What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

Engine Failure on T/O - Turnaround Data

I did some engine out work yesterday also. I could land from my normal pattern position. I had to keep the flaps up until short final. They really make a difference on the 6. I left the prop as set at 2700 RPM. I am hoping this offsets the effects of a actual stopped engine. In the real world of course you would get the prop control out for minimum drag. I wonder if anyone has some data on that point. Engine at idle verses a actual shutdown verses prop setting on a CS equipped aircraft.

George


On my aircraft at least, I have found that I can closely simulate the real dead engine/prop full coarse sink rate with the throttle at idle and the prop to full coarse then in 1 1/4 turns.

Fin
9A
 
Last edited:
The only way to really practice it... is to turn off the engine....

Engine failure on take off.... land straight ahead...
Or in most cases die trying:eek:
 
It has been suggested on this forum and others to actually practice with the mixture pulled. I considered it but so far have not gone to that extreme. I think you can get the practice you need and keep the engine running.

George
 
I have done a fair amount of actual engine out practice in my IO-360 RV-6 with a WW200RV C/S prop.

I have found that the engine out, prop windmilling at full increase sink rate to be about 1100 FPM at 80 KIAS. Sink rate decreases about 20% with prop to full decrease to slightly less than than 1000FPM. Full throttle or idle throttle does not make much practical difference.

For practice purposes, I find that I can replicate this sink rate with engine to idle and just a "notch" of flaps. That is what I use for "engine out" practice. I use the military method - High Key, Low key ELP pattern

1500' AGL works well for a High Key position with about 30 degrees AOB bringing you to a nice 900' AGL low key about 2000' from the runway. Depending on wind, flaps down full when the field is made somewhere around rolling final.

I ease into a flair with 60 - 70 KIAS and about 40' AGL. With power off, you don't float much and you get one chance at getting the descent stopped for a smooth landing.

Practice practice practice. It is no big deal to pull the red knob to ICO at altitude and play around (over a safe landing spot) for practice. You will learn alot!!!
 
Last edited:
I think you can get the practice you need and keep the engine running.

I remember the first engine failure I had - the thing that was the most startling was how much faster the aircraft was coming down than in all of the engine-out practice.

I am NOT advocating shutting down the engine to practice; rather, be ready for a bit of a surprise.

Dan
 
I was leisurely digesting my Christmas Dinner, surfing VAF, and "what to my wondering eyes should appear......" Another Turnback thread.... OMG :confused:

Those who know me can imagine my indigestion...

Nothing seems to change.... Every few months I read about another SSCBD accident after a turn-back after take-off...

The AOPA did a terrible disservice to General Aviation with their articles this summer... I know for a fact that there was disagreement internally about the things they have published on the subject this summer...

I also realize this thread was started to gather data, but for what purpose.... If you believe you have the skills to consider a turnback when the unthinkable happens to you, the you have the skill set to collect your own data on your own airplane. If that is beyond your skill set, then a turnback from an EFATO should not be in your toolkit...

The most recent post that says pulling the mixture at altitude is going too far??? If pulling the mixture 4000 ft above a 4000 ft runway increases your heart rate even 1 bpm, then the turnback from an EFATO is not for you....

Long term readers of this forum know that I have never said it is impossible. What I have said, and continue to repeat, is this..

When it happens for real, there are so many variables that must be considered that make it impossible to have a cookbook go-no/go decision. That combined with the shot of adrenaline that comes with the emergency turns the brain to mush.... The statistics bear this out...

The default response to an EFATO needs to be, "lower the nose and pick a point ahead of the wings, into the wind, and land at the slowest possible airspeed." Airplanes that arrive at the earth, wings level, under control, at minimum airspeed, have survivors onboard...

There is an attorney in Des Moines IA, Tom Drew, who coined a phrase that I call "Drew's Law" Tom says that "80% of the pilots believe they are in the top 20%..."

To that I add a corollary, "The reality is that half of us are below average." (the median actually for the statisticians, but that's a detail)

Pulling off a turnback from an EFATO is a maneuver that requires the skills found a group much smaller than the top 20%.

Trying would be fine if failure did not result in almost certain death for all aboard....

Everyone have a wonderful Christmas, and I will go find a roll of Tums....;)

HO HO HO
Doug Rozendaal
F1 EVO
 
I was leisurely digesting my Christmas Dinner, surfing VAF, and "what to my wondering eyes should appear......" Another Turnback thread.... OMG :confused:

Those who know me can imagine my indigestion...

Thank you Doug.

For any newcomers, Doug has experience that puts him in the top part of the top one percent in piloting skills and he thinks even thinking about the turnback at a low altitude is a really bad idea. It astounds me how many people think they could pull this deal off for real.
 
Hearing and feeling the instructor pull the glider tow rope release at 250 feet is educational and leads to (for me, anyway) the most challenging, exciting and rewarding 30 seconds of flight. Seeing how students react to it is similarly educational. The ratio of simulated to actual rope breaks is probably well over 50:1. However, we practice them because it is important - if you don't practice it and it happens, your chances of success are low. That's why we practice it so much.

The average PP-G student will get 4-5 of these in the course of their training and more if (1) they fail to brief the instructor on their decision altitudes (i.e., 180 and land downwind above 200', abbreviated pattern at 500') or (2) they fail to call passing their decision altitudes (easiest way to get one from an instructor). Club policy is for PIC to brief on what will happen if they loose the tow plane on every takeoff, and that plan should reflect the actual winds, surrounding environment and field operations.

Sorry to sound like a broken record, but if you don't think about what your options are on this flight, and you don't practice, your chances of success are low.

I now return you to your regularly scheduled Christmas.

TODR
 
Last edited:
I fly gliders and had my share in simulated and real rope breaks. Like Doug says, it's important to have a plan for this flight, before the flight.

Anyway, I got a question for you guys. Several people mentioned that in a cross-wind situation they first turn into wind. Why? I was taught to plan the final turn into wind in order to have more time on base/final without the danger of overshooting the centerline with the tailwind, then banking steeper to correct for it and stall. This means my first turn usually is with the wind (all other factors like trees, power lines, other fields or runways, etc. aside). Now I'd like to understand the reasoning behind turning into wind. So to all who advocate this: Can you please explain me the logic behind it?
 
I remember the first engine failure I had - the thing that was the most startling was how much faster the aircraft was coming down than in all of the engine-out practice.

I am NOT advocating shutting down the engine to practice; rather, be ready for a bit of a surprise.

Dan

A good piece of knowledge to have is at what speed your prop will stop windmilling. That will give you solid knowledge of how your plane will perform in a dead stick situation. How you figure that out is on you! (I did it by climbing to altitude, pulling the mixture, and slowing until the prop stopped. The difference in glide behavior is SIGNIFICANT regardless of make/model.)

I say this because when I was doing a lot of multi engine instruction, the standard was to set a "Zero thrust" rpm on the simulated dead engine. What caugh a lot of students off gaurd in the early hours of training was the significant increas in float during the landing flare, and their landing distance from the lack of drag of that one engine. In a single engine airplane if you need to stick the landing on a short field, this is good info to have ahead of time.
 
Our chapter safety officer is an ex air force safety officer. He teaches safety.
On the first flight of his RV-7, every precaution imaginable was taken, including all engine failure events at all portions of the flight.
This plan was shared with the chapter, and executed at a regional airfield with 90 degree intersecting runways and large fields.
Although I don't recall all the details, and don't know if he included an actual turnback, IT DID have variations on the theme, and like the glider pilots' did have different abort paths for the altitudes expected along the way.
The anti turnback group might be so vocal because they are refering to a short narrow single runway with power failure at low or marginal altitudes, and no one could disagree.
That would be, possibly a 225 degree turn followed by a 45 degree reversal to the runway. Also with a glideslope which is steeper than the take off slope.
"You can't get there from here" is not just for Monty Python.
But like the glider pilot, and others above have said, know each take off environment and your aircraft and yourself, so you can call out the best landing spots as you progress thru the flight, from take off to landing and all points in between. Of couse a return to the runway is desired, all the resources that can help you are there, just don't kill yourself trying to get there.
The final point is the nature of Van's short wing. Our teacher was very clear on emergency landings and the risk involved with poor energy management leading to the flare. You still need to factor this in at the end of your turn back calculation, lest you arrive over the threshold, and still leave a small smoking hole.
This very thing happened in a field west of KAWO a few years ago, when an RV lost power and had to select a field. I don't know all the details, but I think the reluctance to let the ship down at the final moment led to a low but fatal stall.
 
The anti turnback group might be so vocal because they are refering to a short narrow single runway with power failure at low or marginal altitudes, and no one could disagree...

And isn't that what an engine failure on takeoff is:eek:
 
Recal II

Since I started this thread I want to try one more time to address the original purpose of my post: In performing simulated turnback maneuvers at altitude in my -8A I found that the technique I used (overbanking for lack of a better term) produced marginally better results than what was generally accepted as optimum procedure (45 degrees AOB). I was attempting to determine if others had achieved the same results - or if my technique was flawed.

A turnback turn is an individual decision - I'm not recommending it for everyone - or anyone. However, in taking off over the desert where terrain is pretty much the same in any direction - including straight ahead and 150 degrees off the nose - initiating a turnaround maneuver and maintaining it as long as energy permits seems like a viable option - as long as you don't ever stall the airplane.

One size doesn't fit everyone - some pilots may know how their RV flys a couple knots above stall at various angles of bank; others do not - and shouldn't even consider a turnback turn.

Everyone can have an opinion - just because you don't agree with mine shouldn't be a cause for Christmas consternation.

The old adage - learn from the mistakes of others - no way you will live long enough to make 'em all yourself.
 
learn from the mistakes of others

... - or if my technique was flawed.
...
The old adage - learn from the mistakes of others - no way you will live long enough to make 'em all yourself.
You asked... Twice ... Yes it is flawed.

Bank angles significantly in excess of 60 degrees at minimum airspeed in close proximity to the ground is an accident that will happen :eek:

NTSB PROBABLE CAUSE NARRATIVE
The pilot's failure to maintain adequate airspeed during landing resulting in an aerodynamic stall/spin.

OCCURRENCES
Maneuvering-low-alt flying - Loss of control in flight
Maneuvering-low-alt flying - Aerodynamic stall/spin
Maneuvering-low-alt flying - Collision with terr/obj (non-CFIT)
FINDINGS
Aircraft-Aircraft oper/perf/capability-Performance/control parameters-Airspeed-Not attained/maintained - C
Personnel issues-Task performance-Use of equip/info-Aircraft control-Pilot - C
Findings Legend: (C) = Cause, (F) = Factor

I would hope that no one would condone such irresponsible, unsafe activity. 60 -90 degree bank, at 70 kts to 90 kts. Really?
At less than 1000' AGL? Really?

We really do not need to loose another aircraft, pilot, family needlessly.

Read the NTSB reports, the Nall Report, The FAA safety reports, STALL/SPIN: ENTRY POINT FOR CRASH AND BURN?

Look at the number of accidents due to low level maneuvering. Look at the fatality rate of those accidents. It has consistently been one of the top causes of fatal accidents.
 
Last edited:
The old adage - learn from the mistakes of others - no way you will live long enough to make 'em all yourself.

And I think that is exactly the idea that Doug (B25Flyer) is promoting.

I have been flying for 34 year (since I was in high school). In that time, quite a few friends, and other people I knew have been killed in low altitude stalls. I can't think of a single person that I know who in that same period of time has made a choice to turn back after an engine failure and lived to tell about how they accomplished it.

The point is... There is Lots of statistical data showing how risky it is.
How many people do you have first hand information about, who did it successfully? My guess would be that most of us don't know of any one that has, but I am sure that nearly all of us knows someone that died in a low level stall/spin.

One point that Doug made (and I have said many times, over the years) that should provoke some deep thought in everyone that fly's an RV...
The majority of pilots think they are way better than they really are (myself included). The limited amount of time I have spent doing demo flights in RV's over the years, has convinced me of this first hand. I think that the type of personality that draws people to become a pilot is prone to this type of thinking.

Now I don't mean to say that a turn back to a single runway after an EFATO, can't be done... Just saying that I will not consider it at altitudes any where nearly as low as what you guys discuss in these threads (but then again, I don't buy lottery tickets or gamble in Vegas either).
 
Last edited:
Turnbacks after engine failure sometime after takeoff

I attended a 'safety seminar' in Van Nuys area some time back on this controversial subject. The speaker was a pilot and aerospace scientist who did the mathematical calculations applying different variables such as height above ground, distance from airport, airspeed etc in an effort to determine the minimum altitude required to perform such a maneuver. As many others have mentioned it is a complicated process due to so many physical variables as well as pilot skill and technique. He did the calcs for common aircraft types like the C-172 but the formulas could be adapted to other aircraft.

I am looking for my notes on this subject at the moment.

He discussed optimal angle of bank but a do not want to throw out a figure until I review his data. One thing I do remember in response to an earlier post, he recommended turning into the wind to keep the plane closer to the runway environment.

The presentation was quite informative and after all was said and done it did not leave the pilots who attended with the mindset that a turnback was the way to go.
 
One size doesn't fit everyone - some pilots may know how their RV flys a couple knots above stall at various angles of bank; others do not - and shouldn't even consider a turnback turn.

Everyone can have an opinion - just because you don't agree with mine shouldn't be a cause for Christmas consternation.

The old adage - learn from the mistakes of others - no way you will live long enough to make 'em all yourself.

Paul, please understand, I am not trying to be combative.

And I agree with much of what you say...

You are correct, one size does not fit everyone, how aggressively you can fly depends on you, not what you read on VAF.

And I agree and understand that a Navy fighter pilot would want to point the lift vector towards the ground to use gravity to reduce the energy needed to get turned around.

However it won't work. The ultimate example of this would be a reverse cuban, and that altitude would be at least 1000 feet with a 4 G pull, and without power, it might take more than that. With a 6 G pull, you probably would be stalling going straight down. Turning past 90 will not improve performance. That would be suicide...

And finally, I agree with Learning from others mistakes...

The majority of the people who try this aren't alive to tell us about the results, so we have to "learn" from their accident reports....

To Learn means to change behavior and that means the default action on an EFATO should be to lower the nose and pick a spot, ahead of the wings into the wind, and land at the slowest possible speed.

All the internet discussions in the world about how to pull off a turn-back will not improve the statistics. Training for it close the ground is deadly. Training for it at altitude is counter productive for a host of reasons.

What will reduce fatalities is if we continue to make people aware of the reasons that almost ALL respected aviation professionals, flight training organizations, and the FAA advocate against turning back.

So you ask, When would I turn back?

If straight ahead means certain death, then of course, but never to save the airplane.

Otherwise, I want enough altitude to turn back to the airport with a reasonable bank angle, and then assess the situation and if I don't like it, still have altitude to get turned into the wind for an off airport landing. In the Rocket, with flat pitch and some margin, that is around 1200 ft.

Landing off airport, being into the wind is critical. A 10 knot wind at 50 kts gets you down to 40 kts at impact. Downwind, that brings you up to 60 kts. The difference in survivability is huge. Probably twice as deadly...

The Defender of Don't turn back..

Doug Rozendaal
F-1 EVO
 
Last edited:
Landing off airport, being into the wind is critical. A 10 knot wind at 50 kts gets you down to 40 kts at impact. Downwind, that brings you up to 60 kts. The difference in survivability is huge.

At 50 kts, a 9G stop happens in 12 feet. Using 12 feet as a fixed benchmark - at 40 kts it's only 6Gs but at 60 kts it goes up just over 13. So, the difference upwind / downwind would be about a 6.5G difference - or said another way, the G force would be more than double if going downwind (at least in this example).

Dan
 
T-O Turn around.

Paul you must be a lawer or a physician. Heed the advice of the common man (Doug Rozendaal) and live to enjoy your grandchildren. :D Another thing not mentioned in this thread is lack of control surface authority. You let the fan stop and you'll be socked at the difference in feel the airplane has when those blades really STOP turning. Flairing takes on a new meaning!
 
Last edited:
Landing off airport, being into the wind is critical. A 10 knot wind at 50 kts gets you down to 40 kts at impact. Downwind, that brings you up to 60 kts. The difference in survivability is huge. Probably twice as deadly...

The wind velocity is the part of the discussion that always seems to be missing. I notice the first 6 pages of this thread never mentioned the impact of landing downwind, very possibly off airport.

I've seen many RC models turn back after quitting on take off. The downwind landings (read impacts) are generally spectacular. The only good thing is that nobody gets hurt in the modeling world. It usually just requires a good trash bag :eek:
 
Any RV in most conditions climbs steeper than it descends. There isn't a pilot here that wouldn't turn around from 2000 feet back to their home field given the above condition. The only question is how high do you get before making that turnaround. Everyone should think about the altitude they will use for each take-off based on the conditions and their comfort level. In general I use 500 feet, but this can vary wildly based on conditions. I took off out of Big Bear with my wife and some baggage with a density altitude of 8800 feet. My turnaround plan was never in those conditions.

-Andy
 
My numbers

During the Phase 1 testing, I found that the VVI went from -900 to -600 when I pulled the prop to coarse during gliding at 70 KIAS with engine at idle.
This action will give me more gliding distance.

On every takeoff, just before entering the RWY, I rehearse my 3-6-9 rule for engine failure:

1) Nose down, throttle idle, prop coarse, mix cutoff, 70 KIAS

2) Below 300' AGL: land straight ahead

3) Beetween 300' and 600': maximum 90* of turn

4) Beetween 600' and 900': maximum 180* of turn
(NO return to the RWY because that requires more than 180* of turn)

5) Above 900':
CONSIDER return to the RWY

All turns at max 45* of bank.
First turn into wind
Flaps as desired

I also consider the airport:
more than one RWY?
lenghts of RWY(s)?
long TWY's?
suitable grass-ares beetween the RWY's?
other traffic?

and the surrounding area:
suitable fields where?
highest terrain where?
water where?
nearby population where?

I found the 3-6-9 numbers by simulating engine failure at altitude.
Those will give me an accepteble time to both FLY the plane and picking out a place to land.
 
Last edited:
Another thing not mentioned in this thread is lack of control surface authority. You let the fan stop and you'll be socked at the difference in feel the airplane has when those blades really STOP turning. Flairing takes on a new meaning!
We discuss this with PP-G students when making choices on how to handle rope breaks (premature termination of the tow, or PT3). In higher winds, remember that control authority goes to essentially zero below about 10-15kt (threshold for gliders and LSA; RV-3/4/6/7/8 is probably higher). This is why we have some run the wing when we take off (exercise: get into a glider on the line in a stiff headwind (15kt) and "fly" the airplane in the roll axis).

Let's say that you are landing downwind in a 15 kt wind. The controls will loose authority while you are still traveling 25-30kt groundspeed. That's the limit for landing downwind in a club ship, and that limits the possibility for damage. Gusty conditions make this problem worse.

So, if the conditions are, say, 15G20 with a 30 deg crosswind, you might think twice about landing downwind. Again, think about what will happen on this flight.

TODR
 
Last edited:
We discuss this with PP-G students when making choices on how to handle rope breaks (premature termination of the tow, or PT3). In higher winds, remember that control authority goes to essentially zero below about 10-15kt (threshold for gliders and LSA; RV-3/4/6/7/8 is probably higher). This is why we have some run the wing when we take off (exercise: get into a glider on the line in a stiff headwind (15kt) and "fly" the airplane in the roll axis).

Let's say that you are landing downwind in a 15 kt wind. The controls will loose authority while you are still traveling 25-30kt groundspeed. That's the limit for landing downwind in a club ship, and that limits the possibility for damage. Gusty conditions make this problem worse.

So, if the conditions are, say, 15G20 with a 30 deg crosswind, you might think twice about landing downwind. Again, think about what will happen on this flight.

TODR

Do you fly your gliders via groundspeed reference?
 
Do you fly your gliders via groundspeed reference?

I'm pretty sure Doug was talking about control while on the ground. Typically in gliders the aerodynamic controls are the only controls that can steer you on the ground. If you land downwind in a 15 knot wind as your speed approaches 15 knots you have zero control over what direction you are going as there is no air movement over the control surfaces. After that there is backward movement which probably makes things even worse.
 
Do you fly your gliders via groundspeed reference?
When trying a distance task between task points, yes, since your job is to get from point A to B as quickly as possible.

When in the landing phase, no, other than to help judge the wind.

I'm pretty sure Doug was talking about control while on the ground. Typically in gliders the aerodynamic controls are the only controls that can steer you on the ground.
Correct. Steerable tailwheels are really rare in gliders, and differential braking is a meaningless concept when all your landing gear are on the centerline (unless you have a touring motorglider, aka Katana HK36). It's quite a feeling when you land downwind, put in rudder to correct for a mild crosswind, and as the speed bleeds off, you go full input and the glider keeps yawing...

In any airplane, you will loose stick effectiveness as airspeed decays. If you land a "traditional" RV with a 15kt tailwind, you may still be going 30kt groundspeed with essentially no flight control surface effectiveness, as the control surfaces are fairly small (when compared to gliders, LSA/RV-12, etc). That's pretty fast to be going with only a steerable tailwheel.

TODR
 
When trying a distance task between task points, yes, since your job is to get from point A to B as quickly as possible.

When in the landing phase, no, other than to help judge the wind.


Correct. Steerable tailwheels are really rare in gliders, and differential braking is a meaningless concept when all your landing gear are on the centerline (unless you have a touring motorglider, aka Katana HK36). It's quite a feeling when you land downwind, put in rudder to correct for a mild crosswind, and as the speed bleeds off, you go full input and the glider keeps yawing...

In any airplane, you will loose stick effectiveness as airspeed decays. If you land a "traditional" RV with a 15kt tailwind, you may still be going 30kt groundspeed with essentially no flight control surface effectiveness, as the control surfaces are fairly small (when compared to gliders, LSA/RV-12, etc). That's pretty fast to be going with only a steerable tailwheel.

TODR

got it, thanks for clarification
 
At 50 kts, a 9G stop happens in 12 feet. Using 12 feet as a fixed benchmark - at 40 kts it's only 6Gs but at 60 kts it goes up just over 13. So, the difference upwind / downwind would be about a 6.5G difference - or said another way, the G force would be more than double if going downwind (at least in this example).

Dan

All these numbers assume constant acceleration, which I suspect is not what occurs when a plane hits something. I suspect that the lion's share of the deceleration occurs in the few milliseconds after collision, thus producing a lot more g than the numbers quoted.
 
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2011/12/27/state/n162849S71.DTL

One of the members of Beechtalk witnessed this a few hours ago as he was putting his airplane in his hangar with his wife and kids...

He said a Navion climbed to 400 ft, loud bang, engine quit, leveled off, turned back, stalled and spun in right in front of his family...

He was first on the scene. They were alive at that point... Hopefully they survive....

Thoughts and prayers
 
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2011/12/27/state/n162849S71.DTL

One of the members of Beechtalk witnessed this a few hours ago as he was putting his airplane in his hangar with his wife and kids...

He said a Navion climbed to 400 ft, loud bang, engine quit, leveled off, turned back, stalled and spun in right in front of his family...

He was first on the scene. They were alive at that point... Hopefully they survive....

Thoughts and prayers
Both men aboard the plane were in good condition and were expected to go home Tuesday evening, said Chris Perez, a nursing supervisor at John Muir Medical Center in Walnut Creek.

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2011/12/27/state/n162849S71.DTL#ixzz1hnTYjufl
 
A moving video....

[ed. link removed - I don't like showing videos of people dying. dr]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
So if I post a video of a crash during a normal take-off in which the pilot, through bad technique, lost control and ran into a house we should conclude that normal take-offs are too dangerous?

I suppose bad technique on take off is "too dangerous," given that normal takeoffs with proper technique are inherently dangerous too.
 
[ed. link removed - I don't like showing videos of people dying. dr]

Doug,

I happened to have a chance to view the video before it was deleted. I cannot imagine anyone enjoying seeing this. It never occurred to me who this was. I don't want to know. I didn't enjoy it. I viewed it as a training video, a stark reminder to resist the natural tendency to turn back in this situation. It was no less than gut-wrenching to watch. If you removed it for legal reasons, I understand. If you were turned off by it, well I don't know. If viewing that video saves one life in a similar circumstance, then it is worth the discomfort of having it available for such a vast audience to witness and learn from. Takeoff is the most dangerous part of a flight as far as I am concerned, and an engine out on takeoff is the worst case scenario. It's how we handle it that may make the difference. This video will stay with me for a very long time. I have never seen, thank goodness, an engine out on takeoff before and this video was a compelling reminder to resist the urge to turn back at such a low altitude. Please consider some solution to provide this and other materials for skills training for this community. By viewing this video, many pilots, new and old, will see first hand what the wrong decision will yield. It is amazing to me how quickly the stall spin actually happened after the pilot's recognition of engine out and then his decision to turn back. Frightening.

Best regards,

Mike

[ed. I'm the one the family relatives email to ask if I'd please remove the link to the video of the spouse/dad/friend dying in a plane crash. Unless you've recieved that email, you won't understand. Please respect my wishes here. dr]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I agree that the video may save lives. Discomfort in seeing people die? So do you sanitize the issue and say: "Please do not turn back. You may die."

The video did not cause me distress or anguish. It is reality.


[ed. I'm the one the family relatives email to ask if I'd please remove the link to the video of the spouse/dad/friend dying in a plane crash. Unless you've recieved that email, you won't understand. Please respect my wishes here. dr]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
100% agree Ron.

Every pilot should watch that video, IMHO.


[ed. I'm the one the family relatives email to ask if I'd please remove the link to the video of the spouse/dad/friend dying in a plane crash. Unless you've recieved that email, you won't understand. Please respect my wishes here. dr]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
not graphic but an outstanding safety video...

[ed. link removed - I don't like showing videos of people dying. dr]

I understand the general idea...

I had the opportunity to view the footage, which was recorded from a security camera off airport, and believe that it is extraordinary and should be viewed in the context of real world safety associated with an unsuccessful attempt to return to the runway.

If ever there is similar footage of me I surely hope that it will be shared.

[ed. I'm the one the family relatives email to ask if I'd please remove the link to the video of the spouse/dad/friend dying in a plane crash. Unless you've recieved that email, you won't understand. Please respect my wishes here. dr]
 
Ok, is it permissible for someone to provide enough information, without posting the link itself, so that those of us that wish to see the video can independently search for it?
 
Has DR some auto response going on here?:D

Unfortunately in this politically correct world, and one with lots of media forms available, we will forever have this battle. Relatives of a pilot who does something stupid and kills himself always think of their deceased as Bob Hoovers who were not capable of such mere mortal mistakes.

They fail to see that others might learn something from their watching these things. So should we ban all plane crash videos? How about people who die from heart attacks? Heck my dad died that way, why not stop that from all the silly ER movies and tv shows......where does it end?

Personally I think folk should harden up a little. Of course that does not help poor DR when he gets emailed, so I see his point but I just struggle to see why we have to go soft all the time. Plenty to learn from others mistakes.

Watching that mooney and knowing their climb rate :rolleyes: I wonder if that was a Vx climb or something rather steep.

People seem to think going for Vx or Vy is the smarter thing to do, gain height quickly. The opposite is true, unless you actually have to clear obstacles.

Kinetic energy is your friend and you gain it as a result of your speed squared, and when it goes bad, you can see more, you can use the energy immediately, and you are less likely to stall and spin.

Now maybe the mooney is not as bad as I remember, but having flown lots of RVs a mooney is something you do not want to fly with the same climb expectation:eek:
 
ROE

D.R. - your sandbox, your rules. But in this case, you are wrong.

The unique lesson learned from actually viewing the video - a lesson learned applicable to nearly everyone who participates in this forum - is a visual realization of how far the nose has to come down in order to prevent an engine out accelerated stall. It sure isn't the same as pulling power back to idle.

And yes - I'm the guy who started this thread a long time ago.
 
turnback

Find the Sunrise Aviation video on turnbacks done by Michael Church and his associate. Very informative and shows that the turnback can be done safely.
To me the turnback is not much different than the "worst case" base to final turn. Low and slow to start with, strong tailwind on base, overshooting final, just bank a little steeper and stand on the rudder. Oop's.
I don't like to watch videos of pepole crashing.
 
Find the Sunrise Aviation video on turnbacks done by Michael Church and his associate. Very informative and shows that the turnback can be done safely.
To me the turnback is not much different than the "worst case" base to final turn. Low and slow to start with, strong tailwind on base, overshooting final, just bank a little steeper and stand on the rudder. Oop's.
I don't like to watch videos of pepole crashing.

Your advice is contrary to the FAA's information. Steep banks increase stall by up to X 2. Your information may kill someone trying it. An FAA seminar I went to at OSH said 80% of pilots who try to return to the airport after an engine out die, FAA stats, not mine.
 
Last edited:
I saw the video before it was deleted. I was blown away at how fast the turnback developed into a spin. I know nothing about the accident, who it was, or what their experience level was. What I saw was a guy who did his best with what he knew trying to survive. What I learned was unless it is a brick wall I am going straight at - drop the nose and fly under control to the ground. My last consideration will be getting back to the airport. Control will be my first.

I didn't enjoy watching a fellow pilot - a real person, not make it. I learned much more in that 15 seconds than I would have believed possible. I am glad I had the chance to see it - it may save my life.

If it was a video of me and it could save someone else, I would hope TV news would show it.
 
I saw the video before it was deleted. I was blown away at how fast the turnback developed into a spin...

I didn't enjoy watching a fellow pilot - a real person, not make it...

If it was a video of me and it could save someone else, I would hope TV news would show it.

Plus 1 - my feelings, exactly
 
Your advice is contrary to the FAA's information. Steep banks increase stall by up to X 2. Your information may kill someone trying it. An FAA seminar I went to at OSH said 80% of pilots who try to return to the airport after an engine out die, FAA stats, not mine.

A stall only happens when you exceed stall AOA, it has nothing to do with bank angle. Stall AOA only involves airspeed and g loading. Everyone must have their own plan for what to do after an engine failure. If you have planned for and practiced the impossible turn, and make sure not to exceed the g available for your airspeed, the maneuver may be a good choice. One must always fly the airplane within it's and your capability.

It's impossible to have a stat for percent of death on the impossible turn. How many successful turns are reported?

-Andy
 
A stall only happens when you exceed stall AOA, it has nothing to do with bank angle. Stall AOA only involves airspeed and g loading. Everyone must have their own plan for what to do after an engine failure. If you have planned for and practiced the impossible turn, and make sure not to exceed the g available for your airspeed, the maneuver may be a good choice. One must always fly the airplane within it's and your capability.

It's impossible to have a stat for percent of death on the impossible turn. How many successful turns are reported?

-Andy

You need to tell the FAA not me. Click on the link below and scroll down until you see the FAA brochure "The Impossible Turn". ;)

http://www.maxtrescott.com/max_tres...ack-to-the-runway-or-land-straight-ahead.html



"It is common knowledge that, because of loading, stalling speeds increase with angle of
bank. Take a look at the figures which relate to a typical four-seat tourer in world wide
use (see Table 1)."
Bank Angle Stall Speed Increase (%)
0 deg. 49 knots 0%
35 deg. 53 knots 8%
45 deg. 59 knots 20%
60 deg. 71 knots 43%
75 deg. 97 knots 97%
 
Last edited:
The wing doesn't really care about the bank angle or airspeed. When you load the wing (ie., back pressure in a turn) you increase the angle of attack. The wing does care about that.

So, low to the ground, turning sharply to the left (ie., high bank angle), loading the wing, sensing an unusual feel to the controls, and not liking like what they have, a lot of pilots might then crank in a lot of right aileron thinking "get me out of this maneuver - I'll figure it out when I'm upright...". Unfortunately, on the edge of a stall, the adverse yaw is all it would take to complete the spin entry. At 400 feet or so (an altitude many advocate where the turn back becomes an option) it's just not possible to recover from the the spin.

In the end, I don't think you can categorically say the turn back is wrong - it can't be reduced to a simple yes / no evaluation. There will always be proponents of the turn back and every once in awhile, someone makes it. On the other hand, it's hard to argue with the point of view that the odds are in favor of landing ahead under control. (The Bob Hoover admonition - to fly the aircraft as far into the crash as you can).

If there was anything shocking about the video, it's how quickly all this happens and, therefore, how few options a pilot really has. By the time one would begin to see it's not working out - it's way past too late.

While I support DR's decision to pull the video - I don't recall seeing anyone make disrespectful or inappropriate comments; and, along the lines of what someone else stated, were I the pilot where there was a video of an accident, I would want people viewing it for the benefit of avoiding a bad outcome should they be faced with a similar situation.

Dan
 
Last edited:
Back
Top