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

pvalovich

Well Known Member
Engine Failure on takeoff: -8A with Aerosport 180 HP IO-360.

ROE: 90 KIAS, flaps up, power to idle, count 5 seconds, then initiate 180 degree turn. Minimum airspeed 70 KIAS.

Procedure: 60-90 degrees angle of bank, pull hard, reduce AOB and lower nose to maintain airspeed.

Results: 200 - 250 ft. altitude loss.

Caveat: single runway turn will require more than 180 degrees, but 180 seemed like a good data point.

Comments on procedure? Coments on results?
 
Minimum airspeed 70 KIAS.

Procedure: 60-90 degrees angle of bank, pull hard, reduce AOB and lower nose to maintain airspeed.

60-90 degree bank at 70 knots? I must be misinterpreting your method. Or my airmanship skills need work.
 
70 Kts

Start at 90 KIAS - lower nose immediately after failure indication. Rudder and full aileron. Roll 60-90 degrees AOB and pull. Decrease AOB as A/S decreases. Don't go below 70 KIAS.

I used 70 as a data point - I stall 1g with the flaps up at 52.

You can fly 90 degrees AOB at 70 KIAS by unloading the g. You'll have to drop the nose and eventually zero g it. You can "fly" with 90 degrees AOB at zero airspeed and zero g if you have the altitude - it's that **** recovery that gets tricky.
 
As a glider pilot we were always taught the minimum altitude loss was at 45 degrees bank.

IIRC an AOPA safety turn back article came up with the same number.
 
45 Degrees

I don't know the answer to this - but if you "rapidly" roll to 90 degrees AOB, putting your lift vector horizantal, pull and bleed to 70 KIAS, then reduce bank to 45 degrees, wouldn't that provide a greater initial turn rate and overall shorter turn period than initially going to 45 degrees?
 
At 60 degrees bank, the airplane stalls 1.4 times higher. By the numbers Vans published in the builders manual, you will be in a stall at 60 degrees bank, zero flap and 70kts

56 x 1.4 = 78kts
 
I just saw your post quoting 52kts as your stall speed, but that still puts you in a stall at 60 degrees bank, 2g.

52 x 1.4 = 73
 
That's correct. That still applies in a steady rate descent though.
Are you allowing the nose to drop while in the turn? If so then itwill be less than 2g and the stall speed will be appropiately lower.
 
Have you tried this procedure at altitude Paul? If so, are the figures you have quoted representative of what parameters you used during the procedure?

As an aside, I would recommend that if anyone else tries this procedure using these parameters then please do it at altitude. I have noted that Paul is a test pilot and has 30 years experience as a Navy carrier pilot.
 
I humbly disagree

As a glider pilot we were always taught the minimum altitude loss was at 45 degrees bank.

IIRC an AOPA safety turn back article came up with the same number.

I cannot claim to have proven it in flight, but I once did the math on a spreadsheet and the best relationship between sink rate and rate of turn was at 60 degrees. That's steady state, of course and not necessarily a complete guideline. 45 is likely a little easier to control.

An instructor friend of mine, who was part of the experiment at the time, demonstrated pretty well that 60 was correct. He teaches the turn back. I don't want to get anyone killed over this, I'm just trying to make a point about the pure math.

BTW - 60 degrees is 2 g's in level flight, but the point is that you want to use gravity for energy, so it will not be a level flight and thus the stall factor must be understood differently. That is an important part of understanding this. The HP consumed will be proportional to the weight times the sink rate. Staying in the air longer (time) is not necessarily the goal, but making the turn faster, relative to the sink rate, is.

As for the best speed to fly, the speed at which your airplane has the least sink is the same speed for maximum range - or a little slower. If the prop's drag were not a factor then it would be the same. However, the prop's drag is a factor and thus the speed for minimum sink needs to be determined experimentally and you have to choose between stopped vs. turning and if turning and CS then fine or coarse. Since you will lose oil pressure and you'd normally be in fine pitch for takeoff, the answer is probably easy to determine. Mine is FP, so I'll leave that to experts.
 
Be Carefull

A few years ago a well known recurrent training program routinely taught the turn back manuver. One day an experienced instructor and the young CEO of an international company lost their lives on the 3rd attempt after completing two uneventfull turn backs. It can be done, but leaves very little room for error or changing wind conditions. As I recalled, the optimal bank on that make/model of plane was 45~60 degrees.
 
I did turnbacks from 800', 600' 400' and finally 250' in my 180 horse -6A and video'd them all, back in 2008 and posted the results on here.

Here's the link....go to page 2 and scroll down for the youtube video. When you get to the youtube page, you'll see my turnback at 300' and also 250' listed.

http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=41343&highlight=turnbacks&page=2

Best,
You cheat Pierre, you a crop duster with no fear and steel acorns
Just kiddings

just make that first trun into the wind if it is not exactly down the runway,

Smilin' Jack
 
It seems to take more than 180 degrees of turn, plus a rollout and turn in the other direction or else you're off to the side of the runway. Sort of a P shaped path over the ground.

Speed isn't constant during the maneuver. You need that kinetic energy and you're going to use it. It appears as if turn rate is more important than rate of sink, because a quickly-done maneuver will take less overall energy than a leisurely one.

It might be a good idea to gradually increase flaps as you slow down, if that buys you some stall margin. Having a good stall warner or calibrated angle of attack system is priceless here.

By all means this is something to be tried at altitude. From those results, add a generous margin to your climb-out planning.

This whole thing is a good exercise in energy management.

Dave
 
Clarification - Please Read

Do these tests at altitude. I was 3000 ft AGL when I started. I had also done accellerated stalls, spins and extensive min airspeed maneuvering prior to the turn back tests.

Appreciate all the feedback. One additional point of clarification: the roll and pull maneuver to greater than 60 degrees AOB and hard pull is a quick first action. Both AOB and G loading are reduced as the maneuver progresses and airsspeed decreases.

The purpose of the test was to establish a min altitude limit for takeoff engine failure maneuvering. My personal limit will be 250 feet AGL. If not there, land straight ahead. Of course, flying out of IYK with 3 runways offers easier options.

No correct textbook answer - your results may vary - but I recommend you explore this part of the envelope. Trying to figure out a min altitude limit after a real engine failure on takeoff is a low odds crapshoot.
 
We found that a 45 deg AOB was the best compromise between being able to see where you want to end up, and maintaining the aircraft out of buffet.

The greater the AOB the tighter the turn the better. 60 is better than 55,50,45,40 etc....And you will never nail any real number.

The point here is knowing where you can go, and how you would get there. Is it a left or right turn? Perhaps a right turn is better because half way through, you may find that other options may be better, or in fact now your only ones.
 
You can do some pretty steep banks in a turn back as long as you unload the wing. In an extreme example, the wing won't stall at 0G.

My vote is not to fool with the turn back. It's proven deadly.

A 9G deceleration requires 25 feet from 70kts. As long as you don't hit anything solid in that 25 feet, I think the odds are better than a turn back into a stall/spin.

Dan
 
There's also the environment factor to consider...

My home airport has trees around it and a creek causing both ends of the runway to have a very abrupt threshold. Landing short, or long, of the 2600' runway may not be survivable. Surrounding area is farmland, making an off-airport landing more appealing than a turn-back if the margins are close.
 
The definitive thread

Before anyone goes any further here I would respectfully suggest that interested parties check out the following VansAirforce thread:

http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=30649&highlight=turnback

The thread above is the definitive thread on the turnback maneouvre. It commenced on June 3, 2008, and ran to May 21, 2011 with 239 posts and 23,714 viewings. It contains all the maths and all the morality. And it was so passionate it divided families.:)

Many of the learned people who posted on the above thread will never touch upon the subject on VansAirforce again (including me) so it is highly recommended reading.
 
You're wrong, Jack

.....You cheat Pierre, you a crop duster with no fear and steel acorns
Just kiddings


Smilin' Jack

I DO have fear, Jack....the reason that I practise these things:) I will go out in the -10 today and do some more.

Doug Rosendahl pointed out the "High-C" maneuver last year and I immediately went out and found the -10's altitude for that maneuver as well....thanks to Doug, another weapon in my survival arsenal!

Best,
 
TO turn around

Been around this game for a long time and here's what I've seen more than once. Real world engine failure on take off land stright ahead or find you a better spot just off of your noise to put your plane into. That 180 degree turn will "KILL YOU" or make you wish you had died in the crash. :eek: Period end of story.
 
Been around this game for a long time and here's what I've seen more than once. Real world engine failure on take off land stright ahead or find you a better spot just off of your noise to put your plane into. That 180 degree turn will "KILL YOU" or make you wish you had died in the crash. :eek: Period end of story.

And as we know, there are exceptions. My RV could easily be at pattern height, halfway down the runway. I live next door to the airport. A few months ago, a small & low powered experimental wasn't able to get past telephone pole height, after leaving the runway. The pilot attempted to turn, while already on the edge of a stall, and the results were predicatable. As has been demonstarted previously on this forum, it's not always a case of the 180 being a killer.
 
Re-Group

OK folks - perhaps it's time to recalibrate the intent of my first post. I'm not looking for discussion on whether a turnback turn is a good idea. Since the technique I found to work best during flight test differs somewhat from what was recommended in previous posts, I was seeking real-world opinions whether my technique was flawed.

I wait 5 seconds after pulling power to idle. 3 seconds seems to be what most folks use. Comments?

I can get to 90 degrees AOB in my -8A quicker than a glider can get to 45. It seemed to me that an initial roll to 90 degrees AOB then pulling to bleed airspeed, then gradually reducing bank to 45 degrees produced the best results. Comments?

Environment: I fly out of Inyokern (IYK). The desert in any direction is pretty much the same, so trees are not an issue.

The laws - as in the laws of aerodynamics: Top of the checklist: DO NOT STALL THE AIRPLANE (thus the statement in my previous post about doing accellerated stalls, spins and extensive low altitude maneuvering). At some point if it ain't working, level the wings and land straight ahead (easy for a desert rat to say - you have way too many trees back east).

Agreed - the turnback turn is not for everyone. But if, based on experience and slow speed comfort level, one considers such a maneuver a viable option, a minimum start altitude must be fixed in one's mind.
 
It seemed to me that an initial roll to 90 degrees AOB then pulling to bleed airspeed, then gradually reducing bank to 45 degrees produced the best results. Comments?

Others may not feel the same - my inclination is that loading the wing with 90 degrees bank angle and power off (failed) won't end well.

Dan
 
Booger,

I'm stumped. I'd like to test your method, but the fog has been too low here to go experiment.

My method in the past was to pitch aggressively to best glide speed, converting excess speed to altitude, then starting the turn. As a friend pointed out, that excess speed is going to dissipate whether you convert it to altitude or not.

Your method uses that excess energy to achieve a tighter turn radius.

The question boils down to: Which is the better use of that 20kts, tighter turn or a tiny bit more altitude?
 
I did this testing in my 7A and determined 500? AGL would be my absolute minimum that I would try to go back to the airport.

My lowest practice turn was at 600? and still had room and had to slip it not to overrun the runway.

Making a note of wind condition and in a X-wind situation turning into the wind is a must. Also steep turn and staying just above the stall speed will yield much better result.

Be careful with this exercise, but try it in a controlled environment.
 
In the real world, everything is different isn't it.
But practice is the only known way to succeed in an emergency, so we should do it all the time.
Turn testing is simply another form of stall and or aerobatic training, the end result is getting to know your plane and yourself.
Every take off presents a different challenge, even when everything goes well.
Things don't fail at a set altitude or with no crosswind. Some airports have good choices, like multiple runways or nearby farm fields.
Like someone said previously, good pre-take off should include thinking about these, as well as your aircraft weight. A heavy cross country take off with full fuel and baggage would present a greater risk, don't you think?
Once you learn your aircraft and your abilities, you still need to study the take of environment and even with that, how long will it take until you realize the engine really did quit, not just hiicup. Or maybe it lost most of it's power, like it's still running, but won't maintain altitude.
You staright ahead guys face a dillema here. You could turn back and make it with a L/D 40:1 with a sputtering engine, but you are continuing away from salvation while making up your mind.
I don't know the answer, but I'm not against testing, trials & training.
 
Theory and high altitude practice is great, but has anyone ever DONE this in an RV in a real emergency and made it back to a runway on all 3 wheels? If so, I want to hear (read) the story.
 
Pierre: Tried to find Doug's discussion of the "High C Maneuver", but no luck. Read a lot of interesting stuff trying to find it, though!

What, where, please?


Lee...
 
Been around this game for a long time and here's what I've seen more than once. Real world engine failure on take off land stright ahead or find you a better spot just off of your noise to put your plane into. That 180 degree turn will "KILL YOU" or make you wish you had died in the crash. :eek: Period end of story.

+1 I agree,
 
I'll try later.

Pierre: Tried to find Doug's discussion of the "High C Maneuver", but no luck. Read a lot of interesting stuff trying to find it, though!

What, where, please?


Lee...

Lee, basically, it's the altitude you should have on downwind, across from the threshold, power off, that'll allow you to do a 180 degree approach to a landing. I can do that from 800' in the -10, using flaps as needed..no power.

The T-28 that Doug mentioned, needed around 1500' for the same maneuver. It's very handy to know what this altitude should be, in the event of a forced landing, to not be too high and overshoot the landing site, or undershoot it.

Your rocket should be able to do it in 1,000' or less....go find out.

Let's say that you're at 5,000' over a good landing site and now need to get down. The problem is not undershooting, nor overshooting the site, so you can circle or do whatever it takes, to get you to your personally found "High C" altitude on downwind, opposite your chosen touchdown point and complete a safe 180 degree approach and land.....sounds good in theory and really works, but you have to go out and do it.

Best,
 
Turning back after a engine failure is I think one of the most controversial subjects in aviation. I think one thing to consider is to make sure the choice is never based on emotion. When you build your own aircraft you have invested so much of your heart and soul into that aircraft that at times I think it can lead to bad choices.
There should only be one factor when deciding what to do after a engine failure at low altitude on departure. That is what option provides the best chance of survival for the passenger and crew. Saving the aircraft should never be a consideration. If your departure airport has a good clearway or suitable places to put the aircraft down then a turn back should not be attempted. If it has no suitable landing areas then perhaps a turn back is the best option for survival.
This decision should normally be made before adding TO power.

George
 
Some times the best option may be beside the runway, assuming you can't get back, so straight ahead would be stupid if at 90 degrees a golf course exists and you have 500 feet to get here.

Landing ahead in the bush would actually be wreckless in this case.

Stamp these words in Gold / Blood....... KNOW YOUR AEROPLANE, AND KNOW YOUR DEPARTURE AIRPORT.

PRACTISE PRACTISE PRACTISE.

those of you who are stubborn in the Don't Turn Back, are in my view not trying hard enough to be safe. You are taking the soft option. This is based on the experience of my training buddy, who has lived through 15 years of commercial ops in PNG. That in itself speaks of more experience than I have read on this whole forum. The fact this guy had multiple engine failures prior to his B777 days says something to me.

Stamp these words in Gold / Blood....... KNOW YOUR AEROPLANE, AND KNOW YOUR DEPARTURE AIRPORT.

PRACTISE PRACTISE PRACTISE.

In fact I need to go do some more.....it's been a while.
 
I am reluctant to contribute to this thread because it IS so controversial.

Twice since beginning to fly an experimental airplane, I have had to deal with an unexpected problem that cut the flight short.

The single most important factor is recovering from the psychological shock of the unexpected event and fly the airplane. Only then can the brain function well enough to make the decisions necessary to survive the event. Practice and advanced decision making is very important, but action does not kick in until the brain has accepted the fact this is for real and it is time to take appropriate action.

Decisions (or policy mandating certain actions) made before any event occurs can make the process more likely to end favorably. But there still has to be a factor built in for the time delay between the event occurring and when the brain reacts. Not many of us are spring loaded for an engine failure immediately after take off unless there a conscious effort to think about it as power it advanced for take off. It should be on the check list, it is so important, as we all become much too relaxed after dozens of successful take offs.

A decision to turn back is controversial because it is a personal one. Its almost like which church you belong to or belonging to none. I made a decision a long time ago to NEVER turn back because I know the factors that will affect the success of doing so may not be in place or apparent, like the wind for example, and there is no time to sort it out. Once the turn is initiated there's no turning back to landing straight ahead. Much of what happens next is out of your control. So from this (personal) perspective, there is a conviction the odds of survival are best making the best of a controlled crash straight ahead. And this conviction comes after reading just about every word of how to successfully complete a turn around after take off. It simply is not for me (a personal decision).

In flight events resulting in an unplanned landing are a different matter. It is important to have some idea how far the airplane will glide and have mental picture of what an appropriate visual slope looks like not just on final but overhead and on down wind leg. That can only be accomplished with practice and trying to remember key altitudes at various points in the pattern. Practicing idle engine approaches is a good method of learning the necessary mental pictures but keep in mind it may be just a bit different with a windmilling or stopped prop.

Once, while simply enjoying fall colors from about 800' AGL, the engine quit and the prop stopped with no warning whatever. The reaction to the event was frozen for a few seconds as the brain did not immediately comprehend that the flight was going down, like right now. It was going to contact earth and to have some choice in the matter as to where this would happen, the "fly the airplane" premise kicked in. There are not many choices of where the landing would be, but somewhere had to be selected. You do the best you can and it is important to get some control over the situation as soon as possible. That's why "fly the airplane" is so important. Once the brain has latched on to fly the airplane, other necessary procedures can be accomplished - if there is time.

All of this stuff needs to be thought about. It is easy to get lulled into enjoying very moment of flight, it can be so rewarding. But after having experienced a couple unexpected events, no flight is as relaxing as it was. There always is an awareness that stuff happens. Flying over a densely populated area or a area with no roads or people or decent landing site always makes me feel just a bit uneasy. I still do it but it is not without some misgivings.

That risk meter in the brain is always active and it is a constant process of accepting what it is saying or doing something about getting it back into an acceptable range. We all have different markings on that meter and we need to heed them. To fly without knowing or appreciating the risks is the worst possible way to fly.
 
This^^^^


For those of you advocating a turn back... post back here when you've actually lost an engine on takeoff.

I've had it happen.

Keep your options to what is in front if you. Simple is survivable, and you will NOT be 100% on your airmanship skills when it actually happens.

I was able to get the engine restarted about 50' off the water BECAUSE I made one 70* turn, and spent the rest of the time trying to restart. If I'd bled all my energy trying to make a 180 and another 90 to the runway, I probably would have died with my student.

We got lucky, but I was prepared to get wet, under full control.

This assumes there is ANY doubt you have the altitude. If you are absolutely, positively, 100% sure you can make it then do it. If there's any doubt, there is no doubt, and land/crash within your field of view, under control.
 
Last edited:
Lee, basically, it's the altitude you should have on downwind, across from the threshold, power off, that'll allow you to do a 180 degree approach to a landing. I can do that from 800' in the -10, using flaps as needed..no power.

The T-28 that Doug mentioned, needed around 1500' for the same maneuver. It's very handy to know what this altitude should be, in the event of a forced landing, to not be too high and overshoot the landing site, or undershoot it.

Your rocket should be able to do it in 1,000' or less....go find out.

Let's say that you're at 5,000' over a good landing site and now need to get down. The problem is not undershooting, nor overshooting the site, so you can circle or do whatever it takes, to get you to your personally found "High C" altitude on downwind, opposite your chosen touchdown point and complete a safe 180 degree approach and land.....sounds good in theory and really works, but you have to go out and do it.

Best,

I'm pretty sure you guys are talking about "High-Key" not "high-C" and for the 180 deg turn it would be "low-key" and for a 360 "high-key".
 
High key it is.

Pierre,
Ken is right, but what you were describing as "High C" is still not "high key". Its "low key" as Ken stated. Seems like semantics, but not from where Ken and I come from. Standard Navy/Marine Corps/Air Force terminology.

20gzibm.jpg


The beauty of the ELP pattern is that you can apply it anywhere once you've determined your touchdown point, whether it be a farmer's field, highway, beach, runway, etc. You simply work it in your head to determine where you are going to intercept the ELP profile based off of your current altitude. Problem with teaching turnback is that if you are too low to intercept any portion of the ELP then you really ought not attempt it in the first place. Knowing that comes from experimenting with one's particular aircraft as has already been pointed out. At the end of the day however, since we all own our own planes, "to each his/her own."
 
Last edited:
Ahh, the age old question! There is a fundamental rule that says "never say never", but...


From a risk management perspective:

If you land straight ahead, unless it is into a cliff, statistically, most people survive, most of the time.

If you Turn back, and you are successful - hurrah! If you attempt to turn back, and are NOT successful, the statistics show that you will die.

So - one way is an almost assured "survive" (sorry about the airplane....), while the other option is either good or fatal. There's that old "probability vs. Severity" curve, and unfortunately, the probability of screwing up the turn back is high, with the results severe.

Everyone decides where to put the risk bar for themselves. If you are solo - it's up to you. If you are not alone...Do your passengers have the same INFORMED choice?



Paul
 
Last edited:
Ahhh... okay.. 'High Key', I understand.

It's interesting to me the degree to which 'standard' practices in flying instruction change over time. At our little airport in SC, there is a division in pattern flying between the guys who learned to fly years ago and those who got their licenses more recently. Most of the pilots who've been flying longer, fly tighter, higher patterns as protection against landing off-airport in case of engine failure. More recent guys were all taught by their instructors that engine failure is statistically unlikely but that pilot error during landing is not (mismanagement of flaps, gear, carb heat, prop, etc.) and that its safer to fly a wide and deep pattern to ensure sufficient time to conclude your landing checklist in detail and 'settle in' during the approach, than it is to be rushed in a high and tight pattern and perhaps miss something important.

It's fascinating to observe the poorly veiled (but good natured) contempt each group has for the other. The first sees the latter as thinking they must be flying B-52's and the other sees the first as a bunch of kamikazi's! The first group thinks nothing of being high on final and slipping big time when they've got the field made and the other apparently sees aggressive slipping to be tantamount to aerobatics in the pattern!

The high key/low key discussion fits reasonably well within this framework. At my airport at least, the first group clearly has a feel for the concept while the latter seems intuitively opposed and committed to the 'straight ahead' strategy, at least as regards engine loss in the pattern. It seems to have less to do with age and variety of flight experience than it does with when each pilot got their training. Some of this phenomena may reflect back on the takeoff 'turn-back' topic under discussion as well.


Lee...

P.S. The high key for the F-4 was 10,500', 215 knots, gear down and flaps up. Low key was 6,000'. Flaps down rolling out and flare initiation at 500'. Imagine losing six thousand feet in a 180 degree turn to final---had to be quite a ride!
 
Last edited:
Training and practice is everything when you have a major emergency, I know this from personal experience.

A part of my scan on every takeoff, once I am past the point of landing straight ahead on the runway, is where I would go if the engine failed. I am fairly certain I would instinctively head for the nearest clear area, unless I was at pattern altitude or very close. After a power loss during climbout, your airspeed will drop off very rapidly unless you get the nose down quickly, I have taught and practiced this with many students, in airplanes that don't glide worth a ****.

If you fly those huge patterns instead of keeping it close in and doing as many power off landings as you can, you are doing yourself a real disservice. The sink rate, even in a spam can, in a power off situation when you are close to the ground may seem quite scary to someone who does not regularly practice full power off landings from downwind. In my experience most of those unfamiliar with this tend to want to pull back on the yoke way too early because of this.

I don't buy for a second the argument that a long slow approach is safer, for many reasons. I will say if you cannot routinely land your airplane from downwind with full power off, and easily stay ahead of the airplane without feeling rushed, you have no business taking up passengers until you can. It's not hard, it just takes practice.

Fortunately, like the acro planes I am used to flying, RV's have excellent power to weight ratios, and the time period between having to land straight ahead and being at a safe (for me) altitude to turn back, is very short.

And I think everyone should do what the OP is saying here, go out and practice this stuff in your plane, learn it, get to know your plane so you know without a doubt what it and you are really capable of and comfortable with. That's what being a "good stick" is all about.
 
Everyone decides where to put the risk bar for themselves. If you are solo - it's up to you. If you are not alone...Do your passengers have the same INFORMED choice?Paul

The cockpit (or mine anyway) is not a democracy. No time to poll the pax, debate the merits, and settle on a compromise during a T/O engine out. The PIC is in COMMAND and makes the decision, period. Time and altitude permitting good Crew Resource Management (CRM) certainly involves a great deal of collaborative Decision Making, Assertiveness, Mission Analysis, Communication, Leadership, Adaptability, and Situational Awareness (DAMCLAS - apologies to my Navy brothers for the CRM class - sign yourself off for annual refresher training). Otherwise the pax along for the joy ride needs to listen and follow orders.

.01
 
The cockpit (or mine anyway) is not a democracy. No time to poll the pax, debate the merits, and settle on a compromise during a T/O engine out. The PIC is in COMMAND and makes the decision, period. Time and altitude permitting good Crew Resource Management (CRM) certainly involves a great deal of collaborative Decision Making, Assertiveness, Mission Analysis, Communication, Leadership, Adaptability, and Situational Awareness (DAMCLAS - apologies to my Navy brothers for the CRM class - sign yourself off for annual refresher training). Otherwise the pax along for the joy ride needs to listen and follow orders.

.01

Can you fwd me the paperwork? :D
 
Lee, basically, it's the altitude you should have on downwind, across from the threshold, power off, that'll allow you to do a 180 degree approach to a landing. I can do that from 800' in the -10, using flaps as needed..no power.

Pierre i did engine out practice for the first time in my -10 as well. In the pattern, 75% gross weight, 1000 AGL, abeam numbers, power idle, i had 1 or 2 seconds to turn directly to the runway to BARELY make the runway, let alone 1/3 of the runway. That was a shocker! I was surprised the sinkrate seemed much higher than a C182 i had recently flown.

I was quite surprised at how little margin i had to make the runway. Anything more than 45% bank, land short. 3 second delay to react, land short. I have a lot more practicing to do!

Jae
 
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
 
Back
Top