Return to runway after engine failure

For discussion:

The lack of suitable emergency landing sites in the case of an engine failure after takeoff at M01, Dewitt-Spain Airport, prompted the following research. This is not to "pick on" M01 as it's not the only airport that has "no place to go" in the event of engine failure after takeoff.

I first read the Rogers article three years ago, and practiced the suggested maneuver for a "turnback" at altitude before attempting it for real at KAWM. I was always able to turn back using the prescribed maneuver from 350' AGL in my VariEze while practicing a simulated engine failure. The maneuver is ill-advised without sufficient practice at altitude to assure proficiency.

From the research: Optimal Turn-Back Maneuver After Engine Failure in a Single-Engine Aircraft During Climb-Out
http://pdf.aiaa.org/getfile.cfm?url...*0 &urld='+"\!"@6JU0 &urle='+2P." "KTP
K. Brinkman and H. Visser, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands ;AIAA-2007-252 ;45th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, Reno, Nevada, Jan. 8-11, 2007

"In recent years the problem of emergency landing after engine failure has received considerable attention, with vrespect to both single-engine military aircraft, and general aviation aircraft. Rogers pioneered the optimal turnback maneuver following power loss by formulating the return-to-runway problem as a steady-state minimumaltitude-loss optimization problem. The study revealed that the optimum steady-state flight path is teardrop shaped with a 45º bank angle at stall velocity during the turn. In5 Hyde extended the work of Rogers by formulating the problem of minimum-altitude-loss during a 180º heading change as a dynamic trajectory optimization problem based on a point-mass aircraft model. For an initial speed of reasonable magnitude, the resulting maneuver typically is a teardrop pattern, characterized by an initial zoom climb and deceleration and a lateral maneuver representing a wingover."

See also: Rogers' article →
The Possible ‘Impossible’ Turn David F. Rogers
http://jeremy.zawodny.com/flying/turnback.pdf

Always in the best interest of safety-
Best regards,
Barney

Barney, I suspect this will generate a lot of discussion. A couple months ago, I saw a Barry Schiff video about this very topic. He demonstrated (at altitude) that it could be done. What was missing in his discussion were the all important factors of climb angle and runway length. The Rogers article does discuss these two points. (The other article from the Netherlands you reference only shows up as one page, btw.)

I did go up to altitude to try turn back simulations in my RV a couple months ago. With the gps, I could create, at 2500 agl, a "simulated" runway. I used a highway crossing as the "liftoff" point, lining up with one road while approaching the crossing at 70 knots, then pushing in full power exactly when crossing it. I had the map zoomed way up, so that I could really tell where I was. After climbing about 300' to 400' above my runway "elevation" at max angle (maybe 80 knots or so), I chopped the power, counted to three (reaction time simulation) and simultaneously pushed the elevator forward and rolled in about 60 degrees of bank, holding about 80 knots. I did the tear drop maneuver and rolled out on the centerline in time to "land" just as I crossed the highway crossing every time.

I need to go out and practice this more at altitude before I'm ready to set some go/no go criteria for myself. For now it will be about 600' if no suitable terrain is ahead. I also want to get some 3d gps data on these trials, and will eventually post them here.

Obviously, there are a lot of differences between simulated problems and real ones. But, I'm convinced this maneuver can be accomplished safely given enough practice and realistic minimum decision heights/angles. Training will kick in if done often enough.

The entire thing has to do with angle of departure from the airport, and not so as much to do with total altitude above the airport, although clearly there is a minimum necessary.

The accident data on turn backs is obviously skewed, since those who are successful don't show up in the data. There is no way to know. I am somewhat convinced, though, that most spam cans won't climb at a steep enough angle to allow for a successful turn back, no matter what the altitude.

Interesting topic.

I fly a Supercub checking cattle a couple times a week and use a modified wingover for my turnbacks over pastures. I like this method since the wing is pretty much unloaded while in the turn.

In a climb I am not sure how much zoom climb you will have available.

I read that even going into trees in a minimum speed and sink controlled crash is surprisingly survivable.

Interesting Subject.

But a very narrow set of circumstances, that being a total instantanious loss of power, which from reading accident reports seems to rarely occur. The usual scenerio is a partial loss of power, or surging, or other symptom prior to total loss of power. The dicipline to perform the manuever at the first sign of trouble rather than try to troubleshoot or push the nose down and look for alternate landing first would be a tough instinct to overcome, even with a lot of specific training. Even if you chop the power, at idle, there is still quite a bit of momentum from the prop than if the engine was not running at all. You simply can not practice that without an engine out, which I guess you could do at altitude.
Every time I take off I am looking for options and think "what is my minimum turn back altitude?" I was taught 600', which is pretty darn generic. I hope I never have to find out. Good discussion to follow.

steveKs. said:

I read that even going into trees in a minimum speed and sink controlled crash is surprisingly survivable.

Click to expand...

I'm aware of three around here, where the pilot/passengers escaped with little injury. One was even a Cessna 310. Most interesting, was where the student pilot went for the tree in the center of a large and busy parking lot, after running out of fuel. Just a few scratches, in that one.

L.Adamson

AlexPeterson said:

.......I am somewhat convinced, though, that most spam cans won't climb at a steep enough angle to allow for a successful turn back, no matter what the altitude.

Interesting topic.

Click to expand...

There's no way I'd try a turn back to the runway with an engine failure, a CS prop and a RV either.

The drag situation is totally different from practicing the maneuver at altitude with the engine at idle. And even with a fixed pitch prop the practice situation is not the real thing because of the thrust the engine produces at idle power as compared to a dead engine. We are considering a maneuver close to the ground that can not be verified before it actually happens.

The zoom after the engine failure won't have much zoom to it unless the airplane is climbing at 110 knots. My initial climb speed is 80 knots, about 25 knots above stall in a fairly steep deck angle. When the engine quits in that attitude the airspeed will bleed off quick because of the nose high attitude and the windmilling prop which will produce about as much drag as a barn door. I just don't think the maneuver can be practiced with the expectation that the results will be the same as when the engine is not producing thrust. My brain is programmed to push the stick forward so as to keep the thing flying long enough to have some control as to where and when it will stop flying.

The canard airplanes have done the maneuver successfully because they have fixed pitch props which do not produce the drag of a CS unit and the canard provides excellent stall warning. If the airplane is rigged properly the wing will not stall if the canard is flying. And if the canard does stall, it is momentarily because it starts flying again as soon as it drops and the AOA is reduced. We do not have that precise control over the stall situation with an RV. If the zoom is not completed just right and the turn back coordinated with a significant drop of the nose, the airplane will stall and snap into a spin quick. There is very little warning.

Me thinks one would have a much better chance of walking away by simply landing or crashing straight ahead than by attempting a tear drop back to a runway. My experience with this machine and an engine failure at 1000' is that it comes down quick. I do not believe it is a viable candidate for the turn back maneuver. But I will be listen to any thoughts as to why the turn back to the runway would be a good idea.

Maybe Steeper is Better?

A few years ago a CFI friend and I explored this with Cessna's. First I did a simpler theoretical model than the article in the first post of this thread. We discovered that a bank angle of 60 degrees was best for getting turned around with the least loss of altitude. I've been told that sail plane pilots agree with this. We then experimented at safe altitudes and verified this. With a Cessna, 300' was feasible (plus reaction time).

I have seen "experts" recommend bank angles as low as standard rate, 30 and 45 degrees. Math and a reality check should be employed in this discussion.

In earlier threads on this forum we've had this same or similar discussion and some have said that the 60 degree banked turn is too radical for safety. Maybe, but it should be tried at altitude IMHO.

I agree about the problem of idle power in simulations but disagree about the direction of the error. When I had a Moni motor glider, the glide was best - and much better - with a stopped prop. But yes, it's much worse with a windmilling prop - as much as 30% worse in my RV. CAFE research supports the idea that the lowest idle power is producing drag, not thrust - see their zero thrust device.

I can't imagine what a zoom climb is. My airspeed doesn't build up to best ROC until I'm well over 200' AGL. My best ROC is about 110, my best sink is about 75 (both IAS).

The math in the article is over my head and anyhow, I fly an RV, not an F-16. If I can get anywhere near the runway, including taxi ways, grass environment, etc., then I'm in good shape to survive. The tear drop shape is nice, but not as necessary for us, depending on trees and stuff.

Maybe, when feasible, it would always be good to slant the departure path upwind a bit?

Jan Bussell Demos a return to field engine out scenario

During my transition training with Jan, he demonstrates a smooth 60 degree bank return to field maneuver. It's not simulated at 3000', he does it during one of the normal takeoffs in the pattern starting when you are climbing out at about 120 mph. It does feel like you are doing something 'illegal' due to all the training you've received not to do that but the 180 turn only lost about a couple of hundred of feet and the airspeed is monitored closely not to let it drop below 90 ever and probably 100 during the turn so there's something left for the flare. Jan's a big guy and with 3/4 or more fuel you and him in the plane together are near the top of the weight chart.

Jan does this to show you that the RV 6 wing is capable of doing it if the pilot is too. If you are taking off from a horrible airport location with no good landing options like in a urban area or severe terrain situation, and you have the starting altitude and airspeed, and RV's wings and powerful elevator can be used to your advantage.

A call to Jan can clear up details and I'd encourage it.

While not practical for every flight, if your worried about an engine failure on departure in your typical RV, like on a first flight for example, I have determined that to minimize the "your dead time", an immediate 45 turn to your weak side (if you have one), will reduce it to just a few seconds. For most RV's, if there are crossing runways I dont bother, if the runway is >5k' I also dont bother as the "your dead time" is zero.... if your a practiced good stick. Of course there are exceptions to this but its a good rule of thumb. An exception might be if your flying a 150hp RV-8, then you have to increase your safety margin. Course if you built a 150hp RV-8, then you probably have a tow plane to help you anyway.
Best,

When on final on an IFR approach, we are supposed to make a decision when we reach minimums; hence the name "decision height". Some pilots will announce "minimums" whether there is anyone flying with them or not.

How many of you do the same thing on takeoff? As a glider student, I can tell you that we normally use 200 feet as our "return to field" decision height, although that is thought through with every flight (headwinds? crosswinds? high density altitude?). 200 feet is used for a return for a downwind landing and 400 for an abbreviated pattern and normal, upwind landing.

Students who do not announce "200 feet" sometimes find that the release gets magically pulled just after passing 250 feet agl (I wonder if the instrctors smile when they do that?). One typically does not make that mistake more than once.

TODR

the_other_dougreeves said:

Students who do not announce "200 feet" sometimes find that the release gets magically pulled just after passing 250 feet agl (I wonder if the instrctors smile when they do that?). TODR

Click to expand...

I never smile when I do that.....

I might holler out we're gonna DIE, but only to those students I'm sure can handle the manuever!

I have practised the aborted 180 at Detroit City Airport (DET), with my lowest power off at 400 feet.

Pitch nose down IMMEDIATELY while rolling over into a 45 degree bank into the wind if you were paying attention to where it is coming from (A must for glider students!). No counting to 3, needs to be instinctive, which means it must be practiced. Stabilize speed where you're comfortable, I use 80 - 85 knots, and adjust bank if needed up to 60 degrees. Keeping the nose pointed down is more important than precise airspeed control. Start kicking in flaps, if needed, when within 30 - 45 degrees of lining up with the runway. DO NOT KICK THE RUDDER TO HELP THE TURN!!!

At this point I think I can get the minimum to around 300 feet, but need to practice a bit more. The bigger issue so far has been having enough runway in front of me for the return, so I've been flattening out my climb a bit for the practice maneuver. In a real emergency I'll settle for what runway is in front of me, but I'm still confident I can get it slowed down and stopped safely with a bit more practice.

BTW, the controllers have always been accomodating in allowing the maneuver, when possible. Obviously more interesting to watch than the precise, boring approaches made by the endless line of small turbines that typically come into City!

hevansrv7a said:

We discovered that a bank angle of 60 degrees was best for getting turned around with the least loss of altitude. I've been told that sail plane pilots agree with this. ....

I have seen "experts" recommend bank angles as low as standard rate, 30 and 45 degrees. Math and a reality check should be employed in this discussion.

Click to expand...

Glider students (me included) are currently taught to use 30 to 45 degrees, depending on the situation. This is also the recommendation in the Knauff and Wander instruction books. I'd consider Thomas Knauff an expert on sailplanes.

60 degrees does result in a slightly tighter turn and about the same altitude loss. However, it increases the stall speed significantly. A 45 deg bank increases stall speed by 20%, while a 60 deg bank increases it by 60%.

60 deg banks also increase the likelyhood of the glider striking a wingtip on the ground during the turn or getting into wind gradients, which would cause overbanking. This isn't as much of a problem in the RV.

TODR

Try Using Minimum Sink Speed?

ddurakovich said:

...
Pitch nose down IMMEDIATELY while rolling over into a 45 degree bank into the wind if you were paying attention to where it is coming from (A must for glider students!). No counting to 3, needs to be instinctive, which means it must be practiced. Stabilize speed where you're comfortable, I use 80 - 85 knots, and adjust bank if needed up to 60 degrees. Keeping the nose pointed down is more important than precise airspeed control. Start kicking in flaps, if needed, when within 30 - 45 degrees of lining up with the runway. DO NOT KICK THE RUDDER TO HELP THE TURN!!!
...

Click to expand...

Dave - just a thought - wouldn't your minimum sink speed be best? You can do the steep bank at that speed if you hold speed and not altitude. You are probably turning to/flying downwind anyhow, so best glide might take you too far. 80-85 sounds kind of in between. I have some suggestions for how to determine those speeds.

Stall Speed

the_other_dougreeves said:

...
60 degrees does result in a slightly tighter turn and about the same altitude loss. However, it increases the stall speed significantly. A 45 deg bank increases stall speed by 20%, while a 60 deg bank increases it by 60%.
...
TODR

Click to expand...

Isn't the increase in stall speed as given here only true for level flight and not for 1-G or less?

hevansrv7a said:

Isn't the increase in stall speed as given here only true for level flight and not for 1-G or less?

Click to expand...

You are correct.

Interesting thread. I will be making my first flight (someday) out of an airport that does not have many good options. (KSGS)
A few years ago I had the opportunity to practice this in the simulator for the high performance business jet I fly, in my pesky day job. We found, with lots of experimentation, that we needed about 1200 ft. agl simulating a normal, "don't spill the coffee" takeoff, using the normal climb profile. We ended up using a pretty aggressive zoom maneuver with a 45 to 60 degree bank turn to make it work. Highly unlikely to have instantaneous dual flameout, but it was fun and educational. I will definitely explore this in my RV-10 transition training to prepare me for the big day.

A couple thoughts. I've had a sail plane release right at 200 feet because of a mistake in training that lead to getting too high above the tow plane. Rather than pull his tail up it was time to release and just start over. Having thought about the maneuver before and being mentally prepared made all the difference and I'd wager that by reading this thread most of you are 75% there just by thinking about it ahead of time and knowing in your gut what you are going to do (whether turning back or straight ahead, your pick).

I basically went on the ASI and focused almost solely on it as I threw it into and maintained my 45 bank with peripheral vision as instructed. It was intense but I completed the turn back without the instructor coming on the controls. It was good to know I could do it but the key was deciding ahead of time what I was going to do.

As far as the RV and my GA flying goes I have been lazy and I need to fix it. On the run up pad I want to add to my checklist a decision height decision and a return to runway turn direction based primarily on turning into the cross wind or on environment if the wind based turn direction isn't an option. As far as the decision height you should state a specific MSL alt and not just a generic 300/400/500 feet agl. When I released the tow rope I had exactly the MSL altitude prescribed on the altimeter and did not have time to do the math to figure out what the field plus 200 was. It may seem trivial but I doubt any of us is going to be able to do the math at the critical altitude at a strange field where we aren't really sure what the field elevation was.

My other thought is to treat it pretty much as an IFR maneuver. Focus on the gauges. If you picked a good altitude there's nothing to see but the ground which is way too close to keep you thinking clearly. Focus on airspeed, coordination, and maintaining the bank.

think first

Whatever you do, have plan BEFORE you take the runway. It's part of your takeoff brief (even to yourself if alone). "in the event of a problem after takeoff below 400 feet, the golf course it at 2 o'clock and half mile, and if speed and altitude permit, there is a crossing runway here that is not in use... " etc etc.
just a suggestion, there are lots of good ways to get it done...

My decision is already made. If the engine quits on climbout below 1000' I plan on trying to get the insurance company's plane down in such a way that provides for the least risk to me.

The turnback would require more than a 180 degree turn to line back up with the departure runway. What?? probably another 90 degrees of turn to line up. So you would likely be looking at 270 degrees.

A stiff headwind would significantly compromise a successful turnback and certainly compound energy needed to dissipate in the event of a necessary controlled crash. Also a stiff tailwind would possibly contribute to a stall spin because of the illusion of higher airspeed than actual. Focusing on the gauges would hardly be advisable when stressed in a actual unexpected dead stick approach.

I most likely would turn into the wind and take what comes.

Power Failure After Takeoff

In this month's EAA Sport Aviation, Lauran Paine (RV-8 builder, pilot, former AF pilot and airline pilot) writes about this very topic. What impressed me was his discussion of the military training (both AF and Navy) for pilots to SLAM (his word, not mine) the stick forward at power failure just after takeoff. The purpose is to not waste any time to accelerate to the best engine out airspeed.

I don't have the magazine here, but if you're interested, read the article. He makes some very good points. I can't defend his arguments, but I do think it is a very thought provoking discussion.

Don

Bank angle

From Rogers? turnback.pdf, page 7 ?..the optimum bank angle during a gliding turn to a
new heading is 45 degrees.?

I have tried turning 30 degrees off RH heading just after takeoff to get the teardrop started early ? turning away from the wind so that a turnback in the case of engine failure will have the advantage of ?turning-back? into a headwind during the turn. Worked better for me, as I was lined up with the concrete straight ahead after completing the turnback.

Barney

steveKs. said:

My decision is already made. If the engine quits on climbout below 1000' I plan on trying to get the insurance company's plane down in such a way that provides for the least risk to me.

Click to expand...

Great response! My feelings exactly.

Sadly, we lost one of our local EAA'ers and his passenger, when he attempted to turn back to the runway in his Europa. Here's the NTSB synopses.

Like Don, I too was very impressed with Lauren Payne's article in the recent mag. I was going to post about it last night but headed for bed. I learned a lot (from the article, not the bed!) and will doing the higher altitude training regimen he outlined. Simply cannot be too prepared for power loss on take-off.

Geico266 said:

That's another reason I like to fly in Nebraska. The whole state is a runway except for a few center pivots and cows.

I like the idea of practicing engines outs, I do it frequently. However, if I remember right, 80% of actual engine outs where the pilot tried to get back to the runway were fatal. I might not have the number exactly right, but the odds are greatly against you.

Click to expand...

Larry, how could this statistic possibly be known? There are no reports of successes, so they can't be included in any analysis. It could be right, but it is not knowable, and I suspect it is not correct.

Thrust - residual idle

An earlier post mentioned the residual thrust from idle being a big factor in turn back tests. That is easy to remedy - use the mixture to simulate dead engine during tests (at altitude please).

the_other_dougreeves said:

60 degrees does result in a slightly tighter turn and about the same altitude loss. However, it increases the stall speed significantly. A 45 deg bank increases stall speed by 20%, while a 60 deg bank increases it by 60%. TODR

Click to expand...

It's actually about 40%.

It is the square root of the load factor times the 1 G stall speed. In a 60 degree bank, the load factor is 2 G's, and the stall speed will be 1.414 times that.

60 degrees is pushing it for the turn, but might be needed if you should turn away from a strong crosswind rather than into it. At 70 knots the radius of a turn will decrease from 435 feet in a 45 degree bank to 250 feet in a 60 degree bank. If you don't delay your turn, and turn into the wind, 45 degrees should usually suffice.

All,

This subject is like the downwind turn. It just never gets resolved. This subject raised its head years ago on the Matronic Forum and I posted my thoughts on it on my website here.

http://www.petroblend.com/dougr/dnt-turn.htm

Can it be done? Yes. Should it be done? Almost NEVER!!!!!! Bob Hoover could do it, but I fly with lots of pilots, and I promise you, most of us are just not that good. In a real, or even a simulated emergency, most pilots do not perform that well, or that smoothly. Forget practicing it, just accept the fact that when it really happens, and your blood is full of adreanline, none of us fly that well.

I am alive today because I overcame the overwhelming desire to turn back. I was fortunate to have good training. It saved my life.

If you come to me for a BFR and try it , it will be a really long afternoon......

If you think you can do it, please read the article.

As the defender of "Don't Turn Back"

Tailwinds,

Doug Rozendaal

hevansrv7a said:

Dave - just a thought - wouldn't your minimum sink speed be best? You can do the steep bank at that speed if you hold speed and not altitude. You are probably turning to/flying downwind anyhow, so best glide might take you too far. 80-85 sounds kind of in between. I have some suggestions for how to determine those speeds.

Click to expand...

Howard,

Some gliders have a published minimum sink speed that would be lower than the stall in a 60 degree bank angle. And I'm not at all sure what effect bank angle would have on minimum sink in any case, so using a speed safely above anticipated stall speed is a decent compromise. In an RV it's probably a non-issue.

I agree that minimum sink would theoretically be better than best glide, but the whole event (in my RV-4 at least) happens in well under a minute, and probably closer to 30 seconds from 400 feet. I suspect we're splitting hairs here.

Obviously the better the information you have will improve your odds, but there is nothing like having a plan, and executing it. After you practice it, of course!

I can say that the maneuver is a lot more exciting in my -4 at 400 feet than in a Grob from 200 feet, but not something I would discourage people from learning how to do.

Dave

As of late this was hashed over on the Lancair forums as well. I'm constantly amazed at the discussion this generates. Me, I'm in the "don't turn back" camp, so I'll get that out right up front. Can it be done? Perhaps; sometimes with the right plane, right altitude, right wind, right airport, right pilot, right type of failure, right reaction time, right distance, right bank angles, etc.. - My pint is that a LOT of things need to be "right" for it to work.

"Rozie is one of a number of people I actually know who have had these incidents in planes other than run of the mill Cessnas....and are here to talk about it - I also personally know (knew) people who had these incidents and are not here to talk about it. From my own personal "statistical analysis", guess which ones attempted a turn and which ones didn't?!? I could ramble on and debate this for awhile, but to me, one should take Doug's words as almost Gospel, at least in my book....I'll take the "been there done that" experience from the guys who hit the dirt (like the Rozendaal's or Younkin's of the world) over the "practiced it at 8K" that I've done.

Just my 2 cents as usual.

Cheers,
Stein

BTW...that F1 of Doug's blows by my RV6 like I blow by Cessna's - it's just sick!

Going back for a beer!

B25Flyer said:

All,

Can it be done? Yes. Should it be done? Almost NEVER!!!!!!
Doug Rozendaal

Click to expand...

Doug, this is such an extreme statement I hardly know where to begin in refuting it.

Let's start at the obvious. Doug, say you're at 3000 ft on a steep climb-out when the engine quits and before you is nothing but a densely populated built-up area.....and you're not going back ??? Of COURSE you're going back Doug. At 3000 ft you'd be an idiot to land straight ahead into power lines or rooftops when it is completely unnecessary.

In other words there MUST be an altitude and distance from the strip where it makes perfect sense and is safe to turn back taking into consideration the pilot's level of proficiency at executing the manouevre. The problem for most pilots is that they DO NOT KNOW what that altitude is in relation to the plane they are flying. Additionally most pilots have NEVER practiced the maneouvre and therefore have minimal knowledge or proficiency to pull off a turnback from lower altitudes.

Pilots who say it is NEVER a good idea to turn back are talking sheer nonsense. Single engine turbine jockeys practice turnbacks ad nauseum. For a Cessna Caravan it's usually practiced at approx 1000 ft.....take-off, climb to 1000', pull power, turn back, touch and go on reciprocal runway, climb to 1000', pull power, turn back.....around and around etc etc etc. It's a SAFETY procedure...the same as constantly practicing forced landings is a SAFETY procedure.

The Civil Aviation Safety Authority of Australia (Australia's FAA) has issued Civil Aviation Order 82.1 which requires an operator of an Approved Single Engine Turbine Powered Aeroplane (an ASETPA) to have an Air Operators Certification Manual that includes training for "Engine failure/malfunction which necessitates turning to execute a glide landing upon a serviceable runway, including a 'turnback' maneouvre".

In other words turnback training in Australia for single engine turbines in the charter category is mandatory. I think you might find it is the same in the United States. Why....because it makes excellent sense to turn back and land on a runway when there is ample altitude and the pilot is proficient.

The key to successful turnback manoeuvres lies in:
a) Knowing the decision height of the plane you are flying that will conservatively bring you back safely.
b) Having a bank-speed plan and practicing the manoeuvre regularly to stay current and promote instant response without equivocation.
c) Mentally preparing yourself for the possibility of an engine failure before take-off ie telling yourself what you are going to do. (eg. if the engine quits, or partly quits, at 600 ft or above I am turning to the right into the prevailing wind and coming back. Below 600 ft I am not turning back).

Pilots kill themselves turning back on engine failure because they have no PRACTICED PLAN or predetermined decision height to turn back. Without a PRACTICED PLAN they simply turn back at low altitude out of sheer panic. And on top of that they lose precious time and height because their brains turn to mud and they are unable to come up with a coherent strategy under the pressure. When they stall and kill themselves the never-turn-back brigade says: "See, we told you it was unsafe".

I have a turnback decision height of 600' in my Archer and 700' in my 182. If the engine quits I do NOT have to make a decision about whether I'm turning back or not....the decision is instantly made for me when I look at the altimeter.

I have found from years of practice (and I mean return-to-runway-and-land type practice...not at-altitude pseudo practice) that a turn into any prevailing wind will ALWAYS bring me home safely with considerable margin from my designated decision heights. My technique is 45-50 degree bank and 80 knots. Others may argue about more or less bank (or more or less speed) to conserve height but this is what constantly works for me and I am very comfortable with it...and I'm never anywhere near the stall.

As I said, in the final analysis it's no different to engine-out forced landing drills....you must have a plan, and you must practice the plan to be proficient.

Dougie, you can spear your plane throught some-one's loungeroom wall when the engine quits on climb-out at 1000'....but me.....I'm going back to enjoy a beer at the airport club bar.

I had a 152 swallow the carb inlet screen (at least that is what the mechanic said it did) on the last night TO&L I was doing for my PP license. At about the time I started turning crosswind (~500ft) the RPM dropped to somewhere between 11-1200rpm.

Instantly lowered the nose to keep the airspeed I had and continued the turn and landed downwind. Actually slipped a little at the end.

That little bit of power must have helped as did already being setup for the turn. That and not fooling around when the problem showed itself.

The plane would not pull itself back to the hangar... It was a long push/pull back.

Avgas,

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

However, Here is the beer deal, lets pick 10 pilots off this board and put them in your Archer, we can sit on the porch at the airport bar and watch from the ground. We rig the airplane so the engine quits at 600 feet. (they don't know this of course) We throw in some oil on the windshield or some smoke in the cockpit for effect and if they all survive, I will buy the beer. Remember, it's your airplane

Deal?

Here is my point, I fly with lots of pilots from 30 year airline pilots to 40 hour private applicants. I am the Stand-Eval chair at the CAF and do Warbird, Rocket, and RV training. Most pilots are not nearly as good as they believe they are. The desire to save the airplane is a strong one. I have firsthand knowledge of that. Because of good training I made the other choice, sacrificed the airplane and it saved my life.


Tailwinds,
Dougie

ATP CFII MEI DPE B-25 PBY DC-3 P-51 F-4U F-6F T-28 All makes and models of Single and Multi-engine Piston powered.

SteinAir said:

Cheers,
BTW...that F1 of Doug's blows by my RV6 like I blow by Cessna's - it's just sick!

Click to expand...

Stein,

I did not mean to pi$$ on your Cheerios when I passed you on Sunday, but it sure was fun!

Tailwinds,
DougR

ddurakovich said:

It's actually about 40%.

It is the square root of the load factor times the 1 G stall speed. In a 60 degree bank, the load factor is 2 G's, and the stall speed will be 1.414 times that.

60 degrees is pushing it for the turn, but might be needed if you should turn away from a strong crosswind rather than into it. At 70 knots the radius of a turn will decrease from 435 feet in a 45 degree bank to 250 feet in a 60 degree bank. If you don't delay your turn, and turn into the wind, 45 degrees should usually suffice.

Click to expand...

Sorry, my bad. Basic mind fart.

Still, published stall speed for, let's say an -8 at Van's MGTW (1800 lb, YMMV) is 50kt. Adding 40% is 70kt. Now, you don't want to stall, so you need some buffer on top of this to account for gusts, wind gradient, etc (don't forget the decrease in airspeed when turning downwind). Call that 80 to 85kt. Most -8s are probably climbing out at 85 or greater.

One problem I see with 60 degrees is that you're not perfect at getting the bank angle right. What if you bank to 70 degrees? Stall speed then goes to 70% above 1g flight, or 85kt. If you're flying the turn at 85kt and you overbank t0 70, you're right at stall speed.

The final issue is one of drag and energy management. Banking the airplane at higher angles takes a higher angle of attack and gives up more energy. I don't have a good feel for how much additional drag is created by banking 60 deg vs 45 deg. Flying faster (to keep from stalling) also creates more drag and means you can cover less distance after the turn.

The 60 deg bank might work well if it's practiced. However, the margins are much lower, and I doubt many people practice an engine failure at 500ft in powered airplanes. If you're comfortable with 60 deg, great. That's part of the beauty of flying - you're the PIC, you have the freedom and responsibility to decide.

Perhaps the question is "what's the goal of the return to runway procedure"? My goal is to set the airplane down on the airport and clear of other structures or airplanes. If I can make the runway, great. If I can get it stopped on the runway, even better. However, I'm not going to risk stalling the airplane to make a perfect landing. Better to go off the end at 15 kt than land short at 60kt.

In short, I'm going to stick with 30 to 45 deg as well as no intersection takeoffs unless I have a lot of runway. Yes, I'm a chicken.

TODR

For youse (yins) guys in SoCal, here's a way to get some somewhat-realistic training in turning back the runway after engine failure on take-off - do a power-off landing to runway 22 or 4 at Santa Paula, SZP, 600' AGL pattern. First off, due to the proximity of the hills to the south of the runway, you're not going to fly one of those cross-country patterns; you're going to have to keep it in close! When you get opposite the approach end of the runway, chop your power and land it. If I can do it with no sweat in my higher-wing-loading Lancair, you should have absolutely no problem in your RV! Your fixed-pitch prop is going to give you a little thrust, or your CS in flat pitch is going to give you more drag, but give it a try. At least you have a runway to try it at!

(landing last Monday trying to keep the NG up and light - it did not flip

This is pretty much the situation at our 2200' soggy runway these days. Six inches plus rain in the past week alone, 29" for the year.

There are trees everywhere but even by Bob's 600' climb altitude decision I wouldn't turn back because there are farmer's fields that would be better straight ahead or not requiring a 180 degree turn. The turbine turn around at 1000' obviously works but suppose the thing quits at 800'. You can practice this stuff forever and it helps but only if the emergency fits the practiced session. The pilot has to shift gears during climb out from straight ahead to turn back if the engine quits. I guess that's OK but there sure are a lot of variables with the turn back considering GW, partial engine power maybe, densitity altitude, and wind to mention the obvious.

Most days after reaching about 600' I start a turn to the downwind leg just in case. I don't leave that key position until I know the thing is purring like usual and I've got some altitude to have options. I can see the advantage of the turn around but only if you have it all figured out ahead of time - and most of us don't - or you are flying a single turbine that the company would rather it not be wrecked and trains pilots accordingly. Unlike a real job in the flying world, we RVer's are mostly self trained and do the best we can. I like keeping things as simple as possible and for now it is stick forward and take the best deal I can get.

To repeat from earlier, stall speed increases at the rate Doug specifies ONLY in a LEVEL turn. In a decending 60 degree 1G turn stall speed remains essentially unchanged. The key to not stalling is to allow the plane to give up altitude while turning to minimise the G-load. Realistically the turn will be more than 1 G so stall will go up some but not nearly the 70% the books list for LEVEL turns.

I hope everyone understands that everyone needs to make a personal decision here based on personal experience and practice. Everyone also needs to understand that there MUST be some altitude where each of us can make the turn as Captain Avgas stated so well. It's up to you to go out, practice, and find out if that's 300, 800, or 2000.

Another viewpoint on emergency landings...

To turn back or not after engine failure:

It depends on the gross weight of the plane, the airspeed, the altitude above the ground, the headwind component, and the pilot?s ability to have complete mastery over his flying machine. If the aircraft is heavily loaded, slowed below best-rate-of-climb speed, and the head wind on takeoff is blowing strong, then the rate of descent in the turn will be excessively great. As a rule of thumb, if taking off in a strong headwind, you should expect almost twice the normal rate of descent in an engine failure condition when attempting to do that 180 degree turn downwind. There is a tailwind component when turning downwind and centrifugal load component that will make it feel like the bottom has been pulled out from under you when you first roll into the turn . You will momentarily be forced to lower the nose of the plane much lower than you anticipated to maintain the correct glide speed in a dead engine condition. In fact, even without a wind, a heavily loaded airplane will lose altitude excessively fast in a tight dead engine turn due to increased centrifugal load and the drag of the prop. The increased immediate altitude loss isn?t normally noticed when practicing at high altitude, but you?ll be guaranteed to notice the ground coming up fast if you just took off and rolled into the power off turn!

I agree that ?always landing straight ahead? doesn?t make sense? You?ll have to consider all factors such as altitude, load, airspeed, wind direction, potential landing areas, and your personal experience and aptitude with whatever plane you happen to be flying. If you?re good at seat-of-the-pants flying, then you probably wouldn?t have a problem in any airplane. However, if you?re the type of pilot who requires memorizing numbers for computing glide ratios, turn radiuses, rates of descent, airspeed numbers for any given power off situation?.well, you won?t have any time to do those calculations if your engine quit after takeoff. With a strong headwind your ground speed will be much slower anyway. Being low and slow to the ground isn?t any place for a pilot who has to rely on instruments for VFR flying. A quick glance at the airspeed indicator to determine what nose low pitch attitude wings level is required should be sufficient to maintain that airspeed. If you roll into a turn, then the nose has to go lower yet?another quick glance at the airspeed indicator in the turn, and pitch back up slightly to the other pre-determined nose low attitude as you roll wings level again.

A word of caution: If you?re making an off airport landing, watch out for poles. There are usually wires connected between those poles that you cannot see in your moment of excitement. You definitely don?t want to strike wires 30 feet off the ground and then fall in an uncontrolled manner to the ground. That will kill you! If you have to wonder if you?ll clear the wires, then you probably won?t. It?s either an immediate guaranteed decision that you?ll clear, or don?t try it. If you see wires and you lack enough airspeed to fly over those wires, then fly under them! Just get your wheels close enough to skim over the ground and easily pass under those wires. You may end up with a bit of excess speed, but at least you won?t be falling 30 feet to the ground! If you?ve just taken off, have a complete engine failure and see no safe place to land straight ahead , then shove the nose down further and turn 90 degrees right or left toward where you think there may be a landing area. That first 90 degree turn may become your Base Leg for ?something.? Don?t just sit there considering your options while losing altitude flying straight out after takeoff.

You already decided that you cannot land straight ahead, so do the turn while you still have some altitude. As you turn, look around and find the best area to put your plane down. If you can?t find any good area, then look for the softest area. The best ?soft area? available would be small young trees. If you?re completely out of options, landing in, between or on very small trees may be the only way out. Sure, the plane will be wrecked, but you?ll probably walk away from it. If nothing works out in your favor: I.e. low altitude, low airspeed, heavy airplane, out of ideas and no safe place to land, then only luck may pull you through. You should have thought about the potential of an engine failure and what you?d do before you took off if the area was that hazardous!.

I?m not a know-it-all, but most of what I wrote above isn?t taught during normal flight instruction. Everything I wrote is based on my hands-on experiences as a past CFI-CFII and Ag Pilot. Everybody has different experiences. Agree or disagree, the impressions above just happen to be mine.

Doug Rodrigues said:

... and the head wind on takeoff is blowing strong, then the rate of descent in the turn will be excessively great. As a rule of thumb, if taking off in a strong headwind, you should expect almost twice the normal rate of descent in an engine failure condition when attempting to do that 180 degree turn downwind. There is a tailwind component when turning downwind and centrifugal load component that will make it feel like the bottom has been pulled out from under you when you first roll into the turn...

Click to expand...

Oh no, the dreaded downwind turn again.

In actual fact and in the absence of wind shear, any wind, cross, tail or head has zero affect on rate of descent although there can be powerful optical illusions down low. I'm sorry, but these kind of statements just shouldn't be left unchallenged.

Grant is correct this is a personal decision. My mission is to make sure those who haven't made up their mind do not get sucked into on-line flight insturction.

Posting an altitude here where most people will file it in there brain somewhere and few will actually go out and practice is a bad idea.

For those on the fence, Remember, a 180 won't do, it has to be about a 315/45, at any rate it has to total 360 degrees to get you back to the runway.

Most people that come up with low altitude numbers do a 180 with an imeadiate turn and the engine at idle. When you practice it takes a 270/90 with the mixture back or the mags off. Add some for reaction time and poor flying technique based on a heart rate of 200 and rethink your results.......

If this is your plan Avgas was correct, you have to practice, first at altitude.

Here is how, First slow to best glide speed at a cardinal altitude. Then pull the mixture and start a timer, then say "oh ****," then wait another second or two, then start a 270 degree turn at 60 deg bank, at 270 bank 60 degrees the other way and turn back 90 degrees, then roll wings level, then stop the timer and check your altimeter. What ever that altitude is, that is the absolute best you can hope for to complete this manuver. It is a much bigger number than most people realize, and again there are so many variables that come into play.

If pulling the mixture on your airplane, over an airport concerns you, then a turn back manuever is way beyond your pilot skills and should not even be considered.

If you think you want to use turning back as an option then you have to simulate the descent rate of power off using flaps, and idle power, depending on the airplane, propellor type, and it's flaps it might take half or full flaps to get the power off descent rate with idle thrust. When you have worked out that combination, then practice it close to the ground. There is no such thing as a downwind turn, but turning downwind creates an illusion that has killed lots of pilots. Done at minimum altitude that downwind turn illusion is going to be very strong. It would require strong discipline to avoid falling victim to its siren song. AVGas is correct, if you are willing to practice it regularly, depending on the type of airplane you fly, it might possibly be something you put in your bag of tricks.

If you are not willing to do all of the above, and practice regularly with a realistic load in the airplane, Forget it!!!!! Lower the nose and land into the wind on a spot that was ahead of the wings....... Be honest most pilots seldom practice engine out landings, and they are an absolute breeze compared to a turn back after take off......

If all this seems overwhelming, it is because it is, and again, throw in some oil on the windshield or smoke in the cockpit and the chances of success get pretty low.

I do mean to belabor this point. This turn kills several pilots every year. Most off airport landings into the wind are survivable. Stall spins are almost never survivable, and a 10 kt headwind to tailwind increases the crash energy by almost twice.....

Certainly if there is NO place to go ahead and there is an airport behind, it may be the only choice, but understand that if you don't make the turn and stall spin, you're dead and if you crash off airport with a 10 kt tailwind instead of headwind, you are at least twice as likely to get hurt or killed.

I talk about pilot performance in an emergency, I am not telling you what I've read. I flew freight in Twin Beeches, DC-3s and C-402s. I have had numerous engine failures, one that exploded and was burning, total electrical failure IMC at night, an engine failure that resulted in an off airport crash, and ice that made the airplane almost unflyable. I speaking in the first person here, I do not fly nearly as well under those circumstances as when I am training. I have done enough training and testing to know that I am not the exception, most pilots don't fly well under extreme pressure. The empirical data collected in the experiment above is just that, it is really hard to know how long it takes to decide, and how well you will fly. Most pilots should not bet their lives on that turn..... If you believe you are that good, it is a personal decision, but I am not that good.

You may have noticed I feel very strongly about this. If anyone who has not made up their mind on this subject has questions, feel free to email me directly a dougr(at)petroblend.com I would be happy to discuss it.


Tailwinds,
Doug Rozendaal

I used to think that way too.

n5lp said:

Oh no, the dreaded downwind turn again.

In actual fact and in the absence of wind shear, any wind, cross, tail or head has zero affect on rate of descent although there can be powerful optical illusions down low. I'm sorry, but these kind of statements just shouldn't be left unchallenged.

Click to expand...

Yup, that's exactly what I used to think before flying, heavy, low and slow very close to the ground. I actually got into heated debates over that issue, until I got to put it to practical application. If you ever get the chance to visit a cropduster strip, go ask the pilot what he thinks about that "dreaded downwind turn." It does have a momentary effect, and if you're very close to the ground, you'll be in for a surprise. The centrifigal load has more of an effect. You will sink in the turn. Go ask them about that too. A very lightly loaded airplane isn't much effected, but a grossed out airplane would be, and RV's don't have quick dumps to lighten the load in an emergency if you're grossed out. But like I said, everybody has different experiences and what I mentioned just happened to be mine.

For those of you who do not know Doug Rozendall, let me fill you in.

The man knows what he is talking about. Period.

Please take his advice to heart.

Regards,

This is serious stuff!

I am not much for words but here is the story as I know it. I had flown this plane and Roger was a good friend and instructor to me. You can fill in the blanks, but he had taken me through some recovery from unusual attitude training in that plane. He could handle it just fine thank you. How good do you think you are?

My neighbor Roger, a just retired instructor for Boeing aircraft and a high time pilot was killed 3 weeks ago on an engine out and ??? Return to runway. His Thorp - T18 had engine problems and the neighbors that I spoke with give pretty much the same account. The engine got your attention!!! We all hit the doors when something sounds wrong here on the airpark (S36). The plane was observed to do several things depending on who you talk to. One report was that it was doing aerobatics. Is it an aerobatic maneuver if you are in a stall spin at 300 feet on take off? Technically now? Come on you media !! Get over it. (For sure the engine makes a loud noise and there was black smoke. Next it dove straight down. Some say it went inverted some say... Well it did auger in going almost straight down a spin to the right by all accounts.

This airport S36 has no good place to land on the extended runway centerline. I am planning my initial flight soon so have given this a lot of thought. I had often thought about turning to land on the road, or more open field below the airport. Something Roger may have been trying for. I have changed my thinking to plan to crash and focus on DO NOT STALL THE PLANE.

I would Turn - yes - there is no need to try to land in the power lines that supply all of Seattle or Norm's Gazebo up on the hill. I probably should try to prang something softer. I think I will go with less than full fuel tanks on the initial flight too. No need to plump up like a hot dog on the grill at an unplanned barbeque landing. I can?t count on the AOA until it is calibrated either. Lots to think about? I do have a flight plan. I am still flying it in my mind each takeoff and landing I do. I do not want to try to figure out what to do if something happens. FLY the PLAN.

Well that was a lot for someone with nothing to say!!! Thanks for puttin up with this. Be careful. Plan.

Interesting read

The May 08 Aviation Safety has a article by Rick Stowell.

"Let's once and for all stop the turnaround foolishness. The aviation community should shun anyone who seriously proposes it as a viable technique for the masses. It's akin to arguing in favor of Russian roulette- after all, some participants do survive the game. Just put the gun down and walk away.
If a post-takeoff power problem makes an emergency landing necessary, immediately push the nose down at least to the best glide attitude and to land straight ahead, or nearly so, depending on altitude and obstacles. Contacting the ground as slowly as possible in the landing attitude, with the wings level and with the airplane moving forward (minimal sideways and downward components) offers maximum survivability."

There's agreement (of sorts).

Doug Rozendaal and I agree on one very important point. If you're not going to PRACTICE turnback manoeuvres ....then DON'T plan on turning back from LOWER altitudes if the fan stops (HOWEVER at 1000ft and above anyone with the most basic flying skills should be able to execute a turnback...if they can't then they probably shouldn't be flying).

But if you see that I have a decision altititude of 600 ft for my Archer and you think you can translate that to your RV and pull off a turnback at that altitude with no prior experience under a real world engine-out scenario....you may be VERY disappointed. Turnbacks from lower altitudes are very DEFINITELY an acquired skill.

Having said that I must say I would give the same advice on needing experience to some-one contemplating aerobatics, or flight in IMC, or serious mountain flying....don't go there unless you're practiced and proficient.

On the other hand there's nothing magical or mysterious about a turnback....in the final analysis it is nothing more than a gliding turn through approx 180 degrees. My goodness, at 1000 ft I think I could safely do one while pouring myself a cup of coffee from my thermos on the way back (slight exaggeration).

Practicing and being proficient at turnback maneouvres is a good way to improve flying skills and it gives a pilot another nice option in the event of engine failure at take-off.

Going straight ahead into hostile terrain when there is plenty of altitude to turnback is very poor airmanship....as is turning back and stalling when there is insufficient altitude.

I fly out of an airfield that is VERY heavily built up in all directions. I also do quite a bit of night flying. If it's safe to turnback I am certainly not going straight ahead.

My advice to those interested in this option is to PRACTICE. Start at altitude and practice "pseudo" turnbacks. Then start practicing actual runway turnbacks at 1000 ft. Choose a nice quiet sleepy rural strip somewhere with no traffic on a windless day. At the end of the manouevre land the plane....not a touch and go....stop and have a think about what you did. Then try it again. When you're completely comfortable with 1000 ft go down to 900 ft, etc...but never push the envelope. When you have achieved your comfortable minimum (comfortable meaning that you still have some real margin) then adopt it and never compromise on it. And of course continue to PRACTICE and remain proficient as time goes by.

Avgas,

How does a 180 degree turn get you back to the runway? Unless you are at metropolis international with parallels, it may or may not put you on the airport property. It would work on 2 of the 4 runways at my airport. Departing here a 120 degree turn at the end of 18 would put you on 30, and departing 12 a 120 deg turn would put you on 36. (I would probably buy that option. even though it violates ahead of the wing and could be downwind.) a 180 degree turn on the other runways put you off the airport here.

It takes a 315/45 to get back to the runway of departure and I am fairly certain an Archer won't do it in 600 ft. This is exactly the online instruction that plants turnback ideas in pilots minds who will never practice.....

The beer offer stands BTW

Jeff,

Thank you for your kind words. Saying things like that lowers your credibility. But I appreciate it.

Doug Rodrigues,

Sorry, the airplane really does not know it is turning downwind, but the pilot most certainly does. It is an optical illusion, and the illusion is very real and very dangerous. If you make the turn an instrument maneuver it is no problem, if you make it a ground reference maneuver it is deadly. The turnback after takeoff is very much a ground reference maneuver, so the illusion is another deadly reason not to try it.

And finally,

SteveKS,

Rich Stowall is the real deal, nobody has to read my dribble, but Rich Stowall is a real expert with real credibility. Thank you for posting his words.

I have made my point for now. When this rears it's head again, here or somewhere else, again I will pounce on it, I promise.

Tailwinds,
Doug Rozendaal

Let's talk reference frams

Doug Rodrigues said:

Yup, that's exactly what I used to think before flying, heavy, low and slow very close to the ground.

Click to expand...

I just can't get the physics to work out in my mind to agree with what you're saying. Once a plane is in the air it is moving with the fluid, not relative to it. Therefore, when you turn "downwind" and the relative wind moves behind the plane your groundspeed will increase but it has no effect on your airspeed.

Imagine a swimmer in a river, he doesn't know if he's going with the current or against it unless he looks at the shore. The swimmer who treads water in a flowing river doesn't move relative to the water, just the shore. Once you're immersed in the fluid you move relative to it.

Discuss.

jtrusso said:

I just can't get the physics to work out in my mind to agree with what you're saying. Once a plane is in the air it is moving with the fluid, not relative to it. Therefore, when you turn "downwind" and the relative wind moves behind the plane your groundspeed will increase but it has no effect on your airspeed.

Imagine a swimmer in a river, he doesn't know if he's going with the current or against it unless he looks at the shore. The swimmer who treads water in a flowing river doesn't move relative to the water, just the shore. Once you're immersed in the fluid you move relative to it.

Discuss.

Click to expand...

This is exactly the same argument I used to use too! I went one further, I compared moving a fish bowl around while the fish maintained a stationary position inside the bowl. This is like arguing about sex and politics! I used to go round and round with other pilots about this subject arguing the opposit point of view of what I believe now! The only thing I can imagine is that the inertia of the mass of weight of the aircraft has to accelerate into a different direction, and for that brief moment the aircraft loses a slight bit of airspeed in the downwind turn while the inertia of the weight of the aircraft equalizes with the new direction of mass of air. What would that take?...5 seconds? Keep in mind that the aircraft isn't being carried inside of a total mass of moving air until the turn is completed and that no attempt to refer to ground reference is made. You're going to land on a point on the ground, therefore your maneuvers have to relate to your position over the ground and not simply doing maneuvers with the aircraft drifting along with the mass of air/wind irrelevant to any ground position. But to simplify matters, forget the downwind turn. Sorry I brought it up.

Okay, so lets say that you're heavily loaded. *The key term is HEAVILY LOADED. You crank that airplane into a tight turn. The centrifugal force increases, but with a dead engine you'll have to nose down even more. For argument's sake, lets say that you cranked it over into a one and a half G turn. That's not much. Lets say that the increased load on the aircraft was 500 lbs? That's quite a bit of weight for an RV. How much of a nose down pitch attitude do you think it will take to maintain the best glide speed with the aircraft weighing 50% more in the turn and with a dead engine? When you push that nose down the rate of descent will have to increase, and it's not an illusion....the ground will come up faster if you shove that nose down more. If you don't shove the nose down, you'll lose your airspeed, something you definitely don't want to do. I know....the believers and non-believers, Ha Ha. Hey, you guys believe whatever you want, but my recommendation is to go ask an old gray haired Ag Pilot what he thinks about the subject as applied to actual low level flying and not to just rely on taught theory. This ends my commenting on the subject. I'm taking up too much time here.

Sorry to disappoint

B25Flyer said:

It takes a 315/45 to get back to the runway of departure and I am fairly certain an Archer won't do it in 600 ft.
Doug Rozendaal

Click to expand...

No it doesn't. An optimal teardrop turnback can be completed and bring you back to the departure end of the runway in approx 210 degrees....even less with a cross wind. And sorry to disappoint you but I've been successfully doing turnbacks (and landing back on the strip) from 600 ft in an Archer for years. In reality I can do it from 500 in a pinch, but I like to have some margin. So 600 ft is my decision height.

Am I suggesting that an inexperienced pilot should attempt a turnback for the first time after an engine failure at 600 ft. No, I am categorically saying DON'T DO IT. You really need a lot of practice to be constantly successful from such a low altitude. The chances of being successful on the first attempt from that height are not good.

HOWEVER for every level of experience, and for every type of aircraft, there IS an altitude at which the turnback is a safe manoeuvre. For pilots without ANY turnback experience in a light single that altitude might be 1000 ft...or it might be 1300 ft...or it may even be 1500 ft. But at SOME altitude it simply no longer makes any sense for ANY pilot to fly forward and crash into hostile terrain. And THAT is the premise that the NEVER EVER EVER people refuse to address.

Those who would truly like to come up to speed on the subject might like to read the following scientific paper: The Possible "Impossible" Turn by Professor David F Rogers, Professor of Aerospace Engineering at the United States Naval Academy, Annapolis.
http://www.nar-associates.com/technical-flying/impossible/possible.html

Same link

Captain Avgas said:

Those who would truly like to come up to speed on the subject might like to read the following scientific paper: The Possible "Impossible" Turn by Professor David F Rogers, Professor of Aerospace Engineering at the United States Naval Academy, Annapolis.
http://www.nar-associates.com/technical-flying/impossible/possible.html

Click to expand...

Amazing...that's the same link that was in the first post in this thread. Professor Rogers must be happy that so many people are reading his paper.