The Impossible Turn - with in-cockpit video footage

[gismo]

That is my gut as well.

I'm still having a hard time understanding why some of you equate semi-steep (e.g. 45°) banks with stalling. Sure you need more speed in a steep bank but you need more speed when heavily loaded vs flying light as well and in a plane with a working stall warner you can just stay at or slightly above the onset of the warning. And like I mentioned earlier, recovering from a stall in a steep bank is easier and IME comes with less altitude loss than a stall in wings level flight. Certainly if you are near stall wings level and roll into a 45° bank and just haul back instead of lowering the nose slightly you will stall, but pulling back with wings level will do the same thing. IMO the most important thing is to keep the plane coordinated and under control. I believe that's no harder in steep bank than in a shallow one.

 

[mantakos]

I'm still having a hard time understanding why some of you equate semi-steep (e.g. 45°) banks with stalling.

Despite the fact that we've all done steep turns as student pilots, and I doubt any of us ever lost control of the aircraft even back then. And despite the fact that many of us have done slightly steeper turns and power-off steep spirals as part of commercial training, and similarly never "lost it", even on our first try.
-harry

 

[PilotAlan]

I'm still having a hard time understanding why some of you equate semi-steep (e.g. 45°) banks with stalling.

I don't equate semi-steep banks with stalls. I equate semi-steep turns near the ground with a shortened life expectancy.

Yes, if I do everything right, everything's OK. But the NTSB reports are full of bad things happening with people maneuvering near the group even WITH a functioning engine. I want to keep a reserve to protect myself from a bad decision.
I don't buy that it's easier to recover from a stall in a 45* bank turn than straight and level. Maintaining airspeed in a 45* bank means losing lots more altitude vs level.

So, I'm losing altitude, in a semi-steep bank, in an unfamiliar flight regime (positive drag from the engine, vs. marginal thrust from an idling engine). I'll try to keep some margin for error.

 

[jesse]

It depends on the airplanes. If you've got something slick with a lot of power you can climb faster. If you've got something without much power and is full of drag you might just never climb if you try to do it above Vy/Vx.

For example -- one isn't going to gain much in a Cessna 150 trying to go faster. You can barely climb as it is. A Cessna 172 is a bit better but not a whole hell of a lot.

In the lighter stuff I want to get as high as I can as fast as I can (which is neither very high or very fast). In the faster stuff, I tend to appreciate building up some speed.

If you're really concerned about trying to 180 to the runway you need to take in account the length of the runway, your take-off roll length, your rate of climb, and your ground speed (changed by headwind, tailwind). This becomes pretty tricky math to try and figure out. If you're in a Cessna 172 in typical conditions you simply CANNOT make it back to the runway if the runway is 3,500 ft. By the time you get to a safe enough altitude to do a 180 you are too far from the airport to glide back. Now if you add a big headwind you'll be able to make it with 3,500 ft. Add too big of a head-wind and you'll overshoot.

A few years ago, when I flew a 172, I played around a LOT with the idea of making it back to a runway after an engine failure. After a lot of testing (spreadsheet, flight sim, and real life) I came to the conclusion that the odds are very much stacked against you. You need to bank at least 45 degrees or more pretty much immediately after the failure while being aware of your distance from the airport, your altitude, and your ground speed. Those are variables you probably won't know. In the end I decided that if it quits I'm landing straight ahead unless it looks like an uncertain death to me or the public, in that case, provided I have 500 AGL I'll turn it around. I touch the 500 AGL point on the altimeter with my hand before I take the runway and cross my fingers.

 

[jesse]

I'm still having a hard time understanding why some of you equate semi-steep (e.g. 45°) banks with stalling. Sure you need more speed in a steep bank but you need more speed when heavily loaded vs flying light as well and in a plane with a working stall warner you can just stay at or slightly above the onset of the warning. And like I mentioned earlier, recovering from a stall in a steep bank is easier and IME comes with less altitude loss than a stall in wings level flight. Certainly if you are near stall wings level and roll into a 45° bank and just haul back instead of lowering the nose slightly you will stall, but pulling back with wings level will do the same thing. IMO the most important thing is to keep the plane coordinated and under control. I believe that's no harder in steep bank than in a shallow one.

I don't equate semi-steep banks with stalls. I equate semi-steep turns near the ground with a shortened life expectancy.

Yes, if I do everything right, everything's OK. But the NTSB reports are full of bad things happening with people maneuvering near the group even WITH a functioning engine. I want to keep a reserve to protect myself from a bad decision.
I don't buy that it's easier to recover from a stall in a 45* bank turn than straight and level. Maintaining airspeed in a 45* bank means losing lots more altitude vs level.

So, I'm losing altitude, in a semi-steep bank, in an unfamiliar flight regime (positive drag from the engine, vs. marginal thrust from an idling engine). I'll try to keep some margin for error.

If you roll it hard into a 45 degree + bank and resist the urge to pull back on the yoke it is very unlikely you're going to stall. The problem is that the ground will rise up towards you rather fast. If you need to make it back to the airport you NEED to turn around though. Lance is right that you're best shot is with the 45 degree+ bank.

I've done it in a flight sim, I've done it in a real airplane at altitude, I've also done it in a real airplane at 500 AGL. If you're going to pull it off you need to crank it into a steep coordinated turn while PERMITTING the nose to drop as it naturally will want to do. Pull back and then you're asking for some trouble.

This becomes more of an exercise of looking out the window then it does looking at your airspeed indicator. A steep bank, with the nose down, in every airplane I've flown isn't going to kill you. Now if you start worrying about the airspeed and pulling back to maintain whatever you think it should maintain while banking steep down low, that just might kill you. If it looks like you're going to meet the ground before you complete the turn then you need to roll out and take whatever you've got.

 

[mantakos]

So, I'm losing altitude, in a semi-steep bank, in an unfamiliar flight regime (positive drag from the engine, vs. marginal thrust from an idling engine). I'll try to keep some margin for error.

Absolutely. You apply margin in your airspeed above the stall, this isn't the "must do everything perfectly, else you die" maneuver that it's often made out to be. And you apply margin in the altitude at which you'll consider attempting it. If you do this properly, you'll finish your big turn while still hundreds of feet above the ground, at which point "make it" vs "not gonna make it" just tells you whether your downwind wings-level glide is going to make it back to the cleared area around the airport.

And there's no particular reason why this has to be an unfamiliar flight regime. If you've never done a power-off gliding steep turn, go out and try a few up at altitude. If you've never tried a commercial PTS power-off steep spiral, go find out what one is, and practice them (again, at a safe altitude to begin with). Take along a CFI if you're less confident.

BTW, don't simulate this "for real", down low, that's very bad risk management, and there are holes in the ground created by those who've tried and failed.
-harry

 

[gismo]

I don't equate semi-steep banks with stalls. I equate semi-steep turns near the ground with a shortened life expectancy.

Yes, if I do everything right, everything's OK. But the NTSB reports are full of bad things happening with people maneuvering near the group even WITH a functioning engine. I want to keep a reserve to protect myself from a bad decision.
I don't buy that it's easier to recover from a stall in a 45* bank turn than straight and level. Maintaining airspeed in a 45* bank means losing lots more altitude vs level.

So, I'm losing altitude, in a semi-steep bank, in an unfamiliar flight regime (positive drag from the engine, vs. marginal thrust from an idling engine). I'll try to keep some margin for error.

Sure you will lose altitude faster in a steep bank than in a shallow one. But if the terrain leading away from the airport is unsuitable for an emergency landing, your choices may be to turn steeply and lose more altitude but manage to clear the nasty terrain or turn slowly and end up in it. Such an exercise should include nibbling at a stall in a steep bank as well as actually stalling there and recovering.

Baring the situation where landing straight ahead would be preferable to turning part way towards the airport then having to level the wings and land in that direction due to insufficient altitude to complete the turn, you should be able to initiate a steep turn and subsequently roll out if you're getting too low. For this reason I'm particularly displeased with the currently in vogue concept that dictates you shouldn't even try to turn back unless you have so much altitude that there's no question the turn can be completed. I see nothing that supports the notion that once you've started turning you must continue the turn until you either get pointed at a runway or crash trying. And I still maintain that in any situation where you have enough altitude to feel comfortable starting a turn back, you will be better off making the turn sufficiently steep to enhance your chances of turn far enough to reach more suitable terrain.

As to the "unfamiliar flight regime" issue, I strongly believe that can be overcome with some directed dual instruction in that exact regime, starting with excess altitude and finishing at an altitude where the proximity to the ground is compelling. The one thing I can agree with is that a pilot attempting a max performance turn close to the ground for the first time in the ensuing panic of an engine failure isn't likely to produce a successful outcome.

 

[Trapper John]

I think I see John's POV... in a single, you don't have a blue line speed you're trying to accelerate to. Instead, altitude is your best friend.

Yep, that's pretty much it. In basic SE aircraft, I feel better about trading potential energy (altitude) for kinetic energy (speed), than the other way around should the engine go bye-bye on departure.

I'd think (haven't tested this) that one would gain more altitude by climbing out at Vy or Vx as soon as you hit that target airspeed than you'll get by "zoom climbing" after accelerating to 100 knots in ground effect, if we have an engine out at the same mm:ss point into the flight.

I would suspect it would be the former, but it would be an interesting exercise to do to confirm (from a safe altitude). I do think there is some hazard in doing the zoom climb in that you need to keep a pretty close eye on the ASI to make sure you're not decelerating too quickly toward a stall, though. Add the general confusion/wtf factor of an engine failure and that probably makes it worse.


Trapper John

 

[mantakos]

If your goal is to get altitude as quickly as possible, then your goal is to maximize the difference between thrust power and drag power. This is the definition of Vy, it's the airspeed at which thrust power exceeds drag power to the greatest extent, as compared to other airspeeds.

This doesn't account for ground effect, of course, so it's possible that in ground effect, we're able to accumulate energy more quickly as a result of the reduced power lost to drag. In effect, we'd be saying that, in ground effect, there's a different Vy, one that is higher than the POH one. This would certainly be true, but my "hunch" is that there's no win here, that the ground effect Vy isn't much higher than the standard one, and that we'd quickly exceed this, and again be losing power to drag at a higher level than if we'd just done a normal takeoff.

Of course, once we begin our climbout, we lose the benefit of ground effect, and now we're well above Vy, and so necessarily losing energy to drag at a much higher rate than we would be if we were at Vy.
-harry

 

[gismo]

I would suspect it would be the former, but it would be an interesting exercise to do to confirm (from a safe altitude

If I understand you correctly, I believe you are wrong. Anytime you exceed Vy you are converting more energy into heat (fighting drag) than if you maintained Vy and that energy isn't recoverable in a way that's beneficial to your flight. Accelerating to Vy in ground effect would be more effective than leaving GE before attaining Vy and I suppose there might be a tiny window where due to ground effect the "real" Vy would be a bit higher than the weight adjusted published figure but I suspect that the difference would be so small as to be drowned out by imperfect technique.

For that matter the increase in time to altitude at Vy*1.1 vs Vy isn't much either in an airplane with a decent Vy climb rate like a Baron with two engines running or a Bonanza (with one).

Edit: Sheesh Harry, it looks like we were typing the same thing at the same time.

 

[Trapper John]

If I understand you correctly, I believe you are wrong. Anytime you exceed Vy you are converting more energy into heat (fighting drag) than if you maintained Vy and that energy isn't recoverable in a way that's beneficial to your flight. Accelerating to Vy in ground effect would be more effective than leaving GE before attaining Vy and I suppose there might be a tiny window where due to ground effect the "real" Vy would be a bit higher than the weight adjusted published figure but I suspect that the difference would be so small as to be drowned out by imperfect technique.

I was advocating, albeit not very clearly, climbing at Vy. I'd rather have altitude than speed when the engine goes, qualifying that my frame of reference is relatively low performance basic singles. I can trade that altitude for speed better than I can trade speed for altitude.


Trapper John

 

[jesse]

If your goal is to get altitude as quickly as possible, then your goal is to maximize the difference between thrust power and drag power. This is the definition of Vy, it's the airspeed at which thrust power exceeds drag power to the greatest extent, as compared to other airspeeds.

This doesn't account for ground effect, of course, so it's possible that in ground effect, we're able to accumulate energy more quickly as a result of the reduced power lost to drag. In effect, we'd be saying that, in ground effect, there's a different Vy, one that is higher than the POH one. This would certainly be true, but my "hunch" is that there's no win here, that the ground effect Vy isn't much higher than the standard one, and that we'd quickly exceed this, and again be losing power to drag at a higher level than if we'd just done a normal takeoff.

Of course, once we begin our climbout, we lose the benefit of ground effect, and now we're well above Vy, and so necessarily losing energy to drag at a much higher rate than we would be if we were at Vy.
-harry

Well, in this case, often you're better off with Vx. That is if you want to make it back to the runway.

 

[ScottM]

Unedited video of the event

 

[mantakos]

Well, in this case, often you're better off with Vx. That is if you want to make it back to the runway.

Maybe.

A Vx climb keeps you closer to the runway, so you can make it back from engine failure altitudes for which a Vy climb leaves you gliding to a landing spot short of the runway.

Then again, a Vx climb also keeps you at lower altitudes longer, so if you guess that engine failures just occur at some random time after departure, then doing Vx climbs will result in engine failures at lower altitudes (though I don't think we really have a good idea of how probability of engine failure varies with time after departure).

We might also guess that a Vx climb, which generates higher engine temps, might even increase the probability of an engine failure in the first place.
-harry

 

[jesse]

Maybe.

A Vx climb keeps you closer to the runway, so you can make it back from engine failure altitudes for which a Vy climb leaves you gliding to a landing spot short of the runway.

Then again, a Vx climb also keeps you at lower altitudes longer, so if you guess that engine failures just occur at some random time after departure, then doing Vx climbs will result in engine failures at lower altitudes (though I don't think we really have a good idea of how probability of engine failure varies with time after departure).

We might also guess that a Vx climb, which generates higher engine temps, might even increase the probability of an engine failure in the first place.
-harry

Well -- you're going to be way better off with Vx. If you wanted to get technical about it you'd fly Vx until a glide back to the airport was no longer possible or because you've found a better location to go if you engine out.

There are times though, with a super steep climbing airplane, that you're going to have a hard time getting DOWN to the runway after turning around. In that case you'll have to do some maneuvering.

 

[AdamZ]

What do you folks think the realistic time that the average pilot will get past the OH S*** whats going on delay the pulling the carb heat the whatever he or she is doing before they realize they ARE going to put it down. 2 seconds? 5, 10 how much time?

AND how much altitude and distance will that translate to?

The operative words here are "realistic" and "average"

 

[TangoWhiskey]

I counted 4 seconds after a very VERY visible shudder and shake before he began a bank to return. So I'd guess not less than 4-5 seconds.

 

[Lance F]

What do you folks think the realistic time that the average pilot will get past the OH S*** whats going on delay the pulling the carb heat the whatever he or she is doing before they realize they ARE going to put it down. 2 seconds? 5, 10 how much time?

AND how much altitude and distance will that translate to?

The operative words here are "realistic" and "average"

Great question and one we should all ask of ourselves. I'll bet it's HIGHLY variable depending on experience, training, circumstances of the failure (eg an oil covered windscreen or not), etc, etc.

Besides the OH S*** factor there is next a finite time required to THINK. In most emergencies spending a little time to assess is probably a good idea. In a tough situation you really don't want to "Fire, Ready, Aim".

 

[jasc15]

Kinda gives me a bit of a pit in my stomach watching that. Glad he was able to recover without incident. Of course, like everyone else who watched, i put myself in the situation at my home airport.

It seems that the 'impossible turn' would be the best choice in my situation. Using runway 19 for example, I am typically at 500AGL at the red X. No landing options ahead, or even within 90deg of my heading, so I would think a left turn to runway 32 would be best assuming i could remember to turn left rather than right.

What would you do?

 

[TangoWhiskey]

Great question and one we should all ask of ourselves. I'll bet it's HIGHLY variable depending on experience, training, circumstances of the failure (eg an oil covered windscreen or not), etc, etc.

Besides the OH S*** factor there is next a finite time required to THINK. In most emergencies spending a little time to assess is probably a good idea. In a tough situation you really don't want to "Fire, Ready, Aim".

Yikes... just thinking how the situation presented in the original video might have been different if the pilot's visibility out front had been restricted...

 

[TangoWhiskey]

Kinda gives me a bit of a pit in my stomach watching that. Glad he was able to recover without incident. Of course, like everyone else who watched, i put myself in the situation at my home airport.

It seems that the 'impossible turn' would be the best choice in my situation. Using runway 19 for example, I am typically at 500AGL at the red X. No landing options ahead, or even within 90deg of my heading, so I would think a left turn to runway 32 would be best assuming i could remember to turn left rather than right.

What would you do?

How about the two long narrow fields (behind a school?) at your 10 - 10:30?

 

[pete177]

The impossible turn is not so impossible. I had an E model Mooney for 7 years and wanted to know just how much altitude I needed to turn back 360 and then line up with the runway. With take off flaps, gear in the wells, one aboard and about 35 gallons I could turn and line up in less than 350ft. Clean it took almost 500ft. That includes the 2 second oh sh*t delay and a climb speed of 110mph. Obviously, I did this at 6000 ft which is probably the minimum I'd practice it at.
I did not execute a standard rate turn but stood it up on it's wing and cranked it through. It takes a pretty good pull to get it coming around well. Obviously one doesnt try to maintain altitude in this manuever, just let it drop. I pulled pretty hard but never felt the airplane shudder so my sense is you'd really have to panic and pull hard to get it to stall. At half flaps and 110mph it'll come around on a dime.
What I learned is that below 500ft the best thing to do is put it in a field if you've got the choice. Above that the manuever is not that difficult. Additionally, it takes a fairly agressive mind set to spin her around quickly close to the ground so even though it's possible from a physics standpoint one may simply not be that type of pilot in which case a 700ft clearing may well be the best option.
People stall because they panic. They see the groud rushing up and they pull back and stall even though they have plenty of altitude to complete the manuever. I think everyone should practice this at altitude, learn what kind of a pilot they are and formulate a game plan accordingly. Having done it goes a long way toward alleviating the fear that causes you to make mistakes and over control.
Just my two cents.
I think Dave did a great job.
For those that don't fly Mooney's the horn you hear in the vid is a gear warning, not a stall horn.

 

[PilotAlan]

On my comments about the turnback, I think we have a disconnect.
Of course I can do the power off 180 to land and the steep spiral. And yes, I have practiced these things at altitude and such. Yes, I can make 45* 1g turns without raising the stall speed. Yes I understand the aerodynamics of stall speed as a function of g-loading, not bank angle.

My point is, the question is not what is *possible*, but what is wise. If I've climbed to a safe altitude, the turnback is easy. The question is how aggressive to make the turns at low altitude.

In my opinion, if I'm low enough that 45* turns are needed to crank back to the airport, then I'm not going that way. Plenty of pilots turn themselves into smoking holes in low altitude maneuvering. Pilots make smoking holes in planes with *working engines* just trying to *simulate* the low altitude turnback.
I know we're all above average pilots, but the risk is too high for me. Assuming the forward view from the windscreen is not a minefield full of grizzly bears, I'm not turning back unless it can be done with relatively shallow turns.

One exception is if I can turn back to the airport clear area, as opposed to trying to turn back to the runway (because that's a lot more than 180* of turns). Look at the video of the Mooney again. He very nearly caught the trees. Once he cleared the trees, he barely made the runway.
In the case of the airport photo an earlier poster put up, I *might* consider turning back to the airport, but in all likelihood not to the runway.

Again, the risk/reward math is:
The reward is turning an off field landing into a runway landing.
The risk is death.
That calculus does not add up for me. It'll work every time, until it doesn't.
I am sure the guys who died *practicing* this maneuver thought it would work.

I also know that in my Cherokee at full cruise (123kts TAS) followed by pulling power to idle and zooming to best glide speed while beginning a 40* back to the left, my plane needs 1200ft to make a full 360. It needs 900ft to make a 270* turn. It needs 600ft to make a 180* turn.
At Vy and pulling power, and waiting 2 seconds to begin any actions, my plane needs 700* to make a 180* turn, 1000* to make a 270* turn, and 1300ft to make a 360* turn.

 

[mantakos]

Plenty of pilots turn themselves into smoking holes in low altitude maneuvering. Pilots make smoking holes in planes with *working engines* just trying to *simulate* the low altitude turnback.

I've noticed a tendency to quote these "statistics", without anybody actually quoting any statistics, which always sets off alarms in my head. It's possible that this is true, or it's possible that it isn't.

I know of one NTSB report I've seen of a pilot crashing while trying to practice turnbacks, but I have no way of knowing whether he was practicing the textbook maneuver, or just "winging it". I know a lot of people are under the impression that this is done with "as much bank as possible", and that's not only a dangerous approach, it's also theoretically sub-optimal.

So I have some concern about pilots deciding that a 45 degree bank is dangerous because they heard about somebody crashing, when that somebody might have (for all we know) been trying 80 degree banks or something.

Again, every pilot pursuing a comm practices doing power-off steep spirals, and, as I understand it, turnbacks are a standard component of glider training.

One exception is if I can turn back to the airport clear area, as opposed to trying to turn back to the runway (because that's a lot more than 180* of turns).

I think this is pretty important. To me, it's not so much about squeaking in a perfect landing on the numbers of the runway, it's about there being a large clearing in the vicinity of an airport, and no power lines, and no car traffic.
-harry

 

[wabower]

My climb is pretty decent, and I've found (by practicing in the middle portion of a 10k' runway) that being too high to get back on the remaining runway ahead is sufficient altitude to make a circle and land where I just took off at my home drome. We have a large open area at the north end, so being a little bit short is better than most of the other places.

Well -- you're going to be way better off with Vx. If you wanted to get technical about it you'd fly Vx until a glide back to the airport was no longer possible or because you've found a better location to go if you engine out.

There are times though, with a super steep climbing airplane, that you're going to have a hard time getting DOWN to the runway after turning around. In that case you'll have to do some maneuvering.

 

[PilotAlan]

I've noticed a tendency to quote these "statistics", without anybody actually quoting any statistics, which always sets off alarms in my head. It's possible that this is true, or it's possible that it isn't.

Harry,
I think we are in violent agreement in some respects. Perusing the NTSB files there's an awful lot of smoking holes from 'maneuvering' flight. I grant the point about people practicing the turn back, but lots of people seem to be able to take a plane and convert it to wreckage from pattern altitude.

All I am saying is that there is risk and reward, and for *me* personally, the math doesn't add up.

 

[wabower]

If you're in Addison, TX sometime, drive across Beltline Road just south of the airport. An airline captain in a Cub attempted an off-airport landing there and died in the accident. Maybe that was his best choice at the time, but having seen that one has influenced my training and practice to optimize my chances of getting back on the airport, or the airport property, or to a friendlier part of town.

On my comments about the turnback, I think we have a disconnect.
Of course I can do the power off 180 to land and the steep spiral. And yes, I have practiced these things at altitude and such. Yes, I can make 45* 1g turns without raising the stall speed. Yes I understand the aerodynamics of stall speed as a function of g-loading, not bank angle.

My point is, the question is not what is *possible*, but what is wise. If I've climbed to a safe altitude, the turnback is easy. The question is how aggressive to make the turns at low altitude.

In my opinion, if I'm low enough that 45* turns are needed to crank back to the airport, then I'm not going that way. Plenty of pilots turn themselves into smoking holes in low altitude maneuvering. Pilots make smoking holes in planes with *working engines* just trying to *simulate* the low altitude turnback.
I know we're all above average pilots, but the risk is too high for me. Assuming the forward view from the windscreen is not a minefield full of grizzly bears, I'm not turning back unless it can be done with relatively shallow turns.

One exception is if I can turn back to the airport clear area, as opposed to trying to turn back to the runway (because that's a lot more than 180* of turns). Look at the video of the Mooney again. He very nearly caught the trees. Once he cleared the trees, he barely made the runway.
In the case of the airport photo an earlier poster put up, I *might* consider turning back to the airport, but in all likelihood not to the runway.

Again, the risk/reward math is:
The reward is turning an off field landing into a runway landing.
The risk is death.
That calculus does not add up for me. It'll work every time, until it doesn't.
I am sure the guys who died *practicing* this maneuver thought it would work.

I also know that in my Cherokee at full cruise (123kts TAS) followed by pulling power to idle and zooming to best glide speed while beginning a 40* back to the left, my plane needs 1200ft to make a full 360. It needs 900ft to make a 270* turn. It needs 600ft to make a 180* turn.
At Vy and pulling power, and waiting 2 seconds to begin any actions, my plane needs 700* to make a 180* turn, 1000* to make a 270* turn, and 1300ft to make a 360* turn.

 

[mantakos]

Perusing the NTSB files there's an awful lot of smoking holes from 'maneuvering' flight.

True, but this is something of a grab-bag category, and includes acrobatics, acting like a dumbass (e.g. "buzzing"), screwing up in the mountains, CFIT, crop dusting, etc. There's only so much relevant information provided by these stats.
-harry

 

[Steve Tatalovich]

If you noticed in daves video he never lost complete power he reduced power to try to minimize damage to the engine. He actually pulled the mixture to shut down the engine. Your chances of making it back to the airport are non-existant at 500' AGL with complete power failure, and you are an idiot and a dead man if you try. What are you looking at trying to accomplish by doing a turnback, saving the airplane?? Who cares about the airplane, focus rather on saving your life not the aircraft. Insurance will cover the aircraft. So many people run through this in their head because they now it is a tough situation to be in, have a plan and know in your head that a turn back is not a practical or wise solution. See the NTSB report below.



IAD03FA050HISTORY OF FLIGHT

On April 26, 2003, about 1630 eastern daylight time, a Beech A36, N523BL, was substantially damaged when it impacted trees during a descent after takeoff from James A. Rhodes Airport (I43), Jackson, Ohio. The certified flight instructor and the private pilot were fatally injured. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed, and no flight plan was filed for the instructional flight conducted under 14 CFR Part 91.

The accident flight occurred during a Beechcraft Pilot Proficiency Program (BPPP), being conducted over a 3-day period at Port Columbus International Airport (CMH), Columbus, Ohio. According to the president of the program, the purpose of the program was to pair pilot/owners of Beechcraft airplanes with instructors employed by BPPP, for the purpose of ground and flight training.

The private pilot had attended an all-day ground school the day prior to the accident, and was scheduled for a flight period from 1300-1700, with the instructor, on the afternoon of April 26. At the completion of the flight, the pilot was to receive his biennial flight review.

Several witnesses observed the airplane in the traffic pattern at Jackson. One witness reported that a pilot from the accident airplane announced over the UNICOM frequency that he was inbound to the airport on the GPS Runway 01 approach. The witness observed the airplane touchdown "smoothly" and back-taxi to runway 01. The pilot then announced over the Unicom that he would perform a takeoff from runway 01, northbound. The airplane departed the runway, then performed a 180-degree turn to land on runway 19. The airplane taxied to the approach end of runway 01, and a pilot announced over the Unicom that they would be performing a "simulated emergency landing" after takeoff.

The witness observed the "smooth, level takeoff," and noted that the engine was "really humming," and appeared to be at "full power." The airplane was in a "nose-up" attitude during the climb, and reached an altitude of about 1,200-1,300 feet [AGL] before it pitched down and impacted trees.

A second witness, who was a flight instructor at the airport, was located in the terminal building when he first observed the airplane back taxiing on runway 01. The airplane made a "normal" takeoff from runway 01, then returned to land on runway 19. The airplane again back-taxied to runway 01 and the witness keyed the Unicom microphone to inform the pilot of wind conditions from the north-northeast, at 3-5 knots. The pilot thanked the witness for reporting the winds and stated that he intended to take off from runway 01, and "do a simulated return to land on one nine."

The witness observed the airplane depart, then turned his attention away from it. When the witness looked back at the airplane, it was about 200 feet above the tree line, "descending vertically and rotating."

A third witness, who observed the airplane during its second takeoff climb, stated that it appeared the airplane "entered a stall," and its nose "dropped" into a continual right bank turn until it impacted trees. The witness also reported the engine was "solid-sounding" and he heard no interruption of power.

The accident occurred during the hours of daylight at 39 degrees, 07 minutes north latitude, and 77 degrees, 34 minutes west longitude.

PILOT INFORMATION

The pilot/owner of the airplane held a private pilot certificate with ratings for airplane single engine land and instrument airplane. Examination of his logbook revealed he had 405.4 hours of total flight experience, of which, 327.5 hours were in make and model. The pilot's most recent Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) third class medical certificate was issued on July 29, 2002.

The flight instructor held an airline transport pilot certificate, and was a certified instrument flight instructor for single and multi engine land. According to the latest flight instructor history form provided by the BPPP, the pilot had 7,300 hours of total flight experience, of which, 500 to 800 hours were in a similar make and model airplane. He also reported 3,000 hours of instruction time. The flight instructor's most recent FAA second class medical certificate was issued on April 12, 2002.

AIRCRAFT INFORMATION

According to fuel records provided by a fixed base operator at Port Columbus Airport, the airplane was refueled on April 26, 2003, with 12 gallons of 100 low lead aviation fuel.

Examination of the airplane logbooks revealed the last annual inspection was completed on August 21, 2002, at a tachometer time of 912 hours.

METEOROLOGICAL INFORMATION

Weather, reported at Tri-State Airport/Milton J. Ferguson Field (HTS), Huntington, West Virginia, 40 miles south of Jackson, at 1551, included light and variable winds at 3 knots, 10 miles visibility, a broken cloud layer at 4,400 feet, another broken cloud layer at 4,900 feet, temperature 63 degrees Fahrenheit, dew point 52 degrees Fahrenheit, and barometric pressure of 29.76 inches Hg.

WRECKAGE INFORMATION

The accident site was located in a densely wooded area, about 1 mile north of the departure end of runway 01, on the extended runway centerline. The initial impact point was a tree-strike about 15 feet above the ground, on a 35-foot tall tree. At the base of the tree was a 12-foot section of the leading edge of the right wing. Two additional tree strikes were noted prior to the main wreckage; however, no other trees in the surrounding area were disturbed. The broken ends of the tree strikes exhibited 45-degree cuts and some paint transfer. The impact angle through the trees was estimated to be about 60-degrees.

The wreckage path was oriented on a heading of 252 degrees magnetic and extended about 20 feet from the initial impact point to the main wreckage. The airplane came to rest upright, on a heading of 005 degrees magnetic, with all components accounted for in the immediate vicinity of the wreckage.

The main fuselage remained intact; however, severe aft crushing was noted in the cockpit area, exposing internal wiring and the right side of the instrument panel. The instrument panel was displaced into the engine firewall, and the engine had partially separated from the firewall, coming to rest on a heading of 090 degrees magnetic. The three-bladed propeller remained attached to the engine at the propeller hub. Two of the blades exhibited slight torsional bending, and one blade was bent and folded under the engine. Each of the blades exhibited chordwise scratching.

The rear portion of the right wing remained attached to the fuselage at the wing root, and the forward section of the wing was crushed aft to the main spar.

The left wing remained attached to the fuselage at the wing root and impact damage was noted on the leading edge.

The empennage remained attached to the fuselage; however, a tear was noted in the empennage section, just aft of the rear cabin seats, which encircled most of the empennage. Both the rudder and horizontal stabilizer remained intact and attached to the vertical stabilizer at their attachment points.

All flight controls remained attached at their respective attachment points and flight control continuity was confirmed from the flight controls to the cockpit. The landing gear and flaps were observed in the retracted positions, and measurements taken of their respective actuators confirmed the position.

Both fuel tanks were breached; however, the fuel caps were secured to the tanks. A slight odor of fuel was present at the scene, and emergency personnel observed fuel on the ground in the vicinity of the right wing. The fuel selector exhibited impact damage, and its position could not be determined. The fuel screen was absent of debris. Fuel was observed in the fuel line leading to the fuel distributor. The fuel was absent of debris and appeared blue in color.

The engine was removed from the airplane and the propeller was rotated manually at the propeller hub. Thumb compression was obtained on all cylinders and valve train continuity was confirmed to the rear accessory drive section.

The top spark plugs were removed and examination of their electrodes revealed they were intact and appeared light gray in color.

The right magneto was intact, and when manually rotated, sparks were observed on all towers. The left magneto was impact damaged, and did not produce spark when rotated.

The fuel pump rotated freely, and the drive shaft was intact.

The internal portion of the outer casing of the vacuum pump exhibited rotational scoring. Internal examination of the pump revealed that the vanes were impact damaged.

MEDICAL AND PATHOLOGICAL INFORMATION

An autopsy was performed on the pilot by personnel of the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.

Toxicological testing was conducted on the pilot at the FAA Toxicology Accident Research Laboratory, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

According to a pilot who flew with the instructor on the morning of the accident, one of the maneuvers which the instructor emphasized was an emergency landing after takeoff. The pilot stated that they practiced this maneuver twice; once at an altitude of 900 feet, and once at 1,000 feet. After the instructor pulled the power back at the desired altitude, the pilot would pitch the airplane for the "best glide speed," or 80 knots, and bank the airplane "real hard," into a 45-degree bank to return to the airport.

The Flight Instructor's In-flight Teaching Guide for the BPPP was found in the airplane. Listed under the MANUEVER section, ABNORMAL and EMERGENCY PROCEDURE, it states:

"Simulated Engine Failures - Bonanza: Perform at least one as circumstances permit
- On Takeoff
- After Liftoff
- Climb/cruise
- Maneuvering (stalls, slow flight etc.)
- During instrument operations"

Additionally, the EXPANDED NOTES section of the Flight Instructors Teaching Guide states,

"ABNORMAL & EMERGENCY PROCEDURES: TURN BACK AFTER POWER LOSS ON TAKEOFF IN SINGLE ENGINE AIRPLANE.
- Emphasize climb out at Vy with full power. Altitude gives the most options.
- Minimum altitude - 1200' above airport elevation.
- Aircraft will be 1.7 to 1.9 nm upwind from start of climb
- After failure, lower nose to establish glide AND look for suitable landing site. This forces a decision and creates a delay which is more realistic."

According to the Beechcraft Bonanza Pilot's Operating Handbook, Section III, EMERGENCY PROCEDURES,

"If engine failure occurs immediately after takeoff, landing straight ahead is usually advisable."

A review of FAA-H-8083-3, Airplane Flying Handbook, revealed:

"...If an actual engine failure should occur immediately after takeoff and before a safe maneuvering altitude is attained, it is usually inadvisable to attempt to turn back to the field from where the takeoff was made. Instead, it is safer to immediately establish the proper glide attitude, and select a field directly ahead or slightly to either side of the takeoff path."

On May 5, 2003, the airplane wreckage was released to a representative of the owner's insurance company.

 

[mantakos]

If you noticed in daves video he never lost complete power he reduced power to try to minimize damage to the engine.

The extent to which his "partial power" helped him to maintain altitude depends on how much power the engine was generating, and when he pulled the mixture, and I'm not sure we know either of these.

Your chances of making it back to the airport are non-existant at 500' AGL with complete power failure...

You state this as if it were fact, but it's actually hyperbole. 500AGL is lower than I would attempt a turnback, but under the right circumstances, it can certainly be performed successfully.

What are you looking at trying to accomplish by doing a turnback, saving the airplane??

Saving your backside, because an airport is a large area of flat space with no power lines, no trees, and no cars. How this compares to the surrounding area varies from airport to airport, but in some places, your other choices are crashing into houses or trees or rolling the dice with a landing on a highway full of cars and crossed by power lines.

As for your NTSB report, it proves a few things we already knew. First, it proves that it's possible to do this wrong. In particular, there seem to be fairly few pilots who even know how to correctly perform the maneuver, so when somebody "practices" it, we don't really know what maneuver they're practicing. Second, it provides evidence to support the notion that it's foolish to practice this maneuver at low altitude.
-harry

 

[Steve Tatalovich]

The extent to which his "partial power" helped him to maintain altitude depends on how much power the engine was generating, and when he pulled the mixture, and I'm not sure we know either of these.
You state this as if it were fact, but it's actually hyperbole. 500AGL is lower than I would attempt a turnback, but under the right circumstances, it can certainly be performed successfully.
Saving your backside, because an airport is a large area of flat space with no power lines, no trees, and no cars. How this compares to the surrounding area varies from airport to airport, but in some places, your other choices are crashing into houses or trees or rolling the dice with a landing on a highway full of cars and crossed by power lines.

As for your NTSB report, it proves a few things we already knew. First, it proves that it's possible to do this wrong. In particular, there seem to be fairly few pilots who even know how to correctly perform the maneuver, so when somebody "practices" it, we don't really know what maneuver they're practicing. Second, it provides evidence to support the notion that it's foolish to practice this maneuver at low altitude.
-harry

The only reason I said 500'AGL is because that is what Dave had said in the Aopa presentation. It is my opioion that at 500'AGL the deck is stacked against you.

Steve

 

[gismo]

The only reason I said 500'AGL is because that is what Dave had said in the Aopa presentation. It is my opioion that at 500'AGL the deck is stacked against you.

Steve

That's very dependent on the airplane (and to a lesser extent on the pilot's skill), and the wind. Consider that to get my glider rating I had to demonstrate a rope break at 200 AGL and there's no chance of bringing the power back up to salvage an attempt gone wrong. In my taildragger I've performed the simulated engine failure at altitude and found that I can make it with about a 200 ft altitude loss so with 500 ft to play with I think it would be a piece of cake. In the Bonanza I used to own the best I could manage was closer to 500 ft so I wouldn't expect success with less than 600-700 ft and the open cockpit biplane I had at one time probably needed more than 1000 ft to give even a 50/50 chance.

 

[Geico266]

When ever I see a video I always ask myself why is the camera there and why was it on? What and why was this guy taping a takeoff?

 

[mantakos]

When ever I see a video I always ask myself why is the camera there and why was it on? What and why was this guy taping a takeoff?

As I recall, his story was that he was planning a night landing, and wanted a video of his approach, and the runway lights, and all that. So it's not that he was specifically looking to record his takeoff, but that he wanted the camera setup to record something that he thought was going to occur later in the flight.
-harry

 

[ScottM]

When ever I see a video I always ask myself why is the camera there and why was it on? What and why was this guy taping a takeoff?

I have done that and posted the videos on youube. Many of us have done the same.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

I have done that and posted the videos on youube. Many of us have done the same.

Yup.