Impossible turn practice at 500ft

[denverpilot]

If I'm understanding you, I think I disagree.

Follow me here, I'm thinking through this as I type (at 2 am, so I may Be missing something important)

• Best glide usually isn't that much different than Vx, but it's usually slower than Vy, I think that means if you climb at Vy you have a little more time in the glide than your climb took
• To stop your roll on the same spot you started, you must glide for more time than you climb, because youre going straight during the climb, but turning during the glide
• If you are gliding longer than your climb, the headwind will have more effect during the glide
• If my math is right, in a 10 knot headwind, one minute of gliding more than the climb, you're going to lose a 1,000 Feet of runway during the glide

My conclusion is that you are more likely to overshoot or not get aligned in time with a headwind.

Maybe I made too many bad assumptions, feel free to show where I'm wrong.

I was thinking of it in simpler terms. Let’s say Vy is 70 and you take off in a 70 knot headwind for silliness sake.

You never went anywhere. You’re still over the runway. So getting back to the runway isn’t the problem. Getting down is.

Now no-wind, your idea is correct I think. The total distance to make the turn is much longer than then straight line departure.

There’s a point where these two extremes cross, I assume. But, I haven’t run the numbers.

I think Mr Excel over there, Clark, could probably make a pretty graph of it. Ha.

 

[Salty]

I was thinking of it in simpler terms. Let’s say Vy is 70 and you take off in a 70 knot headwind for silliness sake.

You never went anywhere. You’re still over the runway. So getting back to the runway isn’t the problem. Getting down is.

Now no-wind, your idea is correct I think. The total distance to make the turn is much longer than then straight line departure.

There’s a point where these two extremes cross, I assume. But, I haven’t run the numbers.

I think Mr Excel over there, Clark, could probably make a pretty graph of it. Ha.

In your new example, when the engine shuts off you immedialty start drifting behind the airport if you turn for the glide. I think it proves my point.

 

[Palmpilot]

In your new example, when the engine shuts off you immedialty start drifting behind the airport if you turn for the glide. I think it proves my point.

If your ground speed becomes negative, there's no need to turn. I don't think that tells us much about what you need to do when you're taking off in the type of conditions that most GA pilots would consider acceptable.

 

[denverpilot]

In your new example, when the engine shuts off you immedialty start drifting behind the airport if you turn for the glide. I think it proves my point.

Perhaps I don’t understand your point, then. Don’t turn, just land.

That’s what I meant about there being a crossing point between the two. In light winds you end up too far away. In heavy winds you didn’t get far enough. In between somewhere there’s a sweet spot where that turn is literally no big deal and out at the edges it’s deadly.

But I’ll have to think about this tomorrow. Or later.

Frankly, in reality if there’s a land-able spot ahead, I’m going there. That’s the most practical. But the video shows with the right gear (note he does have an AoA indicator — it’s that little reticule thing on the left side of the glareshield) and the right prep and practice, it’s “doable” to return.

It’s just not the best option for most airplanes and most pilots in most weather and runway cases. But I’ll couch it and say in SOME specific cases it’s fine.

Looking at the emotional reactions above, a great many folks aren’t mentally ready for such a thing. Fear goes away with knowledge, but this is not an area of knowledge that gets taught much, because of that whole “most” thing about the specific cases.

Training tends to focus on the MOST likely ways to survive before other stuff. You wouldn’t want to teach what he’s doing in the video as the FIRST option, it would be very bad for primacy.

Doing from 1000’? Sure.

The glider folks do it. They have a much much higher glide ratio so they do it from altitudes us spamcan drivers shake our heads at. Not only do they do it, it’s part of their practical test.

FAA would NEVER make a low altitude return mandatory on a powered aircraft practical test — just to show how odd the test creation process is. It’s considered life saving in a glider but not important enough to test in a powered airplane.

Something is a little off there.

 

[Palmpilot]

...The glider folks do it. They have a much much higher glide ratio so they do it from altitudes us spamcan drivers shake our heads at. Not only do they do it, it’s part of their practical test.

FAA would NEVER make a low altitude return mandatory on a powered aircraft practical test — just to show how odd the test creation process is. It’s considered life saving in a glider but not important enough to test in a powered airplane.

Something is a little off there.

As you mentioned, the glide ratios are much different. That dramatically affects the odds of success. Considering all the factors that enter into whether a powered airplane can succeed in a given set of circumstances, coming up with a robust system for airplane pilots to make that determination is not easy. Given that difficulty, I suspect that the FAA's stance is more likely to be based on a belief that requiring it would do more harm than good, rather than thinking it's unimportant.

 

[denverpilot]

As you mentioned, the glide ratios are much different. That dramatically affects the odds of success. Considering all the factors that enter into whether a powered airplane can succeed in a given set of circumstances, coming up with a robust system for airplane pilots to make that determination is not easy. Given that difficulty, I suspect that the FAA's stance is more likely to be based on a belief that requiring it would do more harm than good, rather than thinking it's unimportant.

True. And good point. Risk management.

 

[nauga]

I’d like to hear a real test pilot’s opinion (Hint @nauga ...) but I suspect if you plotted it all out, wind direction and speed is the biggest changeable factor in these, and climb rate is probably second.

1) Nauga is not a professional test pilot - I have done some test flying for my own stuff and in my own interest, but that's not what pays the bills

2) It's gotten to the point where I try to stay out of these threads because there's typically too much shouting and not enough listening, when the answers are out there for anyone who cares to do their homework. Since Prof. Rogers' paper came up again I *will* give a one-or-two line summary of research documented in AIAA papers that I think is particularly relevant to GA. It's not by any means comprehensive but it will give you a good start:

Rogers (AIAA Journal of Aircraft Vol. 32) considers a steady turn and shows the mathematical minimum for altitude loss in gliding turns.
Jett (AIAA-82-0406) presents results of a piloted simulation study which accounts for reaction time and handling qualities. I don't recall him expressly developing minima beyond what Rogers developed.
Hyde (AIAA-2005-5897) presents trajectory optimization results for dynamic maneuvering, considering variations in speed at the time of power loss with considerations for reaction time and model uncertainty but not handling qualities or execution.
I believe all 3 consider the effect of winds, but I'd have to review Jett to be sure about that one.

Brinkman and Visser (AIAA 2007-252) also presented trajectory optimization, but using a different method and a much higher-performance model. This one I don't find as applicable to GA but the results are similar.

I don't believe *any* of them suggest that this type of maneuvering should be done casually. At least two and probably all of the papers were intended to show what was *possible*, not what was *practical*. I spoke at length with Prof. Rogers about this not long after his paper came out and I know Hyde well. Jett I only passed in the hallways.

Nauga,
who did his homework

 

[Palmpilot]

A previous thread on this subject:

https://www.pilotsofamerica.com/community/threads/testing-the-impossible-turn.35794/

 

[Palmpilot]

A local instructor and engineer has worked out methods of calculating what climb performance one needs to see under existing conditions in order to have a chance of making a turnback successfully. Under his method, rather than trying to predict the plane's performance, the pilot watches to see whether the performance needed is being achieved. I don't think he has ever published it, but I summarized his method in the following post:

https://www.pilotsofamerica.com/com...the-impossible-turn.35794/page-6#post-1207435

As I mentioned before, I'm not advocating for or against attempting turnbacks.

 

[Sundancer]

Outside the academic/armchair discussion, my real world take was I'd probably turn back at or above 400 or 500 feet. . .if given bad options off the airport, like boulder fields, a wind farm, or a outdoor gathering of Democrats.

Five knots either way, or 10 degrees of bank either way, doesn't matter much in a 172. And you can put a 172 in a driveway and walk away, if necessary. At some point, runway made or not, I would roll wings level and fly it under control to touchdown, just like you would if you decided not to turn back. So, I figured I'd get it pointed back at the airport ASAP, then decide if the runway was reachable, and if not, pick another reasonably flat surface. Just don't stall. . .

I'm certain I didn't achieve the best performance possible (I'm not a test pilot or a pro); I was so attentive to not reaching a high AOA, that I'm sure spent a lot of the time in the turns at a less than optimal AOA. I imagine it could be done (in a 172) from a lower turn-back altitude, so the 400-500 AGL is my personal limit; a bit lower in a stronger wind, a bit higher in a lighter wind.

But I see the logic in forging on straight ahead, looking for the best place 30 degrees or so, either side of the nose. Especially in a fixed gear single with very low touchdown speed, like a 172 - if you keep the wing flying, you'll probably survive the landing in a 172. And I'm not really sure what I'd do, real world; might go conservative, though my home-drome doesn't offer good options off-airport on either runway heading.

 

[denverpilot]

Nauga,
who did his homework

Thanks for the references. More stuff for the reading list.

 

[Lndwarrior]

Boy this crow tastes great!....

So after commenting a couple of days ago about how the OP would be a better pilot for this exercise - a guy I know was doing exactly the same thing this weekend.

He too had a tremendous amount of experience AND his engine was running fine. He also was practicing the impossible turn under real world (take-off) conditions (not at altitude). He stalled it at 20 feet, had no time to recover - and bent the crap out of one of his gear. He got very lucky that he,or the plane, wasn't hurt worse.

If I had ever considered trying this myself, it is now off the table.

 

[Tarheelpilot]

Boy this crow tastes great!....

So after commenting a couple of days ago about how the OP would be a better pilot for this exercise - a guy I know was doing exactly the same thing this weekend.

He too had a tremendous amount of experience AND his engine was running fine. He also was practicing the impossible turn under real world (take-off) conditions (not at altitude). He stalled it at 20 feet, had no time to recover - and bent the crap out of one of his gear. He got very lucky that he,or the plane, wasn't hurt worse.

If I had ever considered trying this myself, it is now off the table.

Some of the best pilots I know have had their bad days as well.

I find myself vacillating on this topic. All I can say with certainty is we all have to make our own decisions regarding risk and the amount we are willing to assume while flying. It’s a moving target and sometimes what is safe today will be not so safe tomorrow.

 

[Tantalum]

If I had ever considered trying this myself, it is now off the table.

Something like this is probably best demonstrated in AATD or some other device. The lowest we ever practiced this maneuver was 1,000 AGL and the amount of altitude you lose making a 180 is impressive.. especially if you factor in "less than perfect" flying because of stress, etc., or that 3-4 second denial that someone else mentioned

I'm a big fan of practicing emergencies often and as realistically as possible, but something like this toes the edge of the line I would say. Maybe not as crazy as setting yourself on fire to practice inflight fires but it's not far off the mark. 500 AGL doesn't give a lot of room for error. Theoretically possible, yes, since a 360 usually results in about 1,000 ft loss of altitude, but theory is not always practice.. plus the 180 turns you around, but you're still going to have to do some maneuvering to get to the runway, which will use up your energy as well

My other thought on this (and I could be wrong), but, lets say you practice this over and over again and get really good at it. Then one day you're departing an airport and have a power failure at say, 400 AGL... there's a big field in front of you, but you try the turn since "I've done this a dozen times before, this will just need to be a little tighter" and in the process you bend your plane (or yourself) up pretty good.. or maybe you are at 500 ft but took off with a slight downwind and can't make it, or maybe you were at 600 ft but at this uncontrolled airport someone is taking off behind you.. that field is now a better option than your muscle memory of turning around

My own rule has pretty much always been... unless I am pattern altitude or flying some kind of ODP that puts me right over the airport at low altitude I generally am going to be looking somewhere infront of me to land

Or maybe I'm just a nervous nelly and the more experienced folks on here can nail this maneuver without much trouble

 

[mryan75]

This practice was intense and I am glad I did it.
I taught me how difficult it is to do it in real life and that I would not attempt it at 500ft unless at very light weight and favorable wind conditions.
First attempt I though I could make it, not even close.
I asked my instructor to wait a couple of seconds but he said , do it now all the time.
Did 12 attempts in total, 2 of them without warning , first 4 didnt make it, then made the next 8 even the 2 thrown by surprise.
It is an extreme training at that low altitude.

It is an insane training at that low altitude. I have a friend whose teacher used to do this. He insisted it could be done at altitudes as low as 200 feet AGL, and he would teach it at those altitudes. The other instructors vehemently disagreed and thought it was reckless.

Here is the NTSB report when the instructor killed himself trying to do it for real:

https://app.ntsb.gov/pdfgenerator/R...tID=20150815X21004&AKey=1&RType=HTML&IType=FA

Do yourself a favor and don’t try this anymore.

 

[Eric Gleason]

If you're practicing the maneuver at altitude, then I wouldn't call you a nervous nellie. I'd say that this is something that should be practiced regularly at altitude, and occasionally from an actual take off scenario, because it does look different closer to the ground. Obviously, there is more risk involved, and that has to be managed.

Part of the goal of practicing is to find out what your performance and the airplane performance actually is, and that drives your planning. If you know that you lose (for example) 300 feet in the turn and 200 feet to glide back to the runway, then you know that you don't do this in an emergency below 500'. There's no "I'm only at 400', so I'll just turn tighter and pray." Your plan is "If the engine fails below 500', I'll turn no more than 90 degrees to find a clearing. If it fails above 500', I'll turn into the wind and return to the runway."

 

[Palmpilot]

...If you know that you lose (for example) 300 feet in the turn and 200 feet to glide back to the runway, then you know that you don't do this in an emergency below 500'....

A problem with that method is that you CAN'T know that it takes you "200 feet to glide back to the runway," because that number varies with wind, density altitude, runway length, etc.

 

[mryan75]

Also, what you’re doing is not the impossible turn. It’s the “230 HP engine running at 1200 RPM with an instructor right next to me turn”. Get to where you were on the first one, pull the red knob all the way out, then tell me how successful your “impossible turn” practice is.

 

[kyleb]

Boy this crow tastes great!....

So after commenting a couple of days ago about how the OP would be a better pilot for this exercise - a guy I know was doing exactly the same thing this weekend.

He too had a tremendous amount of experience AND his engine was running fine. He also was practicing the impossible turn under real world (take-off) conditions (not at altitude). He stalled it at 20 feet, had no time to recover - and bent the crap out of one of his gear. He got very lucky that he,or the plane, wasn't hurt worse.

If I had ever considered trying this myself, it is now off the table.

My personal practice on this has always stopped at "runway made, apply power and go around". There's no need to continue the maneuver to the ground - it invites trouble if your margins are thin. All I'm trying to prove is that I can get back to the runway environment under control.

 

[Eric Gleason]

A problem with that method is that you CAN'T know that it takes you "200 feet to glide back to the runway," because that number varies with wind, density altitude, runway length, etc.

Was being brief for the sake of clarity. You certainly can figure out what that number is, in the same way that you can know how much runway you need for takeoff under different conditions.

 

[Tantalum]

You certainly can figure out what that number is, in the same way that you can know how much runway you need for takeoff under different conditions

You could, but I doubt most GA pilots are doing this. Heck, half the people I see taking off don't even bother with a runup, and many people I fly with don't bother with a take off brief. I've asked people "if the engine quits at 300 what are they doing?" The "find a suitable place to land ahead straight ahead" is too vague and textbook for me. If it is your home airport (or even if not) you should know where the highways, fields, etc. are so you are not guessing at that low altitude

Everybody has different minimums though. But I think I'm with @mryan75 and some of the others. I wouldn't try it.

 

[Eric Gleason]

You could, but I doubt most GA pilots are doing this. Heck, half the people I see taking off don't even bother with a runup, and many people I fly with don't bother with a take off brief.

The take off brief is somewhat rare (mine is usually informal and in my head), but skipping a runup surprises me. Skipping the runup is or the exception than the rule from what I've seen.

I

've asked people "if the engine quits at 300 what are they doing?" The "find a suitable place to land ahead straight ahead" is too vague and textbook for me. If it is your home airport (or even if not) you should know where the highways, fields, etc. are so you are not guessing at that low altitude

I'm on board with all of this. In fact, knowing the options at my home airport are what got me seriously thinking about this, since there aren't many options. There's either development or trees in pretty much every direction, so if you can't make it back to the runway you're just going to have to try not to hit something head-on.

 

[Tantalum]

mine is usually informal and in my head

same here, but I have asked people who give underwhelming responses. Others I've definitely learned from. I used to do the same "find somewhere suitable ahead" and then I flew with someone who new the roads and fields, so I adapted it into mine

skipping a runup surprises

Yeah, so far I've seen it happen three times, not a lot, but enough to surprise me.

First time was me.. back as a student on a long XC.. tower asked if I wanted to do a runup and I said yes and they let me 360 it on the runway back to runup area. I never forgot again because it scared me that I totally missed it

Second time was not me, out here in SoCal, again tower asked a plane if they wanted to do a runup and the guy said "no we're just staying in the pattern" - which was an odd response but w.e.

Third time uncontrolled airport. Guy had a 210 that looked like something out of mad max. Yellow sun bleached windows, definitely original paint, and I can only imagine what he had inside. Saw him power up, taxi out, and take off. The only radio he called was to me as he approached me in the runup area. Asked me "are you taking off?" and I said "no we're going to do a runup first" and he zipped by, onto the runway, and off he went. To each their own

 

[mryan75]

same here, but I have asked people who give underwhelming responses. Others I've definitely learned from. I used to do the same "find somewhere suitable ahead" and then I flew with someone who new the roads and fields, so I adapted it into mine


Yeah, so far I've seen it happen three times, not a lot, but enough to surprise me.

First time was me.. back as a student on a long XC.. tower asked if I wanted to do a runup and I said yes and they let me 360 it on the runway back to runup area. I never forgot again because it scared me that I totally missed it

Second time was not me, out here in SoCal, again tower asked a plane if they wanted to do a runup and the guy said "no we're just staying in the pattern" - which was an odd response but w.e.

Third time uncontrolled airport. Guy had a 210 that looked like something out of mad max. Yellow sun bleached windows, definitely original paint, and I can only imagine what he had inside. Saw him power up, taxi out, and take off. The only radio he called was to me as he approached me in the runup area. Asked me "are you taking off?" and I said "no we're going to do a runup first" and he zipped by, onto the runway, and off he went. To each their own

I knew someone who used to do that. He’s dead as well.

 

[denverpilot]

You could, but I doubt most GA pilots are doing this. Heck, half the people I see taking off don't even bother with a runup, and many people I fly with don't bother with a take off brief.

I truly hope your assertion of “most” is wrong. Especially the run-up. :-(

 

[Tantalum]

I truly hope your assertion of “most” is wrong. Especially the run-up. :-(

I hope so too.. I mentioned in another post that I've seen a handful of skipped runups, and that's in 15 years..

It did catch my ears though, a few times recently when we picked up our taxi clearance from busier airports ground would ask if we'd be doing a runup, I thought that was odd.. maybe they just wanted to know how much time they had to get our clearance, but also made me think that there must be people out there who just get out and go

Hope I'm wrong on the takeoff briefing too, and I trust most people do a quick mental check, but in my mind that's the most critical phase of the flight, that first 200-300 feet when you're climbing away from an airport.. can't really afford to phone it in

 

[denverpilot]

I hope so too.. I mentioned in another post that I've seen a handful of skipped runups, and that's in 15 years..

It did catch my ears though, a few times recently when we picked up our taxi clearance from busier airports ground would ask if we'd be doing a runup, I thought that was odd.. maybe they just wanted to know how much time they had to get our clearance, but also made me think that there must be people out there who just get out and go

Hope I'm wrong on the takeoff briefing too, and I trust most people do a quick mental check, but in my mind that's the most critical phase of the flight, that first 200-300 feet when you're climbing away from an airport.. can't really afford to phone it in

More controversial than run-ups is people who say, “I just flew it, no need for a pre-flight...” I had a CFI do that once to me, so I told him if he’d like to get in and be comfortable, I’d be along in a minute.

Considering I’ve found things wrong on both preflight right after a flight (busted wheel pant cuff) and run-up (spark plug connector cracked and fell all the way off sometime in the flight before, and was found by one cylinder completely gone on the Left mag setting), folks who skip things can do what they like, but I won’t be doing it.

Even if it has to be a rolling run-up (not smart) that mag switch is getting flipped and even if it’s a downpour, I’m walking around the airplane.

Skipping things rarely leads to anything good.

 

[UngaWunga]

 

[denverpilot]

Paul is freaking hilarious.

Watch the sign in the back of the plane over his left shoulder (right side of the video) carefully between cuts.

And “Fred E. Tilton Sleep Apnea Center” on the graphic of things not to crash into... Bwahaha! Damn that’s funny. Lawyer’s kids, too.

Much more subtle than his famous epaulets video, but awesome.

 

[Shepherd]

Like they say in real estate: "Location, location, location."
In the Cub I can turn around and get lined up in 325ish ft. I've done it to make sure.
Big deal, I'm still dead. At GBR the lovely neighbors planted maple and poplar trees right at the edge of the airport property (rwy 29). they are over 50 feet tall. If I make the turn I'm going to fly right into the trees, about half way up the trunk. Splat!
There used to be an open field off to the right. I can make the field, and ground loop the plane after I land. Yipee!
Except the neighbor put a 400 panel solar array in the field. Splat!
If I lose the engine on 29, I have to hope I can make a wide turn to the left and try for the parking area. There is enough room between the lines of planes to set down there.
Straight ahead is right through the neighbors living room window. I'm aiming for the couch.
Runway 11, I'm golden. 500 ft of corn on the the other side of the road. I'll pick my own as I plow through.

I only bother with this because a lot of you probably have even fewer options available than I do.
But, like Paul said, you need to have it all planned before you push the throttle.
What are you capable of and where do you go?
You only get one chance.

 

[Silvaire]

I think it's good practice and nothing wrong with that but I don't think you can come to any conclusions based on it. There are a lot of variable factors such as wind and density altitude and in the practice you are making an instantaneous move, no WTF? moment, no attempt to check the fuel selector valve or the mag switch or make a decision on what to do, it's completely pre-determined. I'd agree there's probably not THAT much difference between actual engine out and idle but you really can't split hairs with this anyway because of the variances already mentioned.

My opinion however is that in a situation that is already a crisis I will do everything necessary to make certain I do not stall and spin. So that leaves out steep, no power banks right at the get-go. Because you can ball it up pretty good and walk away if you were still flying when you hit the ground rather than just dropping straight down with no control from 100 feet.

Again, no problem with doing the practice and the OP did a great job. I just don't think you can draw any conclusions from it.

 

[455 Bravo Uniform]

Since earlier in this thread there was discussion about whether simulated engine out with engine idling was different than engine stopped:

 

[Todd82]

I want to do some practice on this same thing. But my plan would be to do it like stalls, manuevers, etc. Climb to 2000AGL, call that the "Ground" climb another 500ft and then do the turn. If I don't get lined back up by the "ground" or stall it I'm "dead" but in reality I've got 2000' to recover still so I'm not dead in real life.

No need to make "fake" training for an emergency an actual deadly experience. Now granted I'll concede all day long and twice today that you're a better stick and rudder guy than me from your videos (and more experienced by far), but you've evidently got a bigger pair than me too.

 

[steingar]

One thing to consider. Around here, most runways are surrounded by a fair amount of grass, and most have some sort of overrun area. You don't have to make it back to the runway, all you have to do is make it back to the airport environment. Your airplane might get bent landing the rough field adjacent to the airport, but it'll fly again, and so will you.

 

[Eric Gleason]

One thing to consider. Around here, most runways are surrounded by a fair amount of grass, and most have some sort of overrun area.

Some. Not most, some. If the airport has an ILS, it will also have approach lighting in that area. Many airports have roads/fences/etc. Gotta know your departure airport and your aircraft performance. If the engine fails at 200', you can probably land on a 5000' runway again. At 300', probably not. At 500', definitely not.

 

[RoscoeT]

Try this at 1000', but pull the red lever instead. Airplanes with no engine power at all tend to have a higher sink rate, so you're not really experiencing an engine out.

Not necessarily - depends on idle setting, prop type and aircraft factors. I've pulled the mixture and landed before and didn't notice any difference in sink rate with the windmilling prop.

 

[bluesideup]

Hi.
I am curious, what acft., Make, Model was that?
What was the Idle RPM on the ground and during decent on approach?
How did you determine the sink rate, what did you do to maintain it? Lower nose, pull up?...
I've never see one, that does not lose gliding distance without power vs Idle, except gliders, that do that.

Not necessarily - depends on idle setting, prop type and aircraft factors. I've pulled the mixture and landed before and didn't notice any difference in sink rate with the windmilling prop.

 

[Shepherd]

From experience in the Cub, if the engine is idling when I am abeam the numbers, I can fly my "normal" downwind, base final leg.
When I pull the throttle abeam the numbers and the engine quits, (it happens often in cold weather) I have just enough time to crank in some trim and start my base turn almost immediately. If I don't, I'm going into the dirt somewhere between the numbers and the cornfield.
Yes, at 900 rpm the engine is still pulling the Cub through the air, somewhat.
The 172 will go farther than the Cub with the engine out, the Tecnam will almost fly a normal pattern, the Remos GX is somewhere in between.
The Piper Warrior is in a smoking pile not far from where the engine quit.

 

[NordicDave]

Every once in a while an instructor manages to kill him/herself and student "teaching" something dumb like this. If you lose the engine at 500' find the clearest and cheapest place to put it within 20 degrees of straight ahead. DO NOT attempt to return. Let the insurance company worry about the airplane.

Bob

Agree.. My instructor told me, upon engine out the insurance company now owns the plane. It's your job to land it as safely as possible. That took a lot of stress off my back as a student pilot.

 

[Art Rose]

Honestly, I don't see anything in this video as particularly dangerous. It's good practice in the proper environment, although what was demonstrated here was not exactly realistic. Most small aircraft with a dead stick won't perform like they will with a windmilling propeller, or under idle power as it was here. Yes, there is a performance difference between a fixed prop and a constant speed. You need to know your plane.

I see his turn back bank angle here as no big deal either. The important thing to remember is to not load the inside wing during the turn, and if necessary, gently let the airplane somewhat fall through the turn, just like he seemed to be doing. It appears to me that he could have easily used more bank angle with proper stick control.

To really explore the limits you should do this in the correct aircraft, dead stick, and at altitude, not on the deck like this.

Like so many others, I've experienced an engine out on takeoff. I had no straight ahead option, let alone a turn back, only a jog to the left to put it down. There was no hesitation as some might suggest. If it's serious, and with training, your mind will compensate as the world around you slows down.

And, after reading some of the responses to this thread, it re-confirms my contention that new pilots should be required to undergo more extensive training. Starting with spins.