Video: Airplane engine failure during take off and turn back for landing (practice)

[CrayonBox]

[medio=full]360[/medio]

 

 

[ausadvance]

that would have to have been a motorfalk I swear!

 

 

[nomadpete]

Sure wasn't a Drifter !

 

 

[ausadvance]

if it was it was certainly a different model to mine!

 

 

[nomadpete]

Reading the altimeter and checking the time taken....

 

In a glider you might get away with losing that 100 feet in the 15 seconds that it took for the maneuver. When I did glider training for this, we didn't try it under about 300 feet. My Lightwing or the Drifter loses at least 400 ft for the turn. And much more if I don't react absolutely instantly to the loss of power.

 

There is also added risk from the increased stall speed due to higher G's in the tight turn, meaning that they are going dangerously close to stall on the way around. Not a option that I'd be putting in my takeoff checks for anything less than 500 feet. Even then only if the trees were really thick at the end of the strip.

 

 

[Clansman]

This stuff will kill people! The turn back angles accumulated to touch down are 180 (say left turn) to be facing downwind, another 45 further left to aim back towards the r/w, and another 45 right to line up. This is an accumulation of 270 degrees of turn at low altitude when precise control is required at the most stressful situation a pilot could experience! At best the accumulated turn might be 180 + 30 + 30 = 240 if the r/w is wide enough to allow a more oblique approach back. For god's sake don't follow this example. Aircraft glide performance, pilot experience, wind conditions etc all look highly favourable in the video. At such low altitudes you will still have flaps down if so equipped and this exacerbates your drag/stall in turns even more. You won't find me teaching this nonsense.

 

 

[Guest SAJabiruflyer]

He survived it... that time....

 

 

[dazza 38]

This stuff will kill people! The turn back angles accumulated to touch down are 180 (say left turn) to be facing downwind, another 45 further left to aim back towards the r/w, and another 45 right to line up. This is an accumulation of 270 degrees of turn at low altitude when precise control is required at the most stressful situation a pilot could experience! At best the accumulated turn might be 180 + 30 + 30 = 240 if the r/w is wide enough to allow a more oblique approach back. For god's sake don't follow this example. Aircraft glide performance, pilot experience, wind conditions etc all look highly favourable in the video. At such low altitudes you will still have flaps down if so equipped and this exacerbates your drag/stall in turns even more. You won't find me teaching this nonsense.

I agree, hence, I didn't watch the video's. Watching them would have done me more harm than good.

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

This stuff will kill people! The turn back angles accumulated to touch down are 180 (say left turn) to be facing downwind, another 45 further left to aim back towards the r/w, and another 45 right to line up. This is an accumulation of 270 degrees of turn at low altitude when precise control is required at the most stressful situation a pilot could experience! At best the accumulated turn might be 180 + 30 + 30 = 240 if the r/w is wide enough to allow a more oblique approach back. For god's sake don't follow this example. Aircraft glide performance, pilot experience, wind conditions etc all look highly favourable in the video. At such low altitudes you will still have flaps down if so equipped and this exacerbates your drag/stall in turns even more. You won't find me teaching this nonsense.

Couldn't agree more.....The reality is that every aircraft is capable of a turnback, but to do it successfully you need to be at a specific altitude....If you don't know that altitude before hand and have a safety margin already in mind then its just Russian roulette, and one that has killed many who thought they could...but couldn't.

 

We saw in the 2nd video that the specific airfield already had a most appropriate field directly ahead of the runway....to turn back at the low altitude he did, in most of the aircraft we fly will generally be the worst decision of your life.

 

If as has been suggested the aircraft in the video's is a motorised glider with a Glide ratio far more comfortable than what we fly, then its a shame that wasn't disclosed as text on the video. Some will see that and come to the wrong conclusions about what GA/RA aircraft can do.

 

I have survived a turnback due to engine failure in a trike (worst glide ratio ever!!!) but didn't make the runway, rather landed across the cross strip (ran out of altitude before I used up all the degrees of turn I needed) and nearly garrotted myself on a wire fence. Turnback wasn't a considered decision it just happened........Not turning back is the considered approach and one you must train yourself for. I was trained to not turn back and yet I did.......something to think about!

 

Andy

 

 

[facthunter]

Why people INSTINCTIVELY turn back, might be worth a discussion. I have a few theories on it. people I know have done it and not got there and wondered why they did it when they had always been told not to.

 

The turning back considerations are height AND distance. You need a certain height to do the turn which is still no good if you are too far away at the height you are to reach the runway. IF there is a strong wind the judgement is more precise as effectively the runway is not long enough because of the extra groundspeed. The worst thing you can do is fly into the upwind fence (or another object) at the higher groundspeed or LOSE CONTROL in the turn. Nev

 

 

[sportaviation]

It may by easy to do a simulated engine fail when you don't have a problem, but it is reasonably well documented that when it is for real there can be a delay of up to 8 seconds before a surprised pilot takes corrective action, which leads to a cascade of problems ie loss of airspeed before initiating a turn, It will feel like the aircraft is turning quickly but in actual fact the aircraft is spinning which again takes time to recognise and correct most lightly the ground and gravity will beat you.

 

RIP

 

 

[turboplanner]

Well I did say some threads can kill people but I was howled down. Not a good thing for a new learner to see, particularly if his/her instructor goes over the EFATO lesson quickly.

 

 

[Exadios]

This is standard training for us. Good to see others doing it.

 

 

[Exadios]

It may by easy to do a simulated engine fail when you don't have a problem, but it is reasonably well documented that when it is for real there can be a delay of up to 8 seconds before a surprised pilot takes corrective action, which leads to a cascade of problems ie loss of airspeed before initiating a turn, It will feel like the aircraft is turning quickly but in actual fact the aircraft is spinning which again takes time to recognise and correct most lightly the ground and gravity will beat you.RIP

What! 8 seconds! Any pilot that delays should not have a license! The pilot should execute the maneuver that was decided on one second before the engine failure. The time from engine failure to commencement of execution should be under 1 second.

 

 

[Tomwantstobeapilot]

Before the engine fails? How would you know, in a real life situation?

 

What! 8 seconds! Any pilot that delays should not have a license! The pilot should execute the maneuver that was decided on one second before the engine failure. The time from engine failure to commencement of execution should be under 1 second.

[Exadios]

Before the engine fails? How would you know, in a real life situation?

The pilot knows because from the time the engine is started to the time it is shutdown the engine is always one second away from failing. This is especially important during takeoff and landing and not so important at 10000 feet.

 

 

[ozbear]

My own rule max turn 45 degree with EFOTO depending on height and aircraft type ,terrain and wind if he tried that with something like a lancair in a 15k headwind and not enough height chances are he would stall it on the downwind turn with predictable results not a good thing to teach a student.

 

 

[Exadios]

My own rule max turn 45 degree with EFOTO depending on height and aircraft type ,terrain and wind if he tried that with something like a lancair in a 15k headwind and not enough height chances are he would stall it on the downwind turn with predictable results not a good thing to teach a student.

All planes need a certain glide slope to land. If a plane would be below that slope after the turn then the pilot would not have made the decision to turn back. The decision making performance of the pilot is part of the exercise.

 

If, given the aircraft and the day, the plane would pass below the necessary flight path then another decision would have been made.

 

Stalling the plane is never an option.

 

As I have said this is standard training and this particular exercise is common.

 

 

[ozbear]

As you know stall airspeed Rises with angle of bank struggling with getting back to the runway by steepening the turn and stretching the glide isn't an option either how many engine failures happen at a convenient height on take off

 

 

[facthunter]

Probably few happen at a height that permit a turn back. The turn has also to be done in a certain way which takes a lot of training. Regards the decision time, I think 2 seconds is the time used for engine failure recognition for rejected take-offs. Most engine failures are not instant cuts, though the older two strokes were usually seizures, and fairly sudden. Nev

 

 

[Exadios]

As you know stall airspeed Rises with angle of bank struggling with getting back to the runway by steepening the turn and stretching the glide isn't an option either how many engine failures happen at a convenient height on take off

Stall airspeed rises as a result of wing loading. Actually, the whole polar moves to the right as wing loading increases. If you fly at best L/D for the current wing loading there is no chance of a stall.

 

 

[Exadios]

Probably few happen at a height that permit a turn back. The turn has also to be done in a certain way which takes a lot of training. Regards the decision time, I think 2 seconds is the time used for engine failure recognition for rejected take-offs. Most engine failures are not instant cuts, though the older two strokes were usually seizures, and fairly sudden. Nev

At any point in time there is sufficient power to climb or not. As soon as the pilot detects "or not" then the pre decided maneuver should commence. The time between "or not" and the start of the maneuver should be less than one second.

 

 

[facthunter]

Decision time is the time it takes you to consider everything and start some action. The accelerate stop thing is pretty clear. Up to V1 you stop and after you GO. Your problem is assessing all the factors and how important they are. While you normally go after V1 if there was a loud explosion from somewhere the ability of the plane to fly at all might be suspect as there could be structural damage, so you might take your chances with stopping on the ground, and let the armchair theorists take a month or so to tell you, you were (technically) wrong. Nev

 

 

[Guest Maj Millard]

Boy watching that ground come up in the turn bought back some bad memories for me. I was in a 182 that tried that and didn't make it, lost two good friends that day...not a flash manoeuvre, and one fraught with danger !.............Maj...

 

 

[facthunter]

You will never forget that Maj.. Like all scary things they keep coming back... Nev