engine failure

[erau79]

--Single Engine_
On a particular runway where i teach, immediately after the departure end and past the fence, a state forest begins. A straight ahead landing just isnt possible. So with my more experienced students, i try to get them comfortable, or as comfortable as one can get with a return to the field. I take them up to 3000' or so, have them climb at Vy, then pull their engine on them. I make them count to 3 (the oh SH!t factor), then begin a 180 turn, flaring once they have turned around. then, we do it again, experimenting with bank angles, flap settings and pitch rates, seeing which combination will yield the least loss of altitude by the flare. Id much rather take my chances returning to land with 400' of altitude, than land straight ahead in solid trees.
just my .02

 

[erau79]

any thoughts?

 

[pilotman2105]

So long as wings are level and the airplane is *flying* when it touches down, it the terrain becomes less of a factor (but still a factor nonetheless). Trees sometimes aren't too bad as far as a landing point (perhaps your situation is different). Crash statistics show that a forced landing is much more survivable (is that a word?) if the airplane is flying staight and level than if it is stalling.

Your maneuver sounds very reasonable to me if the conditions truly are unfriendly for a foced landing. But your students must understand that they can't try to "stretch" it to get back to the field before they touch down. If they are not going to make it back to the field, they must roll wings level and maintain a reasonable airspeed into whatever terrain it may be.

Thoughts?

 

[erau79]

Thats a very good point. im hesitant to introduce this to my private students with the concern that they will attempt this return to land as a save all for engine failures after liftoff at all airports, even with runways that have fields, roads, etc. extending past the departure end.

This return to land maneuver was introduced to me on a standz flight at the academy where i teach. i just found it a little odd that i picked it up so "late" in my training. it is a worst case scenario that i hope i never have to deal with. just any little pearls of wisdom i can give to my students who look at the big picture and make the best of a bad situation. thanks for your comments

 

[The_Russian]

Don't turn back now!

I personally know two people who broke their back (literally) by turning back to the runway below 500 feet agl. One was in a katana and one was in an AA-5 (Grumman Tiger). I back pilotman up on his answer. I know a few people that crashed in trees in single engine cessnas and survived.

I think that you should brief the student on an emergency where he has no choice but to go into the jungle. A soft landing in the trees or hanging there for a while with the radios still operating (hopefully) is better than falling from a couple hundred feet in a stall or spin. Remember that you are dealing with a private student who is most likely going to fall apart in his first emergency if he doesn't have a few hundred hours under his belt. If you are training commercial students, then check out Barry Schiff's video series:

http://www.barryschiff.com/videos.htm

These videos have lots of tips and tricks for crazy situations!

Good Luck!

 

[UnstableAviator]

Its not even close to the same to do it at altitude. Unless there is a parallel runway, you are going to have to turn through a lot more than 180 degrees to re-align yourself with the runway. Remember, any given turn takes space to execute, so if you simply 180 you will end up parallel, but not aligned with, the runway you just departed.

Throw in a good 10-15 knot headwind on takeoff, and now you are really going to have fun turning back. If you are above 800' AGL, you'll probably have trouble getting down if the runway is short and you are in a great gliding airplane like a 172. On crosswind, it is possible, otherwise no way I'd consider it.

Don't do or teach turnbacks to private student, or any student IMO, there is no need to re-invent the wheel. As for me and my students, we'll take our chances putting the ol' 172 or Bonanza into the trees at a slow speed but under control. Fly as far into the "crash" as possible if you will.

 

[350DRIVER]

Don't do or teach turnbacks to private student, or any student IMO, there is no need to re-invent the wheel. As for me and my students, we'll take our chances putting the ol' 172 or Bonanza into the trees at a slow speed but under control. Fly as far into the "crash" as possible if you will.

Very well said UnstableAviator, I could not agree more with you. I would much rather take my chances landing straight ahead versus trying to make something happen that can have a much much worse end result. The other problem is the lag time between the failure and the proper action taken by the student, sometimes the denial and shock will account for valuable lost time not to mention this disrupting their thought process. Sometimes the nerves can play tricky and mean little games with Mr. Student once you as the cfi jump out of the airplane and he is on his way...It is very easy to manipulate this emergency under "simulated" conditions to get your desired outcome, not nearly as easy a real life failure. I believe the FAA also agrees with this logic and states that a straight ahead landing low to the ground would give the best possible chance to walk away and live to fly another day.


Standardization is a key variable since when this actually happens there is no time to question what one "should" do, needs to be second nature at this point. I assume you are a 61 CFI since most of the 141 programs have pretty strict procedures and guidelines in place for this type of emergency.. I have never seen a 141 program instruct that at that low of an altitude that it is suggested that you should land on runway you departed from. 400 feet of alitude is not going to get you too much and surely you should not instruct students to execute a 180 after only gaining that little of altitude. A good rule of thumb that most publications will also agree with is that any altitude less than 800 feet agl after takeoff is that you should be going straight ahead with no questions whatsoever on whether or not you should try the 180. It is my opinion that it is not safe or smart to be instructing students that at a few hundred feet after takeoff to execute the turn and "attempt" to put it back down on the runway. As previously stated, winds, conditions, are not always going to be ideal or as desired. Many accidents on the NTSB site that can also agree with this logic not to mention what the FAA "suggests" but he!! the FAA is like the boogie man right?

800 to 1000 feet of altitude then a 180 should be a good option that is kept open.

just my worthless $.02

3 5 0

 

[chuychanga]

I have witnessed a Stearman "land" in the trees after takeoff and they both walked away. My old boss also survived this type of accident. It has been done many times. The people who survive this are generally the people who said they just tried to fly the airplane and land it just as if they were landing on smooth ground. Flying into the trees is not nearly as dangerous as stalling it into them with a low altitude turnback.

I agree, that a straight ahead landing onto any type of surface is better than a turnback. I think I'd have to be at pattern altitude before I'd attempt a turn back. I always demonstrated to my students in Piper Cherokees, at altitude, that it cost us about 500' to do a 180 with a standard rate of turn and at best glide. As was said earlier, at the completion of that 180 you still aren't aligned with the runway.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Flying into the trees is not nearly as dangerous as stalling it into them with a low altitude turnback.

Actually, the most dangerous part of landing in the trees is the danger of dropping to the ground =after= landing. Our bodies, properly restrained by belts and harness, can take a lot more forward deceleration than out spines can take vertical deceleration.

Anyone who gets a chance to see Mick Wilson's talk "How To Crash An Airplane ... and Survive!" really should. His book is also excellent.

http://www.crashandsurvive.com/

 

[avbug]

Turning back to land at 400' in any airplane is a fools errand, and teaching it to a student is irresponsible, borderline criminal.

You wait until you have a student ball one up trying what you think you're teaching (ever really experienced an engine failure at that attitude, and dealt with it??)...wait until you sit before a jury and try to explain why you taught that to the student. Wait until your testimony at xxx number of hours flying experience is compared to a panel of five or ten professional pilots with thirty times your flying experience who unanimously disagree with you...doom on you.

When the opposition asks you what ever made you think it was a good idea to teach such a thing, let's hope your answer isn't "but that's what I was taught!" It's much better to be able to say you teach it because that's what you know, and then be able to show how you know it. You won't be able to do that simply by stating that you were taught that way, or saw it on a flight with someone else.

Right after I graduated high school, I moved east to work on my commercial certificate and attend an ag aviation school for six months. Toward the end of that, I experienced an engine failure one morning. I had just returned from a meeting with someone, and was flying a little Cessna 150. I made a downwind pass over the grass strip where I intended to land to check the condition, and pulled up at the end over some tall pecan trees. Just as I cleared the windrow of trees, the engine quit cold. I let the nose fall through and scanned for a landing site.

The other side of the tree line contained three adjacent 20 acre lots that had been furrowed with large dry chunks of mud, surrounded by tall trees, and bordered by a double set of powerlines and a phone line. This particular engine installation had an accelerator pump, and as I let the nose fall through I rolled into a bank to put myself at the best angle to the fields as I could, and began pumping the throttle. The engine fired and died.

I kept the turn going, rolled into a steep turn and pulled hard, and used up what energy I had left before rolling out. I broke the treeline bordering the airstrip with a 180 turn, getting small bursts of power, and managed to put it down deadstick on the grass runway.

I sat on that runway until the shaking stopped, and then pushed the airplane to a tiedown spot.

If it hadn't been for those brief bursts of power, there's probably no chance I'd have made it. A forced landing ahead wouldn't really have been feasible, and in liklihood, unsurvivable.

I've experienced engine failures in a number of scenarios, including arriving, departing, at V1 (the real thing, not the simulator; there really is a difference). I would never teach a student to try to return to the airport. I'll teach a student all day long about how best to put an airplane into a stand of trees, to ditch in water, to land in snow, mud, or almost any other medium (including how to attack powerlines, if necessary), but I will NOT teach a student to return to the runway if any less than a thousand feet are available.

Teaching to do it at 400' is criminal.

 

[erau79]

Thanks for all of your responses. Im not sure why this was suggested to me by a guy with tons of hours, but my guess is he never had the experiences you all have described. i will discontinue this method and i guess take my chances with the trees unless sufficient altitude permits (as you all have said, above 800-1000) thank you for your suggestions to a still new CFI. happy trails

 

[Pez D. Spencer]

The July 2002 issue of AOPA Pilot has a good article on this very subject -- pg. 99. Check it out.

 

[100LL... Again!]

Very few non-professionals would have the reaction time and stick skills to pull off a turn-back from low altitude.

Could a spray pilot or aerobatic champ do it? I am sure they could. Fun idea: get Bob Hoover to show us how.

 

[bobbysamd]

180º Turn

Originally posted by erau79
On a particular runway where i teach, immediately after the departure end and past the fence, a state forest begins. A straight ahead landing just isnt possible . . . . then begin a 180 turn . . . .

You are not teaching your students good judgment, and here's why.

It has been demonstrated that, without power, you lose altitude in a gliding, 180º turn. It stands to reason, because you have to keep the nose down to maintain airspeed. If you try to minimize loss of altitude and in a gliding turn by adding pitch, airspeed will bleed off and you can find yourself in a stall and/or spin. It is a natural tendency of many to add pitch to try to stretch a glide. When you start adding additional drag in the form of flaps, etc., you are exacerbating the situation.

I certainly would not teach what is being proposed. You would be better off maintaining best rate of glide so you can maintain maximum control, and touch down as slowly as possible in the treetops.

Id much rather take my chances returning to land with 400' of altitude, than land straight ahead in solid trees.

Who says you necessarily have to land straight ahead? You can maneuver minimally left and right to find the best place to land. I remember that statement used to be part of the standard ERAU-Prescott takeoff brief when I taught there.

You are doing your students a disservice by teaching them 180º power-off turns at low altitude to get back to a runway. Teach it by the book. The FAA is right about this one.

 

[The_Russian]

Well said....

Bobby is 100% right on this one.

 

[bobbysamd]

Well said....

Bobby is 100% right on this one.

Thanks, Capt. Putin!