The Impossible Turn – Aviation Video #3523 comments

By admin
Posted on 30 Mar 2011 at 2:18pm

During flight training you should be taught to brief every takeoff before you go. Good flight planning suggests that you should have a plan of action for emergencies that might come up in flight, particularly during takeoff and the departure phase. In this aviation video we discuss the ‘impossible’ turn; that is turning back to the runway in the event of an engine failure on take off. When you should and when you should not consider executing this controversial maneuver.

Read also
Advertisement

23 Comments

  1. sportpilot2 said on March 30, 2011 at 2:57 pm

    It all depends on your aircraft and it’s glide performance. I’ve done it from 500ft AGL in an Allegro 2000 SLSA. I wouldn’t dream of trying it in my Cherokee Six 260(which flies like a piano without power). Know your plane, practice at a safe altitude, and know exactly what it can do(and thus, what your options are). Remember also, a true engine failure is different than a simulated one which continues to generate a small amount of thrust(ie glide distance)

  2. MrAcehawk said on March 30, 2011 at 3:15 pm

    One thing that people tend to forget about this turn is that it in most cases is more than a 180 degree turn it is probably closer to 270 degrees. Here is an example you have a fully load C172, it’s 35 degress celcius, how far do you think you will be away from the airport by the time you get 1000 feet AGL, now you have an engine failure, are you turning back? Chances are really good you are not making it, pick a suitable spot and land!

  3. Weefles said on March 30, 2011 at 3:35 pm

    I fly in the texas hillcountry. If I have atleast 500 feet of altitude, im going to try and make the turn. If I can’t im either landing on IH-10 (Probably wont make it) Or landing in the thick brush (Probably won’t live)

  4. migkid said on March 30, 2011 at 3:46 pm

    you don´t want to stall one wing by pushing a steep turn. also, you have to think on what situation will you cause to people near you (ground) if you fiasco this turn. There are many stories some say it´s possible to do it just 400 to 500 ft agl, some pray it´s impossible. there are so many factors to consider that if you can, always fly straight and crash in control.

  5. 89Sunbird said on March 30, 2011 at 3:47 pm

    @mtoonsdale If one engine fails, you’ll always have enough power to get to the scene of the crash ;)

  6. jroseund said on March 30, 2011 at 4:01 pm

    @ klub77

    I would rather be in a controlled crash and be alive, then be in a uncontrolled crash and have forensics identify my remains through DNA testing.

  7. klub77 said on March 30, 2011 at 4:25 pm

    So, if you decide not to turn, and go straight, there is no chance of making it to a runway. soooo in other words, you crash? you attempt to land on a road? a lake? a field? or just into trees or a house? I do fly myself, I could never imagine this happening and then having to land in a lake or a road. i could probably do it, but i couldnt imagine the police showing up, cars going by on a road. its like a nightmare. anyone who isnt a pilot, or even is would call it a crash, which scares me.

  8. dingoklectos said on March 30, 2011 at 4:51 pm

    @mtoonsdale
    There is a patent for a control system that takes care of the adverse yaw, pitching the propellerblade etc, but the govt didn’t make it mandatory due to cost…what a shame

  9. dingoklectos said on March 30, 2011 at 4:58 pm

    @mtoonsdale
    twin engine propellers were not designed for redundancy, they were designed for performance. and it is true, they still perform poorly compared to a twin engine business jet…

    i have known someone who died from a left engine failure of a twin because he was not proficient with the recovery procedures (including checklist).

  10. mtoonsdale said on March 30, 2011 at 5:34 pm

    Redundant system: It’s called a twin engine airplane. Stats show more fatalities following engine failures in GA twins than singles, though. GA pilots do a poorer job of flying twin engine aircraft after an engine failure than they do at making forced off-field landings in singles.

  11. FoulOwl said on March 30, 2011 at 5:59 pm

    The Main thing is…make a decision,make it really fucking quick and commit to it.Chances are if your wasting time wondering if you can turn around,its already too late.

  12. PaulUmbarger said on March 30, 2011 at 6:14 pm

    Very true. I’m glad that I learned that it “could” be done but, I wouldn’t attempt it unless I was taking off over hot lava or houses. It’s a nice trick to have in your bag but, not one that you’d ever really want to have to use.

  13. andyshangar said on March 30, 2011 at 6:40 pm

    Good question, and I can’t retrieve the perfect link to demonstrate why this is important.

    In the clip, a Piper clears the trees after engine failure, splashes into a lake.

    To a non-pilot, case closed: success. After all, the plane misses the trees and impacts the water, stays upright, comes to an abrupt halt. But, pilot and passengers all had critical spinal injuries.

    In short, it is paramount to have flare energy. Deaths have resulted from overlooking this crucial fact.

  14. keeevan said on March 30, 2011 at 6:48 pm

    who needs a flare when its an emergency

  15. keeevan said on March 30, 2011 at 7:37 pm

    having your engine idle is much different that having a unfeathered prop windmilling

  16. helihobbit said on March 30, 2011 at 8:22 pm

    if you are on an airport with two directions @ ~90deg it should be possible to setup for a turn to the other RWY with less loss of height and a cross wind rather than a tailwind.

  17. LJDRVR said on March 30, 2011 at 9:12 pm

    An excellent discussion of this issue. One point he neglected is that if you look at an actual turn back to the airport, depending on geography, you are actually making something between a 180 and 360 degree turn. Most pilots do not do a good job mentally rehearsing and briefing each departure. Jason brings up an excellent point about the different phases of each takeoff. You should be making a concious transition between each of those scenarios – every takeoff.

  18. dingoklectos said on March 30, 2011 at 9:53 pm

    Great video. Its still a shame engines fail. When planes have ‘redundant’ systems. I always wondered why Engines don’t have some back up in 21st century.

  19. nothingfreeanymore said on March 30, 2011 at 10:08 pm

    “…add a 25% savety factor” – how savety are the woods in front of you?

  20. PaulUmbarger said on March 30, 2011 at 11:00 pm

    My instructor took us off the runway and made the turn with simulated engine failure at 1,000 MSL/800 AGL. I saw that it could be done quite safely in a C-172 but, I would still rather have an engine not go out in the first place.

  21. CFITOMAHAWK2 said on March 30, 2011 at 11:53 pm

    It is impossible under certain altitudes or if a shallow climb, or pulling too much and stalling. But if you know, you can real bring most airplanes back if you know all the details of this Question Mark shaped turn. I had to do two for real and my students have three. One of them partial power at 250′ feet agl.(lost one cylinder and could not climb over 250′). No damages. The CFI-I with him yelled him to crash it on a road (wires). He told him to shut up, he knew better and landed tailwind.

  22. andyshangar said on March 31, 2011 at 12:37 am

    Ditto. Very good. I’ve played with the notion in an advanced UL amphib, where speed decay is dramatically sped up.

    The first step is to shove the nose over, of course: in many UL acft a normal 4-sec reaction time will place the acft near stall speed from climb attitude, after power loss.

    It is counter-intuitive, filling up the windscreen with ground to quickly achieve maneuvering speed.

    And, to keep the speed up on final: a decrease in pitch can decay speed to where flare is impossible.

  23. acropilot300 said on March 31, 2011 at 12:52 am

    Excellent discussion of the Possible turn.

Leave a Reply

Powered by Yahoo! Answers