Engine failure on takeoff. turn around?

[tonycondon]

I'm not crazy about launching in wind like that!
I guess if it's right on the nose, maybe, but at 47N, if it's blowing harder than that, it's almost always a crosswind.

i fly in kansas. 15 knots is a light breeze.

 

[BillTIZ]

Get an CFI, climb to 2000 agl and simulate the engine out and return to the runway. See what happens. See how much altitude you lose. Remember, it's NOT a 180 turn, it's a teardrop to get back to the runway.

Start at your normal climb attitude at full power and at Vx or Vy.

 

[BillTIZ]

I had an engine roll back, fuel starvation, air introduced into the fuel line at about 1000ft AGL. Glider training kicked in, nose lowered and started the turn to downwind and back towards the airport, I was on crosswind leg when power failed.

Evaluate!

Departed 12, right turn now headed 300 (downwind), TPA. I can continue and set up for crosswind runway 7. Tower was called when the power rolled back, any runway my choice. Continued right hand turn, now returning to the airport, left base for 30.

No problems, enough power to taxi, but not for run-up.

 

[BillTIZ]

i fly in kansas. 15 knots is a light breeze.

:wink2: if you are not flying at 15knts, you'll never fly.

 

[flyingron]

If you are climbing at Vy in a typical light trainer would you still be within gliding distance of the airport by the time you reached a height necessary to pull off the imppossible turn?

Usually distance is NOT a problem. If you make the "impossible" turn you end up usually running off the end of the runway. The biggest issue is if you have time to make the greater than 180 degree turn to get back over the runway before hitting the ground. I departed full length off an 5500 runway. I ended up 1000 feet from where I started. If that had been a 4000' runway, I'd have gone off the end.

I always climb Vy initially unless there are obstacles. Altitude is your friend. Altitude is time to make decisions.

 

[poadeleted20]

Sure, it pays to consider your emergency options beforehand, and know what you can do with the airplane. It also pays to be aware of every factor in the immediate environment. But the one parameter you will never have available before takeoff is knowing exactly where you'll be when the takeoff climb cannot continue, whether due to engine failure (haven't dealt with that, knock wood) or losing the tow line in a glider (been there, done that).

So the guessing I'm talking about comes in that moment when you have to (very quickly) weigh what you know about the airplane, and what the altimeter and ASI are showing you, against what you can see in terms of your position, the wind, and traffic. It's basically too late for calculations at that point... and just knowing, for example, that you are at your personal minimum safe turnaround height is not going to be enough.

I think you're missing the point. Before takeoff, you set a minimum altitude for that maneuver based on the aircraft and conditions at the time. Then, if the engine quits, you check altitude and if it's below that minimum, the turn-back option is rejected -- no guesswork at all.

 

[rottydaddy]

I think you're missing the point. Before takeoff, you set a minimum altitude for that maneuver based on the aircraft and conditions at the time. Then, if the engine quits, you check altitude and if it's below that minimum, the turn-back option is rejected -- no guesswork at all.

Agreed. But what if the altimeter says you are at or past your minimum? Is a safe turnaround guaranteed at that point? Not necessarily.
My whole point was that there's a lot more to it than achieving a known safe minimum altitude, and that there isn't much time to figure it all out. If you're even considering turning around, you have to be sure ("guess right" was misleading, perhaps) about several other things. There's no way to plug it all in before takeoff, because there's no way of knowing when it will happen.

 

[poadeleted20]

Nothing in life is guaranteed except eventual death. But throwing away a potentially life-saving tool simply because it isn't "guaranteed" is not, in my opinion, a wise decision.

 

[rottydaddy]

Nothing in life is guaranteed except eventual death. But throwing away a potentially life-saving tool simply because it isn't "guaranteed" is not, in my opinion, a wise decision.

Throwing away what? The pre-determined minimum altitude? I never suggested that. It's pretty obvious that if you need XXX feet of altitude to turn around, you need to be at least at XXX AGL when you decide to turn around. That's definitely in my toolbox, and it's staying there.
But my point, again, was that there's a lot more to it than being at or above the minimum altitude, and you have to factor in all the other stuff correctly and immediately, almost intuitively (hence my use of the word "guess"), because you only get one shot.

 

[Jaybird180]

One of the other co-owners of my airplane breifed me on his experimentation with the Impossible turn.

He said (in short) takeoff into a crosswind - disregarding runway alignment after takeoff. 600' or above, 180 around and you should make it by allowing the wind to blow you back to centerline.

It will be awhile before I attempt a repeat of his experiments.

 

[Tony_Scarpelli]

i fly in kansas. 15 knots is a light breeze.

Kansas rule: If you can't fly in 25 knots you will only fly 25% of the time.

 

[tonycondon]

One of the other co-owners of my airplane breifed me on his experimentation with the Impossible turn.

He said (in short) takeoff into a crosswind - disregarding runway alignment after takeoff. 600' or above, 180 around and you should make it by allowing the wind to blow you back to centerline.

It will be awhile before I attempt a repeat of his experiments.

no, let the crosswind blow you downwind of the runway, then you make a nice easy 180 into the wind (smaller turn radius so less teardrop) and land opposite your takeoff direction.

 

[alfadog]

no, let the crosswind blow you downwind of the runway, then you make a nice easy 180 into the wind (smaller turn radius so less teardrop) and land opposite your takeoff direction.

Not sure I get this "crosswind blow you downwind .. then". VFR, you crab into the wind and track runway heading after takeoff. If the engine dies AFTER your predetermined and briefed decision height you turn into the direction you are already crabbed. You don't wait to be blown anywhere.

 

[Silvaire]

Concerning the video, and I believe most of this has been pointed out already:

1. They were at idle thrust, not engine out.

2. They knew it was coming and in fact, on many of their runs they had already begun the return maneuver before pulling the throttle back. Even so some of them were squeakers.

The bottom line is that you can't choose when this is going to possibly happen to you. The wind could be different, the airport unfamiliar, surrounding terrain and a host of other variable factors exist that you just don't have the time to mull over and analyze.

We know airplanes don't just fall out of the sky and crash when the engine quits but the biggest cause of fatalities in such situations is exactly that - getting into an inadvertent stall/spin. So my plan of action is to avoid making any sort of radical maneuver that might instigate such an occurrence. If there is any sort of open space within reach you can crack a plane up pretty good there and not even get scratched so long as you maintain control but you can stall and spin 50 feet right over the runway and kill yourself.

Of course there is going to come a point where turning back is the obvious choice and practice such as these guys were performing can give you a better idea of where that point might be.

 

[tonycondon]

Not sure I get this "crosswind blow you downwind .. then". VFR, you crab into the wind and track runway heading after takeoff. If the engine dies AFTER your predetermined and briefed decision height you turn into the direction you are already crabbed. You don't wait to be blown anywhere.

if you want to really optimize the potential turn back, don't crab, hold runway heading and drift downwind on the initial climb.

 

[alfadog]

if you want to really optimize the potential turn back, don't crab, hold runway heading and drift downwind on the initial climb.

Hmmm, well I would not want to sacrifice good VFR technique in the interest of an unlikely possibility of engine failure.

 

[Jaybird180]

Not sure I get this "crosswind blow you downwind .. then". VFR, you crab into the wind and track runway heading after takeoff. If the engine dies AFTER your predetermined and briefed decision height you turn into the direction you are already crabbed. You don't wait to be blown anywhere.

So, when I'm powered, I let the wind blow me away from the runway, so that when I lose power I, like a leaf try to get back to the runway unpowered....yeah, got it!

 

[Jaybird180]

We know airplanes don't just fall out of the sky and crash when the engine quits but the biggest cause of fatalities in such situations is exactly that - getting into an inadvertent stall/spin. So my plan of action is to avoid making any sort of radical maneuver that might instigate such an occurrence. If there is any sort of open space within reach you can crack a plane up pretty good there and not even get scratched so long as you maintain control but you can stall and spin 50 feet right over the runway and kill yourself.

.

True, but theres an implication here that begs addressing. Ron started the thought in #14, so, I'll finish it:

You spin, you die. You fly in the clouds, you die. Etc., etc. All hogwash. This maneuver is like any other -- if properly executed from an appropriate altitude, it's fine, but if not, it can kill you. Further, I've been at plenty of airports where going straight ahead is likely lethal, so it's all situations.

That said, this is not a maneuver to be tried for the first time from 800 AGL by yourself when your engine actually quits. If you want to add it to your bag of tricks, get an instructor who is familiar with it, and learn it at a safe altitude (say, one from which spin recovery is possible). Don't do what those knuckleheads in the Cirrus did and try to learn it on real takeoffs at low altitude. And once you do learn it, practice it periodically (again, from a safe altitude), and use it with discretion based on the actual circumstances and available landing areas around the airport of departure.

The implication that I see over and over comes from the pairing of stall and spin. I'm not advocating a stall 50 feet agl, but it doesn't guarantee a spin either. Also, if you do manage to stall 50agl, it will take time (and altitude) for an uncoordinated stall to develop into a spin. Even if you somehow manage to still screw up just right, it's still not a foregone conclusion that the return to earth will be fatal. But it will hurt.

My new pet peeve. Carry on.

 

[alfadog]

So, when I'm powered, I let the wind blow me away from the runway, so that when I lose power I, like a leaf try to get back to the runway unpowered....yeah, got it!

I think you are addressing this to the wrong poster.

 

[tonycondon]

So, when I'm powered, I let the wind blow me away from the runway, so that when I lose power I, like a leaf try to get back to the runway unpowered....yeah, got it!

if you think that unpowered flight in fixed wing aircraft is anything like being a leaf then its time to go back to ground school.

if you track out on centerline you are guaranteed to have to turn well over 180 degrees to turn back. if you let yourself drift downwind you will have to do much less manuevering to get lined back up with the runway. if you're more interested in having a nice looking ground track straight as an arrow off the end of the runway instead of putting yourself in the best possible position to deal with an emergency then be my guest.

 

[alfadog]

The implication that I see over and over comes from the pairing of stall and spin. I'm not advocating a stall 50 feet agl, but it doesn't guarantee a spin either. Also, if you do manage to stall 50agl, it will take time (and altitude) for an uncoordinated stall to develop into a spin. Even if you somehow manage to still screw up just right, it's still not a foregone conclusion that the return to earth will be fatal. But it will hurt.

Actually, I think it pretty much is a foregone conclusion. The classic stall/spin develops quickly and is almost certainly fatal (IMHO) and it is not that hard to do. That said, it is solely the result of poor stick and rudder skills. At low altitude, holding inside rudder, outside aileron, and hauling the nose up to the point of a stall will kill you. The solution is not being afraid to fly your airplane near the ground, the solution is to develop good stick and rudder skills and practice them frequently. This from someone that just came in from my weekly session of doing just that in the Luscombe.

 

[ateamer]

I took our 180 HP 172 up and practiced the "impossible turn". In a 10knot wind at 2,000 MSL, I began with a full power climb at Vy. When the climb at Vy was established, I pulled power and noted the altitude, waited five seconds to simulate the delay between the failure and taking action, and then did a 270 degree turn at a 45-degree bank while pitching for Vg. I repeated the maneuver on all four cardinal headings, doing each a total of four times. The average altitude loss was 600 feet. The best was 400 and the worst 800, but most were right around 600.

On every takeoff, solo or with another pilot, turnaround altitude is part of the brief. Generally 600 AGL and a turn into the wind if terrain and runway configuration works with that, but altitude is adjustable for those factors as well.

Having just hit 500 hours, I am keenly aware of how little I really know, and also of the consequences of screwing up, and stay primed for a power loss.

 

[Jaybird180]

if you think that unpowered flight in fixed wing aircraft is anything like being a leaf then its time to go back to ground school.

if you track out on centerline you are guaranteed to have to turn well over 180 degrees to turn back. if you let yourself drift downwind you will have to do much less manuevering to get lined back up with the runway. if you're more interested in having a nice looking ground track straight as an arrow off the end of the runway instead of putting yourself in the best possible position to deal with an emergency then be my guest.

Ok, leaf was a wrong simile, but the concept remains that I'd rather direct my path when I have power than be subject to wind when I don't have it. I never said it would be pretty or by the book.

 

[Jaybird180]

Actually, I think it pretty much is a foregone conclusion. The classic stall/spin develops quickly and is almost certainly fatal (IMHO) and it is not that hard to do. That said, it is solely the result of poor stick and rudder skills. At low altitude, holding inside rudder, outside aileron, and hauling the nose up to the point of a stall will kill you. The solution is not being afraid to fly your airplane near the ground, the solution is to develop good stick and rudder skills and practice them frequently. This from someone that just came in from my weekly session of doing just that in the Luscombe.

Then go back and reread post 14

 

[alfadog]

Then go back and reread post 14

At the risk of putting words in Ron's mouth, I think you misinterpret. I am sure that Ron will agree that if you spin base-to-final, in the vast majority of instances, you DO die.

 

[PilotAlan]

I took our 180 HP 172 up and practiced the "impossible turn". In a 10knot wind at 2,000 MSL, I began with a full power climb at Vy. When the climb at Vy was established, I pulled power and noted the altitude, waited five seconds to simulate the delay between the failure and taking action, and then did a 270 degree turn at a 45-degree bank while pitching for Vg. I repeated the maneuver on all four cardinal headings, doing each a total of four times. The average altitude loss was 600 feet. The best was 400 and the worst 800, but most were right around 600.

On every takeoff, solo or with another pilot, turnaround altitude is part of the brief. Generally 600 AGL and a turn into the wind if terrain and runway configuration works with that, but altitude is adjustable for those factors as well.

Did you factor in that the engine was not producing zero power, but idle power? That will reduce your glide.
Was this in typical training configuration at one person and partial fuel (or even full fuel), meaning several hundred pounds under gross? How will you adjust for higher weights? More weight means less glide.

By your own statement, some attempts took 800 feet to complete. At light weights, and at idle (not zero) thrust. In a controlled environment.
You're the PIC, but you might want to think about adjusting that minimum to 1000ft to compensate for confounding factors in a zero-tolerance environment.

 

[tlglenn]

Tried this with a CFI in a Cessna 182RG at altitude: Climb at Vy, power to idle, and very aggressive nose down with 60 degrees of bank in the turn. Lost 600 feet. In a real emergency I'll have less than idle power plus there may be a delay in responding since my brain might be having a WTF moment. So I think 800 AGL is the minimum to attempt a turnback in that airplane under normal conditions.

 

[Jaybird180]

At the risk of putting words in Ron's mouth, I think you misinterpret. I am sure that Ron will agree that if you spin base-to-final, in the vast majority of instances, you DO die.

Okay you win, since in your mind "vast majority"= 100%.

Such an underwhelming argument; I'll not do that again.

 

[Silvaire]

The implication that I see over and over comes from the pairing of stall and spin. I'm not advocating a stall 50 feet agl, but it doesn't guarantee a spin either....

No it doesn't but that's not what I meant. I'm talking about the stall that is a spin. This is something that becomes more likely when you are suddenly thrust into a crisis situation where you are attempting to make a low level teardrop maneuver with no power to a specific point on the ground. The problem is the fixation of your attention in reference to the ground because if there is wind you can lose track of your stick and rudder coordination with your concentration focused on your track across the ground.

You may think you're a skilled pilot and that won't happen but it has happened to many highly seasoned Ag pilots in low level downwind turns and Bush Pilots in what's known as a Moose Stall. It 'almost' happens to just about every newly minted Private Pilot who goes out on a windy day and does circles over his backyard at 500 feet while waving at Mom and Dad or the wife and kids while taking pictures and then suddenly notices he's doing 70 kts and the ball is parked in the far corner.

I'm not saying that the return to field maneuver we are discussing should never be used. As Ron pointed out there are a lot of variables and it's entirely possible that going straight ahead is not an option but you shouldn't do it on a snap decision based on you don't want to scratch the airplane.