The Unforgiving (née Impossible) Turn.

[skippydiesel]

Just in case there might be the perception that I am advocating an emergency "fast"  turn back to the field - I am not.

 

A turn back in under 500 ft will almost always have an unpleasant end. Planing to land straight ahead, or at least not diverting too much, is by far the safest strategy, particularly if you are flying a low inertia aircraft.

 

To turn back at or above 500ft will not only require a "fast" response but also an intimate understanding (more than just knowledge) of your aircrafts capabilities and then capacity to land down wind. 

 

I am conscious that the very few times I have practised this, it has been with a still functioning engine/prop which may have been providing just enough thrust to enable a survivable turn back (& with the safety net of adding power,  should it have been required).

 

Edited September 5, 2022 by skippydiesel

[kgwilson]

I land downwind a fair bit on 08 at YSGR. Not when there is 15+ knots on my tail but up to about 10 knots max. Why? Well the runway is 1200 metres long & I like to land on the grass rather than the seal which is easier on tyres and slows me down faster. Also the taxiway is at the end I am landing towards. The approach is over flat land as well with no trees or houses. The circuit for 26 is over hills and houses with trees near the threshold which has been displaced 200 metres for this reason.

 

Usually we get fairly strong westerlies at this time of the year so 26 is the only option & with 10-20 knots approach can be reasonably steep so as to miss the trees by plenty & land before the displaced threshold & run on to the seal.

 

Never turned back under 500' & never going to. Also never had a real EFATO.

[facthunter]

Flying at a place where you have to  clear trees close in or fly over Houses Factories  etc is somewhere you might consider moving from. You are trusting an engine too much. Your slow stall speed helps reduce the energy of impact IF you also land into wind. The Plane is usually replaceable or be repaired but you are the most important. THING. Other wise make sure your engine  and ancillaries etc are as good as can be. Nev

[Garfly]

 

A new contribution by FlightChops:

 

 

 

 

[facthunter]

Headwind makes a big difference to height/ distance relationship on climb out. Many turn backs result i loss of control.  Shallow bank angle reduces the chance of getting back. Don't learn how to do this on U tube..   Nev

[Garfly]

I agree.  FlightChops too, emphatically:

 

[skippydiesel]

It's not impossible but the pilot must know his/her aircraft very well, especially its low speed handling/ glide/impending stall characteristics.

 

Anyone who has not practised down wind landings, should do so. The sensation of speed (above the normal) as the aircraft approaches the ground, can be quite disturbing, to anyone not having tried it. The greater the tail wind the greater will be the ground speed.

 

[Thruster88]

The impossible turn is only impossible if the pilot stalls the aircraft. No stall anything is possible. As they say in the vid, you might not make the runway but it may be better than landing in suburbia. 

 

A better pre takeoff briefing, I WILL NOT STALL THE AIRCRAFT IN THE NEXT TWO MINUTES.  

[skippydiesel]

Thruster my friend, me thinks you miss the point -

Your engine fails, somewhere between end of ground role and achieving circuit height (1000 ft above airfield)- what to do?

Conventional training/wisdom is to land straight ahead (or close to it).

However it clear that , depending on height above terrain/obstacles, when power is lost, pilot competence with the aircraft in question and the characteristics of that aircraft, it may be possible to return to the field (the impossible turn) and land down wind.

There are great risks involved, the aircraft (especially a lightweight RAA one), may rapidly lose momentum/air speed.

This loss of airspeed may result in a stall, when the pilot attempts a turn back (a turn raising the stall speed).

The stall, depending on height above terrain, may not be recoverable.

All of the above, are why a straight ahead landing is promoted - best chance of avoiding a stall/loss of control.

Edited April 20 by skippydiesel

[Garfly]

31 minutes ago, skippydiesel said:

Thruster my friend, me thinks you miss the point ...

 

I don't think Thruster misses the point - or even disputes conventional wisdom about straight ahead being best.  

To me he's just putting the emphasis back where it belongs: if you don't get flying speed NOW, you won't be landing anywhere (in the conventional sense).

 

Juan Browne makes the same point in this 2 minute quickie on the subject.

 

 

 

 

Edited April 20 by Garfly

[facthunter]

Go to their last bit of advice. Get in touch with your instructor. What was demonstrated there was very basic and obvious. Generally discussion on line creates more confusion.  IT should be called the unforgiving turn, which they sensibly have. Nev

Edited April 21 by facthunter

[Garfly]

3 hours ago, facthunter said:

Go to their last bit of advice. Get in touch with your instructor. What was demonstrated there was very basic and obvious. Generally discussion on line creates more confusion.  IT should be called the unforgiving turn, which they sensibly have. Nev

If you're referring to Juan Browne's little big-push demo ... yeah, basic and obvious; still, you sense some exasperation in his voice: "Look at that, Zero G! ... You cannot stall an aircraft at zero G!".  It's as if he's fed up that so basic a fact seems far from obvious to many who fly aeroplanes or even instruct in them. 

 

[facthunter]

I would be disappointed if Instructors are not aware of that.. Nev

[Garfly]

Aware or not, in his words, it's stuff "they don't teach you in the FAA written or private pilot licence."

[facthunter]

Most would not employ it. I would agree with that.. In wartime you only got told the minimum and It's gone downhill from there. UNLESS you seek out these things. You should know STALL is an angle of Attack, not a pitch attitude.   Nev

[turboplanner]

28 minutes ago, Garfly said:

Aware or not, in his words, it's stuff "they don't teach you in the FAA written or private pilot licence."

He’s referring to US processes.

[turboplanner]

On 20/04/2024 at 3:59 PM, Garfly said:

I agree.  FlightChops too, emphatically:

 

Too late, the information’s out there and some people will do it now.

[Garfly]

3 hours ago, turboplanner said:

He’s referring to US processes.

I did notice that.

What I haven't noticed is a great deal of difference in that regard locally.

 

3 hours ago, turboplanner said:

Too late, the information’s out there and some people will do it now.

Poor benighted, ignorant pilots.  They must be protected them from all and any information that might confuse them.

[facthunter]

There's an old saying ... "Pilots are like mushrooms. Kept in the dark and fed on Bull$#!t".   Nev

[robinsm]

If there is a second runway at an angle to the one used for take off, surely that can be used to lessen the angle of turnback

 

 

[Garfly]

3 hours ago, facthunter said:

There's an old saying ... "Pilots are like mushrooms. Kept in the dark and fed on Bull$#!t".   Nev

Nice one, Nev.   I wasn't expecting back-up from you on that one ... so all the more chuffed!  LOL   

[skippydiesel]

Many many years ago I had a TIF in a rag & tube, high wing, side by side seating, nose pod with windscreen, and a 2/ engine screaming out on the end of a pole in front (Thruster?)

So up I went with the demo pilot, I did notice it was a tad diffrent sensation , to C 172 I was training in at the time.

Anyhow we got up to about circuit height (I think) and the demo pilot asks me if I would like to try an engine out?

Yes says I. Your aircraft said he.

Moments later the engine was reduced to idle - nice!.

Nose down says he. I am says I. Nose down says he ...... ..............

in short he took back control and pointed the nose down VERTICALLY, or so it seemed.

The picture before me was the upwind end of the runway and little else.

Seemed to take a long while (I guess thats funk in action) and then with not further change from nil power, we rounded out, plonked the aircraft down and it rolled may be 3 meters, before he applied power to taxi back to the waiting crowd.

I sooo appreciated my 172 after that.

What I did learn was:

Light/high drag aircraft, when power is reduced/lost, basically stop in the air (low inertia) the lessons from 172 are raise nose to gain height & wash off speed, until best glide reached, then lower the nose, to maintain best glide - I am sure its the same theory for both however the execution is quite diffrent.

Best glide, in a low inertia/high drag aircraft, may appear much steeper, than in a GA aircraft - glide distance/landing options is likely to be severely reduced

[Thruster88]

Flying a thruster makes one a well rounded pilot. Use the stick to achieve the outcome (air speed) required regardless of what that looks like.

 

A steep 30° banked turn engine off all the way to the runway is just one of the fun things one can do in a thruster.

[jackc]

Try a cable break in a winch launched glider at 400 feet? You get a fraction of a second to do a major nose down……it’s a great training experience……

[facthunter]

There's NO NEED to sideslip a thruster.  Nev