What's new
Van's Air Force

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

Engine out, tried to turn back...

RScott

Well Known Member
Kitfox didn't make it, apparently a traditional stall spin. Passenger was killed. Passenger was a mechanic and instructor and long time member of our EAA chapter, former president. We know he would not have tried to do a 180. It appears when the engine quit they were only about 200 ft. high, according to witnesses and there was about 2,200 feet of clear ground in front of them. Pilot is critical. We can only imagine what went on in the cockpit in those last few seconds.

A reminder for all of us, land straight ahead. They would have been better off if they had done so, even if it meant running into an obstacle on the ground at 25 or 40 mph, rather than crashing in an uncontrolled situation.
 
There's a reason it's called "The impossible turn."
Yes... Because it's totally possible, in the right circumstances. :rolleyes:

Training, and practise, will teach you what those circumstances are. But 200' is low for any airplane.
 
Yes... Because it's totally possible, in the right circumstances. :rolleyes:

Training, and practise, will teach you what those circumstances are. But 200' is low for any airplane.

Yeah, and the statistics are just littered with success stories.

Spaceflight is possible under the right set of circumstances. The OP's point was if you have an option in front of you, your chances of survival go up exponentially, even if the plane doesn't.

I've personally lost an engine off the departure end, opted to ditch instead of try the turn back.
 
Another factor in engine failure on takeoff I've read about is the necessity of forcing the stick/yoke forward instantly, not just relaxing any back pressure. Consider a full-power departure, trimmed for takeoff, nose high and climbing, suddenly the engine quits...gotta get that nose down fast. Think I'll try this out at altitude the next time I fly to see what happens when I don't force the nose down.
 
Yes... Because it's totally possible, in the right circumstances. :rolleyes:

Training, and practise, will teach you what those circumstances are. But 200' is low for any airplane.

Exactly my thoughts. 200' is too low, but having practiced this scenario, I'd be pretty comfortable trying it from 800' AGL or better.
 
Yeah, and the statistics are just littered with success stories.
I didn't say it was always a good idea, but I wouldn't rule it out as never being an option. Even if the "right circumstances" only happen one time in a hundred, I'd still rather know what's possible in that one time.

The alternative is reading stories that say "you know, that was the one time in 100 that someone could have turned back... I wonder why he didn't?"
 
Yeah, and the statistics are just littered with success stories.

Actually, in respect of the turnback, the success stories don't become statistics....only the failures. The failures are reported, investigated, recorded, and subsequently opened to public scrutiny. When it's a success the pilot simply hangars the aircraft and goes off to buy a celebratory cold beer. ;)

The fact that only the failures are recorded (and become statistics) probably goes a long way to explaining why pilots with a land-straight-ahead-under-any-circumstances philosophy see their viewpoint as being constantly validated...they're only getting the bad news. :)
 
Actually, in respect of the turnback, the success stories don't become statistics....only the failures. The failures are reported, investigated, recorded, and subsequently opened to public scrutiny. When it's a success the pilot simply hangars the aircraft and goes off to buy a celebratory cold beer. ;)

The fact that only the failures are recorded (and become statistics) probably goes a long way to explaining why pilots with a land-straight-ahead-under-any-circumstances philosophy see their viewpoint as being constantly validated...they're only getting the bad news. :)

I'm not saying it's not possible, like snowflake said. But when it happens, like Buggsy said, you need to be reacting right now. You also need to know beyond any doubt that instant you can make it if you're going to try. If there's any doubt, you're much better off using the altitude and airspeed you've got to keep it undercontrol and land on what you can see in front of you.
 
Last edited:
Sad story

At our nation's oldest continued operating airport. Not the report we all want to hear. A Very Sad Loss. My most sincere condolences.

I was a lucky one and have successfully made the 180, well practiced, turn just after take off due to engine failure. Landed on a dirt road next to railroad tracks with out any damage. I did not make the airport though. It was a 180, not a tear drop which takes more time and alt. This was initiated at near 800 feet, (600' AGL.) I would never try it with less alt. I actually never got scared or shaken and just flew. When I landed, it hit me. I was thankful for circumstances and that I had practiced physically and mentally with reserve minimums established. My immediate initiated turn made the difference. There were trees ahead.
 
This last post just proves everything I keep harping on about.

KNOW YOUR AEROPLANE

PRACTISE

SET MINIMUMS

You do not have to always make the runway, but often you have better options, you just need to KNOW which are within reach and which are not.

For those not familiar with my posts, search is your friend.
 
Impossible Turn

The argument a turn-back is impossible and the only option is to ALWAYS land straight ahead is irresponsible.

what if the area ahead is occupied by:
An elementary school - not gonna do it
A Shopping Center - its gonna hurt
Play ground - little Suzy deserves better
Granite wall of rock - nuff said
Thickly wooded forest - go ahead and drive your car at 70 mph into an oak tree and tell me how it works out for you

The "impossible turn" is made possible through practice which allows fear to be replaced by knowledge and confidence. At some point, in consideration of pilots skill, airplane performance and environmental conditions the impossible becomes possible.

Know those parameters and give yourself options or blindly follow a paranoid wives tale and crash into the park while your neighbors kids play with their dog....
 
Circle of action

A long, long time ago I was taught about the circle of action. That area around the aircraft that contains safe landing areas. Depending on the aircraft, altitude, airspeed and reaction time, the circle grew or diminished in size. Of course local knowledge adds options and new areas / airports take away options.

Only testing glide characteristics and practicing engine out procedures will someone gain the knowledge to accurately decide how to react. Without that knowledge it becomes a test flight at the wrong time.
 
The argument a turn-back is impossible and the only option is to ALWAYS land straight ahead is irresponsible.

I think that statement is a little unfair. I have NEVER heard anyone say "ALWAYS land straight ahead."
The standard I've always heard has been to land within a reasonable place in front of the aircraft.
The emphasis was not to land straight ahead, but to not try the turn back to the runway. Which is BTW considerably more than 180?. Everything is a judgement call.
 
I think that statement is a little unfair. I have NEVER heard anyone say "ALWAYS land straight ahead."

Sorry Mel but the OP doesn't leave much latitude which is oft repeated in similar threads:

From the OP :

A reminder for all of us, land straight ahead.

I've followed this topic closely each time it comes up. Seems two distinct camps exist:

those who believe with training, practice and known limitations the turn-back is a viable OPTION - stress on the word option intentional.

and those who believe landing straight ahead (with straight being loosely defined) as the only responsible course of action and any decision otherwise is certain death.
 
I was trained to have a predetermined altitude below which a turnaround back to the field would not be attempted. It may vary depending upon gross weight, wind, whatever...but the analysis and the determination of that altitude happens *before* taking the runway for take-off. Then, should the unthinkable occur, the decision has been made *ahead of time* based on all known factors (is there somewhere to go straight ahead, left, or right, etc.).

My instructor also took me out to a very long, little-used runway (old AFB turned into civilian field) and we spent several hours trying all sorts of different scenarios, to see precisely what could and couldn't be successfully accomplished, as well as to gain a certain comfort level with some fairly extreme maneuvering to get there.

We did this with all sorts of take-off "emergencies", such as determining the abort point on the runway (if you're not flying by X point, abort the take-off, etc.). The key point was to have analyzed the circumstances ahead of time, and arriving at decision points which are pre-defined.

Part of my pre-takeoff "checklist" on every flight is to state, out loud..."abort point is ________; no turnaround below ________".

The idea was to reduce the number of decisions which had to made "on the fly" to a minimum, and prepare ahead of time for the worst scenario, so that there was always a plan in the event of a worst-case situation.
 
Don't forget another option

With the performance of the RV, if I had a power loss at 200' I would be able to drop the nose and land straight ahead on our 3200' runway. Probably could still do it at 500'. Even if I overran the end of the runway and went into the orange grove, I would be moving very slowly at that point.

From the moment of lift off until landing, I try to constantly evaluate where I am going if the engine quits. Obviously it's not in my mind 100% of the flight, but it's a good habit to aim for. I do it more when low, and when over not-so-friendly terrain.
 
Back
Top