Bo down Pembroke Pines, FL

[PeterNSteinmetz]

GA is a somewhat risky activity, about 1 fatality per 100,000 hours of flight. People do it because they perceive what they get out it as worth the risk.

Certainly my goal in flying is to fly as safely as reasonably possible. But it is not to expend the amount of effort it would take to reduce that risk 100 fold with present technologies.

I sometimes get the feeling that people like Gryder think the goal should be to expend whatever effort is necessary to reduce the risk to 0. This sort of very high effort to reduce the risk ever lower and lower is appropriate to commercial airline flight, and has largely been successful. I don’t think the same calculus necessarily applies to people flying for recreational purposes, or that the same trade offs need to apply to all GA pilots.

 

[Ed Haywood]

I have always questioned why we don't have an aspect of training that includes climbing out at a trim setting that allows for hands off the yoke. If trimmed for Vy (or VX) and hands off the yoke (or very very lightly), in the case of power failure, the airplane would hold Vy and not stall (please correct this is wrong). Kind of like how navy pilots have to keep their hands off the controls when launching off a carrier, you can't trust the pilot to do the right thing. Would this not get the nose down and back to flying speed and allow the pilot do do their 2-3 seconds of dumb brain freeze without causing any issues?

Most aircraft are marked for takeoff trim at Vy, so all you have to do is follow the checklist and the plane will behave exactly as you describe.

 

[PaulS]

I agree with the analysis basically. I just think Gryder comes across as being more certain of things than he should be. This is usually a sign of actually fairly limited knowledge. Maybe it is just showmanship in his case - don’t know.

Yes, I don't know either, but he has some good ideas IMO. He also is very opinionated and doesn't have too much of a filter on this stuff and other things he perceives as bad behavior by pilots. I'm thinking he might get himself sued eventually if he's wrong on a few of his assertions, but that's his problem not mine. He claims to be an accomplished pilot and instructor, but I've never met the man and certainly can't vouch for him or his credentials.

I think his main rub is the NTSB seems have turned into, or maybe always was, an entity that investigates by committee and that comes to incorrect or incomplete conclusions many times. He may be right.

 

[PaulS]

GA is a somewhat risky activity, about 1 fatality per 100,000 hours of flight. People do it because they perceive what they get out it as worth the risk.

Certainly my goal in flying is to fly as safely as reasonably possible. But it is not to expend the amount of effort it would take to reduce that risk 100 fold with present technologies.

I sometimes get the feeling that people like Gryder think the goal should be to expend whatever effort is necessary to reduce the risk to 0. This sort of very high effort to reduce the risk ever lower and lower is appropriate to commercial airline flight, and has largely been successful. I don’t think the same calculus necessarily applies to people flying for recreational purposes, or that the same trade offs need to apply to all GA pilots.

You should probably watch more of his stuff before you make the assumptions you've made because I don't have the same impression you have. Trying to reduce risk to 0 is a ridiculous thing to target and I don't see that he is trying to do that at all. What he essentially says is that there are certain recurrent themes to the bulk of general aviation fatalities. These themes, for lack of a better word, keep repeating themselves over and over, pilots mostly kill themselves the same way, time after time. He sees, and I think we should see these themes as low hanging fruit, easy to correct.

An example is the number of accidents where pilots auger in when the engine fails soon after take off. Pilots have not done a good job handling this emergency, specifically when the airplane is at full power, climbing at Vx or Vy and the engine fails and the pilot spins it in. His answer for this is to train pilots to immediately and aggressively push the nose over with this happens. A simple solution that prevents critical loss of airspeed and allows you to fly controlled to the crash rather than auguring in. This is especially important in twins.

He's got a list of these themes and maintains that if pilots are trained correctly to deal with them, the chance of survival increases dramatically. It's a good conversation to have IMO.

It's starting to sound like I am this guy's fan club/ PR agent, I'm not, but I do think some, if not most of his points about this stuff makes sense.

Check out this video, this is where I first saw Gryder.

 

[PaulS]

Short runway? 3200' is a short paved runway now? Ok, but only accounting for the houses all round.

And why not fly Vx to maximize altitude and minimize distance from the runway when having to try to impossible turn? It would mean a harder push over to maintain airspeed, but also keeps you higher and closer to the runway.

I always questioned why we don't have an aspect of training that includes climbing out at a trim setting that allows for hands off the yoke. If trimmed for Vy (or VX) and hands off the yoke (or very very lightly), in the case of power failure, the airplane would hold Vy and not stall (please correct this is wrong). Kind of like how navy pilots have to keep their hands off the controls when launching off a carrier, you can't trust the pilot to do the right thing. Would this not get the nose down and back to flying speed and allow the pilot do do their 2-3 seconds of dumb brain freeze without causing any issues?

I think it's better to train to maintain the airspeed, but your method could work. The only issue I see is that some SE airplanes, especially those with a lot of horsepower, generate a lot of heat. On warmer days, you can turn cylinders into molten blobs flying Vx or even Vy for any extended period of time.

 

[BrianNC]

You should probably watch more of his stuff before you make the assumptions you've made because I don't have the same impression you have. Trying to reduce risk to 0 is a ridiculous thing to target and I don't see that he is trying to do that at all. What he essentially says is that there are certain recurrent themes to the bulk of general aviation fatalities. These themes, for lack of a better word, keep repeating themselves over and over, pilots mostly kill themselves the same way, time after time. He sees, and I think we should see these themes as low hanging fruit, easy to correct.

An example is the number of accidents where pilots auger in when the engine fails soon after take off. Pilots have not done a good job handling this emergency, specifically when the airplane is at full power, climbing at Vx or Vy and the engine fails and the pilot spins it in. His answer for this is to train pilots to immediately and aggressively push the nose over with this happens. A simple solution that prevents critical loss of airspeed and allows you to fly controlled to the crash rather than auguring in. This is especially important in twins.

He's got a list of these themes and maintains that pilots are trained correctly to deal with them, the chance of survival increases dramatically. It's a good conversation to have IMO.

It's starting to sound like I am this guy's fan club/ PR agent, I'm not, but I do think some, if not most of his points about this stuff makes sense.

Check out this video, this is where I first saw Gryder.

Great video.

 

[idahoflier]

You keep focusing on this pilot, I'm trying to look at the bigger picture and it's not as good as it could or should be.

No, I'm replying to your assertion that Gryder's views will make accidents like this go away. This thread is about this accident and you included Gryder's video with his analysis of this accident.

You state that you don't agree with Gryder's conclusions, which is fine. But I have a problem with you asking for proof that Gryden's ideas will work. How is that logical?

When you make an assertion you would like people to believe you need to provide evidence for that assertion. That's how it's logical. For example, if I were to assert that lives would be saved if before every flight the fuel tanks must be topped off would you accept and agree with that? Should we just adopt that practice or would you rather see data that proves the assertion that topping all tanks before flight saves lives before we adopt it?

Should we not try something different because it hasn't been tried before therefore we can't prove it works?

I apologize, I have ready your question a few times and I don't understand what you're asking.

So what did Cirrus do? They developed an industry leading training program that among other things, trained pilots that it is a bad idea to attempt the impossible turn, especially when you have a parachute that will save you. But even if you are below the altitude for a chute pull, you should land straight ahead, with a small turn if necessary to get to a good spot. That's part of what they teach, there is much more to the program and now the Cirrus safety record is one of the best in the industry.

I have been flying for 29 years and early in my training it was ingrained in me to never try the impossible turn after an engine failure on takeoff. It's an old concept that I think is part of every training syllabus, or at least used to be. Even so, pilots still attempt it.

The thing is, what Gryder, and others, are suggesting has been done by Cirrus, and it has worked. So if you are looking for proof, look there.

I just don't see it and I guess we will have to agree to disagree. Blue Skies!

 

[idahoflier]

If you had any experience in industrial safety training in high risk environments you'd know why @Salty is correct...

I would be interested in learning more. Are there any online examples of such training?

 

[PaulS]

[snipped]

I apologize, I have ready your question a few times and I don't understand what you're asking.






I just don't see it and I guess we will have to agree to disagree. Blue Skies!

Yup, I think we are having a "failure to communicate". Take care.

 

[GRG55]

I would be interested in learning more. Are there any online examples of such training?

It isn't done online.

It's similar to the recurrent training of commercial airline pilots. Basic knowledge testing can be done online; but that's just the "entry pass" to this type of situational training. The important part requires repetitively simulating the emergency situations as realistically as possible and effectively "training in" the correct decision making and physical response sequences and "training out" the (sometimes instinctive and potentially fatal) incorrect responses (pulling back on the elevator to stretch the engine-out glide and stalling the plane close to the ground comes to mind as an example of the instinctive-fatal).

Training offshore petroleum drilling teams, where the incorrect response to a developing emergency by one person can put the lives of everyone on the rig in jeopardy, is one industrial example (not a precise analogue, but a bit like hundreds of passenger lives dependent on the competency of the two pilots up front).

I don't think anybody here would argue against the observation that if private GA pilots were subjected to similar recurrent training and competency standards on their airplanes as airline pilot crew the GA fatal accident rate would decline measurably.

Unfortunately, it would also raise the cost of GA flying and knock even more private pilots and airplane owners out of this avocation. Safety is always an economic decision, requiring objectively + subjectively weighing the risks, costs, consequences and probabilities of occurrence. These days it seems a lot of people are desiring a completely risk-free society and have trouble accepting this reality.

 

[Pugs]

Kind of like how navy pilots have to keep their hands off the controls when launching off a carrier, you can't trust the pilot to do the right thing. Would this not get the nose down and back to flying speed and allow the pilot do do their 2-3 seconds of dumb brain freeze without causing any issues?

It's not a matter of trust it's a matter of g-forces and getting AoA set to climb. There are different procedures in different airplanes on the cat shot. The Hornet will automatically set AoA on the stroke to be correct when airborne so interfering with stick will inhibit that computer managed control movement. Sans computer, in the EA-6B the pilot would set their hand such that as the airflow over the stab moved it from it's leading edge down position it would move the stick aft to meet their hand so the AoA was close to correct for a positive rate of climb.

FYI, both aircraft also have a cat bar that comes across in front of the throttles to ensure that the g-forces on the stroke do not retard the throttles. On the Prowler it also ported hyd fluid to the nose strut to keep the AoA consistent and prevent a centerline ALQ-99 pod strike. Hornet may be similar, not sure.

At 2400 hours in it, I have no idea what Vx and Vy were for the Prowler. Everything we did was AoA.

 

[steingar]

Just about every take off I do is over heavily congested neighborhoods. I suppose if the mill quit and there's field in front of me I'll go straight in. But if I'm taking off from home base I'm going to try and do the turn. I'll keep the turn coming as far s I can and straighten it out before I clip a wing on the ground. My thinking is that even if I can't do the turn, odds are whatever I wind up landing in won't be any worse than if I went straight. And if I can make the turn I'm going to have a much easier time of it.

 

[PaulS]

Just about every take off I do is over heavily congested neighborhoods. I suppose if the mill quit and there's field in front of me I'll go straight in. But if I'm taking off from home base I'm going to try and do the turn. I'll keep the turn coming as far s I can and straighten it out before I clip a wing on the ground. My thinking is that even if I can't do the turn, odds are whatever I wind up landing in won't be any worse than if I went straight. And if I can make the turn I'm going to have a much easier time of it.

Hopefully you have done this many times at a safe altitude and continue to practice it. Ideally you understand at what altitude you need to be at before it will work and just how the maneuver should be done via trying it many times. Otherwise you are just kidding yourself.

I think it was someone here in poa who mentioned that one of the basic things you need for the impossible turn to be remotely possible is for the climb gradient to exceed the glide gradient for your particular aircraft. On the SR 22, I checked, and the climb gradient does indeed exceed the glide gradient by a good amount at Vy. The unfortunate part is that generally, once it is safe to do so, which most of the time happens about 2 or 3 hundred agl, I go into a cruise climb to keep CHTs in check, the climb rate decreases but is still acceptable, but the speed at which I move away from the runway increases by 20 or 30 knots. So basically I do not gain enough altitude over distance to glide back to the runway in an impossible turn.

 

[Pugs]

A timely article from the FAA Safety magazine just popped into my in-box

https://www.aviationsafetymagazine....t=All+Or+Nothing?&utm_campaign=WU20210318-Sub

 

[steingar]

Hopefully you have done this many times at a safe altitude and continue to practice it. Ideally you understand at what altitude you need to be at before it will work and just how the maneuver should be done via trying it many times. Otherwise you are just kidding yourself.

I do steep turns all the time, usually at or around best glide speed. Yeah, doing it at low altitude would be different, but you really can't safely practice that. What you don't seem to get is the alternative is landing congested neighborhoods and imperiling innocents. I'll take the turn for $200, Alex.

I think it was someone here in poa who mentioned that one of the basic things you need for the impossible turn to be remotely possible is for the climb gradient to exceed the glide gradient for your particular aircraft.

All you need to do is get into the airport environment where there are fewer obstacles. The airport environment usually extends far beyond the end of the runway. Hey look, if you have something smooth and free of obstacles in front of you, land it. My problem is I don't.

 

[PaulS]

I do steep turns all the time, usually at or around best glide speed. Yeah, doing it at low altitude would be different, but you really can't safely practice that. What you don't seem to get is the alternative is landing congested neighborhoods and imperiling innocents. I'll take the turn for $200, Alex.


All you need to do is get into the airport environment where there are fewer obstacles. The airport environment usually extends far beyond the end of the runway. Hey look, if you have something smooth and free of obstacles in front of you, land it. My problem is I don't.

Yup, I wouldn't practice low in your airplane. But you can do it at altitude and it will give you a pretty good idea on what it takes.

I was on a check ride with an instructor and I told him I wanted to try it. We were flying over a drag strip in NH that is at least a half mile long and was aligned to the wind. I flew over it at 1,500 feet, take off configuration, into the wind, I slowed to about 85 knots, which is about 10 above rotation speed. I estimated about 1,000 feet down the "runway" (strip), applied full power and climbed to 2,500 at Vy. I pulled the power, set best glide while turning back. I didn't come anywhere close to making it back. I was surprised. Remember, it's basically ****edit**** a 210 degree turn back to the runway. I tried it twice, the second time I came a little closer, but still wasn't any where close enough to call it a success.

Finally I told the instructor, here you try it. He did a better job than me, but still wouldn't have come near the runway. Then he cracked me up when he turned to me and said, "you have a chute, why would you f' around with this, pull the chute!".

If you've decided that's your plan, get out and practice it, get good at it.

 

[GaryM]

All you need to do is get into the airport environment where there are fewer obstacles. The airport environment usually extends far beyond the end of the runway. Hey look, if you have something smooth and free of obstacles in front of you, land it. My problem is I don't.

My home 'drome has crossing runways almost 90 degrees apart, each with fairly clear land extending 20-50% of the runway length beyond each threshold. If a pilot turns back and touches down wings-level within +/- 20 degrees of any runway heading, there is nothing to hit much bigger than a taxiway light or some ruts and wet patches. Considering a circle centered on the airport, touchdown anywhere in about 280 degrees of arc should be survivable (the rest of the arc is hangers, offices, the tower, and tie-downs), though some of the scrub bushes/trees are getting uncomfortably large in part of that space. So we're lucky in that regard. Most land outside of the airport environment is fairly built up.

 

[Kenny Phillips]

My home 'drome has crossing runways almost 90 degrees apart, each with fairly clear land extending 20-50% of the runway length beyond each threshold. If a pilot turns back and touches down wings-level within +/- 20 degrees of any runway heading, there is nothing to hit much bigger than a taxiway light or some ruts and wet patches. Considering a circle centered on the airport, touchdown anywhere in about 280 degrees of arc should be survivable (the rest of the arc is hangers, offices, the tower, and tie-downs), though some of the scrub bushes/trees are getting uncomfortably large in part of that space. So we're lucky in that regard. Most land outside of the airport environment is fairly built up.

My home airport (Sunken Lunken) has hills to the south (with the Ohio river in between!), east, and west, but with a nice wide river valley for one of the Ohio's tributaries to the north. Filled with soccer fields, so, yay. Crossed by power transmission lines, so not yay. And it's the opposite direction from where you'd take off 90% of the time. So we just figured we'd ditch close to shore of the Ohio, as drowning beats burning.

 

[Piperonca]

I agree with the analysis basically. I just think Gryder comes across as being more certain of things than he should be. This is usually a sign of actually fairly limited knowledge. Maybe it is just showmanship in his case - don’t know.

Some people are more certain of everything than I am of anything.”
― Robert Rubin

 

[bflynn]

GA is a somewhat risky activity, about 1 fatality per 100,000 hours of flight. People do it because they perceive what they get out it as worth the risk.

One of the differences I see in GA is that a lot of that risk can be controlled by the pilot and/or owner.

I hear somewhere between 80% and 90% of accidents are directly related pilot error. So right away, you could drop that fatality rate to .2 per 100,000 by going overboard on your training. Train like professionals do. It occurs to me just now (I'm slow) that there is probably a business in that, providing recurrent training to GA, especially if it can be linked to insurance premium discounts as well as safety.

The other factor is making airplane crashes more survivable. We can't do much about the structure of our planes other than to arrive at the crash site at the lowest angle and power possible, but one big thing that almost everyone can do is to install 4+ point shoulder harnesses. Preventing head injuries on impact will go a long way toward survivability.

Sadly, I think the reason we don't do this is money. Nobody wants to spend more, including me.

 

[steingar]

Yup, I wouldn't practice low in your airplane. But you can do it at altitude and it will give you a pretty good idea on what it takes.

Really doesn't matter. Like I said, landing straight ahead is bad juju. I'll do the turn, and I'll keep the airplane out of a stall doing it. Wherever I wind up, it won't be worse than trying to put it down in the middle of a suburban neighborhood. All I need is a 180.

 

[jsstevens]

Yup, I wouldn't practice low in your airplane. But you can do it at altitude and it will give you a pretty good idea on what it takes.

I was on a check ride with an instructor and I told him I wanted to try it. We were flying over a drag strip in NH that is at least a half mile long and was aligned to the wind. I flew over it at 1,500 feet, take off configuration, into the wind, I slowed to about 85 knots, which is about 10 above rotation speed. I estimated about 1,000 feet down the "runway" (strip), applied full power and climbed to 2,500 at Vy. I pulled the power, set best glide while turning back. I didn't come anywhere close to making it back. I was surprised. Remember, it's basically a 360 degree turn to get back to the same runway. 270 to get back in line with the runway, then 90 to get back on course, it's not that perfect, but that is pretty much what it takes. I tried it twice, the second time I came a little closer, but still wasn't any where close enough to call it a success.

Finally I told the instructor, here you try it. He did a better job than me, but still wouldn't have come near the runway. Then he cracked me up when he turned to me and said, "you have a chute, why would you f' around with this, pull the chute!".

If you've decided that's your plan, get out and practice it, get good at it.

What type of plane?

 

[FastEddieB]

Really doesn't matter. Like I said, landing straight ahead is bad juju. I'll do the turn, and I'll keep the airplane out of a stall doing it...All I need is a 180.

This is a recurring theme that really bugs me. It invokes "Pride goeth before a (literal) fall".

I'd love to have a time machine to go back and interview the hundreds or thousands of pilots on their state of mind right before they died attempting a sudden return to the field. How many, before that fatal day, would have admitted, "I know I'm a below-average pilot, and will probably stall and spin, but what the heck, I'll try it anyway." And how much more likely they would have said "I'll do the turn, and I'll keep the airplane out of a stall doing it...All I need is a 180."

I guess my point is that I'm certain many, if not most of the dead pilots would have assessed their skill level and ability to accomplish the maneuver in much the same way steingar does. Until they found out they couldn't.

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

To steal from Garrison Keilor - Welcome to Lake Wobegon, where all the women are strong, all the men are good-looking, and all the pilots are above average.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

I agree with the analysis basically. I just think Gryder comes across as being more certain of things than he should be. This is usually a sign of actually fairly limited knowledge. Maybe it is just showmanship in his case - don’t know.

He thinks he knows a lot more than he actually knows.

Sure, he knows a lot about aviation. He's a former airline pilot, he's obviously been through plenty of training. But I'll bet he knows next to nothing about accident investigation, and there are plenty of other subjects that he knows a lot less about than he thinks.

I think it's better to train to maintain the airspeed, but your method could work. The only issue I see is that some SE airplanes, especially those with a lot of horsepower, generate a lot of heat. On warmer days, you can turn cylinders into molten blobs flying Vx or even Vy for any extended period of time.

You really only need to use Vy to get to a thousand feet and make the impossible turn possible.

 

[Piperonca]

I guess my point is that I'm certain many, if not most of the dead pilots would have assessed their skill level and ability to accomplish the maneuver in much the same way steingar does. Until they found out they couldn't.

Point well taken. To an old helicopter pilot used to many practice autorotations, quick decisions and diving at the ground come naturally. To Mr. Steingar, confidence and competence would compel his actions. As it turns out, a fixed-wing buddy of mine (~3000 hr CFI) has successfully made not one, but two impossible turnbacks to the runway. I'll have to ask him what altitude but it wasn't much either time. All said, we may agree to substitute "improbable" for "impossible".

 

[PaulS]

What type of plane?

SR-22 g6 na

 

[jsstevens]

SR-22 g6 na

Good to know. I've done this exercise several times in a C-172 C. 600' in still air is the magic number for that plane with two, shall we say heavier than FAA standard folks up front.

 

[Salty]

You really only need to use Vy to get to a thousand feet and make the impossible turn possible.

That is totally dependent on the performance of the aircraft you are flying. I have made many impossible turns from 300 feet in a glider with a 23:1 glide ratio (tow rope break simulations). But a 140 horse Cherokee in high density altitude is not going to have a climb rate that exceeds it's glide rate, so you'll never get high enough to glide back if you keep going away from the runway in the climb.

 

[steingar]

To Mr. Steingar, confidence and competence would compel his actions. As it turns out, a fixed-wing buddy of mine (~3000 hr CFI) has successfully made not one, but two impossible turnbacks to the runway. I'll have to ask him what altitude but it wasn't much either time. All said, we may agree to substitute "improbable" for "impossible".

That's Dr. Steingar to you, Bub. I guess what I keep saying is the alternative is really, really dangerous. Sure, maybe I can stuff it onto a street without hitting a house, or a car, or a pedestrian and without running afoul of all the damn wires. Maybe. But if I don't complete the turn, things aren't going to be any worse. They can't be. So start the turn, keep the crate flying, and once I'm in danger of hitting things straighten out and hope for the best. If I complete the 180 I'm landing a cow pasture, loads better than crowded city streets. If not, well it really couldn't be any worse.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

That is totally dependent on the performance of the aircraft you are flying. I have made many impossible turns from 300 feet in a glider with a 23:1 glide ratio (tow rope break simulations). But a 140 horse Cherokee in high density altitude is not going to have a climb rate that exceeds it's glide rate, so you'll never get high enough to glide back if you keep going away from the runway in the climb.

Depends on the winds, the length of the runway, and what options exist away from the airport. But I'm not really going to be worried about overheating the engine at Vy in a Cherokee 140 either.

 

[wanttaja]

... there is no reason anyone should be flying around out of trim in any phase of flight.

<Cough> No reason? My aircraft doesn't have cockpit-adjustable trim. It's nose-heavy with a full fuel tank, and gets increasingly tail-heavy as the tank drains. Pitch forces a light enough where it isn't a burden.

Ron Wanttaja

 

[John Collins]

If he wasn’t stalled he was sure coming down at a steep angle. I know bonanzas aren’t the best gliders but damn.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

Bonanzas have a fairly good clean glide ratio for a single engine piston airplane, typically just above 10/1, but this model has a longer wing and has a glide ratio of 12 to 1. It also makes all the difference if the prop is pulled to the rear stop or not. With a catastrophic engine failure, the prop governor may not allow the RPM to be retarded which can reduce the glide by as much as 30%.

 

[Palmpilot]

LOL, Jerry does crazy things for the sake of it. My scenario was based on lack of good options without doing something that admittedly is risky. When I say practicing steep turns, I'm talking about 50-60 deg. Standard rate turns don't get it when you need to get turned around in a timely manner. Keep up the speed and don't scare anybody.

It's been mathematically proven that 45 degrees of bank provides the least amount of altitude loss in the turn.

For the derivation, see "The Possible 'Impossible' Turn," which can be accessed through this Web page:

http://www.nar-associates.com/technical-flying/technical_flying.html

 

[Palmpilot]

I think it was someone here in poa who mentioned that one of the basic things you need for the impossible turn to be remotely possible is for the climb gradient to exceed the glide gradient for your particular aircraft. On the SR 22, I checked, and the climb gradient does indeed exceed the glide gradient by a good amount at Vy. The unfortunate part is that generally, once it is safe to do so, which most of the time happens about 2 or 3 hundred agl, I go into a cruise climb to keep CHTs in check, the climb rate decreases but is still acceptable, but the speed at which I move away from the runway increases by 20 or 30 knots. So basically I do not gain enough altitude over distance to glide back to the runway in an impossible turn.

I've mentioned this several times. Note that the wind must be taken into account to determine the climb and descent gradients.

Density altitude and runway length are important factors too.

 

[Palmpilot]

Remember, it's basically a 360 degree turn to get back to the same runway. 270 to get back in line with the runway, then 90 to get back on course, it's not that perfect, but that is pretty much what it takes.

270 and 90 are substantial overestimates. Based on the paper I cited above, it would be more like a 210 degree turn, which would then require only a 30 degree turn to match the runway course.

 

[jsstevens]

And let's just go ahead and say it: There are so many variables it is impossible to make a blanket statement about how impossible the turn is. Aircraft, load, wind, airport environment, temperature, humidity, pilot skill, even maintenance (Think I'm kidding? How about fresh overhaul vs. TBO engine?) And as @steingar has noted the environment around the airport. This is all about managing risk in the current situation (which you did consider and pre-brief before starting your take off roll, right?)

Now, please carry on with making absolute statements and beating each other up. This IS POA.

 

[PaulS]

I've mentioned this several times. Note that the wind must be taken into account to determine the climb and descent gradients.

Density altitude and runway length are important factors too.

270 and 90 are substantial overestimates. Based on the paper I cited above, it would be more like a 210 degree turn, which would then require only a 30 degree turn to match the runway course.

I stand corrected, I'll change my post, thank you. I'm pretty sure this is the first time I saw this paper, it certainly gives some food for thought. Dr. @steingar you should go to this link, and read, then practice. impossible_wide_screen.DVI (nar-associates.com) It might save your life. For me, as long as I have a chute, I'll pull, below that altitude, I'll probably land straight or nearly straight ahead. Of course, you never know how you'll react until you experience it. I hope to never find out.

 

[PaulS]

And let's just go ahead and say it: There are so many variables it is impossible to make a blanket statement about how impossible the turn is. Aircraft, load, wind, airport environment, temperature, humidity, pilot skill, even maintenance (Think I'm kidding? How about fresh overhaul vs. TBO engine?) And as @steingar has noted the environment around the airport. This is all about managing risk in the current situation (which you did consider and pre-brief before starting your take off roll, right?)

Now, please carry on with making absolute statements and beating each other up. This IS POA.

Yup, I will say, that I do pre take off briefings pretty religiously, again part of the training I received. I haven't gotten to the point of briefing where I would put it down off field on takeoff, I'm not that disciplined, but sitting here thinking about it, I have the info in Foreflight, it would only take 30 seconds to check it out before take off. Maybe.

 

[idahoflier]

It isn't done online...

I don't think anybody here would argue against the observation that if private GA pilots were subjected to similar recurrent training and competency standards on their airplanes as airline pilot crew the GA fatal accident rate would decline measurably.

Unfortunately, it would also raise the cost of GA flying and knock even more private pilots and airplane owners out of this avocation. Safety is always an economic decision, requiring objectively + subjectively weighing the risks, costs, consequences and probabilities of occurrence. These days it seems a lot of people are desiring a completely risk-free society and have trouble accepting this reality.

OK, then this is more or less what I thought you were alluding to. More training will always be helpful, but to what degree it moves the needle on fatal accidents is debatable. Taking a flight check and expecting problems is one thing, but facing those problems when they're unexpected (which is the vast majority of GA accidents) is another. Hopefully the training guides the pilot to a successful outcome, but if panic and denial take hold all bets are off.