Well its been a while since we got a really good discussion going in this forum, so I'll try to jump start one.
Note this is more for single engine aircraft.
You're in a single engine aircraft. You're taking off an ordinary runway, no large obstacle to climb over. You do a normal take-off, and climb out from the runway. So here's the question, do you climb out using Best Rate or Best Angle of climb speed?
I know that generally, it is taught that unless you're climbing over an obstacle, to use best rate. More altitude in a shorter amount of time means you're at altitude, right?
Well this discussion has popped up a few times lately, and has spurred some interesting discussion.
Best rate will get you more altitude in the least amount of time, meaning if you have an engine failure after so many seconds after take-off, you have more altitude to work with, however since you're travelling at a fast speed, you'll likely be out of range of the airport, so you'll be looking to land somewhere off airport. An advantage might be the fact that Vy is generally quite a bit faster than the glide speed, so in bleeding airspeed to the glide speed, you may gain some altitude or at least reamin level for a little bit of time.
Best angle, will be slower, but you'll climb much more steeply over the ground. So you have an engine failure after the same number of seconds, You may not have as much altitude than if you used Vy, but you're much closer to the airport, and perhaps in range of landing back on the field, either on the departure runway, or another runway.
What do you think?
Vy vs. Vx on climb out
Moderators: North Shore, sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, Right Seat Captain, lilfssister
-
Right Seat Captain
- Rank Moderator
- Posts: 1237
- Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 7:51 pm
- Location: Various/based CYOW
-
Switchfoot
- Rank 4
- Posts: 290
- Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 1:46 pm
- Location: Twenty-four oceans, twenty-four skies.
I think use of those speeds is dependent on location and other factors. Generally, and the method I would teach, is to use Vy as per the P.O.H. unless obstacles or other factors dicatate the use of Vx.
The question could also include: For which reason do I need to use the best angle of climb speed? Am I climbing over an obstacle, will this figure give me the required performance. etc.
Remember that Vy may provide better forward visibility and better engine cooling. In busy airspace, or a warm day, I would prefer Vy over Vx, but if I'm in the mountains and I need to gain altitude quicker, then Vx may be a better option (depending on density altitude and performance).
You are discussing the subject of Vy vs. Vx for an engine out situation. Again, I'd say that it depends on location and use of the published numbers.
Switch.
The question could also include: For which reason do I need to use the best angle of climb speed? Am I climbing over an obstacle, will this figure give me the required performance. etc.
Remember that Vy may provide better forward visibility and better engine cooling. In busy airspace, or a warm day, I would prefer Vy over Vx, but if I'm in the mountains and I need to gain altitude quicker, then Vx may be a better option (depending on density altitude and performance).
You are discussing the subject of Vy vs. Vx for an engine out situation. Again, I'd say that it depends on location and use of the published numbers.
Switch.
Well since you have given no reason that either climb would be required, ie. no obstacle, or climb preformance required, I'd use neither.
Here's why: Visibility. Pure and simple vis. I'd use a "cruise climb" that would enable me to maintain a lookout in front? The best rate of climb would gain more altitude in the event of an engine failure.....but you didn't stipulate a climb to what altitude...so a cruise climb would get my vote.
Here's why: Visibility. Pure and simple vis. I'd use a "cruise climb" that would enable me to maintain a lookout in front? The best rate of climb would gain more altitude in the event of an engine failure.....but you didn't stipulate a climb to what altitude...so a cruise climb would get my vote.
-
Axial Flow
- Rank 7
- Posts: 507
- Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2004 6:00 pm
I used to usually just let her come off on her own and get a positive rate going and allow it to accelerate to about 15 kts over VY (120 in C208). I felt that the attitude required gave good visibilty for one, with having less of an angle of attack if the engine quit I have a bit more time to react because I still have some airspeed to bleed off to get best glide and also it just felt like it was actually flying better at the higher speed. In the sim when we got to the engine failures on departure I would climb it at best angle on an 11000 foot rwy but if you didn't react immediately by pushing the nose forward you wouldn't have to worry about making the field just how hard you were gonna smack the ground. In training on the real aircraft it always worked best having the faster climb speed because it gave you that extra speed to turn if it was even an option. Climbing at VX puts you too close to stall if a turn is even in the cards. To make a long story short the cruise climb is better I think.
-
Cat Driver
- Top Poster
- Posts: 18921
- Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 8:31 pm
This is a fairly good topic to discuss, however there are so many valiables to consider there really is no cut and dried "Right " answer.
Seldom would I use best angle of climb for more than a few seconds duration because airspeed wins out over altitude in this segment flight when you are so close to the ground.
The first question that comes to mind for me is why would I need best angle of climb speed? If it is because of an obstruction just past the runway I would have to ask myself why I would want to depart with such a close obstical that I do not think I can clear it at best rate or higher airspeed?
Remember speed is inertia, if you have a total loss of power near the ground inertia is critical to allow you to control the airplane and if necessary crash it under control.
Also there is the issue of engine life, the two most detrimental things to engine life is heat and the pilots handling of the power plant / 's .
Seldom would I use best angle of climb for more than a few seconds duration because airspeed wins out over altitude in this segment flight when you are so close to the ground.
The first question that comes to mind for me is why would I need best angle of climb speed? If it is because of an obstruction just past the runway I would have to ask myself why I would want to depart with such a close obstical that I do not think I can clear it at best rate or higher airspeed?
Remember speed is inertia, if you have a total loss of power near the ground inertia is critical to allow you to control the airplane and if necessary crash it under control.
Also there is the issue of engine life, the two most detrimental things to engine life is heat and the pilots handling of the power plant / 's .
The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no
After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
Ok, Ill shoot. VY until 500 was what I tought. Then depending on the situation a cruise climb or if staying in the circuit, continued climb at Vy. The other thing to remember if thinking engine out is altitude required for a 180. Most light singles need at least 500 ft to execute a 180 degree turn, so below this altitude (or if you like to experiment, what ever altitude it takes to do a 180) I would teach my students to land straight ahead as much as possible. As well, if you climb at Vx on a windy day in a 152 you can be at an altitude right above the airport that will allow you turn back, but be right over the runway to the point that with the tailwind you may be blown past your runway and need to execute another 180 to get back to the runway. Seems that different situations, require different speeds and a little more thought than pushing the throttle home and hoping for the best.
If that makes sense.
Cheers
Apache
If that makes sense.
Cheers
Apache
-
Right Seat Captain
- Rank Moderator
- Posts: 1237
- Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 7:51 pm
- Location: Various/based CYOW
Okay, so now that the ball is rolling, let me explain why I think this is a good topic...
If you look at multi-engine training, there is so much attention and training paid to the climb out and speeds to be used. At first this seems obvious, since it can be critical to aircraft control in the event of an engine failure. But in single engine training, the engine failure on take-off is generally passed over fairly quick, since options are so limited, and not much is discussed regarding speed, and why you might choose a certain speed. I think that many people teach, and are taught to use Vy, but don't know why.
This all came about one day, when an examiner asked a student this on his PPL flight test. The examiner wasn't looking for a right or wrong answer, simply whether the student knew the difference between Vx and Vy, and when he would use it. As some have said, there are so many variables involed, it's a hard question to answer, and there usually is no right or wrong answer.
I read in an article that was found after this discussion, that a good choice would be Vx to 1000', then to Vy or cruise. This way if during those critical stages close to the ground you have an engine failure, you're closer to the runway, rather than using Vy which puts you further.
Someone did mention how they would need 500' to do a 180 back to the runway, but there's two problems with this. In low wind conditions, you probably won't make it back to the runway, you're too far. It's also more than a 180 degree turn to get back to the runway, since after 180 degrees, you're not in line with the runway anymore. It would actually be closer to 270 degrees. That's a lot of altitude loss close to the ground. You'd face the same problem climbing out at Vx.
What I personally believe, is that if an engine will fail, it will fail after a fixed amount of time. Whether you use Vx, Vy or cruise, if it will fail 10 seconds after take-off, it will under any circumstance since the engine is at full power anyways. In fact it's running hotter at the steeper climb. But because of this, I would prefer to use Vy to at least 1000', since after that x amount of time, I would have the most altitude. I wouldn't think that being at the end of a short runway with 500' you can land back on that runway, if you turned around, you'd probably overshoot.
Anyways, this is all good discussion!
If you look at multi-engine training, there is so much attention and training paid to the climb out and speeds to be used. At first this seems obvious, since it can be critical to aircraft control in the event of an engine failure. But in single engine training, the engine failure on take-off is generally passed over fairly quick, since options are so limited, and not much is discussed regarding speed, and why you might choose a certain speed. I think that many people teach, and are taught to use Vy, but don't know why.
This all came about one day, when an examiner asked a student this on his PPL flight test. The examiner wasn't looking for a right or wrong answer, simply whether the student knew the difference between Vx and Vy, and when he would use it. As some have said, there are so many variables involed, it's a hard question to answer, and there usually is no right or wrong answer.
I read in an article that was found after this discussion, that a good choice would be Vx to 1000', then to Vy or cruise. This way if during those critical stages close to the ground you have an engine failure, you're closer to the runway, rather than using Vy which puts you further.
Someone did mention how they would need 500' to do a 180 back to the runway, but there's two problems with this. In low wind conditions, you probably won't make it back to the runway, you're too far. It's also more than a 180 degree turn to get back to the runway, since after 180 degrees, you're not in line with the runway anymore. It would actually be closer to 270 degrees. That's a lot of altitude loss close to the ground. You'd face the same problem climbing out at Vx.
What I personally believe, is that if an engine will fail, it will fail after a fixed amount of time. Whether you use Vx, Vy or cruise, if it will fail 10 seconds after take-off, it will under any circumstance since the engine is at full power anyways. In fact it's running hotter at the steeper climb. But because of this, I would prefer to use Vy to at least 1000', since after that x amount of time, I would have the most altitude. I wouldn't think that being at the end of a short runway with 500' you can land back on that runway, if you turned around, you'd probably overshoot.
Anyways, this is all good discussion!
-
mellow_pilot
- Rank 10
- Posts: 2119
- Joined: Wed Aug 17, 2005 1:04 am
- Location: Pilot Purgatory
No one has mentioned it yet, so what about pilot experience?
Will a brand new solo student be able to recognise an engine failure (or more importantly, partial power loss) and stuff the nose quick enough to avoid stalling? Vy would give a bigger buffer, cruise clime even more. Also as was previously alluded to, the 180 won't line you up, so did you plan other options? With extra speed, and as Cat said inertia, a 180 (270) could possible be made more aggressivly and still roll out at best glide.
This last idea may seem strange or even dangerous, but again, pilot experience is an important factor. I did a rope break simulation in a glider a few years back with an 'old fart'. From 180 feet he used the speed from the two plane to make a 45+ degree bank turn and line up with the runway again. We rolled out at a normal approach speed and put it down right back where we started.
The most important thing, I think, is take-off briefing. It has been my experience that most flight schools skip it. If you brief the emergency right before it happens it's probably more likely that actually do it right.
Besides, the slower the rate of climb the faster the speed, and the faster the speed, the more impressed the chick watching. Right? Which leads me to the next point, the incredibly impressive 172 fly-by...
Will a brand new solo student be able to recognise an engine failure (or more importantly, partial power loss) and stuff the nose quick enough to avoid stalling? Vy would give a bigger buffer, cruise clime even more. Also as was previously alluded to, the 180 won't line you up, so did you plan other options? With extra speed, and as Cat said inertia, a 180 (270) could possible be made more aggressivly and still roll out at best glide.
This last idea may seem strange or even dangerous, but again, pilot experience is an important factor. I did a rope break simulation in a glider a few years back with an 'old fart'. From 180 feet he used the speed from the two plane to make a 45+ degree bank turn and line up with the runway again. We rolled out at a normal approach speed and put it down right back where we started.
The most important thing, I think, is take-off briefing. It has been my experience that most flight schools skip it. If you brief the emergency right before it happens it's probably more likely that actually do it right.
Besides, the slower the rate of climb the faster the speed, and the faster the speed, the more impressed the chick watching. Right? Which leads me to the next point, the incredibly impressive 172 fly-by...
Dyslexics of the world... UNTIE!
-
Blue Side Down
- Rank 7
- Posts: 581
- Joined: Tue May 04, 2004 11:27 am
Best angle is the option to use when the alternate option is colliding with whatever obstacle you're trying to clear.
Simply, if you have an engine failure below a given altitude, and you are climbing at best angle, you will become the cause of a crater. Your total energy will not be sufficient to flare before impacting the ground.
There was an article written on this... the point was to use best angle only when you absolutely need it... otherwise, it's a big gamble.
Simply, if you have an engine failure below a given altitude, and you are climbing at best angle, you will become the cause of a crater. Your total energy will not be sufficient to flare before impacting the ground.
There was an article written on this... the point was to use best angle only when you absolutely need it... otherwise, it's a big gamble.
-
fougapilot
- Rank 7
- Posts: 669
- Joined: Fri Oct 08, 2004 4:49 am
RSC,
very good discussion. So here comes my 2 cents.
Speed is life! Altitude is life insurance!
I will take speed over altitude any day of the week. I think it give me more options. If/when the engine quits, I can choose to use this speed to my advantage. If I need a little altitude, I convert my kinetic energy into altitude. If it is time I need, I have that option too.
I agree that flying Vx would allow me to be closer to the airport if the engines quits, but returning to the feild consumes the same amount of energy wether Altitude or speed. Here is a quick example: Back in the late 80 was a student at Moose Jaw. One night walking to the baracks I saw the Snowbirds take off in 3ship formation. These guys would take off and stay at 50ft off the deck for about 1/2 sm then clibm to 500ft for the enroute portion of their flight to their training area. The pilot on the right side of the last 3ship had an engine failure about 1/4sm past the end of the runway at 50ft off the deck! Having lots of life (speed) left he immediately boke formation initiated a severe climbing turn to the right, reversed the turn to the left (over 90 deg of bank) rooled out of the turn with the gear down and landed in the opposite direction. Now dont get me wrong, I agree; different airplanes and (well) above average pilot, but the fact remains, the aerodynamics are the same. The total amonut of energy he had was sufficient for him to retun to the field even if his altitude was almost non existant. Speed is life, altitude is life insurance.
Your milleage may vary...
D
very good discussion. So here comes my 2 cents.
Speed is life! Altitude is life insurance!
I will take speed over altitude any day of the week. I think it give me more options. If/when the engine quits, I can choose to use this speed to my advantage. If I need a little altitude, I convert my kinetic energy into altitude. If it is time I need, I have that option too.
I agree that flying Vx would allow me to be closer to the airport if the engines quits, but returning to the feild consumes the same amount of energy wether Altitude or speed. Here is a quick example: Back in the late 80 was a student at Moose Jaw. One night walking to the baracks I saw the Snowbirds take off in 3ship formation. These guys would take off and stay at 50ft off the deck for about 1/2 sm then clibm to 500ft for the enroute portion of their flight to their training area. The pilot on the right side of the last 3ship had an engine failure about 1/4sm past the end of the runway at 50ft off the deck! Having lots of life (speed) left he immediately boke formation initiated a severe climbing turn to the right, reversed the turn to the left (over 90 deg of bank) rooled out of the turn with the gear down and landed in the opposite direction. Now dont get me wrong, I agree; different airplanes and (well) above average pilot, but the fact remains, the aerodynamics are the same. The total amonut of energy he had was sufficient for him to retun to the field even if his altitude was almost non existant. Speed is life, altitude is life insurance.
Your milleage may vary...
D
Last edited by fougapilot on Fri Oct 07, 2005 5:34 am, edited 1 time in total.
I dont like the idea of a climb at best angle to 1000 feet. Reason: engine cooling. Now, it's been a while since I've been in the mighty 150 (a fine beast, to be sure) but piston engines like a breath of fresh air. A long slow climb robs them of this. It's not so much they like cool air, or warm air, as a stable temp. An engines hardest part of it's life is the take off. Lots of power, and no airflow. So, if there's nothing out there to hit, I tend to lower the nose for a stable air flow all the way up to my cruise alt.
-
wheeliedriver
- Rank 1
- Posts: 28
- Joined: Tue Sep 27, 2005 7:00 am
Vx or Vy?
This is a great discussion for instructors to have with students - makes them think a little more, and in the end it's going to be the pilot who has thought about this stuff, and who just thinks in general who's going to make the best decisions.
But I'd like to point out that once you're out of the training environment, flying a single engine piston - you're probably going to be flying right at gross weight, a lot. You may not have much choice but to cruise climb to altitude to keep the temps down - right after takeoff keep in mind that it's been 15-20 minutes since your last flight and the engine hasn't even cooled down yet. Best rate will be the only way you can get to 4-500 feet without overheating the engine if you're not already lowering the nose to speed up and cool off.
I was fortunate enough to have an instructor who actually showed me what it's like to takeoff fullly loaded, we did a reduced power takeoff in a 172 and used about 3-4000 feet of runway. I think that training should include aircraft loading - and flying a loaded aircraft with a forward, and aft CofG. You're going to have to do it sooner or later because in the real world airplanes fly full, and not just with an instructor sitting next to you.
But I'd like to point out that once you're out of the training environment, flying a single engine piston - you're probably going to be flying right at gross weight, a lot. You may not have much choice but to cruise climb to altitude to keep the temps down - right after takeoff keep in mind that it's been 15-20 minutes since your last flight and the engine hasn't even cooled down yet. Best rate will be the only way you can get to 4-500 feet without overheating the engine if you're not already lowering the nose to speed up and cool off.
I was fortunate enough to have an instructor who actually showed me what it's like to takeoff fullly loaded, we did a reduced power takeoff in a 172 and used about 3-4000 feet of runway. I think that training should include aircraft loading - and flying a loaded aircraft with a forward, and aft CofG. You're going to have to do it sooner or later because in the real world airplanes fly full, and not just with an instructor sitting next to you.
Which is a big part of the reason why we recommend our students bring friends with them on certain flights; so they get a chance to feel what the machine will actually be like, as well as to set the stage for acting with professionalism in front of buddies, avoiding the temptation to hot-dog.
Aviation- the hardest way possible to make an easy living!
"You can bomb the world to pieces, but you can't bomb it into peace!" Michael Franti- Spearhead
"Trust everyone, but cut the cards". My Grandma.
"You can bomb the world to pieces, but you can't bomb it into peace!" Michael Franti- Spearhead
"Trust everyone, but cut the cards". My Grandma.
We also encourage the students themselves to buddy up on certain flights. This provides the benefits that Airtids mentioned as well as it promotes some relationship building and it's good to observe another student fly. Many students aren't naturally gregarious.
This is good for future contacts in the job market. Rather than being competitors for the same job, a student's ex-classmates are often the best source of job tips and recommends.
Also, if the students are at similar stages in their training, they then have a friend who will be building time for CPL and they can team up for much longer cross country trips. Head outt East or down to the States - it's all good. They share the costs, share the flying and get much more experience than simply flying around and around to same local strips.
As for the climbout, we use 75 kias. Good for the engine and the basic attitude/power setup is easy to teach a new student - full power and nose on the horizon.
This is good for future contacts in the job market. Rather than being competitors for the same job, a student's ex-classmates are often the best source of job tips and recommends.
Also, if the students are at similar stages in their training, they then have a friend who will be building time for CPL and they can team up for much longer cross country trips. Head outt East or down to the States - it's all good. They share the costs, share the flying and get much more experience than simply flying around and around to same local strips.
As for the climbout, we use 75 kias. Good for the engine and the basic attitude/power setup is easy to teach a new student - full power and nose on the horizon.
-
. ._
- Top Poster
- Posts: 7374
- Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2004 5:50 pm
- Location: Cowering in my little room because the Water Cooler is locked.
- Contact:
I was told during a flight test de-briefing once that the difference in Vx and Vx+5 or 10 really isn't that much- as far as your angle of climb goes.
I don't know a whole lot about this flyin' business, but it seems to me that Vx should only be used in an emergency situation like- you have a dying passenger, and you had to do a forced approach because you forgot to switch tanks. Realizing this on the ground after a safe landing, you fire up the engine, and decide to use the limited space you have with obstacles all around you to take off. After doing some calculations, you figure out that Vy won't cut it, and Vx will.
That's about it for my two cents.
-istp
I don't know a whole lot about this flyin' business, but it seems to me that Vx should only be used in an emergency situation like- you have a dying passenger, and you had to do a forced approach because you forgot to switch tanks. Realizing this on the ground after a safe landing, you fire up the engine, and decide to use the limited space you have with obstacles all around you to take off. After doing some calculations, you figure out that Vy won't cut it, and Vx will.
That's about it for my two cents.
-istp
-
mellow_pilot
- Rank 10
- Posts: 2119
- Joined: Wed Aug 17, 2005 1:04 am
- Location: Pilot Purgatory
-
. ._
- Top Poster
- Posts: 7374
- Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2004 5:50 pm
- Location: Cowering in my little room because the Water Cooler is locked.
- Contact:
The time/distance calculation was done, and I can be a hero, and do it faster. Besides, I forgot the MAYDAY call, and I didn't want the SAR guys to see that I shit my pants.
-istp
Vx vs. Vy for helicopters would be interesting. Anyone? I'll bet Cat Driver could let us know.
-istp
Vx vs. Vy for helicopters would be interesting. Anyone? I'll bet Cat Driver could let us know.
In regards to an engine failure after take-off I'm not even a fan of turning back if you are at 500 ft. (In a small light aircraft) Regardless of altitude the tendency is to still be preoccupied with the failure and therefore possibly lose control. When closer to the ground (even at 1000 feet) the tendency is to still pull back to save the altitude, since alititude is easy to judge by the eye than airspeed. If you stall spin the aircraft it doesnt matter that you have enough altitude to make the turn, now the question is do you have enough altitude to recover from the spin/stall and still make a suitable landing site. Unless I'm already turning cross wind I'll wait until 1000 AGL before thinking about turning back.
I'd much rather land into trees or a field controlled, than make it back to the runway going straight down with no control.
Also, I think a lot of people think when they turn the runway is the only option, there is usually some pretty suitable grass right next to the runway if needed and all the services are still there.
Just my thoughts.
BTD
I'd much rather land into trees or a field controlled, than make it back to the runway going straight down with no control.
Also, I think a lot of people think when they turn the runway is the only option, there is usually some pretty suitable grass right next to the runway if needed and all the services are still there.
Just my thoughts.
BTD
-
Medium Pimpin
- Rank 1
- Posts: 36
- Joined: Sun Jun 19, 2005 4:26 pm
-
rotorfloat
- Rank 4
- Posts: 259
- Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2004 6:38 am
-
Right Seat Captain
- Rank Moderator
- Posts: 1237
- Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 7:51 pm
- Location: Various/based CYOW
You're not just teaching to fly only that one trainer, but to fly more complex aircraft as well. I know many singles in which this will make a huge difference in a small time frame. Also, skidding in a cessna 172 is mostly a non-event. Try that in a Cirrus.Medium Pimpin wrote:name a single engine trainer where it will actually make a difference in the timeframe you're suggesting after takeoff.....
-
Hotel Tango
- Rank 4
- Posts: 241
- Joined: Tue May 31, 2005 11:49 pm
Personally I wouldn't teach my students to try and turn back below 1000'. The most likely result of a manoeuvre like that would be a stall or spin. So the idea of Vx to stay closer to the airport doesn't work for me. I'd go for altitude as quick as I can because I'll be gliding to the most suitable landing spot in front of me. UNLESS it's just water up ahead, then I'll try to turn back to land, a runway would be a bonus but most likely a field or airport infield.
As for the comment most ppl use whenever instructors make 152/172 specific comments (i.e. you're not just teaching them to fly 172s, your teaching them to fly more advanced airplanes in the future) at the moment, we ARE teaching them to fly 172s, 152s and most likely once we finish with them they will build time and continue to train on those a/c or if they're done, they'll be coming back to rent those a/c so I want to make sure they don't kill themselves now and they can handle the a/c they'll most likely be flying now. If they choose to fly more complex a/c in the future, I hope they get themselves properly trained or if it's a commercial student, I hope they get good training from their employer on type. The training we give them on the ground and in the 152s should be a base for them to build that future experience on.
Just my opinion
(most of the time I use cruise climb or Vy)
As for the comment most ppl use whenever instructors make 152/172 specific comments (i.e. you're not just teaching them to fly 172s, your teaching them to fly more advanced airplanes in the future) at the moment, we ARE teaching them to fly 172s, 152s and most likely once we finish with them they will build time and continue to train on those a/c or if they're done, they'll be coming back to rent those a/c so I want to make sure they don't kill themselves now and they can handle the a/c they'll most likely be flying now. If they choose to fly more complex a/c in the future, I hope they get themselves properly trained or if it's a commercial student, I hope they get good training from their employer on type. The training we give them on the ground and in the 152s should be a base for them to build that future experience on.
Just my opinion
(most of the time I use cruise climb or Vy)
Here's an interesting document on turning back after an engine failure:
http://web.usna.navy.mil/~dfr/aiaa1col.pdf
Goodbye,
Louis
http://web.usna.navy.mil/~dfr/aiaa1col.pdf
Goodbye,
Louis
