Impossible Turn Testing

[Doug G.]

There have been stories recently in the aviation p ress about the effectiveness of Cirrus's "Pull Early, Pull Often" campaign.

[WmInce]

There have been stories recently in the aviation press about the effectiveness of Cirrus's "Pull Early, Pull Often" campaign.

And?

[FastEddieB]

 

 

If I understand Eddie's opinion correctly he think it should never be a consideration.

 

Please clarify.

 

If you think my opinion is that a return to the airport should "never be a consideration", that's incorrect and I think I've made that clear.

 

If I need to, I will clarify or link back to my true position.

 

Or if you meant something entirely different, please tell me what it was.

 

Thanks.

[gbigs]

The debate is interesting and I'm curious of real world examples of what is truly possible.  But.....I'm a conservative pilot and the "debate range" has too many variables built in so MY plan is to turn around at 900' AGL, otherwise forward to the best option with a chute pull.  I MAY pull the chute in doing the turnback to the runway depending on touchdown point (might need an airbrake).

 

This works for MY skill and practice level.

 

It is appropriate to assume at least half pattern altitude and not more than 2 seconds before realizing the engine out and attempting the turn ( I question others alleging they are doing these things successfully...they are ready to make the turn and not simulating the delay a real life engine out would involve).

 

And those attempting 60 degree turns with engine idle near the surface are begging for a disaster.

 

Your process is the same as mine.  Straight ahead if past the end of the runway and below half pattern altitude and a chute pull if around 400 ft agl.

[Tom Baker]

Please clarify.

 

If you think my opinion is that a return to the airport should "never be a consideration", that's incorrect and I think I've made that clear.

 

If I need to, I will clarify or link back to my true position.

 

Or if you meant something entirely different, please tell me what it was.

 

Thanks.

OK, I shouldn't have used the word never, but you do seem to offer a strong opinion that it shouldn't be considered. You did say that trying to make a turn back is a BAD idea, and that you never teach it unless it is to reinforce that it is a bad idea.

You seem to have keyed in on my use of the word "never" instead of answering the question, so I will rephrase the question.

At what point based on aircraft performance does the turn back to the runway not become a "BAD idea"?

[Ian]

.........At what point based on aircraft performance does the turn back to the runway not become a "BAD idea"?

 

Presumably at the point at which it changes from an EFATO to an Engine Failure In Flight?

The height at which that occurs should be something each pilot thinks about before each take off.

[FastEddieB]

OK, I shouldn't have used the word never, but you do seem to offer a strong opinion that it shouldn't be considered.

Posted earlier to this thread, in response to:

 

IrishAl, on 22 Jan 2015 - 06:05 AM, said:

Eddie,

 

I was wondering if the results of your trial have in any way influenced your DA of 1000 feet for a turnback?

 

(It's a serious question - I really respect your experience and I guess it concerns me a bit when I form an opinion that's opposite to conventional wisdom.)

 

I posted this:

 

I'm not sure I ever advocated a hard and fast line at 1,000'. If I did, let me clarify.

 

In general, I turn to crosswind at about 400'-500'. So with pattern work, losing the engine on climbout implies being somewhat less than 500'. In that case, for me there's no thinking about a return to the airport.

 

Losing power on crosswind is a whole 'nother thing. At that point, at about 500'+ with the runway only a 90° turn (plus a little) away, the runway, or at least the runway environment, is almost certainly doable.

 

Too many variables for a hard and fast answer. I still think the consequences of continuing straight ahead, or nearly so, are in general less dire than attempting a low altitude 180°+ turn that has proven so deadly time and time again.

 

But I respect the decision of others to come to different conclusions on the matter.

 

 

I think that's a far cry from "never".

[IrishAl]

Sharing some numbers i had for the 180 degree power off turn. (prop not turning)

 

Test altitude 4000ft.  85degrees

0 Flaps  15 degree bank at 63-65kts -  Lost 500 ft

0 Flaps  30 degree bank at 65-67kts -  Lost 500 ft

Descent rate with wings level was at around 500ft / minute. 

 

In the past, I have taken off and at around 300-400 feet always questioned and thought i could easily make the 180 turn....It visually appears doable --    Not anymore.

 

It's my belief that this is the reason for many turn back accidents: tentativeness.  (nothing personal cdarza!)

 

It seems that there's a natural tendency in us all to assume that when the engine quits it won't fly as well as before, and you have to treat it with kid gloves and bank gently.  Gravity is a good engine, and can make all the power you need to make a steep turn safely.

 

Attempting a turn back in the 'grey' area that Andy identifies as 200-700' with this tentative attitude is to be avoided at all costs imo.  If ever you have to be positive it's in this situation - fly the plane, turn it hard but never take your eye off the airspeed (and ball) and remember your throttle is a forward push on the stick.

 

In post 10 I described my first attempt at this: I lost 500ft doing a complete 360 at 45 degrees/60kts, and a C42 is very similar to a CT.  I can't say I was comfortable, but every time I do it I become familiar with what I can do without an engine, and that's a good familiarity!

 

I think being able to turn quickly and safely without an engine is a critical safety skill to have and to practice. 

[Jim Meade]

I don't agree on fixating on the ball and airspeed or even glancing at them for more than a second - I say don't look at them at all. If you can't fly the airplane by feel, don't turn it. Land straight ahead or pull the chute. There are too many reasons to have the scan outside. Judging position, altitude, touchdown point, traffic and more. Everything is changing rapidly and inputs have to be made continuously. Eyes outside.

[IrishAl]

Good point - I absolutely agree.

 

My advice to "Never take your eye off the airspeed" is obviously not literal - it's simply at attempt to fend off the intevitable safety-oriented corrections! 

 

There's far too much happening for more than a glance now and again.  That's why practice is so important - you have to be able to fly the plane in the situation.

 

But above all, be aware of your airspeed in a tight turn with no power.

[Tom Baker]

I think that's a far cry from "never".

Eddie, I am sorry for using the word "never". This is a quote from you earlier in the thread, "I also don't think I've ever made a point of demonstrating one, except perhaps, again, to reinforce that its a BAD idea and not to be considered as an immediate consideration." The color is mine. This may not be never, but it does seem to a pretty definite statement. Anyway back to the question.

 

Let me try and ask the question more clearly, as others seem to have missed the point of my question as well. We know that turning back in Cessna 150 or 172 is a bad idea. Turning back in a Citabria is a bad idea. On the other end of the spectrum it is something that is taught in a sailplane or glider. At some point between the two there has to be an area where the turn back could be a consideration. Where is that point? Does the CT fall into that area? How about a Pipistrel Virus?

As an instructor I realize that there are other circumstances that need to be considered in the equation, like how high you are, density altitude, and weight. What kind of aircraft does the turn start to be an option?

[FastEddieB]

Eddie, I am sorry for using the word "never". This is a quote from you earlier in the thread, "I also don't think I've ever made a point of demonstrating one, except perhaps, again, to reinforce that its a BAD idea and not to be considered as an immediate consideration." The color is mine. This may not be never, but it does seem to a pretty definite statement.

The bolding is mine.

 

Pilots can get into trouble when they immediately whip the plane around and stall and spin. Speed is too slow, turn rushed with rudder, whatever. Happens with alarming regularity.

 

As you imply, a lot of variables - airport surroundings, runway length and layout, wind, aircraft type, etc.

 

But I think we're still going in circles and you're asking for concrete answers I can't give.

 

Maybe next time I go up I'll take along the GoPro and video what I am contemplating in the Sky Arrow at various points after departure. Options are quite different taking off to the north, where US64 may be an option, compared to the south where good options are few and far between.

[S3flyer]

 

 

Let me try and ask the question more clearly, as others seem to have missed the point of my question as well. We know that turning back in Cessna 150 or 172 is a bad idea. 

 

It's not the aircraft per se but the glide ratio, right?  Book glide ratio of 152 is 7:1, 172 is 9:1 and CT is 8.5:1.  So if turning back in 150 or 172 is a bad idea, wouldn't the same hold true of a CT?

[Tom Baker]

The bolding is mine.

 

Pilots can get into trouble when they immediately whip the plane around and stall and spin. Speed is too slow, turn rushed with rudder, whatever. Happens with alarming regularity.

 

As you imply, a lot of variables - airport surroundings, runway length and layout, wind, aircraft type, etc.

 

But I think we're still going in circles and you're asking for concrete answers I can't give.

 

Maybe next time I go up I'll take along the GoPro and video what I am contemplating in the Sky Arrow at various points after departure. Options are quite different taking off to the north, where US64 may be an option, compared to the south where good options are few and far between.

By most accounts that I have seen, the impossible turn is an immediate turn back to the runway in the event of an engine failure.

 

We are going in circles, but a concrete answer. Really? When does asking for an opinion on when to consider something require a concrete answer?

 

I really was trying to ask a honest and simple question.

[S3flyer]

Of course.  It still comes down to a little bit of math, at least, to the best possible performance.  Pilot skill will determine how much above the theoretical optimum needs to be applied.  For the CT:

• Assume best glide is 60kts
• Book glide of 8.5:1
• This yields 710fpm vertical speed

If you are 1/2 nm from the threshold then you must be a minimum of 355' AGL (and already completed the turn back) to make it to the runway.  It appears from some posters here indicate a 500' drop occurs in the turn and I've read articles that confirm the rough data.  Also, I'll make the jump that the 500' will hold on the more than 180 degree turn needed.

• 855' AGL (500 + 355) is the minimum AGL needed when 1/2 nm away from a touch down point in the airport environment
• 678' AGL when 1/4 nm away

[Tom Baker]

It depends on your altitude, the wind, your other options, etc.

 

These have nothing to do with determining if you should consider the turn based on the aircraft you are flying.

[Tom Baker]

I am not in any way advocating trying to turn back in the CT or any other aircraft for that matter, It was just a question about where do you draw the line on when it should become a consideration.

 

In my experience with the CT is that if you lost power before you make your first turn in the pattern that you will likely be in a bad position to make the turn and land back on the runway. this is not based on whether you can make the turn, but rather the position on the airplane in relation to the runway. Do to the climb angle of the CT you will in my opinion be to close to the departure end of the runway to complete the turn and be able to land and stop before going off the end of the runway, especially if there is any wind component.

[Ed Cesnalis]

It's not the aircraft per se but the glide ratio, right?  Book glide ratio of 152 is 7:1, 172 is 9:1 and CT is 8.5:1.  So if turning back in 150 or 172 is a bad idea, wouldn't the same hold true of a CT?

 

It is not the glide ratio that my mind goes to when comparing an impossible turn in a CT to a 172.  I think about bank angle and the fact that I bank my CT much more steeply than I did my 172.  I bank it more rapidly as well.

 

There are a number of ways to change directions without doing a turn, each with its own potential hazard. An example might be an incipient spin stopping the spin at 1/2 rotation.

[Tom Baker]

If I am flying an airplane that takes 1000 feet to make a 180 degree turn, I would not consider turning back if I am at an altitude of 1000 agl or less.  If the wind is a strong headwind and I have climbed to 1500 feet within close proximity to the runway, I might consider a turn back.  Every airplane would have it's own characteristics, but the conditions would apply to every airplane also.  Stop being such as *** Tom.

 

 I know I will always be an *** to you, because that is how you see me. However I do take offense calling me one on an open forum.

 

Having made a turn back to the runway under partial power with a headwind like you describe, I can tell you in that situation it should not be a consideration. I was lucky in the fact that I didn't hurt the airplane when I rolled off the end of the runway.

 

I am smart enough to be aware of all of the factors involved in making the decision outside of the aircraft. I am sure you were taught the same thing as Eddie and myself, in that you should land straight ahead. Some of the sailplane guys have stated that the turn is something they were taught. I figure there has to be a aircraft somewhere between the sailplanes and the aircraft we learned to fly in that you could start to consider the turn back as an option. All other condition not withstanding.

[Tom Baker]

You cannot make a blanket statement about what should or should not be considered.  It depends on the actual situation and conditions and other alternatives.

 

Edit:  

 

Just in case someone doesn't understand what I am saying, suppose you take off from a 5,000 foot runway in an LSA with a 10 knot headwind. You could easily reach 1,000 agl by the time you get to the end of the runway.  Also, assume the airport is in a downtown area surrounded by nothing but large buildings.  What would you do if you lost an engine at that point?  I would turn around and land on the runway from which I just took off.

 

Or, suppose you take off from a 2,500 foot runway in an LSA with a 5 knot tailwind.  The runway is downhill, hence the downwind take-off.  You are loaded to max gross weight and it is a hot and humid day.  Directly ahead of you is a large, smooth grass field with no fences or power lines.  You reach 500 agl by the time you get to the end of the runway and lose an engine.  I would land straight ahead in the grass field.

 

It depends on the situation and conditions and other alternatives.

 

I suppose this is just another ***hole remark, but I didn't make a blanket statement. I was addressing the conditions you described in your post where you stated a strong headwind. The strong headwind or any significant headwind for that matter sets up another kind of problem trying to come back to the runway.

 

Those types of conditions and the one you describe in your LSA on a 5000 foot runway are the ones that will get you into a different kind of trouble. If you make the 180° turn, which is more like 270° to get lined back up on the runway and get past the stall spin trap now you will likely be high and fast overshooting the runway.

 

In my opinion, and you can take it for what it is worth. If you are at 1000 feet over the end of a 5000 foot runway and the engine quits and you have a significant headwind, a better choice would be a 360° turn and land into the wind back on the runway. The headwind will become a tailwind in the turn and push you back down the runway, so when you are turned back into the wind you will have runway to land on. The other reason to consider this is that you will be landing with a headwind and lower ground speed. Under these conditions you are less likely to sustain injuries.

[Top Cat]

I agree with Sport Pilot.  Whilst we were all taught to land straight ahead if we lose power and to avoid the dreaded turn around to land back on the runway, experience surely has taught us that we should, as part of our personal 'takeoff briefing' to consider ALL the factors involved in each departure.

As such there is no blanket 'right way' just as there shouldn't be a blanket 'at 500 I pull the chute' etc etc.

 

   My airfield has a solid area of trees at one end of the runway and a drop off leading to a river on the other end. Its a 6000' x 150' wide runway so my LSA will be usually at 1500' pattern altitude before the runway's end. On the other end I can usually land and make the first turnoff within 1000'.

  For me straight ahead has some pause for thought. If I reach 700' by half way and decide to do the turn back I'm using a '3000' runway' with a probable tailwind component requiring a steep descent to make the runway but not so steep as to be too fast, yet steep enough to be fast enough. A roll off on the river end would likely lead to a tip over, the other end I have some distance before the trees.

 

  A few have posted about practicing the dreaded turn and pausing for a second or two to simulate real world shock and disbelief, a valid thing to do. A better thing, and harder, would be to think about a more like partial loss of power. Usually engines don't fail catastrophically, but stop producing max power on take off. The pilot pushed the throttle hoping for more and gets less until the realization that he's losing the engine. So now were are we?

Do we consider we have enough partial power to reach pattern altitude from which we can declare our intentions and return to the downwind runway or should we go for a partial power pattern and land back into wind?

  How much more than the 2 seconds we simulated for practice did it take to reach this point?

 

Regarding the actual turn itself. If you have a direct headwind then a left/right 180 turn puts you back to paralleling the runway downwind. Another turn is required to turn over the runway followed by another to turn along the runway, a total of 3 turns. If you depart with a crosswind component then turning away from the headwind/crosswind with further take you away from the runway and may necessitate increased banking turns to get realigned.

Perhaps part of the take-off self-brief would be to consider a turn into the crosswind/headwind component and allow it to offset the distance it would take you across the runway before you start the line up turns. In other words is the dreaded turn really a 270 rather than a 180?

 Is reaching the runway the main goal followed by landing alongside as a second best?

 Much of the discussion is about the actual turning, banking and airspeed and quite right. However, surviving those only to go over the runway and flip over or float into the boonies should be considered. Then do you have time to crack the door, canopy and switch off the fuel. Possibly, but probably not. Did you have time to make a radio call in the blind? What would you say?

 

  There are so many factors that it's of little benefit to simply' land straight ahead' because life is just too full of surprises. Last week as I began my crosswind turn an airplane announced that he was on a 45 degree to join the downwind and instead showed up right in front of me as he ended the transmission. I have been thinking a lot about about what I'd do from this thread and just as I was thinking about a partial power loss on crosswind a potential collision scenario shows up.

 

  There has been discussion of when to pull the chute, if so equipped. My plane doesn't have a BRS. However, if I did my personal scenario would be a pull when it's about the last option. The airplane is likely going to be totalled. However, the chute isn't a free pass. If I land in trees I can survive the parachute drop and die from the fall from the tree tops. What about being over canyons, mountains etc? I can survive the pull and die as the wreckage slides down into the deep canyon below. If the object is to survive then is a blanket statement 'pull the chute' the right thing at THAT time?

 

 For me, I think the dreaded turn and the chute pull have to be thought out more with a view to each changing takeoff or inflight scenario. Personally I try to think about each take off on THAT day from THAT runway with THOSE conditions and that terrain. What are my options? Inflight, even without the chute, I constantly ask myself where am I going to go…for real…right now with a full power loss, or a partial. If I'm over a large expanse of trees does the partial loss lead me to stretch things to my destination or would I be better trying a maneuver with the benefit of some, albeit degrading, power tow possible landing site?ards a distant

 

 In the end, it's a plan. Reality affects the plan. Am I giving myself the best options at that moment for a successful outcome?

[Top Cat]

"Or, suppose you take off from a 2,500 foot runway in an LSA with a 5 knot tailwind.  The runway is downhill, hence the downwind take-off.  You are loaded to max gross weight and it is a hot and humid day.  Directly ahead of you is a large, smooth grass field with no fences or power lines.  You reach 500 agl by the time you get to the end of the runway and lose an engine.  I would land straight ahead in the grass field."

 

 Depending on traffic, if the airfield had trees/terrain/obstacle at the departure end (if you take off into a 5 kt headwind) but a nice big field behind you, which is clear of obstacles, would you be wiser to consider a downwind take-off? Assuming, that the runway conditions (length, temp, density alt etc) would accommodate your airplane and it's weight it's probably safer in many ways.

 Of course now you have now allowed for a straight ahead landing if you lose full/partial power but you've also opened up the collision potential so announcing your intentions a couple of times would really be constructive.

  Point is you've sat and thought about that particular take-off rather then just assumed you would hand straight ahead in the event of power loss.

 

  A last point would be the tress/terrain/obstacles alongside the runway. Would they accommodate landing parallel and could you maneuver after turning back if you're banking and trying to maintain enough control and airspeed without being fixated on the runway itself?

[gbigs]

I agree with Sport Pilot.  Whilst we were all taught to land straight ahead if we lose power and to avoid the dreaded turn around to land back on the runway, experience surely has taught us that we should, as part of our personal 'takeoff briefing' to consider ALL the factors involved in each departure.

As such there is no blanket 'right way' just as there shouldn't be a blanket 'at 500 I pull the chute' etc etc.

 

 In the end, it's a plan. Reality affects the plan. Am I giving myself the best options at that moment for a successful outcome?

 

The reason there is a 'right way' is due to the long history of aviation itself.  The right way is what is taught and what remains the right way despite some who think they can invent a new right way based on their own willingness to defy that history.

 

Human's do not do well 'thinking' in the middle of a crises.  That's why there is a checklist for emergencies.   You DO NOT HAVE TIME TO THINK about some 'creative' new dynamic in the middle of the dozen variables on takeoff.  Let alone compute load factor, wind effect, drag coefficients, airspeed, weight, altitude, glide, stall dynamics and angle of decent in five seconds?

 

Reducing the choices down to a manageable few is the proven way to deal with engine out on takeoff.  None of which involves making an impossible turn.

 

The parachute decision is unique to Flight Design and Cirrus.

[FlyingMonkey]

 

The parachute decision is unique to Flight Design and Cirrus.

 

Not even close.  Some other aircraft that have had ballistic chutes installed:

 

TL Ultralight Sting

TL Ultralight Sirius

SportCruiser

PiperSport

Tecnam Sierra

Tecnam P-92

Remos G600

Remos GX

Allegro

Just Escapade

Just Highlander

Rans S6

Rans S7

Rans S9

Rans S19

Rans S20

Sonex

SubSonex (Jet)

AMD/Zenith Zodiac HD/HDS/601/650

Challenger I/II

Fk-9

Fk-12 Comet

Avid Flyer

Savannah MX 740

Kolb Firestar (all models)

Golden Circle T-Bird II

Quicksilver (all models)

Flightstar Spyder

Titan Tornado

Christen Eagle

Aerolight 103

Murphy Renegade

Hy-Tek Hurricaine

Pulsar 

Talon XP

And finally...Cessna 172 via STC.

 

That is just airplanes, and not a complete list.  I left out trikes, parasails, and gyros.

[Top Cat]

The reason there is a 'right way' is due to the long history of aviation itself.  The right way is what is taught and what remains the right way despite some who think they can invent a new right way based on their own willingness to defy that history.

 

Human's do not do well 'thinking' in the middle of a crises.  That's why there is a checklist for emergencies.   You DO NOT HAVE TIME TO THINK about some 'creative' new dynamic in the middle of the dozen variables on takeoff.  Let alone compute load factor, wind effect, drag coefficients, airspeed, weight, altitude, glide, stall dynamics and angle of decent in five seconds?

 

Reducing the choices down to a manageable few is the proven way to deal with engine out on takeoff.  None of which involves making an impossible turn.

 

The parachute decision is unique to Flight Design and Cirrus.

 

The 'right way' is indeed what is TAUGHT by your training department or your CFI. If the training is done properly, they will have also taught you to THINK as an aviator. Ask Sullenberger. The day he ditched his A320 into the Hudson he was assessing what he had, running checklists with his FO which are usually Red-Box memory items taught at the training site. He was offered a turn towards an airport, perhaps Teterboro. Using his experience and airmanship, he calculated that his best option, the best option for survival, was in fact ditching his airplane in the Hudson knowing that it would take time to get rescue boats and that it was cold. In other words, he created 'the right way' for HIM, and his flight on that day. On any other day the bird strike could likely have been devastating in the water off Rikers Island. My airline had a bird strike on the same runway on a different day and were able to divert safely to JFK with one engine out and the other producing partial power. There was no checklist or 'right way' to do that, but the 'right way' was to be airmen and use what they knew and what they had to determine a safe outcome. They in fact, received a National Award for airmanship for that incident.

 

  You can certainly think in the middle of any crisis. Thing is, is the crisis an engine problem seconds after lift-off or something that you have time to ponder in cruise? The former is the reason an aviator would stop and review the options for THAT coming take-off at THAT airport with THOSE conditions he actually has.

  There is always a 'check-list', but it's not a 'do-list'. This is why the airlines and corporate flight departments have several Red Box memory items, often with several immediate action steps to take. The checklist is fine but some situations require action now and checking it again later with the checklist. Some checklists are long and tedious and are completed at a safe altitude. Again, there is no blanket 'right-way' in every situation and you have to fly the airplane. Remember the "aviate, navigate, communicate' tome.

   Nobody is silly enough to believe that you would be calculating " load factor, wind effect, drag coefficients, airspeed, weight, altitude, glide, stall dynamics and angle of descent in five seconds. However, what they are advocating is that each take-off should be considered on it's merits and a basic plan thought about before you push the throttle forward. As aviators do.

Granted LSAs aren't airliners but the airlines do calculate weight, speed, obstacle clearance, terrain and brief each departure with a view to what they will do in the vent of several possible scenarios to include engine failure at V1, V2 and so on. What's wrong with taking a few moments to consider the options before you leave the ground?? YOU apparently have ruled out a turn back to the runway in any situation which is fine, for YOU. If you are bound to reach for the manual and begin reading a checklist during a take-off emergency then you will likely be still reading as you sit in the wreckage.

Others may take longer to review their situation BEFORE take-off and assess whether a return IS a possible option. or in fact an impossible one, as they're entitled to do. This does NOT mean that YOU have elected the only RIGHT way and that they are therefore WRONG and have elected the WRONG way