Straight ahead....

[Lndwarrior]

A recent fatal accident is the motivation behind this post. The idea of landing straight ahead upon a loss of thrust on take-off is a concept that has been a training standard for many years. Unfortunately AOPA, and a few others, have recently suggested that an impossible turn is not impossible, and that pilots should consider this as an option.

Pilots use to talk about flying "by the seat of their pants". This had everything to do with understanding the feel of the airplane and its energy state. Until I started flying light sport aircraft I really didn't understand this. I would bet that most pilots flying today have not learned how to feel the energy state of their airplane. Combine this with almost no time flying in a low energy state and when the engine fails, and they are experiencing something their training has not prepared them for. (With the possible exception of those pilots' who frequent POA and have skills that would put Bob Hoover to shame.)

And, there is one more gotcha waiting for you. Even if you've practiced low energy flying and power off 180's, almost no one has ever felt their aircraft when all thrust stops (NOT with and idling engine which still produces thrust).

I didn't understand the drag of the windmilling prop, plus zero thrust from an idling prop, until (6000 feet agl and over my runway) I pulled the mixture to idle cutoff.

Even though I was ready for the loss of thrust I was in no way prepared for how my plane reacted. In a heartbeat I was descending at a frightening rate. This was nothing like my 30 years of power-off 180's. The controls felt different, much heavier than I was used to. Even a few miles per hour over best glide and the plane sank like a rock.

A few weeks later I tried it again with similar results. This time I was prepared for that instantaneous drag and change in control feel and response. Even when I was prepared the loss of altitude and energy was far more than any practice or landing power-off 180 I had done (with the engine still idling).

Idling engines produce thrust. Dead engines do not.

Windmilling props create significant drag.

Your energy state immediately after your engine fails may be far lower than you are used to.

A dead engine may feel nothing like your engine-out practice, or your power-off 180's.

Yes, it is never recommended to pull the mixture to idle in case the plane will not restart. However, after my experience, I'm convinced this is something that should be part of flight training. The reason is that you are flying a very different aircraft with zero thrust and a windmilling prop. Do it just once and Dan Gryder's hammering on the idea of "straight ahead" is the only safe solution for loss of thrust on take-off.

I would argue that this is not the same as recommending something like spin training. You can train yourself not to get into a stall condition, but you have zero control over an engine failure.

It doesn't matter how many times you've practiced the impossible turn. You've never practiced it with zero thrust and a windmilling prop at low altitude.

Unfortunately, the supposed "safest guy in aviation", Richard McSpadden, might not have understood this. He tried to follow his own suggestion of an impossible turn, and paid for it with his life.

Straight ahead....

Note: Once i post a comment I very rarely return to the page. I definitely won't for this one because I have no desire to subject, or defend myself, to the opinions of others. I offer an opinion that I think may be a benefit to a few and then forget about it. Don't bother asking me for more info, or waste your time directing comments at me, because I wont' read them.

 

[Peter Anderson]

Dan…. Is that you? On a side note. That video tonight he posted titled “Straight Ahead” was painfully corny and borderline distasteful.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[Aceman]

I agree OP.

I'm not sure why actual scenarios aren't practiced during training. It should be relatively safe to let the current airport know you are about to practice a power off emergency landing at 200'ft turning into the downwind and landing. It would really give people experience on the feel of the energy of the plane and it's maneuverability in such conditions.

 

[Gilbert Buettner]

Unfortunately, the supposed "safest guy in aviation", Richard McSpadden, might not have understood this. He tried to follow his own suggestion of an impossible turn, and paid for it with his life.

We don't know which pilot was flying the airplane, and we don't know if there is ANY logical place to try an off airport landing straight ahead.

 

[Salty]

My glider training was very different than my PPL ASEL training. I think the glider guys where I was flying have this right (it wasn't just one instructor, it was a cultural thing). We called out two things verbally before giving the go for tow. First was the direction of turn in case of failed tow, based on wind direction and speed and other geographical obstacles. Second was decision height of 200 feet. Below 200 feet, it was land straight, at 200 feet, you made a verbal call to indicate on a balked tow you'd turn back in the direction briefed before take off. This happened every time, and I think was a great practice. It completely moved the "figure out what to do" to before the flight began making it easy to react quickly if needed. I don't think I ever had those discussions during my training for ASEL. I did many impossible turns from 200 feet in a glider. It's exciting, but not overly dangerous. I haven't and don't plan on practicing them in ASEL, but I do try to do the pre briefing before takeoff, though I admit I forget sometimes.

 

[Ed Haywood]

Well reasoned and helpful post. I agree with everything you said, except the note at the end. You're obviously not a snowflake, so why self declare as one?

 

[Silvaire]

Pilots use to talk about flying "by the seat of their pants".

That kind of harks back to the days when the pilot was sitting behind the wing like a Jenny or a Stearman but is also apt for a J3 Cub. You just get tossed around a lot more back there and every pitch or yaw movement is visually apparent. You don't get so much of it when you're sitting pretty much right on the CG like in a Cessna 172 or a Cherokee.

In regards to the "straight or turn" question I think it's important to not lock yourself into a position and with all the tech we have nowadays such as satellite maps and such maybe have at least a rough contingency plan ahead of time of what you would do. The impossible turn should probably be the last resort, the most important thing is don't stall or spin and going into a tight turn under stress is a poor recipe for avoiding such a fate.

As far as actually killing the engine for practice, if you do it at a safe altitude it's really not going to have the effect and if you do it at a realistic low altitude you're tempting fate. I mean are you supposed to do it regularly so you're proficient or just once? I don't think it's necessary.

 

[dbahn]

My glider training was very different than my PPL ASEL training. I think the glider guys where I was flying have this right (it wasn't just one instructor, it was a cultural thing). We called out two things verbally before giving the go for tow. First was the direction of turn in case of failed tow, based on wind direction and speed and other geographical obstacles. Second was decision height of 200 feet. Below 200 feet, it was land straight, at 200 feet, you made a verbal call to indicate on a balked tow you'd turn back in the direction briefed before take off. This happened every time, and I think was a great practice. It completely moved the "figure out what to do" to before the flight began making it easy to react quickly if needed. I don't think I ever had those discussions during my training for ASEL. I did many impossible turns from 200 feet in a glider. It's exciting, but not overly dangerous. I haven't and don't plan on practicing them in ASEL, but I do try to do the pre briefing before takeoff, though I admit I forget sometimes.

I agree with the glider procedure but it works well because some of the variables are fairly constant. At 200 feet you are typically moving faster than best glide, so you can often maintain release altitude in the turn as the speed decays to best glide, at which point you are nearly facing the landing area and have spoilers to drop down if you are too high. You don't have the variable of fuel weight to consider and gross weight is generally in a narrow range and station as well. Almost by definition you are fairly close to the airport, not at that more distant place where you may be at that magical (and foolish, for reasons pointed out above) altitude of whatever number of feet that people determine they can do based on some misleading practice done at high altitude.

In the tow plane with a glider on tow I'm almost always going straight ahead and aiming for the trees or a field, also for the reasons cited above. I maintain that the determination of the "not impossible turn" in an airplane is a complex calculation that is almost never actually performed, keeping in mind that on one extreme it's impossible to make it back to the field from ANY altitude after takeoff (i.e. if your climb angle is less than your angle of descent, which is often the case when heavily loaded with no wind.

In gliders and powered aircraft I always taught students to think "thumbs up" on the preflight. First you move the roll control (stick or yoke) to pint your thumb into the wind and check that the aileron your thumb points to is "UP". Then on the takeoff roll where your thumb pointed to is the direction of your first turn, which will always be into the wind.

 

[guest user]

Note: Once i post a comment I very rarely return to the page. I definitely won't for this one because I have no desire to subject, or defend myself, to the opinions of others. I offer an opinion that I think may be a benefit to a few and then forget about it. Don't bother asking me for more info, or waste your time directing comments at me, because I wont' read them.

So, by not being willing to be "subject ... to the opinions of others" you are factually saying that you have it all figured out and while others can learn from you, you cannot possibly learn from others.

Yeah... doesn't really sound like a helpful attitude.

 

[brcase]

My glider training was very different than my PPL ASEL training. I think the glider guys where I was flying have this right (it wasn't just one instructor, it was a cultural thing). We called out two things verbally before giving the go for tow. First was the direction of turn in case of failed tow, based on wind direction and speed and other geographical obstacles. Second was decision height of 200 feet. Below 200 feet, it was land straight, at 200 feet, you made a verbal call to indicate on a balked tow you'd turn back in the direction briefed before take off. This happened every time, and I think was a great practice. It completely moved the "figure out what to do" to before the flight began making it easy to react quickly if needed. I don't think I ever had those discussions during my training for ASEL. I did many impossible turns from 200 feet in a glider. It's exciting, but not overly dangerous. I haven't and don't plan on practicing them in ASEL, but I do try to do the pre briefing before takeoff, though I admit I forget sometimes.

Video: Low-Time Glider Pilot Has Tow Rope Break Down Low

Glider pilot Aryanna Valdovinos was flying in a Schweizer SGS 2-33 at low altitude, the towline broke. This video shows how she handled the situation.

www.planeandpilotmag.com

Perfect example, it really isn't an emergency if you have plan for it when it happens.

What ever you decide the plan is be prepared to actually do it.

A couple comments about the OP's Post. I also wonder what airplane he has tried this in. I have tried power off landings in a number of typical trainer/GA aircraft and couldn't really say that I noticed any difference between a wind milling propeller and an Idling one. Perhaps the observation is more of a psychological one than an actual performance difference. As an experience glider pilot I may experience turning the engine off differently that someone that hasn't flown an unpowered aircraft much.

I tend to look at the McSpadden accident differently. If you break down the components of the event, I find it hard to find much of anything he did wrong. The short version is it appears the airplane was flying straight and level when it impacted. i.e. pretty much the best configuration possible for the impact. Maybe there is contradicting information to this, but I haven't seen it so far. Perhaps there were better places to put the airplane down, but that is just Monday Morning Quarterbacking knowing what they did pick didn't have an acceptable out come. How they got to that landing area is pretty much beside the point, short version is they didn't appear to stall spin it, which is how turn back events go wrong. Sometimes one can do everything right and still not have a good outcome.

Brian

 

[Hang 4]

Here's a rope break really low. Landed straight ahead
Weaklink break

 

[Dan Thomas]

I have tried power off landings in a number of typical trainer/GA aircraft and couldn't really say that I noticed any difference between a wind milling propeller and an Idling one.

During my flight training back in the early '70s we did actual failures, the instructor cutting the mixture or shutting the fuel off. And with altitude, but not a lot of ideal places to set down. Restarted every time, but one never knows that it will restart.

The glide was steeper with the dead prop windmilling. At idle, the engine in a 172 will run at about 1300 RPM in the best glide. Dead, it's considerably slower. At 1300, there is a negative angle of attack on the prop blades, making drag. No thrust at all, contrary to the OP's idea that at idle there is still thrust. Slower, as in dead and windmilling, that negative AoA is much steeper and the drag is higher. The glide is steeper.

 

[Piperonca]

Dan…. Is that you? On a side note. That video tonight he posted titled “Straight Ahead” was painfully corny and borderline distasteful.

When you say "Dan" you might want to use DG or Dan Gryder. Dan Thomas might be offended.

Regarding the DG video, I agree it was cringe worthy and too long but it might have value to somebody out there, who knows.

 

[BillTIZ]

My glider training was very different than my PPL ASEL training. I think the glider guys where I was flying have this right (it wasn't just one instructor, it was a cultural thing). We called out two things verbally before giving the go for tow. First was the direction of turn in case of failed tow, based on wind direction and speed and other geographical obstacles. Second was decision height of 200 feet. Below 200 feet, it was land straight, at 200 feet, you made a verbal call to indicate on a balked tow you'd turn back in the direction briefed before take off. This happened every time, and I think was a great practice. It completely moved the "figure out what to do" to before the flight began making it easy to react quickly if needed. I don't think I ever had those discussions during my training for ASEL. I did many impossible turns from 200 feet in a glider. It's exciting, but not overly dangerous. I haven't and don't plan on practicing them in ASEL, but I do try to do the pre briefing before takeoff, though I admit I forget sometimes.

200ft AGL is not always the magic number. On high Density Altitude days, you may have barely cleared the trees at the end of the runway on climb out. At 200ft you may be a half mile or more from the end of the runway. I've done more than my fair share of training rope or tow failures at 200ft, off a 3500ft paved runway with nothing around but 3ft tall desert scrub. Now flying in New England with hills close to the shorter runway and trees taller taller than the FAA Standard 50ft obstacle, I look for a higher margin.

I agree, those "numbers/maneuvers" should be decided before you step into the aircraft.

Yes, I have had a power failure on takeoff in an airplane, T-41B. Luckily I had reached pattern altitude so the "impossible turn" was not so impossible.
Yes, I have had power issues as the tow pilot, twice. Both times I was able to get the glider to a safe altitude to return before I called for him to release. Both times I was able to bring the tow plane safely back. One was that 200ft turn around to a parallel runway in the Pawnee. Both of those issues occurred in the desert with no obstructions.

 

[Salty]

200ft AGL is not always the magic number. On high Density Altitude days, you may have barely cleared the trees at the end of the runway on climb out. At 200ft you may be a half mile or more from the end of the runway. I've done more than my fair share of training rope or tow failures at 200ft, off a 3500ft paved runway with nothing around but 3ft tall desert scrub. Now flying in New England with hills close to the shorter runway and trees taller taller than the FAA Standard 50ft obstacle, I look for a higher margin.

I agree, those "numbers/maneuvers" should be decided before you step into the aircraft.

Yes, I have had a power failure on takeoff in an airplane, T-41B. Luckily I had reached pattern altitude so the "impossible turn" was not so impossible.
Yes, I have had power issues as the tow pilot, twice. Both times I was able to get the glider to a safe altitude to return before I called for him to release. Both times I was able to bring the tow plane safely back. One was that 200ft turn around to a parallel runway in the Pawnee. Both of those issues occurred in the desert with no obstructions.

Depends on the aircraft in question also.

 

[dbahn]

Bottom line is that it really depends entirely on "glide angle" and "climb angle", and both numbers need inclusion of quite a few variables that include both aircraft variables and weather variables - and they don't even consider pilot skill. When you plug those in and trig it around some more, you at least get an accurate estimation in degrees for each of those angles. On one extreme is a turn that carries you beyond the departure runway and on the other is a turn that can't even mathematically get you back to the field.

If your descent angle is greater than your climb angle you are 100% assured that even with perfect pilot skills you won't make the field, and with a more "average" pilot, you and your passengers likely won't survive the attempt. So on a typical takeoff you begin with a steep descent angle and shallow glide angle, i.e. you can't possibly make it back and land. Those numbers merge as the climb progress, but at what altitude and at what distance from the field (a factor which typically is often overlooked) does that happen? It's a deadly turn when variables aren't precisely processed and when a decision needs to be in a few seconds.

 

[Lindberg]

200ft AGL is not always the magic number. On high Density Altitude days, you may have barely cleared the trees at the end of the runway on climb out. At 200ft you may be a half mile or more from the end of the runway. I've done more than my fair share of training rope or tow failures at 200ft, off a 3500ft paved runway with nothing around but 3ft tall desert scrub. Now flying in New England with hills close to the shorter runway and trees taller taller than the FAA Standard 50ft obstacle, I look for a higher margin.

I agree, those "numbers/maneuvers" should be decided before you step into the aircraft.

Yes, I have had a power failure on takeoff in an airplane, T-41B. Luckily I had reached pattern altitude so the "impossible turn" was not so impossible.
Yes, I have had power issues as the tow pilot, twice. Both times I was able to get the glider to a safe altitude to return before I called for him to release. Both times I was able to bring the tow plane safely back. One was that 200ft turn around to a parallel runway in the Pawnee. Both of those issues occurred in the desert with no obstructions.

Wind matters too. I flew a pattern from a wave off at 350' on a windy day. If I'd just turned around and tried to land downwind, I might have gone off the far end off the 6000' runway. At a minimum I would have used up most of it.