The impossible turn

Certainly not wiser than you, but I have always been taught not to attempt the impossible turn. Just put it down safely unless you have at least 500 feet of altitude and are a half mile out.

Whenever I get ready for takeoff, I prep mentally for emergency landing sites in case of power-off emergencies at low altitude shortly after takeoff. I always do this, and will not takeoff until I am mentally prepared to put it down somewhere in case of such an emergency. It may not happen in the way I imagine, or where I imagine, but I figure it's good prep. I never consider the runway I am taking off from to be that emergency landing site.

Along the way, too, I am constantly creating a circle of potential landing sites around the moving dot of my plane on the GPS--I have to keep reminding myself to check for fuel availability in such places, though in a real emergency I think that would be the last of my worries.

AOPA guy should have been challenged, and had I been there, I would have done so. I went to an AOPA safety seminar last month, and I thought it was really good. The instructor told us NOT to attempt it, and that there was a reason it was called the impossible turn. He did give an example (it's a famous one) where someone succeeded in doing it, but his message was clear. Do not attempt to turn around and get back to the runway you took off from. You will die trying.

 

Incidentally, one of my instructors had an emergency power loss at 300' right after takeoff recently. He put it down on a marsh road ahead and to the right of the airport (KPAO, northerly heading) and ultimately came to a stop after hitting some trees which snapped one of the plane's wings off. Both occupants had zero injuries. Plane was written off. Awesome airmanship. He told me it never even occurred to him to try and make the runway. He did manage to get the radio call out while still gliding. Emergency services were on the scene in 5 minutes.

 

It depends on the altitude you have when the engine failure occurs. I'd try that maneuver at altitude to ascertain how high you need to be to actually make that turn work. When ever I depart a runway, I always use maximum rate of climb airspeed. I think that if I lost a motor at 1000 above the runway, with the plane cleaned up, I could probably return. Anything less than that, the clearest space with 30 degrees from straight ahead.

Art

 

I have seen a few seminars on the subject. One seminar I can recall took a Cessna 172 at 500 feet AGL and had a computer motion of various bank angles to show what it would take to complete a 180 degree turn. It took around 70 degrees of bank to complete the turn and that did not get you back to the runway either, just a completion of the turn.

 

I have seen two fatalities and know of several more when the pilot attempted to make a 180 after after experiencing an engine failure after take off. I think that I posted this once before but I DID see one successful course reversal when the engine failed on a Cessna 140 with my old instructor and a student. When the engine quit it looked like the airplane tripped on un unseen cable as the nose went down to the vertical. On its descent it rotated 180 deg. and started a pull out that put the airplane in a grassy field to right of the runway where it three pointed with a loud bang. They hit the only downed tree in the area, hidden by the tall grass. When we got there the instructor had the student sitting with his back to the tree and was exclaiming at the poor guy, " Don't you ever try to do what I just did!" The landing gear was knocked off the airplane and its back broken but they survived with minor bruises.During my flight instruction forced landings and accuracy landings were a big thing then and you often got them when the instructor pulled power back on you. I can still here the loud " encouragement" , " STRAIGHT AHEAD, STRAIGHT AHEAD STICK FORWARD!" Don't precipitate a stall and become a passenger, always maintain control of the airplane, and pick a spot (if you don't already have one in mind).

 

loss of power on take off is all about maintaining "numbers" to keep the plane "flying" while maintaining the ability to guide it to a spot on the ground...anything else will turn it into a rock... altitude is your only friend... staight ahead is the most efficient glide...which will offer the most time before touchdown...

returning to the airport mentality is about saving the equipment, which has already failed and is totally flawed, what's the point in saving it... with altitude a lot can be done, on take off no airplane has sufficient altitude for much of anything

when a plane impacts nose first it was imitating a rock, not flying

 

I think the reasoning is along the lines of repairable versus destroyed. Flawed reasoning, of course, but that's why people try to make it back to the runway.

As someone else pointed out, even if you successfully complete the 180 without stressing the airframe to the point that it breaks up in mid-air, you won't be lined up with the runway. Much better to maintain best glide and pick a decent spot. Planes can be fixed or, you have insurance if it's a write-off. Save lives.

 

I am a novice pilot and in my training the advice I was given is 800 ft agl is the minimum one needs to get back to the runway. (which is near or at pattern altitude at a lot of airports).

If practicing at altitude, they said to practice a 220 degree turn (to simulate needing more than 180 degrees to get back to the runway center line.

So, in most situations, the best option is forward (left or right up to 30 degrees in heading change).

At my home field, the CFIs discuss with students the existing off-runway landing options off of each end of the runway.

 

make an effort to never accept an intersection departure, even with a long runway

it could be 10 times the amount that is needed for take off...

it also means that there is room to put it back on the ground many times over

 

I agree with toggie and the 800AGL to 700AGL or I call it the altitude where the AIM says to turn crosswind if staying in the pattern. At that altitude there should not be an issue of bringing the aircraft back to the airport. I think if the pilot owns the plane he wants to try to nurse it back to the airport to fix his baby. If the pilot does not own the aircraft then the pilot is more likely to make a safer decision cause its not his to lose.

 

the current reference to aircraft type is to the single engine trainers, there should not be a fixed notion about a workable altitude, it is not the real world,

 

This thread is yet another great example of why, as a student pilot, I invest more time reading the posts here compared to the dedicated aviation forums.

Here: No B.S., no cross-chatter, no Top Gun heroics. Just a small group of real pilots speaking from personal experience.

Thanks for the info guys! Stored this one away in my memory bank.

 

I concur that there is no 'magic' altitude where it will work reliably with enough margin of error to make it worthwhile. The typical Cessna can maybe make it back to the runway or airport environs with 7-800' but there are so many variables that it's not worth the risk. A solo flight, with light fuel load, and a cool day may make it tempting. Add pax, heat, fuel and things go drastically wrong.

It went wrong for me with 700' and all I had to do was turn 70 deg to a crossing runway. For amateur pilots, the 180 turn should not even been mentioned. For advanced pilots with some glider training in energy management maybe, for commercial pilots who fly all the time, and practice it, I guess they would determine the correct altitude based on the plane, load, conditions.

AOPA was negligent in allowing their agent to discuss this in a forum where there were new pilots. Don't try it.

 

I think that the crucial point in an engine out on climb out is to get the nose down immediately and refrain from trying to continue flight and climb without power. Couple that with a turn and as previously stated the airplane turns into a streamlined brick. I cannot believe that this AOPA CFI promoted a turn after engine failure. The physics of sustained flight are simply not there. Small angles of departure from established heading are acceptable as long as the nose is down, some kind of airspeed is maintained, and the landing spot is within a reasonable distance.

 

I had a somewhat unique situation one time. Taking off from Chino airport, we heard a pop on rotation, about 10 seconds later the tower informed us that we were trailing black smoke. As it turned out, the engine was still developing partial power (cracked head on one cylinder), there were crossing runways that made the turn to a runway less extreme than a return to departure runway, and the area beyond most of the turn arc was mostly fields/pasture. So we tested holding level flight at a few hundred feet, which is where we leveled off. Then we tried a gradual banked turn. If we couldn't hold altitude, we would have just discontinued the turn and headed for whatever was ahead; but as it was the engine developed enough thrust that we could maintain altitude and airspeed and we made it back to the crossing runway. A lot of things worked out right for us in that case, including my having a very experienced CFI on board. Certainly too many "ifs" in my example to be more than a "I got lucky" story.

 

Agreed, too many variables. I really stressed to one of my sons that the first priority in an emergency is to fly the plane. In other words: maintain airspeed. As a teenager (he was 15 or 16) he had an early release in a sailplane (under 300') and did just what he should have. He put the nose down to maintain airspeed, and ignored the temptation to enter into a high-bank turn to return to the field and risk a stall, etc. He flew between the trees and turned just enough to land on a dirt road. Yeah, we had to retrieve the aircraft, but a 180 to return to the field would have meant a crash.

 

I think I would opt for the straight ahead under most circumstances but I did have a CFI friend of mine give me a few lessons on making the impossible turn because 1. What if that is the option due to terrain etc. 2. Just for the satisfaction of having attempted it so it was less of an unknown. If I was flying the Citabria the decision would be different that the Acro II with it's typical biplane sink rate, I think it is important to at least attempt the turn under training conditions to better understand what your up against.

 

One of the recent fatal incidents of attempting to turn back involved a pilot with thousands of hours who was flying a homebuilt look-a-like WW2 fighter. He had engine failure on climb out and spun in after a steep turn to " get back". There was a clear smooth pasture ahead and to his right.

 

Here are three vidoes on this subject.

http://www.aopa.org/aopalive/?watch=lyOHVoMjr2oVEH1Ipz6TLpnTSBQ8LWRR

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fZbJMT7pEfc[/ame]

AOPA has an actual video here of a Mooney that lost engine on climbout.

http://flash.aopa.org/asf/pilotstories/impossibleturn/index.cfm

 

Had a very good friend who was climbing out of a long runway and was just at about the end when it got quiet. He told the tower he was turning around and they asked if he was declaring. He said, no, but could he simply land on the taxiway, they said sure and cleared him. When he got down he asked the tower to call the FBO and have somebody come out and get him.....

He said it was not big deal, but I second the point about intersection departures. If my friend had taken a intersection departure, he may have not had it so easy. Obviously he had more than 700 ft of altitude and was in a slow airpane (Cherokee 140) and was light at the time. For him it was the right decision, landing in a forest was the only other option and that might not have ended well..

His attitude was that it was no big thing. On every takeoff I mentally watch for where I would go if power was lost, and then note where it's ok to turn around.... Just a good mental exercise...

 

I was thinking about my check ride in 1945. I had four " forced landings" throughout the the check. One on take off, one in the middle of a pylon-eight maneuver that took us over the rows of a corn field at 15 feet before he applied power, one in the downwind at a remote strip, and one on climb out after the first accuracy landing. It was a sweaty day but I had somehow planned a landing spot that wasn't downwind or in the trees. I remember a lot of hard slips to get aligned and down at the spot beyond some power lines at one point.

 

I think I've seen the seminar and thought the advice was sound.

The advice was NOT, just turn around with a departure engine failure.

The Advice WAS to experiment at safe altitude to see what kind of altitude loss you have in executing a 180 degree turn when climbing out at Vy and cutting power, then add a significant margin to that since you'll be in an emergency, not deliberately practicing. If and ONLY if you have that kind of altitude, then you can to a 180 return.

At least that is what I remember form the seminar.

 

I have to agree and to amend my comments somewhat. I mistakenly assumed that the advice was dealing with low altitude and low airspeed. after take off. I think that with altitude and the chance to recover from any stall /spin event that investigating them in a safe environment is good practice. It gets you to know you and the airplane.