How do you climb out?

I don’t know what it was when the incidents occurred, but I know what he is flying now – two wings, three wheels and a Gipsy Major in the nose.

And this is said machine (Courtesy of futurshox.net)…..

HERE

Ah! The Gipsy Major. Fabulously reliable engines 😮 . Anyone had any failures with one of those – not including the odd inverted cough?

Is that from the engine or the pilot when the engine dies??!

Ah! The Gipsy Major. Fabulously reliable engines 😮 . Anyone had any failures with one of those – not including the odd inverted cough?

What type of aeroplane were you flying?

I don’t know what it was when the incidents occurred, but I know what he is flying now – two wings, three wheels and a Gipsy Major in the nose.

All this has left me wondering about land ahead options at our strip. Our strip forms the skinny ridge line of a hill. Options ahead are narrow. The nearest I can see for the map is the river valley to south but would mean getting to about circuit height. What do I do now? Some ground and aerial recce required methinks.

From post #1…

Lecomber advocates taking yourself up to 3000 and simulating an EFATO there; pitch down into the glide and execute a pan handle turn by turning left 45 degrees, right 270 degrees, and then left again for 45. This theoretically puts you back where you were when the engine stopped, but lower, and pointing the other way.

For the record, I took myself up to 4000 and tried this out the weekend before last. First attempt with 15 degrees bank and a gentle series of sedate turns saw me losing 1150 feet. Next attempt, which was closer to 35-40 degrees bank, a much tighter set of turns and a faster rate of descent saw me lose about 900 feet. I didn’t feel entirely comfortable with the idea of pushing it further, so the test ended there. However, it was a useful exercise to go through, as I now know what I can and cannot do. Therefore, should the worst ever happen, my immediate action will be to find somewhere in front of me, and NOT attempt to turn back.

And remember that it might not just be a 180 degree turn.
That will probably have you landing 3000ft abeam the runway.

You’d have to turn through at least 210 degrees, and then reverse through another 30 degrees in the opposite direction, to line up on finals (errr upwind).

It might be possible, but it’s a gamble you’ll bet with your life.

I had catastrophic engine failure at 700′ climbing out

What type of aeroplane were you flying?

I would rather land in a field with a headwind then attempt to land on a runway with a nice tailwind.

What if you had taken off on a pronounced downslope and the turn back would have you landing uphill?

With the three engine failures that I have had in nearly 30 years of flying there was never any doubt in my intentions to get back on terra firma safely-if you can assess the situation swiftly know your limitations then again why not turn back.

If you have the height,know your aircraft and your ability why not turn back.
I had catastrophic engine failure at 700′ climbing out of a grass airfield-I set up the glide on instruments[so much smoke in the cockpit] carried out drills,noted I had only just crossed the airfield boundary so decided to turn back-added 5 knots for the gliding turn ended up at 500′ having to sideslip to get back on the runway,landing and stopping by the middle.

Ther’re fools, damned fools and damned lucky fools, there again ther’re also dead fools. When in doubt err on the side of caution.

If you have the height,know your aircraft and your ability why not turn back.
I had catastrophic engine failure at 700′ climbing out of a grass airfield-I set up the glide on instruments[so much smoke in the cockpit] carried out drills,noted I had only just crossed the airfield boundary so decided to turn back-added 5 knots for the gliding turn ended up at 500′ having to sideslip to get back on the runway,landing and stopping by the middle.

I think a theoretical 500′ was used, with results from 250′ to 600′ height loss (again note this is from memory, i’ll look for the article) after this height you would possibly be on the crosswind leg and the turn would be partially complete. Also note that it is possible to complete the turn but still fall short of the runway- in some places that may mean flying downwind into a cliff, embankment or trees etc. I can think of several runways here in NZ where this would occur. This is where skill, and pre planning (considering the options before takeoff) would come into play.

scrooge

I think it’s an excellent idea to test your aircraft at a safe altitude especially with the scenerio that we’re discussing here. With that being said, I would still be hesitant to turn 180 for the field unless terrain required me to or I was easily at a safe altitude. There will still be variables that practicing can’t take into account and such practice might give one a false sense of ability if an engine was to give up the ghost on a departure. Variables such as weight, weather, winds, terrain, temperature, other departing aircraft, etc. All of those could negatively impact a risky 180 turn for the runway.

Personally I would test the aircraft to get a rough idea of the altitude loss then take that number and double it. If you could expect a 500′ loss in a turn I would give myself at least 1000′ before I would consider such a turn. Chances are though if you had such altitude that there would be other/safer options available. I would rather land in a field with a headwind then attempt to land on a runway with a nice tailwind.

Now I’m not saying that turning back towards the runway isn’t an option but it has a lot of unknown variables that you don’t have time to weigh in such emergencies.

Hence Lecomber’s advice to PPL holders to take themselves up to a safe manouvering height and test themselves and their aeroplane to establish whether or not it’s feasible, while reducing the risk of any resultant spin being fatal.

If you test your turns at 4000 and enter a spin, you have more chance of a) getting out of it, b) giving yourself an indication of whether or not you and your aeroplane are capable of turning back should it all go pear shaped, and c) what your height loss is, and therefore what your minimum height would be for attempting to turn back.

Lots of good points being raised and made though, I’m learning a lot here. Keep it coming!

Whiskey Delta, your caution is probably well-founded.

Scrooge, Interesting stuff, but do you happen to recall from what altitude the tests commenced. 500ft, 1,000 ft ??

Hi all, back in the 1970/80’s NZCAA ran an article in the then ‘flight safety’ magazine they published that compared various light aircraft in this scenario. From memory they used a Cessna 150, C172, Piper PA28, and possibly a Cessna 180 and Piper Cherokee 6. From the same height turns were initiated at 30, 45 and max rate (edge of stall/60 degree AoB depending on aircraft). Then time to turn, rate of descent etc were compared. Again from memory only the C150 actually made the turn and was able to re-establish wings level before crossing the threshold (not sure of runway length used) and contacting the ground. It was noted however that by doing a flat/skidding turn the C150/C172 were able to reduce their RoD in the turn, but a mistake in this manouevre would lead to a stall/spin loss of control. General consensus was it would not be prudent for most pilots/aircraft to attempt the turn back.

scrooge

As this is GA forum, if we consider very much average types such as Cessna 150/PA-28 they will descend in a glide at about 750 ft per minute on thereabouts (going from memory a bit ) if flown at best glide speed. Surely, in excess of a minute is sufficient time to execute a 180 degree change a heading – in a Cub I can do that in well under 10 seconds, probably 5-6 if really well-motivated.

I think this is the assumption that a lot of pilots make and it ends up getting them in trouble (stall/spin accidents). In order to maintain a given IAS through a turn you must actually lower the nose which in turn increases your decent rate (this is in an engine-out situation). You can assume that such pilots who don’t survive their turn back to the runway steepened their bank to expedite the turn back to the safety of the runway BUT also kept the nose at the pitch attitude for Best Glide speed in straight-level flight. You can understand one’s apprehension to lower the nose and increase their decent rate when attempting to glide back to the airport but without doing so they encounter an accelerated stall and suffer the resulting spin.

The quicker/tighter you plan on making that 180 degree turn back to the runway the more you have to lower the nose and suffer the resulting increase in decent rate. Remember, as your bank angle increases your Lift Vector decreases. Some of this is masked under normal situations where you have power available unlike in such emergency situations.

You are correct when looking at the situation as measured by time left resulting from your decent rate at Best Glide. But as soon as you begin manuveuring with turns that time aloft becomes greatly shortened. For that reason the often mentioned procedure is to establish your Best Glide speed and continue forward. Doing so gives you the most time to prepare for the eventual landing.

Now I’m not saying that turning back towards the runway isn’t an option but it has a lot of unknown variables that you don’t have time to weigh in such emergencies.

AFAICS no one has yet mentioned the risk of landing downwind after a turnback.

Go on then.

Moggy

As I’d put in the initial post, I doubt it would present too many problems for a PA28 to land downwind on the 2000 metres of asphalt at Cambridge, but yes that’s a very valid concern!

AFAICS no one has yet mentioned the risk of landing downwind after a turnback.