Best bank angle for a engine failure turnback

[Big Pistons Forever]

Aux

On a calm day it is just as easy to fly at 2000 ft + - 20 ft as it is 2057 or some other random altitude. The point is do you have the ability to do so ?


My personal experience is that a discouraging large percentage of GA pilots don’t. I strongly believe that mastery of the foundation flying skills is both a worthy aspiration, especially for new pilots, but also the key to safe flying.

Getting training on turn backs won’t make you a safer pilot if there is deficiencies in foundation flying skills, so my point is work on those before you try the hero pilot moves.

[AuxBatOn]

So, you want people to MASTER the basic skills, rather than learn some new ones that could keep them safe? There is a balance to be had: Are they good enough to be consistently safe an effective? If so, time to teach some new things. These new things they are taught may actually help master the basic skills they do not yet master.

People learn by being challenged. Not by trying to achieve perfection on a single thing.

[confusedalot]

Have not been in a single since 1981, however, very interested in a typical airspeed, bank attitude, and most importantly, altitude, where a turnback would be feasible.

I figure, what, 1000 feet, best glide speed, and 15 degrees bank? Otherwise, find the best road or field within 180 degrees line of sight? It's been a long time......

[photofly]

CWE

When the “low time pilots” can set the attitude to maintain the desired climb speed without the nose bobbing up and down, can maintain altitude on a calm day + or - 20 ft, never have the ball more than 1/2 out of the cage, fly final consistently within 2 kts, on a smooth flight path to a touchdown on the centerline at the predetermined touchdown point all the time, then yah go for the turn back training.

But if they can’t do the above they will be a safer pilot by working on the unsexy, mundane foundation flying skills. That is message I am trying to push because I see a lot of weak basic skills out there that need to be fixed before we start talking about “flying to the limits” .

I guess I don’t see these as exclusive skills, that cannot be worked on at the same time.

However - this thread is not in “flight training”, and is not about primary flight training. It’s in “accidents and overdue aircraft”, and the aircraft mentioned in the first post is a PC12 which isn’t used for primary flight training.

It’s sometime appropriate on AvCanada to talk about manoeuvres away from the context of PPL training.

[trey kule]

I think BPP kind of hit the nail on the head.

In terms of accidents, how many,statistically, happen in that 30 or 40 secs of the initial climb window?
And how many of these engine failures could be avoided by emphasizing the basics he mentioned, rather than adding more exercises to the syllabus to compensate.
How many instructors ask their students about engine failure on departure or after the takeoff briefing from a new airport, and just get a preprogrammed canned answer, without the student actually assessing the departure flight path. That kind of decision traing takes no extra training time once it becomes a habit.

The fact is, the ppl seems to already take almost double the minimum required time. And we simply cant train for every remote eventiality, or we will be training forever.

We sometimes get caught up in statistically insignificant events and forget the practical side.

It is an interesting discussion.

[Big Pistons Forever]

Aux

My personal expectation is for a student to seek to master foundation flying skills. That doesn’t mean that they have to achieve perfection all the time but it should mean that they strive for it and when the aircraft is not at the desired state they work to correct it.

A pilot in calm air can’t maintain a steady altitude, something I have seen lots of over the years. Personally I think it would be better to understand and correct the skill deficiencies that are causing that failure to get the aircraft to maintain a desired state before introducing max performance maneuvering exercises

If the pilot is at the skills level where he/she would benefit from that training then I think there are better maneuvers to practice then turn backs.

[photofly]

How many instructors ask their students about engine failure on departure or after the takeoff briefing from a new airport, and just get a preprogrammed canned answer, without the student actually assessing the departure flight path.

Isn’t BPP’s “no turns below 1000agl and take your lumps” exactly the kind of pre-programmed canned answer the thinking pilot should be avoiding?

[AuxBatOn]

BPF,

Not sure a 45 deg AOB, at least 10 kts above the loaded stall speed is exactly "Flying to the limits".

Showing your students this is feasible and controllable, then have them execute the maneuver is probably a good exercise : controlling at least 2 parameters at once (bank and airspeed). It also has the benefit of teaching them another method of getting back to safety should something happen.

If I had to do this in the Cessna 150 with the numbers I provided, I would conduct the turnback at 70 KCAS and 45 deg AOB. This way, I have slush on the speed and load factor side (at least 10 kts and at least 15 deg AOB/0.6g) before stall, and it is only about 50 feet more altitude. Furthermore, I would have the option to tighten the turn should I need it (but this would merit the definition of "flying to the limits").

If everything is coordinated, and the plane happens to stall, the recovery is just a relaxing of the back pressure on the control column (and without the prop slipstream, you would experience buffet before you lose aileron effectiveness and full stall).

[sportingrifle]

With the exception of perhaps something like a PC-12 under ideal circumstances, I would use about 135 degrees of bank - that's the attitude I would be impacting the ground at anyway.....

[AirFrame]

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...

[trey kule]

Isn’t BPP’s “no turns below 1000agl and take your lumps” exactly the kind of pre-programmed canned answer the thinking pilot should be avoiding?

I do not know if BOP posted this (did not have a moment to check), but if he did, yes.
At the same time, I think we have to look at some performance factors such as the typical loss we can expect in a 180+ turn...it actually takes more than 180 turn, and even a second turn to line up back on the runway,,,
Also things like reaction time, aircraft departing immediately after us....
Even Auxbat can not do a turnback then a realignment with the runway from an engine loss( on a single engine), from a normal climb profile without losing altitude.
There is a minimum altitude to attempt a turnback with a decent chance of a good outcome. (Again...based on a normal takeoff and climb speed)

Airframe....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?

[Big Pistons Forever]

Aux

The skills to safely and effectively make a gliding 45 deg turn are only a part of what has to happen in order to make a turn back work. There is overcoming the shock of the failure, making the rapid pitch down to regain lost airspeed, avoiding the temptation to tighten the turn when you have a windshield full of ground and then deciding if you have enough room to turn through 180 deg in order to line up with the runway. A lot is happening in at a very stressful and time compressed period.

My personal theory is most fatal turn backs go wrong right at the beginning. The engine fails, the pilot whips a load of bank on before the nose is lowered, the speed goes away very fast and then it’s stall/spin/die. In all of those instances if the pilot had simply lowered the nose and glided straight ahead the outcome would almost certainly been better

As for your comment about no turn backs below 1000 ft as a one size fits all over simplified way to deal with EFATO, well I can understand a concern that it unduly limits options. However I believe the fact that it simplifies decision making during a high stress event overcomes the disadvantages.

As an aside I also fly gliders. The pretty much universal SOP in gliding is if the tow rope breaks or you have to release below 250 ft AGL you land ahead, above 250 you turn back. After the turn you can decide to land down wind or fly a circuit depending on where you are situated.

Since the average glider had 4 times better glide performance than a typical GA aircraft, the time from when the glider initiates the turn back from 250 ft until touchdown will be about the same as a GA turn back from 1000 ft. Things happen slowly enough and with enough time that any reasonably competent pilot can make it work every time.

I want to emphasize that I am not advocating that advanced training should be avoided, I am only asking that the significant risks of the turn back maneuver as exemplified by the accident record should be acknowledged and that training should first aim to ensure adequate skills for all of the skills a pilot is likely to use on things that he wil face on an average flight before dealing with the improbable events.

Finally I have found that the biggest skill developer for the average pilot was when I taught them the basic aerobatics syllabus

[Beefitarian]

Need some Colonel Sanders insight on this one. Where be he?

California riding litre bikes.

Now keep in mind this is only a guess but.. I'm pretty sure he would suggest you don't use too much rudder, skid, stall a wing, spin and crash like your friend Arlo or some four bar.

I'll point this out to him and relay any messages unless I get banned.

Also he wishes everyone a Merry Christmas.

[hangar3]

https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all ... engine-out

[Schooner69A]

After reading the link posted by hangar3, a minimum of 750-1000 feet AAE starts to look pretty good.

[Beefitarian]

I'm guessing it depends on the four bar flying but I probably need more than circuit height to do an impossible turn today.

[Big Pistons Forever]

I liked the article posted by hangar 3. It gives IMO a pretty balanced and unemotional acount of the factors that effects a turn back.

It would seem to me that the minimum altitude where a pilot has determined he/she can safely turn back depends on the safety factor they want to give themselves. 500 ft means no margin for error, 750 means a 50% margin and 1000 ft means 100 % margin.

Choose wisely

I think another take away is that if you turn back 45 degrees of bank and best glide + 5 kts is probably a good target for the average light aircraft.

In any case the bottom line is simple: have a plan before the throttle goes in.

[Beefitarian]

In any case the bottom line is simple: have a plan before the throttle goes in.

Truth.

Having said that flying is a dynamic thing and if I was better at it, my options for safe actions will be increased.
Edit: I see you mentioned that on the last page. Carry on then.

When the “low time pilots” can set the attitude to maintain the desired climb speed without the nose bobbing up and down, can maintain altitude on a calm day + or - 20 ft, never have the ball more than 1/2 out of the cage, fly final consistently within 2 kts, on a smooth flight path to a touchdown on the centerline at the predetermined touchdown point all the time, then yah go for the turn back training.

But if they can’t do the above they will be a safer pilot by working on the unsexy, mundane foundation flying skills. That is message I am trying to push because I see a lot of weak basic skills out there that need to be fixed before we start talking about “flying to the limits” .

I'm guessing the best initial plan is that, "Fly straight ahead and try to crash softly." one. Followed by, "I can easily land there since it's close, obstacle free and I see it slightly to the side of straight ahead."

If I'm somehow high enough I guess we can start to consider planning to turn back.

Get that nose down while considering these plans folks airspeed drops pretty quick in a climb!

[AuxBatOn]

I did a bit of a case study today with the data from yesterday... Assuming instanteneous transitions (which is conservative when decelerating), a 2 second of reaction time, during which you descent at the turnback descent rate straight ahead, no wind and a 3,000 ft runway, engine fails at 500 ft AGL. Here are the results:

You'll cross the runway at 30 feet and make it. Any headwind during takeoff will help. Any longer runway will help. This is at a convervative angle of bank and airspeed.

[RatherBeFlying]

Just a reminder that drag polars change with bank angle and g loading. That makes me sceptical of any mathematical treatments that don't take that in account.

Nor should we ignore wind shear. There can be plenty in the 500' above ground.

Assuming you have 15 kt runway headwind in an aircraft touching down at 60 kt airspeed. Straight ahead groundspeed is 45 while downwind it's 75.

Kinetic energy at touchdown is 45*45 vs 60*60 = 2025 vs 3600 - 78% more.

Flying winch in gliders we get rope breaks, often from a 45° pitch attitude. The training is immediately lower the nose and wait for approach airspeed before beginning a turn.

The nice thing about winching is that 500' is ample for a mini circuit.