Wind direction and impossible turn

kyleb said:
Bingo. Climb gradient, takeoff roll length, glide ratio, winds, stall speed, pilot experience. Not an infinite number of variables, but they all matter and you're best served by having a plan before you begin the takeoff roll.
Click to expand...

My first instructor used to say, "get as high as you can as quick as you can." Of course that means to do so within reason. A steeper climb keeps you closer to the runway and gives more altitude but engine overheating could become a concern and if a power failure occurred then there would be less time to get the nose down and get to best glide speed.

I agree, have a plan before you push the knob against the firewall ...
 
Dana said:
It depends on the airplane. Ultralight? 500' is plenty. Lancair? Not so much. In between, Cub, 172, Bonanza... it varies. What's on the ground changes things, too. Every takeoff is different.
Click to expand...
All I know is the typical private pilot presenting for a flight review every 24 months struggle remembering the emergency checklist / best glide speed and struggle locating and putting the airplane in an 80 acre field from 2000 ft agl. Yet some think a transition from 10° nose up pitch in the climb to best glide while banking thru 270° turn from 500 AGL is not difficult .Errors can easily lead to a rapid, unrecoverable loss of control.

For the typical 4 place airplane, 500 AGL provides a 90° turn into a safe landing area that was hopefully briefed pre takeoff.

When you have personally seen the fireball short of the runway from a spin accident caused by a pilot trying to extend the glide to a runaway like I have, you might change your opinion.
 
Last edited:
Clip4 said:
All I know is the typical private pilot presenting for a flight review every 24 months struggle remembering the emergency checklist / best glide speed and struggle locating and putting the airplane in an 80 acre field from 2000 ft agl.
Click to expand...
Valid point. One thing I’ve tried to do is simplify that. A level cruise pitch attitude - the most familiar one we have - has approximated best glide in every single I’ve tried. I saw it for the first time when I did a rental checkout for a retired airline pilot. He looked out the window, chose a landing area, and headed toward it in about 6 seconds, capturing best glide in the process. I’ve been teaching that since.

I also get the flight review pilot who includes a turn back altitude in their takeoff briefing. I alway ask, “have you tried doing it?”
 
Good discussions but I kinda feel like the main point of the OP is getting lost. Aside from the high risk of a stall/spin when trying the impossible turn, I think Ed was pointing out that turning to downwind adds tremendously to the risk should one end up crashing with a tailwind (even “un-stalled” or “un-spun”) due to the higher ground speed - yet another compelling reason to think twice before trying such a turn.
 
AV8R_87 said:
Do you expect them to practice it at 500ft AGL or 3500ft AGL?
Click to expand...
My methodology is in this video. To answer your question directly, it's done at altitude to get a sense of how much altitude you need. Then it's done at the target altitude, the "target" is what you found at altitude plus a buffer (you will see in the video that my technique is not perfect - I don't expect it to be). That becomes the baseline to be adjusted based on conditions.

Ultimately, it has to be done at a low altitude to make any sense. Just from instrument training, you can see pilots get completely flummoxed when doing a circle to land at an altitude well below traffic pattern. It's a weird view.

 
midlifeflyer said:
My methodology is in this video. To answer your question directly, it's done at altitude to get a sense of how much altitude you need. Then it's done at the target altitude, the "target" is what you found at altitude plus a buffer (you will see in the video that my technique is not perfect - I don't expect it to be). That becomes the baseline to be adjusted based on conditions.

Ultimately, it has to be done at a low altitude to make any sense. Just from instrument training, you can see pilots get completely flummoxed when doing a circle to land at an altitude well below traffic pattern. It's a weird view.

Click to expand...

Solid methodology. Anyone who trains like that will be well prepared.

I think IRL some people subtract a buffer instead of adding one. They don't want to accept that they are going down off airport, so they rationalize turning back at a lower altitude than they have previously established as their minimum. Or they just completely disregard altitude and turn back reflexively.

IMO the critical teaching point is that a failed turnback is likely to be a fatal event. By the time you recognize and accept you are not going to finish the turn, you are too low to select a suitable touchdown site and maneuver to it. You are going down wherever the turn puts you. That is IF you roll out ... plenty of such accidents end with the aircraft impacting still in a bank and cartwheeling. Still others pull back as the ground approaches and stall, or tighten the turn and spin.

Hence, if you are not 100% sure you have enough altitude to make the turn back, you are better off using your altitude and time to select the most suitable off airport landing site in front of you, and maneuvering to arrive there with minimum energy.
 
Ed Haywood said:
IMO the critical teaching point is that a failed turnback is likely to be a fatal event. By the time you recognize and accept you are not going to finish the turn, you are too low to select a suitable touchdown site and maneuver to it. You are going down wherever the turn puts you. That is IF you roll out ... plenty of such accidents end with the aircraft impacting still in a bank and cartwheeling. Still others pull back as the ground approaches and stall, or tighten the turn and spin.

Hence, if you are not 100% sure you have enough altitude to make the turn back, you are better off using your altitude and time to select the most suitable off airport landing site in front of you, and maneuvering to arrive there with minimum energy.
Click to expand...

Yes, if there's any doubt you may not have the altitude necessary, don't even consider returning to the airport. Returning to the runway is one of those decisions and maneuvers that is likely to need more altitude to successfully complete than what may be pre-planned and practiced at altitude, for any variety and combinations of reasons.

When the ground is close and the descent rate during any significant bank angle is high, the view out the window with the ground coming up to meet you adds stress and distractions that you never encountered practicing at altitude. Better to have your memorized minimum turn around altitude padded on the high side.

The brain can only handle so much at once when your life literally depends upon making the right choices while under incredible pressure and surprise.
 
midlifeflyer said:
Valid point. One thing I’ve tried to do is simplify that. A level cruise pitch attitude - the most familiar one we have - has approximated best glide in every single I’ve tried. I saw it for the first time when I did a rental checkout for a retired airline pilot. He looked out the window, chose a landing area, and headed toward it in about 6 seconds, capturing best glide in the process. I’ve been teaching that since.

I also get the flight review pilot who includes a turn back altitude in their takeoff briefing. I alway ask, “have you tried doing it?”
Click to expand...
Take off a 10,000 runway, establish Vy, pitch level cruise at 300 AGL, immediately pull the power and see how fast things are happening just to get back on the runway. .
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top