Turning back - do you or don't you.

I think there are to manly variables, in the question.It depends on alot.Density altitude, pilot experience in that particular a/c.Pilots experience in general,as mentioned above.I just want to remined people, is that flying level and crashing between two trees and taking the wings off, is safer than a turn gone wrong, and turning into a stall spin situation.IMOBut having said that, having it drummed into you that you cant look at alternatives more than 30 degrees either side of your flight path, can be detrimental as well, but not when learning or in experienced, turning back can and does kill people if they get it wrong..Each situation is different, i think.

.

.

 

.

 

Why do we keep referencing the height above the terrain as the deciding factor? It is only one of the factors. The distance relative to the airfield at the height should be the first consideration, followed by wind speed and direction awareness; you haven't got much time to think, not many seconds delay will destroy the advantage of speed and height.

 

Just some things to consider.

 

David

Lots of interesting perspectives here. Couple of points I will be taking away from the discussion;

i) It is possible to turn back - in certain defined circumstances,

ii) It isn't something you are going to do lightly - steep gliding turns at low altitude are a relatively high risk manouevre,

iii) Pilot skill and preparedness are crucial to a successful outcome, and finally

iv) Proper planning before even beginning to roll will increase your chances of a positive outcome, ie brief yourself as mozartmerv suggested. Knowing ahead of time what you're going to do if the noise goes out at various phases of flight will speed up your response. This struck a particular chord with me because I spent quite a bit of time backseat in a trike, piloted by a current 747 captain. He generally had a fairly casual pose toward his trike flying, but without exception, briefed himself on efato procedures before every take off. This paid dividends on at least one occasion that I know of.

.

.

 

.

 

ii) It isn't something you are going to do lightly - steep gliding turns at low altitude are a relatively high risk manouevre,

 

.

 

.

 

.

Of course 45 to 50 degrees is the correct bank at which to make all turns in the circuit so the pilot will be quite used to doing these turns.

Well guys, quite simply, it kills people. Look at the stats. The reason we teach a decision altitude is because its simple, fast and easy. A controlled crash into hostile terrain is much more survivable than a vertical arrival.

Its ok for all you guys with lots of experience to say, "well, why cant we just assess the distance out and the height and the wind and blah blah blah...how long do you think the average student or low time pilot is going to have to think about it, after they get over the initial shock of the band stopping?? By the time you even read half of the "ideas" on what we need to asses before deciding to turn back, the plane will be a smoking hole in the ground. Let alone putting it into practice after the engine has quit.

HISTORY has shown that turn backs are more often than not, fatal.

Exodius, I hafta dissagree there. 45-50 degree turns are NOT the correct AOB for cct turns. Indeed anything over 30 deg is considered a steep turn.

John Brandon has put a great deal of thought into the practicality of turning back:

The turn-back (xhtml w3c 12/09)

Well guys, quite simply, it kills people. Look at the stats. The reason we teach a decision altitude is because its simple, fast and easy. A controlled crash into hostile terrain is much more survivable than a vertical arrival.Its ok for all you guys with lots of experience to say, "well, why cant we just assess the distance out and the height and the wind and blah blah blah...how long do you think the average student or low time pilot is going to have to think about it, after they get over the initial shock of the band stopping?? By the time you even read half of the "ideas" on what we need to asses before deciding to turn back, the plane will be a smoking hole in the ground. Let alone putting it into practice after the engine has quit.

HISTORY has shown that turn backs are more often than not, fatal.

Your comment about experience highlights why it is important then the turn back landing is practiced often during training - because when it happens for real the pilot had better have some real options and the turn back is one of them.

Exodius, I hafta dissagree there. 45-50 degree turns are NOT the correct AOB for cct turns. Indeed anything over 30 deg is considered a steep turn.

History has shown me that almost and i emphasise almost every pilot i pull the pin on upwind with, in training or testing holds the stick back for a few seconds while they 'come to grips' with whats happening. If you have made a successful turn back then it obviously worked for you. The problem is, that the guys it didnt work for aren't here to talk about it.

David. I agree with your sentiments. IMHO i think the reason its often unsuccessful is the reason ive alluded to before. The shock factor at low altitude, delaying any useful input from the pilot. That combined with the need for very accurate and aggressive flying. I think the idea behind the syllabus of most FTF's is, just dont give it to the student as an option, remove the need to make a choice and fly "well" under pressure. Give a baseline, ingrained sequence of actions. ie, lower the nose, choose somewhere straight ahead and a asses the situation. From that as experience grows, the pilot may 'assess the situation' and realise that the field is within reach. But your average low time weekend warrior IMHO would not be up to it from low level.

History has shown me that almost and i emphasise almost every pilot i pull the pin on upwind with, in training or testing holds the stick back for a few seconds while they 'come to grips' with whats happening. If you have made a successful turn back then it obviously worked for you. The problem is, that the guys it didnt work for aren't here to talk about it.

Exo. You stated that 45-50 deg angle of bank is the "correct" angle in the circuit. You said nothing of practising. As i said before, steep turns are not the 'correct AOB turns in the circuit."

Clearly thats what im trying to say. But practice gets old very quickly. Even old timers with tonnes of hours do the same thing.

Exo. You stated that 45-50 deg angle of bank is the "correct" angle in the circuit. You said nothing of practising. As i said before, steep turns are not the 'correct AOB turns in the circuit."

Plus I also fly gliders and 45 - 50 degrees is the normal bank in a thermal so it does not appear steep to me.

Clearly thats what im trying to say. But practice gets old very quickly. Even old timers with tonnes of hours do the same thing.

So if, for arguments sake, you know that at a certain point it is possible to turn back at 500', ask the pilot what he / she would do first if the engine stopped. HE should say, "push the stick forward to maintain safe airspeed." Then cut the engine and have him do it - maybe 4 or 5 times. Then at some other time surprise him to see what he does. At some point it will become automatic - believe me.

You may be good at self inflicted engine failure procedures, but when it happens for real, it gets your blood pumping quick. Particularly on climb out.

I thought I was pretty prep'd for all this engine failure stuff in my training, but the time I had a real one on take off - you look back later and go, "jimny crickets, that happened fast!"

If I was on my own in the Drifter I'd probably consider turning around at a minimum of 500ft, that most likely means engine failure at 600ft or more.

Think about it, engine quits unexpectedly, "Oh heck!" you maintain glide speed, (in LP aircraft, lower the nose promptly or else!). You look at the ground in front and go "Yuk" you then elect to turn around, which way do I go? Left or right? Wind, other traffic, pax screaming, downwind landing, highly possible overshoot etc......

So way back at the beginning where we had the first failure at 600ft, we've lost 3-4 seconds in decisions and procedures, what height are we now? is it still safe to turn back?

So we need to have the decision out of the way on the ground, under 600ft no turning back (or whatever your height is), over 600ft and we will depending on the conditions, the aircraft and the current performance. And the 600ft starts at the point of the turn, not at the time the motor quits. How good is your maths? Airfield elevation is 1700ft, what will + 600ft be? Try and figure that out for the first time, after your engine stops, and your pax is screaming, and.............

There just are so many variables.

EFATO's usually happen on the first take off for the day; are you current? You haven't flown this aircraft for a couple of weeks, do you think your performance standards are up to scratch?

It sounds all good in theory, but it happens fast in real life! I've had one stop on me at 6' off the deck, mayen't sound all that bad, but it certainly was an eye opener as to how fast things happen.

One thing my instructor always told me - you can survive a controlled forward facing crash 90% of the time. But every person that cartwheels in kills themselves, as seat belts don't hold your body together going sideways, and broken backs often occur, then you die, and your aircraft is the size of a foot ball.

So I guess if you attempted a turn back, and you find you aren't going to make it, roll wings level and carry out a controlled crash, don't hit the ground in a turn! And don't run out of Air! In other words, keep the thing flying, don't let it stall!

Just my 2 cents

Clearly thats what im trying to say. But practice gets old very quickly. Even old timers with tonnes of hours do the same thing.

Now hows that for us pilots? Are we really that current? i_dunno

Tomo, Well done mate. One of the sanest bit of writing I have seen in a long time.

I guess it all boils down to training, lots thereof, keeping a clear head, and assessing the situation your are in at the time.

If straight in is good, then do it, if turning 30 deg off is good then do it. If you are confident that you have the height and the skill (taking all the above 5 pages worth of sage and logic into account) then a turn back just may be you saving grace. As Tomo said though, if it looks as if it is going to turn pear shaped, re assess. I would think that a dose of the "I've-got-to-get-this-back-on the -strip-at-all-costs" is more dangerous than the ability to fly ahead of the aircraft and plan.

At the end of the day, you and your pax lives are the most important thing here. Aircraft can be rebuilt, or if written off usually insured. I'd rather be embarrassed than dead.

I think every student should be required to demonstrate a number of dead stick turn backs and landings. I do not know why flying schools do not teach this.

It is good for experienced guys to practise it.Not students- my reason is that, if they are taught it, in a simulation and are successful, if it happens for real, and maybe they are 50 ft lower, its a very hot day etc.etc.They might have the mindset of , no problem i have been trained in this.So they start there turn, as the come around, they realise SH@#, i am a bit low, i am not around far enough to line up, so they pull back on the stick more to tighten the turn.Then it ends in tears. Stick position is the key as David has said, but im talking about low time pilots.I agree with Motz, i think its best, for them to land straight a head with in 30 degrees either side of their heading. When they have more experience in that particular A/c, then expand on that.90 degrees either side etc.

Exodios.

Thank you for the advice on how to train pilot's. I will take it on board.

May I offer you some advice. I am sorry to harp on about your comments regarding steep turns in the circuit. But allow me to quote you from another thread.In the slow flying thread you said" Which is why, when in a situation where a spin would be unrecoverable due to height, the speed should be not less than 1.5 times the stall speed of the aircraft. This includes all of the circuit."

Then in the turn back thread you state that the "correct" angle of bank for the circuit is 45-50 deg's. And further, go on to say you and all the pilots you know do this.

Lets have a quick gander at the aerodynamics behind this practice.

The j160 has a clean power off stalling speed of 58 kts. Best rate climb is 70 kts.

In a 50 deg angle of bank turn the stallspeed increases by 1.34.

1.34x58=77. That means while you are turning xwind at 500 feet at 50 deg angle of bank, as you and all these pilots you know do, you are actually doing so BELOW the stall speed.

Let me pre-emt you in saying that, "yes, but the power on stalling speed is lower". So now we have a situation where the power is the one thing stopping the low inertia aircraft from stalling.

Seeing as this thread is devoted to engine failures after takeoff, lets play the whole scenario out.

You are climbing at best rate, you turn xwind at 500 feet, steeply up to 50 deg.The engine quits during the turn. The low inertia of the plane allows only a split second before the angle of attack is increased beyond the stalling angle. A rapid descent develops instantly. The inside wing having a higher angle of attack stalls before the outside wing. This has the effect of lowering the angle of attack on the outside wing causing it to delay stalling.ie, keeps flying. The result is a classic spin. and at 500 feet. unservivable.

By your own admission (see other thread) the speed must be kept in excess of 1.5 times the stalling speed (im not sure where you got that number from).

So to return to my original post. The 'correct' angle of bank in climbing turns(in most RAA types) in the circuit is no more than 20 degrees.

Please remember that students read this thread too. We all need to be care full what we say is "correct'. regardless of how many of your mates do something.

respectfully

With all due respect to the instructors (and I mean that sincerely - I couldn't do it), there is an element of "we musn't talk about it because the students will hear" creeping into the discussion. I'll admit to a problem with tailoring every response to the lowest common denominator - unfortunately all too often, sensible guidance to students somehow becomes adopted as an unbreakable rule of flight, only one step below Bernoulli, Coanda or whoever controls your aerodynamics. I saw a practical example of this; a 150 odd hour comm student suffered efato at a fairly large airport overseas. He did everything by the book, lowering the nose, scanning 30 degrees either side and elected to plonk the Warrior down in a grassy area off to the right. All well and good, except that there were drains and other nasties buried there and the Warrior got fairly buckled. The sad part was that, had his scan extended to about 80 degrees to the right, he would have noticed around 2,000m of lovely wide tarmac heading toward the horizon. Now I don't know about you but I would take a fairly dim view of even a 30 hour student who couldn't manage a 90 odd degree gliding turn at 450 - 500', followed by a deadstick on the remaining runway.

What I'm trying to get at is the 30 degree "rule" is probably very necessary at first solo and a little beyond, but blinkered thinking like that really doesn't have a place in our dynamic and fluid environment once we have moved beyond the trainer wheel stage. I'll freely admit to being a low time pilot, but I have been very fortunate in having, at most stages of my learning, instructors who were prepared to allow me to think a bit outside the box and to get a real feel for what an aircraft can do. A turn back is perhaps an extreme example of this, but I don't believe that NEVER is an appropriate response.

Basic instruction and taking it a bit further.

" Dumbing down" the process of piloting is OK and essential at the initial stages because it is hard enough to get the basics thoroughly digested. I work on the premise that knowledge is no weight to carry. In fact true understanding of where you are and what you can potentially achieve safely, makes piloting easier. You can learn it from platitudes (rote) or you can understand it. You don't have to guess what is the preferred situation, but it takes time to get there. (time = experience). You also have to have the knowledge base= Good gen, not heresay and the confidence ( practice + currency).

There is a phenomenon in training and practice where the LAST sequence practiced may be applied in a situation where it is not appropriate, just because it is recent.

This would produce a situation where you might have done an intense period of turn back manoeuvers which would predispose you to attempt it when the situation is not right for it.

Some of the previous comments about "finding" yourself over bad territory on climb out. Surely you would have made yourself aware of the geography under your flight path on initial climb? If you have mentally prepared yourself for the possibility of engine failure, these factors would have been taken into account. Nev

The questions we should be asking is why do so many kill themselves in attempted turn backs? Is it the turn back, or the lack of height or the loss of control in the turn? This is the point I attempted to make in an earlier post. i_dunno.David

Frank.

With all due respect to the instructors (and I mean that sincerely - I couldn't do it), there is an element of "we musn't talk about it because the students will hear" creeping into the discussion. I'll admit to a problem with tailoring every response to the lowest common denominator - unfortunately all too often, sensible guidance to students somehow becomes adopted as an unbreakable rule of flight, only one step below Bernoulli, Coanda or whoever controls your aerodynamics. I saw a practical example of this; a 150 odd hour comm student suffered efato at a fairly large airport overseas. He did everything by the book, lowering the nose, scanning 30 degrees either side and elected to plonk the Warrior down in a grassy area off to the right. All well and good, except that there were drains and other nasties buried there and the Warrior got fairly buckled. The sad part was that, had his scan extended to about 80 degrees to the right, he would have noticed around 2,000m of lovely wide tarmac heading toward the horizon. Now I don't know about you but I would take a fairly dim view of even a 30 hour student who couldn't manage a 90 odd degree gliding turn at 450 - 500', followed by a deadstick on the remaining runway.What I'm trying to get at is the 30 degree "rule" is probably very necessary at first solo and a little beyond, but blinkered thinking like that really doesn't have a place in our dynamic and fluid environment once we have moved beyond the trainer wheel stage. I'll freely admit to being a low time pilot, but I have been very fortunate in having, at most stages of my learning, instructors who were prepared to allow me to think a bit outside the box and to get a real feel for what an aircraft can do. A turn back is perhaps an extreme example of this, but I don't believe that NEVER is an appropriate response.