Airport turnback procedure

[TThurston]

Which runway?

At my airport, U77, the runway is lined up with a canyon 5 miles away. Every morning there is a substantial wind blowing out of that canyon, so in the morning, there's only one runway you can use. However, there are no good options for landing straight ahead if you use that runway. So, even though I'd prefer to fly in the morning, I usually schedule my flights for sometime after 11. Then I can usually take off the other direction with lots of good fields for landing straight ahead.

I know this is an unusual situation, but there may be other cases where it could be considered. When the winds are light, there may be times when a takeoff with a slight tailwind gives better emergency options than a takeoff with a slight headwind.

 

[Jerry Cochran]

Pierre's turnbacks

For those interested in this grandaddy of all turnback discussions (and some very interesting video of super experienced Ag pilot Pierre Smith doing a turnback in his RV6A from just 250 feet) see here:
http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=30649

Very interesting video of Pierre doing turnbacks. They raise a couple questions such as does his RV have a CS prop? If so, did he pull the blue knob? I know that big disc applies a LOT of braking/drag when power is reduced.

And... What was his airspeed when he cut the power? I ask because his departure looks pretty flat, not a typical 90kt climb.

Pierre? What say you?

 

[jetjok]

I agree that we live in the gray in GA... And we love the freedom it gives us, but the black and white SOPs of the Airline world yield a much safer result.

To be clear, I have no intention of changing the minds of those who have this "all figured out." My intent is always to bring a honest assessment of the risks of this to those sitting on the fence.

Tailwinds,
Doug Rozendaal

Doug,
Maybe you could explain the "black and white SOP's of the Airline world" so that the non-airline types could understand the meaning of your statement?
It would seem to me that even in the airlines, pilots are continually faced with decisions and situations that are not "black and white".

Also (and again I guess we shall disagree), one does not have to hold a low level waiver to experience what you speak of. As a quick reference, I would bet that ag pilots like Pierre, folks who fly fire suppression, and others who have spent their lives toiling away at low altitudes in all types of environments can speak with plenty of authority.

I want to be clear that I am certainly not advocating a turn to the runway is always the proper course of action. I think we are in complete agreement that maintaining your heading, and focusing on flying the plane is the best course of action in some cases. However, there are circumstances where going straight on is NOT the best course of action, dictated by; terrain, altitude, etc. We agree that if you commence a turn, it should be well thought out, and the outcome fairly well assured.

 

[jrs14855]

turn back

B25 finally brought up what I have been waiting for. The SAVE THE AIRPLANE mentality. This is the OVERRIDING FACTOR we are dealing with with homebuilt airplanes. It is not about safety, training etc, it is ONLY about save the airplane. Of course we will never know for sure, but in my heart I know that the guy in the Lancair was ONLY thinking about saving his airplane.
A second issue, not directly related to this, is that there are people in every area of aviation, from Private Pilot to the airlines, who simply should not be flying airplanes. The premise that anyone can be taught to fly an airplane SAFELY is pure bs.
For a look into the airline world, go to aero-news.net and read about the Airbus accident at New Orleans.

 

[B25Flyer]

Doug,
Maybe you could explain the "black and white SOP's of the Airline world" so that the non-airline types could understand the meaning of your statement?
It would seem to me that even in the airlines, pilots are continually faced with decisions and situations that are not "black and white".

Also (and again I guess we shall disagree), one does not have to hold a low level waiver to experience what you speak of. As a quick reference, I would bet that ag pilots like Pierre, folks who fly fire suppression, and others who have spent their lives toiling away at low altitudes in all types of environments can speak with plenty of authority.

SOP = Standard Operating Procedure, and that means for nearly every situation there is a SOP that applies. This involves speeds, altitudes, emergency procedures, nearly everything. It would be a very rare day when a 121 carrier pilot has to make a decision for which there is not a SOP. The judgement comes from defining the situation and determining which SOP to utilize....

For instance a typical Standard might be fully configured and slowed to Vref +15/-0 at the FAF when IMC and 1500 ft AGL when Vmc. At 1000 IMC and 500 AGL Vmc the requirements might be V-ref +5/-0. If a pilot exceeds these standards the Pilot not Flying might be required to call for a missed approach. Typical ILS standards are limited to 1 dot off center. Anything more than that requires a missed approach.

The most extreme example I know of was Airborne Express. I used to have jumpseat privileges on them. Every word they used in the cockpit below 10,000 feet was scripted. The most common cause of accidents in a crew served airplane is miss-communication. They scripted every word to prevent miss-communication.

I would agree that Ag and Fire pilots have some experience with ground rush and low pull out recoveries.... But still that is a very small percentage of the pilot population..... And ask an Ag Pilot, it takes a day or two for them to get back into the groove of coming over the wires in the spring.

The discussion about C/S props raises a good point. If you lose oil pressure, the prop will be at flat pitch and the sink rate at flat pitch is much different that at coarse pitch. How long does it take to decide if the prop is responding and react accordingly? What is the difference in the altitude requirements for flat vs coarse pitch? How much time does it take to sort that out and analyze the correct response?

Trib said there has to be some altitude, 500 or 5000... That is a valid point. At some point it is no longer "after take-off" I agree with that.... I would say that occurs at an altitude when you can execute a 360 degree turn with the mixture pulled at best glide, plus a good margin... That means you can identify the problem, lower the nose, establish glide speed, decide to turn around, turn around, survey the situation, and if you don't like what was behind you, turn back into the wind so you can land at minimum ground speed. For most airplanes that is not in the hundreds of feet AGL.

Tailwinds,
Doug Rozendaal

 

[RV8R999]

flying into an oak tree at 75 mph in an aluminum airplane because it is straight ahead makes less sense than trying for the clear field to the side or behind you. it's not just about the plane ...that tree is gonna hurt! I wouldnt drive my F150 truck into the tree either. learn your plane, fly the plane. the problem with counting all the turn-back failures is we will never know how many successes occur. i needed 650ft in my bd4 with a 90 mph climb out adding a 3 sec delay from power pull to first response to simulate the shock delay. in the -6 I transitioned in we were able to consistently execute a turn back at 450-500ft gal. maintain a 1 g turn and stall margin remains the same. go practice at altitude to prove you can do it. I use this mental checklist " dump, suck, point". dump the nose, suck up the flaps, point nose in direction of landing" . practice at max gw and forward cg.

 

[terrykohler]

Good Point

That is a valid point. At some point it is no longer "after take-off" I agree with that.... I would say that occurs at an altitude when you can execute a 360 degree turn with the mixture pulled at best glide, plus a good margin... That means you can identify the problem, lower the nose, establish glide speed, decide to turn around, turn around, survey the situation, and if you don't like what was behind you, turn back into the wind so you can land at minimum ground speed. For most airplanes that is not in the hundreds of feet AGL.

Tailwinds,
Doug Rozendaal

A lot of debate going on here which seems to point toward professional or high time pilots who are willing to keep practicing (or are just repeating something they do at work). That's a very small percentage, even of the folks following these forums. Can Pierre successfully execute a low level power off 180? I'd be willing to bet on it. I'd also bet that most of that comes from "muscle memory", where the necessary calculations are quickly processed as a result of thousands of similar experiences. Not sure how many more AG pilots are on the forums. Much more common are the pilots I see who, when we're on a wide downwind I ask, "can you make the field if you lose the engine?" Answer is nearly 100% yes, and the results are nearly 100% no. Amazing how a firm hand over a closed throttle drives the point home.
Doug knows of what he speaks. For the greatest percentage of pilots, your best chance at survival at low level is in front of you. If you think you can pull off a low 180, go back to the beginning of this thread to see what started the debate.
Terry, CFI
RV-9A N323TP

 

[yakdriver]

Here is a very good video on turn backs. It really shows and explains the dynamics. Don
http://www.aerobats.com/seminar_02-07.html

Guys, please watch this video. It was done by two professional pilots and is the best demonstration of the turnback I have seen. Very instructive. Don

 

[steve91t]

flying into an oak tree at 75 mph in an aluminum airplane because it is straight ahead makes less sense than trying for the clear field to the side or behind you. it's not just about the plane ...that tree is gonna hurt! I wouldnt drive my F150 truck into the tree either. learn your plane, fly the plane. the problem with counting all the turn-back failures is we will never know how many successes occur. i needed 650ft in my bd4 with a 90 mph climb out adding a 3 sec delay from power pull to first response to simulate the shock delay. in the -6 I transitioned in we were able to consistently execute a turn back at 450-500ft gal. maintain a 1 g turn and stall margin remains the same. go practice at altitude to prove you can do it. I use this mental checklist " dump, suck, point". dump the nose, suck up the flaps, point nose in direction of landing" . practice at max gw and forward cg.

As long as you have airspeed.

This whole topic comes down to one thing. Fly the airplane. The moment you stall the airplane, you just gave up.

I'd rather fly an airplane into a tree rather than give up any control I had.

 

[jetjok]

SOP = Standard Operating Procedure, and that means for nearly every situation there is a SOP that applies. This involves speeds, altitudes, emergency procedures, nearly everything. It would be a very rare day when a 121 carrier pilot has to make a decision for which there is not a SOP. The judgement comes from defining the situation and determining which SOP to utilize....
Tailwinds,
Doug Rozendaal

Really????!!!!.......Not sure what your experiences have been to make you feel qualified to make such a statement. But, I will respectfully submit that you need to come spend a month or so in the world of a 121 carrier pilot. Especially one who flies for a freight or supplemental carrier, such as I (and others on this forum) do. If we needed to have SP's that covered every situation, we would never get off the ground!
Anyway...I will no longer participate in the hijack of this thread. I hope that the original poster has been able to glean some useful information

 

[jrs14855]

video

Fantastic video. Absolutely the best information I have seen on this subject. Michael Church owns Sunrise Aviation at John Wayne Airport in Santa Ana CA. He writes a monthly column in Pacific Flyer that is always very educational and informative. I think Michael was in the right seat. Sunrise has several aerobatic aircraft and does a lot of acro training.

 

[N8RV]

This discussion has value

I've never been faced with a problem on takeoff, thankfully. However, I like to think that I'm always prepared for the worst. That thought, and some kind of plan, are always in the back of my brain somewhere if needed.

At our home field, it was a given that landing in the fields straight ahead of RWY 21 was the best option, and over the years, several spam can drivers have availed themselves of that opportunity and lived. However, in the ensuing years, a subdivision has sprouted up, making that decision far more complicated. Same with the ends of each runway, sadly. What's with these people??

Anyway, if it's any consolation for those wondering if there's any value in continuing to hash out the topic, I for one have taken some action because of it. I just sent off a note to my insurance broker to quote me hull coverage.

I've been running with liability only because the plane's paid for and to save some money, times being what they are. However, as has been mentioned, I have a sneaking suspicion that, in the event of a takeoff emergency (or any other forced landing, for that matter), I will be overly concerned about damage to my plane. Common sense agrees with Doug -- land straight ahead. But my instinct (I think) will be to save the plane if at all possible. And, face it, guys -- most of us have egos that deceive us into thinking that we can do ANYTHING in our planes, even the "impossible turn".

So, thanks for all of the comments. If I add hull coverage, maybe ... just maybe I would be able to convince myself to forget about hurting the plane and concentrate on saving my skin!

 

[jrs14855]

SOP

I am not taking sides on this but I am reminded of the United DC10 Captain at Souix City who asked for the total hydraulic failure checklist and the FE responded "there isn't one". The SOP's cover MANY situations but by no means all. Air France, Air Trans, Swissair etc. NOT COVERED.
I flew for several small 121 airlines. The first had the most detailed SOP's. The problem was that half the Captains didn't follow most of them. Early on I flew with a Captain who had started with a large European Airline. He said "you can take any airline in the world and apply the 40/10 rule. The top ten percent are outstanding aviators in every respect. The next 40 percent are above average. The next 40 percent are below average. The bottom 10 percent are lunatics, incompetents and misfits."
Crew Resource management(CRM) has done a lot to improve the bottom 10 percent. Having said this I know that at least a few of the loons I flew with 30 years ago are Captains for major US airlines.

 

[jrs14855]

why not practice

Instead of the $100 dollar( or much more) hamburger flight, why not practice?? At least once every three months. 45 and 60 degree bank power off turns, idle power spot landings from abeam the numbers, stalls out of uncoordinated turns etc etc etc.
And go get some spin training from a good school like Sunrise Aviation. It will be the best money you ever spent.

 

[yakdriver]

Fantastic video. Absolutely the best information I have seen on this subject. Michael Church owns Sunrise Aviation at John Wayne Airport in Santa Ana CA. He writes a monthly column in Pacific Flyer that is always very educational and informative. I think Michael was in the right seat. Sunrise has several aerobatic aircraft and does a lot of acro training.

Michael is in the right seat and Ty is flying. Ty is a fantastic pilot and aeronautical engineer. At Sunrise this maneuver is taught to all the rental pilots as there is not very many places to go at SNA if you have an engine failure. It was interesting to me that the higher bank angle gets you back around with minimal altitude loss. Don

 

[tejasflyer]

While this practice is valuable, and I do not mean to infer that you should not do these things. You should realize, however, that in an actual engine out, the windmilling prop creates a LOT more drag than an idling prop. I know this from experience, and after practicing by idling the prop, I was quite surprised at the difference in drag. I can't suggest turning off the engine, due to the obvious risks, but you should definitely be aware that there is a huge difference. I wish there was a safe way to get a true engine out practice. There has been some discussion of increasing the glide by allowing the prop to stop, but this would be impossible to coordinate at low altitude while dealing with an engine out. It's a really valid discussion, and thought provoking.

KB

 

[jetjok]

I am not taking sides on this but I am reminded of the United DC10 Captain at Souix City who asked for the total hydraulic failure checklist and the FE responded "there isn't one". The SOP's cover MANY situations but by no means all. Air France, Air Trans, Swissair etc. NOT COVERED.
I flew for several small 121 airlines. The first had the most detailed SOP's. The problem was that half the Captains didn't follow most of them. Early on I flew with a Captain who had started with a large European Airline. He said "you can take any airline in the world and apply the 40/10 rule. The top ten percent are outstanding aviators in every respect. The next 40 percent are above average. The next 40 percent are below average. The bottom 10 percent are lunatics, incompetents and misfits."
Crew Resource management(CRM) has done a lot to improve the bottom 10 percent. Having said this I know that at least a few of the loons I flew with 30 years ago are Captains for major US airlines.

I don't think that Sully's little dunk in the Hudson was in USAirways SP's either!
Thew 40/10 rule is a very good analysis. My findings are that aviators who profess to belong in the top 10%, are usually lucky to be in the latter 40%!

 

[pierre smith]

Caveat!

Very interesting video of Pierre doing turnbacks. They raise a couple questions such as does his RV have a CS prop? If so, did he pull the blue knob? I know that big disc applies a LOT of braking/drag when power is reduced.

And... What was his airspeed when he cut the power? I ask because his departure looks pretty flat, not a typical 90kt climb.

Pierre? What say you?

You have to realize that this was planned before takeoff! I started up high and worked my way down. Much different from being caught by surprise!

As Doug has already said, you're still better off landing under control, more or less straight ahead or to either side if a field of some sort is available.

My late boss landed an Agwagon in a stand of pine trees following a total loss of power and got more scratched climbing down the trees than on impact. Notice, I said LANDED....full flaps and a flare to the tree tops. The airplane was rebuilt and it flew again.

Best,


BTW, my -6A had a FP three-bladed Catto...glided like crazy and I had to go around after the high altitude turnaround because I would have run off a cliff on the far end after I had used up all of the 5,000' runway trying to slow down!

 

[RV10inOz]

Back in January this year we were discussing what would be a fair and safe bet for making a turnback. We practised a few at 2000' then returned to the field and did some for real off the deck.

Our procedure was to fail the engine, count to 3 to account for the OH F### what was that factor and then went about a 45 degree turn. We did 45 as most people should be able to do a good 45 degree turn rather than a 60 degree one.

The video below begins with a normal glide approach from the circuit, followed by two EFATO's.

The idea was to get the turn happening and hold it with a small margin above the stall. First one was 500' and with two up and full fuel in the RV10 we would have crashed off the far end of the runway unless we slipped or did something else to get rid of height.

Second run was 400AGL and we think 300 would have worked but that was line ball. at 300 though a bit of a turn to another runway or a better choice of field may be the go.

The message is clear.... KNOW YOUR AEROPLANE!

http://youtu.be/uvTUW28JnpY

 

[Bavafa]

This tread started with a very sad news but has been very educational and important.

One of the thing that I haven't seen being discussed/mentioned here and would appreciate some thoughts on it, is the initial rate of climb.
My old instructor always thought us to climb Vx to a safe altitude and then move on. I like to get peoples perspective in this regard in two points
1- climbing Vx gives you higher altitude for the distance but also you are at a steeper angle and any loss of power will make the stall so much quicker. What are the practical and reality of such climb rate in regards to the speed and regaining it back. I know in my RV, getting slow on final is not a good thing as getting it back is not that quick without adding power. (All my landings are pulled to idle a beam of the #)

2- Would climbing Vx put you too close to the airport (assuming a 3000-4000' runway) to turn back?

My airport is very unfriendly in regards to power loss during the take off. I have surveyed the area and have a game plan if I am really low or fairly high, but in between (400-600) I believe the best path would be a controlled landing straight into the trees/hills ahead.

P.S. I know the importance of practice and I do my share of it, but I always wonder how I will do under the real stress of an actual power loss. Even pulling it to idle and practice engine out, rises my heart rate despite the fact I know I can always add power

 

[flyboy1963]

turnback, or just airmanship



A lot of debate going on here which seems to point toward professional or high time pilots who are willing to keep practicing (or are just repeating something they do at work). That's a very small percentage, even of the folks following these forums.

Much more common are the pilots I see who, when we're on a wide downwind I ask, "can you make the field if you lose the engine?" Answer is nearly 100% yes, and the results are nearly 100% no. Amazing how a firm hand over a closed throttle drives the point home.
Doug knows of what he speaks. For the greatest percentage of pilots, your best chance at survival at low level is in front of you. If you think you can pull off a low 180, go back to the beginning of this thread to see what started the debate.
Terry, CFI
RV-9A N323TP

Terry hits the nail on the head. Most of us are NOT pro's, aero or Ag jockeys.
How can we expect to perform a demanding low-level steep hi-G bank at minimum A/S if we cant' even glide to the runway from the circuit?
Do I go practice full glide approaches?....well, I always INTEND to, then run out of spare time, after having my 'fun' flight.
The tower clears me straight in, so I take it, when I should say, " prefer to join the circuit for some practice approaches!" (They just want to get me out of the way of the scheduled traffic.)
If nothing else, let's go out and re-learn the glide angle and airspeeds. 'Google earth' the fields you commonly fly to, and pick some fields off the end of each runway...then confirm by flying over them that they'd make good emergency LZ's.

 

[gereed75]

Actual engine out

Tejasflyer , I have done quite a bit of actual engine out in flight (just pull on the Red handle) in an effort to establish the actual engine out glide performance at 80 kts (I understand your reluctance, but it is not a huge deal, the prop will wind mill and restart will occurr instantly when the red knob goes back in(even so, I practice this only over a field I know I can make)). In my airplane - IO-360, WW200RV C/S @ prop full increase, RV-6; the descent rate is 1100 fpm.

I can duplicate that exact descent rate and speed by engine to idle, flaps cracked to about 12 degrees. This is where I simulate "engine out".

Glide will be actually better with prop at full decrease, which is where I'll go in an actual engine out. I practice "worst case".

You are right Perry, you should really know all of this. You don't have to be a "pro, or Ag jocky" to practice it. This type of stuff should be rudimentary knowledge for your airplane and for all pilots. Once you can accurately set up the airplane to the simulated engine out parameters, you can practice it to a farmers field (within FAR regs of course). You will be amazed what you learn looking at what you thought was a great place to land from 2000', when you see it at 500', waving off from a simulated emergency landing.

This is the kind of standardized knowledge and practice that has to be going on out there in the RV fleet, practiced routinely (while collecting the $100.00 hamburger) to start to get the accident rate down!!! This is what makes a slep into a pro, we are almost all capable of doing it. Take the time to get serious about being a better pilot.

The best effort we (as a group) could probably make to address the concerns Van stated in the recent article is to organize some interested folks and begin to write a real POH emergency procedures section, (based on actual performance data) to include standard manuevers to practice to prepare for that bad day. We can get a great response when Stu is holding a clinic to standardize some form flyers. A great first step to improvement would be a similar organization and effort for some Saftey related standardization.

Off my soapbox, over and out.

 

[RV10inOz]

Bavafa

My advice is to ONLY use Vx for when you must clear an obstacle out of a short strip.

Vy is more appropriate 99% of the time for the very reason you mention. It is often better to have more kinetic energy available to point yourself where you want to go rather than have to convert potential energy into kinetic at the same time.

I learned a lot from a fellow who now flies for RBA but spent 15 years flying in PNG. The fact he is alive today should validate his teachings.

By the way it was Chuck flying when we did these turn back tests. I did some at altitude and he did the ones close to the ground. It really shows how you should know your aeroplane.

And yes....these threads are good.

 

[Bavafa]

Bavafa

My advice is to ONLY use Vx for when you must clear an obstacle out of a short strip.

Vy is more appropriate 99% of the time for the very reason you mention. It is often better to have more kinetic energy available to point yourself where you want to go rather than have to convert potential energy into kinetic at the same time.

I learned a lot from a fellow who now flies for RBA but spent 15 years flying in PNG. The fact he is alive today should validate his teachings.

By the way it was Chuck flying when we did these turn back tests. I did some at altitude and he did the ones close to the ground. It really shows how you should know your aeroplane.

And yes....these threads are good.

I agree just by knowing my plane and how much more scary it can be to loose power during steep climb and close to ground but I thought there might be a word of wisdom contrary to my experience. I can see myself in a much bigger surprise and challenge at Vx if she ever let go of power.

Another way that I have been thinking about this and favoring shallower climb rate & with higher speed, I can always pull on the stick a bit to gain a bit of an altitude and convert that extra energy into gained altitude in case of power loss.
I think if done quickly enough perhaps as the first instinct, one may gain a 100 or 200' just to bring it to the desired glide speed.

Cheers

 

[SpyderMike]

I got a partner for my Cirrus SR22 and he was in his first transition training session with a 5000 hour instructor who normally flies a Pitts. The instructor decided to demonstrate the return to airport maneuver at 550 feet. He counts to three, turns left at 45 degrees and best glide and BARELY makes it. He scraped the wingtip on the ground pretty good. This was besides briefing it in advance by a guy who should know, a guy very familiar with this manuever.

I am convinced i will climb Vy (usually based on the airports I frequent) and if i have an issue below 800 feet I am heading straight ahead + or - 45 degrees and usually I will google earth the area to narrow that down in advance.

Above 800 feet I will pull the chute. The insurance company can have it.

Mike

 

[Phlyan Pan]

Above 800 feet I will pull the chute. The insurance company can have it.

um....really?

I would think at 800 feet you have many more options than you do below 800. It might even be possible to save the plane entirely.

 

[steve91t]

I got a partner for my Cirrus SR22 and he was in his first transition training session with a 5000 hour instructor who normally flies a Pitts. The instructor decided to demonstrate the return to airport maneuver at 550 feet. He counts to three, turns left at 45 degrees and best glide and BARELY makes it. He scraped the wingtip on the ground pretty good. This was besides briefing it in advance by a guy who should know, a guy very familiar with this manuever.

I am convinced i will climb Vy (usually based on the airports I frequent) and if i have an issue below 800 feet I am heading straight ahead + or - 45 degrees and usually I will google earth the area to narrow that down in advance.

Above 800 feet I will pull the chute. The insurance company can have it.

Mike

I don't know what happened to my post, but I completely disagree with your way of thinking. You are basically saying, engine quits on take off at 1000 feet, you're going to give up and pull the chute. Especially on take off, there is no reason why you can't turn around.

I would much rather fly a plane to the ground than pull the chute, hope it works, and hope it actually brings me down safely.


Also, your partner and instructor nearly took it too far. They practiced an emergency to the point where they almost created one! They should have gotten to a point and said "hey, this is going to be close, but we know we could make it if we had to, but let's go around and try again".

Again, I know this probably came off as being harsh, but you really need to think about what's really safe.

Steve

 

[jrs14855]

How Low?

Note in the Sunrise video they went around each time at a reasonable altitude. Taking it so far you drag a wingtip is ridiculous. You should know at 100 feet if its going to work.

 

[yakdriver]

Jim, I don't think any of these guys have looked at that video. Too bad as it pretty much sums up the whole argument. Don

 

[Toobuilder]

...Above 800 feet I will pull the chute. The insurance company can have it...

Intersting train of thought. I've never flown a Cirrus, but in almost any situation I can imagine (combat, competition aerobatics, etc), the chute is the absolute LAST resort. The chute is very risky in and of itself, so the alternative must be worse for that option to make sense. 800+ feet without an engine provides a fair amount of time to pick your spot for landing - it may not be on the runway, but a fully controlled forced landing seems safer than the completely uncontrolable ride (and landing) the chute will provide.

I guess I'd have to do more research before the "god handle" rises off the bottom peg of possible options.

 

[SpyderMike]

um....really?

I would think at 800 feet you have many more options than you do below 800. It might even be possible to save the plane entirely.

Yes, really. Options run out real fast in the midst of an engine out. Save the plane....for what? There are others out there, it can be replaced real fast.

 

[SpyderMike]

I don't know what happened to my post, but I completely disagree with your way of thinking. You are basically saying, engine quits on take off at 1000 feet, you're going to give up and pull the chute. Especially on take off, there is no reason why you can't turn around.

I would much rather fly a plane to the ground than pull the chute, hope it works, and hope it actually brings me down safely.


Also, your partner and instructor nearly took it too far. They practiced an emergency to the point where they almost created one! They should have gotten to a point and said "hey, this is going to be close, but we know we could make it if we had to, but let's go around and try again".

Again, I know this probably came off as being harsh, but you really need to think about what's really safe.

Steve

No problem Steve. I said I pull the chute above 800 feet. I didn't relate my strategy for every altitude and situation. There is a height for a given situation where I would make a landing on airport, but generally by that time I am well outside the airport boundary. The airports I typically fly from are in higher density areas...not leaving a lot of nice landing spots off airport.

The CFI definitely took it too far and admitted it. There is a fixation which happens as you stare at the goal...it almost caused them a serious problem. It has killed others.

The chute has proven to work reliably. Where it hasn't helped people is when it wasn't used and should have been...including some return to airport maneuvers.

 

[SpyderMike]

The chute is very risky in and of itself, so the alternative must be worse for that option to make sense. 800+ feet without an engine provides a fair amount of time to pick your spot for landing - it may not be on the runway, but a fully controlled forced landing seems safer than the completely uncontrolable ride (and landing) the chute will provide.
.

Risky? Compared to what? An off airport landing in an unknown area with unknown obstacles? How much control do you have when you realize you have misjudged and aren't going to make it?

The energy you have to dissipate is much more gliding in than riding a chute down. That energy has to go somewhere.

Unfortunately there is evidence to the contrary. The chute does work based on the many uses of it. Hey, I am not pushing the chute, this thread is about the return to airport maneuver. In the Cirrus, I have on more tool in my bag given that situation. Below chute height, I am straight or plus/minus an angle. Above chute height, I pull the chute. Way above chute height, then I have other options.

Unfortunately, in my homebuilt, I don't have that tool.

 

[Toobuilder]

Risky? Compared to what? An off airport landing in an unknown area with unknown obstacles? How much control do you have when you realize you have misjudged and aren't going to make it?

Just my personal opinion and evaluation of risk, but once you pull the handle then you have relinquished all control; It's up to fate now. Not saying the god handle does not have some saves to its credit, but considering how many it has killed, I'd have to use different criteria than an arbitrary altitude before using it. Sure, it's generally better to punch out of an F-16 than perform a forced landing, but that is not because the seat is "safe"; it's because a forced landing at 200+ knots on anything but smooth concrete is usually worse. This is a lot different than a 65 knot Cirrus.

To bring this thread back home, a controlled crash is generally survivable in light airplanes - the desperate need for a "safe" alternative such as a chute or that tempting runway behind you often cloud our judgment and distract us from rule #1 - fly the airplane.

 

[L.Adamson]

Just my personal opinion and evaluation of risk, but once you pull the handle then you have relinquished all control; It's up to fate now. Not saying the god handle does not have some saves to its credit, but considering how many it has killed, I'd have to use different criteria than an arbitrary altitude before using it. Sure, it's generally better to punch out of an F-16 than perform a forced landing, but that is not because the seat is "safe"; it's because a forced landing at 200+ knots on anything but smooth concrete is usually worse. This is a lot different than a 65 knot Cirrus.

To bring this thread back home, a controlled crash is generally survivable in light airplanes - the desperate need for a "safe" alternative such as a chute or that tempting runway behind you often cloud our judgment and distract us from rule #1 - fly the airplane.

In several ways, I'm going to agree with Spydermike. True, 200+ knots IS a lot different than a 65 knot Cirrus. But if you can't guarantee some dissipation of energy from that 65 knots, then the chute may be a better first option. I know this, because of several fatal crashes close to my home. I'm next door to an airport.

It's just a matter making a quick decision of what's probably the best out come. It never hurts to have that ballistic chute as an option.

BTW--- I now know what it feels like to hit a large deer at 65 mph on a motorcycle.... from personal experience. At least the deer gave a bit.....and it wasn't a solid wall!

L.Adamson --- RV6A

 

[B25Flyer]

To bring this thread back home, a controlled crash is generally survivable in light airplanes - the desperate need for a "safe" alternative such as a chute or that tempting runway behind you often cloud our judgment and distract us from rule #1 - fly the airplane.

FWIW... Here is a link to some data... http://www.cirruspilots.org/content/SafetyHowSafeIsACirrus.aspx

The key word is control... As pilots we have this ultimate belief in our own ability to save the day. It is perfectly understandable, but often wrong... All in all, the parachute deployments have been pretty successful....

With a good landing option I would probably take it, but with any question, I would pull the red handle.

I never thought the parachute was needed, but when after 20 years of marriage my wife decided she would start riding in our Debonair, my tune changed... We would be flying over trees or rocks or at night and she started asking what would we do if the fire went out....

She is smart enough to know that my answers were pretty lame. A parachute would have been an acceptable answer for her. My answer was a Baron...

When I can no longer afford to feed the Baron (that day is probably already here.) I could see a Cirrus in my Hangar. Not because I particularly like the way they fly, (I am not a huge fan of their handling) but they are very comfortable, relatively fast, the parachute would make my wife more at ease....

Tailwinds,
Doug Rozendaal

 

[steve91t]

The reason I'd want a chute is because it's another safety device. You can never have too many of those. I know pilots who have actually said to me, who needs EGPWS? It's a waist of time and keeps yelling at you all the time! I'm open to anything that can help keep me safe.

I'll be honest I have thought about, what happens if a wing or something falls off. Not that it's that common, but stranger things have happened. I just can't imagine that feeling of looking out the window, seeing that your wing is gone, and knowing there is absolutely nothing you can do about it.

I was cruising along at 230kts in my Dash 8 with 53 souls on board at 9000 feet out of Philly one day. All of a sudden, I spot a skydiver, under his canopy, in a spiral trying to get out of our way. He went under our right wing by no more than 100 ft. I didn't even have time to disconnect the autopilot. That's what really made me think that really, anything can happen.

I would use a chute if I found there was absolutely nothing I could do to save myself or my passengers (forget about the plane). But if I have control of the plane, there is no way I'd pull the handle.

"As pilots we have this ultimate belief in our own ability to save the day"

Well put B25Flyer.

I really think it's about using what resources you have, at the right time. There is no guarantee that chute will work. That's why skydivers have two of them! They are not a sure thing.


I really feel the chute should be used as a last resort. I'd hate to see someone simply loose an engine and be killed because their chute failed to work as advertised.

Steve

 

[SpyderMike]

I think it is all about maintaining control. The Lancair pilot that this thread started about had control until he lost it. I have no problem relinquishing control to a chute, personally, but this thread is about the return to airport manuever.

My problem with the return to airport manuever is there is a snap decision to be made and once made, one tends to commit. I mean thet mere fact you have to aggressively push the nose and hard bank to 45 degrees in the correct direction commits you. Then as you come around, you have to adjust. now you are into another decision cycle - am I going to make it? If not, now what do I do? Then target fixation takes over, and if your decision wasn't right at the outset, or you haven't corrected for winds, the other planes in the pattern, the fire that just started under the cowl, the screaming passenger, the oil covering the canopy, the birds approaching your field of view, the helicopter hovering near the runway, the affect of teh adrenaline taking over, the sun smacking you dead in the eyes, you get the idea, you may have bought the farm for everyone in the plane (and who knows who else on the ground).

Everyone is different, and everyone prepares for this possible scenario differently. I don't have statistics to back this up, but I have a gut feel that there are more pilots and passengers in the ground because they ran out of options and made the wrong decision to begin with than those which lucked out. If it isn't lopsided in numbers, then I can say that I think the number of people buried because of the manuever is still way too high FOR ME. That alone says enough to me.

As a casual private pilot, I practice a simple mantra that I hope sticks with me in my time of need.


Mike

 

[steve91t]

I think it is all about maintaining control. The Lancair pilot that this thread started about had control until he lost it. I have no problem relinquishing control to a chute, personally, but this thread is about the return to airport manuever.

My problem with the return to airport manuever is there is a snap decision to be made and once made, one tends to commit. I mean thet mere fact you have to aggressively push the nose and hard bank to 45 degrees in the correct direction commits you. Then as you come around, you have to adjust. now you are into another decision cycle - am I going to make it? If not, now what do I do? Then target fixation takes over, and if your decision wasn't right at the outset, or you haven't corrected for winds, the other planes in the pattern, the fire that just started under the cowl, the screaming passenger, the oil covering the canopy, the birds approaching your field of view, the helicopter hovering near the runway, the affect of teh adrenaline taking over, the sun smacking you dead in the eyes, you get the idea, you may have bought the farm for everyone in the plane (and who knows who else on the ground).

Everyone is different, and everyone prepares for this possible scenario differently. I don't have statistics to back this up, but I have a gut feel that there are more pilots and passengers in the ground because they ran out of options and made the wrong decision to begin with than those which lucked out. If it isn't lopsided in numbers, then I can say that I think the number of people buried because of the manuever is still way too high FOR ME. That alone says enough to me.

As a casual private pilot, I practice a simple mantra that I hope sticks with me in my time of need.


Mike

I agree 100%. Except I feel that everything that you mentioned, which makes things difficult, also makes you a pilot. You can't just take the easy way out and hope it works.

Sully made decision and stuck with it. He saved everyone on board. But knowing your plane, your surroundings, and emergency procedures also helped him make that decision.

You are right, people fixate on what they want, to get back to the runway. But what people need to realize is that on take off, you blow an engine, you start a right turn and halfway through you realize, this isn't going to work. Level the wings and find another option. Even if that option is a lesser dense patch of trees.


Making very timely and difficult is part of being a pilot.

 

[mv031161]

Great rading,,,i just read all the post and i like the ADD Usually experienced in all threads! As per the return technique: go high and try it! Become a fast believer by simulating ( with enough altitude below you) what works for your own particular aircraft and skills. If it ever happens to you, at lest you know what your real options are and not always trying to return to the airport or save the aircraft is the best choice as you may pay the ultimate price.

As for the Ballistic Chute.....it is a controlled crash with an excesive descent rate. I can do the falling leave stall IN MY PITTS and crash slower! It gives a sense of false security.

 

[n5lp]

Energy

This thread has gone on a long time but there is still one factor I haven't seen mentioned and it doesn't matter if you can get the airplane back on the runway and stopped.

If you end up in the woods, the kinetic energy difference between landing in the trees ahead with a 15 knot headwind versus the trees back near the airport with a 15 knot tailwind is huge.

 

[Bavafa]

Larry,
you make a good point which all needs to be kept in mind.

Well, I went out today to practice this and as a result I leared much. I started high and after a few moved to an airport, again high and worked my way down each time by a 100 feet. It seems with the condition like today (5K head wind) and not having that element of surprise/shock (each time I waited 3 seconds though) 500' would be my absolute minimum for a turn back.
What I learned was that each time I would not relax my foot off the right rudder after I pulled it to idle and only during the turn I would realize that I was cross coordinated. I can imagine that during an actually case, my foot would still be on that rudder, pushing

That is why I need to practice, practice and practice even more!

 

[B25Flyer]

Larry,
you make a good point which all needs to be kept in mind.

Well, I went out today to practice this and as a result I leared much. I started high and after a few moved to an airport, again high and worked my way down each time by a 100 feet. It seems with the condition like today (5K head wind) and not having that element of surprise/shock (each time I waited 3 seconds though) 500' would be my absolute minimum for a turn back.
What I learned was that each time I would not relax my foot off the right rudder after I pulled it to idle and only during the turn I would realize that I was cross coordinated. I can imagine that during an actually case, my foot would still be on that rudder, pushing

That is why I need to practice, practice and practice even more!

If you were cross controlled at low airspeed, low altitude and and high angle of bank, you have all the elements required for a SSCBD... (Stall, Spin, Crash, Burn, Die)

And

If you are pushing on the rudder when you know this is coming, how do you think your performance will be when it is a surprise?

And

If you have a fixed pitch prop and did this at idle, go back up high over the airport, do it at idle, and then pull the mixture, and compare the differences... Idle thrust can be lots of thrust depending on where your idle speed is set.

(I don't recommend pulling the mixture at low altitude....)

 

[Bavafa]

If you were cross controlled at low airspeed, low altitude and and high angle of bank, you have all the elements required for a SSCBD... (Stall, Spin, Crash, Burn, Die)

And

If you are pushing on the rudder when you know this is coming, how do you think your performance will be when it is a surprise?

And

If you have a fixed pitch prop and did this at idle, go back up high over the airport, do it at idle, and then pull the mixture, and compare the differences... Idle thrust can be lots of thrust depending on where your idle speed is set.

(I don't recommend pulling the mixture at low altitude....)

That is why I need to practice, practice and practice even more!

 

[RV10inOz]

Larry

Know your aeroplane.

If from XXX feet you KNOW you will make it back, why risk taking the trees at landing speed minus 15 knots??

Know your aeroplane.

Bavafa....Good work. What angle of bank did you use? more will be better up to a point, but 45 is a comfortable for most number to work with.

 

[Bavafa]

Bavafa....Good work. What angle of bank did you use? more will be better up to a point, but 45 is a comfortable for most number to work with.

I was banking about 45 degree which I felt comfortable with and did not want to push it beyond my limits and ability. The cross control was of a minor amount and quickly noticed but I was surprised myself and reaffirms that we need the muscle memory.

I encourage people to practice this (only if they feel safe) or seek an hour of instruction. I sure will do it more it as I get more comfortable with it.

 

[Toobuilder]

The key word is control... As pilots we have this ultimate belief in our own ability to save the day. It is perfectly understandable, but often wrong...

I agree that pilots often overestimate their abilities - I have been humbled plenty of times when things don't go as planned. However, we should learn from it and get better. At one point in the relationship with my Hiperbipe I seriously considered selling it because it was more airplane than I could handle. I live on a narrow strip in a region known for incredible winds - and this was not at all conducive to operating a squirrely, blind little taildragger. Fast forward to today and I have to remind myself that I once had so much trouble with the thing. It's no problem to land this airplane on a 30 foot wide runway in a 20+ knot gusting crosswind today. Sure, I still have plenty to learn, but I am very comfortable with the airplane. Could I make a turn back to the runway? I hope I never have to find out for real! But I do know that I am much better prepared to do it today than I was 3 years ago, and I hope that I will even be better prepared 3 years from now.

The point being, we should never turn to technology if it ?creates? a crutch for our lack of abilities as pilots. I think we should get to know our airplanes a little bit better each time we fly. That's not to say that we get more "comfortable" (read - complacent) just because we have another hour of straight and level flight logged, but we push our knowledge of the airplane out a little farther each time. I think you need to have a "connection" to the airplane rather than just operating a machine.

I think too many of us are satisfied with how we fly today, and that's unfortunate.

With a good landing option I would probably take it, but with any question, I would pull the red handle...

As would I...

From my recollection of the early days, pilots were pulling the red handle for seemingly benign situations. Does this type of technology somehow remove the incentive to fly the airplane correctly? History showed that the advent of the nosewheel opened the skies to far more people and aviation advanced as an industry. But at the same time, general stick and rudder skills dropped sharply as a result. GPS has made navigating clild's play, but how many can find their way across town without the magic box today?

I'm all for technology, but when it takes the place of genuine skill then I think we have gone backwards. It's possible that the turnback accident that started this thread would have resulted in death even if a textbook straight ahead landing was used (or a chute, for that matter), but the fact that death was a result of the classic stall/spin indicates to me that "we" don't know our airplanes well enough.

IMHO, we need more practice.

 

[TThurston]

Here's a turnback NTSB report

The following is the report of a turnback of a Cessna 210 at the Provo airport:

http://dms.ntsb.gov/aviation/AccidentReports/edxiu2vt5p5tbeyp3yd4ltjk/T04112011120000.pdf

I went and examined the crash site as soon as the investigation was complete and the wreckage removed. It was sad to see that that plane had made it so close to the runway, but a bit short, so that it hit a berm, and killed the pilot.

The terrain to the left of the accident site is shallow lake (maybe 5 to 10 feet deep). The final approach path to the site is marshy (maybe 2 to 3 feet deep water with widely scattered light brush). The terrain ahead of the pilot at the time power loss was reported is all open fields (farm land). Lots of places to put the plane down off the airport.

The pilot was a flight instructor and check pilot as the flight school where I did my private pilot training. He was known as an excellent pilot and instructor. Most of the school fleet are Diamond DA20's or DA40's. AFAIK both of them have a better glide ratio than the Cessna 210. It looks to me like the pilot overestimated his and the airplane's ability to make the runway. Sad.

 

[Toobuilder]

The following is the report of a turnback of a Cessna 210 at the Provo airport:...

According to the report, the engine quit 8 minutes after takeoff. I don't think this is a result of performing "the impossible turn", as much as simply trying to stretch a glide too far.

 

[SpyderMike]

As for the Ballistic Chute.....it is a controlled crash with an excesive descent rate. I can do the falling leave stall IN MY PITTS and crash slower! It gives a sense of false security.

Excessive is a relative term, no? Excessive relative to what? A gliding decent with horizontal and vertical energy components? If you mean excessive relative to survivability, the facts show otherwise. If you mean excessive realtive to teh falling leaf manuever, I am not sure why you would compare the two for use on an emergency situation?

False sense of security? As opposed to the sense of security that a Falling Leaf Manuever done during an engine out situation gives you? You fly a Pitts and I assume do some aerobatics. Does the chute you wear give you a false sense of security? If it weren't required would you not wear it? Does it make you take risks you normally wouldn't?

Is a Falling Leaf Manuever your technique for recovery from any emergency situation?

I don't understand your point. I am not trying to be argumentative. Please enlighten me.

Mike