.

 

Sure some people will reflex act - the guy in the glider cable break did with me, but you have to allow for all the people who fly, not just the Bob Hoovers.

 

 

[motzartmerv]

HIC. Mate, nobody is disagreeing with me. I have only advocated that the issue is NOt running out of height. Its losing control of the aeroplane. There are mire then enough stats to suport this FACT. I would still like to see any indication we are dealing with a "loss of height issue".

 

My concerns are that we are all spending such effort on dissecting and rationalising, and trying to write a formula for an issue that is indefinable.

 

You can NOT apply logic to a situation where fear takes control. I appreciate your point of view HIC, and at no stage have i indicated contempt for disagreeing with me. Please refrain from starting a sh!t fight with me. I have watched and listened to your point of view, and as you say, everyone is entitled to their opinion.

 

My views are supported by facts, stats and current research. Turning back kills people buddy, show me evidence to the contrary, and Ill eat my hat.

 

 

[motzartmerv]

So - some react well and quickly - they put the nose down and choose a landing or crash place ahead - which it is to be, is determined by the quality of the surface ahead?

Some react poorly - what do they do?

 

Some TURN BACK - from your other posts I imagine that's not good in your book? '.

Some react well, and land straight ahead or in a direction closely aligned with the heading they were on.

 

Some react poorly- They freeze, dont really do anything, hold the controls where they are and basically stall straight ahead (yes, ive seen this on more htne one occasion)

 

Some turn back. The worst decision of all. Yes sure, some have made it, some can do it from a practice at 10 bloody thousand feet, but a sh!tload have NOT. And have spun in. Do you really need an explanation or were you just being vexatious?

 

The FACTs are, its one of the most dangerous things you can do in a plane statistically. Most people have a pre determined turn back height ALREADY included in their take off safety brief dont they? What you guys seem to be advocating is finding where under perfect conditions exactly this height is and adding some fufge to it. Great, go for it. That sounds bloody fantastic, and in a perfect world, where everything works as it should, the 10 hour pilot will calmly look at their alt and note the height and make a perfect split ass turn and =return gracefully to the runway. All because they applied the Forumites perfect world forumla..

 

Let me give you option B.. The 10 hour pilot takes seconds to COMPUTE the engine is no longer producing power (the prop still spinning mind you) . Then he panics and freezes for a second or two more.. Then, in the heat of the moment he tries to recall what height the formula he worked out on that perfect day 3 months ago was.. HHmm..nope, im at a loss, before he even has a chance to stop himself, hes in the split ass turn, the IAS is sweet bugga all, the stick is back at the stop and the opposite aileron is hard over trying to stop the spin. Thus is a scenario that I could provide multiple, multipl examples of..And even change the 10 hour pilot to 1000 hour pilot..Or 5000 hour instructor.. 3000 hour aerobatic pilot...

 

I fear that in the telling of this thread we are losing the prime reason for the fatalities..IMHO it is NOT a lack of height. It is a total loss of control, initiated by a fear response to a pre existing and pre installed FEAR of the event itself. WE are putting this fear into them by the way we train for it. This is a view that was put to ME by smarter people then the lot of us.

 

Take it or leave it..

 

 

[Head in the clouds]

OK, so you're simply saying that you can't teach people to continue to think after an engine fails soon after takeoff?

 

Turbo almost suggests that we have to dumb down all training to suit the slowest reacting people.

 

What on earth is going on here? Have the people that constitute today's students suddenly become much less capable of basic procedural operations than they used to be? You wouldn't think so judging by their gaming skills.

 

I think the main point is - what do you consider to be so different about an EFATO than any other engine failure? I see no difference whatsoever. They're all the same, an EFATO is just another engine failure at low level, the runway behind is just one of the landing options to be considered or disregarded according to its suitability for the current situation.

 

If people are spending several seconds having a WTF moment after EFATO they simply haven't been trained properly. It means they're taking off without having in mind they're about to conduct the single most dangerous part of the entire flight and need to be ready for EFATO at various heights and have a plan already prepared for those scenarios.

 

It's not rocket science and it's doesn't require anyone to be a Bob Hoover either, it's just proper schooling.

 

Is it the students during training who are losing control or those who should have had refresher training at a BFR a few years down the track and haven't? I'd suspect the latter.

 

Where are your stats coming from Motz? From what I've seen the final turn stall/spin seems to be far more prevalent of late, since engines became more reliable at high power settings.

 

EDIT - this was being composed prior to sighting the above, apologies if there is any crossover

 

EDIT 2 - no Motz, I try and avoid being vexatious. Your posts are sometimes not as clear as you may have intended.

 

 

[Oscar]

Turning back kills people buddy, show me evidence to the contrary, and Ill eat my hat.

That is as simplistic and unsound as the 'Speed Kills' road safety mantra.

 

1). Any turn that causes the in-turn wing to stall (and refer to the advice provided to you above re the actual physics of flight loads, it could save your own life) will cause an incipient (at minimum) spin with collateral extra height required to recover and if the ground occurs before the recovery height is expended, a crash ensues.

 

2) Not every take-off site has non-lethal emergency landing locations within the aircraft's Vbg of +/- 30 degrees at a potential safe turn-back height of straight ahead. Ideal training + experience would provide the PIC with the flying and decision-making skills to select and execute the 'least-worst option' case.

 

 

[turboplanner]

I'm not suggesting anyone is being dumbed down; I'm suggesting that if you are handing out advice on a public forum you cannot leave any sector out, you have to have a very simple, foolproof answer.

 

 

[Head in the clouds]

I'm not suggesting anyone is being dumbed down; I'm suggesting that if you are handing out advice on a public forum you cannot leave any sector out, you have to have a very simple, foolproof answer.

Then we are in complete agreement Turbo. And the simple and foolproof answer is practice, practice and practice until it's second nature and there is no WTF moment and the reflex action is the correct action.

 

 

[nomadpete]

Not trying to come between you pair, but...

 

My experience of EFATO at about 200' supports the 'variability of ability' theory. No, I didn't freeze. I immediately adjusted nose attitude as the power failed. "Fly the aircraft" had been drilled into me. BUT beyond the instinctive reaction of maintaining airspeed, and briefly checking paddock distances, I still took a couple of valuable seconds to glance at instruments and to process what was happening. I did not stall nor did I consider turning back at that height. Never the less I was aware that in spite of thinking that I had prepared for my takeoff (prep includes some thought of EFATO options), I was somewhat sobered by the realisation that the 'Oh Sh!t Delay' had stolen time from my options. This unpredictable duration of delay is a vital part of this discussion and may be something that an individual needs to find out about themselves before attempting to set a rigid automated response to an unexpected event. I cannot blame my instructor for my reaction time. He has primed me with the knowledge to fly properly. He cannot be accountable for any human factors which may change the way that I react.

 

BTW, I would consider turn back if I was at a suitable height. Have practiced it at low levels in Gliders. Also, I support the view that the real killer here is loss of control, due probably to lack of currency in low level maneuvres.

 

 

[SDQDI]

I'm not suggesting anyone is being dumbed down; I'm suggesting that if you are handing out advice on a public forum you cannot leave any sector out, you have to have a very simple, foolproof answer.

Exactly turbs and even with the data that has been produced, gliders aside, a turn back before turning crosswind is going to end badly so 'dumbing' it down isn't really as silly as it is made out to be.

It's all nice to talk about practicing and we should practice but unless you are doing it at ground level a couple of times a week seeing the ground that close with no engine help will bring 'most' of us unstuck. I don't know too many people who can afford to be practicing such a manoeuvre regularly enough to make it safe.

 

 

[motzartmerv]

Ideal training + experience would provide the PIC with the flying and decision-making skills to select and execute the 'least-worst option' case.

And im being simplistic...... What a helpful statement.

 

HIC. I think ive discovered the route of our diss agreement. I dont believe an EFATO is the same as any other upper air engine failure.

 

Having suffered both, I can only speak from personal experience. But ill take the cct height fan stop any day.

 

Seconds..We are talking about precious seconds. The fear response is very very real, and well documented and studied. The fear response triggered by the imminent threat to life..IMMANENT threat..Not delayed threat. Thats the key im trying to get across. The Initial reaction needs to be cognitive, not a qualitative reaction. By that i mean it cant require ANY form of processing. Thats because there is nobody home to do it. In the first .2 of a second after a threat is perceived the human body undergoes a massive massive change.:

 

• Acceleration of heart and lung action
   
   
  
• Paling or flushing, or alternating between both
   
   
  
• Inhibition of stomach and upper-intestinal action to the point where digestion slows down or stops
   
   
  
• General effect on the sphincters of the body
   
   
  
• Constriction of blood vessels in many parts of the body
   
   
  
• Liberation of metabolic energy sources (particularly fat and glycogen) for muscular action
   
   
  
• Dilation of blood vessels for muscles
   
   
  
• Inhibition of the lacrimal gland (responsible for tear production) and salivation
   
   
  
• Dilation of pupil (mydriasis)
   
   
  
• Relaxation of bladder
   
   
  
• Inhibition of erection
   
   
  
• Auditory exclusion (loss of hearing)
   
   
  
• Tunnel vision (loss of peripheral vision)
   
   
  
• Disinhibition of spinal reflexes
   
   
  
• Shaking
   
   
  

 

 

And my favourite, an absolute blast of adrenaline and other yummy chemicals.

 

The logic centres, ie, the front part of our brains that are responsible for learning, logic, processing info etc, are BYPASSED!!!. They are not used any more for a few seconds..

 

This is why pilots often say "i dont know why, but I just did it.. I turned".. Its the "perception" of the threat that we need to treat. We cant treat the response. We need to remove the boogey man idea which we are subconsciously doing when we suddenly and un expectedly ramm the throttle off etc.. This MAKES them fear the event.

 

We de normalise the event to the point of hysteria sometimes. This thread is a perfect example.