Well, if a turn at 1000 ft AGL is impossible, depends of many factors. For instance, if you have a strong headwind on takeoff, turning back and landing could result in a suprisingly "short" runway. If you have an engine failure in the C150 freighter on a cold day at MTOM - forget it. 1000ft will be in the middle of the crosswind leg or turning downwind. With a glide angle of a grand piano, chances are you better look for something landable ahead. Of course, the better the airplane is (aerodynamically), the better the chances of getting back to the airport. 1000ft by glider is a no-brainer, even with an old, wooden one.
The important thing is to recognise, that every flight has a minimum altitude, below witch the turn back is indeed impossible. I teach to bear that in mind and to focus on "No turn back below xxx ft" and land ahead if anything goes wrong.
forbidden but who cares in case of an engine failure
Depends on the reasons. If it's a structural thing ... well. But for the 172, slipping with full flaps diminishes the effectiveness of the elevator, where I'd be careful, especially when flying at the edge of the air (i.e. close to the ground). You can try this in the middle of the air sometimes, it's quite impressive.
cheers,
Every situation is unique. Best thing is that we must continue to think it over and not just think bad stuff will not happen to us.
I was taught by an instructor recently who I know very well. He has stopped teaching turnbacks. He said he doesn't want to give people the impression it is an easy option and have them spin in and die. That said, above a certain altitude he said he would always try to turn back as he practices and is confident in his ability to do it (subject to wind etc).
He said the biggest problem he found is people being unwilling to lower the nose (a natural reaction) to keep up airspeed, and failing to turn at a steep enough bank. You must do both.
I have experienced 1 real engine failure and 2 alternator failures of which one at 2 o'clock at night just a few weeks ago in a SEP Piper Archer 3 while flying on a moonless night inbound a French airfield with pilot controlled lights. All I can do is continue to think over possible scenarios and regularly train with a competent instructor. In the end, flying is a calculated risk just like driving a car in traffic. I enjoy every bit of the flying and getting to places and will continue to fly single engine at night as well.
In reality, when something happens, adrenalin kicks in and we might react in a different matter, but having practiced the possible scenarios helps I think to stay focussed and to select a better alternative.
For the avoidance of doubt, my post was meant to be supportive of your training for it. I don't think you should consider it unless you have a clear plan, know your airspeeds and have confidence in the manoeuvre. And are prepared to abandon it if it isn't working.
The safety brief at UK ATOs for SEPs has recently been relaxed from 'if EFATO best glide speed is xx knots and I/you will be landing in a field 30 degrees either side of the nose, we are NOT turning back' to '45 degrees either side of the nose'. The intention is to rehearse the actions following an EFATO, and not attempt the impossible turn, which rather aptly does what it says on the tin, ie not possible under typical scenarios.
It is much better to have a forced landing in an SEP under control with a typical forced landing speed of 45~50 knots, than spinning in attempting a turn back. The survivability of an SEP forced landing under control, with the propeller, engine, engine mount and firewall as a crumple zone is very good. It is one of the reasons I regard piston multi aircraft as procedural trainers, and would prefer an SEP (ideally FG with Vs of 50 knots or less) for practical transport - the multi forced landing scenario, assuming no asymmetric departure from controlled flight, you typically will be landing at 70~80 knots with a lump of fibreglass with an avgas driven heater as your crumple zone - hence the higher fatality rate associated with piston multi accidents.
which rather aptly does what it says on the tin, ie not possible under typical scenarios
Well that is not really true. It is not possible unless practiced and done correctly. Obviously below a certain altitude it is not possible at all.
It is much better to have a forced landing in an SEP under control with a typical forced landing speed of 45~50 knots, than spinning in attempting a turn back.
Well no kidding. Hardly the right comparison though. It is better to land on a runway than a field.
hence the higher fatality rate associated with piston multi accidents
I think multi accident fatality rates are almost certainly more related to asymmetric problems than due to the higher landing speeds.
The outcomes of making a forced landing in a Cirrus are not that great. The nose wheel will most likely collape and the outcome might not be so great. Assuming the altitude is high enough, the CAPS/chute deploy is an option, but there are scenario's where a return to the reciprocal runway might be an option to consider such as departing out over freezing cold water where a forced landing on the water or a CAPS deploy would mean you would die in the water or try a return to the runway with the possibility of not making the runway or stall the aircraft.
Interestingly I just read an analysis of a crash where the ac turned back and crashed, an instructor was sitting in the right seat.
The guy who wrote the article had for training purposes tried the impossible turn. His conclusion where that at 500 feet you are to low, at 1000 feetit is easy.
Depending on the ac and the circumstances the absolute minimum in his testconfig where probably 600 ft with nothing to spare. So 750-800 will be a more realistic minimum to do the turn.
During the many previous threads about the "impossible turn" I have been careful to not promote the idea that it should be attempted - at all.
Yes, once you're at 1000 plus AGL, you're really beginning to leave the phase of flight to which the term applies, so things change more to be "possible", but with some cautions still applicable.
I have personally help to lift two dead friends out of their planes following their failed attempts at this, and two months ago, a third, with a broken back. All three of these pilots, experiences ranging from 5000 hours to 21000 hours, thought they could make it work, and tired. A fourth such pilot friend also tried it elsewhere, with fatal results, and he was an accomplished aerobatic pilot. In each case, they were wrong. In each case there was an adequate landing area ahead, and I doubt that they would have been hurt.
I have had two EFATO's, and each time landed more or less ahead, not only not damaging the plane, but taking off again when the problem was resolved. Those were lucky terrain landings.
As for practice, yup, practice is good for your skills, but practicing this significantly higher risk, and is generally pretty hard on the engine. A full power steep climb while you set yourself up, then snap the throttle closed and glide is the least favourable thing to do for even cooling. Yes, I know we do that with airwork, but I hope that the transition from climb to glide is more gentle over a longer period, and not so shocking.
The scariest thing I have ever have to demonstrate during a flight test was a power off landback straight ahead from 50 feet up at a slower than climb speed, in a modified Cessna Caravan. The plane pretty well stopped in the sky, and it was like entering helicopter autorotation from 50 feet. You just enter the glide, don't yet build the energy reserve required to flare, but now you must. The fact that you are pointed down, and headed toward the ground, by no means assures that when you get there you will have the energy and precise timing to arrest your rate of descent, and flare for a touchdown. Chances are much higher that you will simply manage to change the pitch attitude enough to pancake the plane on.
For those who are interested by this phase of emergency flying, I suggest if not practicing helicopter autorotations, at least coming to understand well the factors of the "height velocity curve". This concept, which is critical in helicopters also applies to fixed wing aircraft. Though you cannot hover a fixed wing, you can still fly it so slowly that there is zero energy reserve to arrest a descent. I believe that the height velocity curve for gliding planes should also be presented and taught. However, instead, to keep it simple, and reduce the scare factor, fixed wing manufacturers simply present conservatively fast after takeoff climb speeds, knowing that if you are flying those speeds, you should be able to enter a safe glide - straight ahead!
Practiced skills are great, and there are skills I practice regularly which I would never dare post, lest impressionable pilots might experiment on their own. The impossible turn is not "impossible", its just such a bad idea, with such a massively unfavourable risk to benefit ratio, that experienced pilots would rather leave the impression of terror for new pilots. I doubt that one could ever find a formal publication which promotes the idea for powerplanes, I honestly do not think that the internet should either.
.... Just my experienced opinion....
