trey kule wrote: ↑Thu Dec 21, 2017 9:56 amAirframe....Really? Unless ATC wants you to maintain runway heading, I am not sure drifting off the runway centerline is a great idea. Do lots of pilots do this?
Ask yourself what the downside is. Look at the graphs done by AuxBatOn. If you were 600-800' off the runway centerline, a 180 degree turn would put you almost in line with the runway on most of those scenarios. With a crosswind pushing you, you could do it with less offset. Your turn to intercept the runway would be a minor realignment, rather than a sharper turn even closer to the ground.
I don't know how many pilots do this. I've thought about it, and haven't come up with any downsides short of the tower complaining if I get too far off center. If my engine keeps running, I don't care if i'm a little off centerline. If it quits, at least i'd have a slight head start on the turnback if I wanted it?
There are three factors to consider that give people practicing this maneuver an unrealistic sense of confidence in their ability to successfully perform it for real.
The first is the startle factor that will leave a person in a "deer in the headlights" state of denial for a second or two while the minimal airspeed they have rapidly bleeds off. Starting the maneuver from the backside of the lift/drag curve pretty much guarantees that it isn't going to work out.
The second thing is that the maneuver is very very dependent on wind , density altitude, and runway length. In a good headwind off a long runway with some altitude is very different from a calm, hot, high day off a short runway.
And lastly, the drag of an the propeller from an idling engine is much much less from one attached to an engine that is actually stopped. I've been to this rodeo, below some reasonable altitude pick somewhere within a cone of about 30-45 degrees either side of straight ahead, and don't stop flying the airplane until the wreckage stops skidding.
This seems to be a fairly polarising topic. This is how I see it.
1. Turnbacks to the runway following engine failure are definitely possible.
2. Many people have attempted to turn back historically.
3. Many have died. Not all, but many. All experience and ability levels have succumbed, and succumbed often.
4. Occasionally people have attempted to land somewhere straight ahead.
5. Almost none of these people died. I'm not even aware of one, but I'm sure there must be.
6. Survival landing straight ahead seems independent of ability.
7. Aircraft have insurance, or should have.
So, in the end, you're welcome to try it. You can calculate it, practise it, teach it, and preach it.
If these newly trained pilots get good at it, they will almost certainly improve their chances of survival in a turnback (on the very slim chance they ever have to do it). If the whole flight training industry focuses on this training they could probably cut the fatality rate of turnbacks in half, or heck, even by 90%.
OR
Pilots could learn to land straight ahead, with almost no training.
Which do you think would have a higher survival rate?
don't know how many pilots do this. I've thought about it, and haven't come up with any downsides short of the tower complaining if I get too far off center. If my engine keeps running, I don't care if i'm a little off centerline. If it quits, at least i'd have a slight head start on the turnback if I wanted it?
Just the tower complaining? Not the pilot that is joining and keeping their downwind close in because of the same crosswind? Just what we need....pilots taking a mosey and developing their own circuit departure procedure.
Which do you think would have a higher survival rate?
It does not matter what you and I “think”: it is about statistics. We are not on a media poll here.
---------- ADS -----------
Accident speculation:
Those that post don’t know. Those that know don’t post
But in a PC-12, in the climb gear up flaps up, if you feather, flaps 15 and roll into a 45ish degree turn right away, centering the AOA, you can make it back as low as a hair over 500AGL.
sportingrifle wrote: ↑Thu Dec 21, 2017 11:51 pmThere are three factors to consider that give people practicing this maneuver an unrealistic sense of confidence in their ability to successfully perform it for real.
The first is the startle factor that will leave a person in a "deer in the headlights" state of denial for a second or two while the minimal airspeed they have rapidly bleeds off. Starting the maneuver from the backside of the lift/drag curve pretty much guarantees that it isn't going to work out.
Not true. Starting the maneuver improperly, whether landing straight ahead or turning without lowering the nose will create the problem of stalling.
Cliff Jumper wrote: ↑Fri Dec 22, 2017 8:11 am
This is how I see it.
1. Turnbacks to the runway following engine failure are definitely possible.
2. Many people have attempted to turn back historically.
3. Many have died. Not all, but many. All experience and ability levels have succumbed, and succumbed often.
4. Occasionally people have attempted to land somewhere straight ahead.
5. Almost none of these people died. I'm not even aware of one, but I'm sure there must be.
6. Survival landing straight ahead seems independent of ability.
7. Aircraft have insurance, or should have.
Pilots could learn to land straight ahead, with almost no training.
Which do you think would have a higher survival rate?
Once again, posts need to be read before commenting. As I said earlier(although not in the original post), one should not necessarily be targeting the runway for a turn. One should be targeting a better landing area when the landing area straight ahead is a very poor option.
There has been more than one poster using the term "straight ahead" as the preferred option over anything else regardless of what is in front of you. This is a dangerous idea to be putting into the head of others when it is obvious that when there are 360 options(based on number of degrees in a circle) that the one ahead of you is the safest one. The odds are that you will have a significantly better option at a different angle from straight ahead. Each one hundred feet of extra altitude in the lower levels allows you a greater ability to safely turn a greater amount which varies by aircraft and other factors as well.
There is certainly nothing wrong with eliminating the option of a significant turn during the initial very low altitudes but the mindless straight-ahead only option can be very foolish.
---------- ADS -----------
Last edited by pelmet on Fri Dec 22, 2017 10:39 am, edited 2 times in total.
don't know how many pilots do this. I've thought about it, and haven't come up with any downsides short of the tower complaining if I get too far off center. If my engine keeps running, I don't care if i'm a little off centerline. If it quits, at least i'd have a slight head start on the turnback if I wanted it?
Just the tower complaining? Not the pilot that is joining and keeping their downwind close in because of the same crosswind? Just what we need....pilots taking a mosey and developing their own circuit departure procedure.
Yes, let's equate "4-600 feet off centerline" with "all the way into the downwind." Even if i'm on the runway heading I don't want someone coming in on downwind within 4-600' of the centerline. Nor should any competent pilot need to because of a crosswind...
AirFrame wrote: ↑Thu Dec 21, 2017 7:58 am
Someone mentioned turning into the wind on the turn back as well. A good habit to get into if you want to maximize your return on this manoeuver, is to
let the plane drift off the centerline on climb-out, ie. let the crosswind push you down-wind. This has two benefits: One, you'll have less turning to do to get back in-line with the runway, and two, you have a good reference to remind you which way to turn and save you trying to remember which way the wind is blowing, and should I go left, or right, or...
Just don't drift a mile off the centerline... far enough to be useful, not far enough to incur the wrath of the tower...
Many operations are not at a controlled airport anyways. As someone mentioned, depending on the traffic pattern direction, it could reduce spacing with circuit traffic but it is an interesting concept.
Yes, let's equate "4-600 feet off centerline" with "all the way into the downwind." Even if i'm on the runway heading I don't want someone coming in on downwind within 4-600' of the centerline. Nor should any competent pilot need to because of a crosswind...
Of course you don,t. Just as someone joining the downwind does not want a departing pilot drifting off the departure path....
The pilot entering downwind can, in fact, adjust their distance from the runway centerline so as to turn into the wind on the base. Actually, it is the competent pilot that can think ahead of the plane to assess the effect of the crosswind on their base turn,
But it only takes two idiots, one who tucks in a bit to close on the downwind entry, and one who has drifted off the departure path .....
---------- ADS -----------
Accident speculation:
Those that post don’t know. Those that know don’t post
I think this discussion and the information contained in the pages is incredible valuable to think about. As I have been reading through something struck me, wouldn't we be safer to always fly part of a circuit. Hear me out.
If on departure you turned crosswind at 500 agl, ( engine failure prior to this turn you are committed to 30 degrees either side), after your crosswind turn as you are climbing up to circuit altitude to join downwind and lets call this time the grey area, between 500' and 1000' agl, this is where your reaction to an engine failure will depend on your experience level and the type of aircraft, but, the runway environment is now 90 degrees off wing and a much more likely successful outcome.
Once you are established on the downwind you are in a good position and altitude if something should happen or you can depart at the end of the downwind leg and head off.
This sounds a lot safer then drifting off of centre line and keeps you well positioned if something should happen. I think it also helps to eliminate decision time should something happen, which in a low altitude engine failure is critical.
Let’s put a firm collective boot through the concept that if you’re flying circuits you have to - or even should - climb to 500’ agl or any other fixed and immutable height before turning crosswind.
---------- ADS -----------
DId you hear the one about the jurisprudence fetishist? He got off on a technicality.
Looks like this guy saved the day with a turnback from 500 feet. A good diagram in the report shows it very clearly. As I said earlier, you don't necessarily have to land on the runway. This guy went onto the taxiway.
There’s a curious comment at the bottom of page 2 that’s says piston powered aircraft don’t have the same ability to turn back as this (turbine powered) one. Does anyone know what that’s about?
photofly wrote: ↑Fri Jan 05, 2018 8:53 pm
There’s a curious comment at the bottom of page 2 that’s says piston powered aircraft don’t have the same ability to turn back as this (turbine powered) one. Does anyone know what that’s about?
My guess would be the increased glide distance with a stopped, fully-feathered prop... And the rapidity with which you could get the prop fully feathered. You can stretch the glide in a piston airplane if you can stop the prop, but that is harder to do and wastes time when you've already got limited altitude to work with.
photofly wrote: ↑Tue Dec 26, 2017 8:40 am
Let’s put a firm collective boot through the concept that if you’re flying circuits you have to - or even should - climb to 500’ agl or any other fixed and immutable height before turning crosswind.
