The impossible turn made possible---simulated engine failure from 600' with turnback

[beestforwardspeed]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BNfgGw40Ils


Flew solo over the weekend in a C172SP and mounted a Gopro on the ceiling, off to my right and just behind me, showing the panel and outside view.

On departure, I pulled the power back at 600' and then waited 4 full seconds to simulate the "oh *****" denial moment if it were to actually happen.

Then I turned her into the wind at a 40-45 degree bank, while maintaining 70 KIAS in the turn.

I actually had TOO MUCH energy when crossing threshold and had to go around.

500' would have been just right, so I'll probably try that on my next flight.

 

[MAKG1]

Re: The impossible turn made possible---simulated engine failure from 600' with turnb

Try it with no wind.

You did some slipping and full flaps right away. Looks like it wasn't a foot-to-the-floor slip, but it's hard to tell in a video. 172 slips are considerably more effective at a slower speed.

Landing with a modest tailwind is a challenge. 15 knots is enough to send airliners around. You have to aim short. But not too short

 

[RotorDude]

Re: The impossible turn made possible---simulated engine failure from 600' with turnb

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BNfgGw40Ils


Flew solo over the weekend in a C172SP and mounted a Gopro on the ceiling, off to my right and just behind me, showing the panel and outside view.

On departure, I pulled the power back at 600' and then waited 4 full seconds to simulate the "oh *****" denial moment if it were to actually happen.

Then I turned her into the wind at a 40-45 degree bank, while maintaining 70 KIAS in the turn.

I actually had TOO MUCH energy when crossing threshold and had to go around.

500' would have been just right, so I'll probably try that on my next flight.

70 kias in the turn is too fast. You want minimum rate of descent (with allowance for bank angle), not best glide, until you are aimed at the runway, at which point you might want faster if low (which you weren't).

 

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

Re: The impossible turn made possible---simulated engine failure from 600' with turnb

To paraphrase Sarah Palin, Slip, baby, slip!

Seriously, nice job. And probably a good call going around given the tailwind.

 

[luvflyin]

Re: The impossible turn made possible---simulated engine failure from 600' with turnb

15 knots of wind was a huge factor in that working. Looking at the surrounding landscape I question your judgement in "experimenting" with that there.

 

[Silvaire]

Re: The impossible turn made possible---simulated engine failure from 600' with turnb

This comes up time and time again because the "impossible" turn is a misnomer.

It doesn't mean that doing it is impossible it just means that given all of the variances of wind, terrain, other traffic and unfamiliarity with any given airport your chances of getting into a stall/spin while doing power off steep turns under emotional duress are greatly increased. Then there is the fact that the great majority of fatalities in an engine out emergency are due to a stall/spin. Avoid that and you can crack a plane up pretty good but still walk away from it.

So I think the whole point of the impossible turn story, by whoever started it, was to say that just because you've tried it and can do it don't get yourself into the mentality of "500 feet - hey, I can do this". Conversely of course you don't want to get yourself into a mentally that there is no option other than to continue straight ahead either.

The problem is that, especially when there is wind and you are at low altitude, if you are focusing on a specific point on the ground it is easy to get jacked up and uncoordinated. It has happened to some of the best of us.

 

[Gucci Pilot]

Re: The impossible turn made possible---simulated engine failure from 600' with turnb

Next time try it when you aren't within 200 feet of the traffic pattern altitude.

 

[evapilotaz]

Re: The impossible turn made possible---simulated engine failure from 600' with turnb

Tough crowd here.

 

[beestforwardspeed]

Re: The impossible turn made possible---simulated engine failure from 600' with turnb

Next time try it when you aren't within 200 feet of the traffic pattern altitude.

There was NO one anywhere near the traffic pattern that day.

15 knots of wind was a huge factor in that working. Looking at the surrounding landscape I question your judgement in "experimenting" with that there.

So just where would be the "right" place to experiment with this?

Tough crowd here.

Don't worry, I always wear this when I post here

 

[kyleb]

Re: The impossible turn made possible---simulated engine failure from 600' with turnb

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BNfgGw40Ils


Flew solo over the weekend in a C172SP and mounted a Gopro on the ceiling, off to my right and just behind me, showing the panel and outside view.

On departure, I pulled the power back at 600' and then waited 4 full seconds to simulate the "oh *****" denial moment if it were to actually happen.

Then I turned her into the wind at a 40-45 degree bank, while maintaining 70 KIAS in the turn.

I actually had TOO MUCH energy when crossing threshold and had to go around.

500' would have been just right, so I'll probably try that on my next flight.

Nice job. I've done multiple simulated turns like that in my RV-6. 500' Is generous plenty if I'm at my typical climb speed.

 

[SixPapaCharlie]

Re: The impossible turn made possible---simulated engine failure from 600' with turnb

There was NO one anywhere near the traffic pattern that day.




So just where would be the "right" place to experiment with this?



Don't worry, I always wear this when I post here

I practiced it at my airport.
At 4500 MSL though.

 

[kyleb]

Re: The impossible turn made possible---simulated engine failure from 600' with turnb

I practiced it at my airport.
At 4500 MSL though.

The question about that is whether you get the same sensations and visual clues at 4500' as you do at 500'. I practiced at altitude before I took it down low, and believe me, the visual clues maneuvering below 500' are unsettling.

I figured it was best to experience those when I had the ability to throttle up and fly out of a marginal situation, rather than in an actual engine failure situation.

 

[beestforwardspeed]

Re: The impossible turn made possible---simulated engine failure from 600' with turnb

I'll add too, that during my primary training, before my first solo even, that my CFI and I did this at least half a dozen times---from 500 AGL. One time I sat and watched him even do it in a 60 degree bank!! My eyes were like saucers when he did that, and I thought it was fun, but I'm not at all wanting to get it that extreme.

This exercise taught me to not fear the stall, but to instead respect and know what the margins are when doing a steep turn.

I would NEVER have tried it on my own without doing it with an experienced CFI first!

The question about that is whether you get the same sensations and visual clues at 4500' as you do at 500'. I practiced at altitude before I took it down low, and believe me, the visual clues maneuvering below 500' are unsettling.

I figured it was best to experience those when I had the ability to throttle up and fly out of a marginal situation, rather than in an actual engine failure situation.

^THIS^

 

[RotorDude]

Re: The impossible turn made possible---simulated engine failure from 600' with turnb

I'll add too, that during my primary training, before my first solo even, that my CFI and I did this at least half a dozen times---from 500 AGL. One time I sat and watched him even do it in a 60 degree bank!! My eyes were like saucers when he did that, and I thought it was fun, but I'm not at all wanting to get it that extreme.

This exercise taught me to not fear the stall, but to instead respect and know what the margins are when doing a steep turn.

I would NEVER have tried it on my own without doing it with an experienced CFI first!



^THIS^

60 degree bank will increase the rate of descent considerably, so unless you have a good reason for it, it's poor technique. The ideal bank should be 45 degrees, for a good combination of low rate of descent and short radius turn to the runway. And as I noted above, the speed in the turn should be your minimum rate of descent speed (at 45 degrees), not best glide.

 

[dillardrg]

Re: The impossible turn made possible---simulated engine failure from 600' with turnb

I am impressed that this thread contains reasoned discussion about this maneuver instead of a pile on of why you should not even consider doing such a thing.

If more pilots would take their aircraft to altitude and try some of these type maneuvers the FAA would not have to put such an emphasis on "Loss of Control" accidents.

 

[Gucci Pilot]

Re: The impossible turn made possible---simulated engine failure from 600' with turnb

There was NO one anywhere near the traffic pattern that day.

I wasn't implying you were a danger to others in the pattern, I was implying that you were pretty high when you did it. AIM and AFH recommend turning crosswind within 300 ft. of TPA. It's no wonder you carried a lot of smash over the threshold.

 

[Sam D]

Re: The impossible turn made possible---simulated engine failure from 600' with turnb

I am impressed that this thread contains reasoned discussion about this maneuver instead of a pile on of why you should not even consider doing such a thing.

If more pilots would take their aircraft to altitude and try some of these type maneuvers the FAA would not have to put such an emphasis on "Loss of Control" accidents.

Agreed. Some planes will make this easily. Others have a hard time making the runway on a power off 180 from pattern altitude.

 

[marcoseddi]

Re: The impossible turn made possible---simulated engine failure from 600' with turnb

Nice plane!

 

[txflyer]

Re: The impossible turn made possible---simulated engine failure from 600' with turnb

That tailwind snuck up on you didn't it?

We all need to practice a tailwind landing from time to time. It's a horse of an entirely different color from what we get used to.

 

[Kritchlow]

Re: The impossible turn made possible---simulated engine failure from 600' with turnb

Shucks.... Doesn't anyone do S turns on final anymore?
I used to always come in super high on practice emers. I always had several strategies to lose altitude, but can't think of a single one to get it back. Start very high. Always directly toward field. Then slips, s turns, then flaps...

 

[FastEddieB]

Re: The impossible turn made possible---simulated engine failure from 600' with turnb

There was NO one anywhere near the traffic pattern that day.

I think he meant that from 600', you're almost at traffic pattern altitude, making the maneuver deceptively easy.


Edited to add: that was clarified in a subsequent post.

 

[bullwinkle]

Re: The impossible turn made possible---simulated engine failure from 600' with turnb

Nicely done...you had a nice gap in the trees at the end of the runway. With higher trees/obstructions it might have been tougher.

BTW, a friend of mine did this at our home field from 400AGL in his Avid Flyer. It comes down slower than your 172, but much steeper because of light weight & low inertia.

 

[steingar]

Re: The impossible turn made possible---simulated engine failure from 600' with turnb

Good on the OP for doing and sharing the results. I would just add that situational awareness is key. Guys have died trying to make the turn back when there was a perfectly good field right in front of them. The mill quits and the insurance company just bought themselves an airplane. My job is to survive the experience intact.

 

[bullwinkle]

Re: The impossible turn made possible---simulated engine failure from 600' with turnb

60 degree bank will increase the rate of descent considerably, so unless you have a good reason for it, it's poor technique. The ideal bank should be 45 degrees, for a good combination of low rate of descent and short radius turn to the runway. And as I noted above, the speed in the turn should be your minimum rate of descent speed (at 45 degrees), not best glide.

From what I have seen and read, the biggest mistake in doing this is to to use *insufficient* bank angle. 45° is about the minimum needed to make the turn in time before losing too much altitude, and 60° might actually be better.

Sure, you have to keep the nose low and you lose a lot of altitude in the turn, but you are in the turn for much less time and roll out on runway quicker.

I'm not saying to use 60°, I'm just saying IMO that 45° should be the minimum. Height dependent on when you start, of course...30° is probably enough if you are at or near pattern altitude.

 

[Brad Z]

Re: The impossible turn made possible---simulated engine failure from 600' with turnb

Interesting video. As always, YMMV. Two factors to consider:

1) wind. Obviously a headwind on takeoff/tailwind on return will increase your climb per nm on climbout, leaving you closer to the departure threshold when you reach 600' AGL. It will also decrease your descent per nm on return. As others mentioned, your results may not have been as promising with calm or crosswinds. On crosswinds, always turn into the wind.

2) Runway length. The longer the runway, the easier this maneuver is. In a no wind situation, you're probably about 150' AGL crossing the departure threshold. If the runway were even longer, even higher. So you get an advantage. There is a good reason to use full length of a runway, even if you don't need it all.

Speaking of crosswinds...there's a good argument made for not climbing straight out on departure, but allowing a bit of drift downwind. In the event of a turn-back scenario, the turn into the wind will put you well aligned for return. Compare that with making a turn in the downwind direction will put you well downwind of the runway, requiring more distance to fly, and more turns, eating up altitude.

 

[Captain]

Re: The impossible turn made possible---simulated engine failure from 600' with turnb

"Impossible turn made possible" is more impressive if you don't have to go around.

 

[RyanShort1]

Re: The impossible turn made possible---simulated engine failure from 600' with turnb

Some planes are waaaaaaaay better than others at that maneuver. Yeah, I'd probably try it in a 172 given the right set of conditions AND nothing better in front of me, but I've also known a VERY experienced instructor who "knew" how to do this die in a Mooney trying.

 

[bullwinkle]

Re: The impossible turn made possible---simulated engine failure from 600' with turnb

"Impossible turn made possible" is more impressive if you don't have to go around.

He could have gotten it on the ground and stopped. But why do it with a tailwind and halfway down the runway when you don't have an ACTUAL engine out? To prove to us that he could?

 

[beestforwardspeed]

Re: The impossible turn made possible---simulated engine failure from 600' with turnb

I think he meant that from 600', you're almost at traffic pattern altitude, making the maneuver deceptively easy.


Edited to add: that was clarified in a subsequent post.

Oops sorry! That went right over my head! Apologies if I accidently stepped on anyones toes.

He could have gotten it on the ground and stopped. But why do it with a tailwind and halfway down the runway when you don't have an ACTUAL engine out? To prove to us that he could?

^This^

There was no way I was going to risk running off the end in a simulated emergency, but if this had been the real thing, it would have been an absolute no brainer to get her down and stopped regardless. Like someone else said, plane is the insurance companies at that point!

 

[Jaybird180]

Re: The impossible turn made possible---simulated engine failure from 600' with turnb

Nice of you to make the video.

Notice that you start rolling in the trim at 1 Mississippi and also brought back some of the power at 30deg off runway centerline. In future practice sessions (if you decide to) continue to increase the realism. But its good that you considered that to begin with.

 

[beestforwardspeed]

Re: The impossible turn made possible---simulated engine failure from 600' with turnb

Nice of you to make the video.

Notice that you start rolling in the trim at 1 Mississippi and also brought back some of the power at 30deg off runway centerline. In future practice sessions (if you decide to) continue to increase the realism. But its good that you considered that to begin with.

Oh wow, I didn't even realize that I'd brought in the power then. I'll have to watch it again to see.

On Sunday, in the same plane and at the same airport (3600' runway), I'm going to do the exercise again, but this time from 500' and if that goes well, then 400'.

The forecast is for just a 5-6 kt crosswind, so this will put in a lot more realism as well.

I'll post the video on Sunday evening.

 

[coloradobluesky]

Re: The impossible turn made possible---simulated engine failure from 600' with turnb

It depends on a LOT of things. But practicing it is a legitimate training exercise. I did it from 500', no problem. I could have done it from 300'. But my plane climbs at 1000fpm at 65 mph indicated. That helps. There was light headwind. One issue is, you will be trying to get the engine started too. That will degrade your glissement ability.

I like to do a power off abeam the numbers on downwind and glide on in. Spot land. Best engine out drill. I do it almost every landing.

 

[mryan75]

Re: The impossible turn made possible---simulated engine failure from 600' with turnb

15 knots of wind was a huge factor in that working. Looking at the surrounding landscape I question your judgement in "experimenting" with that there.

I 100% agree.

So just where would be the "right" place to experiment with this?

3,000 feet AGL away from an uncontrolled field and homes, cars and businesses 600 feet below you.

 

[mryan75]

Re: The impossible turn made possible---simulated engine failure from 600' with turnb

Some planes are waaaaaaaay better than others at that maneuver. Yeah, I'd probably try it in a 172 given the right set of conditions AND nothing better in front of me, but I've also known a VERY experienced instructor who "knew" how to do this die in a Mooney trying.

I know one in a 206 who did the same thing. Practiced it with students, argued it could be done, proved otherwise when it counted. And he had a golf course staring at him when the engine failed.

 

[Palmpilot]

Re: The impossible turn made possible---simulated engine failure from 600' with turnb

From what I have seen and read, the biggest mistake in doing this is to to use *insufficient* bank angle. 45° is about the minimum needed to make the turn in time before losing too much altitude, and 60° might actually be better...

A mathematical analysis has shown that 45° is the bank angle that results in the least altitude loss. The derivation is available through David F. Rogers' Web page. (Click on "Enter Technical Flying," and then click on "The Possible 'Impossible' Turn" near the bottom of the list. The bank angle analysis is on pages 3 - 4.)

http://www.nar-associates.com/technical-flying/technical_flying.html

 

[Palmpilot]

Re: The impossible turn made possible---simulated engine failure from 600' with turnb

I 100% agree.


3,000 feet AGL away from an uncontrolled field and homes, cars and businesses 600 feet below you.

How can there be homes, cars, and businesses 600 feet below him when he is at 3000 feet AGL?

 

[bullwinkle]

Re: The impossible turn made possible---simulated engine failure from 600' with turnb

A mathematical analysis has shown that 45° is the bank angle that results in the least altitude loss. The derivation is available through David F. Rogers' Web page. (Click on "Enter Technical Flying," and then click on "The Possible 'Impossible' Turn" near the bottom of the list. The bank angle analysis is on pages 3 - 4.)

http://www.nar-associates.com/technical-flying/technical_flying.html

Thanks for that.

 

[FastEddieB]

Re: The impossible turn made possible---simulated engine failure from 600' with turnb

Andy,

If you want to play with this in your CT and/or my Sky Arrow with a GoPro running, let me know.

At altitude, of course.

 

[bullwinkle]

Re: The impossible turn made possible---simulated engine failure from 600' with turnb

Andy,

If you want to play with this in your CT and/or my Sky Arrow with a GoPro running, let me know.

At altitude, of course.

I have done some of this at 2000-3000MSL. I think it will take me about 400ft to get turned around and back to the runway, I would not try it unless I had considerably more than that and/or no other good options.

 

[mryan75]

Re: The impossible turn made possible---simulated engine failure from 600' with turnb

How can there homes, cars, and businesses 600 feet below him when he is at 3000 feet AGL?

Emphasis added:

3,000 feet AGL away from an uncontrolled field and homes, cars and businesses 600 feet below you.