Re: A PIREP: engine-out turn-back - some practice in the haze

[Nathan Young]

On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 10:07:55 -0400, T o d d P a t t i s t
> wrote:

> I had no trouble turning back 180 degrees from 200', just
>as I do in my glider. A rapid push to get the nose down and
>maintain speed, and a rapid roll to about 40 degrees of
>bank. Lots of back stick pressure. I never had to let the
>airspeed drop below 60 mph. By the time it was turned back,
>I still had 50-75' left to make a shallow alignment turn.

200 ft is impressive. What is your sink rate (fpm) at best glide?

[Casey Wilson]

"T o d d P a t t i s t" > wrote in message
...
> It was seriously hazy this weekend, and with a long cross
> country coming up in our 1946 Aeronca Champ, I thought it
> was a good day to do some engine-out landing practice. I
> was flying with full fuel, but solo. Wind was light, 3
> knots or less. Field elevation was below 1000' MSL, temp
> about 77 deg F/ near 100. For those not familiar with the
> Champ, it's a 65 hp taildragger with a max gross of 1220
> pounds. I was flying it 150 pounds under that.
>
> After some ordinary engine-out landings from downwind and
> base I began to practice engine-out turn-back from the
> initial climb out on takeoff. I thought others here might
> be interested in my results.

Good Stuff here, Todd. I haven't worked up the nerve to do the same work
in the 172, except at altitude. My perceived threshold is 500 feet with the
Skyhawk. My plan is to start above that and work down. At least until I'm
comfortable with the results.
Thanks for posting this.

[[email protected]]

Todd,

Interesting what may be done in a low wing loading airplane.

In many flight test protocols, the procedure is for the pilot to wait a
full three seconds after an engine failure to take any action. The
idea is to simulate the normal reaction time for someone who is not
expecting an engine failure and goes through the mental exercise to
accept that it's happening and finally take action. By any chance did
you do that, or did you start your procedure immediately upon reducing
power?

All the best,
Rick

T o d d P a t t i s t wrote:
> It was seriously hazy this weekend, and with a long cross
> country coming up in our 1946 Aeronca Champ, I thought it
> was a good day to do some engine-out landing practice. I
> was flying with full fuel, but solo. Wind was light, 3
> knots or less. Field elevation was below 1000' MSL, temp
> about 77 deg F/ near 100. For those not familiar with the
> Champ, it's a 65 hp taildragger with a max gross of 1220
> pounds. I was flying it 150 pounds under that.
>
> After some ordinary engine-out landings from downwind and
> base I began to practice engine-out turn-back from the
> initial climb out on takeoff. I thought others here might
> be interested in my results.
>
> I had no trouble turning back 180 degrees from 200', just
> as I do in my glider. A rapid push to get the nose down and
> maintain speed, and a rapid roll to about 40 degrees of
> bank. Lots of back stick pressure. I never had to let the
> airspeed drop below 60 mph. By the time it was turned back,
> I still had 50-75' left to make a shallow alignment turn.
>
> There was certainly no time to waste, but with practice it
> was a comfortable maneuver. Of eight attempts, I would
> have been in the trees once and the bushes once. The trees
> are in a line at one end of the runway, with a cut through
> them in line with the runway. My first attempt I didn't go
> far enough to the side during the climb out, so when I
> turned, I couldn't get back through the cut.
>
> All the other attempts in that direction I let myself slide
> off to the side so I could turn back through the cut. One
> time I came through the cut and had to land diagonally on
> the grass adjacent the departure runway. If I wanted to
> land on the same runway, with no crosswind, I needed to get
> really far to the side during the climb out.
>
> The time I would have ended in the bushes at the opposite
> end occurred because I did a touch and go from the previous
> attempt. That put me farther down the runway than usual, so
> on the 180 reverse, although I was turned back, wings level
> and aligned, I couldn't glide far enough to get back to the
> runway over the bushes in the overrun.
>
> This is not a recommendation to anyone else as to the
> altitude to turn back at. This was one specific light
> airplane, flown solo, using a modified departure to put me
> in the best position to turn back, by a pilot who knew
> exactly when the engine would "fail" and who was current in
> engine out and had lots of 200' turn back practice in
> gliders.
>
> I have seen lots of other reports of heavier aircraft
> practicing turn backs and estimating more than 600 - 800'
> needed for success.
>
> I watched a friend lose an engine in a very similar aircraft
> at a similar height. He turned back, following a very
> similar flight path to the ones described above, and hit a
> dead tree.
>
>
>
> Do not spin this aircraft. If the aircraft does enter a spin it will return to earth without further attention on the part of the aeronaut.
>
> (first handbook issued with the Curtis-Wright flyer)

[Icebound]

"T o d d P a t t i s t" > wrote in message
...
....
>
> After some ordinary engine-out landings from downwind and
> base I began to practice engine-out turn-back from the
> initial climb out on takeoff. I thought others here might
> be interested in my results.
>
> I had no trouble turning back 180 degrees from 200', ...snip...


http://www.aopa.org/asf/publications/inst_reports2.cfm?article=2911

[[email protected]]

Todd,

Thanks fort the additional information.

This is, sadly, a subject that has been explored in aviation since the
early days of the Wrights. No matter how many times we hammer on
pilots not to turn back to the runway, a huge proportion of them insist
on trying, even if they have never, ever practiced the maneuver (um,
lessee, I've got a full-fleged emergency, I'll try something I've never
practiced before...Doh), and a staggeringly high percentage of those
who try it, die or get seriously injured. I worked a matter about 10
years ago involving a pilot who lost the engine on a Cessna 150 at
somewhere around 400 feet and tried to return; he survived the crash
but has serious brain damage. (Roughly half of the pilots faced with
an engine out forced landing stall the airplane at up to 20 feet AGL,
sometimes higher, especially if in a turn-which reduces their chance of
survival measurably. That pilot stalled at an undetermined altitude.)
I'm also interested in the amount of time it takes a pilot to react to
a power loss. With pilots on flight reviews, I've seen some of them
sit there and do nothing or "swim in glue" for as much as 10 seconds
before taking meaningful, effective action. I've had more than one
event in which an engine quit and in each one there was a period of
"this can't be happening" thinking before I dealt with it - don't know
how long it was - on one twin during the takeoff roll it was long
enough to get pretty close to the edge of the runway, and I used every
bit of the runway getting stopped.

There have been a number of serious academic studies on the subject of
the best turnaround procedure for minimum altitude loss, and it seems
to involve a fairly steep bank-on the order of 60 degrees if I recall
correctly. The problem is, as aerobatic and ag pilots know, practicing
that maneuver at altitude is different than doing it down low; the
world looks different below 500 feet, the horizon is subtly different
and it can bite a person unless it has been practiced - recently.

You have, IMHO, a major advantage over most pilots in that you have
glider experience, and, I suspect, the idea of your engine taking the
day off is not nearly as traumatic on a very visceral level.
Nevertheless, from the point of recent experience, if you had not
practiced a rerturn maneuver within the last 6 months and lost the
engine of the Champ at 250 feet AGL, would you be willing to bet your
life you could pull off the return maneuver successfully the very first
time <g>? Based on the fact that you have just practiced the return
maneuver, can you put a number on the minimum altitude AGL at which
you'd attempt it for real if you had to today? Would that number
change if you hadn't practiced it for 3 months? (I'm curious, as my
own "minimums" for various events get more conservative as the time
since my last recurrent training gets longer.)

Thanks again for putting up your experience.

All the best,
Rick

[John Galban]

T o d d P a t t i s t wrote:
>
> I witnessed a turnback in a similar aircraft that was close
> enough to be called a partial success. He would have made
> it with a slightly wider runway, and his alternatives were
> all much worse.
>
> There is a limit at which it can be done successfully, and a
> limit where it can't. I think it's valuable to know that
> limit, and I'd already gone through the "what-ifs" at
> altitude. I knew "pattern altitude" was way too high for
> the Champ. It was time to try it for real.
>
IMHO, You've got the right idea. The blanket "don't turn back unless
you're at pattern altitude" may not always be the best option. It's
important to know what you and your plane are capable of doing. As
you noted, the best alternative may not include getting back to a
runway. At airports that are surrounded by densely populated suburbs,
often the best place to be is somewhere in the airport environment that
is relative free of obstructions like houses and schools. If you can
make it back this area, you may be better off even if you can't make a
runway.

John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

[Rob]

T o d d P a t t i s t wrote:
<snip>
> ... I know some may feel I should
> keep silent for fear of encouraging others to do that which
> will kill them.
<snip>

Encouraging others to go out and carefully experiment in a controlled
environment and learn what the REAL numbers are for THEIR skill and
comfort levels and THEIR equipment is nothing but good, IMHO.

-R

[Brian]

The Idea is to give the pilot primative instructions that are easy to
fall back on in very bad situations. Keep the rules simple and easy to
follow. In the glider the student is taught exactly what power pilots
are taught with a modification. In the Glider below 200 feet land
straight ahead. In a power plane always land straight ahead when
departing.

We perhaps fall down a bit on the explanation for power pilots. Most
power pilots turn Crosswind at about 500'. In most airplanes and most
airports this is about the point where the turn can be made back to
runway with average skill. It is also high enough that most power
pilots can judge if they can make it back or not and have some time to
make that decision. Plus they can see the runway from this point to
make that decision. So we tend to simplify this to just don't turn back
on departure. It is simple and easy to recall when your airplane
unexpectedly becomes a glider.

The Champ is a neat airplane I have given about 400 hours of
instruction in them. But as you point out you were in the Ideal
situation. 1. You knew the engine was going to quit. Although a good
pilot is always expecting that. 2. You moved downwind (I assume) so
that only 180 degree turn was required. 3. you are in a light slow
airplane with a tight turning radius. 4. you kept your speed up during
the climb out.

Other factors to consider.

If aligned with the runway when the engine quits you must do 360
degrees of Turn. 270 followed by a 90 of some something simlar (225,
straight then 45)

Ground Ilusions and Wind. How many people know what it looks like to do
a downwind turn at 150 feet. It looks like you are going very fast when
you are not. I Watched a Champ Stall spin due to this. Try doing some
downwind approaches and Go Arounds with a 10-15kt tailwind. Be prepared
for some very flat climb angles and keep you airspeed up. It will look
like you are going fast when you are not.


G-Loading- You are doing a steep turn you pulling G's. The Stall speed
increases during the Turn.

G-unloading - Ever notice the tendency to Climb after doing a 360
degree steep turn. Somehow your brain interpretes this unloading as not
natural and you will unconsously tend to pull up and slow down even if
you are alreadu slow. Several Glider stall/spin accidents have been
attributed to this phenomea after low passes and pull up's.

Cross wind- Gliders usually pay attention to this because turning into
the wind can really help keep you close to the runway, Turning downwind
can push you away from it.


Thanks for reporting your finding. I firmly believe the more experience
you have the better pilot you can be. Your practice has the potential
to make you a much better pilot.
Now I would suggest you try the test flying straight off the Runway at
your best rate of climb speed. Wait the 3-4 seconds because you are
going to have to decide if a turn is the best thing to do. and then try
landing back on the 150ft wide runway you departed. My Guess is with
this critera that you will find the 400 feet is probably the minumum
you want even in the Champ (Try left and right turns). if you are
turning crosswind at 500 feet it is easy to simplfy the issue to just
don't turn back on departure. Crosswind Maybe Downwind almost
Definintly.

Brian
CFIIG/ASEL
HP16T

[Brian]

>I don't want to crash into the trees when I have twice
the altitude I need to safely turn back simply because I was
told to wait until pattern altitude.

Well stated. Note that 200' in a glider is not that low. In fact in
most gliders it probably has a saftey factor of about 2 to compensate
for variables such as wind, runways and location from the runway. My
typical issue with the 200ft turn around is that I am usually lined up
with the runway going downwind with a 100 ft to spare and down wind It
can sometimes take a little effort to not go off the far end of the
runway.

I would suggest you try the turn back scenero under some less than
Ideal situations and then double that altitude you deem required for a
turn back. Keep it simple and with lots of room for error.

Brian

[Brian]

>I don't want to crash into the trees when I have twice
the altitude I need to safely turn back simply because I was
told to wait until pattern altitude.

Well stated. Note that 200' in a glider is not that low. In fact in
most gliders it probably has a saftey factor of about 2 to compensate
for variables such as wind, runways and location from the runway. My
typical issue with the 200ft turn around is that I am usually lined up
with the runway going downwind with a 100 ft to spare and down wind It
can sometimes take a little effort to not go off the far end of the
runway.

I would suggest you try the turn back scenero under some less than
Ideal situations and then double that altitude you deem required for a
turn back. Keep it simple and with lots of room for error.

Brian

[vincent p. norris]

Dave Rogers, a professor at the USNA, Annapolis, has done a lot of
work on this problem.

See http://web.usna.navy.mil/~dfr/flying/possible.html

or Google "impossible turn."

One good idea is to add "Turnback altitude" as the last item on your
takeoff check list, and say that altitide aloud, so you have it in
mind as you climb out.

Another is to consciously note any crosswind on takeoff; make your
turn into the wind when the enngine quits.

vince norris

[Dave S]

wrote:
> Todd,
>
> Thanks fort the additional information.
>
> This is, sadly, a subject that has been explored in aviation since the
> early days of the Wrights. No matter how many times we hammer on
> pilots not to turn back to the runway, a huge proportion of them insist
> on trying, even if they have never, ever practiced the maneuver (um,
> lessee, I've got a full-fleged emergency, I'll try something I've never
> practiced before...Doh), and a staggeringly high percentage of those
> who try it, die or get seriously injured.
> All the best,
> Rick
>

The Canard community lost one of its own earlier this year due to a
turnback at low altitude. The Pilot was flight testing his craft and had
already had one engine power loss at low altitude earlier this year that
was suspected to be vapor lock. The first time he made a return to the
field from about 400 feet, and landed on-field but off runway.

The second, final time, he was a bit lower, and in trying to turn
back, ended up making a VERY steep banked turn, and hit the lone stand
of trees off the end of the runway. Based on looking at the satellite
photos of the airport, the event may have been surviveable by simply
making a shallow bank to miss the trees and land in the surrounding
pastures.

If you are going to do something like this, (low turn back) you have
to know your plane.. You have to practice it often.. and you have to
understand that there is little to no margin for error. The stuff we fly
doesnt have the glide ratio to turn back from 200 ft after the rope
breaks. The "critical" decision altitude is different for each type of
aircraft, dependent on loading and also on the weather (winds, DA, etc).
If I lost my engine in a rental prior to making my base turn (4-500
feet, depending on the pattern altitude) I would be more inclined to
look ahead than turn back.

Dave Staten

[John Larson]

Don't turn back at these low altitudes.

One has a much better chance of surviving an off airport landing straight
ahead than the alternative, stalling in the turn and performing the 1/2 or
1/4 turn spin entry which in almost all cases results in the expiration of
the pilot as his/her head augers into the instrument panel, then the engine
compartment and finally into mother earth.

Oh yes, and anything in the back seat, i.e. the mother-in-law, gets slammed
into the back of the pilots head.

Land straight ahead, at the slowest flight possible, avoiding striking
obstacles head on, and using the wings to prove Newton's laws.


"T o d d P a t t i s t" > wrote in message
...
> It was seriously hazy this weekend, and with a long cross
> country coming up in our 1946 Aeronca Champ, I thought it
> was a good day to do some engine-out landing practice. I
> was flying with full fuel, but solo. Wind was light, 3
> knots or less. Field elevation was below 1000' MSL, temp
> about 77 deg F/ near 100. For those not familiar with the
> Champ, it's a 65 hp taildragger with a max gross of 1220
> pounds. I was flying it 150 pounds under that.
>
> After some ordinary engine-out landings from downwind and
> base I began to practice engine-out turn-back from the
> initial climb out on takeoff. I thought others here might
> be interested in my results.
>
> I had no trouble turning back 180 degrees from 200', just
> as I do in my glider. A rapid push to get the nose down and
> maintain speed, and a rapid roll to about 40 degrees of
> bank. Lots of back stick pressure. I never had to let the
> airspeed drop below 60 mph. By the time it was turned back,
> I still had 50-75' left to make a shallow alignment turn.
>
> There was certainly no time to waste, but with practice it
> was a comfortable maneuver. Of eight attempts, I would
> have been in the trees once and the bushes once. The trees
> are in a line at one end of the runway, with a cut through
> them in line with the runway. My first attempt I didn't go
> far enough to the side during the climb out, so when I
> turned, I couldn't get back through the cut.
>
> All the other attempts in that direction I let myself slide
> off to the side so I could turn back through the cut. One
> time I came through the cut and had to land diagonally on
> the grass adjacent the departure runway. If I wanted to
> land on the same runway, with no crosswind, I needed to get
> really far to the side during the climb out.
>
> The time I would have ended in the bushes at the opposite
> end occurred because I did a touch and go from the previous
> attempt. That put me farther down the runway than usual, so
> on the 180 reverse, although I was turned back, wings level
> and aligned, I couldn't glide far enough to get back to the
> runway over the bushes in the overrun.
>
> This is not a recommendation to anyone else as to the
> altitude to turn back at. This was one specific light
> airplane, flown solo, using a modified departure to put me
> in the best position to turn back, by a pilot who knew
> exactly when the engine would "fail" and who was current in
> engine out and had lots of 200' turn back practice in
> gliders.
>
> I have seen lots of other reports of heavier aircraft
> practicing turn backs and estimating more than 600 - 800'
> needed for success.
>
> I watched a friend lose an engine in a very similar aircraft
> at a similar height. He turned back, following a very
> similar flight path to the ones described above, and hit a
> dead tree.
>
>
>
> Do not spin this aircraft. If the aircraft does enter a spin it will
> return to earth without further attention on the part of the aeronaut.
>
> (first handbook issued with the Curtis-Wright flyer)

[Dylan Smith]

On 2005-06-13, > wrote:
> In many flight test protocols, the procedure is for the pilot to wait a
> full three seconds after an engine failure to take any action. The
> idea is to simulate the normal reaction time for someone who is not
> expecting an engine failure and goes through the mental exercise to
> accept that it's happening and finally take action.

3 seconds is I don't think normal - I think it's worst case. The times
I've had engine (or other power failures in glider launches) I have
reacted in *far* less than 3 seconds - I'd estimate well under a second
(and these were for-real power failures: one time caused by a valve
sticking, but I was at 20 feet so the only action was to lower the nose,
pull the throttle and land on the runway, another was my own stupidity -
trying to take off on a nearly empty fuel tank - you've never seen
someone change tanks as quickly as then, and another, on a winch launch
in a glider where the cable let go. Since on a winch launch, you are
about 45 degrees nose up very low to the ground, waiting 3 seconds to
react would be fatal. Of course when the cable lets go it does with a
loud bang so it's pretty obvious what you need to do).

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

[Dylan Smith]

On 2005-06-15, Dave S > wrote:
> The second, final time, he was a bit lower, and in trying to turn
> back, ended up making a VERY steep banked turn, and hit the lone stand
> of trees off the end of the runway.

It's not only altitude - it's terrain. For example, departing 08 at
Ronaldsway, I'd want a bit more altitude for thinking about turning
around - because if you come in too low, you hit a cliff (the departure
end goes off a small cliff into the sea). Most times, I'd rather ditch
and have to swim back to shore (an eminently survivable option) than
risk hitting a cliff head on (which is eminently unsurvivable).

Runway 26 is also obstructed on its departure end (lights, a low wall,
and a main road) - so I wouldn't make a minimum altitude turn back there
either.

However, at Andreas, the surrounding terrain is just fields and low
hedges. Off 11, the 'hedge' is just a border of weeds between the wheat
field off the departure end and the runway itself, so I'd be inclined to
turn around at a lower altitude there (and since it's the airfield I
most often fly from, I'm a lot more familiar with it anyway).

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

[Dylan Smith]

On 2005-06-13, Brian > wrote:
> for variables such as wind, runways and location from the runway. My
> typical issue with the 200ft turn around is that I am usually lined up
> with the runway going downwind with a 100 ft to spare and down wind It
> can sometimes take a little effort to not go off the far end of the
> runway.

In my first 200' turn back in a glider (it was a Schweizer 2-33 as well,
not noted for its performance), I managed to actually make a very tight
pattern and land into wind. It was a relatively windy day though, so I
did zip downwind at high speed (and judged it safer from my sink rate to
make a tight pattern instead of landing downwind).

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"